MMishra IUPJMR 124 October 2013 92605534
MMishra IUPJMR 124 October 2013 92605534
MMishra IUPJMR 124 October 2013 92605534
net/publication/288256496
CITATIONS READS
5 390
2 authors, including:
Manit Mishra
International Management Institute, Bhubaneswar
22 PUBLICATIONS 53 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Manit Mishra on 01 June 2017.
Introduction
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and its impact in a social setting have been
widely researched and discussed. However, comparatively lesser amount of
attention has been paid by the research community towards the consequences of
CSR in general and CSR communication in particular on the consumers’ psyche (for
exception see Hoeffler and Keller, 2002). This is intriguing since irrespective of
whether CSR communication from a brand is aimed at consumers or not, it is bound
to have a collateral impact on their knowledge structure.
The study aims at bridging this hiatus by empirically examining the association
between two vital domains of research—CSR and corporate brand personality.
Literature Review
CSR
One of the earliest definitions of social responsibility (as CSR was known then)
was given by Bowen (1953, p. 6) who stated that, “It refers to the obligations of
businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those
lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our
society”. Friedman (1962) contended that the only responsibility that corporate
officials have towards the society is to make as much money as possible for the
stockholders. Davis and Blomstrom (1966, p. 12) put it in more specific context by
defining social responsibility as “a person’s obligation to consider the effects of his
decisions and actions on the whole social system. Businessmen apply social
responsibility when they consider the needs and interest of others who may be
affected by business actions. In so doing, they look beyond their firm’s narrow
economic and technical interests”. On the other hand, Samuelson (1971) argued
that engagement in socially responsible activities by corporate is no longer a matter
of choice, but is a necessity. According to Carroll (1979, p. 500), CSR encompasses
“the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary (philanthropic) expectations that
society has of organizations at a given point of time”. Carroll (1983, p. 604) elaborates
upon the discretionary activities by proposing that they are voluntary and
philanthropic. Drucker (1984, p. 62) stated that business ought to carry out its
social responsibility by converting social problem into economic opportunity resulting
in holistic growth of not just the organization and its stakeholders, but of the
society as a whole. Porter and Kramer (2006) delved into the relationship between
competitive advantage and CSR. They argued that if “corporations were to analyze
their prospects for social responsibility using the same frameworks that guide their
core business choices, they would discover that CSR can be much more than a
cost, a constraint, or a charitable deed—it can be a source of opportunity,
innovation, and competitive advantage”. Thus, a coherent CSR initiative closely
aligned with a company’s business provides it with an opportunity to leverage its
resources to deliver greater social impact as well as attain competitive advantage.
The present study is aimed at assessing one specific source of competitive
advantage for a corporate brand, viz., brand personality.
Davies and Chun (2002) stated that while product brands may need to appeal
to a limited group of stakeholders (mostly consumers), the corporate brands may
need to appeal to a number of disparate groups such as employees, suppliers and
customers. However, a corporate brand is perceived as a set of personality traits
that is more diversified in comparison to the set of personality traits for each of the
product brand owned by the company. Aaker (2004) posits that a corporate brand
is different from a product brand in terms of the wide range of associations it
generates related to heritage, assets and capabilities, people, values and priorities,
a local or global frame of reference, citizenship programs and a performance record.
Background
The process of formation of brand personality and the brand personality output
perceived as a result of consumers’ exposure to corporate communication hold a
lot of importance for any company in the social milieu. The present study emphasizes
the notion that a better understanding of the relative contribution of CSR communication
to the brand personality formation process and output would enable marketers in aligning
it with their corporate objectives so as to create competitive advantage.
The focus of the study was Tata Tea, since it has significant brand awareness,
and the recent Jaago re campaign to spread awareness against various social
problems has contributed towards its image. The execution of the campaign and a
synergistic assimilation between corporate brand name and socially relevant
message makes it an automatic choice as the focal point of the study. On the basis
of brainstorming sessions with experts, three more brands were considered: Bisleri,
Coca-Cola and Café Coffee Day (CCD). These four brands were comparable in
terms of two commonalities: (1) They are all from the beverages industry; and
(2) They have adopted similar brand architecture strategy. Urde (2003) asserts
that there are four basic brand architectures available to firms: corporate, product,
The brands, however, are different with respect to the copy and execution of
the corporate communication. Tata Tea has resorted to brand communication
with an inherent and relevant social message. The communication with the tag
line Jaago re exhorted young men and women to rise against the various evils in
our social system, e.g., not voting in elections, corruption, etc. Coca-Cola has
also carried out communication related to social issues through its jingle,
Ummeedon waali dhoop… (Ray of hope...); however, the advertisements are not
so pronounced and explicit in their social content. Bisleri spreads awareness
regarding fresh water scarcity on its website but has not executed any mass
communication campaigns in this regard. And CCD’s communication is outright
commercial, devoid of any social content.
Methodology
Multidimensional Scaling (MDS), a decompositional multivariate analysis technique,
is used as the research method since it has the capability of mapping out the
perceptions held by consumers in terms of brand personality. A perceptual map
was generated from the obtained responses using MDS which aided in fulfillment
of the objectives of the study. The application of MDS is useful since it can produce
a visual geometric representation of the subjective construct brand personality.
For the purpose of our study, MDS is the relevant method since the focus is not on
the object but on how the consumer perceives or interprets it.
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire for seeking responses was divided into three sections. The first
section was meant for collection of similar data between all possible pairs of brands:
Tata Tea and Bisleri, Tata Tea and Coca-Cola, Tata Tea and CCD, Bisleri and Coca-
Cola, Bisleri and CCD, and Coca-Cola and CCD. The input data was obtained by
asking the respondents to imagine the personality traits associated with a brand
on the basis of its corporate communication content. To overcome any difficulty in
getting started in their description, the questionnaire contained a snapshot of the
actual communication by the brands to act as a guide. Thereafter, the respondents
were asked to assess the pair-wise similarity among the brand personalities on a
4-point scale ranging from 1 – Highly dissimilar to 4 – Highly similar.
The MDS PROXSCAL Version 1.0 program within SPSS 16.0 was used to combine
the responses and create a single perceptual map through an aggregate analysis.
The PROXSCAL routine created distances based on a Euclidean scaling model of
two dimensions.
The interval data generated were aggregated for each brand on each one of
the facets (sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness) so
as to provide summary measures. The total ratings obtained were then indexed
for each brand on each facet (Keller, 2003, p. 449) with respect to the base value
of each facet. The base value was arrived at by considering a ‘descriptive’ response
A comparative assessment of brands on each trait indicates that Tata Tea stands
out at the top position in BPI in terms of ‘competence’, ‘excitement’ and ‘sincerity’.
However, the difference between Tata Tea and the second ranked brand on each
of these facets is highest in case of ‘competence’ (0.21), followed by ‘sincerity’
(0.17) and ‘excitement’ (0.05). This is in conformity with the findings of some of the
earlier researchers who have suggested that engagement in CSR activities would
bolster the ‘sincerity’ facet of brand personality (Hoeffler and Keller, 2002). The
finding has logical credibility, since upon exposure to CSR communication, consumers
are likely to perceive the organization behind the brand as caring and genuine.
The perception of Tata Tea as high on ‘competence’ perhaps stems from the
combative nature of its communication wherein the protagonist faces the social
problem (e.g., corruption) head-on while the corporate brand maintains its presence
in the background. It is worth mentioning here that Tata Tea is lagging behind
other brands when it comes to ‘sophistication’ (lowest in BPI) and ‘ruggedness’
(second to Coca-Cola).
Conclusion
The key findings of the study can be summarized as follows:
• Tata Tea is perceived as a highly competent and very sincere brand. The
consumers also consider it to be having a personality that is full of
excitement. However, the brand personality of Tata Tea lacks sophistication
and ruggedness.
References
1. Aaker D A (2004), “Leveraging the Corporate Brand”, California Management
Review, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 6-18.
4. Azoulay A and Kapferer J (2003), “Do Brand Personality Scales Really Measure
Brand Personality?”, Brand Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 143-155.
6. Balmer J M T (2001), “The Three Virtues and Seven Deadly Sins of Corporate
Brand Management”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 1-17.
7. Balmer J M T and Gray E R (2003), “Corporate Brands: What are They? What
of Them?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, Nos. 7 & 8, pp. 972-997.
14. Davies G and Chun R (2002), “Gaps Between the Internal and External
Perceptions of the Corporate Brand”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5,
Nos. 2 & 3, pp. 144-158.
15. Davis K and Blomstrom R L (1966), Business and Its Environment, McGraw-Hill, NY.
20. Hair Jr. J F, Black W C, Babin B J, Anderson R E and Tatham R L (2006), Multivariate
Data Analysis, pp. 677-678, Pearson Education, New Delhi.
21. Harris F and De Chernatony L (2001), “Corporate Branding and Corporate Brand
Performance”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 441-456.
22. Hatch M J and Schultz M (2001), “Are the Strategic Stars Aligned for your
Corporate Brand?”, Harvard Business Review, February, pp. 128-134.
23. Hoeffler S and Keller K L (2002), “Building Brand Equity Through Corporate
Societal Marketing”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 1,
pp. 78-89.
25. Keller K L (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing
Brand Equity, PHI, India.
26. Keller K L and Richey K (2006), “The Importance of Corporate Brand Personality
Traits to a Successful 21st Century Business”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 14, pp. 74-81.
28. Porter M E and Kramer M R (2006), “Strategy and Society: The Link Between
Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility”, Harvard Business
Review, December, pp. 78-93.
31. Urde M (2003), “Core Value-Based Corporate Brand Building”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 37, Nos. 7 & 8, pp. 1017-1039.
32. Xie H Y and Boggs D J (2006), “Corporate Branding Versus Product Branding in
Emerging Markets: A Conceptual Framework”, Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 347-364.
A. Above, is given the communication for four different brands: Tata Tea, Bisleri,
Coca-Cola and Café Coffee Day (CCD). Assuming that these four brands transform
into human beings, they are likely to display some unique personality characteristics
(e.g. Mercedes-Benz would be a 50 year old successful, upper class man). Please
assess the similarity in personality characteristics of the following pairs of brands.
Award greater points on a (1-4) scale (1 – Highly dissimilar; 2 – Dissimilar;
3 –Similar; and 4 – Highly similar) for greater degree of similarity between the
brands.
Similarity Similarity
Pair of Brands Pair of Brands
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1. Down-to-Earth
2. Honest
3. Wholesome
(Decent)
4. Cheerful
5. Daring
6. Spirited
7. Imaginative
8. Up-to-Date
9. Reliable
10. Intelligent
11. Successful
12. Upper Class
13. Charming
14. Outdoorsy
15. Tough
3. Age (Years):
4. Occupation:
Reference # 02J-2013-10-02-01