Laboratorio central de sanidad animal (LCSA)

Store image and brand image are closely interlinked (Ailawadi and Keller, 2004;

Grewal, Krishnan, Baker and Borin (1998). Jacoby and Mazursky (1984) found that store image can be improved by associations with a favourably evaluated brand image, and will be damaged by links with brands with less positive images.

Conversely, particularly in terms of store own brands, Collins-Dodd and Lindley (2003) found that store image positively influenced consumers‟ evaluations of the image of certain brands, suggesting that brand image and the image of a retail location can be interlinked in the creation of consumers‟ image perceptions.

However, in contrast to store image literature, where much attention is focussed on identifying and measuring tangible store attributes using a multi-faceted approach, brand image literature is more concerned with the psychological elements of image (Park and Srinivasan, 1994; Stern, Zinkhan and Jaju, 2001).

Keller (1993) defined brand image as “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory” (p. 3). According to Park, Jaworski and MacInnis (1986) “brand image is not simply a perceptual phenomenon affected by the firm‟s communication activities alone. It is the understanding consumers derive from the total set of brand-related activities engaged in by the firm” (p. 135). Brands are made distinctive by elements which are “of this non-functional type; that is, they go beyond the perceived quality of the brand on functional product and service criteria and deal instead with „intangible‟

properties of the brand” (Batra and Homer, 2004, p. 318).

Brand image is therefore a combination of the tangible and objective elements related to the physical nature of the product, but with greater emphasis on the abstract nature of image as exemplified by psychological and subjective

responses (Friedmann, 1986; Levy, 1978). Consumers participate in the creation of brand image during their interaction with the product, by “decoding, extracting and interpreting the brand signals” (Faircloth, Capella and Alford, 2001, p. 64).

28 These signals are transmitted through a variety of cues, including physical

properties such as product attributes, physical logos and symbols, elements of the marketing mix, and the context in which the product is consumed. However, they also include intangible elements such as the consumer‟s personal values and past experiences, and perceptions of the types of people associated with the use of the brand (Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990). Brand image therefore represents the personal meanings that consumers associate with the brand, which comprises all the cognitive and affective brand-related information (Iversen and Hem, 2008; Lee, Lee and Wu, 2011).

Park, Jaworski and MacInnis (1986) suggest that consumers form brand image in response to three basic needs. These needs are functional (solving consumption-related problems), experiential (needs for sensory, pleasure, variety, cognitive stimulation), or symbolic (needs for self-enhancement, group alignment). When a product‟s brand image coincides with consumers‟ recognition of these needs, consumers are more likely to have a positive image (Roth, 1995; Meenaghan, 1995). The brand image literature has further developed theories of image

formation. Keller (1993) proposes that brand image represents the meaning of the brand for consumers, and is formed from associations stored in consumer

memory. Associations, or mental pathways, are activated by recognition of stimuli, or cues, which are linked to stored memories of past experiences. Some of these associations relate to the symbolic or experiential consumer needs identified by Park, Jaworski and MacInnis (1986). Others are associated with functional needs related to the purchase experience, whether product related (physical

characteristics) or non-product related (e.g. price, packaging or appearance, user or usage imagery). A third category of associations consists of brand attitudes, or consumers‟ overall evaluations of the brand. Keller (1993) argues that these overall evaluations form the basis for consumer choice decisions.

However, not all brand image associations are equally relevant to consumers. For example, associations differ according to how favourably they are evaluated, but they may not be considered at all if they are not important to the consumer. The strength of associations also depends on how they enter memory and how they are retained. If a consumer thinks about or elaborates on an association, stronger

29 associations are held in memory. The higher the number and the greater the

strength of associations, the more salience they hold for consumers: such salient associations represent the cues which consumers use to form image (Keller, 1993).

Brand image literature is predominantly associated with product and retailer

brands. However, brand image is also relevant to image in locations. For example, Dennis, Murphy, Marsland, Cockett and Patel (2002) showed that brand image can be applied to shopping malls. Other locations have also been considered in terms of place branding, such as towns and cities (Hankinson, 2004; Kavaratzis and Ashworth, 2005; Kotler, Haider and Ryan, 1993; Runyan and Huddleston, 2006) and even nations (Fan, 2006). It is argued that place image, similar to product brand image, is a psychological construct, whereby “encounters with the city take place through perceptions and images” (Kavaratzis, 2004, p. 62).

However, branding a location is complicated by the fact that place marketers have less control over the product. Unlike products, places such as towns and cities have many functions and multiple stakeholders (Hankinson, 2004), and hence place brand image is perceived in differing ways according to the perspectives of the various consumer groups (Ashworth and Voogt, 1994). In contrast to product brand image, the image of a location may be influenced by the image of the wider environment, suggesting that place branding communicates an image which is holistic (Ashworth and Voogt, 1994; Hankinson, 2004).

However, place branding is a relatively new area of research, and reliable measures of place brands remain to be developed (Kavaratzis and Ashworth, 2005). Hence, while the brand image literature, particularly the work of Park, Jaworski and MacInnis (1986) and Keller (1993) offers some theoretical

development into image as a symbolic construct, the directions offered by brand image theory need further exploration if they are to be used in a town centre context.

30 2.3.3 Shopping mall image

Few retail outlets exist in isolation, and researchers have sought to establish shopping mall image in relation to store and brand image (El Hedhli and Chebat, 2009; Finn and Louviere, 1996; Howell and Rogers, 1980; Nevin and Houston, 1980). Although they occupy a number of location types and fulfil a range of purposes, shopping malls are coherent, planned and controlled purpose-built shopping centres, managed as a single concern (Howard, 1997; Ruiz, 1999;

McGoldrick, 2002). Considered essentially as a collection of stores, malls and the image of the stores they contain are interdependent and act in synergy to create an overall mall image (Howell and Rogers, 1980; Kirkup and Rafiq, 1994; Ruiz, 1999). Thus store image measures have been highly influential in mall image research.

Interest in shopping mall research developed in response to the emergence of these shopping centres as a new phenomenon in the retail hierarchy. Since the Second World War, retailers and businesses have increasingly followed the move by residents to the suburbs, and abandoned the town centre to build shopping malls in cheaper and more accessible locations out of town. The construction of shopping centres in locations other than traditional town centres or downtowns raised a need for planners, developers and managers to investigate the spatial issues of location and transport, together with the non-spatial factors, which encourage shoppers travel to a centre (Gautschi, 1981; McGoldrick and

Thompson, 1992; Ruiz, 1999; Mejia and Benjamin, 2002). Mall managers were concerned to establish and manage the elements of mall image which influence shoppers to travel to these out of town locations, since developing a unique and distinct image for a shopping mall increases the likelihood of its success (Finn and Louviere, 1996; Mejia and Benjamin, 2002).

Similar to store image, researchers have therefore investigated the image of shopping malls primarily to establish key image dimensions. The assortment of stores, or tenant mix, has been identified as the most important factor in

customer‟s image of a centre, creating the first impressions that customers receive (Kirkup and Rafiq, 1994; Finn and Louviere, 1996). A more extensive store

assortment is likely to satisfy shoppers‟ needs better, by offering more choice and

31 creating a more positive mall image (Chebat, Sirgy and Grzeskowiak, 2010;

Ghosh, 1986). Thus, managers can control the image of malls by selecting stores whose image is congruent with the intended image of the centre (Brown, 1992).

Particular attention has been given to the role of large department stores, or anchor stores, in shopping mall image. Not only have anchor stores been found to significantly influence customers‟ image of the mall in which they are located

(Burns, 1992; Finn and Louviere, 1996; Meoli, Feinberg and Westgate, 1991), their image also influences the image of other stores in the mall (Mejia and Benjamin, 2002; Chebat, Sirgy and St-James, 2006). In addition, Nevin and Houston (1980) found that the image of a special store in a shopping mall was key to explaining consumers‟ patronage intentions. Thus researchers conclude that mall image is primarily formed from the synergy created by the store assortment.

However, similar to town centres, shopping malls contain more than just stores.

Even relatively small shopping malls offer services and facilities such as “fast-food courts, art exhibits, restaurants, video arcades, movie theatres, hair salons, and dental offices” (Bloch, Ridgway and Dawson, 1994, p. 24). Various combinations of elements of shopping malls have therefore also been studied by researchers.

Kirkup and Rafiq (1999) highlight “a satisfying and safe shopping and leisure experience … access, mix environment, safety and leisure” as key features (p.

121). More specifically, the ease of movement within the mall, or the way that layout is designed, has been investigated as part of mall image (Brito, 2009;

Chebat, Gelinas-Chebat and Therrien, 2005). Due to the ability of mall

management to incorporate atmospheric features in mall design, these have also been included in mall image studies. The social and atmospheric aspects of a shopping mall extend the tenant mix by including food services, leisure and

entertainment provision, which also form part of consumers‟ image of the mall (Sit, Merrilees and Birch, 2003; Wakefield and Baker, 1998). Atmospherics have been researched in terms of ambient odour, music and colours (Michon, Chebat and Turley, 2005; Chebat and Michon, 2003; Chebat and Morrin, 2007; Teller, 2008) and found to influence shopping behaviour in a mall, while social aspects have been investigated from the perspective of interactions with other shoppers and self-image congruence (Bloch, Ridgway and Dawson, 1994; Chebat, Sirgy and St-James, 2006; Feinberg, Sheffler, Meoli and Rummel, 1989). Wakefield and Baker

32 (1998) suggest that shopping malls generate affective responses similarly to

stores, in that consumers seek excitement from the mall visit. Thus the overall mall image can be manipulated by management by ensuring the coherence of the tenant mix and leisure and entertainment, and optimising layout, design and atmospherics, while attracting the desirable customer typologies, to increase the level of attractiveness of the mall for shoppers (Kirkup and Rafiq, 1999; Ruiz, 1999).

Much of the shopping mall literature takes a practitioner perspective to provide useful directions for mall managers. McGoldrick and Thompson (1992) note the arbitrary nature of some of the measures used in mall image studies, with the emphasis on what is important for managers to measure and manage (Brito, 2009;

Finn and Louviere, 1996). In taking a practitioner perspective to provide recommendations for managers to manage shopping mall image, researchers have addressed the conceptual basis of mall image to only a limited extent. Similar to much of store image research, there is a lack of attention paid by researchers to conceptualisation from the consumer‟s perspective.

An exception is the study by Blawatt (1995), who considered shopping mall image to be a more complex concept which includes attitudes, emotions, behaviours and symbolic content. Blawatt (1995) argues that conventional measures of shopping mall image, based on cognitive beliefs about the physical elements contained within the mall, are not sufficient to capture to explain the psychological

dimensions of image. The addition of affective and conative dimensions extends the conceptualisation of image. The affective dimension involves an evaluative aspect where the attributes are perceived, judged and selected for saliency, and contains feelings and sensory information. The conative dimension reflects

behaviour, or the repeated experiences through which images are built up through memory, as well as intentions towards future behaviour. While Blawatt argues that image measurement is improved by the addition of these two dimensions, he also states that “beyond a multi-[dimensional] construct there is in fact a total construct that summarises the beliefs (or attitudes) about an object‟s attributes” (p. 85), which he describes as the schema or holistic view of image. The image schema integrates all salient information into a holistic image, which contains the meaning

33 or symbolic dimension of shopping mall image. However, similar to the

conceptualisations developed in store image studies, Blawatt offers little information to guide researchers as to the operationalisation of the additional affective, conative and symbolic dimensions.

With the exception of Blawatt (1995)‟s study, mall image research has therefore focussed overwhelmingly on the factual image aspects related to tenant mix and layout, with some consideration of atmospheric elements. Given that a mall is a collection of stores, mall image researchers have largely neglected the insights from store image literature as to theoretical approaches to the formation of mall image. In particular the intangible and subjective psychological aspects relating to affect and symbolism have received scant attention in mall image studies. As Stoltman, Gentry and Anglin (1991) argue, shopping malls have “clearly defined images due to their relative newness, their amenities, the promotional programs (including both sales and image development strategies) and because they occupy a definable physical space” (p. 438). Yet mall image research remains

“predicated on the research involving store image” in being based on tangible measures (Chebat, Sirgy and Grzeskowiak, 2010, p. 735). In possessing clearly defined and specific images in their own right, it may be that shopping malls have image structures which vary from those in store image. However, in drawing on store image research in particular, shopping mall researchers have yet to establish the specific attributes and dimensions which determine shopping mall image as distinct from store image.