Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration

Connecting the dots between brand logo and brand image

Harsandaldeep Kaur, Kanwalroop Kaur,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Harsandaldeep Kaur, Kanwalroop Kaur, (2019) "Connecting the dots between brand logo and
brand image", Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 11 Issue: 1, pp.68-87, https://
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-06-2018-0101
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-06-2018-0101
Downloaded on: 20 February 2019, At: 01:23 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 101 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 89 times since 2019*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"The impacts of brand experiences on brand loyalty: mediators of brand love and
trust", Management Decision, Vol. 55 Iss 5 pp. 915-934 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
MD-10-2015-0465">https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2015-0465</a>
(2018),"Direct and indirect effect of brand experience on true brand loyalty: role of involvement", Asia
Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 30 Iss 3 pp. 725-748 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
APJML-08-2017-0189">https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-08-2017-0189</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:543675 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


APJBA
11,1
68
Received 11 June 2018
Revised 24 August 2018
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)
7 December 2018
Accepted 15 December 2018
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
Administration
Vol. 11 No. 1, 2019
pp. 68-87
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1757-4323
DOI 10.1108/APJBA-06-2018-0101
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-4323.htm
Connecting the dots between
brand logo and brand image
Harsandaldeep Kaur and Kanwalroop Kaur
Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, India
Abstract
Purpose – Although the prominence of brand logo for companies is widely acknowledged, a close
examination of the literature reveals lack of empirical research pertaining to effect of brand logo on consumer
perception toward brand. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to fill the gap in marketing studies
concerning the effect of a logo on consumer evaluations. The research addresses two questions: first, how
brand logo favorability helps to increase brand image; and second, how brand logo form consumer
perceptions toward brand through brand personality dimensions and brand familiarity?
Design/methodology/approach – The data were collected from 816 respondents using mall-intercept
technique. Structural equation modeling via AMOS was conducted to test the proposed model to gain insight
into the various relevant influences and relationships.
Findings – The findings revealed the importance of the company’s brand logo in enhancing the brand image.
The results further highlighted that brand personality dimensions and brand familiarity mediate the
relationship between brand logo and brand image.
Practical implications – The study offers managers a new perspective for building strong brand
identity with the help of logos along with the brand personality dimensions and brand familiarity to enhance
brand image.
Originality/value – This study provides novel insights on the impact of brand logo on brand image. This is
the first study to determine the mediating role of brand personality in the relationship between brand logo
and brand image. It thereby adds to the literature of visual identity by developing the sphere of influence of
brand logo and its effects toward brands.
Keywords Brand image, Brand personality, Brand logo, Brand familiarity
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
With the growing proliferation of brands in the market, it is increasingly ineluctable and
simultaneously challenging for companies to distinguish their brands from competitors
(Keller and Richey, 2006). This fierce competition forces brands to adopt various branding
strategies that can fabricate a competitive advantage for the brands (Arslan and Altuna,
2010). Companies promulgate its branding strategies through different brand elements such
as logos, jingles, slogans, packaging and advertisements (Keller, 2003). These elements are
effective for devising and perpetuating a strong identity. One of the most essential and
critical brand elements is brand logo (Henderson et al., 2003). Brand logo is a vehicle
which companies use to communicate to consumers independent of verbal information
(Van der Lans et al., 2009). Brand logo is a symbol, graphic and visual sign that a company
uses, with or without the brand names to distinguish itself from competitors (Henderson and
Cote, 1998; Ad et al., 2012). Logo acts as signature of a company which provides familiarity
and imitates company’s image (Schmitt and Simonson, 1997; Henderson and Cote, 1998;
Melewar and Saunders, 1999; Van den Bosch et al., 2005; Ad et al., 2012). Brand logo has
been considered as an important component of brand aesthetics, which impacts consumers’
attitude toward the brand (Walsh et al., 2010).
Despite the significant importance of logos in the field of marketing, there has been very
limited research which has examined how brand logo affects the consumer perceptions
toward brands. Prior research indicates lack of systematic study on brand logos and its
effects on consumer perceptions (Henderson and Cote, 1998; Van der Lans et al., 2009).
Little is known about the relationships between the brand logo and its consequences
(Van Riel and Van den Ban, 2001). Further, the literature pays slight attention to the
 underlying mechanisms through which brand logo influences brand image. Batra et al. Brand logo and
(1993) suggested that logo can contribute in the formation of brand personality of a brand. brand image
But, till date no study has investigated this relationship in a systematic manner. Moreover,
no previous study has investigated the pattern of the relationship among brand logo, brand
personality, brand familiarity and brand image together. So, this research is conducted to
empirical test the relationship among these variables. However, to the best our knowledge,
no previous research has tested the mediation effect of brand personality in the relationship 69
between brand logo and brand image. Further, there is lack of explanatory framework from
consumer perspective that has examined the effects of brand logo toward brands. Therefore,
based on the research gaps this research examines how brands manage their brand logo to
have positive impact on their brand image. Specifically, the current study adds to current
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

literature of brand logo in following ways. First, the present study provides a novel outlook
in conceptualizing brand logo and its relation with brand image. Further it examines the
relationship of under-researched construct brand logo with brand personality and brand
familiarity. Third, it investigates the mediating role of brand personality and brand
familiarity in enhancing brand image of a company. Although, the conceptual framework
rests on some relations that have been previously tested, but the integration of multifaceted
relationships in the present study provides an important extension of prior research
(Henderson and Cote, 1998; Pittard et al., 2007; Watkins and Gonzenbach, 2013). At last, the
study provides theoretical and managerial implications on the role of brand logos in
enhancing brand image.
The paper is structured as follows: First, the article elucidates the theoretical background
and the development of research hypothesis. The next section delineates the research
methodology and the findings of the analysis. At last, the paper discusses the implications,
future research directions and limitations of the study.

Research concepts
Brand logo. The notion of logo has been conceptualized differently in diverse studies and
different meanings have been allocated by different researchers. Most of these meanings
have risen from design (Selame and Selame, 1975; Napoles, 1988; Olins, 1989) and marketing
perspectives (Bernstein, 1986; Henderson and Cote, 1998). Marketing researchers defines
brand logo as a symbol of promises made to consumer (Kay, 2006) which can develop a kind
of shorthand for the personality of the company and its values (Bernstein, 1986). Every
brand has its own intellect, personality and a typical behavior that helps to differentiate one
company from another (Foroudi et al., 2017). Further, the literature claims that logo act as an
effective and powerful tool in creating consumer brand relationship (Foroudi et al., 2014;
Japutra et al., 2016). Brand logo is also considered as a critical element of branding strategy
(Henderson et al., 2003) which helps to generate emotional reaction from consumers
(Westcott Alessandri, 2001). However, marketing literature (Henderson and Cote, 1998;
Foroudi et al., 2017) emphasizes on undertaking a systematic research to know the effects of
logo on consumer evaluation.
Brand logo, the first impression of the brand to the public is used to generate aesthetic
responses (Bernstein, 1986; Henderson and Cote, 1998; Pittard et al., 2007). Design literature
explains brand logo as set of elements, namely, name, color, typeface and design which
enables consumers to differentiate and identify a brand or a company (Foroudi et al., 2017).
According to consultants and graphic designers, brand logo is considered as the way in
which a company communicates with the public independent of its verbal information
(Balmer, 1998; Van der Lans et al., 2009).
Brand logo represents perceptions of consumers which can be an aesthetic response
and create an important component of stimulus that help to draw consumer’s attention
 APJBA and emotional reaction toward brand (Berlyne, 1971; Bloch, 1995; Lewalski, 1988; Veryzer,
11,1 1993). Further researchers have defined brand logo as the signature of a brand with an
essential communication and distinctiveness, which can reflect a brand’s image (Henrion
and Parkin, 1967; Pilditch, 1970; Selame and Selame, 1975; Margulies, 1977; Olins, 1978;
Schmitt and Simonson, 1997; Henderson and Cote, 1998; Melewar and Saunders, 1999;
Melewar, 2003; Van den Bosch et al., 2005). Brand logo is used to influence perceptions of
70 consumers toward a brand (Henderson and Cote, 1998; Van Riel and Van den Ban, 2001).
However, the research on brand logo is presently at nascent stage. This has led to the
addressal of issues such as outcomes of logo and its effect on perception toward a brand. So,
the present study is undertaken to address these issues.
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

Brand personality. Identifying that consumers have a tendency to imbue a brand with
human personality characteristics and use the brand to express themselves, Aaker (1997)
elevated the concept of brand personality and defined it as “the set of human characteristics
associated with a brand.” She established the Brand Personality Scale with 42 brand
personality traits in five dimensions: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and
ruggedness (Aaker, 1997). Three of these brand personality dimensions – sincerity,
excitement and competence – overlain with the previously developed human personality
dimensions. Marketers can use brand personality to distinguish the brand from others in the
similar product type (Aaker, 1996), to drive consumer behavior and preference (Batra et al.,
1993) and signify a common factor that can be employed across cultures (Aaker et al., 2001).
Additionally, brand personality can be a strong link for the formation of substantial
emotional connections with consumers (Aaker, 1996; Fournier, 1998). Brand personality
educes consumers’ emotional connection to a brand when it reveals the consumer’s self
(Escalas and Bettman, 2005; Swaminathan et al., 2008). Further, brand personality is formed
conferring to consumers’ perceptions of a brand through their direct or indirect interactions
with that brand (Aaker, 1997). Brand personality can be exhibited via product attributes,
logo or symbol, brand name, price, advertising and distribution channels (Batra et al., 1993).
Thus, consumer experiences with these brand elements helps to shape brand personality
and influence consumer attitude toward the brand.
Brand familiarity. Brand familiarity is defined as the number of brand or product-related
direct or indirect experiences that have been accumulated by the consumer (Park and Stoel,
2005). Any type of experience and exposure to brand such as exposure to the brand in a
store, media advertisements, logo and purchase or usage of the brand increases brand
familiarity (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Chadwick and Walters, 2009). Alba and Hutchinson
(1987) also stated that increasing familiarity with a brand might generate a better
knowledge structure in a consumer’s memory and thus, that individual would believe that
they know a brand well. Similarly, Kent and Allen (1994) noted that well-known brands may
attain better recall and are able to be better secured from competitive advertising
intervention than the less familiar brands. Thus, a consumer has more favorable attitude
toward the brand with whom he/she is aware of, than the brand name toward whom he/she
is not aware of (Arslan and Altuna, 2010).
Brand image. Keller (1993) defined brand image as “the perceptions about a brand as
reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory.” The associations are
generated in three potential means: direct experience with the product or service,
information sources and inferences from pre-existing associations (Martinez and Pina, 2003).
In other words, brand image is what comes to the individual’s mind when brand name is
mentioned. Further, Kotler and Armstrong (1996) defined brand image as “a set of beliefs
held by the consumer about a particular brand.” These set of beliefs plays an essential
role in the consumer decision making process when buyer evaluates alternative brands.
Brand management researchers (e.g. Aaker, 1996; Kapferer, 1997) have argued that brand
 image is an important part of powerful brands which empowers the brand to distinguish Brand logo and
their products from their competitors. Arslan and Altuna (2010) stated the number of brand image
marketing tools that can be used by marketers to create strong brand image which are, the
product itself, the brand name, the colors, the logo, its packaging/labeling, the point of
purchase promotions, the advertisements, the retailer, and all types of other promotions,
pricing, country of origin, owner of the brand, even target market and users of product.
71
Conceptualization of research hypotheses
Brand logo and brand personality
The theory of anthropomorphism asserts that people have strong tendency to ascribe
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

human characteristics to brands. The theory further apprehends how consumers may
anthropomorphize, i.e., attribute human like characteristics to nonhuman artifacts, such as a
brand, logos and so on (Freling and Forbes, 2005). Attributing human personality traits to
brands is known as brand personality (Aaker, 1997). Marketers motivate consumers to
ascribe human traits to a novel stimulus like brand, logo because when they assign
personality traits to brands they begin to form a relationship with the brand (Aggarwal and
McGill, 2007). Although brand logo plays an important role in building the brand
personality, there are limited numbers of studies which have examined this relationship
(Grohmann, 2008; Grohmann et al., 2013; Watkins and Gonzenbach, 2013; Ridgway and
Myers, 2014). Grohmann (2008) examined the influence of logo design on brand personality.
The study found that logo design characteristics have a positive effect on brand personality
dimensions (sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness). Further,
Ridgway and Myers (2014) investigated the impact of brand logo colors on brand
personality. The study revealed that the consumers assign personality traits to brand logo
colors that are aligned with commonly held color associations. Watkins and Gonzenbach
(2013) studied the relationship between university logo and brand personality and found
that university academic and athletic logos relate to dimensions of brand personality.
In particular, the above stated studies have focused only on investigating the impact of
specific facets of brand logo such as logo design or logo color with little consideration to
examine the impact of logo as a whole on brand personality dimensions. Therefore, to
extend the prior literature, the study proposes how brand logo impact different dimensions
of brand personality:
H1. Brand logo has a significant positive impact on brand personality (a) sincerity,
(b) excitement, (c) competence (d) sophistication (e) ruggedness.

Brand personality and brand image

Brand image is an essential part of strong and powerful brands which help brands to
differentiate their products from their competitors (Aaker, 1996; Kapferer, 1997). Marketers
consider brand personality as an integral component of brand image and it is associated to
the brand value in the mind of consumer (Keller, 1993). According to Watkins and
Gonzenbach (2013), brand personality helps to intensify the brand image in the consumer’s
mind. Despite the significant importance of brand image and brand personality in the
literature, much ambiguity exists in their relationship (Aaker and Fournier, 1995; Patterson,
1999). At the conceptual level, the two concepts brand image and brand personality are used
interchangeably to understand consumer perceptions toward brand (Patterson, 1999).
Efforts have been made by scholars to investigate the relationship between the brand image
and brand personality (Hosany et al., 2007; Rageh Ismail and Spinelli, 2012). Lau and Phau
(2007) examined the association between brand personality and brand image. Likewise,
Rageh Ismail and Spinelli (2012) also argued that brand personality contributes in
 APJBA enhancing brand image. But still this relationship is under progress and lacks empirical
11,1 studies which can help in understanding the relationship between the brand image and
brand personality. So this study attempts to fill the ambiguity that exists between the
relationships and therefore the following hypothesis is put forward:
H2. Brand personality (a) sincerity, (b) excitement, (c) competence (d) sophistication
(e) ruggedness has a significant positive impact on brand image.
72
Brand logo and brand familiarity
Product and brand familiarity refers to how a consumer is familiar with a given brand and its
product ( Josiassen et al., 2008). Familiarity enriches confidence in the capacity to judge the
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

criteria required to access product quality (Richardson et al., 1996). Melewar and Saunders
(1998) suggested that the path of communication of product familiarity with the brand
depends upon the brand logo (the visual component of a corporate identity). Chadwick and
Walters (2009) also indicated that logos strongly contribute to enhance the appreciation and
familiarity of a company. Familiarity can help a logo as it increases its impact on consumers
(Hem and Iversen, 2004; Van der Lans et al., 2009). Perceptual fluency theory explained why
objects that are familiar are liked more. It is due to the exposure effect (Bornstein and
D’agostino, 1992; Klinger and Greenwald, 1994; Henderson et al., 2003). Exposure is supposed
to escalate the ease with which an object will be perceived and that in turn provokes liking
toward the object. Logos whose appearance is familiar tend to be recognized and processed
faster and also familiarity toward product or brand has an influence on customer’s
perceptions ( Jacoby and Dallas, 1981; Henderson et al., 2003). After investigating the
relationship between corporate logo and familiarity, Foroudi et al. (2014) found that the logo of
a company was significantly related to familiarity. The studies of Henderson and Cote (1998),
Foroudi et al. (2014) have empirically investigated familiarity as an outcome of brand logo.
The relationship between these two constructs warrants further evidence to provide a
systematic support. Thus, the following hypothesis has been proposed:
H3. Brand logo has a significant positive impact on brand familiarity.

Brand familiarity and brand image

Brand familiarity increases with the brand-related consumer’s experiences and
understanding of its product attributes which ultimately affects the consumer’s
perception about the brand (Park and Stoel, 2005; Herrera and Blanco, 2011). Zajonc and
Markus (1982) stated that when an object is shown to a person on repeated instance, they
tend to develop positive attitude toward that object. Similarly, when an individual is
exposed to brand on repeated interval their familiarity with the brand increases and
increased familiarity helps to develop positive attitude toward the brand. Laroche et al.
(1996) noted that people’s attitude toward the brand is affected by their familiarity with the
brand. Further, Arslan and Altuna (2010) also found that consumers form positive attitude
toward the brand with whom they are familiar with. Ha and Perks (2005) asserts that people
are more likely to be familiar with those brands that have been around them for longer
periods and have had their reputation or image strengthened through brand experience.
Srivastava and Kamdar (2009) investigated how brand image is affected by the consumers’
familiarity with the brand. Chen et al. (2017) studied familiarity in context to tourism
industry. The authors examined that the increased destination familiarity helps to increase
country image. Still, this relationship needs further systematic research to know how
familiarity influences consumer perception toward image of a brand. Therefore, the above
discussion leads to the formulation of the following hypothesis:
H4. Brand familiarity has a significant positive impact on brand image.
 Brand logo and brand image Brand logo and
Logo is perceived as a primary visual representation of brand image (Swartz, 1983; brand image
Henderson and Cote, 1998). Brand image is the immediate mental perception held by an
individual – what comes to mind when one hears or sees the company name or logo
(Gray and Balmer, 1998). The notion of brand logo is connected to the concept of
corporate identity. The various researchers (Van Riel and Balmer, 1997; Balmer, 2001;
Van den Bosch et al., 2006) propound that the brand logo is used as a brand identity’s 73
roots, which impact consumer judgments and behavior and helps to create and maintain a
company’s brand image (Van Heerden and Puth, 1995). The argument is that logo
fabricates prominent images in the intellect of the consumers and suffices as a mental
switch or stimulus. There is dearth of literature that have proposed and studied the impact
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

of brand logo on brand image (Van Heerden and Puth, 1995; Gray and Balmer, 1998;
Foroudi et al., 2014). Gray and Balmer (1998) stated that the robust image can be
fabricated through a coordinated image-building program that embraces a proper
communication structure – signage, name, logo, company advertising and public
relations. Foroudi et al. (2014) investigated the relationship between corporate logo and
corporate image in the financial setting. The study revealed that the corporate logo of a
company significantly impacts company’s image. Brand image can materially impact
consumer sense of association with the brand and is likely to have an effect on behavior of
an individual toward the brand (Balmer et al., 2011; Karaosmanoğlu et al., 2011). But this
underlying mechanism has been paid slight attention in the literature. Hence, based on the
prior literature, present research endeavor to provide a novel outlook on brand logo
relationship with brand image and, an argument has been made that the brand logo has a
significant impact on brand image. The following hypothesis can be derived:
H5. Brand logo has a significant positive impact on brand image.

Mediating role of brand personality

The effect of brand logo on brand image may be higher when consumers have positive
brand personality judgments. Aaker (1996) has revealed that consumers buy brands that
act as a vehicle to communicate their identity. When consumers experience favorable
brand-related stimuli (e.g. logo), they form positive brand personality judgments (Aaker,
1997). Consumers attempt to attribute a brand or its elements with human characteristics.
This process can be explained with the theory of anthropomorphism (Freling and Forbes,
2005) which plays an important role in building relationship with the brand (Aggarwal
and McGill, 2007).
The theory of anthropomorphism states that consumers have tendency to attribute
human traits to brands. When consumer assigns personality traits (sincerity,
excitement, etc.) to logos or brand they begin to form relationship with the brand
(Aggarwal and McGill, 2007) which further leads to strong and consistent brand image in
the minds of consumers (Ekhlassi et al., 2012). Aaker (1997) indicated that a brand
personality may be inferred from elements allied with the brand, including brand name,
logos, attributes, associations and communications. Consumer evaluations of these
characteristics are likely to be swayed by exposure to various brand elements (logo, name
and color). For instance, brand logo is used to improve and build personality of a brand
(Batra et al., 1993). Brand personality provides distinction among brands, increases brand
preference and improves image of a brand (Keller, 1993; Fournier, 1998). Therefore, it can be
said that when consumers assign logos with different personality traits they begin to form
relationship with the brands which helps to build brand image in the minds of consumers.
From the above, it can be inferred that brand personality mediates the relationship between
 APJBA brand logo and brand image. But this relationship needs empirical evidence as no study yet
11,1 has empirically validated this notion. Hence, the following hypothesis can be proposed:
H6. Brand personality and its dimensions (a) sincerity, (b) excitement, (c) activity
(d) sophistication (e) competence mediate the relationship between brand logo and
brand image.

74
Mediating role of brand familiarity
Brand familiarity is a direct and indirect experience with the brand accumulated by the
consumer (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987). Familiarity with the logo increases its impact on
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

consumers toward the brand (Hem and Iversen, 2004; Van der Lans et al., 2009). The theory
of perceptual fluency explains why stimuli (e.g. logo) which are familiar are liked more. It is
due to the exposure effect (Bornstein and D’agostino, 1992; Klinger and Greenwald, 1994;
Henderson et al., 2003). Zajonc and Markus (1982) explained that when a consumer is
exposed to a stimulus on a repeated interval they begin to develop sense of association with
the object. Logos whose appearance is familiar tend to be processed and recognized more
easily and familiarity toward product or brand has an influence on customer’s perceptions
toward the brand ( Jacoby and Dallas, 1981; Henderson et al., 2003). Additionally, when
consumer is familiar with the brand they tend to hold strong and unique associations with
the brand (Gylling and Lindberg-Repo, 2006) which helps to augment a brand’s image in the
minds of consumers (Srivastava and Kamdar, 2009). Foroudi et al. (2014) investigated the
mediating effect of familiarity in the relationship between logo and image. But the study did
not yield significant results. However, we still believe that brand familiarity mediates
relationship between brand logo and brand image. Therefore, to test this relationship the
following hypothesis can be proposed:
H7. Brand familiarity mediates the relationship between brand logo and brand image.
Figure 1 shows the hypothesis formulated to test each path in the conceptual research model.

Methodology
Choice of industry and segments
Fashion apparel brands were chosen in the context of the study because apparel manifests
one’s identity. In addition, the proliferate attitude of Indian consumers regarding branded
apparel makes it worthwhile to study apparel brands in context of brand logos. Moreover, in
India, textiles and apparel is one of the largest growing industries with a compounded
annual growth rate of 8.7 percent and it is expected to reach $226bn by 2023 (Indian Brand
Equity Foundation report, 2016). Rapid development in shopping complexes, rising
incomes, favorable demographics and a change in consumer preference to branded apparels
has made this industry highly attractive (Islam and Rahman, 2016).

Structure of questionnaire and pilot testing

The questionnaire embraced two sections. In first section, participants were asked to name
the apparel brand whose logo they liked. Further they were asked whether they check logo
before purchasing any apparel brand. This part also included demographics related to
gender, age, education and income. The second section was related to four constructs,
namely, brand logo, brand personality, brand familiarity and brand image.
To meet the objectives, the data were collected through questionnaire-based survey.
In order to enhance the validity of proposed model, a two-stage pilot study was conducted
before the final survey. In the first stage, originally developed questionnaire was reviewed
by five experts’ academicians from the field of brand management. As per their suggestions,
 H5 Brand logo and
brand image
H6
Brand personality

Sincerity
H2a 75
H1a
Excitement
H2b
H1b
Brand logo H2c Brand image
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

H1c Competence

H1d H2d
Sophistication
H1e H2e

Ruggedness
H7

Brand familiarity
H3 H4

Direct Effect Figure 1.

Conceptual model
Mediation Effect

few items from brand personality scale were eliminated from the survey. In the second
stage, pre-testing was carried out with 180 students selected through convenience sampling.
In pre-testing survey, students were asked to name one apparel brand with whom they were
familiar with and like their logo. After examining the collected data through the pilot study,
four items were found to have low reliability and therefore they were not considered for the
main survey. Further, analysis of the pilot survey led to the shortlisting of three brands that
had the highest familiarity and liking among the respondents namely: Levis, GAP and
Tommy Hilfiger. The use of more than one brand adds to the generalizability of the results.

Main survey
The final data were collected using mall-intercept technique to reduce refusal rates of
participation. Every tenth customer leaving the mall was approached. The data were
gathered from the three main cities in Punjab (a major Northern state of India), namely,
Jalandhar, Amritsar and Ludhiana, and from the capital city of India, Delhi NCR. Before the
respondents were included in the final survey, it was ensured that whether they have used
branded apparel or not. So, only those respondents were included in the analysis that
claimed to have used the brand and were familiar with the brand’s logo. Further, the
respondents were asked to respond to the statements on the basis of chosen brand.
The sample size was calculated using Cochran (1977) formula taking 95% confidence
interval with ±3 percent precision. According to Cochran’s (1977) formula, required
sample size with this confidence interval and precision will be 1,067. So, approximately 1,000
respondents were approached personally. Out of 1,000 questionnaires, 816 questionnaires
 APJBA were dully filled and found usable, thus having a response rate of 81.6 percent.
11,1 The high percentage of response rate was due to collection of instruments and in-person
administration. Table I summarizes the respondent profile.

Measures
Multi-item scales were used to measure all the constructs used in this study. A seven-point
76 Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree on the items, is used to
rate them.
Brand logo. Brand logo construct measures perceptions of consumers toward brand logo.
To capture what a respondent think about a company’s brand logo, the brand logo scale has
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

been adopted from Foroudi et al. (2014). Items relate to logo characteristics and perception
about its quality. The Cronbach’s α turned out to be 0.955 for this construct.
Brand personality. To measure what personality characteristics consumer associate with
the brand logo, we adopted measurement items from Aaker (1997). Cronbach’s α for brand
personality dimensions are found to be: sincerity (0.885), excitement (0.919), competence
(0.923), sophistication (0.935) and ruggedness (0.845).
Brand familiarity. To understand the level of familiarity, respondent have with the brand
product and services, the scale proposed by Flavián and Guinalíu (2007) has been used. Five
items are used to measure brand familiarity and Cronbach’s α was found to be 0.927.
Brand image. To measure the consumer’s perception of specific brand, brand image
items were adopted from Ansary and Hashim (2017) and Kang and James (2004). The
Cronbach’s α coefficient for brand image construct turned out to be 0.932. All values of
Cronbach’s α were greater than 0.7 indicating adequate reliability

Results
To analyze the results, Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-stage method in structural
equation modeling (SEM) was adopted. Covariance-based SEM technique was used using

Variable Frequency Percentage

Gender
Male 429 52.57
Female 387 47.43
Age
18–25 361 44.24
26–35 266 32.60
36–45 108 13.23
W45 81 9.93
Education
Matriculate 116 14.23
Graduate 404 49.56
Post graduate 265 32.42
PhD 31 3.79
Family income
oRs 30,000 82 10.05
30,0001–60,000 247 30.27
60,001–90,000 191 23.40
Table I. 90,001–1,20,000 137 16.78
Respondent 1,20,001–1,50,000 115 14.09
demographic profile 1,50,001 44 5.41
 AMOS software. Confirmatory factor analysis was employed to evaluate the psychometric Brand logo and
properties of the constructs. CFA results propounded deletion of four items from the brand image
construct brand logo because of their low factor loadings (o 0.50). After the deletion of four
items, CFA was again run. CFA analysis showed an acceptable good fit (CMIN ¼ 2,603.29
( p ¼ 0.000), df ¼ 791, χ2/df ¼ 2.98, GFI ¼ 0.883, AGFI ¼ 0.865, CFI ¼ 0.944, TLI ¼ 0.938,
IFI ¼ 0.944, RMSEA ¼ 0.049 and SRMR ¼ 0.0335). After the CFA was again run, all factor
loadings of all items were more than the threshold value of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2006). The t-values 77
( p o0.01) for all factor loadings were significant.
The convergent and discriminant validity was calculated to examine the construct
validity of latent constructs. The convergent validity of each construct was computed
with composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE). The composite
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

reliability of all measures ranged from 0.87 to 0.95 which is above the recommended
cut off value of 0.7 and AVE of all latent variables ranged from 0.64 to 0.80 which is
well above the threshold limit of 0.5 thus establishing convergent validity of all constructs
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity examines the degree to which
variables of distinct concepts are different (Bagozzi, 1994). Discriminant validity is formed
when AVE of individual construct is more than the shared variance (marginal shared
variance (MSV ) and average shared variance (ASV ) between the constructs (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). Table II shows that the AVEs of constructs are more than the
shared variance (MSV and ASV ) between the measures, thus establishing discriminant
validity (Table II).

Testing common method biasness

The common method biasness was examined to palliate the problem of common method bias in
the study. This problem of common method biasness is examined by Harman’s single-factor
test (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The study would endure from this issue if one single factor
emerged accounted for majority of the variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Kharouf et al., 2014).
The result showed that the resulting factor explained 31.07 percent of the total variance
which is below 50 percent. So this study does not endure from the issue of common
method biasness.

Result of structural equation modeling

On ground of validated measurement model, covariance and causal linear relationship between
exogenous (independent) and endogenous (dependent) latent measures were assessed. The
research hypotheses were analyzed on the basis of structural model from standardized
estimates and t-value (Table III). The model indicated a good fit (CMIN/DF ¼ 3.160, po0.05,
TLI ¼ 0.932, CFI ¼ 0.937 and RMSEA ¼ 0.051). All the indices of the model were within the
threshold limit as RMSEAo0.08 and CFIW0.9 (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
The H1 proposed that more positively brand logo is perceived by the consumers the
more they will assign personality traits to brand. The results indicated that brand logo
positively influences all the dimensions of brand personality (sincerity, excitement,
sophistication and ruggedness) except one dimension, i.e., competence. Competence
dimension of brand personality is not significantly related to brand logo. Hence, H1 is
partially supported. Further, H2 proposes that the more positively consumers associate
personality traits to brand, the more positive image they have toward the brand. The
result highlighted that brand personality dimensions positively influences brand image
except competence dimension, thus H2 is partially supported. H3 proposes that the more
positively the brand logo is perceived by the consumer the more familiar consumer will
feel toward the brand or its product. The result revealed that brand logo was positively
related to brand familiarity ( p o 0.001), thus supporting H3. Further, the result also
revealed that brand familiarity positively influences the brand image ( p o 0.001)
 APJBA Factor Composite
11,1 Construct Items loadings reliability AVE MSV ASV

Brand logo (BL) The logo of the brand communicates 0.749

what the brand stands for
The logo of the brand evokes positive 0.752
effect
78 The logo of the brand makes me have 0.801
positive feelings toward the brand
The logo of the brand is attractive 0.849
The logo of the brand is meaningful 0.796
The logo of the brand is memorable 0.802 0.954 0.653 0.264 0.136
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

The logo of the brand is visible 0.825

The logo of the brand is of high quality 0.843
The logo of the brand communicates the 0.812
brand’s personality
The logo of the brand is interesting 0.817
I like the brand logo 0.837
Sincerity (BS) Down to earth 0.871
Honest 0.870 0.877 0.643 0.138 0.050
Wholesome 0.736
Cheerful 0.717
Excitement (BE) Trendy 0.866
Unique 0.903 0.920 0.742 0.149 0.088
Cool 0.864
Exciting 0.809
Competence (BC) Technical 0.868
Reliable 0.908 0.924 0.801 0.049 0.019
Stable 0.909
Sophistication (BS) Upper class 0.838
Good looking 0.877
Charming 0.872 0.927 0.717 0.224 0.111
Glamorous 0.828
Feminine 0.817
Ruggedness (BR) Outdoorsy 0.821
Rugged 0.868 0.871 0.692 0.264 0.124
Tough 0.805
Brand image (BI) I like the brand X 0.859
Brand X has a high quality 0.844
Brand X has better characteristics than 0.834
its competitors
Brand X has a personality that 0.743 0.932 0.663 0.194 0.130
distinguishes itself from competitors
Brand X is sincere toward its customers 0.857
Brand X does not disappoint its 0.776
customers
Brand X is one of the best brands in the 0.781
sector
Brand familiarity (BF) I am quite familiar with this brand 0.864
I am quite familiar with the products 0.894
offered by this brand
I am familiar with the other brands which 0.817 0.927 0.719 0.087 0.052
offer similar products
Table II. Brand X offers the kind of products I 0.837
Results of would use
confirmatory I have much experience with the quality 0.826
factor analysis of products and services of brand X
 Path relationship Estimate t-values Results
Brand logo and
brand image
Brand Logo → sincerity 0.337 8.830 Supported
Brand Logo →excitement 0.381 10.163 Supported
Brand Logo → competence 0.057 1.537 Not supported
Brand Logo → sophistication 0.531 14.098 Supported
Brand Logo → ruggedness 0.363 9.103 Supported
Sincerity → brand image 0.239 6.807 Supported 79
Excitement → brand image 0.147 4.238 Supported
Competence → brand image 0.044 1.399 Not supported
Sophistication → brand image 0.195 5.124 Supported
Ruggedness → brand image 0.134 3.721 Supported
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

Table III.
Brand Logo →familiarity 0.284 7.604 Supported Summarized
Brand Familiarity → brand image 0.132 3.977 Supported hypothesis-testing
Brand Logo → brand image 0.126 2.767 Supported results

which supports H4. Lastly, the result revealed that more positively brand logo of a
company is perceived by the consumers the more positive image consumers has toward
the brand thus supporting H5 (see Table III).

Testing the mediation effect

To examine the mediation effect, bootstrapping sampling procedure was used. The
bootstrapping technique equips the researcher to initiate multiple subsamples from an
original database. It allows the researchers to gauge the stability of parameter estimates and
thus presenting their values with more degree of accuracy (Byrne, 2010). Bootstrapping is
contended as an enhanced method to test the mediating effect than the other alternative
techniques like Sobel test as it does not need the assumption of distribution (MacKinnon
et al., 2002; Preacher and Hayes, 2008). The mediation effect was checked with the help of
bootstrapping. First, to establish the mediation effect indirect path (a × b) is checked
through two tailed significance with a 95% confidence interval. The results showed that the
standardized indirect effects of the relationship between brand logo and brand image
(p o0.001) were significant, thus supporting H6 and H7 indicating the presence of
mediation effect. Table IV represents the bootstrap analysis results. Further, the direct effect
(a × c ¼ 0.126) is also significant. Since, a × b and c are significant and a × b × c is positive, it
signals complementary mediation of brand personality and brand familiarity between
brand logo and brand image (Zhao et al., 2010). The results also indicated that indirect effect
through mediators on brand image is strong (β ¼ 0.328) than the direct effect of brand logo
on brand image (β ¼ 0.126).

Indirect path Direct Indirect

via Lower Upper effect effect Total
Direct path mediators bound bound Bias SE (a × c) (a × b) effect Mediation

BL→BI BL→BS→BI 0.234 0.442 0.001 0.053 0.126 0.328 0.454 Complementary
BL→BE→BI mediation (a × b × c is
BL→BC→BI positive and significant)
BL→BS→BI
BL→BR→BI Table IV.
BL→BF→BI Bootstrap analysis
 APJBA Discussion and theoretical implications
11,1 In the present study, we examined the relationship between brand logo and brand image.
We also tested the link between brand logo and brand personality dimensions, namely,
sincerity, excitement, competence sophistication and ruggedness. In addition, the mediating
role of brand personality and brand familiarity between logo and brand image were
also investigated.
80 The study imbues to the growing literature on the topic of brand management related to
brand logo. The present study adds four main contributions to the current literature.
First, the research provides a novel outlook by structuring a conceptual model which
imparts an apprehension of consumer evaluation of effects of brand logos. The model
elucidates consumer behavior toward brand logos and how it helps consumers in forming
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

perceptions toward brands. It also depicts how consumer brand logo perceptions can be
utilized with the help of brand personality and brand familiarity to build strong brand
image. Though, the conceptual framework rests on some relations that have been previously
studied, but the integration of multifaceted relationships in the current study offers an
important extension to the brand management literature (Henderson and Cote, 1998; Pittard
et al., 2007; Watkins and Gonzenbach, 2013).
Brand logo construct has received little attention from the marketing researchers
(Henderson and Cote, 1998; Van Riel and Van den Ban, 2001; Foroudi et al., 2014). The
second key contribution is to provide a broader view of brand identity as well as marketing
theory by investigating whether the incorporation of the brand logo influences the image of
a brand from the consumers’ perspective. So far, only Foroudi et al. (2014) has empirically
validated this assumption and further validation was needed to support this assumption.
Thus, the study contributes to the marketing theory by empirically validating this notion.
Prior studies (Grohmann, 2008; Grohmann et al., 2013; Watkins and Gonzenbach, 2013;
Ridgway and Myers, 2014) have propounded that brand logos are associated with brand
personality but there is dearth of empirical validation for such relationship. The third key
contribution of our research is that we confirm and extend these studies by exhibiting that
brand logo positively influences brand personality dimensions (except competence).
Consumer perceptions toward brand logo help to form personality of a brand. Although,
competence dimension of brand personality was found to be insignificant. This might be
due to the fact that competence trait of brand personality assumes brands to be technical,
reliable and stable (Aaker, 1997). Since, apparel brands are inherent part of dynamic fashion
industry, all consumers are not able to judge such technical aspects in a brand. Therefore,
consumer might not be able to relate brand logo to competence dimension.
Fourth, the results of this study show mediating role of brand personality dimensions and
brand familiarity in the relationship between brand logo and brand image. However, to the
best of our knowledge it is the first study to empirically support the mediating role of brand
personality in this relationship. This is significant contribution of the study and adds to the
literature of theory of anthropomorphism and brand management by exhibiting how by
anthropomorphizing a brand logo consumers are being able to build consistent brand images
in their minds. When consumer assigns personality traits (sincerity, excitement, etc.) to logos
or brand they begin to form relationship with the brand (Aggarwal and McGill, 2007).
The findings displayed the mediating role of brand familiarity in the relationship
between brand logo and brand image. No previous study has systematically examined the
mediating role of brand familiarity except Foroudi et al. (2014). This adds another significant
contribution to the body of knowledge of brand management and brand identity by
providing empirical support that how brand familiarity with the brand logo act as mediator
to build brand identity (brand image). Although, Foroudi et al. (2014) found no mediation
effect of brand familiarity in the relationship between brand logo and brand image. The
possible reason for this deviation can be delved on the basis that when consumers are
 familiar with the brand they tend to hold strong and unique associations with the brand Brand logo and
(Gylling and Lindberg-Repo, 2006), which helps to increase brand image in the minds of brand image
consumers (Srivastava and Kamdar, 2009). Further, familiarity with apparel brand and its
logo helps consumers to perceive brand in a positive way.

Managerial implications
One of the paramount roles of managers is to fabricate strong brands that are competent in
81
influencing consumer behavior and encourage imminent purchasing decisions. This study
offers managerial implications for graphic designers and design makers who want to
apprehend the perception of consumers toward favorable brand logo. According to
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

Henderson and Cote (1998), logos dispense brands with a face and may thus elevate intimate
appeal and brand’s authenticity to society. Additionally, logo visually pictured what brand
stands for and what it is. Therefore, marketers and designers should consider logo as a
constructive tool that can be successfully applied to influence public attitudes toward the
image of any brand.
The result provides evidence that consumer’s link brand personality trait such as
sophistication trait (upper class, good looking, charming, glamorous and feminine) more to
brand logo. The reason might be that consumers want their apparels to be more good
looking and present their personality as upper class, charming and glamorous. So they
associate logo more to sophistication dimension. A study by Supphellen and Gronhaug
(2003) also found that the sophistication personality dimension had a significant positive
impact on attitudes of consumers toward fashion apparel brands. Therefore, the managers
and designers should focus more on sophistication personality traits while designing and
communicating its apparel brands so that consumers can relate itself to brand and its logo.
According to Walsh et al. (2010), brand logo serves as a paramount tool in divulging
association between the brand and the consumer self, which in turn alleviates consumers to
discern the brand as part of them. Furthermore, we find that the effect of brand logo on
brand image is significantly higher when consumers are able to relate to the brand
personality traits. Managers should develop communication-related strategies in a way that
there is no difference between what an individual perceives and what the managers intend
the brand personality to be. This involves a vigilant design of promotion strategies and
brand communication by managers.
Finally, we found that brand familiarity plays a critical role in increasing the effects of
brand logo on brand image. Thus, managers should make exertions to gain and enhance
familiarity to the brand. This could be done by increasing exposure to the brand’s elements
like logo, its products, advertising, etc. Exposures help to gain familiarity with the stimuli
and help to form favorable attitude toward it. Through these efforts, managers will be able
to gain and sustain brand image of a company.
By bridging the gap between professionals and academic, managing a favorable brand
logo can be viewed as an integrated approach to express the brand’s communication skills
externally. In practice, this research will help consultants and managers to envisage
whether a brand’s logo communicates reliable message and personality of a brand to the
target audience in the society.
Our research findings suggested that brand logos are instrumental in building brand
image. This finding can be useful to public policy makers for the implementation of any
policy as through the design logos, people can strongly identify with the policy and helps
them to create strong image about that policy. For instance, government can initiate the use
of logos of policies on apparels such as Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (a significant cleanliness
campaign), Skill India, Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (save girl child), etc., to promote and build
powerful image of the policy.
 APJBA Conclusion, limitations and future research directions
11,1 The present research empirically provides a support to understand the mechanism through
which brand logo influences brand image. The results revealed positive effect of brand logo
on brand personality dimensions and brand familiarity which further have influence on
brand image. Furthermore, the study found the mediating role of brand personality
dimensions and familiarity in the relationship between brand logo and brand image.
82 This implies how brands can use brand personality dimensions and familiarity in building
image of a brand.
The study suffers from some limitations which should be acknowledged. First, the
present study was carried out in a single setting, i.e., it is limited to apparel sector brands
only. So, future research should replicate the model and apply it to other settings like sports
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

shoes brands, mobile brands, etc., in order to generalize the findings of the study. Future
study can also compare consumer perceptions toward logo by categorizing goods to
utilitarian goods and hedonic goods. Furthermore, the data collection was restricted to India
only. So, it would be worthwhile to conduct cross cultural research. Moreover, the avenue for
future study could also include other variables in order to extend the model. Future research
could examine the antecedents of brand logo which impact perceptions of consumer toward
logo and ultimately help in formation of brand image. This research studied few
consequences of brand logo that impact brand image. Therefore, future research should
include both cognitive and affective consequences of brand logos. At last, the relationships
proposed have not been studied using moderators such as income, age, gender. So, the
future study should be conducted while taking these as moderators.

References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California Management
Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 102-120.
Aaker, J. and Fournier, S. (1995), “A brand as a character, a partner and a person: three perspectives on
the question of brand personality”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, pp. 391-395.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 347-356.
Aaker, J.L., Benet-Martinez, V. and Garolera, J. (2001), “Consumption symbols as carriers of culture:
a study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 492-508.
Ad, G., Adr, V. and Pascu, N.E. (2012), “Logo design and the corporate identity”, Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 51, pp. 650-654.
Aggarwal, P. and McGill, A.L. (2007), “Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for
evaluating anthropomorphized products”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 468-479.
Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), “Dimensions of consumer expertise”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 411-454.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Ansary, A. and Hashim, N.M.H.N. (2017), “Brand image and equity: the mediating role of brand equity
drivers and moderating effects of product type and word of mouth”, Review of Managerial
Science, pp. 1-34.
Arslan, F.M. and Altuna, O.K. (2010), “The effect of brand extensions on product brand image”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 170-180.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1994), Principles of Marketing Research, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Balmer, J.M. (1998), “Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 963-996.
 Balmer, J.M. (2001), “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing – seeing through Brand logo and
the fog”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 248-291. brand image
Balmer, J.M., Powell, S.M. and Greyser, S.A. (2011), “Explicating ethical corporate marketing: insights
from the BP deepwater horizon catastrophe: the ethical brand that exploded and then imploded”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Batra, R., Lehmann, D. and Singh, D. (1993), “The brand personality component of brand goodwill:
some antecedents and consequences”, in Aaker, D. and Biel, A. (Eds), Brand Equity and 83
Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 83-96.
Berlyne, D.E. (1971), ), Aesthetics and Psychobiology, Appleton Century Crofts, New York, NY.
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

Bernstein, D. (1986), Company Image and Reality: A Critique of Corporate Communication, Cassell
Educational, London.
Bloch, P.H. (1995), “Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 16-29.
Bornstein, R.F. and D’agostino, P.R. (1992), “Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 545-552.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Chadwick, S. and Walter, G. (2009), “Sportswear identification, distinctive design and manufacturer
logos – issues from the front line”, The Marketing Review, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 63-78.
Chen, C.C., Chung, J.Y., Gao, J. and Lin, Y.H. (2017), “Destination familiarity and favorability in a
country-image context: examining Taiwanese travelers’ perceptions of China”, Journal of Travel
& Tourism Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 1211-1223.
Cochran, W.G. (1977), Sampling Techniques, 3d ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Ekhlassi, A., Nezhad, M.H., Far, S.A. and Rahman, K. (2012), “The relationship between brand personality
and customer personality, gender and income: a case study of the cell phone market in Iran”,
Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 20 Nos 3-4, pp. 158-171.
Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2005), “Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 378-389.
Flavián, C. and Guinalíu, M. (2007), “Development and validation of familiarity, reputation and loyalty
scales for internet relationships”, ESIC Market, pp. 157-188.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Foroudi, P., Hafeez, K. and Foroudi, M.M. (2017), “Evaluating the impact of corporate logos towards
corporate reputation: a case of Persia and Mexico”, Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 158-180.
Foroudi, P., Melewar, T.C. and Gupta, S. (2014), “Linking corporate logo, corporate image, and
reputation: an examination of consumer perceptions in the financial setting”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 67 No. 11, pp. 2269-2281.
Foroudi, P., Melewar, T.C. and Gupta, S. (2017), “Corporate logo: history, definition, and components”,
International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 176-196.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Freling, T.H. and Forbes, L.P. (2005), “An examination of brand personality through methodological
triangulation”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 148-162.
Gray, E.R. and Balmer, J.M. (1998), “Managing corporate image and corporate reputation”, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 695-702.
Grohmann, B. (2008), “The effect of logo design on brand personality perceptions”, ASAC, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 143-151.
 APJBA Grohmann, B., Giese, J.L. and Parkman, I.D. (2013), “Using type font characteristics to communicate
11,1 brand personality of new brands”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 389-403.
Gylling, C. and Lindberg-Repo, K. (2006), “Investigating the links between a corporate brand and a
customer brand”, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 13 Nos 4-1, pp. 257-267.
Ha, H.Y. and Perks, H. (2005), “Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the web: brand
familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International
84 Research Review, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 438-452.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hem, L.E. and Iversen, N.M. (2004), “How to develop a destination brand logo: a qualitative
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

and quantitative approach”, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 83-106.
Henderson, P.W. and Cote, J.A. (1998), “Guidelines for selecting or modifying logos”, The Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 14-30.
Henderson, P.W., Cote, J.A., Leong, S.M. and Schmitt, B. (2003), “Building strong brands in Asia:
selecting the visual components of image to maximize brand strength”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 297-313.
Henrion, F. and Parkin, A. (1967), Design Coordination and Corporate Image, Reinhold Publishing
Corporation, London.
Herrera, C.F. and Blanco, C.F. (2011), “Consequences of consumer trust in PDO food products: the role
of familiarity”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 282-296.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y. and Uysal, M. (2007), “Destination image and destination personality”,
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 62-81.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Indian Brand Equity Foundation (2016), “Textiles and apparel”, available at: www.ibef.org/industry/
textiles.aspx (accessed January 2, 2018).
Islam, J.U. and Rahman, Z. (2016), “Examining the effects of brand love and brand image on customer
engagement: an empirical study of fashion apparel brands”, Journal of Global Fashion
Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 45-59.
Jacoby, L.L. and Dallas, M. (1981), “On the relationship between autobiographical memory and
perceptual learning”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 110 No. 3, pp. 306-340.
Japutra, A., Keni, K. and Nguyen, B. (2016), “What’s in a university logo? Building commitment in
higher education”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 137-152.
Josiassen, A., Lukas, B.A. and Whitwell, G.J. (2008), “Country-of-origin contingencies: competing
perspectives on product familiarity and product involvement”, International Marketing Review,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 423-440.
Kang, G.D. and James, J. (2004), “Service quality dimensions: an examination of Grönroos’s service
quality model”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 266-277.
Kapferer, J.N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term,
2nd ed., Kogan Page, London.
Karaosmanoğlu, E., Banu Elmadağ Baş, A. and Zhang, J. (2011), “The role of other customer effect in
corporate marketing: its impact on corporate image and consumer-company identification”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 Nos 9/10, pp. 1416-1445.
Kay, M.J. (2006), “Strong brands and corporate brands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40
Nos 7/8, pp. 742-760.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”, The
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
 Keller, K.L. (2003), “Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge”, Journal of Brand logo and
Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 595-600. brand image
Keller, K.L. and Richey, K. (2006), “The importance of corporate brand personality traits to a successful
21st century business”, Brand Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1-2, pp. 74-81.
Kent, R.J. and Allen, C.T. (1994), “Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for
advertising: the role of brand familiarity”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3,
pp. 97-105. 85
Kharouf, H., Sekhon, H. and Roy, S.K. (2014), “The components of trustworthiness for higher education:
a transnational perspective”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1239-1255.
Klinger, M.R. and Greenwald, A.G. (1994), “Preferences need no inferences? The cognitive basis of
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

unconscious mere exposure effects”, in Niedenthal, P.M. and Kitayama, S. (Eds), The Heart’s
Eye: Emotional Influences in Perception and Attention, pp. 67-85.
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (1996), Principles of Marketing, Prentice-Hall, NJ.
Laroche, M., Kim, C. and Zhou, L. (1996), “Brand familiarity and confidence as determinants of
purchase intention: an empirical test in a multiple brand context”, Journal of business Research,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 115-120.
Lau, K.C. and Phau, I. (2007), “Extending symbolic brands using their personality: examining
antecedents and implications towards brand image fit and brand dilution”, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 421-444.
Lewalski, Z. (1988), Product Esthetics: An Interpretation for Designers, Design and Development
Engineering Press, NV.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. and Sheets, V. (2002), “A comparison of
methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 83-104.
Margulies, W.P. (1977), “Make the most of your corporate image”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 55
No. 4, pp. 66-74.
Martinez, E. and Pina, J.M. (2003), “The negative impact of brand extensions on parent brand image”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 432-448.
Melewar, T.C. (2003), “Determinants of the corporate identity construct: a review of literature”, Journal
of Marketing Communications, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 195-220.
Melewar, T.C. and Saunder, J. (1999), “International corporate visual identity: standardization or
localization?”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 583-598.
Melewar, T.C. and Saunders, J. (1998), “Global corporate visual identity systems: standardization,
control and benefits”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 29-1-308.
Napoles, V. (1988), Corporate Identity Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY.
Olins, W. (1978), The Corporate Personality: An Inquiry into The Nature of Corporate Identity,
Kynoch Press.
Olins, W. (1989), Corporate Identity: Making Business Strategy Visible Through Design, Thames &
Hudson, London.
Park, J. and Stoel, L. (2005), “Effect of brand familiarity, experience and information on online
apparel purchase”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 148-160.
Patterson, M. (1999), “Re-appraising the concept of brand image”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 6
No. 6, pp. 409-436.
Pilditch, J. (1970), Communication by Design: A Study in Corporate Identity, McGraw-Hill, London.
Pittard, N., Ewing, M. and Jevons, C. (2007), “Aesthetic theory and logo design: examining consumer
response to proportion across cultures”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 457-473.
 APJBA Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
11,1 behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Rageh Ismail, A. and Spinelli, G. (2012), “Effects of brand love, personality and image on word of
86 mouth: the case of fashion brands among young consumers”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 386-398.
Richardson, P., Jain, A.K. and Dick, A. (1996), “The influence of store aesthetics on evaluation of private
label brands”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 19-28.
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

Ridgway, J. and Myers, B. (2014), “A study on brand personality: consumers’ perceptions of colours
used in fashion brand logos”, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and
Education, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 50-57.
Schmitt, B. and Simonson, A. (1997), Marketing Aesthetics: The Strategic Management of Brands,
Identity, and Image, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Selame, E. and Selame, J. (1975), Developing A Corporate Identity: How to Stand Out in The Crowd,
Chain Store Publishing Corporation, NY.
Srivastava, M. and Kamdar, R.M. (2009), “Brand image formation as a function of involvement and
familiarity”, Paradigm, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 84-90.
Supphellen, M. and Gronhaug, K. (2003), “Building foreign brand personalities in Russia: the
moderating effect of consumer ethnocentrism”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 203-226.
Swaminathan, V., Stilley, K.M. and Ahluwalia, R. (2008), “When brand personality matters: the
moderating role of attachment styles”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 985-1002.
Swartz, T.A. (1983), “Brand symbols and message differentiation”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 59-64.
Van den Bosch, A.L., De Jong, M.D. and Elving, W.J. (2005), “How corporate visual identity supports
reputation”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 108-116.
Van den Bosch, A.L., Elving, W.J. and de Jong, M.D. (2006), “The impact of organisational characteristics
on corporate visual identity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 870-885.
Van der Lans, R., Cote, J.A., Cole, C.A., Leong, S.M., Smidts, A., Henderson, P.W., Bluemelhuber, C.,
Bottomley, P.A., Doyle, J.R., Fedorikhin, A. and Moorthy, J. (2009), “Cross-national logo
evaluation analysis: an individual-level approach”, Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 968-985.
Van Heerden, C.H. and Puth, G. (1995), “Factors that determine the corporate image of South African
banking institutions: an exploratory investigation”, International Journal of Bank Marketing,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 12-17.
Van Riel, C.B. and Balmer, J.M. (1997), “Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and
management”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 340-355.
Van Riel, C.B. and Van den Ban, A. (2001), “The added value of corporate logos – an empirical study”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 428-440.
Veryzer, R.W. (1993), “Aesthetic response and the influence of design principles on product
preferences”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 224-228.
Walsh, M.F., Page Winterich, K. and Mittal, V. (2010), “Do logo redesigns help or hurt your brand? The
role of brand commitment”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 76-84.
Watkins, B.A. and Gonzenbach, W.J. (2013), “Assessing university brand personality through logos: an
analysis of the use of academics and athletics in university branding”, Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 15-33.
Westcott Alessandri, S. (2001), “Modeling corporate identity: a concept explication and theoretical
explanation”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 173-182.
 Zajonc, R.B. and Markus, H. (1982), “Affective and cognitive factors in preferences”, Journal of Brand logo and
Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 123-131. brand image
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G. Jr and Chen, Q. (2010), “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about
mediation analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 197-206.

Further reading
Bhardwaj, V. and Fairhurst, A. (2010), “Fast fashion: response to changes in the fashion industry”, The 87
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 165-173.

Corresponding author
Downloaded by FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY At 01:23 20 February 2019 (PT)

Kanwalroop Kaur can be contacted at: kanwalroop.kaur@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com