Strategic Brand Ambiguity,
the Gateway to Perceived Product fit?
A Brand Extension Study
Graduate School of Communication Master’s program Communication Science
Melissa das Dores Student number 10617442 Supervisor Dr. Daan Muntinga Date of completion: 29-01-2016
1 Abstract
An experiment was conducted exploring the effects of strategic brand ambiguity, the use of intended multiplicity in brand meaning. It is hypothesized that strategic brand ambiguity leads to an increase in perceived fit of brand extensions through the activation and integration of multiple brand associations. In addition, the moderating effects of brand familiarity and the individual difference variable, the self-construal are examined. Results showed strategic brand ambiguity did not predict number of brand associations nor did brand ambiguity predict the number of products perceived to fit.
2 Introduction
For fast moving consumer goods the launch of brand extensions are an integral part of business (Sing et al 2012). This approach represents one of the most frequently employed branding strategies (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Kim & Yoon 2013). This is due to brand
extensions generating financial, distributional and promotional benefits as well as increasing parent brand equity. Unfortunately, the failure rate of brand extensions in many fast moving industries is high: a recent report showed that in 2012, only four percent of consumer packaged goods met the AC Nielsen requirements for innovation breakthrough (ACNielsen, 2014). Therefore, knowledge about the factors that lead to the success or failure of a brand extension is limited (Besharat, 2010).
One factor that has been shown to drive consumer acceptance and positive evaluation of brand extensions, is perceived fit of the extension with the parent brand. Perceived fit can be evaluated in terms of product category and attributes. For instance, a high in category fit extension is Heinz Mayonnaise. A different product from ketchup however complementary within the condiments category. Whereas, Heinz pasta sauce can be perceived to fit based on a similar attribute, the ingredient product.
Research has demonstrated that for high perceived fit products, brand extensions receive more positive evaluations and less perceived consumer risk. This is due to the leveraging of the existing brand equity to the new product launch. In addition, the brand extension may benefit from a spillover of the parent brand associations and positioning. For instance, a perception of quality which transfers to the new product prior to product trial (Martinez & Pina, 2010).
In brand extension research, it is commonly accepted that the relatedness of
associations with the parent brand is the key driver of successfully extending a parent brand in a new category (Pitta & Katsanis, 1995; Kim & Yoon, 2013). A recent proposed strategy to increase the likelihood of association relatedness is purposeful polysemy. In the context of
3 advertising, purposeful polysemy is the occurrence of at least two distinct interpretations for the same advertising message across audiences, time or situations (Puntoni, Schroeder, & Ritson 2010). According to Puntoni and colleagues (2010), advertisers can strategically implement polysemy as a positioning tool to highlight a broader range of features of the brand in an efficient and compact manner. In practice purposeful polysemy identifies by a level of abstraction in branding.
Over time, polysemy with a positioning goal, as of now defined as strategic brand ambiguity, should lead to the strengthening and integration of multiple brand associations (Puntoni et al., 2010). However, this relationship has not been empirically tested. It is
important for brand owners to identify and understand the impact of purposeful polysemy on brand associations. This is because, it is argued that purposeful polysemy effectively allows brand associations to expand to a more abstract and flexible associative network. Therefore, advertisers could use brand ambiguity strategically to (over time) direct and perhaps morph their brands. In addition, the ties within the network are strengthened. Therefore, creating clear building blocks for a strong brand.
Strategic brand ambiguity could serve as a means to integrating multiple associations to the existing associative network. Therefore, allowing brands to anticipate for upcoming brand extensions. Positively influencing brand extension acceptance through the activation of fitting brand associations prior to the brand extension. However, whether brand ambiguity has these hypothesized effects has not been researched so far.
Literature provides limited evidence in support of the proposition that brand ambiguity leads to an increase in the number of brand associations (Warlaumont, 1995) and in addition an increase in interpretations of respective advertisements (Ketelaar, van Ginsbergen, Bosman & Beentjes, 2008). Therefore, this study will investigate the effects of strategic brand
4 ambiguity on brand associations and hypothesizes a positive effect on the perceived fit of brand extensions.
As ambiguous ads give less guidance towards the intended meaning consumer
knowledge is necessary in order to “fix the puzzle” (Ketelaar, et al., 2008; Puntoni, Schroeder & Ritson, 2010). More specifically consumers should have a minimal familiarity with the brand in order for an ambiguous ad to not generate frustration due to a lack of understanding but have a positive effect instead (Warlaumont, 1995; Ketelaar et al., 2008).
For familiar brands moderately consistent messages and therefore also ambiguous and flexible ads not only improve awareness but also expand their network of associations, generate favorable responses and brand attitudes (Delgado-Ballester, Navarro & Sicilia, 2012). Therefore, this study proposes that the positive effect of brand ambiguity on perceived fit is moderated by brand familiarity as an existing brand schema is necessary for ambiguity to strengthen and expand brand associations.
Lastly the individual difference variable self-construal is examined as a moderating effect. The interdependent self-construal has the ability to find relationships between stimulus materials and hence has a better response towards the perceived fit of brand extensions and the likelihood of its acceptance (Ahluwalia, 2008). For high interdependent consumers ambiguous brand communication could therefore be more easily interpreted and positively enhance the direct effect of brand ambiguity on perceived fit.
Theoretical Background Openness in Advertising
In order to discuss strategic brand ambiguity one has to grasp the broader concept of advertising openness and how this is discussed in literature. Advertising openness can be viewed as a broader umbrella concept and refers to the extent to which advertisements are
5 open to interpretation and therefore give less to no guidance towards the intended meaning of the advertiser (Ketelaar, et al., 2008).
Classic branding theory emphasizes clear-cut, straight forward ad messaging in order for the consumer to understand and interpret the intended message (Kotler & Armstrong, 2010; Delgado-Ballester, Navarro & Sicilia, 2012). Moreover, repetition of simple and clear selling propositions is said to enhance memory structures and therefore positively influence the higher order awareness measures and in turn influence sales (Sharp, 2010). However, for open ads there is a certain expectation that consumers are motivated enough and enjoy to figure out the intended “hidden message” (Ketelaar, et al., 2008).
The use of openness in advertising has shown to be a growing phenomenon, multiple studies showed that across various product categories, the use of openness has increased (Warlaumont, 1995; Phillips & McQuarrie , 2002; Ketelaar, et al., 2008). Openness in advertising can be signaled through the use of prominent visuals and lack of verbal support and or ad copy (Warlaumont, 1995; Ketelaar, et al., 2008). The advertisements include visual style figures and sometimes only the brand name is given in absence of a product depiction. Openness may be for different reasons namely ads can be abstract, ambiguous, have an implicit meaning or include metaphors or other rhetorical figures (Ketelaar, et al. 2008).
Hypotheses have been formulated on the effects of openness in advertising on
consumer responses. One perspective is that consumers might find it difficult to interpret the ads, are lazy and do not want to invest efforts in interpreting advertising or do not enjoy fixing the puzzle. Therefore openness may lead to frustration or irritation and hence an undesired interpretation may be made or no interpretation at al (Miller & Mazis, 1971; Ketelaar et al, 2008; Ketelaar, Van Gisbergen, Bosman & Beentjes, 2010). The opposite perspective is that openness is viewed as moderately incongruent and therefore more attention is expected due to incongruence resolving with the result of more elaboration and hence the ads result to be more
6 memorable (Ketelaar, et al., 2008). From this perspective advertising openness is said to generate positive attitudes towards the ad and the brand due to a pleasurable process of deciphering meaning (Warlaumont, 1995; Phillips & McQuarrie, 2005).
Most important inference which can be made from the opposing views and results found in literature is that like many other advertising strategies the effectiveness depends on boundary conditions. The three factors as indicated to influence effectiveness of advertising openness are the nature of the recipient, the possible meaning of the message and context in which the message is received (Dimofte & Yalch, 2007; Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004). Ambiguity in Advertising
Ambiguity in advertising specifically refers to advertising which has at least two distinct interpretations. This multi interpretability, the occurrence of layered meaning in advertising can be synchronically, different meanings/ interpretations across audiences. Moreover, ambiguity can be diachronic which entails the multiplicity of meanings within an individual such that the interpretation of the ad can alter with repeated exposure. The latter is most within the scope of this study, although in practice they do not exist completely separate (Puntoni, Schroeder & Ritson, 2010).
Despite the fact that advertisers might see a deviation in advertising interpretation as a problem and ambiguity has the ability to form a barrier for comprehension, multi interpretable advertising, also referred to as polysemy, can be used as a strategic resource (Puntoni,
Schroeder and Ritson, 2010). Overall, openness can be viewed as a development of
advertising going towards a more symbolic instead of functional positioning, most apparent examples of this are brands such as Apple (think different) and Dove (real beauty). Their positioning with vague, open concepts allowed them to be more flexible and speak to consumers with different needs and concerns in current hyper segmented and personalized markets (nonacademic reference if possible).
7 Strategic Brand Ambiguity and Brand Associations
Strategic brand ambiguity in this study is defined as the intended layering by the advertiser of the positioning/ advertising messages with at least two interpretations. With strategic brand ambiguity the advertiser can underline and communicate to the target audience multiple core features of a brand in a smart and effective way (Puntoni, et al. 2010). The use of ambiguity in advertising, referred to by Phillips and McQuarrie as indirect claims, finds its strength in allowing consumers to retain multiple, distinct and positive associations/inferences about the advertised brand (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2005) Moreover, due to the visual nature of ambiguous advertising these associations are likely to emerge more spontaneously at the time of ad exposure.
Strategic brand ambiguity with a positioning goal, as is the scope of this paper, should result in the strengthening of multiple brand associations over time. Moreover, these
associations may become better connected in memory as consequence of being presented simultaneously. Strength and fit of core associations together form the bases of a strong and differentiated brand positioning (Puntoni, Schroeder and Ritson, 2010). In addition, the quantity and quality of cognitive processing consumers allocate to the advertisement are said to correlate with brand association strength. Therefore, strategic ambiguity, is more likely the ad and therefore the brand associations are recalled (Pitta & Prevel Katsanis, 1995).
Therefore, the study proposes the following hypothesis:
H1: Strategic brand ambiguity positively influences the number of brand associations. Brand Familiarity, Strategic Brand Ambiguity and Brand Associations
Familiar brands are easily distinguished because of their strong brand associations and dominance in a product category. Moreover, familiar brands have the advantage of a stronger developed brand schema and therefore ad messages are easier and more pleasant to process
8 for consumers (Delgado-Ballester, Navarro & Sicilia, 2012; Ketelaar, Maesen, Linssen & van Gisbergen, 2013).
Brand schema is the existing network of associations which consumers have stored and organized in their memory to represent a brand. As brand extensions leverage on the existing associations consumers have with the parent brand, their existing schema is activated (Ketelaar, et al., 2013). Hence brand familiarity, what the consumer already knows about the brand and how they perceive it, influences how consumers respond to a brand extension. Brand familiarity here is operationalized as brand knowledge seen that these are the stored and organized associations which consumers have with a certain brand, instead of brand familiarity founded in the awareness and recall of the brand image (Delgado-Ballester, Navarro & Sicilia, 2012).
Brand schema influences the processing and interpretation of new information.
Therefore, the brand functions as a cue for processing and interpreting ambiguous advertising, this is referred to as brand anchoring (Ketelaar, et al., 2013) This mechanism can be found because familiar brands can be recognized and identified more easily than unfamiliar brands and hence are more conceptually fluent (Delgado-Ballester, Navarro & Sicilia, 2012).
Moreover, for familiar brands ambiguity is an engaging way to refresh brand salience in a cluttered market. Attracting attention by ambiguity resolving. Hence, ambiguity in advertising is considered a better strategy for familiar brands due to ambiguity resolving demanding more cognitive energy and for familiar brands the existing brand schema has the ability to help interpret the hidden message. Therefore the following hypothesis is proposed: H1a: For consumers with high brand familiarity the positive relationship between ad
9 Self-construal, Strategic Brand Ambiguity and Brand Associations
The positive reception of strategic brand ambiguity has been identified to also cover
individual differences (McQuarrie & Phillips, 2005). Meaning, that consumers differ in their way of responding to strategic brand ambiguity. To illustrate, consumers have been proven to differ in their ability to automatically access secondary meaning contained in polysemous slogans (Dimofte & Yalch, 2007). Therefore a consumer characteristic facilitating the acceptance for brand ambiguity is examined.
With regard to the relationship between strategic brand ambiguity and perceived fit the study will examine the individual difference variable self-construal. This due to brand
extensions having an incongruent nature and hence stimulate more elaboration through incongruence resolving.
A consumers’ self-construal affects the ability to resolve incongruences but also moderates the extent to which inconsistencies are likely to motivate. Consumers who have a more interdependent self-view are argued to have a superior ability to uncover relationships between an extension and its parent brand, leading to a higher perception of fit (Ahluwalia. 2008). Because brand ambiguity operates on the same underling mechanism self-construal may also explain the influence of brand ambiguity on brand associations. Allowing high interdependence consumers to gather more interpretations in ambiguous advertisements and therefore generate an increase in brand associations as compared to independent consumers. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1b: For consumers with interdependent self-construal the positive relationship between ad ambiguity and brand associations is stronger than for consumers with independent self-construal.
10 Perceived fit
The concept of perceived fit between a brand extension and the respective parent brand examines the degree of perceived proximity between the brand and the new product launch. Perceived fit therefore, illustrates the extent to which the brand extension is perceived as congruent with the parent brand (Buil, de Chernatony & Hem, 2009).
Underlying the workings of perceived fit is the categorization theory. This means that consumers evaluate brand extensions through a categorization approach, piece meal approach or a combination of both. Consumers compare brands based on their attributes to asses in which category they have to place the product (category approach). Or examine the product category and then transfer the category associations to the product (piece meal). This difference in information processing influences the perceived fit of an extension. Namely, complementarity and substitutability both are in regard of the product class whereas transferability refers to the extent to which consumers feel the brand has the needed knowledge and skill to extend the brand (Aaker, & Keller, 1990).
The measure of fit is experienced due to the new products physical similarity to other products of the brand, (category fit), or perceived to fit with more general brand associations (image fit). Regardless of the type of fit, consistency between brand associations and the similarity of multiple stimuli improves consumers’ evaluations. Therefore, perceived fit will be viewed as more positive as perceived closeness increases. A high category or image fit
increases the likelihood of perceived fit. However, most importantly, relatedness of the brand
extension with the parent brand independent of the kind of closeness is necessary (Martinez &
Pina, 2007).
As fit decreases consumers evaluate the brand extension increasingly based on attributes, benefits and attitudes of the extension itself. Thus association transfer is higher when the perceived fit is high. Moreover, the categorization effect increases as the fit does
11 which means that associations transfer from the original brand to the extension when the extension fits the parent brand.
Strategic Brand Ambiguity, Brand Associations and Perceived fit
In the context of brand extension literature, this multi layered positioning with the result of brand association integration is a perfect tool to overcome the crucial question in launching a brand extension. Namely, the advertisers’ ability to influence consumer evaluation of the brand extension’s fit with the parent brand through the strategic implementation of meaning based on the preferred brand associations in
advertising/positioning prior to the launch of a brand extension.
Therefore, overtime integrating the preferred associations in the brand schema of the consumer and increasing the likelihood of fit. Seen that consumer perception of fit has greater influence on a brand extension success than the parent brand attitude or attitude towards purchase of the brand extension (Wu & Lo, 2009; Buil, de Chernatony & Hem; 2009)
strategic brand ambiguity could be a viable predictor of perceived fit.
In addition, perceived fit is argued to be influenced directly by the number of distinct brand associations. Seen that brands with an extensive associative network with many strong associations are thought about by consumers more often through the availability of more activation points. Therefore, the number of products perceived to fit with the parent brand increases as available nodes increase.
Moreover, due to the theoretical proposition of strategic brand ambiguity as the strengthening and integration of multiple brand associations it is expected the effects of brand ambiguity are mediated by the number of brand associations. This because, one would expect ambiguity (with the goal to communicate with multiple interpretations) to expand the
12 associative network and therefore through this elaborated network to result in an increase in the number of products perceived to fit. Therefore formulating the following hypotheses: H2: Strategic brand ambiguity has a positive influence on perceived fit of brand extensions H3: The number of brand associations, has a positive influence on the number of products perceived to fit with the parent brand.
H4: The positive influence of strategic brand ambiguity on perceived fit is mediated by the number of brand associations.
Conceptual Model
+ Strategic
Ad ambiguity Perceived fit # Products
Self-construal Brand associations Brand familiarity + +
13 Research Methodology
Research design
A single factor between-subjects experimental design was used to examine the effect of strategic brand ambiguity on perceived product fit. An advertisement was manipulated to three ambiguity conditions: closed advertising (ad with guidance towards intended interpretation), moderately ambiguous ad (minimal guidance towards the intended
interpretation) and ambiguous ad (fully open to interpretation). Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three ad conditions. In addition, brand familiarity (low vs high) and the self-construal (interdependent vs independent) were measured.
Sampling and Procedure
A nonprobability (convenience) sampling technique was used to distribute and invite respondents to an online survey. Due to the nature of the stimulus product category used in the study (alcoholic beverages), all respondents had to be of legal drinking age in their respective country of residence.
Participants were recruited through the social networking sites Facebook and LinkedIn. The respondents received an online invitation which explained the study was an experiment about advertising strategies and its effect on brand extensions. They were informed about the duration of the survey (5-10 minutes) and that for participation a legal drinking age was required due to the nature of the brand used. Lastly, respondents received a direct link to the survey (see appendix 1) and were thanked for their participation.
The survey started with an opening page explaining the nature of the research. Moreover, respondents were assured of their anonymity and the ability to withdraw their answers within 24 hours after completion. Next respondents had to sign agreement to participation in the study followed by a declaration for being of legal drinking age.
14 Participants who indicated ‘no’ on either of the statements were automatically redirected to the end of the survey and excluded from the data.
Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the ad conditions, therefore each respondent was exposed to either the closed, moderately ambiguous or ambiguous ad. First respondents had to evaluate the ambiguity in the ad. The advertisement remained visible for all question items examining the ambiguity construct. This to allow respondents to reevaluate their thoughts and interpretation of the ad.
Next, respondents were asked about the brand. An open question enquired respondents about their brand associations, followed by brand familiarity and the covariates brand- and product usage. After this six possible brand extensions were presented and respondents had to indicate which products they perceived to fit with the brand. Each selected product was
followed up with image and category fit measures. Lastly, the respondents’ self-construal was measured, followed by demographic questions.
Respondents
In total 161 participants started the experiment, of which 8 participants did not
complete the survey and therefore were excluded from the analyses (N = 153). The mean age in the sample was 27.67 (SD = 9.63), 58.8% were female. On average the sample was highly educated: 32% of respondents indicated to have a Bachelor’s degree and an additional 32% had a Master’s degree.
Stimulus Material
In order to test the effects of strategic brand ambiguity on the perceived fit of brand
extensions, suitable advertisements had to be selected fitting the following criteria. First of all because this study is conducted in the context of brand extension research the scope of the study will comprise of fast moving consumer goods as brand extensions are an integral part of
15 their business (Sing et al 2012). Branded liquor was chosen as it is a low involvement product which can be both very functional and symbolic in branding.
Given that brand extensions are a branding strategy based on the leveraging of existing brand equity (Pitta & Katsanis, 1995) the chosen brand in the study had to be a familiar brand. To illustrate, brand extensions build on associations consumers already have with a brand to generate association transfer and in result reduce communication costs and gather attitudinal benefits. Therefore, it is inherent when examining brand extension success that the brand used in the study is a familiar brand of which successful leveraging (perceived fit) can be
examined. Next to familiarity being a criteria for the purpose of doing a brand extension study, it is also a criteria to test ambiguity effects. Namely, an unfamiliar brand could unintentionally increase ambiguity in the ad (Ketelaar, et al., 2010).
As ambiguity in advertising is an underlying concept to advertising openness, similar criteria to the Ketelaar and collegues (2008) study were used for selecting advertisements. The criteria were the following: Firstly, the advertisement had to include a familiar brand. Secondly, the ad had to contain a prominent picture, without any written copy or a little amount of copy that was easy to remove without compromising the ad. Thirdly, the ad could not include any guidance towards an interpretation. Finally, multiple layers of meaning were necessary, the advertisement had to generate at least two different interpretations and
therefore possess characteristics of ambiguity. Three different print ads were found to fit these criteria, two of which were from Absolut and one advertisement from Stolichnaya.
As the aim of this study was to test the effect of different levels of ambiguity in comparison to closed advertising the selected advertisements were altered in order to make a moderately ambiguous and an ambiguous ad condition (see appendix 3 for stimuli).
The ambiguous ad condition gave no guidance towards an interpretation at all, these ads comprised of a visual accompanied by the brand logo. For the moderately ambiguous
16 condition a tagline was added and therefore limited guidance to an interpretation was given. However due to the multi layered meaning in the ads a tag line did not account for (give guidance to) the full intended meaning in the ad, therefore it is argued the ads are moderately ambiguous.
Therefore, the closed ad condition for both brands were different advertisements. This was necessary because ambiguous ads are characteristically different from closed
advertisements due to their visual style figures (visual metaphors) and layered meaning. Whereas closed advertisements are identified by their overt and direct commercial messaging. Therefore, an ad was selected for each brand which (1) did not include a visual style figure, (2) guidance was given to the intended meaning, which was apparent in the (3) ad copy which included clear propositions and most importantly (4) the product was featured (Warlaumont, 1995).
Stimulus Pretest
The aim of the pre-test was twofold. Namely, selection of the set of advertisements to be used in the experiment and assessment of the familiarity of the brands used. A survey was created (see appendix 2) exposing respondents to one version of all three advertisements. In total 21 respondents filled in the questionnaire, therefore having ten respondents per ad condition. As explained above the closed ad condition consisted of different ads than the ambiguity condition and were expected to generate a single interpretation and therefore were excluded from the pretest.
In the pre-test questionnaire, respondents were exposed to either the moderately ambiguous or ambiguous ad condition for all three advertisement sets. For all three ads respondents were first asked in an open question to write their thoughts and interpretation of the ad. Next respondents were asked about the ambiguity in the ad with eight semantic differential question items on a 7 point scale (i.e., 1= the ad is complicated, 7= simple; 1= the
17 ad hardly guides towards the intended meaning, 7= strongly guides). (see measurement section for the full scale) Lastly, the brand logo was shown and respondents had to write their brand associations and indicate their familiarity on a 7 point scale (1= unfamiliar, 7=
familiar).
Ambiguity pretest. A principle component analysis was run on the eight items measuring ambiguity and showed that all items loaded on one factor (EV= 4.90; R²=.62). Therefore the items were computed into one scale measuring ambiguity. The scale was sufficiently reliable (Cronbach’s α = .89; see table 1 for mean scores of all ad conditions per advertising exposure). The ambiguity variable ranges from 1 is very ambiguous to 7 is unambiguous.
Table 1- Ad ambiguity 1
Advertisement Condition Mean Standard Deviation N Exposure:
Absolut da Vinci Moderate 3.95 1.34 11
Ambiguous 3.26 1.00 10
Absolut fuel Moderate 5.28 1.84 11
Ambiguous 4.95 1.27 10
Stolichnaya Moderate 4.09 .93 10
Ambiguous 4.55 1.51 11
The results show that the ‘Absolut Da Vinci’ ad was rated lowest on ambiguity which means that it is viewed as most ambiguous by the respondents. However, differences between the moderate and ambiguous condition did not differ significantly for either of the three advertisements. Therefore an advertisement set was not chosen based on the quantitative results.
18 Table 2 – Between group independent sample’s T tests
t df p
Exposure:
Absolut da vinci -1.165 19 .263
Absolut fuel -.439 19 .667
Stolichnaya .679 19 .511
In addition to the quantitative measure of ambiguity respondents were asked in an open question to list their thoughts while viewing the ads. This was done to ensure that the
advertisements generated multiple interpretations and hence were ambiguous and not simply open. Responses were coded following Warlaumont (1995), explicitly stated ambiguity was coded, any expression of doubt in regards to the meaning of the ad. Moreover, conative responses were coded, the extent to which the ad stimulated thoughts which showed analysis of the meaning. Lastly, denotive responses, the extent to which the ad only stimulates
descriptive thoughts without expressing thoughts or analyzing.
Results showed that all three advertisements generated thoughts that were linked to analyzing the ad and finding meaning. However, the ‘Absolut Da Vinci’ ad was the only ad which generated one singular interpretation across the sample. Respondents either understood the Leonardo Da Vinci reference or the ad was perceived as “weird” or “vague” without further interpretation. Therefore, we can conclude that the ad was not perceived as ambiguous as only one interpretation was apparent, thus this ad was not chosen for the experiment.
For the ‘Absolut fuel’ ad thought listing actually differed in interpretations, showing that the ad indeed was multi interpretable. Some respondents remarked on Absolut “creating a
19 fun night” or “bringing people together”. Whereas other respondents spotted the iconic bottle being shaped by the dancers, interpreting the ad as “Absolut is your night out”.
Brand familiarity and brand associations pretest. To ensure the study included a familiar brand in order to not unintentionally increase ambiguity of the ad and allow a correct examination of perceived fit in the experiment. Results of the brand associations show seven of the 21 respondents reported to not know of the Stolichnaya brand.
In addition, comparing the mean scores for brand familiarity, the results showed Stolichnaya (M= 3.47, SD=2.15) had a lower score than Absolut (M=5.00, SD= 2.42). Also taking into account the qualitative analysis of the brand associations it was decided that Stolichnaya was not suited for the experiment.
Results of the pre-test showed that the ‘Absolut Da Vinci’ ad scored highest in ambiguity however, the qualitative analysis showed the ad was lacking in generating multi
interpretations and hence was not perceived as ambiguous. Namely, a select group who recognized the reference showed responses of interpretation. However, the ad did not stimulate other interpretations. Whereas the ‘Absolut fuel’ and Stolichnaya ad did generate multiple interpretations of the ad and therefore we can conclude they are conceptually ambiguous. Moreover, as brand familiarity of Stolichnaya was shown to be lower than Absolut it was decided to select the Absolut fuel ads for the experiment.
Brand extensions pre-test
In order to select the given extension possibilities a focus group session was done with 13 people who were all familiar with Absolut due to working in the service industry.
Respondents, were first asked about their associations with Absolut and their knowledge on the products in order to start the group session and get everyone mentally prepped on the exercise. It was explained that the nature of the session was to generate possible fitting brand extensions for the Absolut brand outside of the vodka category.
20 Respondents were asked to first state product usage situation followed by target
market associations. The discussion lead to a group consensus selecting Absolut vodka cocktail shakers, lime juice for specialized Absolut vodka and lime cocktail and Absolut vodka drinking glasses (tumblers) fitting the brands distinctive glass bottle.
Moreover, the respondents were asked to discuss possible extensions fitting with Absolut’s brand image. Because Absolut’s brand image was viewed as an artsy, young brand and due to its association with multiple artists, a modern art online shop was agreed up on to fit the brand. Moreover, sponsored music events and Absolut’s alliance with dance music lead to the selection of headphones as a suitable extension. Lastly, sunglasses were selected due to the association with summer festivals and Absolut’s fun and flirty image.
Measures
Brand ambiguity. Since ambiguity in advertising as defined in this study has not been researched empirically, no scale existed to test the concept. Therefore, the experiment
included a manipulation check similar to the pretest measuring ambiguity with eight question items evaluating respondents’ perceived ambiguity in the advertising. All question items were measured with 7 point semantic differential scales.
As ambiguous ads per definition are open ads three question items from the
advertising openness scale were used (Ketelaar, et al., 2010). However, next to measuring openness of the ad more is needed to grasp the concept of ambiguity. Namely, what is differentiating ambiguity in the spectrum of open advertising are the multiple layers of meaning. It is argued that due to the polysemic nature of the ads, multiple possible
interpretations are apparent and hence ambiguous ads are experienced as more difficult than closed advertising. Therefore, four question items measuring interpretation difficulty are used (Ketelaar, et al., 2010). In addition, certainty of interpretation is measured given that
ambiguity, is expected to decrease certainty of interpretation as multiple interpretations are possible. The result of the full scale are the following items: The advertisement "hardly
21 guides towards the intended message / strongly guides towards the intended message”, "is a riddle / is clear to me", "does not explain the message / explains the message", “not obvious / obvious”, “confusing / straightforward”, “hard to understand / easy to understand”,
“complicated / simple” and lastly the question How certain are you of your interpretation of the ad? “uncertain/ certain”.
A principal component analysis was run to analyze whether these eight items
measured one construct, namely ambiguity. All factors loaded above .3 in the extraction box. Two components were extracted with an EV above 1, however all items loaded on the first component (EV= 4.44; explained variance= 66.13%). Therefore the ambiguity scale was computed which showed sufficiently reliable (α= .88; M =4.35, SD =1.37). The scale ranges from 1 is ambiguous to 7 is unambiguous.
Brand associations. Respondents were asked in an open question to write down the associations they had with Absolut vodka and report on how they perceived the brand and its image. The number of unique associations were counted for each respondent to represent the number of association’s variable.
Brand familiarity. The proposed moderator brand familiarity was measured using a three item scale as used in Delgado and colleagues (2012) with 7 point semantic differentials (1= high knowledge about the brand, 7= low knowledge about the brand; 1= high interest in the brand, 7= low interest in the brand; 1= high knowledge about the brand compared to others, 7= low knowledge about the brand compared to others). The scale in this study also showed sufficient reliability (Cronbach’s α= .74; M=3.66, SD=1.40 and therefore the question items were computed to one brand familiarity measure (1= not familiar, 7= familiar).
Self-construal. Self-construal was measured with the shortened Gudykunst (1994) self-construal scale (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003). The scale consists of 12 Likert type statements ranging from 1=‘I strongly disagree’/ 7= ‘I Strongly Agree’ (See appendix 4) for the full
22 scale). The self-construal variable was computed minimizing the interdependence subscale from the independence subscale (Independence score – interdependence score) resulting in the self-construal scale (-7 = interdependent to 7= independent). Within this study the scale also showed sufficiently reliable (α= .75; M=.79, SD=1.14).
Perceived fit. Perceived fit was measured by presenting respondents with a list of six products/services of which respondents had to indicate all the products they perceived to fit with the Absolut brand. All separate product fit measures were computed in a total perceived fit variable representing the amount of products perceived to fit.
Covariates. In order to control for category usage and brand usage two question items were added to the questionnaire. The questions formulated as follows: Category usage (How often do you drink vodka?) and brand usage (“How often have you consumed Absolut’s products in the past 3 months?”). Both items measured on a 7 point scale (1= Never, 2= Less than once a month, 3= 1-3 times a month, 4= Once a week, 5= 2-3 times a week, 6= 4-5 times a week, 7= more than 5 times a week).
Results
Manipulation check
In order to check whether the manipulation was successful, the perceived ambiguity scores for the three ad conditions were measured. As expected, the closed ad scored highest on the ambiguity scale (Mclosed = 4.73, SD=1.24), indicating that participants experienced most
guidance towards the intended interpretation of the ad and felt most certain of their
interpretation. The moderately ambiguous ad was rated lower than the closed ad condition (Mmoderate= 4.23, SD=1.39). Lastly the ambiguous ad was perceived as most ambiguous
23 A one way ANOVA was run to test whether the differences between these groups where significant. Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance was not significant (p =.45) meaning that the assumption of homogeneity of variance is met. Results of the model showed that a significant difference existed between the three groups (F (2,150) = 3.40, p =.036, η²=.043). Therefore, a Bonferroni post-hoc analysis was conducted to test the differences between the three groups. This analysis showed that only the closed ad condition and the ambiguous ad condition differed significantly, (Mdifference = .66, p = .041). This result was not
unexpected as the pretest showed no significant difference between the moderate ad condition in comparison to the ambiguous ad condition. However, it was decided to test the different levels of ambiguity on a larger sample. Nevertheless, we can conclude that the moderately ambiguous ad was not experienced significantly different than the ambiguous ad nor the closed ad. Because the manipulation for the moderate ad group was not significant the moderate ad condition is excluded from the data for analysis of the moderated mediation hypotheses.
Exploratory analysis
Independent sample t-tests were run comparing the closed ad condition with the ambiguous ad condition for the demographic variables and covariates to see if any significant differences existed between the groups. None of the Levene’s tests of homogeneity of
variance were significant, therefore equal variance between the groups can be assumed. Moreover, as p>.05 for all dependent variables the results show that no significant differences existed between the groups based on age, gender, education, product usage or brand usage. Therefore, we can conclude that differences found in the study cannot be explained by these variables.
Moreover, as is shown in the correlation matrix in table 3, the dependent variable did not correlate significantly with brand use nor product use. Therefore, these variables were not
24 controlled for in the analyses. Furthermore, number of associations was found to correlate significantly with perceived fit and brand familiarity. However, these correlations were expected in the model and hence further examined in the hypotheses analysis.
Table 3 Correlation Matrix Brand familiarity Self construal Number of associations Perceived fit total
Brand use Product use
BF 1 -.023 .320** -.012 .391** .420** SC 1 .086 -.046 -.043 -.024 NumbAss 1 .351** .111 .231** Percfittotal 1 .022 .060 Brand use 1 .710** Product Use 1 * sig at p<.05, ** sig at p<.001 1 Hypotheses testing
In order to test the full moderated mediation model and test the hypotheses, Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) PROCESS application was used in SPSS 20. By using this method the path coefficients for the moderated- mediation model are estimated. Bootstrap confidence intervals of 95% were used for the total and indirect effects of the ad condition on perceived fit total through number of associations. The bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals are estimated using 1,000 bootstrapped samples. Model nine of the application was run with Perceived fit as the dependent variable, Ad condition as the independent variable, number of associations as the mediator and both brand familiarity and self-construal as moderators.
Main Effect of Brand Ambiguity on Perceived fit. The results showed that Ad condition did not significantly predict the amount of products perceived to fit (β= .05, t(101)= .58, p=.565. Therefore, respondents in the ambiguous ad condition did not have significantly
25 higher scores in perceived fit than the respondents in the closed ad condition. Thus the main effect of ad condition on perceived fit was not significant and the first hypothesis therefore cannot be supported.
Brand Ambiguity and Brand Associations. In regards to the relationship between the ad condition and the number of brand associations results showed ad condition was not a significant predictor of number of associations on its own (β = -.18, t(98)= -.65, p= .519). Moreover, brand familiarity did not interact significantly with ad condition to predict the number of associations (β= .01, t (98) = .07, p= .947). Similarly, self-construal did not significantly interact with ad condition either (β= -.37, t (98) = -1.09, p= .277). Neither brand familiarity nor self-construal altered the relationship between ad condition and the number of brand associations significantly and therefore hypotheses H2b and H2c cannot be supported.
Although both brand familiarity and self-construal did not interact significantly with the ad condition, they do show relationships in the expected direction. Namely, ad condition moderated by brand familiarity shows a positive slope in predicting the number of
associations. Thus, as brand familiarity increased an increase in the number of associations was apparent for the ambiguous ad condition in comparison to the closed ad condition.
Moreover, the negative relationship of ad condition moderated by self-construal is explained by a higher score in self-construal relating to a high independence respondent. As high independence consumers are less able to see relationships/ associations between concepts it is expected that as independence increases the numbers of associations decrease.
Worth noting is that from the model brand familiarity seemed to be a significant predictor of number of associations (β = .64, t(98)= 3.36, p= .001). Lastly, the entire model with ad condition as predictor, moderated by brand familiarity and self-construal significantly predicted the number of brand associations (F (5.98) =2.65, p=.03; R² = .13), although the
26 effect size shows that it is a weak relationship. For the purpose of clarity all significant paths in the model are represented in the figure below.
Brand Associations and Perceived Product fit. Number of brand associations showed to be a small however significant predictor of the number of products perceived to fit (β = .12, t (101) = 4.48, p<.001). Thus, as the number of brand associations increased the number of products/services respondents perceived to fit also increased. Hypothesis H2d can therefore be supported.
Indirect Effects. When examining the indirect effect of ad condition, through the number of associations, on perceived fit for different levels of the moderators (brand familiarity and self-construal) the results showed that no significant indirect effect existed. Namely, the confidence interval of all levels crossed zero (see table 3), meaning that the direct effect of ad condition on perceived fit did not differ significantly from the indirect effect. Therefore, we can conclude the model does not include a mediation effect. However, this result was expected as there was no direct effect of ad condition on perceived fit and number of associations.
Strategic
Ad ambiguity Perceived fit # Products
Self-construal Brand associations Brand familiarity ns β= .12** β= .64* R2=.13* ns ns
27 Table 3- Slopes for Ad Condition Predicting Percfit at each Level of BF and SC
Mediator Brand f SC2 Effect Boot SE Lower CI Upper CI
Numass -1.4571 -.8480 .0139 .0565 -.1071 .1201 -1.4571 ,0000 -.0225 .0474 -.1222 .0648 -1.4571 .8480 -.0588 .0584 -.1824 .0520 .0000 -.8480 .0160 .0393 -.0746 .0873 .0000 ,0000 -.0204 .0320 -.0883 .0362 .0000 .8480 -.0567 .0512 -.1740 .0270 1.4571 -.8480 .0181 .0446 -.0758 .1013 1.4571 ,0000 -.0183 .0438 -.1061 .0590 1.4571 .8480 -.0546 .0628 -.1881 .0527
Discussion & Conclusion
The aim of this study was to examine the effects of strategic brand ambiguity on the perceived fit of brand extensions. The direct influence of strategic brand ambiguity on the number of brand extension products perceived to fit was examined. In addition, the indirect effect of brand ambiguity on perceived fit through the number of brand associations was assessed. Another aim of this study was to research whether the positive effects of brand ambiguity were increased for familiar brands and the individual difference variable self-construal.
Results of this study showed that brand ambiguity did not significantly predict the amount of products perceived to fit by the respondents nor did brand ambiguity predict the number of brand associations. Moreover, the moderating effects of brand familiarity and self-construal were not significant. However, the difference in perceived fit explained by ad ambiguity, moderated by brand familiarity and self-construal, through brand associations was marginally significant.
28 From the conditional indirect effect slopes (table 3), we can receive some more
insights on this three way relationship between Ad condition, Brand familiarity and Self-construal. For low brand familiarity and low interdependent self-construal mediated through the number of associations the regression slope is small but positive. However as the self-construal score increases within the low brand familiarity range the effect size reverts to a negative relationship. This means that as a consumers’ dependence self-construal increases the perceived fit total decreases. The same pattern can be found in the average brand familiarity and high brand familiarity ranges. From this we can conclude that brand ambiguity, brand familiarity and self-construal behave in expected manner however, not significantly. Therefore, a replication of the study is advised.
The relationship above is in line with the findings in Ahluwalia (2008), here
consumers with a high interdependence were found to have a significantly higher perceived fit than consumers with high independence self-construal. Moreover, in the Ahluwalia (2008) study this effect was found to be mediated by motivation. According to their results,
consumers with high interdependence were more motivated to find relationship between the brand extension and the parent brand when minimal deviation from the norm was apparent. Therefore, when presented with minimal incongruence between the extension and the parent brand high interdependent consumers are highly motivated and therefore create more
relationships. In the current study the stimuli, can indeed be viewed as minimally incongruent as the advertisements do not guide towards a preferred interpretation. Therefore, evaluating perceived fit of the brand extensions for the ambiguous brand might be experienced as exciting and therefore resulting in higher scores than the independence self-construal respondent.
Overall, conclusions about the researched model for this sample can only be made about the relationship between brand associations and perceived fit. The amount of distinct
29 brand associations, one could also say the extensiveness of the associative network,
significantly predicted the amount of products perceived to fit. This is a finding which
theoretically is often discussed as a proven fact. However, minimal empirical evidence can be found to support this assumption. Most studies examine the relatedness of associations
between the parent brand and the brand extension (Boisvert & Burton, 2011; Bridges, Keller & Sood, 2000; Spiggle, Nguyen & Caravella, 2012). However, the breadth of brand
associations as a predictor for perceived fit, to our current knowledge, has not been
researched. Therefore, this results found may shed some light on the first steps to researching
brand adaptability.
However, when considering the generalizability of the results found in this study one should consider that the sample was not randomized. Even though, correlation tests between the variables in the model and the demographic variables showed the groups did not differ significantly, it is still possible that the sample influences the results. Most respondents were female and highly educated and therefore the sample was not heterogeneous and definitely not representative of the general public. The insignificant results, therefore might be explained by other similarities between the respondents outside of the scope of this study.
Practical Implications
As Puntoni and colleagues (2010) proposed strategic brand ambiguity to strengthen and integrate multiple brand associations, this study aimed to empirically identify this
possible strategic benefit of brand ambiguity. Separate from affect measures (i.e. brand liking and ad liking), it is important for brand owners to understand the impact of brand ambiguity on brand associations. Namely, it is argued that brand ambiguity can effectively allow for brand associations to expand to a more abstract and flexible associative network. In addition, the ties within the network are strengthened. Therefore, when the workings of strategic brand
30 ambiguity are better understood, advertisers could possess a justified tool with the ability to (over time) direct and perhaps morph their brands.
In addition to a more flexible brand association structure, understanding effective strategic brand ambiguity will also have large implications for new business. This because the perceived fit consumers experience between the parent brand and the extension are crucial to brand extension success. Hence, strategic brand ambiguity as a means to integrating multiple associations to the existing associative network, would allow brands to anticipate for
upcoming brand extensions. Therefore, positively influencing brand extension acceptance through the activation of fitting brand associations prior to the brand extension. However, whether strategic brand ambiguity has the hypothesized effects had not been researched so far.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. First and foremost the construct of strategic brand ambiguity was measured with a newly created scale. As no brand ambiguity scale existed question items were collected from different constructs (i.e. advertising openness,
interpretation difficulty) in order to make an attempt to demarcate this complex concept. However, the ambiguity scale has not been tested extensively and therefore the validity of the scale is questionable.
To illustrate, the study showed that moderate ambiguity was not significantly experienced as such. This is in contrast to the findings Ketelaar and colleagues (2010) had when researching the effect of openness on brand responses. Namely, the ad condition which in their study was labelled as closed actually consisted of an open advertisement with an added tagline. Therefore, these were conceptually identical to the moderately ambiguous ad condition in this study. However, a significant difference in ambiguity was not apparent here.
31 Moreover, currently brand ambiguity is operationalized as the difficulty of
understanding an advertisement and the effort to interpreting the advertisement. Therefore, the more abstract and symbolic nature of the brand identity, characteristic to strategic brand ambiguity is not yet assessed. Therefore, a similar follow up study would benefit from an extensively tested brand ambiguity scale. Better inferences about the effects of brand ambiguity could then be made.
Another limitation to the study is the use of a single measurement instance. Referring back to the research proposition by Puntoni and colleagues (2010) strategic brand ambiguity is hypothesized to strengthen and integrate associations over time. However in this study, due to the feasibility of the research, we examined the number of associations right after the manipulation. Therefore, one can argue that this single exposure may not be sufficient for the brand ambiguity to nest in the respondents’ brand associations. Therefore, an experiment with interrupted time series would be more suitable because one could enquire respondents’ brand associations prior to manipulation. Moreover, comparison could then be made with brand associations after multiple exposures and a longer period of time between the first and last measurement. In addition, the base number of brand associations can be controlled for in comparing differences between individuals.
Also noteworthy is that the possible brand extensions were listed in text without any further description of the product or its unique selling propositions. Moreover, the products were not presented in an advertising format, therefore respondents had to imagine what the product and extension image would look like. Therefore, perceived fit between the parent brand and the extension may have been more difficult to experience in comparison to a visual representation with complementary branding.
References
Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. The Journal
32
ACNielsen. (2014). Nielsen breakthrough innovation rapport. Retrieved from:
http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/co/docs/Reports/2015/
Besharat, A. (2010). How co-branding versus brand extensions drive consumers' evaluations of new products: A brand equity approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(8), 1240-1249.
Boisvert, J., & Burton, S. (2011). Towards a better understanding of factors affecting transfer of brand associations. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(1), 57-66.
Bridges, S., Keller, K. L., & Sood, S. (2000). Communication strategies for brand extensions: enhancing perceived fit by establishing explanatory links.Journal of
Advertising, 29(4), 1-11.
Buil, I., de Chernatony, L., & Hem, L. E. (2009). Brand extension strategies: perceived fit, brand type, and culture influences. European Journal of Marketing, 43(11/12), 1300-1324.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Navarro, A., & Sicilia, M. (2012). Revitalising brands through communication messages: the role of brand familiarity. European Journal of
Marketing, 46(1/2), 31-51.
Dimofte, C. V., & Yalch, R. F. (2007). Consumer response to polysemous brand slogans. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 515-522.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2003). Assessing the validity of self construal scales. Human Communication Research, 29(2), 253-274.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication monographs, 76(4), 408-420.
Ketelaar, P. E., Van Gisbergen, M. S., Bosman, J. A., & Beentjes, H. (2008). Attention for open and closed advertisements. Journal of Current Issues & Research in
Advertising, 30(2), 15-25.
Ketelaar, P. E., Van Gisbergen, M. S., Bosman, J. A., & Beentjes, J. (2010). The effects of openness on attitude toward the ad, attitude toward the brand, and brand beliefs in Dutch magazine ads. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 32(2), 71 85.
Ketelaar, P. E., Maesen, S., Linssen, E. J. M., & van Gisbergen, M. S. (2013). The effectiveness of openness in advertising for familiar and unfamiliar brands across different nationalities. Journal of Euromarketing, 22, 5-23.
Kim, J., & Yoon, H. J. (2013). Association ambiguity in brand extension. Journal of
33
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2010). Advertising and Pr in Principles of marketing. Pearson Education.
Martínez, E., & Pina, J. M. (2010). Consumer responses to brand extensions: a comprehensive model. European Journal of Marketing, 44(7/8), 1182-1205.
Pitta, D. A., & Prevel Katsanis, L. (1995). Understanding brand equity for successful brand extension. Journal of consumer marketing, 12(4), 51-64.
McQuarrie, E. F. & Phillips, B. J. (2005). Indirect persuasion in advertising: How Consumers Process Metaphors Presented in Pictures and Words, Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 7- 20.
Phillips, B. J. & McQuarrie, E. F. (2002). The development, change, and transformation of rhetorical style in magazine advertisements, 1954-1999. Journal of Advertising, 31 (4), 1-13.
Phillips, B. J., & McQuarrie, E. F. (2004). Beyond visual metaphor: A new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising. Marketing theory, 4(1-2), 113-136.
Pitta, D. A., & Prevel Katsanis, L. (1995). Understanding brand equity for successful brand extension. Journal of consumer marketing, 12(4), 51-64.
Puntoni, S. (2015). Embracing Diversity (No. EIA-2015-061-MKT).
Puntoni, S., Schroeder, J. E., & Ritson, M. (2010). Meaning matters. Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 51-64.
Puntoni, S., Vanhamme, J., & Visscher, R. (2011). Two birds and one stone. Journal of
Advertising, 40(1), 25-42.
Sharp, B. (2010). Mental and physical availability. In B. Sharp (Ed.), How brands grow (pp. 180-213). South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press
Singh, J., Scriven, J., Clemente, M., Lomax, W., & Wright, M. (2012). New brand extensions: Patterns of success and failure. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(2), 234-242. Spiggle, S., Nguyen, H. T., & Caravella, M. (2012). More than fit: brand extension
authenticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(6), 967-983.
Warlaumont, H. G. (1995). Advertising images: From persuasion to polysemy. Journal of
Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 17(1), 19-31.
Wu, S. I., & Lo, C. L. (2009). The influence of core-brand attitude and consumer perception on purchase intention towards extended product. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
34 Appendix 1- Questionnaire
P1 Hey there!
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this study. As part of finalizing my master’s degree in Persuasive Communication I am conducting a study on consumer response towards advertising. You will get to see an advertisement after which I will ask you a couple of questions regarding your view on the ad and the shown brand. Your opinion is what counts so there are no wrong answers. Followed by some questions about your personality and demographics. The study will take about 10
minutes. Because of the use of a liquor brand in my study, all respondents need to be of legal drinking age in their country.
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the Graduate School of
Communication part of the University of Amsterdam, I can guarantee that: 1) Your answers are anonymous and will not be shared with third parties 2) You can stop the survey at any time and you can withdraw your answers of being used in the study up to 24 hours after completing
3) Participating in the research will not cause you any harm or discomfort nor will you be exposed to any explicitly offensive material. 4) After five months you will be able to request a report of the results of this study.
For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, you are welcome to contact me at any time at melissa.dasdores@student.uva.nl. Hopefully I have provided you with sufficient information and thanks again for your time, your input is very much appreciated!
Kind regards, Melissa
P2 I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the email invitation for this study. I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time. If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission. If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in future, I can contact Melissa.dasDores@student.uva.nl. Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics
Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐525 3680; ascor‐secr‐
fmg@uva.nl. I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in the research study. Yes (1)
No (2)
If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey
P3 Due to the brands used in this study I hereby declare I hold a legal drinking age in my country. Yes (1)
No (2)
35 Q1 Finish the following statements to best represent your opinion about the shown
advertisement. In my opinion the advertisement is..
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7)
The meaning is not
obvious:obvious (1) complicated:simple (2) easy to understand:hard to understand (3) confusing:straightfoward (4)
Q2 How certain are you of your interpretation of the ad?
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7)
uncertain:certain
(1)
Q3 How do you feel about the guidance towards the intended message in the advertisement. The intended message being what the advertiser is trying say with this advertisement. Rate the following statements on the scale to best represent your view on the ad: For example: This advertisement [strongly guides/ hardly guides towards] the intended message.
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) hardly guides:strongly guides towards (1) does not explain:explains (2) is a riddle:clear to me (3)
36 S4
Q4 Absolut Vodka is a Swedish vodka brand. What are your associations with Absolut? How do you perceive this brand and its image? To give you an idea one could have the following associations with Levi's: Levi Strauss, Denim Jeans, High quality, Authentic, Apparel, Fashion brand, Classic American, Young, Versatile, Durable ... etc What do you think of when you think of the Absolut brand? List your thoughts as they come to mind.
Q5 Please indicate how familiar you are with Absolut by completing the following statements on the scale. For example: I have [low interest/ high interest] in Absolut. I have ... about/in Absolut. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) high knowledge:low knowledge (1) low interest:high interest (2) high knowlegde compared to others:low knowledge compared to others (3)
Q6 How familiar are you with Absolut products?
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7)
not at all familiar:very
familiar (1)
37 Q7 How often do you drink vodka?
Never (1)
Less than once a month (2) 1-3 times a month (3) Once a week (4) 2-3 times a week (5) 4-5 times a week (6)
More than 5 times a week (7)
If Never Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Block
Q8 How often have you consumed Absolut products in the last 3 months? Never (1)
Less than Once a Month (2) Once a Month (3)
2-3 Times a Month (4) Once a Week (5) 2-3 Times a Week (6) Daily (7)
Q9 In the case that Absolut would launch a new product/ service which of the following products/ services would you think fits with the Absolut brand? Select all the products you think fit, multiple answers are possible.
Tumblers/ Drinking glasses (1) Lime juice (2)
Sunglasses (3) Cocktail shakers (4) Head phones (5)
38 Q10 For each of the products which you have just selected to fit the Absolut brand indicate to what extend you agree with the following statements. (1= Strongly disagree, 7= Strongly agree)
The product is similar to the Absolut products
Q11 The company's resources are helpful to make the product Q12 The product fits with Absolut's image
Q13 Launching this product is logical for the company. Q14 Launching this product is appropriate for the company
S5 Almost there! I just have some questions about you and then we are done
Q15 The following questions are regarding how you are as a person. Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements. (1= Strongly disagree, 7= Strongly agree)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
My personal identity is important to me. I prefer to be self-reliant rather than depend
on others.
I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit
of my group.
I stick with my group even through
difficulties. I respect decisions made by my group. I maintain harmony in the groups of which I
am a member.
I respect the majority's wishes in groups of
which I am a member. I take responsibility for my own actions. It is important to consult close friends and get
their ideas before making a decision. It is important for me to act as an independent
person.
I should decide my future on my own. I enjoy being unique and different from
39 Q16 What year were you born?
Q17 What is the highest level of education you have completed? Less than High School (1)
High School / GED (2) College/ HBO (3) Bachelors Degree (4) Masters Degree (5) Doctoral Degree (6)
Professional Degree (JD, MD) (7)
Q18 What is your gender? Male (1)
Female (2)
Other (3) ____________________
Q34 Thanks again for your time and for completing the survey. Kind Regards,
