1
Effects of Brand Equity in Brand Alliances
Jaimy Vrooman | 10288783
University of Amsterdam
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Persuasive Communication Program
Supervisor: Simon Zebregs
2 Abstract
This study examined the marketing strategy of brand alliances and its effect of either high or low equity brands on dependent variables credibility and purchase intention. The equity of the main brand in the alliance was expected to moderate the effect of the partner equity brand on credibility. In turn, purchase intention was a second dependent variable that was expected to be influenced by credibility, which means credibility also served as a mediator. A 2 (main brand equity: high, low) X 2 (partner brand equity: high, low) experimental between subjects design was conducted and found no main effect of partner brand equity or interaction effect of main brand equity, but a positive effect was found of credibility on purchase intention. It was concluded that main brand equity does not interact with the effect of partner brand equity on credibility and that partner brand equity does not have an effect on the credibility or purchase intention of the main brand. However, not finding any effect does not have to be a bad implication. It also means that not only no positive effect was found, but also no negative effect will occur with for instance when one would partner with a low equity partner brand. In turn low equity brands can use these results to make themselves more appealing as brand alliances.
3 Introduction
The strategy marketers employ when partnering with another brand – brand alliances - occurs in different forms, such as co-branding, joint branding, composite branding and dual branding (Dickinson & Barker, 2007; Besharat, 2010). In this study, the definition for brand alliances of Rao, Qu and Ruekert (1999) is used; two or more brand names together presented to the consumer. This definition is used in multiple other studies (Delgado-Ballester &
Hernández-Espallardo, 2008; Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Washburn, Till, & Priluck, 2004). Brands can alliance in different contexts, for instance, brands can be integrated together and create one product (e.g. Milka and Oreo) but can also choose as a brand to ally in promotions such as advertising (Rao et al., 1999). Accordingly, this study will focus on two brands presented together in an advertisement. To be more specific, brands will not solely be
presented next to each other, but in the context of one another, in order to create associations between the brands (Delgado-Ballester & Hernández-Espallardo, 2008). In this study, when referring to the partner brand, this brand is always placed in the context of the main brand.
Alliancing with other brands could not only have advantages for a rather new brand but also an already existing brand could take advantage of this strategy (Delgado-Ballester & Hernández-Espallardo, 2008). In other words, this alliancing strategy is of interest for brands that contain different levels of brand equity. Brand equity consists of several important elements, such as brand knowledge and the brand’s name (Washburn et al., 2000). The scores on such elements will differentiate the brand’s types of equity. Subsequently, brand equity is chosen to be examined because it is a very important subject when it comes to marketing strategies (Buil, Chernatony, & Martinez, 2008). Additionally, research has shown that brand equity can have an influence on its own company or on a brand with which a brand alliances (Washburn, Till, & Priluck, 2000). In other words, both brands in an alliance can have an effect on each other, which implies an interaction effect could occur. This makes the
4
combination of types of brand equity and brand alliances very interesting. In turn, the
motivation for this study is to find out whether high (low) equity brand should alliance with a high (low) equity brand and if its own equity interacts on this alliance.
One of the reasons an alliance strategy can be used is to increase awareness of a brand (Cunha, Forehand, & Angle, 2015). For less known brands that probably have low brand equity, alliancing with another brand could gain more awareness for their brand. For known brands with probably higher brand equity, it is interesting to know if it is effective for them to alliance with less known brands or that they should alliance with brands that have the same level of brand equity (Delgado-Ballester & Hernández-Espallardo, 2008). Delgado-Ballester and Hernández-Espallardo (2008) state that empirical research regarding brand alliances and online purchase intention is necessary. This is not only necessary to expand academic knowledge, but also relevant for an online brand to optimize their alliance strategy. For instance, Booking.com already alliances with multiple airplane tickets websites (e.g. Vliegtickets.nl) in a way that you can get forwarded to the Booking.com website on the airplane ticket websites. Because there is no knowledge that this is effective in favor of Booking.com or the airplane ticket websites, this should be examined.
Another reason to focus this study on online brand is because the last couple of years a lot of companies transitioned from offline to online. To the extent of creating a website or an app as an addition to a company, or to removing the company offline altogether and
continuing online with for instance only a website. The increase of online businesses has a lot of advantages, for instance, it costs less time to order something online than to go to an offline store. However, it also can have some disadvantages. For instance, consumers trust websites less than when they talk to someone in person. Furthermore, it can be stated that credibility is an important aspect of websites (Rios & Riquelme, 2008). Thereafter, Delgado-Ballester and Hernández-Espallardo (2008) found credibility to be an important indicator of whether
5
consumers will purchase on a certain websites, and Yoon (2002) found brand equity of a web site of importance to secure the credibility of that web site. Subsequently, credibility and purchase intention are measured in this study as dependent variables, where credibility could also serve as a mediator. In any case, the aim of this study is to find out if brand equities in an alliance will affect these dependent variables. In this study, a distinction between brands is made in their amount of brand equity (e.g. high or low) and whether they are the main brand or the partner brand in the advertisement. In turn, the expectations that will be established in the theoretical framework will apply for the effect of the partner brand’s equity on the main brand credibility in the alliance and in turn also whether the main brand’s equity interacts with this effect. To visualize the variables ought to be measured and their relationship, a
conceptual model in presented in the appendix (A). Finally, the following research question is established.
What is the effect of the partner brand equity in (online) brand alliances on the purchase intention of the main brand through credibility of the main brand and to what extent is this effect influenced by brand equity of the main (online) brand in the alliance?
Concluding, as lots of studies examined the differences between brand alliances and single brands and found brand alliances to be more effective, this study will focus solely on brand alliances (Washburn et al., 2004; Voss & Gammoh, 2004). Just like Park, Jun and Shocker (1996) this study will examine brand alliances as a marketing strategy and combine one partner and one main online brand name together in an advertisement. Subsequently, the objective is to find out what kind of effect the partner brand’s equity and main brand’s equity have in an alliance to obtain the most positive credibility and purchase intention and in turn make practical implications for marketing managers.
6
First, the expected effect of partner brand equity in the alliance on the credibility of the main brand and possible interaction effect of main brand equity will be discussed. Further, the relationship between credibility and purchase intention will be discussed which will
eventually support a possible mediation effect.
Brand equity within brand alliances and main brand credibility
Because a moderation effect of brand equity within the brand alliance is expected, the literature presented next will discuss the effect of the partner brand equity on the main brand credibility and in turn also whether main brand equity interacts with this effect.
Partner brand equity. Delgado-Ballester and Hernández-Espallardo (2008) explain according to information integration theory that attitudes of consumers can be modified when new information is received. Brands alliancing together could be an example of sending new information to consumers, which according to the information integration theory can help consumers modify their attitude. The way consumers can modify their attitude, is by associating a positive attitude to the alliance, which could lead to a positive attitude of the partnering brand (Delgado-Ballester & Hernández-Espallardo, 2008). According to Dickinson and Barker (2007), the partnering brand’s associations transfer to the main brand. This implies a positive effect of the partnering brand on the main brand credibility, regardless of the type of brand equity the partner brand contains. However, first a positive attitude of the brand alliance itself should be in place.
According to Dickinson and Barker (2007), the reason for a company to form a brand alliance is because they want to build brand equity. They add that brand alliances support this process of creating brand equity because when two brands ally new associations are
transferred between them. According to Dickinson and Barker (2007) the new associations via brand alliances they refer to, are transferred from the partner brand to the main brand. The strategy of alliancing can be used by brands that do not signal quality with their brand name,
7
such as new or smaller unknown brands that did not develop brand equity yet. Because an alliancing strategy for a less known brand means they can gain a more positive evaluation from their ally, it can be stated that co-branding strategies generally benefits brands with low brand equity (Cunha et al., 2015; Delgado-Ballester & Hernández-Espallardo, 2008). By alliancing with a brand that does signal high brand equity with their brand name, they can use the quality signals from the partnering brand to increase the credibility of their main brand. Because credibility is often seen as a quality signal (Erdem, Swait, & Louviere, 2002), the partner brand in the alliance with high brand equity, can increase the credibility of the main brand. In turn, the partnering brand needs to contain high brand equity for the credibility of the main brand to increase.
Concluding, apart from the literature above supporting a positive effect for high equity partner brands, no literature could be found regarding low equity partner brands. Based on what kind of literature is found for the effect of main brand equity, it can be stated literature on this specific subject is limited. Hence, there is not (yet) enough literature to establish a hypothesis for the effect of partner brand equity on credibility.
Main brand equity. The above stated literature could be a cause to expect the effect of high partner brand equity to be rather positive than negative. However, it is not clear what the main brand equity does for this effect. Perhaps this expected effect would happen, but only if the main brand equity is also high. You can imagine that when main brand equity is low, this could interfere with a possible positive effect of the partner brand. This can be explained via cue competition effects. According to adaptive learning theory, for an unknown brand to partner and create associations with a known brand can be harmful (Cunha et al., 2015). As the less known brand has to compete with cues from the well-known brand when presented at the same time, the well-known brand can get more attention because the brand is more known (Cunha et al., 2015). The less known brand has the risk of not getting any
8
attention at all and thus no effect of the main brand will occur. This implies if the main brand equity is low, this would have a rather negative effect on the relationship between partner brand equity and main brand credibility. However, this interaction effect would be rather positive if main brand equity is high.
According to Delgado-Ballester and Hernández-Espallardo (2008), when two brands alliance together, this is perceived as a credibility signal by consumers. According to them, this is because when a high equity brand forms an alliance with a rather low equity brand, this is perceived as the brand puts their reputation at risk (Delgado-Ballester &
Hernández-Espallardo, 2008). Subsequently, this action of alliancing is perceived as a credible signal. Studies of Rao et al. (1999) and Gammoh, Vos, and Chakraborty (2006) also provide similar explanations as to why a brand alliance in such a form is credible. This way, the main brand would have high equity which puts their reputation at risk and in turn increase their
credibility. It would only be perceived for the main brand to put their reputation at risk, if they would alliance with a low equity brand. In other words, a partner brand with low brand equity would have a positive effect on the credibility of the main brand as this effect is influenced by the high brand equity of the main brand.
To summarize the above stated literature, first it should be stated that the literature somewhat contradicting. Next, literature than was found regarding partner brand equity was expected to have a positive effect on main brand credibility, regardless of the type of equity. However, literature was also found that supported the effect on high partner brand equity on main brand credibility. In turn, there was no literature found regarding low partner brand equity and its effect on credibility. Literature for main brand equity was found that supported a positive interaction effect on the relationship between high partner brand equity and main brand credibility. However, a positive effect for high main brand equity was also found if the partner brand equity would be low. Subsequently, the literature is found to be too
9
contradicting in some parts and lacking in other parts for a hypothesis to be established. In turn, it is chosen to set up a sub research question, to find out what the effect of partner brand equity on the credibility of the main brand is and how the main brand equity interacts with this effect.
RQ1: What is the effect of the partner brand equity on the credibility of the main brand in a brand alliance and to what extent is this effect influenced by brand equity of the main brand? Credibility and Purchase intention
As stated before, however uncertain in which direction, some kind of effect of partner brand on credibility of the main brand is expected. Subsequently, the partner brand is also expected to have an effect on purchase intention of the main brand, but is explained by the effect on credibility on the main brand. In other words, a mediation effect is expected. To support this expectation, the relation between credibility and purchase intention will now be discussed.
Wang and Yang (2010) state that brand credibility an important factor of brand positioning is. From a consumer’s perspective, all the experiences they have with a certain brand, determine if they perceive the brand as credible, in turn this will influence if the
consumer considers buying the brand (Wang & Yang, 2010). When a consumer is considering buying a specific brand, this brand is evaluated by the consumer and identified as a possible purchase option (Belch & Belch, 2015, p.119). In other words, when a brand is selected as a purchase option, the brand is evaluated as credible and is part of the consumers evoked set (Belch & Belch, 2015, p.121). As a brand, you want to get into the consumers evoked set, because the intention of purchasing your brand will be much higher than when you are not considered to be purchased.
However, being in the evoked set of a consumers means there are (a lot of) other options that the consumer is also considering. Nowadays, positioning your brand in the
10
evoked set of a consumer can still mean you have to compete with other brands and means you – as a brand – are nowhere near being intended to purchase. A cause can be that there is an increase of varied brands on the market, which may be confusing for consumers to choose one brand (Wang & Yang, 2010). According to the signaling theory which states that different brands contain different information regarding the quality of their product (Besharat, 2010), consumers might not contain this information and can only obtain this knowledge by using the product (Gammoh et al., 2006). For consumers, this information asymmetry can lead to problems (Gammoh et al., 2006) such as less purchase by consumers, because they are confused about of question the quality of a brand (Wang & Yang, 2010). This indicates that consumers should be aware of some sort of quality signal, for them to buy the product. An example of quality signals is brand credibility (Wang & Yang, 2010), which we propose has a positive effect on the purchase intention, with their function as quality signal.
Our proposition can be supported by the study of Erdem and Swait (2004), who also propose that, the effect on brand choice goes via brand credibility. Accordingly, they found that credibility affects consumer’s choices, such as brand consideration and brand choice. In previous research, they already state that a brand needs to be more credible for a consumer to eventually choose the brand (Erdem et al., 2002). They also mention that credibility does not necessarily have anything to do with quality. But when a brand delivers what they promise, even if it is low quality, it still is perceived as credible (Erdem et al., 2002). In turn, the effect of credibility on purchase intention would act for low and high equity brands.
Concluding, a lot of research has been done to examine the relationship between credibility and purchase intention in a lot of different contexts. For instance, Lafferty and Goldsmith (1999) found that credible endorsers lead to a positive purchase intention and that purchase intention is even higher when the corporate credibility is also high. Yoon (2002) found significant positive correlations between web-site credibility and online purchase
11
intention. The study of Chiang and Jang (2007) found credibility to be the most important determinant for consumers when they buy online. Furthermore, Wang and Yang (2010) hypothesized a positive influence of brand credibility on brand purchase intention and found support for it in their study. Lastly, the credibility of a brand should be high if you want a consumer to be intended to purchase a brand. In other words, the more credible the brand is perceived by consumers, the higher the purchase intention of that brand is. The next
hypothesis is established.
H1. The more credible a brand, the higher the purchase intention of that brand. Method
Research design
A 2 (main brand equity: high, low) x 2 (partner brand equity: high, low) experimental between subjects design was conducted. The conditions that were formed can be found below in table 1. To determine which brand has low and which brand has high brand equity, a pre-test was conducted.
Pre-test Table 1. Research Design Partner brand equity: high Partner brand equity: low Main brand equity: high
High X high High X low
Main brand equity: Low
12
Because the effect of brands containing different equity was intended to be examined in this study, it was needed to measure whether pre-selected brands had either high or low brand equity, according to consumers. The goal was to select brands that differed significantly in brand equity and in turn, to create the stimuli for the experiment with the brands that were selected.
The product category that was chosen for the main brand in the alliance is airplane ticket comparison and purchase websites. The product category that was chosen for the partnering brand in the alliance is websites where you can book your hotel or accommodation for your travel destination. The scale for brand equity was conceived from Rios and Riquelme (2008). The scale was especially developed for online businesses and had eight dimensions (e.g. Web Awareness), which in turn had two or more items (e.g. I know what [X online business] looks like). However, the scale was somewhat adjusted to fit the product category and some irrelevant items were left out but the scale was still measured as reliable with a Cronbach’s Alpha of α = .95 and can be found in appendix B. Because brand equity establishes over time it should be very hard for participants to indicate this with fictitious brands (Franzen, 2009, p.19). Thus when the equity of the brands was measured, it was chosen to examine real online brands instead of fictitious brands.
Participants were recruited from the MeMoPanel, which is a panel from the research company MeMo². Therefore, the survey was programmed in software MeMo² uses (XS5 – Motivaction). The pre-test had a sample of 142 respondent of which almost two third were men (60.6%). Accordingly the youngest respondent had the age of 19 and the oldest respondent had the age of 80 years old, with an average age of 57 years old. Almost half of participants have followed a HBO or WO education (45.1%) the rest of the participants all followed a lower education.
13
Next, to test which brand in the pre-test had low or high brand equity and thus should be used to create the stimuli for the experiment, a Repeated Measured Anova within subjects was executed on all the scales within one category (e.g. airplane tickets website and hotel websites). Two main brands out of four brands were selected via this test in the airplane ticket website category. CheapTickets.nl was selected, which had significantly higher brand equity (M = 3.69, SE = .09) compared to WTC.nl, which had low brand equity (M = 3.06, SE = .10) was also selected. Two partnering brands out of three brands were also selected via this test in the hotel website category. Booking.com was selected, which had significantly higher brand equity (M = 3.83, SD = .11) compared to Hotels.com, which had low brand equity (M = 3.39, SD = .10) was also selected.
With the selected brands that significantly differed in brand equity, advertisement could be created according to the four conditions of the research design. Conditions contained four different advertisements with main brand in the category of airplane ticket websites and a partner brand in the category of hotel websites. The partner brand was considerately smaller placed in the advertisement that the main brand, but still clearly visible. Either the main brand in the alliance had high (low) brand equity and the partner brand low (high) brand equity. All four advertisements that were created can be found in appendix C.
Participants
Participants were recruited from the MeMoPanel, just like in the pre-test. Participants that completed the pre-test were not also invited to participate in the experiment. The sample contained 507 participants who participated in the online survey that was created for the experiment. The participants were in the age between 18 and 80 years old with an average age of 55. Most of the participants had a HBO or WO education (37.2%), participants with a MBO or HAVO/VWO education had a somewhat lower share in de sample (34.3%) and the
14
rest of the sample had a low education (28.5%). There were slightly more women (50.3%) in the sample than men (49.7%).
Procedure
At the start of the questionnaire participants had to give informed consent after they were fully informed about the purpose of the study. Participants were then randomly shown one out of four conditions. Accordingly, participants were asked to answer statements on the credibility and the purchase intention regarding the main brand of the alliance in the
advertisement participants were exposed to. The statements were adjusted to which kind of main brand the respondent saw in the advertisement (CheapTickets.nl or WTC.nl). Lastly, general question about the participants vacations behavior and especially vacation booking behavior online was questioned, which were asked as they could be possible covariates. The questionnaire was finished when the respondent filled in their birth year, sex and education.
Measurements
For the dependent variables credibility and purchase intention, already established and often used scales were selected to measure these variables (Erdem & Swait, 2004). Credibility (M = 4.17, SD= 1.11) was measured based on the concepts expertise and trustworthiness. Expertise was measured on two items (e.g. This brand has the ability to deliver what it
promises) on a 7-point Likert scale and trustworthiness was measured on five items (e.g. This brand delivers what it promises) also on a 7-point Likert scale. All 7-point Likert scales were ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (7). The scale was found reliable with a Cronbach’s Alpha of α = .95 and can be found in appendix D.
Purchase intention (M = 2.94, SD = 1.61) was measured based on items that specifically were developed to measure online purchase intention, as the stimuli that is investigated in this study are all online brands (Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky, & Saarinen, 1999;
15
Gefen, 2000). Four items (e.g. How likely is it that you would return to this website?) were used to asses on a 7-point Likert scale from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (7). The scale was found reliable with a Cronbach’s Alpha of α = .96 and can be found in appendix E.
Results
Covariates
The hypotheses that were established in the theory section were tested in this result section. Before the sub research question or hypothesis was tested, covariates were selected via a pearson correlation coefficient. In this analysis, independent variables partner brand equity and main brand equity as well as both dependent variables credibility and purchase intention were added in the correlation. In turn, control variables that measured how many times respondents flew on a plane last year (0 through 5 times a year and 5 times or more), and whether they booked they airplane tickets and hotel online (never, sometimes, often) were added as control variables in the correlation. There was no correlation found between control variable online airplane ticket bookers and independent variable partner brand equity (r = .03, p = .418) and independent variable main brand equity (r = .05, p = .238). There was a small positive correlation found between control variable online airplane ticket bookers and dependent variable brand credibility (r = .15, p < .001) and a moderate positive correlation found between control variable online airplane ticket bookers and dependent variable
purchase intention (r = .39, p < .001). The control variable online airplane ticket bookers had a strong positive correlation with the control variable number of fly times (r = .58, p < .001) and with the control variable online hotel bookers (r = .56, p < .001).
To summarize, control variable online airplane ticket bookers had a higher significant correlation with both dependent variables, compared to the other two control variables. As shown in appendix F, all three control variables that were put in the equation, were correlating
16
with each other. In turn, because all control variables correlated with each other, there was no use to select the other control variables as covariates. Because only the control variable online airplane ticket bookers had a significant correlation with both of the dependent variables and the other control variables. Subsequently, the control variable; online airplane ticket bookers was selected as covariate. The output table can be found in appendix F.
Research question 1
A one-way between-groups multivariate analysis of variance was performed to examine equity differences of the partner brand in credibility of the main brand and test whether a significant interaction effect of main brand equity was in place. Independent variables were partner brand equity, main brand equity and covariate online airplane ticket bookers and dependent variable was credibility of the main brand. There was no significant interaction effect found of main brand equity (F (1, 502) = .20, p =.654, η² = .00), no significant difference found between high and low partner brand equity on the credibility of the main brand (F (1, 502) = .15, p =.702, η² = .00). However, there was a significant
difference between high and low main brand equity on the credibility of the main brand (F (1, 502) = 9.79, p =.002, η² = .02). To answer the research question that was drafted, it can be stated that there was no interaction effect found of main brand equity or main effect found partner brand equity on the credibility of the main brand.
Hypothesis 1
A Multiple regression analysis was performed to examine if the purchase intention of the main brand could be predicted by the credibility of the main brand. In this analysis, the regression model explained a significant amount of variance with credibility of the main brand and the covariate online airplane ticket booker as independent variables and purchase intention of the main brand as dependent variable (F (2, 504) = 196.88, p < .001, R² = .403).
17
This means the model can be used to predict 40 percent of the purchase intention of the main brand. In turn, credibility of the main brand (b* = 0.51, p < .001) is a significant strong predictor of purchase intention of the main brand. Concluding, purchase intention of the main brand is predicted by credibility of the main brand and the first hypothesis can be accepted.
Mediated Moderation analysis
According to the conceptual model based on the research question, a mediated moderation effect was expected with credibility of the main brand mediating the moderation effect of main brand equity on purchase intention. However, because no significant results were found for the first research question, it is not possible to perform a mediated moderation analysis.
Discussion
An experiment was conducted to find out whether partner brand equity in brand alliances have an effect on credibility and purchase intention of the main brand and to what extent main brand equity would interact with this effect. This section will summarize the findings in order to answer this research question. Accordingly, practical implications will be made based on these findings and finally, limitations of the study and recommendations for future research will be discussed.
First, a sub research question was established to find out what kind of effect partner brand equity had on the credibility of the main brand and to what extent main brand equity would interact with this effect. For this sub research question, main brand equity functioned as a moderator, to influence the effect between partner brand equity and credibility of the main brand. However, no significant interaction effect of main brand equity was found. Thereafter, no significant main effect was found of partner brand equity on credibility of the main brand. The objective of this sub research question was to find out whether brand equity
18
of a partner brand, would have an effect on the main brand in the alliance and that main brand equity would interact with this effect. To answer the sub research question, brand equity of the partner brand has no effect on the credibility of the main brand. Subsequently, there was no interaction effect found of main brand equity.
A possible explanation as to why no effects were found for low brand equity can be explained by the cue competition effects that were also mentioned in the theoretical
framework. As described in the introduction, brand alliances meant that the partner brand would stand in the context of the main brand. This means that the partner brand in the advertising is visualized smaller; in turn the stimulus in this study was also manipulated that way. Cue competition effect states that less known brands have to compete with well-known brands and thus the effect of the lesser known brands are diminished (Cunha et al., 2015). This means low equity brands did not have an effect as they were not as visible as high equity brands. However, high equity brands also did not have a significant effect. An explanation for the lack of effect of high equity brands might be connected to the cue competition effects. Because the low equity brand would disappear under the high equity brand, this could mean the advertisements might not be perceived as a brand alliance strategy, but as just as a single brand. This would also explain why the high equity brand did not have an effect, because according to literature an alliance would be perceived as a credible signal (Delgado-Ballester & Hernández-Espallardo, 2008). This means when in the advertisement only a single brand is perceived, no credible signal would be in place and would explain that no significant effect was found. Perhaps if the partner brand would be visualized in an equal size, an effect of partner brand equity would occur and would make the alliance strategy more clear which could result in an interaction effect of main brand equity. This implication will further be elaborated in the limitations and future research paragraph.
19
As it was expected that brand alliances would also positively affect purchase intention which would be explained by the effect on the credibility, it was hypothesized that high credibility of the main brand would positively affect the purchase intention of the main brand. In turn, this hypothesis was tested and the analysis showed significant results which leads to accepting this hypothesis. It can be stated that high credibility of brands significantly
increases the purchase intention of brands. Concluding, it can be advised to brands that they increase their credibility in order to have a positive effect on the purchase intention of the brand.
To answer the main research question of this study, it can be stated that there is no interaction effect of main brand equity and no main effect of partner brand equity on the main brand credibility or purchase intention in a brand alliance. This means that when a brand wants to set up an alliance and searches for a partner brand, it does not matter whether the main brand or partner brand has high equity to benefit the main brand more. However, this does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. The main brand does not have to worry about the equity of the partner brand to have a negative effect on the main brand. As brands should not have to worry about this, they can put more focus on using the alliance to provide a service for consumers. For instance in this study, an airplane ticket websites seeks an alliance with hotel booking websites to offer consumers the convenience to complete their trip by booking a hotel at their alliance partner. In turn, as low equity brands would do no harm and probably is a cheaper choice to alliance with, this could save the brand money. For low equity brands, this could also have a positive outcome. If main brands are in doubt to alliance with them, because of their low brand equity, they could imply that based on the results in this study, alliancing with a low equity partner brand would do them no harm and they should rather focus on the kind of service for consumers they would add to their brand when they would alliance with them.
20 Limitations and future research
This study contained some limitations that can also be presented as recommendations for future research. One limitation was the way brand alliance was presented in the stimuli, namely in context of each other. Because the partner brand would be less visible than the main brand, this could explain that no effect was found. For future research, the way brand alliance stimulus was manipulated could be changed, to examine this strategy in a different manner or compare the same manner used in this study (e.g. in context of each other), with another manner of brand alliancing (e.g. same size next to each other). This could solve the problem of possible low equity brand effects disappearing. As for high brand equity effects, this should solve the problem of the alliance strategy not being in place as the brands are more clearly presented next to each other. However, control groups could be made with only a single brand and a lot of attention should be spent on manipulation checks, to compare if an actual effect of brand alliance was in place. This study assumed alliances would be more effective than a single brand because this was already stated in many scientific papers. However, more attention could have been spent on the presentation of the alliance in the stimulus that was created.
Concluding, this study contributed theoretically to the literature of the marketing strategy brand alliances and also practically, to marketing managers who want to employ this strategy. Although no interaction or main effect were found for main brand equity and partner brand equity, it has made an important contribution to literature as it was troubling to find existing literature that was complete and not contradicting. Furthermore, clearly more research needs to be done about the effects of brand equity within brand alliance, where this study can be used as leading.
References
21
Marketing Communications Perspective. The McGraw-Hill.
Besharat, A. (2010). How co-branding versus brand extensions drive consumers' evaluations of new products: A brand equity approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(8), 1240-1249. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.02.021
Chiang, C. F., & Jang, S. S. (2007). The effects of perceived price and brand image on value
and purchase intention: Leisure travelers' attitudes toward online hotel
booking. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 15(3), 49-69. doi:10.1300/J150v15n03_04
Cunha, M., Forehand, M. R., & Angle, J. W. (2015). Riding Coattails: When Co-Branding
Helps versus Hurts Less-Known Brands. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(5), 1284-1300. doi:10.1086/679119
Delgado-Ballester, E., & Hernández-Espallardo, M. (2008). Building online brands through
brand alliances in internet. European Journal of Marketing,42(9/10), 954-976. doi:10.1108/03090560810891091
Dickinson, S., & Barker, A. (2007). Evaluations of branding alliances between non‐profit and
commercial brand partners: the transfer of affect. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(1), 75-89. doi:10.1002/nvsm.291
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. Journal of
consumer research, 31(1), 191-198. doi:10.1086/383434
22
sensitivity. International Journal of Research in Marketing,19(1), 1-19. doi:10.1016/S0167-8116(01)00048-9
Franzen, G. (2009). Brand portfolio and brand architecture strategies, SWOCC book series 49. Amsterdam: SWOCC.
Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 28(6), 725-737. doi:10.1016/S0305-0483(00)00021-9
Gammoh, B. S., Voss, K. E., & Chakraborty, G. (2006). Consumer evaluation of brand
alliance signals. Psychology & Marketing, 23(6), 465-486. doi:10.1002/mar.20130
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Saarinen, L. (1999). Consumer trust in an internet store: a cross‐cultural validation. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 5(2), 0-0. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00337.x
Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’
attitudes and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used
in the ad. Journal of business research, 44(2), 109-116. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00002-2
Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Composite branding alliances: An
investigation of extension and feedback effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 453
466. doi:10.2307/3152216
Rao, A. R., & Ruekert, R. W. (1994). Brand alliances as signals of product quality. Sloan management review, 36(1), 87.
Rao, A. R., Qu, L., & Ruekert, R. W. (1999). Signaling unobservable product quality through
23
Rios, R. E., & Riquelme, H. E. (2008). Brand equity for online companies. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 26(7), 719-742. doi:10.1108/02634500810916681
Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps?
Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal
of Marketing Research, 30-42. doi:10.2307/3151928
Voss, K. E., & Gammoh, B. S. (2004). Building brands through brand alliances: does a
second ally help?. Marketing Letters, 15(2-3), 147-159. doi:10.1023/B:MARK.0000047390.01552.a2
Wang, X., & Yang, Z. (2010). The effect of brand credibility on consumers’ brand purchase
intention in emerging economies: The moderating role of brand awareness and brand
image. Journal of Global Marketing, 23(3), 177-188. doi:10.1080/08911762.2010.487419
Washburn, J. H., Till, B. D., & Priluck, R. (2004). Brand alliance and customer‐based- brand-equity effects. Psychology & Marketing, 21(7), 487-508.
doi:10.1002/mar.20016
Yoon, S. J. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of trust in online‐purchase decisions. Journal of interactive marketing, 16(2), 47-63. doi:10.1002/dir.10008
Appendix
Appendix A.
24 Figure 1. Conceptual model
Appendix B.
Scale brand equity (pre-test)
1. I can quickly recall the name of [Brand X]
2. In [Brand X] I can make the most for the least money
3. I have a preference for [Brand X] because it allows the comparison of product prices across online stores
4. I like [Brand X] because one can find the broadest range of products 5. [Brand X] has my confidence
6. It makes sense to buy from [Brand X] instead of any other online business, even if they are the same
7. I would definitely buy from [Brand X]
Appendix C. Stimuli
25 Figure 2. Stimulus material.
Appendix D. Scale credibility
1. This brand reminds me of someone who’s competent and knows what he/she is doing 2. This brand has the ability to deliver what it promises
3. This brand delivers what it promises 4. This brand’s product claims are believable 5. This brand has a name you can trust
6. This brand doesn’t pretend to be something it isn’t
Appendix E.
26
1. How likely is it that you would return to this store's website?
2. How likely is it that you would consider purchasing from this website in the short term?
3. How likely is it that you would consider purchasing from this website in the longer term?
4. For this purchase, how likely is it that you would buy from this store?
Appendix F. Table 2. Pearson’s r correlations Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Partner brand equity - .054 -.004 .018 -.016 .036 .04
2. Main brand equity .054 - .147** .167** -.013 .053 0 3. Credibility -.004 .147** - .551** .020 .156** .103* 4. Purchase intention .018 .167** .551** - .242** .397** .284** 5. People who fly -.016 -.013 ,02 .242** - .583** .305** 6. Online ticket bookers .036 .053 .156** .397** .583** - .569** 7. Online hotel bookers .04 0 .103* .284** .305** .569** -
27
Note. All variables presented in the table had an N = 507. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
