2014/2015
MSc. in Business Administration
– Marketing track
[
BRANDS IN THE
BROADCASTING INDUSTRY:
WHAT ARE VIEWERS
ACTUALLY WATCHING?
]
A research focused on the relationship between the
different types of broadcasting brands and the level of
contribution these brands have on the viewer’s
preferences for television programs.
Name:
Samantha Elward
Student number: 10003958
1
stSupervisor:
Drs. Jorge Labadie, MBM.
2
ndSupervisor:
Drs. Roger Pruppers
Version:
Final Version
2
This thesis represents my end-product for the Master Program Business Administration (Marketing track). This report is a detailed description of how I conducted my academic research on the topic ‘brands in the broadcasting industry’ and presents my results and conclusions on this topic.
Being a perfectionist in nature, sometimes can work against you. During my thesis development, I have learned that the desire of wanting to deliver, either for my thesis or in my personal life, should not end up making you uncertain and dubious about everything you do. I have to thank this enlightenment to my thesis supervisor Jorge Labadie, who has tried to let me see, after calling me a ‘mafketel’ for the hundred time, that not everything have to go immediately perfect and that you have to go through a certain process where you make mistakes. I want to thank Jorge for his patience, his support, but most of all believing in me and in the end, making even myself believe that I actually can write a possibly good thesis. I also want to thank my second supervisor Roger Pruppers for providing me with the necessary feedback on statistics and critical notes I needed to see my research from another perspective. Besides my supervisors, I also want to thank my sister Charissa Elward, my parents and my dear friends Diana Voulgaris, Claudia Boerlage, Lisanne Burghardt for their support, for the fact that they forgave me for not seeing me often the last half year and specifically to my sister Charissa, for staying up with me when I wanted to work all through the night. I also want to thank my ‘Amsterdam-friends’ Berna Yilmaz and Claudette van Schubert for the shared-stress and more importantly all the laughter during the last year. Finally, last but definitely not least, I want to express a very special thank you to my boyfriend Alex de Rijber for his support and faith in me. I know my ambition of following two master degrees and the busyness of writing my thesis sometimes forces you to live with someone who is a bit cranky or perhaps even “extremely annoying” …..therefore I want to express my gratitude for your patience and never ending support.
I have learned so much during this intensive year. Not only about conducting academic research and writing an academic research report, but also about myself. The ups and downs of the past year, in private as well as in professional life, have learned me more about myself than I have ever expected. I believe this period has made me ready and prepared for everything that comes next in my career and personal life.
3
Preface ... Abstract ...
Chapter 1 Introduction ... 1
1.1. General introduction: television programs success ... 1
1.2. Unexamined role of the broadcasting brands on television program choice ... 2
1.3. Problem definition ... 3
1.3.1. Problem statement ... 3
1.3.2. Sub questions ... 4
1.3.3. Delimitations of the study ... 4
1.4. Contribution ... 5
1.4.1. Theoretical contribution ... 5
1.4.2. Managerial contributions ... 6
1.5. Structure ... 7
Chapter 2 Brands in the broadcasting industry ... 8
2.1. How to define a ‘brand’ ... 8
2.2. Brands in broadcasting ... 8
2.2.1 The broadcasting organization ... 9
2.2.2 The broadcasting channel ... 10
2.2.3 Television programs ... 10
2.2.4 Television program presenter ... 11
2.3 Importance of branding within broadcasting ... 11
Chapter 3 Multiple brand exposure and consumer responses ... 14
3.1. Brand architecture ... 14
3.1.1. What is brand architecture? ... 14
3.1.2. Type of brands within a brand architecture ... 14
4
3.2. Brand alliances ... 18
3.2.1 What is a brand alliance? ... 18
3.2.2 The relevance of brand alliances for consumers ... 18
3.3. Brand associative networks ... 20
3.3.1 What is a brand associative network? ... 20
3.3.2 Brand knowledge and Customer-based brand equity ... 21
3.3.3 Brand associations and multiple brand exposure ... 22
3.4 Challenges of multiple brand exposure within broadcasting ... 23
3.4.1 Adaptation of the term ‘driver role’ ... 23
3.4.2 Three challenges derived from existing literature ... 23
Chapter 4 Hypotheses ... 26
4.1 Definition of the independent and dependent variables ... 26
4.2. Hypothesis development ... 28
4.2.1. The main effect of broadcasting brand type on brand contribution ... 28
4.2.2. The moderating role of type of broadcasting sector ... 30
4.2.3. The role of type of connectedness of the program name ... 32
4.2.4. The role of the perceived durability a presenter is connected to a program ... 34
4.2.5. The role of the uniqueness of the presenter ... 35
Chapter 5 Methodology ... 36
5.1. Type of research ... 36
5.2. Experimental research method ... 36
5.2.1 Research design ... 37
5.2.3. Stimuli selection ... 38
5.3. Data collection ... 41
5.4 Measures ... 42
5 5.4.3. Control variables ... 45 Chapter 6 Results ... 47 6.1. Introduction ... 47 6.2. Respondent profile ... 47 6.3. Data preparation ... 49 6.3.1. Reliability checks ... 49 6.3.2. Control variables ... 50 6.3.3. Manipulation checks ... 52 6.4. Hypotheses testing ... 56 6.5. Additional analysis ... 69 Chapter 7 Discussion ... 76 Chapter 8 Conclusion ... 85
8.1. Answering the research question ... 85
8.2. Directions for future research ... 88
8.3. Theoretical and managerial contributions ... 89
References ... 95
Appendix 1. Questionnaire ... 106
Appendix 2. Respondent profiles ... 118
Appendix 3. Reliability checks ... 123
Appendix 4. Data preparation ... 124
6
‘What drives the success of a certain television program?’ is a question which is not uncommon within the Dutch broadcasting industry. This research defines four different types of broadcasting brands: the broadcasting organization, the broadcasting channel, the program and the presenter. Four broadcasting brands which a television viewer is exposed to when watching a certain television program. The concept of multiple brand exposure, brand architectures and brand associations were applied to the broadcasting industry in order to investigate in a more holistic approach what the relationship is of the type of broadcasting brand and the contribution to the viewer’s preferences. In addition, branding concepts, such as the type of sector and uniqueness of the presenter, were taken into consideration as moderating variables in the study of the brand contribution of the broadcasting organization, the channel, the program and the presenter on the viewers’ preferences.
An experimental survey was conducted to investigate the relationships between the different variables. The results indicated that the program brand and the presenter brand had the highest impact on the contribution to the viewers’ preferences. It also seemed that viewers experience a difference between brands belonging to the public and commercial broadcasting sector. For example, on the one hand program brands belonging to the public sector have a higher effect on the contribution to the viewer’s preferences, than program brands belonging to the commercial sector. On the other hand, presenters belonging to the commercial sectors have a higher effect on the contribution to the viewer’s preferences, than presenters belonging to the public sector. Next to the type of sector, the perceived uniqueness of the presenter also has an influence on the relationship between the type of broadcasting brand and the contribution to the viewer’s preferences. It seemed that when presenters have a high perceived uniqueness level, the effect of the presenter brand on the contribution to the viewer’s preferences becomes stronger, than when the presenter has a low level of uniqueness. These results showed that the broadcasting organization, channel, program and presenter can indeed be seen as brands and that viewers, perhaps even unconsciously, evaluate them as brands.
Page 1
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1. General introduction: television programs success
In the last couple of years, the Dutch media landscape can be characterized with more competition between broadcasting organizations on achieving the highest audience ratings (Van Soesta, 2013; Van Soesta, 2014), more market share fluctuations for television channels (Stichting Kijkonderzoek, 2010; Stichting Kijkonderzoek 2011; Stichting Kijkonderzoek 2012; Stichting Kijkonderzoek 2013) and last but not least, many successful television programs (Van Soesta, 2012).
Broadcasting organizations call television programs a success, when they have high audience ratings (“Het kijkonderzoek in…”, n.d.). High audience ratings are on their turn considered important for the further existence of both commercial channels as well as public networks (“Publieke omroep bezuinigt…”, 2013; (“Wat voor omroepen…”, n.d.).
What really drives the success of a program is a continuous mystery for the broadcasting industry. Dutch commercial broadcasting organization SBS Broadcasting for example, is asking itself this question for a few years now. The Dutch channels of SBS Broadcasting are struggling and repeatedly fail to win against the enormous success of the RTL Netherlands channels (Van Soestb, 2013). The reason behind this discrepancy in success is mostly assigned to the ‘content’ of the SBS programs. Often evaluated as ‘weak copy-cats’ of other programs and moreover, very bad and amateuristic in content (“Het gaat helemaal…”, 2013). But is that truly the case or could it be so that the answer is less clear-cut?
When a viewer watches a certain program, he or she is not just exposed to the program with its content, but also to multiple other ‘elements’ that could have impact its contribution to the viewer’s decision on whether or not to watch the program. The broadcasting channel and in some instances also the broadcasting organization, is also clearly visible on the screen. And do not forget the presenter, who is also visible for (almost) the whole length of the program. Could it be that these ‘brands’ also play a role? According to several journalists, the role of the presenter should not be underestimated (Verhoef, 2013; Rutten, 2012). According to media experts, letting talented, qualified and famous presenters present a program is one of the, or perhaps, the most important element of a viewer rating hit program.
Page 2 When considering the practice, examples can indeed be given of Dutch program presenters who give themselves glory for the success of television programs or have been given credits for the success of a commercial channel or public network by colleagues in the field. One example is Matthijs van Nieuwkerk, presenter at Dutch public network VARA. Van Nieuwkerk is presenter of a program called De Wereld Draait Door, one of the most popular discussion programs in the Netherlands. Recently, there was a fuss about the high salary of Matthijs van Nieuwkerk (Van Soestb, 2012). Since public networks fall under the government and therefore these expenses are paid with tax money, his high salary was criticized and got a lot of media attention. However, the criticism did not offend Van Nieuwkerk at all, because he stated very clearly that he believed he was definitely worth the high amount of money. According to Van Nieuwkerk the television program and the public network he works for, would not have been such a success without him. But is it truly justified that Matthijs van Nieuwkerk thinks he is worth the money?
Despite the fact that every broadcasting organization hopes to have true rating hits when they introduce new television programs and also hopes to keep the successes in their existing programming, little is known in the academic world on how important the broadcasting organizations and (their) channels are for people when they watch a certain program. This research aims at providing a better and, most importantly, academic insight in the relationship between the type of broadcasting brand (e.g. the broadcasting organization, the broadcasting channel, the program and the presenters) and the degree it contributes to the viewer preferences for certain television programs.
1.2. Unexamined role of the broadcasting brands on television program choice
When looking at the existing literature on what factors determine or contribute to the viewers’ considerations to watch a certain program, a strong focus can be found on research that has investigated what kind of content could lead to success. For example, verbal violence is considered a successful content element (Stanca, Gui and Gallucci, 2013) and being creative in content and related marketing activities is a also assigned as one of the key drivers of viewers’ program choice (Cooper, 2006). These findings suit the thought that the needs of the audience are continuously changing, since consumer behavior is quite dynamic (Peter and Olson, 2001).
Page 3 However, what the majority of the existing literature neglects is what kind of impact the other types of ‘broadcasting brands’ besides the program (e.g. broadcasting organization, channel, presenter) have on the degree of contribution to viewer’s preferences and what the combined influence is of the four brands altogether. When considering the research of Chang and Olmsted (2010), this un-researched field seems kind of unfair. According to Chang and Chan-Olmsted a relationship between the different broadcasting brands is not something strange to imagine and it probably exists. When a parent organization has a strong brand equity, extensions from that parent channel are often perceived as a strong brand too and therefore, have a high possibility to succeed among its viewers. Additionally, a successful television program also seems to have a positive influence on the image of the related broadcasting channel (Drinkwater and Uncles, 2007). However, does this suggested relationship also work the other way around? Could the relationship between a broadcasting channel and a television program or between a television program and the presenter, be seen in the same way? For some programs it seems quite logical that this should be the case. For example, the programs which are connected in their program name with presenters or with a broadcasting organization. However, there is no academic support for this line of ‘logical’ reasoning. When looking at the existing literature, they do not provide any insight regarding the driver role within the Dutch media landscape. The branding aspect has been largely neglected and no research has been done for the degree of contribution of the so called ‘unconscious’ brands that viewers have to deal with while watching a program. To what extent do these different brands have an impact on the contribution to the viewer’s preferences to watch a certain program and which of them is the most important?
1.3. Problem definition
1.3.1. Problem statement
Based on the previous paragraphs, the following problem statement for this research has been defined. The problem statement is derived from the apparent multiple brand exposure which television viewers experience when they watch television. The problem statement is as follows: To what extent do the types of broadcasting brands differ in its effect on the contribution to viewer’s preferences and which brand fulfills the driver role?
The goal of this research is to give more insight in how viewers deal with multiple brand exposure while watching television programs and how important each of these different type
Page 4 of broadcasting brands are considered by viewers. This research tries to apply the literature on multiple branding exposures in the context of the broadcasting industry.
1.3.2. Sub questions
To provide an answer to the research question, a few sub-questions are formulated in order to give a better understanding of the underlying issues of the topic:
What kind of brands are there within the broadcasting industry? How do consumers respond to multiple brand exposure?
Are multiple related brands linked to each other in an associative network? What determines the perceived brand image by consumers?
Do the different types of brands in broadcasting have any contribution on viewers’ preferences on whether or not to watch a certain program? Which brand has the highest contribution?
If a broadcasting brand is indispensably connected to a program (connected program name), does this have any influence on the level of contribution of this brand?
Do the perceived uniqueness of the presenter and the perceived durability of connectedness of the presenter play a role?
1.3.3. Delimitations of the study
The first delimitation is that for the public broadcasting sector, the brand behind the public channels, the NPO (“Wat voor een…”, n.d.), will not be taken into consideration. For a very long time, there was no recognizable link to the public broadcasting organization whatsoever (Van Soestb, 2014). Therefore in practice, the Dutch viewers did not really have to deal with the brand behind the public channels Nederland 1, Nederland 2 and Nederland 3 for a long time. However, on the 19th of August 2014, the NPO exchanged these existing channel names with the connected channel names called NPO 1, NPO 2 and NPO 3. Yet, this research had taken place in the former and most known setting for the public broadcasting sector where the more visual ‘corporate brands’ for the public broadcasting sector were the public broadcasting networks. The public channels have several public broadcasting networks with an own brand identity and brand image that share broadcasting time with each other, such as the AVRO and KRO (“Omroepen”, n.d.). Consequently, this research has excluded the broadcasting organization behind the public channels, but in return included the public broadcasting networks as the ‘corporate’ broadcasting brand for the public broadcasting sector.
Page 5 Nevertheless, this research will not completely neglect the recent change of channel names, therefore this issue will be addressed in the discussion of this thesis.
A second point that should be mentioned is that this study will not cover the image transfer between the different types of broadcasting brands within the industry. Image transfer is more related to the way brand associative networks are structured and how important each of these associations are. How the structure and relations within the brand associative networks of broadcasting brands are put together, is actually something that could go alongside this research. However, due to the limited time span, it is necessary to have a clear focus in this study, therefore the decision has been made to just focus on how important the different type of broadcasting brands are for viewers, which of these brands fulfil the driver role and what kind of moderating effects can be assigned to this relationship.
A third and last delimitation is that the possible influence of the programs’ set times is not included in this research. This research will use a few pre-selected programs to measure the relationship between the type of broadcasting brand and its contribution to the viewer’s preferences. The influence of other programs that are aired at the same time and the set time of the selected programs, will not be taken into consideration. Danaher and Mahwinney (2001) state that set times of programs indeed can influence viewers’ program choice, however, this research focuses on multiple brand exposure, thus brands that are simultaneously visible to the viewer. Therefore, it is not taken in scope for this research. The focus of this research is that in the end it becomes clear which type of broadcasting brand has the highest brand contribution.
1.4. Contribution
1.4.1. Theoretical contribution
When considering the existing literature, this research fills the gap with regard to the unexamined relationship of the commercial broadcasting organizations, public networks, different channels and the presenters and its contribution to the preferences of viewers within the broadcasting industry. Which of these brand types are considered the most important by viewers and does it change under specific circumstances? Despite the fact that program content has already been investigated in the existing literature, it has never been researched in such an holistic approach. Therefore, the program content, or better said the program itself, will also be taken into consideration as a brand.
Page 6 Multiple brand exposure is something that has been researched many times in the past, but with a strong focus on brand architecture within the consumer goods or retail industry (“Hoe lanceer je...”, n.d.). Despite the fact that these existing articles can be consulted, the concept of multiple brand strategy in the broadcasting industry can be considered different.
Brands in the broadcasting industry cannot be that much controlled as brands within the consumer goods sector, because they deal with different owners. Despite the fact that the broadcasting channels have the broadcasting organizations as owners, this is mostly not the case for the other brands. Most television programs are for example, owned by the production organization and program presenters are not pertinently ‘owned’ by one organization. Additionally, broadcasting organizations are continuously exchanging brands, such as the exchange of presenters, television formats and sometimes even television channels. This could reduce the transparency and lead to a lack of consistency for viewers.
Broadcasting ‘products’ are therefore considered difficult to manage creative products and are more managed from an inside-out approach, instead of an outside-in approach (Urde, Baumgarth and Merrilees, 2013). For most cases the interests of the broadcasting brands themselves get more priority than the wants and needs of consumers in the creation of programs, but most definitely in the exchange of brands. Presenters of programs are one of the most important exchanging brands within the industry (Vijfschaft, 2012; Tomas, 2014; “Lammers inderdaad nieuwe…”, 2014). This complicated multiple branding structure makes it interesting to investigate whether the existing literature also applies for broadcasting brands and can therefore be considered unique and a true theoretical contribution.
1.4.2. Managerial contributions
This research explains the broadcasting industry why their viewers are exposed to multiple brands at the same time when they watch television. Additionally, this research also provides the industry insight to what extent the different type of broadcasting brands differ in their impact on the level of contribution to the preferences of viewers to watch a certain program. This research also tries to give more insight in what kind of factors could influence the impact of each type of broadcasting brand on the degree of contribution. The results can provide the industry with support why they should start managing the different type of broadcasting brands as a whole and how organizations in the broadcasting industry should create the strongest and most effective brand architecture.
Page 7 Another reason why researching multiple brand exposure in this business context is important, is because the broadcasting industry is a market where millions of euro’s are circulating (“Omzet Nederlandse tv-markt…”, 2013; “Omzet tv-reclamemarkt wederom…”, 2013) and watching television is still dominating the total time consumers spend on media. Consumers spend seven hours per day on media, from which two and a half hours on watching television (SPOT, 2012). Additionally, the results of this research could be used for other industries within the Dutch media landscape, besides just the broadcasting industry. The Dutch radio industry for example, could also consult the conclusions of this research for problems they face with their radio programs and their potential successes.
1.5. Structure
This research is structured in eight chapters. The second chapter provides insight according to existing literature on what type of brands could be found within the broadcasting industry and why media brands can be considered as ‘brands’ by viewers. The third chapter uses the existing literature on multiple brand exposure for brand architectures and brand alliances and tries to provide insight in what happens if this existing literature is applied to the broadcasting industry. Additionally, this chapter gives background information on brand associative networks, to provide a basic understanding of the concept how and why brands are linked to each other in the minds of consumers. In the fourth chapter the hypotheses are introduced and linked to the existing literature. Chapter five explains the methodology and research design used in this research, followed by chapter six, which provides the results. The seventh chapter covers a discussion based on the findings of this study. And at last, in chapter eight, the conclusions, suggestions for future research and implications are presented.
Page 8
Chapter 2 Brands in the broadcasting industry
2.1. How to define a ‘brand’
Branding is one of the most important concepts within marketing as a means to distinguish between different products (Keller, 2013). The concept of branding starts with a clear definition of what a brand precisely is. However, literature shows that it is hard to clearly define what a brand is and what is consists of. De Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley (1998) concluded that there are twelve different antecedents of the word ‘brand’, such as that it is a legal instrument, a logo, a company or a risk reducer.
For this research, the prevailing definition of a brand would be seeing it as a manner in which people can differentiate between offerings, such as products and services (De Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1998). The most common definition of brands is the one by Kotler (1991; p.442 in: Keller, 1993), which defines the term from a consumer perspective. Kotler defines the word ‘brand’ as: “a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors”. This definition tends more to a metamorphic meaning, which interprets a brand as the image of a certain product, organization or perhaps even person, perceived by the outside world (Stern, 2006). A brand is actually built by the different associations people have of that specific brand and to what extent people are attached to that brand (Thomson, MacInnis and Whan Park, 2005). The different associations people have of a brand are called the ‘brand image’ (Keller, 1993). The most important thing with regard to brand image is that the different associations people have, are in accordance with the intended brand image. The intended brand image is better known as the ‘brand identity’ (Nandan, 2005) and originates from within the organization. Whether this accordance exists, really depends on the branding strategy (Brown, Dacin, Pratt and Whetten, 2006). More literature regarding brand image will be discussed in the next chapter.
2.2. Brands in broadcasting
Now having a clear definition of what a brand is, it is important for this research to look at the role brands play within the Dutch broadcasting industry. One can ask themselves; do the different types of broadcasting brands really exist and do viewers perceive them as brands?
As seen by the brand definition of Kotler (1991; p.442 in: Keller, 1993), a brand is mainly focused on providing an identity and a way to differentiate against competitors. When keeping
Page 9
this definition in the back of the mind and looking at the Dutch broadcasting industry, several type of broadcasting brands can be identified.
The following type of brands will be discussed in the upcoming paragraphs, namely: 1) The broadcasting organization
i. Public broadcasting networks 2) The broadcasting channels
a. Commercial channels b. Public channels 3) The television program
4) The television program presenters
2.2.1 The broadcasting organization
The first type of brand in the broadcasting industry is the broadcasting organization. A broadcasting organization is the ‘parent’ organization of broadcasting channels (“Wat voor een…”, n.d.). The Netherlands have one public broadcasting organization, namely Nederlandse
Publieke Omroep (NPO) and two large commercial broadcasting organizations, which are RTL
Netherlands and SBS Broadcasting (Van Soestb, 2013). Like mentioned in the delimitations, the public broadcasting organization NPO will be excluded from this research, due to the fact that for the public broadcasting sector, there was no clear recognizable link to the NPO up until the 19th of August 2014 and viewers were more visually exposed to the specific public broadcasting networks, than to the public broadcasting organization behind the channels (Van Soest b, 2014).
Public broadcasting networks
The public broadcasting sector currently has twenty public broadcasting networks. At the time of this research, these broadcasting networks had to share their broadcasting time on the public channels named Nederland 1, Nederland 2 and Nederland 3 (currently named as NPO 1, NPO 2 and NPO 3). Each public broadcasting network has its own target group, own brand identity and its own television programs. The public broadcasting network can be considered as the organization that is ‘responsible’ for the programs and the presenters on the public channels. This structure makes the Dutch public broadcasting landscape quite complicated (“Omroepen”, n.d.). Like mentioned in the delimitations and the previous paragraph, these 20 public networks will be included in this research as the corporate broadcasting brand for the public sector instead of the public broadcasting organization NPO.
Page 10 2.2.2 The broadcasting channel
A broadcasting channel can be seen as the brand extension of a broadcasting organization (Chang and Chan-Olmsted, 2010), and is also visually the most obvious brand in this industry. It can be simply defined as a television channel with a specific target group and several television programs in their programming. When looking at the Dutch literature, broadcasting channels are often termed broadcasting organizations (“Wat voor een…”, n.d.). However, when looking at the international literature a clear distinction can be found between these two forms (Chang and Chan-Olmsted, 2010), therefore this research also makes this distinction. In the Netherlands there are two kinds of broadcasting channels, namely public broadcasting channels and commercial broadcasting channels.
Public broadcasting channels
Public broadcasting channels fall under the responsibility of the government and are therefore not-for-profit organizations. Commercial broadcasting channels on the other hand, can be considered for-profit organizations (“Wat voor een…”, n.d.). An interesting question that could arise is do consumers also perceive this as a crucial difference and is it a relevant one for their television program choice?
Currently, there are three public channels, which on their turn can be divided into the previous mentioned 20 public broadcasting networks.
Commercial broadcasting channels
When looking at the commercial broadcasting channels, the brand extensions of SBS Broadcasting and RTL Netherlands, can be considered the most popular ones in the Dutch broadcasting industry. These are RTL4, RTL5, RTL7 and RTL8 for RTL Netherlands and SBS6, NET5 and Veronica for SBS Broadcasting (“Vereniging Commerciële Omroepen”, n.d.). There are also regional and local broadcasting networks, however, these are on a very small scale (“Wat voor een…”, n.d.) and therefore none of their programs will be considered when selecting stimuli for this research.
2.2.3 Television programs
Every broadcasting network has an extensive list of television programs in their planning. A television program can take different forms and all have their own kind of content, from entertainment to current affairs, from very creative content to violent content (“NPO”, n.d.; “TV-programma’s”, n.d.; “Alle “TV-programma’s”, n.d.). This research will focus on television programs which are appointed as successful in their ratings by the Stichting Kijkonderzoek (Stichting
Page 11 Kijkonderzoek, 2010; Stichting Kijkonderzoek 2011; Stichting Kijkonderzoek 2012; Stichting Kijkonderzoek 2013). This research tries to explain what kind of contribution each brand type has on the decision of viewers to watch a certain program, therefore investigating the successful ones and try to explain why these are successful is considered the most logical choice for this research.
2.2.4 Television program presenter
The final type of broadcasting brand is the presenter of a television program. Not only organizations, products and services can be brands, people can also have a certain brand image and therefore be a brand (Kotler, 1991; p.442 in: Keller, 1993). How strong or weak this brand is, depends on the personal branding of these persons. Personal branding can be defined as the power that everyone has to be their own brand and the main task of every person is to be their own personal marketer. It actually works the same way as normal branding, namely selling a person’s uniqueness and strength to a target audience (Labrecque, Markos and Milne, 2011).
When considering these different types of brands, different layers within the broadcasting industry can be discovered. It becomes clear that television viewers are exposed to multiple brands at the same time while watching television. This emphasizes the importance of brands in the broadcasting industry.
2.3 Importance of branding within broadcasting
Branding within the broadcasting industry is not a phenomenon that already exists for decades. Chan-Olmsted and Kim (2001) proved that in the beginning of the year 2000, general managers of broadcasting organizations were certainly aware of the branding concept, however, branding was often treated more as an extension of the promotion of the organization, instead of as a real strategic managerial process.
Though, as of today, broadcasting organizations are highly aware of the fact that creating powerful brands within the broadcasting industry does matter. The use of branding strategies, in the form of clear logos and catchy sounds for broadcasting channels, is used by almost every broadcasting organization nowadays. This attempt to differentiate is necessary according to Chang and Chan-Olmsted (2010), because media products can be considered experience goods and therefore, it is important that viewers feel and see the difference between the different broadcasting brands.
Page 12 Although Chang and Chan-Olmsted (2010) state that broadcasting organizations are nowadays highly aware of the importance of branding, the industry still struggles with positioning themselves among television viewers. Some public networks (e.g. AVRO, NCRV, VARA) are going way back in history, when there was still a pillar system and each network clearly represented a (religious) stream and there were less public networks (Kremer, 2006). Kremer has shown that the way these ‘old’ public networks expressed their brand identity, has not changed through the years, while the public broadcasting sector itself has changed a lot. There are more public networks now, than back then, therefore a clearer and distinct expression of the brand identities of the different public broadcasting networks is considered necessary.
Johnson (2013), however, stated that this is not so easy for the public broadcasting sector. A common branding problem of public networks is remaining their public and independent image. Public networks should actually position themselves as independent organizations, however, this is a difficult task due to the fact that these networks also need to attract members to even exist and to compete with the commercial broadcasting channels. These clashing interests make it difficult for the public sector to develop and execute a clear branding strategy with a programming that fits the whole. Visser-Wijnveen and Looijen (2005) concluded that this could consequently lead to diluted brand identities for the different public broadcasting networks.
Another problem of the public broadcasting sector is the fact that the different public networks are not connected to one public channel (“Overzicht waarderingscijfers”, 2014). Therefore, the different television programs of the public networks are not aired in an environment with other programs that fits with the public networks’ brand identity. This could also negatively influence the clarity of the different public networks and make their identities more diluted (Visser-Wijnveen and Looijen, 2005).
The conclusions of Johnson (2013) and the dysfunction of some of the public networks (Visser-Wijnveen and Looijen, 2005) can be reflected to the current practice in the Dutch media landscape. The Dutch government has decided that the current 20 public broadcasting networks have to be decreased to a maximum of eight public broadcasting networks by the year 2016 (“Omroepen”, n.d; “Hervorming publieke omroep”, n.d.). This forces the public networks to move, merge and some should even give up existing (“Publieke omroep bezuinigt…”, 2013). Attracting new members, but also retaining the existing ones, has
Page 13 become crucial for the further existence of some public networks. Due to these governmental cuts, the small public networks have to grasps all the possibilities they get to promote themselves, which brings their independent and public position in jeopardy.
Not only the public networks struggle with their branding strategy. The Dutch commercial channels also have their own problems, concerning the enduring competition between the different channels (Kasteleijn, 2013). Like mentioned in the introduction of this research, the Dutch broadcasting networks SBS6, Net5 and Veronica, have a hard time getting high ratings for their television programs, in comparison with the successful RTL4 and RTL5 (Van Soesta, 2013). Especially for these kind of channels, it is important to be an attractive brand for investors, since that is the main income of these networks (“Wat voor omroepen…”, n.d.). Brand image is very important for these different commercial channels and public networks. Research has proved that within the broadcasting industry, the concept of brand extension and image transfer can be applied. Chang and Chan-Olmsted (2010) proved that the brand equity of a broadcasting organization, for example SBS Broadcasting, could be transferred to their brand extensions, for example the channels SBS6, Net5 and Veronica. The results of Drinkwater and Uncles (2007) are in line with these conclusions regarding image transfer for brand extensions, since they proved that having successful television programs aids to a positive brand image of the broadcasting channel.
These results show that branding in the broadcasting industry is something that should not be underestimated. One of the main goals of the commercial broadcasting organizations and public networks is to have high audience ratings for their television programs (Kasteleijn, 2013) and therefore in some kind of way become the preferred and chosen brand of the consumer. However, this does not happen so easily. It demands sufficient attention to the branding strategy in order to really become the preferred brand for viewers. The literature shows that the different type of broadcasting brands could be viewed as brand extensions of each other (Drinkwater and Uncles, 2007), therefore it would be a good idea to investigate if these brands are also equally important to viewers in their decision to watch a certain program. The next chapter will describe what theories can be applied when consumers are confronted with multiple brand exposure. How do they make their decisions and what role does each brand play for the consumer’s decisions?
Page 14
Chapter 3 Multiple brand exposure and consumer responses
Past research with regard to multiple brand exposure was mainly focused on for example, the brand architectures within the consumer goods market or the retail industry (“Hoe lanceer je...”, n.d). Despite the fact that most of the existing literature is applied to other sectors, this chapter will consult and refer to these existing researches in order to make sense of the relationships between the different brands in broadcasting.
3.1. Brand architecture
3.1.1. What is brand architecture?
One of the most important concepts in the field of multiple brand exposure is the term brand architecture. Brand architecture can be described as a branding framework that organizes and explains the nature and strategic relationships of different brands belonging to an organization (Abraham and Taylor, 2011). Brand architecture is actually about how to get two or more brands under one corporate brand to support each other; each sub-part should benefit the whole (Kapferer, 2001 in: Dooley and Bowie, 2005). It can be seen as a set of inter-linked building blocks between separate brands. A brand architecture consists of different levels of branding, from top-level corporate brands to the lower-level sub brands and the linkages between all these brands. It is important that the so-called building blocks add value to one another and secure the organization’s competitive advantage as a whole (Uncles, Cocks and Macrae, 1995). When an organization has a strong and cohesive brand architecture, this will presumably lead to a positive impact on consumers, more clarity, a clearer synergy and more leverage (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000).
The brand architecture is in most cases a heritage of past management decisions, therefore creates a ‘brand baggage’. Besides the influence of past management decisions, also past competition and how the organization dealt with them is of influence on the brand architecture (Rajagopal and Sanchez, 2004).
3.1.2. Type of brands within a brand architecture
Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) state that a brand architecture is a kind of structure which organizes the different brands in an organization’s brand portfolio and specifies the brand role and the nature of the relationships between these brands. Aaker and Joachimsthaler developed a powerful brand architecture tool, named the ‘brand relationship spectrum’, which distinguishes the different type of brands and their brand architectures and therefore different
Page 15 potential brands as a driver. When a product is connected to multiple brands, the brand with the driver role reflects the extent to which a certain brand drives the purchase decision and use experience of a consumer (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000). When a consumer is asked “What brand did you buy or use?” the brand the person mentions first will be the brand that is on top of mind and is the brand that had the primary driver role responsibility for the decision. It can be seen as the brand that has the highest contribution for the consumer.
According to this brand relationship spectrum (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000), there are four types of brands, namely: 1) house of brands; 2) endorsed brands; 3) sub brands and 4) branded house. The house of brands and branded house are the two extremes on the spectrum. A house of brands involves an independent set of stand-alone brands, where the corporate brand is (nearly) not visible to the consumer. Each of these individual brands is maximizing the market. This type of strategy allows organizations to clearly position their brands on functional benefits and to dominate certain niche markets. The most well known examples are the large Fast-Moving-Consumer-Goods organizations, such as Procter and Gamble and Unilever. For these types of brands, the driver role lays with the sub brands, since the corporate brand is not that visible for the consumer (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000).
Endorsed brands are still independent, however they are also endorsed by another brand, and a good example is Polo Jeans by Ralph Lauren. These types of brands mostly have a greater credibility due to the endorsement by an established brand, while the endorsement brand usually plays a small driver role (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000).
Sub brands are brands that are connected to a corporate brand and therefore will have an influence on the associations consumers have of that corporate brand. The corporate brand is for consumers their frame of reference, which will be stretched out due to the sub brand and therefore change the existing associations of the brand, like Microsoft Office or Sony Playstation. The corporate brand and sub brand are more closely linked than when it comes to endorsed brands, therefore this option can give an organization a big opportunity or a huge risk (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000). The driver role can lie with both brands; it depends on how the consumer interprets the brand.
A branded house is a brand architecture where the master brand has the dominant driver role. The sub brand has little or no driver role at all, because the master brand is well visible on
Page 16 each sub brand. A well known example of an organization with these types of brands is Virgin (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000).
3.1.2 The impact of a brand architecture
In the current world of competition, it is important that brands in an organization’s brand architecture are linked to each other, but not in a rigid way. The powerful linkages should be adaptive through time. An effective example of creating a connection between multiple brands is through double-branding, which presents an integrated and consistent message to the consumer of all the related brands (Uncles, Cocks and Macrae, 1995).
The brand architecture strategy eventually works hand-in-hand with the brand portfolio management of an organization (Abraham and Taylor, 2011). A brand portfolio includes all brands sold by an organization in a specific product category (Keller, 2013). Most large organizations in the consumer goods markets, such as Unilever and Procter and Gamble, have different brand portfolios which consist of several brands that are inter-linked with each other by the corporate brand (Morgan and Rego, 2009). Brand portfolios are judged by its ability to maximize brand equity, or simpler said, brand value. This means that each brand in a brand portfolio should not damage or decrease the brand equity of the other brands (Keller, 2013). In the end, both the brand architecture and the brand portfolio influence how stakeholders engage with an organization’s products and services (Abraham and Taylor, 2011). This can especially be important if broadcasting brands want consumers’ active engagement.
Therefore, it seems quite logical that next to creating a strong brand architecture, portfolio planning is also a very integral part for organizations that have multiple brands. According to Hill, Ettenson and Tyson (2005), portfolio planning is a periodic and discrete event that gives brand managers the opportunity to step back from the daily problems and look at the course ahead.
3.1.3 The relevance of brand architecture for consumers
The influence of the conjunction between an organization’s brand architecture and brand portfolio for stakeholder engagement (Abraham and Taylor, 2011), can well be seen back in how the current marketplace deals with multiple brands within one organization. The different type of brands in a brand architecture by Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) are currently still relevant, however, some changes can be seen due to the importance of brand architecture and brand portfolio inter-linkages. When looking at the current brands, like the house of brands type, the brands are still independent, though, organizations like Unilever and Procter and
Page 17 Gamble came out of the shadow and put their corporate logo more visually on the products. These organizations believe that consumers nowadays want to be informed about the products and services they buy. This visibility also creates public awareness for the organization and is a good manner to boost the recruitment and adds to employer branding (Eleftheriou-Smith, 2011).
This recent trend supports the findings of Laforet and Saunders (2005). According to this research, technological advancements demand that organizations pay more attention to the brand-linkages, due to the fact that the marketplace becomes more and more transparent. The brand is currently the one constant link between the marketer and the consumer.
The step out of the shadow by Unilever and Procter and Gamble can also be explained by the importance of consistency within a brand architecture, relative to the number and diversity of products and product lines within an organization. Organizations with an extensive brand architecture should differentiate their product lines and give them an own brand identity, while at the same time send out a common corporate identity. Therefore, creating distinctive brand images, but at the same time use a common brand name, like Unilever and Procter and Gamble do since a couple of years, reinforces the effort and can lead to perceived synergy (Rajagopal and Sanchez, 2004), which positively influences the evaluation of the consumer. Delvecchio (2000) agrees with the importance of synergy. According to Delvecchio besides fit, also the number of products affiliated with a brand and the quality variance of these products, play an important role in affecting consumers’ impressions with regard to the reliability of a brand. Delvecchio defines brand reliability as the ability of an existing brand to reduce the associated risks of purchasing or using a brand extension. Research has shown that greater fit within a brand portfolio allows consumers to more confidently transfer their existing brand beliefs to the extension product, therefore reduces the risk consumers perceive by purchasing or using a brand extension product or service.
Besides an organization’s brand architecture and brand portfolio, another well known multiple brand exposure concept is that of brand alliances. This concept will be discussed in more detail in the following paragraph.
Page 18
3.2. Brand alliances
3.2.1 What is a brand alliance?
The fact that no person can avoid purchasing products or services without a brand highlights the importance of branding. Brands can actually be seen as a kind of carrier of symbolic meanings in the current marketplace (Dickinson and Barker, 2007). A brand alliance is a specific marketing strategy that organizations use to transfer positive brand equity of two or more partner brands for a newly created joint brand (Washburn, Till and Priluck, 2004). Two or more individual brands cooperate their marketing activities for short-term or long-term combinations and it can be represented physically or symbolically. Physical representation occurs when two or more brands are visual on a product. Symbolic representation occurs when brand names, logos or other brand assets in marketing communication efforts are associated with each other (Voss and Gammoh, 2004).
3.2.2 The relevance of brand alliances for consumers
Research has turned out that just as with brand architectures, the fit between brand alliances or joint brands is very important. Dickinson and Barker (2007) investigated co-branding alliances between non-profit and commercial entities. Since both types of organizations have almost contrary objectives, huge risks are in sight. It could be that the brand alliance between these kinds of organizations is not well received or evaluated. However, Dickinson and Barker proved that commercial and non-profit organizations can well start a brand alliance, but only when a high level of fit is perceived by the consumers. The level of perceived fit does not only have to lie with the objectives of the organizations. A high level of perceived fit for a brand alliance can provide great benefits for each partner in terms of positive brand alliance evaluations and positive spillover effects to the brands separately. Co-branding activities with a poor fit seem to reduce the benefits or even completely invalidate them. Besides fit, existing literature consistently conclude that a good reputation also has a positive influence on a brand alliance relationship, especially for an alliance between an existing and unknown brand (Gammoh and Voss, 2006), like an existing television channel and a new television program. The attitude towards the host brand can have a positive effect on the attitude towards the ally brand and therefore positively influence the attitude towards the brand alliance as a whole. The importance of reputation is also supported by the research of Dickinson and Heath (2008). Their research has shown that the quality, or so called brand
Page 19 superiority, of brands within a brand alliance have an influence on the evaluation of the brand alliance as a whole.
Gammoh and Voss (2006) also assigned the importance of brand reputation in a brand alliance. They investigated the relationship of brand alliances on the basis of the Elaboration Likelihood Model. The Elaboration Likelihood Model is a well-known model which explains the two routes of persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route. The central route is taken when a consumer is motivated, has a high involvement and has the ability to process the message. Depending on the content of the message, either persuasion, resistance or a boomerang effect may occur. The peripheral route will be taken when a consumer is not motivated, has low involvement and does not have the ability to process the message. No cognitive effort will be taken via this route to process the message. Consumers via this route can be influenced by positive or negative cues or simple decision rules, like endorsers, which allows them to evaluate the message quickly (Petty and Cacioppo, 1983).
With this theory as one of their basics, Gammoh and Voss (2006) concluded that a brand partner in a brand alliance can serve as an endorser of the primary brand. This could happen in two ways, namely when the cognitive elaboration is low and the message contains strong arguments, the one brand partner serves as an endorser for the other (unknown) brand. On the other hand, a well-known and high reputable brand partner can also be perceived as an information source when cognitive elaboration is high and the ad contains weak arguments. Besides the role of reputation in a brand alliance, Rodrigue and Biswas (2004) found two interesting moderating, namely dependency and exclusivity. When a host brand has an exclusive and unique contract with a brand ally, the host brand has an increase in favorable attitude after the alliance. For the ally brand, this relationship is moderated by the dependency of the brand. When an ally brand is dependent of an host brand, the ally brand has an increase in favorable attitude after the alliance.
Research of Uggla (2004) supports the importance of dependency and exclusivity for positive evaluation of a brand alliance. According to this research, it is important for collaboration between brands to elicit unique and distinct brand associations for consumers. Creating unique brand associations is an important part of creating a strong brand equity. More in-depth explanation on brand associations and their linkages will be provided in the next paragraph of this research. Differentiated and unique brands are more likely to attract exclusive buyers or the so-called ‘sole-buyers’. Even consumers who are known for being
Page 20 multi-brand purchasers, show a disproportionate preference for highly differentiated brands (Foxall, 1999).
Washburn, Till and Priluck (2000) also acknowledge the importance pairing two or more branded products to form a separate and unique product. Their research showed that co-branding improves the perceptions of consumers regardless of whether the co-co-branding partner, or better said brand ally, is a high or low equity brand. A strong and distinct brand alliance can lead to consumers being ‘locked-in’ to brand-specific associations, which can become hard to shift in a brand leverage strategy (James, 2005). This however, makes it important to consider whether to form a brand alliance or not and what this potentially could do with the evaluations of consumers, now and in the future.
According to Arnett, Laverie and Wilcox (2010) brand alliances are truly a double-edged sword, therefore it needs the necessary and good considerations by practitioners. The extent to which a brand alliance really aids or damages the partnering brands depends on the degree to which the brand alliance is evaluated favorably. Bruner and Spekman (1998) have emphasized the dark side of alliances and assigned a few important lessons to be learned. One of them is that alliances ask for common agreement about mission, ideals, economics and even culture, however in practice this can be one of the most demanding and challenging tasks when combining two or more brands with each other.
The existing literature consistently concludes the importance of creating a distinct and unique brand alliance and the role the brand reputation potentially could have. All these different branding structures, from brand portfolio and brand architectures to brand alliances, clearly seem to influence consumer perceptions. The brand meanings consumers derive are conveyed in their associations about the brand (Keller, 1993). The next paragraph will give a more brief understanding on brand associative networks.
3.3. Brand associative networks
3.3.1 What is a brand associative network?
Brand associations are all the perceptions a consumer has in mind of a specific brand. All these perceptions together help in the formation of a brand image (Keller, 1993). The associative network model views a consumer’s memory as a network of different nodes and connecting links. Each node stands for information and the links between the nodes varies in
Page 21 their strength. The type of information stored in an associative network is very diverse; it can be verbal, abstract or even contextual (Keller, 2013).
3.3.2 Brand knowledge and Customer-based brand equity
The brand associative network altogether is actually the brand knowledge of a consumer, which is key for creating brand equity. Brand equity is frequently described as the value a brand name or other unique brand elements add to a product or service (Pitta and Katsanis, 1995). In a general sense, brand equity can be seen as the unique attributes belonging to a brand, which defines the brand value and differentiates the brand from competitors (Keller, 1993). According to Keller, there are two motivations for studying brand equity, namely a financial-based motivation to estimate the value of a brand and a strategy-based motivation to improve the marketing productivity.
Another approach of brand equity is the concept of customer-based brand equity. This concept approaches brand equity from a consumer perspective and can be defined as the differential effect that brand knowledge, or better said the brand associative network, has on the consumer response to the marketing activities of that specific brand. The basic idea of customer-based brand equity is that the power of a brand lies in the hands of a consumer. The customer-based brand equity is based on all the experiences a consumer had with a certain brand, therefore it is important that marketers ensure that these experiences were the right type of experiences (Keller, 2013).
According to Keller (2013) brand knowledge has two components, namely brand awareness and brand image. The first component, brand awareness, is to what extent the brand node can be considered strong and therefore allows the consumer to recognize or recall the brand under different conditions. Hoyer and Brown (1990) state that brand awareness represents the lowest end of a continuum of brand knowledge, which ranges from simple brand name recognition to a strong developed cognitive structure with detailed information.
The second component, brand image, is related to the consumer’s perceptions of a certain brand. All these perceptions of associations together are organized in a meaningful way in the mind of consumers. Therefore, brand image can be ascribed as consumers’ subjective perceptions of associations of a certain brand (Nandan, 2005). A positive brand image can be formed by an organization, however it asks for marketing programs that link strong, favorable and unique associations to the brand in the memory of the consumer (Keller, 2013).
Page 22 According to Keller (2013) there are two types of brand associations, namely brand attributes and brand benefits. Brand attributes are more descriptive features of a product or service, whereas brand benefits are more related to personal value and the meaning consumers attach to certain products or service attributes. This type of dichotomy can also be found in the conclusions of Bhat and Reddy (1998). According to Bhat and Reddy every brand image should be based on a brand concept, which can be either one of two types, namely functional brand concepts or symbolic brand concepts. Functional brands are more immediate and satisfy a kind of practical need, whereas symbolic brands are more emotional-related brands focused on self-expression and prestige.
However, the brand image does not have to be in accordance with how the brand wants to be seen. The brand image is something that an organization can influence, but however not control completely. What an organization can control and create is its own brand identity. The brand identity is how an organization wants to present and identity itself; what kind of norms and values do they believe in and what kind of mission do they want to expose. The formation of a brand identity needs a strong branding strategy in accordance with the marketing mix as a means to communicate its identity and value to stakeholders (Nandan, 2005).
3.3.3 Brand associations and multiple brand exposure
By having a clearer view of how brand associations are formed and structured in the mind of consumers, how are brand associations then linked or formed when consumers are exposed to multiple brands at the same time?
According to James (2005) brand associations which are positive individually, can change when the brand transfers to another product category or partners up with a brand alliance. Additionally, James also concluded that the unfavorable brand associations between brand alliances is often linked to concrete attributes which did not fit with the new brand alliance. This research again shows the earlier mentioned importance of fit between brands when they are exposed to the consumer at the same time.
Another finding with regard to brand associations and multiple brand exposure is the previous mentioned research of Washburn, Till and Priluck (2004). This research adds an interesting finding to the other literature on brand associations and brand alliances. According to Washburn, Till and Priluck, the pairing of two brands will lead to a positive evaluation, even though the brand partner is initially perceived as high or low in customer-based brand equity. They think this is the case due to experiencing less risk and more credibility by consumers.
Page 23 However, as can be seen in other literature, this simple explanation can be a bit short-sighted. Many more aspects play a role, like for example fit and the fact that the brand ally is a well-known established or unwell-known brand.
3.4 Challenges of multiple brand exposure within broadcasting
3.4.1 Adaptation of the term ‘driver role’
When looking at the literature on multiple brand structures, such as brand portfolios, brand architectures and brand alliances, challenges for the brands in broadcasting can be acknowledged. The structure of multiple brands, but also their influence on consumers’ brand associations and responses are quite complicated. Most of the existing literature regards consumer goods products. Since these products are not the same in nature as media products, some adaptations have to be made to key principles for this research.
When looking at broadcasting brands and media products specifically, obviously there are no purchases being made by consumers and the products are not actually being used, therefore an adapted definition of the driver role (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000) is required. Since consumers do not consume media products and not physically use media products, it can better be seen as that consumers experience media products (Chang and Chan-Olmsted, 2010). Instead of defining the driver role as the brand that has the largest contribution on the consumer decision making (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000), this research defines the driver role as having the largest contribution on the viewers’ preferences for watching a specific program. Therefore, the broadcasting brand type (e.g. corporate broadcasting brand, channel, program and presenter) that has the highest impact on the contribution to the viewer’s preferences is considered the brand that fulfills the driver role. Overall, when evaluating the existing literature, three challenges can be pointed out.
3.4.2 Three challenges derived from existing literature
Branding the different brands in the broadcasting industry asks for a different approach than branding in, for example, the consumer goods sector. One of the first challenges regards the fact that media products can be considered experience goods (Chang and Chan-Olmsted, 2010). Viewers can evaluate a media product, such as a television program, only after watching and therefore experiencing it. This means that two parties, the viewer and broadcasting brand, do not have access to the same information on beforehand, which according to Nelson (1970 in: Gammoh and Voss, 2006), could lead to potential problems. Additionally, the existing literature also showed the importance of creating unique and
