Clustering Millennials using brand authenticity Pattuglia S., Mingione M. and Borra, S. Purpose Brand authenticity can be considered one of the “cornerstones of contemporary marketing” (Brown et al., 2003), a response to current trends of hyperreality and globalness (Arnould and Price, 2000; Ballantyne et al., 2006), and a new business imperative of the experience economy (Gilmore and Pine, 2007). Being a socially constructed phenomenon (Beverland, 2006; Beverland et al., 2008, 2010; Grayson and Martinec, 2004; Rose and Wood, 2005; Thompson et al., 2006), several scholars have observed that brand authenticity has the power to legitimize a brand within in its context (Beverland, 2006; Beverland et al., 2008, 2010; Grayson and Martinec, 2004; Thompson et al, 2006). Concordantly, Aitken and Campelo (2011) underlined the importance of customers in engaging in the brand community and in co-creating brand meanings (Bertilsson and Cassinger, 2011). Nevertheless, also non-customers might have a crucial role in the construction of brand meanings, especially when they reject brands considered not authentic, generate anti-branding communities (Holt, 2002; Gustafsson, 2006), and diffuse a negative doppelganger of the brand image (Thompson et al., 2006). In particular, the new generation of Millennials (i.e., the cohort born after 1982, Howe and Strauss, 2009) plays a relevant role in creating brand communities that might sustain or reject brands depending on the perceived brand authenticity (Lantos, 2014), which could undermine the legitimization of well established brands. Therefore, the aim of this study is to profile the Millennials’ perceptions of brand authenticity in relation to their experience with well established brands. In particular, the relationships between brand authenticity and brand related constructs (i.e., brand image, brand trust and premium price) has been considered. 1
Methodology In the last decades, several Italian brands have represented important assets of the manufacturing and service sectors, consolidating their brand authenticity over time. In this study, four well established Italian brands were selected to represent the automotive (i.e., Piaggio), food & beverage (i.e., Peroni), energy (i.e., Enel), and entertainment (i.e., Cinecittà Studios) sectors. In particular, since 1946 the Piaggio company has produced the globally known Vespa motorcycle, which became a symbol of national development in the 60s. In producing the best known Italian beer since 1846, Peroni has also played a relevant role in the Italian scenario. Besides manufacturing brands, the energy company Enel and the film studio company Cinecittà have constituted important pillars of the Italian service sector since 1962 and 1937, respectively. To explore the Millennials’ perception of the aforementioned companies a 28-item questionnaire has been administered to 382 University of Rome Tor Vergata students (mean age: 21.6±0.6 years). The questionnaire included three sections: 1) demographic information; 2) five brand authenticity dimensions, which combined different but complementary dimensions of brand authenticity. In particular, brand heritage (five items), quality commitment (seven items), sincerity (two items) were extracted from Napoli et al. (2014), whereas originality (four items) and reliability (four items) were extracted from Bruhn et al. (2012); and 3) consumers’ perceptions on brand image (two items), trust (two items) and premium price (two items) (Wiedmann et al., 2011). Respondents were asked to provide their opinion on a seven-point scale, ranging from 0 (completely disagree) to 6 (completely agree). The software SSPS (2007) has been used for statistical analysis. Constructs’ reliability has been ascertained by means of Cronbach’s alpha (Table 1). To profile the Millennials’
2
perceptions of brand authenticity in relation to the brand image, brand trust and premium price, a hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward’s method) has been performed. Table I. Constructs’ reliability Constructs
Cronbach’s alpha
Brand authenticity dimensions Quality commitment Heritage Sincerity Originality Reliability
.933 .901 .793 .867 .889
Brand related constructs Brand image Brand trust Premium price
.734 .783 .793
Results Four clusters of Millennials (i.e., the Engaged, the Cheated, the Believer, and the Sceptical) emerged (figure 1). In general, high and low consumers’ perceptions of brand authenticity corresponded to high and low scores of consumers’ perceptions on brand image, brand trust and premium price, respectively. No hierarchy between brand authenticity dimensions was found. The detailed analysis of the four clusters, indicates: 1) The Engaged. Consumers pertaining to this group are customers that conceive the brands as authentic, have high perceptions of the brand image and brand trust, and are willing to pay a premium price. The highest brand authenticity has been attributed to Peroni and the least to Vespa. Despite Vespa’s customers having already paid a premium price to purchase this motorcycle, they reported the lowest scores in their willingness to pay a premium price. 3
2) The Cheated. This cluster includes actual (or former) customers not conceiving the brand as authentic, and showing low scores for brand image, brand trust and price premium. In particular, manufacturing companies showed the highest values with respect to the service ones, indicating that customers might feel more cheated when they had a negative experience of services with respect to products. In particular, customers attributed to Cinecittà Studios the lowest scores of brand authenticity and brand related constructs. 3) The Believers. This cluster includes respondents with no prior experience of the brand but showing positive perceptions of brand authenticity, brand image, brand trust and premium price. Actually, this group of non-customers showed higher values than those reported by the Engaged counterparts. These high scores, based on mere perceptions of potential customers, confirm the strong appeal of these well established brands. In particular, Vespa has been perceived as the most authentic brand, followed by Cinecittà and Enel. Because Peroni did not appear in this cluster, prior experience of the beer seems to be necessary to appreciate this product brand. 4) The Sceptical. This cluster includes non-customers who perceive low brand authenticity, brand image, brand trust and premium price. In particular Cinecittà has been perceived as the most authentic brand, followed by Peroni and Vespa. Note, the cluster analysis revealed that Enel is not present in this group. These findings might be due to the fact that young non-customer Millennials could be more interested in products or entertainment services than in energy services, the latter being perceived as distant from their current actual lifestyle.
4
Figure 1. The four-cluster solution
Theoretical implications The main findings of the present study confirm brand authenticity as a relevant component of successful brands (Beverland, 2005; Kapferer, 2008) strongly linked to consumers’ brand trust ( Balmer, 2012; Schallehn et al. 2014). In addition, this work shows that brand authenticity is also linked to brand image and to consumers’ willingness to pay a premium price. Although brand authenticity has been strongly related to positive or negative consumers’ experiences (Chalmers, 2008; Leigh et al. 2006; Gilmore and Pine, 2007), noncustomers might also have different attitudes towards companies. In particular, well established brands might rely on positive perceptions of non-customers (i.e., the Believers) 5
who value their high brand authenticity, trust and image. With respect to actual customers who have a positive experience with these brands (i.e., the Engaged), these potential customers might be stronger supporters of brands with high authenticity, being also prone to paying a higher premium price. Therefore, this study may provide a valuable starting point for additional research into non-customers’ perceptions of brand authenticity. In particular, scholars are called on to explore non-customers’ role in the legitimization of the brand within web brand communities. Lastly, this study also included brand authenticity perceptions of service brands, extending previous research on brand authenticity that mainly focused on product branding (Alexander, 2009; Beverland, 2005; Kates, 2004). In particular, findings highlighted potential higher risk from actual customers who negatively experienced the services of well-established brands (i.e., the Cheated) with respect to their non-customer (i.e., the Sceptical) counterparts. Practical implications The proposed cluster analysis of brand authenticity dimensions and brand related contructs in young consumers (i.e., Millennials) may drive managers and, in particular marketers, to a new way of segmenting customers and non-customers. Therefore, managers should: protect the Engaged group of customers through actions of Customer Relationship Management (CRM), invest in the Believers and Sceptical groups of non-customers through actions of advertising and promotions, and invest in Public Relations (PR) resources for the Cheated group of customers who might seriously engage in anti-branding communities and negative word of mouth. Limitations The main limitation of this study is due to using well established brands, thus limiting the genarilizability of findings. Also, as the considered sample included only Millennials, further 6
studies are needed to verify the replicability of the proposed clusters in different age groups of consumers. Originality In providing a new segmentation of consumers based on their experience and brand authenticity dimensions, this study highlighted the central role of both customers’ and noncustomers’ perceptions. Keywords: brand authenticity, cluster analysis, Italian brands
7
References Aitken, R., & Campelo, A. (2011), “The four Rs of place branding”, Journal of Marketing Management, 27(9-10), 913-933. Alexander, N. (2009), “Brand authentication: creating and maintaining brand auras”, European Journal of Marketing, 43(3/4), 551-562. Arnould, E.J., & Price, L.L. (2000), “Authenticating acts and authoritative performances: Questing for self and community”, The Why of Consumption, 9-35. Ballantyne, R., Warren, A., & Nobbs, K. (2006), “The evolution of brand choice”, The Journal of Brand Management, 13(4), 339-352. Balmer, J.M.T. (2012), “Corporate brand management imperatives: custodianship, credibility, and calibration”, California Management Review, 54(3), 1-28. Bertilsson, J., & Cassinger, C. (2011), “Governing consumers through freedom: A theoretical discussion of the co-creation branding paradigm”, In Advances in Consumer Research, European Conference Proceedings (Vol. 9, pp. 412-416). Beverland, M. (2006), “The ‘real thing’: branding authenticity in the luxury wine trade”, Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 251-258. Beverland, M.B. (2005), “Crafting brand authenticity: the case of luxury wines”, .Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 1003-1029. Beverland, M.B., Farrelly, F., & Quester, P.G. (2010), “Authentic subcultural membership: Antecedents and consequences of authenticating acts and authoritative performances”, Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 698-716. Beverland, M.B., Lindgreen, A., & Vink, M.W. (2008), “Projecting authenticity through advertising: Consumer judgments of advertisers' claims”, Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 5-15. 8
Brown, S., Kozinets, R.V., & Sherry Jr, J.F. (2003), “Teaching old brands new tricks: retro branding and the revival of brand meaning”, Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 19-33. Bruhn, M., Schoenmuller, V., Schafer, D., & Heinrich D. (2012), “Brand Authenticity: Towards a Deeper Understanding of its Conceptualization and Measurement”, Advances in Consumer Research, 40, 567-576. Chalmers, T.D. (2008), “Advertising authenticity: Resonating replications of real life”, European Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 442-443. Gilmore, J.H., & Pine, B.J. (2007), “Authenticity: What consumers really want”, (Vol. 1). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004), “Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings”, Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 296-312. Gustafsson, C. (2006), “Brand Trust and Authenticity: The Link between Trust in Brands and the Consumer's Role on the Market”, European Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 522-527. Holt, D.B. (2002), “Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding”, Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70-90. Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (2009), Millennials rising: The next great generation, Vintage. Kapferer, J.N. (2008), The new strategic brand management, Kogan Page. Kates, S.M. (2004), “The dynamics of brand legitimacy: An interpretative study in the gay men’s community”, Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2). Lantos, G.P. (2014), “Marketing to Millennials: Reach the Largest and Most Influential Generation of Consumers Ever”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(5), 401-403.
9
Leigh, T.W., Peters, C., & Shelton, J. (2006), “The consumer quest for authenticity: the multiplicity of meanings within the MG subculture of consumption”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 481-493. Napoli, J., Dickinson, S.J., Beverland, M.B., & Farrelly, F. (2014), “Measuring consumerbased brand authenticity”, Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1090-1098. Rose, R.L., & Wood, S.L. (2005), “Paradox and the consumption of authenticity through reality television”, Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 284-296. Schallehn, M., Burmann, C., & Riley, N. (2014), “Brand authenticity: Model development and empirical testing”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(3), 4-4. Thompson, C.J., Rindfleisch, A., & Arsel, Z. (2006), “Emotional branding and the strategic value of the Doppelgänger brand image”, Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 50-64. Wiedmann, K.P., Hennigs, N., Schmidt, S., & Wuestefeld, T. (2011) “Drivers and outcomes of brand heritage: consumers' perception of heritage brands in the automotive industry”, The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 205-220.
10
