n.a.c. hartman; 465392; master thesis marketing management

“Unilever, Connecting Brands”

-Measuring the influence of corporate brand associations on

product brand evaluations-

N.A.C. Hartman

Afstudeerdatum: 10 februari 2011

Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 2

”Unilever, Connecting Brands”

-Measuring the influence of corporate brand associations on

product brand evaluations-

N.A.C. Hartman

Unilever Benelux B.V.

February 2011

Master in Marketing Management (MscMM)

Department Marketing

Faculty of Economics and Business Administration

University of Tilburg

Master Thesis Begeleiders:

Dr. A.M.M. Bosmans (Universiteit van Tilburg)

Dr. C.P. Stalpers (Meelezer UvT)

Stephan Ardesch (Unilever Benelux B.V.)


Management Summary

In the current Dutch retail market of fast moving consumer goods, Unilever is a big player.

Unilever is known for its product branding strategy, with famous brands like Axe, Unox, and

Lipton. However, conditions in the Dutch market are changing. The power balance between

manufacturers and retailers is shifting, because retailers are becoming more powerful.

Simultaneously the Dutch retail market is decreasing due to an economic downturn. As a

result, Unilever is changing its branding strategy towards a corporate endorsing brand

strategy. Simultaneously Unilever is planning to communicate corporate advertisements,

where CSR initiatives of Unilever are highlighted. The change in branding strategy in

combination with communicating corporate advertisements is unique. To discover the impact

of this change in strategy the associative network theory is studied. The associative network

theory describes how corporate associations can be leveraged to product brands. It seems that

both the new branding strategy and CSR associations with the corporate brand can improve

product brand evaluations. By conducting an experiment the effect of this change in strategy

in combination with the communication of corporate advertisements is measured for

Unilever‟s situation. This is done by measuring respondents‟ product brand evaluations. To be

able to measure respondents‟ product brand evaluations, respondents rated different

advertisements that were manipulated with corporate brand visibility, CSR associations with

the corporate brand and prior brand knowledge. It is expected that when the corporate brand is

visible and CSR initiatives are exposed, product brand evaluations will improve. It is however

also expected that this is moderated by prior brand knowledge. The results of the experiment

are mixed. Corporate brand visibility only seems to have an effect on evaluations of product

with high prior brand knowledge. When consumers have no knowledge regarding the product

brand, the effect of corporate brand visibility is negative. This however changes when

respondents are repeatedly exposed to the corporate brand, as product brand evaluations are

positive after multiple exposures of corporate brand visibility. Looking at the effect of

communicating CSR associations, it becomes clear that when respondents have no knowledge

of the product brand, product brand evaluations can be positively influenced by

communicating CSR associations, provided that corporate brand visibility is present. The

mixed results of the experiment can be derived from several factors. The fit between the CSR

message and the product brand and repetition of the manipulation can have an effect on

product brand evaluations. As associations get stronger when two stimuli are exposed

repeatedly, this can have an impact on the results of the experiment.


Preface

The master thesis that lies in front of you is the product of 6,5 years of study at the University

of Tilburg (UvT). During my study at the UvT I experienced what it was to have your own

life and that you can fill it in exactly the way you want it. During my bachelor “Business

Administration” I have performed several tasks at student association Plato, with a position in

the bar committee and the position of chairmen of the introduction committee. By fulfilling

these tasks I had the possibility to optimally enjoy the life as a student. This will be a period

in my life what undoubtedly will be typified as one of the most beautiful periods in life.

Following my bachelor “Business Administration” I chose to follow the master Marketing

Management at the UvT. After completing all examinations I searched for an internship in the

FMCG industry. In my quest for an interesting internship I hit upon Unilever during the world

cup. I have written my master thesis at Unilever Benelux B.V., where I was intern at the

communication department. At this department I learned a lot of Unilever‟s new strategy and

how a new global strategy is implemented locally. Throughout my internship I learned how to

plan and organize a master thesis project. This has been quite a challenge for me.

Writing my master thesis I have had a lot of support of my mentors. First of all I would like to

thank Stephan Ardesch for making it possible to write my master thesis at Unilever Benelux

B.V. Furthermore I would also like to thank my mentor at the University of Tilburg: Annick

Bosmans. Writing my complex thesis she always tried to create overview. Especially at the

statistical part of the thesis, which felt like a master Marketing Research, I have had much

help of my mentor. Finally I would like to thank my friends and family. Having partners in

crime at the UvT makes it much more approachable to visit the UvT every day. The Unox vs

van Dobben battle made the UvT visits extra special. Furthermore I would like to thank my

family, and especially my parents, for making it possible to study at the university. Without

my parents‟ sponsorship it wasn‟t possible to enjoy the life as a student the way I was able to

enjoy it. Finally I would like to thank my girlfriend, who accelerated the last years of my

study and helped me at the moments I needed it! I would like to point out that the information

provided by this thesis is confidential. This thesis may therefore not be multiplied or

published.

Tilburg, February 2011

Nick Hartman


Index Management Summary .............................................................................................................. 3 Preface ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Index ........................................................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7

1.1 Unilever ............................................................................................................................ 7

1.2 Problem Background ........................................................................................................ 7 1.3 Problem Statement & Research Questions....................................................................... 9 1.4 Operationalization .......................................................................................................... 10 1.5 Method ........................................................................................................................... 10 1.6 Structure ......................................................................................................................... 11

1.7 Theoretical and Managerial Relevance .......................................................................... 11

2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 12

2.1 Upcoming Private Label Threat ..................................................................................... 12 2.1.1 Private Label Market Share ..................................................................................... 12 2.1.2 Declining Market ..................................................................................................... 13

2.2 Changing the Strategy .................................................................................................... 14

2.2.1 Trending towards Corporate Branding .................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Unilever‟s Brand Strategy ....................................................................................... 15

2.3 Associations ................................................................................................................... 16 2.3.1 Associative Network Theory ................................................................................... 16 2.3.2 Creating Advocacy .................................................................................................. 18

2.4 The Effect of Changing the Strategy .............................................................................. 19 2.4.1 Advantages of Different Branding Strategies ......................................................... 19

2.4.2 The Effect of Changing the Strategy ....................................................................... 20

2.5 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 22

3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 23 3.1 Model Summary ............................................................................................................. 23 3.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 24

3.2.1. Design ..................................................................................................................... 24

3.2.2. Procedure & Stimuli ............................................................................................... 24 3.2.3. Measures ................................................................................................................. 26 3.2.4. Respondents ........................................................................................................... 27

4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 28 4.1 Main Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 28

4.2 Manipulation Check .................................................................................................. 29 4.3 Overall effects: 4-way mixed ANOVA .......................................................................... 29 4.4 Overall effects: 3-way mixed ANOVA ..................................................................... 31

4.4.1 Low prior brand knowledge .................................................................................... 31 4.4.2 High prior brand knowledge ................................................................................... 32 4.4.3 Implications ............................................................................................................. 32

4.5 Low prior brand knowledge ........................................................................................... 34

4.5.1. Main effect: corporate brand visibility ................................................................... 34 4.5.2. Interaction effect: CSR * corporate brand visibility .............................................. 35

4.6 High prior brand knowledge .......................................................................................... 36 4.6.1 Main effect: corporate brand visibility .................................................................... 36 4.6.2. Interaction effect: CSR * corporate brand visibility .............................................. 37

4.7 Repetition................................................................................................................... 38 4.8 Hypothesis tests ......................................................................................................... 41


5. Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 44

5.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 44 5.2 Limitations & Recommendations .............................................................................. 47

References ................................................................................................................................ 49

Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 52 Appendix A: Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 52 Appendix B: Advertisements ............................................................................................... 56

B1: Corporate Advertisements with and without CSR associations ................................ 56 B2: Product Advertisements without and with prior brand knowledge ........................... 56

B3: Product Advertisements with and without corporate brand visibility ....................... 57 Appendix C: List with Figures & Tables ............................................................................. 58

C1: Figures ....................................................................................................................... 58 C2: Tables ........................................................................................................................ 58

Appendix D: Factor Analysis ............................................................................................... 59

D1: OBLIMIN factor extraction method: Advertisement 1 ............................................. 59 D2: OBLIMIN factor extraction method: Advertisement 2 ............................................. 60

D3: OBLIMIN factor extraction method: Advertisement 3 ............................................. 61 Appendix E: General Assumptions ...................................................................................... 62

E1: Histograms ................................................................................................................. 62 E2: Levene‟s Test of Equality .......................................................................................... 64

E3: Mauchly‟s test of sphericity ....................................................................................... 65 Appendix F: Hypotheses Tests ............................................................................................. 66

F1: Manipulation Check CSR: 2-way mixed ANOVA .................................................... 66 F2: 4-way mixed ANOVA: Overall effects ..................................................................... 67 F3: 3-way mixed ANOVA: prior brand knowledge = low, 3 ads .................................... 70

F4: 3-way mixed ANOVA: prior brand knowledge = high, 3 ads ................................... 72 F5: 2-way independent measures ANOVA, prior brand knowledge = low ..................... 74

F6: Planned contrasts for corporate brand visibility ........................................................ 76 F7: Planned contrasts for CSR associations ..................................................................... 78

F8: 3-way mixed ANOVA: Repetition ............................................................................ 80 F9: Planned contrasts: Repetition ..................................................................................... 82


1. Introduction

1.1 Unilever

Unilever is a major manufacturer of food, home care and personal products around the globe.

Unilever originated in 1930 from the merger of the Dutch Margarine Unie and the British

Lever Brothers. Though Margarine Unie was specialized in making butter and Lever Brothers

was specialized in making soap they decided to unite their powers. Both the companies

competed over the same commodities, which made a merger very interesting. Since 1930

Unilever is organized as a dual company with a board in both Rotterdam and London.

Unilever has grown to a leading supplier of fast-moving consumer goods with products on

sale in over 170 countries. The yearly turnover has grown to 39,823 billion euros in 2009. The

new vision of Unilever is to “double the size of the company while reducing the overall

impact on the environment” (Unilever Benelux, 2010, p.4). In the Dutch retail sector Unilever

is the biggest producer of manufacturer brands with a portfolio of approximately 40 brands.

Unilever is also the biggest advertiser in the Netherlands (Unilever Benelux, 2010).

1.2 Problem Background

Every year, private labels are becoming more powerful in the retail sector. According to the

Private Labels Manufacturer‟s Association (PLMA, 2010) the shares of private labels in

Western Europe are increasing every year and have reached levels from 25% in the

Netherlands to 48% in the United Kingdom in 2010. M+M Planet Retail (2004) expects that

this private label share will grow to 30% on average in Europe in 2020. Next to this increase

in private label market share, Steenkamp & Dekimpe (1997) found that quality levels of

private labels are increasing and are approaching quality levels of manufacturer brands. The

increasing threat of private labels generates a serious test for manufacturers of national brands

(Lamey, Deleersnyder, Dekimpe & Steenkamp, 2007). While retailers initially were

customers of national brand manufacturers (e.g. Unilever), they are currently becoming

threatening competitors in the market (Karray & Zaccour, 2006).

Next to the threat of private labels, Unilever has found itself in a declining market. In 2010,

the Dutch retail sector was still suffering from the international economic downturn and the

Dutch market is continuously declining. For example, in May 2010 the Dutch retail sector

declined with 2% in comparison to a year earlier (Unilever CEO Update, 2010). This

economic downturn causes that manufacturers should think of new ways to create competitive


advantage (Picard & Rimmer, 1999). Unilever, as a national brand manufacturer, should deal

with this pressure and reformulate her strategy to fight private labels in a declining market.

One way of reformulating the strategy is by restructuring your branding strategy.

Currently, in business-to-consumer (B2C) situations, Unilever is using a product brand

strategy to promote its brands and to create positive brand evaluations. This means that every

product has its own name and is not related to the company. However, Unilever is currently

enhancing the visibility of its corporate brand, by endorsing product brands, advertisements

and sponsorships with the “Unilever” brand (Unilever Communications Plan, 2010). This

means that when consumers come in contact with product brands, they are simultaneously

confronted with the corporate “Unilever” brand. Slowly but surely we can see that Unilever is

changing its branding strategy. Unilever is moving from a product brand strategy towards a

corporate endorsing brand strategy in which product brands are supported by the corporate

brand. This can be noticed by the use of the U-brand on products, in advertisement and in

commercials (Unilever Communications Plan, 2010).

Simultaneously, Unilever is also planning to launch advertisements solely for the corporate

brand. These advertisements have the purpose of strengthening the relationship of Unilever

with employees, corporate clients, consumers and key opinion formers (KOFs) and to

enhance Unilever‟s reputation in general (Unilever Communications Plan, 2010). By creating

positive associations regarding the corporate brand, Unilever tries to create positive

evaluations regarding its corporate and product brands. With regard to these associations, a

distinction has to be made between corporate ability (CA) and corporate social responsibility

(CSR) types of associations. CA associations are related to “the company‟s expertise in

producing and delivering its outputs” (Brown & Dacin, 1997, p. 68). A company following

this positioning strategy would focus on abilities like manufacturing expertise, industry

leadership, customer orientation, technological innovation and so on (Brown & Dacin, 1997).

CSR associations represent “the company‟s status and activities with respect to its perceived

societal obligations” (Brown & Dacin, 1997, p.68). A company that follows this strategy

would focus on abilities like environmental friendliness, community involvement,

sponsorship of cultural activities and so on. Unilever is primarily planning to create CSR

associations with their new corporate campaign. This is in line with the corporate vision: “to

double the size of the company while reducing the overall impact on the environment”.


Summing up, on the one hand the U-brand is becoming more visible on packages, in

commercials and in advertisements, while on the other hand Unilever is strengthening its

corporate brand by creating positive CSR associations using advertisements around its

corporate brand. This shift in strategy can result in more positive product brand evaluations

due to a strong corporate brand campaign in combination with the corporate brand visibility.

This entails that in the future less marketing effort is needed to create positive product brand

evaluations.

1.3 Problem Statement & Research Questions

The effect of a change in strategy is already investigated in previous literature. Adopting a

branding strategy has effect on how consumers evaluate product brands. It is however not

investigated whether a shift in strategy from a product brand strategy towards a corporate

endorsing brand strategy in combination with the launch of CSR associations with the

corporate brand is effective to enhance product brand evaluations. This leads to the following

problem statement:

Is Unilever’s shift in strategy effective to improve the evaluations of its product

brands in the Dutch retail sector?

To answer the problem statement certain research questions need to be answered in this

research. Questions 1 and 2 will be answered by doing desk research. Questions 3 and 4 will

be answered by conducting an experiment. The research questions are the following:

1. Why does Unilever need to change its brand strategy?

2. How can corporate brand associations be leveraged to product brands?

3. How does changing the strategy from a product brand strategy towards a corporate

endorsing brand strategy affect consumers‟ product brand evaluations and what is the

moderating effect of prior brand knowledge?

4. How does the communication of CSR associations with a corporate brand affect product

brand evaluations and what is the moderating effect of prior brand knowledge and

corporate brand visibility?

This will be tested by measuring whether Unilever‟s shift in branding strategy has an effect

on product brand evaluations, in combination with measuring the effect of communicating

CSR associations. This is visualized in the conceptual framework (figure 1, p. 10).


1.4 Operationalization

To make clear what the different variables incorporate, a short explanation of both the

independent variables and the dependent variable will be introduced in this operationalization.

CSR associations: CSR associations are corporate brand advertisements that create positive

associations with the corporate brand.

Enhanced Visibility of the Corporate Brand: The enhanced visibility of the corporate brand

entails a prominent visible logo of Unilever in the product brand advertisements.

Prior Brand Knowledge: Prior brand knowledge entails the degree of familiarity that

consumers have with the product brand advertised.

Product Brand Evaluations: Product brand evaluations are consumer‟s appeal towards the

product brand, measured by advertisement appeal, product appeal and corporate social

responsibility of the product brand.

1.5 Method

The product brand evaluations are measured by conducting an experiment. Within this

experiment, respondents are asked to rate a set of advertisements. However, the conditions in

which the advertisements must be evaluated are different for different groups of respondents.

Corporate brand visibility, CSR associations with the corporate brand and prior brand

knowledge are manipulated between respondents. Respondents are asked to rate the

CSR associations

Product

Brand

Evaluations Enhanced

Visibility of the

Corporate Brand

Prior Brand

Knowledge

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework


advertisements on advertisement appeal, product appeal and product‟s CSR, that together

measure the product brand evaluations.

1.6 Structure

This research is organised in three blocks. In the first block (Chapter 1) the background of this

research is presented with an introduction of the topic and the problem statement. With this

short introduction a brief insight is given of the problem that this research is handling.

Furthermore a management summary is provided, with a short overview of the research. In

the second block the background literature regarding this topic will be discussed. In chapter 2

all literature regarding private label threat, declining markets, branding strategies and the

associative network theory will be discussed. This leads to several hypotheses regarding the

outcome of the experiment. Subsequently, in chapter 3, the methodology with respect to the

experiment will be highlighted. The results of the experiment are presented with an analysis

of the measures. Finally, based on the results of the experiment, a conclusion is drawn. Also

recommendations are given for future research. In the final block of this research an overview

of the used background literature will be provided. All statistical output of the experiment is

exposed. An example of the advertisements used in the experiment can also be traced in the

appendices, alongside of an example of the questionnaire used in the experiment.

1.7 Theoretical and Managerial Relevance

This research is managerially relevant because the corporate brand manager of Unilever and

corporate brand managers in general can use the outcome of this research as guidance when

increasing corporate brand visibility. Furthermore the impact of communicating CSR

associations on product brand evaluations is measured. Additionally product brand managers

can value how the change in strategy affects their product brands‟ evaluations in business-to-

consumer situations. Changing your branding strategy has many implications for product

brand managers. In this research, the effect of this change is measured.

This research is academically relevant because it has not become clear from prior research

how a shift in branding strategy can help manufacturers of product brands in their battle

against private labels, while simultaneously launching a corporate brand campaign. Though

both effects have been tested separately, these effects have not been tested simultaneously.

This will be investigated in this research. Furthermore the effect of prior brand knowledge

with the product brand is included, which creates a whole new dimension.


2. Literature Review

Before measuring the influence of corporate brand associations on product brand evaluations

a brief overview of the literature must be provided. In this chapter the literature background of

the problem statement will be discussed. First, an impression of the increased private label

threat throughout the years will be drawn. Furthermore, several branding strategies will be

discussed that companies can use to brand their products, together with Unilever‟s shift in

strategy. Finally the associative network theory will be presented that can explain how a shift

in branding strategy can lead to better product brand evaluations, which will lead to the design

of the hypotheses.

2.1 Upcoming Private Label Threat

As was mentioned in the introduction, a new situation has evolved throughout the years in

which private labels are becoming more powerful in the retail sector. In this paragraph the

upcoming private label threat will be discussed in two aspects: private label market share and

the declining Dutch retail sector.

2.1.1 Private Label Market Share

Private labels are products that are owned and managed by retailers (Sayman, Hoch & Raju,

2002), as opposed to manufacturer brands that are owned and controlled by manufacturers

(e.g. Unilever). According to the Private Label Manufacturer‟s Association (PLMA, 2010) the

shares of private labels in Western Europe are increasing every year and have reached levels

from 25% in the Netherlands to 48% in the United Kingdom in 2010. Steenkamp & Dekimpe

(1997) ascribe this increase in private label market share to two big developments: increased

retailer concentration and private label quality.

- Increased retailer concentration

In the Netherlands the retailer concentration is enormous. The three largest retail chains

together have a markets share of more than 60% in the retail sector (Steenkamp & Dekimpe,

1997). The relationship between (retailer) concentration and profitability has been widely

tested and is positive. A market is more profitable when the market is more concentrated

(Messinger & Narasimhan, 1995). This results in the situation where retailers are able to

produce and manage its own product line that can compete with the traditional product brands

(Steenkamp & Dekimpe, 1997). Private label shares in countries with higher retail


concentration also tend to be higher than private label shares in countries with low retail

concentration (Hoch & Banerji, 1993).

- Private label quality

Furthermore, private label quality is a key determinant of private label success (Richardson,

Dick & Jain, 1994). Traditionally, manufacturer brands based their competitive advantage on

high product quality (Kumar & Steenkamp, 2007). In 1984, Rosen showed that consumers

perceived store brands as having lower quality than national brands. However, private labels

have increased their product quality and are now closing up on national brand quality and are

sometimes even exceeding national brand quality (Steenkamp & Dekimpe, 1997). According

to Steenkamp & Dekimpe (1997) the higher quality of manufacturer brands was the

manufacturer‟s last remaining competitive advantage.

2.1.2 Declining Market

Next to the increase of the private label threat there is a situation of a declining market in the

Netherlands. The international economy is experiencing a major downturn. The National

Bureau of Economic Research (2010) defines an economic recession as a significant decline

in economic activity across the whole economy, lasting more than a few months. The Dutch

retail sector also suffers from this international economic downturn. As can be seen in figure

2, the regular supermarket turnover (excluding promotions) in the Netherlands was 3.3%

lower than the regular turnover in supermarkets in 2009 (Gfk, 2010). The turnover declined

from 13.47 billion euro in 2009 to 13.03 billion euro in 2010. We can thus conclude that the

Dutch retail sector is also suffering from an economic downturn. The negative market growth

is also reported by Unilever. Unilever reported negative market growth regarding the Dutch

market (Unilever CEO Update, 2010).

Figure 2: Supermarket Turnover January-July 2010 (Source: Gfk, 2010)


This situation of declining markets has an effect on the performance of private labels. Private

labels perform better during economic downturn. The business cycle affects the market share

of private labels counter-cyclically (Hoch & Banerji, 1993; Lamey et al, 2007). This is the

opposite in a situation of a flourishing economy. In that economic situation, manufacturer

brands perform better (Lamey, Deleersnyder, Dekimpe & Steenkamp, 2007). However,

Lamey et al. (2007) observed that a part of the consumers that switch to private labels during

economic downturn does not switch back when the economy is performing well. In

combination with the upcoming private label threat this doubles the risk for manufacturers of

national brands, including Unilever. Slowly but surely, private labels cream-off market share

of manufacturer brands. For Unilever it is therefore important to find new ways of creating

competitive advantage. One of those ways might be to change the branding strategy. This will

be discussed in the next paragraph.

2.2 Changing the Strategy

From the previous paragraph it became clear that due to two major factors a new situation for

manufacturers is created. The increased private label threat in combination with a declining

market leaves manufacturers in a highly competitive market (Lamey et al, 2007). Therefore

manufacturers should revise their strategy. In this paragraph the overall trend in branding

strategies will be discussed. Furthermore the new branding strategy that Unilever is adopting

will be analyzed.

2.2.1 Trending towards Corporate Branding

Choosing the right branding strategy is an important issue for a firm. “The branding strategy,

or brand architecture, for a firm tells marketing managers which brand names, logos, symbols,

and so forth to apply to which new and existing product” (Keller, 2007). Rao, Agarwal &

Dahlhoff (2004) show that choosing a branding strategy has an effect on the firm‟s intangible

value. This is supported by Ailawadi, Lehmann & Neslin (2001), who found that brands are

vital intangible assets that can contribute to firm performance. The use of different branding

strategies is a trending topic. According to Laforet & Saunders (1994) and Olins (1989),

multi-business companies (e.g. Unilever) can choose between three „blocks‟: every product

gets its own separate brand name (i.e. “product brand strategy”), all products carry the

corporate brand name (i.e. “corporate brand strategy”) or the two names are displayed

simultaneously (i.e. “endorsed brand strategy”). Aaker & Joachimstahler (2000) observed that

there is a trend from product brand strategies, through over endorsed branding strategies

toward corporate branding strategies.


Figure 3: Increased corporate brand visibility

2.2.2 Unilever‟s Brand Strategy

Due to the factors mentioned in the first paragraph, Unilever also has undertaken some action.

At this moment, Unilever is still known as a firm with a product brand strategy. In previous

literature regarding branding strategies Unilever still is a typical example of a product

brander. However, recently Unilever has chosen for a new branding strategy. Unilever has

decided to improve the visibility of its corporate brand in many ways (see figure 3). This is

done by endorsing advertisements, sponsorships and commercials with the corporate brand

(Unilever Communications Plan, 2010). The trend that is observed by Aaker &

Joachimstahler (2000) is exactly the trend that can be seen with Unilever‟s branding strategy.

The reason that Unilever has decided to change its strategy followed from findings from a

reputation study of Unilever. From this reputation study it became clear that though

consumers‟ familiarity with Unilever is good, the vitality mission of Unilever is not believed

and Unilever‟s reputation is behind its main benchmark Nestlé. The strongest reputation

driver of Unilever is „Product‟ while Unilever scores low at „Workplace‟ and „Governance‟.

Finally consumers indicated that they expected to hear more from Unilever as a company and

that more transparency is expected about Unilever‟s activities and the good causes it supports

(Unilever Communications Plan, 2010). Therefore two recommendations were formed:

- Enhance the visibility of the corporate brand.

- Develop a sustainable corporate story and appealing initiatives and communicate this

to consumers.

With this change in strategy Unilever‟s reputation can

be enhanced. A consequence of enhancing your

reputation is that consumers are more loyal and

recommend you to others (Reputation Institute,

2010). Furthermore consumers create positive

feelings regarding the company and therefore

evaluate products or services of this company better.

An example of the enhanced visibility can be seen in

figure 3. The prominent presence of the corporate

brand is adopted in both commercials (e.g. Calvé

peanut butter) and advertisements (e.g. Calvé

mayonnaise).


Today, Unilever‟s corporate brand is frequently visible for consumers in all communications

regarding Unilever. Simultaneously with this enhanced visibility Unilever is setting up

corporate advertisements that create associations with Unilever as a corporate brand.

Consumers indicated that they expected to hear more from a global manufacturer like

Unilever on the issues of governance and good causes. While Unilever has a great reputation

at employees and suppliers, consumers are not completely informed about the corporate

brand. It is not known what the effect is of enhancing the visibility of the corporate brand

while simultaneously launching a campaign for the corporate brand. This will be discussed in

the next paragraph with the introduction of the associative network theory.

2.3 Associations

From the previous paragraph it became clear that Unilever has changed it strategy from a

product brand strategy towards a more corporate endorsing brand strategy. This implies that

the corporate brand is much more visible in product brand communications. The corporate

brand is exposed to consumers frequently when product brands are promoted. Next to this

change in visibility, Unilever is also planning to communicate CSR initiatives to the

consumers by using corporate brand advertisements. This means that on the one hand

Unilever is enhancing the visibility of the corporate brand, while on the other hand new

information is communicated regarding the corporate brand. These changes however have an

effect on how consumers think of the company and its brands. Thoroughly, Unilever is trying

to create a link between product brands and the corporate brand and to link the corporate

brand to new associations. It is therefore important to know how these associations with

Unilever‟s vision can be leveraged to their product brands. For that reason it is valuable to

look at a theory that explains how the new associations can be leveraged to the corporate

brand. Hence, in the paragraph the associative network theory will be discussed.

2.3.1 Associative Network Theory

The associative network theory focuses on the storage of information in memory. The

associative network theory was first mentioned by Anderson in 1983, and suggests that

consumers store information in long-term memory in a specific way (Colins & Loftus, 1975).

The model suggests that an incoming piece of information is stored in an associative network

in the memory of consumers. When consumers need to store a new piece of information, this

piece of information is stored in a spider web of different associations that are already present

in the memory (Solomon, 2007). This network contains pieces of information that are related


to one another. The associative network is a

kind of a storage unit, known as a

knowledge structure (Solomon, 2007). The

information is placed into “nodes” that are

connected by associative links. When pieces

of information belong together, they are

categorized under an abstract category.

When new information must be stored, this

is done by using the structure that is already

in place. Each concept, idea or piece of information stored in memory is represented as a node

and each node is connected to other nodes. The links between these nodes are called

associations. All together, these nodes form a complex associative network. An example of an

associative network can be found in figure 4. As can be seen, different nodes are connected to

one another by associations that are remembered when thinking of a specific node.

In this research context Unilever‟s product brands and Unilever‟s corporate brand represent

nodes in an associative network that are initially unconnected (see figure 5). These nodes

must become linked over time due to the endorsement of product brands by the corporate

brand. As can be seen the link between

Unilever and its product brands is

represented by a dotted line. This indicates

that consumers do not link Unilever to its

product brands sufficiently. Furthermore

the link between Unilever and its CSR

initiatives (e.g. Rain Forest Alliance &

Cleaner Planet Plan) is dotted because

consumers are not aware of the good

causes that Unilever supports.

How can Unilever create associations between the corporate brand and its product brands and

corporate initiatives? When thinking about a node this node is “activated”. Other closely

related nodes are then activated too. This is called „spreading activation‟ (Kardes, 1999). The

associative network theory states that when the link between two nodes is repeatedly exposed

this results in simultaneous activation of the memory nodes representing the two stimuli,

Figure 5: Visualization of Unilever’s Associative Network

Figure 4: An Associative Network

(Source: Colins & Loftus, 1975)


which results in an association between the two nodes (Domjan & Burkhard, 1986). Thinking

about two concepts (e.g. Robijn & Unilever) at the same time creates an association between

the two concepts (Kardes, 1999). When product brands of Unilever and the Unilever brand

are exposed simultaneously this should thus create an association. When the frequency of this

simultaneous exposure increases the strength of the association between the two concepts

increases (Kardes, 1999). This eventually means that when consumers think of a product

brand of Unilever (e.g. Robijn) the association with Unilever becomes activated. Currently

the associative network of Unilever can be visualized as displayed in figure 5. As can be seen

the (randomly chosen) product brands already have several associations, but the strength of

the association between the different product brands and the corporate brand is still absent.

The same story holds for the link between Unilever and its CSR initiatives. At this moment

consumers are not aware of the good causes that Unilever supports and consumers ask for

more transparency (Unilever Communications Plan, 2010). Therefore the link between

Unilever and its corporate initiatives is dotted. By launching corporate brand advertisements

that concurrently expose Unilever and its CSR initiatives an association is created.

2.3.2 Creating Advocacy

But what does Unilever ultimately want to reach with this change in strategy? As was stated

by the Reputation Institute, Unilever should create a prominent visible corporate brand and

linkage of the corporate brand to its corporate initiatives (Unilever Communications Plan,

2010). This way a positive reputation

develops, which will lead to a better

corporate image at consumers,

employees and suppliers. But what is

the direct effect of a change in

strategy on consumer evaluations of

a company and its brands? What

Unilever wants to achieve are

positive associations with product brands because of their association with the corporate

brand. This may eventually lead to positive spill over effects between different brands with

Unilever as connecting link. Unilever wants to turn current customers of Unilever into

advocates of Unilever that buy products of Unilever because of their loyalty to Unilever (see

figure 6). By frequently exposing consumers to Unilever‟s projects, consumers must engage

with Unilever and ultimately becomes advocates of Unilever (Unilever Communications Plan,

Figure 6: Consumers becoming advocates (Source:

Unilever Communications Plan, 2010)


201). The experiment, used in this study, can shine a light on the positive effects of the

change in strategy. However, first we will look at what previous literature has discussed in

changing branding strategies. There is sufficient literature regarding the effects of changing a

branding strategy. In the next paragraph these effects will be discussed.

2.4 The Effect of Changing the Strategy

In this paragraph the shift in strategy will be theoretically discussed. In previous literature the

effect of using different branding strategies on leveraging associations from the corporate

brand to product brands is already examined. Furthermore the effect of communicating CSR

associations is discussed. The effect of changing the strategy on consumers behaviour will be

discussed in this paragraph by following Kapferer‟s branding strategies.

2.4.1 Advantages of Different Branding Strategies

Kapferer (2004) created a two-dimensional continuum that is related to two essential

functions of the brand: the source effect (i.e. to certify the authenticity of the source) and the

personalisation (i.e. differentiation) of the brand. In figure 7 you find Kapferer‟s positioning

of alternative branding strategies. Within this continuum, Unilever is moving from a product

brand strategy towards a corporate endorsing brand strategy.

The strategy that Unilever traditionally used was a product brand strategy. In this strategy

every product wears a separate brand name (Laforet & Saunders, 1994). “A product brand

strategy implies that the name of the company behind the product brand remains unknown to

the public” (Kapferer, 2004, p. 297). When a firm uses a product brand strategy consumers

can be better served by reacting to their specific need and expectations. However, a product

brand strategy is very costly. In this period of increased private label threat this strategy is not

entirely useful. Each product must create its own brand equity, and thus starts from scratch.

Figure 7: Positioning Alternative Branding Strategies (Source: Kapferer, 2004, p.294)


From the previous paragraphs it became clear that Unilever is changing two aspects of its

branding strategy. On the one side the visibility of the corporate brand is enhanced; on the

other side new associations with the corporate brand are created by communicating

advertisements with Unilever‟s CSR initiatives. Simply said Unilever has adopted a corporate

endorsing brand strategy in which the corporate brand is strengthened by CSR initiatives.

Within this strategy the corporate brand and separate product brands are combined within a

firms‟ strategy (Laforet & Saunders, 1994). With a corporate endorsing brand strategy the

corporate brand endorses a wide range of product brands and acts as a guarantor of high

quality and security (Kapferer, 2004). According to Unilever, these new tactics can help in

leveraging associations from the corporate brand to product brands and thus create a better

image. With this strategy, consumers associate the product brands with positive corporate

associations which create more positive product brands evaluations. This is supported by the

associative network theory.

2.4.2 The Effect of Changing the Strategy

The change of branding strategy does have some advantages. First, firms that make use of a

corporate endorsing brand strategy can create positive spill over effects between the corporate

brand and the product brands (Kapferer, 2004), because consumers are confronted with both

the corporate brand and the product brand. When a corporate brand has a positive image in the

consumers‟ mind, the association between the two brands can create positive effects for the

product brand. Simultaneously with changing to a corporate endorsing brand strategy,

Unilever is creating new associations between the corporate brand and its CSR initiatives.

When looking at creating CSR associations with the corporate brand, Brown & Dacin (1997)

found that positive CSR associations with the corporate brand create more positive product

brand evaluations. When a firm undertook more positive CSR initiatives, consumers rated

product brands more positively. This can be supported with the fact that corporate social

responsible initiatives become more important for consumers (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2007).

On top of the evaluation of product brands, Brown & Dacin (1997) and Madrigal (2000)

found that positive CSR associations also positively affected the evaluation of the company as

a whole. It is thus expected that positive CSR associations with the corporate brand will

improve product brand evaluations.

However, these positive effects for both the corporate brand and the CSR initiatives are

dependent of prior brand knowledge of the product. Consumers‟ product brand evaluations


are based on a combination of stimulus information and prior brand knowledge retrieved from

memory (Lynch & Srull, 1982). When consumers come in contact with a product that is not

familiar (i.e. prior brand knowledge of the product is low) they might form inferences about

missing attributes by drawing links with available information (e.g. evaluation of the

company) (Dick, Chakravarthi & Biehal, 1990). When a product is identified with a company

an opportunity thus arises for the company to enhance the evaluation of the product by

influencing it with the company‟s evaluation (Brown & Dacin, 1997). When the evaluation of

a product brand takes place in presence of a corporate brand or positive CSR initiatives the

corporate associations can create a context for the evaluation of the product brand (Brown &

Dacin, 1997). As Unilever is a company that scores relatively high on reputation with

consumers, KOFs and employees, we believe that consumers rate product brands more

positively when they are associated with Unilever.

H1: When prior brand knowledge is low, product brand evaluations will be more positive when

corporate brand visibility is high compared to when corporate brand visibility is low.

Before CSR associations have an effect on product brand evaluations for consumers with low

prior brand knowledge, there must be a link between the product brand and the corporate

brand. CSR associations can therefore only be associated with the product brand when

corporate brand visibility is high. Berens, van Riel & van Bruggen (2005) found that CSR

associations are best leveraged when a company uses a corporate endorsing brand strategy in

comparison to other strategies. When a corporate endorsing brand strategy is used, consumers

associate the product brands to the corporate brand. When the link between the corporate

brand and the product brands is repeatedly exposed this results in simultaneous activation of

the memory representing the two stimuli, which results in an association between the two

brands (Domjan & Burkhard, 1986). We therefore believe that when corporate brand visibility

is high, and prior brand knowledge is low, product brand evaluations will be more positive

when the CSR associations are communicated versus not.

H2: When prior brand knowledge is low and corporate brand visibility is high, product brand

evaluations will be more positive when CSR associations are communicated versus not.

However, when the association between the product brand and the corporate brand is missing

(i.e. corporate brand visibility is low), consumers do not associate the corporate brand with

product brands. We believe that when the link between CSR associations and the corporate


brand is absent, product brand evaluations will not be affected by the communication of CSR

associations, as there is no possible association between the product brand and the CSR

initiatives.

H3: When prior brand knowledge is low and corporate brand visibility is low, product brand

evaluations will be similar when CSR associations are communicated versus not.

Finally, when consumers already are familiar with the product (i.e. prior brand knowledge is

high), consumer already formed attitudes regarding the product brand (Sheinin & Biehal,

1999). Attitudes are then less easily affected. According to Sheinin & Biehal (1999) the

leverage of the corporate associations will be moderated by “the retrieval of the consumers‟

prior brand knowledge”. When consumers‟ prior brand knowledge is high, we believe that

CSR associations do not influence product brand evaluations. Consumers have then already

formed an attitude regarding the brand, which will not be influenced by corporate brand

visibility or CSR associations. For CSR associations this effect is however again moderated

by corporate brand visibility, as the link between the product brand and the corporate brand

should be visible.

H4: When prior brand knowledge is high, product brand evaluations will be similar when corporate

brand visibility is high compared to when corporate brand visibility is low.

H5: When prior brand knowledge is high and corporate brand visibility is high, product brand


H6: When prior brand knowledge is high and corporate brand visibility is low, product brand


2.5 Summary

From this chapter it became clear that private labels have become of better quality and that

private labels perform better during economic downturn. Also it became clear that Unilever

has changed its branding strategy. Following this change in strategy, the associative network

theory is introduced that shows how associations can be leveraged from the corporate brand to

product brands. Finally the effect of implementing different strategies on leveraging

associations is discussed from a theoretical perspective. From previous literature it becomes

clear that when there is little prior brand knowledge, product brand evaluations can be

affected. Based on previous literature, also hypotheses are drawn. In the next chapter the

method will be discussed that tries to identify the effectiveness of the shift in strategy.


3. Methodology

In this chapter the underlying methodology of this research will be presented. First a brief

discussion will take place of what to investigate in this research. Furthermore a summary of

the model of this research will be shown. Finally the methodology of this research will be

discussed.

3.1 Model Summary

Within this research an answer to the problem statement is searched for. The problem

statement of this research is:

“Is Unilever’s shift in strategy effective to improve the evaluations of its product brands

in the Dutch retail sector?”

This problem statement describes a shift in strategy that can influence the evaluations of

product brands. First, enhanced corporate brand visibility can influence product brand

evaluations. When product brand advertisements wear a corporate endorsement in the form of

a corporate logo, this may influence product brand evaluations. Furthermore Unilever is

creating CSR associations with the corporate brand. That means that consumers become

aware of the CSR initiatives that the company undertakes. This can also have an influence on

product brand evaluations. Also the moderating effect of prior brand knowledge on these two

former variables is kept in mind. This will be tested in this research. As was mentioned in the

introduction the model that is proposed in this research is the following (see figure 8).

CSR associations

Product

Brand

Evaluations Enhanced

Visibility of the

Corporate Brand

Prior Brand

Knowledge

Figure 8: Conceptual Framework


From the literature review it is expected that both CSR associations and the enhanced

corporate brand visibility improve product brand evaluations. We however believe that CSR

associations and corporate brand visibility are moderated by prior brand knowledge. As

Unilever is a well-known company for consumers it is expected that associations with the

CSR initiatives and corporate brand visibility will lead to more positive product brand

evaluations for product brands that have little prior brand knowledge with consumers.

3.2 Methodology

3.2.1. Design

To test our hypotheses an experiment is performed. Within this experiment a questionnaire is

used to acquire the measures to test our hypotheses. Our respondents are possible consumers

of different products that are sold in supermarkets. Our dependent variable is „product brand

evaluations‟. We conducted a 2 (CSR associations with the corporate brand YES / NO) x 2

(corporate brand visibility YES / NO) x 2 (prior brand knowledge YES / NO) between

participants design with three independent variables varying across respondents. The first

independent variable is CSR associations with the corporate brand. The second independent

variable is corporate brand visibility. The third independent variable is prior brand

knowledge. This means that in total eight conditions are created in which these three factors

varied. The respondents were recruited by the interviewer and were interviewed at their

homes. Respondents were asked to fill in a questionnaire to obtain the measures. With this

questionnaire, respondents are asked to evaluate the different products that are displayed in

product brand advertisements. A face-to-face interview was used to get answers to the

questions. On average, the interviews lasted for approximately 15 minutes. Subsequently we

will discuss how the independent variables are manipulated.

3.2.2. Procedure & Stimuli

The questionnaire was fulfilled in three stages. First, respondents were exposed to three

corporate advertisements. Respondents were then asked to fill out two questions. Following,

respondents are exposed to six product brand advertisements. Respondents were then asked to

fill out 5 questions regarding each advertisement. Finally, three remaining questions are asked

about Unilever. But how are these three stages exactly developed?

Stage 1: At first, to manipulate CSR associations with the corporate brand, respondents were

confronted with 3 corporate advertisements. These corporate advertisements displayed three


different CSR initiatives that the corporate brand undertook. The CSR initiatives were rather

general messages, to ensure a general CSR manipulation was used. However, the

advertisements were different for different groups of respondents. In one condition,

consumers found corporate advertisements that were endorsed with the Unilever brand (i.e.

the Unilever logo was placed on the advertisement). On the contrary, in the second condition

the Unilever brand was replaced by Unilever‟s main benchmark: Nestlé (see appendix B1).

Respondents had one minute to look at the three advertisements. After this minute the

corporate advertisements were removed from view. When the advertisements were removed

from view, respondents answered two questions regarding these advertisements. These

questions were asked to get respondents to think about the CSR message, and to complete the

manipulation.

Stage 2: After the CSR manipulation, respondents were exposed to a booklet with six

different advertisements with different product brands. The respondents were asked to rate

these different product brand advertisements. When the respondent studied an advertisement

it was removed from view, and the respondent was asked to evaluate the product and

advertisement. The respondents filled out five questions regarding each different

advertisement. To ensure sufficient realism of the materials, we based the advertisements on

existing print advertisements. From these six advertisements, only three advertisements were

used to measure product brand evaluations. The other three advertisements were filler items,

used to masque the purpose of the study. Furthermore, the advertisements were sequenced.

Every second, fourth and fifth advertisement was an experimental advertisement where

product brand evaluations were measured. For all advertisements, corporate brand visibility

and prior brand knowledge were manipulated.

To manipulate corporate brand visibility, respondents were exposed to different sets of

advertisements. Two conditions were created in which corporate brand visibility was

manipulated. In one condition the advertisements were endorsed with the corporate brand by

placing the Unilever logo in the upper right corner of the advertisement. This logo is similar

to the corporate endorsement Unilever is planning to use in commercials and advertisements.

In the control condition respondents were only confronted with the advertisements without the

corporate endorsement. For the manipulation of corporate brand visibility, Unilever‟s

corporate brand name was used to ensure that this research is explicitly applicable and

relevant for Unilever and directly measures the change in Unilever‟s branding strategy.


Furthermore, to manipulate prior brand knowledge, respondents were exposed to two

different sets of advertisements. In one condition respondents were exposed to products that

were familiar (i.e. prior brand knowledge was high). This familiarity was created by showing

advertisements of three very well known brands in the Netherlands. The brands that were

used in this condition were Lipton (ice tea), Calvé (ketchup sauce) and Andrélon (shampoo).

As these products are top brands in the Netherlands it is assumed that respondents have prior

brand knowledge with respect to these brands. In the control condition, respondents were

confronted with products that were unfamiliar (i.e. prior brand knowledge is low). For this

condition we chose products are marketed by Unilever in the United States, the United

Kingdom and Belgium. The brands that are used in this condition are Planta (margarine),

Pond‟s (daily cream) and Radiant (detergent). As these products are relatively small and

unknown foreign brands we assume that respondents do not have prior brand knowledge

regarding these brands (see appendix B2).

Stage 3: At the end of the interview respondents had to answer three remaining questions

about Unilever. These last three questions measured familiarity with Unilever and a short

evaluation of Unilever. These questions are not of importance for the experiment, but are

interesting as background information regarding Unilever‟s familiarity. An example of the

questionnaire can be found in appendix A.

3.2.3. Measures

The above mentioned independent variables are part of the experiment to manipulate our

dependent variable: product brand evaluations. The product brand evaluations are measured in

stage 2 of the experiment. The product brand evaluations were measured on five items. For all

measures multiple-item scales were used that consisted of seven-point Likert scale. For every

advertisement, the following 5 questions were filled out separately (see table 1).

Overall, these items measure people‟s product brand evaluations. However, these items are

established from three different measures. Following Petroshius & Monroe (1987) we believe

that product brand evaluations are divided in advertisement appeal, product appeal and

Item Question *

1. I find this advertisement attractive.

2. I find this advertisement convincing.

3. I find this product attractive.

4. This product gives me a good feeling.

5. I find this product socially responsible. Table1: Items * Translated from Dutch


product‟s CSR. There is thus a strong conceptual foundation that advertisement appeal,

product appeal and product‟s CSR are structured within our five items (cf. Petroshius &

Monroe, 1987). However, to check for consistency of the underlying structure, a factor

analysis is performed. Within the broad definition of “product brand evaluations” we expect

that we can make a distinction between three different dependent variables: advertisement

appeal, product appeal and CSR. To be able to perform the factor analysis we checked the

dataset on Bartlett‟s test of sphericity and the measure of sampling adequacy (MSA). Both

measures are significant which means that the factor analysis can be carried out.

A principal components analysis is used with OBLIMIN as factor extraction method. The

pattern matrix is used for interpretation (see appendix D). After checking on communalities

the OBLIMIN factor rotation method yielded the following results (see table 2).

The new dependent variables are created by summated scales of the items that are loading

high on that variable. Ultimately, two items measure advertising appeal. Following, two items

measure product appeal. Finally, one item measures CSR. The output of the questionnaire is

worked out in a dataset. In the next chapter the hypotheses, drawn in chapter 2, will be tested

by using this dataset.

3.2.4. Respondents

A total of 160 respondents participated in the study. The respondents are students at the

University of Tilburg and are randomly chosen. All respondents can be identified as possible

consumers of the advertised products, as all respondents are possible consumers in the Dutch

supermarket. The respondents were randomly assigned to the eight conditions. As all

respondents were Dutch from origin, the prior brand knowledge was assumed to be high in

the condition with familiar Dutch products and prior brand knowledge was assumed to be low

in the condition with products that were only marketed outside the Netherlands. From the

questionnaire it became clear that respondents were very familiar with Unilever (94%).

Dependent Variables Composed items

Ad appeal 1 & 2 *

Product appeal 3 & 4

CSR 5 Table 2: New Factors

* Item 1 within advertisement 3 was not behaving accordingly. As

advertisements 1 & 2 were consistent, this small deflection is ignored.


4. Results

In this chapter the results of the experiment will be analyzed. The output of the questionnaire

is worked out in a dataset. This dataset is used to test the hypotheses. To control for overall

effects over different advertisements, several mixed ANOVAs used, with the different

advertisements as within participants variable and prior brand knowledge, corporate brand

visibility and CSR as between participants variables. After performing the mixed ANOVA,

independent measures ANOVAs and planned contrasts are used to control for specific effects

between advertisements, with prior brand knowledge, corporate brand visibility and CSR as

between participants variables. The dependent variable is „product brand evaluations‟, which

is split up in advertisement appeal, product appeal and product CSR. To account for the

different advertisements that were used in the study, dummy variables are included that

represent the different advertisements as independent variables.

4.1 Main Assumptions

To be able to perform the hypotheses tests some assumptions have to be met. First we look at

the normal distribution of the data by analyzing the histograms. Since all conditions just have

the minimum amount of respondents and all conditions have the same size, a little deflection

is accepted. When looking at the normal distribution of the factors, we see that all dependent

variables have a normal distribution, as the dependent variables show bell-shaped

distributions. We therefore conclude that the data is normally distributed. Furthermore the

dataset is checked on Levene‟s test of equality. With this test the homogeneity of variances is

measured. As condition sizes are the same and ANOVA is fairly robust to violation and all

but two variables score insignificant (Sig. > 0.05) on Levene‟s test of equality, we can

proceed with the analysis of our hypotheses. Finally, since mixed ANOVAs are used, we need

to check on the assumption of sphericity. Therefore we look at Mauchly‟s test of sphericity.

We see that all within variables are insignificant. Therefore we can conclude that sphericity is

assumed. This means that the variances of the differences between the within participants

variables are equal. All main assumptions are met (see appendix E). We can thus continue

with the hypotheses tests. In the next paragraphs we will try to find the effects of corporate

brand visibility, CSR associations and prior brand knowledge on product brand evaluations.

Therefore we will first look into the overall effects by using mixed ANOVAs. Consequently,

to look for exact differences between advertisements independent measures ANOVAs are

used.


4.2 Manipulation Check

In the methodology we stated that product brand evaluations would be measured on three

areas. These three areas are advertisement appeal, product appeal, and the product‟s CSR.

Measuring a product‟s CSR is however not totally reliable when a CSR manipulation is

created upfront. Therefore we will use the evaluation of the product‟s CSR as a manipulation

check within our analysis. We perform a 2-way mixed ANOVA with CSR as between

participants variable and the 3 advertisements as within participants variables to check

whether the manipulation of CSR associations has an effect on CSR. The 2-way mixed

ANOVA yields the following results (see table 3).

The 2-way mixed ANOVA yields a significant main effect of ads on CSR. This means that

the different advertisements react differently between advertisements. This is reasonable,

since every advertisement creates unique feelings regarding CSR and is thus evaluated on

another level. Furthermore the 2-way mixed ANOVA yields a marginally significant main

effect of CSR associations on product‟s CSR evaluations. That means that the communication

of CSR associations has an effect on the evaluation of the product‟s CSR. Therefore we can

conclude that the manipulation is effective. Finally, from the insignificant Ads * CSR

interaction effect we can see that the different advertisements react uniformly to the

manipulation. Consequently, we will continue our analysis with ad appeal and product appeal

as dependent variables.

4.3 Overall effects: 4-way mixed ANOVA

First we will look at the main effects of „ad Appeal‟ and „product Appeal‟ over all

advertisements. To identify the significant overall effects a 4-way mixed ANOVA is

performed, with the three different advertisements as within participants variables and the

three independent variables as between participants variables. The 4-way mixed ANOVA

yielded several interesting findings. The results are split up in between and within participants

effects. The findings are displayed in tables 4 and 5 (p.31).

2-way mixed ANOVA

Between participants effects

CSR

F-Value Sig.

Ads 7,03 ,00

CSR 3,59 ,06

Ads * CSR 1,90 0,15

Table 3: 2-way mixed ANOVA;

manipulation check of CSR


4-way mixed ANOVA;


Ad Appeal Product Appeal

F-value Sig. F-value Sig.

CSR ,03 ,87 ,64 ,42

Brand Knowledge 26,07 ,00 24,99 ,00

Corporate Branding 1,34 ,25 1,05 ,31

CSR * Brand knowledge ,03 ,87 ,15 ,70

CSR * Corporate Branding ,99 ,32 3,70 ,06

Brand knowledge * Corporate Branding ,00 ,97 ,86 ,35

CSR * Brand knowledge * Corporate Branding 4,14 ,04 1,12 ,29

4-way mixed ANOVA;

Within participants effects

Ad Appeal Product Appeal

F-value Sig. F-value Sig.

Ads 41,447 ,000 24,309 ,000

Ads * CSR ,161 ,851 ,371 ,690

Ads * Brand Knowledge 3,813 ,023 15,830 ,000

Ads * Corporate Branding 6,411 ,002 6,397 ,002

Ads * CSR * Brand knowledge 2,536 ,081 3,240 ,041

Ads * CSR * Corporate Branding 1,246 ,289 ,622 ,537

Ads * Brand knowledge * Corporate Branding 2,853 ,059 4,142 ,017

Ads * CSR * Brand knowledge * Corporate Branding 1,656 ,193 3,514 ,031

As we can see, the 4-way mixed ANOVA yields a significant CSR x brand knowledge x

corporate branding interaction effect on „ad appeal‟, a marginally significant CSR x corporate

branding interaction effect on „product appeal‟ and a significant main effect of brand

knowledge on both „ad appeal‟ and „product appeal‟. This means that ad appeal and product

appeal are influenced by prior brand knowledge, corporate brand visibility and CSR.

However, as we can see, there a many within participants interaction effects. This means that

the advertisements are reacting in a different way on the independent variables. These within

participants interaction effects are however explainable, as advertisements from with both

high and low prior brand knowledge are included. These advertisements are completely

different and will therefore definitely react differently on the independent variables. For that

reason we will look at the situations with high and low prior brand knowledge separately.

From here, the analyses will be split up in two parts, with on the one hand a situation with low

prior brand knowledge and on the other hand a situation of high prior brand knowledge. First

we will look at the overall effects for both low and high prior brand knowledge. Consequently

we will separately analyze the situation with low and high prior brand knowledge.

Table 4&5: 4-way mixed ANOVA; between

and within participants general effects


4.4 Overall effects: 3-way mixed ANOVA

We will first look at the overall effects in the situations with both low and high prior brand

knowledge. In general it is expected that when prior brand knowledge is low, consumers

might form inferences missing product attributes by looking at available information (Dick,

Chakravarthi & Biehal, 1999). When a product is identified with a company an opportunity

arises for the company to enhance the evaluation of the product by influencing it with the

company‟s evaluation (Brown & Dacin, 1997). Overall, when prior brand knowledge is high

it is expected that respondents‟ product evaluations will not be influenced by corporate brand

visibility and CSR associations. When consumers already are familiar with the product (i.e.

prior brand knowledge is high), consumer already formed attitudes regarding the product

brand (Sheinin & Biehal, 1999).

4.4.1 Low prior brand knowledge

As we have split up prior brand knowledge in two separate conditions, we perform a 3-way

mixed ANOVA, with CSR and corporate brand visibility as between participants variables,

and the three separate advertisements as within participants variables. The 3-way mixed

ANOVA for respondents with low prior brand knowledge yields the following results (see

tables 6 & 7).

3-way mixed ANOVA


Ad appeal Product appeal

F-Value Sig. F-Value Sig,

CSR ,04 ,84 ,07 ,79

Corporate Branding ,55 ,46 ,00 ,95

CSR * Corporate Branding ,41 ,52 ,32 ,57

3-way mixed ANOVA




Ads 19,285 ,000 7,711 ,001

Ads * CSR 2,139 ,121 3,195 ,044

Ad * Corporate Branding 8,270 ,000 3,983 ,021

Ads *CSR * Corporate Branding 1,008 ,368 2,386 ,095

As we can see from the between participants effects, none of the (interaction) effects are

significant. However, from the within participants effects we can see that there are some

significant main and interaction effects. For ad appeal and product appeal there is a significant

main effect of „ads‟. This is reasonable, since advertisements of different products create

different feelings and are therefore evaluated differently. This is accepted. Though, from the

Table 6&7: 3-way mixed ANOVA: between and within participants

effects when prior brand knowledge = low with 3 advertisements


within participants effects it also occurs that there are several significant interaction effects

between „Ads‟ and „ad appeal‟ and „product appeal‟. This is not in line with the expectations.

4.4.2 High prior brand knowledge

We also look at the overall when prior brand is high. Therefore we also perform a 3-way

mixed ANOVA, with CSR and corporate brand visibility as between participants variables,

and the three separate advertisements as within participants variables. This 3-way mixed

ANOVA yields the following results (see tables 8&9).

3-way mixed ANOVA




CSR ,000 1,000 ,851 ,359

Corporate Branding ,890 ,349 2,312 ,133

CSR * Corporate Branding 6,554 ,012 5,373 ,023

3-way mixed ANOVA




Ads 25,402 ,000 30,066 ,000

Ads * CSR ,693 ,502 ,681 ,507


Ads *CSR * Corporate Branding 1,819 ,166 1,811 ,167

The within participants effects show that there is a significant main effect of „Ads on „product

appeal‟ and „ad appeal‟. This is again reasonable, as different advertisements are evaluated

differently by definition. However, from the within participant effects there is also a

significant interaction effect, which means that the advertisements are reacting in a different

way on the independent variables. What are the implications of the these significant

interaction effects in both conditions?

4.4.3 Implications

As we can see, in both conditions with high and low prior brand knowledge, there are still

several significant within participants interaction effects. These significant effects indicate

that the different advertisements react in a different way on the independent variables. As this

is not in line with the expectations, one or more advertisements must be deleted to solve this

problem. Several combinations of advertisements are tested in both the high and low prior

brand knowledge condition, to see which advertisement(s) create(s) these interaction effects.

As a result different 3-way mixed ANOVAs are analyzed and inconsistencies between

Table 8&9: 3-way mixed ANOVA between and within participants

effects when prior brand knowledge = high with 3 advertisements


advertisements are searched for. After checking all combinations it comes to our

understanding that for all combinations of advertisements interaction effects are present. The

explanation of this discrepancy is explainable. Since respondents had to rate six consecutive

advertisements, there is a possibility that extraneous variables influence the evaluations.

These extraneous variables may cause that the association with the CSR message or corporate

brand visibility is stronger for one advertisement than another.

Looking at the effect of CSR associations, a priming effect can occur. Priming means that

“currently active topics prime or facilitate the activation of closely related concepts” (Kardes,

1999, p.66). This means that the effect of CSR associations and corporate brand visibility are

stronger when respondents are confronted with these concepts at first. Respondents were

exposed to the CSR associations before the several advertisements had to be evaluated. It is

thus possible that a priming effect is present and the effect of the CSR associations will be

stronger for the first advertisement(s). Furthermore it is likely that respondents suffer from

fatigue, since six different advertisements have to be rated with the exact same questions. A

typical characteristic of fatigue is that a respondent will fall back on the automatisms and

evaluate with less effort (Holding, 1983). For this reason, advertisements 2 and 3 are deleted

from further analysis, and advertisement 1 will be used to test our hypotheses.

However, looking at the effect of corporate brand visibility, there is a different situation. The

manipulation of corporate brand visibility was performed while respondents evaluated the

advertisements. When respondents rated advertisement 1, they were exposed to the corporate

brand for the first time. However, rating advertisement 2, the corporate brand was visualized

for the second time. This was repeated when advertisement 3 had to be rated. From previous

literature it became clear that when two stimuli are simultaneously exposed, an association is

created (Domjan & Burkhard, 1986). However, this association gets stronger when the link is

repeatedly shown (Kardes, 1999). This means that the effects of corporate brand visibility will

be stronger for the last advertisement. Therefore, the effect of repetition will also be analyzed,

by looking at the change in product brand evaluations over the three advertisements. In

paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 we will therefore focus on advertisement 1. Consequently in paragraph

4.7 the effect of repetition will be analyzed. Finally in 4.8 we will test our hypotheses based

on the results.


4.5 Low prior brand knowledge

First we will look at the situation where prior brand knowledge is low. To find the effects of

CSR associations and corporate brand visibility, a 2-way independent measures ANOVA is

used with „CSR‟ and „corporate brand visibility‟ as between participants variables.

Consequently „ad1adappeal‟ and „ad1productappeal‟ are measured. The 2-way independent

measures ANOVA yields the following results (see table 10):

2-way independent meaures ANOVA




CSR 2,68 ,11 1,55 ,22

Corporate Branding 4,12 ,04 ,06 ,80

CSR * Corporate Branding ,35 ,56 2,76 ,10

As we can see, the 2-way independent measures ANOVA yields a significant main effect of

corporate brand visibility on ad appeal and a significant CSR * corporate brand visibility

interaction effect on product appeal. To be able to explain the direction of the significant

effects we have to perform some follow-up tests.

4.5.1. Main effect: corporate brand visibility

From the 2-way independent measures ANOVA we saw that there was a significant main

effect of corporate brand visibility on ad appeal. A planned contrasts follow-up test is used to

detect the specific effects (see table 11).

Planned

Contrasts

Mean at

Corporate brand

visibility = 0

Mean at

corporate brand

visibility = 1

Standard

Error

F-Value Sig.

Ad1adappeal 4,55 4,16 0,14 4,13 0,04

Looking at the results of the 3-way independent measures ANOVA we can conclude that

when prior brand knowledge is low, „ad1adappeal‟ is significantly lower when corporate

brand visibility is high (M = 4.16, SD = 0.14) than when corporate brand visibility is low (M

= 4.55, SD = 0.14; F (1,152) = 4.13, p < 0.05). We can thus conclude that corporate brand

visibility has a negative effect on ad appeal. There is no effect of corporate brand visibility on

product appeal.

Table 11: Planned contrasts for corporate brand

visibility when prior brand knowledge is low

Table 10: 2-way independent measures ANOVA

when prior brand knowledge is low


Ad1adappeal

3

3,2

3,4

3,6

3,8

4

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5

CSR = 0 CSR = 1

CSR

Mean

Sco

re

Brandknow ledge high

Brandknow ledge low

Ad1productappeal

3

3,2

3,4

3,6

3,8

4

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5

CSR = 0 CSR = 1

CSR

Mean

Sco

re

Brandknow ledge high

Brandknow ledge low

4.5.2. Interaction effect: CSR * corporate brand visibility

Looking at the CSR * corporate brand visibility interaction effect, we can see that there is a

significant interaction effect on product appeal. To determine the exact direction of the effects

again a planned contrasts follow-up test is performed. The planned contrasts follow-up test

yields the following results (see table 12 and figure 9).

Planned

Contrasts

Corporate

Brand

Visibility

Mean at

CSR = 0

Mean at

CSR =1

Standard

Deviation

F-value Sig.

Ad1productappeal High 3,10 3,98 0,40 4,84 0,03

Ad1productappeal Low 3,68 3,55 0,40 0,10 0,75

From the planned contrasts follow-up test we can conclude that when prior brand knowledge

is low and corporate brand visibility is high, „ad1productappeal‟ is significantly higher when

CSR associations are communicated (M = 3.98, SD = 0,40) than when CSR associations are

not communicated (M = 3.10, SD = 0.40; F (1,152) = 4.84, p < 0.05). On the contrary, when

prior brand knowledge is low and corporate brand visibility is low, there is no effect of CSR

associations on product appeal.

The 2-way independent measures ANOVA already clarified that there is no effect of CSR

associations on ad appeal. From figure 9 we can however see that though ad appeal was not

affected by CSR associations, it is still positively influenced by the communication of CSR

associations. This means that when respondents are exposed to CSR associations and

corporate brand visibility is high, product brand evaluations will be more positive when

respondents have low prior brand knowledge regarding the product.

Figure 9: Visual representation of dependent variables

when prior brand knowledge is low

Table 12: Planned contrasts for CSR * corporate

brand visibility: when prior brand knowledge is low


4.6 High prior brand knowledge

Second we will look at the effects when prior brand knowledge is high. To find the effects of

CSR associations and corporate brand visibility, a 2-way independent measures ANOVA is

used with „CSR‟ and „corporate brand visibility‟ as between participants variables.

Consequently „ad1adappeal‟ and „ad1productappeal‟ are measured. The 2-way independent

measures ANOVA yields the following results (see table 13):

2-way independent meaures ANOVA




CSR 1,10 ,30 1,81 ,18

Corporate Branding 1,10 ,30 12,62 ,00

CSR * Corporate Branding 4,97 ,03 ,04 ,85

As we can see, the 2-way independent measures ANOVA yields a significant main effect of

corporate brand visibility on product appeal and a significant CSR * corporate brand visibility

interaction effect on ad appeal. To be able to explain the direction of the significant effects we

have to perform some follow-up tests.

4.6.1 Main effect: corporate brand visibility

From the 2-way independent measures ANOVA we saw that there was a significant main

effect of corporate brand visibility on product appeal. A planned contrasts follow-up test is

used to detect the specific effects per advertisements (see table 14).

Planned

Contrasts

Mean at

Corporate brand

visibility = 0

Mean at

corporate brand

visibility = 1

Standard

Error

F-Value Sig.

Ad1productappeal 4,35 5,28 0,20 10,81 0,00

As we can see, when prior brand knowledge is high, the 3-way independent measures

ANOVA shows that „ ad1productappeal‟ is significantly higher when corporate brand

visibility is high (M = 5.28, SD = 0,20) than when corporate brand visibility is low (M = 4.35,

SD = 0.20; F (1,152) = 10.81, p < 0.05). From the 2-way independent measures ANOVA we

already saw that there is however no effect of corporate brand visibility on ad appeal. We can

thus conclude that corporate brand visibility has a positive effect on product appeal, but not

on ad appeal.

Table 14: Planned contrasts for corporate brand

visibility when prior brand knowledge is high

Table 13: 2-way independent measures ANOVA

when prior brand knowledge is high


Ad1adappeal

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

5,5

6

CSR = 0 CSR = 1

CSR

Mean

Sco

re

Brandknowledge high

Brandknowledge low

Ad1productappeal

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

5,5

6

CSR = 0 CSR = 1

CSR

Mean

Sco

re

Brandknowledge high

Brandknowledge low

4.6.2. Interaction effect: CSR * corporate brand visibility

Consequently we look at the effect of the communication of CSR associations when prior

brand knowledge is high. A planned contrasts follow-up test is used to determine the direction

of the specific effects. From the independent measures ANOVA and the test for simple effects

the following results are found when prior brand knowledge is high (see table 15 & figure

10).

Planned

Contrasts

Corporate

Brand

Visibility

Mean at

CSR = 0

Mean at

CSR =1

Standard

Deviation

F-value Sig.

Ad1adappeal High 4,73 4,95 0,27 0,70 0,41

Ad1adappeal Low 4,95 4,35 0,27 5,37 0,02

From the planned contrasts follow-up test we can conclude that when prior brand knowledge

is high and corporate brand visibility is low, „ad1adappeal‟ is significantly lower when CSR

associations are communicated (M = 4.35, SD = 0.27) than when CSR associations are not

communicated (M = 4.95, SD = 0.27; F (1,152) = 5.37, p < 0.05). When corporate brand

visibility is high there is no significant effect on ad appeal. Though the 2-way independent

measures ANOVA yielded an insignificant effect of CSR associations on product appeal, we

can see from figure 10 that product appeal is negatively influenced by the communication of

CSR association. This effect is however not significant. We can thus conclude that CSR

associations have a negative impact on ad appeal, and no effect on product appeal. The

implications of these results will be discussed hereafter.

Table 15: Planned contrasts for CSR * corporate

brand visibility when prior brand knowledge is high

Figure 10: Visual representation of dependent

variables when prior brand knowledge is high


4.7 Repetition

In the previous paragraphs the hypotheses have been tested on basis of advertisement 1.

However, from paragraph 4.4 we anticipated on the effect of repetition of corporate brand

visibility on product brand evaluations. When respondents are repeatedly exposed to the

corporate brand, it may be possible that the effect of the corporate brand endorsement is more

positive, since the association between two stimuli gets stronger when the association is

repeatedly shown (Kardes, 1999). Within our experiment three consecutive advertisements

had to be evaluated. To test the effect of repetition, we will look how product brand

evaluations shift after multiple exposures. Therefore respondents that were not manipulated

by CSR associations were selected, to clearly look at the effect of corporate brand visibility.

A 3-way mixed ANOVA is performed with corporate brand visibility and prior brand

knowledge as between participants variables and the different advertisements as between

participants advertisements. The 3-way mixed ANOVA yields the following results (see table

16 & 17).

Between participants

Effects



Brand knowledge 11,803 ,001 16,966 ,000

Corporate Branding ,012 ,912 ,471 ,494

Brand knowledge * Corporate Branding 2,076 ,154 ,010 ,922

Within participants

Effects



Ads 17,439 ,000 11,447 ,000

Ads * Brand knowledge ,894 ,411 16,112 ,000


Ads *Brand knowledge * Corporate Branding 2,053 ,132 7,153 ,001

As we can see from the between participants effects there is no main effect of corporate brand

visibility on both ad appeal and product appeal, which would indicate that there is no effect of

corporate brand visibility. However, from the within participants effects it becomes clear that

there are many significant interaction effects. This indicates that different advertisements are

reacting differently on both brand knowledge and corporate brand visibility. This might

indicate that product brand evaluations are different after multiple exposures. To further look

into these specific effects a 2-way independent measures ANOVA is performed to search for

Table 16&17: 3-way mixed ANOVA between and within participants

effects for corporate brand visibility & prior brand knowledge


specific directions. All items within ad appeal and product appeal are included and a planned

contrasts follow-up test is used to account for specific effects. The items are split up in a low

and high prior brand knowledge condition. The results of the 2-way independent measures

ANOVA and the test for simple effects are displayed in table 18 and figure 11.

Specific effects per

item

Prior Brand

Knowledge

corporate

brand visibility

= 0

corporate

brand visibility

= 1

Standard

Deviation

F-value Sig.

Ad1adappeal Low 4,45 3,95 0,20 3,10 0,82

Ad2adappeal Low 3.93 4,20 0,22 0,78 0,38

Ad3adappeal Low 3,03 3,95 0,30 4,87 0,03




Ad1adappeal High 4,95 4,73 0,20 0,63 0,43

Ad2adappeal High 5,10 4,33 0,22 6,23 0,02

Ad3adappeal High 3,55 3,95 0,30 0,91 0,34




Table 18: 2-way independent measures ANOVA:

repetition

Figure 11: Visual representation of dependent variables for repetition


As we can see, the evaluations of the different items are fairly diverse. However, there is a

pattern recognizable in these evaluations. These patterns are twofold. First the situation of low

prior brand knowledge is discussed. Consequently a situation with high prior brand

knowledge is discussed.

Looking at the situation with low prior brand knowledge the results are striking. From the

planned contrasts follow-up test it becomes clear that for advertisement 1 both ad appeal and

product appeal are negatively influenced by corporate brand visibility. However, this changes

as the number of exposures of the corporate brand increases. For advertisement 2 it becomes

clear that ad appeal is more positively influenced (yet not significant), while product appeal is

less negatively influenced by corporate brand visibility. Finally, for advertisement 3, it is clear

that both ad appeal and product appeal are significantly positively influenced by corporate

brand visibility. The changes in product brand evaluations are also recognizable in figure 11

(p.41). This indicates that when the number of exposures of the corporate brand increases, this

has a positive effect on both ad appeal and product appeal when prior brand knowledge is

low.

Looking at the situation with high prior brand knowledge, the results are different. When

consumers are familiar with the brand, the first exposure to corporate brand visibility has no

effect on ad appeal, but a strongly positive effect on product appeal. As the number of

exposures however increases, ad appeal seems to be evaluated more positive, with a positive

effect of corporate brand visibility on ad appeal for advertisement 3. For product appeal the

situation is different. After the first and second exposure, the effects on product appeal are

positive. This however changes when respondents are exposed to the corporate brand for the

third time. The effect of corporate brand visibility is then negative. These results are also

recognizable form figure 11 (p.40). This can be explained by the fact that when respondents

are already familiar with the corporate brand, the product brand evaluations are less easily

affected.

The results clearly show that when respondents are repeatedly exposed to the corporate brand,

the association with the corporate brand gets stronger. This stronger association clearly has a

positive effect on the product brand evaluations when prior brand knowledge is low. When

consumers already have formed an opinion of the product brand, this effect is mixed.


4.8 Hypothesis tests

In this final paragraph the hypotheses will be tested, based on the results presented in the

previous paragraphs. Shortly, the expectations are described, followed by the results from the

experiment. We will start by looking at a situation when prior brand knowledge is low by

testing hypotheses 1 - 3. Consequently the situation for high prior brand knowledge is

analyzed by testing hypotheses 4 - 6.

H1: When prior brand knowledge is low, product brand evaluations will be more positive when

corporate brand visibility is high compared to when corporate brand visibility is low.

From H1 it is expected that when prior brand knowledge is low, product brand evaluations

will be more positive when corporate brand visibility is high compared to when corporate

brand visibility is low. This is expected, because when consumers have little knowledge

regarding the brand, respondents might form inferences about missing attributes by looking at

available information (Dick, Chakravarthi & Biehal (1990). Looking at the results of

advertisement 1 we can see that corporate brand visibility has no effect on product appeal and

a negative effect on ad appeal. This is not expected. This can however be explained, as an

association between two stimuli gets stronger when the association is repeatedly exposed

(Kardes, 1999). Looking at the effects of repetition we can see that after multiple exposures

the effect of corporate brand visibility turns positive. Though the effect of corporate brand

visibility is negative for advertisement 1, we can see that for both ad appeal and product

appeal the effect is positive for advertisement 3. As corporate brand visibility has a positive

effect after multiple exposures, H1 is accepted for both ad appeal and product appeal.

H2: When prior brand knowledge is low and corporate brand visibility is high, product brand

evaluations will be more positive when CSR associations are communicated versus not.

From H2 it is expected that when prior brand knowledge is low and corporate brand visibility

is high, the communication of CSR initiatives will positively influence product brand

evaluations. This is again expected, because when consumers have little knowledge regarding

the brand, respondents might form inferences about missing attributes by looking at available

information (Dick, Chakravarthi & Biehal (1990). From the results of advertisement 1 we can

see that when prior brand knowledge is low and corporate brand visibility is high, CSR

associations have a positive effect on product appeal. Furthermore ad appeal seems to react

positively to CSR associations. This effect is however not significant. Therefore H2 is

accepted for ad appeal, but rejected for product appeal.


H3: When prior brand knowledge is low and corporate brand visibility is low, product brand


When prior brand knowledge is low and corporate brand visibility is low, it is expected that

the communication of CSR associations does not have an effect on product brand evaluations.

The communication of CSR associations will not influence product brand evaluations as the

link between the CSR associations and the product brands is missing. From the 2-way

independent measures ANOVA it becomes clear that when prior brand knowledge is low and

corporate brand visibility is low, ad appeal and product appeal are not affected by the

communication of CSR associations. It seems that the communication of CSR associations

does not have an effect on product brand evaluations when the link between the product brand

and the corporate brand is missing. Therefore H3 is accepted for both ad appeal and product

appeal.

H4: When prior brand knowledge is high, product brand evaluations will be similar when corporate

brand visibility is high compared to when corporate brand visibility is low.

From H4 it is expected that when prior brand knowledge is high, product brand evaluations

will be similar when corporate brand visibility is high compared to when corporate brand

visibility is low. This is expected because respondents then already have formed an opinion

regarding the product brand and are therefore less easily affected (Sheinin & Biehal, 1999).

From results of advertisement 1 we can conclude that ad appeal is not influenced by corporate

brand visibility. Product appeal is however significantly better when corporate brand visibility

is high compared to when corporate brand visibility is low. Repetition of corporate brand

visibility however also has an effect on product brand evaluations when prior brand

knowledge is high. Looking at the results of repetition, we can see that the evaluations change

when respondents are repeatedly exposed to the corporate brand. When the association

between the corporate brand and the product brand is repeatedly shown, ad appeal is not

affected by corporate brand visibility. The same holds for product appeal. When the corporate

brand is repeatedly exposed, this ultimately has no effect on product brand evaluations.

Therefore H4 is accepted when corporate brand is repeatedly exposed.

H5: When prior brand knowledge is high and corporate brand visibility is high, product brand


From H5 it is expected that when prior brand knowledge is high and corporate brand visibility

is high, respondents will not influence product brand evaluations when CSR associations are

communicated. As respondents have already formed an opinion of a product brand, this will


not be affected by communicating CSR associations (Sheinin & Biehal, 1999). Looking at the

results of advertisement 1, we can see that ad appeal and product appeal are not influenced

when CSR associations are communicated. Therefore H5 is accepted for both ad appeal and

product appeal.

H6: When prior brand knowledge is high and corporate brand visibility is low, product brand


Finally, from H6 it is expected that when prior brand knowledge is high and corporate brand

visibility is low, respondents will not be influenced by CSR associations when evaluating

product brands, as respondents have then already formed an opinion regarding the product

brands and will therefore not be influenced by CSR associations (Sheinin & Biehal, 1999).

From the results of advertisement 1 it becomes clear that when prior brand knowledge is high

and corporate brand visibility is low, ad appeal is negatively influenced by the communication

of CSR associations. Product appeal is however not influenced by CSR associations, but also

tends to react negatively to CSR associations. These results are contradicting to our

hypotheses. This can be explained by the following. In this condition, the link between the

corporate brand and the product brands is missing, as corporate brand visibility is low.

Therefore CSR associations are not influencing the product brand evaluations, but are pushing

respondents in a different mood. Therefore it may be possible that react different on this

manipulation. H6 is thus rejected for ad appeal, but not for product appeal.


5. Discussion

In this study the effect of corporate brand visibility in combination with positive CSR

associations with the corporate brand on consumers‟ product brand evaluations is measured.

An experiment provides several insights into the role of these variables. In this discussion the

results, obtained by the experiment, will be shortly discussed. Furthermore some managerial

implications will be mentioned. Finally limitations of this research and recommendations for

future research will be discussed.

5.1 Conclusion

Within this research we try to provide an answer to our problem statement. After providing a

short introduction into the problem background the following problem statement was formed.

Is Unilever’s shift in strategy effective to improve the evaluations of its product

brands in the Dutch retail sector?

We are trying to clarify whether the change in corporate brand visibility in combination with

setting up advertisements around CSR initiatives has an effect on how consumers evaluate

product brands of Unilever. To answer this problem statement some research questions are

drawn. We will systematically answer these research questions to find out the answer to our

problem statement.

First, it is examined why Unilever needs to change its branding strategy. Unilever is facing an

upcoming private label threat. Private labels have increasing market shares, because retailer

concentration is high, and private label quality is constantly increasing (Steenkamp &

Dekimpe, 1997). Furthermore, Unilever is experiencing an economic downturn, with a

decreasing market size in the Netherlands. This economic downturn doubles the threat of

private labels, as market shares of private labels tend to increase during economic downturn

(Lamey et al., 2007). The new situation makes that Unilever needs to change its strategy.

Looking at the effect of changing the branding strategy, it was noticed that consumer‟s

product brand evaluations are affected by creating new associations with the corporate brand

(Lynch & Srull, 1982). Associations with the product brand can be created by simultaneously

exposing consumers to two stimuli (Domjan & Burkhard, 1986). This insinuates that when

respondents are faced with the corporate brand and/or by CSR associations with the corporate

brand, product brand evaluations can be influenced. This is however moderated by


consumer‟s prior brand knowledge, stored in memory. When consumers have little

knowledge concerning a product brand, they will look for familiar attributes to form a

decision. That creates a possibility for manufacturers to improve their product brands. When

consumers have much knowledge concerning a product brand, they already formed an

opinion about a product brand, and evaluations are less easily affected (Sheinin & Biehal,

1999).

Looking at the effect of Unilever‟s change in strategy, we need to answer two questions. First,

how does changing the strategy from a product brand strategy towards a corporate endorsing

brand strategy affect consumers‟ product brand evaluations and how is this moderated by

prior brand knowledge? First, when prior brand knowledge is low, it is expected that

corporate brand visibility will influence product brand evaluations, as respondents will base

their evaluation on available information (Dick, Chakravarthi & Biehal, 1990). We can see

that when prior brand knowledge is low, at first ad appeal is negatively influenced, while

product appeal is not influenced. Corporate brand visibility thus seems not to influence

product brand evaluations in a positive way. This however changes when respondents are

repeatedly exposed to the corporate brand. From theory we saw that when two stimuli are

repeatedly simultaneously exposed, the association between these stimuli gets stronger

(Kardes, 1999). Looking at the effect of repetition in this research we can see that when the

corporate brand is repeatedly exposed, the effect of corporate brand visibility turns positive.

After multiple exposures the effect of both ad appeal and product appeal is positive when

prior brand knowledge is low. We can thus conclude that corporate brand visibility has a

positive effect on product brand evaluation after multiple exposures when prior brand

knowledge is low. When prior brand knowledge is high it is expected that corporate brand

visibility does not have an effect on product brand evaluations, as consumers have then

already formed an attitude regarding the corporate brand (Sheinin & Biehal, 1999). From the

results it becomes clear that product appeal is positively influenced by corporate brand

visibility when prior brand knowledge is high. Ad appeal is however not influenced. This

changes after multiple exposures and ultimately corporate brand visibility does not have an

effect on product brand evaluations. We can therefore conclude that corporate brand visibility

does not have a positive effect on product brand evaluations when prior brand knowledge is

high.


But do CSR associations with the corporate brand affect product brand evaluations? We split

up the analyses in two parts. First we looked at a situation with low prior brand knowledge.

When prior brand knowledge is low and corporate brand visibility is low, it is expected that

CSR associations do not have an effect on product brand evaluations, because the link

between the CSR associations and the product brand is missing. From the results we can see

that CSR associations indeed do not have an effect on product brand evaluations in that

situation. However, when corporate brand visibility is high, the results clearly show that the

communication of CSR associations have a positive effect on product appeal. Furthermore ad

appeal is positively influenced. This was expected, as consumers will make inferences of

missing product attributes by evaluating available information. We can thus conclude that

when prior brand knowledge is low, product brand evaluations are positively influenced when

CSR associations are communicated.

However, when prior brand knowledge is high, a different situation arises. From the

hypotheses it is expected that when prior brand knowledge is high, product brand evaluations

are not affected by the communication of CSR associations, for both high and low corporate

brand visibility. Consumers have then already formed an attitude regarding the product,

whereby evaluations are less easily influenced. From the experiment it becomes clear that

when prior brand knowledge is high and corporate brand visibility is high, the communication

of CSR associations no effect on both ad appeal and product appeal. Looking at the situation

where prior brand knowledge is high and corporate brand visibility is low, product appeal is

not influenced by the communication of CSR associations. Ad appeal is however negatively

influenced by the communication of CSR associations. This means that when consumers are

confronted with a product that is familiar, the communication of CSR associations has a

negative impact on the product brand evaluation when there is no link between the product

brand and the corporate brand. This might be explained by the fact that respondents are

distracted by the communication of the CSR association, as the link between the product

brand and the corporate brand is missing.

Overall, we can see that the results of the change in branding strategy are mixed. When brand

knowledge of a product is low, the effect of endorsing a product brand with a corporate brand

seems to have a positive effect on product brand evaluations, but only after multiple

exposures. The effect of CSR associations with the corporate brand is positive only when the

corporate brand is visible. However, when prior brand knowledge of the product is high, it is


harder to create more positive product brand evaluations. Answering the problem statement

we can state that Unilever‟s shift in strategy is effective to improve product brand evaluations

when prior brand knowledge of the product brand is low. On the contrary, when prior brand

knowledge is high, the communication of CSR and enhancing corporate brand visibility is

less useful in improving product brand evaluations.

What are the implications of these results? Though literature suggests that changing the

branding strategy and creating CSR associations with the corporate brand will improve

product brand evaluations, the experiment provides mixed results. CSR associations and

corporate brand visibility primarily have an effect on product brands when prior brand

knowledge is low. The effect of corporate brand visibility however just becomes visible after

multiple exposures. Corporate brand managers can therefore not expect direct positive effects

of a change in branding strategy. Corporate brand managers should also keep account of the

familiarity with the product brand, as the effect of CSR associations and corporate brand

visibility is only positive for products with low prior brand knowledge. Furthermore, product

brand managers should always take into account whether endorsing their product brand with

the corporate brand and creating CSR associations around the corporate brand is really a

valuable contribution to their product brand image. When prior brand knowledge of a product

brand is low, corporate brand visibility and CSR associations have a positive effect on

product brand evaluations. However, when prior brand knowledge is high, effects of both

corporate brand visibility and CSR associations are less clear. Product brand managers should

always keep in mind whether creating new associations with the product brand has a positive

effect on the image of that particular brand.

5.2 Limitations & Recommendations

Looking back at the experiment, some limitations are recognized. The results yield substantial

differences between advertisements in the study. Some of these differences may result from

the fit that some advertisement have with the CSR initiatives. In this study a fairly common

CSR message is communicated that was expected to have the same fit with different product

brand advertisements. It is possible that one product brand is more sensitive to CSR

associations than another product brand. Due to these differences only 1 advertisement was

used in this research for testing the hypothesis. Though this advertisement was eligible for

analysis, the experiment could have been more complete when multiple advertisements are

used. It is then however important that fit with the CSR message is included. As this is not


further examined within this experiment, this can however not be concluded. It is

recommended to include fit with the CSR associations as a separate variable in future

research. The discrepancies between different advertisements also are the consequence of

repetition. Repetition is an important driver of remembrance. From the associative network

theory it already came to our mind that when two stimuli are exposed simultaneously, an

association between the two stimuli arises (Domjan & Burkhard, 1986). However, this

association gets stronger when the link is repeatedly exposed (Kardes, 1999). The effect of

repetition should be further examined. Furthermore, it may be valuable to account for

differences between different groups of consumers, as demographics can influence the

outcome of the experiment. It is possible that different groups of consumers have different

attitudes regarding Unilever. By incorporating demographics in this research it may be

possible to give an advice which segment of consumers to focus on. In this research,

consumer‟s demographics are not incorporated as an independent variable. Furthermore, in

this experiment two types of advertisement were used for a high and low prior brand

knowledge condition. It was assumed that respondents respectively have low and high prior

brand knowledge regarding these product brands. This assumption is based on the fact that

product brands, marketed in foreign countries, are less familiar than product brands marketed

in the Netherlands. This is however not tested. In future research this assumption should be

tested. Finally, in the experiment print advertisements are used to measure product brand

evaluations. The use of print advertisements is used for the ease of interpretation. The effect

of corporate brand visibility and CSR associations can however be totally different when

consumers are confronted with commercials. The conclusions drawn in this research are

primarily usable for print advertisements.


References

Aaker, David A. & Joachimstahler, E. (2000),”Brands Leadership”, New York: the Free

Press.

Ailawadi, Kusum L., Donald R. Lehmann & Scott A. Neslin (2001),”Revenue Premium

as an Outcome Measure of Brand Equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, pp. 1-17.

Anderson, John R.(1983),”A Spreading Activation Theory of Memory”, Journal of

Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 1-33.

Berens, Guido, Cees B.M. van Riel & Gerrit H. van Bruggen (2005),”Corporate

Associations and Consumer Product Responses: The Moderating Role of Corporate

Dominance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, pp.35-48.

Brown, Tom J. (1998),”Corporate Associations in Marketing: Antecedents and

Consequences”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 (3), pp. 215-233.

Brown, Tom J. & Peter A. Dacin (1997),”The Company and the Product: Corporate

Associations and Consumer Product Responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 68-

84.

Colins, Allan M. & Elizabeth F. Loftus (1975),”A Spreading-Activation Theory of

Semantic Processing”, Psychological Review, Vol. 82, No.6, pp. 407-428.

Dick, Alan, Dipankar Chakravarti & Gabriel Biehal (1990),”Memory-based Inferences

During Consumer Choice”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 82-93.

Domjan, Michael & Burkhard, Barbara (1986),”The principles of learning and

behaviour”, Monterey: Brooks/Cole.

Hair, Joseph F, William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, Rolph E. Anderson & Ronald L.

Tatham (2006),”Multivariate Data Analysis”, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hoch, S.J. and Banerji, S. (1993). When Do Private Labels Succeed? Sloan

Management Review, 37 (winter), pp. 89 – 102.

Holding, D.H. (1983),“Stress and fatigue in human performance“, New York: John

Wiley & Sons, pp. 145 – 167.

Gfk (2010),”Supermarktkengetallen juli 2010”, www.distrifood.nl.

Kapferer, J.N. (2004),”The new strategic Brand Management: creating and sustaining

brand equity long term”, London: Kogan Page.

Kardes, Frank R. (1999),”Consumer Behavior and Managerial Decision Making”,

Reading: Addison Wesley, pp. 63-77.


Karray, S & Zaccour, G. (2006),”Could co-op advertising be a manufacturer‟s

counterstrategy to store brands?”, Journal of Business Research, 59, pp. 1008 – 1015.

Keller, Kevin Lane (2007),””Strategic Brand Management: Building, measuring and

managing brand equity”, Essex: Pearson Education.

Kumar, Nirmalya & Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. (2007),”Private Label Strategy:

How to meet the Store Brand challenge”, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Laforet, Sylvie & John Saunders (1994),”Managing Brand Portfolios: How the Leaders

do it”, Journal of Advertising Research, Sep/Okt, pp. 64-76.

Laforet, Sylvie & Saunders, John (2005),”Managing Brand Portfolios: How strategies

have Changed”, Journal of Advertising Research, Sep. 2005, pp 314-327.

Lamey, L., Deleersnyder, B., Dekimpe, M.G. and Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. (2007),”How

Business Cycles Contribute to Private-Label Success: Evidence from the United States

and Europe”, Journal of Marketing, 71(1), pp. 1-15.

Luo, Xueming & C.B. Bhattacharya (2007),”Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer

Satisfaction, and Market Value”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70, pp. 1-18.

Lynch, John G. & Thomas K. Srull (1982),”Memory and Attentional Factors in

Consumer Choice: Concepts and Research Methods”, Journal of Consumer Research,

Vol. 9, pp. 18 – 37.

M+M Planet Retail (2004),”Private Label: Brand of the Future”, www.planetretail.net.

Madrigal, Robert (2000),”The Role of Corporate Associations in New Product

Evaluation”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 27, pp. 80-86.

Messinger, Paul R. & Chakravarthi Narasimhan (1995)”, Has Power Shifted in the

Grocery Channel?”, Marketing Science, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 189 – 223.

National Bureau of Economic Research (2008), “Business Cycle expansion and

contractions”, www.nber.org/cycles.html.

Olins, W. (1989),”Corporate Identity”, London: Thames and Hudson.

Petroshius, Susan M. & Kent B. Monroe (1987),”Effect of Product-Line Pricing on

Product Evaluations”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 511 – 519.

Picard, R.G., & T. Rimmer (1999),”Weathering a recession: Effects of size and

diversification on newspaper companies”, The Journal of Media Economics Vol. 12,

No.1, pp. 1-18.

Private Labels Manufacturers Organisation (2010), “Store brands achieving new heights

of consumer popularity and growth”, www.plma.com.


Rao, Vithalia R., Manoj K. Agarwal & Denise Dahlhoff (2004),”How is manifest

branding strategy related to the intangible value of a corporation?”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 68, pp. 126-141.

Reputation Institute (2010),”2010 Global Reputation Pulse Study, The most Reputable

Companies in the World”, Rotterdam: Unilever.

Richardson, Paul S., Alan S. Dick & Arun K. Jain (1994),”Extrinsic and intrinsic cue

effects on perceptions of store brand quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 28-36.

Rosen, Dennis L. (1984),”Consumer perceptions of quality of generic grocery products:

A comparison across product categories”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 60, pp. 64-80.

Sayman, S., Hoch, S. and Raju, J.S. (2002),”Positioning of Store Brands”, Marketing

Science, 21(4), pp. 378-397.

Sheinin, Daniel A. & Gabriel J. Biehal (1999),”Corporate Advertising Pass-through

onto the Brand: Some Experimental Evidence”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 10, No.1, pp.

63-73.

Solomon, Michael R. (2007),”Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being”, New

Jersey: Pearson Education.

Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Dekimpe, M.G. (1997),”The increasing Power of Store

Brands: Building Loyalty and Market Share, Long Range Planning, 30 (6), pp. 917-930.

Unilever Benelux (2010),”Unilever in de Benelux 2010: Werken aan een betere

toekomst, iedere dag”, Rotterdam: Unilever.

Unilever Communications Plan (2010),”Working to create a better future, every day:

Annual Communications Plan Unilever Benelux 2010”, Rotterdam: Communications

Department.

Unilever CEO Update (2010),”Unilever CEO Update: Unilever Benelux”, Rotterdam:

Communications Department, jaargang 3, juni 2010, nummers 11-13.


Appendices

Appendix A: Questionnaire

Universiteit van Tilburg

Master Thesis Marketing Management

N.A.C. Hartman, 465392

Beste deelnemer,

Ten eerste wil ik U bedanken voor uw medewerking aan mijn afstudeeronderzoek. Dit onderzoek dient als

afsluiting van mijn Master Marketing Management aan de Universiteit van Tilburg.

Middels dit onderzoek probeer ik te bekijken welke advertenties consumenten aanspreken. Het onderzoek

bestaat uit twee studies. In de eerste studie ziet U een aantal advertenties van een bestaand bedrijf in Nederland

en krijgt U een aantal vragen over verantwoord ondernemen. In de tweede studie ziet U advertenties van

bestaande of nieuwe producten die in de Nederlandse supermarkt worden verkocht. U wordt gevraagd deze

advertenties op een aantal aspecten te beoordelen. Tot slot krijgt U nog een aantal afsluitende vragen.

Het invullen van de enquête zal ongeveer 15 minuten van uw tijd in beslag nemen. Het betreft alleen meerkeuze

vragen. De resultaten zullen enkel en alleen voor mijn onderzoek worden gebruikt. Uw privacy blijft

gewaarborgd.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Nick Hartman

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Studie 1: Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Ondernemen

U ziet 3 advertenties over maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen. Wij zijn benieuwd naar uw mening over

deze advertenties.

1. Na het zien van deze advertenties vind ik dat dit bedrijf goede doelen ondersteunt.

Geheel mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Geheel mee eens

O O O O O O O

2. Na het zien van deze advertenties vind ik dat dit bedrijf verantwoordelijk onderneemt met betrekking

tot het milieu.


O O O O O O O

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

Studie 2: Product advertenties

U ziet nu 6 advertenties van verschillende producten. De advertenties omvatten bestaande of nieuwe producten

in de Nederlandse supermarkt. Wij zijn benieuwd naar uw mening over deze producten.

Advertentie 1:

1. Ik vind deze advertentie aantrekkelijk.


O O O O O O O


2. Ik vind deze advertentie overtuigend.


O O O O O O O

3. Ik vind dit product aantrekkelijk.


O O O O O O O

4. Dit product geeft me een goed gevoel.


O O O O O O O

5. Ik vind dit product maatschappelijk verantwoord.


O O O O O O O

Advertentie 2:



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O

Advertentie 3:



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O




O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O

Advertentie 4:



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O

Advertentie 5:



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O




O O O O O O O

Advertentie 6:



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O



O O O O O O O

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Afsluitende vragen

31. Bent U bekend met het merk Unilever?

Ja O

Nee O

32. Ik vind Unilever een goede onderneming.


O O O O O O O

33. Ik vind dat Unilever milieubewust onderneemt.


O O O O O O O

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dit is het einde van het onderzoek! Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname!

Nick Hartman


Appendix B: Advertisements

B1: Corporate Advertisements with and without CSR associations

B2: Product Advertisements without and with prior brand knowledge


B3: Product Advertisements with and without corporate brand visibility


Appendix C: List with Figures & Tables

C1: Figures

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework p.10

Figure 2: Supermarket Turnover January – July 2010 (Source: Gfk, 2010) p.14

Figure 3: Enhanced visibility of the corporate brand p.16

Figure 4: An associative network (Source: Colins & Loftus, 1975) p.17

Figure 5: Visualization of Unilever‟s associative network p.18

Figure 6: Consumers becoming advocates (Source: Unilever Comm. Plan, 2010) p.19

Figure 7: Positioning alternative branding strategies (Source: Kapferer, 2004) p.20

Figure 8: Conceptual Framework p.24

Figure 9: Visual representation of DVs when prior brand knowledge = low p.36

Figure 10: Visual representation of DVs when prior brand knowledge = high p.38

Figure 11: Visual representation of dependent variables for repetition p.40

C2: Tables

Table 1: Items p.27

Table 2: New factors p.28

Table 3: 2-way mixed ANOVA; manipulation check of CSR p.30

Table 4: 4-way mixed ANOVA; between participants effects p.31

Table 5: 4-way mixed ANOVA; within participants effects p.31

Table 6: 3-way mixed ANOVA: between participants effects, p.32

Table 7: 3-way mixed ANOVA: within participants effects p.32

Table 8: 3-way mixed ANOVA: between participants effects p.33

Table 9: 3-way mixed ANOVA: within participants effects p.34

Table 10: 2-way independent measures ANOVA p.35

Table 11: Planned contrasts for corporate brand visibility p.35

Table 12: Planned contrasts for CSR * corporate brand visibility p.36


Table 14: Planned contrasts for corporate brand visibility p.37

Table 15: Planned contrasts for CSR * corporate brand visibility p.38

Table 16: 3-way mixed ANOVA: between participants effects of repetition p.39

Table 17: 3-way mixed ANOVA: within participants effects of repetition p.39



Appendix D: Factor Analysis

D1: OBLIMIN factor extraction method: Advertisement 1

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,701

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 223,560

df 10

Sig. ,000

Communalities

Initial Extraction

ad1.1 1,000 ,890

ad1.2 1,000 ,710

ad1.3 1,000 ,858

ad1.4 1,000 ,698

ad1.5 1,000 ,998

Extraction Method: Principal

Component Analysis.

Advertisement 1: Pattern Matrixa

Component

1 2 3

ad1.1 -,081 -,008 -,987

ad1.2 ,249 ,047 -,668

ad1.3 ,963 ,020 ,077

ad1.4 ,749 -,022 -,147

ad1.5 -,010 1,001 -,002

Extraction Method: Principal Component

Analysis.

Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser

Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.






df 10

Sig. ,000

Communalities

Initial Extraction

ad2.1 1,000 ,874

ad2.2 1,000 ,908

ad2.3 1,000 ,829

ad2.4 1,000 ,917

ad2.5 1,000 ,995

Extraction Method: Principal

Component Analysis.


Component

1 2 3

ad2.1 ,803 ,002 -,193

ad2.2 ,998 ,036 ,082

ad2.3 ,357 -,106 -,657

ad2.4 -,065 ,075 -,980

ad2.5 ,031 ,991 -,020


Analysis.


Normalization.







df 10

Sig. ,000

Communalities

Initial Extraction

ad3.1 1,000 ,781

ad3.2 1,000 ,970

ad3.3 1,000 ,810

ad3.4 1,000 ,766

ad3.5 1,000 ,990


Analysis.


Component

1 2 3

ad3.1 ,913 -,095 -,011

ad3.2 ,002 -,007 ,986

ad3.3 ,896 ,087 -,043

ad3.4 ,588 ,111 ,335

ad3.5 -,004 ,999 -,011


Analysis.


Normalization.



Appendix E: General Assumptions

E1: Histograms

E2: Levene‟s Test of Equality

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

F df1 df2 Sig.

AD1adappeal 1,581 7 152 ,145

Ad2adappeal 1,976 7 152 ,062

Ad3adappeal ,765 7 152 ,618

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent

variable is equal across groups.

a. Design: Intercept + CSR + Brandknowledge +

CorporateBranding + CSR * Brandknowledge + CSR *

CorporateBranding + Brandknowledge * CorporateBranding + CSR

* Brandknowledge * CorporateBranding

Within Subjects Design: factor1


F df1 df2 Sig.

AD1productappeal 2,031 7 152 ,055

Ad2productappeal 1,025 7 152 ,416

Ad3productappeal 2,150 7 152 ,042

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent

variable is equal across groups.

a. Design: Intercept + CSR + Brandknowledge + CorporateBranding +

CSR * Brandknowledge + CSR * CorporateBranding + Brandknowledge

* CorporateBranding + CSR * Brandknowledge * CorporateBranding



F df1 df2 Sig.

AD1CSR 1,458 7 152 ,186

Ad2CSR 1,286 7 152 ,261

Ad3CSR 2,536 7 152 ,017

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the

dependent variable is equal across groups.

a. Design: Intercept + CSR + Brandknowledge +

CorporateBranding + CSR * Brandknowledge + CSR *

CorporateBranding + Brandknowledge * CorporateBranding +

CSR * Brandknowledge * CorporateBranding



E3: Mauchly‟s test of sphericity

Mauchly's Test of Sphericityb

Measure:MEASURE_1

Factors: ad1adappeal, ad2adappeal, ad3adappeal

Within Subjects Effect Mauchly's W

Approx. Chi-

Square df Sig.

Epsilona

Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

factor1 ,974 3,919 2 ,141 ,975 1,000 ,500


Measure:MEASURE_1

Factors: ad1productappeal, ad2productappeal, ad3productappeal


Approx. Chi-

Square df Sig.

Epsilona

Greenhouse-


factor1 ,992 1,274 2 ,529 ,992 1,000 ,500


Measure:MEASURE_1


Approx. Chi-

Square df Sig.

Epsilona

Greenhouse-


factor1 ,985 2,322 2 ,313 ,985 1,000 ,500

Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an

identity matrix.

a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of

Within-Subjects Effects table.

b. Design: Intercept + CSR + Brandknowledge + CorporateBranding + CSR * Brandknowledge + CSR * CorporateBranding +

Brandknowledge * CorporateBranding + CSR * Brandknowledge * CorporateBranding



Appendix F: Hypotheses Tests

F1: Manipulation Check CSR: 2-way mixed ANOVA

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Measure:MEASURE_1

Source

Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Ads Sphericity Assumed 15,329 2 7,665 7,030 ,001

Greenhouse-Geisser 15,329 1,999 7,667 7,030 ,001

Huynh-Feldt 15,329 2,000 7,665 7,030 ,001

Lower-bound 15,329 1,000 15,329 7,030 ,009

Ads * CSR Sphericity Assumed 4,137 2 2,069 1,897 ,152


Huynh-Feldt 4,137 2,000 2,069 1,897 ,152

Lower-bound 4,137 1,000 4,137 1,897 ,170

Error(Ads) Sphericity Assumed 344,533 316 1,090

Greenhouse-Geisser 344,533 315,887 1,091

Huynh-Feldt 344,533 316,000 1,090

Lower-bound 344,533 158,000 2,181

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Measure:MEASURE_1

Transformed Variable:Average

Source

Type III Sum of


Intercept 6336,533 1 6336,533 3744,216 ,000

CSR 6,075 1 6,075 3,590 ,060

Error 267,392 158 1,692


F2: 4-way mixed ANOVA: Overall effects


Measure:MEASURE_1



Source

Type III Sum of


Intercept 8333,333 1 8333,333 6365,426 ,000

CSR ,033 1 ,033 ,025 ,873

Brandknowledge 34,133 1 34,133 26,073 ,000

CorporateBranding 1,752 1 1,752 1,338 ,249

CSR * Brandknowledge ,033 1 ,033 ,025 ,873

CSR * CorporateBranding 1,302 1 1,302 ,995 ,320

Brandknowledge *

CorporateBranding

,002 1 ,002 ,002 ,968

CSR * Brandknowledge *

CorporateBranding

5,419 1 5,419 4,139 ,044

Error 198,992 152 1,309


Measure:MEASURE_1



Source

Type III Sum of


Intercept 8391,769 1 8391,769 4135,462 ,000

CSR 1,302 1 1,302 ,642 ,424

Brandknowledge 50,700 1 50,700 24,985 ,000


CSR * Brandknowledge ,300 1 ,300 ,148 ,701

CSR * CorporateBranding 7,500 1 7,500 3,696 ,056

Brandknowledge *

CorporateBranding

1,752 1 1,752 ,863 ,354

CSR * Brandknowledge *

CorporateBranding

2,269 1 2,269 1,118 ,292

Error 308,442 152 2,029



Measure:MEASURE_1


Source

Type III Sum of


factor1 Sphericity Assumed 82,357 2 41,179 41,447 ,000


Huynh-Feldt 82,357 2,000 41,179 41,447 ,000

Lower-bound 82,357 1,000 82,357 41,447 ,000

factor1 * CSR Sphericity Assumed ,320 2 ,160 ,161 ,851

Greenhouse-Geisser ,320 1,950 ,164 ,161 ,846

Huynh-Feldt ,320 2,000 ,160 ,161 ,851

Lower-bound ,320 1,000 ,320 ,161 ,689

factor1 * Brandknowledge Sphericity Assumed 7,576 2 3,788 3,813 ,023


Huynh-Feldt 7,576 2,000 3,788 3,813 ,023

Lower-bound 7,576 1,000 7,576 3,813 ,053

factor1 * CorporateBranding Sphericity Assumed 12,739 2 6,369 6,411 ,002


Huynh-Feldt 12,739 2,000 6,369 6,411 ,002

Lower-bound 12,739 1,000 12,739 6,411 ,012

factor1 * CSR *

Brandknowledge

Sphericity Assumed 5,039 2 2,519 2,536 ,081


Huynh-Feldt 5,039 2,000 2,519 2,536 ,081

Lower-bound 5,039 1,000 5,039 2,536 ,113

factor1 * CSR *

CorporateBranding



Huynh-Feldt 2,476 2,000 1,238 1,246 ,289

Lower-bound 2,476 1,000 2,476 1,246 ,266

factor1 * Brandknowledge *

CorporateBranding



Huynh-Feldt 5,670 2,000 2,835 2,853 ,059

Lower-bound 5,670 1,000 5,670 2,853 ,093

factor1 * CSR *

Brandknowledge *

CorporateBranding



Huynh-Feldt 3,291 2,000 1,645 1,656 ,193

Lower-bound 3,291 1,000 3,291 1,656 ,200



Measure:MEASURE_1


Source

Type III Sum of




Huynh-Feldt 55,316 2,000 27,658 24,309 ,000

Lower-bound 55,316 1,000 55,316 24,309 ,000

factor1 * CSR Sphericity Assumed ,845 2 ,422 ,371 ,690

Greenhouse-Geisser ,845 1,983 ,426 ,371 ,688

Huynh-Feldt ,845 2,000 ,422 ,371 ,690

Lower-bound ,845 1,000 ,845 ,371 ,543

factor1 * Brandknowledge Sphericity Assumed 36,022 2 18,011 15,830 ,000


Huynh-Feldt 36,022 2,000 18,011 15,830 ,000

Lower-bound 36,022 1,000 36,022 15,830 ,000



Huynh-Feldt 14,557 2,000 7,279 6,397 ,002

Lower-bound 14,557 1,000 14,557 6,397 ,012

factor1 * CSR *

Brandknowledge



Huynh-Feldt 7,372 2,000 3,686 3,240 ,041

Lower-bound 7,372 1,000 7,372 3,240 ,074

factor1 * CSR *

CorporateBranding

Sphericity Assumed 1,416 2 ,708 ,622 ,537

Greenhouse-Geisser 1,416 1,983 ,714 ,622 ,536

Huynh-Feldt 1,416 2,000 ,708 ,622 ,537

Lower-bound 1,416 1,000 1,416 ,622 ,431

factor1 * Brandknowledge *

CorporateBranding



Huynh-Feldt 9,426 2,000 4,713 4,142 ,017

Lower-bound 9,426 1,000 9,426 4,142 ,044

factor1 * CSR *

Brandknowledge *

CorporateBranding



Huynh-Feldt 7,997 2,000 3,998 3,514 ,031

Lower-bound 7,997 1,000 7,997 3,514 ,063


F3: 3-way mixed ANOVA: prior brand knowledge = low, 3 ads


Measure:MEASURE_1



Source

Type III Sum of


Intercept 3650,400 1 3650,400 2146,879 ,000

CSR ,067 1 ,067 ,039 ,844

CorporateBranding ,938 1 ,938 ,551 ,460

CSR * CorporateBranding ,704 1 ,704 ,414 ,522

Error 129,225 76 1,700


Measure:MEASURE_1


Source

Type III Sum of




Huynh-Feldt 34,731 1,943 17,879 19,285 ,000

Lower-bound 34,731 1,000 34,731 19,285 ,000



Huynh-Feldt 3,852 1,943 1,983 2,139 ,123

Lower-bound 3,852 1,000 3,852 2,139 ,148

Ads * CorporateBranding Sphericity Assumed 14,894 2 7,447 8,270 ,000


Huynh-Feldt 14,894 1,943 7,667 8,270 ,000

Lower-bound 14,894 1,000 14,894 8,270 ,005

Ads * CSR *

CorporateBranding

Sphericity Assumed 1,815 2 ,907 1,008 ,368

Greenhouse-Geisser 1,815 1,826 ,994 1,008 ,362

Huynh-Feldt 1,815 1,943 ,934 1,008 ,366

Lower-bound 1,815 1,000 1,815 1,008 ,319

Error(Ads) Sphericity Assumed 136,875 152 ,900

Greenhouse-Geisser 136,875 138,787 ,986

Huynh-Feldt 136,875 147,639 ,927

Lower-bound 136,875 76,000 1,801



Measure:MEASURE_1



Source

Type III Sum of


Intercept 3568,959 1 3568,959 1498,465 ,000

CSR ,176 1 ,176 ,074 ,786



Error 181,013 76 2,382


Measure:MEASURE_1


Source

Type III Sum of




Huynh-Feldt 15,694 1,938 8,096 7,711 ,001

Lower-bound 15,694 1,000 15,694 7,711 ,007



Huynh-Feldt 6,502 1,938 3,354 3,195 ,045

Lower-bound 6,502 1,000 6,502 3,195 ,078



Huynh-Feldt 8,106 1,938 4,182 3,983 ,022

Lower-bound 8,106 1,000 8,106 3,983 ,050

Ads * CSR *

CorporateBranding



Huynh-Feldt 4,856 1,938 2,505 2,386 ,097

Lower-bound 4,856 1,000 4,856 2,386 ,127



Huynh-Feldt 154,675 147,325 1,050

Lower-bound 154,675 76,000 2,035


F4: 3-way mixed ANOVA: prior brand knowledge = high, 3 ads


Measure:MEASURE_1



Source

Type III Sum of


Intercept 4717,067 1 4717,067 5138,515 ,000

CSR ,000 1 ,000 ,000 1,000



Error 69,767 76 ,918


Measure:MEASURE_1


Source

Type III Sum of




Huynh-Feldt 55,202 2,000 27,601 25,402 ,000

Lower-bound 55,202 1,000 55,202 25,402 ,000

Ads * CSR Sphericity Assumed 1,506 2 ,753 ,693 ,502


Huynh-Feldt 1,506 2,000 ,753 ,693 ,502

Lower-bound 1,506 1,000 1,506 ,693 ,408



Huynh-Feldt 3,515 2,000 1,757 1,617 ,202

Lower-bound 3,515 1,000 3,515 1,617 ,207

Ads * CSR *

CorporateBranding



Huynh-Feldt 3,952 2,000 1,976 1,819 ,166

Lower-bound 3,952 1,000 3,952 1,819 ,181



Huynh-Feldt 165,158 152,000 1,087

Lower-bound 165,158 76,000 2,173



Measure:MEASURE_1



Source

Type III Sum of


Intercept 4873,509 1 4873,509 2906,609 ,000

CSR 1,426 1 1,426 ,851 ,359



Error 127,429 76 1,677


Measure:MEASURE_1


Source

Type III Sum of




Huynh-Feldt 75,644 1,883 40,177 30,066 ,000

Lower-bound 75,644 1,000 75,644 30,066 ,000

factor1 * CSR Sphericity Assumed 1,715 2 ,857 ,681 ,507


Huynh-Feldt 1,715 1,883 ,911 ,681 ,499

Lower-bound 1,715 1,000 1,715 ,681 ,412



Huynh-Feldt 15,877 1,883 8,433 6,311 ,003

Lower-bound 15,877 1,000 15,877 6,311 ,014

factor1 * CSR *

CorporateBranding



Huynh-Feldt 4,556 1,883 2,420 1,811 ,169

Lower-bound 4,556 1,000 4,556 1,811 ,182

Error(factor1) Sphericity Assumed 191,208 152 1,258


Huynh-Feldt 191,208 143,089 1,336

Lower-bound 191,208 76,000 2,516


F5: 2-way independent measures ANOVA, prior brand knowledge = low


Dependent Variable:AD1adappeal

Source

Type III Sum of


Corrected Model 5,209a 3 1,736 2,383 ,076

Intercept 1518,153 1 1518,153 2083,135 ,000

CSR 1,953 1 1,953 2,680 ,106



Error 55,388 76 ,729

Total 1578,750 80

Corrected Total 60,597 79

a. R Squared = ,086 (Adjusted R Squared = ,050)


Dependent Variable:AD1productappeal

Source

Type III Sum of



Intercept 1022,450 1 1022,450 564,623 ,000

CSR 2,812 1 2,812 1,553 ,217



Error 137,625 76 1,811

Total 1168,000 80




F5: 2-way independent measures for advertisement 1, prior brand knowledge = high



Source

Type III Sum of



Intercept 1795,512 1 1795,512 2468,728 ,000

CSR ,800 1 ,800 1,100 ,298

CorporateBranding ,800 1 ,800 1,100 ,298


Error 55,275 76 ,727

Total 1856,000 80





Source

Type III Sum of



Intercept 1852,813 1 1852,813 1366,129 ,000

CSR 2,450 1 2,450 1,806 ,183



Error 103,075 76 1,356

Total 1975,500 80




F6: Planned contrasts for corporate brand visibility

Estimates


Brandknowledge CorporateBranding Mean Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

0 0 4,550 ,135 4,283 4,817

1 4,163 ,135 3,896 4,429

1 0 4,638 ,135 4,371 4,904

1 4,838 ,135 4,571 5,104

Pairwise Comparisons


Brandknowledge (I) CorporateBranding (J) CorporateBranding

Mean

Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.a

95% Confidence Interval for

Differencea


0 0 1 ,387* ,191 ,044 ,011 ,764

1 0 -,387* ,191 ,044 -,764 -,011

1 0 1 -,200 ,191 ,296 -,577 ,177

1 0 ,200 ,191 ,296 -,177 ,577

Based on estimated marginal means

*. The mean difference is significant at the ,05 level.

a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).


Estimates





0 0 3,613 ,199 3,219 4,006

1 3,538 ,199 3,144 3,931

1 0 4,350 ,199 3,957 4,743

1 5,275 ,199 4,882 5,668




Mean



Differencea


0 0 1 ,075 ,281 ,790 -,481 ,631

1 0 -,075 ,281 ,790 -,631 ,481

1 0 1 -,925* ,281 ,001 -1,481 -,369

1 0 ,925* ,281 ,001 ,369 1,481





F7: Planned contrasts for CSR associations


Brandknowledge CorporateBranding (I) CSR (J) CSR

Mean



Differencea


0 0 0 1 -,200 ,270 ,460 -,733 ,333

1 0 ,200 ,270 ,460 -,333 ,733

1 0 1 -,425 ,270 ,117 -,958 ,108

1 0 ,425 ,270 ,117 -,108 ,958

1 0 0 1 ,625* ,270 ,022 ,092 1,158

1 0 -,625* ,270 ,022 -1,158 -,092

1 0 1 -,225 ,270 ,406 -,758 ,308

1 0 ,225 ,270 ,406 -,308 ,758

Estimates


CSR Brandknowledge CorporateBranding Mean Std. Error



0 0 0 4,450 ,191 4,073 4,827

1 3,950 ,191 3,573 4,327

1 0 4,950 ,191 4,573 5,327

1 4,725 ,191 4,348 5,102

1 0 0 4,650 ,191 4,273 5,027

1 4,375 ,191 3,998 4,752

1 0 4,325 ,191 3,948 4,702

1 4,950 ,191 4,573 5,327




Brandknowledge CorporateBranding (I) CSR (J) CSR

Mean



Differencea


0 0 0 1 ,125 ,398 ,754 -,661 ,911

1 0 -,125 ,398 ,754 -,911 ,661

1 0 1 -,875* ,398 ,029 -1,661 -,089

1 0 ,875* ,398 ,029 ,089 1,661

1 0 0 1 ,400 ,398 ,316 -,386 1,186

1 0 -,400 ,398 ,316 -1,186 ,386

1 0 1 ,300 ,398 ,452 -,486 1,086

1 0 -,300 ,398 ,452 -1,086 ,486

Estimates


CSR Brandknowledge CorporateBranding Mean Std. Error



0 0 0 3,675 ,281 3,119 4,231

1 3,100 ,281 2,544 3,656

1 0 4,550 ,281 3,994 5,106

1 5,425 ,281 4,869 5,981

1 0 0 3,550 ,281 2,994 4,106

1 3,975 ,281 3,419 4,531

1 0 4,150 ,281 3,594 4,706

1 5,125 ,281 4,569 5,681

F8: 3-way mixed ANOVA: Repetition


Measure:MEASURE_1


Source

Type III Sum of




Huynh-Feldt 37,819 1,910 19,796 17,439 ,000

Lower-bound 37,819 1,000 37,819 17,439 ,000

Ads * Brandknowledge Sphericity Assumed 1,940 2 ,970 ,894 ,411

Greenhouse-Geisser 1,940 1,797 1,079 ,894 ,402

Huynh-Feldt 1,940 1,910 1,015 ,894 ,407

Lower-bound 1,940 1,000 1,940 ,894 ,347



Huynh-Feldt 12,640 1,910 6,616 5,828 ,004

Lower-bound 12,640 1,000 12,640 5,828 ,018

Ads * Brandknowledge *

CorporateBranding



Huynh-Feldt 4,452 1,910 2,330 2,053 ,134

Lower-bound 4,452 1,000 4,452 2,053 ,156



Huynh-Feldt 164,817 145,193 1,135

Lower-bound 164,817 76,000 2,169


Measure:MEASURE_1



Source

Type III Sum of


Intercept 4183,350 1 4183,350 3082,753 ,000

Brandknowledge 16,017 1 16,017 11,803 ,001


Brandknowledge *

CorporateBranding

2,817 1 2,817 2,076 ,154

Error 103,133 76 1,357



Measure:MEASURE_1


Source

Type III Sum of




Huynh-Feldt 26,658 2,000 13,329 11,447 ,000

Lower-bound 26,658 1,000 26,658 11,447 ,001

Ads * Brandknowledge Sphericity Assumed 37,525 2 18,762 16,112 ,000


Huynh-Feldt 37,525 2,000 18,762 16,112 ,000

Lower-bound 37,525 1,000 37,525 16,112 ,000



Huynh-Feldt 11,158 2,000 5,579 4,791 ,010

Lower-bound 11,158 1,000 11,158 4,791 ,032

Ads * Brandknowledge *

CorporateBranding



Huynh-Feldt 16,658 2,000 8,329 7,153 ,001

Lower-bound 16,658 1,000 16,658 7,153 ,009



Huynh-Feldt 177,000 152,000 1,164

Lower-bound 177,000 76,000 2,329


Measure:MEASURE_1



Source

Type III Sum of


Intercept 4301,067 1 4301,067 2482,013 ,000

Brandknowledge 29,400 1 29,400 16,966 ,000


Brandknowledge *

CorporateBranding

,017 1 ,017 ,010 ,922

Error 131,700 76 1,733

F9: Planned contrasts: Repetition

Estimates





0 0 4,450 ,200 4,051 4,849

1 3,950 ,200 3,551 4,349

1 0 4,950 ,200 4,551 5,349

1 4,725 ,200 4,326 5,124




Mean



Differencea


0 0 1 ,500 ,284 ,082 -,065 1,065

1 0 -,500 ,284 ,082 -1,065 ,065

1 0 1 ,225 ,284 ,430 -,340 ,790

1 0 -,225 ,284 ,430 -,790 ,340




Estimates

Dependent Variable:Ad2adappeal




0 0 3,925 ,220 3,488 4,362

1 4,200 ,220 3,763 4,637

1 0 5,100 ,220 4,663 5,537

1 4,325 ,220 3,888 4,762




Mean



Differencea


0 0 1 -,275 ,311 ,379 -,893 ,343

1 0 ,275 ,311 ,379 -,343 ,893

1 0 1 ,775* ,311 ,015 ,157 1,393

1 0 -,775* ,311 ,015 -1,393 -,157





Estimates





0 0 3,025 ,296 2,435 3,615

1 3,950 ,296 3,360 4,540

1 0 3,550 ,296 2,960 4,140

1 3,950 ,296 3,360 4,540




Mean



Differencea


0 0 1 -,925* ,419 ,030 -1,760 -,090

1 0 ,925* ,419 ,030 ,090 1,760

1 0 1 -,400 ,419 ,343 -1,235 ,435

1 0 ,400 ,419 ,343 -,435 1,235





Estimates





0 0 3,675 ,278 3,121 4,229

1 3,100 ,278 2,546 3,654

1 0 4,550 ,278 3,996 5,104

1 5,425 ,278 4,871 5,979




Mean



Differencea


0 0 1 ,575 ,393 ,148 -,208 1,358

1 0 -,575 ,393 ,148 -1,358 ,208

1 0 1 -,875* ,393 ,029 -1,658 -,092

1 0 ,875* ,393 ,029 ,092 1,658





Estimates

Dependent Variable:Ad2productappeal




0 0 4,450 ,253 3,945 4,955

1 4,050 ,253 3,545 4,555

1 0 5,600 ,253 5,095 6,105

1 4,550 ,253 4,045 5,055




Mean



Differencea


0 0 1 ,400 ,358 ,268 -,314 1,114

1 0 -,400 ,358 ,268 -1,114 ,314

1 0 1 1,050* ,358 ,004 ,336 1,764

1 0 -1,050* ,358 ,004 -1,764 -,336





Estimates





0 0 3,675 ,248 3,181 4,169

1 4,350 ,248 3,856 4,844

1 0 3,800 ,248 3,306 4,294

1 3,575 ,248 3,081 4,069




Mean



Differencea


0 0 1 -,675 ,351 ,058 -1,374 ,024

1 0 ,675 ,351 ,058 -,024 1,374

1 0 1 ,225 ,351 ,523 -,474 ,924

1 0 -,225 ,351 ,523 -,924 ,474



n.a.c. hartman; 465392; master thesis marketing management

Documents