Schroten.M. MSC

Brand Elements & Brand Imagery
“The Power of Brand Visualization”
“To what extent do brand elements affect the non-product

related associations with Brunotti?”
MASTER THESIS
Name: Merlijn Schroten

Student Nr: 6196764
University: University of Amsterdam (UvA)
Degree Programme: Business Studies (FEB), MSc in Marketing
Primary Supervisor/Reviewer: drs. F. Quix
Secondary Reviewer: prof. dr. J.H.J.P Tettero
Company Supervisor: Lonneke Mulder
Submission Date: 09-09-2011
Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 2
1. Table of Contents
1. Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... 3

2. Brand Profile & History ......................................................................................................... 7
§2.1 Brunotti – Brand & Logo ......................................................................................................... 7
§2.1.1 Brand .......................................................................................................................................... 7
§2.1.2 Logo ............................................................................................................................................ 7
§2.2 Mission & Vision......................................................................................................................... 7
§2.2.1 Mission ...................................................................................................................................... 7
§2.2.2 Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 8
§2.3 Brand History .............................................................................................................................. 8
§2.4 Target Group ............................................................................................................................... 9
§2.4.1 Mainline Target Group ........................................................................................................ 9
§2.4.2 RDP Target Group ................................................................................................................. 9
§2.5 Licensees ....................................................................................................................................... 9
§2.5.1 Brunotti Bags ....................................................................................................................... 10
§2.5.2 Brunotti Eyewear ............................................................................................................... 10
§2.5.3 Brunotti Footwear ............................................................................................................. 10
§2.5.4 Brunotti Stationary ............................................................................................................ 10
3. Foreword & Acknowledgments ....................................................................................... 11
4. Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 12
5. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 14
6. Problem Statement............................................................................................................... 17
§6.1 Management Problem ........................................................................................................... 17
§6.2 Research Question .................................................................................................................. 18
§6.3 Sub Questions ........................................................................................................................... 18
§6.4 Relationship Diagram ........................................................................................................... 19
§6.5 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................ 19
7. Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 23
§7.1 Consumers, Consumer Behaviour & Branding ............................................................ 23
§7.2 Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) & the Four Layers of the Pyramid ...... 26
§7.2.1 Brand Salience – First Layer of the CBBE Pyramid ............................................... 28
§7.2.2 Brand Meaning – Second Layer of the CBBE Pyramid ......................................... 29
§7.2.3 Brand Attitudes – Third Layer of the CBBE Pyramid ........................................... 33
§7.2.4 Brand Resonance – Fourth and Upper Layer of the CBBE Pyramid ............... 34
§7.3 Brand Elements ....................................................................................................................... 35
§7.3.1 Keller’s Brand elements ................................................................................................... 35
§7.3.2 Keller’s Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................ 36
§7.3.3 Rebranding in Practice ..................................................................................................... 37
8. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 40
§8.1 Research design....................................................................................................................... 40
§8.2 Online Survey: Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................... 41
§8.3 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 42
§8.4 Questionnaire Format ........................................................................................................... 44
§8.5 Validity & Reliability .............................................................................................................. 45
§8.6 Data Processing ....................................................................................................................... 46

9. Results ...................................................................................................................................... 48
§9.1 Practical Implementation of the Research .................................................................... 48
§9.2 General Characteristics of the Respondents ................................................................ 48
§9.3 Brunotti’s Core Associations & Results Regarding Management Problem ...... 49
§9.4 Descriptive Statistics about Non-Product Related Associations .......................... 54
§9.5 Testing of the Hypotheses ................................................................................................... 58
§9.5.1 Crosstab ................................................................................................................................. 58
§9.5.2 Anova ...................................................................................................................................... 61
§9.5.3 Correlation Coefficient ..................................................................................................... 66
10. Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 68
§10.1 Brand Elements & Management Problem ..................................................................... 68
§10.2 External factors & Non-Product Related Associations ............................................. 69
§10.3 Brand Elements & Non-Product Related Associations ............................................ 70
11. Conclusion & Recommendation ....................................................................................... 71
§11.1 Implications .............................................................................................................................. 71
§11.2 Limitations & Future Research.......................................................................................... 72
§11.3 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 73
12. Literature ................................................................................................................................. 74
Appendix 1 – CBBE Pyramid ...................................................................................................... 77

Appendix 2 – The Structure of Brand Knowledge .............................................................. 78
Appendix 3 – Relationship Diagram ....................................................................................... 79
Appendix 4 – Sub-dimensions of the CBBE Pyramid ......................................................... 80
Appendix 5 – Multi-Dimensional Construct of Brand Personality ............................... 81
Appendix 6 – Keller’s Evaluation Matrix ............................................................................... 82
Appendix 7 – Geographical Distribution of Brunotti Products ..................................... 83
Appendix 8 – Geographical Data about Brunotti Facebook Fans ................................. 84
Appendix 9 – Questionnaire ...................................................................................................... 85
Appendix 10 – General Characteristics of the Respondents .......................................... 94
§10.1 Gender Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 94
§10.2 Age Characteristics................................................................................................................. 95
§10.3 Education Characteristics.................................................................................................... 96
§10.4 Boardsports Type Characteristics .................................................................................... 97
Appendix 11 – Core Associations about Brunotti............................................................... 98
§11.1 Bar Chart of Core Associations about Brunotti ........................................................... 98
§11.2 Pie Chart of Core Associations about Brunotti ............................................................ 98
Appendix 12 – Management Problem Related to Brand Elements .............................. 99
§12.1 Winter-Summer Dichotomy Based on BRAND NAME.............................................. 99
§12.2 Winter-Summer Dichotomy Based on BRAND LOGO ............................................... 99
§12.3 Winter-Summer Dichotomy Based on BRAND DESIGN ........................................100
§12.4 Winter-Summer Dichotomy Based on BRAND SLOGAN .......................................100
Appendix 13 – Variable Definitions ......................................................................................101
§13.1 Nominal Variables ................................................................................................................101
§13.2 Ordinal Variables ..................................................................................................................102
§13.3 Interval Variables (All outcomes vary from 1 to 5) .................................................103
Appendix 14 – Procedure Crosstab .......................................................................................105
Appendix 15 – Procedure Anova ............................................................................................106
Appendix 16 – Procedure Correlation Coefficient ...........................................................107

Appendix 17 – SPSS Output of Statistical Techniques ....................................................108
§17.1 Crosstab ....................................................................................................................................108
§17.2 Anova .........................................................................................................................................111
§17.3 Correlation Coefficient........................................................................................................113

2. Brand Profile & History

2. Brand Profile & History
§2.1 Brunotti – Brand & Logo

§2.1.1 Brand
Brunotti is an international boardsports lifestyle brand, including boards, apparel, footwear,
bags, eyewear and stationery. The core businesses of Brunotti are the design, production,
distribution and marketing of it‟s apparel collection, two times a year: spring/summer and
fall/winter. The brand stands for “Feelin‟ Good Has a Name”, which is also incorporated in
their slogan. The tagline can be explained due to the offering of products with a positive
feeling (Brunotti Company Profile, 2010).
§2.1.2 Logo
The official logo of Brunotti has a lot of meaningful elements. The PALMS symbolize the
summer, waves, and the beach, while the PINES represent the winter, mountains and snow.
These elements reflect the
respect for nature, freedom
and purity and emphasize the
emotions of the brand.
Herewith, all aspects of the
boardsports lifestyle are
represented in the official
Brunotti logo. (Brunotti
Company Profile, 2010).
§2.2 Mission & Vision

§2.2.1 Mission
Brunotti is an international brand, founded from pure passion for boardsports and its
corresponding lifestyle. By producing meaningful products and innovations, Brunotti wants to
make these sports and lifestyle widely known and accessible. (Brunotti Company Profile,
2010).

§2.2.2 Vision
By presenting the Feelin‟ good-factor in all of their products and in the life of people, Brunotti
wants to become an international important player in the boardsports industry (Brunotti
§2.3 Brand History
The story of Brunotti goes back to 1979. In Scheveningen, 23

years old Italian windsurfer Claudio Brunotti opens a workshop and starts with the design of
his own windsurf boards. One year later, Claudio starts selling his windsurf boards together
with a few promotional T-shirts. In short time, both the boards and apparel gains enormous
popularity. Nine years later Claudio returns back home to Italy; the tradition of Brunotti
Boards was carried on to Jinne Sietsma, who is now still responsible for the boards division.
The actual birth of the brand took place in 1997 when current Brunotti CEO and major
shareholder Henk Bergsma purchased the brand. Together with other shareholders he
succeeded to register the brand as a global brand name, which is a crucial step to ensure
success. After registering the brand, two complete sportswear collections a year for the
European market could be developed with a team consisting of designers, buyers, sales
representatives, logistics professionals and marketers. From this moment the brand developed
rapidly, resulting in some interesting and important events.
- 2004: Brunotti licensed two companies for the development, distribution and `
marketing of Brunotti Eyewear and Brunotti Bags.
- 2005: Apparel collection expanded with the Rider Developed Product (RDP)
collection line, to increase the technical development of the Brunotti
Sportswear collection.
- 2006: Opening of fully owned and independent warehouse (5500m2) in Nijkerk.
- 2007: By selling the shares in Mystic, Maui Magic and Magic Marine, the brand
strategy changes from a multi brand to a single brand philosophy. This year
also an e-shop is launched to meet the needs of the increasing amount of
consumers shopping online.
- 2009: Introduction of the shop-in-shop system. This system is focused on the
consumer experience by showing the collection and images.

§2.4 Target Group
The Brunotti target group is divided into a Mainline and a RDP target group.
§2.4.1 Mainline Target Group

These consumers are characterized by their need for freedom, adventure, challenges, and
respect for people and nature. Demographic factors (e.g. gender, age, income) are not
important, but more their relaxed attitude towards life. These people love to be on the beach
and in the mountains, and demand a good price/quality ratio. For this target group, Brunotti
presents a mainline collection with a broad product range of apparel, footwear, bags, eyewear,
stationery and boards. (Brunotti Company Profile, 2010).
§2.4.2 RDP Target Group

The RDP target group is focused on people who are active in all kind of freestyle boardsports,
like surfing, windsurfing, wakeboarding, skiing and snowboarding. These people are
passionate about their sports and spend a lot of time doing it. RDP stands for „Rider
Developed Product‟ and is emphasized on technical features and functional style. All the
materials, prints and features have been developed in response to riders‟ needs (Brunotti
§2.5 Licensees
Besides the apparel collection, Brunotti also offers some other kind of products that are
assigned to licensees.

§2.5.1 Brunotti Bags
The Brunotti Bags are made for sport and fashion-minded people. The collections are divided
into Back to School, Fashion, Beach, Travel, Sport and RDP (Brunotti Company Profile,
2010).
§2.5.2 Brunotti Eyewear

The Brunotti Eyewear collection consists of sunglasses, goggles and sport functional glasses.
Both fashionable and functional goggles and sunglasses are designed and produced. (Brunotti
§2.5.3 Brunotti Footwear

Brunotti Footwear provides flip-flops and sneakers that perfectly fit to the boardsports
lifestyle. The footwear is distributed in sportswear shops and in footwear specialist shops
across Europe (Brunotti Company Profile, 2010).
§2.5.4 Brunotti Stationary

The Brunotti Stationery collection consists of articles such as notebooks, pencil cases, and the
Brunotti school diary. (Brunotti Company Profile, 2010).

3. Foreword & Acknowledgments
In front of you is a master thesis, conducted in completion of the study „Business Studies‟ at
the University of Amsterdam (UvA). The research is conducted for Brunotti Europe B.V. in
combination with an internship at the marketing department.
After a good conversation with Lonneke Mulder (Marketing & PR manager), I started an
internship at Brunotti for a period of 5 months, which gave me the option to combine writing
my thesis with performing „practical‟ activities for Brunotti. The activities varied from setting
up interesting marketing actions to supporting a non-profit organization with their promotion
and projects in order to achieve their goals. The crown of my internship definitely was the
organisation of the „World Snowboard Day‟ at Snowplanet, located in Spaarnwoude.
Organizing this activity has taught me a lot of skills, varying from communication to the
process of approaching interesting partners.
I‟m very grateful for the opportunity to follow such an interesting internship. Besides my
interests for the marketing profession, the activities and the culture of the company are also
matching with my personal interests for the boardsports industry, which made my internship
extra interesting. My internship period at Brunotti definitely strengthened both my
professional and personal skills.
Here, I also would like to thank Frank Quix, my internship coordinator, for guiding me
through my thesis and giving me good advice about the completion of my study. Also I want
to thank my family, friends, fellow students and colleagues for their support; I‟ve always
enjoyed working at Brunotti. Finally, special thanks to Lonneke Mulder, who was a big
support for me during my entire internship by giving me advice when needed.

4. Abstract
Although a considerable amount of research in brand equity and brand elements has been
done, there is not much research out there about the specific relation between brand elements
and non-product related associations. By developing both an influential brand building model
(CBBE pyramid) and an evaluation matrix for brand elements, prominent researcher K. L.
Keller has contributed significantly to the knowledge currently available.
In current society people are constantly exposed to all kinds of branding, therefore people
form their perceptions about a brand based on what they have felt, seen, heard and learned
about it over time (Keller, 2001). In this „marketing violence‟ brand elements can be of great
importance, since they provide both brand identification and differentiation and ensure unique
brand associations (Kotler, 1991 in Keller, 1993). This research is specifically focused on the
relationship between brand elements and non-product related associations (imagery). The
brand that is investigated is Brunotti. In this study brand elements are defined as a „name,
term, sign, symbol, design, or combination of them which is intended to identify the goods
and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of
competitors (Kotler, 1991, in Keller, 1993). Brand Imagery is defined as the extrinsic
properties of one product and relates to the non-product related attributes and benefits (Keller,
2001).
This study attempts to create a better understanding about the non-product related associations
of Brunotti and specifically the influence of brand elements on these associations. An online
survey among 960 Dutch boardsports practitioners (and thus potential customers for Brunotti)
is conducted to gather valuable information, which is used to gain insights into the
management problem of Brunotti about the potential imbalance between it‟s summer and
winter image. Of course, there are many ways to strengthen and change a brand image,
nevertheless this research is only focused on the role of brand elements in this.
Keywords: Brunotti, CBBE Pyramid, Brand Imagery, Brand Elements, Quantitative

Research, Statistical Tests, Descriptive Research, Boardsports Practitioners & Online Survey.

5. Introduction

5. Introduction
Imagine a typical day at work, school or just in your own house. It doesn‟t matter where you
are or what you do; inextricably you‟ll always come into contact with products and brands.
From the moment people get up out of their bed, ready for another day at the office, to the
time they hit their bed again after a hard day of working, they are (mostly unknown) exposed
to all kind of media expressions and branding policies. Meanwhile, the concept of branding is
integrated so deep in our daily lives that people can almost be seen as a synonym for
consumers (Peter & Olson, 2001).
Based on the constant exposure to branding, people form their perceptions about a brand
based on what they have felt, seen, heard and learned about it over time (Keller, 2001). Based
on both theoretical and practical (management problem1) relevance, this research is focused
on the opinions, thoughts and knowledge of people about a brand in relation to brand
elements. The choice for brand elements is due to their great importance for the realization of
unique associations with one brand in the mind of the consumer (Keller, 1993). The brand that
is investigated in this research is „Brunotti‟.
The CBBE model of Keller (2001) in which the power of a brand lies in the exposure of
brands to consumers, forms the central component of this research. The model (appendix 1)
consists out of six components, which are discussed later on in this research. This study
however only focuses on one component: brand imagery. This component relates to the non-
product related associations with a brand (Keller, 2001) and is discussed in detail, while the
other 5 branding blocks are discussed in a more concise manner. At the end of the literature
review the concept of „brand elements‟ is discussed extensively, as the research question of
this study is about the influence of brand elements on brand imagery. Additionally, the
research question helps to achieve the overall goal of this research, namely:
“To create a better understanding of the imagery of Brunotti and specifically the influence of
brand elements on this brand-building block.”
1
The management problem will be extensively discussed in the next paragraph

Ultimately, this information is used to provide evidence for whether or not brand elements
contribute to the management problem. In the case of confirmatory results, the information
provides valuable advice to address the management problem. In addition to the relationship
described above, an associative network model of Brunotti is conducted. This model reveals
how the brand lives in the mind of the consumers and enables me to come up with more
valuable results to address the management problem.
Looking at the CBBE pyramid again, there are four different layers. The first two layers,
brand salience and brand meaning, together form the „brand knowledge construct‟ of a brand
(appendix 2). The upper two layers, brand responses and relationships, form the „brand
response construct‟. This research only focuses on one component of the brand meaning layer,
as it doesn‟t pay attention to the brand performance block. The choice for disregarding the
brand performance block can easily be explained by three reasons. The first reason is due to
the very vague linkage between brand elements and product related associations (e.g. service
level, reliability, durability). The link with non-product related attributes and benefits
(imagery branding block) is far more obvious (Keller, 2001), consequently resulting in more
interesting and valuable results. Secondly and a probably even more important reason is based
on the fact that obtained insights into the relation between brand elements and product related
associations (e.g. service level, reliability, durability) don‟t contribute to solve the
management problem. Third and last reason is that non-product related attributes have a
greater impact on brand equity than product related attributes (Park and Srinivasan, 1994).
After a brief explanation of the management problem, the research question and sub
questions; the literature review and the methodology section are addressed. Based on the
literature, the management problem and the research question; a proper research concept has
been chosen. Following on this, the study is conducted, analysed and discussed in relation to
the literature and the research question.
The thesis concludes with a general conclusion and recommendation. Especially the
recommendation part is interesting, since solutions to the management problem will be
discussed in here.

6. Problem Statement

6. Problem Statement
The target group of Brunotti can be characterized by people with a certain attitude towards
life, and is therefore based on psychographic factors. Demographic factors (e.g. income,
gender, age, culture) do not apply to the way Brunotti executes it‟s marketing efforts. The
lifestyle surrounding Brunotti is about boardsports, primarily focused on surfing and
snowboarding, respectively representing the summer and winter identity of the brand
(Brunotti Company Profile, 2010).
§6.1 Management Problem
The dichotomy described above is responsible for creating a management problem and has
been the direct reason for writing this research. Via a variety of marketing activities, Brunotti
tries to convey the boardsports lifestyle. Magazines, billboards, commercials, in-store
communication, riders and events are just some examples of marketing activities, aiming on a
high visualization of the brand. Despite, or maybe even because of all these marketing efforts,
there is a presumption among the management of Brunotti of an imbalance between the
summer and winter image of the brand. The presumption is that the brand‟s winter image has
been eclipsed by it‟s renowned image in the world of surfing; possibly arising from the
brand‟s heritage in this sport. The people involved in the management of Brunotti would like
to redress this potential imbalance, without damaging it‟s renowned summer/surf image.
This study focuses on investigating the influence of brand elements to this suggested
imbalance, and additionally to the brand‟s non-product related associations. The management
is very interested in this relation and there is also a strong theoretical support for conducting
this research, since brand elements are of great importance for the realization of unique
associations with the brand in the mind of the consumer (Keller, 1993).

§6.2 Research Question
The research question is already mentioned before, namely:
“To what extent do brand elements affect the non-product related associations
with Brunotti?”
The choice for brand elements as the central component of this research, is on the one hand
due to the companies‟ interest and on the other hand caused by an interesting article that I‟ve
read for the course „Consumer Behaviour‟ during the first semester in 2010: „Rebranded and
Reborn‟ of Tony Spaeth (2005). Also the book „Strategic Brand Management: Building,
Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity‟ of Keller (2008) elaborates on the importance of
brand elements in relation to the concept of „brand building‟. Brand elements are intended to
identify and differentiate goods from those of competitors and are thus of great importance for
the realization of unique associations in the mind of the consumer (Keller, 1993). The latter
also directly emphasizes the practical relevance of brand elements in relation to brand image.
§6.3 Sub Questions
To support and answer the research question, sub questions are developed. These questions
provide structure and act as a red thread through the thesis. The questions are categorized per
subject and are introduced in the literature review. Below an overview of the sub questions is
presented.
 BRAND IMAGERY
- How does the CBBE pyramid relates to brand imagery?
- What is brand imagery?
- What are the core associations consumers have with Brunotti?
 BRAND ELEMENTS
- What are brand elements?
- In what way are brand elements related to brand imagery?
- Which brand elements are applicable to Brunotti?
- Which non-product related associations are created by the brand elements of Brunotti?
- Do the brand elements of Brunotti match with it‟s intended imagery?

§6.4 Relationship Diagram
The relationship diagram (appendix 3) structures the thoughts about the research question in
this thesis. This diagram consists out of 9 dependent variables and 7 independent variables.
Furthermore, the diagram includes 22 presumed relationships that are shown by arrows.
In the relationship diagram, the independent variables are presented with a red
oval shape, while the dependent variables are identified by a grey oval shape. „Brand
Elements‟ is presented in a purple rectangle, as this construct is not a variable. Because the
respondents have to rely their answers on „brand elements‟ throughout the entire
questionnaire, it has no outcomes and therefore cannot be considered as a variable. As „brand
elements‟ is not a variable, the relationships from this construct can‟t be investigated using
statistical tests. Therefore, descriptive research is applied to these cases. All the other arrows
in the diagram are investigated using SPSS.
Below is the significance of the nature of the relationships:
* = There is a relationship between two qualitative variables or between a

qualitative and a quantitative variable.
+ = There is a positive relationship between two quantitative variables.
_ = There is a negative relationship between two quantitative variables.
? = There is an unknown relationship between two quantitative variables.
The definition of all the variables is presented in appendix 13.
§6.5 Hypotheses
Together with brand elements, the imagery branding block of Keller‟s CBBE pyramid forms
the central component of this research and covers four sections: (1) User Profile; (2) Purchase
& Usage Situation; (3) Brand Personality; (4) History, Heritage & Experiences (Keller, 2001).
The hypotheses are related to 3 of the 4 components; only „Brand Personality‟ is not part of
the study. The reason for this exclusion will be explained later on in this research.

 USER PROFILE
H1
Based on the brand elements, more than half of the respondents associate Brunotti with a
masculine brand. Furthermore, this relationship is significantly influenced by the variable
„Gender‟: relatively more men than women associate Brunotti with a masculine brand.
H2
Based on the brand elements, more than half of the respondents associate Brunotti with a
young brand (≤ 29 years). This relationship is significantly influenced by the variable
„KnowBrandEndors‟: people who are aware of the brand endorsers, associate Brunotti with a
young brand rather than people who aren‟t aware of the brand endorsers. Also the variable
„Age‟ affects the first relationship: young people (≤ 29 years) associate Brunotti with a young
brand rather than older people (≥ 30 years), because most people reflect the image of a brand
to their own situation (in this case: their own age).
H3
Based on the brand elements, more than half of the respondents associate Brunotti (in terms of
income level) with an average brand. The purchase satisfaction of a consumer significantly
influences this relationship: people, who are satisfied with their Brunotti purchases, are more
likely to associate Brunotti with an exclusive brand.
H4
Based on the brand elements, more than half of the respondents associate Brunotti with a surf
brand. This relationship is significantly influenced by the variable „BoardsportKind‟: people,
whose sport is related to water (surfing/wakeboarding), associate Brunotti with a „surf brand‟
rather than people whose sport is related to the snow (skiing/snowboarding).
 PURCHASE & USAGE SITUATION
H5
Based on the brand elements, more than half of the respondents expect the brand is sold at a
surf/beach shop. This relationship is significantly influenced by the variable
„BoardsportKind‟: people, whose sport is related to water (surfing), are more likely to think
Brunotti is sold at a surf/beach shop compared to people whose sport is related to the snow
(skiing/snowboarding).

H6
Based on the brand elements, more than half of the respondents expect to use/wear Brunotti
products in the summer rather than in the winter. This relationship is significantly influenced
by the variable „BoardsportKind‟: people, whose sport is related to water, are more likely to
use/wear Brunotti in the summer compared to people whose sport is related to the snow.
H7
Based on the brand elements, more than half of the respondents expect to use/wear Brunotti
products as sports fashion rather than casual fashion. Because all respondents are active
boardsports practitioners, Brunotti is more associated with a sports brand. The age of a
respondent significantly influences this relationship: relative older people (≥ 40 years) than
younger people (≤ 29 years) associate Brunotti with a sports fashion brand. The older
respondents will use the products of Brunotti in a more functional (sportive) way than their
younger congeners, while the younger people will use Brunotti more in a casual way.
 HISTORY, HERITAGE & EXPERIENCES
H8
Based on the brand elements, more than half of the respondents think the roots of Brunotti are
in surfing. This relationship is significantly influenced by the variable „BoardsportKind‟:
people, whose sport is related to water (surfing), are more likely to think the roots of Brunotti
are in surfing compared to people whose sport is related to the snow (skiing/snowboarding).
Also the variable „PurchFreqBru‟ positively affects the relationship above: people who buy
Brunotti products on a regular basis (at least once in two years), think the roots of Brunotti are
in surfing rather than people who don‟t buy the brand very often or not at all. The more you
buy the brand, the more you know the brand: in fact, the roots of Brunotti are in surfing.
H9
Based on the brand elements, more than half of the respondents have a positive feeling with
the brand. This relationship is significantly and positively influenced by the variables
„PurchSatisfacLast‟ and „PurchSatisfacGen‟: people who are satisfied with their Brunotti
purchases, have more positive feelings with the brand than those who are not satisfied with
their purchases. Finally, also the variable „PurchFreqBru‟ affects the relationship: people who
buy Brunotti on a regular basis (at least once in two years), have more positive feelings with
the brand than people who don‟t buy the brand very often or not at all. Generally, only
satisfied people buy your brand very often.

7. Literature Review

7. Literature Review
In current society, brands are everywhere and people are constantly exposed to all kind of
media statements. In the outside world, we are overwhelmed with expressions and
commercial influences via both offline
(e.g. television, radio, magazines, shop
floors etc.) and online media tools
(websites, social media, search engines,
BlackBerry etc.). Even inside your own
house, you have to deal with a great
variety of brands. To be able to imagine
this deluge of brand influences, just
think of a standard morning with three
activities you‟re involved with every
day: clean yourself up, have breakfast
and get dressed. With cleaning yourself
up, inextricably you come in contact
with all kind of care and cosmetics brands like Axe, Nivea, Gillette etc. Having breakfast,
again the same story; try to spread your sandwich without being exposed to brands like Becel,
Zeeuws Meisje, Calvé etc. Finally, a great variety of fashion brands (e.g. Hugo Boss, Björn
Borg etc.) appear when people dressing their selves.
The examples above are illustrating the constantly exposure of brands to
people in current society. Branding is inextricably involved in consumers‟ daily life activities
and provides people with some great amount of information processing and tough choices
every day.
§7.1 Consumers, Consumer Behaviour & Branding
Talking about consumers, consumer behaviour and branding, these concepts need to elaborate
extensively, to know what they are about.
A Consumer can be defined as a broad label that refers to any individuals of
households that use goods and services generated within the economy (McNeal, 1979).
Important is to notify the difference between consumers and customers. Consumers are people

who buy or use goods or services, while customers are the buyer or user of the products of
an individual/organization. In other words: a consumer „consumes‟ and a customer
„purchases‟ (McNeal, 1979).
The American Marketing Association defines consumer behaviour as “the
dynamic interaction of affect and cognition, behaviour and the environment by which human
beings conduct the exchange aspects of their lives.” (Peter & Olson, 2001). Consumer
behaviour exists of three components: affect & cognition, behaviour and environment. Affect
and cognition are dealing with the mental responses of the consumer with its environment
(Peter & Olson, 2001). Of course there‟s a different between the two concepts; affect refers to
the emotions, feeling states, moods and attitudes of the consumer. Cognition refers to the
memory (e.g. knowledge, meanings, beliefs etc.) and processes (attention, understanding,
evaluation etc.) of the consumer towards brands (Peter & Olson, 2001). While affect &
cognition are both abstract, behaviour refers to the physical and overt activities of the
consumer, like the actual purchase of a product, shop visits, information search, complaints
etc. Behaviour, as the term implies, deals with the concrete actions of the consumer in
response to different stimuli. Finally, environment refers to all external stimuli. Social stimuli
(social class, culture etc.) and physical stimuli (locations, personnel etc.) are two good
examples and both have a great impact on the process of strategy implementation for a
company (Peter & Olson, 2001).
The concept of branding is very broad and complex. The origin of a brand
already dates from the Middle Ages, when a brand was used by producers and traders to mark
a product or article to enable customers to repeat their purchases; most of the time artisans
labelled their goods with their initials. This function of a brand as a „recognition tool‟
persisted during the Industrial Revolution, when production and trade became two separated
processes. The initials of entrepreneurs were acting as a guarantee of the origin of products,
resulting in a kind of certainty to their customers. The original function of a brand is the
recognition of their creators, a feature that is still relevant (Franzen & van den Berg, 2002).
After the Industrial Revolution, the concept of branding developed rapidly: a
brand became much more than some initials marked on a product/article. At the end of the
19th century, brands were linked to individual products. This way, a brand was a
representative of a specific product or related products with specific characteristics. As
products and services became more and more differentiated, the amount of brands increased
enormously, each brand consisted of specific properties (Franzen & van den Berg, 2002). In
the mid-20th century people also recognized brands for it‟s symbolic function (in addition for

it‟s already known functional role). The emergence of the symbolic function can be
explained by the fact that products and services have become very similar in both quality and
proposition. Symbolic features enabled a company to distinguish itself from their competitors,
as the product quality and reliability alone were not sufficient enough to differentiate the
brand anymore. As products and services were increasingly linked with symbolic brand
meanings, brands obtained great influence on how people perceive products. In modern
human society, brands have become extremely important in the identification process of many
people: it represents complete lifestyles, converts the consumption experience of a product in
an enjoyable event, and functions as a symbol in the interpersonal role play (Franzen & van
den Berg, 2002).
Taking a look at the scientific literature, there are numerous definitions of a
brand, all of them intimately connected to each other. According to Riezebos (2002) a brand
can be defined as any sign that is able to distinguish a seller‟s goods or services and in both
tangible or intangible sense represents a meaning for consumers. The website
buildingbrands.com defines a brand by “a collection of perceptions in the mind of the
consumer.” Leading researcher in the field of marketing, David Aaker (1997), defines a brand
by “a set of assets/liabilities linked to a brand‟s name/symbol that adds value/subtracts from
the value provided by a product or service.” A widely used definition of a brand is the
following: “a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of them which is intended
to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them
from those of competitors (Kotler et al., 2006). This definition of Kotler (2006) however has
already become somewhat outdated, since in here the company itself has much more power
than the consumer. In today‟s marketing, consumers have become more important; in case of
dissatisfaction they can easily switch to another brand. The definition of Franzen (1999) is
better responding to the more powerful role of the consumer and is therefore used in this
research: “a brand is a central node in an associative network model in the mind of a
consumer, where it is directly or indirectly connected with (a multitude of) associations. This
definition distinguishes 10 different types of brand meanings: brand marks, sub brands, brand
origin, product related brand associations, situational brand associations, symbolic
associations (e.g. user profile, brand personality), perceived quality, perceived value,
presentation and finally advertising associations. Despite the broad definition of brands, not
everything can be defined as a brand. Branding only takes place, when the perceptions in the
consumers‟ mind are managed strategically. In this context, strategically refers to the effort of

trying to impact the consumers‟ perceptions, attitudes and behaviour, with the purpose to
stimulate the exchange of goods and/or services (Keller, 1993).
§7.2 Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) & the Four Layers of the
Pyramid
After elaborating on the enormous influence and presence of brands in our daily lives, in here
the concept of Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) is introduced and discussed in further
detail. The concept of CBBE (appendix 1) plays a vital role in explaining the brand position
and the total image of a brand. According to Keller (1993), CBBE can be defined as “the
differential effect of brand knowledge on
consumer response to the marketing of the brand.”
Two important concepts, includes in this definition
are brand knowledge and consumer response.
Brand knowledge refers to the value of a brand,
resides in the consumers‟ mind. Consumer
response indicates the perceptions, preferences and
the actual behaviour of the consumer (Keller,
1993). The whole concept of CBBE draws on the accomplishment of building a strong brand.
Keller (2001) developed the concept of CBBE, which maps out the concept of brand equity.
The premise of the CBBE model is that the power of a brand lies in the exposure of brands to
consumers. In current society, people are exposed to a lot of brands on a daily basis and
people form their perceptions about a brand based on what they have felt, seen, heard and
learned about the brand over time. Based on this premise, marketers should focus on
communicating the right marketing programs to ensure people have the right types of
experiences with the products and services. (Keller, 2001).
According to Keller (2001), a strong brand can only be created according to a
4-step model, where each step is contingent on successfully achieving the previous step. The
first step in the process of developing a strong brand is the creation of a distinct brand
identity, which refers to the establishment of customer associations about the customer needs
and the product category a brand belongs to (Keller, 2001). The brand identity step has
everything to do with clear communication of the brand to the consumers and is crucial for
building a strong brand (Keller, 2001). The second step contains the establishment of the
brand meaning in the consumer minds, referring to both the performance and imagery of a
brand. Performance relates to associations one have with the product itself and related

attributes and benefits, while imagery refers to the extrinsic properties of the product or
services (Keller, 2001). The third step is all about the customer responses towards the brand,
while in the fourth and last step those responses are tried to convert into an intense an active
loyal relationship between the brand and the customers (Keller, 2001). The sequence of the
steps is of major importance; responses for example, cannot occur without the right brand
meaning and there can‟t be a relationship between brand and consumers without having
insight in the consumer responses. This research only focuses on the relationship of brand
elements with the non-product related associations of consumers. Nevertheless, the other five
brand-building components will be briefly discussed in order to create an overall picture of
the brand-building process.
Closely related to the CBBE is the associative network model (figure 1),
introduced by Collins & Loftus (1975). The model consists of nodes (stored information) and
links (strength of association between nodes). Taking tennis icon Roger Federer as a brand,
we might think of tennis; however associations like Nike, Wimbledon, Wilson, Rafael Nadal,
Gillette, razors and Switzerland might come to our mind really fast too. The associative
network, totally depends on the knowledge and experience of a consumer with a brand. The
next section elaborates on all the six branding blocks – salience, performance, imagery,
judgements, feelings, and resonance – that contribute to the creation of a good foundation for
successful brand development. Of course the imagery component will be discussed most
extensively.
Figure 1: The Associative Network Model
Source: Brand Cartography Group, 2010

§7.2.1 Brand Salience – First Layer of the CBBE Pyramid
CBBE is all about brand knowledge: what do people exactly know about a brand? Keller
(1993) developed a model, where he explains the whole structure of brand knowledge in
detail (appendix 2). The two main aspects of brand knowledge are brand salience and brand
meaning; two concepts that should remain clearly separated. Brand salience and brand
meaning are respectively the first and the second layer of the CBBE pyramid.
Brand salience is related to brand awareness and has everything to do with the
ease and speed of brand node activation in the mind of the consumer, and consists of brand
recall and brand recognition (Keller, 2006). At a broader level, brand awareness is all about
communicating which customer „needs‟ the brand is trying to satisfy (Keller, 2001). If the
brand node emerge to the consumer‟s mind really quickly (without mentioning other related
nodes), the brand awareness of that specific brand is really high. The most extreme example
of illustrating the awareness of a brand is to ask consumers coming up with the first brand that
comes to their mind. Brand awareness is the first and most crucial part of building a (strong)
brand (Keller, 1993).
Both brand recognition and brand recall are memory-dredging techniques,
looking for awareness of an advertisement or brand. Brand recognition is a direct technique
for trying to access a memory of something, by prompting with that concept (Keller, 1993).
Brand recall is an indirect technique that refers to prompting with a brand name, while
looking for feedback on the memory of the advertisement (Keller, 2001). Both brand
recognition and brand recall, refer to the depth of brand awareness; however brand
recognition tends to be higher than brand recall (Keller, 2001). Besides depth, there is also
broad brand awareness. Depth of brand awareness refers to the ease with which consumers
can recall or recognize the brand, while broad brand awareness refers to the range of both
purchase and consumption situations where the brand pops up in the mind of consumers
(Keller, 2001). Additional to broad and depth brand awareness, a brand also must come to the
consumer‟s mind at the right time and at the right place. People might know your brand very
well, but if the brand is forgotten at typical usage situations, the equity and success of the
brand is still disputable (Keller, 2001).
Contrary to popular belief, brand equity is not all
about the awareness of a brand. Wolf (2005) illustrates the
difference between brand awareness and the value of a brand
very well. In his study, brand value was assessed by five

criteria: people know about it, think highly of it, aspire to own it, will pay more to own it,
and finally retailers recommend it. The selection of these criteria already clarifies the big
difference between brand awareness and brand value. The first criteria refers to the concept of
brand awareness, while the other four have nothing to do with brand awareness at all; brand
value is thus a much broader concept. In daily life, people are aware of numerous brands. The
fact of awareness however, does not imply these brands are loved or actually will be bought
by the same people. The gap between on the one side „knowing‟ and on the other side „liking‟
and „buying‟ is enormous and will be discussed in detail in the following sections of this
theoretical framework. The opposite is true as well; people also purchase brands without any
knowledge of the brand at all (Wolf, 2005). Concerning to the five components measuring
brand value, the results in the study also indicate the variety of these indicators in importance
between products. Things might be of major importance for one product, while at the same
time an indicator is not important for another product at all. Taking a closer look at figure 2, it
could be noticed that „the importance for a dealer recommendation‟ is much more important
for the „vehicle multimedia‟ product category than it is for the other listed products.
Figure 2: Brand Value of Top 5 Brands Ranked By Product Category
§7.2.2 Brand Meaning – Second Layer of the CBBE Pyramid

To give meaning to a brand, it‟s important to position the brand in the mind of consumers and
create a brand image (Keller 2001). Brand image refers to the associations/set of beliefs
consumers have with a particular brand and thus is comparable to a brand‟s associative
network model. Associations can be formed through contact and experience with a brand
(directly) and word of mouth (indirectly) (Keller, 2001). Brand associations can be defined as
all brand related images, experiences, beliefs and attitudes in the minds of consumers.

Together they form an associative network model on which the consumer chooses brand A
above brand B (Boer, 2004). Another definition is given by Silverman, Sprott & Pascal
(1999); they describe brand associations as the numerous links in the mind of the consumer
when thinking about a brand.
Looking at the brand knowledge model of appendix 2, there are three different
types of associations: attributes, benefits and attitudes. The attributes and the benefits together
are called the primary brand associations, while the attitudes are linked with the secondary
brand associations (Ruth & Simonin, 2003). The brand attributes can be divided into product
and non-product related attributes. As the name implies, product related attributes refer to the
product itself and the corresponding service. Non-product related attributes are things like the
user imagery, usage imagery, price, packaging and personality of a brand (Keller, 1993).
Research of Park and Srinivasan (1994) revealed that non-product related attributes had a
greater impact on the brand equity than product related attributes. The second type of
associations are the benefits of a brand, which can best be described as the personal value
consumers attach to product or service attribute (Keller, 1993). The benefits can be divided
into three different parts: functional, experiential and symbolic benefits. Functional and
experiential benefits are relating to product-related attributes and respectively focus on
problem solving (e.g. Intel processor) and the joy of using the brand (e.g. Walt Disney DVD).
Finally, the symbolic benefit links with the non-product related attributes and underlying the
abstract „self‟-needs (e.g. Breitling watch) (Keller, 1993; Henderson et al., 1998). The third
and last association type is the attitudes, which refer to the judgements and feelings of
consumers towards a brand. These attitudes affect the behaviour of the consumer and
therefore determine whether the consumer buys the brand or not (Keller, 1993).
Associations as such are purely descriptive and need to meet three criteria
before contributing to the next level of the CBBE pyramid. Brands need to have strong,
favourable AND unique associations to establish a good brand position and differentiate
themselves from their competitors (Henderson et al., 1998). Also the sequence is very strict
and important; a brand must build strong, favourable, and unique associations – in that order
(Keller, 2001). The added value of a unique association is negligible if consumers don‟t rate
that association favourably; in this situation it only causes damage to the equity of the brand.
The same story is valid for favourable associations; they don‟t contribute to a brand‟s equity if
those associations cannot be recalled. Some examples of strong brands, meeting all three
kinds of associations are: Apple (design and innovative products), Marlboro (rough,

outdoorsy and western image), Rolex (performance and outstanding appearance) and Unox
(domesticity, warmth and Dutch roots).
After the breakdown of the associations into attributes, benefits and attitudes,
associations can also be distinguished into functional and performance related considerations
on the one hand and abstract and imagery related considerations on the other hand. These
different two aspects together, form the two brand-building blocks of the brand meaning layer
and are discussed below. The overall breakdown of the pyramid into sub-
dimensions is presented in appendix 4.
 Brand Performance
“Brand performance addresses the intrinsic properties of the brand and can be
defined by the way the product or service attempts to meet consumers‟ more functional
needs” (Keller, 2001). The performance brand-building block refers to all the associations
with the product itself and product related attributes and benefits (e.g. service, price etc.)
and forms the heart of the CBBE pyramid as the product is the primary influence of how
consumers perceive the brand. Rarely a brand can overcome severe deficiencies in its
performance (Keller, 2001). Brand performance can be measured via five types of
attributes and benefits: (1) Primary characteristics and supplementary features; (2) Product
reliability, durability, and serviceability; (3) Service effectiveness, efficiency, and
empathy; (4) Style and design; (5) Price.
 Brand Imagery
The second part of brand meaning contains the imagery of a brand and forms the
central component of this research. Compared to the intrinsic oriented product
performance, imagery refers to the extrinsic properties of the product. The
imagery brand-building block is all about the non-product related attributes and
benefits and covers four sections (Keller, 2001).
1. User profiles: The user profile refers to the typical users of a brand in the
minds of consumers. Brand users, employees, the CEO and the endorsers are
mostly the actors who are responsible for creating a certain „user image‟
(Keller, 2001). If we look at a brand like Virgin, the CEO of this company
Richard Branson exerts a great influence on the image of the brand. Young,
energetic and powerful are some frequently mentioned associations of

consumers when they think of Virgin, not coincidentally the same
characteristics as CEO Richard Branson himself. Rolex is also a brand with a
typical and idealized brand user. Rolex is overall well known by it‟s expensive
watches and correspondently, they try to convey their „upper-class‟ and
„sophisticated‟ image through the use of elegant looks and endorsers (see
picture above), chic artworks, sponsoring upper-class athletes (e.g. Roger
Federer), and sport events (e.g. polo and horse riding). All their marketing
efforts are completely in line with the image they try to convey.
2. Purchase and usage situation: The purchase situation refers to the „where‟ and
„how‟ of purchasing the brand (Keller, 2001). Brands can be bought via
different channels and the place of buying may stuck in the consumer mind,
causing significant associations with the brand. A good and recent example is
the small rewards you receive when you order €15 or more on groceries at the
local supermarket, for example: Albert Heijn (AH). The usage situation refers,
as the name implies, to the „where (e.g. sport activities, work situations) and
„when‟ (e.g. time of day, time of the year) the brand is being used (Keller,
2001). Toothbrush brand „Braun‟ and shaving brand „Gillette‟ for example, are
both often used at a typical time of the day (morning/evening), at a typical
place (bathroom) and the purchase mostly occurs at drugstores.
3. Personality and values: Brand personality refers to the personality of a brand-
user and can be defined as all the associations with a brand that relate to human
characteristics (Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1997). Aaker (1997) developed her own
brand personality construct (appendix 5), existing of five dimensions
characterizing the personality of one brand: (1) sincerity; (2) excitement; (3)
competence; (4) sophistication; (5) ruggedness. It is generally thought; brand
personality increases levels of trust and loyalty, consumer preference, and
evokes emotions in consumers (Aaker 1997; Biel, 1993; Fournier, 1995).
Unless brand personality plays a key role in the purchase process of many
consumers (Plummer, 2000), the concept of brand personality is not part of this
study. This choice has been made firstly because the formation process is very
complex, as perceptions of brand personality traits are inferred both directly
(e.g. brand users, employees, endorsers) and indirectly (e.g. product related
attributes, price, brand elements). Furthermore, in practice the personality of a
brand is mainly formed by advertisers using a strategy that imbue a brand with

personality traits, such as user imagery, personification and
anthropomorphization, which make the personality of one brand relatively
enduring and distinct (Aaker, 1997). Based on this information, the role of
brand elements in the entire formation process is relatively small. Exactly the
same applies to the „User Profile‟ component, nevertheless the relation
between brand elements and the demographic characteristics of a brand is less
vague than the relation between brand elements and the personality of a brand.
Finally, the inclusion of the brand personality construct doesn‟t benefit to the
practical side of the study.
4. History, heritage, and experiences: This component of brand imagery is about
the associations around the history, heritage and experiences with a brand. The
experiences can be two-folded: personal experiences and experiences of others
(Keller, 2008).
§7.2.3 Brand Attitudes – Third Layer of the CBBE Pyramid

The third layer of the CBBE pyramid consists of the attitudes of consumers towards a brand.
While the image of a brand (second layer) is purely descriptive, brand attitude refers to the
mental responses/reactions to a brand and can be described as the overall evaluation of
associations (Keller, 2001). This step is a very crucial one in the process of building a strong
brand, as consumers here create their own feelings and attitudes towards a brand, which are
mostly long-lasting and extremely difficult to get rid of. Ultimately the most important thing
about consumer responses is the extent to which consumers feel positively about the brand.
Additionally, responses have to be accessible before they
can contribute to strong brand equity (Keller, 2001).
The brand attitude layer can be
divided into consumer judgements (left side of the
pyramid) and consumer feelings (right side of the
pyramid). Consumer judgements focus on consumer‟s
experiences based on performance and imagery, while
consumer feelings are the emotional responses and
reactions towards a brand (Keller, 2008). A good example
to illustrate the difference between functional and
symbolic brands is the purchase of electronics; a
customer who buys a telephone of Bang & Olufsen has a

completely different goal/preference than a person who buys a telephone of a brand like
Toshiba. Where Bang & Olufsen is a typical brand that is focused on the right side of the
pyramid and thus responds to the feelings of the consumer, Toshiba is fully dedicated to the
creation of functional products. Since a lot of people care a lot about the opinion of others,
„social approval‟ and „social statuses‟ are two concepts which are important in dividing the
two different types of brands and consumers. According to Laing (1988) and Auty & Elliot
(2001), approval enhances the ease and chance of buying a brand. Social approval can be
defined as the positive evaluation of an individual or group in a social context (Auty & Elliot,
2001).
§7.2.4 Brand Resonance – Fourth and Upper Layer of the CBBE

Pyramid
Brand resonance forms the pinnacle of the

CBBE pyramid and can be defined as the
relationship and the level of identification of
the customer with a brand and goes far
beyond the attitudes people have with a brand
(Keller, 2001). Brands that have achieved this
top level on a large scale are really touching
the „edge‟. Two great examples of brands
with great „brand love‟ are electronics giant
Apple and motorcycle manufacturer Harley
Davidson. The big difference between attitudes and resonance towards a brand is all about
„like‟ vs. „love‟ a brand. Liking a brand is completely different than loving a brand; loving a
brand would never result in the purchase of a competing brand, while only liking a brand can
never give this guarantee (Varley, 2008).
In the study of Varley (2008), Cristina Hoole, European marketing and
communications director for business-to-business social network LinkedIn, argues that it‟s not
the corporate entity, however more often the experiences around a brand for which consumers
develop genuine affection. She explains the concept with the popularity of Tiffany‟s; “the
reason why so many people go to Tiffany‟s in New York is people buy themselves into an
experience. They just want to have the box, the wrapping, the store – the whole experience.”
(Varley, 2008). You can‟t market yourself to be loved – it has to happen naturally!

In the same article, Richard Huntington, strategy director at advertising agency of Saatchi
& Saatchi, illustrates the concept of brand resonance with a special term, called „Lovemarks‟.
A Lovemark is a brand that is irreplaceable and utterly irresistible; people just want to have
everything of the brand and they might even consider leaving a shop if they don‟t stock the
brand (Varley, 2008). Crucial in maintaining the status of a Lovemark is keeping up the
relationship with the consumer; it‟s an intense relationship
that emotionally engages the consumer, not a mere
transaction. With brand resonance, people don‟t buy your
brand; they embrace it passionately (Varley, 2008).
§7.3 Brand Elements
In today‟s world, it‟s important for companies to identify the brand and differentiate it from
competitors. Brand elements are of great importance for the realization of unique associations
with the brand in the mind of the consumer (Keller, 1993). Kotler (1991, in Keller, 1993)
defines brand elements as a „name, term, sign, symbol, design, or combination of them which
is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to
differentiate them from those of competitors. Brand elements act as primary brand knowledge
and the main function of a brand element is to provide a brand with a clear and distinct
identity, which in turn should ensure unique brand associations (Keller, 1993).
In the early stages of brand elements research, Keller (1993) identified only
one brand element: „the brand name‟. The question if this name could be considered as „a
good choice‟, was fully based on whether it helped enhance brand awareness, facilitated the
linkage of brand associations, or finally enhanced the likability of the brand (Keller, 1993).
Later on, Keller (2008) realized there were much more elements that could be linked to the
CBBE pyramid and contributed to building brand equity. Furthermore, Keller understood that
brand elements were not only important in the process of „building a strong and independent
brand‟ as thought earlier; all brand elements were also strongly related to the process of
„leveraging and maintenance of brand equity‟ (Keller, 2008).
§7.3.1 Keller’s Brand elements

Keller (2008) developed an „evaluation matrix‟, in which all 6 brand elements are measured
against 6 evaluation criteria (appendix 6). All 6 brand elements are listed below.

1. A brand name can be described as a single word (or more), which identifies a
product, a family of products and its producer (Business Dictionary, 2010).
2. A brand logo can be defined as a recognizable and distinctive graphic
design, stylized name, unique symbol, or other device for identifying an
organization (Business Dictionary, 2010).
3. A brand character is an illustrated or animated character that represents the
brand‟s personality, relationship with the audience, and visual symbols
(Getman, 2009).
4. A brand slogan is an alternative name for „catch line‟, in which the brand
communicates his values and what it stands for (Business Dictionary, 2010).
5. A jingle can be defined as a short and catchy song, used in a television of
radio commercial (Business Dictionary, 2010). Mostly a jingle is being used
to promote brand recognition (Keller, 2008).
6. Finally, the design of a brand can be described as a realization of a concept
or idea into a configuration or model, which helps support the designated
objectives for a brand. The package and design of a brand can ensure
attention/exposure and can assist in promotion (Business Dictionary, 2010).
§7.3.2 Keller’s Evaluation Criteria

The choice for a brand element must be carefully considered, therefore Keller (2008)
identified 6 different evaluation criteria in total, divided into three „offensive‟ and three
„defensive‟ criteria. The offensive criteria (1-3) contribute to „brand equity building‟, while
the „defensive‟ ones (4-6) are related to the maintenance and leveraging of brand equity
(Keller, 2008).
1. Memorability: refers to both brand recall and recognition

(brand awareness). High memorability means the ease and
speed of brand node activation in the mind of the consumer is
high (Keller, 2001). An example of high memorability is
when people only need one incentive for realizing brand node
activation (e.g. the magenta corporate colour of T-Mobile, the
corporate slogan of Citroën: „Creative Technology‟). The adjacent picture shows the
amazing power of fonts and corporate colors in relation to brand awareness. Without
seeing the real brand names (social media accounts: Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter)

people still recognize your brand. This is an extreme example of brand
memorability and emphasizes the strength of these social media brands.
2. Meaningfulness: refers to the product category of the
brand and/or its attributes and benefits (Keller, 2008).
An example of a brand with meaningful brand
elements is Amazon. The arrow from A to Z in the
logo means „everything‟ can be ordered at the
company. Despite good intensions, the customer is
often unaware about the brand meanings.
3. Likability: refers to the attitudes towards a brand. A funny character, colour
symbolism and a „catchy‟ slogan are some elements that can affect the likability of a
brand (Keller, 2008).
4. Transferability: transferability has everything to do with leveraging of the brand
elements and concerns both product category and geographic region (Keller, 2008).
The Corporate slogan of Nokia: „Connecting People‟ has a high transferability because
the slogan can be used in a lot of product categories; it‟s not just applicable to the
phone market, but can be used for everything that has to do with communication.
5. Adaptability: refers to the ability to change as a brand (Keller, 2008). The corporate
logo of Adidas changed a couple of times, now holding two logos; one for the
mainline products and the other for it‟s classical/authentic fashion line.
6. Protectability: some brand names can easily and legally be copied by competitors as it
refers to a common word (e.g. „Dove‟ is currently
being used as both a chocolate and a cosmetics
brand). Mostly brands have to pay a lot of money for
using brand elements (Spaeth, 2005).
§7.3.3 Rebranding in Practice

Because brand elements are strongly related to the brand building, leveraging and
maintenance process (Keller, 1993), they serve as a net asset for the company (Spaeth, 2005).
Changing brand elements is synonym for changing one‟s brand identity, and thus requires a
lot of courage. Rebranding often occurs during spin-outs and mergers, for which, strategy-
wise, naming is a no-brainer (Spaeth, 2005). Besides strategic implications, managers also
have to take into account the executional issues (e.g. reactions of employees and customers
towards the identity change). Here some practical „rebranding‟ cases are discussed.

A great example of a successful and radical corporate identity change is the case of the
brand „Invista‟, former „Du Pont‟. Despite successful business and sales ($6.3 billion in
annual revenues), manager Steve McCracken left the comfort zone and rebranded his
company to the serviceable and non-limiting name „Invista‟. A new brand name, symbol, and
a tagline were part of the whole „rebranding process‟, which created a vital new company.
Sixteen month later Invista was acquired by another company and became a real success story
(Spaeth, 2005).
Sometimes companies are successful; however still need a corporate identity
change. Employees, customers and investors aren‟t that positive about the growth and change
as you are; complacency has set in. The corporate identity change of logistics company UPS
in 2003 can be classified as a „want to‟ case, for which the rebranding was a leadership
initiative (Spaeth, 2005). The old UPS logo (a bow-tied package) was facing a dusty image
and the new logo created a refreshing image and emphasized the expansion of activities:
financing and managing corporate logistics (Spaeth, 2005). The logo change, contributed to
the integration and alignment of all UPS units and literally changed the behavior of most
employees, showing rebranding is not only about customers; the employees are at least, if not
more important.
While UPS changed their logo because of expansion reasons,
companies can also apply rebranding to sharpen and focus a diffused brand
image, and to consolidate brand assets (Spaeth, 2005). Bausch & Lomb,
originally a vision care company, changed their logo to command a more tightly focused
image: „the eye health company‟. The new logo supports the company‟s new position by
representing the path of light through a lens, referring to it‟s vision care base (Spaeth, 2005).
Finally, the rebranding of Unilever shows both the strategic importance and
human appeal. In line with the growing transparency and responsibility, Unilever changed it‟s
logo from a reliable and boring trademark into a lively symbol with 25 items; representing the
enormous diversity of the brand. Also the font of the wordmark changed, aiming on a more
dynamic character. The case of Unilever, together with some other mentioned ones, shows the
importance of brand elements to revive, refresh and renew corporate identities (Spaeth, 2005).
Sometimes rebranding doesn‟t have much influence, however mostly it
does; illustrated in the cases above.

8. Methodology

8. Methodology
There are two main approaches to answer a research problem: quantitative and qualitative
research (Shuttleworth, 2008). Quantitative research generates numerical data or information
that can be converted into numbers; only measurable data is being gathered and analyzed.
Qualitative research is focused on gathering mainly verbal, non-numerical data, subsequently
analyzed in a subjective and interpretative manner (Shuttleworth, 2008). According to Patton
(1990) qualitative research is highly suitable to study selected issues in depth and detail. Both
research approaches have their own strengths and weaknesses and the choice for which type of
research fully depends on the goal of your research (Creswell, 1994).
This research uses a quantitative research methodology as this study aims to find
out the answer to an inquiry through numerical evidence; respondents are being asked about
their non-product related associations about the brand Brunotti and no further attention is being
paid to the underlying reasons of their brand knowledge. The latter makes qualitative research
an inappropriate choice.
§8.1 Research design
There are various designs which can be used in research: descriptive designs, experimental
designs, correlational studies etc. All designs have their own specific advantages and
disadvantages. In this study the survey research design has been chosen, representing a
descriptive research design. The survey is known as a very valuable tool for assessing opinions
feelings, thoughts, knowledge and trends; exactly what this research is all about (Shuttleworth,
2008; Baarda & de Goede, 2006). The reason for choosing a survey research design is based on
the aim of this research; to provide an accurate overview of how the brand lives in the mind of
consumers and specially the role of brand elements on brand imagery. Furthermore, the survey
design is highly suitable to interview a large amount of people. Quantity however, is not always
decisive in realizing reliable results; sometimes (because of required knowledge or experience)
the research object requires you to target a particular target group (Shuttleworth, 2008). This
however does not apply to this situation, making the survey the right technique in this study for
achieving significant and valid results.

§8.2 Online Survey: Advantages and Disadvantages
There are many ways you can conduct a survey; face-to-face, telephone or mail (Baarda & de
Goede, 2006). In this study the questionnaire is distributed via the Internet. Due to the
emergence of Internet in the last decade (and in particular the World Wide Web), the online
survey has become a widely used research method. Nowadays most people have a computer
and internet, so the demographic limitations are very low (Colorado State University, 2010).
Using the online survey is due to some practical reasons; it is the least time-
consuming distribution technique (beneficially for the response-rate), easy to obtain a
representative and large sample, and finally well applicable to ask personal questions
(Shuttleworth, 2008). Another reason for choosing an online technique, is because all questions
are clear and don‟t need to have detailed explanations; people aren‟t insecure in answering the
questions. Finally, research shows that response rates are higher with electronic surveys than
with paper surveys or interviews (Colorado State University, 2010). However there is a „but‟
too: electronic response rates were only higher during the first few days; thereafter, the rates
were not significant higher (Opermann, 1995; Milne, 1999). Below a complete overview of the
advantages and drawbacks of the online survey method is presented.
Figure 4: Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Survey

Advantages Disadvantages
Low Costs Low Control
Time-Saving Distribution Method Low Response Rate
Approach High Amount of Respondents Uncertainty about Amount of Responses you

will Receive
Approach Specific Group of Respondents Unsuitable for Long and Complex Questions
Social Desirability is Low Anonymity and Confidentiality is Disputable
Good Routing Lose Opportunity for Follow-Up Questions
Fast Processing of Results Low Validity
Source: Advantages & Disadvantages of Online Survey (Shuttleworth, 2008; Baarda & de Goede, 2006)

§8.3 Data Collection
As discussed in the previous paragraph, the data in this research is gathered via an online
survey. After thorough preparation, the questionnaire is published online via thesistools.com,
initially for the period of one month. Subsequently, it is distributed via the corporate website of
Brunotti, the Brunotti e-shop website, surf & snowboard forums, boardsports associations in
the Netherlands and finally Brunotti social media accounts (e.g. Facebook, Hyves, and
Twitter). Before the questionnaire appeared on the Internet, it was tested extensively by 20
acquaintances for possible deficiencies. With a short additional questionnaire, some insight was
gained about „possible unnecessary and ambiguous questions‟, „time that was needed to
complete the questionnaire‟ and finally „the lay-out of the questionnaire‟. A few minor
adjustments later, the questionnaire was ready to be placed online.
The target group for this survey consists of active boardsports practitioners
(potential customers for Brunotti), who live in the Netherlands. First of all, we need to define
what a „board sport‟ actually means. According to EuroSIMA (European Boardsports Industry
Manufacturers Association) a „board sport‟ can be defined as a general term for sports that
involve the use of a board. The definition that is used in here slightly differs from the previous
and common definition. This study only focuses on boardsports that are related to water en
snow (e.g. surfing, wakeboarding, snowboarding/skiing), because these sports are most
important and relevant for Brunotti. The latter implies that a board sport like skateboarding is
excluded and also doesn‟t belong to the definition of a board sport. Finally, an active
boardsports practitioner is defined as a person, who is actively engaged with his/her sport for
(on average) 1 week a year.
The duration of the questionnaire is about 5 minutes and is distributed among
129.626 people2. The minimum required sample size has been calculated via an online sample
calculator on Journalinks. With a reliability interval of 95% and an error of 5%, 385 people are
2
- Brunotti Corporate Website: 18.000 average monthly unique visitors;
- Brunotti E-Shop Website: 53.500 average monthly unique visitors;
- Snowrepublic.com (Snowboard Community): 15.000 average monthly unique visitors;
- Surfweer.nl (Surf Community): 15.000 average monthly unique visitors;
- Hanglos.nl (Kitesurf Community): 12.000 average monthly unique visitors;
- Windsurfing.nl (Windsurfing Community) 12.000 average monthly unique visitors
- Brunotti Social Media: 3146 people;
- Boardsensation Social Media: 980 people.

needed to generate reliable statements about the entire population. In order to create a
reliable study, an error margin of 5% has been chosen. Precise figures about the total
population are difficult to provide, because boardsports have a strong individual character and
most boardsports practitioners are not registered with an association. However, the estimated
population of active boardsports practitioners in the Netherlands is about 1.050.000 people3
(http://www.sneeuwplaza.nl/web_redactie.asp?onderwerp=sneeuwplaza&id=15236;
http://www.nederlandsekitesurfvereniging.nl/over-kitesurfen.php; http://www.hsa.nl/holland-
surfing-association/; http://www.windsurfing.nl/; Trend Rapport Toerisme en Recreatie, 2010).
In practice of course, not all people will respond to the questionnaire which means the survey
has to be sent to many more people than the minimal required 385. Reasons for non-response
are almost limitless and vary from „a lack of time/interest in the subject‟ to „a questionnaire
with too many or too less response options‟ (Baarda & de Goede, 2006). According to a
calculation of Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2006), the actual sample size should include
7700 people in order to generate a sample size of at least 385 people. Since the questionnaire
was sent to 129.626 people, this condition is certainly satisfied. The calculation is based on a
response rate of 5%4.
Creswell (1994) stated the process of data collection involves three different
steps: first setting the boundaries, second the collection of data and finally establishing the
protocol for recording the information. All three aspects are already discussed above; however
the explanation for setting the boundaries will now be discussed.
As mentioned before, the research is conducted in the Netherlands and is
focused on active boardsports practitioners. There is also a geographical restriction applied in
this research: only Dutch inhabitants are included. First reason for the latter restriction is due to
the fact that Brunotti is a Dutch brand (headquarter is also located in the Dutch city
Amersfoort), whose products are mainly sold at dealers in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the
Netherlands is the only country where all five different product categories are traded. Despite
3
Estimated amount of active kitesurfers in the Netherlands: 15.000 people
Estimated amount of active surfers in the Netherlands: 10.000 people
Estimated amount of active windsurfers in the Netherlands: 25.000 people
Estimated amount of active snowboarders/skiers in the Netherlands: 1.000.000 people
4
Na = (n.100% / re%)
Na = Actual required sample size; n = minimal required sample size; re% = estimated response rate.

the fact that Brunotti products are distributed throughout the whole world (especially
Europe) over 32 different countries, there are a lot of countries with only a few Brunotti dealer
locations (see appendix 7). This could result in a somewhat biased international character. The
„Brunotti EYEWEAR and „Brunotti FOOTWEAR products for example show an evident lack
of international appeal: FOOTWEAR is only traded in the Netherlands and Belgium, while
EYEWEAR only sells it‟s products in the Netherlands. Once we take a look at the other three
product categories, we can see that the product distribution is also very skewed. In the category
CLOTHING there are only eight (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece,
Finland, Switzerland and the Netherlands) of the 19 countries with more than 20 Brunotti
dealer locations. The categories BAGS and BOARDS show the same pattern. For BAGS there
are only four countries (Russia, Germany, Switzerland and of course the Netherlands) with
more than 10 locations and BOARDS are only sold at 5 or more locations in three different
countries (Denmark, UK and the Netherlands). Besides the Netherlands, only Germany
(CLOTHING & BAGS) and Austria (CLOTHING) are (in absolute terms) markets with a lot of
dealers. The reason behind the „great‟ amount of dealer locations in Germany (CLOTHING:
356; BAGS: 218) can probably be found in the fact that Brunotti has an own and independent
sales office in Neuss (Germany). Despite the large presence of dealers in Germany, also this
country is excluded in the study. The reason for this exclusion is that only 3 (CLOTHING,
BAGS & BOARDS) out of the total 5 product categories are sold in Germany. Moreover,
BOARDS are traded at only one location.
The second reason behind the geographical restriction is due to practical reasons:
it‟s very difficult to obtain a representative sample out of all European boardsports
practitioners. It‟s also hard to define the total population of boardsports practitioners across
whole Europe, resulting in a less accurate sample. Finally, appendix 8 shows a nice detail: a
vast majority of all Brunotti Facebook fans are German (20.43%) and Dutch (17.10%)
inhabitants. Although it‟s a detail, this also stresses the awareness and activity of the brand in
these two countries.
§8.4 Questionnaire Format

The questionnaire5 has been mainly composed out of closed questions. Only some questions
allow the respondent to give additional information. Closed questions are characterized by the
fact that all response options have already been established by the interviewer (Baarda & de
Goede, 2006). Open questions are exactly the opposite; respondents are free to answer the
5
The questionnaire can be found in appendix 9.

questions and are not limited in their response possibilities (Baarda & de Goede, 2006).
Open questions allow respondents to write down their thoughts and feelings in complete
freedom, consequently resulting in more meaningful and interesting results (Kris, 2006).
According to Baarda & de Goede (2006) you should limit the use of open questions in
questionnaires as much as possible, because information processing is extremely time-
consuming and answers are often difficult to interpret. In here, respondents are allowed to give
some additional information, however to a limited extent. This information can help to gain
some background and „richer‟ information about the brand Brunotti. Other benefits of closed
questions are: a higher response rate (because of less effort/time) and the performing of more
statistical tests (de Vocht, 2008).
The amount of answer options is an important component towards a successful
questionnaire. Ordinal data is usually gathered via 3 - or 5 points response scales (van Dalen &
de Leede, 2002); this questionnaire will use 5 points scales to examine respondent‟s thoughts,
because it provides a more nuanced and specific picture (Baarda & de Goede, 2006).
Besides different kind of questions (open or closed) and the amount of answer
options, the sequence of the questionnaire is important in order to score a high response rate
and generate meaningful and interesting results. Research to questionnaires has shown that
when the most important questions are asked up front, they (the questionnaires) are more often
completed and also filled out with more reliable responses. The other way around (non-relevant
questions up front) just enhances the chance of losing concentration and facilitates a high
percentage of response error (Baarda & de Goede, 2006). For this reason, demographic
characteristics are not supposed to be asked at the beginning of a random questionnaire.
Finally, before people start filling out the questionnaire, a short introduction is
provided. The introduction communicates the research objectives and provides some clear
instructions for filling out the questionnaire. According to Baarda & de Goede (2006), a clear
introduction is important in order to generate reliable results.
§8.5 Validity & Reliability
This research is specifically focused on Brunotti and therefore lacks external validity. The
gathered information can‟t be used so say something about other (boardsports) brands,
because brand elements and related associations are totally unique for each brand. Despite the
low external validity, the information can still be valuable for other companies, since it shows
the contribution of brand elements on brand imagery in general.

Also internal validity is difficult to achieve, since there are a lot of other factors that can
affect the imagery of one brand. In the introduction an obvious statement has been made that
emphasize people on the importance to fully base their answers on their opinions about the
brand elements. Subsequently the research goal has been included to stress the specific
interest in the influence of brand elements on brand imagery. However, external factors are
extremely difficult to exclude as you can‟t just erase someone‟s mind. Another reason for the
lack of validity lies in the artificiality of the survey format; people's real feelings are hard to
grasp in terms of such dichotomies as “agree/disagree,” “support/oppose,” “like/dislike,” etc.
(Trochim, 2006). To enhance the low internal validity, some relevant external factors are
included in the questionnaire; purchase frequency, purchase experiences, people‟s knowledge
of brand endorsers, the type of sport they practice and finally demographic characteristics.
Regarding to reliability, the research scores a higher grade. The survey presents
all subjects with a standardized stimulus, so eliminating the unreliability in the researcher‟s
observations. Also the subject‟s own unreliability is significantly reduced by careful wording,
format and content (Shuttleworth, 2008).
§8.6 Data Processing
The questionnaire has been made online via Thesistools. The respondents can simply enter the
questionnaire and reply by clicking on a link. The results are processed and presented in charts
directly. To establish consistency and enable data analysis, the data is processed in the SPSS
Statistics 17.0 software program. SPSS stands for Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
and is specialized in data mining, customer relationship management, business intelligence and
data analysis (IBM Corporate Website, 2010). The results are on the one hand analyzed with
SPSS and on the other hand using descriptive research.

9. Results

9. Results
§9.1 Practical Implementation of the Research
After a period of one month, the questionnaire has been filled out completely by no less than
960 respondents. Initially even 1403 people started the questionnaire; 443 cases however
didn‟t match the research restrictions (not the right target group) and are therefore excluded
from the study. With a reliability interval of 95% and an error of 5%, 385 people were needed
to provide reliable statements about the entire population (1.050.000 people). With 960
completed questionnaires, this response limit has thus been largely exceeded.
Before the questionnaire could be published on the web, there were some
difficulties. The first one was to convince the company to publish the questionnaire on their e-
shop website. At first they were a little bit reluctant, as they were afraid to annoy the customer
with an unwelcome surprise. Furthermore, the questionnaire was imbued with all kinds of
commercial expressions. Later on Brunotti changed their mind (meanwhile the questionnaire
had been released of advertisements) and created a simple link on the site where people, after
one simple click, were transferred to the actual questionnaire.
The second and last problem relates to the difficult and prolonged quest for
publishing the questionnaire on appropriate and interesting websites. There was much time
lost, because of waiting for an approval of the moderators. In the end, some websites
unfortunately denied the proposal or didn‟t respond at all, others however responded in a
positive way.
§9.2 General Characteristics of the Respondents
The target group of this study consists of Dutch inhabitants who are active in different kinds
of boardsports. Therefore the questionnaire is distributed via the Brunotti website, Dutch
boardsports communities and Dutch boardsports associations. Finally, 960 „appropriate‟
respondents completed the questionnaire. Of these 960 respondents, 75.1% is male and 24.9%
female. The age of most respondents is between 20 and 29 years (41.3%), and important to
note is that no less than 89.4% of the respondents are under the age of 40. The education level
of the respondents is relatively high; respectively 41.6% and 19.1% are following (or already
succeeded) a HBO and University degree. Moreover, 20.1% of the respondent are on high
school, while more than three-quarters (78.7%) are college students (or previously followed

this degree). At last, respondents are asked what kind of boardsports they practice. The
distribution of these responses is very skewed: Kitesurfing (30.9%), Windsurfing (12.4%),
Surfing (32.9%), Snowboarding (14.4%), Skiing (7.7%) and other (1.7%). A short overview
of the general characteristics can be found in appendix 10. Whether this sample of 960 people
is a good representative of the total population (active Dutch boardsports practitioners) is
difficult to answer, because it was very difficult to determine demographic characteristics of
Dutch boardsports practitioners. Unfortunately, no boardsports association was able to deliver
those figures. Eventually, only the European Surfing Federation [ESF] (2011) could give
some information about the male-female ratio in the European surfing industry: 85/15. Based
on this data, the research sample is quite representative with a male-female ratio of: 75/25.
§9.3 Brunotti’s Core Associations & Results Regarding Management

Problem
In addition to the research question regarding the relationship between brand elements and
non-product related associations, respondents are asked to give their first 3 associations about
Brunotti. These associations reveal how the brand lives in the mind of the consumer and can
be of great importance for the company, since it gives a more general view about the
management problem.
In the questionnaire, the following question was presented to all respondents:
“Please choose the first three things of the undermentioned list when you think about
Brunotti”. The results of this question can be seen in appendix 11.
Based on the two figures in appendix 11, most people relate the brand to the
following three associations: (1) SURFING (21.8%); (2) BEACH (20.6%); and (3) FASHION
(15.1%). Other frequently mentioned associations are: SPORT (9.3%) and SURFBOARDS
(9.1%). Based on these percentages, Dutch boardsports practitioners perceive Brunotti as a
Surf & Beach brand, with an obvious linkage to the fashion & sports sector. Moreover,
looking at the more specific associations (e.g. AMERSFOORT, JINNE SIETSMA, and
PINES & PALMS), it is noteworthy that the answers JINNE SIETSMA (4.7%) and PALMS
(5.4%) are relatively often called, while this does not apply to the other two associations:
AMERSFOORT (0.8%) and PINES (0.3%). These latter differences give us valuable
information and provide support to the presumed imbalance between the summer and winter
image of the brand (management problem). A large majority (61.6%) of all the answers
obtained are associations that have a clear connection with the summer (SURFING, BEACH,
PALMS, SURFBOARDS, JINNE SIETSMA, who‟s the famous surfboard shaper of

Brunotti). Meanwhile, only 8.5% of all answers could be linked to the winter
(SNOWBOARDING, SNOW, PINES). The rest (29.8%) are other associations which are not
on the list and/or general associations (FASHION, SPORT, AMERSFOORT, AGENDA) that
couldn‟t be linked with either summer or winter. As the two most mentioned associations and
61.6% of all answers (vs. 8.5% winter related answers) are closely related to „summer‟, it
seems obvious that (among Dutch boardsports practitioners) Brunotti is far more known as a
summer than a winter sports brand.
Despite this clear observation, it has to be said there are some limitations in the
way of conducting this research too. First of all, respondents could choose from more
„summer related‟ response options than answers that are related to „winter associations‟ (5 vs.
3). However, the association JINNE SIETSMA is a very specific one and comparing the
amount of the three „main summer associations‟ (BEACH, SURFING, PALMS) with the
three winter ones (SNOW, SNOWBOARDING, PINES), there is still a big gab in favor of
Brunotti‟s summer image: 47.8% vs. 8.5%. Secondly, the order in which the response options
are presented in the questionnaire, might also affected the final results. The three most
mentioned associations (including two „summer associations‟: SURFING and BEACH) are
indeed also the three first listed response options in the questionnaire. The explanation for this
remains unclear, since it could be coincidence, disinterest of the respondents etc. The last
point of criticism relates to the underrepresentation (22.1%) of „winter sports fanatics‟; a
relatively low percentage compared to the amount of „surfers‟ (77.9%) who responded to the
questionnaire. This can probably be seen as the greatest weakness, since you can imagine that
one‟s sport can seriously affect your eventual associations with a brand. Additionally, the
period of the year in which the questionnaire is distributed might also affect the results about
the winter/summer dilemma. By publishing the questionnaire at the beginning of March (still
Winter, however Spring is coming soon), this issue is tried to tackle as much as possible.
In addition to the core associations of the respondents around the brand
Brunotti, this part takes a closer look at the specific role of Brunotti‟s four
brand elements on the presumed imbalance between it‟s summer and winter
image. A very interesting and important question, since brand elements are
of great importance for the realization of unique associations with the brand
in the mind of the consumer (Keller, 1993) and finally because this research
is focused on the influence of brand elements on non-product related
associations. The four brand elements of Brunotti are: (1) the Brand name;

(2) Logo; (3) Design & Packaging and (4) Slogan. After an illustration of all the brand
elements, respondents are asked to link each brand element with either the summer or the
winter. The results of these questions are presented in appendix 12.
Based on the figures in appendix 12, three of the four brand elements show a
strong affinity with the summer image of Brunotti. The brand logo makes 886 respondents
(92.3%!) think about the summer and the beach instead of the winter and the mountains (only
7.7%). An obvious explanation for this result could be that 824 respondents (85.3%) believe
that the „Palms‟ (summer element) are much more evident in the logo than the „Pines‟ (winter
element). Furthermore, the design (corporate colors) and the slogan (Feelin‟ Good Has a
Name) also show a close affinity with the summer; respectively 76.2% and 88.7% of the
respondents chose „Summer & Beach‟ above „Winter & Mountains‟ when they were exposed
to both brand elements. Nevertheless, not all four brand elements have a strong kinship with
the summer; more than half of the respondents (62.4%) associate the font of the brand name
(the way „Brunotti‟ is written) with „Winter & Mountains‟; a remarkable result since the other
three brand elements are very closely related to the „Summer & Beach‟. At the end, all
respondents are asked whether their minds were more focused on (A) Summer & Surfing or
(B) Winter & Snowboarding, based on all four brand elements together. The response options
ranged from 1 („completely disagree‟) to 5 („totally agree‟). The results of this question are
shown on the next page.

Figure 5: Winter-Summer Dichotomy Based on ALL FOUR Brand Elements
“The brand elements of Brunotti together make me think more about Summer & Surfing than
Winter & Snowboarding”:
Source: Thesistools 2011
With a glance at figure 5, it can be seen that a large majority of the respondents associate all
four brand elements of Brunotti together (e.g. general assessment of the brand elements) with
Summer & Surfing instead of Winter & Snowboarding. For convenience, response options (1)
and (2) correspond with „Winter & Snowboarding‟, while options (4) and (5) match with
„Summer & Surfing‟. Option (3) can be seen as a neutral response. Taken options (4) and (5)
together, 747 respondents (77.8%) think about Summer & Surfing, while options (1) and (2)
do not even amount to a paltry 10% (8.2% accurately) of all respondents. The results in figure
5 are fully in line with the results of the individual brand element questions (appendix 12),
therefore it can be concluded that the brand elements of Brunotti contribute to a brand that‟s
more considered as a summer/surf brand than a winter/snowboard one.
Taking into account the most important point of criticism; the
underrepresentation of „winter sports practitioners‟ (212 respondents, equivalent to only
22.1%) in the questionnaire, there‟s still enough evidence to support the previous claim. Of
course, one‟s sport can still seriously affect the eventual associations with a brand. However,
if only 79 respondents (8.2%) associate the total picture of Brunotti‟s brand elements with

„Winter & Snowboarding‟ and up to 747 respondents (77.8%) with „Summer & Surfing‟, it
could only have been that a lot of „winter sport practitioners‟ associate the brand elements of
Brunotti with „Summer & Surfing‟. The figure below illustrates and confirms this assertion.
Figure 6: ‘Winter Sport Practitioners’ and Summer/Winter Dilemma
Despite their shared passion for winter sports, figure 6 shows that no less than 160 (75.5%)6
skiers and/or snowboarders associate the brand elements of Brunotti together with „Summer
& Surfing‟. Only 27 skiers/snowboarders (12.7%) chose the (for them) most obvious option:
Winter & Snowboarding, while 25 like-minded respondents (11.8%) couldn‟t make any
decision.
The general consensus about all four brand elements of people who are active
in surfing was however focused on „Summer & Surfing‟ (figure 7). A spectacular 587 people
(78.5%)7 opted for option (A): „Summer & Surfing‟, while only 52 people (7.0%) opted
option (B): „Winter & Mountains‟. Here, also 109 respondents (14.6%) couldn‟t make a
decision. In short, both two figures are (based on percentages) hardly distinguishable.
6
Percentage based on the amount of „winter sport practitioners‟ in the questionnaire.
7
Percentage based on the amount of „surfers‟ in the questionnaire.

Figure 7: ‘Surfers’ and Summer/Winter Dilemma
In conclusion, Brunotti and it‟s brand elements are much more associated with „Summer &
Surfing‟ than „Winter & Snowboarding‟8. The brand elements are thus very important to
address the management problem. The only factor that could have affected the results is the
order of the response options, which can only not be measured in a precise way.
§9.4 Descriptive Statistics about Non-Product Related Associations
The goal of this thesis is to investigate the influence of brand elements on non-product related
associations. The non-product related associations can be divided into 4 different categories:
(1) User Profile; (2) Usage & Purchase Situation; (3) Brand History and (4) Brand
Experiences. All these variables, except those related to the „User Profile‟, are measured on an
interval scale. On the next page, a short description of all variable types is presented, starting
with the lowest one.
QUALITATIVE VARIABLES
 Nominal Variable: variables whose outcomes refer to mutually exclusive categories
(e.g. gender, eye color) (van Dalen, de Leede, 2000).
8
Statement only applies to boardsports practitioners, who live in the Netherlands. All limitations of the study
included.

 Ordinal Variable: variables whose outcomes refer to mutually exclusive categories,
however the results of these variables also imply a ranking/natural sequence of
outcomes (e.g. question with response options: „totally disagree‟, „disagree‟, „neutral‟,
„agree‟, totally agree‟) (van Dalen, de Leede, 2000).
QUANTITATIVE VARIABLES
 Interval Variable: variables whose outcomes are characterized by a natural sequence
and more importantly a natural interpretation of the distances between the outcomes
(e.g. the temperature measured on a random non-Kelvin scale) (van Dalen, de Leede,
2000).
 Ratio Variable: variables whose outcomes have a natural sequence, natural distance
and a natural zero (e.g. age, income) (van Dalen, de Leede, 2000).
Strictly speaking, all the interval variables in the data set are actually ordinal variables as all
variables were measured on an ordinal (5-point) scale However, the upgrading of variables
(in this case from ordinal to interval) is only possible if there can be assumed that
respondents, while answering the questions, use an implicit distance function. In practice, this
upgrade is a widely used phenomenon in survey data (van Dalen, de Leede, 2000).
Figure 8 (next page) presents some descriptive statistics (e.g. mean, standard deviation,
variance) of the outcomes related to the 5 interval variables in the data set. Due to the 5-point
scale, the minimum outcome of all these variables is 1 and the maximum outcome is 5. One
variable („BrandExp‟) is used to illustrate the meaning of the presented statistics, as the
explanation is exactly the same for all the other variables.
The average outcome of the variable „BrandExp‟9 is 3.59, which can be
interpret as most people respond „above neutral‟ to the following statement: “the brand
elements of Brunotti contribute for having positive feelings with the brand.” The average is
calculated as the sum of the individual scores divided by the number of total observations (de
Vocht, 2008). The standard deviation and variance of „BrandExp‟ are respectively 1.060 and
1.124. The standard deviation is a measure of the deviation of all observations compared to
the arithmetic mean. The variance is the squared function of the standard deviation (de Vocht,
2008). The median of „BrandExp‟ is 4, which means 50% of all observations have an outcome
9
The definition of all variables and outcomes in the dataset is presented in appendix 13.

of 4 or lower and 50% of all observations have an outcome of 4 or higher. The median is
the central observation in the distribution, while the outcomes are presented in a chronologic
order (van Dalen, de Leede, 2000). The outcomes of „BrandExp‟ are negatively skewed
(-0.680), indicating that the 50% lower outcomes (1-4) are more scattered/distributed than the
50% higher outcomes (4-5). Because of a negative skewness, the distribution of the outcomes
is left asymmetrical. However, distributions with a skewness of ≤ [1] may be seen as
symmetrical. Furthermore, it can be concluded that (in 95% of all cases) the mean of the
population is between 3.52 (lower bound) and 3.66 (upper bound). The 95%- reliability
interval indicates the interval, within which the assumed average is maintained (de Vocht,
2008). Finally, 960 respondents responded to this question.
Figure 8: Descriptive Statistics of Non-Product Related Associations, Measured on

an ‘Interval Scale’
Std.
Variable N Min. Max. Mean Dev. Variance Median Skewness 95% Reliability Interval for Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
UsageSit01 960 1 5 3.01 1.160 1.346 3 -0.139 2.93 3.08
UsageSit02 960 1 5 3.84 0.954 0.911 4 -0.677 3.78 3.90
PurchSit 960 1 5 2.40 1.158 1.340 2 0.635 2.33 2.48
BrandHist 960 1 5 3.66 1.132 1.280 4 -0.790 3.59 3.73
BrandExp 960 1 5 3.59 1.060 1.124 4 -0.680 3.52 3.66

Source: IBM SPSS Statistics
In addition to the non-product related variables, measured on an interval scale (quantitative

variables), the following section takes a closer look at the statistical standards for the non-
product related variables measured on a nominal/ordinal scale (qualitative variables). Because
of scale differences, the latter variables require other statistical standards than the ones that
were used in the previous figure. Figure 9 (next page) presents a concise overview of these
standards.

Figure 9: Descriptive Statistics of Non-Product Related Associations, Measured
on a ‘Nominal/Ordinal Scale’
Variable N Median Mode Min. Max. Percentiles
25 50 75
Sports Image 960 1 1 1 3 1 1 1
IncomeLev Image 960 2 2 1 3 2 2 2
Gender Image 960 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
Age Image 960 2 2 1 5 1 2 2

Also here one variable („Sports Image‟) is chosen to explain the meaning of the presented
statistics. Some statistical standards (e.g. „mean‟, „standard deviation‟) are not presented here,
because nominal/ordinal variables are not characterized by a natural interpretation of the
distances between the outcomes.
The median of „Sports Image‟ is 1, which means 50% of all observations have
an outcome of 1 and 50% of all observations have an outcome of 1 or higher. Not
surprisingly, the mode of „Sport Image‟ equals to 1. The mode is the outcome or observation
class with the highest frequency. Looking at the right side of the table, the term „percentile‟
shows up. This refers to the value of which a certain percentage of all valid observations is
below (de Vocht, 2008). In this situation, the 25st percentile indicates that 25% of all
observations have a value of 1. In addition, there can even be concluded that 75% of all
observations have a value of 1. Based on the facts above, the conclusion is easy: at least 75%
of the respondents identify Brunotti with a surf brand. Finally, also here 960 respondents
completed the question, and (due to the 3 response options) the minimum and maximum
outcomes are respectively 1 and 3.
However, based on the figures in the previous two tables, no reliable
conclusions can be made. For instance, 721 of the 960 respondents associate Brunotti (based
on the brand elements) with a masculine brand („Gender Image‟). Although this is a
spectacular amount of people, this (and all the other) results can be heavily distorted by other
factors/variables. In the next paragraph the hypotheses are tested, while some relevant
external variables are taken into account.

§9.5 Testing of the Hypotheses
In this paragraph the suggested relationships between the different variables in the
relationship diagram are tested. The relationships are tested and analyzed with the following
statistical techniques: crosstab (§10.5.1), anova (§10.5.2) and Pearson‟s correlation coefficient
(§10.5.3). The influence of the brand elements on the non-product related associations are
analyzed using descriptive research. The procedure of all the statistical tests is presented in
appendices 15, 16 and 17.
§9.5.1 Crosstab
The crosstab is used for examining consistency between two qualitative (categorical)
variables. Crosstabs are two-dimensional frequency distributions: summaries of absolute and
relative frequencies of joint outcomes of two nominal variables. The independency is
investigated with the χ²-test, also known as the distribution-free test (de Vocht, 2008).
 H1: Gender → Gender Image

Dependency is expected between „Gender‟ and „Gender Image‟; relatively more men than
women associate Brunotti with a masculine brand. The null hypothesis relates to
independency between the two variables. The alternative hypothesis suggests dependency and
will be accepted if the null hypothesis is rejected.
The study shows a critical value of χ²df, α = χ²1, 0.05 = 3.841. The output in SPSS
indicates a χ² value of the observed observations of 86.588. Because the χ² value largely
exceeds the critical value (86.588 >> 3.841), the null hypothesis is rejected, based on a
significance level (α) of 0.05 and a p-value of 0.000. Based on the χ²-test, the conclusion is
that „Gender‟ and „Gender Image‟ are significantly correlated with each other. Hereby, this
hypothesis can be confirmed. The strength of coherence however is weak to moderate, based
on a Cramer‟s V value of 0.303. Cramer‟s V is a measure of association (based on Chi-
square) and lies between 0 (no coherence) and 1 (perfect coherence) (de Vocht, 2008).
The other half of the hypothesis claimed that more than half (≥ 50%) of the
respondents associate Brunotti with a masculine brand. Looking at figure 10, this assertion is
true; even 77.60% (745/960) of all respondents associate the brand elements of Brunotti with
a masculine brand. Based on this figures, you‟d like to say that the influence of brand
elements on „Gender Image‟ is very large: the brand elements have a masculine appearance.
However, due to the dependency between „Gender‟ and „Gender Image‟, this large percentage

may also be somewhat created by the overrepresentation of men in the questionnaire:
relatively more men than women associate Brunotti with a masculine brand.
Figure 10: Gender Image * Gender Cross tabulation
Gender
Man Woman TOTAL

Gender Image Masculine 612 133 745
Feminine 109 106 215
TOTAL 721 239 960

 H2.1: KnowBrandEndors → Age Image

Dependency is expected between „KnowBrandEndors‟ and „Age Image‟; people who are
aware of the brand endorsers, associate Brunotti with a young brand (≤ 29 years) rather than
people who aren‟t aware of the brand endorsers. Again, the null hypothesis relates to
independency between the two variables, while the alternative hypothesis suggests
dependency.
The study shows a critical value of χ²df, α = χ²1, 0.05 = 3.841. Because the
conditions for the expected cell frequencies were not met, the original 5 categories are merged
and therefore reduced from 5 to 2. A young/energetic brand is defined as ≤ 29 years, while a
middle-age/old brand is defined as ≥ 30 years. Because the χ² value doesn‟t exceed the critical
value (3.562 < 3.841), H0 is accepted, based on a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a p-value
of 0.059. The conclusion is that „KnowBrandEndors‟ and „Age Image‟ are not significantly
correlated. Hereby, the hypothesis of dependency can be rejected. Also the Cramer‟s V value
(0.065) indicates that there‟s no coherence. With a reliability percentage of 95, it can be said
there‟s no statistically significant relationship between „KnowBrandEndors‟ and „Age Image‟.
 H2.2: Age → Age Image

Unlike „KnowBrandEndors‟, the variable „Age‟ is significantly correlated with „Age
Image‟: there is coherence between the age of a respondent and his/her perception regarding
the age image of Brunotti. The χ² value largely exceeds the critical value: (54.478 >> 9.488).
Consequently, the null hypothesis (H0) of independency is rejected, based on a significance
level (α) of 0.05 and a p-value of 0.000. Nevertheless, with a low Cramer‟s V value (0.238),
the strength of the correlation is weak.

With regard to the first part of the hypothesis, figure 11 shows that this presumption is true;
a spectacular 89.27% (857/960) of all respondents associate the brand elements of Brunotti
with a young/energetic brand. Because „Age‟ has a weak relationship with „Age Image‟ and
„KnowBrandEndors‟ shows no correlation at all, the influence of brand elements on the age
image („Age Image‟) of Brunotti should certainly not be underestimated. Of course, it should
be noted that boardsports practitioners are generally young people (also in this study 61.56%
of all respondents are 29 years of age or younger) and therefore it‟s not a really big surprise
that a boardsports brand is considered as a young/energetic brand. Nevertheless, it is good to
know that the image of Brunotti corresponds to the identity of the brand. Although, the target
group of Brunotti is not defined based on demographic factors, they still want to be seen as a
young and energetic brand.
Figure 11: Age Image * Age Cross tabulation
Age
≤ 19 years 20-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years ≥ 50 years TOTAL
Age Young/Energetic
Image brand 189 359 232 70 7 857
Middle-Age/Old
brand 6 37 35 16 9 103
TOTAL 195 396 267 86 16 960
 H4: BoardsportKind → Sports Image

Dependency is expected between „BoardsportKind‟ and „Sports Image‟; people whose sport is
related to water (e.g. surfing, wakeboarding), associate Brunotti with a „surf brand‟ rather than
people whose sport is related to the snow (e.g. skiing, snowboarding). The null hypothesis
relates to independency between the two variables. The alternative hypothesis suggests
dependency and will be accepted if the null hypothesis is rejected.
The study shows a critical value of χ²df, α = χ²2, 0.05 = 5.991. The χ² value
exceeds the critical value (6.457 > 3.841); therefore H0 is rejected, based on a significance
level (α) of 0.05 and a p-value of 0.040. The conclusion is that „BoardsportKind‟ and „Sports
Image‟ are significantly correlated. However, again the Cramer‟s value (0.082) indicates a
very weak correlation between the two variables.
Figure 12 shows that the first part of the hypothesis is correct; 78.44%
(753/960) of all respondents associate the brand elements of Brunotti with a surf brand.
Because the relationship between „BoardsportKind‟ and „Sports Image‟ is almost zero,

Brunotti isn‟t associated with a surf brand due to the fact that a high percentage (77.92%)
of all respondents is an active water sport practitioner.
Figure 12: Sports Image * BoardSportKind Cross tabulation
BoardSportKind
Water/Aquatic
sport Wintersport TOTAL
Sports
Image Surfbrand 593 160 753
Winter sports brand 84 37 121
General sports brand 71 15 86
TOTAL 748 212 960

§9.5.2 Anova
The anova technique is used for examining consistency between a quantitative and a
qualitative variable, whereas the latter variable has two or more outcomes (de Vocht, 2008).
 H3: PurchSatisfacGen → IncomeLevel Image

Because customer satisfaction can be based on product quality and quality is often associated
with an exclusive brand image, this hypothesis assumes dependency between
„PurchSatisfacGen‟ and „IncomeLevel Image‟: people who are satisfied with their Brunotti
purchases are more likely to associate Brunotti with an exclusive brand.
The output in SPSS confirms the hypothesis: both variables are significantly
correlated (F = 9.238, p = 0.000). Because the „F-value‟ largely exceeds the critical value
(3.035), H0 is rejected. The differences between the average scores of the 3 groups also show
the correlation: 4.17 (exclusive brand), 4.03 (average brand) and 3.53 (cheap brand) 10.
Figure 13 confirms the descriptive part of the hypothesis: 83.17% (588 / 960) of all
respondents associate the brand elements (in terms of income level) with an average brand.
Due to the dependency between „PurchSatisfacGen‟ and „IncomeLevel Image‟, it is not likely
that this high percentage is mainly due to the influence of brand elements. The fact that
Brunotti is associated with an average brand, may also result from the moderate satisfaction
(average score: 4.02) of the respondents.
10
All interval variables are measured on a scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).

Figure 13: PurchSatisfacGen * IncomeLevel Image Cross tabulation
IncomeLevel
Image
Exclusive Average Cheap
Brand Brand Brand TOTAL
PurchSatisfacGen Totally disagree 5 15 1 21

Disagree 3 30 2 35
Neutral 4 65 13 82
Agree 29 293 23 345
Totally agree 38 185 1 224

TOTAL 79 588 40 707
 H5: BoardsportKind → PurchSit

This hypothesis refers to a presumed dependency between „BoardsportKind‟ and „PurchSit‟:
people whose sport is related to water (e.g. surfing, wakeboarding), are more likely to think
Brunotti is sold at an surf/beach shop compared to people whose sport is related to the snow
(e.g. skiing, snowboarding).
However, based on the output in SPSS, there is no significant relationship
between „BoardsportKind‟ and „PurchSit‟ (F = 2.098, p = 0.148). Based on this output and the
critical value (3.885), H0 is accepted: the population means are equal to each other. The
average score of people whose sport is related to water is 2.37 and the average score of people
whose sport is related to snow is 2.51. Based on this information, one can see that there is no
significant difference between the means of both different groups.
Based on figure 14, there can be concluded that (based on the brand elements)
more than half of the respondents expect the brand is sold at a surf/beach shop. With no less
than 61.77% ([224 + 369] / 960), this hypothesis is correct. There can also be concluded that
the variable „BoardsportKind‟ doesn‟t affect this high percentage. The outcomes 1 and 2
together are considered as a „disagree‟ with regard to the proposition11, while the outcome 3
and the outcomes 4 and 5 are respectively considered as „neutral and „agree‟.
11
Based on the brand elements, I expect Brunotti is sold in a winter store rather than a surf & beach shop.

Figure 14: PurchSit * BoardSportKind Cross tabulation
BoardsportKind
Water/Aquatic
Sport Wintersport TOTAL
Totally
PurchSit disagree 183 41 224
Disagree 297 72 369
Neutral 121 61 182
Agree 99 27 126
Totally agree 48 11 59
TOTAL 748 212 960
 H6: BoardsportKind → UsageSit02

There is a significant relationship expected between „BoardsportKind‟ and „UsageSit02‟:
people whose sport is related to water (e.g. surfing/wakeboarding), are more likely to
use/wear Brunotti products in the summer compared to people whose sport is related to the
snow (e.g. skiing, snowboarding).
The presumption of dependency however, is contradicted by the output results
(F = 1.846, p = 0.175). Based on this results and the critical value (3.885), H0 is accepted: the
population means are equal to each other. The average score of people whose sport is related
to water is 3.87 and the average score of people whose sport is related to snow is 3.76 (the
scale varies from 1 to 5). Based on this information, again there is no significant difference
between the means of both different groups.
Figure 15 confirms the correctness of the first part of the hypothesis: more than
half of the respondents (66.67%) expect to use/wear Brunotti products in the summer rather
than in the winter. Again, the outcomes 1 and 2 together are considered as a „disagree‟ with
regard to the proposition12, while the outcome 3 and the outcomes 4 and 5 are respectively
considered as „neutral and „agree‟. As there is no significant relationship between
„UsageSit02‟ and „BoardsportKind‟, the respondents don‟t associate Brunotti with a „summer
oriented brand‟ because of the fact that most people (77.92%) are active water sport
practitioners.
12
Based on the brand elements, I will rather use/wear Brunotti products in the summer than in the winter.

Figure 15: UsageSit02 * BoardSportKind Cross tabulation
BoardsportKind
Water/Aquatic
Totally
UsageSit02 disagree 20 4 24
Disagree 30 12 42
Neutral 183 71 254
Agree 313 68 381
TOTAL 748 212 960
 H7: Age → UsageSit01

It was expected that relative more older people (≥ 40 years) than younger people associate
Brunotti with a sports fashion brand. The older respondents will use the products in a more
functional (sportive) way than their younger congeners. The output however, refutes the
hypothesis of dependency, with α = 0.05 (F = 1.964, p = 0.098). The „F-value‟ also doesn‟t
exceed the critical value (F = 1.964 < +2.415), whereby H0 is accepted. The average scores of
the different groups in figure 16 (next page) correspond to this acceptation of dependency:
3.08 (≤ 19 years), 3.09 (20-29 years), 2.87 (30-39 years), 2.88 (40-49 years) and 2.94 (≥ 50
years). There are no major differences between the average scores of all 5 groups.
Figure 16 shows that the other half of the hypothesis13 isn‟t correct as well:
based on the brand elements, only 38.75% (< 50%) of the respondents expect to use/wear
Brunotti products as sports fashion rather than casual fashion.
Figure 16: UsageSit01 * Age Cross tabulation
Age
≤ 19 40-49
years 20-29 years 30-39 years years ≥ 50 years TOTAL
UsageSit01 Totally disagree 23 41 38 10 1 113
Disagree 38 86 65 25 7 221
Neutral 59 96 75 23 1 254
Agree 50 141 72 21 6 290
Totally agree 25 32 17 7 1 82
TOTAL 195 396 267 86 16 960
13
Based on the brand elements, I will rather use/wear Brunotti products as sports fashion than casual fashion.

 H8.1: BoardsportKind → BrandHist
This hypothesis is about the presumption that the roots of Brunotti are significantly influenced
by the variable „BoardsportKind‟: people, whose sport is related to water (surfing), are more
likely to think that the roots of Brunotti are in surfing compared to people whose sport is
related to the snow (skiing/snowboarding).
The output confirms the presumption about dependency (F = 4.395, p = 0.036).
The F-value also exceeds the critical value (3.885), therefore H0 can be rejected: the
population means are not equal to each other. Because the F-value slightly exceeds the critical
value, there is only weak coherence. Also the differences between the average scores of both
different groups are not that big and indicate a weak coherence: 3.62 (active water sport
practitioners) and 3.80 (active winter sports practitioners). The high score of winter sports
practitioners is quite remarkable: unlike the hypothesis, these people (instead of „surfers‟) are
more likely to think that the roots of Brunotti are in surfing. The hypothesis of dependency is
correct; however it‟s the other way around. Figure 17 shows the crosstab of both variables.
Figure 17: BrandHist * BoardSportKind Cross tabulation
BoardsportKind
Water/Aquatic
Totally
BrandHist disagree 55 7 62
Disagree 80 6 96
Neutral 137 37 174
Agree 300 104 404
TOTAL 748 212 960
 H8.2: PurchFreqBru → BrandHist

The presumed dependency between „PurchFreqBru‟ and „BrandHist‟ is correct: people who
buy Brunotti products on a regular basis (at least once in two years), think the roots of
Brunotti are in surfing rather than people who don‟t buy the brand very often or not at all. The
output shows dependency, with α = 0.05 (F = 18.170, p = 0.000). With a reliability of even
99%, it can be said that „PurchFreqBru‟ and „BrandHist‟ are significantly dependent. After
comparing the test statistic with the critical value, H0 can be rejected: (F = 18.170 > +2.415).
The relative high „F-value‟ indicates a strong coherence, something that can be supported by

the differences between the average scores of the 5 different groups: 3.21 (never), 3.50
(once in ≥ 4 years), 3.73 (once in 3 years), 3.85 (once in 2 years) and 3.94 (every year).
Figure 18 shows the correctness of the first part of the hypothesis: based on the
brand elements, more than half of the respondents think the roots of Brunotti are in surfing:
([404 + 224] / 960) = 65.42%. However, based on the strong coherence between
„PurchFreqBru‟ and „BrandHist‟, it is questionable whether the high average score of
„BrandHist‟ (3.66) is due to the influence of brand elements.
Figure 18: BrandHist * PurchFreqBru Cross tabulation
PurchFreqBru
Once in ≥ 4 Once in 2 Every
Never years Once in 3 years years year TOTAL
BrandHist Totally disagree 33 8 2 8 11 62
Disagree 40 17 9 16 14 96
Neutral 62 19 17 32 44 174
Agree 78 48 35 91 152 404
Totally agree 40 21 19 58 86 224
TOTAL 253 113 82 205 307 960
 H9.1: PurchFreqBru → BrandExp

Dependency has been determined between „PurchFreqBru‟ and „BrandHist‟ with α = 0.05 (F
= 56.005, p = 0.000). People who buy Brunotti on a regular basis (at least once in two years),
have more positive feelings towards the brand than people who don‟t buy the brand very often
or not at all. Generally, only satisfied people buy your brand very often.
Because the F-value exceeds the critical value (F = 56.005 > +2.415), H0 is
rejected (F = 21.710 > +2.415). This relationship also shows a relative high „F-value‟,
indicating a strong coherence. The differences between the average scores correspond to this
strong dependency: 2.88 (never), 3.43 (once in ≥ 4 years), 3.63 (once in 3 years), 3.82 (once
in 2 years) and 4.06 (every year). The crosstab is presented in figure 19 (next page).
§9.5.3 Correlation Coefficient

The correlation coefficient is used to examine both the nature and degree of coherence
between two quantitative variables. The value of the correlation coefficient is always between
-1 (perfect negative correlation) and +1 (perfect positive correlation). As the value comes
closer to -1 or +1, the correlation becomes stronger (de Vocht, 2008).

 H9.2: PurchSatisfacLast → BrandExp
In here, there is a positive relationship expected between „PurchSatisfacLast‟ and „BrandExp‟:
people who are satisfied with their last Brunotti purchase, have more positive feelings towards
the brand than those who are not satisfied with their purchases. The output shows there‟s a
positive correlation, that is significant at α = 0.01 (r = 0,367, p = 0,000). After comparing the
test statistic with the critical value, H0 can be rejected: (T = 12.211 > +1.650).
The determination coefficient (r²) of the test is (0.367²) = 0.135. The
determination coefficient is a measure of the strength of the relationship and indicates the
proportion of explained variation of the dependent variable by the independent variable (de
Vocht, 2008). For a strong correlation, „r‟ must have a value of ≥ 0.8 (minimal 64% explained
variance). In this test, the correlation is weak: r² = 0.135.
 H9.3: PurchSatisfacGen → BrandExp

People who are generally satisfied with their Brunotti purchases, have more positive feelings
towards the brand than those who are generally dissatisfied with their purchases. The output
confirms this positive correlation, which is significant at α = 0.01 (r = 0,383, p = 0,000).
Based on the comparison between the test statistic and the critical value, H0 can be rejected:
(T = 11.009 > +1.650). Unlike the strong significant relationship, the determination
coefficient (r²) of the test is (0.367²) = 0.147, indicating a weak correlation.
Figure 19 shows the first part of the hypothesis is correct: more than half of the
respondents have a positive feeling with the brand: ([396 + 180] / 960) = 60.00%. Because
„PurchFreqBru‟ and „BrandExp‟ are strongly correlated, it remains to be seen whether this
high percentage is due to the influence of brand elements. The influence of
„PurchSatisfacLast‟ and „PurchSatisfacGen‟ on „BrandExp‟ is negligible.
Figure 19: BrandExp * PurchFreqBru Cross tabulation
PurchFreqBru
Once in ≥ 4 Once in 2 Every
Never years Once in 3 years years year TOTAL
BrandExp Totally disagree 34 5 1 3 10 53

Disagree 45 10 6 12 11 84
Neutral 104 43 27 44 29 247
Agree 55 41 36 105 159 396
Totally agree 15 14 12 41 98 180
TOTAL 253 113 82 205 307 960

10. Discussion
§10.1 Brand Elements & Management Problem
After performing several statistical tests, this paragraph is focused on the descriptive part of
the „results section‟: the core associations of consumers about Brunotti and the influence of
Brunotti‟s brand elements on the existing management problem.
Dutch board sports practitioners perceive Brunotti as a Surf & Beach brand,
with an obvious linkage to the fashion & sports sector. The high percentages of „Surfing‟
(21.8), „Beach‟ (20.6), „Fashion‟ (15.1) and „Sport‟ (9.3) illustrate this assertion. The
enormous difference between the three most mentioned „summer‟ and „winter associations‟
(47.8% vs. 8.5%) also indicates that Brunotti is far more known as a summer than a winter
sports brand. The only factor that could have affected the results is the order of the response
options.
With regard to the influence of brand elements on the management problem,
the results are clear and leave no room for discussion: the brand logo (92.3%), the slogan
(88.7%) and the corporate colors (76.2%) of Brunotti are all three strongly associated with the
summer/beach. Only the font of Brunotti is largely associated (62.4%) with the
winter/mountains. A logical explanation for the fact that the brand logo is that much „summer-
related‟ (92.3%), could be that 85.3% of all respondents believe that the „Palms‟ (summer
element) are much more evident in the logo than the „Pines‟ (winter element).
Also the general assessment of the four brand elements together corresponds
with the individual brand elements percentages; 77.8% of all respondents think about
„summer & surfing‟, while they are exposed to the trademark properties of Brunotti. This high
percentage is not due to the underrepresentation of „winter sports practitioners‟ (22.1%) in the
questionnaire; only 12.7% of all skiers/snowboarders associate the brand elements of Brunotti
with „winter/mountains‟, while a paltry 7% of all surfers share the same perception.
In conclusion we can say that the brand elements of Brunotti
contribute to a brand that‟s more considered as a summer/surf brand than a
winter/snowboard one. Based on the major differences, the brand elements can
play a very important role to address the management problem.

§10.2 External factors & Non-Product Related Associations
In here, the most important and remarkable results about the influence of external variables on
the non-product related associations are discussed. Furthermore, there is a short overview of
all significant and non-significant relationships.
The statistical tests showed a lot of significant relationships. However, only a
few of them are strong enough to mention. The influence of „Gender‟ on „Gender Image‟
shows a moderate coherence (0.303), whereby the masculine brand appearance of Brunotti
(77.60% of all respondents) is somewhat created by the overrepresentation of men in the
questionnaire: relatively more men than women associate Brunotti with a masculine brand.
Another noteworthy relationship is the significant and strong influence of „PurchSatisfacGen‟
on „IncomeLevel Image‟; people who are satisfied with their Brunotti purchases are more
likely to associate Brunotti with an exclusive brand. Finally, the variables „BrandHist‟ and
„BrandExp‟ are both significantly and strongly correlated with „PurchFreqBru‟; people who
buy Brunotti products on a regular basis (at least once in two years), are more likely to think
the roots of Brunotti are in surfing and have more positive feelings towards the brand. The
first relationship is not that remarkable; the more you buy the brand, the more you know the
brand (due information presented on hangtags, brochures and websites). Also the second one
is logical; consumers only buy products very often if they have positive feelings towards the
brand. Because the strong correlation and the fact that 53.33% of all respondents buy Brunotti
products at least once in two years, it is questionable whether the above average scores of
„BrandHist‟ (3.66) and „BrandExp‟ (3.59) are due to the influence of brand elements. The
high scores of both variables could also be affected by the fact that most respondents are loyal
Brunotti consumers.
Other noteworthy results are the weakly correlated relationships between
„PurchSatisfacGen‟ and „PurchSatisfacLast‟ on „BrandExp‟. It‟s surprisingly that people, who
are generally and recently satisfied with their Brunotti purchases, don‟t have more positive
feelings towards Brunotti than those who are generally and recently dissatisfied with their
Purchases. Furthermore, it‟s remarkable that relative more „winter sports practitioners‟ than
„surfers‟ think the roots of Brunotti are in surfing, while it was expected the other way around.
At last, the relationships between „BoardsportKind‟ and „Sports Image‟, „UsageSit02‟ and
„PurchSit‟ are not significant or almost zero. Therefore, Brunotti isn‟t associated with a
„summer oriented brand‟ due to the fact that a high percentage (77.92%) of all respondents is
an active water sport practitioner.

§10.3 Brand Elements & Non-Product Related Associations
In the questionnaire, all respondents are explicitly asked to purely base their answers on the
brand elements of Brunotti en don‟t think about external factors (e.g. endorsers, brand-users,
price) that could affect their decision and the imagery of a brand. Furthermore, the research
goal has been included to stress the specific interest in the influence of brand elements on
brand imagery. Of course, it‟s possible to blindly assume that all respondents have properly
followed all foregoing instructions. This however would be a bit naïve, as it‟s almost
impossible not to involve your existing knowledge in the decisions you have to make. To
improve the internal validity of the study, some external factors are included and investigated
for possible significant influences. Some of them are significantly and strongly correlated
with non-product related associates, but most do not.
Nevertheless, it remains extremely difficult to draw firm conclusions about the
influence of brand elements on non-product related associations. One explanation might be
that too many external factors could influence the non-product related associations. Another
one is that the influence of brand elements could not be measured statistically, because „brand
elements‟ isn‟t a variable but an „input‟ (almost all questions are „based on‟ brand elements).
Subsequently, the influence of brand elements on the non-product related associations is
measured purely descriptive.
Unlike the somewhat disappointing conclusion in the paragraph above, sensible
things can be said about the core associations of Dutch boardsports practitioners about
Brunotti and the impact of individual brand elements on the management problem. Despite
the fact that the products of Brunotti are focused on both the summer and the winter, the
brand is largely associated with summer oriented associations (61.6%). Of all 2880 mentioned
associations, the percentage of „winter oriented‟ ones do not even amount to 10 (8.5%). The
results of the brand elements are evident too: three of the four brand elements are largely
associated with the summer instead of the winter and therefore contribute to a brand that‟s
more perceived as a summer/surf brand than a winter/snowboard one.
Finally, it‟s hard to make a good comparison with the literature about the role
of brand elements on non-product related associations. In the literature there are no
adversaries about the great influence of brand elements on both brand identity and
associations. To find out more, additional research has to be conducted14.
14
More about additional research can be found in the conclusion.

11. Conclusion & Recommendation
§11.1 Implications
This study revealed how the brand „Brunotti‟ lives in the mind of Dutch board sports
practitioners and tried to explore the effects of brand elements on non-product related
associations.
The literature is clear and unilateral about the influence of brand elements on
brand equity; they are of great importance for creating awareness and unique associations
(Aaker, 1996; Keller 2003; Kotler & Armstrong, 1999; Pike, 2008). Moreover, brand
elements are also strongly related to the process of „leveraging and maintenance of brand
equity‟ (Keller, 2008). Despite the influence of brand elements extends a much wider area,
this study is purely focused on the linkage with brand (non-product related) associations.
Besides strong theoretical support, this study has a more practical motivation as it attempts to
provide valuable information to solve a current management problem15.
Because this research already assumed that brand elements affect brand equity,
the findings have almost no contribution to the relevant literature (e.g. there was no attempt to
prove or disapprove the role of brand elements). Nevertheless, the findings in this study have
potential contribution to the management and marketing of brand elements. The practical
implications for Brunotti relate to a more complete picture of how the brand lives in the minds
of Dutch board sports practitioners. Furthermore, it has been measured that 3 (logo, slogan
and design) of the 4 brand elements contribute to a more „summer associated‟ brand (also
based on the non-product related associations). This is all important information for the
company to address the summer/winter dichotomy. At last, it‟s difficult to indicate the degree
of influence of the brand elements, as too many external factors could affect the imagery of a
brand. This study has therefore failed to adequately answer the research question.
Nevertheless, the research created insight into the perception of Dutch boardsports
practitioners about Brunotti and it‟s accompanying brand elements.
15
The management problem will be further discussed in the „recommendation paragraph‟.

§11.2 Limitations & Future Research
The biggest limitation of the study is the lack of internal validity, so the research question
could not be answered satisfactorily. One the one hand this is due to the presence of many
external factors that could influence the non-product related associations, on the other hand
the impact of „brand elements‟ could not be examined statistically. Even when people lack
sufficient brand knowledge about Brunotti, the opinions of third parties may still have
influenced their decisions.
Another shortcoming relates to the lack of multi-item scales to improve the
consistency and reliability of a ordinal variable. Normally a variable is measured based on a
few items, in here however there was only one question per variable. For this reason, a scale
analysis could not be performed. Furthermore, because the lack of population figures (is the
sample representative for the entire population?) and the nature of the study (focused on one
specific case), the generalization of the research cannot be guaranteed. This research is also
purely focused on the Dutch market, whereas Brunotti is an international brand. Because
associations can vary per country and culture, the influence of brand elements needs to be
examined across the Dutch borders too.
As a result of the limitations, future research should focus on including more
external factors in the questionnaire to enhance the internal validity. Additionally, the brand
elements should be split up to ensure a more detailed research. This way, the influence of the
individual brand elements could be measured statistically, which significantly enhances the
reliability. Furthermore, the findings indicate that Brunotti is highly associated as a
summer/surf brand, which could have affected the results of the „brand element based
questions‟. To gain further insight into this presumption, comparative study should be
conducted (e.g. exactly the same research only not based on the brand elements, and exactly
the same research conducted for different kind of board sports brands). Finally, qualitative
and a more thorough research should be conducted to gain more insights about the specific
role of brand elements on non-product related associations. In here, people can explain their
decisions extensively and because of the more dynamic and personal design, the interviewer
is able to obtain richer insights.

§11.3 Recommendations
Although the design of the brand elements have been carefully considered and are meaningful
too, they are perceived with a unilateral perception and do not cover the entire product
category, attributes and benefits. This deteriorates the brand‟s position in the winters sports
market. Therefore, Brunotti should consider the option of adjusting their brand elements. Of
course, the management is upon to decide whether they implement (and if yes: to which
extent) this advice or not. Changing your elements and your identity isn‟t an easy matter,
since it affects the brand identity, associations, likability, transferability, adaptability and
protectability. Furthermore it involves a lot of practical implications (e.g. costs, acceptance).
Another option would be to not adjust, in this situation however it‟s important to emphasize
and communicate the meaning of the brand elements, even more than is done today.
With regard to option 1, the management should especially consider to adjust
the brand logo, because 92.3% of all respondents associate this element with the
summer/beach. A possible adjustment could be to better emphasize the PINES (winter
element), as 85.3% believe the PALMS (summer element) are much more evident in the logo
than the PINES. Because the design of the logo is also highly related (76.2%) to the summer,
it could also be an option to change the corporate colors into a more wintery appearance. The
precise implementation, can only be decided after extensive market research. Despite 88.7%
associate the slogan with the summer, it shouldn‟t be changed as it corresponds to their
mission to present the Feelin‟ good-factor in all of their products and in the life of people.
Moreover, it‟s a catchy slogan too. The font of the brand name can be left unchanged, since
it‟s the only element that is more associated with the winter (62.4%).
As mentioned before, it should be noted that the influence of brand elements
isn‟t 100% reliable. Therefore additional research has to conducted. Besides brand elements
should facilitate the linkage of brand associations, it should also help to enhance brand
awareness. With changing the brand elements, the management should be aware of the current
brand identity; if the adjustments are too rigorous, this and the entire brand equity could be
lost. To facilitate the decision making, also here it‟s recommended to investigate the current
brand recognition; if it‟s low there is an apparent need to change the elements for two reasons
(identity and associations). Finally, if change is going to happen, it‟s necessary and beneficial
in today‟s social world to actively involve the customer in the decision making process.
Besides interaction and interest, it also ensures that a change brings your brand the right
associations.

12. Literature
 Aaker, D.A. (1996). Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets. California
Management Reviews, 38 (3), 102-120.
 Aaker, D.A. (2002) Building Strong Brands. London, UK.
 Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research,
34 (3), 347-357.
 Aaker, J. L. & Fournier, S. (1995). A Brand as a Character, a Partner and a Person:
Three Perspectives on the Question of Brand Personality. Advances in Consumer
Research, 22, 391-395.
 Auty, S. & Elliot, R. (2001). Being Like or Being Liked: Identity vs. Approval in a
Social Context. Consumer Research, 28, 235-241.
 Baarda, D.B. & de Goede M.P.M. (2006). Basisboek Methoden & Technieken:
Handleiding voor het Opzetten en Uitvoeren van Kwantitatief Onderzoek, 4, 218-244.
 Biel, Alexander (1993). Converting Image into Equity. Brand Equity and Advertising.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 Boer, R. (2004). Brand Design, Het Vormen en Vormgeven van Merken voor een
Optimale Merkidentiteit, derde druk, Pearson Education Benelux.
 Bottomley, P. A., & Doyle, J. R. (2006). The Interactive Effects of Colours and
Products on Perceptions of Brand Logo Appropriateness. Marketing Theory, 6(1), 63-
83.
 Collins, A. M. & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic
Processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407-428.
 Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Dalen van, J., & Leede de, E. (2002). Statistisch Onderzoek met SPSS for Windows,
1, 18-21.
 Day, G. S. (1969). A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand Loyalty. Journal of
Advertising Research, 9(3), 29-35.
 Franzen, G. & Bouwman M. (1999). De Mentale Wereld van Merken, Samsom,
Alphen a/d Rijn.

 Franzen G. & van den Berg M. (2002). Strategisch Management van Merken,
Kluwer, Deventer.
 Getman, P. (2009). Brand Character Strategy Insights and Avoiding the Hot Dog
Strategy. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from http://www.microarts.com/culture/branding-
insights/brand-character-strategy-insights-and.
 Henderson, G. R., Iacobucci, D. & Calder, B.J. (1998). Brand Diagnostics: Mapping
Branding Effects Using Consumer Associative Networks. European Journal of
Operational Research, 111, 306-327.
 Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge.
Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 595-600.
 Keller, K. L. (2001). Building Customer-Based Brand Equity. Marketing
Management, 10(2), 14-19.
 Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, Managing Customer-Based Brand
Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
 Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and
Managing Brand Equity (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
 Kotler, P., and G. Armstrong. (1999). Principles of Marketing. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
 Kotler, P., Armstrong G., Saunders J. & Wong V. (2006). Principles of Marketing (2nd
ed.). Pearson Education Benelux.
 Kris, A.O. (2006). Free Association Method and Process. Revised Edition. London: H.
Karnac Ltd.
 Laing, R.D. (1988). Self and Others. Pelican Books.
 Langer, E. (1999). Self-Esteem vs. Self-Respect. Psychology Today.
 McNeal, J. (1979). Children as consumers: a Review. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 7(4), 346-359.
 Milne (1999). Questionnaires: Some Advantages and Disadvantages. Retrieved
January 20, 2011, from
http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi/cookbook/info_questionnaires/printable.pdf
 Park, C.S. & Srinivasan, V. (1994). A Survey-Based Method for Measuring and
Understanding Brand Equity and it‟s Extendibility, Journal of Marketing Research, 31
(2), 271-288.
 Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

 Peter, J.P. & Olson, J.C. (2001). Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Strategy.
Boston, Ma: McGraw-Hill.
 Pike, S. (2008). Destination Marketing: An Integrated Marketing Communication
Approach. Burlington, MA: Butterworth- Heinemann.
 Plummer, J.T. (2000). How Personality Makes a Difference. Journal of Advertising
Research, 10(6), 79-83.
 Riezebos, R. (2002). Merkenmanagement, Theorie en Toepassing van het
Ontwikkelen, Beheren en Beschermen van Merken en Merkenportfolio‟s, tweede
druk, Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen.
 Ruth, J.A. & Simonin, B.L. (2003). Brought to you by Brand A and Brand B,
Investigating Multiple Sponsors‟ Influence on Consumers‟ Attitudes Toward
Sponsored Events, Journal of Advertising, 32(3), 19-3.
 Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. (2006). Methoden en Technieken van
Onderzoek (3rd ed.). Amsterdam: Pearson Education Benelux.
 Shuttleworth, M. (2008). Survey Research Design. Retrieved January 11, 2011 from
Experiment Resources: http://www.experiment-resources.com/survey-research-
design.html
 Silverman S.N., Sprott, D.E., Pascal V.J. (1999). Relating Consumer-Based Sources of
Brand Equity to Market Outcomes. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 352-358.
 Smit, R. (2003). “Probleemmerken”. Adfocus Marktonderzoek.
 Spaeth, T. (2005). Rebranded and Reborn. Across the Board, 42(3), 18-23.
 Stearns, B. (2004). Yellow Roadway Corporation. Retrieved December 30, 2010 from
Edgaronline: http://sec.edgar-online.com/yrc-worldwide-inc/8-k-current-report-
filing/2004/09/07/section5.aspx
 Trochim, W.M.K. (2006). Internal Validity. Retrieved February 7, 2011 from Social
Research Methods: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/intval.php
 Varley, M. (2008). Do You Really Love Me? Brand Strategy, 26-32.
 Vocht, de (2008). Basishandboek SPSS voor Windows, 1, 130.
 Walker, D. (2002). Building Brand Equity through Advertising. The Advertising
Research Company, 5(2), 1-6.
 Wolf, A (2005). CE Brand Value Varies By Product Category. Retailing Twice.

Appendix 1 – CBBE Pyramid

Appendix 2 – The Structure of Brand Knowledge
Source: Brand Knowledge (Keller, 1993)

Appendix 3 – Relationship Diagram
Sports Image
Age KnowBrandEndors
* *
* *
PurchSit
Age Image
*
UsageSit01
IncomeLevel
BRAND *
Image
ELEMENTS
BoardsportKind
UsageSit02
Gender Image
*
* *
Gender BrandHistory
BrandExp
* +
+ +
PurchSatisfacLast PurchFreqBru
PurchSatisfacGen

Appendix 4 – Sub-dimensions of the CBBE Pyramid
Source: Building Customer-Based Brand Equity: a Blueprint for Creating Strong Brands (Keller, 2001).

Appendix 5 – Multi-Dimensional Construct of Brand
Personality
Source: Brand Personality Multi-Dimensional Construct (Aaker, 1997)

Appendix 6 – Keller’s Evaluation Matrix
Elements Name Logo Character Slogan Jingle Design

Criteria
Memorability Can be Generally Generally Can be Can be Generally
chosen to more useful more useful chosen to chosen to more useful
enhance for brand for brand enhance enhance for brand
brand recall recognition recognition brand recall brand recall recognition
and and and
recognition recognition recognition
Meaningfulness Can reinforce Can reinforce Generally Can convey Can convey Can convey
almost any almost any more useful almost any almost any almost any
type of type of for non- type of type of type of
association, association, product association association association
although although related explicitly explicitly explicitly
sometimes sometimes imagery and
indirectly indirectly brand
personality
Likability Can evoke Can provoke Can generate Can evoke Can evoke Can combine
much verbal visual appeal human much verbal much verbal visual and
imagery qualities imagery imagery verbal appeal
Transferability Can be Excellent Can be Can be Can be Good

somewhat somewhat somewhat somewhat
limited limited limited limited
Adaptability Difficult Can typically Can Can be Can be Can typically

be sometimes be modified modified be
redesigned redesigned redesigned
Protectability Generally Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Can be

good, but closely
with limits copied
Source: Evaluation Matrix (Keller, 2008)

Appendix 7 – Geographical Distribution of Brunotti
Products
CLOTHING FOOTWEAR EYEWEAR BAGS BOARDS

Austria (77) 16 Belgium (6) Netherlands Austria (7) Belgium (1)
(124)
Belgium (31) Netherlands (209) Belarus (1) Czech Republic (1)
Czech Republic (24) Belgium (3) Cyprus (1)
Dutch Antilles (1) Czech Republic (2) Denmark (10)
Estonia (3) Denmark (1) Finland (2)
Finland (27) Finland (1) France (1)
Germany (356) Germany (218) Germany (1)
Greece (21) Greece (1) Greece (1)
Luxembourg (3) Hungary (2) Hungary (1)
Netherlands (238) Lithuania (1) Ireland (1)
Norway (5) Netherlands (131) Italy (1)
Poland (9) Norway (1) Lithuania (1)
Romania (7) Poland (1) Netherlands (15)
Russia (1) Portugal (1) Singapore (1)
Slovakia (14) Romania (2) Romania (1)
Slovenia (17) Russia (26) Russia (1)
Spain (4) Switzerland (12) Spain (1)
Switzerland (24) Turkey (1) Sweden (1)
Ukraine (3) Ukraine (1) UK (8)
Source: Brunotti Corporate Website (Juni, 2011)
16
In parentheses are the amount of dealer locations in the country.

Appendix 8 – Geographical Data about Brunotti
Facebook Fans
COUNTRY TOWN/CITY LANGUAGE

521 Germany 99 Ljubljana 658 German
436 Netherlands 92 Utrecht 385 Dutch
192 Italy 88 Vienna 346 English (US)
154 Slovenia 85 Amersfoort 166 Italian
107 Austria 85 Amsterdam 162 English (UK)
96 Spain 77 Rome 131 Slovenian
82 Greece 76 Madrid 97 French (France)
70 France 64 Munich 67 Spanish
66 Bulgaria 57 The Hague 51 Greek
66 Finland 55 Athens 50 Finnish
63 Slovakia 55 Sofia 48 Slovak
61 Belgium 54 Bratislava 47 Bulgarian
60 United Kingdom 49 Maribor 40 Czech
33 United States 47 Dusseldorf 37 Spanish (Spain)
33 Switzerland 45 Hamburg 29 Polish
32 Czech Republic 36 Frankfurt 21 Lithuanian
31 Poland 34 Groningen 21 Russian
27 Lithuania 32 Stuttgart 19 Hungarian
23 Romania 30 Ivrea 19 Turkish
Source: Facebook Insights (June, 2011). Total Brunotti Facebook Fans: 2550.

Appendix 9 – Questionnaire
Brunotti: Brand Elements & Image

This questionnaire is about boardsports brand Brunotti. Boardsports companies offer products
for sports like surfing, snowboarding, skiing, wakeboarding etc.
The term „brand elements‟ is frequently mentioned in this questionnaire. Brand elements
identify and distinguish a brand. Examples of brand elements are: the name of a brand, logo,
slogan etc. The objective of this research is to gain insight into the influence of brand
elements on people‟s associations about Brunotti. Therefore, it‟s extremely important to
purely base your answers (except for question 6) on the brand elements of Brunotti and don‟t
think about other factors (e.g. product category, brand-user, price policy) that could affect
your decision.
The questionnaire is specifically designed for boardsports practitioners, who live in the
Netherlands. If you do not meet these conditions, please don‟t fill out this questionnaire.
Good luck and thanks a lot!
1.
On average, how often do you buy products (e.g. clothing, shoes, boards etc.) of
boardsports brands?
Never
Once in 4 or more years
Once in three years
Once in two years
Each year

2.
On average, how often do you buy products of Brunotti?
Never
Once in 4 or more years
Once in three years
Once in two years
Each year
3.
Are you a practitioner of boardsports?
Yes
No
4.
What kind of boardsports do you practice? (In case you practice more than one,
choose the sport you are doing most actively)
Kitesurfing
Windsurfing
Surfing
Snowboarding
Skiing
Other, namely:

5.
Please give your opinion
Strongly
Strongly agree N.V.T.
disagree
I am satisfied with my last Brunotti
purchase (in terms of quality, fit,
service etc.)
My general opinion about my Brunotti

purchases is good
6.
Please choose the first three things of the undermentioned list when you think of
Brunotti.
Fashion
Surfing
Beach
Palms
Surfboards
Snowboarding
Sport
Amersfoort
Snow
Agenda
Pines
Jinne Sietsma
Other, namely:

7.
The font of the Brunotti trademark (picture above) makes me think more about:
Summer & Beach

Winter & Mountains
8.
The official logo of Brunotti (picture above) makes me think more about:
Summer & Beach

Winter & Mountains
9.
The official logo of Brunotti has a lot of meaningful elements. Do you know the
meaning behind the logo of Brunotti?
No
Yes, namely:

10.
The corporate colours of Brunotti (black and orange) make me think more about:
Summer & Beach

Winter & Mountains
11.
The slogan of Brunotti is: Feelin’ Good Has a Name. This slogan makes me think
more about:
Summer & Beach

Winter & Mountains
The logo of Brunotti stands for Palms & Pines. The PALMS symbolize the summer, waves,
and the beach, while the PINES represent the winter, mountains and snow. Herewith, all
aspects of the boardsports lifestyle are represented in the official Brunotti logo.

12.
Now I’m aware of the meaning behind the Brunotti logo, it makes me think more
about:
Summer & Beach

Winter & Mountains
13.
Which of the two elements do you think is more obvious in the Palms & Pines
logo?
Palms
Pines
No Difference
This part is about non-product related associations. Non-product related associations refer to
the extrinsic properties of the product (e.g. user profile, purchase & usage situation).
14.
Evaluate the following statements:
Strongly disagree Strongly agree
The brand elements of Brunotti make me

think more about summer & surfing than
winter & snowboarding.
Based on the brand elements, I will rather

use Brunotti products as sports fashion than
casual fashion.

Based on the brand elements, I will rather
use Brunotti products in the summer than in
the winter.
Based on the brand elements, I expect

Brunotti is sold in a winter store rather than
a surf & beach shop.
Based on the brand elements, I think the

roots of Brunotti are in surfing.
The brand elements of Brunotti contribute

for having positive feelings with the brand.
15.
Do you know what type of people (endorsers) Brunotti uses for it’s marketing
communications?
No
Yes, namely:
16.
Based on the brand elements, what type of brand do you see in front of you?
Surf Brand
Winter Sports Brand
General Sports Brand
17.
In terms of gender, the brand elements of Brunotti make me think more about a:
Masculine Brand
Feminine Brand

18.
In terms of income level, the brand elements make me think about a:
Exclusive Brand
Average Brand
Cheap Brand
19.
In terms of age, the brand elements make me think of a person in this age group:
19 years or younger
20-29
30-39
40-49
50 years or older
20.
What is your gender?
Male
Female
21.
What is your age?
19 or younger
20-29
30-39
40-49
50 years or older

22.
In which country do you live?
The Netherlands
Other, namely:
23.
What is your highest level of education?
Primary school
VMBO
HAVO
VWO
MBO
HBO
University
Other, namely:
24.
Leave your e-mail address here to win big prices!
(Your e-mail address will be kept confidential and won't be used for commercial
purposes).
Thanks a lot for your participation!

Your input is very valuable for Brunotti and greatly appreciated!
Best Regards,
Merlijn Schroten
Brunotti Europe B.V.

Appendix 10 – General Characteristics of the
Respondents
§10.1 Gender Characteristics
GENDER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Man 721 75.1 75.1 75.1
Woman 239 24.9 24.9 100.0

Total 960 100.0 100.0

§10.2 Age Characteristics
AGE
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 19 years or younger 195 20.3 20.3 20.3
20-29 years 396 41.3 41.3 61.6

30-39 years 267 27.8 27.8 89.4
40-49 years 86 9.0 9.0 98.3
50-59 years 15 1.6 1.6 99.9
60 years or older 1 0.1 0.1 100.0
Total 960 100.0 100.0

§10.3 Education Characteristics
EDUCATION
Cumulative
Valid Primary school 9 0.9 0.9 0.9
VMBO 41 4.3 4.3 5.2

HAVO 66 6.9 6.9 12.1
VWO 85 8.9 8.9 20.9
MBO 173 18.0 18.0 39.0
HBO 399 41.6 41.6 80.5
University 183 19.1 19.1 99.6
Other 4 0.4 0.4 100.0
Total 960 100.0 100.0

§10.4 Boardsports Type Characteristics
BOARDSPORTKIND
Cumulative
Valid Kitesurfing 297 30.9 30.9 30.9
Windsurfing 119 12.4 12.4 43.3

Surfing 316 36.1 36.1 76.3
Snowboarding 138 15.6 15.6 90.6
Skiing 74 8.2 8.2 98.3
Other 16 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 960 100.0 100.0

Appendix 11 – Core Associations about Brunotti
§11.1 Bar Chart of Core Associations about Brunotti
§11.2 Pie Chart of Core Associations about Brunotti
Source: Thesistools 2011 (Percentages are rounded to whole numbers).

Appendix 12 – Management Problem Related to
Brand Elements
§12.1 Winter-Summer Dichotomy Based on BRAND NAME

“The font of the brand name Brunotti make me think more about”:
§12.2 Winter-Summer Dichotomy Based on BRAND LOGO

“The official logo of Brunotti make me think more about”:

§12.3 Winter-Summer Dichotomy Based on BRAND DESIGN
“The corporate colors of Brunotti make me think more about”:
§12.4 Winter-Summer Dichotomy Based on BRAND SLOGAN

“The brand slogan „Feelin‟ Good Has a Name‟ of Brunotti make me think more about”:

Appendix 13 – Variable Definitions
QUALITATIVE VARIABLES
§13.1 Nominal Variables
I. BRDSPORTPRAC – Are you a practitioner of boardsports?

1 – Yes
2 – No
II. BRDSPORTKIND – What kind of boardsports do you practice?

1 – Kitesurfing
2 – Windsurfing
3 – Surfing
4 – Snowboarding
5 – Skiing
6 – Other, namely:
III. KNOWBRANDENDORS – Do you know what type of people Brunotti uses for
it’s marketing communications?
1 – No
2 – Yes, namely:
IV. SPORTS IMAGE – Based on the brand elements, what type of brand do you see
in front of you?
1 – Surf Brand
2 – Winter Sports Brand
3 – General Sports Brand

V. GENDER IMAGE – In terms of gender, the brand elements of Brunotti make
me think more about a:
1 – Masculine Brand
2 – Feminine Brand
VI. GENDER – What is your gender?

1 – Male
2 – Female
VII. RESIDENCE – In which country do you live?

1 – The Netherlands
2 – Other, namely:
§13.2 Ordinal Variables
I. PURCHFREQGEN – On average, how often do you buy products (e.g. clothing,

shoes, boards etc.) of boardsports brands?
1. Never
2. Once in 4 or more years
3. Once in three years
4. Once in two years
5. Every year
II. PURCHFREQBRU – On average, how often do you buy products of Brunotti?

1. Never
2. Once in 4 or more years
3. Once in three years
4. Once in two years
5. Every year
III. INCOMELEVEL IMAGE – Based on the brand elements, Brunotti reminds me

of a:
1. Exclusive Brand
2. Average Brand
3. Cheap Brand

IV. AGE IMAGE – In terms of age, the brand elements of Brunotti make me think of
a person in this age group:
1. 19 years or younger
2. 20-29
3. 30-39
4. 40-49
5. 50 years or older
V. AGE– What is your age?

1. 19 years or younger
2. 20-29
3. 30-39
4. 40-49
5. 50 years or older
VI. EDUCATION – What is your highest level of education?

1. Primary School
2. VMBO
3. HAVO
4. VWO
5. MBO
6. HBO
7. University
8. Other, namely:
QUANTITATIVE VARIABLES
§13.3 Interval Variables (All outcomes vary from 1 to 5)

1. Totally disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neutral
4. Agree
5. Totally agree

I. PURCHSATLAST - I am satisfied with my last Brunotti purchase (in terms of
quality, fit, service etc.)
II. PURCHSATGEN – My general opinion about Brunotti purchases is good.
III. USGSIT01 – Based on the brand elements of Brunotti, I will rather use/wear
Brunotti products as sports fashion than casual fashion.
IV. USGSIT02 - Based on the brand elements of Brunotti, I will rather use/wear
Brunotti products in the summer than in the winter.
V. PURCHSIT – Based on the brand elements, I expect that Brunotti is sold in a

winter store rather than a surf & beach shop.
VI. BRANDHIST – Based on the brand elements, I think the roots of Brunotti are in
surfing.
VII. BRANDEXP – The brand elements contribute for having positive feelings with the
brand.

Appendix 14 – Procedure Crosstab
Gender → Gender Image
1. Formulating null- and alternative hypothesis
H0: Gender and Gender Image are independent

H1: Gender and Gender Image are dependent
2. Choice of the test statistic
OE
r c 2
YEi
1j
1
ij ij
ij
3. Determining distribution of test statistic

Y ~ X2(r-1)(c-1) = χ 2(1)
4. Intuitive rejection area

Y >> 0
5. Determining level of significance

α = 0.05
6. Looking up critical value

χ 21,0.05= 3.841
7. Comparison between observed value of test statistic with critical value

Yobs = K = 86.588 > 3.841 = χ 21,0.05
H0 is rejected, based on significance level of α = 0.05.

Conclusion: „Gender‟ and „Gender Image‟ are significantly correlated (dependency).

Appendix 15 – Procedure Anova
PurchSatisfacGen → IncomeLevel Image
H0: μ1 = μ2 = ... = μa
H1: Not all μi are equal
MSB
F
MSW
F~F(a1
,na)= F(2, 704)

F >> 1

α = 0.05

F2,704,0.05 = 3.035

Fobs = (1.461 / 0.158) = 9.238 > 3.035
H0 is rejected, based on a significance level of α = 0.05.

Conclusion: means are not equal; PurchSatisfacGen and IncomeLevel Image are significantly
correlated (independency).

Appendix 16 – Procedure Correlation Coefficient
PurchSatisfacLast→ BrandExp
H0: ρPurchSatisfacLast, BrandExp ≤ 0

H1: ρPurchSatisfacLast, BrandExp > 0
T = (r) / √(1- r²)/(n-2)
T ~ t(n-2) = t (705)

r >> 0, T >> 0

α = 0.05

T705,0.05 = +1.650

Tobs = (0.367) / √(1-0.367²)/(707-2) = 10.476 > 1.650
H0 is rejected, based on a significance level of α = 0.05.

Conclusion: „PurchSatisfacLast‟ and „BrandExp‟ are significantly correlated (dependency).

Appendix 17 – SPSS Output of Statistical Techniques
§17.1 Crosstab
 GENDER → GENDER IMAGE
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-

Value df sided) sided) sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 88,262a 1 ,000
Continuity Correctionb 86,588 1 ,000
Likelihood Ratio 80,440 1 ,000
Fisher's Exact Test ,000 ,000
Linear-by-Linear Association 88,170 1 ,000
N of Valid Cases 960
a. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 53,53.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi ,303 ,000
Cramer's V ,303 ,000
Contingency Coefficient ,290 ,000


 KNOWBRANDENDORS → AGE IMAGE
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-

Value df sided) sided) sided)

Continuity Correctionb 3,562 1 ,059
Fisher's Exact Test ,055 ,027
Linear-by-Linear 3,997 1 ,046
Association
a. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 31,87.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi -,065 ,045
 AGE → AGE IMAGE
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Linear-by-Linear Association 38,895 1 ,000
a. 1 cells (10,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1,72.

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.

 BOARDSPORTKIND → SPORTS IMAGE
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)

Linear-by-Linear ,081 1 ,775
Association
a. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
18,99.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.


§17.2 Anova
 PURCHSATISFACGEN → INCOMELEVEL IMAGE
ANOVA
IncomeLevImage
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 5,843 4 1,461 9,238 ,000

Within Groups 111,006 702 ,158
Total 116,849 706
 BOARDSPORTKIND → PURCHSIT
ANOVA
PurchSit
Between Groups 2,808 1 2,808 2,098 ,148

Within Groups 1282,182 958 1,338
Total 1284,991 959
 BOARDSPORTKIND → USAGESIT02
ANOVA
UsageSit02
Between Groups 1,679 1 1,679 1,846 ,175

Total 873,249 959

 AGE → USAGESIT01
ANOVA
UsageSit01
Between Groups 10,532 4 2,633 1,964 ,098

Within Groups 1280,417 955 1,341
Total 1290,949 959
 BOARDSPORTKIND → BRANDHIST
ANOVA
BrandHist
Between Groups 5,607 1 5,607 4,395 ,036

Within Groups 1222,326 958 1,276
Total 1227,933 959
 PURCHFREQBRU → BRANDHIST
ANOVA
BrandHist
Between Groups 86,842 4 21,710 18,170 ,000

Within Groups 1141,091 955 1,195
Total 1227,933 959
 PURCHFREQBRU → BRANDEXP
ANOVA
BrandExp
Between Groups 204,881 4 51,220 56,005 ,000

Total 1078,296 959

§17.3 Correlation Coefficient
 PURCHSATISFACLAST → BRANDEXP
Correlations
PurchaseSatisfacL
ast BrandExp
PurchaseSatisfacLast Pearson Correlation 1 ,367**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 707 707
BrandExp Pearson Correlation ,367** 1
N 707 960
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
 PURCHSATISFACGEN → BRANDEXP
Correlations
PurchaseSatisfac
BrandExp Gen
BrandExp Pearson Correlation 1 ,383**
N 960 707
PurchaseSatisfacGen Pearson Correlation ,383** 1
N 707 707
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Schroten.M. MSC

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Schroten.M. MSC

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Brand Elements & Brand Imagery

“The Power of Brand Visualization”

“To what extent do brand elements affect the non-product

Name: Merlijn Schroten

1. Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... 3

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 3

Appendix 1 – CBBE Pyramid ...................................................................................................... 77

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 4

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 5

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 6

§2.1 Brunotti – Brand & Logo

§2.2 Mission & Vision

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 7

§2.3 Brand History

The story of Brunotti goes back to 1979. In Scheveningen, 23

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 8

§2.4.1 Mainline Target Group

§2.4.2 RDP Target Group

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 9

§2.5.2 Brunotti Eyewear

§2.5.3 Brunotti Footwear

§2.5.4 Brunotti Stationary

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 10

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 11

Keywords: Brunotti, CBBE Pyramid, Brand Imagery, Brand Elements, Quantitative

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 12

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 13

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 14

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 15

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 16

§6.1 Management Problem

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 17

The research question is already mentioned before, namely:

§6.3 Sub Questions

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 18

Below is the significance of the nature of the relationships:

* = There is a relationship between two qualitative variables or between a

The definition of all the variables is presented in appendix 13.

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 19

 PURCHASE & USAGE SITUATION

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 20

 HISTORY, HERITAGE & EXPERIENCES

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 21

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 22

§7.1 Consumers, Consumer Behaviour & Branding

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 23

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 24

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 25

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 26

Figure 1: The Associative Network Model

Source: Brand Cartography Group, 2010

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 27

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 28

Figure 2: Brand Value of Top 5 Brands Ranked By Product Category

§7.2.2 Brand Meaning – Second Layer of the CBBE Pyramid

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 29

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 30

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 31

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 32

§7.2.3 Brand Attitudes – Third Layer of the CBBE Pyramid

Master Thesis 2010/2011, Merlijn Schroten Page 33

§7.2.4 Brand Resonance – Fourth and Upper Layer of the CBBE