The different value of brand values for business and
business-to-consumer customers
The impact of collectivistic and individualistic values on brand attitude and brand identification
Xanthe Verhoek (11384271) University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Theo Araujo
Abstract
This study examines the relation between customer role and brand value effectiveness using an experimental design. Although previous research shows that branding is not only important in a business to consumer (B2C) context but also in business-to-business (B2B) context, limited research focusses on the effects of the differences of customer role on branding and brand value preferences. As a result of this, marketing and communication managers are struggling to implement information they receive on B2B branding. This study therefore adds to theory by providing knowledge about the relationship between brand values and attitudes towards the ad, brand attitudes and brand identification and the influence of customer role on this relationship. The findings of this study suggest that customer role is not of importance in the choice of brand values. Furthermore, this study also suggests that organizations, no matter what kind of customer they focus on, should strive to incorporate collectivistic
(group-oriented) brand values in their branding strategy to create a significant increase in brand attitude and brand identification. For marketers and communication specialists these are interesting findings because they can help organizations with choosing the appropriate brand values to enhance the effectiveness of their branding strategy.
Keywords: branding, brand values, individualism, collectivism, customer role, B2B,
Introduction
Following the recent economic crisis and the related decrease in demand for products and services, business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) organizations increasingly try to set up branding strategies to enlarge their market share and profitability. The growing interest in branding did not only result in an increase in marketing budgets for 85% of the organizations in Europe (Econsultancy, 2016; Statista, 2017), but currently brands are viewed as one of the most valuable intangible assets that a firm has (Beverland, Napoli & Lindgreen, 2007; Keller & Lehmann, 2006). To optimize the profit of their brand, most organizations use a branding strategy. Branding is defined as the process of “endowing products and services with the power of a brand” (Kotler & Keller, 2012, p. 265). Branding is used to create differences between products and services of different organizations (Kotler & Keller, 2012).
In the contemporary hypercompetitive environment, an average person is exposed to approximately 2000 advertising messages a day, while only ten percent can be recalled (Lusensky, 2010). This means that only really outstanding branding strategies attract attention. When an organization wants to stand out from the crowd, a unique corporate identity is needed. This unique identity enables customers to recognize a brand and to helps them to differentiate the brand from others (Kilian, 2010). When communicating a unique identity, all corporate communication elements have to be integrated and communicate a consistent and congruent message (Bick, Jacobsen & Abratt, 2003). Especially the use of brand values helps an organisation to differentiate itself from competitors and to stay
consistent. Brand values (also defined as core values or brand core values) are a set of words that summarize “mindsets rooted within an organisation and the essential perceptions held by customers and non-customer stakeholders defining the identity of the brand” (Urde, 2009, p. 621). The brand values communicated in the branding strategy create a brand personality, “the
set of human characteristics associated with the brand” (Aaker, 1997, p. 347). People assign human characteristics to brands, based on their communication and behaviour (Reeves & Nass, 1996). What an organization communicates about its brand values thereby influences whether customers see the brand as a good or a bad ‘person’, and whether they like the brand or not.
While branding, brand values and their consequences are seen as important in consumer markets, they have long been perceived as being largely irrelevant to business markets (Mudambi- McDowell, Doyle, & Wong, 1997), due to a belief that B2B customers are unaffected by the emotional values corresponding to brands (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011). Although findings of research in B2B branding are diverse, various studies (e.g. Bengtsson & Servais, 2005; Low & Blois, 2002; Michell, King, & Reast, 2001; Mudambi, 2002; Ohnemus, 2009) have identified numerous benefits of B2B branding for organizations, like an increase in customers' confidence in- and satisfaction with their purchase decision (Low & Blois, 2002; Michell, et al., 2001) and reduced perceived risk and uncertainty of the customer (Bengtsson & Servais, 2005; Mudambi, 2002; Ohnemus, 2009). This shows that branding is not only decisive in B2C, but also in B2B customer choice processes (Kuhn, Alpert & Pope, 2008).
Even though the benefits of a branding strategy and brand values are clear, B2B organizations have difficulties with their implementation. Leek and Christodoulides (2011) mention two reasons why branding is difficult for B2B organizations. First, there is a lack of academic research in B2B branding, especially when compared with B2C branding (Lynch & de Chernatony, 2004; Ohnemus, 2009). As B2B and B2C markets differ significantly in contextual, psychological, and marketing variable conditions (Gilliland & Johnston, 1997) it is argued that the business markets require a different branding approach (Brown, Bellenger & Johnston, 2007), and therefore a different set of brand values for their branding strategy.
Secondly, branding is seen as difficult and impractical in a B2B market due to the fact that B2B organizations have thousands of products (Bendixen, Bukasa, & Abratt, 2004), which requires brand values that relate to all of the organizations’ products. While even basic theoretical questions (e.g. whether B2B and B2C customers require a different branding approach) are unanswered, much of the research in B2B branding has little or no theoretical underpinnings (Ohnemus, 2009). Therefore, it is needed to develop practical knowledge about B2B branding to enable B2B marketers to make informed decisions about their branding strategy (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011).
Additionally, customers use brands to express themselves, to show others what they stand for (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Customers therefore tend to look for brands that reflect and reinforce their self-identities (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). As business- and consumer customers differ, especially in contextual conditions like risk of buying and individual versus group decision making processes (Brown et al., 2007), it is logical to assume that these different customers identify themselves with different brand values. Surprisingly, the current state of research shows that not much is known about differences in brand value preferences between B2B and B2C customers. This specific gap in the literature is remarkable because brand values are an important point of differentiation and form the base of a branding strategy.
This study therefore aims at filling the research gap by investigating the effects of the differences between B2B and B2C customers on brand value preferences. The difference between the two customer groups will be measured by their impact on desirable outcomes, such as brand attitude and brand identification. Especially brand attitudes and brand
identification can be considered important to marketers and communication officers as they result in positive outcomes for the organisation like brand preference and repurchase intentions (Kuenzel & Vaux Halliday, 2008; Tildesley & Coote, 2009). Furthermore, the
outcomes brand attitude and brand identification are strong indicators of the level of reinforcement of customers’ self-identities, and are therefore a clear indicator of the effectiveness of the communicated brand values. An experimental design aims to provide answers to the following research question: How do communicated brand values influence
brand attitude and brand identification for B2B and B2C customers?
Theoretical Framework Brand values and behavioural motivations
The strength of a brand is generated through the leverage of its name, symbol, logo or values, the parts of a brand that can be vocalized or communicated (Kotler, 1998). Especially brand values can help organizations in building an image and create and communicate
functional or symbolic associations that confer uniqueness to a brand (e.g. Doyle & Wong, 1998). Brand values summarize the brand’s intrinsic and extrinsic core meaning and help maintaining a consistent image over the long term (e.g. Aaker, 1996).
Brand values are a set of words that summarize “mindsets rooted within an
organisation and the essential perceptions held by customers and non-customer stakeholders defining the identity of the brand” (Urde, 2009, p. 621). Accordingly, brand values are not general but are formulated specifically for one brand. The brand values create a brand personality, “the set of human characteristics associated with the brand” (Aaker, 1997, p. 347). The brand personality is very important for a brand, as it is a difficult task for customers to continually assess the extent to which a brand reflects their individual values. An easier approach for customers is therefore to personify brands, which enables them to recognise the values portrayed by competing brands (de Chernatony, 2010).
When the brand values create a personality that connects to the values of a customer, the customer is drawn to the brand (de Chernatony, 2010). This can result in multiple positive
consequences, like repeated buying behaviours and higher spending (Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995). To create the brand personality, values have to be built into the product, expressed in behaviour and reflected in communication (Urde, 2001). The way customers interpret the communications about the brand affects the attitude towards-, and the
identification with the corporate brand (Christiansen & Askegaard, 2001). Consequently, communicating brand values result in advantages like reputation, legitimacy and identification (Jonsen, Galunic, Weeks, & Braga, 2015). Espousing values has thereby become an important part of corporate communications strategies (Jonsen et al., 2015).
B2B and B2C Customers and Role Theory
Which values are most effective to expose depends on the personality and the values of the target customer. B2B customers can be defined as organizations or sole proprietorships that buy products or services from other organizations. B2C customers are customers who buy products or services from an organization for their own consumption. Prior research generally stated that business and consumer markets differ in decision-making processes (Brown, Zablah, Bellenger, & Donthu, 2012; Mudambi, 2002; Webster & Wind, 1972). B2B customers use more formal, longer, group decision-making processes, especially in large organizations (Gordon, Calantone, & di Benedetto, 1993; Morris, Berthon, & Pitt, 1999; Rozin, 2004). As products pose a higher economic risk for B2B than for B2C customers, B2B customers are more involved in the purchase decision. (Homburg, Klarmann, & Schmitt, 2010; Lynch & de Chernatony, 2004; Zablah, Brown, & Donthu, 2010). Furthermore, B2B customers are generally rational, using high levels of cognition during decision-making processes. This is in contrast with B2C customers, who tend to be less involved and make less rational choices (Lothia, Donthu, & Hershberger, 2003; Minett, 2002; Swani, Milne, & Brown, 2013).
The different behaviours of B2B and B2C customers can be further explained by role theory. Role taking is one of the most important characteristics of social behaviour (Biddle, 1986). Role theory defines role taking as a process in which ‘human beings behave in ways that are different and predictable depending on their respective social identities and the situation’ (Biddle, 1986, p. 68). Role theory suggests that expectations from the environment create certain roles, expectations are learned through experience, and people are aware of the expectations they hold (Ashforth, 1985). Therefore, a B2B customer wants to fulfil his role as an employee, while B2C customers are more focussed on personal satisfaction. Performing actions in a certain ‘role’ can thereby influence brand attitudes and suggests that what makes a brand valuable in a consumer-context may differ from brands in an organizational context (Kuhn et al., 2008).
What makes a brand valuable, and which brand values stand out can also depend on the country of interest. Ten values (e.g. power) are found to be worldwide important values guiding human behaviour (Schwartz, 1992). It has been found that these values can be divided into three sets that oppose each other based on their attainment: attainment that serves
individual interests (power, achievement), collective interests (benevolence, universalism) and mixed interests (tradition, conformity, security, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction)
(Schwarz, 1992). In western countries like the Netherlands an average person often holds individual interests, while Asian countries are known for their collectivism (Eckersley, 2006). Customers in the Netherlands who can make decisions on their own are therefore likely to be drawn to brands with individualistic values. While B2B customers differ from B2C customers through making more decisions in groups, it is suggested that B2B customers will base
decisions on values which show collective interest, as B2C customers are more individually oriented. This is likely to happen even in a non-group setting, because B2B customers
learned through role taking how to behave based on environment, experience, expectations of others and the situation (Ashforth, 1985).
Customers and Brand Attitudes
The communicated brand values can evoke different brand attitudes. Brand attitudes can be defined as “the degree of positivity or negativity with which a brand is evaluated” (e.g. Whan Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, & Iacobucci, 2010, p. 1). Brand attitudes are important in this study, because together with brand identification they are strong indicators of the level of reinforcement of customers’ identities. As brands are used as a way of self-expression, the brand will be perceived as attractive when it helps customers to express their identity (Belk, 1988). When a brands’ personality (created by its values) is expressed and matches the identity of the customer, the brand personality positively affects the customers attitude towards the brand (Kim, Han, & Park, 2001). This indicates that B2B customers should have a more positive attitude towards a brand when collectivistic values are communicated, because these correspond to their work role identity and meet their self-definitional needs. As western countries are known for their individualism (Hofstede & Soeters, 2002), the B2C customers in this study are expected to show a more positive brand attitude when individualistic values are communicated. These expectations result in the following hypotheses:
H1a. B2B customers show higher brand attitudes when they have read the
collectivistic brand value advertisement compared with the individualistic brand value advertisement.
H1b. B2C customers show higher brand attitudes when they have read the
individualistic brand value advertisement compared with collectivistic brand value advertisement.
Customers and Brand Identification
Besides brand attitudes, brand identification has been found to be an important measure of the reinforcement of customer self-identity (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2010). Brand identification refers to the individual’s sense of sameness with a particular brand (Tuškej, Golob, & Podnar, 2011, p. 53). The concept is based on the social identity theory, which states that people articulate their ‘sense of self’ and go beyond their personal identity to develop a social identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Turner, 1975). In the marketing context, this means that customers create a social identity by associating themselves with brands that reflect and reinforce their self-identities (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Brands and possessions help customers emphasize their uniqueness and express their identity, leading to feelings of affinity towards the brand (McEwen, 2005; Tuškej et al., 2011) and they can even be used as an extension of an identity, an ‘ideal-self’ (Belk, 1988).
As brands help customers to emphasize their uniqueness and express their identity, customers often choose brands that create a sense of sameness with a particular brand (Tuškej et al., 2011). When the values a brand communicates are the values that a customer wants to identify with, it is likely that the communication will have a positive effect on the level of brand identification. This indicates that B2B customers would show higher brand
identification when collectivistic values are communicated, because these correspond to the group-identity they have (Brown et al., 2007). Accordingly, B2C customers would show higher brand identification when individualistic values are communicated. This results in the following hypotheses:
H2a. B2B customers show higher levels of brand identification when they have read the collectivistic brand value advertisement compared with the individualistic brand value advertisement.
H2b. B2C customers show higher levels of brand identification when they have read the individualistic brand value advertisement compared with collectivistic brand value advertisement.
Attitude towards the advertised message
Targeting specific customers by communicating brand values can bring advantages for an organisation, but how the communicated message is formulated and what the
advertisement looks like can influence the effectiveness of the advertisement. According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) a person's attitude is “a function of his salient beliefs at a given point in time" (p. 222).Attitudes develop out of the beliefs people hold about the object of the attitude, and they can be positive or negative (Ajzen, 1991). Therefore, the attitudes that individuals hold towards a seen advertisement significantly influence the effects of the ad (Mehta, 2000). Attitudes towards the ad have been found to be an important antecedent of brand attitudes (e.g. Mackenzie, Scott, & Lutz, 1989), and can influence effectiveness of advertisement (Chen & Wells, 1999). As an individuals’ attitude toward an advertised brand might be affected by the evaluation of the advertisement (Mitchell & Olson, 2000), it is important to take this mediator into account in several ways.
First, the ‘need to identify’ with a brand is based on associations that customers have with respect to that brand (e.g. Nandan, 2005). These associations can be formed based on product evaluations, experiences, or communication efforts (Lynch & de Chernatony, 2004). It is therefore expected that when the communicated message results in a positive attitude, positive associations will be formed. It is argued that when customers have a positive attitude towards the communicated message this will result in a higher level of brand identification. Attitudes towards the message can thereby mediate the relationship between the
H3: Attitudes towards the ad mediate the relationship between the communicated message and brand identification.
Secondly, brand attitudes have also been found to be mediated by attitudes towards the advertisement (Gardner, 1985). The evaluation of an advertisement can positively or
negatively affect the attitude of an individual towards the advertised brand (Mitchell & Olson, 2000). It is therefore expected that when the attitude towards the ad is positive, this will result in more positive attitudes towards the brand. Attitudes towards the ad can thereby mediate the relationship between the communicated message and brand attitudes.
H4: Attitudes towards the ad mediate the relationship between the communicated message and brand attitudes.
Finally, it is likely that B2B customers differ from B2C customers in attitude towards the message, as the two groups have a different value orientation. It is therefore suggested that B2B customers evaluate a message about collectivistic values more positively than a message about individualistic values. In contrast, it is expected that B2C customers have a more positive attitude towards a message which contains individualistic values. This results in the following hypotheses:
H5a. B2B customers show higher attitudes towards the ad when they have read the collectivistic brand value ad compared with the individualistic ad.
H5b. B2C customers show higher attitudes towards the ad when they have read the individualistic brand value ad compared with the collectivistic ad.
It is suggested that the role of the customer can influence the effectiveness of the communicated brand values on brand attitudes, brand identification and attitudes towards the
ad. Although no relevant literature is available about the possibility that customer role
influences the mediation of attitudes towards the ad, it is important to find out as it points out which roles influence the effect of brand values and in what direction. Therefore, a sub-research question is proposed: Does the customer role moderate the mediation between
communicated brand values and brand attitudes, and brand values and brand identification?
An overview of this study can be found in the conceptual research model in figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual research model
Methods Experimental design
An online experiment with advertisements as stimuli in combination with a survey has been conducted. The experimental design was a two between-subjects (Brand values:
collectivistic vs. individualistic) x 2 between-subjects (Role: B2B or B2C customer) factorial design. An overview can be found in Table 1.
Table 1
Research Design
Communicated individualistic brand values Communicated collectivistic brand values B2C
customer
Individualistic brand value condition B2C customer (N = 83)
Collectivistic brand value condition B2C customer (N = 94)
B2B customer
Individualistic brand value condition condition B2B customer (N = 102)
Collectivistic brand value condition B2B customer (N = 92)
Procedure
Upon the start of the experiment, participants received an URL link that led them to the online survey-experiment. The online survey-experiment started with an informed consent form, through which they were informed that the experiment was about differences between B2B and B2C customers. This was followed by selection questions about role, to make sure that self-employed buyers would not enter the B2B or B2C group, and questions about personal information like age and gender. Then participants were randomly assigned to the individual brand value or the collectivistic brand value condition. After reading the
advertisement of a new phone brand, the scales of attitudes towards the ad, brand attitude, brand identification and product category involvement were presented. The manipulation check item rounded up the questionnaire.
Sample
Data was obtained between the 4th and 19th of May 2017. The participants were recruited in the Netherlands, in a non-random manner from the personal network of the researcher. The survey was spread through e-mail, Facebook, and LinkedIn. In total, 701 people participated in the online experiment. After removing dropouts (n = 230), people who
did not fit the study criteria (n = 80), and outliers (n = 20) using the outlier labelling rule with multiplier 2.2, and Mahalanobis Distance (Hoaglin, Iglewicz, & Tukey, 1986; Hoalin & Iglewicz, 1987), 371 valid cases remained for the data analysis.
About 48.7% of the respondents are male, the average age of the sample is 37 years (SD = 12.7) and most of the respondents have a Bachelor degree (42.9%). To see whether the different groups had equal levels of age and education, ANOVA’s with the two brand value conditions as independent variable and age and education as dependent variables were
conducted. Additionally, a chi-square test for gender was conducted. The results show that the collectivistic and individualistic brand value conditions do not have significant differences concerning age, gender or educational level. ANOVA’s with the different customer groups as independent variable and age, gender and education as independent variable were conducted. The results show that the different customer groups do have significant differences in age, F (1, 369) = 46.08, p < .001, educational level, F (1, 369) = 12.01, p = .016 and gender, F (1, 369) = 24.53, p < .001). This shows that the B2B and B2C groups do not have a similar group composition in age, education and gender.
Although differences were found between the different customer groups, no
differences were found between the two value conditions. Therefore, it was decided to keep the group compositions for further analysis, and include age, gender and education as controls.
Stimulus materials
In order to reduce the risk of measuring existing brand attitudes and levels of brand identification, a novel brand was created. To make sure that the findings could only be attributed to the communicated brand values, no extra information about the new brand was provided. The two advertisements contained exactly the same information about the product
(high quality, latest phones, low pricing), but differed in communicated brand values. The individualistic advertisement contained the values: a sense of accomplishment, self-respect, and independence, because these values have been found to be strongly associated with individualism (Laroche, Bergeron, & Barbaro-Forleo, 2001). The collectivistic advertisement contained only collectivistic values, namely: loving, helpful, warm relationship with others, protect the environment. These values have been found to be strongly associated with collectivism (Laroche et al., 2001). Both of the advertisements had the same lay-out and the same font (Appendix 1.1).
Pre-test
To make sure that the results of this study would be based on the levels of collectivism and individualism in the advertisements, the two advertisements were pre-tested on their level of individualism and collectivism. The participants of the pre-test (N = 13) were asked to read both of the advertisements about a new phone brand: AllPhone. After reading each advertisement the participants were asked to indicate to what extent the advertised brand stated to help them achieve individualistic or collectivistic goals. The measurement was a 3-item, bi-polar 7-point Likert scale, based on scales developed by Chen and West (2008). The respondents could indicate with which statement they agreed more, for example “according to the advertisement, this brand…” 1= “helps me to differentiate myself from the group”, 7 =
“helps me to belong to the group”. The lower scores corresponded with individualism, the
higher scores showed collectivism. A Paired-Sample t-test showed that there was a significant difference in scores on individualism/collectivism between the individualistic values (M = 2.97, SD = 1.4) and the collectivistic values (M = 5.13, SD = 1.3) conditions; t (12) = -3.03, p = .011. Given these results, both of the advertisements are suited for the current research purposes.
Dependent variables
Attitude towards the Ad. Attitude towards the ad was measured using a five- item, seven-point Likert-type scale based on de Pelsmacker, Geuens, and Anckaert (2002). Participants could indicate to what extent they agreed with a statement about the
advertisement, for example “while reading the advertisement I found it attractive…” 1= “strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”. The scale was reasonably reliable, as determined by α = .78 and Principal Components Factor Analysis (PCA) showed that all items load on one component. The scale could slightly be improved when removing one item, but it was decided to keep the item as the improvement was very low (α = .80).
Brand identification. Brand identification was measured using a four-item scale based on the six-item, seven-point Likert-type scale by Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel (2004). Two items of the original scale were left out, because they referred to ‘current stage in life’, which was not relevant for the B2B customers and could possibly distract them from their ‘role’. The participants were asked to what extent they agreed with a statement about the advertised Allphone brand, for example “The Allphone brand says a lot about the kind of person I would like to be…” 1= “strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”. The scale showed a high level of internal consistency (α = .91). PCA confirmed that all items load on one component.
Brand Attitude. Brand attitudes was measured on a scale composed of three, seven-point Likert-type statements developed by Sengupta and Johar (2002). Participants could show their attitude towards the Allphone brand by responding to statements like “My opinion of the Allphone brand is very favourable.” 1= “strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”. The scale showed a high level of internal consistency, as determined by α = .85. PCA showed that all items load on one component.
Control Variable
Product category involvement. Product category involvement is an important measure because prior research found that product category involvement influences
identification and attitudes, and it can therefore be a covariate in this study (Malär, Krohmer, Hoyer, & Nyffenegger, 2011; Reimann & Aron, 2009; Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, & Sen, 2012). Involvement with the product category attempts to measure the customer’s interest in a product category. It also measures a part of the self-concept of the individual by looking at the believes a person holds regarding the way a product category expresses something about one’s self and others. The scale is composed of six, five-point Likert-type statements based on Coulter, Price, and Feick (2003). Participants had to answer on statements like “Phones and phone subscriptions are important to me. ” 1= “strongly disagree”, 5 = “strongly agree”. The scale was reasonably reliable (α = .77) and PCA confirmed that all items load on one
component.
Manipulation check
A Chi-square test was conducted to test the effectiveness of the manipulation. The manipulation check was an attention check question which asked people to indicate which values they had been reading in the advertisement, e.g. “Which aspects where emphasized in the AllPhone advertisement you have read…?” 1 = “ambition, succesfull, individual,
independent”, 2 = “honesty, helpful, warm relationships, future generations”, 3 = “I do not remember”. The Pearson Chi-Square was significant 2(2) = 281.45, p < .001, which shows that there was a significant difference between the answers from the respondents in the different conditions and the expected answers and therefore a successful manipulation.
Results
To create a first overview of the relationships between the measured variables, the means, standard deviations and different Pearson’s correlations were generated. An overview can be obtained from Table 2.
Table 2
Overview of Means, Standard Deviations and Pearson’s Correlations
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Role 0.48 0.50
2 Brand values 0.50 0.50 -.06
3 Attitude towards the ad 3.63 0.98 -.03 -.18**
4 Brand Attitude 3.87 0.97 .06 -.13* .64**
5 Brand identification 3.15 1.32 .03 -.27** .52** .45**
6 Product category involvement 3.69 0.79 -.02 -.07 .21** .18** .36**
7 Gender 1.49 0.50 .25** .04 .06 .12* -.02 -.07
8 Age 37.30 13.31 -.33** -.06 -.11* -.13* -.20** -.19** -.08
9 Education 6.69 1.446 .13* .02 -.16** -.15* -.05 -.01 -.09 -.18**
Note. * = statistically significant at p < .05 level, ** statistically significant at p < .001 level
(2-tailed). For Role 0 = B2B customer, 1 = B2C customer. For Brand Values 0 = collectivistic condition, 1 = individualistic condition. For Education 1 = No education, 9 = Masters’ degree.
Analyses of Covariance
Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were performed to obtain insight in differences in the value conditions for B2B and B2C customers. The first ANCOVA was run in the B2B sample to determine whether B2B customers show higher brand identification (BA) when they have read the collectivistic brand value ad compared with the individualistic ad, after controlling for age, educational level, product category involvement and gender. The
0.30, p = .583. The difference in BA was not significant F (1, 188) = 2.01, p =.158, partial ƞ2 =.01, although BA was higher in the collectivistic brand value condition (M = 3.37, SD = 0.91) as compared with the individualistic condition (M = 3.75, SD = 0.96) as can be seen in Figure 2. Therefore, H1a is not supported. B2B customers do not have a significant higher BA when they have read the collectivistic brand value ad compared with the individualistic ad.
A second ANCOVA was conducted in the B2C sample to determine whether B2C customers show higher BA when they have read the individualistic brand value ad compared with the collectivistic ad, after controlling for age, educational level, product category involvement and gender. The assumption of homogeneity of variances was met, as assessed by Levene’s test, F (1, 175) = 0.51, p = .474. The difference between the conditions in BA was not significant, F (1, 171) = 2.78 p = .098, partial ƞ2 =.02. Therefore, H1b is not supported. B2C customers do not show significant higher BA when they have read the individualistic brand value ad compared with the collectivistic ad.
Figure 3. BI per condition
2,4 2,6 2,8 3 3,2 3,4 3,6 3,8 Ind Col B rand identi fi cat ion
Brand value condition Business buyer Consumer
Figure 2. BA per condition
3,5 3,6 3,7 3,8 3,9 4 4,1 4,2 Ind Col B rand A tt it ud e
Brand value condition Business buyer Consumer
A third ANCOVA was conducted in the B2B sample to determine whether B2B customers show higher brand identification (BI) when they have read the collectivistic brand value ad compared with the individualistic ad, after controlling for age, educational level, product category involvement and gender. The assumption of homogeneity of variances was met, as assessed by Levene’s test, F (1, 192) = 2.031, p = .156. BI was higher in the
collectivistic brand value condition (M = 3.43, SD = 1.33) as compared with the
individualistic condition (M = 2.82, SD = 1.22), as can be seen in Figure 3. The difference was significant, F (1, 188) = 15.86, p <.001, partial ƞ2 =.08. Bonferroni Post Hoc analysis indicated that BI was significantly greater in the collectivistic brand value condition (Mdifference = 0.70, p <.001). Therefore, H2a is accepted. B2B customers show higher BI when they have read the collectivistic brand value ad compared with the individualistic ad.
A fourth ANCOVA was conducted in the B2C sample to determine whether B2C customers show higher BI when they have read the individualistic brand value ad compared with the collectivistic ad, after controlling for age, educational level, product category involvement and gender. The assumption of homogeneity of variances was met, as assessed by Levene’s test, F (1, 175) = 3.25, p = .073. The difference between the conditions in BI was significant, F (1, 171) = 13.76 p < .001, partial ƞ2 =.07. Bonferroni Post Hoc analysis
indicated that BI was significantly greater in the collectivistic brand value condition (Mdifference = 0.67, p <.001). Therefore, H2b is rejected. B2C customers do not show higher BI when they have read the individualistic brand value ad compared with the collectivistic ad, they show higher BI for the collectivistic brand value ad.
A fifth ANCOVA was conducted in the B2B sample to determine whether B2B customers show higher attitudes towards the ad (Aad) when they have read the collectivistic brand value ad compared with the individualistic ad, after controlling for age, educational level, product category involvement and gender. The assumption of homogeneity of variances
was met, as assessed by Levene’s test, F (1, 192) = 0.14, p = .710. The difference in Aad was not significant F (1, 188) = 2.14, p = .145, partial ƞ2 =.01, although Aad was higher in the collectivistic brand value condition (M = 3.74, SD = 0.93) as compared with the
individualistic condition (M = 3.58, SD = 0.99). Therefore, H5c is not supported. B2B customers do not show significant higher Aad when they have read the collectivistic brand value ad compared with the individualistic ad.
A last ANCOVA was conducted in the B2C sample to determine whether B2C
customers show higher Aad when they have read the individualistic brand value ad compared with the collectivistic ad, after controlling for age, educational level, product category
involvement and gender. The assumption of homogeneity of variances was met, as assessed by Levene’s test, F (1, 175) = 1.56, p = .213. Aad was higher in the collectivistic brand value condition (M = 3.88, SD = 1.02) as compared with the individualistic condition (M = 3.30, SD = 0.89), the difference was significant, F (1, 171) = 11.31 p = .001, partial ƞ2 =.06. Bonferroni Post Hoc analysis indicated that Aad was significantly greater in the collectivistic brand value condition (Mdifference = 0.47, p = .001). Therefore, H5b is rejected. B2C customers do not show higher Aad when they have read the individualistic brand value ad compared with the
collectivistic ad.
Mediation
In order to analyse the mediations proposed in H2 and H4, the total, direct and indirect effects of brand values on BI and BA through Aad had to be investigated. Separate
hierarchical multiple regressions were performed to analyse the mediating effects of Aad on BI and BA with the covariates age, gender, product category involvement and education. Hierarchical multiple regressions allow a dependent variable prediction to be made while controlling for the effects of covariates. In these regressions, no differentiation was made
between customer roles. For both of the mediation models in Figure 4 the assumptions were met, unless stated otherwise.
Figure 4. Mediation Models. *p <.05, ** p <. 001. Note. Brand Values 0 = collectivistic, 1 = individualistic.
For mediation model 1, hierarchical regressions were run between the brand value conditions and Aad, Aad and BI, and brand value conditions and BI. In addition, it was determined whether the covariates age, education, gender and product category involvement improved the prediction of the dependent variables. Relationship a was significant, R2 = .110,
F (5, 365) = 9.06, p < .001, adjusted R2= .03 and including age, gender and education led to a
significant (p < .001) increase of R2 by 8%.
Relationship b was also significant, R2 = .347, F (5, 365) = 38.75, p < .001, adjusted R2= .34
and including age, gender and education led to a significant (p < .001) increase of R2 by 15.4%. Finally, relationship c was also significant, R2 = .218, F (5, 365) = 20.35, p < .001, adjusted R2= .21 and including age, gender and education led to a significant (p < .001)
increase of R2 by 15.4%. Additionally, the Sobel test showed that this model is significant (z = -3.33, p < .001). Therefore, H2 can be confirmed. Attitudes towards the message moderate the relationship between the communicated message and brand identification.
For mediation model 2, hierarchical regressions were run between the brand value conditions and Aad, Aad and BA, and brand value conditions and BA. Furthermore, it was determined whether the covariates age, education, gender and product category involvement
improved the prediction of the dependent variables. Relationship a was significant, R2 = .110,
F (5, 365) = 9.06, p < .001, adjusted R2= .03 and including age, gender and education led to a
significant (p < .001) increase of R2 by 8%. Relationship b was also significant, R2 = .426, F (5, 365) = 54.216, p < .001, adjusted R2= .42 and including age, gender and education led to a
significant (p < .001) increase of R2 by 8.3%. Finally, relationship c was also significant, R2 = .10, F (5, 365) = 7.94, p < .001, adjusted R2= .09 and including age, gender and education led
to a significant (p < .001) increase of R2 by 8.3%. Furthermore, the Sobel test showed that this model is significant (z = -3.42, p < .001). Therefore, H4 can be confirmed. Attitudes towards the message moderate the relationship between the communicated message and brand attitude.
Mediation Tests in Separate Samples
To be able to answer the proposed sub-research question: “Does the customer role
moderate the mediation between communicated brand values and brand attitudes, and brand values and brand identification?” hierarchical regressions were run, using the select cases
function on customer role. For completeness, first an ANCOVA was run with all the IV’s, DV’s and control variables. This ANCOVA showed no significant effects of role. An overview of the mediation tests with separate samples on BI can be found in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Mediation tests with separate samples for brand identification. *p <.05, ** p <. 001. Note. Brand Values 0 = collectivistic, 1 = individualistic.
For mediation model 1, hierarchical regressions were run between the brand value conditions and Aad, Aad and BI, and brand value conditions and BI. In addition, it was determined whether the covariates age, education, gender and product category involvement improved the prediction of the dependent variables. The model was tested once with the sample of B2B customers, and once with the sample of B2C customers to see whether role influenced the mediation. For the B2B sample, relationship a was significant, R2 = .06, F (5, 188) = 2.28, p = .048, adjusted R2= .03 and including age, gender and education led to a
non-significant (p = .060) increase of R2 by 4.7%. Relationship b was also significant, R2 = .36, F (5, 188) = 21.45, p < .001, adjusted R2= .35 and including age, gender and education led to a
significant (p < .001) increase of R2 by 11.7%. Furthermore, relationship c was also
significant, R2 = .19, F (5, 188) = 8.60, p < .001, adjusted R2= .16 and including age, gender
and education led to a significant (p < .001) increase of R2 by 11.7%. Finally, relationship c’ was also significant, R2 = .41, F (6, 187) = 21.44, p < .001, adjusted R2= .39. The effect size
(r = .64) shows a strong association. Afterwards, the Sobel test showed that this model is not significant (z = -1.45, p = .148). Therefore, it can be said that the relationship between brand values and BI is not significantly moderated by Aad in the B2B sample.
Secondly, the model was tested with the sample of B2C customers to see whether role influenced the mediation. For the B2C sample, relationship a was significant, R2 = .19, F (5, 171) = 8.18, p < .001, adjusted R2= .17 and including age, gender and education led to a
significant (p < .001) increase of R2 by 14%. Relationship b was also significant, R2 = .35, F (5, 171) = 18.30, p < .001, adjusted R2= .33 and including age, gender and education led to a
significant (p < .001) increase of R2 by 20%. Relationship c was also significant, R2 = .26, F (5, 171) = 12.14, p < .001, adjusted R2= .24 and including age, gender and education led to a
significant (p < .001) increase of R2 by 20.3%. Finally, relationship c’ was also significant, R2 = .37, F (6, 170) = 16.79, p < .001, adjusted R2= .35. The effect size (r = .61) shows a strong
association. Additionally, the Sobel test showed that this model is significant (z = -2.86, p = .004). Therefore, it can be said that the effect of brand values on BI is partly moderated (p < .05) by Aad in the B2C sample.
Figure 6. Mediation tests with separate samples for brand attitude. *p <.05, ** p <. 001. Note. Brand Values 0 = collectivistic, 1 = individualistic.
For mediation model 2, hierarchical regressions were run between the brand value conditions and Aad, Aad and BA, and brand value conditions and BA. In addition, it was determined whether the covariates age, education, gender and product category
involvement improved the prediction of the dependent variables. The model was tested once with the sample of B2B customers, and once with the sample of B2C customers as can be seen in Figure 6, to see whether role influenced the mediation. For the B2B sample, relationship a was significant, R2 = .06, F (5, 188) = 2.28, p = .048, adjusted R2= .03 and
including age, gender and education led to a non-significant (p = .060) increase of R2 by 4.7%. Relationship b was also significant, R2 = .42, F (5, 188) = 26.88, p < .001, adjusted R2= .40
and including age, gender and education led to a non-significant (p = .051) increase of R2 by 4.8%. Furthermore, relationship c was also significant, R2 = .06, F (5, 188) = 2.34, p = .044, adjusted R2= .03 and including age, gender and education led to a non-significant (p = .051)
increase of R2 by 4.8%. %. Finally, relationship c’ was also significant, R2 = .42, F (6, 187) = 22.40, p < .001, adjusted R2= .40. The effect size (r = .65) shows a strong association.
Afterwards, the Sobel test showed that this model is not significant (z = -1.45, p = .146). Therefore, it can be said that the relationship between brand values and BA is not significantly moderated by Aad in the B2B sample.
Secondly, the model was tested with the sample of B2C customers to see whether role influenced the mediation. For the B2C sample, relationship a was significant, R2 = .19, F (5, 171) = 8.18, p < .001, adjusted R2= .17 and including age, gender and education led to a
significant (p < .001) increase of R2 by 14%.
Relationship b was also significant, R2 = .45, F (5, 171) = 27.62, p < .001, adjusted R2= .43
and including age, gender and education led to a significant (p < .001) increase of R2 by 13.1%. Finally, relationship c was also significant, R2 = .15, F (5, 171) = 5.80, p < .001, adjusted R2= .12 and including age, gender and education led to a significant (p < .001)
increase of R2 by 13.1%. Finally, relationship c’ was also significant, R2 = .45, F (6, 170) = 22.93, p < .001, adjusted R2= .43. The effect size (r = .67) shows a strong association.
Additionally, the Sobel test showed that this model is significant (z = -3.17, p = .002).
Therefore, it can be said that the effect of brand values on BA is partly moderated (p < .05) by Aad in the B2C sample.
Conclusion & Discussion Discussion
The aim of this study was to provide new knowledge to marketers about the use of brand values and to fill critical gaps in academic research about the influence of customer role on brand value preferences. As B2B and B2C markets differ significantly in contextual and psychological conditions (Gilliland & Johnston, 1997), decision-making processes (Brown et al., 2012; Mudambi, 2002; Webster & Wind, 1972), and role (Biddle, 1986) it has been argued that the business markets require a different branding approach (Brown et al., 2007) and therefore a different set of brand values for their branding strategy. An experiment with
collectivistic and individualistic brand values was conducted with B2B and B2C customers from the Netherlands, and potential influencing factors drawn from literature like product category involvement (Malär et al., 2011; Reimann & Aron, 2009; Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012) were analysed to determine their influence.
Based on the differences between B2B and B2C customers in contextual and
psychological conditions, decision-making processes and customer role, it was expected that B2C customers would identify with individualistic brand values, while B2B customers would prefer collectivistic brand values. Surprisingly, no significant differences between B2B and B2C customers on levels of identification have been found in this study. The statement that business markets require a different branding approach (Brown et al., 2007) is therefore not supported. A possible explanation for this outcome is that associating oneself with a brand can not only happen based on actual-self, but also on ‘ideal-self’ (Belk, 1988). The finding that both customer groups preferred the collectivistic values can therefore indicate that the ideal-self of both customer groups is to focus on others. Further research is necessary to find out whether the effects of the differences between the ideal- and the actual-self affect the relationship between customer role, brand values, brand attitudes and brand identification.
Secondly, this study aimed to identify whether attitudes towards the ad mediated the relationship between the communicated brand values, brand identification and brand attitudes. Interestingly, a mediating relationship of attitudes towards the ad was found for both brand values and brand identification, and brand values and brand attitudes. Surprisingly, when the mediation tests were executed for the B2B sample, the mediation effect was not significant anymore. When the mediation tests were executed for the B2C sample, the mediation effect was still significant. This shows that the brand identification and brand attitude of B2C customers are influenced by the way the advertisement is formulated and presented, while B2B buyers are not distracted by the formulation and presentation of the advertisement. This
implies that B2B customers focus on the message of the advertisement, in contrast with the B2C customers. This finding is in line with literature (e.g. Brown et al., 2007) that states that communication about a brand in a business context tends to happen through personal or interactive selling rather than the traditional broadcast media often used in consumer contexts (Brown et al., 2007). As the brand values were communicated in this study as being in
traditional broadcast media, it might have been more suitable for B2C customers, and less for B2B customers based on the media choice. Future research should focus on the effects of media choice in the relationship between brand values and attitude towards the ad to
determine whether a different media- approach results in different attitudes towards the ad for B2B and B2C customers.
Finally, the results of this study add to theory by providing new insight in the use of individualistic and collectivistic values. In this study, the communicated collectivistic values resulted in significantly higher brand attitudes and levels of brand identification, compared with individualistic values. These results are in contrast with the expectations and in contrast with the existing literature (e.g. Schwarz, 1992; Eckersley, 2006), which states that western countries have an individualistic mind-set and are driven by individualistic values. A possible explanation for this finding comes from another dimension than how collectivistic or
individualistic a country is. Hofstede and Soeters (2002) mention several dimensions on which national cultures can be compared. One of these is the individualism-collectivism dimension, but a different one is the masculinity-feminity dimension. Hofstede & Soeters (2002) define masculinity as:
“the degree to which values like assertiveness, performance, success and competition, which in nearly all societies are associated with the role of men, prevail over values like quality of life, maintaining warm personal relationships, service, care for the weak
and solidarity, which in nearly all societies are associated with the role of women” (p. 8).
The Netherlands, which is the country of research, is considered to be a very
‘feminine’ country, which means that the dominant values are ‘soft’ and the society is ‘kind’ to its people (Hofstede & Soeters, 2002). This indicates that although the Netherlands score high on individualism, the Dutch still feel responsible to take care of the poor and needy (Hofstede & Soeters, 2002). As the collectivistic advertisement contained the value ‘helpful’ and words like ‘future generations’, this might have evoked feelings of association with the collectivistic advertised brand. Future research should therefore determine whether
individualistic values work better in a more masculine country when compared with a
feminine country like the Netherlands. This will help to gain more insight in the applicability and generalizability of the outcomes of this study to other countries.
Managerial implications
This study generated results that are very interesting for communication and marketing professionals. The brand identification of all of the respondents was clearly affected by the communicated brand values. In this case, the collectivistic brand values resulted in higher levels of brand identification for both of the customer groups. This indicates that when a organization aims to create a high level of customer identification with the brand, no matter what kind of customer they focus on, they should strive to incorporate collectivistic brand values in their branding strategy. The right choice of brand values can through identification result in multiple positive outcomes like brand preference and repurchase intentions (Kuenzel & Vaux Halliday, 2008; Tildesley & Coote, 2009).
From a communication perspective managers shouldconsider the role of the buyer, as this study has shown that the attitude towards the ad partially mediates the relationship
between brand values, brand identification, and brand attitudes for the B2C customers. When the communicated message targets B2C customers it is important to create an ad that is visually attractive, and clearly communicates the right brand values to create a more positive attitude towards the ad. For B2B customers there was no mediation of attitudes towards the ad, which shows that their attitudes of the ad did not result in higher or lower brand
identification and brand attitudes. Their opinion about the lay-out and format therefore seems to be less important than the communicated information in the message. It is therefore
recommended that when managers attempt to reach B2B customers they focus on a clear, informative message containing collectivistic values instead of creating a message that is only visually attractive.
Limitations
Although this study gave insight in the relationship between brand values, brand attitudes, brand identification and the effects of role on these relationships, certain limitations must be considered when interpreting the results. First, the study was conducted in the
Netherlands only. As countries differ in levels of individualism and collectivism, the results of this study only apply to the Netherlands and cannot be generalized to other countries. Second, this study focussed on an advertisement of a telephone provider brand. As phones can be seen as a high-involvement product category, an advertisement of a product from a
low-involvement category can possibly result in different outcomes. Therefore, the outcomes of this study may not be generalizable to other product categories. Such a limitation calls for further research in brand value communication and the effect of importance of different product categories on brand identification and brand attitude.
Furthermore, the results of this study show that using collectivistic or individualistic brand values in an advertisement do not result in different levels of identification between the
B2B and B2C customers. An explanation for this outcome found in literature is the social desirability bias (Fisher, 1993; Grimm, 2010). In the context of this study, it means that people may think that being individualistic (caring about the self) is not a desirable behaviour, while being collectivistic (caring about others) is seen as a desirable behaviour. Therefore, the respondents in the individualistic condition possibly did not show high levels of identification with the brand, while the respondents in the collectivistic condition did. Future research should therefore use a form of indirect questioning (Fisher, 1993) and ensure respondents that there are no wrong or bad answers to questions.
This study, despite the limitations, fulfilled its objectives by providing new knowledge to marketers about the use of brand values, and by filling critical gaps in academic research about the influence of customer role on brand value preferences. Not only does this study provide knowledge in the effectiveness of different values on different customers, it also suggests that organisations, no matter what kind of customer they focus on, should strive to incorporate collectivistic brand values in their branding strategy to create a significant increase in brand attitude and brand identification.
References
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Resisting temptations to change a brand position/execution: The power of consistency over time. Journal of Brand Management, 3(4), 251-258.
doi:10.1057/bm.1996.5
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 347-356. doi:10.2307/3151897
Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, A.S. (2004), When Good Brands Do Bad. Journal of
Consumer Research, 1–16. doi: 10.1086/383419
Ashforth, B. E. (1985). Climate formation: Issues and extensions. Academy of Management
Review, 10(4), 837-847. doi:10.5465/AMR.1985.4279106
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 20-39. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4278999
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-168. doi:10.1086/209154
Bendixen, M., Bukasa, K. A., & Abratt, R. (2004). Brand equity in the business-to-business market. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 371-380.
doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.10.001
Bengtsson, A., & Servais, P. (2005). Co-branding on industrial markets. Industrial Marketing
Management, 34(7), 706-713. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.06.004
Beverland, M., Napoli, J., & Lindgreen, A. (2007). Industrial global brand leadership: A capabilities view. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(8), 1082-1093.
doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.08.007
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76-88. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609
Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of
identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. The
Journal of Marketing, 46-57. doi:10.2307/1252327
Bick, G., Jacobson, M. C., & Abratt, R. (2003). The corporate identity management process revisited. Journal of Marketing Management, 19(7-8), 835-855.
doi:10.1080/0267257X.2003.9728239
Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12(1), 67-92. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435
Brown, B. P., Bellenger, D. N., & Johnston, W. J. (2007). The implications of business-to-business and consumer market differences for B2B branding strategy. Journal of
Business Market Management, 1(3), 209-230. doi:10.1007/s12087-007-0011-x
Brown, B. P., Zablah, A. R., Bellenger, D. N., & Donthu, N. (2012). What factors influence buying center brand sensitivity?. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(3), 508-520. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.008
Chen, F. F., & West, S. G. (2008). Measuring individualism and collectivism: The importance of considering differential components, reference groups, and measurement
invariance. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(2), 259-294. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.05.006
Chen, Q., & Wells, W. D. (1999). Attitude toward the site. Journal of Advertising
Research, 39(5), 27-38. Retrieved from:
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA111508662&sid=googleScho lar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=fulltext&issn=00218499&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount =1&isAnonymousEntry=true
Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. Dual-process theories in social psychology, 1, 73-96. Retrieved from:
https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=5X_auIBx99EC&oi=fnd&pg=PA73&dq =Chen,+S.,+%26+Chaiken,+S.+(1999).+The+heuristic- systematic+model+in+its+broader+context.+Dual- process+theories+in+social+psychology,+1,+73-96.&ots=OIVX4Rbhui&sig=d6pl7kEh37Wwb0DY_cE41xMFMMM#v=onepage&q& f=false
Coulter, R. A., Price, L. L., & Feick, L. (2003). Rethinking the origins of involvement and brand commitment: Insights from postsocialist central Europe. Journal of Consumer
Research, 30(2), 151-169. doi:10.1086/376809
De Chernatony, L. (1999). Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand identity and brand reputation. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1-3), 157-179. doi:10.1362/026725799784870432
De Chernatony, L. (2010). Creating powerful brands. Retrieved from:
https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=6BmbGYrvQBsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR2&d q=brand+values+and+personality&ots=EVKhB2zFFY&sig=JOwmx4pRSJ3Ban92Hs 3cOay-FHY#v=onepage&q=brand%20values%20and%20personality&f=false De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M., & Anckaert, P. (2002). Media context and advertising
effectiveness: The role of context appreciation and context/ad similarity. Journal of
Advertising, 31(2), 49-61. doi:10.1080/00913367.2002.10673666
Doyle, P., & Wong, V. (1998). Marketing and competitive performance: an empirical study. European Journal of Marketing, 32(5/6), 514-535.
doi:10.1108/03090569810216145
Eckersley, R. (2006). Is modern Western culture a health hazard?. International Journal of
Econsultancy. (2016). Marketing Budgets 2016. Retrieved 26-4-2017 from: https://econsultancy.com/reports/marketing-budgets/
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of
Consumer Research, 20(2), 303-315. doi:10.1086/209351
Gardner, M. P. (1985). Does attitude toward the ad affect brand attitude under a brand evaluation set?. Journal of Marketing Research, 192-198. doi:10.2307/3151364 Gordon, G. L., Calantone, R. J., & di Benedetto, C. A. (1993). Brand equity in the
business-to-business sector: An exploratory study. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 2(3), 4-16. doi:10.1108/10610429310046689
Grimm, P. (2010). Social desirability bias. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing. doi:10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02057
Hofstede, G., & Soeters, J. (2002). Consensus societies with their own character: national cultures in Japan and the Netherlands. Comparative Sociology, 1, 1-16.
doi:10.1163/156913202317346728
Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., & Schmitt, J. (2010). Brand awareness in business markets: When is it related to firm performance?. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 27(3), 201-212. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.03.004
Jonsen, K., Galunic, C., Weeks, J., & Braga, T. (2015). Evaluating espoused values: does articulating values pay off?. European Management Journal, 33(5), 332-340. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2015.03.005
Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science, 25(6), 740-759. doi:10.1287/mksc.1050.0153
Kilian, K. (2010). Multisensuales Marketing: Marken mit allen Sinnen erlebbar machen. Transfer Werbeforschung & Praxis, 56(4), 42-48. Retrieved from:
http://www.brandstrategygroup.de/texte/transfer_kilian_multisensuales-marketing_4_2010.pdf
Kim, C. K., Han, D., & Park, S. B. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand
identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. Japanese
Psychological Research, 43(4), 195-206. doi:10.1111/1468-5884.00177
Kotler, P. (1998). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kuenzel, S., & Vaux Halliday, S. (2008). Investigating antecedents and consequences of brand identification. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(5), 293-304. doi:10.1108/10610420810896059
Kuhn, K. A. L., Alpert, F., & Pope, N. K. L. (2008). An application of Keller’s brand equity model in a B2B context. Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, 11(1), 40-58 doi:10.1108/13522750810845540
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
18(6), 503-520. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000006155
Leek, S., & Christodoulides, G. (2011). A literature review and future agenda for B2B branding: Challenges of branding in a B2B context. Industrial Marketing
Management, 40(6), 830-837. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.006
Leek, S., & Christodoulides, G. (2011). Brands: Just for consumers? Introduction to the special issue on B2B branding. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(7), 1060-1062. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.09.019
Lohtia, R., Donthu, N., & Hershberger, E. K. (2003). The impact of content and design elements on banner advertising click-through rates. Journal of advertising
Low, J., & Blois, K. (2002). The evolution of generic brands in industrial markets: the challenges to owners of brand equity. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(5), 385-392. doi:10.1016/S0019-8501(00)00131-0
Lusensky, J. (2010). Sounds like branding: Using the power of music to turn customers into fans. Bloomsbury.
Lynch, J., & De Chernatony, L. (2004). The power of emotion: Brand communication in business-to-business markets. The Journal of Brand Management, 11(5), 403-419. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540185
MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural
antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. The Journal
of Marketing, 48-65. doi:10.2307/1251413
Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional brand
attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 35-52. doi:10.1509/jmkg.75.4.35
McEwen, W. J. (2005). Married to the brand: Why consumers bond with some brands for
life. Simon and Schuster. Retrieved from:
https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=ydpDCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1& dq=McEwen,+W.+J.+(2005).+Married+to+the+brand:+Why+consumers+bond+with+ some+brands+for+life.+Simon+and+Schuster.&ots=TH1WLVN4cZ&sig=HoHNxKR GNLSNCnEXJWAMVEOJ-ZI#v=onepage&q&f=false
Michell, P., King, J., & Reast, J. (2001). Brand values related to industrial products. Industrial
Marketing Management, 30(5), 415-425. doi:10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00097-8
Minett, S. (2002). B2B marketing: A radically different approach for business-to-business
Morris, M. H., Berthon, P., & Pitt, L. F. (1999). Assessing the structure of industrial buying centers with multivariate tools. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(3), 263-276. doi:10.1016/S0019-8501(98)00049-2
Mudambi, S. (2002). Branding importance in business-to-business markets: Three buyer clusters. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 525-533. doi:10.1016/S0019-8501(02)00184-0
Mudambi-McDowell, S., Doyle, P., & Wong, V. (1997). An exploration of branding in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 26(5), 433-446.
doi:10.1016/S0019-8501(96)00151-4
Nandan, S. (2005). An exploration of the brand identity–brand image linkage: A communications perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 12(4), 264-278. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540222
Ohnemus, L. (2009). B2B branding: A financial burden for shareholders?. Business
Horizons, 52(2), 159-166. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2008.10.004
Kotler, P., Keller, K. L. (2012). Marketing management. Global edition, 14th edition. Pearson. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like
real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge. Retrieved from: http://www.humanityonline.com/docs/the%20media%20equation.pdf
Reimann, M., & Aron, A. (2009). Self-expansion motivation and inclusion of brands in self. Handbook of Brand Relationships, 65-81. Retrieved from:
https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=E0vfBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA65&
dq=Reimann,+M.,+%26+Aron,+A.+(2009).+Self-expansion+motivation+and+inclusion+of+brands+in+self.+Handbook+of+Brand+Rel