Question Stability in Brand Image Measurement: Comparing Alternative Answer Formats and Accounting for Heterogeneity in Descriptive Models

Abstract

This article originally published as Dolnicar, S and Grun, B, Question stability in brand image measurement: Comparing alternative answer formats and accounting for heterogeneity in descriptive models, Australasian Marketing Journal, 15(2), 2007, 26-41. Question stability in brand image measurement -Comparing alternative answer formats and accounting for heterogeneity in descriptive models. AbstractHigh quality image data on how consumers perceive brands is essential to make good brand management decisions. Prior studies reveal that brand images are not very reliable, as they are typically measured in industry, which might be due to the answer format typically used (Rungie et al., 2005). The practical implication is that brand image data -as currently collected in consumer surveys -is not a valid source of market information. We challenge this implication. Using three measures of stability we test whether the binary answer format produces image data less reliable than alternative formats. We investigate whether the aggregate descriptive model of brand image stability proposed by Rungie et al. can be improved by accounting for heterogeneity. Results indicate that, compared to alternative formats, binary answer formats lead to equal stability levels, and most brand-attribute associations are stable. Unstable associations typically fail to describe adequately the brands under study. Practical implications include that binary brand-attribute associations can be used safely to measure brand images. Also, practitioners can get guidance about required brand management measures by discriminating between stable and unstable brand-attribute associations. A model that helps managers classify brand-attribute associations into stable or unstable is proposed in the article. McDonalds is expensive. This is not plausible given that consumer heterogeneity is widely acknowledged and target markets frequently form the basis of most brand managers marketing activities.In this paper we investigate the extent to which answer formats used in brand image studies affect the stability of brand-attribute associations and we propose a model which accounts for consumer heterogeneity.The results are of major importance for managers who rely on empirical brand image data.The study demonstrates (1) that brand images are more stable than previously reported and that brand image data therefore represents a valid basis for the development of marketing activities, (2) that all answer formats lead to equally stability levels, (3) that heterogeneity exists in brand-attribute associations, thus making it possible for managers to design customized strategies for different attributes, and (4) that the reliability of brand image data depends strongly on how the brand image survey is designed. Most importantly, brand images should be measured among consumers for whom the product category is meaningful. 4 Question stability in brand image measurementComparing alternative answer formats and accounting for heterogeneity in descriptive models AbstractHig...

Validly Measuring Destination Image in Survey Studies

“…More specifically, the performance of six different methods of measuring destination image which can be used in survey studies is compared using three key criteria of data quality: concurrent validity, survey completion time, and stability (or test-retest reliability). Prior work only investigated stability in the examination of a range of different answer formats (Dolnicar & Grün, 2007). Dolnicar, Grün and Leisch (2011) used similar criteria but only compared two different answer formats.…”

The Balance Between the Transmitted and the Perceived Image of Luxury Fragrance Brands

“…While some authors have defended the use of the former (Gardner & Levy, 1955;Durgee & Stuart, 1987;Danes, Hess, Story, & Vorst, 2012), others have opted for the latter, and the majority of authors have suggested the use of mixed techniques for image studies, combining qualitative and quantitative tools during the different study phases (Churchill, 1979;Zaichkowsky, 1985;Sanz de la Tajada, 1994;Low & Lamb, 2000;Del Rio, Vazquez, & Iglesias, 2001;Martinez & De Chernatony, 2004;Dolnicar & Grün, 2007;Koubaa, 2008;Park, 2009;Huang, 2010); (2) Although there are scales that allow for the measurement of partial dimensions of brand image, there is yet to be an agreement on a standard set of attributes; that is, items to be included in a scale for measuring the overall image of any type of brand, regardless of the specific brand product category; (3) Dobni and Zinkhan (1990) summed up the process that is typically followed when studying brand image using combined qualitative and quantitative instruments. Once again, the lack of agreement as to a specific technique and measurement scale is evident.…”

‘Pick Any’ Measures Contaminate Brand Image Studies

“…Two studies have hypothesized possible effects of answer formats on results derived from brand image studies: Dolnicar, Grün and Leisch (2011) compared a forced-choice binary format with a multi-category format concluding that results from the brand image study using the binary format were the same in terms of managerial interpretation and were equally reliable, but saved respondents' time in completing the questionnaire and were perceived by respondents as simpler, thus representing a valid and user-friendly measure for brand image measurement. Dolnicar and Grün (2007) used only the criterion of stability to compare answer formats for brand image measurement and concluded that the forced-choice binary measure produced the most stable answers.…”