首页    期刊浏览 2022年07月07日 星期四
登录注册

文章基本信息

  • 标题:Consumer-based brand equity in the television industry: a study of a private TV channel in Turkey.
  • 作者:Eser, Zeliha ; Pinar, Musa ; Girard, Tulay
  • 期刊名称:Academy of Marketing Studies Journal
  • 印刷版ISSN:1095-6298
  • 出版年度:2012
  • 期号:January
  • 语种:English
  • 出版社:The DreamCatchers Group, LLC
  • 摘要:The recent technological advancements and lower financial entry barriers into the media industry have led to changes in practices of mass communication (Oyedeji, 2007). The current media environment is able to deliver specialized content to niche audiences in various formats through a large number of media channels (Goldstein, 2004). Not only the new media vehicles (e.g., blogs, satellite radio, podcasts, online video and news sources, etc.) and traditional media types (radio, television, magazines, and newspapers) presently compete for audiences and advertising revenues, but also the competition among the traditional media vehicles has become more intense. As a result, media organizations found themselves forced to adopt strategic management decisions and practices that had been once commonly used for the marketing of consumer products (Oyedeji, 2007). Television networks (e.g., ABC, CBS, NBC) have long sought to differentiate their products on the basis of functional attributes such as content features and presentation. That is because gaining competitive advantages based on only product attributes (e.g., news, entertainment and sports) has become harder due to the increase in media outlets and fragmentation of audiences. Consequently, the television networks have to find ways of building distinctive and meaningful brand images in the minds of news audiences (Chan Olmsted and Cha, 2008).
  • 关键词:Brand image;Consumer behavior;Television broadcasting industry

Consumer-based brand equity in the television industry: a study of a private TV channel in Turkey.


Eser, Zeliha ; Pinar, Musa ; Girard, Tulay 等


INTRODUCTION

The recent technological advancements and lower financial entry barriers into the media industry have led to changes in practices of mass communication (Oyedeji, 2007). The current media environment is able to deliver specialized content to niche audiences in various formats through a large number of media channels (Goldstein, 2004). Not only the new media vehicles (e.g., blogs, satellite radio, podcasts, online video and news sources, etc.) and traditional media types (radio, television, magazines, and newspapers) presently compete for audiences and advertising revenues, but also the competition among the traditional media vehicles has become more intense. As a result, media organizations found themselves forced to adopt strategic management decisions and practices that had been once commonly used for the marketing of consumer products (Oyedeji, 2007). Television networks (e.g., ABC, CBS, NBC) have long sought to differentiate their products on the basis of functional attributes such as content features and presentation. That is because gaining competitive advantages based on only product attributes (e.g., news, entertainment and sports) has become harder due to the increase in media outlets and fragmentation of audiences. Consequently, the television networks have to find ways of building distinctive and meaningful brand images in the minds of news audiences (Chan Olmsted and Cha, 2008).

IMPORTANCE OF BRANDING IN A DEVELOPING MARKET

While brand consultants emphasize the importance of branding, television networks shift their focus from their earnings per share to long-term shareholder value. Branding has become more important than programming because the value of a successful brand lasts longer and is higher than a program (Ryan, 1999; Chan-Olmsted and Cha, 2007). Yang and Tso (2007, p. 19) affirm that "In the field of media management, understanding consumer acceptance of media products is becoming a central issue in the face of audience fragmentation and media globalization." Prior research concludes that international television programs in general moved from more advanced and culturally dominant countries to developing or less developed countries (Chadha and Kavoori, 2000; Chung 2005; Yang and Tso, 2007).

As one of the developing countries, Turkey is a great example of a market to study because of the rapid growth in the TV network industry. Since the first domestic television transmission signal was received in Turkey in 1968, the state-owned Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT) held its monopoly position without facing any competition until 1990. However, after 1990, the Turkish TV industry experienced a boom of private TV channels in Turkey. This new era brought changes in the areas of production techniques and formats, and content of programs. Consequently, in 3-5 year span, the Turkish TV and Broadcasting industry became very competitive, offering new and interesting program formats. According to an OECD 1999 report (Hurriyet, 1999), Turkish Radio and TV industry experienced record growth during 1995-1997, with a two-year growth rate of 24.3%, compared to the 3.4 % OECD average. The same report indicates that the revenue in the Turkish Radio and TV industry grew at the annual rate of 26.6%, growing from $341.2 million in 1995 to $546.81 million in 1997. The growth of the Turkish Radio and TV industry continues today, making the industry even more competitive than it was in the 1990s. In 2009, the number of TV channels reached 199 (national, local and thematic). The rising number of the TV channels has intensified the competition in the Turkish TV industry which increased the importance of branding and the brand equity concept among TV channels in developing and implementing their business strategies.

CONSUMER-BASED BRAND EQUITY

Branding is one of the most important management practices (Chan-Olmsted & Kim, 2001; Lin, Atkin, & Abelman, 2002) in the strategic management process for identifying a product and distinguishing it from similar goods and services (Aaker, 1991). Successful branding practices (e.g., differentiation, service quality) generate customer-based brand equity (CBBE)--a concept that predicts that consumers will react more favorably toward the product, price, promotion, and distribution of a branded product than they would toward a generic product in the same product category (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993).

The importance of effective branding strategy is further emphasized in prior research that CBBE enhances the value of products and services (Fombrun, 1996); improves consumers' disposition toward organizations and their products (Keller, 1993); directly affects consumers' psychological judgment with respect to a brand, making them favorably disposed toward paying more and searching further for the brand (Aaker, 1991; Aaker & Biel, 1992; Tauber, 1988), and helps organizations attain increased profitability through increased market share and favorable price structures (Aaker, 1991).

Researchers have used brand equity theory as a theoretical lens for studying various aspects of media management. Chan-Olmsted and Kim (2001) surveyed media managers of commercial television stations and found that the managers of stations agreed that branding is important, "overall a very useful business tool" that "will help them achieve long-term business success" and "stay competitive" (pp. 85-86), but they associated it with tactical operations, such as local news credibility, network affiliation image, station promotions, and logo design, rather than considering it as a strategic long-term management process. The researchers observed a negative correlation between experience in the industry and perception of the role of branding in media management. More specifically, industry newcomers were more receptive toward the practice of branding. McDowell and Sutherland (2000) used brand equity theory to analyze television program brand equity and conceptualize TV program brand equity as the outstanding audience loyalty and long-term market dominance (Oyedeji, 2007). McDowell and Sutherland (2000) concluded that each program carries its own brand equity independent of the brand equity of the station. Thus, programs with higher brand equity captured larger audience size.

Brand equity means that the value for the brand is created in consumers' mind through superior quality in the product and service, social esteem the brand provides for users, trust in the brand, and consumer self-identification with the brand (Schifmann and Kanuk, 2007). Keller (1993, p.2) coined the term customer-based brand equity (CBBE) and defined it as "the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand." Aaker (1991) states that brand equity is a set of assets (or liabilities), and consists of brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality, and brand loyalty that are important to customers.

In the literature, brand equity has been measured with multiple dimensions such as brand awareness (Aaker, 1991), perceived quality (Aaker, 1991, 1996, Yoo et al., 2000), brand loyalty (Yoo et al., 2000; Yoo and Donthu, 2001), brand image, brand association, brand personality (Aaker, 1997), and organizational association (Aaker 1996). Aaker (1996, p. 10) defines brand awareness as the "strength of a brand's presence in the consumers' mind." Perceived quality is defined as the consumer's perception of the quality or superiority of a product/brand with respect to its intended purpose compared to its alternatives (Aaker, 1991, p. 85; Zeithaml, 1988, p. 3). It is based on purchasers' or users' subjective evaluations of product and/or service quality. In this study, because TV channels offer services that are intangible, consumers' perceived service quality could be an important factor for a TV channel's brand equity. Brand loyalty is defined as "the attachment that a customer has to a brand" (Aaker, 1991, p. 39). Following Kim and Kim (2004), the authors of this study also included brand image as one of the brand equity dimensions. Brand image is defined as "a set of brand associations, usually in some meaningful way" (Aaker, 1991, p. 109). Aaker (1991, p. 109) defines brand association as "any link in memory to a brand." According to Aaker (1991) and Aaker and Keller (1990), the associations with a brand will be stronger when it is based on many experiences or exposure than when it is based on few. Brand image consists of three dimensions of brand associations--brand's favorability, strength, and distinctiveness (Kim and Kim, 2004). Organizational associations are the customers' beliefs that an organization that markets the brand is honest, trustworthy and cares about its customers (Netemeyer et al., 2004). Because organizational associations are an idiosyncratic component of brand equity, they cannot be easily mimicked by other brands. Therefore, strong positive organizational associations can provide the company a competitive advantage (Sinha et al., 2008).

STUDY OBJECTIVES

This study examines the consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) of a private TV channel, Kanal B, in Turkey. The specific objectives of the study are to determine: 1) which of the brand equity aspects the viewers' perceive that Kanal B performs well; 2) how the programs the viewers like differ based on the viewers' demographic characteristics, and what demographic characteristics of the viewers influence their liking of the programs that Kanal B broadcasts, and 3) how the CBBE aspects that are perceived as being performed well by Kanal B differ based on the viewers' demographic characteristics. Drawing from the literature, brand equity was measured with brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand image, brand association, and organizational association. The study presents the results of the CBBE survey and discusses the managerial implications of the CBBE findings in developing effective marketing and positioning strategies.

METHODOLOGY

In order to accomplish the study objectives, a survey instrument was designed to measure the CBBE, which included multiple-item scales for each dimension of the brand equity. These scale measures were compiled from the literature (e.g., Aaker, 1991; 1996; Kim and Kim, 2006; Pappu et al. 2006; Yoo et al., 2000; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). In order to measure brand awareness, respondents were asked to write down the name of a TV channel in Turkey that came first to their mind. This was an un-aided recall question aimed to measure the top-of-mind brand recall (Aaker, 1991). Perceived quality was measured with nine items that were adapted from Aaker (1991, 1996), Pappu et al. (2006) and Yoo et al. (2001). A six-item scale for brand image was adapted from Kim and Kim (2004). Brand association was measured in two parts; brand personality (two items) and organizational association (nine items) for which the scale items were adapted from (Pappu et al., 2006). Measures for brand loyalty (six items) were adapted from Kim and Kim (2004), Yoo et al. (2000), Yoo and Donthu (2001). The measures for perceived quality, brand image, brand association, and brand loyalty were measured on a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree. The main reason for using a four-point scale was that the authors wanted to avoid neutral responses and force the respondents to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement with the items.

The survey instrument was developed in Turkish, but the scales items were compiled from the literature in English. Therefore, these scale items were translated into Turkish, and then they were later translated back into English to avoid translation errors (Ball et al., 2002) and to make sure that the intended meanings of the questions were maintained. The Turkish version of the instrument was pilot-tested with several faculty members in order to assure the appropriateness and consistency of the scale items. Based on their suggestions, the instrument was further improved and refined. The survey also included demographic questions of age, gender, education level, occupation, marital status, having children, and income level. These questions were asked to examine if the demographic profiles of customers influenced their perceptions of the Kanal B's brand equity.

Sample and data collection

An online survey instrument was administered to Kanal B viewers. The respondents were invited via an email cover letter and asked to click on a link to access the questionnaire. Because the study examines the CBBE dimensions for Kanal B viewers, the database containing the email addresses of 12,000 Kanal B's viewers was utilized and the sample was selected randomly. In 14 days, 243 completed surveys were received. After two follow up email reminders, a total of 411 usable surveys were obtained for analysis. The sample characteristics of the 411 respondents are presented in Table 1. Among the respondents, there were slightly more females (52%) than males (48%). The average age was 31. The ages of the respondents ranged from 15 to 49, which reflect the age of the Turkish population using the Internet. All of the respondents' education levels were equally distributed from high school to master's degree. They were from all walks of life with variety of occupations. Respondents with a household monthly income of less than 1,000 Turkish Lira made up of 22.6 percent. However, the majority fell between 1,000 and 3,900 TL, which is considered medium income households in Turkey. The respondents' marital status was almost equal between married and singles, and slightly over half of the sample had no children (51%). The average time a respondent spent watching TV was 2.5 hours a day. Finally, the respondents participated from all of the 80 provinces in Turkey.

RESULTS

Brand Awareness

As one of the CBBE dimensions, brand awareness was captured by asking the respondents to write down the first TV channel that came to their mind. Kanal B had the highest frequency with 8.8 percent, followed by Channel D with 8 percent, and Channel 24 with 7.8 percent, then ATV with 7.5 and Turkish Radio Television (government broadcast) with 7.3 percent. The remaining were Show TV and SkyTurk with 6.6 percent, Avrasya TV and ChannelTurk with 6.1 percent, TGRT News with 5.6 percent, Ata TV with 5.1 percent, Star TV with 4.1 percent, and TV8 with 2.9 percent. It should be noted that the reason for Kanal B to have the highest brand awareness may result from the fact that the respondents were the viewers of the Kanal B TV station. However, the closest competitors that challenge Kanal B in terms of brand awareness are also identified with this question.

Consumer-based Brand Equity

The first objective of this study is to determine which of the brand equity aspects the viewers' perceive that Kanal B performs well. Although the analyses of the responses were conducted by using all of the statements under each CBBE dimension, Table 2 presents only the statements with mean values that are higher than 2.5 (the midpoint) on a 4-point scale, standard deviations, and combined percent's of the respondents who agreed and strongly agreed with the statements in each dimensions of CBBE. Although slightly more than half of the viewer's felt positively about most of these aspects of Kanal B, still the remaining half disagreed or strongly disagreed with them.

The results of the CBBE dimensions shown in Table 2 indicate the following: 1) Four out of 9 perceived quality items have the mean values around 2.50, indicating that Kanal B's perceived quality for these items are better than average. In this area, the professional look of Kanal B newscasters scored the highest. 2) The mean values for three out of six brand loyalty items are higher than the midpoint of the scale, where "I feel loyal to Kanal B" scored the highest. Given the importance of loyalty for business performance, it seems that Kanal B is fairly successful in creating brand loyalty among its viewers. 3) Three out of six brand image items have the mean values above the midpoint of the scale with the highest mean for "Kanal B broadcasts programs related to political issues". These results indicate that Kanal B has an above average image among its viewers in these areas. 4) Concerning brand association, one of the two brand personality and four out of eleven organizational association items have the mean values above the midpoint of the scale. While these mean values show that Kanal B is perceived to be above average in these items, more brand association items that Kanal B performs are perceived below average.

Likewise, the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with some of the CBBE aspects that Kanal B performs. Those aspects are that Kanal B broadcasts educational (mean=2.44, ds=1.09, combined %=47.7), and entertaining programs (mean=2.43, ds=1.11, combined %=48.2). Although the means below the mid-point are not very low, the lower ratings still pose an opportunity for Kanal B to improve on the educational and entertaining programs. The mean values that are above or below the midpoint (average) offer important information to Kanal B managers in identifying its strengths and weaknesses as well as the strategic opportunities and threats.

Viewers' Liking of the Kanal B Programs

The second research objective is to determine how the program types the viewers like differ based on the viewers' demographic characteristics. The eight program types listed were health, documentary, educational, cultural, daily news, economy, debate, and children's. In order to determine whether or not liking of these different TV programs is influenced by respondents' (viewers) demographics, mean comparisons (t-tests and one-way ANOVA) were conducted.

ANOVA with LSD Post Hoc and t-test results indicated none of the viewers liking of the different programs differed by gender. However, the viewers between 15 and 19 years old seemed to like health programs significantly more than 25-29 and 35-39 age groups. This may be because 15 to 19 year old teenagers are still new to health issues and may have personal interest in improving their health and appearance. The age group 25-29 liked documentary programs significantly more than the 15-19, 20-24, 30-34, and 40-44 age groups. This age group may be more inclined toward learning about new places, cultures, history, and politics. The 45-49 age groups liked the educational programs significantly more than 30-34 age groups. There were no significant differences in liking of daily news, economy, debate, cultural, and children programs across the age categories. The viewers' education did not make any differences in the likings of the programs by the viewers. Viewers with higher income liked debate programs significantly more than lower income groups. Married viewers liked educational programs significantly more than singles, and viewers with children liked children's programs significantly more than those without children. All of the differences were significant at p<.05 level (see Table 3).

As part of the second research objective, the study investigates what demographic characteristics of the viewers influence their liking of the programs that Kanal B broadcasts. Stepwise regressions for the eight program types were performed separately to identify which demographic variables determine viewers liking of the programs. The demographic (independent) variables were age, income, marital status, gender, have children or not, education, and number of hours of TV watching. For health programs, only the age was a significant variable that had a negative correlation (t = -1.97, p = 0.05, [R.sup.2] = .009). Younger viewers seem to like the health programs more than older audience. Marital status had a negative and significant correlation with educational programs (t = -2.13, p = .34, [R.sup.2] = .011). This means married audience liked educational programs more than unmarried audience. For children's programs, two variables--hours of TV watching (t = -2.5, p = .013) and have children or not (t = -2.2, p = .028)--seemed to be influential variables that determine the subscribers' likings ([R.sup.2] = .025). The viewers who have children (1=have children, 2=do not have children) and watch fewer hours of TV (negative correlation) liked the children's programs. The finding, that the variance explained for the regression equations are small but the relationships are significant at p [less than or equal to] .05, may suggest that there may be other influential factors that are not included in this study. For cultural, daily news, documentary, economy, and debate programs, none of the demographic variables determined the viewers' liking of these programs. The summary of the regression equations and significant statistics (constant and standardized betas) is provided in Table 4.

Consumer-based Brand Equity Perceptions

The third research objective is to determine how the CBBE aspects that are perceived as being performed well by Kanal B differ based on the viewers' demographic characteristics. Appendix A provides in detail the number of respondents (N), mean (X), and standard deviation (sd), t and p values for the t-tests, and mean differences for ANOVAs with LSD Post Hoc test and p values for the CBBE aspects/items (presented in Table 2) that Kanal B performs well. Table 5 summarizes the significant relationships between the demographic variables and the CBBE aspects that are perceived as Kanal B performs well (for details, please see Appendix A). The findings in Table 5 indicate that the viewers' income level and having children or not has an impact on the awareness of Kanal B (Q1). The highest awareness is among viewers with an income of 4,000TL (mean of 2.73) and with no children (mean of 2.65). The comparisons show significant differences between the various income groups and between respondents with a child and no child (see Appendix A for detailed results).

The significant demographic factors for perceived quality items are income, marital status, hours of watching TV for Q3. Specifically, viewers with income between 1,000 and 1,999TL agreed with the statement (Q3), "Kanal B newscasters look professional," significantly more than those with income 4,000TL and above. Married viewers agreed with the statement more than singles. Also, those who watch TV about 3 to 5 hours and 8 hours or more agreed with the statement more than those who watch TV between 6 and 8 hours a day.

Age was the only significant demographic for Q5. Viewers with ages younger than 30 and older than 35 agreed more with the statement (Q5), "Kanal B's newscasters are knowledgeable on the news they present." Age, education, income, and hours of watching TV were significant for Q7. Viewers who are in the 20 to 24 and 30 to 34 age groups agreed with the statement (Q7), "Kanal B programs are related to the real world," significantly more than those in the 25 to 29 age group. Those with a 4 year college degree agreed with the statement more significantly than those with a master's degree. Viewers whose income is between 2,000 and 2,999TL agreed more with the statement than those whose income is between 3,000 and 3,999TL. And, those who watch TV for 1-2 hours a day agreed with the statement more than those who watch TV for 3-5 hours a day. Lastly, gender, age, and hours of watching TV were significant for Q8. Males agreed with the statement (Q8), "Kanal B's newscasters respect their audience while broadcasting," more than female counterparts. Those in the 30-34 age group agreed with the statement more than 35-39 and 45-49 age groups. Those who watch TV between 3 and 5 hours agreed with the statement significantly more than those who watch 8 or more hours of TV a day.

For brand loyalty items, the significant demographics are age, marital status, hours of watching TV, and education. More specifically, viewers who are in the 30-34 age group felt more loyal than the 15-29 and 35-39 age groups (Q12). Also, singles felt more loyal than the married respondents. Viewers who watched TV for 1-2 hours felt more loyal to Kanal B than those who watched TV for 6-8 hours a day. Viewers with 4 year college degrees were happier with Kanal B programs than those with high school degrees (Q14). The younger age groups (1519, 30-44) agreed that they recommend Kanal B to their friends significantly more than the 4549 age groups (Q15).

For brand image, the significant demographics are age and education for Q21, and age and income for Q23. Viewers in 45-49 age groups agreed with the statement, "Kanal B programs are related to political issues," significantly more than the 40-44 age group. High school graduates agreed with this statement significantly more than those with a 4 year college degree (Q21). No significant differences in the CBBE aspects were found for the statement, "Kanal B programs make me feel good," based on the viewers' demographics (Q22). The age groups of 20-29 and 45-49 agreed with the statement, "Kanal B's programs are consistent with Turkey's image," (Q23) significantly more than the 35-39 age groups. Viewers with incomes 4,000TL and up agreed with this statement more significantly than those that earn between 3,000 and 3,999TL.

For brand personality, the only significant demographic was hours of TV watching for statement Q24. Those who watch TV for 3-5 hours agreed with the statement, "Kanal B's programs can be considered as the best quality ones," more than those who watch it for 6-8 hours a day. For organizational association, age and marital status were significant for Q28, age was significant for Q30, education was significant for Q31, and income was significant for Q32. The age group of 30-34 agreed with the statement, "Kanal B shows up-to-date programs," significantly more than the 20-29 and 35-39 age groups. Singles agreed with the statement Q28 significantly more than married viewers. The age group of 25-29 watched most of the Kanal B programs on a more regular basis than the 30-34 age group (Q30). Viewers with a master's degree agreed with the statement, "I consider Kanal B as a reliable source," more than those with a high school degree (Q31). Finally, the viewers with monthly income less than 1,000TL, between 2,000-2,999TL, and 3,000-3,999TL were more proud of being Kanal B's audience than the 1,000-1,999TL income group (Q32).

The results indicate that the Kanal B viewers' perceptions of the CBBE aspects that Kanal B performs well vary significantly based on their different demographics. These differences could provide valuable information about the demographic profiles of Kanal B viewers who have the most and least favorable perceptions of the CBBE dimensions of Kanal B. For example, the results for the three brand loyalty items in Table 5 and Appendix A show that: 1) The highest loyalty to Kanal B (Q12) is among the 30-34 years old, single, and 1-2 hours of TV watching viewers; 2) The viewers with 4 years of college are the happiest with Kanal B's programs (Q14), and 3) The viewers in the 30-40 age group are most likely to recommend Kanal B to their friends (Q15). Similar information can be obtained from Table 5 and Appendix A for other CBBE items to determine the favorable and unfavorable perceptions of the CBBE dimensions based on demographics characteristics of the viewers.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This paper examined the CBBE of a private TV channel named Kanal B in Turkey. An online survey containing questions for the CBBE dimensions of awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand image, and brand associations (brand personality and organizational associations), and demographic questions was administered to Kanal B's viewers utilizing a customer database. The responses from 411 viewers were analyzed to address three specific research objectives. The sample characteristics show that Kanal B seems to have very diverse groups of viewers, where there is no single demographic profile that dominates the viewers. This suggests that Kanal B is being watched by almost all population segments in Turkey.

Even though the survey was conducted using Kanal B's viewer database, only 8.8% of the respondents indicated that Kanal B was the first TV channel came to their mind. This suggests two things: 1) Kanal B is not a dominant TV channel they watch, and 2) the results help identify the close competitors among their viewers, and 3) viewers may not be loyal to one TV channel, rather, they might be loyal to TV programs. In this regard, Channel D, Channel 24, ATV, and Turkish Radio Television are the main competitors of Kanal B. This could be important information for the Kanal B managers in designing their programs to keep the current viewers, as well as attracting new viewers. However, this may require further research to identify the programs that attract Kanal B viewers to the competing TV channels.

In addressing the first research objective, the authors identified several CBBE aspects that Kanal B performed well, based on the mean values higher than the midpoint (2.5 on a 1-4 point scale). Specifically, the results show that Kanal B performs better than average on four perceived quality items, three brand loyalty items, three brand image items, and five brand association items (one brand personality and four organizational association items). The combined percentages of agree and strongly agree for these items are about 50% or above, indicating that viewers have fairly good or favorable perceptions of these CBBE aspects as they relate to Kanal B. Because other CBBE aspects are lower than midpoint of the scale and combined percentages for disagree and strongly disagree are below 50%, these areas may be considered as weaknesses, thus needing an immediate attention and challenges for Kanal B. Thus, the findings could help the Kanal B management to determine the specific areas to pay close attention and identify opportunities to focus on when developing new programs and marketing strategies.

Concerning how the programs Kanal B offers that viewers like differ based on the viewers' demographic profiles, the results in Table 3 showed significant differences for the age and the health, documentary, and educational programs; income and the debate programs; marital status and the educational programs, and having children or not and the children's programs. Kanal B managers could utilize these findings to determine which programs are more (or less) liked than other programs by different demographic groups. This allows them to design new product/service strategies to address these differences. Also, the results showing no differences for the programs and demographic variables are beneficial for managers in their decisions because they can identify which programs are equally liked or not liked by the same demographic groups. In addition, the regression results in Table 4 show that: 1) age has a significant effect on liking of the health program; 2) marital status has a significant effect on liking of the educational programs, and 3) hours of watching TV and having children have significant effects on liking of the children's programs. The results in Table 3 and Table 4 show that certain demographics have strong associations with the viewers' likings of certain programs. Therefore, Kanal B managers may have to find ways to differentiate their programs in order to attract more of different demographic segments.

Finally, in addressing the third research objective, the results in Table 5 (and in Appendix A) identified the influential demographic factors that made significant differences in the CBBE aspects that Kanal B performs well. These findings provide valuable information for the managers of which demographic segments perceive the CBBE aspects of Kanal B performs better. In this way, it is possible to identify the most loyal demographic segments of Kanal B viewers.

Managerial Implications

The findings have several managerial implications for Kanal B managers, as well as other TV Channel managers. The first implication is that because branding is one of the most important practices in the media environment (Chan-Olmsted & Kim, 2001; Lin, Atkin, & Abelman, 2002) and its growing importance for television networks due to the long term nature of the brands (Ryan, 1999; Chan-Olmsted and Cha, 2007), the findings of this study could help the managers of TV Channels like Kanal B to develop branding strategies to improve their company's brand equity. Specifically, the findings indicate the aspects of CBBE dimensions that are favored by viewers and those not so favored. Kanal B managers could improve on the aspects of brand equity dimensions perceived as poorly executed, while maintaining the aspects perceived as executed well. Other TV channels could conduct similar branding studies to determine their target viewers' perceptions of the aspects of their brand equity dimensions to improve or maintain. Such a study will take the guesswork out of decision making. As suggested by (Chan-Olmsted and Cha, 2008), Kanal B and other TV channels' managers could build distinctive and meaningful brand images in the minds of its audiences.

The second managerial implication deals with identifying the close competitors and brand loyalty. Even though the study was conducted among the Kanal B viewers, the brand awareness results indicate that Kanal B is not the main TV channel they watch. In fact, other TV channels have also similar viewership. This indicates that viewers may not be loyal to a TV channel; rather, they may be loyal to TV programs presented by different TV channels. Kanal B or other TV managers could examine the popular shows offered by their close competitors that could help them in developing their TV programs.

The final managerial implication involves viewer (market) segmentation and offering TV programs that appeal to the targeted segments. Because the analyses for liking programs by viewer demographics identified the TV programs that are preferred by the market segments, these results could help Kanal B managers develop better programs to target their specific segments. Similar studies can benefit other TV channels. Such results could also help TV channel managers to better segment and match the TV programs with specific target segments. The authors believe that the strategies developed based on the results of this branding study could help TV managers improve their competitiveness and attain increased profitability through increased market share, as well as maintain sustainable competitiveness. This is because the results identify the close competitors of TV channels, their strong and weak areas of their brand, and their TV programs preferred by market segments, which could be viable information in designing differentiating strategies in fragmented media market (Yang and Tso, 2007).

Limitations of the Study

The results of this study provided insights about different aspects of CBBE for Kanal B and their relationships with various demographic characteristics of their viewers. However, the study has some limitations; thus, the results must be interpreted with caution. The first limitation of the study is that the survey was conducted with the viewers' of Kanal B, which may have biased the responses, and therefore, the results. A future study could be conducted with a different sample in order to overcome this inherent bias. The second limitation deals with the survey instrument, which was developed specifically for this study and was not tested in other settings. The authors recommend that the instrument be further tested and refined. Finally, the measurements of the brand loyalty construct were adapted from Kim and Kim (2004). Future studies can also include behavioral-based measurements by asking the respondents how many times they watch a specific TV Channel or how often they watch a particular program.
Appendix A: Differences in All CBBE Measures by Demographic Variables

CBBE aspects                 N, Mean (X), sd       t / mean difference

Awareness

Income, Have children     <1000TL N=93; X=2.71;   (<1000)-(1000-1999)
  or not                    sd=1.10                 =0.36
Q1: I am aware of         (1000-1999) N=80;       (<1000)-(2000-2999)
  Kanal B TV station        X=2.35; sd=1.15         =0.39
                          (2000-2999) N=76;       (<1000)-(3000-3999)
                            X=2.32; sd=1.08         =.46
                          (3000-3999) N=76;       (4000+)-(1000-1999)
                            X=2.25; sd=1.12         =.38
                          (4000 & up) N=86;       (4000+)-(2000-2999)
                            X=2.73; sd=1.14         =.42
                                                  (4000+)-(3000-3999)
                                                    =.48
                          Children N=201;         t=-3.03
                            X=2.31; sd=1.12
                          No child N=210;
                            X=2.65; sd=1.14

Perceived Quality

Income, Marital           (1000-1999) N=80;       (1000-1999)-
  Status, Hours of        X=2.83; sd=1.05           (4000+) =.39
  watching TV
Q3: Kanal B's             (4000 & up) N=86;
  newscasters look          X=2.43; sd=1.17
  professional            Married N=209;          t=2.11
                            X=2.72; sd=1.11
                          Single N=202;
                            X=2.49; sd=1.12
                          (3-5 hours) N=115;      (3-5hrs)-(6-
                            X=2.76; sd=1.09         8hrs)=.42
                          (6-8 hours) N=92;       (8 hrs or more)-
                            X=2.34; sd=1.04         (6-8hrs)=.33
                          (8 or + hrs) N=109;
                            X=2.67; sd=1.15
Age                       15-19 N=67; X=2.66;     (15-19)-(30-
                            sd=1.15                 34)=.51
Q5: Kanal B's             20-24 N=70; X=2.61;     (15-19)-(45-
  newscasters are           sd=1.07                 49)=.39
  knowledgeable on the    25-29 N=55; X=2.60;     (20-24)-(30-34)=.47
  news they present         sd=1.08
                          30-34 N=56; X=2.14;     (25-29)-(30-34)=.46
                            sd=.96
                          35-39 N=44; X=2.48;     (40-44)-(30-34)=.50
                            sd=1.09
                          40-44 N=62; X=2.65;
                            sd=1.19
                          45-49 N=57; X=2.26;
                            sd=1.14
Age, Educ. Income,        20-24 N=70; X=2.83;     (20-24)-(25-29)=.54
  Hrs of TV                 sd=1.11
Q7: Kanal B programs      25-29 N=55; X=2.29;     (30-34)-(25-29)=.48
  are related to the        sd=1.10
  real world              4-year N=129;           (4-year)-
                            X=2.71; sd=1.10         (master's) =.29
                          master's N=139;
                            X=2.42; sd=1.10
                          (2000-2900) N=76;       (2000-2999)-(3000-
                            X=2.78; sd=1.12         3999) =.38
                          (3000-3999) N=76;
                            X=2.39; sd=1.12
                          (1-2 hours) N=95;       (1-2hrs)-(3-5hrs)
                            X=2.78; sd=1.10         =.353
                          (3-5 hours) N=115;
                            X=2.43; sd=1.09
Gender, Age, Hrs          Female N=215;           t=-2.26
  watching TV               X=2.41; sd=1.15
Q8: Kanal B's             Male N=196; X=2.66;
  newscasters respect       sd=1.11
  their audience while    30-34 N=56; X=2.82;     (30-34)-(35-39)=.50
  broadcasting              sd=1.16
                          35-39 N=44; X=2.32;     (30-34)-(45-49)=.49
                            sd=1.03
                          45-49 N=57; X=2.33;
                            sd=1.21
                          (3-5 hours) N=115;      (3-5hrs)-(8 or
                            X=2.71; sd=1.15         +hrs) =.41
                          (8 or + hrs) N=109;
                            X=2.3; sd=1.13

Brand Loyalty

Age, Marital Status,      15-19 [right arrow]     (30-34)-(15-19)=.53
  Hrs TV                    N=67; X=2.40;
                            sd=1.06
Q12: I feel loyal to      20-24 [right arrow]     (30-34)-(20-24)=.41
  Kanal B                   N=70; X=2.51;
                            sd=1.12
                          25-29 [right arrow]     30-34)-(25-29)=.42
                            N=55; X=2.51;
                            sd=1.12
                          30-34 [right arrow]     (30-34)-(35-39)=.46
                            N=56; X=2.93;
                            sd=1.12
                          35-39 [right arrow]
                            N=44; X=2.48;
                            sd=1.17
                          Married [right          t=-2.53
                            arrow] N=209;
                            X=2.41; sd=1.07
                          Single [right
                            arrow] N=202;
                            X=2.69; sd=1.14
                          (1-2hrs) [right         (1-2hrs)-(6-8hrs)=
                            arrow] N=95;          .44
                            X=2.75; sd=1.07
                          (6-8hrs) [right
                            arrow] N=92;
                            X=2.30; sd=1.08
Education                 High N=143; X=2.38;     (4-year)-(high)=.32
                            sd=1.13
Q14: I am happy with      4-year N=129;
  Kanal B's programs        X=2.71; sd=1.04
Age                       15-19 N=67; X=2.69;     (15-19)-(45-49)=.49
                            sd=1.06
Q15: I do recommend       30-34 N=56; X=2.71;     (30-34)-(45-49)=.52
  Kanal B to my friends     sd=1.15
                          35-39 N=44; X=2.64;     (35-39)-(45-49)=.44
                            sd=1.18
                          40-44 N=62; X=2.66;     (40-44)-(45-49)=.47
                            sd=1.05
                          45-49 [right arrow]
                            N=57;
                            X=2.19;sd=1.10

Brand Image

Age, Education            40-44 N=62;             (45-49)-(40-44)=.54
                            X=2.31;sd=1.13
Q21: Kanal B programs     45-49 N=57; X=2.84;
  are related to            sd=.94
  political issues        High N=143; X=2.74;     (High)-(4-year)=.29
                            sd=1.09
                          4-year [right
                            arrow] N=129;
                            X=2.45;sd=1.14
Q22: Kanal B programs     None
    make me feel good
Age, Income               20-24 N=70; X=2.67;     (20-24)-(35-39)=.54
                            sd=1.15
Q23: Kanal B's            25-29 N=55; X=2.73;     (25-29)-(35-39)=.59
    programs are            sd=1.06
    consistent with       35-39 N=44; X=2.14      (45-49)-(35-39)=.55
    Turkey's image          sd=1.15
                          45-49 N=57; X=2.68;     (4000+)-(3000-
                            sd=1.18                 3999)=.35
                          (3000-3999) N=76;
                            X=2.29;sd=1.08
                          (4000 &up) N=86;
                            X=2.64;sd=1.12

Brand Association
Brand Personality

Hours of watching TV
                          (3-5hrs) N=115;         (1-2hrs)-(6-
                            X=2.44; sd=1.11         8hrs)=.42
Q24: Kanal B's            (6-8hrs) N=92;
    programs can be         X=2.40; sd=1.13
    considered as the
    best quality ones
Brand Association--
    Organizational
    Association
Age, Marital Status       20-24 N=70; X=2.41;     (30-34)-(20-24)=.48
                            sd=1.14
Q28: Kanal B shows        25-29 N=55; X=2.44;     (30-34)-(25-29)=.46
    up-to-date programs     sd=1.03
                          30-34 N=56; X=2.89;     (30-34)-(35-39)=.53
                            sd=1.09
                          35-39 N=44; X=2.36;
                            sd=1.10
                          Married N=209;          t=-2.00
                            X=2.48; sd=1.16
                          Single N=202;
                            X=2.71; sd=1.09
Age                       25-29 N=55; X=2.85;     (25-29)-(30-34)=.43
                            sd=1.09
Q30: I watch most of      30-34 N=56; X=2.43;
  the Kanal B programs      sd=1.12
  on a regular basis
Education                 High N=143; X=2.40;     (Masters)-
                            sd=1.13                 (high)=.31
Q31: I consider Kanal     Masters N=139;
  B as a reliable           X=2.71; sd=1.16
  source
Income                    (<1000) N=93;           (<1000)-(1000-
                            X=2.60; sd=1.07         1999)=.38
Q32: I am proud of        (1000-1999) N=80;       (2000-2999)-(1000-
  being Kanal B's           X=2.23; sd=1.14         1999) =.45
  audience                (2000-2999) N=76;       (3000-3999)-(1000-
                            X=2.67; sd=1.07         1999)=.36
                          (3000-3999) N=76;
                            X=2.58; sd=1.08

CBBE aspects                 N, Mean (X), sd          Sig.

Awareness

Income, Have children     <1000TL N=93; X=2.71;   .038 **
  or not                    sd=1.10
Q1: I am aware of         (1000-1999) N=80;       .025 **
  Kanal B TV station        X=2.35; sd=1.15
                          (2000-2999) N=76;       .009 ***
                            X=2.32; sd=1.08
                          (3000-3999) N=76;       .030 **
                            X=2.25; sd=1.12
                          (4000 & up) N=86;       .020 **
                            X=2.73; sd=1.14       .007 ***

                          Children N=201;         .003 ***
                            X=2.31; sd=1.12
                          No child N=210;
                            X=2.65; sd=1.14

Perceived Quality

Income, Marital           (1000-1999) N=80;       .023 **
  Status, Hours of        X=2.83; sd=1.05
  watching TV
Q3: Kanal B's             (4000 & up) N=86;
  newscasters look          X=2.43; sd=1.17
  professional            Married N=209;          .035 **
                            X=2.72; sd=1.11
                          Single N=202;
                            X=2.49; sd=1.12
                          (3-5 hours) N=115;      .007 ***
                            X=2.76; sd=1.09
                          (6-8 hours) N=92;       .035 **
                            X=2.34; sd=1.04
                          (8 or + hrs) N=109;
                            X=2.67; sd=1.15
Age                       15-19 N=67; X=2.66;     .01 ***
                            sd=1.15
Q5:Kanal B's              20-24 N=70; X=2.61;     .048 **
  newscasters are           sd=1.07
  knowledgeable on the    25-29 N=55; X=2.60;     .017 **
  news they present         sd=1.08
                          30-34 N=56; X=2.14;     .029 **
                            sd=.96
                          35-39 N=44; X=2.48;     .014 **
                            sd=1.09
                          40-44 N=62; X=2.65;
                            sd=1.19
                          45-49 N=57; X=2.26;
                            sd=1.14
Age, Educ. Income,        20-24 N=70; X=2.83;     .008 ***
  Hrs of TV                 sd=1.11
Q7: Kanal B programs      25-29 N=55; X=2.29;     .025 **
  are related to the        sd=1.10
  real world              4-year N=129;           .035 **
                            X=2.71; sd=1.10
                          master's N=139;
                            X=2.42; sd=1.10
                          (2000-2900) N=76;       .036 **
                            X=2.78; sd=1.12
                          (3000-3999) N=76;
                            X=2.39; sd=1.12
                          (1-2 hours) N=95;       .023 **
                            X=2.78; sd=1.10
                          (3-5 hours) N=115;
                            X=2.43; sd=1.09
Gender, Age, Hrs          Female N=215;           .024 **
  watching TV               X=2.41; sd=1.15
Q8: Kanal B's             Male N=196; X=2.66;
  newscasters respect       sd=1.11
  their audience while    30-34 N=56; X=2.82;     .029 **
  broadcasting              sd=1.16
                          35-39 N=44; X=2.32;     .023 **
                            sd=1.03
                          45-49 N=57; X=2.33;
                            sd=1.21
                          (3-5 hours) N=115;      .007 ***
                            X=2.71; sd=1.15
                          (8 or + hrs) N=109;
                            X=2.3; sd=1.13

Brand Loyalty

Age, Marital Status,      15-19 [right arrow]     .009 ***
  Hrs TV                    N=67; X=2.40;
                            sd=1.06
Q12: I feel loyal to      20-24 [right arrow]     .038 **
  Kanal B                   N=70; X=2.51;
                            sd=1.12
                          25-29 [right arrow]     .048 **
                            N=55; X=2.51;
                            sd=1.12
                          30-34 [right arrow]     .045 **
                            N=56; X=2.93;
                            sd=1.12
                          35-39 [right arrow]
                            N=44; X=2.48;
                            sd=1.17
                          Married [right          .012 **
                            arrow] N=209;
                            X=2.41; sd=1.07
                          Single [right
                            arrow] N=202;
                            X=2.69; sd=1.14
                          (1-2hrs) [right         .007 ***
                            arrow] N=95;
                            X=2.75; sd=1.07
                          (6-8hrs) [right
                            arrow] N=92;
                            X=2.30; sd=1.08
Education                 High N=143; X=2.38;     .016 **
                            sd=1.13
Q14: I am happy with      4-year N=129;
  Kanal B's programs        X=2.71; sd=1.04
Age                       15-19 N=67; X=2.69;     .014 **
                            sd=1.06
Q15: I do recommend       30-34 N=56; X=2.71;     .013 **
  Kanal B to my friends     sd=1.15
                          35-39 N=44; X=2.64;     .047 **
                            sd=1.18
                          40-44 N=62; X=2.66;     .022 **
                            sd=1.05
                          45-49 [right arrow]
                            N=57;
                            X=2.19;sd=1.10

Brand Image

Age, Education            40-44 N=62;             .008 ***
                            X=2.31;sd=1.13
Q21: Kanal B programs     45-49 N=57; X=2.84;
  are related to            sd=.94
  political issues        High N=143; X=2.74;     .029 **
                            sd=1.09
                          4-year [right
                            arrow] N=129;
                            X=2.45;sd=1.14
Q22: Kanal B programs     None
    make me feel good
Age, Income               20-24 N=70; X=2.67;     .012 **
                            sd=1.15
Q23: Kanal B's            25-29 N=55; X=2.73;     .008 ***
    programs are            sd=1.06
    consistent with       35-39 N=44; X=2.14      .013 **
    Turkey's image          sd=1.15
                          45-49 N=57; X=2.68;     .045 **
                            sd=1.18
                          (3000-3999) N=76;
                            X=2.29;sd=1.08
                          (4000 &up) N=86;
                            X=2.64;sd=1.12

Brand Association
Brand Personality

Hours of watching TV
                          (3-5hrs) N=115;         .01 ***
                            X=2.44; sd=1.11
Q24: Kanal B's            (6-8hrs) N=92;
    programs can be         X=2.40; sd=1.13
    considered as the
    best quality ones
Brand Association--
    Organizational
    Association
Age, Marital Status       20-24 N=70; X=2.41;     .019 **
                            sd=1.14
Q28: Kanal B shows        25-29 N=55; X=2.44;     .034 **
    up-to-date programs     sd=1.03
                          30-34 N=56; X=2.89;     .021 **
                            sd=1.09
                          35-39 N=44; X=2.36;
                            sd=1.10
                          Married N=209;          .045 **
                            X=2.48; sd=1.16
                          Single N=202;
                            X=2.71; sd=1.09
Age                       25-29 N=55; X=2.85;     .044 **
                            sd=1.09
Q30: I watch most of      30-34 N=56; X=2.43;
  the Kanal B programs      sd=1.12
  on a regular basis
Education                 High N=143; X=2.40;     .025 **
                            sd=1.13
Q31: I consider Kanal     Masters N=139;
  B as a reliable           X=2.71; sd=1.16
  source
Income                    (<1000) N=93;           .025 **
                            X=2.60; sd=1.07
Q32: I am proud of        (1000-1999) N=80;       .012 **
  being Kanal B's           X=2.23; sd=1.14
  audience                (2000-2999) N=76;       .045 **
                            X=2.67; sd=1.07
                          (3000-3999) N=76;
                            X=2.58; sd=1.08


REFERENCES

Aaker, D. & K. L. Keller (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(Jan), 27-41.

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

Aaker, D. A. & A. Biel (1992). Building strong brands. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Inc.

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

Aaker J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.

Ball, D. A., Jr., W. H. McCulloch, P. L. Frantz, J.M. Geringer, & M. S. Minor (2002). International business: the challenge of global competition. (8th ed.), New York, McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Chadha, K. & A. Kavoori (2000). Media imperialism revisited: Some findings from the Asian case. Media Culture & Society. 22(4), 415-432.

Chan-Olmsted, S. M. & Y. Kim (2001). Perceptions of branding among television station managers: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 75-91.

Chan-Olmsted, S. M. & J. Cha (2008). Exploring the antecedents and effects of brand images for television news: An application of brand personality construct in a multichannel news environment. The International Journal on Media Management, 10, 32-45.

Chan-Olmsted, S. M. & J. Cha (2007). Branding television news in a multichannel environment: An exploratory study of network news brand personality. International Journal on Media Management, 9(4), 135-150.

Chung, J.E. (2005). Television program trade in East Asia. Proceedings of The 2005 Annual AEJMC Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Goldstein, G. B. (2004). A strategic response to media metamorphoses. Public Relations Quarterly. 49(2), 19-23.

Hurriyet. (1999). The week in perspective. OECD Radio and TV Report, (March 20). http://arama.hurriyet.com.tr/arsivnews.aspx?id=-511403

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

Kim, W. G. & H.-B. Kim (2004). Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity: Investigating the relationship between brand equity and firms' performance. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 115-131.

Lin, A. C., D. J. Atkin & R. Abelman (2002). The influence of network branding on audience affinity for network television. Journal of Advertising Research, 42(3), 19-32.

McDowell, W. & J. Sutherland (2000). Choice versus chance: Using brand equity theory to explore TV audience lead-in effects: A case study. Journal of Media Economics, 13, 233-248.

Netemeyer, R. G., B. Krishnan, C. Pullig, G. Wang, M. Yagci, D. Dean, J. Ricks & F. Wirth (2004). Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand-equity. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 209-224.

Oyedeji, T. A. (2007). The relation between the customer-based brand equity of media outlets and their media channel credibility: An exploratory study. International Journal on Media Management, 9(3), 116-125.

Pappu, R., P. G. Quester, & R. W. Cooksey (2006). Consumer-based brand equity and country-of-origin relationships: Some empirical evidence. European Journal of Marketing, 40(5/6), 696-717.

Ryan, L. (1999). Experts say to be bold, but be careful. Electronic Media, 18(24), 36.

Shifmann L. G. & L. L. Kanuk (2007). Consumer Behavior. 9th edition. NJ : Prentice Hall.

Sinha, A., A. J. Nicholas, & A. Gazley (2008). Measuring customer based brand equity using hierarchical Bayes methodology. Australasian Marketing Journal. 16(1), 3-19.

Tauber, E. M. (1988). Brand leverage: Strategy for growth in a cost controlled world. Journal of Advertising Research, 28, 26-30.

Yang, K. C. C., & T. K. Tso (2007). An exploratory study of factors influencing audience's attitudes toward imported television program in Taiwan. The International Journal on Media Management, 9(1), 19-27.

Yoo, B., N. Donthu, & S. Lee (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195-211.

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

Zeithaml, V. A. (1998), Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(July), 2-22.

Zeliha Eser, Baskent University

Musa Pinar, Valparaiso University

Tulay Girard, Penn State Altoona

F. Bahar Isin, Baskent University
Table 1: Sample demographic characteristics

Demographic           N    (%)
Characteristics

Gender
  Female             215   52.3
  Male               196   47.7

Age
  15-19              67    16.3
  20-24              70     17
  25-29              55    13.4
  30-34              56    13.6
  35-39              44    10.7
  40-44              62    15.1
  45-49              57    13.9

Education
  High school        143   34.8
  College 4 yr.      129   31.4
  Masters            139   33.8

Occupation
  Engineer           38    9.2
  Medical doctor     42    10.2
  Housewife          39    9.5
  Lawyer             37    9.0
  Retired            37    9.0
  Blue-collar        37    9.0
  Educator           38    9.2
  Student            40    9.7
  Clerk              39    9.5
  Entrepreneur       33    8.0
  Other              31    7.5

Income (monthly)
  <1,000 TL          93    22.6
  1,000-1,999 TL     80    19.4
  2,000-2,999 TL     76    18.5
  3,000-3,999 TL     76    18.5
  4,000 TL and up    86    20.9

Marital Status
  Married            209   50.2
  Single             202   49.8

Children
  Yes                201   48.9
  No                 210   51.1

Table 2: The CBBE aspects that Kanal B performs well

Perceived Quality                       Mean   Std Dev.   Combined %

Q3: Channel B's newscasters look        2.60     1.12        53.5
professional

Q7: Channel B programs are related to   2.59     1.11        52.3
the real world

Q8: Channel B's newscasters respect     2.53     1.14        48.7
their audience while broadcasting

Q5:Channel B's newscasters are          2.50     1.11        49.8
knowledgeable on the news

Brand Loyalty                           Mean   Std Dev.   Combined %

Q12: I feel loyal to Channel B          2.55     1.11        52.8

Q15: I do recommend Channel B to my     2.54     1.11        51.5
friends

Q14: I am happy with Channel B's        2.51     1.10        51.1
programs

Brand Image                             Mean   Std Dev.   Combined %

Q21: Channel B broadcasts programs      2.57     1.10        51.6
related to political issues

Q22: Channel B programs make me feel    2.53     1.12        50.2
good

Q23: Channel B's programs are           2.50     1.10        49.4
consistent with Turkey's image

Brand Association--Brand Personality    Mean   Std Dev.   Combined %

Q24: Channel B's programs can be        2.54     1.11        53.0
considered as the best quality

Organizational Association              Mean   Std Dev.   Combined %

Q30: I watch most of the Channel B      2.65     1.11        56.7
programs on a regular basis

Q28: Channel B shows up-to-date         2.59     1.14        54.5
programs

Q31: I consider Channel B as a          2.55     1.15        51.8
reliable source

Q32: I am proud of being Channel B's    2.51     1.10        52.3
audience

Table 3: Differences test results in liking of programs

                         Mean   Std    Mean    Sig.
                                dev.   diff.

Age by health

  15-19                  2.82   1.1
  25-29                  2.33   1.2    .494    .014
  35-39                  2.34   1.1    .480    .024

Age by documentary

  25-29                  2.85   1.18
  15-19                  2.40   1.18   .452    .026
  20-24                  2.43   1.08   .426    .034
  30-34                  2.36   .97    .462    .029
  40-44                  2.42   1.08   .435    .035

Age by educational

  45-49                  2.67   1.18
  30-34                  2.25   .99    .417    .045

Income by debate

  1,000-1,999 TL         2.35
  2,000-2,999 TL         2.72   1.18   -.374   .039
  3,000-3,999 TL         2.72   1.18   -.374   .039

Marital status by
educational

  Married                2.63   1.12
  Single                 2.40   1.13   .23     .034

Children by Children
programs

  Have children          2.69   1.12
  Do not have children   2.47   1.07   .22     .043

Table 4: Regression results of the subscribers'
likings of the programs

Program       Regression Equation            Sig.

Health        Liking = 2.75 -.097 (Age)      F=3.87, p=.05 **

Educational   Liking = 2.86 -.105            F=4.53, p=.034 **
              (Marital Status)

Children      Liking = 3.24 -.123 (Hours     F=5.23, p=.006 ***
              of watching TV) -.108 (Have
              Children or not)

** significant at p [less than or equal to] .05;
*** significant at p [less than or equal to] .01

Table 5 : Differences in CBBE areas by demographics that Kanal B
performs well

Awareness                               Significant Demographics

Q1: I am aware of Kanal B TV          Income, Have children or not
station

Perceived Quality                       Significant Demographics

Q3: Kanal B's newscasters look         Income, Marital Status, Hrs
professional                                   watching TV

Q5: Kanal B's newscasters are                       Age
knowledgeable on the news they
present

Q7: Kanal B programs are related       Age, Education, Income, Hrs
to the real world                              watching TV

Q8: Kanal B's newscasters respect   Gender, Age, Hrs. of watching TV
their audience while broadcasting

Brand Loyalty                           Significant Demographics

Q12: I feel loyal to Kanal B          Age, Marital Status, Hours of
                                               watching TV

Q14: I am happy with Kanal B's                  Education
programs

Q15: I do recommend Kanal B to my                  Age
friends

Brand Image                             Significant Demographics

Q21: Kanal B broadcasts programs             Age, Education
related to political issues

Q22: Kanal B programs make me                     None
feel good

Q23: Kanal B's programs are                    Age, Income
consistent with Turkey's image

Brand Association--Brand                Significant Demographics
Personality

Q24: Kanal B's programs can be            Hours of watching TV
considered as the best quality
ones

Brand Association--Organizational       Significant Demographics
Association

Q28: Kanal B shows up-to-date              Age, Marital Status
programs

Q30: I watch most of the Kanal B                   Age
programs on a regular basis

Q31: I consider Kanal B as a                    Education
reliable source

Q32: I am proud of being Kanal                   Income
B's audience
联系我们|关于我们|网站声明
国家哲学社会科学文献中心版权所有