You are on page 1of 29

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.

htm

Evaluating the impact of corporate brand on consumer satisfaction


Tatiana Anisimova
Advertising and Marketing Communications, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine the impact of a corporate brand on consumer satisfaction and ascertain which corporate brand attributers had the most inuential effects on consumer satisfaction. Design/methodology/approach Using a multiple regression method and an Australian sample of 235 consumers, this paper tests a relationship between consumer-perceived corporate brand and consumer satisfaction. Findings The results demonstrate that a corporate brand acts as a critical predictor of consumer satisfaction thus providing support for the research proposition. The three components of consumer value (functional, emotional and symbolic) were found to be critical and consistent predictors of consumer satisfaction. Corporate associations and core organizational values were also found to be the drivers of consumer satisfaction. Research limitations/implications Although the cross-sectional nature of data collection method limits the data to a single point in time; this research contributes important insights into the factors affecting one of the key performance indicators such as consumer satisfaction. Practical implications The ndings have important implications for a corporate branding strategy implementation and effective corporate brand communications that can be employed for enhancing the relationship with the existing consumers as well as acquiring new consumers. Originality/value Consumer satisfaction has primarily been studied as a mediator through which a brand impacts on consumer loyalty. This paper extends existing research by considering a corporate brand as an antecedent and a driver of consumer satisfaction. To address the disparity between operationalisation and conceptualisation of the corporate brand construct, this study maintains a corporate brand is a multidimensional construct and measures it accordingly. Keywords Corporate brand, Operationalisation, Corporate branding, Consumer satisfaction, Multiple regression, Automotive, Customer satisfaction Paper type Research paper

Impact of corporate brand

561
Received 17 December 2012 Revised 9 May 2013 Accepted 18 May 2013

Introduction and background to the research Global corporations have been managing their identities and reputations more proactively in recent years (Muzellec, 2006; Carson, 2007). As a result, a brand, which was traditionally focused on the product or a service level, has been increasingly applied to the entire corporation (Balmer, 2012; Fombrun and Van Riel, 2004; Dacin and Brown, 2006). This assigns corporate or monolithic branding a more strategic
The author is grateful to the car manufacturer that participated in this study. Her gratitude extends to Dr Glen Fuller, Assistant Professor of Journalism and Communications, University of Canberra, for editing this manuscript.

Asia Pacic Journal of Marketing and Logistics Vol. 25 No. 4, 2013 pp. 561-589 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1355-5855 DOI 10.1108/APJML-12-2012-0132

APJML 25,4

562

approach and thinking at the level of corporate agenda. The branding strategy at the corporate level allows a company to supplement their conventional marketing mix by incorporating corporate identities and reputations and the goodwill associated with being a good corporate citizen into their marketing endeavours (Lindgreen et al., 2012; Sen et al., 2006, p. 164). Thus, if used strategically, raising awareness of corporate initiatives can assist organizations in sustaining and enhancing relationships with their consumers. Essentially, corporate branding implies that corporate culture and corporate initiatives represent point of difference for the brand offering in the market place (de Chernatony and DallOlmo Riley, 1997). The literature highlights several benets associated with pursuing a corporate branding strategy. Corporate brand orientation was found to have favourable effects on company nancial performance (Johan and Frans, 2011) and public perceptions (Fombrun, 1996). Coherent international brand architecture has been one of the key components of the rms overall international marketing strategy as it provides a structure to leverage the rms international branding strategy (Douglas and Craig, 1997). Successful corporate branding strategies provide an opportunity for generating a signicant future income streams (Schultz and de Chernatony, 2002). Fortunes annual Americas Most Admired Companies (AMAC) survey has often been a key data source for researchers seeking to demonstrate a positive association between reputation and nancial performance (Welsh, 1994). A high Fortune score was shown to correlate with superior nancial returns (Roberts and Dowling, 2002). Therefore, some scholars (Balmer and Gray, 2003) suggest that managers take a resource-based view of the rm (Grant, 1991) towards a corporate brand and manage it as a sustainable valuable resource with a long-lasting value. The initial attention to the value of strong corporate brands has been extended to investigate the roles of corporate brands in overall company success. In light of the erce competition in the markets, organizations increasingly recognise the need for value-adding branding strategies (Norman and Ramirez, 1994). Consumer satisfaction is a growing concern to many companies throughout the world, including car manufacturers. Increasingly rms use satisfaction ratings as an indicator of the performance of products and services and as an indicator of the companys future. The current study argues that corporate brand can be an important antecedent in consumer satisfaction. From both a manufacturer and dealer perspectives, building customer satisfaction presents a number of desirable outcomes such as a consistent ow of favourable WOM (Swan and Oliver, 1989) and ultimately brand loyalty (Huber and Herrmann, 2001). Gustafsson and Johnson (2002) found that measures of consumer satisfaction and the rms nancial performance worked as predictors for future prots at Volvo Motor Corporation. A customer for life is almost non-existent in a hyper-competitive automotive industry, and building of consumer satisfaction requires a greater involvement of dealer networks (Lloyd, 2004). Huber and Herrmann (2001) found that a signicant impact of consumer satisfaction with dealers on consumer vehicle satisfaction. Clearly, the importance of understanding of how consumers perceive and respond to a corporate brand increases. To overcome some of the drawbacks of previous studies on corporate branding, the current study operationalizes a corporate brand as a multidimensional construct. Existing corporate branding studies, including recent works often excessively focus on comparing corporate brands and identity (Abratt and Kleyn, 2012; Balmer, 2012;

Balmer and Gray, 2003; Cornelissen et al., 2012). As pointed out by Abratt and Kleyn (2012), there is little agreement in the literature as to what constitutes a corporate brand. As a result, a corporate brand remains conceptualized only at the level of abstraction in existing models (Abratt and Kleyn, 2012; Balmer and Gray, 2003; Cornelissen et al., 2012), which presents challenges to the researchers trying to operationalize the corporate brand construct. Corporate branding plays a crucial role in building a sustainable bond between the company and its consumers. Because consumers corporate brand image develops over time, previous experiences with a company and its products/services are of particular importance (Wiedmann et al., 2011). However, the empirical evidence on the effect of corporate reputation on customer satisfaction is also very scarce (exceptions include Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998; Helm, 2006). More recently a study by Kocyigit and Ringle (2011) found that when brand associations are not clear to consumers, this has unfavourable impact on sustainable consumer satisfaction. Academic studies into consumer relationships with brands in the automotive industry, which would integrate a pool of variables derived from organizational and psychological marketing aspects of brands, are rare (see Anisimova, 2010; Rojas-Mendez et al., 2004, for exceptions). A comprehensive measurement framework enhances the validity and practical utility of consumer perceptions (Hsieh et al., 2004), and thus is adopted in this study. The following proposition is formulated to examine the role of corporate brand attributes in consumer satisfaction: P1. Corporate brand attributes are directly and positively related to consumer satisfaction.

Impact of corporate brand

563

A car manufacturer engaged in the corporate branding strategy from the Australian automotive industry was investigated in the current study. The automobile market in Australia proved to be is a signicant contributor to the national economic activity and is exporting vehicles and components to the world market. The sector operates in a highly competitive, international arena with various pressures that include rising cost of oil, sustainability demands, changing consumer demand patterns and shifting geographies of innovation. The automotive market is dominated by subsidiaries of Japanese and American car manufacturers that generally prefer a monolithic or strongly endorsed corporate-brand oriented strategy. The values and emotions symbolized by an organization are thus increasingly becoming key elements of their differentiation strategies, and the corporation itself moves center stage (Hatch and Schultz, 2003). In recent years the Australian automobile manufacturers have increasingly been embracing various corporate marketing initiatives (e.g. sports sponsorships, events marketing) to appeal to their existing and potential consumers. However, these social marketing initiatives are often not linked to the branding strategies or specically to enhancing relationships with consumers. Despite a recognition of the importance of value-adding branding, technology companies, such as automotive companies, still largely rely on the assumption that ongoing product improvements will sell a product itself (Tickle et al., 2003). As technologies mature and product features become more comparable, consumers are often unable to differentiate between brands on rational attributes alone (Temporal and Lee, 2001). Mazur (1999, p. 22) notes that most high-tech companies have been

APJML 25,4

564

backwards about branding and Zambuni (1997) suggests that the majority of them are not holistic and well-developed. Therefore, in addressing some of these limitations, there is a potential for organizations to determine the corporate brand attributes, which have the strongest impact on consumer satisfaction. The paper proceeds with a review of relevant literature and hypotheses development, research methodology and then establishes psychometric properties of the study constructs. The paper further tests the effects of corporate brand attributes on consumer satisfaction, and ascertains which attributes had the strongest effects. The paper concludes with implications for marketing practices and strategy implementation and suggestions for the future research. Theoretical framework The area of consumer relationships with corporate brands remains under-researched despite a growing number of corporate branding studies in recent years (Abratt and Kleyn, 2012; Balmer, 2012; Cornelissen et al., 2012, Otubanjo et al., 2010). As Schoenfelder and Harris (2004) note, because of its roots in the stakeholder theory, corporate branding literature takes a stakeholder or a corporate perspective over a consumer perspective. Earlier corporate brand conceptualizations view corporate branding as stemming from a convergence between corporate and marketing thinking (Argeni and Druckenmiller, 2004; Dacin and Brown, 2006; Knox and Bickerton, 2003). Likewise, more recent studies (Abratt and Kleyn, 2012; Halliburton and Bach, 2012) distinguish between internal (company) factors and external (consumer) factors within a corporate brand. While the existing models have triggered the development of a more multidimensional view of a corporate brand (Abratt and Kleyn, 2012; Keller, 2012; Knox and Bickerton, 2003), these frameworks remain limited in terms of offering insights regarding operationalization of the corporate brand construct. As Dacin and Brown (2006) point out, researchers tend to investigate marketing and organizational perspectives separately and rarely existing research has taken a broader integrative thinking towards corporate brand operationalization. Melewar et al. (2012) echo these concerns claiming that the basic premise of how researchers conceptualize a corporate brand remains unclear. Abratt and Kleyn (2012) call for academics to focus on empirical research to test the validity of the constructs and relationships proposed within corporate brand frameworks, rather than further continue focusing on the construct conceptualization. A useful way to approach the multidimensional character of corporate branding (Balmer and Gray, 2003; Knox and Bickerton, 2003; Urde, 2009) and the outcome of corporate branding is via complementary but distinct marketing and corporate perspectives. This sets a conceptual development in motion that although a corporate branding draws on the traditions of product branding (a marketing perspective); there is a need to deepen a marketing view of the brand to encompass organizational attributes (a corporate perspective) (King, 1991). The two perspectives are combined what a company engaged in the corporate branding strategy markets a company name as a brand, just as its products and services also impact on the global consumer perception (Argeni and Druckenmiller, 2004). Urde (2003, 2009) conceptualizes a corporate brand in terms of clusters of values: a rst cluster related to an organization, a second cluster are the values that summarize the brand and nally consumer-perceived values. Despite this, existing research studies often conne a

corporate brand construct to a single dimension such as brand personality (Davies et al., 2004; Davies and Chun, 2002). Although corporate personality is an important measure of corporate image overlooking other brand attributes can lead to a partial view of the corporate brand conceptualization and operationalization. Perceived corporate information can inuence consumer product perceptions by transferring consumer attitudes toward the corporation to their attitude toward the product and vice versa. This implies that corporate brand success is becoming more contingent on skills in brand building that also harnesses organizational assets and competences to design products and services (Tilley, 1999). For instance, when General Motors positions itself as concerned with quality, consumers associations of General Motors quality might transfer to their knowledge of a particular General Motors models (Ming-Huei et al., 2004). The models developed by Abratt and Kleyn (2012) and Dowling (1993) reect this and suggest incorporating both corporate personality and corporate image within the research framework. As the focus shifts from building brands to a better understanding the relationship between consumers and brands (Fournier and Yao, 1997; Kapferer, 1997; Reimann et al., 2012), we need to understand the effects of corporate brands on consumers. According to Schmitt (2012) and Esch et al. (2012), within consumer-perceived benets, there are several major layers of engagement between consumers and brands. A rst layer is represented by functionally-driven also referred to as a utilitarian engagement. A second layer represents a symbolic engagement also referred to as brand symbolism (Kapferer, 1997), which consists of self-centred and social engagement with the brand. Finally, a layer of consumer benets, which is responsible for the emotional consumer engagement. A corporate brand therefore can full multiple functions through the enablement of an ongoing relationship with consumers through satisfying consumer brand needs on an ongoing basis (Round and Roper, 2012). The current study therefore operationalizes a corporate brand as a bundle of corporate-level and marketing-level attributes. Understanding of how consumers, one of the key stakeholders in the corporate branding process, experience and relate to corporate brands is essential for corporate brand short and long-term success. Hypotheses development A major theoretical component lying at the heart of corporate branding is a concept of corporate associations (Dacin and Brown, 2002). Although marketing researchers have studied corporate image and reputation for some considerable time, to date, very few studies have summarized this body of work (see Brown and Dacin, 1997 and Berens and Van Riel, 2004 for exceptions). Brown and Dacin (1997) synthesize corporate associations into corporate two categories such as ability (CA) and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Based on the literature review over ve decades Berens and Van Riel (2004) classify corporate associations into social expectations, corporate personality and corporate credibility. Consumer satisfaction has come to represent a critical cornerstone for various business practices in diverse industries (Szymanski and Henard, 2001). Day (1977, p. 150) denes consumer satisfaction in terms of a post-consumption evaluation of a product/service in terms of positive/neutral/negative attitudes toward the product/service that results from favourable correspondence between consumers expectations and their experiences with a rm or its products and services

Impact of corporate brand

565

APJML 25,4

566

(Churchill and Surprenant, 1982). Consumer satisfaction is viewed as a fulllment of consumers goals as experienced and described by them in actuality (Oliver, 2006). According to Churchill and Surprenant (1982), consumer satisfaction results from a favourable correspondence between consumers expectations and their experiences with a rm or its products and services. One of the major reasons that consumer satisfaction has been in the center of academic and managerial attention alike is an important role that satisfaction plays in building consumer loyalty (Abdullah et al., 2000; Martensen et al., 2000). Satisfaction was found to be an important post-purchase response often associated with favourable word-of-mouth (Brown et al., 2006; Reynolds and Beatty, 1999) and consumer loyalty (Swan and Oliver, 1989). Essentially, consumer satisfaction can be separated into a transaction-specic satisfaction, a collective satisfaction and a post-consumption satisfaction (Olsen and Johnson, 2003). In capturing the richness of consumer satisfaction, the current study considers both views in the cumulative measure of satisfaction. Core elements of corporate branding include corporate afnities, products and services, and social responsibility programs. An assumption in marketing and organizational literature is that favourable image will have a positive impact on consumer responses towards brands. However, the empirical research on the impacts of corporate image and consumer satisfaction is both scarce and not consistent. A few conceptual investigations available mostly focus on corporate associations as a determinant of consumer loyalty, with consumer satisfaction on its own and its links to consumer brand perceptions being rarely considered. Previous studies claim a favourable relationship when consumer perceptions of corporate reputation and consumer satisfaction (Andreassen, 1994; Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998). Earlier research (Fredericks and Salter II, 1998) identied a company image as one of the key factors of consumer value package. In their study on determinants of performance in channels of distributions, Wiertz et al. (2004) found a signicant and positive link between company image and consumer satisfaction. However, not so long ago, research began to establish company associations as a driver of consumer satisfaction (Helm, 2006), for the technology (Martensen et al., 2000) and car brands (Loureiro et al., 2012; Souiden et al., 2006). Souiden et al. (2006) found that consumers strongly consider associations derived from social endeavors in their evaluations of durables such as automobiles. Loureiro et al.s (2012) study of the contribution to consumer satisfaction of the perceived CSR of three car manufacturers found that outside the realm of CSR, indicators such as perceived product and service quality were much more important for automobile consumers than CSR initiatives. The company societal initiatives are referred to as corporate activities in this study. Therefore, the following hypotheses are postulated: H1. Corporate activities are directly and positively related to consumer satisfaction. H2. Corporate associations are directly and positively related to consumer satisfaction. Corporate brand personality and consumer satisfaction The classication of corporate associations into perceived personality traits stems from research on human and brand personality. Previous research show that

consumers perceive brands as possessing personality features (Kapferer, 1992, 1998). The studies by Aaker (1997) and Davies and his colleagues (Davies et al., 2003, 2004; Davies and Chun, 2002) are notable examples that operationalises a corporate brand using a Corporate Personality scale. Duarte and Davies (2002) employed a Corporate Personality scale to measure Ford brand image. They found that practical dimensions (i.e. competence) scored higher than other dimensions, and also correlated most strongly with positive attitudes towards Ford brand. These studies assessed consumer satisfaction in the context of measuring the gaps between image and identity and did not evaluate the link between corporate personality and consumer satisfaction. However, Davies and Chun (2002) found that corporate personality had an indirect inuence on brand loyalty via customer satisfaction. Therefore, the next hypothesis postulates: H3. Corporate brand personality is directly and positively related to consumer satisfaction. Corporate values and consumer satisfaction The global meaning of brands is inuenced by an organizations attempts to manage meanings and values in a cultural context (McCracken, 1993). Therefore, a corporate brand can also be described as a cluster of values (de Chernatony, 2001, p. 33). Knox et al. (1999, p. 140) view corporate values as a crucial element of a unique selling proposition that they view as: a visible set of credentials throughout the supply chain in relation to the core processes of an organization. These values are created in a cultural context with multiple sources (McCracken, 2005) and are internally regarded as important within an organization (Urde, 2009). However, this may not necessarily be the case for the external audiences (Knox et al., 2000) and hence require the empirical investigation. Despite the growing importance of understanding of the impact of corporate values on consumers for devising a unique organizational value proposition (Knox et al., 2000), this research topic did not gain adequate attention in the corporate branding research. For example, although previous studies propose a classication for organizational values (Urde, 2003), the impact of these on consumers is yet to be determined. The next hypothesis of this study is as follows: H4. Corporate values are directly and positively related to consumer satisfaction. Consumer values and consumer satisfaction Understanding perceived consumer values, also referred to as consumer benets, is a strategic imperative for manufacturers and retailers alike. Perceived consumer values are often more explicit (Kapferer, 2008) and should not be confused with core organizational values that represent an organization (Urde, 2009). McCracken (1993, p. 125) states that: Brands have value; it turns out, because they add value. Previous research (Park et al., 1986; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Round and Roper, 2012) maintains multidimensionality of consumer value that captures functional also referred to as utilitarian benets, emotional and social elements of consumer-perceived value. Whilst functional product utility may involve car performance, safety and quality attributes, symbolic and affective brand utilities communicate to consumers a variety of meanings (e.g. joy of owning, social status). Furthermore, automobiles are complex durable consumer goods, the purchase of which requires a high-involvement

Impact of corporate brand

567

APJML 25,4

568

decision-making (Brucks et al., 2000). Therefore, this paper follows Sweeney and Soutar (2001) and Park et al. (1986) in capturing the richness of consumer benets. It has been demonstrated that consumer benets favourable related to consumer zquez-Carrasco and Foxall, 2006). This is due to satisfaction (Gwinner et al., 1998; Va the perception of consumer benets derived from a relationship with the brand may zquez-Carrasco and Foxall, 2006). trigger consumer feeling more satised (Va Typically, consumer satisfaction has been studied in the marketing literature as a mediator through which brand impacts on consumer loyalty and less attention has been paid to direct effects of brand attributes on consumer satisfaction. More recently, zquez-Carrasco and Foxalls (2006) study shown that consumer benets directly and Va signicantly related to consumer satisfaction, contributing up to 46.5 percent to the explained variance of satisfaction. Ekinci et al. (2008) found symbolic consumption benets to be the antecedent of consumer satisfaction. Therefore, the nal research hypothesis is as follows: H5a. Functional brand benets are directly and positively related to consumer satisfaction. H5b. Emotional brand benets are directly and positively related to consumer satisfaction. H5c. Symbolic brand benets are directly and positively related to consumer satisfaction. Research methodology Although corporate brand image is known to facilitate attracting new consumers, how a corporate brand impacts already established customer relationships warrants more empirical research. The unit of analysis in this study was an automobile manufacturer, a subsidiary of global corporate car brand located in Australia. A structured questionnaire was the instrument of the data collection. Consumers were randomly selected by the participating organisation from their databases. A questionnaire, two cover letters (from the investigator and a car manufacturer), and postage a paid return envelope were mailed to these individuals. The mail survey method was considered the most appropriate for primary data collection due to its advantages, such as its ability to accommodate large sample sizes at relatively low costs and ease of administering (Lukas et al., 2004). Other advantage of mail survey is the respondent-perceived anonymity (Malhotra et al., 2002). The questionnaires were distributed by post and were returned by reply paid post. The survey time period was between later 2007 and early 2008. The sampling method was a random sampling. The respondents were randomly recruited by a car manufacturer from their data bases. The consumer sample yielded 235 usable questionnaires representing 35 percent response rate. This was achieved in one mail out. Table I provides the characteristics of the respondent sample. The questionnaire and items development The questionnaire was an eight-page long, double-sided document. Corporate brand dimensions were measured using measured using a seven-point Likert scale. Seven-point Likert-type scales are superior to ve-point scales in the aspect of reliability (Churchill, 1999) and sensitivity to detect small but important differences

Percentage Gender Males Females Marital status Single/never married Married/partnered Widowed Divorced/separated Education level No formal qualication Year 10/year 11 High school certicate Technical and further education (TAFE)/trade qualications University degree Postgraduate qualication Age group 18-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-70 71-75 56 44 10.3 75.3 4.7 9.4 8.1 16.6 19.6 21.9 19.3 14.5 6.8 7.7 9.4 16.6 20.4 22.1 16.6 0.4

Impact of corporate brand

569

Table I. Characteristics of the respondent sample

(Jaeschke and Guyatt, 1990). Likert-type scales are recommended for empirical studies which measure marketing and brand utilities (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). Corporate activities and corporate associations dimensions were measured using a seven-point Likert scale anchored (1) not at all and (7) to a very great extent. Items for these dimensions were developed based on the in-depth interviews with managers of the participating car manufacturer who were involved in branding and marketing operations and the seminal studies in the area of corporate associations and consumer product responses by Brown and Dacin (1997) and Sen and Bhattacharya (2001). Corporate values were measured using a seven-point Likert scale anchored (1) strongly disagree (2) strongly agree. As corporate values are internal mission statements and culture integrated in and enacted through various business activities, the items were largely generated from the in-depth interviews with some reference to Urdes (2003, 2009) and Aakers (2009) conceptualization of core values. Consume-based values were measured using a seven-point Likert scale anchored (1) not at all and (7) to a very great extent. Consumer benets are relatively well-researched in the marketing research. The current study develops items for functional, emotional and symbolic components consumer-based benets based on in-depth discussions and studies Sweeney and Soutar (2001) and Hsieh et al. (2004). The corporate brand personality has been researched by Davies et al. (2003, 2004) and was employed for the purposes of generating items along with the in-depth interviews. A concern in measuring customer satisfaction is the time span between the purchase point and the measurement point (Davies and Chun, 2002). The research

APJML 25,4

570

design adopted here (existing/established consumers), implied measurement of post-purchase consumer satisfaction. Generally there are two broad types of scale used in customer satisfaction surveys, single item and multiple item scales. As single items are less likely to give a broad picture and cannot be assessed for reliability, except for a test-retest (Danaher and Haddrell, 1996), multiple-item measures of consumer satisfaction were opted for in this study. The respondents were asked to give their responses regarding their level of satisfaction on a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 (indicating very high dissatisfaction) to 7 (indicating very high satisfaction) for all the items. The satisfaction questions were aimed at capturing the two primary elements of consumer motoring: vehicle acquisition and maintenance (Kiff, 2000). The respondents were given an option to contact the researchers should they encountered any difculty in responding to the questionnaire. The questionnaire was standardized and undisguised for all the respondents. To minimize the problem of reducing validity, the neutral response alternative was included (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2002). The number (4) provided a neutral response for the latter scale as follows neither agree nor disagree. In order to increase a response rate, Dillmans (1991) total design method was employed in this study. In accordance with Dillmans (1999) recommendations, the participating company was asked to review the questionnaire and assess its suitability, readability, and ambiguity. Based on the feedback received from the managers, the questionnaire was then iteratively revised. As the participating car manufacturer distributed survey via their databases there was a very low number of returns to sender. By capturing corporate-level and marketing brand attributes, this paper falls within the scope of the holistic approach towards corporate branding (Grassl, 1999; Styles and Ambler, 1995). In the process of developing new constructs, procedures recommended by Churchill (1979) and Jacoby (1978) were employed to ensure the appropriate scale development. This included the employment of multiple item measures, use of existing academic and practitioner literature and in-depths interviews with managers of the car manufacturer involved in branding and marketing operations. The application of both managerial knowledge and theory is recommended to generate a relevant set of attributes for measurement of corporate brands (Dowling, 1988). The in-depths served to generate recurring corporate brand themes in relation to consumers and were used for the development of the questionnaire constructs. Industry reports, and video and written materials provided by the participating organisation served as secondary data to shape the conceptual framework and develop measures (Tables III and IV). The tests for reliability and validity were undertaken in accordance with procedures recommended by Nunnally (1978) and Gerbing and Anderson (1988) and detailed in the next sections. Reliability In line with Churchills (1979) suggestions for the assessment of the quality of measures, this study performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and assessed Cronbachs a of the research measures. All Cronbachs as (Cronbach, 1951), except choice variety had reliability scores over 0.7, which is above the acceptable level (Nunnally, 1978). However, choice variety factor has been integrated into second-order functional benets construct, which yielded Cronbachs a over 0.7 (Tables III and IV).

Establishing psychometric properties and validity Although there was a general idea regarding the structure of the data within the research constructs, there were no preconceived thoughts about the data. Therefore, in line with recommendation of Hair et al. (1998) and Schumacker and Lomax (1996), both EFA and conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) were both performed in this study. Undertaking EFA is viewed as essential in the absence of a sufciently detailed theoretical foundation (Churchill, 1979) as also to assess the construct unidimensionality and determine hidden dimensions (Ahire and Devaraj, 2001). To conrm the factor structure extracted in the EFA and further ensure reliability and validity of the resulting measures, the CFA was conducted. CFA was also employed for assessments of unidimensionality of measures, which enables evaluation of convergent and discriminant validity (Bagozzi et al., 1991; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). CFA contains inferential statistics that allows as researcher to nalize a set of measures for hypotheses testing (OLeary-Kelly and Vokurka, 1998). The use of CFA has several advantages over the multitrait-multimethod matrix (MTMM). CFA allows estimation of the overall degree of t and provides a comprehensive picture as to how well convergent and discriminant validity is achieved (Bagozzi et al., 1991). OLeary-Kelly and Vokurka (1998) maintain that CFA provides enhanced control for assessing unidimensionality and is more in line with the overall process of construct validation. Several guidelines were employed to determine the appropriateness of factor analyses. The sample size of 235 observations is in line with Hair et al.s (1998) guidelines regarding the preferred sample size of 100 and higher. Retaining only those factors with eigenvalues of greater than one was adopted in order to examine the total variance explained by each individual factor. The results of the psychometric properties of the measures are presented in Table II. Discriminant validity was established using average variance extracted (i.e. the average variance shared between a construct and its measures) (AVE) (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The HOELTER and AIC/Default statistics of model t were also reported (Table I) as a sample size was larger than 200 and the x 2 was statistically signicant (Kenny and McCoach, 2003). Some level of factors multicollnearity was detected in the discriminant validity test with functional brand benets (Table III). In order to overcome the occurrence of multicollnearity in further analysis, a second-order factor was undertaken. As high covariance was detected between all of the subconstructs, one new measurement model was developed that resulted in the functional brand benets construct. This model ts well as indicated by the goodness-of-t measures presented in Table IV. Data analysis procedures Multiple regression analysis was employed to test the research hypotheses. This technique is appropriate when a researchers objective is to predict changes in dependent variables in response to changes in independent variables (Hair et al., 1998). Multiple regression is also a very exible method that uses data very efciently even with relatively small data sets. Aggregated measure of satisfaction was employed to test the research hypotheses. Since the purpose was to examine the whole set of independent variables, it was deemed appropriate to use simultaneous rather than hierarchical or stepwise method (Coakes and Steed, 2001). The individual dimensions of the corporate brand construct

Impact of corporate brand

571

572

APJML 25,4

Construct 2.361 1.085 1.085 16 6 7 3 1 1 4 1 1 14 14 0.704 0.001 0.002 0.144 2.671 2.502 0.050 0.252 2.372 1.311 0.984 0.996 1.000 0.963 0.967 0.939 0.978 0.997 0.905 0.908 0.030 0.026 0.233 0.174 2.210 3.080 1.425 1.847 0.977 0.984 0.996 0.995 0.931 0.922 0.976 0.969 0.072 0.094 0.043 0.060 0.077 0.036 0.001 0.084 0.080 0.396 1.042 0.991 0.968 0.013 0.018 1.879 0.970 0.933 0.061 0.979 0.999 0.982 0.968 0.996 0.993 0.977 0.997 1.000 0.975 0.982 2 1 1 0.307 0.298 0.228 1.181 1.085 1.456 0.995 0.997 0.996 0.975 0.981 0.975 0.028 0.019 0.044 0.998 0.999 0.997 0.995 0.997 0.996 0.975 0.994 0.985 0.986 0.996 0.995 0.985 0.996 1.000 0.981 0.986

Corporate activities Social activities Innovative activities Sports sponsorships Corporate associations

30.070 Corporate values Consumer valorisation 6.251 Corporate brand personality Condent 15.471 Progressive 9.241 Open 1.425 Reliable 1.847 Consumer benets Advanced technology 9.487 Value for money 1.311 Functional benets (second-order factor) 0.144 Emotional benets 37.387 Symbolic benets 32.527

Table II. Conrmatory factor analysis results

x2
DF CMIN/DF GFI AGFI RMSEA TLI NFI

Probability level CFI 0.999 1.000 0.999 0.988 1.000 0.992 0.990 0.999 0.998 0.991 0.999 1.000 0.988 0.991

HOELTER (0.01) 913 1,432 1,067 250 630 280 288 1,090 841 0.328 1,185 107,777 183 200

AIC/default 18.361484014 11.085318942 11.456407766 70.0701224200 36.2511044955 43.4711034099 33.241675365 11.425340483 11.847375654 31.487622256 11.311340866 18.144793923 81.3871937002 78.5272340721

were simultaneously entered into multiple regression analyses and their predictive ability is presented in Table AI. The regression equations with the individual dimensions were followed by a multiple regression test with the aggregated models. An estimation of proportion of variation in the dependent variable was assessed using the square of the multiple correlation coefcients (R 2) (Hair et al., 1998). The relative importance and signicance of each of the dimensions is evaluated in terms of beta-values and t-values. The assumptions of independence, normality, homoscedasticity and linearity were tested for and are in accordance with the recommendations of Hair et al. (1998) and Coakes and Steed (2001). Checks of the residual scatter plots for all the standardized residuals standardized predicated values indicated that scatter plots for all the regression equations were randomly distributed, suggesting that there is no evident relationship between residual and predicted values. No outliers were identied. In addition, independence of error was tested by means of the Dublin-Watson statistic, where all the values were close to 2, a value that Norusis (1993) indicates as acceptable. Table AI (see the Appendix) provides a summary of all of the constructs that were assessed for reliability and validity and that were subsequently utilized in the data analysis. Internal consistency measure was calculated for all the constructs that included three or more items. For the items with two measures, Cronbachs a scores are provided (Table AI, the Appendix). Discussion and conclusions The results depicted in Table V provide partial support for the research hypotheses. No support was found with regard to H1, which was testing whether consumer
Construct Advanced technology Value for money On-the-road performance Choice variety Internal consistency 0.8724 0.8585 0.9228 0.5818 1 0.80 0.94 0.94 1.00 2 0.82 0.89 1.00 3 4

Impact of corporate brand

573

0.93 0.96

0.64

Table III. Internal consistency, square roots of average variance extracted, and correlation matrix for functional brand benets subconstructs

Model t

x2 DF Probability level CMIN/DF GFI AGIFI RMSEA TLI NFI CFI HOELTER (0.01) AIC default/independence

0.144 2 0.704 0.144 1.000 0.997 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 10,777 18.144 793.923

Table IV. Second order factor results for functional brand benets construct

574

APJML 25,4

Corporate brand variables 0.225 0.248 0.023 0.681 * * * 0.457 * * * 0.329 * * * 0.135 0.231 * 0.162 0.277 * *

H1. Corporate activities Social activities Innovative activities Sports sponsorships H2. Corporate associations H3. Corporate values Consumer valorisation Social conscience H4. Corporate brand personality Condent Progressive Open Reliable H5. Customer benets H5a. Functional benets H5b. Emotional benets H5c. Symbolic benets R2 Adj. R 2 F-ratio DF Durbin-Watson 0.231 0.221 23.128 * * * 3 2.008 0.464 0.462 201.606 * * * 1 1.928 0.569 0.565 153.265 * * * 2 1.866 0.549 0.541 69.999 * * * 4 1.753

Notes: Signicant at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01 and * * *p , 0.001; n 235

Table V. Corporate brand multiple regression models of customer satisfaction Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 (aggregated) 2 0.146 0.190 * 2 0.014 2 0.111 0.057 0.182 * 0.021 2 0.057 0.018 0.078 0.575 * * * 0.215 * * 0.129 * 0.715 0.711 193.297 * * * 3 1.984 0.453 * * * 0.244 * * * 0.089 0.748 0.733 50.520 * * * 13 1.915

satisfaction is inuenced by corporate activities. Beyond marketing initiatives, core elements of corporate branding include corporate afnities, products and services, and social responsibility programs. Although the relationship between customer satisfaction and sport indicates an insignicant relationship in the individual multiple regression equations this does not resonate with the intuitive relationship between sports, corporate branding and Australian culture in general. Similarly, the relationship between consumer satisfaction and innovative activities indicates an insignicant relationship in the individual multiple regression equations. The demand for advanced technology in cars has been increasing (e.g. fuel efciency, GPS, Bluetooth) globally, and for automotive manufacturers to meet their consumers needs and wants, products are expected to be highly innovative. One possible explanation of H1 not being supported is that the technological advancements are increasingly being considered by consumes as a given, and may no longer exert the impact on consumer immediate satisfaction. Due to legislative constraints, automotive manufacturers are increasingly introducing technologically advanced products and thus hope to use these advancements to win over increasingly ckle consumers. The innovative activities were found to be a signicant antecedent for consumer satisfaction at p , 0.01 level in the aggregated model. This suggests that when consumers perceive innovative activities as a part of the whole brand experience, then manufacturers contributions to product innovation (i.e. improved environmental performance), and then contribution of these activities to consumer satisfaction is signicant. A possible explanation for the lack of a signicant impact of sports sponsorships on consumer satisfaction could be that the manufacturer participating in this research has established itself as a leader in the development of racing cars, and consumers may see its involvement in Motorsports as a given. The results in the aggregated model apparently do not provide support for sports sponsorships either. Sports sponsorship is better understood as a long duration investment in the construction of consumer aspirations, such as loyalty. This is because aspiration is a future-oriented relation, while satisfaction is a past-oriented relation. Support was found for H2 at p , 0.001 suggesting that corporate associations that consumers hold about the corporate brand play an important role in shaping consumer satisfaction. Similarly, Sen et al.s (2006) study demonstrated that consumers who were aware of social initiatives and behaviours of companies, held signicantly more favourable views, attitudes and behavioural intentions. This nding is also in line with previous research that found corporate reputation to inuence consumer satisfaction (Helm, 2006). As shown in Tables III and IV, corporate associations accounted for over 46 percent of variance in consumer satisfaction. Thus, corporate associations is an essential aspect of corporate brand image that helps generate consumer satisfaction. Core organizational values representing H3 were found to be a critical driver of consumer satisfaction. This concurs with Christensens (2002) assertions regarding an increasing breakdown of the boundaries between external and internal corporate brand constituents. This also raises the importance of what is traditionally viewed as internal company values that unite an organisation around its mission and vision (Kunde, 2000), for generating consumer satisfaction. As demonstrated in Table V regarding corporate values, almost 57 percent of variance in consumer satisfaction,

Impact of corporate brand

575

APJML 25,4

576

where both consumer valorisation and social conscience were found to be signicantly and positively associated with consumer satisfaction at p , 0.001 level. One alternative explanation of why consumer satisfaction is strongly associated with social conscience is due to the character of the corporate brand in question. Research ethics restrict my ability to discuss the corporate brand in question, but it is apparent that for over 50 years the brand has been associated with its values and projected corporate culture. H4 that was testing the impact of corporate brand personality on consumer satisfaction was supported in regard to progressive ( p , 0.05) and reliable ( p , 0.01) personality traits. This nding implies that being seen as progressive and reliable are crucial dimensions for generating consumer satisfaction. This nding is consistent with Davies et al.s (2004) study that found competence facet (i.e. reliable, technical) to be most strongly associated with consumer satisfaction. As can be seen from Table V, the remaining personality traits such as condent and open were not signicantly related to consumer satisfaction. The latter nding was somewhat surprising, as one would expect the company openness and transparency to be likely to be positively related to consumer satisfaction. A possible explanation of such a result is that whilst the manufacturer is wishing to be seen as open, consumers might not necessarily perceive it that way. Nonetheless, together corporate brand personality dimensions explain a substantial proportion of consumer satisfaction of almost 55 percent of variance. Benets that consumers perceive emanate from the corporate brand rational, relationship, habitual and symbolic functions (Round and Roper, 2012). Support was found for H5. As can be seen from Model 5 in Table V, consumer satisfaction is mostly explained by consumer benets (R 2 0.715). Functional benets were found to be signicantly and positively associated with consumer satisfaction at p , 0.001 level. This result is hardly surprising as product performance and innovations are essential in the highly competitive automotive industry. Satisfaction of buyers and uses was previously found to depend on consumer-perceived product quality (Loureiro et al., 2012). Emotional benets were found to be signicantly and positively related to consumer satisfaction at p , 0.01 level. This result is also consistent with Loureiro et al.s (2012) study that indicates that satisfaction of the buyers and users of automobile brands strongly depends on emotional consumer issues, such as perceived empathy of sales staff and the relationship with the brand. Therefore, managers should encourage the relationship between car buyers and users and the brand producer by providing good after-sale services and demonstrating true concern for the customer. As portrayed in Table V, of all the three dimensions, symbolic benets were found to be less signicantly associated with consumer satisfaction ( p , 0.05). The ndings in the aggregated model further conrm that a symbolic element of the benets was the weakest of the three benets and was not even signicant in the Model 6. The results of individual regression equations suggest that consumer-perceived brand benets were a primary path the generating consumer satisfaction. Within these, the functional benets acquired the largest R 2 of 0.715, suggesting that functional utility largely determines consumer satisfaction with the vehicles. This is in zquez-Carrasco and Foxalls (2006) study, which also demonstrates that line with Va consumer benets lead to a higher satisfaction. These results are also consistent with previous research that shown perceived brand functionality and quality to play an

important role in consumer evaluations of durable products (Brucks et al., 2000), and that ongoing product innovativeness determines success of technology companies (Tickle et al., 2003). The ndings also parallel Ekinci et al.s (2008) study reveals that symbolic values have positive effects on consumer satisfaction. This nding suggests that practitioners should look beyond the functional benets to the emotional and social benets that the corporate brand can deliver. Aggregated model From Table V, it can be observed that Model 6 accounts for almost 75 percent of variance in consumer satisfaction. This aggregate value is higher than the variance explained by the original regression equations. Some individual dimensions in the aggregated model that were no longer signicant included: social activities, sports sponsorships, corporate associations, and corporate personality traits. Similarly to the individual equations, brand benets were found to be signicantly associated with consumer satisfaction. The results of multiple regressions within the aggregated model suggest that from the consumer point of view, corporate activities, corporate values and consumer benets appear to be the primary determinants generating their satisfaction. Study contributions and managerial implications Although the importance of building corporate brands has been recognized in the marketing literature, the empirical research into how corporate brands can assist companies in generating one of the key performance indicators such as consumer satisfaction remains low. This study makes several contributions. First, it adds to the limited literature on corporate branding by operationalizing the corporate brand construct through the synthesis of the existing literature. The automobile industry occupies a vital place in the industrial sector globally and in Australia. In corporate branding consumer satisfaction must be one of the quintessential corner stones, because it partially reects on the strength of brand and services or products the brand endorses. Consumer brand satisfaction depends upon a number of factors including product performance, user expectations, prior experiences and perceptions. A customer therefore may experience various degrees of satisfaction with various corporate brand dimensions. A second contribution is that this study measured the effects of individual corporate brand attributes on consumer satisfaction in order to determine which attributes are the most critical predictors of consumer satisfaction. Although the inuence of the hypothesized dimensions on consumer satisfaction varied, it can be inferred that corporate brand explains variations in consumer satisfaction and thus can make an important contribution to the overall corporate brand performance. The ndings of this study indicate that consumer satisfaction mostly depends on corporate image, corporate values and consumer benets. Therefore, managers should encourage the relationship between car buyers and users and the brand producer by providing high product quality and equally important good after-sale services. The importance of corporate associations suggests that car companies engaged in corporate branding strategies can benet by reporting their social practices and performance in the brand relationship through relevant marketing mechanisms. This way, companies can improve consumer awareness of, which inuences consumer satisfaction by generating a favourable image that positively inuences the purchasing behaviour

Impact of corporate brand

577

APJML 25,4

578

of new car buyers. To sustain and differentiate corporate brand, there is a need to link core brand competencies to internal company values. The challenge is to organize a companys resource base and internal processes in a manner that both strengthens and differentiates the core value. Although the ndings presented here are from consumers of one car manufacturer, this study provides useful insights for car manufacturers and organizations engaged in the corporate branding strategy in the factors affecting consumer satisfaction. Keller (2012) maintains that corporate brand equity exist when consumers hold strong, favourable, and unique associations about the corporate brand in memory. The ndings indicate that a corporate brand plays an important role in generating consumer satisfaction. An important implication is therefore that beyond communicating conventional marketing benets, practitioners need to invest in corporate image and raise consumer awareness of core organizational values by making a meaningful links of these to the company products and services. Although technology organizations are often criticized for over-relying on cutting edge innovations, this study shows that functional brand benets (e.g. performance, safety) were indeed the most critical factor in driving consumer satisfaction with the car brand. While the benets related to the perceived utility of choice seemed to have dominated in the effects on consumer satisfaction, hedonic and social value dimensions were also found inuential. To avoid further commoditization, practitioners also need to focus on designing and delivering customer experiences that deliver consumer delight. It is recommended that practitioners focus on developing multidimensional brand offerings. Osgood et al. (1957) suggest that the hedonistic and utilitarian components of value may be related. For example, the purchase of a car is likely to increase the chances of favourable responses at the affective and cognitive levels. Practitioners may also benet from taking a holistic view to the corporate brand management. The study ndings also emphasize coordination and cooperation across the company departments and operations in achieving the synergistic effect of the corporate brand promise and thus, enhance consumer performance outcomes further. The level of consumer satisfaction varies widely and as Kohli and Jaworski (1990) maintain there is a need for ongoing interaction between departments, so that they can understand each others communication and goals, and plan activities together. In light of increasing advertising costs and decreasing consumer loyalty, these ndings can prove to be helpful in assisting practitioners in allocating their marketing budgets. Limitations and suggestions for future research Sport sponsorships and innovative activities may pertain more to the construction of corporate brand in terms of aspiration rather than and distinct to satisfaction. Aspiration can be thought of that which is satised. In retrospect, sport sponsorships are better measured as a long duration investment in the production of aspirational and loyal consumers. The survey was completed by users that already had their aspirations in becoming users and owners of the products and services satised. Future studies should also seek to account for the non-users who might otherwise aspire to own or use the given corporate brands products. Although this paper makes several contributions, there are a few limitations that emerge from the current study, which, however, present opportunities for future research. The cross-sectional nature of the data collection method limits the information

gained to the single point in time. Furthermore, the use of the aggregated measure of consumer satisfaction may not provide information at more specic level that could be of interest to the practitioners. To obtain a more comprehensive picture of the corporate brand effects, researchers are encouraged to include consumer loyalty in their measurement frameworks. The context of the current study was the corporate car brand. Investigation of the corporate brad effects on consumer satisfaction within other than the automotive industry context where corporate branding strategy is employed (i.e. banking, retail) would be benecial for our further understanding of corporate brand management.
References Aaker, D. (2004), Leveraging the corporate brand, California Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 6-26. Aaker, D. (2009), Strategic Market Management, 9th ed., Wiley, New York, NY. Aaker, J. (1997), Dimensions of brand personality, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 347-356. Abdullah, M., Al-Nasser, A. and Husain, N. (2000), Evaluating functional relationship between image, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty using general maximum entropy, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 Nos 4/6, pp. 826-829. Abratt, R. and Kleyn, N. (2012), Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate reputations: reconciliation and integration, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8, pp. 1048-1063. Ahire, S. and Devaraj, S. (2001), An empirical comparison of statistical construct validation approaches, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 319-329. Andreassen, T. (1994), Satisfaction, loyalty and reputation as indicators of customer orientation in the public sector, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 16-34. Andreassen, T. and Lindestad, B. (1998), The effect of corporate image in the formation of customer loyalty, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 82-92. Anisimova, T. (2010), Corporate brand: the company-customer misalignment and its performance implications, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 488-503. Argeni, P. and Druckenmiller, B. (2004), Reputation and the corporate brand, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 368-374. Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. and Phillips, L.W. (1991), Assessing construct validity in organizational research, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-458. Balmer, J.M.T. (2012), Strategic corporate brand alignment: perspectives from identity based views of corporate brands, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8, pp. 1064-1092. Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E. (2003), Corporate brands: what are they? What of them?, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 972-978. Berens, G. and Van Riel, C.B.M. (2004), Corporate associations in the academic literature: three main streams of thought in the reputation measurement literature, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 161-178. Bhat, S. and Reddy, S. (1998), Symbolic and functional positioning of brands, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43. Brown, T. and Dacin, P. (1997), The company and the product: corporate associations and consumer product responses, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 68-84.

Impact of corporate brand

579

APJML 25,4

580

Brown, T., Dacin, P., Pratt, M. and Whetten, D. (2006), Identity, intended image, construed image, and reputation: an interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 99-106. Brucks, M., Zeithaml, V. and Naylor, G. (2000), Price and brand name as indicators of quality dimensions for consumer durables, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 359-374. Carson, P. (2007), AT&T draws on past rebranding experiences, RCR Wireless News, Vol. 26 No. 18, pp. 1-20. Christensen, L. (2002), Corporate communication: the challenge for transparency, Corporate Communication: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 162-168. Churchill, G. (1979), A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-73. Churchill, G. (1999), Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, 7th ed., The Dryden Press, Hinsdale, IL. Churchill, G. and Iacobucci, D. (2002), Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, The Dryden Press, Hinsdale, IL. Churchill, G. and Surprenant, C. (1982), An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 491-504. Coakes, S. and Steed, L. (2001), SPSS for Windows: Analysis Without Anguish, Wiley, Brisbane. Cornelissen, J., Christensen, L. and Kinuthia, K. (2012), Corporate brands and identity: developing stronger theory and a call for shifting the debate, European Journal of marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8, pp. 1093-1102. Cronbach, L. (1951), Coefcient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 297-334. Dacin, P. and Brown, T. (2002), Corporate identity and corporate associations: a framework for future research, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 254-263. Dacin, P. and Brown, T. (2006), Corporate branding, identity and consumer response, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 95-99. Danaher, P. and Haddrell, V. (1996), A comparison of question scales used of measuring customer satisfaction, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 4-26. Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2002), Gaps between the internal and external perceptions of the corporate brand, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 144-158. Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R.V. and Roper, S. (2003), Corporate Reputation and Competitiveness, Routledge, London. Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R.V. and Roper, S. (2004), A corporate character scale to assess employee and customer views of organisation reputation, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 125-146. Day, R. (1977), Extending the concept of consumer satisfaction, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 149-154. de Chernatony, L. (2001), From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. de Chernatony, L. and DallOlmo Riley, F. (1997), The chasm between managers and consumers views of brands: the experts perspectives, The Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 5, pp. 89-104.

Dillman, D. (1991), The design and administration of mail surveys, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 17, pp. 225-249. Dillman, D. (1999), Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY. Douglas, S. and Craig, C. (1997), The changing dynamic of consumer behaviour: implications for cross-cultural research, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14, pp. 379-395. Dowling, G. (1988), Measuring corporate images: a review of alternative approaches, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 27-34. Dowling, G. (1993), Developing your company image into a corporate asset, Long Range Planning, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 101-109. Duarte, M. and Davies, G. (2002), The anatomy of the Ford brand, paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Corporate Reputation, Boston, MA, May. Ekinci, Y., Dawes, P. and Massey, G. (2008), An extended model of the antecedents and consequences of consumer satisfaction for hospitality services, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 35-68. ll, T., Schmitt, B., Elger, C., Neuhaus, C. and Weber, B. (2012), Brands on the Esch, F.-R., Mo brain: do consumers use declarative information or experienced emotions to evaluate brands?, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 75-85. Fombrun, C. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Fombrun, C. and Van Riel, C.B.M. (2004), Fame & Fortune: How Successful Companies Build Winning Reputations, Prentice-Hall/Financial Times, New York, NY. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50. Fournier, S. and Yao, J. (1997), Reviving brand loyalty: a reconceptualization within the framework of consumer-brand relationships, International Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 451-472. Fredericks, J. and Salter, J. II (1998), What does your customer really want?, Quality Progress, January, pp. 63-68. Gerbing, D. and Anderson, J. (1988), An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, May, pp. 186-192. Goff, B., Boles, J., Bellinger, D. and Stojack, C. (1997), The inuence of salesperson behaviours on customer satisfaction with products, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 171-183. Grant, R. (1991), The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implication for strategy formulation, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-135. Grassl, W. (1999), The reality of brands: towards an ontology of marketing, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 313-359. Gustafsson, A. and Johnson, M. (2002), Measuring and managing the satisfaction-loyalty-performance links at Volvo, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 249-258. Gwinner, K., Gremler, D. and Bitner, M. (1998), Relational benets in services industries: the customers perspective, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 101-114.

Impact of corporate brand

581

APJML 25,4

Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Halliburton, C. and Bach, S. (2012), An integrative framework of corporate brand equity, EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 243-255. Hatch, M. and Schultz, M. (2003), Bringing the corporation into corporate branding, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1041-1064. Helm, S. (2006), Exploring the impact of corporate reputation on consumer satisfaction and loyalty, Journal of Customer Behaviour, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 59-80. Hsieh, M., Pan, S. and Sentiono, R. (2004), Product-, corporate-, and country-image dimensions and purchase behaviour: a multi-country analysis, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 251-270. Huber, F. and Herrmann, A. (2001), Achieving brand and dealer loyalty: the case of automotive industry, International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 97-122. Jacoby, J. (1978), Consumer research: a state of the art review, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42, pp. 87-96. Jaeschke, R. and Guyatt, G.H. (1990), How to develop and validate a new quality of life instrument, in Spilker, B. (Ed.), Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials, Raven Press, New York, NY, pp. 47-57. Jamal, A. and Naser, K. (2002), Customer satisfaction and retail banking: an assessment of some of the key antecedents of customer satisfaction in retail banking, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 146-160. Johan, G. and Frans, M. (2011), The underlying dimensions of brand orientation and its impact on nancial performance, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 18, November, pp. 394-410. Johnson, M. (1998), Customer Orientation and Market Action, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Kapferer, J.-N. (1992), Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating and Evolving Brand Equity, Kogan Page, London. Kapferer, J.-N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management, 2nd ed., Kogan Page, London. Kapferer, J.-N. (1998), The role of branding in medical prescription: an empirical investigation, HCE Working Paper, Jouy Josa. Kapferer, J.-N. (2008), The New Strategic Brand Management, 4th ed., Kogan Page, London. Keller, K. (2012), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, 4th global ed., Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Kenny, D.A. and McCoach, D.B. (2003), Effect of the number of variables on measures of t in structural equation modelling, Structural Equation Modelling, Vol. 10, pp. 333-3511. Kiff, J. (2000), The lean dealership a vision for a future: from hunting to farming, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 112-126. King, S. (1991), Brand building in the 1990s, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 765-781. Knox, S. and Bickerton, D. (2003), The six conventions of corporate branding, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 998-1116. Knox, S., Maklan, S. and Thompson, K. (1999), Pan-company marketing and process management, Irish Marketing Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 36-45.

582

Knox, S., Maklan, S. and Thompson, K. (2000), Building the unique organisation value proposition, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Larsen, M.H. (Eds), The Expressive Organization, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 138-156. Kocyigit, O. and Ringle, C. (2011), The impact of brand confusion on sustainable brand satisfaction and private label proneness: a subtle decay of brand equity, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 195-212. Kohli, A. and Jaworski, B. (1990), Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 1-18. Kunde, J. (2000), Corporate Religion, Prentice-Hall/Financial Times, London. Lindgreen, A., Xu, Y., Maon, F. and Wilcock, J. (2012), Corporate social responsibility brand leadership: a multiple case study, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8, pp. 965-993. Lloyd, S. (2004), The driving force, BRW, July 1-7, pp. 62-64. Loureiro, S., Sardinha, I. and Reijnders, L. (2012), The effect of corporate social responsibility dimensions on consumer satisfaction and perceived value: the case of the automobile sector in Portugal, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 37, December, pp. 172-178. Lukas, B.A., Hair, J.F., Brush, R.P. and Ortinau, D.J. (2004), Marketing Research, McGraw-Hill, Sydney. McCracken, G. (1993), The value of the brand: an anthropological perspective, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (Eds), Brand Equity and Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 125-139. McCracken, G. (2005), Culture and Consumption II: Markets, Meaning, and Brand Management, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN. Malhotra, N., Hall, J., Shaw, M. and Oppenheim, P. (2002), Marketing Research, Prentice-Hall, Sydney. Martensen, A., Grongholdt, L. and Kristensen, K. (2000), The drivers of customer satisfaction and loyalty: cross-industry ndings from Denmark, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 Nos 4/6, pp. 544-553. Mazur, L. (1999), High-tech rms are backwards about branding, Marketing, March, pp. 22-23. Melewar, T., Gotsi, M. and Andriopoulos, C. (2012), Shaping the research agenda in corporate branding: avenues for future research, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 5. Ming-Huei, H., Pan, S. and Setiono, R. (2004), Product-, corporate-, and country-image dimensions and purchase behavior: a multi-country analysis, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 251-270. Muzellec, L. (2006), What is in the name change? Re-joycing corporate names to create corporate brands, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 305-321. Norman, R. and Ramirez, R. (1994), Designing Interactive Strategy, from Value Chain to Value Constellation, Wiley, New York, NY. Norusis, M. (1993), SPSS for Windows, Advanced Statistics, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL. Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. OLeary-Kelly, S.W. and Vokurka, R.J. (1998), The empirical assessment of construct validity, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, pp. 387-405. Oliver, R.L. (2006), Customer satisfaction research, in Grover, R. and Vriens, M. (Eds), The Handbook of Marketing Research, Chapter 27, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Impact of corporate brand

583

APJML 25,4

584

Olsen, L. and Johnson, M. (2003), Service equity, satisfaction and loyalty: from transaction-specic to cumulative evaluations, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 184-195. Osgood, C., Suci, G. and Tannenbaum, P. (1957), The Measurement of Meaning, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL. Otubanjo, O., Abimbola, T. and Amujo, O. (2010), Conceptualising the notion of corporate brand covenant, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 410-422. Park, C., Jaworski, B. and MacInnis, D. (1986), Strategic brand concept image management, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, pp. 135-145. o, R., Zaichkowsky, J. and Bechara, A. (2012), How we relate to brands: Reimann, M., Castan psychological and neurophysiological insights into consumer-brand relationship, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 128-142. Reynolds, K. and Beatty, S. (1999), Customer benets and company consequences of customer-salesperson relationships in retailing, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 11-32. Roberts, P. and Dowling, G. (2002), Corporate reputation and sustained superior nancial performance, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1077-1093. Rojas-Mendez, J.I., Erenchun-Podlech, I. and Silva-Olave, E. (2004), The Ford brand personality in Chile, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 232-251. Round, G. and Roper, S. (2012), Exploring consumer brand name equity: gaining insight through the investigation of response to name change, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8, pp. 938-951. Schmitt, B. (2012), The consumer psychology of brands, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 7-17. Schoenfelder, J. and Harris, P. (2004), High-tech corporate branding: lessons for market research in the next decade, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 91-99. Schultz, M. and de Chernatony, L. (2002), The challenges of corporate branding, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 105-112. Schumacker, R. and Lomax, R. (1996), A Beginners Guide to Structural Equations Modeling, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 225-243. Sen, S., Bhattachraya, C. and Korchun, D. (2006), The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: a eld experiment, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 158-166. Souiden, N., Kassim, N. and Hong, H. (2006), The effect of corporate branding dimensions on consumers product evaluation: a cross-cultural analysis, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 825-845. Styles, C. and Ambler, T. (1995), Brand management, in Crainer, S. (Ed.), Financial Times Handbook of Management, Pitman, London, pp. 581-593. Swan, J. and Oliver, R. (1989), Post purchase communications by consumers, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 65, Winter, pp. 516-533. Sweeney, J. and Soutar, G. (2001), Consumer perceived value: the development of multiple item scale, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, pp. 203-220.

Szymanski, D. and Henard, D. (2001), Customer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical evidence, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 16-35. Temporal, P. and Lee, K. (2001), Hi-Tech Hi-Touch Branding: Creating Brand Power in the Age of Technology, Wiley, New York, NY. Tickle, P., Keller, K. and Richey, K. (2003), Ten guidelines for branding in high-tech markets, The Journal of Marketing Society, Vol. 22, Autumn, pp. 21-26. Tilley, C. (1999), Built-in branding: how to engineer a leadership brand, Journal of Marketing Management, No. 15, pp. 181-191. Urde, M. (2003), Core value-based corporate brand building, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1017-1040. Urde, M. (2009), Uncovering the corporate brands core values, Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 616-638. zquez-Carrasco, R. and Foxall, G. (2006), Inuence of personality traits on satisfaction, Va perception of relational benets, and loyalty in a personal service context, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 205-219. Walsh, G., Mitchell, V., Jackson, P. and Beatty, S. (2009), Examining the antecedents and consequences of corporate reputation: a customer perspective, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20, pp. 187-203. Welsh, T. (1994), Best and worst corporate reputations, Fortune, Vol. 129 No. 3, pp. 58-66. Wiedmann, K., Hennigs, N., Schmidt, S. and Wuestefeld, T. (2011), The importance of brand heritage as a key performance driver in marketing management, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 182-194. Wiertz, C., de Ruytera, K., Keenb, C. and Streukensa, S. (2004), Cooperating for service excellence in multichannel service systems: an empirical assessment, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, pp. 424-436. Zambuni, R. (1997), Hi-tech brands at the crossroad, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 4-7.

Impact of corporate brand

585

Further reading Abratt, R. (1989), A new approach to the corporate image management process, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 63-76. Anderson, E. and Sullivan, M. (1993), The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for rms, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-143. Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), Corporate identity and advent of corporate marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 4, pp. 963-996. Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S. (2003), Managing the multiple identities of the corporation, in Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S. (Eds), Revealing the Corporation, Routledge, London, pp. 15-29. Bem, D. (1967), Self-perception: an alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena, Psychological Review, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 183-200. Berens, G., Van Riel, C.B.M. and Van Bruggen, G. (2005), Corporate associations and consumer product responses: the moderating role of corporate brand dominance, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, pp. 35-48. Blomback, A. and Ramirez-Pasillas, M. (2012), Exploring the logics of corporate brand identity formation, Corporate Communications, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 7-28.

APJML 25,4

586

Craig, C. and Douglas, S. (1997), Managing the transnational value chain-strategies for rms from emerging markets, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 71-84. Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Gray, E. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), The corporate brand: a strategic asset, Management in Practice, Vol. 4, pp. 1-4. Hatch, M. and Schultz, M. (2009), From corporate to enterprise branding, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 117-130. Keller, K. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22. Keller, K. (1999), Brand mantras: rationale, criteria, and examples, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 Nos 1/3, pp. 43-51. Keller, K. (2003), Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29, March, pp. 595-600. Kowalczyk, S. and Pawlish, M. (2002), Corporate branding through external perception of organizational culture, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 159-174. Lai, F., Grifn, M. and Babin, B. (2009), How quality, value, image, and satisfaction create loyalty at a Chinese telecom, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 10, pp. 980-986. Martenson, R. (2007), Corporate brand image, satisfaction and store loyalty: a study of the store as a brand, store brands and manufacturer brands, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 544-555. Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioural Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Zeithaml, V. (1988), Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22.

Appendix

Impact of corporate brand


Final items IC

Construct Corporate activities Social activities

Source

Innovative activities

Sports sponsorships

Sponsorships of worthy social activities in Australia Family-oriented activities Support for higher education The Australian outback Strong support of research into new technology Healthier environment Providing consumer-specic motoring solutions Sponsorships of motor sports Formula one grand prix racing National rally championships A good corporate citizen A successful auto manufacturer A company at the forefront of technology A manufacturer of outstanding cars The most respected auto company in Australia An auto manufacturer with strong environmental awareness A manufacturer of stylish cars A committed player in the Australian automotive market

0.8725

0.884

In-depths interviews; Brown and Dacin (1997), Sen and Bhattacharya (2001)

587

0.8550

0.853

0.8348

0.886

Corporate associations 0.9111 0.883 In-depths interviews; Walsh et al. (2009), Sen and Bhattacharya (2001), Brown and Dacin (1997)

Corporate values Consumer valorisation

Integrity in work and deed Consumer rst Dependability Respect for the individual Continuous product improvement Constant innovation Social conscience Strong community orientation Ecologically responsible motoring Corporate brand personality Condent Inspiring Spirited Bold Challenging Simple elegance Aggressive

0.9155

0.914

In-depths interviews; Aaker (2004), Urde (2003)

0.828

0.9156

0.904

In-depths interviews; Davies and Chun (2002), Davies et al. (2003, 2004) Table AI. Summary of constructs, items and internal consistency gures

(continued )

APJML 25,4

Construct Progressive

Final items

IC 0.8891

a
0.885

Source

588

Technologically advanced Ambitious Exciting Up-to-date Sporty Open Genuine Intelligent Leader Reliable Socially responsible Cooperative Trustworthy Functional brand benets Functional brand benets: as a second-order factor Advanced Engineering excellence technology Aesthetically appealing car features Peace of mind associated with high safety vehicles High re-sale value Value for money Value for money Fuel efciency Motoring comfort On the road Road-handling excellence performance Outstanding performance Choice variety Functional reliability The broadest choice of car models in Australia Emotional benets Joy of owing the car A sense of a peace of mind Youthful spirit A feeling of adventure A sense of connection between the driver and the road A sense of freedom A sense of contentment Driving pleasure Symbolic benets Look successful Look stylish Stand out in a crowd Enhance your personal image Get social approval Make a good impression on other people Express your personality Enhance your status

0.8487

0.857

0.8727

0.874

0.9052 0.9052

0.928 0.873

In-depths interviews; Sweeney and Soutar (2001), Hsieh et al. (2004)

0.8585

0.862

0.918 0.576

0.9544

0.956

In-depths interviews; Sweeney and Soutar (2001), Hsieh et al. (2004)

0.9642

0.965

In-depths interviews; Sweeney and Soutar (2001) and Hsieh et al. (2004), Bhat and Reddy (1998)

Table AI.

(continued )

Construct

Final items

IC 0.9142

a
0.915

Source In-depths interviews; Johnson (1998), Goff et al. (1997), Jamal and Naser (2002) In-depths interviews; Johnson (1997), Goff et al. (1997), Jamal and Naser (2002)

Impact of corporate brand

Consumer satisfaction Range of models Consumer satisfaction with the Vehicle performance Exterior design vehicle acquisition Interior features Driving safety Fuel economy Proving customized motoring Consumer satisfaction with the solutions customized solutions Financing the vehicle The delivery timing Assistance on the operators Consumer satisfaction with the manual vehicle maintenance Accuracy in diagnostics of repair needs Availability of spare parts Advice of frequency of servicing Ease of servicing Honouring the warranty claims Proximity of dealerships for servicing the car Completeness of services offered

589

0.7103

0.708

0.9167

0.917

Table AI.

About the author Dr Tatiana Anisimova is an Assistant Professor in Advertising and Marketing Communications at the University of Canberra. She holds PhD in Marketing from Monash University, Australia. Tatiana has published research articles in peer reviewed international conference proceedings and journals. Her research interests lie in the area of brand management, international marketing and integrated marketing communications in various cultures and contexts. Tatiana Anisimova can be contacted at: tatiana.anisimova@canberra.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints