University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Business and Economics
The effect of vision transfer between a
corporate brand and a product brand and
its effect on product purchase intention
Ylse Schotanus
Student number: 10727671 Final version 25-3-2015
MSc Business Administration - Marketing Supervisor: Dr. K. Venetis
Abstract
Visionary branding is a topic which has caught relative little attention, but is seen as an important tool to create strong brands and sustainable competitive advantage. Fundamentally, the rationale behind visionary branding is that the success of organizations and brands is influenced by the extent to which a brand 1) has a clear understanding of its future direction, 2) shows vision by delivering new ideas for the future, and 3) is able to communicate this in an exciting way.
This research explores the transfer of vision between a corporate brand and a product brand and the effect of perceived visionariness on the level of product purchase intention. A quantitative research was conducted among 160 respondents and was used to test the proposed hypotheses. The questionnaire is based on the fictitious corporate brand ‘FOZENMICK’ and product brand ‘BLUEMOON’, which have been developed for the purposes of this study.
Results of this study found significant proof for the existence of vision transfer between both type of brands, with a slightly stronger correlation from a product brand towards a corporate brand than the other way around. Furthermore, the analysis shows a positive relation between perceived visionariness and purchase intention, where only perceived corporate brand visionariness is found to be significant. These results will help managers to get a better understanding about the use and benefits of vision within a corporate and product brand strategy and the level of vision transfer between both type of brands.
Keywords:
Vision * Visionary brand * Corporate brand * Product brand * Association transfer * FMCG * Purchase intention
Table of Contents
Abstract _____________________________________________________________________________ 3 1. Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 7
1.1 Background _____________________________________________________________________ 7 1.2 Problem Definition and Research Objective __________________________________________ 9 1.2.1 Theoretical and Managerial Contribution_________________________________________ 9 1.2.2 Structure __________________________________________________________________ 10
2. Theoretical Framework _____________________________________________________________ 11
2.1 Corporate brand vs. Product brand ________________________________________________ 11 2.1.1 Brand hierarchy _____________________________________________________________ 13 2.1.2 Corporate branding within the FMCG industry ___________________________________ 14 2.2 Vision _________________________________________________________________________ 15 2.2.1 Corporate vision ____________________________________________________________ 15 2.2.2 Brand vision ________________________________________________________________ 16 2.2.3 Vision transfer ______________________________________________________________ 18 2.3 Purchase intention ______________________________________________________________ 20 2.4 Conceptual model ______________________________________________________________ 21 3. Methodology _____________________________________________________________________ 22
3.1 Population, sample and data collection _____________________________________________ 22 3.2 Measurement of variables________________________________________________________ 22 3.3 Research design ________________________________________________________________ 23 3.4 Pre-test _______________________________________________________________________ 24 3.5 Statistical procedure ____________________________________________________________ 25 4. Results ___________________________________________________________________________ 26 4.1 Pre-test _______________________________________________________________________ 26 4.2 Survey study ___________________________________________________________________ 29 4.2.1 Sample characteristics _______________________________________________________ 29 4.2.2 Descriptive statistics _________________________________________________________ 30 4.2.3 Hypotheses testing __________________________________________________________ 35 4.2.4 Summary of hypotheses ______________________________________________________ 41
5. Discussion ________________________________________________________________________ 42
5.1 Discussion of the results _________________________________________________________ 42 5.2 Theoretical contribution _________________________________________________________ 44 5.3 Managerial contribution _________________________________________________________ 44
6. Conclusion________________________________________________________________________ 45
6.1 Summary ______________________________________________________________________ 45 6.2 Limitations and future research ___________________________________________________ 45
7. References _______________________________________________________________________ 48 8. Appendix _________________________________________________________________________ 52
Appendix A – The Stengel 50 _________________________________________________________ 52 Appendix B – Measurement of scales__________________________________________________ 52 Appendix C – Results Pre-test ________________________________________________________ 53 Appendix D – Gender, age and education frequency for total sample _______________________ 57 Appendix E – Subsample independence________________________________________________ 58 Appendix F – Normality check ________________________________________________________ 61 Appendix G – Manipulation check ____________________________________________________ 63 Appendix H – Correlation matrix______________________________________________________ 65 Appendix I – Hypothesis 1a __________________________________________________________ 66 Appendix J – Hypothesis 1b __________________________________________________________ 67 Appendix K – Hypothesis 2 __________________________________________________________ 68 Appendix N – Additional testing ______________________________________________________ 70 Appendix H – Survey _______________________________________________________________ 77 Pretest _________________________________________________________________________ 77 Visionary corporate brand _________________________________________________________ 81 Visionary product brand __________________________________________________________ 83 Non visionary corporate brand _____________________________________________________ 85 Non visionary product brand_______________________________________________________ 87
Tables
Table 1: A comparison between corporate and product brands ______________________________ 12 Table 2: Brand hierarchy models________________________________________________________ 13 Table 3: Four treatment groups_________________________________________________________ 24 Table 4: Reliability and descriptives _____________________________________________________ 27 Table 5: Reliability and descriptives _____________________________________________________ 27 Table 6: Reliability and descriptives _____________________________________________________ 28 Table 7: Reliability and descripives ______________________________________________________ 28 Table 8: Number of respondents per sub-sample __________________________________________ 29 Table 9: Distribution per sample ________________________________________________________ 30 Table 10: Cronbach’s alpha per sample __________________________________________________ 31 Table 11: Means and Standard Deviations of the manipulation ______________________________ 32 Table 12: Results of two-way ANOVAs evaluating the constructed manipluations_______________ 32 Table 13: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations________________________________________ 33 Table 14: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations per sub-sample __________________________ 34 Table 15: Means and Standard Deviation evaluation vision transfer __ 35 Table 16: Results of two-way ANOVAs, evaluation vision transfer 1 ___________________________ 35 Table 17: Means and Standard Deviation evaluation vision transfer 2 ____ 36 Table 18: Results of two-way ANOVAs, evaluation vision transfer 2 ___________________________ 36 Table 19: Pearson correlation matrix, to evaluate perceived product brand visionariness and
purchase intention ___________________________________________________________________ 37 Table 20: Pearson correlation matrix to evaluate perceived corporate brand visionariness and
purchase intention ___________________________________________________________________ 37 Table 21: Summary of hierarchical regression analysis _____________________________________ 40 Table 22: Summary of hypotheses analyses results ________________________________________ 41
Figures
Figure 1: Organizational vision (Collins & Porras, 1991) _____________________________________ 15 Figure 2: Interplay of corporate branding (Hatch & Schultz, 2003) ____________________________ 16 Figure 3 Three components of a brand’s vision (De Chernatony, 2001) ________________________ 17 Figure 4: An example of an associative brand network inspired on Wengling & Korschun (2015) ___ 18 Figure 5: Conceptual Model____________________________________________________________ 21 Figure 6: Vision examples of leading FMCG corporations____________________________________ 25 Figure 7: Model of corporate brand and purchase intention, mediated by perceived level of corporate brand and product brand visionariness __________________________________________________ 39 Figure 8: Model of product brand and purchase intention, mediated by perceived level of corporate brand and product brand visionariness. __________________________________________________ 39
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Fast mover consumer good (FMCG) brands like Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Nestlé and Coca-Cola are increasingly using their corporate brand to communicate their vision to consumers. On their corporate websites are statement written as: ‘a company driven by purpose’ (P&G) and ‘our purpose
is to make sustainable living commonplace’ (Unilever). Vision and purpose are often used
interchangeable. Purpose is seen as the key to exceptional performance and is described as a pathway to navigate the complex and ambiguous world we face today (Craig & Snook, 2014). Whereas vision is seen as an ideological long term goal, something an organization and its members should have, can strive for and can try to achieve (Nanus, 1992; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). Hence we pose the question whether Unilever and other comparable companies, which are driven by purpose, will be perceived as visionary and capable of transferring this visionariness towards their product brands? This study will aim to answer this question.
After two decades of watching marketers devote the majority of their energy, creativity, and budget to product brands, the focus within multi product organizations rapidly grows towards corporate branding (Marshall, Wilke, & Wise, 2012). On the surface, there are quite some differences between corporate branding and product branding. Corporate branding focuses on the image of an entire corporation, while product branding is specific to one product brand (Kim, Haley, & Koo, 2009). However, there are some strategies that can be incorporated to induce the link between a corporate and individual brand. A Unilever spokesman stated that people buying one product from the company are likely to buy another of its brands if they are made aware of the link (Brownsell, 2009). This study will aim to investigate this statement. Companies such as Procter & Gamble, Nestlé and Unilever use their logo to carry out their values and create a corporate identity, this identity enhances emotional attachment and a so-called halo effect (Balmer, 2010). The halo effect refers to the tendency in which an observer’s overall impression of a company influences the evaluation of its brands, in a way that is consistent with the overall evaluation (Chernev & Blair, 2015). Madden, Roth and Dillon (2012) wrote that an important area for further research is on halo effects pertaining to brand portfolios and architecture. Their study investigated the halo effect at corporate and manufacturer level, this study will aims to contribute by investigating the halo effect, named (vision) transfer effect in this study, from a corporate brand towards a product brand and the other way around. Two recent studies showed confliciting results whether transfer from a corporate brand to a product brand is stronger than the otherway around. Biehal and Sheinin (2007) demonstrated that
corporate messages are more easily transferred across the company’s portfolio than a product message will translate back to the corporate brand. This opposes the findings of Kaaij (2013) who showed a nearly similar strength of transfer, with a slightly stronger transfer from a product brand to a corporate brand. This study will reinvestigate whether transfer is stronger from a corporate brand towards a product brand, than the other way around. Transfer will be measured by comparing visionary brands and its perceived visionariness on a corporate and product brand level since visionary branding is a topic which has caught relative little attention, but is seen as an important tool to create strong brands and sustainable competitive advantage. The concept of brand visionariness is introduced in 2011 by Jim Stengel, the former CMO of Procter and Gamble. Stengel (2011) identified fifty company brands that outperform their competitors based upon their ideals, so called “visionary brands”. A brand ideal is described as a higher purpose of a brand or organization, which goes beyond the product or service they sell and will consider consumers wellbeing. Previous research found support for the importance of brand visionariness by showing a positive influence of consumers’ perceived level of visionariness on purchase intentions (Migge, 2013), consumer – brand identification (Horsch, 2013; Migge, 2013; Workum-Van, 2015), preference, loyalty and commitment of consumers (Thissen, 2013).
This study furthermore aims to extend existing knowledge by investigating the effect of perceived corporate -/ product brand visionariness on the level of product brand purchase intention. Kim et al. (2009) state that a corporate brand rarely make a purchase appeal, while on the other side, product brands focus highly on purchase intention. Hence, companies have put more emphasis on advertising their corporate brand, which seems to influence the likelihood of product purchase too (Biehal & Sheinin, 2007). Furthermore, researchers found an increasing interest of consumers about the heritage and ideals of brands and companies (Ghuman & Mann, 2015). In this view a corporate brands is no longer just a corporate communication tool to employees and shareholders it might actually increase the attitude of consumers towards its product brands. Therefore, this study will investigate whether the perceived level of visionariness will influence the level of purchase intention without the mediating role of identification, as has been found by Migge (2013).
In sum, due to the prominent usage of corporate branding, logo visibility and vision by FMCG companies, this research will aim to develop further knowledge about the transfer of vision between a corporate brand and a product brand within a FMCG industry. Furthermore the study will investigate the effect of perceived corporate brand visionariness and product brand visionariness on product brand’s purchase intention. This will lead us to the following problem definition and research question which is written in the next paragraph.
1.2 Problem Definition and Research Objective
Previous research found support for the importance of brand visionariness by showing a positive influence of consumers’ perceived level of visionariness on purchase intentions (Migge, 2013), consumer – brand identification (Horsch, 2013) (Migge, 2013) (Workum-Van, 2015), preference, loyalty and commitment of consumers (Thissen, 2013). Nevertheless, these studies used brands on various hierarchy levels (i.e. corporate brands and product brands) and within various industries. This study will provide a deeper understanding about the difference between a corporate brand and a product brand on the relation of perceived brand visionariness, within the FMCG industry. Over the past five years FMCG companies actively communicated their vision while linking their product brands to their (Kim, Haley, & Koo, 2009). To the knowledge of the author, there has not been anyone who investigated the proposed transfer of vision between a corporate brand and its product brands. Two researchers found opposed results whether there is a stronger level of transfer from a corporate brand towards a product brand or from a product brand towards a corporate brand (Biehal & Sheinin, 2007; Kraaij, 2013). Therefore, the following research question have been constructed:
To what extend is the visionariness of a corporate brand transferable towards a product brand in relation to product purchase intention?
1.2.1 Theoretical and Managerial Contribution
Theoretical contribution
Recent studies on the topic of brand visionariness conclude that a brand’s level of visionariness can positively influence consumers’ purchase intentions (Migge, 2013), consumer – brand identification (Migge, 2013; Workum-Van, 2015; Horsch, 2013), preference, loyalty and commitment of consumers (Thissen, 2013). The aim of this study is to develop further knowledge by investigating vision transfer between a corporate brand and a product brand within a FMCG industry and their effect on product brand purchase intention. First, this study will aim to clarify the opposing results of Biehal and Sheinin (2007) and Kraaij (2013) regarding the strength of transfer between the two type of brands. Second, this study will aim to clarify the opposing results of Kim et al. (2009), who demonstrates that a corporate brand rarely make a purchase appeal, while Biehal and Sheinin (2007) found that a corporate brand does make a purchase appeal towards its product brands. To do so, this study this investigate the effect of perceived visionariness of a corporate-/ product brand on product brand
purchase intention. As a result, the literature on both, vision transfer and product purchase intention will be explored and extended.
Managerial contribution
William Ford Jr., CEO of Ford Motor Company, stated: ‘There is a difference between a good company
and a great company. A good company offers excellent products and services. A great company offers excellent products and services but also strives to make the world a better place’. Today’s top
manager’s face the challenge to impact society while at the same time creates a sustainable competitive advantage. This study will help managers to get a better understanding about the use and benefits of vision within a corporate and product brand strategy and the level of vision transfer between both brands. Where previous research already showed a positive relation between perceived level of visionariness and the success of a brand, this research aims to develop further knowledge about the transfer of visionariness and its influence on the level of purchase intention. This knowledge gives a CEO with its top management team and marketers the criteria needed to manage or create more effectively the perceived level of product brand visionariness and will provide insight about the influence of vision on purchase intention.
1.2.2 Structure
First a theoretical framework will be proposed which can be seen as the foundation of this study . followed by the hypothesized relationships. At the end of the theoretical framework and overview of hypotheses and its corresponding conceptual model will be illustrated. Thereafter, the methodology will be outlined, including the experimental research design which will be used to test the developed hypotheses, data collection method, measurement of variables, explanation of the pre-test and the statistical procedure of this study. This is followed by the results of this study and the discussion of these results. Lastly, the conclusion based on this study will be drawn including implication, limitations and areas for future research.
2. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework will give an overview of the relevant literature related to this study. First the difference between a corporate brand and product brand as well as the corresponding brand strategies will be discussed. Next the importance and background of vision within a corporate - and product brand will be discussed, followed by the potential transfer of vision between both branding strategies. Third, the relation of visionariness on consumer purchase intention will be argue d. Finally, an overview of the conceptual model and the hypothesized relationships is provided.
2.1 Corporate brand vs. Product brand
A corporate brand refers to a strategy in which a corporate name and its product brands are integrated (De Chernatony, 2001), whereas a product brand aims to build separate brand identities for different products (Xie & Boggs, 2006). When a company chooses a corporate brand architecture, core brand values will be shared by different product brands of that company, in order to coordinate the branding process (Xie & Boggs, 2006). Furthermore the role of the corporate brand is to create credibility towards governments, financial institutions, (potential) employees, and society in general (Urde, 2003). Xie & Boggs (2006) state that today’s increasingly competitive, complex and digital world, requires the positioning of a corporation as a whole instead of positioning its products. Likewise, a corporate brand is state to increase the company’s visibility, recognition and reputation to a greater extent than product brand can do (Xie & Boggs, 2006). In contrast, product branding contains several advantages for a company too. A company will experience less damage to its corporate image if one of its individual brands fails (McDonald, De Chernatony, & Harris, 2001). For example the Dove ‘Campaign for Real Beauty’ caused a lot of negative attention towards Unilever. The Dove campaign has been labeled hypocritical, since Unilever also owns Axe, which uses extremely beautiful woman in its ads. Additionally, product brands will help to position and appeal different segments and different markets (Xie & Boggs, 2006). Heineken beer, for example, is sold in the Netherlands as a quality beer that is solid value for money, while in markets overseas it is sold as a premium beer.
Until the middle 1980s product brands were managed by brand managers, which were responsible for all aspect of their brand’s marketing. After a series of takeovers of large product brand owning organizations, companies in the late 1980s started to highlight the link between the value of an organization and its product brands. This has led to a greater focus on the corporate brand in order
Hatch and Schultz (2003) have distinguished six differences between a product brand and a corporate brand, as illustrated in table 1.
Table 1: A comparison between corporate and product brands according to Hatch & Schultz (2003)
Product brands Corporate brand
1. Focus attention on The product The company
2. Managed by Middle manager CEO
3. Attract attention and gain support of
Customers Multiple stakeholders
4. Delivered by Marketing Whole company
5. Communications mix Marketing communications Total corporate communication 6. Time horizon Short (life of product) Long (life of company)
7. Importance to company Functional Strategic
First, the focus of brand attention shifts from the product to the company. Second, the marketing responsibility shifts from middle management (i.e. brand managers) to the executive management of an organization. The third contrast between a product brand and corporate brand is the difference in target group. A product brand focusses on a specific group of consumers and customers, while a corporate brand relates to all types of stakeholders. Number four and five, contains the distinction in marketing responsibility. Hatch & Schultz (2003) found that a corporate brand requires companywide support, while a product brand can be managed within the marketing department of that specific product brand. To successfully communicate and implement a corporate branding strategy, the whole organization, from top to bottom and across functional units should be involved in realizing the corporate brand. The sixth difference is the time horizon of both brands. Product brands live in the present, have short term ambitions an focus on sales. Brand marketers often refresh their product brands with new campaigns, packaging and logo’s to attract potential and existing customers. Corporate brands in contrast, focus on both, past and present. So, the corporate stimulates associations with the company’s heritage to create a level of trust and meanwhile articulate a strategic vision of what is to come. Last, Hatch & Schultz (2003) found that a successful corporate brand is formed by the interplay between vision, organizational culture and a corporate image held by its stakeholders. To create this interplay a corporate brand should have strategical importance within an organization.
Ghuman and Mann (2015) contribute to Hatch & Schultz (2003) with an overview of differences in brand associations. Product brand information describes features and advantages of a particular product, which creates brand associations like product quality, price -benefit ratio, emotional and
symbolic benefits. While in contrast, corporate brand associations are a mixed set of associations that relate to various aspects of a company, including a company’s societal impact, financial performance, overall product quality, employee reputation. Thus a corporate brand is related to the overall performance of a company. Consequently, as mentioned by Hatch & Schultz (2003), a corporate brand should be managed and implicated along the whole organization.
The next section will explain different types of branding strategies, varying from strongly related (i.e. consumers relate the product brand to the corporate brand) to unrelated (i.e. consumer will not link the product brand to the corporate brand).
2.1.1 Brand hierarchy
The choice of brand hierarchy depends on how a company organizes or use its brands (Urde, 2003). Laforet and Saunders (1994; 2007) and Laforet (2015) examined the structure of brands among a sample of 20 grocery manufacturers in the United Kingdom and identified three main brand strategies: corporate dominant, mixed brands, and brand dominant. Each of these categories includes subcategories (see table 2).
Table 2: Brand hierarchy models according to Laforet and Saunders (1994; 2007) 1. Corporate Dominant Corporate brands (corpora te na me us ed)
House brands (s ubs i di a ry’s na me us ed)
2. Mixed Brands Dual brands (two or more na mes gi ven equa l promi nence)
Endorsed brands (bra nd endors ed by corpora te or hous e i denti ty)
3. Brand Dominant Mono brands (s i ngl e bra nd na mes us ed)
Furtive brands (s i ngle brand name used, corporate identity undisclosed)
The corporate dominant group is divided into corporate brands, for which the corporate name is used, like Heinz and house brands, for which the subsidiary’s name is used. Within a house brands strategy the focus won’t be on the corporate brand but on divisions within the company, for example Quaker for cereals and Pedigree for pet food. Corporate dominant brands are also known a branded house (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000) or holistic corporate branded (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2009). Second, mixed brands include dual brand strategies and endorsed brands. Within a dual brand strategy two or more brands are given equal prominence, such as Colgate -Palmolive or Cadbury’s Dairy Milk. Endorsed brands are brands whereby the corporate name acts as an endorser behind the product brand, such as Nestlé with Nescafe and Nestea (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000). Lastly, brand dominant, consist of mono brands, in which single brand names such as Ariel (P&G) and Knorr
(Unilever) are used and furtive brands, in which a single brand name is used and the corporate identity stays undisclosed, like Ben&Jerry’s (Unilever) and The Body Shop (L’Oreal). This last strategy allows brands to have a different identity than the other brands in a corporates brand portfolio and to not show any visible connection at all. These brands are thus perceived as standalone brands by consumers and are also referred as house of brands (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000) or trade name (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2009).
For a decade researchers found little value in stretching a corporate brand name across various product categories. The use of mono brands helped multi product brand companies to target specific markets and differentiate their brands (Laforet and Saunders, 1994; 2007; Xie & Boggs, 2006). However, since 2009 Unilever features its corporate logo in almost all of its consumer ads (Brownsell, 2009). The next section will describe the use of a corporate brand within the FMCG industry.
2.1.2 Corporate branding within the FMCG industry
Corporate branding is the process of creating and sustaining a favourable reputation of the company, by sending uniform signals to internal and external stakeholders using the corporate brand (Gylling & Lindberg-Repo, 2006; Muzellec & Lambkin, 2009). Hatch and Schultz (2003) state that when corporate branding works it encourages its stakeholders to form a sense of belonging to an organisation and can help in differentiating from other companies. Furthermore it will help overcome confusion and inefficiency (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000). Corporate branding is not restricted to companies following a corporate branding strategy. Also brand dominant companies as Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Nestlé can implement corporate branding to carry out their values, to create a corporate identity for themselves.
The corporate brand and its product brands can be linked in various ways and on different levels of strength. The most visible way of linking the corporate brand and the product is by linking the brand names, which is done in a corporate brand, dual brand and endorsed brand strategy, for example Nestlé KitKat or Heinz Pasta Sauces. A more subtle link can be made via a logo or trade name on the packaging or in advertisements. Companies like Unilever, Procter & Gamble and Nestlé use their logo to carry out their values and create a corporate identity. The corporate logo is included in all of the individual brand marketing activities, which leads to a more prominent corporate brand. Furthermore, it will help to create a halo effect across the company’s portfolio (Brownsell, 2009). When people buy one product from a company they are more likely to buy other brands when they are made aware of the link. Also, consumers do not only evaluate the product itself but also take their opinion of the company that delivers the product into account. This implies that the corporate brand behind the product brands do have meaning in the consumer evaluation process. Brownsell
(2009) state that if brand makes use of its corporate brand, that corporate brand should mean something in the eyes of a consumer. This is where the concept of vision comes in, which will be explained in the next paragraph.
2.2 Vision
A vision is seen as a long term goal, something which an organization and its members should have, can strive for and can try to achieve (Nanus, 1992). There is often an ideological and moral overtone (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). A vision is optimistic, future oriented and highly inspirational (Berson, Avolio, & Popper, 2001).
2.2.1 Corporate vision
Within the domain of corporate branding, visionary organizations have recently become a well-discussed construct. Organizations often develop formal mission- and vision statements as guidance, which, according to Kotler and Armstrong (2008), can have a positive impact on organizational - and financial performance. Both statements serve a different purpose for a company and should not be used exchangeable. A mission explains the short time goals, whereas a vision states where they want to be in the future, and how they want to get there (Collins & Porras, 1991). Collins and Porras (1991) propose a framework, illustrated in figure 1, which distinguishes vision as an overarching concept consisting of two major components: a guiding philosophy and a tangible image.
Figure 1: Organizational vision (Collins & Porras, 1991)
The first component, guiding philosophy, is created by a company’s founding father that originally shaped the organization and is seen as the foundation of vision. The guiding philosophy is based on the organizations core beliefs and values, as well as its purpose. Core beliefs and values are the organizations guidelines about what is important in life and business, they have to be clear and authentic to create a guiding vision. The second part of guiding philosophy is purpose, which is the formulation of an organizations core values and beliefs in one or two sentences. A good purpose
described as a pathway to navigate the company (Craig & Snook, 2014). The second component, tangible image, is a clear and vivid description of the organizations mission and of what it will be like when the mission is accomplished. Whereas guiding philosophies are positioned in the background, tangible images are positioned in the foreground, which helps people to focus on a specific goal. Organizational vision as described by Collins and Porras (1991) in combination with organizational culture and corporate image are found to be the foundation of successful corporate branding (Hatch & Schultz, 2003). These three elements are merged in the Vision-Culture-Image (VCI) alignment model, illustrated in figure 2 (Hatch & Schultz, 2003).
Figure 2: Interplay of corporate branding (Hatch & Schultz, 2003)
The first component, vision, embodies and expresses the corporates top management’s aspiration for what will achieve in the future. Second, organizational culture is the internal shared values, beliefs and basic assumptions that bind people and systems together. It manifests itself in the ways employees feel about the company they are working for. And third, corporate image is the external overall impression of the company including the views of consumers, shareholders, media and its general public (Hatch & Schultz, 2003). The VCI model is of great importance in the development of a visionary corporate brand, since it emphasizes the interplay between internal alignment, external image and corporate strategic vision. The choice of values and how they are expressed (i.e. image) reflects the personality of the brand (Urde, 2003). The ambition for a corporate brand is to adopt the values that a company claims to stand for, like for example being visionary.
2.2.2 Brand vision
Inspired by the literature of vision and branding, a new concept of visionary brands is introduced in 2011 by Jim Stengel. Stengel identified fifty company brands that outperform their competitors based upon their ideals, so called “visionary brands” (see Appendix A). A visionary brand explores the brand’s history, leadership and strategy in order to develop an authentic story (Cincotta, 2007). In return, this story will provide the company with higher sales, revenues and brand image (Stengel, 2011). A brand that is perceived as visionary is inspirational, determined, and has a clear
understanding of where it is heading in the future (Thissen, 2013). The Stengel 50 includes both, corporate brands (e.g. Apple and Starbucks) and product brands (e.g. Dove and Pampers). This section will focus on the visionariness of product brands.
The degree of vision is determined by whether or not a brand’s decision is built on an ideal of improving lives. The brand ideal, which is called brand vision in this study, can be seen as a brand’s core value and mission (Stengel, 2011). De Chernatony (2001) identified three key features of brand vision, namely envisioned future, brand purpose and brand values (see figure 3). The future environment encourages brand managers to think about the desired type of brand environment they would like to operate in about ten years ahead, for example a more harmonious and sustainable society. The second component, purpose, will try to contribute to the world as a consequence of the brand and goes beyond statements of profitability. The last component of the brand vision is the brand’s values. Values are important to drive employee behaviours to actually deliver the brands vision, also known as ‘walk the talk’ (De Chernatony, 2001).
Figure 3 Three components of a brand’s vision (De Chernatony, 2001)
Similar to a corporate brand, a product brand can also be ‘humanized’. ‘Humanizing’ is the association of a brand with a personality (Aaker, 1997), like if they were human characters. This ‘humanizing’ can make a central brand spokesperson (i.e. CEO) unnecessary since consumers will feel a strong connection with the brand and engage in several activities, like brand loyalty, affective brand commitment and self-brand connection (Thissen, 2013). This is in line with the brand resonance pyramid, where brand strength is measured as the way consumers feel, think and act in relation to the brand (Keller, 2001). Consumers more or less buy the brand instead of its products. Visionary brands are stated to be inspirational, with a value based ideology. And thus are likely to receive high brand resonance since a consumer would like to be identified with this type of brand. As a result, this study assumes that consumers will perceive a corporate brand and a product brand as being visionary when consumers are exposed to a visionary message of that type of brand. This will
2.2.3 Vision transfer
A corporate branding strategy like logo visibility will help to integrate a corporate brand and its product brands. Researchers found that advertisement of a corporate brand can increase consumers’ awareness of all products brands at the same time (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000). Therefore, this study will investigate to which extend visionariness is able to be transferred.
According to the associative network theory, information is stored in the brain as network of nodes and its associated element (Collins and Loftus, 1975 in Wengling & Korschun, 2015). The nodes store information which could be verbal, visual, abstract or conceptual and are connected with each other by linkages of various strengths. The association between a node and an element is strengthened when they are simultaneously activated by external stimuli such as new information or personal experiences. Activation of one node and its associated elements can spread to other linked nodes. This spreading activation is knowns as spill over effect. A spill over effect explains how evaluations of one stimulus are transferred to another when the two stimuli are presented together (Thota, Song, & Biswas, 2012). Since spill over is the transfer from one stimulus to another, this study will use th e term transfer. Information can be transfered from the corporate brand to its product brands, which is caled a forward transfer effect or from the product brand upwards to its corporate brand which is caled reciprocal transfer effect (Balachander & Ghose, 2003). The stronger the existing relationship between the nodes, the higher the level of transfer can be expected (Wengling & Korschun, 2015). An example of the association network theory is shown in figure 4.
Figure 4: An example of an associative brand network inspired on Wengling & Korschun (2015)
Note: The boxed represent the brand nodes, among which corporate brand A i s the origin brand a nd product bra nd B a nd
product brand C a re the destination brands. Ova l circles such as i nnovative, vi sionary represent the el ements a s s oci a ted wi th thes e bra nd nodes .
Corporate Brand (A) Visionary Innovative Qualitive Practical Product Brand (B) Taste Product Brand (C)
Based on the knowledge of Wengling and Korschun (2015) this study proposed the following two hypotheses:
H1a: A visionary corporate brand will show a higher level of perceived product brand visionariness than a non-visionary corporate brand.
H1b: A visionary product brand will show a higher level of perceived corporate brand visionariness than a non-visionary product brand.
Both hypotheses assume that the vision of a brand will be transferred to the other type of brand. In other words a visionary brand will transfer its vision towards the other type of brand and a non -visionary brand will also transfer its non-vision towards the other type of brand. This effect is assumed to occur in both directions, forward transfer and reciprocal transfer.
Earlier research found contradicting results regarding the strength of transfer between both type of brands. Biehal and Sheinin (2007) examined that corporate messages can influence multiple products across the company’s portfolio, whereas a product message shows no influence on other products within the corporates portfolio. In other words, a corporate message is found to be more easily transferred than a product brand message. The results of this study are in line with Brown and Dacin (1997). The findings of Brown and Dacin (1997) demonstrated the impact of a corporate information across the entire brand portfolio. So, consumers knowledge about a corporate brand will influence their attitudes and beliefs about new products which are manufactured that corporate brand. This opposes the findings of Kaaij (2013) who showed a nearly similar strength of transfer, with a slightly stronger transfer from a product brand to a corporate brand. To test these opposing results the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Vision transfer from a corporate brand towards a product brand is stronger than vision transfer from a product brand towards a corporate brand.
2.3 Purchase intention
Purchase intention is a type of behavioral intention that refers to a consumers subjective judgments about if he/she will intent to buy a product or service in the future (Blackwell, Miniard & Engel, 2001 in Wu & Jang, 2014). Curráz-Pérez et al. (2009) argue that the main behaviour consumers can exercise it to purchase a product. As a result, purchase intention presents the behavioural decision process before actual purchase will occur and is thus seen as a predictor of actual behavior. To answer whether the perceived visionariness of a corporate -/ product brand will increase the level of purchase intention, we will borrow knowledge from the advertisement literature and the literature about CSR. Kim, Hayley and Koo (2009) found that corporate advertisement rarely make a purchase appeal, wheras product advertisement mostly always include a purchase call to action. Hence, recently FMCG companies have put more emphasis on their corporate advertising and it seems to influence product purchase too. The increase in expenditure on corporate advertising can be explained by the potential cost-effectiveness of corporate advertising. Corporate advertising will be transferred to all of its product brands (Biehal & Sheinin, 2007), whereas product advertising is only effective for the advertised product. Furthermore, there is an increasing interest of consumers about the background of brands and companies (Currás-Pérez, Bigné-Alcaniz, & Alvardo-Herrera, 2009). Earlier research found that CSR actions would predict purchase intention (Murray & Vogel, 1997; David, Kline, & Yang, 2005). Most studies which measured the likelihood of purchase intention towards CSR, information found a mediating role of various evaluation variables, like perceived quality (Wu & Yang, 2014), identification and trust (Tsai, Joe, Lin, Chiu, & Shen, 2015). This study will investigate whether the perceived level of visionariness can perform the role as an evaluation variable and will positively influence the level of purchase intention.
The following hypotheses are developed:
H3a: The higher the perceived degree of corporate brand visionariness, the more likely the purchase intention is towards their product brand.
H3a: The higher the perceived degree of product brand visionariness, the more likely the purchase intention is towards the product brand.
2.4 Conceptual model
Figure 5. summarizes the theoretical framework and the hypotheses that have been derived.
H1a: A visionary corporate brand will show a higher level of perceived product brand visionariness
than a non-visionary corporate brand.
H1b: A visionary product brand will show a higher level of perceived corporate brand visionariness
than a non-visionary product brand.
H2: Vision transfer is stronger from a corporate brand towards a product brand, than the other way
around.
H3a: The higher the perceived degree of corporate brand visionariness, the more likely the purchase
intention is towards their product brand.
H3a: The higher the perceived degree of product brand visionariness, the more likely the purchase
intention is towards the product brand.
Corporate brand Visionary CB Non-Visionary CB - H1a Perceived level of Corporate brand visionariness
-
Purchase intention of
the product brand -
H3a
H3
Figure 5: Conceptual Model
Perceived level of Product brand visionariness
- H3b H3 H1b Product brand Visionary PB Non-visionary PB - H2
3. Methodology
This chapter discusses the methods being used to conduct this study. First, the sample and its most evident characteristics will be described. Second, the measurement will be discussed of the variable used in this experimental study. Third, the research design will be explained. Fourth, a pre-test will be conducted to create a valid actual survey. Finally, a brief description is given about the statistical procedure.
3.1 Population, sample and data collection
This study used a non-probability, convenience sample, partly based on self-selection by conducting an online survey, which have been distributed via email , WhatsApp and Facebook. The survey was constructed using software for web-based surveys by Qualtrics. The respondents were properly informed in advance that their participation was voluntarily and anonymously. The sample has been drawn from a large population and included all kinds of consumers, regardless of age, gender, nationality and other demographic characteristics. As expected mostly all respondents were students between 18-25 years old (63.1%). The main reason for this data collection methods where low costs, fast distribution and a large range.
A total of 161 respondents participated in this study and were randomly confronted with four different brand and vision scenarios, hence with identical questions. One survey was found to be incomplete in has been excluded from the sample. All respondents were asked to read a message of brand, where after they are asked to evaluate the brand in terms of visionariness, the level of transfer after respondents were made aware of the connection between both brands and purchase intention of the product brand.
3.2 Measurement of variables
All items used in the questionnaire are based on English studies and scales. The respondents that finished the survey are assumed to have a sufficient level of English and thus the survey was conducted in English. A detailed overview of the used scales and items can be found in Appendix B. Consumer’s perception of brand’s visionariness
Perceived brand visionariness have been measured via the three-item Visionary Based (VB) -scale by Thissen (2013) (α = .95). An example item is: ‘FOZENMICK shows vision by delivering new ideas for the future’. The VB-scale was developed on basis of Griffin et al. (2010) and Conger and Kanungo’s
(1998) SVA scale. This study employed a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Purchase intention
Purchase intention was measured on a four-item scale that have been adapted by Coyle and Thorson (2001) (α = .83) on basis of Putrevu and Lord's (1994) and Kim and Biocca (1997). One of the items included ‘It is very likely that I would buy BLUEMOON’ and opinions were provided on a seven-point scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree).
Control variables
The results of this study are controlled by four control variables: gender, age and education and income level. These items were included in the last section of the survey. Age (in years) has been measured via an open question. Gender has been measured by a two-option multiple choice question: male or female. Educational background has been measured by a five -item multiple choice question regarding the respondent’s highest completed education, ranging from high school t o a master degree.
3.3 Research design
This research used an experimental 2 (visionary corporate brand vs. non-visionary corporate brand) X 2 (visionary product brand vs. non-visionary product brand) between-subjects design, divided into four treatment groups. An online questionnaire confronts respondents with a statement which is spread by either a fictitious corporate brand FOZENMICK (Xa) or by one of their fictitious product
brands BLUEMOON (Xb). This statement is either visionary (X₁) or non-visionary (X₂). Respondents
were randomly allocated to an experimental group (see table 1). Accordingly, the survey asked consumer to read the statement of the (corporate) brand where after their perceived vis ionariness level of a (corporate) brand will be measured.
This study will use a fictitious (corporate) brand within the FMCG industry. The FMCG industry is a complex market across various categories (e.g. soft drinks, pre -packaged food, toiletries, cleaning products etc.). The aim of a FMCG company is to create the highest demand by consumers and at the same time develop loyalty and trust towards their brands. Brands like Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Nestlé and Coca-Cola are increasingly using their corporate brand to communicate their vision to consumers. Since previous studies showed that visionariness can improve the level of purchase intentions (Migge, 2013), consumer – brand identification (Horsch, 2013) (Migge, 2013) (Workum-Van, 2015), preference, loyalty and commitment of consumers (Thissen, 2013), it is interesting to
investigate this concept within a FMCG industry. Especially since this type of organizations increasingly make use from logo visibility across their product brands.
Visionary Non-visionary
Corporate brand Treatment group 1 (Xa₁) Treatment group 2 (Xa₂) Product brand Treatment group 3 (Xb₁) Treatment group 4 (Xb₂)
Table 3: Four treatment groups
Treatment group 1 (Xa₁) is exposed to company information and a written down visionary
statement of a fictitious corporate brand (i.e. FOZENMICK)
Treatment group 2 (Xa₂) is exposed to non-visionary company information of a fictitious
corporate brand (i.e. FOZENMICK)
Treatment group 3 (Xb₁) is exposed to brand information and a written down vision statement of a fictitious product brand (i.e. BLUEMOON)
Treatment group 4 (Xb₂) is exposed to non-visionary brand information of a fictitious product brand (i.e. BLUEMOON)
3.4 Pre-test
For this study a pre-tests was conducted. The aim of the pre-test is to examine which statement will be perceived as visionary and which one as non-visionary and should be included in the actual survey that will be distributed after the analysis of the pre-test.
Vision statement
This section elaborates how the vision statement and the non-vision statement, used in this study, is developed. Before a vision statement will be selected a pre-test will be conducted in order to find the best suitable visionary brand statement for both sources. Therefore, six different statements have been developed, three to stimulate participants to think that the corporate brand is guided by a strong vision and three to stimulate participants to think that a product brand is guided by a strong vision. The corporate vision statement is inspired on three corporate webpages (Unilever, Nestlé, P&G). The brand vision statements are inspired on three FMCG brands (Innocent, Dove, Pampers) and are selected from Stengel’s 50 most ideal-based brands (Stengel, 2011). Figure 2, shows three vision statements of leading FMCG companies. Noteworthy is the great influence of environment in the description of vision. All three corporates highly focus on today’s health and sustainability trends. This trend should be taken in consideration when developing a (fictitious) vision statement.
Figure 6: Vision examples of leading FMCG corporations
Measurement of the visionary brand
After the respondents read a general text with some company information and one of the three vision statements each, they were asked to rate the brand in terms of visionariness. This was measured by the three item Griffin scale, which tests to what extend consumers regard a brand as visionary. Afterwards, respondents were asked to give oral feedback on the vision of the brand and the fictitious brands FOZENMICK and BLUEMOON itself.
3.5 Statistical procedure
The online survey opened on the 4th of January 2016 and closed one week later on the 13th of January 2016. The statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical software Package for Social Science (SPSS). All statistical tests were performed using a 95% confidence interval. The analysis started out with a report about the characteristics of the sample and sub-samples. There after the descriptive statistics will be discussed, starting with the analysis of normal distribution. To test normality we used the Sharipo-Wilk (S-W) test. Second, the reliability of the three scales was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha. Third, a manipulation test have been conducted to test the assumption that a visionary corporate brand would be perceived as visionary and a visionary product brand would be perceived as visionary. Finally, before the hypotheses will be discussed a correlation matrix was compiled for as well the complete sample as for the four sub-samples. The variables gender, age and education were included in the correlation matrix of the complete sample to check whether the characteristics of the sample were related to the main construct. After the preliminary steps, hypotheses have been tested, which are discussed in chapter four.
4. Results
4.1 Pre-test
A small sample of respondents were exposed to five different corporate brand background statements and five product brand statements, in order to examine which background story respondents rate as the most visionary brand and as a non-visionary brand. Detailed results can be found in Appendix C – Results Pre-test.
A total of 28 participants completed the questionnaire. Of them 75% was female and 96% of all respondents was between 20 and 28 years old. Most respondents highest le vel of education completed were bachelor degree (57.1%) and master degree (39.1%). This sample was selected since it was assumed to come close to the sample of the actual survey, which would probably consist of respondents, mostly students, between 18 and 34. The sample for the pre-test should represent the future sample of the main research. Furthermore, respondents were randomly divided into five samples, based on what vision statement they would randomly receive. Therefore any differences in responses on the different samples are assumed to arise from the difference in vision statements and not by the characteristics that the sample might have.
Visionary corporate brand
First, the outcomes were tested for the reliability of the scales. Within this the Cronbach’s alpha is used to estimate the reliability, most empirical studies have used .70 as a universal standard of reliability. However, Lance, Butts, and Michels (2006) found that such a guideline is rarely followed and should depend on the stage or purpose of the research. And thus a level of .60 will be accepted within this study, since this research field about brand visionariness is still in its infancy (Nunnally, 1978 in Lance, Butts, & Michels, 2006). Therefore, the corporate vision statements ‘Innovation & Respect’ and ‘Integrity & Ambition’ are both seen as reliable (see table 3). The Cronbach’s alpha for ‘Responsibility & Quality’ was -.265, which can be explained due to a negative average co-variance among the items. To test whether one of the items should be removed an inter-item correlation matrix has been conducted and reveals that item 3 has negative correlations with the other items Appendix C – Results Pre-test). Once item 3: ‘FOZENMICK is able to communicate this in an exciting way’ was removed, the Cronbach’s alpha from ‘Responsibility & Quality’ went up to .750 and is seen as reliable.
Second, the mean and the standard deviation were calculated for each vision statement. The mean represents the average answer of the respondents. Since the level of visionariness as perceived by
consumers has been measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, ranging to 5 = strongly disagree), the means of all statements indicate that on average consumers ‘agreed’ that the brand exhibits visionary characteristics. The standard deviation implies whether the answers varied across the scale or not. Of the reliable scales, ‘Innovation & Respect’ exhibits the lowest standard deviation (SD = .47). As a result the visionary corporate brand FOZENMICK will use the message Innovation &
Respect in the actual survey.
Table 4: Reliability and descriptives
Visionary corporate brand n N items α M SD
Innovation & Respect 5 3 .600 4 .47
Responsibility & Quality 6 3 -.125 4 .44
Responsibility & Quality
(revised) 6 2 .750 4.2 .50
Integrity & Ambition 5 3 .915 3.93 .95
Visionary product brand
The Cronbach’s alpha for visionary statements ‘Be Tasty & Sustainable’ and ‘Be happy & Generous’ were both higher than .700 (see table 4). The Cronbach’s alpha for ‘Responsibility & Quality’ was α = -.643. For this vision scenario we have to conclude that the visionary message probably contains ambiguities since the Cronbach’s alpha remains negative after removing item 1, 2 or 3.
The means of all statements indicate that on average consumers ‘agreed’ that the brand exhibits visionary characteristics, however ‘Be Happy & Generous’ (M = 3.13 and SD = 1.10) is lower than ‘Be Passionate & Respectful ( M = 4.4 and SD = .28). As a result, the actual survey will use the message Be
Tasty & Be Sustainable.
Table 5: Reliability and descriptives
Visionary product brand n N items α M SD
Be Tasty & Sustainable 5 3 .896 3.6 .95
Be Happy & Generous 6 3 .785 3.11 .98
Be Passionate & Respectful 5 3 -.643 4.4 .28
Non-visionary corporate brand
The Cronbach’s alpha for the non-visionary scenario 1 is below .600 and seen in this study as unreliable. Scenario 2 showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .945 and thus reliable. The means of both statements ‘agreed’ that the brand does not exhibit visionary characteristics. The standard deviation of scenario 2 (SD = 1.06) is considerable higher than the one of scenario 1 (SD = .72). As a result the
Table 6: Reliability and descriptives
Non-visionary CB n N items α M SD
Scenario 1 6 3 .596 2.8 .72
Scenario 2 6 3 .954 1.94 1.06
Non-visionary product brand
The Cronbach’s alpha for the non-visionary scenario 1 is above .600 and seen in this study as reliable (Lance, Butts, & Michels, 2006). Scenario 2 showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .584 (see table 6). The inter-item correlation matrix ( see Appendix C – Results Pre-test reveals that item 3 has negative correlations with the other items. Item three: ‘is able to communicate this in an exciting way’ has been found to be critical within all tests. Even though altering measurement instruments is not preferable, since reliability and validity are based on the entire set of items, we choose to exclude item 3 since it negatively influenced the Cronbach’s Alpha in all (non) visionary messages. Communication is also not the main focus within this research. Previous studies focused on different types of vision source (Migge, 2013; Workum-Van, 2015), while this study will aim to measure the perceived visionariness of a corporate and a product brand. Also, therefore the actual survey will make use of scenario 2 and will exclude item 3 in all calculations. Lastly, we will also change the anchors of the suggested Griffin scale from 5 towards 7 anchors. This will be done to create consistency with the Coyle and Thorson scale.
Table 7: Reliability and descripives
Non-visionary PB n N items α M SD
Scenario 1 6 3 .618 3.6 .95
Scenario 2 6 3 .584 2.39 .74
4.2 Survey study
4.2.1 Sample characteristics
A total of 161 respondents participated in this study, which have been distributed via various online channels. The sample has been drawn from a large population without any restrictions. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the four treatment groups. Only one survey was excluded, the high completion rate can be explained by a mobile proof, relatively short and forced answer survey. This resulted in 160 valid questionnaires, of which the distribution among the treatment groups is displayed in table 8. All respondents received randomly one of the four scenarios, which differ in terms of whether the type of brand was corporate (CB) or a product brand (PB) and whether the statement was visionary (V) or non-visionary (NV). This distinction has split the sample into four sub-samples (VCB, VPB, NVCB, NVPB).
When we look to the control variable we found an almost 50-50 distribution between male (46.9%) and female respondents (53.1%). The age distribution shows that most respondents are between 18 and 25 (63.1%). To reduce the effect of outliers, the extreme values of the variable age have been winsorized (Ghosh & Vogt, 2012). Therefore, all data value above the ninety-fifth percentile of the sample data (> 34) has been reduced. The group of respondents are high educated with 43.1 percent of the respondents completed a bachelor degree and 29.4 percent a master degree. To create more frequency similarity between the educational levels, high school and trade school are recoded as being one level (n = 41) and master degree and doctoral degree as one level (n = 50). A detailed overview of the respondents per control variable can be found in Appendix D – Gender, age and education frequency for total sample.
Table 8: Number of respondents per sub-sample
n
VCB 40
VPB 37
NVCB 39
NVPB 44
In order to determine whether the samples have similar distributions in terms gender and educational level an overview of frequency and percentage is given in table 9. These findings demonstrate that the sample do not extensively differ from each other in terms of gender, age and educational level. Therefore the subgroups can be compared within the meaning of perceived visionariness, vision transfer and purchase intention. The variable age is a quantitative variable and
but is not found significant. The education category bachelor degree is found to have the most respondents (>40%) within all four samples. The second largest group of respondents is master/doctoral degree and is equally distributed among all samples. Lastly, the third group is equally distributed for the samples VCB, VPB and NCPB and has slightly less respondents for the sample NVCB.
To examine whether there is no statistically significant difference between the four sub-samples, a chi-square test for independence was conducted for the qualitative variables gender and education and a one way ANOVA for the quantitative variable age. The test indicated th at there is no statistically significant difference between the different samples for the variables gender, χ2 (3) = 4.48, p= .21, V= .17, education χ2 (6) = 3.82, p= .70, V= .11 and age F (3,156) = 3.00, p=.032 (see Appendix E – Subsample independence).
Table 9: Distribution per sample
VCB n VPB n NVCB n NCPB n Gender: Male 35.0% 14 51.4% 19 43.6% 17 56.8% 25 Female 65.0% 26 48.6% 18 56.4% 22 43.2% 19 Education: High/trade school 27.5% 11 32.4% 12 15.4% 6 27.3% 12 Bachelor degree 40.0% 16 43.2% 16 46.2% 18 43.2% 19 Master/doctoral degree 32.5% 13 24.3% 9 38.5% 15 29.5% 13
4.2.2 Descriptive statistics
Normal distributionTo test our numerical means of assessing normality we used the Sharipo-Wilk (S-W) test. The Shapiro-Wilk Test is more appropriate for small sample sizes (< 50 samples) as it is applicable in this sample (Field, 2013). The results showed that 12 out of 18 variables were significant (< .05) and are non-normal (see Appendix F – Normality check. The results are reflected by the Q-Q plot per and suggest that normality is unreasonable. However in a large sample (> 100), a variable with statistically significant skewness often does not deviate enough to make a substantive difference in the analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Therefore the data will be treated as normal when testing the complete sample (N = 160) and non-normal per subsamples (N = 40). The analyses of the subsamples will be performed using non-parametric test or via bootstrapping.
Reliability
The reliability was measured through Cronbach’s Alpha for each sub-sample (see table 10). The two-item Griffin scale measuring visionariness exhibit positive Cronbach’s alpha scores (> .700) for all samples except VPB after vision transfer (α = .62). Since we choose to use a two-item Griffin scale after performing the pre-test, reliability cannot be improved by removing one of the two items. Hence, for ‘early stages of research’ is made an exception from .60 (Nunnally, 1978 in Lance, Butts, & Michels, 2006).
Table 10: Cronbach’s alpha per sample
Sample α Griffin scale VCB .86 (level of visionariness) VPB .86 NVCB .87 NVPB .96 Griffin scale VCB .79
(transfer level of visionariness) VPB .62
NVCB .84
NVPB .90
Coyle & Thorson scale VCB .87
(purchase intention) VPB .93
NVCB .84
NVPB .87
Manipulation
To test whether respondents perceived the fictitious visionary corporate brand FOZENMICK as visionary or non-visionary a two way independent analysis of variance (ANOVA) have been conducted. Thereafter a similar two way ANOVA will be conducted to test the manipulations of the fictitious visionary product brand BLUEMOON.
Results of Levene’s test of Equality shows a non-significant variance for FOZENMICK, F (1,77) = .01, p = .918 and a non-significant variance for BLUEMOON, F (1,79) = .17, p = .68, which indicated that the homogeneity of variance assumption is being met. The means and standard deviations for the perceived level of visionariness as a result of the two factors are presented in table 11. In this scenario higher scores indicate an higher perceived level of brand visionariness, based on a 7 point Likert scale. The results of table 11 show that consumers perceive a high level of corporate brand visionariness when they are exposed towards a visionary corporate brand ( M = 5.59). Also consumers perceive a high level of product brand visionariness when they are exposed towards a visionary
