The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

Corporate
The effect of corporate branding branding
dimensions on consumers’ dimensions
product evaluation
825
A cross-cultural analysis
Received October 2004
Nizar Souiden Revised September 2005
Faculty of Business Administration, Laval University, Québec, Canada Accepted January 2006

Norizan M. Kassim
Department of Management and Marketing,
College of Business and Economics, University of Qatar, Doha, Qatar, and
Heung-Ja Hong
Faculty of Sociology, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan

Abstract
Purpose – The paper aims to investigate both Western and Eastern corporate branding thoughts
and examine the interrelation among four corporate branding dimensions (i.e. corporate name, image,
reputation and loyalty) and their joint impact on consumers’ product evaluation.
Design/methodology/approach – Building on extensive literature, a model of consumers’ product
evaluation that includes the major determinants of corporate branding is proposed. Based on a sample
of 218 Japanese and American consumers, structural equation modeling and general linear model
analyses are used to test hypotheses.
Findings – The research reveals that Japanese and American consumers have different perceptions
with respect to the effect of corporate image and corporate loyalty. The corporate name was found to
have a significant impact on corporate image and corporate reputation was found to have a significant
affect on corporate loyalty. The corporate reputation is also found to be a mediator of the corporate
image’s effect on consumers’ product evaluation.
Practical implications – The paper suggests that marketers should carefully consider the
corporate name when designing their branding strategies. Marketers are also called on to adapt their
corporate branding approaches to fit each marketing environment and enhance corporate loyalty to
reduce the switching behavior of consumers.
Originality/value – The paper clarifies the interrelation among the four corporate branding
dimensions and shows that consumers of different cultures do not perceive in the same way the impact
of corporate branding determinants.
Keywords Corporate branding, Brand names, Brand image, Customer loyalty
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
It is reported that a corporate brand can add value to the company’s product policy and
linking corporate and product brands will be beneficial to both the corporate and its European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 40 No. 7/8, 2006
pp. 825-845
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The authors are indebted to two anonymous EJM reviewers and the Guest Editors for their 0309-0566
valuable suggestions and helpful comments. DOI 10.1108/03090560610670016
EJM individual products. Several multinationals have become aware of the importance of
40,7/8 their names and are trying to establish and create a strong link between their corporate
brand and product brand (Uehling, 2000). However, although there are many theories
that have been advanced explaining how customers evaluate and select a particular
product (Bettman, 1970; de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1998; Jamal and Goode,
2001; Kim and Chung, 1997; Lee and Ganesh, 1999; Low and Lamb, 2000; Mitchell and
826 Olson, 1981; Muthukrishnan and Kardes, 2001; Woodside and Clokey, 1974), most of
these attempts have only partially examined the impact of corporate branding on
consumers’ product evaluation. Additionally, no known research has combined the
relevant corporate branding dimensions in the same study or measured the
interrelations among these dimensions or identified the extent of their impact on
consumers’ perception and evaluation. Furthermore, most of previous research have
been confined to the Western’s corporate branding theories and Western consumers’
perception of the corporate brand effect. No attempts were made to explore the view of
the Eastern scholars and consumers on the topic. Therefore, the objectives of this
present study are to:
.
highlight the difference between Eastern and Western scholars’ view on the
corporate branding effect;
.
compare the Eastern and Western consumers’ perception of the corporate
branding impact; and
.
delineate the major corporate branding dimensions and examine their
interrelations.

Particularly, we intend to answer the following questions:

.
To what extent are the Western and Eastern corporate branding theories
divergent?
.
To what extent is the corporate branding effect perceived differently by
consumers from the West and those from the East?
.
What are the relevant dimensions of the corporate branding and how are they
interrelated?
.
What impact might each corporate dimension have on consumer product
evaluation?

Although other factors (such as country of origin and product brand name) are
reported to have some effect on consumers’ product evaluation, the scope of the current
research is confined to the examination of corporate branding. The remainder of the
paper is composed of four major sections. The second section deals with a brief review
of corporate branding research. In addition to the Western views on the topic, we
equally explore the Japanese literature on it. There are two main justifications for the
inclusion of the Japanese literature. First, the existing corporate branding theories,
which are mainly form the West, need to be extended to include the views of scholars
from the East (i.e. Japan). This would help us to explore whether there is an important
gap between Eastern and Western thoughts on the issue. Second, since Japanese
companies are known for the use of corporate branding, its success or failure might be
reflected in the Japanese corporate branding literature. The third section of the paper
proposes a conceptual framework that helps understand the relationship between the
different corporate branding dimensions and analyze the interplay between corporate Corporate
brand familiarity, image, reputation, and loyalty/commitment. The fourth section is branding
designed to empirically test the proposed hypotheses. Theoretical and managerial
implications of the study are reported in the next section. Finally, we conclude with a dimensions
brief summary of the study’s limitations and some recommendations for future
research.
827
Literature review
Divergence in corporate branding theories between the East and the West
Conventional marketing wisdom states that corporate branding will boost consumer
awareness of both the corporation and its products. However, though some consumers
perceive what is called the “corporate charisma”, others might be indifferent. This
explains the divergence in scholars’ as well as practitioners’ opinions about the impact
of corporate branding on consumers’ product evaluation. Scholars as well as
practitioners from the West and the East seem to have different opinions on the topic.
The main reasons behind this divergence in the theory and practices of the West and
the East can be summarized in the following points.
First, several scholars such as Tanaka (1993) argue that the differences between the
USA and Japan with respect to their history, culture, social, economic situations,
products, distribution, consumers, and competitive environment, naturally lead to the
contrast between both countries’ brand systems. Second, the difference between the
Japanese and American branding approaches is to a large extent linked to the
differences between the Japanese and US companies’ goals and objectives (Tanaka,
1991). For instance, Japanese companies, which tend to be more market share-oriented,
believe that by launching new products within a short time period they will be able to
defend their market share against competitors (Aoki et al., 1996). American companies,
however, tend to be more profit oriented. Thus, they tend to increase the longevity of
their brands, since they believe that long-life brands can generate profits for a longer
period than short-life brands. Third, other scholars argue that the difference between
Japanese and Western consumers’ behavior might be at the origin of the differences
between Japanese and Western corporate branding approaches. For instance, Tanaka
and Iwamura (1996) and Ikeo (1997 in Aoki et al., 1997) state that Japanese consumers
usually avoid the purchase of unfamiliar brands and they easily accept and
acknowledge products under the corporate brand umbrella. Fourth, scholars such as
Shimaguchi and Ishii (1989) and Tanaka (1993) report that because many Japanese
companies change their product models more frequently than Westerners (e.g. the
automobile product), it is more beneficial for the Japanese companies to display their
names. This will help them to avoid brand confusion at the consumer level, cope with
the tough competitive and changing business environment of their local markets, and
take advantage of their known corporate brand names to boost and launch new and
frequently modified products. Fifth, several scholars attribute the difference between
the US and Japanese branding approaches to their managerial styles. Indeed, there is a
strong notion among Japanese that the American managerial framework cannot be
directly adopted by or fitted to the Japanese managerial style (Tanaka and Iwamura,
1996). Thus, it is unlikely to transfer the brand management concept directly from the
USA to Japan or vice versa. Supporting this view, some scholars report that there are
two distinct branding approaches: one characterizes the Japanese branding practices
EJM and the other characterizes the US branding practices. For instance, Kito (1994) and
40,7/8 Koogawa (1997) posit that the Japanese corporate brand management can be classified
as an “A” type strategy (i.e. pyramidal shape), where the corporate brand subsumes all
related product brands that are considered subordinates of the corporate brand. The
“A” type brand management fits more with businesses that are characterized by a
“keiretsu channel system”[1]. Furthermore, in an “A” type brand management style,
828 individual brands are not completely independent of the corporate brand and
managers usually consider the overall state of both the company’s and its
subordinates’ brands. In contrast, Western companies’ brand management style can
be classified as an “O” type, where independent brands orbit the corporate brand but
each brand is to some extent independent of the corporate brand and has its own
“identity” (e.g. case of General Motors). The “O” type brand management can be
applied to businesses that are characterized by an open distribution system and where
the merging of companies is much easier.
It is important to note, however, that there is no general consensus among Japanese
scholars about the way Japanese corporations manage their branding systems.
Contrary to the widely held belief, that the corporate brand concept is usually practiced
by Japanese companies, Tanaka and Iwamura (1996) investigated 78 companies and
found that only 19 percent of Japanese companies use their corporate brand (i.e. the
product brand is the corporate brand) and that 46 percent use independent brand (i.e.
the product brand is completely different from the corporate brand). They reveal that
several Japanese companies use a mixed brand system. Among the Japanese
companies they studied, 32 percent use corporate brand, 41 percent use family brand,
and 60 percent use independent brand. More recently, it is reported that Japanese
companies frequently use a combined brand strategy (Forbes, 2000): corporate brand
and independent brand (e.g. Asahi Super dry, Kao Attack). However, the fact that most
Japanese broadcast advertisements carry corporate trademark logos and are
accompanied by corporate messages (Tanaka, 1991) gives the impression that
Japanese do believe that the corporate name may affect consumer perception and
selection of a product. Tanaka and Iwamura (1996) find that 84 percent of Japanese
promotion, commercials and PR emphasize corporate brand when communicating to
consumers. Supporting this evidence, Yamaki (1990) notes that most Japanese and
Korean television advertisements tend to display corporate identity logos more
frequently than the US and West German companies. In contrast to the practice of
many companies in Western markets where corporations rarely use their name to
endorse their brands (e.g. Procter and Gamble), in Eastern markets, many products’
advertisements are crowned with the corporate name (e.g. Ajinomoto, Kirin, Suntory,
Kao). Based on the above review, one can assume that the effect of corporate branding
is greater on Eastern consumers than Western consumers.

Importance of corporate branding to multinational companies

With the increase in global business, the use of corporate branding is becoming an
important hurdle that multinationals have to address. For instance, the increase in
global corporate mergers and other global alliances and the desire of companies to keep
their names have resulted in complex and clumsy names (e.g. SonyEricsson Mobile
Communications, DaimlerChrysler Benz, PricewaterhouseCoopers). This phenomenon
creates some challenges for consumers in remembering companies’ names. This also
creates confusion about companies’ identities and erodes brand equity (Wah, 1998). On Corporate
the other hand, co-branding and mergers can boost sales, transfer the positive branding
associations of the partner brands to a newly formed co-brand, and consequently
enhance brand equity. This can be realized particularly when both parties in the dimensions
merger are high-profile companies with strong brands. Confirming this view, Ueltschy
and Laroche (2004) report that the co-branding of two high-equity brands is mutually
beneficial; however, the co-branding of high-equity and low-equity brands can be 829
potentially dangerous for the high equity partner.
The impact of a corporate brand on consumer evaluation has received a rather
limited attention from researchers. However, given that multinationals are increasingly
moving from the branding of products towards corporate branding (Kowalczyk and
Pawlish, 2002), researchers are gradually paying more attention to the effect of
corporate branding (Olins, 2000). Different approaches and explanations have been
proposed by a few scholars, who have attempted to enlighten us on the effects of a
corporate brand on consumer perception. Most of such studies have, however, focused
on the way companies set their branding strategies. Olins (1989) proposes three
approaches to structuring corporate identities: the monolithic (i.e. use one name and a
visual style), the endorsed (i.e. the corporate identity is used in association with the
name of subsidiaries whose visual styles can be different), and the branded (i.e. the
corporation’s products are under different brand names and appearances). Laforet and
Saunders (1994) criticize Olins for not including in his proposed system some of the
complexities of brand structure, such as the predominance of nested branding (Aaker,
1991). Murphy (1987), in an earlier work, identified four-level system of corporate
identities, namely, corporate-dominant systems, brand-dominant systems, balanced
systems, and mixed systems. Laforet and Saunders (1994) in their analysis,
acknowledge the existence of different brand types, some of which they dub the
corporate brand name (i.e. where corporations make their names synonymous with a
product class (e.g. Kellogg cornflakes, Heinz tomato ketchup) and they are often used
when a company conducts its business in a very defined market), the house brand
name (i.e. where companies use the names of divisions [houses] to promote products in
different markets or segments (e.g. Coca Cola with Fanta)), the family brand name (i.e.
name that is used to cover a family of products (e.g. Mars, Snickers)), and mono brand
name (e.g. Procter and Gamble (Ariel)). Laforet and Saunders (1994) show that more
than 50 percent of the companies they studied were mixed brands using a combination
of mono, house, and a family brand and that 32 percent of the products used a
brand-dominant approach. They conclude that house names tend to appear more often
than the corporate identities.

Corporate brand dimensions and research hypotheses

This research study proposes to overcome some of the identified drawbacks of
previous studies on corporate branding strategy. Recall that many of these studies
ignored or did not thoroughly examine the effect of corporate brand on consumer
evaluation (e.g. d’Astous and Ahmed, 1999; Lee and Ganesh, 1999). We will address
this issue and find out to what extent corporate branding affects consumer product
evaluation. The current study proposes to decompose the corporate branding factor
into sub-factors and try to ascertain the most pertinent ones. Indeed, these different
sub-constructs might have different degrees of influence on consumer product
EJM evaluations. Importantly, our analysis will not be confined to consumers of one culture.
40,7/8 Instead, we will emphasize a cross-national analysis as to allow us determine the
impact of corporate branding on consumers belonging to different culture settings. For
all the above-mentioned slants of inquiry, we propose the use of corporate branding
model that include most relevant branding factors.
Based on previous research, the effect of corporate branding on consumers can be
830 delineated by identifying and determining the effects of the corporate name recognition
(CON), the corporate image (CIM), the corporate reputation (CRE) and the corporate
loyalty/commitment (CLO). These four variables are expected to offer a better
understanding of corporate branding impact on consumers’ product evaluation.

Corporate name recognition/familiarity

The first sub-construct, the corporate name (brand) recognition/familiarity (Kowalczyk
and Pawlish, 2002), measures how widely known the corporate brand is and to what
extent this familiarity affects consumer product evaluation. The corporate brand can
add value to its product and the association of the corporate and product brands will be
beneficial to both the corporate and the brand and would, in turn, enhance consumer
awareness of both the corporation and its products. Kowalczyk and Pawlish (2002)
note that in the current competitive environment, a firm’s corporate brand is becoming
increasingly important as a resource to be exploited in attaining sustainable
competitive advantage. The display of the corporate name on the company’s products
may involve the products’ image and consequently have certain influences on
consumer evaluation. This view is supported by Aaker (1991) and Keller and Aaker
(1997), who argue that corporate brand influences consumers’ evaluation of the brand
in a way that is different from products’ brands. Also, it is important to mention that
the corporate name strongly affects the corporate image (Gregory and Wiechmann,
1999). Several companies have changed their names to redefine their images.
Confirming this view, Gregory and Wiechmann(1999) stipulate that when a company
needs to break from the past or be established in a particular market or adopt a new
look after an acquisition; a change in the corporate name may help in changing the
corporate image. On the basis of previous discussions, we propose the following
hypotheses:
H1. Corporate name has a direct positive effect on consumers’ product evaluation.
H2. Corporate name has a direct positive effect on the corporate image.
H3. Corporate image is a mediator of the corporate name’s effect on consumers’
product evaluation.
H4. The effect of corporate name on consumers’ product evaluation is greater for
Japanese than for Americans.

Corporate image
The second sub-construct that is related to the corporate paradigm is the corporate
image, which is described as the overall impression made on the minds of the public
about a firm (Barich and Kotler, 1991; Ditchter, 1985). It is the immediate mental
picture that audiences have of an organization. It is important to note that though
corporate image is often interchangeable with corporate identity (Hsieh et al., 2004),
some scholars strongly argue that corporate identity and corporate image are two Corporate
different concepts (Balmer, 1998; Christensen and Askegaard, 2001). The former refers branding
to the reality or facts concerning the company while the latter refers to the perception
held by stakeholders of the company. Since the current study analyzes consumers’ dimensions
perception of the corporation, our concern will be confined to corporate image. Despite
the lack of empirical evidence, there is some agreement that a good corporate image
can positively affect a firm’s sales and market share (Shapiro, 1982) and the 831
establishment and maintenance of a loyal relationship with customers (Andreassen
and Lindestad, 1998; Nguyen and Leblanc, 2001). As reported by Keller and Aaker
(1997), a strong corporate image can be used to increase communication efficiency.
Hsieh et al. (2004) conclude that corporate image can affect consumer behavior.
Likewise, Andreassen and Lindestad (1998) report that corporate image serves as an
important factor influencing the perception of quality, consumers’ evaluation of
satisfaction and customer loyalty. Supporting this view, de Ruyter and Wetzels (2000)
state that the corporate image is an information cue that consumers use to judge
matters such as credibility, perceived quality and purchase intentions. Additionally,
some researchers affirm that a corporate image builds the reputation of the company
and that a favorable corporate image leads to a positive corporate reputation in the
minds of the public (Alessandri, 2001). In other words, the corporate reputation is
formed over time by repeated impressions of the corporate image (Gray and Balmer,
1998). The importance of the corporate image is also reported in the study of
Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) who claim that a good corporate image helps in making
the consumers more attached to the company (i.e. corporate commitment). The
preceding discussion leads us to the following hypotheses:
H5. Corporate image has a direct positive effect on consumers’ product evaluation.
H6. Corporate image has a direct positive effect on the corporate reputation.
H7. Corporate reputation is a mediator of the corporate image’s effect on
consumers’ product evaluation.
H8. Corporate image has a direct positive effect on the corporate
commitment/loyalty.
H9. Corporate commitment/loyalty is a mediator of the corporate image’s effect on
consumers’ product evaluation.
H10. The effect of corporate image on consumers’ product evaluation is greater for
Japanese than for Americans.

Corporate reputation
The third sub-construct is the corporate reputation, which refers to the perception of an
organization’s key attributes and “which focuses on what it does and how it behaves”
(Balmer, 1998, p. 971). It is also defined as the degree of trust (or distrust) in a firm’s
ability to meet customers’ expectations on a given attribute (Nguyen and Leblanc,
2001). Fombrun (1996) adds that the corporate reputation is the overall standard in
which a company is held by its constituents. Marketers believe that one of the major
factors that strongly affect consumer purchase decisions is consumer perception of a
firm’s role in society and how it treats its stakeholders (Kowalczyk and Pawlish, 2002).
EJM Consumers want to know more not only about the company’s products, but also about
40,7/8 the company itself. Gray and Balmer (1998) argue that the corporation’s reputation can
influence the willingness of consumers to either provide or withhold support from the
company and its products. Furthermore, it is reported that a favorable corporate
reputation helps in building consumers’ commitment to the company (Bhattacharya
and Sen, 2003). On the basis of previous discussion, we propose the following
832 hypotheses:
H11. Corporate reputation has a direct positive effect on consumers’ product
evaluation.
H12. Corporate reputation has a direct positive effect on the corporate
commitment/loyalty.
H13. Corporate commitment/loyalty is a mediator of the corporate reputation’s
effect on consumers’ product evaluation.
H14. The effect of corporate reputation on consumers’ product evaluation is greater
for Japanese than for Americans.

Corporate loyalty/commitment
The fourth sub-construct that may affect consumer evaluations concerns the extent to
which consumers are loyal to certain companies/stores. First, there should be a
distinction between corporate commitment/loyalty and brand loyalty. Corporate
commitment/loyalty can lead to consumer loyalty for all the products of the company
(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). The opposite case is not always true. Commitment is
defined as a “psychological state generated by an individual’s perceptions, beliefs and
emotions which provoke the willingness or the intention of developing and
maintaining a stable and durable relationship” (Iniesta, 2000, p. 179). The impact of
commitment on companies’ business activities are reported in many studies. Rust et al.
(1995) show that an increase in customers’ satisfaction leads to an increase in their
loyalty to the firm and that this loyalty leads to an increase in their purchases from the
company. Thus, there is a strong relationship between consumer commitment to a
company and the share of purchase from the company. Supporting this opinion, Iniesta
and Sanchez (2002) report that commitment has become a major objective for many
corporations since it can be used as a key strategic factor, such as in market
segmentation. The knowledge of the customer profiles for each level of commitment
would enable the firm to design differentiated marketing programs that aim to either
maintain and increase commitment or obtain the commitment of those who are not yet
committed to the firm (Iniesta and Sanchez, 2002). More recently, Kassim and Souiden
(2004) posit that both satisfaction and image may have a strong impact on customer
retention (i.e. consumer commitment to the company) which in turn may affect the
company’s revenues and profits. In line with view, Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) argue
that corporate commitment is dependent on the corporate image and reputation and the
consumers’ perceptions and beliefs about relevant company characteristics (e.g.
culture, skills, values, competitive position). Based on this review, we advance the
following hypotheses:
H15. Corporate commitment has a direct positive effect on consumers’ product
evaluation.
 H16. The effect of corporate loyalty on consumers’ product evaluation is greater for Corporate
Japanese than for Americans. branding
Research methodology
dimensions
To test the derived hypotheses stated above, a survey of 700 consumers was
conducted. The nature of the sample, survey procedures, and method of analysis are
discussed below. 833
Sample
Convenience sampling technique was used to collect the data from the USA and Japan.
These countries were selected for the purpose to compare the impact of corporate
branding on consumers belonging to different cultures. To distribute and collect the
questionnaire successfully, we called for the assistance of graduate and MBA students
originating from the above-mentioned countries. From a total of 700 consumers, 218
responded, yielding a response rate of 31.4 percent. The final composition of the sample
comprises 52 percent of Americans and 48 percent of Japanese. Respondents between
21 and 30 years represent 26 percent of the sample, those between 31 and 40 years
represent 32 percent and those between 41 and 50 years represent 23 percent. About 51
percent of respondents are married with 55 percent being female. Of the sample, 75
percent have at least a bachelor degree and 65 percent have a profession (in public or
private sector). Finally, 18 percent of respondents have a monthly salary less than
US$1,000. About 45 percent of the respondents have a monthly salary between
US$1,500 and US$3,000 and 24 percent of them have a monthly salary above US$
3,000. It should be noticed, however, that owing to the fact that we have a convenience
sample, we could not get a matched profile of respondents from the two countries. The
ANOVA test (Table I) showed a significant difference among the two groups of
respondents in terms of age (dem2), gender (dem3), marital status (dem4) and income
level (dem7). To correct for the difference in the demographic variables between the
two groups, we included these demographic factors in the final model.

The questionnaire design

The questionnaire was originally written in English then translated into Japanese
language. The questionnaire was then back-translated into English to ensure accuracy
(Douglas and Craig, 1983). Respondents had to state their opinion about the effect of
corporate branding dimensions when purchasing/evaluating an automobile. A
four-point Likert interval scale (ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree) was
used. Such rating scales (i.e. scales without a mid-point) are widely used in market

F Sig.

Age 18.94 0.000

Gender 3.39 0.067
Marital status 4.362 0.038
Education level 2.136 0.145
Occupation 0.015 0.903 Table I.
Monthly income 3.934 0.049 ANOVA test
EJM research because they minimize social desirability bias arising from respondents’
40,7/8 desires to please the interviewer or appear helpful (Garland, 1991). Thus, the mid-point,
“is not important” (Armstrong, 1985, p. 105). The questionnaire was divided into three
parts. It began with the measurement of perceptions of the overall effect of company
branding on consumer’s evaluation. Part two dealt with corporate effect. On the basis
of previous research (e.g. Fombrun et al., 2000; Laforet and Saunders, 1994; Olins, 2000;
834 Sabaté and Puente, 2003; Spector, 1961), 22 corporate-related items were identified (see
the Appendix) and rated on a four-point Likert interval scale. Part three dealt with
some demographic variables of respondents such as nationality, age, gender, marital
status, education level, occupation, and income.

Measurement
To establish the validity of our model and its hypotheses, we propose to empirically
test our research. Data were analyzed primarily through structural equation model
using AMOS 4.0 and SPSS 11.0.
For each factor (i.e. name, image, reputation and loyalty), we calculated the mean of
responses (Table II). Then, we computed the correlation of the independent variables.
The correlation matrix pointed to a positive and significant (p , 0:01) correlation
among the four factors (Table III).
The next step consisted of determining the dimensions of each factor by using
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Originally, corporate name, image, reputation and
loyalty/commitment were respectively composed of five, five, seven and five items.
Only items with factor loadings greater than 0.5 were retained (Kline, 1998;
Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). Additionally, each multi-item scale was examined for
reliability using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha as the indicator. As shown in Table IV,
the coefficient was generally high, ranging from 0.72 to 0.81.

Results
The small sample size (n ¼ 218) resulted in less than ideal fit between data and model
(GFI ¼ 0:80, CFI ¼ 0:76). As argued by Lee and Ganesh (1999), since the purpose of

Items Mean Std

CON 1.81 0.59

Table II. CIM 1.87 0.58
Descriptive statistics of CRE 1.89 0.57
the variables CLO 2.17 0.62

CIM CRE CLO

CON 0.531 * 0.479 * 0.320 *

CIM 0.688 * 0.430 *
Table III. CRE 0.377 *
Pearson correlation
between the variables Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
the present study is testing the proposed theoretical model with the given data, rather Corporate
than finding a model fit to the data, the estimation results were directly used for branding
hypotheses tests. The model is depicted in Figure 1 and the estimated results are
summarized in Table V. dimensions
First, we tested the direct effect of corporate name, image, reputation and loyalty
on consumers’ product evaluation. Table V shows that the beta coefficient between
CON and CPE (b ¼ 0:640, t ¼ 4:991), CIM and CPE (b ¼ 0:485, t ¼ 4:503), CRE and 835
CPE (b ¼ 0:536, t ¼ 5:052) and CLO and CPE (b ¼ 0:214, t ¼ 1:892) were all positive
and significant. Thus, the four corporate brand dimensions significantly affect
consumers’ product evaluation. H1, H5, H11 and H15 are substantiated. It should
be noted, however, that when examining the joint effect of the four corporate

Construct No. of original items No. of retained items Alpha

CON 5 4 0.74
CIM 5 5 0.81
CRE 7 6 0.81 Table IV.
CLO 5 4 0.72 Constructs’ reliability

Figure 1.
The joint effect of
corporate branding
dimensions on CPE
EJM
Hypothesis IV DV Estimate t p Results
40,7/8
H1 CON CPE 0.640 4.991 0.000 Accepted
H2 CON CIM 0.690 5.840 0.000 Accepted
H3 CON CPE 0.490 2.995 0.003 Rejected
H4 CON *CULT CPE 2 0.008 2 0.568 0.571 Rejected
836 H5 CIM CPE 0.485 4.503 0.000 Accepted
H6 CIM CRE 0.928 6.886 0.000 Accepted
H7 CIM CPE 0.070 0.268 0.789 Accepted
H8 CIM CLO 0.582 5.054 0.000 Accepted
H9 CIM CPE 0.477 3.582 0.000 Rejected
H10 CIM *CULT CPE 2 0.317 2 2.099 0.037 Accepted
H11 CRE CPE 0.536 5.052 0.000 Accepted
H12 CRE CLO 0.513 4.654 0.000 Accepted
H13 CRE CPE 0.520 4.263 0.000 Rejected
H14 CRE *CULT CPE 2 0.200 2 0.1.333 0.184 Rejected
H15 CLO CPE 0.214 1.892 0.058 Accepted
H16 CLO *CULT CPE 2 0.298 2 1.908 0.058 Accepted
Table V. Fit indices Statistics d.f. p
Structural model Chi-Square 647.027 245 0.000
estimation and general RMR 0.095
linear model analysis GFI 0.80
results CFI 0.76

branding dimensions on consumers’ product evaluation, only CON and to a lesser

extent CRE appear to have a positive and significant impact on consumers
(b ¼ 0:462, t ¼ 2:789; b ¼ 0:425, t ¼ 1:716). Thus, while CIM and CLO were found
to significantly affect CPE, their effects were marginalized in the presence of CON
and CRE.
Second, we examined hypotheses H2, H6, H8 and H12 that deal with the
relationship between each pair of the corporate brand dimensions. H2 deals with the
relationship between corporate name and corporate image. The beta coefficient
between CON and CIM is positive and significant (b ¼ 0:690, t ¼ 5:840). This indicates
that the more positive the perception of the corporate name, the more positive the
image of the company. H2 is substantiated. H6 is tested by examining the link between
the corporate image and the corporate reputation. The result shows that CIM has a
significant positive relationship with CRE (b ¼ 0:928, t ¼ 6:886). The better the
corporate image, the more positive is its reputation. H6 is accepted. H8 suggests a
positive relationship between CIM and CLO. A significant and positive beta was
observed between the two variables (b ¼ 0:582, t ¼ 5:054). Hence, if the corporate
image increases, the corporate loyalty increases. H8 is supported. H12 deals with the
relationship between corporate reputation and corporate loyalty. Beta coefficient
between the two variables was also positive and significant (b ¼ 0:513, t ¼ 4:654).
Consequently, a positive corporate reputation increases the corporate loyalty. H12 is
retained.
Third, we examined the role of the mediator variables. H3, H7 H9 and H13 propose
that corporate name, corporate image, and corporate reputation have an indirect
positive effect on consumers’ product evaluation. H3 is tested by examining the role of
CIM as a pure mediator between CON and CPE. To establish mediation, the following
four conditions should be fulfilled (Baron and Kenny, 1986; Lee and Ganesh, 1999; Corporate
Venkatraman et al., 1990): branding
(1) CON should be related to CIM; dimensions
(2) CON should be related to CPE;
(3) CIM should cause CPE; and
(4) CON’s effect on CPE should disappear when CIM is controlled. 837
All the first three conditions were met but the results show that when controlling
CIM, CON’s effect on CPE continue to be positive and significant (b ¼ 0:490,
t ¼ 2:995). Thus, the corporate image is not a mediator of the corporate name’s effect
on consumers’ product evaluation. H3 is rejected. H7 is about the role of corporate
reputation as a pure mediator between CIM and CPE. All the four conditions of
mediation were met. Effect of CIM on CPE disappeared when CRE was controlled
(b ¼ 0:070, t ¼ 0:268). Therefore, CRE is a pure mediator between CIM and CPE. H7
is substantiated. H9 stipulates that the corporate loyalty is a mediation of the
corporate image’s effect on consumers’ product evaluation. Results show that when
controlling CLO, the effect of CIM on CPE is positive and significant (b ¼ 0:477,
t ¼ 3:582). Therefore, the corporate loyalty is not a mediator between CIM and CPE.
H9 is not retained. With respect to H13, this latter is tested by examining the role of
the corporate loyalty as a pure mediator between CRE and CPE. Results show that
when controlling CLO, CRE’s effect on CPE is positive and significant (b ¼ 0:520,
t ¼ 4:263). Thus, the corporate loyalty is not a pure mediator between CRE and CPE.
H13 is not accepted.
Fourth, we tested H4, H10, H14 and H16, which compare the effect of the
corporate branding dimensions between the two cultures (i.e. Japanese and
American). With AMOS, we were unable to measure the effect of the interaction
terms between culture (CULT) on one hand and CON, CIM, CRE and CLO on the
other hand. Therefore, we used general linear model analysis (SPSS 11.0). H4
stipulates that the impact of CON on CPE is greater for Japanese than American.
The results indicate that the interaction between CON and culture (CULT) is
insignificant in determining CPE (b ¼ 20:081, t ¼ 20:568). Therefore, the effect of
the corporate name on both Japanese and American consumers is the same. H4 is
rejected. As for H10, results show that a significant difference exists between
Japanese and American consumers’ perception of the impact of the corporate image
(b ¼ 20:317, t ¼ 22:099). The impact of the corporate image on CPE is greater for
Japanese consumers than American consumers. Consequently, H10 is accepted.
With respect to the effect of corporate reputation, results show that this latter has a
similar impact on both Japanese and American consumers (b ¼ -0.200, t ¼ 21:333).
Thus, no difference is reported between Japanese and American consumers with
respect to the impact of corporate reputation on CPE. Therefore, H14 is rejected.
H16 proposes that the impact of corporate loyalty on CPE is greater for Japanese
than American consumers. The beta coefficient shows that American consumers are
significantly less influenced by the corporate image than Japanese (b ¼ 20:298,
t ¼ 21:908). H16 is substantiated.
EJM Theoretical and managerial implications
40,7/8 Theoretical implications
This study examines and identifies the pertinent corporate branding factors affecting
consumers’ product evaluation. More precisely, the relationships between CPE, on one
hand, and CON, CIM, CRE and CLO, on the other hand, were clarified. Additionally, the
current research elucidates the interrelation among the four corporate branding
838 dimensions. The corporate name was found to have a direct, positive and significant
effect on consumers’ product evaluations and there was no mediating variable between
CON and CPE. This finding further supports the view of Kowalczyk and Pawlish
(2002) who stipulate that the corporate name has a certain influence on consumers and
can add value to the company’s product. The corporate name was also found to have a
positive and significant impact on the corporate image. This supports the view of
Gregory and Wiechmann (1999) who claim that a positive corporate name lead to a
positive corporate image. This finding implies that since the corporate name was found
to have a positive and significant impact on the corporate image and because the
company has no control over “what the public perceives it to be” (i.e. image)
(Alessandri, 2001, Topalian, 1984), it is advisable to boost the corporate image by
taking advantage of its name (which is under the complete control of the firm). With
respect to corporate image, the current study demonstrated that it has a significant and
positive impact on consumers’ product evaluation. The study also revealed that the
corporate image not only helps in building the corporate reputation, but has an indirect
impact on consumers through the corporate reputation. Though several studies (e.g.
Hsieh et al., 2004); de Ruyter and Wetzels, 2000) claim that the corporate image affects
consumers’ behavior and their perceptions of the company’s product quality and
credibility, previous research did not clearly mention whether the corporate image has
a direct or indirect influence on consumers. The present study shows that the corporate
image can directly and indirectly (via corporate reputation) affect consumers’ product
evaluation. As for corporate reputation, the current research supports the view of Gray
and Balmer (1998) who argue that corporate reputation influences consumers’ attitude
towards the company’s products. Indeed, corporate reputation was found to be highly
considered by consumers when evaluating products such as automobiles.
Additionally, the corporate reputation was found to be a mediator of the corporate
image’s effect on consumers’ product evaluation. It was also found that corporate
reputation significantly affects corporate loyalty, yet this latter was not reported to be
a mediator between CRE and CPE. Thus, corporate reputation has only a direct impact
on consumers. With respect to corporate loyalty, the results indicate that this
dimension has a significant impact on consumers’ evaluation. The finding of the
present study supports the opinion of Iniesta and Sanchez (2002) who claim that
corporate commitment has become an important objective for many corporations
whishing to improve their market position. It should be noticed, however, that the
impact of the corporate loyalty as well as the corporate image is marginalized in the
presence of the corporate name and corporate reputation. Thus, when considering the
four factors together, consumers give much more weight to CON and CRE than to CIM
and CLO. This implies that much more importance should be attributed to both
corporate name and reputation.
The current research could also shed more light on the differences between the
Western and Eastern views with respect to the corporate branding impact on
consumers. Japanese and American corporate branding approaches were reported Corporate
different owing to the fact that the two countries (i.e. Japan and the USA) have their branding
particular marketing environment (e.g. culture, consumer behavior, competition, etc.).
Consequently and in order to cope with the local market conditions, Japanese and dimensions
American companies have set different goals and objectives and applied different
corporate branding strategies. When examining the effect of corporate branding across
cultures, the current research found that the corporate name and reputation have the 839
same impact on Japanese and American consumers. However, the effects of corporate
image and loyalty were reported to vary across the two cultures. This finding concurs
with the view that consumers of different cultures might have different perceptions of
the effect of corporate branding (e.g. Tanaka, 1993). Indeed, the corporate image was
found to have a higher influence on Japanese than American consumers. In fact, it is a
challenging task for global companies to maintain the same image across different
cultures and national boundaries. The effect of the corporate image on consumers
might vary from one country to another. With respect to corporate loyalty, this latter
was, as expected, found to have a greater influence on Japanese than American
consumers. This result confirms the widely held belief that the Japanese tend to be
more loyal consumers.

Managerial implications
Our findings also generate insights for marketing managers. First, with the increase in
global business as well as the increase in global corporate mergers and alliances,
marketers should carefully consider the corporate name when designing their
branding strategies. The present study showed, indeed, that the corporate name factor
might not only shape and affect consumers’ perception of the company’s products but
also build up the company’s image. It is recommended, therefore, that global
corporations and new mergers should carefully select their names and use the
corporate name to endorse and promote their products as well as their image. Second,
the research reports that consumers of different cultures might react differently to
certain corporate branding factors. Marketers are called on to tailor their corporate
branding strategies to fit each marketing environment. For example, marketers should
further stress corporate image or loyalty in markets where these factors are highly
considered. Finally, since the corporate loyalty was found to have a direct and positive
effect on consumers, managers should attribute an increasing importance to corporate
loyalty factor. It is definitely a challenging task for a marketer to keep customers loyal
to one company than to some products of the company. However, with the increase in
the number of competing companies that produce almost the same products with the
same quality at the same price and with the same after sales services; consumers
become more and more leaning to purchase from any supplier that satisfies their needs
and wants. Hence, enhancing corporate loyalty might significantly reduce the
switching behavior of consumers.

Research limitations
There are a few limitations of the current research that should be considered when
interpreting the results and implications. First, since we used a convenience sampling
technique, we were not able to obtain a fully matched profile of respondents from Japan
and the USA. Though certain demographic variables were included in the model to
EJM correct for difference, we believe that a selection of a sample where respondents from
40,7/8 the two countries have a matched profile might lead to better results. Second, the scope
of the current study is confined to the analysis of the corporate effect on consumers’
product evaluation. The corporate branding effect is isolated from other variables such
as product brand name and country of origin. Interpretation of the results might be
different if such variables are considered. Third, in order to further examine the effect
840 of corporate branding on consumers, it is perhaps fruitful to replicate this study in
other culture settings, such as the Europe, South Asia, and the emerging markets (e.g.
China and India). Finally, it might be productive to further apply the research to certain
product and services categories such as the banking and health insurance services.
Future research in this area should be designed such that these limitations are
eliminated.
Given the importance of corporate branding for managers, particularly those of
global companies, studies in the area of corporate branding should be attributed more
attention to show how important is the corporate branding for foreign or local
companies to market their products/services.

Conclusion
This current study highlights the importance of corporate branding in shaping
consumers’ product evaluation. All the four corporate branding dimensions are
identified to have a significant impact on consumers. Also, the relationships among the
four corporate branding dimensions are clarified. Finally, the research shows that
consumers of different cultures do not perceive in the same way the impact of corporate
image and corporate loyalty.

Note
1. Vitale and Giglierano (2002, pp. 403-404) defined the keiretsu channel as “a very flat channel
pattern, with few, if any, vertical layers. Each supplier has a direct relationship with the
customer. Ancillary providers in the pattern are also members of the keiretsu, such that
shipping, financing, and other services are available to members at favorable terms. The
favorable consideration is part of the relationship; members recognize that what is good for
other members will be good for the entire group, strengthening the keiretsu for all. Operating
without centralized control, the composition of the keiretsu is dependent on members
recognizing the value of long-term cooperative relationships and win-win attitudes”.

References
Aaker, D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, The Free
Press, New York, NY.
Alessandri, S.W. (2001), “Modeling corporate identity: a concept explication and theoretical
explanation”, Corporate Communications, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 173-82.
Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998), “Customer loyalty and complex services”,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Aoki, Y., Suyama, K. and Nakata, Y. (1996), “Brando keisei no Nichibei Kokusai Hikaku:
Nihonteki Marketingu heno Ichikoosatsu” (“A comparison of the Japanese and American
branding approach)”, in Aoki, Y., Suyama, K. and Nakata, Y. (Eds), Senryakuteki Brando
kanrino Tenkai (The Development of Strategic Brand Management), Chuuoo Keizaisha,
pp. 219-40.
Aoki, S., Koogawa, K., Kame, S. and Tanaka, H. (Eds) (1997), Saishin Brando Managemento Corporate
Taikei (The Recent Brand Management System), Nihon Kookoku Kenkyuusho, Tokyo,
pp. 12-31. branding
Armstrong, J.C. (1985), Long-Range Forecasting from Crystal Ball to Computer, John Wiley dimensions
& Sons, New York, NY.
Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 14, pp. 963-96. 841
Barich, H. and Kotler, P. (1991), “A framework of marketing image management”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 94-104.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychology research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Bettman, J.R. (1970), “Information processing models of consumer behavior”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 7, pp. 370-6.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company identification: a framework for
understanding consumers’ relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67
No. 2, pp. 76-89.
Christensen, L.T. and Askegaard, S. (2001), “Corporate identity and corporate image revisited – a
semiotic perspective”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 292-317.
d’Astous, A. and Ahmed, S.A. (1999), “The importance of country images in the formation of
consumer product perceptions”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 108-25.
de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1998), “Modeling the components of the brand”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 11/12, pp. 1074-90.
de Ruyter, K. and Wetzels, M. (2000), “The role of corporate image and extension similarity in
service brand extensions”, Journal of Economic Psychology, No. 21, pp. 639-59.
Ditchter, E. (1985), “What’s in an image?”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 75-81.
Douglas, S.P. and Craig, S. (1983), International Marketing Research, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Fombrun, C.J. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Fombrun, C.J., Gardberg, N.A. and Sever, J.M. (2000), “the reputation quotient: a
multi-stake-holder measure of corporate reputation”, The Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 241-55.
Forbes (2000), December, pp. 54-63.
Garland, R. (1991), “The Mid-point on rating scale: is it desirable?”, Marketing Bulletin, Vol. 2,
May, pp. 66-70.
Gray, E.R. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Managing corporate image and corporate reputation”,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 695-702.
Gregory, J.R. and Wiechmann, J.G. (1999), Marketing Corporate Image, NTC Business Books,
New York, NY.
Hsieh, M.H., Pan, S.L. and Setiono, R. (2004), “Product-, corporate-, and country-image
dimensions and purchase behavior: a multicountry analysis”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 251-70.
Iniesta, M.A. (2000), “Commitment in consumer-retailer exchange relationship”, unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Almeria, Almeria.
EJM Iniesta, M.A. and Sanchez, M. (2002), “Retail-consumer commitment and market segmentation”,
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 3,
40,7/8 pp. 261-79.
Jamal, A. and Goode, M. (2001), “Consumers’ product evaluation: a study of the primary
evaluative criteria in the precious jewellery market in the UK”, Journal of Consumer
Behavior, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 140-56.
842 Kassim, M.N. and Souiden, N. (2004), “Investigating determinants of bank retention: a
confirmatory study”, Proceedings of the Business and Economics Society International
Conference (B&ESI), Greek Island of Rhodes, Greece, p. 79.
Keller, K.L. and Aaker, D.A. (1997), “Managing the corporate brand: the effect of corporate
marketing activity on consumer evaluations of brand extensions”, Working Paper Report
No. 97-106, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, May.
Kim, C.K. and Chung, J.Y. (1997), “Brand popularity, country image and market share: an
empirical study”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 361-86.
Kito, S. (1994), “Brando Katchi Kanri nikansuru Rironteki Koosatsu: Nihonteki Brando Equity
Gainen no Kadai” (“A theoretical examination of brand value management: the problem of
Japanese brand equity concept”), unpublished Master thesis, Hoosei Daigaku Daigakuin
Shakai Kagaku Kenkyuuka.
Kline, R.B. (1998), Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling, Guildford Press,
New York, NY.
Koogawa, K. (1997), “Naze Ima Brando Nanoka” (”Why do we care now about branding?)”, in
Aoki, S., Koogawa, K., Kame, S. and Tanaka, H. (Eds), Saishin Brando Managemento
Taikei (The Recent Brand Management System), Nihon Kookoku Kenkyuusho, Tokyo,
pp. 3-11.
Kowalczyk, S.J. and Pawlish, M.J. (2002), “Corporate branding through external perception of
organizational culture”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 159-74.
Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. (1994), “Managing brand portfolios: how the leaders do it”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 64-76.
Lee, D. and Ganesh, G. (1999), “Effects of partitioned country in the context of brand image and
familiarity”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 18-39.
Low, G.S. and Lamb, C.W. Jr (2000), “The measurement and dimensionality of brand
associations”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350-68.
Mitchell, A.A. and Olson, J.C. (1981), “Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of
advertising effects on brand attitude?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 318-32.
Murphy, J.M. (Ed.) (1987), Branding: A Key Marketing Tool, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Muthukrishnan, A.V. and Kardes, F.R. (2001), “Persistent preferences for product attributes: the
effects of the initial choice context and uninformative experience”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 28, June, pp. 89-104.
Nguyen, N. and Leblanc, G. (2001), “Corporate image and corporate reputation in customers’
retention decisions in services”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 8,
pp. 227-36.
Olins, W. (1989), Corporate Identity, Thames and Hudson, London.
Olins, W. (2000), “How brands are taking over the corporation”, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and
Larsen, M.H. (Eds), The Expressive Organization: Linking Identity, Reputation, and the
Corporate Brand, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 77-96.
Rust, R., Zahoric, A. and Keiningham, T. (1995), “Return on quality (ROQ): making service Corporate
quality financially accountable”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 58-70.
branding
Sabaté, J.M. and Puente, E. (2003), “The concept and measurement of corporate reputation: an
application to Spanish financial intermediaries”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, dimensions
pp. 280-301.
Shapiro, C. (1982), “Consumer information, product quality, and seller reputation”, The Bell
Journal of Economics, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 20-35. 843
Shimaguchi, M. and Ishii, J. (1989), “Moderu Chenji No Sekkyokuteki Tenkai” (”Aggressive
utilization of model change)”, Diamond Harvard Review, pp. 49-58.
Spector, A.J. (1961), “Basic dimensions of the corporate image”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25
No. 6, pp. 47-51.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th ed., Allyn & Bacon,
Boston, MA.
Tanaka, H. (1991), “Branding in Japan: behavioral clues to the puzzle of Japanese advertising”,
Admap, 312, November, pp. 12-17.
Tanaka, H. (1993), “Brando equity kenkyuu no tenkai” (“Development of brand equity research)”,
Marketing Journal, No. 51, pp. 88-92.
Tanaka, H. and Iwamura, S. (1996), “Nihonteki Brand Managemento: Kankyoutekioo no Brando
Senryaku” (“The Japanese brand management: an adapted branding strategy)”, Koogoku
Kagaku, Vol. 32, pp. 89-103.
Topalian, A. (1984), “Corporate identity: beyond the visual overstatements”, International
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 3, pp. 55-62.
Uehling, J. (2000), “Don’t take your corporate brand for granted”, Brandweek, Vol. 41 No. 21,
pp. 34-5.
Ueltschy, L.C. and Laroche, M. (2004), “Co-brand internationally: everyone wins?”, Journal of
Applied Business Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 91-103.
Venkatraman, M.P., Marlino, D., Kardes, F.R. and Sklar, K.B. (1990), “The interactive effects of
message appeal and individual differences on information processing and persuasion”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 85-97.
Vitale, R.P. and Giglierano, J.J. (2002), Business to Business Marketing: Analysis and Practice in a
Dynamic Environment, South-Western, Cincinnati.
Wah, L. (1998), “What’s in a clumsy name?”, Management Review, Vol. 87 No. 10, pp. 9-10.
Woodside, A.G. and Clokey, J.D. (1974), “Multi-attribute/multi-brand models”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 33-40.
Yamaki, T. (1990), Kokoku Kokusai Hikaku To Gurobaru Senryaku (International Comparison of
Advertising and Global Strategies), Sanno Daigaku Shuppan-bu, Tokyo.

Further reading
Brown, T. and Dacin, P. (1997), “The company and the product: corporate associations and
consumer product responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 68-84.
Fombrun, C.J. (1998), “Indices of corporate reputation: an analysis of media rankings and social
monitors’ ratings”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 327-40.
Häubl, G. (1996), “A cross-national investigation of the effects of country of origin and brand
name on the evaluation of a new car”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 13 No. 5,
pp. 76-97.
EJM Hui, C.H. and Triandis, H.C. (1985), “Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: a review and
comparison of strategies”, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 131-52.
40,7/8 Ishii, K. (1993), Marketingu no Shinwa (The Marketing Myth), Nihon Kenzai Shinbusha.
Kobayashi, A. (2001), “Nihon Kata Brando Senryaku Toshiteno Kigyo Brando: Sono Hihanteki
Koosatsu to Kigyo Brando Senryaku no Saikoo” (“Corporate branding and the Japanese
branding strategy: its critical consideration and the revision of corporate branding”),
844 Dooshisha Shoogaku, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 71-85.
Mullen, M.R. (1995), “Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research”, Journal
of International Business Studies, Third Quarter, pp. 573-96.
Pettis, C. (1995), Technobrands, Amacom, New York, NY.
Schoenfelder, J. and Harris, P. (2004), “High-tech corporate branding: lessons for market research
in the next decade”, Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 91-9.
Shumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (1996), A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Singh, J. (1995), “Measurement issues in cross-national research”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Third Quarter, pp. 597-619.
Toyama, K. and Umemoto, H. (2000), Nihon Kata Brando Yuui no Senryaku (The Strategic
Advantage of Japanese Branding Strategy), Diamond Co.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), “Familiarity: product use, involvement, or expertise?”, in Hirschman,
E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, Association for
Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 296-9.

Appendix. Measure of corporate name, image, reputation and loyalty

Items used to measure corporate name
1. The name of the company producing the product is well known.
2. The product carries the name of the company.
3. The product carries both the company name and its generic name (e.g. Toyota Corolla).
4. The company extends its name to all the products it produces.
5. The company uses different brand names for each product it produces.

Items used to measure corporate image

1. The company is innovative and pioneering.
2. The company is successful and self-confident.
3. The company is persuasive and shrewd.
4. The company does business in an ethical way.
5. The company is open and responsive to consumers.

Itemsused to measure corporate reputation

1.The company which produces the product has an emotional appeal to me.
2.The company which produces the product undertakes some social responsibilities.
3.The company which produces the product is known for its high quality products and
services.
4. The company which produces the product is the industry leader.
 5. The company which produces the product is a good workplace environment (i.e. regarded Corporate
as a decent company to work for).
6. The company which produces the product has a good financial situation.
branding
7. If the company which produces the product fulfills the promises that it makes to its
dimensions
customers.

Items used to measure corporate loyalty

845
1. The product/model is only offered by the company that I used to patronize.
2. The company which offers the product is overtaking its competitors.
3. I have an affection and emotional appeal to the company that produces the product.
4. I have a high regard to the company’s products.
5. I always use/purchase the company’s products.

Item used to measure overall corporate effect

The automaker greatly affects my evaluation of the automobile.

About the authors

Nizar Souiden is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Faculty of Business Administration
of Université Laval at Quebec, Canada. He received his PhD from Kyoto University, Japan. His
research interests include global marketing strategies of multinational firms, market
segmentation and services marketing. His articles have appeared in International Marketing
Review, Journal of International Marketing and Marketing Research and Journal of Financial
Services Marketing. Nizar Souiden is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
nizar.souiden@mrk.ulaval.ca
Norizan M. Kassim is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Department of Management
and Marketing, College of Business and Economics at the University of Qatar. She received her
PhD from Southern Cross University, Australia. Her research interests include services
marketing, service innovations and innovativeness of organizations. Her articles have appeared
in Journal of Business Research, Singapore Management Review (Asia-Pacific Journal of
Management Theory and Practice), and Journal of American Academy of Business.
Heung-Ja Hong received her PhD from Kansai University, Japan. Her main research interests
include small business management and industrial structure. Her main work has appeared in
The Journal of Taiwan Studies.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints