INTERNATIONALES MARKENMANAGEMENT

Chair for

Marketing and Retailing Trier University Prof. Dr. Prof. h.c. B. Swoboda

3rd exercise Master study WS 2015/2016

Specialization: Handel und Internationales Marketing-Management

Module: Retail Management und International Branding

INTERNATIONALES

MARKENMANAGEMENT

Trier University MARKETING & RETAILING Prof. Dr. Prof. h.c. B. Swoboda

effects of brands

Direct Models

Moderating Models

Mediating Models

Slide 2

Objectives

Considering quantitative and

qualitative research techniques

Translate branding principals and

effects into models

Highlighting moderating effects

Highlighting mediating effects

In Detail …


Neidisch kann man so oder so sein: Man

kann Freunde wohlwollend beneiden - oder dem

Glück von Unsympathen mit Missgunst begegnen.

Genau davon, auf welche Art man neidet, hänge es

ab, für was für ein Handy man sich entscheide,

behaupten niederländische Forscher: Für das

iPhone oder ein Blackberry.

van de Ven, Zeelenberg & Pieters: "The Envy Premium in Product

Evaluation"; Journal of Consumer Research, Oktober 2010

Dubois, Rucker & Galinsky: “Super Size Me: Product Size as a Signal of

Status” Journal of Consumer Research, 2012.

Slide 3

….preference for

supersized food

and drinks may

have roots in the

status-signaling

value of larger

options.

Source: Spiegel online 2010, www.npr.org.

Translate branding principals and

effects into models


Slide 4

Brand

Equity

Brand

Loyalty

Reputation

Perceived

Brand

Globalness

Ethnocentrism

Culture

Brand

Image

Quality Value

Price Value

Country Image

A B

M

A B

Z

A B

Corporate

Brand

Dominance

Involvement

Example?

Example?

Examples of brand effect models

Chair for


Brand Effect Models

3.1 Direct Models

3.2 Moderating Effects

3.3 Mediating Effects

3.4 Presentations

3

Slide 5


Brand

Equity ??

Loyalty

Trust

Satisfaction

….

….

Slide 6

Theoretical and

managerial relevance?

First model: Brand equity effects


Loyalty is a deeply held commitment to rebuy or re-patronize a preferred

pro-duct/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).

Stage of

Loyalty

Identifying Marker Vulnerabilities

Cognitive Loyality to information (price, features

etc.)

Actual or imagines better competitive features

or price through i.e. communication, experience

Affective Loyalty to a liking: „ I buy it because I

like it.“

Cognitively induced dissatisfaction

Conative Loyalty to an intention: „I‘m commited

to buying it.“

Persuasive counerargumentstive competitive

mesages. Induced trial.

Action Loyalty to action inertia, coupled with

the overcoming of obstactes

Induced unavailability. Increased obstacles

generally.

Slide 7

Measuring loyalty


Hypotheses Path Diff.

Cog. LOY.=>Aff LOY (Expertise) .795/.713 (low vs. high) sig.

Cog. LOY => Aff. LOY (Price Orientation) .809/.747 (low vs. high) sig.

Aff. LOY =>Con. LOY (Critical I.Recov) .533/.481 (yes vs. no) sig.

Con. LOY => Action LOY (CARD) .322/.270 (yes vs. no) sig.

Slide 8

Implications for

the firm?

Source: Evanschitzky/Wunderlich (2006), „An Examination of Moderator Effects in the Four Stage Loyalty Model “,

Journal of Service Research, 8, 330-345.

A four stage loyalty model


Construct Technique/Scale

Brand recall

Please list automobile brands …..

Brand recognition Which of the following automobile

brands do you know?

Brand Awareness I am very aware of [brand]

I am very knowledgeable of [brand]

I can easily recall [brand]

….

Slide 9

<

Source: Keller, K. L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.

Journal of Marketing, 57(1): 1-22.

Measuring brand awareness


Free association

What do you like best about the brand?

What are its positive aspects?

What do you dislike? What are its

disadvantages?

What do you find unique about the brand?

How is it different from other brands? In

what ways is it the same?

Projective techniques

Diagnostic tools to uncover the true

opinions and feelings of consumers when

they are unwilling or otherwise unable to

express themselves on these matters

Examples: Completion and interpretation

tasks, Comparison tasks

Slide 10

Image:

Qualitative research techniques 1/2


Slide 11

LEVI’S

501

Functional

´High quality, long lasting,

and durable

Product-Related

Blue denim, shrink-to-fit

cotton fabric, button-fly,

two-horse patch,

and small red pocket tag

Symbolic

Feelings of self-confidence

and self-assurance Experiential

Comfortable fitting

and relaxing to wear

Brand Personality

Honest, classic,

Contemporary, approachable,

independent, and universal

Usage Imagery

Appropriate for outdoor

work and casual social

situations

User Imagery

Western, American,

blue collar, hard-working,

traditional, strong,

rugged, and masculine

BENEFITS

ATTRIBUTES

Image:

Qualitative research techniques 1/2


Construct Scale

Overall Brand Image [Brand] has a positive image, in my opinion.

Brand Image - Strength

[Brand] is a strong brand, in my opinion.

[Brand] is a brand, I spontaneously associate with something.

[Brand] is familiar to me.

[Brand] is a brand, I easily associate with certain characteristics.

Brand Image - Uniqueness [Brand] is a unique brand, in my opinion.

[Brand] stands out positively from its competitors, in my opinion.

[Brand] is not a common brand, in my opinion.

[Brand] offers me added value.

Brand Image - Favorability [Brand] is a brand, I like.

[Brand] is a good brand, in my opinion.

[Brand] is a brand, I associate with positive experiences.

[Brand] is favorable to me.

Slide 12

Brand Image and Brand Awareness is combined to Brand Equity.

Source: Keller, K. L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.

Journal of Marketing, 57(1): 1-22.

Quantitative measurement of brand

image


Would you favor products/ brands from company 1 over competitors‘

products/ brands? Please rate the following statements on a scale ranging

from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree” (from left to right).

It makes sense to buy X instead of any other brand, even if they are the

same.

Even if another brand has same features as X, I would prefer to buy X.

If another brand is not different from X in any way, it seems smarter to

purchase X.

If there is another brand as good as X, I prefer to buy X.

Slide 13

Measuring brand equity - shorter

Source: Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. 2000. An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and Brand

Equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2): 195-211.

.


Brand

Equity Brand Loyalty

.47 (p<.001)

Sample

Who are the respondents?

Sample selection method

Pre-requirement: [“I have heard of BRAND”]

Measures

Brand Equity by Keller (1993)

Loyalty by Oliver (1999)

Reliability and Validity

Method

Simple Regression Analysis (path coefficient, R²)

SEM (path coefficient, R², Fit measures)

22%

Slide 14

Data collection and analysis: Model 1


Brand

Uniqueness Brand Loyalty

Brand

Strength

Brand

Favorability

Brand image

.28 (p<.001)

.11 (p>.10)

.40 (p<.001)

25%

Relative importance of image, e.g.

Does brand equity matter when explaining loyalty/consumer behavior?

Understanding what exactly drives consumer behavior

Slide 15

Brand equity effects: Model 2


Brand

Uniqueness

Brand

Loyalty

Brand

Strength

Brand

Favorability Sample

Measures

Brand Image (Keller 1993)

Latent variables (=> SEM) or index (=>Multiple regression)

Reliability and Validity: EFA, CFA , AVE, CA, discriminant validity

Second order factor

Method

Multiple regression/SEM

Brand image

Slide 16

Data collection and analysis:

Additional specification: Model 2


Brand

Uniqueness

Brand

Loyalty

Brand

Strength

Brand

Favorability

Focal company (loyalty to focal company)

Main Competitor (objectively chosen)

Brand

Uniqueness

Brand

Loyalty

Brand

Strength

Brand

Favorability

1. Step:

- Compare Frequencies

- Compare MV

- Compare Distribution

…

.30 (p<.001)

.10 (p<.1)

.50 (p<.001)

.40 (p<.001)

.30 (p<.001)

.50 (p<.001)

35%

50%

Slide 17

Comparison to strong competitors:

Model 3


Brand

Uniqueness

Brand

Loyalty

Brand

Strength

Brand

Favorability

Company in developed country

Company in home country

Brand

Uniqueness

Brand

Loyalty

Brand

Strength

Brand

Favorability

1. Step:

- Compare Frequencies

- Compare MV

- Compare Distribution

…

.25 (p<.10)

.20 (p<.10)

.09 (p>.10)

.50 (p<.001)

.10 (p<.10)

.30 (p<.001)

10%

35%

Slide 18

Comparison between countries:

Model 4


Sample

Select counties

Customers vs. non-customers

Measures

Additional measures (culture, market share, etc.)

Translation (forward and backtranslation)

Measurement invariance (see Hult et al. 2008)

Method

Comparison

Chi-square difference test

T-test

….

Slide 19


Additional specification model 3 and 4


Good

employer

Brand

Loyalty

Customer

orientation

Financial

strong company

Responsibility

Product range

quality

Corporate reputation

Remember lecture 1: Target groups are external and internal groups

.03ns

.09ns

.02ns

.19***

.10**

5%

Slide 20

Corporate reputation effects: model 5


Customer

orientation

Good

employer

Financial

strong company

Product range

quality

Responsibility

[Firm] employs people who try to meet their customers’ needs.

[Firm] employs people who are polite towards their customers.

[Firm] tries to meet its customers’ needs.

[Firm] appears to have an excellent leadership style.

[Firm] appears to have high standards for its personnel management.

[Firm] appears to have competent staff.

[Firm] appears to have strong prospects for future growth.

[Firm] seems to have a clear vision of its future.

[Firm] appears to outperform competitors continuously.

[Firm] is a strong, reliable company.

[Firm] offers high-quality products.

[Firm] offers products that serve their purpose and are

good value for money.

[Firm] appears to make an effort to create new jobs.

[Firm] appears to be environmentally responsible.

[Firm] appears to support good causes.

Slide 21

Measurement corporate reputation/

associations (short): model 5

Source: Walsh/Beatty 2007.


Sample



Pre-requirement: [“I have heard of CORPORATE/PRODUCT BRAND”]

Measures

Reputation by Walsh/Beatty/Lee (2008)



EFA, CFA, CA etc.

Second order factor

Method

Simple Regression Analysis (path coefficient, R²)


Slide 22


additional specification model 5


A research design is a framework or blueprint for conducting the marketing

research project. It details the procedures necessary for obtaining the

information needed to structure or solve marketing research problems.

Components

Define the information needed

Design the exploratory, descriptive, and/or causal phases of the research

Specify the measurement and scaling procedures

Construct and pretest a questionnaire (interviewing form) or an appropriate

form for data collection

Specify the sampling process and sample size

Develop a plan of data analysis

Slide 23

Summary: consider your research

design

Chair for


Moderating Effects

3.1 Direct Models



3.4 Presentations

3


Functional/

Psychological

Value

Brand Loyalty

Consumer

ethnocentrism

Functional/

Psychological

Value

Brand Loyalty

CET *

Value

Consumer

ethnocentrism

.30

?

.30

n.s.

?

Slide 25

Individual level moderator: model 1


Sample




Selection of product(category) => durables, service or FMCG?

Measures

Brand Equity by Yoo, Donthu and Lee (2000)


Perceived Risk by Stone and Gronhaug (1993)


Method

Regression or SEM (path coefficient, R², Fit measures)

Moderator testing procedure (e.g., Multi-Group, Interaction)

Slide 26


Additional specification model 1?


Functional/

Psychological

Value

Brand Loyalty

Brand origin

?

Slide 27

Brand related moderator: model 2


Functional/

Psychological

Value

Brand Loyalty

Culture

Slide 28

Country related moderator: model 3

?


Definition acc. Hofstede: »[…] collective programming of the mind […]« <

Slide 29

Dimension Measurement

Power Distance An unequal allocation of power between members of a society

is completely acceptable. People in a position of power are

entitled to privileges.

Uncertainty Avoidance Unknown / unclear situations are threatening. Only calculated

risk should be taken.

Individualism / Collectivism In society, everyone is supposed to only take care of himself /

herself and his / her immediate family. Thinking of oneself is

the most important thing.

Masculinity / Femininity The role of men and women in society should be kept strictly

separate. Men should play a dominant role in society. They

should be self-confident, performance-oriented, materialistic.

Women should seek better quality of life.

Time perspective

(Long-term/ short-term orientation)

Endurance and stability are very important personality traits.

Life should be lived with a view to the future.

Indulgence / Restraint* Extent to which members of a society try to control their

desires and impulses

* Added in 2010 based on recent World Value Survey data.

Measurement: Culture


Sample

…

Selection of product(category)

durables, service or FMCG?

Selection of countries to create variance

in the cultural dimensions

Measures

…

Measurement invariance

Culture (Hofstede 2002)

Method

….

Moderator testing procedure (e.g., Multi-

Group, Interaction)

Germany

China

1.00

.95

.85

1.00

1.03

.51

Slide 30


Additional specification model 2/3?


Slide 31

„A moderator variable has been defined as one, which systematically

modifies either the form and/or strength of the relationship between a

predictor and a criterion variable.“ (Sharma/Durand/Gur-Arie 1981)

Effect of a predictor variable (x) on a criterion (y) depends on a third

variable (z), the moderator

Interaction effect

Each moderator effect has to be grounded on theory

Predictor and moderator should be mean centered

xzbzbxbby 3210

Summary: Important issus in

moderated models

Chair for


Mediating Effects

3.1 Direct Models



3.4 Presentations

3


Consumers’ specific corporate associations as antecedents of their

overall evaluation of the company, i.e., corporate image (Brown and Dacin 1997, Walsh and Beatty 2007)

Direct and indirect effect of specific corporate associations on

product brand loyalty

Specific Corporate Associations

Product range quality

Customer orientation

Good employer

Social and environmental responsibility

Reliable and financially strong company

Corporate

Image

Product

Brand

Loyalty

Slide 33

.50 .30

.15

Source: Meierer 2010.

Model 1: Partial Mediation


Sample




Selection of product(category) => durables, service or FMCG?

Measures

Corporate Associations/reputation by Walsh and Beatty (2007)

Corporate Image by Keller (1993)



Method


Mediator testing procedure (e.g., Baron & Kenny 1986)

Testing of indirect effects (e.g., Sobel)

Slide 34




Slide 35

Model 2: Partial mediation with

moderation (I)

Source: Swoboda, Bernhard and Karin Pennemann (2014), „Do International Retailers benefit from being Global in Emerging Countries? A

Multilevel Study in China,” Marketing ZFP – Journal of Research and Management, 36 (2), 141-150

Perceived

Brand

Globalness

Quality value

(QV)

Price value

(PV)

Retailer brand

equity (BE)

sQV

sPV

iBE sPBG

Individual level

Brand level

Retailer origin iBE

sQV

sPV

sPBG


Slide 36

Model 2: Partial mediation with

moderation (II)

Source: Swoboda/Hirschmann (2015).

Functional

Value

Brand Loyalty

Psychological

Value

Perceived

Brand

Globalness

Moderator: MNC origin

Moderator: Consumer ethnocentrism


Sample

...Pre-requirement: [“I have heard of BRAND”]

Sample design: brand selection and COO selection (12 brands per industry

from 2 country of origins)

Measures

Perceived brand globalness (Steenkamp et al 2003)

Quality and Price value (Sweeney and Sourtar 2001)

Brand Equity (Keller 1993)


Intraclass correlation

Method

Hierarchical regression or multi-level analysis

Mediator testing procedure (e.g., Baron & Kenny 1986)

Testing of indirect effects (e.g., Bootstrapping)

Slide 37




The Steps Baron and Kenny (1986)

Step 1: Show that the initial variable is correlated with the outcome.

Step 2: Show that the initial variable is correlated with the mediator.

Step 3: Show that the mediator affects the outcome variable.

Step 4: To establish that M completely mediates the X-Y relationship, the effect

of X on Y controlling for M (path c') should be zero. The effects in both Steps 3

and 4 are estimated in the same equation.

=> mediators explain the relation between predictor and outcome – as a

mechanism through which a predictor influence the outcome variable.

Alternative: Zhao, Lynch and Chen (2010)

Slide 38

X

M

Y

a b

c‘

Summary: Important issus in

mediation models

Chair for


Presentations

3.1 Direct Models



3.4 Presentations

3


Read the literature to answer the following questions

What is the structure of an academic paper? Describe the single chapters

of one paper.

Evanschitzky, H.; Wunderlich, M. (2006), „An Examination of Moderator Effects

in the Four-Stage Loyalty Model”, Journal of Service Research, 8(4): 330-345.

Additional: Oliver, S.L. (1999), “Whence Consumer Loyalty?”, Journal of

Marketing, 63: 33-44.

Prepare a short (ca. 15 minutes, 10 slides) presentation.

Please use the presentation template on our homepage.

Read the Steenkamp/Batra (2003) paper once more and bring a printed

version for the next session!

1.5 point on top of the exam.

Please send your presentation to [email protected] until

Tuesday, 12:00 o’clock

Slide 40

Exercise for next week

mailto:[email protected]



Documents

INTERNATIONALES MARKENMANAGEMENT