The difference in brand image for different types of brands measured by the free-association method and the BCM method

(1)

The difference in brand image for different types of brands

measured by the free-association method and the BCM

method.

Master thesis (Msc. in Business studies) Faculty of Economics & Business

Student: Jurre C. Witte Student number: 10668519

First supervisor: Drs. Jorge Labadie MBM Second supervisor: Drs. Roger Pruppers Date: 1/08/2014

(2)

(3)

(4)

Preface

(5)

Every contact of a brand with a consumer creates associations and those associations together will form the brand image. This paper will give an insight in brand associations, brand image and the methods of measuring brand image. This study seeks to fill the gap in the current literature concerning the question how the brand image of different types of brands differs from each other. In this study we will focus on what comes to mind when a consumer thinks about the brand, in other words; the brand image. In order for the differences to manifest as clear as possible we have researched two brand type pairs that are opposites from each other. We found four brand types: Heritage, Clean-‐Slate, Function-‐ oriented and Status brands. The Status and Function-‐oriented brands are typical symbolic versus functional brands. The Heritage brand is a more often researched type of brand and the opposite type of brand that is just established, the Clean-‐Slate brand, is a new trend within branding and marketing. Another interesting pair is based on a strategic difference, with a focus on price and being cheap the Cheap brand type is different from the Function-‐oriented brand type. The relevance is shown in the present shift towards private labels and cheaper products. Two methods are used to measure the brand image, an informed method and an uninformed method. First, the brand concept management method asks several probed, informed, questions to measure the symbolic and the functional score. We found that symbolic and functional BCM score differ per brand and the relation between the brand types are described and found with help of this study. The first brand type pair we have researched resulted in a higher symbolic and a lower functional score for Status brands compared to Function-‐oriented brands. Heritage and Clean-‐slate brands have the same scores on BCM, Function-‐oriented brands have higher score on functionality with the BCM method compared to Cheap brands. Secondly, the free-‐association method is uninformed and asks for the respondent’s association with the brand name. The different associations can be categorized and compared per brand type. Brand building associations are proportionally higher in Heritage brands than in brands that are just established, the Clean-‐Slate brands. We also see that functional

(6)

associations are higher in proportion in Clean-‐Slate brands. In Function-‐oriented brands we see that a larger proportion of the associations are functional compared to Cheap brands, interesting is that we did not prove that the functional associations are of higher proportion in Function-‐oriented brands than in Status brands. In this comparison we also found that the “product”, “non-‐ product”, “attitude” and “brand building” associations did not differ in proportion. We did not find a strong relation between BCM score and the proportion of the symbolic and functional associations given when the brand name functioned as a cue.

KEYWORDS: Branding, Brand Concept Management, Free-‐associations, associations,

brand knowledge framework, Heritage brand, Cheap brands, Clean-‐Slate brands, function-‐oriented brands, status brands.

(7)

(8)

Abbreviations

BCM: Brand Concept Management

CBBE: Consumer based brand equity (also known as the brand knowledge framework)

FA: Free-‐association

HAM: Human associative memory

IBRA: Inventory of Brand Representation Attributes LSD: Least Significant Difference (test)

POD: Point-‐of-‐difference POP: Point-‐of-‐parity

(12)

1. Introduction:

1.1. General introduction

"You can create a business, choose a name, but unless people know about it you're not going to sell any products." -‐ Richard Brandson

For owners of a Ferrari, their car is not just a mean of transportation, it is an experience, an attitude, a lifestyle, and a product to express whom one is. In your mind’s eye you will probably associate the Ferrari with symbolic aspects instead of “being reliable”. Can we expect that a Skoda car owner, on the other hand, is having his car for more functional reasons; it is a mean to transport, it is reliable and it is spacious? Compared to the Ferrari owner, does the Skoda owner view his car less as a symbol for his lifestyle or a product to express himself? How will Ferrari’s brand image, by being a Status brand, differ from the Function-‐oriented brand Skoda? How does the brand image differ between different types of brands?

Today more and more attention is paid to brands and related branding. Brands can influence purchase intention but also the amount consumers are willing to pay, the profit of the organization and it gives an opportunity to form a competitive advantage (Esch, Langner, Schmitt, & Geus, 2006; Haveman and Labadie, 2003; Simon and Sullivan 1993; Ha, 2004.). Due to these reasons, it became one of the top priorities of both the academics and managers and unsurprisingly led to a huge growth of academic research. In today’s fast and dynamic times we see that branding is about surpassing expectations and the translation towards behaviour and customer experience. Researching how we can optimize branding decisions and optimize the positioning of the brand is of high interest to both academics and managers. The process of manipulating the perceptions by focusing on the attributes, the benefits or the images, which shows the differentiation, is called positioning (Sheinin, 1998l Sujan and Bettman, 1989). Brands exist in consumer’s minds and brand knowledge – and correspondently brand image -‐ is

(13)

continuously updated by marketing communications and personal experience (Keller, 1993). The positioning of the brand is not necessarily what you do with a product as a manager, but how you are positioned in the consumer’s mind.

1.2. Specific introduction

In this paper we will investigate how the brand image differs between different types of brands by means of two different schools that are extremes, in measuring the brand image. The first is Bhat & Reddy (1998) whom suggest, in their brand concept management (BCM) framework, a measurement to research brands on a symbolic and a functional score. It takes an outside-‐in view and takes informed, probed associations. In the brand knowledge framework of Keller (1993), a free-‐association (FA) method can be used to test elicited associations that can be valued on strength taking an inside-‐out view; the consumer is asked to freely mention associations that come to mind without informing or biasing them.

We have looked in our research to four brand types that are of high importance these days. We also looked for brands that would be able to form pairs that are the most contrary types to find clear differences. Two authors proposed a classification between symbolic and functional values of a brand (Park, et al. 1986; Keller, 1993) in which the functional value relates to a person's need to favourably manage one's physical environment, enabling the utilitarian motives to be satisfied. In turn, the symbolic value relates to a person's need to favourably manage one's social and psychological environment. The symbolic and functional distinction is seen in both the BCM (Park, et all, 1986) and the brand knowledge framework (Keller, 1993). This first distinction looks into the difference of this distinction. Status brands, that could be classified as a symbolic brands, versus brands that are more focused on functional performances, the Function-‐oriented brand. The second distinction delves deeper into brands that are focused on heritage and brands that are just established and can be called “Clean-‐Slate brands”. In this time of economic downturn Heritage brands are seen as reliable since they offer existential anchors that are valuable in times of uncertainty (Rapport, 2002). On the other hand, the new established Clean-‐Slate brands are also seen as valuable. By not having the burden of heritage and based on the new trend of “Newism”, the Clean-‐ Slate brand is seen as newer, faster, more exiting, cleaner, more transparent and interactive (Trendwatchin.com, 2013). This potentially gives the opposite brand type of

(14)

Heritage brands the opportunity to perform well in this recession. The trend of private labels that are copying premium brands and are focussed on being cheap, led to the third distinction. We have seen the pair of Status and Function-‐oriented brands but we assume another distinction from Function-‐oriented brands as well. Cheap brands are brands that are narrow focussed on price and in particular in being cheap. What difference does the narrow focus on being cheap of the Cheap brands create in the corresponding brand image compared to Function-‐oriented brands?

Bhat and Reddy (1998) suggested a measurement to determine the brand image on two pillars: functionalism and symbolism. The measurement consists of a survey of several questions that were shown to be very effective. It concludes with the suggestion that a higher score on functionalism than on symbolism will result in a functional brand and vice versa. The BCM framework originally (Park et al., 1986) suggest that a brand concept needs to, and is, only serving functional or symbolic needs, the more recent research of Bhat and Reddy (1998) refute this with scores on both need fulfilment values and suggest that consumers can associate brands with different need fulfilments and so promoting brands to use more than one concept in their tactics. Examples of brands seen as symbolic by the BCM also eliciting functional strengths suggest that measuring only on symbolism and functionalism is not sufficient. Apple iPhone with ease-‐of-‐use and social status, RayBan with good quality lenses and social status and Dubarry boots with durable quality and social status do all have functional and symbolic values, raises the question how those symbolic brands differ from functional brands in consumer’s mind. We therefor will also investigate the introduced brand types with another measurement of brand image, the free association method (Keller, 2003).

1.3. Problem definition

1.3.1. Problem statement

The authors Chrisodoulide and de Chertanony, Alba et al. (1991) define associations as core to decision making. Consumers use them to “help process, organize and retrieve information in memory and to aid them in their purchase decisions” (Low and Lamb, 2000, p. 351). Influencing the brand associations is an important strategic task (Barich and Kotler 1991; Fombrun 1996), which is also the reason that marketers put a lot of effort and large sums of money each year on corporate marketing tools such

(15)

as advertising, corporate philanthropy, sponsorships and cause-‐related marketing to influence the brand image (the Conference Board 1994; Kinnear and Root 1995; Schumann, Hathcote, and West 1991; Smith and Stodghill 1994). Not much is known about the difference in associations between different types of brands. Furthermore, in our knowledge it has not been researched whether the BCM method and the free-‐ association method are related to each other. This paper strives to fill these gaps in the existing knowledge. Before any research can be done concerning the image of different types of brands we have to examine what brand image is exactly. Secondly we have to explain why the five chosen brands are of interest in our study. Thirdly we will investigate two methods to measure brand image, the informed method of BCM and the uniformed method of free-‐association. This thesis will concern itself with exploratory and explanatory research regarding differences in brand image between brands. This leads to the following research questions:

What is the difference in brand image between different types of brands, measured by the BCM and the FA method?

1.3.2. Sub-‐questions

In order to find an answer on this research question we first have to answer several questions related to existing knowledge. We will start by defining brand image. Furthermore we have to elaborate on the importance of the chosen brand types. A third sub-‐question we have to look into concerns the methods of measuring brand image.

• What is brand image?

• Why did we choose for these particular brand types? • How can brand image be measured?

In the literature review in chapters two and three, this thesis will review what has been researched and written about these questions in the endeavour to answer these questions and to be able to answer the main research question.

(16)

1.3.3. Delimitations of the study

The focus of the study on associations leaves the part of brand awareness out of scope for the part of brand recall. Respondents are asked to associate with the brand which already mean that they are recognizing the brand if they answer it with relevant associations. The evaluation of brand associations can differ per situation and may depend on the context. It depends on the consumer’s particular goal in the purchase intention or buying decision (Day, Shocker and Srivastave, 1979). In our thesis we have not included the influence of the association on purchase intention, therefor our research will result in the brand image that is formed in respondent’s their minds but does not give value to how these associations will influence decision making.

1.4. Contribution

1.4.1. Theoretical contribution

The current scientific knowledge has not researched the difference in brand image between different brand types. This paper will try to fill this gap in the literature. It will make a theoretical contribution in exploring the differences between different brand types. Furthermore it will try to give more understanding about the relation between the two methods of measuring brand image, the BCM and the free-‐association method. Lastly it can serve as a starting point for further research into the specific brand types and the correlated brand image.

1.4.2. Managerial contributions

While this thesis is rooted in theory, the results could be beneficial for mangers. This research could help managers acquire a better understanding of the position of their brand in the eyes of the consumer by identifying the differences in brand image between differ brand types. Secondly, the results may give an insight in the differences between brand types in general. It will explore the value in the eyes of the consumer for the different types. Moreover, it will help them to make decisions in marketing activities; which associations are elicited most and which parts of the brand image is different from other types? Lastly, our research will focus on both informed and uninformed

(17)

associational differences and is therefor possible to analyse the relation between the methods.

1.5. Structure/outline

In the next chapter we will elaborate further on brand image explained as part of consumer based brand equity (Keller, 1993) and on BCM (Park et al, 1986). In this study we are interested in how brands are perceived in consumers’ minds. In the third chapter we will discuss the chosen brand types and the corresponding literature and trends. In the last literature chapter we will delve deeper into the two methods we use to measure the brand image.

(18)

2. Brand image

Arslan and Altuna (2010) define brand image as the positive and negative feelings of consumers, about the brand that comes to mind spontaneously or when they are recalling their memories. They agreed from other authors (e.g. Keller, 1993; 2003; Kim, Kim, & An, 2003; Krishnan, 1996) that three aspects of relevance exist, namely: favourability, strength and distinctiveness. Meenaghan (1995) says that the brand image is the sum of attitudes of the consumer about the brand that helps the consumer to find it and make the product different from others. Lee, Lee and Wu (2011) explain brand image as the overall belief and mind reflections about a specific brand considering unique qualities, which helps to differentiate the product. All the previous definitions correspond with the widely accepted definition of Keller (p. 3, 1993) of “perceptions about the brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumers memory” which is used in this thesis. In other words; everything what comes to mind when a consumer thinks about the brand.

In this chapter we will explain the two theories about how to manage brand image. First, the BCM framework (Part et al., 1986) that proposes that every brand image should be based on a brand-‐specific abstract meaning or “brand concept”. Thereafter the brand knowledge framework (Keller, 1993) is explained, which focuses on managing the different associations in consumer’s mind. Before we can delve deeper we should first investigate branding in general. We will first look at the definition of branding.

2.1. Brands

The different terminology of branding in the literature does slightly differ. One definition widely used for a brand is “a name, term, sign, symbol or design or a combination of them which tended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors” (Kotler, 1991; p. 442 as found in Keller, 1993). This definition looks more at the importance of brands from the company perspective but brand equity is equally important for consumers. It enhances their interpretation/processing of information, increases confidence in the purchase decision and produces greater satisfaction in use (Aaker, 1996). Keller (1993,

(19)

p.2) introduces consumer based brand equity (CBBE) defined as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand”. The value created in consumers’ minds led by the company its investment in previous marketing programs. Keller (1993) even says it is the most valuable asset for improving marketing productivity. Although several academics have slightly varying definitions, in this study a brand is seen as “a mean of identifying goods and services and differentiating them from those of the competition”. There is academic acceptance for this definition and it has managerial relevance (Franzen and Bouwman, 1999; Keller, 1993). This definition also explains that brands primarily exist in consumers’ minds.

2.2. Brand knowledge framework

Keller (1993) developed a model to help marketers to position a brand, the Customer Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model. In his work in 2007 he stated: ‘The positioning of a brand determines what the marketers of that brand would like consumers to know about the brand as opposed to what they might currently know” (Keller, 2007, chapter 2.7). The CBBE, also known as the brand knowledge framework, by Keller (1993) consist of brand knowledge that is stored in the mind of consumers. The brand resonance model (Kotler and Keller, 2009 as found in Keller, 2009) introduces a pyramid with 4 layers of CBBE. The bottom layer is the salience, it is the deep broad brand awareness. The second layer consists out of performance and imagery and we go from awareness to associations. Giving the answer on -‐ who are we? – and the third layer is the response layer -‐ what about you? – that consists out of attitudes. The last, the top layer of the pyramid is about relationship. This is where true loyalty is created.

(20)

Fig. 1: The pyramid from the brand resonance model (from Kotler and Keller, 2009)

2.2.2. Brand associations

The concept of brand associations has first been discussed by Anderson (1983) in his “architecture of cognition” theory, which was a complex, comprehensive model of memory. The “nodes” represent concepts stored in the consumers’ long-‐term memory. The varying linking strength of the interconnected nodes depends on the proximity of the concepts to which they refer. A brand association is a node linked to a particular brand. According to Keller (1993; pp. 3), brand associations form the consumers’ image of this brand: “brand image is defined as perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory”. Aaker (1990, p. 109-‐110) defined brand associations shortly by “anything linked in memory to a brand”. Later the same author proposed a comparable but more specific (1991, p. 15) definition of brand associations: “A set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol, that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and or to that firm’s customers”. Chrisodoulide and de Chertanony (2010) conclude in their article that most of the conceptual studies about consumer based brand equity identify brand

(21)

associations as a core component of consumer based brand equity. Current CBBE research uses human associative memory (HAM) theory derived from cognitive psychology to conceptualize the process of forming and the operating of brand associations (Anderson and Bower, 1973; Wyer and Srull, 1989). This HAM – theory assumes that brand knowledge is stored in consumers’ minds as interconnected nodes which are linked together forming associative network of brands (Anderson, 1983; Teichert and Schontag, 2010). In this context, this network of brand associations constitutes the brand image and represents the perceived value of the brand in the eye of consumers because it enhances their interpretation of and the ability to process the information, a positive brand image increases brand confidence and even creates greater satisfaction in using the product (Aaker, 1996).

2.2.3. The evaluation of associations

Keller (1993) divides brand knowledge in brand awareness, which consists of brand recognition and brand recall, and brand image, which constitute all brand associations. This brand image consists of all feelings, ideas, beliefs and thoughts regarding the brand held in consumers’ minds (Kotler and Keller, 2009), the associations. Keller (1993) proposed a typology based on benefits, the need fulfilment of the associations. The (1) symbolic and (2) functional associations are spoken about the most. The symbolic associations are the more extrinsic advantages and correspond with non-‐product related attributes. These associations refer to “underlying needs for social approval or personal expression and outer directed self-‐esteem” (p. 4). Caused by how it is related to their own self-‐concept, they may value exclusivity, prestige and fashionability (Solomon, 1983). Functional associations are more intrinsic advantages, these physiological and safety needs involve more a desire for avoidance and problem removal and usually relate with product-‐related attributes (Keller, 1993).

(22)

Fig. 2: Dimensions of brand knowledge of Keller (1993).

Timmerman (2001) suggested more in detail, that in order to create consumer brand equity, first the image of the brand in a consumer’s mind has to be figured out. He therefor captured all associations in ten different groups based on their attributes, the Inventory of Brand Representation (IBRA) classification. Timmerman’s IBRA-‐ classification is also usable for coding the brand evaluative responses, such as associations in consumers mind. This thesis continues working with a combination of the brand knowledge framework and the brand resonance pyramid (Kotler & Keller, 2009; Keller, 1993, 2007) and Timmerman’s IBRA-‐classification, which we will explain further in paragraph 2.4.2.

As seen in the dimensions of Keller (1993) two different types of associations can be distinguished in need fulfilment: Symbolic and functional. As discussed above Timmerman (2001) more specifically, identified a collection of attributes that most probably underlie the representation of brands, he found 10 main groups, product characteristics, product usage, price & quality, brand identifiers, brand personification, market, origin, advertisement, attitudes & purchase behaviour and last, personal reference. Which covered a total of 57 specific attributes. Labadie (2014) then generalized Timmerman’s findings in six categories, with in total 17 sub-‐labels that will be used in this thesis.

(23)

Figure 3. Schematic overview of the generalized categorization-‐coding key based on the IBRA-‐ classification of Timmerman (2001)

These six main categories, (I) “awareness”, (II) “Product associations”, (III) “Non-‐ product associations”, (IV) “Attitudes”, (V) “Resonance” and (VI) “Brand building” can be compared to the “Brand Resonance Pyramid” of Keller (2009). In the figure below you can see the sub-‐dimensions of the pyramid. We can relate the six categories to the brand pyramid. The (I) “awareness” category which answers the question “Do I know you?” and consists of the salience can be related to the base of the pyramid. The (II) “product associations” can be linked to the left side of the second layer. The primary characteristics, product reliability are product related associations. The (III) “non-‐ product associations” form the right side of the pyramid corresponding with “user profiles”, Purchase & usage situations” etc. The third level of the pyramid can be seen as the (IV) “attitudes” and the top layer is (V) “Resonance”.

(24)

Fig. 4: Six parts of the brand pyramid.

Next to that, in 2009, Kotler and Keller introduced PODs (Points of Differences) and POPs (Points of Parity). PODs allow brands to differentiate themselves from other brands. Creating and maintain the right PODs can lead to success. Strong, favourable and unique associations allows for the creation of these PODs (Kotler and Keller, 2009). With regards to the brand association’s strength, it is suggested that the more associations a brand has, the stronger the brand. The more of one type exists the stronger this type of associations since it has more chance that those will be activated/recalled (Krishnan, 1996). French and Smith (2013) summarized the current literature from the brand concept mapping, in the function of brand association strength, which consist of the number of associations, the strength of the links between and the structure of the associative network. The points that are shared by other brands, and so are not unique, are called POPs that are sometimes overlooked while they give a possibility to establish membership to a certain category and therefor can be vital to brands (Keller, 2003). Uniqueness is the driver of being able to be a POD, but the association also needs to be checked on favourability. An unfavourable but unique association will not be positive. All three aspects are therefor important in determining the relevance of an association. In the next two paragraphs we will explain strength, uniqueness and favourability of the associations.

(25)

2.2.4. Relevance

Strength:

Associations can be characterized by strength, which is the function of how much a person thinks about the information (Keller, 1993). The more the meaning of the information is attended to during the processing and encoding of the information, the stronger the corresponding associations are (Craick and Lockhart, 1972; Craick and Tulvin, 1975; Lockhart, Craick and Jacoby, 1976 as found in Keller, 1993). Strong associations are more salient and come to mind earlier. In this thesis we are using the brand name as a retrieval cue to measure the association that are salient after this cue.

Uniqueness:

Brand associations that are unique are by definition not shared with other brands, while you can also measure uniqueness on a Likert scale and measure how unique an association is perceived. Uniqueness is an aspect to obtain strength of an association and gives consumers a reason to buy brands (Keller, 2003). Associations that are unique have a high chance of being PODs and are therefore, potentially a source of competitive advantage and are a basis for differentiating the brand from other brands (Keller, 2003).

Favourability:

The belief of the consumer that a brand has attributes and benefits that satisfy their needs and wants is of big importance. An apple can be sweet but if the consumer likes sour apples this sweetness is not favourable. Favourable associations are associations that are desired by the consumer for the reason of satisfying their needs and wants (Keller, 2003).

2.3 Brand Concept Management

We have seen that brands primarily exist in consumer’s minds. We also discussed that the development, communication and maintaining of a brand image is crucial to the brand’s success in the long-‐term. Park et al., (1986) show that a brand image can have multiple concepts, namely symbolic and functional. This necessitates having a framework to manage the image over the long term strategically. This guideline will

(26)

help the manager with the question of how to create and sustain the brand in consumer’s minds. The authors advise when the brand concept – either functional or symbolic -‐ is chosen, this concept needs to be maintained for the sake of consistency (Park et al., 1986). Park et al. are hereby taking an outside-‐in view on brands; a firm decides on the concept, trying to create a clear image for the consumer. The framework that is proposed by the same authors – the brand concept management (BCM) framework -‐ is widely accepted as the only notable exception in the lack of managerial direction for setting up a strategic branding framework.

Much research is done into human needs and motivations and consequently a large number of theories and models exist about the nature of consumption behaviour of humans. Park et al. (1986) suggest a simple typology of two schools: The rational and the hedonic school. The first, also called the “economic man” model, suggests that humans react rational and try to maximize utility by making a purchase decision based on objective criteria like price (Becker and Michael, 1973; Schiffman and Kanuk, 1994). They go through a cognitive process: gathering information about competing brands, judging attributes in competing brands and finally using a judging rule to decide. The second is the hedonic school. In this perspective consumers use subjective criteria in their decision-‐making such as taste, desire to express themselves, pride etc. (Shiffman and Kanuk, 1994). Both types of motivation are seen as important and several researchers have also found the different needs that the different types of motivation are tapping into (cf. Mittal, 1988; Mittal et al., 1990; Johar and Sirgy, 1991). The brand concept management (BCM) of Park, Jaworski and Macinnis (1986) proposes that every brand image should be based on a brand-‐specific abstract meaning or “brand concept”. The same authors state that a brand concept may in its general form, be either symbolic or functional. The proposed framework of BCM can be seen as the planning, implementation and control of the concept of a brand through the whole brand life cycle. The brand concept is the meaning, derived from basic consumer needs selected by the firm. Immediate and practical needs are satisfied by brands with a functional concept. Symbolic brands are tapping into symbolic needs, for example those for self-‐expression. They are only incidentally used practical. In other words, the BCM measures the brand image in a functional and a symbolic score and is asking for informed associations by the asked statements. In order to create a clear image for the consumer one concept needs

(27)

to be chosen and consistently used. Bhat and Reddy (1998) uses the BCM to design and validate a measurement to score the functionality and symbolism, which we will discuss more in chapter 4.

The concept classification made by the BCM is also revealed in other research areas including those related to consumption needs and motivation, individual attitudes and social psychology (De Chernatony and McDonald, 1996). As pointed out by Mittal et al. (1990), the functional value relates to a person's need to favourably manage one's physical environment, enabling the utilitarian motives to be satisfied. In turn, the symbolic value relates to a persons need to favourably manage ones social and psychological environment. While Keller (1993) in his dimensions of brand knowledge also divide utility -‐ which he calls benefits, defined as “the personal value consumers attach to the brand aspects, that is, what consumers think the brand can do for them” (Vazquez, del Rio and Iglesias, 2002, p. 411) – in different dimension: Symbolic and functional. Bhat and Reddy (1998) suggest that they found that functionality and symbolism are distinct concepts. Both theory and research support the assumption that the needs of consumers are driven by both functional/utilitarian and symbolic/expressive motivations (Bhat and Reddy, 1998; De Chernatony and McDonald, 1996; Keller, 1993). Park, Jaworski and MacInnis (1986) suggested that brands are either tapping into symbolic or functional needs with their respective symbolic or functional brand concept. The distinction between symbolic and functional brand concept suggest that symbolic and functional brands exist corresponding with the utilitarian and hedonic school we will look further into this in chapter 3.

(28)

3. Types of brands

Different brands are eliciting different associations (Keller, 1998) and will be scoring differently on the BCM measurement (Bhat and Reddy, 1993). To be able to find the clearest differences we have identified opposite brand types that are assumed to have the biggest differences. In this thesis we will look at four brands already introduced in the first chapter. The first pair based on the symbolic and functional distinction found in the literature (inter alia: Keller, 1993; Park et all, 1986; Vazquez, del Rio and Iglesias, 2002) is Function-‐oriented brands versus Status brands. The second brand type pair is Heritage brands and Clean-‐Slate brands. One with history influencing the way they operate today and make choices for the future compared to recently established companies with almost no history. Although this contrast both brands are seen, by exactly that reason, as credible in times of uncertainty (Trendwatching.com, 2013; Hurde, Greyser and Balmer, 2007).

3.1. Function-‐oriented brands versus Status brands

We see that some brands are status-‐oriented, which is a brand that is visualized primarily in terms of consumer’s expression of status, in expression of self-‐image, as for example wealth or class. An example can be drinking Moêt Champagne, driving a Lamborghini or wearing a Rolex. On the opposite function-‐oriented brands visualize mostly brand unique aspects that are related to product performance. A Bosch cordless screwdriver or a Philips light is bought because of their product performance, not to express a self-‐image or show wealth or class. This comparison is more often found in other literature. Bhat and Reddy (1998), Keller (1993) and Shiffman and Kanuk (1994) suggest the typology of brand into symbolic and functional. As already discussed, the simple typology of Bhat and Reddy (1998) suggest a rational school and a hedonic school. Brand that are implied in the rational school to add value, maximize utility by making a purchase decision based on objective criteria like product performance, quality and price (Becker and Michael, 1973; Schiffman and Kanuk, 1994) can be seen as Function-‐oriented brands. On the other hand, brands that are implied in the hedonic school, brands that address subjective criteria such as taste, desire to express themselves, pride etc. (Shiffman and Kanuk, 1994), can be called symbolic brands. Status is a way to express oneself (Shiffman and Kanuk, 1994) and when a brand is seen as a

(29)

status brand we suggest this corresponds with being symbolic. The BCM scores of Bhat and Reddy (1993) discuss the difference between functional and symbolic brands.

3.2 Heritage versus Clean-‐Slate brands

All brands have a history (Watin-‐Augouard, 2001; Mollerup, 1997) short, or long. Not all of them have a heritage. Jaguar and Volvo both have a history, but Jaguar is clearly communicating their heritage and using it in their daily business. Volvo changes it’s logo many times and do not have a perennial brand promise. We therefor can distinguish Jaguar as being a Heritage brand while Volvo is not. Positioning and a value proposition based on heritage make a brand a Heritage brand (Hurde, Greyser and Balmer, 2007). According to Lowenthal (1998), a special characteristic of heritage is the ability to clarify the past and make it relevant for contemporary contexts and purposes. Heritage brands embrace three time frames: the past, the present and also the future. This is in contrast with history, which is necessarily grounded in the past. Corporate heritage brands have a perennial brand promise, which are of the past, present and prospective future (Balmer, 2011). Hurde, et al. (2007) explained it in other words and found that heritage brands has heritage as part of their past, the present and the future identity of the brand. These authors also found that a heritage brand can be recognized on five characteristics. The track record is the first dimension seen as the proof that the company over time has lived up to his values and promises (Urde, 97; 2003). The second dimension is the longitude of the brand. In other words, the demonstration of the heritage elements under many leaders, that promises that they are ingrained in the culture. Next, the core values need to be long-‐held and guiding the brand decisions and behaviour. The fourth is the use of the past reflected and expressed in the communication, especially mentioned is the use of symbols. And the last characteristic is the consideration that the history is of importance for the company’s identity. History needs to influence the way in which they organize and operate today and make choices for the future. According to Lowenthal (1998), a special characteristic of brand heritage is its ability to clarify the past and make the past relevant for contemporary contexts and purposes. Heritage is meaningful since it provides existential anchors; these anchors are valuable in times of uncertainty and offer a sense of continuity (Rapport, 2002). Heritage can impart a sense of security. Heritage is seen to be salient since it offers certainty in a world of uncertainty. This is especially the case in our own time when change has been,

The difference in brand image for different types of brands measured by the free-association method and the BCM method