African Journal of Economic and Management Studies

Brand communication, brand image and brand trust as antecedents of brand loyalty in Gauteng Province
of South Africa
RICHARD CHINOMONA
Article information:
To cite this document:
RICHARD CHINOMONA , (2016),"Brand communication, brand image and brand trust as antecedents of brand loyalty in
Gauteng Province of South Africa", African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-03-2013-0031
Downloaded on: 04 February 2016, At: 05:48 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5 times since 2016*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:198285 []
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

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

 Brand Communication, Brand Image and Brand Trust as antecedents of Brand Loyalty
in Gauteng Province of South Africa

Richard Chinomona

University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

1.0. Introduction

Brand loyalty is a focal point of interest for marketing researchers and practitioners (Irem and
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

Mesut, 2012). In fact, it is a concept that has garnered much interest over recent decades, with
numerous companies seeking to establish brand loyalty from their consumers (Russell-
Bennett, Härtel and Worthington, 2012). Among some of the reasons cited by many firms are
arguments that brand loyalty generates numerous benefits like erecting barriers to
competitors, generating greater sales and revenues, reducing customer acquisition costs, and
inhibiting customers' susceptibility to marketing efforts of competitors (Knox and Walker,
2001; Rundle-Thiele and Mackay, 2001). Thus, brand loyalty has been used by marketers as
a strategic potent weapon to proffer a sustainable competitive advantage (Keller & Lehman,
2006; Runyan and Droge, 2008; Jones and Kim, 2011). It is also argued in the extant
literature that a critical issue for the continued success of a firm is its capability to retain its
current customers and make them loyal to its brands (Russell-Bennett, McColl-Kennedy and
Coote, 2007). It is further argued that the costs of attracting a new customer have been found
to be up to six times higher than the costs of retaining old ones (Rosenberg and Czepiel,
1983). In addition to that, loyal customers are typically less price sensitive (Krishnamurthi
and Raj, 1991), and the presence of a loyal customer base provides the firm with valuable
time to respond to competitive actions (Aaker, 1991). Besides, a large number of loyal
customers is a competitive asset for a brand, and has been identified as a major determinant
of its equity.

However, the million dollar question posed by Russell-Bennett, Härtel and Worthington
(2012) is that - why do consumers commit to buying a brand time after time? Numerous
researchers have proposed different factors as antecedents of brand loyalty. For instance,
some scholars put forward psychological constructs such as trust, satisfaction, commitment
and perceived value to explain consumer brand loyalty (Morgan and Hunt, 1994;
 Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002; Harris and Goode, 2004; Woodside and Walser, 2007; He, Li and
Harris, 2012). However some researchers such as Mukherjee and He (2008), Marin et al.,
(2009) and He and Li (2010) among other consider social identity motivations such as
consumer self-expression, self enhancement, and self-esteem – brand identity and brand
identification as explanations for consumer brand loyalty. While some studies such as one by
He, Li and Harris, (2012), have attempted to integrate the psychological and social identity
perspectives to explain brand loyalty, the brand communication - brand loyalty linkages
mediated by psychological or social identity constructs remain under researched. In addition
to this void, there appear to be dearth of studies that investigate these relationships from a
African developing country perspective.
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

Premised on the identified research gaps, the current study seeks to investigate the
influence of brand communication on brand loyalty and the mediating role of brand image
and brand trust in this relationship in South Africa. Above and beyond, the current study is
expected to make academic and practical contributions to the existing branding literature and
the practice of branding communication in developing countries – South Africa in particular.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The next section presents a literature
review section. The research methodology section which include data collection procedure,
construct operationalization and measurement, follows thereafter. The subsequent section
offers data analysis and results, and discussion and implications of the study findings. Lastly,
in the concluding section, the limitations of the study along with suggestions for future
research are highlighted.

2.0. Literature Review

2.1. Brand Communication

A brand is a name, term, sign, drawing, or any combination of these, that serves to
identify a firm's goods or services and differentiate them from those of competitors
(American Marketing Association, AMA). According to Jones and Kim (2011) brands are
assets and sources of competitive advantage for both manufacturers and retailers. Brands
offer customers a tangible example of their brand statement through their products and/or
 experiences, which they provide to the market- place for consumers (Runyan and Droge,
2008). Brand communication is when that idea or image of a product or service is marketed
so that the distinctiveness is identified and recognized by many consumers (Jones and Kim,
2011). Advertising professionals in business enterprises undertake brand communication not
only to build brand recognition, but also to build good reputations and a set of standards to
which the company should strive to maintain or surpass (Sahin et al. 2011). The extant
literature shows that brand communication has been consistently found to play an important
role in creating positive brand attitudes (Keller and Lehman, 2006). It is therefore, the
primary integrative element in managing brand relationships with customers and creates
positive brand attitudes such as brand satisfaction and brand trust (Runyan and Droge, 2008;
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

Sahin et al. 2011). According to Zehir et al. (2011), the objective of brand communication
has been to expose the audience to a brand, whereby the effect can be maximized in terms of
increased awareness and higher recall, so that the customer will buy the brand which has the
highest recall; and to satisfy the customer to the optimum level. As noted by Sahin et al.
(2011), brand communication can be one-way (indirect communication) and two ways (one-
to-one or direct communication). One-way communication consists of print-TV-radio
advertising etc. This type of communication mainly aims to increase brand awareness; to
improve brand attitudes such as brand satisfaction and brand trust; and to affect purchasing
behavior, such as brand choice (Hoek et al, 2000; Zehir et al. 2011). Two-way or direct brand
communication focus mainly on directly influencing existing-customer buying behavior and
are essentially transaction oriented (Low and Lamb, 2000; Sahin et al. 2011). Several
previous studies have shown that direct brand communication can influence consumers'
satisfaction for a brand (Panda, 2004; Grace and O'Cass, 2005; Zehir et al. 2011; Sahin et al.
2011).

2.2. Brand Image

Brand image has been defined as the consumer’s mental picture of the offering and it
includes symbolic meanings that consumers associate with the specific attributes of the
product or service (Salinas and Pérez, 2009; Bibby, 2011). Sääksjärvi and Samiee (2012)
defined brand image as a series of or the sum the total of brand associations held in the
memory of the consumers that led to perceptions about the brand while Low and Lamb,
(2000), defined it as the reasoned or emotional perceptions consumers attach to specific
 brands. In other words, it is seen as the representation of a brand in the consumer’s mind that
is linked to an offering or a set of perceptions about a brand the consumer forms as reflected
by brand associations (Cretu and Brodie, 2007). Thus, brand image is the soul of the product
or service. In business markets, brand image can also be expected to play an important role,
especially where it is difficult to differentiate products or services based on tangible quality
features (Mudambi, Doyle and Wong, 1997; Shankar, Azar, and Fuller 2008). It is usually
transmitted to consumers, makes them believe in the products in a certain level, and further
helps them to make a purchase decision (Torres and Bijmolt, 2009). Marketers usually regard
brand image as the basis of how consumers assess the quality of the product or service, that
is, the external clue of the products (Cretu and Brodie, 2007). The understanding is that,
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

consumers will utilize brand image to infer their awareness of the product or service or
maintain their quality consciousness to the product or service (Bibby, 2011). Moreover, brand
image can be viewed as a set of relative localization, identical quality guaranteeing, and the
function attribute of the product and service which make consumers reflect their self-image
and which help make purchase decisions (Aghekyan-Simonian, Forsythe, Kwon and
Chattaraman, 2012). In addition to that, the extant branding literature points out that the
products with stronger brand image can really reduce consumers’ cognitive risk and increase
consumers to appraise to the target product or service (Kwon and Lennon, 2009). In this
regard, consumers often make use of the sense of brand image to infer the quality of the
product or service and decide their behaviour (Salinas and Pérez, 2009). Thus, the quality of
the brand image indirectly cause consumers’ cognition of the product or service quality
(Sääksjärvi and Samiee, 2012). Besides, utilizing the ideal brand image not only assists
enterprises to establish market positions, but also protect brands from other competitors
(Cretu and Brodie, 2007). For this reason, enterprises today work hard to maintain their brand
image and as such invest substantial resources to develop names with a favorable image
(Shankar, Azar, and Fuller, 2008). Given this recognized importance, it is not surprising why
brand images have been increasingly considered primary topics for many marketing
businesses (Torres and Bijmolt, 2009).

2.3. Brand Trust

Trust can be defined as the extent to which a consumer believes that a certain brand he or she
has confidence in satisfies his or her desire (Zhou et al., 2011). In this case, the consumer is
willing to rely on the brand he or she has confidence in the benefits (Carroll and Ahuvia,
 2006). According to Pavlou, Liang and Xue (2007), brand trust is the willingness of the
average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function. The extant
marketing literature reveals that trust is more prominent in situations of uncertainty,
information asymmetry and fear of opportunism (Chiu, Huang and Yen, 2010). Thus, the role
of trust is to decrease uncertainty and information asymmetry and make customers feel
comfortable with their brand (Gefen, Karahanna and Straub, 2003; Pavlou, Liang and Xue,
2007). For instance, if people realize the utilitarian and hedonic values of their brand their
trust would increase (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). In this study, brand trust refers to the
willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated
function (Wang and Emurian, 2005).
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

2.4. Brand Loyalty

The importance of brand loyalty has been recognized in the marketing literature for at
least three decades (Ching and Chang, 2006). A cross examination of the existing literature
show that brand loyalty leads to certain marketing advantages such as reduced, marketing
costs, more new customers, and greater trade leverage (Algesheimer et al., 2005). In addition
to that, brand loyalty is a prerequisite for a firm's competitiveness and profitability
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). For this reason, every firm desires to have its brands with
high customer loyalty (Morrison and Crane, 2007). Thus, brand loyalty is considered in the
marketing literature as one of the ways with which the consumer expresses his/her
satisfaction with the performance of the product or service received (Ballester and Aleman,
2001; Coulter et al., 2003). According to Ching and Chang (2006), brand loyalty indicates a
consumer’s preference to buy a single brand name in a product class as a result of the
perceived quality of the brand and not its price. The extant branding literature conceptualizes
brand loyalty to have two dimension namely behavioural and attitudinal brand loyalty
(Algesheimer et al., 2005). Behavioural brand loyalty is defined as a deeply held commitment
to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product or service consistently in the future, despite
situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior
(Morrison and Crane, 2007). Attitudinal brand loyalty refers to repeat purchase intention, the
willingness to pay a premium price or the loyal consumer’s willingness to expend a larger
amount of monetary resources to acquire the brand, and intention of word-of-mouth (WOM)
(Algesheimer et al., 2005) which is the tendency or inclination to speak favorably about the
 brand. Thus attitudinally loyal consumers who are willing to endorse their preferred brand are
distinguished from repeat purchasers who may continue repurchase but lack the inclination to
disseminate favorable word of mouth about the brands (Ching and Chang, 2006). The current
study defines brand loyalty according to Morrison and Crane, (2007), who expressed it as a
deeply held commitment to rebut or repatronize a preferred product/service consistently in
the future.

3.0. Conceptual Model and Hypothesis Development

In order to empirically test the interrelationships between brand communication on brand

Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

image, brand trust and brand loyalty, a conceptual model is developed premised on the
reviewed marketing and in particular brand management literature. In this conceptualized
model brand communication is the predictor while brand image and brand trust are the
mediators. Brand loyalty is the single outcome variable. Figure 1 depicts this conceptualized
research model. The hypothesized relationships between the research constructs will be
discussed thereafter.

Brand Communication H2

H4
H1 Brand Loyalty
Brand Trust

Brand Image
H3

Figure 1: Conceptual Model

3.1. Brand Communication and Brand Image

According to Narayanan and Manchanda (2010), communication plays an important

role in building a brand image. One of the responsibilities of marketers is to communicate
and disseminate information about a brand’s attributes and its advantages to the customers in
 the pre-entering stage and/or the stages of further experience (Chaudhuri, 2002). Firstly, the
marketers need to communicate the inherent advantage of the brand (functionality aspect) to
the customers (Su and Rao, 2010). This serves to reflect the relevant attribute of the product
or service and how the brand can solve consumers’ nature demand of consumption and help
them solve or avoid the problem they encounter (Salinas and Pérez, 2009). In addition to that,
brand communication serves to disseminate the external advantages of the brand
(symbolism). The purpose of this is to communicate the relevant attributes that can satisfy or
meet consumers’ inner need, such as consumers’ pursuit of self-esteem and social identity
(Wua, Yeh and Hsiao, 2011). Furthermore, marketers need to communicate other customers’
experience with a brand, for instance, the customers’ satisfaction experience with using a
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

brand and how this brings happiness and pleasure that makes them want to repurchase a
brand. All in all, this fosters brand image building in the mind of the customers. Hence, it can
be posited that the higher the level of brand communication, the higher the expected level of
brand image the customers will conceptualize. Prior empirical evidence has found a positive
relationship between brand communication and brand image (for example, Narayanan and
Manchanda, 2010). Therefore, based on the forgoing discussion and empirical evidence this
study posits that:

H1: Brand communication has a positive significant effect on brand image in South

Africa.

3.2. Brand Communication and Brand Trust

Su and Rao (2010) state one of the objectives of brand communication has been to
expose the audience to a brand. The effects of such an exposure are that, it increases
awareness and higher recall, so that the customers will buy brands that satisfy them to the
optimum level (Sääksjärvi and Samiee, 2011). Satisfaction with a brand performance is likely
to lead to a positive brand attitude (Shankar, Azar and Fuller, 2008). According to Low and
Lamb (2000), brand attitudes encapsulate the meaning that consumers attach to brands and
eventually leading to brand trust and loyalty (Hoek et al, 2000). For that reason, astute
marketers expend considerable effort on brand communication in order to create and
maintaining customer positive attitudes towards their brands (Grace and O'Cass, 2005).
 Therefore, it can be posited that the higher the level of brand communication by marketers,
the higher the expected customers’ brand trust. Prior empirical evidence has found a positive
relationship between brand communication and brand trust (e.g. Su and Rao, 2010) and hence
brand communication can be expected to lead to brand trust in the context of South Africa.
Therefore, it can be postulated that:

H2: Brand communication has a positive significant effect on brand trust in South Africa.

Brand Image and Brand Trust

The extant literature reveals that brand image is often reflected by perceptions about a
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

brand and brand associations held in the customers or consumers’ memory (Lee & Tan,
2003). Thus, the more favourable the brand image, the more positive the assertiveness or
confidence toward the branded product and its attributes the customers will have (Bennetta,
Charmine and McColl-Kennedy, 2005). Thus, brand image may serve as an important
surrogate for intrinsic product attribute information, which in turn fosters customers’
confidence in a brand (Pavlou, Liang and Xue (2007). Eventually, the more confidence the
customers have in a brand, the more likely they will trust that brand. Previous research
findings have supported a positive linkage between brand image and brand trust (Cretu and
Brodie, 2007). Similarly, in the current study, it is expected that a favourable brand image
will increase customer confidence in a brand end consequently lead brand trust (Del Rio et
al., 2001; Keller, 1993). Thus, based on the aforementioned discussion and empirical
evidence this study posits that:

H3: Brand image has a positive significant effect on brand trust in South Africa.

Brand Trust and Brand Loyalty

According to Agustin and Singh (2005), trust reduces the uncertainty in an

environment in which consumers feel especially vulnerable because they know they can rely
on the trusted brand. When a brand has the ability to continue to meet the best interests and
expectations of the customers, then the customers are likely to trust the brand. For instance,
the customers will infer if the brand is reliable functionally, if the quality is credible or brand
safety before they consider trusting that brand (Bart, et al., 2005). Thus, brand trust is a result
 of a customer’s careful and well thought process regarding a brand and may be viewed as
leverage of its reliability and credibility (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). This in return, may
reinforce the consumers' repeat buying behaviour and eventually lead brand attitudinal and
behavioural or purchase loyalty in the future (Delgado et al., 2003). Consequently, a
trustworthy brand is one that consistently keeps its promise of value to customers through its
superior performance, hence warranting customer brand loyalty in the process (Chiou and
Droge, 2006). Therefore, it can be posited that the higher the level of brand trust by
customers, the higher the expected customers’ brand loyalty. Prior empirical evidence has
found a positive relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty (e.g. Morgan and Hunt,
1994; Doney and Cannon, 1997; Chiou and Droge, 2006) and hence brand trust can be
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

expected to lead to brand loyalty in the case of South Africa. Therefore, it can be
hypothesized that:

H4: Brand trust has a positive significant effect on brand loyalty in South Africa.

4.0. Research Methodology

4.1. Sample and data collection

The target population for the study was South African consumer in Gauteng who purchased
any consumer goods. The sampling unit was the individual consumer. A mall intercept
survey was used. This method has the advantage of speed, is less costly and the researcher
has control over respondent type. Four shopping malls in Vanderbijlpark were selected for
this survey. Students from the Vaal University of Technology were recruited as research
assistants to distribute and collect the questionnaires. Of the total of 170 questionnaires
distributed, 151 usable questionnaires were retrieved for the final data analysis, representing a
response rate of 89 per cent. To eliminate differences in response patterns due to different
reference points, all respondents were prompted to answer the questionnaire with reference to
non-durable consumer goods. The reason for selecting this category was that consumers
frequently purchase these products. In this regard, the respondents were asked to identify a
product category in which they had frequently made a purchase intention decision.
Respondents were then asked to name a brand in that category and they were requested to
 think about that brand as they complete the entire questionnaire, guided by the research
assistants.

4.2. Measurement Instrument and Questionnaire Design

Research scales were operationalized on the basis of previous work. Proper modifications
were made in order to fit the current research context and purpose. “Brand communication”
measure used six-item scales adapted from Zehir, Sahin, Kitapci and Ozsahin (2011). “Brand
image” used eight-item scale measure all adapted from Salinas and Perez (2009). “Brand
trust” and “brand loyalty” used a four-item scale measure adopted from Chaudhuri and
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

Holbrook (2001). All the measurement items were measured on a five-point Likert-type
scales that was anchored by 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree to express the degree of
agreement. Individual scale items are listed in Appendix 1.

4.3. Respondent Profile

Table 1 presents the description of the participants. The respondents were asked to report
their demographic information, including gender, age, marital status and education. The
respondents were predominantly females (57.6%). The median age group of the respondent
was that of less than 30 years (54.3%). 57% of the respondents were single. About 71% of the
respondents had either high school (43.7%) or university level of education (27.2%) and the
remainder had primary school (19.9) or postgraduate level of education (0.09%).

Table 1: Sample Demographic Characteristics

Gender Frequency Percentage

Male 64 42.4%
Female 87 57.6%
Total 151 100%

Age Frequency Percentage

≦30 82 54.3%
31-60 51 33.8%
≧ 60 18 11.9%
Total 151 100%
Marital status Frequency Percentage
Married 65 43.0%
Single 86 57.0%
Total 151 100%

Level of Education Frequency Percentage

Primary School 30 19.9%
High School 66 43,7%
 University 41 27.2%
Postgraduate 14 0.09%
Total 151 100%
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

5.0. DATA ANALYSIS

In this study, structural equation modeling (SEM) approach using Smart PLS statistical
software (Ringle, Wende and Will 2005) was used to test the posited hypotheses in the
conceptual research model. Smart PLS is a recently developed for simultaneously testing the
proposed relationships between all variables in a conceptual research model using Partial
Least Squares (PLS) path modelling (Chin, 1998). According to Liljander, Polsa and van Riel
(2009) PLS is a prediction-oriented, variance-based approach to Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM), premised on very few assumptions about the distribution of the variables.
Further to that, unlike the more traditional Maximum Likelihood (ML) SEM techniques such
as LISREL (Jo¨reskog and So¨rbom, 1989) and AMOS (Byrne, 2001); Smart PLS requires
relatively few observations. Since the current study sample size is relatively small (151)
Smart PLS was found more appropriate and befitting the purpose of the current study.

5.1. Measurement model

The researcher checked the measurements reliability and validity. Reliability was mainly
checked using the Composite Reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha value. To ensure
convergent validity, the researcher checked if items loaded on their respective (a priori)
constructs with loadings greater than 0.5, while discriminant validity was checked by
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value and ensuring that there was no significant inter-
research variables cross-loadings (Chin 1998). Smart PLS performs a Confirmatory Factor
 Analysis (CFA) while estimating the structural model (SEM). The CFA results are reported
in Table 2 and Figure 2, while the SEM results are presented in Table 4 and Figure 2.

TABLE 2: Accuracy Analysis Statistics

Items Mean Items Standard

Value Deviation Cronbach’s α AVE
Research Construct C.R. Value Factor Loading
value Value

BC 1 4.03 0.783 0.698

3.97 0.721
BC 2 0.839
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

3.98 0.761
BC 3 0.884

3.95 0.801
BC 4 0.780
0.915 0.935 0.706
BC 4.06 0.760
BC 5 0.928

4.08 0.780
BC 6 0.892

3.89 0.737
BI 1 0.735

4.01 0.759
BI 2 0.777

4.09 0.714
BI 3 0.782

3.99 0.731
BI 4 0.744
BI
3.96 0.766
BI 5 0.804

4.08 0.883
BI 6 0.910 0.926 0.612 0.792

4.04 0.910
BI 7 0.800

4.01 0.864
BI 8 0.819

404 0.814
BT 1 0.837
BT 0.842 0.894 0.679
4.11 0.876
BT 2 0.839
 4.19 0.826
BT 3 0.861

3.98 0.735
BT 4 0.755

4.03 0,727
BL 1 0.871

4.09 0.752
BL 2 0.813
BL 0.861 0.905 0.705
3.99 0.685 0.834
BL 3

4.01 0.739 0.839

BL 4

Note: BC = Brand Communication; BI = Brand Image; BT = Brand Trust; BL = Brand Loyalty

C.R.: Composite Reliability; AVE: Average Variance Reliability

* Scores: 1 – Strongly Disagree; 3 – Neutral; 5 – Strongly Agree

Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

As can be seen (Table 2), all items have loadings greater than 0.6 (Nunnally and Bernstein,
1994), indicating that they explain at least 60% of what they expected to measure (convergent
validity). The lowest AVE value is 0.612 which exceeds the recommended 0.5 (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981) – an indication of the existence of discriminant validity. However, to
guarantee sufficient discriminant validity between the research constructs, the square root of
the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of each factor should exceed the correlations between
that factor and all other factors (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In this study the least squared
root of AVE is 0.782 while the highest inter-construct correlation value is 0.610. This
therefore further confirms the existence of discriminant validity. Using the composite
reliability (CR) value and cronbach’s alpha value, the measurement instruments reliability
was assessed and lowest values are 0,894 and 0.842 respectively, which exceeds the
recommended acceptable value of 0.7 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). All in all, these results
confirm the reliability and validity of the measurement used in this study.

TABLE 3: Inter-Construct Correlation Matrix

RESEARCH CONSTRUCTS BC BI BT BL

Brand Communication (BC)

Brand Image (BI)

0.520
Brand Trust (BT)
0.390 0.610
Brand Loyalty (BL)
0.417 0.625 0.511
 Note: BC = Brand Communication; BI = Brand Image; BT = Brand Trust; BL = Brand Loyalty

Smart PLS software does not provide goodness-of-fit measures for the full path model as like
LISREL and AMOS, but it provides only R² values for the dependent variables. However, a
method to calculate a global goodness-of-fit (GoF) measure was proposed by Amato, Vinzi
and Tenenhaus (2004), and this method takes into account both the quality of the
measurement model and the structural model (Tenenhaus, Vinzi, Chatelin and Lauro, 2005;
Streukens, 2008). The global goodness-of-fit (GoF) statistic was calculated using the
following equation:
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

GoF = √ AVE * R²

Where AVE represent the average of all AVE values for the research variables while
R² represents the average of all R² values in the full path model

The calculated global goodness of fit (GoF) is 0.45, which exceeds the threshold of
GoF>0.36 suggested by Wetzels, Odekerken-Schröder and van Oppen (2009). Thus, this
study concludes that the research model provides an overall good fit.

5.2. Testing of the hypotheses

The results in Table 4 and Figure 2 provide support for all the four (4) hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1 posited a positive relationship between brand communication and brand image,
while hypothesis 2 posited a positive association between brand communication and brand
trust. Consistent with Hypothesis 1and 2, results indicated that higher levels of brand
communication will lead to higher levels of brand image (0.520) and brand trust (0.100).

The standardized coefficients of brand image and brand trust (0.556) is positive and
significant. This is consistent with the prediction of H3 and is supported. Thus, a higher level
of brand image is associated with higher levels of brand trust. Finally, results in Table 4 and
Figure 2, are in line with H4 and support the reasoning that the higher the level of brand trust
the customers have, the higher their brand loyalty (0.511). Therefore, H4 is strongly
supported.
 Figure 2: Measurement and Structural Model Results
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

Note: BC = Brand Communication; BI = Brand Image; BT = Brand Trust; BL = Brand Loyalty

Table 4 provides the T-statistics for the hypothesised relationships. Except for brand
communication – brand trust relationship (H2) with t-statistics of 1.140, the minimum t-
statistics is 5.835 and therefore exceeds the recommended threshold of 2. This means that
while all the posited positive relationships are supported, H2 is statistically insignificant.
Thus, this confirms the statistical significance of all the posited relationships except H2.

Table 4: Results of Structural Equation Model Analysis

Rejected /
Proposed Hypothesis Relationship Hypothesis Path T-Statistics Supported
Coefficients
Brand Communication (BC)
Brand Image (BI) H1 0.520 6.602 Supported

Brand Communication (BC)
Brand Trust (BT) H2 0.100 1.140 Rejected

Brand Image (BI)
Brand Trust (BT) H3 0.557 7.568 Supported

Brand Trust (BT)
Brand Loyalty (BL) H4 0.511 5.837 Supported

Note: BC = Brand Communication; BI = Brand Image; BT = Brand Trust; BL = Brand Loyalty

6.0. Conclusion and Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of brand communication on brand
image and brand trust and consequently brand loyalty. In particular, four hypotheses were
 postulated. To test the proposed hypotheses, data were collected from Gauteng Province in
South Africa. The empirical results supported all the posited research hypotheses in a
significant way except H2.

Important to note about the study findings is the fact that brand communication has stronger
effects on brand image (0.520) than on brand trust (0.100) which is not supported. Perhaps
the insignificant relationship between brand communication and brand trust may be explained
by the fact that consumers are likely to develop trust in a brand over a period of time (Morgan
& Hunt, 1994), for instance after some positive experiences and satisfaction with that brand.
However, brand image strongly influences relationship brand trust (0.557). Notably too, the
relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty is robust (0.511). By implication, this
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

finding indicates that brand communication can have strong influence on brand trust and
brand loyalty via brand image. Perhaps this could be due to the fact that customers are likely
to trust and be more loyal to brands with good image and reputation (Chiou and Droge,
2006).

6.1. Implications of the study

The business world is ever-increasingly becoming competitive and sustaining brand loyalty is
an enormous challenge for marketers. Many marketing researchers as well as practitioners
emphasize the critical role of brand communication in order to affect brand image, brand trust
and eventually brand loyalty. In particular, marketing managers in South Africa are therefore
encouraged to adopt strategies that enhance brand communication since this is likely to
increase the awareness and image of their brands. Eventually, the brand image will increase
the consumers’ brand trust and loyalty. The brand communication strategies that can be
adopted by marketing managers in South Africa include among others, brand promotion and
joint advertisements.

The current study is an attempt to investigate these relationships in an often most neglected
context – the African context. By and large, the findings of this empirical study are expected
to have to provide fruitful implications to both practitioners and academicians. On the
academic side, this study makes a significant contribution to the brand management literature
by systematically exploring the impact of brand communication on brand image, brand trust
and brand loyalty in South Africa. Overall, the current study findings provide tentative
 support to the proposition that brand communication, brand image and brand trust should be
recognized as significant antecedents for gaining and sustaining brand loyalty in South
Africa.

On the practitioners’ side, the important influence of brand communication and mediating
role of brand image and brand trust in South Africa is highlighted. This study therefore
submits that marketers can benefit from the implications of these findings. For instance,
given the robust relationship between brand communication and brand image (0.520) and
also between brand image and brand trust (0.557), marketers ought to pay attention to both
brand communication and brand image in order to build customer brand trust. By increasing
the perceived level of brand image through effective brand communication, marketers will be
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

able gain customer brand trust. Eventually, the customers will become loyal to a brand they
perceive to trustworthy.

Overall, drawing from the research findings, one can put forward that theoretically marketers
tend to gain consumers’ brand trust only when the consumers perceive the brand to have a
good image via brand communication. Thus brand communication that does not build a good
brand image will not earn the consumers’ brand trust.

6.2. Limitations and Future Research

Despite the usefulness of this study aforementioned, the research has its limitations. First and
most significantly, the study can be strengthened by increasing the sample size and including
participants in other geographical areas. Second, the current study was limited to South
Africa. For results comparisons, subsequent researches should contemplate replicating this
study in other developing countries. Finally, the present study did not examine such factors as
brand involvement, brand experience and brand satisfaction. Future studies should focus on
the antecedents and their potential effects on brand loyalty. All in all, these suggested future
avenues of study stand to immensely contribute new knowledge to the existing body of brand
management literature in Africa - a context that is often most neglected by some researchers
in developing countries.
 7.0 References

Aaker DA. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. The Free Press, New York.

Aghekyan-Simonian, M., Forsythe, S., Kwon, W.S. and Chattaraman, V. (2012), “The role of
product brand image and online store image on perceived risks and online purchase intentions
for apparel”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 325–331
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

Agustin C. and Singh J. (2005), “Curvilinear Effects of Consumer Loyalty Determinants in

Relational Exchanges”, Journal of Marketing Research, XIII).

Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M and Herrmann, A. (2005), "The Social Influence of Brand
Community; Evidence From European Car Clubs", Journal of Marketing, Vol.69, pp.19-34.

Amato, S., Esposito Vinzi, V. and Tenenhaus, M. (2004). “A global goodness-of-fit index for
PLS structural equation modeling”, France: Oral Communication to PLS Club, HEC School
of Management.

American Marketing Association. (1948), "Report of the Definitions Committee," R. S.

Alexander, Chairman, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 13, pp. 202-10

American Marketing Association - AMA, Chicago, IL, 1960

Ballester, I.E.D. and Aleman, M.J.L. (2001), “Brand trust in the context of consumer
loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No.11/12, pp. 1238-1258.

Bart, Y., Shankar, A., Sultan, F. and Urban, G.L. (2005), “Are the Driandrs And Role of
Online Trust the Same For All Web Sites And Consumers? A Large-Scale Exploratory
Empirical Study", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, pp.133-152
 Bennetta, R., Charmine, E.J.H. and McColl-Kennedy, J.R. (2005), “Experience as a
moderator of involvement and satisfaction on brand loyalty in a business-to-business setting”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34 No.1, pp. 97-107.

Bibby, D.N. (2011), “Sponsorship portfolio as brand image creation strategies: A

commentary essay”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64, pp. 628–630
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

Byrne, B. M. (2001), Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications,
and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Carroll, B.A. and Ahuvia, A. (2006), “Some Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand Love,”
Marketing Letters, Vol. 17 No.2, pp. 79–89.

Chaudhuri, A. (2002), “How brand reputation affects the advertising-brand equity link”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 33-43.

Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, B.M. (2001), "The Chain of Effects From Brand Trust and
Brand Affects to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty", Journal of Marketing
Vol.65, p.81-93

Chin, W.W. (1998), “Issues and opinion on structural equation modelling”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 7–16

Chin, W.W, and Newsted, P.R. (1999), Structural Equation Modeling analysis with Small
Samples Using Partial Least Squares. In Rick Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small
Sample Research, Sage Publications, pp. 307-341. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
 Chiou, J.S. and Droge, C. (2006), “Service quality, trust, specific asset investment, and
expertise: direct and indirect effects in a satisfaction-loyalty framework”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 613-27.

Chiu, C. M., Huang, H. Y. and Yen, C. H. (2010), “Antecedents of online trust in online
auctions”, Electronic Commerce Research and Application, Vol. 9, pp. 148–159.

Coulter, R.A., Price, L.L., Feick, L., 2003. Rethinking the origins of involvement and brand
commitment: insights from post socialist Central Europe. Journal of Consumer Research 30
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

(2), 151–169.

Cretu, A. E., and Brodie, R. J. (2007), “The influence of brand image and company
reputation where manufacturers market to small firms: A customer value perspective”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36, pp. 230–240.

Del Rio, A. B., Vazquez, R. and Iglesias, V. (2001), “The effects of brand associations on
consumer response”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 410–425.

Delgado, E., Munuera, J.L. and Yagu¨ e, M.J. (2003), “Development and validation of a
brand trust scale”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 35-54.

Doney, P. M. and Cannon, J. P. (1997), “An examination of the nature of trust in buyer–seller
relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 35–51.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27, pp.
39–50.
 Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D. W. (2003), “Trust and TAM in online shopping: An
integrated model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51–90.

Grace, D. and O'Cass, A. (2005), “Examining the effects of service brand communications on
brand evaluation”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14/2, pp. 106–116

Harris, L. C. and Goode, M. M. H. (2004), “The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of
trust: A study of online service dynamics”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80, pp. 139–158.
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

Jo¨ reskog, K. and So¨rbom, D. (2006), LISREL 8.50. IL: Scientific Software International
Inc., Chicago

Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand

Equity,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1–22.

Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2006), “Brands and branding: research findings and future
priorities”, Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 740–59.

Knox, S.D. and Walker, D. (2003), “Empirical developments in the measurement of

involvement, brand loyalty and their relationship in grocery markets”, Journal of Strategic
Maketing, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 271–286.

Krishnamurthi, L. and Raj, S.P. (1991), “An empirical Analysis of the Relationship between
Brand Loyalty and Customer Price Elasticity”, Marketing Science, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 172-
183.

Kwon, W.S. and Lennon, S. (2009), “Reciprocal Effects between Multichannel Retailers’
Offline and Online Brand Images”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85, pp. 376-390.
 He H, and Li Y. (2010), “CSR and service brand: the mediating effect of brand identification
and moderating effect of service quality”, Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 1-16

He, H., Li, Y. and Harris, L. (2012), “Social identity perspective on brand loyalty”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 65, pp. 648–657

Hoek, J., Dunnett, J., Wright, M. and Gendall, P. (2000), “Descriptive and Evaluative
attributes: What Relevance to Marketers?” Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.
9 No. 6, pp.415-435.
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

Lee, K.S. and Tan, S.J. (2003), “E-retailing versus physical retailing: A theoretical model and
empirical test of consumer choice”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 877–
885

Liljander, V., Polsa, P. and van Riel, A. (2009), “Modelling consumer responses to an apparel
store brand: Store image as a risk reducer”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol.
16, pp. 281–290

Low, G. S. and Lamb, C. W. J. (2000), “The measurement and dimensionality of brand

associations”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350–368.

Marin, L., Ruiz, S. and Rubio. (2009), “The Role of Identity Salience in the Effects of
Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Behaviour”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.
84, pp. 65-78

Morgan, R. M. and Hunt, S. D. (1994), “The commitment–trust theory of relationship

marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 20-38.
 Morrison, S and Crane, F. (2007), “Building the service brand by creating and managing an
emotional brand experience”, Journal of Brand Management , Vol. 14, pp. 410–421

Mudambi, S. M., Doyle, P. and Wong, V. (1997), “An exploration of branding in industrial
markets”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 433–446.

Mukherjee, A and He, H. (2008), “Company identity research in marketing: a multiple

stakeholders approach”, Journal of Marketing Theory Practice, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp.111–26.
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

Narayanan, S. and Manchanda, P. (2010), “Heterogeneous learning and the targeting of

marketing communication for new products”, Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 424–441

Nunnally, J. C. and Bernstein, I. H. (1994), Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. McGraw Hill,
Sydney, Australia.

Panda, T.K. (2004) “Consumer Response to Brand Placements in Films Role of Brand
Congruity and Modality of Presentation in Bringing Attitudinal Change Among Consumers
with Special Reference to Brand Placements in Hindi Films”, South Asian Journal of
Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 7-19

Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H. and Xue, Y. (2007), “Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in
online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 105–136.

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S. and Will, A. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0 M3. Available at http://
www.smartpls.de

Rosenberg, L.J. and Czepiel, J.A. (1983), “A Marketing Approach to Customer Retention”,
 Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 2, pp. 45-51.

Rundle-Thiele, S and Mackay, M.M. (2001), “Assessing the performance of brand loyalty
measures", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 529 - 546

Runyan, R.C. and Droge, C. (2008), “Small store research streams: what does it portend for
the future?” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 77–94.
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

Russell-Bennett, R., McColl-Kennedy, J.R. and Coote, L.V. (2007), “Involvement,

satisfaction, and brand loyalty in a small business services setting”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 60 No. 12, pp. 1253-1260.

Russell-Bennett, R., Härtel, C.E.J. and Worthington, S. (2013), “Exploring a functional

approach to attitudinal brand loyalty”, Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp.43–51

Shankar, V. Azar, P. and Fuller, M. (2008), “BRAN*EQT: A Multicategory Brand

Equity Model and its Application at Allstate”, Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp.567-584.

Sahin, A., Zehir, C. and Kitapçi, H. (2011), “The Effects Of Brand Experiences, Trust And
Satisfaction On Building Brand Loyalty; An Empricial Research On Global Brands” , The 7th
International Strategic Management Conference, Paris-France.

Salinas, E.M. and Pérez, J.M.P. (2009), “Modeling the brand extensions' influence on brand
image”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 50–60

Sääksjärvi , M. and Samiee, S. (2011), “Relationships among Brand Identity, Brand Image
and Brand Preference: Differences between Cyber and Extension Retail Brands over Time”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 169–177
 Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. and Sabol, B. (2002), “Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in
relational exchanges”, Journal Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 15–37.

Streukens, S. (2008), “On the use of partial least squares path modeling in organizational
research: an overview and illustration of its possibilities”, Working Paper, Hasselt University,
Hasselt.

Su, M. and Rao, V. R. (2010), “New product preannouncement as a signaling strategy: An

audience-specific review and analysis”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

No. 5, pp. 658–672.

Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. -M. and Lauro, C. (2005), “PLS Path Modeling”,
Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 159–205.

Torres, A and Bijmolt, T.H.A. (2009), “Assessing brand image through communalities and
asymmetries in brand-to-attribute and attribute-to-brand associations”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 195 No. 2, pp. 628–640

Wang, Y. D. and Emurian, H. H. (2005), An overview of online trust: Concepts, elements,

and implications. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(1), pp. 105–125.

Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Van Oppen, C. (2009), “Using PLS path modeling
for assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration”,
Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 177-195.

Woodside, A.G. and Walser, M.G. (2007), “Building strong brands in retailing”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 1–10
 Zehir, C., Sahin, A., Kitapci, H. and Ozsahin, M. (2011), “The Effects Of Brand
Communication And Service Quality In Building Brand Loyalty Through Brand Trust; The
Empirical Research On Global Brands”, The 7th International Strategic Management
Conference, Paris-France.

Zhou, Z., Zhang, Q., Su, C. and Zhou, N. (2012), “How do brand communities generate
brand relationships? Intermediate mechanisms”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 7,
pp. 890–895
Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

Appendix – Measurement Instruments

Brand Communication (Zehir, Sahin, Kitapci and Ozsahin, 2011)

I react favorably to the advertising and promotions of this brand

I feel positive toward the advertising and promotions of this brand

The advertising and promotions of this brand are good

The advertising and promotions of this brand do good job

I am happy with the advertising and promotions of this brand

I like the advertising and promotions of this brand

Brand Image (Salinas and Perez, 2009)

The products of this brand have a high quality

The products of this brand have better characteristics than competitors
The products of the competitors’ brand are usually cheaper
This brand is nice
This brand has a personality that distinguishes itself from competitors
This brand does not disappoint its customers
 This brand is one of the best brands in the sector
This brand is very consolidated in the market

Brand Trust (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001)

I trust this brand

I rely on this brand

This is an honest brand

This brand is safe

Downloaded by New York University At 05:48 04 February 2016 (PT)

Brand Loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001)

The next time I need that product, I will buy the same brand
I intend to keep purchasing this brand.
I am committed to this brand
I would be willing to pay a higher price for this brand over other brands.