Strategic ambiguity in advertisements amongst unfamiliar and
familiar symbolic car brands: An experimental study on the
effects of strategic brand ambiguity on brand attitudes
Rūta Ziabkutė, 11109726 Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Supervisor: Dr. Daan Muntinga University of Amsterdam
Abstract
Nowadays, brands are increasingly relying on ambiguous messages. This way they seek to achieve a risk-free opportunity to please as many stakeholders as possible and stimulate collaboration between audiences without upsetting or excluding anyone. Ambiguous advertisements act as a “puzzle” which gives satisfaction once solved, and raises the question whether such positivity spills over to brand attitudes as well. This research also covers the topic of brand symbolism and how it can be mediating the latter relationship. Further, brand ambiguity is said to be more effective along with more familiar brands, as well as it is said to have an influence on brand symbolism. Therefore, the moderating effect of brand familiarity is also explored.
An experimental between-subjects method was carried out and a total of 315 respondents participated in the online study.
The experiment yielded a significant negative effect of strategic brand ambiguity on brand symbolism. This brings an interesting contribution, since the existence of an effect was prevailing in numerous academic articles, however the direction of such effect was yet unknown. Therefore, this study discovered that with higher strategic ambiguity in advertisements, the level of brand symbolism decreases, diminishing the level of brand meanings held by the audiences.
Introduction
A person is exposed to over 5,000 advertisements and brands on average per day (Johnson, 2014). Therefore, brands nowadays are trying to break through a sea of competition by introducing creative and novel ways of differentiating themselves. This is why companies are more and more willing to incorporate strategically ambiguous language in their ads, in order to distinguish themselves and appeal to diverse audiences (Puntoni, 2015). Such brand ambiguity gives them a risk-free opportunity to please as many stakeholders as possible and stimulate collaboration between audiences without upsetting or excluding anyone (Scandelius & Cohen, 2016). According to Peracchio and Meyers-Levy (1994), 44 percent of ads include ambiguous language. For instance, an ad by auto manufacturer Audi (see Appendix A) portrays a beautiful woman spilling paint on the new car model. With the caption “Jealousy”, Audi implies women being competitive for their man’s attention because of the perfect vehicle. However, there is no explicit or clear explanation visible in the ad, which leaves the interpretation entirely to the individual, making it somewhat ambiguous (Ads of the world, 2011).
This research if of high relevance to both researchers and practitioners due to the following. Contrasting views exist regarding ambiguity’s effectiveness since it is said to be successful in increasing ad recall (Yannopoulou & Elliott, 2008) and advertising effectiveness (Brown, McDonagh, & Shultz, 2013). However, other researchers argue that an absence of clarity in a message can reduce consumer’s trust in a brand and cause confusion and passivity (Davenport & Leitch, 2005; Denis, Dompierre, Langley, & Rouleau, 2011). What is more, as a term first coined by Eisenberg (1984), strategic ambiguity has not yet received a large amount of empirical work. The existing research has been mostly studied using qualitative research (Brown et al., 2013; Scandelius & Cohen, 2016; Wilson, Bengtsson, & Curran, 2014), which creates a lack of evidence on the effects of strategic ambiguity in various
circumstances, and a lack of data as to when does ambiguity become useful or disadvantageous. Moreover, brands are increasingly interested in experimentation, variations and stories, instead of consistency (Jones, 2012), in order to encourage interaction between the consumers (Charters, 2009). Hence, this study can help reach a consensus regarding the effects of ambiguity, contribute to the future research on brand ambiguity, as well as direct marketers towards an effective advertising strategy application tailored to their brand.
We will also see whether brand symbolism can explain the relationship between strategic ambiguity and brand attitudes, since consumers tend to assign specific meanings to the brands they consume (Souiden & M'saad, 2011). For instance, a BMW owner could be considered sporty and well-educated, meanwhile a Volvo owner would entail a responsible family person. Additionally, to shed light on the effects of brand familiarity, it will also be incorporated in this study as a moderator, to see if it increases the effects of strategic ambiguity on brand symbolism.
Therefore, the aim of this research is to study the effects of strategic brand ambiguity on brand attitudes, and the mediating effect of brand symbolism. Further, it will also shed light on the boundary conditions of strategic brand ambiguity by touching upon the moderating effects of brand familiarity on the relationship between brand ambiguity and brand symbolism.
Hence, this paper is organised as follows. First off, this study will outline strategic ambiguity as a concept, and will discuss its conflicting viewpoints. Subsequently, the hypotheses will be introduced based on the theoretical findings, methods discussed and the final results presented. Lastly, the results will be interpreted and presented in the discussion section, followed by limitations and future implications of this study.
Theoretical Framework Defining strategic ambiguity
Strategic ambiguity is rooted in academic literature and is somewhat a broad concept on its own. Therefore, it could be interpreted differently by various researchers in various fields of work (Ceccarelli, 1998). Puntoni, Schroeder and Ritson’s (2010) definition, however, is the most widely used and the most relevant to this particular research, which is why this study will be based on it. In their study on purposeful ambiguity in advertising, they define the concept as “the occurrence of multiple meanings for the same advertising message” (p. 51).
Purposefully or strategically ambiguous external communications have been demonstrated to have a positive impact on minimising tension between audiences of brands (Dickinson-Delaporte, Beverland, & Lindgreen, 2010). This occurs due to ambiguity’s capability to enable broadened interpretations and balance the interests amongst the audiences, while achieving a clear position in the market. The study conducted by Leitch and Davenport (2002) discussed stakeholder relationship management in public sector organisations (companies with higher amount of audiences. They suggested that communication professionals should use strategic ambiguity in order to gain a competitive advantage and encourage a diversity of actions as well as creative responses amongst the audiences. Researchers based such an advice not just on the ambiguity’s feature to be variously interpreted, but also on the fact that such communication can be deniable. It entails that the messages of large corporations’ can be debatable in case of a misinterpretation or falling out with certain audiences, ultimately making such communication “safer” for the company to use (Eisenberg, 1984).
Strategic ambiguity as a concept has been predominantly applied in the context of organisational management (Dickinson-Delaporte et al., 2010; Paul & Strbiak, 1997; Roloff, 2008), where it is synonymised with strategic brand ambidexterity (Beverland, Wilner, &
Micheli, 2015; Kouropalatis, Hughes, & Morgan, 2012; Melewar & Nguyen, 2014) and strategic flexibility (Fisher & Smith, 2011; Scandelius & Cohen, 2016).
The concept has been brought to advertising and branding strategy research under a different name. Purposeful polysemy was coined by Puntoni, et al. (2010) and refers to at least two meanings across the audiences in response to the same message. According to the researchers, ambiguous advertisement cues are promoting multiple interpretations and are therefore highly similar to strategic ambiguity (Puntoni et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2014).
In the advertising field, the concept of incongruity is also posed to be alike to strategic ambiguity, however not the same (McQuarrie & Mick, 1992). According to Van Rompay, Pruyn, and Tieke (2009), incongruence is a type of information ambiguity since it can deliver broad and polysemous messages (incongruence within the ad), however at the same time ad incongruence can entail being inconsistent between the ad and the medium, for instance a magazine. Therefore, advertising incongruity and brand ambiguity could also be considered as somewhat similar concepts.
Conflicting views on the effectiveness of strategic brand ambiguity
Up until this day there is no consensus with regards to strategic ambiguity’s effectiveness as a tactic used in marketing. On the one hand, positive ambiguity effects exist, which could be explained through consumers’ tendency to process such messages more deeply, since the message encourages them to “solve a puzzle”, this way enhancing their certainty and satisfaction (Brown, 2014; Dimofte & Yalch, 2007; Meyers-Levy, Louie, & Curren, 1994) as well as memory and ad recall (Scandelius & Cohen, 2016; Yannopoulou & Elliott, 2008). According to Morsing and Kristensen (2002), by using distinct and sometimes opposing meanings in their study, it was proven to not have a negative impact on the brand studied. On the contrary, consumer researchers suggest strategic ambiguity’s effectiveness for advertising
and marketing goals (Diamond et al., 2009; Dickinson-Delaporte et al., 2010; Holbrook & Stern, 1997). Additionally, Kemp (2012) states that brand ambiguity is indeed a strength as opposed to a weakness, since the broader a brand is, the more it welcomes its consumers to project their own feelings and opinions onto the brand. Also, such communication engages audiences, due to the effort spent filling in the missing gaps of the message with their own knowledge and interpretation.
On the other hand, there are indications that ambiguity could be not as effective. According to Kahneman (2011), the human brain is wired to avoid ambiguities in everyday life, since people are seeking for stability and consistency in their lives, to ensure personal security. This could explain why there are also negative ambiguity effects found in the literature. Lack of clarity in a message is said to potentially reduce trust (Davenport & Leitch, 2005) as well as such ambiguous communication can be unethical if the objectives are to create misperceptions or preferential treatment for some audiences (Scandelius & Cohen, 2016). Strategic ambiguity might also cause indecisiveness and indifference or strong resistance towards the interpretations (Davenport & Leitch, 2005).
The broader the better
When it comes to the effects of strategic ambiguity on brand attitudes, Dahlén, Rosengren, Törn and Öhman (2008) argue that successfully resolved message ambiguity can improve ad evaluations due to a couple of reasons. First, a thorough message processing increases confidence in decision making, which is commonly a reason for an improved ad and brand liking. The second one, is an idea that ambiguous information has an entertainment value, since it confronts the consumer with a “puzzle” to solve. Solving such an ad, entails effort, and therefore, results in a positive effect, for instance, satisfaction, and a sense of accomplishment (Dahlén et al., 2008). In addition to this, Brown (2014) argued that
ambiguous ads are more deeply processed by the audiences, who are motivated to solve such a puzzle, which therefore lead to an increase in calmness and certainty (Dimofte & Yalch, 2007; McQuarrie & Mick, 1992). Lagerwerf (2002) suggested that if the message-processing model was being run more than twice, meaning if the person takes at least twice to re-evaluate the given information, the appreciation would be higher due to the effort put and the satisfying interpretation.
In their quasi-experiment on polysemy in advertising messages, Puntoni, Vanhamme and Visscher (2011) showed that by presenting ambiguous advertisements, heterosexual men had more positive attitudes toward the mainstream ads, and gay men showed positive emotions toward the gay ads. Therefore, the overall effect towards ambiguous ads was positive for both groups. What is more, according to Puntoni et al. (2010), purposeful polysemy, which is synonymous with strategic ambiguity, is said to increase and strengthen multiple brand associations over time, which are stated to be direct representations of brand attitudes (Faircloth, Capella, & Alford, 2001). The increase occurs as a consequence of the message being repetitively presented to the audiences, and because of the degree of fit of the message’s core associations to one’s own experience and knowledge.
The other side of the research mostly concerns incongruities in advertising and marketing, which according to Van Rompay et al. (2009) was shown to be similar to ambiguity. Thematic incongruence, which refers to ads placed in a medium with a specific theme that is inconsistent with the brand advertised, is said to enhance advertising evaluations and strengthen brand associations (Dahlén et al., 2008). In two experimental studies conducted by McQuarrie and Mick (1992), incongruous polysemy was researched, which entails expressing various meanings within a single word or phrase, that is incongruous with the ad itself (Brad Pitt advertising for female Chanel perfume) or the medium where it is published (advertising McDonalds new burger in a healthy magazine Santé). The researchers
concluded that the study produced positive effects on ad liking, ad headlines’ recall as well as brand attitudes, showing the positive effects of ambiguity. When it comes to content incongruity it is said to be less effective than congruity when it comes to positively increasing consumer responses and brand attitudes (Liu, Li, Mizerski, & Soh, 2012; Van Rompay et al., 2009). Nevertheless, a study conducted by Sjödin and Törn (2006) argues that, on the contrary, incongruity between a brand’s advertisement and the established brand image with consumers enhances attitudes towards the ad and brand associations, once again, showing the positive effect of strategic ambiguity.
Therefore, this study provides a great opportunity to confront the contrasting results presented. Also, in this research the attitudes towards the brand will be focused on, as opposed to the attitudes towards the ad (Puntoni et al., 2011; Sjödin & Törn, 2006). Based on this, the first hypothesis was proposed:
H1: Strategic brand ambiguity positively affects brand attitudes.
The effects of symbolic meanings
Brand symbolism entails the meanings of a brand that consumer holds as well as the wide range of emotions that they experience when or after acquiring the brand’s product or service (Souiden & M'saad, 2011). Brand symbolism encompasses the ways by which a brand can symbolise the user image as well as the meanings of a brand’s product or service information (McAlister & Cornwell, 2010). For instance, every well-known car brand has its own symbolic meanings projected onto the car owners. A person driving a BMW may be perceived to be sporty, well-educated male, mostly arrogant and confident about his driving skills, whereas Volvo’s symbolic meaning would entail a careful middle-class average family person, cautious about everyone’s safety. Hence, products and brands can act as symbols that
provide meaning to consumers (Elliot & Wattanasuwan, 1998; Hollenbeck & Zinkhan, 2010; McAlister & Cornwell, 2010).
Developed through ambiguous communication. This research suggests that brand symbolism is the underlying mechanism of the hypothesised effects between brand ambiguity and brand attitudes. This was established due to theoretical and empirical evidence found in the field. According to Escalas and Bettman (2005) the level of symbolism (the greater or lesser extent of symbolic meanings attached to a brand) that a consumer holds for a brand depends on the brand’s capability to communicate the identity of its users. Additionally, brands differ in symbolism and therefore their ability to communicate something about the people who are using it (Escalas & Bettman, 2005). Lau and Phau (2007) argued that the symbolic meanings are dependent on the personality and image that such brands communicate.
Hence, considering the fact that brands are capable of and successful at communicating ambiguous messages, one could state that ambiguity and brand symbolism are highly connected and the latter is largely dependent on ambiguous brand communication, and hence, influence brand attitudes as well. Brand symbolism is predicted to mediate this relationship, since the more ambiguous the brand is, the more brand meanings it can possess, making the brand more symbolic. Wheareas a less ambiguous brand might have less brand meanings, since the brand is more constant and the meanings are set, making the brand less symbolic.
Connection to brand attitudes. There are also numerous studies that suggest brand symbolism to have an effect on brand attitudes. Dijksterhuis, Smith, Van Baaren and Wigboldus (2005) found that brand attitudes could be based on affective beliefs, which entail having significant symbolic meanings for a brand. In addition, O’Cass and Frost (2002) found that with highly symbolic brand characteristics, the positive brand attitudes and evaluations
were also increasing. Bernritter, Verlegh and Smit (2016) also confirmed that highly symbolic for-profit brands are better liked than the less symbolic brands.
Considering the fact that brand symbolism is connected to and even dependent on the (ambiguous) communication that a brand conveys, and considering the influence that brand symbolism shows over brand attitudes, we expect that brand symbolism mediates the relationship between strategic brand ambiguity and brand attitudes:
H2: Brand symbolism mediates the positive relationship between strategic brand ambiguity and brand attitudes, such that highly ambiguous brands are perceived as more symbolic, which in turn leads to increased brand attitudes.
The moderating effect of brand familiarity
This research also investigates how brand familiarity might affect the relationship between strategic ambiguity and brand symbolism.
In a study conducted by Muthukrishnan, Wathieu and Xu (2009) on ambiguity aversion, the researchers studied the decision-making under uncertainty and found that people are inclined to choose for known rather than unknown (ambiguous) options presented. This happens, since ambiguity is considered as “experience of missing relevant information” (Muthukrishnan et al., 2009) and hence people become more inclined to use ambiguity aversion as a heuristic to not require putting an effort in solving the missing information and choosing the “easier road”. Other researchers also argue that ambiguity is more effective with the well-known legendary brands (O’Driscoll, 2008). The researchers based it on the fact that numerous familiar brands have their reputations co-created together with the consumers, who often ignore or distort the brand meanings conveyed by the advertisers, which results in more brand meanings created.
As already mentioned, the level of symbolism that a consumer holds for a brand highly depends on the brand’s capability to communicate its identity to its audiences (Escalas & Bettman, 2005). Based on this, one could state that the more a brand is familiar, the larger brand symbolism it could possess. Moreover, Wilson et al. (2014) stated that brand meanings, which are (ambiguously) communicated to the consumers, are being reinforced over time. Hence, the more familiar the brand is, the more meanings one will associate with the brand. By being continuously reinforced, brand familiarity also influences and activates brand meanings and attitudes (Dawar & Lei, 2009; Dimofte & Yalch, 2007). This is why it could be stated that with higher brand familiarity, and therefore, larger meaning activation, the effect of brand ambiguity will be higher and the level of brand symbolism increases.
Considering that brand ambiguity is more effective with more familiar brands compared to less known ones, and considering the suggested connection between brand familiarity and symbolism, it could be predicted that based on ambiguous messages, brand symbolism would increase amongst more familiar brands.
H3: Brand familiarity positively moderates the relationship between ambiguity and symbolism, such that for highly familiar brands, strategic ambiguity has a larger positive effect on brand symbolism than for unfamiliar brands.
Methodology Design and data-collection
Numerous researchers have distinguished the different levels of ambiguity in academia. Most common ones are indeed high and low ambiguity (Bagchi & Li, 2011; Gershoff, Mukherjee, & Mukhopadhyay, 2007; Kim & Yoon, 2013), which for the purpose of this research were also incorporated in this study. Additionally, high and low levels of brand familiarity were
also distinguished, based on the distinct effects found in the literature with different levels of familiarity (Dawar & Lei, 2009; Mikhailitchenko, Javalgi, Mikhailitchenko, & Laroche, 2009).
To test the hypotheses, this research used an online 2 (ambiguity: high vs. low) x 2 (familiarity: high vs. low) factorial between-subjects experimental design. Strategic brand ambiguity serves as the independent variable and brand attitudes the dependent variable. Further, brand symbolism is the proposed mediator in this study and brand familiarity is the moderator (see Appendix, Figure 1).
An experiment was chosen to be able to understand whether and how people are being affected by the various external cues, when it comes to the impact of strategic ambiguity on brand attitudes. Such a design allows the research to have a great control over the variables manipulated as well as the treatments that the respondents were exposed to. It also allows the study to gain concrete data on the variables studied, and be able to reach clear and specific conclusions regarding the relationships between variables presented (see Appendix, Figure 1).
The participants were approached using nonprobability sampling, via social media channels. Additionally, the researcher had access to a database of approximately 20,000 international university students and staff members, therefore such a group of people was approached by e-mail and asked to contribute to the research as well.
The study targeted the general public and the original data set consisted of 598 participants, however prior to conducting any analyses the data was cleaned, due to a number of participants who failed to complete the experiment. The final data set contained the answers of 315 participants (64.1 % female; 57.5% of Dutch nationality), 67.3% of which fall into the age category of 15 – 24 years old (see Appendix D).
The experiment took place online, this way reaching a more diverse sample, and fulfilling the target audience of the study (the general public). Each experimental condition contained approximately 78 people each (cf. Chang, 2004; Muthukrishnan et al., 2009).
Stimuli development and pre-test
As for the stimuli of the experiment, print car advertisements were chosen, since they tend to credibly incorporate both ambiguous and functional language (Arora & Brown III, 2012; McQuarrie & Phillips, 2008). This is why it was of interest to see how people’s attitudes will or will not change when exposed to only ambiguous car advertisements’ typical ambiguous language (see Appendix B).
In order to make sure the ambiguity manipulations were manipulating the exact things that they were meant to manipulate, a pre-test was conducted. 21 participants between 15 – 24 years old (Mage = 2.13, SD = .97) who did not participate in the main experiment were asked
to look at ten advertisements that were expected to be either high or low on strategic ambiguity, and featured a variety of more and less familiar car brands. In the pre-test the participants had to take a look at an ad and answer two questions afterwards regarding brand ambiguity. The first question, which was created by the researcher based on the previous literature (Davenport & Leitch, 2005; Dickinson-Delaporte et al., 2010; Puntoni et al., 2010), was broadly asking on a 7-point Likert scale, whether the ad entailed only one single meaning. The second question was based on the 42 brand’s personality traits created by Aaker (1997). Hence, the respondents had to rate the brands portrayed according to the 15 main sections of the Aaker’s personality traits. The brands that had the most traits marked were interpreted as the most ambiguous, since it implied that the brand holds several meanings for the respondents, making its meaning polysemous and broad. Finally, two ads, namely the most ambiguous (M = 1.52, SD = .68), and the least ambiguous (M = 4.33, SD = 1.01) were
selected based on their ambiguity. Also, two brands stood out based on their perceived familiarity, namely BMW (highly familiar: M = 6.81, SD = 1.63), and Ssang Yong (less familiar: M = 2.67, SD = .97) (see Appendix B).
The pre-test provided us with a highly ambiguous and less ambiguous advertisement. However one of the ads was by a car brand that was not proven to be the most appropriate for this study. Hence, in order to implement familiarity in the stimuli, it was necessary to modify the advertisements, by replacing the original car brand logos with the pre-tested car brands’ (BMW and Ssang Yong) logos and by adjusting ad descriptions for the selected brands (see Appendix B).
Procedures and measures
After each respondent has received a link to the experiment, every participant was randomly presented one of the four ads. Subsequently, they were asked to answer several questions regarding the dependent variable brand attitudes, the proposed mediator brand symbolism, and the proposed moderator brand familiarity.
Brand attitude. The dependent variable was measured by presenting the respondents with a question measuring brand attitudes. It was based on Mitchell (1986), and therefore, people had to rate three statements about the brand on a 7-point Likert scale, namely good-bad, pleasant-unpleasant, like-dislike (the order of the questions was randomised) (see Appendix C). An exploratory factor analysis was conducted, which indicated that the scale was unidimensional (EV = 2.68), explaining 89.21% of the variance.
According to Mitchell (1986), the brand attitude scale had good internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha coefficient reported of .91. In the current study, a reliability analysis was performed, where the 3-item scale also proved to be very reliable as indicated by a
Cronbach’s Alpha of .94. Therefore, all items where included and computed into a new variable (M = 3.37, SD = 1.50).
Brand symbolism. The proposed mediator brand symbolism was measured using two questions that were based on Escalas and Bettman (2005), namely “To what extent does the brand communicate something specific about the person who uses it?” (7-point Likert scale ranging from “does not communicate a lot” (1) to “communicates a lot” (7)) and “How much does the brand symbolize what kind of person uses it?” (7-point Likert scale anchored by “not at all symbolic” (1) to “highly symbolic” (7)). An exploratory factor analysis indicated that the scale was unidimensional (EV = 1.68), explaining 83.89% of the variance in brand symbolism. In line with Escalas and Bettman (2005), the 2-item brand symbolism scale was found to be sufficiently reliable, with a Cronbach’s α being .81 (M = 3.33, SD = 1.63).
Brand involvement. A possible control variable, namely brand involvement, was measured using three items measured on 7-point Likert scales. The first item was “How passionate are you about cars and car industry in general?” (ranging from “not passionate at all” (1) to “highly passionate” (7)), the second item dealt with brand ownership, namely “Have you or anyone else close to you (friends, family) ever owned this car brand?” (anchored by “definitely not” (1) to “definitely yes” (7)). The last item was as follows: “To what extent do you prefer this car brand over other car brands?” (ranging from “do not prefer” (1) to “highly prefer” (7)). An exploratory factor analysis was conducted, which indicated that the scale was unidimensional (EV = 1.78), explaining 59.34% of the variance. Subsequently, a reliability analysis was performed, where the 3-item scale also proved to be somewhat reliable with a Cronbach’s α of .63 (M = 3.24, SD = 1.47). Therefore, considering that the first scale seemed somewhat weak (EV = .29), and considering the large increase in strength of scale if item deleted, the first scale was chosen to be eliminated. The final 2-item scale was very reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s Alpha of .81 (M = 3.23, SD = 2.25).
Results Randomisation
Possible covariates were studied as well, namely brand involvement, understanding of the ad, and age. In order to conduct the randomisation check, one-way ANCOVA tests were conducted to test the control variables’ significance as a possible covariate in the analyses. First, brand involvement was measured as a covariate, since car brand ownership or brand preference could possibly influence the results found. There was no main effect of strategic brand ambiguity on attitudes F(1, 313) = .33, p = .569, η2 = .00, an effect found of brand involvement on brand attitudes, F(1, 313) = 139.50, p = .000, η2 = .31, and no effect of the interaction between both, F(1, 313) = .03, p = .855, η2 = .00. Additionally, it was also measured whether the respondents understood the advertisement adequately, since their confusion for the ad might have created distorting results. Once again, there was no main effect found of ambiguity on brand attitudes, F(1, 313) = .78, p = .378, η2 = .00, an effect found of the understanding of an ad on attitudes, F(1, 313) = 14.66, p = .000, η2 = .05, and no effect of the interaction between both, F(1, 313) = 2.18, p = .141, η2 = .01. Lastly, age was also tested for in analysis of covariance, however there was no main effect found of brand ambiguity on brand attitudes F(1, 313) = .02, p = .899, η2 = .00, nor of age on attitudes, F(1, 313) = .05, p = .828, η2 = .00, nor an interaction between both F(1, 313) = .00, p = .974, η2 = .00.
Hence, in addition to the one-way ANOVAs, a binary correlations test was conducted amongst all the main variables of the research, including the possible covariates. This analysis revealed that brand involvement correlated significantly with several main variables (see Appendix E). Before definitely including this variable as a covariate in the study’s analyses, the relevant theoretical background of the concept was briefly explored. Furthermore, Brand involvement was shown to have an effect on brand attitudes in celebrity endorsed ads (Rice,
Kelting, & Lutz, 2012) as well as product involvement was shown to decrease the direct effects of satisfaction on brand attitudes (Suh & Youjae, 2006). Hence, due to the significant correlations and previous evidence on the effects of brand involvement on brand attitudes, it was of interest to expand the insights of this research and therefore include brand involvement as a control variable in the main analyses of the study.
Hypotheses testing
Most of the main analyses of this research were conducted using Hayes (2013) PROCESS macro SPSS plug in. Particularly, model 7 was employed, being the match for moderated mediation conceptual model used in this study.
The strategic ambiguity effects on brand attitudes. The first hypothesis of this research argued that strategic brand ambiguity positively affects brand attitudes (H1). Hayes’ PROCESS revealed this main direct effect to be insignificant, and therefore brand ambiguity,
b = -.15, t(310) = -1.03, p = .30, 95% CI [-.44, .14], was found to have no effect on brand
attitudes (see Table 3). Additionally, an independent samples t-test showed that, in fact, with low brand ambiguity, brand attitudes are somewhat higher (M = 3.40, SD = 1.52), than with high brand ambiguity (M = 3.34, SD = 1.48). Therefore, the results for the first hypothesis (H1) were deemed insignificant, and hence the hypothesis was rejected.
Table 3
The direct effect of X on Y analysed in PROCESS
Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI
-.1508 .1464 -1.0299 .3039 -.4390 .1373
Note. X: Ambiguity. Y: Attitudes. Level of confidence for all confidence intervals: 95.00.
and brand attitudes (H2). Specifically, highly ambiguous brands are perceived as more symbolic, and it leads to increased brand attitudes. For the purpose of answering this hypothesis, Hayes’ PROCESS model was consulted once again. It revealed the overall model to be significant, F(3, 311) = 43.51, p < .001, R2 = .32, based on the three predictors listed (Brand ambiguity, brand symbolism and brand involvement) (see Table 4). Further, ambiguity once again showed to have no direct effect on brand attitudes, b = .08, t(311) = -1.03, p = .30 (path c/c’). There was also no statistically significant indirect effect of brand ambiguity on brand attitudes when tested via brand symbolism, b = -.04, BootCI [-.00, .13] (see Figure 2). However, brand ambiguity significantly and negatively influenced brand symbolism, b = -.51, t(310) = -2.90, p = .00, 95% CI [-.00, .13] (path a). With every one-value increase in ambiguity, brand symbolism decreases by .51. Thus, strategic brand ambiguity negatively affects and therefore diminishes the brand meanings held by the audiences. Additionally, brand symbolism was shown to be insignificant when influencing brand attitudes, b = -.08, t(311) = -1.56, p = .12 (path b). Lastly, brand involvement as a control variable was significant in this mediation, b = -.38, t(310) = -10.65, p = .00.
Table 4
PROCESS mediation analysis output
Model summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.5633 .3173 1.5475 43.5136 3.0000 311.0000 .0000
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 4.8757 .1979 24.6429 .0000 4.4864 5.2650
Symbolism -.0841 .0538 -1.5615 .1194 -.1900 .0219
Ambiguity -.1508 .1464 -1.0299 .3039 -.4390 .1373
Further, a Sobel test (also, Z score test, c – c’) was analysed, Z = 1.49, p = .14, and proved the relationship between brand ambiguity and brand attitudes to be insignificant, which could have yielded a full mediation results, if not for the insignificant path b. Therefore, due to insignificant results between brand symbolism and brand attitudes, the second hypothesis had to be rejected as well (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Results of the moderated mediation; b value is reported.
The moderating effects of brand familiarity. This research also aimed at studying the possible brand familiarity effect on the relationship between brand ambiguity and symbolism (H3). Specifically, with this hypothesis it was expected that with highly familiar brands, strategic brand ambiguity would have a larger positive effect on brand symbolism than with unfamiliar brands. After looking at the output of Hayes’ PROCESS, it was evident that the overall model was significant, F(4, 310) = 12.09, p < .001, R2 = .13, based on the three predictors at hand (brand familiarity, brand ambiguity, and brand involvement) (see Table 5). In addition to the previous findings, the effect of brand familiarity on brand symbolism, was deemed insignificant, b = -.13, t(310) = -.53, p = .60. Therefore, brand familiarity was unable to predict brand symbolism.
familiarity condition, brand ambiguity negatively impacted brand symbolism, b = -.74, t(310) = -2.98, p = .00. In the high familiarity condition, brand ambiguity also negatively impacts symbolism, but this effects is now insignificant, b = -.32, t(310) = -1.30, p = .19. Thus, brand familiarity does not significantly moderate the relationship between strategic brand ambiguity and brand symbolism.
Table 5
PROCESS moderation analysis output
Model summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.3546 .1257 2.3494 12.0856 4.0000 310.0000 .0000
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 2.4854 .2075 11.9795 .0000 2.0772 2.8936
Ambiguity -.5062 .1747 -2.8984 .0040 -.8499 -.1626
Familiarity -.1256 .2377 -.5283 .5976 -.5933 .3421
int_1 .4292 .3480 1.2334 .2184 -.2555 1.1139
Brnd_Involv .2627 .0592 4.4410 .0000 .1463 .3791
Note. Outcome: Symbolism. int_1: Ambiguity x Familiarity. Level of confidence for all
confidence intervals: 95.00.
Hence, after analysing the moderation output, it was evident that regardless of the significant brand ambiguity and brand symbolism path, as well as the significant control variable effects (b = .26, t(310) = 4.44, p = .00) the moderation was deemed insignificant, and hence H3 was rejected (see Figure 2).
Discussion and Conclusion
Large companies are increasingly willing to apply strategically ambiguous language to their advertisements, this way providing the business with a risk-free chance to please a large group of audiences without upsetting or excluding anyone (Scandelius & Cohen, 2016). This encouraged us to study the effects of strategic brand ambiguity on brand attitudes. In addition, because brand symbolism is said to be conveyed through a company’s language (Escalas & Bettman, 2005), this research also explored the mediating effect of brand symbolism between brand ambiguity and brand attitudes. Lastly, due to its ability to increase brand meanings (Dawar & Lei, 2009), brand familiarity was also studied. Specifically, this study researched the effect of brand familiarity on the relationship between strategic brand ambiguity and brand symbolism. Therefore, a moderated mediation conceptual model was constructed, in order to answer the three hypotheses proposed (see Figure 1).
In this section, the each result of the study will be interpreted and put in the perspective of theoretical and practical implications. Later, the limitations of the research as well as suggestions for future research applications will be discussed.
Theoretical implications
Ambiguity and attitudes. To begin with, strategic brand ambiguity was predicted to have a positive influence on brand attitudes. This was established, since ambiguous messages create a “puzzle” which encourages people to solve it (Lagerwerf, 2002). Once that is accomplished, people develop a satisfaction and an increase in appreciation. Further, purposeful polysemy, which is highly close to strategic ambiguity, strengthens brand attitudes over time (Puntoni et al., 2010). However, based on our empirical results, it turned out that strategic brand ambiguity did not have an effect on brand attitudes, which clearly contradicts the theoretical findings. The respondents in all four conditions were not able to develop
improved or worsened brand attitudes for the brands presented. In fact, participants in low brand ambiguity conditions had slightly better brand attitudes than compared to the ones in the high brand ambiguity conditions. Nevertheless, the differences were not significant enough.
Such findings could be explained by the aforementioned Kahneman’s (2011) insight that people are wired to avoid ambiguities in everyday life, since they seek for stability and confidence to ensure security. This research indeed found a negative effect of strategic brand ambiguity, which was also found by other researchers in the field stating that ambiguity can potentially cause indecisiveness or strong resistance towards the interpretations (Davenport & Leitch, 2005) and increase misperceptions (Scandelius & Cohen, 2016). Hence, the insignificant or negative effects of strategic brand ambiguity (on brand attitudes and brand symbolism), shows a support for the previously introduced theoretical findings, supporting the negative effects of such ambiguous communication.
Therefore, based on the findings of this study, as well as the previous empirical findings in the field, it cannot be stated that strategically ambiguous brand messages develop better brand attitudes.
Symbolic brand meanings. When it comes to brand symbolism mediating the relationship between brand ambiguity and brand attitudes, a couple of interesting findings emerged. First off, brand symbolism is said to depend on the personality and image that such brand communicates (Lau & Phau, 2007). Hence, brand ambiguity and brand symbolism are highly connected. What is more, the positive brand attitudes and evaluations of a brand increase with highly symbolic brand characteristics (O’Cass & Frost, 2002). For-profit brands also become better liked when highly symbolic brands (Bernritter et al., 2016). Therefore, brand symbolism was predicted to affect brand attitudes as well.
Brand ambiguity is also mostly stated to be a strength and not a weakness, providing various advantageous features regarding a customer’s satisfaction, recall, etc. (Brown, 2014; Kemp, 2012; Scandelius & Cohen, 2016). However, this research managed to show the negative impact of brand ambiguity on brand symbolism and reveal no mediating effect of brand symbolism between brand ambiguity and brand attitudes. Specifically, brand ambiguity had an effect on brand symbolism, therefore, when ambiguity increases, brand symbolism decreases. This was already contradictory with the hypothesis, since a positive effect was predicted, however supports the possible negative effects of strategic brand ambiguity proposed by numerous researchers (Davenport & Leitch, 2005; Scandelius & Cohen, 2016). Additionally, brand symbolism was not influencing brand attitudes at all, and neither was brand ambiguity affecting brand attitudes. Brand involvement, on the other hand, remained a significant control variable throughout the entire mediation, which shows that the level as to which a person prefers or has owned a specific car brand, negatively influences the way respondents evaluate a brand’s attitudes. Overall, a viable mediation was not found, and even though brand ambiguity influences brand symbolism, the latter does not seem to affect people’s attitudes toward the brands.
Numerous researchers identified the influence of (ambiguous) brand communication and brand symbolism (Escalas & Bettman, 2005; Lau & Phau, 2007), however none of them indicated whether such relationship is positive or negative. This research was a step closer to filling in the gap in academia, as to what kind of effect does ambiguity hold for brand symbolism. Therefore, this finding appears to be in line with several researchers (Davenport & Leitch, 2005; Scandelius & Cohen, 2016; Sjödin & Törn, 2006) stating that brand ambiguity might hold negative effects towards trust or evaluations, or as in this case, brand symbolism.
Familiarity. Lastly, brand familiarity was suggested to moderate the relationship between brand ambiguity and brand symbolism. In particular, highly familiar brands were expected to create a larger positive effect of brand ambiguity on brand symbolism, than compared to unfamiliar brands. On the one hand, the hypothesis was based on the fact that brand ambiguity was shown to be more effective with highly familiar brands (Lagerwerf, 2002; O’Driscoll, 2008). Also, ambiguously communicated brand meanings become much higher amongst highly familiar brands (Wilson et al., 2014). Other researchers state that the brand’s ability to communicate its identity to its audiences, influences the level of symbolism that a consumer holds for a brand (Escalas & Bettman, 2005). Hence, the more familiar the brand is, the larger brand symbolism it will possess.
On the other hand, as mentioned beforehand, the study revealed that brand ambiguity does influence brand symbolism, however negatively. Therefore the more ambiguous the message – the less symbolic the brand becomes. Brand involvement also seemed to have a significant role in this moderation model, since once again, previous brand ownership or preference seems to increase the level of symbolism that a person holds for a brand. However, either low or high brand familiarity is not influencing brand symbolism. Also, no interaction was found between brand familiarity and brand ambiguity, therefore the two variables seemed to not affect one another. Hence, despite a negative effect of brand ambiguity on brand symbolism, moderation was still deemed ineffective.
Such results could be considered relatively controversial compared to the ones presented amongst other researchers. A couple of studies in the academia indeed show a positive interaction between strategic brand ambiguity and brand familiarity (Lagerwerf, 2002; O’Driscoll, 2008), which makes our findings conflicting with the ones already proposed. However, at the same time, the results of this study can be explained by the negative effect that strategic brand ambiguity shows across several studies (Scandelius &
Cohen, 2016; Sjödin & Törn, 2006). Therefore, this moderation could possibly act as a piece of evidence towards the negative or insignificant influences of strategic brand ambiguity amongst theoretical research.
Practical implications
Knowing that brand ambiguity can affect brand symbolism negatively, marketers and advertisers must be careful when implementing such language in their advertisements and brand messages. Considering that ambiguous advertisements affect brand symbolism negatively, it would be useful to avoid implementing such tactics among young companies, or the ones with low brand symbolism.
Young companies that are only building their brand image and developing their communication should avoid such language, in order to evade diminishing brand meanings or encourage building negative ones. Further, companies with low brand symbolism (e.g. Ssang Yong), should avoid ambiguous communication in order to evade converting positive brand meanings into negative ones as well as disrupt the building of brand symbolism by i.e. using ambiguous advertisement, and this way affecting brand meanings negatively.
When it comes to large corporations, such as BMW, it would be suggested to continue using such ambiguous language in their advertisements if deemed necessary. Due to the fact that such large companies have a strong brand symbolism, the effect of brand ambiguity should not damage the brand’s meanings easily, especially considering that such language is only used occasionally and in specific campaigns. On the contrary, such ambiguous advertisement campaigns will help increase multiple interpretations amongst the audiences (Davenport & Leitch, 2005), which is of high importance for a large corporation such as BMW.
Limitations and future research directions
Certain limitations should also be taken into consideration when interpreting the results of the study. To begin with, the sample consisted of general public: various nationalities, education, and age groups. Therefore, one could not be able to generalise the results found for a specific category of people, for example, the Dutch population. However, it allowed this study to have a broadened view regarding the effects of strategic brand ambiguity. This could be useful to take into consideration, when conducting future quantitative empirical research on the effects of strategic brand ambiguity. In this case, since brand ambiguity is highly interpretative and dependent on the individual perceptions, it would be of interest to narrow down the target audience, based on cultural background, age, nationality, etc., in order to help identify whether specific groups of people react and evaluate brand ambiguity differently.
Moreover, only two types of advertisements were chosen for the manipulations of the experiment. This could have limited the possible turn out of certain relationships, since maybe a broader range of advertisements could have given a more accurate view on how people perceive ambiguity, and its effects on attitudes. A larger variety of brands and ambiguous advertisements could certainly enhance the study’s objectivity and would provide the research with a more sophisticated and generalisable results, applicable to more than two brands.
Every brand, familiar or not, holds different brand meanings. In this study, only two brands were chosen, that were of high and low familiarity, and that participants considered more and less symbolic. Such choice allowed us to focus on the two brands presented and gain deep insight not just into the effects of the advertisements, but also how the brands stimulate symbolism and therefore affect attitudes. However, such decision might have also brought a strain to this study, considering that the researcher was only able to reflect only on two highly different brands, which could have made the results somewhat subjective to the specific brands chosen. Therefore, fellow researchers could expand on this aspect in the future
studies, by incorporating more brands to get a broader and more objective outlook on the results, based on the numerous highly familiar and unfamiliar brands presented.
Lastly, when studying strategic brand ambiguity, it is important to select the well-represented stimuli, considering how highly interpretative such communication can be. This is why future researchers should highly consider conducting an extensive pre-test with a large number of participants. By covering a significant amount of advertisements and brands, it would alleviate attaining the most accurate and objective results, as well as shed light on such a broad and flexible concept as strategic brand ambiguity.
References
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151897
Ads of the world. (2011). Audi A7: Jealousy. Ads of the world. Retrieved 9 April 2016, from http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/audi_a7_jealousy_paint
Arora, A. & Brown III, U. (2012). Hard-sell and soft-sell advertising appeals with a
'polysemic' difference: A purposeful advertising polysemy perspective. Advertising &
Society Review, 13(2), 531-547.
Bagchi, R., & Li, X. (2011). Illusionary progress in loyalty programs: Magnitudes, reward distances, and step-size ambiguity. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 888-901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/656392
Bernritter, S., Verlegh, P., & Smit, E. (2016). Why nonprofits are easier to endorse on social media: The roles of warmth and brand symbolism. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 33, 27-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2015.10.002
Beverland, M., Wilner, S., & Micheli, P. (2015). Reconciling the tension between consistency and relevance: Design thinking as a mechanism for brand ambidexterity. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(5), 589-609.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0443-8
Brown, S., McDonagh, P., & Shultz, C. (2013). Titanic: Consuming the myths and meanings of an ambiguous brand. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(4), 595-614.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/671474
Brown, S. (2014). She was fine when she left here: Polysemy, patriarchy, and personification in brand titanic 's birthplace. Psychology & Marketing, 31(1), 93-102.
Brown, S. (2014). I'm buying, Jack! Fooling around an ambiguous brand. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 13(2), 108-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.1448
Ceccarelli, L. (1998). Polysemy: Multiple meanings in rhetorical criticism. Quarterly Journal
of Speech, 84(4), 395-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335639809384229
Chang, C. (2004). Country of origin as a heuristic cue: The effects of message ambiguity and product involvement. Media Psychology, 6(2), 169-192.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0602_3
Charters, S. (2009). Does a brand have to be consistent? Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 18(4), 284-291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420910972800
Dahlén, M., Rosengren, S., Törn, F., & Öhman, N. (2008). Could placing ads wrong be right?: Advertising effects of thematic incongruence. Journal of Advertising, 37(3), 57-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/joa0091-3367370305
Davenport, S., & Leitch, S. (2005). Circuits of power in practice: Strategic ambiguity as delegation of authority. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1603-1623.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840605054627
Dawar, N., & Lei, J. (2009). Brand crises: The roles of brand familiarity and crisis relevance in determining the impact on brand evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 509-516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.02.001
Denis, J., Dompierre, G., Langley, A., & Rouleau, L. (2011). Escalating indecision: Between reification and strategic ambiguity. Organization Science, 22(1), 225-244.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0501
Diamond, N., Sherry, J., Muñiz, A., McGrath, M., Kozinets, R., & Borghini, S. (2009). American girl and the brand gestalt: Closing the loop on sociocultural branding research. Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 118-134.
Dickinson Delaporte, S., Beverland, M., & Lindgreen, A. (2010). Building corporate
reputation with stakeholders. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11/12), 1856-1874. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561011079918
Dijksterhuis, A., Smith, P., Van Baaren, R., & Wigboldus, D. (2005). The unconscious consumer: Effects of environment on consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 15(3), 193-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1503_3
Dimofte, C., & Yalch, R. (2007). Consumer response to polysemous brand slogans. Journal
of Consumer Research, 33(4), 515-522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/510225
Eisenberg, E. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication.
Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227-242.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390197
Elliott, R., & Wattanasuwan, K. (1998). Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of identity. International Journal of Advertising, 17, 131-144.
Escalas, J., & Bettman, J. (2005). Self construal, reference groups, and brand meaning.
Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/497549
Faircloth, J., Capella, L., & Alford, B. (2001). The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(3), 61-75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2001.11501897
Fisher, D., & Smith, S. (2011). Co-creation is chaotic: What it means for marketing when no one has control. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 325-350.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470593111408179
Gershoff, A., Mukherjee, A., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2007). Few ways to love, but many ways to hate: Attribute ambiguity and the positivity effect in agent evaluation. Journal of
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Holbrook, M. B., & Stern, B. B. (1997). Chapter 4: The Paco Man and what is remembered: New readings of a hybrid language. Counterpoints, 54, 65-84.
Hollenbeck, C., & Zinkhan, G. (2010). Anti brand communities, negotiation of brand
meaning, and the learning process: The case of Wal Mart. Consumption Markets &
Culture, 13(3), 325-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10253861003787056
Johnson, S. (2014). New research sheds light on daily ad exposures. SJ Insights, LLC. Retrieved 17 April 2016, from https://sjinsights.net/2014/09/29/new-research-sheds-light-on-daily-ad-exposures/
Jones, R. (2012). Five ways branding is changing. Journal of Brand Management, 20(2), 77-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/bm.2012.51
Kahneman D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Allen Lane: London.
Kemp, M. (2012). From Christ to Coke: How image becomes icon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kim, J., & Yoon, H. (2013). Association ambiguity in brand extension. Journal of
Advertising, 42(4), 358-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.803185
Kouropalatis, Y., Hughes, P., & Morgan, R. (2012). Pursuing “flexible commitment” as strategic ambidexterity. European Journal of Marketing, 46(10), 1389-1417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561211248099
Lagerwerf, L. (2002). Deliberate ambiguity in slogans: recognition and appreciation.
Lau, K., & Phau, I. (2007). Extending symbolic brands using their personality: Examining antecedents and implications towards brand image fit and brand dilution. Psychology
and Marketing, 24(5), 421-444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20167
Leitch, S., & Davenport, S. (2002). Strategic ambiguity in communicating public sector change. Journal of Communication Management, 7(2), 129-139.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632540310807340
Liu, F., Li, J., Mizerski, D., & Soh, H. (2012). Self congruity, brand attitude, and brand
loyalty: A study on luxury brands. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8), 922-937. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561211230098
McAlister, A., & Cornwell, T. (2010). Children's brand symbolism understanding: Links to theory of mind and executive functioning. Psychology and Marketing, 27(3), 203-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20328
McQuarrie, E., & Mick, D. (1992). On resonance: A critical pluralistic inquiry into advertising rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 180.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209295
McQuarrie, E. & Phillips, B. (2008). Go figure! New directions in advertising rhetoric (pp. 114-136). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Melewar, T., & Nguyen, B. (2014). Five areas to advance branding theory and practice.
Journal of Brand Management, 21(9), 758-769. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/bm.2014.31
Meyers-Levy, J., Louie, T., & Curren, M. (1994). How does the congruity of brand names affect evaluations of brand name extensions? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 46-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.1.46
Mikhailitchenko, A., Javalgi, R., Mikhailitchenko, G., & Laroche, M. (2009). Cross-cultural advertising communication: Visual imagery, brand familiarity, and brand recall. Journal
Mitchell, A. (1986). The effect of verbal and visual components of advertisements on brand attitudes and attitude toward the advertisement. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209044
Morsing, M., & Kristensen, J. (2002). The question of coherency in corporate branding – over time and across stakeholders. Journal of Communication Management, 6(1), 24-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632540210806919
Muthukrishnan, A., Wathieu, L., & Xu, A. (2009). Ambiguity aversion and the preference for established brands. Management Science, 55(12), 1933-1941.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1087
O’Cass, A., & Frost, H. (2002). Status brands: Examining the effects of non product related
brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 11(2), 67-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420210423455
O'Driscoll, A. (2008). Exploring paradox in marketing: managing ambiguity towards synthesis. Journal of Business & Industry Marketing, 23(2), 95-104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858620810850209
Paul, J., & Strbiak, C. (1997). The ethics of strategic ambiguity. Journal of Business
Communication, 34(2), 149-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002194369703400202
Peracchio, L., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1994). How ambiguous cropped objects in ad photos can affect product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 190-204.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209392
Puntoni, S., Schroeder, J., & Ritson, M. (2010). Meaning matters: Polysemy in advertising.
Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 51-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/joa0091-3367390204
Puntoni, S., Vanhamme, J., & Visscher, R. (2011). Two birds and one stone. Journal of
Advertising, 40(1), 25-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/joa0091-3367400102
Rice, D., Kelting, K., & Lutz, R. (2012). Multiple endorsers and multiple endorsements: The influence of message repetition, source congruence and involvement on brand attitudes.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 249-259.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.06.002
Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from multiple stakeholder networks: Issue-focussed stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 233-250.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9573-3
Van Rompay, T., Pruyn, A., & Tieke, P. (2009). Symbolic meaning integration in design and its influence on product and brand evaluation. International Journal of Design, 3(2), 19-26.
Scandelius, C. & Cohen, G. (2016). Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders — The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication. Journal of Business Research,
69(9), 3487-3499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.037
Sjödin, H. & Törn, F. (2006). When communication challenges brand associations: A framework for understanding consumer responses to brand image incongruity. Journal
of Consumer Behaviour, 5(1), 32-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.44
Souiden, N., & M'saad, B. (2011). Adolescent girls from a modern conservative culture: The impact of their social identity on their perception of brand symbolism. Psychology and
Marketing, 28(12), 1133-1153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20430
Suh, J. & Youjae, Y. (2006). When brand attitudes affect the customer satisfaction-loyalty relation: The moderating role of product involvement. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 16(2), 145-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1602_5
Wilson, E., Bengtsson, A., & Curran, C. (2014). Brand meaning gaps and dynamics: Theory, research, and practice. Qualitative Marketing Research: An International Journal,
Yannopoulou, N., & Elliott, R. (2008). Open versus closed advertising texts and interpretive communities. International Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 9-36.
Appendices
Figure 1. The Conceptual Model
B. Stimuli
C. Online questionnaire
1. Thank you for showing the interest in participating in this study. Please read the
description below carefully.
The following questionnaire was created as part of the master's thesis conducted by a student at University of Amsterdam. The aim of this study is to research the effectiveness of car advertisements.
In a minute, you will see an advertisement, followed by a number of questions with regards to this ad. Please look at this ad as you would normally would and take your time to answer all the questions.
This questionnaire will take approximately 3 minutes to complete. For completing the questionnaire you will be able to participate in a contest and win 25 euros.
I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research.
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 study 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 ruta.ziabkute@student.uva.nl or thesis supervisor d.g.muntinga@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.
Click the below button to accept the conditions and "continue" to participate in the study.
2. Below you will find a car ad. Take a look and carefully assess it. Once you are finished,
click on the button "continue".
*1 out of 4 car advertisements presented*
3. Please answer the following questions regarding the brand featured in the previously
shown advertisement.
To what extent does the brand Ssang Yong/BMW communicate something specific about the person who uses it?
4. How much does the brand Ssang Yong/BMW symbolise what kind of person uses it?
Not at all symbolic – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – Highly symbolic
5. Please rate the following statements regarding Ssang Yong/BMW as a brand:
Good | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | Bad Like | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | Dislike Pleasant | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | Unpleasant
6. Please describe the purpose of this study: _____
7. The following questions deal with the advertisement presented.
How well do you think you understood the advertisement presented?
Not well at all – Slightly well – Moderately well – Very well – Extremely well
8. Have you seen this advertisement before?
Definitely not – Probably not – Might or might not – Probably yes – Definitely yes
9. The following questions deal with the brand presented.
To what extent did you perceive the brand presented to be:
Broad: Strongly disagree – Disagree – Somewhat disagree – Neither agree nor disagree – Somewhat agree – Agree – Strongly agree
Flexible: Strongly disagree – Disagree – Somewhat disagree – Neither agree nor disagree – Somewhat agree – Agree – Strongly agree
Have multiple meanings: Strongly disagree – Disagree – Somewhat disagree – Neither agree nor disagree – Somewhat agree – Agree – Strongly agree
10. How familiar are you with the brand presented?
Completely unfamiliar – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – Extremely familiar
11. Please answer the questions below on your personal involvement regarding the topic.
Have you or anyone else close to you (friends, family) ever owned this car brand? Definitely not – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – Definitely yes
To what extent do you prefer this car brand over other car brands? Do not prefer – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – Highly prefer How passionate are you about cars and car industry in general?
Not passionate at all – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – Highly passionate
12. Please fill in the following questions concerning your personal information.
Gender: Male; Female
Age: < 15 years; 15-24; 25-34; 35-44; 45-54; 55-64; 65 years < Nationality: ______
Please indicate the highest level of education obtained: High school; Bachelor; Master; PhD; Other ______
Monthly net income (in euros): < 500; 501-2,000; 2,001-3,000; 3,001-4,000; 4,001-5,000; > 5,001
13. Thank you for your participation!
If you wish to find out more about the research and its results, please contact ruta.ziabkute@student.uva.nl for more information.
If you wish to participate in the contest for 25 euros, fill in your name and e-mail address below.
_________
Click the "Continue" button in order to save your answers.
D. The sample Table 1
Sample information
