ANÁLISIS ESTADÍSTICO

Research on corporate brands suggests that, when prompted with a corporate brand name or symbol, people spontaneously make different types of mental associations. One study asked a group of individuals to describe what they associated with each of a long list of corporate brands (Maathuis et al., 1998). The results were grouped into two clusters of associations: the first cluster consisted of organizational associations (e.g. company is listed on the stock exchange, has many employees, is profitable, is fun to work for, has good management, is good at conducting research). The second cluster con- sisted of product associations (e.g. makes expensive/cheap products, is well designed, has nice shops, makes product for kids, products do not wear out easily). The researchers then examined each corporate brand in more detail to identify whether product or organizational associations were more prevalent. The results showed that no corporate brand was 100 percent dominated by either organizational associations or product associations.

As part of the study, the researchers also examined whether some corpo- rate brands could more easily stretch to endorse products. They concluded that corporate brands with more organizational associations could more easily endorse a broad array of products than those dominated by product associations. Endorsement by a corporate brand that has strong organizational associations has a more positive effect on assessments observers make about the quality and credibility of the company’s products.

A corporate brand can help improve product perceptions by decreasing the perceived risk that observers feel from dealing with the company’s products. A corporate brand is therefore a heuristic of sorts, a “script” that simplifies decision-making about the merits of a company’s offerings. Organizational associations vary in their ability to help observers evaluate products (Brown, 1998). Therefore, it is important to understand: (1) what types of organizational associations are relevant, and (2) under what conditions these associations have a positive influence on product preferences.

ESSENTIALS OF CORPORATE COMMUNICATION

“Corporate associations describe the cognitions, affects (i.e., moods and emotions), evaluations (attaching to specific cognitions or affects), summary evaluations, and/or patterns of associations (e.g. schemata, scripts) with respect to a particular company” (Brown,1998). Six dimensions of corporate associations are relevant:

1. Corporate abilities: What are the company’s abilities?

2. Interaction with exchange partners: How fair is the company in its relationships with stakeholders?

3. Interaction with employees: Does one deal with the employees in a sensible way?

4. Social responsibility: Does the company fulfill stakeholder expectations of social responsibility?

5. Marketing: Do stakeholders have positive or negative associations with the way the company carries out its marketing communications?

6. Product: What associations do stakeholders have with the products of the organization?

Organizational associations have also been classified into two categories: Corporate ability associations and social responsibility associations (Brown and Dacin, 1997). Corporate competencies refer to the expertise that a company has in producing and delivering its products. Corporate social responsibilities speaks to the status of the company and the activities it is involved in which are perceived as social obligations. Keller and Aaker (1998) come to a similar conclusion. They make a further distinction between three types of organ- izational associations:

❚ _{Corporate expertise: the extent to which a company is able to competently} make and sell its products and services.

❚ _{Corporate trustworthiness: the extent to which a company is thought to be} honest, dependable, and sensitive to consumer needs.

❚ _{Corporate likeability : the extent to which a company is thought likeable,} prestigious, and interesting.

Different authors have paid attention to the conditions under which organ- izational associations have a positive influence on product assessments. Brown (1998) provides a thorough overview of antecedents and consequences of organizational associations on product preferences. He also discusses the moderating role of individual attributes, the organization, and the products offered by the organization.

Another study researched the relationship between various types of organizational associations (corporate ability and corporate social respon- sibility) and product preferences (Berens et al., 2005). They propose that a set of risk factors moderates the effects of a corporate brand on purchase intent (see Figure 5.5). Risk can be divided into financial, physical, psycho- logical, social, and time related components. If the risk perceived by the observer is low, a high perceived fit (matching the demands and product attributes) will result in there being less need for information about the corporate organization. In the opposite case, if the risk is high, a high perceived fit will not offer enough information about the product quality and there will be heightened demand for information about corporate ability. After all, the target audience is often no expert concerning the product.

Finally, the study also indicates that the two main clusters of organizational associations (corporate ability and corporate social responsibility) differ in their influence on purchase intentions. Ability associations are the most important but cannot compensate for bad behavior in the area of social responsibility. Social responsibility associations, on the other hand, are important but only if corporate ability is relatively unimportant to the consumer.

ESSENTIALS OF CORPORATE COMMUNICATION

120

CA

CSR

Figure 5.5 The moderating effect of corporate brand dominance, fit, and involvement on the degree to which capability and responsibility associations influence purchase intentions