The effect of repeated mere exposure to primary brand : elements on the characteristics of brand associations

(1)

Master Thesis

The effect of repeated mere exposure to primary brand

elements on the characteristics of brand associations

Author: Pauline van Schaardenburg (11150025)

MSc. Business Administration – Marketing Track

Amsterdam Business School, UvA

22-03-2017

Under supervision of: drs. J. Labadie MBM.

Second assessor: dr. R.E.W. Pruppers

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by student Pauline van Schaardenburg, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Abstract

Given that marketing academics and practitioners pay much attention to building brand equity, and new companies are advised to start with branding at the early stages of their existence whilst carefully choosing the exact brand building blocks by which they want to present their brand, it is important to assess how new brands can start creating brand equity. In this process, the associative network of a brand is the core concept, given that a brand is in fact a set of associations in the minds of consumers. For new brands their first associations will mostly come from their primary brand elements, as these are, mostly, the first elements exposed to consumers, and, when use correctly, they can inexpensively contribute to brand equity (Aaker 1996; Keller, 2005). The repeated mere exposure theorem has shown to have the ability to improve brand equity aspects, but had not focussed specifically on the role of associative networks in building brand equity. Therefore, this study was executed, using a repetition frequency of four exposures to an unfamiliar brand to assess what happens in the characteristics of brand associations following these first exposures to a brand. It found that under these methodological settings, the effect of repeated mere exposure is a partial

improvement in the characteristics of brand associations, mostly building salient associations, expanding the variety in type of associations, and increasing the strength of some types of associations. It also found that the criteria for primary brand elements had a stronger direct effect on the characteristics of brand associations than a moderating effect on the relationship between repeated mere exposure and their development. As such, this exploratory research has provided a good starting point in combining the theories and literature on repeated mere exposure and the role of brand associations in brand equity building.

(4)

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

Figure 2.1 Generalised Categorisation model ... 15

Figure 4.1 Conceptual Model ... 30

Figure 5.1 Experimental design ... 31

Figure 5.2 Stimuli placement on conditions ... 36

Figure 5.3 Outcome stimuli development ... 37

Figure 6.1 Estimated Marginal Means of Perceived Distinctiveness ... 51

Figure 6.2 Estimated Marginal Means of Product Category Check ... 52

Figure 6.3 product category cue check open question ... 53

Figure 6.4 Estimated Marginal Means of Memorability ... 57

Figure 6.5 Estimated Marginal Means of Memorability ... 59

Figure 6.6 Estimated Marginal Means of Uniqueness per age group ... 60

Figure 6.7 Estimated Marginal Means of number of associations ... 61

Figure 6.8 Estimated Marginal Means of variety in type of associations ... 62

Figure 6.9 Strength of brand association subcategories ... 64

Figure 6.10 Estimated Marginal Means of strength association subcategories ... 65

Figure 6.11 Estimated Marginal Means of Favourability of associations ... 66

Figure 6.12 Estimated Marginal Means of Uniqueness of associations ... 67

Figure 6.13 Estimated Marginal Means of Target Group Associations ... 69

Figure 6.14 Estimated Marginal Means of Personality & Values Associations ... 70

Figure 6.15 Estimated Marginal Means of Heritage/History Associations ... 70

Figure 6.16 Estimated Marginal Means of Positive Attitude Associations ... 71

Figure 6.17 Estimated Marginal Means of Category Associations ... 73

Figure 6.18 Estimated Marginal Means of Other Associations ... 74

Figure 6.19 Alternative conceptual model ... 75

Tables Table 6.1 Between subject group similarity ... 47

Table 6.2 Reliability Analysis ... 48

Table 6.3 Factor analysis Brand Memorability ... 49

Table 6.4 Univariate ANOVA – Brand Distinctiveness ... 50

Table 6.5 Univariate ANOVA – Product category check ... 52

Table 6.6 Repeated Measures ANOVA on Brand Memorability ... 56

Table 6.7 Repeated Measures ANOVA on Brand Attitude ... 58

Table 6.8 Repeated Measures ANOVA - Number of Associations ... 61

Table 6.9 Repeated Measures ANOVA - Variety in type of Associations ... 62

Table 6.10 Strength of brand association subcategories ... 63

Table 6.11 Repeated Measures ANOVA - Favourability of Associations ... 66

Table 6.12 Repeated Measures ANOVA - Uniqueness of Associations ... 67

Table 6.13 Repeated Measures ANOVA – Interaction effect distinctiveness and exposure ... 68

Table 6.14 Repeated Measures ANOVA – Interaction effect pcc and exposure ... 72

Table 6.15 Repeated Measures ANOVA – Between-Subject effects ... 76

(7)

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 Phenomenon

In marketing much attention is paid to branding and building brand equity. Developing brand equity is seen as a vital action for companies as it allows them to engage more effectively with their customer base and build brand loyalty, allowing the business to grow further (Cullather, 2012). New companies are also advised, in an abundance of literature, to start with branding at the early stages of their existence since it is the quickest way for companies to express precisely what they can offer (“The importance of branding your new business”, 2009). Hence, marketers or brand managers should give much thought to the branding of a company and should be careful in choosing the exact brand building blocks by which they want to present their brand.

Given that a brand is explained as a network of associations in the mind of the consumer (Keller, 200), the associative network is seen as the core concept in this brand equity building process. So “if a brand results from a set of associations and perceptions in people’s minds, then branding is an attempt to harness, generate, influence and control these associations to help the business perform better” (“The power of branding”, 2013). For new brands it is thus important to know how customer-based brand equity can be created, and specifically how strong associative networks can be created as part of their branding efforts.

For these new companies, the first associations generated with their brand will come from their primary brand elements, as they function as branding shortcuts because without

additional information they signal immediate communication (Keller, 2005), and as they are mostly the first elements exposed to consumers. These primary brand elements, the brand name, logo, slogan, jingle and design, should therefore be chosen with much care, as research has found that, when use correctly, they can inexpensively contribute to brand equity (Aaker

(8)

It is important that they are distinctive, to stand out from competitors so that buyers can easily identify a brand with unique identifying characteristics (Romaniuk, Sharp & Ehrenberg, 2007), resulting in an increase in the mental availability which increases the chance of getting bought (Romaniuk, Sharp & Ehrenberg, 2007). The aspects of the elements design, the content and style, are also of importance, where content has been found to be the most important aspect, especially concerning whether it cues the product category, as this helps consumers retrieve the element faster from their memory, and the elements are found to be more effective (Kohli & Suri, 2002; Giberson & Hulland, 1995). With this knowledge, the question that arises is: how can primary brand elements enable the development of brand associations as a part of the customer-based brand equity creation process?

1.2. Research Gap

A way by which this has been studied is by bringing the psychological ‘repeated mere exposure effect’ to branding. Which is defined as the relation between frequently exposed stimuli and a resulting positive affect toward that stimulus (Zajonc, 1968). This theory has shown that repeated mere exposure can improve brand equity aspects as the preference, awareness, favourability and liking of a particular stimulus object, being the brand name, or other brand characteristics (Zajonc, 2001; Olson & Thjømøe, 2003). No research has been done however, on the effect of repeated mere exposure to primary brand elements asking for brand associations specifically as the outcome in order to assess whether repeated mere exposure also improves the brand’s associative networks, to thus establish its role in

developing customer-based brand equity, by repeated mere exposure. That will be the core of this research.

(9)

1.3 Problem Definition 1.3.1. Problem Statement

Given this research gap in determining what the role is of brand associations in building customer-based brand equity by repeated mere exposure for new brands, and the academic relevance of the topic, there is a need for more research in to this specific field. In this

research the focus will be on the effect of repeated mere exposure to primary brand elements, on the characteristics of brand associations, thus their number, type, strength, favourability and uniqueness, and on the moderating effect of the distinctiveness and content of the primary brand elements on this relationship. Therefore, the proposed problem statement is:

What is the effect of repeated mere exposure to primary brand elements on the characteristics of brand associations and does the level of distinctiveness and the content of the elements moderate this effect?

1.3.2. Sub-questions

In order to establish a well-defined approach, the research question is split into multiple sub-questions that help guide the process. However, first a theoretical framework will establish what is known in academic research to date on the involved concepts.This framework will discuss the following main concepts: associative networks, their place within customer-based brand equity, and the requirements for- and types of- brand associations; primary brand elements, the various types and criteria for choosing them; and mere exposure, the repeated mere exposure effect in branding, and moderators of repeated mere exposure. All these concepts exist but have not been combined; therefore, the theoretical framework will aim to determine how these concepts fit together to guide hypothesis development.

(10)

- Do the number of associations increase as the amount of exposure increases?

- Does the variety in type of brand associations increase as the amount of exposure increases? - Does the strength of the associations increase as the amount of exposure increases?

- Does the favourability of the associations increase as the amount of exposure increases? - Does the uniqueness of the associations increase as the amount of exposure increases?

- What is the moderating effect of the perceived distinctiveness of the presented brand elements on the relationship between repeated mere exposure and the characteristics of the brand associations?

- What is the moderating effect of the content of the presented brand elements on the relationship between repeated mere exposure and the characteristics of the brand associations?

1.3.3. Research approach & expectations

The research will be carried out as a longitudinal study where respondents will be repeatedly exposed to the same primary brand element, with characteristics of the elements varying between respondents based on perceived distinctiveness and content of the brand elements. The varying levels of perceived distinctiveness of the elements and perceived differences in content of the elements will be determined in a pre-test. In the main research respondents will be exposed to the primary brand element four times, with a short questionnaire about their associations with the element after each exposure. What is expected is that the characteristics will improve as the amount of exposure increases in accordance with the ‘repeated mere exposure effect’. Meaning that it is expected that the number of associations increase, that the variety in type of associations increase, and that the strength, favourability and uniqueness of the associations improve. Also it is expected that the relationship, between repeated mere exposure and the characteristics of the brand associations, is moderated by the perceived distinctiveness of the elements, so that the relationship is stronger for elements with a higher

(11)

mental availability of a brand (Romaniuk, Sharp & Ehrenberg, 2007). The content of the elements is also expected to moderate this relationship, so that the relationship is stronger for elements that cue the product category, as a present product category cue has been found to help consumers retrieve the element faster from their memory (Kohli & Suri, 2002; Giberson & Hulland, 1995).

1.3.4. Delimitations of the study

The study researches the effect of repeated mere exposure to primary brand elements on brand associations generated in the mind of respondents as part of the customer-based brand equity building process. Elements that won’t be included in the research but will be

controlled for are: the level of category involvement, the type of information processing, gender, and age. This study will not focus on multiple product categories and the differences amongst them, as this is a preliminary research to test this conceptual model. It would

however, be a useful topic for future research. In this study the brand elements will be shown in a ‘neutral setting’, which is uncommon in the real world but this study won’t focus on other settings as sponsorship, TV-placement etc. in order to get an uninfluenced view of what repeated mere exposure does to the brand associations that respondents have with a brand.

1.4 Contribution

1.4.1 Theoretical contributions

So far, research has been done on the effect of repeated mere exposure in branding, on brand equity aspects as preference, awareness, favourability, and liking of a particular stimulus object, being the brand name, or other brand characteristics. However, no research has been done to assess how this brand equity creation, following repeated mere exposure, goes via the associative network, thus establishing its role in this process. Even though literature and other

(12)

contribute to academic literature by researching what the role is of associative networks in the process of creating customer-based brand equity by repeated mere exposure, with the main focus being on new brands.

For these new brands, the first associations generated with their brand will come from their primary brand elements, given that they function as branding shortcuts (Keller, 2005), and these should thus be chosen with much care. Therefore, this research also aims to contribute to theory by researching the effect of criteria on the content and distinctiveness of primary brand elements on the relationship between repeated mere exposure and the creation of customer-based brand equity.

1.4.2 Managerial contributions

Aside from the theoretical contributions, this research aims to contribute to the knowledge of managers of new brands, by researching whether repeated mere exposure is an effective measure for creating brand equity for new brands, when consumers are only exposed to a brand’s primary brand elements. As these managers are advised, in an abundance of literature, to start with branding at the early stages of their existence since it is the quickest way to express precisely what they can offer (“The importance of branding your new

business”, 2009). And for new brands, primary brand elements are, mostly, the first elements exposed to consumers, as there is no prior brand knowledge or marketing communication, and they can generate the first brand associations (Brucks et al.; 2000; Zinkhan & Prenshaw, 1994).

Given that a brand is a ‘network of associations in the mind of the consumer’ (Keller, 2001), this research will aim, specifically, to contribute to manager’s knowledge by researching the role of associative networks in the brand equity building process, by repeated mere exposure to primary brand elements.

(13)

Chapter 2 - Associative Networks

2.1 Customer Based Brand Equity 2.1.1. Brand Equity & CBBE

Brands can be seen as corporate, intangible assets that add value to their owners. Arguably brands, due to their brand equity, are among the most valuable assets a firm can possess (Keller & Lehmann, 2003). Brand equity can be described as the marketing effects uniquely attributable to the brand (Keller, 1993). This entails the additional outcomes from marketing efforts linked to a brand, which could be both assets and liabilities, in comparison to an unbranded counterpart of the product or service (Aaker, 2009). Developing brand equity is seen as a vital action for companies as it allows them to engage more effectively with their customer base and build brand loyalty, allowing the business to grow further (Cullather, 2012). Therefore, marketers and brand managers should give much thought to the

management of their brands and be careful in choosing the exact brand building blocks by which they want to present their brand. The brand value chain, a theory on how brands can create added value, shows that value creation of a brand for a company is mostly out of their hands and starts in the mind of the consumer, therefore stressing the importance of Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE hereafter) (Keller & Lehmann, 2003).

Keller introduced this concept of CBBE in 1993 as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of a brand” (Keller, 1993, p.2). Where equity can either be created or destroyed depending on the customers more or less favourable response to a specific element of the brand’s marketing mix, in comparison to their response to that same element when it belongs to a fictitious or unnamed version of the product or service (Keller, 1993). Thus highlighting the fact that it is in the mind of the consumer where the power of a brand lies, not in the brand itself (Krishnan, 1996; Keller, 2001).

(14)

2.1.2. Brand Resonance Pyramid

Nearly a decade after Keller’s CBBE work, he introduced the Brand Resonance Pyramid as a model of how CBBE can be built to create strong brands. The model consists of four

contingent steps that need to be achieved to create significant brand equity (Keller, 2001). First, brand salience needs to be created to achieve the right brand identity, as consumers need to be aware of a brand and understand in which category the product or service competes, and what needs the brand satisfies.

Secondly, brand meaning needs to be created to establish brand image, which is measured by the associations that consumers have with a given brand. All the associations consumers have with a brand can be represented as an associative network, which is unique for each consumer, but it is in their common elements that the brand image and brand meaning can be determined. This brand meaning established by consumer’s associative network is the core concept of the model since a brand is a network of associations in the mind of the consumer (Keller, 2001). Hence, this concept will be covered in more depth in the following subsection.

When brand salience and meaning are established in the mind of the consumer brand response is the third step needed to create significant brand equity. This refers to how customers respond to a brand, and all related sources of information about the brand, based on their associations. Consumers can respond to a brand with either judgments or feelings or both, what is of more importance to create a strong brand, however, is the degree to which the responses are positive, accessible and readily come to mind when consumers think of the brand (Keller, 2001).

As the final step of creating strong brands, brand resonance can be achieved by consumers, which is referred to as a strong relationship between the customer and the brand and a level of personal identification with the brand.

(15)

2.2. Brand Associations

Consumer brand associations can be defined as the perceptions, preferences, and choices in one’s memory that are linked to a brand (Aaker, 1991). To build a strong brand these brand associations are of crucial importance. Many academics have named them as critical

components of brand equity, brand image and brand knowledge, therefore making it crucial for brand managers and marketers to understand the associations with their brand in nature and structure (Henderson et al., 1998). In Keller’s (2001) Brand Resonance Pyramid

consumer’s associative networks are also seen as the core concept as all levels of the pyramid are represented in them, since a brand is a network of associations in the mind of the

consumer (Keller, 2001).

2.2.1. Associative networks

Given this importance of brand associations, research has been done to determine what they are precisely, and how they are set up and composed in the mind of the consumer. “A network approach to the representation of brand associations can help provide a clearer understanding of the perceptions consumers have of brands, as well as the perceptions they have of people, places, and occasions of usage for brands” (Henderson et al., 1998, p.308). This associative network memory model in which the focus lies on memory structure originates from cognitive psychology. Keller (1993) brought this approach to the world of branding. The usage of basic memory principles to understand knowledge about a brand is the core thought of the approach (Keller, 1993). In the original theory memory is seen as a set of nodes and links, in which the nodes represent the stored information that are connected by links varying in strength. Thus memory is structured as an entangled network of information that can be recalled (Anderson, 1983). The extent to which information is retrieved depends on a spreading activation process from one node to another; the strength of the association

(16)

happens, thus also which information can be retrieved from memory (Keller, 1993). When looking at brand specific information, brand knowledge is stored in a similar way in consumer’s minds, as an associative network (Keller, 1993).

2.2.2. Requirements for associations that build brand equity

Knowing how associations are defined and how they are represented in the consumer’s mind, the next step is to assess when they are valuable to a brand. Various criteria have been

developed that brand associations need to have in order for them to help build brand equity and strong brands. Keller (1993) states that associations need to be strong, favourable, and unique in the mind of the consumer in order to influence the decision process of consumers and to produce the most positive brand response (Keller, 2001). To ensure that brand associations also create brand equity, Keller (2001) finds that they need to be strong,

favourable, and unique, in that specific order. Achieving this in his opinion is a hard task for marketers but, as has become apparent from the brand resonance pyramid, it is essential to build CBBE.

The strength of a brand association relates to the strength of the link to the brand node in the memory of the consumer. This strength is dependant on how the information is

processed, the quantity of thought given to the information and the quality of the thought, plus on how the information is then stored in consumer’s memory as part of the brand image (Keller, 1993). Once stored, information is likely to stay in memory, however for the

information to be easily retrieved strong association reminders are needed and a high number of ‘cues’ linked to the stored information (Tulving & Psotka 1971; Isen 1992).

For an association to be categorized as favourable, consumers need to feel and believe that a brand holds attributes and benefits that are fulfilling their needs and wants, resulting in a positive brand attitude (Keller, 1993). Related research found that this is linked to the

(17)

favourable associations if consumers don’t find the brand attribute important, given that they then won’t evaluate it as very good or bad (Mackenzie, 1986).

Apart from associations being strong and favourable they also need to be unique to the brand, so not shared with other competing brands, to achieve differentiation (Keller et al., 2002). This differentiation ensures that the brand has a ‘unique selling proposition’ which triggers consumers to buy the brand.

In addition to these criteria other theorists have posited that the significance of an association is also attributed to the relevance and the number of associations (Till, Baack & Waterman, 2011). The relevance of an association has been defined as “how much people perceive the association as a valuable, important, and purchase decision driving feature for a brand within the product category” (Till, Baack & Waterman, 2011, p.94). Campbell (2002) supports this criterion as he argued the focus should lie on creating associations that are meaningful and relevant to consumers.

The number of associations consumer’s have in their associative network of a brand is also of importance according to different academia. Research found that when a higher number of associations exists with a brand, brand awareness increases and that activities related to advertising have the potential to also become more effective (Till, Baack & Waterman, 2011). Additional to this finding of the importance of the number of brand associations, recent research by Labadie, J. has shown that if brands have a low number of associations, these are unlikely to be associations that build brand equity. Only when the number of associations is above a certain threshold the associations will be more likely to have favourable characteristics, thus aiding the development of brand equity (personal communication, June 13, 2016). Chen (2001) also concluded from his research, that brand equity goes up when the total number of associations go up, given that he found a significant

(18)

2.2.3. Differentiation & Category associations

For a long time, differentiation, to provide a point of difference for a brand to set it apart from the competition, has been regarded as one of the core principles of marketing (Keller et al., 2002; Romaniuk, Sharp & Ehrenberg, 2007). Keller et al. (2002) argued that associations need to be strong, favourable and unique to the brand to achieve differentiation and to distinguish the brand with a ‘unique selling proposition’ which is fundamental to trigger consumers to buy the brand and to successful brand positioning, defined as points of

difference (PoD hereafter). However, they also make the point that managers tend to pay too little attention to the frame of reference in which their brand are seen and thus addressing the features that evoke associations that they share with competitors. These are their points of parity (PoP hereafter), and they are also of great importance as brands need to perform at least on par on these points to even be considered as legitimate and credible players by consumers in their frame of reference (Keller et al., 2002). So without the right PoP’s success in a given category will be near to impossible; PoP’s are the bare minimum and PoD’s set the brand apart. This can be related to the categorization theory, discussed below.

The world of brands is not the ideal world and only few monopolists exist, therefore brands often share associations with other brands in their category, so they are not unique (Keller, 1993). This is however, not a bad thing as these associations include specific beliefs about all members in the category (Keller, 1993) and these shared associations for the brand category can be seen as brand’s PoP. These could be product related as well as more abstract associations. Striking is that in many situations one of the first associations that comes to mind when a brand is considered for purchase is a category association. Research has shown that this is a natural response to the fact that categorization is a cognitive activity that works in every type of situation (Cohen & Basu, 1987).

(19)

2.2.4. Brand Distinctiveness

Sharp (2010) introduced the law of double jeopardy to the world of branding. That law shows that if a brand is relatively unknown, it has fewer clients (first jeopardy) and that these clients are less loyal (second jeopardy). He explains that given the existence of this law it is

important for brands to focus on penetration. Thus, meaning that making the brand more physically and mentally available to consumers is needed in order to increase the chance of getting bought. This is a challenge to the importance of, the much researched, brand

differentiation as it suggests making a brand stand out to increase penetration is the way to increase CBBE rather than by differentiating a brand from it’s competitors.

Romaniuk, Sharp and Ehrenberg (2007) already claimed this as they found empirical evidence that differentiation plays a more limited role in brand competition than assumed, by showing there is a low level of perceived differentiation across competing brands in widely differing industries and categories. Additionally, Sharp (2010) found that consumers aren’t dependent on meaningful differentiation to buy a brand and be loyal to it. Alternatively, to differentiation, Romaniuk, Sharp and Ehrenberg (2007) urge the importance of

distinctiveness, standing out from competitors so that buyers can easily identify a brand with unique identifying characteristics, primary brand elements. This view is also supported by Hart and Murphy (1998) who stated that creating distinctiveness in a consumer relevant way is fundamental to the success of branding.

To be distinctive Sharp (2010) finds that brands compete on two important aspects, mental and physical availability. Mental availability is defined by Sharp (2010) as the chance that a brand is noticed and thought of during a buying situation, which is similar to the definition of brand salience from Keller’s (2001) brand resonance model. Increasing mental availability is linked to increasing the amount of situations in which consumers think of a

(20)

Thus this theory also links to the criterion ‘number of associations’.This mental availability then needs to be combined with physical availability, which Sharp (2010) defines as the ease with which a brand can be noticed and bought in the widest possible range of potential buying situations.

2.2.5. Type of Brand Associations

Having discussed some different types of brand associations that build brand image in previous sections, and authors having different opinions on how to categorize them, calls for an overall classification of different types of brand associations. Therefore, Timmerman (2001) developed the Inventory of Brand Representation (IBRA) classification, that captures all associations in ten different groups, based on their attributes. The general types are product-, brand-, and consumer- related attributes that have all been explored previously by multiple authors, but they either used different terminology or focussed on a sub-set. Within each general type of attribute, a number of specific groups are identified by Timmerman (2001), that cover 57 specific attributes in total. The IBRA classification, based on attributes, was generalized by Labadie (2014) in a categorisation key, for brand associations, consisting of seven categories, with eighteen subcategories, as represented in Figure 2.1. This

categorisation key is thus well suited to code evaluative responses to a brand, such as consumers brand associations. The categories follow the levels of Keller’s (2001) Brand Resonance Pyramid, with salience first, related to awareness of whether respondents know or do not know the brand. Followed by brand image, which is split in to product and

non-product associations. The non-product associations include associations on the category,

product/service, attributes and brand benefits, which can be functional or emotional, and the non-product associations include associations on the target group, purchase/usage situation, personality & values, and heritage/history. Attitude associations, positive and negative,

(21)

associations are categorized into. These association categories are linked to the order in which the type of associations are expected to exist in the mind of consumers, based on the brand equity that a brand has. As consumers need to be familiar with a brand first, and then research has shown that, in many situations, one of the first associations that comes to mind when a brand is considered for purchase is a category association (Cohen & Basu, 1987). The final category, that is not related to the resonance pyramid, is the category of brand building associations, consisting of primary brand element associations, secondary brand associations, and marketing communication associations, which will be discussed in more depth in Chapter 3.

Cat Label Subcat Label Core questions

I Salience 1 Unknown I don’t know you

2 Known I do know you

II

Product

associations 3 Category What are you?

4 Product/service What do you sell?

5 Attributes What do you have?

6 Functional benefits What does it do? 7 Symbolic associations

What does it say about me? How does it make me feel?

8 Price What do you cost?

III

Non-product

associations 9 Target group For whom are you?

10 Purchase/ Usage situation When do I use you? 11 Personality & values Who are you?

12 Heritage/ History Where do you come from? IV Attitudes 13 Positive attitudes What do I think of you?

14 Negative attitudes What do I think of you? V Resonance 15 Brand relationships How about us?

VI Brand building 16 Primary brand elements How do I recognize you? 17 Secondary brand associations

18 MarCom

(22)

Chapter 3 - How to build Brand Associations

Given the academic evidence for the importance of brand associations to CBBE, how they relate as associative networks, what type of brand associations exist and the requirements for associations to build brand equity, it is key to establish how brand associations can be

generated for new brands or expanded for existing brands. Since “if a brand results from a set of associations and perceptions in people’s minds, then branding is an attempt to harness, generate, influence and control these associations to help the business perform better” (“The power of branding”, 2013).

For new companies the first associations generated with their brand will come from their primary brand elements, as they function as branding shortcuts because without additional information they signal immediate communication (Keller, 2005). No marketing communication exists and consumers don’t have user experiences or other links in memory to the brand so the brands primary elements will be used to establish these first associations.

Existing theory and research on the mere exposure effect, has shown that repeated exposure can increase the preference of the particular stimulus object, being the brand name, or other brand characteristics (Zajonc, 2001; Olson & Thjømøe, 2003). Therefore, this theory, that originated in psychology, has been adopted in branding literature as repeated mere

exposure to a brand’s primary brand elements could play a role in developing consumer’s associative networks with a brand.

Academic literature on primary brand elements and the mere exposure effect in branding will both be discussed in more depth in the following subsections.

3.1 Primary Brand Elements

The definition of brand elements was defined by Keller as ““trademarkable” visuals or verbal information that identifies and differentiates a product or service” (Keller, 2005, p.20).

(23)

3.1.1. Importance of brand elements

According to Romaniuk, Sharp, and Ehrenberg “the fundamental purpose of branding is to identify the source of the product/service” (Romaniuk, Sharp & Ehrenberg, 2007, p.50). In order to aid identification distinguishing brand owned qualities, brand elements, are needed to stand out from the competition. They find that this increases the mental availability, which as discussed in subsection 2.2.4., enhances the chance of getting bought (Romaniuk, Sharp & Ehrenberg, 2007).

Keller (2005) argues that for marketers to build strong brands, they need to create good knowledge structures with their targeted consumers. In line with his 2001 work on how to build strong brands, he argues that in order to build that knowledge structure, brand related contacts are needed. These can be (1) brand elements, (2) the product or service and

marketing activities, and (3) secondary associations indirectly transferred from another person, place or thing. He finds that even though the product and marketing activities are the main drivers of brand equity, the other two can also significantly contribute to brand equity as they are less expensive. Additionally, it was found that many consumers do not look into much information whilst making their product decisions, hence making brand elements a vital part of a brand given that they function as branding shortcuts because without additional information they signal immediate communication, free advertising in a sense (Keller, 2003; Keller, 2005).

Aaker (1996) also found that companies, in general, know the importance of owning good brand elements as they are aware that they can play a fundamental role in brand building and brand equity. Therefore, it is of great importance to especially new companies, that when they design and choose their primary brand elements, that they choose them very consciously.

(24)

For new brands or other situations where no previous brand knowledge exists in the mind of consumers, consumers are inclined to use external cues like look, appearance, or colour to form attitudes (Jacoby and Olson, 1971 in Keller, 1993), and brand elements are the aspects of the brand that increase brand salience and awareness, by increasing the brand’s visibility and positioning the brand (Keller, 2008; Madhavaram et al., 2005).

All the discussed theories touch upon the need for brands to choose their brand elements with much care as they can inexpensively contribute to brand equity. This is achieved by enhancing awareness and facilitating the formation of brand equity building associations and attitudes, as they are the distinguishing qualities that can increase identification and distinctiveness, and are often the first element of a brand visible to consumers.

3.1.2. Types of brand elements

Generally, literature and practice see names, logos, symbols, characters, slogans, jingles, and packaging as the most common brand elements. All are of importance, but for this study the focus will be on brand logos, as they are the visual representation of a brand (Henderson & Cote, 1998) and to present a company’s identity brand logos are strong communicators (Stafford et al., 2012).

Various types of logos exist; they can be categorized as purely graphic logos called ‘abstract logos’, constitute of the name of the brand, or the corporation in which case they are called ‘word marks’, or they can be a combination of both the name of the brand or corporation and a graphic. When taking a closer look at the types of brand logos, they have two main aspects: style and content, and Giberson and Hulland (1995) found that the type of logo is not of great importance, leading them to conclude that style is not critical. Kohli (2002) also finds the main importance of logo design is on the content, which he defines as the “elements

(25)

Globally, companies tend to invest a lot into their logos, that exist in all forms. However, many of them are viewed negatively or are unrecognizable, hence good guidelines and criteria for developing them are key (Kohli, 2002). These will be discussed in subsection 3.1.3.

3.1.3. Criteria for brand elements

Six commonly accepted criteria for choosing brand elements were defined by Keller (2005). They are split in to three criteria that help build brand equity and three criteria that help defend and show how to leverage the brand equity.

The three brand building criteria are memorability, meaningfulness, and likability. Memorability covers the ease with which the brand element can be recalled and recognized at purchase and consumption occasions (Keller, 2005). This criterion for brand elements has been highlighted as the most important by both academics and practitioners, as it is needed for the brand to come to mind easier (mental availability) during purchase and usage

situations and thus increase brand awareness, which is the first step to building strong brands (Keller, 2008). This is especially of importance in situations where consumers are not

familiar with the brand, as memorability is then the alternative route to being mentally available in consumer’s minds.

The meaningfulness of a brand element is established by the credibility of the brand element and the degree to which it is suggestive of the product category, the user, or the ingredients for instance (Keller, 2005). By some authors, this criterion of brand elements has been highlighted as the most important, especially under low familiarity as it is expected to drive memorability (Henderson and Cote, 1998; Lowrey, et al. 2003; Robertson, 1987). On the meaningfulness of a brand element, Giberson and Hulland (1995) found that when a brand logo cues a product category, the logo is retrieved faster from memory, and that it is more

(26)

Likability of a brand element exists when a brand element is appealing to consumers and activates them. For brand associations that entails that for an association to be categorized as favourable, consumers need to feel, and believe, that a brand holds attributes and benefits that are fulfilling their needs and wants, resulting in a positive brand attitude (Keller, 1993).

To leverage the brand equity transferability of the brand element is a criterion to ensure that the brand element can successfully work on new products, different geographical areas, and different market segments, so that it doesn’t hazard the brand from expanding (Keller, 2005). Adaptability is concerned with the flexibility and the ability to change the brand element in case marketers find this necessary to update or renew the brand (Keller, 2005). To defend the created brand equity protectability of brand elements is of importance. This is not as easy for all brand elements, some can be legally protected, such as the brand name, others could easily be closely copied by competitors, such as product packaging (Keller, 2005).

Given these criteria for brand elements and the fact that different brand elements can performs better on different criteria, it is of great importance to marketers that they find a correct mix of brand elements to maximize the contribution to brand equity.

3.2 Mere Exposure

Mere exposure is a phenomenon that stems from psychology literature. It was first defined by Zajonc (1968) as the relation between frequently exposed stimuli and a resulting positive affect toward that stimulus. Later he added it is “no more than making a stimulus accessible to the individuals’ sensory receptors. There is no requirement for the individual to engage in any sort of behaviour, nor is he or she offered positive or negative reinforcement” (Zajonc, 2001, p. 224). That condition, with a low level of attention and involvement, increasingly represents the current consumption environment of consumers, given that they are most often

(27)

already engaged in other attention requiring activities, and it is in these situations where this effect can most be found (Ha & Litman, 1997; Skinner & Stephens, 2003).

Apart from a resulting positive affect, increased liking of an unknown target also resulted from increased exposure as a typical mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968). Related to liking, Zajonc (2001) also argued that in previous research it had been determined that the

preference for the exposed stimuli was enhanced by repeated mere exposure.

The increase in preference or attitude were found to take place as a logarithmical function of the numbers of exposures in a wide variety of stimuli and conditions (Monahan et al., 2000; Bornstein, 1989; Harrison, 1977; Zajonc, 1968). Which is in line with a review of

experiments conducted by Zajonc (1968) found a pattern showing that the effect of frequency of exposure on attitudes was higher for new, or unfamiliar stimuli. In a study by Förster (2009) the frequency of exposure at which liking increased was between 0 and 15, and a disliking occurred from 40 exposures onward. This suggests that the frequency of exposure should thus be thought of critically, to optimize the positive affects of mere exposure.

3.2.1. Repeated mere exposure in branding

This psychological mere exposure effect has been brought to the world of branding to test whether mere exposure, once or repeatedly, has an effect for branding. Several studies have shown that brand equity aspects as awareness, favourability and liking can be established for brands by repeated mere exposure (Zajonc 2001; Olsen & Thjømøe, 2003). Most of these studies were conducted in the context of sponsorships, advertising, TV placements, and exposure in magazines. No studies have been found that focus on the effect on associative networks specifically.

In 1993, Janiszewski ran three mere exposure experiments where brand names and product packages were used as stimuli, during incidental exposure, meaning that intentional

(28)

(Krugman, 1986). The results showed that this incidental exposure can cause a positive affect toward the brand to arise, with a similar effect for real familiar and unfamiliar brands to the respondents.

Baker ran experiments in 1999 with unfamiliar brands in advertisements of two different product categories to test whether mere exposure, without additional information, was successful in directly influencing brand choice. He found that, independent of the product category, respondents had created a preference for the brand they were more frequently exposed to. Although, this finding was only successful when mere exposure was used in a situation where other competitors were unknown and “if these competitors did not have superior performance characteristics or the motivation to deliberate at the time of brand choice was low” (Baker, 1999, p. 31). He also found that “consumers may be more likely to approach and select a brand that has an exposure advantage” (Baker, 1999, p.32), thus

suggesting that in the right circumstances, mere exposure to brand names in a high frequency could already in itself potentially give a relative advantage over competitors as this exposure would make consumers feel more at ease and familiar with the exposed brand.

Other research on mere exposure in relation to branding has been conducted that shows various moderators for the effect of brand exposure that will be discussed in more detail in subsection 3.2.2.

3.2.2 Moderators of repeated mere exposure

The effect of mere exposure has been shown to be moderated by different aspects such as the type of information processing, peripheral or central, the level of category involvement and the presence of additional information. These moderating effects will be discussed in more detail below.

(29)

Research found that providing additional information, alongside the brand name, has proven not to increase the preference for the brand in cases where the information isn’t fully processed, nor does is harm the brand evaluations. In cases where the information was fully processed, it had a beneficial effect on the outcome as it aided the formation of positive brand evaluations (Olson & Thjømøe, 2003).

For low involvement product categories, unknown brands, that expose consumers to the name of their brand, can create favourability for their brand when processed via the peripheral route (Olson & Thjømøe, 2003). This indicates the importance of getting your brand in front of consumers if you have a new brand in a low involvement category.

Additionally, evidence has been gathered to show that most purchase decisions are based on very little information, suggesting that in most situations consumers are in a state of low involvement (Park and Srinivasan, 1994).

As previously mentioned in subsection 3.2., repeated mere exposure will have most effect in situations where low levels of attention and involvement are present, which can be linked to consumer’s mind-sets in many consumption occasions. Therefore, the relevance to branding is potentially of great proportions “in understanding, explaining, and influencing the effects of contemporary marketing communications (Bornstein & Craver-Lemley, 2004; Grimes, 2008)” (in Stafford & Grimes, 2012).

(30)

Chapter 4 - Hypotheses Development

Based on the literature review of the previous two chapters, several hypotheses have been developed to help answer the research question and its sub questions.

4.1 Effect repeated mere exposure on characteristics brand associations

Mere exposure, a phenomenon from psychology literature, was first defined by Zajonc (1968) as the relation between frequently exposed stimuli and a resulting positive affect toward that stimulus. Apart from a resulting positive affect, increased liking of an unknown target also resulted from increased exposure as a typical mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968). Related to liking, Zajonc (2001) also argued that in previous research it had been determined that the preference for the exposed stimuli was enhanced by repeated mere exposure.

Studies on the physiological repeated mere exposure effect, in branding, have shown that repeated mere exposure can increase the preference, awareness, favourability and liking of the particular stimulus object, being the brand name, or other brand characteristics (Zajonc, 2001; Olson & Thjømøe, 2003). If repeated mere exposure can increase awareness, the first step of Keller’s brand resonance pyramid, and general constructs as preference, liking, and positive affect, categorized as brand attitudes, formed as the third step in the pyramid, this research will focus on how this specifically develops via the associative network, the second step in the pyramid.

To date, little or no research can be found on the effect of repeated mere exposure, to a stimulus object, on the establishment of associative networks. This is of importance however, as Keller (2001) stated in his work on how to build strong brands, that associative networks are the core concept, that a brand is explained as a network of associations in the mind of the consumer (Keller, 2001), and that they are needed for a brand to progress from awareness to an attitude level of brand resonance.

(31)

This is relevant for all companies with brands, new and established. However, established brands, in most situations, have an existing associative network, consisting of a variety of different types of associations. These could be generated by all that a brand has

communicated, user experiences, word of mouth, etc. Therefore, the potential change of brand associations following repeated mere exposure to a particular stimulus object, would not be traceable to the specific object as it could come from any other brand experience. For new brands especially, this is relevant, as it is important to know how brand

associations that help build brand equity can be generated and grown, given that consumers lack many associations as they don’t have any of the experiences with them that they might have with established brands (Campbell & Keller, 2003). Additionally, the potential changes in brand associations are therefore also traceable to the particular stimulus object as there is no other brand knowledge to base them on.

For new brands, primary brand elements are, mostly, the first elements exposed to consumers, as there is no prior brand knowledge or marketing communication. They will therefore be the source for the first associations generated with their brand and can increase brand awareness and salience (Keller, 2008). They function as branding shortcuts because without additional information they signal immediate communication (Keller, 2005) and they generate brand associations (Brucks et al.; 2000; Zinkhan & Prenshaw, 1994). Using the correct primary elements also helps build brand equity (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2008). For this study the type of primary brand elements used as the stimulus object will brand logos, as they are the visual representation of a brand (Henderson & Cote, 1998) and to present a company’s identity brand logos are strong communicators (Stafford et al., 2012).

(32)

The core of this exploratory research, is therefore to determine what the role is of brand associations in building CBBE by repeated mere exposure, for new brands. Which will be researched by determining whether an increase in the number of exposures to a brand logo, for an unknown brand, improves the characteristics of brand associations, compared to no increase. This will be determined based on the outcomes of H1a and H1b, concerning the number and variety in type of brand associations, and on the outcomes of H1c, H1d, and H1e, concerning the criteria that brand associations need to have in order for them to help build brand equity, which together form the characteristics of the brand associations.

4.1.1. Number of brand associations

As a characteristic of brand associations, the number of associations that consumer’s have in their associative network of a brand is of importance according to different academics. Research has found that the number of brand associations influences brand awareness and potentially also the effectiveness of activities related to advertising (Till, Baack & Waterman, 2011). Additional to this finding of the importance of the number of brand associations, recent research by Labadie, J. (personal communication, June 13, 2016) has shown that if brands have a low number of associations, these are unlikely to be associations that help build brand equity. Only when the number of associations is above a certain threshold the

associations will be more likely to have favourable characteristics, thus aiding the

development of brand equity. Therefore, this exploratory research will look specifically at the potential effect of repeated mere exposure on the number of brand associations, where this is expected to increase as the number of exposures increase.

H1a. When the number of exposures to a brand logo increases, the number of brand

associations increase compared to when there is no increase in the number of exposures.

(33)

4.1.2. Variety in type of brand associations

The variety in type of brand associations is also part of the characteristics of brand associations. Keller (1993) divides consumers brand knowledge, constituting of all brand associations, in to brand awareness and brand image. Brand awareness, and consumer’s associations about whether they know the brand, are the prerequisite for brand image. If consumers are aware of the brand they can develop further associations. In many situations, one of the first associations that comes to mind when a brand is considered for purchase is a category association. Research has shown that this is a natural response to the fact that categorization is a cognitive activity that works in every type of situation (Cohen & Basu, 1987). Subsequently, continuing the CBBE building process, consumers could develop product associations, brand (non-product) associations, attributes, and resonance. These types of brand associations coincide with the subsequent levels of the brand resonance pyramid (Keller, 2001). Therefore, as the variety in type of brand associations increases, it could be concluded CBBE is being built and a brand is going up in the brand resonance pyramid. This exploratory research sets out to establish whether repeated mere exposure to a brand logo can cause this variety increase.

H1b. When the number of exposures to a brand logo increases, the variety in type of brand

associations increases compared to when there is no increase in the number of exposures.

4.1.3. Requirements for brand associations to help build CBBE

Various criteria have been developed that brand associations need to have in order for them to help build brand equity. These criteria are therefore critical characteristics of brand associations.

(34)

the most positive brand response (Keller, 2001). To ensure that brand associations also create brand equity Keller (2001) finds that they need to be strong, favourable, and unique, in that specific order. Achieving this in his opinion is a hard task for marketers but, as has become apparent from the brand resonance pyramid, it is essential to build CBBE.

Therefore, to establish whether repeated mere exposure improves the characteristics of brand associations it is key to establish whether repeated exposure positively influences the requirements for brand associations that help build CBBE. Especially as research has already found that the strength of the link of an association to a brand will be stronger when based on many exposures (or experiences), than when it is based on few (Aaker, 1991). H1c. When the number of exposures to a brand logo increases, the strength of brand

H1d. When the number of exposures to a brand logo increases, the favourability of brand

H1e. When the number of exposures to a brand logo increases, the uniqueness of brand

4.2 Moderating role distinctiveness

Sharp (2010) introduced the law of double jeopardy to the world of branding and found that if a brand is relatively unknown, it has fewer clients and that these clients are less loyal.

Subsequently he found that it is therefore important for brands to focus on penetration by making the brand more physically and mentally available to consumers in order to increase the chance of getting bought by standing out. Mental availability is defined by Sharp (2010)

(35)

similar to the definition of brand salience from Keller’s (2001) brand resonance model, who apart from a buying situation also considers the usage situation. Increasing mental availability is therefore linked to increasing the amount of situations, buying and usage, in which

consumers think of a brand.

Romaniuk, Sharp and Ehrenberg (2007) also urge the importance of distinctiveness, standing out from competitors so that buyers can easily identify a brand with unique

identifying characteristics, primary brand elements. This view is also supported by Hart and Murphy (1998) who stated that creating distinctiveness in a consumer relevant way is fundamental to the success of branding. This increases the mental availability and a brand that is physically and mentally easily available has an increased chance of getting bought (Romaniuk, Sharp & Ehrenberg, 2007).

Given the importance of distinctiveness and standing out to allow consumers to easily identify a brand, it is expected that a brand’s logo should be perceived as highly distinctive to allow repeated mere exposure to have a positive affect on the characteristics of brand

associations. Contrary, for brand logos in this research that have a low perceived

distinctiveness, it is expected that the characteristics of brand associations will not improve much following higher numbers of brand exposures. This is because theory suggests that the mental availability will not increase as the brand is not noticed as standing out.

H2. The positive relationship between the number of exposures to a brand logo and the

characteristics of brand associations is moderated by perceived distinctiveness of a brand logo, so that this relationship is stronger for brand logos with high perceived distinctiveness compared to brand logos with low perceived distinctiveness.

(36)

4.3 Moderating role brand logo content

Additional to the importance of the distinctiveness of the brand logo, are the aspects of the logo design: content and style. Kohli (2002) finds that the main importance of logo design is on the content, which he defines as the “elements contained in the logo, including text and graphic representation” (Kohli, 2002, p.60). Giberson and Hulland (1995) found that when a brand logo cues a product category, the logo is retrieved faster from memory, thus also emphasising the importance of brand logo content. Even more, they found that when brand logos cue the product category, those logos are more effective compared to when the brand logos provide no cue about the product category (Giberson and Hulland, 1995). Following these findings, the effect of repeated mere exposure to a brand logo on the characteristics of brand associations is expected to be moderated by the content of the brand logo.

H3. The positive relationship between the number of exposures to a brand logo and the

characteristics of brand associations is moderated by the content of the brand logo, so that this relationship is stronger for brand logos that cue the product category compared to brand logos that do not cue the product category.

4.4 Conceptual model

(37)

Chapter 5 - Methodology

5.1 Research Design

This research will be carried out as a quantitative study. To answer the research question, a longitudinal research will be carried out, meaning that data from across time will be

examined, as the variables will be measured repeatedly over different periods (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010). As the data collection instrument questionnaires will be used, that are developed using Qualtrics, as they provide the most effective way to get responses for this research given that they are useful for using statistics to test the hypotheses.

First, stimuli development, via a pre-test, will establish input for the conditions based on the moderating variables of the conceptual model: the perceived distinctiveness of the brand logo, and the content of the brand logo (product category cue). This will result in a 2x2 experimental design, with 4 between-subject conditions (C1, C2, C3, and C4), based on two factors, product category cue (present/absent) and distinctiveness (high/low), as is visually represented in Figure 5.1. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the conditions, which will subsequently be repeated within-subject four times, as part of the longitudinal study, to establish the effect of repeated mere exposure.

(38)

5.2 Pre-test

A qualitative pre-test will determine the right logos to represent the four conditions in the main research by conducting a combination of focus group-interviews and private interviews, given that this is advantageous to improve the method and input of the main research

(Saunders et al., 2009). First personal interviews are conducted to get personal views on the characteristics of the presented logos without group behaviour influencing the responses. Afterwards, a focus group will be used to obtain more qualitative insights on the topic,

including information of several individuals simultaneously to find a consensus on the stimuli that will represent the conditions.

5.2.1. Criteria stimuli development

The requirements for useful stimuli are outlined in this section.

The product category from which the logos were used had to be a category that does not have specific codes in terms of colours, shapes, etc., to provide an ‘as neutral as possible’ setting for brand associations to be developed. Additionally, the product category had to be one of low involvement from the consumer’s perspective as previous research has shown that, for low involvement product categories, unknown brands that expose consumers to the name of their brand can create favourability for their brand (Olson & Thjømøe, 2003). Therefore, as the larger category logos of fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) have been used as input, with ‘beer brands’ as the specific product category, as these are not characterised by specific colour codes, shapes, etc., with beer logos existing in a large variety of shapes and colours, and as beer is a low involvement product. This variety in logos also allows for the possibility to find logos that cue the product category where the cue can also be removed from the logo and allows for the possibility to find varying logos that could differ in perceived

(39)

views men and women might have and given that at different ages respondents might feel more or less connected to this product category. No specific expectations exist on these variables; hence they are controlled for. Finally, given that the focus of the research is on brands that are unknown to respondents, the brand logos used as input for the pre-test were collected from an online database of small breweries that are unlikely to be known to respondents.

5.2.2. Participants

Participants for the pre-test were chosen ensuring enough variance in gender, age, and therefore their connection to the chosen product category. For both parts of the pre-test, the personal interviews and the focus group, men and women were included and participants with an age between 18-28 were present and with an age between 45-60 were present.

5.2.3. individual interviews

10 individual interviews were conducted with 8 logos (shown in Appendix I as logo’s input pre-test) of each between 5 to 10 minutes. The brands were shown to the participant one fore one with the same questions for each brand. First, they were asked whether they were

familiar with the logo, which was not the case for any of the participants with any of the logos, hence they were accepted for the pre-test. Secondly, participants were asked what came to mind when they saw the logo allowing them to name anything (free association). Thirdly, they were asked whether it was clear what the product category of the logo was and whether that was clearly viewable from the logo, which could be answered with clear, not clear, and moderately clear. Lastly, they were asked whether the brand stood out from other brands in the same product category to establish the perceived distinctiveness.

The effect of repeated mere exposure to primary brand : elements on the characteristics of brand associations

Master Thesis