Marketing the museum brand: illusion or way to go?
A quantitative study on the effects of various museumorientations on museum performance
Name: Tessa Rosemarijn Griffioen Student number: 10074430
Final version Master Thesis / 14-02-2017 Program: MSc Business Administration
Track: Entrepreneurship and Management in the Creative Industries Institution: University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Balázs Szatmári Second Reader: Erik Dierksen
Statement of Originality ________________________________________________
This document is written by Student Tessa Griffioen 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 other
sources than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economic and Business is responsibly solely for the supervision of completion
Abstract _____________________________________________________________
Marketing academics and practitioners have been arguing for the positive effects of market
orientation and brand orientation on organizational performance for decades. Recent studies
show that organizations, in practice, adopt approaches in which the two strategic options
blend together into a hybrid orientation. However, quantitative research of this market-brand
hybridity to date remains scarce. The purpose of this study was to test the effects of these
approaches – pure market, pure brand, and hybrid orientation – in a museum context, within
which especially hybrid approaches were expected to be beneficial. Moreover, according to
Hofstede’s masculinity dimension, a cross-cultural comparison was made. The sample
included 139 museum directors or managers from the Netherlands, the United States,
Hungary, Austria, and Slovenia. To test the effects of the three types of orientation on
economic and social museum performance, the study made use of two hierarchical multiple
regression analyses. Furthermore, a MANOVA was conducted to test whether the
effectiveness of hybrid orientation differed for a country’s level of masculinity. Contrasting
previous work, the results showed almost no effect of museum orientation on both types of
performance. The only significant effect found was that of brand orientation on social
performance and was negatively rather than positively directed. Moreover, when running the
analyses including only Dutch museums, all three strategic options revealed to negatively
influence performance. These findings added a critical note to the general presumption of the
positive effects of market and brand orientation and provided academics with a stepping stone
for the further exploration of national, cultural, and industrial differences in the practice of
marketing and branding by museums.
1 Introduction ... 6
2 Theoretical framework ... 10
2.1 Market orientation ... 10
2.2 Brand orientation ... 12
2.3 A hybrid approach to market and brand orientation ... 14
2.4 Museum performance ... 16
2.4.1 Market orientation and museum performance ... 17
2.4.2 Brand orientation and museum performance... 18
2.4.3 Hybrid orientation and museum performance ... 19
2.5 National culture ... 21 2.5 Conceptual models ... 24 3 Method ... 25 3.1 Research design ... 25 3.2 Data collection ... 27 3.3 Measures ... 28 3.3.1 Predictior variables ... 29 3.3.2 Outcome variables ... 30 3.3.3 Moderator variables ... 31 3.3.4 Control variables ... 31 3.4 Statistical procedure ... 33 4 Results ... 35
4.1 Analysis of the sample ... 35
4.2 Pre-analyzing the data ... 37
4.2.1 Regression analysis ... 37
4.2.2 MANOVA ... 39
4.2.3 Missing data ... 39
4.2.4 Correlation matrix ... 40
4.4 Exploratory data analysis ... 49
5 Discussion and conclusion ... 51
5.1 General discussion ... 51
5.1 Theoretical and practical implications ... 56
5.3 Limitations and future research ... 58
5.4 Conclusion ... 62
6 Reference list ... 64
7 Appendix ... 74
I. Survey ... 74
II. Cover letter ... 79
III. Countries’ ranking on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions ... 80
IV. Normality plots ... 81
V. Homoscedasticity plots ... 82
1 Introduction
Museums are operating in an increasingly dynamic environment, having to deal with two of
today’s significant trends. Firstly, due to globalization and digitization, the interconnectedness
of museums is rising and exchanging information becomes easier and quicker for both
museums and visitors (Spooner, 2015). As a result, museums now face the challenge to
compete within a broad, interconnected competitive environment without losing their
distinctiveness and credibility (Li & Chen, 2014). This globalization has also led tourism to
expand, with cultural tourism as one of the industry’s most dynamically developing branches
(Csapó, 2012). Museums therefore increasingly need to find ways to appeal to visitors from
very different backgrounds (Li & Chen, 2014).
A second trend targeting museums appears from recent reports showing that the public
funding for arts is decreasing (McQuilten, White, Neville & Dembek, 2015), and for
museums in particular (Museum Association, 2015). These trends have caused museums to
shift away their focus from the collection to the visitor, leaving museum managers with the
struggle to combine the museum’s objective to collect, conserve, research, exhibit and educate
with the higher aim to compete for visitors (Kotler & Kotler, 2000). To keep up with
competing museums and alternative providers of leisure and educational activities, museum
directors need to be open to alternative strategies and management techniques imported from
the commercial sector (Gilmore & Rentschler, 2002).
One of these commercial strategies and techniques involves the practice of marketing.
According to Kaplan and Haenlein (2009), the last decades have seen a shift in the general
conception of marketing favoring its practice by publicly hold entities. Whereas the American
Marketing Association in 1985 described marketing as a process leading to the creation of
exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational needs, its definition in 2004 built much
benefit for organization and stakeholders (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009). Kaplan and Haenlein
(2009) further state that the belief that marketing goes beyond the transaction is finding more
and more support. This advanced way of practicing marketing also leads to a closer fit with
the broader nonprofit sector, enabling NPOs and social enterprises to effectively adopt
marketing principles into their organizations (Brennan & Brady, 1999).
Moreover, also museums themselves have been changing. Whereas museums
traditionally have been defined by their function rather than their purpose, recent definitions
include the importance of people, society and contextual pressures in explaining the purpose
of museums (Rentschler, 2004). Rentschler (2004) further states that this shift in definition
reflects the development of museums from inwardly focused to outwardly focused, dispersing
resources to the community, audiences, and the wider public.
These fundamental changes in museum administration and the practice of marketing
on the one hand and the need for noncommercial enterprises to incorporate practices from the
commercial sector on the other leads to an increased interest in museum marketing (Gilmore
& Rentschler, 2002), something which Rentschler (1998, p. 83) referred to as a “climate of
change”. With her statement “museum marketing: no longer a dirty word”, she opens her
advocacy for the need for museums to adopt marketing activities into their daily management.
Cole (2008) adds to this by concluding that marketing can be used by museum practitioners to
build and maintain strong relationships with their existing visitors, to target wider audiences
and raise visitor numbers, to differentiate their museum profiles from competitors, and to
enhance their missions and plans for increased competitiveness. Although comprehensive
research is done to the effects of various marketing trends on e.g. performance (Gainer &
Padanyi, 2002; Kara, Spillan & DeShields Jr, 2004; Palmatier, Dant, Grewal & Evans, 2006;
Sin, Tse, Yau, Lee & Chow, 2002), customer loyalty (Palmatier et al., 2006), customer
nonprofit context, museum specific empirical research is scarce. However, the need to appeal
to a highly diverse target audience and to satisfy the needs of this audience – varying from
educative and societal to cultural purposes (Kotler, Kotler & Kotler, 2008) – makes museum
marketing a particular, and therefore important, field of research.
This study examines the effects of two important, seemingly opposing, streams of
marketing research on museum performance, namely market orientation and brand
orientation. Although these two strategic orientations might seem incompatible in nature –
market orientation is often characterized by its outside-in, image driven approach, whereas
brand orientation is described as rather inside-out and identity driven – recent research argues
that organizations in practice often perform a hybrid orientation between the two (Urde,
Baumgarth and Merrilees, 2013). Although some museum related studies do explore the role
of market or brand orientation independently, this study argues why especially this hybrid
approach might be well-fitting the museum sector due to the individual characteristics of both
market and brand orientation combined with the trends targeting today’s museum specific
industry.
Furthermore, interest in the effect of national culture on marketing and advertising has
been rising over the last two decades, pointing at the necessity of adapting branding strategies
to the culture of the customer (de Mooij & Hofstede, 2010). This alignment of marketing
practices seems especially important within the museum industry for two reasons. Firstly, the
increase in cultural tourism as mentioned earlier leaves museums with the challenge to appeal
to a (culturally) diverse target audience. Secondly, the last decade has seen a trend of
well-known museums opening branches in another city or country, so-called satellite museums, of
which important examples are the Guggenheim-Bilbao and the Centre Pompidou-Metz.
Based on Hofstede’s (1984) cultural dimensions, a country's level of masculinity
a museum’s performance. Previous work found mixed results regarding this moderating role
of masculinity in combination with a pure market or pure brand orientation. I suggest that, for
museums based in countries with extreme masculinity scores (extremely low or high) to
satisfy the needs of their audiences, hybrid approaches to market and brand orientation may
be especially beneficial compared to the moderate masculinity countries.
Overall, the following research question is raised: What is the effect of a hybrid
brand-market orientation on museum performance? Furthermore, the study aims to answer three sub-questions: (1) What is the effect of market orientation on museum performance? (2) What
is the effect of brand orientation on museum performance? (3) What is the influence of the
cultural dimension masculinity on these effects? Firstly, I give a theoretical overview of the
main concepts in the study and what is already known within this field of research. After
having raised the study’s research question and its hypotheses, I turn to a description of the
methodology in which I elucidate the research design and methodological choices that have
been made. In the fourth chapter, the statistical analyses with which the hypotheses are being
tested are conducted and reported. Finally, a discussion and interpretation of the results is
2 Theoretical framework
Within this chapter, the concepts central to this study, market orientation and brand
orientation, are defined. After having elaborated on what is already written on the two types
of orientation, I explain why there is assumption for the existence of a hybrid type of
orientation. Furthermore, I specify why especially the museum industry is an appropriate
context for researching such a hybrid approach between market and brand orientation.
Subsequently, propositions are made determining the direction of the expected effects of the
different types of orientation. Finally, the role of national culture is involved as a potential
determinant of the effectiveness of a hybrid orientation between market and brand orientation.
2.1 Market orientation
To understand the origin of market orientation and brand orientation and the conceptual
difference between the two, one should first start understanding the roots of the broader
concept marketing. McNamara (1972, p. 51) states that marketing is “a philosophy of
business management, based upon a company-wide acceptance of the need for customer
orientation, profit orientation, and recognition of the important role of marketing in
communicating the needs of the market to all major corporate departments.” According to
Kotler (1980), the marketing concept holds that organizational goals are to be achieved by
determining the needs and wants of target markets. Moreover, it has been an expression of the
marketer’s recognition of the consumer’s importance in the buying process (Houston, 1986).
However, the strategic nature of the marketing concept itself lacks practicability (Kohli &
Jaworski, 1990; McCarthy & Perreault, 1984). To be able to operationalize marketing and
implement its practices, market orientation emerged: the ability to align organizational actions
Market orientation has been studied extensively over the past few decades (e.g. Becker
& Homburg, 1999; Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Kohli, Jaworski & Kumar, 1993; Narver &
Slater, 1990; Slater & Narver, 1994). Two main streams of research seem to dominate the
existing literature on (nonprofit) market orientation, taking a cultural (e.g. Narver & Slater,
1990) or behavioral (e.g. Kohli & Jaworski, 1990) perspective on market orientation. Firstly,
Narver and Slater (1990) – from a cultural perspective – identified customer orientation,
competitor orientation and inter-functional orientation as the sub-constructs determining an
organization’s level of market orientation. Whereas customer orientation and competitor
orientation involve all the means of acquiring information about the organization’s buyers and
competitors and spreading it throughout the organization, inter-functional orientation is based
on creating superior value according to the customer and competitor information acquired
(Narver & Slater, 1990).
Kohli et al. (1993), who advocate for the behavioral area of market orientation, rather
subdivide the concept into intelligence generation, intelligence dissemination and
responsiveness as the adequate dimensions of market orientation. Within their
operationalization, market intelligence refers to collecting and assessing customer needs and
preferences and the forces influencing those, intelligence dissemination to the process and
extent of the exchange of information within the given organization, and responsiveness is the
action taken as response to the former two (Kohli et al., 1993).
However, despite the differences in defining and operationalizing market orientation,
these streams of research on market orientation also show considerable overlap in various
conceptual and operative aspects (Cadogan and Diamantopoulos, 1995). According to Reid et
al. (2005), four aspects embedded in the literature on market orientation are customer
orientation, competitor orientation, inter-functional coordination and a profit emphasis.
level of an organization’s performance plays an important role in the different streams of
research (Day, 1994; Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Narver & Slater, 1990). Furthermore, Matsuno,
Mentzer and Rentz (2005) even go so far as to say that the Narver Slater operationalization of
market orientation actually revolves around the behavioral aspects of culture to a great extent,
automatically raising questions concerning the cultural construct’s distinctiveness from its
behavioral counterpart.
In its core, being market oriented means having a primary focus on the satisfaction of
customer needs and wants, thereby creating sustainable superior value (Day, 1994; Kohli &
Jaworski, 1990; Narver & Slater, 1990; Urde et al., 2013). Market oriented organizations
track and respond to the continuously changing marketplace, therewith consistently meeting
changing customer demands (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993). Consequently, being market oriented
leads to positive business performance (e.g. Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Kirca, Jayachandran &
Bearden, 2005; Matsuno et al., 2005; Narver & Slater, 1990). More specifically, market
orientation is proven to, among others, positively influence organizational profitability
(Narver & Slater, 1990), organizational commitment (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993) and product
innovation (Lukas & Ferrell, 2000).
2.2 Brand orientation
Brand orientation, seemingly opposing market orientation, raised attention over the last 20
years, shifting the focus from the customer to the brand (e.g. Ewing & Napoli, 2005;
Baumgarth, 2009; Evans, Bridson & Rentschler, 2012; Baumgarth, Merrilees & Urde, 2013).
Whereas market orientation had always been emphasizing the creation of sustainable superior
value according to its (future) target buyers’ demands, now consistent brands were
acknowledged as the starting point to sustainable competitive advantage. A brand is here
identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from
those of competition” (Keller, 2003, p. 3). Accordingly, Urde (1999, pp. 117-118), being one
of the first to challenge the paradigm of market orientation, defined brand orientation as “an
approach in which the processes of the organization revolve around the creation, development
and protection of brand identity in an ongoing interaction with target customers with the aim
of achieving lasting competitive advantages in the form of brands”.
The basic premise of brand orientation is that the essence of the brand oriented
company’s strategy is presented in its brand vision, thereby highlighting the strategic goals
directly related to the brand (Urde, 1994). Using the brand as a strategic platform, the ideal
outcome of a brand oriented organization is a constant, consistent and valuable brand offer
that is different from competing brands (Baumgarth, 2009) and with which strong customer
and stakeholder relationships are built and maintained (Bridson & Evans, 2004). Brand
missions should provide answers to the why, the what and the how of the brand-oriented
company: Why does it exist? What does the brand stand for? How is the goal of the brand to
be achieved? (Urde, 1999). And even: Who is the brand? (Urde, 1994; Simões & Dibb, 2001).
Accordingly, Simões and Dibb (2001) argue that a brand has come to express the company’s
core values and beliefs. They state that “it is the amniotic liquid washing the whole
corporation being demonstrated in every internal and external activity in which the company
is involved and in fact becomes the corporate brand” (Simões & Dibb, 2001, p. 223).
Although the relatively young concept is not being as extensively explored as its
counterpart market orientation, various studies to the antecedents and effects of brand
orientation show a positive relationship with organizational performance (Baumgarth, 2009;
Baumgarth, 2010; Napoli, 2006), profitability (Gromark & Melin, 2011) and other
organizational objectives such as raising awareness and building trust (Hankinson, 2000;
brands, brand orientation is a precondition for high brand performance and achieving
sustainable competitive advantage (Hankinson, 2012; Wong & Merrilees, 2008). Moreover,
the effects are shown to hold within different contexts, for example the nonprofit (e.g.
Baumgarth, 2009; Hankinson, 2001; Napoli, 2006), business-to-business (Baumgarth, 2010)
and creative sector (Bridson & Evans, 2004).
2.3 A hybrid approach to market and brand orientation
However, ever since the upswing of brand orientation within the literature, the relationship
between brand orientation and market orientation has been unclear. Former research has
generally addressed the strategic options separately, treating them as two different or even
conflicting concepts (Laukkanen, Tuominen, Reijonen & Hirvonen, 2016). Urde et al. (2013)
differentiate between market orientation and brand orientation by arguing that the former is
usually described as an outside-in, image-driven approach of strategic management, while
brand organization is considered inside-out and identity-driven. Interaction with the customer
still plays a central role within the brand oriented organization, however, responses to
customer demands occur within the brand’s framework rather than being unconditional
responses to what is demanded by customers at any given time (Baumgarth et al., 2013).
Despite this general focus on the distinctiveness of market and brand orientation, there
has been at least some attention to the concepts’ complementarity. According to Urde (1999,
p. 118), brand orientation goes beyond market orientation by adding a degree of
sophistication: “to be brand oriented is market oriented plus”. His view is supported by Reid,
Luxton and Mavondo (2005), who argue that market orientation creates the conditions for
brand orientation. Moreover, they show that high levels of market orientation positively affect
Recent investigation concluded that organizations in practice often perform a more
synergistic or hybrid approach to brand and market orientation (Laukkanen et al., 2016;
Merrilees & Baumgarth, 2016; Urde et al., 2013). According to Merrilees and Baumgarth
(2016), both market orientation and brand orientation may exist separately, but can evolve
further into a distinctive hybrid orientation. This is supported by Urde et al. (2013), who argue
for the need to adopt a more holistic view to be able to understand how the two concepts
relate and interact with each other. Studies that followed aimed at quantitatively exploring the
relationship between synergistic approaches to market and brand orientation and
organizational performance (Laukkanen et al., 2016; Merrilees & Baumgarth, 2016).
In their study, Merrilees and Baumgarth (2016) empirically test the effects of this
hybrid market-brand orientation within a business-to-business context. The conclusion of the
research reads as follows: (1) the hybrid oriented group performed considerably higher market
performance than the market oriented group, because of their greater ability to leverage
management capability into marketing performance, (2) both the hybrid oriented group and
the market oriented group outperformed the low oriented group, and (3) hybrid oriented and
market oriented firms did not differ markedly regarding customer creation, suggesting no
major role for either of the two types of orientation here.
Laukkanen et al. (2016), who explore the relationship between brand and market
orientations within small firms, test how the two concepts simultaneously affect brand
performance and financial performance. The outcomes contribute to the literature on hybridity
in a few ways. Firstly, supporting Urde (1994) and Reid et al. (2005), they find a sequential
relationship between market orientation and brand orientation, meaning that higher levels of
market orientation lead to higher levels of brand orientation. Laukkanen et al. (2016) further
state that this, in turn, leads to better brand performance. Secondly, rather than having a direct
affect the financial performance of small firms indirectly via brand performance. Finally, they
find a moderating effect of company size, suggesting that this non-existence of a direct effect
on financial performance only holds for small, compared to large, companies.
However, there is a persistent lack of research of the interaction or hybrid approaches
between market orientation and brand orientation (Laukkanen et al., 2016; Merrilees &
Baumgarth, 2016). According to Merrilees and Baumgarth (2016, p. 870), there is such
deficiency of literature that “almost any relevant study will help shed light on the debate”.
Following the operationalization of hybrid orientation by Merrilees and Baumgarth (2016),
who argue for hybridity being measured as such that brand orientation moderates the effects
of market orientation, this study tests the effect of hybrid orientation in a museum context – a
field within no research to date has been done yet. In the following section, I elaborate on the
reasons why exploring hybrid approaches in a museum context might be particularly
interesting and even a necessary next step.
2.4 Museum performance
Since the objectives of research in this study are non-commercial entities, it should first be
explained what is meant when talking about performance. According to Paulus (2003), the
often nonprofit nature of museums increases the complexity of its performance measurement.
Although the literature shows divergent ways of measuring performance within a nonprofit
context, they do agree upon the need for measuring both financial and non-financial outputs
(e.g. Gainer & Padanyi, 2005; Moore, 2003; Mottner & Ford, 2005). This study follows the
operationalization of performance of Camarero and Garrido (2008a), who distinguish between
museums’ social and economic performance. Here, social performance for example refers to
collection. Economic performance compromises outputs such as visitor numbers and job
creation (Camarero & Garrido, 2008a).
2.4.1 Market orientation and museum performance
To date, various research has been done to the impact of market orientation and brand
orientation on nonprofit performance. Balabanis, Stables and Phillips (1997) were the first to
empirically test the potential effects of market orientation for NPOs, showing a positive link
between market orientation and performance of charity organizations. Following research
confirmed this positive relationship, for example conducted within universities (Caruana,
Ramaseshan & Ewing, 1998), hospitals (Wood, Bhuian & Kiecker, 2000), nonprofit service
providers (Kara, Spillan & DeShields Jr, 2004) and museums (Camarero & Garrido, 2008a;
Camarero & Garrido, 2008b).
Investigating market orientation within a specific museum context, Camarero and
Garrido (2008a; 2008b) find empirical support for the positive relationship between market
orientation and museum performance. Using the Narver Slater classification of market
orientation, the authors found that market orientation significantly affects both the museum’s
social and economic performance. Additional research confirmed this positive link between
market orientation and museum performance (Camarero & Garrido, 2008b). In contrast to the
studies conducted by Camareo and Garrido (2008a; 2008b), this study follows the behavioral
conceptualization of market orientation. However, I expect the findings to hold for this
conceptualization of market orientation, leading to the following first hypotheses:
H1a: Market orientation has a positive effect on a museum’s social performance.
2.4.2 Brand orientation and museum performance
As regards brand orientation, Hankinson (2000; 2001; 2002) greatly contributed to the
literature by shedding light on the concept’s implementation in the nonprofit sector, finding
several benefitting consequences such as increased voluntary income generation and staff
involvement. Ewing and Napoli (2005), who designed a brand orientation measurement scale
especially applicable to nonprofits, further state that brand oriented activities positively
contribute to nonprofit performance by enabling them to serve their different stakeholders
better and to achieve both long and short term objectives. Successive studies empirically
testing the effects of brand orientation in the nonprofit sector confirms the positive link with
performance (Napoli, 2006; Baumgarth, 2009; Gromark & Melin, 2011; Gromark & Melin,
2013).
However, consensus among the actual implementation of brand orientated practices
within the museum industry is lacking. In his study, Baumgarth (2009) only found a relatively
small percentage of museum managers reporting intensive brand management within the
investigated museums. Evans, Bridson & Rentschler (2012), on the other hand, showed that
numerous great institutions, and museums in particular, are brand-oriented to some degree,
making them easily identifiable as brands. They further state that this brand orientation is
particularly important because of the brand’s ability of serving as a bridge between a
museum’s curatorial and commercial aims (Evans et al. 2012). Gromark and Melin (2013)
also point at brand orientation as the most appropriate orientation for the public organizations
in particular, since it fulfills their communal reason of existence: the public organizations’
contribution to the common good (Gromark & Melin, 2013). Baumgarth (2009),
quantitatively exploring brand orientation within museums, found that brand orientation
positively affects both cultural and market performance. Cultural goals refer to the museum’s
considerable similarity with social and economic performance, I propose the same effects
occurring for this operationalization of performance.
H2a: Brand orientation has a positive effect on a museum’s social performance.
H2b: Brand orientation has a positive effect on a museum’s economic performance.
2.4.3 Hybrid orientation and museum performance
What might be more interesting than measuring the effects of either market orientation or
brand orientation on museum performance is seeing whether a hybrid approach to market and
brand orientation within a museum context is superior to choosing between either of the two.
As regards museums, strategic orientations in which both brand and market aspects play a
considerable role seem especially relevant, taking into concern the characteristics of the
industry and the recent trends occurring within. The first trend mentioned earlier is the
globalization and digitization that increases the interconnectedness of museums locally,
nationally and globally, resulting in the need for museums to differentiate themselves within
this increasingly broad competitive environment. For museums to retain their distinctiveness,
adopting a brand orientation may be highly useful for building, maintaining and
communicating a unique brand that sets the museum apart from its competitors. However, as
regards to the museums’ target groups, globalization has led tourism to expand, challenging
museums with the need to appeal to visitors from very different backgrounds. Here, the
robustness of a pure brand orientation may lack knowledge of and responsiveness to the needs
and wants of this culturally diverse group of target visitors; aspects that are central to market
orientation.
The second trend targeting museums is the decreasing public funding for arts,
Consequently, museum managers today are struggling to combine the museum’s objectives to
collect, conserve, research, exhibit and educate with the higher aim to compete for visitors
(Kotler & Kotler, 2000). To explain how hybrid approaches to brand and market orientation
can contribute to combining these objectives, I refer to an article written by Weinland and
Bennet (1984). Although the article is written 30 years ago, their reasoning still holds and
illustrates my point for a great part. The authors describe the museum’s conversation with its
visitors as either a monologue or dialogue. In the case of a monologue, the museum’s
objective is the sole transfer of knowledge from museum to visitor. When the museum’s
objectives go beyond knowledge, but rather seek to challenge its visitors to develop curiosity,
artistic value and other skills and values, one speaks of a dialogue. In this case, the museum
should encourage visitor questions and react effectively to them (Weinland & Bennet, 1984).
In their article, written in a time where marketing did not yet play a big part in society,
Weinland and Bennet (1984) do not elaborate on serving the visitor’s wants and needs to aim
for the achievement of competitive advantage explicitly. However, their point seems to
translate itself to a hybrid brand and market approach well. On the one hand, it is important
for museums to brand itself according to its educational and societal objectives, something
which originates from deep within the museum, determines its mission and vision, and
follows an identity driven, inside-out approach. On the other hand, as in the Weinland and
Bennet example, museums should interact with its target groups to effectively react to their
demands, especially in times when funds are decreasing. To keep up with these needs and
wants in today’s dynamic cultural sector, museums should adopt an outside-in, image-driven
approach to stimulate responsiveness to their changing environment.
Consequently, I propose that museums that are high on both market orientation and
brand orientation outperform museums that are low on both or either of the two orientations.
moderating role in the relationship between market orientation and performance, as my main
focus is on the effect of hybrid orientations rather than the interaction between market and
brand orientation per se. The effect is expected to be found for both social performance and
economic performance. Social performance comprises items regarding customer satisfaction,
raising visitor interest, and increased understanding of the museum’s objects among the local
community. As elaborated upon earlier, hybrid orientations aim to challenge and stimulate its
visitors, leading to the expectation of a positive link between hybrid orientation and social
performance. As regards financial performance, items here comprise visitor numbers,
fulfilling economic objectives, and reputation and prestige. The ability of hybrid orientations
to position themselves effectively regardless a diverse pool of visitors, leads to the
expectation of higher financial benefits for hybrid oriented museums compared to their low or
pure oriented counterparts.
H3a: The relationship between market orientation and social performance is higher for those
museums also high on brand orientation.
H3b: The relationship between market orientation and economic performance is higher for
those museums also high on brand orientation.
2.5 National culture
The last objective of this study is to explore whether hybrid orientations between market and
brand orientation is more or less effective within different cultural contexts. Interest in the
effect of national culture on marketing and advertising has been rising over the last two
decades, pointing at the necessity of adapting branding strategies to the culture of the
customer (de Mooij & Hofstede, 2010). This statement seems at odds with the emphasis given
remain significant shapers of consumer behavior. However, literature that explores the
relationship between national culture and market and brand orientation is scarce, and the
studies that do exist within the field mainly revolve around market orientation solely (e.g.
Ellis, 2006; Kirca et al., 2005; Nakata & Sivakumar, 2001).
One of the most important contributors in the field of national culture is Hofstede, who
defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members
of one category of people from another” (1994, p. 1). This category of people can, for
example, exist on a national, regional, or social level. Furthermore, Hofstede and colleagues
identified five dimensions on which cultures differ: power distance,
individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity and long versus short-term
orientation (Hofstede, 1984; Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov, 1991). Furthermore, de Mooij
and Hofstede (2010) argue for the latter two to be mainly relevant in this marketing
perspective.
Whereas research done to the role of national culture in a branding context is scarce to
non-existent, some articles do suggest interaction effects between marketing and national
culture. As regards the masculinity dimension, Nakata and Sivakumar (2001) argue that
extreme high levels of both masculinity and femininity are positively linked to the generation,
dissemination, and utilization of market intelligence. Masculine countries value competition
and achievement, aspects that are closely related to the competitiveness of market orientation.
Feminist societies value openness, leading to greater distribution of market intelligence
throughout a market oriented entity. However, contradicting these suggestions, the article by
Kirca et al. (2005) did not find significant interaction effects between a country’s level of
masculinity and market orientation.
It is assumed here that these conflicting findings regarding masculinity-femininity are
needs. Although feminine cultures seem to stimulate the generation, dissemination, and
utilization of market intelligence because of their focus on cooperation, pure market
orientation seems to be too strongly focused on short term wins and competition. Also is
femininity about relationship enhancement rather than ego enhancement (Hofstede, 1991),
something that encompasses more consistency than can be satisfied by the responsive nature
of market orientation. Masculine countries, on the other hand, are shown to score high on
self-consciousness (Hofstede, 1991), something that naturally aligns with the identity approach of
brand orientation.
I therefore expect to find support for the moderating role for masculinity-femininity as
Kirca et al. (2005) suggest in their article. However, here I use a hybrid orientation between
market and brand orientation instead of a pure market orientation. Since I expect extreme
masculine and extreme feminine cultures to value both aspects belonging to market and brand
orientation, I propose the following:
H4a: The relationship between a hybrid orientation and social performance is moderated by
national culture, in a way that the effect is higher for cultures with extreme scores
on masculinity or femininity.
H4b: The relationship between a hybrid orientation and economic performance is moderated
by national culture, in a way that the effect is higher for cultures with extreme
3 Method
In this chapter, the research design is described and justified. It is explained which methods
were used for collecting the data and how the sample was drawn. Furthermore, an overview is
given of the predictor, outcome, moderator and control variables, including their measurement
scales and reliability scores. Finally, the statistical procedure of Chapter 4 is described.
3.1 Research design
To give an answer to the main research question and sub-questions, the study was conducted
within a mono-method quantitative survey design. As elaborated on before, past literature
mostly described qualitative, exploratory research on hybrid approaches to market and brand
orientation. Conducting quantitative research offered the possibility to find empirical support
for the propositions made in former qualitative studies by enabling the possibility of
hypothesis testing. Also, the power of quantitative research methods to enable the replication
of past research made it interesting to see whether the interactive relationship between market
and brand orientation Merrilees and Baumgarth (2016) used to operationalize hybrid
market-brand orientation led to similar outcomes within a museum context.
The study adopted a self-administered mail survey method. The questionnaire was
built with the Qualtrics Insight Platform. This made spreading the survey easy and quick and
offered the possibility of direct analysis afterwards. Before the final questionnaire was sent
out, a pilot test was conducted to see whether participants encountered any difficulties
concerning participating in the study. According to the feedback of ten piloting participants,
slight changes were made in the wording and formulation of a few questions and the
Targeted respondents were museum directors and (marketing) managers, as the survey
contained strategic issues. Because of their involvement in the museums’ operations, they
were considered most capable of answering all questions adequately and therefore as most
valid respondents. Only one respondent per single museum was needed, however multiple
respondents per museum offered the opportunity for more reliable average scores. The
questionnaire consisted of five parts, of which the sequence was chosen strategically.
According to Burns et al. (2008), simple questions should be asked at the beginning of the
survey in order to ease the respondent, whereas sensitive questions – such as demographics –
should be placed toward the end. Therefore, the questionnaire firstly asked for museum
details, such as the name and type of the museum. In the middle of the questionnaire were the
three main researched variables: brand orientation, market orientation and museum
performance. The last part of the survey asked for the respondent’s occupation and age, since
these questions may involve more sensitive information.
The questionnaire consisted of 39 questions, of which one was only showed when
participants chose answer option “Yes” at the previous question. The three main concepts –
brand orientation, market orientation and museum performance – were measured on a 7-point
Likert scale. The answer options ranged from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. ‘Neutral’
was included as middle option. Although there were risks bound to including a middle option
concerning social desirability and lack of cognitive effort (Edwards & Smith, 2011), it was
desired to have a middle option serving as null point. This also prevented respondents to be
pushed in negative or positive direction, while the respondent’s sincere feeling towards the
statement was actually neutral. By choosing a 7-point Likert scale it was aimed to reduce the
chance for dishonestly choosing ‘neutral’, since people tend to use this middle option less
3.2 Data collection
To be able to compare the countries in the sample according to their level of masculinity,
international data had to be acquired. In order to minimalize the chance that differences in the
findings were due to other national traits than the level of a country’s masculinity, the
countries included in the sample had to have the least possible deviation on any of the other
cultural dimensions described by Hofstede. The eventual sample consisted of Dutch,
American, Hungarian, Austrian, and Slovenian countries. As the histogram added in
Appendix (III) shows, all countries (or groups of countries, as I will explain further in sections
3.3.3 and 4.1), or at least two out of three, scored similarly on each dimension, enabling the
assignment of the outcomes to the masculinity dimension. For a further analysis of the sample
or a more comprehensive explanation of the masculinity versus the other cultural dimensions,
I refer to section 4.1 and 5.1.
To collect museum data internationally, national museum associations throughout
Europe and in the United States were approached with the request to spread the questionnaire
among their members or social networks. This resulted in the survey being shared among the
networks of the Hungarian National Centre of Museological Methodology and Information
(OMMIK), the national committee of the International Council of Museums (ICOM), the
American Alliance of Museums (AAM) and the Network of European Museum Organisations
(NEMO). Since the Dutch Museumvereniging was not willing to spread the survey
throughout their network, a database was conducted including all 480 museum members of
the Museumvereniging. Out of these 480 Dutch museums, 15 appeared to be permanently
closed or not fitting the definition of museums used for this study, resulting in a sample of
465 Dutch museums. For each of them, their general email address and phone number were
sought on their webpage. When available, also the personal email addresses and phone
details were to be found, the museum’s online question form was used to send out the survey.
To increase the response rate the emails were personally addressed when names are available.
The targeted group of museums received an email with the request to participate in a 5
to 10 minute survey. The email sent to the Dutch museum was written in Dutch. The email
that was spread throughout the international networks was written in English, as was the
questionnaire for both Dutch and international respondents. A cover letter attached to the
email stated the study’s purpose and guaranteed confidentiality. Also did the email explain the
need for the questionnaire to be filled in by museum directors or (marketing) managers. A
week before the questionnaire’s deadline, a reminder was sent to the museums that did not
start the survey yet or dropped out before completing the survey. In total 189 respondents
participated.
3.3 Measures
To test the proposed hypotheses, three predictive variables, two outcome variables, one
moderating variable and three control variables were included in the questionnaire. Hereof,
five scale variables were included, namely market orientation, brand orientation, hybrid
orientation, economic performance and social performance. For hybrid orientation, a
combined variable of market orientation and brand orientation was constructed, which
differentiated between respondents being high on both market and brand orientation and
respondents which were either low on both or low on either of the two. Of the four scale
variables, all constructs had a highly reliable Cronbach’s Alpha of above 0.8 and all item-total
correlations showed to be 0.5 or higher. For each of those, mean variables were computed for
hypothesis testing. Conducting a factor analysis for the variable market orientation was
considered unnecessary, since the internal structure of the scale was out of this study’s
3.3.1 Predictor variables
Market orientation. (11 items, α=0.89). The predictor variable market orientation was measured using a shorted version of the MARKOR scale of market orientation. The original
scale, designed by Kohli et al. (1993), consisted of 32 items, measuring the three
sub-constructs Intelligence Generation (10 items), Intelligence Dissemination (8 items), and
Responsiveness (14 items). However, with respect to the length of the survey after adding the
other three scale variables, it was decided to use the shorter version of the measurement scale
tested and validated by Farrell & Oczkowski (1997). The respondents were asked to indicate
the extent to which they agreed upon 10 statements regarding the museum’s market
orientation. These were to be answered using a 7-point Likert scale, with (1) meaning strongly
disagreeing upon the statement and (7) meaning strongly agreeing upon the statement. An
example question here was ‘In this organization, we meet with customers at least once a year
to find out what products or services they will need in the future’. The counter-indicative item
‘We are slow to detect changes in our customers' product references’ was recoded so that its
scores aligned with the other items included the scale. Because of the high Cronbach’s Alpha
of above 0.8 it was decided not to delete any items from the construct, even though excluding
the item ‘We are slow to detect changes in our customers' product references’ would have led
to a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.90. Other reasons for retaining the item were the mere change of
0.02 when the item was deleted and the 11 item scale being proved to be valid in past
literature.
Brand orientation. (6 items, α=0.84). The predictor variable brand orientation was measured using the scale designed by Baumgarth (2009). The respondents were asked to
indicate the extent to which they agreed upon six statements regarding the museum’s brand
orientation. These were to be answered using a 7-point Likert scale, with (1) meaning strongly
example question was ‘In this organization, we meet with customers at least once a year to
find out what products or services they will need in the future’. Deleting any of the items from
the scale would not have increased the Cronbach’s Alpha.
Hybrid orientation. To explore the role of culture in the relationship between hybrid approaches to market and brand orientation and museum performance, a new predictior
variable was created that classified museums as either hybrid oriented or not hybrid oriented.
Hybrid oriented was operationalized as having positive scores on both market orientation and
brand orientation. Here, the answer option ‘neutral’ was considered zero, meaning that hybrid
orientated museums scored above four on both market and brand orientation.
3.3.2 Outcome variables
Economic performance. (5 items, α=0.86). The outcome variable economic performance was measured using the scale proposed by Camarero and Garrido (2008b). The respondents were
asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed upon five statements regarding the
museum’s economic performance. These were to be answered using a 7-point Likert scale,
with (1) meaning strongly disagreeing upon the statement and (7) meaning strongly agreeing
upon the statement. An example question was ‘In the past 3 years we have fulfilled our
economic objectives’. The Cronbach’s Alpha would increase with 0.001 when deleting the
item ‘In the past 3 years jobs have been created’, however this change was regarded too small
for deleting the item.
Social performance. (6 items, 0.85). The outcome variable social performance was measured using the scale proposed by Camarero and Garrido (2008b). The respondents were
asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed upon five statements regarding the
museum’s economic performance. These were to be answered using a 7-point Likert scale,
upon the statement. An example question was ‘Customers are enthusiastic and satisfied after
their visit’. Deleting any of the items from the scale would not have increased the Cronbach’s
Alpha.
Visitors. The outcome variable visitors was measured on a categorical level, with answer options varying from (1) less than 6 000 to (4) more than 100 000. Also an answer
option (5) ‘I do not know’ was included. This variable was used as a more objective
operationalization of economic performance rather than social performance, since the amount
of visitors is directly linked to revenues.
3.3.3 Moderator variables
Masculinity. The moderator variable masculinity (MAS) was operationalized according to Hofstede’s cultural dimension masculinity/femininity. A classification of low/moderate/high
MAS was made as such that countries with extreme high or low MAS scores were
differentiated from the middle scores. Countries with MAS scores of 80 or higher were
classified as high, countries with scores of 20 or lower were classifies as low, and the middle
60 percent was classified as moderate. This led to the five countries being spread across the
three groups, with the low MAS group including the Netherlands, the moderate MAS group
including the United States and the high MAS group including Hungary, Austria, and
Slovenia.
3.3.4 Control variables
Museum type. The control variable museum type was measured on a nominal level. Examples of answer options were ‘Modern art’, ‘Science and technology’, and ‘History’. Although no
literature was found on the relationships between museum type and the independent variables,
better for some museum types than others. For example, museum types that have a rather
educational aim, such as history, are expected to benefit less from museum types that might
be better fitting commercial practices.
Visitors. The control variable visitors was measured on an ordinal level, with answer
options varying from (1) less than 6 000 to (4) more than 100 000. Also an answer option (5)
‘I do not know’ was included. According to Camarero, Garrido and Vicente (2014), larger
museums in terms of visitors show higher levels of innovation and their attitude towards
change. Since market and brand orientation involve practices imported from the commercial
sector and are – especially regarding brand orientation – relatively new concepts within
museum management, this finding by Camarero et al. (2014) led to the assumption that
museum size might also determine the level and effectiveness of market and brand orientation
within museums. Only the linear regression analyses controlled for visitors, since the variable
was used as the dependent variable in the ordinal regression analyses.
Employees. The control variable employees was measured on an ordinal level, with answer options varying from (1) less than five to (7) more than 100. Also an answer option
(8) ‘I do not know’ was included. As regards this operationalization of museum size, Vicente,
Camarero and Garrido (2012) suggest similar effects between employees and innovation as
described for visitors. Furthermore, in their article, Laukkanen et al. (2016) found a
moderating effect of company size in terms of employees on the relationship between market
and brand orientation and financial performance. Thus, this study included both
measurements of museum size as control variables. Other than the variable visitors, all
statistical tests controlled for employees.
Country. The control variable country was measured on a categorical level, dividing the museums included in this sample according to the country they were based in. All
statistical tests except for the MANOVA controlled for the museums’ country, for the same
reasons as for which the study expected to find cultural differences
3.4 Statistical procedure
Data collection started at October 18th, 2016 and would initially close on November 9th, 2016.
However, due to encountered difficulties in finding international participants, the deadline got
deferred until December 9th, 2016. This offered the opportunity to approach a few more
international museum associations with the request to spread the survey and to send one more
reminder to the museums that did not completed the survey.
The study aimed to confirm the effects of a pure market orientation and pure brand
orientation on performance in a museum context, and to explore the possible superior effect of
a hybrid orientation between the two on museum performance. To test the first three
hypotheses, two hierarchical multiple linear regressions were conducted. Although there was
considerable correlation between the two independent variables market orientation and brand
orientation – meaning that including these in the same regression model could possibly lead to
multicollinearity problems concerning the regression’s output – it was decided to run two
multiple regressions rather than six separate ones, because of the following reasons: (1) the
correlation of 0.68 between market and brand orientation did not exceed the limit of 0.8, (2)
simply regressing market and brand orientation on performance separately could give an
erroneous estimate of the effect, since some of the effect of the independent variable left out
of the equation will be falsely assigned to the other independent variable, and (3) the Variance
Inflation Factors (VIF) of both market and brand orientation were below the limits of 10, and
even below 5.
Furthermore, to test for the robustness of the effect of market, brand, and hybrid
included in the statistical analyses. Although data on visitor numbers were also obtained
through the self-administered questionnaire, this question was believed to provide an
additional, more objective operationalization of economic museum performance. Because of
the ordinal measurement level of this outcome variable, ordinal regression analyses were
conducted for the effects of market, brand, and hybrid orientation on visitor numbers.
Sequentially, a MANOVA was run to see whether culture serves as a moderator in the
relationship between hybrid orientation and museum performance. The program IBM SPSS
4 Results
In this chapter, the statistical analyses testing the hypotheses of Chapter 2 were conducted.
Firstly, a brief description is given of the sample. Secondly, pre-tests were done to see
whether the data fitted the assumptions belonging to the tests described in Chapter 3.
Subsequently, the statistical tests were conducted and the results reported. Finally, exploratory
analysis was done and briefly described to enable a better interpretation of the outcomes.
4.1 Analysis of the sample
The research objectives of this study were museums. Pre-analyzing the data showed that the
participating museums encompassed various areas, most of which were historically themed.
Other frequently mentioned themes were the local area, modern art, and fine art. Less frequent
themes were for example decorative arts, house museums, or natural sciences. As regards
museum size, frequencies were checked for the amount of visitors the museum attracts on a
yearly basis, and the amount of employees that are currently working for the museum. 15.1%
of the museums in the sample receive fewer than 6 000 visitors a year, 25.2% between 6 000
and 20 000, 38.8% between 20 000 and 100 000, 18% over 100 000, and 2.9% stated that
they did not know the answer. As regards the museums’ employees, 30.9% of the museums
have less than five employees working at the museum, 18.7% between five and 10, 11.5%
between 10 and 20, 8.6% between 20 and 30, 10.1% between 30 and 50, 12.9% between 50
and 100, 6.5% over 100, and 0.7% mentioned to not know the answer. For a more
comprehensive overview see Table I.
As regards the implementation of marketing and branding practices, the museums
generally showed considerably high levels of market and brand orientation, with 57.5% of the
museums scoring higher than four on market orientation and 74.6% higher than four on brand
Table I
Sample characteristics
Variable Low MAS
n=91 Moderate MAS n=21 High MAS n=27 Museum type Archaeological Modern art Decorative art Fine art House museum
Science and technology Natural sciences Local area Specialized General History Other Visitors < 6 000 6 000 – 20 000 20 001 – 100 000 > 100 000 I don’t know Employees < 5 5 – 10 4.4% 12.1% - 9.9% 1.1% 3.3% 3.3% 11.0% 8.8% 3.3% 30.8% 12.1% 14.3% 30.8% 35.2% 18.7% 1.1% 38.5% 18.7% - 4.8% - 14.3% 4.8% 9.5% - 14.3% 9.5% - 42.9% - 28.6% 4.8% 33.3% 19.0% 14.3% 23.8% 23.8% 3.7% 11.1% 3.7% 7.4% - 3.7% - 22.2% - 22.2% 11.1% 14.8% 7.4% 22.2% 55.6% 14.8% - 11.1% 14.8% 11 – 20 12.1% 9.5% 11.1% 21 – 30 7.7% 9.5% 11.1% 31 – 50 7.7% 9.5% 18.5% 51 – 100 > 100 I don’t know 11.0% 3.3% 1.1% - 13.8% - 29.6% 3.7% -
Note. Low MAS including the Netherlands. Moderate MAS including the United States. High MAS including Austria, Hungary, Slovenia.
the participating museums were based in the Netherlands (65.5%). Besides Dutch museums,
the sample included 21 museums from the United States (15.1%), 19 from Hungary (13.7%),
6 from Austria (4.3%), and 2 from Slovenia (1.4%). As described above, the different
countries were classified regarding their level of masculinity MAS (low/moderate/high).
According to the operationalization used in this study – with low meaning a score of or below
20, moderate meaning a score between 20 and 80, and high meaning a score of or above 80 –
three MAS groups were made. The low MAS group included the Netherlands (MAS=14). The
moderate MAS group included the United States (MAS=62). The high MAS group included
Austria (MAS=80), Hungary (MAS=88), and Slovenia (MAS=100). None of the museums
had a parent museum based in another country than where the participating museum was
based. As presented in Table I, the low, moderate, and high MAS group all included a
considerable divergent sample according to type, visitors and employees.
4.2 Pre-analyzing the data
4.2.1 Regression analysis
To conduct the regression analyses testing the first three hypotheses, the data had to meet a
few assumptions. Firstly, the residuals of the outcome variables economic performance and
social performance needed to be normally distributed. As one can see in Appendix IV–A , the
residual plot of economic performance showed not to be evenly distributed horizontally. An
addition p-plot shows that the line deviates from the line downwards. However, Tabachnick
and Fidell (1996) argue that moderate violations do not lead to highly inaccurate regression
outcomes, taken that the sample size is not too small. According to a study done by Minitab
(2014), the probability of finding significant regression outcomes when the residuals are not
normal do not differ from normal distributed residuals already with sample sizes greater than
normality as shown in the plots not being too excessive, conducting the regression analysis
was assumed to be valid. As regards social performance, the distribution of the residuals was
regarded normal based on the plots shown in Appendix IV–B.
Secondly, regression analysis assumes that the independent and dependent variables
were linearly correlated. Linearity tests showed that, for both economic performance and
social performance, all independent variables showed a non-significant deviation from
linearity, meaning that the linearity criterion for conducting regression analysis was met.
Thirdly, the data of the dependent variables were checked for their homoscedasticity.
As one can see in the scatterplot shown in Appendix IV–C, the distance between the dots and
the line showed to be consistent, meaning that the error term was the same across all values of
economic performance. As regards social performance, as shown in Appendix IV–D, the
deviation from the line tends to move slightly outwards. However, since also here the
distribution of the dots was considerably consistent, the dependent variables were considered
homoscedastic and therefore met the third criterion.
Fourthly, a last assumption for conducting regression analysis is that there is no or
little multicollinearity between the independent variables. Although there was considerable
correlation between the independent variables market orientation and brand orientation, it was
decided to run two hierarchical regression analyses instead of six separate single regressions
(see section 3.4 for the reasoning behind this decision). To be able to include a variable for the
interaction effect between market and brand orientation, centralized scores were conducted
for both. This was done because an interaction variable constructed by multiplying market
orientation with brand orientation would obviously show extreme correlation levels with the
4.2.2 MANOVA
The fourth hypothesis was tested by conducting a one-way MANOVA. Also here, the data
was checked before running the test. Firstly, since MANOVA requires a normal distribution
of its dependent variables’ residuals, a Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was used to test for
normality on both economic performance and social performance. Results showed that the
data was normally distributed for both variables.
Secondly, the independent variable was assessed for its univariate and multivariate
outliers on the dependent variables economic performance and social performance within
each group. Concerning the univariate outliers, none of the z-scores within the groups
exceeded the value of 3.29. As regards the multivariate outliers, a test for Mahalanobis
Distance showed that the data neither included multivariate outliers here.
Thirdly, a Box's M test of equality of covariance showed that the within-group
covariance matrices were equal, meeting the homogeneity assumption, and finally, only one
independent variable was used for testing hypothesis four, meaning that no multicollinearity
could exist between the independent variables.
4.2.3 Missing data
Of the 189 respondents, 22 had only filled out the first part of the survey, including the name
of the museum, the country where the museum was based, the type of the museum and
whether or not the museum had a parent country. Because these respondents did not provide
any information regarding the main variables of the study, it was decided to exclude them
from the dataset. For the 167 respondents that remained, the missing data were first analyzed
using logic reasoning. As concerns the main variables used in this study, one could argue that
the variables referring to a museum’s performance could be considered involving sensitive
first question about economic performance, two when being presented the first question about
social performance, and none somewhere in between the second and last question of both
economic and social performance. Thus, the questions regarding the two types of performance
only led to a small dropout rate, however, simply dropping those respondents could lead to
biased outcomes. Other points in the questionnaire where respondents were likely to dropout
was the seventh question of market orientation – starting a new page of the questionnaire – or
the first question of brand orientation. To estimate whether the missing values were missing at
random or not, and thus how they had to be dealt with, the values also needed to be analyzed
statistically.
In total, 11.0% of the data showed to be missing, which was partly due to one question
being added later (concerning the volunteers involved in the museum, after one museum
director suggested the inclusion of the question). When excluding this variable from the
missing data analysis, the amount of missing data slightly dropped to 10.2% of the total
dataset. Little’s test for MCAR (Missing Completely at Random) indicated that the data were
missing completely at random, meaning that, overall, the individuals with incomplete data
were a random subset of the whole dataset (Cole, 2008). According to Raghunathan (2004),
the MCAR is a strong assumption that, when met, validates analyzing the data inly including
only those that have observed values. Therefore, it was considered more harmful to impute
data for those who dropped out than excluding them from the analyses, leading to a final
sample size of 139 respondents. The remaining 4.0% of missing values were replaced by
mean.
4.2.4 Correlation matrix
To check whether significant correlations existed between the independent and dependent
