Master Thesis
(20 ECTS)
The influence of research methods in brand
image research: product vs service brands
jorgelab
Author: L.J. van der Vleuten Student number: 6116876
Date: July 1st, 2014
Study: Master Business Studies Specialization: Marketing
Acknowledgements
I would like to say a special word of thanks to all who have supported me over the whole period of my thesis. This thesis would not have been finalized without your support. All people who filled out the survey and even gathered more respondents from within your networks. Without this, I would not have had such a descent set of very useful data.
A special word of thanks to my supervisor, Jorge Labadie, who has been my supervisor for a rather long time. Thank you for keeping faith in a successful end of this story. Your judgment was again right, we made it in the end! I especially enjoyed hearing you talk about your passion, brand image research. I should not forget to give a special word of attention to Rogers Pruppers. Without your interactive SPSS and data analyses sessions, I would probably still be stuck somewhere with my head in SPSS or the book by Field. You have definitely made statistics a lot more interesting and understandable and kept me sharp when needed. Both of you guys made this tough subject a lot more interesting and enjoyable.
Last but not least I want to thank two strong women that are very close to my heart. Kirsten, my dear sister, you were my coach on how to write a descent thesis. Although you had no idea content wise, you were a tremendous support in getting me through this for me intensive process. I could count on you even in your spare free weekend days or evenings to critically read through my latest produced work and advise me on how to make this ‘piece of art’ even better.
The second of my two women and not without a reason the last one to mention. Sanne, Without your mental support throughout this process, I would have probably given up ages ago. Fortunately I ‘saw the light’ right in time and started to enjoy writing it. This is 100% due to you. Combining a more than full-‐time job with writing a master’s thesis and keeping my head straight at the same time has been the biggest challenge of my life up till now. And I was lucky to have you on my side all the time. Lauran van der Vleuten
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements……… 2 Table of Contents………. 3
1. Introduction……….. 5 1.1. Brand image Research: Different methods, different images?
1.2. Free vs. Informed association & product brands vs. service brands 1.3. Problem Definition 1.3.1. Problem Statement 1.3.2. Sub-‐questions 1.3.3. Delimitations 1.4. Contribution 1.4.1. Theoretical contribution 1.4.2. Managerial contribution 1.5. Structure/Outline of the research
2. Customer-‐based brand image & brand image associations……… 11 2.1. Introduction chapter
2.2. The history of brand image
2.3. What is customer-‐based brand image and how is it created? 2.4. Brand knowledge, The CBBE model and brand image
2.4.1. Brand knowledge and the brand equity pyramid 2.4.2. The CBBE Pyramid
2.4.3. Strength, Favorability and uniqueness 2.4.4. Attributes, Benefits and Attitudes 2.5. Functional vs. Symbolic associations
3. Activating brand images from the consumer brain: free vs. informed association………. 20 3.1. Introduction
3.2. Networks in our brain
3.2.1. Creating information networks in our brain 3.3. The brand as an associative network
3.3.1. Selective memory and representation 3.4. Activating brand associations from the brain
3.4.1. Activating cues 3.4.2. Context 3.4.3. involvement 3.5. Conclusion
4. Informed vs. Free association and Service vs. product brands………... 27 4.1. Introduction
4.2. Market research and brand image research 4.2.1. Qualitative vs quantative
4.2.2. Compositional vs decompositional 4.2.3. Free vs informed association
4.2.3.1. Impact on different groups of associations 4.3. activating brand representations and the cue-‐effect 4.4. Service vs. product brands
5. Research Method………... 34 5.1 Study Design
5.1.1. Questionnaire Design
5.2 stimuli development & Measures – independent variables, control variables and manipulation checks
5.2.1. method
5.2.2. brand type and brand selection – product vs service brands and brand order 5.2.3. involvement level
5.2.4. brand familiarity 5.2.5. demographics
5.3 Measures – dependent variables 5.3.1. Coding the associations 5.4 Sample & Materials
6. Results……… 43 6.1 General descriptives
6.2 reliability analysis, manipulation checks and control variables 6.2.1. involvement level reliability analysis & manipulation check 6.2.1.1. reliability analysis
6.2.1.2. manipulation check involvement level 6.2.1.3. high vs. low involvement
6.2.2. brand type influence: product vs. service brands
6.2.2.1. influence of the independent variables on the brand type score 6.2.2.2. product vs. service brands
6.2.3. brand familiarity
6.2.4. influence of brand order in the survey on the second brand evaluated 6.3 Association type ratio
6.3.1. Coding the associations 6.4 hypotheses testing
6.4.1. research method influence
6.4.2. product and service brand influence 6.4.3. involvement level as a moderator effect 6.5 additional analyses
6.5.1. overall brand score vs. total number of associations 6.5.2. number of associations and research method
7. Discussion………... 63 7.1. Findings
7.1.1. The influence of research method 7.1.2. Product vs. service brands
7.1.3. Involvement level influence 7.2. Implications
7.2.1. Theoretical contribution 7.2.2. Managerial contribution
8. Conclusion……… 71 8.1. Limitations & future research
References……… 75 Appendices……….. 79
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Brand image research: Different methods, different brand images?
Nowadays, advertising companies often hire brand research and advisory companies in order to find out the consumer’s current view about their brands. The importance of measuring this perceived brand image has become more relevant than ever before. Marketing 1.0 was marketing of the product in a one way street to the consumer (Kotler, 2010). Marketing 2.0 stood for interaction with the consumer (Kotler, 2010). The current phase brand managers and advertisers face, marketing 3.0, can is shortly be described as marketing influenced and guided by the consumer (Kotler,2010). The former is a main cause for the increased relevance for brand manufacturers and managers to have the knowledge of what consumers really think of their brand. Many brand advisory companies have been harvesting this opportunity to develop their own method in valuing this intangible good named ‘brand image’. A quick search on the marketing website of Adformatie (2014) teaches us that at least 390 brand advisory companies are present in the Netherlands. Many of these companies have developed their own method to determine what the researched brand presently stands for. In this race to win the wallet of the brand owning company, the brand advisory companies have been creative to develop new methods in order to capture the brand perception in the mind of consumers. It can be argued whether this is a competition for the best method, or the most original one, in order to drive awareness and in the end business sales.
Within a small country such as the Netherlands over 70 different research techniques exist to measure brand image (Bouwman, 1998). All these different methods can create difficulties for advertising companies and researchers that want to research brand images. What does the used method exactly measure and does it matter which method is used to measure a brand’s image? The consensus amongst researchers on brand image is, that it is context-‐dependent which method is the right one to choose for different type of brands to be researched (Bouwman 1998; Timmerman, 2001). But do different methods yield different results? And is it possible to better guide brand managers and researchers in their choice for a research method for a certain brand or group of brands?
1.2 Free vs informed association & services brands vs. product brands
Brand image can be captured by measuring the strength, favorability and uniqueness of the different brand associations present in the consumer memory at a certain moment in time (Keller, 1993, 2003). Based on Keller’s (1998) Customer Based Brand Equity model, in order to be able to measure these strength, favorability and uniqueness, one first needs to select the which type of brand
associations, which together form the brand representation, are to be measured. In his dissertation, Timmerman (2001) researched, amongst other related topics, the influence of the number cues on the activation of brand associations from the consumer memory. Timmerman (2001) found that by using the free association method, which uses the minimum number of cues to evoke brand associations, relatively more concrete, functional associations are evoked (e.g. product characteristics, product usage). On the contrary, when using the informed association method, a method that uses a multitude of cues to derive brand associations from the consumer brain, more non-‐functional, symbolic associations (e.g. brand personification, reputation, service) will be elucidated (Timmerman, 2001). One could argue that in order to select the brand image research method that get’s the closest to the brand representation present in the consumer brains, a brand manager or researcher needs to know whether the group of brands evoke more functional or
symbolic associations. Following above reasoning, brands that are expected to elucidate more functional associations, a researcher gets closer to the brand representation existing in the consumer brain using a free association method than when using an informed association method. Thus, when researching a brand or a group of brands that is expected to evoke more functional associations, one is expected to find more of these associations when using the free association method. For brands that are expected to evoke more symbolic associations, informed association methods are expected to deliver more associations than the free association method. Using not the most suitable method when measuring brand image may lead to an incomplete or wrong brand representation result, which in turn can lead to designing a sub-‐optimal brand strategy and tactics (Timmerman, 2001; Bouwman)
A widely used division between brands is that of product and service brands (O’Cass, 2003; Berry, 2000). This thesis focuses on the differences between brand images of products and services. Over the past decades, the services economy has grown drastically. In the United States, the service industry is accountable for 74 percent of the gross domestic product and even 79 percent of all jobs (Kotler, 2001). Furthermore, a large share of the brand image research is committed on product brands (Turley, 1995). For example Timmerman’s research methods in his dissertation on the activation of brand representations in the consumer brain, were only implemented on product brands. Whilst well-‐known service brand industries, amongst which are social media brands (e.g. Facebook, What’s app), television stations (e.g. RTL 4, SBS 6) and health insurance companies (e.g. Achmea, Univé), are growing rapidly their share of economy, but are not always at the centre of attention in brand image research. A service is regarded as a performance or an act provided by one party to another that is intangible and does not result in the ownership of anything. Services differ from products as services are intangible, inseparable, variable and perishable (Kotler, 2001). Because
of the intangibility a service cannot be felt, seen, smelled, touched by a consumer. Furthermore, a service cannot be owned or stored due to its inseparability and perishability. Finally, services are highly variable, because they depend on where and by whom they are provided (Kotler, 2001). The image of a service brand will only be created in the consumer mind when the service is processed (O’Cass, 2003) and will, therefore, differ more between consumers. On the contrary, a product image can already be created, because the physical good is pre-‐produced and already exists when the branding process starts (Monger, 2012). The product cannot be changed by the consumer, while the actual service can. Therefore, the brand image of a service brand is expected to have a higher degree of uniqueness and personal attachment amongst consumers than product brands and will yield more symbolic benefits than functional benefits (Monger, 2012). Another argument why service brands may yield different kind of associations than product brands is that experience brands contain a high degree of uniqueness (Jack Morton, 2011). The uniqueness of services brands will arguably be easier expressed in symbolic than in product-‐related benefits. It can, for example, be related to the person that provided the service. It can, therefore, be argued that service brands are more experience brands, and it is expected that more symbolic associations will be elucidated when researching experience brands versus non-‐experience brands. It can, therefore, be argued that service brands will evoke more symbolic than functional brand associations from the consumer memory, when comparing to product brands.
1.3 Problem Definition
1.3.1. Problem statement
In brand image research, there is no method that can capture the brand representation of all types of brands, in every context. There is, on the contrary, a consensus that each brand can have its own brand representation structure. But how does one select a method in a landscape with a multitude of methods existing? There seems to be a general lack of guidance in selecting the research method that is most suitable to activate brand associations present in the consumer brain for a certain of brand in a certain context. The former results in the fact that brand managers and researchers cannot be sure whether the brand image researched, approaches the brand representation present in the consumer brain as close as possible. This may lead to inadequate brand strategies and tactics (Timmerman, 2001; Bouwman, 1998)
Service brands are accountable for a major part of brands worldwide, and this lack of guidance applies to them as well. The characteristics of service brands -‐ intangibility, inseparability, variability and perishability -‐ distinguish them from product brands. It can, therefore, be argued that service
Because of the characteristics of service brands mentioned, these are expected to be more experience brands, and will evoke more symbolic associations than product brands (Monger, 2012). Relating this with the assumption that symbolic, non-‐functional brand associations are easier evoked by using informed association methods, and more functional associations are elucidated with free association methods, leads to the hypothesis that when activating brand representations of service brands, more associations are found with informed association methods than with free association methods. The outcome of this study will investigate whether the use of different methods, when researching brand image of product and service brands, will yield different results. The problem statement of this thesis is therefore:
“How do the results of brand image research depend on the research methodology used and where do these results differ between product and service brands?”
1.3.2. Sub questions
In order to answer the main research question, several sub questions are formulated. First of all, the concept of brand image needs a deeper understanding. It is useful to understand how brand image is created in the consumer’s mind. Right after the main topic is explored, the second sub question builds on Timmerman’s study on brand image. The existing brand image research methods are further explored and the terms free and informed association are described. The third and final sub-‐ question states the differences between service and product brands and links these to the possible differences in evoked groups of associations. The sub questions are the following:
A. What is customer based brand equity, how is it created and why is brand image so relevant in building it?
B. What types of brand associations exist?
C. how is brand image created in the consumer brain? D. What are influential factors in brand image research?
E. What are the different methods of activating brand associations and what are the free association and informed association research methodologies?
F. How does a service brand differ from a product brand and what may be its implications on the different kinds of brand associations that will be activated when performing brand image research?
1.3.3. Delimitations of the study
Over a period of 60 years no thesis has successfully completed the quest to find a research method that can correctly measure brand image for all brands worldwide. This thesis does not aim to describe this “golden standard” either. However, it will build on existing brand image academic research and more specifically on activating brand associations in the consumer’s minds. Its results may help researchers and brand managers in selecting a suitable method, that given the context of the brand image research, is the most appropriate one.
In this thesis, exploratory research will be conducted on two brand image research methods : free association and informed association. Moreover, the research focuses on one main division between brands: product versus service brands. Previous research mainly focuses on product brands, and shows a limited amount of such literature on service brands, hence the focus of this research is explained. The results may, therefore, not be directly applicable to other groups of brands. However, it may confirm the findings of Timmerman´s (2001) on the activation of brand associations.
Thirdly, the brand image research in this thesis will only include brands that are present in the Netherlands and have a relatively high brand salience. Brands that are not present in the Netherlands are out of the scope of this research.
1.4 Contribution
1.4.1. Theoretical contributions
The scientific contribution may be two-‐fold. First of all, the activation of brand representations has not been linked to service brands in Timmerman’s (2001) extensive dissertation on this topic. This most extensive and thorough research focused solely on product brands, although service brands play a prominent role in today’s society. Additionally, this thesis attempts to describe a possible classification of brand association activation methods into methods eligible for service and product brands.
1.4.2. Managerial contributions
From a managerial point of view, this possible deviation may help guiding brand managers in their choice for a right brand image research method. This could consequently lead to more effective brand management strategies and tactics, because the brand manager better understands the consumer of its brand (Timmerman 2001; Bouwman, 1998).
1.5 Research structure
After the introduction chapter this thesis continues with three theoretical chapters. The first chapter dives into the concept of brand image. In the second theoretical chapter, the different methods of deriving brand associations from the consumer brain are discussed, where Timmerman’s (2001) dissertation is used as main guidance. The final theoretical chapter explores the differences between product and service brands and the different type associations that may be brought to mind because of these differences.
Resulting from the theoretical part the hypotheses are described right after the theoretical chapters. In chapter five, an overview of the methodology is given regarding the testing of the hypotheses. All gathered data has been written down in chapter six where the results can be found. In chapter seven the discussion of the results can be found as well as the theoretical and managerial implications of the results. The final chapter summarizes the whole thesis and sets out the limitations and suggestions for future research.
Chapter 2 – what is customer brand image and why is it so relevant? 2.1 Introduction
This thesis examines the influence of different brand image research methods on the outcomes of the applied methods. In this first theoretical chapter the history of consumer brand image is described, and several different definitions of brand image will be given and evaluated. Secondly, The Customer-‐Based brand equity (CBBE) model by Keller (1993) is extensively discussed, since brand image is a crucial part of the model and this thesis applies a customer focus. Lastly the different kinds of associations are described and categorized according to their nature.
2.2 The history of brand image
Since the 1950s, brand image has become an important topic of consumer behavior scientific research (Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990). Since then, many studies have been reported on the topic and the term brand image has been used often amongst both academics and marketers (Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990). David Ogilvy was the first to use brand image in de marketing literature (Franzen, 1999). Throughout the years the meaning of brand image has evolved.
During the 1960s, the words ‘brand image’ and ‘stereotype’ where used interchangeably. This caused the assumption that all brands could be measured and compared on a few standard dimensions, such as innovative vs. old-‐fashioned or young vs. old (Franzen, 1999). Respondents had to judge those dimensions on a five-‐point scale and the results were plotted in one picture that showed the results of all existing brands in the world (Franzen, 1999). The heritage of this research can still be found in today’s quantitative brand image research. The problem with this kind of data gathering is that the specific brand image aspects or attributes that distinguish a brand remain unknown. Or in academic terms: the brand salience stays hidden (Franzen, 1999). Brand salience is described as the probability of a brand being present in our consciousness at any moment in time (Sutherland (1993) in Franzen en Bouwman “de mentale wereld van merken”). Both brand salience and brand image play an important role in building brand equity. Where brand equity can be defined as ‘the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of a brand’ (Keller, 1993). This will be explained in more detail in the latter of this chapter.
The 1970s were the start of specific attention towards the influence of brand images on consumer behavior. It was also around this time that Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) published their ‘theory of reasoned action of planned behaviour’. This theory states that consumers can link positive and negative experiences with a brand and that the negative or positive brand image that comes from these links or associations, will influence future (buying) behavior towards this brand (Franzen, 1999;
Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Although this sounds logic, the truth is not as simple as that. For example, many people have a positive attitude towards the brand Ferrari, however, there are few people that can afford one.
Since the 1980s, brand image has gained an increasing amount of attention. Products became more and more similar, and the added value of a product were increasingly dependent on the brand’s image (Franzen, 1999). This might be caused by a lack of value adding innovation by manufacturers (Franzen, 1999). Apparently it is difficult to come up with innovation and improvements that are distinctive and stay distinctive and unique for a longer period. In order to still bring and sustain added value towards branded products, companies focus more on creating and building brand image (Franzen, 1999).
2.3 What is customer-‐based brand image and how is created?
Both in literature and in the field of marketing, various definitions of brand image exist. There also exist several comparable phrases, such as brand personality and brand identity, that describe more or less the same concept. Poiesz (1989) divided all different definitions into four groups:
1. Brand image is the sum of the associative network of brand perceptions in the brainpan.
The associations that belong to this group suppose that a brand image arises only if a person has received and processed sufficient information about the product in his or her memory.
2. Brand image is equal to brand attitude Definitions that can be put into this group describe brand
image as the intention of consumers to evaluate a product immediately negatively or positively at the very first moment they see the product. This natural response stems from all associations a consumer has saved in his or memory in relationship to the particular brand.
3. Brand image is an overall impression of the memory This group of definitions describes brand
images as an elementary total impression. Those definitions mainly position the brand image of products compared to other products.
4. Brand image is equal to the intangible part of the product Many market researchers of advertising
companies have definitions of brand image that belong to this group. Those definitions state that brand image is equal to the difference between the value of the product itself, the intrinsic value, and the value of the product for consumers.
In this thesis brand image is defined as ‘the set of associations that form the representation of the brand in the consumer’s memory at a certain moment’. This is a definition derived from Keller’s
(1993) definition of brand image. Based on all impressions a consumer has with a brand, he or she creates an image in the mind. An image can be described as a picture, but does not necessarily have to be described as such. When a person thinks about an ambulance, the first thing that comes to mind can be the sound of the siren. Or when a person is asked to think about peanut butter, the first association could be the smell of the product. The association with a certain product or brand is changing continuously when new links are created in the mind. If consumers, for example, think about Apple, the chances are small they think about the first iMac personal computer. More probable is that they think about an innovative company or the latest iPhone or iPad. The point is, consumers continuously adapt the image they have in their mind to the latest information they gathered (Barsalou, 1993; Timmerman, 2001).
All objects existing in the world around us are integrated in our minds into total packages or ‘Gestalts’ (Reber, 1997). Gestalt psychologists have shown that human beings have the natural tendency to see the world around them as whole bits and pieces (Bouwman, 1998) .This is also how the brand images of branded products can be viewed, as Gestalts. They consist of many elements that form a whole in the mind of consumers. Gestalts could be anything like a shape (bended wine bottles of J.P. Chenet, Volkswagen Beetle, Coca Cola bottle), a colour (Heineken, Dutch soccer team) , a smell (Jean Paul Gaultier, gas station) or style (Ralph Lauren, BMW, Breitling) (Franzen & Holzhauer, 1987).
Splitting the brand into elements as Franzen (1998) suggests, does not describe how consumers perceive brands in reality. However, it can create leads and ideas for academic research or brand strategy development by brand manufacturing companies. The way in which brands are perceived by consumers, is something that is partly created by the brand itself: the brand identity. The other part of the brand image is formed by the consumer their self, through his or her interpretations of the brand and the consumer’s experiences that are linked to this brand. This is how a unique brand image exists in every single mind of every consumer. Bruner (1990), however, found that people of same cultures create relatively similar brand images in their minds. For this reason, brands can become symbols (Bruner, 1990). An example is when a middle aged man is driving a Porsche, in the Netherlands he might be perceived as a person in his mid-‐life crisis. Or, if you have geranium flowers at your balcony, people might assume you are old and retired.
2.4 Brand knowledge, The CBBE model and brand image
As stated before the definition of brand image that is used in this study is customer-‐based brand image. In the following paragraph brand knowledge will be explained as a crucial building block of the widely accepted customer-‐based brand equity (CBBE) model (Keller, 1993). Explaining this model to brand managers may potentially guide them in making business decisions about their brands. The challenge for these brand professionals lies in creating the desired brand image in consumer’s minds by designing the right marketing program that ensures the right experiences with their products. Although the focus of this research lies on brand image, the whole CBBE model will be explained, for it is essential to first understand how brand image is a crucial factor in building brand equity, before the different brand image measurement methods are explained. Keller (1993) has done extensive research on customer-‐based brand equity. Keller (1993) explains CBBE as the positive or negative effect of brand knowledge on consumer’s responses on the marketing activities of a brand. In other words, if consumers react more favorably to a branded mp3 player with an ‘Apple’ logo than to the same mp3 player without a logo, the ‘Apple’ one has a positive brand equity, because consumers evaluate its marketing activities more positively than its unnamed competitor (Keller, 1993).
2.4.1. Brand knowledge and the brand Equity Pyramid
Brand knowledge consists of a brand awareness and a brand image component (Keller, 1993) as can be seen in Figure 1. The focus of this thesis lies on brand image, which Keller (1993) describes as a set of brand associations in the consumer brain. Associations are all notions a consumer has about a particular brand (Keller, 1993). A more technical definition is given by Anderson (1995) who described an association as one memory element that is connected to another element. In the end, all these associations determine the brand image from the viewpoint of the consumer. Brand awareness, or also named brand salience, is equal to the ability of consumers to recall or recognize the brand’s name or logo (Keller, 1993). Together brand awareness and brand image form the foundation of the CBBE pyramid; brand awareness forms the first layer and brand image is related to the second layer of this model (Figure 2). To illustrate the importance of brand awareness, one could imagine a consumer that is looking for a new a car and can choose between two cars and one of the brands is a familiar one while the other one is not. The consumer may not consider the car with an unfamiliar brand name.
Figure 1 -‐ Dimensions of brand knowledge (Keller, 1993)
The second, more complicated part of brand knowledge is brand image. In this part it is explained what brand knowledge consists of and why it is important. After being able to recognize or recall a brand, it is important that consumers can express which associations a brand elicits. According to Keller (1993, 1998) associations consist of attributes, benefits and attitudes as can be seen in Figure 1. In this model, brand awareness is related to the first level of the CBBE pyramid, drawn in Figure 2. Benefits and attributes relate to level two of this pyramid, while attitudes relate to the third level of this figure on the next page.
2.4.2. The CBBE Pyramid
Keller (2003) developed the CBBE model into a CBBE pyramid (Figure 2). Keller (1993) described four levels of brand-‐building which are divided into the six blocks drawn in Figure 2. The first step, brand salience at the base level of the pyramid, relates to the fact that consumers need to be able to identify a brand. Before considering a brand consumers need to link the brand to a product category and a specific consumer need. Brand salience is obtained when a consumer, for example, thinks of a brand while shopping. Brand salience is not just brand recognition (i.e. recognizing the Nike from its logo) or brand recall (i.e. being able to call name Levi’s when speaking of jeans), but this recognition or recall should also happen at the right time and in the right place (Keller, 2003).
Figure 2 -‐ The brand knowledge Pyramid. Based on Keller’s (2003) CBBE Pyramid
Step two in the process of building a brand is brand meaning. After recognizing the brand, it is important that consumers also know what the brand stands for. This second level is related to the focus of this thesis: the brand image. The performance side of the this level shows where the brand currently stands in relation to the functional needs of the consumers (Keller, 1998). These are the above described functional benefits and product related attributes, which represent the more rational part of the brand image. The imagery part of the second level relates more to the emotional driven associations, which are described above as the non-‐product related attributes and experiential benefits. Symbolic benefits can belong to both parts of the level of the CBBE pyramid. Together the attributes, benefits and attitudes are the brand associations consumers may hold regarding a brand and form the brand’s image.
When a set of strong, favorable and unique associations exists, a response is created on the third level of the model (level 3 in Figure 2). These brand responses depend on the brand identity and brand meaning and consists of judgments and feelings. Responses are judgments when these personal opinions have been based on rational arguments, otherwise these responses are called feelings (Keller, 1998). Feelings are emotional responses that can be mild, positive or negative (Keller, 1998). Examples are warmth, self-‐respect, social approval, fun, excitement and security. Brand
Attachment
Loyalty, sense of Community, engagement
Rational Emotional
Evalutation Evalutation
Brand Value, Feelings, Social Credibility approval, self
respect
Functional brand Image Emotional brand Image And Benefits And Benefits
Physique (design), quality, Who when, how, where Reliability, service, price used, personality, history
Brand Awareness Depth and Breath
Depth (unaided recall, aided recall, or recognition) and breath (when?)
“The Brand knowledge Pyramid”
4. Intense & Active Brand Loyalty 3. Positive & Accessible Brand Evaluations 2. Strong, Favorable & Unique Brand Associations 1. Deep and Broad Brand Awareness Non-‐product related + experiential and symbolic attributes & benefits product related + functional attributes & benefits Brand associations
judgments are consumers’ personal opinions based on several performance and imagery associations from the second level of the model (Keller, 1998).
The last step in the brand building process is converting the consumer responses into an intense and active relationship with the brand in the form a strong bond (level 4 in Figure 2). Keller (2003) defines this as brand resonance. This brand resonance drives loyal behavior, drives active participation and increases commitment towards the brand. When this level of brand resonance is achieved, less investments are needed to prevent a consumer from switching to competitive brands (Keller, 2003). Furthermore, loyal customers spend more and more often on a brand. They are an important group for the general profitability of a brand. A great example of a brand that has achieved this status amongst a big group of consumers is Apple. According to Keller (1993), the associations in level 2 of Figure 2 need to be measured on strength, uniqueness and favorability. A brand needs a strong, unique and favorable brand image in order to create a positive brand equity. In this thesis, however, the focus lays one step before measuring the strength, uniqueness and favorability. This step is determining which type of brand associations are present in the consumer minds and which brand image activation method is the suitable for a certain group of brands.
2.4.3. Attributes, Benefits and Attitudes
According to Keller (1993) three different kinds of associations exist. Attributes are those characteristics of a product that a consumer can distinguish (Keller, 1993). These are important in the purchasing process and can either be product or non-‐product related. Product related attributes relate to the actual functioning of the particular product (Keller, 1993). Non-‐product related attributes are the external aspects of the product that are related to the purchasing process or the consumption (Keller, 1993). Keller (1993) describes price, packaging, user imagery (i.e. what type of person uses the product) and usage imagery (i.e. where and how is the product used) as the four possible types of non-‐product related attributes. User imagery can, for example, be described by the following example: many people in the Netherlands believe that hockey and golf are sports for the posh and rich people and could for this reason not consider this as a possible sport for themselves or their families.
Benefits are personal values that a consumer allocates to a specific product and can according to Keller (1993) be grouped into functional, experiential and symbolic benefits. Functional benefits are the intrinsic advantages the consumer acquires by using the product. Those benefits are often linked to the product related attributes discussed above and usually fulfill daily needs. An example is the presence of police in a busy shopping street that gives the visitors a feeling of safety. Experiential
1993). These sorts of benefits fulfill the need for cognitive stimulation and fun (Keller, 1993). An example of this can be the habit of a couple that always buys a big bottle of Grolsch and M&M’s when visiting the cinema. Symbolic benefits are the extrinsic benefits that are caused by the usage of a product. A common example of this is people that use their iPad in public. In this case the iPad can be seen as a status item. A different example is driving around the city centre in a Ferrari.
Brand attitudes are described as the final evaluation of the brand by the consumer. These are highly important, because they form the base for consumer behavior. In other words, brand attitudes determine if a consumer, in the end, decides to acquire a product or not. Brand attitudes may arise from beliefs about the product related attributes and the functional and experiential benefits. This is a conscious choice for a brand. Adding to this, brand attitudes may also be related to beliefs about unproven specific characteristics of a product or symbolic advantages (Keller, 1993). When a consumer chooses a product on a non-‐fact base, all superficial first impressions about the specific brand become important. This usually happens when the consumer does not possess knowledge or motivation to evaluate the product.
2.5 Functional vs. Symbolic associations
Taking a closer look at the second layer of the CBBE-‐pyramid of Keller (1998) teaches us that in his model brand associations can be split into two categories, which are named brand performance on the left side and brand imagery on the right side of the figure (Keller, 1998). Though both consist of brand associations present in the consumer mind, brand performance associations relate to the more functional, product-‐related associations and benefits, while associations related to the brand imagery part are more abstract, emotional and symbolic of nature (Keller, 1998). The brand performance associations can be grouped into sub-‐categories such as primary ingredients, design, price, quality, reliability and durability (Keller, 1998; INSEAD, 2004). The sub-‐categories of brand imagery associations are related to where the product or service was used, by whom, when how and where (INSEAD, 2004; Keller 1998). A division of the brand imagery associations by Keller (1998) is into user profiles, purchase and usage situations, history and experiences and personality and values (Keller, 1998).
The division into different categories of associations is, though defined and described somewhat differently, can be underlined by other brand image researches (Bhat, 1998; Park, 1986; Timmerman, 2001). Bhat (1998) states that a brand image can be either symbolic – similar to Keller’s brand imagery association category – or functional – as compared to brand performance. Timmerman (2001) describes ‘concrete’ or product-‐related associations, where he refers to functional associations or brand performance, whereas he states ‘abstract’ associations talking about symbolic
associations or brand imagery. In this thesis the terms symbolic and functional associations will be used to refer to ‘abstract’ and ‘product-‐related’ associations respectively, since these terms are commonly used in brand image research and in this thesis evaluated as being the most clarifying terms of the accompanying concepts. The next chapter will further elaborate on how these different groups of associations can be derived from the consumer minds by the different existing sort of research methods.
Chapter 3 – the brand and the brain
“Brands cannot be found in a factory, supermarket or in an add on your mobile phone. Not even on the on the television screen or packaging of branded products. Brands can only be found in the heads of consumers” (derived and adapted from Restall & Gordon, 1984)
3.1 Introduction
In the former chapter the history of brand image and its relevance for both the academic and business world are explained. Furthermore the theory of Keller (1993) on customer based brand equity (CBBE) is explained with a focus on the brand image part. This theory is used in this thesis to support the view that brand image should be derived from the consumer brain and therefore measuring this intangible brand knowledge can be measured by capturing these different kind of associations. In order to determine how to measure this brand image, it is relevant to better understand how these associations are formed in the memory. The explanation is aimed to be simplistic in order to provide an explanation, while maintaining the focus on the core topic of this thesis. A closer look at the (neuro-‐)psychology behind brand image is helpful in understanding why brand image is something extremely complicated and therefore also difficult to measure. This theory is applied in this study to explain the creation of brand association networks, in this thesis a synonym for brand image. In the last part of this chapter, the influential factors in brand image research are set out. This is an overture towards the theory on brand image research methods discussed in the last chapter of the theoretical part of this thesis.
3.2 Networks in our brain
It is not surprising that many models and theories from the field of psychology have been widely applied to all kind of marketing topics. As quoted on the top of this page, a brand image only exists in the brain and mind of consumers (Restall & Gordon, 1984). This is also the case for brand image research, since it has been widely accepted that the consumers perception of a brand can lead to higher sales and value for a company (Timmerman, 2001). This makes it interesting for both brand image research as well as brand managers to understand how the brain, and more specifically the human memory, works in relation to brands. Unfortunately for brand managers and brand image researchers, the human memory is not easy to study. So what does it take to transform your product into a brand? Just putting a label on it is not enough. Only if this brand has reached the memory of the consumer brain, a brand is getting somewhere. The human brain does not consist of one space where all memories are collected. The opposite is true, every brain has many different memories. For example, facts are stored somewhere else than emotions, tastes are stored in another place than
