Cognitive, affective attributes and conative,

behavioural responses in retail corporate

branding
Rui Vinhas Da Silva
Manchester Business School (West), University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, and
Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi
Faculty of Business & Accountancy, University of Malaya, Lembah Pantai, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – The main aim of the present study is to empirically test a model of antecedents and consequences of corporate brand image (CBI) in two
book retailers, one selling exclusively online, and the other selling exclusively offline in a British context.
Design/methodology/approach – The study employed a survey to investigate the relationships of the antecedents and consequences of the CBI. The
sample (n ¼ 511) comprised experienced customers of these two bookstores (visitors and shoppers of the site or bookstore). The antecedents of CBI
which were the functional aspects of brand attributes (such as ease of use, secured web site, interactivity/building relationship, customer care and
reliability) were combined with the CBI itself (emotional aspects of the corporate brand or personality traits of the company) and, further, the
consequences of these emotional aspects such as customer satisfaction and loyalty were tested using a cross-sectional study.
Findings – Using two separate structural equation models, the study found an empirical relationship between the brand attributes and the corporate
brand image (the emotional values). This relationship in turn influences the customer’s responses (loyalty).
Research limitations/implications – By combining two methodological approaches of brand image evaluation: cognition (assessed through tangible
and intangible brand attributes) and affect/emotion (assessed through brand personality scale) this study intends to add to the current understanding of
consumer brand knowledge, in particular when the consumer is assessing a company’s brand image (the CBI) and also learn how important the effect of
cognitive attributes (such as brand attributes of a store and web site) is in explaining the subsequent CBI, and the integration effect on consumer
responses such as brand loyalty. Do cognitive evaluations drive conative, behavioural actions in retail buying decision making? Are cognitive
evaluations directly related with satisfaction with the retailer and consumer loyalty?
Practical implications – Explicitly, the present study offers practitioners a research framework, aimed at guiding them as to how they could
understand their defined or desired brand values (the corporate core values) among their consumers.
Originality/value – In general, the present study adds to the existing literature in cognitive and affective attributes in consumer judgement and
corresponding conative or behavioural attitudes in branding and reputation management. It brings together the concept of functional brand attributes,
emotional brand attributes (the CBI), and the dependent variables such as customer satisfaction and loyalty in a unique context (internet), and
compares this with the bricks and mortar context.

Keywords Retailing, Corporate branding, Cognition, Product attributes, Consumer behaviour, Brand management

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive knowledge, other aspects of brand knowledge (such as the
readers can be found at the end of this article. cognitive element of brands) may also be important.
“Integrating these different dimensions of brand knowledge
could improve the ability of researchers to model consumer
Literature review and hypotheses development responses and of marketers to focus their marketing program”
(Keller, 2003, p. 597).
To combine two methodological approaches (brand
In fact, Keller (2003, p. 596) pointed out that although the
attributes-tangible/intangible with metaphor of human
cognitive evaluation is suggested to be the common approach
personality traits)
Keller (2003, p. 596) points out that although the more in evaluating brand image in the past, the recent brand image
abstract and intangible aspects of branding (such as affect or studies have been centred on more affective or emotional
emotion) help to illuminate consumer aspects of brand attributes (specifically using metaphor of personality traits to
portray brand image). Moreover, Malhotra (2005) explains
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at that, for decades, consumer decision-making research was
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm mostly cognitive in nature (the use of brand attributes or
tangibles). However, in the last two decades, and more
recently, not only have an increasing number of scholars
Journal of Product & Brand Management acknowledged the importance of the affective and emotional
15/5 (2006) 293– 305
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
aspects in consumer behaviour (Burk and Edell, 1989;
[DOI 10.1108/10610420610685703] Holbrook and Westwood, 1989), but this has also been the

293
 Behavioural responses in retail corporate branding Journal of Product & Brand Management
Rui Vinhas Da Silva and Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi Volume 15 · Number 5 · 2006 · 293 –305

case of corporate brand image or brand personality studies elements (e.g. through advertising for example). Recently,
(Aaker, 1997; Keller, 2003; Ailwadi and Keller, 2004). there has been an attempt to investigate this interaction
Many others describe corporate brand and the association (cognitive-emotion) in branding. It is suggested that a model
to it (known as corporate association) as referring to both proposed by Argawal and Malhotra (2005), which integrates
cognition and affect. For example, Brown (1998, p. 217) these two components and investigates their effect on
defined corporate association as “cognition, affect evaluations consumer choice, is the first ever of its kind in
(that consumers attach to specific cognitions or affects) incorporating, discussing, and empirically testing the
summary evaluations and patterns of associations (eg. interaction effect (Malhotra, 2005). Argawal and Malhotra
schemata, scripts) with respect to a particular company”. In (2005) found that overall attitude (including choice) is a joint
other words, both cognition and affect could occur at the function of dimensional attitudes (which is the salient brand
same time. This view appeared consistent with other branding attribute), holistic affect (emotions and feelings) and
and consumer behaviour literature (e.g. Peter and Olson, interaction. Their model thus contributes to our knowledge
1999; Van Osselaer and Alba, 2000; Van Osselaer and by supporting the integration of both cognition and affect,
Janiszewski, 2001; Keller, 2003). supporting the notion of Lazarus (1982) which is that
This may be due to the fact that an image of a company thoughts and feelings are inseparable, which in turn
refers not only to “what we hear and see from the company’s influences overall attitude and consumer choice.
messages (impression formed from other people’s opinion or Recently Grimm (2005) investigated the relative
media advertising, but experience its product (the direct importance and interaction effect within attitude
contact the consumer has with the product)”, (Ind, 1997, components (i.e. cognitive, affective and conative-behaviour
p. 5). According to Antonides and Van Raaij (1998), people intention) in relation to the ability of each to predict brand
differ in their perception of reality depending on their own preferences across four products representing two classes of
experiences, life histories and personal situations when buying motives: utilitarian and hedonic. In her research, an
perceiving people, product or brand. As a result of these attitude was operationalised as brand attribute perception,
differences, each individual has a subjective view of reality affective responses and conative as personality congruence.
(Antonides and Van Raaij, 1998, p.109). In this area of study, The author found that the entire component of attitudes
this “subjectivity of reality or perception” has a significant toward the brand is unique and significant in explaining the
implication as it indicates that each consumer would have his/ brand preferences with cognitive brand attributes turning out
her own unique brand mental map (or consumer brand to have the most significant impact on brand preferences.
representation). In addition to this, the consumer brand From the above discussion, most related literatures seem to
knowledge may be derived from several sources: objective suggest that both elements (cognitive and affective attributes)
reality (consumer personal experience); constructed reality are important for consumer evaluation of brands (Brown,
(message from advertising and media); and experiences of 1998; De Chernatony, 2002; Keller, 2003; Argawal and
others (such as word-of-mouth) (Antonides and Van Raaij, Malhotra, 2005; Malhotra, 2005). However empirical
1998). The processing of information received from all research of this kind is very limited (e.g. see Sirgy and
combinations of these realities is what is known as consumer Samli, 1985; Selnes, 1993; Merrilees and Fry, 2003)
integration process. The process of perception formation is particularly in retailing (Ailwadi and Keller, 2004). Most
depicted in Figure 1. previous empirical research either adopted the affective basis
Therefore, a consumer association may be comprised of (such as the personality traits) to evaluate brand or corporate
both cognitive (i.e. from personal experience) and affective brand image (e.g. Aaker, 1997; Aaker et al., 2001; Davies and
Chun, 2002; Davies et al., 2003; Rojas-Mendez et al., 2004)
or cognitive basis evaluation which is found in most store
image studies regardless of contexts (e.g. Szymanski and Hise,
Figure 1 How perception is formed 2000; Thang and Tan, 2003; Semeijn et al., 2004; Van der
Heijden and Verhagen, 2004).
Yet, most related literatures seemed to pinpoint that both
elements (cognitive and affective) are important for corporate
brand studying. For example, Ailwadi and Keller (2004)
recently suggest that one of the future research priorities in
branding is to learn how applicable to retailer brand attributes
the brand personality traits are. They ask “do other
dimensions emerge and which retailer brand attributes affect
which dimensions of the retailer brand personality?” (Ailwadi
and Keller, 2004, p. 337).

To provide a theoretical understanding of the effect of

the cognitive element of brands (i.e. the brand
attributes) and affective element of brand (human
personality traits) when evaluating CBI
Malhotra (2005) explains that the focal issue regarding
cognitive and affective branding has been and continues to be
about the issue of causality or interaction between the two and
how that interaction influences the consumer decision-making
process or choice. In fact, the psychologists are still in

294
 Behavioural responses in retail corporate branding Journal of Product & Brand Management
Rui Vinhas Da Silva and Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi Volume 15 · Number 5 · 2006 · 293 –305

disagreement over the issue of how exactly the emotional (Gutman, 1982, p. 61). In fact, the means and ends approach
brain interacts with the cognitive brain (Fishbein, 1967; has been widely used in previous studies to help explain
Franzen and Bouwman, 2001). Fridja (1986) and consumers’ product and brand perceptions (Walker et al.,
Lazarus(1991) argue that in every sensory experience there 1987). Besides that, Franzen and Bouwman (2001, p. 208)
needs to be a form of interpretation and this interpretation is provide an explanation of how the means and ends theory
already cognitive in nature. In addition, Fridja (1986) claims could be applied in corporate brand image or brand
that the interpretation is necessary to the conscious and personality studies. The authors propose three levels of
unconscious experiencing of an emotion, and that means-end hierarchy as follows:
interpretation requires cognitive processing. 1 The level of physical and sensory attributes. For instance:
Although recently there have been attempts to understand brand signs (name, spelling, colour, logo, sound, visual
the interaction between cognition-emotion in branding (see style); concrete product attributes (e.g. visible, taste,
Argawal and Malhotra, 2005; Grimm, 2005), most of these smell, etc.) and abstract product attributes that sum the
studies did not investigate the hierarchy sequence or causality meaning of a product (e.g. cars can be categorised as
between the two. According to Oliver (1997) and Franzen and family cars, sports cars etc.).
Bouwman (2001), in consumption/satisfaction studies, there 2 The level of the direct functional implications of these traits,
could be several possibilities of sequence between cognition their advantages and disadvantages. For instance: direct
and emotion. For example, emotion can appear first and implication of the product (fast, strong, easy).
cognition second or vice-versa. In other words, they could be 3 The level of symbolic values or meanings, with which these in
dual processing. However, to-date, there is still no consensus turn, are connected. For instance: The psychosocial
about the sequence or causality between emotion and implication (the feelings aroused or invoked from using
cognition (Oliver, 1997; Franzen and Bouwman, 2001). But the brand such as happy); expressive values (personality
most past discussions in branding, consumer behaviour and traits associated with the brand); terminal values (the ideal
psychology appeared to suggest that the affective and representations of personal life such as freedom and
emotional usually stem from cognitive evaluation (Oliver, independence with which the brand is connected) and
1997, p.310; Franzen and Bouwman, 2001, p. 32). In other social values (the ideal representations of the society in
words, cognition can appear first and emotion second. For which we live).
example, Franzen and Bouwman (2001, p. 32) argue that
although the disagreement remains “It is often assumed that Criticisms of the CBI methodological approach:
emotional reactions always stem from cognitive evaluation”. metaphor of human personality traits is less evaluative
Explicitly, in corporate brand image studying, Davies et al. due to metaphor?
(2003, p. 143) argue that the rational attributes might be Reputation or CBI could be measured via the metaphor of
appropriately seen as “causes” to brand image rather than the human personality traits (Davies et al., 2004). Examples of
image itself. Patterson (1999, p.419) in addition states the trait scale include: Corporate Character Scale (Davies
“Brand Image is a consumer’s perceptions of brand attributes et al., 2004) or Brand Personality Scale (Aaker, 1997). These
and associations from which those consumers derive symbolic scales propose a projective technique that asks respondents to
value”. Aaker (1996, p. 145) further suggests that product- imagine that the company comes to life as a person. This kind
related characteristics (cognitive elements) could be primary of research is thought to be very important (Sirgy and Samli,
drivers of brand personality. In other words, cognitive 1985). Sirgy and Samli (1985, p. 287) state that the retail
thinking could have taken place first (through functional/ manager needs to realise that symbolic images of the store
utilitarian reason) which then leads to emotional or affective play a significant role in store patronage and loyalty
reaction. This in turn may lead to the overall evaluation (or behaviours . . . “The retailer should gather information
overall affect-satisfaction) and thus lead to conative, about how consumers see their stores in personality terms”.
behaviour intention (e.g. loyalty intention) and Besides, the advantage of using this methodological approach
subsequently, actual behaviour. is that it is proposed as a creative form of research, as by
In addition, Batra et al. (1993) explain that personality asking the respondent to imagine that the company was alive,
traits are normally associated with a brand in an indirect way, respondents were asked to think of brand differently through
for instance, through product-related attributes, product personality traits (Franzen and Bouwman, 2001). Aaker
category association, brand name, symbol or logo, advertising (1997) suggests the symbolic use of brands is possible because
style, price and distribution channel. All of these views consumers often imbue brands with human personality traits:
appeared consistent with De Chernatony’s (2002) and for example, Coca-Cola is “cool”. Furthermore, Davies et al.
De Chernatony and Christodoulides’ (2004) brand triangle (2003) recommend that in order to understand the CBI of a
framework to explain the phenomena in corporate brand company, researchers could adopt the metaphor of
image evaluation. They explain that consumers usually personality traits scale as an indirect measure to the
evaluate the rational part of the brand before progressing to corporate brand image. Another strength of brand image
the emotional level when evaluating a corporate brand. The research is the meaning of the symbolic brand value itself as it
authors suggest that their framework is grounded in the is more of a stable factor over time (Porter and Claycomb,
means-ends theory (Gutman, 1982). This theory is about the 1997; Franzen and Bouwman, 2001; Davies et al., 2003).
categorisation process, which is a method of studying how Rokeach (1973, p. 5) defined value as “an enduring belief that
consumers organise their thinking about specific product a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is
alternatives (Gutman, 1982). “The model seeks to describe personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse
how a product or service selection facilitates the achievement mode of conduct or end-state of existence”. In fact, marketers
of desired end states: for example, individual personal values use these brand personalities or CBI dimensions as their guide
(freshness of a toothpaste, which then leads to happiness)” when they advertise their brand value or message to their

295
 Behavioural responses in retail corporate branding Journal of Product & Brand Management
Rui Vinhas Da Silva and Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi Volume 15 · Number 5 · 2006 · 293 –305

customers (McEnally and De Chernatony, 1999, p. 10). This evaluate the image of a retail store or even the brand image
shows that this type of research is indeed seen as important to of a company. For example, Zimmer and Golden (1988) have
marketing. conducted qualitative research to explore retail store image
However, a number of academics have raised concerns in from a consumer’s perspective. Generally, the authors
using this methodological approach. Morgeson and investigated whether consumers describe store image in
Hoffmann (1999) state, “metaphor can illuminate but it can terms of individual store attributes (attributes-specific), or a
also deceive if the metaphor is taken too literally, as global or overall impression (e.g. symbolic value-specific) or
metaphors are, literally false”. Hunt and Menon (1995) any other type of image descriptors. They discovered that 32
added that the company is not a human being and does not of 47 categories were attribute-specific perceptions (which
share their characteristics. Besides that, because of very related to layout/appearance, physical facilities, quality,
limited literature in this kind of research (Aaker, 1997, merchandise, selection, sales people, location, prices, good
p. 348), (e.g. see Aaker, 1997; Duarte and Davies, 2002; service and reputation). The remaining image descriptors
Davies and Chun, 2002; Davies et al., 2004; Rojas-Mendez were among the global impression (overall/general
et al., 2004), the personality trait approach is, by and large, perception), store type labels, prototypes and examples,
based on empirical (factor-analytic) studies with limited product and consumer’s own behaviour. Although other type
discussion on the theoretical background of the factors, of descriptors (affect type) are present in a consumer’s mind,
(Pervin, 1989; Beren and Van Riel, 2004). Furthermore,
cognitive attribute-related specifics represent the major part of
Eysenck (1991), McAdams (1992) and Block (1995)
evaluation in their minds (Zimmer and Golden, 1988).
question the number and nature of personality factors.
Integration of both cognitive (represented by brand
Beren and Van Riel (2004, p. 171) argue that personality
attributes in this study) with affective or emotion
traits are not always evaluative in comparison to social
(represented by corporate brand or brand personality in this
expectation (such as delivering good products, having good
study) might then be essential. As “the merging reality is that
financial performance and being environmentally
responsible). Internet brands are reliant upon developing unique and
In technology-based self-service options, Dabholkar (1996) personalised customer experiences rather than merely
discovered that consumers appear to favour the attributes- attempting to reinforce existing brand values through
based model (i.e. speed of delivery, ease of use, reliability, communication” (Stuart and Jones, 2004, p. 86). This point
enjoyment and control) in forming evaluations of service therefore emphasises that consumer personal experience with
delivery over the overall affect model (i.e. consumer’s feeling the brand which, according to Maathius et al. (2004), is
towards the technology). They state, “Although the overall cognitive in nature, is more important than ever in evaluating
affect model is also supported, it does not add further brand image in an online context.
explanatory power to the attribute-based model” (Dabholkar,
1996, p. 45). Besides that, Wilde et al. (2004) inspected
dimensions of attributes and reputation or brand image to Research problem
measure e-tail (online) image. The authors establish that However, these views are mainly conceptual in nature rather
e-tailer reputation and e-tailer branding are merely additional than empirical (with exceptions – studies by Selnes, 1993;
attributes to “institutional factors” and that these institutional
Merrilees and Fry, 2002). Merrilees and Fry (2002)
factors (which include online attributes such as core product
investigate what drives corporate brand image from the
and service attributes) are the ones that represent the central
consumer perspective in both online and offline retail
image of the e-tailer.
contexts. They suggest that these cognitive elements (such
From the above discussions, it is not to say that reputation
as e-interactivity, e-trust, e-navigation, fun) drive the CBI in
and corporate branding are not essential, but consumers may
use rather more cognitive (thought/reasoning) evaluations their study.
than affective (feeling/emotions). In fact, Aaker (1996, p. 73) Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that in evaluating the
explains that such research (using cognitive approach) is CBI, the cognitive element (the brand attributes that are
popular because of several reasons: it is often effective, related to the company performance which may include ease
because attributes play an important part in the consumer’s of use, navigation, personalisation in a web site and layout,
decision to purchase and the user’s experience; it is relatively personal interaction, reliability) may be seen as an antecedent
easy, because consumers are more comfortable talking about to affect or emotional evaluation (the brand personality which
these tangible attributes rather than less tangible benefits includes Agreeableness, Enterprising, Informality).
(which might seem irrational); and it reassures managers that The questions are then:
consumers evaluate brands using a logical model, which
.
Do cognitive evaluations drive connative, behavioural
means that their decisions are easier to predict and actions in retail buying decision making?
understand. Brown (2003, p. 369) sums up that “. . . many
.
Are cognitive evaluations directly related with satisfaction
traditional approaches are more direct in their attempt to with the retailer and consumer loyalty?
assess actual beliefs about a company. Presumably these
beliefs drive stakeholder projections of the personality, but we The study’s theoretical model
cannot tell, based on the information presented in the book. Thus, brand attributes are seen as antecedents of brand
Therefore, one of the shortcomings is that of neglecting to personality, which in turn may affect customer satisfaction
empirically distinguish corporate personality from other (the outcome such as happy or pleased with the store) and
aspects of reputation and consider their interrelationships”. intention of being loyal to the company. The models shown in
Furthermore, these elements (the cognitive/brand Figure 2 and Figure 3 diagrammatically explain the
attributes-specific) are frequently cited when consumers theoretical propositions for both contexts of the current study.

296
 Behavioural responses in retail corporate branding Journal of Product & Brand Management
Rui Vinhas Da Silva and Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi Volume 15 · Number 5 · 2006 · 293 –305

Figure 2 The theoretical model: online context

Figure 3 The theoretical model: offline context

Summary of theoretical issues Methodology

By using the brand triangle framework (grounded in means-
end theory) developed by De Chernatony (2002) and Questionnaire design
De Chernatony and Christodoulides (2004), and also other The instrument for collecting the data of this research is a
related academic views (brand literatures – , e.g. Aaker, 1996; highly structured questionnaire. A pre-selected set of brand
Patterson, 1999; Franzen and Bouwman, 2001 and Davies attributes for both contexts, pre-selected CBI dimensions
et al., 2003; consumer behaviour literatures – Gutman, 1982; proposed by Davies et al. (2004), customer satisfaction items
Oliver, 1997; and psychologist views – Lazarus, 1991; Fridja, as proposed by Oliver (1997); Davies and Chun (2002), and
1986) could provide a theoretical basis for this study. loyalty intention measures as proposed by Zeithaml et al.
Specifically, they could explain why cognitive attributes may (1996) have all been adopted as measurements to meet the
be seen as antecedents in this study. study’s aims. The following paragraphs are a means of
explaining: the rationale of choosing the identified brand
variables/attributes; how they are generated from the
Practical contribution literature; and the rationale of choosing Davies et al.’s
By testing this notion, the study could help not only to test the (2004) CBI dimensions, CS and LI items over other relevant
brand triangle framework as proposed by the authors but also or competitive scales.
to add to the understanding of cognitive effect on affective According to Davies et al. (2003), the dimensions and items
evaluation with regard to evaluation of CBI in a retail context. of their scale reflect the content of human personality
This type of research could also in someway address a deeper descriptor and represent words that people are comfortable
understanding of how consumers feel, think and act, which in with in describing a corporate brand. An original list of 113
effect will provide valuable guidance to address brand items was drawn from a number of literature sources,
management challenges (Keller, 2003). including branding, identity, culture and corporate

297
 Behavioural responses in retail corporate branding Journal of Product & Brand Management
Rui Vinhas Da Silva and Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi Volume 15 · Number 5 · 2006 · 293 –305

reputation. This was reduced to 93 items and finally to 49 intention to act (such as intent to re-purchase or re-visit), a
items through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. It more suitable definition to meet the study’s objective is
was expected that corporate brand image would be multi- satisfaction as a type of outcome which has an affective basis.
dimensional with at least five main factors: (Agreeableness; In line with Oliver (1997, p. 13), satisfaction is conceptualised
Enterprise; Competence; Chic; Ruthlessness) and two minor as “a pleasurable level of consumption related fulfilment” in
factors: (Informality; and Machismo). These two factors were the context of the present study, as highlighted earlier.
retained in their study although they were not strongly Two different studies have been used to help determine the
defined, not generally predicted in the literature and did not multi-item satisfaction in this study. Four items have been
explain much of the variance in the data set (Davies et al., adopted consistent with Davies and Chun (2002) and another
2004), on the basis that these minor factors might be relevant two items from Oliver (1997). This multi-items scale is
in other contexts. These two minor factors, together with the consistent with Davies and Chun’s (2002) corporate brand
inclusion of a negatively constructed dimension, are therefore image study and Davies et al. (2003) corporate reputation
worthy of investigation in the context of this study. The study. Table II exhibits the multi-items adopted to measure
corporate character scale is exhibited in Table I. the outcome satisfaction in this study.

Loyalty intention/conative behaviour

Customer satisfaction measurement
Despite the argument as to whether loyalty should be
Single-and multi-item scales are the two types of scales used
conceptualised as attitude, behaviour or both, it is evident
in customer satisfaction surveys, (Danaher and Haddrell,
that most previous studies have conceptualised it as a
1996). The single-item scale generally has 2-9 points behavioural response (Shukla, 2004). Thus, for the purpose
reflecting “very satisfied” to “very dissatisfied” responses of the present study, it is thought that loyalty may be more
(Andreasen and Best, 1977). The single items, however, appropriate when seen as a behavioural response or conative
firstly, cannot provide information on components and cannot behaviour (Zeithaml et al., 1996; East et al., 2000). In line
assess various dimensions separately; therefore they may not with Jacoby and Chestnut (1978, p. 80), loyalty is “The
capture the complexity of customer satisfaction totally, biased behavioural response, expressed over time, by some
(Danaher and Haddrell, 1996). Moreover, reliability decision making unit, with respect to one store out of a set of
assessment is complicated with a single-item measure, other stores, which is a function of psychological (decision making
than by using the test-retest reliability, (Yi, 1990). and evaluative) processes resulting from commitment”.
Multi-items measures on the other hand are claimed to be Apparently, this is consistent with other relevant literatures
more reliable in the satisfaction measurment (Yi, 1990). In when the objective is to link corporate image/brand image
fact, many studies though, have adopted the multi-item scales with satisfaction and loyalty (Davies et al., 2003).
of customer satisfaction (e.g. Oliver, 1980; Churchill and The foci of store or corporate brand loyalty intention
Surprenant, 1982; Bearden and Teel, 1983). According to measures have generally centred on the propensity to
Schmalensee (2003), the research objectives strongly affect repurchase (loyalty intentions) (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978)
the choice of scales. Thus, since the study’s interest is to or likelihood to repurchase (Areni et al., 1999) and positive
evaluate consumer perception of the store’s corporate brand word-of-mouth recommendations/willingness to recommend
image (after brand attribution experience) and how this (Zeithaml et al., 1996). Zeithaml et al. (1996) suggest that
perception (e.g. the positive evaluation/reactions (affect) of loyalty could be exhibited in many ways such as expressing
brand image such as excitement or competence or preference for a company over others, and by continuing to
agreeableness) may affect their satisfaction or response and purchase from it. In fact Zeithaml et al. (1996) propose a
comprehensive framework on loyalty because the
Table I Items/dimensions of corporate character scale conceptualisation and measurement of store loyalty has
always been limited and often ignores the fact that action
Dimensions 49 items may follow the evaluation. The loyalty framework that is
proposed is:
Agreeableness Friendly, pleasant, open, straightforward, .
word-of-mouth communication;
concerned, reassuring, supportive, agreeable, .
purchase intentions;
honest, sincere, socially-responsible, trustworthy . price sensitivity; and
Competence Reliable, secure, hardworking, .
complaint behaviour.
ambitious, achievement-oriented, leading,
technical, corporate The present study adopted two parts of the framework:
Enterprise Cool, trendy, young, word-of-mouth communication and purchase intention. This
imaginative, up-to-date, exciting, innovative, is consistent with previous corporate brand image frameworks
extrovert, daring (Davies and Chun, 2002; Davies et al., 2003; Merrilees and
Chic Charming, stylish, elegant, Fry, 2002). It should be noted though that the actual
prestigious, exclusive, refined, behaviour is not measured in the current study. Table II
snobby, élitist
summarises the satisfaction and loyalty intention measures
adopted in the current study for both contexts.
Ruthlessness Arrogant, aggressive, selfish,
inward-looking, authoritarian, controlling
Machismo Masculine, tough, rugged Data collection
Informality Casual, simple, easy-going The questionnaire
Source: Davies et al. (2004) The questionnaire is a seven-page long, double-sided
document with a covering letter attached at the front. The

298
 Behavioural responses in retail corporate branding Journal of Product & Brand Management
Rui Vinhas Da Silva and Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi Volume 15 · Number 5 · 2006 · 293 –305

Table II A summary of how satisfaction and loyalty intention are conceptualised for both contexts in the present study
Variable (Items/indicators) Generated from
Satisfaction As outcome emotional “I am happy shopping with the site or store” Oliver (1997)
“I am pleased to be associated with the site or store”
“The site has a distinct brand personality” Davies and Chun (2002); Davies et al. (2003)
“The site has a unique identity”
“I feel an affinity with the site/store”
“Please indicate your overall satisfaction with XXX”
Loyalty As intention behaviour “I would recommend this site to a friend” Zeithaml et al. (1996)
“I consider this site to be my first choice for buying books in future”
“I will do more business from this site in the future”

cover letter has been designed so that it guarantees the steadily, and consumer spending on books rising more or less
respondents’ anonymity, thus reducing the perceived risk for in line with the growth of gross domestic product (GDP).
the respondent to be followed-up. The questionnaire is Moreover, the book industry is reported to contribute to the
divided into two columns representing the online and offline UK’s fastest growing economy and is the most bought
bookstores. Respondents were required to answer the same product on the Internet (The Media Pocket Book, 2003). In
items for both contexts. The first part of the questionnaire fact, the most bought product online is books, followed by
consists of the entire 49 trait items proposed by Davies et al. music, CDs, DVDs, etc. and the pattern has also remained
(2004). Respondents were asked to circle their answers in a stable throughout the years. Hence, the choice of book as the
Likert scale format (1 to 5) with “strongly disagree”, product for this study may thus be appropriate.
“disagree”, “neutral”, “agree” and “strongly agree” in both
contexts as recommended by Davies et al. (2004). The second The study sample
part consists of background information. The third part (3a) The chosen sample for this study should not be only familiar
consists of all items of online brand attributes and (3b) (or have “sufficient experience”) with the chosen online and
consists of offline brand attributes. For part 3(a), in line with offline bookstore of this study (i.e. known as online user or
Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2003) and other academic scholars offline visitor) but must also at least have bought any type of
where the items for online brand attributes were adopted, books from both contexts of bookstores in a particular period.
respondents were asked to circle their answers in a 7-point That is, in order to ensure respondents’ familiarity or
Likert scale format (1 to 7) with “strongly disagree”, “sufficient experience” of the chosen online or offline
“disagree”, “slightly disagree”, “neutral”, “slightly agree”, bookstores, they must meet the following conditions:
“agree” and “strongly agree”. As for part 3(b), in line with
.
use online store’s web site at least once a month;
Dabholkar et al. (1996) and as recommended by
.
have bought a book at least three times in the last year
Parasuraman et al. (1991), the 7-point rating scale used in through the online store’s web site;
SERVQUAL was reduced to a 5-point Likert scale format
.
have visited offline store at least once a month; and
with “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “neutral”, “agree” and
.
have bought a book at least three times from the offline
“strongly agree”. The fourth part comprised of five store in the last year.
satisfaction items and three loyalty items. Respondents were
asked to circle their answers in a Likert scale format (1 to 5) Step-two approach – the structural model
with “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “neutral”, “agree” and Once the measurement model is validated (as indicated in the
“strongly agree” in both contexts as consistent with the first and second orders and step-one model), it can then enter
previously adopted scale (Oliver, 1997; Davies and Chun, stage two – the step-two approach or the structural model. In
2002). The final part comprised of demographic information. summary, the validated measurement models refer to
The items were arranged in a random order and use either a acceptable fit indexes, feasible and statistically significant
five-point or seven-point Likert scale, (Oppenheim, 1986). parameters and lack of any substantial model misfit. The
concern at step-two approach is to test the study’s theoretical
Contexts chosen for the study models (see Figure 4 and the listed hypotheses). While
The empirical contexts being studied here were those of two discriminant, convergent validity, unidimensionality, and
retail bookstores, one which operates in a strictly virtual reliability were all dealt with earlier in the measurement
environment and another, operating in a bricks and mortar model phases, the full model deals with the predictive or
environment. It should be noted that the offline bookstore has nomological validity and hypotheses testing. Predictive
a presence online. However, after a meeting with the senior validity can be achieved by correlating constructs to other
management of the chosen offline bookshop, they insisted constructs that they should predict, (Garver and Mentzer,
that they are focusing on the high street rather than online in 1999). In other words, the correlation between the construct
relation to book selling. Thus, their site is about having a and the one that it should predict should be substantial in
presence online, rather than a tool for selling purposes. Both magnitude (i.e. known as structural coefficients or
bookstores offer their customers a wide range of books, standardised regression weights in AMOS), and must be
including consumer, academic and schoolbooks. Books statistically significant, (Garver and Mentzer, 1999). For
represent one fifth of the UK publishing sector (Keynote, example, if H1 suggests there is an effect of ease-of-use on
2004), which has led to the number of published books rising online CBI, then it should have significant structural

299
 Behavioural responses in retail corporate branding Journal of Product & Brand Management
Rui Vinhas Da Silva and Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi Volume 15 · Number 5 · 2006 · 293 –305

Figure 4 Online step-two structural model

coefficient or regression and indicate the correct sign as explain the slight decrease in the GFI index. Moreover, this
hypothesised, otherwise it would not have the ability or power decision is consistent with other related existing studies such
to predict. as Bloemer (2002) and Srinivasan et al. (2002) where the
index of GFI in their studies exhibited 0.79 and 0.75
Online and offline step-two structural model respectively. Despite that, the model fit excellently with other
The results of the overall model fit excellently for both chosen indexes, where all of them indicated the acceptable
contexts except: the x2 is non significant (which is common level of fit.
when a sample size larger than 200 is involved (Anderson and Besides, the structural regression coefficients indicate that
Gerbing, 1988; Garver and Mentzer, 1999), and the GFI except for the Reliability variable, which is not significant for
index is less than 0.9, (GFI ¼ 0:861 in online model and both contexts, other predictors’ variables appeared to indicate
0.872 in offline model). According to Hair et al. (1998), the effect on online and offline corporate brand image. For
marginally accepted GFI ¼ 0:874. Bloemer (2002) explains example, Ease of Use (0.21 * ), Security (0.26 * ),
that GFI index usually shows as lower due to measures being Personalisation (0.31 *) and Customer Care (0.13 *) all
more easily affected by sample size and model complexity. As explain 56 per cent of the variance in the online corporate
the current analysis used the total disaggregation method, as brand image with Personalisation and Security having the
explained earlier, model complexity is unavoidable. This may most effect. In the offline setting, on the other hand, Personal

300
 Behavioural responses in retail corporate branding Journal of Product & Brand Management
Rui Vinhas Da Silva and Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi Volume 15 · Number 5 · 2006 · 293 –305

Interaction (with structural coefficient ¼ 0.44 *) and Product The effect and the most salient brand attributes in
factors (0.32 *) appeared to explain the most variation (69 per explaining online and offline CBI
cent) along with Physical Aspects (0.19 *) of the bookstore Although there were clearly other attributes that may
(see Figure 2 and Figure 3). explain the CBI for both contexts, brand attributes appear
The effect of online and offline corporate brand image on to have a substantial effect on the online CBI (56 per cent
satisfaction and loyalty were performed in the full structural in total variance) and offline (69 per cent) contexts. This
model and results show, in particular, that both directions could be a significant explanation to both academics and
(direct and indirect effects) of corporate brand image are practitioners, as they could understand which brand
positively significant in this study for both contexts as attributes are more salient in consumers’ minds when they
hypothesised. As depicted below, the direct effect ¼ 0.41 evaluate the CBI for both contexts. For example, not only
(Online Corporate brand image
! Loyalty Intention) and could they learn that personalisation, ease of use, security
Indirect effect ¼ 0.29 (Online Corporate brand image
! and customer care are all important in influencing the
Satisfaction
! Loyalty Intention). The sum effect of online online CBI but also personalisation appears to have the
corporate brand image ¼ 0.70. In terms of offline context, the most effect in influencing the CBI. On the other hand,
personal interaction, product related attributes and physical
direct effect of offline corporate brand image ¼ 0.44 (Offline
aspects have an influence on offline CBI, and in particular,
Corporate brand image
! Loyalty Intention and Indirect
personal interaction has the most effect in predicting the
effect ¼ 0.33 (Offline Corporate brand image
! Satisfaction
offline CBI.

! Loyalty Intention). The sum effect ¼ 0.77. The
The study found that certain brand attributes were more
subsequent chapter discusses this finding in more detail. In important than others in predicting online and offline CBI.
both cases, online and offline brand image appeared to For example, despite claims that CBI has been relatively
explain 60 per cent and 69 per cent respectively of the loyalty understudied (Burt and Sparks, 2002; Davies and Chun,
intention in this study. Apparently, this is consistent with 2002; Merrilees and Fry, 2002; Balmer and Gray, 2003),
other related studies. For example, 60 per cent of online store the factor personalisation appears to be the most important
image explains the online purchase intention (Van der in contributing to an e-tailer’s (or online) brand image and
Heijden and Verhagen, 2004) and 81.5 per cent of brand personal interaction in retailer’s (offline) brand image. This
reputation predicts customer loyalty (Selnes, 1993). Also see in turn has either direct or indirect effects on consumer
Table III for the Online Step-Two Structural Model: The Fit loyalty. Past research has shown that ease of use and
Indexes, Table IV for the Offline Step-Two Structural Model: product information, security, price and convenience have
The Fit Indexes and Table V for the Description of the Offline been amongst the most important online attributes in
Final Model: Means (m), Standard deviation (s) and predicting customer satisfaction and online purchasing
Correlation. (behavioural outcomes). However, this research has helped
to add that while ease of use and security are still
important, when it comes to understanding a company’s
Results and discussion brand image in an online environment, personalisation and
customer service are also important. Customer service (the
Testing theoretical model – brand triangle/means-end ability to respond to problems, care) has been less
theory important or insignificant in past research when predicting
The study has tested the brand triangle framework customer satisfaction and loyalty (Bansal et al., 2004),
(De Chernatony and Christodoulides, 2004), which was however it appears to be important in predicting the overall
grounded under the Gutman (1982) means and end theory. online CBI. The Personalisation factor has been considered
In both the online and offline contexts, this theoretical an important determinant for Internet branding in the past,
framework is useful in explaining the nature of brand however most studies that link personalisation with
development. Using two separate structural equation branding are mainly conceptual rather than empirical
models, the study found an empirical relationship between (Merrilees and Fry, 2002). Therefore, the study confirms
the brand attributes and the corporate brand image (the not only the notion that building relationships is vital
emotional values). This relationship in turn influences the online, but also that consumers are co-creators of corporate
customer’s responses (loyalty). brands in the online context and that an online company
has to “listen” more to its customers (Ind and Riondino,
2001). By listening more to their customers (i.e. the
Table III Online step-two structural model: the fit indices company checks the database for which book their
Fit indices x2 x2/df GFI TLI CFI RMSEA consumers normally browse, then, suggest a relevant book
to the customer in the future) the company may be
1866.09 perceived as making an effort to build relationships with its
p , 0.001 1.8 0.861 0.933 0.938 0.041 customers. Thus, exploiting this potential and unique
feature of the Internet (with more interaction and a
personalised website) should be the target of marketers, as
Table IV Offline step-two structural model: the fit indices it could help to increase the promised experienced by the
companies to the customers (De Chernatony and
Fit indices x2 x2/df GFI TLI CFI RMSEA Christodoulides, 2004). This could then help the
1676.69 advertiser identify which attributes to emphasise when
p , 0.001 1.9 0.872 0.937 0.941 0.042 advertising their corporate brand image or brand
personality.

301
 Behavioural responses in retail corporate branding Journal of Product & Brand Management
Rui Vinhas Da Silva and Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi Volume 15 · Number 5 · 2006 · 293 –305

Table V Description of the offline final model: means (m), standard deviation (s) and correlation
No. Variables m s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Personal interaction 3.45 0.677 1 * * *0.520 * * *0.512 * * *0.444 * * *0.578 * * *0.298 * * *0.484 * * *0.303 * * *0.527 * * *0.563
2 Product 3.59 0.779 * * *0.520 1 * * *0.550 * * *0.325 * * *0.450 * * *0.294 * * *0.462 * * *0.292 * * *0.538 * * *0.574
3 Physical aspects 3.68 0.774 * * *0.512 * * *0.550 1 * * *0.308 * * *0.416 * * *0.261 * * *0.374 * * *0.334 * * *0.512 * * *0.537
4 Reliability 3.11 0.294 * * *0.444 * * *0.325 * * *0.308 1 * * *0.298 * * *0.185 * * *0.279 * * *0.193 * * *0.284 * * *0.321
5 Agreeableness 3.86 0.547 * * *0.578 * * *0.450 * * *0.416 * * *0.298 1 * * *0.419 * * *0.621 * * *0.442 * * *0.527 * * *0.459
6 Enterprise 3.03 0.621 * * *0.298 * * *0.294 * * *0.261 * * *0.185 * * *0.419 1 * * *0.277 * * *0.330 * * *0.365 * * *0.332
7 Competence 3.71 0.610 * * *0.484 * * *0.462 * * *0.374 * * *0.279 * * *0.621 * * *0.277 1 * * *0.415 * * *0.464 * * *0.437
8 Chic 3.45 0.704 * * *0.303 * * *0.292 * * *0.334 * * *0.193 * * *0.442 * * *0.330 * * *0.415 1 * * *0.378 * * *0.262
9 Satisfaction 3.31 0.779 * * *0.527 * * *0.538 * * *0.512 * * *0.284 * * *0.527 * * *0.365 * * *0.464 * * *0.378 1 * * *0.700
10 Loyalty intention 5.13 1.01 * * *0.563 * * *0.574 * * *0.537 * * *0.321 * * *0.459 * * *0.332 * * *0.437 * * *0.262 * * *0.700 1
Note: * * *correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Managerial implications Ailwadi, K.L. and Keller, K.L. (2004), “Understanding retail
branding: conceptual insights and research priorities”,
Are desired brand values effectively communicated? Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 331-42.
Explicitly, the present study offers practitioners a research Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural
framework, aimed at guiding them as to how they could equation modelling in practice: a review and
understand their defined or desired brand values (the recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin,
corporate core values) among their consumers. As pointed Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
out in the early stage of this study, a comparison between the Andreasen, A.R. and Best, A. (1977), “Consumers complain
desired brand values to that of the reality perception of the – does business respond?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 55
consumers (the added value) is very important because: No. 4, pp. 93-101.
Companies could design or set their core values but ultimately Antonides, G. and Van Raaij, F.W. (1998), Consumer
it is their customers – not them – who decide whether the Behaviour: A European Perspective, Wiley, London.
promise the brand represents is fulfilled (Topalian, 2003; Areni, C.S., Duhan, D.F. and Kiecker, P. (1999), “Point of
Urde, 2003). The customers are the ones who will determine purchase, displays, product organisation and brand
whether or not they appreciate and welcome the company’s purchase likelihood”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
desired values. Consumer association with or appreciation of Science, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 428-41.
the company’s desired brand values is known as the company Argawal, J. and Malhotra, N.K. (2005), “An integrated model
added value, (De Chernatony and McDonald, 1998; Urde, of attitude and affect: theoretical foundation and an
2003). Thus, by learning that personalisation, security, ease of empirical investigation”, Journal of Business Research,
use and customer service are significant in relation to the Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 483-93.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003), “Corporate brands:
company’s brand image online (i.e. Agreeableness,
what are they? What of them?”, European Journal of
Enterprise, Competence, Chic and Informality), and
Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 972-97.
personal interaction, physical aspects and product-related Bansal, H.S., McDougall, G.H.G., Dikoli, S.S. and
attributes are significant in the company’s brand image offline Sedatole, K.L. (2004), “Relating e-satisfaction to
(i.e. Agreeableness, Enterprise, Competence and Chic), the behavioural outcomes: an empirical study”, Journal of
company could compare whether their desired brand values Services Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 290-302.
match those perceived by the customer (the added value). Batra, R., Donald, R.L. and Dipinder, S. (1993), “The brand
Ultimately, with this knowledge, the company could not only personality component of brand goodwill: some
learn which factors to include or address in their advertising antecedents and consequences”, in Aaker, D.A. and
strategy, but they could position and differentiate or Biel, A. (Eds), Brand Equity and Advertising, Lawrence
reposition or redefine their brand values from that of their Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 83-95.
competitors. Bearden, W.O. and Teel, J.E. (1983), “Selected determinants
of consumer satisfaction and complaint behaviour”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 21-8.
References Beren, G. and Van Riel, C.B.M. (2004), “Corporate
associations in the academic literature: three main streams
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, Simon & Schuster of thought in the reputation measurement literature”,
UK Ltd, London. Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 161-78.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Block, J. (1995), “A contrarian view of the five-factor
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 342-52. approach to personality description”, Psychological Bulletin,
Aaker, J.L., Benet-Martinez, V. and Garolera, J. (2001), Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
“Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: a study of Bloemer, J. (2002), “Store satisfaction and store loyalty
Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs”, explained by customer-and store-related factors”, Journal of
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining
pp. 492-508. Behaviour, Vol. 15, pp. 68-80.

302
 Behavioural responses in retail corporate branding Journal of Product & Brand Management
Rui Vinhas Da Silva and Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi Volume 15 · Number 5 · 2006 · 293 –305

Brown, T.J. (1998), “Corporate associations in marketing: for construct validity”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20
antecedents and consequences”, Corporate Reputation No. 1, pp. 33-57.
Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 215-33. Grimm, P.E. (2005), “A components’ impact on brand
Brown, T.J. (2003), “Corporate reputation and preference”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 4,
competitiveness”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 pp. 508-17.
No. 4, pp. 368-70. Gutman, J. (1982), “A means-end chain model based on
Burk, M.C. and Edell, J.A. (1989), “The impact of feelings consumer categorisation process”, Journal of Marketing,
on ad-based affect and cognition”, Journal of Marketing Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 60-72.
Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 69-83. Hair, F.J., Anderson, E.R., Tatham, L.R. and Black, C.W.
Burt, L.S. and Sparks, L. (2002), “Corporate branding, (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall Inc.,
retailing and retail internationalisation”, Corporate Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 194-212. Holbrook, M.B. and Westwood, R.A. (1989), “The role of
Churchill, G.A. Jr and Surprenant, C. (1982), emotion in advertising revisited: testing a typology of
“An investigation into the determinants of customer emotional responses”, in Cafferate, P. and
satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, Tybout, A.M. (Eds), Cognitive and Affective Responses to
pp. 491-504. Advertising, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 353-71.
Dabholkar, P.A. (1996), “Consumer evaluations of new Hunt, S.D. and Menon, A. (1995), “Metaphor and
technology-based self-service options: an investigation of competitive advantage: evaluating the use of metaphor in
alternative models of service quality”, International Journal theories of competitive strategy”, Journal of Business
of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 29-51. Research, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 81-90.
Danaher, P.J. and Haddrell, V. (1996), “A comparison of Ind, N. (1997), The Corporate Brand, Macmillan Press Ltd,
question scales used for measuring customer satisfaction”, London.
International Journal of Service Industry, Vol. 7 No. 4, Ind, N. and Riondino, C.M. (2001), “Branding on the web:
pp. 4-17. a real revolution?”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9
Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2002), “Gaps between the internal No. 1, pp. 8-19.
and external perceptions of the corporate brand”, Corporate Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R.W. (1978), Brand Loyalty
Measurement and Management, John Wiley & Sons,
Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 144-58.
New York, NY.
Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R. and Roper, S. (2003),
Keller, K.L. (2003), “Brand synthesis: the
Corporate Reputation and Competitiveness, Routledge,
multidimensionality of brand knowledge”, Journal of
London.
Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 595-600.
Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R. and Roper, S. (2004),
Keynote (2004), Bookselling: Market Report, 12th ed.,
“Corporate character scale to assess employee and
Keynote, Arlington, VA.
customer views of organisation reputation”, Corporate
Lazarus, R.S. (1982), “Thoughts on the relation between
Reputation Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 125-46. emotion and cognition”, American Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 9,
De Chernatony, L. (2002), “Would a brand smell any sweeter
pp. 1019-24.
by a corporate name?”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Lazarus, R.S. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation, Oxford
Nos 2/3, pp. 114-32. University Press, New York, NY.
De Chernatony, L. and Christodoulides, G. (2004), “Taking McAdams, D.P. (1992), “The five-factor model in
the brand promise online: challenges and opportunities”, personality: a critical appraisal”, Journal of Personality,
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 238-51. Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 329-61.
De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (1998), Creating McEnally, M.R. and de Chernatony, L. (1999), “The evolving
Powerful Brands, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. nature of branding: consumer and managerial
Duarte, M. and Davies, G. (2002), “The anatomy of the Ford considerations”, Academy of Marketing Science Review,
brand”, paper presented at the 6th International Vol. 1999 No. 2, pp. 1-24, available at: www.amsreview.
Conference on Corporate Reputation, Sheraton Hotel, org/articles/mcenally02-1999.pdf
Boston, MA, 23-25 May. Maathius, O., Rodenburg, J. and Sikkel, D. (2004),
East, R., Sinclair, J. and Gendall, P. (2000), “Loyalty: “Credibility, emotion or reason?”, Corporate Reputation
definition and explanation”, paper presented at ANZMAC Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 333-45.
Conference, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, 28 Malhotra, N.K. (2005), “Attitude and affect: new frontier of
November-1 December, available at: www.ANZMAC2000/ research in the 21st century”, Journal of Business Research,
CDsite/confProg.htm#session2 Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 477-82.
Eysenck, H.J. (1991), “Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3 (The) Media Pocket Book (2003), The Advertising
– criteria for a taxonomic paradigm”, Personality and Association/NTC Publications, Henley-on-Thames.
Individual Differences, Vol. 12 No. 8, pp. 773-90. Merrilees, B. and Fry, L.M. (2002), “Corporate branding:
Fishbein, M. (1967), Readings in Attitude Theory and a framework for e-retailers”, Corporate Reputation Review,
Measurement, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 213-25.
Franzen, G. and Bouwman, M. (2001), The Mental World of Morgeson, F.P. and Hoffman, D.A. (1999), “The structure
Brands, World Advertising Research (WARC), Henley-on- and function of collective constructs: implications for
Thames. multilevel research and theory development”, Academy of
Fridja, N. (1986), The Emotions, Cambridge University Press, Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 249-65.
Cambridge. Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents
Garver, M.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1999), “Logistics research and consequences of satisfaction decisions”, Journal of
methods: employing structural equation modelling to test Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-9.

303
 Behavioural responses in retail corporate branding Journal of Product & Brand Management
Rui Vinhas Da Silva and Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi Volume 15 · Number 5 · 2006 · 293 –305

Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on Van Osselaer, S.M.J. and Alba, J.W. (2000), “Consumer
the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA. learning and brand equity”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Oppenheim, A.N. (1986), Questionnaire Design and Attitude Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Measurement, Gower, Aldershot. Van Osselaer, S.M.J. and Janiszewski, C. (2001), “Two ways
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991), of learning brand associations”, Journal of Consumer
“Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale”, Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 202-23.
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 420-50. Walker, B.A., Celsi, A., Richard, L. and Olson, J. (1987),
Patterson, M. (1999), “Re-appraising the concept of brand “Exploring the structural characteristics of consumer
image”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 6, knowledge”, in Wallendorf, M. and Anderson, P.F. (Eds),
pp. 409-26. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, ACR, Provo, UT,
Pervin, L.A. (1989), Personality, Theory and Research, John p. 121.
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Wilde, S.J., Kelly, S.J. and Scott, D. (2004), “An exploratory
Peter, J.P. and Olson, J.C. (1999), Consumer Behaviour and investigation into e-tail image attributes important to
Marketing Strategy, McGraw-Hill International Editions, repeat, internet savvy customers”, Journal of Retailing and
Singapore. Consumer Services, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 131-9.
Porter, S.S. and Claycomb, C. (1997), “The influence of Wolfinbarger, M. and Gilly, C.M. (2003), “eTailQ:
brand recognition on retail store image”, Journal of Product dimensionalising, measuring and predicting eTail quality”,
& Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 373-84. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 183-98.
Rojas-Mendez, I.J., Podlech, E.I. and Olave, S.E. (2004), Yi, Y. (1990), “A critical review of consumer satisfaction”,
“The Ford brand personality in Chile”, Corporate in Zeithaml, V.A. (Ed.), Review of Marketing, Vol. 4, AMA,
Reputation Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 232-51. Chicago, IL, pp. 68-123.
Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, The Free Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996),
Press, New York, NY. “The behavioural consequences of service quality”, Journal
Schmalensee, D.H. (2003), “The perfect scale”, Marketing of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 23-5. Zimmer, M.R. and Golden, L.L. (1988), “Impressions of
Selnes, F. (1993), “An examination of the effect of product retail stores: a content analysis of consumer images”,
performance on brand reputation, satisfaction and loyalty”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 265-93.
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 19-35.
Semeijn, J., Van Riel, A.C.R. and Ambrosini, A.B. (2004), Further reading
“Consumer evaluations of store brands: effect of store
image and product attributes”, Journal of Retailing and De Chernatony, L. and Harris, F. (2000), “Developing
Consumer Services, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 247-58. corporate brands through considering internal and external
Shukla, P. (2004), “Effect of product usage, satisfaction and stakeholders”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 3 No. 3,
involvement on brand switching behaviour”, Asia Pacific pp. 268-74.
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 82-104.
Sirgy, M.J. and Samli, A.C. (1985), “A path analytic model of About the authors
store loyalty involving self-concept, store image,
geographic, loyalty and socioeconomic status”, Academy of Rui Vinhas Da Silva is a Lecturer in Marketing at Manchester
Marketing Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 265-91. Business School where he teaches in the Executive MBA
Srinivasan, S.S., Anderson, R. and Ponnavolu, K. (2002), programme. His research interests are in corporate reputation
“Customer loyalty in e-commerce: an exploration of its and brand management and business-to-business marketing.
antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78 He is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
No. 1, pp. 41-50. rui.dasilva@mbs.ac.uk
Stuart, H. and Jones, C. (2004), “Corporate branding in Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi is a Lecturer in Consumer
marketspace”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, Behaviour (University of Malaya). Her research interests are
pp. 84-93. in corporate and product branding, consumer behaviour and
Szymanski, D.M. and Hise, R.T. (2000), “E-satisfaction: internet marketing.
an initial examination”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 309-22. Executive summary
Thang, D.C.L. and Tan, B.L.B. (2003), “Linking consumer
perception to preference of retail stores: an empirical This executive summary has been provided to allow managers and
assessment of the multi-attributes of store image”, Journal executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those
of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 10 No. 4, with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the
pp. 193-200. article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive
Topalian, A. (2003), “Experienced reality: the development of description of the research undertaken and its results to ge the full
corporate identity in the digital era”, European Journal of benefit of the material present.
Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1119-32.
Urde, M. (2003), “Core value-based corporate brand
building”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, Online versus offline
pp. 1017-40. Corporate brand image is a reasonable obsession for brand
Van der Heijden, H. and Verhagen, T. (2004), “Online store marketers to have. It is something that companies fight over,
image: conceptual foundations and empirical go to court over, hush things up over, take time over. It has
measurement”, Information and Management, Vol. 41 naturally been the focus of much corporate-sponsored and
No. 5, pp. 609-17. academic research, much of which has focused on emotions,

304
 Behavioural responses in retail corporate branding Journal of Product & Brand Management
Rui Vinhas Da Silva and Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi Volume 15 · Number 5 · 2006 · 293 –305

the affective attributes of brands. The metaphor of personality customer loyalty. Focusing on this helps the promised
traits is a popular one, brands being relationship partners, experience to the customers, and also helps companies
with brand managers seemingly cast in the role of understand what to emphasize when stressing their corporate
matchmaker, bringing together consumer and brand. brand image or brand personality.
For others the role is not so much Fiddler on the Roof The implications from the research are that a framework is
fantasy as being rooted in the realms of cognition and affect, provided from which managers can understand their defined
that of coming to an understanding while also being or desired brand values. For both online and offline retailers,
influenced by advertising and other factors – both being these can be assessed in the following terms (with criteria
able to occur simultaneously. The mention of fantasy is not so
alongside):
far from the mark as it may first appear as the nature of .
Agreeableness – friendly, agreeable, supportive, pleasant;
“reality” is at the heart of much of the work on consumer .
Enterprise – daring, trendy, exciting, cool, imaginative,
responses to branding. Much of what people perceive as being
innovative, technical;
“real” is in fact deeply effected by their experiences, their life .
Informality – open, straightforward, simple, easy going;
history and their personal situation, whether thinking about .
Competence – reliable, secure;
people or a product or a brand. .
Chic – elegant, prestige, refined;
Joint research by Da Silva and Faridah of Manchester .
Security for online, substituted for product for offline;
Business School and the University of Malaya respectively has .
Personalization online;
probed the nature of corporate brand image and consumer .
Ease of use/physical interaction;
relationships with brands, in seeking to address the questions: .
Customer care/ physical aspects;
.
Do cognitive evaluations drive conative, behavioural .
Reliability; and
actions in retail buying decision making?; and .
Loyalty intentions and satisfaction.
.
Are cognitive evaluations directly related with satisfaction
with the retailer and consumer loyalty? While companies seek to set out their core values, their
customers ultimately determine these who decide whether or
For the uninitiated, cognitive refers to perception and
knowledge, whereas conative translates thinking into action, not these have been fulfilled. The job of the company is then
including acting upon impulse. Their questionnaire approach to determine whether their desired brand values match those
focused on two types of book retailers, the traditional store perceived by the customer as added value. This forms the
model and an online bookseller, or “e-tailer”. basis for repositioning decisions, differentiation, and what to
stress during advertising campaigns. In essence, these are the
Online and offline corporate brand image core elements required in reinforcing brand identity.
The study revealed that some brand attributes are more From the survey, for online retailers the key elements to
important than others in predicting online and offline consider are personalization, security, ease-of-use and
corporate brand image. The factor personalization seems to customer service in establishing a strong brand image. For
be the most important when it comes to online brand image, the traditional bookstore the significant attributes are personal
and personal interaction in the offline retailers. From this, interaction, physical aspects and product-related attributes.
both direct and indirect customer loyalty are impacted. Put Each to their own, or emphasize your strengths are the
simply personalized service remains king. Online it is messages that resonate. These are key messages of the
simulated through smart searching and other
differentiated product. For online and offline the lessons to be
recommendations that make the site a good place to go. In
learned are those of listening to customers, and making them
the book store there is nothing like knowledgeable staff whom
feel special, whatever the media. Each approach has
understand our needs and can help us find what we need to
make the experience a great one. As the writers of the hit TV something to contribute, hence the interest in “clicks and
comedy Cheers knew rather well, the success of the bar rested mortar” business models. But customers will evaluate each in
in everybody knowing your name. different ways – be careful what you ask, and be clear on what
For the e-tailers, “listening” to customers is the next step to you project.
master. The proxy for this is good databases that can identify
customer interests and make recommendations. Listening (A précis of the article “Cognitive, affective attributes and
more is the next frontier, as is improved customer service, conative, behavioral responses in retail corporate branding”.
which is rising in importance, and is a key factor in generating Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

305
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.