The impact of different family-owned business brand stories on

consumers’ brand evaluation

Master thesis

MSc. In Business Administration – Marketing Track

By Furong Xiong

Student number: 11583665

Supervisor: Roger Pruppers

ABS, UvA

01.07.2018 Final

2

Statement of Originality

The document is written by Student Furong Xiong who declares to take full

responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and

that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have

been used in creating it. The

Faculty of Economic and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of

completion of the work, not for the contents.

3

Abstract

Studies on family-owned business marketing communication focus on

different identities in the brand stories or brand statements: the family identity

(focus on the family ownership), business identity (focus on the product and

business), and the duality – family and business identity (integrate the family

identity and business identity). However, no study has investigated how

consumers respond to the brand stories of different identities. This paper aims to

find out the effects of different types of family-owned business brand stories on

consumers’ brand evaluation, mediated by different family-related brand

associations. The results indicate a brand story containing both family

components and business components can evoke stronger family-related brand

associations, which lead to more positive brand evaluation.

Key words: family business branding, brand story, brand associations, brand

evaluation

4

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Impact of storytelling ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1.1 Family-owned businesses love telling stories ............................................................................ 2 1.1.2 How do consumers respond to it? ............................................................................................. 2

1.2 Problem definition ............................................................................................................................ 3

1.2.1 Problem statement ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Subquestions .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.2.3 Delimitations of the study .......................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Contributions..................................................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Structure/Outline ............................................................................................................................... 5

2. Family-owned business ........................................................................................................ 6 2.1 FOB definitions and influences......................................................................................................... 6

2.2 FOB founders and the family ............................................................................................................ 6

2.3 Three FOB identities ......................................................................................................................... 7

2.4 Consumers’ typical associations with FOB ...................................................................................... 8

3. Storytelling and brand stories........................................................................................... 10 3.1 Definition of story ........................................................................................................................... 10

3.2 Importance of story ......................................................................................................................... 10

3.3 Brand story ...................................................................................................................................... 11

3.3.1 Applications of storytelling in marketing ................................................................................ 11 3.3.2 Impact of brand story .............................................................................................................. 11 3.3.3 Family-owned business brand stories ..................................................................................... 12

4. Consumers’ family-related brand associations ............................................................... 17 4.1 Symbolic family-related brand associations ................................................................................... 17

4.2 Functional family-related brand associations.................................................................................. 20

4.3 Conceptual model ........................................................................................................................... 23

5. Method ................................................................................................................................ 25 5.1 Stimulus development ..................................................................................................................... 25

5.2 Pre-test ............................................................................................................................................ 26

5.2.1 Design and measurements of the pre-test ................................................................................ 26 5.2.2 Results of the pre-test .............................................................................................................. 27

5.3 Main test design .............................................................................................................................. 29

5.4 Measures ......................................................................................................................................... 30

6.Results .................................................................................................................................. 31 6.1 Respondents .................................................................................................................................... 31

6.2 Data preparation .............................................................................................................................. 32

6.3 Reliability test ................................................................................................................................. 32

6.4 Manipulation checks ....................................................................................................................... 34

6.5 Hypotheses testing .......................................................................................................................... 38

6.5.1 Hypothesis 1 ............................................................................................................................ 40 6.5.2 Hypothesis 2 ............................................................................................................................ 40 6.5.3 Hypothesis 3 ............................................................................................................................ 40 6.5.4 Hypothesis 4 ............................................................................................................................ 40 6.5.5 Hypothesis 5 ............................................................................................................................ 40

5

6.5.6 Hypothesis 6 ............................................................................................................................ 41

7. Discussion............................................................................................................................ 49 7.1 General discussion .......................................................................................................................... 49

7.1.1 Manipulation checks ................................................................................................................ 49 7.1.2 Main effects.............................................................................................................................. 49 7.1.3 Mediation effects ...................................................................................................................... 50 7.1.4 Interactions .............................................................................................................................. 52

7.2 Theoretical implications .................................................................................................................. 52

7.3 Managerial implications .................................................................................................................. 54

8. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 57

8.1 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 57

8.2 Limitations and future research....................................................................................................... 59

Appendix ................................................................................................................................. 69

1

1. Introduction

1.1 Impact of storytelling

“Marketing is no longer about the stuff that you make, but about the stories you tell.” –Seth

Godin

Nike was founded by two men, Phil Knight, a student running on the track team, and

his coach Bill Bowerman. Bill wanted to improve his students’ running performance, so he

tested different shoe combinations to achieve this. After Phil graduated from Stanford

University, he borrowed $50 and started selling cheap, good quality shoes imported from

Japan. When Phil tried to sell his shoes to his previous coach Bill, he realized that he would

be much more interested in making best quality shoes with him. Then Nike was born.

Stories like these are told across the world every day as people look for brands that

offer more than just products or services, because people love fascinating stories, and are

magically drawn to stories that they can share and resonate with (Smith & Wintrob, 2013).

Stories are easier to remember than facts and can articulate concepts that people feel in the

same way but hard to express on their own (Lundqvist, Liljander, Gummerus, & Van Riel,

2013). Thus, many companies have gradually realized the value of brand stories, and

marketers have been trying to use them to communicate with their consumers (Mossberg &

Johansen, 2006). Granitz and Forman (2015) point out that a brand can have more than one

type of story to tell, and the brand stories consumers can recall easily are stories about brand

history, its founders and the product itself. Most of the brand stories researchers pay attention

to are about consumer product experiences and consequences of product use (Chang, 2009),

but they overlook business origin and history stories, which family-owned businesses (FOBs)

especially excel in (Lundqvist, Liljander, Gummerus, & Van Riel, 2013).

2

1.1.1 Family-owned businesses love telling stories

There is no doubt that all brands have history, some have heritage, but very few of

them have turned their heritage into valuable assets (Urde et al, 2007). Comparing with

nonFOBs, FOBs tend to communicate their age, which can be used as one way to build brand

image on longevity and stability (Blombäck & Brunninge, 2013). FOBs like JC Johnson,

Ford, or Bacardi, that have been owned by the same family over several generations, put their

family name “on the door”, and their linkages to history are especially strong (Blombäck &

Brunninge ,2013; Urde et al, 2007). FOBs are not only characterized by the history of the

family, but also their founders and family members, who normally have significant

influences on the brand image and values (Gersick et al, 1997; Ward, 1991). The impact of

founders for the brand image can be very strong when he/she is in charge of the FOB, or even

after he/she retires, leaving the FOB to next generations (Argenti & Druckenmiller, 2004).

Therefore, FOBs can choose to tell different stories; they can focus on the family (JC

Johnson), elaborate more on their business (Walmart), or combine both (Heineken)

(Blombäck & Brunninge, 2013). We can get to know FOBs’ history, heritage, and other

stories through their anniversary books, websites, logos, slogans, and museums (Brunninge,

2009).

1.1.2 How do consumers respond to it?

Numerous researchers have investigated types of brand stories that consumers can

recall most, such as history, owner, and product story (Granitz, & Forman, 2015). Blombäck

and Brunninge (2013) put forward a typology of brand communication for FOBs, consisting

of three different identities. Also, the values of communicating brand stories have been

widely discussed in the past few years. Lundqvist and his colleagues (2013) have confirmed

that a well-tailored company originated story can generate positive brand attitudes and

increase consumers’ purchase likelihood. Besides, consumers who are exposed to a brand

3

story have more relevant associations and positive brand images than those who are not

exposed to (Lundqvist et al, 2013; Huang, 2010). However, no empirical evidence exists

shedding light on what are the specific associations and positive attitudes consumers generate

after reading different stories, and whether certain types of FOB brand stories can evoke

particular feelings and emotions (Lundqvist, Liljander, Gummerus, & Van Riel, 2013). As

consumers are the audience of brand stories, their responses can help FOBs leverage which

type of brand stories can benefit their business most.

1.2 Problem definition

1.2.1 Problem statement

To fill in the gap indicated above, this study aims to investigate what are the typical

associations consumers have towards FOBs and how different brand stories affect these

associations. Argenti and Druckenmiller (2004) claim that FOBs are closely related to

individuals or the family who founded or managed them, and the personalities of the brand

owner or families can shape the personalities of their corporate brands. For example, the

creative and innovative personality traits of Richard Branson are often inextricably linked to

the brand personality of Virgin (Mottram, 1998). If consumers know more about the founder

or the family, do they associate more human characteristic with the brand? Additionally,

FOBs that communicate the family to the external audience are also associated with sincerity,

which is an important driver for brand authenticity (Aaker, 1997; Napoli et al, 2014). Does

emphasizing on the family in a brand’s stories make consumers perceive the brand more

authentic? Moreover, consumers perceive family-owned businesses as quality-driven

(Cooper, Upton, & Seaman, 2005). Do FOBs that communicate the family identity have

higher perceived quality than FOBs that focus on the business?

This study aims to find out the outcomes of communicating different types of FOB

brand stories, namely, how will different stories influence consumers’ typical association

4

towards FOB? The results will reveal which type of brand stories has the most positive

impact for FOB. Therefore, the research question of this study is formulated as follow:

“What are the impacts of different types of family-owned business brand stories on the brand

evaluation, mediated by family-related brand associations?”

1.2.2 Subquestions

FOB brand stories that stress the family have a significant influence on the consumer-

brand relationship and evoke the consumers’ feelings (Bravo, Fraj, & Martinez, 2007).

However, not all FOBs tell family stories to create a warm and sincere image, in fact, some

FOBs downplay the family card to underline their business stories to consumers (Zellweger,

Kellermanns, Eddleston, & Memili, 2012). Since consumers consider FOBs as authentic, can

stories that stress the family identity can make a brand perceived as more authentic than

stories emphasizing the business? To what extent the family-owned identity can help with

consumers’ perceived quality? Can a brand’s quality be perceived higher if the brand reveals

the family identity? What if integrating both the family identity and the business identity in

brand stories? What are other typical family-related brand associations? How theses

associations influence consumers’ brand evaluation?

1.2.3 Delimitations of the study

This study aims to investigate consumer perceptions towards different FOB brand

stories, so it will not explore the impact of different types of brand stories for FOB’s brand

awareness and brand recall. Moreover, this study will not discuss the impact of other brand

story types, such as consumer story and CSR story, because according to the brand story type

exploration study of Granitz and Forman’s (2015), these stories are least recalled by

consumers.

5

1.3 Contributions

This study is the very first to examine the outcomes of communicating different brand

stories for FOB. The results of this study will shed light on different consumer reactions and

responses when they are exposed to different types of family-owned business brand stories.

Besides, this study will explore the consequences of blending the family and the business

(Blombäck & Brunninge, 2013). In the findings of Huang (2010), consumers will perceive

the brand image positively when the story is considered as authentic, and this study will find

which specific type of brand stories of FOB is regarded as highly authentic.

This study has two practical implications for managers and marketers. First, they can

leverage which type of brand story they should adopt or whether they should integrate several

types for external communication, depending on the product category (Blombäck &

Brunninge, 2013). Second, this study will find out consumers’ perceived family components

and business components. This can help marketers to make the communication more

effective.

1.4 Structure/Outline

First, this article will provide a relevant literature review on FOB, storytelling, FOB

brand story types, authenticity, brand personality, and quality. Subsequently, a conceptual

model will be developed. Third, to tackle the research question and identified hypotheses,

this study will use a quantitative method to design an experiment. Next, the experiment will

be conducted to collect data. Last, this article will provide a discussion of the results,

consisting of conclusions, implications, and suggestions for future research.

6

2. Family-owned business

2.1 FOB definitions and influences

In the relevant FOB literature, the blurry line between FOB and non-FOB has not

been demarcated yet (Handler, 1989; Birdthistle & Fleming, 2005). Some define it as the

business passed down to generations in the same family, but this means if a business cannot

be passed down to the next generation then it cannot be called a family-owned business

(Chua, Chrisman, & Sharma, 1999). A family business study in the UK claims that only 24%

of family businesses transfer the business to the next generation (Hayward, 1989; Handler,

1994). Whereas others see FOB as a business managed, governed or owned by the members

of the same family or several families (Handler, 1989; Miller & Scholnick, 2008). Due to the

low succession rate of FOBs, this article will follow the generalized definition given by

Hander (1989), Miller, and Scholnick (2008), namely, businesses with family involvement.

Comparing with non-FOBs, why FOBs deserve researchers’ special attentions in the

past years? An explanation is that family-owned businesses are the leading players among

enterprises in the global economy (Andreson & Reeb, 2003). In the United States, FOBs

comprise 49 percent of GDP and 78 percent of employment (Astrachan & Shanker, 2003).

The number of FOBs is estimated to 17 million in Europe, and they are spread across all

business industries, such as consumer products, manufacturing, and technology and account

for 80 percent job creation (Riehle, 2013). According to Andreson and Reeb (2003), 35

percent of companies on the list of Fortune 500 are family-owned or -controlled. Due to the

impact of FOB on the economy is remarkable, it makes us wonder why FOBs are so

competitive and what is their uniqueness?

2.2 FOB founders and the family

To answer the question above, we need to take note of FOB founders and the family,

7

they are the souls of family businesses. Their stories are wildly spread by people and follow

the routine – how they started from scratch, dedicated themselves to their dreams until they

made the impossible possible. Comparing with non-FOBs, FOBs have more founder stories

to tell – after founders were no longer active in the business or died, they passed down their

life-time dedication to the next generation in the family (Bjuggren, & Sund, 2001). Not only

founders’ influences on a brand might be everlasting, but also their personalities shape the

personalities of their brands (Argenti & Druckenmiller, 2004). When we think of Virgin, we

inevitably link Richard Brandson’s personalities, like innovative and creative, to Virgin’s

brand personalities (Mottram, 1998). Except for founders, family members also have

significant influences on the internal values and external communication of the company

(Bjuggren, & Sund, 2001). In the findings of Anderson and Reed’s (2003) study, the financial

results of FOBs that a family member works as the CEO of the company is better than the

CEO comes from outside of the family. This can be explained by the fact that family

members are more concerned about maintaining their family name reputation, and are more

responsible for the long-term oriented businesses (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008).

2.3 Three FOB identities

Nonetheless, being family-owned has so many significant positive associations, but

not all FOBs play the family card, and some of them even hide the family identity (Micelotta,

& Raynard, 2011). The concept of corporate identity refers to how a corporation

communicates and portrays itself to outside stakeholders, such as clients, consumers, and

business partners (Blombäck, & Brunninge, 2009; van Riel & Balmer, 1997). It can also be

interpreted as how a corporation uses all kinds of relevant cues to make stakeholders perceive

it as the way it would like to be (Markwick & Fill, 1995). For FOBs, concealing the family

identity or not is a choice, while some FOBs highly emphasize it through various cues, other

FOBs downplay it, stressing on the product or the business itself (Micelotta & Raynard,

8

2011). In the study of Micelotta and Raynard (2011) on family business identity, FOBs use

three different strategies to communicate their identities: family preservation strategy

(company identity is family identity), family enrichment strategy (integrate the family and the

business), and family subordination strategy (familial elements are downplayed). The results

are also in line with the three FOB identities in the study of Blombäck & Brunninge (2009),

which are called family identity, business identity, and the duality – family in the business.

For the sake of clarity, this study will use three identity terms identified in the article of

Blombäck and Brunninge (2009).

2.4 Consumers’ typical associations with FOB

Another reason makes FOB so competitive is that consumers have positive

associations towards businesses or brands that are family-oriented or -controlled (Dyer &

Whetten, 2006). FOBs are long-term oriented and often linked with family names. Thus,

family members dedicate themselves to “protect the family name from being contaminated”

(Craig, Dibrell, & Davis, 2008). Therefore, when consumers think of FOB, relevant concepts

such as trustworthiness, integrity, and reliability will arise in their minds (Orth, & Green,

2009). Consumers also perceive family-owned business as socially responsible, authentic,

and superior (Sageder, Mitter, & Feldbauer‐Durstmüller, 2018). Carrigan and Buckley (2008)

conducted an exploratory study on consumer experience of FOB in the UK, their findings

suggest consumers consider family business as friendly and personal. They explain that

compared to nonFOBs, FOBs put more emphasis on individuals, which makes consumers

feel they are treated personally and elicits warm feelings. Besides, consumers associate the

image of the family in charge and the person whose name on the door closely with FOBs

(Brokaw & Murphy, 1992). For example, when consumers think of Chanel, they will project

the elegance of the founder Coco to the brand. This is line with the findings of Carrigan and

Buckley (2008), for a local family butcher shop in the UK, the owner’s behavior,

9

personalities, and his personal relationship with consumers can significantly influence

consumers’ associations towards it.

To keep a good family reputation, FOBs hold customer-centric values in their

businesses to provide high-quality products/services and become more socially responsible

(Dyer & Whetten, 2006; Tahiuri & Davis, 1996). Dyer and Whetten (2006) suggest that

many FOBs keep the same production standard over time to deliver their promises and are

strict with product resources. For example, a German family beer brand tells its age and

corporation identity on the bottle “family tradition since 1753”. The age also conveys the

business is reliable, stable, and long-term oriented (Blombäck & Brunninge, 2009). Carrigan

and Buckley (2008) also add that consumers perceive FOBs as unique and honest, and they

have faith in their product quality. This is especially true to FOBs that involve craftsmanship,

consumers highly appreciate the know-how of FOB, such as a family recipe, which is passed

down over generations (Harris, Martinez, & Ward, 1994). Family members are inclined to

feel that they have great responsibilities to maintain family names (Dyer & Whetten, 2006).

Numerous researchers also have proved that the family-oriented image has positive

contributions on the business performance, due to consumers’ positive associations with FOB

(Craig, Dibbrell, & Davis, 2008; Dyer & Whetten, 2006). A family-owned image can attract

consumers, lead to higher sales, increase profit, and foster customer loyalty (Zellweger et al,

2012).

10

3. Storytelling and brand stories

Whether emphasizing on the family or talking more about the business, there are

various marketing communication methods for marketers and managers to communicate the

identity; they can tell people who they are in the slogan (JC Johnson: “A family business

since 1886), illustrate in an obvious way – reveal it on the package (Warsteiner: family

tradition since 1753), or elaborate more specific by using storytelling (Lego: family stories on

the website). This study will focus on exploring the power of storytelling.

3.1 Definition of story

The theory of stories was first developed by Aristotle at thousands of years ago (384 –

322 BC; see Aristotle 1987), which indicates that a story includes a beginning, a middle, and

an end. We use several indices (characters, problems, attitudes, actions, and locations) in a

story to help us organize events in the form of time order (Woodside, 2010; Bruner, 1990;

Fiske, 1993). In fact, stories not only serve as a tool for organizing events, but also assist

individuals to understand their emotions and make sense of the world (Escalas, 1998).

3.2 Importance of story

The importance of story in individuals’ life cannot be emphasized enough as it is the

key for people to acquire and memorize information (Shank and Abelson, 1995). People’s

mental models include both verbal and nonverbal sections. Wyer and Radvansky (1999)

reveal that when people read a story, they will spontaneously form mental pictures based on

the narrative content, therefore people elaborate the traits of events that were not stated in the

verbal content. They also add that when it comes to images or visuals, people are unlikely to

develop verbal labels to their observations. Consequently, processing stories requires more

elaboration than processing visuals or images, because people have visual imagination in

their mind when they read verbal contents (Wyer & Radvansky, 1999). From a marketing

11

communication perspective, this means that consumers can develop a more extensive model

when they are exposed to brand stories than banner ads.

3.3 Brand story

3.3.1 Applications of storytelling in marketing

There are renowned brand stories spreading all over the world from mouth to mouth

(Huang, 2010). TOMS’ brand story is about giving back, the famous “one for one”, which

means when a pair of TOMS shoes is purchased, a pair of shoes is given to a child in

poverty-stricken areas (Smith & Wintrob, 2013). “People don’t just wear our shoes, they tell

our story,” said Blake Mycoskie, the CEO of TOMS (Smith & Wintrob, 2013, p.37). The

brand story of Nike, Phil Knight together with his coach Bill Bowerman aiming to make best

quality shoes for athletes, sets the tone that this is a professional sports shoe brand (Benson,

2005). The hardcore of brand story of Harley Davidson is not about the brand, because the

characters of their stories are their users (Smith & Wintrob, 2013). These user stories are told

via social media platforms, their official website, and advertisings (Brunninge, 2009; Huang,

2010). Harley Davidson uses the power of story to appeal more individuals who share the

same values and passion to join their community (Smith & Wintrob, 2013). In order to

categorize different brand stories, Granitz and Forman (2015) did an exploratory study to find

out what brand stories consumers can recall and desire to hear about. The findings in this

study suggest that consumers can recall brand stories about brand history, founder, and

product reliability, and they are willing to hear more stories about how brands are giving

back to society. Besides, Smith and Wintrob (2013) also divide brand stories applied in

marketing into four types: heritage stories, contemporary stories, folklore stories, and vision

stories.

3.3.2 Impact of brand story

Researchers not only emphasize the importance of brand story, but also have

12

examined the impact of brand story (Lundqvist, Liljander, Gummerus, & Van Riel, 2013).

Brand stories help consumers realize the benefits of a brand or a product, evoke their positive

feelings, more importantly, compared with normal advertisements, brand stories are less

critically analyzed by consumers (Kaufman, 2003; Escalas, 2004). Once consumers attach

themselves to brand stories, they offer brands opportunities to walk in their minds and build

resonance (Benson, 2005). In a recent study of Lundqvist and his colleagues (2013),

consumers who were exposed to the brand stories before would describe the brand more

positive, compared with consumers who never heard of any stories about the brand. Their

findings also suggest that consumers who know a brand’s stories are willing to pay more for

the brand’s products. When consumers know more stories about a brand, they can gain

deeper knowledge about it, such as attributes, values, and benefits, and stories can create new

nodes and activate the previous nodes in consumers’ mind (Bettman & Sujan, 1987). Escalas

(2004) concludes that mental models of consumers processing stories help them interpret

brand meaning, develop positive brand attitudes, and strengthen the self-brand connection.

3.3.3 Family-owned business brand stories

Every brand has different stories to tell; some brands convey values and heritage to

consumers via stories, some may differentiate themselves from competitors in a narrative

way (Granitz & Forman, 2015). The heritage of a brand illuminates the traditional way of life

that is valued by the past and future generations, it speaks the social status, characters, and

history (Benson, 2005). Family-owned businesses are masters of telling these heritage stories,

because the founders and family members have profound influences on the businesses and

FOBs are tightly linked to the history (Urde, Greyser, & Balmer, 2007). As aforementioned

family identities, FOBs have more options in their hands to decide which identity they want

to be perceived by consumers (Craig, Dibrell, & Davis, 2008). FOBs can follow the same

path of nonFOBs – focusing on the business, differentiate themselves from nonFOBs by

13

leveraging the family identity, or even integrate both by communicating the family in the

business (Micelotta & Raynard, 2011). Based on the three different identities, Blombäck and

Brunninge suggest that we can categorize FOB brand stories into three different types: brand

stories from the family identity angle, brand stories from the business identity angle, and

brand stories from a duality (family in the business) angle.

Figure 1. FOB brand story types

Type 1 – Family identity story

This type of communication is easy to be found on most FOBs’ websites, where

consumers are exposed to many black and white photos dated back to several decades ago.

Some photos are portraits of business founders, some are family members working or

standing together, which make consumers release warm feelings, trust, and respect (Micelotta

& Raynard, 2011). These photos also convey stability and reliability of the business (Craig,

Dibrell, & Davis, 2008). In the relevant textual content, how the founders started their

companies, their personal characteristics and lifetime experiences are given specific

illustration without any mention of their businesses (Micelotta & Raynard, 2011). Also in this

14

type of stories, Micelotta and Raynard (2011) suggest that the passion of founders and family

members for the business, their belief to keep the business going, and the values they share

together are cues that shape the consistent and trustworthy image. FOBs that focus on this

strategy are very proud of their family legacy and their family names (Craig, Dibrell, &

Davis, 2008).

Since family identity stories are all about the founders and family members, Micelotta

and Raynard (2011) claim that this type of story may evoke consumers’ brand

personification. In other words, consumers inevitably project founders’ personal

characteristics on the brand. Lussier and Sonfield (2009) point out that the influences of

founders on the FOB are not only active when they are in the charge of the business but also

when they retire or pass away. Astrachan (2015) states that telling the family stories of

founders and family members can give the business a soul and a face. The family history

story of JC Johnson is a perfect example in this case.

“JC Johnson was founded by Samuel Curtis Johnson in 1886. Samuel set out to earn a living

by developing a railway, but the business went bankrupt. Then, he became a partner in a

book and stationery store. But despite his reputation for honesty and integrity, this business

failed too. When Samuel was approaching 50 years old, he still didn’t give up, he started

mixing up batches of floor wax in his bathtub countless times until the wax became a

legendary household product.”

Type 2 – Business identity story

Business identity stories are brief interpretations of the company and products without

clear reference to the family (Blombäck and Brunninge, 2013). The organization is the

identity, and family components are downplayed in these stories. On the websites of these

FOBs, the family business identity is introduced in a very brief way (Micelotta and Raynard,

15

2011). The following statement of their history can be found, in the About Us on the website

of Henkel:

“At the beginning of the company's history in 1876, we meet a 28-year-old merchant who

was interested in science – Fritz Henkel. On September 26, 1876, he and two partners

founded the company Henkel & Cie in Aachen and marketed his first product, a universal

detergent based on silicate. During the following years, this German family of entrepreneurs

and thousands of their employees built Henkel into a global company.”

Although the fact that the business is a family business is mentioned above, the

emphases are more on the company identity and their company spirits, which do not involve

any familial components. The founded age was introduced to convey the reliability and

stability of the company to evoke consumers’ trust.

For FOBs that downplay the family card, they stress on the company identity and are

more inclined to concentrate on the future and innovation (Micelotta and Raynard, 2011).

They don’t want to be hindered by the potential negative associations of the family identity,

such as inflexible and reluctant to change, due to the management system (McConaughy,

Matthews, & Fialko, 2001). Therefore, for FOBs that compete in the technology or

manufacturing sectors, they prefer to leverage the organizational identity to build an

innovative, adaptive, and flexible brand image (Blombäck and Brunninge, 2013). They also

claim that the content of this type of story is mostly entwined with products or technology.

For example, BMW has the following statement in the company introduction, without

referring to any family elements, but underlining the present and future.

“The BMW Group sets trends in production technology and sustainability as an innovation

leader with an intelligent material mix, a technological shift towards digitalization and

16

resource-efficient production. At the same time, flexibility and continuous optimization of

value chains ensure competitiveness.”

Type 3 – Family in the business identity story

Blombäck and Brunninge (2013) name this type of identity as the duality of family

and business. Stories about the family in the business are neither family stories nor firm

stories. FOBs that adopt this strategy not only explicitly communicate the family, but also

illustrate that the family can add values to their businesses (Micelotta and Raynard, 2011). In

these stories, the relationship between family and business is embodied. The typical story

routine is telling how the family values are enriched over time and integrated into the

products. For example, LOGO introduces the Kristiansen family and the importance of their

family values to their products.

“The LEGO Group is a privately held company based in Billund, Denmark. The company is

still owned by the Kirk Kristiansen family who founded it in 1932. True to its family motto

“only the best is good enough”, the LEGO Group has been emphasizing since 1932. LEGO

products are tested rigorously to live up to the strictest safety and quality standards as well

as our high expectation.”

Indeed, these FOBs are constantly improving, replacing old products with new

features and innovation, but the family values remain the same. This type of stories is widely

told by FOBs that involve the fine art of craftsmanship, traditions, and know-how (Micelotta

and Raynard, 2011).

17

4. Consumers’ family-related brand associations

Existing literature suggests that FOBs have three different identities, nonetheless,

hasn’t examined the outcomes of communicating different identities. Also, we don’t know

how and to what extent brand stories of different identities affect consumers’ family-related

brand associations, what are the interactions between the different stories (Micelotta &

Raynard, 2011; Blombäck & Brunninge, 2009). To find answers to the questions above, this

study will communicate different FOB stories to examine consumers’ response. As

aforementioned consumers’ typical associations towards FOB, such as trustworthiness,

reliability, warmth, quality, and so on. This study will follow Keller’s (1993) customer-based

brand equity (CBBE) pyramid to categorize these associations into two categories: symbolic

family-related brand associations and functional family-related brand associations.

4.1 Symbolic family-related brand associations

Keller (2001) defines symbolic associations as non-product-related attributes

generated by consumers in an abstract way. He also categorizes warmth and brand

personality as symbolic associations, and they are located on the right path of Keller’s (2001)

CBBE pyramid. Therefore, following the definition, this study categorizes family-related

associations: sincere, honest, trustworthy, socially responsible, warm, and authentic as

symbolic family-related brand associations.

The concept of brand personality has existed for more than 60 years, researchers give

various definitions of brand personality, but the most commonly accepted one is defined as

“the set of human characteristics associated with a brand” (J.L. Aaker 1997, P347). For

example, when consumers think about Harley Davidson, they would associate it with a tough,

masculine man (Aaker; 1997; Smith, & Wintrob, 2013). J.L Aaker (1997) put forward the

famous five dimensions of brand personality (sincerity, excitement, competence, ruggedness,

and sophistication), under each dimension, there are two to four facets to represent each

18

dimension’s traits. For instance, four facets of sincerity are down-to-earth, honest,

wholesome, and cheerful. J.L Aaker (1997) points out that family-oriented is a trait of down-

to-earth under the sincerity personality. This is consistent with the finding of Maehle and his

colleagues (2011) that consumers associate FOBs with the sincere human characteristic.

Except sincere, FOBs are also described as authentic, honest, and trustworthy. Brand

authenticity has earned special attention from researchers and marketers lately; (Beverland &

Farrelly, 2010; Gilmore & Pine, 2007), while some researchers focus on finding the drivers

of authenticity, others dedicate to figure out how to measure it (Napoli, Dickinson,

Beverland, & Farrelly, 2014; Carrigan & Buckley, 2008). This “authenticity research cult” is

driven by consumers who are increasingly looking for genuine, original brands (Arnould &

Price, 2000; Beverland, 2005). In a family business study in the UK suggests that the FOB

identity is perceived as a source of authenticity and trustworthiness, and consumers have faith

in FOB’s integrity and honesty (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Boyle, 2004; Holt, 2002). This is

consistent with the findings in the study of Urde, Greyser, and Balmer (2007), but they

elaborate it from a different angle: FOB brand’s heritage is the hardcore that maintains brand

authenticity and drives trustworthiness. Moreover, the historical references of FOB are vital

resources that trigger the authentic perception (Suddaby, Foster, & Quinn Trank, 2010).

Keller (2001) divides the consumer brand attitude into judgements and feelings and

defines warmth as a positive feeling that makes consumers feel calm and peaceful. Numerous

literature on FOBs has confirmed that consumers can generate warm feelings toward a brand

that is family-owned (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Astrachan et al, 2015). Therefore, we can

see some brand slogans or logo including the family identity to evoke the warm feelings, like

JC Johnson, a famous American household product brand, put “a family company” in their

logo. However, FOBs that focus on the business identity want to be perceived as innovative

19

and cool, and they prefer to evoke consumers’ exciting feelings (Micelotta & Raynard, 2011).

Besides, FOBs are often associated with high social responsibility, since they adopt a long-

term customer-centric strategy (Craig, Dibrell, & Davis, 2008).

The associations above are strongly family-related. For this reason, it is expected that

a brand story containing a family identity can help a brand build a stronger sincerity

personality and a socially responsible image, strengthen consumers’ perceived brand

authenticity, trustworthiness, honesty, and evoke warm feelings. The accompanying

hypothesis is formulated:

H1: A brand elicits stronger symbolic family-related associations when the brand

story contains a family identity than when it does not.

Lundqvist and her colleagues (2013) claim that consumers have more positive

associations to a brand after they read the brand story. Granitz and Forman (2015) also agree

with it, and they suggest that consumers who know the brand story can describe a brand more

than consumers who never read the brand story. Therefore, it is expected that consumers who

only receive the basic product and brand information will elicit weakest brand associations,

as they don’t receive any brand story stimuli. The core dimensions of authenticity, such as

longevity, symbol, and values are held by non-FOBs as well, which can contribute to

perceived brand authenticity (Barney, 1991). Additionally, consumers perceive a brand as

authentic when the brand is more transparent in the ingredients and product performance, and

business identity stories excel in telling these stories (Morhart, 2015). Consequently,

consumers who read the business identity story may also evoke relevant symbolic

associations. However, as above expected family identity components are associated closely

with symbolic associations, and a family identity story can evoke stronger symbolic

associations than a business identity story. A business identity story may also help consumers

20

elicit symbolic associations. Therefore, it is reasonable to speculate that if a brand story

stressing on a family identity integrates business components can stimulate stronger symbolic

family-related brand associations. Thus, the accompanying hypothesis is proposed:

H2: The gap in symbolic family-related associations between a brand story

containing a family identity and a brand story without a family identity （H1）is larger

when the brand story has no business component than when it does.

4.2 Functional family-related brand associations

Keller’s (2001) also suggests that compared to symbolic associations, functional

associations are more relevant to brand attributes and performance. Consumers use symbolic

associations combining with their product experience to make judgments on whether a

product meets their utilitarian, economic, and aesthetic needs. Keller locates brand

associations such as quality, reliable, and superior on the left path of Keller’s (2001) CBBE

pyramid and categorizes them as functional associations. Following his definition, we can

categorize other family-related brand associations like innovative and stable as functional

associations.

Consumers’ perceived quality is defined by Zeithaml (1988) as “consumers’

judgments on a product’s overall performance”, which is different from actual quality.

Researchers have discussed the differences between objective quality and perceived quality,

also have struggled with which one should be valued more by organizations (Dodds &

Monroe 1985). However, some researchers (such as Maynes 1976) point out that consumers’

judgments on quality are all subjective, it is not possible to evaluate a product in an objective

way. Therefore, this study focuses on the perceived quality defined by Zeithaml (1988).

Brand reliability refers to a brand’s ability to deliver same standard products or services over

time (Keller, 2001). The perceptions of reliability are influenced by several factors, such as

accuracy, quality of customer support service, product duration, and so on (Keller, 2001).

21

Brand superiority refers to the extent to which consumers believe a brand is unique and better

than other brands in the same category (Gil, Andres, & Salinas, 2007). Brand superiority

depends on the number of unique associations consumers have towards a brand. Namely,

consumers think the brand can offer benefits that other brands cannot (Keller, 2001).

The family-owned image is often linked with quality-guaranteed. Consequently, it is

not hard to understand why in the food industry the family identity communication is very

common (Astrachan et al, 2015). However, in a family brand story stressing on the business

identity, such as Henkel, illustrates more about the business, the resources, and quality of the

product, although it conveys the business is family-owned or –controlled (Micelotta &

Raynard, 2011). The content of business identity brand story also highlights the

achievements and growth of the company in the past years, which helps strengthen

consumers’ perceived quality, reliability, and superiority (Micelotta & Raynard, 2011). Their

innovative technologies and know-how in the story are also used to create unique

associations.

Moreover, J.L Aaker (1997) suggests that the typical traits of competent personality

are reliable, technical, successful, and corporate. The brand stories of FOBs focus on the

company, products, and technology and elaborate more about the contemporary, because

these FOBs pursue an innovative and successful brand image (Blombäck and Brunninge,

2013). Therefore, the competent personality should be associated closely with functional

associations rather than symbolic associations. Hence, it is expected that brand stories

focusing on the business identity can evoke stronger functional associations. The

accompanying hypothesis is stated as follow:

H3: A brand elicits stronger functional family-related associations when the

brand story contains a business identity than when it does not.

22

Based on the conclusions of Lundqvist and her colleagues (2013), Granitz and

Forman (2015), consumers may have the weakest functional associations to a brand if they

don’t receive any brand story stimuli. Sageder, Mitter, and Durstmüller (2018) point out that

consumers often associate family ownership with good quality, long-term customer-oriented,

and stable. As a result, it is very possible that when consumers read a family brand story

stressing on how the owner started from the scratch and passed the business to next

generation, consumers can elicit functional associations as well. Besides, history and heritage

of family business are perceived as core drivers of stable and competent Carrigan & Buckley,

2008). Even this is the case, a brand story focusing on the business and product can evoke

stronger functional associations than a brand story focusing on the family identity, and some

people think the family ownership may hinder their flexibility to innovation (Sageder, Mitter,

& Durstmüller, 2018). However, it is possible that if FOBs stressing on the business identity

fill in some family components in their business brand stories, then consumers can elicit

stronger functional associations. The accompanying hypothesis is formulated:

H4: The gap in functional family-related associations between a brand story

containing a business identity and a brand story without a business identity (H3) is bigger

when the brand story has no family component than when it does.

In the study of Lundqvist and her colleagues (2013) exploring the impact of

storytelling on the consumer brand experience, the results suggested that consumers who

were exposed the brand story of the product not only described the brand in a more positive

way, they were also willing to pay more for the product than consumers who were not

exposed to the brand story. They add that a well elaborated story can generate positive brand

associations, thus increase consumers’ purchase intentions and willingness to pay. Carrigan

and Buckley (2008) suggest that consumers think the product of a family-owned brand is

more expensive than a product of a nonfamily-owned brand. They also indicate that when

23

think of family business, most consumers have very positive attitude and some even prefer

family business over nonfamily business. This is because most consumers associate family

business with small local family business, which they normally have a good personal

relationship with. Therefore, the following hypothesis will be tested:

H5: Symbolic family-related associations are positively related to brand

evaluations.

As Lundqvist and her colleagues (2013) point out, the positive associations are the

keys lead to positive brand evaluations. Functional associations such as high quality,

competent, innovative, superior, stable, and reliable belong to the positive associations

(Zeithaml, 1988; Gil, Andres, & Salinas, 2007). Hence, it is expected that functional family-

related associations can lead to overall positive brand attitude. J.L Aaker (1997) put forward

that brands enjoying a competent personality are considered as successful and technical.

Compared with non-well-known brands, consumers have higher purchase intention towards

well-known successful brands, and they also are willing to pay more (Lundqvist et al, 2013).

For these reasons, it is expected that functional associations can also lead to overall positive

brand evaluation. The following hypotheses is formulated:

H6: Functional family-related associations are positively related to brand

evaluations.

4.3 Conceptual model

The following conceptual model is formulated based on the hypotheses above:

24

Figure 2. Conceptual model

.

Presence of family

component

cocomponent

Presence of

business component

Symbolic

associations

Functional

associations

Brand evaluation

(brand attitude,

purchase intention,

willingness to pay)

H1 +

H3 +

25

5. Method

In this chapter, the method of this study will be introduced. First, the stimulus

development will be explained. Next, a pre-test will be conducted to determine if the stimuli

are effective. Then, this study will design the main test based on the pre-test results.

5.1 Stimulus development

Blombäck and Brunninge (2013), Micelotta and Raynard, M. (2011) are the pioneers

who bring up the different identity strategies of family business. Therefore, this study follows

their previous work to explore further family business communication. Especially in the

study of Blombäck and Brunninge (2013), they provide short brand stories or statements of

real family brands to represent each family business identity. Although there is no

implication on the consequences of adopting different strategies and consumer s’ response

toward different strategies, they have sufficient reasons to support why these stories or

statements can be good examples of different identities. Following their future research

suggestions, this study will examine the outcomes of communicating different identities in

the brand stories of family brands. The stimuli of this study will be chosen from the study of

Blombäck and Brunninge (2013) for two reasons: first, these brands are regarded as good

examples of FOB expressing the business identity, the family identity, or both; second, they

are not international brands, so previous brand attitude can be excluded from the study to

make sure the effectiveness of the manipulations.

The right stimuli for this study should meet the following requirements: 1.

Appropriate length. The length of the brand stories should be neither too long nor too short.

Reading long stories needs some time, consumers may lose interest in reading them, but if a

brand story is too short, the essences of a brand cannot be delivered completely to the

external audiences (Smith & Wintrob, 2013). The good length for a brand story is

recommended from 100 words to 150 words (Woodside, Sood, & Miller, 2008). 2. A brand

26

has different versions of brand stories. Since the aim of this study is to explore the

outcomes of communicating brand stories of different identities, it is necessary that the

stimuli have different versions of brand stories, some telling about the product and business

and some focus on the family. 3. Non-well-known local brands. Participants for this study

may have previous attitude to international brands or well-known brands, and their personal

previous attitude for the brands may make the results of this study biased. Hence, it is very

important that the stimuli in this study are not known by the participants. 4. Participants are

not aware of the family ownership. If participants already knew the brand was family-

owned, then there might be no difference between reading a business identity story and

reading a family identity story.

Out of 12 brands mentioned in the study of Blombäck and Brunninge (2013), only

three brands met the requirements above: SieMatic (a family kitchen design brand from

Sweden), Warburtons (a family baking brand from UK), and Dafgårds (a family premade

food brand from Sweden).

5.2 Pre-test

To identify if the brand stories of the three brands are good examples of family

identity stories and business identity stories, if consumers are familiar with these brands, and

if they know the family ownership of the three brands, a pre-test will be conducted to

determine the final stimuli.

5.2.1 Design and measurements of the pre-test

Participants will be exposed to six brand stories, for each brand a family identity

brand story and a business identity story. To find out the sentences perceived as family

components or business component, participants will be asked to highlight the sentences in

different colors if they perceiv it as a business component or a family component when they

read a story. Based on the results, this study can formulate a family and business identity

27

story for each brand by combining the business components and family components.

Consumers’ familiarity with the three brands and if they know the family ownership of the

brands will also be tested. They will also evaluate if the brand story is a good example of a

business brand story or a family brand story. Last but not the least, the family ownership

relevance in the industry will be measured. Participants need to read six brand stories of three

brands, the duration of the pre-test will be around 20 minutes, at least 20 participants are

needed to join the pre-test. To get more insights more participants, after the end of the pre-

test, a short interview will be conducted. Participants can talk about their preferences and

general opinions about these brand stories to help the design of the main test.

5.2.2 Results of the pre-test

Table 1. Pre-test data descriptions

Mean

(business)

Std.Deviation

(business)

Mean

(family)

Std.Deviation

(family)

SieMatic 5.700 1.031 5.350 0.988

Warburtons 4.750 1.585 6.100 0.912

Dafgårds 4.750 1.372 6.050 1.146

If the story is a good example of business/family identity story. (1=Strongly disagree,

7=Strongly agree)

20 participants joined this pre-test. Two out of the three brands will be chosen as the

final stimuli, because a brand needs to be served as a replication of the study to identify that

the hypotheses can be applied to different product categories. All three brands were not well-

known by the participants, only one participant was slightly familiar with SieMatic, and two

participants were slightly familiar with Dafgårds. However, none of them was aware of the

family ownership of the three brands. Warburtons and Dafgårds are in a very similar product

category. To find if there is any across-category effect, it would be reasonable to choose only

one brand out of the two. The business identity story of SieMatic was considered as the best

example of a business identity story, and the family identity story of Warburtons was

28

perceived as the best example of a family identity story. The Means of brand stories of and

Warburtons were close, but two participants were familiar with Dafgårds while no

participants were familiar with Warburtons. Put everything listed above into considerations,

the final two stimuli were SieMatic and Warburtons.

Participants perceived components like quality, reward, and more detailed product

information as business components, while they regarded components like family-owned,

family generation, and long history as family components. According to the definition of

family and business identity story by Blombäck and Brunninge (2013), the family and

business identity stories should contain both family components and business components.

Hence, the family and business identity stories of SieMatic and Warburtons were created

based on the components perceived by participants. For more details, please refer to the

tables below.

Table 2. Perceived business components and family components (SieMatic)

Sentence Business

component

Family

component

our design meet personal needs in both function and aesthetics 13 0

developing innovative functions 10 0

have won internationally recognized design awards 9 1

we have built first-class kitchen furniture - and nothing else 7 1

into the design language of the furniture 6 0

SieMatic Kitchen Design can be perfectly fit 6 0

SieMatic is a family business 0 13

took over the management of his father's business 0 12

currently run by the third generation of Siekmanns 0 11

he transformed the family business into an international

company

3 10

He founded the August-Siekmann-Möbelwerke furniture

factory in 1929.

0 8

August Siekmann laid the foundation for industrial furniture

production.

0 7

Table 3. Perceived business components and family components (Warburtons)

29

Sentence Business

component

Family

component

our dedicated Quality and Technical team carries out rigorous

tests

13 0

we are one of the most technologically advanced businesses in

UK food manufacturing

11 0

we also recognise and reward our bakeries which strive to

produce the highest quality

8 2

invested £400 million in our business over the past ten years, 7 1

building new bakeries, refurbishing others 7 0

there is no part of the product that goes untested 6 0

Thomas Warburton and his wife Ellen first opened their

grocery shop in 1870

0 15

the fifth generation of Warburtons Jonathan, Ross and Brett 0 14

All those years on and Warburtons is still a private family-

owned business

0 13

Our family values are the drivers for how we behave 3 12

Families are at the heart of our family business 1 11

As a fifth-generation family company 0 8

Besides, most participants in the pre-test indicated that they preferred reading the

family identity stories over the business identity stories, as family identity stories contained

characters, plots, and storylines to follow. They also suggested that reading family identity

stories takes less time than reading business identities stories. However, in fact, the word

count of family identity stories and the word count of business identity stories were almost

the same.

5.3 Main test design

The aim of this experiment is to find out the importance of the brand stories, what

kind of associations would be evoked by different brand stories, and how the associations

affect the overall brand evaluation. To achieve the goal, the study is a 2*2*2 mixed design,

which means that there are four different conditions and two stimuli. Four conditions are

control condition, family identity condition, business condition, and family in the business

condition. Since this study chooses non-well-known brands, basic brand introduction and

product information are needed to make participants get to know the two brands. Participants

30

in the control condition will only receive the basic information, including a brief brand

introduction, basic product information, and two pictures of the product, no brand stories at

all. Participants in the other three groups will receive the same information of the control

group plus two business identity stories of SieMatic and Warburtons, or two family identity

stories, or two family in the business identity stories of the two brands. Participants will be

randomly assigned to one of the four condition.

5.4 Measures

The constructs in this study will be measured by a seven-point Likert Scale

(1=Strongly disagree, 7=Strongly agree). Participants need to indicate to what extent they

agree with the statement. The brand evaluation will be measured by brand attitude

(Generally, my brand attitude towards SieMatic is positive. 1=Strongly disagree, 7=Strongly

agree), purchase intention (i.e. If I need Kitchen design, I would choose SieMatic.), and

willingness to pay (i.e. If I choose SeMatic, I would pay. Participants were asked to enter a

price in euros). As discussed earlier in the hypotheses chapter, six typical family-related

functional associations are competent (i.e. I think SieMatic is competent), quality, innovative,

superiority, reliable, and stable. Six family-related symbolic associations are sincere, warm,

authentic, trustworthy, socially responsible, and honest.

Due to the importance of family ownership might be different to individuals. Some

people might highly value the family ownership of a brand, thus, communicating the family

identity in the brand story could be more effective. While some people might not see the

difference between a brand is family-owned or nonfamily-owned. Therefore, the importance

of family ownership needs to be measured (Family ownership is important to me). To double

confirm that the stimuli in this study are effective, the manipulations will be checked again

(i.e. The information I read was family-oriented. The information I read was business-

oriented). Moreover, the family ownership relevance in the industry will also be measured

31

(i.e. Family ownership is important in the kitchen design industry). At least 40 participants

will be needed for each group to ensure the samples are enough for data analysis.

Due to the limitations of the funds, this study will use convenience samples. The

questionnaires will be distributed online over Facebook, WhatsApp, Wechat, and Mturk. The

duration of the questionnaires for each group is estimated around seven minutes. Relevant

questions like brand evaluations and associations will be asked after participants finish

reading the information of each brand.

6.Results

In this chapter, the demographics of the samples and data preparation were discussed.

For the data analysis, the reliability test was conducted by using scale reliability analysis and

factor analysis. Then, the manipulations were doubled checked by factorial ANOVA test.

The model and hypotheses were examined. Last but not the least, additional analysis was

conducted to take a deeper look into the effect of different components on different

associations.

6.1 Respondents

227 people filled in the questionnaires, and 172 people finished the questionnaires

completely. Out of these 172 people, 10 people indicated that they were extremely familiar

with the brands before. To make sure that their previous brand attitude will not influence the

results of this study, they were excluded in the data analysis. 2 respondents did not give any

number as their willingness to pay. Therefore, 160 respondents were taken into account in

the analysis. Overall, 63.38% (N=103) of the respondents were between 19 to 26 years old,

and 35.62% (N=57) of the respondents were older than 26 years old. 58.75% (N=94) of the

respondents were female, while 41.25% (N=66) of the respondents were male. For more

demographic information, please refer to appendix 1.

32

6.2 Data preparation

The 160 respondents were randomly assigned to the four different conditions, and

each condition has 40 respondents. To categorize the respondents, two new variables were

created, namely business component and family component. For the control group,

respondents only received basic product information, no brand story stimulus, and the values

for business component and family component were both 0. For business identity story

group, the value for business component was 1 and for family component was 0. For family

identity story group, the value for business component was 0 and for family component was

1. Therefore, for the last group family and business brand story, the values for business

component and family component were both 1.

6.3 Reliability test

The aim of the reliability test is to confirm if the items of symbolic associations and

functional associations were categorized correctly within the group, since no previous study

can support that. The reliability test was also conducted for the items of brand evaluation to

make sure that purchase intention, brand attitude, and willingness to pay are good items to

gauge brand evaluation.

The symbolic association scales had high reliability, with Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.925.

The corrected item-total correlations indicated that all the items had a good correlation with

the total score of the scale (all above 0.30). The symbolic association scales also had high

reliability, with Cronbach’s Alpha = .924. The corrected item-total correlations indicated that

all the items had a good correlation with the total score of the scale as well (all above .30).

Since the Cronbach’s alpha of functional associations (.924) and symbolic associations (.925)

were very close, which meant that the associations under each group were closely related.

However, this was not enough to imply that these associations were not related to

another association group. Therefore, the exploratory factor analysis was needed to double

33

confirm that these associations were categorized correctly and highly related to each other

within the group.

Table 4. Rotated Component Matrix of functional associations and symbolic associations

Category Item Functional

association

Symbolic

association

Functional Competent 0.809

Functional Quality 0.77 0.326

Functional Stable 0.763

Functional Reliable 0.732 0.411

Functional Innovative 0.719

Functional Superiority 0.614 0.453

Symbolic Sincere 0.87

Symbolic Trustworthy 0.37 0.716

Symbolic Honest 0.363 0.707

Symbolic Socially responsible 0.41 0.699

Symbolic Authentic 0.48 0.696

Symbolic Warm 0.679

A principal axis factoring analyzing (PAF) was conducted on the scales. The Kaiser –

Meyer – Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO=0.918.

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity = 1274.936, p-value < 0.001, suggested that the correlations

between items were sufficiently large for PAF. 12 factors were rotated with an Oblimin with

Kaiser normalization rotation. The table above shows the factor loadings after rotation. As

the results suggested, some items of symbolic associations showed high cross-loading on the

factor of functional associations, and some items of functional associations showed high

cross-loading on the factor of symbolic associations as well. This could be people could not

categorize their associations with a brand into functional or symbolic associations very

clearly. However, these items had an even higher correlation with the group they were in.

Therefore, it is reasonable to categorize sincerity, warmth, authenticity, trustworthiness,

social responsibility, and honest into symbolic associations, and categorize competent,

quality, stability, reliability, innovation, and superiority into functional associations.

34

To the check the reliability of the brand evaluation, the outlier test was conducted first

to examine the measurement of willingness to pay, because the willingness to pay was not

measured by a seven-point Likert Scale but an open text input. As results suggested, the

willingness to pay of SieMatic had 16 outliers (N=155, Percentage=10.32%, Missing

value=5). The willingness to pay for Warburtons had 9 outliners (N=154,

Percentage=5.84%, Missing value=6). Due to the high percentages of the outliers, it is

necessary to remove the measurement willingness to pay to ensure that the results of the

hypotheses are not biased. The other two measurements of brand evaluation – brand attitude

and purchase intention were reliable with Cronbach’s Alpha =0.772. Therefore, the

measurement of brand evaluation can be achieved by combining the measurement of brand

attitude and purchase intention.

6.4 Manipulation checks

Table 5. Data overview of SieMatic brand story manipulation

Family-oriented Business-oriented

Condition Mean Std.Deviation Mean Std.Deviation

Control 4.02 1.544 5.00 1.301

Business 4.53 1.432 5.27 1.086

Family 5.05 1.218 5.03 1.230

Family in the business 5.35 1.167 5.42 1.083

Table 6. Data overview of Warburtons brand story manipulation

Family-oriented Business-oriented

Condition Mean Std.Deviation Mean Std.Deviation

Control 3.85 1.762 5.08 1.269

Business 4.45 1.449 5.43 1.107

Family 5.03 1.291 5.03 1.250

Family in the business 5.50 0.934 5.57 0.747

35

Table 7. factorial ANOVA test of the effect of different components on the statement the

information is family-oriented

Source Mean

square

F P-value Partial

Eta

Squared

Intercept 7134.753 2578.752 <0.001 0.943

Business component 17.578 6.353 0.013 0.039

Family component 83.028 30.009 <0.001 0.161

Business component *Family component 0.528 0.191 0.663 0.001

*IV presence of family component and business component

DV the information is family-oriented

Figure 3. profile plot of the effect of different components on the statement the information

is family-oriented (SieMatic)

IV: Presence of family component (0=absent, 1=present)

Figure 4. profile plot of the effect of different components on the statement the information

is family-oriented (Warburtons)

Presence of business

component

absent

present

DV: Estimated

Marginal Means

of the

information is

family-oriented

36

IV: Presence of family component (0=absent, 1=present)

Before examine the actual hypotheses, it was necessary to examine if respondents

perceived the story or information they read as family-oriented or business-oriented

(Respondents were asked to indicate if they agree with the following statements: The

information I read is business oriented. The information I read is family oriented). First, the

factorial ANOVA was used to examine the effect of the family component and business

component on the family-oriented statement. The results were not as good as expected,

because table 5 shows that both business components and family components had effects on

the family-oriented statement. However, the partial eta squared indicated that family

components had a higher effect size than business components (family component: partial eta

squared =.161, p-value <.001; business component: partial eta squared =.039, p-value <.05).

For this reason, it is still reasonable to conclude that the manipulations were effective.

Another interesting fact cannot be overlooked was that, as the figures above indicated,

participants perceived the information was more family-oriented not only the family

components were present, but also the business components were present. Same for the

statement of the information was business-oriented, participants agreed with it more when

Presence of business

component

absent

present

DV: Estimated

Marginal Means

of the

information is

family-oriented

37

both business components and family components were present.

Figure 3 and figure 4 both show that when family components were present,

participants perceived the information was family-oriented more. The effect was even

stronger when business components and family components were both present.

Table 8. factorial ANOVA test of the effect of different components on the statement the

information is business-oriented

Source Mean

square

F P-value Partial

Eta

Squared

Intercept 8746.653 4648.394 <0.001 0.968

Business component 12.403 6.592 0.011 0.041

Family component 0.378 0.201 0.655 0.001

Business component * Family component 0.528 0.281 0.597 0.002

*IV presence of family component and business component

DV the information is family-oriented

Figure 5. profile plot of the effect of different components on the statement the information

is business-oriented (SieMatic)

IV: Presence of business component (0=absent, 1=present)

Presence of family

component

absent

present

DV: Estimated

Marginal Means of

the information is

business-oriented

38

Figure 6. profile plot of the effect of different components on the statement the information

is business- oriented (Warburtons)

IV: Presence of business component (0=absent, 1=present)

Then factorial ANOVA was used to examine the effect of the family component and

the business component on the business-oriented statement. The effect of the business

component on the business-oriented was significant (p-value <0.05, partial eta squared

=0.041). There was also an interaction effect between family component and the business

oriented but the result was not significant (p-value =0.655, partial eta squared =.001).

Therefore, the manipulations were effective.

6.5 Hypotheses testing

This study used structural equation modeling (SEM) and executed the analysis in

SPSS AMOS. SEM can test the relationship between the unobservable latent constructs and

observable variables (Byrne, 2010). The benefit of using SEM is that SEM can examine the

model as a whole without separating it, thus potential relationships can be found among the

independent variables (presence of family/business components), mediators

(functional/symbolic associations), and the dependent variable (brand evaluation). Besides,

Presence of family

component

absent

present

DV: Estimated

Marginal Means of

the information is

business-oriented

39

measurement errors can be decreased in this way (Nachtigall, Kroehne, Funke & Steyer,

2003). The information of SieMatic and the information of Warburtons are different stimuli,

and the two brands are in different product categories. Therefore, it is necessary to test the

hypotheses separately for the two brands.

Table 9. Data overview of the effects of different SieMatic conditions on the associations

and brand evaluation

Functional association Symbolic association Brand evaluation

Condition Mean Std.Deviation Mean Std.Deviation Mean Std.Deviation

Control 5.554 0.783 5.171 0.883 5.388 1.112

Business 5.529 0.934 5.342 0.816 5.638 0.768

Family 5.275 0.844 5.225 0.882 5.350 0.955

Family in

the business

5.700 0.957 5.546 0.941 5.763 0.947

Table 10. Data overview of the effects of different Warburtons conditions on the

associations and brand evaluation

Functional association Symbolic association Brand evaluation

Condition Mean Std.Deviation Mean Std.Deviation Mean Std.Deviation

Control 4.846 0.952 5.038 0.941 4.850 1.199

Business 5.321 1.014 5.308 0.985 5.538 0.812

Family 4.971 1.020 5.079 0.989 5.388 0.881

Family in

the business

5.567 0.779 5.608 0.836 5.788 0.831

Table 11. Model Output in AMOS (SieMatic)

Estimates S.E. C.R. P-value

H1 0.129 0.138 0.935 0.350

H2 0.246 0.138 1.779 0.075

H3 0.200 0.139 1.435 0.151

H4 -0.054 0.139 -0.389 0.697

H5 0.377 0.077 4.910 ***

H6 0.136 0.077 1.768 0.077

Table 12. Model Output in AMOS (Warburtons)

40

Estimates S.E. C.R. P-value

H1 0.171 0.148 1.158 0.247

H2 0.400 0.148 2.711 0.007

H3 0.535 0.148 3.610 ***

H4 0.185 0.148 1.250 0.211

H5 0.300 0.059 5.093 ***

H6 0.449 0.058 7.805 ***

6.5.1 Hypothesis 1

H1. As the results indicated, for SieMatic, there was a positive relationship

between family components and symbolic associations but not reaching significance (path

coefficient =0.129, p-value= 0.35). Warburtons had similar results as the coefficient was

0.171with a p-value of 0.247. Therefore, the hypothesis is not supported.

6.5.2 Hypothesis 2

H2. The hypothesis for SieMatic is not supported, but for Warburtons is supported.

For SieMartic, the coefficient was 0.246 with a p-value of 0.075. For Warburtons, the

coefficient was 0.4 with a p-value < 0.01.

6.5.3 Hypothesis 3

H3. For Warburtons the hypothesis is supported, because the coefficient was 0.535

with a p-value < 0.001. There was also a positive insignificant effect of business component

on functional associations for SieMatic (coefficient =0.2, p-value=0.151).

6.5.4 Hypothesis 4

H4. The hypothesis is rejected. As the coefficient for SieMatic was negative, -

0.054 with a p-value of 0.697. Besides, for Warburton the result was positive but not

statistical significant (coefficient=0.185, p-value=0.211).

6.5.5 Hypothesis 5

H5. The hypothesis is supported for both SieMatic and Warburtons. The

41

coefficient for SieMatic was 0.377 with a p-value <0.001, and the coefficient for Warburtons

was 0.3 with a p-value <0.001.

6.5.6 Hypothesis 6

H6. The hypothesis is only supported for Warburtons. There was a positive

relationship between functional associations and brand evaluation with a conventional level

of statistical significance p-value <0.001, the coefficient was 0.449. For SieMatic, the

coefficient was 0.136, but did not reach a traditional level of statistical significance (p-

value=0.077).

Table 12. Hypotheses summaries

Nr Hypothesis SieMatic Warburtons

H1 A brand elicits stronger symbolic family-related

associations when the brand story contains a family

identity than when it does not.

Not

supported

Not

supported

H2 The gap in symbolic family-related associations between a

brand story containing a family identity and a brand story

without a family identity (H1) is bigger when the brand

story has no business component than when it does.

Not

supported

Supported

H3 A brand elicits stronger functional family-related

associations when the brand story contains a business

identity than when it does not.

Not

supported

Supported

H4 The gap in functional family-related associations between

a brand story containing a business identity and a brand

story without a business identity (H3) is bigger when the

brand story has no family component than when it does.

Not

supported

Not

supported

H5 Symbolic family-related associations are positively related

to brand evaluations.

Supported Supported

H6 Functional family-related associations are positively

related to brand evaluations.

Not

supported

Supported

Figure 7. Conceptual model with pathcoefficients for SieMatic

42

Figure 8. Conceptual model with path coefficients for Warburtons

The results of the hypotheses about family-related associations were not as good as

expected, as most results did not reach a statistically significant level, especially for

SieMatic. Apart from the SEM analysis in Amos, additional factorial ANOVA can be used to

explore if the presence of family/business components would provoke stronger family-related

associations.

Table 13. Factorial ANOVA test of the effects of the presence of family/business

components on the symbolic family-related associations

Presence of family

component

cocomponent

Presence of

business component

Symbolic

associations

Functional

associations

Brand evaluation

(brand attitude,

purchase intention,

willingness to pay)

H1 (0.129)

H3 (0.2)

Presence of family

component

cocomponent

Presence of

business component

Symbolic

associations

Functional

associations

Brand evaluation

(brand attitude,

purchase intention,

willingness to pay)

H1 (0.171)

H3 (0.535***)

43

Source Mean

Square

F P-value Partial

Eta

Squared

Intercept 8953.501 6627 0 0.977

Business component 8.342 6.174 0.014 0.038

Family component 1.8 1.332 0.250 0.008

Business component * family

component

0.834 0.617 0.433 0.004

Figure 9. profile plot of the effects of the presence of family/business component on the

symbolic family-related associations(SieMatic)

IV: Presence of family component (0=absent, 1=present)

Figure 10. profile plot of the effects of the presence of family/business component on the

symbolic family-related associations(Warburtons)

Presence of business

component

absent

present

DV: Estimated

Marginal Means of

the symbolic

associations

44

IV: Presence of family component (0=absent, 1=present)

The first factorial ANOVA tested the relationship between different components and

symbolic family-related brand associations. The graphs above indicated that when family

component existed, participants elicited stronger symbolic associations, although not

significant (p-value=0.250, partial eta squared =0.008). Furthermore, when business

component existed, there was a statistical trend that participants elicited even stronger

symbolic associations (p-value < 0.05, partial eta squared =0.038).

Table 14. Factorial ANOVA test of the effects of the presence of family/business

components on the functional family-related associations

Source Mean

Square

F P-value Partial

Eta

Squared

Intercept 9143.157 6649.2 0 0.977

Business component 10.817 7.886 0.006 0.048

Family component 0.345 0.251 0.617 0.002

Business component * family

component

1.629 1.185 0.276 0.008

Figure 11. profile plot of the effects of the presence of family/business component on the

Presence of business

component

absent

present

DV: Estimated

Marginal Means of

the symbolic

associations

45

functional family-related associations (SieMatic)

IV: Presence of business component (0=absent, 1=present)

Figure 12. profile plot of the effects of the presence of family/business component on the

functional family-related associations (Warburtons)

IV: Presence of business component (0=absent, 1=present)

As the results suggested, when the brand story contained business components,

participants provoked strong functional association (p-value < 0.05, partial eta

Presence of family

component

absent

present

DV: Estimated

Marginal Means of

the functional

associations

Presence of family

component

absent

present

DV: Estimated

Marginal Means of

the functional

associations

46

squared=0.048). However, the graph of SieMatic above has an interaction, in the context that

family component was absent, business components could not evoke stronger functional

associations. Both graphs above indicated that when family components existed, the

functional associations were even dramatically increased with a marginal trend toward

significance (p-value=0.052, partial eta squared =0.24).

6.6 Additional analysis

The factorial ANOVA analysis above showed that how the presence of

business/family components affect the provocations of functional/symbolic associations. The

results also indicated that there were interactions between the effects. Apart from analyzing

the associations in between subjects, it would be interesting to see if there is any difference

existed in within-subjects.

Table 13. Factorial ANOVA test of within- subject effects

Source Mean

Square

F P-value Partial

Eta

Squared

Context 6.433 13.634 0.000 0.080

Context *business component 2.397 5.080 0.026 0.032

Context *family component 0.791 1.676 0.197 0.220

Context *business component *family

component

0.122 0.258 0.612 0.002

Association type 0.497 2.465 0.118 0.016

Association type *business component 0.080 0.398 0.529 0.003

Association type *family component 0.285 1.412 0.236 0.009

Association type *business component

*family component

0.066 0.327 0.568 0.002

Context *association type 3.048 22.292 0.000 0.125

47

Figure 12 and 13. profile plots of the effects of the presence of family component on the

strength of associations

SieMatic Warburtons

IV: Presence of family component (0=absent, 1=present)

DV: The strength of the associations ( functional associations, symbolic associations)

Figure 14 and 15. profile plots of the effects of the presence of business component on the

strength of associations

SieMatic Warburtons

IV: Presence of business component (0=absent, 1=present)

DV: The strength of the associations ( functional associations, symbolic associations)

48

As the figure 12 and the figure 14 above indicated, for SieMatic, the functional

associations were always stronger than the symbolic associations. However, for Warburtons,

it was the other way around: the symbolic associations were always above the functional

associations. The two association types had different effects in the two contexts – SieMatic

and Warburtons, with a significant p-value <0.001, partial eta squared = 0.125. In the figure

12, when the family components were present, there was an increase in the symbolic

association but accompanying with a decrease in the functional associations. Besides, as the

table 13 suggested, there was a significant effect of the presence of business components on

the strength of the associations with a p-value <0.05, partial eta squared= 0.032. From the

figure 15, for Warburtons, it was clear that when the business components were present, the

functional associations were dramatically increased.

49

7. Discussion

7.1 General discussion

7.1.1 Manipulation checks

From the results of the pre-test, the perceived business components can be concluded

as quality, innovation, product, business investment, and reward. The perceived family

components revolve around generations, passing down the business, and long history, which

means when consumers are exposed to information contain these elements, they would

perceive the brand is a family-owned business. However, in the manipulation checks of the

main test, the business components also had effects on the family-oriented statement. Yet，

the partial eta squared of business components had a smaller effect size than the partial eta

squared of family components. This might be that consumers associated traits such as good

quality and superiority with family business as well. When they saw the statements about

these traits, they might subconsciously have the perception that this brand could be family-

owned. When family components and business components were both present, consumers

perceived the information they read was more family-oriented and more business-oriented.

This also reflected that consumers strongly associate family ownership not only with

symbolic associations such as long history, but also with functional associations such as

quality-driven and stable.

7.1.2 Main effects

The results of this study indicated that participants who did not read the brand stories

of SieMatic and Warburtons had lower brand evaluation than participants who read the brand

stories of the two brands. Among participants who read the brand stories, participants who

50

read the family and business identity stories of the two brands had overall better brand

evaluation than participants who read the business identity stories or family identity stories.

In the pre-test, participants suggested they loved reading family stories more than

business stories, because family stories have plots, characters, and are easier to follow. This

study created family and family identity brand stories by combining both family components

and business components. It seems that brand stories containing both family components and

business components can make consumers have better general brand attitude towards the

brand and a higher purchase intention.

7.1.3 Mediation effects

Previous study summarized many typical family-related brand associations, such as

sincere, authentic, quality-driven, reliable, etc. This study is the first and foremost to

categorize the typical family-related brand associations into symbolic family-related brand

associations and functional family-related brand associations. The Cronbach’s alpha and

factor analysis confirmed this categorization, even though consumers might not be aware that

their family-related associations were in different categorizes.

In this study, the functional association mediation effect was partially approved,

which means consumers can elicite stronger functional family-related brand associations if

they know the business identity brand story. It was only partially supported, because the

result was significant for Warburtons but not for SieMatics. The result for SieMatic was not

significant which might be because participants were not familiar with the kitchen design

industry, and most of them might not have previous experience in choosing kitchen designs.

As a result, evaluating their associations toward SieMatic could be abstract. Participants had

more positive attitudes toward SieMatic, thus, the second reason might be that participants

elicited overall positive associations.

No matter functional associations or symbolic associations, if these associations were

51

strongly evoked by participants, then these associations could lead to a more positive brand

evaluation. The effect of symbolic associations on the brand evaluation was supported. The

effect of functional associations on the brand evaluation was only partially supported.

Functional associations can lead to positive brand evaluation, which was only applied to

Warburtons but not to SieMatic. It is difficult to explain why the result for SieMatic was not

significant. Since the additional analysis indicated that, for SieMatic, in the within subjects,

the functional associations were always stronger than the symbolic associations. Surprisingly,

the results of the symbolic associations even proved that they were positively related to brand

evaluation with a significant p-value and a bigger path coefficient. There are two potential

explanations. The first explanation is that participants had more positive attitudes toward the

symbolic associations than the functional associations, and they might more rely on the

emotional feeling and judgments than the actual product attributes and performance to make

purchase decisions. Another possible explanation is that because SieMatic is a high-end

brand, functional associations such as quality and reliability are prerequisites for SieMatic.

Therefore, functional associations did not play an important role in generating positive brand

attitude and increasing purchase intention. Warburtons is the other way around: bread exists

in consumers’ daily consumptions, thus, consumers may be more familiar with it and have

more emotional feelings toward it. This is in line with the additional analysis for the

associations in the within-subjects. Participants always elicited stronger symbolic

associations than functional associations for Warburtons. Unlike SieMatic, Warburtons is not

a high-end brand. Therefore, quality and reliability might be the determinants for consumers

to make purchase decisions. As the results of hypothesis 5 and hypothesis 6 indicated, for

Warburtons, functional associations had a stronger effect on the brand evaluation than

symbolic associations.

52

7.1.4 Interactions

This study also dicovered interaction effects between the different identity stories and

functional associations and symbolic associations. In the factorial ANOVA analysis, the

profile plots showed apparent patterns that the family and business identity stories

(containing both business components and family components) evoked even stronger

functional associations and stronger symbolic associations than brand stories only containing

business components or family components. The first interaction integrating business

components in a family identity brand story can help consumers elicit even stronger symbolic

associations. The results for this interaction was only statistically supported for Warburtons

but not for SieMatic. However, for SieMatic, there was a distinct trend towards significance.

The potential explanation for SieMatic not reaching a significant result could be that

SieMatic is in the kitchen design industry, where quality, reliability, innovation, and stability

are more relevant than symbolic associations. The second interaction integrating family

components in a business identity story can help consumers elicit even stronger functional

associations was not statistically supported by neither SieMatic nor Warburtons. It is difficult

to explain why the effect was not statistically significant in this study, since the hypothesis

was supported by previous studies and the profile plots had a clear pattern. One potential

reason might be that the samples were not sufficient. It also could be that participants in this

study had different cultural backgrounds, so the family ownership in business might have

different meanings for them.

7.2 Theoretical implications

The findings of this study have several theoretical implications that may contribute to

the literature on family business, brand story, brand positioning, and brand associations.

The first contribution to the literature on family business is that this study was the first

to examine the outcomes of communicating brand stories of different identities in a family

53

business context. The previous studies of Blombäck and Brunninge (2013) and Micelotta

and Raynard (2011) all only put forward the different identity communication strategies of

the family business, who claim that some family businesses only focus on the family

ownership, using it as a special selling point, while there are some family businesses do not

communicate the family ownership, only focus on the product and business, few family

businesses combine both together. Yet there is no further investigation on if one strategy can

outperform the others. To fill in this gap, this study communicated brand stories of different

identities to see the impacts on the consumers’ brand evaluation. The study found out the

brand stories combining both business identity and family identity have an overall more

positive impact on the brand evaluation.

This study also has two implications for literature on brand associations. First, this

study was the first and foremost to categorize the traditional family-related brand associations

into symbolic associations, namely consumers’ emotional feeling and judgments, and

functional associations, relevant to brand attributes and performance. Even for consumers,

they might not be aware that their family-related associations were in two different

categories. The results of this study suggested that communicating a business identity story,

which revolves around product, innovation, and quality, can provoke stronger functional

associations. A brand story integrating more family components, such as next generations

and long history can evoke stronger symbolic associations. A brand story tells more about the

family and family generations can make consumers elicit stronger symbolic associations.

More importantly, when consumers read a brand story containing both family components

and business components, they elicit both stronger functional associations and symbolic

associations. The second contribution to literature on brand associations is that this study

confirmed no matter functional family-related brand associations or symbolic family-related

associations, they are all positively related to brand evaluation. The study of Huang (2010)

54

also proved that positive associations could lead to a positive brand attitude. Hence, this

study identified the importance of family-related associations for consumers’ overall brand

evaluation.

Except for literature on family business and associations, this study also has

contributions to the literature on brand story. Existing literature about the brand story point

out that consumers would have a more positive attitude toward a brand and generate positive

associations. The findings of this study further confirmed it, and the results were in line with

the findings of Lundqvist, Liljander, Gummerus, and Van Riel, 2013). However, the study of

Lundqvist and her colleagues (2013) only investigated the direct relationship between brand

story and brand attitude. This study focused on the mediation effect of brand associations in

the relationship of brand story and brand attitude, and the results suggested consumers who

were exposed to brand stories elicited stronger brand associations. This study found that

consumers who did not read any brand stories only got the basic product information and

elicited weaker brand associations than consumers who read the brand stories. Furthermore,

this study found consumers’ preference in the type of brand stories. Consumers better prefer

reading brand stories that contain characters and plots like family identity brand story,

because this type of brand story has a clear storyline and is easy to follow. Consumers feel

brand stories that do not contain these elements and only tell about the products are less

interesting and take more time to read.

7.3 Managerial implications

This study also provides several managerial implications. First, this study found

consumers’ perceived family components and business components. Consumers perceive

sentences elaborating on the quality, product information, or emphasizing on the innovation

and reward as business components, while components like family-owned, family generation,

passing down the business, and the long history of the business are perceived as family

55

components. Therefore, marketers do not need to explicitly tell the family ownership to attain

the benefits of being family-owned. Communicating the long history of the business can also

make people associate that the business is family-owned. This can be especially beneficial for

managers and marketers in non-family-owned corporations.

Second, the importance of brand story cannot be overlooked. Consumers who do not

know the brand story of a brand have weaker associations than consumers who know the

story beyond the product. Brand story is an important tool for marketers to generate new

associations or strengthen old associations. Lundqvist and her colleagues (2013) also claim

that consumers exposed to the brand story of a brand before would describe the brand in a

more positive way. As Seth Godin’s famous motto “marketing is no longer about the stuff

you sell but the stories you tell,” it is necessary to make a well-tailored elaborated brand story

that can be spread by consumers.

To make consumers elicit even stronger family-related brand associations, marketers

and managers can integrate both family components and business components in marketing

communication. When family businesses only emphasize the family ownership in their

marketing communication, but fail to communicate the products and the business, consumers

can only have strong symbolic associations such as sincere and warm. They have weaker

associations in innovation and superiority, since they do not know more about the products.

JC Johnson is the family brand communicating the family ownership across many of their

marketing channels, their brand stories on the website

(http://www.scjohnson.com/en/family/johnsons.aspx) are typical family identity stories. To

make consumers have stronger functional associations as well, they can try integrating

components that tell about the products in their brand stories. Whereas, in the communication

strategy of BMW (https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/company/history.html), the family

components can barely be seen. However, they can integrate family components in the

56

marketing communication to leverage the family legacy in the business. When business

components and family components both exist in a brand story, consumers can elicit stronger

symbolic family-related brand associations and functional family-related brand associations

than consumers who read brand stories only containing family components or business

components. The brand stories of Chanel are very good examples in this case. On the official

website of Chanel (http://inside.chanel.com/en/gabrielle-pursuit-passion) , Chanel provides

23 chapters of the stories of Chanel. Unlike traditional brand story illustration, these stories

are told by Chanel movies. The inventive audio, delicate images, and pastel hues give

consumers a sense of premium and make them more engaged in the stories. Some brand

stories integrate the history and the founder Gabrielle Chanel closely with the products of

Chanel (http://inside.chanel.com/en/coco/video), these stories not only embody the

traditional traits of a family business (i.e. stable, long history, trustworthy) but also express

how innovative and creative Chanel is.

The fourth implication is that for high-end functional brands, consumers have

stronger functional associations. However, the other type of associations - symbolic

associations determine consumers’ over all brand attitude and purchase intentions toward

these brands. This is the other way around for FMCG brands, where functional associations

can contribute more to brand attitude and purchase intention while consumers have stronger

symbolic associations towards these brands. Therefore, marketers of the premium functional

brands should pay more attention to generate consumers’ symbolic associations, as they are

one of the keys to increase their purchase intention. For marketers of FMCG brands, they are

advised to focus on strengthening functional associations, because these associations, such as

quality and reliability, determine consumers’ general brand evaluation.

57

8. Conclusion

8.1 Summary

The previous studies focus on the family business communicating different identities

to external audiences (Blombäck & Brunninge, 2013; Micelotta & Raynard, 2011). Some

family businesses explicitly stress their family ownership through slogans, logos, packages,

and brand stories. While some family businesses do not play the family card at all, they only

emphasize on the products and business. There are also some family businesses trying to

balance both identities in their marketing communications. However, previous literature has

not taken a deeper look into the outcomes of family businesses adopting different strategies.

To fill in this gap, this study aims to find out what the impacts are of different family-owned

business brand stories on the brand evaluation, mediated by the typical family-related brand

associations.

To answer the research question above, this study first conducted a pre-test to

determine the effective stimuli for the main test and to find out consumers’ perceived family

components and business components to create the family in the business brand stories.

SieMatic and Warburtons were picked as the final stimuli, as the two brands were not well-

known and their brand stories met the requirements to be used for the main test. Participants

perceived components elaborating on the quality, product information, or emphasizing on the

innovation and reward as business components. They regarded components like family-

owned, family generation, passing down the business, and the long history of the business as

family components. Based on the results, the family in the business brand stories were

created by combining both business components and family components.

The main study was a 2*2*2 mixed design. There were four conditions, one control

group (only received product information and brief brand introduction), other conditions

were family identity, business identity, and family in the business identity. There were two

58

stimuli in each condition. For the other three groups, participants not only received the basic

information control group received, but were also exposed to the different identities brand

stories of the two brands. After participants finished reading the information for each brand,

they were asked to answer relevant questions on brand associations and brand evaluation.

The reliability test was conducted to make sure the family-related brand associations

can be categorized into symbolic associations and functional associations. Then manipulation

checks were executed to ensure consumers correctly perceived the information they received

was family-oriented or business-oriented. After all the data prepared, this study used

structural equation modeling (SEM) and executed the hypotheses testing in Amos. For

SieMatic, five out of six hypotheses were not supported. For Warburtons, two out of six

hypotheses were not supported. As most of the hypotheses about the effect of the presence of

family/business components on functional associations and symbolic associations were not

supported, factorial analysis was conducted to dive deeper into it. As the results suggested,

when participants did not receive any brand story stimuli elicited weakest family-related

brand associations. However, participants exposed to family identity stories had stronger

symbolic associations, but the results were not significant. Participants exposed to business

identity stories elicited stronger functional associations than participants, but the results were

only significant for the brand Warburtons.

The expected interactions of symbolic associations and functional associations were

not significant, expect for Warburton the gap in symbolic associations between a brand story

containing a family identity and a brand story without a family identity was bigger when the

brand story had no business component than when it did. However, the factorial profile plots

showed that when both components were present, participants elicited even stronger

symbolic associations and functional associations. The hypotheses of symbolic associations

and functional associations were positively related to brand evaluation were supported.

59

Except for SieMatic, the result of the functional association leading to positive brand

evaluation was not significant. The additional factorial ANOVA analysis suggested that for

the within-subjects, the functional associations were always stronger than the symbolic

associations. For Warburtons, this was the other way around. This may due to the two brands

being in different product categories.

8.2 Limitations and future research

For SieMatic, five out of six hypotheses were not supported. For Warburtons, two out

of six hypotheses were not supported. Although, the hypotheses not supported in this study

was supported by the previous literature (Craig, Dibrell, & Davis, 2008; Carrigan & Buckley,

2008; Micelotta & Raynard, 2011; Sageder, Mitter, & Durstmüller, 2018). There are several

potential reasons to explain the lack of support for these hypotheses. First, it may due to the

methodological limitations, which give a chance for the future research to prove the

hypotheses. As I chose SieMatic, a kitchen design brand, as one of the stimuli, participants

might not have any previous experience with kitchen design, it was difficult for them to make

judgments about this brand. Besides, according to the participants, the family ownership in

the kitchen design industry is less relevant than it is in the bakery industry. This is in line

with the finding of Astrachan (2015) that the promotion of family ownership is more suitable

for products that involve craftsmanship or personal interactions. For the future research, it is

recommended to replicate the study but choose brands that family ownership matters for the

product category. These hypotheses may get supported.

Furthermore, the questionnaire in this study was a bit lengthy, because it contained

two stimuli and participants needed to read the information about the two brands then answer

the same questions. For participants who were not in the control group, they received basic

product information, a brief brand introduction, and a brand story for the each of the two

brands. Therefore, they needed to take more time to read the brand stories. There was no any

60

monetary incentive to fill out the questionnaire, so participants might not read the brand

stories carefully, thus, the results might be biased. As the duration of participants filling out

the questionnaire varied from 90 seconds to 600 seconds. For future research, paying a

participation fee may guarantee that respondents would spend more time reading the brand

stories carefully and treat the experiment more seriously.

Since this study used convenience samples, questionnaires were distributed over

Facebook, What’sApp, WeChat, and Mturk. The majority of the participants were Chinese,

American, and Indian, other participants were from 12 different countries. Also, due to the

small size of the samples, it was difficult to conduct a cross-cultural comparison. However, it

is interesting to see if participants from different regions have different interpretations of

family ownership. Besides, future research can also focus on the family ownership

importance across different cultural backgrounds. To achieve this, a large sample from

different nationalities will be required.

Last but not the least, it was found in this study that participants elicited stronger

functional associations toward high-end functional brands, while elicited stronger symbolic

associations toward FMCG brands. However, for high-end functional brands, symbolic

associations seem to affect consumers’ brand evaluation more. Also, for FMCG brands,

functional associations seem to be more positively related to brand evaluation. Future

research can also take a deeper look into how the symbolic family-related associations and

functional family-related associations work differently across different product categories.

61

References:

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of marketing research, 347-

356.

Aldrich, H. E., & Cliff, J. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship:

Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of business venturing, 18(5), 573-596.

Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding‐family ownership and firm performance:

evidence from the S&P 500. The journal of finance, 58(3), 1301-1328.

Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (2000). Authenticating acts and authoritative performances.

Questing for self and community. In S. Ratneshwar, D. G. Mick & C. Huffman (Eds.), The

why of consumption. Contemporary perspectives on consumer motives, goals and desires

(pp. 140-163). London: Routledge.

Argenti, P. A., & Druckenmiller, B. (2004). Reputation and the corporate brand. Corporate

reputation review, 6(4), 368-374.

Aristotle, P. (1987). trans. Richard Janko.

Astrachan, J. H., & Shanker, M. C. (2003). Family businesses’ contribution to the US

economy: A closer look. Family business review, 16(3), 211-219.

Balmer, J. M. (2011). Corporate heritage identities, corporate heritage brands and the

multiple heritage identities of the British Monarchy. European Journal of

Marketing, 45(9/10), 1380-1398.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

management, 17(1), 99-120.

Bettman, J. R., & Sujan, M. (1987). Effects of framing on evaluation of comparable and

noncomparable alternatives by expert and novice consumers. Journal of Consumer

Research, 14(2), 141-154.

62

Bravo Gil, R., Fraj Andres, E., & Martinez Salinas, E. (2007). Family as a source of

consumer-based brand equity. Journal of product & brand management, 16(3), 188-199.

Beverland, M. B. (2005). Crafting brand authenticity: The case of luxury wines. Journal of

management studies, 42(5), 1003-1029.

Beverland, M. (2006). The ‘real thing’: Branding authenticity in the luxury wine

trade. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 251-258.

Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. J. (2009). The quest for authenticity in consumption:

Consumers’ purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes. Journal of

Consumer Research, 36(5), 838-856.

Benson, J. (2005). Heritage: A master brand builder. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.

allaboutbranding. com/index. lasso.

Binz Astrachan, C., & Astrachan, J. (2015). Family business branding. Leveraging

stakeholder trust. IFB Research Foundation, London.

Birdthistle, N., & Fleming, P. (2005). Creating a learning organisation within the family

business: An Irish perspective. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(9), 730-750.

Bjuggren, P. O., & Sund, L. G. (2001). Strategic Decision Making in Intergenerational

Successions of Small‐and Medium‐Size Family‐Owned Businesses. Family Business

Review, 14(1), 11-24.

Boyle, D. (2003). Authenticity Brands, Fakes, Spin and the Lust for Real Life.

Bravo Gil, R., Fraj Andres, E., & Martinez Salinas, E. (2007). Family as a source of

consumer-based brand equity. Journal of product & brand management, 16(3), 188-199.

Brokaw, L., & Murphy, A. (1992). Why family businesses are best. Inc., 14(3), 72-78.

Brunninge, O. (2009). Using history in organizations: How managers make purposeful

reference to history in strategy processes. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 22(1), 8-26.

63

Bruner, J. (1990). Life as narrative. Social Research, 54(1), 11–32.

Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V., & Sherry Jr, J. F. (2003). Teaching old brands new tricks: Retro

branding and the revival of brand meaning. Journal of marketing, 67(3), 19-33.

Blombäck, A., & Brunninge, O. (2009). Corporate identity manifested through historical

references. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14(4), 404-419.

Blombäck, A., & Brunninge, O. (2013). The dual opening to brand heritage in family

businesses. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(3), 327-346.

Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS (2nd edition). New York, US:

Taylor&Francis Group.

Carrigan, M., & Buckley, J. (2008). ‘What's so special about family business?’An

exploratory study of UK and Irish consumer experiences of family businesses. International

Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(6), 656-666.

Chang, C. (2009). " Being Hooked" By Editorial Content: The Implications for Processing

Narrative Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 38(1), 21-34.

Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior.

Entrepreneurship theory and practice , 23 (4), 19-39.

Craig, J. B., Dibrell, C., & Davis, P. S. (2008). Leveraging family‐based brand identity to

enhance firm competitiveness and performance in family businesses. Journal of Small

Business Management, 46(3), 351-371.

Cooper, M. J., Upton, N., & Seaman, S. (2005). Customer relationship management: A

comparative analysis of family and nonfamily business practices. Journal of Small Business

Management, 43(3), 242-256.

Davis, P. S., & Harveston, P. D. (1999). In the founder's shadow: Conflict in the family

firm. Family Business Review, 12(4), 311-323.

64

Dodds, W. B., & Monroe, K. B. (1985). The effect of brand and price information on

subjective product evaluations. ACR North American Advances.

Dyer, W. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary

evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 785-802.

Escalas, J. E. (1998). Advertising narratives: What are they and how do they

work. Representing consumers: Voices, views, and visions, 267-289.

Edson Escalas, J. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands.

Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. Journal of

consumer research, 31(1), 191-198.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social cognition and social perception. Annual review of

psychology, 44(1), 155-194.

Gersick, K.E., Davis, J.A., McCollom Hampton, M. and Lansberg, I. (1997), Generation to

Generation. Life Cycles of the Family Business, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.

Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, B. J. (2007). Authenticity: What consumers really want. Harvard

Business Press.

Granitz, N., & Forman, H. (2015). Building self-brand connections: Exploring brand stories

through a transmedia perspective. Journal of brand management, 22(1), 38-59.

Hayward, S. (1989). Staying the course: Survival characteristics of the family owned

business. London: Stoy Hayward.

Handler, W. C. (1989). Methodological issues and considerations in studying family

businesses. Family business review, 2(3), 257-276.

Harris, D., Martinez, J. I., & Ward, J. L. (1994). Is strategy different for the family‐owned

business?. Family business review, 7(2), 159-174.

Handler, W. C. (1994). Succession in family business: A review of the research. Family

business review, 7(2), 133-157.

65

Huang, W. Y. (2010). Brand story and perceived brand image: Evidence from

Taiwan. Journal of Family and Economic issues, 31(3), 307-317.

Kaufman, B. (2003). Stories that sell, stories that tell. Journal of Business strategy, 24(2), 11-

15.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand

equity. the Journal of Marketing, 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (2001). Building customer-based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong

brands.

Kim, C. K., Han, D., & Park, S. B. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand

identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. Japanese

psychological research, 43(4), 195-206.

Lee, Y. K., Back, K. J., & Kim, J. Y. (2009). Family restaurant brand personality and its

impact on customer's emotion, satisfaction, and brand loyalty. Journal of Hospitality &

Tourism Research, 33(3), 305-328

Lundqvist, A., Liljander, V., Gummerus, J., & Van Riel, A. (2013). The impact of

storytelling on the consumer brand experience: The case of a firm-originated story. Journal of

Brand Management, 20(4), 283-297.

Lussier, R. N., & Sonfield, M. C. (2009). Founder influence in family businesses: analyzing

combined data from six diverse countries. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 20(1), 103.

Lowenthal, D. (1998). Fabricating heritage. History and memory, 10(1), 5-24.

Markwick, N., & Fill, C. (1997). Towards a framework for managing corporate

identity. European Journal of marketing, 31(5/6), 396-409.

Maehle, N., Otnes, C., & Supphellen, M. (2011). Consumers' perceptions of the dimensions

of brand personality. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(5), 290-303.

66

Maynes, E. S. (1976). The concept and measurement of product quality. In Household

production and consumption(pp. 529-584). NBER.

McConaughy, D. L., Matthews, C. H., & Fialko, A. S. (2001). Founding family controlled

firms: Performance, risk, and value. Journal of small business management, 39(1), 31-49.

Maehle, N., Otnes, C., & Supphellen, M. (2011). Consumers' perceptions of the dimensions

of brand personality. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(5), 290-303.

Merchant, A., & Rose, G. M. (2013). Effects of advertising-evoked vicarious nostalgia on

brand heritage. Journal of Business Research, 66(12), 2619-2625.

Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand

authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 25(2), 200-218.

Micelotta, E. R., & Raynard, M. (2011). Concealing or revealing the family? Corporate brand

identity strategies in family firms. Family Business Review, 24(3), 197-216.

Miller, D., Breton Miller, L., & Scholnick, B. (2008). Stewardship vs. stagnation: An

empirical comparison of small family and non‐family businesses. Journal of management

studies, 45(1), 51-78.

Mossberg, L., & Nissen Johansen, E. (2006). Storytelling: Marknadsföring i

upplevelseindustrin, [Storytelling: Marketing in the Experience Industry] Göteborg, Sweden:

Studentlitteratur. Google Scholar

Mottram, S. (1998). Branding the corporation. In Brands (pp. 63-71). Palgrave Macmillan,

London.

Napoli, J., Dickinson, S. J., Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. (2014). Measuring consumer-

based brand authenticity. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1090-1098.

67

Nachtigall, Kroehne, Funke & Steyer (2003) (Why) Should We Use SEM? Pros and Cons of

Structural Equation Modeling. Methods of Psychological Research Online, Vol.8, No.2, pp.

1-22

Orth, U. R., & Green, M. T. (2009). Consumer loyalty to family versus non-family business:

The roles of store image, trust and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer

Services, 16(4), 248-259.

Riehle, H. (2003). Family businesses in an enterprise economy. Die Familienunternehmer–

ASU.

Rose, R. L., & Wood, S. L. (2005). Paradox and the consumption of authenticity through

reality television. Journal of consumer research, 32(2), 284-296.

Sirgy, J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of

Consumer Research, 9(3), 287-300.

Smith, K., & Wintrob, M. (2013). Brand Storytelling: A Framework for Activation. Design

Management Review, 24(1), 36-41.

Sageder, M., Mitter, C., & Feldbauer‐Durstmüller, B. (2018). Image and reputation of family

firms: a systematic literature review of the state of research. Review of Managerial

Science, 12(1), 335-377.

Schank, R., & Abelson, R. P. (1995). Knowledge and memory: The real story, Advances in

Social Cognition, Volume VIII.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., & Quinn Trank, C. (2010). Rhetorical history as a source of

competitive advantage. In The globalization of strategy research (pp. 147-173). Emerald

Group Publishing Limited.

Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. (1996). Bivalent attributes of the family firm. Family business

review, 9(2), 199-208.

68

Urde, M., Greyser, S. A., & Balmer, J. M. (2007). Corporate brands with a heritage. Journal

of Brand Management, 15(1), 4-19.

Ward, J.L. (1991), Creating Effective Boards for Private Enterprises: Meeting the Challenges

of Continuity and Competition, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Van Riel, C. B., & Balmer, J. M. (1997). Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement

and management. European journal of marketing, 31(5/6), 340-355.

Woodside, A. G., Sood, S., & Miller, K. E. (2008). When consumers and brands talk:

Storytelling theory and research in psychology and marketing. Psychology &

Marketing, 25(2), 97-145

Wyer Jr, R. S., & Radvansky, G. A. (1999). The comprehension and validation of social

information. Psychological review, 106(1), 89.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end

model and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of marketing, 2-22.

Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., & Memili, E. (2012). Building a

family firm image: How family firms capitalize on their family ties. Journal of Family

Business Strategy, 3(4), 239-250.

69

Appendix

Appendix 1. Demographic summary

*N=160

Appendix 2. Manipulation checks

Test of within-subject contrasts

Source context

Type III

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial

Eta

Squared

context Linear .078 1 .078 .079 .779 .001

context * Business component Linear .378 1 .378 .382 .537 .002

context * Family component Linear .703 1 .703 .711 .400 .005

context * Business

component * Family component

Linear .028 1 .028 .028 .866 .000

Error(context) Linear 154.313 156 .989

IV: Presence of family/business component

DV: The information is family-oriented

Test of between-subject contrasts

Source

Type III

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial

Eta

Squared

Intercept 7134.753 1 7134.753 2578.752 .000 .943

B_component 17.578 1 17.578 6.353 .013 .039

F_component 83.028 1 83.028 30.009 .000 .161

B_component *

F_component .528 1 .528 .191 .663 .001

Error 431.612 156 2.767

70

IV: Presence of family/business component

DV: The information is family-oriented

Test of within-subject contrasts

Source context

Type III

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial

Eta

Squared

context Linear .703 1 .703 .942 .333 .006

context * Business component Linear .253 1 .253 .339 .561 .002

context * Family component Linear .028 1 .028 .038 .846 .000

context * Business component

* Family component

Linear .028 1 .028 .038 .846 .000

Error(context) Linear 116.487 156 .747

IV: Presence of family/business component

DV: The information is business-oriented

Test of between-subject contrasts

Source

Type III

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial

Eta

Squared

Intercept 8746.653 1 8746.653 4648.394 .000 .968

Business component 12.403 1 12.403 6.592 .011 .041

Family component .378 1 .378 .201 .655 .001

Business component *

Family component .528 1 .528 .281 .597 .002

Error 293.537 156 1.882

IV: Presence of family/business component

DV: The information is business-oriented

Appendix 3. General linear model for associations

Test of within-subject contrasts

Source

Type III

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial

Eta

Squared

Noncent.

Parameter

Observed

Powera

context .313 1 .313 1.010 .316 .006 1.010 .170

context * Business component .475 1 .475 1.537 .217 .010 1.537 .234

context * Family component .035 1 .035 .112 .738 .001 .112 .063

context * Business component * Family

component .059 1 .059 .190 .664 .001 .190 .072

Error(context) 48.258 156 .309

IV: Presence of family/business component

DV: Symbolic associations

71

Test of between-subject contrasts

Source

Type III

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial

Eta

Squared

Noncent.

Parameter

Observed

Powera

Intercept 8953.501 1 8953.501 6626.782 .000 .977 6626.782 1.000

Business component 8.342 1 8.342 6.174 .014 .038 6.174 .695

Family component 1.800 1 1.800 1.332 .250 .008 1.332 .209

Business component * Family

component .834 1 .834 .617 .433 .004 .617 .122

Error 210.773 156 1.351

IV: Presence of family/business component

DV: Symbolic associations

Test of within-subject contrasts

Source

Type III

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial

Eta

Squared

Noncent.

Parameter

Observed

Powera

context 9.169 1 9.169 30.639 .000 .164 30.639 1.000

context * Business component 2.250 1 2.250 7.519 .007 .046 7.519 .778

context * Family component 1.148 1 1.148 3.836 .052 .024 3.836 .495

context * Business component * Family

component .542 1 .542 1.810 .180 .011 1.810 .267

Error(context) 46.683 156 .299

IV: Presence of family/business component

DV: Functional associations

Test of between-subject contrasts

Source

Type III

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial

Eta

Squared

Noncent.

Parameter

Observed

Powera

Intercept 9143.157 1 9143.157 6649.235 .000 .977 6649.235 1.000

B_component 10.817 1 10.817 7.866 .006 .048 7.866 .796

F_component .345 1 .345 .251 .617 .002 .251 .079

B_component * F_component 1.629 1 1.629 1.185 .278 .008 1.185 .191

Error 214.511 156 1.375

IV: Presence of family/business component

DV: Functional associations

Appendix 4. Hypotheses

H1 SieMatic Warburtons

Family component estimate 0.129 0.171

R² 0.935 1.158

Dependent variable: symbolic associations

72

***. Significant level of 0.001 level

**. Significant level of 0.01 level

*. Significant level of 0.05 level

H2 SieMatic Warburtons

Business component estimate 0.246 0.4**

R² 1.779 2.711

Dependent variable: symbolic associations

***. Significant level of 0.001 level

**. Significant level of 0.01 level

*. Significant level of 0.05 level

H3 SieMatic Warburtons

Business component estimate 0.200 0.535***

R² 1.435 3.61

Dependent variable: functional associations

***. Significant level of 0.001 level

**. Significant level of 0.01 level

*. Significant level of 0.05 level

H4 SieMatic Warburtons

Family component estimate -0.054 0.185

R² 0.389 1.25

Dependent variable: functional associations

***. Significant level of 0.001 level

**. Significant level of 0.01 level

*. Significant level of 0.05 level

73

H5 SieMatic Warburtons

Symbolic associations estimate 0.377*** 0.3***

R² 4.91 5.093

Dependent variable: brand evaluation

***. Significant level of 0.001 level

**. Significant level of 0.01 level

*. Significant level of 0.05 level

H6 SieMatic Warburtons

Functional associations estimate 0.136 0.449***

R² 1.768 7.805

Dependent variable: brand evaluation

***. Significant level of 0.001 level

**. Significant level of 0.01 level

*. Significant level of 0.05 level

Appendix 5. Model fit summaries

Fit indices SieMatic Warburtons

CMIN 130.044*** 193.377***

NFI 0.233 0.402

CFI 0.182 0.383

RMSEA 0.532 0.631

***. Significant level of 0.001 level

**. Significant level of 0.01 level

*. Significant level of 0.05 level

74

Appendix 6. Additional analysis

Test of within-subject contrasts

Source context association_type

Type III

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial

Eta

Squared

context Linear

6.433 1 6.433 13.634 .000 .080

context * Business component Linear

2.397 1 2.397 5.080 .026 .032

context * Family component Linear

.791 1 .791 1.676 .197 .011

context * Business

component * Family component

Linear

.122 1 .122 .258 .612 .002

Error(context) Linear

73.611 156 .472

association_type

Linear .497 1 .497 2.465 .118 .016

association_type * Business

component

Linear

.080 1 .080 .398 .529 .003

association_type * Family

component

Linear

.285 1 .285 1.412 .236 .009

association_type * Business

component * Family component

Linear

.066 1 .066 .327 .568 .002

Error (association_type)

Linear 31.454 156 .202

context * association_type Linear Linear 3.048 1 3.048 22.292 .000 .125

context * association_type *

Business component

Linear Linear .329 1 .329 2.403 .123 .015

context * association_type *

Family component

Linear Linear .392 1 .392 2.865 .093 .018

context * association_type *

Business component * Family

component

Linear Linear

.479 1 .479 3.500 .063 .022

Error(context*association_type) Linear Linear 21.330 156 .137

IV: Presence of family/business component

DV: Associations

Test of between-subject contrasts

Source

Type III

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial

Eta

Squared

Intercept 18096.162 1 18096.162 7168.076 .000 .979

Business component 19.079 1 19.079 7.557 .007 .046

Family component 1.860 1 1.860 .737 .392 .005

Business component *

Family component 2.397 1 2.397 .949 .331 .006

Error 393.830 156 2.525

IV: Presence of family/business component

DV: Associations

75

Appendix 7. Questionnaire of the main test (Family identity group)

SieMatic

SieMatic offers unique kitchen design, perfect workmanship and individual room

solutions. Award-winning designer kitchens with inventive solutions that help make cooking

more enjoyable, living more beautiful. Presented in distinctive style rooms and decorated

based on the SieMatic lifestyles Pure, Urban, and Classic.

Below, you can see some of the kitchen designs by SieMatic:

Please take your time to read the following brand story of SieMatic carefully.

SieMatic is a family business, currently run by the third generation of Siekmanns. August Siekmann laid the foundation for industrial furniture production. He founded the August-

Siekmann-Möbelwerke furniture factory in 1929, making a name for itself across regional borders in

manufacturing kitchen furniture. In 1955, August-Wilhelm Siekmann took over the management of his

father's business. With the development of the revolutionary SieMatic 60 in 1960, he coined a new name

for the company that became an epitome of modern kitchens. As the originator of the SieMatic brand, he

transformed the family business into an international company over the course of his extraordinarily long

career. In 1994, he handed the reins of management to his son Ulrich W. Siekmann.

To meet the individual needs and growing demands of our customers, we want to do more than build

first-class kitchens. Together with international designers and SieMatic experts around the world, we create

habitats of timeless elegance that perfectly reflect the personality of their owners. We call it 'SieMatic

Kitchen Interior Design.'

76

Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements.

Q1 Generally, my attitude towards SieMatic is positive.

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree

Q2 If I need kitchen design, I would buy this brand.

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree

Q3 If I choose this brand for my kitchen design, I think the price would be: (please indicate

the price in euros €）

________________________________________________________________

77

Q4 Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements.

Strongly

agree (8)

Agree

(9)

Somewhat

agree (10)

Neither

agree nor

disagree

(11)

Somewhat

disagree

(12)

Disagree

(13)

Strongly

disagree

(14)

SieMatic is

honest. (2) o o o o o o o SieMatic is

sincere. (3) o o o o o o o SieMatic is

trustworthy.

(4) o o o o o o o SieMatic is

authentic.

(5) o o o o o o o SieMatic

makes me

feel warm.

(7) o o o o o o o

SieMatic is

socially

responsible.

(8) o o o o o o o

SieMatic is

stable. (9) o o o o o o o SieMatic is

innovative.

(10) o o o o o o o SieMatic is

competent.

(11) o o o o o o o SieMatic

has high

quality.

(12) o o o o o o o

SieMatic is

reliable.

(13) o o o o o o o SieMatic is

better than

other

brands. (14) o o o o o o o

78

Strongly

agree (8)

Agree

(9)

Somewhat

agree (10)

Neither

agree nor

disagree

(11)

Somewhat

disagree

(12)

Disagree

(13)

Strongly

disagree

(14)

I was

familiar

with this

brand

before. (2)

o o o o o o o

I knew the

family

ownership

of this

brand. (3)

o o o o o o o

Family

ownership

matters in

the kitchen

design

industry.

(4)

o o o o o o o

The

information

I read

revolves

around the

family

identity. (5)

o o o o o o o

The

information

I read

revolves

around the

business

and

products.

(10)

o o o o o o o

I

understand

that the

information

I read is

family-

oriented or

business

oriented.

(15)

o o o o o o o

79

Family

ownership

is

important

to me. (11)

o o o o o o o

Kitchen

designs are

important

to me. (12) o o o o o o o

80

Warburtons

Warburtons is a British baking firm founded by Thomas Warburton in 1876 and based in

Bolton, a town in Greater Manchester formerly Lancashire, England. Warburtons make five

categories of products: Bread, Rolls, Bakery Snacks (including crumpets and potato cakes),

Gluten Free and Weight Watchers. Below, you can see some product information of

Warburtons:

Please take your time to read the following brand story of Warburtons carefully.

Thomas Warburton and his wife Ellen first opened their grocery shop in 1870, but it

wasn't until 1876 during a slump in the grocery market when Ellen Warburton started baking

bread. Ellen's first batch of four loaves of bread and six cakes sold out in under an hour.

Within two weeks the tiny shop in Bolton was renamed 'Warburtons the Bakers' and

continued to go from strength-to-strength over the next 141 years.

All those years on and Warburtons is still a private family-owned business, actively

managed by the fifth generation of Warburtons Jonathan, Ross and Brett. As a fifth

generation family company, Warburtons believes in building a long term sustainable business.

Our family values are the drivers for how we behave, and it is because of those that

81

we care not just about what we do, but the way we do it. Families are at the heart of our

family business.

82

Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements.

Q7 Generally, my attitude towards Warburtons is positive.

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree

Q8 If I need bread, I would buy this brand.

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree

Q9 If I choose this brand for medium sliced brown bread (800g), I think the price would be:

(please indicate the price in euros €).

________________________________________________________________

83

Strongly

agree (8)

Agree

(9)

Somewhat

agree (10)

Neither

agree nor

disagree

(11)

Somewhat

disagree

(12)

Disagree

(13)

Strongly

disagree

(14)

Warburtons

is honest.

(2) o o o o o o o Warburtons

is sincere.

(3) o o o o o o o Warburtons

is

trustworthy.

(4) o o o o o o o

Warburtons

is authentic.

(5) o o o o o o o Warburtons

makes me

feel warm.

(7) o o o o o o o

Warburtons

is socially

responsible.

(8) o o o o o o o

Warburtons

is stable.

(9) o o o o o o o Warburtons

is

innovative.

(10) o o o o o o o

Warburtons

is

competent.

(11) o o o o o o o

Warburtons

has high

quality.

(12) o o o o o o o

Warburtons

is reliable.

(13) o o o o o o o Warburtons

is better

than other

brands. (14) o o o o o o o

84

Strongly

agree (8)

Agree

(9)

Somewhat

agree (10)

Neither

agree nor

disagree

(11)

Somewhat

disagree

(12)

Disagree

(13)

Strongly

disagree

(14)

I was

familiar

with this

brand

before. (2)

o o o o o o o

I knew the

family

ownership

of this

brand. (3)

o o o o o o o

Family

ownership

matters in

the baking

industry.

(4)

o o o o o o o

The

information

I read

revolves

around the

family

identity. (5)

o o o o o o o

The

information

I read

revolves

around the

business

and

products.

(10)

o o o o o o o

I

understand

that the

information

I read is

family-

oriented or

business

oriented.

(15)

o o o o o o o

Bakery is

important

to me. (12) o o o o o o o

85

Q13 What is your gender?

o Female

o Male

o Other

o Prefer not to share this information

Q14 What is your nationality?

________________________________________________________________

Q15 Your highest level of education is

o High school

o Bachelor

o Master

o Doctor

o Other

Q16 Please indicate your age.

________________________________________________________________

86

Appendix 8. Questionnaire of the pretest (SieMatic family identity story)

SieMatic

SieMatic offers unique kitchen design, perfect workmanship and individual room solutions.

Q1 Please indicate how familiar you are with this brand.

o Extremely familiar

o Very familiar

o Moderately familiar

o Slightly familiar

o Not familiar at all

87

Q2 Do you know this brand is family-owned?

o Yes

o Maybe

o No

Q3 Please take your time to read the following brand story of SieMatic:

When you read the story, please highlight at least three parts that you perceive as business

components (blue color) or family components (red color) of a brand story.

A business component refers to a brand focusing on the product and its business.

A family component refers to a brand stressing on its family-owned identity.

SieMatic is a family business, currently run by the third generation of Siekmanns. August Siekmann laid the foundation for industrial furniture production. He founded the August-

Siekmann-Möbelwerke furniture factory in 1929, making a name for itself across regional borders in

manufacturing kitchen furniture. In 1955, August-Wilhelm Siekmann took over the management of his

father's business. With the development of the revolutionary SieMatic 60 in 1960, he coined a new name

for the company that became an epitome of modern kitchens. As the originator of the SieMatic brand, he

transformed the family business into an international company over the course of his extraordinarily long

career. In 1994, he handed the reins of management to his son Ulrich W. Siekmann.

To meet the individual needs and growing demands of our customers, we want to do more than build

first-class kitchens. Together with international designers and SieMatic experts around the world, we create

habitats of timeless elegance that perfectly reflect the personality of their owners. We call it 'SieMatic

Kitchen Interior Design.'

88

Q4 Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statement:

This story is a good example of a business identity story (focusing on the product and

business).

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Some what disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree

Q5

The information provided above is enough for me to evaluate whether the story is a good

example of business identity story or not.

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree

89

Q6 The story is short.

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree

Q7 Reading this story does not take me a lot of time.

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree