Towards a new understanding of brand Received

15th February 2016

authenticity: seeing through the lens of

Revised
24th March 2016
Accepted
millennials 7th November 2016

Simonetta Pattuglia - Michela Mingione

Abstract

Purpose of the paper: The purpose of this study is to explore millennials’

perceptions of brand authenticity in relation to their experience with well-established
brands.
Methodology: This study pursues a mixed approach, applying survey and focus
groups as research methods. The quantitative study used cluster analysis to verify the
differences and homogeneity of millennials’ brand authenticity perceptions of well-
established Italian brands (Vespa, Peroni and Cinecittà Studios). Then, it goes on to
explain and explore the quantitative findings, focus groups revealed how and why
millennials judged these brands to be (in)authentic.
Findings: Four clusters of millennials (i.e., the Engaged, the Cheated, the
Believer, and the Skeptics) emerged, each ascribing a specific hierarchy to brand
authenticity attributes. In contrast, qualitative results show a transversal construct
that unify millennials’ quest for authenticity, namely coherence (i.e., coherency over
time, coherency between brand promise and its delivery, and coherency between the
brand identity and the consumers’ identity).
Research limits: This study only considers millennials and well-established
brands. Therefore, the specific sample of respondents and brands might limit the
generalizability of findings.
Practical implications: Managers should invest on millennials, paying careful
attention to the misalignment of brand values over time and to gaps between brand
promise and its delivery. In fact, being the “Digital generation” millennials have a
tremendous power in legitimating or de-legitimating the authenticity of brands,
especially through e-WOM.
Originality of the paper: This study suggests a shift from a historically-based
approach to a more holistic one that takes into account the multifaceted nature of
brand authenticity related to its quest for coherency.

Key words: brand authenticity; millennials; Italian brands; brand coherence

1. Introduction

Brand authenticity can be considered as one of the “cornerstones of

contemporary marketing” (Brown et al., 2003), a response to current
trends of hyperreality and globalness (Arnould and Price, 2000; Ballantyne
et al., 2006), and a new business imperative of the experience economy

35
sinergie
italian journal of management
(Gilmore and Pine, 2007). Being a socially constructed phenomenon,
several scholars have claimed that brand authenticity has the power to
Vol. 35, N. 103, 2017 legitimize a brand within its context (Grayson and Martinec, 2004; Rose
and Wood, 2005; Beverland, 2006; Thompson et al., 2006; Beverland et
al., 2008, 2010). Concordantly, Aitken and Campelo (2011) underlined the
importance of customers in engaging in the brand community and in co-
creating brand meanings (Bertilsson and Cassinger, 2011). Nevertheless,
non-customers might also have a crucial role in the construction of brand
meanings, especially when they reject brands that are considered not
authentic, generate brand avoidance through anti-branding communities,
and diffuse a negative doppelganger of the brand image (Holt, 2002;
Gustafsson, 2006; Thompson et al., 2006).
In particular, the new generation of millennials (i.e., the cohort born
between 1982 and 2000, Howe and Strauss, 2000) plays a relevant role in
creating brand communities that might sustain or reject brands depending
on the perceived brand authenticity (Lantos, 2014), which could undermine
the legitimization of well established brands. In addition, the construct of
brand authenticity has an objective dimension that is strongly linked to
the heritage of the company and related to the preservation of the brand’s
historical identity over time (Postrel, 2003; Grayson and Martinec, 2004;
Chhabra, 2005; Leigh et al., 2006; Fionda and Moore, 2009; Balmer, 2011;
Wiedmann et al., 2011; Napoli et al., 2014). This time-related dimension
of brand authenticity could be challenged by the millennials’ quest for
innovativeness, triggered by their daily use of technology and social media
(Raines, 2002; Tanner, 2010; Sashittal et al., 2015).
Drawing on the above, the aim of this study is to explore millennials’
perceptions of brand authenticity in relation to their experience with well-
established brands (Vespa, since 1946; Peroni since 1846; Cinecittà Studios
since 1937). In particular, we address the following research questions: Do
millennials share similar perceptions of brand authenticity? How and why
do millennials attribute (in)authenticity to a brand?
To answer to these questions, this study first explores the theoretical
background, highlighting current perspectives on brand authenticity.
Second, it offers a detailed methodology section, explaining the research
environment, research objectives and the adopted research methods.
Third, it encompasses two research stages: the first, which makes use of
a quantitative analysis to segment millennials’ perceptions on brand
authenticity using cluster analysis; and the second, which is based on
qualitative analysis (i.e., focus groups) to explain the results of the cluster
analysis, highlighting how and why millennials attributed (in)authenticity
to a brand. Finally, findings are discussed and future research avenues are
proposed.

2. Consumers’ perceptions on brand authenticity

The literature on brand authenticity presents several definitions, from

its early roots that contemplated authenticity as being strongly tied to an
object (Bendix, 1997) to later advancements that consider it as “a claim

36
that is made by or for someone, thing or performance and either accepted Simonetta Pattuglia
Michela Mingione
or rejected by relevant others” (Peterson, 2005, p. 1086), or “a socially Towards a new
understanding of brand
constructed interpretation of the essence of what is observed rather than authenticity: seeing through
the lens of millennials
inherent in an object” (Beverland and Farrelly, 2010, p. 839), and “A
subjective evaluation of genuineness ascribed to a brand by consumers”
(Napoli et al., 2014, p. 1091).
In general, scholars from this stream of literature have tried to answer
the question: “How do consumers attribute authenticity to an object/
service brand?” Starting from Bendix’s definition of brand authenticity
(1997), scholars and practitioners have investigated consumers’ ability to
determine the difference between what can be conceived as real or fake
(Brown et al., 2003; Grayson and Martinec, 2004; Rose and Woods, 2005;
Chalmers, 2008; Beverland and Farrelly, 2010; Corciolani, 2014). Empirical
findings have revealed that consumers struggle to discriminate the real
from the fake (Rose and Wood, 2005; Corciolani, 2014). Nevertheless,
results highlight that consumers have the power to negotiate brand
meanings, finding authenticity also in the fake and attributing, for instance,
authenticity to fictional places (Grayson and Martinec, 2004; Rose and
Wood, 2005). Therefore, brand “hyperauthenticity” (Rose and Woods,
2005) may emerge when different consumers perceive the same brand as
authentic or inauthentic (Beverland and Farrelly, 2010). The complexity of
brand authenticity actually fully emerges when considering its three main
dimensions: objective, subjective and self-referential.

2.1 The objective dimension of brand authenticity

The objective dimension of brand authenticity is related to an object

and strongly tied to its heritage related constructs (Postrel, 2003; Grayson
and Martinec, 2004; Chhabra, 2005; Leigh et al., 2006; Fionda and Moore,
2009; Wiedmann et al., 2011; Mohart et al., 2014; Napoli et al., 2014).
Grayson and Martinec (2004) called it indexical authenticity, claiming that
an object is authentic when it is original, and not a copy or an imitation.
Therefore, consumers could evaluate this type of authenticity by relying
on objective cues that imply the non-alteration of historical characteristics
(Postrel, 2003; Leigh et al., 2006). In line with this reasoning, the objective
dimension requires the preservation of brand heritage, including the
maintenance of the historical brand’s identity (Leigh et al., 2006; Pine and
Gilmore, 2008; Balmer, 2011). In truth, the main dilemma that surrounds
the objective dimension of authenticity is related to the tension between
remaining true to the past and adapting to the ever-changing consumers’
demand (Brown et al., 2003; Beverland, 2005; Beverland and Luxton, 2005;
Balmer, 2011; Wiedmann et al., 2011). In fact, heritage could be a liability
when consumers seek new products (Brown et al., 2003). Accordingly,
Beverland (2005) suggested a slow process of adaptation of the intrinsic
characteristics of an object and the strategic decoupling of internal
practices and external communication (Beverland and Luxton, 2005).

37
sinergie
italian journal of management
2.2 The subjective dimension of brand authenticity

Vol. 35, N. 103, 2017 The subjective dimension of brand authenticity is the result of socially
constructed brand meanings in relation to every market offering, which
can be evaluated by consumers (Brown et al., 2003). In fact, consumers
may differ in evaluating brand authenticity by mediating the meanings
ascribed to a brand (Brown et al., 2003; Peterson, 2005; Beverland and
Farrelly, 2010). This is especially true within brand communities that
share and shape brand meanings (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001; Thompson
et al., 2006). In this scenario, authoritative performances derive from
communities and help in achieving a collective sense of identity that fosters
the consumers’ quest for belongingness and iconic relations with brands
(Arnould and Price, 2000; Beverland et al. 2010). In particular, a second
cue that consumers use to assess authenticity has been called iconic, being
“something whose physical manifestation resembles something that is
indexically authentic” (Grayson and Martinec, 2004, p. 298). In this context,
this subjective dimension requires a deeper relationship with consumers
who socially construct brand authenticity within their brand communities
(Kotzinets, 2001; Fine, 2003; Kates, 2004; Leigh et al., 2006; Wilson and
Morgan, 2011; Charmley et al., 2013). For instance, in examining brand
authenticity co-creation within a particular context (i.e., the skateboarder
community), Charmley et al. (2013) found that consumers co-created
brand authenticity meanings by drawing on social comparison (i.e., the
inauthentic other). Similarly, the gay community and the MG community
co-created the authenticity of two products’ brands, namely jeans and cars
(Kates, 2004; Leigh et al., 2006).

2.3 The self-referential dimension of brand authenticity

The self-referential dimension of brand authenticity mainly derives

from Arnould and Price’s notion of authenticating acts, which are “self-
referential behaviors actors feel reveal or produce the true self ” (p.
140). This in line with Holt (2002), who suggests that brands might help
consumers in producing the self and cultivating their identities. Thus, a
brand is authentic only if it is “a genuine expression of an inner personal
truth. I like this because I am like that” (Postrel, 2003, in Beverland, 2005,
p. 1007). Beverland provides further insights to this stream of research by
proposing three types of brand authenticity: pure, approximate and moral,
which are related to the objective, subjective and self-referential dimensions
of brand authenticity, respectively (Beverland et al., 2008; Beverland
and Farrelly, 2010; Beverland et al., 2010). In particular, consumers seek
moral authenticity when they want to feel virtuous by looking for a brand
connection with personal moral values (Beverland et al., 2008; Beverland
and Farrelly, 2010). Freedom and excellence are two examples of self-
authenticating cues (Beverland et al., 2010). It is important to note that
some authors call this last type of authenticity “existential” (Leigh et al.,
2006; Özsomer and Altaras, 2008; Morhart et al., 2014); it derives from the
self and helps the consumer live fun and pleasurable experiences (Leigh et
al., 2006).

38
3. Methodology Simonetta Pattuglia
Michela Mingione
Towards a new
understanding of brand
3.1 Research environment authenticity: seeing through
the lens of millennials

This section aims to explore the research environment of the present

study by explaining the main features that characterize millennials and
the selected brands (i.e., Vespa, Peroni, and Cinecittà Studios) for both
quantitative and qualitative analyses.
Looking through the lens of a specific generation helps in studying
different people who share the same time and space grouping them
into a collective persona (Mannheim, 1952; Howe and Strauss, 2000).
In particular, after the baby boomers (i.e., those born in the 50s-60s),
millennials represent the new “Great Generation”, broadly defined
as Generation Y (Howe and Strauss, 2000; Wilson and Gerber, 2008;
Meister and Willyerd, 2010). In particular, this is the first generation that
“contributes, shares, searches for and consumes content plus works and
plays on social platforms” (Bolton et al., 2013; p. 245). Making daily use
of technology and digital and social media (Raines, 2002; Tanner, 2010;
Bolton et al., 2013; Sashittal et al., 2015), the millennials are shaped by
the era of the Internet through mass marketing and pop culture (Raines,
2002), the 9/11 trauma, globalization and environmentalism (Tanner,
2010). For this reason, millennials are also claimed to be the “Internet
generation”, the “digital generation”, “digital natives”, “digital immigrants”,
the “dot.com generation” and the “Nintendo generation”. Alternative labels
include “KIPPERs” (Kids in Parents’ Pockets Eroding Retirement Savings),
“echo boomers” and “boomlets” (referring to their parents being baby
boomers). Nevertheless, as anticipated, the majority of academics and
practitioners agree in defining them as Generation Y (Howe and Strauss,
2000; Wilson and Gerber, 2008; Meister and Willyerd, 2010). In particular,
the analysis of the literature has highlighted the following specific
features that characterize this generation: a) special, as they feel they are
smart, and “cool” because of this; b) confident, adaptable and flexible;
c) team and teamwork oriented and deeply committed to community
volunteering and no profit organizations; d) driven by some conservative
values such as moral consciousness and civic duty; e) led by a “Just do
it” philosophy of acting and behaving; f) better educated, more affluent
and ethnically diverse; g) technologically fluent and good at multitasking
and being simultaneously connected; h) raised with e-commerce and
great tech advances; i) comfortable with changes, globalization and
global perspectives; j) globally connected and open to new businesses
and challenges; k) “hyper-communicators” who daily communicate with
friends, maintaining constant contact with them; l) possessing a high level
of sociability, morality, and high value relationships (Howe and Strauss,
2000; Shepard, 2004; Debruyne, 2006; Raines, 2002; Krishnamurthy and
Dou, 2008; Wilson and Gerber, 2008; Tanner, 2010; Bolton et al., 2013;
Sashittal et al., 2015).
As opposed to the innovative framework characterizing the
millennials’ generation, it has been considered relevant to select well-
established Italian brands that have represented important assets of Italian

39
sinergie
italian journal of management
manufacturing (i.e., Piaggio and Peroni), and service (Cinecittà Studios)
sectors in the last decades, thus consolidating their brand authenticity over
Vol. 35, N. 103, 2017 time. In particular, since 1946 the Piaggio company has been producing
the globally known Vespa motorcycle, which became a symbol of national
development in the 60s. In producing the best known Italian beer since
1846, Peroni has also played a relevant role in the Italian scenario. Finally,
the film studio company Cinecittà Studios has constituted an important
pillar of the Italian service (entertainment) sector since 1937.

3.2 Research objectives

An analysis of the literature has revealed an increase in scholars’

interest in understanding how consumers attribute authenticity to a brand,
only recently have researchers engaged in examining this phenomenon by
taking a quantitative approach (Napoli et al., 2014). This study aims to
contribute, through a mixed methodology, to this relevant academic and
practitioner conversation from a millennials’ perspective. Millennials have
been selected for three main reasons: 1) their quest for innovativeness
could challenge the objective dimension of brand authenticity, related to
elements such as heritage and place; 2) their commitment to community
and hyper communication could challenge the subjective dimension
of brand authenticity, related to consumers’ social construction and co-
creation of meanings; 3) although they are the new great generation of
consumers, they are still under-researched in the marketing field (Nowak
and Newton, 2006; Bolton et al., 2013). Therefore, this special cohort could
pose challenges for the branding domain in the future, highlighting the
current need for further research. In this framework, the scope of the
present research is to explore if millennials share the same perceptions
of brand authenticity (quantitative analysis), how they attribute (in)
authenticity to a brand, and why they evaluate the considered brand as
(in)authentic (qualitative analysis).

3.3 Research methods

To achieve the research objectives, two studies combining quantitative

and qualitative research methods were planned. We firstly collected
quantitative data by means of a structured questionnaire that conceived
brand authenticity as a multidimensional construct where the union of
quality, heritage, originality, sincerity and reliability defined a brand
as authentic. Then, a hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to
explore similarities and differences in millennials’ perceptions of brand
authenticity. In particular, we performed a hierarchical cluster analysis
using Ward’s method, which has been deemed an appropriate tool to
investigate multidimensional constructs (Staake et al., 2012). The universe
population consisted of 2, 880 units with a final sample of 382 respondents
(13%) (July 2014, Italian students of Management at the University of Rome
Tor Vergata; mean age of 22.6 years; mixed email responses 24% and face
to face administration 76%). In particular, the main criteria considered in
selecting the sample were age-related, as indicated by existent literature

40
(Howe and Strauss, 2000). Respondents were asked to provide their opinion Simonetta Pattuglia
Michela Mingione
using a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (completely disagree) to 6 Towards a new
understanding of brand
(completely agree). The elimination of questionnaires with missing values authenticity: seeing through
the lens of millennials
led to 382 valid responses. The questionnaire included three sections:
1) demographic information; 2) brand authenticity dimensions (brand
heritage, quality commitment, sincerity, Napoli et al., 2014; originality
and reliability, Bruhn et al., 2012); and 3) brand-related constructs (brand
image, brand trust and premium price, Wiedmann et al. (2011). Before
the questionnaire’s administration, the survey items were translated into
Italian and then back-translated by a translator whose mother tongue is
English. This procedure ensured scale validation, allowing the new scales
to share the same psychometric properties of the original scales (Brislin,
1986).
To explain and explore quantitative results, qualitative research
encompassed focus group discussions as suggested by Kitzinger (1994,
1995). This methodology was deemed appropriate because it helps when
examining how people think and why they think and relate in a certain
way (Kitzinger, 1995; Kitzinger and Barbour, 1999), therefore highlighting
people’s attitudes and behaviour (Greenbaum, 2000; Hydén and Bülow,
2003). To analyse the focus groups results, a thematic analysis was applied
(Wiggins, 2004), using an a priori template (i.e., the questionnaire) (Fereday
and Muir-Cochrane, 2008). Only codes were deductively developed,
whereas the whole analysis of themes and sub-themes was inductively
conducted (Boyatzis, 1998). 33 students attending the “Marketing, Media
and Communication” advanced course were selected to recruit participants
into the focus groups. In line with the need for homogeneity in background,
interest in participation and high interaction for participants in the focus
groups (Kitzinger, 1994; Stewart and Shamdasani, 2014), this group had
expertise in marketing constructs and an interest in specific aspects
of marketing. In March 2015, the aforementioned questionnaire was
administered again. Analysis of the data was manually performed having
in mind the two main dimensions used to cluster the previous sample:
customer/non-customer and high/low scores on brand authenticity. A
total of 18 students mirrored the retrieved clusters and participated in the
four focus groups, namely the Engaged, the Cheated, the Believer and the
Skeptic, with at least one male or one female for each group (see Table
1). No incentive was provided for participation, but the majority of the
participants showed great enthusiasm for the initiative (R17 “I have never
had such a positive and realistic experience about marketing a brand”).
Before starting the interviews, participants were informed that the
purpose of the study was to gain insights into their perceptions on brand
authenticity and they were guaranteed the freedom to express their true
opinion, also communicating which brand the participants were supposed
to talk about. Then, the way in which each segment of millennials attributed
(in)authenticity to a brand was explored. More specifically, the, addressed
questions were: what should a brand do to be authentic in general and in
relation to quality, heritage, originality, sincerity and reliability dimensions;
why participants attributed (in)authenticity to the particular brand that
was the object of their interviews. Each focus group interview lasted 60-75

41
sinergie
italian journal of management
minutes and was video-recorded and transcribed. Afterwards, key themes,
their commonalities and differences were identified.
Vol. 35, N. 103, 2017
Tab. 1: Partecipants’ Profile

Label Age Gender Cluster Brand (s)

Respondent 1 (R1) 23 female engaged Vespa
Respondent 2 (R2) 23 female engaged Vespa & Peroni
Respondent 3 (R3) 24 female engaged Cinecittà Studios
Respondent 4 (R4) 24 male engaged Vespa & Peroni
Respondent 5 (R5) 23 male engaged Peroni
Respondent 6 (R6) 23 female believer Vespa
Respondent 7 (R7) 24 female believer Vespa
Respondent 8 (R8) 24 female believer Cinecittà Studios
Respondent 9 (R9) 23 male believer Vespa
Respondent 10 (R10) 24 female cheated Peroni
Respondent 11 (R11) 25 female cheated Vespa
Respondent 12 (R12) 24 female cheated Cinecittà Studios
Respondent 13 (R13) 25 male cheated Cinecittà Studios & Peroni
Respondent 14 (R14) 23 female skeptic Peroni
Respondent 15 (R15) 23 female skeptic Peroni
Respondent 16 (R16) 24 female skeptic Peroni
Respondent 17 (R17) 23 female skeptic Cinecittà Studios
Respondent 18 (R18) 25 male skeptic Cinecittà Studios

Source: our elaboration

4. Results

4.1 Clustering millennials’ perceptions on brand authenticity

The SSPS 8.0 software has been used for the statistical analysis. First,
the constructs’ reliability was ascertained by means of Cronbach’s alpha
(Table 2).
Tab. 2: Constructs’ reliability

Constructs Cronbach’s alpha

Brand authenticity dimensions
Quality commitment .933
Heritage .901
Sincerity .793
Originality .867
Reliability .889

Brand related constructs

Brand image .734
Brand trust .783
Premium price .793

Source: our elaboration

42
 This test helps in verifying the internal consistency of the variables by Simonetta Pattuglia
Michela Mingione
measuring a specific construct (Malhotra, 2008) and its values vary from 0 Towards a new
understanding of brand
to 1, where values above 0.60 indicate good internal consistency (Janssens authenticity: seeing through
the lens of millennials
et al. 2008). Then, the hierarchical cluster analysis was performed. Four
clusters of millennials (i.e., the Engaged, the Believers, the Cheated and
the Skceptics) emerged (Figure 1). In general, high and low consumer
perceptions of brand authenticity corresponded to high and low scores
respectively of consumers’ perceptions on brand image, brand trust and
premium price. It is interesting to note that no hierarchy between brand
authenticity dimensions was found. The detailed analysis of the four
clusters distinguished:
1) The Engaged: Consumers that conceive the brands as authentic, have
high perceptions of the brand image and brand trust, and are willing
to pay a premium price. The highest brand authenticity has been
attributed to Peroni and the least to Vespa. Despite Vespa’s customers
having already paid a premium price to purchase it, they reported the
lowest scores in their willingness to pay a premium price for such a
motorcycle.
2) The Believers: Respondents with no prior experience of the brand but
showing positive perceptions of brand authenticity, brand image, brand
trust and premium price. This group of non-customers showed higher
values than those reported by their Engaged counterparts. These high
scores, based on mere perceptions of potential customers, confirm the
strong appeal of these well-established brands. In particular, Vespa was
perceived as the most authentic brand, followed by Cinecittà. Because
Peroni did not appear in this cluster, prior experience of the beer seems
to be necessary to appreciate this product brand.
3) The Cheated: Actual (or former) customers who do not conceive
the brand as authentic, and show low scores for brand image, brand
trust and price premium. In particular, manufacturing companies
showed the highest values with respect to service ones, indicating
that customers might feel most cheated when they had a negative
experience of services in relation to products. In particular, customers
attributed the lowest scores of brand authenticity and brand related
constructs to Cinecittà Studios.
4) The Skceptics: Non-customers who perceive low brand authenticity,
brand image, brand trust and premium price. In particular, Cinecittà
was perceived as the most authentic brand, followed by Peroni and
Vespa.

43
sinergie
italian journal of management
Vol. 35, N. 103, 2017

Cinecittà

Cinecittà
Peroni
Vespa

Vespa

HIGH BRAND AUTHENTICITY

Reliability

Reliability
BA Heritage

BA Heritage
BA

BA
BA Quality

BA Quality
The Believers
The Engaged

BA Sincerity

BA Sincerity
Originality

Originality
BA

BA
Fig. 1: The four-cluster solution

BRAND

BRAND
PREMIUM

PREMIUM
TRUST

TRUST
PRICE

PRICE
BRAND

BRAND
IMAGE

IMAGE
Cinecittà
Cinecittà

Peroni
Vespa
Peroni
Vespa

Reliability

Reliability
BA Heritage

BA Heritage

LOW BRAND AUTHENTICITY

BA

BA
BA Quality

BA Quality
The Cheated

The Skeptics
BA Sincerity

BA Sincerity
Originality

Originality
BA

BA

Source: our elaboration

BRAND

BRAND
PREMIUM

PREMIUM
TRUST

TRUST
PRICE

PRICE
BRAND

BRAND
IMAGE

IMAGE

CUSTOMERS NON-CUSTOMERS

4.2 Millennials’ quest for coherence

Results from the group interviews did not mirror the segmentation
that emerged in the quantitative cluster analysis. In fact, qualitative
findings revealed a main theme that integrated millennials’ perceptions
into a unified framework, namely their quest for coherence. Basically, to
be authentic, millennials require a high degree of coherency from brands
and attribute authenticity to a brand when it shows coherency over time,
coherency between brand promise and its actual delivery, and coherency
between the brand’s identity and the consumers’ identity.
44
4.2.1 Coherency over time Simonetta Pattuglia
Michela Mingione
Towards a new
understanding of brand
The first dimension required by millennials in order to be authentic authenticity: seeing through
the lens of millennials
is the coherence of the brand identity and of brand meanings over time.
Firstly, coherency over time highlights the origins of the brand quality,
which is related to the continuity of the brand promise over time. In fact, it
certifies the reliability of the brand and its uniqueness, confirming that the
brand has not been contamined by economic and social trends. Of course,
companies that are not coherent over time are not considered as authentic.
This can be seen from the two statements below:

R1, R2, R3: “These companies endure over time because their excellent
quality never decreased”.
R3: “If you have a great heritage, you are surely authentic, like Cinecittà
Studios, which has never been contaminated by the economic crisis. This
company has been able to be coherent over time and also to renew itself
with the opening of the Cinecittà Shows Off Exhibition”.

Another element that impacts on coherency over time is the nostalgic

feelings of consumers. In fact, this type of millennial is strongly tied to
the past, even though they never experienced it. This is especially because
they recognize the conversation and the happy feelings of their parents and
friends who grew with these types of brands. Therefore, an authentic brand
should be able to communicate a glorious past that sometimes has been
recently lost. In particular, what millennials blame is the change of the
brand identity and, importantly, of brand values, which are now threatened
by globalization and driven by utilitarian principles. This is easiliy readable
from the comments below.

R7: “An authentic brand makes me understand that all generations are
similar. My father had to fight to have a Vespa. The Vespa represents his
engagement to my mom, it represents my mom and dad’s emancipation”.
R6, R7, R8, R9: “I am tied to the Italy of the 60’s”, “Vespa reminds me of
the Italian golden age”. “Cinecittà Studios also reminds me of golden times
for Italy”, “It’s strange, we miss the 60’s even though we never experienced
them. Maybe it is because we now live in a bad time for the economy”.
R12: “Cinecittà Studios has a unique heritage but has currently lost its
cultural and artistic values. From being internationally known, the brand
turned into a money machine focused on profits to survive”.
4.2.2 Coherency between brand promise and its actual delivery

The second dimension required in order to be authentic is the coherency

of the brand promise and its actual delivery. Therefore, millenials do not
care about heritage, which is not their main purchase driver. In particular,
millennials define a brand that does not conform with the expectations
they have of it as inauthentic. For example, they highlight that if they
expect a brand to be informal and unsophisticated, the brand can not
communicate exclusivity. Therefore, brands should keep the promise they
make when dealing with millennials.

45
sinergie
italian journal of management
R4: “My purchase driver is the correspondence between my
expectations and the brand’s actual delivery. Can I drink Peroni? Yes! Is it
Vol. 35, N. 103, 2017 good? Yes! Does it have a good quality/price ratio? Yes! Well, then this is a
quality product. Regarding Vespa, is it comfortable? Yes! Does it take me
wherever I want to go? Yes! Well, then this is an authentic brand to me!”
R3: “Its authenticity also stands out in its good price/quality ratio. For
example, I went to The House of Peroni, which is a sort of pub, and I really
found it inauthentic because the prices were too high, the tables were very
clean and the atmosphere was too formal. This was not what I expected:
Peroni is unsophisticated, it is not elitist or exclusive”.

As a consequence of millennials’ quest for coherence between brand

expectation and brand delivery, the misalignment between brand
communication and its actual delivery has been strongly criticized. In fact,
millennials conceive communication as a vehicle for transparency and
sincerity. Authentic companies should also strongly communicate their
negative aspects. In other words, this generation asks for the transparency
of brand values, meanings and importantly, identity. For example, some
millennials felt cheated when they discovered that two product brands
shared the same corporate brand (i.e., Peroni and Nastro Azzurro), while
some of them became suspicious of partnerships between brands they felt
were misaligned (i.e., Peroni and Eataly, which is the internationally well-
known retailer of Italian artisan food and beverage).
Moreover, when consumers do not know the brand, they rely on the
comments of others, such as parents or friends (word-of-mouth) to certify
the authenticity or inauthenticity of the brands. In fact, it is important
to note that social communities, such as those present in Facebook, may
play a crucial role in the legitimization (or delegitimization) of brands by
creating an echo of new brand meanings that might destroy its authentic
image.

R15: “Sincerity is a verifiable quality, and I usually do not trust what

I have not tried before. In this case I will rely on the comments of other
consumers. For example, when I went to Eataly, my boyfriend noticed
that Peroni was there. We considered the Peroni-Eataly partnership so
incoherent!”.
R16: “Can a brand be sincere? A brand is never sincere! That’s the
point, every brand has a negative side and companies never show it. If a
brand were 100% sincere it would also have to communicate its negative
aspects and companies never do anything of the kind! Are you pretending
that Peroni and Nastro Azzurro share the same corporate brand and this
has never been communicated to consumers? That is insane! I want to buy
Nastro Azzurro, not Peroni! Do you see any sincerity in it?”.
R16: “I also appreciate the comments of experts, like bloggers who
ensure the brand’s authenticity”.
R14: “I trust only what I know. When I do not know I trust my friends
and they told me that Peroni is not authentic, they prefer craft beers”.
R17: “I also trust what I know, but if I do not know a product or service
I rely on my mother or my grandmother. I do not need the comments of
experts”.
46
 R16: “I woud never drink Peroni with my friends. This beer is totally Simonetta Pattuglia
Michela Mingione
unoriginal, why should I choose it? I would order a Belgian beer, or a Towards a new
understanding of brand
German one, those are cool! If you drink Peroni, you are a loser. To give authenticity: seeing through
the lens of millennials
an example, a friend of mine posted a photo on Facebook of him or herself
holding a Peroni and someone commented: What are you drinking?
Peroni? Such a loser!”

4.2.3 Coherency between the brand identity and consumers’ identity

The last type of coherency required by millennials in order to consider

a brand as authentic is the coherency between the identity of the brand
and customers’ (or non-customers’) identity. Therefore they do not require
a strong heritage (i.e., coherency over time), or a fulfilled brand promise
(i.e., coherency between the brand promise and its actual delivery). In
fact, this type of millennial asks for the alignment between expectations
about the brand (i.e., perceived brand identity) and his or her self-identity.
Therefore, for example, if they perceive they have an identity which is chic,
the Vespa, coming from the 60s, is considered authentic as it is a brand
with an elegant identity (R1: “Vespa also makes me feel more elegant and
feminine, in the 60s everyone was so elegant!”). It is important to note
that many of them identify their identity connected to their national
identity (i.e., Italian). In fact, these Italian brands have been considered
authentic or inauthentic respectively when they mirror (i.e., are coherent
with) their national identity or when they do not respect it (i.e., when
the brand identity is not coherent with its national identity). Therefore,
these millennials can be considered strongly patriotic, as it seems that they
reject the brand because feel cheated in their Italian pride/Italian identity,
or accept the brand when it mirrors their national identity. Some of them
associate the brand’s meanings with various product or services whose
image is strongly related to the Italian one. For example, when Peroni’s
conceived identity is perfectly aligned with the national one, millennials
associate it with the national product or service they use when they drink
Peroni, as highlighted by following comments:

R4: “I drink Peroni in my free time with my friends, especially when I

go back to my homeland. Peroni is drinking quality with some good food,
like pasta. Peroni is: friends and pasta”.
R5: “I drink Peroni when I watch a football match with friends and
when I eat pizza. Peroni is: friends and pizza at home. It is the Italian
championship.
R12: “I feel cheated in my Italian pride. Cinecittà Studios should elevate
the quality of its services to honour its originality and uniqueness instead
of losing its values”.
R13: “These brands have completely lost their uniqueness. Heritage is
not enough. Peroni is sincere and reliable, but by being a discount brand it’s
the shame of the Made in Italy label. It is actually the beer of the Romans!”
R10, R11, R12, R13: “I am sorry for this sort of ending. My beloved
country should be more appreciated!” “So many countries sell products
and services of low quality that are not unique and original yet endorse
and appraise their assets better than Italian brands!”.
47
sinergie
italian journal of management
5. Discussion

Vol. 35, N. 103, 2017 Based on a mixed methodology, this study aimed to answer the
following questions: Do millennials share similar perceptions of brand
authenticity? How and why do millennials attribute (in)authenticity to a
brand?
The quantitative findings provided a general overview of the potential
segments of millennials, thus contributing to the development of the
literature on brand authenticity. In fact, the cluster analysis highlighted
the heterogeneity of millennials’ brand authenticity perceptions, revealing
four different clusters segmented into two main dimensions: customer
vs. non-customer, and high vs. low perceptions of brand authenticity. In
particular, high perceptions of brand authenticity were found for Engaged
and Believer millennials, whereas the opposite was found for Cheated
and Skeptic millennials. These results substantiate that companies should
deal with brand authenticity as a relevant component of successful brands
(Beverland, 2005; Kapferer, 2008) that is strongly linked to consumers’
brand trust (Balmer, 2012a; Schallehn et al. 2014).
The segmentation that emerged represented a starting point for a
qualitative research that contributes to theoretical advancements on brand
authenticity. Although we divided the interviews into the previously
obtained four clusters, qualitative findings show a different segmentation
of millennials. Actually, no segmentation emerged because qualitative
findings revealed a main theme that integrated millennials’ perceptions
into a unified framework, namely their “quest for coherence”. This article,
then, contributes to a new understanding of millennials’ perceptions on
brand authenticity by proposing that organizations seek for coherence in
order to deliver an authentic brand. In particular, millennials attribute
authenticity to a brand when the brand shows coherency over time,
coherency between brand promise and its actual delivery, and coherency
between the brand identity and consumers’ identity. Therefore, this study
confirms the multifaceted nature of brand authenticity, which has been
highlighted by many scholars of the field (Grayson and Martinec, 2004;
Beverland et al., 2010). Nevertheless, its multifaceted nature now seems
to be linked to a new construct, namely coherence. Although coherence
is a new construct in this domain, the three types of coherency somehow
recall scholars’ previous research on brand authenticity, which suggested
three dimensions of the construct, namely the objective, the subjective and
the self-referential dimensions highlighted in our theoretical framework.
Nevertheless, this article goes beyond previous literature by adding
the construct of coherency. First, we suggest that millennials don’t require
just heritage linked to past (Postrel, 2003; Grayson and Martinec, 2004;
Chhabra, 2005; Leigh et al., 2006; Fionda and Moore, 2009; Wiedmann
et al., 2011; Mohart et al., 2014; Napoli et al., 2014), but also coherence
of brand identity and values over time. From this perspective, their quest
for continuity seems to somehow clash with their young age and their
quest for global connection and openness to change (Raines, 2002; Tanner,
2010). Nevetheless, other scholars found that millennials may show some
conservative values, such as moral consciousness and civic duty (Howe

48
and Strauss, 2000; Shepard, 2004; Wilson and Gerber, 2008; Tanner, 2010). Simonetta Pattuglia
Michela Mingione
Therefore, in substantiating previous research, this article highlights the Towards a new
understanding of brand
conservative side of millennials, who ask for the continuity of brand values authenticity: seeing through
the lens of millennials
over time rather than innovation.
Moving towards the subjective dimension highlighted by some
scholars (Beverland et al., 2010; Brown et al., 2003; Grayson and Martinec,
2004), we suggest that, in comparison with past studies, our analysis
reveals again that millennials are conservative and tough consumers to
be satisfied. In fact, to them, the coherency between the brand promise
and its delivery is at the base of an authentic brand and the premise for a
trustful relationship between them and the brand. In doing so, they also
rely on others’ comments to verify the authenticity of the brand. Therefore,
it seems that this type of consumers asks for a collective dimension of
brand authenticity. As a result, if the brand does not keep the promise
it made to the entire community, it may drive towards a negative word-
of-mouth, triggering a “domino effect” that continuously challenges the
authenticity of the brand. Of course, this is in line with the image of
millennials as hyper-communicators. In fact, they daily communicate with
friends, maintaining constant contact with them, especially through brand
communities (Tanner, 2010; Sashittal et al., 2015; Bolton et al., 2013).
Concordantly and finally, while coherence between the brand promise
and its delivery is more related to communal experiences, we also
suggest a third type of coherency, which is more related to the individual
construction of the self, namely the alignment between the brand identity
and consumers’ identity. Therefore, this study also highlights that a brand
is able to enhance millennials’ self-referential quest for authenticity. For
example, our results show that the Vespa brand has been able to foster
consumers’ individual identities in search of freedom and elegance.
These findings substantiate freedom and excellence as self-referential
authenticating cues, as suggested by Beverland and Farrelly (2010).
Of note, millennials show strong engagement and attachment to their
country of origin. In fact, they conceive Italian brands as an extension of
their identity, so if these brands do not respect the Italian values of quality,
design and excellence, they felt cheated.
In addition to the aforementioned theoretical contributions, this study
highlights relevant implications for managers. First, millennials give strong
importance to the continuity of the brand’s historical path and to the stories
and experiences of their peers. Therefore, marketers must be able to build
relevant brand communication through new media platforms (such as
social networks and mobile devices) and shared connections maintaining
great continuity - i.e. coherence - with its past actions and values. Second,
to accomplish millennials’ quest for the delivery of the brand promise,
managers should be very careful in managing gaps and misalignments
between the brand promise and its actual delivery. As a result, managers
should remember that communication is a primary source of knowledge
and that it should mirror the symmetrical positioning of the customers.
In this context, the company should enforce some core values to create
the brand’s offer (and therefore, millennials’ expectations) and to deliver
it as promised, including the communicated “reason why”. This is strictly

49
sinergie
italian journal of management
related to the third type pf coherency (i.e., self-referential). Therefore,
a brand should present a clear positioning that is also recognizable by
Vol. 35, N. 103, 2017 consumers, who will adhere to it (joining the brand) or reject it. This is
also true for communal experiences (family, peers, traditional and social
communities) that surely enhance the self-expression of the individual.
In particular, present times are a meta-managerial challenge for Italian
companies to avoid creating a negative country-of-origin effect that makes
Italian millennials feel somehow “cheated” by the brands, even if they
are aware of the structural Italian economic situation and conjunctural
political one. They feel somehow betrayed by their Italian identity and
“patriotism” towards Italian brands. Companies have to actively struggle
against perceptions of the brand’s loss of quality, coherence, values and, in
other words, authenticity. They must be able to rebuild and communicate
innovation as they exceptionally did during the Baby Boomers’period
(50s-60s) by means of extraordinary manufacturing, products and services,
and unique emotions which, although linkable to the past, are always seen
as a “golden age”.
Through a very operational approach, and in relation to quantitative
findings, this study suggests managers protect engaged millennials
and enlarge this group by actively managing a sophisticated Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) strategy and program; the technological
relational platform should be strictly projected and connected to social
media channels (blogging, microblogging, social networking) and their
influencers should be monitored and measured in their opinions. The
company should, nonetheless, invest in the Believer and Sceptical groups
of non-customers through communicative actions in social media
channels (to act in the awareness, image and reputation domains) but
also through advertising and promotion to solicit millennials’ price-
sensitivity and emotional engagement. The brands should finally invest in
public relations strategies (including online public relations) and plans to
target the Cheated groups of customers who might seriously evolve into
Engaged and even catalize negative words-of-mouth, as well as national
and international antibranding communities and boycott consumerist
movements.
To summarize, organizations should invest in this cohort of generation
because millennials represent not only the future generation of buyers, but
also tomorrow’s managers. Moreover, being the “Digital generation”, they
have (and will have) tremendous power in legitimating or de-legitimating
the authenticity of brands, especially though e-WOM (electronic Word-
Of-Mouth).

6. Conclusions

From the digital generation perspective, this study offers a new

understanding of the brand authenticity construct. Therefore, although
our quantitative analysis divided this type of consumer into four clusters
(i.e., Engaged, Believer, Cheated and Skeptic millennials), qualitative
results show a transversal construct that unifies millennials’ quest for

50
authenticity, namely coherence. Consequently, and in line with recent Simonetta Pattuglia
Michela Mingione
research proposing a relational-based approach to brand authenticity Towards a new
understanding of brand
(Ilicic and Webster, 2014), this article suggests moving from a historical- authenticity: seeing through
the lens of millennials
based approach towards a more holistic one that takes into account the
multifaceted nature of brand authenticity in relation to coherency.
Building on the above, future studies focused on conceptualizations
of relationships between brand authenticity and coherence are strongly
needed to address the following relevant research questions: “How
can companies achieve each type of brand authenticity coherency?”
and “Is the simultaneous alignment of these three types of authenticity
attainable?”. Moreover, this study could be a valuable starting point for
the development of the conversation on corporate brand alignment
between academics and practitioners (Hatch and Schultz, 2001; Balmer,
2012b; Urde, 2013). Valuable research questions to be investigated could
be: “Does the alignment of corporate brand attributes or identities help in
achieving brand authenticity?” and “What is the relationship between the
multifaceted nature of corporate brands and the multifaceted nature of
coherency?”
The main limitation of this work is related to the specific sample of
respondents (Italian millennial Management students) and brands, which
limits the generalizability of findings. Although millennials represent
a relevant part of actual and potential customers for several brands,
respondents of different ages could generate different segmentations and
hierarchies of brand authenticity attributes. Therefore, future studies could
investigate a different cohort of generation or combine millennials with
other generations (i.e., Baby Boomers and Generation Xs) to understand
if there are similarities or differences in their perceptions of brand
authenticity. Furthermore, to avoid cultural biases, cross-national studies
that include several age groups and brands operating at national and
international levels, are strongly needed. This study could also be usefully
replicated by selecting a non-italian sample of millennials to explore their
perceptions about the authenticity of Italian brands.

References

AITKEN R., CAMPELO A. (2011), “The four Rs of place branding”, Journal of

Marketing Management, vol. 27, n. 9/10, pp. 913-933.
ARNOULD E.J., PRICE L.L. (2000), “Authenticating acts and authoritative
performances: Questing for self and community”, in Ratneshwar S.,
Mick D.G., Huffman C. (Eds.), The Why of Consumption: contemporary
perspectives on consumer motives, goals and desires, Routledge, London, pp.
141-163.
BALLANTYNE R., WARREN A., NOBBS K. (2006), “The evolution of brand
choice”, The Journal of Brand Management, vol. 13, n. 4, pp. 339-352.
BALMER J.M.T. (2011), “Corporate heritage brands and the precepts of corporate
heritage brand management: Insights from the British Monarchy on the eve
of the royal wedding of Prince William (April 2011) and Queen Elizabeth
II’s Diamond Jubilee (1952-2012)”, Journal of Brand Management, vol. 18,
n. 8, pp. 517-544.
51
sinergie
italian journal of management
BALMER J.M.T. (2012a), “Corporate brand management imperatives:
custodianship, credibility, and calibration”, California Management Review,
Vol. 35, N. 103, 2017 vol. 54, n. 3, pp. 1-28.
BALMER J.M.T. (2012b), “Strategic corporate brand alignment: perspectives from
identity based views of corporate brands”, European Journal of Marketing,
vol. 46, n. 7/8, pp. 1064-1092.
BENDIX R. (1997), In search of authenticity: The formation of folklore studies,
University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
BERTILSSON J., CASSINGER C. (2011), “Governing consumers through freedom:
A theoretical discussion of the co-creation branding paradigm”, Advances in
Consumer Research, European Conference Proceedings, vol. 9, pp. 412-416.
BEVERLAND M. (2006), “The ‘real thing’: branding authenticity in the luxury
wine trade”, Journal of Business Research, vol. 59, n. 2, pp. 251-258.
BEVERLAND M., LUXTON S. (2005), “Managing integrated marketing
communication (IMC) through strategic decoupling: How luxury wine
firms retain brand leadership while appearing to be wedded to the past”,
Journal of Advertising, vol. 34, n. 4, pp. 103-116.
BEVERLAND M.B. (2005), “Crafting brand authenticity: the case of luxury wines”,
Journal of Management Studies, vol. 42, n. 5, pp. 1003-1029.
BEVERLAND M.B., FARRELLY F.J. (2010), “The quest for authenticity in consumption:
Consumers’ purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced
outcomes”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 36, n. 5, pp. 838-856.
BEVERLAND M.B., FARRELLY F.J., QUESTER P.G. (2010), “Authentic subcultural
membership: Antecedents and consequences of authenticating acts and
authoritative performances”, Psychology and Marketing, vol. 27, n. 7, pp.
698-716.
BEVERLAND M.B., LINDGREEN A., VINK M.W. (2008), “Projecting authenticity
through advertising: Consumer judgments of advertisers’ claims”, Journal
of Advertising, vol. 37, n. 1, pp. 5-15.
BOLTON R.N., PARASURAMAN A., HOEFNAGELS A. (2013), “Understanding
Generation Y and their use of social media: a review and research agenda”,
Journal of service Management, vol. 24, n. 3, pp. 245-267.
BOYATZIS R.E. (1998), Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis
and code development, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
BRISLIN, R.W. (1986), “The wording and translation of research instruments”, in
Lonner W.J., Berry J.W. (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research, pp.
137-164.
BROWN S., KOTZINETS R.V., SHERRY JR J.F. (2003), “Teaching old brands
new tricks: retro branding and the revival of brand meaning”, Journal of
Marketing, vol. 67, n. 3, pp. 19-33.
BRUHN M., SCHOENMULLER V., SCHAFER D., HEINRICH D. (2012), “Brand
Authenticity: Towards a Deeper Understanding of its Conceptualization
and Measurement”, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 40, pp. 567-576.
CHALMERS T.D. (2008), “Advertising authenticity: Resonating replications of real
life”, European Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 8, pp. 442-443.
CHARMLEY R., GARRY T., BALLANTINE P.W. (2013), “The inauthentic other:
Social comparison theory and brand avoidance within consumer sub-
cultures”, Journal of Brand Management, vol. 20, n. 6, pp. 458-472.

52
CHHABRA D. (2005), “Defining authenticity and its determinants: Toward an Simonetta Pattuglia
Michela Mingione
authenticity flow model”, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 44 n. 1, pp. 64-73. Towards a new
understanding of brand
CORCIOLANI M. (2014), “How do authenticity dramas develop? An analysis authenticity: seeing through
the lens of millennials
of Afterhours fans’ responses to the band’s participation in the Sanremo
music festival”, Marketing Theory, vol. 14, n. 2, pp. 185-206.
DEBRUYNE V. (2006), For Which Reasons Does Generation Y Work?, Vlerick
Leuven Gent Management School.
FEREDAY J., MUIR-COCHRANE E. (2008), “Demonstrating rigor using thematic
analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme
development”, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 5, n. 1, pp.
80-92.
FINE G.A. (2003), “Crafting authenticity: The validation of identity in self-taught
art”, Theory and Society, vol. 32, n. 2, pp. 153-180.
FIONDA A.M., MOORE C.M. (2009), “The anatomy of the luxury fashion brand”,
Journal of Brand Management, vol. 16, n. 5, pp. 347-363.
GILMORE J.H., PINE B.J. (2007), Authenticity: What consumers really want,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
GRAYSON K., MARTINEC R. (2004), “Consumer perceptions of iconicity and
indexicality and their influence on assessments of authentic market
offerings”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 31, n. 2, pp. 296-312.
GREENBAUM T.L. (2000), Moderating focus groups: A practical guide for group
facilitation, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
GUSTAFSSON C. (2006), “Brand Trust and Authenticity: The Link between Trust
in Brands and the Consumer’s Role on the Market”, European Advances in
Consumer Research, vol. 7, pp. 522-527.
HATCH M.J., SCHULTZ M. (2001), “Are the strategic stars aligned for your
corporate brand?”, Harvard Business Review, vol. 79, n. 2, pp. 128-134.
HOLT D.B. (2002), “Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of
consumer culture and branding”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 29,
n. 1, pp. 70-90.
HOWE N., STRAUSS W. (2000), Millennials Rising - The Next Great Generation,
Random House, NewYork.
HYDÉN L.C., BÜLOW P.H. (2003), “Who’s talking: drawing conclusions from
focus groups - some methodological considerations”, International Journal
of Social Research Methodology, vol. 6, n. 4, pp. 305-321.
ILICIC J., WEBSTER C.M. (2014), “Investigating consumer-brand relational
authenticity”, Journal of Brand Management, vol. 21, n. 4, pp. 342-363.
JANSSENS W., WIJNEN K., DE PELSMACKER P., VAN KENHOVE P. (2008),
Marketing research with SPSS, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.
KAPFERER J.N. (2008), The new strategic brand management, 4th ed., Kogan Page,
London.
KATES S.M. (2004), “The dynamics of brand legitimacy: An interpretative study
in the gay men’s community”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 31, n. 2,
pp. 455-464.
KITZINGER J. (1994), “The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of
Interaction between Research Participants”, Sociology of Health and Illness,
vol. 16, n. 1, pp. 103-121.
KITZINGER J. (1995), “Qualitative research: introducing focus groups”, British
Medical Journal, vol. 311, pp. 299-302.

53
sinergie
italian journal of management
KITZINGER J., BARBOUR R. (1999), “Introduction: the challenge and promise of
focus groups”, in Barbour R.S., Kitzinger J. (Eds.), Developing focus group
Vol. 35, N. 103, 2017 research, Sage, London, pp. 1-20.
KOTZINETS R.V. (2001), “Utopian enterprise: Articulating the meanings of Star
Trek’s culture of consumption”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 28, n. 1,
pp. 67-88.
KRISHNAMURTHY S., DOU W. (2008), “Advertising with user-generated content:
a framework and research agenda”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol. 8,
n. 2, pp. 1-7.
LANTOS G.P. (2014), “Marketing to Millennials: Reach the Largest and Most
Influential Generation of Consumers Ever”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
vol. 31, n. 5, pp. 401-403.
LEIGH T.W., PETERS C., SHELTON J. (2006), “The consumer quest for
authenticity: the multiplicity of meanings within the MG subculture of
consumption”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 34, n. 4,
pp. 481-493.
MALHOTRA N.K. (2008), Marketing research: An applied orientation, fifth ed.,
Pearson Education, India.
MANNHEIM K. (1952), Sociologia della Conoscenza, Italian ed., Dedalo, Bari.
MEISTER J.C., WILLYERD K. (2010), “Mentoring Millennials. Spotlight on
Leadership. The Next Generation”, Harvard Business Review, vol. 88, n. 5,
pp. 67-72.
MORHART F., MALÄR L., GUÈVREMONT A., GIRARDIN F., GROHMANN B.
(2014), “Brand Authenticity: An Integrative Framework and Measurement
Scale”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, vol. 2, n. 2, pp. 200-218.
MUNIZ JR. A.M., O’GUINN T.C., (2001), “Brand Community”, Journal of
Consumer Research, vol. 27, n. 4, pp. 412-432.
NAPOLI J., DICKINSON S.J., BEVERLAND M.B., FARRELLY F. (2014),
“Measuring consumer-based brand authenticity”, Journal of Business
Research, vol. 67, n. 6, pp. 1090-1098.
NOWAK L.I., NEWTON S.K. (2006), “Using the tasting room experience to create
loyal customers”, International Journal of Wine Marketing, vol. 18, n. 3,
pp.157-165.
ÖZSOMER A., ALTARAS S. (2008), “Global brand purchase likelihood: A critical
synthesis and an integrated conceptual framework”, Journal of International
Marketing, vol. 16, n. 4, pp. 1-28.
PETERSON R.A. (2005), “In Search of Authenticity”, Journal of Management
Studies, vol. 42, n. 5, pp. 1083-1098.
PINE B.J., GILMORE J.H. (2008), “The eight principles of strategic authenticity”,
Strategy and Leadership, vol. 36, n. 3, pp. 35-40.
POSTREL V. (2003), The substance of style: How the rise of aesthetic values is
remaking commerce, culture and consciousness, Harper Collins Publishers,
New York.
RAINES C. (2002), “Managing Millennials”, in Raines C., Connecting Generations:
the Sourcebook for a New Workplace, Crisp Publications, Menlo Park.
ROSE R.L., WOOD S.L. (2005), “Paradox and the consumption of authenticity
through reality television”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 32, n. 2, pp.
284-296.

54
SASHITTAL H.C., HODIS M., SRIRAMACHANDRAMURTHY R. (2015), Simonetta Pattuglia
Michela Mingione
“Entifying your brand among Twitter-using millennials”, Business Horizon, Towards a new
understanding of brand
vol. 58, n. 3, pp. 325-333. authenticity: seeing through
the lens of millennials
SCHALLEHN M., BURMANN C., RILEY N. (2014), “Brand authenticity:
Model development and empirical testing”, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, vol. 23, n. 3, pp. 192-199.
SHEPARD S. (2004), Managing the Millennials, Shepard Communications Group,
Willinston VT.
STAAKE T., THIESSE F., FLEISCH E. (2012), “Business strategies in the counterfeit
market”, Journal of Business Research, vol. 65, n. 5, pp. 658-665.
STEWART D.W., SHAMDASANI P.N. (2014), Focus groups: Theory and practice,
Sage Publications, Los Angeles-Washington DC.
TANNER L. (2010), Who are the Millennials? Defence R&D Canada, Centre for
Operational Research and Analysis, Ottawa, Ontario.
THOMPSON C.J., RINDFLEISCH A., ARSEL Z. (2006), “Emotional branding and
the strategic value of the Doppelgänger brand image”, Journal of Marketing,
vol. 70, n. 1, pp. 50-64.
URDE M. (2013), “The corporate brand identity matrix”, Journal of Brand
Management, vol. 20, n. 9, pp. 742-761.
WIEDMANN K.P., HENNIGS N., SCHMIDT S., WUESTEFELD T. (2011),
“Drivers and outcomes of brand heritage: consumers’ perception of
heritage brands in the automotive industry”, The Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, vol. 19, n. 2, pp. 205-220.
WIGGINS G.S. (2004), “The analysis of focus groups in published research articles”,
Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, vol. 19, n. 2, pp. 143-164.
WILSON J.A., MORGAN J.E. (2011), “Friends or Freeloaders? Encouraging brand
conscience and introducing the concept of emotion-based consumer loss
mitigation”, Journal of Brand Management, vol. 18, n. 9, pp. 659-676.
WILSON M., GERBER L.E. (2008), “How Generational Theory Can improve
Teaching: Strategies for Working with the Millennials”, Currents in Teaching
and Learning, vol. 1, n. 1, pp. 29-44.

Academic or professional position and contacts

Simonetta Pattuglia
Aggregate Professor of Management
University of Rome Tor Vergata - Italy
e-mail: pattuglia@economia.uniroma2.it

Michela Mingione
Research Fellow in Management
University of Rome Tor Vergata - Italy
e-mail: mingione@economia.uniroma2.it
sinergie
italian journal of management

ISSN 0393-5108
DOI 10.7433/s103.2017.03
pp. 35-55

55