UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA THE IMPACT OF BRAND EQUITY ON CUSTOMERS’ PERCEIVED VALUE

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA
THE IMPACT OF BRAND EQUITY
ON CUSTOMERS’ PERCEIVED
VALUE: A CASE OF
MARRYBROWN
MOHD HAMIDI BIN ABU BAKAR
NURSYAHIRAH BINTI CHE ZAHARI
WAN NOOR FARHA BINTI WAN FAUZI
Master of Business Administration
September 2018
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA
THE IMPACT OF BRAND EQUITY
ON CUSTOMERS’ PERCEIVED
VALUE: A CASE OF
MARRYBROWN
MOHD HAMIDI BIN ABU BAKAR
NURSYAHIRAH BINTI CHE ZAHARI
WAN NOOR FARHA BINTI WAN FAUZI
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment
Of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Business Administration
Arshad Ayub Graduate Business School
September 2018
CONFIRMATION BY PANEL OF EXAMINERSAUTHOR’S DECLARATIONWe declare that the work in this report was carried out in accordance with the regulations of Universiti Teknologi MARA. It is original and is the results of our own work, unless otherwise indicated or acknowledged as referenced work. This thesis has not been submitted to any other academic institution or non-academic institution for any degree or qualification.

We, hereby, acknowledge that we have been supplied with the Academic Rules and Regulations for Post Graduate, Universiti Teknologi MARA, regulating the conduct of our study and research.

1. Name of Student: Mohd Hamidi Bin Abu Bakar
Student ID No.: 2017695988
Signature of Student:
2. Name of Student: Nursyahirah Binti Che Zahari
Student ID No.: 2017896388
Signature:
3. Name of Student: Wan Noor Farha Binti Wan Fauzi
Student ID No.: 2017848968
Signature:
Programme: Master in Business Administration
Faculty: Arshad Ayub Graduate Business School
Project Title: The Impact of Brand Equity on Customers’ Perceived Value:
A Case of Marrybrown
Date: September 2018
ABSTRACTThis study was carried out to examine the impact of brand equity on customers’ perceived value towards Marrybrown. Brand equity is the value of a brand and it is an important source for organizations to maintain their competitive advantages and earnings. Brand equity also important not only to increase its market share but also to increase its valuation in the market. Customers buy products from companies in which they have confidence, those they recognize, and ones that consistently provide value. Developing brand equity is vital as it allows the organization to more effectively engage with their customer base in such a way that allows the business to grow further. Perceived value plays an important role in creating a competitive advantage because customers are only going to purchase product or services they value. The data in this study were collected from a sample of 200 customers of Marrybrown restaurants in five branches using convenience sampling technique. The collected data were analysed using SPSS. The results of the multiple regression analysis indicated that all four dimensions of brand equity namely brand awareness, brand association, brand loyalty and perceived quality were significant and positively affect customers’ perceived value. The managerial implications of the research findings were discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTIt has been an interesting and sometimes difficult journey. We wish to express our gratitude to the many who encouraged, supported, and sometimes prodded us along this path. We would like to thank our advisor, Dr. Siti Zaleha for giving us the brilliant idea of this study, who guided us in our fundamental knowledge of research. Dr Siti Zaleha whose sincere and warm trust always encouraged us in finishing this study. We would like to give our special appreciation to our family members for their endless encouragement during times of difficulty, love and understanding throughout this entire process. Finally, we are grateful to the all of our lecturers of Arshad Ayub Graduate Business School who taught us throughout our master course.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC o “1-3” h z u AUTHOR’S DECLARATION PAGEREF _Toc523283325 h iiABSTRACT PAGEREF _Toc523283326 h iiiACKNOWLEDGMENT PAGEREF _Toc523283327 h ivLIST OF TABLES PAGEREF _Toc523283328 h viiLIST OF FIGURES PAGEREF _Toc523283329 h viii1.0BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY PAGEREF _Toc523283330 h 11.1PROBLEM STATEMENT PAGEREF _Toc523283331 h 41.2RESEARCH OBJECTIVES PAGEREF _Toc523283332 h 51.3RESEARCH QUESTIONS PAGEREF _Toc523283333 h 51.4SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH PAGEREF _Toc523283334 h 61.5SCOPE OF RESEARCH PAGEREF _Toc523283335 h 71.6DEFINITION OF TERMS PAGEREF _Toc523283336 h 71.7SUMMARY PAGEREF _Toc523283337 h 72.0PREAMBLE PAGEREF _Toc523283338 h 82.1A REVIEW ON SWOT ANALYSIS PAGEREF _Toc523283339 h 82.2A REVIEW ON CUSTOMERS’ PERCEIVED VALUE PAGEREF _Toc523283340 h 92.3A REVIEW ON BRAND EQUITY PAGEREF _Toc523283341 h 112.3.1Brand Awareness PAGEREF _Toc523283342 h 112.3.2Brand Association PAGEREF _Toc523283343 h 122.3.3Brand Loyalty PAGEREF _Toc523283344 h 132.3.4Perceived Quality PAGEREF _Toc523283345 h 152.4TOWS MATRIX PAGEREF _Toc523283346 h 162.5CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK PAGEREF _Toc523283347 h 172.6ACADEMIC CONSTRUCT PAGEREF _Toc523283348 h 182.7SUMMARY PAGEREF _Toc523283349 h 183.0PREAMBLE PAGEREF _Toc523283350 h 193.1RESEARCH DESIGN PAGEREF _Toc523283351 h 193.1.1Purpose of Study PAGEREF _Toc523283352 h 203.1.2Types of Investigation PAGEREF _Toc523283353 h 203.1.3Study Setting PAGEREF _Toc523283354 h 203.1.4Extent of Researcher Interference with the Study PAGEREF _Toc523283355 h 213.1.5Units of Analysis PAGEREF _Toc523283356 h 213.1.6Time Horizon PAGEREF _Toc523283357 h 213.2SAMPLING DESIGN PAGEREF _Toc523283358 h 223.2.1 Target Population PAGEREF _Toc523283359 h 223.2.2 Sampling Technique PAGEREF _Toc523283360 h 223.2.3 Sample Size PAGEREF _Toc523283361 h 233.3RESEARCH MEASUREMENT AND SCALING PAGEREF _Toc523283362 h 233.4DATA COLLECTION METHODS PAGEREF _Toc523283363 h 253.4.1Primary Data PAGEREF _Toc523283364 h 253.4.2Secondary Data PAGEREF _Toc523283365 h 253.5PROCEDURES OF DATA ANALYSIS PAGEREF _Toc523283366 h 253.5.1Descriptive Statistics PAGEREF _Toc523283367 h 253.5.2Reliability Test PAGEREF _Toc523283368 h 263.5.3Pearson Correlation PAGEREF _Toc523283369 h 273.5.4Regression Model PAGEREF _Toc523283370 h 273.5.5R-squared PAGEREF _Toc523283371 h 273.5.6F-test PAGEREF _Toc523283372 h 283.6SUMMARY PAGEREF _Toc523283373 h 284.0PREAMBLE PAGEREF _Toc523283374 h 294.1RESEARCH QUESTION 1 PAGEREF _Toc523283375 h 294.1.1Swot Analysis of Marrybrown PAGEREF _Toc523283376 h 294.2RESEARCH QUESTION 2 PAGEREF _Toc523283377 h 324.2.1Respondent’s Background PAGEREF _Toc523283378 h 324.2DESCIPTIVE STATISTICS PAGEREF _Toc523283379 h 344.2.1Perceived Value PAGEREF _Toc523283380 h 344.2.2Brand Awareness PAGEREF _Toc523283381 h 354.2.3Brand Association PAGEREF _Toc523283382 h 364.2.4Brand Loyalty PAGEREF _Toc523283383 h 374.2.5Perceived Quality PAGEREF _Toc523283384 h 384.2.6All Constructs PAGEREF _Toc523283385 h 394.3RELIABILITY TEST PAGEREF _Toc523283386 h 404.4PEARSON CORRELATION ANALYSIS PAGEREF _Toc523283387 h 414.5REGRESSION ANALYSIS PAGEREF _Toc523283388 h 424.5.1Coefficient of Determination PAGEREF _Toc523283389 h 424.5.2F-test PAGEREF _Toc523283390 h 434.5.3Regression Coefficient PAGEREF _Toc523283391 h 444.6TOWS ANALYSIS PAGEREF _Toc523283392 h 454.7SUMMARY PAGEREF _Toc523283393 h 475.0PREAMBLE PAGEREF _Toc523283394 h 485.1DISCUSSION PAGEREF _Toc523283395 h 485.2CONCLUSION PAGEREF _Toc523283396 h 505.3RECOMMENDATIONS PAGEREF _Toc523283397 h 515.4SUMMARY PAGEREF _Toc523283398 h 52REFERENCES PAGEREF _Toc523283399 h 53APPENDICES PAGEREF _Toc523283400 h 60APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE PAGEREF _Toc523283401 h 60APPENDIX B: SPSS OUTPUT PAGEREF _Toc523283402 h 69
LIST OF TABLESTABLE TITLE PAGE
Table 1.0 Definition of Terms 7
Table 3.0 Rules of thumb about Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient Size 26
Table 4.0 Swot Analysis 29
Table 4.1 Respondents’ Background 32
Table 4.2 Descriptive Analysis for Customers’ Perceived Value 34
Table 4.3 Descriptive Analysis for Brand Awareness 35
Table 4.4 Descriptive Analysis for Brand Association 36
Table 4.5 Descriptive Analysis for Brand Loyalty 37
Table 4.6 Descriptive Analysis for Perceived Quality 38
Table 4.7 Descriptive Analysis for All Construct 39
Table 4.8 Summary of Reliability Test for all Variables 40
Table 4.9 Correlation for All Variables 41
Table 4.10 Model Summary 42
Table 4.11 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) 43
Table 4.12 Regression Coefficient 44
LIST OF FIGURESFIGURE TITLE PAGE
Figure 2.0 The conceptual framework 17
Figure 2.1 Academic Construct 18
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0BACKGROUND OF THE STUDYMarrybrown, is proudly Malaysian-owned and has over 30 years of franchise experience under its belt. It was founded in 1981, as a restaurant company that operates and franchises Marrybrown restaurants, through 15 countries throughout Asia, Middle East, and Africa. Marrybrown has a strong international presence with outlets operating in Malaysia, China, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Africa, the Middle East and Myanmar.

Marrybrown, which is Malaysia’s homegrown fast food chain is currently the world’s largest Halal Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) brand originating from Asia (The Star Online, 2014). Marrybrown pioneered a number of firsts in the quick-serve industry. It was the first major fast-food chain that introduced menu items that are now staples on most fast-food menu boards, including Rice based products, Chicken Porridge, Sate burger and Curry Kari. Marrybrown also provide wide variety of halal menu features and tasty meals including Crispy Chicken, Delicious Satay Burger, Nasi Marrybrown, Speciality Wrap, Fish ‘n’ Chips, Mi Kari, Chicken Porridge, finger foods, salads, fun fries and a range of hot and cold beverages and desserts.

Marrybrown is among the nation’s leading fast-food chains, with more than 130 quick-serving restaurants in Malaysia and more than 350 international restaurants. As the first major fast-food chain to develop and expand the concept of “Something Different” experiences. Marrybrown has always emphasized on halal products serving millions of guests world-wide. As a winner of numerous awards, Marrybrown is fast expanding internationally ensuring that Marrybrown becomes a global food service organization and a worldwide brand.

Today, Marrybrown offers a broad selection of distinctive, innovative products targeted at the fast-food consumer. Chicken represents the core of the menu, including the signature Lucky Plate, Chicken Porridge, Nasi Marrybrown the 100% Black Pepper Chicken-A-Licious. And, because value is important to fast-food customers, the company also offers value-priced products on “All-Time snacks,” including muffins, burgers.

A study by Keller (1993) defined brand as “a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or groups of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors. There are many numbers in an annual report which attempt to describe a company’s assets and shareholder equity. But one of the numbers one cannot find is a number that may be a company’s biggest asset – its brand equity.

Brand equity is one of the marketing terms that describes about a brand’s value. That value is determined by consumer perception of and experiences with the brand. If people think highly of a brand, it has positive brand equity. While, it has negative brand equity when customers have bad experience with the product and poor performance of the previous products and services. Customers are not willing to buy the products with negative brand equity because they feel it is not worth it.

Brand equity develops and grows as a result of a customer’s experiences with the brand. A brand represents so much more than a logo, and that’s especially true for their users. Developing a strong and dynamic brand creates a solid foundation for a company, but the success of that brand over the long term depends on their brand equity. According to American business magazine, Forbes, it stated that when people speak of “brand equity” they mean the public’s valuation of a brand. Brand equity is more of a concept than anything else and acts as a framework for understanding the power of consumer’s emotions in relationship to your positioning ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Propoint</Author><Year>2017</Year><RecNum>8</RecNum><DisplayText>(Propoint, 2017)</DisplayText><record><rec-number>8</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app=”EN” db-id=”5tdxwvezmfzrtyeftz0x9tzz2wdax2zd9z2f”>8</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name=”Web Page”>12</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Propoint</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Building Brand Equity</title></titles><volume>2017</volume><number>1 November</number><dates><year>2017</year></dates><publisher>Forbes</publisher><urls><related-urls><url>https://www.forbes.com/sites/propointgraphics/2017/07/08/building-brand-equity/#26cdcedd6e8f</url></related-urls></urls></record></Cite></EndNote>(Propoint, 2017).

A strong brand and its strong equity provide several benefits to the service organization, these benefits include: greater customer loyalty; reduced vulnerability to competitor marketing activities; possibility of larger profit; customers’ reaction to changing prices possibly low increased effectiveness of marketing communication strategy and possibility of brand extension ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Keller</Author><Year>2001</Year><RecNum>6</RecNum><DisplayText>(Keller, 2001)</DisplayText><record><rec-number>6</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app=”EN” db-id=”5tdxwvezmfzrtyeftz0x9tzz2wdax2zd9z2f”>6</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name=”Journal Article”>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Keller, Kevin Lane</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Building customer-based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong brands</title></titles><dates><year>2001</year></dates><urls></urls></record></Cite></EndNote>(Keller, 2001). Brand equity is the degree to which your brand generates positive thoughts and feelings and it can add considerable value to your business. The value of brand equity is in the behavior outcomes of consumers and consumer perceived value. The brands with high equity obtain reduced marketing costs as well as greater market share, trade leverage, price premiums, and loyalty. ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Park</Author><Year>1994</Year><RecNum>4</RecNum><DisplayText>(Park &amp; Srinivasan, 1994)</DisplayText><record><rec-number>4</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app=”EN” db-id=”5tdxwvezmfzrtyeftz0x9tzz2wdax2zd9z2f”>4</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name=”Journal Article”>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Park, Chan Su</author><author>Srinivasan, Vern</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand equity and its extendibility</title><secondary-title>Journal of marketing research</secondary-title></titles><periodical><full-title>Journal of marketing research</full-title></periodical><pages>271-288</pages><dates><year>1994</year></dates><isbn>0022-2437</isbn><urls></urls></record></Cite></EndNote>(Park & Srinivasan, 1994).

According to Kim et. al (2003), consumer based brand equity has also been linked to the overall financial performance of the firm. While to marketers, brand equity=retained customer whereby, creating and maintaining brand equity can provide for increased profitability, reduced vulnerability to competition, the ability to charge premium prices, and a platform for introducing new to market products carrying the brand name.

In marketing aspects, building a strong brand yields a number of marketing advantages. This includes greater customer loyalty, higher resiliency to endure crisis, and increased marketing communication effectiveness (Keller, 2001). Farquhar (1989) argued that the brand has value only if it has meaning to the customer. Cobb-Walgren (1995) insisted that “it is important to understand how brand value is created in the mind of the consumer and how it translates into choice of behavior”. To simplify, it shows that measuring the brand equity from a customer’s perspective is crucial in brand marketing.

1.1PROBLEM STATEMENTZeithaml (1988) defined perceived value as “the consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product (or service) based on perceptions of what is received and what is given”. He has identified four diverse meaning of value which are; lower price, consumer wants in a product, quality for the price paid and finally, what consumer gets for what they pay.

Marrybrown, a home brand, is a fast food business and currently having great competition from International brand i.e. Mc Donald, KFC, Burger King, and Texas Chicken where most of these international brands are capable of positioning their products strongly to consumers’ mind. For example, the first thing that comes to mind when thinking of a burger is Mc Donald’s while KFC for fried chicken. The substitute products for McDonald’s will always be the other fast food chain that sells burgers, for example: Burger King and road side burger stalls. KFC, for example, according to Simmons ; Crawford (2013), from the product perspective, KFC firstly identified customers’ likes and dislikes at the local and cultural level before introducing products that appeal to local taste. This effort, as per Ding (2013), will help the customers to directly benefit from the perceived value derived from KFC’s menu and helps KFC to create customer loyalty.

The issues is Marrybrown has poor positioning. The special menu that offers local delights is not positioned in consumer’s mind. This shows that Marrybrown do not give any promotional impact towards existing customers. Having said this, where can Marrybrown play to compete with its competitors? What is the white space or gaps that they can tap into to build strong associations to consumers mind? Customer is not experiencing the value in Marrybrown that they wish to perceive as compare to competitors brand. Brand awareness, brand sssociation, brand loyalty and perceived quality are among the equities that Marrybrown should consider in creating the value in customer perception.

1.2RESEARCH OBJECTIVESThe objectives of this study are as follows:
To understand the current situation of Marrybrown in order to determine its competitive position.

To measure the level of brand equity of Marrybrown by adopting Aaker’s four dimensions.

To investigate the impact of brand equity on customers’ perceived value.

To recommend appropriate strategies necessary to increase customers’ perceived value towards Marrybrown.

1.3RESEARCH QUESTIONSIn particular, the research questions are as follows:
What is the current situation of Marrybrown and its business?
What is the level of brand equity of Marrybrown?
To what extend does brand equity impact the customers’ perceived value towards Marrybrown?
What are the appropriate strategies necessary to increase customers’ perceived value towards Marrybrown?
1.4SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCHThe main purpose for conducting this research is to investigate how brand equity will impact the consumer perceived value towards Marrybrown. Besides that, this study also aimed to gather as much information, in ensuring a better understanding towards the relationship between brand equity and consumer perceived value. So this study shall provide some benefits to some populace which are:
The Researcher
The researcher is able to gain more knowledge and practices a good learning experience. Besides that, the researcher can have a better understanding especially about how brand equity impact the consumer perceived value.

The Future Researcher
For the future researchers, this study serves as a reference for them to conduct another study related to this topic such brand equity and thus extends the body of knowledge in the niche area. Likewise, the future researchers are able to get more information from this study.
Fast food restaurant industry
The purpose of this research is used to provide awareness and solutions to the fast food restaurant so that they can make some improvement for their performance especially when it comes to the consumer perceive value towards the brand. Besides that, it also used to remind the fast food restaurant about the factors which will affect the consumer perceived value neither short-term nor long-term period.

Through this study, fast food restaurant also can have better understanding about the demand from their customer. Improvement from different aspect such as fairness of pricing, service quality, food quality, customer satisfaction, customer preferences are able to achieve by applied the strategies which match with it and it will give a hand to the fast food restaurant that involve in an extremely competitive business environment. Information that obtains from this study also can act as guideline for new entrepreneur fast food restaurant to establish its business.

1.5SCOPE OF RESEARCHThis research used customers’ perceived value model by Sun (2004) which concentrated on the elements of the brand equity. The respondents for this research were the existing customers of Marrybrown. Five branches were selected namely Marrybrown GM Klang, Marrybrown Giant USJ, Marrybrown Citta Mall, Marrybrown KLIA 2 and Marrybrown IOI Puchong. The selections were based on the biggest number of branches is in Selangor.

1.6DEFINITION OF TERMSTable 1.0 Definition of Terms
TERM DEFINITION
Brand Awareness Fostering people’s ability to recall or recognize the brand in sufficient detail to make a purchase (Kotler and Keller, 2016).

Brand Association Anything linked in memory to a brand (Aaker, 2009).

Brand Loyalty The measure of attachment that a consumer has towards a brand (Aaker, 1991).

Perceived Quality Consumers’ judgment about an entity’s or a service’s overall excellence or superiority (Zeithaml, 1988).

Customers’ Perceived Value The consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given (Zeithaml, 1988).

1.7SUMMARY
This chapter discussed the general overview of this research including the background of research, problem statement, research objectives, research questions, significance of research, scope of research and definition of terms used in this research. The next chapter discussed on literature review.

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0PREAMBLEWhile Chapter 1 introduces the background information of this study, this chapter proceeds on review of relevant literature. The sources for the literatures referred by the researcher were journals, articles, books and web pages.
2.1A REVIEW ON SWOT ANALYSISSWOT is a straight forward framework that states the significance of external and internal forces for the reason of understanding the sources of competitive advantage. SWOT is a logical approach on which every organization should assess its external and internal environments to adopt its strategy (Ghazinoory et al., 2011). SWOT analysis can generally help to represent a strategic organizational situation and to recognize what information is needed and what decisions are likely to be made at a personal as well as organization level (Balamuralikrishna & Dugger, 1995). This tool helps in recognizing the organization’s current performance (strengths and weaknesses) and the organization’s future (opportunities and threats) by accounting for the factors that exist in the external background (Gupta & Mishra, 2016).
SWOT has been used by countless practitioners, researchers, and is a popular tool for business marketing and strategy studies. SWOT is a tool that is used to assess alternatives and complex decision situations. In SWOT Analysis, the grouping of internal and external issues is a frequent starting point for strategic planning. It can be constructed quickly and can benefit from multiple viewpoints as a brainstorming exercise ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Helms</Author><Year>2010</Year><RecNum>22</RecNum><DisplayText>(Helms &amp; Nixon, 2010)</DisplayText><record><rec-number>22</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app=”EN” db-id=”5tdxwvezmfzrtyeftz0x9tzz2wdax2zd9z2f”>22</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name=”Journal Article”>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Helms, Marilyn M</author><author>Nixon, Judy</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Exploring SWOT analysis–where are we now? A review of academic research from the last decade</title><secondary-title>Journal of strategy and management</secondary-title></titles><periodical><full-title>Journal of strategy and management</full-title></periodical><pages>215-251</pages><volume>3</volume><number>3</number><dates><year>2010</year></dates><isbn>1755-425X</isbn><urls></urls></record></Cite></EndNote>(Helms & Nixon, 2010). This tool is only one stage of the business planning process. For complex issues, you will usually need to conduct more in-depth research and analysis to make decisions (Business Queensland, 2016). SWOT Analysis does not prioritise issues or problems, does not provide solutions or offer alternative decisions, can generate too many ideas but not help you choose which one is best, can produce a lot of information but not all of it is useful (Business Queensland, 2016). According to Business Queensland website (2016), the main advantages of SWOT analysis is that it has little or no cost, anyone who understands your business can perform a SWOT analysis. You can also use a SWOT analysis when you don’t have much time to address a complex situation. By using SWOT Analysis, you can understand your business better, address weaknesses, determine threats, improve on opportunities, take advantage of your strengths, develop business goals and strategies for achieving them (Business Queensland, 2016).

2.2A REVIEW ON CUSTOMERS’ PERCEIVED VALUEAccording to Monroe (1990), consumer perceived value is a trade-off between the sacrifice they perceived relatively to the benefits and quality they perceived in the product by paying for the product. Woodruff and Gardial (1996) defined it as what consumer want to happen in a specific use situation, with the help of a product and service ordering, in order to accomplish a desired goal or purpose. Furthermore, Ravald and Grönroos (1996) supported this definition by saying that consumer perceived value is the ratio of perceived benefits and perceived sacrifice. According to Chen & Dubinsky (2003), consumer perceived value is the perception of the net benefits gained in exchange for the cost incurred in obtaining the desired benefits. Purchase intention is the willingness of consumers to buy certain type of product which depends on internal and external factors. Sweeney and Soutar (2001) adopted functional value, social value, and emotional value to develop a perceived value scale to assess customer perceptions of the value of a durable commodity at brand level.

Besides, customer perceived value is defined as the consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product based on the perceptions of what is received and what is given (Zeitmaml, 1988). Sweeny et al (1999) interpreted this value as “the trade-off of salient ‘give’ and ‘get’ components”. In the same study, they found the positive effect of perceived quality on perceived value. Baldauf et al. (2003) examined the relationship between the three dimensions of brand equity (brand awareness, brand loyalty and perceived quality) and perceived value. They argued that loyal customers recognized the favorable benefit opportunity and customers who were familiar with products and logos were more willing to pay price premium. Therefore, they insisted that brand loyalty and brand awareness were positively related to perceived value. Similar results are also given by Kim et al. (2008) to assert that brand equity has a major impact on perceived value when customers visit every time. Hellier et al. (2003) suggested that perceived value is the major factor affecting revisit intention and brand preference.
It has been proven that the used of the concept of customer perceived value does not only result in creating more satisfied customer, but more importantly it is also found to have direct effect on customer repurchase intention and loyalty (Lin et al., 2005). In simple words, the more benefits the product or the service offer, the more satisfied the customer, thus the higher chances that lead to positive behavior. Unfortunately, with the nature of product characteristic, there are various types of value dimensions that can be found or created for one type of product or service. Consequently, it may be difficult to identify what type of value that company can deliver or offer to the customer through their product. This leads to the need for the better perspective of perceived value in order to help identifying its dimensions.

Perceived value has grown into a popular subject to marketing managers and to researchers since it has been considered as one of the most effective measurement method of customer satisfaction and loyalty (Eggert ; Ulaga, 2002). It is also regarded as one of the most influential indicators of purchase intention (Cronin, Brady ; Huit, 2000). Maximizing a customer’s perceived value is a successful strategy of a company in terms of long-term business success. Most researchers agree that when customers have a positive perceptive value, they are motivated to make well-disposed decisions to a company.

Perceived value plays an important role in creating a competitive advantage because customers are only going to purchase product or services they value (Doyle, 1998). Olshavsky (1985) indicates that one of the effective ways to understand the perceived value of a brand is to find out a reason for purchase. The perceived value of a product is a predictor of a customer’s intention to purchase or not to purchase (Groth, 2001).

2.3A REVIEW ON BRAND EQUITYThis section reviews Aaker’s four dimensions of brand equity that act as main independent variables for this research which are brand awareness, brand association, brand loyalty, and perceived quality.

2.3.1Brand AwarenessBrand awareness refers to whether consumers can recall or recognize a brand, or simply whether or not consumers know about a brand and it provides learning advantage for the brand and influences consumer decision making (Keller, 2008). Consumers may use brand awareness as a purchase decision heuristic (MacDonald and Sharp 2000) and is likely to increase brand market performance. Consumer receives brand awareness via effective marketing communication channel such as television, hand phone and online advertising as it give assurance of product quality and its credibility which helps to reduce risk in product evaluation and selection while buying a product (Aaker, 1996).

A known brand has a much better chance of being chosen by consumers over an unknown brand (Hoyer and Brown 1990). This well-known brand likely performs better in the marketplace compared to a lesser known brand. A study of consumers’ incidental encounter of brands in their daily life indicates that the frequency of exposure to brands significantly enhances the probability of the brand being chosen, even if consumers are not aware of such exposure (Ferraro et al., 2009).

Farquhar (1989) considers that building a strong brand within consumers’ minds means creating a positive brand evaluation, an accessible brand attitude, and a consistent brand image, the accessible brand attitude actually referring to what the others term as awareness. It links brand awareness to overall brand equity, using both customer mind set and product market outcome measures of brand equity (Keller and Lehmann, 2003). Awareness can be assessed at several levels such as recognition, recall, top of mind, brand dominance (the only brand recalled), or, even more, brand knowledge (what the brand stands for is very well known by consumers) (Aaker, 1996). It is the first and prerequisite dimension of the entire brand knowledge system in consumers’ minds, reflecting their ability to identify the brand under different conditions: the likelihood that a brand name will come to mind and the ease with which it does so (Keller, 1993).

Advertising creates and enhances brand awareness by exposing brands to customers (Keller, 1993). Advertising also increases the brand’s likelihood of being included in consumers’ consideration set, thereby improving market performance of the brand (Krishnan and Chakravarti 1993). Besides, distribution caused exposure of a brand to consumers and contributes to the establishment of brand awareness (Keller, 2008). Repeat brand exposure in stores improves consumers’ ability to recognize and recall the brand. Since stores organize products by categories, consumers gain exposure to brands by category and facilitates the linkage between brand and the related product category. Therefore, distribution helps to establish brand and product category linkages. Distribution (shelf visibility) alone generates brand awareness and trial for frequently purchased products (Smith and Park, 1992).

Price promotions induce brand switchers and create product trials. Such product experiences enhance brand awareness (Keller 2008). Price may influence consumers to use high price as a quality signal to achieve decision efficiency, but on the other hand a low-priced product may offer consumers more value. Hence, “consumers might be equally aware of both the high-priced product and the low-priced product” (Yoo et al. 2000, p. 199).

2.3.2Brand AssociationOne key component of brand equity is the associations consumers have with the brand (Aaker, 1991). For example, consumers may associate “refreshing,” “youth,” and “caffeine” with the brand Pepsi, and these associations then may drive their choice of this brand (Keller, 1993). Brand associations have been called “the heart and soul of the brand” (Aaker, 1996), and “fundamental to the understanding of customer-based brand equity” (Hsieh, 2004). The central role of brand associations in the creation and maintenance of brand equity is widely accepted. As such, any insights into the measurement and improved understanding of brand associations represent a significant contribution to the brand equity literature.

Brand associations are important to practitioners for a variety of reasons. First, they help consumers process and retrieve information and can help differentiate or position the brand. Second, if the associations are positive, they will create beneficial attitudes and feelings and provide a reason to buy. Lastly, brand associations may be exploited to create effective brand extensions (Aaker, 1991). Overall, the selection, creation, and maintenance of brand associations are among the most important steps in the management of brand equity (Aaker, 1991).

Aaker and Keller emphasize the important role of brand associations. Aaker (1991), in his book, Managing Brand Equity, conceptualizes brand equity in terms of five dimensions: brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, and other proprietary brand assets. Aaker (1991) defines brand associations as “anything linked in memory to a brand” (p. 109), and states that the core role of brand associations is to create meaning for consumers. Keller (1993) breaks brand equity down into brand awareness (recall and recognition) and brand image (measured in terms of the favourability, strength, and uniqueness of the brand associations). Together, both of these writers focus on measuring brand equity in terms of consumer perceptions of the brand, and emphasize the importance of consumer knowledge and brand associations as fundamental building blocks of brand image.

2.3.3Brand LoyaltyLoyalty represents a core outcome for any product, brand, or service (Oliver, 1999). Brand loyalty is one of the four dimensions should be considered in measuring customer-based brand equity. Brand loyalty is known as the tendency to be loyal to a brand (Yoo and Donthun, 2001). According to Aaker (1991), brand loyalty is “the attachment that a customer has to a brand”. It is the tendency of consumers to continuously purchase one brand’s products over another brand. Loyal people to a brand can be seen through their intention to buy the brand as a foremost choice. Oliver (1999) stated brand loyalty as “deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future. Therefore, it will cause repetition purchase of same-brand. Brand loyalty can be seen as two types: attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty. Gounaris et al. (2003) summarized these two types of brand loyalty in which behavioral loyalty refers to repeated purchase or or commitment to rebuy the brand as a primary choice and attitudinal loyalty refers to a strong internal character towards a brand leading to repeated purchases.

According to Aaker’s definition, brand loyalty is about measuring the attachment of a customer to a brand and it is one of the indicators of brand equity which is demonstrably linked to future profits, since brand loyalty directly translates into future sales. Literature further suggests that a combination of consumer perceived value and a general attitude of trust associated with a brand generate a high level of loyalty (Taylor et al., 2004).

Consumers that rebuying or repatronizing a preferred product consistently has initiated repetitive purchasing of the same-brand or same brand-set (Luarn and Lin, 2003). Likewise, brand loyalty will influences their purchasing decisions over the same product (Ahmed, 2011). In other words, customer become loyal with their preferred product brands and stick to well-known brand names (Sun et al., 2004). Consumers developed brand loyalty by creating a positive output of brand equity which positively engenders brand preference over other brands (Zhang et al., 2014).

Restaurant chain brands is differ from manufacturer brands because dining is a service business (Berry, 2000). The brand loyalty of fast food chains is closely related with the loyalty to the store because any restaurant brand is essentially connected to a physical store (Fullerton, 2005). A restaurant fast food chain brand can be thought of as a group of the fast food restaurants which “carry a unique name, symbol, logo or combination thereof” (Zentes et al., 2008). Branding of restaurants chain can influences customer perceptions, and encourages store (restaurant) choice and loyalty (e.g., Hartman & Spiro, 2005).

Study by Bowen & Chen (2001) has distinguish between behavioral and attitudinal loyalty. Han & Ryu (2009) stated that behavioral loyalty may not reflect actual customer loyalty. While behavioral loyalty refers only to actual repurchase or repatronage (Dick & Basu, 1994), attitudinal loyalty appears a more comprehensive construct, encompassing, for example, customer intentions and word of mouth (Yoo & Bai, 2013). Brand-loyal consumers can be emotionally connected to a brand, and this is influenced by their attachment to the brand and perceived relationship value (Thomson et al., 2005).

2.3.4Perceived QualityKeller (1998) stated that perceived quality is a core dimension of customers based brand equity as it relates to the willingness of customer to pay a price premium, brand choice and brand purchase intention. Perceived quality can be considered a customer’s personal perception about the product experience, unique needs and consumption situations. Therefore, their perception will be involved in their decision-making process.
Yoo et. Al., (2001) stated that a high perceived quality means that this brand has higher probability of being chosen instead of other competitors’ brands, supporting a premium price, which in turn can create more profits for a firm to reinvest in brand equity. Low and Lamb Jr. (2000) defined perceived quality as the perception of the superiority of a brand when compared to alternative brand. Zeithaml (1988) defined perceived quality as consumer’s judgment about the whole product superiority or excellence. Like brand association, perceived quality provide consumers with value and give them reason to differentiate a brand from another. Justified by researcher Carmen (1990), perceived quality can said to have a positive effect on customers purchase intention. Although there are inconsistencies on the available empirical evidence for example, Boulding et al. (1993) considered service quality as one of the factors leading to purchase intention.
Consumers often judge the quality of a product or service on the basis of a variety of informational cues that they associate with the product. Some of these cues are intrinsic to the products, whereas others are extrinsic. Intrinsic cues are the physical characteristics of the product such as size, color, flavor, appearance, or aroma. Consumers can use these physical characteristics to judge quality of the brand. The other is extrinsic cues, the attributes that are not part of the physical product. Price, brand image, manufacturer’s image, certificates, warranty, advertising, market share, can thus be considered to be extrinsic cues (Aaker, 1991). One brand name is regarded as one of many possible extrinsic cues of product quality. When objective quality of a product is hard to justify, buyers would take more abstract signals such as brand name as the key consideration. In the mind of customers, perceived quality defines perception, product quality and superiority. This effect on customers generally stimulates brand integration and exclusion which leads to positive consideration set before purchase decision. Researchers have found out positive relationship of perceived quality and brand loyalty (Zeithaml, 1988). In this context, it is evident that perceived quality has direct impact on customer purchase decision and brand loyalty, especially during the time customers have less or no information of the products.

As mentioned by Balaji (2011), a brand with high quality perceptions tends to benefit from higher customer preferences, repurchase intentions and equity. Perceived quality therefore adds to brand equity, in that it provides value to customers and presents them with more reasons to buy (Al-Hawari 2011). Lee et al. (2010) noted that when consumers perceive a brand to be of high quality, they are more likely to purchase the brand over competing brands, pay a premium price and choose the brand. Motameni and Shahrokhi (1998) and Yoo et al. (2000) concluded that perceived quality is positively related to the brand equity.

2.4TOWS MATRIXTows Matrix is an extension from SWOT Analysis model and was developed by an American Professor Heinz Weirich which aim at developing strategic option from an external-internal analysis.

Unlike SWOT analysis, TOWS Matrix begins with an external environment analysis where the opportunity and threat are examined first. This strategy allows a company to make an assessment and have a clear picture on the opportunity and threat they are facing if they were to enter into the industry. Internal assessment will then followed where strength and weaknesses of the company are being considered whether the company has the capabilities in pursuing the new business.

The TOWS Matrix helps businesses to identify their strategic options. An organisation gets the opportunity to make the most of its strengths and get around its internal weaknesses and learn to deal with them properly. Externally, an organisation learns to carefully look for market opportunities and recognise possibilities. And they learn how to control and overcome potential threats.

Tows Matrix will assist companies developing great ideas in generating effective marketing strategies and tactics. It gives an advantage in exploring beyond the strengths and weaknesses within an organisation and what opportunities and threats there are in its environment. This allows companies to become more aware of their expertise and any potential shortcomings and to improve and protect against any threats.

Tows Matrix is a very useful tool and it is not only meant for top management. It can be used for department in sales and marketing as well as for individuals at operational level. Once the strength are known it can further improved through TOWS Matrix by capitalizing the opportunity and minimizing threat in the external environment.

2.5CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
26574753111500065722544450Brand Awareness
00Brand Awareness

657225173355Brand Association
00Brand Association

3486150223520Customers’ Perceived Value
00Customers’ Perceived Value
26765252349500
266700028320900268605017843500
65722528575Brand Loyalty
00Brand Loyalty

657225129540Perceived Quality
00Perceived Quality

Source: Adopted from Sun (2004).

Figure 2.0 The conceptual framework
Figure 2.0 shows the conceptual framework of the research. The academic construct of the research is presented in Figure 2.1.

2.6ACADEMIC CONSTRUCT2754630380365
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
532278272093
1814343631210022779511698580532278276876 BRAND AWARENESS
53227826978416808451473200018903951949440018903957112000 BRAND ASSOCIATION CUSTOMERS’
53227826269200 BRAND LOYALTY PERCEIVED VALUE
PERCEIVED QUALITY
-146214951435212357251905
TOWS MATRIX
284988046990003502660126884105664812556500
RECOMMENDATION
Figure 2.1 Academic Construct
2.7SUMMARYThis chapter discussed the literature review on swot analysis, customers’ perceived value, four elements of brand equity namely, brand awareness, brand association, brand loyalty and perceived quality and also tows matrix. This chapter also revealed the conceptual framework and the academic construct. The next chapter discussed on research methodology.

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0PREAMBLEThis chapter highlights the research methods used in order to achieve the objectives. The content of body for this particular chapter is about presenting and stating precisely how the researchers conduct this particular area of study. The appropriate approaches and research methods undertaken as guideline to conduct this particular research later on. Basically, this chapter include the important elements such as the research design of the study, the sampling design, the research instruments, data collection method and also procedure of data analysis.

3.1RESEARCH DESIGNAccording to Sekaran and Bougie (2013), research design is a blueprint that present the detail of necessary procedure in obtaining the information needed such as collection, measurement and analysis of data based on the research questions of the study in order to structure or solve the research problem.

To properly design a specific research study, a researcher must refer to a few important elements. The related important elements should include contributing factors like (1) the purpose of the study; exploratory study, descriptive study or hypothesis testing, (2) the types of investigation; causal study or correlational study, (3) the study settings; contrive study or non-contrive study, (4) the extent of researcher’s interference in the study; minimal interference or is there any manipulation on the variables in the variables, (5) the unit of analysis or the population to be studied in the research; individuals, dyads, groups, organizations or cultures and lastly (6) the time horizon; cross sectional study, multi cross sectional study or longitudinal study (Sekaran & Bougie, 2009).

3.1.1Purpose of Study
For this particular research study, the descriptive study is chosen specifically to conduct this paper. According to Sekaran and Bougie (2009), descriptive study can be best described as a study that is undertaken for the purpose to determine and be able to describe the specific characteristics of each of the variables of interest in the study in a certain situation. Sekaran and Bougie (2009) also added that the goal of choosing descriptive study in a research is to be able to provide a profile or to explain related aspects from individuals, cultures, organizations, industries or other related perspectives of the interest of the situation. This research is conducted under descriptive study where it aims to describe the current situation of the firm in order to determine the competitive position. It is also involves the collection of quantitative data such as demographic data and satisfaction ratings. Hence, descriptive study is seen as an appropriate measure for this research study.

3.1.2Types of Investigation

There are two main types of investigation in research methodology which include, the causal study and also the correlational study. These investigations are crucial as to find answers to problems faced by organizations or industries. However, for this particular research paper the researchers choose to conduct a correlational study. Correlational study in research can be define as to determine and identifying the important aspects and factors that related to with the issues or problems faced by the organizations. Sekaran and Bougie (2009) clearly defined correlational study in a situation; “if all the manager wants is a mere identification of the important factors “associated with” the problem, then a correlational study is called for”.

3.1.3Study SettingDetermining the study setting in a research process is also important to ensure smooth and systematic research. Basically, there are two platforms of setting in a research paper; a contrived setting and also a non-contrived setting. Contrived setting is a research that can be done in a natural environment according to normal workflows in an organization, whereas the non-contrived setting is the opposite, which can be done in lab settings (Sekaran & Bougie, 2009). For this research study, the researchers decide to go for a non-contrived study setting. The reason why the researchers choose non-contrived study setting is because the researchers would like to see the real situation at the Marrybrown restaurants and from there, the researchers want to study on consumer perceived value.

3.1.4Extent of Researcher Interference with the StudyThe extent of researcher interference in the study can be minimal, moderate or excessive. The extent of interference is depending on the study setting or the types of investigation. Since this particular research paper specifically adapt correlational study in a non-contrived setting (natural environment), the extent of the researchers’ interferences with the study is minimal. Sekaran and Bougie (2009) implied that a correlational study is usually conducted in a natural environment of the organization. This means that there is less interference from the researcher on the workflow in the organization. However, there might be a bit of disruptions as the researchers might want to interview the staff.

3.1.5Units of Analysis
The next important content is on the unit of the analysis in the study. Sekaran and Bougie (2009) highlighted that “unit of analysis refer to the level of aggregation of the data collected during the subsequent data analysis stage”. Unit of analysis consist of four types; (1) individuals, (2) dyads, (3) organizations and (4) cultures. For this research study, the researchers choose individuals as the main unit of the analysis. Specifically, individuals who were the existing customers of Marrybrown restaurants. This unit of analysis is chosen because the researchers want to know the consumer perceived value towards Marrybrown.

3.1.6Time HorizonFor this research paper, cross-sectional study is adapted. By definition, cross-sectional study is when the data of the research is obtained or gathered just once (one shot) in a period of days, weeks or months according to the related situation to find solutions and answers for the research problems (Sekaran & Bougie, 2009). In the case of the researchers’ situation, the researchers do have limited time to conduct and distribute the questionnaires in the future. This is seen as a time constraint to the researchers, thus cross-sectional study is an appropriate approach to choose whereby the questionnaires will be distribute and collect immediately.

3.2SAMPLING DESIGNSampling is the process of selecting units for example people and organizations from a population of interest so that by studying the sample may fairly generalize the results back to the population from which they were chosen (Trochim, 2006). In sampling design, there are a few important elements to take note. The elements are include; (1) the target population, (2) the sample frame, (3) the sampling technique, and also (4) the sample size.

3.2.1 Target PopulationThe term population refers to “the entire group of people, events, or things of interest that the researcher wishes to investigate” (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010). For this particular research, the target population of this research are the customers of Marrybrown. As stated earlier, Marrybrown has more than 130 quick-serving restaurants in Malaysia. However, the researchers decided to focus on restaurants in Selangor only. This is because Selangor has the biggest number of branches.

3.2.2 Sampling TechniqueIn order to conduct this research, the sampling technique that we use is non-probability sampling. Non-probability sampling is sampling where it is not possible to specify the probability that any person or other unit on which the survey is based will be included in the sample. For this research, we present convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Customers will be approached in the restaurants to participate in the study and their anonymity is guaranteed. The restaurants that we chose are Marrybrown GM Klang, Marrybrown Giant USJ, Marrybrown Citta Mall, Marrybrown KLIA 2 and Marrybrown IOI Puchong. This is because all the outlets are located in shopping mall, have many population and several fast food restaurants as their competitors. Data were collected from the actual customers in a realistic setting. The researchers will persuade chosen respondents to fill and return the survey immediately. Convenience sampling refers to the collection of information from respondents who are conveniently available to provide it while purposive sampling is confined to specific types of people who can provide the desired information, either because they are the only ones who have it or they conform to some criteria set by the researcher.

3.2.3 Sample SizeDetermining the sample size of a research study is very crucial to ensure adequate and appropriate data to be gathered later. Total of 200 questionnaires from respondents will be used as the sampling size because we follow the Rules of Thumb of 30 to 500 (Roscoe, 1975) suggested sample size since we do not have any sample frame and the number of population units was unknown.

3.3RESEARCH MEASUREMENT AND SCALINGIn this research study, as mentioned earlier, the researchers will use the approach of using and distributing questionnaires to future respondents to collect data for analysis later on. Basically, the questionnaire will be an approach for data collection and it will be measured based on the variables related in this research study.

According to Sekaran and Bougie (2009), Likert Scale is designed specifically to examine how subjects or respondents are strongly disagree or strongly agree with specific statements on a five-point scale. The following example on the scale can be shown as below.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
The questionnaires consist of six sections:
1.Section A: Respondent Demographic
2.Section B: Customer’s Perceived Value
3.Section C: Brand Awareness
4.Section D: Brand Association
5.Section E: Brand Loyalty
6.Section F: Perceived Quality
Section A focused on respondent demographic such as gender, age, marital status, education level, monthly income, job position and its qualification are taken to measure the frequency and percentage.

Section B consists of the question that required researcher to use likert scale in order to determine the influence of brand equity on the customer’s perceived value of Marrybrown restaurants. This section enable the respondents to give their opinions on customer’s perceived value.

Section C consists of the questions related to brand awareness that required the respondents to rate the likert scale in order to determine the influence of brand equity on customer’s perceived value of Marrybrown restaurants. This will allow the researcher to obtain information about respondents’ brand awareness.

Besides, the questions in Section D are designed using likert scale to determine the effect of brand association towards customer’s perceived value. This section aims to know anything which is deep seated in customer’s mind when it comes to Marrybrown and how it will effect customer’s perceived value.

Section E also are designed using likert scale in order to determine the relationship between brand loyalty and customer’s perceived value. This section will conclude the influence of brand loyalty on customer’s perceived value.

Lastly, Section F that created using likert scale to identify the customer’s opinion towards Marrybrwn and its ability to fulfill customer’s expectations. It is also to give an idea on perception of respondents on perceived quality.

3.4DATA COLLECTION METHODS3.4.1Primary DataSekaran and Bougie (2009) said that primary data is referred to the “information obtained first-hand by the researcher on the variables of interest for the specific purpose of the study” (p. 180). As mentioned by Saunders et al. (2009), primary data verify the most up-to-date information and realistic view to answer the hypotheses and research questions. In this research paper, gathering primary data can be extremely important specially to obtain information on the chosen company such as the background of the company, not to forget the important issues that the company is facing. Primary data can be gathered through questionnaires to the respondents. Survey will be distributed to existing customers in Marrybrown restaurants and collected at that time. Therefore, the researchers will get a clearer idea about the research study.

3.4.2Secondary DataSecondary data represent the data that has been collected previously by someone else. The data gathered are from the sources that already exist to obtain information. For this particular part, the researchers mostly depend on secondary data sources such as the internet, academic journals and also past case studies for other references. These sources really help the researchers to gather information and facts especially in the literature review process. These sources also help the researchers to understand and get clearer idea and directions on the topic of interest. The researchers also depend mostly on journals from Google Scholar websites to support the findings and arguments.

3.5PROCEDURES OF DATA ANALYSIS3.5.1Descriptive StatisticsData analysis allows comparing and describing variables numerically which build up the statistical analysis and data interpretation (Saunders et al., 2009). Mean are used to measure the central tendency while variance and standard deviation and are used to measure variability of the data. Additionally, pie charts are included to make the data more understandable and effectively communicate with the readers in visually appealing way (Hair, et al., 2003). All the data gathered from the questionnaires collected are interpreted and summarized in average, percentage distribution and frequency distribution. The frequency analysis of respondents’ demographic data is illustrated in the pie charts as well as the table of frequency counts, percentages and cumulative percentages of these data can be in the next chapter.

3.5.2Reliability TestReliability measure is an indication of the stability. Reliability analysis is used in order to identify the variable which is reliable to make correlation analysis. It is also allows researcher to test whether each of independent and dependent variable are reliable or not for this study. The reliability of a measure is establishes by testing for both consistency and stability. Consistency indicates how well the items measuring a concept together as a set. Scales with a coefficient alpha between 0.9 and above are considered to have an excellent reliability. Scale with coefficient alpha between 0.70 and 0.89 are considered to have good reliability and coefficient alpha between 0.60 and 0.69 indicates fair reliability, while when the scales of alpha below 0.6, the scale show the poor reliability.

Table 3.0 Rules of thumb about Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient Size
CRONBACH’S ALPHA RANGE STRENGTH OF ASSOCIATION
0.9 and above
0.70 – 0.89
0.60 – 0.69
0.50 – 0.59
Less than 0.5 Excellent
Good
Acceptable
Poor
Unacceptable
Source: Sekaran and Bougie (2014)
3.5.3Pearson CorrelationPearson correlation is a statistical test that evaluates the strength of the association between two numerical data variables (Saunders et al., 2009). Therefore, the relationship of independent variables and dependent variable is measured via Pearson Correlation. The significance level is 0.05 in the Pearson Correlation test, which means there is 95% of confidence level. Therefore, the hypotheses only can be accepted if the significant p-value is less than 0.05 (Malhotra, 2010).

Multicollinearity is a state of very high intercorrelations or inter-associations among the independent variables. It is therefore a type of disturbance in the data, and if present in the data the statistical inferences made about the data may not be reliable. Multicollinearity arises if two variables are closely related. Correlation analysis (Pearson correlation) is the ways on detecting multicollinearity problems.

3.5.4Regression ModelRegression analysis is defined as the distribution of the variable when one or more variable is held fixed at various level. The researcher used multiple regression model in order to test the hypothesis of this study. It can be used to determine whether the independent variable explain a significant variation to see whether a relationship exists. It is also used to see how much of the variation in the dependent variables can be explain by the independent variable. R -squared value indicates that almost one model that fits the data well. Therefore, the results of the data above 0.5 are considered significant. This analysis can be used to study the association between independent variable and dependent variable.3.5.5R-squaredR-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. It is also known as the coefficient of determination, or the coefficient of multiple determination for multiple regression. The definition of R-squared is fairly straight-forward that is the percentage of the response variable variation that can be explained by a linear model. R-squared is always between 0 and 100% where 0% indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean. 100% indicates that the model explains all the variability of the response data around its mean. In general, the higher the R-squared, the better the model fits your data.
3.5.6F-testF-test is a statistical test that is used to determine whether two populations having normal distribution have the same variances or standard deviation. This is an important part of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Generally the comparison of variance is done by comparing the ratio of two variances and in case they are equal the ratio of variances are equal. In order to carry out the F test, the researcher need to first determine the level of significance and then find out the degrees of freedom of numerator and denominator in order to determine the critical values.

3.6SUMMARYThis chapter discussed the method used in this research including the research design, sampling design, research measurement and scaling, data collection methods and procedures of data analysis. The next chapter discussed on the analysis and findings.

CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS4.0PREAMBLEThis chapter are provides the findings and results of this research. 200 copies of questionnaire collected are analysed by using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS). The results are explained in details by using Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Statistic Analysis supported with Reliability Analysis, Pearson Correlation Analysis, and Regression Analysis to test the relationship between dependant variable and independent variables. Interpretation of data are explained in the tables and figures.

4.1RESEARCH QUESTION 1WHAT IS THE CURRENT SITUATION OF MARRYBROWN AND ITS BUSINESS?
4.1.1Swot Analysis of MarrybrownTable 4.0 Swot Analysis
Strength
1. Home grown with variety of food product
2. International presence with halal product offering
3. Adaptability to market needs with unique concept.

4. Delivery services with affordable price Weaknesses
1. No specific target market
2. Poor product positioning
3. Lack of media exposure
4. Lack of market presence and reputation.

Opportunity
1. Product innovation
2. Rapid growth on tourism
3. Improved infrastructure
4. New distribution channel
Threat
1. Strong competitor with global recognition
2. Online orders & delivery service coverage
3. Culture & healthy food
4. Declining economy
Strength
Marrybrown, a Malaysian franchise based Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) and is known of its home grown products and offers variety of food from Burger, Fried Cicken to Chicken Rice, Porridge and Nasi Lemak. Marrybrown is also know of its innovative strategy customizing its products offering in its unique way to customers. Its local and international presence in 15 countries throughout Asia, Middle East and Africa has earned Marrybrown to own 130 QSR in Malaysia and 350 unit of International restaurants emphasizing on Halal products and currently serving millions of customers. For consumers convenient, Marrybrown in Malaysia offers e-commerce and delivery services in selected area in the states of Penang, Kuala Lumpur, Selangor and Johore. Price of products are very competitive giving value to customers on food products as well of variety of choices to choose from. With its vision of becoming the most admired brand, through the people and culture, Marybrown is able to adapt to the market needs and successfully expand its wing internationally
Weaknesses
Marrybrown seems not to have a very clear target market and this has resulted into poor positioning of its brand in the market. For example, Marrybrown do not have kid’s meal that could be a major contributor to sales. Unlike Mc Donald they intentionally created the kids meal and the play area to target the children so the parents can bring their children and spend more time together. It has become a lifestyle for young family nowadays and has helped to establish into customer’s mind that Mc Donald as a family restaurant. Marrybrown is also not visible enough and you hardly see them at the road frontage. This will give an impact to customers in deciding a quick service restaurant of choice when it comes to buying a fast food. Marrybrown do not have wide exposure on media and tv add which helps to promote the brand effectively.
Opportunity
Marrybrown is known of its unique and innovative way in offering variety of foods in their outlet. This provide the opportunity to customize products to suit the local taste. One of its innovation is offering Nasi Lemak at a very affordable price that helps to give opportunity to Marrybrown’s customer to make more purchases as they enter the outlet. Malaysia has registered a rapid growth in tourism industry where in year 2017 there were 26 Million visitors with a total receipts of RM82.1 Billion. Southeast East Asia visitors contribute the most led by visitors from Singapore It is targeted by year 2018 Malaysia will have a visitor of 33 Million with target receipts of RM133 Billion an increase of 28% and 62% respectively. F & B expenditure in 2017 recorded RM10.1 Billion, an increase of 1.6% from previous year. (Source Tourism Malaysia 2017 Report). Malaysia has an excellent infrastructure especially the city road, highways with rest area as well commercial buildings such as shopping malls. This has given the opportunity for a new QSR channels to grow rapidly. Shopping malls provides convenience for shoppers because there is a dedicated area for food so as the rest area by the highways for the visitors to have a quick stop to find their foods.

Threat
Marrybrown is facing a threat from their competitors which are known of having global reputation and recognition. KFC, Mc Donald, Texas Chicken, A & W, Burger King together with other local eat-in restaurant are among the competitors Marrybrown is facing. These threat may cause restaurant operator to squeeze its margin in order to survive and may force some to close business. Another threat will be the health conscious among the people in Malaysia. It is reported by Ministry of Health that Malaysian has the highest level obesity in the South East Asia region.(NST, June 7, 2017) . According to report by Pathway Genomics (June 15, 2017) fast food contribute to obesity. This due to the unhealthy ingredients it contains, large in portion, cheaper and convenient for customers to obtain. Consumers changing diet for a healthy product will give a great impact to fast food business. Most established QSR have good coverage on providing delivery services which indicates their presence in areas where population is sufficient enough in order to reach the consumers. KFC or Mc Donald invested in this to ensure that it will always be in customers mind wherever they travel and whenever they think of buying foods. This too may cause threat to the competitors. Declining in economy may also cause a threat as consumers purchasing power has drop and lead them to switch to alternative which are much cheaper. They may opt for burger or fried chicken from stalls by the road site or the night market. This definitely has an impact to the QSR as less customers visiting their restaurant for foods.

4.2RESEARCH QUESTION 2
WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF BRAND EQUITY OF MARRYBROWN?
4.2.1Respondent’s BackgroundAll the 200 questionnaires were randomly distributed to existing customers at Marrybrown restaurant. The selected Marrybrown restaurant are Marrybrown Citta Mall, Marrybrown Giant USJ, Marrybrown GM Klang, Marrybrown IOI Puchong and Marrybrown KLIA 2. The data gathered were analyzed together as the researcher want to study Marrybrown as a brand.
The researcher uses frequency analysis to analyse Section A from the questionnaire which is respondent’s profile. By using frequency analysis, the researcher can easily examine which option is the most frequent answer by the respondents.

Table 4.1 Respondent’s Background
Demographic Profile Percent (%) Frequency
Gender :
Male
Female 40.5
59.5 81
119
Age :
18-25
26-35
36 and above 57.0
30.5
12.5 114
61
25
Marital Status :
Single
Married
Others 75.0
24.0
1.0 150
48
2
Education Level :
Secondary School
Diploma
Degree
Master/PHD
Professional Certificate 3.0
5.5
44.0
45.5
2.0 6
11
88
91
4
Occupation :
Unemployed
Government Staff
Private Company Staff
Self-employed
Students
Others 4.0
19.5
10.0
4.5
61.0
1.0 8
39
20
9
122
2
Monthly Income :
Below RM2500
RM2501-RM4000
RM4001-RM5000
RM5001 and above 73.5
12.0
8.5
6.0 147
24
17
12
Respondents Who Has Previously Visited Marrybrown :
Yes
No 99.0
1.0 198
2
Frequency Of Repondents That Visit Marrybrown In A Month :
1-2 times
3-4 times
5-6 times
7 times and above 90.0
7.0
1.0
2.0 180
14
2
4
Time Spent in Marrybrown :
10-20 minutes
30-40 minutes
1-2 hours 31.5
55.0
13.5 63
110
27
Money Spent in Marrybrown :
Below RM20
RM21-RM50
RM51 and above 49.5
39.5
11.0 99
79
22
Table above indicated that out of 200 respondents, 40.5% of the respondents are male and 59.5% are female involve in answering the questionnaires. Respondents between the ages of 18-25 years were observed to be more than other groups as they constituted 57%, this was followed by ages of 26-35 years (30.5%) and 36 years and above (12.5%). The marital status that was mostly observed was the single respondents with a percentage of 75%. 24% of respondents were married, 1% of the respondents were others. In term of education level, 61% of the respondents are students which is the highest group among respondents, while the least is others which is 1% only. For occupation, the distribution shows that 61.0% of the respondents were students, 19.5% of them were government staff, 10% were private company staff, followed by self-employed (4.5%), unemployed (4%), and others (1%).

From the distribution of the respondents, all of them receive monthly income by one means or the other. With 73.5% of them have receiving below RM2500, 12% and 8.5% of the respondents receiving RM2501-RM4000 and RM4001-RM5000 respectively. The least were 6% which is RM5001 and above. Besides, the result shows that 99% of the respondents have visited Marrybrown before while only 1% never visited Marrybrown before. Most of the respondents visit Marrybrown for 1-2 times in a month (90%) followed by 3-4 times in a month (7%). For time respondents spent in Marrybrown, it indicated that the highest percentage is 55% whereby mostly respondents spent about 30-40 minutes at the restaurant. Second highest is 10-20 minutes at 31.5% and the least is 1 hour-2 hour at 13.5%. Out of 100%, 49.5% of them spent not more than RM20 at Marrybrown which is the highest. While 39.5% of them spent about RM21-RM50 and only 11% of the respondents spent RM51 and above.

4.2DESCIPTIVE STATISTICS4.2.1Customers’ Perceived ValueTable 4.2 Descriptive Analysis for Customers’ Perceived Value
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Marrybrown offered good value for money. 200 1.00 5.00 3.37 .892
Marrybrown provides me great value as compared to others. 200 1.00 5.00 3.17 .878
Marrybrown experience was satisfying. 200 1.00 5.00 3.27 .996
The price paid for Marrybrown is very acceptable. 200 1.00 5.00 3.42 .881
Marrybrown appears to be a bargain. 200 1.00 5.00 3.25 .842
Valid N (listwise) 200 Mean 3.30 Table above show the list of statements in Section B of the questionnaire. The highest mean is 3.42 whereas the respondents agreed that the price paid for Marrybrown is very acceptable. Meanwhile, the lowest mean value is 3.17 where the respondent think Marrybrown provides great value as compared to others. The overall mean for perceived value was 3.30. This indicated that overall, the respondents’ perceived value on Marrybrown was above average.

4.2.2Brand AwarenessTable 4.3 Descriptive Analysis for Brand Awareness
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
I am aware of Marrybrown existence. 200 2.00 5.00 4.36 .796
Marrybrown is highly recognized. 200 1.00 5.00 3.57 1.020
I have heard a lot about Marrybrown. 200 1.00 5.00 3.45 1.083
When I think of fast food outlets in my area, this brand first comes to my mind. 200 1.00 5.00 2.44 1.141
I know what the restaurant’s physical appearance looks like. 200 1.00 5.00 3.59 1.131
Valid N (listwise) 200 Mean 3. 48 Table above shows the five statements in Section C of the questionnaires. The highest mean is 4.36 where the respondents are aware of Marrybrown existence. Meanwhile, the lowest mean is 2.44 goes to the statement that this brand always comes first in mind when they think of fast food outlets.

4.2.3Brand AssociationTable 4.4 Descriptive Analysis for Brand Association
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Marrybown has attractive décor. 200 1.00 5.00 3.44 .877
Marrybown offers a secure environment. 200 1.00 5.00 3.70 .791
Staff members are available to provide service. 200 1.00 5.00 3.78 .798
Marrybrown has a good ambience. 200 1.00 5.00 3.71 .849
Marrybrown is a safe place to go to. 200 1.00 5.00 3.78 .803
The facilities are clean. 200 1.00 5.00 3.73 .837
Marrybrown has good services. 200 1.00 5.00 3.71 .894
Valid N (listwise) 200 Mean 3.69 Table above shows the set of statements include in Section D on the questionnaires. The highest mean in this section is 3.78 where the respondents agreed that this fast food outlet is a safe place to go. Meanwhile, the lowest mean is 3.44 represent the respondents think that this fast food outlet has an attractive decoration.

4.2.4Brand LoyaltyTable 4.5 Descriptive Analysis for Brand Loyalty
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
I will buy this brand the next time I buy fast food meal. 200 1.00 5.00 2.95 1.048
I usually use this restaurant as my first choice compared to other restaurants. 200 1.00 5.00 2.44 1.035
I am committed to this brand. 200 1.00 5.00 2.41 1.135
I would be willing to pay a higher price for this brand over other brands. 200 1.00 5.00 2.33 1.090
I am satisfied with the visit to this restaurant. 200 1.00 5.00 3.06 1.018
I would recommend this restaurant to others. 200 1.00 5.00 3.01 .987
I will continue to visit this restaurant the next time. 200 1.00 5.00 2.91 1.023
Valid N (listwise) 200 Mean 2.73 Table above present the seven statements on brand loyalty. The highest mean is 3.06 where the respondents are satisfied with the visit to this restaurant. Meanwhile, the lowest mean is 2.33 where the respondents are willing to pay a higher price for this brand over other brands.

4.2.5Perceived QualityTable 4.6 Descriptive Analysis for Perceived Quality
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
The staff of Marrybrown gives customers individual attention. 200 1.00 5.00 3.43 .799
Well-dressed, clean and neat staff. 200 2.00 5.00 3.72 .792
It is very convenient to purchase from Marrybrown. 200 1.00 5.00 3.54 .873
I can rely on Marrybrown to keep promises and perform with the best interest of the customers at heart. 200 1.00 5.00 3.22 .857
Marrybrown serves high quality food. 200 1.00 5.00 3.26 .989
Marrybrown serves high quality beverages. 200 1.00 5.00 3.27 .921
The staff of Marrybrown handles complaints of customers effectively. 200 1.00 5.00 3.35 .824
Valid N (listwise) 200 Mean 3. 40 Table above shows the seven statements on perceived quality. The highest mean is 3.72 which indicate that the respondents agreed that the staff of Marrybrown are well-dressed, clean and neat. Meanwhile, the lowest mean is 3.22 represents the respondents rely on Marrybrown to keep promises and perform with the best interest of the customers at heart.

4.2.6All ConstructsTable 4.7 Descriptive Analysis for All Constructs
Constructs N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
CUSTOMERS’
PERCEIVED VALUE 200 1.20 5.00 3.30 .758
BRAND AWARENESS 200 1.80 5.00 3.48 .725
BRAND ASSOCIATION 200 1.29 5.00 3.69 .696
BRAND LOYALTY 200 1.00 5.00 2.73 .893
PERCEIVED QUALITY 200 1.29 5.00 3.40 .713
Valid N (listwise) 200 Table above shows the descriptive statistics analysis for all variables in this research. The total respondent for this research is 200 respondents. Each section contains a set of statement that require respondents to indicate their degree of agreement. The highest mean score goes to brand awareness (3.69) and the lowest mean score is brand loyalty (2.73). The finding show acceptable variability within the data as the standard deviation value is between 0.696 and 0.893.

4.3RELIABILITY TESTAccording to Sekaran and Bougie (2011), reliability test is using for testing both of consistency and stability of variables. Zikmund (2010) stated that the closer reliability, the higher the internal consistency reliability. It was also to ensure that the questionnaire items were free from error and consistent result. The researcher used reliability test to test each items whether the variables is accepted. Cronbach’s Alpha should be near to 1 which indicted higher internal consistency reliability. Table below show details about the Cronbach Alpha rule. The finding of reliability test is shown as follow:
Table 4.8 Summary of Reliability Test for all Variables
Variables Cronbach’s alpha No. of items Internal consistency
Customers’ Perceived Value 0.898 5 Good
Brand Awareness 0.733 5 Good
Brand Association 0.926 7 Excellent
Brand Loyalty 0.937 7 Excellent
Perceived Quality 0.920 7 Excellent
The reliability of the independent variable is considered as acceptable if the value is above 0.60. Reliability with less than 0.60 are considered as poor while those in the range of 0.70 ranges, is good and those above 0.90 is considered as excellent.
The table above showed the result of Cronbach’s Alpha for each of the variables. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha for consumer perceived value (dependent variable) is 0.898. It indicates that the internal consistency is good and the questions developed is reliable. The reliability value of brand awareness is 0.733. The internal consistency is good because it is in the ranges of 0.70 and it is valid and accepted. Next, for the brand association, the value is 0.926 considered as excellent because the value is near to 1 and it is valid and accepted. While for brand loyalty, the reliability value is excellent because the value is 0.937. Lastly, perceived quality also showed excellent internal consistency with the value of 0.920. On the overall, the reliability of all the measures was comfortably above 0.60, ranging from 0.733 to 0.937. Hence, it can be said that reliability assumptions on all constructs are confirmed and met the minimum required value of 0.60 as reported by Pallant (2007). In general, the high internal consistency level indicates the high reliability of test scores.

4.4PEARSON CORRELATION ANALYSISTable 4.9 Correlation for All Variables
CPV AWARE. ASSOC. LOYALTY QUALITY
CPV Pearson Correlation 1 .609** .416** .661** .681**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 200 200 200 200 200
AWARE. Pearson Correlation .609** 1 .623** .695** .644**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 200 200 200 200 200
ASSOC. Pearson Correlation .416** .623** 1 .584** .652**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 200 200 200 200 200
LOYALTY Pearson Correlation .661** .695** .584** 1 .679**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 200 200 200 200 200
QUALITY Pearson Correlation .681** .644** .652** .679** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 200 200 200 200 200
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). An easy way to detect multicollinearity is to calculate correlation coefficient for all pairs of predictor variables. Multicollinearity basically is a statistical phenomenon in which two or more predictors in a regression model are moderately or highly correlated. The value of correlation coefficient between pairs of variables must be below than 0.90. If more it will indicate the existence of multicollinearity. When it exists, it can cause chaos on the analysis and thereby limit the research conclusion that we can draw. Based on the table above, it showed that all the values of correlations are below than 0.90, so there is no multicollinearity arises in this research.

4.5REGRESSION ANALYSIS4.5.1Coefficient of DeterminationTable 4.10 Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .756a .571 .562 .50159
a. Predictors: (Constant), BRAND AWARENESS, BRAND ASSOCIATION, BRAND LOYALTY, PERCEIVED QUALITY
Adjusted R square = 0.562
The model summary of the regression test is shown in the table above. It indicates the R-Squared (R²) is 0.562. It shows that only 56.2% of consumer perceived value of Marrybrown can be explained by all independent variables which are brand awareness, brand association, brand loyalty and perceived quality, which is relatively high. Meanwhile, another 43.8% is explained by another factor which is not included in the model.

4.5.2F-testTable 4.11 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 65.326 4 16.332 64.912 .000a
Residual 49.061 195 .252 Total 114.387 199 a. Predictors: (Constant), BRAND AWARENESS, BRAND ASSOCIATION, BRAND
LOYALTY, PERCEIVED QUALITY
b. Dependent Variable: CUSTOMERS’ PERCEIVED VALUE
F-value = 64.912 (0.000) – significant
Table above indicates the F-test is 64.912. The p-value for the F-test statistics is 0.000 which is less than 0.05 significance level. Therefore, it is significant and it means that at least one of the independent variables is useful in order to predict customers’ perceive value.. The overall regression model is reliable since the research show significant value which is 0.00 or 100%.

4.5.3Regression CoefficientTable 4.12 Regression Coefficient
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) .928 .216 4.302 .000
BRAND AWARENESS .234 .075 .224 3.125 .002
BRAND ASSOCIATION -.226 .072 -.207 -3.114 .002
BRAND LOYALTY .268 .061 .316 4.366 .000
PERCEIVED QUALITY .486 .077 .457 6.340 .000
La. Dependent Variable: CUSTOMERS’ PERCEIVED VALUE Below shows the appropriate model that is used from the result given.

Consumer perceived value = ? + ?? IV? + ?? IV? + ?? IV? + ?= 0.928 + 0.234 (brand awareness) + -0.226 (brand association) + 0.268 (brand loyalty) + 0. 486 (perceived quality) + ?Based on the result of the data given, there are four types of independent variables that are used to analyse the effects on the dependent variable (customers’ perceived value of Marrybrown). The independent variables that affect the dependent variable shows the significant value below than 0.05.

The result showed that the most significant variable among all the independent variables is perceived quality with the highest beta, 0.486 and significant value of 0.000 (< 0.05). It is followed by the brand loyalty with the second highest of beta value that is 0.268 and significant value of 0.000 (< 0.05). While for brand association, the beta value is 0.226 and significant value is 0.002 which is below than 0.05. Lastly, brand awareness with beta value of 0.234 and value of 0.002 shows significant because (< 0.05).
The result of the analysis indicated that brand awareness, brand association, brand loyalty and perceived quality significantly influence customers’ perceived value of Marrybrown.

4.6TOWS ANALYSISStrength-Opportunity (S-O)
Marrybrown is known of offering a home grown with variety of food product unlike other brand KFC or Mc Donald which specializes on burgers or chicken products. Its ability to adapt to market needs with the unique way and innovative ideas creates differentiation and allows them to grab the opportunity for customers who wants more than just burgers or chicken food products. With rapid growth of tourist visiting Malaysia especially from Southeast Asia countries with a registered F & B expenditure of RM10.1 Billion in year 2017, gives an opportunity for Marrybrown to increase more sales through its Halal food and choices available. This give an advantage to capture more sales as most visitors from neighbouring countries are used to Malaysian food and this is what makes Marrybrown special being a choice for Asian taste. With the improved infrastructure, number of new malls are available and Marrybrown should capitalize by opening more outlet giving greater accessibility to consumers when the need arises. This helps to bring the brand into customers mind as one of the top choices when visiting Quick Service Restaurant.

Strength-Threat (S-T)
Marrybrown’s home-grown recipe, variety of choices, Asian taste are the strength that differentiate between Marrybrown from other QSR brands. Beside its normal menus like Burgers and Fried Chicken that are common to others, Marrybrown has its local delights that consist of Chicken Rice, Chicken Porridge, Curry Noodle and Spicy Porridge that are not found at other QSR brands. Being different will always be remembered and this will reduce the threat from the competitors. Being home-grown recipe, Marrybrown has a great advantage in managing its recipe that suits local Malaysian. Marrybrown may introduce an organic products or less sugar for carbonated drinks to suit people that is health conscious. Marrybrown too can initiate information on calorie per serving for every meal they served as part of educating the consumers. This is seen as a good initiative supporting government effort to reduce obesity and creating a healthy lifestyle among the Malaysian. Again, being different in a positive way that will reduce threat from the competitors.

Weaknesses-Opportunity (W-O)
Food enthusiast among Malaysian are curious about new invention when it comes to food. It will go viral if they are new especially if the food have good taste, unique presentation and value for money. Product innovation using an e-commerce and technology will make the brand popular among others. Slogan “Something Different” already making Marrybrown different from others and they may want to try something like “Create your Own Taste’ where customer can use an interactive application for their own selection of taste. This can help to identify its target market and improve its product positioning because some product seems not to register into customer’s mind and by customizing an apps and understanding customers wants helps to facilitate Marrybrown in developing its strategy. Improved infrastructure creates new channel for distribution and Marrybrown can capitalize this by increasing more branches or outlets hence giving more presence and reputation in the market. This new channels too helps the company to advertise themselves as part of their media exposure.

Weaknesses-Threat (W-O)
Marrybrown should position the product well and to which market it is targeting. The whole idea is to deliver what has been promised and to get customer to like it, continue to use it and tell their friends. Marybrown has various products and every products deliver different messages to consumers. It may vary accordingly based on type of customers and the channel they are using to market the products. What Marrybrown can do is to deliver more messages to the customers about its unique home grown product for example its local delights which is different to other QSR brands. Placing more commercials on TV during prime time, banners at traffic lights and using most viewed social network will work effectively in the promotion.
Marrybrown will be able to reduce threat from more established QSR brands through its unique home-grown products and expansion of online purchase and delivery services to reach the consumers effectively. Being a more responsible QSR brand, Marrybrown can initiate a move to a healthy product by providing information on calories consumption. This help to reduce threat on switching to other brand. Value for money products help during the declining economy and Marrybrown do offer ‘All Time Snacks’ for its Burgers and Muffin.

4.7SUMMARYThis chapter discussed on the analysis and findings of the research that includes the swot analysis of Marrybrown, respondents’ background, descriptive statistics, reliability test, pearson correlation, regression analysis and tows analysis of Marrybrown. The next chapter discussed on the discussion, conclusion and recommendation.

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.0PREAMBLEThis chapter provides the discussion, conclusion and recommendation particularly from the findings of the research. This chapter may include personal outlook, thoughts and several useful suggestions to improve the customers’ perceived value in Marrybrown restaurants. It is hoped that these recommendations will be taken into consideration and will be useful for future research.

5.1DISCUSSIONThe objectives of this study were to measure the level of customers’ perceived value of Marrybrown and the impact of brand equity elements (brand awareness, brand association, brand loyalty and perceived quality) on customers’ perceived value.

As for general information of the respondents, it was found that majority of the respondents which income below RM2500 preferred Marrybrown restaurant which could mean they feel that the price are affordable and worth to buy. They also prefer this kind of ready to eat foods to save both time and money. Besides, 99% of the respondents are repeated customers of Marrybrown restaurant. This 99% of respondents willing to come back and visit the restaurant to repurchase the food. Respondents choose to go there because they like and satisfied with the Marrybrown food. Also, 55% spent their time there about 30-40 minutes which they considered choosing Marrybrown as time-saving products. Because of their limited time and busy schedule, they do not want to spend a lot of time ordering and waiting for meals. Basically, 49.5% of the respondents spend less than RM20 for a meal when they visit to Marrybrown restaurant.

The results of conducted research provide information about all the brand equity elements and customers’ perceived value. The importance of the research is immense. The findings have practical value as they might be useful for Marrybrown in distinguishing which brand equity elements are effective and have a strong impact on customers’ perceived value and which should be rejected.

All of the brand equity dimensions have significant impact on customers’ perceived value towards Marrybrown. The findings showed that brand awareness has significant impact on customers’ perceived value. Greater support was reported in previous studies which also found that brand awareness positively affects perceived value Baldauf et al., (2003). The findings of this study has revealed that high-brand awareness can produce a higher perceived value than low-brand awareness can (Lin et al., 2013). Based on the result, most of respondents are aware about the existence of Marrybrown, which means they are familiar with the brand and qualities of the products. This brand awareness will affect the perception and attitudes of the customers and it drive brand choice. Without brand awareness, repeat purchases will less likely.

The results of this study also indicated that brand association has significantly impact customers’ perceived value. This brand association refers to thoughts, feelings and images that a brand evokes in the consumer’s mind. It is anything which is deep seated in customer’s mind about Marrybrown. Thus, this associations have direct impact on Marrybrown value itself, at the same time influence consumer’s behaviour and ultimately their purchases. A positive brand association lead to customers having a positive impression about the product.

The findings also revealed that brand loyalty has significant impact on customers’ perceived value. The finding was supported by Phan et. al. (2016) who indicated that brand loyalty is an important dimension of brand equity amongst the sample customers it has significant effects on customers’ perceived value. Previous researches also confirmed that brand loyalty were positively affected the customers’ perceived value Sun (2004).
Perceived quality also showed significant positive impact on customers’ perceived value. This result is consistent with previous study by Sweeney et al. (1999) who found that there is positive effect of perceived quality on perceived value. This result indicates that the lodging product is high in the experience attribute, and customers’ value perception is mostly swayed by their experience of service quality. Previous study also confirmed that the effect of perceived quality indirectly effect customers’ perceived value (Phan et. al, 2016). In other words, if the restaurant offer good service to their customer, the perceived value increases in their mind, which in turn leads them to revisit the restaurant. Quick-service restaurant operators should understand that customers come back because of perceived value, and service quality is one of the basic components of perceived value.

5.2CONCLUSIONIn conclusion, the findings finally achieve the overall objectives of this study. The purpose of this study is to emphasize the impact of brand equity towards customers’ perceived value. Brand awareness and brand association was found to be the most significant element in influencing the customers’ perceived value.
Fast food industry in Malaysia is an increasingly competitive business because consumer behaviour is changing constantly just as society is and the ease of service switching. Thus, managers are always confronted with the challenges. In this regard, they should put more efforts in managing and marketing the restaurants to retain customers and increase market share. The fast food restaurant should differentiate their images through symbols and branding and particularly, designing of superior delivery process. Creating brand equity, that is, building a strong brand, is a successful strategy for differentiating a product from competing brands (Aaker 1991). Brand equity provides sustainable competitive advantages because it creates meaningful competitive barriers. Brand equity is developed through enhanced brand awareness, brand association, brand loyalty and perceived quality, which cannot be either built or destroyed in the short run but can be created only in the long run through carefully designed marketing investments. Thus, brand equity is durable and sustainable, and product with strong brand equity is a valuable asset to a firm.
Customers’ perceived value is crucial in order for the fast food restaurant to survive and prosper in the highly competitive sector with other rivals. As such fast food restaurant services should build their advertising messages around customer awareness. Therefore, fast food restaurant services should consider as very critical brand awareness in promotional adverts when building brand equity. The use of other promotional means like sales promotion should have the same focus as advertising to achieve a cohesive brand awareness image. The need is for customer to make on the spot favourable decisions.

5.3RECOMMENDATIONSToday, a brand reflects the quality of a firm’s products rather than the firm’s name, logo, and color etc. In short, the brand is perception of the consumers towards the firm’s. Therefore, firms are creating strong brands to be one step ahead of their rivals in a fierce competition. So, they are developing strategies to increase their brand’s equity. The firms that could not develop such strategies encounters with the risk of extinction. It is significant to note that in global competition one of the important aspects of modem marketing is to create a strong brand.

Based on the research findings, Marrybrown should target those on age between 18–25. This is because customers at this age has higher purchasing power compare to the others. Consumer in this age range is usually college student. A college student’s lifestyle is usually hanging out with friends, going for shopping and movie, doing assignments and travelling. When they hang out, the first place that they will think of is usually fast food restaurant. So, Marrybrown must have clear target market. Unclear target customers must be avoided. Otherwise, competitor like KFC will gain more competitive advantage than Marrybrown. Marrybrown also must have a design that suits its target customers. For instance, study environment must be created if student is the target.

Next, Marrybrown also should do delivery service since most of the teenager nowadays doesn’t like to get out from their room and employees doesn’t have much time to dine in at the restaurant. This will make the customers more convenient.

Besides, to promote healthy products, organic based and with calorie information giving the picture that Marrybrown is not just any fast food products but a healthy food. This helps to develop quality perception in customer’s mind and all the associations making Marrybrown as a healthy food.
Other than that, Marrybrown need to strategically place commercial advertisement in TV, social media and also using banners to create an impact into customer’s mind so the customers will remember Marrybrown when thinking of fast food.
Lastly, website must be a place that provides sufficient information. Marrybrown must present its website with important detail like its marketing mix to enhance people understanding on Marrybrown. Marrybrown should improve their website design and features. There isn’t much information provided in their website. They should add in the price of the meals and increase their creativity for the promotion. Marrybrown also need to clearly disseminate information with regards to various products offerings to its target market through media. This will bring the awareness of product information and customer can easily understand what is associated to it.

5.4SUMMARYThis chapter discussed on the discussion, conclusion and recommendation of this research.

REFERENCESAaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, D.A., 2009. Managing brand equity, Simon and Schuster.

Ahmed, H.T. (2011), “The impact of distribution intensity on brand preference and
brand loyalty”, International Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 56 66
Al-Hawari, M.A. (2011). ‘Do online services contribute to establishing brand equity within
the retail banking context?’, Journal of Relationship Marketing, 10(3): 145–166.

Balaji, M.S. (2011). ‘Building strong service brands: the hierarchical relationship between
brand equity dimensions’, IUP Journal of Brand Management, 8(3): 7–24.

Balamuralikrishna, R. and Dugger, J. (1995). “SWOT analysis: a management tool for initiating new programs in vocational schools”, Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-7.

Baldauf, A., Cravens, K.S., & Binder, G. (2003). Performance consequences of brand equity management: evidence from organization in the value chain. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 12(4), 220-236.

Benefits and limitations of SWOT analysis. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.business.qld.gov.au/starting-business/planning/market-customer research/swot-analysis/benefits-limitations
Berry, L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28(1), 128–137.

Boulding, W., Kalra A., Staelin R. and Zeithaml V. (1993). A dynamic process model of
service quality: From expectations to behavior intentions, Journal of Marketing
Research 30(February): 7-27.

Bowen, J. T., & Chen, S. (2001). The relationship between customer loyalty and
customer satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13, 213–217.

Carmen, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the
SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66(1), 33-55.

Chen, Z. and Dubinsky, A.J. (2003). A conceptual model of perceived customer value in e-
Commerce: A preliminary investigation, Psychology & Marketing, 20(4), 323-347.

Cobb, W.C., Rubble, C., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase
intent. Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 25-40.

Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K., & Hult, G.T. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and
customer satisfaction on consumer behavioural intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218.
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual
framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, 99–113.

Ding, J. (2013). KFC—global strategies. Available online at:
http://fastfoodcrave.blogspot.com/2013/03/kfcglobal-strategies.htmlDoyle, P. (1998). Marketing Management and Strategy, 2nd edn. Great Britain:
Prentice Hall Europe.

Eggert, A., & Ulaga, W. (2002). Customer perceived value: a substitute for satisfaction in
business markets?. Journal of Business & industrial marketing, 17(2/3), 107-
118.

Farquhar, P.H. (1989). “Managing brand equity”, Marketing Research, Vol. 1, September,
pp. 24-33
Ferraro, R., Bettman, J. R., & Chartrand, T.L. (2009). The power of strangers: The effect of
incidental consumer brand encounters on brand choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(5), 729-741.

Fullerton, G. (2005). The impact of brand commitment on loyalty to retail service brands.
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 22(2), 97–110.

Han, H., & Ryu, K. (2009). The roles of the physical environment, price perception,
and customer satisfaction in determining customer loyalty in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 33(4), 487–510.

Ghazinoory, S., Abdi, M. and Mehr, M. (2011). “SWOT methodology: a state-of-the-art review for the past, a framework for the future”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 24-48.

Gupta, G., & Mishra, R. P. (2016). A SWOT analysis of reliability centered maintenance framework. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 22(2), 130-145.

Hair, J. F., Babin, B. Jr., Money, A. H., & Samouel, P. (2003). Essential of business research methods. United Stated of America: John Wiley & Sons.

Hellier, P.K., Geursen, G. M., Carr, R. A. & Rickard, J. A., (2003). Customer repurchase
intention: a general structural equation model. European Journal of Marketing,37(12), 1762–1800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560310495456.

Helms, Marilyn M, & Nixon, Judy. (2010). Exploring SWOT analysis–where are we now? A review of academic research from the last decade. Journal of strategy and management, 3(3), 215-251. Hoyer, W. D., and Brown, S. P. (1990). Effects of Brand Awareness on adding another distracting cue to the choice situation. There- Choice for a Common, Repeat Purchase Product. Journal of Con- fore, the brand ranked as one of the two lowest-quality brands sumer Research 17: 141–148.

Hsieh, M. H., Pan, S. L., & Setiono, R. (2004). Product-, corporate-, and country-image
dimensions and purchase behavior behavior: A multi country analysis”. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 251–270.

Jin Sun, B. (2004). Brand equity, perceived value and revisit intention in the US mid-priced hotel segment (Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University).

Keller KL (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Marketing 57: 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand equity. London: Prentice Hall International.

Keller K.L. (2001). Building customer-based brand equity. Working paper nº 01-107,
Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge.

Keller, K.L. (2008). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing
Brand Equity (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Keller, Kevin L. and Donald R. Lehmann. 2003. How do brands create value? Marketing Management.

May/June 2003.

Kim H-b.; Kim W.G.; An J.A (2003). The effect of consumer-based brand equity on firms’
financial performance. Journal of Consumer Marketing 20(4): 335-351.

Kim, W. G., Jin-Sun, B. ; Kim, H. J., (2008). Multidimensional customer-based brand
equity and its consequences in mid-priced hotels.?Journal of Hospitality ; Tourism Research,?32(2), 235–254. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1096348007313265.

Kotler, P. ; Keller, K. (2016). Marketing management. Essex: Person Education.

Krishnan, H.S. and Chakravarti, D. (1993). “Varieties of brand memory induced by
advertising: Determinants, measures, and relationships”, Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands, Vol. 1.

Lee, H. J., Kumar, A., & Ki, Y. K. (2010). Indian consumer’s brand equity toward a US and
local apparel brand. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 14(3), 469-
485.

Lin, C.-H., S.J. Peter and H.-Y. Shih, (2005). Past progress and future directions in
conceptualizing customer perceived value. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(4): 318-336.

Low, G. S., ; Lamb Jr, C. W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand
associations. Journal of Product ; Brand Management, 9(6), 350-370.

Luarn, P. and Lin, H.H. (2003), “A customer loyalty model for e-service context”, Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 157-167.

Macdonald, E.K., ; Sharp, B.M. (2000). Brand awareness effects on consumer decision
making for a common, repeat purchase product: A replication. Journal of Business Research, 48(1), 5-15.

Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing research: an applied orientation, 6thEd., Pearson
Education, Inc. USA.

Monroe, K.B. (1990),
Pricing: Making Pro?table Decisions
,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Monroe, K. (1990). Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions. 2nd ed. New York, 46.

Motameni, ; Shahrokhi. (1998). Brand Equity Valuation: A Global Perspective. Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 7(4), 275-290.

Oliver, Richard L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty. Journal of Marketing. 63(Special
Issue): 33-44.

Olshavsky, R. W. (1985). Perceived quality in consumer decision making: an integrated
theoretical perspective. Perceived quality, 3-29.

Chan Su Park and V. Srinivasan (1994). A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand equity and its extendibility. Journal of marketing research, 271-288. Propoint. (2017). Building Brand Equity. Retrieved 1 November, 2017, from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/propointgraphics/2017/07/08/building-brand-equity/#26cdcedd6e8f
Ravald, A. and Gronroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship marketing, European
Journal of Marketing, 12, 19-30.

Roscoe, J.T. (1975) Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd
edition. New York: Holt Rinehart ; Winston.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. ; Thornhill, A.(2009). Research methods for business students (4th
ed.). Harlow, England: Prentice Hall.

Sekaran, U., ; Bougie, R. (2009). Research Methods for business 5th ed.

Sekaran, uma dan Roger Bougie. (2010). Edisi 5, Research Method For Business: A
Skill Building Approach. John Wiley @ Sons, New York.

Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building
Approach. 6th Edition, Wiley, New York.

Sekaran, U., ; Bougie, R. (2014). Research methods for business: a skill-building approach (6th ed.). Haddington: John Wiley ; Sons.

Smith, D. C., ; Park, C. W. (1992). The effects of brand extensions on market share and
advertising efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 296.

Sweeney, J.C, Soutar, G.N, ; Johnson, L.W. (1999). The Role of perceived Risk in the
Quality Value Relationship: A Study in a Retail Environment. Journal of Retailing, 75(1), 77-105.

Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a
multiple item scale, Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220.

Taylor, S. A., Celuch, K. ; Goodwin, S. (2004). The importance of brand equity to customer
loyalty. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 13(4), 217-227
The Star Online (2014). Marrybrown seeks expansion in India, aims 75 outlets – Business News. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2014/09/05/marrybrown-on-expansion-plan-in-india-eyes-75-outlets/Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., ; Park, C. W. (2005). The ties that bind: Measuring the
strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 15(1), 77–91.

Trochim, W. M. (2006). Qualitative validity. Research methods knowledge base, 1-3.

Woodruff R.B., Gardial S.F. (1996). “Know your customer: New approaches to
understanding customer value and satisfaction “, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Publishers.

Yoo, B. and Donthu N.( 2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-
based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research 52(1): 1-14.

Yoo B, Donthu N, Lee S (2000). An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and
Brand Equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28: 195-211.

Yoo, M., & Bai, B. (2013). Customer loyalty marketing research: A comparative approach
between hospitality and business journals. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 166–177.

Zeithaml, V. A., (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end
model and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 2–22.

Zhang, S.S., van Doorn, J. and Leeflang, P.S.H. (2014), “Does the importance of
value, brand and relationship equity for customer loyalty differ between Eastern and Western cultures?”, International Business Review, Vol. 23 No. 2014, pp. 284-292.

Zentes, J., Morschett, D., & Schramm-Klein, H. (2008). Brand personality of retailers-
An analysis of its applicability and its effect in store loyalty. The International Journal of Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research, 18(2), 167–184.

APPENDICESAPPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Respondents,
We are student in Master of Business Administration from Faculty of AAGBS, UiTM Shah Alam. We are conducting a research on THE IMPACT OF BRAND EQUITY ON CUSTOMERS’ PERCEIVED VALUE TOWARDS MARRYBROWN. Kindly respond to the questions truthfully and honestly. All information provided is confidential and will be use for academic purpose only. Your cooperation is highly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and kind cooperation.

Kepada Responden,
Kami merupakan pelajar Sarjana Pentadbiran Perniagaan dari Fakulti AAGBS, UiTM Shah Alam. Kami sedang menjalankan kajian tentang KESAN EKUITI JENAMA TERHADAP PERSEPSI PELANGGAN MARRYBROWN. Sila jawab dengan benar dan jujur. Segala maklumat adalah sulit dan hanya akan digunakan untuk tujuan akademik sahaja. Kerjasama anda amatlah dihargai.

Terima kasih di atas masa dan kerjasama yang baik daripada anda.

MOHD HAMIDI BIN ABU BAKAR
2017695988
NURSYAHIRAH BINTI CHE ZAHARI
2017896388
WAN NOOR FARHA BINTI WAN FAUZI
2017848968
SECTION A: RESPONDENT PROFILE
BAHAGIAN A: BUTIRAN PERIBADI RESPONDEN
Please mark “?” in the appropriate box or fill in the relevant information about yourself.

Sila tandakan “?” pada ruang yang berkenaan tentang diri anda.

1914525158750035718751905000Gender / Jantina Male Female
Lelaki Perempuan
3568700190500019145251587500Age / Umur 18 – 25 years 26 – 35 years
18 – 25 tahun 26 – 35 tahun
191452514922500
36 years and above
36 tahun dan ke atas
3584575571500019145255397500Marital Status / Single Married
Status Perkahwinan Bujang Berkahwin
19272252222500 Others
Lain-lain
3609975190500019240501587500Education Level / Primary School Secondary School
Tahap Pendidikan Sekolah rendah Sekolah menengah
3611245317500019272253175000 Diploma Degree
Diploma Ijazah Sarjana Muda
19240502032000 Master/PHD 36226752540 Professional Certificate
Sarjana/PHD Sijil Professional
3635375190500019335751587500Occupation / Unemployed Government staff
Pekerjaan Menganggur Penjawat awam
3646170317500019367503175000 Private company staff Self-employed
Pekerja Swasta Bekerja Sendiri
19431002667000 Students 3622675635 Others
Pelajar Lain-lain
36925256350001943100952500Monthly Income / Below RM 2500 RM 2501 – RM 4000
Pendapatan Bulanan Bawah RM 2500 RM 2501 – RM 4000
36957006350001955800635000 RM 4001 – RM 5000 RM 5001 and above
RM 4001 – RM 5000 RM 5001 dan keatas
7. Have you visited Marrybrown restaurant before?
Adakah anda pernah mengunjungi kedai makanan Marrybrown sebelum ini?
01797 Yes
Ya
03594 No
Tidak
8. How frequent do you visit Marrybrown restaurant in a month?
Berapa kerap anda mengunjungi kedai makanan Marrybrown dalam masa sebulan?
0-240 1-2 times
1-2 kali
01558 3-4 times
3-4 kali
03355 5-6 times
5-6 kali
0-3475 7 times and above
7 kali ke atas
9. How much time do you spent in Marrybrown restaurant?
Berapa lama anda mengambil masa berada di kedai makanan Marrybrown?
01354 10 – 20 minutes
10 – 20 minit
02552 30 – 40 minutes
30 – 40 minit
03750 1 hours – 2 hours
1 jam – 2 jam
10. How much do you normally spent in Marrybrown restaurant?
Berapa banyak yang anda habiskan di kedai makanan Marrybrown?
0515 Below RM20
Bawah RM20
02312 RM21 – RM50
RM21 – RM50
04110 RM51 and above
RM51 dan ke atas
SECTION B: CUSTOMERS’ PERCEIVED VALUE
BAHAGIAN B: PERSEPSI PELANGGAN
Kindly indicate your degree of agreement on the following statement by circling the number.

Sila bulatkan jawapan pada kenyataan berikut berdasarkan tahap persetujuan anda.

No. Statement 67945015430400Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1. Marrybrown offered good value for money.

Marrybrown menawarkan nilai yang baik untuk harga. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Marrybrown provides me great value as compared to others.

Marrybrown memberi saya nilai yang hebat berbanding dengan jenama lain. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Marrybrown experience was satisfying.

Pengalaman bersama marrybrown memberi kepuasan. 1 2 3 4 5
4. The price paid for Marrybrown is very acceptable.

Harga yang dibayar untuk Marrybrown sangat berpatutan. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Marrybrown appears to be a bargain.

Marrybrown kelihatannya lebih berbaloi. 1 2 3 4 5
SECTION C: BRAND AWARENESS
BAHAGIAN C: KESEDARAN JENAMA
For the following question, please circle the appropriate number.

Untuk soalan yang berikut, sila bulatkan nombor yang sesuai pada setiap kenyataan.

No. Statement 67945015430400Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1. I am aware of Marrybrown existence.

Saya sedar kewujudan Marrybrown. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Marrybrown is highly recognized.

Marrybrown sangat dikenali. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I have heard a lot about Marrybrown.

Saya telah banyak mendengar mengenai Marrybrown. 1 2 3 4 5
4. When I think of fast food outlets in my area, this brand first comes to my mind.

Setiap kali saya memikirkan kedai makanan segera di kawasan saya, saya akan mula mengingati Marrybrown. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I know what the restaurant’s physical appearance looks like.

Saya tahu apa rupa bentuk atau lambang restoran ini. 1 2 3 4 5
SECTION D: BRAND ASSOCIATION
BAHAGIAN D: PENYATUAN JENAMA
For the following question, please circle the appropriate number.

Untuk soalan yang berikut, sila bulatkan nombor yang sesuai pada setiap kenyataan.

No. Statement 67945015430400Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1. Marrybrown outlet has attractive décor.

Kedai makanan segera Marrybrown mempunyai hiasan yang menarik. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Marrybrown outlet offers a secure environment.

Kedai makanan segera Marrybrown menawarkan persekitaran yang selamat. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Staff members are available to provide service.

Pekerja bersedia memberi perkhidmatan. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Marrybrown outlet has a good ambience.

Kedai makanan segera Marrybrown mempunyai suasana yang baik. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Marrybrown outlet is a safe place to go to.

Kedai makanan segera Marrybrown adalah tempat yang selamat untuk pergi.

1 2 3 4 5
6. The facilities are clean.

Kemudahan yang disediakan adalah bersih.

1 2 3 4 5
7. Marrybrown outlet has good services.

Kedai makanan segera Marrybrown menawarkan perkhidmatan yang baik. 1 2 3 4 5
SECTION E: BRAND LOYALTY
BAHAGIAN E: KESETIAAN JENAMA
For the following question, please circle the appropriate number.

Untuk soalan yang berikut, sila bulatkan nombor yang sesuai pada setiap kenyataan.

No. Statement 67945015430400Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1. I will buy this brand the next time I buy fast food meal.

Saya akan membeli Marrybrown jika saya membeli makanan segera di lain hari. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I usually use this restaurant as my first choice compared to other restaurants.

Saya biasanya menggunakan restoran ini sebagai pilihan pertama saya berbanding dengan restoran lain. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I am committed to this brand.

Saya komited dengan Marrybrown. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I would be willing to pay a higher price for this brand over other brands.

Saya akan sanggup membayar harga yang lebih tinggi untuk jenama ini berbanding jenama lain. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I am satisfied with the visit to this restaurant.

Saya berpuas hati dengan kunjungan ke restoran ini. 1 2 3 4 5
6. I would recommend this restaurant to others.

Saya akan mengesyorkan restoran ini kepada orang lain. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I will continue to visit this restaurant the next time.

Saya akan terus mengunjungi restoran ini pada masa akan datang. 1 2 3 4 5
SECTION F: PERCEIVED QUALITY
BAHAGIAN F: PERSEPSI TERHADAP KUALITI
For the following question, please circle the appropriate number.

Untuk soalan yang berikut, sila bulatkan nombor yang sesuai pada setiap kenyataan.

No. Statement 67945015430400Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1. The staff of Marrybrown gives customers individual attention.

Pekerja Marrybrown memberi perhatian kepada pelanggan. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Well-dressed, clean and neat staff.

Pekerja berpakaian bersih dan kemas. 1 2 3 4 5
3. It is very convenient to purchase from Marrybrown.

Ia sangat mudah dan selesa membeli di Marrybrown. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I can rely on Marrybrown to keep promises and perform with the best interest of the customers at heart.

Saya boleh bergantung kepada Marrybrown untuk terus menjanjikan dan melaksanaka kepentingan terbaik pelanggan.

1 2 3 4 5
5. Marrybrown serves high quality food.

Marrybrown menyajikan makanan yang berkualiti tinggi. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Marrybrown serves high quality beverages.

Marrybrown menyajikan minuman berkualiti tinggi. 1 2 3 4 5
7. The staff of Marrybrown handles complaints of customers effectively.

Pekerja Marrybrown mengendalikan aduan pelanggan dengan berkesan.

1 2 3 4 5
Thank you for your cooperation. All of your responses will be kept as private and confidential.

Terima kasih di atas kerjasama anda. Segala respon anda di atas adalah sulit dan persendirian.

APPENDIX B: SPSS OUTPUTFREQUENCY ANALYSIS
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 81 40.5 40.5 40.5
Female 119 59.5 59.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0 Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 18-25 years 114 57.0 57.0 57.0
26-35 years 61 30.5 30.5 87.5
36 years and above 25 12.5 12.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0 Marital Status
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Single 150 75.0 75.0 75.0
Married 48 24.0 24.0 99.0
Others 2 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0 Education Level
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Secondary School 6 3.0 3.0 3.0
Diploma 11 5.5 5.5 8.5
Degree 88 44.0 44.0 52.5
Master/PHD 91 45.5 45.5 98.0
Professional Certificate 4 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0 Occupation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Unemployed 8 4.0 4.0 4.0
Government Staff 39 19.5 19.5 23.5
Private company staff 20 10.0 10.0 33.5
Self-employed 9 4.5 4.5 38.0
Students 122 61.0 61.0 99.0
Others 2 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0 Monthly Income
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Below RM2500 147 73.5 73.5 73.5
RM2501-RM4000 24 12.0 12.0 85.5
RM4001-RM5000 17 8.5 8.5 94.0
RM5001 and above 12 6.0 6.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0 Have you visited Marrybrown restaurant before?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 198 99.0 99.0 99.0
No 2 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0 How frequent do you visit Marrybrown restaurant in a month?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1-2 times 180 90.0 90.0 90.0
3-4 times 14 7.0 7.0 97.0
5-6 times 2 1.0 1.0 98.0
7 times and above 4 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0 How much time do you spent in Marrybrown restaurant?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 10-20 minutes 63 31.5 31.5 31.5
30-40 minutes 110 55.0 55.0 86.5
1 hours-2 hours 27 13.5 13.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0 How much do you normally spent in Marrybrown restaurant?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Below RM20 99 49.5 49.5 49.5
RM21-RM50 79 39.5 39.5 89.0
RM51 and above 22 11.0 11.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items
.898 5
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items
.733 5
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items
.926 7
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items
.937 7
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items
.920 7
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ANALYSIS
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Marrybrown offered good value for money. 200 1.00 5.00 3.3650 .89205
Marrybrown provides me great value as compared to others. 200 1.00 5.00 3.1650 .87843
Marrybrown experience was satisfying. 200 1.00 5.00 3.2700 .99602
The price paid for Marrybrown is very acceptable. 200 1.00 5.00 3.4150 .88128
Marrybrown appears to be a bargain. 200 1.00 5.00 3.2450 .84173
Valid N (listwise) 200 Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
I am aware of Marrybrown existence. 200 2.00 5.00 4.3600 .79597
Marrybrown is highly recognized. 200 1.00 5.00 3.5650 1.02028
I have heard a lot about Marrybrown. 200 1.00 5.00 3.4450 1.08298
When I think of fast food outlets in my area, this brand first comes to my mind. 200 1.00 5.00 2.4400 1.14145
I know what the restaurant’s physical appearance looks like. 200 1.00 5.00 3.5850 1.13100
Valid N (listwise) 200 Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
This fast food outlet has attractive décor. 200 1.00 5.00 3.4350 .87728
This fast food outlet offers a secure environment. 200 1.00 5.00 3.6950 .79063
Staff members are available to provide service. 200 1.00 5.00 3.7750 .79848
This fast food outlet has a good ambience. 200 1.00 5.00 3.7050 .84946
This fast food outlet is a safe place to go to. 200 1.00 5.00 3.7800 .80301
The facilities are clean. 200 1.00 5.00 3.7300 .83702
This fast food outlet has good services. 200 1.00 5.00 3.7100 .89437
Valid N (listwise) 200 Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
I will buy this brand the next time I buy fast food meal. 200 1.00 5.00 2.9450 1.04760
I usually use this restaurant as my first choice compared to other restaurants. 200 1.00 5.00 2.4350 1.03495
I am committed to this brand. 200 1.00 5.00 2.4050 1.13464
I would be willing to pay a higher price for this brand over other brands. 200 1.00 5.00 2.3300 1.08951
I am satisfied with the visit to this restaurant. 200 1.00 5.00 3.0550 1.01841
I would recommend this restaurant to others. 200 1.00 5.00 3.0100 .98731
I will continue to visit this restaurant the next time. 200 1.00 5.00 2.9100 1.02330
Valid N (listwise) 200 Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
The staff of Marrybrown gives customers individual attention. 200 1.00 5.00 3.4300 .79893
Well-dressed, clean and neat staff. 200 2.00 5.00 3.7150 .79178
It is very convenient to purchase from Marrybrown. 200 1.00 5.00 3.5350 .87326
I can rely on Marrybrown to keep promises and perform with the best interest of the customers at heart. 200 1.00 5.00 3.2200 .85748
Marrybrown serves high quality food. 200 1.00 5.00 3.2600 .98858
Marrybrown serves high quality beverages. 200 1.00 5.00 3.2650 .92142
The staff of Marrybrown handles complaints of customers effectively. 200 1.00 5.00 3.3450 .82424
Valid N (listwise) 200 Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
MEANB 200 1.20 5.00 3.2920 .75816
MEANC 200 1.80 5.00 3.4790 .72484
MEAND 200 1.29 5.00 3.6900 .69576
MEANE 200 1.00 5.00 2.7271 .89429
MEANF 200 1.29 5.00 3.3957 .71345
Valid N (listwise) 200 CORRELATIONS ANALYSIS
Correlations
MEANB MEANC MEAND MEANE MEANF
MEANB Pearson Correlation 1 .609** .416** .661** .681**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 200 200 200 200 200
MEANC Pearson Correlation .609** 1 .623** .695** .644**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 200 200 200 200 200
MEAND Pearson Correlation .416** .623** 1 .584** .652**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 200 200 200 200 200
MEANE Pearson Correlation .661** .695** .584** 1 .679**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 200 200 200 200 200
MEANF Pearson Correlation .681** .644** .652** .679** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 200 200 200 200 200
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .756a .571 .562 .50159
a. Predictors: (Constant), MEANF, MEANC, MEAND, MEANE
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 65.326 4 16.332 64.912 .000a
Residual 49.061 195 .252 Total 114.387 199 a. Predictors: (Constant), MEANF, MEANC, MEAND, MEANE b. Dependent Variable: MEANB Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) .928 .216 4.302 .000
MEANC .234 .075 .224 3.125 .002
MEAND -.226 .072 -.207 -3.114 .002
MEANE .268 .061 .316 4.366 .000
MEANF .486 .077 .457 6.340 .000
a. Dependent Variable: MEANB