warmte en competentie als voorspellers van merkgedrag:een nederlandse benadering
TRANSCRIPT
W
C
Ronald VoornDaan Muntinga
27-01-2017Tilburg
Brand Stereotype Content Model: Does it matter for
all product categories?
Human Brands
We Anthropomorphize
Brand Stereotype Content Model
W
C
W
C
Different quadrantsdifferent reactions
W
C
W
C
Sympathy &
Indifference Neglect
Admiration &
AttractionAffiliationLoyalty
Contempt &
RejectionDisassociation
Envy &
DistrustMust cooperate/
Association
Research Questions and hypothesis1.Do warmth & competence predict WoM
Brandbonding & Repurchase intentions differently for different categories?
2.What is the predictive power per product category?
Hypothesis: Non-Profit category brands will score higher than any other category (Aaker et al., 2010; Bernritter et al., 2016)
Method & Measures• Datacollection funded by Mensch Creative Agency• Online Questionnaire panel (N = 419, Mage = 45, SD =
1.13; 55.1% female) • Respondents random in one of 6 categories 2 brands
per respondent (32 total)• Four items scale (Kervyn et al., 2012) (7-point Likert
scale; Mwarmth = 4.6, SD = 1.3; Mcompetence = 4.6, SD = 1.2).
• WoM intentions (Mwom = 4.2, SD = 1.7). • Brandbonding scale Park et al. (2013) (Mbonding = 6.9, SD
= 2.1)• Repurchase intention 7-point Likert scale (Mrepurchase =
4.8, SD = 1.6). • All scales Cronbach’s alfa > .75
W+C significantly predicted
• WoM: (R2 = .44, F(2,817) = 319.4 , p < .001)• Brandbonding: (R2 = .40, F(2,817) = 268.5, p < .001) • Re-purchase intentions: (R2 = .24, F(2,582) = 90.3, p
< .001).
WoM Brandbonding Re-purchase intention0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
W+C different influence per category
Retail Banks Insurance Charity Icons Cars0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
WoMBondingRepurchaseR2
Adj
W+C predict outcomes differently
WoM Bonding Repurchase
Warmth Competence Warmth Competence Warmth Competence
Retail * *** ns ** * ns
Banks *** ns *** ns ns ns
Insurance ns ** ns ** ns ns
Charity ns ** ns ** ns ns
Icons ** *** * *** ns ***
Cars ns ns ns ** ns *
Warmth: Charity highest (Anova: Mwarmth = 5.5, SD = 1.2, p<.001)
Retail Banks Insurance Charity Icons Cars4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
Warmth
Competence: Charity highest (Anova: Mcompetence= 5.1, SD = 1.1, p<.01)
Retail Banks Insurance Charity Icons Cars4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
5.00
5.20
Compe
tence
Conclusions & Limitations
1. For most brands in study W+C important predictors
2. Especially Non-profits seem to profit from W+C.
3. New findings are that importance W+C depends on category
4. Number of categories was a (practical) limitation
Future
• More different product categories• Cultural differences• Antecedents warmth and competence
per category?
Thank You