What’s in a (family) name? : the effect of communicating family ownership in primary brand elements on family firm brand associations

(1)

What’s in a (family) name?

The effect of communicating family ownership in primary

brand elements on family firm brand associations

Author: B.J.A. Knoop

Student number: 11428678

Date and version: 16 August 2018, final version

Study: MSc. Business Administration – Marketing Track Institution: University of Amsterdam

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Barbara Knoop who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Abstract

An increasing number of family owned businesses began expressing their family firm status in their brand identity. In doing so, these firms do not only attempt to differentiate themselves in the market, but also try to leverage the favorable associations that are attached to being family owned, such as authenticity, trustworthiness and customer oriented. This study examines the effect of communicating family ownership via the brand building tool of primary brand elements on these family firm brand associations. By means of a 2 x 4 x 2 mixed experimental design, it was demonstrated that communicating family ownership via the primary brand elements brand name and slogan does not lead to brands beings more strongly associated with family firms brand associations. Instead, more context is necessary. In the case a short brand story was provided in addition, these family firms brand associations were strongly activated. Moreover, the results reveal that family firm brand associations fully mediate the relationship between communicating family ownership in the additional

description and the overall evaluation of the brand. It additionally was found that brand name and slogan minimally interact with each other and that family owned businesses are

automatically connected to a broad range of family related brand associations to a certain extent. This study thereby adds to branding literature, family firm marketing literature and cue inference theory. Managerial implications include concrete advice for family owned

businesses how they effectively could apply primary brand elements in their marketing efforts: the brand building tool should be embedded in a broader family oriented strategy.

(4)

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1. Family owned business

1.1.1. Family owned business communication

The economic impact of family owned businesses worldwide is immense, representing 70%-90% of the global GDP (Family Firm Institute, 2016). In the Netherlands alone, 71% of all businesses are family owned (CBS, 2017). Despite family firms being the cornerstone of the global economy, the literature on family owned businesses in a marketing context is scarce (Rosina, 2017). Authors claim it is crucial to gain more knowledge in this field (Babin, Astrachan, Botero, Hair, & Prügl, 2017).

So far, authors seem to agree that communicating family ownership is beneficial for a

company (Binz, Hair, Pieper, & Baldauf, 2013; Gallucci, Santulli, & Calabrò, 2015). Indeed, a growing number of companies began expressing its family ownership and history in its communications (Babin et al., 2017). Examples include supermarket chain Jumbo showing a picture of its founding family at the entrance of every store, Fast Moving Consumer Good player Go Tan’s slogan ‘a very Foodloving Family’ and brewery Bavaria emphasizing being one of the oldest family firms in the Netherlands in its communication (Flören, Jansen, & Bertent-braun, 2015). By communicating their family firm status, research shows that these firms do not only positively differentiate themselves from non-family owned businesses, but also have a better reputation (Binz et al., 2013) and are perceived as more authentic (Rosina, 2017) and trustworthy (Lude & Prügl, 2018) by consumers.

A study by Baker Tilly Berk and Nyenrode Business University shows that the image

of family owned businesses has not always been as favorable as the above-mentioned studies claim. Whereas in the 1990’s family owned businesses were seen as boring, unprofessional, rigid, outdated and known for emotional decision-making, currently family ownership is associated with trustworthiness, loyalty, passion, flexibility, authenticity and long-term thinking. These associations create value for stakeholders such as consumers, employees, suppliers and investors (Flören et al., 2015). The authors argue, however, that family owned businesses make insufficient use of these positive associations, with only 10% taking the family component into account in their marketing strategy. This shows the considerable

(8)

communication potential in this business area, for which this study could be a starting point.

Brand associations in particular are interesting to study since they “contain the

meaning of the brand for consumers” (Keller, 1993, p. 3). Further analyzing brand associations in a family owned business context thus could generate valuable insights for family firms on what the brand stands for in the consumer’s mind (Aaker, 1996). Moreover, linking a brand to strong, favorable and unique associations (Keller, 1993) could positively influence consumer behavior (Romaniuk & Nenycz-Thiel, 2013).

1.1.2. Research gap of brand associations and primary brand elements

Generally, limited research has been done on how firms integrate the family component in their communication efforts (Micelotta & Raynard, 2011). Authors analyzed how often the family name is mentioned on a homepage (Botero, Thomas, Graves, & Fediuk, 2013), whereas others found three different strategies how firms communicate their family and heritage (Micelotta & Raynard, 2011). Nevertheless, these studies do not demonstrate how communicating the family aspect is then perceived by consumers.

Other studies did look into the actual effects of communicating family ownership.

Previous studies for example show that family focused marketing strategies lead to greater trust (Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2010), greater firm performance (Gallucci et al., 2015) and consumer preference for a product of a family firm (Binz et al., 2013). However, these studies do not clearly bring forward what brand associations a family oriented branding strategy could evoke and how this in turn could affect the overall evaluation of the brand. One could think of associations such as the previously mentioned factors of trustworthiness, loyalty, passion, flexibility, authenticity and long-term thinking (Flören et al., 2015). Despite knowing that family ownership in general has a positive impact on brand image (Flören et al., 2015), the specific role of branding strategies on family firm brand associations has not been explicitly addressed in family firm literature.

Moreover, those studies that concentrate on family ownership communication mainly

analyze general positioning and communication strategies. Whilst marketing communications is a valid brand building tool, more ways to build brand image have been described in

literature (Keller, 1993). One of those ways is by means of primary brand elements. Currently, there is a gap in research that identifies the role of primary brand elements as a brand building tool in the context of family firms. Rosina (2017) argues that because of the positive associations consumers have with family firms, the family firm status should be

(9)

communicated in brand elements. She calls for research that identifies how strong or weak these associations are, and how this could be applied in branding strategies.

Communicating the family component in primary brand elements can be done in

multiple ways. Examples include using the family name as a brand name (e.g. Damen

Shipyards), adding the word ‘son’ to the brand name (e.g. S.C. Johnson & Son), using the

family component in the slogan (e.g. Bavaria – Welcome to the family) or even using a picture of the family as a logo. This shows how many variations exist when it comes to

communicating family ownership in primary brand elements and, more importantly, how notable it is no research has even been dedicated to this topic.

1.2. Problem definition

1.2.1. Problem statement

Whilst consumers seem to recognize the added value of family firms, remarkable little

companies take the family component into account in their marketing strategies (Flören et al., 2015). This shows how much, potentially, could be gained from communicating the

distinctive family status for many companies. Nevertheless, more research in needed to see what role primary brand elements – the basis of communication (Seimiene & Kamarauskaite, 2014) - play in this context. It is not yet known what associations communicating family ownership in primary brand elements could evoke and how this influences the overall evaluation of the brand. Considering that primary brand elements are visible in almost every marketing expression and have the ability to translate key organizational characteristics (van Riel & van den Ban, 2001), it is of great importance to understand how consumers react to this. Moreover, exploring this within the family owned business context is especially relevant because typical family firm associations (e.g. trust, authenticity) could be directly

communicated via primary brand elements. All in all, this results into the following research question:

What is the effect of communicating family ownership via multiple primary brand elements on family firm brand associations?

(10)

1.2.2. Sub questions

- How do firms position and communicate their family ownership?

- What are the most relevant aspects of primary brand elements for family firms? - What are the most relevant family firm brand associations perceived by consumers? - How strongly are firms associated to these brand associations when communicating family ownership via multiple primary brand elements?

- How does this affect the overall evaluation of the family brand?

1.2.3. Delimitations of study

This study will look into communicating family ownership via primary brand elements only. With primary brand elements is meant aspects such as brand name, slogan and logo. With communication family ownership is meant the addition or omitting of typical family focused aspects into primary brand elements; think about using the family name as a brand name or applying the family aspect in a slogan. General communication strategies, such as the way family ownership is communicated on a website or in advertisements are not taken into account. Also style of communication, such as font and color use will not be considered in this study: the mere purpose of this study will be to analyze the effect of communicating family ownership in a direct and unambiguous way.

1.3. Contributions

1.3.1. Theoretical contributions

Answering this research question could theoretically add to existing literature in three ways. Firstly, this study will enrich existing literature on family owned businesses in a marketing context that has been considered as very limited until now (Babin et al., 2017). Secondly, it will add to existing literature by showing the effect of communicating family ownership on brand associations. Previous namely studies did not take the consumer’s perception into account at all (Botero et al., 2013; Micelotta & Raynard, 2011) or merely showed the effect on firm performance (Gallucci et al., 2015) or consumer preferences (Binz et al., 2013). Lastly, it will enrich existing literature by showing the effect of communicating family ownership in the brand building tool of primary brand elements specifically (Keller, 2003), whereas previous studies merely focused on more general branding and positioning strategies.

(11)

1.3.2. Managerial contributions

Managerial implementations include concrete advice for businesses to what extent they should reveal being family owned in their primary brand elements. The outcomes of this study should show in which brand elements communicating being a family firm is beneficial and at which ones not. This could help firms making better decisions on the naming of their firm, and the design of their slogan and logo. This is of great importance for companies, since brand elements express the core identity of the firm (van Riel & van den Ban, 2001). A real life application of this would be the fact that in the Netherlands alone 46% of all family firms carries the family name as a brand name (Flören et al., 2105). No research has ever been done how the consumer perceives this: this study could provide these firms with tangible advice.

1.4. Structure/outline

The following structure will be applied for this master thesis. The second chapter contains a literature review of family owned businesses, where amongst other things, it will be analyzed how firms generally position and communicate their family ownership. In the third chapter a closer look will be taken at brand associations, by analyzing how they create value in the consumer’s mind. Additionally, the most relevant brand associations of family firms are addressed. The forth chapter describes the concept of primary brand elements as a brand building tool. Here it also will be analyzed how family firms could communicate the family component in primary brand elements. Rounding of the literature review, the fifth chapter addresses the formulation of the conceptual model and hypotheses. In chapter six the reader can find the methodology, explaining how the research is conducted and how the different constructs will be measured. Continuing with the seventh chapter, the results of this study will be discussed, thereby answering how strongly firms are associated with family firm brand associations when family ownership is communicated in multiple primary brand elements, and how this affects the overall evaluation of the brand. The final chapter will be the

discussion and conclusion of this research, where the results of the findings will be compared and contrasted with previous literature. This chapter will also imply the limitations and suggestions for future research.

(12)

Chapter 2: Family owned businesses

2.1. Defining the family owned business

The family owned business, or family firm as some authors label the concept, has been defined in various ways in literature1. Due to the wide-ranging literature on the topic, it is challenging to find consensus on the precise definition of the phenomenon (Miller, Le Breton-Miller, Lester, & Cannella, 2007). Also, the regulations when a business may call itself family owned differ per country; depending on the percentage of ownership a family has in a

company (Miller et al., 2007). Nevertheless, it generally can be argued that components such as the amount of involvement in the management or the share of ownership a certain family has within the company play a key role in multiple definitions (Felício & Galindo Villardón, 2015). Chua, Chrisman and Sharma (1999) provide a general definition that exceeds any country specific requirements. The authors define the concept as: “a business governed and/or managed with the intention to shape and pursue the vision of the business held by a dominant coalition controlled by members of the same family or a small number of families in a manner that is potentially sustainable across generations of the family or families” (Chua, Chrisman, & Sharma, 1999, p. 25).

Chrisman, Chua and Sharma (2005) argue that family owned businesses could be

differentiated from non-family owned businesses in terms of components of involvement and

essence. The first describes the extent to which the family exercises control, management or

ownership within the company. Whilst the latter seems to focus more on the actual “behavior and synergistic resources and capabilities” of the people who control the business, including “feelings of personal and social fulfillment...causing family members to guard the well-being of the business” (Zellweger, Eddleston, & Kellermanns, 2010, pp. 54-56). Zellweger et al. (2010) complement this theory by adding a third component: organizational identity. When combining these three elements, the concept of familiness arises: an intangible resource (Irava & Moores, 2010) that makes a family owned business unique and imitable compared to non-family owned businesses (Habbershon & Williams, 1999; Zellweger et al., 2010).

(13)

2.2. Family ownership and business performance

2.2.1. Economic impact

It is undeniable that family owned businesses are the backbone of the global economy, with 80-90% of all companies in the world being family owned (Peterson-Withorn, 2015).

Together they represent 70-90% of the global GDP (Family Firm Institute, 2016). The Global

Family Business Index shows that the 500 largest family owned businesses in the world make

up $6.5 trillion in annual sales (Center for Family Business at the University of St. Gallen & EY Gobal Family Business Center of Excellence, 2017; Peterson-Withorn, 2015). The firms in the list have been in business for 88 years on average, with a notable 44% of the companies managed by the 4th generation or older (Peterson-Withorn, 2015). Furthermore, family owned businesses financially seem to outperform non-family owned businesses on the long term. Especially during recessions family owned businesses prove to be robust, mainly because they “focus on resilience more than performance” (Kachaner, Stalk, Bloch, & Webster, 2012, p. 1). Naturally, the family owned business also plays a key role in creating jobs. In 2013 alone, the top 500 largest family firms employed 20.9 million people (Bain, 2015).

2.2.2. Internal impact

Despite this study primarily having an external focus, is also relevant to examine how family ownership internally affects a company’s performance. By doing so, specific features and abilities of family owned businesses could emerge, which in turn, could affect consumer perceptions (Chua et al., 1999). This could help explaining possible outcomes of the empirical part of this study.

A frequently heard statement about family firms goes that instead of focusing on the

next quarter, family firms focus on the next generation (Van Schagen, 2017). Indeed, previous research has shown that family firms, more than their non-family owned counterparts, seem to adopt a long-term orientation (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2005). This is chiefly caused by family firms’ desire to retain socioemotional values (Memili, Fang, Koç, Yildirim-Öktem, & Sonmez, 2018). These values include ensuring the continuity of the business across

generations, investing in lasting relations with internal and external stakeholders and keeping up a good reputation and image in the community (Berrone, Cruz, & Gomez-Mejia, 2012; Memili et al., 2018). Decision makers even tend to safeguard these values at the cost of economic goals (Memili et al., 2018).

(14)

Because family firms place much value on these non-economic goals (Meroño-Cerdán, López-Nicolás, & Molina-Castillo, 2018) many of them “favor investments that reinforce the status quo” (Matzler, Veider, Hautz, & Stadler, 2015, p. 321). This results in family firms limiting their investments in innovation (J. H. Astrachan & Jaskiewicz, 2008). However, the results of research on family owned businesses and innovation are mixed (De Massis, Di Minin, & Frattini, 2015). On the one hand, research shows that family owned businesses are less innovative than non-family owned businesses (Matzler et al., 2015); explained by risk aversion (Lumpkin & Brigham, 2011), holding on to traditions

(Kammerlander & Van Essen, 2017), and a lack of R&D investment (Block, 2012). Whilst on the other hand, research shows that family owned businesses are more efficient and effective in their innovation activities, creating more output for every dollar they spend in R&D (Kammerlander & Van Essen, 2017).

The emphasis on socioemotional values also manifests itself in the corporate culture of

family owned businesses. A study by PwC revealed that family firms have a stronger organizational culture than non-family firms (Family Firm Institute, 2016; PwC, 2016). Moreover, family firms seem to present higher levels of commitment and harmony amongst employees (Vallejo, 2008). Botero et al., (2013) confirm this by arguing that the family firm

identity causes both its family as non-family employees to experience feelings of oneness and

belonging. However, on a less positive note, studies also demonstrate that family owned businesses are strongly connected to nepotism, caused by a desire to remain family members in management positions (James, 1999).

All in all, it can be concluded that family ownership has a vast impact on both the

external as the internal performance of a business. Nevertheless, family involvement on its own is not sufficient for creating sustainable competitive advantage. It is also essential to communicate being family owned to consumers in order to influence consumer’s behaviors and perceptions (Gallucci et al., 2015). Family ownership communication therefore will be analyzed in the next section.

2.3. Family ownership communication and positioning

Authors generally agree that the previously mentioned concept of familiness (Habbershon & Williams, 1999; Zellweger et al., 2010) can function as a unique and inimitable

(15)

businesses (Habbershon & Williams, 1999; Micelotta & Raynard, 2011). Communicating family ownership could therefore be relevant in order to differentiate from competitors (Binz et al., 2013), especially considering the positive associations that are attached to being family owned (Micelotta & Raynard, 2011). Because of this reason, one would expect that all family firms reveal their family status to great extends. But remarkably enough family owned

businesses are still heterogeneous in communicating the family status (Rosina, 2017). Besides that companies vary to what extend they reveal the family component in their communication (Botero et al., 2013; Flören et al., 2015; Rosina, 2017), they also differ in terms of

communication style when it comes to disclosing the family status (Blombäck & Brunninge, 2013; Micelotta & Raynard, 2011).

A large-scale study by Botero et al. (2013) shows that 57% of the family owned

businesses in their sample disclose being family owned on their website, with only 26% doing so in an explicit way (e.g. “we are a family firm” (Botero et al., 2013, p. 16)). These results correspond with a study by Flören et al. (2015), which demonstrates that only 10% of the family owned businesses in their sample consciously takes the family component into account in their marketing strategy. Additionally, Botero et al. (2013) find that age, type of industry, country of origin and market focus moderate the extend of family status disclosure in communication efforts. The authors for example find that the older the company, the more likely the family firm status is revealed.

Micelotta and Raynard (2011) fill a research gap that describes in what ways

companies communicate their family status. The authors demonstrate three different strategies how family ownership is communicated: the family preservation, family enrichment and

family subordination strategy. The strategies deviate in terms of carrier of identity (to what

extent the family identity and firm identity are intertwined), conceptualization of temporality (whether there is a stronger focus on history and tradition or on future and evolution) and role

of the family (whether the family has a prominent role or rather is presented as a fellow team

member next to other stakeholders). Blombäck and Brunninge (2013) provide a more particular viewpoint than Micelotta and Raynard (2011) and show how family firms

communicate their heritage specifically. According to this study, communicating the heritage component could help family firms to create value, to differentiate, to build loyalty and to be perceived as more authentic and credible. The authors demonstrate that family firms build their heritage by emphasizing their longevity, showing their track record over generations, expressing the core values of the family, making use of symbols and by explaining the

(16)

two studies, the literature on how family ownership is communicated is scarce.

After analyzing in what ways family ownership could be communicated, it is relevant

to examine the effects of a family focused communication strategy. In other words: what is known so far about the effects of explicitly mentioning being owned? Research shows that family oriented communication strategies could provoke positive consumer associations (Binz et al., 2013). Binz et al., (2013) find that if a company actively promotes the family

component, consumers prefer products of family firms to products of non-family firms. This is mainly explained by soft factors such as “being trustworthy, supporting good causes, good employers and caring about the environment” (Binz et al., 2013, p. 9). Hard factors that family firms are known for, such as innovation and quality, are more considered as hygiene factors and do not significantly influence purchase intentions (Binz et al., 2013). A family focused positioning could also lead to greater trust and increases the likelihood of new product acceptance (Beck & Kenning, 2015). Lastly, Gallucci et al., (2015) demonstrate that branding strategies focusing on the family aspects of the company result in greater firm performance.

To conclude, this chapter has demonstrated that family ownership impacts both the

internal and external environment of a company. More specifically, literature shows that family ownership influences consumer perceptions and thus can be used as a marketing tool. The following chapter on brand associations will elaborate on this by explaining how these consumer perceptions function in the mind of the consumer, and how they create brand equity and brand image. Moreover, a closer look will be taken at typical family firm brand

(17)

Chapter 3: Brand associations

3.1. Defining brand associations

3.1.1. Brand equity

Before examining the concept of brand associations, an understanding of its broader context is crucial. Therefore the concept of brand equity will be clarified first. Brand equity typically “refers to the value that customers perceive or attach to the brand” (Hakala, Svensson, & Vincze, 2012, p. 440). According to Aaker “brand equity is a set of assets and liabilities linked to a brand’s name and symbol that adds to or subtracts from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or that firm’s consumers” (Aaker, 1991, p. 15). Aaker’s (1991) definition underlines that brand equity creates value for both the consumer and the firm (Aaker, 1996). Advantages for the firm include greater margins and brand extension opportunities, whilst the consumer could benefit from brand equity in terms of risk reduction and simplifying the decision making process (Allaway, Huddleston, Whipple, & Ellinger, 2011; Hakala et al., 2012).

Elaborating on the notion of brand equity, Keller introduced the concept of

Consumer-based brand equity (CBBE): “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer

response to the marketing of the brand” involving “consumer’s reaction to an element of the marketing mix for the brand in comparison with their reactions to the same marketing mix element attributed to a fictitiously named or unnamed version of the product or service” (Keller, 1993, p. 2). The author developed a conceptual framework to help marketing managers gain insights how their marketing efforts influence consumer knowledge (Keller, 1993). According to the framework, brand knowledge consists of two key dimensions: brand

awareness and brand image. In order to build a strong brand, consumers not only have to be

adequately aware of your brand (brand awareness), but also need to have strong, favorable and unique associations with your brand (brand image) (Keller, 2005).

Resulting from his study on CBBE in 1993, Keller introduced another groundbreaking

framework in 2001 that shows how firms build strong brands by going through the four stages of the Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid (Keller, 2001). The stages should be seen as a ladder, where firms can only continue with the next step after the previous step is successfully finalized (Keller, 2001). Brand associations are created at the second level of the pyramid,

(18)

meaning it is the basis of brand attitude and resonance. This underlines the essential role of brand associations in creating brand equity: they are the very foundation of creating powerful brands.

3.1.2. Brand associations and associative networks

According to Aaker, brand equity is largely reinforced by the associations that consumers have with a certain brand. These associations show what the brand stands for in the

consumer’s mind (Aaker, 1996). This viewpoint corresponds with Keller’s definition of brand image: “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory” (Keller, 1993, p. 3). Both authors emphasize the importance of brand associations in building powerful brands. Elaborating on his definition of brand image, Keller defines brand associations as “the other informational nodes linked to the brand node in memory and contain the meaning of the brand for consumers” (Keller, 1993, p. 3). When scrutinizing this definition, the concept of associative networks arises.

Analyzing associative networks could contribute to a better understanding of

consumer perceptions of a brand (Henderson, Iacobucci, & Calder, 1998). According to the

associative network model, the consumer’s memory consists of different nodes (concepts or

stored information), which are connected through arcs that serve as linkages between the different nodes (Mitchell, 1982). A certain node can activate another potential node when “external information is being encoded or when internal information is retrieved from long-term memory” (Keller, 1993, p. 2). In other words, brand associations are shaped by direct involvement with the brand, but could also be created on the basis of information already existing in the mind of the consumer (Rosina, 2017). Associative networks are used as a basis for understanding brand knowledge and CBBE (Keller, 1996).

3.1.3. Different types of brand associations

The different types of brand associations as described in literature diverge (Chen, 2001). A fair amount of authors have attempted to label and categorize brand associations. Aaker (1991), for example, classifies brand associations into: “product attributes, customer benefits,

relative price, use/application, user/customer, celebrity/person, life-style/personality, product class, competitors and country/geographic area” (as cited by Chen, 2001, p. 441). Farquhar

and Herr (1993) propose to divide brand associations into product category, usage situation,

(19)

on corporate image, product image and user image (Chen, 2001). In his CBBE model, Keller (1993) divides brand associations in three broad, abstract categories: attributes, benefits and

attitudes. Subsequently, the author divides each category into more specific types of brand

associations.

Authors all seem to apply a different level of abstraction when classifying brand

associations (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987). Nevertheless, it generally can be concluded that either they tend to focus on more functional and performance oriented motivations, or they emphasize the fulfillment of more abstract, emotional needs (Keller, 2001). This distinction is also clearly visible in the previously mentioned Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid (Keller, 2001). Both tangible and intangible associations are created at the second level of

brand meaning. When building strong brands, firms could go for a “rational route” by going

up on the left-hand side of the pyramid, or pick a more “emotional route” by following the right-hand side of the pyramid. The strongest brands have a combination of both (Keller, 2016).

3.1.4. Brand association criteria

Technically, the associative network of a brand is unlimited, considering that each node could activate another node that in turn activates another range of nodes. Nevertheless, linkages between nodes vary in strength (Keller, 1993), making some brand associations more relevant than others. In addition to strength, nodes and linkages also differ in terms of favorability and uniqueness. The role of branding therefore is to manage these associations in such a way that they become strong, favorable and unique in the mind of the consumer (Keller, 2016).

According to Keller (1993), the strength of a brand association explains how strong

the node is connected to the consumer’s mind. The strength of the association depends on the way the consumer processes the information in his mind, and how it is stored accordingly. If the consumer has a deep thought about the information, the association will be stronger and consequently, this will influence brand recall in certain situations (Keller, 1993). However, once dominantly located in the consumer’s memory, the strength of the association is not likely to diminish quickly (Loftus & Loftus, 1980). On the one hand, this could be beneficial for a company in case the brand association is positive, whilst on the other hand this explains why some companies or product categories face difficulties getting rid of an unfavorable brand image.

(20)

associations. In order to build CBBE, the evaluation of the brand association should be

positive. Only if the brand contains attributes and benefits that could fulfill the needs and wants of the consumer, brand associations are considered as favorable in the mind of the consumer. Consequently, this could lead to a positive attitude towards the brand (Keller, 1993).

Lastly, Keller (1993) addresses the requirement of uniqueness of brand associations.

In order to truly differentiate from competitors, associations should be uniquely attributable to the brand: meaning that brand associations should not be shared with other competing firms (Keller, 1993). By having associations that are strong, favorable and unique, companies create a reason for consumers to purchase from their specific brand over competing brands (Aaker & Shansby, 1982; Keller, 1993). In this manner, the brand association becomes a point of

difference (POD) when positioning the brand in the market (Keller, Sternthal, & Tybout, 2002). Naturally, not all brand associations of a company could be considered as unique, since many of them will be shared with competing firms in the same product category (Keller, 1993; MacInnis & Nakamoto, 1990). Nevertheless, it is crucial for firms to understand and leverage points of parity (POP) with competing firms.

To conclude, the strength, favorability and uniqueness of brand associations is crucial

for building strong brands (Keller, 1993). However, companies should also be aware of potential pitfalls of how brand associations are shaped in the consumer’s mind: a strong, unfavorable association uniquely attributable to your brand is rather undesirable for a firm (Keller, 1993; Chen, 2001).

3.2. Typical family owned business brand associations

After studying how brand associations are shaped in the mind of the consumer and how they create value for brands, it is relevant to analyze the most typical brand associations that are connected to family owned business as described in literature. In chapter 2 of this thesis there already has been touched upon consumer perceptions of family owned businesses. Section 2.3 for example examined the effects of a family focused communication strategy. However, some research has also been dedicated on the more general brand associations consumers have of family owned businesses. Disclosing these could provide tools for the empirical part of this thesis.

(21)

(Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Moore, 2006; Rosina, 2017). As one of the interviewees of a qualitative study by Carrigan and Buckley (2008, p. 659) indicates: “small-ish, kind of brings to mind things like cozy, comfortable...quite community oriented”. This dominant brand association might be triggered by two reasons: a lack of knowledge by consumers that many multinationals are family owned and large companies underestimating the potential benefits of communicating their family ownership (Botero et al., 2013; Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Flören et al., 2015). Certainly, this assumption by consumers has influenced the results of some studies that analyze brand associations. Nonetheless, they still provide useful insights. Moore (2006) found that consumers prefer family firms to non-family because of the “smaller, more homely” feelings they provoke (Moore, 2006, p. 422). Additionally, family firms are often associated with a certain “feel good factor” (Rosina, 2017, p. 30). When buying from family firms, consumers feel “special” and “valued” (Rosina, 2017, p. 30) because of the personal touch and bond they feel with the owner. This results in greater trust and lasting relationships (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008).

Irrespectively of firm size, other studies show that family firms are seen as more

authentic (Kovács, Carroll, & Lehman, 2014; Rosina, 2017), more committed and passionate (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Covin, 1994; Flören et al., 2015), believed to provide better quality (Kovács et al., 2014), have a “higher perceived legitimacy for CSR activities” (Panwar, Paul, Nybakk, Hansen, & Thompson, 2014, p. 4) and are believed to be more sustainable and caring for their employees (Krappe, Goutas, & von Schlippe, 2011).

Additionally, multiple studies emphasize the association of higher perceived trustworthiness (Binz et al., 2013; Rosina, 2017, Beck & Kenning, 2015; Carrigan & Buckley, 2008).

Although family firms are chiefly linked to favorable brand associations (Rosina,

2017; Flören et al., 2015), negative associations have been found in literature as well. Krappe et al. (2011) find that family owned businesses often are “perceived as being hierarchic, stagnant, less flexible, and less innovative” (as cited by Rosina, p. 31). Other examples of unfavorable brand associations include “nepotism, particularism and being stagnant and resistant to change” (Rosina, 2017, p. 35).

All in all, this chapter has shown that connecting strong, favorable and unique

associations to the mind of the consumer contributes to building strong brands (Keller, 1993). From the literature review appears that the brand associations of family firms undeniably are very favorable. However, which tools are needed to build these associations? Keller (2005) explains there are three main ways to build brand image: choosing the right primary brand elements, developing marketing programs and leveraging secondary associations. The second

(22)

option of developing marketing programs certainly is the most obvious option for a firm to invest in, given it is considered as “the heart of marketer’s brand building efforts” (Keller, 2005, p. 20). Indeed, a majority of the studies that analyze family firm communication concentrate on this specific brand building tool (Binz Astrachan & Botero, 2017). Although this tool plays a significant role in building powerful brands, it does imply that a consumers actually takes its time to visit your website and pays attention to your advertisement efforts. Primary brand elements, on the contrary, demand less processing effort by a consumer because it is one of the first things they see when encountering a brand (van Riel & van den Ban, 2001). In this manner it almost serves as ‘free advertising’ for a company (Keller, 2005). Currently there is a gap in research that identifies the role of primary brand elements as a brand building tool for family firms. This merely could be considered as remarkable, given its great potential to relatively easily build brand equity.

(23)

Chapter 4: Primary brand elements

4.1. Defining primary brand elements

Primary brand elements, or brand identities as other authors label the concept (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2003) is defined as “trademarkable visual or verbal information that identifies and differentiates a product or service” (Keller, 2005, p. 20). According to the CBBE model, choosing the right set of primary brand elements could lead to greater brand awareness and the creation of strong, favorable and unique brand associations (Keller, 1993). Keller (2003, p. 175) argues “the test of brand-building ability of the brand elements is what consumers would think or feel about the product if they only knew about its brand name, associated logo, and other characteristics”. Given that consumers make purchase decisions on a limited

amount of information, primary brand elements play a crucial role for a brand (Keller, 2005). They are one of the first things consumers notice when encountering a brand and have the ability to transfer a firm’s key characteristics without making use of costly marketing

programs (Van Riel & Van Den Ban, 2001; Keller, 2005). In this manner they could serve as a ‘branding shortcut’, or even ‘free advertising’ for a brand (Keller, 2005). Especially for ‘new brands’ where consumers did not build any prior brand knowledge yet, primary brand elements offer a chance to directly build brand equity (Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1996).

Keller created six criteria when choosing brand elements: memorability,

meaningfulness, likability, transferability, adaptability, protectability; whereas the first three

elements are more “offensive” or “brand building” in nature and the last three more “defensive” concerning how the brand elements can be “leveraged and preserved” (Keller, 2003, p. 175). In short, the memorability criterion explains how easy a brand can be

recognized and recalled; the meaningfulness criterion assesses the descriptive and persuasive meaning of a brand, including information about the product category and specific attributes and benefits (Keller, 2003); the likability criterion explains how fun, interesting and

aesthetically appealing the brand elements is; the transferability criterion assess whether the brand elements can be introduced in other product categories and countries; the adaptability criterion addresses the extent of flexibility and updateability of a brand element; and lastly the

protectability criterion examines to what extent firms can legally protect the elements (Keller,

2003; Keller, 2005). For this thesis, the meaningfulness criterion is of greatest importance since it “enhances the formation of brand associations” (Keller, 2003, p. 176).

(24)

4.2. Different types of primary brand elements

According to Keller (2005, p. 20) primary brand elements include: “names, Web URLs, logos, symbols, characters, slogans, jingles, packaging and signage”. Although all of these elements could contribute to building CBBE, for this study we will merely focus on the elements of brand name, slogan and logo, since these are most appropriate for communicating the family firm status.

4.2.1. Brand name

Authors generally describe the brand name as one of the most fundamental primary brand elements in building CBBE (Griff Round & Roper, 2012; Keller, 2003). Whilst it might take a consumer a reasonable amount of time to encode marketing communication efforts, a brand name has the specific ability to bring across the brand meaning in split seconds (Keller, 2003), provided that the brand name is chosen well. Brand name could contribute to brand awareness (brand recognition and recall) as well as building brand associations.

Authors have described specific requirements for the effectiveness of a brand name.

Keller argues that if a firm wants to be easily recalled, a brand name should be “simple, familiar and distinctive” (Keller, 1993, p. 9). Wheeler (2009) adds that the brand name additionally should be timeless, tireless, future oriented and easy to lend itself for graphic presentations within a logo. Nevertheless, it might be challenging for firms to meet all these requirements simultaneously. Simple brand names are for example easier to recall than complex brand names, whilst complex names in turn are more easily recognized (Keller, 1993). A study by Chung and Szymanski (1997) shows that consumers tend to choose a product of a brand name that ‘pops out’ in low-involvement conditions (Chung & Szymanski, 1997).

In addition to its effect on brand awareness, brand names also have the specific ability

to bring across brand associations in a quick and compact manner (Keller, 2003). Keller (1993) emphasizes this in his requirement of ‘familiarity’ of the brand name. With familiarity is meant that the brand name should be meaningful to the consumer, “so that it is able to tap into existing knowledge structures” (Keller, 2003, p. 184). This could help to connect the brand name to a specific product category in the mind of the consumer. However, the brand name does not limit itself to product specific associations. It also has the ability to reinforce a broad range of specific attributes and benefits (Keller, 2003). Choosing an impactful brand

(25)

name thus will help firms claiming a desirable position in the mind of the consumer. Although a firm could drive certain attributes and benefits in a brand name, it is no guarantee the

consumer always understands these. In the end, the brand associations consumers have with a brand name are independent of the ones that are brought forward by the company (Griff Round & Roper, 2012). The extent to which certain attributes and benefits are brought forward in the brand name depends on the type of brand name. These include: named after a founder (e.g. Ben & Jerry’s), descriptive for the product category (e.g. Toys “R” Us),

metaphorical (e.g. Patagonia), fabricated (e.g. Kodak), acronyms (e.g. CNN), or combinations of these (e.g. Dunkin’ Donuts) (Wheeler, 2009).

4.2.2. Brand logo

In addition to the brand name, the logo of a firm plays a vital role in building CBBE (Keller, 2003). For this reason, firms spend heavily on logo design: oil company BP for example spent $ 211 million dollar on the redesign and rebranding of their logo (Stampler, 2012). There are many different kinds of logos, ranging from concrete word marks to more abstract symbols, (Keller, 2003). According to Wheeler (2009) logos come as word marks (e.g. Google), letterforms (e.g. Unilever), emblems (e.g. Puma), pictorial marks (e.g. Apple) and more abstract or symbolic marcs (e.g. Nike). Word marks –logos that use the firm name as a logo- contribute to greater brand awareness, since it is easier to recognize (Keller, 2003). More abstract symbols, on the contrary, are at risk of being wrongly recognized. However, they are better at maintaining the interest of the viewer and are liked better (Janiszewski & Meyvis, 2001). Unless a clear product meaning is applied in the logo, logos generally can be used in a broad range of product categories. Though, firms must realize that consumers are not always able to link the logo to a certain brand or product category (Keller, 2003).

Similar to brand names, logos have the ability the transfer meaning and associations.

To a large extent this is determined by the style and design in of the logo (Keller, 2003). Research for example showed that by making use of more delicate colors and handwriting fonts in the logo, firms could be seen as more authentic (Micelotta & Raynard, 2011).

Another study shows that “the more rounded the elements of a logo (as opposed to angular or sharp), the more it was viewed as being harmonious and natural” (Walsh, Page Winterich, & Mittal, 2010, p. 77). On the contrary, authors also argue that the style and design of a logo is not of importance for consumers and that they rather tend to focus on the content of the logo (Giberson & Hulland, 1995).

(26)

4.2.3. Brand slogan

According to Keller, slogans “function as useful “hooks” or “handles,” helping consumers grasp the brand and what makes it special…an indispensable means of summarizing and translating a marketing program’s intent” (Keller, 2005, p. 21). Research shows that slogans impact product beliefs (Ennis & Zanna, 1993), brand evaluations (Boush, 1993) and brand awareness (Keller, 2005). Value creation by means of slogans can be done in multiple ways: establish a strong link to the brand or product category, strengthen the brand positioning or POD, or emphasize being the best by making use of superlatives. Additionally, slogans usually have a descriptive or persuasive function (Keller, 2003) and have the ability to induce emotions (Vaes, Paladino, & Magagnotti, 2011).

Similar to logos, slogans face the difficulty of being falsely linked to a competing brand, especially in highly competitive environments (Rosengren & Dahlén, 2006). In this manner, a competing brand could benefit from another brand’s slogan. In order to avoid this, Rosengren and Dahlén (2006) suggest firms to create irritating slogans, or to create multiple variations of a slogan. Another study by these authors shows that slogans have the ability to transfer brand equity, but that this works better for strong brands than for weak brands. Strong brands thus should powerfully link their slogan to the brand and focus on uniqueness in order to avoid slogan generalization, whilst weak brand should not link their slogan too close to the brand (Dahlén & Rosengren, 2005).

4.2.4. Interaction between primary brand elements

The above-mentioned sections show that each primary brand element has its own benefits. Therefore, it is of major importance that firms “mix-and match them to maximize their collective contribution to brand equity” (Keller, 2005, p. 20). By choosing a correct set of primary brand elements, elements reinforce themselves and create synergy. Schechter (2010) demonstrates this reinforcement effect in his study. At first participants solely saw the brand name, and later the logo was added. For a majority of the brands a dramatic shift in brand evaluations occurred, both positively and negatively. The brand evaluation for Motorola for example increased by 55% after adding the logo (Schechter, 2010).

Nevertheless, it generally can be concluded that very little research has been done on

the interaction effects between primary brand elements. This would be an interesting gap to analyze in further research.

(27)

Chapter 5: Hypotheses development

5.1. Hypotheses

5.1.1. Introduction

Although primary brand elements as such have never been the core topic of family firm research, the brand building tool has been touched upon in literature as part of studies analyzing family firm communication in general. Authors specifically seem to take the primary brand element of brand name into consideration. Research for example has shown that companies that carry the family name as a brand name have a better reputation (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2005), are trusted more and show better financial performances than non-family named companies (Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2010). Additionally, these firms tend to have an above-average customer- and quality orientation (Craig, Dibrell & Davis, 2008), driven by a desire to safeguard the family name (Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2010). Despite that there are numerous other ways than brand name to communicate family ownership in primary brand elements; this very limitedly has been addressed in family firm literature. Nonetheless, it has been empirically proven that mentioning the term “family owned business” in branding efforts is beneficial for a firm (Astrachan, Botero, Astrachan, & Prügl, 2018).

On the whole this provides useful insights into possible outcomes of a family oriented

branding strategy. However, authors did not seem to specifically address the brand

associations that communicating family ownership in primary brand elements could evoke. From the literature review it already appeared that family owned businesses are linked to a broad range of different brand associations in general. They are for example known for their trustworthiness, authenticity, innovation, quality, customer orientation, evoking homely and warm feelings and taking good care of personnel and the environment (Binz et al., 2013; Flören et al., 2015; Kovács et al., 2014; Moore, 2006; Rosina, 2017). Considering that primary brand elements have the ability to evoke brand associations on their own (Keller, 2003), it is assumable that the brand associations arising from communicating family ownership in primary brand elements correspond with the general family firm brand associations as described in literature.

This argument could also be supported by consumer inference theory, which explains

that consumers draw inferences about the character of the firm based on the cues that are provided in the firm’s branding efforts (Kardes, Posavac, & Cronley, 2004). If a “family firm”

(28)

cue is provided in a primary brand element, this will evoke the formation of a positive or negative attitude towards the brand, based on a consumer’s prior belief and understanding of family firms (i.e. the existing family firm brand associations located in the consumer’s mind) (Lude & Prügl, 2018). A study by Lude and Prügl (2018) demonstrates that applying an informational “family firm” cue in a brand element works, that is, it positively infers trust, resulting in greater purchase intention. However, what these authors did not take into account is that the family firm cue could be communicated in many different ways, which in turn could have different effects on the inferences drawn by consumers. That is exactly what this study intents to demonstrate: how are family firm brand associations and attitude formation affected when family ownership is communicated in primary brand elements in various ways?

5.1.2. Main effect – Brand name

Family owned businesses could make the decision of carrying the family name as a brand name. Multiple authors confirm that this is a common practice worldwide (Craig et al., 2008; Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2010). The family name indeed is a “strong and observable signal that helps stakeholders to identify the family firm” (Wolf, 2017, p. 52). Research shows however that firm size, type of industry, country of origin and motivation influence the choice of a company to use the family name as a brand name (Botero et al., 2013; Carrigan & Buckley, 2008). This results into some companies using the family name as a brand name (e.g.

Anheuser-Busch InBev, Heineken, Henkel), whilst others opt a more generic brand name (e.g. Wal-mart, IKEA, Volkswagen). For the latter companies, this often leads to consumers not

being aware of a firm’s family ownership, simply because the family cue is missing (Bain, 2015).

Typical family firm brand associations can only be activated in the mind of the

consumer if he or she is sufficiently aware of the family ownership of the company. This corresponds with the theory of the CBBE pyramid: brand meaning can only be created when the first level of brand salience is fulfilled (Keller, 2005). When solely looking at the primary brand element of brand name (isolating all other factors), this would mean that using the family name as a brand name is crucial in order to inform the consumer about a firm’s family ownership. Indeed, if a generic brand name rather than a family brand name is used, the consumer simply cannot know whether a company is family owned or not. Consequently, family firm brand associations will not be activated because “the brand node in memory” (here: the family owned business) is not given (Keller, 1993, p. 3).

(29)

When analyzing this from consumer inference theory, the family name serves as the family firm cue upon which consumers draw their inferences. If such a family firm cue is lacking (which is the case for a generic brand name), the formation of typical family firm related inferences will not be triggered (Kardes et al., 2004). All in all, this results into the following hypothesis:

H1 Brands will be associated more strongly with family firm brand associations when family ownership is communicated in the brand name compared to when family ownership is not communicated in the brand name.

5.1.3. Main effect – Additional description

By using the family name as a brand name, firms are able to inform the consumer about their family ownership, but cannot indicate any additional direction towards the positioning of the family component. The primary brand element of slogan, on the contrary, does have the ability to add more context and explanation to the family aspect of a firm. Keller confirms this by explaining that slogans could serve as a “means of summarizing and translating a

marketing program’s intent” (Keller, 2005, p. 21). Even more than a brand name, slogans are able to transfer brand associations in a direct and explicit manner (Keller, 2003).

Firms indeed are increasingly making use of taglines such as “family owned”, “family

run” or “a family company” to promote their family background in an attempt to “leverage

that characteristic for differentiation purposes in a “hypercompetitive” world” (Lude & Prügl, 2018, p. 121). As shown in the real-life examples of appendix A, these descriptive slogans (taglines) communicate a firm’s family ownership rather straightforward. It is a clear family signal that hardly can be misinterpreted by consumers (Botero et al., 2013). By providing such an obvious family firm cue, the brand salience level can quickly be fulfilled (Keller, 2005) and typical family associations are likely to be evoked in a direct way (Keller, 2003).

Based on consumer inference theory, Lude and Prügl’s (2018) experimental study

applied similar stimuli and demonstrated that communicating family ownership in such a descriptive slogan triggered trust inferences. Although this study adopts a broader perspective than merely trustwortiness, Lude and Prügl’s (2018) research does show that promotiong a firm’s family status by means of a descriptive slogan could evoke typical family related brand associations. This would not be the case when no such cue is given.

(30)

H2a Brands will be associated more strongly with family firm brand associations when a descriptive slogan is communicated compared to when no descriptive slogan is communicated.

By providing an informational family firm cue, firms attempt to trigger family related inferences, which could help them to gain a reputational advantage over other companies (Lude and Prügl, 2018). Although such an obvious family firm signal “makes it easy for external stakeholders to identify the family firm” (Wolf, 2017, p. 54), it does not provide any direction towards the positioning of the family component. Indeed, firms could strenghten and give more guidance to the formation of favorable family related inferences by communicating a slogan that is more symbolic and affective in nature (e.g. Bavaria – Welcome to the family). More than descriptive slogans, symbolic slogans enable family firms to express the emotional meaning of being a family owned: something that multiple authors argue could serve as a distinctive feature (Craig et al., 2008; Habbershon & Williams, 1999). Moreover, research shows that consumers particularly seem to appreciate this emotional and relational component in family owned businesses (Binz et al., 2013; Carrigan & Buckley, 2008).

Additionally, the more implicit manner of family ownership communication in

symbolic slogans could also lead to a more active elaboration of the family component (Kardes et al., 2004). This in turn could lead to induction of stronger family firm brand associations. Wolf (2017) confirms this by arguing that the more metaphorical nature of symbolic slogans could lead to greater identification with the family firm and induce more positive consumer perceptions.

H2b Brands will be associated more strongly with family firm brand associations when a symbolic slogan is communicated compared to when no symbolic slogan or a descriptive slogan is communicated

Although a symbolic slogan already provides family firms with the possibility to leverage the emotional family component more than with a brand name or descriptive slogan, the

“marketing program’s intent” still needs to be summarized into one sentence (Keller, 2005, p. 21). The brand building tool of marketing communication, on the contrary, offers more opportunity to inform and persuade consumers (Keller, 2005), simply because a firm could use more than one sentence to explain the added value of the family aspect of the business.

(31)

An example of a phenomenon that leans more towards the brand building tool of marketing communication are brand stories. Brands are increasingly making use of “stories to communicate with consumers and induce their emotional connections with brands and

products” (Huang, 2010, p. 307). By providing consumers with a short narrative about the brand, firms could create meaning by “connecting physical products with their feeling and emotions” (Huang, 2010, p. 308).

Despite the core topic of this study remains primary brand elements, it would be

interesting to analyze how strong brands are associated with family firm associations when a brand story is provided. The sole purpose of this would be to create an additional benchmark to which the outcomes of the descriptive slogan and symbolic slogan can be compared with. The results will then show how consumers react to the neutral stimulus at one extreme (control group), while at the other extreme the outcomes of the more elaborated brand story are presented. In this manner, a spectrum with two benchmarks will be created to which the results of the descriptive and symbolic slogan can be put more into perspective.

Being more textually extensive than a slogan, a brand story could integrate multiple

informational cues simultaneously. Research shows that the more informational cues available, the more a consumer will see this as “an opportunity to accumulate evidence to support a choice decision” (Andrews, 2013, p. 750). Brand stories therefore offer more possibilities to explain the added value of being family owned to consumers than a slogan. For this reason, it is expected that brands will be associated more strongly with family firm brand associations when a brand story is communicated, compared to when no slogan, a descriptive slogan or a symbolic slogan is communicated.

H2c Brands will be associated more strongly with family firm brand associations when a brand story is communicated compared to when no slogan, a descriptive slogan or a symbolic slogan is communicated

5.1.4. Interaction effects

So far it has been analyzed what effect communicating family ownership in a brand name, slogan and brand story could have on family firm brand associations. Nevertheless, in real life these primary brand elements are not always likely to be communicated in isolation. In fact, Keller (2005) explains that primary brand elements should be effectively combined in order to reinforce each other and to create synergy. The upcoming section will analyze whether the

(32)

effect of communicating family ownership in a brand name differs when it is combined with a descriptive slogan, a symbolic slogan or a brand story. Given the scarcity of literature on primary brand element interaction effects, the researcher will seek support for the upcoming hypotheses by looking into more indirect sources of evidence, such as co-branding literature.

Research has shown that brand name and slogan could have a reinforcing or

weakening effect on each other (Schechter, 2010). In her study, Wolf (2017) for example hypothesized that a family related tagline and a family brand name reinforce each other when communicated together. She supports this statement by arguing that it will lead to greater signal consistency (Erdem & Swait, 1998), meaning that both elements are “showing

conformity and reflect something like an intended whole” (Wolf, 2017, p. 55). The outcome of her study showed a contrary effect however, namely that the effect of a family related tagline is stronger when it is combined with a generic brand name rather than a family brand name (Wolf, 2017).

This effect could be explained by the concept of information diagnosticity, which is

defined as “the adequacy of information for a given choice task and its usefulness in aiding the consumer to accomplish his or her decision goals” (Andrews, 2013, p. 750). When

analyzing this concept in the light of co-branding literature that analyzes the complementarity and redundancy of information in brand alliances evaluations, support can be found in which cases communicating a family brand name in combination with a family related slogan is effective or not (i.e.: when the information is diagnostic or not). Indeed, the diagnosticity of a certain family firm cue is influenced by the nature of the other family firm cue (Pruppers, 2018).

As explained in the argumentation of hypothesis 1, family firm brand associations can

only be activated in the associative network of the consumer if he or she is sufficiently aware of the firm’s family ownership (Keller, 2005). In the case no additional slogan is provided besides the brand name, the family brand name serves as the necessary family firm cue (Lude & Prügl, 2018) to help consumers identify the firm as family owned (Wolf, 2017).

Subsequently, the family firm node in memory will be activated (Keller, 1993), leading to stronger family brand associations than when the family name is not used as a brand name.

Such an increase in strength of family firm brand associations is not applicable when

the family brand name is combined with a descriptive slogan. Considering that the family brand name already contains an informational cue that could activate family firm brand associations, the addition of a similar cue that merely informs the consumer of a firm’s family ownership will not be diagnostic. The descriptive slogan does not offer new information that

What’s in a (family) name? : the effect of communicating family ownership in primary brand elements on family firm brand associations