You are on page 1of 331

University of Warwick institutional repository: http://go.warwick.ac.

uk/wrap
A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick
http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap/2452
This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright.
Please scroll down to view the document itself.
Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to
cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page.

16

Determinants of Corporate Image Formation:


A Consumer-Level Model Incorporating Corporate Identity
Mix Elements and Unplanned Communication Factors
By

Elif Karaosmanoglu

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of


Doctor of Philosophy in Industrial and Business Studies

Marketing and Strategic Management Group


Warwick Business School, University of Warwick
November, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF FIGURES

A'

LIST OF TABLES

Vii

DEDICATION

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

DECLARATION

Xi

ABSTRACT

Xiii

I INTRODUCTION

1.1.Relevance.
of theResearch

1.2.Aim of theResearch

1.3.TheContextandtheRespondent
Baseof theStudy

1.4.Methodology
andtheMethodsUsed

10

1.5.Contributionof theStudy

13

1.6.Outlineof theThesis

15

1.7.Definitionsof Constructs
andConcepts

18

11LITERATURE

REVIEW

22

2.1.Introduction

22

in Corporate
2.2.Paradigms
ImageandCorporate
IdentityStudies

23

22.1. Visuallgraphicdesignparadigm

23

2.2.2.Integratedcommunication
paradigm

24

2.2.3.Organisational
studiesparadigm

26

2.2.4.Marketingparadigm

28

2.2.5.Interdisciplinary
paradigm

31

2.2.6 Overviewand Thefocusofthe study

36

2.3. Defining the CorporateImageConcept

38

2.4. Defining the CorporateAssociationsConcept

42

2.5. Defining the CorporateIdentity Concept

44

2.6. The Scopeof CorporateIdentity Communicators

46

2.6 1. Corporateidentitymix elements

48

2.6.1.1.Symbolism

48

2.6.1.2.Communication

51

2.6.1.3.Behaviour

53

2.62. Unplannedcommunicationjactors

55

2.6.2.1.Interpersonalcommunication

57

2.6.2.2.Intermediarycommunication

58

2.6.2.3.Intrapersonalcommunication

59

2.7. Relevanceof IntegratedCommunicationin CorporateImageFormation

67

2.8. Summary

71

III CONCEPTUAL

FRAMEWORK

73

3.1. Introduction

73

3.2. Corporateidentity mix elementsandcorporateimage

76

3.2.1.Symbolism

79

3.2.2.Communication

80

3.2.3.Behaviour

81

3.3. Unplannedcommunicationfactorsandcorporateimage

83

3.3.1.Interpersonalcommunication

83

3.3.2.Intermediarycommunication

84

3.3.3.Intrapersonalcommunication

85

ii

3.3.3.1. Corporate associationsgap

87

3.3.3.2. Consumer-companyidentification

88

3.3.3.3. Emotional appeal

89

3.3.3.4. Consumer-companyvalue congruence

91

3.3.3.5. Antecedentsof consumer-companyidentification

93

3.3.3.6. Antecedentsof consumer-companyvalue congruence

94

3.4. Perceived integration of corporate identity mix elements and corporate


image

95

3.5. Corporate identity mix elementsversus Unplanned communication


factors

97

3.6. Summary

98

IV METHODOLOGY

AND RESEARCH

DESIGN

101

4.1. Introduction

101

4.2. Justification of the ResearchMethodology

101

4.3. ResearchDesign and Methods

105

4.4. Exploratory Fieldwork

108

4.5. ResearchInstrument and Scale Development

115

4.5.1. Specifying the domain of the construct

115

4.5.2. Item generation

119

4.5.3. Purifying measures

123

4.5.3.1. Qualitative assessment

121

4.5.3.2. Quantitative assessment:Pilot study I and Pilot study 2

127

4.5.4. Questionnaire design

135

4.6. Main Survey

140

4.61. Method

140

iii

4.6 2. Target population and sampling


4.7. Data Analysis Techniques and Statistical Packages

141
143

4.7.1. Exploratoryfactor analysis and reliability assessment

145

4.7.2. Confirmatoryfac tor analysis and measurementmodel estimation

146

4.7.3. Structural equation modelling and assessmentofmodelfit

151
154

4.8. Summary
V ANALYSIS

AND FINDINGS

155

5.1. Introduction

155

5.2. Sampling

155

5.2.1. Sample size

155

5.2.2. Sample characteristics

158

5.3. Initial Data Analysis

162

5.4. Scale Refinement, Scale Validation and Modelling

166

5.4.1. Exploratoryfactor analysis and reliability assessment

167

5.4.2. Confirmatoryfactor analysis and measurementmodels

176

5.4.3. Assessmentofmodelfit

189

5.5. Summary

200

VI DISCUSSION

202

6.1. Introduction

202

6.2. Measurement Scale Purification

203

6.3. Determinants of Corporate Image: Effects of corporate identity mix


elements

211

6.4. Determinants of Corporate Image: Effects of unplanned communication


'
elements

216

6.5. Integration of Corporate Identity Mix Elements and Its Relation to


Corporate Image

222

iv

6.6. CorporateIdentity Mix Elements.


versusUnplannedCommunication
Factors

223

6.7. Summary

225

VII CONCLUSION

227

7.1. Introduction

227

7.2. TheoreticalImplicationsof the Study

227

7.Z 1. Corporate identity mix elements

229

72.2. Unplanned communicationfactors

233

Z2.3. Integrationofcorporate identitymix elements

237

7.3. ManagerialImplicationsof the Study

238

7.4. Limitations of the Study

244

7.5. Future ResearchAvenues

248

7.6. Summary

252

Ap
Pp

endix I- ConsultancyInterviewsQuestionSheet

254

Appendix2- CompanyInterviewsQuestionSheet

256

Appendix3- FocusGroupDiscussionsQuestionSheet

259

Appendix4- Pilot Study I respondents'demographicsfor the threedraftsof


the questionnaire(McPI, McP2 andMcP3) for the McDonalds
referencecompany.
Appendix5- Pilot Study I respondents'demographicsfor the threedraftsof
the questionnaire(RM I, RM2 andRM3) for the Renault-Mais
referencecompany.

261

262

Appendix6- Pilot Study2 Respondents'Demographicsfor McDonald'sand


Renault-MaisDataSets

263

Appendix7- Questionnaire- McDonald'sReferenceCompany

264

Appendix 9- Questionnaire- Renault-MaisReferenceCompany

270

Appendix 9- Corporate Identity Traits Evaluation Form for Companies

276

References

277

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. The Outline of the Thesis.

17

Figure 3.1. The conceptual framework.

75

Figure3.2. The relationshipsbetweenconstructsandthe relevanthypotheses.

100

Figure 4.1. Procedurefor developing better measures.

106

Figure 5.1. The structural model, standardisedcoefficients, t values and variance


explained.

191

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. The characteristicsof main perspectivesin corporate image and
key
identity
and
some
studies
authors.
corporate

34

Table 3.1. The hypotheses.

99

Table 4.1. Details of in-depth interviews with consultants and senior managers.

110

Table 4.2. The details of focus groups and the core points discussed.

114

Table 4.3. Questionnaire sections, subject areasmeasuredand sources.

116

Table 4.4. The constructs and the number of initial items.

121

Table 4.5. The constructsandthe numberof initial and final items.

126

Table 4.6. Reliability and factor analysesresultsfor eachconstructon the basisof 129
the Pilot Study 1.
Table4.7. Reliability measuresfor the constructson the basisof Pilot Study2.134
Table 5.1. Samplesizeestimationon the basisof the McDonald's andthe Renault- 157
Mais datasets.
Table 5.2. Demographics of the McDonald's and the Renault-Mais cases 159
figures.
to
the
population
main
compared
Table 5.3. The variableswith possiblemissing data patternsin the McDonald's 164
dataon the basisof West.
Table 5.4. The variableswith possiblemissing datapatternsin the Renault-Mais 165
dataon the basisof Nest.
Table 5.5. Exploratory factor analysis results" for the corporate identity mix
(company-controlled communication) elements.

170

Table 5.6. Exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach alpha results for the 173
(uncontrolled)
communication elements.
unplanned
Table 5.7. Exploratory factor analysis results for the dependent, antecedent and 175
the control variables.

Table 5.8. Measurementmodel for corporateidentity mix (company-controlled 182


communication)elements.
Table 5.9. Measurement model for unplanned (uncontrolled) communication
elements.

183

vii

Table 5.10. Measurementmodel for the dependent,antecedentand control 186


-variables.
Table 5.11. ComParisonof Unconstrainedand Constrained Models in the
188
Assessment
of DiscriminantValidity
Table 5.12. Model fit indicators.

190

Table 5.13. The results in terms of the rejected and supported hypotheses.

195

viii

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this thesis to my mother (Emine Olcay Karaosmanoglu), my


father (Fuat Dogan Karaosmanoglu), my brother (Oben Karaosmanoglu), my sister-inlaw (Dilruba Karaosmanoglu) and my sweet niece (Cagil Karaosmanoglu), whose love

is
for
secondto none.
support
me
and

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank many peoplefor their personaland practical supportduring my
PhD quest at Warwick. First, I would like to expressmy deepestgratitude to my
principal supervisor,ProfessorTC Melewar(now at Brunel University),for believingin
my project and being a great exampleof an academicand a strong person in life.
Second,I would like to sincerelythank my secondsupervisor,MaureenMeadows(now
been
Open
has
University),
very constructiveandpatientwith my writing.
at
who
I would like to thank my professors Prof Selime Sezgin and Prof Zeynep Bilgin, who are
the reason of my career in academia,and to my head in ITU, Prof Nimet Uray, who had
to deal with all the bureaucracyto help me complete my PhD adventure in abroad. I also
would like to mention my colleagues in Middlesex University Business School, who
have given me the chanceto gain more experiencein teaching and research.
I am also very grateful to my PhD colleagues Cristiana.Lages, Leong Yow and Cagri
Yalkin here who constantly helped me out of difficult situations during my PhD
experience. I thank my officernate and secondyear housernate,Nina Seppala,for being
a very encouraging and lively friend. I also thank my colleague, Dr Noppom
Srivoravilai, for his regular support during the data analysis phase of my thesis. I am
Giannakis,
housernates,
Dr
Milialis
Dr
Olga
Mourouti,
thankful
to
and
my
also always
Ioannis Bardis, who made my London days a beautiful dream.

I am also deeplygratefulto my colleague,Dr Ayse BanuElmadag,who spentextended


hourson the phoneto discussmy PhD andpersonalmattersfrom acrossthe Atlantic.
My specialthanksto my wonderful aunt, SennurLwin, and my cousin,JasmineLwin,
for being my second family during my life in England and also to my special friend

RichardClive Norton for the wonderfultwo yearswe spenttogether.


Finally, I would like to thank my parents(Fuat and Olcay Karaosmanoglu);and my
brother, sister-in-lawi and my niece (Oben, Dilruba, and Cagil Karaosmanoglu) who
always supported and encouraged me with

their best wishes from Turkey.

DECLARATION
This is to declarethat:
"

am responsiblefor the work submittedin this thesis.


This work hasbeenwritten by me.

"

All verbatim extracts have been distinguished and the sources specifically

"I

acknowledged.
During the preparation of this thesis, some papers were prepared as listed below.
The remaining parts of the thesis have not yet been published.

1) Karaosmanoglu,E. and Melewar, T. C. (2006) "Corporate Communications,


Identity and Image:A ResearchAgenda",Journal of Brand Management,Vol.
14,No. 1/2,pp. 196-206.
2) Karaosmanoglu,E. and Melewar, T. C. (2005) "To What Extent Do Corporate
Identity Mix ElementsInfluence the Perceptionof CorporateIdentity versus
Uncontrolled Communication?
", in Proceedings of the 41h International
Conferenceof the CorporateIdentitylCorporate 4ssociationsResearchGroup
.
(CYARG),October2005,Rotterdam,Holland.
3) Karaosmanoglu,E. and Melewar, T. C. (2005) "Controlled Communication
versusUncontrolledCommunicationin CorporateImage Formation:Verifying
the ConceptualFramework7,in Proceedingsof the 9th International Conference
on ReputationRisk. The Role of CorporateAccountability and Responsibility,
May 2005,Madrid, Spain.
4) Karaosmanoglu,E., Melewar, T. C., Elmadag,A. B. (2005) "Multi-item Scale
Development for Measuring Corporate Identity Mix (CIM) Elements", in
Proceedingsof the 8th International Conferenceof Decision ScienceInstitute,
July 2005,Barcelona,Spain.
5) Karaosmanoglu, E.

and Melewar,

T.

C.

(2004) "Linking

Corporate

Communication and Corporate Image Constructs: A Review of Literature and

xi

Research Hypotheses", in Proceeding of the 9th International Conference on


Corporate and Marketing Communication, April 2004, Coventry, UK.
6) Karaosmanoglu, E. and Melewar, T. C. (2003) "The Role of Corporate
Communication at the Corporate Identity/Corporate Image Interface: A
Communication Framework and Research Agenda", in Proceedings of the 32d
European Marketing Association Conference,May 2003, Glasgow, UK.
7) Karaosmanoglu, E. and Melewar, T. C. (2003) "The Role of Corporate
Communication in Corporate Image Formation: A Communication Framework
and Research Agenda", in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Corporate Identity, Reputation and Competitiveness, May 2003, Manchester,
UK.
8) Karaosmanoglu, E. (2002) "An Integrated Approach to Corporate Image
Management", in Proceedings of the boctoral Colloquium of the 4cademy of
Marketing, 4nnual Conference,July 2002, Nottingham, UK.
9) Karaosmanoglu, E. and Melewar, T. C. (2002) "An Integrated Approach to
Corporate Image Management in MNEs",

in Proceedings of the 71h

International Conference on Corporate and Marketing Communications, April


2002, Antwerp, Belguim.

n This work has not beensubmittedwithin a degreeprogrammeat this or any other


institutions

Signo
Date:

xii

ABSTRACT

This thesis aims to extend the current knowledge about corporate image formation
process by developing a comprehensive model which incorporates corporate identity
mix

elements (i. e. symbolism, communication, and behaviour) and unplanned

communication

factors

(i. e.

interpersonal,

intermediary

and

intrapersonal

communication). By examining the proposed conceptual model, this study challenges


the claims of anything a company does communicates its identity (Balmer, 1997,2001;
Van Riel and Balmer, 1997) by testing the impact of company-driven communication
efforts on corporate image formation in the consumer context. It also adopts the

understandingof corporateimage is a compositeproduct of multiple communication


factors (13hattacharyaand Sen, 2003; Cornelissen, 2000) and in addition to formal
communication efforts it specifically tests the role of interpersonal communication,

intcrmcdiary communicationand intrapcrsonalcommunicationfactors in corporatc


imageformation(Comelissen,2000).It also addresses
the gapin the literatureaboutthe
role of integrated communication in corporate image formation process.

This researchadopts a predominantlyquantitative approachwhich is supportedby


insights from an exploratory phase that encompassesin-depth interviews and focus

discussions.
The main surveydatais derivedfrom a cross-sectionalsurveywhich
group
is conducted in Turkey. The data drawn from 439 questionnairesis analysedby
multivariate data analysis techniques including exploratory factor analysis (EFA),
Cronbach alpha, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural -equation modelling

xiii

(SEM). The first three statistical techniquesensuredthat the scalesdevelopedand


adaptedwere robust in terms of validity and reliability, and SEM applicationenabled
testingthe relationshipsbetweenconstructs.

The findings of this studyshowthat not every aspectof corporateidentity mix elements
(e.g. corporateaesthetics,staff apparel)is consideredto be salient communicatorsof
corporate identity by consumers.They also indicate that when consumersattribute
positive feelingsto a company'scorporatevisual identity systems,when they think that
marketingcommunicationactivities reflect corporatevalues,and when they perceivea
company as socially responsible, they tend to form favourable image of that
organisation.Moreover,the resultshighlight that interpersonalcommunication(wordintrapersonal
friends
information
and
and
relatives)
of-mouth
exchangeamong close
factors (i. e. corporate associations gap, consumer-company identification, emotional
image
determinants
of
corporate
appeal, consumer-company value congruence) are
formation.

However, it

is found that employee behaviour and intermediary

image;
immediate
their
corporate
associations about
communication may not activate
boundary
be
dependent
image
conditions.
may
on other
relationships with corporate
Finally, it is shown that the perceived integration of corporate identity mix elements is
linked to corporate image formation through the corporate associationsgap. Overall, this
research shows that corporate image formation process is a complex phenomenon.

xiv

I INTRODUCTION

Scholarsin marketinghavealreadyput the spotlight on the importanceof creatinga


unique corporate identity in order to create a sustainablecompetitive advantage
(Balmer, 2001a; Dacin and Brown, 2002; Grey and Smeltzer,1985,1987; Simoeset
al., 2005; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997). Recent developmentsin the business
environment such as the emergence of unionised or newly opened markets
(Gardberg and Fornbrun, 2002), mergers and acquisitions (Goodman,2000), the
increasingnumber of companiesand their numerousand various products/services
and more sophisticatedand demandingconsumers(Cornelissenand Harris, 2001;
Proctor and Kitchen, 2002) haveall startedto force companiesto focus on different
ways of creating a competitive advantage.Collins and Porras (2000) claim that
establishing"a cherishedcore ideology" built upon the company'smain purposeand
values i.e. corporateidentity, is a possibleway of performing well over a prolonged
period.

Assessing how consumersrespond to a company's identity is as important as


establishing it in the first place. Since corporate identity and its perception i.e.
corporateimage,are interdependentconcepts(Hatch and Schultz, 1997),influencing
people's perceptionsof a company is also consideredto be a part of strategic
management(Brown and Dacin, 1997;Gray and Smeltzer,1985),and in particular a
part of the strategic communication plan. The communication activities of a
company aim to influence how its image will be perceived in the eyes of the
beholders(Gray and Smeltzer,1985;Van Riel, 1995).Therefore,there is increasing
pressureon organisationsto plan their communicationstrategiesmore carefully.

However,corporateimageis not only a productof communicationactivities that are


controlled internally by companies. External factors such as information
disseminated by intermediaries, informal communications with friends and/or
relatives as well as pcrson-specificcharacteristicssuch as an individual's emotional
dispositiontowardsa company(Comelissen,2000) detenninehow corporateimage
is shapedin the minds of a company's stakeholders.Furthermore,the homology
betweenthe people's attributions to a companyand the specific corporateidentity
traits that the company wants to project defines how favourable an individual's
overall impression is of that company (Dacin and Brown, 2002). Psychological
between
identity
has
demonstrated
that
coherence
a
company's
projected
research
traits and the consumers' associationsabout those qualities, i.e. the corporate
influence
(Moriarty,
1996),
"where
the
public
on
associationsgap, provides greater
"
(Cornelissen
be
in
condition...
can
seen
as
a
necessary
consistency communication
and Lock, 2001, p. 428).

Although there has been a growing researchinterest regarding specific company


for
identity
in
to
standardisation
such as visual
managecorporate
actions order
in
Saunders,
1999),
(Melewar
role
management's
senior
and
global success
for
identification
Lane,
2000)
(Scott
and
and employeecommunication
employee
leveraging corporate brand performance (Harris and De Chematony, 2001), a
images
form
how
focuses
of companies
consumers
on
comprehensivemodel, which
by

integrating company-driven communication activities

and

external

impact
factors
in
in
to
their
on consumers'
order
examine
one
model
communication
(Comelissen,
been
identities
has
tested
empirically
not
evaluationsof companies'
2000).

This thesis takes the discussionabove into consideration,and investigatesto what


extent company-controlled communication activities (corporate identity mix
elements) affect corporate image formation versus unplanned (uncontrolled)
communicationelements.It examinesthe direct link betweenconsumers'attitudes
towards corporateidentity mix elementsand overall perceptionof a company i.e.
corporate image, as well as the contingenciesin which the relationshipsbetween
corporate image, emotional appeal, corporate associations gap and consumercompanyidentification occur. It also focuseson the role of perceivedintegrationof
the corporateidentity mix elementsin creatingconsistentcorporateassociations,and
hencefavourablecorporateimage.

In the following sections, first why the above subject has significance in the
field
(Section
1.1),
and second,what this researchaims to examineare
marketing
1.2).
Third,
(Section
the context of the study and the targetedpopulation
explained
for the datacollection are described(Section 1.3).Fourth, how the investigationwas
data
and
which
collection and analysismethodswere usedare presented
conducted,
(Section 1.4). Fifth, the contribution of the research is discussed(Section 1.5).
Finally, the structure of the chaptersand the definitions of the key conceptsare
provided(Section 1.6).

1.1. Relevance of the Research

Managementof people'sperceptionsabouta company(i.e. corporateimage)is a part


of the competitive positioning strategy (Dowling, 1986). Companiesuse image
managementfor competitive and strategic needs (Barich and Kotler, 1991). It

informs
for
the media, signals a company'snew
advertising,
provides an objective
direction or name change, createsan understandingof and familiarity with the
companybehind a product or service(Bernstein,1984;Dowling, 1986),encourages
favourable behaviour towards the company and adds value to general promotion
(Kennedy,1977).

A successfulcorporateimageenablesconsumersto differentiateone companyfrom


its competitors and consequentlyit increasesthe likelihood that consumerswill
(Brown
2004).
Dacin,
1997;
Hsieh
that
et
al.,
and
products
purchase
company's
Andreassenand Lindestad (1998) have demonstratedthat corporate image is a
determinantof the customers'satisfactionwith the service,of the evaluationof the
loyalty.
Nguyen
LeBlanc
(1998)
the
of
customer
and
and
service
quality
perceived
also assertthat corporate image has an impact on customer retention, so that a
its
image
is
likely
favourable
to
corporate
more
retain customersand
companywith a
favourable
its
brands.
A
to
to
the
corporate
switch
attract
competitors' customers
image is also conduciveto staff motivation, the recruitmentand retentionof skilftil
employeesand good relations with the community, shareholders,governmentand
investors (Dowling, 1986; Kennedy, 1977; Melewar et al., 2005). Therefore,
is
image
obviously
strategy
as
a
part
of
overall
company
management
considering
beneficialfor an organisation.

Keller (2000) claims that "the power of a brand lies in the minds of consumersor
be
identity
(p.
157).
Similarly,
the
can
assessed
strengthof a company's
customers"
by examining how the intended identity results in the minds of its stakeholders.
Organisationswant to ascertainthat their core valuesand principles are understood

in the sameway they want to position them in the marketplace.Gray and Balmer
(1998) statethat a strategicallyplannedand co-ordinatedcommunicationprogramme
rather than autonomouscommunicationactivities can build a strong imageand help
organisationsachieve a match betweentheir communicatedidentity qualities and
peoples' associationsaboutthem (Abratt, 1989;Gray and Smeltzer,1987;Melewar,
2003; Van Riel, 1995). For example, in 1983, TRW launched a television
advertisementwhich had the slogan "The Future Isn't What It Used to Be"
(Hartigan, 1987,p. 67). This messagewas in line with the company'score value of
being future focusedin that it supportedtheir promiseof being the producerof stateof-the-art products,while their printed advertisementsimultaneouslystressedthat it
was a companywhich generatesnew ideas (Hartigan, 1987). It is evident in this
example that companies are keen on conveying consistent messagesabout
themselvesand henceachievingan overlap betweenwhat they claim and how they
are perceived.

Brown and Dacin (1997) have found that there is a close link betweenconsumers'
associationsof a company's manufacturingabilities and social responsibility and
how peopleevaluatethat companyand its products.In his 1996study, Drurnwright
concluded that "organisational-levcl associationsenable the benefits of strongerorganisationalidentification to be widespreadand pervasive" (p. 84). Similarly,
Bhattacharyaand Sen (2003) claim that the more consumersidentify themselves
inclined
loyal
be
the
the
to
they
that
more
and
with a company, more
company
will
they will be to promote it. They will also be more resilient to negativeinformation
aboutthat company.

In summary,the aboveevidencefrom earlier studiesshowsthat corporateimageis a


major strategic concern for the success of a company in that its successful
managementcan have a positive impact on company performance indicators.
Therefore, it is imperative to understandwhat types of communication affect
i.
people'sperceptionof a company e. corporateimage.

1.2. Aim of the Research

The discussionabovesuggeststhat the way in which companiescommunicatetheir


identities is crucial in order to enhancethe performanceoutcomesof an organisation
through creating a favourable company image. How the stakeholdersperceive a
companyand what valuesthey associatewith it are a function of the communication
activities. However,it is not alwaysan easytask for decision-makersto assesswhich
image
formation.
have
impact
an
corporate
activities
on
communication
planned
This fact is evident in a manager'swords from a major American retailer ascited by
Brown and Dacin (1997): "We do all thesegood things we build buildings, give
...
it.
(p.
if
"
68).
don't
know
but
of
out
we get anything
we
money away ...
Additionally, managerswant their constituentsto translatetheir core valuesexactly
is
integration
intended.
(1989)
Abratt
the
that
activities
claims
of communication
as
key for accomplishingthis task. Moreover,Cornelissen(2000)and Dacin and Brown
doesnot suggesta closedsystemin
(2002) assertthat corporateimage'management
that it also takes into accountthe influence of non-companydriven communication
on peoples'interpretationof a company'sidentity.

All of theseneedsand facts leadto the necessityto investigatethe following research


questions:

1. Which corporate identity mix elements (company-controlledcommunication


elements)are more effective for positioninga favourableimage?

2. To what extentdoescompany-controlledcommunication(corporateidentity mix


elements)influence corporateimage formation versusunplanned(uncontrolled)
communication?

3. Does the perceived integration of corporate identity mix elements(companycontrolled communicationelements)have an impact on achieving the match
between the projected corporate identity traits and consumers' perceptions of

thosevalues(corporateassociationsgap)?

In orderto addressthe questionsabove,the following was done:

identity
borders
The
of corporate
mix
9

elements (company-controlled

communication),unplanned(uncontrolled) communicationfactors were drawn


and the indicators of the perceivedintegration and corporate image constructs
were conceptualisedon the basisof the literature.

The scaleswere operationalisedin order to measurethe dependent(corporate


image)and the independentvariables(sub-componentsof corporateidentity mix

elements,unplannedcommunicationfactors, perceivedintegration of corporate


identity mix elements),andtheir reliability and validity were empirically tested.

The model to examine the relationships between the corporate identity mix
elements (company-controlled communication elements), the unplanned
(uncontrolled) communication elements, the perceived integration and the
corporateimageconstructswas testedon the basisof the empirical data.

1.3. The Context and the RespondentBaseof the Study

This studyexaminesperceptionsof consumersin Turkey aboutthe global companies


chosenfor this study.The rationalebehind focusingon Turkey as the context for the
study is as follows:

I-

There is little researchconductedin Turkey in the field of corporate image,


identity and reputation'. Previousstudiesmostly cover the USA and a numberof
European countries such as the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany,
Belgium and Greece (e.g. Andreassenand Lindestad, 1998; Balmer, 1995;
Boyle, 1996; Brown and Dacin, 1997; Fill and Diminopolu, 1999; Fombrun et
al., 2000; Gtlrhan-Canli, 1996; Kennedy, 1977; Simoes,2001; Thevissen,2002;
Van Riel, 2002; Westberg,1994;Wiedmann,2002). SinceTurkey is considered
as an emerging market (Garten, 1997), the relevanceof westernisedacademic
be
in
identity
terms
should
of corporate
management
and managerialapproaches
challengedin Turkish context(Burgessand Steenkamp,2006).

Pleaseseethe Higher EducationInstitute of Turkey's websitehttl2://www.yok.gov.tr/YokTezSrv for


the thesesconductedin Turkey.

2- Melewar and Saunders(1999) statethat consumersconsiderthe companybehind


decisions
in the new era. Balabaniset al. (2002)
brand
a
while making purchase
add that companiestransactingout of their domestic environmenthave to put
more effort into convincing consumersin collectivist countries like Turkey to
have a favourable impressionabout them and hence buy their products and
services.

Turkey is economically and culturally different from those countries mentioned


above. It is classified as a developingcountry by the InternationalMonetary Fund
(2002). Additionally, Garten (1997) has identified Turkey as one of the emerging
markets which has the potential to influence world trade significantly. Therefore,
studying the subject in this context was consideredto yield different perspectives
than other developedmarketsettings.

The questionnaireswere applied to individuals who were resident in Istanbul.


According to the year 2000 census figures, this city is in the most populated
(Marmara)region of Turkey with a 25% shareof the total population(Euromonitor,
April 2000). It is the most populatedcity in Turkey with approximately 10 million
people,which is inth of the whole Turkish population (DIE, 2003). Moreover, its
population has increased 12.4 times between 1923 and 2000 while the overall
population in Turkey has increasedonly five times (DIE, 2003). These figures
indicate that Istanbul has the potential of representingthe Turkish people from
different backgrounds.

The respondentswere recruited on the basis of conveniencein eight boroughsof


Istanbulwhich were determinedby following the clustersamplingsteps(SeeSection
4.6.2 for details).By the cut-off date,252 responsesto the McDonald's questionnaire
and 255 responsesto the Renault-Maisquestionnairehad been collected.After the
initial dataanalysis,a total of 439 questionnaireswere usedin testingthe model.

Becausecorporateimage is definedas the overall impressionabout an organisation,


its operationalisation requiresindicating a specific companyto be assessed(Elsbach
and Bhattacharya, 2001). Therefore, the respondentswere provided with two
referencecompaniesto assessin the questionnaires.Accordingly, McDonald's and
Renault-Maiswere chosenas focal companiesfor the following reasons:

I- McDonald's and Renault-Mais were' among the first ten most reputable
in
by
2000,
based
The
Capital
the
survey
completed
companies
on
reputation

2- These two companiesare large enough to have a corporate communication


department and are capable of investing in a wide range of corporate
communicationactivities,

3- Thesecompaniesalso had strategiccorporatecommunicationplansin action.

1.4. Methodology and the Methods Used

This research aims to understand which elements of company-controlledand


unplannedcommunicationare perceivedas the communicatorsof corporateimage

10

by consumers,as well as which of thoseelementsare the determinantsof corporate,


imageformation. Due to its descriptivenature,it adoptsa quantitativeapproachand
uses the survey method to gather data (Churchill, 1999). Since it is a relatively
underdeveloped area of research (Dacin and Brown, 2002), it incorporates
information from exploratory interviews in order to gain more insights into the
subject (Churchill, 1979; Dickson and Albaum, 1977; Dodd and Whipple, 1976;
Sieber,1973;Mingers, 2001).

Deshpande(1983) and Cropbach(1975) claim that using qualitative methodsin the


early stagesof a quantitativestudy increasesthe validity of the researchas well as
the richness of the conclusions.Therefore, this study adopts Churchill's (1979)
first
information
in
the
some
qualitative
phaseof
gathering
paradigmwhich suggests
the research before embarking on a survey. Accordingly, after reviewing the
literature, the researchercollected information by conducting in-depth interviews
with key informants (i.e. communicationconsultantsand corporatecommunication
managers)and by focus group discussionswith consumers.This info.rmation was
then incorporatedinto the researchinstrumentdesignandthe scalevalidation.

The scales were purifled on the basis of the qualitative and the quantitative
assessment
of the questionnaire.Academicjudges were recruitedfor the qualitative
Zeller,
in
(Carmines
to
the
the
and
satisfy
stage order
content validity of
measures
1979;De Vellis, 1991;De Vaus, 1996).Two pilot testsprecededthe main survey in
factor
Exploratory
indicators
the
to
the
quantitatively.
order simplify
constructs
of
analysis (EFA) and reliability check using the Cronbach alpha statistic were

II

employed on the basis of the data collected from the pilot studies (Aaker, 1997;
Babin et al., 2000; Hair et al., 1998;Tabachnickand Fidell, 2000).

Before merging the two data sets (McDonald's and Renault-Mais)for exploratory
factor analysis and measurementmodel and structural model testing, they were
separatelyexposedto initial dataanalysisin order to diagnoseoutliers, missing data
and variables with non-normal distributions (Hair et al., 1998; Tabachnick and
Fidell, 2000).This was followed by the applicationof exploratoryfactor analysisand
the Cronbach alpha test (Aaker, 1997; Babin et al., 2000; Hair et al., 1998;
Tabachnick and Fidell, 2000). Structural Equation Modelling was used for model
testing since it is considered to be a powerful technique for testing causal
relationshipsbetweenconstructs(Diamantopoulos,1994;Fornell and Larcker, 1981;
Steenkampand Baumgartner,2000). A two-step approachwas taken for the model
testing (Andersonand Gerbing, 1988).First the unidimensionalityof the constructs
was validated on the basis of the measurementmodels by the application of
confirmatory factor analysis(CFA). Following that step,the modelswere testedby
applying structural equation modelling which simultaneously estimates the
relationships among constructs (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Diamantopoulos,
1994;Steenkampand Baumgartner,2000).

SPSS12.0 (statistical packagefor social sciences)was used during the descriptive


analysis, outlier examination, missing data analysis, exploratory factor analysis,
reliability analysis and the normal distribution assessment(Tabachnickand Fidell,
2000). Confirmatory factor analysis and structural model testing were performed

12

using the Lisrel 8.7 (LInear StructuralRELationships)(Hair et al., 1998; J6reskog


and S6rbom,1993;1996).

1.5. Contribution

of the Study

As mentioned earlier (See Section 1.2), this researchattempts to expand current


understanding in the corporate image formation debate. It aspires to make a
theoreticalcontribution in two main areas:extendingthe existing theory by empirical
testing, and by conceptualisationand operationalisationof constructs.It also aims to
in
for
decision-makers
implications
terms of what should shape
make managerial
their approachesto the managementof their companies'identities.

In particular, this study advancesthe existing views on corporate image formation by


providing a comprehensive structural model, which incorporates corporate identity
(See
factors.
The
model
communication
proposed
mix elements and unplanned
Figure 3.1.) does not negate the importance of earlier corporate communication
models, which tend to be biased towards organisation-centred perspectives (e.g.
Abratt, 1989; Balmer and Soenen, 1999; Birkigt and Stadler, 1986; Dowling, 1986;
Markwick and Fill, 1997; Simoes et al., 2005; Van Riel, 1995). However, it suggests
a receivers' view (Comelissen, 2000; Dacin and Brown, 2002, Proctor and Kitchen,
2002), which complements existing models by integrating other message sources;
that are interpersonal communication, intermediary communication and intrapersonal
communication (Comelissen, 2000). Through this model, the claim of 'anything a
company does communicates its identity' (Balmer, 1997,2001;

Van Riel and

Balmer, 1997) in the consumer context. Additionally it considers the role of non-

13

company driven communication factors on corporate image formation, since


Bhattacharyaand Sen (2003) and Comelissen(2000) arguethat not only companydriven communicationbut also external factors are determinantof corporateimage
formation. Therefore, the relationships between interpersonal communication,
intermediarycommunicationand intrapersonalcommunicationfactorsand corporate
image are investigated. It also addressesthe long discussion about the role of
integrated communicationin engenderingfavourable attitudes towards companies
(e.g. Abratt, 1989; Einwiller and Will, 2002; Gray and Smeltzer, 1985,1987; Van
Riel, 1995).

Ibis research also brings new insights on the current conceptualisation and
operationalisation of the constructs such as the corporate image, corporate
associations,corporateidentity mix elements,unplannedcommunicationfactorsand
integrated communication. Although the majority of the sub-elementsof these
been
have
discussed,
has
been
their
not
scales
measurement
constructs
conceptually
developedand verified in the consumers'context. For example,the salienceof the
corporate identity mix elementsfrom the perspectivesof consumersis examined.
Furthermore, some constructs from other fields, such as identification and
integration,are adaptedto the context of this study. The robustnessof all the scales
developed and adapted is confirmed by the application of confirmatory factor
analysis(CFA).

The complexity of the corporateimage formation processrequiredthe researcherto


draw insights from other researchareas, such as word-of-mouth communication,
corporateassociations,organisationalidentification, value congruenceand integrated

14

marketingcommunication.In this respect this researchis one of the first attemptsto


establisha link betweenthoseareasand the corporateidentity and corporateimage
fields.

In terms of managerial implications, this study suggeststhat managersshould


understandthat corporate image formation is a complex phenomenon,since it is
determined by multiple communication factors including company-driven
communication efforts and external communication elements. It suggests that
decision-makersshould be cautious about designing and implementing formal
communicationactivities, since salient communicatorsof corporateidentity related
messagesmay changefor different stakeholdergroups. In addition, it assertsthat
managersshould regularly assesswhat associationsindividuals hold about their
organisations' identities, what their personality values are, and how similar
individuals' associationsand their self-imageperceptionsto what their companies'
intend to convey.By doing so, this study commentsthat organisationsmay havethe
advantageof respondingto consumers' expectationsin the right time in a right
manner.This researchalso highlights that integratedcommunicationcan be the key
for decision-makersto reducethe risk of possibleinconsistenciesbetweenintended
corporateassociationsand consumers'attributionsaboutcompanies'identities.

1.6. Outline of the Thesis

This thesis has sevenchapters(Figure 1.1) along with appendicesand references.


The first chapterdiscussesthe significance,the purposeand the contribution of the
I

15

in
by
It
the
the
methodology
study. continues presenting
adoptedand
context which
it was studied.

ChapterII outlinesthe backgroundof the corporateimagestudiesand the definitions


and the scopeof the key concepts.Theseare: corporateimage,corporateassociations
gap, corporate identity mix (company-controlled communication), unplanned
(uncontrolled)communication,perceivedintegrationconstructs.

Chapter III presentsthe theoretical framework which links the above concepts
together.It depictsthe indicators for the constructsand sets out the hypothesesfor
the empirical testing.

ChapterIV describesthe methodologyadoptedand the methodsusedto collect the


data. It presents the preliminary research and its findings in terms of scale
data
design.
instrument
It
the
analysis
explains
also
simplification and research
techniquesandthe statisticalpackagesused.

ChapterV presentsthe analysisandthe findings of the main survey.It consistsof the


initial data analysis, respondentcharacteristicsand the proceduresfor construct
validation and model testing.

ChapterVI discussesthe outcomesof the analysisand provides a link betweenthe


literaturereview and the findings.

16

Finally ChapterVII outlinesthe contribution of this study to the theory aswell as to


the practice. It also providesthe limitations of the researchand suggestsdirections
for future research.The appendicesandthe referencesfollow this section.

Figure 1.1.The Outline of the Thesis


Chapter 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Relevance of the Research
1.2. Aim of the Research
1.3. Methodology of the Study
1.4. The Context and the ResponseBase of the Study
1.5. Contribution of the Study
1.6. Outline of the Thesis
1.7. Definition of the Concepts
Chapter 11
11.LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Paradigms in Corporate Image and Corporate Identity Studies
2.3. Defining the Corporate Image Concept
2.4. Defining the Corporate Associations Concept
2.5. Defining the Corporate Identity Concept
2.6. The Scope of Corporate Identity Communicators
2.7. Relevance of Integrated Communication in Corporate Image Formation
2.8. Summary
Chapter III
111.CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Corporate Identity Mix Elements and Corporate Image
3.3. Unplanned Communication Factors and Corporate Image
3.4. Perceived integration of corporate identity mix elements and corporate image
3.5. Corporate identity mix elements versus Unplanned communication factors
3.6. Summary
Chapter IV
IV. METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Justification of the Research Methodology
4.3. Research Design and Methods
4.4. Exploratory Fieldwork
4.5. Research Instrument and Scale Development
4.6. Main Survey
4.7. Data Analysis Techniques and Statistical Packages
4.8. Summary
Chapter V
V. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
5.1. Introduction
5.3. Sampling
5.4. Initial Data Analysis
5.5. Scale Refinement, Scale Validation and Modelling
5.6. Summary

17

Chapter VI
VI. DISCUSSION
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Measurement Scale Purification
6.3. Determinants of Corporate Image: Effects of corporate identity mix elements
6.4. Determinants of Corporate Image: Effects of unplanned communication elements
6.5. Integration of Corporate Identity Mix Elements and Its Relation to Corporate Image
6.6. Corporate Identity Mix Elements versus Unplanned Communication Factors
6.6. Summary
Chapter VII
VII. CONCLUSION
7.1. Introduction
7.2. Theoretical Implications of the Study
7.3. Managerial Implications of the Study
7.4. Limitations of the Study
7.5. Future ResearchAvenues
7.6. Summary

1.7. Definitions of Constructs and Concepts

Corporate image: The individuals' overall evaluation of a company that is


incorporating positioning it in comparison to its counterparts and according to what

individuals construeaboutwhat othersthink about it (Williams and Moffit, 1997)on


the basisof their values,beliefs and attitudes(Dowling, 1986;Johnsonand Zinkhan,
1990;Keller, 2002).

Corporate identity: The sub-setof organisationalvalues with which a company


wants to identify itself to all its audiences(Johnsonand Zinkhan, 1990;Zinkhan et
al., 2001; Van Riel, 1995).

Corporate associationsgap: The extent of the differencesbetweenthe corporate


identity traits that a companywants to project and people's associationsaboutthose
values(Dacin and Brown, 2002).

18

Corporate

identity

elements

mix

(company-controlled

communication

elements): The communication activities that are internally planned by acompany.


It consists of symbolic elements (i. e. corporate visual identity system, company
aesthetics and staff

appearance), communication

elements (i. e. marketing

communication mix) and behavioural elements (i. e. company behaviour, manager


behaviour, and employee behaviour) (Balmer and Soenen, 1999; Van Riel, 1995).

Corporate visual identity systems: The intangible symbolic elements that a


company uses to reflect its values. It consists of logo, name, slogan, colour and
typography(Melewar and Saunders,1999).

Company aesthetics:The tangible symbolic elementssuch as architecture,interior


design of buildings, stationary, retail stores etc. that a company uses to project its

identity (Schmitt et al., 1995).

Staff appearance: The presentationof the intangible symbolic elements of an


organisation on its employees' apparels (Kennedy, 1977; Gray and Balmer, 1998;

Van Riel, 1995).

Marketing

communication

mix: The communication activities (e.g. advertising,

sales promotion, sponsorship, direct selling, corporate advertising, public relations)


that are planned to promote the company's products and services as well as itself
(Barich and Kotler, 1991; Van Riel, 1995).

19

Company behaviour: A company's actions about ethical, environmental and


recruitmentissues(Brown and Dacin, 1997;Van Riel, 1995).

Manager behaviour: The way the managers of a company represent their company

on public occasions(Gray andBalmer, 1998;Van Riel, 1995).

EmpIoyee behaviour: The way the employeesof a company treat its customers
(Kennedy,1977;Kiriakidou andMillward, 2000).

Unplanned (uncontrolled) communication elements: The communicationfactors,


that are externalto companies(Balmer, 2001a).It consistsof interpersonal(personto-personword-of-mouth), intermediary(word-of-mouth from massmedia, NGOs,
governmentalinstitutions)and intrapersonal(previousexperiencesand imagesstored
in the mind) communications(Comelissen,2000).

Interpersonal communication: The pcrson-to-personcommunication between a


perceived non-commercial communicator and a receiver regarding a brand, a
product,an organisation,or a service(Harrison-Walker,2001).

Intermediary communication: The communication between a person and nonperson communicator(massmedia, NGOs, governmentalinstitutions) regarding a
brand,a product,an organisation,or a service.

20

Intrapersonal communication: The psychological consequencesof previous


experiencesand imagesstoredin an individual's mind via previous interactionswith
the companyand its communicationactivities (Cornelissen,2000).

Emotional appeal: The emotional disposition of an individual towards a company


(Fombrunet al., 2000).

Consumer-company value congruence: The extent of the overlap between the


corporate identity traits that a company wants to project and the people's self
perceptionon the basisof the samevalues(Senand Bhattacharya,2001).

Consumer-company identification: The onenesswith or connectednessto an


organisation(Ashfort and Mael, 1989).

Company knowledge: The extent of the knowledgethat an individual has about a


company(Bhattacharyaand Sen,2003).

21

11LITERATURE

REVIEW

2.1. Introduction

Researchin the corporate identity and corporate image areas demonstratedthat


developing a favourable image among a company's stakeholdershas desirable
organisationaloutcomessuch as positive responsetowards products and services
(Brown and Dacin, 1997; Keller and Aaker, 1992a), greater customer loyalty
(Andreassenand Lindestad,1998),customerretention(Bhattacharyaand Sen,2003)
for
LeBlanc,
2003),
(Nguyen
and
and
greater
appeal
skilful
and satisfaction

workforce (Melewar et al., 2005). Simoeset al. (2005) assertthat it is important for
decision-makersto understandwhich factors affect the image that individuals form
about their organisations,in order to gain competitive advantage.Although the
literature in corporateidentity and corporateimage areashas discussedthis issue,a
comprehensive view has not been provided which delineates the types of
image
formation
influence
have
corporate
may
an
on
communication which
(Comelissen,2000).

Accordingly, this chapter reviews a'range of literature in order to establish the


domain of corporateimage formation and the related concepts.It first provides a
backgroundby depicting the evolution of perspectivesin the corporateidentity and
key
focus
fields
image
It
the
the
then
the
explains
study.
of
corporate
and states
image
borders
formation
to
the
of the types of
as
well
as
corporate
conceptsrelated
identity communicatorsby drawing insightsfrom theseparadigms.

22

2.2. Paradigms in Corporate Image and Corporate Identity Studies

Studiesof corporateimageand corporateidentity dateto the 1950s(Balmer, 2001a;


Bick et al., 2003). Since then, researchershave presented a wide range of,
perspectivesto reach a deeper understandingabout these two concepts. Since
corporateimage and corporateidentity have beenused interchangeably(Bick et al.,
2003; Simoeset al., 2005),evolution of both researchstreamsis presentedto provide
a comprehensiveoverview about the paradigms in these fields. On the basis of
categorisationsby Balmer (1995,1998,2001a), Van Riel and Balmer (1997) and
Simoes et al. (2005), the visual/graphic design, organisationalstudies, integrated
communication,marketing, and interdisciplinary perspectivesare explained in the
following sections.A summaryof theseperspectivesand somekey authorsof each
approachare also presentedin Table 2.1.

2.2.1. Visual/graphic design paradigm

Since early writers in fields of the corporate image and corporate identity were
practitioners,the main emphasisof corporate identity studies conducteduntil the
1980's was on the visual/graphic design featuresof organisations(Balmer, 1995,
1998; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997; Simoeset al., 2005). The visual/graphicdesign
schoolauthors(e.g. Carter, 1975,1976;Henrion and Parkin, 1966;Margulies, 1977;
Olins, 1978, Pilditch, 1970; Selame and Selarne, 1975) initially argued that
symbolism used by an organisationsuch as nomenclatures,logos, symbols, house
styles, stationary,uniforms, vehicles etc. brings visibility to a companyand should
be kept fashionable(Balmer,2001a; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997).

23

After Kennedy's study (1977), this underlying assumptionhas been revised, since
she demonstratedthat employeesof an organisation play a role in building the
identity of an organisationand in its communicationto externalstakeholders.It was
acknowledgedthat corporate identity influences the shared values, beliefs and
behaviours of organisational members on which the corporate culture is built
(Balmer, 1995; Downey, 1986), and therefore corporatesymbolism should reflect
characteristicsof organisationalculture aswell as any changesto it dueto alterations
in corporatestrategyto better position the company in the market place (Balmer,
1995; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997).Accordingly, the focus of researchin this area
has shifted to the examinationof how visual expressionsof an organisationwere
designedto reflect its core values and principles (Balmer, 1995; Van Riel and
Balmer, 1997).The major conceptualdevelopmentof the visual/graphicschoolwas
introducedby Olins (1978),who proposedthat organisationsexpresstheir corporate
culture and corporatestrategymainly by using three visual identity styles, namely
monolithic, endorsedand brandedidentities.

2.2.2. Integrated communication paradigm

Kennedy's study (1977) demonstratedthat along with fort-nal communication


in
interaction
the
a
role
with external audiences plays
activities, employees'
corporateimageformation process.This finding attractedresearchers'attention(e.g.
Abratt, 1989; Barich and Kotler, 1991; Bernstein, 1984; Dowling, 1986; Gray and
Smeltzer,1987;Marken, 1990;Schmitt et al., 1995;Wells and Spinks, 1999)to the
issue of how corporateidentity should be communicatedinternally and externally
(Balmer,2001a).

24

The scholarssupportingthis perspective(e.g. Abratt, 1989; Dowling, 1986; Gray


and Smeltzer, 1987) suggest that company philosophy and culture should be
integratedinto every stageof corporatestrategy.They developedmulti-stepplansfor
image formation.and modification which mainly encompassthe stagesof defining
personality characteristicsof an organisation, determining the most appropriate
messagesand communicatingthem through the most appropriatecommunication
channels,and finally doing imageresearchto provide feedbackto corporatestrategy
which shapescorporateidentity.

The pioneeringmodel of this era was developedby Abratt (1989) who launchedthe
concepts of 'interface' between corporate identity and corporate image which
defined the 'consistency' betweenthe projected identity and the perceivedimage.
His model was the first attemptto show a linear link betweencorporatepersonality,
corporateidentity, and corporateimagewhich setsout the foundation for corporate
image management.In the model, the importanceof a communicationprocesswas
emphasised.He argued that it is imperative to understandwhether the corporate
identity of an organisationis communicatedeffectively in order to make sure that
it
intended
Gray
2003).
(Bick
and
as
aL,
stakeholdersof an organisationperceive
et
Smeltzer(1987) statedthat a strategicallydesignedand co-ordinatedcommunication
programmecan build a strong imageand reinforce its consonancewith identity. Van
Riel (1995) arguedthat management,organisationaland marketing communication
in
integrated
be
terms
of
constitute
communication
should
efforts - which
corporate
executionand organisationalmessagesthey convey in order to eliminate the risk of
delivering contradictingcuesaboutan organisation'sidentity.

25

2.2.3. Organisational studies paradigm

Since the importance of organisational members' perceptions of their own


organisationin image building has been demonstratedin the field (See Kennedy,
1977), organisationalbehaviourtheorists (e.g. Albert and Whetten, 1985; Ashfort
and Mael, 1989;Bergami and Bagozzi,2000; Dutton and Dukerich, 1991;Dutton et
al., 1994; Elsbach and Kramer, 1996; Foremanand Whetten, 2002; Gioia et al.,
2000; Gioia and Thomas, 1996;Whettenand Godfrey, 1998; Whettenand Mackey;
2002) have brought another perspectiveby focusing on the relationship between
organisationsand their employees.They have proposedthat the way membersof
companiesperceive their own organisation,i.e. perceived organisationalidentity,
i.
how
interpret
their
they
organisation, e. construed
and
outsiders' views of
(Dutton
identity,
their
to
their
own
organisations
attachment
organisational
affect
and Dukerich, 1991; Dutton et al., 1994), and hence organisationalculture which
Schultz,
1997).
identity
(Hatch
for
the
and
corporate
management
constitutes context

Cristensen and Askegaard (2001) argue that the employees' reactions to company
interpretations
interactions
their
their
of
with external publics gives
policies and
decision-makers
development
in
terms of establishing and
to
the
of
strategy
shape
communicating

corporate

identity.

Therefore,

the

relationship

between

organisational members and their companies in terms of how they internalise their
interest
is
distinctive
to
of
and enduring characteristics
organisations' central,
corporate identity management (Albert and Whetten, 1985, Balmer, 2001a).

26

Drawing on social identity theory, the organisationalstudies perspectivesuggests


that employeestry to fulfil their self-definitional needsby defining themselvesin
relation to their own work places(Ashfort and Mael, 1989; Bergami and Bagozzi,
2000; Elsbachand Kramer, 1996;Gioia and Thomas,1996).Dutton et al. (1994) and
Ashfort and'Mael (1989) argue that employees' effort to internalise the main
characteristics of their organisations is a form of social identification. This
internalisationprocesshasbeendescribedas organisationalidentification,defined by
Dutton et al. (1994) as "... the degreeto which a memberdefineshim- or herselfby
the same attributes that he or she believes define the organisation" (p. 239). If
employees'own assessment
of their organisation'sidentity (perceivedorganisational
identity) correspondsto their own values as well as to their own interpretationsof
what outsiders' think about their organisation(construedorganisationalidentity),
they will tend to identify themselveswith their organisationmore strongly (Ashfort
and Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994). Dutton et al. (1994) claimed that greater
organisationalidentification may result in outcomesdesirableto the organization,
such as ascendanceof intra-organisationalconsensus,decrease in competition
betweensub-groupswithin the organisation,and a decreasein the risk of losing a
qualified work force. Foremanand Whetten,(2002) demonstratedthat organisational
identification leadsto greaterpersonalcommitmentto the organisation,which in turn
may makeemployeesmore willing to positively communicatethe intendedcorporate
identity to externalpublics.

In that respect,the role of top managementin the establishmentof organisational


identity and identification hasbeenstressed(Suttonand Callahan,1987).Dutton and
Dukerich (1991) showedin their study of the Port Authority of New York and New

27

Jerseythat the ability of senior managementto read the gap between its internal
reality and external image defines how the cultural atmosphere inside an
organisationcan turn into an undesirableenvironment.Hatch and Schultz(1997) and
Simoes et al. (2005) state that the senior managementof an organisation is
responsible for creating an organisationalclimate which nurtures the consensus
betweenemployeesabout their organisation'score values and main purpose,which
in turn fosters a more favourable perceived organisational identity and greater
organisationalidentification. This has beenconsideredby marketingacademics(e.g.
Balmer, 2001a; De Chernatonyand Harris, 2000; Harris and De Chernatony,2001;
Keller, 1999;Kennedy, 1977; Schultzand De Cherriatony,2002) as one of the vital
image
in
about an organisationin the minds of its
conditions creating a positive
externalaudiences.

2.2.4. Marketing paradigm

This perspectiveapproachesthe conceptof corporateidentity from the standpointof


in
is
1993)
(Grunig,
the
grounded
and
mainly
receivers of corporate messages
brandingliterature(Simoeset al., 2005). Early studiesby marketingacademics(e.g.
Bolger, 1959; Easton, 1966; Hill, 1962,Martineau, 1958; Nelson, 1962; Newman,
1953; Spector,1961;Tucker, 1961)focusedon the externalperceptionof corporate
identity (i.e. corporate image and corporateassociations)and aimed to define the
image
important
diagnose
image
to
characteristics
as
well
as
concept of corporate
(corporate associations)which an organisation should have in the eyes of its
audiences(Balmer, 1998).

28

Hatch and Schultz (2003) asserted that complex markets and sophisticated
consumershaveforced companiesto position their product brandsby differentiating
their organisations.Acknowledging that, marketing academicsstarted considering
the corporationas a brand in its entirety (Balmer, 2001a; Balmer and Gray, 2003;
Bickerton, 2000; Knox and Bickerton, 2003; McDonald et al., 2001, Simoeset al.,
2005).They arguedthat the organisationhasbecomea strategicelementin branding,
sincecorporatebrandingprovidesan opportunity to use a company'score valuesas
a part of its strategicselling points (Hatch and Schultz, 2000,2003). Keller (2003)
stated that emphasisingthe company behind its brands brings brand leveraging
opportunities by extending consumers'knowledge of about a company's product
brands.

Van Riel and Balmer (1997) arguedthat corporatebranding conveysthe corporate


identity characteristicsof an organisation,and works as a meansfor establishingthe
desired identity perception in the minds of an organisation'sinternal and external
constituents.This assumptionassertsthat the centreof the marketingapproachis the
receiver's perceptionsformed and transmittedby communicators(e.g. advertising,
buildings,
),
logo,
behaviour
employee
etc.
which create the
product/services,
receiver'simpressionof the intendedcorporateidentity.

Studiesof marketing perspectiveconcentratedon consumersas primary receivers,


and investigated the link between the marketing related antecedents and
image)
(corporate
consumers'
overall
evaluation
of
companies
consequencesof
and/or specific associationsthat consumershave about a company's core values
(corporateassociations)on the basisof their beliefs, feelings and experiencesabout

29

organisations (Brown, 1998). For example; GUrhan-Canli and Batra (2004)


demonstratedthe impactof corporateimageon brand extensionevaluations;Fill and
Dimopoulou (1999) investigatedthe salient attributes of corporateimage and their
relative importancefor pharmaceuticalcompanies;Andreassenand Lindestad(1998)
confirmed the relationship between a favourable corporate image and some
marketing performanceindicators,such as perceivedquality, customersatisfaction
and loyalty; LeBlanc and Nguyen (1998) studied the mediating role of corporate
imageon customers'retentiondecisions;and Brown and Dacin (1997) examinedthe
relationship between certain corporate associations and consumers' product
evaluations.

De Chernatonyand Harris (2000)and Keller (1999) also stressedthe contributionsof


employeesto the external perception of an organisation. Marketing academics
concludedthat the possiblediscrepancybetweenan organisation'sidentity premise
in
is
this
establishing a strong
and employees' perception of
premise
critical
corporate brand externally (Balmer, 2001a; Balmer and Soenen, 1999; De
Chernatony and Harris, 2000; Harris and De Chernatony, 2001; Keller, 1999;
Schultz and De Chernatony, 2002). Some branding scholars have suggested
frameworks which link employees' perception of their organisations' corporate
brandand brandperformance(e.g. Harris and De Chernatony,2001). However,most
studiesconsideredemployeesas one of the communicatorsof corporatevalues to
externalaudiences,and mainly concentratedon the impact of employeebehaviourin
transmitting organisationalmessagesexternally (Barich and Kotler, 1991;Dowling,
1986; Gray and Balmer, 1998; Ind, 1997; Keller, 1999; Kennedy, 1977; Van Riel,

30

1995), rather than how corporate values are communicated to organisational

members.

2.2.5. Interdisciplinary

paradigm

In 1995, the International Corporate Identity Group (ICIG) stated that corporate
identity and its managementis a multifaceted phenomenon(Balmer, 1995,1998).
They claim that corporateidentity managementrelatesto a company's values and
its
personality, disseminationof organisationalvalues
principles which constitute
internally, employees'sensemaking abouttheir organisation'sidentity, externalising
corporateidentity by formal communicationactivities, and the influence of tertiary
communication factors on perception of corporate identity (Balmer, 2001a).
Accordingly they formulatedthe following statement:

"Every organisation has an identity. It articulates the corporate


help
individuality
that
can
values
andpresents
a
sense
of
ethos,aims and
to differentiatethe organisationwithin its competitiveenvironment.
"en

well managed,corporate identity can be a powerful means


of integrating the many disciplines and activities essential to an
organisation's success.It can alsoprovide the visual cohesionnecessary
to ensure that all corporate communicationsare coherent with each
other and result in an image consistentwith the organisation's defining
ethosand character.
By effectively managing its corporate identity an organisation
can build understandingand commitmentamongits diversestakeholders.
This can be manifestedin an ability to attract and retain customersand
employees,achievestrategic alliances, gain the support of marketsand
generatea senseofdirection andpurpose.
Corporate identity is a strategic issue.
31
1

Corporate identity differs from traditional brand marketing since it is


concernedwith all ofan organisation'sstakeholdersand the multifaceted
way in which an organisationcommunicates."(Balmer, 2001a, p. 291)

Birkigt and Stadler(1986) and Van Riel (1995) proposedthat corporateidentity cues
are revealed internally and externally by strategically planned symbolic,
communicativeand behaviouralactivities of an organisation.Similarly, The ICIG
statementasserts that understandingof corporate identity and corporate image
concepts requires harmonising the perspectives of visual/graphic design, of
communication and integration, and of organisational studies and marketing.
Moreover, it states that corporate branding concerns multi-stakeholders and
managementof it requiresboth internalisingand extemalisingof corporatevaluesby
formal communicationefforts and taking necessaryactions towards the possible
intervening influence of informal communication factors on their planned
communicationactivities (Balmer, 1998;Balmer and Gray, 2003,Hatch and Schultz,
2003). By this statementit has beenconfirmed that corporateidentity management
has an interdisciplinary nature (Van Riel and Balmer, 1997) and therefore while
developing conceptual frameworks for studying corporate identity and corporate
image related issuesdifferent conceptsfrom other disciplines should be integrated.
Simoes et al. (2005) also note that researchersshould ground their analysis and
discussionin a broadrangeof disciplines.

Recent conceptualand empirical articles (e.g. Balmer, 2001a; Bick et al., 2003;
Comelissen, 2000; Christensenand Askegaard, 2001; Dacin and Brown, 2002;
Melewar et al., 2003; Melewar and Karaosmanoglu,2005; Simoes,2001; Shoes et

32

al., 2005; Van Riel and Balmer,. 1997) highlight the fact that corporate identity
management and corporate image positioning stbdies should follow

multidisciplinary approach.For example,Bhattacharyaand Sen(2003) and Gwinner


and Swanson (2003) incorporated concepts from social identity theory into
marketing-orientedresearch.The former authors introduced a new concept of
identification and developeda model in orderto understandhow
consumer-company
the corporate identity related concepts (e.g. identity similarity, identity
distinctiveness,identity attractivenessetc.) affect consumers' identification with
companiesand the consequences
of this relationship.The latter researcherssimilarly
focusedon the identification conceptin the context of sponsorshipand carriedout an
empirical study to explain the relationship between fan identiflication and
sponsorshipoutcomes.

33

Itt
en

cm

9ji
15

f..

u
2
4
4

g1,0 1 ""Li

0.

>

22
in

>0
0 .M

i2 12 Q r.

>, .2 jo.

b.

I-

U
-cj

Ce r.
=

0
4.
9-

M2
Q..
r c;r
8m &

:Li
ce
> "0
2 -Z%
92.0

:2-9
=
vi

-; g
=

2
z g
0
rA

9= :2

. .2 .

2
CJ
>
5Q

"0

Q
ci
cl

l=

to

4,

e; g.2gur,
>u
.t
to

7D
cu

9
.-Z5=

.-

e.

Q
A

-9-,

cu

ADi
v2

- -B

e
0

4 ,A
0

:s
e

-31.1
'c2,cu
Q

02

to

Ici

4.

-0

V)

m. rl ;
xu

9)

-5 , -,A
0 '-r- w
Gn -

& g r)
tu
Ei
92.0
'
Co
Ln
12

r_

Z,

vi
1.

p .5bd

0
e

(Y,

Ici
16.9
ei

.
.t-

Ilw 2'.=

gl

in
1..

12

'

c3

u .'
-,> 2
Vi

0%

0
m

Zo
ce
_b4

(:

"Ci

Q
1
1-<

00

=
'00

2.

*,

-0
0

l=

cl
4) C%

8
cz cez,

g>s,

r-

00

ti

-,

tQ CYN10

0-

CD (7,

3 -0

;B -9
<

00 U

ZA
-. 2
:g:
;:

.-U

9 Z-.
Z (7,2

Z2

<

to U2

41
ch

-. '

iz

9
-W> 2
0

(>

0me
>
Cw 00 -0
c3
2.

I, E
C

.-I

s',
'

9>
Ei

t
g!
t;
,,
.t

t
9
u P.00

t),

4
E
(7,
-1
Ei
CY% 0 ,

c>

-t, - g2

l! 5
0
-0=*CI

-EIr-i,

r-12,

00 (7,

10

0999

9Z

4 .

r- V)
ce
* LD

to

40. -

j-,

CZ.
Co

.28-.

42,

.re

cl

2
-u.!m

2e0.

MU

Ei

,5
tu
to

%.5

ro ,

00u

u2

a0
a 1?

r_

IU UM r.

ci

0
b
U2
-
6
., 2
Ln

m
=0

J'- t20 0

0E

. in

0 Azj
k.

8 c,
&.5 -2
Ei.2 Z
-to
-0
,5
.-0e
tu Z
Ei -mUX.

e90

9e.-e 1-0-

'CJ

te

rd
>

1,

E'

r-

Co

9-

-!u

r-

m>2

ci

2
4)

-9

.9u0n

41

r. mu>2-g
r- = ri

.2
e Z)
.8,2
E
ri
K

1-i'
Irl
Ch

ilU

-A

,r-

LD

i...

r. r,

gp
E

M.,

-2
ce

00

5gv
-0
. , 2

zi

0- -O>

cl

21
0S
t
E.
u
2V8 rceb= 7;
ae ..
b
C
E
U0e
.-. - 0
0

',Zi
r_

to

t!

0%

Ici

g -;2uti

e92 Icic
<

CD

9-0

r-

r-

00 52e0
.2 fA

r0cU.

I'm

2h

-d g.
u

>.

. r:

Ei

(*

E,

n r:
0) e
0eA
-0-5
:25

-. --Z:e

m
'Or-M

0 ,

i= Ei u=&.

2 (.,' r-

00

2
-A
!2uI
= -,
j
,;

u"

g0,

.-2 12

,
fi

1.
t.
29
:2
-r, 0

cm
= cu J=

"0

0
0
A
-.
2; >

:g.
-'
22
Z
, n.
-20,
r= > -,=U =
9

r-

cm

"0 N.

E
0 >,

-:S

sM

.0r.

bo

4.)

CD
'
E
ce
e

g"R

4)

Co .-

93
. 0 4) 0

eL
E

ci

2 .--0

r-

92. tu

>,

C:-

-::
,

0-

Z$ 0

ce CO

"0

W)
en

g.

t"

"0

U0

2*
CU

>Z

0
Ew
0
ci

r-

"0
9.1

0 C>
Qm=
tn ,0

- 10

*0

U02

.2 >

00
u

00Ajn.

; t

55 0

i
.

8u
2

r.

,r q5
(> (DN 2
ON

im - -ci
E

22=

(7,

>,

-c

;Eu,

4.

-j

L)
>0

:1.

GM EE

Z'

-v

ci

m r- 0

.. 0,

34

-0

t)
v

e =00

S
c\

0 :2e

Gn
2: 3
0
im

m
%. (D
uE

CD 0. NX

5j 't-

`>

"0

0
c:
.0 -i
-

ce

0-

5
U

00

E, 0

ZEZ

't
N 121
Z
cl,
:1:.
-to
tE
:1- --
r:

e9u
li
u2

ul
r- '0
g9 uu
u

1-19
5

0Z

c>

ja

Co
cn -0
0

', 0

41

,<-,
Co
u

.0

E2

:<

10

-0

ce r- =

'(DN
(:
Zm

cu'CJ o'
-- tn
im
-j
u0

CY% >
c>
CY%Q.

P,

=
-2

-% c
r-

0,

c zr,
(>

8
z
, , 2 C). -Z.
-a -4)
21. Z,
=

c CD
CD
O, 0 -j
- ch
c

t.

'

(N 0 CD (D l';j
00

4)

(>

rq

0U
0

>, Z

t4

-Z

10 CD

ce

:5
r.

-r- 49V, iz
u
1-..

vi

:3b-, 2 e
E3
5-

12 1>
9%

2:.

-; u- 00

"0

ImNumuU

cl

-0

0%

cy,
-

12.pr-ju
.85

,Z
al
00

4)

-0 -u

b4 kn
-0u
4)
,
'm
C2N - u C, 3 Gn
...
L, tu ON
00Ez
1
,Z .ga
'98g

Ei

0-, 3 J, 42
c 5

2, ,u 1-

c>

ci 0

0 %0
00 im c

z-wl
t:u 00
c,
N

,Uu,.

cn
:ir.

V
r4
-0

-0

1.

tu

1-.-0 0A*v
4.

u'08
,
',
2A
-jc

u
rn

.5

'cj

A<

e
fi
a',

l Z;

m
le 'xE
E 'J

l-. g',-m
:s 0' -m'EE

E2
:1
121.

cm
ZO
ce

a.
lu

cd U

00
tu

0UU-52
r-

42

Co ce 0
:i
j2

.2

.-

u-J,
.

-d *Z
bo
",
m9
0Z
-5
- tz jz 4
Z
.-,
.=
ZJ
Ei tu M
0Q
;j52
th -= 2 &0

Ew
0

-5

c2rn

2.2.6. Overview and The focus of the study

As the evolution of the researchstreamsdiscussedin previous sectionsshowsthat a


variety of disciplineshave addressedthe conceptsof corporateidentity and corporate
image from their own standpointsand have put relatively more emphasison certain
aspectsof identity managementand imagepositioning.Drawing on a similar review of
previousstudies(SeeSection2.2 and Table 2.1), Brown et al. (2006) positedthat the
researchin corporateidentity andcorporateimageareasfocuseson two main levels.The
first one is the organisational-level,
which concernshow a companydevelopsa unique,
distinctive and enduring identity, as well as what the managementand communication

, strategiesarein orderto managean organisation'sidentity intemally andexternally.The


individual-level
focus
investigation, which aims to
represents
second research
an
understandwhat the stakeholdersof a company think about it and how their views about

the organisationare formed. This study takes the secondview into considerationand
(i.
influence
factors
the
e.
which
may
consumers'
evaluations
of
companies
examines
image).
corporate

Brown et al. (2006)assertthat previousresearch,which addressedcorporateidentity and


,
image
have
'a
them
the
concepts,
considered
as property of
corporate
organisation in
contrast to seeing them in relation to emerging mental associations (i. e. corporate

Brown
individuals
into
Dacin
come
contact.
and
associations)when companiesand
(2002) argue that regardless of what a company wants to establish as its identity, the
mental picture people hold about it defines what its actual identity is. Similarly,

36

Cornelissen(2000) argue that previous studies, which attemptedto understandthe


identity
have
image
developed
between
models
corporate
and corporate
relationship
from the companies' perspective (e.g. Abratt, 1989; Balmer and Soenen, 1999; Birkigt
1986;
Van
Markwick
Simoes
Dowling,
Fill,
1997;
2005;
Stadler,
1986;
and
et
al.,
and

Riel, 1995) rather than taking a receiver-centredapproach.He claimed that this


in
its
knowledge
has
limited
the
about positioning a company
understanding
stakeholders' minds to only company-driven actions. However, Chenney and Vibbert

(1987) arguethat corporateidentity is not only defined by organisations,it evolveson


Comelissen(2000)andDacin andBrown (2002)assert
the basisof receivers'responses.
that other messagesources that are external to organisations also convey cues about a

interdisciplinary
individuals.
is
This
identity
the
to
with
view
consistent
company's
identity
2.2.5),
Section
(See
that
and corporate
which
suggests
corporate
paradigm
image concepts are central to an organisation's success and understanding the

disciplines
(Brown
from
drawing
insights
between
them
several
necessitates
relationship
into
2005).
Accordingly,
Simoes
this
2006;
takes
this
account
gap
et al.,
research
et al.,
(See
Figure
3.1),
from
develops
the
which
model
conceptual
receivers'
standpoint
a
and
integrates interpersonal, intermediary and intrapersonal factors into the existing models
in
it
the consumers' context.
tests
and

Additionally, the assumptionaboutthe corporateidentity and corporateimageconcepts,


'being related to individuals' interpretationsof company-relatedsigns and signals
2002),
Dacin
Brown,
(Comelissen,
2000;
from
and
severalmessagessources'
received
drew researchers'attentionto the issue of how companiescan eliminate the possible
37

dissonancebetweenwhat they want to position in their stakeholders'minds as their


identity and what individuals associatewith them. As mentioned in Section 2.2.2,
integrated
the
communicationperspective(e.g. Abratt, 1989;
authors, who support
Dowling, 1986;Gray and Smeltzer,1987),suggestthat integrationof company-driven
communicationefforts canhelp organisationsto achieveconsistencybetweenwhat they
is
convey and what attributedto them. However,previousresearchhas not addressed
how integrationis linked to receivers' interpretationof corporateidentity cues(Dacin
and Brown, 2002). Accordingly, this study also attemptsto fill this gap by testing the
in
integrated
role of
communication consumer'sevaluationsof companies.

In the following sectionsof this chapter,the definitions of corporateimage, corporate


associations,andcorporateidentity conceptsareprovided.Furthermore,the scopeof the
company-drivencommunication efforts (i.e. corporate identity mix elements)and
factors)
is
depicted.
Finally,
factors
(i.
the role of
communication
external
e. unplanned
integratedcommunicationin corporateimageformationis discussed.

2.3. Defining the Corporate Image Concept

Even though discussions on the conceptualisation of corporate image has started in the
image,
identity,
identity,
1950's,
the
terins
organisational
corporate
organisational
early
by
different
interchangeably
image
have
been
authors while
used
corporate
often
and
their definitions have overlapped (Bick et al., 2003; Brown, 1998; Simoes et al., 2005).

38 -

Each paradigm presentedhere has defined the corporate image concept through its own

lenses. For example, graphic designersand consultantshave seen the concept of


corporate image as a product of "how an organisation communicates an image through a
name and/or icon" (Balmer, 1998, p. 966). Marketing scholars like Martineau (1958),

Newman(1953) and Spector(1961) have madean analogybetweenthe corporateand


the human personality, and claimed that corporate image is equivalent to the
associations or meanings about an organisation's personality, which Balmer (1995)

defined it as the commonly sharedvaluesby an organisation'semployees.Marketing


and branding academicsfocused on the corporatebrand and claimed that corporate
image is formed on the basis of the corporate brand promise of an organisation (Balmer,

2001a; Balmer and Soenen,1999; Keller, 1999,2003; Schultz and De Chernatony,


2002). Organisational studies perspective has conceptualised image by focusing on the
internal members of an organisation and their perceptions of their organisation's identity

(Dutton and Dukerich, 1991;Dutton et al., 1994;Hatch and Schultz,1997;Whettenand


Mackey, 2002).

Since each discipline approachedthe image concept with its own parameters,it is
difficult to formulatea generaldefinition of the concept(Brown ct al., 2006).However,
comparing the definition of image in marketing and organisation studies contexts could

yield someperspectives(Hatchand Schultz,1997).

Marketing literature refers to corporate image through two different angles. One group
of academics refer to corporate image as the overall impression held by the several

39

segmentsof the public (Barich and Kotler, 1991; Berstein, 1984; Bevis, 1967; Dowling,

1986,1988; Grunig, 1993; Johnsonand Zinkhan, 1990; Keller, 2002; Selameand


Selame,1975;Spector,1961;Topalian, 1984;Zinkhanet al., 2001).The otherstreamof
researchersuses the terms corporate associations and corporate image interchangeably
although defining them similarly. They claim that corporate image is a set of functional
and emotional associations that are linked to a company's identity by various
stakeholders such as consumers, employees, shareholders and so on (Brown, 1998;

Brown andDacin, 1997;Dowling, 1986;Martineau,1958;Weisset al., 1999).

Organisational studies consider the image concept from the employees' perspective and

make distinctions between how organisational members perceive their own


interpret
identity,
how
they
organisation's
external audiences' perception about their
own organisation's identity, and how decision-makers of an organisation want their

by
identity
They
seen
outsiders.
company's
name these three perceptions as
Hatch
(Dutton
Gioia
2000;
Dukerich,
1991;
identity
and
et
al.,
and
organisational
Schultz, 1997; Pratt and Foreman, 2000; Whetten and Mackey, 2002), construed
external image (Dutton et al., 1994; Gioia et al., 2000) and desired organisational image

(Gioia et al., 2000; ScottandLane,2000).

Although the subjectsat the centre of the definitions differ in thesetwo approaches,
Brown (1998) and Stem et al. (2001) concludedthat image is basedon perceptions
is
individuals;
it
in
the
therefore
an individual-levelconcept.However,
stored
minds of
image
definition
has
limited
(2001)
Stem
to the total gestalt
the
et al.
of corporate
while

40

impression of individuals about an organisation on the basis of their beliefs, feelings and

(1998)
image
is
formed
Brown
that
argues
experiences,
corporate
also
as a result of
specific associationsthat individuals link to an organisation,and has proposed,an
overarching concept of corporate associations. He defined it as the totality of

individuals' summaryevaluationsof a companyon the basisof their belief, emotions


and experiences,and their specific associationsabout this company's identity.

However, Dacin and Brown (1997) have demonstratedthat specific organisational


associationsis a determinantof overall corporateevaluation,which is defined as the
by
(2001).
implicitly
image
Stem
This
et
al.
makes a conceptual
corporate
result

distinction betweencorporateimage and corporateassociations.On the basis of this


inference, one can conclude that the overall impression about a company, i.e. its
corporate image, should be conceptualised separately from specific organisational

be
of
associations;and accordinglycorporateassociationsshould studiedas antecedents
the corporate image and not as components (cf. Brown, 1998).

When corporate image is concerned,the components of its operational definition should


depict the dynamics of how people mentally position a company as a whole. According
to social identity theory from the organisational studies' perspective, it could be argued
that along with an individual's perception of a company, how that person perceives what
his/her
think
about an organisation also affects
overall evaluation of that company
others

(See Dutton et al., 1994; Hatch and Schultz, 1997). Moreover, Peteraf and Shanley
(1997) argued that managers tend to position their companies as a part of a strategic

41

in
industry.
Therefore, it could be assumed that this
the
same
group of organisations
comparative positioning of organisations with reference to each other would have
implications for an individual's perception of a particular organisation in an industry.
Fornbrun and Shanley (1990) claimed that while individuals are mentally positioning a
company, they engage in more complex inference making by comparing companies to
their counterparts.

Drawing on this discussion,it could be concludedthat the definition of corporateimage


should incorporatean individual's overall impressionof a company(Dowling, 1986;
Johnson and Zinkhan, 1990; Keller, 2002), his/her personal judgement of the general

public's opinion about that company, and his/her comparative evaluation of that
company versus its counterpartsin the sameindustry (Williams and Moffit, 1997).

In the next section,the definition of corporateassociationsis provided to clearly state


the proposed conceptual difference between corporate image and corporate associations.

2.4. Defining the Corporate Associations Concept

As mentioned before (See Section 2.2.4), some marketing authors (e.g. Dowling, 1986;

Martineau, 1958;Newman, 1953; Spector,1961)have arguedthat individuals tend to


describecompaniesby attachingthem a set of meaningson the basisof their attributes,
both functional (e.g. quality, reliability, service, price etc.) and symbolic (e.g. friendly,
rough, welcoming etc.) (Stem et al., 2001). Similarly, authors in the corporate identity

42

and corporate branding fields (e.g. Balmer, 2001a; Balmer and Gray, 2003; Davies and

Chun,2002; Hatchand Schultz,2003; Schultzand De Chematony,2002) discussedthat


as in productbranding,organisationscan be consideredas brandsin their entiretywhich
possessfunctional and symbolic qualities.

Brown (1998) statedthat individuals not only form a mentalpicture of an organisation


by evaluating it as a whole (general attitudinal component), but also engage in

descriptivemental associationsabout its central, unique and enduring characteristics


which constituteits identity. Associationsabout organisationalcharacteristicscan be
conceptualisedby relying on the brand personality concept used in consumer behaviour

research.Brandpersonalityconstructrefersto "a set of humancharacteristicsassociated


with a brand" (Aaker, 1997, p. 347). Rook (1985) arguesthat consumersmay treat
brandsas if they are celebrities.Sincethe corporatebrand is consideredat the highest
hierarchyof brands(Keller, 2003), organisationsmay be regardedas famousfiguresto
which human personality traits could be attributed (Aaker, 1997). Inspired by this
approach, Davies et al. (2001) and Davies and Chun (2002) have argued that consumers

can be askedto personify an organisationor corporatebrand by associatinghuman


characteristicsto it. Drawing on this discussion,the corporateassociationsconceptcan
be definedasfollows:

Corporateassociationsare the mentalassociationsof humancharacteristics


about an organisationin the mindsof an individual in order to describethat
company's identity.

43

Overall, the discussionin sections2.3 and 2.4 aboutthe definitions of corporateimage


and corporateassociationsgap conceptssuggestthat the former is a holistic view about
a company in the minds of stakeholders (Dowling, 1986; Johnson and Zinkhan, 1990;
Keller, 2002) which is likely to be influenced by the latter which represents human

in
individual's
describing
that
an
emerge
mind
while
an
characteristics'associations
it
(Brown,
identity
1998).
However,
should be noted that
attributes
organisation's
decision-makersof an organisationdeterminewhal associationsthey would like their
stakeholdersto hold about their companies(Balmer and Soenen,1999; Brown, 1998;
Brown and Dacin, 1997;Brown et al., 2006; Van Rekom, 1997;Van Riel, 1995).The
be
to
that
the
management of an organisation chooses
set of organisational attributions

known by its external audiencesis defined as the communicatedidentity (Balmer,


2001b; Balmer and Greyser, 2002; Balmer and Soenen, 1999) or the intended corporate
2002).
In
Dacin
Brown,
(Brown,
1998;
Brown
2006;
this respect,
and
et al.,
associations

it is necessaryto understandwhat corporateidentity meanswhich lies at the centreof


thesetwo terms(SeeSection2.5).

2.5. Defining the Corporate Identity Concept

As paradigmsevolved in the field of corporateidentity and image studies,corporate


identity has been defined using different metaphors(Cornelissenand Harris, 2001).
Practitionerssuchas Lippincott and Margulies (1957) discussedthat corporateidentity
is about visual designand presentationof the companyoutwardsvia visible artefacts
1995;
1998;
Van
Riel
(Balmer,
logos,
typography
and
etc.
colours,
symbols,
such as
44

Balmer, 1997). After the shift towards recognising the importance of organisational

image
formation
in
(SeeKennedy,1977),the meaningof corporate
members corporate
identity expanded beyond the visual expressions of an organisation incorporating
corporate personality (Balmer, 1998).

Abratt (1989)definedcorporatepersonalityas "the sumtotal of the characteristicsof the


organisation.Thesecharacteristics-behavioural and intellectual- serve to distinguish
one organisationfrom another"(p. 413). Balmer (1995) statedthat thosecharacteristics
beliefs
the
the
and attitudessharedby employeesof an organisation.
were
product of
This view was supportedby severalacademics(e.g. Balmer, 1995,1998; Balmer and
Wilson, 1998; Balmer and Soenen,1999; Baker and Balmer, 1997; Bernstein, 1984;
Birkigt and Stadler, 1986;Ind, 1990;Markwick and Fill, 1997;Van Riel and Balmer,
1997), who considered corporate identity as a "tangible representation of the

personality,the expressionas manifest in the behaviour and communicationof the


organisation"(ComelissenandHarris,2001,p. 56).

Comelissen and Harris (2001) opposed referring to human personality2 as a metaphor to

describe corporate identity. They argued that corporate identity cannot be a direct
internal
expression of
reality or the personality of an organisation, since "... companies
balance internal preoccupations of organisational identity with external imperatives... "

(Comellissen,and Harris, 2001, p. 57). In other words, corporate identity is not a

2 It should be noted that what Cornelissenand Harris (2001) refer to as human identity metaphoris
differentfrom the onereferredto in the definition of corporateassociations
(SeeSection2.3). The former
refers to the values commonly sharedby organisationalmemberswhich constitutean organisation's
personality;the latteris the meansto describecompanies'identitiesby a company'sstakeholders.
45

complete representation of an inner-self of an organisation; rather, it is a product of

interaction
between
social
a company and its businessenvironment including other
organisations and its stakeholders.

This view is supportedby Cheney and Vibbert (1987), who assertedthat corporate
identity is a dialectical phenomenon. Along with strategic,planning by decision-makers

in terms of the selectionof companyattributesto be projected(Johnsonand Zinkhan,


1990;Zinkhan et al., 2001; Van Riel, 1995),the responsesof a company'sconstituents
towards these qualities (Christensenand Askegaard,2001; Dacin and Brown, 2002)
define a company's identity. Drawing on the argument above, in this study corporate

identity is definedasthe following:

Corporate identity is the sub-set of organisational values with which a

companywantsto identify itselfto all its audiences.


(JohnsonandZinkhan, 1990;Zinkhanet al., 2001;Van Riel, 1995)

2.6. The Scope of Corporate Identity Communicators

This dcfinition of corporate idcntity (See Section 2.5) implies that the managementof
intentionally
organisations
choose certain company characteristics to position their

companiesin the market place, and they disseminatethese values by strategically


planned communicationactivities, in order to achieve a desired impressionabout a
company among its stakeholders (Cornelissen and Harris, 2001; Simoes et al., 2005;

46

Van Riel, 1995). Balmer (1997) states that all planned expressions of an organisation

Riel
(1995)
Van
convey its identity.
assertsthat company-orientedmessagesare
disseminatedby company-drivencommunication efforts manifested as symbolism,
communicationandbehaviour.

Comelissenand Harris (2001) argue that identities emergeduring social interaction.


Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) and Dacin and Brown (2002) support this view by stating

that corporate-relatedmessagesthat originate outside an organisationalso shapeits


identity. Stuart (1999) statesthat even though communicationscan be planned by
is
companies, unplanned communication also significant in corporate image formation.

Accordingto Cornelissen(2000)company-controlledcommunicationtakesplaceamidst
informal
information
during
forms
The
sources.
one-to-one
other
of message
exchanged
I
from
(interpersonal
the
communication),
received
communication
news
mass media,
NGOs, governmental institutions etc. (intermediary communication) and psychological
consequencesof the previous experiencesand images stored in the mind (intrapersonal
define
level
the
also
attachment
communication)
of consumers to companies and the

depthof the relationshipsthey build with them.

In summary, it is argued that the messageswhich possess cues about a company's

identity can be deliveredby two major groupsof identity communicators:1) corporate


identity mix, and 2) unplannedcommunicationfactors.The next sections(SeeSection
2.6.1 and Section 2.6.2) explain the scope of these communication sources.

47

2.6.1. Corporate identity mix elements

The managementof a company's identity lies at the heart of the planned communication
activities of an organisation (Gray and Smeltzer, 1985; 1987). Gray and Balmer (1998)
disseminate
to
tools
that
several
communication
channels
use
and
state
companies
corporate messagesin order to position their organisations in their stakeholders' minds.
Van Riel (1995) arguesthat the values and principles which define a company's identity
its
in
be
management, organisational and marketing communication
should
embedded
be
forms
he
Thus,
that
can
all
of
company
communication
efforts
suggests
activities.
headings
identity
following
the
corporate
mix
which constitute
classified under
elements: symbolism, communication, and behaviour.

2.6.1.1. Symbolism

As mentionedin Section2.2.1, the early studiesof the field of corporateimage and


identity
be
identity
to
equivalent to expressinga
considered
corporate
corporate,
logo,
by
tools
colour,
such
as
using
visual
company'sculture, principles and values,
1997).
Riel
Balmer,
Van
(Balmer,
2001a;
buildings,
and
stationeryetc.
staff clothing,
Recent literature suggests that corporate symbolism alone does not define an
by
identity
it
is
key
identity;
the
mix
one of
aspectsof corporate
rather
organisation's
its
(Van
1995).
Riel,
is
identity
to
stakeholders
communicated
which a company's

48

Olins (1989) stated that an organisation's symbolism conveys cues about its goals.

Schmittct al. (1995)mentionedthat organisationsusesymbolsto identify themselvesto


their stakeholders,to increasetheir recognition in the market place and to distinguish
themselves from their competitors. Schmitt et al., (1995), and Schmitt and Simonson

(1997)point out that whensymbolicmanifestationsof an organisationarewell-designed


its
they
the
and consistently applied,
may enhance
appeal of a company as well as

hence
customer loyalty. Melewar and Saunders(1999)
products and services,and
emphasisedthat standardisedvisual identification also plays a role in a company's
successin the global context.Rosson(2003) reportedthat especiallyduring mergerand
acquisitions visual identity change

helps to

reduce the uncertainty about what the new

leading
it
is
for
to.
organisationstands andprovidesguidanceaboutwhere

Dowling (1994) argues that logos/symbols work as quality assurancefor a company's

stakeholders.In line with Boddewyn (1967), researchersassertthat companynames


it
help
identity
(Glynn
2002)
Abzug,
to
and
position
a
company's
and
mostly represent
in the mind of its target audiences (Ries and Trout, 1981). Slogans communicate a
its
(Dowling,
1994). The right colour and typeface
target
expertise
or
market
company's
identity
identity
by
supporting other elements of corporate visual
mark an organisation's
systems (Jenkins, 1991; Kapferer, 1992; Miner, 1992). They help emphasise specific
identity attributes, suh as openness to communication, or a serious business face
(Balmer, 1995; Gray and Balmer, 1998). Furthermore, the application of those elements

increases
likelihood
the
of achievinggreatermarket
on an organisation'spublications
visibility (Melewarand Saunders,2000; Schmittet al., 1995;Topalian,1984).
49

Drawing on architecturalserniotics,it is arguedthat buildings, and their internal and


externalstructureand decoration,communicatethe purposeof a businessand its main
activities (Baldry, 1997; Seiler, 1984; Stimson, 1986), which are shaped by an
organisation'sidentity (Dowling, 1994;Schmitt et al., 1995;Topalian, 1984).Dowling
(1994)arguethat particularinterior and exterior architecturaldesignshelp peoplerecall
the company behind these surroundings.Lambert (1989) state that since company
buildings make the environmentwheretransactionstake place,they can evenbe more
powerful than any planned promotional activity in creating an image about an
organisation.

Furthermore,since a company'sstakeholders'interactionswith its employeesdeliver


organisational cues (Gray and Balmer, 1998; Kennedy, 1977; Van Riel, 1995),
identification of visual design elements on company uniforms helps stakeholders

recognisethe company (Dowling, 1994). Reingen and Kernan (1994) reportedthat


i

of salesstaff is said to be attractive,buyerstend to judge them as


when the appearance
highly skilled, which may have a halo affect on consumers' evaluations of the
organisations. Similarly, DeShields et al. (1996) argued that the physical appearanceof

determines
how
people respond to a company's products and the
a spokesperson
persuasionlevel of organisational messages.

Drawing on the literature,it is concludedthat organisationalsymbolismis composedof


three main aspects: 1) corporate visual identity systems which involves name,
logo/symbol, slogan, colour and typography (Dowling, 1994; Melewar and Saunders,

50

1999,2000; Topalian, 1984), 2) staff apparel (Dowling, 1994; Gray and Balmer, 1998;
Kennedy, 1977; Van Riel, 1995), and 3) corporate aestheticsincluding printed material
(e.g. stationery, promotional literature etc.) and exterior and interior desing of company
buildings (e.g. headquarters, plants, retail stores, offices etc.) (Schmitt et al., 1995;
Topalian, 1984).

2.6.1.2. Communication

Hatch and Schultz (2003) and Knox (2004) stated that in recent years, increased
competition,highly demandingconsumersand faster innovationshaveforced decisionmakersto changetheir marketingstrategiesfrom being productbrand orientedtowaids
corporatelevel branding. Keller (2003) argued that treating organisationsas brands
enablecompaniesto distinguishthemselvesfrom their equivalents,which in turn may
supporttheir productsandservices.

Rossiter and Percy (1996) assertedthat positioning a brand requires to define what the
major premises of a brand are and what it offers to its targeted audiences.Harris and De
Chematony (2001) noted that "a set of functionally distinct capabilities that differentiate
a brand should be derived from the brand's core values" (p.444). Aaker (1996) claimed
that a brand's major qualities represent its identity, and defined brand identity as "a
unique set of brand associations that the brand aspires to create and maintain. These
from
imply
brand
for
that
to
represent
associations
what
stands
and
a promise customers
the organisation members." (p. 68). Simoes and Dibb (2001) and Simoes et al. (2005)

51

definition
(1996)
Aaker's
that
argue
overlaps with the definition of corporate identity

(See Section 2.5), and implies that organisationalvalues should underline individual
brands' characteristics.Keller and Aaker (1992b)statethat embeddingcompanyvalues
in product brands may reduce the risk of negative response to brand extensions.

Moreover, Gflrhan-Canli and Batra (2004) note that products endorsedwith core
company characteristicsmay be evaluated more positively.

In this respect,it can be expectedthat a company'score valuescan be transferredto its


product/servicebrands, and therefore, positioning activities which aim to support
be
can
also
used to promote a company in the market place. This
products and services

is
by
view supported Duncan and Moriarty (1998) who statedthat "brand messages
originate at the corporate, marketing, and marketing communication level." (p. 6).

Abratt (1989)statedthat corporateimagemanagementseeksfor consistencyamongany


deliver
including
by
to
their
audiences severalcommunicators
messagescompanies
products and services. Barich and Kotler (1991) and Keller (2001) mentioned that

influence
individuals'
efforts
not
only
responsesto product
marketingcommunication
brands,but also their perceptionsand evaluationsof corporatebrands.Drawing on this
argument,Van Riel (1995) claimed that marketingcommunicationmix elements(e.g.
advertising, sponsorship, public relations activities, corporate advertising, sales
promotionsetc.) should be usedto convey the distinctive qualities of an organisation
(i. e. corporate identity).

52

2.6.1.3. Behaviour

In line with Birkigt and Stadler (1986), Van Riel (1995) states that an organisation
should take its behavioural aspect into account while communicating its identity to its

target audiences.He arguesthat corporateidentity relatedmessagesare manifestedin


behaviour
behaviour,
employee
manager
as well as in company actions towards social

issues.
andenviromnental

Following Kennedy's (1977) study, which showed the importanceof personnelin


corporate image formation, authors of the corporate identity and corporate image fields

behaviour
integrate
to
started
employee
as a part of organisational-lcvelvalue
dissemination. Balmer and Wilson (1998) assert that "corporate identity refers to an
organisation's unique characteristics which are rooted in the behaviour of employees"

(p. 15). Hatch and Schultz(1997) emphasisthat customerserviceis an integralpart of


the daily activity of employeesat almostall positionsof an organisation.Kiriakidou and
Millward (2000) comment that "the increasing visibility of insiders to outsiders means
that employees are under pressure to interface with the customer as representativesof
the organization in the way they think, feel and behave (p. 49). Harris and De
Chematony (2001) claim that employees' interactions with their companies' audiences
brand
Hernsley
(1998)
argue that employees are
relationships
with
consumers.
affect

brand
both
be
the
to
at the productand corporate
of
messages,
ambassadors
considered
level (Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991; Harris and De Chernatony, 2001). Tberefore, it can

53

be concluded that employee behaviour creates a basis for corporate image formation

(Dowling, 1986;GrayandBalmer, 1998;Ind, 1997).

While several authors (e.g. De Chematony and Harris, 2000; Harris and De Chernatony,
2001; Hatch and Schultz, 1997; Keller, 1999; Kennedy, 1977; Schultz and De
Chernatony, 2002) mostly highlighted the role of managers in developing a shared
vision of their company within their workforce, Van Riel (1995) mentioned that

especially the CEOs of an organisationshould also be able to communicatetheir


company'score valuesto externalconstituents.Argenti (1998), and Hunt and Grunig
(1994) note that the CEOs of organisations should be a part of the public relations

activities, and appearin the media and in public occasionsas spokespersonof their
organisations. Scott and Lane (2000) and Simoes (200 1) state.that top managersare the
first group of organisational members who are formallY charged to represent their

organisationsto outsiders.Drawing on the impression managementliterature (e.g.


Schlenker,1980;Tedeschi,1981),Suttonand Callahan(1987) highlight that managers
images
to
try
credible
should
create
among their companies' target audiencesin order to
ensure their long-term support. In -other words, managers' behaviours should convey

1998;
be
identified
in
(Argenti,
to
the
companies
want
valueswhich
with
marketplace
Gray and Balmer, 1998; Hunt and Grunig, 1994).

Finally, Van Riel (1995)arguesthat companies'approachestowardsenvironmentaland


social issuesdeliver cues about their identities. Studies on corporate social responsibility
(e.g. Beh, 1994; Murray and Vogel, 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; The World

54

Economic Forum, 1999) argue that since in recent years consumershave become more

life,
issues
they
to
the
the
quality
natural
of
envirorunent
and
related
consciousabout
scrutinise company's actions more to assesswhether they

-contribute

to the society in

(e.
business.
Previous
doing
they
researchon corporate social responsibility g.
which
are

Brown and Dacin, 1997;Baroneet al., 2000; Carroll, 1991;Chappell,1993;Keller and


Aaker, 1992a; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Sen et al., 2006; Turban and Greening,
1997) showed that perceptions of individuals about a company's approach to
issues,
such as pollution, employee welfare, community
and
social
environmental
involvement, and consumer rights etc., provides insights to consumersabout its identity
(1997),
Dacin
Sen
For
Brown
in
and
change.
example,
and
and
and results attitudinal

Bhattacharya(2001)demonstrated
that consumers'associationsaboutcompanies'social
individuals'
favourability
level
determine
the
of
responsibility actions

company

evaluations.

In summary,drawing on the literatureabove,it is concludedthat behaviouralaspectof


how
identity
treat
to
a
company's
employees
mix
elements
refers
well
an organisation's

in
how
the media and
their
values
organisations'
managers
represent
well
consumers,
issues.
how
and
social
company
supports
environmental
mucha
public occasions,and

2.6.2. Unplanned communication factors

The definition of corporate identity (See Section 2.5) suggeststhat managing corporate

identity and its communicationshouldbe groundedin audiences'receptionof company


55

messages;hence it seems necessaryto study a receiver perspective in order to reveal


how organisational cues are gathered and interpreted (Comelissen, 2000). Proctor and
Kitchen (2002) argue that in the post-modem world, consumershave more accessto any
product and/or company related information. Therefore, it would be false to assumethat

there is a one-way linear link between corporate identity and corporate image
(Comelissen, 2000). Some authors (e.g. Cheney and Vibbert, 1987; Dacin and Brown,
2002) point out that companies'. identities are redefined according to stakeholders'

responseswhich are basedon their interactionswith each other and other sourcesof
information as well as company-drivencommunicationactivities. Proctor and Kitchen
(2002) support this approach by stating that in the post-modem era, consumers are not
just the passive receivers of company communication, rather, they shape what
organisations should be.

Basedon a similar argument,Cornelissen(2000) claimed that the organisation-centred


linear models of corporate identity management(e.g. Abratt, 1989; Balmer and Soenen,

1999;Birkight and Stadler,1986;Markwick and Fill, 1997;Van Riel, 1995)shouldbe


replaced by a complementary model encompassingexternal sourcesthat are pertinent to
the receivers' standpoint. In this respect, he emphasises three main communication
factors which cannot be planned by companies: 1) interpersonal communication (word-

of-mouth information from a close environment), 2) intermediary communication


(word-of-mouth information disseminatedby mass media, NGOs, governmental
institutions etc.), and 3) intrapersonal communication (psychological consequencesof

56

previous experiences and images stored in the mind). The following sections explain

thesefactorsin detail.

2.6.2.1. Interpersonal communication

Researchon consumer behaviour has widely acceptedthat interpersonal communication

(i.e. word-of-mouth from close environment) influences individuals' attitudes and


behaviours(Brown and Reingen, 1987; Cristiansenand Tax, 2000; Haffison-Walker,
2001; Lau and Ng, 2001). For example,Sheth(1971) concludedthat word-of-mouth
information is more powerful than advertising in motivating consumersto try new
innovations. Herr et al. (1991). demonstrated that positive word-of-mouth
communicationmay lead to positive productevaluations.Zeithalm et al. (1993) argued
that when individuals' receive favourable recommendationsfrom their immediate
environmentprior to the serviceencounter,they are more likely to positively evaluate
their serviceexperiences.Moreover,Richins (1983) discussedthat dissatisfactionwith
products and servicesmay result in negative images, and hence may increasethe
frequencyof unfavourableword-of-mouthinformationdisseminationamongconsumers.

Researcherssuch as Bristor (1990), Buttle (1998) and Duhan et al. (1997) comment that

information
flow among consumersnot only affects individuals'
word-of-mouth
approachestowardsproductsand services,but it may also influencetheir views about
companies. Williams and Moffitt
I

(1997) argue that stakeholders tend to rely on

from otherswho haveexperiencesabout a companyand its products


recommendations

57

and services. Accordingly, Comelissen (2000) and Dacin and Brown (2002) posited that

person-to-personcommunicationamong friends and relatives concerninga company


individuals
determine
image
hold about a company.
the
may

2.6.2.2. Intermediary communication

Literature on word-of-mouthcommunicationmostly definedit as the oral, information


exchangeamongpeople(e.g. Bristor, 1990;Buttle, 1998;Duhanet al., 1997;HarrisonWalker, 2001; Lau and Ng, 2001). However, Comelissen (2000) argues that there are
various types of other media, such as newspapers,and reports by NGOs or government

institutionsthrough which written information about companiesand their productsand


services is delivered. Brown ct al. (2005) support this view mentioning that word-of-

mouth information not only occurs betweenindividuals, but also is spreadby some
communicationmediums.CristiansenandTax (2001)highlight that recenttechnological
advancessuch as electronic bulletin boards, e-mail and the Internet createda new
information
by
about
environment which consumerscan easily accessa vast amountof
businesses
andtheir actions.

In line with Kotler (1988), Van Riel (1995) comment that communication fhanagers'

responsibilitieshave expandedover the years,and now they deal with determiningthe


position of the organisation in society, issuing newsworthy company-related information

to the mediaand developingstrongerrelationshipswith the variousactorsof the media,


institutions.
Fombrun and Shanley(1990)
non-profit organisations,and governinental

58

assert that decision-makers should regularly report transparent company information to


third parties, in order to reduce the risk of negative news or information dissemination
about their organisations in the public domain. They emphasisethat if companies want
to be regarded as reputable by their stakeholders, they should ensure that third parties
in
favourability
influence
images
them,
turn
the
which
of the
expresspositive
about
may
information exchanged among interpersonal networks. In summary, it can be assumed
that not only person-to-person information exchange determines corporate image
f6rmation, but also communication by the third parties such as the media, NGOs and
individuals'
institutions
may
etc.
shape
governmental

views about companies

(Comelissen, 2000).

2.6.2.3. Intrapersonal communication

Cornelissen(2000) arguedthat personalfactors also have an influence on corporate


imageformation.Brown (1998)and Dacin and Brown (2002)point out that individuals'
basedon their emotionsand valuesis a potentialfactor which
filter corporatemessages
(i.
have
influence
may
on consumers'overall evaluationof companies e. corporate
an
image).Bhattacharyaand Sen (2003) assertedthat individuals tend to have favourable
identifiers
they
that
and are seen emotionally
see as social
views about companies
is
image
(2002)
"the
identities.
Kitchen
Proctor
the
that
of
object
stated
appealing
and
likely to be increasinglydependenton not just on the functions it servesbut on its
contributionsto self-image..." (pp. 152-153).Drawing on theseauthors'commentsthe

59

following

person-specific factors are considered as a part of

intrapersonal.

communic ion.

a. Corporate associations gap. Brown (1998) and Brown et al. (2006) stated that

individuals form mental associationsabout organisations' identity characteristics.


However, these associations may be different from what the management of an
in
the minds of its audiences (Balmer, 1995,2001b;
to
organisation wants
position

Balmer and Greyser,2002; Balmer and Soenen,1999;Brown et al., 2006; Kirikiadou


and Millward, 2000; Van Rekom, 1997).Regardlessof what an organisationwants to
convey as its identity traits, the corporate associations formed in the minds of
stakeholdersdepict the actual identity of that organisation for individuals (Brown et al.,
2006). Van Riel (1995) and Van Rekom (1997) assert that the fit between the

communicatedidentity (intendedcorporateassociations)andthe actualassociationsthat


peopleascribeto a companyis oneof the crucial factorsthat determinethe effectiveness
of an organisation's communication efforts.

Both Brown (1998) and Dacin and Brown (2002)mentionedthat corporateassociations


his/her
dependent
individual's
filtering
basis
the
are
of
on an
of company messageson
is
in
beliefs,
Bernstein
(1984)
there
that
any
own
emotions and values.
noise
stated

communicationprocessas messagestravel betweenthe senderand the receiver.One


sourceof noise can be a receiver's previously held feelings and experiencesas the
definition of corporate associationsimplies (See Section 2.4). Tberefore, a gap between
what an organisation projects as its identity and people's associations about it may be

60

expected. On the basis of this discussion, the corporate associations gap concept is

definedas the degreeof matchbetweenthe identity characteristicsthat an organisation


intendsto conveyand an individuals' mental associationson the basisof their beliefs,
feelings and values (Dacin and Brown, 2002).

Many authors in the fields of corporate identity and corporate image mention that

managersshould monitor whether the associationsheld by individuals about their


companies'symbolicand functionalattributesare similar to what they intendto convey
(e.g. Balmer and Soenen, 1999; Brown, 1998; Brown and Dacin, 1997; Brown et al.,
2006; Van Rekom, 1997; Van Ricl, 1995). Dacin and Brown (2002) assertthat decision-

favourable
to
makers should aim
engender
attitude towards their companiesby
I

designing and implementing communication activities which are directed to decreasethe

mismatch betweenthe intendedcorporateassociationsand stakeholdersreactionsto


them.

b. Consumer-companyidentification. Identificationconstructhasbeenwidely studied


by organisationalbehaviour scholars,(e.g. Brown, 1969; Hall et al., 1970; Hall and
I
Schneider, 1972; O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986). Hall et al. (1970) defined it as "the
process by which the goals of the organisation and those of the individual become

increasingly integratedand congruenf' (p. 176-177).O'Reilly and Chatman(1986)


it asthe "involvementbasedon a desirefor affiliation" (p. 493).
conceptualised

61

Ashfort and Mael (1989) stated that these definitions above encompass one's

intcmalisation and maintenanceof organisationalvalues as a part of his/her own


identity. However, they argued that this view overlaps with the definition of
organisational commitment (See Mowday et al., 1979). Drawing on social identity
theory (e.g. Tajfel and Tumer, 1985) and Mael's (1988) study, they suggested that
identification should be "viewed as a perceptual cognitive construct" (Ashfort and Mael,
1989, p. 21), rather than a being a concept with behavioural and affective aspects.In line

with authors such as Brewer (1991), Kramer (1991), and Tajfel and Turner (1985),
Ashfort and Mael (1989) argued that individuals associatethemselveswith certain
groups to define who they are and what they belong to, and their categorisation of

themselvesin referenceto certain groupswhich are associatedwith certain companies


suggestsa psychological attachmentto the fate of the group, such as sharing successand

failure of the group.Accordingly, Mael and Ashfort (1992) define identificationas "the
perceived onenesswith an organisation and the experience of an organisation's
successesand failures as one's owrf ' (Mael and Ashfort, 1992, p. 103).

As the definition suggests,identification is consideredto be related to organisational


member-company relationships. However, recent research in

organisational

identification (e.g. Gwinner and Swanson,2003; Pratt, 1998; Scott and Lane, 2000)
haveshownthat identificationcan alsoplay a role in relationshipbuilding betweennonformal members and organisations.Aaker (1996) assertedthat consumersalso engagein
deeper cognitive attachment with companies. Similarly, Bhattacharya and Sen (2003)
claimed that consumersmay categorisethemselvesin social groups which they associate .

62

with certain companies. They have argued that consumer-companyidentification can be

one of the psychological states which may influence individual's perceptionsof


organisations. Scott and Lane (2000) stated that corporate image building is "an integral
part of [organisational identification], since it serves the dual purpose of making public

what is special,unique,or distinctiveaboutorganizationsto relevantaudiences... while


simultaneously providing the mechanism through which managers explore what an
organization is about-that is, what its core values and its central beliefs are." (p. 45).

c. Emotional appeal. Fombrun and Shanley (1990) assertedthat organisations engage

in promotionalactivities such as corporateadvertisingand public relationsin order to


raise the awarenessof consumersabout the better aspectsof their organisationsin
comparison to other competing organizations. Rao et al. (2000) stated that these

activities makeindividualsa part of the company-relatedinformationnetworksand also


emphasisethe salient aspects of their organisations' identities in the minds of
individuals.Fornbrunand Rindova(1996) mentionedthat reputationmanagementaims
to create more favourable company-orientedinformation flow by positive media
coverage,andhencemakesthe public perceivecompaniesasrespectfulandtrustworthy.
Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) supported this view by stating that consumers' perceptions
of a company as trustworthy and respectful are not only attributed to their experience

with the companyand its productsand services,but also to what they construeabout
a
that company'sreputationamongthe public (Bhattacharya,
and Sen,2003).

63

Organisational identification scholars such as Ashfort and Mael (1989), Bergami and

Bagozzi (2000) and Dutton et al. (1994) suggestthat individuals are inclined to be
attractedto companieswhich are evaluatedas beingtrustworthyandrespectfulby others
that they think of highly. Otheracademics(e.g. Hogg andTerry, 2000;Pratt,2000; Scott
and Lane, 2000) imply that when those attributions have a salient position in an
individual's working memory;it is likely that this individual will focusandelaborateon
those companieswhich have these qualities. Therefore,it could be inferred that an
organisation'semotionalappealcan be defined as the emotionalpredispositionof an
individual towards a company on the basis of its reputation of trustworthiness and
respectfulnessin the public mind.

Fombrun et al. (2000) demonstrated that the emotional appeal of organisations with
is
to
these
two
one of the essential components of reputation
regard
attributes

is
Since
management.
corporatereputation consideredto be an aggregateform of
corporateimagesheld about a companyover time (Gotsi and Wilson, 2001), it can be
formation
is
determinant
image
that
assumed
of corporate
emotional appeal a
process.

Additionally, Bhattacharyaand Sen(2003) discussthat consumersare unlikely to build


deeper relationships with companies as employees do, since organisations do not have
as a central role in consumers' lives as they do for organisational members. Therefore,
they assumethat companies should have an emotionally appealing aspect for consumers

to'usethemassocialidentifiers.

64

d. Consumer-company value congruence. The value congruence concept has been


widely investigated in person-organisation fit and self-image research streams (e.g.
Edvardsson and Gustavsson, 1991; Ekinci and Riley, 2003; Kristof, 1996; O'Reilly et
al., 1991; O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Sirgy, 1982b;
Sirgy and Samli, 1985). O'Reilly et al. (1991) argued that values serve as defining
elements around which employees develop a sense of belonging to their employer
organisations. Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) stated that organisational members tend to
incorporate favourable aspects of the companies they work for to fulfil their selfenhancement and self-consistency needs (See Dutton et al., 1994). Kristof (1996)
asserted that employees tend to compare their own values to their employer
organisations' and seek for similarities in order to define their'social identity (See
Ashfort and Mael, 1989). To sum up, person-organisation fit studies claim that
individuals seek value congruence between their own values and that of their
organisations and defined the value congruence as the degree to which the individuals'
values match the organisations' (O'Reilly et al., 1991).

Sirgy's (1982a)self-congruencetheory suggeststhat peopletend to describeproducts


and serviceswith the sameattributesby which they evaluatethemselves.In line with
Grubb and Grathwohl (1967), Sirgy (1982a) claims that goods convey symbolic

meaningsandtheir consumption'mayevokeself-relatedassociations.In otherwords,the


associationsindividuals makeaboutthe qualitiesof productsand servicesmay activate
their self-schemaincluding the conceptof 'who I am', and motivatethem to link their
attributions about products and servicesto their own self-image perceptions.

65

Previous research on the self-image concept has shown that self-congruence theory has
behavioural and attitudinal consequences.For example, Sirgy and Samli (1985) reported
that there is a relationship between people's perception of their self-image and their
evaluations of product image as well as of store image. Hong and Zinkhan (1995)
showed that self-concept determines brand preference, brand attitudes and purchase
intentions. Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) argued that self-image concept can be studied
at the company-level, and demonstrated that when an organisation's values match
individuals' own self-image, they are more likely to evaluate that company positively.

All in all, in line with authors such as Bhattacharya and Sen (2003), Comelissen (2000)

and Stuart(1995),the factorsexplainedin sections2.6.1, and 2.6.2 are consideredto be


the main group of corporate identity communicators upon which individuals base their

views about companies.Proctor and Kitchen (2002) commentthat in the future the
successof companieswill be mostly dependenton positioning organisationsin their
to understandwhich
stakeholders'minds.Therefore,it is importantfor decision-makers
communicationtools and channelsare more influential in its constituents'decisionmaking processes (Abratt, 1989). Brown and Dacin (1997) state that even though
organisations are putting substantial effort into managing their identities, they still do
not know whether it is tlfe planned communication or external responseto their efforts

that influencesthe overall imagethat peoplehold abouttheir companies.Therefore,this


study addressesthis questionand aims to investigatethe relative impact of the two
major groups of identity communicators on corporate image formation.

66

2.7. Relevance of Integrated Communication in Corporate Image Formation

As discussedin the integrated communications paradigm section (See Section 2.2.2), the
realisation of the importance of consistency between the presentation of corporate
identity and its perception led researchersto pay attention to the concept of integrated
communications (Bernstein, 1984; Gray and Smeltzer, 1985; Van Riel and Balmer,

1997).This perspectivebridged marketingtheory and communicationfields, which is


implicitly highlightedin Keller's (1993)words:

"... the entire marketing program should be co-ordinated to create


congruent and strong brand associations...helping to produce a
consistent and cohesive brand image. Marketers should judge the
consistency and cohesiveness of the brand image with the business
definition in mind and how well the specific attributes and benefits that
the product or service is intended to provide to consumerssatisfy their
"
core needsand wants.

(Keller, 1993,p. 15)

Sincethe early 1990s,the theoryof integrationhasbeenconsideredto be at the centreof


corporate and marketing communications (Caywood et al., 1991; Duncan and Everett,
1993; Phelps ct al., 1996; Kitchen and Schultz, 1998,1999; Schultz and Kitchen, 1997).

It was argued that 'integration' of communications is profoundly related to


it
indicators
may give the opportunity to reduce
since
organisational performance

inefficiency in efforts and materials used (Beard, 1997) by strategic planning and
execution (Duncan and Everett, 1993).
67

Since the launch of the term 'integration' to marketing theory, various definitions have

in integratedmarketingcommunicationsfield. Duncan
beenusedmostly by researchers
and Moriarty (1993) defined integrated marketing communications as "the strategic coordination of all messagesand media used by an organisation to influence its perceived

brandvalue." (p. 33). Schultz(1993)and Schultzand Kitchen (1997)statedthat;

"IMC

is a concept of marketing communications planning

that

recognises the added value of a comprehensiveplan that evaluates the


strategic roles of a variety of communications disciplines (for example,
general advertising, direct response, sales promotion, and public
these disciplines to provide clarity,
combines
and
...
consistency,and maximum communications impact. "

relations)

(Schultz, 1993, p. 17; Schultz and Kitchen, 1997, p. 9)

The American Association of Advertising Agencies Integrated Communications


Committee(AAICC) describedIMC as:

A concept of marketing communicationsplanning that recognisesthe


plan that evaluatesthe strategicroles of
addedvalue of a comprehensive
a variety of communicationsdisciplinesandprovides clarity, consistency
and maximum communications impact through the seamlessintegration
of discrete message.

(Yeshin, 1998,p. 68)

All thesedefinitions emphasisethree main points which are also supportedby Low's
(2000) study: 1) a common communicationmessage,2) co-ordinatedplanning and
68

execution of communication tools, and 3) similar (consistent) messagedissemination by

eachcommunicationactivities.

Van Riel (1995) asserts that the concept of integration not only relates to marketing

but
also concerns organisational and management
communication activities,
communication activities which are embodied by symbolism, communication and
behaviour of a company. He claims that integration is also sought at the corporate level

in orderto createconsistencyin individuals' perceptionsabouta company'sidentity.

The essence of corporate identity management is grounded in handling possible


(Abratt,
1989;
Stuart,
1995).
identity-image
transformation
the
problems at
moment of
The integration of corporate identity mix elements can be considered to be the key for a
identity
image
between
the
the
corporate
corporate
and
perceived
consonance
projected
(Abratt, 1989; Van Rekom, 1997). When corporate identity cues are converted to
it
is
in
the
expected that
minds of a company's constituents,
corporate associations
identity
be
the
of that
communicated
congruent with
stakeholders' perceptions will
identity
focus
Therefore,
1998).
(Balmer,
the
of
corporate
major
organisation
intended
between
is
the
the
corporate associations and
potential gap
communication
their perception (Dacin and Brown, 2002), becausethe possibility of misperception due
to mispresentation of the corporate identity cues is high. As in any communication
(i.
between
the
two
this
the
process
e. senderand receiver) widens
ends of
process,
noise
the gap (Bernstein, 1984). There can be two intervening problems throughout this
transformation: The first is the psychological filtering of receivers (Brown, 1998) and

69

the second is the fragmented use of company-driven communication activities (i. e.

corporateidentity mix elements)(Abratt, 1989).

From the perspective of corporate identity management,influencing the former directly

is not easy,since it is aboutthe beliefs, valuesand mood of the people(Brown, 1998;


Dacin and Brown, 2002). However, organisations have significant control over the
selection and co-ordination of corporate identity mix elements as well as the delineation

of messagesdisclosed(Van Riel, 1995)which may allow them to reducethe possible


loss of congruence between intended corporate associations and people's attributions
about these company characteristics. The better preparation of company messages,the

proper selectionof channelsand tools to carry them and the better co-ordinationof
company-driven communication efforts are the foundation for motivating consumersto
form similar corporate associations to what is projected (Balmer, 1998; Gray and

Smeltzer,1987;Van Rekom, 1997)and to evaluatecompaniesfavourablyas a whole


(Olins, 1978; Bemstein, 1984, Van Riel, 1995).

Duncan and Moriarty (1998) claim that consumersare inclined to integrate brand
by
highlighting
Sandra
(1997)
Prof
Moriarty's
Harris
this
messages.
supports
view
words: "The brain does not distinguish an advertising message from a PR message.

Instead,it gathersinformation from an untold numberof contactpoints and assimilates


it into onepicture" (Harris, 1997,p. 93). This argumentimplies that individualstend to
searchfor consistency.Since companiesaim to createa consonanceamong company
messagesby integrating formal communicationactivities (i.e. corporateidentity mix

70

elements),it canbe assumedthat consumersmay also be inclined to assessthe ability of


corhpaniesin integrating corporate identity mix elements in terms of messagecoherence

and co-ordinationof activities.In other words, consumers'attributionsaboutthe extent


to which a company's identity mix elements are integrated may determine their
judgements about a company's identity values and hence overall evaluation of that
company's image.

As a conclusion,integrationin the contextof corporateidentity managemententailscoordinatedexecutionof corporateidentity mix elementsand alignmentof theseelements
to serve a common corporate identity messageby conveying similar messagesto each

other(SeeLow, 2000).

2.8. Summary

In light of the interdisciplinary paradigm which suggests that concepts from different

disciplinesshouldbe integratedwhile studyingcorporateimageformation (SeeSection


2.2.5), this chapter reviewed an extant literature incorporating views from corporate
identity and corporate image management, word-of-mouth communication, corporate
identification,
associations, organisational
value congruence and integrated marketing

communicationfields. It first presentedthe perspectivesin corporate identity and


corporate image fields in order to provide a historical background on which the
definitions of corporate image, corporate associations and corporate identity concepts

were built. It then discussedthe scope of corporate identity communicatorswhich

71

transmits company related information to individuals while they are forming an image
depicts
framework,
the
the
theoretical
The
which
of a company.
next chapter outlays
identity
between
mix elements, unplanned communication
corporate
relationships
factors, integrated communication and the corporate image concept.

72

III CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

3.1. Introduction

The managementof a corporateidentity requiresan understandingof the dynamicsof


identity communication in terms of how corporate identity is translated into corporate
image (Stuart, 1995) by internal and external stakeholdersof an organisation (Dacin and

Brown, 2002). Although it is well studied and argued that a company's planned
communicationefforts influencethe imagepeoplehold aboutthat organisation(Balmer,
1998; Balmer and Soenen, 1999), there is a paucity of researchin the corporate identity
and corporate image literatures on understanding the impact of company-driven
communication efforts and external communication factors on corporate image

formation (Comelissen,2000; Dacin and Brown, 2002).Moreover,althoughtherehave


been discussions about the importance of integrating a company's planned
communicationefforts in orderto createconsistentidentity associationsin the minds of
stakeholders(Abratt, 1989;Einwiller and Will, 2002; Gray and Smeltzer,1985,1987;
Van Riel, 1995), there is still a lack of empirical researchwhich demonstrates
integration
by
mechanisms which
relates to the corporate image concept.

The proposedconceptualmodel (Figure 3.1) seeksto addressa gap in corporateimage


studiesby incorporatingcorporateidentity mix elements(symbolism,communication
intermediary
factors
(interpersonal,
behaviour)
and
and
and unplannedcommunication
in
into
intrapersonal.
onecomprehensive
model orderto assessboth the
communication)
individual and the relative impact of the sub-dimensions of these two major group of
73

identity communicators on corporate image formation. This model empirically tests


whether anything a company does communicates its identity (Balmer, 1997,2001; Van
Riel and Balmer, 1997) and whether corporate image is a composite product of
company-controlled and non-company driven communication (Bhattacharya dna Sen,
2003; Cornelissen,2000).

Based on the attribution theory, the conceptual model (Figure 3.1) proposes that
consumers9positive attributions about a company's symbolic expressions (corporate
visual identity systems, corporate aesthetics, staff apparel), marketing communication
mix elements (products/services, brand advertising, corporate advertising, public
relations activities, sponsorships,direct selling etc.) and behavioural aspects (manager,
increase
behaviour)
the likelihood of achieving a favourable
employee, and company
image about that company in the minds of its stakeholders.

Additionally, it suggests that positive word-of-mouth commentary delivered by


interpersonalsources(close friends and relatives), as well as through intermediary
channels (the mass media, opinion leaders,NGOs, governmentalinstitutions etc.)
determinespeople's evaluationsof a company's image. It also arguesthat there are
direct and indirect relationshipsbetweencorporateimage formation and intrapersonal
factors, namely the corporate associationsgap, consumer-companyidentification,
it
Furthermore,
emotional appeal and consumer-companyvalue congruence.
hypothesisesthat positive attribution of consumersabout the integration level of
corporateidentity mix elementsis linked to corporateimage through the corporate
associationsgap.
74

Figure 3.1. The conceptual framework.

75

It shouldbe notedthat while this researchacknowledgesthat severalstakeholderssuch


as employees,investorsand distributorsare involved in building corporateidentity and
its perceptionascorporateimage(Dacin and Brown, 2002; Van Riel andBalmer, 1997),
it focusesonly on consumersand their perceptionsof organisations'images.From a
marketingpoint of view, the non-organisationalpublic can be deemedmore important
for a company,since managingidentity can be a strategictool for attractingpotential
customers,increasingexisting customers'loyalty, thereby increasingsalesand market
share.In this respect,consumerscan be consideredas the primary externalstakeholders
of organisationsand should be treated as a strategic asset to gain a competitive
advantagein the long run (SeeBhattacharyaand Sen,2003).

Figure 3.1 illustrates a consumer-level conceptual framework which demonstratesthe


links between the corporate image concept and the sub-dimensions of corporate identity

mix elementsand unplannedcommunicationfactorsas well asthe perceivedintegration


of company-controlledcommunication.Discussionsabout the relationshipsbetween
conceptsand the related hypotheses(See Table 3.1) are presentedin the following
sections(SeeSection3.2 and Section3.3).

3.2. Corporate identity mix elements and corporate image

Gray and Balmer (1998) state that a company's identity is translated into an image in the

public's mind through various communicationtools and channels.Therefore, it is


assumedthat consumers'evaluationsof a company'scommunicationactivities are the

76

antecedent of the corporate image. In other words, when consumers have positive
attitudes towards an organisation's formal communication efforts (i. e. symbolism,
communication, and behaviour), they will be more likely to interpret the messagessent
by those communicators positively and hence will be more likely to form a favourable
image about that company.

This assumption is grounded in the attribution theory (Graham, 1991; Kelley, 1967;

Weiner, 1992).Attribution theory was developedby social psychologists(e.g. Heider,


1958;Joneset al., 1972;Weiner, 1974,1986) to understandthe causesof individuals'
own and others' successand failure. It tries to explain how people interpret the causeof

behaviour upon which they build their reactions towards that particular behaviour
(Kelley and Michela, 1980). It suggeststhat attributions are contingent on three factors:

first, a person'sperceptionor observationof the behaviour;second,a person'sbelief


that the other individual's behaviourwas intentional;andthird, a person'sperceptionof
whetheror not the behaviourof the otherpersonoccurredasa resultof an externalforce
(Malle, 1999;2003).

Since studies have demonstratedthat attributions are predictors of subsequent


emotional, cognitive, and behavioural responses (See Struthers et al., 1998; Weiner,

1985,1986), the attribution theory has been used extensively in marketing studies
(Folkes, 1984; Valle and Wallendorf, 1977). There has been evidenceto show the
behaviour
between
attributions
about
employee
negative
and customer
relationships
complaints (e.g. Curren and Folkes, 1987; Richins, 1983), customer satisfaction (e.g.

77

Oliver and DeSarbo, 1988) and repurchase intentions (Folkes et al., 1987). However,

attributiontheoryhasnot beenappliedto corporateimagestudies.

In the literature, it has been argued that consumers' evaluations of corporate image are

basedon intentional corporateidentity messages(Brown, 1998; Brown et al., 2006;


Dacin and Brown, 2002), transmitted by symbolism, communication and behaviour of a
company (Van Riel, 1995). Attribution theory posits that a person's perception about the

successor failure of anotherindividual canbe attributedto the otherperson'sintentional


behaviour (Weiner, 1986)3 By extensionof this argument,it can be concludedthat
.
people's evaluationsof a company'simage will be dependenton their perceptionsof
that organisation'sintentionalcommunicationefforts. In otherwords, when consumers'
have positive attributions about planned communication activities of an organization,
they will be more likely to have a favourable image about that company. Drawing on

this conclusion,the propositionsabout the relationshipsbetweenconsumers'reactions


.
'
identity
(i.
to corporate
mix elements e. symbolism,communicationand behaviour)and
corporateimagearepresentedin the following sections.

3 It should be noted that Weiner (1986) also arguesthat people's attributionswill be contingenton
situationswhich force other peoplebehavein a certainway. In the contextof this study, theseexternal
forcescanbe the businessenvironment,competition,industryidentity andso on (SeeBalmerandSoenen,
1999)which can force companiesto changetheir communicationstrategies.Sincethe studyonly, focuses
on corporateidentity mix elements,thosefactorsare not discussedhere.Furthermore,it is assumedthat
consumerswill not be able to easily judge whether a company'splanned communicationactivities
changeddue to such external forces. They would rather see the immediateresult of such forced
modificationsin communicationactivitiesof an organisation.
78

3.2.1. Symbolism

Although there has been a shift from a simplistic view of 'corporate identity as visual
expressionsof an organisation' towards a multi-faceted approach of 'corporate identity
as all expressions of a company' (Cornelissen and Harris, 2001), the importance of
symbolism in communicating corporate identity is still widely acknowledged (Baker
and Balmer, 1997; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997).

Schmitt et al. (1995) assertthat the visual expressionsof an organisationprovide a


powerful way to identify a company as well as to distinguish it from its counterparts,
since they represent the distinctive qualities of a corporation which stem from its
personality (Bernstein, 1984). The literature (See 2.6.1.1) suggeststhat the scope of an
orgamsation9svisual expressions encompassesa wider range of areas. Specifically,

is
identity
identity
by
corporate
of a company projected
corporate visual
systems
(logo/symbol, name, slogan, colour and typography) (Dowling, 1994; Mel-ewar and
Saunders,1999,2000; Topalian, 1984) and their applications on staff apparel (Dowling,

1994;Gray andBalmer, 1998;Kennedy,1977;Van Riel, 1995)andcorporateaesthetics


including printed material (e.g. stationery, promotional literature etc.) and exterior and
interior of company buildings (e.g. headquarters, plants, retail stores, offices etc.)

(Schmittet al., 1995;Topalian,1984).

Since visual aspects of an organisation trigger awarenessand recognition about it in


people's minds (Dowling, 2001; Rosson, 2003), they activate individuals' affect

79

reactions (Henderson and Cote, 1998). Van Riel (1995) notes that well designed and

applied corporatesymbols may evoke an emotional response.Hendersonand Cote


(1998) claim that when individualslike logos,their positive reactionscantransferfrom
the logo to the company and hence they may be motivated to evaluate organisations

favourably.
The same affect transfer can be assumedfor the other symbolic
more
aspects of an organisation including the other elements of corporate visual. identity
systems, corporate aesthetics and staff apparel. Thus it is assumed that consumers'

attitudestowardssymbolicexpressionsof an organisationwill revealhow they evaluate


the companyasa whole. Basedon this argument,the following hypothesesarederived:

Hla: The more positive the attitude that consumershave towardsa company'svisual
identity systems,the more favourable the image they have about that company.

Hlb: The morepositivethe attitudethat consumershavetowardsa company'scorporate


image
favourable
have
the
they
the
aesthetics, more
aboutthat company.
Hlc: The more positive the attitude that consumers have towards a company's staff
apparels,the more favourable the image they have about that company.

3.2.2. Communication

Markwick and Fill (1997) claim that marketing communicationsshould be used to


convey the distinctive qualities of a corporate identity. Van Riel (1995) defines
marketing communication as the form of communication targeted to support the

products and services of the organisation.Therefore, in addition to products and

80

direct
promotion,
sponsorship
and
selling are also considered
services, advertising, sales
as part of a corporate identity mix (Barich and Kotler 1991; Van Riel 1995). Corporate
1994),
(Hunt
Grunig,
1998)
(Argenti,
and
public
relations
and
activities
advertising
individual
familiarity
directed
than
recognition
and
rather
which are
at company

products/services,
contributeto communicatinga company'sidentity aswell. Barich and
Kotler (1991) and Keller (2001) statethat marketingcommunicationactivities not only
aim to positiona company'sproductsand servicesin the market,but alsoto promotethe
it
is
itself.
Therefore,
concludedthat the favourability of consumers'views
company
by
how
be
their
well the marketing
attributions
about a companywill
enhanced
about
intended
in
identity
the
to
that
wants
create
a company
communicationactivities reflect
the mindsof consumers.Henceit is proposedthat;

112:The more consumersperceivethat the marketingcommunicationmix elementsof a


image
have
favourable
its
identity
they
the
the
about
more
well,
companyreflect
that company.

3.2.3. Behaviour

The elements of this dimersion are employee behaviour, manager behaviour and
company behaviour (Van Riel, 1995). Ind (1997) claims "perceptions of an organisation
(p.
Since
indirectly,
by
83).
directly
determined,
employees
managers
and
staff'
or
are
1986;
face
1977;
Dowling,
(Kennedy,
the
of
an
organisation
and senior managers are
Hernsley, 1998), managers' interactions with external audiences at social events

81

(Argenti, 1998; Hunt and Grunig, 1994) and employees' contact with consumers

determinewhat consumerswould think of an organisation(Harris and De Chematony,


2001; Kennedy, 1977; Kiriakidou and Millward, 2000; Gray and Balmer, 1998).
Company behaviour includes actions about environmental and social issues. Notably,

due to high consumerconsciousnessabout and surveillanceof company actions in


recent years, corporate behaviour toward environmental or charity issuesare considered
as a key economic successfactor by business leaders (Beh, 1994; Murray and Vogel,

1997;The World EconomicForum, 1999).This showsthat attributionsof consumers'to


corporate social responsibility activities of organisations influence their perceptions of
companies (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). Drawing on this

discussion,it is claimedthat managers'ability to representa company'svalues,the way


employees treat consumersand companies' actions towards social responsibility issues

have a considerableimpact on corporateimage formation. Accordingly, it is posited


that;

H3a: The more consumersperceive the managersof a company representingtheir


have
favourable
image
they
the
the
about that
more
company's values well,
company.
H3b: The more consumers perceive the employees of a company treating customers

have
image
favourable
they
the
the
aboutthat company.
well,
more
H3c: The more consumers perceive a company as socially responsible, the more
favourable the image they have about that company.

82

3.3. Unplanned communication factors and corporate image

Cornelissen(2000) claims that formal communication takes place amidst other


unplanned communication mechanisms, namely interpersonal (word-of-mouth from a

closeenvironment),intermediary(word-of-mouthdisseminatedby massmedia,NGOs,
govermnental institutions) and intrapersonal (psychological consequencesof previous
in
images
experiences and
stored the mind). Accordingly, he argues that reception of

positive informal informationabout a companyvia intermediarysourcesas well as via


one-to-one conversations has an impact on how consumers perceive a company's
identity. Moreover, the favourability of the image consumers hold about a company is

dependenton people'spsychologicalstate.Therefore,in order to test the relationships


between the external factors as stated by Comelissen (2000) and corporate image, the

following unplannedcommunicationelementsareexamined.

3.3.1. Interpersonal communication

In the marketing literature, it is well accepted that consumersgive substantial


importance to non-marketing dominated sources of information while forming opinions
about products. In this respect, word-of-mouth communication (WOM) has been

consideredas an input into consumerdecision making (Halstead,2002; HarrisonWalker, 2001; Lau and Ng, 2001; Richins, 1983).In consumerresearch,it is widely
information
informal,
(i.
that
accepted
person-to-person
exchange e. WOM) about an

determinants
is
the
major
of consumerattitude and
organisationor a product one of

83

behaviour change (Brown and Reingen, 1987; Cristiansen and Tax, 2000). Several
researchers(e.g. Bristor, 1990; Duhan et al., 1997) consider that positive word-of-mouth
information received from friends and relatives is a significant communication factor in
is
it
favourable
In
this
about
'
engendering
view
a company or a product.
respect.
concluded that positive informal information received from interpersonal sources can
result in a positive attitude towards a company, creating a more favourable image of that
company (Comelissen, 2000; Dacin and Brown, 2002). Thus, it is hypothesisedthat:

H4: The more positive word-of-mouth consumersreceive from their close friends and
have
favourable
image
the
they
the
more
about that
relatives about a company,
company.

3.3.2. Intermediary communications

In a mannersimilar to that discussedin Section3.3.1, positive news disseminatedby


the massmedia,NGOs and opinion leadersetc. can influenceconsumers'perceptions
development
(2000)
Tax
Christiansen
the
that
of new
argue
and
of companies.
technologiesfor information exchangelike the internethas extendedthe definition of
information
from
being
They
that
the
only
person-to-person.
assert
word-of-mouth
delivered by different medium also play a role in word-of-mouth communication.
Fombrunand Shanley(1990) statethat managersshould make sure that transparent
in
in
is
information
the
media
order to create a favourable
available
company
impressionin the public domain.They also assertthat companiesshouldalso strive for
84

positive coverage in newspapers and in reports by non-profit organisations or

governmentalinstitutionsas much as possibleto help shapeconsumers'views about


their organisations..In recent years, especially, increasing consumer consciousness

about social and environmentalissues has led to the search for more company
behaviourrelatedissues(Brown and Dacin, 1997;Senand Bhattacharya,2001).Cases
such as Enron (corporate malfeasance) and McDonald's (obesity issues) show that

unplannedmediaexposureis an essentialaspectof externalcommunication,which has


is
it
impact
Therefore,
a significant
on consumers' perceptions of organisations.
from
intermediaries
that
proposed
news received
can influence consumers' perceptions
of comPanies'identities, and thus:

H5: The more positive word-of-mouth consumers receive from intermediary sources,

such as the massmedia,NGOs, opinion leadersetc. about a company,the more


favourablethe imagethey haveaboutthat company.

3.3.3. Intrapersonal communication

Under intrapersonalcommunicationfactors the direct and indirect impact of person.g


image
formation
factors
The
are examined.
on corporate
underlyin assumption
related
is that consumers' overall evaluation of companies (corporate image) takes place under
individuals'
filtering
to
that
certain conditions
are pertinent
of corporate messageson the
basis of their feelings and values. In this study four individual-specific factors are

85

examined: corporate associations gap, consumer-company identification, emotional

appeal,andconsumer-company
valuecongruence.

It is suggestedthat companies' images are more positively evaluated when consumers


hold mental associations similar to , the values that companies intend to define
themselves with in the market place (corporate associations gap) (Dacin and Brown,
2002), and when they use companies to have a sense of identification (consumer-

company identification) (Bhattacharyaand Sen, 2003). It is also proposed'that


consumers tend to hold favourable images about companies that attract them
emotionally (emotional appeal) and that project values that are congruent with their self-

image (consumer-company
value congruence).Furthermore,this researcharguesthat
emotional appeal is an antecedent of consumer-company identification and that
consumer-company value congruence is a determinant of

consumer-company

identification and the corporateassociationsgap. Finally, it claims that along with the
direct impacts of emotional appeal and consumer-companyvalue congruenceon
corporateimage, there is a mediated relationship between the former concept and
identificationas well as betweenthe latter
corporateimagethroughconsumer-company
image
concept and corporate
via both consumer-company identification and corporate
associationsgap. In the following, the propositions for each relationship are presented.

86

3.3-3.1. Corporate associations gap

As mentioned in the literature review (see Section 2.2.4) marketing researchers(e.g.


Martineau, 1958;Ne%%man,
1953; Spector, 1961) devoted attention to defining desirable
symbolic and functional corporate image attributes that individuals associate with
organisations to form mental descriptions of them (Brown et al., 2006; Stem et al.,
2001). Recentresearchin marketing has discussedthat corporateassociationsare part of
the corporate image formation process (Brown, 1998; Dacin and Brown, 2002). For
example, Brown and Dacin (1997) and Keller and Aaker (1993) have shown evidence
about the link betweenconsumers' overall evaluation of companiesand their responses
to products, and Sen and Bhattacharya(2001) have found that there is a relationship
betweenthe consumer-companyvalue fit and overall company assessment(see Brown,
1998for other studiesof corporateassociations).

Many authorsassertthat finding the right set of corporateattributesto be communicated


to a company's stakeholdersand achieving a homology betweenthe intendedcorporate
associationsand people's associationsabout them is one of the key challengesmanagers
face (Balmer and Socncn, 1999; Brown, 1998; Brown and Dacin, 1997; Brown ct al.,
2006; Van Rekorn, 1997; Van Riel, 1995). Since people's judgements about a
company's identity arc basedon their emotions,beliefs and experiences(Brown, 1998),
there may be a gap between what a company communicatesas its identity and how
individuals' interpret it (Balmer, 1995,2001b; Balmer and Greyser,2002; Balmer and
Soenen,1999; Brown et al., 2006; Kirikiadou and Millward, 2000; Van Rekorn, 1997).

87

For example, Weiss et al. (1999) showed that the difference between an organisation's

own perceptionof its reputationand its salesforce's judgement has implications for
salesforce structure.Similarly, it is assumedthat the differencebetweenconsumers'
associationsabouta company'sintendedidentity and that organisation'sown definition
of it (i.e. the corporateassociationsgap) affects consumers'overall assessment
of a
company's image (Dacin and Brown, 2002). Therefore, it is proposedthat;

H6a: The smaller the corporate associationsgap, the more favourable the image
consumershaveabouta company.

3.3.3.2. Consumer-company identification

Socialidentity theorypositsthat peopledefinethemselvesasmembersof certainsocial


groupsor by belongingto certaincategoriessuchas gender,ethnicity, political parties
and so on (Brewer, 1991; Kramer, 1991; Tajfel and Turner, 1985). Ashfort and Mael

(1989) arguedthat an individual's desireto define himself/herselfwith regardsto an


in
is
identification
identification)
form
(i.
organisation e. consumer-company
of social
a
Recent
orderto fulfil his/herself-definitionalneedssuchas onenessandbelongingness.
researchon organisational identification (e.g. Gwinner and Swanson,2003; Pratt, 1998;

Scott and Lane, 2000) showed that people tend to identify themselves with
organisationswith which they are not formally involved. Bhattacharyaand Sen(2003)
claim that when consumers see that a company is well respected by others whose

be
develop
be
likely
in
to
to
they
they
more
opinions
will
a similar view order
value,

88

able to be a part of that group of people. Drawing on this argument, it is proposed that

is
identification
consumer-company
one of a psychologicalstatewhich could affect
how consumersperceive a company as a whole. Therefore, it is posited that;

identification,the more favburablethe image


H6b: The greaterthe consumer-company
they have about that company.

3.3.3.3.Emotional appeal

Fombrun et al. (2000) demonstratedthat corporate reputation is based on non-rational


is
Since
with
corporate
and emotional reasons along
rational assessments.
reputation
formed as an aggregation of corporate images that stakeholders hold over time (Gotsi

and Wilson, 2001), one could assumethat an individual's emotionalconnectionto an


image
influence
formation.FornbrunandRindova
has
on corporate
organisationalso
an
(1996) assert that reputation managementaims to create a certain level of respect and

trust amongthe public by showingthat a companyis capableand willing to contribute


to societalissues.

As discussedbefore, companiestry to achieve a positive exposure in the mass media in

in
impression
their
to
about
organisatioris the market place as
order createa general
being good corporatecitizens (Fornbrunand Shanley, 1990). Bhattacharyaand Sen
(2003) claim that- consumersare emotionally attracted to companieswhich have
feel
identities
the
they
trusted
public,
worthy when they
among
since
respected and

89

construe that the organisations they consider as reputable are also well regarded by
individuals they hold in high esteem.Drawing on this conclusion, it is proposed that the
emotional predisposition of consumers towards a company which is triggered by the
collectively shared public view about that organisation will influence the image held
about that company. Hence,

H6c: The more consumers find a company's identity emotionally appealing, the more

favourablethe imagethey haveaboutthat company.

The argument above by Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) also implies that the relationship
between emotional appeal and corporate image is likely to be contingent upon an
individual's feeling of self-worth. They claim this issue relates to the consumer-

companyidentificationconcept(SeeSection3.3.3.2),which arguesthat individualsare


inclined to use organisationsas social identifiers in order to fulfil self-orientedneeds
suchas defining who they are with respectto social groups,which associatethemselves
with certaincompanies(O'Reilly and Chatman,1986).Therefore,it could be assumed
that the relationshipbetweenemotionalappealand corporateimageis also mediatedby
the extent to which consumersidentify themselveswith organisationswhich are well
regardedby others. Thus, it is claimed that:

H6d: Thererelationshipbetweenemotionalappealand corporateimage'is mediatedby


identification.
consumer-company

90

3.3.3.4. Consumer-company value congruence

Researchon person-organisation fit, and self-concept and value congruence has shown

that value congruencecan favourablyinfluenceattitudesand behaviours;


of individuals
(Edvardssonand Gustavson,1991;Ekinci and Riley, 2003; Kristof, 1996; O'Reilly et
al., 1991; O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Sirgy, 1982b;
Sirgy and Samli, 1985). Grubb and Grathwohl (1967) argued that the perception of an

individual's own self, i.e. self-concept,is nurturedby the consumptionof goodssince


consumersuseproductsas symbolicmeaningcommunicators.

Sirgy's (1981,1982a, 1982b) self-image/product-image congruity theory claims that the


value attributed to a product may evoke a person's self-schema involving self-concept

"I" and the linkage betweenthis particular attribute and the self-imageof that person.
For example,when a product is consideredto be a luxury item by an individual, this
individual
himself/herself
"I
define
that
the
then
self-schema
and
as
may activate
may
am a luxury product user".

Previousresearchon value congruencehas shownthat this concepthasan influenceon


image concept in different settings. For example, Sirgy -and Samli (1985) demonstrated

that when consumersperceive a close match between their own self-image and a
's
have
image.
O'Reilly
tend
they
to
al.
et
product's
positive associationsabouta store's
in
(1991)
a
similar
study
showed
result an organisationalcontext, that is, the match
between personal and organisational values stimulates positive emotions in employees

91

towards their organisations which may lead to higher staff motivation and to greater

Sen
organisationalcommitment.
and Bhattacharya(2001) demonstratedthat when
consumers perceive that an organisation's social responsibility (CSR) and company
ability (CA) values match with their own self-image, they are more likely to evaluate
that company positively. Accordingly, it is proposed that:

Me: The greater the consumer-company value congruence,.the more favourable the

imageconsumershaveabouta comPany.

Moreover,Dacin and Brown (2002) assertthat the degreeof match betweenwhat an


organisation intends to convey as its identity characteristics and individuals'
be
(i.
to
that
those
company
associations of
qualities
e. corporate associations gap) can

dependenton consumers'perceptionsof how closean organisation'svaluesare to their


own self-image.Further, Brown and Dacin (1997) showedthat CSR and CA related
corporateassociationshave an influence on consumers'evaluationsof organisations.
Therefore,it can be concludedthat the impact of consumer-company
congruenceon
corporateimage is likely to be mediatedby the corporateassociationsgap i.e. the
differencebetweenwhat an organisationprojects as its identity and what consumers
attributeto it. Therefore,it is positedthat;

H6f-. The relationship between consumer-company value congruence and corporate


image is mediated by the corporate associationsgap.

92

3.3.3.5. Antecedents of consumer-company identification

Dutton et al. (1994) claim that "[T]he greater the attractivenessof the perceived identity
of an organisation, the stronger [is] a person's identification with it" (p. 244). This
proposition implies that a company should have an emotionally appealing point for
consumers before they engage in deeper relationship building with companies such as
using them social identifiers. As mentioned in Section 3.3.3.3, when consumers think

that peoplethey value also respectand trust companiesthat they find reputable,they
will be more likely to considertheseorganisationsin helping to define who they are in
their social environments(Bhattacharyaand Sen,2003). Therefore,it is assumedthat
the emotional appeal of an organisation is a determinant of consumer-company
identification,andhenceit is proposedthat;

116g:The more consumersperceivea company's identity emotionally appealing,the


morethey identify themselveswith that company.

Furthermore,studies on person-organisationfit (e.g. O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986;


O'Reilly et al., 1991) have shown that the match between employees' personal values
and organisational values motivate deep and meaningful relationship building between

employeesand employer companies.Researchon organisationalidentification (e.g.


Ashfort and Mael, 1989;Bergamiand Bagozzi,2000; Dutton et al., 1994)suggeststhat
employees tend to internalise positive aspects of an organisation's identity in order to
support their self-related needs such as defining who they are and what they belong to

93

(Dutton et al., 1994). Similarly, it is assumedthat as consumersperceive that they share

inclined
be
dcfining
to define
they
may
more
similar
attributeswith organisations,
themselves in relation to these companies (i. e. consumer-company identification) in

order to fulfil the needof associatingthemselveswith a certain social group (Sen and
Bhattacharya, 2001).

Therefore, it is assumed that consumer-company value

congruence is an antecedent of consumer-company identification. Hence it is posited

that;

H6h: The greater the consumer-company value congruence, the greater the consumercompany identification.

3.3.3.6. Antecedents of the corporate associations gap

Sen and Bhattacharya(2001) demonstratedthat corporatesocial responsibility(CSR)


value congruenceare
and corporateability (CA) associationsand consumer-company
interdependentconcepts.As discussedabove(SeeSection3.3.3.4)consumersperceive
identity
between
discrepancy
traits and consumers'
company-projected
smaller
be
believe
to
they
those
those
congruentwith
values
values when
associationsabout
their own personality(DacinandBrown, 2002).Tberefore,it is proposedthat;

H6i: The greaterthe consumer-company


value congruence,the smallerthe corporate
associationsgap.

94

Furthermore, Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) assert that consistent projection of intended

corporateassociationsby promotional activities of an organisationis a necessary


conditionto achievethe matchbetweenconsumers'attributionsaboutan organisation's
identity characteristics and the associations that a company want to position in their

minds.This condition hasbeenconsideredas relatedto plannedcommunicationefforts


of an organisation rather than to unplanned communication factors, and thus its relation
as an antecedent of the corporate associations gap is argued in the next section which

integration
in
identity
the
addresses
of corporate
mix elements
role of perceived
corporate image formation.

3.4. Perceived integration of corporate identity mix elements and corporate image

As a part of corporate identity management, managers should try to project their

in
image
in
identities
favourable
to
the mindsof
order
achieve
companies'
consistently
a
their stakeholders(Abratt, 1989;Berstein,1984).Balmer and Soenen(1999) arguethat
different people may have different perceptionsof an organisation'sidentity, since
individuals' associationsabout companies are subject to their interpretationsof
basis
feelings
the
their
attributes
on
of
own
organisational
values,
and experiences
(Brown, 1998;Dacin andBrown, 2002).

Psychologicalresearchhasdemonstrated
that coherentimagesprovide greaterinfluence
in
(Moriarty,
1996),
"where
consistency
communication can be seen as a
on publics
necessary condition... " (Cornelissen and Lock, 2001, p. 428). This premise and the

95

desire for eliminating dissonancebetween what a company communicates as its identity

and people's associationsabout it indicates that integrated company-controlled


identity
(i.
corporate
communication e.
mix elements) is a key element in corporate
identity management(Simoes et al., 2005).

Drawing on the integrated marketing communications literature (e.g. Duncan and


Everett, 1993; Duncan and Moriarty, 1998; Fitzgerald and Amott, 2000; Kitchen and

Schultz,1998,1999;Low, 2000;Novak and Phelps,1994;Schultzand Kitchen, 1997),


it is suggested that strategically designed and co-ordinated corporate identity mix

build
(i.
behaviour)
a strongimageand
elements e. symbolism,communicationand
can
reinforceits consonancewith the communicatedidentity (e.g. Gray and Smeltzer,1987;
Van Rekom, 1997; Van Riel, 1995; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997). -i

Bhattacharyaand Sen (2003) claim that consumerswill be more able to assess


companies' identity characteristicswhen they perceive a coherentrepresentationof
organisationalvaluesby companies.Van Rekom(1997) andVan Riel (1995)claim that
the likelihood of this conditionoccurringis contingenton the level of integrationamong
a company's identity mix elements.Accordingly, it is assumedthat consumers'
in
integration
level
formal
the
communicationefforts
of a company's
attributionsabout
terms of co-ordinatedexecutionand delivery of common and/or similar messagesby
in termsof
alignedcommunicationtools/channels(Low, 2000) may haveconsequences
identity
In
the
other
words,
when
consumers
corporate
associations.
perceive
corporate
be
integrated,
judge
to
they
to
tend
the company's
of
organisation
mix elements
an

96

identity values as consonant with what it intends to convey (i. e. smaller corporate

associations
gap),andasa resultthey hold a morefavourablecompanyimage.

Drawing on this discussion, it is proposed that perceived integration of corporate


identity mix elements is an antecedentof the corporate associationsgap, and the impact
of the former on corporate image is mediated by the latter. Hence, the following
hypothesesare developed:

H6j: The greater t4e perceived integration of corporate identity mix elements,the
smaller the corporate associationsgap.

116k:The relationshipbetweenthe perceivedintegrationof the corporateidentity mix


and corporate image is mediated by the corporate associationsgap.

3.5. Corporate identity mix elements versus Unplanned communication factors

Bhattacharyaand Sen(2003) and Cornelissen(2000) arguethat corporateimageis not


but
communications
of
company-driven
also non-companycontrolled
only a product
messages.Bhattacharyaand Sen (2003) mention that which of thesefactors make the
consumers build deeper relationships with companies still remains elusive. Brown and

Dacin (1997) statethat even though managersemphasisethe importanceof corporate


identity mix, companiesstill do not know which of its elementsare influential in
building favourablecorporateimages.Dacin and Brown (2002) assertthat researchin
the corporateidentity andcorporateassociationsareasshouldfocus on the role of 'direct

97

'word-of-mouth
from
the
corporation',
or third party communications',
communications
individuals'
in understanding how the constituents of
feelings
'emotions
of
and
and
organisations build impressions of them and make a comparison between organisational
factors'
impact
image
formation.
relative
corporate
and external communication
on
Williams and Moffit (1997) reported that although the business and personal factors
play a role in corporate image formation, the organisational factors (i. e. company
buildings, employees, advertising, philanthropy and being a larger insurer) are more
is
following
hypothesis
factors.
Drawing
this
the
than
on
conclusion,
powerful
external
developed which assumesa similar comparison f6r the two major groups of identity
identity
(corporate
mix elements versus unplanned communication
communicators
factors) defined in this study:

H7: The effect of the corporate identity mix elements (company-controlled


communication elements) is stronger than the unplanned- (uncontrolled)
image.
factors
on
corporate
communication

3.6. Summary

This chapter reviewed the literature in corporate identity and corporate image areasand
incorporated insights from different fields in order to build the conceptual model
illustrated in Figure 3.1. On the basis of the literature, the relationships between the
identity
image
mix elements as well as unplanned
construct and corporate
corporate
in
hypotheses,
factors
which are summarised
are explained and relevant
communication

98

Table 3.1 and illustrated in Figure j. 2 are stated. In the next chapter, the researchdesign

for
develop
to
constructsas well as to test the model proposedis
adopted
scales
outlined.

Table3.1.The hypotheses.
Hypotheses
HIa: The more positive the attitude that consumershave towards a company's corporate visual
identity systems(CVIS), the more favourable the image they have about that company (IMAG).
Hlb: The more positive the attitude that consumers have towards a company's corporate aesthetics
(AEST), the more favourable the image they have about that company (IMAG).
Hlc: The more positive the attitude that consumers have towards a company's staff apparels (EAPP),
the more favourable the image they have about that company (IMAG).
H2: The more consumersperceive the marketing communication activities of a company reflect its
identity well (COMM), the more favourable the image they have about that company (IMAG)
H3a: The more consumersperceive the managersof a company as representing the company's values
well (MBEH), the more favourable the image they have about that company (IMAG).
H3b: The more consumersperceive the employees of a company as treating customerswell (EBEH),
the more favourable the image they have about that company (IMAG)
H3c: The more consumersperceive a company as socially responsible (CBEH), the more favourable
the image they have about that company (IMAG)
H4: The more positive word-of-mouth consumersreceive from their close friends and relatives about
a company (CWOM), the more favourable the image they have about that company (IMAG).
H5: The more positive word-of-mouth consumers receive from intermediary sources such as media,
NGOs, opinion leader etc. about a company (EWOM), the more favourable the image they have
about that company (IMAG .
H6a: The smaller the corporate associations gap (IGAP), the more favourable the image consumers
have about the company (IMAG).
H6b: The greater the consumer-company identification (IDNT), the more favourable the image they
have about that company (IMAG).
H6c: The more consumers perceive a company's identity emotionally appealing (EMOT), the more
favourable the image they have about that company (IMAG).
H6d: There relationship between emotional appeal (EMOT) and corporate image (IMAG) is mediated
by consumer-companyidefitification (IDNT).
Me: The greater the consumer-companyvalue congruence (CNGR), the more favourable the image
consumershave about a company (IMAG).
H6f. The relationship between consumer-company value congruence (CNGR) and corporate image
(IMAG) is mediated by corporate associationsgap (IGAP).
H6g: The more consumersperceive a company's identity emotionally appealing (EMOT), the greater
the consumer-companyidentification QDNT).
H6h: The greater the consumer-company value congruence (CNGR), the greater the consumercompany identification (IDNT).
H6i: The greater the consumer-company value congruence (CNGR), the smaller the corporate
associationsgap (IGAP).
H6j: The greater the perceived integration of corporate identity mix elements (INTG), the smaller the
corporate associationsgap (IGAP).
H6k: The relationship between the perceived integration of the corporate identity mix (INTG) and
corporate image (IMAG) is mediated by corporate associationsgap (IGAP).
H7: The effect of the corporate identity mix elements (company-controlled communication elements)
is stronger than the unplanned (uncontrolled) communication factors on corporate image.

99

. e
c
0

4)

-4

-um

41).-9.1+1

00

.2

gt

.2

tv
C
C

.....
......

45
0
0

IL)

pl

"Ci
9

Cd

ed

cn

0
0.

!19

tw

.0
SD

.8

zog
Ei

IV METHODOLOGY

AND RESEARCH DESIGN

4.1. Introduction

This chapteroutlines the methodologicalfoundationsand the researchdesign of the


Section
data
in
terms
collection
and
scale
and
procedures.
of
purification methods
study
4.2 presentsthe reasoningfor choosingthe adoptedmethodology.Section4.3 explains
the researchdesignand the methodsof data collection. The exploratoryfieldwork and
the detailsof the main surveyand samplingare outlined in Section4.4 and Section4.5,
basis
instrument
design
The
the
and
of the
research
on
scalepurification
respectively.
in
4.6.
Section
testing
the
of
questionnaire are presented
preliminary research and pilot
Finally, in Section 4.7 the statistical methods and the software packagesused to analyse

the dataare described.

4.2. Justification of the Research Methodology

Burrell andMorgan(1979)andDeshpande(1983)suggestthat beforeembarkingon any


investigation, researchersshould define a set of underlying assumptions,i. e. a paradigm,

which servesas a guideline in order to understandthe subject studied as well as to


generatevalid andreliableresults.

Although paradigms can be classified in different ways, they are conventionally grouped
b)
(idealism)
thoughts:
two
a)
positivism
and,
phenomenology
of
schools
major
under

101

(Cassell and Symon, 1994; Deshpande,1983). Positivistism is associatedwith deductive

theory testing. It tries to explain the phenomenonunder investigationby verifying or


falsifying the hypotheses which are designed to describe the causal relationships
between its sub-elements(Burrell and Morgan, 1979; Deshpande, 1983). Through this

approach researcherstry to reach generalisable conclusions (Creswell, 1994;


Deshpande, 1983). On the other hand, phenomenology is concerned with inductive
theory building, where a researcherstudies a phenomenonthrough directly experiencing

the individuals' own interpretationsof the world (Bryman,2001).It aimsto explorehow


the dynamicsof a phenomenonwork by letting the characteristicsof the subjectunfold
themselves during the investigation (Bryman, 2001; Burrell and Morgan, 1979;

Creswell,1994).

When decidingwhich of the paradigmswould lead to more rigorous investigation,the


nature of the researchquestion and objectives of the study should be considered,
becauseparticularresearchmethodologiesare more suitedto certainresearchproblems
Van
(1997,2001)
by
Balmer
This
the
study addresses claim stated
and
and objectives.
Riel and Balmer (1997) which arguesthat anythinga companydoescommunicatesits
identity and also the assertion by Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) and Comelissen (2000)
which emphasises that corporate image is also formed on the basis of external

communicationfactors. Hence, it investigateswhich corporateidentity mix elements


(company-controlled communication elements) and unplanned (uncontrolled)
In
factors
determine
their
people's
evaluation
of
companies
and
values.
communication
is
between
links
the
this
with
causal
research concerned
comPany-driven
other words,
102

and non-company driven communication factors and corporate image. Since it is

directedto theory verification rather than theory generation,it follows a hypotheticodeductive approach (Buffell and Morgan, 1979; Deshpande,1983). Due to the
descriptiveandtheorytestingnatureof this research,a methodologywhich relies on the
is
deemed
in
in
identify
to
the
appropriate
positivist paradigm
order
possibleregularities
corporate image communication (Buffell and Morgan, 1979).

AcademicssuchasMingers(2001)andRobey(1996)suggestthat paradigmsshouldnot
be treatedas mutually exclusive.They believe that the use of different paradigmsand
their pertinentinvestigationmethodscould be appropriatefor achievingcertainresearch
objectives.Although the positivist paradigmwas principally adoptedfor this study,the
following reasonsrequired the consideration of inductive investigation methods:

I-

The literature review revealedthat the scopeof corporateidentity mix has gone
beyond the visual expressionsof an organisation (symbolism) including promotional

activities (communication),staff behaviour and the company's acts concerning


(e.
issues
(behaviour)
(Balmer,
1999,2001;
1995).
Some
Van
Riel,
authors g.
social
Dacin and Brown, 2002; Gray and Smeltzer, 1987; Van Riel, 1995) assertthat
(e.
identities
different
their
to
their
communicate
companies
stakeholders g.
investors,
by
)
customers
employees,
etc.
using different elements of corporate

identity mix. Sincethis study focusedon consumers'perceptionsof organisations,


specifying

the

content of

corporate identity

mix

elements (symbolism,

communicationandbehaviour)with respectto consumerswasnecessary.

103

2- Turkey was chosen as the context for this research. Since Turkey is an emerging

market (Garten,1997),Burgessand Steenkamp(2006) arguethat it is requiredthat


researchersand managementof organisation pay special attention to the applicability
of westernised academic and practical approaches to marketing discipline. Since

individual tastes,socialvaluesand nationalincornedistributionvary considerablyin


emerging markets (Burgess and Steenkamp,2006; Garten, 1997; Bilgin et al., 2004),
relevance of the approachesfrom the Western world should be challenged. A review

little
in
in
has
been
Turkey
that
the
conducted
of previousresearchrevealed
research
field of corporate image and its related areas4.This situation and Turkey being an
emerging market required the researcherto carry out preliminary fieldwork in order
to gain further insights into the practices of corporate image, and the corporate
communication managementof global companies operating in Turkey.

A pragmaticview was taken to achievethese objectives (Robey, 1996). In order to


increasethe validity of the research,an inductiveapproachwasutilised prior to the main
survey.The qualitativedatacollection techniqueswere usedin this phase(Deshpande,
1983). Accordingly, Churchill's (1979) paradigmwas employed which suggestsa
initial
in
the
quantitative approach with multi-method engagement
stages of an
investigation. In the following section, the research design based on the above

discussionandthe methodsusedin eachsteparedescribed.

4 Seethe Higher Education Institute of Turkey's website hl! R://www. yok. P-ov.tr/YokTezSrv for the
researchconducted in Turkey.

104

4.3. Research Design and Methods

Along with authors advocating pluralist methodologies (e.g. Deshpande, 1983; Mingers,
2001; Robey, 1996) the researcherbelieves that ignoring the possible contribution of the
methods deemed as relevant to non-positivist approaches (e.g. in-depth interviews)
possibly limits the understanding of researcherswho use the positivist approach. The
results of investigations which adopt methodologies using both qualitative and
quantitative methods can provide more insightful knowledge of issues of interest
(Churchill, 1979; Dickson and Albaum, 1977; Dodd and Whipple, 1976; Mingers, 2001;
Sieber, 1973). For example, exploring the field of interest by carrying out some
preliminary in-depth interviews with key informants in the field could lead to some new
insights which would not have been captured by a literature review alone, Accordingly,
this research adopts Churchill's paradigm (1979) which integrates a qualitative
paradigm while being predominantly quantitative in nature (Figure 4.1).

The following methodswere used in each phaseof the researchdesign: exploratory


fieldwork, questionnairedevelopmentand a main survey, as suggestedby Churchill
(1979). This study draws on the literature mainly in areas of corporate identity,
corporateimage and corporatecommunicationin order to specify the domain of the
researchand also to build the conceptualframeworkand hypothesesto be tested.The
items of measurement(corporateidentity mix and unplannedcommunicationfactors)
were definedby literaturereview (Churchill, 1979).In order to gain greaterfamiliarity
identity
the
management,the researchercarriedout in-depth
corporate
with
practiceof
105

interviews with corporate communication and identity consultants as well as in-depth

interviews with communicationmanagersin the companiesselected.This approach


helped the researcherto operationalisethe conceptsby examining them in real life
be
in
theoretical
to
tested
or
conceptual
actual
argument
situation, since any
needs
application (Allen and Janiszewski, 1989).

Phase 1: Explorstorv FieldLvork

1. Specifydomainof construct I

2. Generatesample of items

Literaturesearch

Experience survey (Consultancy agencies)


In-depth interview (Companies)
Focus group (consumers)
Phase 2: Oueltionnaire Development

Contentvalidity (academics,intcrviewees)
Lexical anddesigncheck(academicsand
businessdoctoralresearchers)
1

3. Collect data

Pilot study - application of questionnaire

4. Purify measure

Cronbach'scoefficientalpha
Phase 3: Main Survev
Actual survey

S.Collectdata

6. Assessreliability

7. Assessvalidity

Cronbach'scoefficientalpha

Content validity
Construct validity

Figure4.1. Procedurefor developingbettermeasures.


Source: Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1979). "A Paradigm for Developing Better Measuresof Marketing
Constructs",Journal ofMarkefing Research,Vol. 16,February,pp. 66.

106

Since this researchexamines consumers' perceptions of global companies, focus groups


were conducted to understand the views of individuals about the subject. Using these
instrument
the
the
research
steps,
were determined and purified (Churchill,
measuresof
1979; Sieber, 1973). Based on focus group discussions, the content and wording of the
questionnaire have become clearer to its audience (Sieber, 1973). Finally, this
preliminary stage helped in interpreting the data gathered and drawing conclusions
(Sieber, 1973).

A survey method was adopted in the main data collection stage, since positivism entails
testing the hypothesesdeveloped on large samples (Carson et al. 2001). Van Riel et al.
(1998) suggest that surveys provide an opportunity to contact a large audience with
moderatecost (time and funding).

The research methods in corporate image studies differ depending on the scope of the
study. When the study goes beyond investigating the salient attributes of an
image,
the general tendency of choosing qualitative methods shifts to
organisation's
quantitative techniques (Van Riel et al., 1998). The studies by Andreassen and
Lindestad (1998), GUrhan-Canli (1996), Kennedy (1977), LeBlanc and Nguyen (1998),
Simoes (2001), Stuart (1995) and Williams and Moffit (1997) demonstratedthat when a
in
image
identity
to
the
and corporate
researcherwants examine
concepts of corporate
relation to other marketing concepts, quantitative methods are more appropriate than
large
by
These
their
all
conducted
qualitative ones.
researchers
studies
recruiting a

107

number of respondentsand using questionnairesas the data collection instrument. In the

next sections,detailsof eachstagementionedabovearepresented.

4.4. Exploratory Fieldwork

This study carried out an exploratory research for the following reasons: (1) to gain an

in-depthunderstandingof the researchsubjectowing to the fact that it is a relatively


insightful
information
(Dacin
Brown,
2002),
(2)
to
and
obtain
under-researched
area
into the corporate communication and identity management context; (3) to experience

the actual practice in the field in order to understandwhether the proposedresearch


questions were relevant; (4) to generate uncovered hypothesesand purify measuresfor
the questionnaire (Churchill, 1979). As suggestedby Carson et al. (2001), when there is
a need for unfolding what surrounds a phenomenon, a qualitative approach is more
in
data
Therefore,
this
stage qualitative
collection methods were adopted
suitable.
at

been
issues
have
(Eisenhardt,
1989),
to
emerge
not
which might
order allow possible
diagnosedduring the literaturereview stage.The information gatheredon the basisof
the qualitative data helped to ensure that all possible items were investigated and

relevantitems were included in the questionnaire(Churchill, 1979).At the end of this


field
integrate
in
the
to
the
the
the
phenomenon
researcherwas able
practices of
stage,

in
its
(Bonoma,
1985).
theory
operation
with preliminarynotionsof

Data was gatheredfrom an experiencesurvey, companyinterviews and focus groups


(Churchill, 1979; Eisenhardt, 1989). First, the researchercontactedcommunication
108

in
based
Istanbul, which have global clients. They provided some
consultancy agencies
I

ideasandinsightsto the study.The discussionsmainly coveredthe major characteristics


of the corporate identity managementand/or corporate communication strategiesthat are
adopted by global companies, as well as the main areas in which they provide
consultancy. (See Appendix I for interview questions). The list of the agencies was
provided by the Public Relations Consultants Association (Turkey)5. Discussions with

the first five consultants,who agreedto meetthe researcher,were sufficient (Melewar,


2001). The details of the intervieweesand the topics that were covered during the
discussionsareillustratedin Table4.1.

In line with Churchill (1979), Melewar (2001) and Van Riel (1995) suggestthat any
study in the corporate identity management field should first embark on a situation
analysis via exploratory interviews with company managers.Birkigt and Stadler (1986)

assertthat "[the) managers'role in corporateidentity managementis to make surethat


the identity of an organisationis formed in the minds of an organisation'sstakeholders
as it is planned" (cited in Christensenand Askegaard,2001, p. 306). Van Riel and
Balmer (1997) add that senior managersare responsible for "... marshalling the
corporateidentity mix (communication,symbolismand behaviour)"(p.341) in order to
meet that objective. Subsequently, the researcher conducted in-depth interviews with
four senior managersfrom each global company accessed.

This associationis also a member of the International Public Relations Association based in London.
109

;e
e
EI

(L)

f!

00

>
ZE
-,i

Ei
Ci. g
2
Co

4)
.-r.

A.-=
00
2
,
iR
t
.
-2
=
Iti
4)
re, '

E 1so,
:1
- 'Ei

cu

,-,
-lc
=

u0
4)
-0

42

u
Z

0 .-

ci

0.

E-

Z A

2 ci

4,0

0
0
Ei
>0
rw)
:22

r.

1
(L)

fi

ro-

C2W

0)

t)

r.
c)

U. 0

:i

-84

cu

.5

CD
c

v
r-

r-

%0

ir

c>
r4

r.

r.

4)

0
&g1
0

12
r.

(1

00
CJ
Q
A
tn

0.

1 lri
l

r-

r:
0A

cA&

2
0
0
u

00

4-. t

-0

9)

1881

4)

ju

Ici r4
g
r
Z!

==
Ei

-8

u ,

4)

0
CJ
ci

ci
0,

*C

11

\O

r.

o. 2 - g
2,. In n
cu-
M

c)

2E0

cl

92
92.

4)

4-

%0

(A
>%

r- Ef A

> m
9
5
'
1
0

21
0
,

11
<Z

C0

9: 0
(J 1-

F,

,5

.0 -

55
,4 g> e) c2 0

u.

rA
0.,

Ei ci

0
C) (424
U 1,11,
JD
Co 9)

9-9
0
E- 1
E

0 Ei u E =

12a0
>% 0
C)'0- ,> E k2 0 - -, .121
E =>m

fi
Ici

c:
tu 0
R
4
0
000
z
(L)
-

im 0

b-.

E
u

Ici

C)

t2
0
..
=
E t)
000
>,
0
g-e
Z
4
2
4
>
0y
u3
( " ,
12 ,
;
fj 4".

k)

92.

r.

U
0
t...

Cd

=u29
:22E

&
32
-E-4
ce
cli>
Em0 - 5
0S
2
9-2
E
0
10
E
Ew
0 n 0 o
r_
00
Q0
E l> & Ag

0
rA

0 -Z

t2

0 -8 g

.2E

12
.9

9.1

r= b :20
0 .2

-9

ce

li

rA C2W
r=
0
=

'-9

tCo

CI)
u

ul

-0

>

9)
r.

9
0 ,
cl.
2
.
m
Qgo

2*

ro)
Gn

E
0
cu
.2

ig

00

cn 4) 1-.
.5ee
u
g0S

`s

1-.

Kl> A

.2t
M

Ei
0

ce

>

2
.!
iz

v2

rc-4
0

MO

v)
.
1.1

49
4,e
r.

A
;t

.-

g
E>

rj

4.)
-2
p
Z2
.2 =52
- Zi (D *

4)

.E

cq

Z
rA

CD

.5
.-

e-., 2
6-

X 0 Gn

3
C,
92.

A2

tu
oz

tn

.-

r.

cL

..4
:i
1

> g

CD ;CD
: -7
m

+,

ein

*g

g ,

:1
g

N2 - - 2:
'Z
e .2 9) .t
i ] w <
d

.0

924
Vi
M
9)

(n

cq
0

s2

9
le
10

The companies were chosen from the list of the Reputation Survey 2000 by 'The
7

Capital' which is one of the most reputable business magazines in Turkey


The
.
researchercontacted corporations with the highest reputation in Turkey according to that
survey. The corporate communication directors or managers of the first four global

companieswhich providedaccesswere interviewed.The intervieweeswere responsible


for corporate and marketing communication strategies for their organisations. The
researcherintroduced questions which were pertinent to the channels and tools used by

the companiesto project their imagesand the managementof these communication


elements.The details of the companyinterviews are presentedin Table 4.1 (Seealso
Appendix 2 for interview questions).

The discussions with consultants and in-depth interviews


were
managers
-with

unstructuredand undisguised.A questionsheetwas availablein order to checkwhether


all the areasof interestwere coveredduring the interviews(SeeAppendix I and 2). In
consultancy interviews, the discussions covered more general aspects about corporate

identity management and corporate communications, whereas in the company


interviews, more specific themes were addressedin terms of the companies' own
practices (Gillham, 2000). All interviews were conductedface-to-facewith single
respondentsboth from communication agenciesand companies (Churchill, 1999).

7The scaleReputationQuotient,which wasusedin that survey,was developedby FombrunandShanley


(1990) initially and revisedby Fombrunet al.(2000). It is a widely used scale,and its reliability and
validity have been proved by many studies.Pleasesee some examplesof those studiesin Corporate
ReputationReview,2002,Vol. 4, No. 4.

Sincethe aim of the researchis to understandthe extentto which communicationfactors


have influence on the generalpublic's perception,four focus groupswere conducted.
Focus group technique allowed the researcherto gain further insights into what people
think about the global companies operating in Turkey (Churchill, 1979; Fern, 1982;

Krueger, 1994)and enabledthe researcherto obtain a large amountof information on


the topic in a limited time (Morgan, 1998). The groups consisted of five participants to
level
interaction
of
group
encourage a sufficient
as to foster discussion (Greenbaum,

2000; Krueger, 1994). In terms of social background,each group was homogenous


(Greenbaum,2000) whereas between-group and in-group heterogeneity in terms of age,
gender,marital statusand occupation were allowed (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

Since exploratory investigations are less concerned with reaching a group of subjects
who are representative of the main population (Miles and Huberman, 1994), the

researcherrecruited focus group members on the basis of conveniencecriterion.


Accordingly, the members of Istanbul Technical University, Turkey (ITU) were

contacted.The academicstaff from the Facultyof Managementwas excludeddueto the


fact that the faculty themselvescould alreadyhaveexperienceof focus grouptechnique
(Churchill, 1999).In order to satisfy the number of participantsfor each session,the
initial contacts were asked to suggest other people who might be interested in
focus
in
ITU
As
the
this
of
participated
contributing. a result
snowballing,othersoutside
groupsaswell. Open-ended
questionswereaskedaboutwhat imagesthey held aboutthe
global companies they named and what types of communication affected their
focus
discussion
for
(See
3
Appendix
group
questions). The sessionstook
perceptions

112

place in venueswhich were convenientfor the participantsto travel to and wherethe


low
to
comfortable
provide
a
enviromnentwith
cost.The detailsof
researcherwas able
focus groups and topics covered are presentedin Table 4.2.

The next section explains how the information was integrated into questionnaire
development.

113

15
0

bd g

e
Gn

.u

G A

2,2,

18)
4)
2
0

e 12

0U

.(
0
Q

r.
%L U

JD
CU *0
s,

L.

9
0
(.
c.
-2
-; g

0 0
.

. ;50

.2

'
7.
,

1
5
Ei
.

m2 E

E=
A
c
. N.
GSA

Ei 0E
m. m5
.

"

e
:'
.E
:.
.;;;
g
2 JO,
"m
t) c13 c2.

0
u

tu

-0

-;5 A-0 r. 0
8
-OS
.
5
0.
g2e8
zi
m9>,
2

.E
A

4)

12

- -0

wi

cm

4m

ta

0
92. E

4)
4)

>

0
z72

m ,
(d. *-

0
.e
ci
c41,1
Fm

- 4.

0
= u)
rA
020

LZ

".

02t

ce .

-. S
u

CJ
42

1
>,
2cl 92.
9 *a
>,

0
1

2 Ei g3
- 0

in
e

0
-0

2
lg
-a
;
u
0 ci

00

2
4

g
.

2
;
tu r.
in u

0
0

"0
v2
2

10

12

Ici

Ow

(D
,0

.2<
tu

4)

[2

.2

-,1 -

ego

(L)
16.

-0

A' u
m
wl -4)
= ',r4- 4)
&. %g
-u

e:

'

>
CK1
%_,

=2 9

Ei

Ei
rn
ZZ
4)
Gn

00

2
0 10

r4

ho

L:

=O
23

<

41,

GO2

<

311 >

LA J--

<

u2 Co.

A
ri2
c2.
vi

10

rm

4.5. Research Instrument and Scale Development

The questionnairedevelopmentconsistedof the procedureof scale developmentand


issuesof validity and reliability. The stepsdescribedin the next sectionswere followed
in order to developbetter measuresfor the constructsexamined(Churchill, 1979) as
well asto designa betterdatacollectioninstrument(Sieber,1973).

4.5.1. Specifying the domain of the construct

The first step in questionnaire development is specifying the domain of the construct. In

this stage,the researchermust thoroughly draw the borders of the constructsunder


investigation. The robustness ot the conceptual Tramework relies on a good quality
literature review covering all related areas(Melewar, 200 1).

The focus of this study is the role of company driven and non-company driven
communication in corporate image building. Therefore, the literature review comprises

identity,
image,
into
corporate
of studies
corporate
corporate reputation, corporate
basis
integrated
On
the
tion.
marketing
communica
of theoretical
communicationand
information obtained, the conceptual framework (See Figure 3.1 in Chapter III) was

developed.Ultimately, corporateidentity mix (symbolism,communication,behaviour)


interpersonal,
(uncontrolled)
(intrapersonal,
and
communication
and unplanned
intermediary communication) were defined as each one consisting of three components.

Corporateimagewas consideredas a three-itemconstruct.Table4.3 illustratesthe main


constructs and their sub-components(See also Chapter II and III for literature review).
115

ON (D

-0 8

c93

(D

lu

IZ

cui >0

-13 ,

-0 e0

>

>,

ZZ M

<

1-1

CD

C>

011

94
.

ICJ U

ce

-- >, 00

%0 2
'Zi

Gn
; -Z
r-

r(>
(>

00
0

rON
(>

4)
(1)

10
9

"Ci
m

r-

Ei em

(L)

'ZJ fl

-. ===
>

9) 2

ce

:2=0
ce

m2IM

0.

tb 9 z

iz -,

u
,= 'E

iz

'-,

cu
4)

:99
10

r-

ti
Z
"i
.

w
Z
0
Ei
0

mc

<

<<
"Ci
m

:i

10

CM

.-

1-"ri
r. 0 2u , ID
X
x.'

23

"5j ' .
25

(L)

e-. 0

CD

tu

E
CA

f4 ,,2,

C)
c> CD

all
0

%-0

(A

cn

V)
-iz

,
>

Iti
9

Ici

=l- 0

gh

D;

ei jz
0
r.

<

(A

0
&)

Gor

gl
0

u
5
,
,
-3
10 rA 5 I
Z

ce
2
0

qi
.

i.

f- .5

-e
0

ce
tQ

E-9

1111

9x 0
o c rj
C)

*2
0

tu

Gn
(A
<

cm
>

>- g-I zifi


> " <9

!nu
>,

gA

.2

4) (J 2 Cl. C'.
l
Ei CD.
t9 ,
12
0

om
b-

Z
w
x

L
0

<

0.

>%
u
r. r.

e
44-4

E!
CL. u g
.4 4)

<

5 1-

(A 0

ffl

4)

10

.,

2 ,j
0
9)

ww
u
0

N-g

2
10

w
Awi
= M

j2 E
>
<
+
15
0
0
u
,CU0 <

coi

CO

qi

C.)

CJ

:t

00

0
zi

t)

-e

-,
-e
>:

Z.
x

4.

52

tu

"0

4)

tz8e uj
(D

,
9
9"
r.9-- C)
2-4; 2a
92.
.-

,
'"'
'n
C)
k
Ei
,
'
-9
-I
CD

c Z

(>

2
r,
,:.

lt.;

-10

S ci

9=

e:

10
9m A

2= ,
00

J.,

(:

10

CD

JW2

= 00
aN

:2

(A

2-

CD
c>

iz

eg -0

0
0

0
C.

L4

JA

t 1-. -

CD
c>

-5

CA

(L)

00

rn

9
-0
'UJ

Gn

iz

>

2 E V) r. e'-e:

;t

Ei

cn

CA

rA

;4

l=

(x%

; lz,

all

*Z

;t -CI -

- r4
'b4

r-

cm

45

cn

:i

5
4,

=
0

A
tu
Ln M t
E0

-0
j

In 0
(Y, =mm

>

%Zp.

90
tu
p

all
>

t
:3

%-w kn

42

9
Im
-0

CYN
aN

du
2 i2

<

ij

'0 Zg

u1..

'0,.
000

<4 UM
00

ri

14
u

Ici

-.
<
ri

w
fi
W-9
QZ
Ln
tu xZ)

rA 0

4n

C)
4

<

0
rn
c6)

--,
=

E2
0
u0
4)

0.0 .-

tu

tu

.2

e
11.

4)
"e

u
a 4.
0
e.
0

0
fi

ei

fi

Z zu
s

4)
ci

fi

>

.
g

iv
-3

P
e
t. =
Gn

>

k-

92.

Co

*U1.-

10

92 S

81

.9

Ln

1 0

9'. q>

9)
,Z]
cu

<m

r.

&) tu

(D

ce

j2
10

Ei >

A .'4
rA

<U

(L)

C) ,

'

eg

< 1-, ch

00

m
-0 -u
(U :

r.

15..
8 -a

"Ci
w

zs 10

00

0000

e-

-0

w
10

! E -Z

08

,
2
0>
-0
0
0
e
'
,;
-'
1
, - 0. ,
0

C)

CL)

5
< eCb-4
0K
-0
w m

;e

ri

0
rA
Gn

Z
Z

u
2
0

;e

c3.

> >

K
-(V (U -

I ci

:2

4
t

c2.

I ti

0-0

0,

4
v

2 5,9
0
, >. r,

C>

.0=
>% z4
"CJ ci

00
V-4

Ei 0
0

1-4

4) -CJ

,0

.0=

<

10
0

u
e

r. im

Ici

j, -2

Ln 0
25
.

Wd

2 i

in

(D -

>,

r.

Qj -0

EI

22
2
IN
r. ig
10

4.5.2. Item generation

The secondstep of Churchill's (1979) paradigmis generatingthe items that capture


the domain of the construct.Most of the items representingthe constructsand their
sub-components
were generatedfor the initial item pool from the existing literature.
The issuesemergingfrom the exploratoryresearchwere also integrated.

Multi-item scaleswere usedfor eachconstruct(Churchill, 1979).While the majority


of the scaleswere createdby the researcher,someof the scaleswere basedprimarily
on items demonstratinghigh reliability and validity in previous studies.The details
of the scalesand their resourcesare mentionedin Table 4.3. The initial measurement
for corporatevisual identity systemswas basedon Melewar and Saunders's(1999)
study. The scalesused in the studies by Brown and Dacin (1997), Gardbergand
Fornbrun(2002) and Groenland(2002) were adaptedfor measurementof company
behaviour.The items of the interpersonalcommunicationscalewere gatheredfrom
the studiesby Haffison-Walker (2001) and Jandaet al. (2002). This scalealso was
adapted for the measurementof intermediary communicationsby modifying the
wording. The items for the emotionalappealscalewere adaptedfrom Gardbergand
Fornbrun (2002) and Groenland (2002), and the consumer-companyidentification
scalewas adoptedfrom Mael and Ashfort (1992) and Gwinner and Swanson(2003).
Perceivedintegrationwas measuredby the scaleadaptedfrom Low (2000). In order
9
to measure the corporate associations gap and consumer-companyvalue
congruence,corporateidentity traits were taken from the studiesby Aaker (1997),
9 In order to measure this construct a company questionnaire was applied to the companies
(McDonald's and Renault-Mais) which were used as a reference in the questionnaires.The
questionnairesincluded the same corporate identity traits which were used in the questionnaires
appliedto consumers.

119

Brown and Dacin (1997), Davies and Chun (2002), Gardberg:and Fombrun (2002),
Senand Bhattacharya(2001), and Westberg(1994).The traits mentionedby the two
companies (McDonald's and Renault-Mais) chosen as a reference for the
questionnaireswere also incorporated.Corporate image construct's measurement
by
Williams and Moffit (1997). For the other constructs,
based
the
scale
was
on
items were taken from non-empirical articles. The information from the interviews
with the consultantsand the company managersas well as from, focus group
discussionswere also incorporated(Table 4.3). The questionnairestatementsfor
those items were formed by the researcher. Finally, the first draft of the
questionnairewas designed.Table 4.4 shows the initial number of items for each
construct.

This processresultedin the generationof 30 items for symbolism(CVIS - 20 items,


corporateaesthetics-4 items, staff apparel-6 items), 9 items for communication,
10 items for behaviour(managerbehaviour-2 items,employeebehaviour-2 items,
intrapersonal
items),
items
for
behaviour
53
(emotional
company
communication
-6
appeal-3

items, consumer-companyidentiflcation -6

items, consumer-company

for
interpersonal
items
items),
6
items
for
44
6
communication,
value congruenceintermediary communication, 44 items for corporate associationsgap (corporate
identity traits), 5 items for perceived integration of controlled communication,3
items for company knowledge, and 3 items for corporateimage. In total the first
draft of the questionnairecomprisedof 169items(Table 4.4).

120

Table 4.4. The constructsandthe numberof initial items.


Constructs

No. of Initial Items


3 items

Corporate Image
44 items
Corporate Associations Gap (Corporate Identity Traits)
Corporate Identity Mix (Company-controlled Communication)
Symbolism
4 items
Name
Logo
4 items
4 items
Corporate Visual Identity Systems (CV1S)
Slogan
4 items
Colour
4 itcms
I Typography
4 itcms
Corporate Aesthetics
6 itcms
StaffApparel
Communication
9 itcMS
Marketing Communication Mix
Behaviour
2 itcms
Management Behaviour
2 items
Employee Behaviour
6 itcms
Company Behaviour
Unplanned (Uncontrolled) Communication
6 itcms
Interpersonal Communication
6 items
Intermediary Communication
Intrapersonal Communication
3 items
Emotional appeal
6 items
Consumcr-company Idwfification
44 items
Consumer-company Value Congruence
5 items
Perceived Integration
3 items
Company knowledge (Contro Variable)
* The same corporate identity traits were used in order to measure the corporate associations gap ancl
the consumer-company value congruence. Please see Section 4.4.4 for further explanation of the
calculation of these constructs during the analysis.

4.5.3. Purifying measures

This third step of Churchill's (1979) paradigm involves reliability and validity
testing for the scale items. It was conducted by an expert judge assessment
(academics),a practitioner check (communicationconsultantsand communication
first
draft
interviewed)
the
the
of the questionnaireto a
application
of
and
managers
200
1).
individuals
1979;
Melewar,
(Churchill,
sampleof

Before using a survey instrument,it must be testedto ensurethat the data collected
how
(1995)
is
Litwin
"what
As
be
matters
states,
not
meaningfuland accurate.
will
121

quantitative the data are but how well the survey instrument performs" (p. 4).
Thereforevalidity and reliability assessments
were consideredat this stage.

Validity requiresthat the researchinstrument"... measuresthe constructswhich they


are intendedto measure"(Peter, 1979, p. 6). Therefore the constructsof scientific
researchshould be built on a comprehensiveliterature review in order to providea
soundtheoreticalbase(Churchill, 1979;Melewar, 2001). Primarily the items and/or
dimensionsof a constructshould be checkedto see to what extent they reflect the
conceptsi.e. contentvalidity (De Vaus 1996;De Vellis, 1991).The wording of the
questionnairealso shouldbe consideredsincea non-randommeasurementerror may
occur due to poor questionwording which causessystematicbias and thus affects
validity (Litwin, 1995;Simoes,2001).

Reliability entailsthat "... measuresare free from error and thereforeyield consistent
results" (Peter,1979,p. 6). It thus showswhetherthe scalesare reproducible(Litwin,
1995).Although there are different methodsfor measuringreliability (SeeCarmines
and Zeller, 1979;Litwin, 1995)Cronbach'salpha as an internal consistencymethod
is widely used by researchers.It is a measurethat reflects how well the different
itemspurport to measuredifferent aspectsof a construct(Carminesand Zeller, 1979;
Litwin, 1995).Nunnally (1978) and De Vaus (2002) statethat an alpha equal to or
above0.70 showsthat the itemsmakea reliable set.

In this research the necessarychecks for validity and reliability measurement


discussedabovewere appliedand the scaleshave beenpurified in the following two
steps.

122

4.5.3.1.Qualitative assessment

In this first step,the primary assessment


of a measure'svalidity, i.e. contentvalidity,
is addressedto evaluate the overall validity of the measuresused in the data
collection instrument(Peterand Churchill, 1986).Contentvalidity showsthe extent
to which scale items reflect the content of the constructs and capture their
dimensions(Carminesand Zeller, 1979; De Vaus, 1996;De Vellis, 1991).Although
content validity is a subjectivemeasure,it provides an acceptableindication of the
adequacyof the questionnaire(Litwin, 1995) to ensure the researchinstrument
includes appropriate items and is of suitable length. Therefore, academicswere
askedto evaluatethe items included in the scalesto highlight any omissionsand
redundantor irrelevant items (Litwin, 1995). Their elimination of items has been
cross-examinedwith the responses given by the consultants and managers
interviewedaswell as focusgroupparticipants.

The initial items were assessedby 5 academicexpertjudges. Firstly two academics


commentedon the English version of the questionnaire.Sevenidentity traits - 'the
best', 'domestic, 'popular', 'compassionate','democratic', 'charming' and 'activist'
judges
that
the
these
taken
the
mentioned
of
since
meanings
adjectives
were
out
might not be clear to the respondents.They also madesuggestionsto tighten up the
English of sectionsabout companyaesthetics,communication,behaviour,perceived
integration, emotional appeal, interpersonal and intermediary communication
After the amendments,the questionnairewas translatedinto Turkish by
assessment.
is
in
bilingual
translator
an
also
academic
who
managementstudies.
a professional
Another three bilingual academicsevaluatedthe researchinstrumentby looking at

123

both its English and Turkish versions (Craig and Douglas, 2000). They raised
heavy
the
contentand complex wording of the perceivedintegration
concernsabout
and consumer-companyidentification scales. Subsequently,the researcherrevised
these constructs' wording in Turkish. Finally, the Turkish version of the
questionnairewas back translated into English by the researcherand another
bilingual businessPhD student (Craig and Douglas, 2000; Malhotra and Birks,
2003). The following corporate identity traits, which were translatedinto English
differently by the latter two researchers,were taken out: 'conservative','cooperative,
'risk averse', 'enlightened', 'fair,

'reliable', 'daring', 'pretentious', 'genuine,

'stylish', 'tough', 'spirited', 'warm', 'glamorous', 'strong', and 'high quality'. Minor
corrections were made for the rest of the sentencesin the questionnaire.The
translatorstook an iterative approachwhile revising the questions.They double
checkedboth Turkish and English versionsuntil they agreedon the wording of each
sentence(Craig and Douglas,2000). Basedon this filtering, a refined list of a total of
21 items for corporateidentity traits was concluded.The numberof the items for the
other constructsremainedthe same.

An

experience survey was conducted with

four corporate identity and

communicationconsultants(Churchill, 1979).During the interviews,the consultants


were asked to define the content of symbolism, communication and behaviour
constructs.Four directorsof corporatecommunicationfrom the companiesaccessed
engagedin a similar exercise (Churchill, 1979). They were asked to state which
activities their companiesperform in these three areaswhile communicatingtheir
companies'identitiesto consumers.The majority of the intervieweesmentionedthat
dannualreports', 'website' aswell as 'direct mail' were not salientcommunicatorsof

124

identity. Additionally, managers interviewed mentioned that executives of their


companies hardly appeared in public occasions in order to represent their
organisationas a part of their companies'corporatecommunicationstrategies.They
rathertook-partin communicatingwith investors,politicians, distributors,employees
etc.

Finally, four focus group discussionswere conductedto double-checkthe relevance


of the item list to consumers(Churchill, 1979). The focus group discussions
supported the findings from the interviews with managers. The participants
mentionedthat they hardly see managersof a company and have little accessto
companies'annualreports,websitesand direct mail. Consequently,the former three
itemsand the 'managementbehaviour' constructand its relevantitemsas well asthe
items related to 'managers' appearance'under the staff apparel construct were
excludedfrom the researchinstrument.As a result of this refinement,the items for
the communicationconstructwere reducedfrom 9 to 6 items by the exclusionof the
annualreports,websitesand direct mail items.The behaviourconstructbecametwodimensional:employeecommunication(2 items) and companybehaviour(6 items).
Staff apparel was measuredby three items related only to front-line employees'
appearance(Table 4.5).

When the focus group participantswere askedto elaborateon the componentsof


corporatevisual idcntity systems(CVIS), they referredto colour and typographyas
an attachedsingle attribute of companylogos. Therefore,these items were aligned
into one component.Subsequently,CVIS was composedof a total of 16 items (name

125

items;
items;
items;
items).
logo
list
The
slogan
colour/typography
of
-4
-4
-4
-4
the constructsand the reducednumberof items are illustratedin Table 4.5.

Table 4.5. The constructsand the numberof initial and final items.

Constructs

No. of
Initial
Items
3 items

Corporate Image
Corporate AssociationsGap
items
44
(CorporateIdentity Traits) (1)
Corporate Identity Mix (Company-controlled Communication)
Symbolism
Name
4 items
Corporate
Logo
4 items
VisualIdentity
Slogan
4 items
Systems(CV1S) Colour (2)
4 items
4 items
I Typography(2)
CorporateAesthetics
4 items
Staff apparel
6 items
Communicati2n
---T-9
Marketing CommunicationMix
items
Behaviour
ManagementBehaviour
2 items
EmployeeBehaviour
2 items
CompanyBehaviour
6 items
Unplanned (Uncontrolled) Communication
6 items
InterpersonalCommunication
6 items
IntermediaryCommunication
IntrapersonalCommunication
Emotionalappeal
3 items
Consumer-company
Identification
6 items
Consumer-company
Value Congruence(3)
44 items
PerceivedIntegration
5 items
Company knowledge (Control Variable)
3 items

After
After
Qualitative
Quantitative
Assessment Assessment
3 items
3 items
21 items
21 items

4 items
4 items
4 items

13 items

4i tems*
4 items
3 items

4 items
3 items

6 items

5 Tt-cms

Excluded
2 items
6 items

I items
6 items

5 items
5 items

items
4 items

3 items
6 items
21 items
5 items
3 it-ems

3 items
5 items
21 items
5 items
3 items

(1) Corporateidentity traits were usedto measurethe corporateassociations


gap construct.The
as
asa differencescorevariable.Thedifferencescoreswerecalculated
constructwasmeasured
identity
the differencebetweenthe companymanagers'evaluationof their own organisation's
andthe respondents'
evaluationof this particularcompanyon the basisof the adjectivesstated.
PleaseseeSection4.5.4for its detailedcalculation.
(2) On the basisof the informationfrom the focus group discussions,
colour and typography
components
of CVISarealignedintoonecomponent.
(3) The adjectives(corporateidentitytraits)to assess
the corporateassociations
gap wereusedto
as a
measure
consumer-company
valuecongruence
as well. This latterconstructwasmeasured
differencescorevariabletoo. In thiscase,thedifferencescoreswerecalculated
asthedifference
betweenthe respondents'
on the
evaluationof the focal companyand their own personalities
basisof theadjectives
PleaseseeSection4.5.4for its detailedcalculation.
mentioned.

126

The last check of the research instrument in terms of appearanceand lexical


by
business
doctoral
3
5
conducted
academics
and
correctnesswas
researchers
beforethe pilot test of the questionnaireon a sampleof individuals (Simoes,2001).

4.5.3.2.Quantitative assessment:pilot study 1 and pilot study 2

As a result of the qualitative assessment,


the reviseddraft of the questionnairewas
preparedand the researcherproceededto the pilot testing phase(Churchill, 1979;
Melewar, 2001; Simoes, 2001). The aim of this phase was to test whether the
constructs were valid and reliable. The pilot testing also had the purpose of
diagnosingwhethertherewere any remaining inconsistenciesin the questionnairein
order to ensurethat it was easilyunderstoodand completedby individuals.Two pilot
studies were carried out which are explained in the following paragraphs
respectively.

a. Pilot Study 1

The questionnairewas testedon a sampleof undergraduateand mastersstudentsio.


To begin with, the researcherstartedto apply the entire questionnaireto students,but
it was found that this exercisewas slowing down the data collection process.owing
to the length of the questionnaire,which was to be completed in the classroom
10The
undergraduatestudentswere from the ManagementEngineeringand Industrial Engineering
Departmentsof Istanbul Technical University and the Business Administration Department of
Marmara University. The mastersstudentswere from the BusinessAdministration Departmentof
Marmara University, Bilgi University, Yeditepe University and Managerial Engineering and
EconomicsMaster Programmesof Istanbul Technical University. Theseuniversitieswere chosenin
order to have representativesocial status backgroundsfor the students.The Istanbul Technical
University and Marmara University are state universitieswhere mostly BI, CI and C2 social status
studentsprefer to go, sincethe tuition feesare much lower comparedto private universitiesi.e. Bilgi
University and YeditepeUniversity. Thesetwo latter universitieswere chosento balancethe sample
with regardto respondentsof socialstatusA.

127

environment.On the basis of practicality, the researcherdivided the questionnaire


into three separateversionsfor eachof the two referencecompanies.This procedure
for
for
[one
(Mc)
McDonald's
the
two
of
same
questionnaire
and one
meant
versions
Renault-Mais (RM)] and ultimately three drafts for each version, i.e. McPilot 1,
McPilot 2, McPilot 3, RMPilot 1, RMPilot 2, RMPilot 3 11. Appendix 4 and
Appendix 5 show the number of questionnairescollected for each version, and the
demographicsof the respondents.

The responsesfrom each version were input separatelyinto the statistical package
for social sciences(SPSS).The correlations,factor structuresand coefficient alphas
were computedto havean initial impressionof the reliability of the scalescreatedby
the researcher,as well as the ones adopted from the other studies.Although each
sampledid not provide a minimum numberof five casesper item (Nunnally, 1978;
Peter, 1979)and the measureof samplingadequacywas below the acceptablelevel
for a few constructs(Kaiser-MayerOlkin's measureof sampling adequacystatistic
less than 0.50) (Hair et al, 1998),the results of reliability testing as well as factor
analysiswere encouraging(SeeTable 4.6).

" McPilotI and RMPilotI versionsincludedthe following questionsof the final questionnaire:1-7
and 16-26.
McPilot2 and RMPilot 2 versionsincludedthe following questionsof the final questionnaire:1-3,1112,17-26.
McPilot 3 and RMPilot3 versionsncludedthe following questionsof the final questionnaire:1-12,
18-26.
PleaseseeAppendix 7 andAppendix 8 for the final versionof the questionnaire.

128

w Go
r
.

99

.2.;

>,

0,

Zo
4

Ill
.
No,
0
ON

1.11,
(D

Ci "R

I*: "R

t-

00 110

tn

<
W

'CIO,
061
en tt!

0
22,::

09

co
co

cc W)
(71

m
o

1-0

",
1.01
N.

1.10

'It
N.

.4
00

ell 00
C5
06
r
00

C-i

ON en
00 1.0

(71,

mg
.2

lei lp

[
w 40
c0
C,
'"!
C4
Cc cl

.:
,
> 1
40

01

,<
rA

CD <
en

en

C>

lag

:b ,

2&

QZ

>
r-Zi
ZL
u

,'c,- s lu
m'.o

cc

Tw

,a
a

a
cc

en M
0.0.

en en

en en

r)

89-e4)
''
O

11

00

r-

C71,
00

-cd
r

-.> &0

A 00

C4

-!(:
U

r a,
C'% 00

0,
00

.g0,

to

C71A
cq

en

-t
kn

00

00 0000 00

Z,
2uCA
z to
>% GM -5

19, m

E25

12
.

4,

tA 10

c:

n r,-

C; C5

.0

.0
w m '04
W)
94
N
Q
.0A
No

tn

10

en

en
CS

00

-A

CD

tn
00 00

u
rA

V)

r0

S
0w
z

E E
2
.-

0
;t:

A A

en

C'4

'E'
w 2

vE'
2
on

k.

vi
2t1

10 re 0
>

110.
2 -c,

.02

0>
-0

cl
9

P.

li ,
Ei
.

-0

v211
la*E

2
.2
,

:jQ

=
ci

15

0
0

421
z

C6
a

C4

co

'D
C)
W)

Iu

-.=

.2
A
z

CL
0

.2

44

0 u0 u

'24.
W

l
13l

1-.
0

00

co

92

4) .-.

2 0 cia2 8 :2 ja 0
21
c1
0
in.
vr 0u

u
W
bf

rN
"
.2
CJ4 Z.
,

' 0,2

t3

U2

13 Ul
I
0
65

r,- 13-c, Z;
Gn
:i
-c-&0
17
ll
19

-0 1
M

tj

CC
ZZZZ

0.93
od

en

cc

> 04

C)

C4

00

till

<

10

tn
00

40
93

>

00

t-

N.",
WI)

.Ol
C4

m
00

10

ell

1.01
r-

la
wl

00

tn

1
2

CD

.Ol
t-

1.01

I 'D

r-

Be
O
,

o-t

rn

re

52
.

C.)

12.

4,

vC) .0

U,

11

00

00

41

ON

Z
A

00

CL.

t-

%0
00

oo
00

2 02
CD

C4
AA

CD
10

W)
cc

<
09 09 _.

a -Z
0
AD

'a
0.
0
g

i
.- n

C5 C;

fn
(7

.9

00

all
ON

co
00

(D
rn
-4

C4
o

ttn

.5 i
i
A

0
.

r.

0 0

:s

0
8.

40 8

-tj

.0.,

CO)

cl
. '0

0 1. - (4
-0.*E

-a
>

.-6.

-0

.20

cl

'A

t J22 "i
'0,

'0 j .-.

& :3

cd

cr

2=0r.
2,
-O

Q=2 -a .
"= :5t;-E
'.. 8
o
cd
la
";

PC

*z:

% *9

;3

a Q

R:

Q
Ic

.-

>

c
c

2 '*'

'"')

,
u lU

V0 ci

pa

t
4

--r

L.

-g

at

9 o< g, 4
Lon
4zzz

en4

Factor analysis was run for each of the constructs to test whether they were
defined.
Nunnally
they
theoretically
multi-dimensional
as
are
and/or
unidimensional
(1978) mentions that this assessmentis necessaryto ensure that the empirical
latent
The
root criterion (Eigenvalue >1.00) was used to
measuresare valid.
determine the number of factors (Hair et al., 1998). The items which had
12
less
0.60
than
as well as the oneswith lessthan 0.50 factor loadings
communalities
were excludedin eachrun (Hair et al., 1998).The items which were loadedto more
than two factors, as well as to the theoretically unexpectedfactors,were taken out.
Finally, factors with single items were dropped. The Bartlett Test of Sphericity
(BTS) was significant for all factor analysesrun, which shows that correlations
among variables were present(Hair et al., 1998). Except Staff apparel, employee
behaviour, intermediary communication and perceived integration constructs,the
Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin measureof sampling adequacy(MSA) was-above0.60 for the
rest of the constructswhich indicatesan acceptablelevel (Hair et al., 1998)(Table
4.6).

All the constructsshowed high reliability levels except the perceived integration
construct.This was due to the fact that the factor analysisfor this constructresulted
in two factors (rather than one factor) which was not expectedtheoretically (See
Table 4.6). As Carminesand Zeller (1979) state,this result was due to a non-random
measurementerror. The two items which were loadedto one factor were negatively
factor
loaded
items
to
the
the
the
which were
second
rest of
constructed,whereas
were stated positively. It was concluded that the structure of the responsesets
triggered a general tendency to respondto the items in a similar manner, which
12For the following constructsthe items which had communaliticslessthan 0.50 were excludedfrom
the analysis since the communalities for the majority of the items were between 0.50 and 0.65:
corporateimage,companybehaviour,communicationand interpersonalcommunication.

131

resulted in a two factor solution. Accordingly, the reversed items reconstructed


positively (CarminesandZeller, 1979).

Another issue was concerned about the measurement of the intermediary


communication construct. The first run of the factor analysis for this construct
unexpectedlyresultedin a two factor solution on the basisof the McP2 data(KaiserMayer-Olkin's measureof samplingadequacy(MSA) = 0.759,Varianceexplained=
71.95%).After dropping the items with communalitiesless than 0.60, a one factor
solution was achieved.Although the variance explained increasedto 81.12%,the
dropped
dramatically
(MSA = 0.500). In contrast, the same
sampling adequacy
analysisresultedin a one factor solution for the RMP2 data in the first run. In order
to addressthis issue,a qualitative assessmentfor content validity was carried out
beforethe secondpilot test.On the basisof the expertjudgement,one more item was
droppedfrom the five-item measure13and the wording of the remaining statements
was amended.Since the items for the interpersonalcommunicationconstructwere
stated on the basis of the same principles of the intermediary communication
construct, the same changeswere applied to the former too. As a result, both
constructswere composedof four items(SeeTable 4.7).

b. Pilot Study 2

After the refinement of the scales on the basis of the Pilot Study 1, all items were

incorporatedinto one questionnairefor eachfocal company.Both questionnaireshad


the same items in order to have a standardiseddata collection instrumentfor each
13Note that the items from factor solutions of each pilot data set were merged in order to have a
standardisedresearchinstrumentfor the main survey.

132

referencecompany.However, the wording differences for certain items were still


kept asthey appearedin the first pilot study (e.g. in Renault-Maisquestionnairesales
points were mentionedin the statementsinsteadof restaurants)(See questionsVI,
IX, X and XI in Appendix 7 and Appendix 8). The main aim of the secondpilot
study was to pre-test the complete questionnaire. Qualitative and quantitative
instrument
the
research
was completedby following the stagesbelow.
assessment
of

Before the questionnaireswere applied to a sampleof individuals, another expert


judgment check was conductedby 2 academicsfor the English version (Litwin,
1995).This procedurewas to ensurethat the problemsrelatedto the measurementof
the perceivedintegration,intermediaryand interpersonalcommunicationconstructs
(Seepilot study 1) were eliminatedin order to meetthe contentvalidity requirements
(Litwin, 1995). On the basis of this exerciseall negatively constructeditems for
measurementof the perceived integration construct were restated positively.
Interpersonaland intermediarycommunicationscaleswere reducedto 4 items and
their wording was also slightly changed.Thejudges also agreedthat the seconditem
14
behaviour
construct was not suggestingbehaviour very clearly.
of the employee
Accordingly, it was dropped from the questionnaire,thus this construct becamea
single item measure(SeequestionsXI, XIII and XVI in Appendix 7 and Appendix
8). After thosechanges,the translationand back-translationprocedurewas repeated
for the items of the constructswhich necessitatedamendment(Craig and Douglas,
2000; Malhotra and Birks, 2003). As a result of this procedure,a refined list of 101
itemsemerged(Table4.7).
14In McDonald's
The employees
of the company's
restaurants
suchas cashiers,
questionnaire:
it verywell
etc.represent
waiters/waitresses
Theemployees
In Renault-Mais
of thecompany
suchassalesmen,
service
aftersales
questionnaire:
it verywell
staffetc.represent
133

The questionnairewas applied to a conveniencesampleof 46 respondentsfor the


McDonald's questionnaireand 30 respondentsfor the Renault-Maisquestionnaire
(SeeAppendix 6 for the details of the eachsample).Sincethe samplesizesfor each
data set were very small, factor analysiswas not performed.Despitethe fact that the
minimum five subjectsper item criterion was not satisfied (Nunnally, 1978; Peter
1979),the researcherstill carried out a reliability test in order to assesswhetherthe
constructs,especiallythe revised items, would yield encouragingresults.Table 4.7
illustratesthat the Cronbachalpha statisticswere 0.671 and higher for both data sets
which is above the acceptablelevel of 0.60 (Nunnally, 1978).Thus, basedon the
analysis,no changeswere madeand the questionnairedesignwas finalised.

Table 4.7. Reliability measuresfor the constructson the basisof Pilot Study2.
Constructs

No of
items

3
Corporate Image
21
Corporate Associations Gap (Corporate Identity Traits)
Corporate Identity Mix (Company-controlled Communication)

Cronbach
alpha
Me Data
0.824
N/A

Cronbach
alpha
RM Data
0671
N/A

Symbolism
Corporate Visual Identity Systems
0.913
13
0.897
Corporate aesthetics
0.858
4
0.889
1 0.761
1
Staff apparel
3
0.915
Communication
0.919
0.919
Marketing Communication Mix
5
Behaviour
I
N/A
Emplq)ve Behaviour
N/A
6
0.893
0.791
Company Behaviour
Unplanned (Uncontrolled) Communication
Interpersonal communication
4
0.877
0.934
Intermediary communication
4
0.828
0.910
Intrapersonal communication
3
0.957
0.721
Emotional appeal
0.906
Consumer-company identification
5
0.905
21
N/A
N/A
Consumer-company congruence
5
0.890
0.872
Perceived integration
3
0.824
Company knowledge (Control Variable)
0.915
For the corporate identity traits, reliability test was not run, since those items were only used in
order to calculate the difference scores for the corporate associations gap as well as the consumercompany value congruence constructs rather than proving it as a scale. Please see Section 4.5.4 for
the explanation of these constructs' calculation.
Note: Due to the small number of cases,the missing values were replaced with the mean.

134

4.5.4. Questionnaire design

Sincecorporateimage is defined as the overall impressionaboutan organisation,its


Therefore,
operationalisation requiresindicating a specific companyto be assessed.
the respondentswere provided with two reference companiesto assessin the
questionnaires.Accordingly, McDonald's and Renault-Maiswere chosenas focal
companiesby following a similar logic to Elsbachand Bhattacharya's(2001) study.
The reasonsfor selectingthesetwo companieswere as follows: (1) McDonald's and
Renault-Mais were among the first ten most reputable companiesbased on the
reputationsurvey by The Capital in 2000, (2) Thesecompaniesare large enoughto
have a corporatecommunicationdepartmentand are capableof investing in a wide
rangeof corporatecommunicationactivities, (3) Thesecompaniesalso had strategic
corporate communication plans in action. These two latter facts increasedthe
likelihood of an individual being exposed to the majority of these companies'
communicationactivities so that they could have sufficient knowledgeto provide an
opinion aboutthe questionsaskedin the questionnaire.

Two separatequestionnaireswere prepared.In the first one, the respondentswere


askedto evaluatethe questionsby referring to McDonald's, and in the secondone,
they were askedto assessRenault-Mais.The sectionsand the constructswere the
same for both questionnaires;however, the nature of the businessthat these two
companiesare involved in, i.e. serviceand manufacturing,requiredmodifications in
the wording of certain items (See questionsVI, IX, X and XI in Appendix 7 and
Appendix 8).

135

Petty and Cacioppo (1986) in their elaboration likelihood model assert that the
involvement of the subject to the object to be evaluated defines the level of
in
elaborationoccurring the communicationprocess.For example,an individual may
be motivatedand able to assessa company's productsand servicesclosely but may
be less interestedin its buildings. While for the former situation a high elaboration
forming,
in the latter situation a personrefers to
leading
to
opinion
rational
occurs
peripheralcues(low level of elaboration)such as the shapeof the building without
attachingany meaningto it. On the basis of this discussion,it could be concluded
that the respondent's psychological and physical distance from the aspects of
corporate identity mix (corporate communication) elements and unplanned
(uncontrolled) communicationelementswill vary on the high elaborationand low
elaborationcontinuum.Therefore, Stuart (1995) proposesthat basedon the totality
is
level
individual's
the
concrete
and
abstract
conviction,
of
a middle
of elaboration
more likely to occur during the assessment
of the communicationchannelsand tools
that the respondentscome across(SeePoiesz, 1988;Van Riel, 1995).According to
Van Riel (1995), in that situation, attitude measurementis the proper method for
corporateimageresearchsince it allows the respondentsto compareand appraisethe
image
factors.
communication
of
and
attributes

Consequently,the attitude scalemethodwas usedand applied in the questionnaires


measuring the opinions of respondentsby five-point Likert-type scales and
1998)
(Van
identity
Riel
traits
the
corporate
on
seven-point
scales
et.
al.,
evaluating
which aimed to calculate the values for the corporate associationsgap and the
consumer-companyvalue congruence constructs. These two constructs were

136

consideredas single item measuresafter the computationof difference scores.The


detailsof their calculationare explainedas follows.

As has been acknowledged in early studies in the field, the associationsof


individuals about an organisation are always subject to their interpretation of
corporateidentity messageson the basi5of their own beliefs, values and emotions
etc. (Dacin and Brown, 2002). Therefore,there is alwaysa gap betweenthe intended
individual's
identity
traits
and
an
associationsof these characteristicsto
corporate
the organisation.In order to test the influence of the corporateassociationsgap on
identity
degree
between
image,
traits that are
the
the
of
match
corporate
corporate
intended to be created in the minds of the consumersby companies and the
associationsof the respondentsaboutthosecompanycharacteristicswas measuredas
absolutedifference scores(Seep. 39 for the calculation method) (Sirgy and Danes,
1981;Sirgy and Samli, 1985;Van Rekom; 2003).

The observedvaluesfor the corporateidentity traits (21 adjectives)were drawn from


the companyevaluationform (SeeAppendix 10). This form was completedby the
managersof the focal companieswho were responsible for communicating the
I
from
identity
forms
As
9
their
this
of
organisations. a result of
exercise,
corporate
McDonald's and 6 forms from Renault-Maiswere collected". The observedvalues
for consumers'associationsabout corporateidentity traits were obtained from the

15In McDonald's, 9 managerswere indicatedby the Public RelationsDirector of the organisation.In


Renault-Mais 6 managerswere indicated by the CorporateCommunicationDirector. The forms
were distributed by thesetwo directors in their own organisationsand returnedto the researcher.
Special emphasiswas put on the fact that the managersshould have referred to the company's
planned identity and evaluate the traits on the basis of this information rather than their own
perceptionsof their organisations'identity.

137

in
VII
Appendices 7 and 8). The calculation of the
(See
question
main survey
differencescoreswas as follows:

G=ZI Ti - Aii I where,G- CorporateAssociationsGap


Tj - Average of the evaluation of corporate identity by
managersalong identity trait i;
Aij - Evaluation of corporate associationby consumers
along corporateidentity trait i byjth individual

As Sirgy (1982a)states,the way that an individual will seethemself (Le self-image)


is linked to how this personexpressesthemself in social environments.He argues
that the congruencebetweenan individual's self-imageand this person'sperception
of a product's imagehas attitudinal and behaviouralresults in terms of store image
and buying intentions. Similarly, it could be concludedthat consumerswill have
positive imagesaboutcompanieswith valuesthat are congruentwith their self-image
(Senand Bhatacharya,2001). Similar to corporateassociationsgap measurement,in
value congruenceon corporateimage,
order to test the impact of consumer-company
the degreeof the matchbetweenself-imageand corporateassociationswas measured
as absolutedifference scores(Sirgy and Danes, 1981; Sirgy and Samli, 1985).The
for
identity
for
traits
consumers'
associations
about
and
observedvalues
corporate
their self-imagewere obtainedfrom the main survey (SeequestionsVII and XVII in
Appendices7 and 8).

138

The consumer-company
value congruenceis calculatedas follows:

Value Congruence
C=Ei Aij - Sij i where,C- Consumer-company
Aij - Evaluation of corporateassociationby individual along
corporateidentity trait i byjth individual;
Sij - Evaluation of an individual's own personality along
16
dimension
byjth
individual
i
personality

The survey instrumentbeganwith two open-endedfilter questionsaiming to assess


the familiarity of the respondentwith the referencecompany(Williams and Moffit,
1997).'Ibis sectionwas also intendedto get the respondentsmore involved in the
subject of the questionnaire.The remainder of the questions comprised of the
statements for measuring the attitudes of respondentstowards the reference
factors.
The
its
and
external
communication
company,
communication activities
demographic
the
to
aimed
qualities
gather
questionnaireendedwith a sectionwhich
i.
(McDonald's
individuals.
The
the
e.
pattern
control
variables
restaurant
visiting
of
(Renault-Mais
questionnaire) and company
car
possession
questionnaire),
knowledge (both questionnaires)were also presentin the questionnaire.Table 4.3
It
items.
for
the
the
the
scales
sources
and/or
questionnairesections,and
shows
from
drawn
be
that
the
previous studies were
which
were
scales
noted
should
information
from
basis
the exploratory stageof this
the
the
gathered
of
adaptedon
Simoes,
2001).
1999;
(Menon
et.
al.,
study

16It should be noted that same adjectiveswere used to measurethe corporate identity traits and
difference
be
in
to
traits
able
calculate
scoreson the samecharacteristics.
order
personality

139

After the initial analysis, necessarychangeswere made to the questionnaire.The


final version of the questionnairewas 6 pages including the cover sheet (See
Appendix 7 and Appendix 8). Its layout was tested by expert judges and PhD
students.Tle front sheet of the survey contained the general instructions for the
fieldworkers.The purposeof the surveyand a brief descriptionof the backgroundof
the researcherand her affiliation were explainedto the respondents.A confidentiality
guaranteewas also given.

4.6. Main Survey


4.6.1. Method

Churchill (1991) states that survey research is presumed'to have high external
validity; that is, the results can be generalisedto a population. The structuredundisguisedsurvey, where a formal questionnaireis prepared,is the most popular
data collection method becauseof the simplicity and flexibility of the research
technique(Churchill, 1999;Van Riel et. al., 1998).

Since attitude scalesrequire the respondentsto considereachstatementcarefully, it


is necessaryfor the respondentto be given time to go through the questions.In this
study, fieldworkerswere usedduring the administrationof the questionnairein order
to allow the respondentsto have sufficient time to consider the items (Churchill,
1999)and to makesurethat eachquestionwas understoodand answered.

The fieldworkerswere hired from a professionalfieldwork companyand were given


instructions
by
briefing
the
the
to be followed during the application
on
a
researcher
140

of the questionnaires. They conducted the questionnaires face-to-face with


respondents.This procedureallowed the researcherto eliminatethe risk of having a
high percentageof missing data due to external events.It also guaranteedthat the
questionnairewas completedby the respondentwho was targeted(Wilson, 1997).

4.6.2. Target population and sampling

The lack of attentionto emergingmarketsin terms of corporateimagestudieshasled


17

the researcherto focus on Turkey as the context of the study . Garten(1997) states
that Turkey is one of the emerging markets which may influence the world trade
substantially. The studies of corporate image as well as corporate identity and
corporatereputationhave coveredthe US and a numberof Europeancountriessuch
as the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and Greece (e.g.
Andreassenand Lindestad, 1998; Balmer, 1995; Boyle, 1996; Brown and Dacin,
1997; Fill and Diminopolu, 1999; Fornbrun et al., 2000; GOrhan-Canli, 1996;
Kennedy, 1977; Simoes,2001; Thevissen,2002; Van Riel, 2002; Westberg,1994;
Wiedmann,2002).

Burgess and Steenkamp (2006) argue that economic instability and social diversity
may disrupt implementation of marketing approaches developed for highly
industrialised countries in emerging markets such as Turkey. Therefore, a continuous
issues
is
important
in
information
these
on
and
analysis
order to
gathering
marketing
be able to respond to any likely changes in the market. In terms of corporate identity
in
in
its
the
change
social
cultural
especially
and
norms
and
perception,
and values
17Pleaseseethe HigherEducationInstituteof Turkey'swebsitehttp://www.yok.jzov.tr/YokTezSrv
in Turkey.
for thethesesconducted

141

be
for
may
of
concern
markets
organisations. Social and cultural
emerging
environment may not only have an impact on how consumers' evaluations of
companiesas a whole and their perceptionsof specific company identity traits in
comparisonto their own values, but also on which communicationchannelsattract
attention of individuals while forming corporate image. Therefore, developing a
comprehensivemodel which integratescompany-drivencommunicationfactors and
externalfactorsand testing it in an emergingmarket environmentmay be important
for organisationsin order to understandthe dynamicsof corporateimage formation
in termsof internationalmarketingpractices.

Furthermore,as Melewar (2001) states,as a result of the corporateexpansionand


have
face
interest,
to
global
companies
communication
started
globalisation of
threats. Balabanis et a]. (2002) state that the companiestransactingout of their
domestic environment have to put more effort into convincing the consumersin
collectivist countrieslike Turkey to buy their productsand services.In their study,
they have demonstratedthat the consumersfrom collectivist cultures are more
resistant to purchasingproducts and services offered by global companies.They
suggestthat if global companiescould influencethe acceptanceof consumersin such
markets,they might be less affected by issuesrelated to ethnocentrism.Therefore,
studying the subject in Turkey was consideredto be likely to yield interesting
results.

The survey was conductedin Istanbul. According to the year 2000 censusfigures,
this city is the most populatedcity in Turkey with approximately10 million people,
which is inth of the whole Turkish population(DIE, 2003). It is locatedin the most

142

populated (Marmara) region of Turkey with a 25% share of the total population
(Euromonitor, April 20oo). its population has increased12.4 times between 1923
and 2000, whereasthe overall population in Turkey has increasedonly five times for
the sameperiod (DIE, 2003). These figures indicate that Istanbul can be considered
as embracingthe Turkish peoplefrom different backgrounds,therebyshowinga high
potentialof representingthe overall population.

The sampling procedurefollowed the stepsof cluster sampling (Churchill, 1999).


This techniquewas chosenfirstly becauseit is the most used sampling method in
large-scalesurveyswhich involve face-to-facequestionnairecollection. Secondly,it
is more economicalcomparedto other sampling techniques(Churchill, 1999).The
researcherfocusedon eight boroughsin Istanbul which were systematicallychosen
from the list of areasby the DIE's categorisation(2003). The fieldworkers started
contacting every flat in each building on the main street of each area. They then
movedto one parallel streetand so on. The male and femaleconsumerswho were at
least 18 years-old and who had at least successfullycompleted secondaryschool
educationwere consideredeligible for the study. The fieldworkers contactedthe
residentsat weekendsin Octoberand November2004 so as to ensurethat potential
respondentswho are employedcould also be reached(Churchill, 1999).

4.7. Data Analysis Techniques and Statistical Packages

Data analysiswas completedin three stages.In the first stage,the content and the
relevanceof the multi-item scaleswere refined on the basisof the quantitativeand
qualitative data gatheredfrom the exploratory stageof the research.In the second

143

basis
the
on
validated
of the quantitativedata obtained from the
stage,scaleswere
main survey.Lastly, the final model was tested.

Churchill's (1979)procedurefor multi-item scaledevelopmentwas adoptedin order


to develop the scales.The qualitative information was used to ensurethe content
validity (De Vellis, 1991; De Vaus 1996). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was
performed in the first pilot study in order to reduce the number of items and to
identify any patternsin the data (De Vaus, 2002; Tabachnickand Fidell, 2000). A
Coefficient alphacheckwas appliedto the quantitativedatagatheredfrom both pilot
studies in order to assessthe reliability of the scales(Carminesand Zeller, 1979;
Churchill, 1979; Peter, 1979). Confirmatory factor analysiswas performed on the
main survey data in order to assessthe scales' validity before structural model
testing (Diamantopoulosand Siguaw, 2000; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988; Hair et
al., 1998). Finally, the relationshipsbetween constructswere tested by Structural
EquationModelling (SEM).

Descriptive analysis,outlier examination,missing data analysis,exploratory factor


analysis,reliability analysisand the testsfor the assumptionsof multivariate analysis
were performed using SPSS 12.0 (statistical package for social sciences)
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2000). Lisrel 8.7 (LInear Structural RELationships)was
used to perforrn both the confin-natoryfactor analysis and the structural model
testing (Hair et al., 1998;J6reskogand S6rbom,1993; 1996).

144

The next sectionsdescribethe use of exploratory factor analysis(EFA), coefficient


factor
analysis(CFA) for scaledevelopmentand validation
alpha and confirmatory
aswell asthe useof structuralequationmodelling (SEM) for modelevaluation.

4.7.1.Exploratory factor analysis and reliability assessment

Exploratory factor analysisis a methodwhich examinespatternsin data in order to


identifying
factors
for
latent
latent
(De
Vaus,
is
2002).
It
the
underlying
used
extract
factors that accountfor co-variation among the variablesand for summarisingand
reducing a larger set of observed variables to a smaller number of factors
(TabachnickandFidell, 2000; Hair et al., 1998).

According to Hair et al. (1998) and J6reskogand S6rbom (1993), this analysis is
in
be
for
further
to
testing
scales
need
summated
constructed
very useful when
dimensionality
helps
It
to
the
assess
and the
proposed
structural models.
interest.
for
In this study,
the
selected
variables
of
of
each
construct
appropriateness
the principal componentapproachwas used since the aim of the researcherwas to
identify a minimum set of variableswhich accountedfor the maximum variancein
the data (Hair et al., 1998).The numberof factors was defined on the basis of the
latent root criterion (Eigen value >1.00). The use of this methodwas to ensurethat
"any individual factor should accountfor the varianceof at least a single variable"
(Hair et al., 1998,p. 103). In order to achievethe best possibleinterpretationof the
factors, the varimax rotation method was used. This is an. orthogonal rotation
techniquewhich is suitablefor reducingthe numberof variablesto smaller subsets.
Additionally, the significanceof the factor loadingswhich determinesthe correlation
145

betweenthe variable and the underlying factor was assessed.The factor loadings
above +1-0.50 were considered practically significant (Hair et , al., 1998).
Furthermore,the communalitieswhich indicatethe amountof varianceeachvariable
shareswith the rest of the variablesin the analysiswere examined(Hair et al., 1998).
The variableswith communalitiesless than 0.60 was deemedas not contributing to
the variance explained and were therefore dropped from the analysis (De Vaus,
2002).

For the factors derived from the exploratory factor analysis, Cronbachalpha was
computedin order to test whether each subsetof items were internally consistent
(Carmines and Zeller, 1979; Litwin, 1995; Parasuramanet al., 1998). That is a
method which is widely used in social sciences(Churchill et al., 1974; Churchill,
1979;De Vaus, 2002; Litwin, 1995;Peter, 1979).The valuesequalto or above0.70
were consideredto be of an acceptablelevel of reliability (De Vaus, 1996;Nunnally,
1978).

4.7.2. Confirmatory

factor analysis and measurement model estimation

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is used to test whether the pre-specificd


relationshipson the basis of the theory are presentin the data (Hair et al., 1998;
Huang, 2001; J6reskogand Sbrbom, 1993). It is a stricter assessmentof construct
is
to
that
the
theoretical
ensure
meaning
of
a
construct
empirically captured
validity
by its indicators(Bagozziet al., 1991; Steenkampand Trijp, 1991).

As mentionedearlier, the validity of a constructis an essentialcondition for further


theory testing and development(Carminesand Zeller, 1979; Steenkampand Trijp,
146

1991). In order to claim that a construct is valid the following criteria should be
assessed:(1) unidimensionality of a construct (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988;
Steenkampand Trijp, 1991)(2) reliability, (3) convergentvalidity, (4) discriminant
validity, and (5) nomological validity (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988; Peter, 1981;
SteenkampandTrijp, 1991).

Anderson and Gerbing (1982,1988) recommend that model-testing should be


conducted in two separate stages. The first stage is the development of a
its
between
the
a
construct
relationships
and
measurementmodel which confirms
indicators.The secondstageis the testing of the structuralmodel to show the causal
relationshipsbetweenlatent constructs(Andersonand Gerbing, 1982; Chau, 1997;
Diamantopolous and Siguaw, 2000). This approach helps to tackle any likely
confusion in interpreting the models when they are estimated simultaneously
(Andersonand Gerbing, 1988).

Testing of the measurementmodel is assistedby CFA (Chau, 1997;Diamantopoulos


and Siguaw,2000; Huang, 2001). When the measurementmodel is estimatedusing
CFA, the five fundamentaldimensionsof constructvalidation mentionedabovecan
be assessed.
The following paragraphsexplain the role of thesecriteria in assessing
constructvalidity.

Unidimensionality of a constructshould be achievedbefore any attempt at further


theory testing (Andersonand Gerbing, 1988);since it demonstratesthat the multiple
indicators of a constructare internally consistentand externally distinct from other
is
it
is composedof a
CFA
that
that
unidimensional
so
a
construct
ensures
measures.
.1
147

set of logical (theoretical)indicators (Hair et al., 1998; Hattie, 1985; Gerbing and
Anderson, 1988; Steenkampand Trijp, 1991). It permits the computation of the
criteria for assessingnomological validity, convergent validity and discriminant
validity.

Nomological validity refers to the examination of the hypothesisedrelationships


betweenconstructsand the empirical links betweenindicatorsand their underlying
dimensions(Peter, 1981;Peterand Churchill, 1986).In other words it concernsthe
Lages
(2000)
(1991)
Steenkamp
Trijp
fit
and
a
model.
and
suggestthe
overall
of
utilisation of the goodness-of-fit indices in order to assessnomological validity.
Thesemeasuresare presentedin Section4.7.3.

Convergentvalidity is the extentto which the latent variable correlatesto indicators


pre-specifiedto measurethe same latent variable (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988;
Bagozzi et al., 1991; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988; Peter and Churchill, 1986;
Steenkampand Trijp, 1991). It is assessedby an item's own reliability (p),
composite reliability (p.) and average variance*extracted (p,) (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988; Babin et al., 2000; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Additionally, the
statisticallysignificant t valuescorrespondingto the factor loadingsfor eachitem are
takenas indicativeof convergentvalidity (Bagozziet al., 1991;Chau,'1997).

An individual item's reliability (p) shows the amount of variance explained by a


manifestvariable in its relevantconstruct(Bagozziet al., 1991; Diamantopoulosand
Siguaw,2000).J8reskogand S6rbom(1993)assertthat squaredmultiple correlations
(p) show the strength of the linear relationship between an indicator and the
148

construct it relatesto. The threshold value of 0.50 and above is consideredto be


2= %2

indicative of convergentvalidity (Hair et al., 1998).It is calculatedaS pj

.2

Var (Fj)] where pj is squaredmultiple correlationof thejth indicator, X is indicator


loadingsand rj is error varianceof thejth indicator (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggestthat in addition to an individual item's reliability


assessment;a construct's overall reliability, i.e. composite reliability, should be
assessed.CFA also allows the computatiorfof composite reliability (Gerbing and
Anderson, 1988; Hair et al., 1998). Unlike the conventional reliability statistics,
composite reliability (p,) assessmentassumesunequal item reliabilities (Bollen,
1989). PCvalue above 0.70 indicates an acceptable level (Hair et al., 1998). It is
/
%)2
is
is
(E
X)2
[(E
(0)]
X
+Z
=
composite
calculated as PC
where PC
reliability,
indicator loadings, 0 is error variance of the indicator and Y, is summation over the
indicators of the latent variable (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000; Fornell and
Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 1998).

Fornell and Larcker (1981) mention that "neither [pj2 nor p, alone] measures'the
in
by
is
that
the
captured
construct relation to the amount of
amount of variance
variancedue to measurementerror" (p. 45). They suggestthat the averagevariance
extracted(p,) should be calculatedin order to assessthe total varianceaccountedfor
by the latent construct and its indicators. Diamantopoulosand Siguaw (2000)
mention that " ... p, values [the averagevarianceextracted]lessthan 0.50 indicate
that measurementerror accountsfor a greateramount of variance in the indicators
than doesthe underlying construct" (p. 91). This raisesquestionsabout the validity
of the indicatorsand the measureused (Diamantopoulosand Siguaw,2000; Fornell
149

and Larcker, 1981).The averagevarianceextracted(p,) is calculatedas P,=E


[(E

+Z (0)] where p, is averagevarianceextracted,X is indicator loadings,0 is

error varianceof the indicator and E is summationover the indicators of the latent
variable (Diamantopoulosand Siguaw,2000; Fornell and Larcker, 1981;Hair et al.,
1998).

Discriminant validity showsthe extent to which the indicatorsof one constructare


distinct from the items of other latent variables(Chau, 1997; Garver and Mentzer,
1999; Peter, 1981; Peter and Churchill, 1986). When the correlation betweentwo
constructsis significantly lower than 1.00, the presenceof discriminant validity is
indicated (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi et al., 1991). Anderson and
for two estimated
Gerbing(1988) suggestthat "discriminant validity can be assessed
constructsby constrainingthe estimatedcorrelation parameter(Yij) betweenthem to
1.00and then performing a chi-squaredifferencetest on the valuesobtainedfor the
constrainedand unconstrainedmodels" (p.416) (cf. J6reskog,1971).The two models
(constrainedandunconstrained)shouldbe testedfor every possiblepair of constructs
one at a time rather than including all latent variables in the test simultaneously
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Bagozzi and Philips (1982) assert that "a
significantly lower )? (chi-square]value for the model in which the trait correlations
are not constrainedto unity would indicatethat the traits are not perfectly correlated
is'achieved"
discriminant
(p. 476).
that
and
validity

150

4.7.3. Structural equation modelling and assessmentof model fit

After estimatingthe measurementmodel, structuralequationmodelling is appliedto


test the structural model which shows the causal relationships among the latent
Gerbing,
1988). Hair et al. (1998) statethat "[Structural
(Anderson
and
constructs
Equation Modelling (SEM)] provides the appropriateand most efficient estimation
technique for a series of separate multiple regression equations estimated
simultaneously" (p. 17). The aim of a model's overall fit is to confirm the
consistency-of a theoretical model and the estimatedmodel which is basedon the
observedvalues(Diamantopoulosand Siguaw,2000; Hair et al., 1998).The model's
overall fit is evaluatedon the basisof both incrementaland absolutegoodnessof fit
measures.There are many statistics developedto test the overall fit of a model,
however none of them alone can provide an absoluteassuranceof model fit. Each
measurecan be superior to the others under different conditions such as "sample
size, estimationprocedure,model complexity, violation of underlying assumptions
of multivariate non-nalityand variable independence"(DiamantoPoulosand Siguaw,
2000, p. 83).

Absolute fit measuresestablish the extent to which the sample covariancesare


reproducedby the observedcovarianceor correlation matrix (Hair et al., 1998).
Somemost common absolutefit indices are chi-square()?), root mean squareerror
index
(GFI)
(RMSEA),
and adjustedgoodness-ofgoodness-of-fit
of approximation
fit index (AGFI).

151

The chi-squarestatistic()?) is " a test of perfect fit in which the null hypothesisis
...
that the model fits the population data perfectly" (Diamantopoulosand Siguaw,
2000, p. 83). When it is statistically significant, it indicatesthat the null hypothesisis
rejected.Unlike the conventionalhypothesestesting, this is a condition for claiming
good model fit in structuralmodel'estimation.Chi-squarevalue is computedas "(N1) F. i,, where N is the sample size, F,,i,, is the value of the fitting function
at
...
convergence[and] ... the relevant degreesof freedom is calculatedas Y2k(k+l) - 1,
where k is number of observed variables and t is number of parametersto be
estimated"(Diamantopoulosand Siguaw,2000, p.83).

Another absolutefit measureis root meansquareerror of approximation(RMSEA).


It showsthe degreeof fit betweenthe model and the population covariancematrix
(Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000). It is measured as "(F,,1DF)1/2 where F 0 is the
,
population discrepancy function value ... and DF are the degrees of freedom"
(Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000, p. 85). Values between 0.05 and under 0.08 are
indicative of acceptable fit (Hair et al., 1998; Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000).
Any value below 0.05 shows good fit, whereas any value above 0.08 shows poorer
fit (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000).

The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) is a non-statistical measurewhich indicates the


overall degreeof fit while being free from the degreesof freedom(Hair et al., 1998).
It comparesthe squaredresidualspredictedwith the observedvalues.Valuesranging
from 0.80 to 0.89 are indicative of reasonablefit (Doll et al., 1994).Valuesbetween
0.90 and 1.00are consideredto be a good fit (Diamantopoulosand Siguaw,2000).

152

The adjustedgoodness-of-fitindex (AGFI) is an extendedversion of GFI that is


"adjustedby the ratio of degreesof freedomfor the proposedmodel to the degreesof
freedomfor the null model" (Hair et al., 1998,p.657). Although the recommended
threshold value is 0.90 and above (Hair et al., 1998), values ranging from 0.80 to
0.89 are consideredto be a reasonablefit (Doll et al., 1994).

Incrementalfit measurescomparethe fit of the targetedmodel with a null model in


which the variablesare uncorrelated(Diamantopoulosand Siguaw,2000; Hair et al.,
1998). Someof the most common incrementalfit measuresare normated-fit index
(NFI), non-normatedfit index (NNFI) and normatedcomparativefit index (CFI)

The Normated-fit index (NFI) compares the base model with the suggested model
nuli
(Xnujjdegrees
freedom.
is
It
of
)?proposed)/
computed as
without considering the
where ;? is chi-square value (Hairet al., 1998, p. 657). It can have values between 0
is
is
0.90
Even
1.00.
threshold
though
there
above
value,
and
not an absolute
and
1998).
indication
fit
(Hair
al.,
of
good
et
as
an
mostly recommended

The non-normated fit index (NNFI) (Tucker-Lewis index) compares the null and the
into
both
degrees
freedom
by
taking
the
of
models
of
proposed models
2
/
dfnull)
/
/
df,,
dfproposed)]
is
[()?
/
(X
It
O?
calculated
as
consideration.
null
proposed
null
ull) where ;? is chi-square value and df is degrees of freedom (Hair et al., 1998). Unlike
1.0
indices,
in
incremental
fit
NNFI
indices
than
take
the
values
greater
all
(Diamantopolous and Siguaw, 2000). However, the recommend level of good fit
value is the same (0.90 and above is as accepted good fit) (Doll et al., 1994; Hair et
al., 1998).

153

The normatedcomparativefit index (CFI) is anotherrelative fit index w1iichis more


is
(Hair
1998).
Values
on
et
al.,
analysis
run
a
smaller
sample
size
appropriatewhen
0.90 and aboveare usually consideredto be a good fit (Mueller, 1996).

In this thesis,the two-step approachas suggestedby Andersonand Gerbing (1988)


was adopted so that the testing of the structural model was preceded by the
estimation of the measurementmodel. This approacb allowed the researcherto
further
be
into
to
theory testing so as to prove causal
put
establishvalid constructs
it
Structural
between
them.
made
equation
possible to
modelling
relationships
confirm the pre-specifiedlinks betweenthe endogenousand exogenousvariablesby
1998).
(Hair
analyses
al.,
et
regression
multiple
running simultaneous

4.8. Summary

Throughout this chapter,the researchdesign of the study and the details of each
information
from
design
incorporated
have
been
The
three
research
presented.
stage
stages of data collection. First, the exploratory researchwas conducted which
did
focus
discussions.
This
interviews
in-depth
not
phase
and
group
composedof
it
design
insights
into
interest,
the
the
of
also
supported
subject
of
provide
more
only
the research instrument. Following that step, two pilot studies were conducted
last
The
stageconsistedof a survey,the resultsof which are explained
successively.
in the next chapter.

154

V. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

5.1. Introduction

The findings of the main survey of this thesis are presentedin this chapter. It is
composedof four main sections.In the following sections,first the details of the
sampling in ten-nsof samplesize and respondentprofiles are presented.Second,the
initial dataexaminationis discussed.Third, the scalevalidation and the measurement
models are explained. Finally, the structural model and the related findings are
illustrated.

5.2. Sampling
5.2.1. Sample size

By the cut-off date, 252 questionnairesfor McDonald's questionnaireand 255 for


Renault-Maisquestionnairehad beencollected.A total of 439 questionnaireswere
used during scalevalidation and model testing (See Sections5.4,5.4.1,5.4.2. and
5.4.3), however the samplesize calculation was done on the basis of the two data
sets. The following sample size computation methods were performed to test
whetherthe numberof caseswas representativeof the main population:

1. nl= 22* S2 /H

2* X2

where,2- approximationof standardnormal variablez


s- estimatedstandarddeviation
H -Level of precisioni8
X- the statisticalestimationof the main population
mean(i) (Churchill, 1999)

18The degreeof precisionwhen estimatingthe highestadmissibleinterval betweenthe samplemean


and the populationmean(Churchill, 1999;Malhotra and Birks, 2003).

155

2*
2. n2 =s z2/H 92

where, s-

standard deviation of the sample was

considered as the estimation of the main population's

parameter(cr)
z- standardnon-nalvariable
H' - Level of precision(In this caseH was multiplied
with X in orderto get an absolutevalue)
(Malhotra and Birks, 2003)
3. n3 = 0.83332* Z2/H 92where,0.8333- standarddeviationof the population"
z- standardnormal variable
H' - Level of precision (In this caseH was multiplied
with X in order to get an absolutevalue)
(Malhotraand Birks, 2003)

Even though Hair et al.'s (1998) recommendationaboutthe samplesize (at leastfive


observationsfor eachvariable) was not met, the figures in Table 5.1 prove that the
numberof caseswere sufficient for eachdata set (Churchill, 1999).

Table 5.1 summarisesthe resultsof the samplesize calculationsfor six variablesat


0.01 and 0.05 precision levels (H). The value of z was 1.96 at the 95% confidence
level for all computations.The table showsthat the numberof casesfor eachdataset
was well above the highest samplesize (nl=135 for the McDonald's case),which
further
that
the
to
ensures
number
collected
sufficient
of
questionnaires
was
perform
analysis(Churchill, 1999).

19The rangeof a normally distributedvariableis approximatelyequalto plus or minusthreestandard


deviations,hencethe value 0.8333(Churchill, 1999;Tull and Hawkins, 1990).

156

0
C14

%D

to)
92
N

ICD 00

r-

W
4
91

CD

10

Vi I-q 09
cl
lz

iz

00
en

rn
%C

Go

CN

0 0
(14

%0
14,

00

Nt

eq

C)
m

00
Ir

kn
00
tn

(D

4r)
0
6

qn

CD

tn
CD
d

en

C)

o
W %0
1.0

tel
00

t-

m
00

eq

en

t-

tf) 0

00

en

en

en

Itt r

en

I-T

en

(4

00

rto

in m
10o

t-

oq

I-

r-

It

tn
q

tn
Q
6

4.

4.

0
cn

&n
Cd

9i

r.

&.

rA

10

i
I.
.

"0
r_

-5

Cd 0c

bo -EL
CL

0
Q
9

eq
en
cu
r.

Gn

0
Ln ':
Eo

a S
0s
-s
U
g
EU
.
5
r
V.
E
,
0
a
E
8.
0
0E
B
4
E
.Eg
0
E
>
U E
c
40
4-2
- -s
eel 00 t- r- rq Cq CS
>-.-:,

en
eq

93

Ch (71

8
1. C13

t.
t

a)
rA :s

&.

0Z =

15
. 0

0
0
9

en

Cq

en

; 51 ,p,
'd

'n Cd
Eo
U0

> "B v -S g
EU
'a W5
- r.
(a w E wE 8 0
:
T
-s
E
0
.
4W.
>
0
2.8
=
.

>1

10%00
1010 oo

en

It
en

-a

4K ,o
00

ej

1.0
N
as

in

;t 'o
t-

G* t-

as
eq

E
o

wl

om
ON

00 ON

Gq

C aq

llq

C oq

t-

iz
Q

en

en en

en

en

en

en

oq C

en en

en

In

fn

en
4.
0

7EL

;Ja,z
E 0

-Ei

9
0 ;
m.
E
CL2

a --

E 8 8

.R , -5

0 co 0
in
iz

C:

R-g

o
"g

>, 4) La .5 -E =
.2
;;

r-

-.
UFO
>
00

.2q

.ca

j
C;

:3

cd

al

:s

Gm

0
*
C -e

C13 0
0
> 1 r_ 9

>,
9

qu 16
.-

>

Ej

'-=
A8
r-

9
.,;
T

8 (.)

I
I

5.2.2. Sample characteristics

As mentioned in Section 4.6.2, the data for the main survey was collected in
Istanbul,Turkey. Two samplesof individuals were recruitedfrom eight boroughsof
Istanbul. Since it is important to ensurethat a sampleis representativeof the main
figures
demographics
1999),
(Churchill,
the
the
of
sample
were computed
population
and comparedwith the main population figures both for the McDonald's and the
Renault-Maiscases.Table 5.2 summarisesthe profile of eachgroupof respondents.

The characteristics of the respondents such as age, gender, marital status, education
level, income level and employment status were asked in the questionnaire. It was
found that 48.4% of the respondents were female in the McDonald's case, while
44% of the respondents were female in the Renault-Mais case. These figures
distributions
for
both
the
that
gender
of the respondent groups were
reflected
= 49.1%; 7r.,,j,= 50.4%). Almost 60% of
representative of the main population Orfemal.
55.7%
the respondents in both data sets were between the ages 18 and 35 (PMC18-35'*=
figure
(nJ8.35=
When
58.3%).
to
the
compared
population
main
and pRmig-35=
55.9%), this finding showed that the targeted respondentswere recruited properly.

The averageand the medianageswere 36.18 and 34 respectivelyin the McDonald's


the former value was 35.54 and the latter value was 32 in the Renaultcase_whereas
Mais data.The youngestrespondentwas 18 years-oldand the oldest respondentwas
69 years-oldin both respondentgroups.

158

Table 5.2. Demographicsof the McDonald's and the Renault-Maiscasescompared


to the main populationfigures.
Demographics

McDonald's Data
(%)

Renault-Mais
Data

Main Population

Gender
Female
48.4
44.0
49.
Male
51.6
56.0
50.4
Age
18-35
55.7
58.3
55.9
36-55
33.5
31.7
34.7
56+
10.9
10.1
9.4
Marital status'
Single
35.7
34.9
35.5
Married
64.3
65.1
69.5
Education level
Secondaryschooland below
57.0
57.8
64.9
28.5
28.4
23.4
High school
14.5
13.8
University and above
11.7
Income leve12
Lessthan 1,000YTL
41.2
36.2
n/a
1,001TL - 2,000 YTL
46.6
49.1
n/a
2,001- 3,000YTL
7.7
7.8
n/a
1.8
3,001 YTL and above
6.0
n/a
Employment status
43.9
Employed
49.1
47.0
Unemployed
56.1
50.5
53.0
Occupation
Top executiveor manager,
Ownerof a largeor mediumsize
7.1
14.7
5.4
company,Lawyer, dentist,
arc ec etc.
Office/Clerical staff, Civil
11.9
12.4
13.0
servant
24.9
22.0
Worker, Craftsman
28.6777]
1) Widow and divorced individuals were addedto the single category,and individuals living with
their partnerswere includedin the marriedcategory.
2) The amountof net income per month is presentedin YTL rather than billion TL (See questions
XIII in Appendix 7 and 8) in this table, sincethe last six digits were removedfrom the currencyin
Turkey by January2005. For example,I billion TL correspondto 1000YTL.
Note 1: McDonald's casesamplesize N= 221 except income level (N - 115); Renault-Maiscase
samplesizeN= 218 exceptemploymentstatus(N = 217) and incomelevel (N - 215)
Note 2: The figures of the main populationare gatheredfrom DIE (StateInstitute of StatisticsPrime
Ministry Republic of Turkey) (2003) 2000 Censusof PopulationTurkey: Socialand Economic
Characteristicsof Population,DIE Printing Division, Ankara.
Note 3: n/a: not availablein DIE statistics.

Approximately one third of the respondentsin both sampleswere single (I)mc-sinsle"


in
34.9%).
14.5%
McDonald's
35.7% and PRM-.,
the
the
of
respondents
case and
i.,gle=

13.8%of the subjectsin the Renault-Maiscasewere graduatesof a higher education

159

institute. Almost half of both samplesconsistedof individuals in employment(pm'.


,
employed=

43.9% and pRmployed=

49.1%). These findings confirrn that the marital

both
level
the
and
employment
characteristic
samples were very
of
status, education
11.7%, 7remployed=
close to the main population figures (7r,i,,&= 30.5%, 7runiversity+=
47%). Almost all of the percentages related to the occupation profile of the
respondents in both samples were close to the main population figures except for the
first occupation category in Table 5.3 for the Renault-Mais data. There was a larger
discrepancy between the sample and the main population values for this occupation
finding
14.7%
5.4%).
However,
(PRM-occupation=
this
vs.
7toccupation=
was not
group
considered to be a serious problem. Since cars are much more expensive products
than fast food, it could be expected that a higher proportion of the respondents who
in
interested
familiar
answering the Renault-Mais questionnaire could
were
with and
be-from higher salaried positions such as top executives, middle managers, doctors

etc.

In order to assessthe familiarity of respondents'with the two case companies,


respondentswere queried about (a) the restaurant visiting pattern - in the
McDonald's questionnaire, and (b) car ownership -

in the Renault-Mais

questionnaire. In addition, company knowledge, i.e., how knowledgeable


asa commoncontrol variable.
respondentswere aboutthesefirms, was assessed

64.3% of the respondentsmentionedthat they visit McDonald's just a few times a


year and 35.7%of the respondentsstatedthat they visit McDonald's more frequently
(a few times a month or a week). There was no statistically significant difference
betweenthe less frequent visitors and more frequent visitors in terms of company

160

knowledge(tmc=-1.346,pmc=0.180 > 0.05). 39% of the respondentsin the RenaultMais samplementionedthat they or a member of their family used to or currently
own a Renault car. There was no statistically significant difference betweencar
ownersand non-ownerson the basisof the companyknowledgethat they haveabout
Renault-Mais(tRm=1.026,ppm=0.307 > 0.05). All of theseresults showedthat the
respondentsin each samplehad a sufficient level of contact with and information
about the casecompaniesin order to have the ability to answerthe questionsin the
questionnaire.

The responserate20was reportedas 60.43% for the McDonaldsdata and 53.57%for


the Renault-Mais data by the fieldwork company which helped the researcherto
21
Non-response
rate was mentioned as 39.56% and
collect the questionnaires.
46.43% for the McDonald's and Renault-Mais data sets respectively.The higher
responseratescan be dueto the factsthat the questionnaireswere completedface-toface and they were collected at the weekends,which might have decreasedthe
number of not-at-homes.Churchill (1999) statesthat theseprocedureshelp reduce
the likelihood of non-responsebias. Furhtermore, the higher responserate for
McDonald's data comparedto Renault-Maisdata can be consideredexpectedsince
the Public Relations and Communication manager of McDonald's stated that
accordingto their own surveyMcDonald's was the most visible companyin Turkish
market in 2004which might have led to the lower numberof refusals.

20The responseratewas calculatedasthe minimum numberi.e. Responserate=Completed


questionnaires+Refusals+Not
questionnaires/(Completed
at homes+Tcrininations).
2 The non-response
rate was calculatedas(Refusals+Notat homes+Terminations)/(Complcted
at homes+Terminations).
questionnaires+Refusals+Not

161

5.3. Initial Data Analysis

The aim of the initial data examinationwas to ensurethat the data was ready for
further applicationof the multivariate dataanalysistechnique.As well as helpingthe
basic
to
a
understandingof the data, this Mage also gave the
researcher attain
opportunity to detectany violation of the underlying assumptionsof the multivariate
techniquesapplied (Hair et al., 1998).As recommendedby Hair et al. (1998) and
Tabachnickand Fidell (2000), the following analyseswere performed:(1) graphical
(4)
data,
(2)
(3)
descriptive
of
analysis
missing
and
analysis, analysisof outliers,
and
test of normality.

First, the frequencytableswere tabulatedboth for the McDonald's and the RenaultMais data setsin order to find any valuesoutside the value range for eachvariable
due to wrong insertionof the codesinto the SPSSdata sheet.Next, the shapeof the
distributions for eachvariable was examinedby looking at the histogramsand stem
and leaf diagrams.Finally, box and whisker plots were plotted and outliers noted
(Hair et al., 1998;Tabachnickand Fidell, 2000).

Hair et al. (1998) mention that it is betterto deletethe outliers which are considered
to be non-representative
of any observationsin the population;otherwisethey should
be retainedin order to increasethe generalisability of the multivariate analysis.The
for
25%
items
the
than
of
more
were removed
answers
with
missing
questionnaires
from both the McDonald'sand the Renault-Maissamples.Coincidently,this groupof
casesalso included all of the problematic outliers. As a result of the procedure
described,31 caseswere excludedfrom the McDonald's sampleand 37 caseswere

162

discardedfrom the Renault-Maissample.The total samplesize was 439 on which


the item refinement scalevalidation and model testing stagesof data analysiswere
based.

Since missing data may threatenthe generalisability of the findings of a study, it is


important to further examine the patterns, if any, in missing values (Hair et al.,
1998).The researcheranalysedthe randomnessof missingdataby a) performinga ttest which comparesobservationswith and without missing valuesfor eachvariable
on the other variablesand, b) running an overall test of randomnessof missing data
i.e. the Little's MCAR test (Hair et al., 1998). A significant difference between
missing and non-missingvalues as a result of the former test shows that there is a
possibility of non-random missing data. The latter test comparesthe observed
missing data patternwith the expectedmissing data pattern.A non-significantlevel
of the MCAR test indicatesthat the missing data were distributed totally randomly
(Hair et al., 1998).

The missing value analysis for the McDonald's data showed that there was a
potential pattern in the data towards not respondingto the variables presentedin
Table 5.3. Many of the t valueswere significant (p < 0.05) for eachvariable on the
have
In
(1998)
if
Hair
these
that
the
variables.
other
situations
et al.
suggest
variables
a theoretically core role in the research,they could still be kept for further analysis.
On the basis this argument,the items in Table 5.3 were still included in the data
analysisof the measurementmodels(SeeSection5.4.2).

163

Table 5.3. The variableswith possiblemissing data patternsin the McDonald's data
on the basisof West.
Construct
CorporateVisual Identity
Systems(CVIS)

CompanyBehaviour
Marketing Communication
Mix

IntermediaryCommunication

Perceivedintegration

Item
0 The sloganof the companycommunicateswhat it standsfor
0 It is easyto recall the sloganof the company
9 The sloganof the companymakesme havepositive feelings
towardsthe company
0 This companysupportscorporategiving
* This companytreatsits employeesvery well
0 This companycaresaboutenvironmentalissues
0 This companytreatsthe local public very well
0 The sponsorshipactivities of the companyreflect the image
definedin the paragraphabove
0 The media,opinion leaders,governmentinstitutionsandNGOs
etc. talk aboutthis companyfrequently
01 hearpositive things aboutthis companyfrom the media,
opinion leaders,governmentinstitutionsand NGOs etc.
0 The media,opinion leaders,governmentinstitutionsandNGOs
etc. areproud of this company
0 The media,opinion leaders,governmentinstitutionsandNGOs
etc. recommendthis company
9 It seemsthat all communicationactivities of the companyare
plannedand executedby the samepersonor people

Note: During the t-test, the variables that were missing values for less than 5% ofcases were omitted
from the analysis. It was considered that the likelihood of a missing value pattern occurring
was small when less than 5% of the respondents did not answer that question (variable).

Little's MCAR test showeda significant difference (p < 0.05) betweenthe observed
iormer
test (Hair
and expectedmissingdatapatternswhich confirms the result of the
in
deal
bias
In
1998).
to
the
order
with
potential
results due to non-random
et al.,
missing values, the main data analysis for the McDonald's casewas basedon the
data in which the missing values were replacedwith estimatedmean (EM) values.
SinceEM, being a maximum likelihood estimationmethod,makesthe most accurate
and reasonableestimatespossiblecomparedto meansubstitution,casesubstitution,
regressionimputation and multiple imputation (Hair et al., 1998),it was considered
to be the most appropriatetechniqueto solve the missing data pattern issue in the
McDonald's data.

164

Table 5.4. The variableswith possiblemissing datapatternsin the Renault-Maisdata


on the basisof West.
Construct

CorporateAesthetics

Staff Apparel

EmployeeBehaviour

CompanyBehaviour

Item
0 The architecture and the interior design of the company's
buildings, sales and after sales service centres etc.
communicatewhat it standsfor
01 like the architectureand the interior designof the company's
buildings, salesand after salesservicecentresetc.
0 The architecture and the interior design of the company's
buildings, sales and after salesservice centresetc. are easily
recognised
0 The architecture and the interior design of the company's
buildings, sales and after sales service centresetc. make me
havepositive feelingstowardsthe company
0 The apparel of the employeessuch as salesmen,after sales
servicestaff etc. communicatewhat the companystandsfor
01 like the apparel of the employeessuch as salesmen,after
salesservicestaff etc.
0 The apparel of the employeessuch as salesmen,after sales
service staff etc. make me have positive feelings towards the
company
0 The employeesof the companysuch as salesmen,after sales
servicestaff etc. treat customersvery well
0 This companysupportscorporategiving
0 This companytreatsits employeesvery well
0 This companycaresaboutenvironmentalissues
0 This companytreatsthe local public very well
0 This companyrespectsconsumerright
10This companytreatspeoplewith high standards

Note: During the West, the variables that were missing values for less tilan 5% or cases were omittc(i
from the analysis. It was considered that the likelihood of a missing value pattern occurring
did
less
5%
the
than
not answer that question (variable).
respondents
of
was small when

Although the West analysis for the Renault-Maisdata showed a potential missing
for
few
in
5.4,
for
items
Table
t-values
the
eachvariable on the other
value pattern
between
difference
observationswith missing values
variablesshoweda significant
indicated
This
that a missing data pattern was
result
and without missing values.
unlikely to be presentin the Renault-Maisdata.The Little's MCAR test corroborated
this finding. The significance level of the Little's MCAR test was 0.77, which
showedthat the missing valuesmay be regardedas completely random (Hair et al.,
1998). In these cases,Hair et al. (1998) suggestthat any imputation method for
data
be
Since
the
merged
setswere usedin further stages
used.
missingvaluescould

165

of the dataanalysis,the researcherchoseEM imputationin order to haveconsistency


in solving the missingdata issue.

On the basisof the graphicalassessment


as well as skewnessand kurtosis measures,
it was found that the majority of variables showed departure from normality.
Although this outcome meant violation of underlying assumptionsof structural
equationmodelling, Bagozzi and Yi (1988) assertthat

in managerialand social

is
it
unlikely that the statistical assumptionswill ever be met in a
scienceresearch
in
(p.
Bentler
Chou
(1987)
81).
that
and
state
structural equation
strict sense"
likelihood
(ML) estimators are almost
"...
theory
maximum
normal
modelling
always acceptableeven when data are non-normally distributed" (p.89). Although
instead
free
distribution
ML
of
asymptotic
estimation methodsmay
application of
yield an untrustworthyX2(Chi-square)statistic and standarderrors, if the model fit
indices show reliable results it may be concluded that this problem has been
data
1987).
Therefore,
Chou,
(Bentler
the
transformation
of
and
none
overcome
approachesto achievenormality were appliedat this stage.

5.4. ScaleRefinement, ScaleValidation and Modelling

In theory developmentand testing, achieving constructvalidity is an essentialstep


(Steenkampand Trijp, 1991; Peter, 1981). In order to prove that a constructhas a
theoretical and observational meaning (Bagozzi, 1980a), the following criteria
4)
be
1)
2)
3)
reliability,
should
satisfied: unidimensionality,
convergentvalidity,
discriminant validity, and 5) nomological validity (Bagozzi, 1980a; Gerbing and
Anderson,1988;Nunnally, 1978;SteenkampandTrijp, 1991).

166

Even though confirmatory factor analysis should be applied in order to examine


constructvalidity more strictly rather than using traditional methods(Gerbing and
Anderson, 1988; Steenkampand Trijp, 1991), it is still important to perform
exploratory factor analysisand a Cronbachalpha test in the early stagesof a scale
validation in order to simplify the scales(Aaker, 1997; Babin et al., 2000). In the
next section,the results from exploratory factor analysisand reliability assessment
by Cronbachalpha measuresare explained. This is followed by the confirmatory
stageof scalevalidation (SeeSection5.4.2).Lastly, the model testing is explainedin
Section5.4.3.

All the analysesexplained in the following sectionsare basedon the mergeddata


sets (samplesize= 439). Combining the two data setswas considerednecessaryin
order to make the framework and scalesused in this study generaliseableacross
sectors(cf Aakcr, 1997).Although it could still be arguedthat the two companies
chosenas focal organisationscannot fully representall the sectors,a generalview
can still be achievedsincethe natureof the businessesthat thesetwo companiesare
involved in (McDonald's and Renault-Mais)coverstwo major industriesi.e. services
and manufacturingindustries.

5.4.1. Exploratory factor analysis and reliability assessment

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a useful technique in the early stages of scale

(Aaker,
1997;
Babin et al., 2000) since it allows the
and
validation
refinement
researcherto have a preliminary understandingof the relationships between the
I
indicators and their relevantconstructs.It becomesespeciallyuseful when there is

167

in
investigation
known
little
(Gerbing and
theory
the
about
constructs
under
very
Anderson,1988).Sincemost of the itemswere generatedfrom anecdotalarticlesand
somewere adaptedfrom empirical studies(SeeTable 4.3), it was necessaryto apply
EFA.

The constructswere tested in three separategroups becauseMenon et al. (1996)


suggest that when there are many constructs to be examined, assessingfewer
measurementmodelsyields more reliable results.Sincethis approachwas taken for
the confirmatory factor analysis,the EFA was applied to the sameconstructgroups
as well. The categorisationwas basedon the literaturereview. The constructswhich
were consideredtheoreticallyrelatedwerejoined together,hencethe first two groups
were the corporate identity mix elements (company-controlledcommunication
elements),and unplanned(uncontrolled) communicationelements.The remaining
constructs which could not be included in those two categories were grouped
together, thereby the third group consisted of the corporate image construct
(dependent variable), the perceived integration dimension (antecedent of the
identification constructs)(See
corporateassociationsgapand the consumer-company
Figure 3.1) andthe companyknowledgecontrol variable.

Table 5.5 shows that four major factors were suggestedas the dimensionsof the
corporate identity mix elements (company-controlledcommunication elements).
That is to say that the eigen valuesof four underlying factors were bigger than one
(Hair et al., 1998). The sample was'adequatefor the factor analysis in that the
Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin measureof sampling adequacy(MSA) was 0.924, which is
consideredas marvellous (Kaiser, 1974),and the Bartlett Test of Sphericity (BTS)

168

bivariate
items
the
that
the
correlations
among
were significantly
suggested
scales'
different from zero (BTS= 6142.91, p=0.000). These four factors captured an
acceptablelevel of 66.91% of the variance(Hair et al., 1998).

In the literaturereview (SeeChapter111),corporateidentity mix elements(companycontrolled communicationelements)were defined as consisting of the following
corporatevisual identity systems(CVIS), corporateaesthetics
multi-item measureS22:
(AEST), staff apparel (EAPP), company behaviour (CBEH) and marketing
by
(COMM).
This
factor
was
elements
structure
not
confirmed
mix
communication
the outcomeof the EFA (Table 5.5).

Even though all of the 13 items for the CVIS constructwere not reservedby the
items
in
first
factor were able to cover the content of
7
the
the
remaining
analysis,
the CVIS. In contrastto the theory, the items for the corporateaestheticsand the
factor
in
dimensions
than
two
one
separate
rather
constructs
resulted
staff apparel
(Factor 2). The items for the company behaviour (Factor 3) and the marketing
communication mix elements (Factor 4) were retained as theoretically expected
(Table 5.5).

Even though Cronbach alpha, cannot indicate a construct's unidimensionality


(Gerbing and Anderson, 1988), it can demonstrate that the items in each factor are
(Carmines
Zeller,
1979).
Table 5.5 shows that all
other
and
each
with
consistent
Cronbach alphas for the four factors were above the recommended alpha level 0.70
(Nunnally, 1978). Hence, it was confirmed that each factor can be regarded as a
22Employeebehaviouris alsoa partof corporateidentitymix elements.
However,sinceit is

measuredwith only one item it was not includedin exploratoryfactor analysiswhich was aimedto
refine the multi-item measures.

169

reliable construct.Overall, it was concludedthat the abovefactorscan be considered


as a basisfor the next confinnatory stage.

Table 5.5. Exploratory factor analysis results for the corporate identity mix
(company-controlledcommunication)elements.
Factors and Related Items
Corporate Visual Identity Systems (CVIS)
I like the name of the company
The name of the company makes me have positive feelings towards the company
11ike the logo of the company
The logo of the company makes me have positive feelings towards the company
The slogan of the company makes me have positive feelings towards the
company
I like the colour and typography used on all visual materials of the company
The colour and typography used on all visual materials of the company make me
positive feelings towards the company
_have
Corporate Design (CD)
I like the architecture and the interior design of the company's buildings,

Factor
Loadings
0.633
0.750
0.664
0.765
0.756

Cronbach
Alpha

0.895

0.653
0.750

0.558

restaurantsetc.
The architectureand the interior designof the company'sbuildings,restaurants
0.555
0.805
etc. makeme havepositive feelingstowardsthe company
1 like the appearance
0.785
and apparelof the employeessuchas cashiers,
etc.
waiterstwaitresses
The appearance
and apparelof the employeessuchas cashiers,waiters/waitresses 0.775
etc. makeme havenositive feelinastowardsthe comnanv
Company Behaviour (CBEH)
0.671
This companysupportscorporategiving
0.710
This companytreatsits employeesvery well
0.905
0.751
This companycaresaboutenvironmentalissues
This companytreatsthe local public very well
0.799
This companyrespectsconsumerright
0.798
This companytreatspeoplewith high standards
0.803
Marketing Communication Mix (COMM)
The company'stv, radio or printed advertisingsaboutits productsand services
0.832
reflect the imagedefinedin the paragraphabove
The public relationsactivities of the companyto promoteitself aswell as its
0.868
productsreflect the imagedefinedin the paragraphabove
0.901
The productsand servicesof the companyreflect the imagedefinedin the
0.735
paragraphabove
The sponsorshipactivities of the companyreflect the imagedefinedin the
0.789
paragraphabove
The company'stv, radio or printed advertisingsto promoteitself reflect the
0.800
imagedefinedin the paragraphabove
Kaiser-Mayer-Olkinmeasureof samplingadequacy- 0.924
Total varianceexplained= 66.91%
Bartlett Test of Sphericity--6142.91, p=0.000
Note 1: The items which had communalitiesless than 0.50, the ones with less than 0.50 factor
loadingsas well as the oneswhich were loadedto more than one factor were excluded(Hair et
al., 1998).
Note 2: Principal componentanalysisand orthogonalvarimax rotation were used.

170

by the Cronbachalphameasure.
The internalconsistencyof eachfactor was assessed
In the light of the conclusionabove,the following rearrangementsof the items and
their underlyingconstructswith their re-specifiedlabelswere consideredasthe most
relevant dimensions of the corporate identity mix elements (company-controlled
communicationelements):

Factor I- corporatevisual identity systems(CVIS): This factor encompassesthe


visual expressionsof the organisation(Melewar and Saunders,1999)which reflect
the valuesof an organisationvia its symbols(Balmer, 1995).Even though six items
items
involve the main aspectsof CVIS i.e.
the
seven
remaining
were excluded,
name,logo, sloganand colour/typography.

Factor 2- corporatedesign(CD): This factor embracesthe more tangible aspectsof


corporate symbolism i.e. the architectureof the company buildings and the staff
incorporates
from
items
1995).
It
(Schmitt
the companyaesthetics
the
et al.,
apparels
and the staff appareldimensionswhich were initially defined in theory as separate
constructs.
Factor 3- companybehaviour (CBEH): This third factor refers to the actions of a
company concerning environmental, ethical and recruitment issues (Balmer and
Soenen,1999;Senand Bhattacharya,2001) and encompasses
all of the theoretically
defined items. ,

Factor4- marketingcommunicationmix (COMM): This last factor representsall the


activities to promote a company's productsand services(Barich and Kotler, 1991;

171

Van Riel, 1995)as well as itself (Argenti, 1998;Hunt and Grunig, 1994).Consistent
initial
items
the
theory,
the
all
were retainedin this factor.
with

The three factor structure below (Table 5.6) was concluded for the unplanned
(uncontrolled)communicationelements.The factorswhich had eigen valuesgreater
than 1.00were preserved.The MSA measureof samplingadequacy(MSA = 0.910)
(Kaiser, 1974)andBartlett Test of Sphericity(BTS=7624.34,p=0.000)demonstrated
that the EFA was appliedcorrectly. The amountof varianceexplainedby thesethree
factorswas 78.95%(Hair et al., 1998).

0.70,
Cronbachalpha statistics for each factor (ccf,,,
0.947
0.877
>
>
=
ccf.,
2=
t,,,,
t(,,
0.70, (XfactoO 0.964 > 0.70) confirmed that the items in each factor were intemally
consistent(Nunnally, 1978) (Table 5.6). This result indicatedthat thesefactorscan
be consideredasthe basisfor the conflrmatory factor analysis(CFA) application.

In contrastto the theory, it was found that both the intermediary(EWOM) and the
interpersonalcommunication(CWOM) items were loadedon the samefactor rather
than two distinct dimensions.The researcherconcluded that while people were
forming an image of a company,the reception of informal information about that
company may be more important than from whom or from which media that
information was disseminated.Thereby the loading of all items onto one single
factor was consideredtheoretically acceptable.The second and the third factors
items
for
is,
the emotional appeal (EMOT) and the
that
all
as
expected,
resulted
consumer-companyidentification (IDNT) constructs loaded to their underlying
dimensions.

172

Table 5.6. Exploratory factor analysisand Cronbachalpha results for the unplanned
(uncontrolled)communicationelements.
Factors and Related Items

Factor
Loadings

Word-of-mouth (WM)
My close friends and relatives talk about this company frequently
1 hear positive things about this company from my close friends and relatives
My close friends and relatives recommend this company to me
My close friends and relatives encourage me to make purchases from this
company
The media, opinion leaders, government institutions and NGOs etc. talk about
this company frequently
I hear positive things about this company from the media, opinion leaders,
government institutions and NGOs etc.
The media, opinion leaders, government institutions and NGOs etc. are proud
of this company
The media, opinion leaders, government institutions and NGOs etc.
recommend this company

Cronbach
Alpha

0.815
0.815
0.827
0.849
0.860

0 947
.

0.832
0.853
0.844

Emotional Appeal (EMOT)


I feel good things about this company
0.835
1 respect this company
0.820
I trust this company
0.797
_ Consumer-company Identification (IDNT)
I care about what others think about this company
0.867
When I talk about this company I say "we" instead of "they"
0.931
The successof this company is my success
0.939
If someone appreciates this company, I feel proud
0.941
0.932
there is bad news about this company in media, I feel embarrassed
_IfKaiser-Mayer-Olkin
measure of sampling adequacy = 0.910
Total variance explained
Bartlett Test of Sphericity= 7624.34, p= 0.000

0 877
.

0 964
.

78.95%

Note 1: All items were retained.There were no items with communalitiesless than 0.50 and with
factor loadings less than 0.50. None of the items were loadedto more than one factor either
(Hair et al., 1998).
Note 2: Principal componentanalysisand orthogonalvarimax rotation were used.

On the basis of the EFA results, the factors for unplanned (uncontrolled)
communicationelementswere describedand namedasthe following:

Factor I- word-of-mouth(WM): This factor demonstratesa more gcneralisedwordinformal


person-to-person
of-mouth constructwhich encompasses
communicationas
well as the information conveyed by intermediaries(e.g. media, opinion leaders,
non-profit organisationsetc.) (Comelissen,2000). It is comprisedof eight items.The
first four items were initially defined under the intermediary communication
173

construct(EWOM) and the latter four items were consideredunderthe interpersonal


communicationconstruct(CWOM) in theory.

Factor 2-

emotional appeal (EMOT):

This factor presents one's emotional

disposition towards a company (Gardberg and Fombrun, 2002; Fornbrun et al.,


2000). It consistsof the initially defined indicators.

identification (IDNT): This factor is composedof the


Factor 3- consumer-company
itemswhich are relatedto one's connectedness
to an organisation(Ashfort and Mael,
1989;Gwinnerand Swanson,2003; Mael and Ashfort, 1992).All of the theoretically
definedfeaturesare presentin this factor.

Finally, EFA was applied to the remainingconstructsi.e. corporateimage,company


knowledge and perceived integration. The MSA measureof sampling adequacy
(MSA = 0.835) and the Bartlett Test of Sphericity (BTS= 3259.93, p= 0.000)
showedthat the EFA was appropriatelyperformed(Kaiser, 1974).As a result of the
analysis,a three factor solution was concludedon the basisof the latent root criterion
(all factors' eigenvalues> 1.00).Additionally, the total varianceexplainedby these
three factors was 78.28%which confirmed that the factors capturedthe reality well
(Hair et al., 1998)(Table 5.7). Consistentwith what was defined in the theory, all of
the items to measure the corporate image (IMAG), the company knowledge
(KNOW) and the perceived integration (INTG) constructs resulted in their
underlying factors. On the basis of this finding, the retention of thesethree factors
was concludedbeforeapplicationof the confirmatoryfactor analysis.

174

Table 5.7. Exploratory factor analysisresults for the dependent,antecedentand the


control variables.
Factors and Related Items
Company Knowledge (KNOW)
I know the products and services of this company very well
In general, I know a lot about this company
I can describe this company to others in detail
Corporate Image (INIAG)
Please state your general impression about McDonald's
What do you think about what impression other people have about McDonald's?
Please state your impression about McDonald's compared to other companies in
the same sector
Perceived Integration (INTG)
All communication activities of the company have similar objectives
All communication activities of the company are aligned to convey a common
message
I receive similar messagesfrom each of the communication activities of the

Factor
Loadings
0.886
0.932
0.904
0.840
0.859
0.808

Cronbach
Alpha
0.922

0.822

0.872
0.871
0.811

0.917

company
0.831
It seemsthat all communicationactivities of the companyare plannedand
executedby the samepersonor people
0.870
communicationactivities of the companyaim to convey a commonmessage
_All
Kaiser-Mayer-Olkinmeasureof samplingadequacy= 0.835
Total varianceexplained= 78.28%
Test of Sphericity--3259.93,p= 0.000
_Bartlett
Note 1: All items were retained.There were no items with communalitiesless than 0.50 and with
factor loadingsless than 0.50. None of the items were loadedto more than one factor either
(Hair et al., 1998).
Note 2: Principal componentanalysisand orthogonalvarimax rotation were used.

The definition of the factorsandtheir labelsare presentedbelow:

Factor I- companyknowledge(KNOW): This factor presentsthe control variable


which was usedto assessthe level of knowledgethe respondentshaveaboutthe case
companies.Bhattacharyaand Sen(2003) statethat respondentsshouldhavea certain
level of knowledge in order to be able to evaluatea company on its qualities and
actions.

Factor 2- corporateimage (IMAG): This factor encompasses


the items that were
designedto measurepeople's general impression of a company (Dowling, 1986;

175

Johnsonand Zinkhan, 1990; Keller, 2002). It retained the theoretically suggested


featuresby Williams and Moffit (1997).

Factor 3-

perceived integration (INTG): This factor representsthe respondents'

perceptions of how well all communication' activities of an organisation are


integrated(Low, 2000; Van Riel, 1995).Consistentwith theory, all indicatorsof this
factor also remained.

Churchill (1979) states that "Though [exploratory factor analysis] may be


satisfactory during the early stagesof researchon a construct, the use of factor
analysisin a confirmatory fashion would seembetter at later stages"(p. 69). Since
the introduction of covariance structure models and accompanying computer
programssuchas LISREL (J6reskogand S6rbom, 1993),researchersare now ableto
assessthe validity of a construct (i.e. unidimensionality) in a stricter manner
(Steenkampand Trijp, 1991). Anderson and Gerbing (1982; 1988) state that the
causalrelationsbetweenthe underlying constructsand their relatedindicatorsshould
be specified properly by confirmatory factor analysis before imposing any causal
relations among the constructs.Therefore, in the next stage, confirmatory factor
analysiswas performedin orderto assessthe constructvalidity of the scales.

5.4.2. Confirmatory

factor analysis and measurement models

Anderson and Gerbing (1988) recommend a two-step approach in structural equation

modelling which "allows testsof the significanceof all pattem coefficients ... [and]
provides a particularly useful framework for formal comparisons of the

176

interest
of
model
with next most likely theoreticalalternatives"(p.422).
substantive
In this method, first the validity of the constructsis tested by confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) i.e. measurementmodel assessment.Second, the relationships
betweenthose constructs(structural equation model) are examined.In this section
the measurementmodels for the corporate identity mix elements (companycontrolled communicationelements),the unplanned(uncontrolled communication)
elementsandthe dependentantecedentand control variablesare discussed.

As mentionedbefore,confirming the unidimensionalityof a constructis the first step


in proving that a commontrait representsa set of indicators(Gerbingand Anderson,
1988;Hattie, 1985;Steenkampand Trijp, 1991).CFA is a techniqueto test whether
the theoretically imposed structure of the underlying constructs exists in the
observeddata (Andersonand Gerbing, 1982).It allows the assessment
of how well
all the manifestvariablesof the sameconstructrelate to eachother, i.e. convergent
validity, by the computationof compositereliability and averagevarianceextracted
for each factor (Bagozzi et al., 1991; Forriell and Larcker, 1981; Gerbing and
Anderson, 1988; Hair et al., 1998). It is also used for testing how distinct the
indicators of a construct are from the manifest variables of the other underlying
dimensionsi.e. discriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1982; 1988). In any
by CFA, it is also necessaryto confirm the overall
measurementmodel assessment
validity of the model, i.e. nomologicalvalidity. The goodness-of-fitindicesare used
to'test the nomological validity of the measurementmodels (Lages, 2000;
SteenkampandTrijp, 1991).

177

The maximum likelihood (ML) estimation method was used in all measurement
model estimationsby CFA. Even though ideally the asymptotic distribution free
estimation methods should be used when the normality assumption of the
is
analysis
violated (SeeSection5.3 for the test of normality), ML could
multivariate
still be applicableas an estimationmethodwhen the samplesize doesnot meet Hair
et al.'s (1998) criterion of having at least five observationsfor each variable
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Bentler and Chou, 1987).The model fit indicators
were utilised in model validation in order to solve the likely problem of an unreliable
due
(Chi-square)
to ML application (Bentler and
standard
statistic
and
errors
X2
Chou, 1987).Moreover,the covariancematrix was usedin all the CFA testssince it
yields more reliable values for the X2statistic and measurementerrors comparedto
the correlation matrix Q6reskog and S6rbom, 1993). All the parametersof the
indicatorsandthe latentvariableswere estimatedfreely.

In the first run of the CFA for the corporate identity mix elements (companycontrolled communicationelements),the model fit measuresdid not indicatea valid
four factor solution. The RMSEA (root mean squareerror of approximation)was
above the acceptablelevel of 0.08 (Garver and Mentzer, 1999) and the X2 statistic
was statistically significant (p < 0.05) (Andersonand Gerbing, 1982).Andersonand
Gerbing (1988) suggestthat in order to improve the model fit, the problematic
indicators can be treated in the following ways: 1) removing items from further
analysis,2) relating itemsto a different factor, 3) relating the itemsto more than one
dimension, and 4) using correlatedmeasurementerrors. The first two options are
recommendedover the two latter ones,since it is more likely that unidimensionality

178

will be achieved(Andersonand Gerbing, 1988).Nonetheless,Andersonand Gerbing


(1988)mentionthat any re-specificationshouldbe alsotheoreticallyjustified.

Accordingly, the items of the corporate visual identity systems (CVIS) and the
corporatedesign (CD) constructswere merged becausethese two dimensionsare
theoreticallycloserto eachother than the other two factors (companybehaviourand
marketing communicationmix). Moreover, the items which required modification
belongedto the corporatedesignfactor. The three factor measurementmodel did not
show a good fit, either. Consequently,the four problematic items which were
initially included in CD were iteratively excludedfrom further analysisand the 7.2
differencesbetweenthe previousand the current modelswere computedin eachrun
between
found
difference
the measurement
was
until no statistically significant
1991).
1988;
Steenkamp
Trijp,
Exclusion
Gerbing,
(Anderson
of all
and
and
models
the items initially defined as relating to the staff apparel(EAPP) and the corporate
In
be
the
(AEST)
theoretically
to
acceptable.
considered
constructs
was
aesthetics
design
did
focus
the
the
of
not mention
groups
preliminary research,membersof
staff apparel before the researcherasked them to elaborateon what they thought
front
line
the
the
employeesof the organisationsthat they chose
of
appearance
about
to talk about. Similarly, the discussionabout the exterior and the interior designof
the companies' buildings was initiated by the researchernot by the focus group
attendants.This was consideredas an indication that while consumersare evaluating
the
image
to
tend
those
they
as
not
consider
elements
salient
as
a company's
items
identity
Therefore,
those
and the relatedconstructs
systems.
corporatevisual
were excludedfrom further analysis.

179

Additionally, three items were excluded from the corporatevisual identity systems
items
from
behaviour
(CBEH)
factor
(CVIS),
two
the
company
and one
construct
item from the marketing communicationmix elements(COMM) dimensiondue to
high modification values.The deleteditems under corporatevisual identity systems
are as follows: 1) 1 like the nameof the company,2) 1 like the logo of the company
and, 3) 1 like the colour and typographyusedon all visual materialsof the company.
Discardingthose items was consideredtheoretically acceptablesince the remaining
four items still coveredthe theoretically defined items of name, logo, slogan and
colour andtypography.

The two items - "The companysupportscorporategiving" - and, - "The company


treats its employeeswell" - under the companybehaviour construct (CBEH) were
interviews
both
deleted.
from
The
the
with
managers
of the case companies
also
heavily
This
in
these
that
organisations
were
not
engaged
corporate
giving.
revealed
fact reduced the possibility of the respondentsbeing aware of the companies'
item.
Since
for
latter
A
the
similar
conclusion
giving
attempts.
was
made
corporate
the natureof the issuerequiresmore internal informationaboutthe companies,it was
highly likely that the respondentscould not easily assessthis feature.Tberefore,the
exclusionof theseitemswas consideredto be theoreticallycorrect.

Lastly, the following item from the marketing communication mix construct
(COMM) was deleted:"The public relations activities of the companyto promote
itself as well as its products reflect the image defined in the paragraphabove".
During the pilot testingof the questionnaire,it was noticedthat the respondentswere
between
difference
the public relationsactivities and sponsorship
the
not clear about

180

activities. Sinceit was not diagnosedon the basisof the exploratory factor analysis
data
to
test
the
pilot
as well as the main survey data,the item was
applied
which was
factor
higher
However,
the
confirmatory
assessment
analysis
showed
a
still reserved.
covariancebetweenthat and the remaining items of the construct. Therefore,this
item was excluded.

Table 5.8 shows the final measurementmodel structure.Although the X2statistic


demonstrateda poor ft23' the other two absolutefit indices (root meansquareerror
of approximation- RMSEA= 0.036, and goodness-of-fitmeasure- GFI= 0.96) and
all the incrementalfit indices (normated fit index - NFI= 0.98, non-normatedfit
index - NNFI= 0.99, normated comparative fit index - CFI= 0.99, and adjusted
goodness-of-fitindex- AGFI= 0.94) showeda good model fit (Bagozziet al., 1991;
Doll et al., 1994;Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Garverand Mentzer, 1999;Hair et al.,
1998;Mueller, 1996)(SeeSection4.5.2 for descriptionsof the indices).On the basis
(Lages,
the
this
was
as
nomologically
valid
model
concluded
measurement
of
result,
2000; SteenkampandTrijp, 1991).

The figures in Table 5.8 are evidencethat convergentvalidity was achieved.All the t
values of the items were significantly greaterthan the critical value of 1.96 at the
0.95 confidence level (Bagozzi et al., 1991; Chau, 1997). All indicators showed
higher individual reliabilities (SMC) than 0.50. The three constructs had high
for
(p
0.70)
the
>
each
and
average
variance
extracted
composite reliabilities

23Since the X2 statistic is sensitive to sample size, this was consideredan acceptablecondition
(Bagozzi et al., 1991;Hair et al., 1998).Thus the measurementmodel was assessed
on the basisof
the other fit indices.

181

constructwas above 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).The Cronbachalphaswere


above0.70aswell (Nunnally, 1978).

Table 5.8. Measurementmodel for corporate identity mix (company-controlled


communication)elements.
e
df
RMSEA
GFI
CH
AGFI
NFI
NNFI
Model Fit
Indicators*
103.31
51
0.036
0.96
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.94
Variables
SMC
t-value
Corporate Visual Identity Systems(CVIS)
The nameof the companymakesme havepositive feelingstowardsthe company
14.93
0.65
The logo of the companymakesme havepositive feelingstowardsthe company
17.28
0.72
11.99
The sloganof the companymakesme havepositive feelingstowardsthe company
0.55
The colour and typographyusedon all visual materialsof the companymakeme havepositive
14 24
0 63
feelingstowardsthe company
.
.
Company Behaviour (CBEII)
14.09
This companycaresaboutenvironmentalissues
0.64
17.06
0,75
This companytreatsthe local public very well
16.15
0.72
This companyrespectsconsumerright
13.39
0.64
This companytreatsconsumerswith high standards
Marketing Communication Mix (COMM)
The company's tv, radio or printed advertisingsabout its products and servicesreflect the
13.50
0.59
imagedefinedin the paragraphabove
14.30
0.58
The productsandservicesof the companyreflect the imagedefined in the paragraphabove
17.64
0.67
The sponsorshipactivitiesof the companyreflect the imagedefinedin the paragraphabove
The company'stv, radio or printed advertisingsto promote itself reflect the image defined in
15.56
0.70
the paragraphabove
Average Variance
Composite Reliability (p) Cronbach Alpha (6)
Internal Consistency
Extracted (AVE)
0.875
0.64
0.874
CorporateVisual Identity Systems
0.69
0.898
0.896
CompanyBehaviour
0.64
0.875
0.873
Marketing CommunicationMix
0 X- Chi square;df - degreesof freedom;RMSEA - Root meansquareeffor of approximation;GF1- Goodness-offit index; NFI - Normated-fit index; CH - Comparative-fit index; AGFI - Adjusted goodness-of-fitindex; SMC Squaredmultiple correlation(a variable's own individual reliability)
Nomologic2l validity: Satisfied.RMSEA < 0.08; NFI. NNFI and CH -> 0.95; GFI andAGFI -> 0.90
Convergent validity: Satisfied.All t-values=> 1.96(significant at 0.95 confidencelevel); All SMC -> 0.05and,
All AVE => 0.50

Next each construct's unidimensionality under the unplanned (uncontrolled)


communicationelementswas testedby CFA. The final measurementmodel's overall
24
four
factor
that
a
structure was adequate (RMSEA= 0.054;
assessmentshowed
GFI= 0.94; NFI= 0.98; NNFI= 0.99; CFI= 0.99 and AGFI= 0.92) (Table 5.9)
(Bagozzi et al., 1991; Doll ct al., 1994; Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Garver and
24The X2statisticwas statisticallysignificant which suggestsa differencebetweenthe currentand the
previousmodels.However, it was concludedthat since the X2statistic is sensitiveto samplesize,
the other goodness-of-fitindiceswere to be used for assessingthe model fit (Bagozzi et al., 1991;
Hair et al., 1998).

182

Mentzer, 1999;Hair et al., 1998; Mueller, 1996),thereby nomological validity was


(Lages,
2000;
Steenkamp and Trijp,
confirmed

1991). The interpersonal

intermediary
(CWOM),
communication (EWOM) and consumercommunication
company identification (IDNT) constructs were revised, whereas the emotional
appeal (EMOT) dimensionremainedthe same.The following stepswere taken to
model structurein Table 5.9:
reachthe measurement

Table 5.9. Measurement model for unplanned (uncontrolled) communication


elements.
Df
RMSEA
Model Fit
GFI
NFI
NNFI
X,
Indicators
186.29
71
0.054
0.94
0.98
0.99
Variables
Interpersonal Communication (CWOM)
My closefriendsandrelativestalk aboutthis companyfrequently
1 hear positive things about this company from my close friends and relatives
My closefriendsandrelativesrecommendthis companyto me
Intermediary Communication (EWOM)
T'hemedia,opinion leaders,governmentinstitutions and NGOs etc. talk about this company
frequently
I hear positive things about this company from The media, opinion leaders, government
institutionsandNGOs etc.
I hear positive things about this company from The media, opinion leaders, government
institutionsandNGOs etc.
Emotional appeal (EMOT)
I feel goodthings aboutthis company
1respectthis company
1trust this company
Consumer-companyIdentification (IDNT)
If someonecriticisesthis company,I feel personallyinsulted
1careaboutwhat othersthink aboutthis company
The successof this companyis my success
If someoneappreciatesthis company,I feel proud
If thereis badnewsaboutthis companyin media,I feel embarrassed

CFI
0.99
SNIC

AGFI
0.92
t- value

0.73
0.83
0.73

22.52
22.76
21.90

0.77

23.59

0.77

20.75

0.76

22.58

0.82
0.85
0.50

16.22
19.01
13.13

23.94
0.71
26.95
0.73
32.41
0.87
36.90
0.91
26.30
0.84
Average Variance
Composite Reliability (p) Cronbach Alpha (ct)
Internal Consistency
Extracted (AVE)
0.763
0.906
InterpersonalCommunication
0.906
0.767
0.908
IntermediaryCommunication
0.906
0.722
Emotional appeal
0.885
0.877
0.960
0.828
Consumer-company
Identification
0.956
0 X'-Chi square;df - degreesof freedom;RMSEA - Root meansquareerror of approximation;GFI - Goodness-offit index; NFI - Normated-fit index; CH - Comparative-fitindex; AGFI - Adjusted goodness-of-fit index; SMC Squaredmultiple coffelation(Variable's own individual reliability)
Nomological validity: Satisfied.RMSEA < 0.80; NFI, NNFI andCH -> 0.95; GFI andAGFI ->0.90
Convergent validity: Satisfied.All t-values-> 1.96(significant at 0.95 confidencelevel); All SMC andAVE ->
0.50, All p>0.70

First, even though the exploratory factor analysis for the unplanned(uncontrolled)
communication elements suggested merging the items for the interpersonal

183

(CWOM) and intermediarycommunication(EWOM) constructs(see Section5.4.1)


the four factor solution was testedagain. The result of the CFA for the four factor
solution showeda better model fit than the three factor solution (SeeTable 5.9 for
the factors). The X2 difference between the competing models (the three factor
solution versusthe four factor solution) was 290.03, which is above the X2critical
value of 7.815 at the 0.95 confidencelevel for three degreesof freedom(Anderson
and Gerbing, 1988). However, there were still some items with high modification
figures in the four factor model. The same procedure for re-specifying the
for
the corporate identity mix elements(company-controlled
measurementmodel
communicationelements)was followed to achievea better model fit (Andersonand
Gerbing, 1988). The indicators, which showed high modification indices, were
iteratively taken out of the analysis. The X2 difference was computed for the
competingmodelsuntil no statistically significant differencewas found betweenthe
models(Andersonand Gerbing, 1988; Steenkampand Trijp, 1991).As a result, the
interpersonalcommunication(CWOM), and intermediarycommunication(EWOM)
in
line
items.
The
three
the
composed
constructswere
of
contentof
constructswere
with the theory (Andersonand Gerbing, 1988) i.e., they consistedof favourability,
recommendation and frequency features of word-of-mouth communication
(Harrison-Walker,2001;Jandaet al., 2002).

Second,the item "When I talk aboutthis companyI say"we" insteadof "they ..was
deletedfrom the consumer-companyidentification construct(IDNT), since its error
term was correlated highly with those of the other items. This exclusion did not
jeopardise the theoretical essenceof the construct (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988),
sincefive of the manifestvariableswere still preserved.

184

The convergent validity assessment yielded a positive result. For each'variable, t


values were statistically significant (all t values > 1.96, p= 0.05) (Bagozzi et al.,
1991; Chau, 1997). All measures indicated higher squared multiple correlations
(SMQ than the threshold value of 0.50 and all average variances extracted were
above 0.50. Each of the constructs had composite reliabilities greater than 0.70
(Forriell and Larcker, 1981). The Cronbach alphas of the four factors were also
above the criterion value

0.906 > 0.70, cc = 0.906 > 0.70, cc,


0.877
......
m"t=

0.956 > 0.70) (Nunnally, 1978) (Table 5.9).


>0.70, CEidnt=

Finally, the corporate image (IMAG), the perceived integration (INTG) and the
company knowledge (KNOW) constructs' validities were assessedby CFA. The
goodness-of-fitindices evidencedthat the measurementmodel was valid, thereby
confirming nomological validity (Lages, 2000; Steenkampand Trijp, 1991) (Table
5.10).The RMSEA measurewas 0.054,which is within the acceptablerangeof 0.05
and 0.08 (Garver and Mentzer, 1999), and NFI, NNFI, CFI were above the 0.95
threshold value and GFI and AGFI were above the 0.90 critical value (Bagozzi et al.,
1991; Doll et al., 1994; Forriell and Larcker, 1981; Garver and Mentzer, 1999; Hair
et al., 1998; Mueller, 1996)25 (Table 5.10). All of the items for the company
knowledge (KNOW) and the corporate image (IMAG) constructs were retained.
However, the indicator - "All communication activities of the company have similar
its
deleted
integration
from
(INTG)
the
objectives" - was
perceived
construct
since
error term correlated highly with the other manifest variables' error terms and the
modification indices suggestedre-specification of the factor (Anderson and Gerbing,
2SSimilarto theformermeasurement
thex wasnot considered
model'sfit assessment,
asa modelfit
indicatorsinceit statisticallysuggested
a worsefit. It was concludedthat this result may have
occurreddueto the sensitivityof the X2statisticto samplesize(Bagozziet al., 1991;Hair et al.,
1998).

185

1988).The removalof this indicator was regardedas acceptablesincethe remaining


four items still covered the essenceof the integration concept by including the
commonmessage,alignedactivities and coordinatedplanningand executionfeatures
(Andersonand Gerbing,1988).

Table 5.10.Measurementmodel for the dependent,antecedentand control variables.


df
Model Fit
RMSEA
AGFI
GFI
NNFI
CH
NFI
XI
Indicators
32
87.48
0.054
0.98
0.93
0.96
0.99
0.98
Variables
SMC
t- value
Company Knowledge (KNOW)
21.70
0.71
I know the productsandservicesof this companyvery well
30.81
0.94
In general,I know a lot aboutthis company
4.33
1can describethis companyto othersin detail
0.76
Corporate Image (IMAG)
14.03
Pleasestateyour generalimpressionaboutMcDonald's
0.76
13.73
What do you think aboutwhat impressionother consumershaveaboutMcDonald's
0.66
Pleasestateyour impressionaboutMcDonald's comparedto other companiesin the samesector
11.37
0.44
PerceivedIntegration (INTG)
15.57
All communicationactivitiesof the companyare alignedto conveya commonmessage
0.68
1receivesimilar messagesfrom eachof the communicationactivities of the company
17.92
0.63
It seemsthat all communicationactivitiesof the companyareplannedandexecutedby the same
17.40
0 67
.
personor people
18.07
0.77
All communicationactivitiesof the companyaim to conveya commonmessage
Variance
Average
Internal Consistency
Composite Reliability (p)' Cronbach Alpha (6)
Extracted (AVE)
CompanyKnowledge
0.924
0.803
0.922
0.828
0.822
0.619
CorporateImage
0.899
0.689
PerceivedIntegration
0.896
X' - Chi square;df - degreesof freedom;RMSEA - Root meansquareerror of approximation;GFl - Goodness-of-fit
index; NFI - Normated-fit index; CFI - Comparative-fit index; AGF1 - Adjusted goodness-of-fitindex; SMC Squaredmultiple correlation(Variablesown individual reliability)
Nomological validity: Satisfied.RMSEA < 0.08; NFI, NNFI and CH -> 0.95; GFI andAGF1->0.90
Convergent validity: Satisfied.All t-values-> 1,96(significant at 0.95 confidencelevel), All SMC ->0.50 (except
the last item underthe RvIAGconstruct),All AVE -> 0.50, All p>0.70

The result of the CFA application showedthat the convergentvalidity was satisfied.
All t valuesof the manifestvariableswere higher than the critical value of 1.96at the
0.95 confidence level (Bagozzi et al., 1991; Chau, 1997). Almost all indicators'
individual reliabilities (SMQ were abovethe thresholdvalue of 0.50 exceptthe last
item underthe corporateimageconstruct(Fomell and Larcker, 1981).Sincethis last
item's SMC value was close to 0.50 (the value= 0.44), the retentionof the item was
consideredacceptable.All of the constructsshowedhigh compositereliabilities (All
p>0.70) and the averagevarianceextractedfor eachfactor was above0.50 (Fornell

186

and Larcker, 1981). Additionally, the Cronbach alphas for the three underlying
dimensions were 0.922,0.822, and 0.896,. respectively, thereby exceeding the
thresholdvalueof 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978)(Table 5.10).

Discriminant validity of the measureswas assessedon the basis of the criteria


recommendedby Andersonand Gerbing (1988). The models were estimatedtwice
for every possiblepair of constructsin the measurementmodels.In the first model,
the phi correlationbetweenthe constructswas setto vary (unconstrainedmodel) and
in the secondone, the phi was constrainedto 1.00 (constrainedmodel) (Anderson
and Gerbing, 1988).The X2difference and the degreesof freedom were computed
for both the constrainedand the unconstrainedmodels.The results showedthat all
the modelsin which the phi was set to unity displayeda worse fit (All X2differences
> 3.841, df--l and p= 0.05) (Table 5.11), thereby confirming discriminant validity
(BagozziandPhilips, 1982).

In summary,the results of the nomological, convergentand discriminant validity


of the measurementmodelsyielded statistically and theoretically valid
assessments
constructs. The necessaryre-specificationswere done for the corporate visual
identity systems (CVIS), the corporate design (CD), the company behaviour
(CBEH), the marketing communication mix

(COMM), the interpersonal

communication (CWOM), the intermediary communication (EWOM), the


(INTG)
identification
integration
(IDNT)
the
and
perceived
consumer-company
scales on the basis of the statistical requirementswhich were also theoretically
justified (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). As a result, fourteen items were dropped
from the CFA models(SeeTables5.7,5.8,5.9). Subsequently,the underlying latent
variablesfor the next model testingstagewere robustly established.
187

00
.6

W)

'

Tw

.e

; -

H a 9

0 ;c:) :0

Vi I
%

tt
A

0,

%D 0,

,,6

zo

(4

"

(4

VII

tn

V)

"S

.r

9
M,d, d,

d
S
-S

'o 0 -06
8

3d Md
%0 "i
VII CIS

Wi

el

ON
M

`0

Oi
a,.

40
:o
o

1
1
HH
0
0
01
l
0
u5
o
u6
G
w
1
U
U0
'0
U
G5
:
a:
0
8
o
0
--p:
-)
U
o. , o 0. " . , . '
-. " ) -1
u

-. o

: o : o : o : o : o : o
,u

0:

40
: o ; C)
0

U-Md

00 ON00 ONZ, ,, M=

-4

Tu

zo
r-

(7, t 'o, M :!
00
'-1

-. ? -0

.,

v2

GM
0
10

C4 eq

o o o o
o

en

0: 0
: o :
U: w

1=41

' 1

06 F-

:E

!,, t ,, ! '. "4 " ,, A "4 '14--

Gn
rA

co

0 : 0
: o -:: o

90
CD
9:9

I'li

10

0 > 'A l o 01
M U5 u 'MUYOYU: V:
Q
Y
Rt
:
R U, ::0 :Q 0--O: Ot
:p
-: 40

uc,::) U,:Sd 3 U,
m

t-

F.

gI
0

!2

00
11 '

--

JA

zS

00 Ch 00 CS

0% 1- 00 %n

-en

n
2

00 (7,

00 (7,

"4 --

en

c!

-,

N6

00
,

P.,

r.-

o : o

w w5 1
W

44

S S b
u
Ici
r_
ce
"Ci

t-

00
10

eq
oo

00

t10

N
No
oo ON
o
eq
d:
%6
C4
.
0
CIO,
A

t-

C5 u :Su
o

L) z- =1
14
00
M

00
-

en
t-

5
0

00

,4

P
'
R00'- --
r'r
I
zR
,
Go
.2-i- _1 -,
%0

0
0

: 0

o
o

o
0
a

:
:
0 40
0
0 b

>
> >
uo
>
U
5
P
C U5u:>u
)
u
L
u
U,
u
,4
u
u
m
u
U
"E
u
U,
u.
uW
"
., u >u
-.
.u
,6
g>u
gu
g .9.
-ut
u
1
.u
- i -E
m
3
%,

iz

.-

35
:Sd u

B B
2
r,
5
d
U2 .,

'?
'o,
.
.9g

4)

tj .

'o, .

I
3dI
:Su1
:SU,:5 (5 :5

5.4.3. Assessment of model fit

It was mentionedin Section 5.4.2 that a two-step approachin structural equation


modelling was followed (Andersonand Gerbing, 1988).Following the measurement
model estimation,the model which presentsthe causal relationshipsbetweenthe
exogenous(independent)and endogenous(dependent)variablesis discussedin the
following paragraphs.

During the analysis, no constraints were imposed to almost all of the parameters
relating to manifest and latent variables except employee behaviour (EBEH),
consumer-company value congruence (CNGR) and corporate associations gap
(IGAP). Since these the first concept was measured with only one indicator and the
two latter concepts were calculated as difference scores of aggregated values (See
Section 4.5.4), the link between the manifest and the latent variable is set to unity and
the measurementerror of the indicator is set to zero (Bagozzi, 1980b; Diamantopoulos
and Siguaw, 2000; J6reskog and S6rbom, 1993). The covariance matrix was preferred
to the correlation matrix due to the fact that the latter causesproblems in terms of the
X2 (chi-square) statistic and measurementerror computation (J6reskog and S6rbom,
1993).

Before analysingthe structurallinks, the overall fit of the modelto the observeddata
was examinedin order to assesswhetherthe model was valid. Table 5.12 represents
the figures for the goodness-of-fltindices.Although the X2 value was.statistically
.
significant (X2= 1187.44,dF--582) at a 0.000 significancelevel, thereby indicating

189

poor fitF6,the other absoluteand incrementalfit indices demonstratedthat the model


was an adequaterepresentationof the relationshipsproposedbetweenthe constructs.
RMSEA was 0.042, which is below the cut-off value of 0.50 (Garver and Mentzer,
1999; Hair et al., 1998).The GFI and AGFI were 0.87 and 0.85, respectively.There
appearsto be some difference regarding the recommendedthreshold value of 0.90
(Hair et al., 1998). However, Doll et al. (1994) and Durande-Moreauand Usunier
(1999) suggestthat a criterion of 0.80 is consideredacceptable.Since the values for
GFI and AGFI were within the acceptablerangeof 0.80 and 0.90, the model fit was
consideredacceptable.The NFI, NNFI and CFI measuresdemonstratedthat the model
can be evaluatedas a good fit. The figures for the latter indices were 0.97,0.99 and
0.99, respectively,which are above the 0.95 criterion value (Diamantopoulosand
Siguaw, 2000; Doll et al., 1994; Hair et al., 1998; Hu and Bentler, 1999; Mueller,
1996).Overall, the model fit indicesconfirmedthat the modelwas valid.

Table 5.12.Model fit indicators.


Model Fit
df
RMSEA
GFI
AGFI
NNFI
NFI
CH
X2
Indicators
1187.44
582
0.042
0.87
0.85
0.97
0.99
0.99
X2 - Chi square;df - degreesof freedom;RMSEA - Root meansquareerror of approximation;GF1 Goodricss-of-fit
index; NF1- Normated-fit index; Non-normatedfit index; CFl Comparative-fitindex; AGFI Adjustedgoodness-offit index;

Modelfit: RMSEA
< 0.05;NFI,NNFIandCH -> 0.95,GFIandAGHwithintheacceptable
of 0.80and0.90.
range
The research hypotheseswere tested on the basis of the structural model above (Figure
5.1). An examination of the path estimates and t values in Figure 5.1 illustrates that
twelve of the paths had statistically significant coefficients. Nine of the t values were
above the 1.96 critical value at the 0.05 significance level. The t values for the
relationships between company behaviour (CBEH) and corporate image (IMAG),
26As mentionedin Section5.3.2.,the X2statisticwas de-cmphasizedin the assessment
of model fit.
Sinceit is sensitiveto samplesize(Bagozziet al., 1991;Hair et al., 1998),the other fit indiccgwere
usedto assessthe validity of the overall model.

190

marketing communicationmix (COMM) and corporate image (IMAG) as well as


image
(EMOI)
(IMAG) were significant at the 0.90
and
corporate
appeal
emotional
confidencelevel (t,itic.1=1.283,p=0.10).

0.22 (2.96)/Ill a supported

0.03 (0.73/H3brejected

R2- 0.64

0.10 (1.66)*/li3c supported""""'""'

zz:

0.08 (1.49)*/112suppbrted
0.22 (2.92)/H4supported
A

nf%

V. V7

0.06 (-0.85)/H5rejected

11% Al%

116bsupported
R- 0.09

0.12 (1.87)*/H6c supported

EWOM

0.24(5.33)
H6g supported
EMOT

(4.51)
0.21
.
116asupported

IDNT

R2- 0.52
(-4.75)/li6h
supported
-0.10
)7z

INTG

(-2.43)
0.15
-!
116csupported

(4.75)
-0.26
H6j supported

0.62 (13.19)/1-16i
supportcd
CNGR

Figure 5.1. The structuralmodel, standardisedcoefficients,t valuesand variance


explained.
*t value -> 1.282(significant at the 0.90 confidencelevel), and all other t-values- 1.96(significant at the 0.95
confidencelevel)
Note 1: The less the value for CNGR, the higher the value for IDNT; the higher the value for INTG, the lessthe
value for the IGAP; the less the value for the IGAP, the higher the value for the ESAAG;the less the value for
CNGR, the lessthe value for IGAP; andthe lessthe value for CNGR' the more the value for IMAG.
Note 2: R2- varianceexplained,CVIS - corporatevisual identity systems,EBEH - employeebehaviour,CBEH companybehaviour,COMM - marketingcommunicationmix, CWOM - interpersonalcommunication,EWOM intermediary communication,EMOT - emotional appeal, INTG - perceived integration, CNGR - consumeridentification, IGAP - corporateassociationsgap, IMAG
companyvalue congruence,IDNT - consumer-company
- corporateimage.
Note 3: The dashedline indicatesa non-significantpath.
Note 4: The t valuesarepresentedin brackets.

191

The aim of this thesis is to predict the direct causalrelationshipsbetweencorporate


image (IMAG) and corporate visual identity systems(CVIS), employee behaviour
(EBEH), company behaviour (CBEH), marketing communicationsmix (COMM),
interpersonal communication (CWOM), intermediary communication (EWOM),
emotional appeal (EMOT), consumer-companyidentification (IDNT), consumercompanyvalue congruence(CNGR) and corporateassociationsgap (IGAP) as well as
the indirect links betweencorporateimage (IMAG) and emotional appeal (EMOT),
perceivedintegration(INTG) andconsumer-company
value congruence(CNGR).

Regarding the direct relationships, it was found that only three of the corporate
identity mix (company-controlledcommunication) elements, i.e. corporate visual
identity systems(CVIS), companybehaviour(CBEH) and marketing communication
I
mix elements (COMM), had a statistically significant impact on corporate image
(IMAG). CVIS was significant at the 0.95 confidence level (tcvls= 2.96 > 1.96) (Hla
accepted), whereas CBEH and COMM were significant at the 0.90 confidence level
(tCBEI-17
1.66 > 1.283 and tcomm= 1.49 > 1.283) (142and H3c accepted). The influence
of employee behaviour (EBEH) on corporate image (IMAG)

was not confirmed

(tEBEH"'
0.73 < 1.96) (H3b rejected). Among the corporate identity mix elements, the
CVIS construct had the highest impact on the corporate image construct (yCVIS-IMM
0.22) (Figure 5.1). That is, ceteris paribus a one unit increase in CVIS resulted in a
0.22 increase in IMAG. The two coefficients for the company behaviour (CBEM and
the marketing communication mix (COMM)

0.08,
0.10
and
constructs were

respectively.

192

The direct relationships imposed between interpersonal communication (CWOM),


identification
consumer-company

(IDNT),

consumer-company value congruence

(CNGR), corporate associations gap (IGAP), emotional appeal (EMOT) and corporate
image (IMAG) were confirmed. The t values of the paths between the first four
constructs and IMAG were 2.92,2.43,

-2.43 and -4.51, respectively, which were

statistically higher than the critical t value of 1.96 at the 0.05 significance level (H4,
H6b, Me, H6a accepted). The relationship between EMOT and IMAG was significant
1.87 > 1.283) (H6c accepted). However, no
at the 0.90 confidence l.evel OEMOT-IMAG-_
direct causal link was found between intermediary communication (EWOM) and
(H5
1.96)
<
corporate image (IMAG) OEWOWIMAG
rejected).
-0.85

As a result of this assessment,


the following hypotheseswere supported(Table 5.13):
a positive relationship between the attitude of consumerstowards a company's
corporate visual identity systems (CVIS) and corporate image (IMAG) (Hla); a
positive relationship between consumers' perceptions of a company's marketing
image
its
(COMM)
to
communicationactivities" ability
reflect
values
and corporate
(IMAG) (142);a positive relationshipbetweenthe perceptionsof consumersabout a
company's social responsibility activities (CBEH) and corporate image (IMAG)
(H3c); a positive relationship between the favourability of the word-of-mouth
information that consumersreceive about a company from their close environment
(CWOM) and corporate image (IMAG) (H4); a negative relationship between
consumers'perceptionsof the overlap betweena company's identity traits and their
own associationsabout that company's values (IGAP) and corporateimage (IMAG)
(116a);a positive relationship between a consumer's level of identification with a
company(IDNT) and corporateimage(IMAG) (H6b); a positive relationshipbetween

193

consumers'emotional appeal to a company (EMOT) and corporate image (IMAG)


(1-16c)and a negative relationship between consumers' perceptionsof the overlap
betweena company'svalues and their evaluation of themselveson the samevalues
(CNGR) andcorporateimage(IMAG) (1-16e)
and (Table 5.13).

The examinationof the correspondingpath estimatesand t values(Figure 5.1) for the


links between emotional appeal (EMOT)

(YEMOT-MNT'--

consumcr-companyvaluc congruencc(CNGR)

(ycNOR-IDNT-"2

0.24,
'0-109

tEMOT-IDNT

tCNGR-IDNf'--

5.33),
-4.75)

identification
(IDNT) demonstratedthat the two former
and consumer-company
dimensionspredictedthe latter factor. As a result the hypothesesH6g and H6h were
is,
Ilat
when consumershavea favourableemotionaldispositiontowardsa
supported.
companyand when they think that a company's valuesare congruentwith their own
values,they are more likely to identify themselveswith that organisation.

The evaluation of the structural equation regarding the relationships between


I
perceived integration (INTG), consumer-companyvalue congruence(CNGR) and
corporate associations gap (IGAP) showed that the first two constructs are
determinantsof the latter one.The standardisedestimatesand t valuesshowedthat the
path betweenINTG and IGAP as well as the path betweenCNGR and IGAP were
statistically significant. The t values for each relationship were 4.75 and 13-19,
(Figure
level
1.96
0.95
the
the
above
critical
well
value
of
confidence
respectively,
at
5.1). Thesefindings indicatedthat therewas a negativerelationshipbetweenperceived
integration(INTG) and corporateassociationsgap (IGAP) and a positive relationship
between consumer-companyvalue congruence(CNGR) and corporate associations
gap (IGAP), leadingto the supportof hypotheses6j and 6i (Table 5.13).

194

Table 5.13.The resultsin tenns of the rejectedand supportedhypotheses.


Hypotheses
Hla: The more positive the attitude that consumers have towards a company's corporate
have
image
favourable
(CVIS),
they
identity
the
the
about that
more
systems
visual
company (IMAG).
H2: The more consumers perceive the marketing communication activities of a company
reflect its identity well (COMM), the more favourable the image they have about that
company (IMAG).
H3b: The more consumers perceive a company as socially responsible (CBEH), the more
favourable the image they have about that company (IMAG).
H3c: The more consumers perceive the employees of a company as treating customers well
(EBEH), the more favourable the image they have about that company (IMAG).
114: The more positive word-of-mouth consumers receive from close friends and relatives
have
(CWOM),
favourable
image
they
the
the
about that
more
about a company
company (IMAG).
H5: The more positive word-of-mouth consumers receive from intermediaries sources such
favourable
leaders
(EWOM),
the
NGOs,
more
opinion
etc.
about
a
company
as media,
the image they have about that company (IMAG).
H6a: The smaller the corporate associations gap (IGAP), the more favourable the image
consumers have about that company (IMAG).
H6b: The greater the consumer-company identification (IDNT), the more favourable the
image consumers have about that company (IMAG).
H6c: The more consumers perceive a company's identity emotionally appealing (EMOT),
the more favourable the image they have about that company (IMAG).
H6d: There relationship between emotional appeal (EMOT) and corporate image (IMAG) is
identification
(IDNT).
by
consumer-company
mediated
H6e: The greater the consumer-company value congruence (CNGR), the more favourable
the image consumers have about that company (IMAG).
H6f: The relationship between consumer-company value congruence (CNGR) and corporate
image (IMAG) is mediated by the corporate associations gap (IGAP).
H6g: The more consumers perceive a company's identity emotionally appealing (EMOT),
the greater the consumer-company identification (IDNT).
H6h: The greater the consumer-company value congruence (CNGR), the greater the
consumer-company identification (IDNT).
H6i: The greater the consumer-company value congruence (CNGR), the smaller the
corporate associations gap (IGAP).
H6j: The greater the perceived integration of the corporate identity mix elements (INTG),
the smaller the corporate associations gap (IGAP).
H6k: The relationship between the perceived integration of the corporate identity mix
elements (INTG) and corporate image (IMAG) is mediated by the corporate
associations gap (IGAP).
H7: The effect of the corporate identity mix elements (company-controlled communication
elements) is stronger than the unplanned (uncontrolled) communication factors on
corporate image.

Result
Supported

Supported
Supported
Not
supported
Supported
Not
supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Not
supported

All the incrementaleffects on the corporateimagewere also statistically evident.The


(IMAG)
image
indirect
factor's
(EMOT)
the
corporate
effect on
emotional appeal
dimension
identification
the
through
consumer-company
construct was present
(IDW)

(YEMOT-H)NTVIDNT-IMAG-

0.02,

tEMOT-IMAG=

2.22 > 1.96) (H6d accepted).

Similarly, it was found that there was a statistically significant indirect relationship

195

betweenperceivedintegration(INTG) and corporateimage (IMAG) via the corporate


associationsgap (IGAP), that is, the t value of this relationshipwas abovethe critical
0-059 tINTG-IMAG
value of 1.96 at the 0.05 significance level (7INTG-IGAP*PIGAP-IMAG-3.50 > 1.96) (H6k accepted). Finally, the indirect relationship between consumercompany value congruence (CNGR) and corporate image (IMAG) via the corporate
tCNGR-IMAG-'2
association gap (IGAP) was confirmed (YCNGR-IGAP*PIGAP-%4AG""4
'0-019
4.60 > 1.96) (116f accepted).

Baumgartnerand Homburg (1996) recommendthat any model estimation attempt


should be subject to testing the role of mediating relationships by comparing the
constrainedand unconstrainedmodels. They argue that the model which fits well
should alwaysbe comparedto the most plausiblemodel to show whetherit is a better
model than the nearestlikely model. Therefore, even though the incrementaleffects
were confirmedas statedabove,a further analysisis taken in order to test whetherthe
in
models, which the relationships between emotional appeal (EMOT), consumercompany value congruence(CNGR), perceived integration (INTG) and corporate
image(IMAG) are unconstrained,perform betterthan the modelswith mediationsare
imposed(constrainedmodel). In other words, this further analysis aimed to address
whether consumer-companyidentification (IDNT) and corporate associationsgap
(IGAP) constructs fully or partially mediate the relationships between emotional
appeal(EMOT) and corporateimage (IMAG); consumer-companyvalue congruence
(CNGR) and corporate image (IMAG); and perceived integration (INTG) and
corporateimage(IMAG).

196

As suggested by Diamantopoulos and Siguaw (2000), two models were estimated.


First,

the direct

links

between emotional

appeal, consumer-company value

congruence, perceived integration and corporate image were excluded by setting the
gamma coefficients to zero for those relationships (Le model 1). Second, the gamma
direct
for
relationships were estimated freely (i. e. model 2) (See Figure
coefficients
5.1 for the illustration of direct links). The improvement in model fit was assessedby
the chi-square difference test (9).

The difference between the chi-square values for

the two models was computed and the result was compared with the chi-square value
2
freedom
(X
degree
The model with smaller chi-square was
of
43.841).
with one
critical-,
considered a better model (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000). The D2EMOT-IDNT-m4AG
(X2model
I-

X2mode12
=100.41 ,. X2critica1=1841)for testing the mediating role of

consumer-company identification

(IDNT)

in the relationship between emotional

appeal (EMOT) and corporate image (IMAG)


identification

partially

showed that consumer-company

mediates the relationship between EMOT

and IMAG.

(X2
Similarly, the D2CNGR-IGAP-U,
=13.55 >X2 ritic.1=1841) and the
4AG modell-X2 mode]2
(X2
1.37
demonstrated
D2CNGR-IGAP-IMAG
that
the
>X2
X2
=1
modell_ mode12
critica1=1841)
between
image
as
consumcr-company
relationships
value congruence and corporate
well as between perceived integration and corporate image are partially mediated by
corporate associations gap. These results confirmed that the incremental impact of
emotional appeal, consumer-company value congruence and perceived integration on
27
image
corporate
were valid

27All t valuesfor the pathsin all of the constrainedand unconstrainedmodelswere higherthan critical t
value of 1.96.All absoluteand incrementalgoodnessof fit indicators(i. e. CH, GFI, NFI, NNFI and
AGFI) showeda good fit (the valueswere above0.95) for all the modelstested,exceptthe RMSEA
valueswhich were much higherthanthe thresholdvalue of 0.08 for the unconstrainedmodels.

197

On the basis of these findings, it was concludedthat the hypotheses6d, 6f and 6k


predictedthe following relationships(Table 5.13): When an individual has a positive
disposition
towardsa company(EMOT), they identify themselveswith that
emotional
companymore (IDNT), so that this person's overall impressionof that organisation
may be more positive (IMAG). Furthermore, when consumers think that the
communicationactivities of an organisationare well integratedso that they convey
consistentmessages(INTG), they may perceive that that company's values overlap
with what that organisationwants to project and what they associatewith it (IGAP),
therebya more favourablecorporateimagecan be achieved(IMAG). Moreover,when
a consumerperceivesthat their self-evaluationis congruentwith their evaluationof a
company's values, he/shemay be more inclined to make closer associationsto the
identity traits that that companyintendsto reflect (IGAP), thereby a more favourable
corporateimagecan be held by consumers(IMAG).

The explanatorypower of the structural equationswas assessedon the basis of the


squared multiple correlations (SMC) for structural equations which indicate the
amount of variance in the dependent(endogenous)variable accountedfor by the
independent(exogenous)variables.64% of the variance in the IMAG constructwas
explained by the factors (CVIS, CBEH, COMM, CWOM, EMOT, IDNT, CNGR,
IGAP, INTG), which had statistically significant relationshipswith it. The squared
multiple correlationsvalue for the structuralequationdemonstratingthe relationships
betweenthe consumer-companyidentification (IDNT), the emotionalappeal(EMOT)
and the consumer-companyvalue congruence(CNGR) constructs was 0.09. This
value showed that 9% of the variance in the IDNT constructwas explainedby the
EMOT and the CNGR factors. Similarly, 52% of the variance in the corporate

198

associationsgap (IGAP) constructwas explainedby the perceivedintegration(INTG)


congruence(CNGR) dimensions.
andthe consumer-company

Finally, the relative impact of each dimensionon the corporateimage constructwas


assessedin order to test whether corporatecommunicationmix (company-controlled
communication) elements were more influential than unplanned (uncontrolled)
communicationfactorson corporateimage.The comparisonswere basedon the values
of the standardisedcoefficients for the total effects of exogenouslatent variableson
latent
It
found
that when all else was held constant
variables.
was
endogenous
corporatevisual identity systems(CVIS) and interpersonalcommunication(CWOM)
in
in
biggest
image
impacts
Their
(IMAG).
the
change
corporate
equal
caused
were
that either when CVIS or CWOM increasesone unit, IMAG increases0.22 units. The
secondmajor factor was emotional appeal (EMOT). Ceteris l2aribus,this dimension
causeda 0.14 increasein corporateimage.It was followed by the companybehaviour
(CBEH) and the consumer-companyidentification (IDNT) dimensions. Their
standardised coefficients were 0.10 and 0.09, respectively. The marketing
communicationmix elements(COMM) and the perceivedintegration(INTG) factors
were the next two factorswhich led to a 0.08 and 0.05 changein IMAG, respectively.
The impact of the consumer-companyvalue congruence(CNGR) and the corporate
associationsgap (IGAP) constructswere equal (the coefficient value= -0.02). On the
basisof thesefigures, it could not be concludedthat all of the corporateidentity mix
elements were more influential than the unplanned (uncontrolled) communication
factors as was claimed in the theory (H7 rejected).For example,the results showed
that corporate visual identity systems (CVIS) and interpersonal communication
(CWOM) have the same impact on corporateimage (IMAG). However, it could be
concludedthat someof the corporateidentity mix elementscan individually be more
199

influential on corporateimage comparedto some of the unplannedcommunication


elements.For example,while companybehaviour(CBEH), being one of the companycontrolled communicationelements,was found to have more impact on corporate
image (IMAG) than consumer-companyidentification (IDNI), it was shown that
CBEH was lessinfluential than emotionalappeal(EMOT).

In summary,the majority of the relationshipsproposedbetweenthe constructswere


statistically confirmed except for the causal links betweenthe employee behaviour
(EBEH), intermediary communication (EWOM) and corporate image (IMAG)
1-16d,
1-16e,
constructs.In conclusion,hypothesesHla, H2,1-13c,H4,116a, 1-16b,1-16c,
Fl6f, H6g, H6h, 1-16i,H6i and H6k were supportedwhereashypotheses1-13b,
H5 and
H7 did not predictthe expectedrelationships.

5.5. Summary

In this chapter, the findings of the study were presented.Firstly, the initial data
examination in order to prepare the data for further analysis was explained. The
characteristicsof the two respondentgroups were then illustrated. This section was
followed by the explanationof the exploratoryfactor analysesresultswhich helpedto
refine the scales for the confirmatory stage. The measurementmodels and the
structural model were assessedon the basis of 439 cases.The findings showed
statistically significant relationshipsbetweencorporateimage (IMAG) and almost all
forms of companycontrolled communicationelements(i. e. corporatevisual identity
systems - CVIS; company behaviour - CBEH; marketing communication mix
elements- COMM) exceptemployeebehaviour(EBEH). Except for the link between
intermediary communication (EWOM) and corporate image (IMAG), all the

200

relationships between corporate image (IMAG) and the unplanned (uncontrolled)


communication elements (i.e. interpersonal communication - CWOM; emotional
identification
EMOT;
IDNT
consumer-company
and consumer-company
appealvalue congruence- CNGR) were statistically significant. Furthermore, the results
confirmed that perceived integration (INTG) and consumer-company value
congruence(CNGR) were the antecedentsof corporateassociationsgap (IGAP) and
emotional appeal (EMOT) and consunier-companyvalue congruence(CNGR) were
the determinantsof consumer-companyidentification (IDNT). The directions of the
between
the constructswere as theoretically expected(See
significant relationships
Figure 5.1). A more detaileddiscussionof the findings is provided in ChapterVI.

201

VI DISCUSSION

6.1. Introduction

The goal of this study was to examine the influences of company-driven


communication (corporate identity mix elements) and external communication
(unplannedcommunicationfactors) on corporateimage formation. Consequently,the
identity
mix elementsas well as unplannedcommunicationfactors
scopeof corporate
impact
these
antecedents'
on corporateimage formation were explored
and each of
from the perspectivesof consumers.Moreover, the role of integrated corporate
identity mix elementsin consumers'perceptionsof a company'simageis investigated.

The generalfindings in this study are that: a) corporateaesthetics,staff appareland


managerbehaviourare not consideredto be salientcommunicatorsof corporateimage
by consumers,b) corporate identity mix elements,other than employeebehaviour,
havea positive impact on corporateimage,c) interpersonalcommunicationpositively
influencesthe corporateimagethat peoplehold abouta company,whereasthere is not
d)
between
intermediary
image,
direct
relationship
a
communicationand corporate
intrapersonalcommunicationfactors are determinantsof the corporateimage,and e)
perceived integration of corporate identity mix elements positively influences
corporateimagethroughcorporateassociationsgap.

This chapter discussesthe results of the data analysis presentedin ChapterV with
supportfrom the theory presentedin the literaturereview and the information obtained
from the exploratoryinterviewsand focus group discussions(SeeTable 4.1 and Table

202

4.2). First the results of scale purification are presented.Second,the findings of


hypothesistesting which demonstratethe influence of two major groupsof corporate
identity communicators (i.e. corporate identity mix elements and unplanned
communication factors) on corporate image are reviewed and compared with
theoreticalexpectations.Finally, the relationshipbetweenintegratedcompany-driven
communication(corporateidentity mix elements)and corporateimageis explained.

6.2. Measurement ScalePurification

Since the scales for the sub-elementsof corporate identity mix elements were
developedprimarily on the basis of conceptualarticles, their operationalisationand
validation are presentedfirst. As explainedin ChapterIV, the item pool for scaleswas
subjectedto qualitative and quantitative refinement. Content validity of scaleswas
assessedby academics,and consequently,some items were excludedon the basisof
the information obtainedfrom the interviewsand focusgroup discussions.In addition,
the developedscaleswere testedby statisticaldatareductiontechniquesin Pilot Study
I (EFA) and in the main data analysis(EFA and CFA). As a result theoreticallyand
operationally valid and reliable scaleswere developedand hypothesistesting was
performed with the scales listed in Tables 5.8,5.9 and 5.10. In the following
paragraphs,some inferences are made on the basis of scale development and
refinementissues.

First, the qualitative assessment


of the adjectivepool which aimedto measurethe gap
between intended corporate associationsand people's evaluations of companies'
identities, as well as the congruence between individuals' self-image and their

203

perceptionsof companyvalues, have shown that different traits may have different
meaningsfor different cultures and even sometimesexact translation of somewords
cannotbe achieved.This may raiseconcernsin using the samepersonalitytraits when
describingcompanies' identities and individuals' personalvalues. For example,the
researcherswho translatedthe questionnaireinto Turkish pointedout that the meaning
of 'cooperative' in Turkish suggestsa negativepersonalquality, in that a cooperative
individual is consideredto be disloyal to his close friends by sharing information
life
their
about
personal with third parties. Therefore,in line with Ekinci and Riley's
(2003) discussionaboutthe applicability of one set of adjectivesto both companyand
in different settings,it is arguedthat the developmentof
personalvalue assessments
anonymousscalesfor measuring*corporateassociationsgap and consumer-company
value congruenceis hard to achieve.However, observationof respondentsduring the
pilot studieshas shown that the identity traits pool was adequatefor this study, since
none of the individuals commentedon the irrelevanceof the adjectivesin terms of
their ability to describe both companiesand their personalities.Besides,concerns
aboutthe adequacyof the adjectivesin termsof their meaningsfor a Turkish audience,
as well as in terms of their relevance to both company and individual level
were addressedduring the qualitativeassessment.
assessments,

Second,the operationalisation of corporateidentity mix elementsseemsto dependon


which communicationtools are mostly used by companieswith regardsto different
stakeholders.This issueespeciallyconcernsthe conceptsof corporateaesthetics,staff
apparel,managerbehaviourand marketing communicationsmix elements.Managers
interviewedmentionedthat their role is more significant in internal communicationof
the market position that their organisationswant to achieve,rather than being directly

204

responsible for conveying organisational messagesto consumers.For example a


managerinterviewedstatesthat;

,6... we have a slogan 'Life is Ours, Life is Work'. Everybody [in the
company]shouldunderstandwhy we say 'for a better life, so that they
can give this messagewhen they are interactingwith others outsidethe
organisation.The managementof our organisationworks for achieving
that throughour department[PR department]...."
[CorporateCommunicationsManager,Pfizer]

This quotation is consistentwith the view of organisationalbehaviourtheorists(e.g.


Albert and Whetten, 1985; Hatch and Schultz, 1997) and corporate identity and
corporatebranding scholars(e.g. Balmer, 2001a; Harris and De Chernatony,2001;
Kennedy, 1977; Simoeset al., 2005) about the role of decision-makersin corporate
identity management.They assert that the management of an organisation is
for
responsible creatingan organisationalenvironmentwhich can motivatethe staff to
internalisetheir companies'values, which in turn may encouragethe employeesto
to outsiders.
conveysimilar messages

The managersinterviewed also assertedthat only in special cases are their top
managers publicly seen. Otherwise, they are mostly involved in managing
relationships with governments and investors. This is evident in the following
statementby a manager:

205

".... therewas a caseabouta child being locked insidethe refrigeratorof


one of the McDonald's restaurants by the manager of that
restaurant... We immediatelyorganiseda pressconference... At that time
we had an Austrian general manager, [name],...he attended the
conference... I

believe that

his

presence has conveyed the

message...goodwill ... Other than on this occasionhe did not appearin


public... Top managementmostly deal with Ankara [the capital of
Turkey wherethe Parliamentis located]"
[Public Relations-Communications
Manager,McDonald's]

This situation as shown in the extract above was also supportedby the information
obtainedfrom the focus group discussions.None of the discussantswere able to recall
seeing a global company's managerin public. As a result of this evidence,it was
concluded that manager behaviour is not a part of the behaviour aspect of the
corporateidentity mix elementsin the consumercontext. Moreover, since managers
are not seenpublicly, it is not possible for consumersto attribute anything to their
clothing and its relation to their overall judgement of a company.Accordingly, items
related to managers' physical appearancewere excluded from the staff apparel
concept.

Another point relatedto measurementscalepurification was about the refinementof


the marketingcommunicationactivities of an organisation,sincethere is a wide-range
of tools which are used for promotionalpurposes(Fill, 1999).The main idea was to
draw the bordersof the communicationaspectof the corporateidentity mix elements
in the consumercontext. For example,the managersinterviewedmentionedthat they

206

send annual reports to their shareholders,potential investorsand their supply chain


members but not to potential buyers or their current customers.The following
from
interview
data highlights the most relevant marketing
the
quotation
communicationmix elements:

"... [McDonald's] generally promotes its products and services more


[than the company itselfl. We don't have printed ads but we have TV
ads... Corporate [advertising] is done occasionally. 10% corporate
[advertising], 90% product and services [advertising], I mean
commercially. When you look at it from the PR aspect, in terms of
visibility

in

the

mass media, again 60%

is

related to

products.-However, we have changed the balance in recent years;


corporatePR has increasedin the last two years in terms of the news
in
the massmedia... For example,McDonald's is the official
us
about
sponsor of the World Cup...We have done a very good activity as
[McDonald's] Turkey. We took five kids to the final matchof the World
Cup. It hasreceivedvery goodcoverageand'attention."
[Public Relations-Communications
Manager,McDonald's]

Overall, theseexamplesof the scalerefinementprocessillustrate that the combination


of items for corporateidentity mix elementsis dependenton the stakeholdergroup in
question.This conclusion is parallel to the argument by academicsthat developed
multi-step corporateimage implementationprogrammes(e.g. Abratt, 1989;Dowling,
1986;Gray and Smeltzer,1987).Their planssuggestthat companiesshoulddefinethe
set of promotionaltools accordingto eachstakeholdergroupthey target.

207

There were two other issuesrelatedto companybuildings and employees'outlook. As


explained in Section 5.4.2, the items related to the corporate aestheticsand staff
28
did
factor
on the basis of a CFA
not yield a statistically valid
apparel concepts
application.This finding indicatesthat consumerdo not considerthese factors to be
identity.
following
from
The
quotation
of
corporate
a manager
salient communicators
also suggeststhat corporateaestheticsare more important in the communicationof a
its
identity
to
employeesthan consumers:
company's

11 for example,symbolsfor externalpeopleare different, there are also


...
for
internal
headquarters
know
For
I
that
workers.
our
symbols
example,
building in New York is a symbol for our employees..."
[CorporateCommunicationsManager,Pfizer]

Another point is also inferred from the discussionswith focus group members.The
following statementshowsthat consumersdo not make immediateinferencesabout a
its
its
buildings,
image
the
or
while evaluating
appearanceof
company's overall
employees'physical appearance.Rather, they relate their views on buildings and on
staff apparels to their purchase experiences.The following quotations give some
supportinginsightsto this interpretation:

66 you can find everythingyou are looking for in there [Carrefourretail


...
isn't
it
it
is
is
hmm,
a spaciousplace, shopping easier,
since
stores]...
cramped..."
[A femaleattendant,FocusGroup#l]
2828The itemsrelatedto corporateaestheticsand staff apparelconstructswere mergedtogetherand
redefinedascorporatedesignafter the EFA application(SeeTable 5.5).

208

"... it [Metro, retailer] has a bulky building. I meanwhen I say bulky, it


is dark, huge but in Carrefour,I can find everything.I can buy clothes,
...
go to the cinema,eat..."
[A male attendant,FocusGroup #3]

"... they try to achievesomestandardisationin their restaurants people


...
servingdressup similarly and they always look clean...it saysthe food
andtheir restaurantsare clean..."
[A femaleattendant,FocusGroup#4]

"... it is nice to seenice looking staff around [in Zara stores] it gives
...
you a pleasantfeeling aboutthe atmosphere..."
[A femaleattendant,FocusGroup #2]

Two main points can be drawn from these extracts. First, different stakeholdersin
different countries can base their views about a company's image on different
indicators.This inferenceis similar to the findings of reputationmanagementstudies
(Fombrun et al., 2000; Groenland, 2002; Thevissen, 2002). For example, while
Thevissen (2002) demonstratedthat Belgian consumers put more emphasis on
behaviour,communicationand personalfactorswhen they are evaluatinga company's
reputation, Brown and Perry (1994) argued that American businessanalysts and
Secondly,
financial
indicators.
to
attention
executives pay more
performance
be
factors
cannot
consumers' views about some company-driven communication
directly related to the corporate image concept, but to other concepts like store
atmosphereor store imageas it appearsto be in the quotationspresentedabove.The

209

literature on store image (e.g. Donovan and Rossiter, 1982;Martineau, 1958;Thang


and Tan, 2003) confinns that physical appearanceof company buildings and the clothing of employeesare attributesof storeimage.

Overall, as a result,of the measurementscalepurification processdiscussedearlier, it


behaviour,
that
manager
corporateaestheticsand staff apparelconcepts
was concluded
were not relevant to corporate image assessmentsof consumers.Therefore, three
hypothesesrelated to these three concepts and their relationships with corporate
image, Hlb, HIc and H3a, were regardedas redundant;thus those constructswere
excluded from the model (See Figure 5.1). However, it should be noted that this
conclusionmight be contingent on the businesstype the case companiesbelong to.
Both McDonald's and Renault-Mais transact in business-to-consumer
markets, and
this might have led the irrelevanceof those company-drivencommunicatorsin the
consumercontext.On the other hand,since relationshipand key accountmanagement
issues,which aim building long-term trust and reputation,are crucial for the success
business-to-business
organisations(Andersonand Narus, 1984;de Ruyter et al., 2001;
Nicholson et al., 2001), managerbehaviour,corporateaestheticsand staff apparelmay
have a significant impact on buyers' perceptionsof their suppliers' imagesand the
valuesthey associatewith their supplierorganisations.

Another issue about measurementscale developmentand refinement is related to


confirming the unidimensionalityof the constructsas theoretically defined.EFA and
CFA applicationsto the main datashow that the majority of the refined itemsresulted

210

internally
in their theoretically defined factorS29
homogenousand
that
they
are
and
externallydistinct from eachother (SeeSection5.4.1 and Section5.4.2). For example,
the corporateimageconstructwas confirmed as being a three-itemmeasureas defined
by Williams and Moffit (1997). Similarly, the consumer-companyidentification scale
resultedin one factor. Although the number of items in the scale was reduced,the
defined
items
by Ashfort and
the
the
still
captured
essence
concept
as
remaining
of
Mael (1989).

In summary,two main points can be drawn from the scalerefinementprocess.First,


when scalesare developedbasedon anecdotalstudies,their contentvalidity hasto be
ensured by a thorough qualitative assessmentwith the support of an extensive
literature review, preliminary interviews with key informants and focus groups
discussionswith relevant individuals (Churchill, 1979). Second,the usability of the
in
from
in
be
studies
scales
other
a
new
context
should
examined
qualitatively
adapted
be
They
tested
their
to
the
to
context
study.
also
assess
applicability
of
a
should
order
for
in
factorial
the
to
that
the
order
same
structures
achieved
quantitatively
ensure
are
scales(Craig and Douglas,2000; Douglasand Nijssen, 2003). In this study,thesetwo
demonstrated
in
Section5.4.1and Section5.4.2.
were
conditions

6.3. Determinants of Corporate Image: Effects of corporate identity mix elements

The objective of this study was to draw upon consumers'perspectivesto explore the
types of communicationthat determinecorporateimage formation. One of the two
29The items related to corporateaestheticsand staff apparel constructswere merged together and
redefinedas corporatedesign(SeeTable 5.5). However,this constructwas not found statisticallyvalid
by the CFA application. Although the items for interpersonal and intermediary communication
by CFA demonstratedthat
constructsappearedto composeone single factor, more stringentassessment
thesetwo were separateconcepts. -

211

the
basis
literature
is
the
the
of
communicators
groups
elicited
of
major
on
review
corporateidentity mix elements(i.e. symbolism,communicationand behaviour)(Van
Riel, 1995).As suggestedby the first researchquestion(See Section 1.2), the direct
impact of each of the sub-factorsunder symbolism, communicationand behaviour
identity
mix elementson corporateimageare examined.Basedon
aspectsof corporate
Attribution Theory (Kelley and Michela, 1980; Malle, 1999,2003; Weiner, 1974,
1986), it was hypothesisedthat people's attributions of a company's planned
communicationactivities affect their evaluationsof the company as a whole (i.e.
image).
corporate

It should be noted that, as an outcomeof the preliminary fieldwork, items relatedto


managerbehaviourand the clothing of managerswere excludedfrom the list of subelementsunder behaviourand symbolismaspectsof corporateidentity mix elements.
The quantitativeanalysison the main data indicatedthat corporateaestheticsand staff
apparel elements did not compose statistically significant aspects of corporate
symbolism for consumers.As a result of qualitative and quantitative assessments,
dropped
behaviour,
corporate
aesthetics
were
manager
and staff apparel constructs
from the model (See Section 6.2). Therefore, only the results related to the
relationships between corporate image and the remaining corporate identity mix
elementsare discussedin the following section.

The hypothesistesting*demonstratedthat apart from employeebehaviour,consumers'


positive attributions about a company's identity mix elements have a positive
influenceon corporateimageformation (H Ia supported).First, it was found that when
corporate visual identity systems evoke an emotional response in the minds of

212

consumers,individualstend to transfertheir positive feelingstowardsthat organisation


(Hendersonand Cote, 1998).This finding is in line with the researchconductedby
IntcrbrandSchechter(1994)which demonstratedthat the evaluationof companylogos
influencescompanyevaluations.As mentionedin the literature, by the use of visual
expressions,organisationsaim to achieve awarenessand recognition in the market
place (Dowling, 2001; Rosson, 2003) and distinguish themselves from their
competitors(Schmitt ct al., 1995).This study's results show that affection triggering
symbolism can lead to thesedesirableoutcomes,since emotionally attractive visual
identity systemscan achievegreaterimpact on individuals' memories(Hendersonand
Cote, 1998).

Second,the results of the hypothesistesting revealedthat a companycan enhanceits


image by meansof its marketing communicationactivities. Keller (2001) statesthat
marketingcommunicationtools/channelsare the meansby which a dialoguebetween
companiesand consumersis established.Marketinj communicationsnot only support
productsand servicesof an organisationbut also allow marketersto addresscompanylevel values embeddedin that company's brands (Markwick and Fill, 1997). For
example, the in-depth interview with the McDonald's' Public RelationsCommunicationsmanagerrevealedthat in their advertisementsthey highlight the fact
that they hire local people and buy 98 percentof the ingredientslocally, in order to
convey that they provide quality food and they contribute to Turkey's economy.
McDonald's Turkey, by embeddingcompany values in promotional tools seeksto
engender a more favourable attitude towards the organisation. Consistently, H2
receivesstatisticalsupportas evidenceto this claim, that is, when consumersinterpret

213

that marketing communicationmix elementsreflect a company's values well, they


hold a favourableimageaboutthat company.

Tbird, as hypothesisedin H3c, it was found that there is a direct relationshipbetween


consumers'attributionsabout a company'ssocial responsibilityactionsand corporate
image (H3c supported).This finding confirmed the resultsof previousstudies,which
showed the link betweencorporate social responsibility associationsand company
Arown
is
2001).
This
Dacin,
1997;
Sen
Bhattacharya,
(e.
and
and
evaluation g.
implied
interview
McDonald's,
that social
the
the
of
which
with
consistentwith
results
and economic issues matter to their targeted consumer segments.Similarly, the
Renault-Mais
manager
of
mentioned that they organise
corporate communication
communityeducationprogrammesin schoolsin order to increasechildren's awareness
of non-compliancewith traffic rules. He statedthat
aboutthe unpleasantconsequences
they receivepositive feedbackfrom their customersfor being involved in suchevents.

Although the direct impact of thesethree company-drivencommunicationfactors on


corporate image were reported, the statistical analysis showed that employee
behaviourdoesnot directly influencecorporateimageformation (H3b not supported).
This unexpectedoutcomecan be attributedto possiblemediatingvariables,which may
be the insertingboundaryconditionsfor the relationshipbetweenemployeebehaviour
literature
image.
The
suggeststhat the performance
services
marketing
corporate
and
by
is
integral
front-line
the
service
quality
offered
part of
perceived
of
employees an
1990;
1991;
1990;
Crosby
Parasurarnan,
Bitner,
(e.
Berry
et
al.,
and
an organisation g.
Parasuramanet al, 1988). Nguyen and LeBlanc (1998) assume that if contact
during
individuals
the service exchange,consumersevaluatethe
treat
well
personnel

214

they may hold a


servicequality they receivemore favourably and as a consequence,
more positive image about that company. Similarly, Bolton and Drew (1992) and
Cronin and Taylor (1992) assert that since customer satisfaction is based on
consumers'judgements about specific featuresof service encounterssuch as their
interactionswith employees,the satisfactionderived from eachserviceencountercan
have an impact on corporate image. Therefore, it could be concluded that the
relationship between corporate image and consumers' attributions about employee
behaviour is contingentupon the perceivedservice quality and satisfactioll with the
service experienceoffered by the organisation.In other words, in contrast to the
literature on corporateimageand identity (e.g. Kennedy, 1977;Dowling, 1986;Gray
and Balmer, 1998), an indirect relationship between employee behaviour and
corporateimagethrough perceivedservicequality and customersatisfactionfrom the
servicemay be assumedin future studies.

In summary,thesefindings highlight the importanceof consumers'attributionsabout


a company'splannedcommunicationefforts on their overall view of an organisation
(i.e. corporateimage).The resultsdemonstratedthat while there is a direct relationship
between individuals' attributions about a company's visual identity systems,
marketing communicationmix elementsand behaviour towards social, ethical and
recruitment issues and corporate image formation, the influence of consumers'
attributions about employee behaviour on corporate image may be dependenton
conditions such as perceivedservice quality and customersatisfaction. In the next
is
in
image
factors
formation
the
communication
corporate
section, role of unplanned
discussed.

215

6.4. Determinants

of Corporate

Image: Effects of unplanned communication

elements

Another major group of communicatorsinfluencing corporate image formation is


unplannedcommunicationfactors (i.e. interpersonal,intermediaryand intrapersonal
communication elements) (Comelissen, 2000). In order to be able to reach a
conclusionabout the secondresearchquestionwhich aims to comparethe influences
of corporateidentity mix elementsand unplannedcommunicationfactorson corporate
image formation (See Section 1.2), the impact of each external factor on corporate
image formation is also examined.The underlying assumptionof this investigationis
that individuals do not only basetheir views about organisationson company-driven
messages.Communicationthat is generatedoutside an organisations' control also
plays a role in consumers' perceptions of a company's image. In other words,
Cornelissen (2000) claims that corporate image is a product of unplanned
communicationfactorsalong with communicationby corporateidentity mix elements.

The statistical evidence from this study demonstratedthat while interpersonal

communication (i.e. word-of-mouth recommendationreceived from close


environment) positively influences the corporate image that consumershold (H4
supported),intermediarycommunication(i.e. word-of-mouth information deliveredby
the media,NGOs, governments,opinion leaders)do not have an impact on corporate
image formation (H5 not supported).This finding is consistentwith researchin the
word-of-mouth area (Bristor, 1990; Brown et al., 2005; Brown and Reingen, 1987;
Cristiansenand Tax, 2000; Duhan et al., 1997; Halstead, 2002; Harrison-Walker,
2001; Lau and Ng, 2001; Richins, 1983) by showing that person-to-person

216

information exchangeamong people that are strongly tied to each other (e.g. close
friends andrelatives)evokesattitudinal changetowardscompanies.

Although the direct impact of word-of-mouth information delivered by third parties


it
be
confirmed,
could
argued that company-relatedpositive
was not statistically
information deliveredby intermediariesmay have an implicit influence on person-tobeen
However,
it
has
be
this
that
condition
not
should
noted
personrecommendations.
tested in this study. Future studiesmay addressthis inferencewhich is in line with
Brown and Reingen(1987)who found that strong-ticssuchas friendsand relativesare
influential in attitudinal change, whereas weak-tics such as the media, NGOs,
governments,opinion leaders etc. function as bridges which support the flow of
information amongstrongly bound individuals.This may indicatethat consumersmay
perceivetheir closeenvironmentto be a more crediblesourceof information than third
be
for
be
It
this
that
emergingcountriessuch
can
more
condition
valid
said
parties. can
as Turkey, since it has a more collectivist culture than other western countries
(Balabanis et al., 2002). Burgess and Steenkamp(2006) assert that individuals'
interaction and human networks in emerging market cultures influence information
dissemination substantially. Therefore, it can be argued that while implementing
communication strategiesin emerging markets, companiesshould focus on using
intermediary information sourcesto trigger infoiniation flow among closely tied
individuals asa communicationstrategy.

It was also proposedthat along with interpersonaland intermediarycommunication,


individuals' psychological filtering of company attributes (i.e. intrapersonal
images.
The
impact
have
their
of
companies'
on
perceptions
an
communications)may

217

hypothesistesting evidencedthat consumersarc more likely to evaluatecompanies


positively, when the corporateassociationsgap is small, i.e. consumer'sassociations
abouta company'sidcntity arc similar to thosethat companiesintendto createin their
minds (146asupported),and when they use companies as social identifiers (i.e.
identification) (H6b supported).
consumer-company

Thesefindings supportthe argumentsby scholars(e.g. Balmer, 1995,2001b; Balmer


and Greyser, 2002; Balmer and Soenen,1999; Brown, 1998; Brown et al., 2006;
Kirikiadou and Millward, 2000; Van Rekom, 1997) which claim that intended
corporateassociationsare subject to people's filtering on the basis of their feelings,
beliefs and experiences,which may leadto a mismatchbetweenwhat is projectedand
intended
Dacin
(1997)
dissonance
between
is
Brown
that
the
and
state
what perceived.
corporate' associations and people's attributions about them may lead to
misjudgementsabouta company'sproductsand services.

Moreover, findings also indicate'that consumer-companyidentification is one of the


intrapersonalcommunication factors, which positively influences corporate image
formation. Drawing on social identity theory (e.g. Brewer, 1991; Kramer, 1991; Tajfel
and Turner, 1985),this outcomeextendsthe researchin organisationalidentification
(e.g. Ashfort and Mael, 1989;Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000; Dutton et al., 1994)to the
context of consumer (See Bhattacharyaand Sen, 2003), showing that not only
identify
(consumers)
but
themselves with
audiences
external
employees
also
organisationsin order to make senseof who they are and what they belong to. In line
highlights
(2003),
Sen
Bhattacharya
this
that strategiesthat encourage
study
and
with

218

consumers' identification with organisationsmay be the key to achieving customer


loyalty and retention.

The analyses also showed that peoples' emotional predisposition towards an


organisation (i.e. emotional appeal) and the congruence between consumers'
perceptionsof their self-image and their mental descriptionsabout that company's
identity characteristicsare positively relatedto the corporateimagethey hold about a
company (H6c and H6e supported).This result can indicate that it is important for
companiesto createa generalnotion amongthe public abouttheir companiesas being
respectful and trustworthy (Fombrun and Rindova, 1996; Fornbrun and Shanley
(1990), since this may serve as an emotionally appealing point for consumersto
evaluatetheir organisationspositively (Bhattacharyaand Sen,2003).

It also appearsthat when consumersthink that their personalvaluesare representedby


organisations, they are more inclined to form positive attitudes towards those
companies.This inferenceis in line with the researchin person-organisationfit, and
self-conceptand value congruence(Edvardssonand Gustavson, 1991; Ekinci and
Riley, 2003; Kristof, 1996-'O'Reilly et al., 1991; O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Sen
and Bhattacharya,2001; Sirgy, 1982b;Sirgy and Samli, 1985)which assertsthat the
match betweenpersonaland organisationalvaluesleadsto attitudinal and behavioural
consequences.

The results also supported the theoretical expectation that individuals' emotional
predisposition towards companies and the fit between organisational values and
consumers'descriptionsof their personalitycharacteristics(consumer-company
value

219

congruence)are two of the antecedentsof consumer-companyidentification (H6g and


H6h supported).Moreover,it was found that consumer-company
value congruenceis
one of the antecedentsof the corporateassociationsgap (H6i supported).Supportfor
thesehypothesesindicatethat along with their direct influenceon corporateimage,the
impact of emotional appeal and consumer-companyvalue congruence are also
partially mediatedby consumer-companyidentification and the corporateassociations
gap respectively(H6d andH6f supported).

To sum up, the investigationof the influencesof unplannedcommunicationfactorson


corporateimage demonstratedthat interpersonalcommunicationpositively relatesto
intermediary
image,
communicationmay not be as persuasivea
corporate
whereas
source as word-of-mouth information received from close environment in terms of
corporate image formation. The hypothesistesting relating to intrapersonalfactors
showedthat all of the contingenciesamongthe sub-elementsof intrapersonalfactors
(i.e. emotional appeal, consumer-companyidentification, consumer-companyvalue
congruenceand corporate associationsgap) and the relationships between these
indicatorsandthe corporateimageconceptexist.

These findings above can have implications for internationalmarketing practicesin


emergingmarketssuchasTurkey. As social identity theory asserts(e.g. Brewer, 1991;
Kramer, 1991;Tajfel and Turner, 1985),the way that peopledefine themselvesaffect
the way they expresstheir values and their interactionswith others. For example,
McDonald's might be seenasa companywhich has luxury restaurantsto meetup with
cool friends. Burgess and SteenkamP(2006) and Garten (1997) emphasisethat in
emergingmarketssocial networksand cultural diversity play a very substantialrole in

220

individuals' value systemsand their identification with entities such as companies,


products, brands etc. Bilgin et al. (2004) state that since urbanisationhappenvery
quickly in emergingmarkets,values individuals hold changevery quickly compared
to consumersfrom rural areas.For example,while modernitycommunicatedby global
brandsis highly appreciatedby consumersin urbanareas,local-orientationstressedby
domestic companies is preferred more in rural areas (Arnold and Quelch, 1998;
Burgessand Steenkamp,2006). This variation requires companiesdevelop different
strategiesin ten-nsof which companyvaluesshouldbe disseminatedas their corporate
identity to thesetwo major segments.

It can be suggestedthat global companieswhich prefer to focusonly on the elite group


in big cities in emerging markets should highlight a corporate identity embedding
valueswhich are associatedwith highly developedcountries.Burgessand Steenkamp
(2006) arguethat global organisationsmay launch their existing brandsin emerging
marketswith very little or no changein urbanareasin emergingcountries.Arnold and
Quelch (1998) assertthat global businessescan even chargeconsumerswith premium
prices sincethey are willing to pay more for thosebrandsin orderto be identified with
the elites in big cities. Global companieswhich also targetrural areasshould focuson
local consumercharacteristics.In order to be able to gatherthis information, it may be
better for thosetypes of organisationsto acquirea local companyor establisha joint
venture with domestic organisationsand use their brands and market intelligience
(Arnold and Quelch, 1998).

221

6.5. Integration

Corporate
of

Identity

Mix

Elements and Its Relation

to

Corporate Image

The third researchquestion of this study (See Section 1.2) addressesthe gap in
corporateimage researchrelatedto providing empirical support for the measurement
and relevanceof integratedcommunication in corporate image formation from the
perspectiveof receivers.Many of the conceptualarticles in the field (e.g. Abratt, 1989;
Bernstein, 1984; Einwiller and Will, 2002; Gray and Smeltzer, 1985,1987; Olins,
1978; Van Rekom, 1997; Van Riel, 1995) discussedthe integration issue from the
companies' standpoint and suggestedthat companies should integrate corporate
identity mix elementsto achieve favourable corporate image and similar corporate
associationsas they intendedto createin the minds of consumers.However,they have
failed to provide evidencefor how integration can be measuredin the consumers'
context and how consumers' attributions about the integration level of companydriven communicationefforts (i. e. corporateidentity mix elements)relateto corporate
imageformation.

The findings of this study demonstratedthat the definition of integration is derived


from the integratedmarketing communicationsliterature (e.g. Duncan and Everett,
1993;Duncanand Moriarty, 1998;Fitzgeraldand Arnott, 2000; Kitchen and Schultz,
1998,1999; Low, 2000; Novak and Phelps,1994;Schultzand Kitchen, 1997)is valid
in the consumers'context. CFA application confirmed that consumersperceive the
integration concept as comprising three major aspects: 1) alignment of formal
communicationactivities to sharea common companymessage,2) disseminationof

222

similar messages,and 3) co-ordinatedexecution of company-drivencommunication


efforts (SeeLow, 2000).

Moreover, the results of the hypothesistesting showedthat the perceivedintegration


of the corporateidentity mix is one of the antecedentsof the corporateassociations
gap (H6j supported).It was also shownthat consumers'perceptionsof the integration
level of a company's formal communicationefforts may lead to more favourable
identity
images
a
company's
associations
about
corporate
when consumersmake
characteristicsthat are similar to which that organisation wants to convey (H6k
supported).These findings supportedthe assumptionthat perceived integration of
is
activities
related to individuals' own psychology
company-drivencommunication
(Moriarty, 1996) and it evokesjudgemental associations(i.e. corporateassociations
gap) and attitudinal consequences(i. e. corporate image) (Keller, 2001). Overall, it
may be concluded that integration may motivate consumersto hold a favourable
image about a companyby reducing the perceiveddissonancebetweenthe intended
corporate associationsthat a company wants to create in consumers' minds and
individuals' mentaldescriptionsaboutthesecompanyvalues.

6.6. Corporate Identity Mix Elements versus Unplanned Communication Factors

Another issue was highlighted by Brown and Dacin (1997) that managers of
organisationsstill did not know whetherit was their plannedcommunicationefforts or
As
images
hold
defined
factors
their
about
consumers
companies.
what
external
also
Dacin and Brown (2002) suggested,in this respectit was fruitful to investigatethe
identity
impact
these
two
of
groups
communicators(i.e. corporate
major
relative
of

223

identity mix elementsversusunplannedcommunicationfactors) on corporateimage


formation, which has not been addressedby previous studies.Drawing on-Williams
and Moffit's (1997) study, it was hypothesisedthat company-plannedcommunication
will be more influential than non-companydriven communicationfactors.The results
showedthat it was not possibleto concludethat corporateidentity mix elementsare
30
influential
factors
(H7 not supported).For
than unplannedcommunication
more
example, it was found that corporate visual identity systems and interpersonal
0.22),and emotional
communicationsharedthe sameimportancelevel (Pcvjs=pcwom=
0.14) had higher impact than companybehaviour
appealof an organisation(PEMOT
(PCBEH-- 0- 10)

on corporateimage.

However, when a comparisonwas made within each group of corporate identity


communicators,it was found that corporatevisual identity systems(CVIS) is the most
influential corporateidentity mix elementin corporateimageformation process.It was
followed by company behaviour and marketing communicationmix elements.This
finding may indicatethat peopletend to store positive emotionsevoked by company
featureswhich are more enduring (i.e. CVIS) than which change more often as a
responseto businessenvironment(i.e. marketingcommunicationactivities).

When the relative impact of unplannedcommunicationfactors was investigated,the


analysis showed that interpersonal communication was more influential than
intrapersonal factors (i.e. emotional appeal, consumer-company identification,
consumer-companyvalue congruence,and corporate associationsgap). This result
indicate
between
information
friends and relatives motivate
that
exchange
may
30The comparisonwas basedon the values of the standardisedcoefficients for the total effects of
exogenouslatentvariableson endogenouslatentvariables(SeeSection5.4.3).

224

individuals more immediately while making interpretationsabout a company than


making inferencesaboutorganisationsin comparisonto self-relatedjudgements.

6.7. Summary

In this chapter, the research findings of this study are discussedin relation to
theoretical expectations.The chapter begins with comments on the results of the
measurementscale refinement and hypothesestesting. The outcomesindicated that
some sub-elementsof corporateidentity mix elements(i.e. corporateaesthetics,staff
apparel and managerbehaviour) may be removed from the proposedmodel. The
structuralequationmodelling applicationdemonstratedthat almostall of the proposed
relationshipsbetweenthe antecedentsdefinedand corporateimageexist. However,the
relationshipsbetweenemployeebehaviourand intermediarycommunicationwere not
statisticallysignificant.

Briefly, the findings indicateda direct positive relationshipbetweencorporatevisual


identity systems,marketing communicationmix elements,company behaviour,and
corporate image. The results also showed that the corporate associations gap,
consumer-companyidentification, emotional appeal and consumer-companyvalue
congruencedirectly affect corporateimage.Additionally, it was found that emotional
appeal and consumer-consumervalue congruence are antecedentsof consumerindirect
has
identification,
that
appeal
an
relationship with
emotional
company
and
identification.
findings
image
Moreover,
through
the
consumer-company
corporate
demonstratedthat consumer-companyvalue congruence is a determinant of the
indirectly
influences
image
it
through the
corporate
and
corporateassociationsgap,

225

found
for
However,
the relative
gap.
an
unclear
result
was
corporate associations
impact of eachcorporateidentity mix elementsand unplannedcommunicationfactors
on corporate image. Finally, the argumentthat 'the link betweenthe perceptionof
integrated company-driven communication and corporate image exists via the
corporateassociationsgap' was also confirmed.

In the next section,the theoreticaland managerialimplications of thesefindings will


be presented.The limitations of the researchand potential future researchavenueswill
also be noted.

226

VII CONCLUSION

7.1. Introduction

Although there are severalconceptualarticles and few empirical studieswhich aim to


increaseour understandingof corporateimageand corporateidentity communication,
there is still a lack of empirical researchto determinewhich corporateidentity mix
elements and unplanned communication factors motivate consumers during the
is
in
little
formation
Moreover,
image
the
process
company
minds of consumers.
known about how the integration of company-controlledcommunication activities
(corporateidentity mix elements)relatesto corporateimageformation.

In this chapter,first the theoretical contribution of this thesis in terms of thesetwo


gaps in the field is discussed.Second,the managerial implications of the study's
findings are described.This is followed by a discussionof the methodologicaland
theoretical limitations of the research.Finally, some future researchavenuesare
suggested.

7.2. Theoretical Implications of the Study

This thesis extends the existing understandingabout the types of communication


in
In
image
formation
have
influence
the
a.
number
of
areas.
on
corporate
which
following, theoretical implications related to the relationshipsbetweenthe corporate
image concept and each sub-componentof corporate identity mix elements and
unplannedcommunicationfactorsare presented.

227

The major contribution of this research is that it is one of the first attempts to
incorporate corporate identity mix elementsand unplannedcommunicationfactors
into one model, and exarfiine each communicator's impact on corporate image
formation from the consumer'sperspective.Prior studieshave investigatedthe role of
some company-drivencommunicationactivities individually in conveying corporate
identity messagesto different audiences.However, a comprehensiveapproach,which
takes the communicatorsboth internal and externalto companiesinto consideration,
has not beentested.By examiningan integrativemodel in the consumercontext,this
research challenges the claims of 'anything a company does communicates its
identity' (Balmer, 1997,2001; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997)and 'corporate imageis a
compositeproductof multiple communicatorsincluding formal communicationefforts
factors'
(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Cornelissen,
external
communication
and
2000). Additionally, it providesempirical evidenceabout the influence of integration
of company-controlledcommunicationactivities (corporateidentity mix elements)on
corporateimage. Therefore, drawing on the interdisciplinary paradigm (See Section
2.2.5), this study is one of the first empirical works that synthesisesconceptsfrom
corporateidentity and corporateimage managementword-of-mouth communication,
corporateassociations,organisationalidentification, value congruenceand integrated
marketingcommunicationliteraturesto explain the corporateimageformation process
in a more holistic manner.

In the proposedmodel, the direct impacts of sub-elementswithin the three main


aspects of corporate identity mix elements (i. e. symbolism, communication and
behaviour) on corporate image are evaluated. Direct influences of interpersonal
communicationand intermediarycommunicationon the corporateimageconceptare

228

also assessed.Moreover, the mediatorsbetweenintrapersonalcommunicationfactors


(corporateassociationsgap, consumer-companyidentification, emotionalappealsand
consumer-companyvalue congruence), as well as their direct and indirect
relationshipswith the corporateimage conceptare tested.The relationship between
perceivedintegrationof corporateidentity mix elementsand corporateimage is also
examined.The theoreticalimplicationsof thesepoints mentionedhereare presentedin
the following sections.

7.2.1. Corporate identity mix elements

This study concludesthat corporateimage is basedon multiple indicators, including


communication by corporate identity mix elements and unplannedcommunication
factors. Although the impact of the majority of the sub-elementsin thesetwo major
groupsof identity communicatorson corporateimage is reportedon the basisof the
data analysis,in the sectionabout measurementscale purification (Section 6.2) it is
arguedthat the salient sub-featuresof corporateidentity mix elementsmay differ for
different types of stakeholders.The findings illustratedthat the symbolismaspectwas
perceived as equivalent to corporate visual identity systems, and the behaviour
element was deemed as consisting of employee and company behaviours. The
corporateaesthetics,staff appareland managerbehaviourdimensionsappearedto be
irrelevant in the consumercontext (See Section 6.2). This was supportedby similar
results in the reputationmanagementfield (e.g. Brown and Perry, 1994; Fornbrunet
al., 2000; Groenland, 2002; Thevissen, 2002), which also showed that different
indicators may attract different stakeholders'attentions in different contexts. This

229

finding suggeststhat future researchshould be cautiousin identifying what constitutes


corporateidentity mix elementswith regardsto different stakeholders.

Moreover, it can be concludedthat Balmer's (1997) claim of 'anything a company


does communicates its identity' may be revised by adding 'salient formal
communicationfactorsmay changefor different stakeholdergroups' as a contingency.
This view complementsthe approach of scholars who proposedcorporate image
I

implementationplans (e.g. Abratt, 1989; Dowling, 1986; Gray and Smeltzer, 1987).
They acknowledgethat all formal communicationactivities of an organisationshould
its
identity;
however,they stressthat theseefforts should
the
of
possess characteristics
be designedto meet the different expectationsof company'sconstituentgroups,and
specific setsof activities should be emphasisedmore in communicatinga company's
identity to eachtargetgroup of stakeholders.

Another point aboutthe relevanceof the sub-elementsof corporateidentity mix in the


consumercontext should be mentioned.In this research,consumers'affection-based
attributionsaboutcorporateaestheticsand staff apparelwere considered.The evidence
from focus group discussionsdemonstratedthat if the functional aspectsof thesetwo
concepts(e.g. space,cleanlinessetc.) are examined,a potential link betweenthem and
corporateimage may be assumed.However, it should be noted that consumersmay
not form an immediatereactiontowards companieson the basis of their assessments
of these two concepts.Drawing on the store image literature (e.g. Donovan and
Rossiter, 1982; Martineau, 1958; Thang and Tan, 2003), it could be argued that
corporate aesthetics and staff apparel can be regarded as stimuli which affect

230

consumers'perceptionsof store images,which in turn, may have an impact on their


corporateimageformation.

The results of the hypothesistesting demonstratedthat apart from the relationships


betweenemployeebehaviourand intermediarycommunicationfactors and corporate
image, all of the theoretically expected relationships between the revised set of
constructson the basisof their relevanceto the consumercontextand corporateimage
existed. In the following, theoretical implications of the statistically significant and
image
between
factor
and
corporate
eachcommunication
non-significantrelationships
are presented.

The analysis showed that people's emotion-basedreactions about a company's


corporatevisual identity systemspositively influence the corporateimage they hold.
This evidencereaffirms the corporateidentity managementliterature (e.g. Van Riel,
1995) which claims symbolism triggers an affective response in the minds of
consumers.This finding also confirms researchin symbolism (e.g. Cohen, 1989;
Henderson and Cote, 1998; Peter, 1989; Robertson, 1989) claiming that when
consumerslike or havepositive feelingstowardsa company'ssymbols,they are more
likely to hold a favourableimagetowardsthat organisation.

The evidencefrom the hypothesistesting showedthat consumers'attributions about


the ability of marketing communicationactivities to reflect a company's valuesmay
lead to attitudinal consequences
at companylevel such as corporateimageformation.
The results complementthe view that marketing communication activities are an
integral part of corporateidentity management(Van Riel, 1995),which indicatesthat

231

they havea wider spectrumof influencethanjust supportingthe brandsof a company


(Keller, 2001; Markwick and Fill, 1997).

This research also suggeststhat the influence of consumers' attributions about


employeebehaviouris more complexthan the straightforwardpositive relationshipsas
suggestedby the literature in corporateimageand identity areas(e.g. Dowling, 1986;
Gray and Balmer, 1998; Kennedy, 1977). As argued in Section 6.3, the quality of
interaction betweencontact personneland consumersis consideredto be one of the
major indicators of service quality (Berry and Parasuraman,1991; Bitner, 1990;
Crosby et al., 1990;Parasuramanet al., 1988)and customersatisfaction(Bolton and
Drew, 1992;Cronin andTaylor, 1992).However,the influenceof employeebehaviour
orporate
image may be contingent on perceivedservice quality and satisfaction
on
from the service rather than being direct. In other words, it is claimed that although
employeebehaviourmay not evoke immediateattributionsabout a company's image
in the minds of consumers,the organisationally desired consequencesof employee
behaviourmay have a direct impact on corporateimage formation. This inferenceis
supportedby Nguyen and LeBlanc's study (1998) which establisheda link between
servicesmarketingrelatedconceptsandthe corporateimageliterature.

This study showed that company behaviour towards social responsibility issues
determine what consumersthink of organisations.This finding is in line with the
researchin corporateassociationsand corporatesocial responsibility (e.g. Brown and
Dacin, 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya,2001) and it highlights that company aspects
which are not product related such as social responsibility efforts may act as a

232

catalyserwith increaseconsumer-companyinteraction which may lead to a stronger


bond betweenconsumersand organisations.

7.2.2. Unplanned communication factors

This research complementsthe literature on word-of-mouth communication (e.g.


Bristor, 1990; Brown et al, 2005; Brown and Reingen, 1987; Cristiansenand Tax,
2000; Duhan et al., 1997;Halstead,2002; Haffison-Walker,2001; Lau and Ng, 2001;
Richins, 1983)by showingthat information exchangeamongclosely tied individuals
(e.g. friends and relatives) results in attitudinal changesat companylevel as well. It
can also be stated that although intermediary communication's direct impact on
corporateimageformation is not evident,the resultsmay indicatethat word-of-mouth
messagesby third parties could be acting as the meansof information flow among
strongly-tied individuals (Brown and Reingen, 1987; Weimann, 1983). This
implication suggeststhat intermediary communication is more complex than it has
been assumedby the corporateimage literature, such that there may not be a direct
relationship betweenintermediarycommunicationand corporateimage as suggested
by the current literature(e.g. Cornelissen,2000; Frombrunand Shanley,1990).

One of the main issueshighlighted by this study is relatedto the conceptualisationof


the corporate image and the corporateassociationsgap concepts.As argued in the
literature review (See Section 2.3 and Section 2.4), corporate image is a holistic
mental picture about a company(Dowling, 1986;Johnsonand Zinkhan, 1990;Keller,
2002) which is determinedby the descriptive mental associationsabout its central,
unique and enduring characteristicsthat constitute its identity (Brown, 1998). The

233

resultsof the CFA demonstratedthat the definition of corporateimageas the net result
impression
incorporates
individuals'
their views
about
a
company
of an
overall
which
on the company'scomparativeposition in its sectorand what they construeaboutwhat
othersthink about that organisationis conceptuallyvalid. The hypothesistesting also
confirmed that the corporateassociationsgap was a determinantof corporateimage
formation. Therefore,the theoretical expectationsabout the definitions of corporate
image and the corporateassociationsgap were met. This inferencecomplementsthe
researchin corporateassociations(e.g. Balmer, 1998; Brown and Dacin, 1997) and
corporatebranding(e.g. Daviesand Chun,2002; Schultzand De Chematony,2002).

By highlighting the importanceof consonancebetweenintendedidentity associations


and their perceptions(i.e. corporateassociationsgap),this researchreaffinned that the
identity of an organisationis developeddialectically (Cheney and Vibbert, 1987).
Dacin and Brown (2002) arguethat since a company's communicationefforts affect
its constituents' responseto that organisation,the definition of intended corporate
its
both
from
is
determined
by
feedback
the
the
organisation
and
associations
stakeholders.This study showed that if there is a mismatch between consumers'
is
identities
intended,
descriptions
this may
what
about organisations'
and
mental
force companiesto alter their definition of the corporateassociationsthat they want to
individuals.
in
the
achieve
minds of

Another key contribution of this researchlies in establishingthe role of a company's


intended corporateassociationsin creating stronger bonds between consumersand
companieson the basisof personaland organisationalvalue congruence.This study
showed that greater consumer-companyvalue congruencehas a direct impact on

234

corporateimageandthe corporateassociationsgap. It also demonstratedthat there is a


mediated relationship betweenconsumer-companyvalue congruenceand corporate
imagevia consumer-company
identification. Thesefindings complementresearchon
consumer-brandcongruity (e.g. Aaker, 1997; Fournier, 1998) and self-image and
value congruencefields (e.g. Edvardssonand Gustavson, 1991; Ekinci and Riley,
2003; Sen and Bhattacharya,2001; Sirgy, 1982b;Sirgy and Samli, 1985). Similar to
the argument about consumers' perception of congruence between their own
personality values and that of product brandsmay lead to strongerconsumer-brand
relationships(Aaker, 1997;Fournier, 1998),Senand Bhattacharya(2001) arguedthat
consumers'perceptionsof congruity with companieson self-relevantcharacteristics
can serveto nurture their self-definitional needssuch as onenessand belongingness,
by identifing themselvesin relation to companiesconsideredreputableby othersthey
think of highly (Ashfort and Mael, 1989).

By implicating consumer-companyidentification as one of the key drivers of


corporate image formation, this research contributes to the research in personorganisation fit (e.g. Kristof, 1996; O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986; O'Reilly ct al.,
1991) and organisationalidentification areas(e.g. Ashfort and Mael, 1989; Bergami
and Bagozzi,2000; Dutton et al., 1994).Thesetwo researchstreamshave focusedon
in
framework
The
understandingthe dynamicsof employec-organisation
relationships.
this study extended this approach to the non-formal membership situations and
demonstratedthe likelihood of organisationalidentification occurring in the consumer
context. Moreover, the model pinpointed the role of two individual-spccific factors
(i. e. emotional appeal and, consumer-companyvalue congruence),which underlie
identification.It is evidencedthat when individuals construethat a
consumer-company

235

company is perceivedas trustworthy and respectful by peoplethey think of highly,


this evokes an emotionally appealing point about that organisationwhich in turn
for
identification.
foundation
Moreover,the argument
the
consumer-company
prepares
aboutself-imageand value congruencethat suggestswhen consumersperceivethat an
organisation possessessimilar values to theirs, they are more likely to use that
organisationas a social identifier was confirmed (e.g. Edvardssonand Gustavsson,
1991; Ekinci and Riley, 2003; O'Reilly et al., 1991; Sen and Bhattacharya,2001;
Sirgy, 1982b;Sirgy and Samli, 1985).

Overall, on the basis of the theoretical implications presentedin sections7.2.1 and


7.2.2, it is concluded that corporate image formation process is a complex
phenomenon,which is influenced by company-driven and non-company driven
communicationfactors.The discussionin Section 6.6 supportsthis view. It is found
that it is not possibleto assumethat companyplannedcommunicationcan outperform
the impact of external communicationfactors on corporateimage formation. It may
ratherbe arguedthat corporateimageis a productof multiple communicationsources.
As Cornelissen(2000) claims, the models which propose one way link between
corporateidentity and corporateimage (e.g. Abratt, 1989;Balmer and Soenen,1999;
Birkigt and Stadler, 1986; Dowling, 1986; Markwick and Fill, 1997; Simoeset al.,
2005; Van Riel, 1995) should be revised and restructuredby incorporatingexternal
forcesascommunicatorsof identity.

236

7.2.3. Integration of corporate identity mix elements

This study also contributesto the corporateidentity and corporateimagemanagement


field by addressingthe issueof integration.-Although many authorsin the field (e.g.
Abratt, 1989;Einwiller and Will, 2002; Gray and Smeltzer,1985,1987; Van Rekom,
1997; Van Riel, 1995) have discussedthe role of integratedcorporate identity mix
elements,this study furtheredtheir argumentsby providing empirical evidencefor its
measurementand relevanceto corporateimageformation as a responseto the call for
contextualisingintegration issue in communicationfield (e.g. Cornelissenand Lock,
'2001; Van Riel, 1995).In line with the integratedmarketingcommunicationliterature
(e.g. Duncan and Everett, 1993; Duncan and Moriarty, 1998; Fitzgerald and Arnott,
2000; Kitchen and Schultz, 1998,1999; Low, 2000; Novak and Phelps,1994;Schultz
and Kitchen, 1997),this researchshowsthat the integrationof corporateidentity mix
elementscan be articulatedas co-ordinatedexecutionof communicationactivities and
alignmentof theseactivities to disseminatesimilar and/orcommonly sharedmessages
(Low, 2000). Additionally, this study complements the view of scholars (e.g.
Bhattacharyaand Sen,2003; Gray and Smeltzer,1987;Van Rekom, 1997;Van Riel,
1995; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997)who claim that consumers'attributions about the
integrationof corporateidentity mix elementsmay leadto judgementaland attitudinal
consequences
suchas evaluationof intendedcorporateassociationsand perceptionof
corporateimage(SeeKeller, 2001).

237

7.3. Managerial Implications of the Study

On the basis of the theoretical implications discussedin the previous section, this
study offers some practical guidelines for managersto achievea favourable image
about their organisationsin consumers' minds. This study's findings suggestthat
managersshouldrecognisethat corpprateimageformation is a complexprocessthat is
influenced by

multiple

communication factors including company-driven

communicationefforts and externalcommunicationelements.In the following, some


suggestionsabout how managerscould interpretthe findings of this study in terms of
corporateimagemanagement.

By demonstratingthat different corporateidentity mix elementsmay be regardedas


salient corporate identity communicators by different stakeholders,this research
complements the views of scholars who developed multi-step corporate image
implementationplans (e.g. Abratt, 1989; Gray and Smeltzer, 1987; Dowling, 1986).
Tberefore, it should again be highlighted that managersshould define the set of
promotional tools according to different stakeholdersgroups and equip them with
more
corporatemessages
appealingto thoseparticularaudiences.
which are

The researchresultsshowedthat symbolismis an important part of corporateidentity


management,since its elements evoke an emotional response in the minds of
I
consumers (Hendersonand Cote, 1998,Van Riel, 1995).Therefore,managersshould
put greateremphasison the emotional aspectof the symbolstheir organisationsuse,
rather than simply keepingthem as fashionable.For example,Van Riel et al. (2001)
note that corporate symbols are more stable elements of corporate identity mix,

238

becausethey tend to stay unchangedlonger than other aspectssuch as marketing


communication activities, which need to respond to market and consumer taste
changes immediately. Therefore, they suggest that the maintenance of visual
in
terms of the corporate messagesthey represent
organisation
expressionsof an
shouldnot be neglected.

By establishing that marketing communication activities may lead to favourable


corporate image formation, this study suggests that managers should consider
marketing communicationactivities as a conduit of company-levelmessagesas well.
As we have seen in McDonald's case, marketing communicationmessagesabout
be
in
brands
(such
tune
as
core
should
with
company's
values
a
product/service
contributingto the local economyand providing quality food) in order to ensurethat a
unifying companyimageis presented.This approachmay allow companiesto benefit
from brand leveraging opportunities due to cognitive consistency influenced by
brand
a
and the company
supporting
messages
about
projection of similar and/or
behind it (Keller, 2003). Furthermore,endorsementof company.values in marketing
communicationactivities may reducethe risk of negativeresponseto brandextensions
(Keller and Aaker, 1992b)and productevaluations(Gtlrhan-Canliand Batra,2004).

The findings of this study about the relationship betweencompany behaviour and
corporate image suggest that managers should pay more attention to regular
being
is
the
perceived as socially
company
or
not
assessmentsshowing whether
found
(2001)
Sen
Bhattacharya
that consumers' evaluations of
and
responsible.
companiesarc especiallysensitiveto negativeattributions about theseorganisations'
reactionstoward issuesof socialresponsibility.In the light of this study's findings and

239

Sen and Bhattacharya's (2001) supporting argument, it can be suggestedthat


companies should embed the philosophy of being socially responsible in their
definition of corporateidentity. However, there may be companieswhich treat their
activities in the area of social responsibility as a prompt responseto the business
environment,rather than being a part of that organisation'score ideology. Decisionmakers of such organisations should, at least, research which of the company
behaviourrelatedissuesreceivemore supportfrom their key consumersegments,and
then try to integratethosevaluesinto that company'sdefinition of intendedcorporate
associations.Moreover, Brown and Dacin (1997) reportedthat social responsibility
associationshave an influence on product evaluationsthrough companyevaluations.
Therefore, it can be suggestedthat assessingconsumers'views about a company's
social responsibility-orientedactionsmay leadto increasedpurchasingbehaviour,and
hencehigher marketshare.

The finding about the word-of-mouth communicationby intermediariesshowedthat


the delivery of company-related messagesby third parties may increase the
information flow amongpeoplerather than being persuasivein individuals' decisionmaking about companies. From a managerialpoint of view, it may be fruitful for
managersto focus on their consumerswho are more likely to follow third party wordof-mouth information about their companiesand try to influence these consumers'
interpretationsof non-companydriven messagesby designing promotional media
which are directedonly to thesecompany-relatedinformation seekingindividuals.By
doing so, organisationscan be more proactive in addressing any discrepancies
betweenwhat is said by third parties and what the company wants to convey. This
key
in
turn
customers to revise their views about their
motivate
approach may

240

favourable
As
deliver
to
their
close
environments.
recommendations
companiesand
Bowman and Narayandas(2001) assert, each contact initiated by word-of-mouth
information disseminationby company related infortnation seekersis an important
factor for building betterrelationshipswith consumers.

identification positively influences


The study's finding that showsconsumer-company
identification
is
deeper
implies
image
that
of
ensuring
consumera
way
corporate
I
company relationships. Therefore, managers should ask themselves which
identification building strategiesthey can use to motivate consumersto engagein
identifiers
be
2003).
It
(Bhattacharya
Sen,
argued
may
as
social
and
using companies
that service companiesmay benefit from identification encouragingactivities more
interactionis
than product selling organisations,sincethe level of consumer-company
higher in the servicescontext (Berry and Parasuraman,1991; Zeithaml et al, 1990,
1996;Zeithaml andBitner, 1996;2003) which gives an individual more opportunityto
(2003)
Sen
Nonetheless,
Bhattacharya
him/herself.
assertthat companies
and
express
halo
for
the
the
target
can
same
also
utilise
market
which produce severalproducts
effect of consumers'identificationwith their organisationsto markettheir products.

If implementing consumer-companyidentification strategies is considered to be


beneficial by companies,managersshould allocatemore resourcesto articulating and
ly
isational
identities
through
their
coherently
organ
organisations'
communicating
These
identity
i.
company-driven
element.
mix
controllable channels; e. corporate
interactions
to
to
serve
which
can
more
consumer-company
efforts should aim create
increase customer loyalty and retention. Furthermore, managers should collect
information about identity-relatedmessageswhich are disseminatedby non-company

241

controlled communicationmechanisms,in order to be able to diagnoseand eliminate


the possiblediscrepancies.

The finding that the corporate associationsgap has a positive relationship with
corporate image suggests that communicating corporate identity is linked to
understandinghow specific corporateassociationsare held by different stakeholders,
including consumers,who are the subjectsof this study. Dacin and Brown (2002)
assert that companiesshould not only be aware of how consumersperceive the
specific qualities of their brands;they should also monitor how consumersevaluate
the unique and distinctive characteristicsof their organisations. Brown and Dacin
(1997) demonstratedthat specific corporateassociationshave a positive impact on
product evaluationsdirectly and through overall company evaluation (i.e. corporate
image). It can be arguedthat any mismatch betweenintendedcorporateassociations
and consumers'perceptionof theseassociations(i.e. corporateassociationsgap) may
also lead to the inconsistencybetweenthe specific product qualities and consumers'
in
be
As
them.
a
result,
products
of
organisation
may
misplaced
attributionsabout
an
the minds of consumers,and they may switch to competingbrands.In order to avoid
any marketsharelossdue to suchmechanisms,managersshouldensurethat companydriven communicationactivities reflect what they want their consumersto associate
with their organisations.

The idea behind consumer-companyvalue congruenceis that managersshould go


beyondseeingconsumersasjust buyersof their products,and considerthem as a part
of the corporate identity creation process(Cheney and Vibbert, 1987). Ekinci and
Riley (2003)-statethat understandingconsumers'personality characteristicscan be

242

translatedinto using similar qualities in the creation of new products and services.
Similarly, managerscanusethe samevaluesto position their companiesin the market
place, and then revise the definition of intendedcorporateassociationsfor their own
organisations.If the consumer-companyvalue congruenceassessmentis carried out
periodically by companies,any changesin consumertastescould be detectedand
intended
definition
in
the
of
corporateassociations.By doing so, companies
reflected
can benefit from differentiatingthemselvesfrom their counterpartsat the right time in
the right manner.

Moreover, diagnosingvalueswhich constitute individuals' views of their self-image


may help managersdevelop promotional strategies.As mentioned in the literature
(See Section 2.5), corporateidentity is communicatedby messagesembeddedin an
organisation's symbolism, communication and behaviour (Van Riel, 1995). In its
broader sense, these company-driven communication efforts should integrate the
in
in
individuals
order to evokepositive
any
promotional
messages
personalvaluesof
associationsabout companies' identities, and hence motivate overall favourable
evaluationsaboutorganisations.

Furthermore,by establishingthat the attributionsof consumersaboutthe integrationof


corporateidentity mix elementsmay lead to a smaller corporateassociationsgap and
hence more favourable corporate image, this study re-emphasisedthe key role of
integratedcompany-controlledcommunication(i.e. corporateidentity mix elements)
in corporate identity management(Simoes et al., 2005). As the definition of
integrationon the basisof empirical evidenceindicates,it may be suggestedmanagers
shouldensurethat the symbolism,communicationand behaviouraspectsof corporate

243

identity mix should be strategicallyco-ordinatedand should havecommon objectives


and convey similar and/or supporting messagesabout their companies' identities
(Gray and Smeltzer,1985,1987; Van Riel, 1995).The resultsof the study show that
integration of company-drivencommunication elementsmay help organisationsto
decreasethe likelihood of dissonancebetween intended corporateassociationsand
consumers'perceptionsabout these qualities which in turn may positively influence
their evaluationof the companyimage.

Finally, this study highlights that corporateimage formation is influencedby multiple


elementsincluding companyand non-companydriven communicationfactorsand the
relative importance of each indicator may change on the basis of its relevance
accordingto the stakeholderstargeted.It can be arguedthat better understandingof
how thesefactorsare measuredand relateto eachother can help managersto develop
effective communication plans and allocate resources among activities more
efficiently.

7.4. Limitations of the Study

Sincethis study is one of the first attemptsto addressthe role of corporateidentity mix
elementsand unplannedcommunicationfactors in corporateimage formation, there
are some limitations pertinentto sampling,survey approachand measurementissues
which arepresentedin the following paragraphs.

As with other marketingstudies,lack of accessto a completesamplingframeworkhas


led the researcherto employ a non-probability sampling method i.e. a convenience

244

sample of individuals from the clusters selected(See Section 4.6.2). Even though
conveniencesamplescan be consideredappropriatefor theory testing, a probability
samplingtechniqueshould be used in order to eliminate the potential bias in terms of
validity and generalisabilityof the scalesusedin this study(SeeChurchill, 1999).

Another shortcoming is the employment of a cross-sectionalsurvey design, which


provides only a snapshotof relationships between variables at a point in time
(Churchill, 1999). In that sense,the ability of this survey techniqueto capture the
causalrelationshipsbetweenthe constructsin questionis consideredto be limited to
the inferences derived from the underlying theories, which are reflected in the
hypotheses,rather than from the data (Rudenstamand Newton, 1992).Therefore, it
should be noted that the interpretationsof the study's findings are based on the
theoretical backgroundin Chapter 11and Chapter 111,and are supportedby insights
obtainedfrom interviewswith identity consultantsand managersas well as from focus
its
it
be
due
discussions
Besides,
to
that
remembered
group
with consumers.
should
non-longitudinalnature,cross-sectionaldatais opento the effect of specific conditions
that are pertinentto the particulartime at which the datawas collected.This may lead
to reservationsabout the generalisabilityof a study's results over time (Churchill,
1999).

The third limitation of this study is that only two referencecompanies(McDonald's


be
focal
Renault-Mais)
to
targeted
assessed
as
companies
and
were
via questionnaires.
Even though the items for the scales were drawn from anecdotal articles which
business
from
areas,and the two companiesbelong to
several
provided perspectives
the two major industries (i.e. services and manufacturing), further studies should

245

regardother casecompaniesfrom different businesscontextsin order to increasethe


validity and generalisabilityof the scales.

As mentionedin Chapter111,this study hasconsidereda single group of stakeholders,


consumers,in order to be able to have greater control over the testing of an
exploratory model. However, it should be noted that corporateidentity and corporate
image concepts relate to several stakeholders such as employees, distributors,
investorsetc. (Dacin and Brown, 2002; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997). Therefore,the
in
in
be
tested
the
this
other
of
should
scales
used
study
validity and generalisability
models.
stakeholder-oriented

The fifth shortcomingof this study is the appropriatenessof the adjectivesusedto


assessa company's identity. Although theseadjectiveswere compiled from studies
(i.
1997;
high
Aaker,
Brown and Dacin, 1997;Daviesand
e.
reliability
which showed
Chun, 2002; Gardbergand Fombrun,2002; Groenland,2002; Senand Bhattacharya,
2001; Westberg, 1994), the adequacy of these adjectives for defining different
companies' identities (cf. Aaker, 1997) may be questionable.Furthermore, the
should
usability of the samequalities for individuals' own personality assessments
also be quantitatively explored (Ekinci and Riley, 2003). Developmentof such a
scale,and the testing of its dimensionalityboth for companyidentity evaluationand
individuals' own value assessment,
was out of the scopeof this study. However,the
by
the
of the
qualitative assessment
of
adjectives
chosen
was
ensured
appropriateness
adjectivepool by academicsand by eliminating someof the qualities on the basisof
their meaningfulnessfor the Turkish respondents(SeeSection4.5.3.1).Additionally,
in
did
the
the
about
relevanceof
adjectivesused
respondents not raise any concerns

246

during the pilot


terms of company identity and their own personality assessments
applicationsof the questionnaires.

The sixth point is related to the collection of the information about the two case
identity
intended
corporate
companies'
associations.As mentioned in the research
design,a questionnaire(SeeAppendix 9) which included the compiled identity traits
was applied to the decision-makerswho are involved in the corporate identity or
corporate communication managementof their organisations.However, since the
distribution of this questionnairewas carried out by the key managerinterviewed in
each casecompany,there may be questionsabout whether the targetedrespondents
evaluatedtheir company's identity or not. Nonetheless,the introductory part of the
questionnaireclearly statedthat the questionnaireshould be distributed to managers
who are involved in the decision-makingprocessof corporateidentity management
and communication.The importanceof this issuewas also emphasisedin the followup emailssentto the key interviewees.

Seventh,since the researchinstrument is composedof scaleswhich are generally


basedon the anecdotalstudiesand the statementsin the scalesused were formed as
in
different
by
the
the
the
On
and
researcher,
replication
questions
of
study
samples
'different country contextsis necessary,in order to increasethe validity and reliability
of the measures used. Despite this limitation, the results of exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses(SeeChapterV) show that a sound researchinstrument
was developed.

247

Finally, it should be mentionedthat the resultsmay show a potential bias, due to the
usageof difference scoresto measurethe corporateassociationsgap and consumercompanyvalue congruenceconcepts(See Peter et al., 1993).Despite the criticisms
about the reliability of difference score measuresand too high correlationsbetween
gap scores and theoretically related variables, the mathematicalcalculation of gap
scoreswas consideredas usablein this study, as the debateon the superiorityof direct
measurementof gap scoresis still unresolved(Ekinci and Riley, 2003).

Although there are some limitations pertinentto this study's findings, the researcher
believes that the potential bias in results can be overcome by conducting further
studies.In the next section,some future researchavenuesare suggestedto point out
the limitations discussedhere along with some further areasof investigationrelevant
to corporateimageformation and its consequences.

7.5. Future ResearchAvenues

First, the modeltestedhereshouldbe replicated,usinga randomsampleof consumers,


in order to eliminate the potential bias due to conveniencesampling in terms of
validity and generalisabilityof the scalesadaptedand developedin this research.

This study has demonstratedthe salient communicatorsof corporate identity for


consumers by incorporating corporate identity mix elements and unplanned
communication factors in one model. In line with the existing literature, it is
identity
image
in
that
this
thesis
corporate
and
corporate
acknowledged
conceptsrelate
to multi-stakeholders (Dacin and- Brown, 2002; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997).

248

Therefore, it is arguedthat there is still a need to identify which of the corporate


identity mix elements appeal more to other stakeholdersof companies such as
employees,investorsand distributors, and how their perceptionsof external factors
interplay with company-controlledcommunication.Furthermore,it is suggestedthat
examining the drivers of similarities and differencesbetweendiverse stakeholders'
views on what communicatesidentity may offer managersdifferent perspectivesto
enablethe developmentof effective communicationstrategies.

This study has grounded the argument about the impact of company-driven
communication on corporate image in Attribution Theory, which argues that
observers' (consumers)interpretationsof others' intentional behaviours(companies'
plannedcommunicationactivities) affect their reactionsto other people(Malle, 1999;
Malle, 2000). This research addressesconsumers' attributions of a company's
communicationof its identity by corporateidentity mix elements;however,it doesnot
take into accounthow the consumers'interpretationprocessof corporateidentity cues
occurs;this could be examinedin a further study.

In addition, Attribution Theory argues that people's attributions about others'


bchavioursare also contingenton situationswhich force other peopleto behavein a
certain way (Weiner, 1986). Accordingly, it could be claimed that some macro
environmental factors such as business environment country-of-origin, industry
identity etc. (SeeBalmer and Soenen,1999)may havean influence on the designand
implementationof a company's planned communication activities. Those external
factorsmay also affect individuals' attributionsof company-drivencommunicationas
being forced by theseexternalfactors. Such a situation may changetheir perceptions

249

about companies' identities. Therefore, macro environmental conditions and


individuals' attributions about them in terms of their influence on a company's
communicationactivities shouldbe exploredin further studies.

As mentionedin the theoreticalimplications(SeeSection7.2), the impact of employee


behaviour and intermediary communication on corporate image are more complex
issuesthan suggestedby existing studiesin the corporateidentity and corporateimage
fields. It was arguedthat the influenceof employeebehaviouron corporateimagemay
be mediated by the consequencesof the quality of interactions between contact
personnel and consumerssuch as service quality and customer satisfaction (e.g.
Nguyen and LeBlanc, 1998). Similarly, the direct impact of intermediary
communicationmay be relatedto certain conditions occurring, such as the credibility
level of sources(e.g. Brown andReingen,1987).Tliercfore, conditionsrelatedto these
potential factors and their role in corporateimage formation should be addressedin
future studies.

It should also be noted that the unplanned (uncontrolled) communication factors


consideredin this researchare not an exhaustivelist of externalelements.There may
be other personalfactors suchas demographiccharacteristicsof individuals (e.g. age,
gender,occupationetc.) or other self-relatedfactors (self-disti.nctiveness,self-esteem,
etc.) (SeeBhattacharyaand Sen,2003), which may
self-continuity, self-enhancement
have an influence on corporateimageformation. An extendedmodel can be testedby
the inclusionof thesepotentialvariables.

250

As mentionedin the researchlimitations, a pool of adjectiveswas extractedfrom other


studiesin order to assessindividuals' views on the casecompanies'intendedidentity
associations.Brown (1998) suggeststhat corporateassociationsis a multidimensional
concept,which includescorporateresponsibility, corporateability, exchangepartner,
employeeand product associations.Since this model was an initial attempt to test
several identity communicatorson corporate image, such theoretical dimensionality
in
and perceivedgaps each possibleassociationcategorywas not tested, in order.to
make the model less complex. Researchersmight consider examining whether
corporate associations include these dimensions by adopting Aaker's (1997)
brand
for
exploring
personality dimensionsand they might investigate
methodology
the impact of each possiblefactor on corporateimage. Researcherscan also refer to
studies by Brown and Dacin (1997) and Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) for
methodologicalissues.

In this study, only the antecedentsof corporateimage formation are investigated.As


mentioned in the literature corporate image is related to company performance
indicators such as customer satisfactionand retention, loyalty, purchase/repurchase
intention etc. (e.g. Andreassanand Lindestad, 1998; Bhattacharyaand Sen, 2003;
Dacin and Brown, 2002; Nguyen and LeBlanc, 1998).Accordingly, in future studies,
the consequencesof corporateimage in terms of such desirablecompanyoutcomes
can be addressed.Researcherscan refer to Dacin and Brown (2002) for an extensive
list of other companyoutcomesrelatedto corporateimageand corporateassociations.

T'llis researchalso is one of the few attempts to investigate a corporate image


formation model outsidethe US and Europe.As mentionedin the methodology,the

251

researchin corporateimage field and related areas(e.g. Andreassenand Lindestad,


1998; Balmer, 1995; Boyle, 1996; Brown and Dacin, 1997; Fill and Diminopolu,
1999; Fornbrun et al., 2000; GUrhan-Canli,1996; Kennedy, 1977; Simoes, 2001;
Thevissen, 2002; Van Riel, 2002; Westberg, 1994; Wiedmann, 2002) has not
like
Turkey as a researchcontext which are culturally different
consideredcountries
from developedcountries(Balabaniset al, 2002; Garten, 1997).Sincethe applicability
in
is
important
in
different
to
theories
cultural
settings
external
achieving
validity
of
theory testing, as in the example of a recent call for cross-culturalresearchin the
4),
2002,
No.
(See
Vol.
4,
Corporate
Reputation
Review,
area
reputationmanagement
this researchcan be consideredas a call for expandingresearchin the corporateimage
by
(2006)
Burgess
Steenkamp
this
support
view
and
markets.
area within emerging
be
theories
that
should
relevanceand applicability of marketingpracticesand
arguing
challengedin emerging markets since they differ in economic, social and cultural
structuresthan westerncountries.

7.6. Summary

This researchcontributes to a better understandingof corporate image formation


issues.Firs% its findings relating to the developmentand validation of the salient
image
in
the consumercontextwere explained.Second,a
of
corporate
communicators
structural model incorporating corporate identity mix elements and unplanned
implications
factors
Accordingly,
theoretical
tested.
the
of the
was
communication
by
image
identity
discussed
in
to
studieswere
and corporate
study reference corporate
drawing supportinginsights from the fields of integratedmarketing communications,

252

corporatesocial responsibility,word-of-mouthcommunication,corporateassociations,
organisationalidentification,self-image,value congruenceand servicesmarketing.

In conclusion, although several limitations have been mentioned, this research


establisheda platform for furthering our understandingof corporateimage formation
phenomena.The researcherbelieves that the findings of this research provide
significant theoreticalimplications and substantialmanagerialrecommendations.The
author sincerely hopes that this thesis will stimulate and encourageresearchersto
build uponthe findings presentedhere.

253

Appendix 1- Consultancy Interviews Question Sheet


Title of interviewee:
Name of aizencv:
Date:
Place:
Length of discussion:
Interviewer:
Introduction: MY name is Elif Karaosmanoglu.I am a PhD student in Warwick
Business School in the United Kingdom. I have worked as a researchassistantin
Istanbul Technical University in the Departmentof ManagementEngineering.I am
also a graduateof the same department.I have completed my MBA in Marmara
University in the Institute of Social Sciences.I have caffied out a researchentitled "A
Study of CorporateImage for Turkish Automobile Manufacturersin Turkey" during
for
furthering
from
different
I
this
my
a
perspective
currently
study
my master's. am
PhD Thesis
Aim of the Research: The main focus of the researchis to explore the influence of
building
image
the
of
on
perceptions
of
consumers
while
an
corporatecommunications
a global company. In order to provide a comprehensive picture of corporate
communicationapplicationsby global companiesin Turkey, this preliminary stageof
the researchconstitutesinterviewswith corporatecommunicationor corporateidentity
in
like
I
following
For
to
this
the
order
would
objective,
ask
questions
consultants.
you
to havean agendafor our discussion.
QuestionS31
1. What type of servicesdo you provide to global companiesin terms of corporate
identity
corporate
management?
and
communication
2. How does the environment affect corporate communication and its implications?
3. How would you define the concept of corporate identity and corporate identity
management?
4.

Will you please give your opinion for the following definition of corporate
identity, which is done by Cees Van Riel who is an academic and expert in the
area? Please indicate your level of agreement and why or why not?

is the strategically planned expressions of selfpresentation of an organisation via the cues given by its symbols, behaviour and
communication"
5. According
to your experience what do global companies understand from
corporate identity, corporate identity management and corporate communication?
_
6. What could be the possible forms or formats of corporate communication to
communicate the identity of a global company?
What do you think constitutes symbolism, behaviour and communication? How
identity
activities
of
your
company's
communication
would you classify your
under these headings?
Definition:

"Corporate

identity

31All questionsaregeneratedby the researcher.

254

estions

by
symbolism,
conveyed
8. How much are the consumersaware of corporatecues
behaviour,communicationand corporatebrandstructureof global companies?
9. How do consumerselaborateof the information abouta global company?
10.Which channelsand tools of communicationhave more priority for consumersin
buildina?
imaae
r-nmorate
I would like to thank you againfor your kind cooperationandvaluabletime.

255

Appendix 2- Company Interviews Question Sheet


Title of the interviewee:
Name of companv:
Date:
Place:
Len0h of the interview:
Interviewer:
Introduction: My name is Elif Karaosmanoglu.I am a PhD student in Warwick
Business School in the United Kingdom. I have worked as a researchassistantin
Istanbul Technical University in the Departmentof ManagementEngineering.I am
in
department.
have
MBA
Marmara
I
the
my
of
same
completed
also a graduate
University in the Institute of Social Sciences.I have carriedout a researchentitled "A
Study of CorporateImage for Turkish Automobile Manufacturersin Turkey" during
for
furthering
different
from
I
this
a
perspective my
study
my masters. am currently
PhD Thesis.
Aim of the Research: The main focus of the researchis to explore the influence of
corporatecommunicationson the perceptionsof consumerswhile building an imageof
a global company. In order to provide a comprehensivepicture of corporate
items
by
to
the
to
global
companies
explore
relevant
as
communicationapplications
build reliable scalesand a questionnaire,which is to be applied to consumersin the
main survey, this preliminary stage of the research consttutesinterviews with
corporatecommunicationmanagersof global companies.For this objective, I would
like to ask you to answerthe following questionsregardingyour company's identityrelatedcommunicationand its management.
Source
Questions
1. This study is about investigating the role of corporate
communicationin imagebuilding. First I would like to ask you The
researcher
what your organisation understandsabout what corporate
identity and corporateidentity managementare.
2. How would you describe the corporate identity of your
Stuart, 1995
company?
3. How would you describe the corporate image of your
Stuart, 1995
company?
4. Is this the image you want to communicateas a reflection of
your company's identity to the public? How much do you The
researcher
think you achieved? Is there still miscommunication or
image
the
of
you want to convey?
undercommunication
5. How are the corporate image messagesconveyed to the Abratt
and
2001
Mofokeng,
generalpublic?
6. Which communication channels and tools do you use to
Van Riel, 1995
project your overall imageto the generalpublic?
7. Can you classify these channelsand tools you mentioned in
The
researcher
I
generalcategories?

256

Questions

Source

8. What do you think about the following definition of corporate


.
identity?
Van Riel, 1995, p.
Definition: "Corporate identity is the strategically planned
36
expressionsof self-presentationof an organisationvia the cues
given by its symbols,behaviourand communication"
9. What do you think constitutes symbolism, behaviour and
communication?How would you classify your activities of The researcher
your company'sidentity communicationundertheseheadings?
10.If we focus on your corporatecommunicationagain,will you
pleasevisualiseyour approachto identity communication?Is it The
researcher
a part of your corporate communication strategy or is it a
tactical tool?
11.Does your company have a specific or particular corporate Abratt and
identity managementplan?If yes, can you explain it?
Mofokeng, 2001
12.How much do you invest on identity communication?What is
the distribution of it to the areassuch as visual design (logo,
The
researcher
design
)
interior
etc. promotion activities (public relations,
sponsorship,advertisingetc.)?
13.Is there a specific combinationof channelsand tools for image
positioning? Will you pleaseexplain how these interact with The researcher
eachother?
14.If we focus more, can you explain how your company'svisual
expressions (logo, name, slogan, colour, typography,
architecture,interior design, stationary, retail stores) convey The
researcher
your company's identity? What particular messagedo they
interact
do
How
they
with each other and the other
convey?
forms of communicationyou use?
15.Can you explain how your activities for product/services
marketing communication (advertising, sales promotion,
sponsorship,direct selling) and corporateadvertising, public The
researcher
'
identity?
What particular
relations convey your company's
messagedo they convey?How do they interactwith eachother
and the other forms of communicationyou use?
16.Can you explain how your company's behaviour in social
responsibility areas,your managersand employees'behaviour
in daily interactionswith the membersof the public convey The researcher
your company'sidentity?How do they interactwith eachother
andthe other forms of communicationyou use?
17.Why do you use monolithic, endorsedor brandedcorporate
brand structure?How does it help you to distinguish yourself
The
researcher
from your competitorsin the minds of the public? How doesit
interactwith the other identity communicationelements?
18.How much are the channels and tools applied supportive
and/or complementaryof each other? Or are they plannedto The
researcher
work as autonomous communication systems targeted to
different purposes?
I
I
257

Questions

Source

19.What do you think abouthow much the other factorsi.e. wordof-mouth, the information retained in the memory and
intermediaries have impact on the effectiveness of your The researcher
company's identity communication?How do they interplay
with your company'scorporatecommunication?
Abratt
and
20. Is thereany imagetracking mechanismin place?
Mofokeng, 2001
21. Has the companybeen involved iq any image-repairexercise Stuart, 1995
in the last five years?If yes,how was it handled?
Van Riel, 1995
22. What do your surveyssearchfor? What kind of information
The
researcher
for
by
looking
thesesurveys?
are you
23. (After a summaryof the interview) Is this summarysufficient
important
the
to
out
point
and salient issues?Do you The researcher
enough
want to add something,which you believewe didn't consider? I
I would like to thank you againfor your kind cooperationand valuabletime.

258

Appendix 3- Focus Group DiscussionsQuestion Sheet


Group No:
Description of participants:
Date:
Place:
Length of session:
Moderator:
QuestionS32
Opening questions:
1. Will you pleaseintroduceyourself to us?(Ask all members)
2. Canyou give a nameof a global companyyou recall?
Introductory questions:
3. The aim of this session is to understand your opinion about the impact of
communicationactivities of global companieswhile you are reaching a conclusion
about their overall image. Can you give your reason of rememberingthe global
companyyou mentioned?
4. Do you havea positive or negativeimageof this company?Why?
5. What do you think aboutwhat corporateidentity means?
Transition questions:
6. How do you decideaboutwhat you exactly feel about a global company?What sort
of information and informationchannelsaffect your decision?
7. Will you pleasenamecommunicationchannelsand tools usedby global companiesto
clarify what sort of companythey are?
Key questions:
10. If you think all the elementsmentionednow, which of them most attract you while
building an imageof a global company?
11.In which of them do you specifically look for a clue aboutthe company?
12. How do you relate the information which you got from the sourcesthat you
mentionedto eachother?
13. Do you tend to seek some sort of communality, or samenessor complcmcntarity
amongthe communicationchannelsyou elaborate?Why or why not?
14. Let's focus on some particular elementsof corporate communication. Will you
pleaseexplain how much the companylogo, name,coloursand other symbolsused,
company buildings' architecture, interior design, stationary influence your
impressionof a global company?Why?
15. Will you please explain how much do your experience of company
products/services,
advertising,salespromotion,direct selling activities of companies
influenceyour decisionabouta global company?Why?
16. Will you pleaseexplain how much employeebehaviour,managerbehaviourin daily
contactsand company'soverall behaviourin public issuesinfluenceyour impression
I
of a global company?Why?
_-I
32All questionswere generatedby the researcher.The sequenceof the questionswere basedon the
recommendationby Krueger(1994).

259

Key questions (continued):


18. How do the other communication sources such as what you heard from others,
watched or read in some media affect your opinion about a company?
Ending questions:
20. If you were a manager in a global company, who is responsible for the company
communication to create a positive public image, what would your communication
strategy be? Which communication activities would you organise? In which
communication elements would you invest? Why?
21. Let's summarise the key points of our discussion (the moderator and assistant
brief
a
summary of the responsesto questions) Does this summary
moderator give
sound complete? Do you have any changes or additions?
22. The goal is to understand which types of communication elements used by global
companies are influential while you arc forming overall image of a global company.
If you think we have missed out some points, will you please mention them?

I would like to thank you againfor your kind cooperationand valuabletime.

260

Appendix 4- Pilot Study 1 respondents' demographics for the three drafts of the

McP2
(McPl,
and McP3) for the McDonalds referencecompany.
questionnaire
mcpl
Female
Gender - Age/Year/Social Status
Male
Total
18-20
22
16
38
Age
21-23
35
24
59
46
51
Total
97
21
Second year
23
44
Year
8
Third year
15
7
Fourth year
20
14
34
Master
2
4
2
Total
51
46
97
25
23
A Social Eoup
48
Social status
13
28
B Social group
15
6
7
13
ocia group
6
2
8
C2 Social group
Total
51
97
46
mcpilot 2
21-26
46
37
83
Age
27-31
6
19
25
65
Total*
43
108
66
110
Master (t tal)
44
Year
A Social group
31
41
72
Social status
20
B Social group
7
13
9
CI Social group
4
5
C2 Social group
2
5
7
64
Total*
44
108
McPilot 3
43
15
28
18-20
Age
27
42
15
21-24
42
85
Total**
43
11
8
First year
3
Year
36
Second year
25
1
11
20
Third year
9
6
12
18
Fourth year
85
Total**
43
42
34
19
15
A Social group
Social status
20
10
10
B Social group
14
CI Social group
7
C2 Social group
is
6
9
Total***
41
83
42
Two caseswere missing.
One case was missing.
*** Three caseswere missing.
Note: McP I: McDonald's questionnaire draft 1; McP2: McDonald's questionnaire draft 2; McP3:
McDonald's questionnaire draft 3.

261

Appendix 5- Pilot Study 1 respondents' demographics for the three drafts of the

questionnaire (RM1, RM2 and RM3) for the Renault-Mais reference company.
RMP1
Gender - Age/Year/Social Status
18-20
Age
21-23
Total*
Year
Second year
Third year
Fourth year
Total
A Social group
Social status
B Social group
Cl Social group
C2 Social group
Total
RNIP2
21-26
Age
27-31
Total**
Year
Master (t tal)
A Social group
Social status
B Social group
Cl Social group
C2 Social group
Total***
RMP3
18-20
Age
21-24
Total
First year
Year
Second year
Third year
Fourth year
Total
A Social group
Social status
B Social group
CI Social group
C2 Social group
Total

Female

Male

Total

17
11
28
16
3
9
28
13
8
6
4
28

13
29
42
19
4
20
43
18
10
7
7
43

30
40
70
35
7
29
71
31
18
13
11
71

37
8
45
47
31
14
0
1
46

36
15
51
51
36
10
4
- 1
51

73
23
96
98
67
24
4
2
97

29
9
38
1
23
9
5
38
17
13
4
4
38

24
27
51
10
20
17
4
51
16
17
9
9
-51

53
36
89
11
43
26
9
89
33
30
13
Id
3
89
9

One casewas missing.


Two caseswere missing.
*** One casewas missing.
Note: RMPI: Renault-Maisquestionnairedraft 1, RMP2: Rcnault-Maisquestionnairedraft 2; RMP3
Renault-Maisquestionnairedraft 3.

262

Appendix 6- Pilot Study 2 Respondents' Demographics for McDonald's and

Renault-Mais Data Sets.

McPilot Study 2
Gender - Age/Class/SStatus
18-24
Age
25-31
32-38
Total*
Married+partnership
Marital status
Single+widow+divorced
Total*
A Social group
Social status
B+CI Social group
Total**
RMPilot Study
18-31
Age
32-52
Total
Married+partnership
Marital status
Single+widow+divorced
Total
A Social group
Social status
B+CI+C2 Social group
Total

Female

Male

Total

9
18
4
31
11
20
31
17
13 17
30

4
6
4
14
7
7
14
7
14

13
24
8
45
18
27
45
24
20
44

8
5
13
4
9
13
10
3
13

7
10
17
9
8
17
10
7
17

15
15
30
13
17
30
20
10
30

One casewas missing.


** Two caseswere missing.
Note 1: Mc: McDonald's and RM: Renault-Mais.
Note 2: None of the caseswere students.

263

Appendix 7- Questionnaire - McDonald's Reference Company


.

Aim of the Research (Please read it to the respondents)

This researchproject is conductedby Elif Karaosmanogluwho is currently a PhD


student in the Warwick BusinessSchool, UK. This study focuseson understanding
how consumersperceiveglobal companiesin Turkey andwhat communicationfactors
affect their impressionsof theseorganisations.
We would like to askyour valuabletime to completethe questionnaireas a part of this
is
Your
cooperation very essentialto the completion of this project and
research.
henceElif Karaosmanoglu'sPhD studiessuccessfully.
All responseswill be treatedin strict confidenceand it will not be possibleto identify
individuals asa result.The datawill be usedin an aggregatedform.
Thank you in advancefor your kind cooperation.
Yours Sincerely,
Elif Karaosmanoglu
Warwick Business School
University of Warwick
Gibbet Hill Road
Coventry CV4 7AL
United Kingdom
Phone: 00442476522675
Email: elif. karaosmanoglu@phd.wbs.ac.uk

Notes to the fieldworkers:


1. Pleasereadthe questionsvery clearly and slowly enoughin order to give sufficient
time to the respondentsto elaborateon the statements.
2. Pleaseread the labels of the scalesclearly in order to indicate how they could
expresstheir opinion on the basisof the scalepoints.
3. Pleaseespeciallybe careful with questionXII while you are reading it. It is very
important to give sufficient time to the respondentsto understandthe company's
identity statementfirst. Then pleaseread each statementwith placing the each
label of the scalepoint to the blank spacein the statement.
4. Pleasedo not insist to get an answerfor the questionsthat the respondentstend to
leaveas"missing" or "don't know".

264

1. Have you ever heard about the McDonald's company?


1:3 No (Finalisc the questionnaire)

Yes

11.[low would you describe McDonald's as a company? Please write a couple ofsentences and/or adjectivcs about
what this company reminds you.

111.Pleasestate your general impression about McDonald's by ticking the most appropriate option below.
Very unfavourable
12345

I.Infavourable

Neutral

Faivourable

Very favourable

IV. What do you think about what impression other people have about McDonald's? Please tick the most
appropriate option below.
Very unfavourable
12345

V.

Unfavourable

Neutral

Favourable

Very favourable

Please state your impression about McDonald's compared to other companies in the same sector in(] tick
the most appropriate option below.
Verv unfavourable
12345

Unfavourable

Newral

Favouralple

Very favokil-able

V1. flow oftcn do )ou visit McDonald's restaurants?


Never

171A fiew times year 171A FeNv


times a month

13 A few times a week

13 Otllcr (Please state)..

VII. In the section below, there are some adjectives to understand the image you have about McDonald's in )our
describe
McDonald's
how
these
Please
adjectives
and tick the most appropriate option
much
state
mind.
below for each adjective.
Not at all

A little hit

Some

Neither/Nor

Pretty much

Ver.1 much

Completely

I lonest

12

Considerate

12

EffectiN c
Innovative

12

12

6
6

7
7

Sensitive

12

Expert

12

6
6

Trustworthy

12

Caring

12

Exciting

12

Leader

12

Responsible

12

Fun

12

6
6

Competiti%c

12

Young

12

Dynamic

12

Modern

12

Welcoming

12

Successful

12

Progressive

12

Capable

12

Creative

12

265

VIII. The section below is prepared to understand your impression about McDonald's various visual expressions.
Please evaluate McDonald's according to the l'ollowing items by ticking the most appropriate option below for
each statement.

The name ofthe company communicates what it stands for


1 like the name of the company
It is easy to recall the name of the company
The name of the company makes me have positive feelings
towards the company
The logo of the company communicates what it stands for
I like the logo of the company
It is easy to rccall the logo ofthe compan
The logo of the company makes me have positive feelings
towards the company
The slogan ofthc company communicates what it stands flor
1 like the slogan of the company
It is easy to recall the slogan ofthe company
The slogan of the company makes me have positive
feelings towards the company
The colour and typograph) used on all ,isual materials of
the company communicate what it stands for
I like the colour and typography used on all visual materials
of the company
The colour and typography used on all visual materials of'
the company arc easily recogniscd
The colour and typography used on all visual materials of
the company make me have positive feelings towards the
company

Strougly

Slrougly
disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4

5
5
5

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

agree

Don't
know

IX. The section below is prepared to understand your impression abOUtthe 1ppC,
1r,1nCC
OfMCI)()j111d'Sbuil dingS.
Pleaseevaluate McDonald's according to the following items by ticking the most appropriate option hclow for
each statement.
Strongly
disagree

The architecture and the interior design ofthe compan 's


buildings, restaurants etc. communicate what it stands for
I like the architecture and the interior design of the
company's buildings, restaurants etc.
The architecture and the interior design of'thc company 's
buildings, restaurants etc. are casily rccognised
The architecture and the interior design of the company's
buildings, restaurants etc. make me have positive feelings
towards the company

StrouglY

Don't

agree

knoA

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

5
.

X. The section below is prepared to understand your impression about the appearanceo fMcDorwId's stall. ['lease
evaluate McDonald's according to the f'ollowing items by ticking the most appropriate option below l6r cach
statement.
Strongly
disagree

The apparel of the employees such as cashiers,


waiters/wai tressesetc. communicate what the company
stands for
I like the apparel ofthe cmp1o)ecs such as cashiers,
waiters/waitrcsses etc.
The apparel of the employees such as cashiers,
wai ters/wai tresses etc. make me have positive feelings
towards the company

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Stronglj
agree

5
5
5

266

Don't
know

X1. This section below is prepared to understand your impression about McDonald's attitude and behaviour towards
various social issues. Please evaluate McDonald's according to the lollowing items by ticking tile most appropriate
option below for each statement.
Strongly
disagree
The employees

of the company's

restaurants

such as

cashiers, wai ters/wai tresses etc. treat customers very well


This company supports corporate giving
This company treats its employees very well
This company cares about environmental issues
This company treats the local public very well
This company respects consumer right
This company treats people with high standards

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Sfrongl
agree

Don't
know

12345

12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345

XII. In this section below, there is a paragraph which explains %hat image McDonald's wants to convey to tile public.
Please read the paragraph carefully and state your opinion about how much the following communication activities
reflect the defined image in the paragraph. Please tick the most appropriate option bclo\v for cach statement.

McDonald's is the biggest company in the fast-food sector in the world, which offlers healthy fast-l'Oodwith high
standards; provides a clean and hygienic environment and fast and high quality service, has fun, welcoming and
friendly restaurants and cares for the public, especially for the children.

The company's tv, radio or printed advertisings


about its products and services reflect the image
defined in the paragraph above
The public relations activities of the company to
promote itself'as well as its products reflect the
image defined in the paragraph above
The products and services ol'the compan)
reflect the image defincd in the paragraph abovc
The sales promotions offered by the company
reflect the image defined in the paragraph above
The sponsorship activities ol'the company
reflect the image defined in the paragraph abm c
The company's tv, radio or printed advertisings
to promote itself'reflect the image defined in the
paragraph above

Not at all
reflect

Somewhat

45

.15

45

uot reflect

Neilher/Nor
reflect

Complelely
reflect

Somewhat
reflect

45

.1

-1

Don't
kll()%r

X111.The section below is prepared to understand Oat you receive 1rom external COIIIIII kill iCdt0r,1,11)01.
lt MCDOMIld'S.
Pleasestate your opinion about the f'ollo\\ ing items by tickin g the most appropriate Option bclo\% 1,01cach stilicnicill.
slrongl
disagree

My close friends and relatives talk about this company


ircqucntiy
I hear positive things about this company from my close friends
and relatives
My close friends and relatives recommend this company to me
My close friends and relatives encourage me to make purchases
from this company
The media, opinion leaders, government institutions and NOOs
etc. talk about this company frequently
I hear positive things about this company from the media,
opinion leaders, government institutions and NGOs etc.
The media, opinion leaders, government institutions and NGOs
etc. are proud ofthis compan,,
The media, opinion leaders, government institutions and NGOs
etc. recommend this company

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

St I ou gly
agI cc

I2

I2

I2

I2

I2

2
I2

267

Don't
knu

XIV. In the section below, there are statements to understand how much knowledgeable you are about McDonald's.
Please state your degree of agreement with the flollowing items by ticking the most appropriate option below for
each statement.

I know

the products

and services

ofthis

company

very

well

In general, I know a lot about this company


1 can describe this company to others in detail

Strongly
disagree
12345

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Don't
know

agree

12345
12345

XV. In the section below, there are some statements to understand how you feel about McDonald's. Please state your
degree ofagreement with the following items by ticking the most appropriate option below for each statement.

I fccl good

things

about

Strongly
disagree
12345

this company

1 respect this company


1 trust this company
If someone criticiss this company, I feel personally insulted
1 care about what others think about this company
When I talk about this company I say "we" instead of "they"
The successof this company, is my success
If someone appreciates this company, I feel proud
Ifthere is bad news about this company in media, I feel
embarrassed

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Don't
know

Strongly
agree

12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345

XVI. The section below is prepared to understand your impression about what the interaction and relationship level of'
the communication activities of McDonald's with each other arc. Please state your degree of' agrccinent with the
fiollowing items by ticking the most appropriate option below for each statement.
Strongly
disagree
All

activities

communication

of the company

have similar

objectives
All communication activities of the company are aligned to
convey a common message
I receive similar messagesfrom each ofthe communication
activities of'thc company,
It seemsthat all communication activities of the company
are planned and executed by the same person or people
All

a common
XVII.

acti\

communication

company

aim to com c)

Nentral

below,

there are some adjectives


describe your personality
these adjectives

I lonest

Not at all
A little bit
1234567

12345
1235
12345
123

.15

Considerate

1234567

Eflcctive

1234567

Innovative

1234567

Sensitive

1234567

Expert

1234567

Trustworthy

1234567

Caring

1234567

Exciting

1234567

Leader

1234567

Responsible

1234567

Fun

1234567

Compel, itivC

1234567

Young

1234567

to understand
the personality
traits ol'a
by ticking the most appropriale
option

Some

Neither/Nor

Agree

12345

message

In the section
much

itics ofthe

Disagree

Strongly
agree

1'retty much

person. Please state how


below l'or each adjective.

Very much

Coniplefel)

268

Don't
know

No I at all

A fillIc bit

Some

Neither/Nor

Prctl) much

N cf.) 1111101

41111pleld)

Dynamic
Modem
Welcoming

12
12
12

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

6
6
6

7
7
7

Successful

12

llrogrcssi%e
Capable

12
12

3
3

6
6

Creative

12

XV I 11.Your age
.......................
XIX Your gender
11 Female

171Male

XX. Your marital status


171Married

171Living with partner

11 Single

171Widow

11 Divorced

XXI. The town/district you live


.................................................
XXI 1.1low many people including you are living in your house'?
.........
XXIII. Please state the net income of )our family per month (including all bcnefits. rcnt income and salaries
etc.)
173Less than 500million 'FI,
13 1,001 billionTI,
13 2,001 billion'I'L

billion'Fl,
1,5
billion'I'l,
2,5
-

11 501 million 'I'l.


I
billion
TI,
-11 1,501 hillion'I'l.
billion'I'l.
2
-1732,501 billion'I'l,
3 billionTl,

0 More than 3,501 billion'Fl,


Cl 3,001 billion TL 3,5 billion'Fl,
XIV. Please state the last degree you have earned.
0 11igh School

11 Secondary school and below

13 Undergraduate

M rvlastcrsand above

XV. Please tick the most appropriate option below that indicates your employment status.
I am currently employed
1:1 Top executive or manager

I am not emoloved
M Student

11 Owner ofa large or medium size company


171Lawyer, dentist, architect etc.
1:1 Office/Clerical staff

11 1louse wi Ic
171Retired

0 Worker
13 Civil servant
Craftsman
Other (Please state)
...........................................
XV]. Please state which of the followings you (or your fiamily) own.
C] Apartment
C1 Summer house
Personal computer

11 Lap top
C73I lome theatre
171pet

171Dish washer
171Car
13 Freezer

171DVD/VCD player
11 Microwave oven
171Credit card

Savings account

269

Appendix 8- Questionnaire- Renault-Mais ReferenceCompany

Aim of the Research (Please read it to the respondents)

This researchproject is conductedby Elif Karaosmanogluwho is currently a PhD


focuses
in
Warwick
Business
School,
UK.
This
the
on understanding
student
study
how consumersperceiveglobal companiesin Turkey andwhat communicationfactors
affect their impressionsof theseorganisations.
We would like to askyour valuabletime to completethe questionnaireasa part of this
is
Your
cooperation very essentialto the completion of this project and
research.
henceElif Karaosmanoglu'sPhD studiessuccessfully.
All responseswill be treatedin strict confidenceand it will not be possibleto identify
individuals asa result.The datawill be usedin an aggregatedform.
Thank you in advancefor your kind cooperation.
Yours Sincerely,
Elif Karaosmanoglu
Warwick BusinessSchool
University of Warwick
Gibbet Hill Road
CoventryCV4 7AL
United Kingdom
Phone:00442476522675
Email: elif. karaosmanoglu@phd.
wbs.ac.uk

Notes to the rieldworkers:


1. Pleasereadthe questionsvery clearly and slowly enoughin order to give sufiicient
time to the respondentsto elaborateon the statements.
2. Pleaseread the labels of the scalesclearly in order to indicate how they could
expresstheir opinion on the basisof the scalepoints.
3. Pleaseespeciallybe careful with questionXII while you are reading it. It is very
important to give sufficient time to the respondentsto understandthe company's
identity statementfirst. Then pleaseread each statementwith placing the each
label of the scalepoint to the blank spacein the statement.
4. Pleasedo not insist to get an answerfor the questionsthat the respondentstend to
leaveas"missing" or "don't know".

270

I. Have you ever heard about the Renault-Mais company?


11 Yes

Cl No (Finalise the questionnaire)

11.How would you describe Renault-Mais as a company? Please write a couple ofsentences and/or adjectivcs about
what this company reminds you.

Ill. Please state your general impression about Renault-Mais by ticking the most appropriate option below.
Very unfavourable
12345

Unfavourable

Neutral

Favourable

Very favourable

IV. What do you think about what impression other people have about Renault-Mais? Plcasc tick the most
appropriate option below.
Very unfavourable
12345

V.

Neutral

Unfavourable

Favourable

Very favourable

Please state your impression about Renault-Mais compared to other companies in the same sector and tick (fie
most appropriate option below.
Very unfavourable

Neutral

Unfavourable
2345

Favourable

Vell, fit vouI it b1c

VI. II ave you or anyone in your farni I owned a RcnauIt car belore and/or do YOU01'allyOIIC in YOUrIIIIIIi I) 11MCa
Renault car now'?
El Yes

11 No

have about Renault-Mais ill Your


VII. In the section below, there are some adjectives to understand the image )OLJ
mind. Please state how much these adjectives describe Renault-Mais and tick the lll()st Ippropriate option
below lor each adjective.
Not at all

A little bit

Some

Neither/Nor

Pretty inuch

Very much

(1111plefel)
7

12

Considerate

12

EATective

12

Innovative

12

Sensitive

12

Expert
Trustworthy
Caring

12
12
12

I'Aciting

12

Leader

12

ResponsibIc

12

Fun

12

Compctitivc

12

Young

12

Dynamic

12

Modem

12

Welcoming

12

Successful

12

Progressive

12

Capable

12

Creative

12

I lonest

7
7

271

Vill. The section below is prepared to understand your impression about Renault-Mais various visual expressions.
Please evaluate Renault-Mais according to the fiollowing items by ticking the most appropriate option below for
each statement.
Strongly
disagree

The name of the company communicates what it stands for


I like the name of the company,
The name of the company makes me have positive feelings
towards the company
The logo ofthe company, communicates what it stands flor
I like the logo of the company
The logo of the company makes me have positive feelings
towards the company
The slogan ofthe company communicates what it stands 16r
It is easy to recall the slogan of the company
The slogan of the company makes me have positive
feelings towards the company
The colour and typography used on all visual materials of
the company communicate what it stands for
I like the coiourand typography used on all visual materials
of the company
The colour and typography used on all visual materials of
the company arc easily recognised
Thf-.vninur nnd tvnnPrnnhv ii-ed on all vi-nal material, of
the company make me have positive feelings towards the
company

Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

agree

Don't
know

IX. The section below is prepared to understand your impression about the appearanceof'Rcnault-N/lais buildings. Please
evaluate Renault-Mais according to the following items by ticking the most appropriate option below l6r cacti
statement.
Strongly
disagree

The architecture and the interior design ofthe company's


buildings, sales and after sales service centres etc.
communicate what it stands for
I like the architecture and the interior design of the
company's buildings, sales and after sales service centres
etc.
The architecture and the interior design ofthe company's
buildings, sales and after sales service centres etc. are easily
recognised
The architecture and the interior design of the company's
buildings, sales and after sales service centres etc. make me
have positive feelings towards the company

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly
agree

Don't
knoA

345

12345

12345

12345

X. The section below is prepared to understand your impression about the appearance of Renault-Mais staff. Please
evaluate Renault-Mais according to the fiollowing items by ticking the most appropriate option hclm I*or each
statement.
Agree

SIrongI N'
agree

123

123

Strongly
disagree

The appearanceand apparel of the employees such as


salesmen, after sales service staff etc. communicate what
the company stands for
I like the appearance and apparel of the employees such as
salesmen, aftcr sales service staffctc.
The appearanceand apparel of the employees such as
salesmen, after sales service staff etc. make me have
positive feelings towards the company

Disagree

23

Neutral

272

Don't
knim

X1. This section below is prepared to understand your impression about Renault-Mais attitude and behaviour towards
various social issues. Please evaluate Renault-Mais according to the f'ollowing items by ticking the most
appropriate option below for each statement.
Strongly
disagree
The employees

of the company

such as salesmen,

after

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly
agree

Don't
know

12345

sales service staff etc. treat customers very well


This company supports corporate giving
This company treats its employees very well
This company cares about environmental issues
This company treats the local public very well
This company respects consumer right
This company treats people with high standards

12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345

XII. In this section below, there is a paragraph which explains what image Rcnault-Mais wants to CoIlVey to the JIL)b]iC.
Please read the paragraph carefully and state your opinion about how much the l'ollowing communication acti ities
reflect the defined image in the paragraph. Please tick the most appropriate option below lor cach statcnictit.
Renault-Mais is the leader company in Turkish automobile manullacturing sector, which produces visual. bold,
daring, warm, comfortable, safe and economical cars which are innovative in design. provides good after sales
service; cares for environmental issues and aims to contribute to the public and theTurkish economy.
Not at all
renect

Somewhat
not renect

34

34

34

34

The company's tv, radio or printed advertisings


about its products and services reflect the image
defined in the paragraph above
The public relations activities of the company to
promote itself as well as its products and reflect
the image defined in the paragraph above
The products and services ofthe company
reflect the image defined in the paragraph aboc
The sponsorship activities of the company
reflect the image defined in the paragraph above
The company's tv, radio or printed advertisings
to promote itself*rcilect the image defined in the
paragraph above
XIII.

Neither/Nor
reflec(

Solnewhat
I-VnCCI

Coloplefel)
rellec(

Don't
know

The section below is prepared to understand what you receive from external communicators about Rcnault-MaisPlease state your opinion about the fiollowing items by ticki ng the most appropriate option below I*or each statement.
Slrongl)
disagree
My close friends and relatives talk about this compan)

frequently
I hear positive things about this company from my close
friends and relatives
N/1)close friends and rclati%cs recommend this cornpan to
me
My close friends and relatives encourage me to make
purchases from this company
The media. opinion leaders. go\ ernment institutions and
NGOs etc. talk about this cornpan frcquentl
I hear positive things about this company from the media,
opinion leaders, government institutions and NGOs etc.
The inedia. opinion leaders. w\ ernment institutions and
N(; Os etc. arc proud ofthis Lompan)
The media, opinion leaders, government institutions and
NGOs etc. recommend this company

Disagree

234

23

Nentral

Agree

Strongb

Don't

agree

kno'A

5
5

23

23

23

23

23

'173

XIV. In the section below, there are statements to understand how much knowledgeable you are about Rcnault-Mais.
Please state your degree of agreement with the following items by ticking the most appropriate option below for
each statement.
Strongly
disagree

I know the products and serviccs ofthis company very well


In general, I know a lot about this company
1 can describe this company to others in dctail

Disagree

Neutral

3
3
3

12
12
12

Agree

Strongly

Don't

agree

knoA

5
45
45

XV. In the section below, there are some statements to understand how you 1'celabout Renault-Mais, Please statc your
degree ofagreement with the following items by ticking the most appropriate option below f'or cach statcnient.
Strongh,
disagree

I I'cel good things about this company


1 respect this company
1 trust this company
If someone criticises this company, I feel personally
insulted
I care about what others think about this company
When I talk about this company I say "we" instead of
"they"
'['he successofthis compan is rn success
If someone appreciates this company, I feel proud
Ifthere is bad news about this company in media, I feel
embarrassed

Disagree

Strongly

Neutral

Agree

12
12
12

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

12

12

12

12
12
12

agree

Don't
knim

5
4

3
3

-1
4

5
5

XVI. The section below is prepared to understand your impression about what the int eraction and relationship level of'
the communication activities of'Renault-Mais with each other are. Please state y our degree o fagi-ccin crit \%illi tile
following items by ticking the most appropriate option below l6r each statement.
Strongl I,
*
tlisagree

All communication activities of the company have similar


objectives
All communication activities of the company are aligned to
convey a common message
I receive similar messagesfrom each of the communication
acti%itics ofthc compan
It seems that all communication activities of the company
are planned and executed by the same person or people
All communication activities ofthe company aim to convey
a common message

Disagree

Sirongly
agree

Neutral

Agree

12

12

12

12

12

XVII. In the section below, there are some adjectives to understand the personality traits ol'a person. Pleasc state how
much these adjectives describe your personality by ticking the most appropriate o ption below for each ;idjectivc.
Not at all

A little bit

Sonic

Neither/Nor

l1resty mucli

', 'c ry Inuch

C omplefeki

I lonest

12345

Considerate
F.T1'ective

12345
1234S

Innovative

12345

Sensitive

12345

Expert

12345

Trustworthy

12345

Caring

12345

Exciting

12345

Leader

12345

Responsible

1234S

Fun

12345

74

Don't
knoA

A little bit

Not at all

Some

Neither/Nor

Pretty much

Very much

Completely

12

Young
Dynamic
Modem

12
12
12

Welcoming

12

Successful

12

Progressive

12

Capable

12

Creative

12

Competitive

XVIII. Your age


.......................
XIX. Your gender
ID Female

13 Male

XX. Your marital status


171Married

11 Living Nvithpartner

173Single

13 Widow

11 Divorccd

XXI. The town/district you live


.................................................
XXIL I low many people including you are living in your house?
.........
XXIII. Please state the net income of your family per month (including all benefits, rent income and salarics
etc.)
171501 million'll

Less than 500million TL

-I

billion'll

billion
TL
1.5
-

1,501 billion'll,

billion'll,
2
--

2,001 bi II ion TL - 2,5 bi II ion TL

2,501 billion'll,

3 billion'll

3,001 billion TL - 3,5 billion TL

More than 3,501 billion'['[.

1,001 billionTL

XIV. Please state the last degree you have earned.


0 Secondary school and below

01 ligh School

11 Undcrgraduate

C, mastcrsand

above
XV. Pleasetick the most appropriate option below that indicates your employment status.
I am currently employed
11 Top executive or manager
13 Owner ot'a large or medium size company
Cl Lawyer, dentist, architect etc.
171Office/Clerical staff
11 Worker
171Civil servant
El Craftsman
11 Other (Please state)
...........................................

I am
empluccl
-no-I
171Student
1:1 1louse wi Ic
171Retired

XVI. Please state which ofthe followings you (or your family) own.
13 Apartment
Summer house
Personal computer
El Savings account

0 Lap top
Cl I lorne theatre
171Jct

13 Dish washer
11 Car
171Freezer

CDDVD/V('D pla) cr
Cl Micro%lo"Covc1l
171Credit card

275

Appendix 9- Corporate Identity Traits Evaluation Form for Companies

This document is related to the doctoral research project on corporate communications and corporate
image formation carried by Flif Karaosmanoglu under the supervision of' Dr. T. C. Mcle\%ar in the
Warwick Business School, UK. The following scale is developed to understand how the vic\., of'
consumers' about global companies' images match with what the companies want to comc). Please
evaluate your company's identity by answering the 11ollowingquestion. Thank you \,cry much Ior our
interest and cooperation.
P111)Warwick

1-] i I'Karaosmanoglu
Busiticss School. t IK

P.S. Please do not answer this questionnaire unless you are a member ofthe dccision-making process in
terms of corporate identity or corporate communication management Of) OLIrCOMP,
111)'.

Please state how much these adjectives describe the idcntity (hat your company wants to com cy to the
consumers and tick the most appropriate option below f6r each adjcctive (Pleasc cillicr hold Ilic option,
change the colour or put the letter X).

Not at all

A little bit

Sonic

Neither/Nor

Prcity much

Ver) much

Completcl)

I lonest

12

Considerate

12

Effective

12

Innovative

12

Sensitive

12

Expert

12

Trustworthy

12

Caring

12

Exciting

12

Leader

12

Rcsponsible

12

Fun

12

Competitive

12

Young

12

Dynamic

12

Modern

12

6
6

Wc1coming

12

Successful

12

-5
5

6
6

Progressive

12

Capable

12

Creative

12

Your position in the company:


..............................................................................

'176

References

Aaker, D. (1996)Building Strong Brands,New York, FreePress.


Aaker, J. L. (1997) "Dimensions'of Brand Personality", Journal of Marketing
Research,Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 347-356.
Aberg, L. (1990) "Theoretical Model and Praxis of Total Communication",
International Public RelationsReview,Vol. 13,No. 2.
Abratt, R. (1989) "A New Approach to the CorporateImage Process",Journal of
Marketing Management,Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Abratt, R. and Mofokeng,T. N. (2001) "Developmentand Managementof Corporate
Image in SouthAfrica", EuropeanJournal ofMarketing, Vol. 35, No. 3/4, pp.
368-386.
Albert, S. and Whetten, D. (1985) "Organisational Identity", Research in
OrganisationalBehaviour,Vol. 7, pp. 263-295.
Allen, C.T and Janiszewski, C.A. (1989) "Assessing the Role of Contingency
Awareness in Attitudinal Conditioning with Implications for Advertising
Research",Journal ofMarketing Research,Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.30-43.
Anderson,J. and Gerbing, D. (1982) "Some Methods for Specifying Measurement
Models to Obtain Unidimensional Construct Measurement", Journal of
Marketing Research,Vol. 19,No. 4, pp. 453-460.
Anderson,J. and Gerbing,D. (1988) "Structural Equation Modelling in Practice:A
Review and RecommendedTwo-stepApproach", PsychologicalBulletin, Vol.
103,No. 3, pp. 411-423.

277

Anderson,J. C. andNarus,J. A. (1984) "A Model of the Distributor's Perspectiveof


Distributor-ManufacturerWorking Relationship",Joumal ofMarkeling, Vol.
48, Fall, pp. 62-74.
Andreassen,T. W. and Lindestad, B. (1998) "Customer Loyalty and Complex
Services:The Impact of CorporateImage on Quality, CustomerSatisfaction
and Loyalty for Customerswith Varying Degrees of Service Expertise",
International Journal of ServiceIndustry Management,Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 723.
Argenti, P. A. (1998) Corporate Communications,2'd Ed., Irwin McGraw-Hill,
USA.
Arnold, D. J. and Quelch, H. A. (1998) "New Strategiesin Emerging Markets",
SloanManagementReview,Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 7-15.
Ashfort, B. E. and Mael, F. (1989) "Social Identity Theory and the Organisation",
AcademyofManagementReview,Vol. 14,No. 1, pp. 20-39.
Babin, B., Boles, J. and Robin, D. (2000) "Representingthe PerceivedEthical Work
Climate amongMarketing Employees",Journal of the Academyof Marketing
Science,Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 345-358.
",
Baker,M. J. and Balmer,J. M. T. (1997)"Visual Identity: Trappingsor Substance?
EuropeanJournal ofMarketing, Vol. 3 1, No. 516,pp. 366-382.
Bagozzi, R. P. (I 980a) Casual Models in Marketing, Wiley, New York.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1980b) "Perfon-nanceand Satisfactionin an Industrial SalesForce:


I
An Examination of Their Antecedents and Simultaneity", Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 65-77.

278

Bagozzi, R. and Philips, L. (1982) "Representing and Testing Organisational


Theories: A Holistic Construal", Administrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 27,
pp. 459489.
Bagozzi,R. P. and Yi, Y. (1988) "On the Evaluationof StructuralEquationModels",
AcademyofMarketing Science,Vol. 16,No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y., Philips, L. (1991) "Assessing Constr-LictValidity in
OrganisationalResearch".Administrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3,
pp. 421-458.
Baker, M. J. and Balmer, J. M. T. (1997) "Visual Identity: Trappingsor Substance",
EuropeanJournal ofMarketing, Vol. 3 1, No. 516,pp. 366-382.
Balabanis,M., Muller, R., and Melewar, T. C. (2002) "The Relationship between
ConsumerEthnocentrismand Human Values", Journal of Global Marketing,
Vol. 15,No. 3/4, pp. 7-37.
Baldry, C. (1997) "The Social Constructionof Office Space",International Labour
Review,Vol. 136,No. 3, pp. 365-378.
Balmer, J. M. T. (1995) "Corporate Branding and Connoisseurship",,Journal of
GeneralManagement,Vol. 2 1, No. 1, pp. 2446.
Balmer, J. M. T. (1997) "Corporate Identity: Past,Presentand Future", Department
Strathclyde,
Series,
University
Working
England.
Paper
of
ofMarketing

Balmer, J. M. T. (1998) "Corporate Identity and Advent of CorporateMarketing",


Journal ofMarketing Management,Vol. 14,pp. 963-996.
Balmer, J. M. T. (2001a) "Corporate Identity, Corporate Branding and Corporate
Marketing: Seeingthroughthe Fog", EuropeanJournal ofMarkefing, Vol. 33,
No. 3/4, pp. 248-291.

279

Balmer, J. M. T. (2001b) "From the Pentagon: A New Identity Framework",


CorporateReputationReview,Vol., 2, No. 1, pp. 11-22.
Balmer, J. M. T. and Gray, E. R. (1999) "Corporate Identity and Corporate
Communications:

Creating

Strategic

Advantage",

Corporate

Communications:An International Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 171-176.


Balmer, J. M. T. and Gray, E. R. (2003) "CorporateBrands:What are they? What of
Them?". EuropeanJournal ofMarketing, Vol. 37, No. 7/8, pp. 972-997.
Balmer, J. M. T. and Greyser,S. A. (2002) "Managing the Multiple Identities of the
Corporation",California ManagementReview,Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 72-86.1
Balmer, J. M. T. and Soenen,G. B. (1999) "The Acid Test of Corporate ldcntity
Management".Journal ofMarketing Management,Vol. 15,pp. 69-92.
Balmer, J.M. T. and Wilkinson, A. (1991) "Building Societies:Change,Strategyand
I
CorporateIdentity", Journal of GeneralManagement,Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 2033.
Balmer, J. M. T. and Wilson, A. (1998) "CorporateIdentity: There is More to It than
Meets the Eye", International StudiesofManagementand Organisation,Vol.
28, No. 3, pp. 12-31.
Barich, H. and Kotler, P. (1991) "A Frameworkfor Marketing ImageManagement",
SloanManagementReview,Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 94-104.
Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., Taylor, K. A. (2000) "'[be Influence of CauseRelated Marketing on Consumer Choice: Does One Good Turn Deserve
Another?"tJournal of the Academyof Marketing Science,Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.
248-263.

280

Baumgartner,H. and Homburg, C. (1996) "Applications of Structural Equation


Modeling in Marketing and Consumer Research:A Review", International
Journal ofResearchin Marketing, Vol. 13,pp. 139-161.
Beard, F. (1997) IMC

Use and Client-Ad Agency Relationships", Journal of

Marketing Communications,Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 217-230.


Beh, H. (1994) "Going Green Is Not Optional", Aian Business,Vol. 30, No. 9, p.
70.
Bentler, P. M. and Chou, C. P. (1987) "Practical Issuesin Structural Modelling",
SociologicalMethodsand Research,Vol. 16,No. 1, pp. 78-117.
Bergami,M. and Bagozzi,R. P. (2000) "Self-Categorization,Affective Commitment
and Group Self-Esteem as Distinct Aspects of Social Identity in the
Organization",British Journal ofSocial Psychology,Vol. 39, pp. 555-557.
Bemstein, D. (1984) Company Image and Reality: A Critique of Corporate

Communications,CassellEducationalLtd., London.
Berry, L. L. and Parasuraman,A. (1991) Marketing Services: Competingthrough
Quality, The FreePress,New York: USA.
Bevis, J. C. (1967) "How CorporateImageResearchIs Used", in the Proceedingsof
the ESOMAR Wapor Congress,Vienna.
Bhattacharya,C. B. and Sen, S. (2003) "Consumer-CompanyIdentification: A
Framework for UnderstandingConsumers'Relationshipswith Companies",
Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 76-88.
Bick, G., Jacobson,M. C., Abratt, R. (2003) "The CorporateIdentity Management
ProcessRevisited",Journal ofMarkeling Management,Vol. 19,pp. 835- 855.

281

Bickerton, D. (1999) "CorporateMarketing - RediscoveringDucker's Lost Agenda


for Marketing", Working Paper Series, No. 99/4, International Centre for
CorporateIdentity Studies,University of Strathclyde,UK.
Bickerton, D. (2000) "CorporateReputationversusCorporateBranding: The Realist
Debate",CorporateCommunications:An InternationalJournal, Vol. 5, No. 1,
pp. 42-48.

Bilgin, F. Z., Sfiram, V., Wuhrer, G. A. (2004) Drivers of Global BusinessSuccess:


LessonsfromEmerginMarkets,PalgraveMacmillan, UK.
Birkigt, K. and Stadler,M. M. (1986) CorporateIdentity. Grundlagen,Funktionen
und BeisPielen,Verlag, ModerneIndustrie,Lansdbergam Lech.
Bitner, M. J. (1990) "Evaluating Service Encounters: The effects of Physical
Suffoundingsand EmployeeResponses",Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No.
2, pp. 69-82.
Boddewyn, J. (1967) "The Names of U.S, Industrial Corporations: A Study in
Change",Names,Vol. 15,pp. 39-51.
Bolger, J. F. Jr. (1959) "How to Evaluate Your Company Image", Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 24, October,pp. 7-10.
Bollen, K. (1989) Structural Equationswith Latent Variables,John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Bolton, R. N. and Drew, J. H. (1992) "Mitigating the Effect of ServiceEncounters",
Marketing Letters,Vol. 3, pp. 57-70.
Bonoma, T. (1985) "Case Researchin Marketing: Opportunities, Problemsand a
Process",Journal ofMarketing Research,Vol. 22, May, pp. 199-208.
Bowman, D. and Narayandas,D. (2001) "Managing Customer-InitiatedContacts
with Manufacturers:The Impact on Share of Category Requirementsand
282

Word-of- Mouth Behavior", Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 38, No. 3,1


pp. 281-297.
Boyle, E. (1996) "An Experiment in Changing Corporate Image in the Financial
ServicesIndustry in the UK", TheJournal ofServicesMarketing, Vol. 10,No.
4, pp. 56-69.
Brewer, M. B. (1991) "The Social Self. On Being the Sameand Different as the
SameTime", Personalityand Social Psychology,Vol. 17,No. 5, pp. 475-482.
Bristor, J. (1990) "EnhancedExplanationsof Word of Mouth Communications:The
Power of Relationships",in Hirschman, E. C. (ed.), Researchin Consumer
Behavior,JAI Press,Greenwich,CT, Vol. 4, pp. 51-83.
Brown, J. J. and Reingen,P. H. (1987) "Social Ties and Word-of-mouth Referral
Behavior",Journal of ConsumerResearch,Vol. 14,pp. 350-362.
Brown, M. E. (1969) "Identification and Some Conditions for Organisational
Commitmenf', AdministrativeScienceQuarterly, Vol. 14,pp. 346-355.
Brown, T. J. (1998) "Corporate Associations in Marketing: Antecedents and
CorporateReputationReview,Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 215-233.
Consequences",
Brown, T. J., Barry, T. E., Dacin, P. A., Gunst, R. F. (2005) "Spreadingthe Word:
Investigating Antecedentsof Consumers'Positive Word-of-Mouth Intentions
in
Context",
Journal
Retailing
Behaviors
of the Academyof Marketing
a
and
Science,Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 123-138.
Brown, T. J. and Dacin, P. A. (1997) "The Company and the Product: Corporate
Associationsand ConsumerProduct Responses".Journal of Marketing, Vol.
61, No. 1, pp. 68-84.
Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, M. G., Whetten,D. A. (2006) "Identity, Intended
Image,ConstruedImage,and Reputation:An Interdisciplinary Frameworkand

283

SuggestedTerminology", Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science,Vol.


34, No. 2, pp. 99-106.
Brown, B. and Perry, S. (1994) "Removing the Financial PerformanceHalo from
Fortune's 'Most Admired' Companies",Academy of ManagementJournal,
Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 1347-1359.
Bryman, A. (2001)SocialResearchMethods,Oxford University Press,Oxford, UK.
Burrell, G. and Morgan G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational
Analysis,Heincman,London.
Buttle, F. A. (1998) "Word-of-mouth: Understanding and Managing Referral
Marketing", Journal ofStrategic Marketing, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 241-254.
Carmines, E. and Zeller, R. (1979) Reliability and Validity Assessment,Sage
Publications,London.
Carroll, A. B. (1991) "The Pyramid of CorporateSocial Responsibility:Toward the
Moral Managementof OrganizationalStakeholders",BusinessHorizons, JulyAugust, pp. 39-48.
Carson,D., Gilmore, A., Gronhaug,K. and Perry, C. (2001) Qualitative Marketing
Research,SagePublications,London.
Carter, D. E. (1975) Designing Corporate Symbols,Art Direction Book Company,
us.
Carter, D. E. (1976) Corporate Identity Manuals, Century Communications,
Unlimited, Ashland,Ky.
Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (1994) "Qualitative Researchin Work Contexts", in
Cassell, C. and Symon, G .(eds), Qualitativive Methods in Organisational
Research,SagePublicationsLtd, London, pp.1-13.

284

Caywood,C., Schultz,D., Wang, P. (1991) Integrated Marketing Communications:


A Surveyoffational ConsumerGoodsAdvertising,NorthwesternUniversity
IL.
Report,Evanston/Chicago,
Chqje C. and Schachtman,T. (1998) Image hy Design, 2nded., McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
Chappell,T. (1993) The Soul of a Business:Managingfor Profit and the Common
Good,Bantam,Des Plaines,IL.
Chau, P. (1997) "Re-examininga Model for Evaluating Information Centre Success
Using a StructuralEquationModelling Approach", Decision Science,Vol. 28
No. 2, pp.309-334.
Cheney, G. and Vibbert, S. L. (1987) "Corporate Discourse:Public Relations and
IssueManagemenf',in Jablin, F. M., Putnam,L. L., Roberts,K. H., Porter,L.
W. (eds),Handbookof Organisational Communication:An Interdisciplinary
Perspective,SagePublications,Newbury Park: CA, pp. 165-194.
Christensen,L. T. and Askegaard, S. (2001) "Corporate Identity and Corporate
Image Revisited",EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 3/4, pp. 292315.
Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1979) "A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of
Marketing Constructs",Journal ofMarketing Research,Vol. 16,No. 1, pp. 6473.
Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1999) Marketing Research:Methodological Foundations, 6h
Ed., The Dryden Press,Orlando:USA.
Churchill, G. N., Ford, N., Walker, 0. (1974) "Measuring the Job Satisfactionof
Industrial Salesman",Journal ofMarketing Research,Vol. 11,No. 3, pp. 254260.

285

Cohen,N. (1989)"Looking at Logos", RestaurantBusiness,Vol. 88, p. 79.


Collins, J. C. and Poffas, J. 1. (2000) Built to Last: SuccessfulHabits of Visionary
Companies,RandomHouse.
Cornelissen,J. (2000) "Corporate Image: An Audience CentredModel", Corporate
Communications:An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 119-125.
Comelissen,J. and Harris, P. (2001) "Corporate Identity Metaphor: Perspectives,
Problemsand Prospects",Journal ofMarketing Management,Vol. 17, pp. 4971.
Comelissen, J. and Lock, A. R. (2001) "The Appeal of Integration: Managing
Communication in Modem Organi sations", Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, Vol. 19,No. 6, pp. 425-431.
Corporate Reputation Review (2002), Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 296-391, Palgrave
Macmillan, London,ISSN 1363-3589.
Craig, C. S. and Douglas, S. P. (2000) International Marketing Research,2nd
Edition, John Wilcy & SonsLtd., UK.
Creswell, J. W. (1994) ResearchDesign: Qualitative and QuantitativeApproaches,
SagePublications,London, UK.
Cristianscn,T. and Tax, S. S. (2000) "Measuring Word-of-mouth:The Questionsof
Who and When",Journal ofMarketing Communication,Vol. 6, pp. 185-199.
Cronbach, L. J. (1975) "Beyond the Two Disciplines of Social Psychology",
AmericanPsychologist,Vol. 30, February,pp. 116-127.
Cronin, J. J. and Taylor, S. A. (1992) "Measuring ServiceQuality: A Reexamination
Vol.
No.
3,
56,
55-68.
Journal
Extension",
pp.
ofMarketing,
and

286

Crosby, L., Evans,K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990) "Relationship Quality in Services


Selling: An InterpersonalInfluence Perspective",Journal of Marketing, Vol.
54, No. 3, pp. 68-81.
Curren, M. T., and Folkes, V. S. (1987) "Attributional Influenceson Consumers'
Desiresto Communicateabout Products",Psychologyand Marketing, Vol. 4,
(Spring), pp. 3145.

Dacin, P. and Brown, T. (2002) "Corporate Identity and CorporateAssociations:A


Framework for Future Research",Corporate ReputationReview,Vol. 5, No.
2/3, pp. 254-253.
Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2002) "Gaps betweenInternal and External Perceptionsof
the CorporateBrand", CorporateReputationReview,Vol. 5, No.2/3, pp. 144158.
Davies, G., Chun, R., daSilva, R., Roper, S. (2001) "The PersonificationMetaphor
Corporate
Corporate
Reputation",
Reputation
Approach
Measurement
to
A
as
Review,Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 113-127.
De Chernatony,L. (1999) "Brand ManagementthroughNarrowing the Gap between
Brand Identity and Brand Reputation", Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 15,No. 1/3,pp. 157-179.
De Chernatony,L. and Harris, F. (2000) "Developing Corporate Brands through
Considering Internal and External Stakeholders", Corporate Reputation
Review,Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 268-274.
De Ruyter,K., Moorman,L., Lemmink, J. (2001)"Antecedentsof Commitmentand
Trust in Customer-SupplierRelationshipsin High TechnologyMarkets",
industrial MarketingManagement,Vol. 30, pp. 271-286.

287

DeShields, 0. W. Jr., Kara, A., Kaynak, E. (1996) "Source Effects in Purchase


Decisions:The Impact of PhysicalAttractivenessand Accent of Salesperson",
International Journal ofResearchin Marketing, Vol. 13,pp. 89-101.
Deshpande,R. (1983) "'Paradigms Lost': On theory and Method in Researchin
Marketing", Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 101-I 10.
4

De Vaus,D. (1996)Surveyin Social Research,UCL Press,London.


De Vaus,D. (2002)AnalysingSocial ScienceData, SagePublications,London, UK.
DeVellis, R. (1991) ScaleDevelopment,SagePublications,London.
Diamantopoulos,A. (1994) "Modelling with LISREL: A Guide for the Uninitiated",
Journal ofthe Marketing Management,Vol. 10,pp. 105-136.
Diamantopoulos,A. and Siguaw,J. (2000) Introducing LISREL, SagePublications,
London.
Dickson, J. and Albaum, G. (1977) "A Method for DevelopingTailormadeSemantic
Differentials for Specific Marketing Content Areas", Journal of Marketing,
Research,Vol. 14,No. 1, pp. 87-91.
DIE (State Institute of StatisticsPrime Ministry Republic of Turkey) (2003) 2000
Census of Population Turkey: Social and Economic Characteristics of
Population,DIE Printing Division, Ankara.
Dodd, R. W. and Whipple, T. W. (1976) "Item Selection:A Practical Tool in Item
Selection".Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 87-89.
Doll, W., Xia, W., Torkzadeh,G. (1994) "A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the
End-UserComputingSatisfactionInstrumenf', MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18,No. 4,
pp. 453461.

288

Donovan,R. J. and Rossiter,J. FL (1982) "Store Atmosphere:An Environmental


PsychologyApproach",Joumal ofRetailing; Vol. 58, No. 1,pp. 34-57.
Douglas,S. and Nijssen, E. (2003) "On the Use of 'Borrowed' Scalesin CrossNational Rescarch:A Cautionary Note, International Marketing Review, Vol.
20, No. 6, pp. 621-642.
Dowling, G. R. (1986) "Nianaging Your Corporate Image". Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 15, pp. 109-115.
Dowling, G. R. (1988) "Measuring Corporate Images: A Review of Alternative

Approaches",
Joumal ofBusinessResearnkVol. 17,pp. 27-34.
Dowling, G. PL (1994) Corporate Reputations: Strategies for Developing the
Corporate Brand, Kogan Page,London.
Dowling,

G. (2001) Creating Corporate Reputations: Identify, Image and

Performance, Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Do%%mey,
S. (1986) "The RelationshipbetweenCorporateCulture and Corporate
Identity", Public RelationsQuarterly,Vol. 3 1,No. 4, pp. 7-12.
Drurnwright, M. (1996) "Company Advertising with a Social Dimension: The Role
of Non-cconomic Criteria", Journal ofAfarketing, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 71-87.
Duhan, D. F., Johnson, S. D., Wilcox, J. B., Herrell, G. D. (1997) "Influences on
Consumer Use of Word-of-mouth RecommendationSources",Journal ofthe
4cademyofAfarketing
Science,
283-295.
Vol.
25,
No.
4,
pp.
.
Duncan, T. and Everett, S. (1993) "Client Perceptions of Integrated Marketing
Communications", Journal qfAdwrtising Research, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 3039.
Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S. (1998) "A Communication-BasedMarketing Model for
Mark-cting Rclationship-, Joumal ofAfarketing, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 1-13.

289

Durande-Moreau,A. and Usunicr, J. C. (1999) "Time Styles and the Waiting


Expcrience:An ExploratoryStudy". Joumal ofService ResearnkVol. 2, No.
2, pp. 173-186.
Dutton, J. E. and Dukerich, J. M. (199 1) "Keeping and Eye on the Mirror: Image and

Identity in OrganisationalAdaptation". Academyof ManagementJournal,


Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 517-554.
Dutton, J. E., Dukcrich, L M., Harquail, C. V. (1994) "Organisational Images and

Mcmbcr ldcntiricatiori",,4dministrativeScienceQuarterly,Vol. 39, No. 2, pp.


239-263.
Easton, A. (1966) "Corporate Style versus Corporate Image". Journal ofMarketing

Resewrh,Vol. 3, May, pp. 168-174.


Edvardsson,B. and Gustavsson,B. (1991) "Quality in Service and Quality in
Service Organizations: A Model for Quality Assessmenf'. in Brown, S. W.,
Gummesson, E., Edvardsson, B., Gustavsson, B. (Eds.), Service Quality
Multidisciplinary

and

Multinational

Perspectives, Lexington

Books,

Lexington, pp. 319-340.


Einwillcr,

S. and Will, M. (2002) "rowards

Branding -

an Integrated Approach to Corporate

An Empirical Study". Corporate Communications: An

International Journa4 Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 100-109.


Eisenhardt, V- M. (1989) "Building Tbeories from Case Study Research",Academy
ofAlanagement Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 532-550.
EkincL Y. and Riley, M. (2003) "An Investigation of Self-Concept: Actual and Ideal
Self-congruence Compared in the Context of Service Evaluation", Journal of
Retailing and ConsumerService, Vol. 10, pp. 201-214.

290

Elsbach,K. D. and Bhattacharya,C. B. (2001) "Defining Who You Are by What


You're Not: Organisational Disidentification and The National Rifle
Association",OrganisationScience,Vol. 12,No. 4, pp. 393-413.
Euromonitor (April 2000) "Consumer Lifestyles in Turkey", Available online on
http://www.euromonitor.com/jzmidy I /frame.asp [accessedon the 21" of May,
2002].

Fatt, J. P. T., Wei, M., Yuen, S., Suan, W. (2000) "EnhancingCorporateImage in


Organisations",ManagementResearchNews,Vol. 23, No. 516,pp. 28-54.
Fern, E. F. (1982) "The Use of Focus Groups for Idea Generation:The Effects of
Group Size, Acquaintanceship,and Moderator on ResponseQuantity and
Quality", Journal ofMarketing Research,Vol. 19,Fcbruary,pp. 1-13.1
Fill, C. (1999) Marketing Communications, 2'd Ed., Pearson Education Limited,

England.
Fill, C. and Diminopolu, E.'(1999) "Shaping CorporateImages:Attributes Used to
Form Impressions of PharmaceuticalCompanies", Corporate Reputation
Review,Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 202-213.
FitzGerald, M. and Amott, D. (Eds.) (2000) Marketing CommunicationsClassics,
ThomsonLearning,London.
Folkes, V. S. (1984) "Consumer Reactionsto Product Failure: An Attributional
Approach,Journal of ConsumerResearch,Vol. 10,No. 4, pp. 398409.
Folkes, V. S., Koletsky, S., Graham, J. L. (1987) "A Field Study of Causal
inferences and ConsumerReaction: The View from the Airport, Journal of
ConsumerResearch,Vol. 13,No. 4, pp. 534-539.
Fombrun, C. (1996) Reputation: Realizing Valuefrom Corporate Image, Harvard
Business School Press,Boston.

291

Fornbrun,C. J., Gardberg,N. A., Sever, J. (2000) "Tbe ReputationQuotient": A


Multi-stakeholder Measure of Corporate Reputation", Journal of Brand
Management,Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 241-255.
Fornbrun,C. J. and Rindova,V. (1996) "Who's Tops and Who Decides?The Social
Construction for Corporate Reputations", New York University School of
Business,Working Paper,New York: NY.
Fornbrun,C. and Shanley,M. (1990) "What Is In A Name?ReputationBuilding and
Corporate Strategy",Academyof ManagementJournal, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.
233-258.
Foreman,P. and Whetten,D. (2002)"Member's Identification with Multiple Identity
Organisations". Organisation Science, Vol. 13, (Novembcr/Dcccmbcr),pp.
618-635.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981) "Evaluating Structural EquationModcls with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error", Journal of Marketing
Research,Vol. 18,No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fornell, C. and Wernerfelt, B. (1987) "Defensive Marketing Strategyby Customer
Complaint Management: A Tbeoretical Analysis", Journal of Marketing
Research,Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 337-346.
Fournier, S. (1998) "Consumerand Their Brands: Developing RelationshipTheory
in ConsumerResearch",Journal of ConsumerResearch,Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.
343-373.
Gardberg,N. A. and Fornbrun,C. J. (2002) "The ReputationQuotient Project: First
Stepstowards A Cross-nationalityValid Measureof CorporateReputation",
CorporateReputationReview,Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 296-302.

292

Garten,J. E. (1997) The Big Ten: The Big Emerging Markets and How 7hey Will
ChangeOur Lives,Basic Books, New York.
Garver, M. and Mentzer, J, (1999) "Logistics Research Metohds: Employing
Structural Equation to the Test for Construct Validity", Journal of Business
Logistics,Vol. 20, No.1, pp. 33-57.
Gerbing, D. and Anderson,J. (1988) "An UpdatedParadigmfor ScaleDevelopment
Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment",Journal of Marketing
Research,Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 186-192.
Gillham, B. (2000) TheResearchInterview, Continuum,London.
Gioia, D. A., Schultz,M., Corley, K. G. (2000) "OrganisationaI Identity, Image and
Adaptive Instability", 4cademyofManagementReview,Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 6381.
Gioia, D. A. and Thomas,J. B. (1996) "Identity, Image, and Issue Interpretation:
Sense-makingDuring StrategicChangein Academia",.4dininistrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 4 1,No. 3, pp. 370-403.
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss,A. L. (1967) The Discovery of the Grounded Theory:
Strategiesfor QualitativeResearch,Aldine, Chicago.
Glynn, M. A. and Abzug, R. (2002) "Institutional Identity: Symbolic Isomorphism
and OrganisationalNames",AcademyofManagementJournal, Vol. 45, No. 1,
pp. 267-280.
Goodman, M. B. (2000) "Corporate Communication: The American Picture",
Corporate Communication:An International Communication,Vol. 5, No. 2,
pp. 69-74.

293

Gotsi, M. and Wilson, A. M. (2001) "Corporate Reputation:Seekinga Definition",


CorporateReputationReview,Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 24-30.
Graham, S. (1991) "A Review of Attribution Theory in Achievement Contexts",
EducationalPsychologyReview,Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 5-39.
Gray, E. R. and Balmer, J. M. T. (1998) "Managing CorporateImageand Corporate
Reputation",Long RangePlanning, Vol. 3 1, No. 5, pp. 695-702.
Gray, E. R. and Smeltzer,L. R. (1985) "SRM Forum: CorporateImage- An Integral
Part of Strategy",SloanManagementReview,Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 73-78.
Gray, E. R. and Smeltzer,L. R. (1987) "Planning a Face-Lift: Implementing a
I

CorporateImage Programme,Journal of BusinessStrategy,Vol. 8, No. ], pp.


4-10.
Greenbaum,T. L. (2000) Moderating Focus Groups: A Practical Guidefor Group
Facilitation, SagePublications,ThousandOaks,CA.
Gregory, J. R. (1997) Leveraging the Corporate Brand, Lincolnwood: IL, NTC
BusinessBooks.
Groenland,E. A. G. (2002) "Qualitative Researchto Validate the RQ-Dimensions",
CorporateReputationReview,Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 308 - 315.
Grubb, E. and Grathwohl, H. (1967) "Consumer Self-concept, Symbolism and
Market Behaviour: A Theoretical Approach", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 3 1,
No. 4, pp. 22-27.
Grunig, J. E. (1993) "Image and Substance: From Symbolic to Behavioral
Relationships",Public RelationsReview,Vol. 19,No. 2, pp. 121-139.
GOrhan-Canli,Z. (1996) "Corporate Image as A Stereotype: The Effects of
Motivation and Information Type on Evaluations".UnpublishedPhD Thesis,
LeonardN. Stem Schoolof Business,New York University, New York: USA.
294

GUrhan-Canh,Z. and Batra, R. (2004) "When Corporate Image Affects Product


Evaluations:The Moderating Role of PerceivedRisk", Journal of Marketing
Research,Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 197-205.Hair, J. F., Anderson,R. E., Tatham-,R.
L., Black, W. C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 50' Edition, Pearson
EducationInc., India.
Gwinner, K. and Swanson,S. R. (2003) "A Model of Fan Identification:Antecedents
and SponsorshipsOutcomes",Journal of ServicesMarketing, Vol. 17, No. 3,
pp. 275-294.
Hair, J. F.; Anderson,R. E.; Tatham,R. L.; Black, W. C. (1998) Multivariale Data
Analysis, 5h Edition, PearsonEducation Inc., India.

Hall, D. T. and Schneider,D. T. (1972) "Correlatesof OrganisationalIdentification


as A Function of Career Pattern and OrganisationalType", Administrative
ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 17,pp. 340-350.
Hall, D. T., Schneider, D. T., Nygren, H. T. (1970) "Personal Factors in

Identification",AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,Vol. 15,pp.
Organisational
176-190.
Halstead, D. (2002) "Negative WOM: Substitute for Supplementto Consumer
Complaints". Journal of

Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and

ComplainingBehavior,Vol. 15,pp. 1-12.


Harris, F. and De Chernatony,L. (2001) "CorporateBranding and CorporateBrand
Performance",EuropeanJournal ofMarketing, VOL 35, No. 3/4, pp. 441456.
Harris, T. L. (1997) "Integrated Marketing Public Relations", in Randbook of
Strategic Public Relations & Integrated Communications,Caywood, C. L.
(ed.), McGraw Hill, New York, NY.

295

Harrison-Walker, L.

J.

(2001)

"The

Measurement of

Word-of-Mouth

Communicationand an Investigationof Service Quality and Customer


Commitmentas Potential",Journal of ServiceResearch,Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 6075.
Hartigan, M. F. (1987) "A Company Study: Organising for Global Identity", Yhe
JournalofBusinessandIndustrial Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 65-71.
Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (1997) "Relations between OrganisationalCulture
Identity and Image", EuropeanJournal of Markefing, Vol. 3 1, No. 3/5, pp.
356-365.
Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (2000) "Scaling the Tower of Babel: Relational
DifferencesbetweenIdentity, Image,Culture in Organisations", in Schultz,M.,
Hatch, M. J. and Larsen,M. H. (Eds), TheExpressiveOrganisation- Linking
Identity, Reputation, and the Corporate Brand, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (2003) "Bringing the Corporation into Corporate
Branding", EuropeanJournal ofBranding, Vol. 37, No. 7/8, pp. 1041-1064.
Hattie, J. (1985) "Methodology Review: Assessingtjnidimensionality of Tests and
Items", Applied PsychologicalMeasurement,Vol. 9, pp. 139-164.
Heider, F. (1958) ThePsychologyofInterpersonal Relations,Wiley, New York, NY.
Hernsley,S. (1998) "Intemal Affairs". Marketing Week,April 2, pp. 49-50,53.
Henderson,P. W. and Cote, J. A. (1998) "Guidelines for Selecting or Modifying
Logos", Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 14-30.
Henrion, F. H. K. and Parkin, A. (1966) Design Co-ordinallon and Corporate
Image, StudioVista, London,pp. 7-13.

296

Herr, P. M. ', Kardes, F. R., Kim, J. (1991) "Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product

Attribute
-,

Information on

Persuasion: An

Accessibility-Diagnosticity

" Journal of ConsumerResearch,Vol. 17,No. 4,454-62.


Perspective,
Hill, E. W. (1962) "Corporate Imagesare not Stereotypes",Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 72-75.
Hogg, M. A. and Terry, D. J. (2000) "Social Identity and Self-Categorization
Processesin OrganizationalContexts," AcademyofManagementReview,Vol.
25, No. 1, pp. 121-140.
Hong, J. W. and Zinkhan, G. N. M. (1995) "Self-concept and 'Advertising
Effectiveness:The Influence of Congruency,Cospicuousnessand Response
Mode", Psychologyand Marketing, Vol. 12,No. 1, pp. 53-77.
Hsieh, M. H., Pan, S. L., Setino, R. (2004) "Product-, Corporate-,and CountryImage Dimensions and PurchaseBehaviour; A Multi-country Analysis",
.
Journal of the Academyof the Marketing Science,Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 251270.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P. M. (1999) "Cut-off Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance
StructureAnalysis: ConventionalCriteria versusNew Alternatives", Structural
Equation Modelling, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Huang, Y. (2001) "OPRA: A Cross-Cultural,Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring
Organisational-PublicRelationships",Journal of Public Relations Research,
I
Vol. 13,No. 1, pp. 61-90.
Hunt, T. and Grunig, J. E. (1994) Public Relations Techniques,Harcourt Brace
CollegePublishers,USA.
Ind, N. (190) The CorporateImage: Strategiesfor EffectiveIdentity Programmes,
Kogan Page,London.

297

Ind, N. (1997) TheCorporateBrand, Macmillan, London.


InterbrandSchechter(1994)"Logovalue Survey", proprietaryresearchreport.
InternationalMonetaryFund (2002)"World EconomicOutlook-April 2002",
htm,
Available online on http://www. imf. orv-/extemal/pubs/ft/weo/2002/01/index.
[accessedon the 21' of May 2002].
Janda,S., Trocchia, P. J., Gwinner, K. P. (2002) "ConsumerPerceptionsof Internet
Retail Service Quality", International Journal of Service Industry
Management,Vol. 13,No. 5, pp. 41243 1.
Jenkins,N. (1991) TheBusinessoflinage, KoganPage,London.
Johnson,M. and Zinkhan, G. M. (1990) "Defining and MeasuringCompanyImage",
In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Academy of
Marketing Science,Ed. B. J.-Dunlap, New Orleans: Academy of Marketing
Science,pp. 346-350.
Jones,E. E., Kanouse,D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbct R. E., Valins, S., Weiner, B.
(Eds.). (1972) Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, Gencral
LearningPress,Morristown, NJ.
J6reskog, K. (1971) "Statistical Analysis of Sets of Congeneric Tests",
Psychometrica,Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 109-133.
kreskog, K. and S6rbom,D. (1993) LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modelling with
SIMPLIS Command Language, Scientific Software Intcmational Inc.,
Lincolnwood: IL, USA.
J6reskog,K. and S6rbom,D. (1996) LISREL 8: User's ReferenceGuide, Scientific
SoftwareInternationalInc. Chicago,USA.
Kaiser, H. (1974) "An Index for Factorial Simplicity". Psychometrica,Vol. 39, pp.
31-36.

298

Kapferer,J. (1992)StrategicBrand Management,Kogan Page,London.


Keller, K. L. (1993) "Conceptualising,Measuring,and Managing Customer-Based
!,.,

Brand Equity". JournalofMarketing, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp.1-22.

Keller, K. L. (1999) "Brand Matras: Rationale,Criteria and Examples",Journal of


Marketing Management,Vol. 15,No. 1/3,pp. 43-5 1.
Keller, K. L. (2000) "The Brand Report Card", Harvard BusinessReview,JanuaryFebruary,pp. 147-157.
Keller, K. L. (2001) "Mastering the Marketing CommunicationsMix: Micro and
Macro Perspectiveson Integrated Marketing Communication Programs",
Journal ofMarketing Management,Vol. 17,pp. 819-847.
Keller, K. L. (2002) "Branding and Brand Equity", in Weitz, B. A. and Wensley,R.
(Eds.), HandbookofMarketing, SagePublications,London, pp. 151-178.
Keller, K. L. (2003) "Brand Synthesis: the Multidimensionality of Brand
Knowledge",Journal of ConsumerResearch,Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 595-600.
Keller, K. L. and Aaker, D. A. (1992a) "The Effects of SequentialIntroduction of
Brand Extensions",Journal ofMarketing Research,Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 35-51.
Keller, K. L. and Aaker, D. A. (1992b) "The Effects of Corporate Images and
Branding Strategies on New Product Evaluations", Stanford University
ResearchPaper Series,September,Standford:CA.
Keller, K. L. and Aaker, D. A. (1993) "Managing the CorporateBrand: The Effects
Research
No.
Brand
Extensions",
Paper
Corporate
Images
Corporate
and
of
1216,GraduateSchoolof Business,StanfordUniversity, Stanford,CA.
Kelley, H. H. (1967) "Attribution Tbeory In Social Psychology",in D. Levine (Ed.),
NebaskaSymposiumon Motivation, Nebraska,Vol. 15,pp. 192-238.

299

Kelley, H. H. and Michela, J. L. (1980) "Attribution Theory and Research",.4nnual


ReviewofPsychology,Vol .31, No. 1, pp. 457-501.
Kennedy, S. H. (1977) "Nurturing CorporateImages:Total Communicationor Ego
Trip", EuropeanJournal ofMarketing, Vol. 11,No. 3, pp. 120-164.
Kiriakidou, 0. and Millward, L. J. (2000) "Corporate Identity: External Reality or
Intemal Fif', Corporate Communications:An International Journal, Vol. 5,
No. 1, pp. 49-58.
Kitchen, P. J. and Schultz, D.E. (1998) "IMC- A UK Ad Agency Perspective",
Journal ofMarketing Management,Vol. 14,No. 5, pp. 465-485.
Kitchen, P. J. and Schultz,D. E. (1999) "A Multi-country Comparisonof the Drive
for IMC", Journal ofAdvertising Research,Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 21-38.
Knox, S. (2004) "Positioning and Branding Your Organisation",Journal of Product
2,
105-115
Vol.
13,
No.
Management,
Brand
pp.
and
Knox, S. and Bickerton, D. (2003) "Six Conventions of Corporate Branding",
EuropeanJournal ofMarketing, Vol. 37, No. 7/8, pp. 998-1016.
Kotler, P. (1988) Marketing Management:Analysis, Planning, Implementationand
Control, PrenticeHall, EnglewoodCliffs.
Kramer,R. M. (1991)"IntergroupRelationsandOrganisationalDilemmas:The Role
Vol.
13,
Behaviour,
Organisational
Research
in
Processes",
Categorisation
of
pp. 191-207.
Kristof, A. L. (1996) "Person-OrganisationFit: An Integrative Review of Its
Conceptualisations,Measurementand Implications", PersonnelPsychology,
Vol. 49, pp. 149.
Krueger,R. A. (1994).Focus Groups:A Practical Guidefor Applied Research,Sage
Publications,London.

300

Lages, L. (2000) "Export Marketing Standardisationand Its Influence on Export


Performance:A Structural Model Examination", Unpublished PhD Thesis,
University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Lambert, A. (1989) "Corporate Identity and Facilities Management",Facilities,
December,pp. 7-12.
Lau, G. T., and Ng, S. (2001) "Individual and Situational Factors Influencing
Negative Word-of-mouth Behavioue', Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences,Vol. 18,No. 3, pp. 163-178.
LeBlanc, G. and Nguyen, N. (1998) "The Mediating Role of CorporateImage on
Customers' Retention Decisions: An Investigation in Financial Services",
International Journal ofBank Marketing, Vol. 16,No. 2, pp. 52-65.
Lippincott, J. G. and Margulies, W. P. (1957) "Tbe CorporateLook: A Problem in
Design". Public RelationsJournal, Vol. 13,No. 4-6, pp. 27-34.
Litwin, M. (1995) How to Measure Survey Reliability and Validity, Sage
Publications,London.
Low, G. S. (2000)"Correlatesof IntegratedMarketing Communications",Journal of
AdvertisingResearch,Vol. 40, No. 1/2,pp. 27-39.
Mael, F. and Ashfort, B. E. (1992)"Alumni and Their Alma Mater: A Partial Test of
the Reformulated Model of Organisational Identification", Journal of
OrganisationalBehaviour,Vol. 13,No. 2, pp. 103-123.
Malhotra, N. and Birks, D. (2003) Marketing Research:An Applied Approach, 2nd
EuropeanEdition, PrenticeHall, London.

301

Malle, B. F. (1999) "How People Explain Behavior: A New Theoretical


Framework",Personalityand Social PsychologyReview,Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 2143.
Malle, B. F. (2003) "Attributions as Behaviour Explanations: Towards A New
Theory", UnpublishedManuscript, University of Oregon,USA.
Margulies, W. P. (1977) "Make the Most of Your Corporate Image", Harvard
BusinessReview,Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 66-74.
Marken, G. A. (1990) "Corporate Image-We All Have One, But Few Work to
Protectand ProjectIt". Public RelationsQuarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 21-23.
Markwick, N. and Fill, C. (1997) "Towards A Framework for Managing Corporate
Identity", EuropeanJournal ofMarketing, Vol. 3 1, No. 516,pp. 396-409.
Martineau, P. (1958) "Sharper Focus for the Corporate Image", Harvard Business
Review,Vol. 36, No. 6, pp.49-58.
McDonald, M. H. B., De Chernatony,L., Harris, F. (2001) "Corporate Marketing
beyond
Consumer
Goods
Fast-Moving
Moving
Service
Brands:
the
and
Model", EuropeanJournal ofMarketing, Vol. 35, No. 3/4, pp. 335-352.
Melewar, T. C. (2001) "Measuring Visual Identity: A Multi-construct Study",
Corporate Communications:An International Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 3641.

Melewar, T. C. (2003) "Determinantsof the CorporateIdentity Construct:A Review


Communications,
Vol.
9, No. 4, pp.
Marketing
Journal
Literature",
the
of
of
195-220.
Melewar, T. C. and Karaosmanoglu,E. (2005) "Corporate Identity: Concept,
Componentsand Contribution", Journal of GeneralManagement,Vol. 3 1, No.
1, pp. 59-81.

302

Melewar, T.C., Karaosmanoglu,E., Paterson,D. (2003) "Resolving the Corporate


Identity Conundrum: An Exploratory Study of the Concept and Its
Contribution", in Veloutsou,C. (Ed.), Communicatingwith Customers:Trends
Athens,
Greece.
ATINER,
Developments,
and
Melewar, T. C. and Saunders,J. (1999) "International Corporate Visual Identity:
Standardisationor Localisation", Journal of International BusinessStudies,
Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 583-598.
Melewar, T. C. and Saunders,J. (2000) "Global CorporateVisual Identity Systems:
Using and ExtendedMarketing Mix", EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol.
34, No. 516,pp. 538-550.
Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S., Howell, R. (1996) "The Quality and Effectivenessof
Marketing Strategy: Effects of Emotional and Dysfunctional Conflict in
IntraorganisationalRelationships", Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science,Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 299 - 313.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman,A. M. (1994) Qualitative DaIaAnalysis, 2Fided., Sage
Publications,ThousandOaks,CA.
Miner (1992), in Dowling, G. (Ed.) (1994) Corporate Reputations:Strategiesfor
Developingthe CorporateBrand, Kogan Page,London, p. 135.
Mingers, J. (2001) "Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist
Methodology",Information SystemsResearch,Vol. 12,No. 3, pp. 240-259.
Moingeon, B. and Ramanantsoa,B. (1997) "UnderstandingCorporateIdentity: The
FrenchSchoolof Tbought", EuropeanJournal ofMarketing, Vol. 3 1, No. 516,
pp. 383-395.
Morgan, D. L. (1998)PlanningFocus Groups,ThousandOaks,California.

303

Moriarty, S. E. (1996) "The circle of synergy: theoretical perspectivesand an


in
Moore,
(Eds),
Thorson,
E.
J.
IMC
agenda",
research
and
evolving
Integrated Communication:Synergyof PersuasiveVoices,LawrenceErlbaurn
Associates,Mahwah,NJ, pp. 333-353.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., Porter, L. W. (1979) "The Measurementof
OrganisationalCommitmenf', Journal of vocational Behavior, Vol. 4., pp.
224-247.
Mueller, R. (1996) Basic Principles of Structural Equation Modelling, Springer,
London.
Murray, K. B. and Vogel, C. M. (1997) "Using a Hierarchy of Effects Approachto
Gauge the Effectiveness of CSR to Generate Goodwill towards the Firm:
Financial versusNon-financial Impacts", Journal of BusinessResearch,Vol.
38, No. 2, pp. 141-159.
Nelson, B. H. (1962) "SevenPrinciples in Image Formation",Journal ofMarkeling,
Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 67-71.
Newman, W. H. (1953) "Basic Objectives Which Shape the Character of a
Company"..TheJournal ofBusiness,Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 211-223.
Nguyen, N. and LeBlanc, G. (1998) "The Mediating Role of CorporateImage on
Customers' Retention decisions: An Investigation in Financial Services",
International Journal ofBank Marketing, Vol. 16,No. 2, pp. 52-65.
Nicholson, C. Y., Compeau,L. D., Sethi, R. (2001) "The Role of Interpersonal
Liking in Building Trust in Long-term ChannelMemberships",Journal of the
AcademyofMarketing Science,Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 3-15.

304

Nowak, G.J. and Phelps, J. (1994) "Conceptualizing the Integrated Marketing


CommunicationsPhenomenon:An examinationof Its Impact on Advertising
Practicesand Its Implications for Advertising Research",Journal of Current
Issuesand Researchin Advertising, Vol. 16,No. 1, pp. 49-66.
Nunnally, J. (1978)PsychometricTheory,McGraw Hill, London.
Ofins,' W. (1978) The Corporate Personality: An Inquiry Into The Nature of
CorporateIdentity, DesignCouncil, London.
Olins, W. (1989) Corporate Identity: Making BusinessStrategy Visible through
Design,Thamesand Hudson,London.
Oliver, R. L., and DeSarbo,W. S. (1988) "ResponseDeterminantsin Satisfaction
Journal of ConsumerResearch,Vol. 14,No. 4, pp. 495-507.
Judgements,
O'Reilly, C. A. and Chatman, J. (1986) "Organizational Commitment and
Psychological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification, and
Internalization on Prosocial Behavior", Journal of, 4pplied Psychology,Vol.
71, No. 3, pp. 492-499.
O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman,J., Caldwell, D. F. (1991) "People and Organizational
Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-organization
Fit",. 4cademyofManagementJournal, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 487-516.
Parasuraman,A., Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L. (1988) "SERVQUAL: A Multipleitem Scalefor MeasuringConsumerPerceptionsof ServiceQuality", Journal
64,
Vol.
No.
1,
1240.
pp.
ofRetailing,
Perry, C. (1998)t'Processesof a casestudy methodologyfor postgraduateresearchin
Marketing", EuropeanJournal ofMarkeling, Vol. 32, No. 9/10, pp. 785-802.
Pcter,J. (1989) "Dcsigning Logos", Folio, Vol. 18, (July), pp. 139-141.

305

Peter, P. (1979) "Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent


Marketing Practices",Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 617.
Peter, P. (1981) "Construct Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing
Practices",Journal ofMarketing Research,Vol. 18,No. 2, pp. 133-145.
Peter, J. and Churchill, G. (1986) "Relationshipsamong ResearchDesign Choices
and Psychornetric Properties of Rating Scales", Journal of Marketing
Research,Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Peter,J. P., Churchill, G. A., Brown, T. J. (1993) "Cautions in the Use of Difference
Scoresin ConsumerResearch,Journal of ConsumerResearch,Vol. 19,No. 4,
pp. 655-662.
Peteraf,M. and Shanley,M. (1997) "Getting to Know You: A Theory of Strategic
Group Identity", Strategic ManagementJournal, Vol. 18, Summer Special
Issue,pp. 165-186.
Petty,R. E. and Cacioppo,J. T. (1986) Communicationand Persuasion:Central and
Change,Springcr-WrIag, Ncw York, NY.
Peripheral Routesto, 411itude
Phelps, J.E., Harris, T.E. and Johnson, E. (1996) "Exploring Dccision-making
Approaches and Responsibility for Developing Marketing Communications
Strategy", Journal ofBusinessResearch,Vol. 37, pp. 217-223.
Pilditch, J. (1970) Communication by Design: A Study in Corporate Identity,
McGraw-Hill, MaidenheadEdition, London.
Poiesz,T. B. C. (1988) "The Image Concept:Its Placein ConsumerPsychologyand
Its Potential for Other Psychological Areas", Paper XXIV International
CongressofPsychology,Sydney,August-September.

306

Pratt, WG.

(1998) "To Be or Not To Be: Central Questions in Organisational

Identification", in Identity in Organisations: Building Theory Through


Conversations,Whetten,D. A. and Godfrey, P. C. (eds.), SagePublications,
ThousandOaks,CA.
Pratt, M. G. (2000) "The Good, the Bad, and the Ambivalent: Managing
Identification Among Amway

Distributors,"

Administrative Science

Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 456-493.


Pratt, M. G. and Foreman, P. 0. (2000) "Classifying Managerial Responsesto
Multiple OrganizationalIdentities", AcademyManagementReview,Vol.. 25,
No. 1, pp. 1842.
Proctor, T and Kitchen, P. (2002) "Communication in Post-modcrn Integrated
Marketing", Corporate Communication:An International Journal, Vol. 7, No.
3, pp. 144-154.
Rao, H., Davis, G. F., Ward, A. (2000) "Embeddedness,Social Identity and

Mobility: Why Finns Leavethe NASDAQ and Join the New York Stock
Exchange",AdministrativeScienceQuarterly, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 268-292.
Reingen, R. H. and Kernan, J. B. (1994) "Social Perccption and Intcrpersonal
Influence: SomeConsequences
of the PhysicalAttractivenessStereotypein a
PersonalSelling Setting,Journal of ConsumerPsychology,Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.
25-38.
Richins, M. (1983) "Negative Word-of-mouth by Dissatisfied Consumers:A Pilot
Study",Journal ofMarkeling, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Ries, A. and Trout, J. (1981) Positioning: The Battle for the Mind, Warner Books,
New York, NY.

307

Robertson, K. R. (1989) "Strategically Desirable Brand Name Characteristics",


Journal of ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 61-71.
Robey, D. (1996) "Diversity in Information SystemsResearch:Threat, Promiseand
Responsibility,Information SystemsResearch,Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 400-408.
Rook, D. W. (1985) "Tbe Ritual Dimension of ConsumerBehaviour", Journal of
ConsumerResearch,Vol. 12,No. 3, pp. 251-264.
Rossiter, J. and Percy, L. (1996) Advertising Communicationsand Promotion
Management,McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Rosson,P. (2003) "Who Are We Now? M&Ss and CorporateVisual Identity", in
Proceedingsof 32"dEuropeanMarketing Academy,Glasgow.
Rudestam,K. andNewton, R. (1992)Surviving Your Dissertation:A Comprehensive
Guide to ContentandProcess,SagePublications,London.
Schlenker,B. (1980) ImpressionManagement,Brooks/Cole Publishing Company,
Monterey,California.
Schmidt,K. (1995) The Questfor Identity - CorporateIdentity, Strategies,Methods
Hill,
London.
McGraw
andExamples,
Schmitt, B. H. and Simonson,A. (1997) Marketing Aesthetics,'The FreePress,New
York, NY.
Schmitt, B.H., Simonson,A., Marcus, J. (1995) "Managing Corporatc Imagc and
Identity", Long RangePlanning, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 82-92.
Schultz, M. and De Chernatony, L. (2002) "Introduction: The Challenges of
CorporateBranding", Corporate ReputationReview,Vol. 5, No. 2/3, pp. 105112.
Schultz, D. E. (1993) "Integrated marketing communications:Maybe definition is
in", Marketing News; Vol. 27, No. 2, p. 17.

308

Schultz, D. E. and Kitchen, P. J. (1997) "Integrated Marketing Communicationsin


US Advertising Agencies: An Exploratory Study", Journal ofMverflsing
Research,Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 7-18.
Scott, S. G. and Lane, V. R. (2000) "A StakeholderApproach to Organisational
Identity", AcademyofManagementReview,Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 43-62.
Seiler, J. A. (1984) "Architecture at Work", Harvard BusinessReview, SeptemberOctober,pp. II 1-184.
Selame,E. and Selame,J. (1975) Developing a Corporate Identity: How to Stand
Out in the Crowd,Ncw York, NY.
Sen, S. and Bhattacharya,C. B. (2001) "Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing
Better? ConsumerReactionsto Corporate Social Responsibility", Journal of
Marketing Research,Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 225-243.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya,C. B., Korschun, D. (2006) "The Role of Corporate Social
Responsibility in StrengtheningMultiple StakeholderRelationships:A Field
Experimenf', Journal ofthe AcademyofMarketing Science,Vol. 34, No. 2, pp.
158-166.
Sheth, J. N. (1971) "Word of mouth in Low Risk Innovations", Journal of
AdvertisingResearch,Vol. 11,pp. 15-18.
Sieber, S. D. (1973) "The Integration of Field Work and Survey Methods",
II
AmericanJournal ofSociology, No.78, May, pp. 1335-1359.
Shoes, C. M. N. (2001) "Corporate Identity Management:The Construct, Some
BusinessAntecedentsand Outcomes",UnpublishedPhD Thesis,University of
Warwick, Coventry,UK.

309

Simocs, C. and Dibb, S. (2001) "Rethinking the Brand Concept: New Brand
Orientation", Corporate Communications:An International Journal, Vol. 6,
No. 4, pp. 217-224.
Shoes, C., Dibb, S., Fisk, R. P. (2005) "Managing CorporateIdentity: An Internal
Perspective",
-Journal of theAcademyof Marketing Science,Vol. 33, No.2, pp.
153-168.
Simpson, N. (1979) Corporate Identity: Name and Perception, The Conference
Board,New York, NY.
Sirgy, J. M. (1981) "Testing A Self-ConceptModel Using A Tangible Product", in
Proceedings of the American Psychological Association -

Consumer

PsychologyDivision, Vol. 89, No. 17.


Sirgy, J. M. (1982a) "Self-concept in Consumer Behaviour: A Critical Review",
Journal of ConsumerResearch,Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 287-300.
Sirgy, J. M. (1982b) "Self-image/Product-Image Congruity and Advertising
Strategy", in Developmentsin Marketing Science,Kothari, V. (ed.), Academy
of Marketing Science,Marquette,MI, Vol. 5, pp. 129-133.
Sirgy, J. M. and Danes, J. E. (1981) "Self-image/Product-imageCongruence
Models: Testing SelectedModels", Advancesin ConsumerResearch,Vol. 8,
No. 1, pp. 556-561.
Sirgy, J. M. and Samli, C. (1985) "A Path Analytic Model of Store Loyalty
Involving Self-concept,Store Image, GeographicLoyalty and Socioeconomic
Status",Journal of1heAcademyofMarketing Science,Vol. 13,No. 3, pp. 265291.

310

Spector, A. J. (1961) "'Basic Dimensions of the Corporate Image", Journal of


Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 47-51.
Steenkamp,J. and Baumgartner,H. (2000) "On the Use of Structural Equation
Models for Marketing Modelling", International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 17,pp. 195-202.
Steenkamp,J. E. M. and Trijp, H. C. M. (1991) "The Use of LISREL in Validating
Marketing Constructs",International Journal of Researchin Marketing, Vol.
8, pp. 283-299.
Steidl, P. and Emery, 0. (1997) Corporate Image and ldentll)Strategies,Business
and ProfessionalPublishing,Australia.
Stem, B., Zinkhan, G. M., Jaju, A. (2001) "Marketing Images - Construct
Definition, MeasurementIssues,and Theory Development",Markefing Theory,
I
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 201-224.
Stimson, G. (1986) "Viewpoint: Place and Space in Sociological Fieldwork",
SociologicalReview,Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 641-656.
Struthers,C. W., Weiner, B., Allred, K. (1998) "Effects of CausalAttributions on
PersonnelDecisions: A Social Motivation Perspective",Basic and Applied
Social Psychology,Vol. 20, No.-2, pp. 155-166.
Stuart,H. J. (1995) "Moments of Truth: Exploring the Corporateldcntity/Corporatc
Image Interface", Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of New England,
Armidale, Australia.
Stuart, H. (1998) "Exploring the CorporateIdentity/CorporateImage Interface:An
Empirical Study of Accountancy Firms", Journal of Communication
Management,Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 357-373.

311

Stuart, H. (1999) "Towards a Definitive- Model of the Corporate Identity


ManagementProcess",Corporate Communications:An International Journal,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 200-207.
Sutton, R. J. and Callahan, A. L. (1987) "Tbe Stigma of Bankruptcy: Spoiled
OrganisationalImageand Its Management",AcademyofManagementJournal,
Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 405-436.
Tabachnick,B. G. and Fidell, L. S. (2000) Using Multivariate Statistics,Allyn and
Bacon,Boston.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1985) "The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup
Behavior", in Worchel, S. and Austin, W. G. (eds),Psychologyof Intergroup
Relations,Nelson-Hall,Chicago,pp. 6-24.
Tedeshki, J. (1981) Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological
Research,AcademicPress,London.
Thang, D. C. L., Tan, B. L. B. (2003) "Linking ConsumcrPerccptionto Prcfcrcncc
Empirical
Assessment
An
Stores:
Retailer
of the Multi-attribute of Store
of
Image",Journal of the Retailing and ConsumerServices,Vol. 10, pp. 193-200.
Thevissen,F. (2002) "CorporateReputationin the Eye of the Beholder", Corporate
ReputationReview,Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 318-326.
The World EconomicForum in Partnershipwith Deloitte ToucheTomahatsu(1999)
InnovativeLeadershipin Globalisation,Deloitte Consulting,New York.
Topalian, A. (1984) "Corporate Identity behind the Visual Overstatements",
International Journal ofAdvertising, No. 3, pp. 55-62.
Tucker, W. T. (1961) "How Much of the CorporateImageIs Stereotype",Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 61-65.

312

Turban, D. B. and Greening, D. W. (1997) "Corporate Social Performanceand


Organizational Attractiveness to Prospective Employees", 4cademy of
ManagementJournal, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 658-672.
Tull, D. S. and Hawkins, D. 1. (1990) Marketing Research:Measurementand
Method, 50'Ed., Macmillan, London.
Valle, V. and Wallenclorf,M. (1977) "'Consumers'Attributions of the Causesof
Their Product Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction", Consumer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfactionand ComplainingBehavior, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 26-30.
Van Rekom, J. (1997) "Deriving an Operational Measureof Corporate Identity",
EuropeanJournal ofMarketing, Vol. 3 1, No. 516,pp. 410-422.
Van Rekom, J. (2003) "A FeatureCoherenceApproach to Organisationalldcntity",
in Proceedingsof I" International Conference on Business, Economics,
Managementand Marketing (ATINER), June,Athens.
Corporate
Hall,
Communication,
Prenticc
Principles
(1995)
M.
B.
C.
of
Riel,
Van
Hertfordshire,England.
Van Riel, C. B. M. (2002) "Top of Mind Awarenessof CorporateBrandsamongthe
Dutch Public", CorporateReputationReview,Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 362-373.
Van Riel, C. B. M. and Balmer, J. M. T. (1997) "Corporate Identity: The Concept,
Its Measurementand Management",EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 3 1,
No. 516,pp. 340-355.
Van Riel, C. B. M., Stroeker,N. E., Maathuis,J. M. (1998) "Measuring Corporate
Images",CorporateReputationReview,Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 313-326.
Van Riel, C. B. M., Van den Ban, A., Heijmans,E. J. (2001) "The Added Value of
CorporateLogos: An Empirical Study", EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol.
35, No. 3/4, pp. 428440.
313

Wakefield, R. L. and Whitten, D. (2006) "Examining User Perceptionsof ThirdParty Organization Credibility and Trust in an E-retailer", Journal of
Organizationaland End User Computing,Vol. 18,No. 2, pp. 1-9.
Weimann, G. (1983) "The Strength of Weak ConversationalTies in the Flow of
Information and Influence", Social Networks,Vol. 5, September,pp. 245-267.
Weiner, B. (1974) Achievement Motivation and Altrihution Theory, General
LearningPress,Morristown, NJ.
Weiner, B. (1985) "An Attributional Theory of Achievement Motivation and
Emotion", PsychologicalReview,Vol. 92, No. 4, pp. 548-573.
Weiner, B. (1986) An Altributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion, SpringerVerlag, New York, NY.
Weiner, B. (1992) Human Motivation: Metaphors, Yheoriesand Research,Sage
Publications,Newbury Park,CA.
Weiss,A. M., Anderson,E., Maclnnis, D. J. (1999) "Reputation Managementas A
Motivation for SalesStructureDecisions",Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, No.
4, pp. 74-89.
Wells, B. and Spinks, N. (1999) "Developing A Community Image Program:An
Essential Function of Business Communication", Management Decision,
Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 289-294.
Westberg, S. J. (1994) Understanding Corporate Image: Implications for
CommunicationStrategy,UnpublishedPhD Thesis,The University of Texasat
Dallas,Dallas, USA.
Whctten, D. A. and Godfrey, P. C. (Eds) (1998) Identity in Organisallons:Building
Theorythrough Conversations,ThousandOaks,CA: Sagc.

314

I Whetten, D. A. and Mackey, A. (2002) 'A

Social Actor Conception of

Study
Organisational
for
Its
Implications
the
of
Identity
Organisational
and
Reputation",Business& Society,Vol. 41, December,pp. 393414.
Wiedmann,K. P. (2002) "Analysing the GermanCorporateReputationLandscape',
Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 337-353.

Williams, S. L. and Moffit, A (1997) "CorporateImageas an ImpressionFormation


Process: Prioritising Personal, Organisational, and Environmental Audience

Factors",Journal ofPublic RelationsResearch,Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 237-258.


Wilson, A. (1997) "The Culture of the Branch Team and Its Impact on Service
Delivery and CorporateIdentity", International Journal of Bank Marketing,
Vol. 15,No. 5, pp. -163-168.
Yeshin, T. (1998) Integrated Marketing Communications,Buttcrworth licincmann,
Oxford.
Zeithaml, V., Berry, L. L., Parasuraman,A. (1996) "The Behavioral Consequences
Vol.
60,
No.
2,
Journal
3146.
Quality",
Service
ofMarketing,
pp.
of
Zeithaml, V. and Bitner, M. J. (1996)ServicesMarketing, McGraw-Hill, New York:
USA.
Zeithaml, V. A. and Bitner, M. J. (2003) ServicesMarketing: Integrating Customer
FocusacrossTheFirm, McGraw Hill-Irwin, Boston:USA.
Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman,A., Berry, L. L. (1990) Delivering Quality Service:
Balancing CustomerPerceptionsand Expectations,The FreePress,New York:
USA.
Zinkhan, G. M., Ganesh, J, Jaju, A., Hayes, L. (2001) "Corporate Image: A
Conceptual Framework for Strategic Planning", Enhancing Knowledge
Development in Marketing, Vol. 12, G. Marshall and S. Grove (Eds.),
AmericanMarketing Association,Chicago,pp. 152-160.

315

You might also like