turn off anonymous marking

This is a preview of the print version of your report. Please click "print" to continue or "done" to close this window.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-4323.htm The impact of brand logo identification and brand logo benefit on Indonesian consumers’ relationship quality Arnold Japutra and Keni Keni Department of Management, Tarumanagara University, Jakarta, Indonesia, and Bang Nguyen East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationships between brand logo identification and brand logo benefit on Indonesian consumers’ relationship quality. Design/methodology/approach – This study utilizes survey data in Indonesia and structural equation modeling. In total, 282 participants responded to the survey. Findings – Brand logo benefit predicts all three relationship quality constructs, whereas brand logo identification only predicts satisfaction and trust. Out of the two, brand logo benefit is a better predictor of satisfaction, trust, and commitment. Originality/value – This is a first empirical study to examine brand logo identification and brand logo benefit on Indonesian consumer’s relationship quality. In addition, this is the first study to investigate the link between brand logo benefit with satisfaction and trust. Keywords Marketing, Asia-pacific, Trust, Commitment, Satisfaction, Brand logo Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction Branding is considered by firms’ senior management to be a top priority because brand is one of the most valuable intangible assets that firms have (Keller and Lehmann, 2006), which significantly impact firm performance (Morgan and Rego, 2009; Park et al., 2013). Branding (i.e. brand orientation, brand repositioning, and brand performance) is also considered to carry benefits to firms who are interested in expanding to an international marketing setting (e.g. Asia-Pacific) due to its immense potential (Wong and Merrilees, 2007). It has been noted that the development of strong brands is prominent in particular in developing market in the region of Asia-Pacific (e.g. Tuan, 2012; Henderson et al., 2003). However, very little is known about branding, particularly brand performance, in the Asia-Pacific context. For instance, Frazer and Merrilees (2012) indicate that information about Asian brand in relation to franchising is close to nothing. This is due to the limited studies on the topic of branding in the international context (e.g. Asia-Pacific) (Wong and Merrilees, 2007). Recent study on branding in Asia-Pacific context examined the factors that are vital to achieve higher levels of brand performance (Tuan, 2012). However, this study was done Thebrimanpdaclotgoof identification 237 ReRceeivviesded2922OMctoabrcehr 22001145 Accepted 8 May 2015 through the lens of firms’ managers. Balabanis et al. (2002) indicate that it is important to Asia-Pacific JournAadlmofinBisutsrianteiosns investigate consumers’ evaluation in order to help practitioners in better creating and managing marketing tools. Thus, the present study focusses on the consumers’ lens in © Emerald Group Publishing Limited Vol. 7 pNpo..233,72-021552 particular Indonesian consumers. Indonesia is one of the most attractive countries in the DOI 10.1108/APJBA-10-21071547--04312234 Asia-Pacific region. Its growth, as indicated by the gross domestic product, is forecasted to be 5.6 percent in 2015 above the average of 5.4 percent for developing countries (The World Bank, 2014). Moreover, according to The World Bank (2014), its population in 2013 was 249.9 million people making it one of the largest markets in the world. Additionally, Indonesia is also expected to double the size of its middle-income segment by 2020 (The Nielsen Company, 2014). According to Nielsen, this Indonesian middle-income segment together with other countries (Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) will comprise 52 percent out of the total population in the region in 2020, which offers US$ 5.3 trillion in household consumption. A critical part of a branding strategy is its visual stimuli (e.g. logo) (Henderson et al., 2003). Hagtvedt (2011) notes the importance of brand logo in the marketplace as a valuable company asset. Brand logo has been considered as a key component of brand aesthetics, which affect attitude toward the brand (Walsh et al., 2010). In a recent study, Park et al. (2013) show that brand logo positively affects firm performance. They suggest managers to consider brand logos as a more effective and powerful tools in the management of consumer-brand relationships than before. Nonetheless, little is known on how the visual aspects of branding can be used to strengthen brand perceptions – particularly in Asia (Henderson et al., 2003). Hence, this study focusses on the visual aspects of a brand – brand logo identification and benefit. The present research investigates the relationships between overall brand logo benefit and relationship quality. In this paper, we define overall brand logo benefit as the collection of benefits (self-expressiveness, aesthetic, and functional) being perceived by the consumers derived from a logo of a brand. Research has agreed that relationship quality is a metaconstruct composed of satisfaction, trust, and commitment reflecting the nature of relationships between consumers and firms (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Mende and Bolton, 2011). It has been argued that these three constructs are the one that summarize consumers’ knowledge and experiences with a particular brand (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999). These authors also argue that these constructs guide consumer in making decisions related to marketing organizations. Moreover, Tuan (2012) suggests that non-financial measures (e.g. trust) should be included in a firm’s measurement system in order to optimize brand performance. Additionally, prior research has investigated the antecedents of relationship quality (e.g. Odekerken-Schroder et al., 2003; Mende and Bolton, 2011). For instance, Park et al. (2013) put forward brand logo benefit as a predictor of consumers’ commitment. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no research has tested the link between brand logo benefit and relationship quality. In conjunction with that, Ndubisi et al. (2011) argue that relationship quality is bound to culture. Thus, it would be prominent to examine relationship quality from Indonesian perspective. Specifically there are gaps in which this paper contributes to the knowledge in six ways. Research on brand logo benefit is currently at its initial stage. This has created issues that need to be addressed, such as generalizability of the findings. Thus the first contribution of this study is cross-validating Park et al.’s (2013) scale. We tested the dimensionality of the brand logo benefit scale and found the scale to be unidimensional than multidimensional. Thus, we named the construct as overall brand logo benefit. The second contribution of this study is confirming that overall brand logo benefit influences commitment and extending previous study by providing empirical evidences from Indonesian consumers. Another knowledge gap is related to the role of brand logo benefit to other key marketing constructs. There is a lack of insight into the relationships between brand logo benefit and other relationship quality constructs (e.g. satisfaction and trust), which can be considered as one of the key predictors of The impact of relationship marketing outcomes (e.g. Rauyruen and Miller, 2007; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002; Anderson and Srinivasan, 2003; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002). The third and brand logo fourth contribution of this study is empirically display the positive relationships identification between overall brand logo benefit with satisfaction and trust besides commitment. Fifth, we display that the link between brand logo identification and commitment is fully mediated by trust. Finally, the sixth contribution of this paper is displaying that overall brand logo benefit is a better predictor of relationship quality compared to 239 brand identification. The present paper is organized as follows. First, we discuss previous work relevant to the focus of this research. Then, the development of the conceptual framework and hypotheses are shown. The findings are discussed. Finally, we provide conclusion, implications, and future research direction. 2. Conceptual background and hypotheses The focus ofthis study is brand logo since it has been considered as one of the key components of a firm’s visual branding strategy (Henderson et al., 2003). Brand logo has been shown to possess the ability to reflect meaning of a brand and serve as a summary of information of its marketing efforts, which influences consumers’ commitment with a brand and subsequently influences firm performance (Park et al., 2013). This study delves deeper into the relationships between consumers and brands by not only examining consumers’ commitment, but also consumers’ satisfaction and trust (see Figure 1). In the absence of verbal material, visual aspects of image (e.g. brand logo) can create quality perceptions critical for brand management (Henderson et al., 2003). Keller (2003) argues that brand logo can contribute in building consumer-based brand equity. It has also been argued that a proper brand name can create or enhance brand equity (Keller et al., 1998). Thus, this study posits that brand logo identification has positive relationships with satisfaction (H1), trust (H3), and commitment (H5). It has been documented that brand name attributes can obtain differential advantages (Del-Rio et al., 2001). In particular, recent research (Park et al., 2013) provides evidence that brand logo benefit positively influences consumers’ commitment. However, there are no empirical research suggesting on the relationships between brand logo benefit and other relationship quality constructs (e.g. satisfaction and trust). Palmatier et al. (2006) note that relationship benefits lead to satisfaction, trust, and commitment. Prior research (Park et al., 2013) suggests that brand logo can incur benefit, such as self-identity/ expressiveness benefit. When a brand provides consumers with such benefit, it is more likely that the consumers will exhibit favorable behaviors (e.g. trust toward the brand) Brand Logo Identification Overall Brand Logo Benefit H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 Satisfaction Trust Figure 1. Commitment Conceptual model (Loureiro et al., 2012). Thus, this study posits that overall brand logo benefit has positive relationships with satisfaction (H2), trust (H4), and commitment (H6). 2.1 Brand logo identification and brand logo benefit Firms use logo to transmit their unique identity and the ethos of the brand they represent (Buttle and Westoby, 2006). A consistent design in brand name and brand logo can lend support in communicating the predetermined brand meaning (Klink, 2003). A logo refers to “a graphic representation or image that triggers memory associations of the target brand” (Walsh et al., 2010, p. 76). According to Hagtvedt (2011), brand logo is a valuable company asset and is omnipresent in the marketplace. Therefore, the present study focusses on brand logo identification and brand logo benefit. Brand logo identification in this study refers to the extent of which the brand logo is recognizable and attractive to the consumers. Research shows that children as young as three to six years old are able to discern different brand logos (Fischer et al., 1991). A classic literature (Allison and Uhl, 1964) displays that brand identification increases consumers’ overall rating toward the brand. Brand logo (names only or with symbols) is the key visual representations of a brand since consumers’ understandings and judgments of a brand logo will affect their relationships with the brand (Park et al., 2013). For instance, prior research (Pieters and Warlop, 1999) displays that consumers’ visual attention affects brand choice. These authors suggest that consumers choose a brand based on their visual filtering of the brand’s elements (name or logo). Consumers usually use brand name as a cue to the brand’s perceived quality (Grewal et al., 1998). The importance of brand name or logo increases when there is less available attribute information (Degeratu et al., 2000). Hence, brand logo helps building brand equity (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). Brands are ubiquitous in consumers’ daily life (Albert et al., 2008). Consumers create deep relationships with brands since brands are able to become part of consumers’ identity and yield benefits (Batra et al., 2012). Brands can provide three types of elements in relation to consumers’ self: gratifying, enabling, and enriching the self (cf. Park et al., 2006). Moreover, Park et al. (2013) posit that brand logo, besides providing consumers with a way to identify the brand and enable faster decision making, can provide three key benefits to consumers: first, self-identity/expressiveness benefit, second, functional benefit, and third, aesthetic appeal. Consistent with Park et al. (2013), overall brand logo benefit in this study refers to the extent that consumers’ perceived the brand logo to incur a collection of benefits (self-identity/expressiveness, functional, and aesthetic) to them. 2.2 Relationship quality Initially, relationship quality has been viewed as the firm’s ability through its employees to reduce consumers’ uncertainties (Crosby et al., 1990). According to these authors, relationship quality consists of two dimensions: trust and satisfaction. However, Hennig- Thurau and Klee (1997) note that relationship quality is beyond reducing uncertainties. They indicate that relationship quality consists of three dimensions: customer’s overall quality, trust, and commitment. Another study (Baker et al., 1999) put forward cooperative norms as one of the dimensions of relationship quality subsequent to satisfaction, trust, and commitment. These differences show that there is not a common consensus on the dimensions of relationship quality. However, it is agreed that relationship quality is a metaconstruct composed of satisfaction, trust, and commitment reflecting the nature of relationships between consumers and firms (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Mende and Bolton, 2011). Hence, based on previous research, relationship quality in this study The impact of comprises of three different dimensions, which are: satisfaction; trust; and commitment. brand logo 2.3 Effect of brand logo identification and brand logo benefit on satisfaction identification Initially, satisfaction has been defined as the extent of a consumer’s judgment that a product or service provides a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment (Oliver, 1997). According to Kotler and Keller (2006), satisfaction refers to the consumer’s feelings of pleasure or disappointment as a result of a product’s perceived 241 performance to his or her expectation. If the perceived performance meets the expectation, then the consumer is satisfied. In relationship marketing, relationship satisfaction has been defined as consumers’ affective state as a result of evaluating the relationship with the seller (Odekerken-Schroder et al., 2003). Following these authors, we define satisfaction in this study as consumers’ affective state toward brands as a result of the consumer-brand relationships. When a brand generate deliberate efforts toward a consumer (e.g. personalization, preferential treatment), that consumer are more likely to be satisfied with the brand (Odekerken-Schroder et al., 2003). Yoon (2002) finds that consumers’ awareness toward the brands is positively related to satisfaction. Moreover, consumers exhibit higher satisfaction if they are more familiar with a brand (Ha and Perks, 2005). Additionally, it has been shown that brand image influences brand satisfaction (Esch et al., 2006). Images can be considered as concrete and/or abstract visual information (Keller, 2003). Thus, brand logo identification predicts consumer satisfaction. Consistent with He et al. (2012) and He and Li (2011), which find that brand identity relates positively with satisfaction, we posit the following hypothesis: H1. Brand logo identification associates positively with satisfaction. In the quest of building a scale to measure emotional attachment, Thomson et al. (2005) find support that strong emotional attachment predicts consumers’ satisfaction. Moreover, Hume and Mort (2010) suggest that when the performance of a service provider meets consumers’ emotional needs, it is more likely that the consumers will exhibit satisfaction. Brand logo can provide self-identity/expressiveness benefit (Park et al., 2013), which is fulfilling consumers’ needs (e.g. emotional needs). Thus, the higher the perceived benefit of a brand logo, the higher consumers feel satisfied with the brand. Correspondingly, Brakus et al. (2009) suggest that by fulfilling consumers’ experience (sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual) a brand is able to achieve higher consumer satisfaction. When a brand provides behavioral experiences (e.g. engage in physical actions and behaviors when using the brand) to its consumers, it may help consumers in assisting their daily life (functional benefit). Hence, we posit the following hypothesis: H2. Overall brand logo benefit associates positively with satisfaction. 2.4 Effect of brand logo identification and brand logo benefit on trust Moorman et al. (1992) advocate that trust occurs when there is a willingness of an individual to rely on an exchange partner in which that individual has confidence on (Moorman et al., 1992). Morgan and Hunt (1994) add by postulating that trust occurs when one individual assures the reliability and integrity of his or her exchange partner. Specific to relationship context, consumer trust is the expectations hold by the consumer that a service provider is dependable and can be relied on to deliver its promises (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). Adhere to these definitions; we define trust in this study as consumers’ confidence toward a brand that it is honest, dependable, and reliable in keeping its promises. Brand name and brand logo are two components of brand identities (Keller, 1993). For instance, Adidas includes both its logo and name in their communications and products. Ha (2004) finds that brand name is one of the prominent factors in predicting brand trust. This author argues that when consumers perceived the brand name to be favorable and reputable, they tend to trust the brand more. Comparatively, Yoon (2002) displays that higher awareness leads to greater trust in the context of an online purchase. When consumers are aware and familiar with the brand name, they hold positive associations about the brand in their mind (Keller, 2010; Esch et al., 2006) leading to trusting the brand more. Esch et al. (2006) also display that brand image positively influences brand trust. Therefore, consistent with He et al. (2012), which find that brand identity relates positively with trust, we posit the following hypothesis: H3. Brand logo identification associates positively with trust. As Loureiro et al. (2012) suggests, brands that provide self-identity/expressiveness are more likely to build strong feelings (e.g. love toward the brand) of their consumers, which lead to consider that the brand is trustworthy. Ha and Perks (2005) postulate that greater experience, displaying high familiarity with the brand, leads to higher level of trust toward the brand. Positive experience can be perceived as giving benefits to the consumers (Brakus et al., 2009). Hence, we posit the following hypothesis: H4. Overall Brand logo benefit associates positively with trust. 2.5 Effect of brand logo identification and brand logo benefit on commitment Pritchard et al. (1999) postulate that a resistance to change acquiesces to commitment. Prior research (Moorman et al., 1992; Morgan and Hunt, 1994) suggests that commitment to a relationship refers to an enduring desire to maintain a value relationship. Customers who have a commitment will stay longer, buy more often, buy more (range), spend more (less price sensitive), recommend more, consider competitors less, and feel committed (Hill and Alexander, 2000). Odekerken-Schroder et al. (2003) defined relationship commitment as the desire of a consumer to maintain a relationship with a seller by putting efforts to it. Consistent with these studies, we define commitment in this study as the consumers’ willingness to maintain relationships with the brands. In their seminal paper, Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) propose that firm’s identity attractiveness (e.g. attractive logo) lead to consumer-firm identification that yields many favorable behaviors, such as becoming committed to the brand. Alwi and Kitchen (2014) display that cognitive brand attribute (e.g. visually appealing) indirectly influences loyalty through satisfaction. Moreover, Tuškej et al. (2013) show that consumers identification with a brand lead to affective and social compliance brand commitment. Researchers argue that consumers show commitment toward the brand because they are attached with the brand that they identify with ( Japutra et al., 2014; Park and MacInnis, 2006; Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). Additionally, a study by Bauer et al. (2008), in the context of sports, exerts that brand attributes (e.g. logo design) influence brand attitude and behavioral loyalty. Hence, we posit the following hypothesis: H5. Brand logo identification associates positively with commitment. Escalas (2004) suggest that when brands are connected strongly to consumers’ sense of self, consumers’ are more likely to exhibit favorable behavioral intentions. Hence, when a brand logo provides self-identity/expressiveness benefit to them, the connection between the consumer and the brand is heightened (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). This results in a The impact of higher level of behavior involving commitment and willingness to sacrifice resources (Loureiro et al., 2012; Park and MacInnis, 2006). By combining design research and visual brand logo perception theories, Giese et al. (2014) investigate the effect of aesthetic designs on identification behavioral intentions. These authors find that aesthetic designs influencing purchase decisions, in particular for hedonic products. Similarly, when consumers’ finds the brand logo to offer aesthetic benefit for them, they are more likely to be committed to the brand (Park et al., 2013). Hence, we posit the following hypothesis: 243 H6. Overall brand logo benefit associates positively with commitment. 3. Methods3.1 Stimuli For the stimuli, the authors selected brands that are appropriate and highly relevant with the sample (undergraduate students). We chose sporting goods as the product category in this study. Sporting goods (e.g. shoes and apparel) were selected because prior studies (Ahluwalia et al., 2000; Walsh et al., 2010) considered this product category to be relevant to student sample. Following Walsh et al. (2010), we selected two brands (Nike and Adidas) as the focus of this study. Moreover, these two brands received awards for their performance in Indonesia for three consecutive years in a row since 2012 (Top Brand Award, 2012, 2013, 2014). 3.2 Measures For the collection of the primary data, quantitative research methodology was used in this study. Questions used in this study were developed from existing measurements based on review of previous studies. We followed Nasution et al.’s (2011) back-translation method – the questionnaire was formulated in English, translated into “Bahasa Indonesia,” and back translated into English – since this study was also conducted in Indonesia using “Bahasa Indonesia.” According to Nasution et al., this system ensures the consistency of the real meaning of each item in the original questionnaires and the real meaning from each item in the questionnaire. All of the measures within this study were derived from previous studies and were measured using seven-point scale anchored by (1) ¼ “strongly disagree” and (7) ¼ “strongly agree.” Brand logo identification was measured using three items adapted from Park et al. (2013). For instance, “[Brand name]’s logo attracts my attention.” Brand logo benefit was measured using nine items adapted from Park et al. (2013). For instance, “[Brand name]’s logo provides aesthetic pleasure for me.” The brand logo benefit scale “best reflects these benefits” (Park et al., 2013, p. 183), functional, self-expressiveness, and aesthetic benefit. Satisfaction was measured using three items adapted from Anderson and Srinivasan (2003) and Mende and Bolton (2011). For instance, “I am satisfied with [brand name].” Trust was measured using two items adapted from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) and Mende and Bolton (2011). For instance, “[Brand name] is trustworthy.” Commitment was measured using six items adapted from Park et al. (2013) and Gregoire et al. (2009). For instance, “I was very committed to my relationship with [brand name].” 3.3 Pretest The objective of the pretest was to identify whether problems exist on the questionnaire design issues (e.g. wording sequence and appearance). This was also done to minimize issues with the back-translation method. The initial questionnaire was distributed to academics. In total, 16 academics participated by filling in the questionnaire. After they finished filling in the questionnaire, short interview sessions were conducted with each of them asking on the questionnaire design. Some of the questions being asked were as follows: “Did you find the questionnaire to be readable? Did you find anything confusing? Did you find anything wrong? Did you find anything similar?” Based on the pretest, several changes were conducted (e.g. wording, shading) to ensure that the questionnaire is understandable correctly. 3.4 Sample and procedure Data were collected from a large private university located in Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia. The questionnaires were distributed in several locations (e.g. library, food-court, campus park) in the university through an intercept strategy. We distributed the questionnaire in different days for a week, starting from Monday to Friday. The interviewer asked the participants whether they have participated in the survey at the beginning to make sure that they only participated in the survey once. In total, 282 undergraduate students participated in the survey. Most of the participants were male (61 percent), living in West Jakarta (56 percent) and currently in their second year of study (41 percent). The participants evaluated the two different brands on random assignment, where each questionnaire included one logo. In all, 63 percent of the participants have been using the brand between one and six years. 4. Data analysis and hypotheses testingThe conceptual model (Figure 1) was tested by employing a two-stage approach in structural equation modeling, creating the measurement model and then followed by creating the structural model (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The analysis was run using AMOS 21 using maximum likelihood method. Before the measurement model was created, normality tests were conducted using the value of skewness and kurtosis of each item. The results suggested that the distribution of the data were normal since the value of the skewness and kurtosis were around the absolute value of −1 and +1 (Hair et al., 2010). Based on the initial confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the brand logo benefit scale did not load properly into the three dimensions. We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA), using principle component analysis with Varimax rotation, to check the dimensionality of the scale. The result from the EFA shows that there were two distinct groups of items. However, it should be noted that one group consists of the reverse coded items. Thus, we eliminated that particular group and named the other group overall brand logo benefit. 4.1 Measurement model Using CFA, validity and reliability of the scales were assessed. Details of the measurement items are shown in Table I. The goodness-of-fit (GoF) statistics of the measurement model show that the model fit the data well (χ2: 260.92; df: 109; χ2/df: 2.39; GFI: 0.90; NFI: 0.92; CFI: 0.95; RMSEA: 0.07; SRMR: 0.05). Table II displays the descriptive statistics and correlations between constructs. Validity of the measures was assessed following Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggestions. As can be seen in Table II, the average variance extracted (AVE) values were Scales Measurement identification loFaadcitnogrs Thebrimanpdaclotgoof Brand logo (Brand name)’s logo attracts my attention identification (Brand name)’s logo helps me identify the brand (Brand name)’s logo does not attract my attention (reversed) Overall brand logo (Brand name)’s logo ensures me that the brand assists me in handling benefit Satisfaction Trust Commitment my daily life competently (Brand name)’s logo provides aesthetic pleasure to me (Brand name)’s logo makes me think that (brand name) expresses who I am as a person I am satisfied with (brand name) I am content with (brand name) I am happy with (brand name) (Brand name) is trustworthy (Brand name) keeps promises I feel loyal toward (brand name) Even if (brand name) would be more difficult to buy, I would still keep buying it I am willing “to go the extra mile” to remain a customer of (brand name) I was very committed to my relationship with (brand name) The relationship with (brand name) was something I intended to maintain for a long-time I put efforts into maintaining this relationship with (brand name) 0. 86 0.57 0.44 0.65 0.79 0.66 0.92 0.88 0.86 0.93 0.83 0.81 0.87 0.91 0.87 0.84 0.80 245 Table I. Scales and factor loadings Construct scale Descriptive Reliability Correlations Mean SD α CR 1 2 3 4 5 1 Brand logo identification 5.77 0.94 0.62 0.67 0.42 2 Overall brand logo benefit 4.20 1.19 0.73 0.74 0.25 0.50 3 Satisfaction 5.75 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.33 0.38 0.78 4 Trust 5.54 1.01 0.87 0.87 0.14 0.19 0.41 0.77 5 Commitment 3.67 1.39 0.94 0.94 0.17 0.37 0.31 0.25 0.72 Table II. Notes: The diagonal values in italics indicate the average variances extracted (AVE). The scores in the Descriptive statistics lower diagonal indicate squared inter-construct correlations (SIC) and correlations all 0.5 or above, except for brand logo identification (0.42). However, the AVE values were all above the squared inter correlations. This indicates that validity was achieved. After ensuring validity of the measures, the reliability of the measures was checked. Reliability of the scales was assessed using Cronbach’s α and composite reliability (CR). Reliability was achieved since the values of the α and CR were above the threshold of 0.60 (Hair et al., 2010). 4.2 Structural model After confirming that the measures were valid and reliable, a structural model was built to test all of the research hypotheses. The GoF statistics for the structural model were as follows: χ2: 315.13; df: 112; χ2/df: 2.81;GFI: 0.88; NFI: 0.90; CFI: 0.94; RMSEA: 0.08; SRMR: 0.06. These fit statistics indicate that the model fits the data well. 4.3 Hypotheses testing The findings support H1, which predicts that brand logo identification is positively associated with satisfaction (path coefficient ¼ 0.35; t ¼ 3.92; p o 0.01). Greater logo identification means higher satisfaction. H2 predicts that brand logo benefit is positively associated with satisfaction, and the results support the prediction (path coefficient ¼ 0.53; t ¼ 6.15; p o 0.01). This also means that the greater consumers perceived the logo to bear benefits for them; they are more likely to be satisfied. It should be noted that overall brand logo benefit is a better predictor of satisfaction compared to brand logo identification. H3 states that brand logo identification associates positively with trust and H4 states that brand logo benefit associates positively with trust. The results support both H3 (path coefficient ¼ 0.21; t ¼ 2.30; p o 0.05) and H4 (path coefficient ¼ 0.48; t ¼ 5.18; p o 0.01). This means that higher logo identification and overall brand logo benefit lead to higher trust. Similar to satisfaction, trust is being predicted better by overall brand logo benefit in contrast to brand identification. H5 states that brand logo identification associates positively with commitment; the results do not support this hypothesis (path coefficient ¼ 0.11; t ¼ 1.36; p W 0.17). Although the direction is as expected, greater logo identification does not lead to higher commitment. H6 states that brand logo benefit associates positively with commitment. The results support H6 (path coefficient ¼ 0.63; t ¼ 6.68; p o 0.01), the higher consumers perceived the overall brand logo benefit; they are more likely to be committed. The findings (see Table III) show that brand logo identification and overall brand logo benefit are two important constructs that explain relationship quality (satisfaction, trust, and commitment). Overall brand logo benefit is a better predictor of satisfaction, trust, and commitment compared to brand logo identification. Similar to Park et al. (2013), we did not find any support to the link between brand identification and commitment. This might be due to the fact that there are mediating effects. For instance, previous research (e.g. Ha, 2004; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2002) has shown that commitment is fully mediated by trust. Based on these studies, we created paths between trust and commitment. The path between trust and commitment was supported (path coefficient ¼ 0.21; t ¼ 2.98; p o 0.01), whereas the path between brand logo identification and commitment was still not supported (path coefficient ¼ 0.09; t ¼ 1.15; p W 0.25). This corroborates our argument that the relationship between brand logo identification and commitment is fully mediated by trust. Table III. Results of the hypotheses testing Relationships SPC t-value H1 Brand logo identification→satisfaction H2 Overall brand logo benefit→satisfaction H3 Brand logo identification→trust H4 Overall brand logo benefit→trust H5 Brand logo identification→commitment H6 Overall brand logo benefit→commitment Variance explained (R2) Satisfaction Trust Commitment Notes: SPC, standardized path coefficient. *p o 0.05; **p o 0.01 0.35 0.53 0.21 0.48 0.11 0.63 0.60 0.37 0.49 3.92** 6.15** 2.30* 5.18** 1.36 6.68** 5 Conclusion 5.1 Theoretical contribution The impact of brand logo Trehgiasrdsitnugdybraadndds lotogot.heThgeropwriensgentknroewselaedrcghe oofnfertshethtroepeickeoyf bmraainnd cmonatnraibguetmioennst. identification First, we confirm and expand Park et al.’s (2013) study that brand logo benefit leads to commitment in a different cultural context – Indonesian consumers. However, similar to Park et al. (2013), we failed to find support for the link between brand logo identification and commitment. Although the direction of the link was as expected, 247 it was not significant. As has been discussed above, this might be due to the fact that the relationships between brand logo benefit and commitment is mediated by other variables. For instance, Ha (2004) argues that trust mediated the relationships between purchase-related factors and commitment. Further examinations confirmed that the relationship between brand logo identification and commitment is fully mediated by trust. Previous studies (e.g. He et al., 2012; He and Li, 2011; Esch et al., 2006) display the link between brand identity (e.g. brand image) and satisfaction. The second key contribution of our study is that we confirm and extend these studies by showing that overall brand logo identification positively influences consumer satisfaction. Consumers’ attractiveness to a brand logo can enhance their satisfaction toward the brand. No studies, as far as our knowledge, have empirically show support to this relationship. Brand logo identification and overall brand logo benefit explain 60 percent of the variance in consumer satisfaction. Third, the results of this study display positive relationships between overall brand logo benefit and trust. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to empirically show support to this link. This result is consistent with Loureiro et al. (2012), which argue that trustworthiness is higher when the brand is able to provide self-expressiveness benefit. We extend that not only self-expressiveness benefit, but also other benefits (functional and aesthetic) can improve consumers’ trust toward the brand. The findings also display that overall brand logo benefit leads to commitment, confirming Park et al.’s (2013) study. Additionally, we show that both brand logo identification and overall brand logo benefit play a prominent role in predicting relationship quality, except for the link between brand logo identification and commitment. Out of the two, the results show that overall brand logo benefit is a better predictor of satisfaction, trust, and commitment. 5.2 Managerial implication This study provides a better understanding to managers, especially for firms or brands that operate in the Asia-Pacific region (particularly Indonesia), on the relationships between brand logo and relationship quality. We find support that both brand logo identification and overall brand logo benefit are prominent in building higher satisfaction and trust. For commitment, we only find support that brand logo benefit acts as its predictor not brand logo identification. Brand logo identification in this study relates to two things, whether the logo can help consumers identify the brand and whether the logo attracts consumers’ attention. As we can see from Nike swoosh logo, consumers are able to discern without even the need to put anything besides the swoosh logo. Based on the findings of this study, strong identifiable logo helps in increasing consumers’ satisfaction and trust. Hence, managers should pay attention to increasing consumers’ awareness and attraction toward the logo. Creating a catchy tagline is one way to do these. However, Park et al. (2013) caution that focussing only on being recognizable alone is not enough. Managers should also focus on the brand logo benefit. Park et al. (2013) propose that brand logo can produce three benefits to consumers: self-identity/expressiveness benefit, functional benefit, and aesthetic benefit. Marketing managers should communicate to its consumers that their brands deliver these three types of benefits. For instance, managers could create a campaign that is related to health consciousness. This campaign will increase consumers’ self-identity/expressiveness benefit – “I am a health conscious person.” Regarding aesthetic benefit, managers could create a competition in relation to the logo. By doing this, the firm involves consumers in determining the design and caters for their taste and preference. 5.3 Limitations and further research The present study highlights an advance in understanding the relationships between brand logo identification and brand logo benefit with relationship quality. However, it is not without its limitations. It should be underlined that the data are a cross-sectional survey data. Walsh et al. (2010) note the importance of collecting a longitudinal data. Relationships between consumers and brands are not only short-term but also mostly long-term. Hence, it would be fruitful to conduct a longitudinal research on whether these relationships stand through time. Next, future research should check the dimensionality of Park et al.’s (2013) brand logo benefit scale. Based on our data, the scale loaded into a single dimension. It should also be noted that the sample of this research was undergraduate students. Although we make sure that the product category (sporting goods) and brand name (Nike and Adidas) are appropriate for students sample following suggestions of Ahluwalia et al. (2000) and Walsh et al. (2010), further research should collect responses from other consumers of these brands. It would also be worthwhile to expand it to other categories (e.g. services categories). References Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R.E. and Unnava, H.R. (2000), “Consumer response to negative publicity: the moderating role of commitment”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 203-214. Albert, N., Merunka, D. and Valette-Florence, P. (2008), “When consumers love their brands: exploring the concept and its dimensions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 10, pp. 1062-1075. Allison, R.I. and Uhl, K.P. (1964), “Influence of beer brand identification on taste perception”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 36-39. Alwi, S.F.S. and Kitchen, P.J. (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. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423. Anderson, R.E. and Srinivasan, S.S. (2003), “E‐satisfaction and e‐loyalty: a contingency framework”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 123-138. Baker, T.L., Simpson, P.M. and Siguaw, J.A. (1999), “The impact of suppliers’ perceptions of reseller market orientation on key relationship constructs”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 50-57. Balabanis, G., Mueller, R. and Melewar, T.C. (2002), “The human values’ lenses of country of The impact of origin images”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 582-610. Batra,pRp.,. A1-h1u6.via, A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2012), “Brand love”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 2, identification brand logo Bauer, H.H., Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. and Exler, S. (2008), “Brand image and fan loyalty in professional team sport: a refined model and empirical assessment”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 205-226. 249 Bhattacharya, C.B. 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. Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009), “Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 52-68. Buttle, H. and Westoby, N. (2006), “Brand logo and name association: it’s all in the name”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 9, pp. 1181-1194. Carroll, B.A. and Ahuvia, A.C. (2006), “Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 79-89. Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93. Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2002), “Product-class effects on brand commitment and brand outcomes: the role of brand trust and brand affect”, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 33-58. Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990), “Relationship quality in services selling: an interpersonal influence perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 68-81. Degeratu, A.M., Rangaswamy, A. and Wu, J. (2000), “Consumer choice behavior in online and traditional supermarkets: the effects of brand name, price, and other search attributes”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 55-78. Del-Rio, A.B. Vazquez, R. and Iglesias, V. (2001), “The role of the brand name in obtaining differential advantages”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 452-465. Escalas, J.E. (2004), “Narrative processing: building consumer connections to brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 168-180. Esch, F.R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B.H. and Geus, P. (2006), “Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 98-105. Fischer, P.M., Schwartz, M.P., Richards, J.W., Goldstein, A.O. and Rojas, T.H. (1991), “Brand logo recognition by children aged 3 to 6 years: mickey mouse and old joe the camel”, Jama, Vol. 266 No. 22, pp. 3145-3148. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 382-388. Frazer, L. and Merrilees, B. (2012), “Pioneering Asian franchise brands: pho24 in Vietnam”, Journal of Marketing Channels, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 295-309. Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and comrnitment in customer relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 70-87. Giese, J.L., Malkewitz, K., Orth, U.R. and Henderson, P.W. (2014), “Advancing the aesthetic middle principle: trade-offs in design attractiveness and strength”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 1154-1161. Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J. and Borin, N. (1998), “The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 331-352. Grégoire, Y., Tripp, T.M. and Legoux, R. (2009), “When customer love turns into lasting hate: the effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoidance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 18-32. Ha, H.Y. (2004), “Factors influencing consumer perceptions of brand trust online”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 329-342. Ha, H.Y. and Perks, H. (2005), “Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the web: brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 438-452. Hagtvedt, H. (2011), “The impact of incomplete typeface logos on perceptions of the firm”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 86-93. Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspectives, 7th ed., Pearson Education Inc., New Jersey, NJ. 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. Henderson, P.W., Cote, J.A., Leong, S.M. and Schmitt, B. (2003), “Building strong brands in Asia: selecting the visual components of image to maximize brand strength”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 297-313. Hennig‐Thurau, T. and Klee, A. (1997), “The impact of customer satisfaction and relationship quality on customer retention: a critical reassessment and model development”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 737-764. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P. and Gremler, D.D. (2002), “Understanding relationship marketing outcomes an integration of relational benefits and relationship quality”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 230-247. Hill, N. and Alexander, J. (2000), Handbook of Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Measurement, 2nd ed., Gower Publishing Limited, Vermount, VT. Hume, M. and Mort, G.S. (2010), “The consequence of appraisal emotion, service quality, perceived value and customer satisfaction on repurchase intent in the performing arts”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 170-182. Japutra, A., Ekinci, Y. and Simkin, L. (2014), “Exploring brand attachment, its determinants and outcomes”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 616-630. Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22. Keller, K.L. (2003), “Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 595-600. Keller, K.L. (2010), “Brand equity management in a multichannel, multimedia retail environment”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 58-70. Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2006), “Brands and branding: research findings and future priorities”, Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 740-759. Keller, K.L., Heckler, S.E. and Houston, M.J. (1998), “The effects of brand name suggestiveness on advertising recall”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 48-57. Klink, R.R. (2003), “Creating meaningful brands: the relationship between brand name and brand mark”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 143-157. Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2006), Marketing Management, 12th ed., Pearson Education Inc., The impact of New Jersey, NJ. Loureilrooy,aSlt.yM”.,CJ.o,uRrnuaedliogfeBr,raKn.Hd.MaanndagDeemmeenttr,isV,oVl..20(20N1o2.)1,,“pBpr.an13d-2e7m.otional connection and identification brand logo Mende, M. and Bolton, R.N. (2011), “Why attachment security matters how customers’ attachment styles influence their relationships with service firms and service employees”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 13, pp. 285-301. 251 Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpande, R. (1992), “Relationships between providers and users of market research: the dynamic of trust within and between organizations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 314-328. Morgan, N.A. and Rego, L.L. (2009), “Brand portfolio strategy and firm performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 59-74. 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. Nasution, H.N., Mavondo, F.T., Matanda, M.J. and Ndubisi, N.O. (2011), “Entrepreneurship: its relationship with market orientation and learning orientation and as antecedents to innovation and customer value”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 336-345. Ndubisi, N.O., Khoo-Lattimore, C., Yang, L. and Capel, C.M. (2011), “The antecedents of relationship quality in Malaysia and New Zealand”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 233-248. Odekerken-Schröder, G., De Wulf, K. and Schumacher, P. (2003), “Strengthening outcomes of retailer–consumer relationships: the dual impact of relationship marketing tactics and consumer personality”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 177-190. Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction. A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, NY. Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D. and Evans, K.R. (2006), “Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 136-153. Park, C.W., Eisingerich, A.B., Pol, G. and Park, J.W. (2013), “The role of brand logos in firm performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 180-187. Park, C.W. and MacInnis, D.J. (2006), “What’s in and what’s out: questions on the boundaries of the attitude construct”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 16-18. Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J. and Priester, J. (2006), “Beyond attitudes: attachment and consumer behavior”, Seoul Journal of Business, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 3-35. Pieters, R. and Warlop, L. (1999), “Visual attention during brand choice: the impact of time pressure and task motivation”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-16. Pritchard, M.P., Havitz, M.E. and Howard, D.R. (1999), “Analyzing the commitment-loyalty link in service contexts”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 333-348. Rauyruen, P. and Miller, K.E. (2007), “Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B customer loyalty”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 21-31. Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. and Sabol, B. (2002), “Consumer, trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 15-37. The Nielsen Company (2014), “Meet the new Indonesian consumer class of 2020”, available at: www.nielsen.com/content/corporate/id/en/insights/news/2014/meet-the-new-indonesian- consumer-class-of-2020.html (accessed July 24, 2014). The World Bank (2014), “World Bank Data”, available at: http://data.world bank.org/country/ indonesia (accessed June 27, 2014). Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Park, C.W. (2005), “The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-91. Top Brand (2012), “Top brand index 2012”, available at: www.interbrand.com/en/best-global- brands/previous-years/2012/Best-Global-Brands-2012.aspx (accessed July 27, 2014). Top Brand (2013), “Top brand index 2013”, available at: www.interbrand.com/en/best-global- brands/2013/top-100-list-view.aspx (accessed July 27, 2014). Top Brand (2014), “Top brand index 2014”, available at: http://brandirectory.com/league_tables/ table/global-500-2014 (accessed July 27, 2014). Tuan, L.T. (2012), “Behind brand performance”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 42-57. Tuškej, U., Golob, U. and Podnar, K. (2013), “The role of consumer–brand identification in building brand relationships”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 53-59. Walsh, M.F., Winterich, K.P. and Mittal, V. (2010), “Do logo redesigns help or hurt your brand? The role of brand commitment”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 76-84. Wong, H.Y. and Merrilees, B. (2007), “Multiple roles for branding in international marketing”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 384-408. Yoon, S.J. (2002), “The antecedents and consequences of trust in online‐purchase decisions”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 47-63. Corresponding author Dr Arnold Japutra can be contacted at: arnold.japutra@gmail.com 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 APJBA 7,3 238 APJBA 7,3 240 APJBA 7,3 242 APJBA 7,3 244 APJBA 7,3 246 APJBA 7,3 248 APJBA 7,3 250 APJBA 7,3 252