EMC 2013 Conference Brand Authenticity Research

September 2013 | Brand Authenticity | Manfred Bruhn, Verena Schoenmueller, Daniela Schaefer, Daniel Heinrich
Agenda
1) Relevance and Objective
2) Theoretical Background
3) Study 1: Assessing Consumer’s Understanding of Brand Authenticity
4) Study 2: Generating and Selecting Items
5) Study 3: Reducing the Number of Items
6) Study 4: Validating the Brand Authenticity Dimensions
7) Study 5: Analyzing the Discriminant Validity
8) Conclusions and Further Research

1. Relevance and Objective
In times of increasing uncertainty, authenticity is an essential human
aspiration, making it “one of the cornerstones of contemporary marketing”
(Brown et al. 2003, p. 21).
Authenticity seems to have become the new make-or-break issue in
marketing, and practitioners even employ it as “the benchmark against which
all brands are now judged” (Grant 2000, p. 99).
Academic research defines authenticity as one of the key values of brand
image (Ballantyne et al. 2006) and a major success factor for brands, as it is part of
the brand’s identity (Beverland 2005; Kapferer 2004).

1. Relevance and Objective
Authenticity has its roots in academic disciplines such as anthropology, psychology,
philosophy, or sociology but “consumer research has not given considerable
focused attention to authenticity” (Grayson and Martinec 2004, p. 296).
Nevertheless, a first step in consumer research has been made:
• In particular, interpretative, qualitative marketing-research studies focus on the
phenomenon of authenticity (e.g. Aaker and Drolet 1996; Ballantyne et al. 2006; Holt 2002;
Grayson and Martinec 2004; Groves 2001; Beverland 2006).
• Past research mostly focuses on a specific product category such as wine
(Beverland 2006), tourist attractions (Grayson and Martinec 2004), or food production
(Groves 2001).
→ The nature and dimensional structure of brand authenticity still remains
unknown.
→ The present study aims to develop a holistic understanding of brand
authenticity based on a variety of research fields.

2. Theoretical Background
We draw the following conclusions from the general authenticity concept for the
specific context of brand authenticity:
(1) Authenticity in the context of brands refers to the authenticity of objects in
contrast to an individual’s authenticity;
(2) Brand authenticity is based on the evaluations of individuals rather than
being solely related to the inherent attributes of the brand;
(3) Brand authenticity seems to correspond with a variety of attributes lacking a
unique definition particularly in the branding context.

2. Theoretical Background –
Marketing Research
Authenticity originates from Latin Authenticus and Greek Authentikos conveying the sense
trustworthiness (Cappannelli and Cappannelli 2004).
Within marketing research only few consumer researchers have explicitly defined authenticity
which has allowed the term to be used in different ways and with varying meanings
(Leigh et al. 2006):
... It has been defined as a
positively connoted
concept with the semantic
meanings of e.g.:
agelessness and
tradition (Aaker and
Drolet 1996)
Stylistic consistency,
quality commitments
(Beverland 2006)
original
(Ballantyne et al. 2006;
Holt 2002; Stark 2002)
genuineness
(Aaker and Drolet 1996;
Stern 1996)
uniqueness
(Groves 2001)
evidence, truth
(Grayson and Martinec
2004)

2. Theoretical Background –
Philosophy, Sociology, Anthropology, and Psychology
Philosophy
Authenticity is related to the emancipation
from conventional bonds as well as
originality (Taylor 1991). An authentic
individual is defined as being self-reliant
(Steiner and Reisinger 2006). Authenticity is
related to being oneself (Heidegger 1996).
Anthropology
Authenticity is often associated with the
preservation of cultural values. Authentic
experiences are comprehensively
characterized as natural (e.g. unspoiled,
untouched) (Handler 1986) and the opposite of
being a fake, plastic, and kitschy imitation
(e.g., Bruner 1994; Cameron and Gatewood 1994).
Authenticity is also understood as being
closely related to distinctiveness (Bruner
1994).
Sociology
Authenticity is investigated with regards to
individuals, objects, their representation
and/or performance. Authentic experiences
or performances are denoted as being
original, sincere, genuine, credible and
unaffected (Carroll and Wheaton 2009; Fine
2003).
Psychology
Authentic individuals are assumed to have a
unique inner reality (Smelser and Baltes 2001).
The increasing orientation of the individual’s
behavior towards social expectations is
regarded as the opposite of authenticity
(Guignon 2004). Individual’s authenticity is a
multidimensional construct (Goldman and
Kernis 2002; Kernis 2003; Kernis and Goldman
2006; Lopez and Rice 2006; Wood et al. 2008).

3. Study 1:
Assessing Consumer’s Understanding of Brand Authenticity
Participants provide descriptions of:
•stability, endurance, and consistency (e.g., “constant in its style”),
•particularity, individuality, and innovativeness (e.g., “novel ideas”),
•trustfulness, credibility, and keeping promises (e.g., “trustworthy,” “reliable”),
•genuiness and realness (e.g., “it is what it is,” “naturalness,” “genuine,” “uncontrived”).
In a second step, participants select a
hardly authentic or totally non-authentic
brand from an identical or closely related
product category. Participants are
stimulated by words that were identified
as representing brand authenticity
(through the literature review). This
procedure allows us to test whether
consumers share our understanding of
brand authenticity and whether their
perceptions of very and hardly authentic
brands differ (Brakus et al. 2009).
In a first step, using open ended
questions, participants name a brand
which they perceive as highly authentic
and name the reasons why they
perceive the brand as authentic
(→ participants’ understanding of
authenticity).

3. Study 1:
Assessing Consumer’s Understanding of Brand Authenticity

3. Study 1:
Assessing Consumer‘s Understanding of Brand Authenticity

3. Study 1:
Assessing Consumer‘s Understanding of Brand Authenticity
• The content analysis of the open-ended responses indicates that all consumers have a
concept of brand authenticity and the terms that are related to brand authenticity are
mostly in line with our findings through the literature review.
• Building on these results it seems that the terms related to authenticity can be grouped into
four overall categories representing a brand…
• (1) …to be stable and/or continuous over time,
• (2) …to be creative, original and/or innovative,
• (3) …to keep promises and/or be reliable,
• (4) …to be genuine and/or natural.
→ Thus, we anticipate brand authenticity to be a four-dimensional construct. We term the four
dimensions comprehensively as (1) continuity, (2) originality, (3) reliability, (4) naturalness.

4. Study 2:
Generating and Selecting Items – Literature Review
Continuity of
relationships in
terms of relationship
duration (Anderson
and Weitz 1989; Hess
et al. 2003; Lusch and
Brown 1996).
Continuity
Research on brand
image, consumer,
and advertising
research (Lynn and
Harris 1997; Nete-
meyer et al. 2004;
Olney et al. 1991) and
scales such as the
person’s originality
scale (Im et al. 2003).
Originality
Literature on
branding, consumer,
and advertising
research and scales
like the brand
trustworthiness
scale (Erdem and Swait
2004) or the ad
believability scale
(Beltramini 1988).
Reliability
Articles dealing with
the naturalness of
groceries and
related products
(Tenbült et al. 2005;
Verhoog et al. 2003).
Naturalness
31 items are identified through the literature review.

4. Study 2:
Generating and Selecting Items – Studies
• A sample consisting of students and marketing experts is asked to name a
brand which they perceive as highly authentic and to indicate (1 = “not at all” and
7 = “very much”), the extent to which the items identified through the literature
review describe the brand’s authenticity.
• Additionally, respondents are asked to list any other associations characterizing
authentic brands not included in the original list.
• A new student sample is asked to name an authentic brand and to indicate the
degree to which the identified items describe the brand’s authenticity (1 =
“describes poorly” and 7 = “describes very well”). We then reject items with mean
ratings below the scale midpoint and items that were not rated by more than 10%
of participants.
• Next, students complete a comparative rating task (item-sort task) for our
assessment of substantive-validity (Anderson and Gerbing 1991).
• After these validations, we retain 24 applicable items.

5. Study 3:
Reducing the Number of Items
Pre-test with students to name one authentic brand within the sports apparel and
soft drink industry.
288 Students are asked to indicate the extent to which the items describe the
authenticity of one of the brands (1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”).
Factor analysis using varimax rotation:Four-factor solution:
▪ Variance explained = 70.33%; loading criterion >.7;
▪ Fifteen items fulfill this criterion:
▪ 4 reliability items load on the first factor, 4 continuity items load on the
second factor, 4 originality items load on the third factor, and 3 naturalness
items load on the fourth factor;
▪ Cronbach’s alphas: continuity (.90), originality (.90), reliability (.96), and
naturalness (.95).

5. Study 3:
Reducing the Number of Items
Item
Factor
Reliability Continuity Originality Naturalness
I think brand is consistent over time. .29 .81 .20 .08
I think the brand brand stays true to itself. .27 .79 .20 .30
Brand offers continuity. .28 .84 .16 .24
The brand brand has a clear concept that it pursues. .17 .77 .32 .17
The brand brand is different from all other brands. .10 .23 .86 .15
Brand stands out from other brands. .12 .35 .83 .15
I think the brand brand is unique. .33 .07 .79 .13
The brand brand clearly distinguishes itself from other
brands.
.21 .19 .83 .23
My experience of the brand brand has shown me that it
keeps its promises.
.81 .31 .25 .27
The brand brand delivers what it promises. .84 .30 .23 .29
Brand’s promises are credible. .82 .28 .19 .33
The brand brand makes reliable promises. .83 .28 .21 .32
The brand brand does not seem artificial. .33 .24 .17 .79
The brand brand makes a genuine impression. .32 .20 .23 .86
The brand brand gives the impression of being natural. .31 .22 .22 .85

6. Study 4:
Validating the Brand Authenticity Dimensions
27 participants are asked to name two brands they regard as authentic and one
brand they would classify as inauthentic.
Most of the mentioned brands belong to the following product category:
automobile, sports apparel, beverages, body care, and additionally retailers.
→total number of 15 brands (three per category).
857 participants (age: 34 to 69; average age: 49.6) evaluate the extent to which the
15 items are descriptive of the authenticity of one of the 15 brands they are randomly
assigned to.
Model fit comparison: four-factor model with correlated factors is the best model.
Automobile Sports Apparel Beverages Body Care Retailers

6. Study 4:
Model χ 2 d.f. NFI CFI GFI RMSEA
Independence model 17531.13 105 – – – –
One-factor model 5898.74 90 .66 .67 .46 .28
Four-factor model 457.63 84 .97 .98 .93 .07
Second-order with four
subdimensions
457.97 86 .97 .98 .93 .07
→ As our theoretical derivations support the four-factor model with correlated
factors and as there is no theoretical foundation that would privilege the more
complex second-order model, we approve the four factor-model with
correlated factors as the most suitable model.

6. Study 4:
Bruhn et al (2013)

7. Study 5:
Analyzing the Discriminant Validity
• A new sample of 115 participants respond to the 15-item brand authenticity
scale and scales relating to brand involvement, brand image, and brand
satisfaction.
• To create variation in brand authenticity values, we followed the procedure of
Thomson et al. (2005):
• We requested about one third of the participants to imagine a brand which
they evaluate as “strongly,” “moderately,” or “not authentic” in order to fill
out the questionnaire.
• For manipulation checks, we examined the consumers’ reported brand
authenticity.
• Results demonstrate that the scores average 3.03, 5.63 and 6.67 in the
three manipulation conditions (weak, moderate, and strong). Moreover,
the resulting means significantly differ from one another (p < .01).

7. Study 5:
Analyzing the Discriminant Validity
Factor
Item Satisfaction Involvement Authenticity Image
Naturalness .40 .31 .71 .28
Reliability .47 .39 .72 .09
Continuity .29 .16 .86 .04
Originality .19 .34 .65 .41
Satisfaction 1 .76 .39 .21 .30
Involvement 1 .35 .80 .18 .22
Involvement 2 .34 .82 .19 .27
Involvement 3 .31 .84 .22 .23
Involvement 4 .33 .80 .23 .28
Involvement 5 .33 .63 .40 .02
Involvement 6 .35 .78 .27 .25
Image 1 .22 .26 .20 .83
Image 2 .15 .29 .21 .86
Image 3 .26 .11 -.01 .82

8. Study 6:
Some Antecedentes and Outcomes of Brand Authenticity
• In this study we investigate antecedentes of Brand Authenticity that we derived
as relevant through the literature review, namely:
commercialization
brand heritage
brand local icon value
integrated brand presence
• Moreover we assess consequences of consumers’ perceived authenticity of a
brand: brand attitude, purchase intention, and word-of-mouth intention.
• H1: Brand commercialization affects brand authenticity negatively.
• H2: Brand heritage affects brand authenticity positively.
• H3: A brand’s local icon value affects brand authenticity positively.
• H4: Integrated brand presence positively impacts brand authenticity.
• H5: Brand authenticity affects brand attitude positively.
• H6: Brand attitude affects intention to recommend the brand positively.
• H7: Brand attitude affects purchase intention positively.

8. Study 6:

8. Study 6:
• Procedure:
Questionnaire, non-student sample with n=195, average age of participants of 46.2
years.
• The study focuses on brands from the soft drink industry, as this product category
demonstrates the greatest dispersion regarding the mean authenticity values in our
studies.
• Each participant rated the extent to which the items described the authenticity of the
brand that is assigned to him or her, the brand authenticity antecedents, and
consequences.
• Results:
H1: not supported. (β = -.11, p < .2)
H2: brand local icon value (β = .34, p < .01)
H3: brand heritage (β = .29, p < .01)
H4: integrated brand presence (β = .41, p < .01)
H5: brand authenticity -> brand attitude positively (β = .52, p < .01).
H6: brand attitude -> word-of-mouth intention (β = .72, p < .01)
H7: brand attitude -> purchase intention (β = .67, p < .01)

8. Study 6:
χ² (311) = 603.16, p < .001, NFI = .87, CFI = .93, GFI = .82 and RMSEA = .07
n.s.
β=.29
β=.34
β=.41
β=.52
β=.72
β=.67

Conclusions and Further Research
Conclusions:
We identified brand authenticity as a construct consisting of four dimensions:
continuity, originality, reliability, and naturalness – with the dimensions being
differentially evaluated for various brands.
The finalized brand authenticity scale (15-items) is reasonable regarding its length
and therefore easy to implement.
The existence of the four-factor model is consistent across samples and studies.
Further research:
Re-analyze Antecedents and consequences of Brand Authenticity?
Different types of product: Are they relevant to the level of brand authenticity
perceived and required by the consumer?
Validate the scale in other countries by paying particular attention to the country-
specific differences in response behavior.
Long-term consequences of brand authenticity and longitudinal research on the
development of brand authenticity over time.

Thank you!
…time for a coffee?

EMC 2013 Conference Brand Authenticity Research

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (18)

Similar a EMC 2013 Conference Brand Authenticity Research

Similar a EMC 2013 Conference Brand Authenticity Research (20)

Más de CBR Conference

Más de CBR Conference (20)

Último

Último (20)

EMC 2013 Conference Brand Authenticity Research