Effect of primary brand elements on customer perceived brand authenticity for family owned firms

Effect of primary brand elements on customer perceived

brand authenticity for family owned firms.

Master thesis

Author: Maartje Schaapherder (10776559)

Msc. Business Administration – Marketing Track

Amsterdam Business School, UVA

Supervisor: R.E.W. Pruppers

Final version: 22/06/2018

Statement of originality


This document is written by Student Maartje Schaapherder who declares to take

full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and

that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have

been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision

of completion of the work, not for the contents.

Index

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1. FAMILY FIRMS AND AUTHENTICITY ... 1

1.1.1. The importance of family firms and authenticity ... 1

1.1.2. Literature gap; influencing authenticity with primary brand elements in a family firm context ... 2

1.2. PROBLEM DEFINITION ... 3

1.2.1. Problem statement ... 3

1.2.2. Sub questions ... 4

1.2.3. Delimitations of the study ... 4

1.3. CONTRIBUTIONS ... 5

1.3.1. Theoretical contributions ... 5

1.3.2. Managerial contributions ... 5

1.4. STRUCTURE OUTLINE ... 6

CHAPTER 2: FAMILY FIRMS ... 7

2.1. THE CONCEPT ‘FAMILY FIRMS’ ... 7

2.2. RESEARCH ON FAMILY FIRMS ... 8

2.3. CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY FIRMS ... 9

2.3.1. Authenticity associations and family firms ... 10

CHAPTER 3: AUTHENTICITY ... 11

3.1. THE RELEVANCE OF AUTHENTICITY’ ... 11

3.2. PERSPECTIVES ON AUTHENTICITY ... 12

3.3. DIMENSIONS OF PERCEIVED BRAND AUTHENTICITY ... 13

3.4. ANTECEDENTS OF AUTHENTICITY ... 14

3.5. TOOLS TO CREATE AUTHENTICITY ASSOCIATIONS ... 15

CHAPTER 4: PRIMARY BRAND ELEMENTS ... 17

4.1. THE CONCEPT ‘PRIMARY BRAND ELEMENTS’ ... 17

4.2. CRITERIA OF PRIMARY BRAND ELEMENTS ... 18

4.3. PRIMARY BRAND ELEMENTS, A BRAND BUILDING TOOL ... 19

4.4. CAPTURING THE BRAND IDENTITY ... 20

CHAPTER 5: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ... 22

5.1. FAMILY FIRMS USING PRIMARY BRAND ELEMENTS AND AUTHENTICITY ... 22

5.2. HYPOTHESES ... 23

5.2.1 Hypothesis 1: Brand heritage ... 23

5.2.2. Hypothesis 2: Brand location ... 23

5.2.3. Hypothesis 3: Family ownership ... 24

5.2.4. Hypothesis 4: Cue accumulation ... 25

5.2.5. Hypothesis 5: Product category characteristics ... 26

5.2.6. Hypothesis 6: Consequences of perceived brand authenticity ... 27

5.2.7. Conceptual model ... 28

CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH METHOD ... 29

6.1. RESEARCH DESIGN ... 29

6.2. STIMULI DEVELOPMENT & PRE-TEST ... 29

6.2.1. Stimuli development ... 29

6.2.2. Pre-test ... 31

6.2.3. Results pre test ... 32

6.3. RESPONDENTS/SAMPLE ... 37

6.4. MEASUREMENTS ... 38

6.4.1. Independent variables, moderator ... 38

CHAPTER 7: RESULTS ... 41 7.1. DATA PREPARATION ... 41 7.1.1 Sample characteristics ... 41 7.1.2. Reliability ... 42 7.1.3. Normality checks ... 43 7.2. MANIPULATION CHECKS ... 43 7.3. HYPOTHESES TESTING ... 49 7.3.1. PROCESS ... 49

7.3.2. Repeated measures ANOVA, hypotheses: 1,2,3,4 ... 50

7.3.3. Hypothesis 5 ... 55

7.3.4. Hypothesis 6 ... 57

7.4. ADDITIONAL ANALYSES ... 58

CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION ... 67

8.1. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS ... 67

8.1.1. Effect cues on perceived brand authenticity ... 67

8.1.2. Effects cues in different levels of authenticity relevance ... 70

8.2. IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS ... 72 8.2.1. Theoretical implications ... 72 8.2.2. Managerial implications ... 74 CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION ... 77 9.1. SUMMARY RESULTS ... 77 9.2. LIMITATIONS ... 78

9.3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ... 79

REFERENCES ... 81

APPENDIX ... 90

A: PRE-TEST QUESTIONS ... 90

B: FINAL STIMULI ... 94

C: FINAL SURVEY ... 96

Abstract

Family firms play a significant role in the corporate landscape. It is therefore interesting to know how these firms could exploit their family ownership status to influence perceive brand authenticity. Nowadays, authenticity is a booming concept for both consumers as well as businesses. When being perceived as authentic, brands can really differentiate themselves. Family firms might have a benefit. These firms could state their family ownership status and other aspects that belong to family firms, such as their often long history and location of establishment in primary brand elements. This research contributes to the literature by providing an answer if it is indeed possible to influence perceived brand authenticity with authenticity cues in primary brand elements, in a family firm context. A 2 (heritage cue: yes, no) x 2 (geographical location cue: yes, no) x 2 (family ownership cue: yes, no) x 3 (authenticity in product category: strongly relevant, moderately relevant, hardly relevant) full factorial mixed design was executed to examine this question. This research acknowledges that it is indeed possible to influence perceived brand authenticity with cues in primary brand elements, such as a heritage, location or family ownership cue, but this is a more complex story than in first way was predicted. A heritage cue works consistently effective across product categories, but a family and location cue work only effective under the right circumstances. A family cue should be stated in product categories where authenticity and family ownership are seen as relevant and suitable. In addition, a location cue should be stated when it represents the underlying authenticity dimension in that product category. This means that the relevance of authenticity and the authenticity dimensions are important factors that determine the effectiveness of cues. Besides these loose effects, the same interaction patterns between cues arises across product categories, a family cue should be presented in combination with a location cue, but not in combination with a heritage cue. Because the effects are relatively small and complex, brands should also focus on other marketing activities to stimulate authenticity associations.

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1. Family firms and authenticity

1.1.1. The importance of family firms and authenticity

A great number of firms is family owned. These firms play a significant role in the corporate landscape and have always been at the heart of business and they always will be. About sixty percent of all firms in most nations are classified as family firms (Deniz & Suarez, 2005) and Anderson and Reeb (2003) state that one third of S&P 500 firms in the United States are family firms. Besides the clear importance of family firms, because they come in such great numbers, the European Commission also addresses the need for further research about family owned firms (European Commission, 2009). According to Miller and Lebreton-Miller (2003) family firms can exploit their family identity to gain a competitive advantage over non-family businesses with regarding to attributes as trust, commitment and a customer-oriented focus, which are normally associated with family businesses. Furthermore, family firms have an advantage relative to non-family firms when it comes to communicating their “authentic brand”, because of their history of continuality and the existence of the family ownership (Binz Astrachan, & Astrachan, 2015).

According to Rosina (2017) family firms are perceived as more authentic by customers than non-family firms. Authenticity is becoming more and more an important criterion for consumers (Eggers, O’Dwyer, Kraus, Vallaster, & Güldenberg, 2013). Gilmore and Pine (2007) state that quality no longer differentiates, but authenticity does. According to Morhart, Malär, Guevremont, Girardin, and Grohmann (2015) perceived brand authenticity increases emotional brand attachment and word of mouth. Additionally, brand authenticity has a positive effect on brand attachment (Assiouras, Liapati, Kouletsis, & Koniordos, 2015), which is seen as very important since brand attachment involves a connection with the brand (Thomson, MacInnis, & Park 2005). Being perceived as authentic is very useful for brands. Authenticity is an important resource for firms and it seems that family firms have an advantage. They can trigger perceived authenticity, such as any other firm, by using heritage, communicating nostalgia or by consistent brand clarity, etcetera. (Fritz, Schoenmueller, & Bruh, 2017). Additionally, family firms can, in comparison with other firms, also communicate family ownership. This might be a benefit, because family ownership can be a sign of continuality (Binz et al., 2015) and this affects perceived brand authenticity (Morhart et al., 2015).

One way to communicate these different cues of authenticity is by utilizing primary brand elements. This is a very easy and cheap communication tool to build brand equity and

2

associations (Keller, 2005). Every company ‘owns’ these elements and this can be a way to stimulate feelings of authenticity. For instance, Swinckels, state ‘family brewery’ in their brand name and Warbakers mention ‘Family Bakers’. These brands clearly want to communicate authenticity to their customers. Or for example, Jack Daniels, a company that is seen as authentic states ‘Tennessee’ in their logo. Many different ways are existent to communicate cues in primary brand elements (for instance, ‘since 1930’, ‘family owned’, ‘third generation’, etcetera.). When family firms are compared with non-family firms it can be determined that the use of cues in primary brand elements could be especially important for these kind of firms, because they can also communicate family ownership. Therefore, primary brand elements could be an easy and effective way to associate authenticity to the family company. However, the effectiveness of these primary brand elements on perceived brand authenticity still needs to be explored. It might be clarifying to know if primary brand elements can contribute to a brand for being perceived as authentic and in what ways this is optimal for family firms. While studies imply that a distinct family owned reputation can be a manner of developing a unique competitive advantage for family firms over non family firms, for example by being perceived as more authentic, the strength of such a strategy still needs to be explored (Craig, Dibrell, & Davis, 2008).

1.1.2. Literature gap; influencing authenticity with primary brand elements in a family firm context

Previous research on family firms demonstrate that compared to non-family firms, family firms perform relatively better in terms of profitability (Anderson & Reeb, 2003; Sraer & Thesmar, 2007; Sciascia, Mazzola, & Kellermanns, 2014). Other studies argue that family firms are perceived more positively than non-family firms (Binz, Hair, Pieper, & Baldauf, 2013; Orth and Green, 2009) and some authors have mentioned that family firms have specific advantages in building relationships with their customers and stakeholder groups over non-family firms (Ward, 1997; Biberman, 2001). Overall, research demonstrate that consumers have a positive view of family firms (Craig et al., 2008). Yet, little research is conducted with regard to the associations and impressions family firm cues evoke with consumers. Also it is not clear how family firms and others differentiate in this respect (Cooper, Upton, & Searmon, 2005). Micelotta and Raynard (2011) mention that there is an absence of research examining how family firms communicate their family ownership identity in their marketing activities. They studied in which ways these businesses communicate family ownership. However, they did not

3

analyse the results of these different branding strategies. There is need for more research in the field of family firms (Achleitner, Guenther, Kaserer, & Siciliano, 2014). The body literature of this topic combined with marketing remains very slim.

Authenticity is a topic that has been more elaborately examined in academic research (Morhart et al., 2015; Assiouras et al., 2015; Thomson et al., 2005). However, authenticity in a family ownership context lacks research (Rosina, 2017) and little is known how businesses can create authenticity (Fine, 2003; Jones, Anand, & Alvarez, 2005). Family firms seems to have a benefit with regard to being perceived as authentic, because they can communicate family ownership and this might trigger authentic associations, but also this has not been studied before. Additionally, the effect of cues in primary brand elements on customer perceived brand authenticity in a family firm context remains unstudied. It can be concluded that research on primary brand elements is narrow. No research has been done that investigates the most effective way to make use of primary brand elements with regard to consumer perceived brand authenticity. These various gaps lead to the overall literature gap that research lacks in the field of stimulating perceived brand authenticity through primary brand elements in a family ownership context. According to Micelotta and Raynard (2011) family firms differentiate in their brand identity communication and the results of these differences need to be further explored. Given this research gap, there is need for more research in this specific field. It is therefore important to examine what kind of effects different cues in primary brand elements have on consumer perceived authenticity for family firms. This study aims to address the lack of empirical work.

1.2. Problem definition 1.2.1. Problem statement

This research will examine the variations in primary brand elements in a family ownership context that can influence customer perceived brand authenticity. Authenticity is very important for businesses, but when is authenticity perceived? And when is this perceived authenticity optimal? Family firms are perceived as more authentic than non-family firms (Rosina, 2017), but are differences present amongst family firms when it comes to perceived authenticity when considering their primary brand elements? It would be interesting to know if and how cues in primary brand elements influence customer perceived brand authenticity in a family ownership context. From these questions and the literature gap the following problem statement can be formulated: “How can variations in primary brand elements affect consumers’ perceived brand authenticity for family owned businesses?”

4

1.2.2. Sub questions

In order to tackle the formulated problem statement certain, sub questions need to be answered first. Namely, it is important to know in what kind of ways authenticity can be influenced. In this research will be analysed what the antecedents of authenticity are and with what kinds of tools authenticity can be stimulated. Furthermore, it would be interesting to know if primary brand elements can play a role in creating authenticity associations. Can these easy manipulated elements play a role in consumer perceived brand authenticity? And if this is true, maybe a cue of family ownership in primary brand elements can also affect perceived brand authenticity. This research will analyse if family firms indeed have a benefit over non-family firms with regarding to perceived brand authenticity.

The sub questions are as follows:

- In what ways can perceived brand authenticity be influenced?

- Can primary brand elements play a role in influencing perceived brand authenticity? - What is the effect of family ownership cues in primary brand elements on customer

perceived brand authenticity?

1.2.3. Delimitations of the study

In this thesis, the effect of variations in primary brand elements on customer perceived brand authenticity will be studied in a family ownership context. This study is particularly interested in differences between family firms. Differences between family and non-family firms are disregarded. Existing literature already devoted research to this subject (Miller & Lebreton-Miller (2003); Orth & Green, 2009; Rosina, 2017). Furthermore, primary brand elements will be extensively analysed in this study. Other tools to create authenticity are briefly discussed. Moreover, not all primary brand elements will be examined, but a few of these elements are examined, namely: slogan, logo and brand name. Additionally, only a few variations in primary brand elements are analysed, namely: variations in heritage, location and family ownership cues. Not every approach to influence authenticity will be studied because of constraints. This study will be investigated by conducting online experiments amongst consumers.

5

1.3. Contributions

1.3.1. Theoretical contributions

Although research on family firms has increased in recent years, many areas still need to be investigated to gain more thorough comprehension of family firms (Wortman, 1994; Sharma, 2004). More specifically, the application of family firms and marketing lacks research. Therefore, this thesis will reveal important insights into family firms. This paper contributes to the family firm literature in several ways. First, this study responds to the call of the European Commission (2009), Craig et al. (2008), Sharma (2004) and others. They address the necessity and scarcity of research on family firms. Second, research of authenticity in a family ownership context lacks research (Rosina, 2017). This study will contribute to this by looking when authenticity is perceived for family firms. Third, primary brand elements are not thoroughly examined, especially in this context. The lack of research on primary brand elements and brand management will be addressed. This study fills the gap of combining marketing and family firms and namely combining the communication of primary brand elements to customer perceived authenticity in a family firm setting. Also the debate about the importance of research which further analyses marketing issues in family firms will be advanced (Reuber & Fischer, 2011). This topic has not been researched before. The findings of this research could enable further academic research in this field.

1.3.2. Managerial contributions

Aside from theoretical contributions, this thesis also contributes to the knowledge of managers in the field of family firms. This thesis provides valuable practical implications that could help managers and businesses to improve their business performance. First, managers will know the best way to use cues in primary brand elements to influence perceived brand authenticity. In particular, the results of this study will provide managers with means to improve their communication strategy of family ownership. Excellent branding is a relevant driver in longstanding firm performance (Bolton, 2004). Second, managers will know if it is useful to communicate family ownership with regard to perceived authenticity. Third, these implications will create a better understanding of customers. Fourth, authenticity is an essential issue for businesses. Businesses invest significantly in this so it is important to know in which ways perceived authenticity will be optimal. The optimization of the branding communication of family cues can result in more efficiently and effectively targeting customers. The current study will help managers with these issues.

6

1.4. Structure outline

The remainder of this thesis is structured as follows. The second chapter will explore the literature on family firms and the concept ‘family firm’ will be defined. The third chapter will focus on customer perceived brand authenticity. Additionally, the factors that can influence authenticity will be examined. The fourth chapter reviews primary brand elements. Different primary brand elements will be analysed. In these three chapters (two, three, four) the context of this study will be set up. These chapters will mainly contain an evaluation of existing literature. Furthermore, in chapter 5, the theoretical framework will be set up with the corresponding hypotheses. The sixth chapter will review the methodology of this study. This chapter will explain how the research is conducted. The seventh chapter will discuss the findings of this research. The eighth chapter will consist of the discussion. The results will be elaborated in this part, interpretations are clarified and implications for both theory and practice will be explained. Finally, the ninth chapter will consist of a conclusion. This chapter provides an answer for the research question. Moreover, limitations of this research are discussed and recommendations are given for further research.

7

Chapter 2: Family firms

In this chapter the concept of family firms will be further explained, various definitions are given and one definition of family firms for this thesis will be selected. Furthermore, the literature and perceptions of family firms will be reviewed

2.1. The concept ‘Family firms’

Family firms play a significant role in the corporate landscape. As mentioned before one third of all S&P firms are claimed to be family owned (Anderson & Reeb, 2003). And the increase on research about family firms is due to the fact that the majority of firms are family firms (Sageder, Mitter, Fedlbauer-Durstmüller, 2018). A family firm is defined in different ways by researchers, no unanimous definition is present. Chrisman, Chua, Pearson and Barnett (2012) state that a single definition for family businesses is unrealistic, when the developments in this field are considered. Different aspects are taken into consideration when defining a family firm. A few definitions will be presented. According to Anderson and Reeb (2003) a family firm is considered one with a family holding at least 10% of the ownership shares and being the largest shareholder. Burkart, Panunzi and Shleifer (2003, p. 2167) state that “one speaks about founding-family ownership when the founders, or their family and heirs, are controlling the firm. Whenever a family did not found the firm, but acquired it when it already existed, one speaks about family ownership”. According to Casson (1999), a family business is one that is owned and controlled by a family.

The European Commission (2009, p.4) has the following definition, with the addition of four criteria: “A firm, of any size, is a family firm, if: 1) The majority of decision-making rights is in the possession of the natural person(s) who established the firm, or in the possession of the natural person(s) who has/have acquired the share capital of the firm, or in the possession of their spouses, parents, child or children’s direct heirs. 2) The majority of decision-making rights are indirect or direct. 3) At least one representative of the family or kin is formally involved in the governance of the firm. 4) Listed companies meet the definition of family enterprise if the person who established or acquired the firm (share capital) or their families or descendants possess 25% of the decision-making rights mandated by their share capital”.

Despite the different definitions, it is clear that the difference between family firms and non-family firms lies in the ownership structure. Furthermore, the family members in a family firm hold a significant number of shares and participate in management positions. In family firms the survival part is important, family owners attach value to the transfer of the company

8

to the next generation. Members of the family identify the firm as an extension of themselves (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013). Furthermore, the firm’s name is often linked to the family (Craig et al, 2008) and members are highly motivated for protecting the family firm’s reputation (Block, 2010). For the purpose of this thesis family firms are defined as companies where members of the same family, or related family branches, hold a majority interest, and where the owning family exerts a dominant influence on the strategic direction of the company through ownership, governance, management and vision (Chrisman, Chua, & Steier, 2005; Chrisman, Chua, & Sharma, 2005).

2.2. Research on family firms

Sharma (2004) gives an overview of the articles written on family firms. She concludes that most of the research is done at the individual or group level with only slight literature at the organizational level. According to Anderson and Reeb (2003) family firms perform at least as good as other firms, if not better. Additionally, various researchers have stated that family firms have specific advantages in building relationships with their stakeholders (Ward, 1997; Biberman, 2001). According to Ward (1988) family firms are described as friendly working which increases the employees’ loyalty.

Minichilli and Corbetta (2010) state that family firms have higher financial performance when many family members are involved in the management board. Another characteristic of family firms is that they have lower agency costs. Important is that family firms are seem to perform better in comparison with other firms when the financial performance is analysed (Astrachan et al., 2013). Furthermore, family firms commit actions that benefit stakeholders (Zellweger et al., 2013). For example, these firms build long lasting relationships with their customers (Craig et al., 2008), invest in control of pollution (Berrrone, Gómez-Mejía, & Larraza-Kintana, 2010), avoid job cuts (Block, 2010) and act social responsible (Dyer & Whetten, 2006).

According to Le Breton-Miller and Miller (2006) long term orientation is a characteristic that family firms possess. This exhibits itself in long CEO tenures, long-term investments and the consideration of future generations. Most leaders of family firms are planning to pass the organisation on to their heirs (Le Breton-Miller & Miller, 2006). They see the firm as a legacy for their next generation (Dyer & Whetten, 2006). In this way a long heritage can be created. Another focus of long term orientation is customer loyalty and building long term relationships with various stakeholders (Zellweger, Kellermans, Eddleston, &

9

Memili, 2012). This long term orientation of family firms creates a strong image.

Overall, research on family firms is positive. Binz et al. (2013) state that consumers associate better relational qualities with family firms and that consumers prefer products and services of these firms. Beck and Kenning (2015) mention that a family firm status increases perceived trustworthiness and purchase intention. Moreover, Aronoff and Ward (1995) found that family firms have a better reputation than non-family firms. Family ownership and the family involvement support the development of this positive reputation. Family ownership is seen as a predictor of responsible behavior to various stakeholders (Dyer & Whetten, 2006).

According to Carrigan and Buckley (2008) consumers may indeed perceive family firms more positive than non-family firms. They did research amongst consumers about the perceptions they have about family firms. Family firms are seen as distinctive, part of the community, more trusted, integer and authentic. Additionally, consumers are more willing to engage in long-term relationships with family firms (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008).

2.3. Characteristics of family firms

In this time of fierce competition, it is important to differentiate. Brands have a challenge to create a coherent perception to consumers of who they are and what they offer (Einwiller & Will, 2002). For family firms this is also important. They might have an advantage above non-family firms. Family firms are perceived different than non-non-family firms (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008). It has been proposed that communicating a firm’s family ownership elicits positive associations, leading to competitive advantage over non-family firms (Orth & Green, 2009; Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2010). By promoting it, in ways like ‘we are a family firm since 1980’, these firms are able to capitalize on their status and history as family firm (Craig et al., 2008; Zellweger, Kellermans, Eddelston & Memili, 2012). Craig et al. (2008) states that referencing that a brand is family owned can reflect positively on the company. Family firms have a unique position which allows them to leverage their family ownership (Poza, 2010; Ward, 1997). Additionally, a family firm can be a powerful brand and could communicate their values to consumers. These companies have a strong history, attach value to nostalgia, heritage, have emotional bonds between family members and long term orientation (Sharma & Manikutty, 2005; Ward, 1997). According to Koiranen (2002) top values of family firms are honesty, credibility, obeying the law, quality, and industriousness, which are all modes of good ethical conduct.

10

associations (Sageder et al., 2018). These firms have different associations with consumers than non-family firms. Some of these are committed, socially responsible, fair, hardworking, long term orientation, successful trustworthy, customer oriented, stable, competitive, and quality oriented (Beck & Kenning, 2015; Binz et al., 2013; Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Blodgett, Dumus, & Zanzi., 2011; Sageder et al., 2018). Overall, family firms are seen as good corporate citizens (Krappe, Goutas, & Schlippe., 2011). Because of the long term tradition, family firms are perceived as persistent and stable, which contributes to continuity (Krappe et al., 2011). Blodgett et al. (2011) state that family firms are honest and integer. In comparison to non-family firms, family firms are seen as more social responsible, employee friendly, and more resistant to job cuts (Block & Wagner, 2014; Block, 2010). Furthermore, family firms avoid more actions that could harm their reputation than non-family firms (Dyer & Whetten, 2006). Because of all these various aspects consumers view family firms different than non-family firms. Overall, most of the executed studies about family firms find positive associations with these particular firms (Sageder et al., 2018).

2.3.1. Authenticity associations and family firms

Authenticity is another positive association that consumers have with family firms (Presas et al, 2014; Rosina, 2017) and consumers attach great value to this (Gilmore & Pine, 2007). For instance, this is due to the fact that family firms are seen as consistent, integer, honest, and responsible (Krappe et al., 2011: Blodgett et al., 2011; Block, 2010). Moreover, consumers have associations with family firms such as: nostalgia, honesty heritage, brand legitimacy, continuity and long term commitment that influence the perception of authenticity (Fritz et al., 2017). Family firms might have an advantage above non family firms. These firms often have a rich history and old traditions. This represents continuity for these firms (Micelotta & Raynard, 2011). Moreover, the often long heritage of family firms, because of the transfer of the company to heirs, can contribute to authenticity perceptions (Blombäck & Brunninge, 2013). Furthermore, according to Rosina (2017) communicating the family firm status can be of strategic value for family firms. This elicits authenticity associations with consumers. Because of the increasing importance of authenticity (Beverland, 2006), family firms could really make a difference. These firms could communicate different cues to show family ownership to consumers that lead to authentic associations that consumers have with these firms.

11

Chapter 3: Authenticity

This chapter will discuss the importance of authenticity and various definitions of authenticity will be given. Moreover, different perspectives and dimensions of authenticity will be demonstrated. Furthermore, factors that influence authenticity will be discussed and tools to create authenticity are shortly elaborated on.

3.1. The relevance of authenticity’

Nowadays, authenticity is becoming more and more important for consumers (Beverland, 2006). Gilmore and Pine (2007) state that authenticity has overtaken quality as the predominant purchase criterion. Furthermore, consumers are more inclined to seek for authentic brands that help express themselves. Authenticity serves as proof of quality and differentiation for people (Fritz et al., 2017). Brown, Kozinets and Sherry (2003) acknowledge that brand authenticity is one of the cornerstones of marketing. According to Turner and Manning (1988) the need for authenticity is especially strong in uncertain times. Another study that demonstrates the importance of authenticity is the research of Napoli, Dickinson and Beverland (2016), the results of this research show that an authentic brand delivers more personal value to consumers and utilitarian and hedonistic benefits, self-authentication and love for the brand. Furthermore, authentic brands have a more attractive reputation in the market and have higher brand equity. Brand authenticity has a positive influence on brand trustworthiness (Schallehn, Burmann, & Riley, 2014). Besides that, according to Thomson et al. (2005) and Morhart et al. (2015) brand authenticity ensures higher brand attachment. Additionally, brand attachment is good for a positive influence on purchase intention, willingness to pay, promoting the brand, customer loyalty and worth of mouth. When a consumer perceives a brand as authentic he or she is more connected with this particular brand and will talk more about this. These aspects demonstrate the relevance of brand authenticity and a unique chance for managers to position their brand as authentic.

Authenticity can be seen as an important factor for branding. However, no unanimous definition of authenticity exists. Beverland (2005) states that this is because authenticity has multiple dimensions. According to Peterson (1997) authenticity is associated with terms such as genuineness, reality and truth, however these words could have various meanings for different people. Other scientists define authenticity in words such as sincerity, innocence and originality or natural, honest, simple and unspun (Fine, 2003). Diez (2006) states that a brand is perceived as authentic if it is a real and honest brand instead of artificial and superficial.

12 3.2. Perspectives on authenticity

It is useful to be aware of the various ways by which consumers might perceive something as authentic. According to Leigh, Peters and Shelton (2006) and Morhart et al. (2015) authenticity is based on different perspectives. These perspectives are as follows:

The objectivist perspective

This is based on perceived authenticity which can arise from evidence-based verifiable information about a company, such as labels of origin, age, ingredients or performance (Beverland, Lindgreen, & Vink 2008). Indexical cues can be used to give information what a brand claims to be. This verifiable information can affect consumers perceived authenticity (Morhart et al., 2015).

The constructivist perspective

This perspective “allows for different interpretations of reality on the basis of customer’s projections onto objects and is essentially symbolic” (Leigh et al., 2006, p 483). Authenticity is a personally composed reality (Grayson & Martinec, 2004). Consumers form their authenticity beliefs based on different interpretations and their own personal experiences (Morhart et al., 2015; Leigh et al., 2006). Iconic cues can affect the way customers perceive a brand as authentic (Morhart et al., 2015).

The Existentialist perspective

This perspective is based on “personal or subjective feelings activated by the liminal process of activities” (Leigh et al., 2006 p. 483). This perspective of authenticity is related to a person being true to one’s self (Morhart et al., 2015). It refers to a brand’s ability to serve as a resource for consumers to demonstrate their true selves or to feel that they are true to themselves by using the brand. Authenticity can arise from a brand’s capacity to serve as an identity-related source. Existential cues can be used to serve as an identity-related source to stimulate authenticity (Morhart et al., 2015).

Overall, these three perspectives are intertwined, each of the perspectives can provide perceived authenticity (Leigh et al., 2006). Therefore, perceived brand authenticity can emerge from the interplay of indexical, iconic and existential cues (Morhart et al., 2015). Additionally, Grayson and Martinec (2004) state that consumers use a combination of various cues when they evaluate the degree of authenticity of a brand.

13 3.3. Dimensions of perceived brand authenticity

Besides the different perspectives of authenticity, several dimensions to measure perceived brand authenticity are existent. Morhart et al. (2015) identifies four dimensions of authenticity, namely: continuity, credibility, integrity and symbolism.

Continuity

Continuity stands for a brand’s timelessness, historicity and its likelihood that it will exist in the future. In addition, it is important that a brand survives trends (Morhart et al., 2015). It is similar to heritage, because both refer to a brand’s history and stability and the likelihood that it will exist in the future (Wiedmann, Hennings, Schmidt, & Wuestefield, 2011).

Credibility

Credibility refers to the brand’s willingness and ability to deliver on their promises. Authentic brands are seen as credible brands. For consumers it is important that brands deliver what they promise (Morhart et al., 2015). This dimension is similar to honesty. Brand credibility has similarities with brand trustworthiness (Erdem & Swait, 2004). Furthermore, credibility has likeliness with brand quality, this is seen as the extent to which a brand delivers as according to customers’ expectations (Frazier & Lassar, 1996).

Integrity

Integrity refers to the brand’s intentions and the values the brand communicates. It also signifies the moral purity and responsibility of the brand. A brand is seen as integer when it acts correctly and ethically (Morhart et al., 2015). Furthermore, a brand should not only think about the economic agenda (Holt, 2002). It should sincerely care about the consumer and the environment (Morhart., 2015).

Symbolism

Symbolism is interpreted as the symbolic quality of the brand that helps consumers to define who they are (Morhart et al., 2015). The brand can be a resource for identity construction by serving self-identity cues that represents values, roles and relationships (Morhart et al., 2015). This dimension is similar to the connection benefit (Beverland & Farelly, 2010) and identity-related aspects from brand attachment (Whan Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eiseingerich, & Iacobucci, 2010).

14

Based on these four dimensions perceived brand authenticity can be defined as “the extent to which consumers perceive a brand to be faithful toward itself (continuity), true to its consumers (credibility), motivated by caring and responsibility (integrity), and able to support consumers in being true to themselves (symbolism)” (Morhart et al., 2015, p 203). This research will acquire this definition of authenticity. Furthermore, Morhart et al. (2015) demonstrates a relationship between the different dimensions and the three authenticity perspectives.

3.4. Antecedents of authenticity

Consumers have been striving for authenticity for a long time (Grayson & Martinec, 2004). The key question is: what influences authenticity? According to existent research, different antecedents can affect perceived brand authenticity (Morhart et al., 2015; Fritz et al., 2017; Schallehn et al., 2014). Morhart et al. (2015) states that indexical, iconic and existentialist cues can be used to influence perceived authenticity. Fritz et al. (2017) exposed that brand heritage, brand nostalgia, brand commercialization, brand clarity, brand’s social commitment, brand legitimacy, actual self-congruence and employee’s passion are antecedents of authenticity. According to Schallehn et al. (2014), individuality, consistency and continuity of a brand affect perceived authenticity. Individuality is defined as ‘the unique way in which the brand fulfils its promise’. Consistency means “those attributes which are expressed by its reiterative current brand behavior”. Additionally, high consistency is perceived when the brand promise is fulfilled at every single brand touch-point. Continuity signifies that “core brand attributes remain stable over a longer period” (Schallehn et al., 2014, p.194). Moreover, Moulard, Garrity and Rice (2015) state that two overarching antecedents of perceived brand authenticity are present. These are rarity and stability. Rarity signifies behavior unique to the brand. Additionally, rarity, consists of the specific manifestations uniqueness and scarcity. Stability serves as consistent brand behaviors, which consists of the specific manifestations longevity and longitudinal consistency. These aspects influence perceived brand authenticity.

Beverland (2005) executed research on how to influence authenticity. He came up with two key themes, protecting status and sincerity. According to him, brands need to constantly ensure their status. This can be ensured with formal and informal classifications and through commitments to quality. An example of this is hand vesting which illustrates focus to details. In addition, the ability to demonstrate historical quality and price performance is another way for companies to protect their status. For example, with keeping library stocks and regular tastings. The second key theme, sincerity, can be achieved by using a place as a referent, with

15

stylistic consistency (which refers to within certain boundaries) and by using traditional producing methods. Additionally, using culture and history as referent and appearing above commercial considerations all can contribute to perceived authenticity (Beverland, 2005). In each of these various approaches consumers select specific cues to reconnect to time, place, culture, self and others (Napoli et al., 2016). As previously discussed, Morhart et al. (2015) argues that authenticity consist of different dimensions which can be influenced: the continuity, credibility, integrity and symbolism dimension. These discussed antecedents demonstrate that brands can use different approaches to influence perceived brand authenticity.

3.5. Tools to create authenticity associations

Authenticity associations do not come out of the blue, they are often created. Two ways to create brand associations are existent, namely marketing communication and primary brand elements (Keller, 2005; Keller, 2016). Many marketing communication platforms could be employed, such as: advertising, online marketing, mobile marketing, social media marketing and public relations (Keller, 2016). These platforms are a good way to create associations for a brand. Brands can really benefit from marketing communications, but this is often a costly and difficult process. In recent years, it has become even more difficult, because of the digital media options (Keller, 2016). This brings great complexity to decision making with regard to marketing communication (Keller, 2016). Moreover, the various marketing communication platforms should be integrated, this involves difficulties (Keller, 2016). Additionally, consumers’ understanding of marketing communications can range from half a minute to hours. Therefore, marketing communications can be a possible way to create authenticity associations for a brand, but this is a difficult process where a lot of time and attention should be devoted to (Keller, 2016).

Additionally, primary brand elements are an easy and effective way to create brand associations (Keller, 2005), such as authenticity associations. Consumers’ understanding of these elements can be activated in only a few seconds (Keller, 2003). Primary brand elements should be skilfully chosen, but this is not such a costly and difficult process as marketing communications. Moreover, primary brand elements remain often fairly consistent through the years. Meaning, that it is a tool that should be skilfully considered, but when it is present you often do not have to thoroughly think about it anymore afterwards. According to Keller (2016) primary brand elements are a vital tool, because many consumers do not really examine much brand information in making product choices, and because primary brand elements can reduce

16

the burden on marketing communication. Therefore, such a simple tool as primary brand elements could be utilized to create authenticity associations. Moreover, when the different antecedents and tools to create perceived authenticity are considered it can be observed that some of these elements can be communicated trough primary brand elements. For instance, various cues can be stated in primary brand elements, such as: continuity in the brand name (‘since 1980’), roots in the logo (‘from Holland’), ownership in the slogan cue (‘From our family to yours’), nostalgia in the logo, and many more. These are examples of cues that can influence perceived brand authenticity in primary brand elements (Morhart et al., 2015; Beverland, 2005; Rosina, 2017). Primary brand elements could be used as a simple and effective tool to create authenticity associations.

17

Chapter 4: Primary brand elements

In this chapter primary brand elements will be elaborated on. Different elements will be discussed and further explained. Moreover, the use of primary brand elements as brand building tool will be explained and criteria for primary brand elements will be reviewed.

4.1. The concept ‘primary brand elements’

Marketers should choose the right primary brand elements to create brand equity. “A brand element is a trademarkable, visual or verbal information that identifies and differentiates a product or service” (Keller, 2005. p. 20). Brand elements, sometimes called brand identities, include: names, Web URLs, logos, symbols, characters, slogans, jingles and packaging. The most profitable companies use various brand elements (Keller, 2005). Brand elements are chosen to build brand awareness or facilitate the formation of strong, favourable and unique brand associations. Various brand elements can have different advantages, a mix or even the whole sub-set of brand elements are often employed (Keller, Apéria & Georgson, 2008). All of these different elements tell a story about the brand and are used to draw a distinct brand image in the consumer’s mind. The elements brand name, symbol and slogan will be discussed below and further elaborated on in this research. The elements character (this represents a special type, one that takes on human (or real-life) characteristics), jingle (a musical message around the brand) and packaging (the designing of containers and wrappers for a product) are not in the scope of this research, because these elements cannot be verbally communicated.

Brand name

The name of a brand is the basis upon which the brand equity is built (Aaker, 1991). A brand name is the core sign of the brand. The importance to select a satisfactory brand name is therefore inevitable. A brand name can be seen as an anchor for a product’s identity and changing this can result in loss of brand equity (Keller, 2003). These elements are an effective means of communication, the brand name is noticed and its meaning is activated just within a few seconds, whereas marketing communications can range from half a minute (advertisement) to potentially hours (for a sales call) (Keller, 2003). According to Keller (2003) and Robertson (1989) a brand name needs to be simple, easy, familiar, meaningful, different and distinctive.

18 Logos & symbols:

Visual brand elements such as logos and symbols play a vital role in building brand equity. A brand’s visual identity is necessary to authorize and maintain a place in the marketplace (Farhana, 2012). Logos are an important element for direct and indirect marketing communication (Bottomly & Doyle, 2006). Logos and symbols provide two functions for brands: identification and differentiation. These elements are equated with the brand they represent (Farhana, 20012). Many different logos and symbols are existent. They range from corporate names or trademarks written in a special manner, for instance KitKat, to abstract logos or symbols, which may be absolutely independent to the brand name or activities, for instance the Rolex crown (Farhana, 2012). Logos and symbols are easily recognized and are an important way to identify products (Keller, 2003).

Slogans:

In today’s marketplace, almost any brand makes use of slogans. Slogans are short phrases that are used to communicate information about the brand (Keller, 2003). Examples are Nike’s famous slogan ‘Just Do It’ or KitKat’s slogan: ‘Have a break, Have a KitKat’. These elements can enhance a brand’s image, aid in its recognition and recall, and help create brand differentiation in consumers’ minds (Kohli, Leuthesser, & Suri, 2007). Sutherland (2004) States that slogans can contribute to brand equity by building brand awareness. Furthermore, slogans can contribute to a brand’s point of difference (Keller, 2003). According to Campbell (1999) slogans should be long enough to say something significant, but short enough to be memorisable.

These different brand elements can work individually or collectively. They are used to create brand awareness and contribute to brand equity. Keller (2003) argues that it is necessary to mix and match various elements to maximize brand equity.

4.2. Criteria of primary brand elements

Different criteria for choosing the right primary brand elements should be kept in mind (Keller, 2005). These will be shortly discussed. The first three criteria focus on building brand equity. These are called the offensive side. The first criterion is memorability, a brand much be easy to recognize and to recall. Primary brand elements should be memorable and distinctive (Farhana, 2012). Second, meaningfulness, primary brand elements should be meaningful. Customers need

19

to be able to identify the right product category and the brand should be credible in this product category. Third, likeability, this reflects the aesthetical appealing of the product. Do consumers like the brands’ style and themes? The following three criteria concern how marketers can leverage and preserve brand equity in the face of various opportunities and constraints (Keller, 2005). This is called the defensive side. The first criterion of this side is transferability, different products in different categories must have the possibility to be introduced with this brand element. This criterion examines if the brand has the option to cross different market segments, geographic boundaries, cultures, and so forth. Second, adaptability, brand elements need to be adaptable and flexible. They should be updated to be relevant in that time. Third, protectability, this is the last criterion, this holds the legal and unauthorized infringements of the brand (Keller, 2008). These six criteria have to be kept in mind when considering and choosing different brand elements (Keller, 2005).

4.3. Primary brand elements, a brand building tool

Brand building is very important for companies. Building customer based brand equity (CBBE) is defined as “the differential effect that brand knowledge has on customer response to brand marketing activity” (Keller, 2016, p. 3). CBBE consists of three important activities “Choosing brand identities or elements; designing and implementing marketing activities themselves; and leveraging secondary associations by linking the brand to some other entity—a person, place or thing.” (Keller, 2016, p. 3). So CBBE can be thought of in a sequence of steps, whereas the identification of the brand is the first step (Farhana, 2012). When customers identify a brand associations pop up. Brand awareness is a process that is involved to achieve the right brand identity. Brand awareness consists of linking the brand’s name, logo, symbol, and so forth to particular associations. So primary brand elements can be used to enhance brand awareness and facilitate the formation of strong, favourable and unique associations. In this way a brand image can be created (Keller, 2001). According to Yoo, Donthu and Lee (2000) brand elements are related to dimensions of brand equity, such as perceived quality, loyalty, associations and brand awareness. Furthermore, Keller (2017) states that brand elements are important drivers of brand equity. Primary brand elements facilitate the process of attaining brand awareness goals (Vraneševic & Stančec, 2003).

Primary brand elements play a key role in CBBE and is an important step that has to be carefully considered. The various brand elements have its own strengths and weaknesses. The key to brand equity is the balance and mixture between those elements for the maximization of

20

their collective contribution (Keller, 2008). Primary brand elements are an important tool to build CBBE and create brand associations.

4.4. Capturing the brand identity

Primary brand elements are a tool for brands to distinguish themselves (Keller, 2005). These elements can be a means of translating the company’s marketing intent (Keller, 2005). Brand elements can promise a certain level of quality, trust, and distinctiveness to consumers (Farhana, 2012). Moreover, brand elements facilitate the process of brand mapping for consumers (Farhana, 2012). With brand elements companies can display their brand hierarchy. In addition, a brand element works for consumers as a clue to retain a perception about the brand in memory. Keller (2012) even states that technically speaking, whenever a marketer creates a new name, logo, or symbol for a new product, he or she has created a new brand. A brand name captures the central key associations of a product. It is more than just a word. It as an extremely effective means of communication (Farhana, 2012). This element contributes to the positioning of a product (such as Head & Shoulders shampoo) and could illustrate the brands hierarchy. Besides that, brand names are the basis for brand awareness, the creation of associations and the core of a product’s identity (Farhana, 2012). In addition, the brand name can convey messages of quality to the consumer and the consumer decides upon these messages if he or she will make use of the brand (Brucks, Zeithaml, & Naylor, 2000). A logo can equate the brand signal with the brand (Savard & Gallagher, 2010). A logo its presence could be a central ingredient for brand development. Logos can reinforce the brand’s meaning and can evoke certain positive or negative evaluations from the consumers (Henderson & Cote, 1998). In this way the logo can add value to the company and provide advantages above the competition, because it differentiates the brand from others (Riel & Ban, 2001). In addition, a logo could add to the reputation of a brand and create positive associations by conveying the brands good intentions (Henderson & Cote, 1998).

Slogans can function as handle to inform the customer about the meaning of the brand and, in addition to that, slogans can strengthen the brand’s aspired point of difference (Farhana, 2012). For example, the slogan of Avis: ‘We’re number 2, we try harder’ illustrates clearly that this brand provides more quality than the number 1 and that consumers can trust in Avis. Slogans are an excellent tool to say something about the brand’s meaning, to create associations and to contribute to their points of differences (Kohli et al., 2007; Farhana, 2012). Besides that, a slogan is a mean to convey brand messages (Farhana, 2012).

21

Taken together, brand elements are an effective tool to tell stories about the brand, to create a brand identity and to form brand associations. These elements develop brand meaning and convey these messages to consumers. In addition, brand differentiation is important for consumers and these elements can help brands to exploit this. Moreover, these elements can transfer the core identity characteristics of the brand to consumers (van Riel & van den Ban, 2001) and contribute to the brand positioning (Farhana, 2012).

22

Chapter 5: Conceptual framework

In this chapter the various concepts will be tied together and the discussion will be made on why the use of primary brand elements to create associations is particularly important for family firms. In addition, ways to influence authenticity with primary brand elements will be analysed and hypotheses will be set up. Additionally, the conceptual model will be presented.

5.1. Family firms using primary brand elements and authenticity

Primary brand elements are an easy and effective tool to create brand associations and to build brand equity for every organisation. Especially for family firms, using this tool could be very interesting. Most family firms could be categorized as small and medium sized firms (Corbetta & Montemerlo, 1999; Donckels & Fröhlich, 1991). These firms do not have extremely large budgets for marketing communications nor do they engage in big marketing campaigns often. Therefore, primary brand elements could be a good alternative to create marketing associations. Moreover, family firms are known for their concentrated ownership (Anderson & Reeb, 2003). The founders of the family firms are mostly long-term investors (Jiraporn & DaDalt, 2009). They have a long term investment horizon which leads to decreased pressure in making quarterly numbers and satisfying capital shareholders. A results of this is that less investments are made to short term marketing communications to make profit. Besides that, earnings management occurs in less extent in family firms than non-family firms (Jiraporn & DaDalt, 2009). In addition, because of the long term orientation, family firms often have different objectives than non-family firms. Whereby non-family firms have more profit oriented goals, family firms have more non-performance oriented goals such as, employment of family members or transfer of the company to heirs. These goals can take over the business goal of profitability. This results in family firms handling resources differently (Cater & Justis, 2009). The use of primary brand elements could be beneficial to still create awareness, associations and brand equity for these firms. In addition, as discussed before, authenticity associations can be created with primary brand elements. Family firms could adopt different possibilities to affect perceived brand authenticity. For instance, family firms could state their heritage, location or family ownership in primary brand elements to create authenticity associations. These possibilities will be further discussed by taking the different dimensions and antecedents of perceived brand authenticity into account.

23 5.2. Hypotheses

5.2.1 Hypothesis 1: Brand heritage

Brand heritage is closely related to brand authenticity (Brown et al., 2003; Peterson, 2005). As said before, brand heritage is an antecedent of authenticity (Fritz et al., 2017). This is because companies who communicate their heritage are seen as consistent and continuous brands (Fritz et al., 2017), firms can for instance demonstrate their heritage through stating “since 1910” in their primary brand elements. Also, according to Morhart et al. (2015), consumers attribute authenticity to brands based on facts, such as a brand's founding date. According to Peterson (2005) brands are perceived as more authentic if they state ‘former’ values. When brands emphasize a connection with the past this is interpreted as original, reliable, continuous and natural. Heritage could be perceived as a connection with the past. In addition, longitudinal consistency, which means ‘the extent to which consumers perceive that the brand has not changed’ can be an aspect of heritage (Moulard, Raggio, & Garritson, p. 425). According to Morhart et al. (2015) consistency affects perceived brand authenticity. Firms can use primary brand elements to influence longitudinal consistency to tie with the past and show consistency of the brand. Brands that communicate their heritage become more unique to consumers, because it enriches the brand with a distinctive attribute (Hakala, Lätti, & Sandberg, 2011) and research illustrates that brands who communicate their heritage receive a higher level of trust (Wiedmann et al., 2011). Also, heritage signs can communicate the values of the company, their integrity, because when companies exist for a long time they have certain values and traditions. Integrity cues emphasize the brand’s intentions and values. When a brand portrays to be motivated by caring and responsibility values, it is seen as integer. (Morhart, 2015). Moreover, integrity influences perceived brand authenticity (Morhart et al., 2015). When brands can portray their heritage, such as long existence over time, perceived brand authenticity will be positively influenced. Therefore, the emphasis of heritage could lead to greater perceived brand authenticity (Morhart et al., 2015). This leads to the first hypothesis:

H1: Perceived brand authenticity is higher when primary brand elements contain a heritage cue than when they do not

5.2.2. Hypothesis 2: Brand location

According to Morhart et al. (2015) focussing on roots has a positive effect on continuity which is a dimension of perceived brand authenticity. The brand’s location of establishment is one of the aspects of the brand’s roots and can reflect the brand its timelessness, historicity and ability

24

to overcome trends (Morhart et al., 2015). Therefore, stating the brand’s location could have an effect on perceived brand authenticity. In addition, when stating the origin of the brand consumers could perceive this as a consistent brand which has not changed, named longitudinal consistency. According to Moulard, Raggio and Folse (2016) this longitudinal consistency positively affects authenticity. Furthermore, according to Peterson (2005) brands are perceived as more authentic if they state ‘former’ values. When communicating the brand’s location people might perceive this as if the brand holds on to former values and that the brand has not changed. In addition, stating the brand’s origin emphasizes a link with the start of the brand and communicates the core aspects of the brand (Newman & Dhar, 2014). Newman and Dhar (2014) state that consumers perceive products made in the original location of the brand as more authentic and valuable than if the products are made elsewhere (Newman & Dhar, 2014). This is because these products are more likely to consist of the core of the brand. Besides that, a brand’s location can create associations, such as authenticity associations, and has a positive effect on brand attitude (Magnsson, Westjohn, & Zdravkovic, 2011) which also influences credibility and perceived quality of the brand. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H2: Perceived brand authenticity is higher when primary brand elements contain a location cue than when they do not

5.2.3. Hypothesis 3: Family ownership

According to Wang (1999) the family status can positively affect perceived brand authenticity. Focussing on the family aspect can be a form of integrity. Integrity cues emphasize the brand’s intentions and values. When a brand portrays to be motivated by caring and responsibility values it is seen as integer. Integrity is a dimension of perceived brand authenticity (Morhart, 2015). In the family context the value of families is becoming central. The family is an important private sphere where individuals experience their own true selves. This can be seen as a form of integrity. According to Kashmiri and Mahajan (2010) family firms which use the family name as a brand name are more easily recognized as a family firm, and trusted more. The use of family owned signs positively affects perceived continuity, because families often exist for a fairly long time. When demonstrating that the firm goes from parent(s) to child(ren), perceived continuity can be triggered. Continuity has a positive impact on perceived brand authenticity (Morhart et al., 2015). Additionally, this can provoke feelings of longevity, which means ‘the extent to which consumers perceive that the brand has been in existence for a long

25

period of time.’ (Moulard et al., 2016, p. 425). Also, this can cause perceived authenticity (Moulard et al., 2016). Additionally, Rosina (2017) states that communicating the family firm status (family owned) will lead to authenticity associations. Different ways to state the family component in primary brand elements could be used. For instance, state “family owned”, “a family company”, ”and sons” or “third generation” in the brand name or slogan. This leads to the following hypothesis.

H3: Perceived brand authenticity is higher when primary brand elements contain a family ownership cue than when they do not

5.2.4. Hypothesis 4: Cue accumulation

The hypotheses offered thus far predict that perceived brand authenticity is higher when an authenticity cue is present than when an authenticity cue is absent (H1, H2, H3). The general assertion contained within these hypotheses is that cues enable a consumer to perceive authenticity in a cue. To expand this, a closer examination is given to the number of authenticity cues. Literature seems to be divided between a stream of research suggesting to use a singular cue (Keller, 1987; Meyvis & Janiszeweski, 2002) and a stream of research that suggests to use a combination of two or more cues to improve brand evaluation (Laroche, Kim, & Zhou, 1996; Miyazaki, Grewal, & Goodstein, 2005). The first stream of research assumes that additional cues will work less effective, because of the dilution effect (Meyvis & Janiszweski, 2002). The other stream of research argues that additional cues will work more effective when they contain consistent information, because this will provide stronger information (Miyazaki et al., 2005). In this study the research stream of Keller (1987) and Meyvis and Janiszweski (2002) will be followed, because this study is most in line with this stream of research. This study also considers brand names and slogans. Besides that, Miyazaki et al. (2002) state that when additional cues contain consistent information it will work more effective, since the cues in this research provide different information, a combination of cues will not work more effectively.

When a consumer assesses a certain brand, he or she searches for information about this brand, for example; he or she searches for information in primary brand elements. This information has an impact on brand evaluation. Additional information in these primary brand elements systematically weakens consumers’ beliefs on whether the product will provide the benefit (Meyvis & Janiszeweski, 2002). This is due to the dilution effect, which illustrates that a person’s consideration of additional information leads to a less extreme judgement (Meyvis

26

& Janiszeweski, 2002). Hypothesized is that one cue will positively influence perceived brand authenticity, but when another cue is added, this will not provide much added value to this perceived authenticity. A brand will be seen as authentic or not, an additional cue will not add much value. This holds for both the heritage as well as the location cue, because they both provide additional information about the brand. This means that when a heritage or location cue is present, the addition of a family ownership cue will not provide incremental value for the particular brand with regard to perceived brand authenticity. Hence, when only the family ownership cue is present this strongly contributes to perceived brand authenticity. This means that the effect of a family cue on perceived brand authenticity is negatively moderated through the use of a heritage and location cue. A negative interaction is present. This leads to the two following hypothesis:

H4a: The positive effect of a family ownership cue in primary brand elements on perceived brand authenticity (H3) will be stronger when the heritage cue is absent than when the heritage cue is present.

H4b: The positive effect of a family ownership cue in primary brand elements on perceived brand authenticity (H3) will be stronger when the location cue is absent then when the location cue is present.

5.2.5. Hypothesis 5: Product category characteristics

Different product categories can be associated with different characteristics. Moreover, consumers expect and need different characteristics in different product categories. In one product category consumers can highly appreciate authenticity, whereas in other product categories this could be limited. Consumers are looking for authenticity in products related to personal interest or hobbies and products bought for special occasions or reasons (Liao & Ma, 2015). In addition, consumers value authenticity for identity goods (Lunardo & Guerinet, 2007). Nowadays, consumers are inclined to search for authentic products that help them to express their authentic selves (Gilmore & Pine, 2007). For instance, wine is seen as an identity good (Lunardo & Guerinet, 2007). Wine is part of conspicuous consumption (Beth et al., 1999). People buy it not only for consuming, but also to enhance their status. In order to do so, money has to be spent on original and unique products. Wine is a good that consumers can buy for special occasions. Furthermore, wine producers favour tradition, culture and try to create a powerful image of authenticity. Beverland (2006) suggests that heritage adds value to the authenticity of wine because it indicates consistency of the wine taste. Furthermore, consumers