Brand management in the world of e-commerce

Brand management in the

world of e-commerce

An explorative analysis about the importance of online branding

i

L

UCTOR ET

E

MERGO

Name: H.C. Stam S-number: 1496484

First supervisor: Prof. dr. P.S. Zwart Second supervisor: Dr. C.H.M. Lutz Groningen, July 10th, 2013

University of Groningen

ii

A

BSTRACT

This thesis has analyzed the importance of online brand management for commercial dot-coms. A review of relevant literature revealed ambiguity about the importance of branding for these virtual shops. Where one school of thought states that the internet undermines online branding, proponents of online branding, however, argue that in a world with information overload, brands are becoming more important.

Based on an extensive literature review and semi-structured interviews with dot-com specialists, a conceptual model was distilled and tested with the use of quantitative analysis. Primary goal was to determine if brand management can be positively related to the organizational performance of a dot-com, and, if so, which dimensions are most important.

The key findings show that three of the four constructs; web awareness, website quality and customer loyalty can be related positively to a dot-com’s organizational performance. Although customer trust has often been identified in the literature as a critical component in e-commerce, a significant correlation between this fourth construct and organizational performance was not found. Further analysis was performed to compare the brand management activities undertaken by high- versus low-performing dot-coms and showed that high-performing dot-coms place, in order of importance, more emphasis on customer loyalty, website quality and web awareness then low-performing dot-coms. Customer trust appeared to be a weak predictor to differentiate between high- and low-performing dot-coms.

iii

A

CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Without a doubt, writing this thesis was a long and bumpy road. The personal gain, however, is valuable and everlasting.

I am grateful to everyone who contributed to this research. Therefore, I would like to thank the companies who filled in my survey and the people that made time for interviews. I am most especially grateful to my parents, Henk and Meike Stam, for their infinite support, patience and confidence.

iv

T

ABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ... ii Acknowledgements ... iii Chapter 1: Introduction ... 1 1.1. Introduction ... 1 1.2. Research objective ... 2 1.3. Research methodology ... 3

1.4. Outline of the thesis ... 4

Chapter 2: Literature review ... 5

2.1. Literature review process ... 5

2.2. Contradictions in the field of online branding ... 6

2.3. What is a brand? ... 8

2.4. The benefits and disadvantages of branding ... 9

2.5. Brand management... 13

2.6. Online branding ... 17

Chapter 3: Theoretical framework and propositions ... 23

3.1. Customer loyalty ... 24 3.2 Customer trust ... 26 3.3 Website quality ... 28 3.4 Web awareness ... 29 3.5 Construct interrelation ... 31 Chapter 4: Methodology ... 33

4.1. Data collection and measuring instrument ... 33

4.2. Data analysis ... 39 Chapter 5: Results ... 41 5.1 Survey response ... 41 5.2 Reliability analysis ... 41 5.3 Factor analysis ... 43 5.4 Correlation analysis ... 47

5.5 Multiple regression analysis ... 50

v

Chapter 6: Conclusion... 57

6.1 Introduction ... 57

6.2 Empirical findings and implications ... 58

6.3 Limitations ... 61

6.4 Suggestions for future research ... 62

Appendix: ... 63

1

C

HAPTER

1: I

NTRODUCTION

1.1. I

NTRODUCTION

Brands are everywhere – and their importance to marketing success is undisputed. This importance can be reflected in the vast amount of research interest in brand equity and branding (Aaker, 1991; Yoo & Donthu, 2001; Keller, 2003; Srinivasan et al., 2008). Traditionally, branding is associated with creating value through the provision of a compelling offer and customer experience that keep satisfied customers coming back (Aaker, 1991; De Chernatony & McDonald, 1992). It is about creating favourable emotional associations with customers. As customers develop trust in the brand through satisfaction in use and experience, companies have the opportunity to start building relationships with them, strengthening the brand further and making it more difficult for competitors to imitate (Doyle, 1998).

This research shed light on a specific type of firm that has increased so much in popularity last years: the internet firm, or dot-com. According to Hendershott (2004), “dot-coms sell products through a web-based store (online retailers and auction sites) and/or generate revenue by selling market opportunities to merchants who want access to the dot-com’s users”. Since the mid-1990s, society became aware of the economic opportunities of the internet. It added another dimension to traditional commerce when online business became available, named electronic commerce, or e-commerce. Nowadays, e-commerce has become an important channel for consumers regarding shopping, and the market for online shopping is growing each year. Looking at the Dutch market for instance, online sale revenues rose from 1.5 billion euro in 2000, to 8.2 billion euro in 2010 (“Multichannel Monitor”, 2011). Last year, online consumer purchases rose with more than 10 percent, whereas the total turnover for retail companies declined with almost 5 percent in that same year (“Thuiswinkel Markt Monitor”, 2010). These figures indicate that the internet provides an efficient channel for marketing, selling, and direct distribution of certain types of goods and services, and that one should certainly consider the opportunities that proper branding can offer to a dot-com.

2

from others, since online customers are less loyal in the highly competitve marketplace (McGovern, 2000). On the other hand, however, the internet provides buyers with more information than they’ve had in the past and tools can be used to reduces the search for that information (Sinha, 2000). Search and comparison is made much more easier by prominent search engines and price comparison websites. People no longer need to rely on a brand. Instead, they will gather detailed information and users’ reviews on product and services and make their own judgement on the suitability of a product. In this way, the internet undermines online branding and might lead to a decline of brand appeal.

1.2. R

ESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The existing research that has been done towards internet companies is perceived as limited and being in a formative stage (Ibeh et al., 2005; Simmons, 2007; Rowley, 2009). Most of the research concerning this topic is of exploratory nature, and the studies often rely on secondary research such as reviewing available literature and/or data (Rowley 2004; Javalgi et al., 2005), or qualitative approaches such as in-depth interviews and case studies (Ind & Riondino, 2001; Ibeh et al., 2005; Rowley, 2009). With few exceptions (De Chernatony et al., 2006; Da Silva & Alwi, 2007), solid, quantitative research is rare. This is surprisingly, since the number of online companies is increasing each year (Thuiswinkel Markt Monitor, 2012). Despite this fact, the question whether brand management can be positively related to the organizational performance of dot-coms remains, to the best of my knowledge, unexamined.

To some extent, this study will built upon prior research performed by Berthon, Ewing, and Napoli (2008), who studied brand management in the context of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that marketed their products or services directly to final consumers (B2C). They provided empirical evidence of the importance and value of brand management to SMEs and noticed that high-performing SMEs implement brand management practices to a greater extent than their less successful counterparts. Their article is a good initiative to assess the nature and scope of brand management within an SME context. However, the used questionnaire is solely based on a management article of Keller (2000), which makes its scientific foundation for this research, to my opinion, rather weak.

3

The objective of this study is to addresses the research gap regarding the disagreement concerning the importance of brand management for dot-coms. As stated in the introduction, a consensus about this subject is still lacking. Primary goal is to determine if brand management can be positively related to the organizational performance of a dot-com, and if so, which dimensions are of key importance. In this study, brand management refers to the branding of the dot-com itself, as to say, the name of the company and not to the specific products or services it sells. The research question for this study is as follows:

“Which dimensions of online brand management can be positively related to the organizational performance of a commerce-oriented dot-com?”

To obtain an answer to this question, one must first look at the different aspects of both brand management as well as dot-coms. Therefore, this research discusses different sub questions to acquire a solid base of information that is necessary to answer the research question:

- What is a brand?

- What are the benefits and disadvantages of branding

- Which dimensions of brand management can we distinguish? - Which practices are known with regard to online branding?

1.3. R

ESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4

Based on the available literature concerning (online) brand management and interview outcomes, a questionnaire will be assembled covering the defined dimensions of online brand management and organizational performance. Data will be collected via a mail survey, which will be addressed to approximately 800 commerce-oriented dot-coms. Subsequently, there will be looked for a positive relationship between brand management practices and the organizational performance of internet firms by using statistic analyses.

1.4. O

UTLINE OF THE THESIS

This section will briefly outline the structure of this thesis. Chapter 2 will begin with a description of the literature review process used in this study, following the guidelines handed by Brereton et al. (2007) to perform a systematic literature review. This process is very appropriate to identify existing research gaps and to create a scientific foundation for this study. This process is included in this research to show the reader how the literature body is assembled and, when performed properly, to assure that the research has a strong foundation. After the literature review process, the acknowledged research gap concerning online brand management will be discussed in detail.

Resulting from this process, the relevant theory concerning brand management will be discussed in the following paragraphs of this chapter. The basics of a brand and its benefits will be addressed first. Furthermore, the concept of brand equity will be discussed, as well as the nature and scope of brand management within an SME context. The paragraphs thereafter will focus on online branding practices and discuss how they differ from traditional branding principles.

The theoretical framework and propositions will be presented in chapter 3. The presented framework there will draw on traditional brand equity concepts, as well as specific dimensions that are identified as important for dot-coms.

5

C

HAPTER

2:

L

ITERATURE REVIEW

2.1.

L

ITERATURE REVIEW PROCESS

To create a scientific foundation for the literature review regarding internet firms, existing relevant research has to be identified. To make sure the search attempts cover all of the available literature, it is important that the assembling of relevant literature happens in a structured manner, instead of shooting blanks while searching on the internet. Therefore, we followed the guidelines provided by Brereton et al. (2007), who discusses the practice of a systematic literature review, which is “a means of evaluating and interpreting all available research relevant to a particular research question of topic area of phenomenon of interest” (Kitchenham, 2004). Although the study of Brereton et al focuses on the software engineering domain, the method they use can be applied in other areas as well.

In conducting the review, the first step is to identify relevant research. In order to do so, the literature was combed for research relating to dotcoms, using the EBSCOhost system. The databases we included are, amongst others, Academic Search Premier and Business Source Premier: two prominent databases containing a large collection of popular business magazines and scholarly journals. Keywords as dotcom, dot com, internet firm, online firm, e-commerce, pure play and pure click were used initially, resulting in 9.601 publications. To enhance the quality of the result of the query, only the full text scholarly journals published from 2000 until now were included. Since most dotcoms were formed in the beginning of this century, it is very plausible that these initial parameters reveal most of the research in dot-com businesses. This sample resulted in 286 articles.

After the articles where gathered from the EBSCOhost system, each individual article was checked for its quality and usefulness, and cross-referenced studies were added from them. This resulted in 65 useful articles discussing the topic of dot-coms. From this point, the articles were studied to discover what is already written and, more important, to identify existing research gaps. Most articles discuss the fail and success factors of dot-coms in general, especially the research that has been done after the internet bubble burst (Kaufmann & Wang, 2003; Razi et al., 2004). Other research is more focused on e.g. a dot-com’s strategy (Venkatraman, 2000; Porter, 2001; Lumpkin et al., 2002) or customer relationship management (Jaworski & Jocz, 2002; Horn et al., 2005).

6

strategies in the online environment (Ibeh et al., 2005). Moreover, the articles that do discuss this subject state that there are divergent views regarding the former question (Ibeh et al., 2005, Rowley, 2009). This paved the road to search for more specific literature that could be used as a foundation for this study, brand management in the online environment. Using different databases, such as the EBSCOhost system and Google Scholar, a body of literature was assembled to discover as much as possible what was written about online branding and its facets. Again, different keywords were used to search the existing literature for useful articles. Among these keywords where: online branding, internet marketing, brand management dot-com, i-branding, and branding e-commerce. The amount of scientific articles resulting from these queries was not substantial, but did include several literary gems that lead to different useful articles by using cross-references (Javalgi et al., 2005; Christodoulides et al., 2006; Simmons, 2007; Rowley, 2009). This in turn, provided insights in what was going on in the online environment regarding branding, but left us also ignorant whether brand management can be positively related to the organizational performance of dot-coms. The following paragraph will elaborate on the discrepancy concerning the importance of brand management for dot-coms and offers the reader a first glance in the world of dot-coms and their affinity with branding.

2.2.

C

ONTRADICTIONS IN THE FIELD OF ONLINE BRANDING

For the image-formation of online branding, it is necessary to shed some light on this topic. As stated above, the amount of scientific research towards online brand management in scarce. Two possible reasons for this limited theoretical investigation of online branding can be found in the literature. First, performing a study into online branding requires a review of established branding principles as well as a proper understanding of the specific opportunities offered by the internet (Rowley, 2009). Due to this, studies towards online branding tend to be hybrids of branding concepts, strategic issues and e-commerce experiences (Rowley, 2009). A pure concept of online branding is therefore lacking, since it is such a broad concept relating to different research areas.

7

offers a huge amount of information not only about the quality and features of the product but also concerning the reliability of different suppliers. Rowley (2004) partially agrees on the view that increased information availability will lead customers to seek best value, irrespective of brand. Rowley suggests that branding may become less important for low value, frequently purchased commodities, but remains important for high value, infrequently purchased products that are highly differentiated.

Proponents of online branding, however, argue that in a world with information overload, brands are becoming more important because they save the consumer time by reducing their search costs. When searching for a product to buy, people are faced with a great amount of choices. One obvious aspect of decision making is to go for the name they trust, to select a company of which they have heard or one which has a reputation for quality, service and reliability (Rubenstein & Griffiths, 2001). The same is true for buying on the internet, where, in general, the amount of suppliers to choose from is even much larger compared to traditional bricks-and-mortar stores. Furthermore, as mentioned before, customers in the online marketplace appear to be less loyal to brands. Online loyalty is dependent upon consumer trust, and trust might be more important when it comes to internet shopping because of the lack of personal interaction (Ibeh et al., 2005). This suggests that loyalty of the consumers can become a key success factor in a competitive and an economic sense for e-commerce providers as competition is only a “mouse-click” away (Semeijn et al., 2005). In addition, Smith & Brynjolfsson (2001) found that, in an online environment, customers are very sensitive to price. But when there are no observable product differences (e.g. price and delivery time), customers have a strong preference for well-known retailers, even when it applies to a homogeneous product, such as a certain book. Thus, while it has been widely speculated that the internet, and comparison-shopping agents in particular, would undermine the role of brands, they found a strong role for brands in their analysis. Therefore, it is plausible that internet companies need to embrace online branding even more strongly than before to distinguish themselves from others.

8

2.3. W

HAT IS A BRAND

?

In defining what a brand represents, multiple definitions can be found in the literature. According to the American Marketing Association (AMA, 2010), a brand is a “name, term, sign, symbol, design or combination of these which is used to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competition.” Alternatively, De Chernatony & McDonald (1992) describe it as “an identifiable product augmented in such a way that the buyer or user perceives relevant unique added values which match their needs most closely. Furthermore, its success results from being able to sustain these added values in the face of competition.” Another way to describe a brand is to see it as an intangible but critical component of what a company stands for. A consumer generally does not have a relationship with a product or a service, but he or she may have a relationship with a brand. According to Davis (2000), a brand, in part, is a set of promises. It implies trust, consistency, and a defined set of expectations. Brands create assets in the minds and hearts of customers and distributor. These assets are brand awareness, beliefs of exclusivity and superiority of some valued benefit, and emotional bonding. This is what is expressed in the classic definition of a brand: “a brand is a set of mental associations, held by the consumer, which add to the perceived value of a product or service” (Keller, 2003). These associations should be unique (exclusivity), strong (saliency) and positive (desirable). This definition focuses on the gain in perceived value brought by the brand.

The latter definition is narrower than the one of the AMA and is more focused on customer perception. It contains similarities with Rowley’s (2004) definition of a brand, who emphasizes three aspects of a successful brand. First, a brand is dependent on customer perception. Second, this perception is influenced by the added-value characteristics of the product and third, this added-value characteristics need to be sustainable. This means, for example, that brand design, including the graphic design, the logo and the look associated with the brand do not create the brand, although they do help to enhance recognition and thereby speed up the branding process.

9

is, among other things, to make customers certain promises. E.g., ordered today is delivered tomorrow, or having a free returning policy and a 30 days of time to consider. In this way they try to provide a visitor convenience and trust, which is important in the world of dot-coms (Corbitt et al., 2003; Eid, 2011). Reviewing the different definitions of a brand, for the purpose of this study and with regard to dot-coms, the definition of Davis (2000) is adapted, who describes a brand as a set of promises. The brand implies trust, consistency, and a defined set of expectations.

2.4. T

HE BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF BRANDING

Brands can have different functions for both consumers and firms. This paragraph discusses the benefits of brands, for both the consumer (buyer) as for firms (seller) and will elaborate on the different functions that brands have. After that, the disadvantages that are prevalent with regard to branding will be discussed.

2.4.1. Buyer benefits of a brand

10

In general, brand names help the buyer by conveying attributes about the product or service. This increases the buyer’s confidence that they are making the right purchase. A powerful brand has high brand equity, or in other words, it has high brand loyalty, name awareness, perceived quality, and strong associations (Rowley, 2004). Without doubt, customers perceive the importance of a strong brand. Over 70 percent of customers want to use a brand to guide their purchase decision and over 50 percent of purchases are actually brand driven (Davis, 2000). A brand provides not only as source of information but performs certain other functions which justify its attractiveness and its monetary return when they are valued by other buyers.

A summarization of the eight functions of a brand (Kapferer, 2008) is presented in Table 2.1. The first two are mechanical and concern the essence of the brand; that is, to function as a recognized symbol in order to facilitate choice and to gain time. The following three functions reduce the perceived risk, whereas the last three have a more pleasurable side to them.

Table 2.1: The functions of a brand for the consumer (source: Kapferer (2008))

Function Consumer Benefit

Identification To be clearly seen, to quickly identify the sought-after products, to structure the shelf perception.

Practicality To allow savings of time and energy through identical repurchasing and loyalty.

Guarantee To be sure of finding the same quality no matter where or when you buy the product or service.

Optimization To be sure of buying the best product in its category, the best performer for a particular purpose.

Badge To have confirmation of your self-image or the image that you present to others.

Continuity Satisfaction created by a relationship of familiarity and intimacy with the brand that you have been consuming for years.

11

Table 2.1: Continued

Function Consumer Benefit

Ethical Satisfaction linked to the responsible behavior of the brand in its relationship with society (ecology, employment, citizenship, advertising which doesn’t shock).

2.4.2. Seller benefits of a brand

One of the primary advantages of a brand is the extent to which the brand can be used to differentiate a product or service from that of competitors. Such differentiation allows the development of imperfect competition and thereby competitive advantage, in such a way that brands can sustain a price premium because customers perceive added value (Rowley, 1997). In addition brands can encourage repeat purchasing of the same or similar products. So, for instance, if the customers have a good experience of one product with a brand, they are likely to seek other products with the same brand, and have a sense of the type of quality, manufacture and value for money that they associate with the product. If customers have favorable experiences with a brand this is likely to lead to a degree of brand loyalty when considering repeat purchases.

Brands also provide a number of valuable functions to firms, inherent to certain benefits. Fundamentally, they serve an identification purpose to simplify handling of tracing for the firm (Kapferer, 2008). In addition, a brand offers the firm legal protection for distinctive features of the product. For example, an important patent has been assigned to Apple™ that gives them the exclusive right on touch screen technology (US Patent and Trade Office, 2010). Brands enable a company to establish a unique identity and to increase the opportunity of attracting a large amount of repeat businesses. Companies with a history of strong brands are likely to have a higher market share compared to firms with generic, unbranded products (Ibeh et al., 2005). Furthermore, strong brands lend immediate credibility to new product introductions (Davis, 2000). For instance, consumers (virtually) line up to get the latest version of Apple’s Iphone 5 well before it goes on sale.

12

Table 2.2: The functions of a brand for the distributor/manufacturer (source: Kapferer (2008)) Function Typical product category Power of manufacturers’ brand

Recognition signal Milk, salt, flour Very weak

Practicality of choice Socks Weak

Guarantee of quality Food, staples Weak

Sign of high-quality performance

Cars, cosmetics, paint, services

Strong

Personalizing one’s choice Perfumes, clothing Strong

Permanence bonding Old brands Strong but challenged

Pleasure Luxury brands Strong

Ethics and socials responsibility

Trust brands, corporate brands

Strong but challenged

2.4.3. Disadvantages of brands

13

the attention of the customer. Finally, a brand may lead to differentiation and the opportunity to set higher prices, but calculating the asset value of a brand is difficult. This is, however, necessary if a convincing case is to be made for investment in the creation and maintenance of a brand in an ever-tightening financial environment.

In summary, a brand is a shared desirable and exclusive idea embodied in products, services, places and/or experiences. The more this idea is shared by a larger number of people, the more power the brand has. It can be concluded that strong, successful brands provides important functions and benefits for both consumers and companies. For consumers, brands are the shorthand that they use to guide their important purchase decisions. A brand works as a signaling device and reduces the risks that consumers encounter during their purchase decisions. Having a strong brand is also clearly important for a company. Not only does a brand serve an identification purpose, they also enhance a firm’s competitiveness. Strong brands lend credibility to a firm’s product or service, thereby creating customer loyalty. This in turn, will create repetitive purchases that will lead to a higher turnover. Furthermore, companies with a strong brand are also better able to attract and retain employees, since these firms are often successful ones and employees will take more pride in their jobs. But one must not overestimate the benefits of building a strong brand. A lot of time and money is required to establish and maintain a brand. And, once established a strong brand, it is difficult for producers to change the attributes of their product.

2.5.

B

RAND MANAGEMENT

Brand management is a relatively young field of study, and one in which real interest was shown since the 1990s (Krake, 2005). Aaker (1991) characterizes brand management as the process of creating value through the provision of a compelling and consistent offer and customer experience that will satisfy customers and keep them coming back. Companies have the opportunity to start building relationships with customers when they develop trust in the brand through positive experience and satisfaction. This is turn, will create brand equity, which is difficult for competitors to imitate. In general, brand equity refers to the value directly or indirectly accrued by the various benefits of a strong brand (Keller, 2003; Kapferer, 2005).

14

achieved. It is important to recognize that some products will not benefit from branding, either because branding will not lend any advantage over competitors’ products or because the nature of the product is such that a reputation will not assist users in their selection of the product (Rowley, 1997). The following paragraphs will first discuss the concept of brand equity. Aaker’s (1996) model of brand equity will be at the central. Next, the prevalence of brand management in small to medium-sized enterprises will be discussed.

2.5.1. Brand equity

Brand equity is the incremental utility or value added to a product by its brand name, such as Coke, Kodak, Levi’s, and Nike (Rangaswamy, Burke, and Oliva 1993; Park & Srinivasan 1994). Accordingly, research has suggested that brand equity can be estimated by subtracting the utility of physical attributes of the product from the total utility of a brand. As a substantial asset to the company, brand equity increases cash flow to the business (Simon and Sullivan 1993). From a behavioral viewpoint, brand equity is critically important to make points of differentiation that lead to competitive advantages based on non-price competition (Aaker 1991).

Although there are different perspectives on how brand equity may prevail, most marketing observers agree that brand equity should be defined in terms of marketing effects that are uniquely attributable to a brand (Keller, 2003). In their article, Yoo et al., (2000) propose a conceptual framework in which marketing elements are related to the dimensions of brand equity, that is, price, store image, distribution intensity, advertising spending and price deals. Strong brands enjoying high brand equity can help managers to relish higher margins, greater customer loyalty, less vulnerability to competitive attacks, better customer response to communications, and more cooperation from trade and other intermediaries (Gill & Dawra, 2010).

15

2.5.2. Brand management in small to medium-sized enterprises

Although the strategic importance of effective brand management has been widely accepted (Aaker, 1991; de Charnatony, 1998; Keller, 2003), it is stated that the brand management literature has focused almost exclusively on large, multinational brands (Krake, 2005; Berthon et al., 2008). The fact that SMEs have been largely overlooked is surprising, since they represent 99 percent of all enterprises in the European Union, provide around 65 million jobs and contribute to entrepreneurship and innovation (European Commission, 2010).

Before discussing brand management in SMEs any further, a clear definition of an SME is required. For this research, we follow the definition as adopted by the European Union since January 2005 (see Table 2.3 below).

Table 2.3: SMEs according to Recommendation 2003/361/EC (source: http://www.ec.europa.eu) Enterprise category Headcount Turnover or Balance sheet total

medium-sized < 250 ≤ € 50 million ≤ € 43 million

small < 50 ≤ € 10 million ≤ € 10 million

micro < 10 ≤ € 2 million ≤ € 2 million

According to Huang & Brown (1999), brand management is a concept that in most cases is integrated in the marketing activities of an SME, which is nevertheless an area in which an SME is likely to experience problems. They stated that, when combined with a lack of marketing expertise, difficulties arise in selecting suitable promotional media, designing content, conducting market research, and interpreting marketing information. Similarly, Keller (2003) state that building brands for small businesses is a challenge because of the limited resources and budgets typically involved. In contrast with major brands, SMEs usually don’t have the luxury to make mistakes and must design and implement marketing programs much more carefully. Because of the limited resources, both focus and consistency in marketing programs are critical.

16

A quantitative approach is applied by Berthon et al (2008) to assess the nature and scope of brand management within an SME context. Keller’s (2000) brand report card (BRC), which captures many of the varying aspects of brand management, formed the basis of the questionnaire used in their study. Findings show significant differences between small and large organizations along many of the brand management dimensions in de BRC. In addition, they found that high-performing SMEs implement brand management practices to a greater extent than low-performing SMEs. Their results stress the importance and value of proper brand management to SMEs, by associating different brand management practices to organizational performance. One critique on their study however, is the foundation of their questionnaire. Is it completely based on Keller’s (2000) brand report card, which is a brief article for managers to rate their brand. As stated by the author: “The report card can help you identify areas that need improvement, recognize areas in which your brand is strong, and learn more about how your particular brand is configured” (Keller, 2000, p. 147). Although recognizing the article as a suitable basis for a questionnaire, it does lack scientific foundation, making it less appropriate to solely use for a questionnaire.

What can be concluded from the literature regarding brand management in SMEs is that very often, brand management doesn’t have a fixed place in the agenda. Many SMEs are of a certain size that having a marketing department is out of the question, let alone a division for brand management. Although some authors stresses the importance of focus and consistency in marketing programs (Keller, 2003), in reality, this endeavor might not be feasible. The SME owner/manager is often the key decision-maker and is responsible for managing functions performed within the organization, such as finance and advertising (Berthon et al., 2008). Branding is not a priority for SMEs, but viewed as a reductive concept involving only the logo, the product, the service or the technology they sell (Inskip, 2004). Furthermore, it is generally known that SMEs often face resources constraints, both in term of time and money, which result is many SME managers adopting a “survival mentality”. However, the SMEs that do implement brand management practices proper are more likely to perform better than their counterparts (Berthon et al., 2008).

17

2.6.

O

NLINE BRANDING

There is a general recognition that the academic literature on online branding for internet companies, or dot-coms, is limited and in a formative stage (Simmons, 2007; Rowley, 2009). Although commercial internet has been around for over a decade, relative little empirical work has been undertaken on the branding strategies of dot-coms (Ibeh et al., 2005). But what exactly is a dot-com? This paragraph will start by elaborating on dot-coms and the different types that exists. After that, this research will discuss the differences between branding in the online and offline environment, followed by a review about online branding practices and strategies.

2.6.1. Defining dot-coms

A typical dot-com operates only from its online website, having neither physical stores nor locations its customers can visit. One of the most important attributes of a dot-com is its ability to reach customers in vast geographic regions, via the internet, and to scale up rapidly while not having to deploy working capital in building physical facilities (Senn, 2000). This classical description points out the fundamental characteristics of a dot-com. However, much is changed the last decade concerning internet firms, e.g. the technology they use and the different types of business models they adopt. Wirtz and Lihotzky (2003) developed an insightful framework (4C-Net-Business-Model framework) that provides a classification of internet firms and their strategies into one of four business model types: (1) content-oriented, (2) commerce-content-oriented, (3) context-oriented and (4) connection-oriented firms.

18

upon two strategic factors. First, growth of a customer base acquired with new features to attract and retain users, and second, internet advertising; both of which are growing at a fast rate.

2.6.2. Differences between online and traditional branding

Regardless of the discrepancy about the importance of online branding for dot-coms, as discussed in the beginning of this chapter, what does the literature tell us about these practices? And how do they differ from traditional brandig principles? In line with the increase of consumer spend on products online, over the past few years there has been a gradual increase in the body of research associated with online brand equity and the management of it. It might be obvious, that to some extent, the concepts and measures of brand equity used for online companies may differ from the traditional point of view. Experience with e-branding has shown that simply replicating offline marketing efforts online is at least inadequate (Meyers & Gerstman, 2001). But this does not imply that the traditional principles regarding brand management are not relevant today. According to Porter (2001), a brand is a universal concept regardless of setting. What changes online is the enactment of the brand (De Chernatony & Christodoulides, 2004).

One difference lies in the experience that consumers have. In an offline environment, consumers can interact with people rather than technology. For an internet firm, the company’s website is the experience (Taylor, 2003). Regarding its design, one has to consider different aspects of the website, for example the security assurance, accessibility and the ease of navigation (Palmer, 2002; Simmons, 2010). For that reason, a website can create both opportunities as well as pitfalls, depending on the way it is exploited. A second difference lies is the fact that online businesses are mainly intangible. When buying a product online, you cannot feel, smell, or touch the product. You cannot look into the salesperson’s eyes. Therefore, an association with trust must be created. According to Berry (2007), trust plays a critical role in this type of business, much more than with offline businesses where consumers can interact with tangible features to gain trust.

2.6.3. Online branding practices and strategies

19

One of the first studies towards online branding practices was done by Kim et al (2002). In their article, they distinguish two steps that a company must take in order to build online brand equity. According to the authors, the first step in building brand equity for business-to-consumer online companies is to create brand awareness. To build ‘top of the mind awareness’, companies must generate large numbers of exposures through both online and offline advertising and promotion. Herefore, companies may consider a combination of the following strategies: (1) register with a search enging, (2) advertise on the web, (3) facilitate word-of-mouse communication and (4) maximize cross-promotion. Second step is to enhance knowledge about the company. When consumers think about a product or service, not only the company should come to their mind but also positive associations about it. Two associations that are critical involve quality and trust. Therefore, companies need to create high-quality websites with excellent web usabilty and a sound design. In order to gain trust, the company must be helpful to the customer at every stage of the decision-making process. Furthermore, companies must provide security and privacy for sensitive customer information by using secure technologies.

20

A guru in the field of brands is J.K. Rowley. In one of her articles, Rowley (2004) proposes a model for an online brand development process and suggests the following stages: setting the context for the brand, deciding on brand objectives and message, developing a brand specification, developing a brand design, creating the website and other communications using the brand, launching and promoting the brand, building the brand experience, and finally, reviewing, evolving and protecting the brand. A similar strategy is proposed by De Chernatony and Christodoulides (2004), who suggest that many organizations undertake a phased development of online branding, starting with a basic site that secures onlines presence for the brand, and then gradually evolving their web site through offering greater opportunities for engagement with the brand. They provide a measurement system with a comprehensive set of dimensions that are sensitive to brand equity fluctuations, both online and offline. Among these are the perceived value of a producht, brand awareness, site design, online brand experiences and website logs (number of hits, re-visits and view time).

The first attempt to fill the gap between qualitative and quantitative research towards online branding has been made by Christodoulides et al (2006). They identified the facets of online retail/service (ORS) brand equity and then developed and validated a scale for its measurement, resulting in five correlated dimensions: emotional connection, online experience, responsive service nature, trust and fulfillment. The dimensions are based on the response of internet shoppers, and rely on twelve items including among others: ease of use, interaction, privacy, security and delivery.

Different businesses have different objectives for their online channel. The success of an online brand depends on what the business seeks to achieve through its online branding strategy, and on the brand having clear online objectives. Simmons (2007) provides several strategies that companies have to embrace in order to enhance their prospect of achieving succesful online branding. These include, (1) establishing an online brand as quickly as possible to gain firmst-mover advantages, (2) undergoing a systematic process of understanding, attracting, engaging, retaining and learning about target customers, (3) going beyong generating awareness for their sites to a greater focus on developing trust and relationships, (4) building stronger relationships through targeting customers with unique messages, content and personalisation techniques, (5) delivering a quality product/service experience within a unique positioning concept and strong communications programme, (6) ensuing consistent delivery of the brand promise.

21

linkages can drive traffic, signal credibility, and help to enhance image. Furthermore, some of the potential advantages of online brands are the customization and interactivity involved. Kapferer stresses the importance of engaging in one-to-one, and participatorty forms of relationship marketing. Creating a strong online brand community between the consumer and the brand, as well as perhaps to other consumers, can help to achieve frequent purchases (Keller, 2003).

Table 2.4 provides an overview of the discussed articles in this paragraph. and highlight their main content. From here, several comparable elements can be distinguished. Generating awareness is a returning subject in nearly all the articles (Kim et al., 2002; Page & Lepkowska-White, 2002, Simmons, 2007). Furthermore, the quality of the website ought to be of importance as well (Kim et al,, 2002; Rowley, 2004).

Table 2.4: Online branding strategies and practises

Dimension / Strategy Content

1. Increase awareness and brand knowledge (Kim et al., 2002)

Use of search engines and advertising on the web. Create website with high usability and gain trust to attract and retain customers.

2. Enhance brand awareness and image (Page & Lepkowska-White, 2002)

Adapt effective marketing activities. Create a reliable website and become a trustworthy vendor with a good price/quality ratio.

3. Eight-staged model for online brand development (Rowley, 2004)

Setting the brand context, objectives and specifications. Create superior website and promote the brand.

4. Traditional and internet-specific measures of brand equity (Christodoulides & Chernatony, 2004)

Satisfaction/loyalty, perceived quality, brand personality, brand awareness, market share, online brand experience, interactivity, customization, relevance, site design, customers service, order fulfillment, brand relationships, communities and website logs. 5. Online brand equity construct

(Christodoulides et al (2006)

Emotional connection, online experience, responsive service nature, trust and fulfillment.

6. Variety of strategies that enhance successful online branding (Simmons, 2007)

22

Table 2.4: Continued

Dimension / Strategy Content

7. Insights in developing an online brand (Kapferer 2008)

Establish brand partners and engage in one-to-one forms of relationship marketing.

To recapitulate, the efforts to truly determine the importance of online brand management and to capture the relevant dimensions are scarce and the frameworks are rarely tested. (Ibeh, 2005; Simmons, 2007. Furthermore, most of the research that has been done is primarily concerned with the perception of consumers. They highlight what they perceive as important, which company they like, and why. This research takes a look at the other side of the webpage and study the dot-coms themselves. Hitherto, no quantitative research towards the implementation of constructs that are ought to be of importantance for dot-coms has been performed. Are dot-com managers aware of the opportunities that rest in the world of online branding, and can specific dimensions be identified that are related to the performance of a dot-com?

23

C

HAPTER

3: T

HEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND PROPOSITIONS

The framework presented here reflects the dimensions of online branding that relate positively to a dot-com’s organizational performance. The dimensions show to some extent resemblance with the traditional model of Aaker (1996), who conceptualizes brand equity in terms of five asset components that are the sources of brand equity. However, his model was not the starting-point for creating a conceptual model for this research. The model consists of four dimensions that are distilled from the existing literature regarding online branding; customer loyalty, customer trust, website quality and web awareness.

Figure 3.1: Conceptual model of the four dimensions related to organizational performance

The fifth construct relates to organizational performance. This is an important component of empirical research, since researchers frequently take the performance of organizations into account when investigating organizational phenomena as structure, strategy and planning. Operationalizing organizational performance is difficult, even when focussing on economic dimensions of organizational performance such as return on assets and growth in sales. Accurate estimates are not easy to to obtain by survey techniques and represent a major source of measurement error for two key reasons: the confidential nature of the data and the variance among participating firms with regard to accounting procedures (Dess & Robinson, 1984). Therefore, for the purpose of this study, organizational

24

performance is measured with the use of four self-report measures of performance relative to competitors: return on investment, market share, ability to serve customers better and effectiveness of brand management practices. Subjective measures have shown to be reliable in determining an organization’s performance (Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Mintzberg, 1996) and overcomes the problems that are described above.

The following section outlines the justification of the selection of the constructs that are supposed to influence the performance of a dot-com. Table 3.1 allocates just less than 50 articles published between 1998 and 2011 to one of those themes. Each construct will be discussed in the following paragraps and the propositions will be presented at the end of each paragraph.

Table 3.1: Key themes in the literature regarding online branding

Customer loyalty Customer trust Website quality Web awareness

Schefter & Reichheld (2000), Gommans et al (2001), Ibeh et al (2005), Semeijn et al (2005), Flavián et al (2006), Wang et al (2006), Rios & Riquelme (2008), Jin (2010), Simmons (2010), Eid (2011), Zhang et al (2011)

Ratnasingham (1998), Jevons & Gabbott (2000), Belanger et al (2002), Corritore et al (2003), Park & Kim (2003), Constantinides (2004), Ha (2004), Bart et al (2005), Lee & Lin (2005), Christodoulides et al (2006), Eastlick et al (2006), Flavián et al (2006), Schlosser et al (2006), Pennanen et al (2007), Horppu et al (2008), Zhou et al (2009), Eid (2011),

Roy, Dewit & Aubert (2001), Gwee et al (2002), Kim & Eom (2002), Liang & Lai (2002), Palmer (2002), Christodoulides & De Chernatony (2004), Constantinides (2004), Rowley (2004), Flavián et al (2006), Christodoulides et al (2006), Liao et al (2006), Virtsonis & Harridge-March (2008), Zhou et al (2009), Zhang et al (2011) Cheskin Research (1998), Simpson (2000), Gommans et al (2001), Page & Lepkowska-White (2002), Yoon (2002), Syr et al (2007), Kapferer (2008), Mangold & Faulds (2009), Culnan et al (2010), Yan (2011)

3.1. C

USTOMER LOYALTY

25

marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior (Oliver, 1997). When dot-coms increased in popularity, sector analysts have observed that only a very small minority of website visitors (1.3-3.2 percent) return to make purchases (Boston Consulting Group, 2000; Shop.org, 2001). Nevertheless, research indicates that such rare, loyal online customers are highly profitable (Nielsen, 1997; Scherega, 2000).

The concept of online loyalty, or e-loyalty, extends the traditional brand loyalty concept to online consumer behavior. Although the underlying theoretical foundations of traditional brand loyalty and the newly defined phenomena of e-loyalty are generally similar, there are unique aspects of it in the area of Internet based marketing and buyer behavior (Gommans et al., 2001). For instance, conventional brand loyalty development efforts have relied substantially on brand image building through mass media communications. In e-commerce, however, database technology makes it possible to put more emphasis on the cognitive dimension by offering customized information. Other differences between traditional brand loyalty and e-loyalty relate to behavorial loyalty. Traditionally, behavioral loyalty has been defined in terms of repeat buying behavior (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). A satisfied customer tends to be more loyal to a brand/store over time than a customer whose purchase is caused by other reasons such as time restrictions and information deficits (Schultz, 2000). This phenomenon is more relevant in an online environment, since a customer is able to collect a large amount of relevant information about a product/store in an adequate amount of time, which surely influences the buying decision to a great extent. In other words, behavioral loyalty is much more complex and harder to achieve for dot-coms than for traditional stores, where the customer often has to decide with limited information.

26

Another way to enhance customer loyalty is by using personalized emails (Ibeh et al., 2005; Simmons et al., 2010). In order to do so, a thorough understanding of (potential) customers much be developed first. Simmons et al. (2010) mention various online tools that can be used in achieving this, such as server-side data capture (web analytics), client-side data capture (cookies), online surveys and database marketing.

After distinguishing customer groups, one or several are chosen as the firm’s target market and a specific marketing mix is developed in arrcordance with group characteristics, to establish a long-term, positive interaction that can meet the requirements of the target market (Lin et al., 2004). As a branding vehicle, the internet not only offers valuable segmentation opportunities, but actually takes the concept of understanding customers and the targeting of them to new levels (Probaker, 2000). According to Ibeh et al. (2005), this more personalized targeting is a critical opportunity offered in developing the internet succesfully as a branding tool.

Other ways to create online loyalty is to ensure quality customer support, on-time delivery, compelling product presentations, and convenient and reasonably priced shipping and handling (Schefter & Reichheld, 2000). From the above evidence, the following proposition is proposed:

P1: The performance of a dot-com is related positively to the extent to which it creates

customer loyalty.

In this research, the construct customer loyalty relates to the following 7 items: frequency programs, personalization, repeat purchases, social media, purchase recommendations, visiting behavior and sharing experiences.

3.2 C

USTOMER TRUST

27

strengthening the brand further and making it more difficult for competitors to imitate (Jevons & Gabbott, 2000).

Trust has often been identified as a critical component in e-commerce and is, in general, harder to achieve in the online environment (Lynch et al, 2001; Corbitt et al., 2003). Sultan & Mooraj (2001) conclude that “customers are asked to trust Internet firms more than their bricks and mortar counterparts”. Online trust could be considered different from offline trust because of the physical distance between the buyer and the seller, the absence of sales people, and the separation between buyer and product (Yoon, 2002). A customer’s interaction with a store is somewhat similar to his or her interaction with the website of a dot-com, and consumers develop perceptions of trust in a website based on their interactions with the site. To the extent that a consumer has positive impressions of a site and accepts vulnerability, he or she develops trust with that site (Bart et al., 2005). Furthermore, consumer trust will be increased when he or she has positive experiences with a company, so order fulfillment has an important role in this part (Cheskin Research, 1999; Harris & Goode, 2004). Therefor, a dotcom should provide accurate information on order processing and problem resolution when a problem occurs

A lack of trust is frequently cited as a key reason why people do not make purchases online (Lee & Turban, 2001; Lee & Lin, 2005). Because time is key to deepening trust, internet trust is still relatively shallow (Cheskin Research, 1999). Consequently, the “forms” that suggest trustworthiness are the main determinants of whether someone will take a chance. But how can trust be gained then?

An important dimension of customer trust in an online environment is privacy (Ratnasingham, 1998; Flavián and Guinalíu, 2006). Perceived privacy is defined as consumers’ ability to control presence of other people in the environment during a market transaction or consumption behavior and the dissemination of information related to or provided during such transactions or behaviors to those who were not present (Goodwin, 1991). It refers to the consumers perception regarding the handling of their private data, and it involves the adoption and implementation of a privacy policy, notice, disclosure, and choice/consent of the Web site visitors (www. privacyalliance.org). Privacy is a key driver of online trust (Hoffman et al., 1999), and a critical factor in acquiring potential online customers and retaining existing customers (Park & Kim, 2003).

28

indicators of security by consumers, have been adopted by many Web sites, and have a positive effect on trustworthiness (Cheskin Research, 1999).

Interviews held with dot-com managers/specialists for the purpose of this study, pointed out specifical additional factors that influence customer trust in e-commerce. One of them are the customer’s payment options. A potential buyer might feel saver when he has different options for the payment procedure, such as paying with iDeal, PayPal or credit card. Furthermore, customer trust is also said to be positively influenced by having e-commerce quality marks, or seals of approval. Using seals of approval can enhance the perceived privacy for consumers. Symbols, like VeriSign and Visa, are designed to re-assure the visitor that security has been established (Bart et al, 2005). Therefore, the following proposition is proposed:

P2: The performance of a dot-com is related positively to the extent to which it creates

customer trust.

With regard to customer trust, the following 5 items were distilled from the literature: data encryption, data collection, reputation management, payment options and FAQ (frequently asked questions).

3.3 W

EBSITE QUALITY

The core asset of firms in e-commerce is their website. Ensuring that consumers are accessing a website that is of top quality is important in brand management (Gwee et al., 2002). An key aspect of a website is its user interface (the channel through which consumers are in contact with the online firm). Websites that take too long or even fail to be accessed can cause frustration and displeasure, and eventually they might lead to the formation of negative firm impressions (Breen, 1999). User-friendly, attractive, informative, and interactive websites have greater appeal to consumers, thereby resulting in stronger brand associations. Hence, consumers might perceive a better quality and be more knowledgeable of online firms that have an attractive interface. In addition, research has shown that the quality of the user interface affects the customer satisfaction and trust directly (Park & Kim, 2003; Gummerus et al., 2004). Similarly, Roy, Dewit, & Aubert (2001) found that ease of navigation, interface design, and user guidance affect consumer establishment of trust.

29

search options and linkage efficiency (Simmons, 2010). The significance of website quality is discussed in other studies as well (Kim & Eon, 2002; Liang & Lai, 2002; Flavián et al., 2006). Results imply that in the new economy, perceived website usability is a very important part of a dot-com’s image and that it can influence shopping behaviour in a positive way. In a website, usability reflects the perceived ease of navigating the site or making purchases through the Internet. In general terms, usability considers different factors, such as the ease of understanding the structure of a system, its functions, interface, and contents observed by the user. Furthermore, the perceived ease of site navigation in terms of the time required and action necessary to obtain the desired results, the ability of the user to control what they are doing, and where they are, at any given moment. But also the simplicity of use of the website in its initial stages and the speed with which the users can find the item they are looking for (Flavián et al., 2006).

This research therefore suggests that:

P3: The performance of a dot-com is related positively to the quality of its website.

Website quality is associated with the following 8 items: level of information, structure, user interface, illustrations, platform suitability, professionalism, readability and findability.

3.4 W

EB AWARENESS

One dimension that is considered important to building a strond brand is brand awareness (Keller, 1997). Brand awareness related to the likelihood that a consumer will associate a brand with its specific product catergory, and the ease with which he or she does so. It can be depicted into brand recognition (consumers’ ability to confirm prior exposure to the brand when given the brand as cue) and brand recall (consumers’ ability to retrieve the brand when given the product category, the needs fulfilled by the category, or some other cues) (Keller, 1998).

30

must be good”) (Aaker, 1996). Borrowing from the branding literature, Page & Lepkowska-White (2002) defined web awareness. Similar to brand awareness, web awareness is conceptualized as consumer familiarity with a dot-com’s website. A study result by Greenfield Online (1998) found that the awareness of the web site was the most important purchase motive. After establishing a presence on the internet, one of the primary objectives of a dot-com is to attract a variety of interested parties to visit the company’s website and there are several ways to facilitate this.

Given that consumer’s aren’t physically confronted by brands as they are in a store, brand awareness and recall are critical. Because there are so many dot-coms providing similar products and/or services to consumers, an important step for them is to increase the likelihood that will go to their website first. Toward that goal, choosing the right URL is an important priority. URL must be chosen with the basic brand element criteria in mind, with emphasis on brand recall (Cheskin Research, 1999; Gommans et al., 2001; Keller, 2003).

A second step is to create visibility on the most popular search engines. Search represents one of the most important activities for Internet users (Pavlou & Fygensen, 2006). An overwhelming majority of users search for information about goods and services on a regular basis and more than half of Internet traffic begins with a search engine (Nielsen//NetRatings, 2006). In an e-commerce setting, two types of marketing activities can be conducted through search engines. First, in search engine advertising, companies pay to have links to their web sites displayed in the “sponsored section” of a search engine results page. Second, in search engine optimization (SEO), companies strive to push the rankings of their web sites higher in the organic search results (i.e., no payment made to the search engine) through a variety of techniques (e.g., changing the structure of the sites) or by hiring external consultants to develop specific techniques that will cause search engines to index their sites in higher positions (Delaney, 2006). Unlike search engine advertising, SEO is the process of improving the visibility of a website in search engines via the "natural" or un-paid search results. Both techniques, if applied properly, will lead to a higher rank on the search results page, and hence, the more visitors the website will receive from the search engine's users.

31

consumer attention (Page & Lepkowska-White, 2002). Many analysts argue that banner ads can be effective in increasing traffic to a dot-com’s site, when they are well targeted and contain information relevant to the content of the host site (Simpson, 2000). Somewhat more intrusive are e-mail ads. They are commonly used to follow up previous consumer purchases, alert consumers to current promotions, or attracht new customers by way of cross-selling with an affiliate’s customer base. A more recent online practice to gain attention and business value is the usage of social media, such as Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin (Culnan et al., 2010; Yan, 2011). It is a useful way to find out everyting about your target group, what they think about your company, and to attract more customers.

A dot-com’s website itself can also act as a means to create awareness about an online company. In addition to containing information about products or services, the website can also create awareness of the dot-coms by e.g. sharing information that may have been written about the company by a third party (e.g. nominations for best webshop, links to press articles et cetera). The following proposition derives from the above:

P4: The performance of a dot-com is related positively to the extent to which it creates web

awareness.

The fourth construct, web awareness, related to the activities a dot-com performs to increase the findability and visibility, both online as offline. It relies on 10 items, which are: URL, search engine optimization, search engine marketing, affiliate marketing, offline advertising, sharing, comparison websites, indexations, keyword analysis and authority.

3.5 C

ONSTRUCT INTERRELATION

32

33

C

HAPTER

4: M

ETHODOLOGY

The empirical part of this study focuses on Dutch internet firms that marketed their products or services directly to final consumers (B2C). In specific, the focus is on commerce-oriented firms (see paragraph 2.6.1). This type of dot-com is more profit oriented than other firms and fits this study better when looking at an organization’s financial performance. The target group are the members of Thuiswinkel.org, an independent institution that provides quality marks to commerce-oriented dot-coms. For the data collection, the 1,585 members of Thuiswinkel.org, or to say the dot-coms with the Thuiswinkel quality mark, will be contacted by email.

4.1. D

ATA COLLECTION AND MEASURING INSTRUMENT

The data will be collected via a mail survey. Primary motivations for the use of a mail survey are, first, the relative low cost to complete them; second, the opportunity to contact a large target group in once and its ease of implementation. The measuring instrument is a self-administered questionnaire, containing 30 items that measure the four dimensions of online brand management principles. The questionnaire was constructed following the guidelines of Dillman (1991) and Jenkins & Dillmans (1997), which provide useful principles for designing self-administered questionnaires, as well as practical insights to reduce four important sources of error: sampling, noncoverage, measurement, and nonresponse.