the effects of corporate brand attributes on attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty

The effects of corporate brand attributes onattitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty

Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova

Sydney Business School, Sydney, Australia

AbstractPurpose The purpose of this research is to investigate the influence of the corporate brand on attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty. Thispaper empirically demonstrates a significant relationship between consumer-perceived corporate brand and consumer attitudinal and behaviouralloyalty.Design/methodology/approach The research is based on a sample of 285 consumers of an automobile manufacturer in Australia. Cronbach alphaand Structural Equation Modelling were used to establish psychometric properties of the corporate brand constructs.Findings This paper establishes two groups of corporate brand attributes: corporate and marketing-level. Corporate-level dimensions includecorporate activities, corporate associations, organizational values, and corporate personality. Marketing-level dimensions comprise functional,emotional and symbolic brand benefits. The results reveal that corporate values, corporate brand personality and functional consumer benefits are themost critical and consistent predictors of both attitudinal and behavioural loyalty.Practical implications Through the comprehensive measurement of the corporate brand impact on both attitudinal and behavioural loyalty, thispaper offers insights for designing corporate branding strategies and generating consumer loyalty.Originality/value This paper provides empirical validation of the relationship between consumer corporate brand perceptions and consumer loyaltyand demonstrates that the influence of each particular corporate brand attribute may be different.

Keywords Corporate branding, Customer loyalty, Consumer durables, Australia

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executivereaders can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction

In the era of rapid advances of technology and product parity,the range of options available to organizations to attractconsumers is decreasing. In the face of the fierce competition,companies recognize a need for a value-adding strategy(Normann and Ramirez, 1994). Intangibles such as corporatecredibility, integrity and corporate expertise increasinglyinfluence consumer responses towards brands (Merrileesand Fry, 2002). As a result, a considerable amount of effortwithin contemporary organizations is concerned with strategicpositioning in relation to various consumer groups (Dacin andBrown, 2006).Consumers are becoming increasingly fickle and savvy. For

organizations this implies placing more emphasis on theindividual consumer needs and expectations as well as heavilyinvesting in advertising (Lloyd, 2004). The determinants ofconsumer demand in the automotive industry include vehicleprices, exchange rates, incomes, and vehicle innovation andconsumer demography (IBISWorld, 2005). According to theIBISWorld (2005) industry report Motor VehicleManufacturing in Australia, the latter factor, namely,slowing population growth and the increasing proportion of

the aged population, will lead to people to be less inclined touse and replace vehicles. In addition, as consumers arebecoming more discerning and more educated, they will needa stronger justification for purchasing a car. This puts extrapressure on automobile manufacturers to be innovative notonly in product development but also in terms of brandcommunication. One way to compete in volatile markets andincreasing product parity is to adopt a corporate brandingstrategy. Corporate branding represents an opportunity fororganizations to enhance and sustain their distinctivenessthrough linking corporate characteristics to products andservices, thereby, allowing unique synergies to be developed.Despite the importance of corporate branding, technologycompanies not very often have corporate brand strategy andlargely rely on the assumption that constant productimprovement will sell itself (Tickle et al., 2003). AsZambuni (1997, p. 4) observes, high-tech branding is: anarea that is less well understood than fast-moving consumergoods or services branding. Consistent with this point,Mazur (1999, p. 22), notes that a majority of high-techcompanies have been backwards about branding.Therefore, in addressing some of these limitations, there is apotential for organizations to determine brand attributes thatimpact most on consumer loyalty.Although there is recognition of the importance of strong

corporate brands to organizations among both practitionersand academics, little is known about the impact of the effectsof corporate brands on consumer perceptions and consumerloyalty. Whilst the existing frameworks are helpful for ageneral understanding of the multidimensional nature ofconsumer brands (Keller, 2003) and corporate brands (Urde,2003), an important area that is yet to be addressed is therelationship between corporate brand and consumerbehaviour. As Dacin and Brown (2006) point out, eachdisciplinary line of branding has pursued its respective focus,

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm

Journal of Consumer Marketing

24/7 (2007) 395405

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]

[DOI 10.1108/07363760710834816]

395

and seldom has the existing research been integrative. Justrecently have researchers began to investigate the relationshipbetween the corporate brand and consumer behaviours (seeDa Silva and Syed Alwi, 2006; Souiden et al., 2006).However, these attempts only partially examine the impact ofthe corporate brand on consumer loyalty. For example,Souiden et al. (2006) found the effects of corporate image onconsumer product evaluations. In addition, the extant studiesoften reduce the corporate brand to a single dimension (i.e.corporate personality) (see Davies and Chun, 2002).However, because corporate branding blends withinorganizational and marketing thinking (Knox and Bickerton,2003), this paper investigates the effects on loyalty of bothcorporate and marketing-level attributes. In particular, theobjectives of this paper are to:1 establish psychometric properties of the corporate brand

attributes;2 examine the relationship between corporate brand

attributes and consumer loyalty; and3 ascertain the most influential dimensions of the corporate

brand on consumer loyalty.

The paper is constructed in the following way. Firstly, areview of the pertinent literature is provided and researchhypotheses are postulated. Methodology and procedures ofestablishing construct reliability and validity, and hypothesestesting are then presented. This is followed by a discussion ofthe corporate brand effects on consumer loyalty. Academicand managerial implications are also provided. The paper isconcluded with limitations and suggestions for futureresearch.

Theoretical background and proposition

Corporate branding has been fairly new to both marketing(Macrae, 1999; Saunders and Guoqun, 1997) andorganizational literature (Argenti and Druckenmiller, 2004;Balmer, 2001a, 2001b; Balmer and Gray, 2003). Being at thecrossroads of these disciplines, corporate branding blends thethinking from marketing and organizational theories (Knoxand Bickerton, 2003). Therefore, managing the corporatebrand involves diverse departments and implies a broader,organization-wide perspective. The organization-wide or pan-company marketing (Knox et al., 1999) changes corporatebranding from a marketing-communication activity into astrategic framework, which allows companies to obtain aclearer sense of direction and provides a basis for acompetitive advantage (Schultz and de Chernatony, 2002).Corporate branding brings a substantial advantage toorganizations in terms of economies of scale in marketingand lower total costs of advertising and promotion (Rao et al.,2004). At the consumer level, corporate brands helporganizations to avoid brand confusion (Souiden et al., 2006).The value of consumer loyalty for organizations is widely

discussed in the literature. Loyal consumers contribute to afirms performance through making additional purchases suchas servicing and accessories (Huber and Hermann, 2001).Lower costs of serving loyal consumers, lower consumer pricesensitivity and favorable word of mouth are among numerousreasons for building consumer loyalty. Traditionally,consumer loyalty has been defined in terms of multipleaspects of purchase behaviour (Ehrenberg, 1988; DuWorsand Haines, 1990). Another important aspect of consumerloyalty is loyalty at the level of attitudes. Attitudinal loyaltycan be defined as capturing the affective and cognitive

components of brand loyalty (Gremler and Brown, 1998;Kumar and Shah, 2004; Traylor, 1981). This type of loyaltyrepresents a more long-term consumer commitment to anorganization (Shankar et al., 2000) and indicates a propensityof favorable word of mouth (Reichheld, 2003). However, forany organization consumer commitment at the affective andcognitive levels become meaningful when being translatedinto actual purchases. Therefore, to reveal the potential fororganizations to determine and manage the linkages betweenconsumer perceptions and consumer loyalty, the examinationof both attitudinal and behavioural loyalty is undertaken.The empirical support into the relationship between

corporate brand and consumer loyalty has been scarce. Onesuch study by Hsieh et al. (2004) suggests that perceptions ofumbrella brands have major effects on brand purchasebehaviour. However, a single, behavioural component ofconsumer loyalty has been the focus of their study. Althoughunderstanding consumer brand purchase behaviour isparamount, the behavioural view alone is insufficient inexplaining the process of loyalty development (Dick and Basu,1994). The fact that organizations are increasingly shifting todifferentiate themselves through the associations, values andemotions symbolized by the whole corporation (Hatch andSchultz, 2003) partially explains the importance of whatconsumers know and think of an organization. Notably, inrecent years, the Australian automobile manufacturers areincreasingly embracing event-marketing to communicate withtheir existing and potential consumers. In addition, littleresearch has considered various sources of corporate brandimage in one framework (see Souiden et al., 2006). However,a comprehensive measurement framework enhances thevalidity and practical utility of consumer perceptions Hsiehet al.s (2004) and thus, was adopted in this paper. Thefollowing proposition is formulated to examine the role thatcorporate brand attributes play in consumer brand loyalty:P. Corporate brand attributes will have a direct influence

on attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty.

In conceptualizing the corporate brand construct, the authorbuilds on Kellers (2003) and Urdes (2003) conceptualframeworks that propose multiple attributes within thecorporate brand. The following section presents a discussionon how corporate brand perceptions can influence consumerloyalty. From these five hypotheses concerning corporate andmarketing-level attributes are developed and subsequentlytested.

The hypothesis development

It has been shown that corporate image has a positive impacton consumer loyalty (Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998; Aydinand Ozer, 2005; Dick and Basu, 1994; Ngueyen and Leblanc,2001). The results of Nguyen and Leblancs (2001) studyrevealed that the degree of consumer loyalty has a tendency tobe higher when consumer perceptions of an organization arestrongly favorable. Dick and Basu (1994) found that afavorable image could influence repeat consumer patronage.Souiden et al.s (2006) findings determine that corporatereputation was highly considered by consumers in theirevaluations of durable products such as automobiles.However, whilst corporate charisma can affect someconsumers behaviour towards companies and brands,others may stay completely indifferent (Souiden et al.,2006). This is demonstrated by the diversity in results ofthe effects of corporate image and reputation on consumers.

The effects of corporate brand attributes



Volume 24 Number 7 2007 395405

396

JerryHighlight

JerryHighlight

For example, while Aydin and Ozer (2005) found a positiveinfluence of corporate image on consumer loyalty, thisrelationship was not significant. More specifically, Sen andBhattacharaya (2001) found that some initiatives aimed atenhancing corporate image and reputation like corporatesocial responsibility CSR can, under certain conditions,decrease consumers intentions to buy a companys products.Ricks (2005) found that traditional philanthropy may beeffective for corporate or brand image objectives, butineffective for brand evaluation and purchase objectives.Interestingly, more recent research by Sen et al. (2006) showsthat those consumers who were aware of corporate socialinitiatives has significantly more favorable views of the givenorganization in terms of their associations, attitudes, andbehavioural intentions. Therefore, it is postulated:H1a. Corporate activities and will have a direct influence on

attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty.H1b. Corporate associations will have a direct influence on

attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty.

Over the last decade, there has been an increase of interest incorporate values under headings such as stakeholder value(Freeman, 1984), the customer value proposition (Knoxet al., 1999), social responsibility (Carrol, 1999) andcorporate citizenship (Bolino, 1999). Discussingorganisational values, authors often make a reference to thenotions of vision and mission as well as a core purpose of anorganization (Cambell and Tawaday, 1990; Collins andPorras, 1996). Urde (2003) describes organizational valuesas authentic differentiators that allow a company todistinguish itself from competitors. Knox et al. (1999,p. 140) view organizational values as a part of a uniqueorganizational value proposition that they describe as avisible set of credentials throughout the supply chain inrelation to the core processes in an organization. Cambelland Tawaday (1990) view corporate values as seniormanagements beliefs. In a comparable vain, Thompsen(2004) considers corporate values from a technicalperspective in terms of weight that managers attach togoals in the process of decision-making.Despite its importance core values has not gained adequate

attention in the corporate branding literature. One alternativeexplanation for this is that the concept of corporate valuesbeing considered of importance primarily to organizationmembers. However, examining the direct influence ofcorporate values on customer performance outcomes shouldcontribute to consumer research into branding. Using thisrationale, it is expected that:H1c. Core corporate values will have a direct influence on


It has long been recognized in the theoretical literature (King,1991; Olins, 1978) and also shown in some empirical research(Kapferer, 1998) that consumers perceive brands aspossessing personality features. Brand personality per serepresents embodiments of non-product-related featuresimportant for the development of relationships withconsumers. Kapferer (1992) identifies brand personality asone of the key dimensions of brand identity and defines it interms of features of human personality that are pertinent tothe brand. Subsequently, Aaker (1997) introduced the brandpersonality scale, which had a substantial impact on brandingliterature. As a result, a number of studies on brandpersonality have been undertaken based on Aakers scale(see Davies et al., 2001; Brown and Dacin, 1997). In

particular, in the automotive industry Duarte and Davies(2002) measured Ford brand image using the CorporatePersonality Scale. However, considering only brandpersonality in this context highlights this as a narrow viewon measurement of corporate brand image. Certainly,corporate brand personality is a useful concept, but beingmultidimensional, corporate brand encompasses dimensionsbeyond personality alone (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003). AsAaker (1996, p. 113) maintains: using personality as ageneral indicator of brand strength will be a distortion forsome brands particularly those, that are positioned withrespect to functional advantages and value. Thus, brandpersonality was deemed important to include along with othercomponents comprising the corporate brand. Therefore, it ispostulated:H1d. Corporate personality will have a direct influence on


For complex durable consumer goods such as cars, thepurchase of which requires a high-involvement decision(Brucks et al., 2000), assessment of multidimensionalconsumer experience was deemed appropriate. Whilstfunctional product utility involves for consumersperformance, safety and quality attributes, emotional andsymbolic brand values communicate to the consumer a varietyof meanings (e.g. joy of ownership, individuality, prestige).Results of Brucks et al.s (2000) study have shown thatconsumers use brand names in order to evaluate the prestigeof brands.The importance of understanding the determinants of

consumer loyalty is generally well acknowledged andresearched in the marketing literature (Ro et al., 2001;Romaniuk and Sharp, 2003; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). Roet al. (2001) researched the impact of brand functions onconsumer behavioural loyalty. Sweeney and Soutar (2001)operationalized the consumer value construct as acombination of functional, emotional and social componentsand found that multiple value dimensions account forconsumer choices better than single attributes. However, asingle aspect of buyer behaviour, namely, behavioural loyaltyhas been a focus of these studies. In this paper it is proposedthat:H1e. Customer benefits will have a direct influence on


Methodology

Unit of analysis and sampling elementsThe unit of analysis was the organization engaged incorporate branding. A structured questionnaire was themethod of data collection. Survey was distributed by theparticipating car manufacturer through their data-bases inAustralia. The questionnaires were distributed by mail andwere returned by reply paid post. The consumer sampleyielded 285 useable responses representing a 33.5 per centresponse rate. This was achieved in one mail-out.

The questionnaireThe questionnaire was an eight-page long, double-sideddocument. Corporate activities, corporate associations, andcorporate personality and brand benefits were measured usinga seven-point Likert scale from (1) not at all to (7) to avery great extent. Corporate values were measured using aseven-point Likert scale from (1) strongly disagree to (7)





397

strongly agree. The questionnaire was standardized andundisguised for all the respondents. To minimise the problemof reducing validity, the neutral response alternative wasincluded (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2002).In order to increase response rate, the principle of

Dillmans (1991) Total Design Method was employed inthis study. Three central concepts of Dillmans design wereadopted; cost minimization for respondents, perceived rewardmaximization and increase of their trust. The survey packageconsisted of an outgoing envelope, two cover letters, thequestionnaire and a return envelope. The questionnaires werebound into an A4 booklet presentation that reflected aprofessional approach. Since the participating carmanufacturer distributed surveys from its internal databasesthere were zero returns to sender. 285 used questionaries outof 850 distributed were received.Although literature highlights multifaceted nature of

corporate brand, to date empirically, the corporate brandhas been measured using a single dimenion (i.e. corporatepersonality) (Davies and Chun, 2002). By capturingcorporate and marketing-level attributes, this paper fallswithin the scope of the holistic approach towards corporatebranding (Grassl, 1999; Styles and Amber, 1995).In the process of developing new constructs, a number of

procedures recommended by Churchill (1979) and Jacoby(1978) were employed to ensure the appropriate scaledevelopment. These procedures included the employment ofmultiple item measures, which enabled a more comprehensiveportrayal of the concepts under the measurement, rangingfrom seven to fifteen measures. The tests for reliability andvalidity were undertaken in accordance withrecommendations by Nunnally (1978) and Gerbing andAnderson (1988).

ReliabilityChurchill (1979) suggests assessment of Cronbach alpha andexploratory factor analysis (EFA) to be the first tools for theassessment the measurement instrument quality. Measuresreliabilities were accessed by calculating Cronbach alpha(Cronbach, 1951). The majority of measures employed in thisstudy exhibited reliability scores over 0.7, which is above theacceptable level (Nunnally, 1978; de Vaus, 1995).

Establishing psychometric propertiesBoth types of factor analyses have been performed in thisstudy. Although there was an idea regarding the structure ofthe data of the constructs, there were no preconceivedthoughts about the data. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)served as a preliminary stage to evaluate unidimensionality ofthe constructs (Ahire and Devaraj, 2001) and to determinehidden dimensions. Undertaking EFA was in line withChurchills (1979) and Gerbing and Andersons (1988)suggestion regarding the usefulness of exploratory factoranalysis as a preliminary technique in the absence of asufficiently detailed theoretical basis.The sample size of 285 observations is in accordance with

Hair et al. (1998) guidelines regarding the preferred samplesize of 100 and larger. It was deemed important to employEFA for the above reasons and follow this up withConfirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to further support thereliability and validity of the resulting constructs. In order toexamine the total variance explained by each individual factor,retaining only those factors with eigenvalues of greater thanone was adopted. Aggregated variables were employed to test

the hypotheses. The results of the psychometric properties arepresented in Table I.Discriminant validity was established using average

variance extracted (i.e. the average variance sharedbetween a construct and its measures) (AVE) (Fornell andLarcker, 1981). As can be seen from Table II correlationsbetween corporate associations and corporate values aremarginally larger (0.75) than the average variance extracted(0.73) suggesting some shared variance between theseconstructs. However, this is a reasonable expectation giventhe theoretical similarity of these variables. Likewise,functional and emotional values appear to have someshared variance (see Table II). This implies that these valuesare not necessarily mutually exclusive and may overall, tosome extent, in consumer minds.0. Whilst these measuresshare some similarity, they clearly differ in terms of whatthey capture. Therefore, it was decided to keep themseparate.

Data analysis proceduresMultiple regression method was used to address hypotheses.As the purpose of this proposition was to examine thewhole set of independent variables, it was deemedappropriate to use a simultaneous rather than ahierarchical or stepwise method of multiple regression(Coakes and Steed, 2001).Each individual corporate brand dimension was entered

into multiple regressions as a means of assessment of itspredictive ability for attitudinal and behavioural loyalty. Theregression equations with the individual dimensions werefollowed by a multiple regression test with the aggregatedmodels. An estimation of proportion of variation in thedependent variable was assessed using the square of themultiple correlation coefficients (R2). The relative importanceand significance of each of the dimensions is evaluated interms of beta-values and t-values.For the purposes of testing hypotheses formulated for the

Proposition, a series of multiple regression equations wereperformed. These are:1 corporate activities;2 corporate associations;3 corporate values;4 corporate brand personality; and5 consumer benefits.

Attitudinal and behavioural loyalty represent the dependentvariables. The individual dimensions of the corporate brandconstruct were simultaneously entered multiple regressionanalyses and their predictive abilities presented in Tables IIIand IV.

Results and discussion

Corporate brand attributes and consumer loyaltyAlthough Model 1 explains a significant amount of variance inconsumer attitudinal loyalty 37 per cent and almost 30 percent in consumer behavioural loyalty, as presented in TablesIII and IV it was corporate values that accounted mostvariance in attitudinal and behavioural loyalty. This suggeststhe importance of the corporate values for generatingconsumer cognitive and affective, and behaviouraloutcomes. This finding is in line with Sen et al.s (2006)assertions that corporate-level intangible assets helporganizations in developing multidimensional relationshipswith consumers beyond traditional product and brand ones.





398

Table I The psychometric properties results for the corporate-level attributes constructs

Construct Model fit indices SFL t-value

Corporate activities Model fit indices: x2 25:644; DF 9; Probability level 0:002; CMIN=DF 2:849; GFI 0:975;AGFI 0:921; RMSEA 0:081; TLI 0:958; NFI 0:973; CFI 0:982; Holtier default 240; Cronbachalpha 0:865Sponsorship of worthy social activities in Australia 0.79 10.386

Sponsorship of national sporting events 0.66 14.247

Strong support of research into technology 0.56 9.030

Advancement in robotic technology 0.72 10.386

Development of aircraft technology 0.78 13.364

The Australian outback 0.81 13.189

Providing consumer-specific motoring solutions 0.49 8.164

Corporate associations Model fit indices: x2 33:437; DF 12; Probability level 0:001; CMIN=DF 2:786; GFI 0:968;AGFI 0:926; RMSEA 0:079; TLI 0:964; NFI 0:969; CFI 0:979; Holtier default 223; Cronbachalpha 0:871A good corporate citizen 0.50 8.145

A successful auto manufacturer 0.79 13.295

A company at the forefront of technology 0.83 13.986

A manufacturer of outstanding cars 0.91 15.321

An auto manufacturer with strong environmental awareness 0.53 9.562

A manufacturer of stylish cars 0.74 13.295

A committed player in the Australian automobile market 0.64 10.628

Corporate values Model fit indices: x2 10:931; DF 4; Probability level 0:027; CMIN=DF 2:733; GFI 0:988;AGFI 0:935; RMSEA 0:078; TLI 0:961; NFI 0:984; CFI 0:990; Holtier default 345; Cronbachalpha 0:838Customer focus 0.66 9.809

Constant innovation 0.61 9.809

Respect for the individual 0.80 10.159

Practical technology 0.72 9.656

Ecologically responsible motoring 0.70 8.795

Community orientation 0.56 7.865

Corporate personality Model fit indices: x2 104:259; DF 37; Probability level 0:000; CMIN=DF 2:818; GFI 0:942;AGFI 0:897; RMSEA 0:080; TLI 0:954; NFI 0:953; CFI 0:969; Holtier default 164; Cronbachalpha 0:917

Smart Sporty 0.74 12.760

Bold 0.76 12.750

Smart 0.86 12.375

Refined 0.75 14.4111

Intelligent 0.79 13.194

Dependable Socially-responsible 0.94 11.068

Trustworthy 0.87 11.068

Genuine 0.60 11.232

Technologically refined Technologically advanced 0.95 25.657

Technologically sophisticated 0.92 25.657

Ambitious 0.63 12.812

Functional benefits Model fit indices: x2 19:501; df 7; probability level 0:007; cmin=df 2:786; gFI 0:977;AGFI 0:932; RMSEA 0:079; TLI 0:959; NFI 0:971; CFI 0:981; Holtier default 270; Cronbachalpha 0:851Consistent quality 0.70 10.915

Value for money 0.78 12.096

Fuel efficiency 0.60 9.430

Aesthetically appealing car features 0.66 10.256

Individuality 0.60 9.259

Practicality 0.76 12.096

(continued)





399

No support was found for H1a and H1b with regard to

attitudinal loyalty. This implies the company engagement in

various corporate endeavours such as sporting events and

sponsorships of worthy social activities does not appear to

generate consumer loyalty. However, corporate associations

were found to be significantly related ( p , 0.01) to

behavioural loyalty. In that this finding is in line with the

previous research (Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998; Ngueyen

and Leblanc, 2001; Hsieh et al., 2004) that found positive

impact of corporate image on consumer loyalty. Corporate

brand personality (Model 2) was also found to be a significant

driver of both attitudinal ( p , 0.001) and behavioural

( p , 0.001) consumer loyalty. This finding suggests that

favourable and unique personality features that consumers

attribute to the corporate brand favourably impacts on

consumer loyalty.

Model 3 was found to explain a largest amount of variance inboth attitudinal (over 39 per cent) and behavioural loyalty(almost 38 per cent). In particular, support was found forfunctional benefits (H1e) and brand symbolism (H1 g) at thep , 0.001 level. These findings indicate that utilitarian andsymbolic aspects of consumer brand experience appear to beimportant predictors of consumer loyalty. The findingregarding functional benefits supports previous research thatthese have positive influence on consumer-based measures ofbrand equity (Agarwal and Rao, 1996) and consumer loyalty(Ro et al., 2001; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). The resultconcerning the brand symbolism suggests that inward andoutward symbolic meanings aimed at constructing consumersocial worlds (Belk, 1988; Elliott and Wattanasuwan, 1998)are important paths to consumer loyalty. This finding impliesthe brand usage in the consumer social environments andsocial situations (e.g. loyal peers) drive the development ofconsumer loyalty towards the corporate brand. However, asresults show, emotional brand experiences do not seem tocontribute to either attitudinal or behavioural consumerloyalty.

Aggregated corporate brand attributes and consumer

loyaltyFrom Tables III and IV it can be observed that Model 4accounts for almost 47 per cent of variance in consumerattitudinal loyalty and almost 41 per cent of variance inconsumer behavioural loyalty. Except for corporatepersonality, which in the aggregated model was no longersignificant, overall, the results of Models 1, 2 and 3 are similarto the findings in the individual models. This suggests thatwhen consumers perceive the corporate brand as a totality,corporate values, utilitarian and symbolic contribute most toconsumer loyalty.

Conclusion

The goal of this paper was to determine the influence ofcorporate brand constituents on consumer loyalty. For this,five hypotheses were formulated that related each of the

Table I

Construct Model fit indices SFL t-value

Emotional benefits Model fit indices: x2 32:643; DF 12; Probability level 0:001; CMIN=DF 2:720; GFI 0:969;AGFI 0:927; RMSEA 0:078; TLI 0:977; NFI 0:980; CFI 0:987; Holtier default 229; Cronbachalpha 0:932Driving pleasure 0.61 12.395

A feeling of serenity 0.83 17.108

Youthful spirit 0.76 14.415

A feeling of adventure 0.84 17.437

A sense of oneness with the car 0.89 18.939

Symbolic benefits Model fit indices: x2 18:132; DF 7; Probability level 0:011; CMIN=DF 2:590; GFI 0:982;AGFI 0:928; RMSEA 0:075; TLI 0:982; NFI 0:990; CFI 0:994; Holtier default 290; Cronbachalpha 0:929Feel that you made a smart choice 0.85 11.768

Stand out in a crowd 0.67 16.854

Enhance your personal image 0.83 19.645

Get social approval 0.85 20.775

Express your personality 0.80 18.536

Look sophisticated 0.88 22.613

Display your status symbol 0.93 22.613

Table II Internal consistency, square roots of average varianceextracted and correlation matrix for corporate brand attributes

Internal consistency

Corporate-level constructsCorporate activities 0.8718 0.70Corporate associations 0.8867 0.48 0.73Corporate values 0.8449 0.52 0.75 0.83Corporate personality constructsSmart 0.8864 0.78Dependable 0.8891 0.67 0.80Technologically refined 0.8531 0.76 0.64 0.83Marketing-level attributesFunctional benefits 0.8519 0.70Emotional benefits 0.9310 0.74 0.82Symbolic benefits 0.9417 0.66 0.51 0.83

Notes: Figures in italics represent square root of average varianceextracted; the figures in roman text (beneath the figures in italics) arecovariances





400

corporate brand dimensions with consumer loyalty. Theresults reveal that for complex and infrequently purchaseddurables such as cars; corporate brand is a crucial predictor ofconsumer loyalty. The results come to support the idea of theimportance of multidimensionality within corporate brands.Organizations are called on to further stress their corporatebrands as these were shown to be highly considered byconsumers.

Managerial implications

This study identified a number of significant linkages that cansupport managerial decisions on positioning and brandingstrategies. First, the literature seems to pinpoint the lack ofunderstanding of the nature and practices involved incorporate branding. The present study proposes a hierarchyof five dimensions that have implications for conventionalmarketing as well as corporate marketing. Although theimportance of building corporate associations was highlightedin the literature (i.e. Brown and Dacin, 1997), it was foundthat the link between corporate activities and corporate imageassociations in consumers memory and consumer loyalty isnot straightforward in regard to consumer attitudinal loyalty.However, this is not to say that companies should not focus

on the enhancing corporate and reputation; the companies

may benefit from implicitly enhancing synergies between

corporate image and products. Furthermore, attitudinal and

behavioural loyalty can be increased through enhancing

consumer personal representation (i.e. looking sophisticated)

and their representation in the society (i.e. getting social

approval) in the brand communication and consumer

experience.Secondly, it was found that internal (core values and

personality) are important paths to consumer loyalty. This

concurs with Schultz and Ervolders (1998) assertions

regarding the increasing breakdown of the boundaries

between external and internal corporate brand constituents.

The result in regard to core values is interesting because these

are traditionally viewed as internal characteristics that unite

an organization around its mission and vision (Kunde, 2000),

and yet in this study core values were shown to be predicting

consumer loyalty. An important implication therefore is that

beyond conventional marketing mix, car manufacturers need

to raise customer awareness of their core values and

organizational culture. In addition, managers should further

promote corporate identity and personality in consumer

markets. With the increase of the product and price parity,

Table III Corporate brand multiple regression models on consumer attitudinal loyalty

Loyalty

Corporate brand variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 (aggregated)

Corporate activities H1a 0.034 0.065Corporate associations H1b 0.153 0.039Corporate values H1c 0.476 * * * 0.351 * * *

Corporate personality H1d 0.533 * * * 20.140Functional benefits H1e 0.440 * * * 0.305 * * *

Emotional benefits H1f 0.021 20.024Symbolic benefits H1 g 0.262 * * * 0.255 * * *

R2 0.374 0.285 0.391 0.468Adj. R2 0.368 0.282 0.385 0.454F-ratio 56.016 * * * 112.575 * * * 60.243 * * * 34.750 * * *

Notes: * p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01; * * * p , 0.001; n 285

Table IV Corporate brand multiple regression models on consumer behavioural loyalty

Loyalty

Corporate brand variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 (aggregated)

Corporate activities H1a 0.010 0.037Corporate associations H1b 0.220 * * 0.030Corporate values H1c 0.369 * * * 0.186

Corporate personality H1d 0.549 * * * 0.025

Functional benefits H1e 0.458 * * * 0.328 * * *

Emotional benefits H1f 0.046 20.010Symbolic benefits H1 g 0.199 * * 0.186 * *

R2 0.303 0.301 0.377 0.407Adj. R2 0.296 0.299 0.371 0.392F-ratio 40.814 * * * 122.006 * * * 56.727 * * * 27.127 * * *

Notes: * p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01; * * * p , 0.001; n 285





401

enhancing consumer corporate loyalty may reduce consumerswitching behaviour.Thirdly, the results of this study are consistent with the

research that found brand functionality play an importantrole in consumer evaluations of durable products (Bruckset al., 2000) and that the product innovativeness determinessuccess of technology companies (Tickle et al., 2003).However, the findings also suggest that symbolic associationsplay an important role in nurturing consumer loyalty. Formanagers this has important implications with regard tocorporate branding positioning strategies in that apart fromtechnology, managers need to focus on embedding asymbolic dimension in consumer experience with theirpurchases. These findings are also in line with studies onconsumer value (Keller, 2003; Park et al., 1986) thatadvocated examining the dimensionality of consumer brandvalue.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

Although this paper makes several contributions toconsumer research in branding, there are a few limitationsthat emerge from this study, which, however, presentopportunities for future research. The first limitation of thisstudy is that a sample comprised of consumers of a singlecar manufacturer. Applications in other industries wherecorporate branding strategy is widely employed (i.e.banking, retail) would seem beneficial. Secondly, thecross-sectional nature of the primary method of datacollection also limits the data in regard to thephenomenon under investigation to the information at asingle point in time. Furthermore, the use of the aggregatedmeasures may mean that some components of the corporatebrand that could have been of interest to the managers ofthe participating car manufacturer and practitioners at amore specific level could not be addressed.

References

Aaker, D.A. (1996), Measuring brand equity across productsand markets, California Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3,pp. 102-20.

Aaker, J.L. (1997), Dimensions of brand personality,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, pp. 347-56.

Agarwa, M.K. and Rao, V.R. (1996), An empiricalcomparison of consumer-based measures of brandequity, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7 No. 3.

Ahire, S.L. and Devaraj, S. (2001), An empiricalcomparison of statistical construct validation approaches,IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 48 No. 3,pp. 319-29.

Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998), The effects ofcorporate image on the formation of customer loyalty,Journal of Services Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 82-92.

Argenti, P.A. and Druckenmiller, B. (2004), Reputation andthe corporate brand, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 6No. 4, pp. 368-74.

Aydin, S. and Ozer, G. (2005), The analysis of antecedentsof consumer loyalty in the Turkish mobiletelecommunication market, European Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 39 Nos 7/8, pp. 910-25.

Azoulay, A. and Kapferer, J.-N. (2003), Do brandpersonality scales really measure brand personality, TheJournal of Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 143-55.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003), Corporate brands:

What are they? What of them?, European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 972-97.Balmer, J.M.T. (2001a), The three virtues and seven deadly

sins of corporate brand management, Journal of General

Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-17.Balmer, J.M.T. (2001b), Corporate identity, corporate

branding and corporate marketing seeing through the

fog, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4,

pp. 248-91.Belk, R. (1988), Possessions of extended self, Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol. 15, September, pp. 139-68.Bolino, M.C. (1999), Citizenship and impression: good

soldiers or good actors?, Academy of Management Review,

Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 82-9.Brown, T. and Dacin, P. (1997), The company and the

product: corporate associations and consumer product

responses, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 68-84.Brucks, M., Zeithaml, V.A. and Naylor, G. (2000), Price

and brand name as indicators of quality dimensions for

consumer durables, Journal of Academy of Marketing

Science, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 359-74.Cambell, A. and Tawaday, K. (1990), Mission and Business

Philosophy, Heinemann, Oxford.Carrol, A.B. (1999), Corporate social responsibility,

Business and Society, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 268-95.Churchill, G. (1979), A paradigm for developing better

measures of marketing constructs, Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 64-73.Churchill, G. and Iacobucci, D. (2002), Marketing Research:

Methodological Foundations, 8th ed., South-Western,

Melbourne.Coakes, S.J. and Steed, L.G. (2001), SPSS for Windows:

Analysis without Anguish, John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane.Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I. (1996), Built to last. Successful

Habits of Visionary Companies, Harper, London.Cronbach, L.J. (1951), Coefficient alpha and the internal

structure of tests, Psychometrika, Vol. 16, pp. 297-334.Da Silva, R.V. and Syed Alwi, S.F. (2006), Cognitive,

affective attributes and conative, behavioural responses in

retail corporate branding, European Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 293-305.Dacin, P.A. and Brown, T.J. (2006), Corporate branding,

identity, and consumer response, Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, Vol. 34, Spring, pp. 95-8.Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2002), Gaps between the internal

and external perceptions of the corporate brand, Corporate

Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 144-58.Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R. and Roper, S. (2001),

The corporate reputation scale, Working Paper 431,

Manchester Business School.de Vaus, D.A. (1995), Surveys in Social Research, 4th ed.,

Allen and Unwin Pty Ltd, Sydney.Dillman, D. (1991), The design and administration of mail

surveys, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 17, pp. 225-49.Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), Consumer loyalty: toward

an integrated conceptual framework, Journal of Academy of

Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.Duarte, M. and Davies, G. (2002), The anatomy of the Ford

brand, paper presented at the 6th International

Conference on Corporate Reputation, Boston, MA.





402

DuWors, R.E.J. and Haines, G.H.J. (1990), Event history

analysis measures of brand loyalty, Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 485-94.Ehrenberg, A. (1988), Repeat Buying: Theory and Applications,

Charles Griffin & Co., London.Elliott, R. and Wattanasuwan, K. (1998), Brands as

symbolic resources for the construction of identity,

International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 2,

pp. 131-44.Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural

equation models with unobservable variable and

measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research,

Vol. 18, February, pp. 39-50.Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder

Approach, Pitman Publishing Company, Boston, MA.Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), An updated

paradigm for scale development incorporating

unidimensionality and its assessment, Journal of

Marketing Research, Vol. 25, May, pp. 186-92.Gremler, D.D. and Brown, S.W. (1998), Service loyalty:

antecedents components and outcomes, Winter Educators

Conference, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,

pp. 165-6.Grassl, W. (1999), The reality of brands: towards the

ontology of marketing, American Journal of Economics and

Sociology, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 313-59.Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C.

(1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall

International Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2003), Bringing the

corporation into corporate branding, European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1041-64.Hsieh, M.H., Pan, S.L. and Sentiono, R. (2004), Product,

corporate-, and country-image dimensions and purchase

behaviour: a multi-country analysis, Journal of the Academy

of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 251-70.Huber, F. and Hermann, A. (2001), Achieving brand and

dealer loyalty: the case of the automotive industry, The

International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer

Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 97-122.IBISWorld (2005), Motor Vehicle Manufacturing in Australia,

C2811 Series, IBISWorld, Melbourne, August.Jacoby, J. (1978), Consumer research: a state of the art

review, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42, April, pp. 87-96.Kapferer, J.-N. (1992), Strategic Brand Management: New

Approaches to Creating and Evolving Brand Equity, Kogan

Page, Dover, NH.Kapferer, J.-N. (1998), The role of branding in medical

prescription: an empirical investigation, HCE working

paper, Jouy Josa.Keller, K.L. (2003), Brand synthesis: the

multidimensionality of brand knowledge, Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol. 29, March, pp. 595-600.King, S. (1991), Brand building in the 1990s, Journal of

Marketing Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 3-13.Knox, S. and Bickerton, D. (2003), The six conventions of

corporate branding, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37

Nos 7/8, pp. 998-1116.Knox, S., Maklan, S. and Thompson, K. (1999), Pan-

company marketing and process management, Irish

Marketing Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 36-45.

Kumar, V. and Shah, D. (2004), Building and sustaining

profitable customer loyalty for 21st century, Journal ofRetailing, Vol. 80, pp. 317-30.

Kunde, J. (2000), Corporate Religion, Financial TimesPrentice Hall, London.

Lloyd, S. (2004), The-driving force, BRW, July 1-7,pp. 62-4.

Merrilees, B. and Fry, M-L. (2002), Corporate branding: a

framework for e-retailers, Corporate Reputation Review,Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 213-25.

Macrae, C. (1999), Brand reality editorial, Journal ofMarketing Management, Vol. 15, pp. 1-24.

Mazur, L. (1999), High-tech brands are backwards about

branding, Marketing, March, pp. 22-3.Nguyen, N. and Leblanc, G. (2001), Corporate image and

corporate reputation in consumers retention decisions in

services, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 8No. 4, pp. 227-36.

Normann, R. and Ramirez, R. (1994), Designing InteractiveStrategy, from Value Chain to Value Constellation, John Wiley& Sons, Chichester.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, Mc-Graw-HillBook Company, New York, NY.

Olins, W. (1978), The Corporate Personality: An Inquiry into theNature of Corporate Identity, Design Council, London.

Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. (1986),

Strategic brand concept-image management, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 50, October, pp. 135-45.

Rao, V.R., Agrawal, R.R. and Dahlhoff, D. (2004), How is

manifest branding strategy related to the intangible value of

a corporation, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, October,pp. 126-41.

Reichheld, F.F. (2003), The one number you need to grow,

Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 12, pp. 46-54.Ricks, J.M. Jr (2005), An assessment of strategic corporate

philanthropy on perceptions of brand equity variables,

Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 121-34.Ro, B., Vazquez, R. and Iglesias, V. (2001), The effect of

brand associations on consumer response, Journal ofConsumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 410-25.

Romaniuk, J. and Sharp, B. (2003), Measuring brandperceptions: testing quantity and quality, Journal ofTargeting, Measurement & Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 11No. 3, pp. 218-29.

Saunders, J. and Guoqun, F. (1997), Dual branding: how

corporate brands add value, Journal of Product & BrandManagement, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 40-8.

Sen, S. and Bhattacharaya, C.B. (2001), Does doing goodalways lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to

corporate social responsibility, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 38, May, pp. 225-43.

Sen, S., Bhattachraya, C.B. and Korchun, D. (2006), Therole of corporate social responsibility in strengthening

multiple stakeholder relationships: a field experiment,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2,pp. 158-66.

Schultz, M. and Ervolder, L. (1998), Culture, identity and

image consultancy: Crossing the boundaries between

management, advertising, public relations and design,

Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 29-50.Schultz, M. and de Chernatony, L. (2002), The challenges

of corporate branding, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5Nos 2/3, pp. 105-12.





403

Shankar, V., Smith, A.K. and Rangaswamy, A. (2000),

Customer satisfaction and loyalty online and offline

environments, Working Paper 02-2000, Penn State

University, eBusiness Research Center, University Park,

PA.Souiden, N., Kassim, N.M. and Kong, H-J. (2006), The

effects of corporate branding dimensions on consumers

product evaluation: a cross-cultural analysis, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 825-45.Styles, C. and Amber, T. (1995), Brand management, The

Financial Times Handbook of Management, Pitman

Publishing, London, pp. 581-93.Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2001), Consumer

perceived value: the development of a multiple item

scale, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, pp. 203-20.Tickle, P., Keller, L.K. and Richey, K. (2003), Ten

guidelines for branding in high-tech markets, The Journal

of Marketing Society, Vol. 22, Autumn, pp. 21-6.Thompsen, S. (2004), Corporate values and corporate

governance, Corporate Governance, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 29-46.Traylor, M.B. (1981), Product involvement and brand

commitment, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 21,

pp. 51-6.Urde, M. (2003), Core value-based corporate brand

building, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8,

pp. 1017-40.Zambuni, R. (1997), Hi-tech brands at the crossroad,

Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 4-7.

Further reading

Argenti, P., Howel, R.A. and Beck, K.A. (2005), The

strategic communication imperative, Sloan Management

Review, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 83-9.Churchill, G. and Peter, J. (1984), Research design effects

on the reliability of rating scales: a meta analysis, Journal of

Marketing Research, Vol. 21, November, pp. 360-75.Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, V.R. and Roper, S. (2004), A

corporate character scale to assess employee and customer

views of organization reputation, Corporate Reputation

Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 125-46.Lukas, B.A., Hair, J.F., Brush, R.P. and Ortinau, D.J. (2004),

Marketing Research, McGraw Hill, Sydney.Orth, R.U., McDaniel, M., Shellhammer, T. and Lopetchrat,

K. (2004), Promoting brand benefits: the role of consumer

psychographics and lifestyle, Journal of Consumer

Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 97-108.Quester, P. and Lim, A.L. (2003), Product involvement/

brand loyalty: is there a link?, Journal of Product & Brand

Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 22-38.Vazquez, R., Ro, A.B.d. and Iglesias, V. (2002), Consumer-

based brand equity: development and validation of a

measurement instrument, Journal of Marketing

Management, Vol. 18, pp. 27-48.

About the author

Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova is a Lecturer at SydneyBusiness School, Australia, where she teaches postgraduatecourses in marketing. Her current areas of research arecorporate branding, controlled and uncontrolledcommunications and stakeholder management

Executive summary and implications formanagers and executives

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives

a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a

particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article

in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of

the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the

material present.

Rapid growth of technology means that companies are finding

it increasingly difficult to differentiate through product alone.

Because of this, consumer evaluation of brands is influenced

by factors such as corporate credibility, integrity and

expertise. Corporate branding strategies are therefore being

recognized as an ideal means of succeeding in precarious

markets where uniformity of products is becoming the norm.

Corporate branding and customer loyaltyCorporate branding enables an organization to distinguish

itself from competitors by associating unique corporate traits

to its product and services. But many technology companies

are ignoring corporate brand strategies, believing instead that

product innovation continues to hold the key.Current knowledge about the relationship between

corporate brands and customer perceptions and customer

loyalty is limited. A focus in this area might therefore enable

organizations to identify the brand attributes that most impact

on consumer loyalty. To date, research has largely centered on

specific aspects of corporate branding rather than taking an

organization-wide perspective and investigating the

aggregated effect. The latter approach means that corporate

branding becomes a strategic framework instead of being

considered a marketing and communication activity.The potential benefits corporate branding offers an

organization are manifold and include economies of scale in

marketing and lower advertising and promotion costs. But

such benefits are perhaps supplementary to the main objective

of securing customers loyalty and the obvious advantages that

will ensue. In the automobile manufacturing sector, for

example, organizational performance can be boosted through

customers purchasing extras like accessories and servicing,

the lower cost of serving loyal customers who also become less

sensitive to price, and favorable word-of-mouth publicity.Customer loyalty is often measured solely in terms of

purchase behaviour. While this aspect is significant, many

analysts believe it is attitudinal loyalty that generates

consumer commitment to an organization over the longer

term. Given that companies are increasingly attempting to

differentiate through the associations, values and attitudes

symbolized by the organizational whole, knowing how

consumers feel towards them is clearly vital.Recent research has shown that corporate image has a

positive impact on customer loyalty. And the degree of loyalty

tends to increase when a consumer strongly approves of the

organization. There is also some indication that corporate

image is particularly important to consumers of durable

products like cars. However, results to this point are not

conclusive since other studies have found the relationship

insignificant. Instances of a negative impact on consumer

purchase intentions have also occasionally been recorded.





404

The multidimensional perspectiveDuring the last decade there has been growing interest in thevalues of an organization and its vision and mission. But sincemany regard such issues as significant only within anorganization, attention given in some quarters is stilllimited. The function of values have been variouslydescribed as a visible set of credentials throughout thesupply chain, authentic differentiators that allow a companyto distinguish itself from competitors and reflecting theimportance attached to specific objectives in the decisionmaking process.The notion that consumers perceive brands to contain

personality features is well established. Personality is deemeda major component of brand identity and often described interms of human personality traits that are regarded aspertinent to the brand. But Anatolevena believes that a focuson personality alone is too restrictive and urges a multifacetedconsideration of brand image. Brands with functional value,for instance, may be underrated if brand potency is solelygauged through personality.A multidimensional approach includes both functional and

emotional attributes. Studies have shown that consumerperception of brand value is realized through the combinedeffect of these attributes and that choice is determined bymultiple rather than single value dimensions. The functionalattributes valued by consumers include performance, safetyand quality. In terms of emotional or symbolic traits thosecommunicating such as joy, uniqueness and prestige appear tohave most effect.The author proposes that corporate brand attributes will

have a direct influence of both behavioural and attitudinalconsumer loyalty. Several hypotheses were constructed and astudy of an organization involved in corporate brandingcarried out. A car manufacturer mailed a questionnaire toconsumers listed on its Australian databases and 285 usableresponses were recorded. Participants were required tomeasure corporate activities, corporate values, corporateassociations, corporate personality, and brand benefits.Results indicated that:

. Functional and emotional values are not necessarilymutually exclusive.

. Correlation exists between corporate values and corporateassociations.

. Corporate values accounted for most variations inbehavioural and attitudinal consumer loyalty. The authorsuggests that this indicates that corporate values play animportant role in generating cognitive, affective andbehavioural outcomes.

. Company support of sporting events and worthy causesdoes not appear to influence customer loyalty. Corporateassociations were, however, strongly connected tobehavioural loyalty as previous research had indicated.

. Corporate brand personality significantly drives attitudinaland behavioural loyalty.

. Functional benefits and brand symbolism are importantpredictors of consumer loyalty.

. Inward and outward symbolic meanings play a key role innurturing consumer loyalty. One assumption here is thatdevelopment of consumer loyalty towards a brand occurswhen consumers use the brand in social situations.

. Emotional brand experiences do not seem to contribute toeither loyalty form.

Anatolevena believes that the study confirms the effect asbeing greater when consumers regard the corporate brand asmultifaceted. She also concludes that corporate branding canaccurately predict customer loyalty within contexts wherecomplex and infrequently purchased durables likeautomobiles are concerned. The discovery that core valuesinfluence consumer loyalty shows alignment with earlierresearch pointing out the blurring of distinction betweeninternal and external corporate brand components. This is feltsignificant given that core values are conventionally regardedas internal features that function to unite an organizationaround its mission and vision.The relationship between corporate activities, corporate

image associations and consumer loyalty was notstraightforward in terms of attitudinal loyalty. Despite this,the author believes that a company can still benefit fromengaging in activities that help to enhance its reputation andimage. For instance, from the synergies created betweencorporate image and products.

Marketing implicationsOne conclusion to the study is that increased product andprice homogeneity means that boosting corporate loyaltycould lead to higher customer retention rates. Anatolevenabelieves that a car manufacturer therefore should informcustomers of its core values and culture, while also promotingcorporate identify and personality within consumer markets.The importance of brand functionality to consumers of

enduring products suggests that product innovation continuesto be crucial. Symbolic associations were also found to besignificant and the author recommends companies toincorporate symbolic facets in the product for customers toexperience.Confining the sample to customers of a single manufacturer

is recognized as a study limitation. Further applicability offindings here may arise through investigation into banking,retail or other sectors where corporate branding is widelyutilized. The author also accepts that collective examinationof measures may have implications in that some elements ofthe corporate brand could not be focused on, even thoughthese elements may have been significant to the companyinvolved in the study or to other practitioners.

(A precis of the article The effects of corporate brand attributes onattitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty. Supplied byMarketing Consultants for Emerald.)





405

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the effects of corporate brand attributes on attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty

Documents