The influence of corporate brand perceptions

on consumer satisfaction and loyalty via

controlled and uncontrolled communications:
a multiple mediation analysis
Tatiana Anisimova
Linneuniversitet Ekonomihogskolan, Kalmar, Sweden
Jan Weiss
Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden, and
Felix Mavondo
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – Drawing on the stimulus–organism–response (S-O-R) model, the purpose of this study is to investigate mediating effects of controlled
and uncontrolled communications of corporate brand perceptions on consumer satisfaction and loyalty.
Design/methodology/approach – Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypotheses on a sample of 271 Australian automobile
consumers.
Findings – The authors find that while consumer satisfaction is indirectly influenced by corporate-level attributes via controlled and uncontrolled
communication, the authors did not find an indirect effect between consumer benefits on consumer satisfaction via controlled and uncontrolled
communication. By contrast, the authors find highly significant indirect effects – via controlled and uncontrolled communication as well as consumer
satisfaction – for the relationship between, on the one hand, corporate-level attributes and consumer benefits and consumer brand loyalty on the
other. Uncontrolled communication was significantly associated with consumer loyalty, a relevant finding that indicates an importance of tracking
media coverage and maintaining favorable relationships with the media.
Research limitations/implications – The cross-sectional method limits data collection to one point in time.
Practical implications – This study adds to a better understanding of how to leverage corporate brand through communications in ways that it
positively resonates with consumers. A fine-grained analysis of corporate brand attributes and consumer-perceived benefits can aid managers in
developing specific and more effective marketing strategies.
Originality/value – The overall thrust of this empirical study, which is to investigate how corporate brand perceptions influence short term
(satisfaction) and long term (loyalty) via controlled and uncontrolled communications is original. This study comprehensively conceptualizes and
operationalizes the corporate brand as a multidimensional construct consisting of corporate-level attributes and brand-level attributes such as
perceived consumer benefits. To examine the hypothesized relationships between and among our constructs, the authors go beyond the commonly
studied single mediator model and test a multiple mediator model instead.
Keywords Corporate brand, S-O-R model, Consumer satisfaction and loyalty, Controlled and uncontrolled communications, Mediating effects
Paper type Research paper

Introduction in terms of scope: it involves promoting entire companies as

In recent years, academic and managerial interest towards
corporate branding has been growing (Balmer, 2012; Chang
et al., 2015; Melewar et al., 2012; Siano and Palazzo, 2015;
Veloutsou, 2015). Conceptually related to product branding in
a sense that both activities aim at achieving a competitive edge
via differentiation, corporate branding differs from the former
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
brands and creating a positive image for all stakeholders,
whereas product branding aims at achieving differentiation via
influencing consumer preferences (Ind, 1997). However, both
product and corporate branding concepts view consumers as a
key stakeholder group (Bartikowski and Walsh, 2011; Whelan
et al., 2010).
There are two major advantages of corporate branding over
product branding (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001; Hulberg,
2006). First, corporate branding is considered more efficient
because growing competition in increasingly globalized

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Received 7 May 2017
36/1 (2019) 33–49 Revised 27 October 2017
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761] 31 May 2018
[DOI 10.1108/JCM-05-2017-2199] Accepted 25 July 2018

33
 Corporate brand perceptions
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo
markets results in that firms often find it difficult to design
successful product differentiation strategies. Second, corporate
branding leads to a reduction in communication costs and
improved synergies between a multi-product firm’s brands. In
short, the benefits of a corporate brand strategy lie in its ability
to link the company’s conventional marketing initiatives to
unique corporate identities and associations and enhance the
impact of the corporate brand on consumers (Lindgreen et al.,
2012; Sen et al., 2006).
As consumers evaluate a corporate brand holistically, a major
challenge faced by practitioners is to achieve an effective
integration of brand values into the corporate branding strategy.
Previous research accounting for this need is scarce – and tends
to examine corporate brands and their consumer effects based
on single dimensions of the corporate brand construct
(Anisimova, 2007; Alwi and Kitchen, 2014). Another challenge
in that context is to ensure that the favorable corporate brand
image transmitted to corporate stakeholders is mirrored by
stakeholders’ actual corporate brand perceptions (Dacin and
Brown, 2006). This points to the key role played by corporate
brand communication. A useful categorization in that context is
whether the underlying communication channels are controlled
by the company or not. Company-controlled communication
refers to “paid” (advertising) and “owned” (seller-generated
content, websites, etc.) media (Belch and Belch, 2014; Lovett
and Staelin, 2016). Uncontrolled communications, which have
increased significantly in recent times (Percy, 2008), refer to
“earned” media or rather third-party communication beyond
the company’s control including word-of-mouth (WOM) and
media coverage (Du, Bhattacharya, and Sen, 2010; Kitchen,
2010; Kitchen and Schultz, 2009)[1].
From a corporate decision-making perspective, it is
important to know how controlled and uncontrolled
communications translate the consumer-perceived corporate
image and consumer benefits into consumer responses. To the
best of the authors’ knowledge, little is known about the extent
to which controlled and uncontrolled communications
intervene in the conversion process from corporate brand
perceptions to consumer brand response – although the
importance of mediating variables in media research is evident
in the discussion of conditional factors found in marketing
communication theories (Davidow, 2003; McCombs and
Reynolds, 2002; Petty et al., 2002). As McLeod and Reeves
(1980) argue, the conditional effects approach recognizes that
media do not have that universal influence on consumers and
have been encumbered by ‘the lack of uniformity and clarity as
to the labels and meaning of the role of various third
“conditional” variables affecting the relationship between
exposure to media and effect of that exposure’ (p. 19). In
addition, marketing communications research has traditionally
measured communication effects on a medium-by-medium
basis, whereas consumers appear to use multiple
communications systems concurrently, simultaneously and
synergistically (Ewing, 2009). This is moreover at odds with the
integrated approach emerging in corporate branding theory
that advocates incorporating multiple factors in the corporate
brand management framework (Balmer, 2010; Hatch and
Schultz, 2003; Urde, 2009). Balmer (2010) and Hogan et al.
(2005) view controlled and uncontrolled communication as
34
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49
essential brand touch-points by means of which the resulting
impressions are formed.
Drawing on a stimulus–organism–response (S-O-R) model
(Woodworth, 1928; Donovan and Rossiter, 1982; Jacoby, 2002)
and viewing the corporate brand as taking its roots in consumer
psychology (i.e. consumer-perceived benefits) and corporate
marketing (i.e. consumer-perceived corporate attributes), we
integrate consumer brand perceptions, controlled and
uncontrolled communications and consumer brand response, and
their hypothesized relationships, into one coherent conceptual
framework. This framework conceptualizes the corporate brand as
stimulating consumer responses via satisfaction and loyalty which
in turn are determined by intervening consumer mental processes
in the form of brand-based attitudes because of controlled and
uncontrolled brand communications.
We then analyze that framework empirically using
multiple mediation analysis (Preacher and Hayes, 2008;
Taylor et al., 2008; Zhao et al., 2010), testing whether the
perception of controlled and uncontrolled communications
constitute effective mechanisms within the consumer
organism in the translation of corporate brand image stimuli
into actual consumer response. We operationalize consumer
brand response using two important consumer-focused
brand performance metrics; customer satisfaction (Ittner
and Larcker, 1998; Yeung and Ennew, 2000) and consumer
brand loyalty (de Chernatony et al., 1998; Dick and Basu,
1994; Jacoby and Kyner, 1973; Uncles et al., 2003). In
doing so, we make several contributions to the consumer
marketing literature. First, we conceptualize and
operationalize the consumer-perceived corporate brand
based not on a single dimension, as often done in previous
research (Alwi and Kitchen, 2014; Anisimova, 2007), but
on multiple dimensions including corporate-level attributes
and brand-level attributes and test how they jointly
influence consumer brand responses. Second, because of
tripartite and complete corporate relationships (Balmer,
2010), we seek to uncover the complex interrelationships
between corporate brand attributes (stimuli), mediating
controlled and uncontrolled communication channels
(organism) and consumer brand response. Finally, by
focusing on consumer satisfaction and consumer brand
loyalty as brand performance metrics, we account for
literature postulations that the investigation of consumer–
brand relations constitutes a more effective way of gaining
insights into actual corporate brand performance than using
traditional financial indicators (Ittner and Larcker, 1998;
Sunil et al., 2004). We account for the multi-dimensional
nature of loyalty, thereby addressing a shortcoming of
previous research (Caruana and Ewing, 2010) by
incorporating cognitive, affective and behavioral aspects
(Quester and Lim, 2003) into our loyalty measure.
Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework of this study builds on a S-O-R
model (Woodworth, 1928; Donovan and Rossiter, 1982); it
accounts for the increasing awareness in the consumer behavior
literature to consider consumers’ internal mental or organismic
(O) states and processes when modeling the translation of
external consumption-related stimulus (S) factors into actual
 Corporate brand perceptions
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo
consumer response (R) to these stimuli (Jacoby, 2002). Stimuli
consist of the consumer’s external environment; they are
perceived, interpreted and processed by the consumer
organism, and result in responsive behavior such as the
formulation of purchase intentions (Bagozzi, 1986). In the
present study, the corporate brand with its multiple dimensions
constitutes the stimulus triggering consumer responses in the
form of consumer satisfaction and loyalty. Intervening
consumer mental processes consist of attitudes in relation to
the brand resulting from controlled and uncontrolled brand
communications. Recent previous studies developing a
theoretical framework involving an S-O-R model include
Chang et al. (2011); Eroglu et al. (2003); Peng and Kim (2014)
and Sherman et al. (1997).
Literature review and hypothesis development
This section reviews relevant literature which feeds into the
development of testable hypotheses. The literature review
involves examining the direct and indirect relationships
described by our conceptual framework and its S-O-R pillars.
Consumer-based corporate branding
Corporate branding involves a systematic process aimed at
creating and maintaining a positive corporate brand image and
reputation through an effective interaction with both internal
and external stakeholders (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006). This
process implies cross-organizational efforts that are supposed to
create a positive corporate identity (“what are we?”) and
corporate personality (“who are we?”) as well as a favorable
corporate image and a more enduring corporate reputation
(Balmer, 2001; Knox and Bickerton, 2003). These efforts will
need to be reflected through real management commitment
and backed up by effective communications to make internal
and external stakeholders build favorable associations with the
brand (Joubert and Poalses, 2012; Plassmann et al., 2012). The
holistic approach to achieving the desired corporate brand
identity differs from that associated with product branding,
which is typically handled by marketing and advertising
personnel only (Balmer and Gray, 2003; Harris and de
Chernatony, 2001; Melewar et al., 2012).
This highlights the importance of using consumer-focused
metrics, such as consumer satisfaction (Ittner and Larcker,
1998; Yeung and Ennew, 2000) and consumer loyalty (Dick
and Basu, 1994; Uncles et al., 2003) when analyzing to what
extent the corporate brand promise is mirrored in actual
consumer-perceived brand value. It moreover stresses the need
to adequately integrate product branding into corporate
branding because consumers can be expected to evaluate a
corporate brand both through more concrete perceived brand
benefits and perceived corporate-level attributes.
Consequently, to position their corporate brands accordingly,
practitioners need to develop brands that engage with
consumers at these two levels.
Corporate brand attributes
The concrete understanding of the corporate brand concept
remains challenging because of terminology having been used
inconsistently in the past, which has resulted in confusion as to
its definition and operationalization. Aaker (2004), for
35
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49
example, considers the corporate brand reflective of a company
and its heritage, values, culture, people and of a strategy that
also can develop and leverage product and service attributes.
The asserted importance of product and service attributes
for the corporate brand is in line with other studies emphasizing
the need to consider consumer benefits including functional,
emotional and symbolic benefits in a corporate brand context
(Aaker, 2004; Keller, 2003; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001).
Balmer and Gray (2003) view the corporate brand from a
resource-based view of the corporation: Corporations build
consumer perceptions about their brand using corporate social
responsibility initiatives as well as corporate ability associations
(Brown and Dacin, 1997; Wan et al., 2016). According to
Wallpach and Woodside (2009), successful corporate branding
necessitates understanding brands from a corporate identity
perspective that links brands to corporate values. This is in line
with Bhattacharya and Sen (2003), who relate the corporate
brand to a company’s identity, defined through consumers’
knowledge structures about the company. This includes
perceptions of company attributes (e.g. values, culture, skills
and products) and reactions to the company such as emotions
and evaluations (Dowling, 1986). Bhattacharya and Sen’s view
overlaps with Brown and Dacin’s (1997) conceptualization of
company identity as corporate image, corporate reputation and
corporate associations. Similarly, Urde (2009) sees corporate
values as one of the key dimensions of the corporate brand,
whereas other studies conceptualize the corporate brand using
the notion of brand personality (Davies and Chun, 2002;
Whelan et al., 2010).
An integrated consumer-based corporate brand
framework
Previous research has traditionally analyzed corporate brands
on a dimension-by-dimension basis. Such an approach has
limitations as it prevents researchers from considering multiple
corporate brand dimensions concurrently and integrate them in
a coherent corporate brand framework that is aligned with the
way consumers experience corporate brands (Anisimova,
2007). As Alwi and Kitchen (2014) note, by using a single
attitude component of the corporate brand image, the extant
studies have only been useful for the initial understanding of
corporate brand image.
On that basis, and in line with Anisimova (2007), this study
argues that consumers experience corporate brands holistically,
and that using a single corporate brand dimension in research will
provide only a limited explanation of the impact of the corporate
brand on consumers. We therefore extend the corporate brand
theoretical framework by integrating individual consumer brand
benefits including functional, affective and symbolic benefits
(Edvardsson, 2005; Anisimova, 2015; Sweeney and Soutar,
2001), brand personality (Davies and Chun, 2002) and
corporate-level attributes such as corporate associations,
activities and corporate values (Brown, 1998) into the consumer-
based corporate brand construct. To analyze the corporate brand
nature and impact from a consumer perspective is warranted.
Lloyd and Woodside (2013), for example, advocate the
importance of comprehensively capturing and examining
consumer brand perceptions, including their implicit and explicit
emotional attachment, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors towards
corporate brands. This is because the insights gained from
 Corporate brand perceptions
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo
investigating consumer–brand relations can serve to inform
researchers and corporate brand managers about consumers’
deeply rooted thoughts and feelings about a brand, and their
subsequent behavioral responses (Lloyd and Woodside, 2013).
Corporate branding and consumer brand response
Consumers are a critical stakeholder group for whom the
corporate brand reputation matters (Bartikowski and Walsh,
2011; Doyle, 1998) and who generate sales and favorable word-
of-mouth, thus contributing to corporate brand success
(Gregory, 2007; Samli, Kelly, and Hunt, 1998). Such non-
financial measures have increasingly gained momentum because
of competitive markets forcing companies to extend their set of
measures beyond financial performance (Anisimova, 2010).
Indeed, non-financial indicators of returns on investment in
intangible assets such as the corporate brand may be important
and even better measures of corporate performance than
financial and accounting measures (Ittner and Larcker, 1998).
This view is further supported by Sunil et al. (2004), who
demonstrate the relevance of consumer-focused metrics for
shareholder value.
Consumer satisfaction and consumer brand loyalty are
considered two highly relevant customer-based brand response
measures. The former is a major antecedent to a firm’s
economic performance (Homburg and Giering, 2001; Wilson,
2002). For instance, high customer satisfaction has been found
to be positively associated with consumer purchase intentions
(Cronin and Taylor, 1992), customer retention (Day, 1994;
Henning-Thurau and Klee, 1997, and repeat purchasing
behavior (LaBarbera and Mazursky, 1983). Consumer
satisfaction can be defined as the consumer’s fulfilment
response based on certain consumer goals or rather a judgment
that a product or service has provided consumption-related
fulfilment in accordance with these goals (Oliver, 1997, 2006).
Consumer brand loyalty is a key criterion of brand success
(de Chernatony et al., 1998; Kapferer, 1997). In defining brand
loyalty, we draw on Jacoby and Kyner (1973), who view brand
loyalty as “the biased (i.e. nonrandom), behavioral response
(i.e. purchase), expressed over time, by some decision-making
unit, with respect to one more alternative brands out of a set of
such brands” and constitutes “a function of psychological
(decision-making, evaluative) processes” (p. 2).
The link between corporate brand attributes and brand
success in the form of consumer satisfaction and loyalty remains
under-researched, with previous studies tending to test the
effect of the corporate brand on these corporate brand success
measures on a dimension-by-dimension basis, rather than
examining the theoretically and practically important joint effect
on brand success of multiple corporate brand dimensions.
Another feature of previous research into brand loyalty is the
analysis of loyalty from a purchase intention perspective, rather
than considering multiple aspects of loyalty (Caruana and
Ewing, 2010) – which, for example, is done by Quester and Lim
(2003), who studied brand loyalty using a comprehensive
measurement framework including cognitive, affective and
behavioral forms of loyalty.
In terms of previous evidence on the link between corporate
branding and consumer brand response, Belch and Belch
(1987) interestingly found that boycotters and non-boycotters
of a product based their purchase intentions on different
36
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49
criteria. While corporate associations were the strongest drivers
of consumer responses for boycotters, non-boycotters’ product
responses were affected more directly by product attributes
than by corporate associations. A possible explanation could be
that boycotters’ personal values are violated by perceived
corporate values, whereas non-boycotters’ values match with a
company’s values in a better way, which in turn shifts consumer
focus toward product attributes when considering a purchase
(Brown and Dacin, 1997). Next, Chun and Davies (2006)
found a positive effect of corporate personality on customer
satisfaction, and Tournois (2015) found that customer
satisfaction mediates the relationship between customer value
and brand reputation, which implicitly stresses the positive
associations between brand benefits and customer responses in
the form satisfaction. Also, noteworthy is Whelan et al.’s (2010)
finding of a positive association between consumer perceptions
of brand personality and consumer satisfaction. Further,
previous research agrees on that positive perceptions of a firm’s
reputation are positively related to customer satisfaction,
loyalty and word-of-mouth behavior (Bartikowski and Walsh,
2011; Walsh et al., 2009). Moreover, previous research found
that consumers’ cognitive associations with a company and
their perceived value play an important role in consumer
product and corporate brand responses (Brown and Dacin,
1997; Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Caruana and Ewing,
2010). He and Li (2011) found a positive direct relationship
between perceived consumer benefits and customer
satisfaction and an indirect relationship between consumer
benefits and brand loyalty (via satisfaction). Similar results are
reported by Lai et al. (2009) and He et al. (2012). The former
found that customer satisfaction is influenced by corporate
image and customer-perceived value and that both customer
satisfaction and customer-perceived value are significant
drivers of brand loyalty. He et al. (2012) find that brand
personality/character is positively related to customer
satisfaction and indirectly associated with brand loyalty, among
others, via satisfaction. Given the support in the literature for
the influence of corporate-level attributes and consumer
benefits on consumer satisfaction and loyalty, we formulate the
following hypotheses:
H1. Consumer-perceived corporate-level attributes are
positively associated with (a) consumer satisfaction and (b)
consumer brand loyalty.
H2. Consumer benefits are positively associated with (a)
consumer satisfaction and (b) consumer brand loyalty.
H3. Consumer satisfaction is positively associated with
consumer brand loyalty.
Corporate branding and brand communication
As noted by Bhattacharya and Sen (2003), consumers’
assessment of the attractiveness of a corporate brand’s identity
depends on their perceptions of that identity through company-
controlled internal communication via corporate activities as
well paid, earned and owned media (Lovett and Staelin, 2016),
and via uncontrolled external communication (e.g. WOM and
media coverage). While company-controlled communication
still constitutes a substantial proportion of total communication
 Corporate brand perceptions
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo
activities (Kimmel and Kitchen, 2014), controlling message
attributes can entail certain disadvantages because of an
inherent trade-off between controllability and credibility of
controlled communication; the more communication control
the company exerts, the less credible it will be perceived, and
vice versa (Du et al., 2010; Sen et al., 2009). These potential
issues can be overcome, for example, by using recognized third-
party organizations (Pomering, 2011) and by providing factual
messages (Berens and van Rekom, 2008). Nevertheless, as
consumers tap into the ever-wider array of uncontrolled, mostly
digital, communication channels (e.g. digital social media), the
impact of traditional controlled communication channels is
said to decrease (Kitchen, 2010; Kitchen and Schultz, 2009).
Instead, it is the uncontrolled communication channels that
appear to increasingly influence consumer perceptions and
behaviors toward brands (Brown et al., 2005; Chatura and
Chanaka, 2014; East et al., 2008; Feng and Papatla, 2012;
Moldovan et al., 2011).
When considering a new purchase, consumers often rely on
uncontrolled communication such as WOM for information and
advice, as these communications are quick and participatory
(Moldovan et al., 2011; Singh et al., 2008). Whether intentional
or incidental, this exposure has implications for all stages of
consumer decision-making (Schindler and Bickart, 2005). The
power of uncontrolled communications is that they are shared
among families, friends and colleagues with direct experience of
brands, which makes information highly credible. Unlike
traditional WOM, electronic WOM spreads more rapidly and
widely, thus enhancing the impact of online information on
consumer decision-making even further (Schult, Ultz, and
Goritz, 2011). As the importance of such uncontrolled
communication increases, understanding their effects has
become increasingly important for both academics and
practitioners. Overall, uncontrolled sources can undermine or
reinforce company-controlled communication as they will
contain both positive and negative content (message valence),
which may have encouraging or detrimental effects (Moldovan
et al., 2011; Van Hoye and Lievens, 2005).
For companies, this implies an increasing need to
incorporate both controlled and uncontrolled elements into an
integrated marketing communications (IMC) mix to facilitate a
more comprehensive investigation of the relationships between
corporate brand identity, brand communication and consumer
brand response (Duncan and Moriarty, 1997; Finne and
Grönroos, 2009; Grönroos and Lindberg-Repo, 1998). In
defining IMC, this study draws on Duncan and Everett (1993),
who describe IMC as “the strategic coordination of all
messages and media used by an organization to influence its
perceived brand value” (p. 32). The above view is echoed by
Balmer (2010), who considers the way in which corporate
brands are communicated by traditional and non-traditional
modes of corporate communications a major corporate
branding issue requiring further elaboration in the literature.
Previous empirical studies of the role of brand
communication in consumer relationships with corporate
brands found that consumer brand attitudes are positively
associated with both controlled (Grace and O’Cass, 2005;
Kempf and Smith, 1998) and uncontrolled communication
(Swanson and Kelley, 2001). By contrast, there are studies
reporting a negative relationship between brand attitudes and
37
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49
uncontrolled sources, for instance through negative WOM and
publicity (Ennew et al., 2000; Grace and O’Cass, 2005). Hong
and Rim (2010) found that the use of company-controlled
websites alone positively related to consumer perceptions of
corporate social activities, while also finding indirect effects of
corporate website visits on positive word of mouth. Likewise,
Alvarez and Campo (2011), reported that consumer-perceived
corporate image was more strongly associated with controlled
communication than with uncontrolled communications.
To sum up, the above literature overall suggests a positive
relationship between corporate brand attributes and controlled
as well as uncontrolled communication while at the same time
pointing to possible negative consequences of controlled (Du
et al., 2010; Sen, Du and Bhattacharya, 2009) and
uncontrolled (Ennew et al., 2000; Grace and O’Cass, 2005)
communication in a corporate brand context. It is also
important to note that it is not the communication content as
such that affects consumers but the extent to which the
communicated information is considered sensible. Hence, a
communication’s effectiveness in conveying meaning about the
corporate brand is inseparably linked to the consumer’s
attitudes toward the communication (Grace and O’Cass,
2005). While keeping the potential pitfalls in relation to
controlled and uncontrolled communication in mind, we
formulate the following hypotheses:
H4. Consumers’ perceived corporate-level attributes are
positively associated with their corporate attitudes
obtained through (a) controlled communication and (b)
uncontrolled communication.
H5. Consumers’ perceived brand benefits are positively
associated with their corporate attitudes obtained
through (a) controlled communication and (b)
uncontrolled communication.
Brand communication and corporate brand response
Besides being associated with corporate brand identity,
controlled and uncontrolled communications are known to also
influence corporate brand responses on the part of consumers.
Spreng et al. (1996), for instance, argue that consumers’ overall
satisfaction with the brand consists of satisfaction with attributes
and satisfaction with the corporate brand communication (Mohr
and Spekman, 1994). It is moreover argued that communication
increases customers’ confidence in the seller’s reliability and
integrity (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Grace and O’Cass (2005)
found that controlled communications have a significant effect
on consumer satisfaction and brand reuse intentions, whereas
WOM was shown to have a significant influence only on brand
reuse intentions. Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold (2011)
provided support for the assumed detrimental effect of negative
online product reviews on consumer-based brand equity.
Chatterjee (2001) found that negative consumer reviews had
negative effects on perceived retailer reliability. By contrast, East
et al. (2008) found the impact of positive WOM to be general
higher than negative WOM, with both being strongly related to
the pre-WOM probability of purchase. Very recent evidence is
provided by Hossain and Chonko (2017), who find that greater
bidirectional flow of communication enhances customers’ loyalty
to the firm.
 Corporate brand perceptions Journal of Consumer Marketing
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49

Summing up these literature findings, and recognizing that Figure 1 Conceptual framework
only few studies have compared controlled and uncontrolled
communications in terms of their influence on consumer brand

Smulus
response (Grace and O’Cass, 2005), we postulate the following Corporate-level Consumer
attributes benefits
f
hypotheses:

H6. Consumers’ corporate attitudes based on controlled H4a

H
H4 a H5a
H
H5 a
H4b
H
H4 b H5b
H b
H5
communication are positively associated with (a) consumer Controlled Uncontrolled

Organism
satisfaction and (b) consumer brand loyalty. commu
m nication
communication communication
commun
m ication
H6a
H6
H 6a
H7a
H 7a
H7. Consumers’ corporate attitudes based on uncontrolled H1aa
H
H1 H2a
H
H2 a
communication are positively associated with (a) consumer Consumer

satisfaction and (b) consumer brand loyalty.
The mediating role of corporate brand communication
As argued by Bhattacharya and Sen (2003), consumers’
response to corporate brands are based on how they perceive a
brand’s identity as derived through controlled and
uncontrolled communications – which suggests a mediated
relationship between these constructs. This view is further
supported by H1-H7 because the hypothesized positive direct
relationships between corporate-brand attributes, controlled
and uncontrolled communications and consumer satisfaction
and loyalty point to a possible mediating role of these two types
of communications (Baron and Kenny, 1986; MacKinnon
et al., 2012; Preacher and Hayes, 2008; Taylor et al., 2008). In
that context, and in line with the discussion above, controlled
and uncontrolled communications need to be increasingly
integrated into a coherent IMC mix. The link between IMC
and brand performance outcomes, however, remains under-
researched (Ewing, 2009; Einwiller and Boenigk, 2011). Ewing
(2009) moreover points out that marketing communications
results have traditionally been measured on a medium-by-
medium basis, which often prohibits researchers from
measuring all these communications concurrently in a
synergetic manner. We conceptualize the mediating role of
corporate brand communication through Woodworth’s (1928)
S-O-R model. Given its parsimony, the S-O-R model has been
used in advertising (Moon et al., 2016) and retailing research
(Donovan and Rossiter, 1982) to investigate the impact of
various stimuli on consumer responses. Based on the above
elaborations, we posit the following hypothesis:
H8. The relationship between consumers’ (a) perceived
corporate-level attributes and (b) perceived brand benefits
and consumer satisfaction is mediated by controlled and
uncontrolled communication.
Finally, we conjecture that both perceived corporate-level
attributes and perceived brand benefits will affect consumer
brand loyalty indirectly through controlled and uncontrolled
communication as well as through consumer satisfaction,
which immediately precedes loyalty in our conceptual
framework.
H9. The relationship between consumers’ (a) perceived
corporate-level attributes and (b) perceived brand benefits
and consumer brand loyalty is mediated by controlled and
uncontrolled communication and consumer satisfaction.
Figure 1 illustrates the proposed conceptual framework.
Response
satisfaction
satisfacti
f on
H
H3 H1b
H 1b H2b
H
H2 b H7b
Consumer brand
H6b
H
H6 b loyalty
H8a H8b H9a H9b
Data and methodology
Sampling and data collection
The unit of analysis in this study was a leading Japanese original
equipment manufacturer’s (OEM) Australian subsidiary
engaged in the corporate branding strategy. The Australian
automotive industry has been a significant contributor to the
Australian economy for decades (Autocar, 2017). Businesses
engaged in car manufacturing in Australia have been highly
internationalized, with many firms wholly or partially foreign-
owned and with components exported to many countries
(Anisimova and Mavondo, 2014). More recently, however, the
car manufacturing industry has been under substantial pressure
from imports and has been suffering a significant decline in
market share as well as in the actual volume of cars produced
(Toner, 2014). This is because of increasingly reduced
government subsidies and reduced or cut trade tariffs in
the process of opening the Australian economy to foreign trade
(Barclay, 2017). In addition, car assembly plants did not have
sufficient scale in their market in Australia, and they also were
engaged in product lines consumers were increasingly finding
unpopular (Robin and Redrup, 2014; Rody, 2014). Thus, the
government-induced and consumer-friendly intensification of
competition in the Australian car market has made the topic of
this study more relevant. In order for a corporate brand to spur
and maintain consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty over
time, strong and resilient brand attributes and values are
required (Urde, 2016).
A structured questionnaire was the instrument of the data
collection. Mailout packages including the questionnaires were
delivered to the participating OEM which, in turn, distributed
the package from its internal database to 900 end-users/
customers. These consumers were randomly selected via a
random number generator forming part of the database. The
final mailout packages sent out to the consumers contained the
questionnaire, two cover letters (one from the investigator and
one from the car manufacturer) and reply-paid envelopes. The
completed questionnaires were returned through these reply-
paid envelopes. The consumer sample yielded 271 usable
questionnaires, which implies a 30-percent response rate. The
mail survey method was considered the most appropriate for
primary data collection because of its advantages, such as a

38
 Corporate brand perceptions Journal of Consumer Marketing
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49

personalized approach, its ability to accommodate large sample Table I Convergent validity of the measures
sizes at relatively low costs and ease of administering (Lukas
Standardized
et al., 2004) and the respondent-perceived anonymity Constructs and items regression weight CR AVE
(Malhotra et al., 2002).
Corporate-level attributes 0.952 0.715
Reliable 0.884
Measures
Open 0.910
All variables used in this study are multi-item constructs
Progressive 0.892
measured using a seven-point Likert type scale ranging from Confident 0.863
“1” (not at all) to “7” (a very great extent). The use of multi- Inspiring 0.865
item measures tends to increase reliability and decrease Social conscience 0.821
measurement error (Churchill, 1979). Likert-type scales have Corporate associations 0.868
been used in empirical studies on measurement of brand Social activities 0.631
utilities (Davies and Chun, 2002; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001).
Consumer benefits 0.936 0.680
The seven-point Likert scale was selected for the purposes of
Advanced technology 0.934
increasing reliability as it has been shown to be superior over a
Value for money 0.841
five-point scale (Churchill, 1979). The content validity of our
On-the-road performance 0.874
measures was ensured in two ways. First, whenever possible,
Choice variety 0.834
we used already existing measures that are well-anchored in the
A feeling of adventure 0.775
literature or we derived items from that literature. Second, A sense of contentment 0.864
before the questionnaire was distributed through the car Get social approval 0.610
manufacturer’s databases, several measures were discussed
with, and reviewed by, several relevant managers during and Controlled communication 0.872 0.697
after in-depth interviews (Zhao et al., 2006) in terms of Industry advertising 0.908
suitability, readability and ambiguity (Dillman et al., 2009). Trade show 0.889
Table AI in the Appendix provides a detailed overview of our Sponsorships 0.689
initial survey items and theory-based constructs. There, we also Uncontrolled communication 0.694 0.537
report which measures were developed using complementary Word-of-mouth 0.611
in-depth interviews and which measures are based on previous Independent press 0.837
literature.
Consumer satisfaction 0.857 0.667
Consumer satisfaction with the 0.875
Measurement evaluation vehicle acquisition
We first ran a model involving our first-order factors. The Consumer satisfaction with the 0.756
following observations led us to choose the second-order vehicle maintenance
format:
Consumer brand loyalty 0.857 0.667
 The fit statistics were much weaker.
Affective loyalty 0.888
 The ratio of distinct parameters to be estimated to sample
Cognitive loyalty 0.789
size was lower than 1:5, which suggested that the model
Intention and action loyalty 0.768
required a larger sample size than was available.
We then formulated a final, more aggregated, model based on a
combination of prior theory and empirical work, which Analysis
involved these initial items and constructs. The model was The mediating effects of controlled and alternative communications
validated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA on a relationship between consumer-perceived corporate brand and
reveals a good model fit: x 2 (283) = 1,002.933; x 2/df = 3.54; consumer satisfaction and loyalty were examined through the
root mean squared error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.078; application of structural equation modelling (SEM). This technique
confirmatory fit index [CFI] = 0.880; RMR = 0.126; Tucker– was chosen as it enables isolation of and directly testing for direct,
Lewis index [TLI] = 0.863; Parsimony-Adjusted Measures indirect and total types of communication influence. The Path
[PCFI] = 0.767; AIC = 1,183.933. In addition, convergent and model was run in AMOS 21. It achieves an adequate fit: x 2 (260) =
discriminant validity of all measures was tested based on the 745.65; x 2/df = 2.868; root mean squared error of approximation
CFA results. The former is achieved when factor composite [RMSEA] = 0.089; confirmatory fit index [CFI] = 0.912; RMR =
reliability is equal to or greater than 0.60 and when the factor 0.126; Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = 0.898; Parsimony-Adjusted
loadings and average variance explained (AVE) in items by Measures [PCFI] = 0.79; AIC = 875.645. The mediation analysis
their constructs are greater than 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, was conducted using Preacher and Hayes’s (2008) procedure to
1981). As can be seen in Table I, these conditions are met, investigate the existence of indirect effects[2]. To test for our
which confirms convergent validity. In addition, as reported in indirect effects’ significance, we divide each respective
Table II, we find evidence of discriminant validity because the (standardized) indirect effect by its standard error and compare the
AVEs tend to be higher than the squared correlations between resulting ratio with the standard normal distribution to test its
the constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). significance (Bollen and Stine, 1990; MacKinnon et al., 1991).

39
 Corporate brand perceptions Journal of Consumer Marketing
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49

Table II Discriminant validity of the measures

1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Corporate-level attributes 0.715
2 Consumer benefits 0.738 0.680
3 Controlled communication 0.183 0.091 0.697
4 Uncontrolled communication 0.303 0.183 0.716 0.537
5 Consumer satisfaction 0.696 0.865 0.085 0.135 0.667
6 Consumer brand loyalty 0.643 0.687 0.192 0.378 0.676 0.667
Composite reliability 0.952 0.936 0.872 0.694 0.857 0.857
Note: Values on the main diagonal are the average variances extracted, values below the diagonal are the squared correlations

Results and discussion
The estimated direct and indirect effects of the hypothesized
relationships in the path models are reported in Table III.
H1 posited a positive direct association between corporate-
level attributes and consumer satisfaction (H1a) and consumer
brand loyalty (H1b). The results do not support H1b and provide
only weak support for H1a ( b = 0.179†). H2 predicted a positive
direct association between consumer benefits and consumer
satisfaction (H2a) and between consumer benefits and consumer
brand loyalty (H2b). While the results strongly support H2a (b =
0.826), we do not find supportive evidence of H2b (b = 0.000).
These findings reveal two interesting patterns: First, while
consumer satisfaction seems to be influenced by both corporate-
level attributes and consumer benefits, the latter is clearly more
effective in this regard. The reason for these rather weak results in
terms of corporate-level attributes could be that both consumer
benefits and consumer satisfaction refer to more concrete and
tangible aspects in relation to a vehicle purchase and ownership
when compared with more abstract corporate-level attributes,
which in turn implies a more natural link between these concepts.
The positive link between the consumer benefit construct and
satisfaction is more in line with our expectations, as it, for
example, confirms Belch and Belch’s (1987) finding that non-
boycotters’ product responses are affected more directly by
product attributes than by corporate attributes (see also Brown
and Dacin, 1997, and Wan et al., 2016). This finding implies that
brand benefits should be enhanced and maintained by corporate
brand communication and corporate dealer networks. The
second pattern we find is that neither corporate-level attributes
nor consumer benefits seem to directly influence long-term
psychological and behavioral responses from consumers,
measured through consumer brand loyalty. This finding
contradicts previous studies that found corporate-level attributes
to be critical in determining its success (Brown, 1998).
Next, H3, which predicted a positive association between
consumer satisfaction and consumer brand loyalty, is
supported by our analysis ( b = 0.614 ). This confirms
previous findings (Anderson et al., 1994; Day, 1994; Fornell,
1992; Henning-Thurau and Klee, 1997). H4 predicted a
positive association between corporate-level attributes and
controlled communication (H4a) and between corporate-level
attributes and uncontrolled communication (H4b). While the
results are supportive of H4a ( b = 0.619 ), they make us
reject H4b ( b = 0.196). This suggests that controlled
communication tends to influence consumers’ corporate
attitudes and thereby shape their perceptions of corporate-level
attributes, more strongly than uncontrolled communication.
This pattern contradicts literature findings as to the prevalence
and effectiveness of uncontrolled communications (e.g. media
coverage, WOM) in shaping consumers’ attitudes and opinions
of companies (see e.g. Chatura and Chanaka, 2014; Feng and
Papatla, 2012). It also provides evidence against claims that the
importance of controlled communications tends to decrease
(Kitchen, 2010; Kitchen and Schultz, 2009; Du et al., 2010;
Sen et al., 2009).
We moreover reject H5 – which postulated a positive
relationship between consumer benefits and controlled
communication (H5a) and between consumer benefits and
uncontrolled communication (H5b) – because of insignificant

Table III Standardized direct and indirect effects

Corporate-level Consumer Controlled Uncontrolled Consumer
attributes benefits communication communication satisfaction
Controlled communication DE 0.619 0.233
Uncontrolled communication DE 0.196 0.035
Consumer satisfaction DE 0.179 0.826 0.155 0.219
IE 0.659 0.005
Via CC/UC Via CC/UC
Consumer brand loyalty DE 0.101 0.000 0.261 0.562 0.614
IE 0.710 0.485
Via CC/UC/SAT Via CC/UC/
SAT
Notes:  p < 0.05;  p < 0.01;  p < 0.001;  p < 0.1; One-tailed test. CC = controlled communication; UC = uncontrolled communication; DE = direct
effect; IE = indirect effect. SAT = consumer satisfaction. Both direct and indirect effects are standardized

40
 Corporate brand perceptions
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo
direct effects. This somewhat surprisingly suggests that
consumer corporate attitudes obtained through controlled and
uncontrolled communication are not associated with their
perceived functional, emotional and symbolic brand benefits –
which points to a lack of communication effectiveness.
H6 predicted that consumer corporate attitudes based on
controlled communication are positively related to consumer
satisfaction (H6a) and consumer brand loyalty (H6b). Our
results do not lend support to these hypotheses given
insignificant direct effects. We do, however, find supportive
evidence of H7, which predicted a positive relationship between
consumer corporate attitudes based on uncontrolled
communication and, on the one hand, consumer satisfaction
(H7a) and, on the other, consumer brand loyalty (H7b) given
statistically significant direct effects ( b = 0.219† for H7a and
b = 0.562 for H7b). This provides supportive evidence of the
effectiveness of uncontrolled communication in consumer
decision-making: It suggests that companies should track media
coverage and maintain favorable relationships with media and
other stakeholders that have the power to influence what
consumers feel, think and do in relation to the corporate brand.
The mediation hypotheses H8a and H9a are strongly
supported by our results. H8a posited that the relationship
between corporate-level attributes and consumer satisfaction is
mediated by controlled and uncontrolled communication,
which is supported by a highly statistically significant indirect
effect on satisfaction via controlled and uncontrolled
communication ( b = 0.659 ). H9a postulated that the
relationship between corporate-level attributes and consumer
brand loyalty is mediated by controlled and uncontrolled
communication and consumer satisfaction, which, too, is
supported by a highly statistically significant indirect effect
between corporate attributes on loyalty ( b = 0.710 ). Based
on these mediation hypothesis tests, we can conclude that while
corporate-level attributes seem to matter in triggering
consumer response (see e.g. Brown, 1998), there are mediating
processes involved including consumer corporate attitudes
shaped by controlled and uncontrolled communication.
Looking at the tests results of the mediation hypotheses H8b
and H9b, we reject H8b because of insignificant indirect effects
for the relationship between consumer benefits and consumer
satisfaction ( b = 0.005), whereas we find support for H9b
given highly statistically indirect effects for the link between
consumer benefits on consumer brand loyalty ( b = 0.485 ).
This again points to the substantial importance of mediating
mechanisms in inducing in particular more long-term
consumer response in the form of brand loyalty. Such
mechanisms include the shaping of consumer corporate
attitudes through controlled and uncontrolled communication.
Conclusions and implications
The empirical analysis bears important theoretical and practical
implications. Controlled and uncontrolled forms of communication
seem to matter in mediating the relationship between corporate-
level attributes and consumer loyalty as well as between consumer
benefits and consumer loyalty. This finding confirms Bhattacharya
and Sen (2003) in that consumers’ response to corporate brands are
based on how they perceive a brand’s identity as derived through
controlled and uncontrolled communications. By contrast,
41
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49
consumer satisfaction does not seem to require the same degree of
shaping of consumer corporate attitudes via controlled and
uncontrolled communication.
Our results moreover support previous research findings
(Andreassen and Lindestad 1998a, 1998b; Hart and
Rosenberger, 2004) that strong corporate image, and
communication of that image, has an important impact on
consumers’ attitudinal and behavioral responses. Arguably,
there is a need for managers to sustain core organizational
values in the eyes of end-consumers. The corporate brand
needs to become the central meaning that provides the basis for
identity programs and strategy of individual brand portfolios
(Kitchen and Schultz, 2003). Hence, we recommend
marketing managers of established corporations to stress
functional, symbolic and emotional brand benefits through
controlled communication channels in their quest to improve
brand loyalty, while at the same time attempting to influence
uncontrolled communication channels by engaging in social
media consumer discussions and blogs.
This relates to another important finding of our study, namely
that uncontrolled communication appeared more influential on
consumer response than marketer-controlled sources. This calls
on communication practitioners to ensure consistency and clarity
regarding their controlled communication activities as well as to
influence uncontrolled communication to the extent possible. In
addition, our results point to the relative importance of controlled
communication in influencing consumers’ corporate attitudes
and in forming their perceptions of corporate-level attributes.
These finding echoes assertions of Balmer and Gray (1999),
Eagle et al. (2007) and Kitchen and Schultz (2003) that
communication needs to be viewed as a strategic tool for defining
the corporate brand.
Overall, our findings imply that communications need to be
viewed as a strategic tool, which encompasses within corporate,
marketing and uncontrolled communications (e.g. WOM,
media interpretations and competitors’ comments). Corporate
branding, particularly in the car industry is a complex
undertaking, which involves careful and proactive management
of tangible and intangible brand elements at a strategic level as
well as at the level of integrated marketing communications.
Discerning consumers are looking to be inspired and surprised
as they try to build an emotional bond with the cars they drive,
which goes beyond customary performance and fuel efficiently.
Consumers are looking for deeper connections with their
vehicles, and this is greatly affecting both how purchase
decisions are made, and whether or not brand loyalty is formed.
Research limitations
Having a larger number of participating car manufacturers/
OEMs would have provided deeper insight, particularly in
terms of generalizability of our findings. A larger sample size
would also improve our empirical model, which currently is not
saturated with four degrees of freedom. In addition, the cross-
sectional nature of our data limits the information obtained to a
single point in time. This might cause a potential endogeneity
issue in the form of reverse causality between certain model
variables. We therefore encourage future studies to work with
longitudinal data to reduce these endogeneity concerns.
Moreover, we encourage future studies to include other
 Corporate brand perceptions
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo
mediating factors such as intrinsic factors in the research
framework. Moreover, mostly because of data limitations, the
current study did not control for relevant demographics and
consumer-related features (e.g. income, amount of time since
last purchase at that manufacturer, money spent on car). We
therefore encourage future research in this field to include such
control variables in the analysis. Finally, our multiple
mediation analysis in line with Preacher and Hayes (2008)
implied investigating total indirect effects. We encourage future
studies to refine this analysis by testing hypotheses regarding
individual mediators in the context of a multiple mediator
model, that is, future studies should investigate the specific
indirect effect related to each individual mediator. This would
yield more thorough theoretical implications while at the same
time providing corporate managers with more useful
information regarding the relative mediating importance of
each respective communication type.
Notes
1 Word-of-mouth can be defined as “any information about
a target object (e.g. company, brand) transferred from one
individual to another either in person or via some
communication medium” (Brown et al., 2005, p. 125).
2 When testing for mediation, we ran competing models, one
containing the mediated relationship and one without it. We
then compared their fit. The alternative model without
mediators had the following fit indices: Chi-square =
616.514; df = 165; CMin/df = 3.736; GFI = 0.876, AGFI =
0.721, NFI = 0.876, TLI = 0.891; CFI = 0.905; and
RMSEA = 0.108. This was worse than the model with
mediators. Moreover, the alternative model specified this
way was inconsistent with the aims and conceptualization of
the research. In addition, we performed an alternative model
by reversing the direction of the relationships to test for a
competing model. As reported, this also had significantly
poorer fit measures and was not consistent with the literature
review. This suggested that the model as conceptualized and
operationalized was superior to rival models.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products
and markets”, California Management Review, Vol. 38,
pp. 102-120.
Aaker, D. (2004), “Leveraging the corporate brand”, California
Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 6-26.
Alvarez, M. and Campo, S. (2011), “Controllable versus
uncontrollable information sources: effects on the image of
Turkey”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 310-323.
Anderson, E., Fornell, C. and Lehman, D. (1994), “Customer
satisfaction, market share, and profitability: findings from
Sweden”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 53-66.
Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998a), “Consumer
loyalty and complex services: the impact of corporate image on
quality, consumer satisfaction and loyalty for consumers with
varying degrees of service expertise”, International Journal of
Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
42
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49
Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998b), “The effect of
corporate image on in the formation of consumer loyalty”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 82-92.
Alwi, S.F.S. and Kitchen, P. (2014), “Projecting corporate
brand image and behavioral response in business schools:
cognitive or affective brand attributes?”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 67 No. 11, pp. 2324-2336.
Anisimova, T. (2007), “The effects of corporate brand
attributes on attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 395-405.
Anisimova, T. (2010), “Corporate brand: the company-
customer misalignment and its performance implications”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 488 -503.
Anisimova, T. (2015), “Brand communication using symbolic
brand values: implications for consumer satisfaction and
loyalty”, Academy of Marketing Conference, 7-10 July 2015,
University of Limerick.
Anisimova, T. and Mavondo, F. (2014), “Aligning company
and dealer perspectives in corporate branding: implications
for dealer satisfaction and commitment”, Journal of Business-
to-Business Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 35-56.
Autocar (2017), “The end of car production in Australia – what
went wrong”, Autocar, October, available at: www.autocar.
co.uk (accessed 15 October 2017).
Bagozzi, R.P. (1986), Principles of Marketing Management,
Science Research Associates, Chicago.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “Corporate identity, corporate
branding and corporate marketing: seeing through the fog”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3/4, pp. 248-291.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2010), “Explicating corporate brands and
their management: reflections and directions from 1995”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 180-196.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2012), “Strategic corporate brand alignment:
perspectives from identity based views of corporate brands”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8, pp. 1064-1092.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (1999), “Corporate identity
and corporate communications: creating a competitive
advantage”, Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 171-177.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E. (2003), “Corporate brands: what
are they? What of them?”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 972-997.
Bambauer-Sachse, S. and Mangold, S. (2011), “Brand equity
dilution through negative online word-of-mouth
communication”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-45.
Barclay, A. (2017), “This is the last year a car will be made in
Australia”, Quartz Media, April, available at: qz.com
(accessed 17 October 2017).
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator
distinction in social psychological research: conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bartikowski, B. and Walsh, G. (2011), “Investigating
mediators between corporate reputation and consumer
citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64
No. 1, pp. 39-44.
Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (1987), “The application of an
expectancy value operationalization of function theory to
examine attitudes of boycotters and nonboycotters of a
 Corporate brand perceptions
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo
consumer product”, in Wallendorf, M. and Anderson, P.F.
(Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, Association
for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 232-236.
Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (2014), “Advertising and
Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications
Perspective, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Berens, G. and van Rekom, J. (2008), “How specific should
corporate communication be? The role of advertising language
in establishing a corporate reputation for CSR”, in Melewar,
T.C. (Ed.), Facets of Corporate Identity, Communication and
Reputation, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, pp. 96-121.
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998), “Symbolic and functional
positioning of brands”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Bhattacharya, C. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company
identification: a framework for understanding consumers’
relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67
No. 2, pp. 76-88.
Bollen, K.A. and Stine, R. (1990), “Direct and indirect effects:
classical and bootstrap estimates of variability”, Sociological
Methodology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 115-140.
Brown, B. (1998), “Do stock market investors reward
companies with reputations for social performance?”,
Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 271-280.
Brown, T. and Dacin, P. (1997), “The company and
the product: corporate associations and consumer
product responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1,
pp. 68-84.
Brown, T., Barry, T., Dacin, P. and Gunst, R. (2005),
“Spreading the word: investigating antecedents of consumers’
positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviours in a
retailing context”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 123-138.
Caruana, A. and Ewing, M.T. (2010), “How corporate
reputation, quality, and value influence online loyalty”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 63 Nos 9/10, pp. 1103-1110.
Chang, H.J., Eckman, M. and Yan, R.N. (2011), “Application of
the stimulus-organism-response model to the retail
environment: the role of hedonic motivation in impulse buying
behavior”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 233-249.
Chang, A., Chiang, H.H. and Han, T.S. (2015), “Investigating
the dual-route effects of corporate branding on brand equity”,
Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 120-129.
Chatterjee, P. (2001), Online Reviews: do Consumers Use Them? In
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 28, in Gilly, M.C. and
Myers-Levy, J. (Eds), Association for Consumer Research,
Valdosta, GA, pp. 129-133.
Chatura, R. and Chanaka, J. (2014), “Talk up or criticize?
Customer responses to WOM about competitors during
social interactions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67
No. 12, pp. 2645-2656.
Chun, R. and Davies, G. (2006), “The influence of corporate
character on consumers and employees: exploring
similarities and differences”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 138-146.
Churchill, G. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better
measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
43
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service
quality: a re-examination and extension”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Dacin, P. and Brown, T. (2006), “Corporate branding,
identity, and customer response”, Journal of Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 95-98.
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.
Davies, G., Chun, R., Vinhas da Silva, R. and Roper, S.
(2004), “A corporate character scale to assess employee and
customer views of organization reputation”, Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 125-146.
Davidow, M. (2003), “Have you heard the word? The effect of
word of mouth on perceived justice, satisfaction, and repurchase
intentions following complaint handling”, Journal of Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behaviour, Vol. 16, pp. 67-80.
Day, G.S. (1994), “The capabilities of market-driven
organizations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 37-52.
de Chernatony, L., Dall’Olmo, R.F. and Harris, F. (1998),
“Criteria to assess brand success”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 765 -781.
Dick, A. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: towards an
integrated framework”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D. and Christian, L.M. (2009),
Internet, Mail and Mixed-mode Surveys: The Tailored Design
Method, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Donovan, R.J. and Rossiter, J.E. (1982), “Store atmosphere:
an environmental psychology approach”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 34-57.
Dowling, G. (1986), “Managing your corporate image”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 109-115.
Doyle, P. (1998), Marketing Management and Strategy, Prentice
Hall, London.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2010), “Maximizing
business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): the
role of CSR communication”, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 8-19.
Duncan, T. and Everett, S. (1993), “Client perceptions of
integrated marketing communications”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 30-39.
Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S. (1997), Driving Brand Value:
using Integrated Marketing to Manage Profitable Stakeholder
Relationships, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Eagle, L.C., Kitchen, P.J. and Blumer, S. (2007), “Insights
into interpreting integrated marketing communications: a
two-nation qualitative comparison”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 7/8, pp. 956-970.
East, R., Hammond, K. and Lomax, W. (2008), “Measuring
the impact of positive and negative word of mouth on brand
purchase probability”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 215-224.
Edvardsson, B. (2005), “Service quality: beyond cognitive
assessment”, Managing Service Quality: An International
Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 127-131.
Einwiller, S. and Boenigk, M. (2011), “Examining the link
between integrated communication management and
communication effectiveness in medium-sized enterprises”,
Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 17, pp. 1-27.
 Corporate brand perceptions
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo
Ennew, C.T., Banerjee, A.K. and Li, D. (2000), “Managing
word of mouth communication: empirical evidence from
India”, The International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 75-83.
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A. and Davis, L.M. (2003),
“Empirical testing of a model of online store atmospherics
and shopper responses”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 139-150.
Ewing, M. (2009), “Integrated marketing communications
measurement and evaluation”, Journal of Marketing
Communications, Vol. 15 Nos 2/3, pp. 103-117.
Feng, J. and Papatla, P. (2012), “Is online word of mouth
higher for new models or redesigns? An investigation of the
automobile industry”, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 92-101.
Finne, Å. and Grönroos, C. (2009), “Rethinking marketing
communication: from integrated marketing communication
to relationship communication”, Journal of Marketing
Communications, Vol. 15 Nos 2/3, pp. 179-195.
Fornell, C. (1992), “A national consumer satisfaction
barometer: the Swedish experience”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 6-21.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Goff, B.G., Boles, J.S., Bellenger, D.N. and Stojack, C. (1997),
“The influence of salesperson selling behaviors on customer
satisfaction with products”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73
No. 2, pp. 171-183.
Grace, D. and O’Cass, A. (2005), “Examining the effects of
service brand communications on brand evaluation”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 106-116.
Gregory, A. (2007), “Involving stakeholder in developing
corporate brands: the communication dimension”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 23 Nos 1/2, pp. 59-73.
Grönroos, C. and Lindberg-Repo, K. (1998), “Integrated
marketing communications: the communications aspect of
relationship marketing”, Integrated Marketing
Communications Research Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
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.
Hart, A.E. and Rosenberger, P.J. III. (2004), “The effects of
corporate image in the formation of consumer loyalty: an
Australian replication”, Australasian Marketing Journal,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 88-96.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2003), “Bringing the corporation
into corporate branding”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1041-1064.
He, H. and Li, Y. (2011), “CSR and service Brand: the
mediating effect of brand identification and moderating
effect of service quality”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 100
No. 4, pp. 673-688.
He, H., Li, Y. and Harris, L. (2012), “Social identity
perspective on brand loyalty”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 648-657.
Henning-Thurau, T. and Klee, A. (1997), “The impact of
customer satisfaction and relationship quality on customer
44
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49
retention: a critical reassessment and model development”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 737-764.
Hogan, S., Almquist, E. and Glynn, S. (2005), “Brand
building: finding the touch points that count”, Journal of
Business Strategy, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 11-18.
Homburg, C. and Giering, A. (2001), “Personal characteristics
as moderators of the relationship between consumer
satisfaction and loyalty – an empirical analysis”, Psychology
and Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-66.
Hong, S.Y. and Rim, H. (2010), “The influence of consumer
use of corporate websites: corporate social responsibility,
trust, and word-of-mouth communication”, Public Relations
Review, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 389-391.
Hossain, M.T. and Chonko, L.B. (2017), “Relational
communication and illusionary loyalty: moderating role of
self-construal”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 69,
pp. 221-234.
Hsieh, M.H., Pan, S.L. and Setiono, R. (2004), “Product,
corporate and country-image dimensions and purchase
behavior: a multicountry analysis”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 251-270.
Hulberg, J. (2006), “Integrating corporate branding and
sociological paradigms: a literature study”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 60-73.
Ind, N. (1997), The Corporate Brand, Macmillan, London.
Ittner, C.D. and Larcker, D.F. (1998), “Are nonfinancial
measures leading indicators for financial performance? An
analysis of customer satisfaction”, Journal of Accounting
Research, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 21-35.
Jacoby, J. (2002), “Stimulus-organism-response
reconsidered: an evolutionary step in modeling
(Consumer) behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 51-57.
Jacoby, J. and Kyner, D.B. (1973), “Brand loyalty vs repeat
purchasing behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Jamal, A. and Naser, K. (2002), “Customer satisfaction and
retail banking: an assessment of some of the key antecedents
of customer satisfaction in retail banking”, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 146-160.
Joubert, J.P.R. and Poalses, J. (2012), “What’s in a name? The
effect of a brand name on consumers’ evaluation of fresh
milk”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 425-431.
Kapferer, J.N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management, 2nd ed.,
Kogan Page, London.
Keller, K.L. (2003), “Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality
of brand knowledge”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 595-560.
Kempf, D.S. and Smith, R.E. (1998), “Consumer processing
of product trial and the influence of prior advertising: a
structural modeling approach”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 325-338, available at: http://dx.
doi.org/10.2307/3152031
Kimmel, A.J. and Kitchen, P.J. (2014), “WOM and social
media: presaging future directions for research and practice”,
Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 20 Nos 1/2,
pp. 5-20.
Kitchen, P.J. (Ed.), (2010), Integrated Brand Marketing and
Measuring Returns, Palgrave-Macmillan, Basingstoke.
 Corporate brand perceptions
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo
Kitchen, P. and Schultz, D.E. (2003), “Integrated corporate
and product brand communication”, Advances in
Competitiveness Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 66-86.
Kitchen, P.J. and Schultz, D.E. (2009), “IMC: new horizon/
false dawn for a marketplace in turmoil?”, Journal of
Marketing Communications, Vol. 15 Nos 2/3, pp. 197-204.
Knox, S. and Bickerton, D. (2003), “The six conventions of
corporate branding”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37
Nos 7/8, pp. 998-1016.
LaBarbera, P.A. and Mazursky, D. (1983), “A longitudinal
assessment of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction: the
dynamic aspect of the cognitive process”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 393-404.
Lai, F., Griffin, M. and Babin, B.J. (2009), “How quality, value,
image, and satisfaction create loyalty at a chinese telecom”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 10, pp. 980-986.
Lindgreen, A., Xu, Y., Maon, F. and Wilcock, J. (2012),
“Corporate social responsibility brand leadership: a multiple
case study”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8,
pp. 965-993.
Lloyd, S. and Woodside, A. (2013), “Corporate brand-rapture
theory: antecedents, processes, and consequences”, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 472 -488.
Lovett, M.J. and Staelin, R. (2016), “The role of paid, earned,
and owned media in building entertainment brands:
reminding, Informing, and enhancing enjoyment”,
Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 142-157.
Lukas, B.A., Hair, J.F., Brush, R.P. and Ortinau, D.J. (2004),
Marketing Research, McGraw Hill, Sydney.
McCombs, M. and Reynolds, A. (2002), “News influence on
our pictures of the world”, in Bryant, J. and Zillmann, D.
(Eds), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2nd
ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 1-18.
McLeod, J. and Reeves, B. (1980), “On the nature of mass
media effects”, in Withey, S. and Abeles, R. (Eds), Television
and Social Behaviour: Beyond Violence and Children, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 17-54.
MacKinnon, D.P., Cheong, J.W. and Pirlott, A.G. (2012),
“Statistical mediation analysis”, in Cooper, H., Camic,
P.M., Long, D.L., Panter, A.T., Rindskopf, D. and Sher,
K.J. (Eds), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology,
Vol. 2, Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative,
Neuropsychological, and Biological, American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC, pp. 313-331.
MacKinnon, D.P., Johnson, C.A., Pentz, M.A., Dwyer, J.H.,
Hansen, W.B., Flay, B.R. and Wang, E.Y.I. (1991),
“Mediating mechanisms in a school-based drug prevention
program: first-year effects of the midwestern prevention
project”, Health Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 164-172.
Malhotra, N., Hall, J., Shaw, M. and Oppenheim, P. (2002),
Marketing Research, Prentice Hall, Sydney.
Melewar, T.C., Gotsi, M. and Andriopoulos, C. (2012),
“Shaping the research agenda for corporate branding:
avenues for future research”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 600-608.
Mohr, J.J. and Spekman, R.E. (1994), “Characteristics of
partnership success: partnership attributes, communication
behavior and conflict resolution techniques”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 135-152.
45
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49
Moldovan, S., Goldenberg, J. and Chattopadhyay, A. (2011),
“The different roles of product originality and usefulness in
generating word-of-mouth”, International Journal of Research
in Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 109-119.
Moon, S.J., Costello, J.P. and Koo, D.M. (2016), “The impact
of consumer confusion from eco-labels on negative WOM,
distrust, and dissatisfaction”, International Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 246-271.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment –
trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M. (2006), “Corporate rebranding:
destroying, transferring or creating brand equity?”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 No. 7/8, pp. 803-824.
Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the
Consumer, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Oliver, R.L. (2006), “Consumer satisfaction research”, in
Grover, R. and Vriens, M. (Eds), The Handbook of Marketing
Research, Chapter 27, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Peng, C. and Kim, Y.G. (2014), “Application of the stimuli-
organism-response (S-O-R) framework to online shopping
behavior”, Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 13 Nos 3/4,
pp. 159-176.
Percy, L. (2008), Strategic Integrated Marketing Communications,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Petty, R., Priester, J. and Brinol, P. (2002), “Mass media
attitude change: implications of the elaboration likelihood
model of persuasion”, in Bryant, J. and Zillmann, D. (Eds),
Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2nd ed.,
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 155-198.
Plassmann, H., Ramsøy, T.Z. and Milosavljevic, M. (2012),
“Branding the brain – a critical review and outlook”, Journal
of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 18-36.
Pomering, A. (2011), “Responsibility through corporate image
advertising”, in Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J.L. and May, S. (Eds),
The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social
Responsibility, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 379-398.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and
resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect
effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research
Methods, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Quester, P. and Lim, A. (2003), “Product involvement/brand
loyalty: is there a link?”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 22-38.
Robin, M. and Redrup, Y. (2014), “Ask the economists: will
the loss of car-making drive us to recession?”, Crikey:
independent media, independent minds, 11 February.
Rody, M. (2014), “Case study: automotive industry exerts
heavy impact”, New Straits Times, 21 May.
Samli, C., Kelly, A.P. and Hunt, K. (1998), “Improving the
retail performance by contrasting management-and consumer-
perceived store images: a diagnostic tool for corrective action”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 27-38.
Schindler, R. and Bickart, B. (2005), “Published word of
mouth: Referable, consumer-generated information on the
internet”, in Haugtvedt, C.P., Machleit, K.A. and Yalch,
R.F. (Eds), Online Consumer Psychology: Understanding and
Influencing Consumer Behaviour in the Virtual World, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 35-61.
 Corporate brand perceptions
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo
Schult, F., Ultz, S. and Goritz, A. (2011), “Is the medium the
message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication
via twitter, blogs and traditional media”, Publics Relations
Review, Vol. 37, pp. 20-27.
Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), “Does doing good
always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate
social responsibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38,
May, pp. 225-243.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. and Korchun, D. (2006), “The
role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening
multiple stakeholder relationships: a field experiment”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 158-116.
Sen, S., Du, S. and Bhattacharya, C. (2009), “Building brand
relationships through corporate social responsibility”, In
Handbook of Brand Relationships, Taylor and Francis,
New York, NY, pp. 195-211.
Sherman, E., Mathur, A. and Smith, R.B. (1997), “Store
environment and consumer purchase behavior: mediating
role of consumer emotions”, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 361-378.
Siano, A. and Palazzo, M. (2015), “Tetra Pak Italy’s ingredient
branding: an exploratory case of strategic communication”,
Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 102-116.
Singh, T., Veron-Jackson, L. and Cullinane, J. (2008),
“Blogging: a new play in your marketing game plan”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 281-292.
Sweeney, J. and Soutar, G. (2001), “Consumer perceived
value: the development of multiple item scale”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-220.
Sunil, G., Lehmann, D. and Stuart, J. (2004), “Valuing
customers”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 7-18.
Swanson, S.R. and Kelley, S.W. (2001), “Attributions
and outcomes of the service recovery process”, Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 50-65.
Taylor, A.B., MacKinnon, D.P. and Tein, J.-Y. (2008), “Tests
of the three-path mediated effect”, Organizational Research
Method, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 241-269.
Toner, P. (2014), “Losing the car industry means we risk our
technology”, The Conversation, available at: http://
theconversation.com/losing-the-car-industry-means-we-risk-
our-technology-23082 (accessed 2 December 2015).
Tournois, L. (2015), “Does the value manufacturers (brands)
create translate into enhanced reputation? A multi-sector
examination of the value–satisfaction–loyalty–reputation
chain”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 26,
pp. 83-96.
Uncles, M.D., Dowling, G.R. and Hammond, K. (2003),
“Customer loyalty and customer loyalty programs”, Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 294-316.
Urde, M. (2003), “Core value-based corporate brand
building”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8,
pp. 1017-1040.
Urde, M. (2009), “Uncovering the corporate brand’s core values”,
Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 616-638.
46
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49
Urde, M. (2016), “The brand core and its management over
time”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 Issue
No. 1, pp. 26-42.
Van Hoye, G. and Lievens, F. (2005), “Recruitment-Related
information sources and organizational attractiveness: can
something be done about negative publicity?”, International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 179-187.
Veloutsou, C. (2015), “Brand evaluation, satisfaction and trust
as predictors of brand loyalty: the mediator-moderator effect
of brand relationships”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 405-421.
Wallpach, S. and Woodside, A. (2009), “Business-to-business
brand management: theory, research and executive case
study exercises”, Advances in Business Marketing and
Purchasing, Vol. 15, pp. 389-428. .
Walsh, G., Mitchell, V.-W., Jackson, P. and Beatty, S.E.
(2009), “Examining the antecedents and consequences of
corporate reputation: a customer perspective”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 187-203.
Wan, L.C., Poon, P.S. and Yu, C. (2016), “Consumer
reactions to corporate social responsibility brands: the role of
face concern”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 52-60.
Whelan, S., Davies, G., Walsh, M. and Bourke, R. (2010),
“Public sector corporate branding and customer
orientation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 11,
pp. 1164-1171.
Wilson, A. (2002), “Attitude towards customer satisfaction
measurement in the retail sector”, International Journal of
Market Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 213-248.
Woodworth, R.S. (1928), “Dynamic psychology”, in
Murchison, C. (Ed.), Psychologies of 1925, Clark University
Press, Worcester, MA, 111-126.
Yeung, M. and Ennew, C.T. (2000), “From customer
satisfaction to profitability”, Journal of Strategic Marketing,
Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 313-326.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The
behavorial consequences of service quality”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Zhao, X., Flynn, B.B. and Roth, A.V. (2006), “Decision
sciences research in China: a critical review and research
agenda – foundations and overview”, Decision Science,
Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 451-496.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G., Jr. and Chen, Q. (2010),
“Reconsidering baron and kenny: myths and truths about
mediation analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37
No. 2, pp. 197-206.
Further reading
Dwyer, R., Schurr, P. and Oh, S. (1987), “Developing buyer/
seller relationship”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2,
pp. 11-27.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M., Anderson, E., Cha, J. and Bryant, B.
(1996), “The American consumer satisfaction index: nature,
purpose, and findings”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4,
pp. 7-18.
 Corporate brand perceptions Journal of Consumer Marketing
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49

Appendix

Table AI Overview of theory-based corporate brand constructs and initial survey items
Construct Items Source

Corporate activities. Please indicate to what extent you associate the car manufacturer with each of the following activities (Likert scale ranging from 1 “not at all” to 7 “to a
very great extent”)
Social activities Sponsorships of worthy social activities in Australia In-depths interviews; Brown and Dacin (1997);
Family-oriented activities Sen and Bhattacharaya (2001)
Support for higher education
The Australian outback
Innovative activities Strong support of research into new technology
Healthier environment
Providing consumer-specific motoring solutions
Sports sponsorships Sponsorships of Motor Sports
Formula One Grand Prix Racing
National Rally Championships

Corporate associations. Please indicate to what extent you see the car manufacturer as (Likert scale ranging from 1 “not at all” to 7 “to a very great extent”)
A good corporate citizen In-depths interviews; Walsh et al. (2009); Sen
A successful auto manufacturer and Bhattacharaya (2001); Brown and Dacin
A company at the forefront of technology (1997)
A manufacturer of outstanding cars
The most respected auto company in Australia
An auto manufacturer with strong environmental awareness
A manufacturer of stylish cars
A committed player in the Australian automotive market

Corporate values. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the car manufacturer stands for the following (Likert scale ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly
agree)”
Constant improvement Integrity in work and deed In-depths interviews; Aaker (2004); Urde (2003)
Costumer first
Dependability
Respect for the individual
Continuous product improvement
Constant innovation
Social conscience Strong community orientation
Ecologically responsible motoring

Corporate brand personality. Please indicate to what extent each of the following characteristics describes the car manufacturer (Likert scale ranging from 1 “not at all” to 7
“to a very great extent”)
Confident Inspiring In-depths interviews; Aaker (1996), Davies and
Spirited Chun (2002), Davies et al. (2004)
Bold
Challenging
Simple elegance
Aggressive
Progressive Technologically advanced
Ambitious
Exciting
Up-to-date
Sporty
Open Genuine
Intelligent
Leading
Reliable Socially responsible
Cooperative
Trustworthy
Social Conscience Strong community orientation
Ecologically responsible motoring

Functional brand benefits. Please indicate to what extent the car manufacturer provides you with each of the following customer-sought benefits (Likert scale ranging from 1
“not at all” to 7 “to a very great extent”)
Advanced technology Engineering excellence In-depths interviews; Sweeney and Soutar
Aesthetically appealing car features (2001); Hsieh et al. (2004)
Peace of mind associated with high safety vehicles
High re-sale value
Value for money Value for money
Fuel efficiency
Motoring comfort
‘On the road performance’ Road-handling excellence
Outstanding performance
Choice variety Functional reliability
The broadest choice of car models in Australia
(continued)

47
 Corporate brand perceptions Journal of Consumer Marketing
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49

Table AI
Construct Items Source

Emotional brand benefits. Please indicate to what extent the car manufacturer provides you with the following (Likert scale ranging from 1 “not at all” to 7 “to a very great
extent”)
Joy of owning the car In-depths interviews; Sweeney and Soutar
A sense of a peace of mind (2001); Hsieh et al. (2004)
Youthful spirit
A feeling of adventure
A sense of connection between the driver and the road
A sense of freedom
A sense of contentment
Driving pleasure

Symbolic brand benefits. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree that owning and driving one of the car manufacturer’s vehicles allows you to (Likert scale
ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree)”
Look successful In-depths interviews; Sweeney and Soutar
Look stylish (2001; Hsieh et al. (2004); Bhatt and Reddy
Stand out in a crowd (1998)
Enhance your personal image
Get social approval
Make a good impression on other people
Express your personality
Enhance your status

Controlled communications. Please indicate to what extent each of the following means of communication and activities of the car manufacturer with customers shaped your
attitudes toward the car manufacturer (Likert scale ranging from 1 “not at all” to 7 “to a very great extent”)
Audio-visual advertising TV advertising In-depths interviews; Balmer and Gray (1999),
Outdoor advertising Duncan and Moriarty (1997)
Radio advertising
The Internet
Printed media Direct mail
National newspapers
Local newspapers
Motoring magazines
Industry advertising Dealer advertising
Trade show
Wheels Car of the Year Competition
Sponsorships Sponsorships of national sports
National Tree Day
Music festivals

Uncontrolled communications. Please indicate to what extent each of the following communications provided by sources other than the car manufacturer shaped your
attitudes toward the car manufacturer (Likert scale ranging from 1 “not at all” to 7 “to a very great extent”)
Word of Mouth (WOM) Friends In-depths interviews; Balmer and Gray (1999);
Relatives Eberle, Berens, and Li (2013)
Acquaintances
Work colleagues
Independent press Entertainment press
Comments made by informed commentators
Comments from the industry competitors

Consumer satisfaction. Please indicate to what extent you are satisfied or dissatisfied with the following aspects of buying one of the car manufacturer’s vehicles or with the
following after sales services offered by the car manufacturer (Likert scale ranging from 1 “very dissatisfied” to 7 “very satisfied”)
Consumer satisfaction with the
vehicle acquisition
Consumer satisfaction with the
customized solutions
Consumer satisfaction with the
vehicle maintenance
Range of models Goff et al. (1997); Jamal and Naser (2002)
Vehicle performance
Exterior design
Interior features
Driving safety
Fuel economy
Proving customized motoring solutions
Financing the vehicle
The delivery timing
Assistance on the operator’s manual
Accuracy in diagnostics of repair needs
Availability of spare parts
Advice of frequency of servicing
Ease of servicing
Honouring the warranty claims
Proximity of dealerships for servicing the car
Completeness of services offered
(continued)

48
 Corporate brand perceptions Journal of Consumer Marketing
Tatiana Anisimova, Jan Weiss and Felix Mavondo Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2019 · 33–49

Table AI
Construct Items Source

Consumer loyalty. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following statements (Likert scale ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly
agree)”
Affective loyalty I feel attached to X brand Quester and Lim (2003)
I have strong confidence in x brand Zeithaml et al. (1996)
I deal with X brand because I have a positive relationship with this brand
I am pleased to be associated with X brand
I am proud to own X brand
Cognitive loyalty I pay a lot of attention to what happens to X brand
I keep on dealing with X brand as long as it is beneficial to me
I consider X brand my first choice when thinking about purchasing another car
Intention and action loyalty I encourage my friends and relatives to buy this brand
I say positive things about brand X
I recommend X brand to others who seek my advice
I would pay a higher price for the benefits I currently receive from X brand
I intend to stay with my present X dealership
I would switch away from X brand

About the authors Jan Weiss an Assistant Professor in Industrial

Tatiana Anisimova is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the
Department of Marketing, Linnaeus University, School of Business
and Economics. Anisimova holds PhD in Marketing from Monash
University, Australia. She has published her research articles in
peer-reviewed journals and international conference proceedings.
Her main research interests lie in the areas of Consumer Marketing,
brand Management and Integrated Marketing Communications.
Anisimova Tatiana is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: anisimovata@gmail.com
Management and Economy, at Jönköping University’s
School of Engineering, Jönköping, Sweden. His research
interests include Business Economics and Consumer
Behavior.
Dr Felix Mavondo is a Professor of Marketing at the Faculty
of Business Economis at Monash University, Australia. His
research interests include Strategic Marketing and branding,
Advanced Quantitative Methods and Relationship
Marketing.

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

49