Anisimova - Et - Al - 2019 - Journal of Consumer Marketing PDF

The influence of corporate brand perceptions
on consumer satisfaction and loyalty via

controlled and uncontrolled communications:
a multiple mediation analysis
Tatiana Anisimova
Linneuniversitet Ekonomihogskolan, Kalmar, Sweden
Jan Weiss
Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden, and
Felix Mavondo
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – Drawing on the stimulus–organism–response (S-O-R) model, the purpose of this study is to investigate mediating effects of controlled
and uncontrolled communications of corporate brand perceptions on consumer satisfaction and loyalty.
Design/methodology/approach – Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypotheses on a sample of 271 Australian automobile
consumers.
Findings – The authors find that while consumer satisfaction is indirectly influenced by corporate-level attributes via controlled and uncontrolled
communication, the authors did not find an indirect effect between consumer benefits on consumer satisfaction via controlled and uncontrolled
communication. By contrast, the authors find highly significant indirect effects – via controlled and uncontrolled communication as well as consumer
satisfaction – for the relationship between, on the one hand, corporate-level attributes and consumer benefits and consumer brand loyalty on the
other. Uncontrolled communication was significantly associated with consumer loyalty, a relevant finding that indicates an importance of tracking
media coverage and maintaining favorable relationships with the media.
Research limitations/implications – The cross-sectional method limits data collection to one point in time.
Practical implications – This study adds to a better understanding of how to leverage corporate brand through communications in ways that it
positively resonates with consumers. A fine-grained analysis of corporate brand attributes and consumer-perceived benefits can aid managers in
developing specific and more effective marketing strategies.
Originality/value – The overall thrust of this empirical study, which is to investigate how corporate brand perceptions influence short term
(satisfaction) and long term (loyalty) via controlled and uncontrolled communications is original. This study comprehensively conceptualizes and
operationalizes the corporate brand as a multidimensional construct consisting of corporate-level attributes and brand-level attributes such as
perceived consumer benefits. To examine the hypothesized relationships between and among our constructs, the authors go beyond the commonly
studied single mediator model and test a multiple mediator model instead.
Keywords Corporate brand, S-O-R model, Consumer satisfaction and loyalty, Controlled and uncontrolled communications, Mediating effects
Paper type Research paper
Introduction in terms of scope: it involves promoting entire companies as

brands and creating a positive image for all stakeholders,
In recent years, academic and managerial interest towards whereas product branding aims at achieving differentiation via
corporate branding has been growing (Balmer, 2012; Chang influencing consumer preferences (Ind, 1997). However, both
et al., 2015; Melewar et al., 2012; Siano and Palazzo, 2015; product and corporate branding concepts view consumers as a
Veloutsou, 2015). Conceptually related to product branding in key stakeholder group (Bartikowski and Walsh, 2011; Whelan
a sense that both activities aim at achieving a competitive edge et al., 2010).
via differentiation, corporate branding differs from the former There are two major advantages of corporate branding over
product branding (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001; Hulberg,
2006). First, corporate branding is considered more efficient
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on because growing competition in increasingly globalized
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
Journal of Consumer Marketing

Received 7 May 2017
36/1 (2019) 33–49 Revised 27 October 2017
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761] 31 May 2018
[DOI 10.1108/JCM-05-2017-2199] Accepted 25 July 2018
33
Corporate brand perceptions Journal of Consumer Marketing
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49
markets results in that firms often find it difficult to design essential brand touch-points by means of which the resulting
successful product differentiation strategies. Second, corporate impressions are formed.
branding leads to a reduction in communication costs and Drawing on a stimulus–organism–response (S-O-R) model
improved synergies between a multi-product firm’s brands. In (Woodworth, 1928; Donovan and Rossiter, 1982; Jacoby, 2002)
short, the benefits of a corporate brand strategy lie in its ability and viewing the corporate brand as taking its roots in consumer
to link the company’s conventional marketing initiatives to psychology (i.e. consumer-perceived benefits) and corporate
unique corporate identities and associations and enhance the marketing (i.e. consumer-perceived corporate attributes), we
impact of the corporate brand on consumers (Lindgreen et al., integrate consumer brand perceptions, controlled and
2012; Sen et al., 2006). uncontrolled communications and consumer brand response, and
As consumers evaluate a corporate brand holistically, a major their hypothesized relationships, into one coherent conceptual
challenge faced by practitioners is to achieve an effective framework. This framework conceptualizes the corporate brand as
integration of brand values into the corporate branding strategy. stimulating consumer responses via satisfaction and loyalty which
Previous research accounting for this need is scarce – and tends in turn are determined by intervening consumer mental processes
to examine corporate brands and their consumer effects based in the form of brand-based attitudes because of controlled and
on single dimensions of the corporate brand construct uncontrolled brand communications.
(Anisimova, 2007; Alwi and Kitchen, 2014). Another challenge We then analyze that framework empirically using
in that context is to ensure that the favorable corporate brand multiple mediation analysis (Preacher and Hayes, 2008;
image transmitted to corporate stakeholders is mirrored by Taylor et al., 2008; Zhao et al., 2010), testing whether the
stakeholders’ actual corporate brand perceptions (Dacin and perception of controlled and uncontrolled communications
Brown, 2006). This points to the key role played by corporate constitute effective mechanisms within the consumer
brand communication. A useful categorization in that context is organism in the translation of corporate brand image stimuli
whether the underlying communication channels are controlled into actual consumer response. We operationalize consumer
by the company or not. Company-controlled communication brand response using two important consumer-focused
refers to “paid” (advertising) and “owned” (seller-generated brand performance metrics; customer satisfaction (Ittner
content, websites, etc.) media (Belch and Belch, 2014; Lovett and Larcker, 1998; Yeung and Ennew, 2000) and consumer
and Staelin, 2016). Uncontrolled communications, which have brand loyalty (de Chernatony et al., 1998; Dick and Basu,
increased significantly in recent times (Percy, 2008), refer to 1994; Jacoby and Kyner, 1973; Uncles et al., 2003). In
“earned” media or rather third-party communication beyond doing so, we make several contributions to the consumer
the company’s control including word-of-mouth (WOM) and marketing literature. First, we conceptualize and
media coverage (Du, Bhattacharya, and Sen, 2010; Kitchen, operationalize the consumer-perceived corporate brand
2010; Kitchen and Schultz, 2009)[1]. based not on a single dimension, as often done in previous
From a corporate decision-making perspective, it is research (Alwi and Kitchen, 2014; Anisimova, 2007), but
important to know how controlled and uncontrolled on multiple dimensions including corporate-level attributes
communications translate the consumer-perceived corporate and brand-level attributes and test how they jointly
image and consumer benefits into consumer responses. To the influence consumer brand responses. Second, because of
best of the authors’ knowledge, little is known about the extent tripartite and complete corporate relationships (Balmer,
to which controlled and uncontrolled communications 2010), we seek to uncover the complex interrelationships
intervene in the conversion process from corporate brand between corporate brand attributes (stimuli), mediating
perceptions to consumer brand response – although the controlled and uncontrolled communication channels
importance of mediating variables in media research is evident (organism) and consumer brand response. Finally, by
in the discussion of conditional factors found in marketing focusing on consumer satisfaction and consumer brand
loyalty as brand performance metrics, we account for
communication theories (Davidow, 2003; McCombs and
literature postulations that the investigation of consumer–
Reynolds, 2002; Petty et al., 2002). As McLeod and Reeves
brand relations constitutes a more effective way of gaining
(1980) argue, the conditional effects approach recognizes that
insights into actual corporate brand performance than using
media do not have that universal influence on consumers and
traditional financial indicators (Ittner and Larcker, 1998;
have been encumbered by ‘the lack of uniformity and clarity as
Sunil et al., 2004). We account for the multi-dimensional
to the labels and meaning of the role of various third
nature of loyalty, thereby addressing a shortcoming of
“conditional” variables affecting the relationship between
previous research (Caruana and Ewing, 2010) by
exposure to media and effect of that exposure’ (p. 19). In
incorporating cognitive, affective and behavioral aspects
addition, marketing communications research has traditionally
(Quester and Lim, 2003) into our loyalty measure.
measured communication effects on a medium-by-medium
basis, whereas consumers appear to use multiple
communications systems concurrently, simultaneously and Conceptual framework
synergistically (Ewing, 2009). This is moreover at odds with the The conceptual framework of this study builds on a S-O-R
integrated approach emerging in corporate branding theory model (Woodworth, 1928; Donovan and Rossiter, 1982); it
that advocates incorporating multiple factors in the corporate accounts for the increasing awareness in the consumer behavior
brand management framework (Balmer, 2010; Hatch and literature to consider consumers’ internal mental or organismic
Schultz, 2003; Urde, 2009). Balmer (2010) and Hogan et al. (O) states and processes when modeling the translation of
(2005) view controlled and uncontrolled communication as external consumption-related stimulus (S) factors into actual
34
consumer response (R) to these stimuli (Jacoby, 2002). Stimuli example, considers the corporate brand reflective of a company
consist of the consumer’s external environment; they are and its heritage, values, culture, people and of a strategy that
perceived, interpreted and processed by the consumer also can develop and leverage product and service attributes.
organism, and result in responsive behavior such as the The asserted importance of product and service attributes
formulation of purchase intentions (Bagozzi, 1986). In the for the corporate brand is in line with other studies emphasizing
present study, the corporate brand with its multiple dimensions the need to consider consumer benefits including functional,
constitutes the stimulus triggering consumer responses in the emotional and symbolic benefits in a corporate brand context
form of consumer satisfaction and loyalty. Intervening (Aaker, 2004; Keller, 2003; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001).
consumer mental processes consist of attitudes in relation to Balmer and Gray (2003) view the corporate brand from a
the brand resulting from controlled and uncontrolled brand resource-based view of the corporation: Corporations build
communications. Recent previous studies developing a consumer perceptions about their brand using corporate social
theoretical framework involving an S-O-R model include responsibility initiatives as well as corporate ability associations
Chang et al. (2011); Eroglu et al. (2003); Peng and Kim (2014) (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Wan et al., 2016). According to
and Sherman et al. (1997). Wallpach and Woodside (2009), successful corporate branding
necessitates understanding brands from a corporate identity
Literature review and hypothesis development perspective that links brands to corporate values. This is in line
with Bhattacharya and Sen (2003), who relate the corporate
This section reviews relevant literature which feeds into the brand to a company’s identity, defined through consumers’
development of testable hypotheses. The literature review knowledge structures about the company. This includes
involves examining the direct and indirect relationships perceptions of company attributes (e.g. values, culture, skills
described by our conceptual framework and its S-O-R pillars. and products) and reactions to the company such as emotions
and evaluations (Dowling, 1986). Bhattacharya and Sen’s view
Consumer-based corporate branding overlaps with Brown and Dacin’s (1997) conceptualization of
Corporate branding involves a systematic process aimed at company identity as corporate image, corporate reputation and
creating and maintaining a positive corporate brand image and corporate associations. Similarly, Urde (2009) sees corporate
reputation through an effective interaction with both internal values as one of the key dimensions of the corporate brand,
and external stakeholders (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006). This whereas other studies conceptualize the corporate brand using
process implies cross-organizational efforts that are supposed to the notion of brand personality (Davies and Chun, 2002;
create a positive corporate identity (“what are we?”) and Whelan et al., 2010).
corporate personality (“who are we?”) as well as a favorable
corporate image and a more enduring corporate reputation An integrated consumer-based corporate brand
(Balmer, 2001; Knox and Bickerton, 2003). These efforts will framework
need to be reflected through real management commitment Previous research has traditionally analyzed corporate brands
and backed up by effective communications to make internal on a dimension-by-dimension basis. Such an approach has
and external stakeholders build favorable associations with the limitations as it prevents researchers from considering multiple
brand (Joubert and Poalses, 2012; Plassmann et al., 2012). The corporate brand dimensions concurrently and integrate them in
holistic approach to achieving the desired corporate brand a coherent corporate brand framework that is aligned with the
identity differs from that associated with product branding, way consumers experience corporate brands (Anisimova,
which is typically handled by marketing and advertising 2007). As Alwi and Kitchen (2014) note, by using a single
personnel only (Balmer and Gray, 2003; Harris and de attitude component of the corporate brand image, the extant
Chernatony, 2001; Melewar et al., 2012). studies have only been useful for the initial understanding of
This highlights the importance of using consumer-focused corporate brand image.
metrics, such as consumer satisfaction (Ittner and Larcker, On that basis, and in line with Anisimova (2007), this study
1998; Yeung and Ennew, 2000) and consumer loyalty (Dick argues that consumers experience corporate brands holistically,
and Basu, 1994; Uncles et al., 2003) when analyzing to what and that using a single corporate brand dimension in research will
extent the corporate brand promise is mirrored in actual provide only a limited explanation of the impact of the corporate
consumer-perceived brand value. It moreover stresses the need brand on consumers. We therefore extend the corporate brand
to adequately integrate product branding into corporate theoretical framework by integrating individual consumer brand
branding because consumers can be expected to evaluate a benefits including functional, affective and symbolic benefits
corporate brand both through more concrete perceived brand (Edvardsson, 2005; Anisimova, 2015; Sweeney and Soutar,
benefits and perceived corporate-level attributes. 2001), brand personality (Davies and Chun, 2002) and
Consequently, to position their corporate brands accordingly, corporate-level attributes such as corporate associations,
practitioners need to develop brands that engage with activities and corporate values (Brown, 1998) into the consumer-
consumers at these two levels. based corporate brand construct. To analyze the corporate brand
nature and impact from a consumer perspective is warranted.
Corporate brand attributes Lloyd and Woodside (2013), for example, advocate the
The concrete understanding of the corporate brand concept importance of comprehensively capturing and examining
remains challenging because of terminology having been used consumer brand perceptions, including their implicit and explicit
inconsistently in the past, which has resulted in confusion as to emotional attachment, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors towards
its definition and operationalization. Aaker (2004), for corporate brands. This is because the insights gained from
35
investigating consumer–brand relations can serve to inform criteria. While corporate associations were the strongest drivers
researchers and corporate brand managers about consumers’ of consumer responses for boycotters, non-boycotters’ product
deeply rooted thoughts and feelings about a brand, and their responses were affected more directly by product attributes
subsequent behavioral responses (Lloyd and Woodside, 2013). than by corporate associations. A possible explanation could be
that boycotters’ personal values are violated by perceived
Corporate branding and consumer brand response corporate values, whereas non-boycotters’ values match with a
Consumers are a critical stakeholder group for whom the company’s values in a better way, which in turn shifts consumer
corporate brand reputation matters (Bartikowski and Walsh, focus toward product attributes when considering a purchase
2011; Doyle, 1998) and who generate sales and favorable word- (Brown and Dacin, 1997). Next, Chun and Davies (2006)
of-mouth, thus contributing to corporate brand success found a positive effect of corporate personality on customer
(Gregory, 2007; Samli, Kelly, and Hunt, 1998). Such non- satisfaction, and Tournois (2015) found that customer
financial measures have increasingly gained momentum because satisfaction mediates the relationship between customer value
of competitive markets forcing companies to extend their set of and brand reputation, which implicitly stresses the positive
measures beyond financial performance (Anisimova, 2010). associations between brand benefits and customer responses in
Indeed, non-financial indicators of returns on investment in the form satisfaction. Also, noteworthy is Whelan et al.’s (2010)
intangible assets such as the corporate brand may be important finding of a positive association between consumer perceptions
and even better measures of corporate performance than of brand personality and consumer satisfaction. Further,
financial and accounting measures (Ittner and Larcker, 1998). previous research agrees on that positive perceptions of a firm’s
This view is further supported by Sunil et al. (2004), who reputation are positively related to customer satisfaction,
demonstrate the relevance of consumer-focused metrics for loyalty and word-of-mouth behavior (Bartikowski and Walsh,
shareholder value. 2011; Walsh et al., 2009). Moreover, previous research found
Consumer satisfaction and consumer brand loyalty are that consumers’ cognitive associations with a company and
considered two highly relevant customer-based brand response their perceived value play an important role in consumer
measures. The former is a major antecedent to a firm’s product and corporate brand responses (Brown and Dacin,
economic performance (Homburg and Giering, 2001; Wilson, 1997; Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Caruana and Ewing,
2002). For instance, high customer satisfaction has been found 2010). He and Li (2011) found a positive direct relationship
to be positively associated with consumer purchase intentions between perceived consumer benefits and customer
(Cronin and Taylor, 1992), customer retention (Day, 1994; satisfaction and an indirect relationship between consumer
Henning-Thurau and Klee, 1997, and repeat purchasing benefits and brand loyalty (via satisfaction). Similar results are
behavior (LaBarbera and Mazursky, 1983). Consumer reported by Lai et al. (2009) and He et al. (2012). The former
satisfaction can be defined as the consumer’s fulfilment found that customer satisfaction is influenced by corporate
response based on certain consumer goals or rather a judgment image and customer-perceived value and that both customer
that a product or service has provided consumption-related satisfaction and customer-perceived value are significant
fulfilment in accordance with these goals (Oliver, 1997, 2006). drivers of brand loyalty. He et al. (2012) find that brand
Consumer brand loyalty is a key criterion of brand success personality/character is positively related to customer
(de Chernatony et al., 1998; Kapferer, 1997). In defining brand satisfaction and indirectly associated with brand loyalty, among
loyalty, we draw on Jacoby and Kyner (1973), who view brand others, via satisfaction. Given the support in the literature for
loyalty as “the biased (i.e. nonrandom), behavioral response the influence of corporate-level attributes and consumer
(i.e. purchase), expressed over time, by some decision-making benefits on consumer satisfaction and loyalty, we formulate the
unit, with respect to one more alternative brands out of a set of following hypotheses:
such brands” and constitutes “a function of psychological
(decision-making, evaluative) processes” (p. 2). H1. Consumer-perceived corporate-level attributes are
The link between corporate brand attributes and brand positively associated with (a) consumer satisfaction and (b)
success in the form of consumer satisfaction and loyalty remains consumer brand loyalty.
under-researched, with previous studies tending to test the
H2. Consumer benefits are positively associated with (a)
effect of the corporate brand on these corporate brand success
consumer satisfaction and (b) consumer brand loyalty.
measures on a dimension-by-dimension basis, rather than
examining the theoretically and practically important joint effect H3. Consumer satisfaction is positively associated with
on brand success of multiple corporate brand dimensions. consumer brand loyalty.
Another feature of previous research into brand loyalty is the
analysis of loyalty from a purchase intention perspective, rather
than considering multiple aspects of loyalty (Caruana and Corporate branding and brand communication
Ewing, 2010) – which, for example, is done by Quester and Lim As noted by Bhattacharya and Sen (2003), consumers’
(2003), who studied brand loyalty using a comprehensive assessment of the attractiveness of a corporate brand’s identity
measurement framework including cognitive, affective and depends on their perceptions of that identity through company-
behavioral forms of loyalty. controlled internal communication via corporate activities as
In terms of previous evidence on the link between corporate well paid, earned and owned media (Lovett and Staelin, 2016),
branding and consumer brand response, Belch and Belch and via uncontrolled external communication (e.g. WOM and
(1987) interestingly found that boycotters and non-boycotters media coverage). While company-controlled communication
of a product based their purchase intentions on different still constitutes a substantial proportion of total communication
36
activities (Kimmel and Kitchen, 2014), controlling message uncontrolled sources, for instance through negative WOM and
attributes can entail certain disadvantages because of an publicity (Ennew et al., 2000; Grace and O’Cass, 2005). Hong
inherent trade-off between controllability and credibility of and Rim (2010) found that the use of company-controlled
controlled communication; the more communication control websites alone positively related to consumer perceptions of
the company exerts, the less credible it will be perceived, and corporate social activities, while also finding indirect effects of
vice versa (Du et al., 2010; Sen et al., 2009). These potential corporate website visits on positive word of mouth. Likewise,
issues can be overcome, for example, by using recognized third- Alvarez and Campo (2011), reported that consumer-perceived
party organizations (Pomering, 2011) and by providing factual corporate image was more strongly associated with controlled
messages (Berens and van Rekom, 2008). Nevertheless, as communication than with uncontrolled communications.
consumers tap into the ever-wider array of uncontrolled, mostly To sum up, the above literature overall suggests a positive
digital, communication channels (e.g. digital social media), the relationship between corporate brand attributes and controlled
impact of traditional controlled communication channels is as well as uncontrolled communication while at the same time
said to decrease (Kitchen, 2010; Kitchen and Schultz, 2009). pointing to possible negative consequences of controlled (Du
Instead, it is the uncontrolled communication channels that et al., 2010; Sen, Du and Bhattacharya, 2009) and
appear to increasingly influence consumer perceptions and uncontrolled (Ennew et al., 2000; Grace and O’Cass, 2005)
behaviors toward brands (Brown et al., 2005; Chatura and communication in a corporate brand context. It is also
Chanaka, 2014; East et al., 2008; Feng and Papatla, 2012; important to note that it is not the communication content as
Moldovan et al., 2011). such that affects consumers but the extent to which the
When considering a new purchase, consumers often rely on communicated information is considered sensible. Hence, a
uncontrolled communication such as WOM for information and communication’s effectiveness in conveying meaning about the
advice, as these communications are quick and participatory corporate brand is inseparably linked to the consumer’s
(Moldovan et al., 2011; Singh et al., 2008). Whether intentional attitudes toward the communication (Grace and O’Cass,
or incidental, this exposure has implications for all stages of 2005). While keeping the potential pitfalls in relation to
consumer decision-making (Schindler and Bickart, 2005). The controlled and uncontrolled communication in mind, we
power of uncontrolled communications is that they are shared formulate the following hypotheses:
among families, friends and colleagues with direct experience of
brands, which makes information highly credible. Unlike H4. Consumers’ perceived corporate-level attributes are
traditional WOM, electronic WOM spreads more rapidly and positively associated with their corporate attitudes
widely, thus enhancing the impact of online information on obtained through (a) controlled communication and (b)
consumer decision-making even further (Schult, Ultz, and uncontrolled communication.
Goritz, 2011). As the importance of such uncontrolled H5. Consumers’ perceived brand benefits are positively
communication increases, understanding their effects has associated with their corporate attitudes obtained
become increasingly important for both academics and through (a) controlled communication and (b)
practitioners. Overall, uncontrolled sources can undermine or uncontrolled communication.
reinforce company-controlled communication as they will
contain both positive and negative content (message valence),
which may have encouraging or detrimental effects (Moldovan Brand communication and corporate brand response
et al., 2011; Van Hoye and Lievens, 2005). Besides being associated with corporate brand identity,
For companies, this implies an increasing need to controlled and uncontrolled communications are known to also
incorporate both controlled and uncontrolled elements into an influence corporate brand responses on the part of consumers.
integrated marketing communications (IMC) mix to facilitate a Spreng et al. (1996), for instance, argue that consumers’ overall
more comprehensive investigation of the relationships between satisfaction with the brand consists of satisfaction with attributes
corporate brand identity, brand communication and consumer and satisfaction with the corporate brand communication (Mohr
brand response (Duncan and Moriarty, 1997; Finne and and Spekman, 1994). It is moreover argued that communication
Grönroos, 2009; Grönroos and Lindberg-Repo, 1998). In increases customers’ confidence in the seller’s reliability and
defining IMC, this study draws on Duncan and Everett (1993), integrity (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Grace and O’Cass (2005)
who describe IMC as “the strategic coordination of all found that controlled communications have a significant effect
messages and media used by an organization to influence its on consumer satisfaction and brand reuse intentions, whereas
perceived brand value” (p. 32). The above view is echoed by WOM was shown to have a significant influence only on brand
Balmer (2010), who considers the way in which corporate reuse intentions. Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold (2011)
brands are communicated by traditional and non-traditional provided support for the assumed detrimental effect of negative
modes of corporate communications a major corporate online product reviews on consumer-based brand equity.
branding issue requiring further elaboration in the literature. Chatterjee (2001) found that negative consumer reviews had
Previous empirical studies of the role of brand negative effects on perceived retailer reliability. By contrast, East
communication in consumer relationships with corporate et al. (2008) found the impact of positive WOM to be general
brands found that consumer brand attitudes are positively higher than negative WOM, with both being strongly related to
associated with both controlled (Grace and O’Cass, 2005; the pre-WOM probability of purchase. Very recent evidence is
Kempf and Smith, 1998) and uncontrolled communication provided by Hossain and Chonko (2017), who find that greater
(Swanson and Kelley, 2001). By contrast, there are studies bidirectional flow of communication enhances customers’ loyalty
reporting a negative relationship between brand attitudes and to the firm.
37
Summing up these literature findings, and recognizing that Figure 1 Conceptual framework
only few studies have compared controlled and uncontrolled
communications in terms of their influence on consumer brand
Smulus
response (Grace and O’Cass, 2005), we postulate the following Corporate-level Consumer
attributes benefits
f
hypotheses:
H6. Consumers’ corporate attitudes based on controlled H4a

H
H4 a H5a
H
H5 a
H4b
H
H4 b H5b
H b
H5
communication are positively associated with (a) consumer Controlled Uncontrolled
Organism
satisfaction and (b) consumer brand loyalty. commu
m nication
communication communication
commun
m ication
H6a
H6
H 6a
H7a
H 7a
H7. Consumers’ corporate attitudes based on uncontrolled H1aa
H
H1 H2a
H
H2 a
communication are positively associated with (a) consumer Consumer
Response
satisfaction and (b) consumer brand loyalty. satisfaction
satisfacti
f on
H
H3 H1b
H 1b H2b
H
H2 b H7b
Consumer brand
H6b
H
H6 b loyalty
The mediating role of corporate brand communication
As argued by Bhattacharya and Sen (2003), consumers’ H8a H8b H9a H9b
response to corporate brands are based on how they perceive a
brand’s identity as derived through controlled and
uncontrolled communications – which suggests a mediated Data and methodology
relationship between these constructs. This view is further Sampling and data collection
supported by H1-H7 because the hypothesized positive direct The unit of analysis in this study was a leading Japanese original
relationships between corporate-brand attributes, controlled equipment manufacturer’s (OEM) Australian subsidiary
and uncontrolled communications and consumer satisfaction engaged in the corporate branding strategy. The Australian
and loyalty point to a possible mediating role of these two types automotive industry has been a significant contributor to the
of communications (Baron and Kenny, 1986; MacKinnon Australian economy for decades (Autocar, 2017). Businesses
et al., 2012; Preacher and Hayes, 2008; Taylor et al., 2008). In engaged in car manufacturing in Australia have been highly
that context, and in line with the discussion above, controlled
internationalized, with many firms wholly or partially foreign-
and uncontrolled communications need to be increasingly
owned and with components exported to many countries
integrated into a coherent IMC mix. The link between IMC
(Anisimova and Mavondo, 2014). More recently, however, the
and brand performance outcomes, however, remains under-
car manufacturing industry has been under substantial pressure
researched (Ewing, 2009; Einwiller and Boenigk, 2011). Ewing
from imports and has been suffering a significant decline in
(2009) moreover points out that marketing communications
market share as well as in the actual volume of cars produced
results have traditionally been measured on a medium-by-
(Toner, 2014). This is because of increasingly reduced
medium basis, which often prohibits researchers from
government subsidies and reduced or cut trade tariffs in
measuring all these communications concurrently in a
the process of opening the Australian economy to foreign trade
synergetic manner. We conceptualize the mediating role of
(Barclay, 2017). In addition, car assembly plants did not have
corporate brand communication through Woodworth’s (1928)
sufficient scale in their market in Australia, and they also were
S-O-R model. Given its parsimony, the S-O-R model has been
engaged in product lines consumers were increasingly finding
used in advertising (Moon et al., 2016) and retailing research
unpopular (Robin and Redrup, 2014; Rody, 2014). Thus, the
(Donovan and Rossiter, 1982) to investigate the impact of
various stimuli on consumer responses. Based on the above government-induced and consumer-friendly intensification of
elaborations, we posit the following hypothesis: competition in the Australian car market has made the topic of
this study more relevant. In order for a corporate brand to spur
H8. The relationship between consumers’ (a) perceived and maintain consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty over
corporate-level attributes and (b) perceived brand benefits time, strong and resilient brand attributes and values are
and consumer satisfaction is mediated by controlled and required (Urde, 2016).
uncontrolled communication. A structured questionnaire was the instrument of the data
collection. Mailout packages including the questionnaires were
Finally, we conjecture that both perceived corporate-level delivered to the participating OEM which, in turn, distributed
attributes and perceived brand benefits will affect consumer the package from its internal database to 900 end-users/
brand loyalty indirectly through controlled and uncontrolled customers. These consumers were randomly selected via a
communication as well as through consumer satisfaction, random number generator forming part of the database. The
which immediately precedes loyalty in our conceptual final mailout packages sent out to the consumers contained the
framework. questionnaire, two cover letters (one from the investigator and
H9. The relationship between consumers’ (a) perceived one from the car manufacturer) and reply-paid envelopes. The
corporate-level attributes and (b) perceived brand benefits completed questionnaires were returned through these reply-
and consumer brand loyalty is mediated by controlled and paid envelopes. The consumer sample yielded 271 usable
uncontrolled communication and consumer satisfaction. questionnaires, which implies a 30-percent response rate. The
mail survey method was considered the most appropriate for
Figure 1 illustrates the proposed conceptual framework. primary data collection because of its advantages, such as a
38
personalized approach, its ability to accommodate large sample Table I Convergent validity of the measures
sizes at relatively low costs and ease of administering (Lukas
Standardized
et al., 2004) and the respondent-perceived anonymity Constructs and items regression weight CR AVE
(Malhotra et al., 2002).
Corporate-level attributes 0.952 0.715
Reliable 0.884
Measures
Open 0.910
All variables used in this study are multi-item constructs
Progressive 0.892
measured using a seven-point Likert type scale ranging from Confident 0.863
“1” (not at all) to “7” (a very great extent). The use of multi- Inspiring 0.865
item measures tends to increase reliability and decrease Social conscience 0.821
measurement error (Churchill, 1979). Likert-type scales have Corporate associations 0.868
been used in empirical studies on measurement of brand Social activities 0.631
utilities (Davies and Chun, 2002; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001).
Consumer benefits 0.936 0.680
The seven-point Likert scale was selected for the purposes of
Advanced technology 0.934
increasing reliability as it has been shown to be superior over a
Value for money 0.841
five-point scale (Churchill, 1979). The content validity of our
On-the-road performance 0.874
measures was ensured in two ways. First, whenever possible,
Choice variety 0.834
we used already existing measures that are well-anchored in the
A feeling of adventure 0.775
literature or we derived items from that literature. Second, A sense of contentment 0.864
before the questionnaire was distributed through the car Get social approval 0.610
manufacturer’s databases, several measures were discussed
with, and reviewed by, several relevant managers during and Controlled communication 0.872 0.697
after in-depth interviews (Zhao et al., 2006) in terms of Industry advertising 0.908
suitability, readability and ambiguity (Dillman et al., 2009). Trade show 0.889
Table AI in the Appendix provides a detailed overview of our Sponsorships 0.689
initial survey items and theory-based constructs. There, we also Uncontrolled communication 0.694 0.537
report which measures were developed using complementary Word-of-mouth 0.611
in-depth interviews and which measures are based on previous Independent press 0.837
literature.
Consumer satisfaction 0.857 0.667
Consumer satisfaction with the 0.875
Measurement evaluation vehicle acquisition
We first ran a model involving our first-order factors. The Consumer satisfaction with the 0.756
following observations led us to choose the second-order vehicle maintenance
format:
Consumer brand loyalty 0.857 0.667
The fit statistics were much weaker.
Affective loyalty 0.888
The ratio of distinct parameters to be estimated to sample
Cognitive loyalty 0.789
size was lower than 1:5, which suggested that the model
Intention and action loyalty 0.768
required a larger sample size than was available.
We then formulated a final, more aggregated, model based on a
combination of prior theory and empirical work, which Analysis
involved these initial items and constructs. The model was The mediating effects of controlled and alternative communications
validated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA on a relationship between consumer-perceived corporate brand and
reveals a good model fit: x 2 (283) = 1,002.933; x 2/df = 3.54; consumer satisfaction and loyalty were examined through the
root mean squared error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.078; application of structural equation modelling (SEM). This technique
confirmatory fit index [CFI] = 0.880; RMR = 0.126; Tucker– was chosen as it enables isolation of and directly testing for direct,
Lewis index [TLI] = 0.863; Parsimony-Adjusted Measures indirect and total types of communication influence. The Path
[PCFI] = 0.767; AIC = 1,183.933. In addition, convergent and model was run in AMOS 21. It achieves an adequate fit: x 2 (260) =
discriminant validity of all measures was tested based on the 745.65; x 2/df = 2.868; root mean squared error of approximation
CFA results. The former is achieved when factor composite [RMSEA] = 0.089; confirmatory fit index [CFI] = 0.912; RMR =
reliability is equal to or greater than 0.60 and when the factor 0.126; Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = 0.898; Parsimony-Adjusted
loadings and average variance explained (AVE) in items by Measures [PCFI] = 0.79; AIC = 875.645. The mediation analysis
their constructs are greater than 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, was conducted using Preacher and Hayes’s (2008) procedure to
1981). As can be seen in Table I, these conditions are met, investigate the existence of indirect effects[2]. To test for our
which confirms convergent validity. In addition, as reported in indirect effects’ significance, we divide each respective
Table II, we find evidence of discriminant validity because the (standardized) indirect effect by its standard error and compare the
AVEs tend to be higher than the squared correlations between resulting ratio with the standard normal distribution to test its
the constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). significance (Bollen and Stine, 1990; MacKinnon et al., 1991).
39
Table II Discriminant validity of the measures

1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Corporate-level attributes 0.715
2 Consumer benefits 0.738 0.680
3 Controlled communication 0.183 0.091 0.697
4 Uncontrolled communication 0.303 0.183 0.716 0.537
5 Consumer satisfaction 0.696 0.865 0.085 0.135 0.667
6 Consumer brand loyalty 0.643 0.687 0.192 0.378 0.676 0.667
Composite reliability 0.952 0.936 0.872 0.694 0.857 0.857
Note: Values on the main diagonal are the average variances extracted, values below the diagonal are the squared correlations
Results and discussion nor consumer benefits seem to directly influence long-term
psychological and behavioral responses from consumers,
The estimated direct and indirect effects of the hypothesized
measured through consumer brand loyalty. This finding
relationships in the path models are reported in Table III.
contradicts previous studies that found corporate-level attributes
H1 posited a positive direct association between corporate-
to be critical in determining its success (Brown, 1998).
level attributes and consumer satisfaction (H1a) and consumer
Next, H3, which predicted a positive association between
brand loyalty (H1b). The results do not support H1b and provide
consumer satisfaction and consumer brand loyalty, is
only weak support for H1a ( b = 0.179†). H2 predicted a positive
supported by our analysis ( b = 0.614 ). This confirms
direct association between consumer benefits and consumer previous findings (Anderson et al., 1994; Day, 1994; Fornell,
satisfaction (H2a) and between consumer benefits and consumer 1992; Henning-Thurau and Klee, 1997). H4 predicted a
brand loyalty (H2b). While the results strongly support H2a (b = positive association between corporate-level attributes and
0.826), we do not find supportive evidence of H2b (b = 0.000). controlled communication (H4a) and between corporate-level
These findings reveal two interesting patterns: First, while attributes and uncontrolled communication (H4b). While the
consumer satisfaction seems to be influenced by both corporate- results are supportive of H4a ( b = 0.619 ), they make us
level attributes and consumer benefits, the latter is clearly more reject H4b ( b = 0.196). This suggests that controlled
effective in this regard. The reason for these rather weak results in communication tends to influence consumers’ corporate
terms of corporate-level attributes could be that both consumer attitudes and thereby shape their perceptions of corporate-level
benefits and consumer satisfaction refer to more concrete and attributes, more strongly than uncontrolled communication.
tangible aspects in relation to a vehicle purchase and ownership This pattern contradicts literature findings as to the prevalence
when compared with more abstract corporate-level attributes, and effectiveness of uncontrolled communications (e.g. media
which in turn implies a more natural link between these concepts. coverage, WOM) in shaping consumers’ attitudes and opinions
The positive link between the consumer benefit construct and of companies (see e.g. Chatura and Chanaka, 2014; Feng and
satisfaction is more in line with our expectations, as it, for Papatla, 2012). It also provides evidence against claims that the
example, confirms Belch and Belch’s (1987) finding that non- importance of controlled communications tends to decrease
boycotters’ product responses are affected more directly by (Kitchen, 2010; Kitchen and Schultz, 2009; Du et al., 2010;
product attributes than by corporate attributes (see also Brown Sen et al., 2009).
and Dacin, 1997, and Wan et al., 2016). This finding implies that We moreover reject H5 – which postulated a positive
brand benefits should be enhanced and maintained by corporate relationship between consumer benefits and controlled
brand communication and corporate dealer networks. The communication (H5a) and between consumer benefits and
second pattern we find is that neither corporate-level attributes uncontrolled communication (H5b) – because of insignificant
Table III Standardized direct and indirect effects

Corporate-level Consumer Controlled Uncontrolled Consumer
attributes benefits communication communication satisfaction
Controlled communication DE 0.619 0.233
Uncontrolled communication DE 0.196 0.035
Consumer satisfaction DE 0.179 0.826 0.155 0.219
IE 0.659 0.005
Via CC/UC Via CC/UC
Consumer brand loyalty DE 0.101 0.000 0.261 0.562 0.614
IE 0.710 0.485
Via CC/UC/SAT Via CC/UC/
SAT
Notes: p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001; p < 0.1; One-tailed test. CC = controlled communication; UC = uncontrolled communication; DE = direct
effect; IE = indirect effect. SAT = consumer satisfaction. Both direct and indirect effects are standardized
40
direct effects. This somewhat surprisingly suggests that consumer satisfaction does not seem to require the same degree of
consumer corporate attitudes obtained through controlled and shaping of consumer corporate attitudes via controlled and
uncontrolled communication are not associated with their uncontrolled communication.
perceived functional, emotional and symbolic brand benefits – Our results moreover support previous research findings
which points to a lack of communication effectiveness. (Andreassen and Lindestad 1998a, 1998b; Hart and
H6 predicted that consumer corporate attitudes based on Rosenberger, 2004) that strong corporate image, and
controlled communication are positively related to consumer communication of that image, has an important impact on
satisfaction (H6a) and consumer brand loyalty (H6b). Our consumers’ attitudinal and behavioral responses. Arguably,
results do not lend support to these hypotheses given there is a need for managers to sustain core organizational
insignificant direct effects. We do, however, find supportive values in the eyes of end-consumers. The corporate brand
evidence of H7, which predicted a positive relationship between needs to become the central meaning that provides the basis for
consumer corporate attitudes based on uncontrolled identity programs and strategy of individual brand portfolios
communication and, on the one hand, consumer satisfaction (Kitchen and Schultz, 2003). Hence, we recommend
(H7a) and, on the other, consumer brand loyalty (H7b) given marketing managers of established corporations to stress
statistically significant direct effects ( b = 0.219† for H7a and functional, symbolic and emotional brand benefits through
b = 0.562 for H7b). This provides supportive evidence of the controlled communication channels in their quest to improve
effectiveness of uncontrolled communication in consumer brand loyalty, while at the same time attempting to influence
decision-making: It suggests that companies should track media uncontrolled communication channels by engaging in social
coverage and maintain favorable relationships with media and media consumer discussions and blogs.
other stakeholders that have the power to influence what This relates to another important finding of our study, namely
consumers feel, think and do in relation to the corporate brand. that uncontrolled communication appeared more influential on
The mediation hypotheses H8a and H9a are strongly consumer response than marketer-controlled sources. This calls
supported by our results. H8a posited that the relationship on communication practitioners to ensure consistency and clarity
between corporate-level attributes and consumer satisfaction is regarding their controlled communication activities as well as to
mediated by controlled and uncontrolled communication, influence uncontrolled communication to the extent possible. In
which is supported by a highly statistically significant indirect addition, our results point to the relative importance of controlled
effect on satisfaction via controlled and uncontrolled communication in influencing consumers’ corporate attitudes
communication ( b = 0.659 ). H9a postulated that the and in forming their perceptions of corporate-level attributes.
relationship between corporate-level attributes and consumer These finding echoes assertions of Balmer and Gray (1999),
brand loyalty is mediated by controlled and uncontrolled Eagle et al. (2007) and Kitchen and Schultz (2003) that
communication and consumer satisfaction, which, too, is communication needs to be viewed as a strategic tool for defining
supported by a highly statistically significant indirect effect the corporate brand.
between corporate attributes on loyalty ( b = 0.710 ). Based Overall, our findings imply that communications need to be
on these mediation hypothesis tests, we can conclude that while viewed as a strategic tool, which encompasses within corporate,
corporate-level attributes seem to matter in triggering marketing and uncontrolled communications (e.g. WOM,
consumer response (see e.g. Brown, 1998), there are mediating media interpretations and competitors’ comments). Corporate
processes involved including consumer corporate attitudes branding, particularly in the car industry is a complex
shaped by controlled and uncontrolled communication. undertaking, which involves careful and proactive management
Looking at the tests results of the mediation hypotheses H8b of tangible and intangible brand elements at a strategic level as
and H9b, we reject H8b because of insignificant indirect effects well as at the level of integrated marketing communications.
for the relationship between consumer benefits and consumer Discerning consumers are looking to be inspired and surprised
satisfaction ( b = 0.005), whereas we find support for H9b as they try to build an emotional bond with the cars they drive,
given highly statistically indirect effects for the link between which goes beyond customary performance and fuel efficiently.
consumer benefits on consumer brand loyalty ( b = 0.485 ). Consumers are looking for deeper connections with their
This again points to the substantial importance of mediating vehicles, and this is greatly affecting both how purchase
mechanisms in inducing in particular more long-term decisions are made, and whether or not brand loyalty is formed.
consumer response in the form of brand loyalty. Such
mechanisms include the shaping of consumer corporate Research limitations
attitudes through controlled and uncontrolled communication.
Having a larger number of participating car manufacturers/
OEMs would have provided deeper insight, particularly in
Conclusions and implications terms of generalizability of our findings. A larger sample size
The empirical analysis bears important theoretical and practical would also improve our empirical model, which currently is not
implications. Controlled and uncontrolled forms of communication saturated with four degrees of freedom. In addition, the cross-
seem to matter in mediating the relationship between corporate- sectional nature of our data limits the information obtained to a
level attributes and consumer loyalty as well as between consumer single point in time. This might cause a potential endogeneity
benefits and consumer loyalty. This finding confirms Bhattacharya issue in the form of reverse causality between certain model
and Sen (2003) in that consumers’ response to corporate brands are variables. We therefore encourage future studies to work with
based on how they perceive a brand’s identity as derived through longitudinal data to reduce these endogeneity concerns.
controlled and uncontrolled communications. By contrast, Moreover, we encourage future studies to include other
41
mediating factors such as intrinsic factors in the research Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998b), “The effect of
framework. Moreover, mostly because of data limitations, the corporate image on in the formation of consumer loyalty”,
current study did not control for relevant demographics and Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 82-92.
consumer-related features (e.g. income, amount of time since Alwi, S.F.S. and Kitchen, P. (2014), “Projecting corporate
last purchase at that manufacturer, money spent on car). We brand image and behavioral response in business schools:
therefore encourage future research in this field to include such cognitive or affective brand attributes?”, Journal of Business
control variables in the analysis. Finally, our multiple Research, Vol. 67 No. 11, pp. 2324-2336.
mediation analysis in line with Preacher and Hayes (2008) Anisimova, T. (2007), “The effects of corporate brand
implied investigating total indirect effects. We encourage future attributes on attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty”,
studies to refine this analysis by testing hypotheses regarding Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 395-405.
individual mediators in the context of a multiple mediator Anisimova, T. (2010), “Corporate brand: the company-
model, that is, future studies should investigate the specific customer misalignment and its performance implications”,
indirect effect related to each individual mediator. This would Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 488 -503.
yield more thorough theoretical implications while at the same Anisimova, T. (2015), “Brand communication using symbolic
time providing corporate managers with more useful brand values: implications for consumer satisfaction and
information regarding the relative mediating importance of loyalty”, Academy of Marketing Conference, 7-10 July 2015,
each respective communication type. University of Limerick.
Anisimova, T. and Mavondo, F. (2014), “Aligning company
and dealer perspectives in corporate branding: implications
Notes for dealer satisfaction and commitment”, Journal of Business-
1 Word-of-mouth can be defined as “any information about to-Business Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 35-56.
a target object (e.g. company, brand) transferred from one Autocar (2017), “The end of car production in Australia – what
individual to another either in person or via some went wrong”, Autocar, October, available at: www.autocar.
communication medium” (Brown et al., 2005, p. 125). co.uk (accessed 15 October 2017).
Bagozzi, R.P. (1986), Principles of Marketing Management,
2 When testing for mediation, we ran competing models, one
Science Research Associates, Chicago.
containing the mediated relationship and one without it. We
Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “Corporate identity, corporate
then compared their fit. The alternative model without
branding and corporate marketing: seeing through the fog”,
mediators had the following fit indices: Chi-square =
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3/4, pp. 248-291.
616.514; df = 165; CMin/df = 3.736; GFI = 0.876, AGFI =
Balmer, J.M.T. (2010), “Explicating corporate brands and
0.721, NFI = 0.876, TLI = 0.891; CFI = 0.905; and
their management: reflections and directions from 1995”,
RMSEA = 0.108. This was worse than the model with
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 180-196.
mediators. Moreover, the alternative model specified this
Balmer, J.M.T. (2012), “Strategic corporate brand alignment:
way was inconsistent with the aims and conceptualization of
perspectives from identity based views of corporate brands”,
the research. In addition, we performed an alternative model
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8, pp. 1064-1092.
by reversing the direction of the relationships to test for a
Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (1999), “Corporate identity
competing model. As reported, this also had significantly
and corporate communications: creating a competitive
poorer fit measures and was not consistent with the literature
advantage”, Corporate Communications: An International
review. This suggested that the model as conceptualized and
Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 171-177.
operationalized was superior to rival models.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E. (2003), “Corporate brands: what
are they? What of them?”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 972-997.
References Bambauer-Sachse, S. and Mangold, S. (2011), “Brand equity
Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products dilution through negative online word-of-mouth
and markets”, California Management Review, Vol. 38, communication”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
pp. 102-120. Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-45.
Aaker, D. (2004), “Leveraging the corporate brand”, California Barclay, A. (2017), “This is the last year a car will be made in
Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 6-26. Australia”, Quartz Media, April, available at: qz.com
Alvarez, M. and Campo, S. (2011), “Controllable versus (accessed 17 October 2017).
uncontrollable information sources: effects on the image of Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator
Turkey”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 13 distinction in social psychological research: conceptual,
No. 4, pp. 310-323. strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality
Anderson, E., Fornell, C. and Lehman, D. (1994), “Customer and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
satisfaction, market share, and profitability: findings from Bartikowski, B. and Walsh, G. (2011), “Investigating
Sweden”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 53-66. mediators between corporate reputation and consumer
Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998a), “Consumer citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64
loyalty and complex services: the impact of corporate image on No. 1, pp. 39-44.
quality, consumer satisfaction and loyalty for consumers with Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (1987), “The application of an
varying degrees of service expertise”, International Journal of expectancy value operationalization of function theory to
Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-23. examine attitudes of boycotters and nonboycotters of a
42
consumer product”, in Wallendorf, M. and Anderson, P.F. Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service
(Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, Association quality: a re-examination and extension”, Journal of
for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 232-236. Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (2014), “Advertising and Dacin, P. and Brown, T. (2006), “Corporate branding,
Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications identity, and customer response”, Journal of Academy of
Perspective, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 95-98.
Berens, G. and van Rekom, J. (2008), “How specific should Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2002), “Gaps between the internal
corporate communication be? The role of advertising language and external perceptions of the corporate brand”, Corporate
in establishing a corporate reputation for CSR”, in Melewar, Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 144-158.
T.C. (Ed.), Facets of Corporate Identity, Communication and Davies, G., Chun, R., Vinhas da Silva, R. and Roper, S.
Reputation, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, pp. 96-121. (2004), “A corporate character scale to assess employee and
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998), “Symbolic and functional customer views of organization reputation”, Corporate
positioning of brands”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Reputation Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 125-146.
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43. Davidow, M. (2003), “Have you heard the word? The effect of
Bhattacharya, C. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company word of mouth on perceived justice, satisfaction, and repurchase
identification: a framework for understanding consumers’ intentions following complaint handling”, Journal of Satisfaction,
relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behaviour, Vol. 16, pp. 67-80.
No. 2, pp. 76-88. Day, G.S. (1994), “The capabilities of market-driven
Bollen, K.A. and Stine, R. (1990), “Direct and indirect effects: organizations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 37-52.
classical and bootstrap estimates of variability”, Sociological de Chernatony, L., Dall’Olmo, R.F. and Harris, F. (1998),
Methodology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 115-140. “Criteria to assess brand success”, Journal of Marketing
Brown, B. (1998), “Do stock market investors reward Management, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 765 -781.
companies with reputations for social performance?”, Dick, A. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: towards an
Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 271-280. integrated framework”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Brown, T. and Dacin, P. (1997), “The company and Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D. and Christian, L.M. (2009),
the product: corporate associations and consumer
Internet, Mail and Mixed-mode Surveys: The Tailored Design
product responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1,
Method, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
pp. 68-84.
Donovan, R.J. and Rossiter, J.E. (1982), “Store atmosphere:
Brown, T., Barry, T., Dacin, P. and Gunst, R. (2005),
an environmental psychology approach”, Journal of Retailing,
“Spreading the word: investigating antecedents of consumers’
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 34-57.
positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviours in a
Dowling, G. (1986), “Managing your corporate image”,
retailing context”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 109-115.
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 123-138.
Doyle, P. (1998), Marketing Management and Strategy, Prentice
Caruana, A. and Ewing, M.T. (2010), “How corporate
Hall, London.
reputation, quality, and value influence online loyalty”, Journal
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2010), “Maximizing
of Business Research, Vol. 63 Nos 9/10, pp. 1103-1110. business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): the
Chang, H.J., Eckman, M. and Yan, R.N. (2011), “Application of role of CSR communication”, International Journal of
the stimulus-organism-response model to the retail Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 8-19.
environment: the role of hedonic motivation in impulse buying Duncan, T. and Everett, S. (1993), “Client perceptions of
behavior”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and integrated marketing communications”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 233-249. Advertising Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 30-39.
Chang, A., Chiang, H.H. and Han, T.S. (2015), “Investigating Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S. (1997), Driving Brand Value:
the dual-route effects of corporate branding on brand equity”, using Integrated Marketing to Manage Profitable Stakeholder
Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 120-129. Relationships, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Chatterjee, P. (2001), Online Reviews: do Consumers Use Them? In Eagle, L.C., Kitchen, P.J. and Blumer, S. (2007), “Insights
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 28, in Gilly, M.C. and into interpreting integrated marketing communications: a
Myers-Levy, J. (Eds), Association for Consumer Research, two-nation qualitative comparison”, European Journal of
Valdosta, GA, pp. 129-133. Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 7/8, pp. 956-970.
Chatura, R. and Chanaka, J. (2014), “Talk up or criticize? East, R., Hammond, K. and Lomax, W. (2008), “Measuring
Customer responses to WOM about competitors during the impact of positive and negative word of mouth on brand
social interactions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 purchase probability”, International Journal of Research in
No. 12, pp. 2645-2656. Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 215-224.
Chun, R. and Davies, G. (2006), “The influence of corporate Edvardsson, B. (2005), “Service quality: beyond cognitive
character on consumers and employees: exploring assessment”, Managing Service Quality: An International
similarities and differences”, Journal of the Academy of Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 127-131.
Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 138-146. Einwiller, S. and Boenigk, M. (2011), “Examining the link
Churchill, G. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better between integrated communication management and
measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of Marketing communication effectiveness in medium-sized enterprises”,
Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73. Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 17, pp. 1-27.
43
Ennew, C.T., Banerjee, A.K. and Li, D. (2000), “Managing retention: a critical reassessment and model development”,
word of mouth communication: empirical evidence from Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 737-764.
India”, The International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 18 Hogan, S., Almquist, E. and Glynn, S. (2005), “Brand
No. 2, pp. 75-83. building: finding the touch points that count”, Journal of
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A. and Davis, L.M. (2003), Business Strategy, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 11-18.
“Empirical testing of a model of online store atmospherics Homburg, C. and Giering, A. (2001), “Personal characteristics
and shopper responses”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 20 as moderators of the relationship between consumer
No. 2, pp. 139-150. satisfaction and loyalty – an empirical analysis”, Psychology
Ewing, M. (2009), “Integrated marketing communications and Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-66.
measurement and evaluation”, Journal of Marketing Hong, S.Y. and Rim, H. (2010), “The influence of consumer
Communications, Vol. 15 Nos 2/3, pp. 103-117. use of corporate websites: corporate social responsibility,
Feng, J. and Papatla, P. (2012), “Is online word of mouth trust, and word-of-mouth communication”, Public Relations
higher for new models or redesigns? An investigation of the Review, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 389-391.
automobile industry”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Hossain, M.T. and Chonko, L.B. (2017), “Relational
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 92-101. communication and illusionary loyalty: moderating role of
Finne, Å. and Grönroos, C. (2009), “Rethinking marketing self-construal”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 69,
communication: from integrated marketing communication pp. 221-234.
to relationship communication”, Journal of Marketing Hsieh, M.H., Pan, S.L. and Setiono, R. (2004), “Product,
Communications, Vol. 15 Nos 2/3, pp. 179-195. corporate and country-image dimensions and purchase
Fornell, C. (1992), “A national consumer satisfaction behavior: a multicountry analysis”, Journal of the Academy of
barometer: the Swedish experience”, Journal of Marketing, Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 251-270.
Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 6-21. Hulberg, J. (2006), “Integrating corporate branding and
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural sociological paradigms: a literature study”, Journal of Brand
equation models with unobservable variables and Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 60-73.
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 Ind, N. (1997), The Corporate Brand, Macmillan, London.
No. 1, pp. 39-50. Ittner, C.D. and Larcker, D.F. (1998), “Are nonfinancial
Goff, B.G., Boles, J.S., Bellenger, D.N. and Stojack, C. (1997), measures leading indicators for financial performance? An
“The influence of salesperson selling behaviors on customer analysis of customer satisfaction”, Journal of Accounting
satisfaction with products”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 Research, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 21-35.
No. 2, pp. 171-183. Jacoby, J. (2002), “Stimulus-organism-response
Grace, D. and O’Cass, A. (2005), “Examining the effects of reconsidered: an evolutionary step in modeling
service brand communications on brand evaluation”, (Consumer) behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 51-57.
pp. 106-116. Jacoby, J. and Kyner, D.B. (1973), “Brand loyalty vs repeat
Gregory, A. (2007), “Involving stakeholder in developing purchasing behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10
corporate brands: the communication dimension”, Journal of No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Marketing Management, Vol. 23 Nos 1/2, pp. 59-73. Jamal, A. and Naser, K. (2002), “Customer satisfaction and
Grönroos, C. and Lindberg-Repo, K. (1998), “Integrated retail banking: an assessment of some of the key antecedents
marketing communications: the communications aspect of of customer satisfaction in retail banking”, International
relationship marketing”, Integrated Marketing Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 146-160.
Communications Research Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 3-11. Joubert, J.P.R. and Poalses, J. (2012), “What’s in a name? The
Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2001), “Corporate branding effect of a brand name on consumers’ evaluation of fresh
and corporate brand performance”, European Journal of milk”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 36
Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 441-456. No. 4, pp. 425-431.
Hart, A.E. and Rosenberger, P.J. III. (2004), “The effects of Kapferer, J.N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management, 2nd ed.,
corporate image in the formation of consumer loyalty: an Kogan Page, London.
Australian replication”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Keller, K.L. (2003), “Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 88-96. of brand knowledge”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2003), “Bringing the corporation No. 4, pp. 595-560.
into corporate branding”, European Journal of Marketing, Kempf, D.S. and Smith, R.E. (1998), “Consumer processing
Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1041-1064. of product trial and the influence of prior advertising: a
He, H. and Li, Y. (2011), “CSR and service Brand: the structural modeling approach”, Journal of Marketing
mediating effect of brand identification and moderating Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 325-338, available at: http://dx.
effect of service quality”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 100 doi.org/10.2307/3152031
No. 4, pp. 673-688. Kimmel, A.J. and Kitchen, P.J. (2014), “WOM and social
He, H., Li, Y. and Harris, L. (2012), “Social identity media: presaging future directions for research and practice”,
perspective on brand loyalty”, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 20 Nos 1/2,
Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 648-657. pp. 5-20.
Henning-Thurau, T. and Klee, A. (1997), “The impact of Kitchen, P.J. (Ed.), (2010), Integrated Brand Marketing and
customer satisfaction and relationship quality on customer Measuring Returns, Palgrave-Macmillan, Basingstoke.
44
Kitchen, P. and Schultz, D.E. (2003), “Integrated corporate Moldovan, S., Goldenberg, J. and Chattopadhyay, A. (2011),
and product brand communication”, Advances in “The different roles of product originality and usefulness in
Competitiveness Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 66-86. generating word-of-mouth”, International Journal of Research
Kitchen, P.J. and Schultz, D.E. (2009), “IMC: new horizon/ in Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 109-119.
false dawn for a marketplace in turmoil?”, Journal of Moon, S.J., Costello, J.P. and Koo, D.M. (2016), “The impact
Marketing Communications, Vol. 15 Nos 2/3, pp. 197-204. of consumer confusion from eco-labels on negative WOM,
Knox, S. and Bickerton, D. (2003), “The six conventions of distrust, and dissatisfaction”, International Journal of
corporate branding”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 246-271.
Nos 7/8, pp. 998-1016. Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment –
LaBarbera, P.A. and Mazursky, D. (1983), “A longitudinal trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing,
assessment of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction: the Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
dynamic aspect of the cognitive process”, Journal of Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M. (2006), “Corporate rebranding:
Marketing Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 393-404. destroying, transferring or creating brand equity?”, European
Lai, F., Griffin, M. and Babin, B.J. (2009), “How quality, value, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 No. 7/8, pp. 803-824.
image, and satisfaction create loyalty at a chinese telecom”, Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 10, pp. 980-986. Consumer, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Lindgreen, A., Xu, Y., Maon, F. and Wilcock, J. (2012), Oliver, R.L. (2006), “Consumer satisfaction research”, in
“Corporate social responsibility brand leadership: a multiple Grover, R. and Vriens, M. (Eds), The Handbook of Marketing
case study”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8, Research, Chapter 27, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
pp. 965-993. Peng, C. and Kim, Y.G. (2014), “Application of the stimuli-
Lloyd, S. and Woodside, A. (2013), “Corporate brand-rapture organism-response (S-O-R) framework to online shopping
theory: antecedents, processes, and consequences”, Marketing behavior”, Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 13 Nos 3/4,
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 472 -488. pp. 159-176.
Lovett, M.J. and Staelin, R. (2016), “The role of paid, earned, Percy, L. (2008), Strategic Integrated Marketing Communications,
and owned media in building entertainment brands: Routledge, New York, NY.
reminding, Informing, and enhancing enjoyment”, Petty, R., Priester, J. and Brinol, P. (2002), “Mass media
Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 142-157. attitude change: implications of the elaboration likelihood
Lukas, B.A., Hair, J.F., Brush, R.P. and Ortinau, D.J. (2004), model of persuasion”, in Bryant, J. and Zillmann, D. (Eds),
Marketing Research, McGraw Hill, Sydney. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2nd ed.,
McCombs, M. and Reynolds, A. (2002), “News influence on Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 155-198.
our pictures of the world”, in Bryant, J. and Zillmann, D. Plassmann, H., Ramsøy, T.Z. and Milosavljevic, M. (2012),
(Eds), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2nd “Branding the brain – a critical review and outlook”, Journal
ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 1-18. of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 18-36.
McLeod, J. and Reeves, B. (1980), “On the nature of mass Pomering, A. (2011), “Responsibility through corporate image
media effects”, in Withey, S. and Abeles, R. (Eds), Television advertising”, in Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J.L. and May, S. (Eds),
and Social Behaviour: Beyond Violence and Children, Erlbaum, The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social
Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 17-54. Responsibility, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 379-398.
MacKinnon, D.P., Cheong, J.W. and Pirlott, A.G. (2012), Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and
“Statistical mediation analysis”, in Cooper, H., Camic, resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect
P.M., Long, D.L., Panter, A.T., Rindskopf, D. and Sher, effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research
K.J. (Eds), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Methods, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Vol. 2, Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Quester, P. and Lim, A. (2003), “Product involvement/brand
Neuropsychological, and Biological, American Psychological loyalty: is there a link?”, Journal of Product & Brand
Association, Washington, DC, pp. 313-331. Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 22-38.
MacKinnon, D.P., Johnson, C.A., Pentz, M.A., Dwyer, J.H., Robin, M. and Redrup, Y. (2014), “Ask the economists: will
Hansen, W.B., Flay, B.R. and Wang, E.Y.I. (1991), the loss of car-making drive us to recession?”, Crikey:
“Mediating mechanisms in a school-based drug prevention independent media, independent minds, 11 February.
program: first-year effects of the midwestern prevention Rody, M. (2014), “Case study: automotive industry exerts
project”, Health Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 164-172. heavy impact”, New Straits Times, 21 May.
Malhotra, N., Hall, J., Shaw, M. and Oppenheim, P. (2002), Samli, C., Kelly, A.P. and Hunt, K. (1998), “Improving the
Marketing Research, Prentice Hall, Sydney. retail performance by contrasting management-and consumer-
Melewar, T.C., Gotsi, M. and Andriopoulos, C. (2012), perceived store images: a diagnostic tool for corrective action”,
“Shaping the research agenda for corporate branding: Journal of Business Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 27-38.
avenues for future research”, European Journal of Marketing, Schindler, R. and Bickart, B. (2005), “Published word of
Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 600-608. mouth: Referable, consumer-generated information on the
Mohr, J.J. and Spekman, R.E. (1994), “Characteristics of internet”, in Haugtvedt, C.P., Machleit, K.A. and Yalch,
partnership success: partnership attributes, communication R.F. (Eds), Online Consumer Psychology: Understanding and
behavior and conflict resolution techniques”, Strategic Influencing Consumer Behaviour in the Virtual World, Lawrence
Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 135-152. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 35-61.
45
Schult, F., Ultz, S. and Goritz, A. (2011), “Is the medium the Urde, M. (2016), “The brand core and its management over
message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication time”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 Issue
via twitter, blogs and traditional media”, Publics Relations No. 1, pp. 26-42.
Review, Vol. 37, pp. 20-27. Van Hoye, G. and Lievens, F. (2005), “Recruitment-Related
Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), “Does doing good information sources and organizational attractiveness: can
always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate something be done about negative publicity?”, International
social responsibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 13 No. 3,
May, pp. 225-243. pp. 179-187.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. and Korchun, D. (2006), “The Veloutsou, C. (2015), “Brand evaluation, satisfaction and trust
role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening as predictors of brand loyalty: the mediator-moderator effect
multiple stakeholder relationships: a field experiment”, of brand relationships”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 405-421.
pp. 158-116. Wallpach, S. and Woodside, A. (2009), “Business-to-business
Sen, S., Du, S. and Bhattacharya, C. (2009), “Building brand brand management: theory, research and executive case
relationships through corporate social responsibility”, In study exercises”, Advances in Business Marketing and
Handbook of Brand Relationships, Taylor and Francis, Purchasing, Vol. 15, pp. 389-428. .
New York, NY, pp. 195-211. Walsh, G., Mitchell, V.-W., Jackson, P. and Beatty, S.E.
Sherman, E., Mathur, A. and Smith, R.B. (1997), “Store (2009), “Examining the antecedents and consequences of
environment and consumer purchase behavior: mediating corporate reputation: a customer perspective”, British
role of consumer emotions”, Psychology and Marketing, Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 187-203.
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 361-378. Wan, L.C., Poon, P.S. and Yu, C. (2016), “Consumer
Siano, A. and Palazzo, M. (2015), “Tetra Pak Italy’s ingredient reactions to corporate social responsibility brands: the role of
branding: an exploratory case of strategic communication”, face concern”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1,
Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 52-60.
pp. 102-116. Whelan, S., Davies, G., Walsh, M. and Bourke, R. (2010),
Singh, T., Veron-Jackson, L. and Cullinane, J. (2008), “Public sector corporate branding and customer
“Blogging: a new play in your marketing game plan”, orientation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 11,
Business Horizons, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 281-292. pp. 1164-1171.
Sweeney, J. and Soutar, G. (2001), “Consumer perceived Wilson, A. (2002), “Attitude towards customer satisfaction
value: the development of multiple item scale”, Journal of measurement in the retail sector”, International Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-220. Market Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 213-248.
Sunil, G., Lehmann, D. and Stuart, J. (2004), “Valuing Woodworth, R.S. (1928), “Dynamic psychology”, in
customers”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, Murchison, C. (Ed.), Psychologies of 1925, Clark University
pp. 7-18. Press, Worcester, MA, 111-126.
Swanson, S.R. and Kelley, S.W. (2001), “Attributions Yeung, M. and Ennew, C.T. (2000), “From customer
and outcomes of the service recovery process”, Journal satisfaction to profitability”, Journal of Strategic Marketing,
of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9 No. 4, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 313-326.
pp. 50-65. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The
Taylor, A.B., MacKinnon, D.P. and Tein, J.-Y. (2008), “Tests behavorial consequences of service quality”, Journal of
of the three-path mediated effect”, Organizational Research Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Method, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 241-269. Zhao, X., Flynn, B.B. and Roth, A.V. (2006), “Decision
Toner, P. (2014), “Losing the car industry means we risk our sciences research in China: a critical review and research
technology”, The Conversation, available at: http:// agenda – foundations and overview”, Decision Science,
theconversation.com/losing-the-car-industry-means-we-risk- Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 451-496.
our-technology-23082 (accessed 2 December 2015). Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G., Jr. and Chen, Q. (2010),
Tournois, L. (2015), “Does the value manufacturers (brands) “Reconsidering baron and kenny: myths and truths about
create translate into enhanced reputation? A multi-sector mediation analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37
examination of the value–satisfaction–loyalty–reputation No. 2, pp. 197-206.
chain”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 26,
pp. 83-96.
Further reading
Uncles, M.D., Dowling, G.R. and Hammond, K. (2003),
“Customer loyalty and customer loyalty programs”, Journal Dwyer, R., Schurr, P. and Oh, S. (1987), “Developing buyer/
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 294-316. seller relationship”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2,
Urde, M. (2003), “Core value-based corporate brand pp. 11-27.
building”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, Fornell, C., Johnson, M., Anderson, E., Cha, J. and Bryant, B.
pp. 1017-1040. (1996), “The American consumer satisfaction index: nature,
Urde, M. (2009), “Uncovering the corporate brand’s core values”, purpose, and findings”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4,
Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 616-638. pp. 7-18.
46
Appendix
Table AI Overview of theory-based corporate brand constructs and initial survey items
Construct Items Source
Corporate activities. Please indicate to what extent you associate the car manufacturer with each of the following activities (Likert scale ranging from 1 “not at all” to 7 “to a
very great extent”)
Social activities Sponsorships of worthy social activities in Australia In-depths interviews; Brown and Dacin (1997);
Family-oriented activities Sen and Bhattacharaya (2001)
Support for higher education
The Australian outback
Innovative activities Strong support of research into new technology
Healthier environment
Providing consumer-specific motoring solutions
Sports sponsorships Sponsorships of Motor Sports
Formula One Grand Prix Racing
National Rally Championships
Corporate associations. Please indicate to what extent you see the car manufacturer as (Likert scale ranging from 1 “not at all” to 7 “to a very great extent”)
A good corporate citizen In-depths interviews; Walsh et al. (2009); Sen
A successful auto manufacturer and Bhattacharaya (2001); Brown and Dacin
A company at the forefront of technology (1997)
A manufacturer of outstanding cars
The most respected auto company in Australia
An auto manufacturer with strong environmental awareness
A manufacturer of stylish cars
A committed player in the Australian automotive market
Corporate values. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the car manufacturer stands for the following (Likert scale ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly
agree)”
Constant improvement Integrity in work and deed In-depths interviews; Aaker (2004); Urde (2003)
Costumer first
Dependability
Respect for the individual
Continuous product improvement
Constant innovation
Social conscience Strong community orientation
Ecologically responsible motoring
Corporate brand personality. Please indicate to what extent each of the following characteristics describes the car manufacturer (Likert scale ranging from 1 “not at all” to 7
“to a very great extent”)
Confident Inspiring In-depths interviews; Aaker (1996), Davies and
Spirited Chun (2002), Davies et al. (2004)
Bold
Challenging
Simple elegance
Aggressive
Progressive Technologically advanced
Ambitious
Exciting
Up-to-date
Sporty
Open Genuine
Intelligent
Leading
Reliable Socially responsible
Cooperative
Trustworthy
Social Conscience Strong community orientation
Ecologically responsible motoring
Functional brand benefits. Please indicate to what extent the car manufacturer provides you with each of the following customer-sought benefits (Likert scale ranging from 1
“not at all” to 7 “to a very great extent”)
Advanced technology Engineering excellence In-depths interviews; Sweeney and Soutar
Aesthetically appealing car features (2001); Hsieh et al. (2004)
Peace of mind associated with high safety vehicles
High re-sale value
Value for money Value for money
Fuel efficiency
Motoring comfort
‘On the road performance’ Road-handling excellence
Outstanding performance
Choice variety Functional reliability
The broadest choice of car models in Australia
(continued)
47
Table AI
Emotional brand benefits. Please indicate to what extent the car manufacturer provides you with the following (Likert scale ranging from 1 “not at all” to 7 “to a very great
extent”)
Joy of owning the car In-depths interviews; Sweeney and Soutar
A sense of a peace of mind (2001); Hsieh et al. (2004)
Youthful spirit
A feeling of adventure
A sense of connection between the driver and the road
A sense of freedom
A sense of contentment
Driving pleasure
Symbolic brand benefits. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree that owning and driving one of the car manufacturer’s vehicles allows you to (Likert scale
ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree)”
Look successful In-depths interviews; Sweeney and Soutar
Look stylish (2001; Hsieh et al. (2004); Bhatt and Reddy
Stand out in a crowd (1998)
Enhance your personal image
Get social approval
Make a good impression on other people
Express your personality
Enhance your status
Controlled communications. Please indicate to what extent each of the following means of communication and activities of the car manufacturer with customers shaped your
attitudes toward the car manufacturer (Likert scale ranging from 1 “not at all” to 7 “to a very great extent”)
Audio-visual advertising TV advertising In-depths interviews; Balmer and Gray (1999),
Outdoor advertising Duncan and Moriarty (1997)
Radio advertising
The Internet
Printed media Direct mail
National newspapers
Local newspapers
Motoring magazines
Industry advertising Dealer advertising
Trade show
Wheels Car of the Year Competition
Sponsorships Sponsorships of national sports
National Tree Day
Music festivals
Uncontrolled communications. Please indicate to what extent each of the following communications provided by sources other than the car manufacturer shaped your
attitudes toward the car manufacturer (Likert scale ranging from 1 “not at all” to 7 “to a very great extent”)
Word of Mouth (WOM) Friends In-depths interviews; Balmer and Gray (1999);
Relatives Eberle, Berens, and Li (2013)
Acquaintances
Work colleagues
Independent press Entertainment press
Comments made by informed commentators
Comments from the industry competitors
Consumer satisfaction. Please indicate to what extent you are satisfied or dissatisfied with the following aspects of buying one of the car manufacturer’s vehicles or with the
following after sales services offered by the car manufacturer (Likert scale ranging from 1 “very dissatisfied” to 7 “very satisfied”)
Consumer satisfaction with the Range of models Goff et al. (1997); Jamal and Naser (2002)
vehicle acquisition Vehicle performance
Exterior design
Interior features
Driving safety
Fuel economy
Consumer satisfaction with the Proving customized motoring solutions
customized solutions Financing the vehicle
The delivery timing
Consumer satisfaction with the Assistance on the operator’s manual
vehicle maintenance Accuracy in diagnostics of repair needs
Availability of spare parts
Advice of frequency of servicing
Ease of servicing
Honouring the warranty claims
Proximity of dealerships for servicing the car
Completeness of services offered
(continued)
48
Table AI
Consumer loyalty. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following statements (Likert scale ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly
agree)”
Affective loyalty I feel attached to X brand Quester and Lim (2003)
I have strong confidence in x brand Zeithaml et al. (1996)
I deal with X brand because I have a positive relationship with this brand
I am pleased to be associated with X brand
I am proud to own X brand
Cognitive loyalty I pay a lot of attention to what happens to X brand
I keep on dealing with X brand as long as it is beneficial to me
I consider X brand my first choice when thinking about purchasing another car
Intention and action loyalty I encourage my friends and relatives to buy this brand
I say positive things about brand X
I recommend X brand to others who seek my advice
I would pay a higher price for the benefits I currently receive from X brand
I intend to stay with my present X dealership
I would switch away from X brand
About the authors Jan Weiss an Assistant Professor in Industrial

Management and Economy, at Jönköping University’s
Tatiana Anisimova is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the School of Engineering, Jönköping, Sweden. His research
Department of Marketing, Linnaeus University, School of Business interests include Business Economics and Consumer
and Economics. Anisimova holds PhD in Marketing from Monash Behavior.
University, Australia. She has published her research articles in
peer-reviewed journals and international conference proceedings. Dr Felix Mavondo is a Professor of Marketing at the Faculty
Her main research interests lie in the areas of Consumer Marketing, of Business Economis at Monash University, Australia. His
brand Management and Integrated Marketing Communications. research interests include Strategic Marketing and branding,
Anisimova Tatiana is the corresponding author and can be Advanced Quantitative Methods and Relationship
contacted at: anisimovata@gmail.com Marketing.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
49

Anisimova - Et - Al - 2019 - Journal of Consumer Marketing PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anisimova - Et - Al - 2019 - Journal of Consumer Marketing PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anisimova - Et - Al - 2019 - Journal of Consumer Marketing PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The inﬂuence of corporate brand perceptions

on consumer satisfaction and loyalty via

Introduction in terms of scope: it involves promoting entire companies as

Journal of Consumer Marketing

H6. Consumers’ corporate attitudes based on controlled H4a

Table II Discriminant validity of the measures

Table III Standardized direct and indirect effects

About the authors Jan Weiss an Assistant Professor in Industrial

You might also like