How to Measure Brand Values?

Steffen Jahn, Chemnitz University of Technology

Tina Kiessling, Chemnitz University of Technology

Jan Drengner, Chemnitz University of Technology

* = Corresponding/presenting author:

Saarland University

Center for Evaluation (CEval)

P.O. Box 151150

66041 Saarbruecken

Germany

Fax: +49 681 302 3899

Email: h.gaus@ceval.de

http://www.ceval.de

All other authors:
Chemnitz University of Technology

Faculty of Economics and Business Administration

Department of Marketing

09107 Chemnitz

Germany

Fax: +49 371 531 26139

Email: steffen.jahn@wirtschaft.tu-chemnitz.de

Phone: +49 371 531 35604
Tina Kiessling

Email: tina.kiessling@wirtschaft.tu-chemnitz.de

Phone: +49 371 531 34222
Jan Drengner

Email: drengner@wirtschaft.tu-chemnitz.de

Phone: +49 371 531 34158

“How to Measure Brand Values?”

Hansjoerg Gaus, Saarland University

Steffen Jahn, Chemnitz University of Technology

Tina Kiessling, Chemnitz University of Technology

Jan Drengner, Chemnitz University of Technology

Only recently, two studies use Schwartz’s Value Survey (SVS) scale (Schwartz 1992) to measure brand values (Torelli et al. 2008; Zhang and Bloemer 2008). Even if we acknowledge the strengths of Schwartz’s value theory and measurement instrument, we argue that the interpretation of brand perceptions based on the original SVS may be misleading. Not only some of the 10 Schwartz value types but also many indicator items might not be applicable to the brand context (Lages and Fernandes 2005). Moreover, genuine brand value types not covered by the SVS might exist.

In this paper we report the methodology and findings of a multi-method study aimed at developing a theory-driven conceptualization of brand values and a valid and reliable brand values scale. For that, we combined knowledge from psychological values research with results from research on consumer behavior and branding.

Our first empirical step was aimed at clarifying whether it is adequate to work with the original SVS scales. 64 respondents evaluated both the single items’ applicability to brands in general and with regard to different categories of products or services. Since nearly 80% of the items were not considered being applicable to specific brands, we concluded that the original SVS scale’s practicality to assess a brand’s perceived values is not given.

In order to evaluate more deeply the suitability of the Schwartz value types in a branding context, in the next step a focus-group interview with a panel of nine marketing experts was carried out. The experts not only discussed the values’ meaning with regard to brands in general but also named brands being strongly related to each value type. Although―with the exception of conformity―all Schwartz value types were accepted as being suitable for brand values, the semantic interpretation of some value types (i.e., achievement, power, security, tradition, and universalism) seems to differ significantly from Schwartz’s (1992, 1994) original definitions. Consequently, we reformulated inadequate indicator items. A further review panel consisting of 12 marketing experts tested the reformulated list of items. This led to the elimination of items judged being generally inadequate for describing brands.

In the following step, the resulting preliminary brand values scale with 39 indicators was subjected to a survey. A sample of 99 students from three German universities evaluated to what extent each of the items was descriptive of four brands from different categories. The interpretation combined results from exploratory factor analysis and multidimensional scaling with knowledge about the original content of Schwartz’s value types, the empirical findings in the earlier studies and recent values research in psychology and consumer behavior. From the nine brand value types identified, five were consistent with Schwartz’s human value types (benevolence, hedonism, self-direction, stimulation, tradition). However, there were also significant particularities. Achievement and power were found being merged into a single brand value type. The most important finding was that there might be three brand value types not present as separate human value types in Schwartz’s model (aesthetics, ecology, and health).

Since the preliminary scale had shown some limitations (brand value types with intermixed items, three brand value types measured with only one indicator), in the final research step reported here an improved version of the brand values scale with 31 items was tested. A sample of 339 students from two German universities evaluated to what degree each of the items was descriptive of the same brands as in the previous survey. A series of confirmatory factor analyses supported the proposed conceptualization with nine brand value types (achievement/power, aesthetics, benevolence, ecology, health, hedonism, self-direction, stimulation, tradition). In order to gain insights into our brand values scale’s nomological validity, we assessed its explanatory strength with regard to brand emotional appeal measured with items drawn from Fombrun, Gardberg, and Sever (2000) and Keller (2008). 157 respondents from a German university completed the questionnaire for two brands. Regressions run on the brand value types revealed significant effects for almost all brand value types, thus indicating nomological validity.

This research shows that conceptualizations of brand values based solely on Schwartz’s work in the field of human values do not perfectly match the brand context. Our empirical findings provide converging evidence for the existence of nine different brand value types and indicate that brands can be meaningfully differentiated on this basis. While some brand value types are consistent with their human counterparts, others have to be adjusted. However, all adjustments can be explained by the characteristics of brands that obviously do not perfectly match human characteristics. In addition, our findings corroborate the existence of three genuine brand value types, aesthetics, ecology, and health, which are not present as separate value types in Schwartz’s (1992) original model. Moreover, our newly developed brand values scale measures the nine brand value types in a valid and reliable way and thus is a promising instrument for consumer research.

Aaker, David A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, New York: The Free Press.

Allen, Michael W. (2002), “Human Values and Product Symbolism: Do Consumers Form Product Preferences by Comparing the Human Values Symbolized by a Product to the Human Values That They Endorse?,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 32 (12), 2475-501.

Allen, Michael. W., Richa Gupta, and Arnaud Monnier (2008), “The Interactive Effect of Cultural Symbols and Human Values on Taste Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (August), 294-308.

Alsem, Karel Jan, Jaap Wieringa, and Marielle Hendriks (2007), “The Relation between Values-Based Self Congruity and Brand Loyalty,” Proceedings of the 36th EMAC Conference, Reykjavik: European Marketing Academy.

de Chernatony, Leslie, Susan Drury, and Susan Segal-Horn (2004), “Identifying and Sustaining Service Brands’ Values,” Journal of Marketing Communications, 10 (June), 73-93.

Fombrun, Charles J., Naomi A. Gardberg, and Joy M. Sever (2000), “The Reputation Quotient: A Multi-Stakeholder Measure of Corporate Reputation,” Journal of Brand Management, 7 (4), 241-55.

Keller, Kevin Lane (2008), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 3rd ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lages, Luis Filipe and Joana Cosme Fernandes (2005), “The SERPVAL Scale: A Multi-Item Measurement Instrument for Measuring Service Personal Values,” Journal of Business Research, 58 (11), 1562-72.

Limon, Yonca, Lynn R. Kahle, and Ulrich R. Orth (2009), “Package Design as a Communications Vehicle in Cross-Cultural Values Shopping,” Journal of International Marketing, 17 (1), 30-57.

Quester, Pascale, Michael Beverland, and Francis Farrelly (2006), “Brand-Personal Values Fit and Brand Meanings: Exploring the Role Individual Values Play in Ongoing Brand Loyalty in Extreme Sports Subcultures,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 33, ed. Connie Pechmann and Linda Price, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 21-27.

Schwartz, Shalom H. (1992), “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, ed. Mark P. Zanna, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1-65.

 (1994), “Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Content of Human Values?,” Journal of Social Issues, 50 (4), 19-45.

Strizhakova, Yuliya, Robin A. Coulter, and Linda L. Price (2008), “The Meanings of Branded Products: A Cross-National Scale Development and Meaning Assessment,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25 (2), 82-93.

Torelli, Carlos J., Aysegul Ozsomer, Sergio W. Carvalho, Hean Tat Keh, and Natalia Maehle (2008), “A Measure of Brand Values: Cross-Cultural Implications for Brand Preferences,” paper presented at the Advances in Consumer Research Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Zhang, Jing & Josée M. M. Bloemer (2008), “The Impact of Value Congruence on Consumer-Service Brand Relationships,” Journal of Service Research, 11 (2), 161-78.