Master Thesis
The Effect of Brand Alliances on Perceived
Brand Authenticity
Author: Jesper van der Wal
MSc. Business Administration: Marketing Track
Student Number: 11121831
First Supervisor: drs. J. Labadie
Second Assessor: drs. R. E. W. Pruppers
Table Of contents
Statement of Originality vii
Abstract vii
Key Words vii
I. Introduction 1
1.1 General Introduction: Phenomenon 1
1.2 Specific Introduction: Research Gap 2
1.3 Problem Definition 3 1.3.1 Problem Statement 3 1.3.2 Sub-questions 3 1.3.3 Delimitations 4 1.4 Contributions 5 1.4.1 Theoretical Contributions 5 1.4.2 Managerial Contributions 5 1.5 Structure 6
II. Theoretical Framework 7
2. Brand Authenticity 7
2.1 Concept of Brand Authenticity 7
2.2 Perceived Brand Authenticity 10
3. Brand Alliances 12
4.1 The Influence of Different Types of Organizations 16
4.2 Perceived Fit 19
4.2.1 The Role of Perceived Fit on Brand Alliances 19
4.2.2 Types of Perceived Fit 21
V. Hypotheses Development 25
5.1 Conceptual Model 35
VI. Method 36
6.1 Stimuli Development 36
6.1.1 Pre-test 1 – Qualitative Pre-test Procedure 37
6.1.2 Results Qualitative Pre-test 37
6.1.3 Results Qualitative Pre-test 41
6.2 Stimuli Selection 44
6.2.1 Pre-test 2 – Quantitative Pre-test 44
6.2.2 Procedure Quantitative Pre-test 44
6.2.3 Measure Quantitative Pre-test 45
6.2.4 Results Quantitative Pre-test 46
6.2.5 Conclusion Quantitative Pre-test 54
6.3 Main Test 55
6.3.1 Procedure Main Test 55
6.3.4 Authenticity Measure Main Test 57
6.3.5 Perceived Fit Measure Main Test 58
6.3.6 Alliance Entry Manipulation Main Test 58
6.3.7 Control Variables Main Test 59
VII. Results 60
7.1 Descriptive 60
7.1.1 Distribution and Sample Procedure 60
7.2 Assumptions Tests 61
7.2.1 Normality Test 61
7.3 Manipulation Checks 62
7.3.1. Manipulation Authenticity 62
7.3.2 Manipulation Brand Image Fit 66
7.3.3 Manipulation Overall Brand Fit 68
7.4 Hypotheses Testing 73
7.4.1 Introduction to Analyses of Hypotheses 1 and 2 74
7.4.2 Hypothesis 1 75
7.4.3 Hypothesis 2 77
7.4.4 Introduction to Analysis of Hypotheses 3 and 4 78
7.4.5 Hypothesis 3 79
7.5 Additional Analysis 85 7.5.1 Additional Analysis 1 Comparison of the Means 86
7.5.2 Additional Analysis 2 Reliability Analysis 87
7.5.3 Additional Analysis 3 88
VII. Discussion 94
8.1 Hypotheses Explanation 95
8.1.1 The Effect of Alliance Partner Authenticity 95
8.1.2 The Effect of Brand Fit 97
8.1.3 The Interaction of Alliance Partner Authenticity and Type of Ally 100 8.1.4 The Interaction of Brand Fit and Type of Ally 102
8.2 Additional Analysis 103
8.3 Theoretical and Managerial Contributions 105
8.3.1 Theoretical Contributions 105
8.3.2 Managerial Contributions 106
8.4 Limitations and Future Research 107
IX. Conclusion 109
X. References 112
XI. Appendices 118
9.1 Appendix 1 Results Quantitative Pre-test 1 118
9.4 Appendix 4 Main Test Manipulation Checks 130
9.5 Appendix 5 Main Test Results 135
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This document is written by Student Jesper van der Wal who hereby declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text 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.
Abstract
Consumers have become more concerned about the authenticity of a brand. They are more likely to recommend authentic brands, and are willing to spend more on an authentic brand. The present research looks at the concept of brand authenticity, and how brand authenticity is perceived by consumers. It is investigated whether alliance entry influences the perceived brand authenticity of the host brand. Several independent factors are taken into account when looking at the influence of alliance entry on perceived brand authenticity of the host brand. The research examines the interaction of several factor with alliance entry on the perceived brand authenticity of the host brand. These factors are alliance partner authenticity, which looks at how authentic the alliance partner is perceived, brand fit, which looks at how well the brands fit together, and type of ally, which looks at whether the alliance partner is a for-profit brand or a non-profit brand. The results show that there is an interaction effect of alliance entry and alliance partner authenticity on the perceived brand authenticity, in which authentic brands increase the perceived authenticity of the host brand. There is also an interaction of alliance entry, partner brand authenticity and type of ally on the perceived brand authenticity of the host brand, in which an authentic non-profit leads to a significant increase in the perceived brand authenticity of the host brand, whereas an authentic for-profit leads to a slight decrease in perceived brand authenticity of the host brand. Alliance entry can have positive and negative effects on the perceived brand authenticity of the host brand, depending on the partner that is chosen. Overall, the research gained new insights into brand authenticity, and how alliance entry can influence the perceived brand authenticity of the host brand.
Key Words
Perceived brand authenticity, brand alliance entry, brand alliances, alliance partner authenticity, brand image fit, type of ally.
1. Introduction
1.1 General Introduction: Phenomenon
An emerging stream of research has shown consumers are more concerned about the way in which a brand presents itself and how this is backed up by their actions. Studies of the Authentic Brand Index (http://www.brandalpha.com.au/) show that people are twice as likely to recommend authentic brands, and more than three times as likely to pay extra for them. A brand that is perceived as authentic creates trust under its consumers, which in turn can lead to company growth (Eggers, Dwyer, Kraus, Vallaster & Guldenberg, 2013). For example, Patagonia’s public advocacy and support for the ecological sustainability earned them a lot of brand love, which in turn led to $600 million in extra revenue (Frontify.com). Another example is Levi’s, which is a well-known brand in the fashion industry. Even though the fashion industry is a difficult and fluctuating industry, the authenticity of the Levi’s brand has made them withstand ups and downs of the economy, fashion trends, and the business itself (Lee Yohn, 2015). Inauthenticity however can have a negative effect. Take for example the scandal of Volkswagen lead to a serious decrease in trust, which can cost them up to $30 Billion (Dudler, n.d.).
Washburn, Till & Priluck (2004) state that when brands form an alliance it increases consumers’ positive perceptions about the brand equity of the brands involved. The alliance between Apple and Nike in which they combined the sporty attributes of Nike, and the technological attributes of Apple to improve the running experience has been very successful (Millan, 2017). Arnett, Laverie & Wilcox (2010) however state that brand alliances are a double-edged sword. A positive fit between the brands involved in the alliance, leads to a positive evaluation of the alliance (James, 2005), while a negative fit may lead to image impairment (Geylani, Inman and Hofstede, 2008), which may drive consumers away (Venkatesh & Mahajan, 1997). Consumers will create a positive attitude towards an alliance
when the alliance makes sense and when brands look the same on the outside (van der Lans, van der Bergh and Dieleman, 2014).
1.2 Specific Introduction: Research Gap
Existing literature shows that the authenticity of a company can positively influence the performance of that company. Research on brand alliances has shown, that when alliances make sense in the mind of the consumer, this can also have positive effects on the performance of the company. These streams of research however show opposing views. Entering an alliance would logically reduce the authenticity of a company, since an alliance leads to associations spilling over between the brands involved (Simonin and Ruth, 1998). However, Authenticity might be one of the associations that can spill over from one partner brand to the other. Since authenticity is proven to be important, and alliances work for many companies, it is interesting to see if and how the two can coexist. Take for example Dom Perignon, who have created authenticity by taking a historic fact and internalizing it in the brand image. Dom Perignon has proclaimed to be the inventor of champagne. The attribution was not used until the 1860’s, when certain producers attributed the discovery of champagne to him. By the early 20th century, the story was established fact (Beverland, 2005). They have taken a historic fact to increase the authenticity of their company, which has led to more people wanting to consume their product. This shows that a brand can take authenticity from elsewhere and internalize it. The present paper wants to investigate whether spillover of authenticity can also come from another company. That is why this research will look at the influence of alliance entry on the perceived authenticity of the companies involved. The literature on alliances show that high fit is causes positive spillover, which positively influences alliances, while low fit has a negative influence on the alliance. This will mean that this effect of perceived fit on the spillover effect will also likely influence the spillover effect
of authenticity that might be present. Perceived fit might not necessarily work positively on authenticity, and should be kept in mind when researching the influences of alliances between brands and the perceived authenticity of these brands.
1.3 Problem Definition 1.3.1 Problem Statement
It is shown that alliances as well as authenticity can have a positive influence on the performance of a company. And even though an alliance and authenticity might seem contradictory, the spillover effect of alliances might also be applicable to authenticity features. The role of perceived fit plays an important role in alliances, and at the same time having a high perceived fit with another company would seem like it would breach the authenticity of a company. This leads to the following research question:
What is the influence of brand alliances on the perceived brand authenticity; is there a
difference if the alliance is with a different type of ally and how does perceived fit of the
brands in alliance influence the relationship?
1.3.1 Sub-questions
In order to give a complete answer to the research question, authenticity should be defined more properly, and how to measure authenticity should be established. This research will start by answering the question, what is brand authenticity, followed by the question, how do we
measure what makes a brand authentic or not?
Alliances can be formed between different types of companies, and a different type of alliance can have a different influence on the performance of the companies involved. For example, the alliance between the Arthritis Foundation and McNeil Consumer Products was frowned upon, because some consumer groups said that the foundation was not unbiased
anymore (Andreasen, 1996). A sub-question will therefore be: Is an alliance between two
for-profit organizations seen differently than an alliance between a for-for-profit and a non-for-profit
organization? In order to answer this properly, the research will also look at the question: Is
authenticity perceived differently in for-profit and non-profit organizations?
It is mentioned above that perceived fit can play a significant role in the influence of alliances on authenticity. In order to examine how perceived fit plays a role, a proper definition of perceived fit must be given and the types of fit should be explained. Therefore this research will answer the questions: what is perceived fit exactly, and what types of fit
exist?
1.3.2 Delimitations
Just like with different organizations, an alliance can also be formed between multiple brands, as is the case with Seat, Spotify and Samsung (Millan, 2017). The research of Voss and Gammoh (2004) however shows that including a third brand into an alliance does not influence the success of the alliance. Gammoh, Voss and Fang (2010) later controlled if there would be an effect when the partners in the alliance were more homogeneous or heterogeneous, but again there was no evidence that supported the theory that an alliance between multiple companies would affect the companies involved differently. Therefore the condition of multiple alliances will not be included in the present research.
This research will look at established brands and not an alliance between a multinational corporation and a start-up. This is because of the nature of the relationship of such an alliance. Start-ups usually want to form an alliance with a corporate brand for funding, and a corporate brand wants to form an alliance for the innovative ideas of the start-ups (Harlé, Soussan & de la Tour, 2017). This means they don’t do it for creating more authenticity, which is why this is not a relevant type of alliance for this research. Also, the research will look at established
brands, because this makes it possible for participants to form an opinion about the authenticity of the brand. This is far more difficult when using start-ups, since there is a large possibility that they don’t know the start-up and they cannot judge a start-up that they do not know.
1.4 Contributions
1.4.1 Theoretical Contribution
Answering the research question could fill the gap existing in current research on the relationship between brand alliances and perceived brand authenticity. First, it will give new insights to how brand authenticity is perceived by consumers by researching if perceived brand authenticity can be damaged by forming an alliance with another brand. Secondly this research will show if this effect on perceived brand authenticity will be influenced differently if there is a high fit between the two brands involved in the alliance than when there is a low fit between the brands involved. Lastly, it will research if there is a difference between an alliance between two for-profit organizations and between one for-profit and one non-profit organization.
1.4.2 Managerial Contribution
The knowledge acquired from this research will also contribute to managerial decisions, since finding support for the existence of the influence of alliances on perceived brand authenticity can influence how managers will choose alliance partners. The insights gained in this study will give an explanation to why they should or should not enter an alliance. In addition, the research will explain what the role of perceived fit is on this relationship. Also, the research will help managers in the choice with whom to form an alliance, and if this alliance should be made with a for-profit or non-profit brand to increase the perceived brand authenticity.
1.5 Structure
The remainder of this thesis will be structured as follows: First, a review will be given of the literature on brand authenticity, brand alliances and perceived fit. Secondly, the research methods used for this study will be described, after which an analysis of the results will follow. Lastly, there will be a discussion of the results presented, and future research suggestions will be given.
Theoretical Framework
To explain the relation between brand alliances and brand authenticity, and to see how perceived fit the partner brands in the alliance and the type of ally influences this relation, the following subjects will be specified further in this section: Brand authenticity, brand alliances and perceived level of fit. First, perceived brand authenticity will be discussed, and light will be shed on its antecedents and consequences. After this the current literature on brand alliances will be discussed, elaborating on positive and negative effects of alliances. Next, the moderators will be discusses, starting with the effect of the partner brand being a for-profit brand or a non-profit brand. This effect will from now on be mentioned as the effect of type of ally. Finally the concept of fit between organizations will be discussed, and light will be shed on the different types of fit in specific alliances.
2. Brand Authenticity
2.1 Concept of Brand authenticity
Authenticity is described in the Merriam Webster Dictionary as being true to one’s character, spirit or personality. It means that a person is lives up to the norms and values they claim to value. Just as is the case with individuals, brands also have personalities and norms and values they value (Aaker (1997). Since a brand has these traits, this means that a brand should also be able to be experienced as authentic or not, just as a person can be. Cohn & Wolfe, the organization that has composed a list of the top 100 most authentic brands, state that authenticity as seen by consumers is composed of seven attributes that lead to three main drivers. In priority order, these drivers are reliable, respectful and real. The first drive, reliability comprises the attributes ‘delivering on promises’ and ‘high quality’, and demonstrates that authenticity is mainly about delivery to the consumer. The second driver, respectfulness consists of the attributes ‘treat customers well’ and ‘protects customer privacy
and data’, and is about managing human relationships carefully. The last driver, realness has three components, being ‘communicates honestly’, ‘genuine and real, not artificial’ and ‘acts with integrity’ (http://authentic100.com/). Moulard, Raggio & Folse (2016) define brand authenticity as the extent to which consumers perceive that a brand's managers are intrinsically motivated in that they are passionate about and devoted to providing their products. Napoli, Dickinson, Beverland & Farrelly (2014) define brand authenticity as the subjective evaluation of genuineness ascribed to a brand by consumers.
Brand authenticity can be described through multiple conceptualizations, which look at how real, genuine, true and accurate this brand is. Wymer & Akbar (2017) state that a brand is authentic when the brand object is perceived as the quintessential exemplar of its type. Grayson & Martinec (2004) introduce iconic and indexical authenticity. They state that a product can be iconically authentic, in which the iconic refers to how close it is to the product that is perceived as the original. Indexical authenticity means that the product is in fact the original or real thing. Moulard et al (2016) conceptualize brand authenticity through stability and rarity. Stability refers to the consistency of the behavior of a brand, whereas rarity refers to the uniqueness of the behavior of a brand. Stability of Moulard et al. (2016) can be related to the indexical authenticity of Grayson and Martinec (2004) since both revolve around an evidence based form of authenticity. Rarity of Moulard et al. (2016) can be related to iconic authenticity of Grayson and Martinec (2004) because both are based on the creation of an image of authenticity of a brand. Napoli et al (2014) state that the construct of authenticity is built around perceptions of heritage, nostalgia, cultural symbolism, sincerity, craftsmanship, quality commitment, and design consistency. The perceptions of heritage, nostalgia, and cultural symbolism can be linked to the iconic authenticity perceptions of Grayson and Martinec (2004) and the rarity of Moulard et al (2016), since they have an image of authenticity in common. The perceptions of craftsmanship, quality commitment and design
consistency can be linked to the indexical authenticity of Grayson and Martinec (2004) and the stability of Moulard et al. (2016), since they focus on maintaining a consistent image of the brand. Bruhn, Schoenmüller, Schäfer & Heinrich (2012) state that authenticity is related to and connected with stability endurance, consistency, particularity, individuality, trustfulness, credibility, keeping promises, genuineness, and realness. Stability endurance, consistency, trustfulness, keeping promises and credibility are related the indexical authenticity of Grayson and Martinec (2004), the perception of stability of Moulard et al. (2016) and the perceptions of craftsmanship, quality commitment and design consistency of Napoli et al. (2014) due to their evidence based form of authenticity. Individuality, particularity, genuineness and realness can be related to the iconic authenticity of Grayson and Martinec (2004), the rarity of Moulard et al. (2016), and the heritage, nostalgia and cultural symbolism of Napoli et al. (2014) because they revolve around the image of authenticity.
Morhart, Malär, Geuvremont, Girardin and Grohman (2014) have conceptualized brand authenticity through three authenticity related perspectives. The first is the objective perspective, which suggests that an evidence-based reality using verifiable information about a brand (e.g. age or performance) leads to authenticity perceptions. This perspective can be compared with the indexical authenticity of Grayson & Martinec (2004), the stability perspective of Moulard et al. (2016), the perceptions of craftsmanship, quality commitment and design consistency of Napoli et al. (2014), and the stability endurance, consistency, trustfulness, keeping promises and credibility perceptions of Bruhn et al. (2012). The second perspective is the constructivist perspective, which looks at how able a brand is in creating a schematic fit with consumers’ expectations of an authentic brand. This perspective is fairly similar to the iconic authenticity introduced by Grayson & Martinec (2004), the perceptions of rarity introduced by Moulard et al. (2016), the heritage, nostalgia, and cultural symbolism perceptions of authenticity of Napoli et al. (2014), and the authentic perceptions individuality,
particularity, genuineness and realness mentioned by Bruhn et al. (2012). The last is the existentialist perspective, and refers to the ability of a brand to be a resource for consumers to reveal their true identity or to allow consumers to feel they are themselves by consuming the brand. Morhart et al. (2014) state that these three perspectives are intertwined. The concept of Morhart et al. (2014) will be used in the remainder of this thesis. This is because the concepts developed by Grayson & Martinec (2004) and Wymer & Akbar (2017) discuss brand object authenticity, while the concept developed by Morhart et al. (2014) is applicable to brands themselves. The concept of Napoli et al. (2014) and Bruhn et al. (2012) will not be used, since both only state that these factors are influential for the concept of authenticity, however, it is not stated how exactly and in what degree. Using the concept of Morhart et al. (2014) means this research will expect brand authenticity to emerge when consumers perceive a brand to be faithful towards itself and its consumers, and is willing to help consumers be true to themselves. The objective authenticity should however be taken into account when measuring, since it does influence the perception of authenticity in the mind of the consumer.
2.2 Perceived Brand Authenticity
Humans, as active perceivers of events and actions, make continuous inferences of why certain outcomes occur (Heider, 1958). Heider states that there are differences between internal and external causes. Internal causes for instance explain why a certain person is in a good mood. The internal cause of this is that this person has an optimistic view on life. An external cause for the same person being happy could be that he or she has just received good news. Brands are also seen as having internal causes for their actions, which make up an identity of the brand. The identity-based brand management model of De Chernatony, Mc Donald & Wallace (2011) consists of two components. These are brand identity and brand image. Brand image is the exterior view of a brand. Brand identity consists of attributes of a
brand that determine the essence of the brand seen from the perspective of an internal group. An authentic brand is a brand whose positioning fits with its identity, meaning that the brand promise is attributed to its brand identity, instead of it being attributed external forces. This means that the brand positions itself from the inside out (Schallehn, Burmann & Riley, 2014). Schallehn et al. (2014) also state that the brand identity is not visible, which would make it difficult for customers to get an impression if a brand is authentic. They state that, using the attribution theory; perceived brand authenticity is based on its antecedents. Through attributes a consumer assumes that the promise comes from the brand internally, which makes them perceive the brand as authentic. Bruhn et al. (2012) also state that due to the absence of a unique definition of authenticity, it corresponds to a variety of attributes.
The attributes a consumer uses have been developed into dimensions with which brand authenticity can been measured. Bruhn et al (2012) have drafted four dimensions: continuity, originality, reliability and naturalness. Continuity entails how stable or continuous a brand is over time. Originality defines how original or innovative a brand is. Reliability defines how well a brand keeps their promises. And lastly naturalness explains how genuine or natural a brand’s image feels. Napoli et al. (2014) have also defined 3 dimensions: quality commitment, sincerity and heritage. Quality commitment herein means that the brand ensures consistency of the quality of the product. Sincerity demonstrates how a brand sticks to its values and principles. Heritage is the history of the brand, including its personal and cultural associations. Lastly Morhart et al. (2014) have identified four dimensions: continuity, credibility, integrity and symbolism. Morhart et al. (2014) describe the four dimensions as follows. The continuity dimension reflects a brand‘s timelessness, historicity, and its ability to transcend trends. The credibility dimension is the brand‘s transparency and honesty towards the consumer, as well as its willingness and ability to fulfill its claims. The integrity dimension entails the moral purity and responsibility of the brand. And lastly, the symbolism
dimension can be seen as a brand‘s potential to serve as a resource for identity construction by providing self-referential cues representing values, roles, and relationships. In other words, symbolism reflects the symbolic quality of the brand that consumers can use to define who they are or who they are not. The dimensions of Morhart et al. (2014) are used rather than those of Napoli et al. (2014) since the concept on which the dimensions of Morhart et al. (2014) are based, are demarcated more properly than those of Napoli et al. (2014). Since the perspective of Morhart et al (2014) is used in this research, these dimensions will also be used rather than those of Bruhn et al. (2012). Scoring high on the dimensions mentioned above makes consumers perceive a brand as authentic, and scoring low on these dimensions makes them perceive the brand as unauthentic. This thesis will use these dimensions to assess the perceived brand authenticity.
3. Brand Alliances
3.1 Brand Alliances as a Tool for Attitude Alteration
Brands are valuable assets and can be combined to form a synergistic alliance in which the sum is greater than the parts (Rao and Ruekert 1994). Brand alliances are cooperative marketing activities involving short-term or long-term combinations of two or more individual brands (Rao and Ruekert, 1994; Simonin and Ruth, 1998). Brand alliances have emerged as a business strategy in both the production and service sector. They can serve as quality signals when an individual brand is unable to successfully signal quality itself. Alliances can also lead to access to unreached markets, access to otherwise unavailable knowledge or resources or image enhancements. They may be a short-term tactical partnership which helps to create awareness in the minds of consumers, increase sales, and provide financial resources, or a long-term strategic tool for growth and development of the brand and for marketing success (Elyas and Mohamed, 2013).
Rao, Qu & Ruekert (1999) define an alliance as the circumstance in which two or more brands are presented jointly to the consumer. Elyas and Mohamed (2013) describe three different forms in which brand alliances take place. The first and most common form is co-branding, which involves associating a single product with more than one brand name. The second form is brand licensing, in which one business obtains the rights to utilize the brand name of another business for a project. The third form is cross marketing, which entails the creation for a joint marketing campaign which allows two or more companies to promote each other and consequently broaden their prospective consumer bases. They also state that the effects of co-branding as well of co-communication through a joint marketing campaign can lead to an improved attitude towards the brands involved.
In brand alliances, one brand can borrow associations from another brand. Brand alliances build equity by transferring associations between partner brands and increasing familiarity across established as well as new markets (Dickinson & Barker, 2006). Brand alliances work through a spillover effect, which means that the attitude that a consumer has towards a brand, can spillover to another brand with which it is associated. Rao & Ruekert (1994) and Naidoo & Hollebeek (2015) state that brands are a sign of product quality. When a brand enters an alliance with another brand, the sign of quality can be enhanced. This is especially applicable for a lesser-known brand entering an alliance with a well-known brand. Research done on brand alliances has shown that the effect of brand alliances is the transference of associations from the brands to each other (Simonin & Ruth, 1998, Dickinson & Barker, 2006, Helmig, Huber & Leeflang 2008, James 2005, and Washburn et al. 2004). Simonin & Ruth (1998), Dickinson & Barker (2006), Naidoo & Hollebeek (2015) and James (2005) focus their research the influence of attitudes towards alliance partners on the evaluation of the alliance, whereas Helmig et al. (2005) and Washburn et al. (2004) look at the influence of the brand equity of the alliance partners on the evaluations of the alliance.
Simonin & Ruth (1998) state that brand alliances have the potential to modify subsequent attitudes towards partnering brands. They state that how the alliance affects the brands involved is partially dependent on the attitudes towards the brands involved, and partially on the attitudes towards the alliance itself. James (2005) also states that each brand brings its own associations into the alliance, which is why the attitude towards the individual brands should be taken into account when looking at the attitude towards the alliance. He states that brands that bring more favorable associations to the partnership increase the positive attitudes towards the alliance, which in turn causes the alliance to have a more positive influence on the brands involved. This in line with Simonin and Ruth (1998) who show that more positive attitudes towards the brands involved can lead to a more positive attitude towards the alliance, because the judgments about the alliance are influenced by seeing one partner brand in the context of the other, and vice versa. Dickinson & Barker (2006) also state that a more favorable the perception of the brands involved in the alliance is in the mind of the consumer, the more positive the alliance will be perceived. Positive attitudes towards the alliance can in turn positively influence the attitudes towards the brands involved in the alliance. Even after controlling for prior brand attitudes, significant spillover effects of brand alliances on partner brands can be found. The higher the positive attitudes towards the alliance, the higher the spillover effects are (Dickinson & Barker, 2006). Thus the alliance of a brand can influence the attitude that consumers have towards both the brands and vice versa. In the case of an alliance between a well-known brand and an unknown brand, it is logical that the unknown brand benefits from this. A well-known brand acts as a signal of trust and quality assurance. An alliance with a less well-known brand causes this quality assurance to spillover from the well-known partner brand to the lesser known partner brand (Naidoo & Hollebeek, 2016). Levin, Davis & Levin (1996) look at the influence of brand equity on attitudes towards the alliance. They state that combining two well-known brands are also seen as positive because
well-known ingredient brands provide positive direct effects. Even though brands with low equity benefit most, those with high equity do not suffer a reputational downgrading, even when paired with a low equity partner (Helmig et al., 2008). Washburn et al. (2000) found a similar effect. They also found that there was no negative spillover from a low-equity towards a high-equity brand when the two formed an alliance. So alliances can have positive effects on brands involved, even when one has a lower equity and when one is less well-known. The research above shows that regardless of the equity, an alliance can have a positive effect on the attitudes towards the brands involved, and this effect is bigger when the attitudes towards the brands involved, and the alliance as a whole are positive.
Research by Huber (2005) however shows that negative spillover effects can also occur. He states that negative information about an alliance can lead to negative spillover effects. Washburn et al. (2004) state that brand alliances can undermine a brand’s positioning when consumers blame the wrong brand for their dissatisfaction. Schnittka, Johnen, Völckner, Sattler, Villeda & Urban (2017) established some boundary conditions of spillover effects, including the characteristics of the partner brands. They show that an alliance can have similarity and contrast effects. Similarity effects are present when the two brands entering the alliance fit well together in the mind of the consumer. Contrast effects occur when the consumers have the feeling the brands involved in the alliance are somehow conflicting. In the case of similarity effects, the spillover is positive, but in the case of contrast effects, there can be a negative spillover effect. The research of Votolato & Unnava (2006) also looks at negative spillover and focuses on the relation of competence and moral information on consumer responses. They state that consumers are less forgiving of moral failure than of competence failure when a person is the target of the negative information. For a company it works the other way around. Competence failure is less easily forgiven than moral failure. The differences in moral and competence failure have consequences for the spillover effects
in marketing alliances. If negative information about a partner is publicized, it matters if this information pertains to an individual or the partner as a whole. Also it matters if the negative information is about competence failure, or if it is about moral failure. They however state that this negative spillover will only transfer to the host brand, if the host brand is deemed as culpable. So negative spillover on the alliance will occur, but negative spillover on the host brand will not occur unless the consumers think that the host brand could have prevented it. This means that negative information is present before the alliance is formed, there will be a negative effect, since the host brand could have prevented it. As Arnett et al. (2010) mentioned, an alliance can be a double-edged sword. The research above shows that the partner brand is of great importance for the success of an alliance, since the attitude towards the partner brand can make the difference between a positive and negative attitude towards the alliance as a whole. The existing literature also indicates that the fit of the two partners is influences how consumers view an alliance. How this fit specifically influences the alliance will be explained in more detail later in this paper.
4. The Interaction Effects of Type of Ally and Perceived Fit 4.1 The Influence of Different Types of Alliance Partners
There are differences in branding in the for-profit sector and the non-profit sector (Wymer & Akbar, 2017). Marketers of consumer brands are trying to increase competitiveness by stimulating consumer brand preferences. The public perception of a brand is affected by people’s beliefs about its mission, role in society and its social responsibility. This view is also applicable to non-profit brands (Heller, 2008). The reputation of the corporation and the brand images of the consumer products are distinct. In a non-profit however, the reputation and brand images are inherently intertwined. A non-profit’s reputation can almost be described as its brand (Wymer & Akbar, 2017). However, this does not necessarily mean that
the way in which the brand authenticity is perceived is different for a for-profit or a non-profit brand. The dimensions developed by Morhart et al. (2014) are still applicable to both a for-profit and non-for-profit. The dimensions of perceived brand authenticity on which the consumer places emphasis might however be different for non-profit organizations than for for-profit organizations. It would for example seem logical that symbolism has a bigger effect on the authenticity of a non-profit, while continuity is more influential in the case of a for-profit organization.
In forming an alliance, for-profit brands can choose between working together with another for-profit brand, or they can choose for working together with a non-profit brand. The type of ally a brand chooses to align with has an effect on the outcome of the alliance. There is an increasing perception that public, private and non-profit brands can benefit by acting cooperatively, particularly through forming alliances (Heller, 2008). The reason for a for-profit brand to enter an alliance with a non-for-profit brand is for different reasons than vice versa. For a for-profit brand, entering an alliance with a non-profit is mostly done for image complementarity. This is because a non-profit brand usually has a higher level of trust, which can spill over to the for-profit brand. The alliance causes these positive attitudes towards the non-profit brand to spill over to the for-profit brand, which positively influences the overall evaluation of the for-profit brand (Dickinson & Barker 2006). For a non-profit brand, an alliance with a for-profit brand can also be beneficial. They can save on their marketing expenditure, reach larger audiences to gain more support for their cause and enhance their revenue. Also, choosing a partner that matches can lead to long-term alliances. These can lead to funding sources, which are vital in the non-profit sector.
Both streams of research show that the partner brand with whom an alliance is formed has an influence on the success of the alliance. When looking at how consumers view an alliance of a non-profit and a for-profit brand, Lafferty and Goldsmith (2005) show that a
good cause-brand alliance can have a positive effect on both partner brands involved. This is because the alliance makes sense to the consumer, which creates positive attitudes towards the alliance. Later research by Lafferty (2009) shows that the more important a cause is to a person, the more positive the relation between the partners in an alliance is seen. Also, research of Ellen, Webb and Mohr (2006) shows that how consumers perceive the alliance between a non-profit and a corporate organization is influenced by the reason the corporate organization enters this alliance. If this underlying motive of the corporate organization is perceived as selfish or stakeholder-driven, the view on the alliance will be more negative. If the underlying motive is perceived as strategic or value-driven, consumers will perceive the alliance more positively. A relation is perceived as value driven earlier when the fit between the two organizations is high, since it reduces suspicion in the mind of the consumer. Webb & Mohr (1998) show that attitudes towards for-profit brands engaging in an alliance with a non-profit brand were mixed, mainly due to skepticism about implementations, the firm’s motives, or both. They however also state that most respondents do appreciate the for-profit brand forming an alliance with a non-profit brand, since it does result in money being donated to support worthy causes. So even though consumers are skeptical about the motives, they have a positive attitude towards the alliance because of their focus on hoped-for positive outcomes.
Reasons for entering an alliance with another for-profit brand or for entering an alliance with a non-profit brand are different. However, how the consumer views the alliance and if it seems logical to them has a similar influence on the successfulness of the alliance for both type of alliance partners. The views of consumers towards the partner brand can cause the spillover to be positive or negative, and this is applicable for both types of alliance partners. The main reason why any alliance makes sense in the mind of the consumer has to do with the fit of the two organizations in the mind of the consumer.
4.2. Perceived Fit
4.2.1 The role of Perceived Fit on Brand Alliances
Aaker and Keller (1990) define fit as an instance where two objects share commonalities. It is assumed that an object has an associative schema in the mind of the consumer, and fit exists to the degree that there are similarities between the two schemas (Anderson, 1983). Perceptions of fit between brand alliance partners are important for consumers when forming alliance attitudes (Samuelsen, Olsen, Keller and Lett, 2015). As mentioned earlier Arnett et al. (2010) stated that brand alliances are a double-edged sword. Their research shows that the factor that influences whether an alliance is seen as positive or negative comes from the attitude of the consumer towards this alliance. The attitude towards an alliance will be positive when brands look the same on the outside (van den Lans et al., 2014). Van den Lans et al. (2014) state that brand personality is a strong predictor of brand evaluations. They state that brands must look similar on the outside, but differ on the inside, although the second condition is less important for fit to influence the role of alliances on evaluations.
Schnittka et al (2017) state that the stronger, more favorable and unique a brand is, the less likely it will fit well with other brands in the minds of consumers. They state that usually fit refers to the similarity of two objects, which means that a high fit means that the two objects are less unique. If two objects that are dissimilar are shown as if they belong together, consumers will view them as conflicting, which leads to undesired brand dilution effects. This means that when alliances are formed, they have to be connected in the mind of the consumer beyond the joint brand alliance product. This means that the brand images have to have a fit in the mind of the consumer. Schnittka et al (2017) state that when a consumer perceives a consumer brand as more favorable, they perceive it as having more unique and favorable brand associations. When this is the case, consumers will view an alliance as less favorable, since they feel that brand contrast effects are present. If an alliance is to work in the mind of
the consumers, the brand contrast effects should be as low as possible, and brand similarity effects should be high. Keeping in mind that low contrast effects lead to high similarity effects, this means that the research of Schnittka et al. (2017) also states that a high fit between companies leads to better performance of the alliance. The research of Basil & Herr (2003) investigates whether the perceived fit is of greater importance than the attitudes towards the brands that are involved in the alliance or the other way around. Their research shows that a high fit can overcome pre-existing negative associations towards the partner brand, but not vice versa. Fit therefore has a stronger influence than pre-existing attitudes towards the brands involved in an alliance (Basil & Herr, 2003).
Fit between two for-profit brands works differently from fit between a for-profit brand and a non-profit brand. Judgement of fit between for-profit brands works different than that between a for-profit and non-profit brand. Whereas a high fit is seen as a positive aspect in an alliance with two for-profit brands, this is not always the case when a for-profit brand forms an alliance with a non-profit brand. In the alliance between two for-profit brands, the a low fit between the brands is established by dissimilar brand images. In an alliance between a for-profit and non-for-profit brand, there are multiple possibilities of low fit. There is the option of low fit that is the same as in an alliance between two for-profit brands, where the brand images have little in common. However there is also the option of a high negative fit, where the brands are active in the same category, but work for opposing goals. A positive high fit occurs when a for-profit brand and a non-profit brand fit together, and this fit creates positive associations (e.g. Lego and KIKA). Both are targeting children, and both are trying to have a positive effect on the life of children. However, a for-profit and non-profit brand can also have a negatively associated high fit (e.g. Shell and Greenpeace). Here the two brands have a high fit since they operate in the same category, but have completely opposite goals. Then, there is also the low fit possibility in a for-profit and non-profit alliance. Here, the cause of
the non-profit and the product of the for-profit do not match (Red Bull and the Diabetes Fonds). A high fit only has a positive effect for the for-profit and non-profit brand if the fit is perceived to be positive in the mind of the consumer. If the fit is not perceived as high, and positive, the alliance will not be perceived as positive either. Low fit can occur when the two brands work towards opposing goals in the same category, or when brands have images that don’t fit.
4.2.2 Types of Perceived Fit
Brand associations are created by brand features, from which consumers expect to experience benefits. These features can be product-related or non-product-related. Product-related features pertain to the performance and physical composition of the product, while non-product-related features mainly come from the image. With these two factors in mind, two types of fit can be distinguished. The first is the type of fit that accounts for the product related aspects, being the product-based fit. The second is the type of fit that accounts for the non-product-related aspects, and looks at the brand images, the attribute-based fit. The research of Schnittka et al. (2017) however shows that only the attribute-based moderates brand contrast effects in the alliance. The higher the attribute-based fit is, the lower the brand contrast effects are. The study of Simonin and Ruth (1998) also measured the impact of specific types of fit on the way in which an alliance is perceived. They measured the influence of product fit and brand fit on evaluations of alliances. They state that product fit and brand fit are related to attitudes towards the brand alliance, and that both a high product fit and brand fit lead to positive evaluations. Elyas & Mohamed (2013) discuss two types of alliances; the functional alliance, and the symbolic alliance. Functional alliances are alliances where a new product is made by two or more brands, whereas a symbolic alliance is an alliance in which the partner brands name can be put on the host brands package, on the product itself, or the
brands can be side by side in common advertising campaigns. Fit is different for the two different types of alliances. A functional alliance must have a connection on the functional level as well as on the brand level in order for consumers to find similarities between the two schemas. For a symbolic alliance, no complementarity is needed at the functional level between the alliance brands. Only on the brand level a connection must be made in order for consumers to find similarities between the schemas (Elyas & Mohamed, 2013). The brand level fit of Elyas & Mohamed (2013) is quite similar to the attribute-based fit of Schnittka et al. (2017), since both are based on the brand images. The functional level fit of Elyas & Mohamed (2013) and the product-based fit can also be compared, since both focus on the product related aspects of fit.
Berger, Cunningham and Drumwright (2004) have defined nine types of fit between a for-profit and non-profit organization. The first is mission fit, in which the companies have a shared mission. Its perks are that it creates attention, priority and share of mind. The second type of fit dimension is the resource fit. In this case the organizations fit because of resources that are complementing each other. The advantage is that the resources from the ally can be shared and used to perform better. The third type of fit is management fit. Having managements that connect well can be helpful when making alliances, especially when making a social alliance. Work Force fit is the fourth type of fit. Having a workforce that is alike has two ways through which the value of the alliance can be increased. First, social initiatives have the potential of increasing organizational identification among employees. Second, employees are more likely to become involved with the cause of their communities when a work force fit is present, which leads to more support for the non-profit. The fifth type of fit is target market fit. It lets the value of an alliance be leveraged via two ways. First, the companies hope to achieve a differential advantage through their association, so customers prefer their products to others. Also, when customers have an affinity with the cause, it is
more likely that the social alliance is successful in engaging them. The sixth type of fit is a product/cause fit. It takes two forms. The first one is co-branding, where the association of the non-profit’s name with the name of the company can be construed as a meaningful endorsement. The second form involves a positioning between the company and the cause that is compatible and based on strategic similarities. The seventh form of fit is the cultural fit. Having similar cultures lead to a more compatible match between two organizations. The eighth type of fit is a cycle fit. This has to do with the yearly cycle that a company is going through, with the peaks of work that has to be done. When the partners have cycles that correspond well, this can be very advantageous because they can invest in each other during their low season. Also they can then use the peak of the partner to boost their own performance. The last type of fit is the evaluation fit. This looks at the expectations that the partners have before entering the alliances. When these expectations of one another fit well, success is more often achieved, since both parties know when success is achieved. Berger et al. (2004) state that having a high fit on all these dimensions is preferred, but having a mission fit, a resource fit, a management fit and an evaluation fit are the most important. That is why the alliances that are used in the research will have to be either high on these dimensions, when they are in the high fit condition, or low, when they are in the low fit condition.
The present research investigates whether the perceived fit between the two brand sin the alliance has an influence on the perceived brand authenticity of the brands involved. In order to make sure that the effect of fit can be determined clearly, not all different types of fit can be manipulated in the research. Since consumers mostly aren’t aware of the resource fit, management fit, the work force fit, cycle fit, cultural fit and evaluation fit, this research will not focus on these types of fit. This leaves the product-based fit or product level fit and the brand level fit or attribute-based fit mentioned in the for-profit research and the mission fit,
product/cause fit and the target market fit in the non-profit research. The product/cause fit of the non-profit alliance research and product fit are similar, since both focus on how well the two products fit together. So are the mission fit and the brand fit, since they focus on how well the two brands fit together. Lastly there is target market fit, which can be related to the brand fit. The previous for-profit alliance research does not mention this type of fit specifically, however, this fit is also existent in alliances of for-profit brands.
The present research uses brand authenticity rather than brand object authenticity. Therefore the present research will also use brand image fit rather than the product fit, putting the focus on the brand image rather than the brand object. This will make the perceived authenticity concept and the perceived fit concept more similar, making the research more controllable. Using the symbolic brand image fit means that an association is to be made between the two products by relating the brands by common values, like attractiveness, luxury, or sportiness for example (Elyas & Mohamed, 2013). For the alliances between the for-profit brands and the non-profit brand the present research will not use the high negative fit, but the low positive fit, since this type of fit is more similar to that in the alliances between two for-profit brands, which will make these effects of the conditions better controllable. The brand image fit is used rather than the target group fit, since the existent for-profit research on the relation between perceived fit and brand alliances has not focused on this type of fit. Since the brand image fit concept has been researched, it is defined more clearly, and the conditions can be designed more controllably. Therefore the remainder of the present research will focus on the brand image fit when discussing the fit between two brands.
5. Hypotheses Development
The present research investigates whether alliance entry has an effect on the perceived brand authenticity of the host brand. Morhart et al. (2014) state that perceived brand authenticity consists of three perspectives. The first perspective is the objective perspective, which suggest that authenticity is based on an evidence-based reality using verifiable information about the brand. The second is the constructivist perspective, which looks at how able a brand is in creating a schematic fit with the consumers’ expectations of an authentic brand. These expectations are built upon abstract impressions such as the brands essence as communicated through its marketing cues. Finally, the third perspective is the existentialist perspective, which refers to the brand’s ability to be a resource for consumers to portray their true identity. Brand authenticity is present when a brand is faithful towards itself and its consumers, and is willing to help consumers be true to themselves. It can be faithful to itself by positioning itself in a way that fits with the brand identity. This means that a brand should not let it’s positioning be influenced by external factors, but should position itself from the inside out if it wants to be perceived as authentic (Schallehn et al., 2014). Alliance forming could be an external factor that influences the concept of authenticity negatively. The first perspective is not expected to be influenced by alliance entry, because this is based on evidence such as the age of the brand and performance. Since the present research uses a marketing campaign alliance, this perspective should not be influenced. The second and third perspectives are expected to be influenced by alliance entry. In order for a brand to remain authentic while forming an alliance, the second and third perspective of Morhart et al. (2014) should not be violated. In line with Morhart et al. (2014), the research Schallehn et al. (2014) states that consistency and continuity are important in order for a brand to be perceived as authentic. Continuity is also a dimension used by Morhart et al. (2014) when measuring perceived brand authenticity. Alliance entry could disrupt the continuity of the brand, which can cause
consumers to experience a decrease of the constructivist perception. When forming the alliance negatively influences the impressions of consumers, this could lead to consumers seeing the brand as less capable of creating a schematic fit with their expectations, which leads to a decrease in perceived brand authenticity. However, the influence on these impressions does not have to be negative. When the host brand keeps the impressions of the brand’s essence intact when forming the alliance, the perceived brand authenticity should not decrease. A brand can express its essence through norms and values, and living up to these norms and values. When an alliance is formed with a brand that also lives up to their norms and values, consumers should not experience contrast effects between the brands, which means the schematic fit of consumers should not be negatively influenced. So an authentic partner brand should not have a negative influence on the constructivist perspective of the host brand, because no contrast effects are incited by entering the alliance. However, when the alliance partner’s values are not authentic like the ones of the host brand are, the constructivist perspective will be damaged, because the alliance is formed with a partner that does not fit the schematic of an authentic brand. Because the alliance partner does not fit the schematic fit with consumers’ expectations of authentic brand consumers will experience contrast effects between the brands in the alliance. This has a negative effect on the perceived brand authenticity of the host brand.
The research of Simonin & Ruth (1998) states that when an alliance is positively seen in the mind of the consumers, this has positive effects on the brands involved in the alliance. James (2005) shows that consumers’ attitudes towards the brands involved in the alliance prior to the alliance has an effect on their attitudes towards the alliance these brands form. When the attitudes towards the brands in the alliance are positive, this will have a positive effect on how they perceive the alliance. This will in turn have a positive effect on the brands involved in the alliance. Therefore, when both the host brand and the partner brand are
perceived as authentic, the alliance should be perceived as more positive than when the partner brand is not perceived as an authentic brand. A positive attitude towards the alliance should in turn lead to a more positive view towards the brands involved in the alliance. The research of Votaloto and Unnava (2006) found that it also possible for negative spillover effects to occur when alliances are formed. Their research indicates that negative spill-over only occurs under specific conditions. They show that the host partner of the alliance is only influenced negatively when they were aware of the negative behavior of the partner, and condoned this behavior. In the case of brand authenticity this would mean that if the host brand is aware of the inauthentic behavior of the partner with whom the host brand wants to enter an alliance, and still enters the alliance, this could lead to negative spillover effects.
From the research above it can be concluded that an alliance entry with an authentic alliance partner should not have negative effects on the perspectives of authenticity. From the alliance research it shows that positive spill-over might even occur when the alliance is formed, leading to an increased perceived brand authenticity of the host brand. Forming alliance with an inauthentic partner will lead to contrast effects which will invoke a decrease in the perspectives of authenticity. Also, negative spill-over is expected to occur when an alliance is formed with an inauthentic partner brand. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1: When an alliance is entered, perceived brand authenticity of the host brand will be
higher when the alliance partner is authentic, and lower when the alliance partner is
inauthentic.
As can be deducted from the existentialist perspective, an authentic is a brand which gives the consumer the ability to portray their true identity. When the brand image fit between two brands is high, it can be expected that they offer resources to portray the same personality.
Forming an alliance will also be seen as an action that is in gel with the brand’s identity, which is important in order for a brand to be perceived as authentic (Schallehn et al., 2014). When the fit between the two brands is high, the existentialist perspective of Morhart et al. (2014) should not be negatively influenced. The alliance still offers the consumers to portray the same identity as before the alliance. This image might be even stronger, since it is backed up by two brands, which would lead to an increase in the brands ability to be a resource to portray the consumer’s personality. This would lead to a higher perceived brand authenticity of the host brand. In the case of low brand image fit, contrast effects will be present between the two brands (Schallehn et al. 2014). The brands do not offer the ability to portray the same identity, which means that the existentialist perspective will be negatively influenced by the alliance. The forming of an alliance will not be perceived as an action that is in line with the identity of the brand, which will have a negative effect on the perceived brand authenticity of the host brand.
Fit is an important factor that can influence the success of alliances (Simonin & Ruth, 1998, Lafferty, 2009, Samuelsen et al., 2015, Schnittka et al., 2017). Perceptions of fit between partner brands help consumers form alliance attitudes. The fit between the partner brands influences the perceived quality of the alliance, and the brands involved (Samuelsen et al., 2015). Arnett et al. (2010) state that fit is a moderator for the relation between attitude towards the alliance and the brand-related intentions, wherein purchase intentions become higher when fit is high. The research of Helmig et al (2008) states that the fit between partner brands is the success factor for spill-over effects, wherein high fit leads to spill-over effects, and low fit does not. Dickinson & Berger (2006) state that when the fit between brands is poor, the benefits are reduced, or even negated completely and negative associations could be formed. According to Schnittka et al. (2017) the perceived fit consists of two parts. There is the attitude-based fit or brand image fit, and the product-based fit or product fit. They state
that product fit does not influence the spill-over effect. A high brand image fit however does lead to positive spill-over effects. High brand image fit leads to a decrease of brand contrast effects, which has a positive influence on the evaluation of the alliance. Lower brand image fit leads to more brand contrast effects, which have a negative influence on the evaluation of the alliance.
From the existing research we can assume that a company can stay true to itself when forming an alliance with a partner brand with a high image fit. A high fit does not negatively influence the existentialist perspective, and might even increase this perspective. This would lead to an overall increase in the perceived brand authenticity of the host brand. When an alliance is formed with a partner brand with a low brand image fit, this perspective will be damaged, which will cause a decrease in perceived brand authenticity. From this the following hypothesis can be drafted:
H2: When an alliance is entered, perceived brand authenticity of the host brand will be
higher when the host brand and alliance partner have high fit, and the perceived brand
authenticity will be lower when the host brand and alliance partner have low fit.
The present research also looks at the difference effects different types of alliance partners have. The research of Wymer and Akbar (2017) showed that consumers look differently at a for-profit and a non-profit brand. A for-profit brand’s reputation and brand image are separate, while they are inherently intertwined in a profit brand (Wymer & Akbar, 2017). A non-profit brand’s reputation can almost be described as its brand image. Therefore authenticity is perceived differently for a non-profit than of a for-profit brand. Wymer and Akbar (2017) show that in the case of a non-profit brand, how well they contribute to their cause, directly related to the degree in which they are perceived to be authentic. In the case of for-profit
brands, the product or service the brand offers also influences the authenticity. A for-profit brand exists in order to increase the wealth of its owners, while a non-profit exists to fulfill a mission. The constructivist perspective is based on the abstracts impressions such as the brands essence as expressed through its communication. Because the non-profit brand exists to fulfill a mission, rather than increase the wealth of their owners, this essence can be experienced to be stronger in a non-profit brand than in a for-profit brand. Also, if a for-profit is not authentic, it can still be useful to the consumer, since it might have a product that provides benefits for them (Wymer & Akbar, 2017). If a non-profit doesn’t put all of its resources on fulfilling the mission, it is not seen as authentic. For example, when a manager gets paid a disproportionate amount of money, the authenticity of the non-profit brand can decrease. If a non-profit brand is not seen as authentic, the donators are inclined to stop donating, since the brand doesn’t offer any value to them anymore. Since the reputation is can almost be described as the brand image, the effect of the authenticity is bigger for a non-profit. So, a non-profit brand can be perceived as more authentic than a for-profit, since their end goal is not to make profit, but to improve the world. A non-profit can also be perceived as more inauthentic than a for-profit brand. Therefore, non-profit authenticity can be seen as more of a concept of extremes than the concept of authenticity in for-profit brands.
Lafferty et al. (2004) state that attaching a company to an altruistic value, such as a mission put forward by a non-profit brand builds trust between the brand and the consumer. Schallehn et al. (2014) show that brand trust can be created by brand authenticity. Basil and Herr (2003) state entering an alliance with a non-profit brand is seen as an instrument for increasing the positive associations towards the company. When done properly, it is perceived as positive for the brand, since consumers have idea that efforts go towards a good cause (Basil & Herr, 2003). A non-profit brand delivers value through fulfilling its mission, which when done properly makes a non-profit brand authentic. If a non-profit brand is perceived as
authentic, they can therefore have a positive influence when entering an alliance. Votaloto and Unnava (2006) state that when an alliance is formed with a brand that is known to have a negative reputation, negative spillover will occur. James (2005) states that the alliance is strongly influenced by the view towards the brands involved in the alliance. Since the reputation is so important for the non-profit brand, the spill-over effect will be even stronger than when an alliance is formed with a for-profit brand.
Because a non-profit brand can be seen more as a concept of extremes, the effect of spill-over will be larger than it will be for a for-profit. When an alliance is formed with an authentic non-profit partner brand, the constructivist perspective of Morhart et al. (2014) and therefore the perceived brand authenticity of the host brand is expected to improve more than when an alliance is formed with an authentic for-profit partner brand. When the non-profit brand however is inauthentic, these constructivist perspective is more heavily damaged than when an alliance is formed with an inauthentic for-profit. This would mean that the perceived brand authenticity of the host brand will decrease more when an alliance is entered with an inauthentic non-profit partner brand, than when an alliance is entered with an inauthentic for-profit partner brand. Therefore the following hypothesis can be drafted:
H3: When an alliance is entered with an authentic alliance partner, the increase of the
perceived brand authenticity of the host brand will be greater when the alliance partner is a
non-profit brand than when the alliance partner is a for-profit brand. When an alliance is
entered with an inauthentic alliance partner the decrease in the perceived brand authenticity
of the host brand will be greater when the alliance partner is a non-profit brand than when
According to the existentialist perspective developed by Morhart et al. (2014), an authentic brand offers the consumers the ability to portray their true identity. Since a non-profit brand exists for a cause, the brand image is very strong. A for-profit brand exists for creating wealth for its owners. The reputation of a non-profit is based on their mission and how well they work towards this mission. Since the reputation is directly bound to the brand image, it can be expected that a non-profit brand can be used as a resource to portray one’s true identity very well. Therefore, forming an alliance with a non-profit should not damage the existentialist perspective. Consumers want to use a brand to portray aspects they appreciate about themselves. A non-profit exists to improve the world, and supporting this is seen as a positive quality of a person. Therefore, a non-profit might even increase the existentialist perspective, because it offers a greater ability to portray positive aspects of the identity of the consumer.
Ellen et al. (2006) show that when consumers judge an alliance between a for-profit and a non-profit brand, they look for a reason behind the alliance. The consumers can judge the reason behind an alliance as positive or negative. If the alliance is perceived as stakeholder-driven or selfish it will be judged negatively. If it is perceived as value-driven or strategic, consumers will judge it more positively. The way in which the alliance is perceived is driven by the fit of the two brands in the alliance. If the alliance fit is high, consumers will more quickly judge the alliance as value-driven or strategic. If the alliance fit is low however, the consumer will more often judge the alliance as stakeholder-drive or selfish. When an alliance is seen as more strategic or value-driven, the reason behind the alliance will seem more authentic, which is why the brands involved will be seen as more authentic.
The type of ally should not have an effect on whether fit has a positive or negative influence on the alliance. When the consumers perceive the fit as high, in both type of alliances the effect on the alliance should be positive, and when the fit is perceived as low, this should have a negative effect on the alliance. When fit is low, it will negatively influence
