Is there something like Dutch Brand Authenticity?
Gijs Smith 11383194 22-06-2017
Final draft
MSc. in Business Administration – Marketing Track University of Amsterdam
Statement of originality
This document is written by Gijs Smith, and I declare 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 6 2. Literature review ... 10 2.1 Authenticity ... 10 2.2 Brand authenticity ... 13 2.3 Brand knowledge ... 17 3. Hypotheses ... 19 3.1 Continuity ... 19 3.2 Credibility ... 19 3.3 Integrity ... 20 3.4 Symbolism ... 20 3.5 Originality ... 213.6 Effect of brand authenticity ... 22
3.7 Moderating effect ... 22 4. Conceptual model ... 23 5. Methodology ... 24 5.1 Research design ... 24 5.2 Sample ... 24 5.3 Survey ... 25 5.4 Measurements ... 26 5.5 Brands ... 27 5.6 Data analysis ... 27 6. Results ... 28 6.1 Sample ... 28 6.2 Brands ... 28 6.3 Normality ... 28 6.4 Reliability analysis ... 28
6.4.1 Cronbach’s alpha test ... 29
6.5 Correlations analysis ... 31
6.6 The construct brand authenticity ... 31
6.7 The relationship between brand authenticity and brand knowledge ... 32
6.9 The model ... 34
7. Discussion and implications ... 35
7.1 Discussion ... 35
7.2 Managerial implications ... 39
7.3 Theoretical implications ... 40
8. Limitations and future research ... 41
9. Conclusion ... 43
10. References ... 44
11. Appendices ... 51
11.1 Appendix A – Survey ... 51
11.2 Appendix B – Factor analyses ... 53
11.3 Appendix C – Cronbach’s alpha analyses ... 59
11.4 Appendix D – Normality test ... 64
Abstract
In recent marketing literature, researchers mentioned the need for doing more in depth research regarding the phenomenon of brand authenticity. This study uses Dutch brands to find out if brand knowledge is an outcome of the concept of brand authenticity. This relationship would be enlarged when consumers are more involved in a specific product category. To investigate this potential moderating effect a 3 (low, moderate and high level of brand authenticity) x 3 (low, moderate and high level of product category involvement) factorial ANOVA is executed. Moreover, this study want to make a step in validating pillars of brand authenticity used in other research and applies this to the Dutch market. The pillars considered in this research are: continuity, credibility, integrity, symbolism and originality. To investigate the validity of those pillars, I conduct a hierarchical regression analysis.
The results indicate that the five pillars considered in earlier research indeed have a place within the Dutch market. Furthermore, when a brand is perceived as authentic it has a positive relationship with the level of brand knowledge a consumer has. Moreover, there is a moderating effect occurring in this research, this only takes place when a consumer is moderately involved in a product category, and the brand is perceived as moderately authentic.
With this empirical focused research, I show that the concept of brand authenticity is present within the Dutch environment, and that brand knowledge is an outcome that should be considered by marketers.
Keywords: Dutch brands, Brand authenticity, Brand knowledge, Product category involvement, Brand continuity, Brand credibility, Brand integrity, Brand symbolism, Brand originality.
1. Introduction
The question that always intrigued me is: how is it that brands with no enduring presence in the environment of consumers perform outstanding, while other brands that do spend a lot of their resources to push their presence in the environment of consumers are struggling to be relevant and profitable? I would agree with the statement from Beverland (2009), in his book he argues that it is authenticity that makes the difference between a good and bad performing brand.
After reading the Brand Keys trends top 10 for 2016, something caught my attention. It is the statement that a brand is your best brand asset. They describe it as follows: “The need for brands to differentiate themselves is significant. A brand should stand for something meaningful, emotional and important in the mind of the consumers. Contrarily, marketers will find themselves managing a well-known commodity.” Managing a well-known commodity is not something a marketer should accomplish. In my opinion, when working in the marketing realm, marketers should be focused on making an impact on a consumer’s life. One of the things brands can do to achieve that specific position in the mind of the consumer is being a brand that is authentic. Since 2012, Cohn & Wolfe present The Global Authentic 100 (http://www.authentic100.com). This is a list of the highest-ranking brands in the world based on consumer perception of authenticity. According to this list, the current number one brand is Disney. Cohn & Wolfe describe three distinct drivers of authenticity, namely the three R’s: Reliable, Respectful and Real. The PR firm ranked companies to their scores on research and surveys answered by more than 12,000 consumers across 14 markets. Intriguing was the coverage of this rapport on Business Insider. They remarked that the report showed that consumer cynicism is currently high globally, with four out of five consumers stating that brands are not open and honest. But why do consumers find it important for a brand to be ‘open and honest’? A Google search on " why as brand being authentic is important " surprisingly
yields exactly 27 million results, containing headlines like: "What is Authenticity in Marketing?" or "Unlocking the Power of Authenticity with Millennial Consumers," and surprisingly enough, "Millennials' Plea to Brands: Authenticity, not Advertising." Interesting is that most articles state that as a brand you can become authentic. I found this hard to believe, within the digital world we live in, information about brand is so easily accessed that if your brand is in essence not authentic, consumers will find evidence to substantiate their claim and potentially damage the image of the brand. Brands began as badges of product quality, going back at least as far as the medieval guilds of craftsmen who used them to distinguish their work. Now in the modern age they have tried to attach emotional and social values too. Think for example of Nike’s “Just do it”. Now, companies are trying to flood consumers with a cascade of fascinating facts, companies are striving to label their brands as ‘authentic’. Global brands are anticipating on this trend. Brands that are dominating the current business landscape like Coca-Cola state to be “the real thing”, Adidas claims to be “once innovative, now classic, always authentic” and Nike promises “authentic athletic performance”. Recently, Interbrand, a prestigious consultant on branding, describes authenticity as “an internal truth and capability”, a “defined heritage” and a “well-grounded value set”. Moreover, in 2013 the Boston Consulting Group surveyed 2,500 American consumers and found that being authentic was indeed one of the main qualities they said would attract them to a brand. For younger “millennial” consumers it was second in importance, to only reward their loyalty with discounts was more important for them. Looking at some research that is a bit closer to home, I found a questionnaire that was distributed in 2012 under several Dutch professional marketers (Van Sister, L., 2012). The results also confirmed the growing interest and importance of authenticity by stating in their results: ‘authenticity is important for every brand.’
The research gap that this study is focusing on the growing research attention is given to potential antecedents and consequences of brand authenticity (BA). There is however still a research gap that needs to be filled (Fritz et al., 2017). Future research could consider additional perceptual consequences of BA (Moulard et al., 2016). In this study, I argue that brand knowledge (BK) is an additional perceptual consequence of authenticity that should and could be investigated. Secondly, I argue there is also a moderating effecting on the relationship between BA and BK. The research already implied that there is a possible link between BA and the perception of this authenticity when people are more or even less involved in certain product categories (Beverland 2006; Beverland et al., 2008). Moreover, mentioned in Moulard et al (2016) is that research suggests that some consumers value a brand’s authenticity differently than others.’ I think this is due to the fact of the level of involvement consumers have in specific product categories. This because, after analyzing the literature regarding BK, I found there is already mentioned the phenomenon that when individuals are more involved with a product category, they tend to have more knowledge about the product category (Baker et al., 2002).
Thus, my hypothesis is that: when consumers experience a brand as being authentic they tend to have more BK about this specific brand. This will only occur when they are highly involved in the product category. This inspired me to the following research questions:
RQ1: To what extent does perceived brand authenticity affect the brand knowledge of consumers?
RQ2: To what extent does product category involvement moderate the potential effect of brand authenticity on brand knowledge?
The practical contributions are the following: research has shown that the concept of authenticity is important for consumers. Grayson & Martinez (2004) gave an interesting view
on why authenticity is so important: “Authenticity provides an escape from the bigotry that underlies most of today’s marketing practices and consumers feel more connected to the context where the object is linked to when they believe they are in presence of something authentic” (Grayson & Martinec, 2004 p. 302). Therefore, brands should differentiate themselves too by making use of the authenticity associations. Given the economic, societal, and technological trends of the twenty-first century, it is relatively easy to predict that the concept of authenticity will become more and more important to consumers (Moulard et al., 2016). For marketers, grasping the full potential of BA can be an influential attribute to differentiate their brand from other competitors in the market. Marketers should be able to understand how using the concept authenticity in association with their brand will influence the knowledge consumers will have about their brand in order to create the best positioning in the minds of consumers. This thesis can be valuable in providing insights into the effects of BA and BK. Moreover, harmonizing the variety of key pillars of BA and how it can be influenced, by marketing activity executed by marketers in the business environment. By conducting research regarding the emerging trend of BA marketers will gain valuable new contributions, and helps to further improve brand management practice. Furthermore, stated by Romaniuk (2007): “All brands are ‘differentiated’ (they do not compete as perfect substitutes) in that for each buyer there are brands that they know well and other brands they think very little about.” (Romaniuk et al., 2007, p. 49). This implies that brand awareness plays a much larger role in the decision process of consumers than earlier anticipated (Romaniuk & Sharp, 2004).
Thus, whether a link exists between the constructs of BA and BK, it provides managers with another branding tool to use to influence consumers’ mindset, and therefore an important contribution in this context.
The contribution to extant theory will be, despite numerous examples, of good performing authentic brands in the marketplace. The concept of BA has not been thoroughly examined in academic marketing research so far (Schallehn et al., 2014). Analyzing several old and more current research, there is some current research regarding behavioral consequences of BA like, brand loyalty (Lu et al., 2015), purchase intention (Lu et al., 2015; Napoli et al., 2014) and the intention to recommend the brand (Morhart et al., 2015; Spiggle et al., 2012). This shows there is an increasing interest in authenticity in the academic environment, and this thesis should be a contribution to this emerging research interest. To my knowledge there is no effect mentioned between BA and BK. Moulard et al., (2016) already mentioned trust and expected quality as possible outcome of BA. The main contribution will be researching if BK is a new outcome of BA. Moreover, a moderating effect of product category involvement (PCI) between those two constructs will be a new addition to this effect, and may provide new insights for the BA construct. Then the question remains what captures the full meaning of the words: authentic – authenticity?
2. Literature review
2.1 AuthenticityWhat is authenticity? Great philosophers like Plato (Guthrie, 1987), and Freud (Gertner, 2000) were intrigued by its meaning, and have explored the concept of authenticity in order to understand its meaning in people’s lives. The word authentic is derived from the Greek word authentikós, which means „original‟ (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 317).
Trilling’s (1972) view of the authenticity of an object as a function of genuineness and positive valuation. Following a different perspective, the author Beverland defines authenticity “as a construct that is projected via a sincere story that involves the admission of commitments to traditions, passion for craft and production excellence, and the public disavowal of the role of
Researchers have agreed on one thing regarding the concept, authenticity is a fluid concept that can be negotiated (Cohen, 1988; Squire, 1994; Wang, 1999) and is dependent on context rather than objectively determined (Grayson 2002; Hughes, 1995; Jang et al., 2012) Although it has been unquestioned that consumers today seek and appreciate authenticity in their consumption (Brown et al., 2003; Leigh et al., 2006; Rose & Wood, 2005). In studies of authenticity within the consumer behavior context, academics covered the problematic nature of the research, primarily of its inconsistent use and the lack of agreement regarding a clear definition of authenticity (Beverland, 2005; Costa & Bamossy, 2001; Grayson & Martinec, 2004). In different academic research papers, the term authenticity has been used in different ways to imply different meanings (Beverland, 2005). For example, sociological and historical analysis of authenticity places the emphasis on originality and appropriate use and production of the product. (Costa & Bamossy, 2001; Grayson & Martinec, 2004). In contrast to previous research on authenticity, Beverland (2005) found authenticity in functional and ubiquitous objects and tried to reduce the fragmented nature of research on authenticity. Following up that research, Beverland (2006) produced a framework of factors that contribute to authenticity that includes: 1. Heritage and Pedigree, 2. Relationship to Place, 3. Method of Production, 4. Commitments to Quality, 5. Downplaying Commercial Motives and 6. Stylistic Consistency. Furthermore, in their study, Beverland and Farrelly (2010) identify a shared meaning of authenticity as consumers’ desire for the genuineness, reality and truth. As Beverland and Farrelly (2010, p. 839) state, “despite the multiplicity of terms and interpretations applied to authenticity, ultimately what is consistent across the literature is that authenticity encapsulates what is genuine, real, and/or true”. With increasing uniformity in society, social scientists recognize the growing interest of authenticity among consumers making choices in developed economies (Fine 2004; Koontz 2010). In different realms of art, music, beer, tourism, chocolate, cosmetics, film, wine, architecture, furniture, neighborhoods, coffee and tea, crafts,
politics, and food, analysts comment on the attraction to authenticity. It may be concluded that presently, consumers increasingly embrace products, services, and forms of expression that manifest and embody the concept of authenticity.
Why is authenticity such an important factor in the world we live in? According to Grayson and Martinec (2004), humans have been striving for authenticity for several hundred years. Why? Firstly, it is a reaction to the growing number of serious crises over the past years, such as the financial crisis, current threats to society such as climate change, frequent scandals caused by managerial misconduct relating to moral issues, or simply progressing globalization which increasingly separates people from their national identities (Bruhn et al., 2012; Fine, 2003) Secondly, the need for authenticity is often also seen because of the increasing homogenization of products and services in the marketplace (Beverland & Farelly, 2010). This gives an indication why claims of authenticity work so well with consumers (Beverland 2006; Fine 2003; Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Kates, 2004; Rose & Wood, 2005).
Even leading some authors to state, "the search for authenticity is one of the cornerstones of contemporary marketing" (Brown et al., 2003, p. 21). Over the last decades, increasing awareness of cultural diversity and inquiry for authentic experiences have resulted in a rapidly growing demand for authentic and unique experiences (Fine 2003; Gilmore & Pine; 2007; Holt 1997; Okumus et al., 2007; Peñaloza 2000; Thompson & Tambyah 1999). Consumers select specific products and brands in a pursuit for those perceived to be real, true and genuine – in other words, authentic (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010).
Authors further argued that managing customers’ perceptions of authenticity is becoming a primary new source of competitive advantage for businesses, as individuals increasingly judge the world in terms of authenticity and inauthenticity based on their previous knowledge and experience (Gilmore & Pine, 2007). Discovering this emerging trend, marketers have begun using authenticity as a brand-positioning and a product appeal strategy (Robinson & Clifford,
2012). Recognizing the importance of perceptions of authenticity, brand managers have often responded by imbuing their brands with indications of authenticity (Beverland & Luxton, 2005; Beverland et al, 2008). Thus, the concept of authenticity is an important part of building and maintaining a successful brand because it forms a unique brand identity (Beverland, 2005b) and moreover, it provides a strong, favorable association (Keller, 1993). This helps to stand out from the crowd in the ever-increasing competitive market landscape.
The long interest in this human ambition for searching authentic experiences, products etc., the concept of authenticity has only recently captured the attention of marketing researchers because of the growing consumer demand for authenticity in purchased products and services. Despite “authenticity’s long-standing, persistent, and contemporary marketplace appeal” (Grayson & Martinec, 2004, p. 296.), For companies there is still room to grow, and enhance their knowledge of factors that might be used to promote brand authenticity. Furthermore, to know the consequences, and potentially know how BA influences consumer behavior. This knowledge is fundamental to further confirm the relevance of BA as an interesting topic for marketers in the current business environment.
2.2 Brand authenticity
In the current business environment, consumers are more interested in exploring authentic objects or brands that help them express their authentic selves (Gilmore & Pine, 2007; Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001; Schouten & McAlexander, 1995). Yet, it is hard to find those authentic brands in the business landscape. Already more than a decade ago, authentic brands were scarce and hence desirable (Brown et al, 2003; Holt, 2002). However, Holt (2002) gives a first glimpse about how to be authentic as a brand. To be authentic, brands must be perceived as invented and diffused by parties without a personal agenda, and by people who are intrinsically motivated by their deep-rooted value.
A review of the literature points to the broad nature of BA, constructed around components like nostalgia (Beverland et al., 2008; Chhabra, Healy, & Sills, 2003; Postrel, 2003), cultural symbolism (Holt, 2004; Kates, 2004), sincerity (Beverland, 2005; Fine, 2003; Holt, 2002; Thompson et al., 2006; Trilling, 1972; Wipperfurth, 2005), heritage (Brown et al., 2003; Peñaloza, 2000; Postrel, 2003), quality commitment (Beverland, 2005; Gilmore & Pine, 2007), design consistency (Beverland, 2006; Beverland et al., 2008; Brown et al., 2003; Kozinets, 2001) and craftsmanship (Beverland, 2006; Carroll & Swaminathan, 2000; Fine, 2003; Postrel, 2003).
Within the marketing research paradigm, two research streams investigating the concept of authenticity have been derived. Firstly, authenticity as an attribute of a subject (emotional authenticity: Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006) or secondly of an object (BA: Beverland, 2006). The viewpoint on BA is mainly influenced by the conceptualization of Grayson and Martinec (2004). The authors developed a framework to investigate how consumers assess authenticity. In particular, they distinguished two types of authenticity: indexical authenticity and iconic authenticity. The first perspective – indexical authenticity – “distinguishes ‘the real thing’ from its copies” (Grayson and Martinec, 2004, p. 98). By referring to some verification or a factual connection between the brand and some reference point. In this sense, an object is authentic when it is believed to be “the original” or “the real thing” (Barthel 1996, p. 8). The second authenticity evaluation that was spoken about in the academic literature is: iconic authenticity. Iconic authenticity is the result of the consumer’s feeling and imagination rather than an evaluation based on evidence (Beverland et al., 2008). People will compare this composite photograph with what they sense and make an assessment of similarity. For instance, to judge whether a reproduction of a Van Gogh painting is iconically authentic, a consumer must have some idea, however vague or detailed, of what a van Gogh painting should look like. By differentiating between indexical and iconic authenticity, Grayson and Martinec (2004) have
provided a framework that enhances our knowledge of the authenticity formation process and in particular contribute to the understanding of authenticity within the marketing and consumer behavior research. Leigh et al (2006) continued this research and added an additional form of authenticity, existential authenticity. This kind of authenticity helps consumers to feel they are connected with both a ‘real’ world and with their ‘real’ selves. In that context, it is less relevant to be authentic as a brand. Brands should support the consumers in their quest to feel their ‘real’ self. To place this concept in the branding context, existential authenticity is the brand‘s ability to serve as a resource for consumers to reveal their true selves or to allow consumers to feel that they are true to themselves by consuming the brand. In more recent literature, Morhart and authors (2015) propose that perceived BA arises from the interrelatedness of the three-different forms of authenticity. Namely, of facts (indexical authenticity), mental associations (iconic authenticity), and motives that are linked to the ‘real’ word connected to the brand (existential authenticity). To summarize, an authentic brand must be faithful and true towards itself and its consumers, and must support consumers being true to themselves.
Continuing current research regarding BA, several studies have focused on the development of validate measures of BA: Bruhn et al. (2012) identify four dimensions of BA, namely continuity, originality, reliability and naturalness; Morhart et al., (2015) define the construct in terms of continuity, credibility, integrity and symbolism; and Napoli et al. (2014) refer to three principal components, namely quality commitment, heritage and sincerity. These scales are more common in terms of how BA is conceptualized and measured. However, it is important to note that each scale has been developed in diverse cultural backgrounds and researchers should be watchful about the use of authenticity scales in contexts different from those in which they were developed. Cultures all around the world assess the concept of authenticity differently (Bruhn et al., 2012). Bruhn and colleagues define BA as the perceived genuineness
of a brand that is manifested in terms of its stability and consistency (i.e., continuity), uniqueness (i.e., originality), ability to keep its promises (i.e., reliability), and unaffectedness (i.e., naturalness). In his research, Bruhn et al (2012) makes three interesting statements regarding BA:
1. Authenticity in the context of brands is related with the authenticity of market offerings
2. BA is based on the evaluations of individuals
3. BA corresponds to a variety of attributes since there is no unique definition of the authenticity concept
Nevertheless, recent studies show that BA positively relates to brand attitude (Ilicic & Webster, 2014), purchase intentions (Ilici & Webster, 2014; Napoli et al., 2014), as well as word-of-mouth communication, emotional brand attachment and brand choice likelihood (Morhart et al., 2015). Research of Moulard et al., (2016) found that if consumers perceive the product as not widely available, this contributes to the level of BA consumers associate with a specific product offering. In the Netherlands, the brand Tony Chocolonely is a good example of this phenomenon. This brand is only available at one specific retailer, or some chocolate products are only 3 months available in the market. Perception is key in marketing, so also for the concept of BA. Different cues of BA can be used to create the image of an authentic brand. Research has shown that authentic brands deliver more brand value (Napoli et al., 2016). Next to that, authentic brands have a higher change to create an emotional connection to consumers in comparison to low authentic brands (Morhart et al., 2015; Napoli et al., 2016). This emotional connection can evolve in a consumer-brand relationship, which can develop in higher brand loyalty and increased positive word-of-mouth (Morhart et al., 2015; Napoli et al., 2016). Even an authentic brand can overpower consumption consideration criteria as price and product availability (Gundlach & Neville, 2012). When a consumer perceives a brand as being
authentic, it would be logical to assume that to make this judgment about a brand, consumers should have some knowledge about this brand to make a good and fair assessment about the authenticity of the brand.
2.3 Brand knowledge
The construct BK refers to the knowledge customers possess about a specific brand (Baker et al., 2014). Moreover, BK interrelates to the quality of information that customers remember about a specific brand (Blackwell et al., 2001) or about specific attributes of the brand within the same product category (Baker et al., 2014). According to Keller (1993, 1998), BK, involves two components: brand awareness and brand image. These components are the source of customer-based brand equity. Brand awareness supports customers’ ability to identify a brand in their memory and this brand would influence customers’ mind easily either with or without external cues.
Further research of Keller (2003) argues that brand awareness consists of brand recognition, the “consumer’s ability to confirm prior exposure to the brand when given a brand as a cue” and brand recall, the “consumer’s ability to retrieve the brand form memory when given the product category, the needs fulfilled by the category, or a purchase or usage situation as cue.” To finish up the research that was done by Keller (2003), the author argues that the key dimensions of BK are interrelated to different kind of information sources. These sources are linked to a brand in the current market environment. These following eight information points are covered in the article of Keller in 2003 and showed in table 1.
Table 1: Overview information points (Keller, 2003)
1. Awareness Product category identification and aware of the needs satisfied by the brand itself
2. Attributes This are describing features that portray the brand name to his performance of to the brand personality of heritage
3. Benefits The personal value and meaning that consumers link to the brand’s product attributes
4. Images Visual information about the brand
5. Thoughts Personal hold cognitive response to any information that is related to the brand
6. Feelings Personal hold affective responses to any information that is related to the brand
7. Attitudes The consumer’s judgments and evaluations to any information about the brand
8. Experiences The consumer’s purchase and consumption behaviors in relation to the
specific brand
All this different kind of information should be dimensions of BK. This information can become part of the memory of consumers and can influence their behavior and response to marketing activities. Through different marketing programs marketers can influence these responses, and can BK be considered as a source of brand equity. To create customer-based brand equity, the brand associations that consumers have should be favorable, strong, and unique (Keller, 1993).
Brand awareness achieves three important strengths for marketing a brand. First, customers will be more familiar with the brand when brand awareness increases. Second, when brand awareness increases, customers will consider the brand when they intend to purchase a product or service. Thirdly, customers will choose to trust a high-awareness brand’s products or services rather than considering those of low awareness brands (Lu et al., 2015). Brand image is considered as the second component of BK and deals with various aspects of associations that a brand possesses (Alimen & Cerit 2010). Brand image has been defined as “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory” (Keller, 1993, p. 3). Kapferer (2012) argues that a brand’s image is a result of customer’s interpretation
process of different signals given by the brand. These signals may include brand name, signs, marketing communication etc. A positive brand image helps firms to establish a brand's position, strengthen the brand's market performance and protect the brand from competition (Aaker, 1996).
3. Hypotheses
In this chapter I will discuss how I created my conceptual model based on existing literature.
3.1 Continuity
The continuity driver of BA is similar as the concept of ancestry (Beverland, 2006). In the literature regarding BA, similarities exist between different constructs explaining continuity as part of BA (Moulard et al., 2016). In the research of Beverland and Luxton (2005) they recognized that Australian winemakers emphasize their long history to appear authentic. Many brands in the current business environment stress the fact that they are already present in the people lives over a longer period of time, by showing for example the date the company was founded. Furthermore, the continuity dimension reflects a brand's timelessness, historicity, and its ability to outlive trends (Morhart et al., 2015). These are important triggers for consumers to perceive a brand as being authentic. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Continuity will have a positive effect on brand authenticity
3.2 Credibility
In the research of Morhart et al., (2015) consumers associated authentic brands with a high level of credibility. It is important for consumers that brands are willing and able to deliver on their promises. Morhart et al., (2015, p. 202) conceptualize credibility as follows: “credibility is the brand's transparency and honesty toward the consumer, as well as its willingness and ability to fulfill its claims.” Reliability is also a similar construct that was mentioned as being
one of the drivers of BA (Bruhn et al., 2012). Both the drivers focus on the fact that a brand is delivering on his brand promise. To conclude, an authentic brand should be true to its consumers and to itself. Thus, the following is proposed:
H2: Credibility will have a positive effect on brand authenticity
3.3 Integrity
Authenticity perceptions further involve an indication of integrity. This reflects the brand's intentions and values it communicates to the consumers (Morhart et al., 2015). This dimension looks like the statement that commercial disinterestedness of a brand shows real authenticity (Holt, 2002). To be an authentic entity, brands must be without an economic agenda, and be marketed by people who are intrinsically motivated by deeply held values (Holt, 2002). Additionally, Beverland and Farrelly (2010) argue that to perceive authenticity, brand should be true to their morals. This concept of morality was also discussed in relationship to celebrity authenticity (Moulard et al., 2015). Next to that, the literature discusses the negative effect that brand commercialization has on BA (Beverland, 2006). This is further supported by the findings of Morhart and colleagues (2015) who identify the negative affect that brand scandals have, as an indexical cue, on the BA dimension, integrity. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: Integrity will have a positive effect on brand authenticity
3.4 Symbolism
According to Mohart and authors (2015) symbolism is a driver of BA that indicates the brand's potential to serve as a resource for identity construction by providing cues representing values, roles, and relationships that consumers value. In other words, symbolism reflects the symbolic resource of the brand that consumers can use to define who they are or who they are not and
which brand they would be associated with. This is closely correlated to the notion that people are looking for authenticity in a brand because it helps them to identify themselves due to their lost national identities (Bruhn et al., 2012; Fine, 2003). Symbolism is part of the concept of BA because it connects people with their real selves, and adds value to people’s lives that other brands cannot deliver. It that context, the brand is a supporting factor to help consumers find their true selves. Thus, the following is proposed:
H4: Symbolism will have a positive effect on brand authenticity
3.5 Originality
Research on the authenticity of persons and brands has suggested the importance of originality. For example, originality as a construct with respect to artists, Peterson (2005, p. 1093) argues that a country music singer must be having a “creative voice” and “an interpretation that makes his/her presentation distinctive and clearly recognizable” to be considered authentic. Moreover, Moulard et al.’s (2014) mentioned celebrity originality, found to be a sub-dimension of rarity. Their results suggest that celebrities that were independent and creative were perceived as authentic, whereas those that followed the crowd were perceived as inauthentic. I say this also works in a marketing context. Brands that stand out from the crowd are brands that people perceive as authentic (Bruhn et al., 2012). This can be done by for example, bringing new standards to a product category, or a unique marketing mix. Brands should have a unique appearance in the environment of the consumer to be authentic. Thus, the following is proposed:
3.6 Effect of brand authenticity
A brand that is not perceived as authentic implies a brand positioning which does not align with its identity, and therefore, the origin of the brand promise is attributed to external forces rather than to brand identity. In contrast, an authentic brand is clear about what it stands for. It is a brand which positions itself from the inside out (Schallehn et al., 2014). And because it is clear where the brand stands for it is easier to understand, and therefore remembered by consumers (Rifon et al., 2004). In this context, the congruence theory explains the degree to which a consumer views a similarity and connection between him- or herself and the brand. Hence, when a brand is perceived as authentic it is easier for consumers to see similarities between themselves and the brand, and would easier feel a specific connection. I expect that because consumers desire and seek authenticity, consumers evaluate products perceived to be authentic in a more positive light. However, forming that kind of evaluation, consumers should have a certain amount of BK to make that kind of assessment about a brand. A first step for researching this potential relationship was undertaken by Lu et al. (2015). The authors show a positive relationship between perceptions about an ethnic restaurant’s authenticity and the brand equity dimensions of brand awareness, brand image, as well as perceived quality. Thus, the following is proposed:
H6: Brand authenticity has a positive effect on the level of brand knowledge
3.7 Moderating effect
Buying an authentic brand is personally relevant for consumers, since they are looking for that authentic experience in life. Therefore, I think consumers will be higher involved when they encounter an authentic brand. This indicates that consumers may process the brand information by their central route according to the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model, consumers pursue a central route under high
involvement and a peripheral route under low involvement. Consumers take the necessary cognitive effort to evaluate the information available to them under the central route. In contrast, consumers tend to use more obvious and promptly accessible cues under the peripheral route. In other words, people are likely to engage in more information processing and elaboration when forming attitudes than in low involvement situations (Petty et al., 1983). By analyzing the information in a more cognitively manner I would assume that consumers will have more BK regarding an authentic brand only when they are highly involved within a specific product category. Thus, the following is proposed:
H7: High product category involvement strengthens the relationship between brand authenticity and brand knowledge
4. Conceptual model
In this chapter, the conceptual model used in this study is displayed, with an overview of all the different relationships that will be researched in the upcoming chapters.
5. Methodology
In this chapter I discuss the used research methods, and elaborate more on the decision I made regarding the gathering of my data by distributing an online survey.
5.1 Research design
This research follows a deductive approach, and this thesis starts with a literature review which grasps for example the foundation of brand authenticity. The concept is presented in a conceptual model. Next, the constructs are presented in such a way that empirical testing is possible. This thesis aims to be explanatory. The research is aiming to find a causal relationship between different variables, and answering the question why this occurs in the Dutch environment. This research follows a randomly assigned 3 (low, moderate and high authentic brand) x 3 (product category involvement: low, moderate and high). This research is a between subjects factorial design.
5.2 Sample
The population I want to target for this research are consumers that live in the Netherlands. This is important because I selected Dutch authentic brands to be the focal point of my research. The population I focus on is from the age of 18 years and older, and will preferably already have encountered the specific brand in their life. The total of this population, according to the CBS (2016), comprehends 13,562.539 people.
I want to reach my respondents by distributing my survey through social media. I am aware of the limitations regarding the chance of collecting a convenience sample. Although my limited time to collect data, I will remain using this sampling technique because it gives me the opportunity to gather a large amount of data in a brief period of time. I will explain the limitations using a convenience sampling technique at a later stage. By distributing my survey
online there is always a possibility that there will not be a representative population due to the phenomenon of snowball sampling. The positive side of using the snowball sampling technique gives me the opportunity to reach respondents that I will not find by just distributing my online survey (Atkinson & Flint, 2001). The snowball sampling technique can give access to ‘hidden’ populations (Noy, 2006), this can counter my possible convenience sample and motivates me to distribute my survey by social media.
5.3 Survey
Conducting a survey helps to reduce observer errors and observer bias (Saunders et al., 2012). Both these reliability conflicts are obviated since all the questions are held constant in the survey. Moreover, the interpretations I will make, cannot deviate too much because I will follow the generally accepted rules and standards like 95% confidence testing (Field, 2013). The golden standard for data collection is conducting a randomized non-probability sampling research (Saunders et al., 2012), yet this is not possible for this research. To my knowledge, there is no dataset available for this research that contains the data suitable for these specific research questions. Distributing an online survey gives researchers like myself the possibility to reach respondents easily and fast. The time respondents spend filling in a survey is much less, because using an online survey eliminates geographic barriers (Dilman, 2007). Next, the online survey could be designed to be more interactive, and therefore would be easier to fill in for the respondents (Dilman et al., 1998). I will make my survey with the Qualtrics tool.
In Appendix A, there is an overview of all relevant questions that will be used during my research. The questions are based on existing literature, this for the validity of the questions. The questions are originally in English, but I want to translate those questions into Dutch, since my respondents are Dutch. Lastly, before distributing the questionnaire, it is important to do
pilot testing with a small group of people (Saunders et al., 2012). I will therefore select a small group of friends to do this for me to be sure of distributing a correct survey.
5.4 Measurements
I will use a Likert scale, since this scale is used more frequently than other measurement scales in current marketing research (Dawes, 2008). I’m aware of the discussion about using a Likert-scale as an interval Likert-scale. However, in customary practice the Likert-Likert-scale is used for generating robust answers, and in line with the argumentation used in the article of Norman (2010) I see enough encouragement to justify my choice for the Likert-scale as an interval scale. Next, I will transform all used Likert scales to a 7-point scale. This will give my respondents a broader range of answering the questions. Moreover, respondents are given the possibility to give clearer answers about the specific constructs measured in my research. I know one question scale poses a great threat to the validity of the construct I want to measure. But in a trade-off between validity and response fatigue, the fatigue is more important for my research. In earlier research done by Dawes (2008) it is suggested that transforming an originally 5-point scales to 7-point scale is possible, and there will be no loss of the validity of the construct. This supported me in my decision to do the same for my research. BK is known as a two-dimensional construct, the respondents’ BK was indicated by brand awareness as well as brand image (Keller, 1993). In this research, the questions regarding BK will be used from the research of Chen and Fe (2003). The drivers of BA and their related questions are based on the articles from Morhart et al (2015) and Bruhn et al (2012). Lastly for this study, the question regarding PCI, a shortened version of Zaichkowsky’s (1985) scale page will be adopted. Zaichkowsky made a revised scale with only 10 questions that I will use for my research (Zaichkowsky, 1994).
5.5 Brands
These are the brands and product categories I choose for anticipating in my research. In table 2 there is an overview of the brands used during the field survey.
Table 2: Overview brands used in the survey
Brands Product Category
ABN AMRO Bank
Albert Heijn Supermarket
C&A Clothing
Calvé Food
Douwe Egberts Coffee
Shell Petroleum
5.6 Data analysis
The following variables will be analyzed:
- Independent (X): The level of perceived BA - Dependent (Y): The level of BK
- Moderator (Z): PCI. When the results indicate, there is no moderation effect, the construct PCI will be an independent variable (X)
I will use several questions for my variables. This implies I need to do a factor analyses. Before doing a factor analyses, I will conduct a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test & Bartlett’s test of sphericity. When those tests are sufficient I will perform a factor analysis and in addition a Cronbach’s Alpha test. This allows me to make the various questions for each construct to one SUM variable.
Finally, I must analyze my conceptual model. I have analyzed the drives of BA with a hieratical regression analysis. This to investigate the drivers of BA and their influence on the perceived BA level. The overall model with the moderating effect of PCI I choose to analyze with a Factorial ANOVA.
6. Results
In this chapter I discuss the different analyses I conducted on the received data from my online survey, and will give an overview of the results per hypothesis.
6.1 Sample
The sample consist of 226 males (61.4%), and 142 (38.6) female respondents. The average age of the respondents was 30 years old. (M age 30.1522, SD 11.02974).
6.2 Brands
Table 3: Descriptive results brands used in the survey
Brands M Brand Authenticity M Brand Knowledge M PCI SD N
ABN AMRO 3.36 3.69 4.10 0.83 66 Albert Heijn 5.69 6.14 4.83 0.32 60 C&A 3.44 2.79 3.31 0.59 59 Calvé 4.88 5.23 4.37 1.14 60 Douwe Egberts 5.37 4.93 4.15 0.91 66 Shell 2.96 3.53 4.00 1.01 57 6.3 Normality
I performed a Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk test to see if the different questionnaire scales were normally distributed. Appendix D is an overview of the different scores per variable. The different tests indicated that my results were not normally distributed. The non-normality has a weak effect on the Type I error.
6.4 Reliability analysis
To see if certain questions could be deleted for creating specific constructs I performed several reliability analyses. I started with a factor analysis of the different constructs used in my research (Appendix B). This was followed-up with a Cronbach’s Alpha test.
6.4.1 Cronbach’s alpha test Continuity
The output of SPSS gives a Cronbach’s Alpha score of 0.807 which includes the four questions regarding the first pillar of BA. By taking a closer look at the four questions individually, I see that when the first question would not be a part of this construct, the Cronbach Alpha score will increase to a score of 0.831. This motivates me to make a SUM variable, without question one. By excluding the question, the corrected item-total correlations show that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale. In Appendix C, you can find the overall Cronbach’s Alpha results of the pillar continuity.
Credibility
The output of SPSS gives a Cronbach’s Alpha score of 0.902 which includes the three questions regarding the second pillar of BA. This score indicates that item-total correlations is sufficient. Also, none of the items would affect the reliability if they were deleted. In Appendix C, there is an overview of the Cronbach’s Alpha scores of the pillar credibility.
Integrity
The output of SPSS gives a Cronbach’s Alpha score of 0.877 which includes the four questions regarding the third pillar of BA. By taking a closer look at the four questions individually, I see that when the third question would not be part of this construct, the Cronbach Alpha score will increase to a score of 0.894. This motivates me to make a SUM variable, without question four. By excluding the question the corrected item-total correlations show that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale. In Appendix C, there is an overview of the overall Cronbach’s Alpha score of the pillar integrity.
Symbolism
regarding the fourth pillar of BA I consider in my research. By taking a closer look at the four questions individually, I see that when the first question would not be a part of this construct, the Cronbach Alpha score will increase to a score of 0.909. This motivates me to make a SUM variable, without question one. By excluding the question the corrected item-total correlations show that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale. In Appendix C, there is an overview of the overall Cronbach’s Alpha results of the pillar symbolism.
Originality
The output of SPSS gives a Cronbach’s Alpha score of 0.969 which includes the four questions regarding the last pillar of BA. This score indicates that item-total correlations is sufficient. Also, none of the items would affect the reliability if they were deleted. In Appendix C, there is an overview of the overall Cronbach’s Alpha scores and the specific results of the pillar originality.
Brand Knowledge
The output of SPSS gives a Cronbach’s Alpha score of 0.899 which includes the eight questions regarding BK. By taking a closer look at the eight questions individually, I see that when the second question would not be a part of this construct, the Cronbach Alpha score will increase to a score of 0.913. This motivates me to make a SUM variable, without the second question. By excluding the question, the corrected item-total correlations show that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale. In Appendix C, there is an overview of the overall Cronbach’s Alpha scores of the construct BK.
Product Category Involvement
The output of SPSS gives a Cronbach’s Alpha score of 0.823 which includes the ten questions regarding the PCI of the respondents in my research. This score indicates that item-total
correlations is sufficient. Also, none of the items would affect the reliability if they were deleted. In Appendix C, there is an overview of the overall Cronbach’s Alpha scores of the construct PCI.
6.5 Correlations analysis
I conducted a correlations analysis to check if there are relationships between the different continuous variables in my research. The results are displayed in table 4.
Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations
6.6 The construct brand authenticity
To be certain that the five different pillars were independent pillars I checked for multicollinearity. Multicollinearity is the case when Tolerance is below .1, and VIF is bigger than 10, which is not the case for this model (see Appendix E). These results show there is no reason to be concerned of multicollinearity. A hierarchical multiple regression was performed to investigate the ability of the five pillars: continuity, credibility, integrity, symbolism and originality to predict the level of BA, after controlling for gender and age.
In the first step of the hierarchical multiple regression, two predictors were entered, gender and age. This model was not statistically significant F(2,365) = 2.93; p > 0.05. After the entry of
the five pillars at step 2, the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 96%.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Continuity 4.85 1.43 (0.83) 2. Credibility 4.48 1.45 0.7** (0.90) 3. Integrity 4.5 1.24 0.63** 0.81** (0.89) 4. Symbolism 3.80 1.66 0.6** 0.67** 0.8** (0.91) 5. Originality 3.87 1.78 0.62** 0.61** 0.68** 0.81** (0.96) 6. BK 4.36 1.59 0.72** 0.65** 0.67** 0.76** 0.84** (0.91) 7. PCI 4.25 1.05 0.33** 0.13** 0.34** 0.25** 0.39** 0.43** (0.82) 8. Gender 1.39 0.49 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.03 -.06 0.08 - 9. Age 30.15 11.03 0.24** 0.17** 0.15** 0.04 0.03 0.088 0.03 0.13* -
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
F(5,360) = 1784.13; p < 0.001. The introduction of the five pillars in the model explained an additional 94% variance in BA. (R² Change = 0.94: F(5,360) = 1784.13; p < 0.001. All the predictor variables were statistically significant. The results show that the pillar originality has the highest Beta value (β = 0.34, p < 0.001.). The lowest Beta value was found for the predictor integrity (β = 0.05, p < 0.05). In other words, if the pillar originality increases for one, the level of BA will increase for 0.34. For the pillar integrity, it will be an increase of only 0.05 with the addition of one unit. The overall results are showed in table 5.
Table 5: Hierarchical regression model of brand authenticity
R R² R² Change B SE β t Step 1 0.13 0.01 Gender 0.09 0.14 0.03 0.60 Age 0.01 0.01 0.12* 2.24 Step 2 0.98 0.96*** 0.94*** Gender -0.03 0.03 -0.01 -.0.81 Age 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.05 Continuity 0.18 0.02 0.19*** 11.85 Credibility 0.26 0.02 0.28*** 13.89 Integrity 0.05 0.02 0.05* 2.19 Symbolism 0.22 0.02 0.28*** 12.60 Originality 0.25 0.01 0.34*** 18.35
Note: Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001
6.7 The relationship between brand authenticity and brand knowledge
A hierarchical multiple regression was performed to investigate the ability of the construct of BA to predict the level of BK, and therefor implying a positive relationship between these two constructs. In this hierarchical regression model, there are two control variables in place, namely: Gender and Age. In the first step of the hierarchical multiple regression, two predictors were entered, gender and age. This model was not statistically significant F(2,365) = 2.4; p > 0.05. After entering the construct of BA in step 2, the total variance explained by the model was 74%. F(1,364) = 999.83; p < 0.001. The introduction of the variable BA in the model
explained an additional 72% variance in the dependent variable BK. The overview of the results is indicated in table 6.
Table 6: Hierarchical regression model
R R² R² Change B SE β t Step 1 0.11 0.01 Gender -0.24 0.17 -0.07 -1.38 Age 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.87 Step 2 0.86 0.74*** 0.72*** Gender -0.38 0.09 -0.11 -4.26 Age 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 Brand Authenticity 1.01 0.03 0.86*** 31.62 Note: Statistical significance: ***p <.001
6.8 The moderating effect
Because the p-value of int_1 is below the coefficient of 0.05, there is a moderating effect taking place. Here, the significance level indicates that the relationship between BA and BK depends on the PCI of this person. More specifically, as the level of BA increases, the difference in BK increases with 0.11 units.
The R²-value quantifies the proportion of the total variance of BK(Y) explained by the overall model. This solution explains the 75% of the variance of BK which is statistically significant (p < 0.01). The audit of the results is displayed in the following tables: 7,8,9 10 stated below. Table 7: Model summary
R R² MSE F df1 df2 p
0.8656 0.7493 0.6438 545.9775 3.0 364.0 0.00
Table 8: Model
coeff. se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 4.3133 0.0512 84.307 0.00 4.2127 4.4139
PCITOT 0.2898 0.06 4.8318 0.00 0.1719 0.4078
BATOT 0.9203 0.0321 28.6259 0.00 0.8571 0.9835
Table 9: R² increase due to interaction
R² F df1 df2 p
int_1 0.7493 8.6065 1.0 364.0 0.036
Table 10: Conditional effect of X of Y at values of moderator
6.9 The model
The analysis showed that here was a significant main effect of PCI on the level of BK, F(2,359) = 4.94, p < 0.01, η2 = .03. Moreover, there was also a significant main effect noted on the Level of BA and the level of BK, F(2,359) = 199.36, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.53. Lastly, there was a significant interaction effect on PCI and the level of BA on the level of BK, F(4,359) = 6.26, p < 0.001, η2 = .07. The examination of the results is showed in table 11. Moreover, an overview of the results is plotted in the two figures stated on the next page.
Table 11: Factorial ANOVA
SS DF MS F η2 Sig. Product Category Involvement 8.19 2 4.09 4.94 0.03 0.008** Brand Authenticity 330.55 2 165.27 199.36 0.53 0.00*** PCI*BA 22.62 4 5.66 6.26 0.07 0.00*** Error 297.62 359 0.82 Total 7953.43 368
Note: Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001
PCITOT Effect se t p LLCI ULCI
-1.7568 0.7294 0.0811 8.9986 0.00 0.5700 0.8888
-0.5568 0.8598 0.0433 19.8754 0.00 0.7747 0.9449
0.2443 0.9467 0.0306 30.9675 0.00 0.8866 1.0068
0.7432 1.0011 0.0352 28.4150 0.00 0.9318 1.0703
Figure 2: Figure 3:
7. Discussion and implications
In this chapter I will discuss the results of my analysis, and the theoretical and managerial implications the results entail.
7.1 Discussion
The authenticity of a brand is cherished as its existence in the commercial world gradually declines (Napoli, 2014). Consumers today are discontented with this commercial world they live in. Consumer lack faith in marketing, with almost everything in their lives seeming to be phony. The consumers' search for authenticity will drive marketers to reassess their marketing approach. Consumers will demand products that reflect the desire for an authentic product. Thus, it is important that authenticity claims of brands capture the experiences, expectations, and desires of their target group. An authentic brand should reflect the values and beliefs of consumers (Molleda, 2010).
The first five hypotheses were focused on the pillars of BA, in relationship to Dutch brands. After assessing the current literature regarding the pillars of BA I selected the following five
pillars: Continuity, Credibility, Integrity, Symbolism and Originality to be considered in this study. Those five pillars gave a good overview of the different pillars of BA mentioned by different authors over time (Bruhn et al., 2012; Mohart et al., 2015). In H(1,2,3,4,5) I assumed the pillars researched in this study will have a positive effect on Brand Authenticity, and therefore could be the core of what BA is considered to be for the Dutch respondents in this research. As the results indicate, the pillars considered in my research have a positive effect on the construct BA, and therefore I confirm H(1,2,3,4,5) and identifying BA as a construct consisting of five dimensions, namely continuity, credibility, integrity, symbolism and originality – with the dimensions being differentially evaluated for various brands. Moreover, I also found, similar to the research of Morhart et al (2015), the presence of the pillar symbolism. This highlights the importance of the symbolic brand qualities in relation to brand authenticity.
Thus, consumers in the Netherlands find a brand authentic when a brand is timeless, historic, and able to outlive trends. Moreover, an authentic brand should be true to its consumers and to itself to be perceived as authentic. Next to that, brands must be without an economic agenda, and should contribute to consumers connecting to their real selves. Lastly, an authentic brand should have a unique appearance in the marketplace. Interestingly, the pillar integrity has a lower impact in comparison to the other pillars.
In Lu et al., (2015) there was already mention of a relationship between the perceived BA and BK. Only this was in the context of restaurants, and in this research the focus was more on Fast-Moving-Consumer-Goods brands. I expected that because consumers desire and seek authenticity, consumers evaluate products perceived to be authentic in a more positive light. However, forming that kind of evaluation, consumers should have a certain amount of BK to make that kind of assessment about a brand. Therefore, H6 states that there is a positive
relationship between the two variables BA and BK. After analyzing the results, I confirm H6, and conclude that there is a positive relationship between BA and BK.
Due to processing the brand information by the central route when a brand is authentic, I assume that when consumers were higher involved in a product category, they have a higher level of BK in comparison to people with a low involvement in a product category. Therefore, in H7 I assume that when consumers are higher involved in a specific product category, consumers will have a higher level of BK. Results indicate that there is a moderating effect occurring on the relationship between the two variables BA and BK. Assessing Figure 2 & 3, I can conclude that H7 is only partly supported, because the results show this only holds for moderately authentic brands, not for low or high scoring authentic brands. Analyzing Figure 2, the graph shows that when a brand is perceived as less authentic, it also does not score high on the level of BK. Interestingly, when consumers are higher involved in a product category and they perceive the brand less authentic, they have a lower level of BK then when they are low or moderately involved. One explanation why the line is declining after moderate PCI and when a brand scores low on BA is that I think consumers do not have a higher level of BK because they do not consider this perceived less authentic brand in their purchase decisions. Since consumers are searching for an authentic experience, consumers seek authentic brands, and therefore only focus on those specific brands in the market. This can be the case since consumers are higher involved in the product category, and are more aware of what an authentic brand is or is not/ This might evolve to consumers having more BK about the authentic brand in that specific product category. Looking at people that assess a brand as moderately authentic, there is a considerable increase of the level of BK when consumers are moderately involved in a product category. Lastly, when a brand scores high on the BA scale, there is no moderating effect on the product category involved. The level of BK is consistently high when a consumer is low, moderate or high involved. It indicates that when a brand is
perceived as authentic, a consumer will have a higher level of BK even when a consumer is less involved in a product category.
Further analyzing Figure 3, I conclude there are interaction effects taking place. That means that the interaction pattern between the PCI and the level of BK is different under the perceived level of BA. This interaction appears only under low and moderate perceived level of BA conditions. Specifically, Figure 2 shows that under the low and high BA conditions there are similar effects between the level of PCI and the level of BK. However, focusing on just the moderate BA condition, it showcases a considerable significant difference in level of BK when a consumer is low involved in a product category.
Moreover, it shows further support for H6, that there is indeed a positive relationship between the perceived level of BA and the level of BK a consumer has about that specific brand. The figure displays that when the level of perceived BA increases, the level of BK increases accordingly. In table 12 is the summarizing of the results in this study.
Table 12: Overview hypotheses results
Hypothesis Supported/Rejected
H1: Continuity will have a positive effect on brand authenticity Supported H2: Credibility will have a positive effect on brand authenticity Supported H3: Integrity will have a positive effect on brand authenticity Supported H4: Symbolism will have a positive effect on brand authenticity. Supported H5: Originality will have a positive effect on brand authenticity Supported H6: Brand authenticity has a positive effect on the level of brand
knowledge
Supported
H7: High product category involvement strengthen the relationship between brand authenticity and brand knowledge
7.2 Managerial implications
Highlighted in the literature is the fact that brands should be authentic to really connect with the consumers (Grayson & Martinec, 2004). This study tried to do this by first analyzing the different pillars of BA, and their relevance in the Dutch market place. The pillars Continuity, Credibility, Integrity, Symbolism and Originality seem to have an important part in the mind of the Dutch consumers to build an authentic brand. The five pillars identified in this research could help marketers with the introduction of an authentic brand in the market, and which factors should be perceived as truly authentic brand. Furthermore, marketers should know it is important to be consistent in the brand’s behavior and what it purposes to be. To enlarge a brand’s authenticity perception marketers should therefore implement a marketing structure that builds an enduring brand image that covers the brand’s values, norms, and mission as well as all its communication campaigns (Fritz et al., 2017). A marketer should be aware that inconsistent brand behavior will hurt the level of a brand’s authenticity. Therefore, marketers should focus on long-term marketing actions instead of short-term. For example, marketers should cautious in implementing a short-term price campaign to gather more market share since it will influence the five pillars of BA negatively, and as a result the perception consumers have about that brand. A second important contribution this study provided is the evidence for a positive relationship between the two variables BK and BA. It supports marketers to understand how using the concept authenticity in association with their brand will influence the knowledge consumers will have about that brand, to create the best positioning in the minds of consumers. The results indicate that when a brand is perceived as authentic, consumers have a higher level of BK compared to the lower levels of perceived brand authenticity. This implies that when you are managing an authentic brand you could change your marketing mix from focusing on product attributes, more towards the higher levels of the consumer-based brand equity pyramid as mentioned in Keller’s article (2001). This can be done due to the fact that consumers already
have a basic knowledge level of the authentic brand. Therefore, a perceived authentic brand could focus more on influencing consumer’s judgments and feelings about their brand. Brands could benefit from this and truly differentiate themselves from their competitors, and create more loyal customers, and increase at a certain point also the customer lifetime value. I think this explains why authentic brands can create a marketing campaign that is more focused on consumer’s feelings than other brands.
A third contribution is the moderating role of PCI in the relationship between BA and BK. To truly grasp the marketing potential of an authentic brand, marketers should be aware that focusing on moderately or highly involved consumers in their product category implicates that they have a higher level of BK. Therefore, the marketing messages could entail more brand feelings, compared to lower involved consumer. When a consumer is low involved, the marketing messages should be focused on distributing facts about the product attributes, and creating a brand presence in the mind of the consumer. This for creating a higher level of BK. With this in mind, it would enable marketers to create a more influential marketing campaign when targeting the right audience. To conclude, when marketers can assess authenticity in their environment, they will be empowered to pursue new opportunities for brand positioning and value creation (Napoli, 2014). This will contribute to greater consumer loyalty and attachment to the brand and at the end more value for the company.
7.3 Theoretical implications
As mentioned by other authors, future research should consider additional perceptual consequences of BA (Moulard et al., 2016). Other relevant behavioral consequences of BA were discussed in the literature. Examples of this are brand loyalty (Lu et al., 2015), purchase intention (Lu et al., 2015; Napoli et al., 2014) and the intention to recommend the brand (Morhart et al., 2015; Spiggle et al., 2012). The main implication of this study is that there are
