Brand, Identity and Reputation: Exploring, Creating New Realities ...

full-profile conjoint analysis technique. Finally participants completed a series of qualitative questions about the impact
that they considered a change in the brand name of their selected product would have on them.
The conjoint analysis software used ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple regression to estimate the value placed on
each attribute level by individual participant. Statistical analysis on all the obtained quantitative data was subsequently
performed using SPSS16.
Reliability was built into the experiment in two ways. Firstly Sawtooth CVA calculated an R-squared measure based on
how consistent participants were in their product option preferences. Secondly quantitative and qualitative data from
each participant was compared to determine the degree of correspondence. The calculated R-squared value for each of
the hundred participants ranged from 0.58 to 0.94 with a mean of 0.82 and a standard deviation of 0.074. 74% of
participants were identically classified from their quantitative and qualitative data. Taken together these indicate that the
study carried a high degree of reliability.
Major Findings
The obtained distribution of the relative monetary value of the current brand name is shown below in Figure 1. This
distribution is not normally distributed and has a mean of 20.92 and the standard deviation of 48.18. This obtained
distribution shows that on average the existing brand name was valued by the participants as having the relative
monetary value of 20.9% of the existing price of the product. In other words participants on average would be
indifferent between either a product increasing its price by 20.9% or the product changing its brand name.
However it can be seen from the standard deviation and the shape of Figure 1 that it would be inappropriate to simply
consider this finding at the level of the mean but this variability of the relative monetary value of current brand name
should be acknowledged and explored. In particular three separate groups of participants can be identified. For 19 of
the participants the existing brand name had Nil or a small negative value. 68 participants held a Moderate positive
value for the existing brand name (0 to 30%); with 57 of these 68 holding a value less than 15% of existing price. 13
participants placed a significant positive value on the existing brand name. There is a clear distinction between this final
group of participants and the Moderate positive value group, as the value placed on the current brand name by
participants within this group ranged from over 60% to almost 285% of current price.
This variability in value placed on brand name could not be statistically related to age or gender. Surprisingly an
investigation using Spearman rho correlation coefficient also revealed no statistical correlation between brand name
value and the associated involvement score (rho= -.045, n= 100, p= 0.66).
However a Mann-Whitney test revealed a statistically significant difference in value placed on brand name between
where a new brand name was not given to participants (Md=3.169, n=33) and where a new brand name was given to
participants (Md=9.41, n=67), (U= 708, z= -2.914, p= .004). One interpretation of this finding is that inclusion of an
actual changed brand name within the conjoint analysis task, as opposed to simply the discussion of the idea of a change
in brand name, increased the realism of the task to the participant and resulted in a more elevated consideration of the
value of the current brand name to them. It could be argued that the more considered approach provides a more accurate
measure of brand name element value.
Contribution
The research provides a rare and required insight into the importance placed on the brand name element for established
products and services by consumers. It also highlights that there is significance variance in this value, which cannot be
explained by some of the more obvious variables and requires additional research including its generalisability.
In particular it suggests that some of the statements made within the mainstream branding literature such as Keller
(2003: p.181) ‗Consider brand names-perhaps the most central of all brand elements...‘ may require qualification. The
overall assumption that brand name plays a central role for established products appears to mask firstly a large
proportion of consumers where it has a minimal role and secondly a minority of consumers where its role is
overwhelming.
Figure 1 Distribution of Relative Monetary Value of Current Brand Name
74