1

UNIVERSITÉ DE LAUSANNE ÉCOLE DES HAUTES ÉTUDES COMMERCIALES

THE IMPACT OF PERCEIVED CORPORATE BRAND VALUES ON BRAND PREFERENCE:

AN EXPLORATORY EMPIRICAL STUDY

Sandor Czellar Guido Palazzo

January 2004

Institut Universitaire de Management International (IUMI) École des HEC Université de Lausanne CH – 1015 Lausanne Tél. 021 692 33 10, Fax 021 692 34 95 E-mail : Admin.mim@hec.unil.ch Contact Authors: Tél. 021 692 33 73, Fax 021 692 33 05 E-mail : Sandor.Czellar@hec.unil.ch

2

Abstract

In this paper, we build on consumer-company identification and identity consumption theory

to investigate the impact of perceived corporate values on brand preference. Our model

proposes that brand value attractiveness (defined in terms of perceived corporate values and

value importance) positively affects brand preference and that this main effect is moderated

by individual differences (defined in terms of self-monitoring and materialism). We expect

that brand values should be more important for low self-monitors than for high self-monitors;

in the same vein, non-materialists should give more weight to values in their preferences than

materialists. A first empirical study using six well-known brands and 150 participants

provides support for our model. Managerial implications and future research directions are

discussed on the basis of the findings.

Keywords: List of Values, Corporate Branding, Brand Preference, Identity

3

The Impact of Perceived Corporate Brand Values on Brand Preference:

An Exploratory Empirical Study

Nowadays, we are witnessing a shift from product branding to corporate branding

(Aaker, 1996; de Chernatony, 1999; Hatch and Schultz, 2001, 2003; Keller, 2003). Corporate

branding goes far beyond the well-established tradition of product branding: It does not

explicitly deal with product features, but rather transports a well-defined set of corporate

values (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000; Hatch and Schultz, 2003; Schultz and de Chernatony,

2002). The general aim of corporate branding is to build a sustainable bond between the

branded company and its customers through a clear value proposition (Schultz and de

Chernatony, 2002).

Despite the vivid interest of brand managers for promoting corporate brand values and

despite the existence of a considerable body of anecdotal evidence, systematic research on

consumer attitudes and preferences vis-à-vis corporate brand values remains scarce. The topic

is of considerable importance, however. If corporate brand values prove indeed to enter

consumer preference structures, a strong case can be made for the development of specific

value-focussed strategies, over and/or in addition to other benefit- focussed positioning. In a

similar way, if consumer segments based on life values exist for the brand, differentiated

corporate value positioning may be developed to reach each of them. In addition, the

investigation of the impact of corporate brand values on consumer behavior may also provide

insights about brand strategy effectiveness.

In this paper, we build on identity consumption theory (Belk, 1988; Elliott and

Wattanasuwan, 1998) and consumer-company identification (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003) to

investigate the impact of perceived corporate values on brand preference. We focus

specifically on terminal, end-goal values represented by corporate brands (Kahle, 1983). We

4

also include two individual difference factors, self-monitoring and materialism, as possible

moderators of the impact of corporate values on brand preference.

The paper is organized as follows. We first present the theoretical underpinnings of

our model and three research hypotheses. We then provide details about the methodology of

our empirical study. Results are then presented and discussed, from both a theoretical and

managerial perspective. A reflection on future research directions concludes the paper.

Conceptual Framework

A corporate brand tries to establish a coherent perception of the company for its

different stakeholders and reflects a good corporate reputation in the eyes of the general

public (Hatch and Schultz 2003; Schultz and de Chernatony 2002; Urde, 2003). Nevertheless,

the single most important public of a corporate brand is its end consumers, who are drowning

in the overwhelming abundance of brands and brand communication. Against the background

of brand multiplication, the complexity-reducing corporate brand promises stable, trustworthy

criteria for purchase decisions (Gabriel and Lang, 1995; Schmitt and Simonson, 1997).

Questions of personal identity ("Who am I?") and collective identity ("Who are we?")

are ranked highly on the agenda of today's postindustrial societies (Giddens, 1991). Through

brand preference, choice and consumption, consumers create meaning and try to define or

strengthen their identity (Belk, 1988; Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Elliott and Wattanasuwan,

1998; Fournier, 1998; McCracken, 1986). The core thesis of this research is the idea of

identity being (at least partly) the result of consumption and consumer decisions conversely

being the result of identity needs.

By strongly focussing on values, corporate branding strategies try to protrude deeply

into people's life-world. With their normative kernel and their lifeworld-rooted narrative they

can successfully address the growing desire for normative orientation in society. This is why

some corporate brands promise to be credible and authentic (e.g., "Coca Cola, the real thing").

5

They “reach beyond the purely rational and purely economic level to spark feelings of

closeness, affection and trust” (Berry, 2000) and are perceived as resources for individual

identity projects.

The discussion on the influence of life values on consumer decisions has a long

tradition (Carman, 1978; Henry, 1976; Kamakura and Novak, 1992; Novak and MacEvoy,

1990; Pitts and Woodside, 1983). Within the identity-driven context of corporate branding,

the link between values and consumption becomes even more salient. Values build the

evaluative framework that helps to reconstruct, maintain and express a role-transcending and

cross-situationally consistent personal identity (Hitlin, 2003; Taylor, 1989). Therefore, value-

driven brands help to express or sometimes even to define personal moral preferences; in

addition, they can transport specific aspects of consumer personalities. Through meaningful

values, corporate brands bring continuity into a fragmented experience, they compensate for

the lack of community in our individualistic society (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Elliott,

1993). Corporate brands create micronarratives around their normative kernel; and consumers

use these micronarratives for their individual and communal projects of identity

reconstruction.

The growing importance of identity needs for consumer decisions leads to discussions

on the consequences for corporations. Drawing on research in individual and organizational

psychology, Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) have recently proposed an integrative framework of

consumer-company identification. According to the them, the core values of a corporate

identity (embodied in its mission, operating principles and leadership) are communicated to

diverse stakeholders - in the first place to consumers - by a variety of communicational

elements. These elements can be more or less controllable: for instance, the corporate brand's

marketing-mix or the company's annual report are highly controllable elements; whereas

distributor activity, press releases by consumer associations and NGO activism are less

6

controllable elements. At a minimum, the controllable identity communicators should carry

the corporate values to consumers and other audiences in a clear and integrated way

(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). Ideally, corporate values should be evident throughout all

dimensions of corporate behavior (de Chernatony, 1999; Hatch and Schultz, 2001; Simoes

and Dibb, 2001; Tilley, 1999; Urde 1999; 2003).

Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) propose that a key antecedent of consumer-company

identification is corporate identity attractiveness. Corporate identity attactiveness is in a great

deal determined by identity similarity - that is, "the more similar consumers perceive a

company identity to be to their own" (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003, p. 80). Identity

attractiveness is a function of consumer-company identity similarity for the reasons

articulated by the theory of identity consumption: If there is a true match between corporate

and consumer identity, the purchase of the corporate brand should enable consumers to define

more clearly and completely who they are or where they belong to. In the next section, we

theorize that corporate values play a key role in this process.

Model and Hypotheses

Based on the conceptual developments outlined above, we discuss in the following

lines the customer-based conceptual model represented in the figure. By adopting a

multiattribute perspective, we define corporate brand value as the sum of the products of

perceived values offered by the corporate brand and the importance placed on values by the

customer. The focal point of the model is the hypothesized impact of corporate brand value

attractiveness on brand preference (H1). The individual difference variables of self-

monitoring (H2) and materialism (H3) are represented as moderators between corporate brand

value attractiveness and brand preference. We now present the three research hypotheses.

INSERT FIGURE AROUND HERE

Corporate brand values and brand preference

7

Based on our conceptual framework, a strong link between consumer brand preference

and corporate brand value attractiveness can be expected. Both classical identity consumption

theory (e.g. Belk, 1988) as well as the more recent consumer-company identification model

(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003) emphasize the importance of identity similarity and

attractiveness in shaping consumer attitudes, preferences and choices. From a corporate

branding perspective, the impact of corporate values on consumer attitudes, preferences and

choices follows the same logic: Corporate brand values are a component of corporate identity;

and brand value similarity is a subset of identity similarity that leads to corporate brand value

attractiveness. In turn, corporate brand value attractiveness that itself contributes to favourable

consumer attitudes, preferences and choices. Our interest focusses on this issue at the

preference level.We therefore propose the following hypothesis:

H1 The more attractive the perceived corporate brand values, the higher the consumer's

preference for the brand.

We next propose two moderators of the main effect of corporate brand value

attractiveness on brand preference. These moderators are individual trait differences: self-

monitoring and materialism. Past studies have already conceptualized both self-monitoring

(e.g. DeBono, 2000) and materialism (e.g. Bloch, 1995; Boch, Brunel and Arnold, 2003) as a

moderator variable at different stages of consumer behavior. Our contribution lies in the

application of these moderators to the relation between perceived corporate brand values and

brand preference.

The moderating role of self-monitoring

According to self-monitoring theory, people differ substantially in the way they

regulate themselves in social situations (Gangestad and Snyder, 2000; Snyder, 1974). Low

self-monitors tend to project towards others a stable self in diverse settings of social

interaction. Their behavior is guided more by inner beliefs, attitudes and values than social

8

influences. High self-monitors, on the other hand, exert more expressive control over their

social behavior. They tend to adapt their appearance and acts to specific situations and

specific people; personal beliefs, attitudes and values have therefore less impact on their

behavior than social cues.

There is strong evidence that low self-monitors are more receptive than high self-

monitors to product quality claims serving a value-expressive function; whereas high self-

monitors are more receptive than low self-monitors to symbolic claims serving a social-

adjustive function (DeBono, 1987; DeBono and Harnish, 1988; Shavitt, Lowrey and Han,

1992; Snyder and DeBono, 1985). We expect such a pattern of evidence with regard to

corporate brand values, too. Low self-monitors, driven by their personal values, should give

more importance in their brand preferences to brands that carry values important to them;

high self-monitors, on the other hand, are expected to attribute less importance to corporate

brand values since they tend to give priority to the social-adjustive function of brands.

Therefore:

H2 The relation between corporate brand value attractiveness and brand preference is

moderated by the individual's self-monitoring level. Specifically: a low self-monitoring level

leads to a stronger relation between corporate brand value attractiveness and brand preference;

a high self-monitoring level leads to a weaker relation between corporate brand value

attractiveness and brand preference.

According to Richins and Dawson (1992), materialistic consumers are characterized

by a strong emphasis on possession acquisition. They think about possessions as an essential

means in the pursuit of happiness and tend to view success in terms of possessions, too. As a

consequence, materialists "value possessions and their acquisition more than other life goals

and more than their relationships with other people" (Richins and Dawson, 1992, p. 308).

However, we do not argue that materialists would not have any life goals apart from the mere

9

acquisition of goods (Csíkszentmihályi and Rochberg-Halton, 1978). Rather, our expectation

is that materialists, being strongly focussed on the acquisition of possessions, would form

brand preferences on the basis of product features signalling specific attributes, quality,

prestige or status. Highly abstract brand features - such as the terminal values represented by

the corporate brand - would therefore have relatively less importance for them for forming

brand preferences; non-materialists, on the other hand, should place more importance on

corporate values for forming preferences. Therefore:

H3 The relation between corporate brand value attractiveness and brand preference is

moderated by the individual's materialism orientation. Specifically: a non-materialistic

orientation leads to a stronger relation between corporate brand value attractiveness and brand

preference; a materialistic orientation leads to a weaker relation between corporate brand

value attractiveness and brand preference.

Methodology

As a preliminary step, we selected six widely known brands from a screening study

with 55 students. These were two international sportswear brands: Nike and Puma; two Swiss

retailers: Migros and Denner and two European fashion brands: Benetton and H&M.

The following measurement scales were used: Kahle's (1983) List of Values for

measur ing value importance (nine items, seven points ranging from 1="Very unimportant" to

7="Very important"); Snyder and Gangestad's (1986) scale for measuring self-monitoring (18

items, ranging from 1="Strongly Disagree" to 7="Strongly Agree"); Richins and Dawson's

(1992) scale for measuring materialism (18 items, ranging from 1="Strongly Disagree" to

7="Strongly Agree"). Brand value perception was measured using Kahle's scale, too, but this

time by asking participants to think about what they know and have experienced about a

particular brand and then rate how much the brand reflected each of the nine values by using a

1-7 ("Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree") format. Corporate brand value attractiveness

10

was obtained through a multiattribute model, by calculating, for each value, value importance

* value perception and summing these products across the nine values. Finally, for brand

preference, we asked participants to give relative preference scores to four brands in a

particular industry including the brand pairs under investigation, by applying the common

relative preference elicitation technique (e.g. Park and Srinivasan, 1994). For example, in

international sportswear, the task was to rate Nike, Puma, Adidas and Reebok on a 1 to 10

scale, by giving 1 to the least liked brand and 10 to the most liked brand. Then, participants

gave a score between 2 and 9 to the remaining two brands in a way that reflected their relative

preferences.

One-hundred fifty students took part in a paper-and-pencil survey (35 % female, mean

age 21.8). The study was administered to students in two stages, with a one-week lag between

the two. A first questionnaire contained brand preference measures, the LOV scale, the self-

monitoring scale and the materialism scale. A second questionnaire contained the perceived

brand value scale for each of the six brands studied. The order of the two questionnaires was

counterbalanced across two parts of the sample.

Discussion of Results

Scale reliabilities using Cronbach's α were the following: List of Values (.680), brand

values (.934), self-monitoring (.670), materialism (.846). To test our three hypotheses, we ran

a multiple regression with interaction terms, with brand preference as a dependent variable

(see table).

Results indicate that brand value attractiveness has, as expected, a positive and

significant impact on brand preference. The two interaction terms, again as expected, are

negative and significant. These results lead to the non-rejection of our three hypotheses and

confirm our conceptual model. That is, higher brand value attractiveness leads to higher

11

preference for the brand and this relation is indeed negatively moderated by self-monitoring

and materialism.

INSERT TABLE AROUND HERE

All three hypotheses have received empirical support. Note that the standardized

coefficient of corporate brand value attractiveness is more than three times larger than that of

the interaction terms. This means that the main effect has considerably more impact than the

moderator variables on the dependent variable. It seems that corporate brand values - as

assessed by the LOV scale at least - are important to all consumers. For example, perceptions

about the values represented by Nike, Puma etc. serve as criteria for forming preferences

among competing brands in the sports fashion industry.

From a managerial perspective, it seems worth undertaking a corporate brand strategy

built around terminal values, since the results point to the strong main effect of corporate

brand value attractiveness. However, some market segments may be more sensitive to such a

strategy than others: Specifically, low self-monitors and non-materialistic people. It is also

possible that these potential consumers react less favourably to concrete social-symbolic

brand cues like high price, brand prestige, allusions to fashion, association with opinion

leaders etc. The converse of this is true of high self-monitors and materialistic people. It

would be interesting to link these results to other segmentation criteria, too. For instance,

Richins and Dawson (1992) had shown that materialists tended to buy more items for

themselves and give less money to others and charities. If consumer segments along these

characteristics exist for the brand, differentiated value positioning may be developed to reach

them.

Furthermore, managers may want to have a look at detailed brand- level and value-

level analyses. For example, if brand strategy involves a clear emphasis on certain types of

12

terminal values (such as, for instance, "enjoyment and fun" or "freedom of choice" for Nike),

insights may be gained about its effectiveness using our methodology.

Future Research

We focussed our preliminary investigation on six brands in only three product

categories: sportswear, retailing and fashion. It would be interesting to extend our study to

more brands in more product (and service) categories to investigate the effects related to the

social-symbolic role of brands in different categories. Theoretically, value-based branding

may be developed in any product/service category. It is an empirical question whether

corporate brand values play a more important role in predominantly hedonic and symbolic

categories (perhaps with the exception of luxuries) rather than in functional categories (such

as grocery, electrical appliances etc.).

The impact of corporate values on brand attitude is another topic for future research. In

this paper, we used an overall measure of brand attitude - preference among four brands.

More detailed attitude measures in terms of the tripartite attitude model (Eagly and Chaiken,

1993) may explain whether it is at the cognitive, affective or intentional level of attitude that

corporate values have most impact.

Another, largely unexplored path for future studies is the investigation of the

effectiveness of identity communicators in transmitting desired brand values. As we

mentioned it in the conceptual part of this paper, marketing-mix elements at the corporate

level may be used to convey a corporate identity, and, by the same token, corporate values

(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). But which marketing elements are the most effective for

conveying the desired values? For instance, would corporate advertising be more effective

than corporate social initiatives in the communication effort? Also, are less controllable

communicators (e.g. customer groups) potentially more beneficial (or damaging) for

enhancing perceived corporate values? All these questions remain open for future inquiry.

13

In a different perspective, extension of the proposed model may be undertaken to

develop an integrated model of the corporate brand value - brand attitude/preference/choice

link. Specifically, other moderators could be included in the framework, both individual

differences (like age, gender, gender identity, consumer expertise etc) and manipulated

variables (like mood, involvement, information load etc). In addition, mediating variables like

a critical attitude toward "big business" could be analyzed, too. Note also that we have only

included terminal, end-goal values in our study (Kahle, 1983). Another extension concerns the

distinction between instrumental- vs. terminal values in the sense defined by Rokeach (1968,

1973). Our expectation is that materialism and self-monitoring may have different effects for

instrumental values than for terminal values (it may be that the interaction effects would be

positive for instrumental values, whereas, as we have shown, they are negative for terminal

values). Other individual differences may also have an impact on the relative weight of

instrumental and terminal values (gender effects in particular), opening up intriguing avenues

for further inquiry.

14

References

Aaker, D. J. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: Free Press.

Aaker, D. J. & Joachimsthaler, E (2000). The brand relationsship spectrum: the key to the

brand architecture challenge. California Management Review, 42, 8-23.

Bhattacharya, C.B. & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: a framework for

understanding consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67, 76-

88.

Belk, R.W. (1988). Possession and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139-

168.

Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response. Journal

of Marketing, 59 (July), 16-29.

Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of

visual aesthe tics: concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (4),

551-66.

Carman, J. M. (1978). Values and consumption patterns: a closed loop. Advances in

Consumer Research, 5, 403-407.

Csíkszentmihályi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1978). Reflections on materialism. University

of Chicago Magazine, 70 (3), 6-15.

DeBono, K. G. (2000). Attitude functions and consumer psychology: understanding

perceptions of product quality, in Why We Evaluate? Functions of Attitudes, G. R.

Maio and J. M. Olson, Eds. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

15

DeBono, K. G., & Harnish, R. J. (1988). The role of source expertise and source

attractiveness in the processing of persuasive messages: A functional approach.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 (4), 541-46.

De Chernatony, L. (1999). Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand

identity and brand reputation. Journal of Marketing, 61, 157-179.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.

Elliott, R. (1993). Marketing and the Meaning of Postmodern Culture. In: D. Brownlie, M.

Saren, R. Wensley & R. Whittington (Eds.), Rethinking Marketing: new perspectives

on the discipline and profession. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press: 134-142.

Elliot, R. & Wattanasuwan, K. (1998). Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of

identity. International Journal of Advertising, 17, 131-144.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer

research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 343-73.

Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-Monitoring: Appraisal and Reappraisal.

Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 530-555.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press

Hatch, M.J., & Schultz, M. (2001). Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand?

Harvard Business Review, 79, 128-134.

Hatch, M.J., & Schultz, M. (2003). Bringing the corporation into corporate branding. In:

European Journal of Marketing, 37, 1041-1064.

Henry, W. A. (1976). Cultural values do correlate with consumer behavior. Journal of

Marketing Research, 13, 121-127.

Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: drawing links between two theories

of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 118-137.

16

Kahle, L. R. (1983). Social values and social change: adaptation to life in America. New

York: Praeger.

Kamakura, W. A., & Novak, T. P. (1992). Value-system segmentation: exploring the meaning

of LOV. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 119-132.

Keller, K.L. (2003). Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of

Consumer Research, 29, 595-600.

McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and

movement of the cultural meaning of goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 71-84.

Novak, T. P., & MacEvoy, B. (1990). On comparing alternative segmentation schemes: The

list of values and values and life styles. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 105-109.

Park, C. S., & Srinivasan, V. (1994). A survey-based method for measuring and

understanding brand equity and its extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 31

(2), 271-88.

Pitts. R. E., & Woodside, A. G. (1983). Personal value influences on consumer product class

and brand preferences. Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 193-198.

Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). Materialism as a consumer value: measure development

and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (4), 303-16.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes and values. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

Schultz, M., & de Chernatony, L. (2002). The challenge of corporate branding. Corporate

Reputation Review, 5, 105-112

Simoes, C. & Dibb, S. (2001). Rethinking the brand concept: new brand orientation.

Corporate Communications, 6, 217-224.

Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: matters of assessment,

matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (1), 125-39.

17

Snyder, M. (1974), Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 30 (4), 526-37.

Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. G. (1985). Appeals to image and claims about quality:

understanding the psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 49, 586-597.

Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: the making of the modern identity. Cambridge MA:

Cambridge University Press.

Tilley, C. (1999). Build- in branding: how to engineer a leadership brand. Journal of

Marketing Management, 15, 117-133.

Urde, M. (1999). Brand orientation: a mindset for building brands into strategic resources.

Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 117-133.

Urde, M. (2003). Core Value-based corporate brand Building. European Journal of Marketing,

37, 1017-1040.

18

Table

Regression with Interaction Terms, Dependent Variable: Brand Preference

Independent Standardized Coefficients t p-value

Corporate Brand Value

Attractiveness .408 10.7 .000

Brand Value Attractiveness x

Self-monitoring -.124 -2.09 .037

Brand Value Attractiveness x

Materialism -.117 -2.01 .045

Notes. F=38.23 (p=.000), R2=.113, adj. R2=.111.

19

Perceived brand values

Value importance

Corporate brand value

attractiveness

Preference for the

corporate brand H1

Materialism Self-monitoring

H3 H2

Figure -Conceptual Model