Corporate Brand Identification and its effects on Consumer-Brand Responses

Corporate Brand Identification and its Effects on

Consumer-Brand Responses

University of Amsterdam Faculty of Business and Economics

Martha Larndorfer (ML) – 10621873

Student University of Amsterdam Faculty of Business and Economics

MSc. Business Studies Specialization: Marketing Supervision: Dr. Karin A. Venetis

Final Version – Master Thesis

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to create a deeper understanding about the role of C-C identification and its implication on behavioral outcomes on a product level. This thesis brings attention to the individual effects of two entities, the corporation and the product brand. Theoretically, main contribution can be pointed to a deeper understanding of the role of C-C identification on consumer brand responses. Managerial, this study addresses relationship building with the ultimate outcome of reaching high levels of consumer identification. In the elaboration on desirable outcomes including affective commitment, advocacy and loyalty, favorability of identification is framed based on its effects on these consequences. This quantitative research incorporates two separate studies. Study 1 includes hypothesis testing while study 2 is a further elaboration on the hypothesized direct effect of C-C identification on product brand responses. On a corporate brand level, results show an effect of C-C identification on supporting behaviors. Similarly, the level of consumer brand identification predicts brand loyalty and brand advocacy. In terms of the direct influence of C-C identification results failed to show an effect on brand commitment or brand loyalty, while C-C identification appeared to effect brand advocacy in study 1, yet missed to replicate similar findings in study 2. The lacking effect of C-C identification on brand commitment, brand loyalty and brand advocacy can be explained by the context dependency of the level of social selves. With slight underrepresentation of consumers with high corporate brand identification, this study lacks to fully describe the effects of very high levels of C-C identification on product brand outcomes, which gives direction for future research.

Table of Content

Chapter 1: Introduction ... 1

-1.1 Background ... 1

-1.2 Problem Definition ... 6

-1.2.1 Problem Statement and Research Objective ... 7

-1.2.2 Delimitations ... 7

-1.2.3 Theoretical and Managerial Contribution ... 7

-1.2.4 Structure ... 8

-Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework ... 10

-2.1 Corporate Branding versus Product Branding... 10

-2.2 Identification ... 11

-2.2.5 Identity and SelfConcepts ... 12

-2.2.6 Identification and Branding ... 14

-2.2.7 Consequences of Identification ... 16

-2.2.8 Interaction between CC identification and CB identification ... 20

-2.3 Conceptual Research Framework ... 23

-Chapter 3: Methodology ... 24

-3.1 Research Strategy ... 24

-3.2 Brand Selection Pretest ... 25

-3.3 Research Design ... 26

-3.4 Data Collection ... 27

-3.4.9 Sample Characteristics in Study 1 and Study 2 ... 28

-3.5 Construct Measurement ... 29

-3.5.1 Scale Reliability in Study 1... 30

-3.5.2 Additional Measures in Study 2 ... 30

-3.5.3 Scale Reliability in Study 2... 31

-3.6 Statistical Procedures ... 32

-4.1 Data Exploration ... 33

-4.1.4 Exploring Assumptions ... 33

-4.1.5 Dealing with Biased Data ... 34

-4.1.6 Assessing Differences between Awareness and NonAwareness Group... 34

-4.2 Descriptive Statistics ... 35

-4.3 Hypothesis testing ... 38

-4.4 Data Exploration Study 2 ... 44

-4.4.7 Exploring Assumptions ... 44

-4.4.8 Assessing Differences between the four SubSamples ... 45

-4.5 Descriptive Statistics ... 45 -4.6 Hypotheses Testing ... 46 -4.7 Additional Testing... 50 -4.8 Hypotheses overview ... 51 -Chapter 5: Discussion ... 52 -Chapter 6: Conclusion... 57 -6.1 Theoretical Implications ... 59 -6.2 Managerial Implications ... 60

-6.3 Limitations and Further Research ... 61

Bibliography ... 63

-Appendix A: Methodology ... 67

-a. Brand Selection Pretest ... 67

-i Respondents Pretest ... 67

-ii Descriptive Statistics Pretest ... 67

-iii Variances Between CC Identification and CB Identification ... 69

-iv Variances Between CC Identification and CB Identification (per respondent and per brand) ... 70

-b. Data Collection ... 71

-i Sample Characteristics in Study 1 ... 71

-a. Respondents ... 72

-b. Construct Measures ... 73

-a. Additional Construct Measures in Study 2 ... 74

-b. Scale Reliability: Corporate Commitment ... 75

-Appendix B: Findings and Data Analysis ... 76

-a. Data Exploration for Study 1 ... 76

-i Exploring Assumptions ... 76

-b. Dealing with Biased Data ... 77

-c. Assessing Differences between Awareness and NonAwareness Group ... 78

-d. Data Exploration for Study 2 ... 79

-i Exploring Assumptions ... 79

-ii Assessing Differences between the four SubSamples ... 80

-e. Descriptive Statistics: Full Correlation Matrices Study 2 ... 82

-f. Hypothesis Testing ... 86

-i Direct Effect: CC Identification on Product Brand Outcomes ... 86

-ii Moderated Effect: CC Identification*Perceived Fit on Product Brand Outcomes ... 90

-Appendix C: Research Operational Plan... 94

-Appendix D: Questionnaires ... 96

a. Brand Selection - Pretest ... 96

b. Study 1... 97

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Conceptual Research Framework ... 23

-Table 1: Treatment Conditions (2x2 Factorial Design) ... - 26 -

Table 2: Scale Reliability of Study 1... - 30 -

Table 3: Scale Reliability of Study 2... - 31 -

Table 4: Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlations for Study 1 ... - 37 -

Table 5: Multicollinearity Assessment based on Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) ... - 38 -

Table 6: C-C Identification as the predictor for psychological and behavioral outcomes (Study 1) ... - 39 -

Table 7: CB Identification as the predictor for psychological and behavioral outcomes (Study 1) ... 40

Figure 2: Mediation, CCI Corporate Commitment Corporate Advocacy (Study 1) ... 41

Figure 3: Mediation, CCI Corporate Commitment Corporate Loyalty (Study 1) ... 41

Figure 4: Mediation, CBI Brand Commitment Brand Advocacy (Study 1) ... 42

Figure 5: Mediation, CBI Brand Commitment Brand Loyalty (Study 1) ... 42

-Table 8: C-C Identification as the predictor for product brand outcomes (Study 1) ... - 43 -

Table 9: C-C Identification as the predictor for psychological and behavioral outcomes (Study 2) ... - 47 -

Table 10: Linear model of CB Identification as the predictor for psychological and behavioral outcomes (Study 2) ... 47

Figure 6: Mediation, CCI Corporate Commitment Corporate Advocacy (Study 2) ... 48

Figure 7: Mediation, CCI Corporate Commitment Corporate Loyalty (Study 2) ... 48

Figure 8: Mediation, CBI Brand Commitment Brand Advocacy (Study 2) ... 49

Figure 9: Mediation, CBI Brand Commitment Brand Loyalty (Study 2) ... 49

-Table 11: Result Overview ... - 51 -

Table 13: Awareness of Connection CB/PB Pretest ... - 67 -

Table 14: Age and Nationality ... - 67 -

Table 15: Descriptive Statistics Pretest ... - 67 -

Table 16: Variances Between C-C Identification and C-B Identification ... - 69 -

Table 17: Gender and Age ... - 71 -

Table 18: Nationality ... - 71 -

Table 19: Gender and Age ... - 72 -

Table 20: Nationality ... - 72 -

Table 21: Distribution - Skewness and Kurtosis ... - 76 -

Table 22: Test of Variance Homogeneity ... - 76 -

Table 23: Bootstrap distribution: 1000 bootstrap samples, bias corrected ... - 77 -

Table 24: Mann-Whitney-U-Test ... - 78 -

Table 25: Distribution - K-S test for Normal Distribution ... - 79 -

Table 26: Test of Variance Homogeneity ... - 79 -

Table 27: Kruskal-Wallis-Test for 4 treatment conditions ... - 80 -

Table 29: Kruskal-Wallis-Test for brand launch ... - 81 -

Table 30: Brand 1 - Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlations (Study 2) ... - 82 -

Table 31: Brand 2 - Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlations (Study 2) ... - 83 -

Table 32: Brand 3 - Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlations (Study 2) ... - 84 -

Table 33: Brand 4 - Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlations (Study 2) ... - 85 -

Table 34: C-C Identification as the predictor for product brand outcomes (Study 2/Brand 1) ... - 86 -

Table 35: C-C Identification as the predictor for product brand outcomes (Study 2/Brand 2) ... - 87 -

Table 36: C-C Identification as the predictor for product brand outcomes (Study 3) ... - 88 -

Table 37: Linear model of C-C Identification as the predictor for product brand outcomes (Study 4) ... - 89 -

Table 38: C-C Identification*Perceived Fit as the predictor for product brand outcomes (Study 2/Brand 1) ... - 90 -

Table 39: C-C Identification*Perceived Fit as the predictor for product brand outcomes (Study 2/Brand 2) ... - 91 -

Table 40: C-C Identification as the predictor for product brand outcomes (Study 2/Brand 3) ... - 92 -

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Background

Corporate branding has received much attention both practically and theoretically over the last decades. Particularly due globalization, increasing mergers and acquisitions and technological ubiquity which pose challenges on traditional line branding (Harris & Chernatony, 2001; Kay, 2006), several authors highlight a shift from traditional line branding towards corporate branding (Wallström, Karlsson, & Salehi-Sangari, 2008). With the clear advantage of leveraging corporate associations to product brands, reaching the consumer remains a challenge (Kantabutra & Avery, 2007; Kay, 2006). Despite corporate brands including Disney, Apple and Coca Cola which have achieved great awareness among a wide consumer base, several authors highlight the difficulty of corporate brand identity communication to external stakeholders.

The distinct nature of corporate branding requires a unique brand management approach, which still remains partly unexplored. Oversimplified, corporate branding means marketing the company itself as brand (Argenti & Druckenmiller, 2004). Hence, corporate branding can be considered a holistic view of the organization. In addition to fit between external opportunities and core competences of an organization as in traditional line branding, corporate branding puts greater focus internal the organization and further integrates internal activities opting for a cohesive identity (Harris & Chernatony, 2001; Kay, 2006). With its emphasis on brand identity, corporate branding departs partly from the notion of brand image (Harris & Chernatony, 2001). Contrasting brand image, where brand differentiation is based on consumer perceptions, the unique character of brand identity in corporate branding is derived through managerial and employee actions (Harris & Chernatony, 2001). In essence brand identity is what makes a brand truly unique (Hatch & Schultz, 2001; Kay, 2006). Some authors elaborate on the notion of differentiation and talk about creating a sense of belongingness in its stakeholders (Hatch & Schultz, 2003). A successful corporate brand can be seen as providing symbols that enable value expression in its followers (Hatch & Schultz, 2003).

At its heart, brand identity comprises of vision and culture, which gives marketing the ability to use these two components as the company’s unique proposition. In a corporate branding context, the core of brand identity, corporate vision and organizational culture, drives brand positioning, personality and relationships (Harris & Chernatony, 2001). Leading authors denote that particularly discrepancies between corporate vision and organizational culture are detrimental for a corporate brand to succeed (Hatch & Schultz, 2001, 2003). While organizational culture concerns organizational values, behaviors and attitudes internal the organization (Hatch & Schultz, 2001; Kantabutra & Avery, 2007; Wallström et al., 2008), corporate vision is considered an ideal future state, guidance for future goal attainment and an image of the ideal future that expresses values, purpose and vision followers (Levin, 2000; Strange & Mumford, 2005). Most authors agree on vision and culture to be core to brand identity, yet the management literature shifts towards a “vision driven approach” (Balmer & Soenen, 1999) which denotes the distinct role of corporate vision in an organizational context. Rather than speaking of vision and culture, authors develop a “mind, soul and voice” corporate identity mix (Balmer & Soenen, 1999). Where soul reflects on organizational culture, mind can be considered as the guiding principle incorporating corporate philosophy and vision that has been given a voice through the communication to its stakeholders (Balmer & Soenen, 1999). A similar approach can be noticed in the corporate branding literature by strongly emphasizing strategic vision, being the core element of brand identity (De Chernatony, 1999, 2001, 2009; Virgo & de Chernatony, 2006).

From an external firm view, corporate branding deliberately concerns multiple external stakeholders, which puts the corporate brand in an advantageous position in terms of stimulating increased visibility, recognition and reputation through the image hold by various stakeholders including employees, customers, investors, suppliers, partners and local communities (Hatch & Schultz, 2003). While numerous studies have elaborated on the role of the employee in creating identity cohesion (Baum, Locke, & Kirkpatrick, 1998; Harris & Chernatony, 2001; Homburg, Wieseke, & Hoyer, 2009; Kantabutra & Avery, 2007), identity communication to external stakeholders and value outcome consistency remains fairly unexplored (Kay, 2006). Several authors even describe an indirect brand-consumer relationship mediated through employees (Harris & Chernatony, 2001; Kantabutra & Avery, 2007; Kay, 2006). Taking a consumer perspective,

discrepancies between vision, culture and image can be unfavorable to a corporate brand’s success. This misalignment particularly addresses frictions between the image hold by outside stakeholders and the strategic vision and culture internal the company (Hatch & Schultz, 2001). For a successful corporate brand identity, customers’ expectations from a company need to be reflected and the vision has to be effectively communicated to the identified target group (Hatch & Schultz, 2001; Nandan, 2005). Yet, consumer perceptions of corporate brands as well as the impact of corporate brands on consumers remain fairly unexplored.

While firm internal processes receive attention in the leadership literature, consumer-brand interactions are partly limited to indirect interactions mediated through the employee (Homburg et al., 2009; Kantabutra & Avery, 2007). Taking an internal organizational perspective as a potential basis for the elaboration on creating commitment in external stakeholders, namely in this study the customer, the organizational literature explains employees’ emotional commitment towards an organization as being mainly attributed to an individual leader (Baum et al., 1998; De Chernatony, 2009; Kantabutra & Avery, 2007). In recent publications the discussion of evoking emotional commitment among internal stakeholders has been questioned by the assumption of exploring the role of the organizational unit as a whole (Lord & Emrich, 2000). The question raised in the leadership literature is whether followers’ emotional committed towards an organization resides in a leader or derives from the social system in which leader-follower interactions take place (Lord & Emrich, 2000). Many studies in the leadership and organizational literature have grounded their research in social identity theory (SIT) to find further explanation for employee commitment by exploring the mediating role of identification. For this purpose, SIT will be first explored within the realm of organizational behavior and leadership and later on transferred to a corporate branding context. Briefly, self-identity consists of personal and social identities. Personal identity concerns the self-categorization based on perceived similarities and difference and regards the individuals’ sense of uniqueness (Banaji & Prentice, 1994). Social identity on the other hand addresses self-definition in terms of relations to another person (interpersonal social identity), groups or communities (collective social identity) (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). One precondition for identification is considered the individual’s belief that the organization or the brand is relevant for self-definition (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).

Scholars who follow the idea that leadership resides in an individual leader address topics such as personality- and behavioral traits that inspire follower commitment (Lord & Emrich, 2000). This concerns followers’ self-definitional needs on an interpersonal level, which denotes that self-concepts are defined based on dyadic relationships, particularly roles assumed, such as the leader and the follower (Kohles, Bligh, & Carsten, 2012; Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999). On an interpersonal level, employees might identify with an individual leader, whereas in the discussion of evoking emotional commitment on a holistic organizational level the frame of reference is considered the organizational identity.

Identification with organizational identity, hence the organizational unit, can be associated with a collective level of SIT. On a collective level, employee identification does not relate to particular personality traits of a leader, but rather the membership with an organization, an organizational identity (Lord et al., 1999). Particularly one research stream in organizational literature focusing on charismatic, transformational and visionary leadership associates followers identification with a collective level of SIT (Jackson & Johnson, 2012; Reicher, Haslam, & Hopkins, 2005; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Lord et al. (1999) suggest that on a collective level organizational identities have a greater effect on follower behavior and attitudes than individual leaders. Particularly the level of self-identity influences effectiveness of particular leadership styles (Lord et al., 1999). Contrasting the interpersonal level where self-definition is derived in relation to another person, a collective level of self-definition concerns prototypes. Here the individual identifies with a particular group, as in an organization, employing a group prototype as a fundamental element for intergroup comparison and self-definition. A group prototype represents the result of a social categorization process, also referred to as depersonalization, in which the social world is segmented into ingroups and outgroups (Donavan, Janda, & Suh, 2006; Hogg, 2001; Jennifer Edson Escalas & James R. Bettman, 2005).

In the past years it has been argued that identification with an organization is not limited to internal stakeholders, but even external stakeholders seek for self-definition through identifying with an organization (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Cornelissen, Haslam, & Balmer, 2007; Einwiller, Fedorikhin, Johnson, & Kamins, 2006; Scott & Lane, 2000). Particularly in the presence of corporate

brands, identification on collective level offers attractive and meaningful social identities that potentially assist satisfaction of consumer self-definitional needs on a collective level. Research suggest that consumer-company identification (C-C Identification) is based on the perception of an or organizations’ central aspect, the identity (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). With some recent exception in the literature (Dimitriadis & Papista, 2010; Kim, Han, & Park, 2001; Son K Lam, Ahearne, & Schillewaert, 2012; Tuškej, Golob, & Podnar, 2013), the term consumer-brand identification is also used to address consumer identification with a company (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008; Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, & Sen, 2012). In order to disentangle the two distinct constructs, this study will term consumer identification with a corporate brand or company as C-C identification, while consumer-brand identification (C-B Identification) is solely reserved for product consumer-brands. While theories from the organizational and leadership literature can be transferred to C-C Identification, hence a collective level of social selves, identification on product brand level requires further exploration.

In the discussion of consumer-brand relationships, Kim et al. (2001) clearly denote the effect of brand personality on brand identification which consequently leads to brand commitment (Kim et al., 2001). Despite the perspective of brand personality congruence with one’s self-identity as an antecedent for C-B identification (Tuškej et al., 2013), brand personality can serve as an indicator for the level of social identity. Adopting the theoretical approach of a collective and interpersonal level of SIT in the organizational and leadership theory, it is applicable to differentiate between a collective corporate level and interpersonal product brand level. Strictly, the relationship between a brand and the consumer cannot be termed as interpersonal. Yet, leading authors argue that brands can assume the role of one party in this dyadic relationship, portraying the brand as a pseudo person possessing of human-like characteristics (J. L. Aaker, 1997; Fournier, 1998; Kim et al., 2001; Tuškej et al., 2013). Despite the role of brand personality in discussion of brand identification, Brown, Barry, Dacin, and Gunst (2005) and Dimitriadis and Papista (2010) recognize conceptual similarities between C-B identification, hence a SIT approach, and self-connection with a brand (Fournier, 1998), self-image congruence between the consumer and the brand (Kressmann et al., 2006) and the fundamental extended self-theory (Belk, 1988). All of these studies draw upon the symbolic, self-expressive brand

concepts, which in line with brand identification provide attractive means of self-expression for consumers.

With the allocation of two distinct types of identification, company-consumer identification (CCI) and consumer brand-identification (CBI), the relationship between corporate and product brand in the context of identification remains partly undiscovered. Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) put forward the importance for mangers to determine, whether identification on a corporate level is favorable for an organization, yet miss to specify the effect of C-C identification on psychological and behavioral outcomes on a products level. Whereas main contribution remains a conceptualization of C-C identification (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003) and limited empirical studies (Ahearne, Bhattacharya, & Gruen, 2005), the clear advantage and its effect on consumer responses remains untouched. In the discussion of corporate associations Berens, Riel, and Bruggen (2005) elevate the argument of potential effects of corporate branding on consumer responses on a product level by investigating the moderating effect of corporate brand dominance on consumer responses towards product brands. However, their discussion only involves corporate associations and corporate social responsible activities that may influence consumers’ attitude towards products. Advancing in brand development stages from brand meaning to brand relationships (Keller, 2013), the incorporation of Bhattacharya & Sen’s (2003) theory as a foundation allows to not merely base consumer product responses on brand meaning, hence associative network structures, but an established consumer-company relationship. Given that branding is a business discipline, the sometimes neglected goal of branding products and corporations is revenue generation. Particularly in corporate branding main revenue stream stems from the multiple product brands, which makes it inevitable to discover the relationship between C-B identification and C-C identification and potential direct effects of C-C identification on consumer behavioral outcomes on a product level.

1.2 Problem Definition

At current stage research informs about antecedents and potential consequences of C-C identification as well as C-B identification, yet lacks a clear understanding of the variations in strength

of identification and the relationship between the two constructs. Authors have denoted and empirically tested C-C identification being a potential explanans for the phenomena of loyalty. In the attempt of shedding light on the mediating role of identification on loyalty by proposing a theoretical framework (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003), theories have only empirically tested consequences of C-C identification, yet do not inform about behavioral responses on a product level. What remains unexplored are the individual effects of both entities, hence whether identification with a company (collective level) or a brand (interpersonal level) evokes stronger loyalty as well as its interrelatedness, namely whether C-C identification directly effects behavioral outcomes on a product brand level.

1.2.1 Problem Statement and Research Objective

The leading question of this thesis is (RQ) How does corporate brand identification affect consumer brand responses? With the aim of creating a deeper understanding about the role of C-C identification and its implication on behavioral outcomes on a product level, differences between interpersonal and collective consumer identification as well as the potential effect of the interplay among these two entities will be explored.

1.2.2 Delimitations

This study does not opt to touch upon the ambiguity of the creation of C-C identification or C-B identification. Rather it aims to explain the underlying mechanism of establishing consumer responses towards a corporate and product brand, by taking identification as a given.

1.2.3 Theoretical and Managerial Contribution

Theoretically, this thesis will contribute to a deeper understanding of the role of C-C identification on consumer brand responses. Particularly C-C identification remains mainly restricted to conceptual publications (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003) and limited empirical testing (Ahearne et al., 2005). Where C-B identification has mainly been limited to the concept of brand personality, hence an interpersonal level of SIT (J. L. Aaker, 1997; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Fournier, 1998; Kim et al.,

2001; Tuškej et al., 2013), the organizational and leadership literature has denoted importance towards a collective level of identification based on organizational identity (Lord et al., 1999; Shamir et al., 1993). Raised attention towards the adoption of SIT on a collective level in terms C-C relationship (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003) calls for further explanations. One angle of this study is the comparison of C-C identification and C-B identification based on their individual effects on affective commitment, advocacy and loyalty which serves as a basis for further exploring the role of C-C identification on outcome measures attributed to C-B identification.

This study focuses on relationship building with the ultimate outcome of reaching high levels of consumer identification. In the elaboration on desirable outcomes including affective commitment, advocacy and loyalty, favorability of identification will be framed based on its effects on these consequences. From a managerial perspective, this thesis will provide insights whether investments in establishing C-C identification is favorable for a corporation in terms of its influence on psychological and behavioral measures on a product brand level. In elaborating on two contextual frames of reference, namely the corporate brand and the product brand this thesis allows to inform practitioners about the importance of consumer identification with two related, yet different entities. In addressing two dimensions of identification, the cognitive and emotional dimension, further insight in terms of its relative importance enables to make inferences about what elements to stress in relationship building initiatives.

1.2.4 Structure

Prior primary research, theoretical hypothesis will be formulated in Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework. For the purpose of arriving at a common understanding about the various concepts involved in answering the leading question of this research, related theories and concepts will be discussed. To inform the reader about used methods, particularly validity and reliability of findings, research strategy, research design, data collection and construct measurements will be illustrated in chapter 3: Methodology. Following chapter 4: Findings and Data Analysis, the leading question will

be answered in chapter 5: Discussion and chapter 6: Conclusion, completed with some closing remarks on limitations and aspects to be subject of further research.

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

Due to complexity of related concepts, it is elementary to arrive at a common understanding prior primary research. For this purpose, explicit differences between corporate branding and product branding are discussed. Next, the construct of identification is theoretically approached, followed by a discussion of identification on a corporate and product brand level. Final, various outcomes of both types of identification and possible interactions are put forward.

2.1 Corporate Branding versus Product Branding

Despite various differences, corporate branding differs from product branding in terms of a shift from product to a holistic branding perspective of the organization as a whole (Argenti & Druckenmiller, 2004; Gylling & Lindberg-Repo, 2006; Muzellec & Lambkin, 2009). With its clear distinction from traditional line branding, branding on a holistic corporate level endows advantages such as cost efficiencies, targeting a diverse audience and favorability in mergers and acquisitions (Argenti & Druckenmiller, 2004; Gylling & Lindberg-Repo, 2006). Corporate brand thinking extends the idea of a consumer-brand relationship in product branding towards a multiple stakeholder view. With regards to brand relationship, a corporate brand serves multiple targets including organizational and community members, investors, partners, suppliers and other interested parties which form images (Gylling & Lindberg-Repo, 2006) that collectively contribute to the formation of corporate reputation. Contrasting product and service brands that relate to the consumer with a discrete product brand name, a corporate brand relates to all internal and external stakeholders (Gylling & Lindberg-Repo, 2006).

Deviating from a sole consumer to a multiple stakeholder perspective (Hatch & Schultz, 2003) and widening the array through merger and acquisitions, particularly when acting across multiple product categories, require a clear definition of what the holistic corporate brand represents (Argenti & Druckenmiller, 2004). The obtrusive advantage is cohesion and consistency reaching from communication, behavioral styles, a clear direction and coherent focus (Gylling & Lindberg-Repo, 2006). In the attempt of reaching coherence and consistency, the fundamentals lie in clear brand identity, articulation of brand proposition, clear positioning and communication consistencies (Urde,

2013). Urde (2013) denotes this as a radical transition from simple exploitation of company name towards symbolizing the entire organization instead. Leading authors explain strong corporate brands by its definition based on values and goals (Kay, 2006) which are integral to corporate brand identity (Harris & Chernatony, 2001; Hatch & Schultz, 2003). With the aim of exploring the role of brand identification in creating a strong bond between consumer and corporate brand this study proceeds to explore the fundaments of identification and consequently transfers to a branding context.

2.2 Identification

Ashforth and Mael (1989) define social identification as “the perception of oneness with or belongingness to some human aggregate” (p. 21). This definition already incorporates two different levels of social identification, belonging to some ‘human aggregate’ or even the perception of oneness. Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail (1994) define identification as “the degree to which a member defines him- or herself by the same attributes that he or she believes define the organization” (p. 239). Whereas the cognitive identification is described as the awareness or self-knowledge of membership in a social group, some authors elevate this perspective by ascribing a certain degree of assimilation with an organization, thus appropriating organizational goals as the own rather than being limited to mere attribute overlaps (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). This perspective highlights the progression from self-categorization towards depersonalization on a higher level of identification.

Theories revolving around identification originate in Tajfel’s (1978) definition that suggests the contribution of three components to one’s social identity: “a cognitive component (a cognitive awareness of one’s membership in a social group - self-categorization), an evaluative component (a positive or negative value connotation attached to this group membership - group self-esteem), and an emotional component (a sense of emotional involvement with the group - affective commitment)’ (p. 372). While Tajfel (1979) and Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) clearly denote the coexistence of three dimensions, several authors define identification as a sole cognitive process (Carlson, Donavan, & Cumiskey, 2009). Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) recognize the conceptual problem of identification and

make a major contribution in terms of clarification of the identification construct in an organizational context.

In line with Tajfel (1979), Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) stress the multidimensionality of identification by recognizing the relationship between self-categorization and affective and evaluative responses. Consequently, it has been argued that social identity comprises of organizational identification and commitment (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). Drawing on Ellemers, Kortekaas, and Ouwerkerk (1999) who empirically demonstrate the distinctiveness of the cognitive, affective and evaluative components of SIT, Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) disentangle cognition, affect and evaluation. Distinct from previous theories, Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) study affective and evaluative responses in terms of consequences resulting from a cognitive self-categorization process. Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) shed new light on social identity theory by allocating affective responses as a potential consequence of self-categorization, the cognitive dimension of identification. Taking similar line of reasoning, this study will discuss the affective dimension on a later stage - as a potential consequence of cognitive brand identification.

2.2.5 Identity and Self-Concepts

Distinct from personal identity, which concerns the self-categorization based on perceived similarities and difference and regards the individuals’ sense of uniqueness (Banaji & Prentice, 1994), social identity theory (Tajfel, 1979) addresses self-definition relational to another person (interpersonal social identity), group or community (collective social identity) (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). In developing a social identity, people go beyond their personal identity through self-categorization based on contextual frames of reference which can consist of another person or a group (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Most commonly adopted conceptualization of identification is the perspective that individuals view themselves as members of a social entity (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). This individual’s view of membership arises through the cognitive process of categorization, where the individual categorizes the self in relation to others, particularly through ascribing similarities and

dissimilarities with members and non-members of a social entity respectively (Turner, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987 in Bergami & Bagozzi; 2000).

Brewer and Gardner (1996) differentiate between two levels of social selves, an interpersonal and a collective level of identification. The distinction between interpersonal and collective identities is based on whether a social connection originates in a personalized bond of attachment or impersonal, hence derived from a symbolic group or social category (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Self-definition on an interpersonal level denotes that self-concepts are defined in regards to roles assumed (Kohles et al., 2012; Lord et al., 1999). Interpersonal identities originate from dyadic relationships based on distinct roles such as parent-child, leader-follower, and friendships but also derive from memberships in small groups. In the adoption of SIT in the leadership theory, scholars who follow the idea that leadership resides in an individual leader address topics such as personality traits and behavior that inspire follower commitment (Lord & Emrich, 2000). This concerns followers’ self-definitional needs on an interpersonal level (Kohles et al., 2012; Lord et al., 1999).

Self-definition on a collective level differs through a non-personal relationship among group members. Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, and Wetherell (1987) put forward that self-definition on a collective level can be seen as "a shift towards the perception of self as an interchangeable exemplar of some social category and away from the perception of self as a unique person" (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, and Wetherell, 1987; p. 50 in Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Contrasting the interpersonal level, where self-definition is derived in relation to another person and the roles assumed in a dyadic relationship, on a group or collective level self-definition concerns prototypes. Here the individual identifies with a particular group, employing a group prototype as a fundamental element for intergroup comparison and self-definition. A group prototype represents the result of a social categorization process, also referred to as depersonalization, in which the social world is segmented into ingroups and outgroups (Donavan et al., 2006; Hogg, 2001; Jennifer Edson Escalas & James R. Bettman, 2005).

2.2.6 Identification and Branding

In the branding literature identification is an important, yet fairly underutilized construct in explaining relationships between companies and consumers (Ahearne et al., 2005; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Einwiller et al., 2006; Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008) and recently even consumers and their brands (Kim et al., 2001; S K Lam, Ahearne, Hu, & Schillewaert, 2010; Son K Lam et al., 2012; Tuškej et al., 2013; Underwood, Bond, & Baer, 2001).

Company-Consumer Identification (C-C Identification)

Since corporate branding is commonly described as a holistic branding perspective of the organization as a whole (Argenti & Druckenmiller, 2004; Gylling & Lindberg-Repo, 2006; Muzellec & Lambkin, 2009), the term C-C identification is adopted in this study to describe identification with a corporate brand. Over the past decade, marketing research has drawn upon social identity theory (Tajfel, 1979) to explain consumer-company relationships (Ahearne et al., 2005; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Based on theories from the organizational and leadership literature, rather recent publications have recognized a new angle of identification that eases the limitation of organizational identification from sole formal membership towards non-formal members (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Cornelissen et al., 2007; Scott & Lane, 2000).

This study is based on Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) who conceptualize consumer identification with an organization or company as “an active, selective, and volitional act motivated by the satisfaction of one or more definitional needs” (p. 77). Self-definitional needs include self-congruity, self-distinctiveness and self-enhancement (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). This conceptualization clearly denotes a consumer centric perspective where the consumer seeks means for self-definition rather than imposition by organizations, companies or corporate brands. Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) put forward a higher-order value that accrues and is received by consumers through the identification with a company.

An organizational entity possesses of a distinct identity, personality, image and reputation, which create meaningful frames of reference for consumers’ self-definitional needs. The organization unit comprises of products, services, brands and companies which serve as compelling targets for identification (Keh & Xie, 2009). Rather than identifying with one particular element, on a collective level identification refers to organizational identity (Dutton et al., 1994), which in corporate branding can be translated to corporate brand identity. While identification based on a dyadic, personal relationship is linked to one individual leader, on a collective level of social identity a social group forms the reference for identification (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). In the leadership and organizational literature, identification with organizational identity is associated with a collective level of social identity. Here employee identification does not relate to particular personality traits of a leader, but rather an organizational identity (Lord et al., 1999). Lord et al. (1999) provide empirical proof for a greater effect of a collective, organizational identity level on follower behavior and attitudes than that of individual leaders. Particularly the level of self-identity influences effectiveness of particular leadership styles (Lord et al., 1999).

Consumer-Brand Identification (C-B Identification)

While the term consumer-brand identification has been employed to describe consumer identification with corporate brands (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008; Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012), recent studies have expanded the logic of consumer-brand identification on a product brand level (Dimitriadis & Papista, 2010; Kim et al., 2001; Son K Lam et al., 2012; Tuškej et al., 2013).

Despite the recent of C-B Identification, Brown et al. (2005) and Dimitriadis and Papista (2010) recognize conceptual similarities between C-B Identification, hence the adoption of SIT, and self-connection with a brand (Fournier, 1998), self-image congruence between the consumer and the brand (Kressmann et al., 2006) and the extended self (Belk, 1988). All of these studies draw upon the symbolic, self-expressive brand concepts which in line with brand identification provide attractive means of self-expression for consumers. This reasoning not only designates the existence of similar concepts in the marketing literature, but severs as an indication for applicability of SIT on a product

brand level. Based on fundamental theories by Fournier (1998) and Solomon (1983), Son K Lam et al. (2012) highlight that “the concept of CBI [C-B Identification] is in line with the experiential view of consumption, which emphasizes brands as valued relationship partners” (p. 308). To recall the discussion about levels of social selves, the distinction between interpersonal and collective identities is based on whether a social connection originates in a personalized bond of attachment or impersonal, hence derived from a symbolic group or social category (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Based on the claim made by Son K Lam et al. (2012) where brands are portrayed as relationship partners, the assumption of brands matching the idea of an interpersonal level of social selves can be made. The study by Kim et al. (2001), which explains the effect of brand personality on brand identification which consequently leads to brand commitment, provides further indication for an interpersonal level of social selves. Despite the perspective of brand personality congruence with one’s self-identity as an antecedent for C-B identification, brand personality can serve as an indicator for the level of social identity. Strictly, the relationship between a brand and the consumer cannot be termed as interpersonal. Yet, leading authors argue that brands can assume the role of one party in this dyadic relationship, portraying the brand as a pseudo person possessing of human-like characteristics (J. L. Aaker, 1997; Fournier, 1998; Kim et al., 2001; Tuškej et al., 2013).

2.2.7 Consequences of Identification

While Tajfel’s (1978) definition suggests the contribution of three components to one’s social identity: “a cognitive component (a cognitive awareness of one’s membership in a social group - self-categorization), an evaluative component (a positive or negative value connotation attached to this group membership - group self-esteem), and an emotional component (a sense of emotional involvement with the group - affective commitment)” (p. 372), Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) and Ellemers et al. (1999) disentangle cognition from affect and evaluation. Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) proof the mediating role of cognitive identification between its antecedents and effect on affective commitment and organization based self-esteem, the evaluative component of SIT. Affective commitment and organization based self-esteem in turn effect citizenship behavior, the behavioral outcome of SIT in Bergami and Bagozzi (2000).

Psychological Consequence: Affective Commitment

Adopting Bergami & Bagozzi’s (2000) standpoint this study treats the cognitive and emotional component of social identity separately by portraying affective commitment as a consequence of cognitive categorization. While identification describes the overlap between the consumers’ self-identity and a brand personality, affective commitment is considered a positive attitude one holds for a brand (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). Leading authors agree that the notion of commitment is considered a better descriptor of true brand loyalty as it refers to attitudinal loyalty rather than a behavioural phenomenon (Abdelmajid, 1998). Commitment comprises of beliefs, attitudes and behaviours towards the brand and ultimately describes the relationship a consumer holds with a brand (Hess & Story, 2005). Affective commitment is considered an emotional response towards a brand (Abdelmajid, 1998). In transferring theories from the organisational literature it is hypothesized that:

H1: Cognitive C-C Identification is positively related to Corporate Commitment

In a product brand context, Tuškej et al. (2013) find support for a positive effect of C-B identification on consumer commitment.

H2: Cognitive C-B Identification is positively related to Brand Commitment

Behavioral Consequences: Advocacy and Loyalty

In an organizational setting, leading authors have denoted lower turnover rates being a result of employee identification (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Dutton et al., 1994). Further, employee identification can result in behaviors that aim to preserve, support and improve an organization (Dutton et al., 1994; Scott & Lane, 2000). In line with the organizational literature, in a company-consumer setting the level of identification is likely to stimulate the company-consumer to support a company in many ways (Ahearne et al., 2005). Fundamental to the idea of social identity is the deviation from pure self-interest towards benefiting the social entity one identifies with (Bhat & Reddy, 1998). In the organizational literature this behavioral outcome has been termed as citizenship behavior (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000) while authors in a consumer-company setting refer to company benefitting behavior as

in-role and extra-role behavior (Ahearne et al., 2005). Previously studied in-role behavior addresses behavioral loyalty (purchase, utilization and repurchase) and extra-role behaviors include company promotion, word-of-mouth, recruitment of other customers and product improvement suggestions (Ahearne et al., 2005). Scholars have noted that positive word-of-mouth is one of the most desirable and important outcomes resulting from consumer relationship efforts (Brown et al., 2005). The underlying idea behind word-of-mouth is the spread of information among consumers that may contain product information, recommendation, and so on (Brown et al., 2005; Tuškej et al., 2013). From a marketer perspective, particular positive word-of-mouth (herein after advocacy) is of key interest.

In a corporate branding context, research has examined the importance for consumers to validate their social identity through actively communicating their affiliations with a social entity (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). It is suggested that cognitive identification stimulates the consumer to actively contribute to a company’s success through behavioral responses. In consumer research the constructs of company promotion (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003), word-of-mouth (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008) and advocacy (Stokburger-Sauer, 2010) have been implied to measure consumers’ behavioral responses to C-C identification. In the context of this study the term corporate advocacy will be used to describe corporate promotion and word-of-mouth. It is hypothesized that:

H3: Cognitive C-C Identification is positively related to Corporate Advocacy.

In terms of product branding, authors suggest that identification also relates positively to brand advocacy (Tuškej et al., 2013). In the addition to the obvious support for a brand of spreading information among actual and potential consumers (Brown et al., 2005), brand advocacy can be regarded a tool for consumers to actively communicate their belongingness to a particular brand. In the context of C-B identification numerous studies have highlighted the effect of brand identification on brand advocacy (Kim et al., 2001; Río, Vázquez, & Iglesias, 2001; Tuškej et al., 2013). Brand advocacy can reach from sheer promotion, over product recommendation towards active communication of recommendations for the brand (Algesheimer, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005).

H4: Cognitive C-B Identification is positively related to Brand Advocacy.

While commitment is regarded the psychological power that connects the consumer with a corporate or product brand (Morgan & Hunt, 1994), loyalty is considered the behavioral aspect of a strong brand-consumer relationship. Research in C-C identification has defined loyalty as the second distinct category of behavioral outcomes, in-role behaviors (Ahearne et al., 2005). In-role behaviors refer to the exhibition of identification with a company. Despite supporting the company one identifies with, research shows that the purchase of a company’s products results from the consumers’ desire for self-expression of the affiliation with a particular company. Hence, in-role behavior can be interpreted as mainly self-directed in terms of self-identity expression. While C-C identification takes place on a company level, in-role behavior steps down towards a product level, the actual product purchase. Current research employs variables like repurchase (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008) and company loyalty (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003) to measure consumption resulting from consumer-company identification.

H 5: C-C Identification is positively related to Corporate Loyalty.

It is argued that C-C identification has the potential that consumption spans across the product portfolio in terms of new product trials, product switching and cross sales rather than being limited to mere repurchase of a particular product (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). While Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) propose greater possibility of consumer identification on a company rather than on a product level, current knowledge remains with a mere assumption and lacks empirical proof. While Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) study behavioral loyalty triggered by consumer identification on a company level, researchers studying consumer-brand identification find similar outcomes through the identification with a product brand. In addition to C-B identification positively relating to customer commitment, research supports the idea of identification being linked to the behavioral component of customer loyalty (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012). On a company level the effect of C-C identification on company loyalty has been highlighted (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003), yet authors focusing in their research on a product brand level proof a similar effect on brand loyalty (S K Lam et al., 2010; Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012)

The Mediating Role of Affective Commitment

Despite the discussion of affective commitment resulting from a prior cognitive self-categorization, holistically identification demonstrates favorable outcomes for the social entity in question. Following the multidimensional thinking of Bergami and Bagozzi (2000), affective commitment is considered a mediator between cognitive identification and behavioral outcomes. While Ahearne et al. (2005) solely draw upon the cognitive dimension of identification, the potential mediating effect of affective commitment on behavioral consequences of C-C identification finds empirical support in the organizational literature (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). Given a hypothesized direct relationship between C-C Identification and behavioral outcomes it is proposed that:

H7: Corporate Commitment partially mediates the relationship between cognitive C-C Identification and behavioral outcomes.

While scholars in the field of C-C identification have not recognized the mediating effect of affective commitment, the proposed effect finds support in a product brand context (Brown et al., 2005). Numerous studies have observed a relationship between affective commitment and behavioral brand outcomes (Fullerton, 2005; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Similar to the cognitive dimension of identification, consumers’ seek to support the entity one is attached to. Consequently, consumers’ will act accordingly and repurchase brands and actively communicate brands when being affectively committed (Fullerton, 2005).

H8: Brand Commitment partially mediates the relationship between cognitive C-B Identification and behavioral outcomes.

2.2.8 Interaction between C-C identification and C-B identification

Previous research has established knowledge about the individual effects of identification towards two related entities, the company and its brands. On a corporate level authors report positive behavioral outcomes on a product brand level, namely purchase and repurchase (Ahearne et al., 2005). What remains unexplored is whether the results hold when changing from a corporate to a product

brand context. Authors have recognized the coexistence of interpersonal social selves and collective social selves in the same individual and highlight variations in activation depending on time and context (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Given that a rather new research stream reports favorable behavioral outcomes of C-C identification on a corporate level (Ahearne et al., 2005), testing whether these hold when being confronted with the actual product brand will allow to approximate a real purchase situation. In the realm of product brands studies have reported a relationship between C-B identification and brand loyalty (S K Lam et al., 2010; Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012).

What remains unclear is whether C-C identification directly affects product brand responses, hence whether the thesis of favorable behavioral outcomes of C-C identification holds when changing contexts, or if the product brand is a stronger frame of reference. Particularly in corporate branding main revenue stream stems from the multiple product brands, which makes it inevitable to discover the relationship between C-B identification and C-C identification and potential direct effects of C-C identification on consumer behavioral outcomes on a product level.

The difference between product brand and corporate brand is not only discussion of different levels within an organization but involves deeper structures manifested in social identity theory. Previously recognized, the difference between product brand and corporate brand activates different levels of social selves, an interpersonal level (product brand) and collective level (corporate brand). Authors have recognized the coexistence of interpersonal social selves and collective social selves in the same individual and highlight variations in activation depending on time and context (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). It is assumed that C-B identification emerges from an interpersonal relationship between the consumer and the product brand, whereas C-C identification originates from non-formal membership with a company. The main difference between interpersonal and collective identity is the requirement of a personal relationship between the individual and the partner in a dyadic relationship, while collective identity does not rely on personal relationships among the group members (Brewer & Gardner, 1996).

Brewer and Gardner (1996) put forward that on an interpersonal level attraction is determined by matching of personality traits between the two parties in a dyadic relationship, hence identification

is dependent on the level of overlaps. On a collective level, liking or other positive evaluations solely depend on the individuals’ self-categorization as a member of this group, hence the awareness of a shared group identity. Distinct from identification on an interpersonal level, liking or positive evaluation of in-group members is not a cause but rather a consequence of collective social identity (Hogg & Turner, 1985). Consequently liking and positive evaluations can occur in the absence of attraction on an interpersonal level (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). To extend this idea to a branding context, identification with a corporate brand might induce product brand liking or positive evaluation without the attraction towards a particular product brand by itself. Due to the different way in which interpersonal and collective identification originates, Brewer and Gardner (1996) elevate this thinking towards a transformation of non-liking on an interpersonal level towards preference on a collective level when belonging to the in-group one identifies with. This thinking has been empirically tested in controlled experiment setting (Hogg & Turner, 1985) and in a field experiment based on real-life groups (e.g. sport teams, campus groups) (Banaji & Prentice, 1994). Given the empirical support in social psychology (Brewer & Gardner, 1996), in translating findings to a branding context it is proposed that:

H 9: C-C Identification directly affects product brand responses.

Next, hypothesized relationships are visualized in a conceptual framework. After illustration, the methodology chapter informs about variable measurement and methodological choices.

2.3 Conceptual Research Framework

Figure 1: Conceptual Research Framework H9 H7 Corporate Commitment H5 H1 H3 Cognitive C-C Identification Corporate Advocacy Corporate Loyalty H8 Brand Commitment H6 H2 H4 Cognitive C-B Identification Brand Advocacy Brand Loyalty

Chapter 3: Methodology

Chapter 3 informs the reader about used methods, particularly validity and reliability of findings, research strategy, research design, sampling method, sample characteristics and construct measurements. This study comprises of two studies. Study 1 investigates hypothesized relationships in an endorsement branding setting while study 2 further elaborates on the effect of C-C identification on product brand outcomes under the influence of different brand architectural designs and product brand lifecycles.

3.1 Research Strategy

This explanatory study opts to find explanation for the effects of corporate brand identification on product brand responses. Based on established theories, conclusions were deducted and expressed in hypotheses. These hypotheses are derived from existing theories and will be used to confirm the original theoretical propositions. The idea is to add to current understanding and extend the logic of potential outcomes of brand identification towards a hypothesized interaction effect between two entities in question, namely the effects of corporate brand identification on product brand outcomes.

Quantitative research enables the researcher to summarize huge information sources and further assists in making comparisons across the data outputs. One major advantage of quantitative research over qualitative studies is the accuracy and objectivity of the data. Concerning data analysis, the process of reliability and validity testing is rather unproblematic since it employs prescribed methods (Bryman & Bell, 2003). Since quantitative research enables the research to keep distance from the research subjects, interviewer bias is almost totally eliminated. With the requisite of a well drafted research, quantitative research keeps external factors to a minimum which leads to unbiased results (Bryman & Bell, 2003). Leading researchers in identification (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012) also adopted quantitative methods to explain the relationship between consumer identification and potential outcomes.

3.2 Brand Selection - Pretest

With the aim of identifying most suitable corporate brand/product brand combination a pretest was conducted. In order to integrate corporate and product brands with high global prominence and consumer brand awareness, brand selection for the pretest was derived by thorough analysis of various company profiles on Euromonitor International Ltd. Preliminary selection criteria were global corporate prominence, well known product brands and identical primary brand elements (logo, brand name) among the various markets.

The selection for the pretest consisted of four corporate brands in sectors including technology, consumer electronics and FMCG (see Appendix D:a for the full questionnaire). To find a good pairing between corporate and product brand, three product brands for each corporate brand were tested on the consumers’ level of identification. Definitive selection was based on four predefined selection criteria:

High variation in consumer identification between corporate and product brand High variation in consumer identification among the respondents

Awareness of the connectedness between corporate and product brand among the respondents

Near normal distribution

The pretest sample consisted of n=25 completed questionnaires. The age ranged from 20 to 64 years of age, with the majority between 20 and 24 years (56 %) followed by 36 % being between 25 and 34 years old. With 36 % most respondents were Dutch, followed by 28 % Austrians and 16 % Germans. The rest was fairly equally distributed among UK, Spain and Israel nationals. (Appendix A:a.i)

Based on the results, the corporate brand Ferrero and its product brand nutella were selected for the primary research of this study. This combination shows excellent values in terms of its variation between C-B Identification with nutella and C-C Identification with Ferrero. The findings show that some respondents highly identify with a product brand while showing low identification with the corporate brand and vice versa (see Appendix A:a.iii and Appendix A:a.iv). In terms of variation among the respondents, values range from 1 to 7 for each; product- and corporate brand (on a scale

from 1 [A] far apart to 8 [H] complete overlap). With reference to the third criterion, 48 % of the respondents were aware of the connectedness between Ferrero and nutella. C-C Identification was normally distributed with skewness of -.116 (SE.464) and kurtosis -.956 (SE .902). As well for C-B Identification acceptable values of skewness -.233 (SE .464) and kurtosis -1.410 (SE .902) are present in the data. Further details can be found in Appendix A:a.ii.

3.3 Research Design

Study 1 follows a cross-sectional design. With interest in variations in corporate and product brand outcomes based on the level of identification with an entity, the company and the brand, numerous cases will be selected. While a cross-sectional design offers major advantages including collection of large numbers of cases, major disadvantage is considered the lacking explanatory power of causal relationship. Based on research design, this study is limited to examining relationships between variables, yet lacks the ability of explaining directionality.

To further elaborate on the findings in study 1 in terms of the effect of C-C identification on product brand outcomes, the influence of C-C identification was further tested based on four different treatment conditions. Study 2 follows an experimental research design. With the advantage of discovering causal relationships, the proposed research design allows to ascertain differences in the effect of C-C identification on product brand outcomes based on the manipulation of brand architecture strategy and product brand lifecycle.

Table 1: Treatment Conditions (2x2 Factorial Design) Brand architecture Endorsement Sub-branding

Brand lifecycle Existing EE (Brand 1) SE (Brand 2) New EN (Brand 3) SN (Brand 4)

To elaborate on the aspect of proximity between corporate and product brand the factor brand architecture design, namely an endorsement and sub-branding setting has been chosen. Further the aspect of an existing relationship between consumer and the product brand has been manipulated

based on the factor product brand lifecycle. The factors brand lifecycle (existing, new) and brand architecture strategy (endorsement, sub-branding) have been identified for study 2. With the aim of discovering differences in the effect of C-B identification on product brand outcomes, different factor levels reaching from endorsement branding to sub-branding and new to exiting brand were determined. Consequently, the total number of four possible treatment conditions is reached.

3.4 Data Collection

To obtain a sample of consumers who are aware of the corporate brand and product brand, data collection in this study is conducted by means of an online survey distributed through social media (Appendix D:b). The sampling procedure of an online survey spread through social media is a form on non-probability snowball sampling, giving each initial contact the opportunity to share the survey with other consumers. While studies have not yet extensively used social media platforms for data collection, cost and time efficiencies have been denoted as major advantages (Brickman Bhutta, 2012).

The self-completion questionnaire for study 1 was available in English, German and Dutch to keep bias through language deficiencies to a minimum. The translation process was overseen by a minimum of two external people to find the optimal wording that most closely corresponds with the original scale measures in English. The survey for study 1 was initially made available on social media groups linked to the University of Amsterdam and University of Vienna. In the application of a snowball sample, the questionnaire was further distributed through the members in the various groups and data collection was obtained within the timeframe of 8th of May 2014 until 23rd of May 2014. Pre-condition for the respondents’ participation in the survey is the knowledge of Ferrero being a corporate brand. For this purpose a filtering question was employed. From 567 started questionnaires, 73 responses were filtered out due to lacking knowledge about the corporate brand and a further 236 respondents missed to complete the survey. As a result n=258 responses were included in the final study, which results in a completion rate of 45.5 %.

For study 2, the self-completion questionnaire was made available only in German language and has been made available in social media groups of the University of Vienna. Data collection was

conducted between 14th and 19th of June 2014. From 452 started questionnaires, n=248 completed questionnaires could be included in the study, which equals a completion rate of 54.9 % (Appendix D:c.)

3.4.9 Sample Characteristics in Study 1 and Study 2

In study 1, with 78.3 %, female respondents predominate. In terms of age, the group of 18 to 24 year olds (66.7%) forms the largest age category, followed by the age category between 25 to 34 years with 29.1 %. The remaining respondents were almost evenly distributed among the three following categories reaching from 35 to 64 years of age. With 70 %, most respondents were Austrian nationals, followed by German respondents (11 %) and other European countries (11 %). The remaining respondents (8 %) include the United States, Russia, Armenia, Kosovo, China, Morocco, Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia. See Table 17: Nationality and Table 18: Gender and Age, Appendix A:b.i for further details.

Similar to study 1, the majority of respondents in study 2 are female (73 %). Also in terms of age, the group of 18 to 24 year olds (65.3%) is the most frequent age category, followed by the age category between 25 to 34 years with 28.6 %. The remaining respondents were almost evenly distributed among the three following categories reaching from 35 to 64 years of age. With 89.9 %, most respondents were Austrian nationals, followed by German (6.9 %) respondents and other European countries (2.4 %). Details are illustrated in Table 18: Gender and Age and Table 19: Nationality ,Appendix A:b.ii.

The high frequency of female respondents and the large age group of 18 to 24 year olds can be explained by the initial group that has been approached to participate in the survey. The survey has been distributed in various university groups of the University of Amsterdam and University of Vienna. Due to access requirements of the different groups, most groups were connected to the faculty of economics of UvA and faculty of education of UW. Particularly at the faculty of education at university of Vienna female students highly outweigh males, which can be explanatory for the predomination of female respondents in this study.