Image transfer between brands in the broadcasting system
An explorative research on image transfer and spillover effects between brands in the broadcasting system
Student name: Sander Borghouts Student number: 10659099
Supervisor: Roger Pruppers Second corrector: Jorge Labadie
Amsterdam Business School, Faculty of Economics and Business University of Amsterdam
Master Thesis Date: August 8 2014
Table of Contents
1. SO MANY BRANDS, SUCH AN OBTUSE PASTIME ... 4
1.1 BRANDS IN THE BROADCASTING SYSTEM ... 4
1.2 BROADCASTING BRANDS IN THE CURRENT EVENTS ... 5
1.3 PROBLEM DEFINITION ... 6
1.4 CONTRIBUTIONS ... 7
1.5 GENERAL OVERVIEW ... 8
2. BROADCASTING COMPONENTS AS FULL-‐FLEDGED CONSUMER BRANDS ... 10
2.1 CLASSIC BRAND DEFINITION ... 10
2.2 BRAND IMAGE BUILDING IN PRACTICE ... 11
2.3 BRAND EQUITY SELLS ... 12
2.4 POSITIVE EVALUATIONS CREATE IRREPLACEABLE BRAND EQUITY ... 13
2.5 BROADCASTING COMPONENTS FIT THE BRAND DEFINITION ... 14
3. BRANDS AS AN ASSOCIATIVE NETWORK ... 15
3.1 THE BASICS OF ASSOCIATIVE NETWORKS ... 15
3.2 APPLICATION OF THE BRAND CONCEPT MAP AND ITS FIT TO BROADCASTING BRANDS ... 17
3.3 THE STRONGER THE ASSOCIATION, THE GREATER THE IMPACT ON IMAGE ... 18
3.4 HOW FAVORABILITY AND UNIQUENESS IMPACT ASSOCIATIONS ... 19
4. THE CONSUMER'S DISPOSITION TO PROCESS MULTIPLE BRAND CUES. ... 22
4.1 BRAND ARCHITECTURE ... 22
4.2 STRENGTH OF LINKAGES AND SPILLOVER EFFECTS ... 25
4.3 SPILLOVER EFFECTS AND IMAGE TRANSFER ... 27
5. PROPOSITIONS ... 29
5.1 PRIMARY VS. SECONDARY ASSOCIATIONS ... 30
5.2 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS MENTIONING >1 BRANDS (STATION AND PRESENTER AS DRIVER ROLE) ... 32
5.3 TWO-‐WAY SIMILARITY OF % MENTIONING CORRESPONDING BRAND ... 33
5.4 CORRECT INCOMING ASSOCIATIONS ... 34
6. DATA EN METHOD ... 36
6.1 CUE DEVELOPMENT ... 37
6.2 PRE-‐TESTING ... 41
6.3 SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT ... 42
6.4 QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT ... 43
6.5 DATA STRUCTURING AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS ... 44
7. RESULTS ... 46
7.1 PRIMARY VS. SECONDARY ASSOCIATIONS ... 46
7.2 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS MENTIONING >1 BRANDS (STATION AND PRESENTER AS DRIVER ROLE) ... 52
7.3 TWO-‐WAY SIMILARITY OF % MENTIONING CORRESPONDING BRAND ... 57
7.4 INCOMING ASSOCIATIONS ... 59
8. DISCUSSION ... 63
8.1 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS ... 63
8.2 INTERESTING FINDINGS APART FROM THE PROPOSITIONS ... 67
8.3 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ... 69
8.4 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ... 70
9. CONCLUSIONS ... 73
9.1 LIMITATIONS ... 74
9.2 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ... 75
10. REFERENCES ... 77
1. So many brands, such an obtuse pastime
Millions of people around the world end their working day by watching some television as a relax-ing and enjoyable pastime, a staggerrelax-ing 3 hours and 39 minutes a day accordrelax-ing to Eurodata TV. Relaxing as it may be, viewers get to process an enormous amount of information while watching television. Four basic factors with which viewers are confronted while watching television, apart from commercials, are: the broadcasting station, broadcasting channel, program and the presenter. Making a leap forward, one could argue that the viewer gets to process four brands simultaneously. This makes it a case of intense and complex brand processing for the consumer and it would be intriguing to know how the consumer processes all four brands at the same time. Moreover what effects do these four broadcasting elements have on each other's image after being processed simul-taneously?
1.1 Brands in the broadcasting system
The American Marketing Association (1960) defines a brand as “A name, term, design, symbol, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from competitors.”, and by this definition one could argue that all of the mentioned four broadcasting elements are brands. Take the memorable HBO jingle as an example, even when the television show is aired by a different (foreign) channel, the well-known sound of the HBO jingle alone is enough to quickly prime people that it is an HBO show. Or consider Simon Cowell, who is known for being a member of the jury in virtually every talent show from Pop Idol, Il Divo, The X Factor till the Got Talent shows. He obviously is very good at branding himself as the 'jury member every show must have'. Oprah Winfrey takes it to an even higher level, as fans are willing to purchase merchandise such as Oprah t-shirts, pillows, bumper stickers, coasters and even Oprah wigs. The former examples demonstrate the variety of broadcasting brands in play when watching a television program. Although some research has been done on how people process the exposure to multiple brands at the same time, no research has been done on this phenomenon in the
broadcasting context specifically. It would be very relevant to find out how different broadcasting elements affect each other's image as there are many current debates going on with regards to the broadcasting system. Knowledge on how different broadcasting elements affect each others brand image will help to formulate educated opinions on some relevant phenomena of which the follow-ing two paragraphs will depict a couple.
1.2 Broadcasting brands in the current events
The Netherlands has a government-subsidized public broadcasting system with 3 broadcasting channels and 21 broadcasting stations. Each of these broadcasting stations has its own characteris-tics and is founded on a certain set of beliefs and principles, which may be of a religious, political or social nature. Due to government deficiencies, the Dutch government has decided to cut back its subsidies towards the public broadcasting stations. As a result of these budget cuts, the 21 public broadcasting stations have to merge into just 8 broadcasting stations (www.rijksoverheid.nl). Con-sequently a fair debate has been going on concerning the effects on the image of the merged broad-casting stations. Do viewers actually know and care that the popular talkshow 'De Wereld Draait Door' is aired by broadcasting station BNN/VARA or might it as well be aired by KRO-NCRV? By understanding how consumers process the broadcasting brands, one might be able to formulate a sensible picture on what effect these mergers have on the image of the concerning broadcasting stations. Moreover, one could to argue whether broadcasting stations brands matter at all.
At the same time, a fierce debate has been going on in the Netherlands on how much presenters at the public broadcasting should earn since they are paid with money collected by taxes. This debate raises questions concerning the value of a presenter because how much does a presenter actually affect or contribute to image of the broadcasting station or channel? An answer to this question might help with evaluating how much a presenter should earn. In order to answer this question one has to know how important the presenter is for the viewer count of a program or broadcasting sta-tion. In other words, do people actually watch a certain television program because of a certain
pre-senter and would they stop watching the program if the prepre-senter were traded in for another, per-haps less-known, presenter. This might be an indicator of the net worth of a presenter and its com-petitive position. This phenomenon is greatly illustrated by the late night talkshow war in the U.S. where the three highest earning late night talkshow hosts John Stewart, Jay Leno and David Letter-man earn $30 million, $20 million and $20 million a year respectively (Dailymail, 2013). Also, a great race took place in 2013 on who could become Jay Leno's successor on the Tonight Show, which was won by Jimmy Fallon who is said to earn up to $12 million dollars for presenting the Tonight Shows (Pomerantz, 2013).
These topical examples and questions come down to the general issue: How do the four major broadcasting brands interact and affect each other? One would need to know how these four ele-ments connect in the mind of the consumer. Aaker (1991) describes consumer brand associations as those perceptions, preferences, and choices in memory linked to a brand. By this definition, we can argue that emotions and attitudes towards the different four elements might overlap or contradict. In
either way, the assumption is that they do influence each other. In order to investigate this
coher-ence, one has to understand what exact mental associations the viewer makes with regards to the broadcasting system. These so-called associate networks are actively researched and used, however little research has been conducted in this field with the broadcasting system specifically as a sub-ject. In order to understand how viewers process all four brands, associative networks seem to be a powerful tool in trying to understand the mental connections a person makes and how the television environment is portrayed in the consumers mind.
1.3 Problem Definition
As discussed before, recent debates around the broadcasting system raise a lot of interesting ques-tions. Answers to these questions would be especially valuable to both the governments and broad-casting stations but would also provide interesting new insights into branding theory. The
underly-ing question that would ultimately help answer a lot of these questions is: How do the images of the four major broadcasting brands (broadcasting channel, station, program and presenter) affect one another in the mind of the consumer when displayed together?
There are several preceding questions this paper aims to answer in order to finally answer the be-fore mentioned research question. First we need to find out whether general branding literature or theory can be applied to the four elements in the broadcasting system; do they behave as conven-tional brands? Consecutively, we want to identify what specific mental associations the viewer makes with all the four brands separately and how strong these connections are. By weaving this separate information together we want to analyze what the similarities and differences are in the images of four parallel or corresponding brands. With this information we hope to answer to what extent the images are impacted by one another.
In short, this paper will try to provide answers on the effects of simultaneous processing of the four major broadcasting brands and determine how they affect each other's image. However, this paper will not investigate why people watch certain programs nor will it discuss how to alter or improve the associations. Also this paper will not try to provide definitive answers on ongoing debates about the broadcasting system structure.
1.4 Contributions
Theoretical Contributions
This paper adds to academic literature by providing insight into the branding of elements in the broadcasting system (broadcasting channel, broadcasting station program and presenter); it will evaluate whether these elements actually behave like conventional brands. Also it sheds light on the specific associative networks that consumers possess on the broadcasting system. After analysis of study results, this paper will help provide insight into what associations connect different brand
elements in the broadcasting system. This will unravel how the different brands in the broadcasting system are connected and affect each other's image. Moreover this paper will provide valuable in-sight into the interdependence of 'brands' in the broadcasting system.
Managerial Contributions
This paper provides substantial managerial value as it caters a foundation for governments world-wide in deciding whether merging public broadcasting stations is viable option and what impact it will have in the broadcasting system. It would help them understand how strong the connections that viewers have with different broadcasting stations really are. Also, this paper will provide valu-able insights for management of broadcasting stations as it displays the interdependence of their broadcasting station with all other brand elements in the broadcasting system. Moreover it will pro-vide answers on the effect that the four factors (broadcasting channel, broadcasting station, program and presenter) have on each other's image. This will help management decide which of the elements to focus on and what elements are worthwhile to invest into.
1.5 General overview
This paper will commence by reviewing literature and concepts that are relevant to the research that will be conducted in this paper. First, the paper will investigate what the concept of ‘a brand’ is and whether the four broadcasting components can be classified as such according to current defini-tions. Next, it will investigate the concept of 'brand associative networks' in order to better under-stand how brands are connected and therefore might affect each others image. Subsequently, exist-ing literature on the processexist-ing of multiple brands cues will be discusses. Current literature on brand architecture will be used to interpret current knowledge on how consumers respond to simul-taneous brand cues. Then we will introduce our research proposal and methods whereupon the re-search procedure will be exhibited. The paper will conclude by a discussion of the finding of the
conducted study after which an overview of implications and limitations will bring this paper on broadcasting brands to a closure.
2. Broadcasting components as full-fledged consumer brands
In order to understand the impact and importance of the four main elements in the broadcasting system (broadcasting channel, broadcasting station, program and presenter) one has to know how to analyze them. A first and important step would be to understand whether these four elements be-have like, and can be defined as conventional brands. Therefore it is vital to start by researching what the concept 'brand' entails according to existing branding literature and we will thus start by setting out some of the definitions. Accordingly, some examples will be provided with every defini-tion to evaluate whether the broadcasting components can be considered brands according to the given definitions.
2.1 Classic brand definition
As noted earlier, the American Marketing Association (1960) defines a brand as “A name, term, design, symbol, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from competitors.” According to this very basic definition, a brand is a mere visual or text element to recognize or identify the origins of a certain product or service in order to know the consumer is purchasing from. By this description it would actually be extremely easy to establish a 'brand' because a seller would only need to come up with a name or logo and one would have established a brand. Actual awareness or recognition by the consumer nor the market value of the brand plays any role in creating a brand according to this definition by the American Marketing Association.
A sweeping case to illustrate this definition is BBC's Top Gear with Jeremy Clarkson as the lead presenter of the program. This is a popular TV show about cars with an estimated worldwide viewer audience of 350 million (Metro News 2010). In the UK, the BBC is both the broadcasting channel and station of this British television show. The BBC has a discernible combination of a name and symbol in order to differentiate them from competitors. Also the Top Gear program itself has a
rec-ognizable name, logo and jingle in order to differentiate the show from competition in the television landscape. Last of the four components is the presenter of the show Jeremy Clarkson, who obvious-ly has a name which discerns him from other presenters. Even more so, one could argue he even has 'terms' or slogans to characterize himself such as: "and on that bombshell, it is time to end the show" with which he closes every episode of the show.
2.2 Brand image building in practice
Obviously, the former definition by the American Marketing Association might be outdated be-cause it was created in 1960, in which time the definitions of a brand were generally rather simplis-tic in nature. The consumers were often seen as passive variables in the branding context when brands were described as descriptive, administrative and legal uses of the seller. However, one defi-nition of the concept 'brand' that we particularly like was formulated even earlier in 1955 and might have been ahead of its time. This definition is by Gardner And Levy (1955) "A brand name is more than the label employed to differentiate among manufacturers of a product. It is a complex symbol that represents a variety of ideas and attributes. It tells the consumer many things, not only by the way it sounds (and its literal meaning if it has one) but, more important, via the body of associations it has built up and acquired as a public object over a period of time." (p.35). Gardner and Levy de-scribe a brand much more holistically and basically dede-scribe it as a complex image that has been built up in the consumer's mind over a substantial period of time.
A proper example to illustrate this definition of a brand in the broadcasting context might be the German detective television show Tatort. Tatort has been running on German television for over four decades at the moment and has developed into a pop-culture symbol during this time (Kim-melman, 2009). The first episode was broadcasted in 1970 and adopted the old-fashioned blueprint of two detectives trying to decipher a murder mystery; the German 'Krimi'. There are 15 stand-alone versions of "Tatort" produced by regional divisions of the broadcasting station ARD, all of which
feature a specific region of Germany as its murder decor. Although Tatort is obviously a brand name with its own adoption in each region of Germany, it has become much more than that. Be-cause it has been aired for such a long time with so many regional adaptations, it has become a be-loved concept with which many Germans have numerous of personal associations. This image of Tatort, which has been built up over time is what makes Tatort a legitimate brand according to Gardner And Levy (1955).
2.3 Brand Equity sells
Keller (2002) much later also argues that a marketer should not only create a name or logo but actu-ally has to create a certain amount of awareness, reputation and prominence in the marketplace. This corresponds with the more contemporary perspective that a brand is established when it inter-acts with the consumer; with the consumer being an active participant in the creation of the brand. Generally one could say that the favorability of the response to the brand determines the brand equi-ty. This concept of brand equity is defined by Aaker (1996) as “the set of assets and liabilities linked to a brand’s name and symbol that adds to or subtracts from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or that firm’s customers”. One could see that this is a rather complex defini-tion that is clearly rooted in the definidefini-tion of the American Marketing Associadefini-tion but builds on it by stating that the brand is not merely a name or symbol but exists by having a balance of assets and liabilities. In other words, there is a certain substance or value behind the brand name that makes the brand name a brand. Consecutively he subdivides the set of assets and liabilities into four categories: brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations and brand loyalty.
The widely popular talent show The Voice Of can be considered as a brand that has a certain set of assets and liabilities to its brand name. Apart from the brand name, logo and jingle it has undoubt-edly built up a certain amount of awareness, reputation and prominence in the marketplace. The concept of The Voice is that contestants participate in 'blind auditions' so that the jury members
have to judge merely by the voice of the contestant. This 'blind audition' element is what sets this talent show apart from others and helped it to build this reputation and prominence in the market-place. The fact that the television brand 'The Voice' possesses a certain set of assets is demonstrated by the fact that producer Talpa sold the format to 45 countries around the globe (talpa.com). Again, this indicates that broadcasting components fit the existing definition of a brand in the current branding literature.
2.4 Positive evaluations create irreplaceable brand equity
Building on the previous section, Keller (2008) later supplements the definition by Aaker (1996) by stating in a substantially easier to grasp fashion that “A brand has positive customer-based brand equity when consumers react more favorably to a product and the way it is marketed when the brand is identified than when it is not”. What Keller actually describes with this definition is the word 'assets' in the definition given by Aaker. He notes that the recognition of the brand and a sub-sequent more positive valuation of the product can be defined as the brand having equity; it evokes a positive reaction. Brand equity should not be confused with brand value, the latter refers to the financial valuation of a brand and brand equity is one of the building blocks of this value. As we learn from Aaker's definition, brand equity is the factor that makes people evaluate product 'A' more favorably than the completely identical product 'B' because of the positive mental associations to brand 'A", which can not necessarily be expresses in financial value.
The last example in this section to illustrate the existence of brands in the broadcasting system is one of a presenter. 'All you need is love' is a popular Dutch television show bringing together loved ones by a plethora or original surprises. This TV show has been running for over two decades, more importantly however, all 22 seasons of this show have been presented by Robert ten Brink. The show has moved between three broadcasting channels (Veronica, SBS6 and RTL4) but the present-er always stayed the same. Apparently, Robpresent-ert ten Brink has become such an important brand name
that the show would not be the same without him and thus all three broadcasting channels contract-ed Robert ten Brink along with the acquisition of the show. This demonstrates how presenter (A) 'king of love' has more positive mental associations than any other presenter (B) and thus caries a certain amount of brand equity.
2.5 Broadcasting components fit the brand definition
It is important to stress that this overview of the definition of a 'brand' and its fusion into 'brand eq-uity' is just a very concise and abridged version on the evolving discussion by branding scholars on the definition of a brand. This is in large part because scholars have not yet agreed on a universal definition. De Chernatony and Leslie (1998) have given a very complete overview of twelve main themes that represent the broad range of definitions of 'a brand' given by marketing scholars: i) legal instrument; ii) logo; iii) company; iv) shorthand; v) risk reducer; vi) identity system; vii) image in the consumers' minds; viii) value system; ix) personality; x relationship; xi) adding value; and xii) evolving entity. By this enumeration it might become clear that the concept of a brand has been tried to grasp by many but that a consensus has not been reached.
However, this section provided examples to illustrate how the four broadcasting components fit many of the most common brand definitions. Therefore it is important to conclude that although an agreed upon definition of a brand does not exists, it seems fair to conclude that all four broadcasting components seem to fit all common definitions of a brand.
3. Brands as an associative network
The previous section gave a broad overview of the meaning of a brand, which has indicated that in large part the existence of a brand is formed by the mental associations of the consumer. It therefore seems beneficial to review what these so-called associative networks are in order to get a better understanding of what these mental connections to a brand look like. Moreover, it is particularly valuable to understand associative network theory, as this seems to be a fit theory or method to re-search the propositions in this paper.
3.1 The basics of associative networks
Henderson, Iacobucci and Calder (1998) have studied previous work on associative networks and conclude that researchers generally agree on the fact that knowledge is represented as "associative networks" and that such a network structure is made up of concept nodes and prepositional links. These nodes are units of information such as an object, place, person, time and emotion. The prepo-sitional links are the connecting lines between these units of information, creating a network of thoughts around the central node. This definition will be illustrated in the following paragraph.
An associative network can be constructed with every possible unit of information as a starting node and by no means has to be a brand. However for the purpose of this paper let us consider the below example by Aaker (1996) where the brand McDonalds is the central point or node of origin in the associative network. This can be considered an example of a person being asked what he or she thinks of when thinking of the brand McDonalds. This person comes up with a total of 10 nodes that he or she associates with the McDonalds. These are all sorts of associations such as a certain setting (social environment), evaluation (value) or experience (service). Often many nodes are not direct associations with the brand but derived associations, in this case one thinks of meals and con-secutively of products and burgers.
Figure 3.1: Brand associative network
(Source: Aaker 1996)
Aaker (1991) describes the associative network in the context of brands in particular as being those perceptions, preferences, and choices in memory linked to a brand. He also notes that brand asso-ciations, in particular but not necessarily positive ones, build value for the brand as this is a neces-sary condition to have any brand awareness or reputation as discussed by Keller (2002). The knowledge on what associations consumers have with their brand could potentially very valuable for companies to have. It contains information on what connections the consumer makes with the brand and therefore it could easily be used to verify if these associations are the ones that the com-pany intended to induce by means of their branding strategy. Some insight into this process is pro-vided by Henderson, Iacobucci and Calder (1998) who performed empirical research in order to demonstrate how the representation of consumer brand perceptions in an associative network are a
valuable tool in analyzing the effects of branding. They set out a multiple measures and means of analysis to gather and interpret the brand associative networks with which a company could set up a profile of brand effects and strategies.
3.2 Application of the brand concept map and its fit to broadcasting brands
In an optimal situation, companies should be able to measure such a network of brand association in order to obtain a clear overview of the important brand associations but also how these associations are connected to the brand and to one another (John, Loken, Kim and Basu Monga, 2006). Having this knowledge, a company would be able to roughly determine why consumers have particular associations as the network contains information on how associations are spread by identifying spe-cific links. It is the spreading activation process from a brand name to brand associations recalled from memory which produces a mental map of the brand (Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990; John et al., 2006). Consequently, these maps of brand associations reflect the structure of consumer memory on which consumer based brand equity is based (French &Smith, 2013).
The latest major adaptation of the associative network model is the Brand Concept Model devel-oped by John, Loken, Kim and Basu Monga, 2006. This model is very similar to the associative network as exemplified earlier and refines the methodology of free associations that consumers can make by recalled brand associations. As long as the consumer is familiar with the brand, these brand concept maps can be used to draw maps on any fmcg, consumer durable, service, corporate and or product brands (French & Smith, 2013). Even more so French and Smith note that the brand concept model technique may be applied in any market sector where consumers possess associative networks of the brands therein. It is important that French and Smith verify that the brand concept map can be extended to virtually every brand variation as this makes it easier for us to safely stretch the concept to research our four brand variations of focus (broadcasting channels, broadcasting sta-tions, programs and presenters).
3.3 The stronger the association, the greater the impact on brand image
Krishnan (1996) makes an important case on the strength of brand associations. He argues that the more associations the associative network map contains, the stronger the brand is as this increases the number of pathways between associations and thus the likelihood that the brand will be activat-ed or recallactivat-ed when one of these associations is activatactivat-ed. This could prove to be an interesting phenomenon in our research on the broadcasting system as some of the components might evoke many more associations than others. This could potentially be key to understanding how certain brands in the broadcasting system influence the reputation of others. If brand 'A' has a large net-work with a lot of associations and brand 'B' has an equally large associative netnet-work, it is self-evident that the odds are far greater that some of the associations are overlapping than when both had limited associative networks. When brand A and B have overlapping associations, this would mean that brand A could activate brand B and the other way around. Equally this could mean that brand A and brand B can influence each other’s image as they are somehow connected in the brand network of the consumer.
Also, van Rekom, Jacons and Verlegh (2006) emphasize that associations that are connected direct-ly to the brand are more important than more distant connections. In other words the closer the con-nections are to the brand the more they define the basic image that the consumer has of the brand. Although this may seem obvious, it is meaningful to re-emphasize this point as this might help us to understand the effect on image later on in this paper; direct links might affect a broadcasting brand's image far stronger than distant links.
To illustrate the theory in the previous example in the broadcasting context let's consider the fol-lowing example: The Dutch broadcasting channel RTL 4 might have a extensive brand concept map of which one of the associations is the program 'Miljoenenjacht' , 'Miljoenenjacht' itself has a net-work of associations as well of which one might be the presenter of the show Linda de Mol. By this
strain of associations RTL4, Miljoenenjacht and Linda de Mol are all connected and as a result one of these brands might activate the other two. One could argue that if these are strong connections that the image of RTL4 might influence the image of Linda de Mol as these are connected by prep-ositional links in the associative network through which image could transfer. This is a crucial as-sumption that this paper is going to explore in larger depth. On a side node, it seems apt to mention that 'RTL4' and 'Linda de Mol' can be linked by multiple associations simultaneously. The two brands might also connect by a node 'entertaining' and 'leisure time', an increase of mutual associa-tions strengthens the connection between the brands.
3.4 How favorability and uniqueness impact associations
This paper examines the impact that broadcasting brands can have on each other's image, therefore one should recognize that this can entail both positive and negative impact. The number of associa-tions evoked by a brand is therefore not the only relevant criterion to examine the 'image impact' phenomenon. As consumer build up an extensive network of associations, many of these associa-tions might be negative and therefore it is important to assess the relative presence of positive ver-sus negative associations. (Krishnan, 1996). Dacin and Smith (1994) indeed argue that "the favora-bility of consumers" predispositions toward a brand may well be the most elemental of all brand associations and is at the core of many conceptualizations of brand strength/equity. Dacin and Smith elaborated on this by stating that brand associations must be strong but also favorable for brand equity enhancement.
The last relevant concept to cover in this chapter is the so-called uniqueness of a brand association. The entire brand concept map is made up of a complex array of associations, some of which are unique to the brand and some of which are shared with other brands in the product category. Some of the brand associations may be shared with the brand HBO such as "entertainment" but may as well be shared with competitors in the category such as CBS and FOX. This is an example of a
shared association whereas "blockbuster series" might be an association that is unique to the brand HBO. Krishnan (1996) amplifies that a brand needs some shared associations with the category in order to be classified as a brand that belongs in the relevant category, misconception on what cate-gory the brand belongs to can be catastrophic for the brand's image. Too many shared associations and the brand becomes generic, therefore a healthy balance of shared and unique associations great-ly strengthens the brand. The figure below exemplifies an unbalanced situation (A) where there is just one unique connection and a variety of shared associations, it also depicts a balanced situation (B) with a variety of shared and unique associations.
This chapter provided an overview on the concept 'associative brand networks' and covered the are-as of the concept that might prove relevant to understand how the image of one broadcare-asting brand might influence the image of another broadcasting brand. By understanding how brands are con-nected and what elements play an important part in connecting them, one should be more able to analyze when and how brand images can be affected by one-another.
4. The consumer's disposition to process multiple brand cues.
This paper aims to provide a better understanding of the way in which the broadcasting brands are structured in the perception of the consumer. Moreover, it explores how the brands are connected and therefore influence each other’s image. As the consumer is exposed to four broadcasting brands simultaneously, it is critical to understand how the consumer processes the exposure to multiple brands. As discussed before in chapter two, by the definition of Gardner And Levy (1955) and many others, broadcasting brands (program, presenter, station and channel) behave and therefore can be treated as traditional brands. Therefore, it is critical to explore present knowledge on how consumers process the exposure to multiple brands simultaneously. Current research on brand ar-chitecture, brand hierarchy and spillover effects tap into this topic and might help us gain a broader understanding of brand structures. Correspondingly, this chapter will discuss and highlight im-portant research on the previously mentioned topics.
4.1 Brand architecture
Brand architecture literature helps us better understand the structure of brands when multiple brands are connected to each other. Understanding this brand structure, or the ‘brand relationship spec-trum’ (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000), might help us gain a clearer understanding of how the im-age transfer between multiple brands takes place. According to Aaker and Joachimsthaler, brand architecture can be described as the organizing structure of the brand portfolio in order to specify brand roles and the nature of relationships between brands. They developed a brand architecture tool called the brand relationship spectrum (figure 4.1), which is intended to classify different brand strategies. The main distinction they make between four basic brand strategies is amongst house of brands, endorsed brands, sub brands and the branded house. These four basic strategies are then further categorized into sub-strategies as can be seen in figure 4.1. Without diving to deep into the specifics of every strategy, the following paragraph will highlight relevant brand strategies in the broadcasting system and explain how these could influence image transfer.
Figure 4.1: The brand relationship spectrum.
By applying the brand relationship spectrum to the broadcasting system we have two make a dis-tinction between the public broadcasting system and the commercial broadcasting system. The pub-lic broadcasting structure consists of four layers: the broadcasting channel, broadcasting station, program and presenter. The commercial broadcasting system excludes the layer of the separate broadcasting stations, or one might argue that the channel also serves as the station.
When employing the brand relationship spectrum for the broadcasting system, by the definitions of Aaker and Joachimsthaler the structure would look like figure 4.2. According to their definition, a branded house involves an independent set of stand-alone brands, each maximizing the impact on a particular market. This closely describes the overarching function that a channel has over the broad-casting stations. Further specifying the function of the channel one could describe it as a shadow
endorser. The shadow endorser is defined as not being connected visibly to the endorsed brand, but many consumers know about the link. The broadcasting stations are most closely described by the definition of a token endorser. This strategy entails the endorsement of an established master brand (station) to provide substance to the offering but it usually plays a minor driver role as the endorsed brand will be featured. The token endorser can be indicated by a logo, statement or other device. A broadcasting station is featured by a logo in the corner of the screen when a program (featuring the presenter) is aired. Some programs are also endorsed by a statement like ‘KRO’s detectives’. The station does however only play a minor driver role and thus can be considered a token endorser. The channel can be considered a token endorser of the programs and presenters as well, as the channel’s logo is also visible when watching a program (featuring a presenter). In case of the com-mercial broadcasting system, the channel also plays the role of a broadcasting station and therefore adheres to the definition of a token endorser.
Figure 4.2: Brand relationship spectrum applied to the (public) broadcasting system.
-‐ Token Endorsement House of brands: Shadow Endorser Channel (Nederland 1) Station (KRO) Program (Boer zoekt Vrouw) Presenter (Yvonne Jaspers) Station (NOS) Program (Studio Sport) Presenter (Tom Egberts)
Understanding the brand relationship spectrum in context of the broadcasting system is important because it could help us explain the linkage that consumers make between brands (Rangaswamy, Burke and Olivia, 1993). This linkage that consumers could in turn help us explain the direction or ease of image transfer. As the parent brands (channel and station) play a minor driver role it might appear plausible that it is harder to retrieve the parent brands when confronted with the endorsed brands (channel and presenter).
4.2 Strength of linkages and spillover effects
The previous section discussed how linkages could potentially influence image transfer between brands; the concept of spillover effects builds upon this very theory. Studies (eg., John, Loken, and Joiner 1998; Roehm and Tybout 2006) demonstrate that the strength of linkages between the parent brands and their subbrands or brand portfolio is a good predictor of the magnitude of spillover. De-ploying previously discussed associative network theory, Collins and Loftus (1975) found that link-ages between two concepts can point in both directions. In other words, this means that the direc-tionality of linkages suggests a pattern of spillover that cannot be predicted on the basis of non-directional strength of the association alone. Using an example by Lei, Dawar and Lemmink (2008) this means that negative information about Special K might not affect evaluations of Corn Flakes to the same extent as the same information about Corn Flakes affects the evaluations of Special K. In the context of our research we could replace Special K with a broadcasting station (KRO) and Corn Flakes with a certain program (Boer zoekt Vrouw).
A typical brand portfolio consists of a parent brand (station or channel) and subbrands (program and presenter) acting as nodes with linkages of varying strengths. Farquhar and Herr (1993) proposed and Lei, Dawar and Lemmink (2008) further examined the spillover effects in these situations. Lei et al. (2008) constructed an example of an associative brand network representing a brand portfolio (figure 4.3) to illustrate these spillover effects. They describe that the cognitive linkage between brands may not be symmetric in strength because “the direction processed more frequently develops
stronger relations” (Barsalou and Sewell 1985, p.650). In other words, the direction in which the brand link is processed influences the strength of the relationship and therewith the likelihood of image transfer. Similar results have been found by Morrin (1999) and Nedungadi (1990); both con-firmed that the strength of association between brands is reflected in the probability of brand re-trieval and the level of activation of the destination brands. Using figure 4.3 and the theory from Barsalou and Sewell (1985) to explain this concept, when the consumer is often exposed to sub-brand C when consuming parent sub-brand P this link may be strong. The reverse could be true for the link in the contrary direction when the consumer is exposed in a small amount to parent brand P when consuming subbrand C. As a consequence the strength (probability of retrieval) of the rela-tionship from parent brand P to subbrand C might be strong while the strength of the relarela-tionship from subbrand C to parent brand P might be weak. According to Lei et al. (2008) the same effects take place between different subbrands on the same brand level (program and presenter).
Figure 4.3: An example of associative brand network representing a brand portfolio
4.3 Spillover effects and image transfer
Research (Lei, Dawar and Lemmink 2008) shows that previously discussed differences in direc-tional strength can critically influence spillover in such a way that a strong relationship increases the likelihood of spillover effects and a weak relationship decreases the likelihood of spillover ef-fects. These spillover effects are at the source of image transfer which is confirmed by Olson and Zanna (1993) who found that when strength of association is retrieved, in most cases may deter-mine the extent of updating of these brands.
The previously discussed theory on strength of linkages, spillover effects and updating of brand image has profound implications for the explorative research of this paper. These theories provide a solid theoretical background to develop our propositions and expectations on how broadcasting brands influence each other’s image.
The way in which consumers are exposed to multiple brands simultaneously determines the strength of the link, or number of associations, between these brands (Barsalou and Sewell 1985; Morrin 1999 and Nedungadi 1990). The simultaneous exposure to multiple brands is determined by the brand strategy or level of endorsement as previously discussed by means of the brand relationship spectrum (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000). In context of the broadcasting system this is essential information to understand image transfer. A program is the main brand that is consumed since this is the primary focus of watching television. When watching this program, the consumer is to a greater extent exposed to the presenter of the program and to a lesser extent to the channel and sta-tion airing the program. The program is endorsed by two small logos of the stasta-tion and channel in the corners of the screen.
Applying theory, when the consumer is processing the channel or station (watching the logo), the consumer is mostly consuming the program or presenter at the same time. According to Barsalou and Sewell (1985) this link, or probability of retrieval, should therefore be relatively strong which
promotes the possibility image transfer (Lei, Dawar and Lemmink 2008; Olson and Zanna 1993). Reversely, when the consumer is processing the program, which is the main focus, or the presenter, which can be considered the secondary focus, the consumer is exposed to a very minor extent to the channel or station. Employing this theory, this link, or probability of retrieval, should be relatively weak resulting in a low possibility of image transfer. Building upon this knowledge, the next sec-tion will introduce the proposisec-tions for our research.
5. Propositions
For this paper we made an explicit choice to make use of propositions instead of hypothesis. The motivation for this choice is twofold. First of all this paper is an explorative research in which inter-esting findings with regards to image transfer in the broadcasting system are the primary focus and the fact that we were able to gather a large amount of quantifiable data is a big bonus. Since the research is explorative, hypothesis would have limited the explorative freedom of the paper. A ma-jor secondary reason that has everything to do with this limitation of freedom is the fact that to the best of our knowledge, no statistical test exists to statistically verify the majority of our propositions (P2,3,4,5, 6 and 7). During the analysis stage of our research this remarkable fact came to light as no statistical test seems to be equipped to prove that ‘there are more 1 dummies in a certain group (variable) than 1 dummies in another group (variable)’ in the same sample. We approached many professors and professionals in the field of statistics who all confirmed that that this statistical test does not exist. As our collected data is qualitative and our only means to quantify this data is trans-forming them into dummies, propositions seem to be the right choice. With the choice for proposi-tions we are still able to use our bonus of quantifiable data to highlight interesting patterns without the need to statistically confirm hypothesis. We did however statistically test the first set of proposi-tions P1 as these are different and can be tested by a repeated measures ANOVA test.
Now that we explained our deliberate choice for propositions we will now elaborate on the actual propositions. Taking into account the literature covered in the previous chapter we can derive a set of propositions that seems appropriate. These propositions are based upon the premise that brand hierarchy that applies to traditional brands also applies to brands in the broadcasting system. In tra-ditional brand hierarchy literature, a distinct difference between a parent brand (endorser) and sub brand is made. In our propositions we try to grasp the essence of the associations, the relative strengths of the associations and the direction of associations between brands in the broadcasting system as these will ultimately determine the likelihood of image transfer.
A key concept used in the below propositions is the distinction between a program, a presenter, a broadcasting channel and a broadcasting station. These four brands are all presented as stimuli to a set of respondents. Next to each of these four brands being a cue, they can also be mentioned as an association to one of the cues. Another key concept that we use is the distinction between primary associations and secondary associations. This distinction is based on the type of association that a respondent has with a certain cue. Primary associations are qualities or equity inherently possessed by the brand. In other words they are associations directly describing the feelings or qualities at-tributed to a brand without naming another brand. Contrary, Secondary associations transfer the equity of another brand to the brand that the respondent is cued with. In our research we only classi-fy associations that directly mention another brand as a secondary association. Because some re-spondents might mention brands other than the four brands that we are interested in we have used a sub category ‘miscellaneous secondary associations’ in our classification system. We leave these miscellaneous secondary associations out of consideration in our propositions. To rehash, wherever we use the classification secondary associations, we are talking about program, presenter, channel or station type associations.
5.1 Primary vs. Secondary associations
As discussed in the previous section, the broadcasting channel and station can be considered en-dorser brands in our set of brands, while programs and presenters can be considered sub-brands. In previous literature we have found that consumers are more opinionated about sub brands than about the parent company. Because consumers are more opinionated about sub brands we expect the re-spondents to have relatively many primary associations as these types of associations carry more personal opinions, values and qualities. Secondary associations convey less personal opinions, val-ues and qualities but borrow these from the secondary associations that one has with the brand. In other words, these qualities are borrowed from the brands that the respondent associates the cued brand with. As discussed in previous brand literature, consumers tend to have relatively more brand
(secondary) associations with a parent brand.
As we consider the program and presenter to be sub brands, we derive our propositions P1a and P1b from the previously discussed theory. Embracing the theory that the level of exposure determines the strength of the link between brands (Barsalou and Sewell 1985), we expect the program and presenter to have relatively few brand (secondary) associations. As a result we expect the viewers to have a relatively large proportion of primary associations and propose the following:
P1a: Viewers have more primary associations than secondary associations with the brand ‘pro-gram’.
P1b: Viewers have more primary associations than secondary associations with the brand ‘pre-senter’.
As we consider the broadcasting channel and station to be parent brands (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000), building upon this very same theory, as discussed in section 4.3 of this paper, we expect viewers to have more secondary than primary associations with both the channel and station. We propose the following:
P1c: Viewers have more secondary associations than primary associations with the brand ‘chan-nel’.
5.2 Percentage of respondents mentioning >1 brands (Station and Presenter as driver role) Having covered our basic interest in whether consumers have more primary or secondary associa-tions with the broadcasting brand, we would like to get a more detailed picture of the secondary brand associations. The secondary brand associations will tell us exactly how the broadcasting brands are connected and how they might affect each other’s image. In order to better understand what brand associations the consumer has, we want to measure the percentage of respondents that has an association with brand B, C or D when cued with brand A etc.
There is one caveat, for some of the brands it is far easier to have multiple brand associations while for some of the brands one cannot really have more than one association. To illustrate, when cued with a program, often one can only have one presenter association, as one person presents the pro-gram. Contrary, when cued with a channel, one can have many program associations as one could potentially mention all of the channel’s programs. Therefore we are not interested in the number of associations that respondents have but the percentage of respondents mentioning one or more asso-ciations. This will negate the before mentioned bias which would give a distorted view on reality.
We expect the level of exposure to determine the strength of the link between brands (Morrin 1999; Nedungadi 1990), we therefore we expect people to more easily recall sub brands when cued with a parent brand and to more easily recall equal level sub brands than upward associations to a parent brand.
In order to find support for these theories on the strength and direction in the broadcasting system, we propose the following:
P2a: When cued with a ‘channel’, the percentage of respondents mentioning one or more associa-tions with a ‘program’ will be larger than with a ‘station’.
P2c: When cued with a ‘station’, the percentage of respondents mentioning one or more associa-tions with a ‘program’ will be larger than with a ‘presenter’.
P2d: When cued with a ‘station’, the percentage of respondents mentioning one or more associa-tions with a ‘program’ will be larger than with a ‘channel’.
P2e: When cued with a ‘presenter’, the percentage of respondents mentioning one or more associa-tions with ‘program’ will be larger than with a ‘channel’.
P2f: When cued with a ‘presenter’, the percentage of respondents mentioning one or more associa-tions with ‘program’ will be larger than with a ‘station’.
P3a: When cued with a ‘program’, the percentage of respondents mentioning one or more associa-tions with a ‘presenter’ will be larger than with a ‘station’.
P3b: When cued with a ‘program’, the percentage of respondents mentioning one or more associa-tions with a ‘presenter’ will be larger than with a ‘channel’
5.3 Two-way similarity of % mentioning corresponding brand
To further clarify and stress the differences in the directionality of the brand associations we have developed another set of propositions. This set of propositions directly talks about the two-way (dis) similarity (Lei, Dawar and Lemmink 2008) between brand associations in the broadcasting system. This is specifically interesting because of the managerial implications this might have as when proven right, one brand is able to do more good or harm to another brand than the other way around.
‘program’ is higher than the other way around.
P4b. When cued with a ‘station’, the percentage of people having one or more associations with a ‘program’ is higher than the other way around.
5.4 Correct incoming Associations
So far we have presented propositions that talk about outgoing brand associations. In other words, what connections do consumer make when we present them with brand X. In order to further under-stand the brand associative network in the broadcasting system we also want to look at incoming connections. In our research we make use of four different cues (program, presenter, channel, sta-tion), which in all cases are relating sets in real life. That means that when we cue respondents with a program, we cue another set of respondents with the corresponding presenter of this program and the same goes for the channel and station. This means that every cued brand has the potential to be a secondary association in the other two or three corresponding cues (depending on whether it is aired by a broadcasting station). In other words, there are two or three ways to land on one of our cued brands. This phenomenon is exactly what Holden and Lutz (1992) describe when stressing that it is not only important to know what the brand can evoke, but to also know what evokes the brand.
These are the incoming associations and we expect that we can apply the previously discussed brand literature in section 4 of this paper. This literature implies that the extent of connection expo-sure strongly influence the strength of the associations, or probability of retrieval (Collins and Loftus 1975; Barsalou and Sewell 1985). Based on the knowledge discussed in the literature section of this paper, we propose the following:
P5: The 'Program' has a greater percentage of matching incoming associations than the 'Station'
P7: A 'Program' has a greater percentage of matching incoming associations from the 'Presenter' than the other way around.
P8: The commercial channel RTL4 tends receives a greater percentage of incoming connections than the public channel or stations.
By means of the 18 propositions introduced in this section of the paper we are able to identify the strength of associations between brands in the broadcasting system. By uncovering the strength of these different links we will be able to discuss the probability of spillover effects as discussed by Lei, Dawar and Lemmink (2008) and Morrin (1999). As a result we are able to identify the proba-bility and direction of image transfer (lson and Zanna 1993) between brands in broadcasting system.
6. Data en Method
Although the nature of our study is explorative, we were able to base our studies on a quantitative approach of data collection to support our propositions. This will help with and reinforce the con-clusions that we will subsequently draw concerning the propositions in this research (Saunders et al., 2012). In order to better understand the mental connections that consumers make between brands in the broadcasting system, we need to better understand their associative network. As dis-cussed in section 3 of this paper, associative network mapping analysis is a good method to under-stand these associative network as French & Smith (2013) found it to be one of the best research methods for any market sector where consumers possess associative networks of the brands therein. Therefore, to be able to get a thorough understanding of the associative networks of consumers, a free association response study was the best viable method to collect the necessary data. In a free association response study, respondents get cued with a predetermined brand or other stimulus and subsequently get the opportunity to write down all the associations or thoughts that come to mind when thinking about this brand.
As we want to find out the specific connections that people make between the program, presenter, broadcasting channel and station, we had to come up with a set of stimuli consisting out of these four brands. In order to gather a set of the data that could be used to analyze different angles, it was evident that it would be best to create matching sets of cues. This means that for every program (ea. Boer zoekt Vrouw), we also developed the corresponding stimulus presenter (ea. Yvonne Jaspers), channel (ea. Ned1) and station (ea. KRO) in our set of stimuli. By having these matching pairs we are able to analyze propositions 5,6 and 7 and are able to talk about the specific interaction and dy-namics between matching brands.
In the online questionnaire we wanted to cue respondents with several brands, however, as we wanted to measure corresponding sets of brands we had to take the priming effect into account. If
we would cue the respondent with the program first and consecutively with the corresponding pre-senter, the respondent would have been primed with the program already. As a result, the respond-ent would most likely fill out the program, which would be biased because of the priming effect. Therefore we needed to develop several sets of stimuli that were unrelated so that a priming effect would not take place. Another advantage of developing multiple sets of stimuli is that we are able to measure moderation and interaction affects. Just measuring one corresponding set of stimuli would give very narrow results. By using multiple sets of stimuli we are able to measure the differences between different programs, presenters, channels and stations. As a result we are able to analyze whether there is a bias in one of the stimuli or whether one of the stimuli seems to show abnormali-ties. Next to taking the bias out of our research this will also provide us with interesting results to talk about in the discussion section of this paper.
6.1 Cue Development
The next step in the process was the development of the specific stimuli for our research. There were several factors in the cue development that we wanted to keep in mind. Firstly, our research takes place in The Netherlands and therefore we need to develop a set of stimuli from the Dutch broadcasting system. The Dutch broadcasting system consists of two types of channels: public and commercial. We wanted to take both into account; however only the public channels have the syn-ergy of different channels and stations (ea. Ned1/KRO) while for the commercial channels, the channel and station are the same (ea. RTL4). Secondly, we wanted to keep the survey relatively short (under 10 minutes) in order to attain a high response rate. This meant that we were aiming to cue the respondents with a maximum of three stimuli. Lastly, it was important that all stimuli were quite popular or known in the Dutch television landscape so that most of the respondents indeed have associations with the stimuli.
When developing the specific stimuli, we wanted to incorporate a good amount of variety between the different sets of stimuli. On the other hand, we had the keep the amount of sets in mind as every set needs a minimum response rate in order provide valid information. As we expected to reach 130 to 180 people with the survey and wanted a minimum response rate of 30 per set so we decided on four different sets. This gave us enough margin to gather a high enough response rate while still getting a great variety in stimuli. As elaborated on in section 6.3, we had to make some strategic choices as to the specific cue sets. When cueing people with different scenarios, we wanted to pre-sent them with independent cues to prevent form any priming effect taking place.
As we wanted to maximize the sets to four, but limit the number of cues to three, we had to make sure that some of the program cues are aired by the same channel. Therefore we picked two chan-nels, the most popular public channel (NED1) and the most popular commercial channel (RTL4) and carefully picked two programs from each channel. Maximizing the likelihood for people to have associations, we picked from the most watched programs in the Netherlands. Also, we opted to have a wide variety in the kind of programs and therefore chose the most popular sports news, a reality dating show, a live showbiz news broadcasting and a talent show. We considered a large amount of cues before arriving to our final selection of cues. Among our rejected considerations were Linda de Mol, Wie is de Mol, TROS, AVRO, Alberto Stegerman, Ik Hou van Holland, Art Rooijakkers, Red mijn vakantie and SBS6. Many of the stimuli we considered were dismissed cause of sub-optimal conditions. An example of this is that many presenters recently switched be-tween several channels or stations, which would promote confusion resulting in difficulty to classi-fy associations. Another example would be the popular reality show ‘Wie is de Mol’ were the pre-senter plays to little of a role to facility a fair amount associations. After studying the Dutch televi-sion landscape we came up with four specific sets of stimuli that are popular or well-know and show a great amount of variety. All of the following stimuli adhere to our before mentioned criteria.
Cue set 1
1. Program: Studio Sport
Studio Sport is the most watched sports news program in the Netherlands. 2. Presenter: Tom Egberts
Tom Egberts is the Presenter of Studio Sport. 3. Channel: Nederland 1
Nederland 1 is one of the three Dutch public broadcasting channels and airs many programs among which ‘Studio Sport’.
4. Station: NOS
NOS is one of the broadcasting stations in the Dutch public broadcasting system. NOS mostly airs news and current affairs related programs among which ‘Studio Sport’.
Cue set 2
1. Program: Boer zoekt Vrouw
‘Boer zoekt Vrouw’ is a dutch reality TV show which evolves around the dating life of sev-eral farmers. ‘Boer zoekt Vrouw’ currently is the TV show with the highest viewer rankings. 2. Presenter: Yvon Jaspers
Yvon Jaspers is the presenter of the program ‘Boer zoekt Vrouw’. 3. Channel: Nederland 1
Nederland 1 is one of the three Dutch public broadcasting channels and airs many pro-grams among which ‘Boer zoekt Vrouw’.
4. Station: KRO
KRO is one of the broadcasting stations in the Dutch public broadcasting system. This broadcasting station was founded on catholic principle but this doesn’t have a profound in-fluence on the TV shows it airs currently. One of the programs in KRO’s portfolio is ‘Boer zoekt Vrouw’.
Cue set 3
1. Program: RTL Boulevard
RTL Boulevard is the leading daily gossip news program in The Netherlands. It is a live program with a variety of items and reports on showbiz, crime, royalty and lifestyle topics. 2. Presenter: Albert Verlinde
Albert Verlinde is one of the presenters of ‘RTL Boulevard’. A panel of presenters presents RTL Boulevard but Albert Verlinde is the founder of the format and has been a main pre-senter since the introduction of the show.
3. Channel (and station): RTL 4
RTL 4 is the most popular commercial TV channel in the Netherlands. Dutch commercial channels don’t have different stations on the channel. RTL4 is both the channel and produc-er of the show and thproduc-erefore might be considproduc-ered the station as well. One of the programs that RTL 4 airs is ‘RTL Boulevard’.
Cue set 4
1. Program: The Voice of Holland
‘The voice of Holland’ is a very popular talent show in the Netherlands. It is a singing con-test where they are looking for the most talented singer (voice) of The Netherlands. The show is presented by a duo of two presenters and the contestants are assessed by a profes-sional jury of four.
2. Presenter: Martijn Krabbé
Martijn Krabbé is one of the two presenters presenting The Voice of Holland. He is known to host or present a variety of programs and talent shows in The Netherlands
3. Channel (and station): RTL 4
RTL 4 is the most popular commercial TV channel in the Netherlands. Dutch commercial channels don’t have different stations on the channel. RTL4 is both the channel and
produc-er of the show and thproduc-erefore might be considproduc-ered the station as well. One of the programs that RTL 4 airs is ‘RTL Boulevard’.
6.2 Pre-testing
In order to make sure that we chose a proper set of stimuli, we conducted a pretest with the follow-ing objectives: (1) to assess baseline familiarity with all of the selected stimuli (2) to assess whether there are no major variations in familiarity between the several sets of stimuli. This base level of familiarity is necessary for the respondents to be able to have and write down free associations in our subsequent main research. Since the pre-test had the simple objective of measuring familiarity with the stimuli, a simple questionnaire asking whether the person was familiar with the brand yes or no met the criteria. We set up a questionnaire asking the respondent ‘do you know X?’ on which they could answer yes or no on all 12 individual stimuli. The panel for this pretest consisted out of 31 respondents, which were chosen on a convenience-sampling basis. The results of the pretest were as follows:
Stimulus Familiar: YES Familiar: NO Yes % No %
Studio Sport 31 0 100 0
Boer zoekt Vrouw 31 0 100 0
RTL Boulevard 30 1 96.8% 3.2%
The Voice of Holland 30 1 96.8% 3.2%
Tom Egberts 26 5 83.9% 16.1% Yvon Jaspers 28 3 90% 10% Albert Verlinde 29 2 93.5% 6.5% Martijn Krabbé 27 4 87% 13% Ned1 31 0 100% 0% RTL4 31 0 100% 0% NOS 31 0 100% 0% KRO 30 1 96.8% 3.2
