Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
25
International Journal Of Management And Economics Fundamental
(ISSN
–
2771-2257)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
25-38
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
This study aims to examine the impact of local product branding on the economic performance of the agricultural and
livestock agro-processing industries in the region of Vlora. Based on the data collected from local agro-processing and
agro-tourism industries, the purpose of this research is to analyze how branding strategies contribute to increasing
the level of sales, the level of income, creating a strong identity, and improving the performance of businesses and
the territory where these businesses are concentrated. The study includes in the analysis the influence of the local
brand in the creation of the identity, in the level of sales, in the income, the profit margins, and the improvement of
the economic performance of the agricultural and livestock agro-processing industries. For this reason, the research
was conducted with the inclusion of over 100 industries/agritourism, and the analysis of the questionnaire data was
conducted with the STATA program. From the results of the research, it is clear that investment in the branding of
products with local indicators is necessary to stimulate economic development and to strengthen the market
positioning of businesses in the agricultural and livestock sectors. Also, this research provides important
recommendations for improving branding practices as a strategic tool for the development and consolidation of agro-
processing industries in the region.
Research Article
THE IMPACT OF LOCAL PRODUCT BRANDING ON THE ECONOMIC
PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL AND LIVESTOCK AGRO-
PROCESSING INDUSTRIES IN VLORA
Submission Date:
Oct 05, 2024,
Accepted Date:
Oct 09, 2024,
Published Date:
Oct 18, 2024
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijmef/Volume04Issue10-04
Edvina Polaj
Department of Economics, Entrepreneurship and Finance, Barleti University, Triana, Albania
Orchid Id: -
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2240-5469
Edmond Kadiu
Department of Rura Tourism Management, Agricultural University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ijmef
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
26
International Journal Of Management And Economics Fundamental
(ISSN
–
2771-2257)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
25-38
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
KEYWORDS
Local brand, economic performance, agro-processing industry, agro-tourism, STATA.
INTRODUCTION
The agricultural and livestock agro-processing
industries constitute one of the most important
sectors of the economy in the Vlora region,
contributing to economic development, employment,
and the preservation of local traditions. However, in
the face of permanent challenges such as competition
and changing consumer preferences, branding local
products has often been underestimated as an
important strategy for the success and survival of
these industries. This study aims to analyze in detail the
impact of branding on the economic performance of
businesses in this sector, focusing on aspects such as
sales growth and profit margins and evaluating how
branding strategies contribute to the growth of
product recognition and the economic performance of
businesses. By collecting data from over 100 agro-
processing and agro-tourism industries in the Vlora
region, this research provided a clear analysis of the
role of branding in creating a distinct identity for
products and its impact on sales, revenue, and profit
margins. About 23.3% of representatives of the olive oil
processing industry, 23.3% of the of the milk processing
industry, 26.2% of the of the meat processing industry,
17.5% of the of the wine processing industry, and 9.7%
of agritourism participated in the study. Using the
STATA program for data analysis, it was examined how
investment in branding strategies helps to create a
strong identity for local products/agro-processing
industries, increase revenue, profit margin, improve
economic performance, and position businesses in the
market in this sector. The results of this study not only
demonstrate the potential of branding as a strategic
tool for the development of producers but are
particularly important for investors and politicians
aiming to develop and consolidate the agro-processing
agricultural and livestock economy in the study area,
highlighting the importance of branding practices in
this region.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
BRAND
POTENTIAL,
DIMENSIONS,
AND
MANAGEMENT
Brand potential is a concept of particular importance in
scientific research, as it finds significant use
throughout the evaluation of marketing activities in
the promotion of agro-processing industries and not
only (Christodoulides et al., 2015). It directly affects the
ability and performance of businesses to secure and
maintain competitive advantage in time in order to
stimulate and sustain consumer demand in their favor
(Keller, 2016). A brand with a high level of potential
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
27
International Journal Of Management And Economics Fundamental
(ISSN
–
2771-2257)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
25-38
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
creates a positive impact on consumer perceptions,
which will therefore influence the final purchase
decision-making process (Pappu et al., 2005). For these
reasons, businesses, in recent years in marketing
activities and especially in branding strategies of
companies, focus on increasing brand value (Davcik et
al., 2015). The changes brought about by globalization
and the development of information technology were
accompanied by the growth of e-commerce, which has
encouraged competition between well-known brands
that put in focus the potential of the brand as the most
effective choice for their economic performance
(Sharma, 2017).
From the research of the literature, there are three
main ways to approximate the essential features of the
brand's potential result:
•
From the perspective of business/agro-processing
industries;
•
From the financial point of view;
•
From the consumer's point of view;
Business, in his view, bases success on effective
marketing efforts and the value of its brand,
attributing added value to the product/products (e.g.,
promotion, packaging, advertising, etc.) (Hoeffler et
al., 2003). From the financial point of view, it is
suggested that brands should be subject to
commercial activities according to a certain price,
which will basically reflect the brand equity, which will
increase the flow of monetary income in favor of agro-
processing businesses/industries and will affect the
growth of the pace of their economic consolidation
(Doyle, 2001). The consumer's point of view is analyzed
in cognitive psychology, which interprets the brand's
potential in the consumer's point of view, examining
the emotional connections between consumer
behavior and brands (Keller et al., 2006). Brand
potential, based on the consumer's point of view, is an
indicator element for evaluating the effectiveness of
modern marketing strategies and branding activities in
businesses (Keller, 2016). In her conceptual definition
of Farquhar (1989), brand potential is paraphrased as
follows: "brand equity is the added value that a specific
brand gives to its product." David A. Aaker, a leader in
the field of brand management, adopts the consumer-
based approach, interpreting that the potential of the
brand lies in the totality of the activities and obligations
associated with it, its name and symbol (logo), which
reinforce or weaken its value (Aaker, 1991). Similarly,
Keller (1993) describes the potential of the brand as an
element that makes a difference in consumer
knowledge and perceptions in the way the latter react
to the activities of that brand. Brand potential is a
concept composed of several different individual
dimensions, each of which produces different results in
businesses and companies (Pappu, 2005). The
selection of products within the same category but
between different brands will depend on the perceived
quality of the consumer (Yoo, 2001; David, 2015); in
terms of brand loyalty, it adds value to the business by
providing a segment of consumers for a long period of
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
28
International Journal Of Management And Economics Fundamental
(ISSN
–
2771-2257)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
25-38
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
time even in the conditions of a strong competitive
environment, considering lower prices (Gil et al., 2007).
From the analysis of the literature that deals with the
interpretation of brand potential, the state of two main
approaches to this concept based on individual
dimensions (Gentile et al., 2019). The first approach
analyzes brand equity as a business asset; it stimulates
consumer demand for the products and services of an
enterprise (Leccacorvi et al., 2019).
The second approach takes into consideration the fact
that brand potential is created through the familiarity
of consumers with the brand, which comes as a result
of marketing activities (Keller, 1993). Both approaches
complement each other even though they have
different theoretical starting points. They are used in
combination to highlight relevant interpretive models.
In such approaches, the two Keller's first model
recognizes two dimensions: brand recognition and
brand image. Recognition consists of the consumer's
ability to memorize and identify the brand, while brand
image refers to the perceptions that a consumer
creates through emotional and cognitive connections
(Keller, 1993; Savioli, 2022).
According to Aaker's model, brand potential is the
result of four dimensions:
•
First is brand awareness, which refers to
consumers' ability to memorize and identify a
brand for a specific product category.
•
Second is brand loyalty, which is defined as a
strong commitment by the consumer to
repeatedly purchase a product or service of a
particular brand on an ongoing basis, despite
changes in market conditions and the level of
competition. Loyalty to a specific brand consists in
avoiding purchases in competing businesses.
•
The third dimension consists of the connotation
with which a brand is associated, that is, what a
brand means to the consumer based on his
previous experiences.
•
The fourth dimension is perceived quality, i.e., the
way
the
consumer
evaluates
the
superiority/validity of a product (Aaker, 1991;
Ferrante, 2013).
The Aaker model is widely used for developing
measurement tools for brand potential but has
undergone changes over time. The change refers to
the review suggested by Yoo and Donthu, who
proposes three factors involved in brand potential:
loyalty, awareness, and perceived quality, arguing that
the connotations of a brand are determined by the
awareness factor (Yoo et al., 2001).
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
According to the objective of the study and the
theoretical context presented earlier, the research
hypothesis was formulated as follows:
H1. Branding of local products would affect the
economic performance of the agricultural and
livestock agro-processing industries.
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
29
International Journal Of Management And Economics Fundamental
(ISSN
–
2771-2257)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
25-38
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
METHOD
Study sample and data collection
After assessing the low economic performance in the
agro-processing sector in the Vlora District, in Albania,
it was decided to analyze the reasons for this
phenomenon through examining the interest and
attitudes of entrepreneurs and the management staff
of these businesses towards locally branded products.
The study included 103 industries and agritourisms,
which were selected depending on their availability
and willingness to engage in the study (Elliot et al.,
2007). About 23.3% of the olive oil processing industry,
23.3% of the milk processing industry, 26.2% of the meat
processing industry, 17.5% of the wine processing
industry, and 9.7% of agrotourism participated in the
study. All participants in the research were from the
Vlora region. The questionnaire was administered
electronically through the Google Forms platform. The
data collection process began in November 2023 and
was completed in August 2024, resulting in 103
completed questionnaires.
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
The econometric regression model was used for the
data analysis of the agro-processing industries in the
Vlora District, and the processing of the research
results was carried out with the STATA program.
To collect data on industries and agritourism for
management or decision-making staff, a questionnaire
with closed questions according to the Likert scale,
from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (totally agree), was used.
The questionnaire was structured in three sections as
follows:
1.
The first section contains five questions on the
distinctive features of industries.
2.
The second section contains 12 questions with
closed answers for businesses that have implemented
the brand. The questions consist of the role of
branding in promoting sales, in increasing demand for
agritourism, in the role of local branding in creating a
strong identity, in influencing profit margins, in the
image
and
success
of
agroprocessing
industries/agritourism,
in
improving
economic
performance, and the main barriers that have
prohibited/difficult the branding of agricultural and
livestock products.
3.
The third section contains 7 questions with
closed answers for businesses that have not yet
implemented the brand. The questions consist of the
perception of the management staff included in the
study on the role of the local brand in the level of sales,
demand for products, in creating a strong identity, in
increasing the number of consumers and tourists, in
improving the economic performance of agro-
processing industries/agritourism, in the image and
success of agroprocessing industries/agritourism, and
the main barriers that have prohibited/difficult the
branding of agricultural and livestock products.
Industries and agritourism were contacted through e-
mails and telephone calls, the data of which were
obtained from their websites.
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
30
International Journal Of Management And Economics Fundamental
(ISSN
–
2771-2257)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
25-38
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
DATA ANALYSIS
Analysis and interpretation of the collected data were
carried out using a quantitative approach. The
methodology used for this case study is the
econometric model of simple and multifactorial
regression (Osmani, 2017). While the program used for
data processing is STATA.
RESULTS
Statistical analysis/regression model for the impact of
branding on performance
The following data reflect the evaluations, opinions,
and perceptions of entrepreneurs and management
staff of agricultural and livestock agroprocessing
industries about branded products to evaluate the role
of the latter in the level of sales, the level of income,
profit margins, and the improvement of economic
performance of businesses in this sector. In the
following, various combined groups are constructed.
The main variables to build these clusters are: profit,
sales, number of tourists, identity, and the impact of
brand implementation on profit margins. From this
five-dimensional position, the evaluaions of the
respondents are analyzed for the role of products
branded with local indicators in improving the
economic performance of businesses operating in this
sector. In the study sample, it was found that 23.3% of
the study participants were representatives of the
olive
oil
processing
industry,
23.3%
were
representatives of the milk processing industry, 26.2%
were representatives of the meat processing industry,
17.5% were representatives of the wine processing
industry,
and
9.7%
were
representatives
of
agrotourism. Regarding the time of the beginning of
the activity, about 14.6% of them had from 1 to 5 years
of activity, 41.7% had from 6 to 10 years of activity, 22.5
had from 11 to 15 years of activity, 11.7% had from 16 up
to 20 years of activity, and 6.8% had over 30 years of
activity. Regarding the number of employees in the
industry, 84.5% had between 1 and 9 employees and
15.5% had between 10 and 49 employees. As for the
place where they developed the activity, 39.8% were
urban and 60.2% were rural. Regarding the products
they marketed, it was found that 26.2% of the
businesses marketed branded products and 73.8% of
them marketed unbranded products.
Simple and multifactorial regression
Dependent variable Performance1 (Y). Independent:
Profit (X1), Sales (X2), NrTourist (X3), AGTPromotion
(X4), Ident (X5)
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
31
International Journal Of Management And Economics Fundamental
(ISSN
–
2771-2257)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
25-38
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Table 1. Model 1: OLS, using observations 1-103
Dependent variable: Performance1
Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors, variant HC1
Coefficient
Std. Error
z
p-value
const
0.879208
0.296740
2.963
0.0030
***
Sale
0.149538
0.0822711
1.818
0.0691
*
Number of tourists
0.367324
0.0800492
4.589
<0.0001 ***
The impact of
brand
implementation on
profit margins
0.187839
0.105358
1.783
0.0746
*
Profit
0.00255891
0.0704520
0.03632
0.9710
Mean dependent var
2.679612 S.D. dependent var
0.468908
Sum squared resid
16.02194 S.E. of regression
0.404338
R-squared
0.285602 Adjusted R-squared
0.256443
F (4, 98)
11.46828 P-value(F)
1.12e-07
Log-likelihood
−50.32101 Akaike criterion
110.6420
Schwarz criterion
123.8157 Hannan-Quinn
115.9778
The model results:
Performance1 = 0.879 + 0.150*Sales + 0.00256*Profit +
0.367*NoTourist + 0.188*AGTPromotion+e
From the above, we interpret the parameters of the
econometric model as well as the coefficient of
determination.
𝑎
1
=
0.150 indicates that when sales increase by one
unit and all other factors are held constant,
performance1 will increase by 0.150.
𝑎
2
=0.00256 indicates that when profit will increase by
one unit and all other factors are held constant, then
performance1 will increase by 0.00256.
𝑎
3
=0.367 indicates that when the number of tourists
increases by one unit and all other factors are held
constant, performance1 will increase by 0.188.
𝑎
4
=
0.188 indicates that when agritourism promotion
will increase by one unit and all other factors are held
constant, performance1 will increase by 0.188.
𝑅
2
=0.285 (the coefficient of determination) shows
that 28.5% of the performance variation1 is dedicated
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
32
International Journal Of Management And Economics Fundamental
(ISSN
–
2771-2257)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
25-38
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
to sales, profit, number of tourists, and agritourism
promotion, while 71.5% is dedicated to other factors.
We also promote the hypothesis regarding the
importance of the model as well as the hypothesis
regarding the parameters of the model.
Hypothesis about the significance of the model
𝐻
0
:
The model is not significant.
𝐻
𝑎
: The model is important.
From the table, we see that Ffact=11.46. With 95%
certainty and degrees of freedom, we find the critical
value from Fisher's table and compare them to each
other.
Fcritical=
𝐹
𝛼
, (𝑘 − 1): (𝑛 − 𝑘)
=
𝐹
0.05
; 4; 98 =
2.37
. The actual value was greater than the critical one
(11.46 > 2.37), which means that the basic hypothesis
falls down; the alternative one stands, that is, factors
such as sales, profit, number of tourists, and
promotion of agribusiness affect the performance1.
Without question from the above conclusions, we can
also test the significance of the two regression
coefficients by means of the analysis of probabilities.
From the factor analysis, taking the significance level
α=0.05, we reach the following results:
For the first factor (sales)
Ho:
𝐴
1
= 0
𝑃(𝑎
1
) = 0. 0691; 𝛼 = 0.05 ; 𝑃(𝑎
1
) > 𝛼
,
𝐻𝑜 𝑞stands, 𝐻𝑎 falls down.
Ha:
𝐴
1
≠ 0
So the sales factor turned out to be insignificant in the
model.
For the second factor (profit),
Ho:
𝐴
2
= 0
𝑃(𝑎
2
) = 0. 9710; 𝛼 = 0.05 ; 𝑃(𝑎
2
) > 𝛼
,
𝐻𝑜 stands, 𝐻𝑎 fall down.
Ha:
𝐴
2
≠ 0
The second profit factor turned out to be insignificant
in
the
model.
For the third factor (number of tourists),
Ho:
𝐴
3
= 0
𝑃(𝑎
3
) = 0. 00001; 𝛼 = 0.05 ; 𝑃(𝑎
3
) < 𝛼
,
𝐻𝑜 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛, 𝐻𝑎 stands.
Ha:
𝐴
3
≠ 0
The third factor, the number of tourists, turned out to
be
important.
For the fourth factor (promotion of agritourism),
Ho:
𝐴
4
= 0
𝑃(𝑎
4
) = 0. 0746; 𝛼 = 0.05 ; 𝑃(𝑎
4
) >
𝛼
,
𝐻𝑜 stands, 𝐻𝑎 fall down.
Ha:
𝐴
4
≠ 0
The fourth factor, the promotion of agritourism,
turned out to be insignificant. Of all the factors tested
above, only the number of tourists was significant in
the model.
Profit has no effect on performance1. Collinearity
between independent variables may play a role in this
result.
Below we evaluated the correlation matrix:
Table 2. Correlation coefficients, using the observations 1 - 103
5% critical value (two-tailed) = 0.1937 for n = 103
Sale
Profit
No.
Tourist
AGTPromoti
on
Identity
1.0000
0.1855
-0.0887
-0.0211
0.3320
Sale
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
33
International Journal Of Management And Economics Fundamental
(ISSN
–
2771-2257)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
25-38
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
1.0000
0.2475
0.3022
0.5228
Profit
1.0000
0.2519
0.1351
No.
Tourist
1.0000
0.2648
AGTPro
motion
1.0000
Identity
Source: E. Polaj
It seems that there is some correlation only between the variables Identity and Profit. The following model shows that
identity is determined to an important extent by the profit of the industries.
Table 3. Model 2: OLS, using observations 1-103
Dependent variable: Ident
Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors, variant HC1
Coefficient
Std. Error
z
p-value
const
0.324668
0.203129
1.598
0.1100
Profit
0.695225
0.0947978
7.334 <0.0001 ***
Mean dependent
var
1.796117 S.D. dependent var 0.796552
Sum squared resid 47.02732 S.E. of regression
0.682361
R-squared
0.273355 Adjusted R-squared 0.266161
F (1, 101)
53.78424 P-value(F)
5.72e-11
Log-likelihood
−105.774
7
Akaike criterion
215.5493
Schwarz criterion
220.8188 Hannan-Quinn
217.6836
Source: E. Polaj
The model results:
Identity = 0.32 + 0.69*Profit + e
From the above, we interpret the coefficient of
regression and that of determination.
b = 0.69 indicates that when profit increases by one
unit, identity will increase by 0.69.
R2=0.273 (the coefficient of determination) shows that
27.3% of the variation of Identity is dedicated to profit,
while 72.7% is dedicated to other factors.
Also, we promote the hypothesis regarding the
significance of the model.
Hypothesis about the significance of the model.
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
34
International Journal Of Management And Economics Fundamental
(ISSN
–
2771-2257)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
25-38
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
H_0: The model is not significant (equivalent to
earnings does not affect identity).
H_a: Model is important (equivalent to profit affects
identity).
From the table, we see that Ffact=53.78. With 95%
certainty and degrees of freedom, we find the critical
value from Fisher's table and compare them to each
other. Fcritical=F_α,(k
-1):(n-k)=F_0.05;1;101=3.84. The
actual value was greater than the critical one (53.78 >
3.84), which means that the basic hypothesis falls and
the alternative one remains. So in conclusion, profit
affects identity.
The model below shows that performance also
depends on profit.
Table 4. Model 3: OLS, using observations 1-103
Dependent variable: Performance1
Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors, variant HC1
Coefficient
Std. Error
z
p-value
const
2.34164
0.163428
14.33 <0.0001 ***
Profit 0.159682
0.0734059
2.175 0.0296 **
Mean dependent var
2.679612 S.D. dependent var
0.468908
Sum squared resid
21.49390 S.E. of regression
0.461314
R-squared
0.041614 Adjusted R-squared
0.032125
F(1, 101)
4.732040 P-value(F)
0.031939
Log-likelihood
−65.45224 Akaike criterion
134.9045
Schwarz criterion
140.1739 Hannan-Quinn
137.0388
Source: E. Polaj
The model results:
Performance1 = 2.34 + 0.59*Profit + e
From the above, we interpret the coefficient of
regression and that of determination.
b=0.59 indicates that when profit increases by one
unit, performance1 will increase by 0.59.
R2=0.041 (the coefficient of determination) shows that
4.1% of the performance variation1 is dedicated to
profit, while 95.9% is dedicated to other factors.
We also promote the hypothesis regarding the
significance of the model.
H0: The model is not significant (equivalent to profit
does not affect performance1).
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
35
International Journal Of Management And Economics Fundamental
(ISSN
–
2771-2257)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
25-38
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Ha: Model is significant (equivalent to profit affects
performance1).
From the table, we see that Ffact=4.73. With 95%
certainty and degrees of freedom, we find the critical
value from Fisher's table and compare them to each
other. Fcritical=Fα, (k
-1):(n-k)=F0.05;1;101=3.84. The
actual value was greater than the critical one (4.73 >
3.84), which means that the basic hypothesis falls
down and the alternative one remains. So the profit
affects the performance1. The model below shows that
performance also depends on identity, or identity also
depends on performance.
Table 5. Model 4: OLS, using observations 1-103
Dependent variable: Performance1
Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors, variant HC1
Coefficient
Std. Error
z
p-value
const
2.36679
0.115865
20.43
<0.0001 ***
Identity
0.174167
0.0552178
3.154
0.0016
***
Mean dependent var
2.679612 S.D. dependent var 0.468908
Sum squared resid
20.46400 S.E. of regression
0.450126
R-squared
0.087536 Adjusted R-squared 0.078502
F(1, 101)
9.948908 P-value(F)
0.002120
Log-likelihood
−62.92348 Akaike criterion
129.8470
Schwarz criterion
135.1164 Hannan-Quinn
131.9813
The model results:
Performance1 = 2.36 + 0.17*Identity + e
From the above, we interpret the coefficient of
regression and that of determination.
b = 0.17 indicates that when identity increases by one
unit, performance1 will increase by 0.17.
R2=0.087 (the coefficient of determination) shows
that 8.7% of the performance1 variation is dedicated to
identity, while 91.3% is dedicated to other factors.
We also test the hypothesis about the significance of
the model.
H0: Model is not significant (equivalent to identity does
not affect performance1).
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
36
International Journal Of Management And Economics Fundamental
(ISSN
–
2771-2257)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
25-38
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Ha: Model is important (equivalent to identity affects
performance1).
From the table, we see that Ffact=9.94. With 95%
certainty and degrees of freedom, we find the critical
value from Fisher's table and compare them to each
other. Fcritical=Fα,(k
-1):(n-k)=F0.05;1;101=3.84. The
actual value was greater than the critical one (9.94 >
3.84), which means that the basic hypothesis falls
down and the alternative one remains. So identity
affects performance1. But since we showed that
branding causes all five variables above to take high
values, then we say that branding has positive effects
on performance1.
Hypothesis 1 is proven directly because branding
causes the variables that are used to calculate
Performance2 (economic performance of agro-
processing industries) to have, as we saw above in the
descriptive and exploratory analysis, high values,
which automatically brings high values for the variable
Performance2. Therefore, H1 is proven: The branding
of local products would affect the increase in the
economic performance of the agro-processing,
agricultural, and livestock industries.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study highlight the role of the brand
with local indicators in:
Increase sales and income: Branding with local
indicators helps increase sales, making products more
attractive to consumers. This improves the total
income of businesses in the agro-processing sector.
Building a strong identity: Products branded with local
indicators establish a unique identity, setting them
apart from the competition. This helps consumers to
more easily identify products of the highest quality and
with local traditions.
Improved profit margins: Effective branding not only
increases sales but also contributes to improved profit
margins, proving that investment in branding pays off
with higher profits.
Impact on economic performance: The importance of
branding
goes
beyond
individual
businesses;
improving economic performance helps the overall
development of localities. This is extremely important
for the county of Vlora, where the agricultural and
livestock agro-processing industries play a major role in
the local economy.
CONCLUSION
This study has provided an in-depth analysis on the role
of the brand with local indicators in the economic
performance of agro-processing agricultural, livestock,
and agro-tourism businesses in the region of Vlora. The
research results proved the importance of branding
products with local indicators in improving the
economic performance of businesses operating in this
sector.
By analyzing variables such as sales, income, profit, and
identity, the following conclusions were reached:
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
37
International Journal Of Management And Economics Fundamental
(ISSN
–
2771-2257)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
25-38
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
•
Branding contributes to increasing the level of
sales and income for local businesses.
•
Branding with local indicators helps to create a
strong identity for products, making them more
popular and preferred by consumers.
•
Effective branding results in the improvement of
business profit margins, thus helping in the
development of the locality where these
businesses operate.
•
Branding of local products has a significant impact
on improving the economic performance of the
agro-processing and livestock industries in the
Vlora region.
This study provides necessary recommendations for
the improvement of branding practices, seeing this as
an important tool for the further development of the
agro-processing and livestock industries. Also, the
results highlighted the importance of branding as a
strategic instrument for highlighting the economic
potential of businesses in this sector. In conclusion, this
study emphasizes the importance of branding with
local indicators in increasing the value of elements such
as sales, income, profit, and identity, which lead to the
improvement of the economic performance of agro-
processing industries.
REFERENCES
1.
Aaker, D.A. (1991), “Managing Brand Equity
:Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name”,
Free Press: Neë York, NY, USA.
2.
Christodoulides, G.; Cadogan, J.W.; Veloutsou,
C. (2015), “Consumer
-based brand equity
measurement”, Lessons learned from an
international study. Int. Mark.
3.
Davcik, N.S.; da Silva, R.V.; Hair, J.F. (2015),
“Towards a unified theory of brand equity:
Conceptualizations, taxonomy and avenues for
future research”, J. Prod. Brand Manag.
4.
David A. Aaker. (2015), “Brand equity. La
gestione del valore della marca”, editore
Franco Angeli, Italia.
5.
Doyle, P. (2001), “Shareholder
-value-based
brand strategies”, J. Brand
Manag.
6.
Farquhar, P.H. (1989), “Managing brand
equity”, Mark. Res.
7.
Ferrante T, (2013), “Valutare la qualità
percepita. Uno studio pilota per gli hospice-
Evaluation of perceived quality”, editor Franco
Angeli, Italia.
8.
Gentile, S; Sordi, F. (2019). “L'identit
à di Marca:
Viaggio alla Scoperta dei Propri Valori e della
Propria Identità Aziendale”, editore Flaccovio
Dario, Italia.
9.
Gil, R.B.; Andrés, E.F.; Salinas, E.M. (2007),
“Family as a source of consumer
-based brand
equity”, J. Prod. Brand Manag.
10.
Hoeffler, S.
; Keller, K.L. (2003), “The marketing
advantages of strong brands”, J. Brand Manag.
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
38
International Journal Of Management And Economics Fundamental
(ISSN
–
2771-2257)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
25-38
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
11.
Keller,
K.L.
(1993),
“Conceptualizing,
measuring, and managing customer-based
brand equity”, J. Mark.
12.
Keller, K.L. (2016), “Reflections on customer
-
based brand equity: Perspectives, progress,
and priorities”, AMS Rev.
13.
Keller, K.L.; Lehmann, D.R. (2006), “Brands and
Branding: Research Findings and Future
Priorities”, Mark. Sci.
14.
Leccacorvi, D; Alia, A. (2019), “Il marchio”,
editore Aristea, Italia.
15.
Pappu, R.; Quester, P.G.; Cooksey, R.W. (2005).
“Consumer
-based brand equity: Improving the
measurement,Empirical evidence”, J. Prod.
Brand Manag.
16.
Savioli, L (2022), “Come creare l’immagine
coordinata di marca: L’approccio e gli
strumenti indispensabili per definire con
coerenza l’espressione visiva della marca”,
Italia.
17.
Sharma, R. Building. (2017), “Customer
-based
Brand Equity of Domestic Brands: Role of
Brand Equity Dimensions”, Metamorphosis.
18.
18.
Yoo, B.; Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing
and validating a multidimensional consumer-
based brand equity scale”, J. Bus. Re
