Graduate School of Communication
University of Amsterdam
The Hijab in Marketing: The Impact of the Representation of
Religious Stereotypes in Brand Marketing Campaigns on a
Company’s Corporate Reputation and Brand Image
Master’s Thesis
Master’s programme Communication Science
Corporate Communication
Zandra Rose den Hartog
11898364
31
stJanuary 2020
Supervised by
Dr. Iina Hellsten
Abstract
Today, corporations have been faced with a new challenge, one that involves the strategic ability to effectively communicate with and satisfy an ever diversifying and
multicultural pool of stakeholders while also maintaining a good corporate reputation. While the representation of ethnic and cultural diversity has become quite common amongst
marketing strategists in corporations within the West, the representation of religious stereotypes in particular has caused much debate. Based on the limited available literature, religious stereotypes featured in marketing campaigns can, theoretically, either have a positive or negative impact on a company’s corporate reputation and brand image (Izlem & Osman, 2015; Chaudhuri, 2002; Waller, 2005; Elhajjar et al, 2018).
This study proposes that the representation of religious stereotypes in marketing campaigns can have a positive impact on corporate reputation and brand image. This study can also be deemed exploratory, as it also examines the impact of religious stereotypes on brand loyalty and word-of-mouth while further investigating brand type difference and pre-conceived brand attitudes as moderators. An online imbedded survey experiment was employed to analyze the impact of a hijab wearing model in an H&M and Katjes campaign ad. The findings prove the proposition that the representation of a religious stereotype in a marketing campaign ad can indeed have a positive impact on corporate reputation, brand image, brand loyalty and word-of-mouth. No moderation was detected with regards to brand type difference or pre-conceived brand attitudes. However, confirming previous literature, both variables did have significant direct effects on corporate communication and brand image. Furthermore, new findings uncovered how participant characteristics such as gender and age were found to play interesting roles in the impact of the representation of religious stereotypes.
Introduction
As we try to manoeuvre ourselves through the 21st century propelled by the
globalization wave, there is an increasing awareness building world-wide in the areas of multi-culturalism and diversity (Rugimbana & Nwankwo, 2003). Issues such as cultural diversity and inclusivity have presented marketers with new challenges (ibid) and the importance of ethnic diversity in marketing in multicultural societies has increased (Burton, 2003). Especially in the West, the contemporary marketplace has been characterized by fast moving global integration and evolving ethnic, religious, racial and national differences (Jamal et al, 2015). However, ethnic and multi-cultural marketing efforts are still being contested (ibid) and could have negative consequences on brands (Licsandru & Cui, 2018) and corporations. While the general representation of multi-culturalism in international marketing campaigns is gradually becoming quite common, it is how certain corporations are portraying multi-culturalism through the representation of religious stereotypes that has been attracting much attention recently.
From a corporate communication perspective, it is argued that corporations are powerful catalysts when it comes to radiating and communicating social awareness through the media. Nike and L’Óreal are prime examples of large corporations that have paid great support and homage to diversity and social justice through the use of arguably controversial campaigns featuring religious stereotypes. Consequently, these corporations have faced either negative publicity or heightened respect from the public (Waller, 2006). The main issue arises when negative publicity affects a corporation’s reputation (Dean, 2004).
Since the inclusion of certain ethnic minorities and religious stereotypes in campaigns is perceived to be rather sensitive (Emslie et al, 2007; Delener, 1994), corporations today are confronted with a new challenge. This challenge is to strategically communicate their
corporate brand to a diverse category of stakeholders while also maintaining a good
reputation. Abratt and Kleyn stress the importance of a corporation’s reputation and defines it as an outcome of interactions between stakeholders and the organization over time. The corporate brand on the other hand can be seen as an umbrella term that covers corporate expression and overall brand image (ibid).
Through a marketing communication perspective, corporations that have featured religious stereotypes in their marketing campaigns can demonstrate how discourse or communication of progress can make for a valuable marketing strategy (Bahrainwala & O’Connor, 2019). However, this particular marketing strategy may not always be valuable for a corporation as it still yields very contrastive stakeholder perspectives. The consequences of such a strategy may include the attraction of heavy criticism or being deemed too
controversial (Waller, 2005). In contrast, Elhajjar et al (2018) argue that such a strategy would positively increase a company’s image.
This study has chosen to focus on religious stereotypes in campaigns in the form of Muslim women who wear the hijab. A “hijab” can be defined as a headscarf typically worn by Muslim women to cover their head and chest (Wikipedia, 2019). The featuring of the hijab in international campaigns is still relatively recent. Previous studies have argued why
corporations in the West are strategically starting to feature images of women wearing the hijab in their campaign advertisements and that is namely to: signal their progressiveness (Bahrainwala & O’Connor, 2019), to portray their promotion and support for inclusivity and diversity (Taylor et al, 2010; Gineikiené et al, 2015) or to gain publicity (Khamis, 2019). While these reasons may prove highly beneficial for a corporation, it could also prove otherwise.
Especially in Europe, the hijab worn by Muslim women is still associated with either being a religious (Ruby, 2006) or “controversial” symbol (Lewis, 2013, p.181) and is still a
topic of political and social debate (Teitelbaum, 2011). The main problem is that corporations are hence reluctant to advertise or market their brands with the featuring of a visible religious stereotypes because they risk alienating their non-Islamic majority (Rößner and Eisend, 2018) or possibly effecting their reputation and brand image. Due to these reasons, this study has chosen Europe as an area of focus.
Evidently, there is a distinctive ongoing debate within current literature surrounding the hijab as a religious stereotype and its inclusion in marketing strategies when considering the possible advantages or disadvantages. With regards to this debate and the main problem discussed above, the aim of this study is to explore whether marketing religious stereotypes in campaigns, hijab wearers in this case, has an impact on a corporation’s reputation and brand image. This study may also be deemed exploratory, as it will also examine how brand loyalty and word-of-mouth play a role in this impact along with whether differing brand types or brand attitudes may affect this impact. Thus, the research is as follows:
How does the representation of religious stereotypes in marketing campaigns impact a company’s corporate reputation and brand image? And does brand loyalty and
word-of-mouth play a role in this impact?
This particular field and research topic can be seen as both novel and relevant for corporations, scholars and consumers alike for various scientific, theoretical and practical reasons. First of all, the representation of religious stereotypes in marketing campaigns is still a relatively new phenomenon and arguably still controversial in Europe, therefore empirical research is yet to cover this topic especially in Western marketing (Emslie et al, 2007). Secondly, the problem of stereotyping and exclusion in marketing efforts specifically in Europe has been deemed by multiple scholars to be under-researched and worthy of more
attention as it is becoming of growing importance in a multi-cultural European society (Licsandru & Cui, 2019; Rößner & Eisend, 2018).
Thirdly, while previous research has identified the impact of ethnic and religious representation in campaigns on consumer behavior and brand choice (Delener, 1994, Dotson & Hyatt, 2000), limited research has investigated the impact such representation may have on a consumer perceptions of corporation reputation or a brand image. Hence, this research is determined to contribute both to corporate communication literature and marketing
communication literature, and hopefully inspire much needed further empirical research in the field. Practically speaking, this research will help various corporate and marketing managers to better evaluate the risks and benefits of communicating and incorporating diversity in their campaign advertisements.
Theoretical Framework
Corporate Reputation
According to Gotsi and Wilson (2001), the subject of corporate reputation has attracted much attention among marketing academics and practitioners alike in recent decades because there is an increased value of being seen as a “good company”. Often confused with corporate image, corporate reputation can generally be defined as “consumers accumulated opinions, perceptions and attitudes towards the company” (Young Jung & Seock, 2016, p.1) or a “stakeholder’s overall evaluation of a company over time” (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001, p.29). While both corporate reputation and corporate image revolve around external perceptions of an organization (Nguyen & Leblanc 2001), the two concepts differ in the sense that corporate reputation builds over time due to consistent performance (Gray &
Balmer, 1998) and corporate image is the immediate picture consumers may have of an organization (ibid).
From a corporate perspective, a company’s corporate communication system is either argued as the driver of corporate reputation (Balmer & Gray, 1999; Foreman & Argenti, 2005) or the resulting outcome of corporate reputation (Van Riel & Fombrun, 1997). A good corporate reputation, however, is associated with harvesting distinctiveness, providing competitive advantage and creating favorable public opinion (Balmer & Gray, 1999; Argenti & Druckenmiller, 2004; Shim & Yang, 2016). Ultimately, a good corporate reputation is a vital means for success (Van Riel & Fombrun, 1997).
Crises and controversies, however, can have negative effects on corporate reputation and image (Fan, 2005) and results in “the value of a corporate reputation” being magnified (Sohn & Lariscy, 2012, p.237). The value of corporate reputation is mainly driven by stakeholder perceptions (Honey, 2017). Past empirical research has found corporate reputation perceptions to be influenced by either subjective consumer interpretations of a company (Thevissen, 2002), people’s experiences of a company or people’s experiences of a company through the media (Cabral, 2016), among others.
From a marketing standpoint, a company’s corporate reputation has mostly been evaluated through product and service-based consumer perceptions (Jung & Seock, 2016). While corporate reputation has been widely researched in conjunction with CSR advertising (Hsu, 2012; Saeednia & Sohani, 2013), limited research has focused on how corporate reputation is affected by advertising featuring religious stereotypes. However, organizations very often depend on advertising in general to “build and promote” a good reputation (Izlem & Osman, 2015, p.130) and certain different forms of advertising can impact brand
Above all, stakeholders are said to form their perceptions of an organization through their interactions with brand-associated stimuli such as mass communication (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012). Recently, Nike, for example, used a hijab wearing model in a boxing gym in their controversial advertising campaign (Chadwick & Zipp, 2018). Fam et al (2004) warns that while some advertisers who go through with controversial advertising campaigns have been successful, others have been very damaging to the company. Hence the study questions: does the presence of a hijab in a brand advertisement really affect perceptions of a
corporation’s reputation? The first hypothesis has been formulated as follows:
H1a: The presence of a hijab wearing model in a campaign advertisement has a positive
impact on corporate reputation perceptions.
Corporate reputation and the corporate brand
The corporate brand can be defined as either “the visual, verbal and behavioral expression of an organization’s unique business model” (Järventie-Thesleff, 2011, p.197) or the “expressions and images of an organization’s identity” (Abratt and Kleyn, 2012, p.1050). Conversely, the corporate brand is different from the product brand in the sense that it has shifted beyond the brand customer/consumer relationship and generally adheres to a more strategic perspective dealt at a more executive level involving the entire organization (Hatch & Schultz, 2003).
According to corporate communication literature, the consensus seems to be that corporate reputations and corporate brands depend on each other (Fisher et al, 2011; Argenti & Druckenmiller, 2004; Schultz et al, 2012). Abratt and Kleyn (2012) for example, point out that corporate expression and brand image make up the corporate brand, which in turn influences corporate reputation. Other academics in the field have emphasized corporate
reputation as a concept that covers the “full impact of a corporate brand on multiple stakeholders” (Schultz et al, 2012).
Meanwhile, a ‘successful’ corporate brand is one that is unique and distinctive (Biraghi & Gambetti, 2015). Managing a successful corporate brand can be a dynamic process, which involves keeping up with the times and constantly adjusting vision, culture and image (Hatch & Schult, 2003). While organizations need to maintain a good “corporate brand”, how does the visual adjustment of culture and image, presented through particular advertising campaigns, affect stakeholder perceptions? According to Schroeder’s (2017) perspective, culture provides an important context for corporate perspectives when it comes to the interaction of branding with consumers and society. Schroeder further argues that the focus has been directed towards how brands evolve depending on “historical, geographical and social contexts” (p.1526).
Companies can also have different reputations depending on different people, social networks or the type of brand or industry they operate in (Bromley, 2000; Caruana, 1997; Greyser, 1999). Greyser argues that companies in particular cannot “do much to improve their image beyond that of its industry” (pg. 178). For this reason, this study aims to identify whether a company’s reputation is impacted differently when a religious stereotype is present in a campaign depending on the industry the brand type is from. This study has chosen to compare the fashion and food industry because these industries are closely related to everyday life and offer products everyone may use. Furthermore, in general, more fashion advertisements have attracted controversy than food advertisements in recent decades (Mallia, 2009). Hence, this hypothesis has been formulated:
H1b: The impact of the presence of a hijab wearing model present in a campaign
Brand Image
This section will focus on brand image through the marketing/company-consumer perspective of a product brand. Essentially, the concept “brand image” can be defined as either a customer’s thoughts or feelings about a brand (Severi & Ling, 2013) or the captured “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory” (Keller & Fay, 2009, p.3). Nowadays, brands are becoming more about how people relate to them and less about the actual product itself (Belch & Belch, 2015). A good brand image in particular has become particularly challenging for companies to maintain since the advent of the Internet and social media (ibid).
According to Keller and Fay (2009), the influence of unique, favorable and strong brand associations can indirectly affect multiple aspects such as brand loyalty (ibid; Severi & Ling, 2013), better communication and growth (Keller & Fay, 2009). Previous research has also found that brand image can be affected by consumer associations of brands that are particularly formed through the influence of marketing campaigns (Zhang, 2015; Kirmani & Zeithaml, 1993). Brand image in turn has been empirically proven to impact consumer perceptions of products and services (Cretu and Brodie, 2007)
Customers are also influenced in forming their perceptions of brand image through previously being shown advertising messages and considering their past product/service experiences (Ansari & Riasi, 2016). Empirical research has also proven that consumer attitudes of a brand may impact brand image perceptions as well (Martinez & Chernatorny, 2004; Ansari & Riasi, 2016). With respect to religious stereotypes being represented in advertising campaigns, some may argue that is it still perceived as controversial to a certain extent especially in the West (Waller, 2006) and has also resulted in damaged company brand images in the U.S. (Kett et al, 2012). Based on the aforementioned theory discussed and findings mentioned, the following hypotheses were constructed:
H2a: The presence of a hijab wearing model in a campaign advertisement has a positive
impact on brand image.
H2b: The impact of the presence of a hijab wearing model present in a campaign
advertisement on brand image is moderated by pre-conceived brand attitudes.
Ethnic Marketing
To gain a better understanding of how religious stereotypes may impact public perceptions, one must acquaint themselves with the fundamentals of ethnic marketing.
Firstly, ethnicity refers to the similarity or shared identity of a group of people on the basis of one or multiple characteristics such as; cultural tradition, common geographic origin, a common religion or being a minority, among others (Pires et al, 2005). Hence, ethnic marketing can be understood as marketers “deliberate effort to reach a group of consumers presumably due to their unique ethnic characteristics.” (Licsandru & Ciu, 2018, p.330). Ultimately, ethnic marketing can be argued as a corporation’s adjustment of marketing strategies to the values, attitudes, practices and beliefs of a certain targeted ethnic group(s) (Guion et al, 2010). Ethnic marketing is therefore an umbrella term which also covers religious stereotypes.
Ethnic marketing has become of growing importance and is emerging gradually for several reasons. These reasons stem from better meeting the needs of ethnic minority consumers resulting in an increase in customers and maintenance of loyalty (Pires et al, 2005), the potential for significant marketing opportunities and the shaping of social institutions (Jamal et al, 2015) and arguably the contribution towards tolerance and
main research question of this study, religious stereotypes such as Muslim women who wear the hijab are widely considered as an ethnic minority, especially in Europe (Bloul, 2008).
From a marketing communications perspective, previous studies suggest that ethnic marketing strategies impact ethnic audiences (Koeman et al, 2010). Empirical research has also proven that ethnic marketing increases positive attitudes towards ethnic advertising more so for the ethnic minority group than the majority group (Deshpandé & Stayman, 1994, Rößner & Eisend, 2018). It is argued that this is the case for majority groups in Europe because they may hold negative stereotypical images of ethnic minorities (Emslie et al, 2007; Waller, 2006) and this is the consequently the reason why companies in Europe are hesitant to incorporate ethnic minorities into their marketing strategies (Emslie et al, 2007; Jamal, 2003). Corporations also risk being perceived as racist or patronizing (ibid).
Notably, multiple scholars have also linked ethnic marketing to brand loyalty (Pires et al, 2000; Emslie et al, 2007; Palumbo & Herbig, 2000). Brand loyalty can be defined as a “sequence of brand choices” (Wheeler, 1974, p.651). Marketers today question whether ethnically tailored programs lead to greater brand loyalty or if any advantages may outweigh the risks of target markets being misread (Cui & Choudhury, 2002). Furthermore, brand loyalty has been proven to be directly affected by corporate reputation (Cretu & Brodie, 2007; Nguyen & Leblanc, 2001). While previous studies have mostly focused on comparing how ethnic marketing ads can impact the minority and majority group differently, this study focuses more on the impact of the difference in advertising content. Specifically, the impact of ethnic marketing versus non-ethnic marketing ads on the general public and how this could lead to brand loyalty. Therefore, the hypothesis is constructed as follows:
H3: The presence of a hijab wearing model in a campaign advertisement leads to higher
Word-of-mouth is argued as being the key to successful ethnic marketing as it allows for interpersonal communication which spreads a message (Guion et al, 2010). The concept can be considered as “the primary means by which consumers gather information about services” (Pires & Stanton, 2000). It further plays an important role within the company-consumer relationship and has also been proven to be affected by brand image and
advertising (Mira et al, 2014, Keller & Fay, 2009; Gelb & Johnson, 1995). Word-of-mouth has also been found to be positively affected by corporate reputation (Hong & Yang, 2009; Walsh et al, 2009).
Word-of-mouth can either be positive or negative (Mira et al, 2014) and is especially activated when something is controversial (Chen & Burger, 2013). According to Chen and Burger, controversy triggers conversation and simultaneously evokes differences in opinions that in turn impacts levels of word-of-mouth. Previous literature has dedicated little attention towards how featuring religious stereotypes (as an ethnic minority in campaign ads, that are perceived as controversial, can impact positive word of mouth about a company. Hence, the following hypotheses has been formulated:
H4: The presence of a hijab wearing model in a campaign advertisement leads to a higher
level of positive word-of-mouth.
Religious stereotypes in advertising campaigns
While substantial research has already been dedicated to ethnic minority
communication, marketing and advertising, very limited literature has focused on ethnic minorities with regards to religion and how religious minorities are stereotyped in the media. Based on general and academic assumptions, “stereotypes” refer to our beliefs about certain
groups (Schneider, 1996; Jussim et al, 2015). These beliefs concern characteristics of members who come from a certain social category such as ethnicity, gender or religion (Rößner & Eisend, 2018).
The lack of literature on religious stereotyping related to marketing and
communication is rather surprising, because certain scholars have argued that religion has a very strong influence on the behavior of certain religiously affiliated customers and on the other hand triggers strong critical responses by consumers without religious affiliations (Rößner & Eisend, 2018). On the one hand, stereotypes in general are widely used in advertising because it is argued to provide a positive influence on advertising effectiveness by providing stereotyped groups with a sense of identification, while also providing the majority group useful everyday orientations for dealing with the stereotyped group (ibid). On the other hand, stereotypes perceived negatively or offensively may decrease advertising effectiveness. Therefore, religion as a market segment of ethnic groups should be dealt with sensitivity (Emslie et al, 2007; Delener, 1994).
While advertising campaigns that feature religious stereotypes may be deemed “controversial” (Waller, 2006), Lewis argues it is the religious symbol a person wears that makes it controversial. Particularly in the West, the hijab that typical Muslim women wear is associated with being a “controversial symbol” (Lewis, 2013) and more generally classified as a religious symbol (Ruby, 2006). To put things in perspective, the hijab for Muslims is as the Christian cross or the Jewish Star of David or the bindu for Hindus (Naseri and Tammam, 2012). Empirical research on Christian symbols featured in ads found that consumer reactions depended on whether consumers were Christian, their religiosity and how relevant the
symbol was in the particular ad (Henley et al (2009). Reactions were also associated with product category involvement (Taylor et al, 2010) and in some cases a Christian religious symbol lead to negative backlash (ibid).
However, very little research has been dedicated to how Muslim symbols are being perceived in advertisements, specifically in Europe where the hijab is still very much a topic of debate (Teitelbaum, 2011). While discourse on religion has become increasingly important within public discussion surrounding European media, popular academic and Western
opinions still suggest a rather negative stereotypical depiction of Islam in particular (Rößner & Eisend, 2018). Due to the ongoing debate surrounding the hijab in Europe, this study assumes that campaign advertisements that feature the hijab will impact corporate reputation and brand image either positively or negatively.
Conceptual Framework
Religious
Stereotypes
Absent/Present
Corporate
Reputation
Brand type Fashion/Food H2a H1a Pre-conceived Brand Attitudes H1b H2b H4 H3Brand Loyalty
Word-of-mouth
Brand Image
Methodology
Research design
To answer the main research question of this study and test the proposed hypotheses, an online experimental survey was conducted. The main objective of this study was to test whether a hijab wearing model (absent verses present) and the difference in brand/industry of a campaign (fashion verses food) would have an impact on corporate reputation and brand image, and consequently, brand loyalty and word-of-mouth. The variables examined are as follows: the main independent variable being hijab (absence/presence) and brand type (food vs fashion) in the campaign ad, the moderator variables which were brand type and pre-conceived brand attitudes, and the dependent variables which were corporate reputation, brand image, brand loyalty and word-of-mouth.
The experiment is a 2 (hijab absent/present) x 2(industry type fashion/food) factorial design, making it a between-subjects design. These two variables were manipulated in the experimented which resulted in four experimental conditions. All participants were randomly assigned to be exposed to one of the four conditions engineered by the Qualtrics software.
An experiment was the most suitable design for this empirical study mainly because the main aim was to uncover if the presence of a hijab in a campaign would impact responses and only experimental designs allow for the appropriate manipulation needed to uncover an impact. In other words, only experiments can create a situation where only the difference between the treatment (hijab presence) and control condition (hijab absence) is the
intervention of interest (Lipsey & Alken, 1998). In this experiment, existing campaigns were particularly chosen mainly for visual content purposes and due to the fact that fashion and food campaigns featuring women wearing a hijab are still very rare, especially in the West.
Sample
To recruit participants to participate in the online embedded experiment, forms of convenience sampling were used. Also known as “nonprobability” sampling which focuses on data gathering based on proximity to the researcher, willingness to participate in research and availability (Etikan et al, 2016). The primary goal for this study was to recruit a sample of participants that was as diverse as possible to ensure external validity. The two points of participant criteria were: being a resident of Europe and being above the age of 18.
Participants needed to be European residents as Europe was chosen as the area of focus for this study. While the inclusion of hijab wearing models in marketing campaigns may still be deemed controversial in Europe, it may have a completely different impact or level of controversy in other parts of the world.
Said sample was obtained through WhatsApp, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram and emails to the researcher’s network. Notably, this link containing the survey was further shared around by the researcher’s network to other people and networks which resulted in what can be defined as a form of snowball sampling (Goodman, 1961). The survey link was also shared on specific “survey sharing” groups and pages on Facebook and websites like “SurveyCircle” with a clear description of the target audience attached: “Only European residents above 18”. No forms of compensation or incentive were offered to participants who participated in the survey.
Stimuli
For this experiment, relatively recent existing campaigns were selected from actual brands/companies. These brands were Swedish fashion retail company H&M (also known as Hennes & Mauritz) and German sweets company Katjes.
H&M was chosen to represent a fashion brand for two key reasons, namely, it is a rather popular and well-known brand/retail company in Europe and is it one of the few European fashion companies that have released a campaign featuring a hijab wearing model. Two of H&M’s existing campaigns were chosen: one campaign features a Caucasian blonde model wearing a black winter jacket standing by an open door (see visual content in
Appendix I) from H&M’s Fall-Winter 2015 “Fall in Love” campaign. The second campaign features a model wearing a hijab also standing by an open door wearing a winter jacket for H&M’s fall 2015 “Close the Loop” campaign. These two campaigns were chosen because of the campaign’s similarities.
Katjes was chosen to represent a food brand because like H&M is in the fashion industry, Katjes is a rather well-known brand in the food/sweets industry in Europe and also one of the rare food companies that have released a campaign featuring a hijab wearing model. The campaign shots were taken from Katjes’ recent “Jes! All Veggie” campaign in 2019 with the first campaign shot featuring two Caucasian women eating Katjes sweets and the second campaign shot of two women, one Caucasian and one hijab wearing model eating Katjes sweets and smiling.
Essentially, respondents were either exposed to an H&M campaign with or without a hijab model, or vice-versa when they were exposed to a Katjes campaign. Hijab absence or presence is the independent variable in this case, with two levels (hijab present or absent) measured on a nominal level. Industry type (fashion or food) is a moderator variable also measured on a nominal level (H&M or Katjes). In attempts to circumvent risks of bias and ensure brand attitude and familiarity associations did not influence this study’s results, control questions were implemented in the beginning of the survey before the stimuli was exposed. These control questions tested for brand familiarity and brand attitude after participants were exposed with either an H&M or Katjes logo and company description.
Procedure
Pre-test
Before the actual experiment was administered, a pre-test was conducted in order to confirm whether the selected manipulations worked. A detailed report of the pre-test can be found in Appendix II. The manipulations were successfully executed in the pre-test which consisted of 12 participants and no further changes needed to be made to the experimental design of the survey.
Actual experiment
Data collection was carried out between the 6th December and 22nd of December 2019
via a software called Qualtrics. Participants who participated in the survey were first presented with an informed consent page along with a brief introduction to the aim of the research: “a research study about how certain stereotypes are represented in corporate marketing campaign efforts.” Before participants could decide whether to participate or not, they were also told they had to be a resident of Europe and over the age of 18. Having agreed to the above, participants were asked to answer certain demographic questions such as their age, gender, education level and country of residence.
After this, participants were then randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. In each condition participants’ familiarity and their attitude towards the brand were measured after seeing a short description of the brand and the brand’s logo.
Subsequently, participants were exposed to the campaign stimulus and asked to carefully view the campaign as they would not be able to return to the page later. After this point of condition randomization, all participants filled out the dependent measures in this order: corporate reputation, brand image, brand loyalty and word-of-mouth. Manipulation checks were conducted at the end of the study in the form of two questions. Finally, participants
were thanked and debriefed, reminded of their anonymity, and the responses were recorded. The full survey can be found in Appendix III.
Measures
Corporate reputation. To measure corporate reputation, 6-items were selected from
Chun’s (2005) corporate reputation scale to form a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). Participants had to rate statements such as “I have a good feeling about those companies”. A total of two items were eliminated because they did not contribute to an acceptable factor structure, leaving four items to load onto one factor (See appendix IV for items that were left out). An exploratory factor analysis with Oblimin rotation indicated that the scale was unidimensional and explained 76.87% of the variance. Furthermore, the items scored high in reliability (Cronbach’s α = .90) and were therefore used to construct a mean scale (M=4.38, SD=1.13).
Brand Image. Brand image was measured on an 11-item, 7-point Likert scale
(1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) adapted from Cho et al’s (2014) multi-dimensional brand image scale. Cho et al’s brand image scale comprised of three different dimensions, namely mystery, sensuality and intimacy. Out of Cho et al’s 16-item scale, eleven of those items were chosen to measure brand image in this study which covered all three dimensions. Items included statements such as “I would have solid support for the brand”. However, from the eleven items, two had to be eliminated due to factor structure purposes and
reliability leaving nine items which loaded on one factor (See appendix IV). An explanatory factor analysis with Oblimin rotation indicated that the scale was unidimensional and explained 73.75% of the variance in the nine items. The nine items also scored high on reliability (Cronbach’s α = .96) and were therefore also used to construct a mean scale (M=4.24, SD=1.14).
Brand Loyalty. Brand loyalty was measured on a 3-item, 7-point Likert scale
(1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) adopted from Bobâlca et al’s (2012) scales of customer brand loyalty. Items included statements like “I intend to buy this brand in the future”. An explanatory factor analysis with Oblimin rotation confirmed the scale was unidimensional and explained 88.44% of the variance. The scale also proved to be reliable (Cronbach’s α = .93) and subsequently used to construct a mean scale (M= 4.14, SD= 1.45).
Word-of-mouth. Word-of-mouth was measured on a 4-item scale created by Goyette
et al’s word-of-mouth measurement scale from their “positive valence word-of-mouth” dimension (2010). On a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree), participants were asked to rate statements such as “I would speak of this company’s good sides”. An exploratory factor analysis with Oblimin rotation affirmed the scale to be unidimensional and explained 80.60% of the variance. Meanwhile, the scale also proved to be highly reliable (Cronbach’s α = .92) which was then constructed into a mean scale (M=4.66, SD=1.61).
Brand familiarity. Brand familiarity was measured on a 3-items scale created by Kent
and Allen (1994) on a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) in all four conditions. The scales measuring H&M familiarity proved to be only marginally reliable with Cronbach alphas of .68 and .74 while the scales for Katjes had Cronbach alphas of more than 9. All four scales were constructed into a mean scale variable.
Pre-conceived brand attitude. Brand attitude was adapted from both MacKenzie et al
(1986) and Chun (2005). Items were adopted from both scales to simultaneously measure both participants attitude towards the brand and company. Three items were measured on a 7-pont Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) in all four conditions. The same scale for each condition proved reliable with Cronbach alpha’s of more than 9 each. All four scales were constructed into a mean scale variable.
Results Participant statistics
In total, 379 participants started the survey. However, 69 participants did not fully complete the survey, so these participants’ data were marked as missing. Another single participant who chose “Other” as their gender was considered an outlier and marked missing as well, leaving a sample of 309 participants that were analyzed. 65% of the participants were female, while 35% were male with a majority of participants categorized between the ages of 18 and 34 (87.7%). Notably, most of the participants classified as being highly educated with a bachelor’s degree or higher (87.7%). As for country of residence, participants came from 25 different European countries with most coming from the Netherlands (57.6%) where the researcher is based and the United Kingdom being the second most popular country of residence (22%).
Table 1. Descriptive 2x2 experimental design table
Fashion brand (H&M) Food brand (Katjes)
Hijab absent N=82 N=73
Hijab present N=79 N=75
Manipulation Checks
By the end of the survey, a manipulation check was conducted to confirm whether the manipulations were carried out correctly. Two questions were asked, the first question
explicitly asked participants if the campaign they viewed included a model wearing a headscarf to which they could answer yes or no. The second question asked if the campaign they viewed was more fashion orientated or food orientated.
A chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the hijab condition variable (absence/presence) as the independent variable and the manipulation check as the
dependent variable. The relationship between these variables was significant X2(1, N=309) = 223.52, p<.01. Participants who were assigned with a condition featuring a hijab model indicated that a headscarf was indeed included in the campaign and vice versa. The manipulation was thus successful.
Another chi-square test of independence was administered to examine brand type (fashion/food) as the independent variable and the manipulation check as the dependent variable. The relationship between these variables proved significant as well X2(1, N=309) = 161.87, p<.01. Participants assigned to H&M indicated the campaign was more fashion orientated and Katjes more food orientated.
Randomization Checks
Randomization checks were conducted to check if participants differed in the two conditions (hijab absence and presence) in regard to age, gender, education and brand familiarity. Chi-square results proved that the two groups did not differ in education level
X2=(5, N=308)=2.18, p=.824, age X2(4, N=309)=8.55, p= .073 and gender X2(1, N=309)= .04,
p=.844.
A Pearson correlation matrix was created in order to examine if any variables correlated. According to Table 2 below, we can see that gender significantly correlates with corporate reputation, brand image, brand loyalty and word-of-mouth. Therefore, gender will be used as a control variable in further analysis. The specific age categories, young and mid-aged adults, were also used as control variables according to positive correlations. Brand familiarity and pre-conceived brand attitude were used in parts of the analysis as covariates (See Table 2).
Table 2.
Pearson Correlation Matrix (N=309)
Note. *Significant at 0.05 level **Significant at 0.01 level
Hypothesis Testing
The impact of the hijab on corporate reputation.
To test the main hypothesis H1a, a multiple linear regression was administered to predict corporate reputation as the dependent variable based on hijab absence or presence in the advertisement campaign as the independent variable, gender controlled for and pre-conceived brand attitudes as a covariate. The regression model as a whole proved significant
F(4, 304)=28.74, p<.001 and the independent variables predicted 27.4% (R2=.274) of the
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Hijab (AbsentVSPresent) - 2. Brand (FashionVSFood) -.02 - 3. Corporate Reputation .26** -.08 - 4. Brand image .21** -.10 .78** - 5. Brand Loyalty .11* .11 .60** .74** - 6. WOM .13* -.04 .66** .80** .80** - 7. Gender .01 -.11 .22** .23** .19** .19** - 8. Young adults (18-24) -.03 .04 .20** .18** .04 .12* .19** - 9. Mid-aged adults (25-44) -.02 .00 -.20** -.15** -.03 -.09 -.16** -.90** - 10. Old adults (45+) .10 -.08 .02 -.06 -.03 -.06 -.06 -.20** -.26** - Brand familiarity 0.05 0.80** 0.10 0.09 0.29** 0.14* 0.03 0.09 -0.04 -0.11* - Pre-conceived brand attitude 0.19 0.26** 0.39** 0.33* 0.49** 0.46** 0.33 0.10 -0.08 -0.03 0.43** -
relationship between the absence and presence of a hijab wearing model in a campaign ad and corporate reputation b= 0.56, t = 5.07, p<.001, 95% CI [0.34, 0.78]. Gender was also found to have a significant, moderately strong association with corporate reputation b= 0.42, t = 3.59, p<.001, 95% CI [0.19, 0.65] with females having a more positive perception of
corporate reputation than males. Pre-conceived brand attitudes and middle-aged adults also significantly associated with corporate reputation (See Table 3 in Appendix V). Ultimately, H1a is supported and campaign advertisements with the presence of a hijab wearing model do indeed have a positive impact on corporate reputation.
The moderating role of brand type.
Having established a direct positive effect of hijab presence in an ad on corporate reputation (H1a), hypothesis H1b proceeded to test if brand type (H&M for fashion or Katjes for food) would moderate the effects of hijab presence. To test for this effect, PROCESS Macro Model 1 (Hayes, 2013) was utilized which consisted of hijab absence/presence as the independent variable, brand type fashion/food as the moderator, corporate reputation as the dependent variable and gender and pre-conceived brand attitudes as the control variable. For 95% confidence intervals, five thousand bootstrap samples were used. The moderated regression model proved significant F(5, 303)=23.10, p<.001 with the independent variable predicting 27.6% of the variance (R2=.276). While brand type had a negative significant
effect on corporate reputation, no significant main interaction effect was found t=1.21,
p=.227, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.77]. Therefore, hypothesis H1b can be rejected and brand type does
not moderate the effect of hijab presence on corporate reputation. The only interaction effects that proved significant were gender, hijab presence/absence and pre-conceived brand
The impact of the hijab on brand image.
To test hypothesis H2a, another regression model was tested with brand image as the dependent variable and hijab absence/presence in the advertisement campaign as the
independent variable with gender and young adults controlled for and pre-conceived brand attitudes as a covariate. The results revealed that the regression model as a whole was significant F(4, 304)=20.16, p<.001 and the independent variables predicted 21% of the variance in the outcome variable (R2=.210). The relationship between hijab presence and brand image proved significant however moderately weak b=0.46, t=3.89, p= <.001, 95% CI [0.22, 0.68]. Additionally, gender, young adults and pre-conceived brand attitudes also significantly associated with brand image (See Table 5 in Appendix V). Nonetheless,
Hypothesis H2a can be supported and hijab presence in a campaign ad clearly has a positive impact on brand image.
The moderating role of pre-conceived brand attitudes.
After confirming the positive effect that hijab presence in a campaign ad had on brand image in H2a, hypothesis H2b proceeded to test if pre-conceived brand attitude could
moderate this effect. To test for this effect, PROCESS Macro Model 1 was administered. The model consisted of hijab absence/presence as the independent variable, pre-conceived brand attitudes as the moderator, brand image as the dependent variable and gender as a control variable. The moderated regression model proved significant F(4, 311)= 18.80, p<.001 with the independent variable predicting 19.5% of the variance (R2=.1947). While pre-conceived brand attitudes did have a positive significant relationship with brand image b=0.31, t= 4.33,
p= <.001, 95% CI [0.17, 0.45], no significant main interaction was found b= -0.00, t=-0.02, p=.982, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.19]. Gender also significantly associated with brand image b= 0.51, t= 4.26, p= <.001, 95% CI [0.28, 0.75]. Hypothesis H2b can hence be rejected and
The impact of the hijab on brand loyalty.
A third multiple regression test was conducted to test hypothesis H3 to uncover whether the presence of the hijab in a campaign ad would affect levels of brand loyalty. In this case, hijab absence/presence was the predictor variable and brand loyalty as the outcome variable with gender being a control variable and brand familiarity and pre-conceived brand attitudes as covariates. The regression model as a whole proved significant F(4, 304)= 30.78,
p<.001 and the independent variables explained 28.8% of the variance (R2=.288). A significant but relatively weak relationship between hijab presence and brand loyalty was found b=0.28, t=1.97, p=0.05, 95% CI [0.00, 0.55]. Notably, gender proved to have a significant and moderately stronger association with brand loyalty b=0.53, t=3.60, p<.001, 95% CI [0.24, 0.82] and so did pre-conceived brand attitudes b=0.54, t=8.28, p<.001, 95% CI [0.41, 0.67] (See Table 6 in Appendix V). Ultimately, we can approve hypothesis H3. The impact of the hijab on positive word-of-mouth.
Lastly, hypothesis H4 was tested to uncover whether hijab presence or absence in a campaign ad lead to a higher level of potential word-of-mouth. Hijab absence/presence was the predictor variable and word-of-mouth being the outcome variable, with gender controlled for and pre-conceived brand attitudes as a covariate. The overall regression model proved significant F(3, 305)=33.81, p<.001 and predicted 25% of the variance (R2=.250). The findings showed that there is a rather weak but significant relationship between hijab presence/absence and word-of-mouth b=0.37, t= 2.32, p<.05, 95% CI [0.06, 0.69]. Rather similar to the association it had with brand loyalty, gender proved to have a moderate significant association with levels of word-of-mouth b=0.57, t=3.38, p=.001 which can be translated into the fact that for every female participant, positive word-of-mouth increased. Interestingly, pre-conceived brand attitudes had the highest significant positive association
with word-of-mouth b=0.61, t=8.99, p<.001, 95% CI [0.48, 0.74]. Hypothesis H4 can hence be approved.
Discussion
The main purpose of the current study was to uncover whether featuring religious stereotypes in marketing campaign advertisements would impact a company’s corporate reputation and brand image. This study further investigated if religious stereotypes present in marketing campaign ads would impact brand loyalty and word-of-mouth. The possibility of brand type and pre-conceived brand attitudes moderating a potential impact on corporate reputation and brand image was also explored. The research question was as follows:
How does the representation of religious stereotypes in marketing campaign’s impact an organization’s corporate reputation and brand image? And does brand loyalty and
word-of-mouth play a role in this impact?
The religious stereotype manipulated was a woman wearing a hijab in a campaign ad, which is still being argued by multiple scholars in current literature as too “controversial” in Western marketing (Waller, 2006; Lewis, 2013; Chadwick & Zipp, 2018). Based on the limited existing literature, the hijab in marketing campaigns can either have a positive or negative impact on a company’s corporate reputation and brand image (Izlem & Osman, 2015; Chaudhuri, 2002; Waller, 2005; Elhajjar et al, 2018). This study assumed that the presence of the hijab in a marketing campaign ad would impact a corporation’s reputation and brand image positively.
One of the key findings of this study is that the presence of a religious stereotype in a marketing campaign ad does indeed have a positive impact on a company’s corporate
providing a newly proposed addition, advertising religious stereotypes, to the forms of advertising that have already been proven to impact corporate reputation. Furthermore, this finding may prove beneficial and enlightening for current corporations and marketing managers as it confirms that including a hijab model as a religious stereotype in marketing campaigns can make for a valuable marketing strategy as suggested by Bahrainwala and O’Conner (2019) despite the reluctance of many corporations (Rößner & Eisend, 2018) and the perceived sensitivity (Emslie et al, 2007; Delener, 1994).
Also, this finding challenges the notion that controversial advertising campaigns can be damaging to a company (Fam et al, 2004) and that controversially including the hijab in campaign ads may lead to negative publicity (Waller, 2005) which may subsequently affect a company’s reputation (Dean, 2004). As new findings, gender and pre-conceived brand attitudes were also found to play a positive role in impacting corporate reputation when a hijab was present in a campaign ad. Thus, corporations and practitioners contemplating including religious stereotypes in their advertising campaign ads may want to consider these aspects in the future with regards to targeting the right campaign ad audience and marketing segment.
The current study also hypothesized that brand type (fashion versus food) would moderate the impact of hijab presence in a campaign ad on corporate reputation, however no statistical support for moderation was found. Interestingly, instead of moderating the impact on corporate reputation, the difference of corporate brand type was found to have a direct impact on corporate reputation. Participants who were exposed to the H&M fashion campaign featuring a hijab model viewed corporate reputation more positively than the Katjes food campaign. This could have been due to the fact that respondents perceived H&M to have a more positive reputation than Katjes. This result aligns with findings and theories of multiple scholars that have established a strong association between the type of corporate
brand or industry and corporate reputation (Abratt and Kleyn 2012; Fisher et al, 2011; Argenti & Druckenmiller, 2004; Schultz et al, 2012; Greyser, 1999). The inclusion of a hijab model, or religious stereotype in general, in a campaign ad, may hence not always be as beneficial or effective for every corporate brand or industry type.
The present findings also confirmed that the presence of a hijab model in a campaign ad does have a positive impact on brand image. This is also broadly consistent with the theory multiple scholars have already put forward, that brand image can be affected by consumer brand associations or consumer preferences of brands based on particular marketing campaigns or advertisement messages (Ansari & Riasi, 2016; Zhang, 2015; Kirmani & Zeithaml, 1993). Despite being significant, the data indicated a rather weak association between hijab presence and brand image, thus requiring further replication and confirmation in the future, preferably with a larger and more generalizable sample. To a certain extent, this particular finding may prove that even though marketing campaign ads that feature religious stereotypes are deemed too controversial in the West (Waller, 2006), and have resulted in damaged brand images (Kerr et al, 2012), this is not the case for every corporation and perceptions may be impacted differently according to specific geographic location, demographics and social context.
While the current study assumed that pre-conceived brand attitudes would moderate the positive impact of the presence of a hijab model in a campaign on brand image, no moderation was found. Instead, the results interestingly demonstrated that pre-conceived brand attitudes had a direct and positive impact on brand image perceptions when the hijab was present in both the H&M and Katjes campaign ads. This finding is in accordance with findings reported by Martinez and Chernatorny (2004) and Ansari and Riasi (2016) who also found that brand image perceptions depended on consumer’s brand attitudes. This result further signifies the importance pre-conceived brand attitudes may have on the impact of
brand image when it comes to marketing controversial or sensitive campaign ads featuring religious stereotypes.
The results also proved that the presence of the hijab in a campaign ad indeed leads to higher levels of brand loyalty. This contributes to the theoretical connection scholars have made between ethnic marketing and brand loyalty (Pires et al, 2000; Emslie et al, 2007; Palumbo & Herbig, 2000). While past theory has only mostly examined how brand loyalty may positively impact the ethnic minority group, the current study speculates to have examined both the ethnic and majority group due to the diverse sample obtained. This result needs to be further built on in future research. Preferably, by controlling for ethnicity and religion to examine the possible difference between the ethnic group and majority group in regard to brand loyalty when religious stereotypes are included in a campaign ad. Lastly, there is a possibility that the positive impact of the hijab on corporate reputation uncovered could have directly affected the increase of brand loyalty (Cretu & Brodie, 2007; Nguyen & Leblanc, 2001).
The last promising finding of this study indicated that a hijab model present in a campaign ad can lead to higher levels of positive word-of-mouth. Firstly, this finding contributes to existing word-of-mouth literature by proving that word-of-mouth is impacted and influenced by advertising (Keller & Fay, 2009; Gelb & Johnson, 1995). Secondly, the increase of word-of-mouth could have been influenced by participants ‘perception of the company’s corporate reputation (Hong & Yang, 2009; Walsh et al, 2009). Thirdly, as we know previous literature has debated hijab perceptions to be controversial in the West, we can to a certain extent assume now that Chen and Burger’s (2013) theory about how controversy could increase word-of-mouth to be correct. However, we cannot confirm whether all participants perceived the hijab as necessarily controversial as that is fully subjective to every individual. Future empirical research could consider assessing levels of
controversy perceptions to uncover whether it plays a significant role in this impact. Ultimately, this finding can be considered new as it specifies how advertising that features religious stereotypes in campaigns can classify as a form of advertising that can positively impact word-of-mouth. Large corporations looking to invest in ethnic marketing may learn from this as word-of-mouth is said to be key to successful ethnic marketing (Guion et al, 2010).
Limitations and Future Research
Despite the novel results yielded by this study, the following limitations need to be considered. The main limitation was the decision to utilize existing brands (H&M and Katjes) and campaigns in this study’s experiment. The use of real brands as a stimulus could have had crucial consequences on the outcome of this study’s results and internal validity because participants would have either had pre-conceived brand attitudes or potential bias (Sung et al, 2012. Despite the calculated risks, existing campaigns were chosen anyway as positively suggested by certain scholars (Supphellen, 2000; Sung et al, 2012) to enhance the study’s ecological validity, credibility and generalizability (ibid). However, experimental research is encouraged to consider the use of fictional brand marketing campaigns in the future to avoid said risks and eventual copyright issues and to also possibly gain more reliable results.
Furthermore, the existing campaigns chosen for the stimulus restricted the resulting outcome of this study by only featuring female models, this could have been perceived and related to differently by the male participants in this study. It would be interesting if future studies could test if featuring male religious stereotypes in more male dominated brand campaigns would have a different impact on participants. For example, a male model wearing Muslim attire, or a Jewish kippah (cap) featured in a car advertisement.
The clarity and reliability of the stimulus was questionable, such as the hijab model wearing a fall outfit making the presence of the hijab less clear to the eye or the distraction of the campaign shot backgrounds (See appendix II). Participants could have been possibly influenced by multiple different ques. The stimulus could have also been the reason why brand type (H&M versus Katjes) did not moderate the impact of the hijab on corporate reputation. The assumption is that participants perceived the Katjes campaign shots to be stylish fashion shots which could have steered them away from the fact that it was a sweets orientated campaign advertisement. Manipulation checks further confirmed that 29.1% of the participants failed the manipulation check for brand type, these participants were however strategically retained in the data set as positively advised by Montgeomery et al (2008). Future experimental research may be advised to delete failed manipulations to obtain data that is more reliable or utilize stimulus that is clearer with less external distraction to make sure only the manipulation of interest will impact causal outcomes.
While this study chose to explore the impact of a hijab model as a religious stereotype through a quantitative approach, future studies may want to delve deeper into corporate and consumer perceptions of such a marketing strategy by engaging in qualitative research instead. Furthermore, as religious stereotypes in marketing campaigns has not yet been extensively studied through a corporate and marketing perspective, limited existing empirical findings or theory could be used as reference points for this study to be compared to.
This study also proved how the covariates; gender, age and pre-conceived brand attitudes played a significant role in the impact on a corporation’s reputation and brand image when a hijab model was present in a campaign. However, these findings should be taken with a grain of salt because the sample size analyzed was relatively small (N=309), was not a fully random sample of the population and demographic variables like gender were not equally distributed which could have impacted the overall generalizability and reliability of this
study. Moreover, a majority of the participants were classified as highly educated (87.7%) which could have affected the results greatly as educated people are generally perceived to be more tolerant of diversity (Weill, 1985). Ultimately, this study needs to be replicated and improved in the future to investigate the impact on larger more diverse scale by further exploring how participant characteristics may influence results.
Conclusion
This study has provided novel insights into corporate and marketing communication theory and practice by confirming that there is a positive impact of religious stereotypes featured in marketing campaigns on a company’s corporate reputation and brand image. Further enlightening is the fact that brand loyalty and word-of-mouth also play crucial roles in signifying this impact. Additionally, this study yielded new findings that demonstrated the positive effect gender, age and pre-conceived brand attitudes may have on the impact of religious stereotypes in ads. While the results may not be fully generalizable and relevant for every corporate brand or industry, we can now to a certain extent affirm that featuring religious stereotypes in marketing campaigns can demonstrate how the communication of progress and diversity can make for a valuable marketing strategy (Bahrainwala & O’Connor, 2019). This is especially important for large corporations in Europe today who want to
strategically communicate their progress (ibid), portray their support for diversity or gain publicity (Taylor et al, 2010; Gineikiené et al, 2015; Khamis, 2019) in an evolving multi-cultural society.
Ultimately, this study may offer a promising start and surge of inspiration for future research as the phenomenon of including religious stereotypes in marketing campaign advertisements in Europe is still new and under-researched. Moreover, this study has
contributed to the ongoing hijab debate to a certain extent by confirming that the representation of the hijab in marketing campaigns can be more advantageous than disadvantageous. While this study was only capable of exploring this particular topic on a small scale, limiting results to just one religious’ stereotype, future research is encouraged to further investigate the impact of other religious stereotypes in hopes of further
Citations
Abratt, R., & Kleyn, N. (2012). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate reputations. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8), 1048–1063.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561211230197
Argenti, P. A., & Druckenmiller, B. (2004). Reputation and the corporate brand. Corporate
reputation review, 6(4), 368-374.
Ansari, A., & Riasi, A. (2016). An investigation of factors affecting brand advertising success and effectiveness. International Business Research, 9(4), 20-30.
Bahrainwala, L., & O’Connor, E. (2019). Nike unveils Muslim women athletes. Feminist
Media Studies, 1-16.
Balmer, J. M., & Gray, E. R. (1999). Corporate identity and corporate communications: creating a competitive advantage. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal.
Bartikowski, B., Walsh, G., & Beatty, S. E. (2011). Culture and age as moderators in the corporate reputation and loyalty relationship. Journal of business research, 64(9), 966-972.
Belch, G., & Belch, M. (2015). Advertising and promotion : an integrated marketing
communications perspective (10th ed., global ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill
Education.
Biraghi, S., & Gambetti, R. (2015). Corporate branding: Where are we? A systematic communication-based inquiry. Journal of Marketing Communications, 21(4), 260– 283. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2013.768535
Bobâlcă, C., Gătej, C., & Ciobanu, O. (2012). Developing a scale to measure customer loyalty. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3, 623-628.
identities in Europe and Australia. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 28(1), 7-25. Bromley, D. B. (2000). Psychological aspects of corporate identity, image and reputation.
Corporate reputation review, 3(3), 240-252.
Burton, D. (2005). New course development in multicultural marketing. Journal of
Marketing Education, 27(2), 151-162.
Caruana, A. (1997). Corporate reputation: concept and measurement. Journal of product &
brand management, 6(2), 109-118.
Cabral, L. (2016). Media exposure and corporate reputation. Research in Economics, 70(4), 735-740.
Chadwick, S., & Zipp, S. (2018). Nike, Colin Kaepernick and the pitfalls of ‘woke’corporate branding.
Chaudhuri, A. (2002). How brand reputation affects the advertising-brand equity link.
Journal of advertising research, 42(3), 33-43.
Chen, Z., & Berger, J. (2013). When, why, and how controversy causes conversation.
Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 580-593.
Cho, E., Fiore, A. M., & Russell, D. W. (2015). Validation of a fashion brand image scale capturing cognitive, sensory, and affective associations: Testing its role in an extended brand equity model. Psychology & Marketing, 32(1), 28-48.
Chun, R. (2005). Corporate reputation: Meaning and measurement. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 7(2), 91-109.
Cretu, A. E., & Brodie, R. J. (2007). The influence of brand image and company reputation where manufacturers market to small firms: A customer value perspective. Industrial
marketing management, 36(2), 230-240
strategies. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(1), 54-73.Dean, D. H. (2004). Consumer reaction to negative publicity: Effects of corporate reputation,
response, and responsibility for a crisis event. The Journal of Business
Communication (1973), 41(2), 192-211.
Delener, N. (1994). Religious contrasts in consumer decision behaviour patterns: their dimensions and marketing implications. European Journal of Marketing, 28(5), 36- 53.
Deshpandé, R., & Stayman, D. M. (1994). A tale of two cities: Distinctiveness theory and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(1), 57-64.
Dotson, M. J., & Hyatt, E. M. (2000). Religious symbols as peripheral cues in advertising: A replication of the elaboration likelihood model. Journal of Business Research, 48(1), 63-68.
Emslie, L., Bent, R., & Seaman, C. (2007). Missed opportunities? Reaching the ethnic consumer market. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(2), 168–173.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2006.00578.x
Elhajjar, S., & Ouaida, F. (2018). How do French consumers perceive ethnic products? The case of Nike Hijab.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4. Fan, Y. (2005). Ethical branding and corporate reputation. Corporate communications: An
international journal.
Fam, K. S., Waller, D. S., & Erdogan, B. Z. (2004). The influence of religion on attitudes towards the advertising of controversial products. European Journal of marketing. Fisher - Buttinger, C., & Vallaster, C. (2011). Corporate branding and corporate reputation
Fombrun, C., & Van Riel, C. (1997). The reputational landscape. Corporate reputation
review, 1-16.
Foreman, J., & Argenti, P. A. (2005). How corporate communication influences strategy implementation, reputation and the corporate brand: an exploratory qualitative study.
Corporate Reputation Review, 8(3), 245-264.
Gelb, B., & Johnson, M. (1995). Word-of-mouth communication: Causes and consequences.
Journal of health care marketing, 15, 54-54.
Gözükara, İ., & Yildirim, O. (2015). Affective Commitment and Corporate Reputation. The Effects of Attitude toward Advertising and Trust. Academic Journal of Economic
Studies, 1(3), 126–147.
Greyser, S. (1999). Advancing and enhancing corporate reputation. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 4(4), 177–181.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563289910299292
Guion, L. A., Kent, H., & Diehl, D. C. (2010). Ethnic marketing: A strategy for marketing programs to diverse audiences. accessed August, 12.
Gineikienė, J., Zimaitis, I., & Urbonavičius, S. (2015). Controversial use of religious symbols in advertising. In Ideas in Marketing: Finding the New and Polishing the Old (pp. 47- 50). Springer, Cham.
Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The annals of mathematical statistics, 148-170. Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A. M. (2001). Corporate reputation: seeking a definition. Corporate
communications: An international journal.
Goyette, I., Ricard, L., Bergeron, J., & Marticotte, F. (2010). e-WOM Scale: word-of-mouth measurement scale for e-services context. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. 2013. New York: Guilford, 1609182308.
Henley Jr, W. H., Philhours, M., Ranganathan, S. K., & Bush, A. J. (2009). The effects of symbol product relevance and religiosity on consumer perceptions of Christian symbols in advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising,
31(1), 89-103.
Honey, G. (2017). A short guide to reputation risk. Routledge.
Hong, S. Y., & Yang, S. U. (2009). Effects of reputation, relational satisfaction, and customer–company identification on positive word-of-mouth intentions. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 21(4), 381-403.
Hsu, K. T. (2012). The advertising effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate reputation and brand equity: Evidence from the life insurance industry in Taiwan.
Journal of business ethics, 109(2), 189-201.
Jamal, A., Peñaloza, L., & Laroche, M. (2015). Introduction to ethnic marketing. The
Routledge Companion to Ethnic Marketing, 3.
Jamal, A. (2003). Marketing in a multicultural world. European journal of marketing. Järventie-Thesleff, R., Moisander, J., & Laine, P. M. (2011). Organizational dynamics and
complexities of corporate brand building—A practice perspective. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 27(2), 196-204.
Jo Hatch, M., & Schultz, M. (2003). Bringing the corporation into corporate branding.
European Journal of marketing, 37(7/8), 1041-1064.
Jung, N. Y., & Seock, Y. K. (2016). The impact of corporate reputation on brand attitude and purchase intention. Fashion and Textiles, 3(1), 20.
