Available online at www.HighTechJournal.org HighTech and Innovation Journal Vol. 5, No. 1, March, 2024 79 ISSN: 2723-9535 The Impact of Brand Value on Business Performance: An Analysis of Moderating Effects of Product Involvement Suchart Tripopsakul 1* , Wilert Puriwat 2 , Danupol Hoonsopon 2 , Ratirath Na Songkhla 2 1 School of Entrepreneurship and Management, Bangkok University, 9/1 Moo 5 Phaholyothin Road, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand. 2 Chulalongkorn Business School, Chualongkorn University, 254 Phyathai Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330, Thailand. Received 04 November 2023; Revised 02 February 2024; Accepted 09 February 2024; Published 01 March 2024 Abstract The purposes of this study are to investigate the impact of brand value on business performance and to examine whether the impact of brand value on business performance differs between high and low product involvement. Based on the top 100 brands ranked by Interbrand in 2021, linear regression analysis and moderation analysis by SPSS and AMOS were used to examine our proposed hypotheses. The results showed that brand value had a significantly positive effect on business performance. The findings imply that stronger brand valuation impacts are associated with companies that do better financially. In other words, business revenue is significantly determined by a higher brand valuation. The result of the moderation effect reveals that product involvement moderates the effect of brand value on business performance in such a way that the association between brand value and business performance is stronger in low-involvement products than in high-involvement products. The findings validate the notion that a marketer's endeavors toward brand investments constitute a noteworthy origin of activity that adds value. Our study is one of the first to investigate, using empirical data on leading brands across several industries, the impact that brand value can have on business performance. It also broadens the scope of existing understanding regarding the moderating effect of product involvement in regulating a brand's effectiveness. Keywords: Brand Value; Business Performance; Product Involvement. 1. Introduction Since brands are a company's most important intangible asset, managers at many companies have prioritized brand development over the last ten years [1]. Intangible brand attributes, including brand awareness, brand loyalty, perceived brand quality, and positive brand symbols and connections, are all included in the concept of brand equity. Building a company's competitive edge through the development of its brand equity is crucial for future revenue streams. Numerous scholars have contended that effective branding has observable results because companies with high brand equity find it easier to increase demand for their goods and services through globalization and brand extensions [2]. The worth of a brand has grown in importance in recent years as a component of business valuation. Intangible assets have restricted integration into the balance sheet since they lack a clear physical value, unlike factories or equipment. Examples of these include the value of a brand. They can, however, be extremely beneficial to a company and crucial to its long-term success or failure. Strong brands can give businesses a competitive edge that helps them flourish in the * Corresponding author: suchart.t@bu.ac.th http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/HIJ-2024-05-01-06  This is an open access article under the CC-BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). © Authors retain all copyrights. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8031-8056 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8891-3637 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6408-4790 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5462-9360 HighTech and Innovation Journal Vol. 5, No. 1, March, 2024 80 market. For instance, they can charge more for the goods and services they provide, lessen the effect of price competition with other businesses, lessen the sensitivity of product prices, and lessen substitutability [3]. According to the Best Global Brands 2023 ranking by Interbrand, the total brand value of the top 100 brands in the world is 3.3 trillion US dollars. For the eleventh consecutive year, Apple has been the most popular brand. It is the first brand whose worth has increased to over USD 500 billion [4]. Businesses that cater to a wider range of client needs, frequently across industries, continue to hold a dominant position at the top of the table, accounting for nearly half of the total value. The data indicates that organizations that operate in many verticals tend to be more stable, generate better top-line growth, maintain higher profitability, and experience a greater increase in brand value. One well-known example of an intangible asset for a company that is reflected in its market value is its brand value [5]. According to a Fortune magazine assessment of the top 3,500 US companies, intangible assets account for roughly 72% of a company's market value, with brands accounting for between 40% and 75% of these assets [6]. Strong brands enable businesses to charge more for their products, which increases their profit margins. Strong brands generate value for shareholders by lowering costs and increasing profitability [7]. Value is created by the brand through supply and demand curves in the market. Highly branded goods are sold at a premium price for a specific sales volume [8]. When brand performance was identified as one of the eight dimensions of marketing fulfillment, along with other factors including market, customer, financials, product, pricing, placement, and promotion performance, brand and its impact on various firm performance metrics gained significant attention [9]. Although previous research has endeavored to examine the association between brand value and firm performance [10–12], there is still a need for more empirical studies to clarify the impact of brand value on business performance. Therefore, our paper aims to investigate the impact of brand value on business performance by using the top 100 brand values and total revenue as empirical data to verify the relationship between brand value and business performance. The moderating role of the product involvement concept was also tested to determine whether the impact varied depending on the high or low product involvement category. The structure of the study is organized as follows: Initially, the theoretical framework is outlined, and the context for the constructs under investigation is established. Subsequently, a succinct summary of the methodology and the primary findings is presented. In the concluding section, the study's limitations are highlighted, the theoretical and managerial implications of the findings are discussed, and suggestions for future research are provided. 2. Literature Review A brand's value indicates its ability to carry out its operations in a way that enables managers to accomplish the goals of the organization [13, 14]. Brand value conveys information about a company's capacity to support the operations of its client companies and, consequently, its capacity to fight against rivals [15]. Previous research indicates that a brand's appropriate value for business customers should be focused on enhancing their capabilities [16]. The assessment of a product's capacity to command a higher price than its rivals without sacrificing quality or benefits is known as brand value. Businesses with more brand equity generate larger profit margins and have better stock market valuation effects. Strong brand value gives businesses a competitive edge that increases profit margins [17]. Brands are more likely to be bought and repurchased as their value rises, since this indicates a rise in the brand's legitimacy and lowers customers' perceived risk and information costs [18, 19]. Positive company performance to brand value have been shown in studies. Firms that charge premium rates typically have higher cash flows. Benefits including increased customer loyalty, higher profit margins, and a more flexible consumer response to price reductions are all facilitated by having a strong brand name. This study hypothesizes that there is a connection between brand value and company success. Investing in brand value should increase operational performance [20]. Based on this premise, the following hypothesis has been developed: H1: Higher brand values lead to higher business performance in terms of higher revenues for the brand. According to Zaichkowsky (1985), product involvement" is the idea that a product is relevant because of innate needs, values, and interests [21]. Depending on the consumer's connection and the importance they place on the product category, it ranges from high to low. Pricey products that have a significant perceived risk or are strongly associated with the consumer's ego and identity are usually associated with high product involvement [22]. Strong brands can effectively stand out from the competition and influence consumer decisions in low-involvement categories, which has a direct impact on business performance measures like market share and profitability [23]. Conversely, for high- involvement products, brand value may have a less direct influence on business performance than other product-related factors, even though it is still important [24]. Based on the premise, the following hypothesis is developed: H2: The positive relationship between brand value and business performance is stronger for low-involvement products than for high-involvement products. 3. Research Methodology To examine the impact of brand value on business performance, the data of the top 100 brands ranked by Interbrand in 2021 was used to represent brand value, and their revenues were used to represent business performance (see Table 1). The details of brand value and revenues for the Top 100 brands are as follows: HighTech and Innovation Journal Vol. 5, No. 1, March, 2024 81 Table 1. Brand Value and total revenue of Top 100 brands ranked by Interbrand 2021 Brand Brand value ($ Million) Revenue ($ Billion) Brand Brand value ($ Million) Revenue ($ Billion) Apple 408,251 365.8 Starbucks 13,010 29.1 Amazon 249,249 168.1 Ford 12,861 136.3 Microsoft 210,191 469.8 L'Oréal 12,501 38.2 Google 196,811 257.6 Citi 12,501 79.9 Samsung 74,635 235.0 Goldman Sachs 12,491 59.3 Coca-Cola 57,488 38.7 eBay 12,285 10.4 Toyota 54,107 255.8 Philips 12,088 20.3 Mercedes-Benz 50,866 158.4 Porsche 11,739 42.3 McDonald's 45,865 23.2 Nissan 11,131 77.7 Disney 44,183 67.4 Siemens 11,047 74.4 Nike 42,538 44.5 Gillette 10,657 76.1 BMW 41,631 131.6 Nestlé 10,646 95.7 Louis Vuitton 36,766 76.0 HP 10,481 63.5 Tesla 36,270 53.8 HSBC 10,317 46.8 Facebook 36,248 117.9 Danone 9,846 28.7 Cisco 36,228 49.8 Spotify 9,762 11.2 Intel 35,761 79.0 3M 9,702 35.4 IBM 33,257 57.4 Colgate-Palmolive 9,629 17.4 Instagram 32,007 42.2 Morgan Stanley 9,380 59.8 SAP 30,090 32.9 Nintendo 9,197 14.9 Adobe 24,832 15.8 LEGO 9,082 8.8 Chanel 22,109 15.6 Kellogg's 8,642 14.2 Hermès 21,600 10.1 Cartier 8,161 2.3 J.P. Morgan 21,401 127.2 Santander 8,100 70.4 Honda 21,315 123.8 FedEx 7,548 84.0 YouTube 20,905 28.8 Ferrari 7,160 5.0 IKEA 20,034 51.1 Dior 7,024 78.2 PepsiCo 19,431 80.0 Corona 6,952 8.6 UPS 19,377 97.3 Canon 6,897 32.0 American Express 19,075 43.7 DHL 6,747 81.7 General Electric (GE) 18,420 74.2 Jack Daniel's 6,537 3.5 Accenture 17,758 50.5 Caterpillar 6,503 51.0 Gucci 16,656 11.9 LinkedIn 6,368 10.0 Allianz 15,174 144.6 Hewlett Packard 6,313 27.8 Hyundai 15,168 99.0 Huawei 6,196 99.9 Netflix 15,036 29.7 Kia 6,087 54.2 Budweiser 15,022 54.3 Johnson & Johnson 5,937 93.8 Salesforce 14,770 21.3 Panasonic 5,832 63.0 Visa 14,741 24.1 Heineken 5,720 29.2 Nescafé 14,466 25.0 John Deere 5,616 44.0 Sony 14,445 84.6 Zoom 5,536 2.7 PayPal 14,322 25.4 Tiffany & Co. 5,484 10.1 H&M 14,133 23.1 KFC 5,428 6.6 Pampers (P&G) 13,912 8.6 Prada 5,416 3.5 Zara 13,503 23.9 Hennessy 5,299 0.0 Audi 13,474 64.7 MINI Cooper 5,231 5.6 Volkswagen 13,423 296.0 Burberry 5,195 3.1 AXA 13,408 121.8 Land Rover 5,088 20.8 Adidas 13,381 25.1 Uber 4,726 17.5 Mastercard 13,065 18.9 Sephora 4,628 2.3 HighTech and Innovation Journal Vol. 5, No. 1, March, 2024 82 To examine the moderating role of product involvement, the authors classify those 100 brands into two groups: high product involvement and low product involvement. Product involvement is the consumer's continuous commitment to a product category in terms of their attitudes, sentiments, and actions [21, 25]. Products can be categorized based on consumer perceptions into low- and high-involvement categories. When it comes to low-involvement products, customers typically invest less time and energy in researching and assessing them. High-involvement products are classified as high-capital-value items that are pricey, intricately designed, and have a lengthy lifespan, which demands that buyers carefully consider their options and spend a significant amount of time researching the products before making a purchase [26]. Those brands in automotive, electronics and technology, luxury goods and fashion, financial services and insurance, major appliances and equipment, and high-end tech and software were classified into the high- involvement category group. On the one hand, those brands in food and beverage, retail and casual fashion, consumer electronics and social media, and personal care and household products were classified into the low-involvement category group. The 100 brands are categorized as high- and low-involvement products in Table 2. Table 2. High and low involvement product categories of 100 brands High Involvement Products: Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Toyota, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Louis Vuitton, Tesla, Cisco, Intel, IBM, SAP, Adobe, Chanel, Hermès, J.P. Morgan, Honda, American Express, General Electric (GE), Accenture, Gucci, Allianz, Hyundai, Salesforce, Visa, Sony, PayPal, Audi, Volkswagen, AXA, Ford, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Philips, Porsche, Nissan, Siemens, HP (Hewlett-Packard), HSBC, Morgan Stanley, Nintendo, Cartier, Santander, FedEx, Ferrari, Dior, Canon, DHL (Deutsche Post DHL, Caterpillar, LinkedIn, Hewlett Packard, Huawei, Kia, Panasonic, John Deere, Zoom, Tiffany & Co., Prada, Hennessy, MINI Cooper, Burberry, Land Rover, Sephora Low Involvement Products: Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Disney, Nike, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, IKEA, PepsiCo, UPS, Netflix, Budweiser, Nescafé, H&M, Pampers, Zara, Adidas, Mastercard, Starbucks, L'Oréal Paris, eBay, Gillette, Nestlé, Danone, Spotify, 3M, Colgate-Palmolive, Johnson & Johnson, Kellogg's, Corona, Jack Daniel's, Heineken, KFC, Uber, LEGO Note: Some brands offer a wide range of products or services that could fall into either category but are classified based on their most recognized offerings. 4. Result In total, there were 63 brands for high-involvement products and 37 brands for low-involvement product categories for further moderating effect analysis. To test the relationship between brand value and business performance, Pearson’s correlation was initially used to confirm the relationship between brand value and business performance. The result in Table 3 shows that brand value is significantly associated with business performance (Pearson’s correlation = 0.703, Sig = 0.000). Table 3. The result of the correlation between brand value and business performance Symmetric Measures Value Asymptotic Standardized Error a Approximate T b Approximate Significance Interval by Interval Pearson’s R 0.703 0.081 9.781 0.000 c N of Valid Cases 100 a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation. The Box-Cox transformation [27] is a family of power transformations for enhancing normality that expands on and combines the conventional choices to make it simple for researchers to identify the best normalizing transformation for each variable [28]. Therefore, in situations where normalizing data or equalizing variance is desirable, Box-Cox represents a potential best practice. The Box-Cox transformation was used with the revenue data of those 100 brands. Then, the Normality test was performed to reach the Shapiro-Wilk W test and Kolmogorov-Smirnova test results. The result of normality testing (see Table 4) showed that the box-cox value of revenue data for 100 brands as a dependent variable of this study achieved the normality criteria (Kolmogorov-Smirnova sig. = 0.080; Shapiro-Wilk sig. = 0.344; Skewness value = 0.277; Kurtosis value = 0.090) as suggested by Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010), and Kline (2011) [29, 30]. HighTech and Innovation Journal Vol. 5, No. 1, March, 2024 83 Table 4. The normality testing result Tests of Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df. Sig. Statistic df. Sig. Revenue 0.01 100 0.2 0.987 100 0.998 a. Lilliefors Significance Correction Descriptives Statistic Std. Error Revenue Mean 66.7695 7.58085 95 % Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 51.7274 Upper Bound 81.8115 5 % Trimmed Mean 66.3625 Median 65.9224 Variance 5746.925 Std .Deviation 75.80848 Minimum -113.39 Maximum 245.77 Range 359.16 Interquartile Range 104.65 Skewness 0.067 0.241 Kurtosis -0.264 0.478 Note: Revenue is in the Box-Cox transformation form To evaluate and predict data patterns, many disciplines, including economics, finance, and the social sciences, commonly use linear regression [31–33]. The brand value and business performance were estimated using a linear regression analysis. Tables 5 to 7 display the linear regression analysis results. Table 5. Model summary of linear regression analysis Model Summary b Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std .Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig .F Change 1 0.482 0.232 0.225 66.75728 0.232 29.665 1 98 0.000 a .Predictors( :Constant(, Brand Value. b .Dependent Variable :Revenue. Table 6. ANOVA result of linear regression analysis ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 132205.2 1 132205.2 29.665 0.000b Residual 436740.4 98 4456.5 Total 568945.6 99 a .Dependent Variable: Revenue. b .Predictors: (Constant), Brand Value. Table 7. Coefficient result of linear regression analysis Coefficients Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant) 48.591 7.464 6.510 0 Brand Value 0.001 0.000 0.482 5.447 0 1.000 1.000 a .Dependent Variable: Revenue. Note: Revenue is in the Box-Cox transformation form. HighTech and Innovation Journal Vol. 5, No. 1, March, 2024 84 According to Tables 5 to 7, the results showed that brand value significantly impacts business performance. With an R2 of 0.232, brand value can account for a significant amount of the variation in business performance. The findings show a strong correlation between business performance and brand value, with a very significant t-value of 5.447 (p- value < 0.001) and a standardized coefficient (Beta) of 0.482. This shows that there is a positive correlation between brand value and business performance, hence validating Hypothesis 1 (H1), which states that there is a relationship between brand value and business performance. Figure 1 displays the relationship between brand value and business performance, which represents that countries with greater brand values possess higher business performance. Figure 1. The relationship between brand value and business performance of Top 100 brands To test hypothesis 2, multi-group moderation tests were conducted to explore the variation effect of brand value on business performance. To test the categorical moderation hypotheses, we produced the critical ratios for the differences in regression weights between groups of product involvements (high and low) by using AMOS. Gaskin and Jim (2018) provided the stats tools package for testing multi-group moderation effects by using regress weights and critical ratios for different parameters [34]. Product involvements are set as ‘high’ and ‘low’ involvement, and the relevant models are assessed separately for these categorical groups, compared with their respective regression weights and critical ratios for group differences (see Table 8) using the Stats Tools package. Table 8. Path-wise moderation effect - group differences Hypotheses High involvement Low involvement Structural path & direction Estimate P Estimate P z-score H5 Business performance  Brand value 0.332 0.000 0.541 0.000 4.637*** Note: *** p-value < 0.01 The results in Table 8 indicated that brand value significantly and positively affected business performance for both the high (β=0.332, p < 0.01( and low (β=0.541, p<0.01( groups of product involvement. The results show that the effect of brand value on business performance is stronger for low-involvement product groups than for high-involvement product groups. Therefore, the hypothesis H5 is supported. 5. Discussion It has been acknowledged that one of a company's most important assets is its brand value. Previous studies on brand value have concentrated on the connection between stock performance and other intangible assets and brands. But in this study, we broaden the scope to include the international market. Specifically, we examine a globally diverse sample comprising all the highest-valued brands on the Interbrand lists. We examined our presented hypotheses using linear regression analysis and moderation analysis by SPSS and AMOS, based on the top 100 brands evaluated by Interbrand in 2021. The findings demonstrated that brand value greatly improved corporate performance. The results suggest that organizations with greater financial performance tend to have stronger brand valuation impacts. Our finding is in line with previous studies [3, 10] that there is a positive correlation between brand value and firm performance. This study also provides theoretical contributions by empirically verifying the power of brand value on business performance, thereby reinforcing the concept of brand equity [35]. Additionally, by highlighting brand value as a crucial intangible resource that generates competitive advantage, it expands on the resource-based view (RBV) [36]. For the practical implications of this study, it offers important practical implications for business managers and marketers by indicating the role that brand value plays in affecting business performance. It highlights how important it is to give brand-building projects top priority, particularly for businesses that provide low-involvement products where the effect of brand value is more noticeable. The outcomes also support a long-term investment in brand equity, highlighting the need for consistent brand development for continuing business achievement and growth. Companies may maximize their financial outcomes and market positioning by adjusting their branding campaigns based on the degree of product involvement. HighTech and Innovation Journal Vol. 5, No. 1, March, 2024 85 6. Conclusion The objectives of this study are to investigate the impact of brand value on business performance and examine the moderating role of product involvement in the relationship between brand value and business performance. The data for this research came from the top 100 global brands ranked by Interbrand in 2021. The linear regression analysis and moderation analysis were used to validate our proposed hypotheses. The result of the study showed that there is a significant association between brand value and business performance. In other words, brand value significantly affects the business performance of the top 100 global brands. The effect of brand value on business performance was found to be stronger in the low-involvement product category than in the high-involvement category. Our study confirms the significance of the brand-building concept, which subsequently leads to business achievement in terms of financial outcomes, and extends the body of knowledge about the product involvement concept and how it affects brand value and business performance. This study contains certain limitations. Firstly, due to its selective sample, this study, which focuses on the top 100 companies ranked by Interbrand in 2021, might not accurately reflect the wide landscape of global enterprises, especially smaller or emerging brands. Secondly, the use of cross-sectional data restricts the capacity to establish causal linkages, indicating that longitudinal research may provide a more profound understanding of the changing influence of brand value on business success. Future research could investigate different metrics and consider other moderating factors like market competition, consumer behavior trends, and economic conditions to provide a more thorough understanding of the relationship between brand value and business performance. This would allow for an expansion of the study's operationalization of brand value and business performance. 7. Declarations 7.1. Author Contributions Conceptualization, S.T., W.P., D.H., and R.N.S.; methodology, S.T., W.P., D.H., and R.N.S.; formal analysis, S.T. and W.P.; data curation, S.T., W.P., D.H., and R.N.S.; writing—original draft preparation, S.T., W.P., D.H., and R.N.S.; writing—review and editing, S.T. and W.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. 7.2. Data Availability Statement The data were derived from the following resources available in the public domain: https://interbrand.com/thinking/ best-global-brands-2021-download/ and https://www.macrotrends.net/. 7.3. Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. 7.4. Institutional Review Board Statement Not applicable. 7.5. Informed Consent Statement Not applicable. 7.6. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. 8. References [1] Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science, 25(6), 740–759. doi:10.1287/mksc.1050.0153. [2] Shocker, A. D., & Aaker, D. A. (1993). Managing Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing Research: Simon and Schuster, 30(2), 256- 258. doi:10.2307/3172832. [3] Dorfleitner, G., Rößle, F., & Lesser, K. (2019). The financial performance of the most valuable brands: A global empirical investigation. Heliyon, 5(4), e01433. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01433. [4] Interbrand (2023). Best Global Brands 2023 - How Iconic Brands Lead Across Arenas. Interbrand, New York, United States. Available online: https://interbrand.com/best-brands/ [5] Bharadwaj, S. G., Tuli, K. R., & Bonfrer, A. (2011). The impact of brand quality on shareholder wealth. Journal of Marketing, 75(5), 88–104. doi:10.1509/jmkg.75.5.88. https://interbrand.com/thinking/ https://interbrand.com/best-brands/ HighTech and Innovation Journal Vol. 5, No. 1, March, 2024 86 [6] Ramasamy, B., & Yeung, M. (2009(. Chinese consumers’ perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Journal of Business Ethics, 88(SUPPL. 1), 119–132. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9825-x. [7] Fischer, M., & Himme, A. (2017). The financial brand value chain: How brand investments contribute to the financial health of firms. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 137–153. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.05.004. [8] Salinas, G. (2016). Brand Valuation: Principles, Applications and Latest Developments. The Routledge Companion to Contemporary Brand Management, 48-67. [9] Sucala, I. V., & Sava, A. (2015). The attitude of Romanian industrial companies towards the market during the transition. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 12(5), 81–99. doi:10.12700/APH.12.5.2015.5.5. [10] Hsu, F. J., Wang, T. Y., & Chen, M. Y. (2013). The impact of brand value on financial performance. Advances in Management and Applied Economics, 3(6), 129-141. [11] Kumar, R., Sujit, K. S., Waheed, K. A., & Fernandez, M. (2021). Are Brand Value and Firm Value Related? An Empirical Examination. Global Business Review, 1-12. doi:10.1177/0972150921995479. [12] Thottoli, M. M., & Al Harthi, F. N. (2022). Corporate branding and firm performance: a study among Oman hotel industry. Arab Gulf Journal of Scientific Research, 40(3), 214–234. doi:10.1108/AGJSR-04-2022-0035. [13] Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-based assets and shareholder value: A framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 2–18. doi:10.2307/1251799. [14] Gupta, S., Gallear, D., Rudd, J., & Foroudi, P. (2020). The impact of brand value on brand competitiveness. Journal of Business Research, 112, 210–222. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.02.033. [15] Wilson, R. (1997). The Corporate Brand. Journal of Brand Management 5(1), 70–71. doi:10.1057/bm.1997.32. [16] Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Market orientation, customer value, and superior performance. Business Horizons, 37(2), 22–28. doi:10.1016/0007-6813(94)90029-9. [17] Stahl, F., Heitmann, M., Lehmann, D. R., & Neslin, S. A. (2012). The impact of brand equity on customer acquisition, retention, and profit margin. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 44–63. doi:10.1509/jm.10.0522. [18] Esch, F. R., Langner, T. L., Schmitt, B. H., & Geus, P. (2006). Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 15(2), 98–105. doi:10.1108/10610420610658938. [19] Wu, L. Y., Chen, K. Y., Chen, P. Y., & Cheng, S. L. (2014). Perceived value, transaction cost, and repurchase-intention in online shopping: A relational exchange perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2768–2776. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.007. [20] Chang, Y., Wang, X., & Arnett, D. B. (2018). Enhancing firm performance: The role of brand orientation in business-to-business marketing. Industrial Marketing Management, 72, 17–25. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.01.031. [21] Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the Involvement Construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341. doi:10.1086/208520. [22] Mittal, B., & Lee, M. S. (1989). A causal model of consumer involvement. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(3), 363–389. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(89)90030-5. [23] Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–93. doi:10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255. [24] Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310–320. doi:10.1509/jmkr.40.3.310.19238. [25] Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J.-N. (1985). Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(1), 41– 53. doi:10.1177/002224378502200104. [26] Wang, S., Lin, Y., & Zhu, G. (2023). Online reviews and high-involvement product sales: Evidence from offline sales in the Chinese automobile industry. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 57, 101231. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2022.101231. [27] Box, G. E. P., & Cox, D. R. (1964). An Analysis of Transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 26(2), 211–243. doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1964.tb00553.x. [28] Sakia, R. M. (1992). The Box-Cox Transformation Technique: A Review. The Statistician, 41(2), 169. doi:10.2307/2348250. [29] Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2018). Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson Education International, New Jersey, United States. [30] Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford publications, New York, United States. [31] Dielman, T. E. (1991). Applied Regression Analysis for Business and Economics. International Biometric Society: Biometrics, 47(2), 791-792. doi:10.2307/2532185. HighTech and Innovation Journal Vol. 5, No. 1, March, 2024 87 [32] Dana, J., & Dawes, R. M. (2004). The superiority of simple alternatives to regression for social science predictions. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(3), 317–331. doi:10.3102/10769986029003317. [33] Todua, N., Babilua, P., & Dochviri, T. (2013). On the multiple linear regression in marketing research. Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences, 7(3), 135–139. [34] Gaskin, J., & Lim., J. (2017). Multiple Analysis. AMOS Plugin. Gaskination’s StatWiki. Available online: http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/index.php?title=Main_Page (accessed on November 2023). [35] Aaker, D. A. (1992). The Value of Brand Equity. Journal of Business Strategy, 13(4), 27–32. doi:10.1108/eb039503. [36] Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108. http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/index.php?title=Main_Page