The Influence of Personal Brand Trust on Community Leaders Who Are Also Entrepreneurs in DKI Jakarta on Overall Brand Equity

This study aimed to investigate Personal Brand Trust in Famous Entrepreneurs in DKI Jakarta and its im-pact to Brand Awareness, Perceived Quality, Brand Loyalty and Overall Brand Equity. By Quantitatif Analysis through a questionnaire, the sample in this study were taken by using the data collection method called random sampling. The number of samples that used were 159 respondents. The data obtained were analyzed by using PLS analysis technique (Partial Least Square) through the PLS software. The results showed that Personal Brand Trust directly and positively related to Brand Awareness, Brand Loyalty and Perceived Quality. Furthermore, Brand Awareness & Brand Loyalty has positive effect on Overall Brand Equity.The result of this research also shows that Perceived Quality does not have a positive effect on Overall Brand Equity.

, therefore researchers are interested in conducting research in Indonesia, research gaps in the form of research objects in the form of entrepreneurs and community leaders in DKI Jakarta will be answered in this study through quantitative analysis by conducting questionnaires on 159 (one hundred and fifty-nine) people in DKI Jakarta. Therefore, the researcher formulated How does the Personal Brand Trust of a public figure who is also an entrepreneur influence the Overall Brand Equity offered by the figure? How

Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development (If Any)
Here are hypotheses that may be relevant in this study: H1: Personal Brand Trust has a positive and significant effect on Brand Awareness H2: Personal Brand Trust has a positive and significant effect on Perceived Quality H3: Personal Brand Trust has a positive and significant effect on Brand Loyalty H4: Brand Awareness has a positive and significant effect on Overall Brand Equity H5: Perceived Quality has a positive and significant effect on Overall Brand Equity H6: Brand Loyalty has a positive and significant effect on Overall Brand Equity

Research Method
According to Hussein Umar (2008:4). The design of the research is a structured work plan in terms of the relationships between variables comprehensively, in such a way that the results of the research can provide answers to research questions. Research design is needed in each stage from the initial stage to the research reporting stage with conclusions and recommendations. As revealed by Muh.Nazir (2003: 84) that research design is a necessary process in implementing research. The sample from this study was 159 people, sampling tech-

Introduction
Personal Branding, first introduced in 1980 in a book called "Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind", by Al Ries and Jack Trout. More specifically in chapter 23, Positioning Yourself and Your Career, you can benefit by using positioning strategies to advance your own career.
The main premise for personal branding is that everyone has a personal brand (Peters, 1997), but most people are unaware of this and do not manage it strategically, consistently, and effectively (Ramparsad, 2009).
For a business person, building a reputation and maintaining a good name is certainly one of their main obligations to support the smooth marketing of their business. Through a personal branding strategy, a business person can build a certain image and self-identity to influence others to have a positive perception and outlook on the character, personality, abilities, appearance, and offers delivered. If the brand image of business actors is strong enough, then consumers will also have more confidence in the ability of the business they run and no longer hesitate to buy the products or services they offer (BisnisUKM, 2012).
Reza Nurhilman is the youngest successful Indonesian entrepreneur to succeed in the field of Maicih product entrepreneurship. Jakarta businessman besides Reza Nurhilman there is also Bob Sadino. Jakarta entrepreneurs besides Reza Nurhilman and Bob Sadino there are also Baba Rafi Kebab Entrepreneurs, namely Hendy Setiono who decided to give up education for business and dreams are not easy for young people to do. There are also several entrepreneurs who first have a personal brand that is well known to the public and then open a business, namely Baim Wong who has a profession as an actor with his business partner Cintami Atmanegara, building a yamin noodle business. Raffi Ahmad owns a Culinary business. Ruben Onsu also has a halal Japanese culinary business called Besar which stands for his name and his wife.
Very rarely research is carried out on personal brand entrepreneurs in Indonesia, the absence of measurement constructs for Personal Brand Trust in the realm of marketing, on the one hand, personal brand marketing related to business is increasingly found in Indonesia. Previous research examined how companies can use the Internet to build their brands (Holland and Baker 2001;Thorbjornsen et al. 2002); other studies noted consumer motivations for using the Internet (Ambady, Hallahan, and Rosenthal 1996;Cotte et al. 2006;Miceli et al., 2007;Schau and Gilly 2003). There is still very little research on the phenomenon of online branding from a personal perspective. Similar to Product Branding, personal branding requires capturing and promoting individual strengths and uniqueness for the target audience (Kaputa 2005;Schwabel 2009;

Respondent Profile
This study has an analysis unit, namely respondents domiciled in Jakarta and managed to get 181 respondents and 159 valid and processable. Respondent Profile Data in Table 1.
From the results of the questionnaire processing, it was found that respondents who were male amounted to 87 people or 54.7% while respondents who were female were 72 people or 45.3%.
Researchers classified workers into six groups, Employees, Self-Employed, Students, Housewives and Others. Based on table 4.1 regarding the work of respondents, it can be seen that the employee respondents were 107 people or 67.3%. Respondents as Entrepreneurs were 19 people or 11.9%. For the Housewife profession with the number of respondents as many as 11 people or 6.9% while for niques were generally carried out randomly, collected and using research instruments, data analysis was quantitative / statistical with the aim of testing the hypothesis that had been determined. The reason for taking a sample of 159 people is to meet the requirements with the use of the PLS-SEM (Structural Equation Modelling) method, which is 10 multiplied by the number of core variable indicators. The sampling technique used is random sampling.

Result, Discussion, and Managerial Implication
In the results of the study, it will be discussed about the profile of respondents, followed by analysis of outer models and inner models and their discussion.  Table 1. Respondent Profile also your favorite business people? From the results of the study, it can be seen that respondents who chose Bob Sadino (Kemchick) as many as 121 respondents 76.1%, respondents who chose Hendy Setiono (Kebab Baba Rafi) as many as 27 respondents 17.0%, respondents who chose Reza Nurhilman (Maicih) as many as 5 respondents 3.1%, respondents who chose Raffi Ahmad (Bakmi RN) as many as 4 respondents 2.5%, and the lowest was Baim Wong (Mie & You) with 0 respondents 0%.
Judging from Table 1, the majority of respondents knew the respondents' favorite figures from Online Media by 10 respondents 10.3%, who knew their favorite figures from Offline Media by 140 respondents 88.1% while those who knew their favorite figures in Online Media & Offline by 9 respondents 5.7%.

Data Analysis
Data processing techniques using the Partial Least Square (PLS) based SEM method require 2 stages to assess the Fit Model of a research model (Ghozali, 2006). The stages are as follows:

Assessing the Outer Model or Measurement Model
There are three criteria in the use of data analysis techniques with SmartPLS to assess outer models, namely Convergent Validity, Discriminant Validity and Composite Reliability. Convergent validity of the measurement model with reflexive indicators is assessed based on the correlation between the item score / component score estimated with other professions and others with the number of 13 respondents of 8.2% and the least number of respondents are respondents who work as students with a total of 9 respondents or 5.7%.
Researchers grouped the age scale of respondents into four groups, namely the age of < 20 years, 21-31 years, 31-40 years, > 40 years. Judging from table 4.1, the majority of respondents are in the age group of 21 to 30 years with a total of 66.7% respondents which are then followed by the age group of 31 to 40 years and > 40 years with a total of 26 respondents 16.4%, the last rank is occupied by the age group of < 20 years with a total of 1 respondent 0.6%.
In this study, the final education level of respondents was grouped into seven groups, namely the level of education of elementary, junior high school, high school, D3, S1, S2 and S3. From the results of a study involving 159 respondents, it is known that 68.6% (109 people) of them have a final education level of S1, 19.5% (31 people) of whom have a final education level of S2, followed by a final high school education level of 6.3% (10 respondents). Of the respondents, the final education level of D3 was represented by 7 respondents or 4.4%. It can also be known that the final level of education that is the least number is the level of elementary and junior high school education where out of 159 respondents, each of them is only represented by 0 respondents or 0%.
Based on table 1 regarding respondents' profiles, the researchers also asked Which public figures are

Data Analysis Results
The analysis carried out in this study went through three stages of analysis: 1. Measurement Model Analysis (outer model) 2. Structural Model Analysis (inner model) 3. Hypothesis Testing.

Measurement Model Analysis Results (Outer Model)
Outer model analysis is carried out to ensure that the measurement used is suitable for measurement (valid and reliable). Outer Model analysis specifies the relationship between latent variables and their indicators. The tests carried out on the outer models in this study were Convergent Validity, Discriminant Validity, Composite Reliability, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Cronbach's Alpha and followed the criteria and conditions stated by Hair et al (2014).
After eliminating data processing, in Figure 2 and Table 2 on the next page, it can be seen that all indicators have a loading value that is ≥ 0.5 which means that for the measurement of convergent validity, all indicators are declared valid and able to measure the data that actually want to be measured, it can also be interpreted that the statement in the PLS Software. An individual reflexive measure is said to be high if it correlates more than 0.70 with the measured construct. However, according to Chin, 1998(in Ghozali, 2006 for earlystage research of the development of a scale measuring the loading value of 0.5 to 0.6 is considered quite adequate. In this study, a loading factor limit of 0.60 will be used. The results of processing using SmartPLS can be seen in the Table. The outer value of the model or the correlation between the construct and the variable initially does not meet the convergent validity because there are still quite a lot of indicators that have a loading factor value below 0.60. Model modification is carried out by issuing indicators that have a loading factor value below 0.60. In the modified model as in table 4.3, it shows that all loading factors have values above 0.60, so the constructs for all variables are eliminated from the model. In assessing the model with PLS begins by looking at the R-square for each dependent latent variable. The result of R-square estimation using SmartPLS. In PLS statistical testing of each hypothesized relationship is carried out using simulations. In this case, the bootstrap method is carried out against the sample. Bootstrapping testing is also intended to minimize the problem of abnormalities of re- cator that has the highest value is the OBE2 indicator with a value of 0.925 which is a statement that reads, "Even if other brands have the same features as X, I would prefer to buy X" And the indicator that has the lowest value is the OBE1 & OBE4 indicator with the same value of 0.873 which is a statement that reads, "It makes sense to buy X instead of another brand even if they are the same" & "If the other brand is no different from X by any means, it seems smarter to buy X". To check the convergent validity value, it is also necessary to evaluate the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of each latent variable. The AVE value must be greater than the number 0.5 and from the results of the study it can be concluded that each variable has convergent validity parameters that are feasible to use.
From data processing, it can also be stated that there is discriminant validity which means that the construct has adequate discriminants. This value is a cross loading factor value that is useful for knowing whether the construct has sufficient discriminants, namely by comparing the loading value on the intended construct must be greater than the loading value with other constructs. Table 2 can explain the reliability of the Composite Reliability and Cronbach's Alpha measurements that have met the requirements and criteria. High reliability indicates that the indicators have a high consistency in measuring their latent constructs (Hair et al., 2010). Respondents' answers to the statements used to measure each variable are consistent and the variables are reliable and mean that the questionnaire can provide consistent answer results if used in subsequent studies. Thus, 21 indicators have passed the measurement model test.
questionnaire can really measure the variables to be measured and meet the requirements of the next study.
Based on Table 2, it can be seen that each indicator has a different loading value. In the Personal Brand Trust variable, the indicator that has the highest value is the PBT6 indicator with a value of 0.813, which is a statement that reads, "This character values me as his customer". And the indicator that has the lowest value is the PBT7 indicator with a value of 0.589 which is a statement that reads, "This figure offers recommendations and advice on his product".
For the Brand Awareness variable, the indicator that has the highest value is the BA4 indicator with a value of 0.878, which is a statement that reads, "I can quickly remember the symbol or logo of X". And the indicator that has the lowest value is the BA1 indicator with a value of 0.831, which is a statement that reads, "I can recognize X compared to other similar brands".
The indicator on the Perceived Quality variable that has the highest value is the PQ1 indicator with a value of 0.926 which is a statement that reads, "Quality X is very high" And the indicator that has the lowest value is the PQ2 indicator with a value of 0.922, which is an instrument that reads, "The probability that X will be functional is very high".
For the Brand Loyalty variable, the indicator that has the highest value is the BL3 indicator with a value of 0.911 which is a statement that reads, "I will not buy another brand if X is available in the store" And the indicator that has the lowest value is the BL1 indicator with a value of 0.899 which is a statement that reads, "I consider myself to be loyal to X." For the Variable Overall Brand Equity, the indi-

Hypothesis Test
The t-statistical value is obtained from the bootstrapping procedure, where this value is used to draw conclusions on the hypothesis test. Hypothesis testing is carried out by comparing the tstatistical values of each relationship between latent variables with t-table with a degree of confidence α = 5%, that is, it is said to be significant if the tstatistical relationship between latent variables ≥ 1.96. (Hair et al, 2014).
HipotesisPath Inner model analysis / structural analysis of the model is carried out to ensure that the structural model built is robust and accurate. Figure 3 describes the estimated value for path coefesiencies or also known as path coefficients values which show the strength of the relationship between constructs According to Hair et al (2014), coefficients close to 1 indicate a positive and strong relationship. A coefficient closer to 0 indicates a weaker relationship. From data processing, it is known that the path coefficients value of the Personal Brand Trust variable towards the Brand Awareness variable is 0.551 which can be interpreted to mean that the relationship between the Personal Brand Trust variable and the Brand Awareness variable is strong. From data processing, it is also known that the path coefficients value of the Personal Brand Trust variable towards the Perceived Quality variable is 0.607 which can be interpreted to mean that the relationship between the Personal Brand Trust variable and the Perceived Quality variable is strong.
From data processing, it is known that the path coefficients value of the Brand Awareness variable towards the Overall Brand Equity variable is 0.170 which can be interpreted to mean that the relationship between the Brand Loyalty variable and the Overall Brand Equity variable is strong. From data processing, it is also known that the path coefficients value of the Brand Loyalty variable towards the Overall Brand Equity variable is 0.645 which can be interpreted as saying that the relationship between the Brand Loyalty variable and the Overall Brand Equity variable is strong.
Based on the test results, figure 3 shows that the path coefficients value of the Personal Brand Trust variable towards the Brand Loyalty variable is 0.543 which can be interpreted to mean that the relationship between the Personal Brand Trust variable and the Brand Loyalty variable is strong. While the path coefficients value of the Perceived Quality variable towards the Overall Brand Equity variable is 0.057 where the value is closer to 0 so that it can be interpreted that the relationship between the Perceived Quality variable and the Overall Brand Equity variable is weak.
The evaluation of the inner model in this study can be seen from several indicators which include:

1.Coefficient of determination (R2)
To find out the closeness of the relationship between exogenous latent variables to the value of endogenous latent variables can be done by calculating the correlation coefficient (R). R² determination analysis is used to test the extent to which variations in exogenous latent variables are able to explain endogenous latent variables. The results of the R² calculation can be seen in figure 3   Brand Trust variable is an indicator that reads, "This figure offers recommendations and advice on his product." For the Brand Loyalty variable, the indicator that has the highest value is the BL3 indicator with a value of 0.911 which is a statement that reads, "I will not buy another brand if X is available in the store" And the indicator that has the lowest value is the BL1 indicator with a value of 0.899 which is a statement that reads, "I consider myself to be loyal to X". This is in accordance with the research Brand Trust In The Context Of Consumer Loyalty by Elena Delgado-Ballester and Jose Luis Munuera-Aleman (2000) which states Brand Trust as a variable that generates customer commitment especially in situations of high engagement whose effect is stronger than overall satisfaction.

4) Brand Awareness towards Overall Brand Equity
The results showed that Brand Awareness has a positive influence on Overall Brand Equity. The better brand awareness that can be created by community leaders who are also business people, the better it can increase overall brand equity. The indicator of the Brand Awareness variable that has the highest value is the BA4 indicator with a value of 0.878, which is a statement that reads, "I can quickly remember the symbol or logo of X". And the indicator that has the lowest value is the BA1 indicator with a value of 0.831, which is a statement that reads, "I can recognize X compared to other similar brands". For the Variable Overall Brand Equity, the indicator that has the highest value is the OBE2 indicator with a value of 0.925 which is a statement that reads, "Even if other brands have the same features as X, I would prefer to buy X" And the indicator that has the lowest value is the OBE1 & OBE4 indicator with the same value of 0.873 which is a statement that reads, "It makes sense to buy X instead of another brand even if they are the same" & "If the other brand is no different from X by any means, it seems smarter to buy X". This is in accordance with two studies Reviewing The Concept Of Brand Equity And Evaluating Consumer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) Models by Sanaz Farjam, Xu Hongyi (2015) as well as research An Examination Of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and Brand Equity by Boonghee Yoo, Naveen Donthu and Sungho Lee (2000) which stated that Brand Equity was proven to have a positive relationship with Perceived Quality, Brand Loyalty and Brand Awareness / Association. The relationship between Perceived Quality and Brand Awareness / Brand Association to Brand Equity is muchless weak than the relationship between Brand Loyalty and Brand Equity.

5) Perceived Quality towards Overall Brand Equity
The results showed that Perceived Quality has a negative influence on Overall Brand Equity. The better perceived quality that can be created by com-tionship between Brand Loyalty and Overall Brand Equity is positive and strong. Thus the H6 hypothesis in this study which states that, "Brand Loyalty has a positive and significant effect on Overall Brand Equity" is acceptable.

Discussion 1) Personal Brand Trust towards Brand Awareness
The results showed that Personal Brand Trust has a positive influence on Brand Awareness. The better the Personal Brand Trust that can be created by community leaders who are also business people, the more it can increase Brand Awareness. The highest rated Personal Brand Trust indicator is the PBT6 indicator, which is a statement that reads, "This figure values me as his customer". The indicator that has the lowest value on the Personal Brand Trust variable is an indicator that reads, "This figure offers recommendations and advice about his product." For the Brand Awareness variable, the indicator that has the highest value is the BA4 indicator with a value of 0.878, which is a statement that reads, "I can quickly remember the symbol or logo of X". And the indicator that has the lowest value is the BA1 indicator with a value of 0.831, which is a statement that reads, "I can recognize X compared to other similar brands.

2) Personal Brand Trust towards Perceived Quality
The results showed that Personal Brand Trust has a positive influence on Perceived Quality. The better the Personal Brand Trust that can be created by community leaders who are also business people, the more it can increase Perceived Quality. The highest rated Personal Brand Trust indicator is the PBT6 indicator, which is a statement that reads, "This figure values me as his customer". The indicator that has the lowest value on the Personal Brand Trust variable is an indicator that reads, "This figure offers recommendations and advice about his product." The indicator on the Perceived Quality variable that has the highest value is the PQ1 indicator with a value of 0.926 which is a statement that reads, "Quality X is very high" And the indicator that has the lowest value is the PQ2 indicator with a value of 0.922, which is an instrument that reads, "The probability that X will be functional is very high".

3) Personal Brand Trust towards Brand Loyalty
The results showed that Personal Brand Trust has a positive influence on Brand Loyalty. The better the Personal Brand Trust that can be created by community leaders who are also business people, the more it can increase Brand Loyalty.The highest rated Personal Brand Trust indicator is the PBT6 indicator, which is a statement that reads, "This figure values me as his customer". The indicator that has the lowest value on the Personal dating a Multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale by Boonghee Yoo, Naveen Donthu (2001) which states that Brand Loyalty has a positive and significant effect on Overall Brand Equity. This is also in accordance with two studies Reviewing The Concept Of Brand Equity And Evaluating Consumer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) Models by Sanaz Farjam, Xu Hongyi (2015) as well as research An Examination Of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and Brand Equity by Boonghee Yoo, Naveen Donthu and Sungho Lee (2000) which stated that Brand Equity was shown to have a positive relationship with Perceived Quality, Brand Loyalty and Brand Awareness / Association. The relationship between Perceived Quality and Brand Awareness / Brand Association to Brand Equity is much weaker than the relationship between Brand Loyalty and Brand Equity.

Conclusion, Suggestion, and Limitation
The general description of this study concludes that Personal Brand Trust has a positive and significant effect on Brand Awareness, The results of testing the first hypothesis showed that the influence of the Personal Brand Trust variable with Brand Awareness showed a path coefficient value of 0.56 with a t value of 9,924, the value was greater than t table (1.96). This result means that Personal Brand Trust has a positive and significant influence on Brand Awareness which means it is in accordance with the first hypothesis where Personal Brand Trust has a positive and significant effect on Brand Awareness. This means Hypothesis 1 is accepted.
Personal Brand Trust has a positive and significant effect on Perceived Quality, The results of the second hypothesis test showed that the Personal Brand Trust variable with Perceived Quality showed a path coefficient value of 0.611 with a t value of 10.564. The value is greater than t of the table (1.96). These results mean that Personal Brand Trust has a positive and significant effect on Perceived Quality. This means Hypothesis 2 is accepted.
Personal Brand Trust has a positive and significant effect on Brand Loyalty, the results of the third hypothesis test show that Personal Brand Trust with Brand Loyalty shows a path coefficient value of 0.555 with a t value of 11.285. The value is greater than t of the table (1.96). This result means that Personal Brand Trust has a positive and significant effect on Brand Loyalty which means it is in accordance with the third hypothesis where. This means Hypothesis 3 is accepted.
Brand Awareness has a positive and significant effect on Overall Brand Equity, the results of testing the fourth hypothesis show that the variable Brand Awareness with Overall Brand Equity shows a path coefficient value of 0.195 with a t value of 2,153. The value is greater than t of the table (1.96). This result means that Brand Awareness has munity leaders who are also business people is not proven to be able to increase Overall Brand Equity. The indicator on the Perceived Quality variable that has the highest value is the PQ1 indicator with a value of 0.926 which is a statement that reads, "Quality X is very high" And the indicator that has the lowest value is the PQ2 indicator with a value of 0.922, which is an instrument that reads, "The probability that X will be functional is very high". For the Variable Overall Brand Equity, the indicator that has the highest value is the OBE2 indicator with a value of 0.925 which is a statement that reads, "Even if other brands have the same features as X, I would prefer to buy X" And the indicator that has the lowest value is the OBE1 & OBE4 indicator with the same value of 0.873 which is a statement that reads, "It makes sense to buy X instead of another brand even if they are the same" & "If the other brand is no different from X by any means, it seems smarter to buy X". This is in accordance with two studies Reviewing

6) Brand Loyalty towards Overall Brand Equity
The results showed that Brand Loyalty has a positive influence on Overall Brand Equity. The better brand loyalty that can be created by community leaders who are also business people, the better it can increase overall brand equity. The indicator of the Brand Loyalty variable that has the highest value is the BL3 indicator with a value of 0.911 which is a statement that reads, "I will not buy another brand if X is available in the store" And the indicator that has the lowest value is the BL1 indicator with a value of 0.899 which is a statement that reads, "I consider myself to be loyal to X". For the Variable Overall Brand Equity, the indicator that has the highest value is the OBE2 indicator with a value of 0.925 which is a statement that reads, "Even if other brands have the same features as X, I would prefer to buy X" And the indicator that has the lowest value is the OBE1 & OBE4 indicator with the same value of 0.873 which is a statement that reads, "It makes sense to buy X instead of another brand even if they are the same" & "If the other brand is no different from X by any means, it seems smarter to buy X". This is in accordance with the research Developing and Vali-people is not to worry about evaluating product quality, product function and being sensitive to competing products from business products offered by these figures because Perceived Quality has not proven to have a positive effect on Overall Brand Equity. Implication, Brand Loyalty to Overall Brand Equity, the thing that can be done by public figures who are also business people is to evaluate repeat orders from customers and be sensitive to competitors' products and develop the competitive advantage of the figure's product.
Here are some suggestions and limitations of this study. Advice for community leaders and entrepreneurs to consistently develop personal brand trust figures so that Brand Awareness, Perceived Quality, Brand Loyalty & Overall Brand Equity the business of community leaders also grows. The limitation of this study is related to proving the influence of Perceived Quality on Overall Brand Equity which only uses two indicators. The next study should use more indicators to get different results from this study where Perceived Quality does not have a positive and significant effect on Overall Brand Equity. a positive and significant effect on Overall Brand Equity which means it is in accordance with the fourth hypothesis where. This means that Hypothesis 4 is accepted.
Perceived Quality has a positive and significant effect on Overall Brand Equity, the results of testing the fifth hypothesis show that the variable Perceived Quality with Overall Brand Equity shows a path coefficient value of 0.046 with a t value of 0.947. The value is less than t of the table (1.96). This result means that Perceived Quality has a positive but insignificant relationship to Overall Brand Equity which means it does not match the fifth hypothesis where. This means Hypothesis 5 is rejected.
Brand Loyalty has a positive and significant effect on Overall Brand Equity, the results of the sixth hypothesis test show that the relationship of the Brand Loyalty variable with Overall Brand Equity shows a path coefficient value of 0.629 with a t value of 10.885. The value is greater than t of the table (1.96). This result means that Brand Loyalty has a positive and significant influence on Overall Brand Equity which means it is in accordance with the sixth hypothesis. This means Hypothesis 6 is accepted.
After carrying out the data processing process, several facts appear that can be explained. In general, this research succeeded in finding the fact that personal brand trust of community leaders who are also entrepreneurs is a variable that greatly affects the creation of Brand Awareness, Perceived Quality, Brand Loyalty to products and Brands from businesses owned by community leaders who are also entrepreneurs which will also affect Overall Brand Equity which is sold by public figures who are also business people. Implications, Personal Brand Trust on Brand Awareness, What can be done by public figures who are also business people is to evaluate the logo, symbols and recommendations, advice given to customers regarding the figure's business products. Implications, Personal Brand Trust on Perceived Quality, What can be done by community leaders who are also business people is to evaluate product quality, product function and recommendations, advice related to business products offered by the figure. Implications, Personal Brand Trust on Brand Loyalty, For this reason, what can be done by community leaders who are also business people is to evaluate repeat orders from customers and evaluate recommendations, advice related to business products offered by these figures, Implication 4, Brand Awareness of Overall Brand Equity, For this reason, the thing that can be done by public figures who are also business people is to evaluate the logos, symbols and be sensitive to the products of the figure's business competitors. Implications, Perceived Quality on Overall Brand Equity, For this reason, what can be done by public figures who are also business