MKTG 342: Brand Management

Assignment 1: Brand Equity Analysis Report

Auditing Brand Identity, Image, and Equity Drivers in a Chosen Market

 

Course Code	MKTG 342
Course Title	Brand Management
Assignment Type	Individual Analytical Report
Assignment Number	Assignment 1 of 3
Academic Level	Undergraduate Year 3–4
Department	Business Administration
Semester	Spring 2025–2026
Total Marks	100 marks (25% of final grade)
Word Count	1,500–2,000 words (body text only; title page, reference list, and appendices excluded)
Submission Format	Microsoft Word (.docx) uploaded via the course portal
Due Date	See the course portal for the confirmed submission deadline
Referencing Style	Harvard Referencing (author–date)

 

 

1. Assignment Overview

Brands are a company’s most durable assets, and managing them well requires more than intuition about logos and taglines. Structured analysis matters here. Assignment 1 asks you to select an established consumer-facing brand, conduct a focused brand audit, and evaluate the drivers of that brand’s equity using a recognised theoretical framework.

 

Two frameworks are widely used in brand equity analysis. Keller’s Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model examines how brand knowledge, built from brand awareness and brand image, shapes consumer responses and drives equity. Aaker’s brand equity model focuses on five asset categories: brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, brand loyalty, and other proprietary assets. You are free to choose either framework, but your choice should be consistent throughout the report. Mixing elements from both without clear justification tends to produce an unfocused analysis.

 

The report should read as a connected analytical argument. Subheadings are expected and will help you stay organised, but the goal is not simply to work through a checklist of framework dimensions. The expectation is that you will use the framework as a lens to draw meaningful conclusions about how strong the brand’s equity really is, where that equity has come from, and what the company should pay attention to going forward.

 

 

2. Learning Outcomes Assessed

Assignment 1 addresses the following course learning outcomes (CLOs):

 

• CLO 1: Explain and apply established brand equity frameworks (Keller’s CBBE model and Aaker’s brand equity dimensions) in the analysis of real brands.
• CLO 2: Conduct a structured brand audit by distinguishing between brand identity and brand image and identifying the gap between them.
• CLO 3: Evaluate the key drivers and vulnerabilities of a brand’s equity using evidence from primary brand activity and published academic sources.
• CLO 4: Develop practical, evidence-based recommendations for strengthening brand equity, grounded in course theory.
• CLO 5: Produce a clearly structured analytical report using correct Harvard referencing conventions.

 

 

3. Task Description

3.1  Brand Selection (100–150 words)

Select an established consumer-facing brand for your analysis. The brand should be one with a reasonably well-documented public profile, including marketing communications, a defined product or service line, and some evidence of how consumers perceive it. FMCG brands, retail brands, technology brands, hospitality brands, and regional GCC brands all work well for this type of assignment.

 

Introduce your chosen brand briefly. State the product or service category it operates in, where it sits in the market (premium, mid-market, or value), and why it makes for an interesting or useful subject for a brand equity analysis. Do not use a brand that was featured as a primary case study in the course lectures.

 

3.2  Brand Audit (450–550 words)

A brand audit has two components: brand identity and brand image.

 

Brand Identity

Brand identity refers to how the company intends the brand to be perceived. It covers elements such as the brand name and visual identity, the brand’s stated or implied values, its tone of voice in advertising and communications, and any positioning statements or brand promises it makes. You can source this from official company materials, advertising, packaging, and published corporate communications.

 

Brand Image

Brand image refers to how consumers actually perceive the brand. It covers the associations, feelings, and beliefs consumers hold about the brand, which may or may not align with what the company intends. Evidence for brand image can come from customer reviews, consumer survey data, social media sentiment, media coverage, and any academic or industry research on consumer perceptions of the brand.

 

Gap Analysis

After presenting both sides, identify any meaningful gap between identity and image. Where does the brand appear to be succeeding in delivering its intended identity? Where does consumer perception diverge from what the company communicates? Even a short, focused gap analysis is more valuable here than a lengthy summary that avoids evaluation.

 

3.3  Brand Equity Framework Analysis (550–650 words)

Apply your chosen framework, either Keller’s CBBE model or Aaker’s five-dimension model, to evaluate the brand’s equity.

 

If you use Keller’s CBBE model, address the brand building blocks in sequence: salience (brand awareness and recognition), performance and imagery (brand meaning), judgements and feelings (consumer responses), and resonance (the relationship between brand and consumer). Identify where the brand is strong and where it may be weaker across the pyramid.

 

If you use Aaker’s model, assess the brand across its five equity dimensions: brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, brand loyalty, and proprietary assets (such as patents, channel relationships, or registered marks). Again, move beyond description and assess how strongly the brand performs on each dimension relative to its category context.

 

Whichever framework you choose, the expectation is the same: ground your analysis in specific, verifiable evidence rather than general impressions. Where the brand performs strongly, explain why. Where equity appears weaker, say so clearly. Avoid writing sections that read as a flattering summary of a company’s marketing.

 

3.4  Strategic Recommendations (250–300 words)

Based on your audit and framework analysis, develop two or three specific recommendations for how the company could protect or strengthen its brand equity. Each recommendation should satisfy three conditions: it must address a specific gap or vulnerability identified in your analysis, it must be grounded in at least one theoretical concept from the course, and it must be realistic given the brand’s scale and competitive position.

 

Broad suggestions such as ‘improve social media presence’ do not meet the standard at this level unless they are made specific, targeted at a particular consumer group, and connected to a clear brand equity rationale.

 

 

4. Submission Requirements

4.1  Format and Presentation

• Word count: 1,500–2,000 words for the body of the report. Title page, reference list, and any appendices are excluded from the count.
• Font: Arial or Times New Roman, 12pt.
• Line spacing: 1.5 throughout.
• Margins: 2.54 cm on all sides.
• Structure: Use the section headings from Section 3 of this brief. Do not rename or reorder them.
• Title page: Include your full name, student ID, course code, assignment title, and submission date.
• File format: Microsoft Word (.docx). Submissions in PDF will not be accepted unless prior written approval has been given by the instructor.

 

4.2  Referencing

A minimum of five academic sources is required. At least three of these must be peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2018 and 2026. Industry sources such as brand reports, market research publications, and credible news coverage may supplement the academic sources but do not count toward the peer-reviewed minimum.

 

All sources must be cited using Harvard referencing throughout the report. The reference list at the end of the document should list sources alphabetically by the first author’s surname, and each entry should include full publication details. The in-text citation format is author surname, year, and page number where a specific claim is referenced.

 

4.3  Academic Integrity

All submitted work must be independently produced. Collaboration at the ideas and discussion stage is acceptable, but the writing, analysis, and conclusions of the report must be entirely your own. Submitting work that has been generated in whole or in part by AI writing tools without prior written disclosure to, and approval from, the course instructor constitutes a violation of the university’s academic integrity policy. Any student uncertain about acceptable use of such tools should seek clarification from the instructor well before the submission deadline.

 

 

5. Marking Rubric

The descriptors below indicate what markers look for at each performance level. Pay particular attention to the distinction between ‘Excellent’ and ‘Proficient’ across all criteria. The most consistent differentiator at this level is the quality of the gap analysis and framework application, not the volume of information presented.

 

Criterion	Excellent (90–100%)	Proficient (75–89%)	Developing (60–74%)	Inadequate (0–59%)	Marks
1. Brand Equity Framework Application Accuracy and depth in applying Keller’s CBBE model or Aaker’s brand equity dimensions to the selected brand.	Framework applied correctly and with real insight; each dimension addressed with specific evidence from the brand; discussion moves beyond definition.	Framework applied accurately for most dimensions; evidence present but occasionally general or assumed rather than sourced.	Framework partially applied; one or more dimensions missing or confused; limited use of brand-specific evidence.	Framework absent or significantly misapplied; discussion is largely descriptive and lacks theoretical grounding.	25
2. Brand Audit Analysis Depth and accuracy of the brand audit covering brand identity, brand image, and the gap between the two.	Brand audit is well-structured and evidence-based; identity and image are clearly distinguished; gap analysis is specific and insightful.	Brand audit covers both identity and image adequately; gap analysis is present but not fully developed.	Brand audit is present but uneven; identity and image may be conflated; gap analysis is vague.	Brand audit is missing, superficial, or limited to a basic description of the company.	25
3. Evaluation of Brand Equity Drivers Ability to identify and assess the key drivers (and weaknesses) of the brand’s current equity.	Three or more equity drivers identified and evaluated with clear reasoning and supporting evidence; at least one weakness or vulnerability also addressed.	Two or three drivers identified; evaluation is present but some drivers lack supporting evidence or depth of reasoning.	One or two drivers mentioned; assessment is mainly descriptive; little to no evaluation of weaknesses.	No meaningful identification of equity drivers; discussion stays at the surface level.	20
4. Strategic Recommendations Practicality and clarity of proposed recommendations for strengthening or protecting brand equity.	Two or three specific, realistic recommendations that follow logically from the audit findings; each is connected to a theoretical concept and assessed for feasibility.	Two recommendations given and reasonably justified; limited engagement with theory or with potential implementation challenges.	One or two vague suggestions; weak connection to the analysis or to brand equity theory.	No clear recommendations, or suggestions are generic and disconnected from the brand audit.	15
5. Academic Writing and Referencing Structure, clarity, referencing accuracy, and adherence to Harvard format and word count.	Well-organised and clearly written; all sources correctly cited in Harvard style; word count within the 1,500 to 2,000 range.	Generally clear with minor structural or referencing issues; word count broadly met.	Some structural or referencing inconsistencies; word count noticeably short or over.	Poor organisation, absent or incorrect referencing; word count significantly outside the stated range.	15
Total					100

 

 

6. Guidance Notes for Students

6.1  On Framework Choice

Students sometimes try to apply both the CBBE model and Aaker’s framework in the same report. In most cases, the result is a surface-level treatment of both rather than a thorough application of either. Choose one framework, use it consistently, and make sure your analysis actually engages with the specific dimensions the framework identifies. Mentioning a dimension in passing and moving on does not count as application.

 

6.2  On Brand Identity vs Brand Image

Confusing brand identity with brand image is one of the most common errors in brand management assignments. Brand identity is the company’s intention; brand image is the consumer’s perception. A brand may intend to be seen as a premium, values-driven company, but consumers in a particular market may perceive it as expensive and inaccessible. Both things can be true at the same time, and the tension between them is often where the most useful analysis sits.

 

6.3  On Selecting Evidence

Assertions about consumer perception need to be supported by evidence, not assumption. If you claim that a brand is associated with luxury, cite the source of that claim, whether it is consumer research, brand tracking data, an industry report, or an academic study. Unsupported generalisations about how consumers ‘feel’ about a brand are the most common reason for a report to sit in the Developing range rather than Proficient.

 

6.4  Recommended Starting Points

• Keller, K.L. (2013) Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 4th edn. Pearson. Core text for the CBBE model and brand audit methodology.
• Aaker, D.A. (1991) Managing Brand Equity. Free Press. Foundation text for Aaker’s five-dimension framework.
• Rajavi, K., Kushwaha, T. and Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. (2023) ‘Brand equity in good and bad times’, Journal of Marketing, 87(2). DOI: 10.1177/00222429221122698.
• Porto, R.B., Foxall, G.R., Limongi, R. and Barbosa, D.L. (2024) ‘Unraveling corporate brand equity’, Journal of Modelling in Management, 19(4). DOI: 10.1108/JM2-04-2023-0067.
• Euromonitor International, Statista, and Mintel. Useful for consumer sentiment data, market positioning information, and brand category benchmarks.

 

 

7. Suggested Academic References

All four references below are real, verified, and accessible via the linked DOIs or through the university library. You must source a minimum of five references independently; the list below is a starting point.

 

Dwivedi, A., Nayeem, T. and Murshed, F. (2018) ‘Brand experience and consumers’ willingness-to-pay a price premium: mediating role of brand credibility and perceived uniqueness’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 44, pp. 100–107. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.06.009 (Accessed: March 2026).

Porto, R.B., Foxall, G.R., Limongi, R. and Barbosa, D.L. (2024) ‘Unraveling corporate brand equity: a measurement model based on consumer perception of corporate brands’, Journal of Modelling in Management, 19(4), pp. 1237–1261. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-04-2023-0067 (Accessed: March 2026).

Rajavi, K., Kushwaha, T. and Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. (2023) ‘Brand equity in good and bad times: what distinguishes winners from losers in consumer packaged goods industries?’, Journal of Marketing, 87(2), pp. 1–22. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221122698 (Accessed: March 2026).

Swaminathan, V., Sorescu, A., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., O’Guinn, T.C.G. and Schmitt, B. (2020) ‘Branding in a hyperconnected world: refocusing theories and rethinking boundaries’, Journal of Marketing, 84(2), pp. 24–46. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919899905 (Accessed: March 2026).

 

 

Appendix A: Sample Response Excerpt

The paragraph below illustrates the analytical depth and tone expected in the framework section. It is not a model answer and does not represent a complete response.

 

Applying Keller’s CBBE model to Almarai, the Saudi dairy and food conglomerate, reveals a brand that has built considerable equity across the lower tiers of the pyramid but faces more ambiguity at the resonance level. Brand salience is high across the GCC: consumer recognition of the Almarai name and packaging is consistent across demographics, supported by decades of distribution reach that makes the brand visible in virtually every grocery format in the region. At the performance level, the brand has benefitted from a sustained association with product freshness and quality assurance, reinforced by its vertically integrated supply chain, which the company has consistently communicated as a point of differentiation. Brand imagery is arguably where Almarai’s CBBE becomes more contextually dependent. Whereas urban consumers in Saudi Arabia and the UAE may associate the brand primarily with household staples, regional expatriate populations and younger consumers exposed to international alternatives have been documented as more receptive to premium dairy alternatives from European brands, suggesting that the imagery associations for Almarai can shift based on consumer segment. Rajavi, Kushwaha and Steenkamp (2023, p. 8) found that brands with broader distribution breadth tend to sustain stronger equity during economic contractions, a finding that maps directly onto Almarai’s regional dominance in the everyday dairy category. However, at the resonance level, the brand’s relationship with consumer loyalty appears more transactional than deeply affective, particularly among younger urban consumers whose category engagement has broadened considerably in the past five years.

 

Note: The in-text citation above references — Rajavi, K., Kushwaha, T. and Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. (2023) ‘Brand equity in good and bad times’, Journal of Marketing, 87(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221122698

 

 

Appendix B: Assignment Metadata and SEO Details

 

Verified Peer-Reviewed References (Harvard Format)

 

1. Dwivedi, A., Nayeem, T. and Murshed, F. (2018) ‘Brand experience and consumers’ willingness-to-pay a price premium: mediating role of brand credibility and perceived uniqueness’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 44, pp. 100–107. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.06.009

 

2. Porto, R.B., Foxall, G.R., Limongi, R. and Barbosa, D.L. (2024) ‘Unraveling corporate brand equity: a measurement model based on consumer perception of corporate brands’, Journal of Modelling in Management, 19(4), pp. 1237–1261. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-04-2023-0067

 

3. Rajavi, K., Kushwaha, T. and Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. (2023) ‘Brand equity in good and bad times: what distinguishes winners from losers in consumer packaged goods industries?’, Journal of Marketing, 87(2), pp. 1–22. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221122698

 

4. Swaminathan, V., Sorescu, A., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., O’Guinn, T.C.G. and Schmitt, B. (2020) ‘Branding in a hyperconnected world: refocusing theories and rethinking boundaries’, Journal of Marketing, 84(2), pp. 24–46. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919899905