Executive summary of “Brand authenticity: model development and empirical testing”

Citation

(2014), "Executive summary of “Brand authenticity: model development and empirical testing”", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-04-2014-0563

Executive summary of “Brand authenticity: model development and empirical testing”

Article Type: Executive summary and implications for managers and executives From: Journal of Product & Brand Management, Volume 23, Issue 3

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the material present.

Today’s consumer is faced with a seemingly never-ending array of products and brands. Imitations of new offerings appear with such haste that differentiating between alternatives has become extremely challenging.

A typical response by companies is to markedly raise their communication activities. However, in many cases, this fails to elicit the desired effect because consumer reaction is often negative. Evidence shows that consumers can treat claims made by businesses with a degree of suspicion. This has somewhat become the norm given the declining levels of trust that now generally prevail in society. Economic crises and various high-profile scandals have contributed to this lack of faith. One significant consequence is that consumers instead now place considerably more value on information they obtain from social media channels.

To address the general apathy and distrust toward their claims, firms are turning their attention to brand authenticity as a means to reestablish trust and credibility in brands. The concept of authenticity has been widely explored, and one definition views authenticity as signifying originality. A socio-psychological approach focuses on “self-fulfillment”, with the core premise being that people are authentic when they behave in ways that reflect their own identity. From this perspective, authenticity is diluted when behavior is shaped by the influence of the “external influences” inherent in society. Such forces are described as “corrupting”, and the extent of their impact determines the degree of authenticity that can be ascribed to a specific behavior.

To illustrate this notion of personal authenticity, the literature uses the example of someone being in a “bad mood”. If internal factors are responsible for this state, then it would be attributable to certain characteristics of the person involved. In contrast, bad weather affecting mood would be an example where external causes are to blame. One study extends this view by introducing three information types which influence authenticity assumptions:

1. Individuality. How others might react in the same situation is the foundation here. When internal factors prompt a behavior, a high degree of individual input is evident, and consensus information relating to external issues such as weather is minimal.

2. Consistency. The emphasis here is individual response to various stimuli. When internal characteristics are involved, behaviors or states typically remain highly consistent despite any external factors.

3. Continuity. This addresses “co-variations over time”. The focus with this information type is whether the same behavior is evident in different contexts where the stimuli are comparable.

The behavior, action or state originates from the person when these elements are present.

Authenticity is commonly regarded as having a favorable impact on trust. When someone is perceived as being authentic, it is normal for others to believe that less risk and uncertainty are involved. Consistency of past behaviors prompts expectations that future actions will prove likewise. On the same basis, integrity levels can also be similarly assumed.

Brand management models frequently use incorporate brand identity and brand image dimensions. The identity of a brand involves the inclusion of attributes determined by the firm and its representatives. Image reflects the exterior view of a brand formed by how customers and consumers interpret and evaluate the identity which is projected. This approach argues that brands must communicate attributes that are desired by external target audiences. However, Schallehn et al. imply that this perhaps makes brand authenticity questionable. Their view is that authenticity demands congruence with its identity rather than have its position dictated by outside forces. They add that an authentic brand positions itself “from the inside out” rather than “panders to the latest trend”.

A causal framework is proposed as a means of conceptualizing brand identity. The premise is that attributes of a brand must be reflected in behaviors which are “individual, consistent and continuous”. These are regarded as antecedents of brand authenticity and respectively indicate:

* uniqueness in how brand promises are accomplished;

* expression of present brand behavior which reiterates previous actions; and

* stability over time of core brand attributes.

The proposal is forwarded that an authentic brand will remain true to its identity and will therefore fulfill its brand promise. This will, in turn, increase consumer trust in the brand.

In the present study, the authors first conducted separate interviews with consumers and marketing professionals to develop scales to measure brand authenticity. The empirical research which followed involved an online panel of subjects who responded to statements pertaining to one beer brand or one fast-food brand from the five chosen in each category. A total of 250 and 260 usable responses were accordingly obtained for beer and fast-food brands. The sample was representative of the relevant population in terms of age and gender.

Analysis revealed a positive relationship between perceived individuality, consistency and continuity of a brand and its perceived authenticity. In addition, it could be inferred that:

* perceived authenticity of beer brands increases if the brand promise is delivered at all touch points with consumers;

* for beer brands, maintaining brand continuity is also essential;

* the most significant authenticity antecedent for fast-food brands is brand continuity. Individuality and consistency have a much weaker impact in comparison;

* a brand’s individuality has a minimal overall effect on perceptions of brand authenticity; and

trust in a brand increases when it is perceived to be authentic.

That companies are adapting their product ranges to cater for growing interest in healthy eating may explain the significance of continuity for fast-food brands, Schallehn et al. purport. Likewise, individuality’s lack of impact on authenticity might be because neither beer nor fast-food brands are regarded as particularly unique. Further investigation which addresses various sectors and industries is therefore advised.

Another recommendation is to ascertain the communication strategies which are most equipped to enhance consumer perception of consistency and continuity. The authors suggest reintroducing “historical products, packaging designs or brand claims” as a possible approach to adopt. There is also a need to examine potential impact on authenticity when brands are repositioned. Some lowering of perceived continuity is likely, although might be cushioned if changes are implemented gradually. Granting consumers time to adapt to the new position can help limit “cognitive dissonance” between the old and new brand behaviors.

To read the full article, enter 10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0339 into your search engine.

(A précis of the article “Brand authenticity: model development and empirical testing”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)