f1454137/...5TV[X_be G[Xf\f International marketing 180 hp Does reaching resonance give brands a...

$Page 1: f1454137/...5TV[X_be G[Xf\f International marketing 180 hp Does reaching resonance give brands a free card? A study of the strength in the consumer-brand relationship when the brand$
Bachelor Thesis

HALMSTAD

UNIVERSITY

International marketing 180 hp

Does reaching resonance give brands a freecard?

A study of the strength in the consumer-brandrelationship when the brand has reached the stage ofbrand resonance.

Business Administration, 15 credits

Halmstad 2020-06-02

Camilla Gonzalez, Sanne Swedenås

Camilla Gonzalez & Sanne Swedenås - IMP17. VT2020

940608-2041 & 910729-5264

PROLOGUE We would like to thank our family and friends for unconditional support when authoring this report. A special thank you Ulf Aagerup, who has not only been our supervisor that contributed with valuable input and guidance, but also has shared his passion for brands and consumer behavior, we will forever carry this with us. Also, a special thank you to Hampus Johansson, who through day and night has provided excel-support and other valuable thoughts. We would also like to thank our opponents, Julia and Annie for continuously helping us improve this report and the respondents of this study for making this possible. Lastly, but not least we would like to thank each other for always providing the right shoes to get us through the journey and keeping each other grounded throughout deadlines, time difference, stressful internships, and in between all of this, for the time of our lives. Halmstad, May 2020

Camilla Gonzalez Sanne Swedenås


940608-2041 & 910729-5264

Authors: Sanne Swedenås & Camilla Gonzalez Supervisor: Ulf Aagerup Examiner: Klaus Solberg Søilen Title: Does reaching resonance give brands a free card? Abstract: Increased consumer awareness together with the importance of sustainable

consumption is currently a highly debated topic. Frequently, the media reports scandals from strong international brands, revealing information regarding deficiencies linked to the brands social sustainability efforts. As a consequence, some consumers are starting to put higher demands on social sustainability by spreading condemnations. This is to prevent injustices such as child labour and modern slavery. The condemnation can be in the form of negative word-of-mouth or by boycotting the brand. This is something that can affect the brand strongly by damaging the consumers perception of the brand, which can be fatal to the consumer-brand relationship.

However, this is something that seems to affect some brands to a greater extent than other brands

This study explores the strength of Keller’s brand resonance level as a possible explanation to the above mentioned anomality. It shows that brands resonance operates as a countermeasure against negative information in relation to the brands indiscretions regarding social sustainability. Brand resonance can contradict the consumers ethical values and self-imagery, leaving the consumers perception of the brand unscathed. The results showed that brand resonance can become so strong that it can make the consumer abandon their ethical values, even for consumers whom consider themselves as highly ethical. This study has been conducted by a hypothetically deductive methodology. To determine the significance of the result it has been verified with a Z-test that applied a 5% significance level.

Keywords: Consumer-Brand relationship, Brand Resonance, Brand Loyalty, Self-imagery,

Ethical values, Social sustainability

Camilla Gonzalez & Sanne Swedenås - IMP17. VT2020 940608-2041 & 910729-5264

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

2. THEORY .................................................................................................................................................. 3

3. FRAME OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................................................ 5

3.1 Self-imagery .............................................................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Brand-Imagery ........................................................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Consumption ............................................................................................................................................. 5

3.4 Brand personality ...................................................................................................................................... 5

3.5 Consumer Brand Relationships ................................................................................................................. 6 3.5.1 Brand attachment .............................................................................................................................. 6 3.5.2 Brand love .......................................................................................................................................... 7 3.5.3 Self-brand Connection ....................................................................................................................... 7 3.5.4 Consumer Brand Identification (CBI) ................................................................................................. 8 3.5.5 Brand trust ......................................................................................................................................... 9

3.6 Brand loyalty ............................................................................................................................................. 9

3.7 The Brand Resonance Model .................................................................................................................. 10 3.7.1 Salience ............................................................................................................................................ 10 3.7.2 Performance & Imagery .................................................................................................................. 10 3.7.3 Judgements & Feelings .................................................................................................................... 11 3.7.4 Brand Resonance ............................................................................................................................. 11

3.8 Brand equity ............................................................................................................................................ 12 3.8.1 The CBBE concept ............................................................................................................................ 12

3.9 Theoretical framework ............................................................................................................................ 13

4. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 14

4.1.1 Selection and Limitations of the study ............................................................................................ 14 4.1.2 Criticism against a convenient selection ......................................................................................... 15 4.1.3 Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................................................... 15 4.1.4 Research design ............................................................................................................................... 15 4.1.5 Ethical considerations ...................................................................................................................... 16 4.1.6 Definitions of terms ......................................................................................................................... 17

5. Empirical data ...................................................................................................................................... 17

5.1.1 Group A ........................................................................................................................................... 17 5.1.2 Group B ............................................................................................................................................ 17

5.2 Empirical findings .................................................................................................................................... 18 5.2.1 Empirical findings H1 ....................................................................................................................... 18 5.2.2 Empirical Findings H2 ...................................................................................................................... 19 5.2.3 Empirical findings H3 ....................................................................................................................... 20


940608-2041 & 910729-5264

6. Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 22

6.1 H1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 22 6.1.1 Z-test H1 .......................................................................................................................................... 22

6.2 H2 ............................................................................................................................................................ 23 6.2.1 Z-test H2 .......................................................................................................................................... 24

6.3 H3 ............................................................................................................................................................ 24 6.3.1 Z-test H3 .......................................................................................................................................... 25

7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 25

7.1 Contribution ............................................................................................................................................ 25

7.2 Recommendations for future research ................................................................................................... 26

8. APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................. 27

8.1 Logotypes ................................................................................................................................................ 27

8.2 List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... 27

8.3 The questions presented to establish the consumers ethical values ...................................................... 28

8.4 Mean values for H1 ................................................................................................................................. 29

8.5 Mean values for H2 ................................................................................................................................. 30

8.6 Mean values for H3 ................................................................................................................................. 31

9. References ........................................................................................................................................... 32

1

1. INTRODUCTION Reaching the second decade of the 21st century, sustainability is a widely debated topic. We live in a globalized society where the infrastructure, from a trade point of view, is so well functioning, that we are creating a global consumer culture (Solomon, Bamossy, Askegaard, & Hogg, 2014, s. 13) where we easily can purchase something from another side of the globe and then get it delivered to us within a few days. This trading behavior contributes to an economically wellbeing and thriving society, where the world’s extreme poverty has decreased to the point where 9%, in 2017, of the world’s population, live in so called “lower-income countries” (Rosling, Rönnlund R., & Rosling, 2018, p. 43), compared to almost 29% in 1999. Nevertheless, this has also contributed to a society where we live and consume above the planet’s resources, as well as facing ethically and socially questionable manufacturing circumstances in so called “low-cost countries” (Oberle & Clement, 2019). At the same time, consumers are starting to become more aware of the consequences of their consumer behavior in both moral and political aspects, which is, according to Uusitalo (ref. in Solomon, et. al, 2014, p.51) reflected by an increase in positive attitudes towards sustainability, acknowledging responsibility not only for the private outcome of the consumption, but also as part of a society with shared social responsibilities. This is reflected in a consumer group classified as ethical consumers, whose values are reflected in choices and preferments of purchasing products from brands that communicate values similar to their own (Ibid.). Ethical consumption is one of the signums of generation Z, which is defined as consumers born in between the years 1995-2000, who is predicted to make up 31% of the world’s population by the year 2021 and thus will cause big changes throughout multiple industries in a near future (Francis & Hoefel, 2018). It is therefore of huge importance that brands, and thus companies, understand the allocation of purchasing power that is now starting to be acquired by ethical consumers. The increase of ethical consumers on the market together with the increase of digital presence, has encouraged initiatives like; good on you, Ethicalconsumer.org, ethical-company-organisation.org, thegoodshoppingguide.com and many more alike. These are all apps or websites where brands are being ranked according to a corporate social responsibility (CSR) – index, which makes it easy for consumers to get information regarding brands, CSR-policies and their ethical values. CSR is commonly and largely explained as a management concept that addresses social and environmental concerns, which is divided into the three areas of: economic responsibility, environmental responsibility and social responsibility (UNIDO, 2019). In 2015 the UN established 17 goals to reach a better world by the year 2030. These goals are milestones encouraging everybody from the general public, the civil society, but in particular governments and business to take their responsibility amongst the three areas of CSR. Goal number eight strive to ensure that the entire planet should experience economic growth in a way that is “sustained, inclusive and sustainable, full and productive employment and decent work for all” (Global Goals Organisation, Website, 2019). The increased of awareness from consumers, initiatives alike good on you and actions like the UN global 2030 goals, issues a higher pressure on brands and thus companies’ abilities to create a substructure for sustainable manufacturing.

2

Still, despite all this, a collaboration research by the Ashrige Centre for business and sustainability and the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), showed that 71% of the companies covered by the research admits that modern slavery is likely to occur in their supply chains (McClelland, 2017), even though that brands, and thus companies with their subcontractors, holds certificates that testify to a fair labor organization that gives the workers minimum wage. A minimum wage can although be far below the living wages that the International Labor Organization has declared as basic human rights (Spellings, 2018). Thus, the globalized society clearly has a long way to go in questions regarding social responsibility. Even though the bias of media should be considered, this is again and again something that media on a regular basis is highlighting. Since 1991 the brand Nike has been mentioned in the same sentence as ‘child labour’, ‘sweat shops’ and ‘slave wages’ multiple times (Nisen, 2013). This is although not just an abnormality that is restricted in the fashion industry, neither to Nike as a brand. In the last decade we have seen scandals such as handwritten cries for help from the manufacturing workers of Zaras’ clothes (The Associated Press, 2017; Young, 2017), and suicide notes from the manufacturing workers in the Foxconns factories that produces products for both Amazon and Apple (Merchant, 2017). A phenomenon that is well acknowledged within marketing is the word- of-mouth- influence, which implicates that a consumer will be more likely to purchase a product represented by a brand if the product or brand is recommended by a person within their trusted circle or an opinion leader (Kotler, Armstrong, Harris, & Piercy, 2017, p. 144). This is even more true for the opposite situation, defined as negative word-of mouth (NWOM). Studies has shown that consumers will pay more attention to negative information than to positive information, indicating that if a person within their trusted circle or an opinion leader “bad mouths” a brand, the consumer will be more suspicious and most likely to abstain from purchasing the brand (Raluca Chiosa & Anastasiei, 2017). Rumors, critic or condemnation are therefore fatal to a brand and can get tremendous consequences in the consumer-brand relationship. Additionally, it has become more regular then rare that scandals and rumors from brands lacking in their social responsibility is on display and spread fast in the form of NWOM highlighted in media. To this day, in the case of Nike, even though that Nike has clearly done vast improvements and gone from an overall grade of F to a B-, according to The Ethical Fashion report, (Baptist World Aid, 2019, p. 6), making them one of the more responsible brands today, they are still, almost thirty years later, associated with child labour. This shows the strength and danger of NWOM. However, this does not seem to reflect on Nike as consumers somehow continues to buy and support the brand, making Nike to one of the biggest international brands and thus giving Nike a free card from the negative perception they theoretically should have. Solomon et. al argues that one of the essential parts of consumer behavior is that consumers do not only purchase products because of what it performs or the need it satisfies, but also for what it stands for (Solomon, et. al, 2014, p. 35). Hence, the consumers perception of the brand should be something that is affected by NWOM and thus considered as an aspect when purchasing the brand. In the case of Nike, the negative perception of child labour should be something that the consumer associate with the brand and should therefore affect the perception negatively but does not. Previous research addresses the strength of NWOM and the danger of the consequences related to it, but not why this phenomenon appears to affect some brands in greater extent than others.

3

1.1 Purpose To further investigate the relationship between the consumer and brand and if the relationship can become so strong that the consumer abandons their ethical values regarding social sustainability, thus explaining the phenomenon of why consumers forgive and show tolerance towards some brands in greater extent than others.

2. THEORY We hence acknowledge a society where there is a global consumer culture, ethical consumers that are aware of the consequences of consumerism, CSR directives and global goals, but also the controversy of a society where consumers support brands that are subsidizing and enabling manufacturing circumstances which are ethically and socially questionable. Based on this, a consideration of different strength within brands could be made, and that the contradiction between the increased attitudes towards ethical consumption, poor manufacturing circumstances and deficiency in social responsibility derives from brands that possesses a form of strength and thus affect consumers strongly. Strong brands and their structure can be described by Keller’s costumer-based brand equity concept (CBBE) which indicates that strong brands have high brand equity and increased consumer loyalty, less vulnerability to competitive marketing actions and also less vulnerability to marketing crises, such as scandals. Keller also presented the Brand Resonance Model in 2003, that shows how a brands strength affects the consumers feelings, thoughts and actions and to what extent the consumer chooses to connect with a brand. Further, it describes brand resonance as the ultimate relationship in between a brand and consumer (Keller, 2003, p. 107-137). Based on this the following hypothesis has been conducted:

H1= When reaching brand resonance, negative information regarding the brands social sustainability will not change the consumers perception of the brand.

Previous research indicates that the choice and preferments of strong brands are based in the emotional attachment the consumer receives as an effect of brand management, (Sung & Tinkham, 2005) such as developing a strong brand personality. This constitutes an efficient way to create a relationship with the consumer that can result in years of loyalty towards the brand. Through the personality of the brand, the brand resembles a relationship partner that adds meaning to the life of the consumer. In addition of this, Fournier’s (1998) theory that the relationship in between the brand and consumer is comparable with the relationship in between people, is also worth considering as a possible explanation to why consumers’ continue to support brands that is subsiding ethically and socially questionable circumstances, despite their ethical values. There is, however, no relationship that can explain the controversy of the relationship that exist between brand and consumer when having a contradiction in ethical values, the closest is currently as a pathological relationship, that includes maladaptive behaviors such as compulsive consumption, addictions and dependencies. In other words, the kind of relationship consumers continues to have although they know that it is bad for them, such as consuming cigarettes. Other relationships described from a negative point of view in between consumer and brands has been defined as adversarial and abusive (Miller, Fournier, & Allen, 2012). If compared to the abusive relationship that can exist in between a woman and an

4

abusive man, where the general argument of why women remain in an abusive relationship is that the relationships contains both positive and negative experiences and that the sum of positive experiences outweighs the negative ones (Bennett Herbert, Cohen Silver, & Ellard, 1991). It then could be argued that when reaching brand resonance, the benefits and positive perceptions of the brand is stronger, for the consumer, than the negative aspects related to the brands social responsibility, thus leading the consumer to overlook the inadequacy of accordance in the consumers ethical values, which leads to the following hypothesis:

H2= Brand resonance can become so strong that the consumer abandons their own ethical values.

One of the reasons consumers choose a certain brand is because the brand reflects the personality of the consumer or who the consumer aspires to be (Solomon, et. al, 2014 p. 153). The consumer will therefore choose a brand that meet and support the way the consumer views themselves (Maehle & Schneor, 2010). Since consumption helps to define the identity of the consumer there is often a connection between the values of the consumer and the brands the consumer chooses to purchase. Previous research indicate that consumers choose brands that offer products with attributes that matches the self-image of the consumer (Aaker, 1999), it would therefore also be interesting to investigate whether or not consumers whom consider themselves as highly ethical can reach the stage of brand resonance and thus abandon their ethical values, leading to the hypothesis:

H3= Even consumers whom consider themselves highly ethical can reach brand resonance and abandon their ethical values.

Many studies have been done on the topic of the relationship between consumers and brands, most of which has been done from a positive point of view. Fournier and Alvarez (2013) argues that positive brand relationship is widely different from its opposite; negative brand relationship, and thus should be treated as such. It is by previous research conducted that in consumer-brand relationships, when in conflict with their values, consumers can have reactions like punishment by abstaining from re-purchasing or boycotting the brand entirely, thus ending the relationship with the brand. Although, with all things above considered, none of the previous research addresses why consumers choose to forgive or overlook, information regarding the brand that directly or indirectly contradicts the consumers ethical values, and thus continues the relationship, that could be classified as a negative relationship, despite the conflict. This study will along these lines investigate, from a social sustainable point of view, why consumers forgive or overlook the negative aspects of some brands, but not others and thus keep a positive perception of the brand, despite the internal conflict regarding their ethical values.

5

3. FRAME OF REFERENCE This frame of reference will provide the reader with an understanding of the elemental theories and further support the explanation of the phenomenon on which the following study is based upon. Finally, this chapter will illustrate the theoretical framework that follows throughout this study.

3.1 Self-imagery One of the reasons consumers choose a certain brand is because the brand reflects the personality of the consumer or who the consumer aspires to be (Solomon, et. al, 2014, p. 153). The consumer will therefore choose a brand that meet and support the way the consumer views themselves (Maehle & Schneor, 2010). Since consumption helps to define the identity of the consumer there is often a connection between the values of the consumer and the brands the consumer chooses to purchase. Previous research indicate that consumers choose brands that offer products with attributes that matches the self-image of the consumer (Aaker, 1999).

3.2 Brand-Imagery One of the most important aspects when wanting to create meaning for consumers is the brand (Solomon, et. al, 2014, s. 38). Brand Imagery depends on the external properties of the service or product and how the brand attempts to meet the social or psychological needs of the consumer. Imagery refers to both tangible and intangible aspects of the brand and reflects the way people think about a brand, rather than what the brand actually perform. Consumers can form imagery associations directly from their own experiences of the brand or indirectly through marketing or other sources of information such as word of mouth (Keller, 2003).

3.3 Consumption The reasons behind consumption in a consumer society, go far beyond utilitarian values such as what the product offer the consumer in functional terms. Consumption is a way to create a meaning in life of consumers and to communicate the personal values and social roles of the consumer (Solomon, et. al, 2014, p. 55). Through times the expression has been equivalent to words such as devour, waste, destroy and has thus been used in a negative context. However, in an essay from 2011 Graeber explores the theoretical discourse and reaches the modern perception of viewing consumption as an expression of desire (Graeber, 2011).

3.4 Brand personality Forging a strong brand personality is essential to create brand loyalty (Solomon, et. al, 2014, p. 202). Brand personality refers to the symbolic meaning of commercial brands (Sung & Tinkham, 2005). The expression is commonly defined as “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand” (Keller,1993, quoted by Aaker 1997, s.347) which consists of the set of qualities consumers assign to a brand as if it were a person, and further, the brands ability to acquire personality traits (Wysong, Munch, & Kleiser, 2002). Aaker identified five different types of brand personalities; Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication and Ruggedness (Aaker, 1997), all which helps to shape the personality of the brand, as the brands obtains the personality traits from their target groups in order to achieve the image

6

that companies wants their consumers to associate with the brand. The personality of the brand provides information regarding the brand’s marketing position and similar to humans, brand personalities advance and change over time. Since consumers choose to engage with a certain brand not only for what they are but for who they are, it is important that a brand manages to communicate a distinctive, desirable and robust brand personality. This can also be a powerful way of creating a relationship with consumers that in turn can result in years of loyalty. The brand resembles a relationship partner and adds meaning to the life of the consumer, since brands obtains symbolic meaning (Sung & Tinkham, 2005). Building a successful brand personality is therefore important but can be challenging since many consumers, in particular younger ones, are very attentive when a brand does not live up to its requirements. When this occur consumers sometimes rebel against the brand and such an event can decrease the loyalty among the consumers. Consumers feelings regarding a brands personality are also an important part of brand equity (Solomon, et. al, 2014, s. 202).

3.5 Consumer Brand Relationships The theory of consumer brand relationships (CBR) focuses on weather, why, and in what forms, consumers seek a value for ongoing relationships with brands. It aims to enhance the understanding of the relationships in-between the consumer and the brand based on the conceptual foundation of viewing the brand as a relationship partner, that provides purposeful relationships that adds meaning to the consumers life (Fournier & Liao, 1997). A partner relationship could consist of any constellation of relationship, for example; the relationship between; lovers, family members; friends etc.

According to Morgan and Hunt, consumers search for a partner they can trust, since trust is associated with reliability, competence and integrity (quoted by Hunt & Arnett, 2006). In addition, consumers are more likely to engage in relationships with brands that share their values (Solomon, et. al, 2014, s. 33). Consumers also tend to establish relationships with brands that are similar to the ones they create with people. These relationships include love, respect and sometimes even hate. The establishment of relationships constitutes of the series of repeated exchanges in between the consumer and brand. It further consists of many and complex dimensions but are distinguished by the connections that ties the two parties together. To address the relationships quality, relationships strength and relationships dept over time, this theory conclude a brand relationship quality construct (BRQ) that highlights the importance of keeping the relationship alive rather than the sensation of positive feelings and thus establishing love and passion as the most central parts in a strong consumer brand relationship (Fournier & Liao, 1997).

In further development of this theory, multiple studies has concluded this theory with five main concepts to illustrate the different relationships between consumer and brand; brand attachment, brand love, self-brand connection, consumer brand identification and brand trust (Khamitov, Wang, & Thomson, 2019).

3.5.1 Brand attachment Based on the attachment theory, brand attachment derives from the emotional bond in-between a mother and child (Bowlby, 1977). Small children are unable to express the attachment-related feeling they feel, thus making the intensity hard to measure, however,

7

attachment between an adult and brand should be applicable (Hazan & Zeifman, 1999) and thus more possible to measure the direct intensity of the emotional attachment itself. Given the previous, it is therefore observed by a person’s likelihood to keep the object in near proximity as when people experience stress in an external environment and thus seeks physical, or psychological, protection to the object they are attached to. As follows, attachment could be indicated by the consumers presumed commitment to the brand, their willingness to pay a higher price and further their loyalty (Thomson, MacInnis, & Park, 2005).

3.5.2 Brand love Brand love is based on the triangular theory of love (Sternberg, 1997), previous research has established brand love as a concept consisting of the three components of intimacy, passion and decision/commitment (Shimp & Madden, 1988) and is further defined as “the degree of passionate emotional attachment a satisfied consumer has for a particular trade name”, and thus implicating the consumers feelings regarding; passion, attachment, positive evaluation, positive emotions, and declarations of love, toward the brand (Caroll & Ahuvia, 2006, s. 81).

3.5.3 Self-brand Connection As previously established, the consumers value in the brand varies and is now not only limited to the instrumental features, or attributes, of the product represented by the brand, but also for the deeper significance of the brand that incorporates into the consumers view of themselves (Escalas & Bettman, 2009; Solomon, et. al, 2014). Self-brand connection is explained by Escalas and Bettman (2009) as a scenario where strong usage association and the connection in between a brand, between the reference group, between the consumers’ self-concept, where the consumer benefits from the associations of the brand and user imagery to meet a self-need. They further developed the Self-Brand Connection Scale that indicate the connection in between the brand and the consumers’ interaction (Escalas & Bettman, 2009, ss. 107-123), and thus describes the reasoning the consumer has when connecting with the brand.

Although, it should be noted, that in contrast, to Fourniers’ view of the relationship between a consumer and brand is comparative to the relationship between partners, Escalas and Bettman view brands as a vessel that have a symbolic meaning that, when used, the

Figure1-TheSelf-BrandConnectionScalebyEscalas&Bettman2009

8

consumer wish to associate to themselves with. They, however, acknowledge the validity of the argument of both concepts.

3.5.4 Consumer Brand Identification (CBI) The conceptual framework of Consumer Brand Identification (CBI) is assembled by ideas referring to consumers identity construction, their brand relationships and the recognition in between brand and consumer. It defines “the perceived state of oneness with a brand” (Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, & Sen, 2012, p. 407) and related to the consumers brand perception which is composed by five predecessors; brand-self similarity, brand distinctiveness, brand prestige, brand social benefits, brand warmth and [memorable] brand experiences (Ibid.). Consumer Brand Identification is thus both depended on the consumers perceived brand identity and the self-imagery of the consumer.

Brand self-similarity Implies the intensity of similarity in between the consumers perception of his or her personality traits and of the traits of the brand and. This implicate that a higher amount of brand-self similarity the enhances will to identify with the brand.

Brand distinctiveness For consumers it has long been recognized that there is a constant internal battle in between satisfying the need of belonging with the need to be unique and thus distinguish themselves in social situations. This is reflected in consuming behavior of brands that are perceived to completely different from mass-productions, distinguishing the consumers uniqueness and correlates with the consumers desire to identify with the brand. With brand distinctiveness Stockburger-Sauer et al., argues that the more distinctive a consumer perceives a brand, the more they will want to identify with the brand.

Brand social benefits Sometimes, consumers merge into a brand community as a result of using a brand on the basis of a shared commitment to the brand. Consumers can use a brand to gain access, or to strengthen their membership, into the brand communities and thus enhancing their belonging to the brand community. The brand is a major carrier of social cultural meaning and is essential for connecting to the other members in the brand community. consumers are more likely to identify with brands that help them to connect with others.

Brand warmth Brand warmth is positive feelings and experience consumer receives from a brand, that is divided into hedonic benefits, utilitarian benefits and the attributes of the brands products. Hedonic benefits refer to the positive emotions that derives from consuming a brand. Such feelings could be fun, pleasure, and excitement, while utilitarian benefits derives from the functional or influential benefits given by a product. Adding the category of the product and the brand’s position on the market a brand can classify as warm or cold and this distinction is independent of the consumers perception on brand quality, reliability, and functionality. Warm and lovable brands are anticipated to be viewed as more suitable options than cold brands and thus significant to the

9

construction of identities that are consumption-based, which in that case suggest that warm brands are stronger candidates for brand identification than their cold brands.

Memorable brand experiences Brands provide consumers with memorable experiences. These experiences vary in extent from leaving an effectively charged mark in the consumers mind, to not having a salient position in the consumers mind at all, despite frequent usage of the brand. This presence in the consumers mind creates moments were the consumer from time to time re-lives the positive experience associated with the brand, creating a feeling of nostalgia, and contributes to a higher brand identification.

(Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, & Sen, 2012)

3.5.5 Brand trust Continuing the commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, brand trust explains the situation when a consumer has the confidence in an exchange partner’s integrity and reliability. The trust is considered a vital part in the consumer-brand relationship (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Chauduri and Holbrook (2001) also ads that trust is furthermore the consumers’ willingness to rely on the brands ability to perform.

3.6 Brand loyalty In modification of the researcher’s own previous definition, brand loyalty is by Oliver defined as “a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior” (Oliver, 1999, p. 34).

In addition to this, Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), argues, based upon previous studies, that brand loyalty is divided into two aspects; purchase loyalty, and attitudinal loyalty.

a) Purchase loyalty

Purchase loyalty, or behavioral loyalty, consists of the consumers repeated purchase behavior of the brand.

b) Attitudinal loyalty

Attitudinal loyalty is a degree commitment and addition of value that is associated with the brand.

This is also supported by Solomon et. all’s definition that also adds that the condition that the repetitive purchasing indicating brand loyalty cannot be derived from the consumers behavior of buying out of habit but must be followed by an underlying positive attitude toward the brand (Solomon, et. al., 2014, p. 370). Whereas purchase loyalty increases the brands market shares and attitudinal loyalty Increases relative price, whereas in combination they generate an increase in the brand equity (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001) and could thus, with the support of Keller’s Customer-Based Brand Equity model (2003) , be relevant in the

10

explanation of why brands that have achieved brand loyalty shows less vulnerability to marketing crises.

3.7 The Brand Resonance Model Brand resonance describes, according to Keller (Keller, 2003, p. 107-108) the ultimate relationship between consumers and brands. It focuses on the highest level of identification that occurs in the relationship and reveal to what extent the consumers experience connection to the brand. Furthermore, brand resonance is characterized by its terms of intensity, level of loyalty that contributes to activities by the consumers such as; seeking more information regarding the brand, repeated purchase rates, attending of events, and a search for other loyal consumers to relate to. The Brand Resonance Model (ibid.) illustrates the four steps to reach brand resonance; Salience, Performance & Imagery, Judgements & Feelings and as the highest-level Brand Resonance, thus implicating that the lower steps need to be fulfilled in order to reach brand resonance.

Figure2-AnillustrationoftheBrandResonanceModelbyKeller(2003)

3.7.1 Salience Salience indicates the moment the consumer becomes aware of the brand as well as when the brand becomes relevant to the consumer. In order to build the right brand identity, it is of essence that a brand is salient to the consumer.

3.7.2 Performance & Imagery Brand Performance define how well the product meets the needs and wants of the consumer. As previously mentioned, brand imagery depends on the external properties of the service or product and how the brand attempts to meet the social or psychological needs of the consumer (Keller, 2003), and is one of the most important aspects when wanting to create meaning for consumers is the brand (Solomon, et.al., 2014, p. 38).

This step constitutes the part where the brand needs to perform and communicate a brand imagery to the consumer.

11

3.7.3 Judgements & Feelings Judgement are formed by the different brand performance and imagery associations made by the consumer. It is the consumers personal opinions of the brand and evaluation of this. Consumers make different judgements regarding a brand where the most important are regarding quality, consideration, credibility and superiority. Brand feelings refer to the emotional responses and reactions the consumer shows towards a brand.

3.7.4 Brand Resonance Brand resonance is divided into two dimensions: Intensity and Activity. Intensity measures the sense of community as well as the strength of the attitudinal attachment. Activity provides information regarding how frequently the consumer uses and purchases the brand. It also provides the information regarding the consumers engagement in other activities that are not related to consumption or purchase.

These two dimensions, intensity and activity, is further divided into four categories: behavioral loyalty, attitudinal attachment, sense of community and active engagement.

a) Behavioral loyalty

Behavioral loyalty can be measured in terms of how often the consumer purchase a brand, such as re-purchasing behavior, and the number of products purchased by the consumer.

b) Attitudinal attachment

Resonance requires a strong personal attachment. The consumers should go beyond having a positive attitude towards the brand to viewing the brand as something special in a more extensive context.

c) Sense of community The brand can also create a greater meaning to the consumer by conveying a sense of community. A brand community can exist both online and offline. Identification with a brand may reflect an important social phenomenon where the consumer feels a kinship or affiliation with other people associated with the brand such as fellow brand users or consumers, or employees or representatives working for the brand. When loyal users experience a stronger sense of community this can evoke favorable brand attitudes and intentions.

d) Active engagement The strongest affirmation of brand loyalty occurs when consumers are engaged, meaning that they are willing to invest resources beyond those that are expended during purchase or consumptions of the brand such as time, money or energy. The consumers may choose to exchange correspondence with other brand users, receive updates and choose to join clubs that are centered on the brand. Today companies are making it increasingly easy for

12

consumers to buy a range of branded merchandise in the purpose of making it simple for their consumers to express their loyalty towards the brand.

When a brand reach resonance the consumers of this brand will continuously choose the brand and further try to incorporate the brand into their lives. Brands with strong resonance benefit from increased consumer loyalty and decreased vulnerability to competitive marketing actions. (Keller, 2003, p. 69-105)

3.8 Brand equity Brands are created in the mind of the consumer and constitutes the fundamental element to building relationships with consumers. Strong brands are successful since they manage to resemble deep emotional connections with their consumers and has a high level of brand equity. Brand equity is defined as the differential effect the brand has on consumer response towards a product represented by the brand. Brand equity is a measure of the brands ability to capture the loyalty and preference of the consumer (Solomon, et. al., 2014). The expression is classified as an intangible availability which creates a bond between the brand and the consumer (Veloutsou, Christodoulides, & de Chernatony, 2013). When consumers show more favorable reactions towards a brand than to a generic or unbranded version of the same product the brand has a positive brand equity. High levels of brand equity provide a brand with powerful competitive advantages through high levels of brand awareness and consumer loyalty (Kotler, et.al., 2017, p. 243-244). According to previous research brand loyalty has three dimensions. One of them is behavioral loyalty (Keller, 2003, p. 69-72), where the buying turns into a habit through brand equity (Tanveer & Lodhi, 2016). This is important since repeated purchase behavior, which can be considered a habit, is how consumers to express brand loyalty.

3.8.1 The CBBE concept Customer-based brand equity (CBBE) is formally defined as the differential effect that knowledge regarding the brand has on consumer response to the marketing of that brand. This concept offers a unique point of view on how brand equity best should be built, measured and managed and the meaning of this expression. The concept approaches brand equity from the perspective of the consumer and where the heart of successful marketing lies in understanding the needs and wants of consumers and devising products that satisfy them. The ground of the CBBE concept is that the power of a brand exists in what consumers have felt, seen, learned and heard about the brand as a result of experiences connected to the brand over time. The challenge in building a strong brand lies in ensuring that the brand provides right type of experiences with services and products so that the desired thoughts, images, perceptions, opinions and experiences become associated with the brand. This has succeeded when consumers respond more favorably to a product and the way it´s marketed when the brand is identified than when it is not. The three key elements to the definition is “differential effect”, “brand knowledge” and “consumer response to marketing” (Keller, 2003, p. 68). Brand equity begins with differences in the consumers responses towards the brand. Second these differences in response are a result of consumers knowledge regarding the brand, in terms of what they have experienced, felt, heard and seen about the brand and as a result of their experienced with the brand over

13

time. Brand equity ultimately build upon what resides in the hearts and minds of consumers. Third, the differential responses of the consumers which make up brand equity are reflected in preferences, perceptions and behavior related to the brand marketing, where the choice of a brand is included. Brand equity helps in the process of building a strong brand and advantages related to a strong brand are; greater loyalty among the consumers, less vulnerability to competitive marketing actions and also less vulnerability to marketing crises such as scandals. (Keller, 2003, p. 68-105, 351-353)

3.9 Theoretical framework Based on previous research, our theoretical framework will assume that one of the main reasons for consumption is an accordance in between the consumers self-imagery and the brands brand-imagery, that leads to a consumer brand relationship (CBR). Within this relationship loyalty towards the brand occurs. If the consumer receives information that contradicts their ethical values, the relationship will evolve in one out of two ways. Either; a) the consumer has reached the relationship level of brand resonance which increases the forgiveness towards the brand, leaves the consumers perception of the brand un-damaged. Thus, the consumer abandons their ethical values as he or she values the consumer brand relationship more than their ethical values. Or b) the consumer values their ethical values more than the consumer brand relationship and thus receives a changed perception of the brand, that eventually leads to the situation where the consumer chooses to exit the relationship.

This study will investigate the a) path of the following framework:

Figure3-Thetheoreticalframeworkofthisstudy

14

4. Methodology As this study derives from previous theories and research, it will apply a hypothetically deductive methodology to test the hypothesis’s (David & Sutton, 2011, p. 185). To reach an understanding of the deep relationship in between brand and consumer once the brand has reached the ultimate stage of brand resonance, this study will investigate the perception the respondents has of a selection of brands before he or she is informed of possible conflict of their ethical values, and then the perception will be measured once more, to be compared with the respondents perception after the information. This will investigate if the information regarding the brands lack of social responsibility has any effects on the consumers perception and whether or not it is consistent to the respondent’s ethical values, their self-imagery and their perception of their ethical values. Based on the argument that brand resonance can become so strong that it can make consumers abandon their own ethical values, this study has been conducted by two questionnaires. The selection of brands in the first questionnaire will include brands that has reached the state of brand resonance. It will then be compared to the second questionnaire that includes brands that have not reached brand resonance, to establish if brand resonance is the factor that makes the consumer less affected by negative information regarding social sustainability linked to the brand.

4.1.1 Selection and Limitations of the study This study is conducted during limited time, it is not supported by any financial aids, thus selection of respondents will be established upon convenience and availability (David & Sutton, 2011, p. 197) through social media platforms, but with the criteria that the respondents know the brand by its logotype. Social sustainability signifies the way a company manages their operation in a way that considers the health and wellbeing of the current and future generations. (Crane, Matten, McWiliams, Moon, & Siegel, 2008). For this study, this is limited to the employees of the brand.

Selection of brands Brands will be selected based on the criteria of strong international establishment, the condition of transparency regarding their social responsibility, a record of scandals highlighted in media and will thus be conducted by public secondary data (David & Sutton, 2011, p. 192-201). To establish whether the brand has reached brand resonance or not, four brands will also be measured according to Keller’s four requirements of brand resonance 1) To have behavioral loyalty. 2) Attitudinal attachement. 3) Sense of community. 4) Active engagement. (Keller, 2003, p. 69-108). Selected brands are: Apple, Asics, Chiquita, Colgate, Dell, H&M, KitKat and Nike,

Brands that have reached brand resonance are presented to Group A: Nike, Apple, H&M and Asics.

Brands that have not reached brand resonance are presented to Group B: Dell, Colgate, Chiquita and KitKat.

The brands will be illustrated by their logotypes in color format, see appendix 8.1.

15

4.1.2 Criticism against a convenient selection One of the arguments presented against the use of selection of respondents that is established upon convenience and availability is that a miss representation is likely to occur since this type of selection cannot be stated as something that reflect the behavior of an entire population. (David & Sutton, 2011, p. 197)

4.1.3 Reliability and Validity When authoring a report, it is essential that the collected information is correct, otherwise the outcome of our study will lack reliability. Reliability refers to the utility and the reliability of the tools this study will implement. Validity shows whether it has been successful regarding measuring what it has intended to measure (David & Sutton, 2011, ss. 192-201). This study strives for reliable results and will therefore take great accuracy on what approach of gathering information and source criticism. To ensure a high academic quality, this study is built upon published literature recommended by the university (course literature) as well as peer reviewed research from academic journals. Further, to ensure that the study measure what it is intended to measure, the selection of brands will be made with reference to the criteria presented by Keller in his model regarding how to identify brand resonance (Keller, 2003). To ensure that the respondents have a joint comprehension of the meaning of the terms when answering the questions, definitions of all terms will be presented in immediate connection to the questions. With regards to the fact that the majority of the sources have been in English, this study is carried out in the same language to minimize the risk of mistranslations. In cases where translation has been required a thorough consideration of interpretation has been made. To conclude the study, the results will be validated through a z-test to establish the reliability of the result.

4.1.4 Research design The respondents will firstly be presented with a questionnaire to establish the respondent’s ethical values, they will be asked to rate on how well they agree with nine statements (figure 4) on scale of 1-5, where 1 will represent “not at all” and 5 “fully agree”. In the data analysis all answers regarding yes/no questions, the rating of three and above will be considered as a yes. For numerical answers all answers of four and above will be considered as high. (David & Sutton, 2011, ss. 192-201) Secondly, Group A will be presented with a selection of brands that has reached brand resonance, established by using Keller’s brand resonance model, and Group B be will be presented with strong brands that has not reached brand resonance. Both groups will then be asked to identify their perception of the brand. Thirdly, the respondents will be presented with information regarding events that concerns the brands social responsibility.

16

Group A will be presented with the following information:

1 In march 1998 one of Nikes sub-contractors made women run outside until they collapsed for wearing the wrong shoes to work.

2 Several cases of child labour was discovered in factories within the H&M-group for two years in a row. The latest in 2018.

3 Manufacturing workers in the Foxconns factories, that produces products for both Amazon and Apple, committed suicide due to the working conditions within the factories.

4 In one year, more than 500 workers in four factories supplying to Asics among other brands, were hospitalized due to poor working conditions.

Figure4-InformationregardingthebrandsthatwaspresentedtoGroupA

Whereas Group B will be presented with following information:

1 In 2016 it was reported that Wilmar, a subcontractor to Colgate-Palmolive amongst others, was

responsible for executing penalties. If the workers did not meet the daily goals, Wilmar reduced the workers’ pay and added the remaining workload onto the next day. In 2016 it was reported that Wilmar, a subcontractor to Colgate-Palmolive amongst others, was responsible for executing penalties. If the workers did not meet the daily goals, Wilmar reduced the workers’ pay and added the remaining workload onto the next day.

2 In December 2019 Dell, and other large tech companies, was accused and sued for being complicit in the death of six children, who were forced to work in the mines of a cobalt supplier in Congo.

3 In the 1990s, Chiquita began an employee home ownership program that has enabled employees in Honduras, Guatemala and Costa Rica to become independent homeowners. Though, this initially appears to be an empowering program, it gives Chiquita complete control over both their workers’ jobs and houses. As a result, workers stay at Chiquita under bad working conditions below minimum wage, since they are aware that if they leave, they stand to lose not only their source of income, but also their house.

4 In 2014 it was discovered that the chocolate in KitKat-bars were produced on cacao plantations where child labour occurred.

Figure5-InformationregardingthebrandsthatwaspresentedtoGroupB

The respondents will lastly be asked to take the questions to identify the respondent’s perception of the brands once more. This part of the questionnaire will establish if the information has caused a change in the respondent’s perception towards the brands.

4.1.5 Ethical considerations Each individual is entitled to their opinion without proclaiming it to the public, as ethical values could be considered as a sensitive question, this study will implement complete anonymity. The respondents will be informed of the purpose of the study prior to the questionnaire, thereby ensuring that all participants are well informed regarding the purpose of this research. The empirical data collected will be used solely within the limits of this study. The respondent will remain anonymous to the reader and any participation should not be possible to identify when presenting the result of the study. (David & Sutton, 2011, ss. 49,57-58,184).

17

4.1.6 Definitions of terms Brand Loyalty A deeply held commitment to a repurchase behavior towards the brand.

Brand Resonance The stage in a consumer brand relationship, where the consumer continually choses the brand based on the consumers want of having a relationship with the brand itself. The consumers want or will of having a relationship with the brand, benefits the brand and enhances the brand loyalty, thus giving the brand decreased vulnerability towards marketing crises such as scandals.

Ethical values Ethical values are a state of mind based on personal values on what is considered right or wrong.

Social sustainability The wellbeing of employees that works with manufacturing the brand’s products.

5. Empirical data 5.1.1 Group A Group A, which aimed to study the perception of brand that had reached brand resonance, was answered by a total of 68 of 6 were classified as invalid due to a high margin of error, or the fact that the consumer was not at the brand resonance stage in their consumer-brand relationship with one or more of the brands. Thus, the results are concluded by 62 respondents out of which 34 were women and 28 were men.

5.1.2 Group B Group B aimed to study the perception of strong brands that had not reached brand resonance, was answered by a total of 97, out of which 35 was classified as invalid due to the fact that the respondent’s did already have a negative perception of the brand when beginning the questionnaire. Thus, the study was conducted by 62 persons out which 35 where women and 27 were men.

Age distribution Group A 15-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 70+

2 45 9 2 1 1 2

Table1-AgedistributionGroupA

Table2-AgedistributionGroupB

Age distribution Group B 15-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 70+

3 42 8 2 6 1 0

18

Group B Colgate Dell Chiquita KitKat

Initial Perception

Colgate

Final perception

Colgate

Initial Perception

Dell

Final Perception

Dell

Initial Perception

Chiquita

Final perception

Chiquita

Initial Perception

KitKat

Final perception

of KitKat

Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

Table4-ConditionsH1GroupB

5.2 Empirical findings

5.2.1 Empirical findings H1 To approach the first hypothesis of whether negative information regarding the brands social responsibility would change the consumers perception of a brand whom they have a brand resonance relationship with, the respondents needed to have a consistent perception of each brand throughout the entire test. Thus, they needed to 1) have a positive initial perception of each brand when entering the test and 2) a positive perception of the same brand when finalizing the test.

52 out of 62 accomplished to fulfill these two conditions for H&M which represents 83,9% 49 out of 62 accomplished to fulfill these two conditions for NIKE which represents 79,0% 42 out of 62 accomplished to fulfill these two conditions for Asics which represents 67,7% 41 out of 62 accomplished to fulfill these two conditions for Apple which represents 61,1%

The mean consistency of all four brands for Group A 74,2%

8 out of 62 accomplished to fulfill these two conditions for Colgate which represents 12,9%

13 out of 62 accomplished to fulfill these two conditions for Dell which represents 21,0% 6 out of 62 accomplished to fulfill these two conditions for Chiquita which represents 9,7% 8 out of 62 accomplished to fulfill these two conditions for KitKat which represents 12,9%

The mean consistency of all four brands for Group B 14,1%

Group A

H&M Nike Asics Apple Initial

Perception H&M

Final perception

of H&M

Initial Perception

Nike

Final Perception

Nike

Initial Perception

Asics

Final perception

Asics

Initial Perception

Apple

Final perception

of Apple

Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

Table3-ConditionsH1GroupA

19

5.2.2 Empirical Findings H2 To approach the second hypothesis of whether brand resonance can become so strong that the consumer abandons their own ethical values, the respondents needed to meet four different demands; Both groups need to 1) have a consistent perception of two brands when entering the test, Group A needed to have a positive perception of H&M and Nike, whereas group B needed to have a positive perception of Dell and Chiquita. 2) Believe that child labour, according to the definition “Child labour is work that robs children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity”. is wrong 3) Believe that Modern slavery according to the definition “Modern slavery is all work or service that comes from any person under the threat of penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily”, is wrong. 4) Still have a positive perception of the previous brands respective to each group (Group A: H&M and Nike, Group B: Dell and Chiquita) despite being presented with the information regarding the brands involvement in situations where either child labour or modern slavery occurred related to the previously mention brands

Figure6-Comparisondistrubution,consistencygroupA&B

Figure7-Comparison:Meanvalueconsistencyin%

20

Figure8-ComparisonH2

5.2.3 Empirical findings H3 To approach the third hypothesis of whether a consumer that consider her or himself highly ethical could reach brand resonance, and thus abandon their own ethical values, the factors whether if the respondent considered him or herself as an ethical person, based on the definition of ethical values “ Ethical values are a state of mind based on personal values on what is considered right or wrong.”, together with their rating of importance on their ethical values was added as a continuation of the previous table. The rating of number four and above of on a five-graded scale was considered as high and thus implying that the respondent had the self-imagery of a highly ethical person.

Conditions Group A

Initial

Perception

H&M

Initial

Perception

Nike

I Believe that

child labour

is wrong

I believe that

modern slavery

is wrong

Final

perception

of H&M

Final

Perception

Nike

Positive Positive Yes Yes Positive Positive

Out of the 62 respondents 42 respondents accomplished to upfill these conditions,

which represents 67,74%

Conditions Group B

Initial Perception

Dell

Initial Perception

Chiquita

I Believe that child labour is wrong

I believe that modern slavery is wrong

Final perception of Dell

Final Perception Chiquita

Positive Positive Yes Yes Positive Positive Out of the 62 respondents 4 respondents accomplished to upfill these conditions,

which represents 6,45%



21

Group A

Initial Perception H&M

Initial Perception Nike



Final perception of H&M

Final Perception Nike

Definition of ethical values

I consider myself an ethical person

Importance of ethical values 1-5

Positive Positive Yes Yes Positive Positive yes yes >=4 Out of 62 respondents, 36 respondents accomplished to upfill these conditions, which represents 58,06%


Group B

Initial Perception Dell

Initial Perception Chiquita



Final perception of Dell

Final Perception Chiquita

Definition of ethical values

I consider myself an ethical person

Importance of ethical values 1-5

Positive Positive Yes Yes Positive Positive yes yes >=4 Out of 62 respondents 2 respondents accomplished to upfill these conditions, which represents 3,23%

Figure10-ComparisonresultsH3


22

6. Analysis 6.1 H1 In our first hypothesis it was stated that consumers that has reached the state of brand resonance will not change their perception of the brand when being presented with negative information regarding the brands’ social sustainability. This was measured by establishing the respondent’s perception towards the brand before information regarding events that was related to the brand’s involvement in a situation, that by the respondents had already been established as against their ethical values, was introduced. Thereafter the respondent’s perception of the brand was established once more to investigate if this information had any effect on the respondent’s perception of the brand. The same comparison was made within both groups and revealed that the average percentage of consistency for all four brands, the mean value, referring to the average of the consistency rate was conducted by 74,2% in Group A, hence more than the majority, with brands that had reached brand resonance, and the mean value of 14,1% for brands that had not reached brand resonance.

The big difference in this result is could be supported by previous research by Keller where he concluded that brands with strong resonance benefit from increased consumer loyalty and decreased vulnerability to scandals, which gives strong grounds to conclude that brand resonance is the reason behind this result. Not only due to the increased loyalty and decreased vulnerability that is shown, but also because of Keller’s theory that consumers who has reached brand resonance will continuously choose the brand throughout good or bad in order to further incorporate the brand into their lives.

6.1.1 Z-test H1

As the P-value is 0 and thus < than 0,05 the difference in the mean value is significant and we can accept H1= When reaching brand resonance, negative information regarding the brands social sustainability will not change the consumers perception of the brand. For calculations of mean value see appendix 8.4

Group A Group BMean 2,9677 0,5645Known Variance 1,2121 1,3646Observations 62,0000 62,0000Hyypothesized Mean Difference 0z 11,7884P(Z<=z) one-tail 0,0000z-kritisk one-tail 1,6449P(Z<=z) two-tail 0z-kritisk two-tail 1,9600

Z-test: Two sample for Means

Figure11-CompilationZ-testH1

23

6.2 H2 The second hypothesis aimed to investigate the depth of the brand resonance level, by continuation of the previous conditions and then adding the respondents that had also established that they consider both child labour and modern slavery to be wrong, but kept a positive perception of the brand even after being presented with information that these brands had been engaged in activities that involved both child labour and modern slavery, which therefore contradicts the participants ethical values. The study showed that 67,74% of the participants who was presented with brands that had reached brand resonance did abandon their ethical values, while only 6,45% in Group B did abandon their ethical values, when the brands had not reached brand resonance. The difference between Group A and Group B is due to the fact that the consumer-brand relationship in Group B has not reached the state of brand resonance, and thus makes Group B more sensitive to the negative information, which changes their perception. As the majority of people in Group A was not affected by the information, we believe that brand resonance makes the consumer more forgiving to the point where she or he overlooks the negative aspects of the consumer-brand relationship. This could be compared to the maladaptive behavior in a negative relationship, described by Fournier and Alvarez (2013). In other words, the kind of relationship humans continues to have although they know it is bad for them, such as consuming cigarettes. It is also in line with Bennett et. All (1991)’s studies of the abusive relationship, where women generally remain in an abusive relationship due to that the positive experiences outweighs the bad. By this, we believe that the consumer’s positive perception and previous experiences, as explained by Stokburger-Sauer et. al.in combination with the strength of the brand and high brand equity caused by the consumer (CBBE), creates the phenomenon that the consumer simply does not absorb the information, thus leaving the consumer’s perception of the brand unscathed, and the consumer in what we, based on previous research would classify as an unhealthy negative relationship. This kind of negative relationship could be the reason behind the 67,74% who abandoned their ethical values, since the participants claimed that they considered both child labour and modern slavery to be wrong and something they know is bad, but they still maintain a positive perception of the brand by abandoning their own ethical values.

24

6.2.1 Z-test H2

As the P-value is 0 and thus < than 0,05 the difference in the mean value is significant and we can accept H2= Brand resonance can become so strong that the consumer abandons their Own ethical values.

For calculations of mean value see appendix 8.5

6.3 H3 The third hypothesis aimed to investigate if, assuming H1 was true, that even highly ethical people can abandon their own ethical values in favor of a strong relationship with a brand. This has been determined through the questions whether the respondents consider themselves as an ethical person and by asking them to rate how important their ethical values are to them on a scale from 1-5, where 1 was the lowest and 5 the highest possible. Since this hypothesis only intend to investigate if consumers who views themselves as highly ethical can abandon their own ethical values we only included the answers provided by consumers that has answered that they view themselves as an ethical person and rated the importance of their ethical values as minimum 4 or higher. Previous research revealed that consumers buy a certain brand not only for what they do, but for what they mean and to help the consumer obtain the right self-image. This is interesting since ethical values also are a part of the consumers self-image and therefore it would be logical that the consumer would change their perception regarding a brand that is not consistent with their ethical values. As this was not the case, this study shows the strength of the consumer-brand relationship with the brand when it has reached brand resonance, as the consumer-brand relationship and the consumers will to keep the perceived oneness with the brand (CBI) becomes more important than the consumer’s self-imagery and their high perceived ethical values.

We believe that the reason why 58,06% of the participants of Group A in the study abandoned their ethical values even though the participants claimed that they valued these highly, is that these respondents has reached the state of resonance in their relationship with the brand. This shows that brand resonance not only is stronger than the ethical values of the respondents, but also stronger than their self-image.

Group A Group BMean 0,677419355 0,064516129

Known Variance 0,2221 0,0613

Observations 62 62

Hyypothesized Mean Difference 0

z 9,0654

P(Z<=z) one-tail 0

z-kritisk one-tail 1,644853627

P(Z<=z) two-tail 0

z-kritisk two-tail 1,959963985



25

6.3.1 Z-test H3


As the P-value is 0,331E-16 and thus < than 0,05 the difference in the mean value is significant, and we can accept H3= Even consumers whom consider themselves highly ethical can reach brand resonance and abandon their ethical value. For calculations of mean value see appendix 8.6

7. Conclusion Relationships between a brand and a consumer can become so strong that the consumer abandon their own ethical values. When involved in a consumer-brand relationship that has reached the state of brand resonance, the consumer maintains the perception of the brand, despite when being presented with contradictory information regarding ethical values. Prior research has revealed that a relationship between a brand and a consumer can be very similar to the relationships existing in between people. This undefined kind of relationship, where the consumer abandons their own ethical values could be compared with the abusive partner relationship, where people choose to see the positive aspects of the relationship and thus let the positive image of the relationship become of higher relevance than the negative aspects of the same relationship. However, it is not possible to tell whether this constitutes a conscious or unconscious choice made by the consumer. The study also reveals that brands have a very strong impact on consumers, so strong that even consumers who considers themselves as highly ethical can abandon their ethical values.

7.1 Contribution Although consumers carry the ultimate responsibility for their consumption, the brand can be viewed as the stronger partner in the consumer-brand relationship. This strong influence therefore should be viewed as reason to increase the brands’, and thus the company behind the brand, responsibility regarding sustainability issues. Our hope is that this study contributes as an eye-opener to brand managers, that a strong brand also can contribute to negative consequences such as an abusive consumer-brand relationship.

Group A Group BMean 2,64516129 0,14516129

Known Variance 5,2819 0,6507

Observations 62 62

Hyypothesized Mean Difference 0

z 8,081897157

P(Z<=z) one-tail 3,331E-16

z-kritisk one-tail 1,644853627

P(Z<=z) two-tail 6,66134E-16

z-kritisk two-tail 1,959963985


26

7.2 Recommendations for future research Since this study was conducted during a limited time and was not supported by any financial aids, the selection of respondents was established upon convenience and availability. Although we found this the most suitable option for this study, a selection of respondents based upon convenience and availability is followed by certain limitations. For this reason, future research should implement a more specified selection of consumers where factors such as education, age, gender and financial statues would be of relevance.

Another topic suitable for future research would be whether the choice to overlook the negative aspects of the relationship with the brand is made consciously or unconsciously by the consumer. Our recommendation would be to carry this study out by using an Implication Association Test (IAT). The IAT – test is used to identify underlying attitudes that people are unaware of but still can be reflected in their behavior. The IAT- test is a test with good validity and is highly suitable for studies regarding subjects such as this, that can be viewed as sensitive in social gatherings. Further subject for future research could include a study of how of it affects the consumers repurchasing behavior towards the brand after being presented with information that contradicts their ethical values. A vast amount of research has also been conducted regarding positive relationships between a brand and consumer, it would be interesting to pursue further research regarding this type of negative consumer-brand relationship as well.

27

8. APPENDIX

8.1 Logotypes

8.2 List of Figures FIGURE1-THESELF-BRANDCONNECTIONSCALEBYESCALAS&BETTMAN2009............................................7FIGURE2-ANILLUSTRATIONOFTHEBRANDRESONANCEMODELBYKELLER(2003).................................10FIGURE3-THETHEORETICALFRAMEWORKOFTHISSTUDY......................................................................................13FIGURE4-INFORMATIONREGARDINGTHEBRANDSTHATWASPRESENTEDTOGROUPA..............................16FIGURE5-INFORMATIONREGARDINGTHEBRANDSTHATWASPRESENTEDTOGROUPB........................16FIGURE6-COMPARISONDISTRUBUTION,CONSISTENCYGROUPA&B..................................................................19FIGURE7-COMPARISON:MEANVALUECONSISTENCYIN%.........................................................................................19FIGURE8-COMPARISONH2...........................................................................................................................................................20FIGURE11-COMPARISONRESULTSH3....................................................................................................................................21FIGURE12-COMPILATIONZ-TESTH1......................................................................................................................................22FIGURE13-COMPILATIONZ-TESTH2.......................................................................................................................................24FIGURE14-COMPILATIONZ-TESTH3......................................................................................................................................25 TABLE1-AGEDISTRIBUTIONGROUPA...................................................................................................................................17TABLE2-AGEDISTRIBUTIONGROUPB...................................................................................................................................17TABLE3-CONDITIONSH1GROUPA..........................................................................................................................................18TABLE4-CONDITIONSH1GROUPB..........................................................................................................................................18TABLE5-CONDITIONSH2GROUPA..........................................................................................................................................20TABLE6-CONDITIONSH2GROUPB..........................................................................................................................................20TABLE7-CONDITIONSH3GROUPA..........................................................................................................................................21TABLE8-CONDITIONSH3GROUPB..........................................................................................................................................21

28

8.3 The questions presented to establish the consumers ethical

values 1 Ethical values is

a state of mind based on personal values on what is considered right or wrong. How well do you agree with this definition?

2 I consider myself an ethical person. How well do you agree?

3 My ethical values are important to me. How well do you agree?

4 Child labour is work that robs children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity. I believe that child labour is wrong. How well do you agree?

5 Modern slavery is all work or service that comes from any person under the threat of penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily. I belive that modern slavery is wrong. How well do you agree?

6 A minimum wage is stated by a government and can be far lower than a living wage. A living wage is a wage that covers the expenses of food and medicin. I believe that a living wage is a human right, How well do you agree?

7 I always consider my ethical values when buying a certain brand How well do you agree?

8 It is important to me that the brand that I buy has the same ethical values as me. How well do you agree?

9 I would consider not to buy a brand if it represented questionable working conditions that goes agianst my ethical values How well do you agree?

29

8.4 Mean values for H1

Group A Group B0 01 03 10 21 00 11 02 03 02 04 03 04 03 01 03 42 04 03 03 04 03 01 03 14 03 03 03 04 03 04 43 03 03 43 44 14 02 04 23 13 04 03 03 34 33 23 02 03 03 24 04 03 03 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 0

184 35

The mean value has been calculated through a score coding system. During the test series for H1 the participant was given four brands, to measure their consistency, meaning that the respondent kept a positive perception even after receiving negative information regarding the brands social responsibility. When the respondent achieved consistency for one brand, they received a point score of 1 and if they were not consistent, they received the point score 0. Their total number of points received for each of the four brands was summarized per respondent, giving them a possible score in between 0-4. The mean value was then calculated by summarizing the total score of each group and dividing it by the number of respondents, which was 62. Mean value for Group A: 2,9677 Mean Value Group B: 0,56451

30


group a group b0 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 00 00 10 01 01 00 01 01 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 11 00 00 01 11 01 00 01 01 00 01 01 01 01 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0

42 4

The mean value has been calculated through a score coding system, similar to the previous one. During the test series for H2 the respondent needed to have consistency for two brands; H&M and Nike for Group A, and Group B needed to have consistency for Dell and Chiquita. The respondent needed to answer “yes” when asked if they believed both child labour and modern slavery to be wrong. The respondent also needed to answer “yes” when asked if they believed themselves to be an ethical person Thus, the respondent needed to meet the following criteria’s to achieve 1 score point:

1) Consistency of two brands Group A: H&M and Nike Group B: Dell & Chiquita

2) Believe that child labour is wrong

3) Believe that modern slavery is wrong

The mean value was then calculated by summarizing the total score of each group and dividing it by the number of respondents which was 62. Mean value for Group A: 0,6774 Mean Value Group B: 0,0645

31


The mean value has been calculated through a score coding system, similar to the previous ones. During the test series for H3 the respondent needed to have consistency for two brands; H&M and Nike for Group A, and Group B needed to have consistency for Dell and Chiquita. The respondent needed to answer “yes” when asked if they believed both child labour and modern slavery to be wrong. The respondent also needed to answer “yes” when asked if they believed themselves to be an ethical person and value the importance of their ethical values as minimum 4 or higher, on a scale 1-5. Thus, the respondent needed to meet the following criteria’s to achieve 1 score point:

1) Consistency of two brands (Group A: H&M and Nike; Group B: Dell & Chiquita)

2) Believe that child labour is wrong 3) Believe that modern slavery is wrong 4) Believe themselves to be an ethical person 5) Have rated their ethical values as 4 or 5 in

importance This score point was then multiplied with the respondents rating of their ethical values, either four or five, resulting in a possible score of 0, 4 or 5.

The mean value was then calculated by summarizing the total score of each group and dividing it by the number of respondents which was 62. Mean value for Group A: 0,6774 Mean Value Group B: 0,0645

Group A Group B0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 05 05 05 04 00 00 50 04 04 00 05 04 00 00 05 04 04 05 05 04 05 05 00 00 05 45 04 00 04 00 00 04 05 05 04 00 05 04 05 04 05 04 00 00 04 00 00 05 04 05 05 05 0

164 9

32

9. References Aaker, J. (1997, August). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research , p. 347. Aaker, J. (1999, February 1). The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion. Journal of Marketing Reasearch, pp. 45-57. Baptist World Aid. (2019). The 2019 Ethical Fashion Report, The truth behind the barcodes. Bennett Herbert, T., Cohen Silver, R., & Ellard, J. H. (1991, Maj). Coping with an Abusive relationship: I. How and Why Do Women Stay? Journal of Marrage and Family, 53, pp. 311-325. Bowlby, J. (1977, 03). The Making and Breaking of affectional bonds. The British Journal of Psychiatry, pp. 201-210. Caroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. MArketing Letters, pp. 79-89. Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001, 04). The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of marketing, pp. 81-93. Crane, A., Matten, D., McWiliams, A., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. S. (2008). The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. David, M., & Sutton, C. D. (2011). Social research. An indtroduction. 2nd Edition. SAGE Publications. Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2009). Self-Brand Connections. In C. W. Deborah J. Macinnis, Handbook of Brand Relationships . Fournier, S. (1998, February ). Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research. Fournier, S., & Alvarez, C. (2013, April). Relating badly to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, pp. 253-264. Fournier, S., & Liao, J. (1997, December 7). Reviving brand loyalty: A reconceptualization within the framework of consumer-brand relationships. International Journal of Research in marketing, pp. 451-472. Francis, T., & Hoefel, F. (2018). True Gen': Generation Z and its implications for companies . Forbes. Global Goals Organisation, Website. (2019, 12 03). Globalgoals.org. Retrieved from The Global Goals: https://www.globalgoals.org/ Google Scholar . (2020, 02 20). Retrieved from Google Scholar : https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/metrics.html

33

Graeber, D. (2011, 08). Consumption. Currebt Anthropology, 52, pp. 489-511. Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1999). Per Bond as Attachments. In Handbook of attachements (pp. 336-354). Hunt, D. S., & Arnett, B. D. (2006, 2 21). The explanatory foundations of relationship marketing theory, pp. 72-87. Keller. (2003). Strategic Brand management. Pearson Education Inc. Keller, K. L. (1993, January 1). Conceptualizing, Measuring, Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, pp. 1-22. Keller, K. L. (2000, January-February). The Brand Report Card. Harvard Business Review. Khamitov, M., Wang, X. (., & Thomson, M. (2019). How Well Do Consumer-Brand Relationships Drive Customer Brand Loyalty? Generalizations from a Meta- Analysis of Brand Relationship Elasticities. Journal of Consumer Research, Inc., 46, pp. 435- 459. Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Harris, L. C., & Piercy, N. (2017). The principles of Marketing, 7th European edition. Person Educated Limited. Maehle, N., & Schneor, R. (2010, March 2). On congruence between brand and human personalities. Journal of Product & Brand Management. McClelland, J. (2017, 02 23). Raconteur. (R. M. Ltd., Producer) Retrieved 12 2019, from Ethical issues remain in the fashion industry: https://www.raconteur.net/manufacturing/ethical-issues-remain-in-the-fashion-industry Merchant, B. (2017, 06 18). The Guardian. Retrieved 12 2019, from Life and death in Apple’s forbidden city: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract Miller, F. M., Fournier, S., & Allen, C. T. (2012). Exploring Relationship Analogues in the Brand Space. In S. Fournier, M. Breazeal, & M. Fetscherin, Consumer-Brand Releationships (pp. 30-56). Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994, 07). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing , pp. 20-38. Nisen, M. (2013, 05 10). How Nike Solved Its Sweatshop Problem. Business insider. Oberle, B., & Clement, J. (2019). A SOCIETAL RESPONSE TO DETERMINE OUR SHARED FUTURE. United Nations Environment Programme. United Nations Environment Programme. Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, pp. 33-44. Raluca Chiosa, A., & Anastasiei, B. (2017). NEGATIVE WORD-OF-MOUTH: EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF ADVERSE

34

MESSAGES ON CONSUMERS’ REACTIONS ON FACEBOOK. Review of Economic & Business Studies , 10(2157-173). Rosling, H., Rönnlund Rosling, A., & Rosling, O. (2018). Factfullness. Natur & kultur. Shimp, T. A., & Madden, T. J. (1988). Consumer-Object Relations: a Conceptual Framework Based Analogously on Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love. Advances in Consumer Research, 15, pp. 163-168. Solomon, M. R., Bamossy, G. J., Askegaard, S. t., & Hogg, M. K. (2014). Consumer Behaviour, a european perspective. Person Education Limited. Spellings, S. (2018, 09 06). This Could Be the Next Step for the New, Socially Conscious Nike. The Cut. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Jpurnal of Social Psychology, pp. 313-335. Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S., & Sen, S. (2012, 09 03). Drivers of consumer–brand identification. International Journal of Research in Marketing, pp. 406-418. Sung, Y., & Tinkham, S. (2005, April 21). Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea: Common and Culture-Specific Factors. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, pp. 334-350. Tanveer, Z., & Lodhi, R. N. (2016, September). The Effect of Brand Equity on Customer Satisfaction: An Empirical Study Based on David Aaker's Brand Equity Model. IUP Journal of Brand Management;, pp. 43-54. The Associated Press. (2017, 11 03). Fashion Istanbul International News Lifestyle Business Europe Zara clothes in Istanbul tagged to highlight labor dispute. Retrieved 12 2019, from AP News: https://apnews.com/e41d4976b67f4616be772b118a9cb947/Unpaid-Turkish-clothes-makers-tag-Zara-items-to-seek-help Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, W. C. (2005). The Ties That Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers' Emotional Attachments to Brands. Journal of consumer psychology, pp. 77-91. United Nations Industrial Development Organization. (2019). UNIDO. Retrieved 12 2019, from What is CSR?: https://www.unido.org/our-focus/advancing-economic-competitiveness/competitive-trade-capacities-and-corporate-responsibility/corporate-social-responsibility-market-integration/what-csr Uusitalo, L. (2005). Consumers as Citizens — Three Approaches to Collective Consumer Problems. In K. Grunert, & J. Thögersen, Consumers, Policy and the Environment (pp. 127-50). Springer. Veloutsou, C., Christodoulides, G., & de Chernatony, L. (2013, February). A taxonomy of measures for consumer-based brand equity: drawing on the views of managers in Europe. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, pp. 238-248.

35

Wysong, S., Munch, J., & Kleiser, S. (2002). An investigation into the brand personality construct, its antecedents and its consequences . American Marketing Association. Conference Proceedings, p. 512. Young, S. (2017, 11 04). UNPAID LABOURERS ARE 'SLIPPING PLEAS FOR HELP INTO ZARA CLOTHES'. Retrieved 12 2019, from The Independent : https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/zara-istanbul-unpaid-workers-inditex-bravo-clothing-tags-notes-a8037256.html

PO Box 823, SE-301 18 HalmstadPhone: +35 46 16 71 00E-mail: [email protected]

Sanne Swedenås

Camilla Gonzalez

Date post:	17-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

f1454137/...5TV[X_be G[Xf\f International marketing 180 hp Does reaching resonance give brands a...

Documents