Brand resonance: A scale validation
Student Jori van den Bosch | 6131670
Supervisor Dr. Karin A. Venetis
Master thesis MSc Business Studies | Marketing
Abstract
This research draws from the theory on Customer-based brand equity as proposed by Keller (2009) and aimed to validate the theoretical concept Brand resonance as a metric to indicate Brand performance. Brand resonance would be better able to capture all relevant dimensions in the relationship between customers and brands than current widely used unilateral Brand performance indicators like the Net promotor score do. Steps in validation were taken to establish Content-, Construct-, and
Criterion validity. Experts with academic and practical backgrounds were involved in the process of composing items for the metric and for multiple studies samples in nine countries were collected to further assess the validity of the model. Results show support for a clear single factor solution of a six item Brand resonance scale which behaves as expected within the nomological net and shows better initial results as a brand performance indicator than the Net promotor score. The Brand resonance metric is valuable in both building and maintaining brands and is able to identify a broad and deep relationship between customers and brands. Further research has to be conducted to validate the metric in other product categories and the service industry.
Contents
Abstract ... 1
1. Introduction ... 4
Background ... 4
Research questions ... 8
Approach and outline of the thesis ... 9
2. Literature review ... 10
Introduction ... 10
Customer-based brand equity... 10
Brand awareness and image ... 12
The CBBE model ... 15
Brand resonance ... 21 3. Research method ... 26 Introduction ... 26 Content validity ... 27 Construct validity ... 28 Criterion validity ... 29 Research design ... 29 Content validity ... 29 Sample collection ... 30 Construct validity ... 31 Criterion validity ... 32 4. Results ... 33 Introduction ... 33 Content validity ... 33 Behavioral Loyalty ... 34 Attitudinal attachment ... 36 Sense of community ... 36 Active engagement ... 37 Brand resonance ... 38 Construct validity ... 38
Phase 1 - Exploratory factor analysis ... 40
Conclusion ... 43
Phase 2 - Exploratory factor analysis – replication ... 43
Conclusion ... 45
Phase 3 – Confirmatory factor analysis ... 45
Conclusion ... 49
Criterion validity ... 49
Phase 4 – The predictive power on Brand preference ... 50
Conclusion ... 54
Phase 5 – The predictive power on Share-of-wallet ... 54
Conclusion ... 57
Phase 6 - The predictive power of the Net promotor score ... 57
5. Conclusion & Discussion ... 62
Implications ... 63
Limitations and future research ... 64
References ... 65
Appendix 1 – Brand trust and Brand affect scales ... 71
Appendix 2 – Structural equation model CFA - standardized estimates ... 72
1. Introduction
Background
With the development of marketing as a more serious activity for companies in the 1960’s, the need to measure outcomes arose and more academics became interested in the research area. Marketing metrics were developed to keep better track of results from marketing investments. The metrics were financially based, focusing on profit, sales revenue and cash flow and were well able to capture the short term results of marketing campaigns. According to Clark (1999, p.713): “Early work in the firm-level measurement of marketing performance was largely directed at examining the productivity of a firm’s marketing efforts at producing positive financial outputs”.
Although having metrics was a good step in the right direction, over the years it became clear that investments in marketing also influenced other aspects than direct financial results. When investments were made in the right manner, incremental value was added to the brand. The traditional performance measures could not cover all aspects of marketing performance anymore, and researchers developed new metrics in an attempt to capture all relevant drivers of performance.
Two of the leading performance indicators in this area became customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. The measures were able to support the traditional financial performance indicators and helped developing a better marketing strategy. By focusing on aspects like service, the number of satisfied customers was expected to go up. Highly satisfied customers should in turn buy more products (in depth and breadth) from the same brand, making it loyal customers. “A loyal customer base, it is argued, should lower marketing costs; current customers are cheaper to retain, and word-of-mouth from current customers should make new customers easier to acquire” (Clark, 1999; Aaker, 1991; Dick and Basu, 1994).
During the 1980’s the term ‘brand equity’ was born to give name to the added value of a brand and at the same time treat it as a credible asset. The first motivation to study brand equity according to Keller was financially based: “..to estimate the value of a brand more precisely for accounting purposes or for merger, acquisition, or divestiture purposes.” The other reason was to improve marketing productivity:
“Given higher costs, greater competition and flattening demand in many markets, firms seek to increase the efficiency of their marketing expenses” (Keller, 1993, p.1). This call for more efficiency especially came from strategy-level. More insight in consumer behavior was needed to make better decisions about the marketing mix, portfolio management etc.
During that time, building and maintaining a brand became more and more important and CEO’s learned that the benefits created by strong brands make a big difference in a company’s financial performance. Therefore, for most companies, branding became a key marketing priority (Aaker David & Joachimsthaler, 2000; Kapferer, 2005).
A number of methods to measure brand equity were developed by scholars and companies. Interbrand Group, for example, measures and manages brand value for numerous clients. The company uses its brand valuation tool to conduct the ‘Best Global Brands’ study every year by estimating the financial value of brands. In the 1980s, this world leading verdict was based on the assessment of seven brand dimensions: leadership, stability, internationality, trend, support, protection and market stability. Years later, Aaker (1996) also conceptualized Brand equity and compiled a set of measures called ‘The Brand Equity Ten’ with the dimensions: Loyalty, Perceived quality/Leadership, Associations/Differentiation, Awareness and Market Behavior. The consumer perspective was also taken into account and there is some overlap with the dimensions used by the Interbrand Group in those days. Both concepts were developed to value brand equity. Due to the fact that it was clear how brand equity was measured, automatic focus points arose when a brand was build or maintained. Brand managers now knew better on which aspects to focus and used the measures as brand building tools.
Nowadays more variables are taken into account wherein the viewpoint of the consumer receives even more attention. One of the reasons for this development could very well be the influence of Kevin Lane Keller, who introduced a Brand equity concept from consumers’ perspective in 1993: Customer-based brand equity. According to Keller (1993; 2009) “Customer-based brand equity is defined as the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the
brand.” Customer-based brand equity occurs when “the consumer is familiar with the brand and holds some favorable, strong and unique associations in memory.”
The author states that Customer-based brand equity consists of two dimension; brand awareness and brand image (Keller, 1993; Keller, 2009). The dimension Brand awareness splits up in Brand recognition (aided) and Brand recall (unaided).
Consumers must know the brand first to have an opinion about it or even commit to it. Therefore Brand awareness needs to be build first as a basis for further development of the brand. Brand image refers to the set of associations linked to the brand that consumers hold in memory. The stronger the desired associations are, the better a brand grows or sustains.
During the years, multiple practical models were created to guide marketeers and managers through the process of developing their brand. Aaker and Keller among others contributed a lot to the brand building literature. Keller developed from his consumer-based perspective one of the most recent, managerially relevant and academically backed models. The Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model emphasizes the importance of understanding consumer brand knowledge structures (Keller, 2009). The author describes four stages in the achievement of branding objectives in the CBBE pyramid (see Figure 1.1).
First, a deep, broad brand awareness has to be developed (Salience). The customer can recognize and recall the brand, knows what it stands for and which needs it can fulfill. Second, points of parity and difference (Imagery and Performance) must be established in the right way. To do this, the brand is targeted on certain user profiles or usage situations (Imagery) and the
functional aspects like price, features, product reliability and style and design (Performance) are communicated and shown. It is assumed that the customer takes every conscious or subconscious observation that involves the brand into account.
This varies from controlled ATL campaigns to uncontrolled bad experiences with a local dealer acting in name of the brand. The obvious goal is to elicit positive and accessible reactions. The model distinguishes two important dimensions when it comes to those reactions. The first dimension is judgment-based and is all about quality, credibility etc. The second dimension touches the emotional side and is about the feelings (warmth, fun, excitement etc.) that are triggered when the customer thinks about the brand. The final stage in the CBBE pyramid is Brand resonance. Brand resonance, according to Keller (2009, p.144) refers to “the nature of the relationship customers have with the brand and the extent to which they feel they’re ‘in sync’ with the brand.” In the ideal situation a brand’s customers show an intense and active form of loyalty. The ultimate goal is therefore to create high levels of brand resonance that represent a combination of behavioral (loyalty, engagement) and affective
(attachment, sense of community) aspects of commitment toward a brand. Keller’s CBBE concept is a helpful model for building a brand but
unfortunately not all parts are tested thoroughly and some are not even tested at all. The lower three levels of the model (see Figure 1.1), until the Judgments and Feelings, have been researched a lot but especially the top level, Brand resonance, needs more examination. The four cornerstones within Brand resonance: Loyalty, Attachment, Community and Engagement have received individual attention. As described earlier, (customer) Loyalty as one of the separate dimensions of Brand resonance has been widely used as a performance indicator. The relationship between Loyalty and Satisfaction was an important research topic for a long time because, satisfaction is believed to be one of the most important reasons why a customer would be loyal (Chandrashekaran, Rotte, Tax, & Grewal, 2007; Cronin Jr & Taylor, 1992; Fornell, 1992; Lai, Griffin, & Babin, 2009). Chaudhuri & Holbrook (2001) defined two aspects of the construct brand loyalty: purchase loyalty and attitudinal loyalty. They argue that purchase loyalty leads to greater market share and attitudinal loyalty to a higher price tolerance. Carlson, Suter, & Brown (2008) write about the social processes that underlie customers’ involvement in brand communities and Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, & Iacobucci (2010) developed a measure for brand
attachment. Engagement received much less attention in literature, but the NPS (Net promotor score) metric is a widely used performance measure that fits this dimension.
So far the different behavioral and affective aspects have not yet been integrated in one construct. By combining several unilateral known measures more aspects of the connection between a brand and a customer are taken into account. By treating the Brand resonance construct as a single measure, it could be a more precise brand performance indicator than current measures, covering more aspects of the relationship between a customer and a brand. The NPS metric for example is a holy performance indicator for numerous companies. Although a positive recommendation is said to be the best form of marketing, its effect still depends on who recommends you as a brand and why. The British clothing brand Lonsdale was originally
positioned in the boxing segment, but turned out to be worn and widely recommended among neo-Nazi’s. In reaction, Lonsdale started to sponsor gay festivals in an attempt to lose this unwanted group of paying customers and stop them from recommending their brand to other neo-Nazi’s. Another example could be a cheap mobile network operator that only has loyal customers due to its low priced services. If the operator would only look at repeat purchases to measure brand attachment they could get the idea that they are a strong operator brand with a large share of loyal customers. While in reality, the brand would quickly lose market share if competition would lower its prices.
Research questions
The brand resonance concept derives strength from the fact that it is based on multiple pillars that prevents short-sighted and wrong conclusions that could result from a single minded focus on NPS or behavioral loyalty only. The theoretical versatility and synergy of the different dimensions included in Brand resonance give this metric power and can help to provide better guidance to support strategy. Furthermore, the absence of empirical measures for a valuable theoretical construct from one of the most influential text books, Strategic Brand Management (Keller, 2009), on brand building gives reason to conduct this research.
Main question: How can Brand resonance be measured?
In this research, the focus will be on the validation of a brand performance measure. Before the main question can be addressed, the following sub-questions need to be answered:
Sub-question 1: How do we define Brand resonance and its dimensions? Sub-question 2: What are the stages of validating a scale?
Sub-question 3: How do the dimensions of Brand resonance relate to each other and can they form a valid and reliable construct?
Sub-question 4: What is the relationship between Brand resonance and other brand performance indicators?
Approach and outline of the thesis
This research is conducted as part of an internship at a market research agency called Epiphany, which collects data for clients in consumer lifestyle products and the automotive industry. To be developed items of the Brand resonance scale will be included in this research for the purpose of its validation. In the next chapter, the literature on the Brand resonance and its dimensions will be reviewed, followed by a roadmap to marketing scale validation in the next chapter. In the last chapters an attempt on validation will be described and results discussed.
2. Literature review
Introduction
In this chapter, the literature on Brand resonance and its background will be reviewed and the construct defined. First Customer-based brand equity will be addressed as it is the building ground for the CBBE model proposed by Keller (2009) in which Brand resonance plays the lead. Then the basics of the CBBE model, Brand awareness and Brand image are described, followed by the CBBE pyramid itself. Finally the literature on the dimensions of the top level of the pyramid, Brand resonance will be assessed and the measure defined.
Customer-based brand equity
As discussed in the introduction, the term Brand equity arose in the 1980s to give meaning to the added value of a brand. Multiple frameworks were developed around this concept, but the ones taking perspectives of the consumer into account, were developed by Aaker (1996a) and Keller (1993). Keller (1993, p.02) defines Brand equity as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand”. In his view, CBBE is a process whereby CBBE occurs “when the consumer is familiar with the brand and holds some favorable, strong, and unique brand associations in memory” (Keller, 1993, p.02). Before building those associations, Brand awareness is a requirement. Before associations are made and Brand image can be build, the consumer has to be aware of the brand to the extent that he or she can recognize and recall the brand. According to Aaker (1996a) there are certain assets attached to a brand which subtract or add value from a customer’s perspective. A customer perceives Brand equity as the “value added” to the product by associating it with a brand name. Cornerstones in his research resulting in the ‘Brand Equity Ten’ are Loyalty, Perceived quality/Leadership,
Association/Differentiation, Awareness and Market behavior. Where the proposed framework of Keller (1993) was still largely theoretically about Brand knowledge which holds the Awareness and Image dimensions, Aaker (1996a) made an attempt to develop a measure, making the theory more usable in a business environment by
actually giving an estimation of the added value of a brand that lies in the mind of consumers.
In the following years, researchers build on their work and attempted to validate measures of facets of CBBE or its underlying association characteristics. Yoo and Donthu (2001) argue that the structural validity of the measurement remains unanswered in the work of Keller (1993) and Aaker (1996a). They developed a multidimensional scale of CBBE and assessed its psychometric properties and cross-cultural generalizability. Findings suggest a potential causal order among the measured dimensions in which Brand awareness and associations precede Perceived quality and Perceived quality precedes brand loyalty. Yoo and Donthu (2001) argue that their research needs more attention to higher external generalizability, but that the measure they developed is parsimonious and therefore useful for practitioners.
Netemeyer et. al. (2004) present four studies that attempt to measure “core/primary” facets of CBBE. The chosen facets are Perceived Quality, Perceived value for costs, Uniqueness and the willingness to pay a price premium for a brand. They conclude that the dimensions show high internal consistency and results also suggest that Perceived quality, Perceived value for costs and Uniqueness are potential direct antecedents of the Willingness to pay a price premium, which in turn precedes purchase behavior. Other research regarding CBBE tested the use of the concept under different circumstances. Washburn, Till and Priluck (2004) examined CBBE in light of brand alliances and the equity value before and after the collaboration of brands using the scale Yoo and Donthu (2001) proposed. Punj and Hillyer (2004) identify four basic components of CBBE: Global brand attitude, Strength of
preference, Brand knowledge and Brand heuristic. The components are tested on two frequently purchased product categories and results indicate that the four components are all important determinants of CBBE. Bauer and Sauer (2005) conducted research wherein the different CBBE models were consulted and refined to a model that would fit the team sport industry. Because their sample existed mainly of respondents who were well known with the researched brands, Keller’s (1993) framework of
Awareness and Image could only be confirmed for the second part: “If consumers are extremely highly involved and knowledgeable they are believed to both recall and
recognize the majority of available brand. Thus, the brand awareness dimension cannot contribute to a better understanding of Brand equity.” (Bauer and Sauer, 2005, p.509) Furthermore, they found a significant effect of CBBE on economic success of the sport teams. In conclusion, CBBE is in a developing stage and more and more research is conducted on the topic. In the next paragraph, Keller’s framework (1993) leading to the CBBE model (Keller, 2009) will be discussed to provide understanding of its background and theoretical base.
Brand awareness and image
In Keller’s (1993) conceptualization of CBBE, building and managing brands is discussed. Brand awareness and Brand image are two important factors within Brand knowledge in the proposed framework and build the foundation of his later work on the CBBE-model (Keller, 2009), which encompasses the CBBE-pyramid in the form of brand building blocks.
A lot is written about Brand awareness and its effects on performance. Brand awareness is defined as the strength of the Brand node or trace in memory, as reflected by consumers’ ability to identify the brand under different conditions (Rossiter and Percy, 1987). Awareness can be split up in Recognition and Recall. Brand recognition “relates to consumers’ ability to confirm prior exposure to the brand when given the brand as a cue” (Keller 1993, p.03). Recognizing a brand alone can influence preference especially when the consumer is in a low-involvement setting. Hoyer and Brown (1990) demonstrate that subjects tend to choose brands they recognize over unknown brands. Even if they are informed about the higher quality those unknown brands have. Repeat-purchase products in supermarkets are a good example when it comes to the importance of Brand recognition. Brand recall is the second step in which a consumer can identify the brand, but also remembers it in the right context. Brand recall is defined as “the consumers ability to retrieve the brand when given the product category, or some type of probe as a cue” Keller (1993, p.03). An example is asking someone for car manufacturers that come to mind. The brands recalled are thus stored in memory and linked to the right setting. When the
respondent can name the brand, a good chance exists that also other associations are stored in memory linked to that brand.
The associations consumers have with brands are often seen as nodes (small pieces of information) and linkages connecting them. A node can be a brand, product or attribute. For example the brand ‘Ford’ with as product ‘Cars’ and attribute ‘Fuel saving’. Links between the brand and one or both of the other nodes suggest an association in a consumers mind called linkages. When managing a brand, this is an important base to start from, because negative associations strongly linked to a brand need to be identified and handled whenever possible. At the same time, positive nodes not yet linked to the brand need work if they should be part of the association network of that particular brand. Krishnan (1996) uses a memory network model to identify various association characteristics underlying CBBE. His research indicates that the number of associations, valence, uniqueness and origin of the associations have a predictive power on Brand equity. The number of associations connected to a brand needs to be high and therefore the association network as extensive as possible. The associations can consist of brand or product attributes, but also of experiences the consumer had with the brand. Coming back to the example of the car manufacturer
Figure 2.1 - Possible Association network Ford
Ford, you can see in Figure 2.1 that the brand is connected with a number of nodes. This number would preferably be high according to Krishnan (1996), but it is also
important that the net positive associations are higher than the negative ones. In this example of possible associations connected to Ford, we see that the most are positive and only one (‘Bad for employees’) is negative. Looking at the length of the linkage, this is also the node that is the least related to Ford. The valence of this network would therefore still be considered good. When it comes to uniqueness, the node ‘Value for costs’ is closely and thus strongly linked to Ford. Furthermore it is not connected to competition making it unique and usable as USP in marketing
communications. On the other hand, the node ‘Fuel saving’ is more closely linked to Volkswagen, which means consumers see Volkswagen as a manufacturer of more economical cars then they see Ford. Thus the node is more unique to Volkswagen and Ford is better off focusing on other nodes to differentiate in the category. In terms of origin, some sources of nodes are more impactful than others. Logically, when associations emerge from own experience, they will be stronger than the ones proposed in a commercial. The complete associative network of nodes and linkages that a brand is part of, is called Brand image.
Brand image is defined as “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory” (Keller, 1993, p.03). Brand image is the second stage in the Brand knowledge framework of Keller (1993) and exists of three components: Attributes, Benefits and Attitudes. Attributes can be product-related and non-product-related. Product-related attributes are the needed functions of the product or service to perform as was intended. For example the electrical engine that makes a new car a hybrid car. Non-product-related attributes are price information, packaging or product information, user imagery and usage imagery (Keller, 1993). The price of a product represents: “a necessary step in the purchase process but typically does not relate directly to the product performance or service function” (Keller, 1993, p.04). This attribute is fairly important because consumers directly relate price to the value of a brand. Also the packaging is most times not directly related to the performance attributes of the product. User and usage imagery attributes are formed through own experience or other sources of information. “Associations of a typical brand user may be based on demographic-, psychographic and other factors” (Keller, 1993, p.03). Usage imagery refers to possible typical moments or situations the product is used in.
The second pillar within Brand image is formed by the functional, experiential and symbolic benefits of a product or service that result in personal value for the consumer (Keller, 1993). Functional benefits refer to the intrinsic advantages that solve problems or prevent potential ones. “A brand with a functional concept is defined as one designed to solve externally generated consumption needs” (Park, Jaworski and MacInnis, 1986, p.136). Experiental benefits relate to what it feels like to use the product or service and Symbolic benefits satisfy extrinsic values. An example of Symbolic benefits could be the acquired social approval when wearing branded clothes. Consumers may value the prestige, exclusivity or fashionability of a brand because of how it relates to their self-concept (Solomon, 1983). Finally, Brand attitudes form the overall evaluations of a brand (Wilkie, 1994) wherein all attributes are evaluated and valued by the consumer. The conceptual basis of CBBE as
described by Keller (1993), existing of Brand knowledge and its dimensions
Awareness and Image, is an important step towards the CBBE model. In the coming paragraph, this model will be elaborated and defined.
The CBBE model
Keller (2009) introduces the Customer-based brand equity model with the intention to guide marketers in building and managing their brand in a dramatically changing communications environment: “Traditional approaches to branding that put emphasis on mass media techniques seem questionable in a marketplace where customers have access to massive amounts of information about brands, products and in which social networks have, in some cases, supplanted brand networks” (Keller, 2009, p.140). The past decades more emphasis has been put on below the line communications, because mass media seems to get less and less efficient and effective. In the 1960s, an
advertiser could reach 80% of American women with a single 30-second ad
broadcasted simultaneously on the three available channels. Nowadays, to reach the same effect, the ad has to run on 100 channels (Keller, 2009). Because of the increase in advertising, consumers tend to ignore ads. To make marketing communications
more effective, integration of all efforts is highly recommended to reach synergy and thus the optimal effect.
“The basic premise of CBBE is that the power of a brand lies in what customers have learned, felt, seen and heard about the brand as a result of their experience” (Keller, 2009, p.143). While building or managing a brand, those experiences with the brand cannot always be controlled for, but for the bigger part they can be influenced. The aim is to link the desired thoughts, feelings, images, beliefs, perceptions and opinions of the brand in the mind of the target audience. When a brand has built a positive Customer-based brand equity, consumers might be more willing to accept brand extensions, are less sensitive to price increases and more willing to seek the brand in a new distribution channel (Keller, 2009). The CBBE model has its groundwork in the Brand knowledge framework as put forward in previous paragraph. In Figure 2.2 the CBBE model is shown with on the left side a visualized integration of this framework. The Brand knowledge framework is mainly answering the question what makes a brand a strong brand. The sequel that Keller (2009; 2012) proposes is focused on how a strong brand can actually be developed.
The CBBE model exists of four ascending steps to building a brand (Keller, 2012). The steps are visualized on the right in Figure 2.2. First, the Brand identity has to be established. Associations have to be built in customers’ minds wherein he or she is aware of the brand and places it in the right product class.
Second, the association network around the brand needs to be build further in a strategic way, to link the right tangible and intangible nodes to the brand. Third, the right responses need to be triggered in terms of Brand identification and meaning. In other words, strong, unique and positive nodes need to be linked to the brand which in turn should result in favorable responses. In the last stage, the outcome or brand response must be converted to an intense and active (loyal) relationship between the customers and the brand (Keller, 2012). These steps are also formulated as follows: who are you, what are you, what about you and what about you and me (Keller, 2012, p.65)? As mentioned, the obvious order in these steps is necessary, because a
customer needs to be familiar with the brand before any associations can be established and an identity created. Associations with a brand must exist before consumers can give meaning to them and an intense and active relationship will only follow when the proper responses are given.
To give more structure to this theory, Keller (2009) created the CBBE pyramid (see also Fig. 2.2), which exists of six Brand building blocks that follow the structure of the basic model. The first step in the CBBE pyramid is Brand Salience. Salience is referring to identification of the brand and “customers’ ability to recall and recognize the brand, as reflected by their ability to identify the brand” (Keller, 2012, p.67) and linking the accompanying logo and symbol with the brand name.
Furthermore, the question of purpose to the customer needs to be answered. For a new insurance company this means telling potential customers that the brand is selling insurances. In the case of product extensions for a well-established brand this means telling new and existing customers that the brand also sells product in another category. In the pyramid the author defines the breadth and depth as two additional dimensions to this first building block. The breath of awareness is the range of purchase situations a brand element comes to mind. The depth of awareness refers to the likelihood and ease that a brand element comes to mind. Consider for example an ice cream brand. The sales of ice cream are higher in warmer seasons because the customers’ need for cold refreshments is more likely to emerge in this period. To generate more revenue the brands strategy is to communicate more possible moments and situations of consumption for its products, like the consumption as an everyday
desert after dinner or in celebratory situations. When the strategy succeeds, the breath of awareness becomes higher, because when customers get groceries for a birthday, ice cream now comes to mind. The ease to which the ice-cream brand in this example and not another ice-cream brand comes to mind or gets recognized when standing in the supermarket is the depth of awareness. Another aspect to keep in mind is the structure of product categories in customers’ minds and the way of
reasoning when deciding which kind of product to buy independent from brand choice. Keller (2012) gives an example of the drinks category hierarchy wherein a customer first decides to go for water or a flavored drink. When choosing for a flavored drink a decision is made between alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. When non-alcoholic is chosen, hot drinks, soft drinks, milk or juices etc. are all options within this category. As can be imagined, the situations and the likelihood that a brand of water comes to mind are both higher than a
certain brand of milk all the way down in the category hierarchy. “A salient brand is one that has both depth and breadth of Brand awareness, so that customers always make sufficient purchases and always think of the brand across a variety of settings in which it could possibly be employed or consumed” (Keller, 2012, p.70). When salience is established, the next building blocks in the CBBE pyramid can be developed: Performance and Imagery.
Brand performance and imagery are located at the same level in the CBBE pyramid and represent both the functional and affective associations that can be linked to a brand in the process of brand building. In earlier research Keller (1993) refers to this and the next level of building blocks in the CBBE pyramid as the Brand image dimension. Brand performance relates to the functional needs that a brand attempts to fulfill for the customer. There are five important attributes and benefits when it comes to Brand performance (See also Figure 2.3). The first holds the primary ingredients and supplementary features. Customers expect certain features of a product or service
they intend to buy. This could be the basis features to meet the standard in the category (in case of for example a lighter it is just the function to light) or special or patented features as promised in advertisements (in case of for example a new TV: a new kind of 3D technology). Second, product reliability, durability and serviceability refer to the consistency of performance over time and after repurchase, the expected economic life and the ease of getting service when needed in case of defects. Other components of service form the third set of attributes and benefits: service
effectiveness, efficiency and empathy. To what extend was the repair effective, quick and is the service provider seen as trusting, caring and having the customer’s interests in mind? (Keller, 2012). Fourth, style and design can have an important role in certain product or service categories and last is the price. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, pricing can have great influence on the perception of value of the brand. Pricing also influences customers’ estimation of the level (low, medium, high) in the product category.
The second brand building block is Brand imagery, which represents the affective associations that can be built around the brand node. As defined by Keller (2012, p.72): Brand imagery deals with the extrinsic properties of the product or service, including the ways in which it attempts to meet customers’ psychological or social needs”. It refers to the more intangible associations that can be created directly through own experience or indirectly through advertising or for example word of mouth. Within Brand imagery, four categories can be distinguished (see Figure 2.3.) First, certain user profiles can be associated with a brand. This means that in the mind of customers, a type of customer is linked to the brand as one or more of the typical users. The user characteristics can be both demographic and psychographic. A typical example is the brand Rolex, which mostly sells luxury watches to men who have enough money to buy a Rolex product and at the same time are willing to show this to other people. In this example both demographic variables (age, income) and
psychographic (attitudes towards possessions) variables contribute to the user profile of Rolex. The second category holds purchase and usage situations and refers to the place and time the products of a certain brand are bought. The ice-cream example earlier in this paragraph also refers to usage situations and the Breath of awareness is
closely related to this topic, but now the usage and purchase situations are seen as more typical for the Brand and not optional. Thus, the ice-cream brand is seen as a brand especially for celebrations or desert. The third dimension exists of personality and values. A brand can adopt human traits like caring, modern or exotic (Keller, 2012), which facilitates identification with the brand. Aaker (1997, p. 347) defines brand personality as "The set of human characteristics associated with a brand" and Sung and Kim (2010) adapt the Big Five personality scale to brand personality and define its dimensions: competence, sophistication, excitement, ruggedness and sincerity. The dimensions can all have a positive influence on the relationship
between customer and brand. Aaker, Fournier and Brasel (2004) find for example that Sincerity encourages stronger relationships, similar to close friendships in the
interpersonal relationship. The fourth and last dimension of Brand imagery as stated by Keller (2009;2012) exists of the history, heritage and experiences linked to a brand, which can help to enrich the brand, to build credit or to differentiate from other brands. Imagine a brand that sells espresso coffee makers and obviously
communicates it has its foundation in Italy, where espresso is always of a high quality.
In conclusion, in both the Performance and Imagery building block, the right associations need to be established in customers’ minds. In the beginning of this chapter CBBE was defined and described as existing when strong, unique and desirable associations were connected to the brand in customers’ minds. In this stage of the brand building pyramid, also this order has to be hold in thought, because without strength and uniqueness, a desirable association will never become connected to a brand.
The next building blocks in the CBBE pyramid are the Brand judgments and feelings that are the result of the Performance and Imagery associations associated with a brand. Brand judgments are the opinions and evaluations on the brand wherein four types are particularly important: quality, credibility, consideration and superiority (Keller 2009;2012). The perceived quality of a brand is closely depending on the attributes and benefits that are related to a brand. A Rolex watch thus cannot have a cheap and underperforming clockwork because of the segment it is positioned in.
Credibility refers to the expertise, trustworthiness and likeability of the brand and is in essence the extent to which customers “see the company or organization behind the brand as good at what they do, concerned about their customers or just easy to like”. Third, Brand consideration is about the relevance the brand has for the customer and if the brand will be part of the consideration set when choosing between products or services in a certain category. Last, Superiority related to the extent to which the customer perceives the brand as unique and superior to other brands in the category and consideration set. Brand judgments are mostly the result of a more objective way of reasoning about attributes and benefits, but Brand feelings are the emotional response that a brand elicits. Important pillars within this brand building block are: warmth, fun, excitement, security, social approval and self-respect. In conclusion, all that matters according to Keller (2012) is that the judgments and feeling are positive and come easily to mind when consumers think about the brand. When this happens, the last block of the CBBE pyramid, Brand resonance, will be easier to develop. As Brand resonance is the main topic of this thesis, it will be reviewed in more depth in the next paragraph.
Brand resonance
As stated in the introduction of this thesis, Brand resonance is defined as “the nature of the relationship customers have with the brand and the extent to which they feel they’re ‘in sync’ with the brand” (Keller, 2009, p.144). Brand resonance consists of four pillars that form a single construct. When levels of the four pillars Behavioral loyalty, Attitudinal attachment, Sense of community and Active engagement are all high, the customer experiences an intense and deep relationship with the brand wherein he or she actively shows a level of loyalty that includes repeat purchases, seeking for more information about the brand and connecting with other loyal customers (Keller, 2009; 2012). In this paragraph, the separate pillars of Brand resonance will be defined and explained to a larger extent on the basis of available research.
First, Behavioral loyalty is defined as the behavior wherein a customer keeps purchasing the available products or services the brand has to offer over time. “To make a profit, the brand must be bought often and in volume” (Keller, 2012, p.79). When consumers stay loyal to a brand, this has multiple positive implications. Aaker (1991) finds that loyalty can result in more new customers, greater trade leverage and reduced marketing costs. Dick and Basu (1994) find that favorable word of mouth and a greater resistance to competing strategies are also results of Brand loyalty. In
addition to this, Pessemier (1959), Jacoby and Chestnut (1978), Reichheld (1996) and Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) find evidence for the acceptance of a higher price for products and services. Reichheld (1996) also proposes that satisfaction, which was for a long time seen as the most important driver of loyalty, is not always performing as predicted. He shows that although 90% of the car buyers are satisfied or very satisfied about their purchase, less than half will buy the same brand of car next time. As stated by Keller (2009): “Creating greater loyalty requires deeper Attitudinal attachment, which can be generated by developing marketing, products and services that fully satisfy consumer needs”. Furthermore, Behavioral loyalty is necessary but not
sufficient for Resonance to occur. Customers can be loyal due to the fact it is the only brand in the product category or because it is the only affordable brand.
Attitudinal attachment is the second pillar of Brand resonance and relates to the extremely positive feelings a customer can have towards a brand. “Customers with a great deal of Attitudinal attachment to the brand may state that they ‘love’ the brand, describe it as one of their favorite possessions or view it as a ‘little pleasure’ that they look forward to” (Keller, 2012, p.79). Closely related to Attitudinal attachment is Brand affect, which was the subject of research for multiple scholars. Brand affect is defined as “a brand's potential to elicit a positive emotional response in the average consumer as a result of its use” (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001, p. 82). Sung and Kim (2010) found that three of the five dimensions in their Brand personality scale (Excitement, Sophistication and Competence) had a positive effect on Brand affect and Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) demonstrate that Brand affect is an antecedent of Loyalty. Where Brand affect is a more temporary result of product use, Attitudinal attachment can be seen as a long lasting state wherein consumers feel a personal
attachment and shared identity with the brand independent from product use.
Therefore we define Attitudinal attachment as a sense of belonging the customer feels towards a brand.
Sense of community is the third pillar of Brand resonance and an important factor existing when “customers feel a kinship or affiliation with other people associated with the brand” (Keller, 2009, p.145). Furthermore a positive attitude towards the brand is required for this pillar. When Sense of community occurs, Brand communities can arise wherein groups of customers actively communicate and sometimes regularly meet to share their affiliation with the brand. A good example of a Brand community is the Land Rover club with its numerous sub-clubs wherein owners of Land Rovers meet, exchange maintenance information, have fun by driving their car with others and share a common love: their Land Rover. As stated by
McAlexander, Shouten and Koenig (2002), a brand may take on a broader meaning to the customer in terms of community. One of their findings is that marketers can strengthen brand communities by facilitating shared customer experiences. Schau, Muniz Jr. and Arnould (2009) also find that brand communities create value for a brand both in the real world and online. Brodie et. al. (2011) investigate virtual communities and state that “engaged consumers exhibit enhanced consumer loyalty, satisfaction, empowerment, connection, emotional bonding, trust and commitment (Brodie et. al., 2011, p.38).
The last pillar of Brand resonance is Active engagement. Keller (2012, p.80) states that Active engagement arises “when customers are willing to invest time, energy, money or other resources in the brand beyond those expended during purchase or consumption of the brand”. According to Keller (2012), customers with higher engagement become brand evangelists and ambassadors who are helping to communicate about the brand and help strengthen the brand ties of others. The pillar involves participation in discussions on brand-related websites, chat rooms etc. The author also states that when the level of Attitudinal attachment is high, Active
engagement is more likely to occur. Brodie et. al. (2011) found multiple definitions of engagement in which loyalty, commitment and empowerment are involved. In this thesis we define Active engagement as the extent to which customers act as an
ambassador for the brand and are willing to invest time, energy, money or other resources for his cause.
In conclusion, the dimensions of Brand resonance are closely related to each other, but at the same time contribute with their own unique properties to the construct. As stated before, this multidimensional measure could be a more precise Brand performance indicator than current measures, since it covers multiple aspects of the relationship between a customer and a brand. The more behavioral pillars
Behavioral loyalty and Active engagement cover a part of the construct wherein all active processes from customers towards and about a brand are included. Attitudinal attachment and Sense of community are the more affective pillars covering the feelings customers can have and express towards the brand and other users of the brand. The brand resonance concept derives strength from the fact that it is has a broad base. This prevents short-sighted and wrong conclusions that could result from a single minded focus on one specific dimension of brand-customer relationships such as NPS or behavioral loyalty only. Many managers have adopted the Net Promoter metric because they believe that solid science shows its superiority over other metrics. Keiningham et. al. (2007) researched this metric, compared it to other Brand
performance indicators and show that it is not. The author was unable to replicate the results that Reichheld (2003) found, likely because of the insufficient theoretical ground the metric has. The Net promotor score has further received a lot of criticism because ‘the one question’ only represents a willingness to recommend (part of Active engagement), which on its own is no guarantee for a strong relationship between a brand and a customer or brand performance. The problem that could occur because of the one-dimensionality of this metric becomes evident in the example of Lonsdale. Although the brand was recommended by a large group of customers the Brand performance was damaged as a result since the promoters were neo-nazi’s who caused other Lonsdale customers to distance themselves from the brand. Behavioral loyalty alone is no accurate representation of the relationship between a customer and a brand either. Customers don’t have to feel connected to a brand to buy it repeatedly.
Examples are situations in which there is only one brand in the category or when purchase decisions are only based on a low price. If another brand enters the category
or starts to offer the product at a lower price, a lot of customers will defect from the brand they initially showed ‘behavioral loyalty’ to. These examples show the danger of using one aspect of the brand-customer relationships as a brand metric.
The pillars of Brand resonance form a synergetic, broad foundation for measuring customer-brand relationships that can serve as a reliable indicator of Brand
performance. The focus of this research will be on developing a scale that includes and integrates the four dimensions described in the previous paragraphs to build up to Brand resonance as a transcending entity. To validate the Brand resonance model, literature on scale validation will be reviewed in the next chapter, to define the steps to follow through this process. Leading will be the literature written by Churchill Jr & Iacobucci (2009). Their guidelines on methodological foundations in marketing research form a solid basis for the research conducted in this study.
3. Research method
IntroductionTo validate a marketing scale, it has to be developed and tested according to the criteria for reliability and validity. Reliability is the test to what extend the results of certain measures are affected by irrelevant factors like item order or situational factors when the measure is taken. Validity is about the degree the developed scale is
measuring what it is supposed to measure. There are different types of validity that have to be taken into account like Content-, Construct-, and Criterion validity. Within those types, a lot of sub-types of validity exist. The process and validation
components as which described by (Churchill Jr & Iacobucci, 2009) will be leading in this research.
Before going into detail about the validation process, first two kinds of error have to be addressed as well as the internal and external validity in a research environment in general. The Systematic error (also known as Constant error) affects the measure in a constant way. Thus when using a poorly calibrated instrument (like a speedometer) to measure, the results will show a consistent deviation. The Random error is the lack of consistency of the measure when repeated. For example when respondents are asked to fill out an intelligence test and the questions in the test are unclear and interpreted in multiple ways. The results are now not only depending on intelligence, but also on the numerous ways of interpretation. Throughout the process of scale validation, these two types of error can emerge and thus should be limited.
In a research process in general, also internal and external validity have to be taken into account. Internal validity refers to our ability to attribute the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable. Are all variables involved controlled and stable to know for sure the independent variable was the cause of the results measured and no other factors? To achieve this, a labtest is often used to minimize possible unaccounted influences. External validity refers to the generalizability of the findings and if ‘real world’ factors are taken into account. Findings only replicable in a testlab are in most cases a lot less valuable. Satisfaction, for example, is a predictor of Loyalty. But are Trust and Service quality also predicting factors? Is Trust in every
situation a predictor, or only in a business to business environment and not when it comes to the relationship between brands and consumers?
As described earlier, according to (Churchill Jr & Iacobucci, 2009) the first focus in validation is on the content. Then is the stability of the construct tested, followed by an assessment of the Criterion validity. The authors define the process of scale validation in a marketing environment as follows. First, a large number of statements has to be generated with the help of literature and experts covering as many aspects as possible of the construct. Then a selection is made by deleting non-relevant, ambiguous or awkward statements. A large sample of judges is then asked to classify the statements by the degree of favorableness. After recoding, a check on consistency in the response pattern and other checks regarding validity and reliability are done. The researcher is left with a selection of questions that now would form a valid scale to measure what is meant to be measured. In upcoming paragraphs the different steps in this process of validation will be described in more detail followed by the actual proposal to validate the Brand resonance construct.
Content validity
Content validity is defined as "the systematic examination of the test content to determine whether it covers a representative sample of the behavior domain to be measured" (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997, p.114). One of the most critical elements in generating a content valid instrument is conceptually defining the domain of the characteristic. The researcher has to specify what the variable is and what not. To do that, the literature has to be examined to find out how the variable has been used and defined. As not all definitions will be consistent, the researcher has to make a choice that is applicable to the setting of interest (Churchill Jr & Iacobucci, 2009).
Next step in validation is formulating a collection of items that broadly represent the variable as defined. Items from all the relevant dimensions of the variable have to be included. Items with slightly different meaning can be included since the list will be refined to produce the final measure. Face validity is part of Content validity and defined as “the degree to which test respondents view the content
of a test and its items as relevant to the context in which the test is being administered” (Weiner & Craighead, 2010, p.637). To develop a measure, Face validity is also used to appreciate the different items that are composed on a large scale in the first phase. Different experts in the concerning area of research are consulted to eliminate the irrelevant questions or add others to higher Content
validity. In general, Content validity can almost never be guaranteed because it partly depends on the matter of judgment
Construct validity
Construct validity is largely about the degree in which the construct actually measures what it theoretically should measure. Only behavior related to the construct can be measured, unlike the construct itself. In essence the construct is then a set of
observables, which makes this type of validity most difficult to establish. “If a set of items is really measuring some underlying trait or attitude, then the underlying trait causes the covariation among the items. The higher the correlations, the better the items are measuring the same underlying construct” (Bohrnstedt, 1970, p.80). Consistency is a necessary but not sufficient condition for construct validity (Churchill Jr & Iacobucci, 2009).
The process of refinement in which the internal consistency is tested, is done by use of a statistical process. In this case factor analysis is one of the possible statistical methods to seek for internal consistency and eliminate items that have no valuable correlation in the construct.
After testing the construct on internal validity, the next thing to do is see how the new construct relates to other theoretically linked models and see if it does it behave as expected. Within Construct validity, Convergent-, Nomological- and Discriminant validity can be distinguished. Convergent validity measures the correlation between the tested scale and other measures that theoretically should be correlated and Nomological validity is about the degree to which those measures behave as expected within the system of related constructs. A diagram showing the relationship among a set of constructs is called a Nomological net. When the
Nomological net behaves as expected, the Nomological validity is established. Discriminant validity requires that a measure is not correlating too highly with other constructs from which it is supposed to differ in theory (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). When correlation is low enough, the construct is valid as a unique measure.
Criterion validity
In this stage, the focus lies on the predictive power of the construct on already validated constructs that measure related concepts. The predictive validity is determined strictly by examining the correlation between a dependent and
independent variable. Is for instance a lower price leading to a higher preference for a brand? If correlation is high, the construct is said to have predictive validity. This stage of the validation process is most times not the most important kind, because most concerns are on the question if we measure what we want to measure, rather than knowing if it predicts accurately or not (Churchill Jr & Iacobucci, 2009). Concurrent validity can be tested by comparing the new construct to existing scales that are already validated. An example could be a newly developed IQ test which is compared to other IQ tests that already proved their accuracy.
Research design
In the following subparagraphs, the research design for each form of validation is described in detail and sample collection and chosen analysis are discussed.
Content validity
In constructing the scale, items will be selected based on the current theory on Brand resonance and that of the pillars it holds. In the process of selecting the right items, as much of them as possible will be adopted from already validated scales in marketing research. Also judges from both a practical and academic context will be consulted to optimize Face validity. The first judge is Ph.D. Candidate at the Department of Marketing & Supply Chain Management of the Maastricht University School of Business and Economics. The second is the CEO of a marketing research company
and has 20 years of experience in the field with the focus on consultancy in marketing and strategy. The last judge has 17 years of experience in marketing research. Above three judges were selected to form a jury that would cover both the academic and practical dimensions of the Brand resonance metric. Their experience and knowledge will be used to define the domain of research and to higher content validity of the items and ensure their appropriateness in the context in which they will be administered.
Sample collection
The items for the Brand resonance scale will be included in different studies for clients of a marketing research company. Confidentiality agreements prevent
elaboration on details of the clients further than the description of the type of markets they are in. The construct will be tested in markets where involvement is high. These kind of products increase the chances of developing a relationship with the brand and form therefore an appropriate starting point of the process of validation. At the moment no possibility exists to test the construct in markets with low-involvement products and when the scale is composed this could be an interesting suggestion for future research.
In the studies we conduct for this validation, respondents will be collected with the use of online panels over a national representative sample. The respondents are all subscribed to an online research platform and invited to different studies. Based on demographics and current consumer product usage, invitations are send out to participants and a small incentive (in the form of prize draw entries) is given when a questionnaire is completed. Following Hair et. al. (2010), as a rule of thumb, the ratio of observations to variables should be at least 10:1 for all studies.
In each study, the participants will be shown a selection of well-known available brands of the product of topic and is asked to select the brands that are known to them. Among the known brands, one will be assigned to the respondent and inserted in the Brand resonance items and other scales used for validation. Apart from the items in the Brand resonance scale, variables are included evaluating brand image, product experience and the decision journey when buying the product of topic.
Construct validity
A strong part of this validation will lie in the Construct validity. A lot of resources are available to cover the aspects of this part of the validation process. The scale is included in different studies, administered at different points in time, covering different countries and product categories.
Exploratory Factor analysis
To test for internal consistency, Exploratory factor analysis will be used to examine the correlation among the measured items and the scale’s dimensionality. For this procedure, we will use Principal axis factoring as recommended by (Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003). A first sample in the German automatic espresso market will be collected to facilitate an initial analysis. As recommended by (Hair et. al., 2010), the analysis will be done over different samples for comparison of results. For a second analysis, after six months, the study will be repeated in Germany and also a sample in the US will be collected.
Confirmatory factor analysis
A selection of other constructs will be part of the studies to build and validate the Nomological net of the brand resonance scale under study and to ensure Convergent validity as well as Discriminant validity. A Brand trust and a Brand affect scale are included that were used by Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) in their work to measure the effect of both concepts on Brand performance. The included items in the scales are listed in Appendix 1. Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) found a moderate effect on Purchase- and Attitudinal loyalty and therefore it is hypothesized that a correlation will exist between both scales and the Brand resonance scale, but should differ enough to distinguish three different constructs.
To assess Nomological-, Convergent- and Discriminant validity, we will use Confirmatory factor analysis. For this analysis SPSS AMOS Graphics is used to perform Structural equation modeling. The three scales will be included in a study about the automotive industry in the US.
Criterion validity
Criterion validity will be examined by use of a regression analysis of the predictive power of Brand resonance on previously used brand performance indicators. Brand preference is a widely used brand performance measure and thus qualifies to assess the predictive power of Brand resonance. As no other Brand resonance scale is validated yet, we are unable to examine concurrent validity of the metric. However we can compare the predictive power of Brand resonance with other scales used as a brand performance indicator. For this comparison, the NPS metric will be included as it is widely used in a business environment.
Binary logistic regression
As the Brand preference variable is dichotomous (answer options preferred/non-preferred), Binary logistic regression will be used which is a type of analysis especially designed for this kind of variables. NPS, Brand preference and Brand resonance are included in the study regarding espresso machines over nine countries worldwide: Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, South Korea and the US.
4. Results
IntroductionIn validating the Brand resonance measure, all practically feasible steps in the process of validation are done as thoroughly as possible. In constructing the scale, items will be selected based on the current theory on Brand resonance and that of the pillars it holds: Behavioral loyalty, Attitudinal attachment, Sense of community and Active engagement. The defined domain to be measured was covered extensively in the literature review and will be referred to in the coming paragraphs.
Although we are aiming to validate a generalizable construct, the composed statements should certainly be appropriate in the context of the high-involvement markets the clients are in. In the questionnaire, multiple brands over a variety of product categories in different countries will be evaluated by respondents. Following the process and validation components as described by Churchill Jr & Iacobucci (2009), first an attempt will be made to cover the aspects of the Content validity in the process of composing the Brand resonance construct. After selecting the items, the Construct validity and Criterion validity of the newly developed scale will be tested.
Content validity
In this paragraph, the selection of the Brand resonance scale items is covered and described. Choices made in the process are explained and elaborated. First step in Content validity is to define the domain of the characteristic. Brand resonance is “the nature of the relationship customers have with the brand and the extent to which they feel they’re ‘in sync’ with the brand” (Keller, 2009, p.144). The pillars Behavioral loyalty, Attitudinal attachment, Sense of community and Active engagement together form this construct definition and thus all four need to be represented by the items in the scale. In the process of generating items, both an academic and practical
viewpoint are adopted. First the literature and current measures related to the different pillars were reviewed and items per pillar generated. As discussed earlier, in the context of Face validity, a judge with an academic background in the area of research and two other judges with years of practical experience in marketing research were
consulted to give their expert opinions in the process of composing the Brand resonance scale.
The commercial setting wherein this research is conducted, eliminates the possibility to pretest the Brand resonance construct with a large collection of items. We are aiming to cover each pilar of the Brand resonance construct, so at least 4 items will be selected to form the scale. Kim and Mueller (1981) state that a construct should be measured with at least three items and Bearden & Netemeyer (1999) agree and only included scales with more than three items in their Handbook of marketing scales. The final amount of items selected will depend on the theoretical coverage of the construct and internal fit of the selected items.
Behavioral Loyalty
The different forms of loyalty have been researched for a long time and developed measures have an attitudinal or behavioral base. Examples of loyalty metrics are Brand preference (Yoo and Donthu, 2001), Recommendation (Lau and Lee, 1999), Share-of-wallet (Berger et. al., 2002; Mägi, 2003) and Repurchase intention (Odin et. al., 2001; Kressman et. al., 2006). Behavioral loyalty measured in this context is defined as the behavior wherein a customer keeps purchasing the available products or services the brand has to offer over time. In selecting the right statements to cover this pillar, previously used measures were reviewed focusing on the aspects that come closest to the actual behavior of purchasing products of a brand and the energy that is put in obtaining them.
Within the frequently used dimensions of loyalty, Share-of-wallet seems the first suitable measure that covers actual purchase behavior. “Share-of-wallet measures the share of category expenditures spent on purchases at a certain company, which integrates choice behavior and transaction sizes during a certain period into one single measure” (Leenheer et. al., 2007, p.32). Taking in consideration that the scale will be first tested within the consumer electronics market, the statement for inclusion will then be as follows: “If you think of all consumer electronics products (e.g. TV, phone, coffee machine, blender, shaver, etc.) that you have purchased in the last 12 months, which percentage of those products are [BRAND] products?”. Although this measure
has the benefit that it is not based on intention, but actual purchase behavior, the risk is that given the type of market concerning high-involvement products, respondents did not buy a wide range of for example consumer electronics in the previous 12 months. Making the measure less accurate. Extending this period and thus including more products will also lower accuracy because people tend to lack accuracy in remembering things over longer periods of time. In making a Brand resonance scale that is generalizable over different markets, the period stated in the item should be adaptable to fit different circumstances. The item is measured with a range of 0-100% on a 11-point scale.
In addition to the Share-of-wallet item, other behavioral related items are found in literature, but most are referring to future intentions. Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) measured the behavioral aspect, which they call Purchase loyalty with the two statements: “I will buy this brand the next time I buy [PRODUCT NAME]” and “I intend to keep purchasing this brand”. Also Kressman et. al. (2006) and Odin et. al. (2001) measure behavioral loyalty on the basis of future intentions with likewise statements adapted to different product categories. One of the statements Odin et. al. (2001) used, could be suitable to cover the investment a customer is willing to make to obtain products from a specific brand: “If the shop I regularly visit has not got the brand of __ I usually buy, I go to another shop”. This statement is not linked to a specific brand and does not include online purchases. Keller (2009) proposes the following behavioral statement as a possible measure of Behavioral loyalty: “I would go out of my way to use this brand”. As this statement was marked by the judges as too vague and excluding the actual purchase, the dimension of investment was covered in a more complete way. The following statement was composed in consultation with the different experts involved: “I am willing to invest a lot of time and energy to obtain [BRAND] products”. The item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale.
As suggested by the judges, another dimension of behavioral loyalty was included, covering active current behavior of customers wherein their interest in the brand is uncovered in the run up to a purchase. It measures the extent to which customers actively follow the brand and seek for new products or price reductions
