品牌在現今激烈的環境變動中，已成為企業最穩固的長期競爭優勢之一，而能充分利用公司品牌資產的前提，就是要瞭解公司品牌權益的絕對價值。衡量品牌權益的衡量方式十分多樣化，有公司財務面、消費者知覺面以及消費者行為面的衡量等。方式雖多，但卻缺乏一個全面性的消費者基礎品牌權益衡量方式。因此，本研究最主要的研究動機與目的，即是建立一個以消費者面為基礎，而能以絕對數字呈現於公司報表的品牌權益衡量架構與模式。 本研究整合了許多學者對品牌權益的看法後，將品牌權益的來源與構面區分為六大構面－公司投入面、消費者知覺面、態度面、消費者行為面、結果面與其他專屬品牌資產。在品牌權益的衡量方式方面，則可區分為間接法與直接法兩大類，間接法可進一步分為質化方式與量化方式，而直接法則可區分為相對法與絕對法兩種，各構面依照這些衡量方式來取得資料與數據後，可建立本研究的品牌權益衡量模式。最後，再以品牌權益的效果來驗證品牌權益衡量模式之效度如何。 本研究決定衡量之標的品牌為黑松、宏□、泰山與台灣大哥大，先以專家意見調查法的方式，詢問43位專家學者，對於各構面形成品牌權益之相對重要性的看法，以決定各構面的權重。之後再透過實驗設計的方式，取得各構面品牌評價與價格溢酬間的轉換關係，以作為品牌評價轉換為金額數字之用。最後，以大台北地區的一般消費者為受測母體，進行各品牌的消費者問卷發放工作，以取得各品牌的消費者品牌評價。問卷採便利抽樣的方式，共發出960份問卷，回收819份，回收率85.31％，有效樣本則為794份。 將轉換成之金額數字，以所決定之各構面權重做加權平均，即可得出每位受訪者的品牌權益值，若再乘上台灣地區的人口數以及樣本中曾使用過該品牌的消費者佔總樣本數的比例，則可得出各品牌在台灣地區的品牌權益值。本研究所衡量出之各品牌品牌權益值分別為黑松沙士新台幣43,566,588，宏□手機2,400,190,204，宏□電腦52,058,415,322，泰山八寶粥138,093,624，泰山仙草蜜73,377,189，泰山沙拉油-44,428,954，台灣大哥大則為2,812,789,507。 本研究將公司投入面與結果面列為驗證之用後發現，公司投入面與品牌權益無較明顯的關係，其可能原因是與各品牌的產品特性密切有關，但還是可以觀察出公司投入面與品牌評價間的正向關係。而就結果面來看，投資報酬率與股價在某種程度上是可以反應品牌權益的，而且其與品牌權益間的關係較市場佔有率為緊密。產品價格與品牌權益間在本研究中所呈現出之正面相關性之意義則值得存疑，不宜擴大解釋，需要以更多的品牌做進一步驗證方可確定兩者間的關係。 透過本研究品牌權益衡量模式之建立，除了能使品牌授權與公司購併的品牌價值有公平計算依據外，更能讓公司的品牌經理有明確的品牌權益數據。對於公司的財務面而言，公司的會計原則在無形資產之商譽部分亦得以做正確的調整。在未來WTO叩關後，面臨即將產生的購併風潮，亦可讓國內公司瞭解本身品牌所具有的價值，不致因忽略了消費者心中的品牌價值而受到低估，蒙受損失。 / Nowadays, having a brand has become the most stable long-term competitive advantage of business in our dynamic and intensively fluctuated environment. The premise for taking advantage of brand equity is the necessity to understand its absolute value for a company. There exist many diversified methods to measure brand equity, including the measurements from the dimensions of company finance, consumer perception, consumer behavior and so forth. But despite the many methods available, there lacks an integrated and comprehensive consumer-based model to measure brand equity. Thus, the major motive and aim of this paper is to build a consumer-based measuring model, in order to provide the absolute number presented in financial statements. This research has integrated many opinions of scholars in regard to dividing the sources and dimensions of brand equity. Six major dimensions are: company input, consumer perception, consumer attitude, consumer behavior, company output, and other brand assets. Additionally, through various measuring methods, such as indirect and direct methods and their subcategories, this model can be further developed. In this study, Heysong, Acer, Taishan, and Taiwan Cellular were selected to be the four brands for measurement. The first step was to obtain the weights of every dimension by consulting with 43 professionals. The next step was determining the relation of brand evaluation and price premium through the experiment of price premium. For the last step, the questionnaire of brand evaluation was used to survey the grades of every measured brand in the Greater Taipei Area. By adapting the convenient sampling method, 960 questionnaires were sent out. 819 responses were received. The response rate was 85.31%; 794 samples are effective. The brand equity of every consumer can be obtained by using the weighted average method for calculating the weight obtained and proceeding with the dollar amount which has been transformed because of the relation between brand evaluation and price premium. Moreover, if brand equity is multiplied by the number of people in Taiwan, and the ratio of those who have ever used the product of the brand in the total samples, the total brand equity of the brand in Taiwan is obtained. The measured outcomes of this research show that Heysong Sarsaparilla-NT. to be 43566588, Acer Cellular-NT. 2400190204, Acer Computer-NT. 52058415322, Taishan Mixed Congee-NT. 138093624, Taishan Honey Herbal Jelly-NT. 73377189, Taishan Soybean Salad Oil-NT. -44428954, and Taiwan Cellular-NT. 2812789507. This research uses the company input and output to test the measured outcomes. The result displays no obvious relationship between company input and brand equity. The possible reason may be related to the nature of the product. However, this research still finds that there exists a positive correlation between brand evaluation and company input. From the aspect of company output, return on investment and stock price can reflect the brand equity to some degree, and their relationship with brand equity is closer than that of brand equity with market share. Through the establishment of this model, in the future, substantial contributions can be brought to business accounting, brand managers, brand licensing, and M&A from the intrusion of WTO.