1. “Unilever, Connecting Brands”
-Measuring the influence of corporate brand associations on
product brand evaluations-
N.A.C. Hartman
Afstudeerdatum: 10 februari 2011
2. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 2
”Unilever, Connecting Brands”
-Measuring the influence of corporate brand associations on
product brand evaluations-
N.A.C. Hartman
Unilever Benelux B.V.
February 2011
Master in Marketing Management (MscMM)
Department Marketing
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration
University of Tilburg
Master Thesis Begeleiders:
Dr. A.M.M. Bosmans (Universiteit van Tilburg)
Dr. C.P. Stalpers (Meelezer UvT)
Stephan Ardesch (Unilever Benelux B.V.)
3. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 3
Management Summary
In the current Dutch retail market of fast moving consumer goods, Unilever is a big player.
Unilever is known for its product branding strategy, with famous brands like Axe, Unox, and
Lipton. However, conditions in the Dutch market are changing. The power balance between
manufacturers and retailers is shifting, because retailers are becoming more powerful.
Simultaneously the Dutch retail market is decreasing due to an economic downturn. As a
result, Unilever is changing its branding strategy towards a corporate endorsing brand
strategy. Simultaneously Unilever is planning to communicate corporate advertisements,
where CSR initiatives of Unilever are highlighted. The change in branding strategy in
combination with communicating corporate advertisements is unique. To discover the impact
of this change in strategy the associative network theory is studied. The associative network
theory describes how corporate associations can be leveraged to product brands. It seems that
both the new branding strategy and CSR associations with the corporate brand can improve
product brand evaluations. By conducting an experiment the effect of this change in strategy
in combination with the communication of corporate advertisements is measured for
Unilever‟s situation. This is done by measuring respondents‟ product brand evaluations. To be
able to measure respondents‟ product brand evaluations, respondents rated different
advertisements that were manipulated with corporate brand visibility, CSR associations with
the corporate brand and prior brand knowledge. It is expected that when the corporate brand is
visible and CSR initiatives are exposed, product brand evaluations will improve. It is however
also expected that this is moderated by prior brand knowledge. The results of the experiment
are mixed. Corporate brand visibility only seems to have an effect on evaluations of product
with high prior brand knowledge. When consumers have no knowledge regarding the product
brand, the effect of corporate brand visibility is negative. This however changes when
respondents are repeatedly exposed to the corporate brand, as product brand evaluations are
positive after multiple exposures of corporate brand visibility. Looking at the effect of
communicating CSR associations, it becomes clear that when respondents have no knowledge
of the product brand, product brand evaluations can be positively influenced by
communicating CSR associations, provided that corporate brand visibility is present. The
mixed results of the experiment can be derived from several factors. The fit between the CSR
message and the product brand and repetition of the manipulation can have an effect on
product brand evaluations. As associations get stronger when two stimuli are exposed
repeatedly, this can have an impact on the results of the experiment.
4. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 4
Preface
The master thesis that lies in front of you is the product of 6,5 years of study at the University
of Tilburg (UvT). During my study at the UvT I experienced what it was to have your own
life and that you can fill it in exactly the way you want it. During my bachelor “Business
Administration” I have performed several tasks at student association Plato, with a position in
the bar committee and the position of chairmen of the introduction committee. By fulfilling
these tasks I had the possibility to optimally enjoy the life as a student. This will be a period
in my life what undoubtedly will be typified as one of the most beautiful periods in life.
Following my bachelor “Business Administration” I chose to follow the master Marketing
Management at the UvT. After completing all examinations I searched for an internship in the
FMCG industry. In my quest for an interesting internship I hit upon Unilever during the world
cup. I have written my master thesis at Unilever Benelux B.V., where I was intern at the
communication department. At this department I learned a lot of Unilever‟s new strategy and
how a new global strategy is implemented locally. Throughout my internship I learned how to
plan and organize a master thesis project. This has been quite a challenge for me.
Writing my master thesis I have had a lot of support of my mentors. First of all I would like to
thank Stephan Ardesch for making it possible to write my master thesis at Unilever Benelux
B.V. Furthermore I would also like to thank my mentor at the University of Tilburg: Annick
Bosmans. Writing my complex thesis she always tried to create overview. Especially at the
statistical part of the thesis, which felt like a master Marketing Research, I have had much
help of my mentor. Finally I would like to thank my friends and family. Having partners in
crime at the UvT makes it much more approachable to visit the UvT every day. The Unox vs
van Dobben battle made the UvT visits extra special. Furthermore I would like to thank my
family, and especially my parents, for making it possible to study at the university. Without
my parents‟ sponsorship it wasn‟t possible to enjoy the life as a student the way I was able to
enjoy it. Finally I would like to thank my girlfriend, who accelerated the last years of my
study and helped me at the moments I needed it! I would like to point out that the information
provided by this thesis is confidential. This thesis may therefore not be multiplied or
published.
Tilburg, February 2011
Nick Hartman
7. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 7
1. Introduction
1.1 Unilever
Unilever is a major manufacturer of food, home care and personal products around the globe.
Unilever originated in 1930 from the merger of the Dutch Margarine Unie and the British
Lever Brothers. Though Margarine Unie was specialized in making butter and Lever Brothers
was specialized in making soap they decided to unite their powers. Both the companies
competed over the same commodities, which made a merger very interesting. Since 1930
Unilever is organized as a dual company with a board in both Rotterdam and London.
Unilever has grown to a leading supplier of fast-moving consumer goods with products on
sale in over 170 countries. The yearly turnover has grown to 39,823 billion euros in 2009. The
new vision of Unilever is to “double the size of the company while reducing the overall
impact on the environment” (Unilever Benelux, 2010, p.4). In the Dutch retail sector Unilever
is the biggest producer of manufacturer brands with a portfolio of approximately 40 brands.
Unilever is also the biggest advertiser in the Netherlands (Unilever Benelux, 2010).
1.2 Problem Background
Every year, private labels are becoming more powerful in the retail sector. According to the
Private Labels Manufacturer‟s Association (PLMA, 2010) the shares of private labels in
Western Europe are increasing every year and have reached levels from 25% in the
Netherlands to 48% in the United Kingdom in 2010. M+M Planet Retail (2004) expects that
this private label share will grow to 30% on average in Europe in 2020. Next to this increase
in private label market share, Steenkamp & Dekimpe (1997) found that quality levels of
private labels are increasing and are approaching quality levels of manufacturer brands. The
increasing threat of private labels generates a serious test for manufacturers of national brands
(Lamey, Deleersnyder, Dekimpe & Steenkamp, 2007). While retailers initially were
customers of national brand manufacturers (e.g. Unilever), they are currently becoming
threatening competitors in the market (Karray & Zaccour, 2006).
Next to the threat of private labels, Unilever has found itself in a declining market. In 2010,
the Dutch retail sector was still suffering from the international economic downturn and the
Dutch market is continuously declining. For example, in May 2010 the Dutch retail sector
declined with 2% in comparison to a year earlier (Unilever CEO Update, 2010). This
economic downturn causes that manufacturers should think of new ways to create competitive
8. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 8
advantage (Picard & Rimmer, 1999). Unilever, as a national brand manufacturer, should deal
with this pressure and reformulate her strategy to fight private labels in a declining market.
One way of reformulating the strategy is by restructuring your branding strategy.
Currently, in business-to-consumer (B2C) situations, Unilever is using a product brand
strategy to promote its brands and to create positive brand evaluations. This means that every
product has its own name and is not related to the company. However, Unilever is currently
enhancing the visibility of its corporate brand, by endorsing product brands, advertisements
and sponsorships with the “Unilever” brand (Unilever Communications Plan, 2010). This
means that when consumers come in contact with product brands, they are simultaneously
confronted with the corporate “Unilever” brand. Slowly but surely we can see that Unilever is
changing its branding strategy. Unilever is moving from a product brand strategy towards a
corporate endorsing brand strategy in which product brands are supported by the corporate
brand. This can be noticed by the use of the U-brand on products, in advertisement and in
commercials (Unilever Communications Plan, 2010).
Simultaneously, Unilever is also planning to launch advertisements solely for the corporate
brand. These advertisements have the purpose of strengthening the relationship of Unilever
with employees, corporate clients, consumers and key opinion formers (KOFs) and to
enhance Unilever‟s reputation in general (Unilever Communications Plan, 2010). By creating
positive associations regarding the corporate brand, Unilever tries to create positive
evaluations regarding its corporate and product brands. With regard to these associations, a
distinction has to be made between corporate ability (CA) and corporate social responsibility
(CSR) types of associations. CA associations are related to “the company‟s expertise in
producing and delivering its outputs” (Brown & Dacin, 1997, p. 68). A company following
this positioning strategy would focus on abilities like manufacturing expertise, industry
leadership, customer orientation, technological innovation and so on (Brown & Dacin, 1997).
CSR associations represent “the company‟s status and activities with respect to its perceived
societal obligations” (Brown & Dacin, 1997, p.68). A company that follows this strategy
would focus on abilities like environmental friendliness, community involvement,
sponsorship of cultural activities and so on. Unilever is primarily planning to create CSR
associations with their new corporate campaign. This is in line with the corporate vision: “to
double the size of the company while reducing the overall impact on the environment”.
9. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 9
Summing up, on the one hand the U-brand is becoming more visible on packages, in
commercials and in advertisements, while on the other hand Unilever is strengthening its
corporate brand by creating positive CSR associations using advertisements around its
corporate brand. This shift in strategy can result in more positive product brand evaluations
due to a strong corporate brand campaign in combination with the corporate brand visibility.
This entails that in the future less marketing effort is needed to create positive product brand
evaluations.
1.3 Problem Statement & Research Questions
The effect of a change in strategy is already investigated in previous literature. Adopting a
branding strategy has effect on how consumers evaluate product brands. It is however not
investigated whether a shift in strategy from a product brand strategy towards a corporate
endorsing brand strategy in combination with the launch of CSR associations with the
corporate brand is effective to enhance product brand evaluations. This leads to the following
problem statement:
Is Unilever’s shift in strategy effective to improve the evaluations of its product
brands in the Dutch retail sector?
To answer the problem statement certain research questions need to be answered in this
research. Questions 1 and 2 will be answered by doing desk research. Questions 3 and 4 will
be answered by conducting an experiment. The research questions are the following:
1. Why does Unilever need to change its brand strategy?
2. How can corporate brand associations be leveraged to product brands?
3. How does changing the strategy from a product brand strategy towards a corporate
endorsing brand strategy affect consumers‟ product brand evaluations and what is the
moderating effect of prior brand knowledge?
4. How does the communication of CSR associations with a corporate brand affect product
brand evaluations and what is the moderating effect of prior brand knowledge and
corporate brand visibility?
This will be tested by measuring whether Unilever‟s shift in branding strategy has an effect
on product brand evaluations, in combination with measuring the effect of communicating
CSR associations. This is visualized in the conceptual framework (figure 1, p. 10).
10. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 10
1.4 Operationalization
To make clear what the different variables incorporate, a short explanation of both the
independent variables and the dependent variable will be introduced in this operationalization.
CSR associations: CSR associations are corporate brand advertisements that create positive
associations with the corporate brand.
Enhanced Visibility of the Corporate Brand: The enhanced visibility of the corporate brand
entails a prominent visible logo of Unilever in the product brand advertisements.
Prior Brand Knowledge: Prior brand knowledge entails the degree of familiarity that
consumers have with the product brand advertised.
Product Brand Evaluations: Product brand evaluations are consumer‟s appeal towards the
product brand, measured by advertisement appeal, product appeal and corporate social
responsibility of the product brand.
1.5 Method
The product brand evaluations are measured by conducting an experiment. Within this
experiment, respondents are asked to rate a set of advertisements. However, the conditions in
which the advertisements must be evaluated are different for different groups of respondents.
Corporate brand visibility, CSR associations with the corporate brand and prior brand
knowledge are manipulated between respondents. Respondents are asked to rate the
CSR associations
Product
Brand
Evaluations
Enhanced
Visibility of the
Corporate Brand
Prior Brand
Knowledge
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
11. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 11
advertisements on advertisement appeal, product appeal and product‟s CSR, that together
measure the product brand evaluations.
1.6 Structure
This research is organised in three blocks. In the first block (Chapter 1) the background of this
research is presented with an introduction of the topic and the problem statement. With this
short introduction a brief insight is given of the problem that this research is handling.
Furthermore a management summary is provided, with a short overview of the research. In
the second block the background literature regarding this topic will be discussed. In chapter 2
all literature regarding private label threat, declining markets, branding strategies and the
associative network theory will be discussed. This leads to several hypotheses regarding the
outcome of the experiment. Subsequently, in chapter 3, the methodology with respect to the
experiment will be highlighted. The results of the experiment are presented with an analysis
of the measures. Finally, based on the results of the experiment, a conclusion is drawn. Also
recommendations are given for future research. In the final block of this research an overview
of the used background literature will be provided. All statistical output of the experiment is
exposed. An example of the advertisements used in the experiment can also be traced in the
appendices, alongside of an example of the questionnaire used in the experiment.
1.7 Theoretical and Managerial Relevance
This research is managerially relevant because the corporate brand manager of Unilever and
corporate brand managers in general can use the outcome of this research as guidance when
increasing corporate brand visibility. Furthermore the impact of communicating CSR
associations on product brand evaluations is measured. Additionally product brand managers
can value how the change in strategy affects their product brands‟ evaluations in business-to-
consumer situations. Changing your branding strategy has many implications for product
brand managers. In this research, the effect of this change is measured.
This research is academically relevant because it has not become clear from prior research
how a shift in branding strategy can help manufacturers of product brands in their battle
against private labels, while simultaneously launching a corporate brand campaign. Though
both effects have been tested separately, these effects have not been tested simultaneously.
This will be investigated in this research. Furthermore the effect of prior brand knowledge
with the product brand is included, which creates a whole new dimension.
12. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 12
2. Literature Review
Before measuring the influence of corporate brand associations on product brand evaluations
a brief overview of the literature must be provided. In this chapter the literature background of
the problem statement will be discussed. First, an impression of the increased private label
threat throughout the years will be drawn. Furthermore, several branding strategies will be
discussed that companies can use to brand their products, together with Unilever‟s shift in
strategy. Finally the associative network theory will be presented that can explain how a shift
in branding strategy can lead to better product brand evaluations, which will lead to the design
of the hypotheses.
2.1 Upcoming Private Label Threat
As was mentioned in the introduction, a new situation has evolved throughout the years in
which private labels are becoming more powerful in the retail sector. In this paragraph the
upcoming private label threat will be discussed in two aspects: private label market share and
the declining Dutch retail sector.
2.1.1 Private Label Market Share
Private labels are products that are owned and managed by retailers (Sayman, Hoch & Raju,
2002), as opposed to manufacturer brands that are owned and controlled by manufacturers
(e.g. Unilever). According to the Private Label Manufacturer‟s Association (PLMA, 2010) the
shares of private labels in Western Europe are increasing every year and have reached levels
from 25% in the Netherlands to 48% in the United Kingdom in 2010. Steenkamp & Dekimpe
(1997) ascribe this increase in private label market share to two big developments: increased
retailer concentration and private label quality.
- Increased retailer concentration
In the Netherlands the retailer concentration is enormous. The three largest retail chains
together have a markets share of more than 60% in the retail sector (Steenkamp & Dekimpe,
1997). The relationship between (retailer) concentration and profitability has been widely
tested and is positive. A market is more profitable when the market is more concentrated
(Messinger & Narasimhan, 1995). This results in the situation where retailers are able to
produce and manage its own product line that can compete with the traditional product brands
(Steenkamp & Dekimpe, 1997). Private label shares in countries with higher retail
13. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 13
concentration also tend to be higher than private label shares in countries with low retail
concentration (Hoch & Banerji, 1993).
- Private label quality
Furthermore, private label quality is a key determinant of private label success (Richardson,
Dick & Jain, 1994). Traditionally, manufacturer brands based their competitive advantage on
high product quality (Kumar & Steenkamp, 2007). In 1984, Rosen showed that consumers
perceived store brands as having lower quality than national brands. However, private labels
have increased their product quality and are now closing up on national brand quality and are
sometimes even exceeding national brand quality (Steenkamp & Dekimpe, 1997). According
to Steenkamp & Dekimpe (1997) the higher quality of manufacturer brands was the
manufacturer‟s last remaining competitive advantage.
2.1.2 Declining Market
Next to the increase of the private label threat there is a situation of a declining market in the
Netherlands. The international economy is experiencing a major downturn. The National
Bureau of Economic Research (2010) defines an economic recession as a significant decline
in economic activity across the whole economy, lasting more than a few months. The Dutch
retail sector also suffers from this international economic downturn. As can be seen in figure
2, the regular supermarket turnover (excluding promotions) in the Netherlands was 3.3%
lower than the regular turnover in supermarkets in 2009 (Gfk, 2010). The turnover declined
from 13.47 billion euro in 2009 to 13.03 billion euro in 2010. We can thus conclude that the
Dutch retail sector is also suffering from an economic downturn. The negative market growth
is also reported by Unilever. Unilever reported negative market growth regarding the Dutch
market (Unilever CEO Update, 2010).
Figure 2: Supermarket Turnover January-July 2010 (Source: Gfk, 2010)
14. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 14
This situation of declining markets has an effect on the performance of private labels. Private
labels perform better during economic downturn. The business cycle affects the market share
of private labels counter-cyclically (Hoch & Banerji, 1993; Lamey et al, 2007). This is the
opposite in a situation of a flourishing economy. In that economic situation, manufacturer
brands perform better (Lamey, Deleersnyder, Dekimpe & Steenkamp, 2007). However,
Lamey et al. (2007) observed that a part of the consumers that switch to private labels during
economic downturn does not switch back when the economy is performing well. In
combination with the upcoming private label threat this doubles the risk for manufacturers of
national brands, including Unilever. Slowly but surely, private labels cream-off market share
of manufacturer brands. For Unilever it is therefore important to find new ways of creating
competitive advantage. One of those ways might be to change the branding strategy. This will
be discussed in the next paragraph.
2.2 Changing the Strategy
From the previous paragraph it became clear that due to two major factors a new situation for
manufacturers is created. The increased private label threat in combination with a declining
market leaves manufacturers in a highly competitive market (Lamey et al, 2007). Therefore
manufacturers should revise their strategy. In this paragraph the overall trend in branding
strategies will be discussed. Furthermore the new branding strategy that Unilever is adopting
will be analyzed.
2.2.1 Trending towards Corporate Branding
Choosing the right branding strategy is an important issue for a firm. “The branding strategy,
or brand architecture, for a firm tells marketing managers which brand names, logos, symbols,
and so forth to apply to which new and existing product” (Keller, 2007). Rao, Agarwal &
Dahlhoff (2004) show that choosing a branding strategy has an effect on the firm‟s intangible
value. This is supported by Ailawadi, Lehmann & Neslin (2001), who found that brands are
vital intangible assets that can contribute to firm performance. The use of different branding
strategies is a trending topic. According to Laforet & Saunders (1994) and Olins (1989),
multi-business companies (e.g. Unilever) can choose between three „blocks‟: every product
gets its own separate brand name (i.e. “product brand strategy”), all products carry the
corporate brand name (i.e. “corporate brand strategy”) or the two names are displayed
simultaneously (i.e. “endorsed brand strategy”). Aaker & Joachimstahler (2000) observed that
there is a trend from product brand strategies, through over endorsed branding strategies
toward corporate branding strategies.
15. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 15
Figure 3: Increased corporate brand visibility
2.2.2 Unilever‟s Brand Strategy
Due to the factors mentioned in the first paragraph, Unilever also has undertaken some action.
At this moment, Unilever is still known as a firm with a product brand strategy. In previous
literature regarding branding strategies Unilever still is a typical example of a product
brander. However, recently Unilever has chosen for a new branding strategy. Unilever has
decided to improve the visibility of its corporate brand in many ways (see figure 3). This is
done by endorsing advertisements, sponsorships and commercials with the corporate brand
(Unilever Communications Plan, 2010). The trend that is observed by Aaker &
Joachimstahler (2000) is exactly the trend that can be seen with Unilever‟s branding strategy.
The reason that Unilever has decided to change its strategy followed from findings from a
reputation study of Unilever. From this reputation study it became clear that though
consumers‟ familiarity with Unilever is good, the vitality mission of Unilever is not believed
and Unilever‟s reputation is behind its main benchmark Nestlé. The strongest reputation
driver of Unilever is „Product‟ while Unilever scores low at „Workplace‟ and „Governance‟.
Finally consumers indicated that they expected to hear more from Unilever as a company and
that more transparency is expected about Unilever‟s activities and the good causes it supports
(Unilever Communications Plan, 2010). Therefore two recommendations were formed:
- Enhance the visibility of the corporate brand.
- Develop a sustainable corporate story and appealing initiatives and communicate this
to consumers.
With this change in strategy Unilever‟s reputation can
be enhanced. A consequence of enhancing your
reputation is that consumers are more loyal and
recommend you to others (Reputation Institute,
2010). Furthermore consumers create positive
feelings regarding the company and therefore
evaluate products or services of this company better.
An example of the enhanced visibility can be seen in
figure 3. The prominent presence of the corporate
brand is adopted in both commercials (e.g. Calvé
peanut butter) and advertisements (e.g. Calvé
mayonnaise).
16. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 16
Today, Unilever‟s corporate brand is frequently visible for consumers in all communications
regarding Unilever. Simultaneously with this enhanced visibility Unilever is setting up
corporate advertisements that create associations with Unilever as a corporate brand.
Consumers indicated that they expected to hear more from a global manufacturer like
Unilever on the issues of governance and good causes. While Unilever has a great reputation
at employees and suppliers, consumers are not completely informed about the corporate
brand. It is not known what the effect is of enhancing the visibility of the corporate brand
while simultaneously launching a campaign for the corporate brand. This will be discussed in
the next paragraph with the introduction of the associative network theory.
2.3 Associations
From the previous paragraph it became clear that Unilever has changed it strategy from a
product brand strategy towards a more corporate endorsing brand strategy. This implies that
the corporate brand is much more visible in product brand communications. The corporate
brand is exposed to consumers frequently when product brands are promoted. Next to this
change in visibility, Unilever is also planning to communicate CSR initiatives to the
consumers by using corporate brand advertisements. This means that on the one hand
Unilever is enhancing the visibility of the corporate brand, while on the other hand new
information is communicated regarding the corporate brand. These changes however have an
effect on how consumers think of the company and its brands. Thoroughly, Unilever is trying
to create a link between product brands and the corporate brand and to link the corporate
brand to new associations. It is therefore important to know how these associations with
Unilever‟s vision can be leveraged to their product brands. For that reason it is valuable to
look at a theory that explains how the new associations can be leveraged to the corporate
brand. Hence, in the paragraph the associative network theory will be discussed.
2.3.1 Associative Network Theory
The associative network theory focuses on the storage of information in memory. The
associative network theory was first mentioned by Anderson in 1983, and suggests that
consumers store information in long-term memory in a specific way (Colins & Loftus, 1975).
The model suggests that an incoming piece of information is stored in an associative network
in the memory of consumers. When consumers need to store a new piece of information, this
piece of information is stored in a spider web of different associations that are already present
in the memory (Solomon, 2007). This network contains pieces of information that are related
17. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 17
to one another. The associative network is a
kind of a storage unit, known as a
knowledge structure (Solomon, 2007). The
information is placed into “nodes” that are
connected by associative links. When pieces
of information belong together, they are
categorized under an abstract category.
When new information must be stored, this
is done by using the structure that is already
in place. Each concept, idea or piece of information stored in memory is represented as a node
and each node is connected to other nodes. The links between these nodes are called
associations. All together, these nodes form a complex associative network. An example of an
associative network can be found in figure 4. As can be seen, different nodes are connected to
one another by associations that are remembered when thinking of a specific node.
In this research context Unilever‟s product brands and Unilever‟s corporate brand represent
nodes in an associative network that are initially unconnected (see figure 5). These nodes
must become linked over time due to the endorsement of product brands by the corporate
brand. As can be seen the link between
Unilever and its product brands is
represented by a dotted line. This indicates
that consumers do not link Unilever to its
product brands sufficiently. Furthermore
the link between Unilever and its CSR
initiatives (e.g. Rain Forest Alliance &
Cleaner Planet Plan) is dotted because
consumers are not aware of the good
causes that Unilever supports.
How can Unilever create associations between the corporate brand and its product brands and
corporate initiatives? When thinking about a node this node is “activated”. Other closely
related nodes are then activated too. This is called „spreading activation‟ (Kardes, 1999). The
associative network theory states that when the link between two nodes is repeatedly exposed
this results in simultaneous activation of the memory nodes representing the two stimuli,
Figure 5: Visualization of Unilever’s Associative Network
Figure 4: An Associative Network
(Source: Colins & Loftus, 1975)
18. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 18
which results in an association between the two nodes (Domjan & Burkhard, 1986). Thinking
about two concepts (e.g. Robijn & Unilever) at the same time creates an association between
the two concepts (Kardes, 1999). When product brands of Unilever and the Unilever brand
are exposed simultaneously this should thus create an association. When the frequency of this
simultaneous exposure increases the strength of the association between the two concepts
increases (Kardes, 1999). This eventually means that when consumers think of a product
brand of Unilever (e.g. Robijn) the association with Unilever becomes activated. Currently
the associative network of Unilever can be visualized as displayed in figure 5. As can be seen
the (randomly chosen) product brands already have several associations, but the strength of
the association between the different product brands and the corporate brand is still absent.
The same story holds for the link between Unilever and its CSR initiatives. At this moment
consumers are not aware of the good causes that Unilever supports and consumers ask for
more transparency (Unilever Communications Plan, 2010). Therefore the link between
Unilever and its corporate initiatives is dotted. By launching corporate brand advertisements
that concurrently expose Unilever and its CSR initiatives an association is created.
2.3.2 Creating Advocacy
But what does Unilever ultimately want to reach with this change in strategy? As was stated
by the Reputation Institute, Unilever should create a prominent visible corporate brand and
linkage of the corporate brand to its corporate initiatives (Unilever Communications Plan,
2010). This way a positive reputation
develops, which will lead to a better
corporate image at consumers,
employees and suppliers. But what is
the direct effect of a change in
strategy on consumer evaluations of
a company and its brands? What
Unilever wants to achieve are
positive associations with product brands because of their association with the corporate
brand. This may eventually lead to positive spill over effects between different brands with
Unilever as connecting link. Unilever wants to turn current customers of Unilever into
advocates of Unilever that buy products of Unilever because of their loyalty to Unilever (see
figure 6). By frequently exposing consumers to Unilever‟s projects, consumers must engage
with Unilever and ultimately becomes advocates of Unilever (Unilever Communications Plan,
Figure 6: Consumers becoming advocates (Source:
Unilever Communications Plan, 2010)
19. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 19
201). The experiment, used in this study, can shine a light on the positive effects of the
change in strategy. However, first we will look at what previous literature has discussed in
changing branding strategies. There is sufficient literature regarding the effects of changing a
branding strategy. In the next paragraph these effects will be discussed.
2.4 The Effect of Changing the Strategy
In this paragraph the shift in strategy will be theoretically discussed. In previous literature the
effect of using different branding strategies on leveraging associations from the corporate
brand to product brands is already examined. Furthermore the effect of communicating CSR
associations is discussed. The effect of changing the strategy on consumers behaviour will be
discussed in this paragraph by following Kapferer‟s branding strategies.
2.4.1 Advantages of Different Branding Strategies
Kapferer (2004) created a two-dimensional continuum that is related to two essential
functions of the brand: the source effect (i.e. to certify the authenticity of the source) and the
personalisation (i.e. differentiation) of the brand. In figure 7 you find Kapferer‟s positioning
of alternative branding strategies. Within this continuum, Unilever is moving from a product
brand strategy towards a corporate endorsing brand strategy.
The strategy that Unilever traditionally used was a product brand strategy. In this strategy
every product wears a separate brand name (Laforet & Saunders, 1994). “A product brand
strategy implies that the name of the company behind the product brand remains unknown to
the public” (Kapferer, 2004, p. 297). When a firm uses a product brand strategy consumers
can be better served by reacting to their specific need and expectations. However, a product
brand strategy is very costly. In this period of increased private label threat this strategy is not
entirely useful. Each product must create its own brand equity, and thus starts from scratch.
Figure 7: Positioning Alternative Branding Strategies (Source: Kapferer, 2004, p.294)
20. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 20
From the previous paragraphs it became clear that Unilever is changing two aspects of its
branding strategy. On the one side the visibility of the corporate brand is enhanced; on the
other side new associations with the corporate brand are created by communicating
advertisements with Unilever‟s CSR initiatives. Simply said Unilever has adopted a corporate
endorsing brand strategy in which the corporate brand is strengthened by CSR initiatives.
Within this strategy the corporate brand and separate product brands are combined within a
firms‟ strategy (Laforet & Saunders, 1994). With a corporate endorsing brand strategy the
corporate brand endorses a wide range of product brands and acts as a guarantor of high
quality and security (Kapferer, 2004). According to Unilever, these new tactics can help in
leveraging associations from the corporate brand to product brands and thus create a better
image. With this strategy, consumers associate the product brands with positive corporate
associations which create more positive product brands evaluations. This is supported by the
associative network theory.
2.4.2 The Effect of Changing the Strategy
The change of branding strategy does have some advantages. First, firms that make use of a
corporate endorsing brand strategy can create positive spill over effects between the corporate
brand and the product brands (Kapferer, 2004), because consumers are confronted with both
the corporate brand and the product brand. When a corporate brand has a positive image in the
consumers‟ mind, the association between the two brands can create positive effects for the
product brand. Simultaneously with changing to a corporate endorsing brand strategy,
Unilever is creating new associations between the corporate brand and its CSR initiatives.
When looking at creating CSR associations with the corporate brand, Brown & Dacin (1997)
found that positive CSR associations with the corporate brand create more positive product
brand evaluations. When a firm undertook more positive CSR initiatives, consumers rated
product brands more positively. This can be supported with the fact that corporate social
responsible initiatives become more important for consumers (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2007).
On top of the evaluation of product brands, Brown & Dacin (1997) and Madrigal (2000)
found that positive CSR associations also positively affected the evaluation of the company as
a whole. It is thus expected that positive CSR associations with the corporate brand will
improve product brand evaluations.
However, these positive effects for both the corporate brand and the CSR initiatives are
dependent of prior brand knowledge of the product. Consumers‟ product brand evaluations
21. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 21
are based on a combination of stimulus information and prior brand knowledge retrieved from
memory (Lynch & Srull, 1982). When consumers come in contact with a product that is not
familiar (i.e. prior brand knowledge of the product is low) they might form inferences about
missing attributes by drawing links with available information (e.g. evaluation of the
company) (Dick, Chakravarthi & Biehal, 1990). When a product is identified with a company
an opportunity thus arises for the company to enhance the evaluation of the product by
influencing it with the company‟s evaluation (Brown & Dacin, 1997). When the evaluation of
a product brand takes place in presence of a corporate brand or positive CSR initiatives the
corporate associations can create a context for the evaluation of the product brand (Brown &
Dacin, 1997). As Unilever is a company that scores relatively high on reputation with
consumers, KOFs and employees, we believe that consumers rate product brands more
positively when they are associated with Unilever.
H1: When prior brand knowledge is low, product brand evaluations will be more positive when
corporate brand visibility is high compared to when corporate brand visibility is low.
Before CSR associations have an effect on product brand evaluations for consumers with low
prior brand knowledge, there must be a link between the product brand and the corporate
brand. CSR associations can therefore only be associated with the product brand when
corporate brand visibility is high. Berens, van Riel & van Bruggen (2005) found that CSR
associations are best leveraged when a company uses a corporate endorsing brand strategy in
comparison to other strategies. When a corporate endorsing brand strategy is used, consumers
associate the product brands to the corporate brand. When the link between the corporate
brand and the product brands is repeatedly exposed this results in simultaneous activation of
the memory representing the two stimuli, which results in an association between the two
brands (Domjan & Burkhard, 1986). We therefore believe that when corporate brand visibility
is high, and prior brand knowledge is low, product brand evaluations will be more positive
when the CSR associations are communicated versus not.
H2: When prior brand knowledge is low and corporate brand visibility is high, product brand
evaluations will be more positive when CSR associations are communicated versus not.
However, when the association between the product brand and the corporate brand is missing
(i.e. corporate brand visibility is low), consumers do not associate the corporate brand with
product brands. We believe that when the link between CSR associations and the corporate
22. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 22
brand is absent, product brand evaluations will not be affected by the communication of CSR
associations, as there is no possible association between the product brand and the CSR
initiatives.
H3: When prior brand knowledge is low and corporate brand visibility is low, product brand
evaluations will be similar when CSR associations are communicated versus not.
Finally, when consumers already are familiar with the product (i.e. prior brand knowledge is
high), consumer already formed attitudes regarding the product brand (Sheinin & Biehal,
1999). Attitudes are then less easily affected. According to Sheinin & Biehal (1999) the
leverage of the corporate associations will be moderated by “the retrieval of the consumers‟
prior brand knowledge”. When consumers‟ prior brand knowledge is high, we believe that
CSR associations do not influence product brand evaluations. Consumers have then already
formed an attitude regarding the brand, which will not be influenced by corporate brand
visibility or CSR associations. For CSR associations this effect is however again moderated
by corporate brand visibility, as the link between the product brand and the corporate brand
should be visible.
H4: When prior brand knowledge is high, product brand evaluations will be similar when corporate
brand visibility is high compared to when corporate brand visibility is low.
H5: When prior brand knowledge is high and corporate brand visibility is high, product brand
evaluations will be similar when CSR associations are communicated versus not.
H6: When prior brand knowledge is high and corporate brand visibility is low, product brand
evaluations will be similar when CSR associations are communicated versus not.
2.5 Summary
From this chapter it became clear that private labels have become of better quality and that
private labels perform better during economic downturn. Also it became clear that Unilever
has changed its branding strategy. Following this change in strategy, the associative network
theory is introduced that shows how associations can be leveraged from the corporate brand to
product brands. Finally the effect of implementing different strategies on leveraging
associations is discussed from a theoretical perspective. From previous literature it becomes
clear that when there is little prior brand knowledge, product brand evaluations can be
affected. Based on previous literature, also hypotheses are drawn. In the next chapter the
method will be discussed that tries to identify the effectiveness of the shift in strategy.
23. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 23
3. Methodology
In this chapter the underlying methodology of this research will be presented. First a brief
discussion will take place of what to investigate in this research. Furthermore a summary of
the model of this research will be shown. Finally the methodology of this research will be
discussed.
3.1 Model Summary
Within this research an answer to the problem statement is searched for. The problem
statement of this research is:
“Is Unilever’s shift in strategy effective to improve the evaluations of its product brands
in the Dutch retail sector?”
This problem statement describes a shift in strategy that can influence the evaluations of
product brands. First, enhanced corporate brand visibility can influence product brand
evaluations. When product brand advertisements wear a corporate endorsement in the form of
a corporate logo, this may influence product brand evaluations. Furthermore Unilever is
creating CSR associations with the corporate brand. That means that consumers become
aware of the CSR initiatives that the company undertakes. This can also have an influence on
product brand evaluations. Also the moderating effect of prior brand knowledge on these two
former variables is kept in mind. This will be tested in this research. As was mentioned in the
introduction the model that is proposed in this research is the following (see figure 8).
CSR associations
Product
Brand
Evaluations
Enhanced
Visibility of the
Corporate Brand
Prior Brand
Knowledge
Figure 8: Conceptual Framework
24. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 24
From the literature review it is expected that both CSR associations and the enhanced
corporate brand visibility improve product brand evaluations. We however believe that CSR
associations and corporate brand visibility are moderated by prior brand knowledge. As
Unilever is a well-known company for consumers it is expected that associations with the
CSR initiatives and corporate brand visibility will lead to more positive product brand
evaluations for product brands that have little prior brand knowledge with consumers.
3.2 Methodology
3.2.1. Design
To test our hypotheses an experiment is performed. Within this experiment a questionnaire is
used to acquire the measures to test our hypotheses. Our respondents are possible consumers
of different products that are sold in supermarkets. Our dependent variable is „product brand
evaluations‟. We conducted a 2 (CSR associations with the corporate brand YES / NO) x 2
(corporate brand visibility YES / NO) x 2 (prior brand knowledge YES / NO) between
participants design with three independent variables varying across respondents. The first
independent variable is CSR associations with the corporate brand. The second independent
variable is corporate brand visibility. The third independent variable is prior brand
knowledge. This means that in total eight conditions are created in which these three factors
varied. The respondents were recruited by the interviewer and were interviewed at their
homes. Respondents were asked to fill in a questionnaire to obtain the measures. With this
questionnaire, respondents are asked to evaluate the different products that are displayed in
product brand advertisements. A face-to-face interview was used to get answers to the
questions. On average, the interviews lasted for approximately 15 minutes. Subsequently we
will discuss how the independent variables are manipulated.
3.2.2. Procedure & Stimuli
The questionnaire was fulfilled in three stages. First, respondents were exposed to three
corporate advertisements. Respondents were then asked to fill out two questions. Following,
respondents are exposed to six product brand advertisements. Respondents were then asked to
fill out 5 questions regarding each advertisement. Finally, three remaining questions are asked
about Unilever. But how are these three stages exactly developed?
Stage 1: At first, to manipulate CSR associations with the corporate brand, respondents were
confronted with 3 corporate advertisements. These corporate advertisements displayed three
25. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 25
different CSR initiatives that the corporate brand undertook. The CSR initiatives were rather
general messages, to ensure a general CSR manipulation was used. However, the
advertisements were different for different groups of respondents. In one condition,
consumers found corporate advertisements that were endorsed with the Unilever brand (i.e.
the Unilever logo was placed on the advertisement). On the contrary, in the second condition
the Unilever brand was replaced by Unilever‟s main benchmark: Nestlé (see appendix B1).
Respondents had one minute to look at the three advertisements. After this minute the
corporate advertisements were removed from view. When the advertisements were removed
from view, respondents answered two questions regarding these advertisements. These
questions were asked to get respondents to think about the CSR message, and to complete the
manipulation.
Stage 2: After the CSR manipulation, respondents were exposed to a booklet with six
different advertisements with different product brands. The respondents were asked to rate
these different product brand advertisements. When the respondent studied an advertisement
it was removed from view, and the respondent was asked to evaluate the product and
advertisement. The respondents filled out five questions regarding each different
advertisement. To ensure sufficient realism of the materials, we based the advertisements on
existing print advertisements. From these six advertisements, only three advertisements were
used to measure product brand evaluations. The other three advertisements were filler items,
used to masque the purpose of the study. Furthermore, the advertisements were sequenced.
Every second, fourth and fifth advertisement was an experimental advertisement where
product brand evaluations were measured. For all advertisements, corporate brand visibility
and prior brand knowledge were manipulated.
To manipulate corporate brand visibility, respondents were exposed to different sets of
advertisements. Two conditions were created in which corporate brand visibility was
manipulated. In one condition the advertisements were endorsed with the corporate brand by
placing the Unilever logo in the upper right corner of the advertisement. This logo is similar
to the corporate endorsement Unilever is planning to use in commercials and advertisements.
In the control condition respondents were only confronted with the advertisements without the
corporate endorsement. For the manipulation of corporate brand visibility, Unilever‟s
corporate brand name was used to ensure that this research is explicitly applicable and
relevant for Unilever and directly measures the change in Unilever‟s branding strategy.
26. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 26
Furthermore, to manipulate prior brand knowledge, respondents were exposed to two
different sets of advertisements. In one condition respondents were exposed to products that
were familiar (i.e. prior brand knowledge was high). This familiarity was created by showing
advertisements of three very well known brands in the Netherlands. The brands that were
used in this condition were Lipton (ice tea), Calvé (ketchup sauce) and Andrélon (shampoo).
As these products are top brands in the Netherlands it is assumed that respondents have prior
brand knowledge with respect to these brands. In the control condition, respondents were
confronted with products that were unfamiliar (i.e. prior brand knowledge is low). For this
condition we chose products are marketed by Unilever in the United States, the United
Kingdom and Belgium. The brands that are used in this condition are Planta (margarine),
Pond‟s (daily cream) and Radiant (detergent). As these products are relatively small and
unknown foreign brands we assume that respondents do not have prior brand knowledge
regarding these brands (see appendix B2).
Stage 3: At the end of the interview respondents had to answer three remaining questions
about Unilever. These last three questions measured familiarity with Unilever and a short
evaluation of Unilever. These questions are not of importance for the experiment, but are
interesting as background information regarding Unilever‟s familiarity. An example of the
questionnaire can be found in appendix A.
3.2.3. Measures
The above mentioned independent variables are part of the experiment to manipulate our
dependent variable: product brand evaluations. The product brand evaluations are measured in
stage 2 of the experiment. The product brand evaluations were measured on five items. For all
measures multiple-item scales were used that consisted of seven-point Likert scale. For every
advertisement, the following 5 questions were filled out separately (see table 1).
Overall, these items measure people‟s product brand evaluations. However, these items are
established from three different measures. Following Petroshius & Monroe (1987) we believe
that product brand evaluations are divided in advertisement appeal, product appeal and
Item Question *
1. I find this advertisement attractive.
2. I find this advertisement convincing.
3. I find this product attractive.
4. This product gives me a good feeling.
5. I find this product socially responsible. Table1: Items
* Translated from Dutch
27. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 27
product‟s CSR. There is thus a strong conceptual foundation that advertisement appeal,
product appeal and product‟s CSR are structured within our five items (cf. Petroshius &
Monroe, 1987). However, to check for consistency of the underlying structure, a factor
analysis is performed. Within the broad definition of “product brand evaluations” we expect
that we can make a distinction between three different dependent variables: advertisement
appeal, product appeal and CSR. To be able to perform the factor analysis we checked the
dataset on Bartlett‟s test of sphericity and the measure of sampling adequacy (MSA). Both
measures are significant which means that the factor analysis can be carried out.
A principal components analysis is used with OBLIMIN as factor extraction method. The
pattern matrix is used for interpretation (see appendix D). After checking on communalities
the OBLIMIN factor rotation method yielded the following results (see table 2).
The new dependent variables are created by summated scales of the items that are loading
high on that variable. Ultimately, two items measure advertising appeal. Following, two items
measure product appeal. Finally, one item measures CSR. The output of the questionnaire is
worked out in a dataset. In the next chapter the hypotheses, drawn in chapter 2, will be tested
by using this dataset.
3.2.4. Respondents
A total of 160 respondents participated in the study. The respondents are students at the
University of Tilburg and are randomly chosen. All respondents can be identified as possible
consumers of the advertised products, as all respondents are possible consumers in the Dutch
supermarket. The respondents were randomly assigned to the eight conditions. As all
respondents were Dutch from origin, the prior brand knowledge was assumed to be high in
the condition with familiar Dutch products and prior brand knowledge was assumed to be low
in the condition with products that were only marketed outside the Netherlands. From the
questionnaire it became clear that respondents were very familiar with Unilever (94%).
Dependent Variables Composed items
Ad appeal 1 & 2 *
Product appeal 3 & 4
CSR 5
Table 2: New Factors
* Item 1 within advertisement 3 was not behaving accordingly. As
advertisements 1 & 2 were consistent, this small deflection is ignored.
28. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 28
4. Results
In this chapter the results of the experiment will be analyzed. The output of the questionnaire
is worked out in a dataset. This dataset is used to test the hypotheses. To control for overall
effects over different advertisements, several mixed ANOVAs used, with the different
advertisements as within participants variable and prior brand knowledge, corporate brand
visibility and CSR as between participants variables. After performing the mixed ANOVA,
independent measures ANOVAs and planned contrasts are used to control for specific effects
between advertisements, with prior brand knowledge, corporate brand visibility and CSR as
between participants variables. The dependent variable is „product brand evaluations‟, which
is split up in advertisement appeal, product appeal and product CSR. To account for the
different advertisements that were used in the study, dummy variables are included that
represent the different advertisements as independent variables.
4.1 Main Assumptions
To be able to perform the hypotheses tests some assumptions have to be met. First we look at
the normal distribution of the data by analyzing the histograms. Since all conditions just have
the minimum amount of respondents and all conditions have the same size, a little deflection
is accepted. When looking at the normal distribution of the factors, we see that all dependent
variables have a normal distribution, as the dependent variables show bell-shaped
distributions. We therefore conclude that the data is normally distributed. Furthermore the
dataset is checked on Levene‟s test of equality. With this test the homogeneity of variances is
measured. As condition sizes are the same and ANOVA is fairly robust to violation and all
but two variables score insignificant (Sig. > 0.05) on Levene‟s test of equality, we can
proceed with the analysis of our hypotheses. Finally, since mixed ANOVAs are used, we need
to check on the assumption of sphericity. Therefore we look at Mauchly‟s test of sphericity.
We see that all within variables are insignificant. Therefore we can conclude that sphericity is
assumed. This means that the variances of the differences between the within participants
variables are equal. All main assumptions are met (see appendix E). We can thus continue
with the hypotheses tests. In the next paragraphs we will try to find the effects of corporate
brand visibility, CSR associations and prior brand knowledge on product brand evaluations.
Therefore we will first look into the overall effects by using mixed ANOVAs. Consequently,
to look for exact differences between advertisements independent measures ANOVAs are
used.
29. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 29
4.2Manipulation Check
In the methodology we stated that product brand evaluations would be measured on three
areas. These three areas are advertisement appeal, product appeal, and the product‟s CSR.
Measuring a product‟s CSR is however not totally reliable when a CSR manipulation is
created upfront. Therefore we will use the evaluation of the product‟s CSR as a manipulation
check within our analysis. We perform a 2-way mixed ANOVA with CSR as between
participants variable and the 3 advertisements as within participants variables to check
whether the manipulation of CSR associations has an effect on CSR. The 2-way mixed
ANOVA yields the following results (see table 3).
The 2-way mixed ANOVA yields a significant main effect of ads on CSR. This means that
the different advertisements react differently between advertisements. This is reasonable,
since every advertisement creates unique feelings regarding CSR and is thus evaluated on
another level. Furthermore the 2-way mixed ANOVA yields a marginally significant main
effect of CSR associations on product‟s CSR evaluations. That means that the communication
of CSR associations has an effect on the evaluation of the product‟s CSR. Therefore we can
conclude that the manipulation is effective. Finally, from the insignificant Ads * CSR
interaction effect we can see that the different advertisements react uniformly to the
manipulation. Consequently, we will continue our analysis with ad appeal and product appeal
as dependent variables.
4.3 Overall effects: 4-way mixed ANOVA
First we will look at the main effects of „ad Appeal‟ and „product Appeal‟ over all
advertisements. To identify the significant overall effects a 4-way mixed ANOVA is
performed, with the three different advertisements as within participants variables and the
three independent variables as between participants variables. The 4-way mixed ANOVA
yielded several interesting findings. The results are split up in between and within participants
effects. The findings are displayed in tables 4 and 5 (p.31).
2-way mixed ANOVA
Between participants effects
CSR
F-Value Sig.
Ads 7,03 ,00
CSR 3,59 ,06
Ads * CSR 1,90 0,15
Table 3: 2-way mixed ANOVA;
manipulation check of CSR
30. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 30
4-way mixed ANOVA;
Between participants effects
Ad Appeal Product Appeal
F-value Sig. F-value Sig.
CSR ,03 ,87 ,64 ,42
Brand Knowledge 26,07 ,00 24,99 ,00
Corporate Branding 1,34 ,25 1,05 ,31
CSR * Brand knowledge ,03 ,87 ,15 ,70
CSR * Corporate Branding ,99 ,32 3,70 ,06
Brand knowledge * Corporate Branding ,00 ,97 ,86 ,35
CSR * Brand knowledge * Corporate Branding 4,14 ,04 1,12 ,29
4-way mixed ANOVA;
Within participants effects
Ad Appeal Product Appeal
F-value Sig. F-value Sig.
Ads 41,447 ,000 24,309 ,000
Ads * CSR ,161 ,851 ,371 ,690
Ads * Brand Knowledge 3,813 ,023 15,830 ,000
Ads * Corporate Branding 6,411 ,002 6,397 ,002
Ads * CSR * Brand knowledge 2,536 ,081 3,240 ,041
Ads * CSR * Corporate Branding 1,246 ,289 ,622 ,537
Ads * Brand knowledge * Corporate Branding 2,853 ,059 4,142 ,017
Ads * CSR * Brand knowledge * Corporate Branding 1,656 ,193 3,514 ,031
As we can see, the 4-way mixed ANOVA yields a significant CSR x brand knowledge x
corporate branding interaction effect on „ad appeal‟, a marginally significant CSR x corporate
branding interaction effect on „product appeal‟ and a significant main effect of brand
knowledge on both „ad appeal‟ and „product appeal‟. This means that ad appeal and product
appeal are influenced by prior brand knowledge, corporate brand visibility and CSR.
However, as we can see, there a many within participants interaction effects. This means that
the advertisements are reacting in a different way on the independent variables. These within
participants interaction effects are however explainable, as advertisements from with both
high and low prior brand knowledge are included. These advertisements are completely
different and will therefore definitely react differently on the independent variables. For that
reason we will look at the situations with high and low prior brand knowledge separately.
From here, the analyses will be split up in two parts, with on the one hand a situation with low
prior brand knowledge and on the other hand a situation of high prior brand knowledge. First
we will look at the overall effects for both low and high prior brand knowledge. Consequently
we will separately analyze the situation with low and high prior brand knowledge.
Table 4&5: 4-way mixed ANOVA; between
and within participants general effects
31. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 31
4.4Overall effects: 3-way mixed ANOVA
We will first look at the overall effects in the situations with both low and high prior brand
knowledge. In general it is expected that when prior brand knowledge is low, consumers
might form inferences missing product attributes by looking at available information (Dick,
Chakravarthi & Biehal, 1999). When a product is identified with a company an opportunity
arises for the company to enhance the evaluation of the product by influencing it with the
company‟s evaluation (Brown & Dacin, 1997). Overall, when prior brand knowledge is high
it is expected that respondents‟ product evaluations will not be influenced by corporate brand
visibility and CSR associations. When consumers already are familiar with the product (i.e.
prior brand knowledge is high), consumer already formed attitudes regarding the product
brand (Sheinin & Biehal, 1999).
4.4.1 Low prior brand knowledge
As we have split up prior brand knowledge in two separate conditions, we perform a 3-way
mixed ANOVA, with CSR and corporate brand visibility as between participants variables,
and the three separate advertisements as within participants variables. The 3-way mixed
ANOVA for respondents with low prior brand knowledge yields the following results (see
tables 6 & 7).
3-way mixed ANOVA
Between participants effects
Ad appeal Product appeal
F-Value Sig. F-Value Sig,
CSR ,04 ,84 ,07 ,79
Corporate Branding ,55 ,46 ,00 ,95
CSR * Corporate Branding ,41 ,52 ,32 ,57
3-way mixed ANOVA
Within participants effects
Ad appeal Product appeal
F-Value Sig. F-Value Sig,
Ads 19,285 ,000 7,711 ,001
Ads * CSR 2,139 ,121 3,195 ,044
Ad * Corporate Branding 8,270 ,000 3,983 ,021
Ads *CSR * Corporate Branding 1,008 ,368 2,386 ,095
As we can see from the between participants effects, none of the (interaction) effects are
significant. However, from the within participants effects we can see that there are some
significant main and interaction effects. For ad appeal and product appeal there is a significant
main effect of „ads‟. This is reasonable, since advertisements of different products create
different feelings and are therefore evaluated differently. This is accepted. Though, from the
Table 6&7: 3-way mixed ANOVA: between and within participants
effects when prior brand knowledge = low with 3 advertisements
32. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 32
within participants effects it also occurs that there are several significant interaction effects
between „Ads‟ and „ad appeal‟ and „product appeal‟. This is not in line with the expectations.
4.4.2 High prior brand knowledge
We also look at the overall when prior brand is high. Therefore we also perform a 3-way
mixed ANOVA, with CSR and corporate brand visibility as between participants variables,
and the three separate advertisements as within participants variables. This 3-way mixed
ANOVA yields the following results (see tables 8&9).
3-way mixed ANOVA
Between participants effects
Ad appeal Product appeal
F-Value Sig. F-Value Sig,
CSR ,000 1,000 ,851 ,359
Corporate Branding ,890 ,349 2,312 ,133
CSR * Corporate Branding 6,554 ,012 5,373 ,023
3-way mixed ANOVA
Within participants effects
Ad appeal Product appeal
F-Value Sig. F-Value Sig,
Ads 25,402 ,000 30,066 ,000
Ads * CSR ,693 ,502 ,681 ,507
Ad * Corporate Branding 1,617 ,202 6,311 ,002
Ads *CSR * Corporate Branding 1,819 ,166 1,811 ,167
The within participants effects show that there is a significant main effect of „Ads on „product
appeal‟ and „ad appeal‟. This is again reasonable, as different advertisements are evaluated
differently by definition. However, from the within participant effects there is also a
significant interaction effect, which means that the advertisements are reacting in a different
way on the independent variables. What are the implications of the these significant
interaction effects in both conditions?
4.4.3 Implications
As we can see, in both conditions with high and low prior brand knowledge, there are still
several significant within participants interaction effects. These significant effects indicate
that the different advertisements react in a different way on the independent variables. As this
is not in line with the expectations, one or more advertisements must be deleted to solve this
problem. Several combinations of advertisements are tested in both the high and low prior
brand knowledge condition, to see which advertisement(s) create(s) these interaction effects.
As a result different 3-way mixed ANOVAs are analyzed and inconsistencies between
Table 8&9: 3-way mixed ANOVA between and within participants
effects when prior brand knowledge = high with 3 advertisements
33. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 33
advertisements are searched for. After checking all combinations it comes to our
understanding that for all combinations of advertisements interaction effects are present. The
explanation of this discrepancy is explainable. Since respondents had to rate six consecutive
advertisements, there is a possibility that extraneous variables influence the evaluations.
These extraneous variables may cause that the association with the CSR message or corporate
brand visibility is stronger for one advertisement than another.
Looking at the effect of CSR associations, a priming effect can occur. Priming means that
“currently active topics prime or facilitate the activation of closely related concepts” (Kardes,
1999, p.66). This means that the effect of CSR associations and corporate brand visibility are
stronger when respondents are confronted with these concepts at first. Respondents were
exposed to the CSR associations before the several advertisements had to be evaluated. It is
thus possible that a priming effect is present and the effect of the CSR associations will be
stronger for the first advertisement(s). Furthermore it is likely that respondents suffer from
fatigue, since six different advertisements have to be rated with the exact same questions. A
typical characteristic of fatigue is that a respondent will fall back on the automatisms and
evaluate with less effort (Holding, 1983). For this reason, advertisements 2 and 3 are deleted
from further analysis, and advertisement 1 will be used to test our hypotheses.
However, looking at the effect of corporate brand visibility, there is a different situation. The
manipulation of corporate brand visibility was performed while respondents evaluated the
advertisements. When respondents rated advertisement 1, they were exposed to the corporate
brand for the first time. However, rating advertisement 2, the corporate brand was visualized
for the second time. This was repeated when advertisement 3 had to be rated. From previous
literature it became clear that when two stimuli are simultaneously exposed, an association is
created (Domjan & Burkhard, 1986). However, this association gets stronger when the link is
repeatedly shown (Kardes, 1999). This means that the effects of corporate brand visibility will
be stronger for the last advertisement. Therefore, the effect of repetition will also be analyzed,
by looking at the change in product brand evaluations over the three advertisements. In
paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 we will therefore focus on advertisement 1. Consequently in paragraph
4.7 the effect of repetition will be analyzed. Finally in 4.8 we will test our hypotheses based
on the results.
34. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 34
4.5 Low prior brand knowledge
First we will look at the situation where prior brand knowledge is low. To find the effects of
CSR associations and corporate brand visibility, a 2-way independent measures ANOVA is
used with „CSR‟ and „corporate brand visibility‟ as between participants variables.
Consequently „ad1adappeal‟ and „ad1productappeal‟ are measured. The 2-way independent
measures ANOVA yields the following results (see table 10):
2-way independent meaures ANOVA
Between participants effects
Ad appeal Product appeal
F-Value Sig. F-Value Sig,
CSR 2,68 ,11 1,55 ,22
Corporate Branding 4,12 ,04 ,06 ,80
CSR * Corporate Branding ,35 ,56 2,76 ,10
As we can see, the 2-way independent measures ANOVA yields a significant main effect of
corporate brand visibility on ad appeal and a significant CSR * corporate brand visibility
interaction effect on product appeal. To be able to explain the direction of the significant
effects we have to perform some follow-up tests.
4.5.1. Main effect: corporate brand visibility
From the 2-way independent measures ANOVA we saw that there was a significant main
effect of corporate brand visibility on ad appeal. A planned contrasts follow-up test is used to
detect the specific effects (see table 11).
Planned
Contrasts
Mean at
Corporate brand
visibility = 0
Mean at
corporate brand
visibility = 1
Standard
Error
F-Value Sig.
Ad1adappeal 4,55 4,16 0,14 4,13 0,04
Looking at the results of the 3-way independent measures ANOVA we can conclude that
when prior brand knowledge is low, „ad1adappeal‟ is significantly lower when corporate
brand visibility is high (M = 4.16, SD = 0.14) than when corporate brand visibility is low (M
= 4.55, SD = 0.14; F (1,152) = 4.13, p < 0.05). We can thus conclude that corporate brand
visibility has a negative effect on ad appeal. There is no effect of corporate brand visibility on
product appeal.
Table 11: Planned contrasts for corporate brand
visibility when prior brand knowledge is low
Table 10: 2-way independent measures ANOVA
when prior brand knowledge is low
35. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 35
Ad1adappeal
3
3,2
3,4
3,6
3,8
4
4,2
4,4
4,6
4,8
5
CSR = 0 CSR = 1
CSR
MeanScore
Brandknow ledge high
Brandknow ledge low
Ad1productappeal
3
3,2
3,4
3,6
3,8
4
4,2
4,4
4,6
4,8
5
CSR = 0 CSR = 1
CSR
MeanScore
Brandknow ledge high
Brandknow ledge low
4.5.2. Interaction effect: CSR * corporate brand visibility
Looking at the CSR * corporate brand visibility interaction effect, we can see that there is a
significant interaction effect on product appeal. To determine the exact direction of the effects
again a planned contrasts follow-up test is performed. The planned contrasts follow-up test
yields the following results (see table 12 and figure 9).
Planned
Contrasts
Corporate
Brand
Visibility
Mean at
CSR = 0
Mean at
CSR =1
Standard
Deviation
F-value Sig.
Ad1productappeal High 3,10 3,98 0,40 4,84 0,03
Ad1productappeal Low 3,68 3,55 0,40 0,10 0,75
From the planned contrasts follow-up test we can conclude that when prior brand knowledge
is low and corporate brand visibility is high, „ad1productappeal‟ is significantly higher when
CSR associations are communicated (M = 3.98, SD = 0,40) than when CSR associations are
not communicated (M = 3.10, SD = 0.40; F (1,152) = 4.84, p < 0.05). On the contrary, when
prior brand knowledge is low and corporate brand visibility is low, there is no effect of CSR
associations on product appeal.
The 2-way independent measures ANOVA already clarified that there is no effect of CSR
associations on ad appeal. From figure 9 we can however see that though ad appeal was not
affected by CSR associations, it is still positively influenced by the communication of CSR
associations. This means that when respondents are exposed to CSR associations and
corporate brand visibility is high, product brand evaluations will be more positive when
respondents have low prior brand knowledge regarding the product.
Figure 9: Visual representation of dependent variables
when prior brand knowledge is low
Table 12: Planned contrasts for CSR * corporate
brand visibility: when prior brand knowledge is low
36. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 36
4.6 High prior brand knowledge
Second we will look at the effects when prior brand knowledge is high. To find the effects of
CSR associations and corporate brand visibility, a 2-way independent measures ANOVA is
used with „CSR‟ and „corporate brand visibility‟ as between participants variables.
Consequently „ad1adappeal‟ and „ad1productappeal‟ are measured. The 2-way independent
measures ANOVA yields the following results (see table 13):
2-way independent meaures ANOVA
Between participants effects
Ad appeal Product appeal
F-Value Sig. F-Value Sig,
CSR 1,10 ,30 1,81 ,18
Corporate Branding 1,10 ,30 12,62 ,00
CSR * Corporate Branding 4,97 ,03 ,04 ,85
As we can see, the 2-way independent measures ANOVA yields a significant main effect of
corporate brand visibility on product appeal and a significant CSR * corporate brand visibility
interaction effect on ad appeal. To be able to explain the direction of the significant effects we
have to perform some follow-up tests.
4.6.1 Main effect: corporate brand visibility
From the 2-way independent measures ANOVA we saw that there was a significant main
effect of corporate brand visibility on product appeal. A planned contrasts follow-up test is
used to detect the specific effects per advertisements (see table 14).
Planned
Contrasts
Mean at
Corporate brand
visibility = 0
Mean at
corporate brand
visibility = 1
Standard
Error
F-Value Sig.
Ad1productappeal 4,35 5,28 0,20 10,81 0,00
As we can see, when prior brand knowledge is high, the 3-way independent measures
ANOVA shows that „ ad1productappeal‟ is significantly higher when corporate brand
visibility is high (M = 5.28, SD = 0,20) than when corporate brand visibility is low (M = 4.35,
SD = 0.20; F (1,152) = 10.81, p < 0.05). From the 2-way independent measures ANOVA we
already saw that there is however no effect of corporate brand visibility on ad appeal. We can
thus conclude that corporate brand visibility has a positive effect on product appeal, but not
on ad appeal.
Table 14: Planned contrasts for corporate brand
visibility when prior brand knowledge is high
Table 13: 2-way independent measures ANOVA
when prior brand knowledge is high
37. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 37
Ad1adappeal
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
5,5
6
CSR = 0 CSR = 1
CSR
MeanScore
Brandknowledge high
Brandknowledge low
Ad1productappeal
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
5,5
6
CSR = 0 CSR = 1
CSR
MeanScore
Brandknowledge high
Brandknowledge low
4.6.2. Interaction effect: CSR * corporate brand visibility
Consequently we look at the effect of the communication of CSR associations when prior
brand knowledge is high. A planned contrasts follow-up test is used to determine the direction
of the specific effects. From the independent measures ANOVA and the test for simple effects
the following results are found when prior brand knowledge is high (see table 15 & figure
10).
Planned
Contrasts
Corporate
Brand
Visibility
Mean at
CSR = 0
Mean at
CSR =1
Standard
Deviation
F-value Sig.
Ad1adappeal High 4,73 4,95 0,27 0,70 0,41
Ad1adappeal Low 4,95 4,35 0,27 5,37 0,02
From the planned contrasts follow-up test we can conclude that when prior brand knowledge
is high and corporate brand visibility is low, „ad1adappeal‟ is significantly lower when CSR
associations are communicated (M = 4.35, SD = 0.27) than when CSR associations are not
communicated (M = 4.95, SD = 0.27; F (1,152) = 5.37, p < 0.05). When corporate brand
visibility is high there is no significant effect on ad appeal. Though the 2-way independent
measures ANOVA yielded an insignificant effect of CSR associations on product appeal, we
can see from figure 10 that product appeal is negatively influenced by the communication of
CSR association. This effect is however not significant. We can thus conclude that CSR
associations have a negative impact on ad appeal, and no effect on product appeal. The
implications of these results will be discussed hereafter.
Table 15: Planned contrasts for CSR * corporate
brand visibility when prior brand knowledge is high
Figure 10: Visual representation of dependent
variables when prior brand knowledge is high
38. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 38
4.7Repetition
In the previous paragraphs the hypotheses have been tested on basis of advertisement 1.
However, from paragraph 4.4 we anticipated on the effect of repetition of corporate brand
visibility on product brand evaluations. When respondents are repeatedly exposed to the
corporate brand, it may be possible that the effect of the corporate brand endorsement is more
positive, since the association between two stimuli gets stronger when the association is
repeatedly shown (Kardes, 1999). Within our experiment three consecutive advertisements
had to be evaluated. To test the effect of repetition, we will look how product brand
evaluations shift after multiple exposures. Therefore respondents that were not manipulated
by CSR associations were selected, to clearly look at the effect of corporate brand visibility.
A 3-way mixed ANOVA is performed with corporate brand visibility and prior brand
knowledge as between participants variables and the different advertisements as between
participants advertisements. The 3-way mixed ANOVA yields the following results (see table
16 & 17).
Between participants
Effects
Ad appeal Product appeal
F-Value Sig. F-Value Sig,
Brand knowledge 11,803 ,001 16,966 ,000
Corporate Branding ,012 ,912 ,471 ,494
Brand knowledge * Corporate Branding 2,076 ,154 ,010 ,922
Within participants
Effects
Ad appeal Product appeal
F-Value Sig. F-Value Sig,
Ads 17,439 ,000 11,447 ,000
Ads * Brand knowledge ,894 ,411 16,112 ,000
Ad * Corporate Branding 5,828 ,004 4,791 ,010
Ads *Brand knowledge * Corporate Branding 2,053 ,132 7,153 ,001
As we can see from the between participants effects there is no main effect of corporate brand
visibility on both ad appeal and product appeal, which would indicate that there is no effect of
corporate brand visibility. However, from the within participants effects it becomes clear that
there are many significant interaction effects. This indicates that different advertisements are
reacting differently on both brand knowledge and corporate brand visibility. This might
indicate that product brand evaluations are different after multiple exposures. To further look
into these specific effects a 2-way independent measures ANOVA is performed to search for
Table 16&17: 3-way mixed ANOVA between and within participants
effects for corporate brand visibility & prior brand knowledge
39. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 39
specific directions. All items within ad appeal and product appeal are included and a planned
contrasts follow-up test is used to account for specific effects. The items are split up in a low
and high prior brand knowledge condition. The results of the 2-way independent measures
ANOVA and the test for simple effects are displayed in table 18 and figure 11.
Specific effects per
item
Prior Brand
Knowledge
corporate
brand visibility
= 0
corporate
brand visibility
= 1
Standard
Deviation
F-value Sig.
Ad1adappeal Low 4,45 3,95 0,20 3,10 0,82
Ad2adappeal Low 3.93 4,20 0,22 0,78 0,38
Ad3adappeal Low 3,03 3,95 0,30 4,87 0,03
Ad1productappeal Low 3,68 3,10 0,28 2,14 0,15
Ad2productappeal Low 4,45 4,05 0,25 1,25 0,27
Ad3productappeal Low 3,68 4,35 0,25 3,70 0,06
Ad1adappeal High 4,95 4,73 0,20 0,63 0,43
Ad2adappeal High 5,10 4,33 0,22 6,23 0,02
Ad3adappeal High 3,55 3,95 0,30 0,91 0,34
Ad1productappeal High 4,55 5,43 0,28 4,95 0,03
Ad2productappeal High 5,60 4,55 0,25 8,58 0,00
Ad3productappeal High 3,80 3,58 0,25 0,41 0,52
Table 18: 2-way independent measures ANOVA:
repetition
Figure 11: Visual representation of dependent variables for repetition
40. Master Thesis Marketing Management N.A.C. Hartman – “Unilever, Connecting Brands” 40
As we can see, the evaluations of the different items are fairly diverse. However, there is a
pattern recognizable in these evaluations. These patterns are twofold. First the situation of low
prior brand knowledge is discussed. Consequently a situation with high prior brand
knowledge is discussed.
Looking at the situation with low prior brand knowledge the results are striking. From the
planned contrasts follow-up test it becomes clear that for advertisement 1 both ad appeal and
product appeal are negatively influenced by corporate brand visibility. However, this changes
as the number of exposures of the corporate brand increases. For advertisement 2 it becomes
clear that ad appeal is more positively influenced (yet not significant), while product appeal is
less negatively influenced by corporate brand visibility. Finally, for advertisement 3, it is clear
that both ad appeal and product appeal are significantly positively influenced by corporate
brand visibility. The changes in product brand evaluations are also recognizable in figure 11
(p.41). This indicates that when the number of exposures of the corporate brand increases, this
has a positive effect on both ad appeal and product appeal when prior brand knowledge is
low.
Looking at the situation with high prior brand knowledge, the results are different. When
consumers are familiar with the brand, the first exposure to corporate brand visibility has no
effect on ad appeal, but a strongly positive effect on product appeal. As the number of
exposures however increases, ad appeal seems to be evaluated more positive, with a positive
effect of corporate brand visibility on ad appeal for advertisement 3. For product appeal the
situation is different. After the first and second exposure, the effects on product appeal are
positive. This however changes when respondents are exposed to the corporate brand for the
third time. The effect of corporate brand visibility is then negative. These results are also
recognizable form figure 11 (p.40). This can be explained by the fact that when respondents
are already familiar with the corporate brand, the product brand evaluations are less easily
affected.
The results clearly show that when respondents are repeatedly exposed to the corporate brand,
the association with the corporate brand gets stronger. This stronger association clearly has a
positive effect on the product brand evaluations when prior brand knowledge is low. When
consumers already have formed an opinion of the product brand, this effect is mixed.
