Mocking competitors : good for brand image? : the influence of advertisement type and competition type on brand image

(1)

Mocking competitors: good for brand image?

The influence of advertisement type and competition type on brand image

08

Name: Rohini Vanita Bhaggoe Student number: 10077545

Date: 23 - 06 - 2015

Qualification: MSc. in Communication Science Track: Corporate Communication

Institution: University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Communication Supervisor: dr. ing. Arie den Boon

(2)

Abstract

Purpose- The purpose of this research is to investigate the influence of a mocking advertising strategy on brand image and how this influence differs from the influence of a traditional advertising strategy on brand image. Furthermore, this research aims to determine whether there is a difference in effect of advertising strategy between direct and indirect competition. Brand engagement and motivation for information processing are assessed as moderators of the relationship between advertisement type and brand image.

Design/ methodology/ approach- This study makes use of an experimental research strategy with two independent variables, namely advertisement type (displaying own qualities versus mocking the competition) and competition type (direct competition versus indirect competition). A total of 157 participants took part in the experiment, which was distributed and collected via the online questionnaire program Qualtrics.

Findings- From the results of this study it can be derived that displaying a brand’s own qualities has a more positive influence on brand image than mocking

competitors. When a mocking strategy is adopted, mocking indirect competitors has a greater positive impact on brand image than mocking direct competitors. When brand engagement is high, the displaying of a brand’s own qualities has a positive influence on brand image and motivation for information processing does not have a significant moderating role on the relationship between advertisement type and brand image.

Practical implications- This research provides interesting and relevant information for companies that are creating advertisements for brands and are considering adopting a mocking strategy.

Keywords- Brand Image, Advertising, Competition, Mocking Strategy, Brand Engagement, Motivation for Information Processing

(3)

Introduction

Remember #Bendgate? A hashtag introduced in September 2014 in order for customers to complain about the bending of the iPhone 6. On 28 September 2014 Apple, the most valuable global brand of 2014 (Interbrand, 2014), launched the iPhone 6 and the iPhone 6 plus and people were lining up to purchase the proclaimed most advanced iPhone to date (Apple, 2014). Within a day a video surfaced on the Internet, in which was shown that the iPhone 6 could bend and things got frantic. Although Apple only received nine official complaints from customers about their iPhones actually bending (Forbes, 2014), the hashtag Bendgate became a trending topic on social media for consumer complaints, parodies and jokes (Twitter, 2015). Apple was brutally attacked by both consumers and other (competitive) brands (McCarthy, 2014). Apple’s direct competitors in the smartphone industry, such as Samsung and LG, released advertisements on the Internet in which they were publicly mocking Apple (Appendix 1). But also other companies, such as Heineken and Delta Light, released advertisements targeting Apple (Appendix 1).

One might wonder why. What is the reason that companies release

advertisements in which another brand is publicly mocked? Brands want people to like them. Brand image is very important for brands and by releasing advertisements in which they display their own features, use humor and mock other brands (either direct or indirectly connected), they try to improve their own brand image in the minds of the consumers (Keller, 2013).

In today’s highly competitive market, companies are using traditional advertising strategies, in which their products and its features are promoted, and are increasingly adopting a mocking or parodying strategy, in which they publicly ridicule their competitors (Haury, 2012). But what are the effects of mocking and

(5)

parodying on the image of these companies? Does it improve a consumer’s attitude towards the advertising company or does it have a negative effect? In the current literature, the topic of mocking and parodying has not yet been thoroughly discussed, thus it remains unclear what the effects of the ‘mocking type’ of advertisements are and whether it is more effective than traditional advertising.

This thesis will be an addition to the existing literature on this topic and will be particularly interesting for companies that are currently engaging in mocking/ parody advertising, as the results will display whether this strategy is beneficial or damaging for a company’s brand image. Further, it is interesting for others

considering using a mocking technique. It also provides consumers with insight of how advertisements are set up by brands and that some advertisements are clearly developed to deliberately hurt other brands. The research question of this thesis is as follows:

“How does the type of advertisement and the type of competition influence brand image?

The purpose of this research is to investigate the influence of a mocking advertising strategy on brand image and how it differs from a traditional advertising strategy. Furthermore, this research aims to determine whether there is a difference in effect of a mocking strategy between direct and indirect competition. In the theoretical

background of this thesis the current literature and theories on the topic will be extensively discussed, followed by the methodology section, in which will be explained how the experiment is conducted. Hereafter, the results of the experiment will be presented, followed by a conclusion and a discussion, in which pointers for future research will be given.

(6)

Theoretical Background

In this chapter the concept brand image will be described extensively, followed by the differences between traditional advertising and mocking advertising and also the differences between direct and indirect competition. Furthermore, the concepts brand engagement and motivation for information processing according to the Elaboration Likelihood Model will be discussed.

Brand image

Brand image can be defined in multiple ways. Dobni and Zinkhan (1990, p.118) define brand image as ‘the concept of a brand that is held by the consumer’, whereas Keller (2013, p. 72) defines it as ‘the consumers’ perceptions about a brand, as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory’. Both definitions carry out that brand image is subjective, due to the fact that people assign and attribute cognitive and affective meaning and that, therefore, brand image can be altered by marketing and other persuasive activities. Some authors (such as Fombrun & van Riel, 1997) state that brand image can be used interchangeably with reputation and other authors (such as Chun, 2005) see it as part of the reputation of a company, which consists of the corporate identity, desired identity and image. Chun also adds that an image about an organization can be formed without having any real experience with the company.

When someone would ask what comes to mind when thinking of a particular brand, one would probably reply with associations one has with the brand. Other brands carry a different set of associations. Creating strong, favorable and unique associations in the mind of the consumers and increasing brand awareness by maximizing brand exposure can lead to a positive brand image (Keller, 2013;

(7)

image is considered crucial to a brand’s long-term success (Bhat & Reddy, 1998). Additionally, a good and positive brand image attracts stakeholder engagement and builds customer satisfaction and/ or retention and could also lead to being seen as a good employer for future employees (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012).

Traditional advertising versus mocking

Advertising is a form of marketing communication, which concentrates on

‘establishing a set of feelings, emotions and beliefs about a brand or organization’ and changing the behavior of people towards that brand or organization (Baines, Fill & Page, 2011, p.381). It should be seen as a process, from creating brand awareness to brand knowledge to preference and eventually purchase (Lavidge & Steiner, 2000; Clow & Baack, 2007). There are also many forms of advertising, everything from radio and television to the newer online advertising, and from making use of celebrities to consumer- generated advertising.

In this thesis a distinction will be made between traditional advertising and mocking. When a brand advertises its own products and services and displays own qualities and features, it is considered traditional advertising. The focus lies only upon the brand itself. When a brand is ridiculing or parodying another brand in its

advertisements, whether it is an advertisement or a commercial, it is considered mocking. In this type of advertising humor is used to influence the audience responses towards the advertisement. According to research (Zhang & Zinkhan, 2006; Jean, 2011) humor helps to influence audience responses in favor of the advertiser. In today’s highly competitive market, companies go to great lengths to outweigh their competitors and one way to do so is by pointing out the flaws of their competitors (Haury, 2012).

(8)

The purpose of mocking is to unveil the truth about a brand, mock consumers for following a brand and damage the brand image of the competing brand in a

humorous way in order to positively increase the brand image of the advertising brand (Lou & Wang, 2013; Sabri & Michel, 2014). The funnier and more relevant the humor, the more likely it is to cause an attitudinal change in the consumer in the direction aspired by the advertiser (Zhang & Zinkhan, 2006). Because brands that adopt a mocking strategy, use humor and focus on increasing their own brand image by ridiculing others, it is expected that this strategy is more successful than a

traditional advertising strategy. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H1: The positive influence of mocking the competition on brand image is

greater than the positive influence of displaying own qualities on brand

image.

Mocking competitors in commercials and advertisements is phenomenon that we are already familiar with, as it has existed almost as long as brands themselves (Fournier & Avery, 2011). Especially big companies with only a few competitors have been using mocking strategies for decades and are still using them. In the case below an example of a mocking commercial is given.

CASE McDonald’s & Burger King

McDonald’s and Burger King are both global chains of fast food restaurants and are considered direct competitors, as they are competing in the same market with similar products and prices. In the past and present both brands have ridiculed each other in commercials and advertisements, in order to change consumers opinions in a

favorable direction and to show their superiority over the other. A recent example is a McDonald’s commercial in which a little boy is shown holding McDonald’s french

(9)

fries and eating it in a playground (1). Every time when he sits down with a

McDonald’s bag his friends come along and eat or take his food (2). At the end of the clip, he comes up with the genius idea to cover his food with a Burger King bag and no one takes his food any longer. The main message of this video was that

McDonald’s is better than Burger King and it worked as it became very popular and received almost 200.000 likes on YouTube (YouTube.com, 2015).

Figure 1 McDonald's commercial mocking Burger King.

Direct competition versus indirect competition

Porter (2008) describes competition, in a business perspective, as a pervasive force that involves companies contesting markets, which has intensified dramatically in the last decades. Companies strive to deliver superior value to their customers, which is the ability to meet or exceed the needs of customers in an efficient way. In this thesis a distinction will be made between direct and indirect competition. Direct competitors are companies that are competing in the same market space, selling somewhat similar products or services against respectively similar prices. In most cases there are a few

(10)

big competitors in a market and other smaller competitors, but there are also markets in which all companies are alike and are competing on the same level. For example, in the soft drink market Coca-Cola and Pepsi are the biggest global producers with smaller competitors on every continent. Another example is the laptop market, in which a variety of brands are all competing on a higher level (Apple, Samsung, Dell, Asus etc.).

Indirect competitors are companies in different markets, targeting different customers, selling different products and/or services. These companies can be considered unrelated. However, when there is an opportunity to improve one’s own brand image by making fun of another brand (either a direct or indirect competitor) companies seize the opportunity. With a humorous advertisement they can influence an audience response in a direction that is favorable (Zhang & Zinkhan, 2006). In the case below an example is given.

CASE Nestlé mocking indirect competitor Apple

When the hashtag #Bendgate surfaced, Nestlé’s brand KitKat also released an advertisement with the statement “We don’t bend, we #break!” and a picture of a breaking KitKat (McCarthy, 2014). Their aim was to tweet a picture with three

purposes: (1) the advertisement had to show humor, (2) it should mock another brand, while (3) promoting the own brand. It this case they have done a good job. They received many likes and many people retweeted this message, but above all, they mocked Apple in a brilliant way, because they cleverly incorporated their slogan into their punch line.

(11)

Figure 2 Nestlé’s brand KitKat making fun of Apple #Bendgate.

Direct competitors are known for their rivalry and they will attack their competitors in many ways. They will mock product features and even the ignorance of the customer base, all aimed to attack the reputation or brand image of their competitor (Lou & Wang, 2013). For indirect competitors, damaging another is not really important and they usually only (playfully) attack other brands when an opportunity to showcase humor is presented, like in the case of Nestlé. Thus, it is expected that mocking direct competition will have a greater influence on brand image than mocking indirect competition. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H2: The influence on brand image of advertisements mocking direct

competition is greater than the influence of advertisements mocking

(12)

With regards to the purpose of mocking advertisements, namely to increase the brand image of the advertising company and to attack competitors (Lou & Wang, 2013; Sabri & Michel, 2014), it is expected that the combination mocking advertisement aimed at direct

competition will have the most influence on the brand image of the advertising company. The research question is stated as follows:

RQ: Which combination of advertisement type and competition type has the

most positive influence on brand image?

Brand engagement

Brand engagement is defined as ‘the level of a consumer’s cognitive, emotional and behavioral investment in specific brand interactions’ (Hollebeek & Chen, 2014, p. 62). When a consumer’s brand engagement is high, it could lead to customer loyalty, a superior competitive advantage and profitability. According to Hollebeek and Chen brand

engagement does not necessarily mean that the consumer is positive about the brand, as engagement literally means that someone is involved or interested in something. Someone can be interested in the brand for negative purposes, such as posting negative reviews online or attacking the brand in the media. Thus, brand engagement could be either negatively valenced or positively valenced. In this thesis, however, only positive brand engagement is measured, because only positive brand engagement could lead to a positive brand image.

Brand engagement can be very favorable for a company as it is a mean to elicit active engagement (Keller, 2013). Active engagement is the extent to which consumers are willing to invest personal resources, such as time and energy, beyond consumption or purchase. Customers become brand evangelists (customers who believe so much in a brand that they try to convince others to purchase or use the brand) or brand ambassadors, actively

(13)

promoting the brand to others, creating more awareness and increasing the strength of brand associations. Creating brand meaning in the minds of consumers, by heightening awareness and strengthening associations leads to an enhanced brand image (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002). When the brand’s own qualities are displayed, this could lead to a more positive brand image when the consumer has high brand engagement. Mocking the competition could not lead to a more positive brand image when engagement is high, because mocking has little to do with the brand itself. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H3: Displaying the brand’s own qualities has a more positive influence on

brand image than mocking the competition, when brand engagement is high.

Motivation for information processing

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) is a general framework for organizing, categorizing and understanding the basic processes underlying the effectiveness of persuasive communication (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In this model there are two distinct routes to persuasion: central en peripheral. The central route of persuasion focuses on the cognitive activity, whereby the person draws upon prior experience and knowledge in order to process the relevant information (Petty, Briñol & Priester, 2009). When the motivation of the person is high (meaning that the information is personally relevant and there is a need for cognition) the information will be processed via the central route.

When someone’s motivation or ability to process the information is low, persuasion can still occur via the peripheral route. Simple cues or judgmental heuristics in the

persuasion context, such as source attractiveness, expert opinion and the amount of arguments, can influence and change attitudes. Nonetheless, research has shown that attitude changes based on peripheral cues are mainly short-term effective and are less enduring than attitude change via the central route (Petty, Briñol & Priester, 2009).

(14)

Brands create advertisements in order to change attitudes. When their persuasive communication is processed via the central route, the consumers are focusing on the brand message and their motivation for processing depends on prior experience and knowledge. When the persuasive communication has no relevance to them or they are unable to process the information on a cognitive level, they focus on simple peripheral cues. If the attitude change is positive in the minds of the consumers, it could lead to an increase in purchase or consumption. Both routes, central and peripheral, could arrange such a change. The

difference is that the attitude change caused by the central route will (probably) last longer than the change caused by the peripheral cues. When it is the goal of the brand to influence brand image, they aim for a long-term change in the mind of the consumers. Thus,

information processing via the central route is preferred, when motivation for processing is high. Information processing is likely to benefit the brand more when it displays the qualities of the brand itself, instead of mocking other brands. This leads to the fourth and final hypothesis:

H4: Displaying the brand’s own qualities has a more positive influence on

brand image than mocking the competition when the motivation for

(15)

Figure 3 Conceptual model.

Methods

The research objective of this thesis is to gain more knowledge about the influence of mocking competitors on brand image and to fill the gap that currently exists in the literature regarding mocking. An experiment will be performed, as it is the best way to study causal links between variables, while controlling for external factors

(Saunders & Lewis, 2012; Boeije, ‘t Hart & Hox, 2009).

Design

This study makes use of an experimental research strategy with two independent variables, namely advertisement type and competition type. The research design can be specified as a 2 (displaying own qualities versus mocking the competition) x 2 (direct competition versus indirect competition) between-subjects factorial design. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of four conditions. The conditions are shown in figure 4.

Sampling & Subjects

(16)

were asked to participate and to share this experiment with people in their own environment. However, this means that the external validity cannot be completely ensured and generalizing to the entire population is not possible.

The online questionnaire program Qualtrics was used to build the experiment and was distributed to the participants via e-mail and social media networks

(Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp). Participants could choose to fill in the

questionnaire on the computer or via a smartphone. A total of 157 participants (of different genders, ages and educational levels) took part in the experiment. An overview of the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants is given in Appendix 2.

The analyses show that 82.1 percent of the participants, who watched one of the Samsung advertisements, were already familiar with this brand. Of the

participants that watched an Ikea advertisement, 67.1 percent was already familiar with the brand. The products of these brands are not purchased on a frequent basis, the majority of the participants (77.1 percent) purchases a product from Samsung and/or Ikea on a yearly base or very seldom.

As can be derived from the table, more females (66.9 percent) than males (33.1 percent) have participated in this study. The age of the participants varies

between 11 and 57, with a mean of 28.5 years (SD= 9.52). Most participants are in the ages between 16 and 25 years. The level of education is also unevenly represented, as the most participants completed or were currently enrolled in a university program (46.5 percent).

Stimuli

To explore the differences between advertisement type and competition type and to determine which combination has the greatest influence on brand image, this

(17)

experiment makes use of four conditions. In this experiment three existing and well-known brands are used in the experiment, namely Samsung, Ikea and Apple, which all appear in the top 30 of Best Global Brands (#1 Apple, #7 Samsung and #26 Ikea) (Interbrand, 2014). The video clips are existing advertisements from Samsung and Ikea.

The first condition shows a commercial from Samsung, a direct competitor of Apple, promoting the qualities of the new smartphone Samsung Galaxy 6 and 6 Edge. The second condition shows Samsung again, but the commercial is now solely based on mocking their direct competitor Apple. The third condition shows a commercial of Ikea, an indirect competitor of Apple, displaying the qualities of their products. The fourth and final condition shows Ikea again, this time publicly mocking Apple’s iPad in a commercial about the Ikea catalogue. Screenshots of the commercials, thus the different conditions, are shown in Appendix 3. An overview of the stimuli is given in figure 3.

Figure 3 The four conditions of the experiment.

A pretest was performed to determine whether the mocking advertisements were indeed perceived as mocking advertisements by participants and to examine if

(18)

showed that all participants (n= 11) named Apple as the mocked brand in the

advertisements. They also recognized that Samsung and Apple are direct competitors and that Apple and Ikea are indirect competitors. This concluded that the

advertisements were clear and were approved for use in the actual experiment.

Procedure

The experiment started with a short introduction, including the subject of the thesis, the duration of the experiment and the anonymous processing of the data. The

introduction was followed by three demographic questions regarding gender, age and educational level.

Hereafter the stimuli followed. To check whether the brand image of the participant changes after watching the commercial, it was necessary to ask questions about the brand both previous to the video clip and afterwards. The brands and accompanying video clips were randomized, meaning that every participant was randomly ascribed to one of four conditions and either saw Samsung or Ikea promoting their own products or mocking the brand Apple. If they viewed a

commercial in which Apple was mocked, the questions regarding brand image were followed by a manipulation check to see if they understood which brand was being mocked. From the results of the manipulation check it can be derived that 27,6 percent of the participants did not fill in the brand that was being mocked, instead filled in the brand that created the advertisement. The manipulation proved to be significant (χ2 (1, N= 46)= 38.35, p< 0.001).

After the stimuli, questions about brand awareness followed, to check whether the participant was already familiar with the brand and how often he or she purchases products from that particular brand. Additionally, four questions regarding brand

(19)

engagement and six questions regarding motivation for information processing followed, after which the participant reached the end of the experiment.

This experiment was created with the online survey program Qualtrics. The participants received a link to the experiment via mail, WhatsApp or social media, thus they could participate in their natural habitat. Participation in one’s natural habitat has the advantage that a participant does not feel any pressure from the researcher, which reduces the amount of social desirable answers. A risk, however, is that a participant does not feel any pressure or motivation to finish the experiment or is distracted while participating.

The experiment was held as short as possible, due to the fact that filling in long questionnaires might cause participants to lose interest and randomly select answers, without actually reading the questions. Although, at the beginning of the experiment it was stated that the duration was about ten minutes, the actual mean duration was 5 minutes and 41 seconds. The full experiment can be found in Appendix 4.

Item generation

In this experiment brand image is the dependent variable and brand engagement and motivation for information processing are the moderating variables. Every variable is measured by a set of propositions. For every proposition the participant could indicate to which extent he or she agreed on a five point Likert scale, ranging from ‘I

completely disagree’ to ‘I completely agree’. An overview the variables and the accompanying propositions can be found in Appendix 5. The reliability of the scales is assessed with Cronbach’s alpha. An alpha higher than 0.60 indicates a reliable scale and higher than 0.80 a very reliable scale (Field, 2013; Van Groningen & De Boer, 2010).

(20)

Brand Image

The variable brand image is measured two times, once before the stimuli and once afterwards. The variable is composed out of four propositions, among which the proposition ‘BRAND evokes a good feeling’. The first and second condition showed the brand Samsung in the propositions and the third and fourth condition showed propositions with the brand Ikea. The brand image scale before the stimuli is reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.77. The brand image scale after the stimuli is also a reliable scale with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82. The reliability of the scales cannot be improved more than 0.10 by removing an item.

The moderating variable brand engagement also consists of four propositions, among which the proposition ‘I consider my favorite brands to be part of myself’. These propositions form a very reliable scale with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82. The reliability of the scale cannot be improved with 0.10 by removing an item.

Motivation for information processing

The moderating variable motivation for information processing consist of six propositions, of which three of them are measuring the central route of the

Elaboration Likelihood Model (example ‘The advertisement in relevant to me’) and the other three are measuring the peripheral route of the model (example ‘I liked the visuals in the advertisement). The scale for the central route proved to be reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.76. The reliability could not be improved by 0.10 by

removing an item from the scale. The scale for the peripheral route proved to be slightly less reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.56. The item ‘The advertisement was funny’ is removed, because this increases the reliability (α= 0.64).

(21)

According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model, information is processed via either the central or the peripheral route (with some exceptions). The scores on the central scale and the scores on the peripheral scales are both added up. The route with the highest score indicates the route of processing.

Results

In this chapter the analyses and the derived results will be discussed in order to provide an answer to the main research question.

Univariate analyses

The results of this experiment indicate that the brand image of the participants of Samsung and Ikea were fairly positive with a mean of 3.73 (SD= 0.63). The brand image of these brands after the stimuli was even more positive with a mean of 3.78 (SD= 0.65). The brand engagement of the participants can also be considered relatively strong with a mean of 3.52 (SD= 0.70). The central route and peripheral route of motivation for information processing, however, show a difference in means. The central route had a mean score of 3.09 (SD= 0.74) and the peripheral route a mean score of 3.30 (SD= 0.81). Thus, the peripheral route has been travelled more often. An overview of the means, the standard deviations and the skewness of the variables is displayed in Table 1.

Table 1

Overview of the means, standard deviations and the skewness of the variables.

Variable M SD Skewness

(22)

Brand Image (after stimuli) 3.78 0.65 -0.27

Brand Engagement 3.52 0.70 -0.41

Motivation for Information Processing- Central route 3.09 0.74 -0.33

Motivation for Information Processing- Peripheral route 3.30 0.81 -0.20

Multivariate analyses

Randomization check

Whether the randomization to conditions was successful was examined by investigating the distribution of gender, age and educational level over the four experimental conditions. With the two independent variables advertisement type and competition type and the control variable age a UNIANOVA was conducted. There was no significant effect of experimental condition on age (F (3,152) = 0.31, p= 0.815).

To check the distribution between conditions for the nominal control variables Chi-square tests were conducted. The conditions did not differ with regard to gender (χ2 (3, N= 157)= 2.74, p= 0.434) or educational level (χ2 (15, N= 157)= 16.01, p= 0.382. There were no significant differences between the conditions, thus, based on these analyses the randomization can be considered successful.

Correlation analysis

To check whether the control variables have to be included in the analyses as covariates, correlation analyses have been performed. For continuous independent and dependent variables a Pearson correlation analysis has been conducted. For the

independent and dependent variables, in which one of them is dichotomous, a Spearman correlation analysis is performed. For all the independent and dependent variables that are categorical, chi-square tests are conducted.

(23)

From the results it can be derived that none of the three control variables (age, gender and educational level) have to be included in the analyses as covariates for brand image, brand engagement and motivation for information processing. The analyses are displayed in Appendix 6.

Influence of advertisement type on brand image

To assess whether the advertisement strategy of mocking competitors has more influence on brand image than advertising one’s own brand qualities, a paired sample t-test has been performed. The analysis shows a significant increase in brand image after watching the advertisement, t (156)= -2.15, p= 0.030, 95% CI [-0.10; -0.00]. It was expected that the influence of mocking the competitors would be greater than the influence of displaying own qualities, however the results indicate otherwise.

Displaying own qualities changes from a mean brand image of 3.75 (SD= 0.67) to a mean of 3.81 (SD= 0.68), as for mocking advertisements the mean changes from 3.70 (SD= 0.57) to a mean of 3.75 (SD= 0.61). Hypothesis 1 is rejected.

Table 2

Overview of the influence of advertisement type on brand image.

Advertisement Type Brand Image M SD SE n

Displaying own qualities Before 3.75 0.67 0.07 86

After 3.81 0.68 0.07 86

Mocking competitors Before 3.70 0.57 0.07 71

After 3.75 0.61 0.07 71

Influence of competition type on brand image

Another paired sample t-test has been performed to assess the influence of

competition type on brand image. It is expected that mocking direct competitors has a greater influence on brand image than when indirect competitors are being mocked.

(24)

There is no significant increase in brand image after watching mocking

advertisements. Nonetheless, the results shows that the influence on brand image is greatest when indirect competitors are being mocked, as the brand image increases from a mean of 3.74 (SD= 0.10) to a mean of 3.81 (SD= 0.11). Hypothesis 2 is also rejected.

Table 3

Overview of the influence of competition type on brand image.

Competition Type Brand Image M SD SE n

Direct competition Before 3.66 0.58 0.10 35

After 3.68 0.54 0.09 35

Indirect competition Before 3.74 0.57 0.10 36

After 3.81 0.67 0.11 36

The most influential combination of advertisement type and competition type on brand image

In order to determine the best combination of advertisement type and competition type to influence brand image, a two-way ANOVA is performed. Levene’s test suggests that the variance in brand is roughly equal among the four conditions, F (0.87, p ns.). According to the analysis, there are no significant main effects of advertisement type on brand image, F (1, 153)= 0.36, p ns., or competition type on brand image, F (1, 153)= 1.30, p ns. Also, no interaction effect occurred. However, against all expectations, from Table 4 it can be derived that the combination of displaying own qualities and focusing on indirect competition leads to the highest score on brand image (M= 3.86, SD= 0.54).

Table 4

Overview of the influence of the four conditions on brand image.

(25)

Brand Image Displaying own qualities Direct competition 3.76 0.74 43 Displaying own qualities Indirect competition 3.86 0.63 43

Mocking competitors Direct competition 3.68 0.54 35

Mocking competitors Indirect competition 3.81 0.67 36

The moderating role of brand engagement on brand image

A multiple regression analysis is performed in order to determine the influence of the predictor variable brand engagement. This regression analysis showed that

advertisement type and brand engagement can predict for a small amount how much brand image is influenced (R2= 0.34), F (2, 154)= 9.73, p< 0.001. Advertisement type does not have a significant effect on brand image, b= 0.31, t= 4.37, p ns. However, advertisement type does have a significant effect, when controlling for brand engagement, b= 0.31, t= 4.37, p< 0.001, 95% CI [0.17; 0.45]. Thus, displaying the brand’s own qualities has a more positive influence on brand image than mocking competitors, when brand engagement is high. Hypothesis 3 is accepted. An overview of the analysis is provided in Table 5.

Table 5

Overview of regression analysis.

b SE B β p

Constant 2.65 0.32 p< 0.001

Advertisement Type 0.09 0.10 0.07 p= 0.340

Brand Engagement 0.31 0.09 0.33 p< 0.001

Note: R2= 0.34

The moderating role of motivation for information processing on brand image

To assess the moderating role of motivation for information processing an

independent factorial ANOVA is performed. Levene’s test indicates that the variance in brand image is roughly equal across the various combinations of advertisement type and motivation for information processing. The results of the analysis display

(26)

that there is no significant main effect of advertisement type on brand image, F (1,153)= 0.05, p ns., and also no significant main effect of motivation for information processing on brand image, F (1,153)= 0.309, p ns.

An evaluation of the interaction effect also pointed out that there was no significant effect, F (1,153)= 0.02, p ns. Motivation for information processing does not have a moderating influence on the relationship between advertisement type and brand image. Hypothesis 4 is, therefore, rejected.

Table 6

Overview of the independent factorial ANOVA.

Variable Advertisement Type Motivation for

information processing

M SD n

Brand Image Displaying own qualities Central 3.70 0.78 32

Displaying own qualities Peripheral 3.88 0.62 54

Mocking competitors Central 3.60 0.55 22

Mocking competitors Peripheral 3.81 0.65 49

Conclusion & Discussion

In this final chapter the research question will be answered and a critical reflection of this experiment will be provided, together with implications and suggestions for future research.

Conclusion

With the results of the experiment, the research question of this thesis can be answered.

“How does the type of advertisement and the type of competition influence brand image?

(27)

Both strategies, displaying own qualities and mocking competitor, have a positive influence on brand image. In line with previous research about mocking (Lou & Wang, 2013; Sabri & Michel, 2014), it was expected that the influence of mocking the competitors would be greater than the influence of displaying own qualities. However, the results indicate otherwise, namely that displaying a brand’s own qualities has the greatest influence on brand image. The use of humor in an advertisement that is ridiculing others (Zhang & Zinkhan, 2006) is not more successful than traditional advertising.

In the experiment the influence of competition is also determined. The results show that both direct competition and indirect competition have a positive influence on brand image. The expectation was that mocking direct competitors would have a greater impact on brand image, in line with the theory of Lou and Wang (2013) that mocking competitors is especially important for direct competitors, as their aim is to damage the brand image of competitors. In spite of the theory, this expectation turned out to be untrue. From the results it can be derived that mocking indirect competitors has a greater influence on brand image than mocking direct competitors.

In compliance with the expectation, the results reveal that brand engagement indeed has a moderating effect on the relationship between advertisement type and brand image. Hollebeek and Chen (2014) already confirmed the importance of brand engagement for customer loyalty, competitive advantages and profitability with their research. This research further elaborated on the importance of brand engagement for brand image. Displaying the brand’s own qualities has a more positive influence on brand image than mocking competitors, when brand engagement is high. This finding is in line with the statement of Hoeffler and Keller (2002), that creating brand

(28)

meaning in the minds of consumers, by heightening awareness and strengthening associations, can lead to an enhanced brand image.

According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), the central route of cognitive processing is the most effective route for persuasive

communication, because it draws upon prior experience and knowledge to process the information given in a message, such as an advertisement or a commercial.

Additionally, it was expected that the higher the motivation for information processing (thus processing via the central route), the greater the influence on the brand image of company. Against the expectation and opposite to the ELM theory, the results expose that motivation for information processing did not have a

moderating influence on the relationship between advertisement type and information processing.

To answer the research question of this thesis it was important to determine the best combination of advertisement type and competition type on brand image. It is best to display a brand’s own qualities in advertisements and not to focus on

competition. However, when a mocking strategy is adopted, it is better to focus on indirect competition than on direct competition.

The implication derived from this research is that companies should not pursue a mocking strategy, but should instead focus on displaying the qualities of their own products and services. This strategy will have the most positive effect on the brand image of the company.

Discussion

In this study an experiment was performed to determine the influence of

advertisement type and competition type on brand image. The experiment made use of two well-known brands, Samsung and Ikea. When making use of a well-known

(29)

brand, the danger exists that the participant is biased against that brand, which can have an indirect effect on the results of the experiment. It might have been better to use a fictional brand, but then the problem would be that the brand image before the stimuli would be difficult to measure, as storytelling had to be used to explain the brand, the advertisement, the competitor being mocked and the type of strategy. When everything is spelled out, the participant does not have to think for him or herself anymore. Therefore, existing brands were used. Despite the fact that participants might be biased, they could easily determine the type of advertisement, the type of competition and the brand being mocked, as was evident in the pretest.

To develop a ‘true’ experiment the same commercial should be used for both the mocking condition as the traditional advertising condition, with some alterations. This was not possible for this experiment, because existing advertisement were used, which could not be altered. A pointer for future research is to neutralize the

differences between the commercials as much as possible by creating own

commercials with minimal differences, or to work with a multitude of commercials to differ only on some aspects. Another option is to replace the between-subjects design with a mixed-design. If participants watch two or three advertisements from different conditions, contextual effects (such as size of the advertisement and the fact that the advertisement may be part of a campaign) are then are also accounted for.

Another aspect of the stimuli used in this experiment that could be improved in further research, is humor. Zhang and Zinkhan (2006) claim the funnier and the more relevant the humor in an advertisement, the more likely it is to cause an attitudinal change in the consumer in the direction aspired by the advertiser. In this experiment, three out of four conditions make use of humor in their commercial. The first condition (Samsung- displaying own qualities/ direct competitors) is the only

(30)

commercial that does not include humor. It is a serious commercial, with beautiful visuals to present a new product. This is in contrast to the commercial of Ikea, in which they display their own qualities, while incorporating a very large amount of humor and self-mockery. The other conditions, in which competitors are being mocked, both also contain a large amount of humor. As humor is claimed to have an effect on brand image, it probably would have been better to use four humorous advertisements or no humorous advertisements, instead of the three humorous advertisements and one serious advertisement used in the current experiment,

resulting in the fact that humor is not controlled as a factor. It is recommended to take this into account for further research.

Among the participants, there is an uneven distribution of gender, age and educational level. Due to the time restrictions for this thesis, the sampling methods used were convenience sampling and snowball sampling. Most participants were female and the majority of the participants enjoyed higher education, which is not a correct reflection of the actual educational level of the (Dutch) population and, therefore, the results of this experiment cannot be generalized. In future research, other (aselect) sampling methods should be taken into consideration.

Hollebeek and Chen (2014) indicated in their research that brand engagement can either be positively valenced or negatively valenced. In this study negatively valenced engagement is excluded as only positive brand engagement could lead to a positive brand image. Brand engagement turned out to have a moderating effect on the relationship between advertisement type and brand image. Hence, in future research both negatively valenced and positively valenced brand engagement should be included in the experiment to give a more realistic view.

(31)

Additionally, in this experiment general brand engagement was measured as a characteristic of the participants. In future research it might be better to measure the brand engagement to each individual brand used in the experiment. This way loyalty and true brand engagement are measured to the brand itself instead of measuring brand engagement as a trait of the participant.

Motivation for information processing is an important part of the Elaboration Likelihood Model. As this model is very complex and has many exceptions, it was very difficult to develop a method to measure this concept. In this thesis, participants were either motivated to process the information via the central route OR the

peripheral route, when in real life the exception exists that participants can process information via both routes. As only part of the model was incorporated in this thesis, it is recommended to incorporate a bigger part of the model (if not the entire model) in future research to make sure that every step of the model is justified and that exceptions are also possible.

In this experiment only the influence of the different strategy on the brand image of the advertising company was researched. It might be interesting for future research to focus on the brand that is being attacked. How is their brand image affected by mocking commercials created by their competitors? Does it change the perception of their customers in a negative way? And what is the right strategy to counterattack these types of commercials?

The main message for companies, derived from the results of the experiment, is that companies should not focus on mocking their competition, but instead should focus on displaying the qualities of their own products and services in advertisements. However, when companies do decide to adopt a mocking strategy, it is best to focus

(32)

on indirect competition than on direct competitors, as this has a greater impact on their brand image.

(33)

References

Abratt, R., & Kleyn, N. (2012). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate reputations: reconciliation and integration. European Journal of Marketing,

46(7/8), 1048-1063. doi:10.1108/03090561211230197

Apple. (2014). Apple announces iPhone 6 & iPhone 6 Plus- The Biggest

advancements in iPhone History. Retrieved from

https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/09/09Apple-Announces-iPhone-6-iPhone-6-Plus-The-Biggest-Advancements-in-iPhone-History.html

Baines, P., Fill, C., & Page, K. (2011). Marketing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bhat, S., & Reddy, S.K. (1998). Symbolic and functional positioning of brands.

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15(1), 32-43.

Boeije, H., ’t Hart, H., & Hox, J. (2009). Onderzoeksmethoden. Amsterdam: Boom onderwijs.

Chun, R. (2005). Corporate Reputation: Meaning and measurement. International

Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), 91-109.

Clow, K. E., & Baack, D. (2007). Integrated Advertising, Promotion, and Marketing

Communications. New Yersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G.M. (1990). In search of Brand Image: A Foundation Analysis. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 110-119.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. London: Sage. Fombrun, C., & van Riel, C.B.M. (1997). The Reputational Landscape. Corporate

(34)

Forbes (2014). iPhone 6 Launch, First Weekend Sales And BendGate Statistics From

Twitter Revealed. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ianmorris/2014/09/26/iphone-6-launch-first-weekend-sales-and-bendgate-statistics-from-twitter-revealed/

Fournier, S., & Avery, J. (2011). The Uninvited Brand. Business Horizons, 54, 193- 207.

Groningen, B. van., & Boer, C. de. (2010). Beschrijvende Statistiek. Den Haag: Boom Lemma uitgevers.

Haury, A.C. (2012). Companies that Mock other in Ads. Retrieved from

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1012/companies-that-mock-others-in-ads.aspx

Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K.L. (2002). Building Brand Equity through Corporate Societal Marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 78-89. Hollebeek, L.D., & Chen, T. (2014). Exploring positively- versus negatively-

valenced brand engagement: a conceptual model. Journal of Product & Brand

Management, 23(1), 62-74. doi:10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0332

Interbrand. (2014). Rankings 2014 Best Global Brands. Retrieved from http://bestglobalbrands.com/2014/ranking/

Jean, S. (2011). Brand Parody: a communication strategy to attack a competitor.

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(1), 19-26.

Keller, K.L. (2013). Strategic Brand Management. Harlow, England: Pearson. Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G. A. (2000). A model for predictive measurements of

(35)

Lou, Y., & Wang, L.S. (2013). Does a parody attack ad influence the ad effect? A case of Taiwan. Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 3(10), 11-23.

McCarthy, J. (2014). How Samsung, LG, KitKat and other brands reacted to Apple’s

iPhone 6 #BendGate. Retrieved from

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/09/25/how-samsung-lg-kitkat-and-other-brands-reacted-apple-s-iphone-6-bendgate

Petty, R.E., Briñol, P., & Priester, J.R. (2002). Mass Media Attitude Change: Implications of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In J. Bryant & M.B. Oliver (Eds.), Media Effect: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 125-164). New York: Routledge.

Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205. Porter, M. E. (2008). On competition. Harvard Business Press.

Sabri, O., & Michel, G. (2014). When do Advertising Parodies Hurt?: The power of humor and credibility in viral spoof advertisements. Journal of Advertising

Research, 233-247. doi: 10.2501/JAR-54-2-000-000

Saunders, M., & Lewis, P. (2012). Doing Research in Business & Management. Harlow, England: Pearson.

Twitter (2015). #Bendgate. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/hashtag/bendgate Youtube.com. (2015). McDonalds is Better than Burger King. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frD1AbsNdQk

Zhang, Y., & Zinkhan, G.M. (2006). Responses to Humerous Ads: Does audience involvement matter? Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 113-127.

(36)

Appendix 1 Competitors mocking Apple

Figure 4 LG and Samsung, direct competitors, mocking Apple.

(37)

Appendix 2 Demographic characteristics

Table 7

Profile of consumer’s personal and demographic characteristics.

Socio-demographic variables Frequency %

Gender (n= 157) Male 52 33.1% Female 105 66.9% Age group (n= 157) <15 4 2.5% 16-25 88 56.1% 26-35 32 20.3% 36-45 19 12.1% 46-55 11 7.1 % >56 3 1.9% Educational level (n= 157) Primary school 0 0% VMBO 8 5.1% HAVO 9 5.7% VWO 1 0.6% MBO 45 28.7% HBO 21 13.4% WO 73 46.5%

(38)

Appendix 3 Stimuli: Advertisements

Figure 7 Condition 1: Samsung- displaying own qualities/ direct competitor.

(39)

Figure 9 Condition 3: Ikea- displaying own qualities/ indirect competitor.

(40)

Appendix 4 Experiment

Introduction

Dear Participant,

Welcome to this experiment! You are participating in a study about brand image and brand competition for my master thesis at the University of Amsterdam.

The experiment will take about 10 minutes of your time and your answers will be processed anonymously.

You will be asked to watch a short video clip and to answer questions about this clip and propositions afterwards. Remember that there are NO wrong answers, it is your opinion that matters.

Thank you in advance for participating! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me via rohini.bhaggoe@student.uva.nl.

Kind regards,

Rohini Vanita Bhaggoe

Ο I understand the text and I agree to participate.

Demographics

What is your gender?

 Male

 Female

What is your age (in numbers)?

What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed or are currently enrolled in?

(41)

 Primary school  VMBO  HAVO  VWO  MBO  HBO  WO (University)

Brand Image (before)

Note: BRAND can be either Samsung or Ikea, participant is randomly assigned

Stimuli: Advertisement

I completely disagree

I disagree Neutral I agree I completely agree

BRAND evokes a good feeling Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

BRAND stands out among competitors

Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

BRAND develops high quality products and services

Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

(42)

Note: the participant are randomly assigned to either Samsung or Ikea in the previous question, they are then randomly assigned to one of the two conditions of that particular brand.

Manipulation check

Which brand was being mocked in this advertisement?

Note: only participants in condition 2 or 4 received this question.

Awareness

Were you already familiar with the advertising brand in the video clip?

 Yes

 No

How often do you purchase goods from this brand?

(43)

 Monthly

 Yearly

 Very Seldom

 Never

Brand Image (after)

Note: BRAND is the same as in Brand Image (before).

Motivation for information processing I completely

disagree

BRAND evokes a good feeling Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

BRAND stands out among competitors

Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

BRAND develops high quality products and services

Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

I admire BRAND Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

I disagree Neutral I agree I completely agree I feel as if I have a close personal

connection with the brands I prefer

Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

I consider my favorite brands to be part of myself

Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

I like to talk to others about my favorite brands

Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

I like to recommend my favorite brands to others

(44)

End

You have reached the end of the experiment. Thank you for participating! If you are interested in the results of this research, you can e-mail me at rohini.bhaggoe@student.uva.nl.

Click on continue to save your answers, then you can close this window.

The advertisement is relevant to me Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

The advertisement made me think Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

The information given in the advertisement is useful to me

Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

I liked the visuals in the advertisement

Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

I felt strong emotions while watching the advertisement

Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

(45)

Appendix 5 Variables and Propositions

Table 8

Overview of the propositions for every variable.

Variable Propositions

Brand Image 1. BRAND evokes a good feeling 2. BRAND stands out among competitors

3. BRAND develops high quality products and services 4. I admire BRAND

Brand Engagement 1. I feel as if I have a close connection with the brands I prefer 2. I consider my favorite brands to be part of myself

3. I like to talk to others about my favorite brands 4. I like to recommend my favorite brands to others

Motivation for Information Processing

1. The advertisement is relevant to me

2. The advertisement made me think

3. The information given in the advertisement s useful to me 4. I liked the visuals in the advertisement

5. I felt strong emotions while watching the advertisement 6. The advertisement was funny

(46)

Appendix 6 Correlation analyses

Table 9

Pearson correlations of control variable age and dependent variables brand image and brand engagement.

Brand Image Brand Engagement

Age 0.17 0.73

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 10

Spearman correlations of control variables gender, age and level of education and dependent variable motivation for information processing.

Motivation for information processing

Gender 0.70

Age 0.50

Level of Education 0.83

Table 11

Spearman correlations of control variable gender and dependent variables brand image and brand engagement.

Gender 0.67 0.82

Table 12

Chi-square tests of control variable education and dependent variables brand image and brand engagement.

Education 0.95 0.98

Mocking competitors : good for brand image? : the influence of advertisement type and competition type on brand image