Happily ever after?
A study focused on the influence of level of brand concept consistency (BCC) and different types of BCC in the broadcasting industry on brand perceptions.
Student: Claudette van Schubert (10110992) First Supervisor: Drs. J. Labadie, MBM. Second Supervisor: Drs. R.E.W. Pruppers
Version: Final version
Faculty of Economics and Business- Amsterdam Business School Msc. in Business Adminstration – Marketing track
This document is written by Student Claudette van Schubert who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
It is my pleasure to present to you ‘The End’ chapter of my student life: my Master thesis for the Msc. in Business Administration.
During this process I have learned a lot. I have learned a lot about conducting research and my interest in science is really fuelled. I became enthusiastic about statistics. Yes, I was the one liking a Facebook page during my very first year at the University of
Amsterdam stating: ‘I hate SPSS’ and now I’m searching for one that states ‘I like SPSS’. But more importantly, I have learned a lot about myself. I have learned to balance things. A word I heard before but never really understood.
I am very grateful for the support that I have got during this process from my supervisors Jorge Labadie and Roger Pruppers. Jorge, thanks for being there in this huge learning process. Thanks for the motivational words, the advices and your patience. It means a lot to me. Roger, thanks for the helpful insights, your constructive feedback and your
enthusiasm for academic research. Thanks to you both a lot of effort is not wasted. Thanks for showing this very critical person that this thesis is worth it and holding up the mirror!
I also want to thank my dad and Dettie, for the unconditional support, love and faith in me. And dad, your office is yours again! I am very glad that I do not have to spend days and nights there anymore. And last but not least, thanks for the pep talks and hugs Chantal, Samantha and Berna.
To ends and new beginnings!
Claudette van Schubert
Preface ... Abstract ... Chapter 1. Introduction ... 1 1.1 Introduction ... 2 1.2 Lack of knowledge ... 3 1.3 Problem definition ... 4 1.3.1 Problem statement ... 4 1.3.2 Sub questions ... 5
1.3.3 Delimitations of the study ... 5
1.4 Contribution ... 5
1.4.1 Theoretical contributions ... 5
1.4.2 Managerial implications... 6
1.5 Structure of the research ... 6
Chapter 2. The associative network model in the broadcasting industry ... 8
2.1 Customer-based brand equity ... 8
2.2 The associative network model ... 9
2.2.1 Brand salience ... 10
2.2.2 Brand image ... 10
2.2.3 Brand responses ... 13
2.2.4 Brand resonance ... 13
2.3 Customer-based brand equity for brands in broadcasting ... 14
2.4 Brand architecture and strategies ... 15
2.5 Brand architecture of the Dutch broadcasting brands ... 16
2.5.1 Corporate brand ... 17
2.5.2 Broadcasting channel ... 17
2.5.3 Broadcasting networks ... 17
2.5.4 Programs ... 18
2.5.5 Presenters ... 18
2.5.6 Example brand hierarchy ... 18
Chapter 3. Brand alliances and consumer responses ... 20
3.1 Image transfer ... 20
3.2 Brand alliances ... 20
3.3 The influence of brand alliances on consumer responses ... 21
3.7 Perceived level of fit ... 25
3.8 Different types of brand concept consistency ... 27
Chapter 4. Hypotheses development ... 29
4.1 Perceived level of BCC ... 29
4.2 Types of BCC ... 33
4.3 Conceptual model ... 35
Chapter 5. Exploratory study for stimuli development ... 36
5.1 Research method ... 36
5.1.1 Type of research ... 36
5.1.2 Sample ... 37
5.1.3 Procedure ... 37
5.1.4 Data analysis ... 37
5.2 Results: Categorization public broadcasters ... 38
5.3 Results: Categorization of public broadcasters & commercial broadcasters ... 41
Chapter 6. Methodology main study ... 44
6.1 Research design ... 44 6.2 Pre-testing ... 44 6.2.1 Pre-test 1 ... 44 6.2.2 Pre-test 2 ... 46 6.3 Stimuli selection ... 48 6.4 Sample ... 51 6.5 Procedure ... 51 6.6 Measures ... 52 6.6.1 Independent variables ... 52 6.6.2 Dependent variables ... 53 6.6.3 Control variables ... 56 6.6.4 Demographic variables ... 57
Chapter 7. Results main study ... 58
7.1 Respondent profile ... 58
7.2 Data preparation ... 60
7.2.1 Consistency and reliability checks ... 60
7.2.2 Inter-rater-reliability checks... 61
7.2.3 Control variables ... 62
7.3.1 Amount of brand associations ... 71
7.3.2 Proportion of general brand associations ... 74
7.3.3 Favorability brand associations ... 77
7.3.4 Brand responses ... 79
7.4 Overview of the hypotheses ... 86
7.5 Additional insights ... 87
7.5.1 Reasons for a misfit/fit ... 87
7.5.2 Brand familiarity and type of misfit/fit ... 88
7.5.3 The moderating influence of age ... 90
Chapter 8. Discussion ... 94
8.1 The role of level of BCC ... 94
8.2 The role of types of BCC ... 98
Chapter 9. Conclusion ... 102
9.1 Suggestions for future research ... 105
9.2 Theoretical contributions ... 106
9.3 Managerial implications ... 108
References ... 112
Appendix 1. Exploratory study: Questionnaire ... 126
Appendix 2. Exploratory study: Scree plots normalized raw stress ... 130
Appendix 3. Pre-test 1: Questionnaire ... 131
Appendix 4. Pre-test 2: Results ... 138
Appendix 5. Main Study: Example of the stimuli ... 140
Appendix 6. Main study: Questionnaire ... 141
Appendix 7. Main study: Categorization key: type of BCC ... 154
Appendix 8. Main study: Categorization key: type of brand associations ... 157
The broadcasting industry is characterized by fierce competition in a complex market. Due to technological shifts the number of content providers evolved (Ots, 2008). When preferences of consumers are changing rapidly and when competition is strong, brand loyalty is very important (Lowe & Palokangas, 2010). Dutch public broadcasting brands were forced to form an alliance due to the cuts in the media budget. When brands form an alliance, perceived fit seems to be widely accepted to be the key to success. However, it is yet unknown what the role of perceived fit is on brand perceptions for broadcasting brand alliances. Broadcasting brands do not have price as a point of and offer experience goods (Chan-Olmsted, 2006). Furthermore, moderating factors on the relationship between level of fit and brand responses are often neglected (Kim & John, 2008). Therefore this study implements a two-dimensional approach on perceived brand concept consistency (BCC). The role of the level of BCC as well as the moderating role of different types of BCC are examined for brand alliances in the broadcasting industry. First an exploratory study was conducted to find out how consumers categorize the Dutch broadcasting brands and if different levels of BCC and types of BCC could be identified. Followed up by a deductive approach: an experimental survey to test the hypotheses.
Congruent with the expectations, the result indicate that a misfit based on BCC leads to a more negative brand response in terms of expected program quality, likeability of the programs and the brand attitude. However, a misfit based on BCC did not lead to less viewing intentions. Furthermore, the influence of level of BCC and types of BCC on the brand associations were examined. A fit on BCC did not lead to more brand
associations or more favorable brand associations. However, a misfit on BCC did lead to a greater proportion of general brand associations, which can indicate that the image
transfer process of the individual brand associations is distorted by the incongruence. No moderating effect of type of BCC was found on either the brand associations or the brand responses.
The findings are very interesting for the broadcasting industry since the study gives an extensive insight in how brand alliances in broadcasting are evaluated by consumers. Additionally, the findings are also useful for researchers who are interested in exploring perceived fit beyond the more traditional dimension: level of fit.
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction
The last years major things changed in the public media landscape in the Netherlands. The role and core tasks of public broadcasting and the belonging broadcasting networks were extensively discussed. Recently the Dutch Senate accepted the new Media Act
(Rijksoverheid, 2016). The Dutch public broadcasters lost a considerably great amount of viewers to one or more commercial broadcasters (Bakker & Scholten, 2003). This Media Act aims to strengthen the programming of the public broadcasting by making it more distinctive relative to their competitors (Rijksoverheid, 2016). Besides, the Dutch government decided that the public media budget in the Netherlands had to be reduced. The Dutch government mainly decreased the extra public media budget for public
broadcasting (Rijksoverheid, n.da). As a consequence some of the broadcasting networks
were forced to merge (Rijksoverheid, n.da). Broadcasting networks that all have a very
different DNA.
A remarkable merger is for example the one between the public broadcasting networks VARA and BNN. VARA is inspired by the principles and values of social democracy and humanism. Including the equality of people, the importance of social justice, protection of human dignity and the international solidarity of people (VARA, n.d). In contrast to VARA, BNN stands for humor, courage, quirkiness, cheekiness, daring and lust for life. BNN is the only Dutch broadcasting network focused on young people and they want to inform and entertain by experimenting while at the same time exploring boundaries (BNN, n.d). During the process of the brand mergers employees of both broadcasting networks were throwing mud to each other in the news. VARA employees called BNN employees unhygienic and on the other hand BNN employees who called VARA employees very bureaucratic. More importantly, both broadcasting networks did not hide the fact that they are absolutely not looking forward to work together (Nieuwe Revu, 2014).
The combinations of brands and their existing brand associative networks will influence consumers’ judgments of the participating brands and the new product and/or brand (Besharat, 2010). In the case of a brand alliance each partner brand brings their own brand associations to the new relationship in order to form a new set of brand associations (James, 2005). When brands are combined the nature of the semantic relationship between
the combined brands is important for the evaluation of the brand combinations (Zhang & Sood, 2002). Similarity between the brands or in other words the perceived ‘fit’ plays a crucial role for a positive evaluation of the combination. Völckner and Sattler (2006) have even identified perceived fit as the key driver of brand extension success. Not only
product feature similarity between the brands is considered to be important but also a similar brand image (Park, Milberg & Lawson, 1991). Furthermore, similarity between specific brand associations seems important for the evaluation of a brand alliance (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994).
Brand alliances are often used as a technique to transfer positive associations from one brand to another and to build brand equity (Washburn, Till & Priluck, 2000).
However, in the case of the Dutch public broadcasting networks the brand alliances were not initiated to increase brand equity but because of the cuts in the media budget. The broadcasting networks had no choice.
The broadcasting industry is characterized by strong competition, advertising markets that are saturated and more importantly the enormous change in behavior of the viewers due to technological improvements (Evens, 2014). Consumers preferences shifted from traditional cable bundles to video on demand and streaming services (Matrix, 2014). When consumer preferences are so far from being static and when the competition is so fierce, creating brand loyalty seems to be a big challenge but yet very essential (Lowe & Palokangas, 2010). To build strong bonds with their audiences, to attract advertisers and to improve customer satisfaction and loyalty (Ots, 2008) broadcasters need strong brands. Brands with strong, favorable and unique associations that will lead to customer-based brand equity (Keller, 1993).
In case of the Dutch public broadcasting networks it is the question if these forced marriages may cost more than it yields in terms of brand equity. Do the brand alliances in broadcasting have a disruptive effect on the brand equity and will these marriages
instantly fail? Or do consumers not care at all?
This research aims to provide an understanding of the role of fit in terms of brand concept consistency for brand alliances in broadcasting. The study provides an insight in what the influence of brand alliances is with different levels and different types of brand concept consistency on the perceptions of the consumers: the viewers.
1.2 Lack of knowledge
In order to exploit existing brand equity companies can adapt several branding strategies (Desai & Keller, 2002). By using these strategies, positive associations relating to brand quality, brand image or brand awareness can be transferred from one brand to the other (Simonin & Ruth, 1998; McCarthy & Norris, 1999). However, sometimes organizations with dissimilar brand images are forced to merge. In the case of the Dutch public
broadcasting networks it is very likely that the brands have a perceived fit when the product feature similarity is considered (Park, Milberg & Lawson, 1991). They are all broadcasting networks making programs for television. Yet, it is very likely that all the brands have a very different brand image and thus differ based on brand concept
consistency (BCC). These broadcasting brands were always competing on a dual market. With the commercial broadcasters for the highest audience ratings but also with each other in order to attract more members and a loyal audience to receive public funding and to get the popular primetime spots (Rijksoverheid, n.db). After all, each broadcasting
network always needed to differentiate in order to get a competitive advantage. Literature on brand alliances, the role of perceived fit and brand perceptions of consumers often examined product brands (Becker-Olsen & Hil, 2006). However, it is short sighted to assume that the role of perceived fit is the same for brand alliances that take place in broadcasting. There are some crucial differences between commercial product brands and media brands. Media brands offer experience goods (Chang & Chan-Olmsted, 2010) and they have a very different business model. Price is not a point of differentiation because consumers only invest time when consuming the product: in this case the programs (Chan-Olmsted, 2006). This study will therefore address this gap by examining the role of brand concept consistency for brand alliances in the broadcasting industry.
Besides, there is an emerging stream of literature that is focused on identifying personal, cultural but also situational differences that could explain why consumers react differently to brand alliances (Kim & John, 2008). Perceived fit seems to be a concept that is so widely accepted that other factors that could have an influence on the established relationships are often neglected (Kim & John, 2008) or overshadowed. It seems that not only level of fit based on product feature similarity (PFS) and brand concept consistency (BCC) play a crucial role. The assumption that every consumer responds in the same way
to brand alliances with different levels of PFS or BCC is an assumption that has to be challenged. Research namely shows that consumers can evaluate a fit based on two different features: ‘deep’ features (brand attributes) or ‘surface’ features (similarity visual cues) (Zhang & Sood, 2002). Meaning that there could also be different types of fit. A fit based on more ‘deep’ features such as brand mission and vision or a fit based on more ‘surface’ more visible features such as target audience and/or general brand concept. It is important to explore the undiscovered different factors that could influence the
relationship between perceived brand fit and the evaluations of the brand alliances in order to clarify the influence of fit in a more extensive way. It is yet unknown if different types of BCC have a different influence on the evaluations of brand combinations. The Dutch broadcasting landscape offers a context to explore the concept of different types of BCC. In the 20th century the Netherlands was divided in pillars, based
on different religions and ideologies (Dekker & Ester, 1996). These pillars had their own institutions, their own education systems, their own newspapers and their own
broadcasters. Some of the Dutch broadcasting networks are founded in that time based on a more ‘deep’ features: certain types of pillars. For example the broadcasting network KRO that was the broadcaster for Roman Catholics (KRO, n.d). At the same time the media landscape also offers broadcasting brands that are founded on a more ‘surface’ feature such as reaching a specific target audience or providing a certain type of content. An example is the broadcaster MAX, a broadcasting network that is focused on the elderly (Omroep MAX, n.d).
1.3 Problem definition
1.3.1 Problem statement
To succeed and in order to exist, the public broadcasters must be popular and as Banerjee and Seneviratne (2006) argue “there is little point to public funding of merit goods if they are consumed by a few” (p.112). Strong brands are crucial to the broadcasters because they provide them with a means of distinguishing themselves from their competitors and to eventually attract a loyal audience (Ots, 2008) in a rapidly changing market. What the influence is of brand alliances in broadcasting on the brand perceptions and what the role of fit is, is yet unknown. A two-dimensional approach on BCC should be implemented to see if level of BCC and type of BCC have an influence on the brand perceptions of the
consumers.
This leads to the following problem statement:
What is the role of brand concept consistency for brand alliances in broadcasting on the brand perceptions of consumers?
1.3.2 Sub questions
To answer this research question and to develop an understanding of the underlying concepts, several sub questions need to be addressed:
* What are associative networks and how are these relevant in the broadcasting industry? * What are brand alliances and how can brand associations be transferred from one brand to another when brands are combined?
* How does image transfer work between brands in the same product category? * What is the role of perceived fit?
1.3.3 Delimitations of the study
This study focuses on brand alliances in Dutch broadcasting. This study will only consider the influence of the brand image of the brands and it will not consider the financial side of the brands. Simultaneously, this study will only look at the impact of brand alliances from a consumer perspective. In this study existing broadcasting brands will be used and some existing and fictitious brand alliances between these brands.
1.4 Contribution
1.4.1 Theoretical contributions
This study will provide an insight into the meaning of brand alliances in broadcasting and therefore it will contribute to the body of literature about brands in the media. The real meaning of brands in a media context has only just begun to be explored and it is far from fully developed (Chan-Olmsted, 2006). So, extended knowledge in this area is needed. Additionally, this study will provide a deeper understanding of brand concept consistency. It will provide an insight in the level of BCC but more importantly also on the different types of BCC and if these different types relate to positive or negative outcomes in terms of brand evaluations. This study will therefore contribute to the
widely accepted relationship between perceived fit and brand evaluations (Kim & John, 2008).
This study will especially focus on the mergers between the Dutch public
broadcasting brands. According to Andrews (2008) empirical research on brand mergers in the marketing literature is very limited. This study will therefore also contribute to the little amount of marketing literature about mergers. More importantly it will provide a unique insight in realistic brand mergers that have a possible fit and misfit on different types of BCC and that try to co-exist by maintaining both brands.
1.4.2 Managerial implications
The results of this study will be of particular interest to the management of the Dutch public broadcasting networks and especially for the management of the Nederlandse Publieke Omroep (NPO). The NPO is responsible for the cohesion between the national broadcasting networks and the public media supply (Rijksoverheid, n.dc.). Additionally,
the results could be of interest to the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. The Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science is responsible for the funding of the public broadcasting in the Netherlands. This study will provide a deeper understanding of the different associations that consumers have about combinations of broadcasting brands with different levels of BCC and different types of BCC. Furthermore, the
influence on the brand responses will also be examined. Therefore the results of this study can be used to evaluate and it can give an insight in how the Dutch public broadcasters can build brand equity.
Furthermore this knowledge could be very useful to managers in general because this study will give an insight in the effects of forced brand mergers with different levels and different types of BCC whereby two brands will co- exist. Apart from the fact that the results of this research are very useful in the media context, the results could thus also be useful for other organizations and/or brands that are in a similar position outside of the media context.
1.5 Structure of the research
This research consists out of nine chapters. The theoretical part of this study is divided into four chapters. The second chapter gives a literature review on the associative
review on brand image transfer, brand alliances and the role of perceived fit follows in chapter three. In the fourth chapter the hypotheses of this study are developed. First the findings of exploratory study will be discussed. Followed by methodology and findings of the main study, the online experiment. Chapter eight will discuss the results in light of the previous literature and finally the conclusion of this research will be given in chapter nine as well as suggestions for future research.
Chapter 2. The associative network model in the broadcasting industry
2.1 Customer-based brand equity
Creating and maintaining strong brands is of great importance to firms. Brands often provide the main point of difference for consumers: the reason to buy or use a certain product or service instead of others (Wood, 2000). Therefore brands and brand
management can be critical for companies to succeed in a competitive market (Wood, 2000). Brands can even be considered as one of the most valuable assets a firm has (Keller, 2013, p.30). A brand is created when a product or service is identified and distinguished from other products or services on several brand elements (Keller, 2013, p.30). According to Keller (2013) these brand elements are: “trademarks that serve to identify and differentiate the brand” (p.142). Examples of these trademarks are brand names, logos, symbols, jingles, packages, spokespeople and signage (Keller, 2013, pp. 147-170). Branding is about differentiating and creating differences. Brands can differentiate themselves on tangible and intangible dimensions. Such as symbolic and emotional assets while satisfying the same need as competitors do (Keller, 2013, p.31). As mentioned before, brands can influence consumer preferences. According to Keller and Lehmann (2006) brands influence consumer preferences in that they indicate a certain quality level, reduce risks, can engender trust and therefore simplify choice. Creating a strong brand and therefore creating and/or maintaining brand equity is
important. According to Keller (1993) brand equity occurs when certain outcomes result from the marketing of a product or service because of the brand name. Without that brand name the same results would not be achieved. Keller (2013, p.69) also explains customer-based brand equity (CBBE) and how CBBE can be build. Successful marketing is about understanding the needs and wants of consumers and satisfying their needs and wants by developing products or services (Keller, 2013, p.68). Therefore the CBBE takes the
perspective of the consumer and is defined as “the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the marketing of the brand”(Keller, 2013, p.69). CBBE is about what consumers know about the brand (Keller, 1993) and it occurs when the consumer is familiar with the brand and holds some favorable, strong, and unique brand associations (Keller, 1993). In the CBBE pyramid that Keller (2001) developed, it can be seen how CBBE can be created. The CBBE pyramid is portrayed on the next page in
figure 1. In the next paragraphs the different blocks of the pyramid will be discussed.
Figure 1. CCBE model by Keller (2001, p.17)
2.2 The associative network model
A strong brand holds the right type of associations and experiences in the memory of consumers (Keller, 2013, p.69). Brand associations can be seen as anything linked in memory to a brand (Aaker, 1991) and determining these associations is an important first step to understanding the brand preferences and choices of consumers (Henderson, Iacobucci & Calder, 1998).
But how can strong brands be developed? How can the desired brand associations be linked to a brand? To answer these questions, first a deeper understanding of brand knowledge is needed.
One way of defining brand knowledge that is often used in the literature is in terms of an associative network model (Keller, 1993). According to that model, memory and therefore knowledge can be seen as a network of nodes and links between those nodes (Keller, 2013, p.71). Information or concepts stored in memory are called ‘nodes’ and the strength of associations between these nodes are called ‘links’. Keller (1993) uses this model to give an insight in how brand knowledge exists in the memory. Keller (1993) states that brand knowledge can be seen as a brand node in the memory of consumers and therefore as a variety of associations linked to this brand node. Brand associations can be
Resonance
Judgments Feelings
Performance Imagery
seen as all the informational nodes that are linked to the brand node in memory and contain the meaning of a brand to consumers (Keller, 2013, p.72).
In order to achieve the top in the CBBE pyramid: brand resonance, first the bottom blocks should be fulfilled. Keller (1993) distinguishes two components of brand
knowledge, namely brand salience (first block) and brand image (second block).
2.2.1 Brand salience
The first block in CBBE pyramid refers to brand salience, which is related to brand awareness. According to Keller (1993) brand awareness is related to the strength of the brand node or trace in memory. In other words: can consumers’ recall and/or recognize the brand under several different conditions? There is a high brand salience when a consumer has breadth and depth brand awareness (Keller, 2001). According to Keller (2001) depth awareness refers to brand recall and brand recognition. Breadth awareness on the other hand, refers to thinking of the brand and the different situations in which the consumers think of the brand. Breadth awareness is related to the question: when, how often and where do consumers think about the brand?
2.2.2 Brand image
Apart from managing the financial side of a brand, managing a positive brand image is very important (Timmerman, 2001). Keller (2013) defines brand image as “the
perceptions of a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory” (p.72). Creating a positive brand image takes marketing programs that link strong, favorable and unique associations to the brand (Keller, 1993). The second block which refers to the brand image is thus concerned with the perceptions of consumers of a brand and is reflected by the brand associations that consumer held in their memory (Keller, 2001).
Brand associations can be seen as anything linked in the memory to a brand (Aaker, 1991). Meaning that brand associations can be seen as the things that come to mind when a consumer thinks about the brand (Keller, 1993). According to Keller (1993) brand associations contain the meaning of the brand for consumers. There are several ways of distinguishing several types of brand associations. Keller (1993) uses the level of abstraction to distinguish brand associations from each other. The brand associations are categorized by how much information the brand association contains. Associations can
then be classified into three categories, namely: attributes, benefits and attitudes (Keller, 1993).
Attributes are the descriptive features that are related to how a consumer sees a product. Attributes describe the more practical side of a brand. It relates to what the product or service is, what it can do and where or how it can be purchased (Keller, 1993). There are two types of attributes. First: product-related attributes which relate to the product or service itself and are therefore about the fundamental ingredients that are necessary for the product or service to perform. Such as: product reliability, efficiency and more aesthetic attributes: the style and the design. This are the ‘brand performance’
associations in the CBBE model (Keller, 2001). Second: non product-related attributes, which relate to the aspects connected to the purchase or consumption of the product or service. These attributes can be seen as the ‘external aspects’ of a product or service (Keller, 1993). These attributes are the more ‘abstract’ associations related to the personality of the brand, the users of a brand, the heritage of a brand and brand experiences (Keller, 2001).
The second category Keller (1993) mentions are benefits. Benefits are the
associations that are related to the personal value a product and/or service can provide for a consumer. Keller (1993) explains the three types of benefits that can be distinguished. First: functional benefits, which relate to the product-related advantages that come with using a product and/or service. Mostly these benefits relate to satisfying more basic needs. Second: experiential benefits. These benefits also relate to product-related attributes but the difference is that these benefits are relating to what if feels like to use the product and/or service. These benefits satisfy needs such as sensory pleasure and cognitive
stimulation (Keller, 1993). Finally: the symbolic benefits. These benefits are more related to non product-related attributes and are the more extrinsic advantages of a product or a service. These attributes are more emotionally driven and they satisfy needs such as personal expression (Keller, 1993).
The last category Keller (1993) mentions are the brand attitudes. Keller (1993) defines these as “consumers’ overall evaluations of a brand”. These brand attitudes often influence the behavior and preferences of consumers and can therefore be considered as very important. Brand attitudes are a combination of all the beliefs that a consumer has about the brand and the extent to which they evaluate these beliefs as something that is
positive or negative (Keller, 1993). Brand attitudes can be formed by the beliefs about product-related attributes and symbolic benefits (Rossiter and Percy, 1987 in Keller, 1993).
To sum up, the associated attributes (product-related or non product-related), the benefits (functional, experiential or symbolic) that are most important for a brand and the overall brand attitude (positive/negative), form the brand image and thus the second block in the CBBE pyramid.
Strong, favorable and unique brand associations
Brand associations need to be strong, favorable and unique to create a positive brand image (Keller, 1993). According to Keller (2013, p.77) consumers differ in how they form attitudes and beliefs about products or services. That is exactly why Keller (2013, p.77) states that it is not really important what the source of the associations is and how they are formed but that it is important to look at how strong, favorable and unique these brand associations are.
So, brand associations can vary in strength, favorability and uniqueness. First: brand associations can vary in the strength that they have. The strength of brand
associations depends on the strength of the connection to the brand node. Meaning that the strength of the associations is dependent on how much people think about the information and how they process this information (Keller, 1993). It is important for brand
associations to be strong because it makes information more accessible and the information can be easier recalled from memory (Keller, 1993). Second: brand
associations can vary in how favorably they are evaluated. Is the association generating a positive, neutral or a negative response? This is called the favorability of the brand associations. When brand associations are evaluated as favorable, consumers believe that the brand has positive attributes and benefits for them that satisfy their needs (Keller, 1993). Apart from that, the uniqueness of associations is very important. The uniqueness helps consumers to choose between brands, it is the point of difference (Keller, 2013, p.77). A unique selling position gives the consumer a reason to buy that specific brand instead of the competing brands. Associations are unique when they are not shared with competing brands. However, not all associations can be unique because a brand will also share some associations with other brands in the same product category (Keller, 1993). A
brand is linked to a product category and therefore these shared associations establish a category membership (Chakravati, MacInnis & Kent, 1990, as cited in Keller, 2013, p. 78). Category associations can be linked to the brand, either to the more specific beliefs about the brand or to the overall brand attitudes (Keller,1993).
Creating strong, favorable and unique associations is essential for building CBBE and thus for moving up in the pyramid (Keller, 2001).
2.2.3 Brand responses
The next block in the CBBE pyramid refers to creating the preferred brand responses. Brand responses relate to what the consumers think about the brand (brand judgments) and to the feelings towards a brand (brand feelings) (Keller, 2001). To create a preferred brand response four brand judgments are important: brand quality, brand credibility (brand expertise, brand trustworthiness and brand likeability), brand consideration (do I seriously consider to purchase this brand?) and brand superiority (do I think the brand is unique and better than others?) (Keller, 2001).
On the other hand Keller (2001) describes that it is not only about the hard
judgments but also about the more affective responses towards a brand: the brand feelings. Brand feelings relate to the emotional responses and reactions that a brand creates towards consumers themselves but also towards the relationships they have with others. Keller (2001) describes six types of feelings towards a brand: warmth, fun, excitement, security, social approval and self-respect.
Important for CCBE is that positive brand judgments and brand feelings are accessible and come to mind when consumers think about the brand (Keller, 2001).
2.2.4 Brand resonance
The last block of the CBBE is related to brand resonance. It refers to the quality of the relationship that consumers have with the brand. Brand resonance refers to the: behavioral loyalty (how often and how much do consumers use/purchase the brand), attitudinal attachment (going beyond a positive attitude), sense of community (identification with other users, employees or representatives of the company) and active engagement (when consumers become brand ambassadors) (Keller, 2001). True brand resonance can only be reached when all other blocks in the bottom of the pyramid are fulfilling the consumers’
2.3 Customer-based brand equity for brands in broadcasting
Brands are crucial to companies because they provide them with a means of
distinguishing themselves from their competitors (Keller, 2013). This is not any different for the broadcasting brands in the broadcasting industry. Different broadcasting networks are competing on a highly competitive market to attract loyal audiences and loyal
advertisers (Ots, 2008).
Media brands can also generate a wide spectrum of brand associations and related brand responses (Calder & Malthouse, 2005). However, there are still some differences between brands in media industries and brand in other industries that need to be
addressed. The first difference is that the broadcasting networks offer experience goods. Experience goods are products and/or services whereby the quality and utility of the product and/or service cannot be (or hardly be) estimated before it is used (Chang & Chan-Olmsted, 2010). The second difference is that media firms have a unique position regarding to building and expanding brand equity because they own powerful mass-marketing tools (Ots, 2008). Media firms have the opportunity to reach enormous numbers of consumers every day. The third difference according to Ots (2008) is that media firms act on dual markets, they have to attract loyal audiences but they also need advertisers.
McDowell (2006, as cited in Ots, 2008) furthermore states that another important difference between media industries and other industries can be found in the business model that they use. In media industries price is not a point of differentiation because media companies use an advertising-based business model. The audience only invests time and effort in the product, in this case in the programs that they are watching (Chan-Olmsted, 2006). The real costs for consumers are thus related to time and attention. Seeing that there is so much choice nowadays, Tungate (2004) argues that brand
familiarity can be vital to consumers’ preferences, especially when the involvement of a consumer is low. Familiar brands produce stronger attitudes due to the extensive and established brand associations consumers have with them in their memories (Tungate, 2004). These established associative networks make the brand attitudes towards these brands more stable and less likely to change as new information is received (Campbell & Keller, 2003; Simonin & Ruth, 1998). Tungate (2004) also suggests that consumers will
not be interested in searching for other brands or options but that they rely on the brands that they already know (Tungate, 2004).
Technology has evolved and as a consequence the number of content providers grew (Ots, 2008). More and more media companies are seeking the attention and loyalty of audiences and advertisers (Ots, 2008). The introduction of subscription video on
demand services such as Netflix but also online video platforms such as Youtube create a complex market environment. The technological shift in the market environment of the broadcasters has an impact on television program production decisions (Matrix, 2014). Consumer preferences shifted from the traditional cable bundles to streaming services and video on demand (such as Netflix) (Matrix, 2014). This consumer trend has a disturbing effect on traditional television and cable subscriptions. A larger share of the traditional TV audience nowadays consumes more via Netflix and other services on demand (Matrix, 2014). This shift causes that the traditional broadcasters now even face more competition. Therefore it is essential for the broadcasters to differentiate and to create strong brands. Strong brands eventually lead to loyal consumers who feel more involved with the brand and are less likely to switch to competitors (Keller, 2013, pp. 120-121). Building strong brands seems to be crucial for the broadcasters to make sure that they do not lose their audience to other broadcasters or to other services such as Netflix. Brand management is an important tool to build strong bonds with the audiences and to reach brand resonance. Customer satisfaction and loyalty can be improved and advertisers can be attracted (Ots, 2008).
2.4 Brand architecture and different branding strategies
The brand architecture refers to a branding framework that explains the structure between the different brands within one organization (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000). A branding architecture consists out of different levels, with the corporate brand in the top and the sub brands in the bottom. The brand architecture can be viewed according to five dimensions (Aaker & Joachimstahler, 2000). The brand portfolio (the number of brands) portfolio roles, the relationship between different brands in the portfolio, product market roles (structure for a specific market), portfolio structure (brand range) and portfolio graphics (color and size of logo).
Keller (2002) therefore describes a four level brand hierarchy consisting out of: 1) the corporate brand, 2) family brands, 3) individual brands and 4) modifiers. Family brands are covering several product categories but cannot be seen as the corporate brand.
Individual brands are brands that are restricted to one product class and modifiers modify a brand structure for a market segment.
Several branding strategies can be used to structure a brands portfolio. The branding relationship spectrum of Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) describes the
strategies that can be used based on the driver role of the brands. The four main strategies are: 1) a house of brands, 2) endorsed brands, 3) sub brands and 4) a branded house. In the house of brands strategy all brands operate individually and are in the eyes of the consumer not linked to the corporate brand. In this strategy the individual brands fulfil the driver role. The individual brands are the main reason the consumer purchases or uses the product and/or service.
The endorsed brands strategy still has a focus on brands that operate individually. However, these individual brands are endorsed by the corporate brand. Meaning that there is a visible link between the corporate and individual brands. However, the driver role is still with the individual brands since the link is not very obviously.
In the sub brand strategy, the driver role is with the individual brand as well as with the corporate brand. In this branding strategy individual (sub) brands are strongly linked to the corporate brands.
The last branding strategy that Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) mention is the branded house strategy. The driver role moved from the individual brand (in house of brands) towards the corporate brand. The corporate brand is the umbrella of all individual brands and is strongly linked to all individual brands.
2.5 Brand architecture of the Dutch broadcasting brands
The brand architecture of broadcasting brands in the Netherlands is extensive: consisting out of multiple brand levels. Five brand levels can be identified. A brand hierarchy will be portrayed for a Dutch public broadcaster: BNN in order to show the branding strategy that is used by presenting the brand elements in an explicit order (from the top to the bottom). But first the different brand levels will be explained.
2.5.1 Corporate brand
The corporate brand in the Dutch public broadcasting industry is the NPO (Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep). The NPO is responsible for the cohesion between the national broadcasting networks but also for the content of the media supply, the
distribution of the total media budget and for more practical issues such as: managing the distribution, carrying out research on the brand image and quality of radio, television and the internet and helping the broadcasting networks with subtitling and purchasing and selling programs (Rijksoverheid, n.dc).
2.5.2 Broadcasting channels
The next brand level are the public broadcasting channels: Nederland 1, Nederland 2 and Nederland 3. Nederland 1 is profiled as a general network for everyone. Nederland 2 is more focused on providing critical and more in-depth content focused on education and culture. Finally, Nederland 3 is profiled as the channel for music and fiction and at the same this channel is addressing a younger audience (Rijksoverheid, 2014). Since August 2014 the NPO rebranded the channels in NPO1, NPO2 and NPO3 (Branding Source, 2014).
2.5.3 Broadcasting networks
The broadcasting time on the three broadcasting channels is divided over the different broadcasting networks. As a result of the cuts in the media budget the Dutch government introduced the 3-3-2 model: three merging broadcasting networks, three independent broadcasting networks and 2 task-networks (Rijksoverheid, n.db). All the broadcasting
networks still belong to the corporate brand NPO (NPO, n.d).
The following broadcasting networks were forced to merge: KRO (Catholic) with NCRV (Protestant), VARA (social democratic) with BNN (youth) and TROS
(general/amusement) with AVRO (general) (Rijksoverheid, n.dd).
From the three merging broadcasting networks first the brands AVRO and TROS merged in AVROTROS on brand level (“Fusieomroep AvroTros krijgt…”, 2013). They developed a shared identity in terms of the logo and a shared website. Followed by
separate websites for both brands exist. BNNVARA did not merge on brand level they merged as organizations but they kept their own brands (BNN, n.d). VARA and BNN did not create a shared identity (yet). The broadcasting networks EO (reformed), MAX (50+) and VPRO (socially critical) are the three independent broadcasting networks. The two-task networks are NOS (news and sport) and NTR (minorities, art, culture and education).
2.5.4 Programs
The goods that broadcasting networks ‘sell’ are the programs that they produce and
broadcast. As mentioned earlier each broadcasting network aims to reach a different target audience or has another mission. To reach the target audience and/or to fulfil their mission broadcasting networks each broadcast different kind of programs. The public broadcasting network NOS is for example responsible to provide programs that are related to the news, sports or events (NOS, n.d). On the other hand the public broadcasting network BNN provides programs that interest younger people since they aim to reach a younger audience (“BNN Merkboek”, n.d). On the contrary, broadcasting network MAX
broadcasts programs that elderly people like since they aim to reach older people (Omroep MAX, n.d).
2.5.5 Presenters
According to Uggla (2006) people may not literally be brands themselves but they can definitely possess brand equity. Persons can generate strong brand associations and brand recognition. In some cases persons are really strong related to a brand and thus very important. Persons can then fulfil the driver role and become a individual and/or subbrand in the brand hierarchy of the brand (Uggla, 2006). In the broadcasting industry there are also people that could be closely linked to the brands: the presenters.
2.5.6 Example brand hierarchy
On the next page in figure 2 the example of the brand hierarchy of BNN and one of the programs can be seen. First in the brand hierarchy is the corporate brand which is NPO. Followed by the broadcasting channel: Nederland 3 (nowadays, NPO3). BNN is the broadcasting network and thus the third brand in the brand hierarchy. The program that is chosen for this example is ‘Je zal het maar hebben’ and is thus the next brand. Finally the
last brand in this example is Valerio Zeno. Valerio Zeno is the presenter of this program.
Figure 2. Brand hierarchy of one of the programs of broadcasting network BNN ....
Broadcasting network–BNN Channel – Nederland 3
Presenter – Valerio Zeno
.…
…
Programs - JZMH
.... Corporate brand - NPO
Chapter 3. Brand alliances and consumer responses
Due to the cuts in the media budget for public broadcasting, different public broadcasting networks had to merge. The question remains what the influence of these brand mergers is on the perceptions of consumers. In this chapter the literature on the effects of brand alliances and the effects of different levels of perceived fit on the brand perceptions of consumers will be extensively discussed.
3.1 Image transfer
Brands can be linked to other entities to leverage secondary brand associations. Brands can be linked to other knowledge structures in the mind of consumers (Keller, 1993). In that case the brand can leverages some brand associations of the other entity and can maybe even leverages the brand equity of the other entity. The brand can be linked to entities such as other brands, countries of origin, spokespersons, channels of distribution or even other organizations (Keller, 2013, p.261). In the case of linking brands, the brand image can then be transferred from one brand to another. The transfer of brand image is considered as the process in which associations from one entity become associated with another entity in the mind of consumers (Keller, 2003). How image transfer works will be explained in the next paragraphs.
3.2 Brand alliances
One of the sources for leveraging secondary brand associations are brand alliances. Brand alliances are all the short and long term combinations between individual products, brands and/or other assets (Rao & Ruckert, 1994). A brand alliance includes brands that are perceived by consumers as linked or jointly branded. Multiple brands are integrated and are presented together to the consumer (Rao & Ruckert, 1994).
There are different types of brand alliances. According to Simonin and Ruth (1998) products or brands can be combined and be presented to the consumer physically or symbolically. Physically in for example visual objects, such as bundled packaging. Or more symbolically by associating brand names or logos in marketing communication efforts. These brand combinations can vary in many forms (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). Owen James (2006) also classifies brand alliances according to the form they take. According to Owen James (2006) there is a distinction between physical and symbolic
alliances. Physical alliances are related to the outcome product. Examples of physical alliances are: ingredient branding, composite brand extension, bundled products and product combinations where two brands are combined to produce a new product. A symbolic alliance on the other hand, refers to an effort that adds meaning to consumers by transferring images of the brands and the related brand associations. Examples are: joint advertising, co-packaging, joint-sales promotion and celebrity endorsement (Owen James, 2006).
3.3 The influence of brand alliances on consumer perceptions
Linking a brand to another brand from the same or a different company may result in a new set of associations. Besides, the combination of brands may also affect existing associations (Keller, 2013, p.261). To transfer positive brand associations from one brand to another brand, marketers use brand alliances. Brand alliances offer possibilities to stimulate the transfer of brand associations (Washburn, Till & Priluck, 2000).
When a brand is linked to another brand, the consumers must have some brand knowledge about the brands that are involved. Additionally, the brand alliance will be most successful when the consumers hold some strong, favorable and unique associations about the brands that will be combined. Besides, both brands should generate positive consumer judgments and feelings (Keller, 2013, p.271).
A combination of brands results in new associations transferring from one brand to the other (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994) or to the brand alliance itself (Rao & Ruekert, 1994). Certain associations can be owned by the brand. If some associations are very strong and typical for a brand it can be hard to leverage it to a new product category
(James, 2005). It is therefore important to ensure the right kind of fit in values, capabilities and goals between the involved brands (Keller, 2013, p. 272) and to take the associations that both brands currently hold in consideration (James, 2005).
The theories on brand extensions can explain why and when brand alliances are evaluated in a positive way. When there is a perceived fit between the brands than a positive spillover effect can take place because positive associations will be transferred (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). This can result in a change of the original brand attitude (Simonin & Ruth, 1998).
consumers. Instead, brand alliances can cause serious confusion, lost focus on target groups and brand image losses for both brands (Uggla & Åsberg, 2010). Brand alliances can result in brand dilution and it could lead to negative reciprocity effects (Park,
McCarthy & Milberg, 1993). A negative reciprocity effect takes place when attitudes towards the involved brands are negatively changed due to the fact that the brand is
combined or extended (Park, McCarthy & Milberg, 1993). A negative reciprocity effect is thus diluting original brand attitudes and beliefs due to the fact that the brand is combined. Furthermore, there is also the risk of losing control over the brand associations and that the brands that are combined become generic. Meaning that one of the brands can be overshadowed by the other one (Uggla & Åsberg, 2010).
Uggla & Åsberg (2010) further mention that on first sight there may be a brand fit between the involved brands in the positioning process, but the attitudes and values of the brands that will form an alliance can differ so much from each other that this could cause friction .
To understand how attitudes and evaluations about the brand alliances are formed, the categorization theory, the schema theory and the congruity theory will be explained in the next paragraphs.
3.4 Categorization theory
The categorization theory states that people do not deliberately and individually evaluate each new object to which they are exposed (Keller, 2003, p.459). Instead, the
categorization theory describes that objects will be classified at varying levels of specificity (Sujan & Dekleva, 1987). The classes in which objects can be placed range from super ordinate or product class categories (in this case ‘broadcasters’), to more product type categories (such as ‘religious broadcasters) to specific brand level categories (such as ‘Evangelische Omroep’) (Sujan & Dekleva, 1987).
Categorical knowledge of brands and/or products influence the evaluation of the new objects by consumers (Keller, 2013, p.459). Consumers categorize this new
information because they have to structure, simplify and interpret their marketing environment (Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989 as cited in Keller, 2013, p.459). The categorization process explains how (new) information is understood and how it is interpret by consumers (Cohen & Lefebvre, 2005).
According to Park, Milberg and Lawson (1991) consumers judge new products in line with the categorization process. Consumers evaluate the new product and/or brand according to the suitability of its membership in a specific category. Consumers reactions to brand extensions thus appear to involve a categorization process (Park, Milberg & Lawson, 1991). Consumers categorize, label and store the brand associations based on previous experiences and knowledge with the brand or the category that the brand belongs in. Categories are developed through experiences and these experiences lead to a set of expectations that are related to that category (Lee, 1995). Simultaneously, they also develop an affective reaction towards the category to which an object belongs (Lee, 1995). Category members (such as the brands or products) are then also linked to these expectations and feelings that belong to that category (product category). The
categorization process does not only explain how information is processed but it also seems to be related to the involvement and preferences of consumers (Nedungadi & Hutchinson, 1985).
According to the categorization theory, consumers evaluate an object sometimes based on the feelings that are associated with the category (category-based processing) or based on individual attributes of the object (Lee, 1995). The latter is called piecemeal processing (Lee, 1995). By piecemeal processing the beliefs about the brand attributes and their importance are the key determinant for the evaluation of the object. The consumers’ evaluation is in that case based on putting together different pieces of separate
information. By category-based processing on the other hand, consumers base their evaluations on the feelings that are associated with the category to which the object belongs (Lee, 1995).
When there is a perceived “fit“ between the involved brands, the beliefs and affects that are associated with the brand category may transfer to the brand combination
(Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989). With category-based processing, consumers will then transfer perceptions of the brand category to the new brand combination (Aaker and Keller, 1990). Additionally, these brand associations could then influence the brand evaluations (Sujan, 1985). However, when there is no fit between the brands and the brand category more elaboration will take place by using piecemeal processing (Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989).
3.5 Schema theory
The associative network theory defines the memory as a cognitive structure that consists out of nodes that are interconnected by links (Anderson, 1983). The spreading activation process refers to the fact that one certain set of nodes can cause that someone thinks about another set of nodes (Anderson, 1983). When two sets of nodes are closely linked in the mind of consumers it is more likely that spreading activation will take place. One set of nodes will then activate the other set of nodes and image transfer can take place from one brand to the other and vice versa (de Groot, 1989). The image transfer process and the importance of fit can be thus ne explained by using the associative network theory: when two objects have a lot in common more links are established between these two nodes and the nodes are closer to each other in the mind of consumers (Collins & Loftus, 1975). The similarity between the two nodes thus influences the potential transfer of brand
associations. There is a greater potential for the transfer of brand associations when sets of nodes are closely linked (Fazio, 1989).
Schema theory is based on the associative network theory and also explains why similarity between the nodes is so important for image transfer. Schema theory is founded on the belief that the memory of people is a mix of explicit memories and general
abstractions about types of people, activities, events places and other objects (Bartlett, 1932 as cited in Gwinner and Eaton, 1999). The memory is not only based on past concrete experiences but on knowledge related to the general type of situations, persons, activities, events places or/and objects. These general types of associations are called schema’s. A schema is used to interpret the complex world. A schema can be described as a cognitive structure that consists out of all the knowledge of a stimulus (Barlett, 1932 as cited in Gwinner and Eaton, 1999). When information is presented that is incongruent with the current brand schema, the information will be filtered out and will not be encoded as congruent (Misra & Beatty, 1990). On the other hand, when presented with information that is congruent with current brand schemas the information will be more effectively encoded and will provide more meaning (Misra & Beatty, 1990). That incongruent information will be filtered out can be explained by the filtering model that Misra and Beatty (1990) describe. The filtering model determines which information will be encoded by structuring the information in an effective way (Taylor & Crocker, 1981as cited in
Misra & Beatty, 1990).
Schema theory argues that the level of similarity between the information about an object and the existing scheme of an object or related object will influence the transfer of brand associations (Fiske, 1982). When there is a fit, the image transfer will be more likely (Crocker, Fiske & Taylor, 1984 as cited in Gwinner and Eaton,1999). In terms of brand alliances: the potential that existing brand associations of the involved brands will be enhanced is greater when there is a perceived fit (Milberg, Park & McCarthy, 1997). When there is no fit, it is argued that there will be a change in existing brand associations (Weber & Crocker, 1983) since it does not fit with the existing ‘stereotype’ brand schema. However, when consumers are presented with information that is incongruent with the current schema, they rather make sure that the information will be distorted in order to ensure that the current schema does not have to be adjusted (Crocker, Fiske & Taylor, 1984 in Gwinner and Eaton, 1999) The similarity and dissimilarity between brands or in other words perceived fit, is therefore an important factor when it comes to brand image transfer. Simultaneously, perceived fit is also important for positive brand evaluations. The importance of perceived fit will be further examined in the next paragraphs.
3.6 Congruity theory
As mentioned perceived fit is also important for a positive brand evaluation. The lack of fit can influence consumers’ evaluation of the brand alliance and this can be explained with the congruity theory. People seek to maintain and establish consistency among cognitive elements (Kamins & Gupta, 1994). The congruity theory describes that people like to avoid pressure and seek harmony when they make decisions (Osgood &
Tannabaum, 1955). Research shows that the level of congruity between products and their associated product category schemas influence the evaluations of consumers (Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989). If incongruity or imbalance exists on either product level or brand image level, consumers will seek to resolve the imbalance, and attitude change is one way to achieve a balance state again (Osgood & Tannebaum, 1955).
3.7 Perceived level of fit
There are different dimensions of fit. Aaker and Keller (1990) make a distinction between three measurements of fit. The first one is ‘complement’. Complementarity refers to the
extent in which consumers’ think that both products can be consumed together while serving the same need. The second one is ‘substitutability’. This refers to the extent in which a product can replace the other. The last one is ‘transfer’. Transfer is related to the skills that are needed to manufacture the product. There is a high fit on ‘transfer’ when consumers’ think that the firm is able to make products in the other product class. (Aaker & Keller, 1990).
Perceived level of fit is often measured as the notion of perceived similarity among products or product classes but fit does not have to be based on product feature similarity only (Park, Milberg & Lawson, 1991). Park et al., (1991) state that brands can also have a fit based on “brand concept consistency“ or in other words more abstract associations. Brand concept consistency is described as the similarity of the brand concepts of the two brands, in this case between the involved brands in a brand alliance. It is about the similarities between more abstract meanings and associations (Park et al., 1991). Park et al., (1991) concluded that brand concept consistency and product feature similarity moderate the evaluation of extension products. According to Keller (2013, p.460) any association about the brands that consumers hold in memory may serve as a potential basis for fit. To sum up, there are two clear identified types of fit ‘product feature
similarity’ which is about product- related associations and ‘brand concept consistency’, which is about non-product related associations. Brand fit refers to how congruent two brands or a brand and a category are in the mind of the consumer (Uggla, 2004). Both types of fit are very important (Park, Milberg & Lawson, 1991). There are several authors who have concluded that fit is an important factor that influences the evaluations of brand combinations. Simonin and Ruth (1998) conclude that favorable co-branding evaluations can be achieved by ensuring that there is a fit between the product categories (PFS) but also when there is a fit based on brand concept consistency (BCC). Simultaneously, Venkatesh and Mahajan (1997) conclude that incongruity between objects that are combined may result in consumers switching away from the brand to competitors. Eventually this is harmful for the brand images of both brands. Also Aaker and Keller (1990) have looked at the fit between product classes and have examined how consumers form attitudes towards brand extensions. The attitude toward the extension was more positive when there was a fit between the product classes. More importantly, Aaker and Keller (1990) conclude that a poor fit could distort the transfer of positive brand
associations but also that it could result in unwanted associations and beliefs. More recent research on fit showed that when brand associations are positive for the individual
brands, this can change when an alliance is formed (James, 2005). Brand alliances that resulted in an unfavorable evaluation generated brand associations that were often linked to attributes of the original product category. On the other hand, the brand associations of brand alliances that generated a positive evaluation were linked to the fit between the involved brands (James, 2005).
The basis for fit that is chosen for this study is based on brand concept consistency. It is argued that the broadcasting networks that have to merge all have a fit on product feature similarity. The broadcasters make programs for television. However, it could be argued that they do differ in terms of brand concept consistency.
3.8 Different types of brand concept consistency
As discussed above, the level of perceived fit based on product feature similarity (PFS) but also based on brand concept consistency (BCC) has an influence on the evaluation of brand combinations and on the image transfer process. However, not only the level of fit seems to be important to take into consideration. There are some possible moderators that could have influence on how different brand alliances with different levels of fit are evaluated (Kim & John, 2008). It is even argued that researchers neglected the moderating factors that could have an influence (Kim & John, 2008). Previous research that tried to fill up this gap focused on the different types of consumers and how these individual differences could influence the evaluation and the importance of a perceived fit (Kim & John, 2008). Research shows that it matters how people construe their environments. Consumers who are more focused on abstract and generalized features evaluate high fit extensions far more positively than moderate fit extensions. However, consumers who are more focused on concrete and contextualized features evaluate moderate fit extensions as positive as high fit extensions (Kim & John, 2008).
Zhang and Sood (2002) also conducted a research on the evaluations of brand extensions and the difference between using ‘deep’ and ‘surface’ cues. Zhang and Sood (2002) argued that the age of people plays an important role in how they evaluate and perceive a fit. The result show that children rely more on surface cues (such as similarities between the names or logos) while older people tend to rely on more deep cues (assessing
extension.
Children also evaluated the extensions based on ‘surface’ cues more favorable than extensions where no ‘surface’ cues where present (Zhang & Sood, 2002). The study of Zhang and Sood (2002) shows a different approach on perceived fit. The focus is not on the level of fit but on different types of cues where a fit can be based on. More
importantly, this research sheds a light on that different cues that are used to evaluate an extension apparently have a different influence on brand evaluations. It seems like not only similarity/dissimilarity is used to categorize the brand alliance but also the features on which the brands are similar/dissimilar seems to have an influence on the positivity of the evaluation.
The results of Zhang and Sood (2002) and the gap addressed by Kim and John (2008) form the fundament for the assumption that consumers may define different types of misfit/fit between brand alliances (based on deep or surface cues) which may result in different brand evaluations.
In the Dutch broadcasting industry there are brands that are founded on more ‘deep’ underlying features such as religion or political views. An example is KRO which is founded on catholic beliefs (KRO, n.d) or VARA which is a left-oriented broadcasting network (VARA, n.d). These broadcasting networks are founded based on pillars (Dekker & Ester, 1996). The Dutch broadcasting industry also has brands that are founded on more ‘surface’ features such as the target audience they want to reach or the content that they provide. Examples of brands in Dutch broadcasting that are founded on more ‘surface’ features are BNN who tries to reach the young audience (BNN, n.d) and the opposite broadcasting network MAX who tries to reach the older audience (Omroep MAX, n.d), NOS that has the task to provide the news (NOS, n.d) and TROS that is pure focused on amusement (AvroTros, n.d). It is yet unknown if different types of fit in terms of ‘deep’ and ‘surface’ features have a different influence on the brand evaluations.
