University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme
Master Thesis
The Brand-Oriented Approach Online: How Top-Fashion Retailers Use It and How It Affects Their Brand Value
Student: Maria Piyanzina Student number: 11670347 Supervisor: Dr. Suzanne de Bakker
Date of completion: 31 January, 2019
1
Abstract
In order to gain a competitive advantage on the market, fashion retailers have to invest in a suitable business approach. While a dominant positioning recipe is the well documented brand-oriented approach, it is still unknown how it is practically implemented among fashion retailers and whether it is linked to their actual success. Additionally, digitalization changed the way in which the approach is delivered. Consumers are able to evaluate contents with increasing speed and intensity, which stronger affects their buying decision and ultimately the financial success of the brand. One financial factor that demonstrates the success of a chosen positioning approach and encompasses the consumers’ evaluation is the brand value. The aim of this study is to establish and contrast differences between fashion retailers with higher and lower brand values with respect to their online communication activities. Along the way, the putative correlation between market leadership and the presence of the brand-oriented approach online is questioned. The research is empirically informed by the content analysis of 310 articles derived from the social media platform Facebook. Ultimately, it is demonstrated that fashion retailers with higher brand values tend to employ the brand-oriented approach more frequently in their online
practices. The results indicate that higher brand value fashion retailers focus on distinctive and value adding capabilities, while the functional capability is more relevant to retailers in the lower brand value segment. In essence, the chief practical implication of this research is that fashion retailers should employ the brand-oriented approach with a focus on visual representation of the brand and entertaining contents online.
2
Introduction
In order to survive, fashion retailers have to choose a type of business approach that will foster success. Generally, there are two positionings they can choose from: the market-oriented and the brand-oriented approach (Urde & Koch, 2014). In the first, retailers form a brand that is based on consumers’ needs and emphasize the pricing strategy, thereby serving practical needs (Urde & Koch, 2014). In the latter, a brand is built based on corporate identity, which refers to the company's personality, vision, values and other assets that are shared with consumers through communication channels.
Studies demonstrated that the brand-oriented approach tends to be more beneficial for the retailer in practice. For instance, Bridson and Evans (2004) claim that the market-oriented approach is hampering differentiation among retailers and hence reduces their long-term survival. Market-oriented fashion retailers focus on setting the most affordable prices (Ananda, Hernández, & Lamberti, 2015), thereby creating competitive challenges due to increasing similarities with competitors (Rowley, 2009). Respective retailers replicate other brand ideas online in order to pursue short-lived market trends without considering unique positioning (Bridson & Evans, 2004). In essence, the market-oriented approach focuses extensively on consumer needs
(Gromark & Melin, 2013) which are variable over time and thereby render this approach solely suitable for short-term development.
The specific interest of this study, however, relates to the brand-oriented approach. In contrast to the previous approach, the brand-oriented type is more balanced because it focuses on the
organization itself and unique components of the brand (Urde, 1999). Additionally, brand consumption is associated with non-rational benefits that are specifically promoted by brand-oriented retailers (Bridson & Evans, 2004). Moreover, the brand-brand-oriented approach solves the differentiation dilemma by a decreased occurrence of replications (Bridson & Evans, 2004) due to the presence of those non-rational assets.
As a result of advancing digitalization, brand-orientation gained further importance (Goswami, 2015). Since there are plentiful affordable offers available online, retailers have to improve customer attraction and facilitate the decision making process which contributes to the
competitive advantage (Belen del Rio et al., 2001). The delivery of the brand-oriented approach influences consumers’ decisions due to emotional appeal that increases the hedonic value, which refers to the pleasure connected with a consumer experience (Scarpi, 2012).
Therefore the brand-oriented approach appears to be more useful and therefore needs to be investigated in a greater detail. Accordingly, there is a pressing need for an elaborate quantitative
3
model which proves that brand-orientation results in successful positioning, financial benefits, competitive advantage and long-term survival for fashion retailers. This research is motivated by the observation that organizations struggle more and more with current competition and
accordingly have to find a solution.
Consumers’ attitudes towards retailers have turned into an important aspect of the overall online approach evaluation. Due to fast and accessible online communication, consumers evaluate brands’ unique content directly and decide if they are willing to use the services (Young, 2011). An economical indicator that measures how successful the brand and its approach are is the brand value (Brand finance, 2018). Accordingly, a fashion retailer’s success is narrowed down to the brand value and not the broader competitive advantage aspect in order to facilitate a
quantitative analysis.
The brand value is the monetary evaluation of a brand if it would be licensed by third parties on an open market (Brand finance, 2018). It includes monetary characteristics such as sales, future revenues (Brand finance, 2018) and intangible assets such as consumer perceptions, brand loyalty and buying decisions (Brand finance, 2018). Eng and Keh (2007) found out that the brand value is a credible predictor for the total brand performance. Moreover, a higher brand value can give benefits like favorable reactions to price changes, resistance during a crisis and increased profits (Yeung & Ramasamy, 2008). Due to those factors, the brand value is suitable to evaluate the financial success and accordingly can be used in this study.
In detail, this present study examines the usage of the brand-oriented approach among top fashion retailers with higher and lower brand values. The aim is to establish the differences between their online strategies and to see if the greater presence of the brand-oriented approach in the online strategy is connected with higher success of brands. Moreover, it is investigated which elements of the brand-oriented approach are contributing to the brand value the most in order to provide practical recommendations for retailers. Accordingly, the following research questions were formulated:
RQ1: To what extent do organisations with higher and lower brand values differ in the communication of the brand-oriented approach in their online strategies?
RQ2: Which capabilities of the brand-oriented approach are more likely to increase the brand value?
4
Those two research questions are scientifically relevant since previously investigators stressed the connection between brand-orientation and a competitive long-term advantage (Bridson & Evans, 2004; Gromark & Melin, 2013; Urde 1999). However, little is known about how top fashion retailers implement those brand-oriented strategies online and whether the chosen strategy is actually related to their success. Here, content analysis is conducted to answer this question. The top fashion retailers were chosen in order to determine whether market leadership is connected with the presence of brand-orientation online. In the next section, the theoretical background will provide a detailed outline of the brand-oriented approach and relevant brand value topics. Those concepts are further operationalized in the method section and investigated in the results. This is complemented by the discussion of the outcomes and suggestions for future improvement in the final section.
Theoretical background Brand value
The brand value is the value of a trademark and refers to the profit a brand gets from its recognition (Aaker, 1991). It is evaluated as the “net economic benefit” that a company would get if it was licensed on the open market. The brand value consists of several dimensions: “the brand strength, royalty rate and the estimated future revenue” (Brand finance, 2018, p. 14). Here, the brand strength includes “marketing investments” which are tangible and intangible factors of the business strategy that aim to improve the brand loyalty and positioning on the market (Brand finance, 2018, p. 7). The second component of the brand strength is the “stakeholder equity” which refers to how stakeholders, especially consumers, percept the brand and which
associations they have (Brand finance, 2018, p. 7). The third component is the more tangible “business performance” meaning how many products were purchased and at which prices (Brand finance, 2018, p. 7). “Royalty rate” represents the level of importance of a brand when it comes to the buying decisions among consumers (Brand finance, 2018, p. 14). To reach a higher royalty rate, retailers should focus on the functional and emotional quality of the brand (Leek &
Christodoulides, 2012). Emotional quality evokes positive emotions by demonstrating credible and trustworthy information online together with attractive attributes of the brand, while the functional quality provides a rational benefit like quality and technology (Leek &
Christodoulides, 2012). The last dimension “estimated future revenue” is based on the previous “royalty rate” and expresses how many future sales can be expected. Hence, it is important to create a brand that is viewed positively among stakeholders to obtain a higher brand value (Han & Sung, 2008). It can be achieved by choosing an appropriate business approach that is
5
communicated to consumers and represents not only marketing goals, but also creates a platform that strengthens a brand’s unique positioning to achieve long-term goals.
Brand-oriented approach
The brand-oriented approach is a strategic resource of a company that determines to what extent the activities of the company are oriented around its corporate identity with a goal to create distinctiveness (Bridson & Evans, 2004). Corporate identity refers to how an organization presents itself to the public (Cornelissen, Haslam, & Balmer, 2007).
Brand-orientation ensures that the brand and its unique features (capabilities) are recognized and favored among consumers through the right communication strategy (Yin Wong & Merrilees, 2008). Hence, brand-orientation is a business strategy that is oriented towards the usage of brand capabilities that deliver different elements of the corporate identity through traditional and online means of communication to consumers (Balmer & Gray, 1999).
By focusing on the unique assets the retailer has to prove that the traits and beliefs that the company offers are superior (Urde, 1994). Investments in the brand-oriented approach protect a company from replications by competitors because of the presence of unique brand features that are hard to copy (Urde, 1999). This yields higher differentiation and a competitive advantage which ensures long-term survival due to the constant generation of profits (Yin Wong & Merrilees, 2008). Therefore it is assumed that retailers with higher brand values are also brand-oriented. Furthermore, brands becomes recognizable without extra advertisement (Chaudhuri, 1995) due to the presence of the unique features favored by consumers (Goswami, 2015). Therefore, it is also expected that retailers with higher brand values are also communicating the brand-oriented approach to a higher degree.
Napoli (2006) demonstrated that retailers which perform better on the market are oriented around corporate identity delivery as a brand and use digital technologies to demonstrate the unique features of the brand. This helps them to control when and how the features of the brand-oriented approach are communicated. Additionally, the delivery of consistent brand messages with core elements such as vision or history helps companies with better financial performance to reach a higher audience response (Tafesse, 2015) and to strengthen the brand over time by improving the constant brand activities online (Napoli, 2006). The brand strength is a vital part of the brand value and therefore it is expected that the brand-oriented approach is communicated more frequently and in a more consistent manner among retailers with higher brand values. Accordingly, the first hypothesis reads:
H1: Fashion retailers with higher brand values are more likely to communicate with their stakeholders online via a brand-oriented approach than fashion retailers with lower brand values
6
Bridson and Evans (2004) formulated four elements of the brand-oriented approach as “capabilities”:
● “Distinctive capability”: mission, vision and visual identity such as name, logo and colours
● “Functional capability”: demonstration of the brand’s superior benefits, product differentiation and functional features
● “Symbolic capability ”: evoking of emotional appeal in consumers, representing a brand heritage and organizations’ unique “personality” with traits and expressions
● “Value adding capability”: enjoyable and entertaining content
Those four capabilities will be investigated in the current study to assess how retailers differ in their communication with stakeholders. Subsequently, the capabilities will be defined in more detail.
The distinctive capability
The distinctive capability consists of a mission, vision and visual characteristics such as the logo, colours or the name (Davis, 2002; Bridson & Evans, 2004) and is seen as an essential element for the financial growth and strong positioning on the market (Davis, 2002; Kirby & Kent, 2010; Goswami, 2015). ). Consumers are making mental shortcuts in order to save time and minimize information that is received online (Ward and Lee, 2000). Therefore, visual information is suitable, because it is easier to recall than textual content (Goswami, 2015). It is expected that retailers with higher brand values use the visual identity components more often in online strategies than retailers with lower brand values (Hynes, 2009). Jones and Kim (2010) found out that a consistent visual brand identity on the web was a significant predictor of increased
shopping attention due to the provided accurate content. Therefore higher brand value retailers are expected to pay attention to consistent content that includes visual identity to larger extent. For instance, Ananda et al. (2015) showed that luxurious and highly appreciated brands such as Gucci attribute a very important role to their logo on their social media pages, because it represents a brand’s roots which attract consumers and influence their buying decision. Brand roots are thought to be attractive to consumers since they revive consumers’ memories of better days, followed by a nostalgic feeling of an ideal past which helps them to distract from present problems (Brown, Kozinets, & Sherry, 2003).
Additionally, the brand colours are a vital part of the distinctive capability, because they improve the brand recognition and support a positive corporate image by pursuing the consumers
7
hiddenly (Hynes, 2009). This is achieved by influencing their minds via exposing them to a certain colour which results in stronger brand association (Hynes, 2009). Therefore, it is expected that fashion retailers with higher brand values pay more attention to colours than the ones with a lower brand value.
The mission in the online content with beliefs and goals enable a higher attention from the audience by giving them a chance to analyze the content themselves (Rutkauskaite, 2013). Moreover, Ind and Bjerke (2007) demonstrated that the vision is the driving force to improve the trust in the retailer and the brand experience. This is done by providing consumers an inspiration or a behavioural pattern (e. g. doing good for society) related to the chosen vision with values and aims. Therefore, it is expected that fashion retailers with higher brand values pay more attention to inspiring their consumers and giving them a meaningful mission and vision than lower brand value retailers. Hence, another hypothesis was formulated:
H1a: Fashion retailers with higher brand values are more likely to focus on a distinctive capability of the brand-oriented approach in their online communication with stakeholders than fashion retailers with lower brand values.
Functional capability
Functional capability represents the “product-related attributes” of the brand (Belen del Rio et al., 2001). It consists of the presentation of unique products, services and offers (Meenaghan, 1995). Moreover, it includes the presentation of functional, in other words practical, benefits which demonstrate the reliability of the brand (Meenaghan, 1995).
Consumers are interested in purchasing products that have a high quality, uniqueness and advanced technologies that satisfy their utility function (Wuestefeld, Hennigs, Schmidt, & Wiedmann, 2012; Tong & Hawley, 2009) and give a feeling of prestige by owning a better product than others in a social group (Belén del Río et al., 2001). By focusing on the product-related attributes as part of the functional capability, the retailer ensures the intrinsic advantage by communicating product features that satisfy consumers’ interests and therefore improve the consumers’ loyalty by making them confident in the service (Belen del Rio et al., 2001). Brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction are important elements that comprise a higher brand value, therefore it is expected that retailers with higher brand values communicate high quality, unique product-related attributes more often and consequently put a greater focus on them compared to retailers with a lower brand value. The internet creates an increased access to objects and
services, therefore increasing the product and brand awareness. It is expected that retailers with a higher brand value are paying more attention to features of objects and services and
8
consequently the functional capabilities online, in order to obtain a more favorable view on their brand compared to retailers with lower brand values.
The appealing design and aesthetic features are a vital part of the functional capability, because they can increase brand appreciation and positive associations by giving a valuable and joyful experience to consumers (Kim, 2002). For example, beautiful design is appreciated purely because it is pleasant for the consumer’s eyes and not because it is having practical purposes (Kim, 2002). Therefore, it is expected that fashion retailers with higher brand values mention appealing features and design more often in order to obtain higher recognition and appreciation among consumers and consequently to strengthen their brand.
Moreover, if the retailer is giving textual and visual cues of the product features in the online context, consumers’ brand experience is improving by imagining how the products look in reality which forms a perception of a good brand quality (Park, Stoel, & Lennon, 2008) and provides the best accessible information about the product to ensure purchase confidence and decision making (McCormick et al., 2014). Therefore, the next hypothesis is:
H1b: Fashion retailers with higher brand values are more likely to focus on a functional
capability of the brand-oriented approach in their online communication with stakeholders than fashion retailers with lower brand values.
Symbolic capability
The symbolic capability consists of self expression, personality, heritage and emotional appeal derived from symbolic traits that enhance the ability to bond a customer to a brand and facilitate a reflection of the consumers' associations (Bridson & Evans, 2004; Reid, Luxton, & Mavondo, 2005). One example of the symbolic capability in the communication strategy is that brands associate themselves with a personality in online messages (De Chernatony & Riley, 1999). It was found that if the retailer pays attention to its self-expression and lifestyle in online platforms, it can evoke psychological attachment among consumers by providing a link between themselves and the brand and offering familiar and favorited traits (Park & Cho, 2012; Rutkauskaite, 2013). This helps to increase acceptance and attitudes towards the brand, because it will be recognized as the part of a group that people belong to (O'Cass & Choy, 2008). This is why it is expected that retailers with higher brand values perform better than lower brand value retailers by focusing on self-expression, unique symbolic traits and getting approval from consumers. Companies with better performance put an emphasis on symbolic values in their communication approach as the fundament for differentiation of the market (Urde, 1994) in order to simplify the consumer decision making with non-rational benefits. Due to the high complexity and increasing
9
messages with various product offers among retailers, consumers need to ease their choice by looking at symbolic features that convey uniqueness besides functional achievements (Belen del Rio et al., 2001). Consumers tend to demand social responsibility and emotional commitment from the companies to be sure in their competences (Belen del Rio et al., 2001). Therefore, successful companies focus not only on the functional product delivery, but also on the feelings that are provided (Meenaghan, 1995). Accordingly, it is expected that retailers with higher brand values communicate symbolic features more than retailers with lower brand values in order to improve the decision making process that contributes positively to the brand value.
Brand heritage is another important element for the differentiation of a retailer - the history is a unique product that can not be copied and evokes nostalgia feelings and other emotional reactions (Hakala, Lätti, Sandberg,2011). Therefore, mentioning heritage in the online communication engages the audience and builds long-term relations (Hakala et al., 2011). Moreover, Wuestefeld et al. (2012) found out that messages from retailers to consumers using brand heritage are considered more credible and support the authenticity of a brand.
Accordingly, it is assumed that fashion retailers with higher brand values focus more on this part of the symbolic capability in order to improve the performance and the consumers’ perceptions, while retailers with lower brand values might underestimate the heritage significance.
Consequently, the hypothesis is formulated in the following way:
H1c: Fashion retailers with higher brand values are more likely to focus on a symbolic capability of the brand-oriented approach in their online communication with stakeholders than fashion retailers with lower brand values.
Value adding capabilities
Value adding capability relates to the joyful and satisfying content that is contributing to the hedonic value of consumers and adds value to all previous capabilities by resembling an entertainment function (Bridson & Evans, 2004). Delivering pleasure and good feelings as the part of the brand-oriented approach can be very beneficial for the fashion retailer: it provides a unique and creative way of online communication, differentiates it from other fashion retailers and consequently improves the competitive advantage (Park & Cho, 2012). Hence, it is assumed that retailers with higher brand values tend to use the entertaining content as part of the value adding capability more frequently to attract consumers and improve their perceptions. According to Chen and Wang (2017), retailers that use entertaining social media content, for example fun content with celebrities or distracting content with fantasies and adventures (Scarpi, 2012) tend to be more impressive because of the presence of surprise and joy. Consumers require
10
entertaining contents to have stronger associations with a brand.
Retailers with lower performance were found to be focusing only on informative content about products, disregarding pleasure and joy delivery through communication (Lin & Lee,2012). Frambach, Roest, and Krishnan (2007) demonstrated that consumer’s choice depends not only on functional benefits, but also hedonic or experiential needs that are related to the fun side of the online shopping experience which provides curiosity and pleasure (Scarpi, 2012; Won Jeong, Fiore, Niehm, & Lorenz, 2009). Due to the fact that consumers seek pleasure from the brand in their online shopping experience (Lin & Lee, 2012) in order to get a stress reduction, mental escape and reduce boredom (Pavur, Abdullah, & Murad, 2016) they tend to return to the online page of retailers that provided positive emotions. This causes brand attachment and a higher consumer loyalty. So, it is expected that retailers with higher brand values are using enjoyable content as part of the value adding capability that provides good feelings, which can ensure higher loyalty and contributes to the brand value.
Tafesse (2015) found out that humorous and funny contents provided by fashion retailers online have a higher involvement among users and are favored to serious posts. Humour as the element of pleasure delivery creates positive interactions with the brand, decreases the perceived risk from using the brand and receives higher attention from the audience (Ge, Gretzel, & Zhu, 2018). This helps to strengthen the brand and increase its positive associations (Tafesse, 2015), benefiting the brand value. Therefore, it is expected that retailers with higher brand values focus on humorous content as part of the value adding capability.
Retailers that pay attention to holiday seasons and provide a feeling of celebration as part of the entertaining content give increased pleasure, arousal and connect consumers with groups like friends or family which are usually related to good feelings (Won Jeong et al., 2009; Okazaki, 2006). The increased pleasure was found to be connected with stronger loyalty (Lin & Lee, 2012). Accordingly, it is expected that retailers with higher brand values take into account celebrations as the part of the value adding capability.
Moreover, brand attachment and recognition can be enhanced by satisfying content like presenting higher status, admiration or pride (Okazaki, 2006; Whan Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, & Iacobucci, 2010). This also benefits the consumers’ hedonic needs by giving chances to perceive social distinctiveness and acceptance.
Hence, it is assumed that fashion retailers who have positioned themselves in their
communication strategies as more entertaining and less conservative tend to be favored among consumers and therefore have a higher brand value:
11
capability of the brand-oriented approach in the online communication with their stakeholders than fashion retailers with lower brand values.
Capabilities as predictors of the brand value
It is expected that symbolic and value adding capabilities are stronger predictors of the successful brand performance than distinctive and functional capabilities for several reasons. The effective usage of the symbolic capability is more impactful on the brand value than the functional capability: the symbolic capability simplifies the decision making process of the consumers with non-rational cues that can not be provided by rational assets due to their increased complexity (Belen del Rio et al., 2001). Moreover, symbolic cues contribute to the differentiation of the brand by adding personality and lifestyle that is difficult to copy and diversifies the brand more than functional benefits (Belen del Rio et al., 2001) which tend to be more standardized in practice (Bridson & Evans, 2004). The differentiation of the retailer contributes to the brand association and competitive advantage (Bridson & Evans, 2004) which benefit the brand value.
The symbolic capability tends to be a stronger predictor of the brand value than the distinctive capability: by visualizing the personality traits in logos or demonstrating the lifestyle and history of the brand in designs and colors the retailer can reach a higher recognition and stronger
associations (Chang, 2012) which facilitates a higher brand value.
The value adding capability is also assumed to be a stronger predictor of the brand value than the functional capability: the usefulness (functional benefit) sometimes tends to be standardized due to the similar depiction of the brand functional quality (Lin, Wu, & Tsai, 2005), therefore the priority should be placed on entertaining content, that could increase satisfaction by evoking positive emotions and consequently the desire to use the brand more often (Chang, 2012; Scarpi, 2012; Won Jeong et al., 2009). This contributes to brand loyalty and consequently the brand value.
The value adding capability tends to have a stronger effect on the brand value than the distinctive capability: due to the fact that shopping experience is perceived as a process that aims to
entertain and deliver pleasure (Pavur et al., 2016) the consumer will better recognize the logo and name of the retailer that provided them with joy. Higher recognition comprises a stronger brand and therefore contributes to the brand value.
Due to the fact that only two capabilities tend to have stronger effects on the brand strength, loyalty and consumer’s perception – the factors that comprise a strong brand value, it is assumed that:
12
H2: Symbolic and value adding capabilities are more likely to increase the brand value of the fashion retailers than distinctive and functional capabilities.
Method
Research design
For the current study a quantitative content analysis is applied to derive the availability of brand capabilities online and therefore, to find and evaluate the differences between the components of the brand-oriented approach. The amount of articles was chosen to be n=310 to ensure adequate representative sampling which enables to make a reliable generalization of the results.
Sampling procedure
The non-probability purposive sampling is applied to establish differences between the
communication online practices among retailers with lower and higher brand values. The reason for this type of sampling is the possibility to focus on the brand-oriented approach capabilities and to make more generalized conclusions about the strategies of the top fashion retailers. The study focuses on the top fashion retailers, therefore the first ten fashion retailers will be picked from the annual “Apparel 50” ranking. The chosen top fashion retailers are: Nike, H&M, Zara, Adidas, Hermes, Louis Vuitton, Cartier, Gucci, Uniqlo and Rolex. The ranking was made by “Brand Finance”, which is a reliable source for the evaluation of financial performances of companies, including the brand value (Brand finance, 2018).
The data collection was limited to only one online source – Facebook. Facebook was chosen, since it is the most popular online and social media platform for reaching customers: it reaches 2.01 billions users and is used by 62% of marketers worldwide (Social Media Examiner, 2018). Furthermore, fashion retailers accumulated one of the largest user communities on Facebook (McCormick et al., 2014) and not any other social media.
According to Smith, Fischer, and Yongjian (2012), Facebook is providing great possibilities for retailers to create a connection with consumers and to increase visibility of the brand by giving fast brand-related content that is openly accessible to any user. Moreover, Facebook retailer’s pages are usually linked to their websites; therefore it can help to increase the web-site traffic that is complicated to reach without references in Facebook due to the extra efforts that consumers should make to visit the page (Halbrooks, 2018). Accordingly, companies use Facebook to provide higher awareness of the retailers’ activity and the brand itself. The data is collected in English language. The content will include 30 posts of the retailers on their
Facebook pages, plus one more article with the Facebook header, that might include more information about the brand. The first 31 articles on each Facebook page will be analysed. The
13
presence of visual materials (i. e. photo, video and design) is evaluated as part of the coding procedure. The availability of brand capabilities on the Facebook page will be measured by using a coding procedure as part of the content analysis.
Measurement
The codebook (see Appendix 1) was elaborated to identify brand capabilities that are likely to be present in the online strategies of fashion retailers. The elements that comprised each capability were retrieved from existent validated scales of various researchers that conducted studies on the brand-oriented approach and were applied to the codebook with adjustments for the quantitative analysis. The inter-coder reliability test was conducted to measure the reliability of the items. A second coder was trained and 10% (n=31) of the total sample was coded for the reliability testing using Facebook. All items in the codebook were followed by tangible examples from the fashion retailers’ Facebook posts to ease the coding process for the second coder (see Appendix). The actual coding was done in Qualtrics, including the type of the content (post or header), presence and type of visuals in the content, and presence of the items in the form of “yes” and “no”. Operationalization
Brand-oriented approach
It is not known whether the first ten fashion retailers with the highest brand values are using the brand-oriented approach or any other approach. Therefore, if all four brand capabilities which are operationalized as the sum of the elements comprising the capabilities are present in the online activity of the retailer, the fashion retailer can be characterised as “practicing the brand-oriented approach”. If the retailer has absence of all four capabilities, consequently the absence of all the elements measuring the capabilities, it can be considered as “using the market-oriented approach” and therefore is not going to be used for the further analysis. If only several brand capabilities out of four are present in the online activities of the fashion retailer, it is considered that this fashion retailer is not using the brand-oriented approach and is not going to be used for the further analysis, because all four capabilities should be present (Bridson & Evans, 2004) to consider the company as brand-oriented.
Distinctive capability
The distinctive capability includes the mission, vision and visual brand identity. To establish the presence of the distinctive capability in the Facebook posts, six dimensions were used and placed in a codebook. The first four items mentioned in the codebook (see Appendix 1) “brand name, logo, slogan and colours” were based on the study by Hamzah, Alwi, and Othman (2014) and
14
comprise the visual identity of the brand which is part of the distinctive capability. The first item “brand name” (α=0.1) was coded if the name of the brand was mentioned in the articles. The second item “brand logo” (α=0.1) was measured if the brand official logo was present in the articles. The item “brand slogan” (α=0.90) was coded if the brand slogan was mentioned in the articles. The “brand colours” (α=0.47) was measured if the post has a visual content in the colours of the brand. Due to the low reliability the description of the “brand colours” was expanded and the item was coded if the presence of the brand colours was in a visual and in a text context.
Next two items “brand mission” and “brand vision” were placed in the codebook based on the scale “Brand identity” by Urde (1999, p.747). The “brand mission”(α= 0.73) was coded if the article mentions the long-term goals of the fashion retailer and his future plans. The “brand vision“(α= 0.80) was coded if the article mentions reasons for the brand existence and what the brand stands for and values.
Functional capability
Functional capability represents the “product-related attributes” such as presentation of the differentiation of the products, demonstration of the appealing features and functional benefits. (Meenaghan, 1995). It was measured with the five dimensions that demonstrated the
presence/absence of the capability (see Appendix 1). The items “excellence of the products, uniqueness of products, innovative products” were placed in a codebook based on a study by Huang and Tsai (2013) and represent product differentiation as part of the functional capability. The item “excellence of the products” (a=0.75) was coded, if the high quality and advanced techniques of the products were mentioned articles. “Uniqueness of products” (a=0.43) was measured if the articles mentioned the unique design and products. “Innovative products” (a=0.45) was measured if there was a presence of the innovative products and techniques or modern design of the products. To increase the reliability of the last two elements and avoid their intersection, it was decided to measure the “unique” and “innovative products” as one integrated dimension “Unique and innovative products or design” that was coded if there was the presence in the articles of the unique and innovative design and appearance that can not be found among competitors. Appealing features of the product, which is part of the functional capability are represented with the item “brand product features” (a=0.76) based on the study by Anisimova (2007). The item was coded as a presence of the aesthetically appealing product features such as fashionable prints and elements, stripes and etc.
The functional benefits as the part of the functional capability were presented with the item “the superior functional benefit” (a=0.82) based on a study by Bridson, Evans, Mavondo, and
15
Minkiewicz (2013). The item was coded if the rewards or benefits of using the brand were mentioned in a straightforward manner in the articles.
Symbolic capability
Symbolic capability includes characteristics that could represent the brand as a personality with specific traits, that evokes emotions, demonstrates symbolic features and has a heritage. The differentiation of the retailers by their unique symbolic features is represented with “symbolic attributes”(a=0.85) based on a study by Okazaki (2006). The item “symbolic attributes” was coded as the presence of one specific symbolic attribute that differentiates the competitor from others, for instance the brand associates itself with an animal, music or weather. Heritage was measured with a “brand history/heritage” (a=0.87), the item that was placed in a codebook based on a study by Morhart, Malär, Guèvremont, Girardin, and Grohmann (2015) and was coded if the articles mention the history, tradition or heritage of the brand. The emotional appeal is represented by the item “brand impression and feelings” (a=0.84) based on a study by
Nysveen, Pedersen, and Skard (2013). The item was measured in the codebook as the presence of the fashion retailer’s intentions to make a strong impression on consumers by using emotional content, for example, very positive or very negative connotation. The brand personality is
presented by the three items “Brand personality, brand lifestyle, and group association” that were based on a study by Bridson et al. (2013) and were placed in the codebook. “The brand
personality” (a=0.56) was coded if the brand human characteristics and its self-representation were mentioned in the post, for instance if a brand presents itself as a superhero. The “brand lifestyle” (a=0.59) was measured as the presence of the brand’s lifestyle and habits in the articles, such as a brand showing how work (i. e. editing or cutting) on the product is done. The “brand group association” (a=0.65) was coded if the retailer allows to associate consumers with certain groups, for example influencers or maximalists. The reliability of the “brand
personality” and “lifestyle” was low, therefore they were combined into one item in a codebook “brand personality” to avoid the intersection and the new item “Brand, as a symbol, expresses personality” was coded as the presence of the brand’s human characteristics, but also lifestyle and habits in the articles.
Value adding capability
The value adding capability includes entertaining, satisfying and joyful content that can evoke good feelings. The joyful feelings are represented by the three items that were used in a codebook (see Appendix 1) based on the study by Anisimova (2007): products that “drive pleasure”, “express youthful spirit” and “give a feeling of adventure”. The item “Products of
16
the company drives pleasure” (a= 0.42) was coded if the products are connected with the feelings of celebrations or festivals in the articles. The product that “expresses youthful spirit” (a=0) was coded as the presence of content connected to feelings of being young, independent and having free spirit. “Products depict a feeling of adventure” (a=0.47) was coded as the content that is connected with adventures, fun stories. However, the item “the youthful spirit” had a very low reliability because of the possible intersection with “brand gives a feeling of adventure”, so items were combined into one “a feeling of adventure” that after the elaborations was coded as a content that is connected with adventures, free spirit and travel. Good feelings are represented by the item “likable content” (a=0.49) based on the study of Okazaki (2006) and was coded as the content that is mentioning the expression of love, family affection or a friendly relationship. The feeling of satisfaction was measured (2006) with the item “brand status, pride, satisfaction” (Okazaki, 2006) (a=0.79) and was coded as the content that is mentioning the brand’s social status, pride or satisfaction that it can give to the user. The part “satisfaction” was removed from the definition to avoid intersections with the items related to the good feeling. The entertaining content is represented with the highly reliable items “humorous content”(a=1) and “popular content” (a=0.91) based on the study by Okazaki (2006). The “humorous content” was coded as the content that has jokes, sentimental humour, satire or comedy. The “Popular content” was coded as the content that is mentioning a spokesperson, celebrity, expert or satisfied customer.
Brand value
The dependent variable is the brand value which represents the economic benefit that would result if the company would get licensed on the open market by third parties, meaning that they wouldn’t own the brand (Brand Finance, 2018, p.14). The brand value is a total number in USD calculated by Brand Finance (2018) that was measured for each of the organizations chosen for the analysis (see Table 1) (p.12).
Table 1. Top 10 retailers and their brand values
Fashion retailer Brand value
Nike 28,030
H&M 18,959
Zara 17,453
Adidas 14,295
17 Louis Vuitton 10,487 Cartier 9,805 Gucci 8,594 Uniqlo 8,099 Rolex 6,360
The brand value was measured with the “Royalty Relief methodology”. In accordance to the methodology, the brand value is calculated by using a multiplicity of “brand strength”, brand “royalty rate” and “brand estimated future revenue”, which is calculated by “dividing tax into a net value” (Brand Finance, 2018, p.14).
Analysis
The brand capabilities were calculated as the sum of the dichotomous items measuring their presence. The brand-oriented approach was calculated as the sum of the four brand capabilities. The independent-samples t-test is used to test H1 with the brand-oriented approach and its capabilities as the dependent continuous variable and the fashion retailers as two nominal groups: “retailers with the higher brand values” and “with the lower”. The multiple linear regression is going to be used to test H2 and to establish the connection between the brand capabilities and the brand values that are both measured on a continuous level.
The aim is to define the pattern of the brand-oriented approach usage online by the top fashion retailers.
Results Descriptives
The top ten fashion retailers were taken for the analysis and were divided into two groups: five retailers with the higher and five with the lower brand values. The retailers with the higher brand values were: Nike, H&M, Zara, Adidas, Hermes had the USD number from 28,030 to 11,333. The retailers with the lower brand value were: Louis Vuitton, Cartier, Gucci, Uniqlo, Rolex took a range from 10,487 to 6,360 (Brand Finance, 2018).
On average, the fashion retailers used one or two elements of the different capabilities in one post (it is visible in 50% of the posts). Only one post of the overall amount included all features of distinctive, symbolic and value adding capabilities in its practice (see Table 2).
18
Table 2. The frequency of the capabilities usage in the articles of the fashion retailers (%)
All retailers included visual content in the posts, however the combination of the video and the text was used more in the online strategies of the fashion retailers and comprised 57%, while the text and images were used in 43% of the posts. Moreover, all Facebook headers of the fashion retailers’ pages included brand design and visuals.
In terms of the content, brand name and brand logo as part of the distinctive capability were mentioned the most: 99.4% and 98.4% respectively. The least mentioned categories were brand vision (9.4%) and mission (4.5%) (see Table 3).
Table 3. Percentages of the articles mentioning each item of distinctive capability (%)
For the functional capability the most mentioned element was brand product features (66.5%), while only 18.1% of retailers mentioned excellent products and high quality techniques in their Facebook posts (see Table 4).
Distinctive capability elements Freque ncy Percent (%) Functional capability elements Frequen cy Percent (%) Symbolic capability elements Frequen
cy Percent(%) Value adding capability elements Frequen cy Percent (%) 1.00 1 0.3 0.00 83 26.8 0.00 30 9.7 0.00 77 24.8 2.00 138 44.5 1.00 95 30.6 1.00 112 36.1 1.00 114 36.8 3.00 126 40.6 2.00 89 28.7 2.00 105 33.9 2.00 71 22.9 4.00 39 12.6 3.00 36 11.6 3.00 47 15.2 3.00 29 9.4 5.00 5 1.6 4.00 7 2.3 4.00 15 4.8 4.00 11 3.5 - - - 5.00 1 0.3 5.00 7 2.3 - - - - - - 6.00 1 0.3
Total 310 100.0 Total 310 100.0 Total 310 100.0 Total 310 100
Total Nike H&M Zara Adidas Hermes
Louis
Vuitton Cartier Gucci Uniqlo Rolex Brand name 99.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.8 Brand slogan 16.5 45.2 0.0 0.0 64.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 51.6 0.0 Brand logo 98.4 96.8 100.0 100.0 96.8 93.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.8 100.0 Brand colours 43.5 83.9 41.9 32.3 3.2 58.1 74.2 32.2 22.6 48.4 38.7 Brand vision 9.4 19.4 6.5 9.7 29.0 3.2 3.2 9.7 3.2 0.0 9.7 Brand mission 4.5 3.2 6.5 3.2 6.5 6.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 6.5 3.2
19
Table 4. Percentages of the articles mentioning each item of functional capability (%)
More than half of the posts of the fashion retailers were using symbolic attributes (55.5%), whereas personality and lifestyle of the companies were found in 48.4% posts of retailers. The least popular item was a brand’s history that comprised 14.2% of the posts (see Table 5). Table 5. Percentages of the articles mentioning each item of symbolic capability (%)
Regarding the enjoyable and entertaining content, the fashion retailers focused the most on the brand status and pride in the posts (34.5%), while little attention was paid for the humorous content (4.2%) (see Table 6).
Total Nike H&M Zara Adidas Hermes
Louis
Vuitton Cartier Gucci Uniqlo Rolex Excellence of the product quality 18.1 12.9 16.1 19.4 9.7 25.8 12.9 29.0 9.7 22.6 22.6 Unique and innovative products and design 26.1 22.6 12.9 41.9 9.7 22.6 45.2 38.7 38.7 12.9 16.1 Brand product features 66.5 32.3 74.2 87.1 16.1 71.0 90.3 77.4 96.8 80.6 38.7 Superior functional benefits 21.3 25.8 41.9 32.3 12.9 6.5 12.9 9.7 6.5 51.6 12.9
Total Nike H&M Zara Adidas Hermes
Louis
Vuitton Cartier Gucci Uniqlo Rolex Symbolic attributes 55.5 25.8 38.7 48.4 77.4 67.7 71.0 87.1 61.3 19.4 58.1 Brand history/heritage 14.2 16.1 0.0 6.5 3.2 29.0 3.2 16.1 19.4 0.0 48.4 Brand impression and feelings 27.7 61.3 38.7 25.8 74.2 38.7 12.9 3.2 0.0 6.5 16.1 Brand expresses personality 48.4 16.1 45.2 41.9 41.9 41.9 45.2 38.7 77.4 58.1 77.4 Brand group association 24.5 25.8 48.4 16.1 25.8 35.5 29.0 12.9 16.1 25.8 9.7
20
Table 6. Percentages of the articles mentioning each item of value adding capability (%)
Statistical analyses H1. T-test
To establish the differences between the usage of the brand-oriented approach among the first five and last five fashion retailers and therefore to test H1, five independent-samples t-tests were conducted. All four brand capabilities that comprised the brand-oriented approach were
calculated as the sum of the items and considered as continuous variables. The brand-oriented approach was calculated as the sum of the capabilities
The first four independent t-tests were conducted to test the H1a-H1d and establish the
differences between the focus on the brand capabilities among the five retailers with the highest brand values and lowest. For the distinctive capability (H1a), the Levene’s Test was not
significant and demonstrated that equal variances are assumed F=0.47, p=0.49. The difference between the means of the distinctive capabilities (Mdiff=0.19) was significant
t(308)=2.16,p<0.05 and the test demonstrated that the retailers with the higher brand values (M=2.81, SD=0.78) focus on distinctive capability more than the retailers with the lower brand value (M=2.61, SD=0.74) (see Table 7), however the effect size was small (d= 0.26). However, even the mean differences were significant, the general usage of the distinctive capability was not high among the retailers: the means for the distinctive capability among the groups of the retailers are (M=2.81) and (M=2.61), however the maximum value is max=6 (see Table 7). Nevertheless, H1a was supported.
Total Nike H&M Zara Adidas Hermes
Louis
Vuitton Cartier Gucci Uniqlo Rolex Products depict a festive feeling 20.6 6.5 54.8 9.7 6.5 16.1 12.9 12.9 9.7 38.7 38.7 Products depict a feeling of adventure 14.2 22.6 16.1 9.7 64.5 29.0 45.2 9.7 3.2 6.5 35.5 Brand status and pride 34.5 58.1 9.7 32.3 83.9 45.2 25.8 12.9 6.5 6.5 64.5 Humorous content 4.2 9.7 19.4 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 Likeable content 22.3 16.1 41.9 22.6 25.8 45.2 9.7 6.5 0.0 22.6 32.3 Popular content 32.3 71.0 12.9 0.0 64.5 12.9 22.6 22.6 45.2 12.9 58.1
21
For the functional capability (H1b), the Levene’s test was significant F=2.88, p=0.90, consequently the equal variances are not assumed. The mean difference (Mdiff=-0.26) was significant t (308)=-2.21, p<0.05, however the findings showed the retailers with the lower brand value (M=1.45, SD=0.98) use functional capability more, than the one with the higher (M=1.18, SD=1.12) (see Table 7) and the effect size was small (d= 0.25), therefore H1b was not supported. However, it should be noticed that the overall presence of the functional capability is not high: (M=1.18) and (M=1.12) for the 2 groups of retailers, while the (max=4). For the symbolic
capability (H1c) Levene’s test was not significant F=0.79, p=0.37, however the retailers with the higher value (M=1.78, SD=1.07) had almost the same mean score (Mdiff=0.15) as the ones with the lower value (M=1.62, SD=0.96) (see Table 7). The t-test was not significant t (308)= 1.34, p=0.181 with the small effect size (d=0.15), therefore the H1c was not supported. Moreover, the general presence of the symbolic capability among retailers is low compared to the maximum value (max=5).
For the value adding capability (H1d), the Levene’s test F=2.28, p=0.13 showed that equal variances are assumed. The difference between the means (Mdiff=0.50) demonstrated that the retailers with the higher brand value (M=1.63, SD=1.18) focus on the value adding capability more than retailers with lower brand values (M=1.12,SD=1.19) (see Table 7) and the t-test was significant t (308)=3.73, p<0.05, the effect size was medium (d=0.43), supporting H1d.
However, although the mean differences are significant, the overall usage of the value adding capability is not high among the retailers: (M=1.63) and (M=1.12) with the maximum value (max=6).
Table 7. Mean differences of the brand capabilities
Retailers with the higher value Retailers with the lower value
Capability M SD M SD Sig. Min Max
Distinctive 2.81 0.78 2.61 0.74 .027 1 6
Functional 1.18 1.12 1.45 0.98 .028 0 4
Symbolic 1.78 1.07 1.62 0.96 .181 0 5
Value adding 1.63 1.18 1.12 1.19 .000 0 6
To confirm the H1 that the fashion retailers with the higher brand values use the brand-oriented approach on Facebook more in general than the ones with the lower brand values, one more
independent t-test was conducted. The results showed that the equal variances are assumed since the Levene’s test was not significant F=2.07, p=0.15. The mean difference (Mdiff=0.58) t (308)= 1.98, p<0.05 demonstrated that retailers with higher brand values (M=7.41, SD=2.01) use the
brand-22
oriented approach in their Facebook communication strategies more than retailers with lower brand values (M=6.82, SD=1.72), however the effect size was not high (d=0.32). Moreover, the general usage of the brand-oriented approach was not high among retailers: the means are (M=7.41) and (M=6.82), however the maximum value is max=14. Nevertheless, H1 was supported.
H2. Regression
To test the H2 and to establish which brand capabilities tend to increase the brand value more, multiple linear regression was conducted. The dependent variable - brand value is the number in USD counted by the official source measuring the brand values “Brand Finance”(see Table 1). The mean of the four capabilities was calculated to use the variables as predictors in the model. The mean was used to make the scales equal and to compare the results from 0 to 1, so the average score of the scales was applied. The assumptions for conducting the linear regression were met since the variables are normally distributed. The multiple regression model as a whole was significant (R2 =0.08,F(4,305)=7.09, p<0.05). However, the variables explain only 8% of the brand value, what is slightly low. The regression model showed that the distinctive
(Beta=0.25, t=4.40, p<0.01), symbolic (Beta=-0.11, t=-1.97, p<0.05), value adding capabilities (Beta=0.14, t=2.16, p<0.01) were significant predictors of the brand value (see Table 8). The distinctive capability had the highest influence on the brand value, while the symbolic capability affect on it negatively. The functional capability was not a significant predictor of a brand value (Beta=0.02, t= 0.38, p=0.69) (see Table 8). Consequently, H2 was partially supported: the distinctive and value adding capability have the highest impact on the brand value.
Table 8. The regression model: prediction of the brand value on brand capabilities
B Beta Sig distinctive 12.043*** 0,249 .000 functional .841 0.024 .698 symbolic -4.231 -0.115 .049 value adding 4.202** 0.136 .032 ***p<0.001 **p<0.05
Dependent variable: Brand value
Conclusion and discussion
The aim of this research was to establish the differences between the brand-oriented approach and its capabilities in the online communication activity of fashion retailers with higher and lower brand values. This research shows that fashion retailers with higher brand values are willing to use the brand-oriented approach in their online practices more than retailers with lower
23
brand values, supporting the H1. The presence of the brand-oriented approach was established by observing four capabilities – distinctive, functional, symbolic and value adding, however it was found that only distinctive and value adding capabilities tend to increase the brand value, what partially contradicts with the H2 that stated that the symbolic and value adding capability are the strongest predictors of the brand values. The results also demonstrated that the general presence of the brand-oriented approach and its capabilities was not very high among the top fashion retailers. The findings extend the existing literature on brand-oriented approaches and guide the corporate communication practitioners who aim to strengthen the brand value of the companies via online strategies. The brand-oriented approach is advocated as the most beneficial approach for the competitive advantage of the fashion retailers (Bridson & Evans, 2004).
The findings demonstrated that all top fashion retailers use the brand-oriented approach, even if the presence was not very high. It means that all top fashion retailers are more concerned about the delivery of their brand elements and corporate identity (Gromark & Melin, 2013) than
establishing appealing offers and prices online. The focus on the brand-oriented approach is even greater among the top retailers with higher values which support researchers that are defending a brand-oriented approach (Urde & Koch, 2014; Urde, 1999; Bridson & Evans, 2004; Gromark & Melin, 2013).
The H1a proposed that the retailers with the highest brand values focus more on the distinctive capability, than retailers with lower brand values in their online communication strategy - results support this assumption. The retailers with the higher brand values are
especially focused on the name and logo, what extends the findings of Ananda et al. (2015) and Goswami (2015). They showed that those elements increase consumer’s brand appreciation, positive associations, attachment and brand visibility. However, results showed the opposite tendency for the functional capability, rejecting the H1b by showing that the functional
capability is used more in the online communication strategies of the retailers with lower brand values. The results contradict with Bridson and Evans (2004), who state that the functional elements are necessary to reach a high financial performance. It can be explained that the functional capability itself cannot increase the brand value because of the prevalence of the hedonic needs of the retailers over the rational ones (Pavur et al., 2016). Thus it should be accompanied by strong presence of the value adding capability, that can entertain the consumer and improve their online shopping experience (Lin et al., 2005).
However, the research showed that the online strategies of the retailers are similar in the utility of the symbolic capability, contradicting the H1c. It means that all top fashion retailers focus on the heritage, personality and symbolic attributes. This tendency can complicate the differentiation of the fashion retailers and their unique positioning on the market, what is vital
24
for the competitive advantage (Tong & Hawley, 2009).
However it was observed that there is a slight difference among the use of the value adding capability on the fashion retailers’ Facebook pages, supporting the H1d. It means that the enjoyable and entertaining content is related to the more successful brands. The findings are corresponding to the conclusions of Han and Sung (2008), who stated that entertaining content and positive images are beneficial for financial success of the retailers. It was found that fashion retailers with the highest brand values almost never use humorous content which contradicts with the Tafesse’s (2015) study, who claimed that humorous content is especially favored by
consumers. It means that other factors of the value adding capability facilitate positive
associations more and therefore contribute to the brand value. To support the previous statement, the feeling of admiration, pride or status was found to be the most used element of the value adding capability for the most successful fashion retailers, contributing to the Okazaki (2006) study who stressed the importance of admiration due to higher consumer attachment and pleasurable feelings that it can deliver.
Implications
There are several scientific implications: the findings contribute to the solution of the brand and market-oriented dilemma by statistically proving the usefulness of the brand-oriented approach’s elements. Moreover, the study contributes to the field of online communication research by showing the direction for online strategies that facilitate a financial advantage of the company. Moreover, the research extends the brand-oriented approach management topic by showing which brand elements are the most effective to gain a competitive advantage. At the same time, there are practical implications: the research calls to invest in efforts on creating an appealing online strategy with the use of the brand-oriented approach. The main focus should be put on the visual representation of the brand, for instance logo and name to improve the brand value. Fashion retailers should deliver the entertaining content and focus on the pride and admiration feeling to make their strategy impactful. Furthermore, fashion retailers are recommended to conduct qualitative and quantitative research to check which elements of the value adding capability get higher reaction among Facebook users, therefore they can get more popular among consumers and ensure a higher brand value.
The symbolic components should be more diverse, for instance they can be depicted more in the visual format (infographics or pictures), therefore a higher differentiation can be reached among retailers.
25
Limitations and future research
The research has several methodological limitations and there are suggestions for a future study. The elements were measured with the use of the face validity and the decision which items to include to the analysis was based on the Kripendorff's Alpha. Some indicators with extremely low reliability were transformed after the inter-coder reliability test and were casted into a new value. However, it was not enough to ensure highly reliable elements due to the fact that the second inter-coder test was not conducted, therefore it is not known if the newly created items were more reliable.
Secondly, the sampling is limited only to the top fashion retailers, meaning that the considered organizations do not have a real low value, but are compared between each other within the high ranked group.
Thirdly, the chosen research design showed only the presence of the brand-oriented elements in the content, however it didn't present the reactions of the users that could also affect the total brand value. The level of users' involvement on the Facebook page was not measured, therefore it is not known if the brand content was consistent with the users' beliefs and if it evoked certain emotions and aligned the expectations from the brand. That factor could influence on the final brand value, this is why the further study should be an experiment that will help to establish the user involvement level. In addition, this research neglects demographic factors - age and gender, that could be the reason for certain brand preferences on Facebook that could contribute to the higher brand value. Therefore the personal characteristics should be also included in the future study.
In addition, the study is limited to online strategies, however it is possible that other factors can have an influence on the brand value, such as brand reputation and image, consumer behaviour, firm’s profit that allows to invest more in the product development and
communication with stakeholders or PR campaigns to increase brand awareness and loyalty. Consequently, the further investigation should explore broader concepts that are related to the brand value.
The future study in the form of a survey should be conducted to establish how much of the budget of top fashion retailers is invested in the online strategies to investigate if the wealthier brands can allow more diverse strategies with various capabilities.
Finally, the study explores only one online platform - Facebook, hence it is required to replicate the study with another online platform, such as Instagram or Twitter, to see if there are any differences in the use of the brand-oriented approach between the media vehicles.
26
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity, New York, Maxweel Macmillan-Canada.
Ananda, A. S., Hernández García, Á., & Lamberti, L. (2015). Social media marketing in Italian luxury fashion.
Anisimova, T. (2007). The effects of corporate brand attributes on attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty. Journal of consumer marketing, 24(7), 395-405.
Balmer, J. M., & Gray, E. R. (1999). Corporate identity and corporate communications: creating a competitive advantage. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4(4), 171-177. Belén del Río, A., Vazquez, R., & Iglesias, V. (2001). The effects of brand associations on consumer
response. Journal of consumer marketing, 18(5), 410-425.
Belen del Rio, A., Vazquez, R., & Iglesias, V. (2001). The role of the brand name in obtaining differential advantages. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(7), 452-465.
Brand Finance (2018). Apparel 50, 2018: The annual report on the world’s most valuable apparel brands.
Retrieved from: http://brandfinance.com/knowledge-centre/reports/brand-finance-apparel-50-2018/ Bridson, K., & Evans, J. (2004). The secret to a fashion advantage is brand orientation. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 32(8), 403-411.
Bridson, K., Evans, J., Mavondo, F., & Minkiewicz, J. (2013). Retail brand orientation, positional advantage and organisational performance. The International Review of Retail.
Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V., & Sherry Jr, J. F. (2003). Teaching old brands new tricks: Retro branding and the revival of brand meaning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 19-33.
Chang, C. (2012). Is that website for me? Website-self-congruency effects triggered by visual designs. International Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 835-860.
Chaudhuri, A. (1995). Brand equity or double jeopardy?. Journal of product & brand management, 4(1), 26-32.
Chen, H., & Wang, Y. (2017). Connecting or disconnecting: luxury branding on social media and affluent Chinese female consumers’ interpretations. Journal of Brand Management, 24(6), 562-574.
Cornelissen, J. P., Haslam, S. A., & Balmer, J. M. (2007). Social identity, organizational identity and corporate identity: Towards an integrated understanding of processes, patternings and
products. British journal of management, 18, S1-S16.
Davis, S. (2002). Implementing your BAM2 strategy: 11 steps to making your brand a more valuable business asset. Journal of consumer marketing, 19(6), 503-513.
De Chernatony, L., & Riley, F. D. O. (1999). Experts' views about defining services brands and the principles of services branding. Journal of Business Research, 46(2), 181-192.
Eng, L. L., & Keh, H. T. (2007). The effects of advertising and brand value on future operating and market performance. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 91-100.
Finance, B. (2018). Brand Finance Aparel 50 2018
Frambach, R. T., Roest, H. C., & Krishnan, T. V. (2007). The impact of consumer internet experience on channel preference and usage intentions across the different stages of the buying process. Journal of interactive marketing, 21(2), 26-41.
Ge, J., Gretzel, U., & Zhu, Y. (2018). Humour in firm-initiated social media conversations: a conceptual model. International Journal of Digital Culture and Electronic Tourism, 2(4), 273-293.
Goswami, S. (2015). A study on the online branding strategies of Indian fashion retail stores. IUP Journal
of Brand Management, 12(1), 45.
Gromark, J., & Melin, F. (2013). From market orientation to brand orientation in the public sector. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(9-10), 1099-1123.
Hakala, U., Lätti, S., & Sandberg, B. (2011). Operationalising brand heritage and cultural heritage. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(6), 447-456.
Halbrooks, G. (2018, October 22). Using Your Website vs. Facebook to Reach Your Audience.Retrieved from: https://www.thebalancecareers.com/is-your-website-or-facebook-better-to-reach-your-audience-2315322
Hamzah, Z. L., Alwi, S. F. S., & Othman, M. N. (2014). Designing corporate brand experience in an online context: A qualitative insight. Journal of Business Research, 67(11), 2299-2310.
Han, S. L., & Sung, H. S. (2008). Industrial brand value and relationship performance in business markets—A general structural equation model. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(7), 807-818 Huang, Y. T., & Tsai, Y. T. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of brand-oriented companies. European
