A Situational Analysis and Market Objective for Apple Company

A Situational Analysis and Market Objective for Apple Company

Exploring the link between brand equity and brand success: Krispy Kreme Doughnuts in Thailand

Name

Academic Institution

Abstract
This study explored the link between brand equity and brand success of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts in Thailand. Two hundred KKD consumers from four KKD branches in Bangkok, Thailand were surveyed to examine how their perception about the KKD brand equity affects their buying behavior. The survey also examined how the company’s communication and promotions efforts and adaptation strategies affect the purchase behavior of consumers. The result found that brand equity, communication and promotions efforts and adaptation strategies has a statistically significant positive impact on the purchase behavior of KKD consumers at the 0.05 level of significance. This implies that purchase behavior of KKD consumers are influenced by their perception about the brand. This study provided an in depth explanation about what contributed to KKD’s phenomenal success in the Thai doughnut market after just a few months of operation. It also helps the company understand the consumers’ perception about the products and how their perceptions affect their buying behavior. This research is important for academic study since it presented links between theory and practice, which could help students and researchers in verifying the accuracy of theories and understanding their applications in the real world.

Table of Contents
Abstract    2
Table of Contents    3
List of Tables    6
List of Figures    7
Chapter 1: Introduction    8
1.0 Overview    8
1.1 Problem Statement    9
1.2 Research Questions    9
1.3 Research Aims and Objectives    10
1.4 Significance of Study    10
1.5 Researcher’s Motivation    11
1.6. Summary of Other Chapters    11
Chapter 2: Literature Review    13
2.0 Overview    13
2.1. Brand Equity    13
2.2 Elements of Branding    16
2.2.1 Brand Attitude and Brand Image    16
2.2.2 Brand Awareness    18
2.2.3 Brand Personality    19
2.2.4 Brand Value    21
2.2.5 Brand Promotion    22
2.3 Consumer Behaviour    25
2.3.1 The Steps in the Purchasing Process    29
2.3.2 Factors Influencing Consumer Decision    33
2.4 KKD and Doughnut Business in Thailand    40
2.5. KKD Company Profile    40
2.6. Marketing Strategy of KKD in Thailand    42
2.7. Summary    43
Chapter 3: Research Methodology    45
3.0. Introduction    45
3.1. Research design    45
3.2. Research Participants and sampling method    48
3.3. Instrument and data collection    50
3.4. Reliability and validity    52
3.5. Data Analysis    53
3.6. Ethical considerations    55
3.7. Summary    56
Chapter 4. Results and Discussions    59
4.1. Descriptive Statistics    59
4.2. Reliability test of instrument    61
4.3. Purchasing behavior of the respondents    62
4.5. Relationship between purchase behavior and brand equity    67
4.6. Relationship between purchase behaviour and communication and promotion efforts of KKD    73
4.7. Relationship between purchase behaviour and adaptation strategy of KKD    74
4.8. Summary of results and implications to the industry    75
Chapter 5. Conclusions    76
References    77
Appendix 1. Sample Questionnaire    91
Appendix 2: Summary of Demographic Profile of Respondents    95
Appendix 3: Reliability Statistics    96
Appendix 4: Purchase behavior of the respondents    97

List of Tables
Table 2. 1: Brand Personality Types (Aaker 1996)    20
Table 2. 2: Purchase Decisions Continuum    27
Table 2. 3: Comparative chart of the characteristics of limited and extensive decision-making    28
Table 2. 4: Correlation between Thai doughnut consumer behaviour and Brand attributes under Boyd and Walker’s (1990: 119) frame of reference    32
Table 3. 1 Linkages between the instrument, research question, objective and hypotheses of the study    51
Table 4. 1 Cross-tabulation of Age and Income                                                            61
Table 4. 2 Descriptive Statistics of the respondents’ ratings to the brand equity    63
Table 4. 3 Spearman’s rho correlation of purchase behavior and demographic characteristics    63
Table 4. 4 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test    65
Table 4. 5 Correlation between brand equity drivers and purchase behavior    67

List of Figures
Figure 2. 1 Brand Equity    15
Figure 2. 2 Components of Brand Awareness    19
Figure 2. 3 Imagined Framework of KKD’s Brand value    22
Figure 2. 4 Pru’s Alphabetical Model    24
Figure 2. 5Culture and Consumer Behaviour (Rice 1997)    35
Figure 2. 6 Thailand under Hofstede’s 5-dimensional Scale    39
Figure 4. 1 Distribution of the KKD respondents by age                                                60
Figure 4. 2 Distribution plot of the respondents’ frequency of buying doughnuts    66
Figure 4. 3 Distribution plot of the respondents’ frequency of buying KKD    67

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.0 Overview
This study aims to explore the relationship between brand equity and recent success of Krispy Kreme Doughnut (KKD) in Thailand. KKD, the American multinational brand with a product line of doughnut, coffee & beverages, iced drinks, and ice creams took only one year to top the doughnut market of Thailand. It is reported that the number of consumers lining up to buy KKD product is still increasing with time.
The above situation resembles what Ailawadi, Lehmann, and Neslin (2003) stated while defining brand equity, that the influence of brand equity can be observed in a situation where more people ignore issues such as delay in getting the product or paying more for the desired brand. Interestingly, KKD’s 2011 annual report explains that aside from enhancing their relationship with the customers and promoting their values, the brand’s approach to marketing can be seen as a natural manifestation of the cumulative power of its brand attributes and brand equity. Thus, from this perspective, brand equity can be linked to KKD’s success in Thailand. Since there is no universally acceptable definition of brand equity (Raggio & Leone 2007), it would be difficult to explain that link.
To address this issue, researchers point at the invisible mechanism of brand equity that involves intrinsic elements of human mind. For example, Raggio and Leone (2007:384) observed that a brand carries promises of several benefits that go beyond product specifications, such as emotional, safety, prestige, or other benefits that are valued by the consumers. These characteristics ensure that, in spite of its invisibility, no one can ignore the efficacy of brand equity in raising the business or earning competitive advantage. De Chernatony (2006) explains the situation better, as he states that a brand has no value unless it enjoys some equity in the business environment, to which Chiu et al. (2011) lend their support.
Such state of affairs strongly suggests the need to ascertain whether there is any correlation between KKD’s success and brand equity. This study probes KKD’s quick success in Thailand by examining the effect of brand equity in consumer purchase behaviour in Thai doughnut market.
1.1 Problem Statement
KKD has recorded a phenomenal growth in the 1-billion Baht doughnut industry (James 2010).   A huge queue of consumers was observed when the first KKD shop opened in Thailand on September 2010, and till now, that trend is far from diminishing. KKD has successfully converted the initial euphoria of the customers into a regular affair (Prawatpattanakul 2010). This helped KKD annex the top brand award at the end of 2011.
Doughnut is a favourite food item in Thailand, which explains the many players – both local and global – in the industry. In spite of being a new entrant in that market, KKD scored a stunning performance in Thailand. So far, no literature on doughnut market in Thailand provides explanation on the brand’s success. This study attempts to contribute in filling this void.
1.2 Research Questions
The research questions that are addressed in this study are:
RQ1: What are the drivers of brand equity of KKD that are positively influencing the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers?
RQ2: How does KKD motivate Thai doughnut consumers to purchase their products?
1.3 Research Aims and Objectives
The main goal of this study is to explore the link between brand equity and brand success of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts in Thailand. Specifically, this study aims to:
1.    Describe the demographic characteristics of KKD consumers in Thailand;
2.    Examine how the respondents’ perception of the different drivers of brand equity influences their purchase behavior;
3.    Investigate the relationship between the respondents’ perception of the communication and promotion efforts of KKD and their purchase behavior;
4.    Investigate the relationship between the respondents’ perception of the adaptation strategies of KKD and their purchase behavior;
5.    Analyze the implications of the findings to KKD and to their competitors in the market
1.4 Significance of Study
There is lack of literature on doughnut industry in Thailand. Despite the rapid growth of the industry, there are no studies focusing on the profile of doughnut consumers, their purchase behavior, and whether this is affected by the product’s brand equity or not. In the wake of rapid growth of doughnut industry in Thailand, these information are crucial (James 2010) as it would contribute to the sustenance and development of the various players in the industry. This information would help KKD and the other doughnut producers in understanding their market and designing strategies suited to the consumers’ needs and perceptions.
1.5 Researcher’s Motivation
The phenomenal success of brand KKD in Thailand within a short time, suggests that brand equity could be exploited to successfully position a brand on a foreign soil. However, there are no literatures explaining the link between KKD’s brand equity and the company’s success in Thailand. This gap in literature strongly motivated this researcher to identify the brand equity drivers influencing the purchase behavior of Thai consumers and determine how the company capitalizes on these factors to motivate consumers to purchase the product.
1.6. Summary of Other Chapters
The other five chapters of this study are of following nature:
Chapter 2 presents review of relevant literature. The chapter is divided into four sections: (1) literature on branding with special emphasis on the drivers of brand equity; (2) consumer behaviour and the factors influencing it; (3) KKD and doughnut business in Thailand; and (4) Marketing strategy of KKD.
Chapter 3 describes the research method adopted in this study and the justification of choosing this method. This chapter also describes the survey design used in the study, from the development of questionnaire to sampling and instrumentation. Limitations and delimitations of the study and the ethical considerations adopted are also presented in this chapter.
Chapter 4 presents the results obtained from questionnaire survey and the subsequent analysis of data. Descriptive and inferential findings are outlined in this chapter. Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the findings presented in Chapter 4. This chapter points out the outcomes of the study and how these findings support or contradict the findings of previous researches. Finally, Chapter 6 contains the conclusions and recommendations that emerged from this study.

Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.0 Overview
As mentioned earlier, this study identifies the drivers of KKD’s brand equity that are positively influencing the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers and examines how KKD capitalizes on its brand equity to positively influence the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers. This chapter reviews relevant literature that covers issues involved with the research quest, such as the elements of branding, elements of consumer behaviour, KKD in Thailand, and KKD’s market strategy. This chapter is organized into five sections, namely:
•    Brand equity;
•    Drivers of brand equity (brand attitude, brand image, brand awareness, brand value, and brand personality);
•    Purchase behaviour of consumers;
•    KKD and doughnut business in Thailand; and
•    Perceived marketing strategy of KKD.
Findings from these discussions were used as basis in formulating the final hypotheses of this study. The various hypotheses formulated are presented in the summary section.
2.1. Brand Equity
Brand equity refers to the result factor of many factors that evolve out of branding, such as years of success story, proven record of product quality, brand legacy, emotional bondage between product and consumers, and company outlook (Aaker 1996a, Bailey & Ball 2006). In spite of the fact that the concept of brand equity had been under focus since the 1960s, there is little consensus regarding its definition (Chang & Liu 2009). What researchers agree on is that high brand equity generates greater purchase intention among consumers (Cobb-Walgren et al.1995). Once it is established, brand equity could provide long-term benefits for a company (Keller 1993).
According to Aaker (1996), brand equity is the outcome of five elements: brand awareness, perceived quality of brand, brand association, brand loyalty, and other proprietary brand assets.  The theoretical constructs of brand equity and brand orientation should be integrated to gather a fair understanding of the brand’s value.
Keller and Chaudhuri (1995) prefer dividing brand equity into two categories: finance-based and customer-based equity. This view of measuring brand equity gained more traction from the financial perspective (Bailey & Ball 2006).
Keller (1993) proposes a customer-based perspective as he underpins brand equity as the differential impact of brand knowledge on consumers’ purchase intention regarding a particular brand. Keller refers to brand equity as an associative network memory model, which contains two elements – brand awareness and brand image.  Other researchers such as Park and Srinivasan (1994) support this view and identify brand equity as the added value of the brand as perceived by the consumers. Altogether an impression emerges from this part of the review that brand equity contains several intangible elements which the consumer eventually associate to create their own mental model of a brand. This in turn points to the significance of brand promotion, since it is the instrument to develop close association between brand and customer.

Figure 2. 1 Brand Equity
[Adapted from the works of Aaker (1996) & Keller (1993)]
Aaker (1996), the renowned brand theorist, suggests integrating theoretical perspectives of brand equity and brand orientation to gain a fair understanding of brand value. Keller (1993) and Jones (2005) too support this view, by stating that such knowledge would develop the realization that brand equity generates long-term values for the company. Such observations clearly contain several suggestions, such as to learn more about all drivers of a brand as well as their mechanisms to learn how the visible as well as invisible elements of brand equity grow and eventually earn competitive advantage for a brand. For example, if brand, brand management chain, customer response, and the amount gained from sales are tangible elements of a brand, then brand orientation, brand assets, brand value, brand strength, and consumers’ mindset are intangible elements of it, which together contributes to brand equity (Kapferer 2005).
The above state of affairs clearly shows that to learn the influence of brand equity on consumers, one requires learning about its antecedents as identified by the researchers, such brand attitude and brand image (Chang & Liu 2009), which in turn prompt learning about brand awareness, brand personality, and brand value, which collectively contribute to brand image and brand attitude. These components are integral part of branding besides sales promotion, and therefore it would be pertinent to review the branding process to gather an idea regarding what are the possible drivers of KKD’s brand equity.
2.2 Elements of Branding
While some researchers define the term brand as an assemblage of name, symbol, and design that express the identity of a product or service offered by a sellers, which eventually differentiates it from other products or services (Boone & Kurtz 2002), some view it as an assemblage of functional as well as emotional values that promise a unique experience for its prospective buyers (de Chernatony et al., 2006). From a copywriter’s perspective, Ogilvy (Brand 2008) suggests that brand is an intangible sum of all attributes of a product as well the manner in which it is advertised. Thus it would not be unjust to combine these views and to assume that brand carries both tangible and intangible elements, such as product, packaging, symbols, words, distinguishing marks, traits of product performance, legacy of history or myth, corporate identity, and so on. Therefore, branding requires an appropriate mix of the above elements to positively influence purchase behaviour of the consumers of a particular product line.
2.2.1 Brand Attitude and Brand Image
The concept of brand attitude refers to a situation where consumers consistently express favourable or unfavourable evaluation, feelings, and tendencies toward a brand (Kotler & Armstrong 1996). And if the consumers develop positive attitude through experience of using a product, they eventually become loyal to that brand (Boone & Kurtz 2002). For example, all KKD stores carry a neon sign that read Hot Doughnuts Now, which evokes a warm feeling regarding the glazed doughnut.
There are two concepts of attitude structure, such as one-dimensional and tricomponent, where unidimensional concept views brand attitude as a consumers’ favourable or unfavourable attitude toward a particular brand in a marketplace (Kotler & Armstrong, 1996). However, some researchers consider tricomponent concept as capable of providing more insights into consumer preference (Grimm 2005).
On the other hand, brand image refers to a set of belief regarding a particular brand developed and nurtured by consumers; suggest Kotler and Armstrong (1996), as they observe that such belief-set plays a crucial role in the consumers’ purchase behaviour.  Keller (1993) observes brand image is a cluster of perception regarding a brand’s attribute stored in the memory of the consumers before getting reflected by the brand associations.  Romaniuk and Sharp (2003) support this view, while Campbell (1993) adds a dimension to the issue by underpinning brand image as a combination consumer perception and consumer belief regarding a particular brand.
Biel (1992) observes that people at times fail to differentiate between brand image and brand equity, though a closer look tells that brand equity reflects value of the brand and the brand image refers to the brand-consumer association.
Brand image can take shape through consumers’ individual experience, marketing communications, or even through word of mouth, suggest Romaniuk and Sharp (2003).  Gordon (1993) on the other hand underpins five different facets behind the making of a brand image, such as user’s image, image of an occasion, image of the product, personality of the brand, and salience.
Describing a brand image involves identifying brand attributes as well as brand associations that enable the consumers to connect with a particular brand (Keller 1998). For example, the KKD employee uniform comprising of khaki pants, red polo, white apron, and paper hat, which together highly contribute to its brand image.
Above views suggest that brand attitude and brand image, depend on several factors, such as brand attitude depends on brand awareness, while brand image depends on brand personality and brand value.
2.2.2 Brand Awareness
Brand awareness denotes the level of a customer’s ability to recall a brand as well as its characteristics, such as its name, image, or any other elements associated with that particular brand (Gustaffson & Chabot 2007). According to de Chernatony (2006), consumers reflect their brand awareness by recognizing the brand and recalling its owner under any circumstance. On the other hand, Keller (2001) presents a very brief definition of brand awareness by stating it is all about whether, and when, consumers know the brand.
The researchers observe that consumers acquire brand knowledge through direct or indirect experience and brand awareness may even surpass the established knowledge about a brand and its owner. While the consumers gather direct experience by purchasing/using the product, they gather indirect experience through external sources of suggestive messages such as advertisements, reference group’s suggestion, etc. Though it is not possible to measure consumer approach towards a brand by the level of consumer brand awareness, it is still considered an important instrument in forming a positive attitude among the target audience regarding a particular brand (Keller 2001).
A host of researchers mention about certain stages of brand awareness, such as first impact of branding, aided awareness, strategic awareness, brand preference, and top-of-mind awareness (Gustaffson & Chabot 2007). This study thus underpins the elements of brand awareness in the following manner:

Figure 2. 2 Components of Brand Awareness
[Adapted from the concepts of Gustaffson & Chabot (2007), & Keller (2001)]
The essence of the above part of review thus strongly suggests that brand awareness is an essential of brand equity, which in turn leads to the assumption that KKD have identified the components of brand awareness and exploited the same to a good degree to achieve brand awareness among Thai doughnut consumers. Such emerging idea thus prompts the first hypothesis of this study:
Ha: Brand awareness of Krispy Kreme positively influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers.
2.2.3 Brand Personality
Brand personality refers to a package of both visible and invisible elements that reflect the company outlook, its aspirations as well as company promises and services, which together aim to create, sustain, and develop the degree of emotional attachment between the brand and the consumer (Beil 1992).
While explaining the significance of brand personality, Aaker (1996) states that brand personality is an instrument that makes a brand more interesting and memorable, and the same brand appears unimpressive in the absence of it, much like someone having no friends. Alongside he observes that the core identity of any brand eventually becomes its timeless essence. Accordingly he suggests brand strategists to look beyond the common perception of brand personality, as that kind of approach helps in completing the the brand image by adding several nuances to create a wholesome brand statement. Aaker defines brand personality better in his book Building Strong Brands:
Table 2. 1: Brand Personality Types (Aaker 1996)

One can observe that the above list depicts brands in the mould of human personality, besides strongly suggesting that a brand can also acquire multiple personalities in order to align with the gross personality of its targeted consumer segment. The above list prompts this study to equate KKD’s brand personality with three types, such as sincerity, excitement, and competence. Altogether the essence of the above part of review strongly suggests that brand personality is instrumental in developing brand equity and under the context of this study it leads to the assumption that KKD have identified the components of brand personality and exploited the same to a good degree to present an attractive brand personality before the Thai doughnut consumers. Such emerging idea thus prompts the second hypothesis of this study:
Hb: Brand personality of Krispy Kreme positively influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers.
2.2.4 Brand Value
Marketers consider brand value as a collective reflection of how the targeted consumer and the consumers in general perceive the brand or company name (Raggio & Leone 2007). From the strategists’ perspective, this is a branding tool that contains both intangible and tangible elements, where the figures of sales act as its tangible part, which prompts marketers to consider brand value as an important driver of financial performance and to calculate it by measuring its impact on the same (Conchar et al. 2005).
On a simpler plane, the success story of a company contributes to its brand value. For example, even if one of the facilities of Coca-Cola at a particular place gets burned overnight, it would still be able to manage things from the next morning. Understandably, at this point an intangible element of brand value such as goodwill would help Coca-Cola. Brown’s (2007) view further explains the efficacy of intangible elements of brand value, when he says that companies value brands as because they are valuable to consumers and they know it well that a company’s value depends on the number of people having faith in it. Such state of affairs prompts one to assume that intangible elements of brand value are stronger than its tangible elements, which finds ample support from the expert view that several intangible elements contribute to the success of a brand, such as brand awareness, a brand’s underlying image, personality, identity, attitude, familiarity, and associations (Beil 1993). Based on this idea, this study creates an imaginary framework of possible mechanism of KKD’s brand value:

Figure 2. 3 Imagined Framework of KKD’s Brand value
[Adapted from Kapferer (2005)]
The essence of the above review thus strongly suggests that brand value is an important driver of brand equity and under the context of this study it leads to the assumption that KKD have identified the components of brand value and exploited the same to generate a sense of its brand value among Thai doughnut consumers. Such emerging idea thus prompts the third hypothesis of this study:
Hc: Brand value of Krispy Kreme positively influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers.
2.2.5 Brand Promotion
Brand promotion is essentially dependent on marketing communication, which refers to communication in any form between marketer and consumer. The marketer primarily aims to earn favourable purchase intention of the consumer by creating a series of effects on consumers’ mind through communication with an expectation that a cumulative impact of communication effects would eventually convert consumer response into favourable purchase behaviour (Prue 1998).
Prue’s simple ABCD model suggests four-step journey of marketing communication, such as appreciation to branding to persuasive communication to desired effect on the brand:
•    Appreciation: Marketing communication begins drawing consumer interest towards an item with an aim to develop brand awareness of the consumer;
•    Branding: In this second stage communication serves more details on brand to earn brand recognition;
•    Communication: At this stage more persuasive communication takes place with special emphasis on its USP (Unique Selling Proposition) to earn favourable purchase intention;
•    Desired Effect: At this stage the communication aims to convert favourable purchase intention into actual purchase (Pru 1998).
However, Pru’s (1998) model contains a plethora of complex processes between the above over-simplified descriptions, which appears like below when framed:

Figure 2. 4 Pru’s Alphabetical Model
[Adapted from Pru (2011)
The above diagram covers the researchers’ consensus on marketing communication that it exploits all elements of branding, and communication in creating brand awareness, generating favourable brand attitude and stimulating the consumers’ purchase intention (Rossiter & Percy 1998).
The common instruments of marketing communication are print, electronic, and outdoor media advertising, sales promotion, direct marketing, public relations programmes, cause-related-marketing, and personal selling. In the marketing parlance, marketing communication is known as the third “P” of the four “P”-s of business, such as product, place, promotion and price which shows its crucial role in promoting the business (Schultz, Tannenbaum, & Lauterborn 1994).
Traditional advertising is still useful in connecting to more members of the target consumer group and to gather feedbacks from them in short time, as it contains essential components of a message such as information, education, and entertainment (Shimp 2003).
However, rapid development in information technology has effected several changes in consumer lifestyle and behaviour, where they use multiple channels to send, receive, and evaluate all messages (Rust & Oliver 1994). Accordingly, new avenues of marketing such as public relation programmes, direct marketing, sponsorship programmes, and personal selling have emerged as new tools to meet the communication need of the marketers (Shimp 2003).
Among the emerged tools, public relationship programmes have been gaining grounds, as in this case the marketers can take two routes such as cause-related marketing and sponsorship programmes (Clow & Baack 2002, Semenik 2002). Apart from that current global trend of marketing is favouring sponsorship programmes over traditional advertising (Harvey 2001), since they are instrumental in creating strong brand-customer relationship in short time (Meenaghan 2001).
Incidentally this study finds KKD using all of the above brand promotion tools. For example, on one hand it is extensively using modern information technology in its brand promotion, where one can find its own website, online advertisements, subscribers’ forum, etc., it is using face-to-face promotions with printed literature, promoting cause-related marketing, and so on (Krispy Kreme 2012).
2.3 Consumer Behaviour
Consumer behaviour is a strong indicator of consumer’s purchase intention (Aaker 1996) and the study of how consumers’ purchase behaviour and consumption pattern is known as consumer behaviour (Lamb, Hair, & McDaniel 2004:142). The second point of view in this regard informs that consumer behaviour includes a series of stages before purchase (Murray & O’Driscoll 1996:90). The third point of view suggests that consumer behaviour is actually a reflection of several important issues from marketing perspective, such as how consumers pick and choose from same products or services, why they buy and consume, and what is the mechanism of their decision making process (Howard 1994). The fourth point of view in this regard suggests that it deals with the way consumers collect and marshall information to before purchase decisions (Arnould, Price, & Zinkhan 2002:5).
Altogether the above definitions suggest that consumer behaviour deals with consumer decision-making process, which involve constant influences of the external environment. This emerging idea therefore strongly suggests that the decision-making processes of the consumers vary to a great extent especially in terms of time and effort spent in arriving at a final purchase decision. Alongside it also hints that post-purchase experience too influences the consumer decision-making process.
A host of researchers observe that there are three major types of consumer decision-making, such as
•    Routine decision-making: This occurs when consumers purchase low-value, low-risk products or services of which they possess good degree of knowledge and experience. For example, buying doughnut of a particular brand the consumer is familiar with;
•    Limited decision-making: This occurs when consumers purchase products with some degree of prior knowledge and experience about the same and which involve less risk. For example a buyer purchasing KKD doughnut with brand awareness but without prior experience;
•    Extensive decision-making: This occurs when the consumer purchases expensive products or services. For example, purchasing an expensive car, home, etc. (Lamb et al.2004)
The researchers observe consumers’ purchase decisions remain within a continuum of the above categories, where the amounts of time and effort spent in the process characterize the degree of consumer involvement in the decision-making process.
Alongside they also underpin five factors as the drivers of the above types of decision-making, such as
•    Consumer involvement level;
•    Time taken to make a decision;
•    good or service value;
•    Volume of information search involved; and
•    Number of alternatives (Lamb et al. 2004, Sheth & Mittal 2004).
Table 2. 2: Purchase Decisions Continuum
[Adapted from Lamb et al. (2004: 18)]

Table 2. 3: Comparative chart of the characteristics of limited and extensive decision-making
[Adapted from Solomon (2002: 258)]

Under the context of this study one learns that consumer purchase behaviour regarding doughnut ($6 a dozen approx.) does not involve extensive purchase decision making, which involves complex decision making process (Lamb et al. 2004), but involve both routine and limited decision making processes, which makes it clear that consumers’ purchase decision making process regarding KKD and other doughnut brands mostly involve routine and limited decision making processes, which do not include high level of involvement, long period of time, high degree of information search, or high value of the product. However, it involves number of alternatives, as several brands are there in Thai doughnut market.
While extensive decision making process emanates from high level of motivation to make the right decision and influences the consumers to gather maximum possible information from internal and external sources, limited or routine decision making processes do not involve such complex and taxing exercise (Lamb et al. 2004).   Instead, the consumers mostly depend on personal knowledge rather than external sources, which in turn causes low level of involvement, since the consumers spend little or moderate amount of time in information search or in conducting comparative study of various alternatives. Low risk-involvement in this type of decision making process thus facilitates consumers even buying unfamiliar brands (Cole et al. 2008, Lamb et al. 2004).
According to Solomon (2002), this type of decision-making is usually simple in nature, since the buyers seldom get motivated to rigorously evaluate each alternative before choosing one among them. Such state of affairs thus prompts this study to assume, that constant communication effort of the brand in these types of decision making processes plays a vital role in enriching consumers’ personal knowledge (i.e., brand awareness) regarding a brand.
2.3.1 The Steps in the Purchasing Process
A host of researchers agree to the proposition that consumers pass through five stages of decision-making processes:
•    Recognizing problem/need;
•    Searching for information;
•    evaluating alternatives;
•    Buying behaviour; and
•    behaviour  in the post-purchase period  (Lamb et al. 2004,Sheth & Mittal 2004).
Need recognition is the first step, where the consumers recognize a particular need, which prompt them to proceed toward knowing how they can fulfil that need. According to Lamb et al. (2004), three common situation of need recognitions are:
•    Consumers feeling that present product is not up to the desired level of performance;
•    Consumers feeling short of something; and
•    Consumers hearing/seeing about another product’s superior quality than the one they are using superior quality(Lamb et al. 2004: 143).
After recognizing the need, consumers start searching for information about various alternative ways to fulfil that need (Sheth & Mittal 2004), where the information search is initiated by the perception of the consumers that they might be able to fulfill their need by purchasing and consuming a particular product or service (Schiffman & Kanuk 2000:445). Solomon (2002:283) suggests that the consumers survey within their own environment for making a suitable decision. At this point Sheth and Mittal (2004:283) underpin three elements that characterize this step, such as information source, search strategy, and the information search volume. As the review informed earlier that consumer decision making process involving purchase of KKD and other doughnut brands mostly involve routine and limited decision making processes, it appears that the steps such as evaluation of alternatives, purchase behaviour, and post-purchase behaviour become important for Thai doughnut consumers.
After collecting all necessary internal and external information the consumers check the alternatives and make a purchase decision (Lamb et al. 2004), where the information create an evoked set (familiar brands) of alternative product options and enable them  to pick and choose their brand. In any case consumers use three ways to pick and choose their brands:
•    Evaluating only familiar brands (evoked set);
•    Evaluating each brand from the evoked on the basis of specific product attributes; and
•    Combining evaluation process across brand attributes and comparing those attributes (Lamb et al. 2004).
Accordingly the consumers utilize the most significant information from their reservoir of internal and external information to arrive at a purchase decision in purchase phase, which may involve subset of decisions, such as selecting a specific product to buy, discarding a product, postponing purchase, or deciding not to purchase. In such situations the perceived risk of the consumer plays a major role  in the decision making (Sheth & Mittal 2004:295).
Eventually after buying the product, the consumers continue evaluating the product to ascertain whether it is rising up to their satisfaction, since that information would help them in future purchase decisions. Altogether the researchers underpin three possible outcomes of post-purchase consumer evaluation:
a)    Perceived performance meets expectations and leads to a neutral feeling;
b)    Perceived performance exceeds expectations and leads to the possibility of repeat purchase; and
c)    Perceived performance failing to meet expectations and leading to negative disconfirmation of expectations and disappointment (Sheth & Mittal 2004:301).
Throughout the five steps of decision-making process, consumers use many attributes before narrowing down to specific attribute they perceive as potential provider of the benefit they are looking for (Kotler 2000). This shows that consumer attitudes about brand is driven by the beliefs regarding a group of brand attributes (Arnould et al. 2002) and they might harp on a particular product attribute as the yardstick to choose a particular brand.
Boyd and Walker (1990)ref?? present a product attribute general list that contains yardsticks that consumers generally use to evaluate alternatives. Now if one reviews the brand such attributes and compare the same under the context of this study, it appears like below:
Table 2. 4: Correlation between Thai doughnut consumer behaviour and Brand attributes under Boyd and Walker’s (1990: 119) frame of reference
Brand Attributes Evaluated in Case of Thai Doughnut Market
Attributes    Specific Attributes    Thai Doughnut Market
Cost     Purchase price    Unimportant
Operating cost    Unimportant
Extras Cost     Unimportant
Trade-in allowances and resulted value    Unimportant
Performance
Durability    Unimportant
Product quality     Important
Construction    Important
Dependability    Important
Functional performance (acceleration, nutrition)    Unimportant
Efficiency    Unimportant
Safety & styling    Important
Social attributes    Status image    Important
Popularity with friends    Important
Popularity with family members    Important
Style and fashion    Important
Availability attributes    Carried by local stores    Important
Credit terms    Unimportant
Quality of service available from local dealer and delivery time    Important

The above table shows that cost attributes of doughnut least influence the consumers, while social attributes influence them the most, followed by the influence of performance attributes and availability attributes. This in turn prompts the fourth hypothesis of this study:
Hd:  Social attributes of Krispy Kreme positively influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers.
2.3.2 Factors Influencing Consumer Decision
Both internal and external factors influence consumer decisions, where in the former case psychological influences involve perception, memories, previous experiences, needs, attitudes, demographics, lifestyle, personality, motivation, learning, and  social influences that include culture, subculture, social class, and reference groups. These elements continue to influence consumers’ purchase behaviour (Schiffman & Kanuk 2000, Solomon 2002).
Several researchers observe that branding a product in a foreign land involves a strategic decision such as whether to follow a standardised marketing policy or to accommodate local culture and habits into it. According to them adaptation strategy more often than not proves effective in such situations (Okazaki, Taylor, & Zou 2006, Wong & Merrilees 2007).
Culture is an important consideration in selling products abroad. According to lexicon, culture is the integrated pattern of human behaviour, which includes thought, speech, action, artefacts and man’s capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary).ref?? Therefore culture reflects all one and shares with the members of a society. Ideas, norms, morals, values, knowledge, skills, technology, tools, material objects and behaviour fall as the elements of exchange (Sheth & Mittal 2004). Therefore under the context one can assume that the same elements are equally working Thai society, and accordingly they influence the purchase influence of the Thai doughnut consumers.
Rice (1997:70) frames culture in the following manner:

Figure 2. 5Culture and Consumer Behaviour (Rice 1997)
Although culture includes a host of shared beliefs and behaviours, the drivers of culture are values of all types (Lamb et al. 2004), since individuals’ value systems greatly affect their behaviour Sheth & Mittal 2004:61. Lamb et al. suggest that the same mechanism works in purchase decisions too, as the consumers having save value sets usually react in the same fashion to prices or other marketing issues. According to Vinson et al. (1977), security or happiness, which are broad-based cultural values, tend to affect routing purchase decisions more than complex purchase decisions.
The above state of affairs thus strongly suggests that it takes a clear understanding about the culture of the targeted market, and for that matter the marketeers require formulating their strategies by following an appropriate cultural model, since a cultural model can help in analysing local culture’s influence on consumers’ self, personality, mental and social processes, which have huge bearing on global advertising strategy (de Mooij & Hofstede 2010).
At this point the significance of Hofstede’s five-dimensional model of national culture (Hofstede 2001, Hofstede & Hofstede 2005) stands out as the most favourite model for global branding, since it clearly earmarks the regional differences in consumer perceptions regarding the concept of self, personality, and identity, which facilitate the brand strategists to formulate an appropriate marketing strategy. Another reason behind the popularity of this model is that its classification includes large number of countries. According to de Mooij (2004, 2010), Hofstede’s five dimensions are most relevant to branding and advertising, as they are based on the findings from cross-cultural psychology and meta-analysis of consumer behaviour data.
Hofstede’s model distinguishes culture on the basis of five dimensions such as power distance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-short-term orientation.
In the process the model rates 76 countries under each dimension in a 0-100 scale to show cultural variances among countries. Fortunately, it also includes Thailand, which facilitates this study to evaluate the state of Thai culture and estimate its possible influence on Thai consumers of doughnut.
Power distance (PDI): This dimension is based on the belief that all individuals in a society do not enjoy equal power and it refers to the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations of a country accommodates uneven power distribution. In the process it expresses the attitude of the culture towards these inequalities in a society. Thailand scores 64 on PDI index, which prompts Hofstede (2012) to suggest that Thai society accepts inequalities through a chain of commands and protocols, where power is distributed according to the rank and file of the individuals. Under the context of this study, this prompts the assumption that doughnut consumers can be influenced by the suggestions of the individuals holding higher rank.
Individualism/collectivism (IDV): This dimension is based on the belief that people in individualist societies focus mostly on the welfare of themselves and their families, while people in collectivist societies people act in groups (in-group attitude) to take care of them in exchange of loyalty. Altogether it refers to the degree of interdependence maintained by the members of a society and it probes whether individuals’ self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “We”. Thailand’s score of 20 here, according to Hofstede (2012), depicts it as a highly collectivist country, where in-group attitude dominates the proceedings. Under the context of this study, this prompts the assumption that in-group purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers can highly influence the individual purchase behaviour of a single doughnut consumer.
Masculinity/femininity (MAS): This dimension is based on the belief that people get motivated either by aiming to be the best (masculine) or liking what one does (feminine). Accordingly, a high score of masculinity indicates that the society is driven by competition, achievement, and success. On the other hand, a low score (feminine) on the femininity dimension indicates that quality of life and caring for others are the dominant values in this society. Thailand’s low score of 34 on this feminine dimension thus indicates that it is a feminine society, which is further corroborated by its low masculinity dimension score of 53, which also suggestive of a less assertiveness and less competitive society. Under the context of this study, this prompts the assumption that Thai doughnut consumers’ purchase decision is influenced more by the quality rather than price factor.
Uncertainty avoidance (UAI): This dimension is based on the belief that humans either want to control the destiny or let the issue hang on fate. Accordingly it tries to find how a society deals with this issue, such as how much the members of a culture feel threatened by unknown situations or the steps taken by the institutions to avoid/win the same. Thailand scores 64 on this dimension, which according to Hofstede (2012) indicates preference towards minimizing uncertainty. This is corroborated by the fact that this country is driven by strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations to control unexpected situations. The high score on UAI also indicates that this society does not readily accept change and less willing to take risks. Under the context of this study, this prompts the assumption that Thai doughnut consumers’ purchase behaviour is highly influenced by the accuracy of brand/product information.
Long-short-term orientation (LTO): This dimension is based on the belief that societies thrive either on pragmatic, future-oriented, long-term view or conventional, historical, short-term view. Thailand scores 56 here, which according to Hofstede’s (2012) view, is a sign of preferring long-term oriented culture, which involves values such as praise, quality of relationship, sense of moderation, and a macro vision of life that prioritizes the quality of life rather than maintaining a time-bound, disciplined life.
Under the context of this study, this prompts the assumption that the Thai doughnut consumers can spare even more time to purchase a product they perceive as quality product.

Figure 2. 6 Thailand under Hofstede’s 5-dimensional Scale
[Source: Hofstede (2012)]
The above part of review facilitates the emergence of certain assumptions. First, it shows that the doughnut consumers can be influenced by the suggestions of the individuals holding higher rank. Second, it shows that in-group purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers can highly influence the individual purchase behaviour of a single doughnut consumer. Third, it shows that the Thai doughnut consumers’ purchase decision is influenced more by the quality rather than price factor. Fourth, it shows that their purchase behaviour is highly influenced by the accuracy of information regarding the brand. Fifth, it shows that these consumers can spare even more time to purchase a product they perceive as quality product. Incidentally, one can draw a parallel to this point with the instance of the long queues before the KKD outlet. Altogether, the essence of this section of the review thus leads to the fifth hypothesis of this study:
He: Product quality of Krispy Kreme positively influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers.

2.4 KKD and Doughnut Business in Thailand
One can find doughnut shops at every nook and corner of Thailand, since it has become an integral part of the daily living of Thais. The doughnut market include both local and global players, which vie with one another to get the better share of one billion Baht ($300 million) doughnut industry of Thailand, as estimated by The Bangkok Post in 2010. The major players include both multinational and local brands, such as Do Dee Dough, Daddy Dough (Thai brands), Krispy Kreme, Mister Doughnut, Dunkin Donut, and Bapple (foreign brands) (James 2010).
Bangkok is usually considered as a donut lover’s paradise with its vast range of doughnuts available from several multinationals’ retail outlets as well as from shops that offer homegrown doughnuts. However, KKD leads the market and it has already bagged the best brand award in Thailand in 2010, the very year it entered in Thai market by opening its first store at Siam Paragon mall in Central Bangkok on 28 September 2010. According to a report, KKD has generated tremendous interest among Thai consumers and has been attracting huge line-ups at Siam Paragon since the first day, and making it almost mandatory to wait for at least one hour to get a box of Krispy Kreme doughnut (Prawatpattanakul 2012)
2.5. KKD Company Profile
Vermon Rudolph initiated the journey of KKD from a rented building in Old Salem in Winston-Salem, Malaysia, in 1937, before the company grew over the years to become an international retailer of premium quality sweet treats and beverages with a product line of doughnut, coffee, iced drinks and Kool Kreme ice cream. Currently it caters to 21 countries; thereby strongly indicating that it’s breadth of appeal extends across all demographic groups as well as across the age, gender, and economic strata (Krispy Kreme 2012).
Currently KKD has 210 stores in the US, of which the company owns 90 and the rest are franchised. Outside US it has 480 international stores across 21 countries, where Thailand is the latest one to get a franchise. At this point of time, the success of KKD in Bangkok has inspired its local franchisee to open 20 stores across the regions of Thailand
According to its reports, KKD runs several promotional programs to create a special bond with their customers, besides taking care to build strong community relationships by supporting local communities through local events and fundraising and sponsorship program. It emphasizes on creating and maintaining high quality of its products to match its declared mission, “To touch and enhance lives through the joy that is Krispy Kreme” and its vision, “To be the worldwide leader in sharing delicious tastes and creating joyful memories.” Alongside it declares its values and beliefs in the following manner:
•    Consumers are our lifeblood, the centre of the doughnut;
•    There is no substitute for quality in our service to consumers;
•    Impeccable presentation is critical wherever Krispy Kreme is sold;
•    We must produce a collaborative team effort that is unexcelled;
•    We must cast the best possible image in all that we do;
•    We must never settle for “second best;” we deliver on our commitments;
•    We must coach our team to ever-better results (Krispy Kreme 2012).
2.6. Marketing Strategy of KKD in Thailand
The fact that KKD has adopted a policy of accommodating local culture and habits in their marketing strategy becomes clear when one learns that they run several brand promotional programmes that intend to involve all layers of a community. For example, it offers doughnuts to non-profit groups of Thailand at a reduced price to sell the same at full retail price, or slightly higher. Apart from that it runs Certificate Program that enables members of the local community to sell certificates in place of actual doughnuts, which can be redeemed at its retail outlets. It has also implemented an innovative programme Partnership Cards that helps in fundraising, where such cards offer a free dozen Original Glazed® doughnuts to the customers with the purchase of a dozen of their choice. Alongside it also offers its Signature Coffees for fundraising in participating markets. Community involvement is another avenue of KKD to bond with local community. It has opened several Krispy Kreme’s Community Cafes, which serve as constant sources of customer feedback. KKD has meticulously arranged dissemination of all relevant information through company website, blogs, and other online activities to exploit this easily accessible media to reach customers (Michael & Nedunchezhian 2012). Altogether it appears that KKD has all along been caring for quality, communication, and social responsibility to strengthen its brand (Krispy Kreme 2012). Such steps fuel not only brand relationship, but also fuel brand switching tendency among consumers (Fernandez 2009, Merrilees 2007, Sahay & Sharma 2010). This in turn generates the sixth hypotheses of this study:
Hf: Krispy Kreme influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers through active communication and promotion.

Since KKD is a new entrant in the Thai doughnut market, and it is operating through franchisee, it would be too early to interpret the current KKD brand preference of the Thai consumers as their brand loyalty. However, the stable queue before the outlets of KKD in Thailand in the past one year (Prawatpattanakul 2012) suggests that KKD has marshalled its drivers of brand equity under adaptation strategy, i.e., by accommodating local culture and habits and effectively communicating the same to the Thai doughnut customers through all possible channels.
The above view can also be defended by the researched observation of Aaker (1996, 1996a) that knowledge on brand equity and brand orientation is important gather a fair understanding on the value of a brand, which also draws a parallel to the high degree of customer involvement (patiently queuing before KKD outlet).  Thus the review of the above section prompts the seventh hypothesis of this study:
Hg: Krispy Kreme influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers by adapting its products and promotion strategies to the local community.
2.7. Summary
This study first reviewed the branding literature, which facilitated the emergence of three hypotheses:
Ha: Brand awareness of Krispy Kreme positively influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers.
Hb: Brand personality of Krispy Kreme positively influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers.
Hc: Brand value of Krispy Kreme positively influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers.
Next the study reviewed literature on consumer behaviour, which facilitated the emergence of two hypotheses:
Hd:  Social attributes of Krispy Kreme positively influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers.
He: Product quality of Krispy Kreme positively influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers.
After that the reviewed literature on KKD and doughnut market of Thailand facilitated the emergence of two hypothesis:
Hf: Krispy Kreme influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers through active communication and promotion.
Hg: Krispy Kreme influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers by adapting its products and promotion strategies to the local community.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology
3.0. Introduction
This chapter describes the methodology used in conducting this research. According to Taylor (2005), researches are primarily done to address issues and foster deeper understanding of the universe and it involves careful and systematic system of inquiry. This study aimed to address two research questions: What are the drivers of brand equity of KKD that are positively influencing the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers? and How does KKD motivate Thai doughnut consumers to purchase their products? This chapter presents a discussion of the research design, research participants and the sampling method, the instrument used and the data collection method, the data analysis employed by the researcher, and the ethical considerations observed.
3.1. Research design
Research design describes a “systematic” way of solving a problem (Taylor, 2005:13). Two approaches followed by researchers are the qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative research is descriptive in nature and deals with “words rather than numbers” (Walliman, 2011). It provides descriptions and explanations that cannot be measured and counted.  Quantitative research, on the other hand, deals with information that can be measured and analyzed (Thomas, 2003; Walliman, 2011). These two methods also differ in terms of reasoning approach.
There are two methods of reasoning used in research, the inductive and deductive. Inductive reasoning utilizes a “specific to general” approach (Berg and Latin, 2004, p.8). In an inductive study, the researcher observes a representative sample and uses the findings to describe the characteristics of a larger population. In contrast, deductive reasoning proceeds from “general to specific” approach (Berg and Latin, 2004, p.8). Deductive approach uses a general fact about a population to describe a representative of that population. According to Crowther and Lancaster (2008), inductive reasoning is more appropriate for qualitative research while deductive reasoning it more suitable for quantitative research.
For this study, the quantitative method of inquiry was employed. Since the goal of the study is to understand the link between KKD’s brand equity and its success in Thailand, a quantitative method involving representatives of KKD’s market is a more appropriate approach. One advantage of choosing quantitative method for this study is that it allows the use of representatives instead of studying the whole population, which is not only time consuming and expensive, but also difficult since there is no available list of all possible members of the population being considered. Another justification for using this approach is that, unlike in qualitative research where the findings only represent the samples studied (Walliman, 2011), the findings in quantitative research can be used to generalize or make conclusions about the population (Kaplan, 2004). This means that his approach allows the researcher to examine phenomena and generate laws and patterns that can be generalized to the larger population (Hoy, 2010; Muijs, 2004; Rubin & Babbie, 2010; Taylor, 2005).
As a quantitative approach, this study follows the deductive reasoning. Literature served as basis in formulating the hypothesis of the study. Relationship between brand equity and the success of KKD in Thailand were confirmed through statistical tests which aided in drawing inferences about the population of KKD consumers. This qualitative research employed a survey approach in gathering data. The type of data gathered and the approach used are discussed further in the following paragraphs.
This study made use of primary data. Primary data sources refer to information gathered directly to address the issue, while secondary data refer to information obtained from secondary sources such as another person, a newspaper, magazine, book, or other sources (Cohen, et al., 2007). Primary data were used for this research because of two reasons. The first is lack of prior study on the subject from which to gather information. The second reason is that primary data are generally more reliable and appropriate than secondary data because they come from original sources and they are specifically gathered to address the problems of the study (Cohen, et al., 2007). A survey was used in gathering primary data used in this study.
Survey approach is a research method that utilizes questionnaire or interviews to investigate the characteristics of a given population (Johnson & Christensen, 2012; Schwab, 2005) using a sample of that population (Creswell, 2003). The goal of a survey research is to gather, describe, analyze, and interpret conditions or relations (Kothari, 2004). This approach is used when the information cannot be obtained directly through observation and the study involves a larger population (Balnaves & Caputi, 2011). One advantage of a survey approach is that it has strong reliability (Rubin & Babbie, 2010). It is also easier and faster to conduct and summarize since it consists of standardized questions (Balnaves & Caputi, 2011). In addition, it is easier to replicate and the results can be used to describe a larger population, which is essential in the current study since the goal is to understand the link between brand equity and the KKD’s success, which is reflected by the huge number of consumers purchasing the firm’s products.
Surveys can be administered using any of the four modes: face-to-face, written, computerized, and by telephone (McBurney & White, 2010). This research used a paper-based, self-administered approach conducted in the presence of the researcher. According to Cohen, et al. (2007), the paper-based mode of conducting survey produces higher response rate than an internet-based survey. Since the researcher is present and directly supervises the survey, participants are able to ask questions and clarify instructions. This prevents misunderstandings and promotes interaction between the researcher and the participants. Since it is self administered, respondents were able to respond to the questionnaire simultaneously, thereby hastening the process.
3.2. Research Participants and sampling method
To examine the link between brand equity and KKD’s success, perception of brand equity and purchase behaviour of KKD consumers in Thailand was surveyed. Cohen, et al. (2007:175) argued that in an “ideal world”, a research population could be studied in its entirety but this is hardly feasible in research. Since it is hard to collect data from every possible customer of KKD in Thailand due to time and resource limitations, a sample representative of the population was chosen. The sample for this study consisted of doughnut buyers. To ensure that participants fit this description, a screening question asking them if they have bought doughnut before was used. Only participants who answered yes were allowed to continue with the survey.
The process of choosing a sample to represent the whole population being studied is called sampling. Sampling is a “useful short cut, leading to results that can be almost as accurate as those for a full census” (Gorard, 2006: 10). Sampling is cheaper and faster to accomplish than gathering data from the whole population (McNeill & Chapman, 2005). However, the researcher needs to ensure that the participants chosen are truly representative of the population being studied.
Researches employ either random (or probability) sampling and nonprobability sampling. In random sampling, “all members of a given population have an equal chance of being selected to participate in the study” (Taylor, 2005). In nonprobability sampling, on the other hand, participants are chosen deliberately by the researcher (Kothari, 2004) based on “availability and convenience” (Rubin & Babbi, 2010).
This study used a nonprobability sampling instead of a probability sampling  since there is no complete list of all KKD consumers available and it is not feasible to create one. Nonprobability sampling is more practical and convenient to employ. Specifically, the nonprobability sampling approach used in this study is quota sampling. Quota sampling allows the researcher to decide the appropriate and convenient sample size for the group being studied (Jackson 2012; Johnson & Christensen, 2012; McBurney & White, 2010). With this sampling method, the researcher can gather data from equal number of respondents from each of the four KKD branches in Bangkok.
A sample size of 200 was decided to represent the population of KKD consumers. Respondents were recruited from KKD locations in Bangkok. The four KKD branches where the study took place are in Siam Paragon Mall, Central Plaza Grand Rama 9, Central Ladprao Mall and The Mall Bangkapi. For each location, 50 customers were asked to participate in the study.  More details about the sample is presented in the descriptive analysis section of the following chapter.
3.3. Instrument and data collection
As mentioned earlier, this study involves collection of primary data through a questionnaire survey. Quantitative instruments enable the researcher to gather information that can be analyzed statistically (Mujis 2004). A closed-ended questionnaire was used for this study. The sample questionnaire is attached in Appendix A. Closed-ended questions refer to a type of questionnaire where a set of answers are already provided (Jackson, 2012; Walliman, 2011). Respondents just have to select their most preferred answer form the list. In contrast, the open-ended questionnaire allows respondents to provide the answers themselves. The closed ended format was chosen for this study because it is easy to answer. Closed-ended format is more suitable for the study since the survey was conducted at the KKD locations where participants do not have much time to ponder on their answers or provide long responses.
Rating scale is used to determine the respondents’ perceptions. Rating scales are “numerical scales on which survey respondents indicate the direction and strength of their response” (Jackson, 2011:111). This form of data can be easily converted to an ordinal or interval scale which can be analyzed mathematically. According to Jackson (2011), the most popular form of rating scale is Likert scale. Likert scale was developed in 1932 by Rens Likert. It involves a set of statements to be rated by respondents based on their opinion or strength of agreement or disagreement (Jackson, 2012; McBurney & White, 2010).
The questionnaire for this study was designed to be self-administered. According to Fowler (2002), studies have shown that self-administered questionnaires are more effective in gathering relevant data than interviews, especially when it comes to sensitive issues. Though the topic of the current study cannot be considered sensitive, the self-administered design is advantageous as it enabled the researcher to conduct survey simultaneously.
The questionnaire consisted of five main parts. The first part gathered personal information about the participants such as gender, age, consumption pattern of doughnut and brand preferences. The second part of the questionnaire dealt with the participants’ purchase behavior. The third examined the participants’ perceptions regarding KKD’s brand equity. The fourth part focused on the participants’ perceptions regarding KKD’s communication/promotion strategies. Lastly, the fifth part gathered information regarding the participants’ perceptions of KKD’s adaptation strategy. The connection between the instrument and the research questions, aims and objectives and hypothesis of the study are presented in Table 3.1.
Table 3. 1 Linkages between the instrument, research question, objective and hypotheses of the study
Instrument     Research question    Objective    Hypothesis
Part A.     —    Objective 1     —
Parts B and C    Research question1    Objectives 2     Ha, Hb, Hc, Hd, and He
Parts B and D     Research question 2    Objective 3    Hf
Parts B and E         Objective 4    Hg
Can you please specific definition of each part whetehr what you talking about? For example, part A- personal information, part B …….. Moreover, you did not mention about part D and E in context. Please explain if you catagorize it like that?
As shown in the table, the first part of the instrument describes the respondents’ demographic characteristics. This addresses the first objective of the study. The participants’ purchase behaviour and perceptions about KKD’s brand equity address the first research question and objective 2 and objective 3 of the study. It also provides data needed in testing the validity of hypotheses Ha, Hb, Hc, Hd, and He. The brand equity drivers used in measuring the participants’ perception of KKD’s brand equity were chosen based on the results of previous studies. The participants’ perceptions about KKD’s communication and promotion efforts and adaptation strategies address the second research question and objective 4 and objective 5 of the study.  Perceptions about communication addresses hypothesis Hf ¬ and perceptions about adaptation strategies addresses hypothesis Hg.
The questionnaire used in the study was pre-tested using 6 participants. Bernard (2000) emphasized the importance of pre-testing the instrument using 6 to 10 participants and sitting with them as they fill it out to ensure that the questions and instructions are clear and other possible glitches are corrected before it is used in the actual survey. The pilot test was done using six acquaintances of the researcher. Based on their comments, some items in the perception part were modified and simplified for clarity. The actual data collection for the study was conducted from June 27 to July 14, 2012 in Bangkok, Thailand.
3.4. Reliability and validity
The value of a research is determined by its reliability and validity. In quantitative research, reliability refers to the “consistency” and “stability” of the research findings (Johnson & Christensen, 2012). It is a measure of “precision and accuracy” (Cohen, et al., 2007:133). A research is reliable if it obtains similar findings when replicated using a similar group of respondents and under similar context.  To ensure reliability, the instrument used in data gathering has to be able to measure what the researcher intends to measure. For this study, reliability was guaranteed by conducting reliability test of the respondents’ answers. Discussion of the reliability test conducted for the study and the findings are presented in the next section of the paper.
Validity is a measure of the “correctness or truthfulness” of the results of a study (Johnson & Christensen, 2012:245). Validity of a research is influenced by the sample, instrument used and the statistical analyses employed (Cohen, et al., 2007:133). To ensure validity of the study, only participants meeting the criteria set for the study were considered. This was done by including a screening question at the start of the survey to make sure that all participants are doughnut consumers.
3.5. Data Analysis
Analysis of data gathered for the study was conducted with the aid of the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). SPSS is a software used in performing complex statistical tests (Taylor, 2005). Descriptive statistics of the respondents’ personal information was conducted to provide a better idea about the sample population being studied.
Reliability analysis of the instrument used for data collection was conducted to ensure that all questions under each topic are related and consistent. Reliability test measures the internal consistency of the instrument (Cohen, et al., 2007). For this study, Chronbach’s alpha, the most commonly performed test of reliability (Singh, 2007) was employed. The coefficient of reliability lies between 0 and 1 (Cohen, et al., 2007). Based on the guideline, Chronbach’s alpha with a value of: 0.90 or higher are very highly reliable; 0.80 to 0.90 are highly reliable; 0.70 to 0.79 are reliable; 0.6 to 0.69 are marginally/minimally reliable; and less than 0.60 are unacceptably low (Cohen, et al., 2007). The acceptable value of alpha varies among different literatures. Some claim that a value of 0.67 or above is acceptable (Cohen, et al., 2007) while others set the standard at 0.75 (Singh, 2007). In Likert’s original work, items with reliability measures below the acceptable level will be discarded (Clason & Dormody, 1994). For this study, the acceptable value of alpha was set at 0.70 and reliability measures below the acceptable value were disregarded.
To address the hypotheses of the study, nonparametric statistical tests were conducted. Statistical tests can either be parametric or nonparametric. Parametric tests are used when the data is of interval or ratio scale and the distribution is normal while nonparametric tests are used when assumption of normality is not satisfied (Weiss, 2012) or when dealing with nominal and ordinal data (Black, 1999). For this study, the data are in the form of nominal data and Likert scale. Classifying Likert scale data still remains a topic of debate (Clason & Dormody, 1994). Some authors classify Likert scale as interval while others argue that it is ordinal in nature (Jackson, 2012). Proponents of the interval argument claim that levels in a Likert scale are clearly and evenly distributed along the continuum, which makes it interval. Proponents of the ordinal argument contend that this is a more appropriate classification since it is difficult to prove that the scales are equidistant from each other.  This study assumes the latter view and treats the data as ordinal numbers, thus all tests conducted are nonparametric.
Descriptive statistics, using mean and mode, of the respondents’ demographic characteristics and purchasing behavior was conducted to provide a better idea of the profile of an average KKD consumer. Correlation tests were also conducted to determine the relationships between the various variables considered in the study (Anderson, Sweeney, & Williams, 2011; Bruce, Pope, & Stanistreet, 2008; Barrow, 2006; Ross, 2010). For this study, the nonparametric test, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rs) was used to fit the nature of the data. An rs value near 1 or -1 suggests a strong linear relationship, while a value ear 0 suggests a weak relationship between the factors tested (Weiss, 2012).
Correlation test between demographic characteristics and their answers to the question about frequency of buying KKD was conducted to determine which demographic factors affect the respondents’ purchase behavior. Correlation test was also conducted to address RQ1 and hypotheses Ha to He. Correlation test between the respondents’ answers to the different survey items was conducted to address the effect of brand awareness, brand personality, brand value, product quality, and social attributes to the purchasing behaviour of KKD consumers. This test determined if the respondents’ perceptions about brand awareness, brand personality, brand value, product quality, and social attributes are related to their purchasing behaviour.
Correlation test between the respondents’ answers to the communication/promotion and adaptation surveys with their ratings to the purchase behaviour surveys were also conducted to address RQ2 and hypotheses Hf and Hg.   All these statistical tests were evaluated at the 0.05 level of significance.
3.6. Ethical considerations
Since this study involves human participants, ethical considerations were observed.  Taylor (2005) identified four focus areas of ethical behaviour in conducting research; these are consent, harm, privacy, deception. The participants’ informed consent is essential in doing research. For this study, the participants’ informed consent were obtained before the survey was administered. The researcher made sure that participants know the purpose of the study and they are willing to be a part of it. Respondents were never made to feel obligated to participate.
Another consideration involves ensuring that the respondents are not subjected to harm as a result of their participation (Taylor, 2005). According to Taylor, harm involves both physical and psychological factors that may impact the welfare of the respondent. None of the respondents expressed any concern about possible harmful effects resulting from their participation, which proves that this consideration was not an issue in the current study.
Another ethical consideration is deception. The researcher made sure that respondents were not deceived or recruited to participate in the study under false pretences (Taylor, 2005).  Lastly, participants were assured that the data collected during the research will remain confidential (Taylor, 2005). Though some of the questions were personal in nature, the identity of participants was insured by not obtaining their names and personal contact information. Participants were also assured that the responses will be kept hidden and the results of the study will not be used for purposes other than that stated in the current study.
3.7. Summary
This chapter discussed the research methodology followed in conducting the study. Since it is a quantitative study, the detailed procedures presented in this chapter were followed. This chapter discussed the research design employed, the sample and sampling approach used, the instrument and data collection process, as well as the data analysis employed in analyzing the data results. Ethical considerations observed in dealing with the participants were also presented to ensure that the rights of the respondents were not violated.

Chapter 4. Results and Discussions
This chapter presents the results and discussion of findings of the current study.
The various objectives of the study are addressed. Descriptive statistics of the respondents’ demographic characteristics and perceptions are provided, analyzed and compared with literature findings. Statistical analysis results of the data collected are also presented to inform the validity of the instrument and the applicability of the tests conducted. This chapter also addresses the study’s hypotheses using appropriate statistical analysis tools. Lastly, linkages between the results and findings of previous researchers are also included in this chapter.
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
Among the 200 respondents in the study, 83 (42%) were male and 117 (58%) were female. More than half (52.5%) of the respondents are single, 43% are married, and the remaining 4.5% are either divorced, widowed, or separated. Respondents receiving an annual income of 33,000 to 54,000 Baht made up 35.5% of the sample, 23.5% were receiving 55,000 to 87,000 Baht, around 18% has an annual income of 11,000 to 32,000 Baht, and 13.5% receives 10,000 Baht or less. Only about 9.5% of the sample has an annual income of 89,000 Baht or more. In terms of education, bachelor degree holders make up the majority of the respondents at 47%, followed by masters degree holders at 26%, then by those who obtained high school or diploma level at 15%, doctorate level at 7.5% and those who only have below high school level of education only comprises 4.5% of the sample.
As shown by the distribution of the respondents based on age in Figure 4.1, almost half, 49% are between the ages 25 and 40. The proportion of 15 to 25 year olds and those above 40 are fairly high also at 23% and 20.5%, respectively. Respondents below the age of 15 only comprise 7.5% of the sample. The low proportion of respondents below 15 years old could be attributed to the fact that people in this age bracket are mostly, if not all, students and unemployed, thus they might not have money to spend on KKD products. This observation is confirmed by the cross-tabulation of age and income shown in Table 4.1. Most of the respondents below 15 years old reported having an income of 0 – 10,000 Baht. More than one-fourth of the respondents are 25 to 40 years old and receiving an income of 33,000 to 54,000 Baht. A high proportion (14%) of respondents from the 25 to 40 year old bracket receives 55,000 to 87,000 Baht per year while 11.5% are in the 15 to 25 year old bracket and receive 11,000 to 32,000 Baht.
This section addressed the first objective of the study, which is to describe the demographic characteristics of KKD consumers in Thailand. From the above description, it seems the average KKD buyer is predominantly single, between the age of 25 and 40, college educated, and receiving an annual income of 33,000 to 54,000 Baht.

Figure 4. 1 Distribution of the KKD respondents by age
Table 4. 1 Cross-tabulation of Age and Income
Annual Income    Total
1    2    3    4    5
Age    1    13    2    0    0    0    15
2    14    23    6    2    1    46
3    0    10    56    28    4    98
4    0    1    9    17    14    41
Total    27    36    71    47    19    200

Can you please add up detail of 1,2,3 and 4 what is stand for? Like tell the range of age and explain for Annual income as well?
4.2. Reliability test of instrument
Chronbach’s alpha for testing internal reliability was conducted to test the reliability of the instrument used in the data gathering. For this study, the acceptable value of alpha was set at 0.70, following the guideline set by Cohen, et al. (2007). Initial test of the instrument revealed that the brand value and social attribute questions have alpha values of 0.580 and 0.619, respectively, which are below the acceptable limit. Following Clason & Dormody’s (1994) recommendation that the reliability of the instrument should be improved by discarding questions that are inconsistent with the goal of the study, various combination of questions were tested until the acceptable alpha value was obtained. For the brand value questions, the first question (BV1) was discarded to obtain a reliability value of 0.713, which is within the acceptable range. For social attribute questions, the first two questions (SA1 and SA2) were discarded to increase the reliability to 0.745. Result of the reliability test is shown in Appendix 2.
Can you please make sure that the percentage of reliability? Is it more than 0.7 due to I tried to find liability and I got 0.9%. Did you put all the data to check it because I did. Moreover, this reliability test it should do before start collect the data to see whether it is ok to collect the data or not. Can you change the part that you mention discard some of the questions out? Because supervisor does not want it to be cut off it does not make sense. Please re-calculate this again in Chi-square please?
4.3. Purchasing behavior of the respondents
Knowing the purchase behaviour of the respondents is crucial since it determines the success or failure of the brand. For this study, purchase behaviour is represented by the frequency of buying KKD. Based on the result, more than half (56%) of the respondents answered that they purchase doughnuts two to four times a month (“Quite often”), 28% answered that they buy once a month or less (“seldom”), 12.5% said they buy several times a week (“very often”), 3% buy doughnuts everyday and 4% admitted that it is their first time buying doughnuts (“never”).  However, only 45% answered that they purchase KKD  two to four times a month (“Quite often”), 45.5% answered that they buy KKD once a month or less (“seldom”), 6% said they buy several times a week (“very often”), 3% buy KKD everyday and 13% admitted that it is their first time buying KKD (“never” bought KKD products before).
A summary of the median and mode ratings of the respondents is shown in Table 4.2. The median rating for the frequency of purchasing KKD is only 2, which corresponds to “Seldom” (once a month or less)” while the rating for the frequency of purchasing doughnut is 3, which corresponds to “Quite often” (two to four times a month). The implication of this result is that the respondents do not always buy the KKD brand. However, it is noteworthy that brand awareness, brand personality, brand value, product quality, social attributes, adaptation strategy, and communication and promotion all got a median rating of 4 or “agree.”  This means that the respondents are well aware of the brand equity, adaptation strategy and communication and promotion efforts of the company. This finding suggests that although the respondents believe in the strength of the brand, they are not just basing their purchase decision on these qualities in buying the product. There seems to be other factors at play in the decision-making process. This premise is explored further in the following sections.
Table 4. 2 Descriptive Statistics of the respondents’ ratings to the brand equity
Median    Mode    Minimum    Maximum
Purchase_Donut    3    3    1    5
Purchase_KKD    2    2    1    4
Brand_Awareness    4    4    1    5
Brand_Personality    4    4    1    5
Brand_Value    4    4    1    5
Product_Quality    4    4    1    5
Social_Attributes    4    4    1    5
Adaptation_strategy    4    4    1    5
Communication_Promotion    4    4    1    5

Table 4. 3 Spearman’s rho correlation of purchase behavior and demographic characteristics
Frequency of purchasing KKD
Annual income    Correlation Coefficient    .109
Sig. (2-tailed)    .123
N    200
Education    Correlation Coefficient    .145*
Sig. (2-tailed)    .040
N    200
Gender    Correlation Coefficient    .024
Sig. (2-tailed)    .731
N    200
Age    Correlation Coefficient    .038
Sig. (2-tailed)    .593
N    200
Marital Status    Correlation Coefficient    -.014
Sig. (2-tailed)    .840
N    200
Frequency of purchasing doughnut    Correlation Coefficient    .698**
Sig. (2-tailed)    .000
N    200
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Spearman’s rank correlation was conducted to examine the effect of demographic characteristics on the purchase behaviour of KKD consumers. Based on the results, shown in Table 4.3, there is a positive correlation (rs=0.145, p=0.040) between education and purchase behaviour at the 0.05 level of significance. This means that consumers with higher education background seem to purchase KKD products more frequently than those with lower educational background. The fact that the relationship is weak and that it is not noted in the previous literatures reviewed for this study suggest that this finding may not be that significant.
There is also a significant correlation for the answers to frequency of purchasing doughnut and answers to frequency of purchasing KKD at the 0.05 level of significance. The correlation coefficient, (rs = 0.698, p=0.000) is positive which suggests a direct correlation between the frequency of buying doughnuts and frequency of buying KKD. This means that respondents who purchase doughnut more frequently tend to buy the KKD brand more frequently. This also implies that respondents, who rarely buy KKD, seldom buy doughnut in general, not just the KKD brand. No significant correlations were observed for the other demographic factors tested, which means that purchase behaviour of KKD consumers are not be affected by the age, marital status, gender, or annual income.
Normality test revealed that the respondents’ purchase behaviours are normally distributed. Based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of the respondents’ answers to the frequency of buying doughnuts and frequency of buying KKD shown in Table 4.3, the hypothesis of normality cannot be rejected. This means that there is enough evidence to show that the sample is normally distributed. The normality of the distribution is confirmed by the distribution plots, shown in Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3, of the respondents’ answers.
Table 4. 4 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Frequency of buying donuts    Frequency of buying KKD
N    200    200
Normal Parametersa    Mean    2.8350    2.4450
Std. Deviation    .72137    .66270
Most Extreme Differences    Absolute    .290    .279
Positive    .270    .269
Negative    -.290    -.279
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z    4.108    3.943
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)    .000    .000
a. Test distribution is Normal.

Is it chi-square? Because I have never heard of this method before.becuase you never mention before but you mentioned about Chi-square earlier for frequency. Can you please change this method to Chi-square instead due to you mentioned in Methodology instead.

Figure 4. 2 Distribution plot of the respondents’ frequency of buying doughnuts

Figure 4. 3 Distribution plot of the respondents’ frequency of buying KKD
4.5. Relationship between purchase behavior and brand equity
To examine the effect of brand equity on the purchase behaviour of the respondents, the relationship between brand awareness, brand personality, brand value, product quality, and social attributes to the purchasing behaviour of KKD consumers was tested using Spearman’s rank correlation. Though the data was found to be normally distributed, Spearman’s rank correlation was still used instead of Pearson correlation because the data are ordinal in nature. Spearman’s rank correlation was used to address the first five hypotheses of the study. As mentioned earlier, all statistical tests for this study are evaluated at the 0.05 level of significance. Result of the Spearman correlation test is shown in Table 4.5.
Table 4. 5 Correlation between brand equity drivers and purchase behavior
Spearman’s rho        Purchase_KKD
Purchase_doughnut    Correlation Coefficient    .698**
Sig. (2-tailed)    .000
N    200
Brand_Awareness    Correlation Coefficient    .135**
Sig. (1-tailed)    .000
N    200
Brand_Personality    Correlation Coefficient    .234**
Sig. (1-tailed)    .000
N    200
Brand_Value    Correlation Coefficient    .187**
Sig. (1-tailed)    .000
N    200
Product_Quality    Correlation Coefficient    .247**
Sig. (1-tailed)    .000
N    200
Social_Attributes    Correlation Coefficient    .274**
Sig. (1-tailed)    .000
N    200
Adaption_strategy    Pearson Correlation    .262**
Sig. (2-tailed)    .000
N    200
Communication_Promotion
Pearson Correlation    .180**
Sig. (2-tailed)    .000
N    200
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

To address the second objective of the study, correlation test between brand awareness and frequency of buying KKD was conducted. The Spearman test result (rs=0.135, p=0.000) revealed that the two factors are positively correlated and the relationship is statistically significant at the 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, there is enough evidence to suggest that the hypothesis, Ha: Brand awareness of Krispy Kreme positively influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers, cannot be rejected.
This finding suggests that the respondents’ purchase behaviour is motivated by their awareness of the brand. However, the rs value is near 0 which implies that the relationship between the two factors is weak. One implication of this finding is that their perception of the brand is not the only factor affecting their frequency of buying the product. This implies that awareness of the brand does not always translate to purchase.
Literature suggests that brand awareness reflects the level of a customer’s ability to recall a brand and its characteristics (Gustaffson & Chabot 2007). In the case of KKD, it seems that majority of the respondents know the brand regardless of their frequency of purchase. This implies that customers are not buying KKD products that often, not because of lack of knowledge about the brand, but maybe because of other factors, such as they are not really big consumers of doughnut products. As far as raising brand awareness, the company seem to have succeeded based on the rating alone.
To address Hb, correlation between brand personality and frequency of buying KKD was conducted. The Spearman test result (rs=0. 234, p=0.000) revealed that the two factors are positively correlated at the 0.05 level of significance. This implies that the hypothesis that Hb: Brand personality of Krispy Kreme positively influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumer, cannot be rejected. The median rating for the brand personality is 4 (‘agree”), which suggests that respondents agree with the company’s portrayal of the brand and that this somehow influenced them to patronise the KKD product over the competition. However, like the case of brand awareness, the rs value is near 0 which implies that the relationship between the two factors is also weak. The implication of this is that, the respondents’ perception of the brand’s personality attracts them to purchase the brand, but it does not seem to motivate them to purchase more frequently.
To address Hc, correlation between brand value and frequency of buying KKD was conducted. The Spearman test result (rs=0. .187, p=0.000) revealed that the two factors are statistically correlated at the 0.05 level of significance. This means that there is enough evidence to accept the hypothesis that, Hc:Brand value of Krispy Kreme positively influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers. However, the rs value is also near 0 which suggests a weak relationship between the two factors. This is consistent with the observations stated earlier, that the respondents’ favourable perception of the products value is enough to influence them into choosing KKD brand but it does not motivate them to increase the frequency of their purchases.
For Hd, social attributes of Krispy Kreme positively influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers, the correlation test revealed a positive correlation between the two variables at the 0.05 level of significance. The rs value (rs=0 .247, p=0.000) suggests that the two factors are weakly correlated but the relationship is statistically significant at the 0.05 level of significance. According to Boyd and Walker’s (1990) frame of reference, social attributes such as status image, popularity with friends, and popularity with family members are important decision factors for Thai consumers.  The social aspect of purchase behaviour is also underscored in Hofstede’s (2012) work, classifying Thailand as a highly collectivist country, where group is more important than the individual. This means that Thai consumers are easily influenced by their friends, colleagues, and family members in choosing which products to buy. This is consistent with the respondents’ ratings of the social attribute survey. The median rating is 4 (“agree”), which means that they agree that KKD was recommended to them by other people and purchasing KKD products enhances their appeal to other people.
Lastly, to address He, correlation between product quality and frequency of buying KKD was conducted. The Spearman test result (rs=0. 274, p=0.000) revealed that the two factors are positively correlated at the 0.05 level of significance. This implies that the hypothesis that, He: product quality of Krispy Kreme positively influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers, cannot be rejected. It seems Thai doughnut buyers gives premium to the quality in choosing whether to purchase a product or not. This finding is consistent with Boyd and Walker’s (1990) study on frame of reference, which suggested that product quality is important for Thai consumers. This penchant for quality also supports Hofstede’s (2012) findings that Thailand is primarily a feminine society. Hofstede (2012) concluded that Thai doughnut consumers are influenced more by the quality rather than price in deciding whether to buy a product or not. However, like the other cases, the rs value between purchase behaviour and product quality ratings is near 0. This implies that the relationship between the two factors is weak, which means that similar to the case of the other drivers of brand equity, the respondents’ high regard towards the quality of the brand does not necessarily translate to more frequent purchase of KKD products.
The previous discussions suggest that there brand equity is positively correlated with purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers. The respondents’ perception of the different drivers of brand equity influences their purchase behaviour. In response to the first research question, this study found that all the five drivers of brand equity included in this study, namely: brand awareness, brand personality, brand value, and product quality, have a significant influence in the frequency of buying KKD. This finding is consistent with Ailawadi, Lehmann, and Neslin’s (2003) concept of brand equity. It seems that people are willing to pay more and spend extra time falling in line just to purchase KKD product.  The positive correlation between purchase behaviour and brand equity suggest that the respondents who have higher perceptions of KKD’s brand equity tend to purchase KKD more frequently (Cobb-Walgren et al.1995). The repeat customers also attest to the fact that the KKD established its brand and this is providing long-term benefits to the company (Keller 1993).
As noted earlier, these findings show that the respondents’ perception of the brand significantly affects their purchase behaviour. This does not mean that Lamb, et al.’s (2004) argument that doughnut purchase is a routine behaviour, which does not involve extensive decision making process, is incorrect. It simply implies that in the case of KKD, purchase may not be a result of conscious decision making, but rather a result of the company’s brand equity, which has been planted in the respondents’ consciousness. The fact that some respondents admitted to being repeat customers suggest that their expectations of the product were satisfied, prompting them to have a favourable perception of the products (Sheth & Mittal 2004).
4.6. Relationship between purchase behaviour and communication and promotion efforts of KKD
To address the third objective of the study, investigate the relationship between the respondents’ perception of the communication and promotion efforts of KKD and their purchase behaviour, Spearman test was conducted between the frequency of buying KKD and the respondents’ answers to the communication and promotion questions. The Spearman test result (rs=0.180, p=0.000) revealed that there is a positive correlation between frequency of buying KKD and the respondents’ perception of the firms’ communication and promotion efforts at the 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, there is enough evidence to suggest that the hypothesis, Hf: Krispy Kreme influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers through active communication and promotion, cannot be rejected.
This finding implies that KKD’s communication and promotion efforts have paid off in terms of promoting the brand to the consumers. The respondents’ answers to the survey questions, where the median and mode ratings were 4 (“agree”), shows that the respondents find the company’s promotion efforts interesting, relevant and reliable. The positive correlation between their perceptions and their purchase behaviour attests to the fact that the communication and promotion strategies were instrumental in attracting consumers to buy the product. This confirms Prue’s (1998) argument that purchase intention can be triggered by marketing communication.
4.7. Relationship between purchase behaviour and adaptation strategy of KKD
To address the fourth objective, Spearman test was conducted between the frequency of buying KKD and the respondents’ answers to the adaptation strategy questions. Based on the Spearman test result (rs=0.262, p=0.000), the relationship between frequency of buying KKD and the respondents’ perception of the firms’ communication and promotion efforts, though weak, is statistically significant at the 0.05 level of significance. This means that the hypothesis, Hg: Krispy Kreme influences the purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers by adapting its products and promotion strategies to the local community, cannot be rejected. This result shows that Thai consumers believe that the company is doing what it can to adapt to their culture and adjust their products, marketing efforts, and promotion strategies to appeal to the Thai culture. It seems the company’s efforts in accommodating local culture and habits have paid off.
This is consistent with the literature (Fernandez 2009, Merrilees 2007, Sahay & Sharma 2010) that appropriate adaptation fosters better relationship with consumers. The fact that Thai consumers recognize the company’s efforts to adjust to the Thai culture and that it somehow influenced them to patronize the company’s products reflects the importance of adaptation in the KKD’s success in Thailand. Based on Hofstede’s (2012) classification, Thailand has a high uncertainty avoidance score, which means that as a culture, they have a tendency to feel threatened by unknown situations or the steps taken by the institutions to avoid/win the same. This suggests that for foreign brands such as KKD, adaptation is a necessity in order to succeed in the Thai market.
4.8. Summary of results and implications to the industry
Overall, these findings suggest that KKD’s brand equity, communication and promotion efforts and adaptation strategy are perceived positively by its consumers. In addition, their favourable perception significantly influences their purchase behaviours. This implies that the company’s success in Thailand could be attributed to a combination of the company’s brand equity, their efforts to communicate and promote their products to the Thai market, and commitment to adapt to the Thai culture and incorporate local values in their products and marketing strategies. However, there is still room for improvement. Based on the correlation test, consumers with higher perception rating tend to purchase more frequently than consumers with lower perception rating. This suggests that the company can still enhance their current practices in order to influence their current consumers into buying more and at the same time attract new buyers to switch to the KKD brand.
The ratings have shown that most respondents have high perceptions about the KKD brand, and this had significantly influenced their purchase behaviour. This implies that although doughnut is considered a routine purchase and consumers do not normally spend time trying to decide which brand to buy, KKD has successfully implanted the company’s brand equity on the minds of the consumers. This might have converted them into brand- conscious patrons, which is favourable to the KKD company since they already have a worldwide reputation as a premier doughnut company. This branding elevates the competition in the doughnut industry to a higher level, in which KKD have a huge advantage. For the lesser popular brands in the market, this could pose a big challenge and they need to find a way to differentiate their products and offerings to remain competitive.

Chapter 5. Conclusions
This study explored the link between brand equity and brand success of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts in Thailand. This study was important since KKD’s phenomenal success after just a few months of operation in the country has a significant impact in the doughnut industry. The doughnut industry already has quite a number of players prior to KKD’s entry to the country’s market, and the brands success might have other implications to these companies and to the industry in general. In additions, though KKD’s success is duly noted, there are no studies providing in depth explanation about what contributed to this result. This study attempted to contribute in filling this void.
The study found that consumers, in general, are familiar with the brand. Most of the respondents are aware of the brand, its appearance and locations. They are informed about the brand’s personality, value and quality and have even attached a social meaning to the brand. These factors indicate that KKD has established reputable brand equity. Most importantly, their high perception of the brand’s equity had influenced consumers to patronize what the brand is offering. The high perception about the brand positively relates to more frequent buying behaviour. It seems that KKD has succeeded in building brand consciousness for a product that is not traditionally affected by branding and extensive decision making process.
The study also found that KKD company had established a good reputation through its communication and promotion efforts. Consumers are not only aware of the company’s marketing strategies but also seem to find the content of these promotion campaigns believable and reliable. This is evidenced by the positive correlation between their perceptions and purchase behaviour. It appears that consumers buying KKD products are informed about the positive attributes of both the product and the company.
In terms of adaptation strategy, the result suggests that the company is doing enough to adapt their products and marketing strategies to the culture and values of Thai consumers. The company had made adjustments in order to incorporate local practices that would enhance the company’s appeal to the Thai consumers. Based on the respondents’ ratings, the company had succeeded in this front.
The findings of this research are important for academic study since it was able to demonstrate the importance of brand equity, and how it could be utilized in promoting a brand in a foreign market. This study was able to present a link between theory and practice. The study provided evidence that brand equity can be reflected using various indicators and that its influence could be measured through these indicators. The study also demonstrated the power of the concepts of communication and promotion and adaptation in motivating consumers to purchase the product. The linkage between theory and practice is essential because it helps students and researchers in verifying the accuracy of theories and understanding their applications in the real world. This understanding enhances appreciation of the concepts, which cannot be developed by just reading textbooks and articles.
From the management point of view, the result of this study could be used in better understanding the customers. The study was able to showcase the profile of an average KKD customer, their perceptions of the brand, and which aspects of the product, brand equity, marketing practices and adaptation strategies could be enhanced further to improve the brand’s performance in the Thai market. This study also demonstrated the strengths of the brand, which is implanting its brand equity on the minds of the consumers, making them more conscious of what they are purchasing. Instead of just buying doughnut as a routine activity, KKD elevated the process into an experience, where branding is an essential component.
One limitation of the study is that it failed to examine other factors that might have affected the consumers’ decision to buy or not buy KKD, such as cost, convenience and accessibility, and other factors. There is no denying that KKD charges more than most of its competitors in the market. For cost-conscious consumers, the price could have a major influence in the consumers’ consumption. This could dictate the choice of brand and the frequency of purchase. As mentioned earlier, to date, KKD is only available in 4 locations in Bangkok. This could limit its accessibility and convenience to consumers. Other factors such as personal tastes and preferences could also affect the frequency of purchasing KKD products. Some consumers might like flavours that are not available in KKD, some might not buy KKD that frequently because of health issues, or they are simply not frequent doughnut eaters.
Another limitation of this study is that it only focused on the consumers of KKD. It did not include non-consumers. Survey of non-KKD consumers would have enabled the researcher to gather information about factors preventing people from buying KKD. This would have also helped in evaluating the extent of the company’s efforts of promoting the brand. This would have been important in helping the company design strategies that could enhance the awareness of the brand and attract more people to patronize its products.
The limitations of this study could be traced to inadequate experience of the researcher in identifying salient aspects of research. Perhaps with better experience, the researcher could have been able to design a more comprehensive methodology. Time and resource restrictions were also major considerations, which might have contributed to the flaws in doing the research.
Nevertheless, the research was able to address the objectives set out at the start of the study. The limitations, on the other hand could serve as basis for future research on the subject. One topic would be to explore the perception of non-KKD consumers about the brand.  Another possible direction of research is to conduct a more in-depth exploratory study about the factors influencing consumers to buy KKD over the competitor. This would help verify the role of brand equity, communication and promotion and adaptation strategies in the success of the KKD in Thailand.

Ask for revise:

Due to the yellow highlight Plagiarism percentage show, please revise it as a paraphrase.
Please reference this textbook in-text name “ Research method for business study 5th edition” of Saunders,
Reference you still need to change due to it was not up to date, Can you please change it for me? Moreover, please check back whether reference in-text and Bibliography are matched.
Can you please check back whether structure instruction that I gave you earlier, you have it all in here?
Here is the comment of my supervisor plus compulsory structure and the topic has been change:
Current title: “Exploring the correlation between brand equity and Krispy Kreme Doughnut’s brand success under the context of Thai doughnut industry”

Suggested change: “Exploring the link between brand equity and brand success: Krispy Kreme Doughnuts in Thailand”

Some issues with English expression within the work require attention.

We went through the hypothesis and discussed how you will test them in SPSS.

How really distinctive are the questions that are listed under some of the headings in the questionnaire. For example, how different are some of the Qs in brand personality effectively the same as in brand value?

Sample frame – use just doughnut consumers??

My recollection is that we deleted a few questions such as:

•Q10 in the section on Communication and promotion as this asks about purchase behaviour when it should be focused on awareness of communication and promotion

Run through the questionnaire and ensure that each one is doing what you think it is.  Obviously each question should correspond with the heading/section it is located under.

We also rephrased some of the hypotheses so that they were clearly expressed.  For example your first hypothesis would be better phrased as “Brand awareness of Krispy Kreme is positively related to purchase behaviour of Thai doughnut consumers”.

Something that we had not discussed but I feel is worthwhile doing is reducing the number of questions in each section so that they are down to approximately 3 or 4 so that they are consistent and also the questionnaire is shorter.

Some reflections on what I have seen so far and some thoughts on your subsequent work:

Literature review
I suggest that you start this chapter – given that it is essentially a context chapter – with some clear explanation of what you are going to do in it and why.  What themes are you going to cover?  Why are you going to cover them?  How does it inform your study?  You should add sufficient “signposts” regarding where the work is going so it does not confuse the reader and flows clearly.  When you complete one section, make sure that you provide an introduction and clear flow into the next issue.

When you are covering the basic material it will be tempting to write it in very much a “textbook style” manner.  Instead, try to make the work specific to your own study. For example, if you are reviewing the basic model of consumer decision making try to amend the model to be specific to your area.

The end of the literature review should seamlessly lead to your key research questions and hypotheses. Indeed, really the purpose of this chapter is to synthesise all of the relevant material to identify a gap or under-developed issues.

Make sure that the literature review provides some background to the industry or sector that you are covering. This context chapter must balance the academic and the practical industry context.

Methodology chapter
This is an important chapter and must not be glossed over.  Some issues to consider – many of which have been under-emphasised in previous drafts that I have seen include:

Justify your research philosophy
Qualitative or quantitative – justify why you have chosen one or the other. Why is your approach appropriate for the research problem?
Inductive v deductive – discuss and relate to your study
Go through your research instrument.  Relate the questions to your aims and objectives and also to the relevant literature – you could do this in a table.
Discuss your pilot test of the research instrument.  How did it inform further development of your instrument?
If using quantitative approaches, how does your research instrument relate to your hypotheses?  Be clear about the linkage of the hypothesis to the questionnaire – how is the questionnaire going to aid you in assessing the hypothesis?
Justify your sampling method. What type of sampling are you employing (relate to the research literature on sampling strategies)? Why not another?  Justify your sample size.
When did you collect your data? If qualitative we need details of your subjects (even if confidential provide some details: e.g. “analyst, consumer marketing agency, London”)
Consider validity
Consider reliability (Cronbach’s alpha)
How generalizable are your results?
How will you analyse your data?  Why will you analyse it in this way?
If using interviews: consider issues of access; power relations in interviews; structured v semi-structured; recording; coding. Analysing the data?  Why are speaking to who you are?
What is the role of triangulation? How do you realise it?

Clarity on how everything links up:

Aim and Objectives    Interview Questions/Hypotheses    Literature
1.
2.

Data analysis
Explain what you are doing throughout your chapter.  Do not fall into the trap of dumping huge amounts of SPSS tables into the chapter that are unnecessary.  You should add copies of all of the SPSS data into your appendix.
When adding in an SPSS table make sure that you format it in an appropriate manner – delete superfluous material.  In addition, if you are running a questionnaire, this should be added in the appendix.  Test the normality of your data and cronbach alpha

If you are testing hypotheses make clear what you are doing and when. What level of significance will support or disprove the hypothesis?  When you have done the maths and accepted or rejected the hyp, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?  How does it relate to your aims and objectives?

If you are reporting qualitative data: use quotations to support your statements.  Look at other qualitative work within journals to get a handle on how to do this.  Also make sure that you structure the analysis in a logical and flowing manner.  Add full transcripts into the appendix of your dissertation so that examiners have access to them.

Conclusions
What have you done?
Why have you done it?
What have you found out?
What does it mean for academic study?
What does it mean for management practice?
What could you have done better?
What has restricted better execution of the project?
What is the future research that should be conducted in the light of your results?

Come back put Chapter 3 revise into this file and review the revision comment for Top and he is waiting for revise from Chapter 1 and 2. Look back into the old comment file.

In Literature review and Introduction, I did not see any revise in it. Can you please change it follow the revision instruction earlier that I gave you. Including, the one that I highlight due to there is still plagiarism issue.

References
Aaker, D.A. (1996) Building Strong Brands. The Free Press, New York.
Aaker, D.A. (1996a) ‘Measuring brand equity across products and markets.’ California     Management Review, 38(3): 102-120.
Ailawadi, K.L., Lehmann, D.R., & Neslin, S.A. (2003) ‘Revenue premium as an     outcome measure of brand equity.’ Journal of Marketing, 67(October): 1 – 17.
Anderson, D.R., Sweeney, D.J. and Williams, T.A. 2011. Statistics for Business and Economics. 11th ed. Mason OH: South-Western.
Arnould, E.J., Price, L.L. & Zinkhan, G. M. (2002) Consumers. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Bailey, R., & Ball, S. (2006) ‘An exploration of the meanings of hotel brand equity.’ The     Service Industries Journal, 26(1): 15–38.
Balnaves, M. and Caputi, P. 2011. Introduction to Quantitative Research Methods: An Investigative Approach. London: Sage.
Barrow, M. 2006.  Statistics for Economics, Accounting and Business Studies. 4th ed. Essex: Prentice Hall.
Berg, K.E. and Latin, R.W. 2004. Essentials of Research Methods in Health, Physical Education, Exercise Science and Recreation, 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
Bernard, H.R. 2000. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Biel, A. (1993) Converting image into equity. Brand Equity Advertising (David A. Aaker     and Alexander Beil, eds.). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Biel, A.L. (1992) ‘How brand image drives brand equity.’ Journal of Advertising     Research, 32(6): RC6–RC12.
Black, T.R.1999. Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences: An Integrated Approach. London: Sage.
Boone, L.E., & Kurtz, D.L. (2002) Contemporary marketing (10th ed.). Hinsdale, IL: The     Dryden Press.
Brand. (2008) [online] available from      http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci211703,00.html [accessed 12     March     2012].
Bruce, N., Pope, D, and Stanistreet, D. 2008. Quantitative Methods for Health Research: A Practical Interactive Guide.  Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Calantone, R.J., Kim, D., Schmidt, J.B., & Cavusgil, S.T. (2006) ‘The influence of     internal and external firm factors on international product adaptation strategy and     export performance: a three-country comparison.’ Journal of Business Research,     59: 176–85.
Campbell, K. (1993) Researching brands. In D.A. Aaker & A.L. Biel (Eds.), Brand equity     and advertising (pp. 56–62). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Canabal, M.E. (2002) ‘Decision making styles of young South Indian consumers: An     exploratory study.’ College Student Journal, (March): 1-15.
Chang, H.H. & Liu, Y.M. (2009) ‘The impact of brand equity on brand preference and     purchase intentions in the service industries.’ The Service Industries Journal,     29(12): 1687–1706.
Chang, H.H. (2006) ‘ Development of performance measurement systems in quality     management organisations.’ The Service Industries Journal, 26(7): 765–786.
Chiu, K.K.,  Lin, R.U., Hsu, M.K., &Chen, S-H. (2011) ‘Symbolic and Functional Brand     Effects for Market Segmentation.’Australian Journal of Business and     Management Research, 1(6): 75-86.
Clason, D.L. and Dormody, T.J. 1994. Analyzing Data Measured by Individual Likert-Type Items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), pp.31-35.
Clow, K.E. & Baack, D. (2002) Integrated Advertising, Promotion & Marketing     Communications. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.
Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A., & Donthu, N. (1995) ‘Brand equity, brand preference,     and purchase intent.’ Journal of Advertising, 24(3): 25–40.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K. and Morrison, K.R.B. 2007. Research Methods in Education. 6th ed. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cole, C., Laurent, G., Drolet, A., Ebert, J., Gutchess, A., Norton, M. I., & Peters, E.     (2008) ‘Decision making and brand choice by older consumers.’ Market Lett.,     doi:10.1007/s11002-008-9058-x.
Conchar, M.P., Crask, M.R. & Zinkhan, G.M. (2005) ‘Market Valuation Models of the     Effect of Advertising and Promotional Spending: A Review and Meta-Analysis.’     Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(4): 445-460.
Creswell, J.W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crowther, D. and Lancaster, G. 2008. Research Methods, 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
de Chernatony, L. (2006) From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation. Butterworth-    Heinemann, Oxford.
De Mooij, M. (2004) Consumer Behavior and Culture: Consequences for Global     Marketing and Advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Mooij, M. (2010) Global Marketing and Advertising, Understanding Cultural     Paradoxes (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2010) ‘The Hofstede model: applications to global     branding and advertising strategy and research.’ International Journal of     Advertising, 29(1): 85.
Dow, D. (2005) ‘Adaptation and performance in foreign markets: evidence of systematic     under-adaptation.’ Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 212–226.
Faircloth, J.B., Capella, L.M., & Alford, B.L. (2001) ‘The effect of brand attitude and     brand     image on brand equity.’ Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(3):     61–75.
Fernandez, P.R. (2009) ‘Impact of Branding on Gen Y’s Choice of Clothing.’ The     Journal of the South East Asia Research centre for Communications and     Humanities, 1(1): 79-95.
Fowler, F.J. 2002. Survey Research Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gorard, S. 2006. Quantitative Methods in Educational Research: The Role of Numbers Made Easy. London: Continuum.
Gordon, W. (1993) Accessing the brand through research. In D.A. Aaker & A.L. Biel     (Eds.),     Brand equity and advertising (pp. 33–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence     Erlbaum.
Grimm, P.E. (2005) ‘Ab components’ impact on brand preference.’ Journal of Business     Research, 58(4): 508–517.
Gustaffson, T. & Chabot, B. (2007) ‘Brand Awareness.’ Cornel Maple Bulletin, 107: 1-5.
Harvey, B. (2001) ‘Measuring the Effects of Sponsorship.’ Journal of Advertising     Research (January/February): 59-65.
Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2007) ‘A European in Asia.’ Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10: 16–    21.
Hofstede, G. (2012) Thailand [online] available from http://geert-    hofstede.com/thailand.html [accessed 29 April 2012]
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G.J. (2005) Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind     (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hoy, W.K. 2010. Quantitative Research in Education: A Primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jackson, S.L. 2011. Research Methods: A Modular Approach. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Jackson, S.L. 2012. Research Methods and Statistics: A Critical Thinking Approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
James, C. (2010) Thais Love Donuts, Which is Why There Are Hundreds of Donut Shops     in Bangkok [online] available from http://voices.yahoo.com/best-donut-shops-    bangkok-thailand-6875206.html [accessed 10 February 2012].
Johnson, B. and Christensen, L.B. 2012. Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Jones, R. (2005) ‘Finding sources of brand value: Developing a stakeholder model of     brand equity.’ Journal of Brand Management, 13(1), 10-32.
Kapferer, J. (2005) ‘The post-global brand.’ Journal of Brand Management, 12(5): 319–    324.
Kaplan, D. (2004) The Sage hand book of quantitative methodology for social science, California: Thousand Oaks
Keller, K. L. (2001) Building customer-based brand equity: a blueprint for creating     strong     brands. Cambridge, Mass, Marketing Science Institute.
Keller, K.L. (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand     equity. Journal of Marketing,57(1): 1-23.
Keller, K.L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing     brand equity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Keller, K.L., & Chaudhuri, A. (1995) ‘  Brand equity or double jeopardy?’ Journal of Product and Brand     Management, 4(1): 26–32.
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (1996) Principles of marketing. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kotler, P. & Fox, K.F.A. (1995) Strategic marketing for educational institutions (2nd ed.).     New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kotler, P. (2000) Marketing management (10th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Krispy Kreme (2012) We opened our doors on July 13, 1937 [online] available from     http://www.krispykreme.com/about-us/history [accessed 5 February 2012].
Kothari, C. R. 2004. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. 2nd ed. New Delhi: New Age.
Lamb, C.W., Jr., Hair, J.F., Jr., & McDaniel, C. (2004) Marketing (7th ed.) Oxford:     Oxford University Press.
McBurney, D.H. and White, T.L. 2010. Research Methods. 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
McNeill, P. and Chapman, S. 2005. Research Methods. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Routledge.
Meenaghan, T. (2001) ‘Understanding Sponsorship Effects.’ Psychology & Marketing     18(2): 95-122.
Merrilees, B. (2007) ‘A theory of brand-led SME new venture development.’ Qualitative     Market Research: An International Journal, 10(4), 403-415.
Michael, T., & Nedunchezhian, V.R. (2012) ‘Impact of Media on Consumers’ Brand     Preference – A Study on Carbonated Beverage Market with Reference to Coca-    Cola.’ European Journal of Social Sciences, 29(2): 233-243.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Muijs, D. 2004. Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS. London: Sage.
Murray, J.A. & O’Driscoll, A. (1996) Strategy and process in marketing. New York:     Prentice-Hall.
Newman, I. and Benz, C.R. 1998. Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the Interactive Continuum. Illinois: Southern Illinois University.
Okazaki, S., Taylor, C.R., & Zou, S. (2006) ‘Advertising standardization’s positive     impact on the bottom line.’ Journal of Advertising, 35(3): 17–33.
Park, C.S. & Srinivasan, V. (1994) ‘A survey-based method of measuring and     understanding     brand equity and its extendibility.’ Journal of Marketing Research,     31(2): 271–288.
Prawatpattanakul, S. (2010) Bangkok’s top trends of 2010 [online] available from     http://www.cnngo.com/bangkok/play/better-or-worse-bangkoks-top-8-trends-    2010-029609 [accessed 10 February 2012].
Pru, T. (1998) An all-embracing theory of how advertising works?’ [online] available     from http://www.hpiresearch.com/images/sections/thinkpieces/Theory.pdf     [accessed 9 May 2011].
Raggio, R. D., & Leone, R. P. (2007) ‘The theoretical separation of brand equity and     brand value: Managerial implications for strategic planning.’ Journal of Brand     Management, 14(5): 380-395.
Rice, C. (1997) Understanding customers. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Romaniuk, J. & Sharp, B. (2003) ‘Measuring brand perceptions: Testing quantity and     quality.’ Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 11(3):     218–229.
Ross, S.M. 2010. Introductory Statistics. 3rd ed. Burlington, MA: Academic Press
Rossiter, J.R. & Percy, L. (1998) Advertising Communications & Promotion     Management (2nd Edition). McGraw Hill: New York.
Rubin, A. and Babbie, E.R. 2010. Essential Research Methods for Social Work. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole
Sahay, A., & Sharma, N. (2010). Brand Relationships and Switching Behaviour for     Highly Used Products in Young Consumers, Vikalpa, 35(1), 15-30.
Schiffman, L.G. & Kanuk, L.L. (2000) Consumer behaviour (7th ed.). New Jersey:     Prentice-Hall.
Schultz, D.E., Tannenbaum., S.I., & Lauterborn, R.F. (1994) The New Marketing         Paradigm: Integrated Marketing Communications. NTC Business Books:     Chicago.
Schwab, D.P. 2005. Research Methods for Organizational Studies. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Semenik, R.J., (2002) Promotion and Integrated Marketing Communications. South-     Western: Cincinnati.
Sheth, J.N. & Mittal, B. (2004) Customer behaviour: A managerial perspective (2nd ed.)     Ohio: South-Western.
Shimp, T.A. (2003) Advertising, Promotion, & Supplemental Aspects of Integrated     Marketing Communications (6th Edition). Thomson, South-Western: Ohio.
Singh, K. 2007. Quantitative Social Research Methods. London: Sage.
Solomon, M.R. (2002) Consumer behaviour: Buying, having and being (5th ed.) New     Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Taylor, George R. 2005. Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Research. 2nd ed.  Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Thomas, R.M. 2003. Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods in Theses and Dissertations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Vinson, D.E., Scott, J.E. & Lamont, L.R. (1977) ‘The role of personal values in     marketing and consumer behaviour.’ Journal of Marketing, 41(April): 44-50.
Walliman, N.S. R. 2011. Research methods: the basics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wang, X., Yang, Z. & Liu, N.R. (2009) ‘The impacts of brand personality and congruity     on purchase intention: Evidence from the Chinese Mainland’s automobile     market.’ Journal of Global Marketing, 22(3): 199-215.
Weiss, N.A. 2012. Introductory Statistic. 9th ed. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wong, H.Y. & Merrilees, B. (2007) ‘Multiple roles for branding in international     marketing.’ International Marketing Review, 24(4): 384–408.

Appendix 1. Sample Questionnaire

A. Personal Information
1. Have you ever bought donut? (Screen question)
    Yes
    No (end of questionnaire, thank you for your cooperation)

2 Gender
    Male
    Female

3 Age
    Below 15
    15 to 25
    25 to 40
    above 40

4 Marital status
    Single
    Married
    Divorced
    Widowed
    Separated

5 Education
    Below high school level
    High school/ Diploma level
    Bachelor Degree
    Master Degree
    Doctorate Degree
    Other……………………………

6 Annual level of income
    0 – 10,000 Baht
    11,000 – 32,000 Baht
    33,000 – 54,000 Baht
    55,000 – 87,000 Baht
    89,000 Baht and above

B. Purchasing behaviour

1 How often do you buy doughnuts?
    Never (This is the first time)
    Seldom (once a month or less)
    Quite often (two to four times a month)
    Very often (several times a week)
    Always (everyday)

2 How often do you buy Krispy Kreme Doughnuts (KKD)?
    Never (This is the first time)
    Seldom (once a month or less)
    Quite often (two to four times a month)
    Very often (several times a week)
    Always (everyday)

C. Respondents’ perceptions about the Brand Equity of Krispy Kreme Doughnut
Rate the following statements based on your perception of the brand.
Legend:
1 – strongly disagree
2 – disagree
3 – neither agree nor disagree
4 – agree
5 – strongly agree

Description
1    2     3     4       5
Brand awareness
1    KKD is a leading brand.
2    KKD is a comparatively recallable brand to me.
3     I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of KKD.
4    I am familiar with the appearance of KKD stores.
5    I know the locations of KKD stores near me.
Brand personality
6    KKD is a trustworthy and reliable brand.
7    KKD has a good reputation.
8    KKD’s personality is apparent and distinct from that of other brands.
9    KKD’s personality is pleasant and attractive.
10    KKD brand reflects sincerity, excitement, and competence.
11    I have a clear image of the type of person who buys KKD.
Brand value
12    KKD offers good value for money.
13    KKD is superior to other competing brands.
14    KKD is a strong brand.
15    KKD has a proven track record of competence and reliability.
Product quality
16    KKD has excellent quality.
17    The quality of KKD products is consistent.
18    I am satisfied with the quality of KKD products.
Social attributes
19    KKD is recommended by friends.
20    KKD is recommended by family.
21    Purchasing KKD makes me look cool to my friends.
22    I recommend the product to other people.

D. Respondents’ perceptions about the Communication and promotion efforts of Krispy Kreme Doughnut
Rate the following statements based on your perception of the brand.
Legend:
1 – strongly disagree
2 – disagree
3 – neither agree nor disagree
4 – agree
5 – strongly agree

1      2     3     4     5
1    Krispy Kreme actively advertises and promotes its brand.
2    Krispy Kreme develops interesting and informative promotion materials.
3    Krispy Kreme’s communication efforts reflect the company’s superiority over its competitors.
4    Krispy Kreme ensures that consumers are informed about its products, quality and image.
5    KKD provides consumers relevant information about the company.
6    KKD differentiates its position in the industry through its campaigns.

E. Respondents’ perceptions about the Adaptation strategy (cultural factors) of Krispy Kreme Doughnut
Rate the following statements based on your perception of the brand.
Legend:
1 – strongly disagree
2 – disagree
3 – neither agree nor disagree
4 – agree
5 – strongly agree
1    2    3    4     5
1    I believe KKD has adapted its products to meet the needs of Thai consumers.
2    Krispy Kreme develops culturally appropriate promotion strategies.
3    KKD factors in the local culture and habits in their marketing strategy
4    KKD employs a pricing method appropriate to the local cost of living.
5    KKD’s foreign origin does not hinder consumers from patronizing the brand.
6    KKD’s superior quality reflects the values of Thai consumers.

Appendix 2: Summary of Demographic Profile of Respondents
Factors        Frequency    Percent
Gender
male    83    41.5
female    117    58.5
Age
Below 15     15    7.5
15 to 25    46     23
25 to 40    98    49
above 40    41    20.5
Marital status
Single    105    52.5
Married    86    43
Divorced    6    3
Widowed    1     0.5
Separated     2    1
Education
Below high school level    9    4.5
High school/ Diploma level    30    15
Bachelor Degree    94    47
Master Degree    52    26
Doctorate Degree    15    7.5
Annual level of income
0 – 10,000 Baht    27    13.5
11,000 – 32,000 Baht    36    18
33,000 – 54,000 Baht    71    35.5
55,000 – 87,000 Baht    47    23.5
89,000 Baht and above      19     9.5

Appendix 3: Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha    N of Items

Brand awareness (BA1 – BA5)    .800    5
Brand personality (BP1 – BP6)    .797    6
Brand value  (BV1-BV4)    .580    4
Brand valuea (BV2-BV4)    .713    3
Product quality (PQ1-PQ3)    .850    3
Social attributes (SA1-SA4)    .619    4
Social attributesb (SA3-SA4)    .745    2
Communication and promotion (CP1-CP6)    .888    6
Adaptation strategy (cultural factors) (AS1- AS6)    .832    6
a.  Adjusted instrument (Exclude BV1 and BV4)
b. Adjusted instrument (Exclude SA1 and SA2)

Appendix 4: Purchase behavior of the respondents
Frequency    Percent    Valid Percent    Cumulative Percent
Purchase_donut    1    4    2.0    2.0    2.0
2    56    28.0    28.0    30.0
3    112    56.0    56.0    86.0
4    25    12.5    12.5    98.5
5    3    1.5    1.5    100.0
Purchase_KKD
1    13    6.5    6.5    6.5
2    91    45.5    45.5    52.0
3    90    45.0    45.0    97.0
4    6    3.0    3.0    100.0

Written by