“If the shoe fits, wear it”: collaborations between organisations and its effects on brand

(1)

“If the shoe fits, wear it”: Collaborations between organisations and its effects on brand

reputation

Abdullah Mizan Madani, 11798726

Graduate School of Communication, University of Amsterdam MSc Thesis

Supervisors: Dr. James Slevin Word count: 7,591

(2)

Abstract

Collaborations between corporations occurs often in today’s modern market. Without a decent background insight of what makes a successful collaboration, companies are wasting effort and resources by engaging in badly managed collaborations. This study aimed to provide a template for companies in the future to follow during the process of selecting the best suitable collaboration. This template includes how collaborative fit, collaborative intent and brand interest could affect how successful the collaboration is. Grounded on theory, collaborative fit and collaborative intent are factors of collaboration that impacts how attracted consumers might be towards a brand. Reputation of a company is a representative reflection on the current perception consumers has the corporation. Hence, it was used to measure how impactful brand interest, collaboration type and collaborative intent is. The company Nike was used to exemplify the engagement the variables had on brand reputation. A survey experiment was conducted for this study. Four articles, each having different conditions, were given as the stimuli. The findings indicated that Brand interest had the most influence, while collaborative intent provided almost no significance. The results suggests that the template corporations should follow might not necessarily need to focus on the intent on the

collaboration, but rather on whom they collaborate with and who they are targeting it to.

Keywords: brand collaboration, collaborative fit, brand reputation, brand interest, collaboration intent

(3)

“If the shoe fits, wear it”: Collaborations between organisations and its effects on brand reputation

The act of two or more companies working hand in hand breeds faster improvement, which in turn then builds up reputation (Petrescu, Rus & Negruşa, 2014). Generally,

collaborations occurs due to an attempt to save profits, build partnerships and mutually inspire ideas. There has been a surge of popular brands, especially in the commercial industry, that have been collaborating with each other and releasing products with the names of all parties involved. Although this predominantly occur in brands that involved tangible products such as clothing brands, electronic corporation and even furniture companies, there are instances whereby other organisations such as NGOs and governments participate in such

arrangements.

More often than not these collaborations are done in a safe and risk free manner. In the case of Nike and off white, both being sports apparel/fashion brands, their collaboration seemed seemless and the products released were received with praise by consumers and stakeholders. However there are cases where organisation collaborations might make less sense in face value. An example of that would be the combination of IKEA and Red Cross in order to raise awareness of the casualty of war in Syria. At first glance this attempt of

partnership does not make sense, as they do not have any common goal. Many people raised their concern with this apparent mismatch. The fit between companies is important when collaborations occur, but there also needs to be a focus on their intent; whether that be to sell products, to raise awareness or even for charity. This relates to how companies communicate their collaborations to their stakeholders. If a collaboration has no purpose, the necessity of holding the collaboration would be seen as irrelevant. Relaying the information of WHAT and

(4)

WHY the collaboration takes places is vital in maintaining a sense of trust with various stakeholders. This in turn contributes to how successful the collaboration is for all parties. This is measured in relation to collaborations that might experience struggles in keeping up the brand reputation of the companies.

The reputation a company upholds is the quickest way to understanding how successful is it (Chu, Choi & Song, 2018). This reputation has always been associated with the company’s brand. How the company expresses their self-image, intentions and actions is reflected in their brand reputation and is always scrutinized by its stakeholders. Whether or not the most recent operation done by the company was a good maneuver or not can be deduced based on the reaction of stakeholders, which in turn either effects the company’s brand reputation for better or for worse (Amblee & Bui, 2008). Consumers often rely on brand names rather than independently gather information on the Internet ( Amblee & Bui, 2008). Without a properly guided course of action, a collaboration could turn for the worse for the corporations involved. The loss organisations experience comes in the form of potential reputation hit and missed opportunities for a maximised reputation boost. The former is a scenario that should be a priority to avoid. Poorly managed collaboration could result in unintended consequences that provides a blow to the company’s brand through disapproval by consumers and stakeholders (Lee, Chen, Kim & Johnson, 2008). A badly managed

collaboration turns the opportunity for growth to a potential crisis. What determines how a company does well is ultimately how consumers perceive the company. In this study, brand reputation is the measurement of how successful a company is in their collaboration. A better brand reputation yields success for the collaboration.

(5)

There has yet to be a collaboration design template for companies to follow. Therefore this thesis aims to establish such template in order to guide companies in their collaboration ventures. By recognising which type of collaborations are suitable for what purpose, organisations would then be more likely to tread carefully when conducting collaborations. With the varying reception of these collaborations between companies, result in my research question “How different aspects of collaborations between organisations affect their brand reputation?” The main goal of this research question is to see whether brand collaborations have an effect of how stakeholders, mainly customers, view the brands’ reputation based on the product and project that they have released. It also aims to predict what kind of collaborations would serve stakeholders best.

(6)

Theoretical framework

Collaboration

The many definitions of collaboration between two companies all boil down to the process of agreement between two corporations to combine their efforts in attempts to improve situations (Simonin, 2017). The agreement between two companies is not a simple matter. There are reasons behind companies wanting to commit into a relationship with another corporation. Comprehending the idea behind collaboration requires an insight into the motives behind these collusion. Each company take the steps towards collaboration with belief that it aids their progress. Either for profit gain, social responsibilities or overall brand image. Incentives are always strong when companies are approaching collaboration or partnerships. What makes a collaboration successful depends on how it is measured. The speed of market change requires a more rapid adaptation of products and services, while customers increasingly expect an organisation to present through one entity. Even well-established multinationals routinely fail to manage operations end to end. The result:

interactions with customers are sluggish; complex, customized products are hard to create on time and on budget; and blocked lines of communication make new sales and distribution channels difficult to navigate (Martin & Eisenhardt, 2009). However, behind most successful collaborations are one or more organisations that are willing to invest more than their share of financial, human, and political capital to make the effort a success.

Another term for collaborative processes between two companies goes by the title of ‘co-branding’ (Leitch & Davenport, 2007). This category of collaboration is going to be the main idea of the study. The concept circles around the utilization of two or more brands to name a new product. The brands of ingredients assist each other reach their goals. It is necessary to keep in mind the overall synchronization between the brand pair and the new product (Martin & Eisenhardt, 2009). A branding instance would be when Nike

(7)

co-brandedwith Apple to launch multiple products using the commodity of each other (Leitch & Davenport, 2007). It's a co-branding move that helps both sides provide clients with a better experience — and with the popularity of fitness monitoring technology, for instance, Nike+, a Nike and apple co-branding attempt for a sports-related app, is ahead of the curve by making it simple for athletes to monitor while they play.

Co-branding has numerous advantages, such as: risk sharing, royalty income generation, increased sales revenue, increased client confidence in the product, wide scope owing to joint advertising, technological advantages, improved product picture through association with another known brand, and increased access to fresh financial sources.

However, co-branding is not free of constraints. Co-branding may fail when there is a distinct market for the two products and they are completely distinct. If there is difference in visions and missions of the two companies, then also composite branding may fail. Co-branding may adversely impact partner products. If the clients associate any negative experiences with a component brand, the complete brand equity may be damaged.

Brand Interest

Brand interest will play a role in indicating how much a person is curiously invested in a company (Machleit, Madden & Allen, 1993). This study propose the construct "brand interest" as an additional moderator variable. Brand interest is described as the rate of customer interest in the brand and the amount of curiosity they need to inquire about the brand or learn more about it. Brand interest is not a brand's cognitive assessment. It is rather regarded as a "pre-attitudinal" structure that can go through growth when triggered. For example, high levels of brand interest may lead to consumers searching for more information that is in relation to the brand or go as far as testing the brand. Indeed, well-known brands, generating a level of brand interest through advertising that is high enough to lead to second change given by the consumers, and it may be the most effective means of attitude change,

(8)

and thus a primary objective for the advertiser (Machleit, Madden & Allen, 1993). However, research also dictates that when a brand is already familiar to consumers, having

pre-meditated high opinions towards that particular brand is very likely. This leads to the hypothesis:

There is a positive correlation between Brand Interest and Brand Reputation

Brand Reputation

Brand reputation is the all in all impression in consumers’ mind that is developed by the processes that includes the activities of the brand (Keller, 1993). Consumers are

developing brand associations. They shape brand image on the basis of these association. Based on the subjective perceptions of the association package that customers haveabout the brand, an picture is created about the brand. For example, Volvo is linked to safety and Toyota is associated with reliability.

The concept behind brand reputation is that not only the product / service but also the picture connected with that product / service is purchased by the customer. While brand image has long been recognized as an important notion of marketing, there is less agreement about its suitability. Brand image is defined here as perceptions of a brand as reflected in client memory brand associations, in line with definitions in recent studies and an associative network memory model of brand comprehension. Brand associations are the other brand nodes in memory that are connected to the brand node and contain the brand's significance for customers (Craven, Goad & Ramamoorti, 2018). The favourability, strength and uniqueness of brand associations are the dimensions that differentiate brand knowledge that play an important role in determining the differential response that constitutes brand equity, especially

(9)

in high-implication decision settings (Hsieh, 2002). Before considering these dimensions, it is useful to examine the different types of mark association.

Brand image. Communicating a brand image to a target segment was considered a major marketing act for a long time. It is not necessary to create a brand image, but it is generated automatically. The brand image involves the attraction of products, ease of use, features, notoriety, and general value. In fact, the brand image is brand content. When

customers buy the item, they buy the picture as well. Brand image is the consumer's goal and emotional feedback when buying a product (Low & Lamb, 2000). Positive brand picture exceeds the expectations of clients. Positive brand image increases an organization's goodwill and brand value. These include features that characterise a product or service-what a

consumer thinks the product or service is or has and what is involved with its purchase or consumption. Brand Image can be categorised in a variety of ways (Park, Jawarski &

Maclnnis, 2010). Attributes are differentiated in this situation depending on how directly they relate to the results of the product or service. Product-related characteristics are described as the components needed to perform the consumer's desired product or service function.

Product-related features vary by product or service category. Non-product-related features are defined as inner components of the product or service buy or usage (Keller, 1993). The partnership may recognize the brand imageof co-branding as physical and/or tangible signals (Low & Lamb, 2000). However it could also thread on signals given off by a product that is not for purchasing, rather to raise awareness. This will be further explained in the coming sections. An example of good brand image would be if the marketing of the co-branding venture was performed well or the frequency of high-profile influencers have supported the cause by elaborating the high quality of the product. How well the image of a co-brand performs then leads to the hypothesis:

(10)

There will be an increase in brand image when the collaboration is a fit compare to if it was un-fit.

Brand attitude. Brand behavior, or attitude, is described as the general assessment of a brand by customers, whether good or bad. In the literature of the marketing journal,

semantic differential scales measuring brand attitude have often emerged. Brand Attitude is the private value that clients attach to the product or service attributes— that is, what clients think the product or service can do for them. These advantages, like sensory enjoyment, diversity, and cognitive stimulation, fulfill experiential advantages. The more extrinsic benefits of product or service consumption are symbolic benefits (Low & Lamb, 2000). They usually correspond to non-product-related attributes and relate to underlying needs for social approval or personal expression and outer-directed self-esteem. Hence, consumers may value the prestige, exclusivity, or fashionability of a brand because of how it relates to their self-concept (Tirole, 2016).

Perceived quality. Perceived quality is defined as the consumer's judgment of a product's overall excellence or superiority (Moorthy & Zhao, 2000). Sethuraman and Cole (1997), for instance, discovered that perceived quality explains a significant part of the price premium variance customers are prepared to pay for domestic products. The perceived quality of the product and service is vital to the hypothesis. Connection strength depends on how the information is entered by the client memory and how it is maintained as part of the brand's image. Strength is a function of both the amount or quantity of encoding processing received by the information (i.e. how much information a person has thought about) and the nature or quality of the encoding processing received by the information (i.e. how a person

(11)

Fit/non-fit Collaboration

The essential goal of cobranding is to achieve a positive image transfer between the constituent brands in the form of co-brand and spillover effects). Image transfer is more probable if the component brands have a better perceived fit. Fit is described as a subjective decision on the game between two constituent brands. Brand fit between two brands is created if the customer perceives an extensive link between the brands and can incorporate the

associated ideas. Brand fit is a key variable in the achievement of brand alliances within the literature. Studies analyzed the fit between two products in the context of co-branding and received inconsistent outcomes on the grounds of brand fit. Some of these research have shown that there is a need for a large degree of resemblance between the personalities of the two constituent brands (Tilburg, Hermann, Grohmann & Lieven, 2015), others have

emphasized the significance of merging brands with outstanding features to attain co-branding success, and others have shown that complementarity between the two brand pictures (Tilburg et al, 2015) is a dominant feature. All these results discuss the compatibility of the two

constituent brand characters.

Categorisation theory suggests that an instance fits into a given category pending on the match between its attributes and the typical attributes of the category as represented by the consumers' schemas (Meyvis, Goldsmith & Dhar, 2011). Consider a situation where the retailer Adidas wishes to grow its portfolio with a line of smartphones where they want to use both brands, let's suggest that the smarphone producer is Samsung. Adidas does not extend into smartphones, but joins forces with an established phone brand that gives its expertise to the alliance. In general, brands often create partnerships outside their own product category, and fit must therefore be accomplished by means other than product fit. In the Adidas

(12)

Oetzel & Yaziji, 2010). While customers may evaluate fit holistically on the basis of general impressions, this research suggests that the abstract content of brand fit perceptions may also differ depending on the brand or brand's positioning strategy (Meyvis, Goldsmith & Dhar, 2011). Brand ideas are abstractly empirical manifestations. Three brand concepts outlined the overall benefit situation for the brand in terms of functionality, experience or symbolic benefits. You may claim that Adidas and Samsung share comparable functional ideas, but they work in entirely distinct classifications of products. On the basis of how similar brand concepts are shared, however, fit can be evaluated. A brand can match a social cause if both serve a comparable client base. If there is a comparable value in a brand and a social cause, fit might be high. On the other hand, the fitness theory guidelines are the same. The absence of consistent brand ideas could put the two companies in jeopardy. The company fit is also being created with two remote customer bases. The literature has shown that appropriate

co-branding has useful results in understanding the products employed by consumers. Brands can therefore agree with the notion of a smart maneuver involving cohesive alliances. However, there are instances where there is a need for cooperation among unsuitable businesses. According to the theoretical background, these type of collaborations do not bode well for brand reputation. That being said, when taking brand interest into account, there could be a shift in the matter. As per the previous hypothesis, there should be a positive correlation between brand interest and brand reputation. research also notes that consumers who are loyal to a brand might be less affected by the impact of ‘less-desirable’ collaboration, especially towards the attitude (Faircloth et al, 2001). This notion then leads to the hypothesis:

Brand attitude will increase when the collaboration is a fit, compared to when it is non-fit, provided that there is a high brand interest.

(13)

Intention of collaboration

Most co-branding undertakings aim to achieve outcomes in a product's sales

development. However, with contemporary co-branding examples, this certainty is not always the case. The alliance of corporate brands and social or cause associated brands is becoming increasingly interested. In the context of co-branding, a research analyzed the collaboration between a corporate brand and a labeling brand or NGOs. In many cases, the NGOs, despite not being commercial marketing brands, act the same way. They encourage their own name, in other words, and compete with other organizations. Another perspective for this

phenomenon is how corporate brands and NGOs co-brand to raise awareness, either for the benefit of the NGO or to fufil CSR quotas for the corperation. Research shows that consumer attitudes towards businesses that endorse marketing associated causes (CRM) are mainly positive (Nan & Heo, 2007). Consumers tend to believe that companies sponsored by CRM are socially responsible. In addition, the willingness to purchase a company's product is also heavily influenced by the company's CRM activities. In CRM, the connection between a brand and a social cause could lead to a similar technique of transmitting impacts: customers ' general positive attitudes towards the NGO could be transferred to the sponsoring brand (Simonin, 2017). In addition, as the brand promises to donate money to the social cause, clients may regard the brand as altruistic, resulting in more favourable brand assessments. In addition, perceived altruism of the brand may lead to customers who are themselves altruistic in a sense of connectivity or social identity, which is the inference that the sponsoring brand or business has certain desirable features that resonate with one's sense of self (Bignè, Cáceres, Pérez & Alcañiz, 2010). All of these mechanisms indicate that customers will react to a company / brand that is engaged in CRM more favorably than a comparable one that is not engaged in this philanthropic activity. However this might not always be the case. In the situation that the fit of the co-branding is very much competent, it could moderate the effects

(14)

of the intent on brand association. As the fit of the brand is likely to have a larger effect on brand association than the actual intent of the co-branding, it could lead a non-CRM to have a positive impact on brand association, given that the co-branding is a fit (Kolk & Lenfant, 2012).

The importance of studying both collaborative type and collaborative intent is the goal to create a feasible template for companies. Therefore, based on the theoretical background that has been laid out, These are the hypotheses proposed:

Perceived Quality will increase when the intent of the collaboration is to sell products, compared to when the intent is to raise awareness

Perceived Quality will increase when the collaboration is a fit, compared to if is non-fit, provided that the intention is to sell products.

Brand Attitude will increase when the collaboration is non-fit, compared to when it is a fit, provided that the intention is to raise awareness.

Brand Image will increase when the collaboration is a fit, compared to when it is non-fit, provided that the intent is to raise awareness.

(15)

In order to provide a clear and coherent flow, this study will chronologically rearrange the order of the hypothesis. The following list will be the definitive arrangement of the

hypotheses. Figure 1.1 And Figure 1.2 Provide models that represents the hypotheses.

H1: There is a positive correlation between Brand Interest and Brand Reputation

H2: Brand Image will increase when the collaboration is a fit, compared to when it is non-fit.

H3: Perceived Quality will increase when the intent of the collaboration is to sell products, compared to when the intent is to raise awareness

H4: Perceived Quality will increase when the collaboration is a fit, compared to if is non-fit, provided that the intention is to sell products.

H5: Brand Attitude will increase when the collaboration is non-fit, compared to when it is a fit, provided that the intention is to raise awareness.

H6: Brand Image will increase when the collaboration is a fit, compared to when it is non-fit, provided that the intent is to raise awareness.

H7: Brand attitude will increase when the collaboration is a fit, compared to when it is non-fit, provided that there is a high brand interest.

(16)

Figure 1. 1 The model describing the interaction between the variables involved in H4, H5, H6 and H7

Figure 1. 2 The model describing the interaction between the variables involved in H1, H2 and H3

(17)

Methodology

Sample and Survey

In order to answer the research questions and test the above outline hypotheses, a random sample of participants were drawn. A random sample was done to eliminate as much systematic bias as possible. It will also yield a sample that is almost perfectly representative of the population. A survey was conducted to achieve the data necessary for this study. The sample were gathered based on natural spread of the survey i.e. through email, social media and word of mouth. Embedded on the survey was an experiment. Participants were randomly assigned a stimuli in the form of an article. Universiteit van Amsterdam has granted me access to qualtrics, which is a service that simplify the process of circulate the survey. The survey lasted around the 11 minute mark. On average, the participants were 29 years old, 63% were female (n=83) and the rest being male (n=50). Most of the participants also were of Indonesian nationality.

Stimuli

To test the existing conceptual framework, it was critical to use real rather than fictional brands in the manipulation, which will be in the form of articles so that genuine brand affect and association could be activated by the collaboration. Multiple brands were necessary so that the results would not be dependent on the particular brands selected.

Participants were randomly assigned a stimuli in the form of an article. In order to elicit the impact collaboration has on brand reputation, an experiment was launched. Several article that described various situations regarding different types of collaboration and different intentions of collaboration served as the stimuli. The stimuli will plays out as an article that was published in a local online blogsite with standard to minimum notability. The choice to

(18)

not provide the article from a well-known newspaper is to subvert the potential occurance of participants realising the article is a faux, due to the possibility of participants having the knowledge of existing popular news outlets.

There will be in three corporations that are a subjects for the stimuli. These companies are NIKE, RedBull and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). The respective companies were chosen to fill in the quota of collaboration parings for the stimuli. They were paired as

follows: NIKE & RedBull and NIKE & WWF. There are various main reasons why these corporations are used. The first being for the reason that all three of these companies are one of the well-known brands. Thus there will be a minimal chance that participants will be unfamiliar about the companies. The second reason is the fact that NIKE and RedBull provides a collaboration that, according to Rhodes, Nelson & berman (2007) , fits within the agenda of fit theory. This is due to the nature of their brand image and consumer base (Faircloth, Capela & Alford, 2001). Both of the companies, NIKE and RedBull, are players that operates in the commercial sports industry, which also plays a role in why there is a fit. In terms of the non-fit stimuli, this study pair NIKE and WWF together. This decision is also based on the study of fit theory that found the two respective companies are a non-fit match for co-branding. This is again due to their conflicting consumer base, brand culture and commercial motives. One pair produces two articles. These two articles will differ in the intention; one article will potrey the collaboration as one that will sell a product, and the other will attempt to raise awareness regarding climate change. The topic of climate change as a representative to raising awarenesss was choses as it is the most present campaign that is noticeable by people (Kolk & Lenfant, 2012). It also makes sense to link WWF with climate change, due to WWF’s nature in being an environmental conservatives.

(19)

Measurements

To measure Brand Image and Brand Attitude as well Perceived Quality of

collaboration between companies, the dependent variables were properly operationalised accordingly to measurements tested by Low & Lamb Jr (2000), which has already been applied in the context of brand reputation and proved to be consistent. Brand Image and Brand Attitude was measured with six items and three items respectively, while perceived quality constructs were measured by three items.

The measurement for brand interest was adopted from the study conducted by Machleit, Madden & Allen (1993). This consisted of five items. Therefore, in total twelve items were measured within a seven Likert scale. An online programmed version of the full survey with all items can be found in appendix A.

All measurements of items were answered on dichotomous scales and indexes were built by adding the score of the respective items. The latent variables are (α = .588) Brand Interest, Brand Image (α = .378), Brand Attitude (α = .169) and Perceived Quality (α = .135).

Pre-test

A pre-test was conducted for this experiment. For each condition the study gathered at least five participants to partake in the experiment. This was done to detect any defective questions, whether the manipulation worked, and if the stimuli was understandable.

There were no discrepancies found in the survey as the testing show that the

manipulation worked and they were in line with the hypotheses so far. Due to this finding, the survey was unchanged and sent to respective participants in order to go through with the study.

(20)

Results

Hypothesis 1

The testing shows that brand interest is a good predictor for brand reputation as a whole and that it is statically significant (p< 0.01). This means that there is a positive

correlation between brand attitude and brand interest. The R2 also shows that 26% of the total variation of brand reputation can be explained by brand interest. This notion then supports H1.

Hypothesis 2

Based on the test conducted on this model, homogeneity of variance as assessed by Levene's Test for Equality of Variances. Therefore, an independent t-test was run on the data with a 95% confidence interval for the mean difference. According to the study, the

collaboration between Nike and Redbull that was seen as fit, on average, scored higher in brand image (M = 3.45, SD = .812), compared to the unfit collaboration that involved Nike and WWF (M = 2.91, SD = .828). The independent t-test that was conducted also proved that the differences in the means was statistically significant with a medium effect size (t(126.5) = 0.937, p = 0.035, η2 = 0.659). Therefore this supports the notion that there is an increase in brand image in the eye of consumers of Nike when they collaborate with companies that are similar to them. This notion also then supports H2.

Hypothesis 3

The study revealed that there was also a homogeneity of variance in this model, as assessed by Levene's Test for Equality of Variances. Therefore, an independent t-test was run on the data with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference. It showed that the

(21)

perceived quality of Nike was lower when the intent of the collaboration by Nike is to sell a product (M = 3.093, SD = 0.867) compared to when the intent is to raise awareness (M = 3.378, SD = 1.028). Independent T – test also proved that the differences between these means were statically significant with a relativelty small effect size (t(69.23) = 1.08, p = 0031, η2 = 0.299). This shows that, contrary to the hypothesis, consumers perceived the quality of Nike to be better when the collaboration are attempting to raise awareness of an issue, compared to if the collaboration’s goal is to sell a product. This leads to H3 being rejected

Hypothesis 4

This study checks whether there is any stasticial significance of the intention of the collaboration on the effect of collaboration fit on the brand image of Nike. The R square change signifies that there is an increase in variation explained by the addition of the interaction item (R2 = 0.21). However, it is assessed that this increase is not stastically significant (p = 0.06). This leads to H4 also being rejected

The multiple regression that was run show that both collaboration fit and collaboration intent statistically significantly predicted brand image of Nike (F(2,126) = .660, p = 0.049, R2 = 0.015.)

Hypothesis 5

This testing of the hypothesis checks whether there is any statistically significance in comparing the means between brand image of Nike when they partake in an unfit

collaboration and the brand attitude of Nike, given that they the intent of collaboration is to raise awareness. The testing shows that the change in R square shows that there is an

(22)

intent of collaboration variable. However, this increase is also proven to be statistically insignificant (p = 0.103).

The multiple regression that was run show that both collaboration fit and collaboration intent statistically significantly predicted brand image of Nike (F(2,126) = 1.121, p = 0.178, R2 = 0.038.) This leads to H5 also being rejected.

Hypothesis 6

This study checks whether there is any significant statistical difference in the means between brand image of Nike when they partake in an unfit collaboration and the brand image of Nike when they have a fit collaboration, given that they the intent of collaboration is to raise awareness. The testing shows that the change in R square shows that there is an decreased variation explained by the addition of the interaction item (R2 = -0.005), which is the intent of collaboration variable. However, this increase is also proven to be statistically insignificant (p = 0.279).

The multiple regression that was run show that both collaboration fit and collaboration intent statistically significantly predicted brand image of Nike (F(2,126) = .530, p = 0.519, R2 = 0.020.) This leads to H6 also being rejected

Hypothesis 7

This study checks whether there is any significant statistical difference in the means between brand image of Nike when they partake in an unfit bond and the brand image of Nike when they have a fit collaboration, given that the brand interest is high. A multiple regression will check whether brand interest plays a role in impacting the relationship between

(23)

that there is an increased variation explained by the addition of the interaction item (R2 = 0.266), which is the intent of collaboration variable. However, this increase is also proven to be statistically significant (p < 0.01).

The multiple regression that was run show that both collaboration fit and collaboration intent statistically significantly predicted brand image of Nike (F(2,126) = 22.860, p < 0.01, R2 = 0.267.) This leads to H7 being supported.

(24)

Conclusion & Discussion

This study has provided insights on how collaborations effect brand reputation in different manners. Although there were many hypothesis that were rejected, the slight differences in the means should not be overlooked. In short, the results indicated that there is an effect caused by collaboration intent and type on brand reputation, However many of these effects are rendered to be insignificant. Most of the effects that were concluded by the results were aligned to the studies done by Rhodes, Nelson & Berman (2007) and Teo, Wei & Benbasa (2003), mainly in regards of the effects of fit and unfit collaborations along with intent of collaborations. Brand interest (Machleit, Madden & Allen, 1993) also provided very prominent moderator effects, as well as it did with being a predictor for an aspect of brand reputation. The specifics of the implication of the results will be discussed.

The first hypothesis inquired whether brand interest is a reliable predictor for brand reputation. This results was proven to be significant and that brand interest indeed turned out to be faceable predictor for brand attitude. This is in line to what is said by (Machleit, Madden & Allen, 1993), as brand interest usually indicates how much a person is positively engaged with a brand. This translates almost directly to how much a person regards a brand reputation of a company. To simply put it, the more interested someone is towards a company, the more likely their perception of the company is to be positive (Amblee & Bui, 2008). This is then proven by the results of the test done for hypothesis one, which was then approved. However there must also be mentions that this is only a case of Nike. There are also possibility that brand interest could be negatively correlated to brand reputation. This case could be explained by the interest someone have being a cynical one (Nan & Heo, 2007). This perspective has less significance in this particular study.

The next hypothesis aimed to see if there are any significant differences between fit and unfit collaborations with their effect on brand image. The results indicated that there was

(25)

indeed a difference in the means, albeit a slight one. It shows that, on average, fit

collaboration between Nike and RedBull scored higher in brand image compared to the unfit collaboration of Nike and WWF. This is in line with the study mentioning the impact of how fitting collaboration between companies are (Sénéchal, Georges & Pernin, 2014). It is stated that companies that collaborate with other companies that are similar in terms of culture and brand audience tend to reflect better in their brand reputation (Chu, Choi & Song, 2018). It was eluded that although there could be differences between the two types of collaboration, it must be kept in mind that the difference, if only this one variable is taken into account, could be only a slight one, due to the nature of other externalities almost definitely having an impact as well (Rao & Ruekert, 1995). This is exactly where the study takes us, as it includes another main independent variable; the intent of collaboration. The first hypothesis that included collaboration intent tested whether the perceived quality of Nike would increase if the intent of collaboration was to raise awareness. This hypothesis proved to be rejected. The mean difference presents that the collaboration that showed intent to raise awareness regarding an issue scored higher in perceived quality compared to collaborations that intends to sell a product. This result is a complete opposite of the hypothesis, and it may be caused by the theory of social sympathy (Dahan et al, 2010). This theory suggests that, in regards to perceived quality, more people at this time are more sympathetic towards companies that show initiative to ‘raise awareness’. This has to do with the increasing concern of things such as climate change, overproduction of food and other environmental issues (Dahan et al, 2010). As the effects of each main independent variable were tested, the study then proceeded to check whether there was a moderation effect between the these two variables.

The proceeding hypothesis tested whether there was an increase in perceived quality when the collaboration is a fit one, given that the intention is to sell products. The results shows that there is no statistical significance between fit and non-fit collaborations on

(26)

perceived quality when the intent is to sell products. Although there is no statistical significance, there is still an improvement on how much of the model is explained when taking the intent of collaboration into account. The result also indicates that, when taken into account the selling a product as the intent of collaboration, perceived quality indeed is higher when the collaboration is fit. The lack of statistical significance could be explained by the present yet extremely weak moderation effect that collaboration intention has on the

relationship between collaboration type and perceived quality. This weak moderation effect could be attributed to the fact that there are other things that effect the main relationship more than collaborating intent (Teo, Wei & Benbasa, 2003). What could also have be an

explanation is the lack of relation between collaboration typed and perceived quality. This is due to consumers’ inability to measure the quality of a company solely based on who they collaborate with, as the perception of ‘quality’ is too abstract to measure without a tangible entity to gauge with (Keller, 1993).

The next two hypothesis also involves the moderation effect of brand intentions on the relationship between brand types and aspects of brand reputation, mainly brand attitude and brand image. Both of these hypothesis were also rejected due to it being statistically

insignificant. Both hypothesis had intention of collaboration as the moderator variable, with type of collaboration being the main independent variable. One used brand image as the dependent variable, while the other used brand attitude. As a recurring theme in this study, although statically insignificant, there is still a noticeable amount of moderation effect on the models. The models in both cases experienced increase effects due to the moderator. The lack of statistical significance is a signal that there is again a better explanation that could

contribute to the respective relationship of the independent variable with the dependent variable.

(27)

The last hypothesis involves brand interest being a moderator when testing the relationship of unfit collaborations with brand attitude. The result suggests that there is a statistically significant effect of the moderator by brand interest. The moderator provided a large improvement for the model, as it widen the scope of what the model explains and predicts. To recall the impact of brand interest in the first hypothesis, it again presents itself here as an impactful variable to predict brand attitude. Moreover, the results are also in line with Teo, Wei & Benbasa (2003), that insisted the intent to sell by the collaboration leads to a higher brand attitude compared to when the intent is to raise awareness.

Practical implications

This study has contributed by providing implications for both theory and practice. By combining the concept of collaboration type and collaboration intent by Rhodes, Nelson & Berman (2007) and Teo, Wei & Benbasa (2003) and their effects on brand reputation, it has shown that, to a certain extent, that how companies take one collaboration effects how consumers perceive the company as a whole. This study proves that the theory grounded by this study, with further honing, can lead to future studies that creates a better understanding towards the best way to tackle collaborations.

Many of the theory implemented from other studies, mainly Rao & Ruekert (1995) and Rhodes, Nelson & Berman (2007) turned out to be successful within this study. This study mainly depended on the relation between collaboration qualities and brand reputation. The relationships and correlation that was showcased in this study regarding those variables determined that indeed there are practical values that can be taken away from the respective relations. Companies should focus towards the fitting of collaborations when upcoming collaborations are on the cards. On the other hand, collaboration intent provided much less

(28)

insight of how impactful it is on brand reputation. As being mainly a moderator variable, it did not show it’s potential to have considerable effects on anything. It would be harder, based on this study, to advise companies to take too much time into looking at their intent when collaborations are forthcoming. It is also important to note that the utilization of brand interest in this study proved to be very fruitful, as it provided an insight of how strong of a role brand interest has on consumers’ perception of a company’s brand reputation.

The main aim of this study is to provide a template for companies to follow in order to achieve the maximum benefit of brand reputation from collaborating with another company. However, this study has shown only a limited amount of variables that should be vitally considered as impactful on brand reputation. That being said, it does not necessarily entail complete non-functionality, as the variables presented by this study that did render some success in predicting brand reputation. Thus, should still be taken into account by companies to slowly pave way into better functioning collaborations. What can be said is that companies should put more effort into understanding people’s interests, and that collaborations should take place based on what other companies the audiences are interested on.

Limitations

It is clear that this study has enlightened certain aspects of the collaborative process, such as how much brand interest and how fit the collaboration effects how well the

collaboration is received. However the flaws that are present should not be simply glossed over. Based on the results, the variable of collaborative intent seemed to lack any strong influence for the study. This lead to unsatisfactory results that could have been better if a more impactful variable was used. However, the failure of the variable could also be a result misinterpretation of the stimuli. The stimuli came in the form of an article written in English, which could have been a demanding task for participants who does not have English as their

(29)

first language. This could have been a possibility, as the majority of participants are not nationals from a native English speaking country.

The manipulation conducted for this experiment could have also been done differently. Although the articles used for this study proved to be somewhat successful according to the manipulation check, there could have been easier ways of relay the information and

manipulation needed to the participants. An advertisement video or posters could have been suitable substitutes, as pictures and visual imagery often provides an easier method of relaying information and evoke emotion. However this was no done due to the limited resources that was in possession in order to conduct this study. That being said, the articles could also have been improved. For one, the distribution of the manipulation in the articles were too compact. What could have been done to improve that was to have one article that concentrated on one manipulation, for example article 1 and 2 only encloses the information regarding the type of collaboration, and article 3 and 4 only includes information regarding the intent of collaboration. This way the participants would have been exposed to the manipulation one by one and decrease the chance of convolution. However, this study structured the articles the way it did to be as concise as possible as to retain the participant’s attention as long as possible.

The sample of this study only consisted of 132 participants for 4 different conditions, which is almost the minimum amount of people needed for statistical testing. The study would have benefited more if more participants were a part of it. This would have increased the significance level of the findings. One last minor limitation that is worth mentioning is the possibility that participants did not conduct the survey for this study appropriately. This is to say that participants might simply answer the questionnaire as quickly as possible, without even reading the article or the questions properly. This would then result in an invalid data

(30)

that is difficult to detect. This too can be solved by increasing the sample size In order to make these invalid data less relevant.

Future research

This study attempted to create a usable template for companies to follow in order to reach the best possible collaboration that induces a high brand reputation. This was not yet fully achieved. This in turn should be the focus of future research. Collaboration between companies take place frequently, and it is important for companies to understand how consumers perceive the brand based on these collaborations. This study is limited to only three variables. Further research can broaden the scope of the template by including other variables. The concept that future studies can take a look at are brand association (Low & Lamb, 2000), purchase intention (Tilburg et al) and collaboration value (Petrescu, Rus & Negruşa, 2014).

(31)

Bibliography

Bignè, E., Cáceres, R. C., Pérez, R. C., Alcañiz, E. B., & Pérez, R. C. (2010). Social Responsibility Image Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article :

Alliances Between Brands and Social Causes : The Influence of Company Credibility on Social Responsibility Image. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(2), 169–186.

Chu, W., Choi, B., & Song, M. R. (2018). The Role of On-line Retailer Brand and Infomediary Reputation in Increasing Consumer Purchase Intention. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 9(3), 115–127.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2005.11044336

Cravens, K., Goad Oliver, E., & Ramamoorti, S. (2003). The Reputation Index: European Management Journal, 21(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0263-2373(03)00015-x Dahan, N. M., Doh, J. P., Oetzel, J., & Yaziji, M. (2010). Corporate-NGO collaboration: Co-creating new business models for developing markets. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 326–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.11.003

Faircloth, J. B., Capella, L. M., Alford, B. L., Journal, S., Summer, N., Taylor, P., … Alford, B. L. (2001). THE EFFECT OF BRAND ATTITUDE AND BRAND IMAGE ON BRAND EQUITY. 9(3), 61–75.

Faustino, C. de A., Gohr, C. F., & Santos, L. C. (2018). An approach for evaluating

collaboration attributes in cluster-based companies. International Journal of Production Research, 57(8), 2356–2371. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1518604

Geoffrey, R. D. U. (2002). Amsterdam University Press. State ,Market and Global Political Economy, 2009(26 November). Retrieved from http://www.aup.nl

Hsieh, M. H. (2002). Globalization : A Cross-National Study Identifying Brand Image Dimensionality and Measuring the Degree of Brand. 10(2), 46–67.

Hunt, S. D., Sparkman, R. D., Wilcox, J. B., Hunt, S. D., Sparkman, R. D., & Wilcox, J. B. (1982). The Pretest in Survey Research : Issues and Preliminary Findings. 19(2), 269– 273.

Kevin Keller, L. (1993). Conceptualizing , Measuring , and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.

Kolk, A., & Lenfant, F. (2012). Business-NGO Collaboration in a Conflict Setting: Partnership Activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In Business and Society (Vol. 51). https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650312446474

Lee, R. P., Chen, Q., Kim, D., & Johnson, J. L. (2008). Knowledge Transfer between Multinational Corporations’ Headquarters and Their Subsidiaries: Influences on and Implications for New Product Outcomes. Journal of International Marketing, 16(2), 1– 31. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.16.2.1

Leitch, S., & Davenport, S. (2007). Corporate Brands and Social Brands: Co-Branding GM-Free and UK Supermarkets. International Studies of Management & Organization, 37(4), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825370402

Low, G. S., & Lamb, C. W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(6), 350–370.

(32)

https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420010356966

Machleit, K. a., Madden, T. J., & Allen, C. T. (1993). Measuring and Modeling Brand Interest As an Alternative Ad Effect With Familiar Brands. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 223–230.

Martin, J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Rewiring: Cross-Business-Unit Collaborations and Performance in Multi-Business Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 1(2), 265–301. Retrieved from

http://journals.aomonline.org/InPress/main.asp?action=preview&art_id=579&p_id=1&p _short=AMJ

Meyvis, T., Goldsmith, K., & Dhar, R. (2011). The Importance of the Context in Brand Extension: How Pictures and Comparisons Shift Consumers’ Focus from Fit to Quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.08.0060 Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer Responses to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Initiatives: Examining the Role of Brand-Cause Fit in Cause-Related Marketing. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367360204

Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & Maclnnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management. 50(4), 135–145.

Park, C. W., Macinnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., Park, C. W., Maclnnis, D. J., … Eisingerich, A. B. (2010). Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength : Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers. 74(6), 1–17. Petrescu, D. C., Rus, R. V., & Negruşa, A. L. (2014). Attitude of Companies: Network

Collaboration vs. Competition. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 148, 596– 603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.085

Poaching, C., Switching, B., & Tirole, J. (2016). Customer Poaching and Brand Switching Author ( s ): Drew Fudenberg and Jean Tirole Source : The RAND Journal of

Economics , Vol . 31 , No . 4 ( Winter , 2000 ), pp . 634-657 Published by : Wiley on behalf of RAND Corporation Stable URL : http://www.jstor. 31(4), 634–657.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01391052

Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1989). The Effect of Price , Brand Name , and Store Name on Buyers ’ Perceptions of Product Quality : An Integrative Review. 26(3), 351–357. Rao, A., & Ruekert, R. W. (1995). Brand alliances as signals of product quality. Long Range

Planning, 28(1), 139. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(95)92181-8

Rhodes, I., Nelson, C., & Berman, G. (2007). The key to successful collaborations: Rigorous and independent due diligence. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 9(4), 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jcb.3040040

Satz, D., Gould, R. K., Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A., Norton, B., Satterfield, T., … Klain, S. (2013). Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences The Challenges of Incorporating Cultural Ecosystem Services into Environmental Assessment Published by : Springer on behalf of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Stable URL :

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24708778 into Envi. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/Sl

Sénéchal, S., Georges, L., & Pernin, J. L. (2014). Alliances Between Corporate and Fair Trade Brands: Examining the Antecedents of Overall Evaluation of the Co-branded

(33)

Product. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1875-z

Simonin & Ruth, 1998, p 30-42. (n.d.).

Simonin, B. L. (2017). The Darker Side of Collaborations : 12 Common Mistakes. 1. Tilburg, M. van, Herrmann, A., Grohmann, B., & Lieven*, T. (2015). The Effect of Brand

Gender Similarity on Brand-Alliance Fit and Purchase Intention. Marketing ZFP, 37(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.15358/0344-1369-2015-1-5

Valuation, C. B. (2012). Chapter 3 Brand Valuation – State of the Art. (May 2019).

Zhao, H., & Moorthy, S. (2000). Advertising Spending and Perceived Quality Author ( s ): Sridhar Moorthy and Hao Zhao Published by : Springer Stable URL :

(34)

Appendix A (Survey)

I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in the research study

o

Agree (1)

End of Block: Consent 2 Start of Block: Demographics

What is your age?

________________________________________________________________

Female (2)

(35)

In which country do you currently reside? ▼ Afghanistan (1) ... Zimbabwe (1357)

What is your Nationality?

▼ Afghanistan (1) ... Zimbabwe (1357)

End of Block: Demographics Start of Block: Introduction

Nike is a well-known, multinational sport apparel company that has been dominating the sports fashion market since the 70s. The corporation has been earning billion dollars each year, with their distinguished 'swoosh' logo now being present in many feet walking today.

In this section, please indicate your interest on the Nike Brand.

Slightly agree (3)

o

Slightly disagree (5)

o

Moderately disagree (6)

o

Extremely disagree (7)

End of Block: Brand Interest Start of Block: Stimuli

You will now be presented an article written by a popular online blog-site regarding Nike's new project.

Please read the article carefully.

(39)

(40)

(41)

(42)

(43)

Please indicate to what extent do you agree with the following statements based on the article you have just read

End of Block: Perceived Quality Start of Block: Manipulation test

Appendix B (SPSS Syntax)

DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1. FILTER OFF. USE ALL. SELECT IF (Finished = 1 ). EXECUTE. RECODE Q22 Q26 Q28_1 Q28_4 Q34_1 Q37_1 (1=7) (2=6) (3=5) (4=4) (5=3) (6=2) (7=1). EXECUTE. COMPUTE BrandInterest=(Q22+Q23+Q24+Q25+Q26)/5. EXECUTE. COMPUTE BrandImage=(Q28_1+Q28_2+Q28_3+Q28_4+Q28_5+Q28_6)/6. EXECUTE. COMPUTE PerceivedQuality=(Q34_1+Q34_2+Q34_3)/3. EXECUTE. COMPUTE BrandAttitude=(Q37_1+Q37_2+Q37_3)/3. EXECUTE.

RECODE FL_22_DO_NRP FL_22_DO_NRC FL_22_DO_NWP FL_22_DO_NWC (SYSMIS=0).

EXECUTE.

COMPUTE SellProduct1RaiseAwareness0=FL_22_DO_NRP+FL_22_DO_NWP. EXECUTE.

(48)

EXECUTE.

COMPUTE NonFit1Fit0=FL_22_DO_NWP+FL_22_DO_NWC. EXECUTE.

COMPUTE Fit1NonFit0=FL_22_DO_NRC+FL_22_DO_NRP. EXECUTE.

DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Fit1NonFit0 SellProduct1RaiseAwareness0 RaiseAwareness1SellProduct0

NonFit1Fit0 BrandInterest /SAVE

/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.

COMPUTE ModeratorSellProductsFit=ZSellProduct1RaiseAwareness0 * ZFit1NonFit0. EXECUTE. COMPUTE ModeratorRaiseAwarenessNonFit=ZNonFit1Fit0*ZRaiseAwareness1SellProduct0. EXECUTE. COMPUTE ModeratorRaiseAwarenessFit=ZFit1NonFit0*ZRaiseAwareness1SellProduct0. EXECUTE. COMPUTE ModeratorBrandInterestNonFit=ZNonFit1Fit0*ZBrandInterest. EXECUTE. COMPUTE BrandReputation=(BrandImage+PerceivedQuality+BrandAttitude)/3. EXECUTE. REGRESSION

(49)

/DESCRIPTIVES MEAN STDDEV CORR SIG N /MISSING LISTWISE

/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10) /NOORIGIN /DEPENDENT BrandReputation /METHOD=ENTER BrandInterest /SCATTERPLOT=(*ZPRED ,BrandReputation). T-TEST GROUPS=Fit1NonFit0(1 0) /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=BrandImage /CRITERIA=CI(.95). T-TEST GROUPS=RaiseAwareness1SellProduct0(1 0) /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=PerceivedQuality /CRITERIA=CI(.95). REGRESSION

/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)

/NOORIGIN

/DEPENDENT PerceivedQuality

/METHOD=ENTER Fit1NonFit0 SellProduct1RaiseAwareness0 /METHOD=ENTER ModeratorSellProductsFit

(50)

REGRESSION

/NOORIGIN

/DEPENDENT BrandAttitude

/METHOD=ENTER NonFit1Fit0 RaiseAwareness1SellProduct0 /METHOD=ENTER ModeratorRaiseAwarenessNonFit

/SCATTERPLOT=(*ZPRED ,BrandAttitude).

REGRESSION

/NOORIGIN

/DEPENDENT BrandImage

/METHOD=ENTER RaiseAwareness1SellProduct0 Fit1NonFit0 /METHOD=ENTER ModeratorRaiseAwarenessFit

/SCATTERPLOT=(*ZPRED ,BrandImage).

REGRESSION

/NOORIGIN

/DEPENDENT BrandAttitude

(51)

/METHOD=ENTER ModeratorBrandInterestNonFit /SCATTERPLOT=(*ZPRED ,BrandAttitude).