Brand associations:

looking through the

eye of the beholder
Debra Grace and
Aron O'Cass
Introduction
Today brands play an integral part in
marketing strategy. This is because brands
have become an important marketing
component to the manufacturer (Murphy,
1990; Motameni and Shahrokhi, 1998) and a
rich source of information for the consumer
(Aaker and Biel, 1993). For the
manufacturer, brands provide a means of
identification for ease of handling and tracing,
a means of legal protection of unique features,
and of endowing products with unique
associations (McCarthy and Perault, 1990;
Kotler and Armstrong, 1997). Furthermore,
brands signal quality levels to consumers, and
can be effectively used to gain a competitive
advantage (Skinner, 1990) and secure
financial returns (Collins-Dodd and
Louviere, 1998). To the consumer, a brand
identifies the source of the product, which in
turn, assigns responsibility to the product
maker, and provides a promise or bond with
the maker of the product (Lassar et al., 1995).
In addition, brands reduce consumer search
costs (Landes and Posner, 1987; Biswas,
1992) and the consumer's perceived level of
risk, and signals the quality of the product
(McNeal and Zerren, 1981; Herbig and
Milewicz, 1993; Shimp, 1993; Erdem, 1998;
Janiszewski and van Osselaer, 2000). The
brand, therefore, becomes the purveyor of
advantages to the consumer, in terms of both
economic and symbolic value.
To date, a number of theoretical
frameworks have been suggested in an
attempt to assist marketers to understand how
consumers think about, and respond to
brands, therefore enabling them to implement
effective consumer-centred marketing
activities and gain sustainable differentiation
(Kapferer, 1992; de Chernatony, 1993;
Keller, 1993) However, these models have a
distinct tendency to conceptualise the brand
in terms of physical goods, with only minimal
regard, or reference to the branding of
services (Turley and Moore, 1995). Some
models claim blanket representation of both
goods and services branding (Keller, 1993;
1998; de Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Riley,
1996;) but the potential efficiency of these
models could well be disputed on the grounds
that marketing principles, for both goods and
services, deviate due to the inherent
differences between the two (Berry, 1980;
2000; Cowell, 1989; Bateson, 1995).
The authors
Debra Grace is a Lecturer and Aron O'Cass is a
Senior Lecturer, both at the School of Marketing and
Management, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Keywords
Consumer behaviour, Brands, Services marketing
Abstract
As the importance of brands is realised, so too is the
importance of research in this area. However, to date, a
number of branding models have been developed that
lack empirical testing, are derived from the perspective of
brand practitioners, and pay little attention to the
branding of services. This study seeks consumer-based
information via qualitative methods regarding brand
dimensions that hold meaning to consumers for both
branded products and branded services. The results
indicate a number of key dimensions to be such as core
product/service, experience with brand, image of user,
important to consumers for both goods and services.
Dimensions such as feelings, and self-image congruence,
were found to be important only in terms of branded
products, while word-of-mouth, servicescape, and
employees, held importance with respect to branded
services. The results provide a platform upon which future
research can be built.
Electronic access
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-2752.htm
96
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 5
.
Number 2
.
2002
.
pp. 96111
# MCB UP Limited
.
ISSN 1352-2752
DOI 10.1108/13522750210423797
As services possess divergent idiosyncrasies,
such as intangibility, heterogeneity,
inseparability and perishability (Zeithaml and
Bitner, 1996; Berry, 2000), the past decade
has produced substantial development and
exploration of new marketing concepts aimed
explicitly at the marketing of services. While
this period of services marketing research has
been capacious in nature, with the scrutiny of
issues ranging from consumer evaluations of
services (Friedman and Smith, 1993; Best,
1994; Fulmer, 1997), measuring service
quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Reichheld
and Sasser, 1990; Proctor and Wright, 1998),
to service failures (Blodgett et al., 1995; Bejou
and BoRakowski, 1996; Tax and Brown,
1998), inquiry into the branding of services
has been minimal. This could well be a
vexatious oversight considering that the
calibre of the brand lies in its ability to
communicate meaning to consumers (Herbig
and Milewicz, 1993) hence substantially
reducing their level of perceived risk (McNeal
and Zerren, 1981; Shimp, 1993). As service
consumers' pre-purchase uncertainty is
amplified due to purchasing ``products'' that
are intangible, non-standardised, and usually
sold without guarantees (Maister, 1994;
Comm and LaBay, 1996) brand research in
the services arena warrants attention. The
focus of this study, therefore, is to investigate
and compare brand dimensions specifically
attributed to brand products and branded
services.
Branding literature
As brand equity has emerged as a business
priority and marketing imperative, so too has
the need to understand and manage brand
associations. The result has been the
development of conceptual models of
branding by academics (Aaker, 1996) and
practioners (Stobart, 1994). While these
models have been beneficial in simplifying
brand complexity into a manageable number
of components, they are inconsistent in their
terminology, brand element segmentation,
weighting assigned to specific elements, and
relationships between the elements. For
example, brand terminology in itself is
confusing, with Biel (1992) talking about
``brandscapes'', Aaker (1997) ``brand
personality'', Keller (1998) ``brand image'',
and Berry (2000) ``brand meaning''.
Disparities arising through differences in
conceptual segmentation and weightings, and
terminology aside, these models have made a
significant contribution to our general
understanding of branding issues. However,
these branding models largely are a result of
the synthesis of information gained from the
experiences and perceptions of brand
practitioners. Although valuable information
can be gained by understanding brands
through those who work closely with them
(brand managers and consultants), the true
significance of brands can only be seen
through the eyes of the beholder, i.e. the
consumer. Consequently, the effectiveness of
marketing stimuli becomes subservient to
consumer brand knowledge residing in the
minds of consumers, thus highlighting the
importance of understanding the brand
knowledge construct. As a result, an attempt
to define consumer brand knowledge, from
the consumer's perspective, was made by
Keller in 1993 and later modified in 1998 and
is shown in Figure 1.
Keller's (1998) model proposes that brand
knowledge is comprised of brand awareness
(brand recognition and recall achieved
through marketing stimuli), and brand image.
Brand image is detailed to a greater extent
within the model because of its more complex
nature. Brand image is said to result from the
favourability, strength, uniqueness, and types
of brand associations held by the consumer.
Within the model, Keller (1998) depicts
various types of brand associations such as
attributes (product-related and non-product
related), benefits (functional, experiential and
symbolic) and attitudes. In particular,
non-product attributes are categorised into:
.
price;
.
user/usage imagery;
.
brand personality; and
.
feelings and experiences.
While the development of the constructs
within the model, generally, have been backed
by sound theoretical argument, only a small
portion of the model has been empirically
tested to date. Research within this
customer-based brand model has included
studies that examine the relationship between
brand perceptions and purchase intentions
(Laroche and Brisoux, 1989; Cobb-Walgren
and Mohr, 1998), the relationship between
self-perception and brand image (Fournier,
1998) and marketing activities and brand
97
Brand associations: looking through the eye of the beholder
Debra Grace and Aron O'Cass
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 5
.
Number 2
.
2002
.
96111
perceptions (Roth and Romeo, 1992), and
brand associations on consumer response
(Belen del Rio et al., 2001). Therefore, it is
suggested that, in order to elevate our
understanding of the relationship between
consumers and brands, we need to examine
how the various dimensions, depicted within
Keller's (1993) model, influence consumer
response. Secondly, it is suggested that
Keller's (1998) model overlooks possible
differences found in the area of consumer
evaluations concerning goods and services.
While his model claims blanket
representation of both goods and services, it is
only logical to assume that the inherent
characteristic differences found between the
two, could result in different dimensions,
emerging for goods and for services, within
the model.
Despite the growing importance of service
economies throughout the world, the
branding literature reveals an overwhelming
tendency to study branding in terms of
physical goods (Turley and Moore, 1995).
While several researchers have hinted to the
fact that the intrinsic characteristics of
services may pose particular challenges to
marketers and brand managers, very few have
actually investigated services branding at all.
This prompted de Chernatony and
Dall'Olmo Riley (1999) to undertake
exploratory research aimed at eliciting the
expert's view about the concept of the brand
in the context of services. Twenty in-depth
interviews were conducted with brand
consultants who worked in either advertising
agencies, market research agencies, or
corporate communication agencies. This
resulted in agreement between the experts
that branding principles were basically the
same for physical goods and services.
However, the experts' view was that the
execution of branding strategies may need
adjustments to comply with specific service
features (de Chernatony and Dall'Olmo
Riley, 1999).
Berry (2000), however, adopted a different
approach with his research into service brand
equity. He analysed the strategies of 14
mature high-performance service companies
to produce a service-branding model of
service brand equity, as shown in Figure 2.
Similar to Keller (1993), he advocated that
brand equity is comprised of two components
brand awareness and brand meaning (brand
image) (Keller 1993, 1998). He claims that
the primary source of brand awareness is the
company's presented brand i.e. the
company's controlled communications
(Berry, 2000). This includes:
.
advertising;
.
service facilities;
.
the appearance of service providers;
.
company name; and
.
logo.
Having secondary impact on brand awareness
are external brand communications which
Figure 1 Brand knowledge
98
Brand associations: looking through the eye of the beholder
Debra Grace and Aron O'Cass
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 5
.
Number 2
.
2002
.
96111
refer to information customers receive about
the service which are essentially uncontrolled
by the company, e.g. word-of-mouth
communications and public relations (Berry,
2000). Brand meaning, on the other hand, is
said to be mainly influenced by the customer
experience with the company. This is because
service businesses are labour-intensive and
human performance, rather than machine
performance, plays a critical role in building
the brand (Berry, 2000). Having secondary
influence on brand meaning is said to be the
company's presented brand, and external
brand communications.
Berry (2000), and de Chernatony and
Dall'Olmo Riley's (1999) exploratory interest
in the area of services branding has provided
some insight which may assist us in learning
about the relationship between service
consumers and their brands. While key
dimensions identified such as external brand
communications, company's presented
brand, experience with company, provide
``food for thought'', they are founded on the
perceptions of brand consultants and
marketing practitioners, rather than from the
perspective of the consumer. Until we can
determine how consumers perceive and
evaluate brands of both goods and services,
we remain largely uninformed in this area.
Research questions
In order to understand the relationship
between consumers and brands we need
firstly to identify the dimensions that are
meaningful to consumers in their
conceptualisations of brands. While there
have been a number of such dimensions
suggested within the literature (Keller, 1998;
de Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Riley, 1999;
Berry, 2000), to the researchers' knowledge,
no attempt has been made to establish if these
dimensions hold meaning to the consumer.
By exploring these dimensions within the
consumer's consciousness we not only gain a
greater knowledge of the meaning of brands
to consumers, but also can begin to
understand to what extent such dimensions
are similar or different between goods brands
and services brands. We, therefore, pose the
following questions:
Q1. What are the dimensions of a branded
product identified by consumers?
Q2. What are the dimensions of a branded
service identified by consumers?
Q3. To what extent are these dimensions
consistent across branded products and
branded services?
The research questions are couched in terms
of the exploratory nature of this study, in that
their purpose is to illicit information from the
consumer, rather than confirm pre-conceived
theoretical propositions.
Methodology
The discovery-oriented nature of this research
demanded a phenomenological approach to
data gathering. As the purpose of the study
Figure 2 Service-branding model
99
Brand associations: looking through the eye of the beholder
Debra Grace and Aron O'Cass
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 5
.
Number 2
.
2002
.
96111
was to explore brand dimensions that convey
meaning to consumers, a qualitative approach
was adopted due to its ability to obtain
first-hand a description of some specified
domain of experience (Haley, 1996; Hastings
and Perry, 2000). In this sense,
understanding is derived from information
gained directly from the consumer, rather
than from the direction of theories, laws, and
concepts (Masberg and Silverman, 1996).
The value of a qualitative approach, such as
this, has become more apparent in consumer
research over the past ten years with a number
of researchers (Woodruff and Schumann,
1993; Haley, 1996; Masberg and Silverman,
1996; Gibler et al., 1997; Hirschman and
Thompson, 1997; Kates, 1998; Price et al.,
2000) gaining insight into phenomena not
easily understood through quantitative
measures. Furthermore, brands:
. . . are not just simple measurable ``things'', but
``balances'' of complementary features which
meet consumers' rational, emotional, social and
cultural needs (Cooper, 1999).
Thus, a full understanding of these
complexities are better sought through this
more in-depth approach. Therefore, personal
interviews were chosen as the most
appropriate means of data collection due to
their superior ability to delve into the
respondent's memory via individually
adapted probing (Zaltman, 1997).
A purposeful sampling process was used so
that only those people who had a strong or
long-term association with a service brand
were interviewed. Therefore, potential
interviewees were initially asked if they could
think of a service brand with which they had a
long-standing relationship or held knowledge
of, which they could use as a frame of
reference for an interview. Only those people
who gave a positive indication at this stage
were interviewed. No restrictions were made
on service type nominated by the
respondents, as the most important issue at
this stage was the extent to which knowledge
of the brand was held, regardless of service
type. The study was conducted in two phases
consisting of six unstructured personal
interviews (phase one), and six structured
personal interviews (phase two) following a
similar procedure to O'Cass (1996), who
argued that unstructured interviews should
precede structured interviews. The
unstructured interviews are used to guide the
development of the structured questions. The
rationale for the interviews was that interviews
would continue until convergence was
achieved. As such we did not establish a set
number of interviews, but continued until
there was zero sum gain from conducting
anymore. Following a similar line of thought
to Hastings and Perry (2000) who conducted
nine interviews in their study of service
exporters, interviews were terminated after 12
interviews because convergence had been
achieved on the themes being reported. In
addition, the results of this study are intended
for use in the preliminary stages of a larger
research project, therefore purposeful
sampling and in-depth interviews are
appropriate as stand-alone techniques for
data collection (Hastings and Perry, 2000). In
effect there was zero sum gain from
conducting more interviews. Furthermore,
The purpose of phase one was to elicit
information regarding dimensions of branded
products and branded services from the
respondents. The interviews conducted in
this phase were unstructured in order to
ensure that the interviewee was not being led
or influenced in any way by the researcher.
Firstly, interviewees were asked to think of a
branded product that they were familiar with,
or held knowledge of. They were then asked
to talk about the brand, for example, what
they knew about it, how they knew about it,
and why they either liked or disliked it.
Dialogue was primarily dominated by the
interviewee, with the interviewer contributing
only at times when paraphrasing, probing or
prompting was needed. When the researcher
felt the discussion had been exhausted, the
procedure was then repeated with the
interviewees responding in terms of a branded
service. The results of this phase were then
used to compose a more structured format for
the interviews conducted in phase two.
Having determined the respondents' brand
dimensions of goods and services in phase
one, the purpose of phase two was to
understand the importance of each
dimension, and to make comparisons on
these dimensions across goods and services.
Interviewees were presented with the brand
dimensions previously identified in phase one
and asked if these were meaningful to them.
They were then asked to describe the
importance of each dimension. Finally,
interviewees were asked to nominate any
other dimensions that were important to them
that had not been discussed in the interview.
100
Brand associations: looking through the eye of the beholder
Debra Grace and Aron O'Cass
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 5
.
Number 2
.
2002
.
96111
Results
Phase one consisted of six interviews each
being of approximately one hour in length.
Four of the interviewees were female and two
male, and their ages varied from 25 to 71.
First, the interviewees were asked to think of
one or two branded products that they were
familiar with, or held some knowledge of.
Brands discussed included:
.
Espirit clothing;
.
Pantene hair shampoo;
.
Kolotex pantyhose;
.
Ford Falcon;
.
Kellogs Weetabix;
.
Biojet washing powder;
.
Toyota Camry; and
.
Hyundai Excel.
Interviewees were encouraged to reveal
everything they knew, or felt, about the
brand. Overall, all interviewees indicated their
association with the nominated brand had
been a long-term one, and results represent
an overall view of the brand which has
developed over time, rather than individual
encounters. As such we may conclude that the
descriptions given by respondents were more
inline with their longitudinal encounters, not
just their most recent experiences.
Q1. What are the dimensions of a branded
product identified by consumers?
The results of the interviews revealed a
number of brand dimensions important to
respondents in terms of branded products, as
indicated in Table I. With respect to the
attributes directly related to the core product,
a number of dimensions such as design,
features, colour, reliability, and quality, were
mentioned by the interviewees. In particular,
quality and reliability were mentioned by
almost all interviewees, and in most cases it
was mentioned very early on in the interviews.
As one interviewee put it:
The quality of the product says everything about
the brand if the quality deteriorates, then so
does the brand.
The reliability of the product was mentioned,
such as:
I buy this brand because I just know it works
every single time it's reliable its worth every
cent to me.
I know I can go to the [clothing] store and find
something in the range [clothing brand] that will
be great I have never been let down.
In varying degrees, all interviewees placed
emphasis on quality and reliability and it was
the primary focus of discussions concerning
the core product.
Additionally, respondents mentioned other
factors such as design, features and colour.
These factors were discussed with respect to
cars and clothing items and were referred to
in the context of comfort and style. While not
mentioned in every interview, these are,
nonetheless, thought to be formidable
dimensions of brands as shown by the
following interviewees' comments:
Ford, as a brand, has a bit more going for it. It's
the little things that count, for example the
interior is better. Things like that make the
difference.
Let's face it, it's the features of the product that
make it special that make me want to use the
product or brand for that matter.
In particular, colour (with respect to motor
vehicles), was singled out as being an
important product related attribute as
exhibited by these comments:
Colour gives an impression of who I am reflects
my personality.
You need to feel good about the colour, or you
won't feel good about the car.
It was interesting to note, however, that
colour appeared to be important only to
female respondents, with male respondents
emphasising performance rather than
appearance.
With respect to non-product related
attributes the following were predominantly
mentioned in all interviews:
.
price;
.
brand name; and
.
past experience with brand.
Price was spoken about more in terms of
value for money, i.e. ``the price you pay is fair
for the quality you get'', but also, in terms of
intrinsic value, interviewee one said:
The higher the price, the higher the social value.
If I had the sort of money you need to buy a
BMW, I would have made it in the world. I
want to be on the same rung of the social ladder
as other BMW users. If BMWs were cheap, I
wouldn't want to own one. It would do nothing
for my social image. So I suppose you can say
the price I pay for brands is very important to
me.
The value of the brand name also emerged
from all interviews. The actual name of the
brand was referred to consistently as an
important purveyor of information to the
101
Brand associations: looking through the eye of the beholder
Debra Grace and Aron O'Cass
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 5
.
Number 2
.
2002
.
96111
consumers, thus instilling confidence and
reducing risk. This is evident from the words
of one interviewee:
The brand name is so important because of the
connotations attached to it. It can tell you
everything you need to know about the product.
You don't need to be told anything else.
From the observations of another: ``good
brand names just sell themselves''.
Also the monetary value of the brand name
was referred to by one interviewee who said:
You are better off picking a well established
brand name when you buy a car because you get
better resale value.
The consumer's past experience with the
brand also appears to be a major contributor
to brand meaning. All interviewees were quick
to point out the importance of this factor.
Comments like:
If it worked for me in the past, that's all I care
about.
The thing that changed my attitude was my
actual experience.
I know from past experience that I can't go
wrong with Ford.
The only thing that will change my mind (about
brand) is if I have a problem with it. What
happens with other people is not important. It is
my experience I worry about.
All demonstrate the overall consensus that the
consumer's personal brand experiences
greatly affect their image of the brand.
Other dimensions mentioned were:
.
packaging;
.
brand image or personality;
.
feelings;
.
country-of-origin;
.
word-of-mouth;
.
publicity; and
.
after sales service.
While not discussed in every interview, these
issues, when raised, provided relevant and
worthy information pertinent to the focus of
this study. For example, the brand's image or
personality was nominated as a very strong
directive of brand meaning with comments
being made like:
Ford has personality it's the working man's car.
People can identify with that they like that it
makes them feel comfortable.
The brand conveys a personality and that
triggers something in you it can make you love
it or hate it.
Closely associated with brand personality is
the way in which the brand induces feelings
within the consumer. For example, one of the
interviewees said that because the brand had a
sexy image, it made her feel sexy when
associated with it:
That doesn't mean I looked sexy but that's
how I felt.
She went on to say:
I like brands that make me feel good. They're the
ones I like. They're the ones I want.
Another point raised in three of the interviews
was the importance of the country-of-origin of
the product in influencing brand images and
buying decisions. In respect to clothing and
cars, interviewees commented that:
Table I Interviewees' responses re brand dimensions of products
Interviewee number Times mentioned
Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
Core product
Reliability X X X X X 5
Design X X X 3
Quality X X X X X X 6
Features X X 2
Colour X X 2
Packaging X X 2
Price (in terms of value for money) X X X X X 5
Brand name X X X X X X 6
Image, or personality X X X 3
Feelings X X 2
Country of origin X X X 3
Word-of-mouth X X 2
Expert opinion X X 2
After sales service X X X 3
Past experience with brand X X X X X X 6
102
Brand associations: looking through the eye of the beholder
Debra Grace and Aron O'Cass
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 5
.
Number 2
.
2002
.
96111
It made me feel better buying an Australian
product.
Australian made to me that is important.
One interviewee went on to say:
I think everyone is more conscious of where the
product is made. It can tell you quite a lot about
the product. It can also make you change your
mind about a product.
The packaging of the product was also
discussed where applicable. This was clearly
singled out as a rich source of information. As
stated by one interviewee:
Sometimes packaging is the only thing that really
gives you the information you want. If you can't
get through the package to see the product the
only thing you have to go on is the package.
What about toys the only thing that sells them
is their packaging.
Less specifically one interviewee commented:
Packaging definitely says something about the
brand. I do notice things like that.
While not pin-pointing the exact impact of
packaging, this respondent definitely felt its
contribution to brand meaning was worth the
mention.
After sales service was another non-product
related attribute mentioned as being
important to the brand. This was mentioned
with regards to cars and clothing, as
demonstrated by these statements:
Good after sales service is so important when
you buy a car. Toyota gives great service . . .
other brands don't. This is why other brands are
not as popular.
Good after sales service is a must. Without it you
won't keep getting new customers because word
will get around.
This last statement leads to another point
raised within the interviews word-of-mouth.
Interviewees felt strongly about the effect of
word-of-mouth on their brand perceptions.
Although interviewees said that the comments
of family and friends concerning branded
products were noted, they did little to
influence their overall view of the brand.
However, the opinion of so-called experts (for
example, the mechanic when it was a car
purchase) dramatically influenced brand
evaluations. One interviewee said:
When I buy a car I ask my mechanic because I
am not mechanically minded. I need the opinion
of someone who knows what they are talking
about not just my friends but someone who
can tell me if the car will still be running in 10
years' time. If he bags the car then I don't like it
. . . I don't buy it. It's as simple as that.
The interviews revealed a number of brand
related dimensions pertinent to products. In
order to understand what dimensions applied
to branded services, the interviewees were
asked to reflect on a service brand that was
well-known to them. Brands discussed
included:
.
Impulse airlines;
.
Lennons hotel;
.
Sheraton hotels;
.
Telstra;
.
Griffith University;
.
Commonwealth Bank; and
.
the local dry cleaner.
Once again, interviewees indicated their
association with the nominated brand had
been a long-term one, and results represent
an overall view of the brand which has
developed over time, rather than individual
encounters.
Q2. What are the dimensions of a
branded service?
A number of brand dimensions pertaining to
branded services were revealed in the
interviews and appear in Table II.
Overwhelmingly, the service facilities, past
experience with the service, word-of-mouth,
and the employees of the service, dominated
the discussion within the interviews. Service
facilities were mentioned in terms of their
provision, and their appearance. For example:
The facilities were inadequate to cope with the
number of customers. It didn't impress me at all.
Cleanliness, decor, standard of facilities are
always very important . . . when I first started
going there what I saw was very important to me
. . . these things [facilities] can make or break a
business.
The service's facilities were referred to in
every interview with regards to all the services
discussed.
Respondents were also very vocal about the
effect of past experiences on their brand
evaluations. As one interviewee stated:
The thing that changed my total attitude was my
actual experience. The experience made me feel
so much resentment toward the bank that my
attitude toward it will never change;
Another interviewee sums it up:
I would have to say the greatest contribution to
my attitude toward this brand [hotel] is past
recollections of times we have had.
Another significant contributor was said to
have been the employees of the service.
103
Brand associations: looking through the eye of the beholder
Debra Grace and Aron O'Cass
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 5
.
Number 2
.
2002
.
96111
Primarily the employees of the service were
discussed in terms of the manner in which
they delivered the service. For example one
interviewee said:
It's the people you are dealing with and speaking
to that are influential. They are the ones who will
give you the greatest concept of what the brand
really is.
While another reported:
They [staff] know my name and personal details.
They know what I like and what I need. I feel like
more than a customer to them. They are the
brand to me.
You form friendships and relationships with
these people and that is important.
To a lesser extent employees were mentioned
in terms of their appearance, however one
interviewee commented:
You can tell a lot from the way the staff look
you get a feel for the level of professionalism you
will get from that service.
Finally, word-of-mouth was also prominent in
the discussions, and interviewees were very
definite about the effect word-of-mouth has
on their perceptions of service brands. For
example:
I rely more on my friends and family to give their
opinions on places they have stayed at, than
anyone else.
I relied on people's recommendations, that is
why I was willing to try it. That is the only reason
I tried it.
I am highly influenced by anything I hear (about
services).
Furthermore, the statement that highlights
the fact that hearsay from other sources, such
as the media, is also an important issue with
service consumers:
The adverse publicity about banks lately has
really reinforced my impression of this brand.
Other factors mentioned throughout the
interviews to a lesser extent were price,
advertising, brand name, and image. As with
goods, price was mentioned in terms of
value for money. Respondents claimed that
price only became an issue when it was felt
that the service received was not worth the
money. Price didn't seem to matter if the
service was good, as demonstrated by this
remark:
I stick to the one I know, price doesn't really
mean anything.
The presentation and type of advertising was
also said to influence brand meaning, for
example, one interviewee said:
If I don't know much about the service I look at
its brochures, advertising or website to try and
get a feel for quality. Funnily enough it works
out most of the time.
Brand name was also nominated as a
dimension of the brand, as evidenced by these
remarks:
If you stick with one brand, you are guaranteed
by the name, of a certain standard.
The brand name, Sheraton, signals a standard of
quality that is universal and it doesn't matter
where you go your expectations are met.
Finally, the service image was mentioned, but
mainly with respect to the image of the typical
user of the service. Interviewees seemed more
inclined to mention and describe the typical
user of the service rather than the so-called
image portrayed by the service. This was
wrapped up by one interviewee who said:
I look at the type of person who uses the hotel. If
they're my type of person that's OK, but if
they're not then forget it I won't go there, I
won't like it.
The results of phase one resulted in the
compilation of two lists of brand dimensions
one for physical goods, and one for services
Table II Interviewees responses for brand dimensions of services
Interviewee number Times mentioned
Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
Price (in terms of value for money) X X 2
Staff
Manner X X X X X X 6
Appearance X X 2
Facilities X X X X X X 6
Brochures and advertisements X X X X 4
Brand name X X X X 4
Experience X X X X X X 6
Word-of-mouth X X X X X X 6
Image of other users X X 2
104
Brand associations: looking through the eye of the beholder
Debra Grace and Aron O'Cass
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 5
.
Number 2
.
2002
.
96111
(see Tables I and II). The information gained
in this phase was then used as a framework for
a more structured interview approach in
phase two. The purpose of phase two was to
establish the extent to which the brand
dimensions revealed in phase one were
important to consumers, and having
determined that, the extent to which brand
dimensions differ between goods and services.
Six interviews ranging from 30-45 minutes in
length were conducted. Interviewees ranged
from 18 to 55 years of age, and came from
diverse backgrounds.
Interviewees were asked to initially think in
terms of a branded product that was well
known to them. This resulted in the following
product brands being discussed in this phase:
.
Charlie Brown clothing;
.
Country Road clothing;
.
Ford motor cars;
.
Nike;
.
Revlon; and
.
White Wings.
A list of all brand dimensions from phase one,
regardless of whether they had been
nominated as pertinent to goods or services,
were then presented individually to the
interviewees. At this stage they were asked to
determine if each brand dimension made
some contribution, however small, to their
perception or image of the brand. They were
then asked to nominate the most important,
or key brand dimensions in terms of their
chosen product. In other words, they were
asked to nominate what dimensions were the
most meaningful to them when they
formulate their attitudes toward brands. This
process was repeated with respect to a
branded service that was well known to them.
Services discussed included:
.
Telstra;
.
Westpac Bank;
.
Australia Post;
.
The local hairdressing chain;
.
AAMI Insurance; and
.
Griffith University.
Q3. To what extent are brand dimensions
consistent across branded products and
branded services?
The interviews revealed a number of key
brand dimensions for both branded products
and branded services individually, and key
brand dimensions common to both (see
Table III). Column A indicates the brand
dimensions that interviewees nominated as
having some influence, however small, on
their attitude or image of their chosen brands.
In terms of branded products, all dimensions
were confirmed except employees. This is
understandable due to the irrelevance of the
role seen by the consumer that employees
play in terms of branded products. With
respect to services, all dimensions were
confirmed except country-of-origin. It
appears that the country from which the
service firms originates has little meaning to
service consumers as evidenced by this
remark:
I wouldn't know [the country-of-origin], I don't
really care, so long as I get the service I want.
Column B, however, reveals the dimensions
that were most often nominated by the
Table III Brand dimensions of goods and services
Brand dimension A B
Product
Product design and features X X
Packaging X
Feelings X X
Brand name, trademark etc. X
Brand personality X
Brand and self-image X X
Image of typical user X X
Price X
Experience with brand X X
Country-of-origin X
Brand advertising X
WOM X
Publicity X
Employees
Services
Service design and features X X
Servicescape X X
Feelings X
Brand name, trademark etc. X
Brand personality X
Brand and self image X
Image of typical user X X
Price X
Experience with brand X X
Country-of-origin
Brand advertising X
WOM X X
Publicity X
Employees X X
Notes: Column A: Dimensions mentioned as having
some meaning, however small. Column B: Dimensions
that are very important when formulating brand images
or attitudes
105
Brand associations: looking through the eye of the beholder
Debra Grace and Aron O'Cass
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 5
.
Number 2
.
2002
.
96111
interviewees as important, or key, brand
dimensions. Dimensions indicated were
nominated by a minimum of three
interviewees. For products, the core product
and features, how the product affects the
consumer's feelings, the compatibility of
brand and self-image, the image of the typical
user, and the consumers' past experiences
with the brand, were all nominated as key
brand dimensions. The brand name,
personality of the brand, publicity, and price
were nominated by no more than two
interviewees, while packaging, country-of-
origin, advertising and WOM attracted no
nominations at all.
For services, the service design and
features, servicescape, image of typical user,
past experience with brand, word-of-mouth
communications, and interaction with
employees, were promoted as key brand
dimensions. The feelings associated with the
service, brand name, brand and self-image,
price, and advertising were nominated by no
more than two interviewees, while brand
personality and country-of-origin did not rate
a mention. Comparatively speaking, design
and features, experience with brand, and
image of typical user, were the only key
dimensions common to both goods and
services. Key dimensions that were unique to
branded products were feelings and brand
and self-image congruence. On the other
hand, key dimensions unique to services were
servicescapes, WOM, and employees.
Discussion
Q1 sought to determine the brand dimensions
that hold meaning to consumers of branded
products. A number of dimensions were
identified by the interviewees such as:
.
the core product (reliability, design,
quality, features);
.
packaging;
.
price;
.
brand name;
.
image or personality;
.
feelings;
.
country of origin;
.
word-of-mouth;
.
expert opinion;
.
after sales service; and
.
the consumer's past experience with the
brand.
Mention of the core product as a brand
dimension supports the theory within Keller's
(1998) model of brand knowledge that
product-related attributes contribute to brand
image. In addition, de Chernatony and
Dall'Olmo Riley (1997) identified the core
product as being universally mentioned by
brand experts in their research concerned
with brand modeling and referred to it as the
brand's functional capabilities.
Likewise, packaging and price, also
nominated as meaningful dimensions in this
study, are present in Keller's (1993) model
and are referred to as non-product related
attributes that are also said to affect brand
image. Furthermore this supports Sweeney
and Soutar's (2001) and Tse's (2001)
argument for the importance of price in
determining value for money. It is interesting
to note, however, that in 1998, Keller
modified this model and removed packaging
as a non-product related attribute, the reason
for which is unknown. However, from these
findings packaging appears to be a significant
contributor to brand meaning, therefore its
omission from Keller's (1998) later model
could well be an oversight.
The brand name was also revealed as a
meaningful dimension to consumers when
they think about brands. Although overlooked
in Keller's (1993) brand knowledge model,
the brand name does appear as a distinct
element in other branding models (de
Chernatony, 1993; Bailey and Schechter,
1994; Grossman, 1994; de Chernatony,
1997; Berry, 2000). Along with brand name,
the brand's image or personality also emerged
as an influential brand dimension in this
study. This construct is also shown by others
(Kapferer, 1992; Aaker, 1997; de Chernatony
and Dall'Olmo Riley, 1997; Sirgy et al., 1997)
to play a noticeable role within brand
modeling. In particular, Keller (1993) labels
it brand personality and includes it as a
non-product related attribute. Likewise,
feelings, also nominated as a significant brand
dimension, is depicted in Keller's model as a
non-product related attribute, and found by
others to be important (e.g. Babin and Babin,
1999; Barone et al., 2000, Mason et al.,
2001). While not specifically addressed in
Berry's (2000) model, it has also been
indirectly encapsulated as a part of the
customer experience with the company,
which Berry (2000) advocates has a direct
effect on brand meaning.
106
Brand associations: looking through the eye of the beholder
Debra Grace and Aron O'Cass
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 5
.
Number 2
.
2002
.
96111
The country-of-origin of the product was
also identified by interviewees as being a
meaningful brand dimension. This is
confirmed by Schaefer (1995), Pecotich et al.
(1996), Quester et al. (2000) and Javalgi and
Cutler (2001). This construct is not
mentioned, however, in either Keller's (1993)
or Berry's (2000) branding models, but is
eluded to with reference to heritage in de
Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Riley's (1997)
double vortex model.
Friends and family were also said to play an
important role in providing brand meaning to
consumers in that word-of-mouth and expert
opinion were regarded as key dimensions.
Neither of these are referred to in Keller's
(1993) or de Chernatony and Dall'Olmo
Riley's (1997) models, however they are
covered in Berry's (2000) service model in
which they are labeled as external
communications, and have been found to be
important by others (e.g. Grace and O'Cass,
2001; Swanson and Kelley, 2001).
Interestingly, Berry's (2000) model was
developed for services only, yet these
dimensions appear here with respect to both
products and services.
After sales service also rated a mention as a
brand dimension. While this is not directly
regarded in any of the branding models,
possibly due to the product (in terms of the
pure product) orientation of most models, it
obviously should not be overlooked.
Theoretically it could be classified as a
non-product related attribute because of its
ability to value add to the brand.
Finally, past experience with the brand was
overwhelmingly mentioned by the
interviewees as being a key dimension. Berry
(2000) nominates this construct very clearly
in his model. He claims that past experience
with the brand has a direct impact on brand
meaning. While de Chernatony and
Dall'Olmo Riley (1997) also depict the
passing of time/experience in their double
vortex model, it is ignored in Keller's (1998)
model.
In summary, in terms of frequency of
mention by the respondents, core product,
price, brand name, and past experience
appear to be the prominent dimensions
discussed. These dimensions can be drawn
from a number of branding models (de
Chernatony, 1993; Keller, 1993; Bailey and
Schechter, 1994; Grossman, 1994; Berry,
2000) which either pertain specifically to
products, specifically to services, or claim
blanket representations of both. To date,
however, they have not been included
simultaneously in one branding model.
Q2 sought to determine the brand
dimensions of branded services. A number of
brand dimensions were nominated
throughout the interviews, such as:
.
price;
.
employees of service firm;
.
facilities;
.
brochures and advertisements;
.
brand name;
.
experience with brand;
.
word-of-mouth; and
.
image of other users.
As with the discussions concerning products,
in terms of services price was raised as being
influential, as was brand name and experience
with brand. As previously mentioned these
brand dimensions appear individually in
various branding models (de Chernatony,
1993; Keller, 1993; Bailey and Schechter,
1994; Grossman, 1994; Berry, 2000) with
regards to products and services. On the other
hand, employees, facilities, brochures and
advertisements, and image of other users were
only mentioned with respect to brand
services, not branded products. The physical
appearance of the service's employees, and
the service's physical facilities are depicted in
Berry's (2000) service branding model as
``company's presented brand'' which are said
to have a direct impact on brand awareness.
However, the manner in which the staff
interact with the consumer is not mentioned
(although it is indirectly covered as past
experience) directly within the model, yet it
was overwhelmingly discussed in the
interviews. In fact the interpersonal service
aspect was emphasised much more than the
mere appearance of employees. The
brochures and advertisements produced by
the service also rated a mention as making an
impression on respondents. These are
covered in Berry's (2000) service branding
model and labeled as company's presented
brand. Interestingly, as the focus of the
discussion shifted to services, tangible service
clues with respect to the servicescape, became
more significant brand indicators. Finally,
image of the other users of the service was
mentioned as having an impact on consumer
brand images. This dimension is distinctly
depicted in Keller's (1993) model as a non-
107
Brand associations: looking through the eye of the beholder
Debra Grace and Aron O'Cass
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 5
.
Number 2
.
2002
.
96111
product related attribute. Not only is the
image of the typical user taken into
consideration in Keller's (1993) model, but
also the situation in which the product or
service is used (usage imagery), is referred to.
In summary, the dimensions mentioned
most frequently for branded services were
employees, facilities, experience, and
word-of-mouth. As with the most frequently
mentioned dimensions for branded products,
these dimensions have been depicted either
directly or indirectly in some branding models
(de Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Riley, 1997;
Berry, 2000) but have not been viewed as a
whole in one model.
Q3 sought to determine the consistencies or
differences between brand dimensions of
goods and services and the results are
depicted in Figure 3. Key brand dimensions
common to both branded products and
branded services were core product/core
service, image of typical user and experience
with brand. This result is a culmination of
some key dimensions presented in both
Keller's (1993) and Berry's (2000) models.
Core product/core service related to Keller's
(1993) product related attributes, image of
typical user relates to Keller's (1993) user
imagery, and past experience relates to
Berry's (2000) experience dimension.
Key brand dimensions nominated for
products alone were feelings, and self-image
congruence. These are both depicted in
Keller's (1993) model. Feelings are labeled as
such, while self-image congruence indirectly
relates to the brand's personality and the user-
usage imagery. Furthermore, de Chernatony
and Dall'Olmo Riley (1997) refer to these
dimensions as the symbolic features of the
brand which they promote as giving
substantial meaning to the brand.
On the other hand, key brand dimensions
nominated exclusively for services were
servicescape, word-of-mouth, and employees.
These are all covered, either entirely or
partially, within Berry's (2000) service
branding model and are categorised under
company's presented brand or external brand
communications. These dimensions however
were not nominated as key dimensions alone
(core product/core service, image of typical
user and experience with brand were also
nominated). Therefore, Berry's (2000)
service branding model cannot be used in
isolation to explain this result. However, the
finding, in this study, that key dimensions
differ across goods and services contradicts de
Chernatony's (1999) finding that the
dimensions of branded products and services
did not differ in kind.
Implications and future research
While brand modeling to date has provided us
with greater understanding in terms of brand
associations, what is really meaningful is what
is going on in the consumer's mind, i.e. the
extent to which the associations are important
to them. This research has identified a
number of key brand dimensions found to be
meaningful to consumers with respect to both
goods and services. While some of the
dimensions are common for both, certain
dimensions have emerged that are unique to
either goods or services. The exploratory
nature of this research provides results that
can be used by academics and brand
practitioners as a basis upon which to build
on our knowledge of consumers and brands.
The proposition that certain brand
dimensions are of key value to consumers,
and that consumers think differently about
branded products and branded services,
prompts many questions in need of attention.
For example we can ask, to what extent do
these brand dimensions contribute to the
consumer's overall brand attitude, in what
way do these dimensions interact with each
other, and to what extent do brand
dimensions between goods and services differ.
The results of this study need to be drawn
upon for future empirical research which
inevitably will bring us much closer to
modeling brands through the eyes of the
Figure 3 Key dimensions for branded products and services
108
Brand associations: looking through the eye of the beholder
Debra Grace and Aron O'Cass
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 5
.
Number 2
.
2002
.
96111
consumer. Further research in this area is
duly warranted by the lack of empirical
consumer-based brand research and service
branding research, to date.
Conclusion
As the value of the brand has come to fruition,
a concerted research effort in this area has
been undertaken, and a number of branding
models have been proposed to help us
understand brands. However, these models
beg verification, in that they lack empirical
testing, most are derived from the perception
of brand practitioners, and little regard is
given to the branding of services. For
example, an extensive review of both
branding, marketing and consumer behaviour
literature, along with sound exploratory
research can provide an efficient means by
which to propose a model and test
hypotheses, and therefore overcome these
shortcomings. Furthermore, empirical testing
can reveal brand associations that are equally
important to branded products and services,
while at the same time revealing those that are
unique to either products or services. This
study seeks to begin this process by enhancing
our understanding of brands from the
consumer's perspective, and is undertaken in
a qualitative fashion in order to explore
consumer-based information that is not
biased by existing theory. The results provide
a platform for future research in the branding
area which will, most certainly, brings us
closer to seeing brand dimensions through the
eyes of the beholder.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, Free Press,
New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (Eds) (1993), Brand Equity and
Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), ``Dimensions of brand personality'',
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 347-56.
Babin, B.J. and Babin, L. (1999), ``Seeking something
different? A model of schema typicality, consumer
affect, purchase intentions and perceived shopping
value'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54,
pp. 89-96.
Bailey, I.W. II and Schechter, A.H. (1994), ``Organization
science, managers, and language games'',
Organisation Science, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 443-60.
Barone, M.J., Miniard, P.W. and Romeo, J.B. (2000), ``The
influence of positive mood on brand extension
evaluations'', Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 26, March, pp. 386-400.
Bateson, J. (1995), ``Services-salvation or servitude?'', The
Quarterly Review of Marketing, Spring, pp. 7-18.
Bejou, D.E. and BoRakowski, J.P. (1996), ``A critical
incident approach to examining the effects of
service failures on customer relationships: the case
of Swedish and US airlines'', Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 35-42.
Belen del Rio et al. (2001), ``The effect of brand
associations on consumer response'', Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 410-25.
Berry, L.L. (1980), ``Services marketing is different'',
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 30, May,
pp. 24-9.
Berry, L.L. (2000), ``Cultivating service brand equity'',
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 128-37.
Best, D. (1994), ``Consumer expertise for selected
services'', Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, pp. 3-27.
Biel, A.L. (1992), ``How brand image drives brand quality'',
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 32 No. 6,
pp. RC6-12.
Biswas, A. (1992), ``The moderating role of brand
familiarity in reference price perceptions'', Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 25, pp. 69-82.
Blodgett, J.G. et al. (1995), ``The effects of customer
service on consumer complaining behavior'', Journal
of Services Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4.
Cobb-Walgren, C.J. and Mohr, L.A. (1998), ``Symbols in
service advertisements'', Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 129-51.
Collins-Dodd, C. and Louviere, J.J. (1998), ``Brand equity
and retailer acceptance of brand extensions'',
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 6,
pp. 1-13.
Comm, C.L. and LaBay, D.G. (1996), ``Repositioning
colleges using changing student quality perceptions:
an exploratory analysis'', Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 21-34.
Cooper, P. (1999), ``Consumer understanding, change and
qualitative research'', Market Research Society,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Cowell, D. (1989), The Marketing of Services, Heinemann,
London.
de Chernatony, L. (1993), ``The seven building blocks of
brands", Management Today, March, p. 66.
de Chernatony, L. (1997), ``Integrated brand building
using brand taxonomies'', Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 56-63.
de Chernatony, L. and Dall'Olmo Riley, F. (1996),
``Modelling the components of the brand'',
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 11/12,
pp. 1074-90.
de Chernatony, L. and Dall'Olmo Riley, F. (1997), ``The
chasm between managers' and consumers' views of
brands: the experts' perspectives'', Journal of
Strategic Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 89-104.
de Chernatony, L. and Dall'Olmo Riley, F. (1999), ``Expert's
views about defining services brands and the
principles of services branding'', Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 46, pp. 181-92.
109
Brand associations: looking through the eye of the beholder
Debra Grace and Aron O'Cass
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 5
.
Number 2
.
2002
.
96111
Erdem, T. (1998), ``An empirical analysis of umbrella
branding'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35
No. 3, pp. 339-51.
Fournier, S. (1998), ``Consumers and their brands:
Developing relationship theory in consumer
research'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24,
March, pp. 343-73.
Friedman, M.L. and Smith, L.J. (1993), ``Consumer
evaluation processes in a service setting'', Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 47-61.
Fulmer, K.A. (1997), ``Parent's decision-making strategies
when selecting child care: effects of parental
awareness, experience, and education'', Child &
Youth Care Forum, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 391-407.
Gibler, K.M. et al. (1997), ``Mature consumers awareness
and attitudes toward retirement housing and long-
term care alternatives'', Journal of Consumer
Affairs, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 113-38.
Grace, D.A. and O'Cass, A. (2001), ``Attributions of service
switching: a study of consumers' and providers'
perceptions of child-care service delivery'', Journal
of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 300-21.
Grossman, G. (1994), ``Carefully crafted identity can build
brand equity'', Public Relations Journal, Vol. 50,
pp. 18-21.
Haley, E. (1996), ``Exploring the construct of organization
as source: Consumer's understanding of
organizational sponsorship of advocacy
advertising'', Journal of Advertising, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 19-29.
Hastings, K. and Perry, C. (2000), ``Do services exporters
build relationships? Some qualitative perspectives'',
Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 207-14.
Herbig, P. and Milewicz, J. (1993), ``The relationship of
reputation and credibility to brand success'', Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 18-24.
Hirschman, E.C. and Thompson, C.J. (1997), ``Why media
matter: toward a richer understanding of
consumers' relationships with advertising and mass
media'', Journal of Advertising, Vol. XXVI No. 1,
pp. 44-60.
Janiszewski, C. and van Osselaer, S.M.J. (2000), ``A
connectionist model of brand-quality associations'',
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXVII, August,
pp. 331-50.
Javalgi, R. and Cutler, B. (2001), ``At your service! Does
country-of-origin research apply to services?'',
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 7,
pp. 565-82.
Kapferer, J.N. (1992), Strategic Brand Management,
Kogan Page, London.
Kates, S. (1998), ``A qualitative exploration into voters'
ethical perceptions of political advertising:
discourse, disinformation, and moral boundaries'',
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 16,
pp. 1871-85.
Keller, K.L. (1993), ``Conceptualising, measuring, and
managing customer-based brand equity'', Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (1997), Marketing: An
Introduction, 4th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Landes, W.M. and Posner, R.A. (1987), ``Trademark law:
an economic perspective'', Journal of Economics,
Vol. 30, pp. 265-309.
Laroche, M. and Brisoux, J.E. (1989), ``Incorporating
competition into consumer behaviour models: the
case of the attitude-intention relationship'', Journal
of Economic Psychology, Vol. 10, September,
pp. 343-62.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. et al. (1995), ``Measuring customer-
based brand equity'', Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-19.
McCarthy, E.J. and Perault, W.D. (1990), Basic Marketing,
10th ed., Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
McNeal, J.U. and Zerren, L.M. (1981), ``Brand name
selection for consumer products'', MSU Business
Topics, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 35-9.
Maister, D.H. (1994), ``The new value billing'', The
American Lawyer, May, pp. 40-1.
Masberg, B.A. and Silverman, L.H. (1996), ``Visitor
experiences at heritage sites: a phenomenological
approach'', Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 34
No. 4, pp. 20-8.
Mason, K., Jensen, T., Burton, S. and Roach, D. (2001),
``The accuracy of brand and attribute judgments: the
role of information relevency, product experience,
and attribute-relationship schemata'', Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 307-17.
Motameni, R. and Shahrokhi, M. (1998), ``Brand equity
valuation: a global perspective'', Journal of Product
and Brand Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 275-90.
Murphy, J. (1990), ``Assessing the value of brands'', Long
Range Planning, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 23-9.
O'Cass, A. (1996), ``Political marketing and the marketing
concept'', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30
No. 10/11, pp. 45-61.
Parasuraman, A. et al. (1985), ``A conceptual model of
service quality and its implications for future
research'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 41-9.
Pecotich, A. et al. (1996), ``The impact of country of origin
in the retail service context'', Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 213-24.
Price, L.L. et al. (2000), ``Older consumers disposition of
special possessions'', Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 27, September, pp. 179-201.
Proctor, S. and Wright, G. (1998), ``Mission impossible?
Making sense of the key debates in the service
quality literature'', Journal of Nonprofit & Public
Sector Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 3-29.
Quester, P.G. et al. (2000), ``Country-of-origins effects on
purchasing agents' product perceptions: an
international perspective'', Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 479-90.
Reichheld, F.E. and Sasser, J.W.E. (1990), ``Zero
defections: quality comes to services'', Harvard
Business Review, September-October, pp. 105-11.
Roth, M.S. and Romeo, J.B. (1992), ``Matching product
category and country image perceptions:
a framework for managing country-of-origin
effects'', Journal of International business Studies,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 477-97.
Schaefer, A. (1995), ``Consumer knowledge and country of
origin effects'', European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 56-72.
Shimp, T.A. (1993), Promotion Management and
Marketing Communications, The Dryden Press,
Fort Worth, TX.
110
Brand associations: looking through the eye of the beholder
Debra Grace and Aron O'Cass
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 5
.
Number 2
.
2002
.
96111
Sirgy, M.J. et al. (1997), ``Assessing the predictive validity
of two methods of measuring self-image
congurence'', Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 229-41.
Skinner, S.J. (1990), Marketing, Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, MA.
Stobart, P. (1994), Brand Power, MacMillan, Basingstoke.
Swanson, S.R. and Kelley, S.W. (2001), ``Service recovery
attributions and word-of-mouth intentions'',
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 1/2,
pp. 194-211.
Sweney, 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.
Tax, S.S. and Brown, S.W. (1998), ``Recovering and
learning from service failure'', Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 75-88.
Tse, A.C.B. (2001), ``How much more are consumers
willing to pay for a higher level of service? A
preliminary survey'', Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol 15 No. 1, pp. 11-17.
Turley, L.W. and Moore, P.A. (1995), ``Brand name
strategies in the service sector'', Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 42-50.
Woodruff, R.B. and Schumann, D.W. (1993),
``Understanding value and satisfaction from the
customer's point of view'', Survey of Business,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 33-42.
Zaltman, G. (1997), ``Rethinking market research: Putting
people back in'', Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. XXXIV, November, pp. 424-37.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (1996), Services
Marketing, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
111
Brand associations: looking through the eye of the beholder
Debra Grace and Aron O'Cass
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 5
.
Number 2
.
2002
.
96111