2
Brand Identification: differentiate your
brand from the competition
An investigation into the manufacturers influences on the salespersons’ brandidentification to gain competitive advantage
Author Gythe Arends Oudeweg 9 9364 PP Nuis T (0031) 6 238 676 46 E g.j.arends.1@student.rug.nl S1604066 University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business Master Thesis Business Administration
Specialization: Marketing Management & Marketing Research First supervisor: Dr. M.C. Non
Second supervisor: Daniela Naydenova
3
Management Summary
Markets with intermediaries that represent multiple suppliers are often very competitive. For manufacturers it is a challenge to convince the dealers to take their brand in the assortment with competing brands. However, that is not the only challenge. Research has shown that the relationship with the dealer plays an important role in the decision process of the customers, and that salespersons have an influence in customers’ buying decision. To gain more market share and higher turnovers, manufacturers would like to see that the dealer recommends their brand over competing brands. Whereas the dealer obtains more power, the manufacturer gets to deal with more rules and prohibitions. For instance, manufacturers are no longer tolerated to offer incentives to salespersons. Hughes and Ahearne (2010), and Badrinarayanan and Laverie (2011) showed in their research that if salespersons can identify with a brand, they will put more effort in selling this particular brand. Thus by creating a brand-centric relation with salespersons, a manufacturer is likely to influence the personal brand choice of salespeople in an honest way and gain competitive advantage over competitors.
This research makes a start with making the difference for manufacturers and researches the antecedents for brand identification where manufactures can have an influence in. Six characteristics have been tested with an OLS regression and an ordered logistic regression on the relationship with brand identification. Both tests shared the same outcomes. Communication by the manufacturer on a clarifying base and communication that focuses on increasing the knowledge of salespersons are both positively related to brand identification. Furthermore, frequent interaction with the manufacturer representative is positive related to brand identification. All three outcomes mean for the manufacturer that communication with salespersons cannot be underestimated because it is an important characteristic for the manufacturer to use in building relationships with salespersons. Communication should be on a frequent base, no matter whether the aim is clarification or expansion of salespersons’ knowledge by trainings or demonstrations.
4 between communication focusing on increasing salespersons’ knowledge and brand identification is stronger for salespersons without commission, and stronger for salespersons that have a lower education level. The relation between clarifying communication and brand identification is stronger for salespersons that represent a higher number of brands, and for salespersons with a lower education level. The relation between brand success (price) and brand identification is stronger for salespersons with less years of experience, for salespersons who value their own expertise as low, and surprisingly for females. Only for the relation between manufacturer representative interaction and brand identification, this research did not found any moderators that could make the relation stronger.
5
Preface
With this master thesis, my years as a student have gone to an end. The time has come to turn into a new direction. I have really enjoyed my years as a student, and the opportunity I had to perform my thesis research in New Zealand was the best that could ever happen to me. Therefore, I would like to thank heaps of people who have made this all possible.
Firstly, I would like to thank P. V., to offer me the chance to do an internship abroad at “Company X”. He has been a big help, with all his insights and feedback in a world that was quite new for me. Moreover, I would like to thank the other colleagues at “Company X”, because they have been supporting me at work, with my thesis research and outside working hours by introducing me to some New Zealand habits. Furthermore, I would like to thank my first supervisor Marielle Non for all the feedback and support. Thanks to her, I was able to proceed with new, fresh energy on my thesis. Moreover, I would like to thank my second supervisor, Daniela Naydenova, for her feedback and a last critical look at my thesis.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support although I was far away for half a year. With special thanks to my brother, Jan Gjalt. He has made this whole experience possible by handing me an internship place in New Zealand. Furthermore, he helped me finding more sales representative respondents. In addition, special thanks to my grandmother, because when I said goodbye to her before leaving for New Zealand I did not expect that it would be the last time I would see her in person.
Rest in peace dear Grandmother. Thanks to you all,
Gythe Arends
6
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ... 3 PREFACE ... 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ... 6 1. INTRODUCTION ... 8 1.1BACKGROUND PROBLEM ... 8 1.2 RESEARCH GOAL ... 91.3 ACADEMIC AND PRACTICAL RELEVANCE... 9
1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT ... 11
1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 11
1.6 INTRODUCTION TO THE COMPANY ... 12
1.7 THESIS STRUCTURE ... 13
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 14
2.1 PRELIMINARY ... 14
2.2 BRAND IDENTIFICATION SALES REPRESENTATIVES ... 14
2.3 MANUFACTURER CHARACTERISTICS ... 16 2.3.1 Reputation ... 17 2.3.2 Brand Success ... 17 2.3.3 Communication ... 19 2.3.4 Training ... 21 2.3.5 Manufacturer Representative ... 22 2.4 MODERATORS ... 23 2.4.1 Number of Brands ... 23 2.4.2 Product Category ... 24 2.4.3 Commissions ... 25
2.4.4 Demographics of the sales representative ... 25
7
4. ANALYSES AND RESULTS ... 33
4.1 SAMPLE SIZE ... 33 4.2 FACTOR ANALYSIS ... 33 4.3 INDEPENDENT VARIABLES ... 35 4.4 OLS REGRESSION... 36 4.5 RESIDUAL DIAGNOSTICS ... 38 4.6 MODERATOR ANALYSES ... 39
4.7 ORDERED LOGISTIC REGRESSION ... 51
5. CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS ... 54
5.1 CONCLUSION ... 54 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ... 58 5.3 LIMITATIONS ... 59 5.4 FUTURE RESEARCH ... 60 REFERENCES ... 61 APPENDIX A. – QUESTIONNAIRE ... 66
APPENDIX B – DESCRIPTIVES OF THE SAMPLE (ARE ALSO THE MODERATORS) ... 69
APPENDIX C – INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: FACTOR ANALYSES ... 71
A. Factor Analysis I ... 71
B. Factor Analysis II ... 73
APPENDIX D – DEPENDENT VARIABLE: ‘BRAND IDENTIFICATION’ ... 75
A. Factor Analysis ... 75
B. Cronbach’s Alpha ... 75
8
1. Introduction
‘The key to successful leadership today is influence, not authority’ – Ken Blanchard (Businessman) 1.1 Background Problem
Many companies have independent intermediaries to help them sell products and services efficiently to other channel members and finally to the end customers (Hughes and Ahearne, 2010). Intermediaries could represent just one main supplier, but most of the time they represent multiple suppliers (Hughes and Ahearne, 2010). Markets with intermediaries that represent multiple suppliers are often very competitive. It is therefore important that companies gain more market share and especially not lose market shares to their competition. To become one of the biggest players in the market and to gain more market share, it is a clever idea for companies to develop competitive advantages over their rivals (Arnett, Laverie, and Wilcox, 2010).
A competitive advantage for companies can be brand equity, having a strong brand in the market (Arnett, Laverie, and Wilcox, 2010). This is not only important for a manufacturer, who wants his products to sell effectively, but also for the dealer it is important to have a strong brand in their assortment, because dealers create their own brand equity by creating awareness and associations to their own product assortment (Arnett, Laverie, and Wilcox, 2010). For manufacturers it is a challenge to convince the dealer to take their brand in the assortment with the competing brands (Hughes and Ahearne, 2010). If the brand by itself is not that strong yet, it is important that the manufacturers try to create brand-centric relationships with the salespersons of the dealers. Research has shown that, especially for a durable good like a car, the relationship with the dealer plays an important role in the decision process of the customers (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011). In a market of durable goods or capital goods, the dealers take mainly care of the sales process. In addition, dealers have influence on the overall effectiveness of the manufacturer’s strategy, especially when it comes to developing and maintaining a strong brand in the market (Arnett, Laverie, and Wilcox, 2010). Therefore, manufacturers have to rely on the dealers that they sell the manufacturer’s product efficiently to the end customers (Hughes and Ahearne, 2010). The dealers do not only have impact on the selling process, also on customer judgements about product warranty, the product quality and reputation of the manufacturer (Purohit and Srivastava, 2001). For manufacturers it is important that their messages are reaching the end customers without any noise in the communication.
9 balance between all these brands and therefore they concentrate more on certain brands (Hughes and Ahearne, 2010). This effort to a particular brand is often based on the salespersons own personal choice (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011), on the dealers request, or on the available stock. Dealers do try to prevent that their salespeople are accepting any commissions or incentives from the manufacturers to promote the brand (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011). Therefore, by creating a brand-centric relationship with the salespersons, a manufacturer is more likely to influence the personal choice so that the salespersons take more effort to sell this manufacturer’s brand (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011). Hughes and Ahearne (2010) found in their research evidence that brand identification of the salesperson is important to get the salespersons in the dealerships more concentrated on the manufacturer brand than on those manufacturer rival brands. Likewise, Badrinarayanan and Laverie (2011) came with the same conclusion that brand identification of the salesperson influences both brand preferences and the sales effort. This shows that identification can serve as a driver for a person (Hughes and Ahearne, 2010). The research of Badrinarayanan and Laverie (2011), and Hughes and Ahearne (2010) suggests that manufacturers do not have a direct control, but that brand identification plays a critical role in influencing the effort and behaviour of salespeople (Hughes and Ahearne, 2010). By strengthen the connection between the manufacturers’ brand and the dealers’ salespersons, manufacturers can still have an influence in the sales and in that way increase their sales to the end customers.
1.2 Research Goal
The goal of this research is to do more investigation in the relationship between the dealers’ salespersons and the manufacturer or distributors from the perspective of the dealers’ salespersons. Next to this relationship, there will be an investigation in how well the salespersons are supporting manufacturer’s brand and which manufacturers’ characteristics have an influence in this support, so that manufacturers can strengthen their brand compared to competitor brands. In other words, this study will focus on the antecedents for sales representatives for putting more effort in selling some brands over other brands.
1.3 Academic and Practical Relevance
11 salespersons. These variables might have a moderator role in the relation between the antecedents and the brand identity of the sales reps.
TABLE 1.1 – Previous and new antecedents compared Previous used
antecedents
The manufacturer influence based on… New antecedents The manufacturer influence based on…
Reputation (+) .. being fair, concerned about salespeople and overall a good reputation
Reputation .. overall having a good reputation
Product Quality (+) .. if the products are durable, reliable and technically advanced
Brand Success .. the prices and quality of the brand compared to the competitor brands Communication
Quality (+)
.. general communication being timely, adequate and accurate
Communication .. quality of different (marketing) communication sources
Competence (-) .. knowledgeable about the market Training .. the offered trainings and demonstrations
Manufacturer Rep Expertise (-)
.. if the manufacturer rep is an expert Manufacturer Rep Expertise
.. if the manufacturer rep is an expert Manufacturer Rep
Interaction (+)
.. if the manufacturer rep is nice to the salespersons, being a friend
Manufacturer Rep Interaction
.. if the manufacturer rep has frequently contact
1.4 Problem Statement
Existing literature until now only investigated a few antecedents of brand identity for sales representatives employed at one retailer for durable goods. This study will extend these antecedents by adding new antecedents and study all these antecedents in different market situations. This will give a better understanding of the influence of manufacturers on salespersons’ brand identification. Therefore, the main research question in this study will be:
‘What is the relationship between the manufacturer characteristics and the brand identification of the sales representatives? Do the number of brands, product category, commissions and demographics of the sales rep have a moderator role in that?’
1.5 Research questions
To give a clear answer to the main research question, it is necessary to divide it first in a few questions that are more specific. These are as follows:
1. To what extent do the sales reps identify with the manufacturer’s brand?
2. To what extent is there a relationship between the manufacturer characteristics and the brand identification of the sales representative?
12 4. Is there a stronger relationship between the manufacturer and the brand identification of
capital goods salespersons in comparing with salespersons in consumer goods markets? 5. What is the influence of the sales representatives’ demographics on the brand identification? 6. Does commission, offered by the dealer for the sales salespersons make, make the
relationship between the manufacturer and the brand identification stronger or weaker?
1.6 Introduction to the company
This study concerns the dealer network in the Netherlands, Belgium and New Zealand of an machinery manufacturer with physical capital products in two different categories. “Company X” is of origin a Dutch company, which started there in 1948. Since 1968 is “Company X” internationally active. Nowadays, “Company X” is active in more than 60 countries all over the world. For over 40 years, “Company X” is represented in New Zealand and for more than 13 years, “Company X” has a factory owned importer and distributor in New Zealand. Belgium does not have a factory owned importer and distributor; however, Belgium forms together with the Netherlands one region for “Company X” and does not need a “Company X” importer and distributor for that reason.
The products “Company X” produces are capital goods, which mean they last for several years and are to be amortized. The products are no products you buy impulsively, but customers will think very carefully about their purchase decision. The first category consists of forage solutions and is available through 28 different independent dealers throughout New Zealand. These dealers also sell competitor brands. Likewise, the Netherlands also consist of 28 different independent dealers. Belgium is a bit smaller and consists of twelve different independent dealers. All dealerships employ at least one sales representative, but more often, there are two or more sales representatives per dealer. The second category consists of dairy solutions, however, the second product category is excluded from the research, because the market in New Zealand is still quite small and the dealers sell only one brand in the product category.
13 higher risk. Moreover, like in a capital goods market, it is valuable for suppliers and manufacturers in durable and consumer goods markets to have brand-centric relationships with the salespersons. 1.7 Thesis structure
14
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Preliminary
Previous studies showed that in a market like a capital goods and equipment market, the sales representatives have a major influence on the buying decisions of the end users (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011). Often the salespersons are employed by an intermediary, which makes them the direct link between the end users and manufacturers. Nowadays, due to the high influence in the purchase decisions of end customers, the salespersons are very important for the manufacturer to understand. Manufacturers should ask themselves whether they know what motivates a salesperson and how the salespersons can be influenced to sell products in favour of the manufacturer. Many researchers have done research to the buying motivation of customers and why these customers chose for a certain brand, however there is less known about the motivation of salespersons and why they prefer to sell some brands instead of rival brands. Moreover, earlier researches show that if salespersons can identify themselves with a particular brand, they will put more effort in the sales process of that brand (Hughes and Ahearne, 2010). From a personal perspective, the sales processes are stimulated when the salesperson believes in a brand or in the product and he or she conveys this belief to the customers. Manufacturers do not have direct control over the sales representatives; however, manufacturers should therefore be interested in whether they can influence the salespersons and whether this effort of the manufacturers will have an influence on the brand identification of the salespersons. Therefore, in this study the dependent variable shall be ‘brand identification of the sales representatives’.
2.2 Brand Identification Sales Representatives
15 marketing literature, however most of the time it is about increasing the customers’ loyalty. Customers have changed over time in their shopping behaviour. Customers are no longer easily controlled consumers who listen to the mass media; nowadays the consumers are making their own decisions in where to buy, what to buy, and which brand to buy (Thomassen, et al., 2006). Some customers are not loyal to brands, but they will stick to the same dealer when this dealer is switching the in-store brands to another brand instead of the usual (Thomassen, et al., 2006). This transform in customers’ behaviour makes the dealers become even more important as they were before (Thomassen, et al., 2006). Especially in durable and capital goods markets, where the salespersons have an important influence in customers’ purchase decisions; it is a good thing for manufacturers to have loyal salespersons (Davis-Shramek, et al., 2009). By receiving more attention of individual salespersons, manufacturers can build brand-centric relationships with them and make sure that the salespersons can identify with their brand (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011).
Identification with a company, a manufacturer and/or a brand derives from the social identity theory, which means that individuals always somehow want to be part of a group. Identification with e.g. a company is a choice for people to be part of the company when they think of it as attractive and an enrichment of their social identity (Ahearne, Bhattacharya, and Gruen, 2005). When people identify with a brand, this means that the brand consist of brand characteristics that individuals consider to fit with their own identity. The social identity theory stimulates supportive behaviour (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011), suggesting that identification with a manufacturer’s brand will encourage salespersons to supporting behaviour on the shop floor and to contribute toward the success of that brand. Empirical research has shown that identification can lead to several positive outcomes and behaviours, like loyalty (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003), sales effort (Hughes and Ahearne, 2010), and word of mouth (Yeh and Choi, 2011). In the marketing literature, there are many identifications with social referents (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011), like sport teams, colleagues, organizations and thus also with brands.
16 can identify with the brand of the manufacturer, and the more important this brand will be for the sales rep. Because of a brand-centric relationship with salespersons, the manufacturer is more likely to influence the personal brand preference so that these salespersons are likely to put more effort in selling this manufacturer brand to customers (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011). Previous research shows that brand identification of salespersons influences both brand preferences and the sales effort (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011). Manufacturers do not have direct control, however according to earlier research (Hughes and Ahearne, 2010; Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011) they can have an influence in increasing the connection between the manufacturer’s brand and the dealers’ salespersons. By increasing the brand identification, the manufacturer has an indirect influence in stimulating their sales to end customers (Hughes and Ahearne, 2010). Therefore, brand identification can be seen as a strong motivation influence for the salesperson and the manufacturer. 2.3 Manufacturer Characteristics
17 identification, however as made visible in table 1.1, these dimensions are reviewed and where necessary modified or expanded. In the next paragraphs, each dimension will be explained into more detail.
2.3.1 Reputation
The first thing that comes to mind when you want to identify with a brand through manufacturer characteristics is the reputation of the manufacturer and thus the reputation of the brand. People rely on the reputation when they make e.g. career choices or product choices (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990). This makes reputation an important characteristic and therefore it will be one of the dimensions. Reputation is mainly based on various information sources, it can be derived from reports in the media or from word of mouth (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990), but mainly it is an individual perception based on own prior experiences and that of others (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011). Like Henry Ford once said: “You can’t build a reputation on what you are going to do”. Based on experiences in the past, people give a certain value to companies and brands. Most of the time, when a company’s reputation is highly rated it means that the public recognizes the company’s quality of capabilities and outputs (Pfarrer, Pollock, and Rindova, 2010). When companies in general have a good reputation, it can become a strategic asset, which is for competitors hard to imitate. With a good reputation, the company sends an honest and reliable signal to the dealers and salespersons, and therefore a good reputation is a good base for future behaviour (Dowling and Moran, 2012). Future opportunities are largely based on the reputation built in the past (Liu, 2011). Previous research shows that reputation is often an indicator for the success of an organization (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). Organizations that are highly valued by consumers and other organizations are expected to be successful in business, this makes that people who are employed by or customers at a respected organization feel pride for this association between them and the organization (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). It is therefore important for a company to work on the reputation and manage to have a highly rated reputation. Here, the reputation is an individual level variable, whereas it should become clear how each of the salespersons value and perceive the reputation of the manufacturer. Expected is that if a salesperson values the reputation more favourable, that this salesperson can identify more with the brand. In other words, expected is that the manufacturer’s reputation has a positive influence on the brand identification.
Hypothesis 1: The manufacturer’s reputation is positively related to brand identification
2.3.2 Brand Success
18 Rindova, 2010). If the company has a good reputation, this is in the favour of the product and it might enable the company to charge premium prices for the product (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990). Although reputation might have an influence in the brand success, reputation is based on experiences over time in the past (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011). Unlike reputation, brand success is more based on the present, on the recent prices and quality of the products. More and more companies are using well-known brand names to convince the customers of the value of their products, e.g. with family branding, where all the products in the product line have the same brand name (Herbig and Milewicz, 1995). New products will be accepted easily when they are having the same brand name. There is one simple reason for this acceptance of the new products; users assume that the new products will have the same quality level as the existing products of the same brand (Herbig and Milewicz, 1995). Generally, there are strict quality control demands on these new products, because one failed product can cause a bad name for all the other products with the same brand (Herbig and Milewicz, 1995). It is important to make sure the quality per product still meets the expectations of a brand to be successful.
19 price, and on the advertisements (Mitra and Golder, 2006). When people experience a price too high or too low for the product this will increase or decrease customers’ quality perception (Morton, 1994). How strong the relationship between the brand quality and the sales amount is will depend per brand (Morton, 1994). Although sometimes is just familiarity with the brand name enough to buy the product, but in most cases this concerns a low involvement product (de Chernatony, Riley, and Harris, 1998). With high involvement products, it is more about the right price and quality at that time to buy the product. Although the brand is good, consumers will evaluate new products thoroughly, if it satisfies the quality consumers expect with the brand. A disappointment with the brand once can make consumers decide never to buy that brand again.
In this study, the brand success variable is the perception of the salesperson based on their expectations and experiences at that time of the quality and price. By comparing the prices and quality of one brand to its competitors’ brands, it will become clear if the brand is better on current issues. When the price is perceived as right or the quality is perceived as high or better than that of competitors’ brands, it will make it more attractive to identify with this brand for salespersons (Aaker, 1996). This will increase the brand preference and finally the brand equity (Gill and Darwa, 2010). In general, if the brand success is perceived as positively by the consumers, they are likely to buy more of that brand. The same will occur for salespersons, if they perceive the brand competes better against other brands, they are likely to identify with that brand and to feel more committed to sell the brand.
Hypothesis 2: External brand success is positively related to brand identification
2.3.3 Communication
20 who knows what, what is known, the way it is known and how quickly it is known’ (Holden and O’Toole, 2004). Communication between the company and the customers and the dealers is good to build relationships and loyalty (Godfrey, Seiders, and Voss, 2011) or is even the key in building relationships. Holden and O’Tooly (2004) describe in their research that it is important to find an ideal frequency level in the communication. According to them (Holden and O’Tooly, 2004), there is a danger that the communication is too limited, which can result in distortion of the information. Next to information distortion, too little communication can mean that there is a lack in trust and commitment between the manufacturer and the dealer (Holden and O’Tooly, 2004). Other than limited, communication can be too often which drives people away from the company (Godfrey, Seiders, and Voss, 2011) and can lead to unnecessary costs (Holden and O’Tooly, 2004). The reactance theory suggests that too much communication has a negative influence on the behaviour of customers, because they will perceive the communication as pushy and obtrusions (Godfrey, Seiders, and Voss, 2011). Companies have to find the ideal level of communication (Godfrey, Seiders, and Voss, 2011), both with the customers and with the dealers. Like Jap and Anderson (2007) describe beautiful in their research: “It takes two parties to build a relationship, but only one to tear it down”. Conflict and cooperation are the concepts that have an influence on the communication between the manufacturer and the dealers (Mangin, Koplyay, and Calmès, 2008). The frequency is thus an important dimension in communication and building commitment. Next to how often there is contact between both parties; salespersons have to keep informed about failures, product changes, price changes, and all the ins and outs of new products. Thus, it is not only about the frequency of communication, but also about the quality. Communication between manufacturer and dealer should be effective to stimulate sales effectiveness (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011) and it can increase the attractiveness of that manufacturer to stimulate brand identification.
21 Seiders, and Voss, 2011) that manufacturers need to find the right frequency in the communication, there is chosen to shift the focus of the communication variable to how well the manufacturer performs in communication and to what extend salespersons are satisfied with the communication. It is expected that the quality of the communication has a positive influence on the brand identification of the salesperson. Thus, the higher the quality of the communication is valued, the higher the brand identification will be of the salespersons. However, the frequency of communication is not omitted, but will be taken into account in the manufacturer representative interaction variable, explained later on in this chapter.
Hypothesis 3: Communication is positively related to brand identification
2.3.4 Training
Nowadays with Internet as an important information medium, customers are more aware of the products on the market and can ask even harder questions for the salespersons to answer. Ingram et al. (1992) examine in their research reasons how salespeople can be successful. Most important is according to the same research a good attitude, second factor to be successful is proper training (Ingram et al., 1992). A different research states that to be a successful salesperson you need to possess enough knowledge of the market, the products and the customers, and the right skills (Dubinsky, 1999). To provide the right knowledge and skills, training can help (Dubinsky, 1999). By training the salespersons, the sales performance of the salespersons should become better (Pelham and Kravitz 2008). Such trainings influence the learning orientation of the salespersons, and this will have a positive influence on the whole firm performance (Pelham and Kravitz, 2008). Without an effective training, salespersons cannot achieve everything in their sales process (Pelham and Kravitz, 2008). When there is a strong commitment between the salespersons and the sales training, the motivation of the salesperson will be increased (Jantan et al, 2004). A consequence of higher salesperson motivation can be an increased sales performance and improved product value for customers (Pelham and Kravitz, 2008). In addition, by training the knowledge and skills of the employees, companies can gain a competitive advantage over other companies (King and Grace, 2010). Well-provided training can be seen as a strategic asset (Jantan et al., 2004), because it is an important tool to sell effectively. Nevertheless, from salespersons’ perspective, trainings can stimulate the attractiveness of a brand. When the manufacturer provides the salespersons with good brand-specific training, it is suggested to make the salespersons more committed to that specific brand.
22
2.3.5 Manufacturer Representative
The last manufacturer characteristic is, as stated before, not really a characteristic of the manufacturer. However, the manufacturer representative is the responsibility of the manufacturer and that is the reason why it is in the same category. The manufacturer representative is the direct link between the manufacturer and the dealer sales representatives. This direct link makes that the manufacturer representative is very important for the dealer sales representative to form an opinion about the manufacturer, and ultimately how they identify with the brand (Ahearne, Bhattacharya, and Gruen, 2005). Important issues a manufacturer representative has to deal with are the interaction with the salespersons at the retailer, that he or she feels responsible, and that he or she has the expertise to share his/her knowledge about the products and company with the salespersons.
Interaction refers to the direct personal contact between the manufacturer representative and the sales representative, this can be explaining the products more, demonstrating the product functions, or giving more information about the brand (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011). In the research of Badrinarayanan and Laverie (2011), interaction was focusing on the kindness of the manufacturer rep and if the salespersons saw the rep as a friend, here the focus will be more on the contact between the salespersons and the manufacturer representative. Ahearne, Bhattacharya, and Gruen (2005) describe in their research that customers appreciate it when they are involved in the company and thus also in e.g. the folds of an organization, by frequent interaction and contact with the company and with its agents. Assuming that this is human natural response, it will also have an influence on the retailer salespersons. The paragraph about communication earlier already discussed the importance of the communication frequency in building commitment. More frequent contact between the manufacturer representative and the retailer sales rep can affect the identification of the salesperson with the organization and thus with the brand (Ahearne, Bhattacharya, and Gruen, 2005). According to Ahearne, Bhattacharya and Gruen (2005) it is easier to remember information about the brand and the manufacturer if there is frequent interaction between the retailer sales rep and the manufacturer rep. When salespersons appreciate this repeated interaction with the manufacturer rep, it is likely that salespersons will identify with the manufacturer’s brand (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). Thus, it is expected that frequent interaction will stimulate the identification with the brand.
23 Next to the interaction between the manufacturer and the dealer reps, it is important that the manufacturer rep possesses adequate product knowledge and expertise to share this with the salespersons and make them enthusiastic to sell the manufacturer’s products. Responsibility is also included in this part, because responsibility refers to the extent to which the manufacturer rep feels responsible for the company and acts in name of his or her company. Swan et al. (1988) measure this especially in the extent of customers’ trust in the retailer sales representatives, but this can easily be translated into the trust of retailer sales persons in the manufacturer representative and to what extent the salesperson can rely on the manufacturer representative. This is, like the interaction, very important for the image a salesperson forms of the complete manufacturer and the associated identification with the supplier and/or company. A manufacturer representative with expertise is more likely to understand and respond to the needs of the retail salespersons (Ahearne, Bhattacharya, and Gruen, 2005). Although the expertise of the manufacturer representative did not show a relationship with brand identification in the research of Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011), it is worth the research in a capital goods market due to more complex products. Both the responsibility and the knowledge a manufacturer rep possess can be described in general as the expertise of the manufacturer representative and this leads to hypothesis 5b.
Hypothesis 5b: The expertise of the manufacturer rep is positively related to brand identification.
2.4 Moderators
Next to the dependent and independent variables, the conceptual model consists of moderators. The model has four different moderators that might have an influence in salespersons behaviour, each of the moderators is explained in more detail in the next paragraphs.
2.4.1 Number of Brands
24 more probably it is that he or she forgets one or more items (Hoyer and MacInnes, 2010). Therefore, salespeople have to keep their information up-to-date, especially in a market with complex products like a capital goods market, where products continue innovate. If salespersons do not keep their information up-to-date, they will forget parts of the specific information per brand or product. Suggested is that if a salesperson represents a few brands, it will be easier to remember exact information about these brands than when the salesperson represent many brands. Expected is that when salespeople represent many brands, they will develop a preference for one or two brands based on the manufacturer characteristics. The salespersons will have more knowledge about their preferred brands than about the other brands they represent.
Hypothesis 6: The more brands the salesperson represents, the stronger the relationship between manufacturer characteristics and brand identification
2.4.2 Product Category
The second moderator is the ‘product category’. Previous research showed that it is especially important in a market with capital goods and/or durable goods to have a connection between the salespersons and a brand (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011). Capital and durable goods salespersons have in theory most influence in the purchase decision of the customers. Nevertheless, consumer good salespersons may also have some influence in the purchase decision, or can at least share their knowledge with the consumer what might affect the purchase decision of the customer. Thus for manufacturers in all markets it is interesting to know what drives the salespersons and if there is a difference between the salespersons in the different product categories. Expected is that for the capital goods salespersons the relation between manufacturers’ characteristics and brand identification is stronger than for salespersons in consumer goods. The relationship is expected to be stronger for capital goods salespersons, because these salespersons have an important role in the customers’ purchase decision (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011). Salespersons can play an important role in capital goods markets because these markets consist mostly of high involvement products. This means that customers are highly involved with the products and before they make their purchase decision, they want to evaluate the product by having information about for example, the attributes and performance level (Dens and De Pelsmacker, 2010). To give the customers the best advice, salespersons have to possess a lot of knowledge about these products. This leads to hypothesis 7.
25
2.4.3 Commissions
Previous research investigated the antecedents of brand identification in a context without commissions offered to the salespersons (Hughes and Ahearne, 2010; Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011). However, incentive programs are used often in capital and durable goods markets. The use of incentive programs, like commissions, can make it more attractive for the salespersons to act in a particular behaviour (Murry and Heide, 1998). Because salespersons of durable and capital goods have an important influence in the purchase decision of the customer and therefore strongly influence the profitability of an organization, principals are often prepared to pay bonuses for the performance (Rouzès et al., 2009). Other studies suggest that by paying salespersons incentives they will not shrink work and in the meantime increase the corporate value (Volkman and Henebry, 2010). Volkman and Henebry (2010) suggest in the same study that by encouraging the salespersons with commissions, they might seek more risk and that may result in decrease of the firm’s reputation and corporate value. The compensation salespersons receive is most of the time offered by the dealer self, dealers try to prevent that salespersons accept any incentives or commissions offered by the manufacturers (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011). Not all dealers offer compensation rates to their employees. Because compensation is an important motivation incentive in the sales world, it will be interesting to know if commissions have a moderator role. Because commissions are offered by dealers self, it is not dependent of the sales per brand. Sales representatives are employed to sell all sort of products and brands in the assortment of the dealer and make money for the dealer, no matter what brand they are selling most. Expected is that salespeople with commissions are more driven by receiving commission on the paycheck, than that they are motivated by which brand they sell. Previous research was in markets without commission payments, which might suggest that for salespeople without commission money is not the main driver and that these salespersons might identify more with specific brands. Therefore, it is expected that commissions will weaken the relationship between manufacturer influences and brand identification.
Hypothesis 8: The relation between the manufacturer characteristics and the brand identification is stronger for salespersons without commission
2.4.4 Demographics of the sales representative
26 are more sensitive for behavioural-based influences, like trainings, and more communication (Piercy, et al., 2003).
Hypothesis 9a: The relationship between two manufacturer’s influences: communication and training, and brand identification is stronger for females than it is for males
The second demographic of the salesperson is the age group. Several investigations show that there are age differences in remembering, understanding and information processing (Roedder-John and Cole, 1986). Aging can affect informational processing, and put the focus more on emotional information (Williams and Drolet, 2005). This also makes older people more susceptible for misleading advertisements (Williams and Drolet, 2005). Another research shows that age makes a difference in for example, the sales performance. Kircher, McElwain, and Dunnette (1960) showed that the sales effectiveness was the highest at the age of 40 and at a higher age declined again. However, older people are more likely to engage in certain emotional regulation processes (Williams and Drolet, 2005). Older people are more resistant to change in their habits and therefore, it is expected that an older age group is harder to influence and thus the relationship between manufacturer characteristics and brand identification will be stronger for a younger age group.
Hypothesis 9b: The younger the salesperson, the stronger the relation between manufacturer characteristics and brand identification
27 important (Ettenson, 1993). Not only countries so close together show differences in how consumers value quality, even an important country as the United States is divided in more ‘nations’. North America alone is divided into nine different regions, where people have diverse values, styles, and attitudes (Kahle, 1986). These differences between the people per area are expressed in market behaviour (Kahle, 1986). People in different parts of the world vary in their attitudes, values and opinions about marketing activity, which leads to differences in behaviour and decision-making (Keller, 2008). This does not only concern consumers, but can also lead to differences in the behaviour of salespersons. This research consists of a part of Europe and Australasia. Until now, there is no marketing literature that compares specific these two continents with each other. Therefore, it is hard to come up with a direction in the hypothesis and there will be assumed there is a difference between the two continents.
Hypothesis 9c: European and Australasia salespersons have a difference in strength of the relationship between manufacturer influences and brand identification
Next to country where the salesperson is employed, the education level also might make a difference in the strength of the relationship between manufacturer influences and brand identification. Higher educated people tend to be more individualistic and prefer more job autonomy (Li, Liu, and Wan, 2008). This also makes that with a higher education level people focus more on achievements and wealth. People with a higher education have a higher self-esteem. Naturally, they work for money; however, they also want to have self-fulfilment in a better life and recognition by others (Li, Liu, and Wan, 2008). Higher educated people look more critical to new information, whereas lower educated people take new information quicker for granted. Lower education people need more support in their work. Therefore, it is likely to see a stronger relationship between manufacturer characteristics and brand identification with lower educated people than with higher educated people. This will lead to hypothesis 9d.
Hypothesis 9d: The relationship between manufacturer characteristics and brand identification is stronger for lower educated salespeople than for higher educated salespeople
28 years in the same profession, and thus more experienced, it is likely that he is satisfied with his job (Churchill, Ford, and Walker, 1976). The same research of Kohli (1989) also shows that more experienced salespeople are more likely to have their own way what works well for them and that they are more resistant to change. This is in line with Churchill, Ford, and Walker (1976) their research. They state in their article that experienced salespersons are less likely to suffer uncertainties, like with company policies, than those who are newer in the job (Churchill, Ford, and Walker, 1976). Moreover, salespeople who are more experienced have ability to see qualitative differences between products and brands (Hoyer and MacInnes, 2010). Because of their experience, they are more resistant to influence by others, in for example their opinion about a brand. Salespersons with less experience are more likely than salespersons with more expertise to have feelings of haziness and therefore they appreciate more the structure and control from supervisors for example (Churchill, Ford, and Walker, 1976). Based on above explanation, it is expected that the behaviours of less experienced salespeople are easier to influence by the manufacturer and that therefore the relationship between manufacturer influences and brand identification is stronger for less experienced salespersons, than it will be for salespersons with more expertise.
Hypothesis 9e: The relationship between manufacturer characteristics and brand identification is stronger for less experienced salespeople
2.5 Conceptual model
Previous paragraphs described in more detail the dependent, independent variables and the moderators for this research. The figure below depicts all these variables and moderators in a conceptual model.
29
3. Research Design
3.1 Research Goal
The goal of the research is to give an answer on the main research question: ‘What is the relationship between the manufacturer characteristics and the brand identification of the sales representative? Do the number of brands, product category, commissions, and demographics of the sales rep have a moderator role in that?’ To come up with a conclusion, the six sub questions, which are described in chapter 1, will be answered and the hypotheses, described in chapter 2, will be tested.
3.2 Data Collection
In this research, the focus will lay on the sales representatives. To receive clear answers primary data will be collected with an online questionnaire. The capital goods salespersons are reached by sending the online questionnaire with a link in the email and sending a reminder after a couple of weeks. Due to the slowness of getting the right number of respondents, some of the capital goods sales reps are approached by telephone to explain the goal of the research and to request again to fill out the questionnaire. Consumer goods sales reps are approached by visiting different shops with a paper version of the online questionnaire. Furthermore, by placing a link to the questionnaire on social media sites like Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, all kinds of salespersons are tried to be reached. The beauty about LinkedIn is that there are special network pages, where you can attract more specific people who are employed in the sales business. Lastly, relatives and friends are asked if they are a salesperson themselves, or if they know any people who are salespersons and to whom the questionnaire link can be emailed.
3.3 Design of Questionnaire
30 questionnaire, and which question number they have. The non-company-specific questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. Table 3.1 gives an overview of how many items per variable there are in the questionnaire, and the question numbers from the survey in Appendix A.
3.3.1 Brand Identification
Brand identification is ‘the degree to which a person defines him- or herself by the same attributes that he or she believes defines a brand’ (Hughes and Ahearne, 2010). Ashforth and Mael (1989) describe identification as the extent that you feel involved and belonging to the brand. If someone feels a strong identification with the brand, he or she will experience the successes and the failures of the brand as his or her own (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). In other words, brand identification is salespersons’ perception of the manufacturer’s brand (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011). It is about the salesperson’s feeling about the brand and the importance of the brand for the salesperson. Brand identification is measured in the questionnaire by three different statements on a 7-point Likert scale (See Appendix A: Q2 and Q3). One statement is about if the salesperson feels proud to represent that one particular brand, another statement is about if the successes of the brand feel like their own success and finally how important on a scale 1 to 7 the brand is for them.
3.3.2 Manufacturer Influences
The manufacturer influences are divided into five dimensions; reputation, brand success/quality, communication, training and the manufacturer representative. Reputation is about general experiences with the supplier of the brand and about the opinion of the salespersons about the supplier’s brand in general. Often, reputation is scaled based on persons’ thoughts about if the supplier is fair, honest and concerned about his customers (Doney and Cannon, 1997). On the other hand, reputation can be measured based on if respondents value supplier’s reputation as a good reputation. This is used in this research, with one question that measures how the salespersons value the reputation on a 7-points Likert scale (see Appendix A: Q4-j).
Brand success is based on the present value of the brand and on how the brand scores compared with competition on the price and quality. The brand success will be measured by three statements (see Appendix A: Q10, Q11, Q12) based on the literature of Gill and Dawra (2010) and on the literature of He and Li (2011).
31 about if the salespersons value the communication as effective compared to compared to other manufacturers (Mohr and Sohi, 1995) (see Appendix A: Q5-a).
Training is the fourth variable. Training measures how the sales reps value the present training and if they think if more training is recommended (see Appendix A: Q4-df, Q6). Next to that, it also measures how effective the particular manufacturer is in training compared to competitive brands in the same dealership (see Appendix A: Q5-b).
The last variable in the manufacturer characteristics is the manufacturer representative. The manufacturer representative is the direct link between the manufacturer and the sales representatives at a dealer. This manufacturer rep variable is divided into two main parts, the interaction with the manufacturer representative and the expertise of the manufacturer rep. These parts both measure how the sales reps think the manufacturer rep is performing and how much confidence they have in the manufacturer rep. The manufacturer rep will be tested specific with six 7-point Likert scale statements based on the literature of Swan, et al. (1988), and with two self-constructed frequency questions. Expertise looks if the manufacturer rep has enough product knowledge, if the provided information by the manufacturer rep is clear, if the manufacturer rep is eager to help the sales reps, if the manufacturer rep has enough time for the sales reps, and if the manufacturer rep takes ownership of sales reps’ concerns (see Appendix A: Q8-abcdf). Interaction looks more to the frequency of contact between the manufacturer rep and the sales reps (see Appendix A: Q7, Q8-e, Q9).
3.3.3 Moderators
The research consists of four main moderators: number of brands, product category, commissions and demographic variables of the salesperson. The first two moderators, number of brands and product category, are both in the questionnaire as an open question (see Appendix A: Q16-cd). Commission includes two questions in the questionnaire, one about if the salesperson receives commission offered by the dealer and if yes, there is a second question to get some more insight in the height of the received commissions (see Appendix A: Q14-15).
32 expertise (see Appendix A: Q13). Secondly, the salespersons will be asked how many years experience they have in the particular industry they are employed (see Appendix A: Q17).
TABLE 3.1 – Operationalization of the variables
Variable Parts #Items Questions Scale
Brand Identification 3 Q2, Q3 Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Badrinarayan and Laverie, 2011
Reputation 1 Q4-j Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011
Brand Success 3 Q10-Q12 Gill and Dawra, 2010; He and Li, 2011
Communication 8 Q4-abceghi, Q5-a Mohr and Sohi, 1995; Self-constructed
Training 6 Q4-df, Q5-b, Q6 Self-constructed Manufacturer Representative Interaction Expertise 3 5 Q7, Q8-e, Q9 Q8-abcdf Swan et al., 1988 Swan et al., 1988
Number of Brands 1 Q16-d Self-constructed
Product Category 1 Q16-c Self-constructed
Commission 2 Q14-Q15 Self-constructed Sales Rep. Demographics Gender Age group Country Education level Sales experience/ expertise 1 1 1 1 3 Q20 Q18 Q16-b Q19 Q13, Q17 Self-constructed Self-constructed Self-constructed Self-constructed 3.4 Plan of Analysis
The conceptual model (see figure 2.1) consists of six independent variables, since the independent variable ‘manufacturer rep’ is divided into two parts. In total, 26 items measure all of the independent variables. With a principal components factor analysis, these items will be checked if they measure the independent variables as they were intended. Before the items will be merged together as a factor solution, the items suggested by the factor analysis will be tested with a reliability analysis (Cronbach’s Alpha) if they explain the independent variable perfectly or if there are items that need to be deleted. When all the items from the questionnaire are reduced to a few independent variables, an OLS regression analysis will be performed, to test whether the hypotheses are supported.
33
4. Analyses and Results
4.1 Sample size
A list with email addresses was offered by “Company X” to reach the company-specific salespersons. The list for New Zealand consisted of 58 email addresses. 43 salespersons responded on the email link; however only 34 salespersons in New Zealand completed the survey. The contact person in the Netherlands offered a list with email addresses of salespersons in the Netherlands and Belgium, in total 40 email addresses. 28 salespersons from the Netherlands and Belgium responded, whereas 22 salespersons completed the survey. The non-company-specific questionnaire was send by email and published on social media websites. This resulted in 86 people who responded to the survey link and 49 salespersons who filled out the complete questionnaire. The complete dataset is checked for outliers. It is decided to delete one of the outliers, because without this outlier, the dependent variable is normally distributed and deleting the outlier improves the results strongly. This gives a total number of 104 respondents who completed the survey and who are used further on in the research. An overview of the total sample size is given in table 4.1.
TABLE 4.1 – Overview sample size Company-Specific
Salespersons
Non-Company-Specific Salespersons
Number of salespersons approached 98 Unknown
Number of initial respondents 71 86
Number of completed surveys 56 49
Number of respondents after outliers check 56 48
Final number of respondents used for the research 56 48
The sample consists of 78.8% male respondents and thus 21.2% female respondents. The average age of the respondents is 37 years and on average, they represent two different brands. The salespersons have an average of 9.5 years of experience in the sales in their industry. Most sales reps completed a tertiary education on certificate and diploma level (level 1-4 certificate). 48.1% of the sample receives commission, either on sales volume or on margin. Lastly, on average the salespersons value their own product knowledge and sales expertise as good. See appendix B for the complete descriptives of the sample.
4.2 Factor Analysis
34 in table 4.2 show the items per factor as suggested by the factor solution; the third column shows which question is measuring each item in the questionnaire (see Appendix A). Comparing the items per factor with the suggested items per independent variable (see table 3.1 in chapter 3, and table 4.3); it becomes observable that the factors solutions are a bit different from the suggested independent variables in the conceptual model. Per factor solution, the Cronbach Alpha’s are measured, as can be seen in the fourth column in table 4.2. Each factor shows a high alpha when all items are included, however some Cronbach Alpha’s can be improved with more than .05 when one item from the factor is removed, which is the case for the items Videos and Product Quality.
TABLE 4.2 – Factors and the Cronbach Alpha per factor
Variable Items Question Cronbach
Alpha
Cronbach Alpha if Item deleted:
New variable name FACTOR 1 1. Visits 2. SupplierRep_Knowledge 3. SuppierRep_Time 4. SupplierRep_Clear 5. SupplierRep_Concerns 6. SupplierRep_Contact 7. SupplierRep_Eager Q4 – c Q8 – a Q8 – b Q8 – c Q8 – d Q8 – e Q8 – f .903 - FAC1_Manufacturer_Rep_ Expertise FACTOR 2 1. Demonstrations 2. Sales_Training 3. ProductInfo_Updates 4. Reputation 5. Communication_Effective 6. Training_Effective Q4 – d Q4 – f Q4 – g Q4 – j Q5 – a Q5 – b .780 .765 if Reputation deleted FAC2_Expanse_Knowledge FACTOR 3 1. Videos 2. TrainingKnowledge 3. TrainingSales 4. TrainingDemonstrations Q4 – i Q6 – a Q6 – b Q6 – c .737 .812 if Videos deleted FAC3_Need_for_Training FACTOR 4 1. Response_Phone 2. Response_Mail 3. Price_Lists 4. Brochures Q4 – a Q4 – b Q4 – e Q4 – h .746 - FAC4_Information_Sharing FACTOR 5 1. Have_Contact 2. Require_Contact 3. Product_Quality Q7 Q9 Q11 .756 .869 if Product_Quality deleted FAC5_Manufacturer_Rep_ Interaction FACTOR 6 1. Prices_Reasonable 2. NEW_PriceQuality Q12 Q10 .685 - FAC6_Brand_SuccessPrice
Based on the communalities it is decided to delete the item Reputation also from further analysis. The factor solution should explain at least half of each original item’s variance, so for each item the communality value should be at least 0.5. The item Reputation shows a communality value below 0.5 (even lower than it was before the items Videos and Product Quality were deleted from the factor analysis). Therefore, it is decided to remove three items from further analysis.
35 Based on Eigenvalues is 1, a six components solution is suggested, which explains 69.461% of the total variance. Six factor solutions is equal to the number of suggested independent variables in the conceptual model, however as described before the factor solutions are not completely measuring the same items. The next paragraph will describe the differences in variables between the conceptual model and the new model, and explain that the new variables make more sense to use. 4.3 Independent Variables
The first factor in table 4.2 matches the Manufacturer Representative Expertise variable of the conceptual model. All five items that were intended to measure this independent variable are included in factor 1. As we can see in table 4.3, there are two extra items included in factor 1. This is SupplierRep Contact, which was intended to measure the manufacturer representative interaction, and Visits, which was intended to measure communication. Both make sense to include into factor 1. Supplier rep contact measures how well the manufacturer representative is performing in having regular contact according to the salesperson, and measures not the same as the other two items in interaction. The manufacturer representative often does company visits, and thus it measures the performance and expertise of the manufacturer rep. When take a closer look to factor 5, notice that this includes the two items that are left over in the Manufacturer Rep. Interaction variable. The two items measure the frequency of contact with the manufacturer rep, whereas the item Supplier Rep Contact was measuring how the manufacturer rep performed in having regular contact and thus they were not measuring the same. Another factor solution that matches an independent variable from the conceptual model is factor 6. Factor 6 is about whether the prices compared to competitors are reasonable and whether the prices are right for the quality of the products, and matches with the independent variable Brand Success. The item Product Quality was supposed to measure this independent variable as well, however the factor analysis ordered the item in a different factor and in the end, that item was removed completely from further analysis.
36 information, thus decided is that factor 2 is from now of on Expanse Knowledge, a combination between communication and training, with the focus on increasing salespersons knowledge of the manufacturer’s brand and products. The factor that remains is factor 3, which is measuring only three items of the intended six items. All three items come from one question in the questionnaire and are focusing on salespersons’ need for training and not directly the training that is offered by the manufacturer. Table 4.3 shows all independent variables from the conceptual model and the matching factor solutions. The independent variable Reputation is removed from the factor analysis and thus there is no matching factor solution. This makes that not all hypotheses prepared in chapter 2 can be tested.
TABLE 4.3 – Conceptual model independent variables compared to the factor solution Conceptual Model IV Intended Items Factor Solution IV Included Items
Reputation Q4-j X X
Brand Success Q10, Q11, Q12 Factor 6 – Brand Success Price Q10, Q12
Communication Q4-abceghi, Q5-a Factor 4 – Information Sharing Q4-abeh Factor 2 – Expanse Knowledge Q4-dfg, Q5
Training Q4-df, Q5-b, Q6 Factor 3 – Need for Training Q6
Manufacturer Rep. Interaction Q7, Q8-e, Q9 Factor 5 – Manufacturer Rep Interaction Q7, Q9
Manufacturer Rep. Expertise Q8-abcdf Factor 1 – Manufacturer Rep Expertise Q4-c, Q8-abcdef 4.4 OLS Regression
With the six factor scores conducted from the factor analysis as independent variables, an OLS regression is performed. To stay consistent, there is chosen to compute the dependent variable in the same way as the independent variables. Thus, for the dependent variable in the OLS regression a factor score is used as well (see Appendix D). A factor analysis for the three items was appropriate with a KMO of .662 and a significant Bartlett’s test. The single factor score describes 65.41% of the total variance, and based on the cronbach’s alpha of 0.683 all items explain the dependent variable good enough and there is no need to delete one of the items. An OLS regression model with Reputation as independent variable included (not as factor score) is tried, however Reputation was not significant and it deteriorated the significance of other included independent variables. Therefore, it is decided to remove the Reputation variable completely from further analysis.
