Impact of Brand Association on Brand Equity with Specific Focus on Advergames in India

Abstract

The objective of this article is to study the relationship between brand equity and brand association in the context of advergames in India. Brand association is considered as an independent variable, and its impact on brand equity is investigated. This article includes an initial survey of youngsters of Gujarat state under an experimental research design. The data is analysed using factor analysis, MANOVA and multiple regression. Two factors extracted from the brand association, namely ‘specific attributes’ and ‘intangible attributes’, are found to be significantly impacting brand equity. Out of the two, ‘specific attributes’ explain higher variation compared to ‘intangible attributes’. The findings have practical implications for both academicians and practitioners. Although the findings are restricted to the FMCG sector, they can be somewhat generalized. They can act as a foundation for further research. They can also provide guidelines to the practitioners.

Keywords

Advergame brand equity brand association interactive marketing

Introduction and Background

One of the strategies used by the marketers is adding entertainment value in a marketing communication to obtain prospective buyers’ time. Today, this is the critical differentiator in interactive media where involvement of customers is almost mandatory for the success of any campaign. It is significant for sustaining the interest of prospective customers and creating a favourable marketing environment. ‘Games’ as an entertainment tool are highly involving in nature and have the ability to generate interest. These characterize games in the list of the interactive media. Nowadays, the use of advergame is widespread for branding purpose. In this way, marketers attempt to increase the brand equity that results into customers’ preference for the brand, especially for those who did not have the expertise in the field of the purchased goods (Kulshreshtha, Tripathi, & Bajpai, 2017). It is an outcome of customers’ perception of the brand name that convinces them to spend money on the brand (Kulshreshtha et al., 2017). Brand equity also contributes in terms of increasing the value to the brand that, in turn, is used for line extension or co-branding purpose. Brand association is a determinant of brand equity that builds brand equity by differentiation, creating a feeling or developing customer attitudes (Sharma, 2016). This study intends to understand the relationship between the brand association and brand equity in the context of advergames. Further, the impact of brand association on brand equity is also studied.

Since ages, games are widely accepted as a source of entertainment. Since the past few decades, technological evolution is consistently transforming the nature of games. Today, playing games on smartphones or computers is one of the most preferred ways to overcome loneliness or spend time. With the persuasive ability of games, the marketers have developed a modified genre of the games, which are termed as ‘Advergame’. An advergame is an entertainment tool consisting of the advertising message, trademarks and trade characters intended for branding purpose (Mallinckrodt & Mizerski, 2007). Internet and Mobile Association of India defines ‘advergames’ as those games which are specially put up around a brand to create recall and association (Rosen, 2007). Free online advergames are specifically designed to promote brands by integrating brand identifiers into the playing content of the game (Lee, Choi, Quilliam, & Cole, 2009). It is a form of ‘entertaining advertisement’ designed for a single brand or multiple brands (Tina & Buckner, 2006). Although advergames are not new to the advertising landscape, much needs to be learned about their effects (Gross, 2010). Content analysis shows that advergames have been relatively ubiquitous and use a similar set of strategies to those seen in product placements (Lee et al., 2009; Moore & Rideout, 2007; Quilliam, Lee, Cole, & Kim, 2011).

Gaming as an industry in India is at a booming stage, and people are spending more time on advergames as compared to television advertisements (Ipe, 2008). As per the report on Indian Gaming Industry, the size of the industry is expected to grow to $801 million in 2022 from $543.08 million in 2016 (Haridas, 2017). Indians are spending more time on advergames compared to viewing advertisements on televisions, which has attracted the marketers to choose advergame as a marketing tool (Sathe, 2011). In pre-web time, advergames were issued on floppy disk by Chef Boyardee, Coca-Cola and Samsung (Davis, 2005) but now the internet is used as a common platform for downloading or playing games online. Increasing the penetration of smartphone, reducing the cost of internet, growing millennial consumers and sizeable entertainment time spent on a mobile phone is the key growth drivers of advergames in India (Hanumanthu, 2017). Though in the year 2018, the smartphone users’ penetration was only 24 per cent in India (France-Presse, 2019), India is the world’s fastest-growing smartphone market (Shankar, 2018). As the smartphone provides a convenient and affordable platform for gaming, it contributes 87 per cent gamers in India (Shankar, 2018). The growth of smartphone users’ is the key driver for the growth of advergaming in India.

Advergame—A Special Category

Unlike traditional advertising, advergames generate interactivity between brands and games through consumers’ active participation (Deal, 2005; Lee et al., 2009). It requires active behavioural responses (e.g., concentrating and clicking on the buttons) and high cognitive engagement (e.g., deciding the moves and predicting the reactions), and consequently, they are believed to engage a large number of cognitive resources. Interactive brand placement positively affects awareness (cognition), brand image (affect) and behavioural intention (conation) (Van Reijmersdal, Jansz, Peters, & Van Noort, 2010). Brands advertised by advergames develop faster gamers’ positive association with the brand as compared to those which are not advertised by advergames (Glass, 2007). Brand recognition score in advergame is more compared to television viewing or usage of computer, and familiarity with the game enhances this effect (Hernandez & Chapa, 2010). It also contributes to the mood of the gamer and manages the stress (Russoniello, O’Brien, & Parks, 2009), which separates advergames from most of the traditional mediums.

Advergame uses a similar set of techniques seen in product placement (Lee et al., 2009; Moore & Rideout, 2007; Quilliam et al., 2011). There are some negative results regarding the effectiveness of product placement. A study discloses that the brand placement in television programme results in negative brand attitude (Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, & Neijens, 2012). Similarly, disclosures for TV brand placements resulted in less acceptance of the product claims made in the programme (Dekker & Van Reijmersdal, 2013). Thus, advergames should be treated as a special category to verify the facts of marketing.

Review of Literature

In the 1980s, the first time, the concept of brand equity was explained in the literature about the marketing area. Soon after, it became a significant concept for academic researchers and marketing practitioners (Aaker, 1991; Kapferer, 1998; Keller, 1998). Rust, Lemon and Zeithaml (2004) define brand equity as:

To be the customer’s subjective and intangible assessment of the brand, above and beyond its objectively-perceived value.

While Yoo, Donthu and Lee (2000) define brand equity as:

The difference in consumer choice between the focal branded product and an unbranded product given the same level of product features.

In both definitions, the customer is in the centre of the concept. To understand this concept, it is necessary to know its critical determinants from the customers’ perspective. The brand equity structure from the customers’ perspective is dependent on various factors, namely the brand’s attitude, awareness, recall, association and quality perceived (Keller, 1993). Customer’s experience with the brand that is in terms of his/her learning, feeling, viewing and hearing is the base of brand strength (Keller, 2003). Creating substantial brand equity is a priority for marketers, as it has many advantages. Brand equity cannot be created without understanding and influencing the factors responsible for the development of it.

Brand Association—An Antecedent of Brand Equity

As per Aaker’s (1991) illustration for the conceptualization of brand equity and Keller’s (1993) proposed a framework, brand equity research in marketing focusses on consumers’ brand association. Aaker (1991) anticipated that the association, awareness, perception for quality, loyalty, and other proprietary brand assets (e.g., patents) underly brand equity. Awareness and association were emphasized as essential foundation variables of customer-based brand equity (Keller, 1993).

Customers’ ability to recognize and recall brands in different situations is defined as brand awareness, and it reflects the presence of the brand in customers’ mind (Aaker, 1996). To develop a set of associations, a consumer should be first aware of the brand (Washburn & Plank, 2002). Aaker (1991) considers association as the base for the purchase decision. Anything linked to a brand is referred to brand association which is believed to be an element of equity (Aaker, 1991) and it is found to give distinctive favour to the brand (Belén del Río, Vazquez, & Iglesias, 2001).

Anything which associates a brand in a person’s memory in some meaningful way is a brand association (Aaker, 1991). The strength of the association (Aaker, 1991; Aaker & Keller, 1990; Keller, 1993) and its link to the brand are based on several experiences and exposures of the brand (Aaker, 1991). By using the association with brand attitude, brand attributes and brand benefits, respectively, it is possible to generate brand association (Keller, 1998). Several researchers (Kumar, Dash, & Chandra Purwar, 2013; Tong & Hawley, 2009; Ye & Van Raaij, 2004; Yoo, Donthu, & Lee, 2000) have tested brand association as a dimension of brand equity which is also recommended by Aaker (1991). Thus, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H1: In the context of advergames, there was a statistically significant difference in Brand Equity generated based on Brand Association Attributes.

H1a: In the context of advergames, there was a statistically significant difference in Brand Equity generated based on Specific Attributes.

H1b: In the context of advergames, there was a statistically significant difference in Brand Equity generated based on Intangible Attributes.

Here, the specific and intangible attributes are considered as the antecedents of brand associations, and it is further discussed in later sections with the support of literature and primary data.

Impact of Brand Association on Brand Equity

A strong and positive association supports a brand to make it strong. Particularly, the type of association with the brand puts the brand equity in a leverage situation (Bridges, Keller, & Sood, 2000). Further, Yoo et al. (2000) and Atilgan, Aksoy and Akinci (2005) have mentioned that loyalty towards a brand is building a strong brand association. Thus, it is concluded that strong and positive associations with the brand lead to building higher equity for the brand. So, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H2: Brand association has significant impact on brand equity in the context of advergames.

There is a similarity between advergames and product placement in terms of the techniques used (Lee et al., 2009; Moore & Rideout, 2007; Quilliam et al., 2011). There are two types of product placement, namely ‘Prominent Placement’ and ‘Subtle Placements’. These two types are defined by Gupta and Lord (1998) as under:

Prominent placements are those in which the product (or other brand identifier) is made highly visible by virtue of size or position on the screen or its centrality to the action in the scene while Subtle placements are those in which the brand is not shown prominently.

The advergame literature also reveals the superiority of prominent placement over subtle placement (Van Reijmersdal, 2009; Van Reijmersdal, Rozendaal, & Buijzen, 2012; Vashist, 2016). Those attributes of advergames, which leads to prominent placement, are considered as specific attributes while those leads to subtle are considered as intangible attributes.

During gaming, a person interacts with the game in such a way that the advertised message is often neglected (Lee & Faber, 2007). Due to this, the advertisements are often processed subconsciously, and it is required to be congruent to the brand appearance with the game. As per Lee and Faber (2007), one of the congruency measures is the visibility of the product in the game. Further, Tina and Buckner (2006) have concluded that advergames are more effective for brands which are previously known to the players. For known brands, advertising memory is more salient compared to unknown brands (Mau, Silbere, & Constien, 2008). Such certain specific attributes like identification, visualization and recall of brand have been considered in game design so that it associates with the brand. Hence, based on these arguments, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2a: Specific Attributes have significant impact on Brand equity.

The charters of the gaming environment should be kept in mind while investigating the effect of brand placements. Studies also concluded that games with higher congruence lead to strong memory for the brand sponsored (Gross, 2010). The sole purpose of the player is to entertain and not to encounter with a persuasive message. So, it is necessary to consider in game design that the player should not be aware of persuasive attempts of the sponsor (Balasubramanian, 1994). Because of this, certain intangible attributes contributing to the brand association are also considered in game design. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2b: Intangible Attributes have significant impact on Brand equity.

Yoo and Donthu (2001) mentioned that brand equity measurement depends on various brand personality dimensions, brand association and loyalty. Studies have been conducted for understanding the prerequisite of role of association and in strengthening brand equity (Washburn & Plank, 2002). A brand equity model based on a conceptual framework (Aaker, 1991) is still used as a base by researchers in their study, where association and awareness have been used as a separate antecedent of brand equity model to measure its effectiveness (Ahmad & Sherwani, 2015). In the last two decades of branding research, the contemporary nature of the relationship between association and equity depicts that it should be studied with the different types of products, services and communication platforms. A study of the relationship between these two variables in the context of advergame for FMCG category is an attempt to fulfil the literature gap to some extent. The authors have considered the subparts of brand association in advergames, namely specific attributes and intangible attributes and proposed a model (Figure 1).

Research Methodology

Research Approach

The research commences with an exploratory research design. The instantaneous purpose of exploratory studies is to develop hypothesis and questions for further research (Cooper & Schindler, 2007). The formal study begins after the exploration ends. Experimental designs are found suitable to study game-based congruity (Lee, Yang, & Hung, 2017; Sreejesh, Anusree, & Ponnam, 2018). Pre-experimental research design is used in which one shot case study method is applied. The limitation of pre-experimental research designs is that it does not employ randomization for controlling the extraneous factors (Malhotra & Birks, 2006). When a single group of the test unit is exposed to the treatment (X), and a single measurement of the dependent variable is taken (O1), it is defined as a per-experimental research design (Malhotra & Birks, 2006, p. 269).

Figure 1.

Source: Authors’ own.

Stimulus

In the current study as a treatment, all the respondents were instructed to play a game on their smartphone for 12–15 minutes and then fill up the questionnaire. The respondents were given clear instructions to attempt every question carefully and compulsorily. The data was collected for two different FMCG brands, that is, Redbull & Bingo advergames, because the researcher aimed to generalize the results for the FMCG category in the Indian environment. While selecting the advergames, it was kept in mind that both the advergames should possess the same game levels and nearly the same brand congruence, prominence in brand placement and cognitive task. For low involvement products, the level of congruence with games has a positive association with the memory of the brand (Gross, 2010). Based on these characteristics of the games, in the FMCG category, only two games were found appropriate to use as a treatment in the Indian environment.

Measurement Items

A self-administered questionnaire was developed for this study. For measurement of both the variables, scales were adopted from past literature. For brand equity, the original scale containing four items was (Annexure 1) obtained from the previous study (Yoo et al., 2000). Yoo et al. (2000) have tested the previous conceptual brand equity model (Aaker, 1991) along with brand awareness, perceived quality, brand association and brand loyalty as antecedents. The motive behind the choice of this scale is its validation with the sample consisting of academicians and practitioners collectively. The brand equity scale is also inclusive of the definition of brand equity proposed by Keller (1993). Brand association scale was adopted from the work of Yoo and Donthu (2001). It has five items. Both the variables were measured on a five-point Likert scale.

Data Collection and Sampling

Under pre-experimental research design—one-shot case study (X O1), a survey has been conducted in various urban and semi-urban cities of Gujarat state. Before filling up the questionnaire, the respondents were required to play the advergame. The respondents were given sufficient time to play the game, so that they understand the game before filling up the questionnaire. So, places like restaurants, home, college gardens and computer laboratories have been selected for the meeting where the respondent can leisurely seat and play the game on the smartphone. It has been taken care that it was an individual response, and discussion on the stimuli with others was carefully discouraged. Because of this procedure, the survey required more time. Therefore, it was difficult to convince the respondents for participation in this survey. So non-probability convenience sampling method was used and out of approached youngsters, all those who were ready to give their time were surveyed. It is believed that acceptable results can be generated from the carefully controlled non-probability sample (Cooper & Schindler, 2007). A total of 226 respondents were surveyed, comprising equal numbers for both the games. It included university students as well as other youngsters in equal proportion. Usually, a person having age between 13 and 35 years are considered as a youth, but in a policy document of the government of India’s ministry of youth affairs (Singh, 2014), 15 to 29 years is specified as the age limit for youth. From a legal perspective in India, 18 years of age is considered as a maturity criterion. In the world over, the age between 13 and 17 years is considered as teenagers. Adopting a conservative approach in higher age limit and the legal aspect in lower age limit, the authors decided to survey the persons falling in the age range of 18 to 35 years for this study purpose.

Data Analysis

Reliability Analysis

The strength of the scales used for measuring the impact of brand association on brand equity was evaluated by examining its reliability. In reliability analysis, internal consistency was computed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α). It was found acceptable (Nunnally, 1978) as it was 0.762 for brand association and 0.798 for brand equity (Table 1).

Table 1.

Reliability Analysis

Variable	Cronbach’s Alpha	No. of Items
Brand association	0.762	5
Brand equity	0.798	4

Source: Authors’ primary data analysis.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

An exploratory factor analysis is carried out to identify the underlying constructs of brand association. The principal component analysis method was used for factors extraction. The results of the analysis are admirable because the value of KMO Measure of sample adequacy (Table 2) was 0.803 (Kaiser, 1970). The high degree of correlation between the variables is expected because Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998).

Table 2.

KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and Significance Level

KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.		0.803
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	403.016
	Df	10
	Sig.	0.000*

Source: Authors’ primary data analysis.

Note: *significant at 0.001 level.

As an output of the varimax rotation method, two factors explaining 74.032 per cent variance are extracted with Eigen value over 1. The observed factor loading was 0.799 (minimum) and 0.987 (maximum), respectively. The individual items under the particular factor and the description of the factors are provided in Tables 3 and 4.

After identifying the prominent factors for the study, these variables were taken as independent variables. Based on the average of the average score for each statement of the factor, the factor scores were calculated.

Table 3.

Description of Factors

Factors	Description	% of Variance	Cumulative %
Specific	Associate to distinguishing apparent brand feature and innovation leading to prominent placement	53.332	53.332
Intangible	Associate with latent peripheral clues which helps in evoking the brand leading to subtle placement	20.701	74.032

Source: Authors’ primary data analysis.

Table 4.

Composition of Each Factor Identified in Factor Analysis

Rotated Component Matrix
Factors	Items	Factor Loadings
Specific attributes	Easy to identify over Others	0.831
	Awareness of visualized brand	0.829
	Easy recall visual brand logo/symbol	0.805
	Easy to recall some characteristics of VB	0.799
Intangible attributes	Difficult to envision visualized brand	0.987

Source: Authors’ primary data analysis.

Relating Brand Equity to Brand Association

In the context of advergames, the primary objective of this research was to evaluate the relationship between brand equity and brand association. Considering this, association and equity were taken as the independent and dependent variable, respectively. For this, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test with repeated measures was conducted. Results of MANOVA and subsequent ANOVA are provided in Table 5. It was noted that there was a statistical significant difference between brand equity for the two dependent variables of brand association, that is, Specific Attributes and Intangible Attributes (Wilk’s Lamda = 0.865; Significance: p = 0.0000 < 0.05).

Table 5.

MANOVA Results: Brand Equity to Brand Association (OVERALL)

Effect		Value	F	Significance
Multivariate Tests
Brand Equity	Pillai’s Trace	0.192	6.942	0.000000*
	Wilks’ Lambda	0.811	7.186	0.000000*
	Hotelling’s Trace	0.229	7.429	0.000000*
	Roy’s Largest Root	0.211	13.780	0.000000*
ANOVA Tests
Specific Attributes	-----------		11.619	0.000*
Intangible Attributes	-----------		2.124	0.078*

Brand Equity	F1	F2
Strongly Disagree (N = 06)	3.17	2.50
Disagree (N = 33)	3.24	2.82
Neither Agree nor Disagree (N = 127)	3.59	2.76
Agree (N = 87)	4.16	2.84
Strongly Agree (N = 13)	3.77	2.83

Source: Authors’ primary data analysis.

Note: * p < 0.05.

As indicated in Table 5, the univariate F-ration was also significant for the two dependent variables, that is, specific attributes (F = 11.619, Sign. = 0.000), intangible attributes (F = 2.124, Sign. = 0.078). In addition, based on the means score of both dimensions of brand association, it was found that brand equity has more importance to specific attributes compare to intangible attributes. Henceforth, overall results support H1, H1a and H1b (Table 5).

Further, a regression analysis was conducted to understand the contribution of brand association with brand equity. The values for standardized (β) and the un-standardized (β) regression coefficient and their contribution and predictive power are calculated in Table 6. In this study, the enter method was used.

The model was significant, R² = 0.165, F (2, 263) = 25.926, p < 0.000. 1.009 indicates the regression model’s VIF value for both the factors, which were below 10. Therefore, for this regression model, it was concluded that there was no ‘collinearity’ (Hair et al., 1998).

Table 6.

Multiple Regression Analysis on Brand Equity

Variables	B^a	β^b	Sig. (p-Value*)	VIF
Specific Attributes	0.393	0.338	0.000	1.009
Intangible Attributes	0.146	0.097	0.010	1.009
R ²	0.165
Adjusted R²	0.158
F	25.926

Source: Authors’ primary data analysis.

Notes: ^aStandardized coefficients, ^bUnstandardized coefficients, *p < 0.05.

Specific attributes had statistically significant contribution in explaining the impact of brand equity (sig. = 0.000; t = 6.939; β = 0.338) compared to intangible attributes which was statistically significant on the impact of brand equity (sig. = 0.010; t = 2.583; β = 0.097) but having low beta value. The hypotheses H2, H2a and H2b were supported (Table 6). The result shows that specific attributes explain higher variation in comparison to intangible attributes.

Discussion of the Results

It was found that there is a statistically significant relationship between brand equity and brand association in the context of advergames. Previous studies also exhibit similar outcomes which emphasize brand awareness and associations as the key variables to determine consumer-based brand equity (Keller, 1993). According to Aaker (1991), brand association, brand awareness, brand perception for quality, brand loyalty and other proprietary brand assets (e.g., patents) underlies brand equity. Because the scope of this research is limited to study the impact of brand association on brand equity, other predictors of brand equity were not considered. This could be the probable reason for the low R-square value. Keller (1993) also mentioned that the association differs according to how favourably they are evaluated, and all associations are not equally important (French & Smith, 2013; Keller, 1993). Therefore, the subjectivity of brand presentation in the selected advergames could be the probable reason for the low R-square value. There are some studies which deny the influence of brand association on brand equity (Atilgan et al., 2005; Sharma, 2017). Because R-square is a measure of explanatory power (not fit) and the study is limited to the advergame category, the author preferred to consider it. Results of the hypothesis proved that brand equity is significant on ‘specific attributes’ as well as ‘intangible attributes’ for advergames. Thus, it can be concluded that brand equity is significant on the brand association.

Keller (1998) emphasized that the brand association can be created with attitudes, attributes and benefits of the brand. The findings are also in line with Keller’s study. The results established the relation of specific attributes and intangible attributes in the context of advergame. The positive impact (β = 0.338) of specific attributes (a factor of brand association) on brand equity denotes the positive relationship of brand association and brand equity. This result is similar to the earlier findings which conclude that the specific attributes of a brand play a vital role in a brand association that eventually builds up the brand equity (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994). Though the results of intangible attributes are not highly impactful (β = 0.097), they cannot be neglected. Despite this limitation, it is still significant, and the impact may vary based on the design of the game. This is similar to the findings that in advergame, the context of the game has an impact on brand awareness and brand perceptions (Yoo & Eastin, 2016).

Implications of the Study

This study extends the research stream on increasing effectiveness of advergames by investigating the impact of the contextual presentation of a brand. Though it is evident that both apparent (specific) and perceptible (intangible) ways of presentation contribute to brand equity, the contribution by the former is significant. This output poses a challenge before the advergame developers to keep the brand apparent without losing the entertainment value of the game. Simultaneously, to nullify intrusiveness and to visualize a brand, it is required to focus on creativity. During gaming, brand awareness is one of the contributors in terms of identification and recall. This indicates that advergames should be used with other mediums of marketing communication. It is more useful for known brands compared to the new one. The use of perceptible ways of presentation also has an impact on brand equity, and it should be used without compromising on the use of apparent ways.

These findings have an important implication for the researchers to understand the effectiveness of brand association on brand equity in the context of advergames. The crucial theoretical contribution of this study is that it shows the separate effect of the specific and intangible attributes on brand equity in the context of advergames. Therefore, theoretical models of brand equity should not only consider brand association but also consider the impact of these two ways of brand presentation. Further, the usage extent of each of the way of presentation can be a new area of the study for the researchers. The results may vary based on the type of product category, game characteristics and individual characteristics of the gamer, which paves the way for further research.

Limitations and Conclusions

Sample selectivity to one state ‘Gujarat’ and focus on only one sector ‘FMCG’ restrict the direct application of the study results to other geographical areas of the country and business sectors, respectively. One of the significant limitations which make the experimentation results highly subjective is the ‘treatment’, that is, ‘advergames’. Results are based on the basic characteristics and persuasiveness of the advergames. The outcome of this study is matching with the earlier studies which confirm the impact of brand association on brand equity. However, this could be the first attempt to confirm it in the context of ‘Advergames’ in Indian environment. The bifurcation of brand association into two variables, namely specific attributes and intangible attributes, and verifying the impact of each variable on brand equity is a useful contribution to the existing body of knowledge. The output would be useful to the marketing professionals and game designers to enhance the contribution of advergame in development of brand equity. Future researchers in advergame area can pursue the study to find the individual or combined impact of another antecedence(s) of brand equity.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Measurement Items of Brand Equity

Sr. No.	Statements
1	It makes sense to buy X instead of any other brand, even if they are the same.
2	Even if another brand has the same features as X, I would prefer to buy X.
3	If there is another brand as good as X, I prefer to buy X.
4	If another brand is not different from X in any way, it seems smarter to purchase X.

References

Aaker

D. A.

(1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name (Vol. 28, pp. 35–37). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Aaker

D. A.

(1996). Building strong brands. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Aaker

D. A.

, & Keller

K. L.

(1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27–41.

Ahmad

, & Sherwani

N. U.

(2015). An empirical study on the effect of brand equity of mobile phones on customer satisfaction. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 7(2), 59.

Atilgan

, Aksoy

Ş.

, & Akinci

(2005). Determinants of the brand equity: A verification approach in the beverage industry in Turkey. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 23(3), 237–248.

Balasubramanian

S. K.

(1994). Beyond advertising and publicity: Hybrid messages and public policy issues. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 29–46.

Belén del Río

, Vazquez

, & Iglesias

(2001). The effects of brand associations on consumer response. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(5), 410–425.

Boerman

S. C.

, Van Reijmersdal

E. A.

, & Neijens

P. C.

(2012). Sponsorship disclosure: Effects of duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 1047–1064.

Bridges

, Keller

K. L.

, & Sood

(2000). Communication strategies for brand extensions: Enhancing perceived fit by establishing explanatory links. Journal of Advertising, 29(4), 1–11.

10.

Broniarczyk

S. M.

, & Alba

J. W.

(1994). The importance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 214–228.

11.

Cooper

, & Schindler

(2007). Business research methods (9th ed.). New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited.

12.

Davis

(2005, January 16). Campaign for commercial free childhood. Retrieved from http://www.commercialexploitation.org/news/dunkinforadvergames.htm

13.

Deal

(2005). The ability of branded online games to build brand equity: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views–Worlds in Play (pp. 1–7).

14.

Dekker

, & Van Reijmersdal

E. A.

(2013). Brand placement disclosures to mitigate persuasion: The role of celebrity endorsement and disclosure type. Journal of Promotion Management, 19(2), 224–240.

15.

France-Presse

(2019, February 6). Gadgets 360. Retrieved from https://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/smartphone-penetration-just-24-percent-in-india-claims-survey-1989169

16.

French

, & Smith

(2013). Measuring brand association strength: A consumer based brand equity approach. European Journal of Marketing, 47(8), 1356–1367.

17.

Glass

(2007). The effectiveness of product placement in video games. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(1), 23–32.

18.

Gross

M. L.

(2010). Advergames and the effects of game-product congruity. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1259–1265.

19.

Gupta

P. B.

, & Lord

K. R.

(1998). Product placement in movies: The effect of prominence and mode on audience recall. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 20(1), 47–59.

20.

Hair

J. F.

, Anderson

R. E.

, Tatham

R. L.

, & Black

(1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

21.

Hanumanthu

(2017, July 7). Telangana today. Retrieved from https://telanganatoday.com/advergaming-india-untapped-business

22.

Haridas

(2017). Emerging trends in Indian gaming industry. New Delhi: Confederation of Indian Industry, India Habitat Centre (IHC).

23.

Hernandez

M. D.

, & Chapa

(2010). Adolescents, advergames and snack foods: Effects of positive affect and experience on memory and choice. Journal of Marketing Communications, 16(1–2), 59–68.

24.

Ipe

(Ed.) (2008). Advergaming and ingame advertising: An introduction. Hyderabad: ICFAI University Press.

25.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1970). A second-generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35(4), 401–415.

26.

Kapferer

(2004). The new strategic brand management. New Delhi: Kogan Page.

27.

Keller

K. L.

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

28.

Keller

K. L.

(1998). Strategic brand management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

29.

Keller

K. L.

(2003). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand equity (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

30.

Kulshreshtha

, Tripathi

, & Bajpai

(2017). Impact of brand cues on young consumers’ preference for mobile phones: A conjoint analysis and simulation modelling. Journal of Creative Communications, 12(3), 205–222.

31.

Kumar

, Dash

, & Chandra Purwar

(2013). The nature and antecedents of brand equity and its dimensions. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 31(2), 141–159.

32.

Lee

, Yang

, & Hung

(2017). Evaluating game-brand congruity and flow on brand personality by using Gamifying learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3083–3097.

33.

Lee

, Choi

, Quilliam

E. T.

, & Cole

R. T.

(2009). Playing with food: Content analysis of food advergames. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 43(1), 129–154.

34.

Lee

, & Faber

R. J.

(2007). Effects of product placement in on-line games on brand memory: A perspective of the limited-capacity model of attention. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 75–90.

35.

Malhotra

, & Birks

D. F.

(2006). Marketing research: An applied approach (S. E. ed.). England: FT Prentice Hall.

36.

Mallinckrodt

, & Mizerski

(2007). The effects of playing an advergame on young children’s perceptions, preferences, and requests. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 87–100.

37.

Mau

, Silberer

, & Constien

(2008). Communicating brands playfully: Effects of in-game advertising for familiar and unfamiliar brands. International Journal of Advertising, 27(5), 827–851.

38.

Moore

E. S.

, & Rideout

V. J.

(2007). The online marketing of food to children: Is it just fun and games? Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 26(2), 202–220.

39.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

40.

Quilliam

E. T.

, Lee

, Cole

R. T.

, & Kim

(2011). The impetus for (and limited power of) business self-regulation: The example of advergames. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 45(2), 224–247.

41.

Rosen

(2007, April 9). Mobile ‘advergaming’ to grow by leaps and bounds in India. Retrieved from http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/EnWBZFsjb7XHxiy6oGOraJ/Mobile-advergaming-to-grow-by-leaps-and-bounds-in-India.html

42.

Russoniello

C. V.

, O’Brien

, & Parks

J. M.

(2009). The effectiveness of casual video games in improving mood and decreasing stress. Journal of CyberTherapy and Rehabilitation, 2(1).

43.

Rust

R. T.

, Lemon

K. N.

, & Zeithaml

V. A.

(2004). Return on marketing: Using customer equity to focus marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 109–127.

44.

Sathe

(2011, May 4). What’s holding back the growth of Indian advergames? Retrieved from http://www.exchange4media.com/digital/what%E2%80%99s-holding-back-the-growth-of-indian-advergames_41990.html

45.

Shankar

(2018). Re-imagining India’s M & E sector. Delhi: FICCI.

46.

Sharma

(2016). Effect of celebrity endorsements on dimensions of customer-based brand equity: Empirical evidence from Indian luxury market. Journal of Creative Communications, 11(3), 264–281.

47.

Sharma

(2017). Building customer-based brand equity of domestic brands: Role of brand equity dimensions. Metamorphosis, 16(1), 45–59.

48.

Singh

(2014). National youth policy. New Delhi: Ministry of Youth affairs and Sports, Government of India.

49.

Sreejesh

, Anusree

M. R.

, & Ponnam

(2018). Does game rules work as a game changer? Analyzing the effect of rule orientation on brand attention and memory in advergames. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 325–339.

50.

Tina

, & Buckner

(2006). Receptiveness of gamers to embedded brand messages in advergames: Attitudes towards product placement. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7(1), 3–32.

51.

Tong

, & Hawley

J. M.

(2009). Measuring customer-based brand equity: Empirical evidence from the sportswear market in China. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 18(4), 262–271.

52.

Van Reijmersdal

(2009). Brand placement prominence: Good for memory! Bad for attitudes? Journal of Advertising Research, 49(2), 151–153.

53.

Van Reijmersdal

E. A.

, Jansz

, Peters

, & Van Noort

(2010). The effects of interactive brand placements in online games on children’s cognitive, affective, and conative brand responses. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1787–1794.

54.

Van Reijmersdal

E. A.

, Rozendaal

, & Buijzen

(2012). Effects of prominence, involvement, and persuasion knowledge on children’s cognitive and affective responses to advergames. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(1), 33–42.

55.

Vashist

(2018). Effect of product involvement and brand prominence on advergamers’ brand recall and brand attitude in an emerging market context. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 30(1), 43–61.

56.

Washburn

J. H.

, & Plank

R. E.

(2002). Measuring brand equity: An evaluation of a consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(1), 46–62.

57.

, & Van Raaij

W. F.

(2004). Brand equity: Extending brand awareness and liking with signal detection theory. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10(2), 95–114.

58.

Yoo

, & Donthu

(2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1–14.

59.

Yoo

, Donthu

, & Lee

(2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195–211.

60.

Yoo

S. C.

, & Eastin

M. S.

(2017). Contextual advertising in games: Impacts of game context on a player’s memory and evaluation of brands in video games. Journal of Marketing Communications, 23(6), 614–631.