anisimova2007

7/25/2019 anisimova2007

1/14

Journal of Consumer MarketingThe effects of corporate brand attributes on attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyaltyTatiana Anatolevena Anisimova

Article information:

To cite this document:Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova, (2007),"The effects of corporate brand attributes on attitudinal and behavioural consumeroyalty", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 Iss 7 pp. 395 - 405Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760710834816

Downloaded on: 06 February 2015, At: 07:03 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 87 other documents.

To copy this document: [email protected]

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 10232 times since 2007*

Users who downloaded this artic le also downloaded:

Ian Phau, Min Teah, Jing Theng So, Andrew Grant Parsons, Sheau-Fen Yap, (2013),"Corporate branding, emotional attachmand brand loyalty: the case of luxury fashion branding", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An InternationalJournal, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp. 403-423 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-03-2013-0032

Mark D. Uncles, Grahame R. Dowling, Kathy Hammond, (2003),"Customer loyalty and customer loyalty programs", Journal oConsumer Marketing, Vol. 20 Iss 4 pp. 294-316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760310483676

Elena Delgado-Ballester, Jos Luis Munuera-Alemn, (2001),"Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty", European Jourof Marketing, Vol. 35 Iss 11/12 pp. 1238-1258 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006475

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 549148 []

For Authors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit

www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethi(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

7/25/2019 anisimova2007

2/14

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 attract

consumers 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 corporate

credibility, integrity and corporate expertise increasingly

influence consumer responses towards brands (Merrilees

and Fry, 2002). As a result, a considerable amount of effort

within contemporary organizations is concerned with strategic

positioning in relation to various consumer groups (Dacin and

Brown, 2006).

Consumers are becoming increasingly fickle and savvy. For

organizations this implies placing more emphasis on the

individual consumer needs and expectations as well as heavily

investing in advertising (Lloyd, 2004). The determinants of

consumer demand in the automotive industry include vehicle

prices, exchange rates, incomes, and vehicle innovation and

consumer demography (IBISWorld, 2005). According to theIBISWorld (2005) industry report Motor Vehicle

Manufacturing 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 to

use and replace vehicles. In addition, as consumers are

becoming more discerning and more educated, they will need

a stronger justification for purchasing a car. This puts extra

pressure on automobile manufacturers to be innovative not

only in product development but also in terms of brand

communication. One way to compete in volatile markets and

increasing product parity is to adopt a corporate branding

strategy. Corporate branding represents an opportunity for

organizations to enhance and sustain their distinctiveness

through linking corporate characteristics to products and

services, thereby, allowing unique synergies to be developed.

Despite the importance of corporate branding, technology

companies not very often have corporate brand strategy and

largely rely on the assumption that constant product

improvement will sell itself (Tickle e t a l., 2003). As

Zambuni (1997, p. 4) observes, high-tech branding is: an

area that is less well understood than fast-moving consumer

goods or services branding. Consistent with this point,

Mazur (1999, p. 22), notes that a majority of high-tech

companies have been backwards about branding.

Therefore, in addressing some of these limitations, there is a

potential 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 practitioners

and academics, little is known about the impact of the effects

of corporate brands on consumer perceptions and consumer

loyalty. Whilst the existing frameworks are helpful for a

general understanding of the multidimensional nature of

consumer brands (Keller, 2003) and corporate brands (Urde,

2003), an important area that is yet to be addressed is the

relationship between corporate brand and consumer

behaviour. As Dacin and Brown (2006) point out, each

disciplinary 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

7/25/2019 anisimova2007

3/14

and seldom has the existing research been integrative. Just

recently have researchers began to investigate the relationship

between the corporate brand and consumer behaviours (see

Da Silva and Syed Alwi, 2006; Souiden et al., 2006).

However, these attempts only partially examine the impact of

the corporate brand on consumer loyalty. For example,

Souiden et al. (2006) found the effects of corporate image on

consumer 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 within

organizational and marketing thinking (Knox and Bickerton,

2003), this paper investigates the effects on loyalty of both

corporate and marketing-level attributes. In particular, the

objectives 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; and

3 ascertain the most influential dimensions of the corporate

brand on consumer loyalty.

The paper is constructed in the following way. Firstly, a

review of the pertinent literature is provided and research

hypotheses are postulated. Methodology and procedures of

establishing construct reliability and validity, and hypotheses

testing are then presented. This is followed by a discussion of

the corporate brand effects on consumer loyalty. Academic

and managerial implications are also provided. The paper is

concluded with limitations and suggestions for future

research.

Theoretical background and proposition

Corporate branding has been fairly new to both marketing

(Macrae, 1999; Saunders and Guoqun, 1997) and

organizational literature (Argenti and Druckenmiller, 2004;

Balmer, 2001a, 2001b; Balmer and Gray, 2003). Being at the

crossroads of these disciplines, corporate branding blends the

thinking from marketing and organizational theories (Knox

and Bickerton, 2003). Therefore, managing the corporate

brand involves diverse departments and implies a broader,

organization-wide perspective. The organization-wide or pan-

company marketing (Knox et al., 1999) changes corporate

branding from a marketing-communication activity into a

strategic framework, which allows companies to obtain a

clearer sense of direction and provides a basis for a

competitive advantage (Schultz and de Chernatony, 2002).

Corporate branding brings a substantial advantage to

organizations in terms of economies of scale in marketing

and lower total costs of advertising and promotion (Rao et al.,

2004). At the consumer level, corporate brands help

organizations to avoid brand confusion (Souidenet al., 2006).The value of consumer loyalty for organizations is widely

discussed in the literature. Loyal consumers contribute to a

firms performance through making additional purchases such

as servicing and accessories (Huber and Hermann, 2001).

Lower costs of serving loyal consumers, lower consumer price

sensitivity and favorable word of mouth are among numerous

reasons for building consumer loyalty. Traditionally,

consumer loyalty has been defined in terms of multiple

aspects of purchase behaviour (Ehrenberg, 1988; DuWors

and Haines, 1990). Another important aspect of consumer

loyalty is loyalty at the level of attitudes. Attitudinal loyalty

can 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 loyalty

represents a more long-term consumer commitment to an

organization (Shankar et al., 2000) and indicates a propensity

of favorable word of mouth (Reichheld, 2003). However, for

any organization consumer commitment at the affective and

cognitive levels become meaningful when being translated

into actual purchases. Therefore, to reveal the potential fororganizations to determine and manage the linkages between

consumer perceptions and consumer loyalty, the examination

of both attitudinal and behavioural loyalty is undertaken.

The empirical support into the relationship between

corporate brand and consumer loyalty has been scarce. One

such study by Hsiehet al. (2004) suggests that perceptions of

umbrella brands have major effects on brand purchase

behaviour. However, a single, behavioural component of

consumer loyalty has been the focus of their study. Although

understanding consumer brand purchase behaviour is

paramount, the behavioural view alone is insufficient in

explaining the process of loyalty development (Dick and Basu,

1994). The fact that organizations are increasingly shifting to

differentiate themselves through the associations, values and

emotions symbolized by the whole corporation (Hatch andSchultz, 2003) partially explains the importance of what

consumers know and think of an organization. Notably, in

recent years, the Australian automobile manufacturers are

increasingly embracing event-marketing to communicate with

their existing and potential consumers. In addition, little

research has considered various sources of corporate brand

image in one framework (see Souiden et al., 2006). However,

a comprehensive measurement framework enhances the

validity and practical utility of consumer perceptions Hsieh

et al.s (2004) and thus, was adopted in this paper. The

following proposition is formulated to examine the role that

corporate 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 author

builds on Kellers (2003) and Urdes (2003) conceptual

frameworks that propose multiple attributes within the

corporate brand. The following section presents a discussion

on how corporate brand perceptions can influence consumer

loyalty. From these five hypotheses concerning corporate and

marketing-level attributes are developed and subsequently

tested.

The hypothesis development

It has been shown that corporate image has a positive impact

on consumer loyalty (Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998; Aydin

and 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 to

be higher when consumer perceptions of an organization are

strongly favorable. Dick and Basu (1994) found that a

favorable image could influence repeat consumer patronage.

Souiden et al.s (2006) findings determine that corporate

reputation was highly considered by consumers in their

evaluations of durable products such as automobiles.

However, whilst corporate charisma can affect some

consumers behaviour towards companies and brands,

others may stay completely indifferent (Souiden et al.,

2006). This is demonstrated by the diversity in results of

the effects of corporate image and reputation on consumers.

The effects of corporate brand attributes

Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 24 Number 7 2007 395405

396

7/25/2019 anisimova2007

4/14

For example, while Aydin and Ozer (2005) found a positive

influence of corporate image on consumer loyalty, this

relationship was not significant. More specifically, Sen and

Bhattacharaya (2001) found that some initiatives aimed at

enhancing corporate image and reputation like corporate

social 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, but

ineffective for brand evaluation and purchase objectives.

Interestingly, more recent research by Sen et al. (2006) shows

that those consumers who were aware of corporate social

initiatives has significantly more favorable views of the given

organization in terms of their associations, attitudes, and

behavioural 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 in

corporate values under headings such as stakeholder value

(Freeman, 1984), the customer value proposition (Knox

et al., 1999), social responsibility (Carrol, 1999) and

corporate citizenship (Bolino, 1999). Discussing

organisational values, authors often make a reference to the

notions of vision and mission as well as a core purpose of an

organization (Cambell and Tawaday, 1990; Collins and

Porras, 1996). Urde (2003) describes organizational values

as authentic differentiators that allow a company to

distinguish itself from competitors. Knox et al. (1999,

p. 140) view organizational values as a part of a unique

organizational value proposition that they describe as a

visible set of credentials throughout the supply chain in

relation to the core processes in an organization. Cambell

and Tawaday (1990) view corporate values as senior

managements beliefs. In a comparable vain, Thompsen

(2004) considers corporate values from a technicalperspective in terms of weight that managers attach to

goals in the process of decision-making.

Despite its importance core values has not gained adequate

attention in the corporate branding literature. One alternative

explanation for this is that the concept of corporate values

being considered of importance primarily to organization

members. However, examining the direct influence of

corporate values on customer performance outcomes should

contribute to consumer research into branding. Using this

rationale, it is expected that:

H1c. Core corporate values will have a direct influence on

attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty.

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 as

possessing personality features. Brand personality per se

represents embodiments of non-product-related features

important for the development of relationships with

consumers. Kapferer (1992) identifies brand personality as

one of the key dimensions of brand identity and defines it in

terms of features of human personality that are pertinent to

the brand. Subsequently, Aaker (1997) introduced the brand

personality scale, which had a substantial impact on branding

literature. As a result, a number of studies on brand

personality 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 Corporate

Personality Scale. However, considering only brand

personality in this context highlights this as a narrow view

on measurement of corporate brand image. Certainly,

corporate brand personality is a useful concept, but being

multidimensional, corporate brand encompasses dimensions

beyond personality alone (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003). AsAaker (1996, p. 113) maintains: using personality as a

general indicator of brand strength will be a distortion for

some brands particularly those, that are positioned with

respect to functional advantages and value. Thus, brand

personality was deemed important to include along with other

components comprising the corporate brand. Therefore, it is

postulated:

H1d. Corporate personality will have a direct influence on

attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty.

For complex durable consumer goods such as cars, the

purchase of which requires a high-involvement decision

(Brucks e t al ., 2000), assessment of multidimensional

consumer experience was deemed appropriate. Whilst

functional product utility involves for consumers

performance, safety and quality attributes, emotional and

symbolic brand values communicate to the consumer a variety

of meanings (e.g. joy of ownership, individuality, prestige).

Results of Brucks et al.s (2000) study have shown that

consumers use brand names in order to evaluate the prestige

of brands.

The importance of understanding the determinants of

consumer loyalty is generally well acknowledged and

researched in the marketing literature (Ro et al., 2001;

Romaniuk and Sharp, 2003; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). Ro

et al. (2001) researched the impact of brand functions on

consumer behavioural loyalty. Sweeney and Soutar (2001)

operationalized the consumer value construct as a

combination of functional, emotional and social components

and found that multiple value dimensions account forconsumer choices better than single attributes. However, a

single aspect of buyer behaviour, namely, behavioural loyalty

has been a focus of these studies. In this paper it is proposed

that:

H1e. Customer benefits will have a direct influence on

attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty.

Methodology

Unit of analysis and sampling elementsThe unit of analysis was the organization engaged in

corporate branding. A structured questionnaire was the

method of data collection. Survey was distributed by the

participating car manufacturer through their data-bases inAustralia. The questionnaires were distributed by mail and

were returned by reply paid post. The consumer sample

yielded 285 useable responses representing a 33.5 per cent

response rate. This was achieved in one mail-out.

The questionnaireThe questionnaire was an eight-page long, double-sided

document. Corporate activities, corporate associations, and

corporate personality and brand benefits were measured using

a seven-point Likert scale from (1) not at all to (7) to a

very great extent. Corporate values were measured using a

seven-point Likert scale from (1) strongly disagree to (7)

The effects of corporate brand attributes

Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 24 Number 7 2007 395405

397

7/25/2019 anisimova2007

5/14

strongly agree. The questionnaire was standardized and

undisguised for all the respondents. To minimise the problem

of reducing validity, the neutral response alternative was

included (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2002).

In order to increase response rate, the principle of

Dillmans (1991) Total Design Method was employed in

this study. Three central concepts of Dillmans design were

adopted; cost minimization for respondents, perceived rewardmaximization and increase of their trust. The survey package

consisted of an outgoing envelope, two cover letters, the

questionnaire and a return envelope. The questionnaires were

bound into an A4 booklet presentation that reflected a

professional approach. Since the participating car

manufacturer distributed surveys from its internal databases

there were zero returns to sender. 285 used questionaries out

of 850 distributed were received.

Although literature highlights multifaceted nature of

corporate brand, to date empirically, the corporate brand

has been measured using a single dimenion (i.e. corporate

personality) (Davies and Chun, 2002). By capturing

corporate and marketing-level attributes, this paper falls

within the scope of the holistic approach towards corporate

branding (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 scale

development. These procedures included the employment of

multiple item measures, which enabled a more comprehensive

portrayal of the concepts under the measurement, ranging

from seven to fifteen measures. The tests for reliability and

validity were under taken in accordance with

recommendations by Nunnally (1978) and Gerbing and

Anderson (1988).

ReliabilityChurchill (1979) suggests assessment of Cronbach alpha and

exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to be the first tools for the

assessment the measurement instrument quality. Measures

reliabilities were accessed by calculating Cronbach alpha

(Cronbach, 1951). The majority of measures employed in this

study exhibited reliability scores over 0.7, which is above the

acceptable level (Nunnally, 1978; de Vaus, 1995).

Establishing psychometric propertiesBoth types of factor analyses have been performed in this

study. Although there was an idea regarding the structure of

the data of the constructs, there were no preconceived

thoughts about the data. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

served as a preliminary stage to evaluate unidimensionality of

the constructs (Ahire and Devaraj, 2001) and to determine

hidden dimensions. Undertaking EFA was in line with

Churchills (1979) and Gerbing and Andersons (1988)suggestion regarding the usefulness of exploratory factor

analysis as a preliminary technique in the absence of a

sufficiently detailed theoretical basis.

The sample size of 285 observations is in accordance with

Hair et al. (1998) guidelines regarding the preferred sample

size of 100 and larger. It was deemed important to employ

EFA for the above reasons and follow this up with

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to further support the

reliability and validity of the resulting constructs. In order to

examine the total variance explained by each individual factor,

retaining only those factors with eigenvalues of greater than

one was adopted. Aggregated variables were employed to test

the hypotheses. The results of the psychometric properties are

presented in Table I.

Discriminant validity was established using average

variance extracted (i.e. the average variance shared

between a construct and its measures) (AVE) (Fornell and

Larcker, 1981). As can be seen from Table II correlations

between corporate associations and corporate values are

marginally larger (0.75) than the average variance extracted(0.73) suggesting some shared variance between these

constructs. However, this is a reasonable expectation given

the theoretical similarity of these variables. Likewise,

functional and emotional values appear to have some

shared variance (see Table II). This implies that these values

are not necessarily mutually exclusive and may overall, to

some extent, in consumer minds.0. Whilst these measures

share some similarity, they clearly differ in terms of what

they capture. Therefore, it was decided to keep them

separate.

Data analysis proceduresMultiple regression method was used to address hypotheses.

As the purpose of this proposition was to examine the

whole set of independent variables, it was deemedapp ro priate to us e a s imultane ou s rathe r than a

hierarchical 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 its

predictive ability for attitudinal and behavioural loyalty. The

regression equations with the individual dimensions were

followed by a multiple regression test with the aggregated

models. An estimation of proportion of variation in the

dependent variable was assessed using the square of the

multiple correlation coefficients (R2

). The relative importance

and significance of each of the dimensions is evaluated in

terms 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; and

5 consumer benefits.

Attitudinal and behavioural loyalty represent the dependent

variables. The individual dimensions of the corporate brand

construct were simultaneously entered multiple regression

analyses and their predictive abilities presented in Tables III

and IV.

Results and discussion

Corporate brand attributes and consumer loyaltyAlthough Model 1 explains a significant amount of variance in

consumer attitudinal loyalty 37 per cent and almost 30 per

cent in consumer behavioural loyalty, as presented in Tables

III and IV it was corporate values that accounted most

variance in attitudinal and behavioural loyalty. This suggests

the importance of the corporate values for generating

consumer cognitive and affective, and behavioural

outcomes. This finding is in line with Sen et al.s (2006)

assertions that corporate-level intangible assets help

organizations in developing multidimensional relationships

with consumers beyond traditional product and brand ones.

The effects of corporate brand attributes

Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 24 Number 7 2007 395405

398

7/25/2019 anisimova2007

6/14

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; Cronbach

alpha 0:865

Sponsorship of worthy social activities in Australia 0.79 10.386Sponsorship 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; Cronbach

alpha 0:871

A 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 15.321An 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; Cronbach

alpha 0:838

Customer 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; Cronbach

alpha 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; Cronbach

alpha 0:851

Consistent 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)

The effects of corporate brand attributes

Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 24 Number 7 2007 395405

399

7/25/2019 anisimova2007

7/14

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 associationswere 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 in

both attitudinal (over 39 per cent) and behavioural loyalty

(almost 38 per cent). In particular, support was found for

functional benefits (H1e) and brand symbolism (H1 g) at the

p , 0.001 level. These findings indicate that utilitarian and

symbolic aspects of consumer brand experience appear to be

important predictors of consumer loyalty. The finding

regarding functional benefits supports previous research that

these have positive influence on consumer-based measures of

brand equity (Agarwal and Rao, 1996) and consumer loyalty

(Ro et al., 2001; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). The result

concerning the brand symbolism suggests that inward and

outward symbolic meanings aimed at constructing consumer

social worlds (Belk, 1988; Elliott and Wattanasuwan, 1998)

are important paths to consumer loyalty. This finding implies

the brand usage in the consumer social environments and

social situations (e.g. loyal peers) drive the development of

consumer loyalty towards the corporate brand. However, as

results show, emotional brand experiences do not seem to

contribute to either attitudinal or behavioural consumer

loyalty.

Aggregated corporate brand attributes and consumer

loyaltyFrom Tables III and IV it can be observed that Model 4

accounts for almost 47 per cent of variance in consumer

attitudinal loyalty and almost 41 per cent of variance in

consumer behavioural loyalty. Except for corporatepersonality, which in the aggregated model was no longer

significant, overall, the results of Models 1, 2 and 3 are similar

to the findings in the individual models. This suggests that

when consumers perceive the corporate brand as a totality,

corporate values, utilitarian and symbolic contribute most to

consumer loyalty.

Conclusion

The goal of this paper was to determine the influence of

corporate 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; Cronbach

alpha 0:932

Driving 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; Cronbach

alpha 0:929

Feel 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 constructs

Corporate activities 0.8718 0.70

Corporate associations 0.8867 0.48 0.73

Corporate values 0.8449 0.52 0.75 0.83

Corporate personality constructs

Smart 0.8864 0.78

Dependable 0.8891 0.67 0.80

Technologically refined 0.8531 0.76 0.64 0.83

Marketing-level attributes

Functional benefits 0.8519 0.70

Emotional benefits 0.9310 0.74 0.82

Symbolic 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

The effects of corporate brand attributes

Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 24 Number 7 2007 395405

400

7/25/2019 anisimova2007

8/14

corporate brand dimensions with consumer loyalty. The

results reveal that for complex and infrequently purchased

durables such as cars; corporate brand is a crucial predictor of

consumer loyalty. The results come to support the idea of the

importance of multidimensionality within corporate brands.

Organizations are called on to further stress their corporate

brands as these were shown to be highly considered by

consumers.

Managerial implications

This study identified a number of significant linkages that cansupport managerial decisions on positioning and branding

strategies. First, the literature seems to pinpoint the lack of

understanding of the nature and practices involved in

corporate branding. The present study proposes a hierarchy

of five dimensions that have implications for conventional

marketing as well as corporate marketing. Although the

importance of building corporate associations was highlighted

in the literature (i.e. Brown and Dacin, 1997), it was found

that the link between corporate activities and corporate image

associations in consumers memory and consumer loyalty is

not 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 boundariesbetween 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 0.065

Corporate associations H1b 0.153 0.039

Corporate values H1c 0.476 * * * 0.351 * * *

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

Emotional benefits H1f 0.021 20.024

Symbolic benefits H1 g 0.262 * * * 0.255 * * *

R2 0.374 0.285 0.391 0.468

Adj.R2 0.368 0.282 0.385 0.454

F-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 0.037

Corporate associations H1b 0.220 * * 0.030

Corporate 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 20.010

Symbolic benefits H1 g 0.199 * * 0.186 * *

R2 0.303 0.301 0.377 0.407

Adj.R2 0.296 0.299 0.371 0.392

F-ratio 40.814 * * * 122.006 * * * 56.727 * * * 27.127 * * *

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

The effects of corporate brand attributes

Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 24 Number 7 2007 395405

401

7/25/2019 anisimova2007

9/14

enhancing consumer corporate loyalty may reduce consumer

switching behaviour.

Thirdly, the results of this study are consistent with the

research that found brand functionality play an important

role in consumer evaluations of durable products (Brucks

et al., 2000) and that the product innovativeness determines

success of technology companies (Tickle et al., 2003).

However, the findings also suggest that symbolic associationsplay an important role in nurturing consumer loyalty. For

managers this has important implications with regard to

corporate branding positioning strategies in that apart from

technology, managers need to focus on embedding a

symbolic dimension in consumer experience with their

purchases. These findings are also in line with studies on

consumer value (Keller, 2003; Park et al., 1986) that

advocated examining the dimensionality of consumer brand

value.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

Although this paper makes several contributions to

consumer research in branding, there are a few limitations

that emerge from this study, which, however, presentopportunities for future research. The first limitation of this

study is that a sample comprised of consumers of a single

car manufacturer. Applications in other industries where

corporate branding strategy is widely employed (i.e.

banking, retail) would seem beneficial. Secondly, the

cross-sectional nature of the primary method of data

c ol lec ti on a ls o l imi ts t he da ta in r ega rd t o t he

phenomenon under investigation to the information at a

single point in time. Furthermore, the use of the aggregated

measures may mean that some components of the corporate

brand that could have been of interest to the managers of

the participating car manufacturer and practitioners at a

more specific level could not be addressed.

References

Aaker, D.A. (1996), Measuring brand equity across products

and 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 empirical

comparison of consumer-based measures of brand

equity, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7 No. 3.

Ahire, S.L. and Devaraj, S. (2001), An empirical

comparison 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 of

corporate 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 and

the corporate brand, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 6

No. 4, pp. 368-74.

Aydin, S. and Ozer, G. (2005), The analysis of antecedents

of consumer loyalt y in t he Turkish mobil e

telecommunication market, E ur op ea n J our na l o f

Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 7/8, pp. 910-25.

Azoulay, A. and Kapferer, J.-N. (2003), Do brand

personality scales really measure brand personality, The

Journal 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 thefog, 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:

Meth odo logi cal Foundati ons, 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.

The effects of corporate brand attributes

Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 24 Number 7 2007 395405

402

7/25/2019 anisimova2007

10/14

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 . 1 7 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

p arad ig m for s cale d evelop me nt inc orpo rating

unidimensionality and its assessment, J our na l o f

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 of

Retailing, Vol. 80, pp. 317-30.

Kunde, J. (2000), Corporate Religion, Financial Times

Prentice Hall, London.

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

pp. 62-4.

Merrilees, B. and Fry, M-L. (2002), Corporate branding: aframework for e-retailers, Corporate Reputation Review,

Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 213-25.

Macrae, C. (1999), Brand reality editorial, Journal of

Marketing 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. 8

No. 4, pp. 227-36.

Normann, R. and Ramirez, R. (1994), Designing Interactive

Strategy, from Value Chain to Value Constellation, John Wiley

& Sons, Chichester.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, Mc-Graw-Hill

Book Company, New York, NY.

Olins, W. (1978),The Corporate Personality: An Inquiry into the

Nature of Corporate Identity, Design Council, London.

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

Strategic brand concept-image management, Journal of

Marketing, 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 of

Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 410-25.

Romaniuk, J. and Sharp, B. (2003), Measuring brand

perceptions: testing quantity and quality, Journal of

Targeting, Measurement & Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 11

No. 3, pp. 218-29.

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

corporate brands add value, Journal of Product & Brand

Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 40-8.

Sen, S. and Bhattacharaya, C.B. (2001), Does doing good

always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to

corporate social responsibility, Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 38, May, pp. 225-43.

Sen, S., Bhattachraya, C.B. and Korchun, D. (2006), The

role 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. 5

Nos 2/3, pp. 105-12.

The effects of corporate brand attributes

Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 24 Number 7 2007 395405

403

7/25/2019 anisimova2007

11/14

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, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 825-45.

Styles, C. and Amber, T. (1995), Brand management, The

Fin anci al Times Hand boo k of Management, P itman

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, J our na l o f Mark eting

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

About the author

Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova is a Lecturer at Sydney

Business School, Australia, where she teaches postgraduate

courses in marketing. Her current areas of research are

corporate branding, controlled and uncontrolled

communications 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 tototo take advantage of the more comprehensive description of

the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of thematerial 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 attitudessymbolized 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.

The effects of corporate brand attributes

Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 24 Number 7 2007 395405

404

7/25/2019 anisimova2007

12/14

The multidimensional perspectiveDuring the last decade there has been growing interest in the

values of an organization and its vision and mission. But since

many regard such issues as significant only within an

organization, attention given in some quarters is still

limited. The function of values have been variously

described as a visible set of credentials throughout the

supply chain, authentic differentiators that allow a companyto distinguish itself from competitors and reflecting the

importance attached to specific objectives in the decision

making process.

The notion that consumers perceive brands to contain

personality features is well established. Personality is deemed

a major component of brand identity and often described in

terms of human personality traits that are regarded as

pertinent to the brand. But Anatolevena believes that a focus

on personality alone is too restrictive and urges a multifaceted

consideration of brand image. Brands with functional value,

for instance, may be underrated if brand potency is solely

gauged through personality.

A multidimensional approach includes both functional and

emotional attributes. Studies have shown that consumer

perception of brand value is realized through the combinedeffect of these attributes and that choice is determined by

multiple rather than single value dimensions. The functional

attributes valued by consumers include performance, safety

and quality. In terms of emotional or symbolic traits those

communicating such as joy, uniqueness and prestige appear to

have most effect.

The author proposes that corporate brand attributes will

have a direct influence of both behavioural and attitudinal

consumer loyalty. Several hypotheses were constructed and a

study of an organization involved in corporate branding

carried out. A car manufacturer mailed a questionnaire to

consumers listed on its Australian databases and 285 usable

responses were recorded. Participants were required to

measure corporate activities, corporate values, corporate

associations, corporate personality, and brand benefits.

Results indicated that:. Functional and emotional values are not necessarily

mutually exclusive.. Correlation exists between corporate values and corporate

associations.. Corporate values accounted for most variations in

behavioural and attitudinal consumer loyalty. The author

suggests that this indicates that corporate values play an

important role in generating cognitive, affective and

behavioural outcomes.. Company support of sporting events and worthy causes

does not appear to influence customer loyalty. Corporate

associations were, however, strongly connected to

behavioural loyalty as previous research had indicated.. Corporate brand personality significantly drives attitudinal

and behavioural loyalty.

. Functional benefits and brand symbolism are important

predictors of consumer loyalty.. Inward and outward symbolic meanings play a key role in

nurturing consumer loyalty. One assumption here is that

development of consumer loyalty towards a brand occurs

when consumers use the brand in social situations.. Emotional brand experiences do not seem to contribute to

either loyalty form.Anatolevena believes that the study confirms the effect as

being greater when consumers regard the corporate brand as

multifaceted. She also concludes that corporate branding can

accurately predict customer loyalty within contexts where

complex and infrequently purchased durables like

automobiles are concerned. The discovery that core values

influence consumer loyalty shows alignment with earlier

research pointing out the blurring of distinction between

internal and external corporate brand components. This is felt

significant given that core values are conventionally regarded

as internal features that function to unite an organization

around its mission and vision.

The relationship between corporate activities, corporate

image ass oc iation s and c on su me r loyalty was n ot

straightforward in terms of attitudinal loyalty. Despite this,

the author believes that a company can still benefit from

engaging in activities that help to enhance its reputation and

image. For instance, from the synergies created between

corporate image and products.

Marketing implicationsOne conclusion to the study is that increased product and

price homogeneity means that boosting corporate loyalty

could lead to higher customer retention rates. Anatolevena

believes that a car manufacturer therefore should inform

customers of its core values and culture, while also promoting

corporate identify and personality within consumer markets.

The importance of brand functionality to consumers of

enduring products suggests that product innovation continues

to be crucial. Symbolic associations were also found to be

significant and the author recommends companies to

incorporate symbolic facets in the product for customers to

experience.

Confining the sample to customers of a single manufacturer

is recognized as a study limitation. Further applicability of

findings here may arise through investigation into banking,

retail or other sectors where corporate branding is widely

utilized. The author also accepts that collective examination

of measures may have implications in that some elements of

the corporate brand could not be focused on, even though

these elements may have been significant to the company

involved in the study or to other practitioners.

(A precis of the article The effects of corporate brand attributes onattitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty. Supplied by

Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)

The effects of corporate brand attributes

Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 24 Number 7 2007 395405

405

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

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

7/25/2019 anisimova2007

13/14

This article has been cited by:

1. Deli Yang, Mahmut (Maho) Sonmez, Qinghai Li, Yibing Duan. 2015. The power of triple contexts on customer-based brandperformanceA comparative study of Baidu and Google from Chinese netizens perspective. International Business Review24,11-22. [CrossRef]

2. Morteza Khojastehpour, Raechel Johns. 2015. The role of MNC's subsidiaries in creating multinational corporate brand.Journalof Strategic Marketing1-14. [CrossRef]

3. Bikram Jit Singh Mann, Mandeep Kaur Ghuman. 2015. What and how to communicate about a corporate brand with theconsumers: An exploratory study.Journal of Marketing Communications1-20. [CrossRef]

4. Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi, Philip J. Kitchen. 2014. Projecting corporate brand image and behavioral response in business schools:Cognitive or affective brand attributes?.Journal of Business Research67, 2324-2336. [CrossRef]

5. Tatiana Anisimova, Parves Sultan. 2014. The Role of Brand Communications in Consumer Purchases of Organic Foods: AResearch Framework.Journal of Food Products Marketing20, 511-532. [CrossRef]

6. Jason Perepelkin, David Di Zhang. 2014. Quality alone isnot enough to be trustworthy. International Journal of Pharmaceuticaland Healthcare Marketing8:2, 226-242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

7. Bikram Jit Singh Mann, Mandeep Kaur Ghuman. 2014. Scale development and validation for measuring corporate brandassociations.Journal