tony hudson - dissertation
TRANSCRIPT
‘To examine consumer’s perception of Nike with regards to symbolism and functionality’
Tony Hudson
BA (Hons) Marketing & Advertising
Level 6 Business Research & Project: Project
Teesside University Business School
May 2015
Teesside University
Teesside University Business School
1
Undergraduate Studies
Level 6 Business Research & Project
Project Certification
1. I confirm that the work in this Project is original and has been carried out by me as part of my programme of study.
2. I confirm that all secondary material has been properly acknowledged by me and referenced in this work.
Signed:............................................................
Name:..........Tony Hudson......................
Date:.................9th May 2015......................
Course/Programme of Study:
......................................Marketing & Advertising..................................
2
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine consumer’s perception of Nike
with regards to symbolism and functionality.
Design/methodology – Secondary research was carried out through a literature
review, which was used to identify key theories of the subject topic, the findings of
the literature review guided the information required for primary research. Primary
research was conducted through a questionnaire, aimed at both male and female
aged 18+ to gain a further understanding of consumer’s perception of Nike.
Findings – The findings of the research show that a significant number of
consumers perceive Nike as both a symbolic and functional brand and more
consumers purchase Nike for their symbolic meaning rather than their functional
attributes. The research also suggests that wearing Nike sportswear in a non-
sporting environment has become more socially acceptable.
Research Limitations/Implications - Limitations of this project are that Nike is a
worldwide brand and this research study was distributed to a limited number of
participants which shows that results may not be generalised worldwide. In future
studies a longitudinal research project could take place to examine if or how
perceptions of Nike change over time.
3
Originality/value - This study will be useful to Nike, other sporting brands and could
have an impact on the future implications of companies who represent a multi-
functional approach and companies who are thinking of adapting and entering a new
market in the clothing sector.
4
..................................................................................................................................... 1
‘To examine consumer’s perception of Nike with regards to symbolism and functionality’ .............. 1
Tony Hudson .................................................................................................................................. 1
BA (Hons) Marketing & Advertising ............................................................................................... 1
May 2015 ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ...................................................................................................................................... 7
1.2) Research Objectives ................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................ 9
2.1) Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2) Branding ......................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.3) Brand Identity ......................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.3) Brand Personality ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.4) Brand and Consumer perception ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
2.5) Self-concept ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.6) The congruence between the self and brand personality ......................................................................................................................................................... 14
2.7) Functional and Symbolic branding ......................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.8) Nike ......................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.2) Primary research ......................................................................................................................................................... 20
3.3) Quantitative research ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
3.4) Sampling ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.5) Data analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 23
5
3.6) Piloting and testing research ..................................................................................................................................................... 24
3.7) Project Management and Control ..................................................................................................................................................... 25
Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings .................................................................................................................................... 27
Chapter 5: Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 6: Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 40
Chapter 7: Reflection .................................................................................................................................... 42
Appendices ................................................................................................................ 43
Appendix B
Gantt Chart ......................................................................................................................................................... 50
6
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
This project will look into consumers’ perception of brands and whether there is a
clear difference between fashion and sports brands. This project is aimed at both
sports and fashion brand consumers and they will be included throughout the study
through the use of a questionnaire. A history of Nike, the chosen brand of focus will
be included, looking into Nikes personality, its functions, brand identity and
consumer’s perception of what the brand stands for.
Nike, Inc. is the world’s leading innovator in athletic footwear, apparel, equipment
and accessories. Their mission is to ‘Bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete
in the world’ (Nike, 2013). Proving Nike is a sport’s orientated brand at heart,
however it can be argued that Nike is a multi-functional brand, targeting the fashion
conscious as well as sport orientated customers. This is reinforced through Nikes
drive for diversity, ‘Diversity and Inclusion is fundamental to Nikes performance. It’s
what makes us better. It’s what makes us smarter. It helps our business grow and
helps us connect with consumers.’ (Warren, 2013), through the use of diversity Nike
inspire new ideas and encourage connections between unlikely players, this could
have been a key factor to expanding their market to the fashion sector. It is important
for Nike as a brand to evaluate consumer’s perception to ensure they are targeting
the audience appropriately whilst maintaining their brand identity, as research could
provide reason to suggest consumers perceive a brand differently to the way in
which it was intended.
Consumer’s attitudes towards multi-functional brands and whether they believe it is
beneficial for a brand to have both a symbolic and functional representation will also
be taken into consideration. With the fashion and sports markets becoming more
integrated, ‘sportswear has grown from an athlete’s-only niche market to become
part of mainstream fashion’ (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2006) a main focus is to identify
whether the gap between fashion and functional brands is becoming increasingly
prevalent over time. This project will be useful for those who wish to establish the
difference between a functional and symbolic brand. Having this information
available can help them in future purchases with their decision making process.
The results and feedback from this study could have an impact on the future
implications of companies who represent a multi-functional approach and companies
who are thinking of adapting and entering a new market. The project can determine
whether it is beneficial or a risk to possess both sports and fashion characteristics.
1.1) Research Aim
To examine consumers perception of Nike with regards to symbolism and
functionality.
1.2) Research Objectives
1. To define branding giving particular focus on brand identity and brand personality.
2. To define consumer perception and examine whether Consumers' perception changes.
3. To understand the self-concept theory making specific considerations to the congruence between the self–concept and brand personality.
4. To identify whether there is a greater importance between functionality and symbolism with regards to brands.
5. To explore consumers perception of Nike and discuss gender differences
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1) Introduction
The overall aim of this literature review is to evaluate the perceived image of
functional and symbolic brands. However to fully understand the basis of sports
brands and fashion brands, it is imperative to recognise the differentiating consumer
behaviour depending on the brand. Engal, Blackwell & Miniard (1995) define
consumer behaviour as “those activities directly involved in obtaining, consuming
and disposing of products and services, including the decision processes that
precede and follow these actions.” (Engal, Blackwell & Miniard, 1995, p. 4) The
different consumer behaviour theories will be discussed further throughout this
literature review with particular interest in the self-concept, brand personality, brand
identity and perception. All these theories are marketing based theories, Gamble and
Gilmore (2011) construct the most recent definition of marketing as ‘a societal
process by which individuals and groups obtain what they need and want through
creating, offering, and freely exchanging products and services of value with others’.
This literature review will follow the objectives of this research and will help towards
the aim of the study.
2.2) Branding
The American Marketing Association (2006) defined a brand as a "Name, term,
design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller's good or service as
distinct from those of other sellers.” Keller (1993) builds on this definition and finds
that a brand provides various benefits to customers including functional, experiential
and symbolic. Kapferer (2003) continues that a brand is a voice that consumers
should hear because brands survive in the market because of communication.
2.3) Brand Identity
According to de Chernatony (2001) the conception of brand identity offers a
possibility to position a brand better and encourages strategic approach while
managing it. Aaker (2003) asserts that brand identity is a set of brand associations
which need to be developed and retained for a brand strategy. Kapferer (2003)
characterised the composition of brand identity by creating the prism of brand
identity model. Kapferers’ prism of brand identity is summarised by Janonis et al.
(2007) who describe the unit of brand identity as a live system of elements,
possessing internal and external sides and determining possible limits for brand
development and variation. Park et al. (1986) claims that brand success in the
market depends on the choice of brand identity, the usage of identity developing
image, and the guarantee that image adequately transfers brand identity, chosen by
a company, differentiating it from competitors and responding to a desired consumer
equity. Kapferer (2003) states that brand image is the most efficient way of
communication with consumers, revealing the significance of brand identity. A
brands identity is reflected by the personality it projects to the audience.
2.3) Brand Personality
Harris and DeChernatony (2001) propose that brand personality was one component
of a brands identity. Aaker (1997) define brand personality as the set of human
characteristics associated with a brand. Aaker (1997) asserts that consumers find it
natural to imbue brands with personality characteristics, such as 'honest', 'cheerful',
'charming' or 'tough'. Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) criticised Aaker’s (1997) definition
as a loose definition and they defined, “brand personality is the set of human
personality traits that are both applicable and relevant for brands”. Sung and
Tinkham (2005) argue that brand personality is a hypothetical construct which is
developed based on a consumer’s perception. Batra et al. (1993) suggest that a
brand's personality is created over time by the entire marketing mix of the brand - its
price, retail store locations, product formulation, product form, packaging details,
symbols used in all phases of brand communication, sales promotions and media
advertising.
Fournier (1998) asserts that in order to understand loyalty issues, it is vital to also
consider the relationships between consumers and their brands. Following this,
Aaker (1996) and Blackston (1993) further suggest that Brand personality could be
used as a basis of establishing relationships and even friendships between brands
and human beings through creation of likings and feelings toward a brand. Biel
(1993) argues that brand personality is an enduring quality, resisting change which is
reinforced by Aaker’s (1996) idea that Brand personality serves as a sustainable
competitive advantage.
Malhotra (1981) and Sirgy (1982) explain that brand personality can be used to
convey the ideal self or different versions of the self, as well as, a consumer’s
perceptions and evaluations of the brand. For example, brand personality can be
applied to an individual’s own personality. Malhotra (1981) and Sirgy (1982) suggest
consumers prefer certain brands when the brand personality parallels the
consumer’s own personality or the personality they hope to achieve. Further linking
to the self-concept, Aaker (1997) found that a number of well-known brands tended
to be strongly associated with one particular trait. Therefore these brands will attract
consumers who possess the same personality traits. As Malhotra (1981) and Sirgy
(1982) proposed a relationship between brand personality and consumers’
perceptions of a brand, a deeper insight on consumers’ perception will be taken into
account.
2.4) Brand and Consumer perception
Bokeno (2011) highlights that most people think about perception as a subtle
psychological process largely below our cognitive radar. Adapting from this Adock et
al. (2001, p. 86) Defines perception as “the process by which information is selected,
organised and interpreted to produce messages and meanings.”
Keller and Aaker (1992) establish that consumer perceptions of a brand are
influenced by their beliefs about the corporation that produces it. Following this,
Oliver and Wallpach (2009) assume that brands mean different things to different
consumers. While brand management may aim to communicate a specific and
consistent image to the market, consumers may develop different perceptions of the
brand depending on their relationship with the brand. Erdem (1998) develop on the
consumer brand relationship stating, ‘as consumers experience products, their
perceptions of product quality may change. Consumers learn about different brands
from their experiences with the brands.’ Oliver and Wallpach (2009) concur with
Erdem (1998) in believing Consumers' perceptions of quality change over time as a
result of added information, increased competition in a product category, and
changing expectations. The self-concept will be introduced to develop on Oliver and
Wallpach’s (2009) assumption that brands mean different things to different
consumers.
2.5) Self-concept
James (1890) is commonly referred to as the founding father of self-concept theory
and proposes that one’s self-concept can be conceptualised as “a man’s self is a
sum of all that he can call his, not only his body and psychic powers, but his clothes
and his house.” (James 1890, p. 291) This implies that someone’s view of themself
extends beyond his or her personal being and includes possessions and other
external elements, as has been supported by Belk (1988). Similarly Rosenberg
(1979) considers self-image as being the total sum of thoughts and feelings through
which an individual can describe him as an object. Belk 1988 and Grubb and
Grathwohl 1967 add that an individual’s self-concept is extremely valued, and that
one will undertake considerable effort in maintaining and strengthening one’s self-
concept.
Research by Fournier (1998) has proven that brand relationships can influence the
self-concept and vice versa, with Fournier (1998) revealing evidence that consumers
are prone to engage in consumer-brand relationships with brands that they feel most
closely resemble their own self-concepts. Further research Grubb and Grathwohl
(1967) found that consumers utilize particular brands in order to strengthen their own
self-concept, accordingly reinforcing the ideas by Belk (1988) and Grubb and
Grathwohl (1967) that consumers will seek to sustain and improve their own self-
concept. Complementing this it is commonly argued by Sirgy (1982) that the brands,
which are symbolised as similar to self-concept, maintain or enhance the self-
concept. Advancing on this Belk (1988); and Grubb and Grathwohl (1967) explore
the impact of the self-concept on brands to which they are most loyal, from this Ball
and Tasaki (1992); and Grubb and Grathwohl (1967) found that consumers tend to
be most loyal towards those brands which most closely mirror aspects of their own
self-concepts. Approving this, Heath and Scott (1998) argue that for some, if the
brand related information is inconsistent with the customers’ self-concept, then it is
unlikely to gain customers’ attention, acceptance, and retention. Consequently, the
stronger one identifies with a brand, then the greater will be their emotional tie to that
brand. The congruence between the self-concept and brand personality will be
analysed to strengthen the argument by Heath and Scott (1998).
2.6) The congruence between the self and brand personality
Brand personality and self-image work alongside each other to develop further
understanding of the relationship between consumers and brands. Fournier (1998)
and Aaker (1997) suggest that brand personalities and images appealing to a
consumer’s actual or ideal self-image can help to create consumer value, and
therefore a deeper relationship. Belk (1988) and Sirgy (1982) argue that consumers
seek certain congruence between the features of a brand’s image and the way his
personality is presented. Graeff (1996) suggest that self-congruity is positively
associated with consumers’ product evaluation and purchase behaviours. Tsiotsou
(2006) suggests that it has also been consistently proven that consumers’ subjective
evaluation on the product quality has a direct impact on purchase decision.
Previous research by Johar and Sirgy (1991) highlight that people prefer brands with
images similar to their own self-images. Johar and Sirgy (1991) suggest that the
relationship between a brand and the actual or ideal self produces a positive self-
appraisal and has an influence on the level of actualisation of someone’s own
present and ideal self, which occurs regardless of other people.
2.7) Functional and Symbolic branding
Brands can possess both sports and fashion attributes, and can mirror a functional
or symbolic representation in their appeal to consumers. Brands could be positioned
to satisfy either of these two types of needs. Park et al. (1986) note that consumers’
needs could be categorised as being either functional or symbolic. They declare that
functional needs are related to specific and practical consumption problems whereas
symbolic needs are linked to self-image and social identification. Park et al. (1986)
further debate that brands should be positioned to appeal to either one of these
types of needs, but not both, for a number of reasons. A brand concept that is both
functional and symbolic poses issues for consumers as they cannot clearly relate or
connect to the brand to either their functional or their symbolic needs. In addition, it
increases the number of rival brands and makes brand image management
problematic. However, contrary to the recommendations by Park et al. (1986)
observations from a study by Bhat and Reddy (1998) propose that it is possible to
have brands that have both functional and symbolic meanings for consumers and
consumers do not have any trouble accepting brands that have both a symbolic and
a functional appeal. The study’s results suggest that consumers see a brand’s
functionality and symbolism as separate phenomena, reinforcing Bhat and Reddy’s
(1998) idea that symbolism and functionalism as two separate brand components.
Levy (1959) argue that consumers are becoming more focused on the symbolic
meaning brands attribute rather than functions they possess, ‘the consumer is not as
functionally oriented as he used to be — if he ever really was.' This argument could
be linked to the influence on the self-concept by Maslow (1987) with high aspirational
and self-esteem needs of those who wish to enhance their self-image or their social
image as perceived by others. Kwon and Armstrong (2006) strengthen this with the
idea that sports consumers typically are motivated to purchase team-licensed
products for their symbolic meaning rather than their functional attributes. Mirroring
this Elliot (1997); Levi (1959); and McCracken (1986) add that consumers do not
consume brands only for their material/functional benefits but also consume the
symbolic meaning of those brands as portrayed in their images.
Developing on the idea that consumers are becoming more influenced by a brands
symbolic meaning, Jung (2009) highlights that brands themselves are to establish
themselves from their competitors through symbolism, stating that ‘competition has
intensified, making it difficult for managers to differentiate brands on the basis of
functional attributes alone. As a result, symbolic meanings increasingly form a basis
for brands' positioning and differentiation. Austin et al. (2003) assert that consumers
can attribute symbolic meaning towards brands, Levy (1959) continue to add that the
notion of symbolic purchase has long been documented on how symbolic meaning
of the product influences purchase decisions. Sirgy (1982) adds that In particular,
self-congruity theory assumes that self-expressive motivation often prompts
consumers to purchase goods and services.
Jung (2009) argues that symbolic representations can represent and indicate the
self-concept by stating that ‘“Symbolic” represents the concept that he/she can
express themselves with the brand of product they use. In turn, the brand of products
or companies that he/she uses will signal to others about their social status. Govers
& Schoormans (2005) further add that research on the symbolic use of brands has
shown that consumers preferred those brands that matched well with their own
personality. Further research into functional and symbolic branding will be carried
out, with a focus on the brand Nike.
2.8) Nike
Nike (2013) states that NIKE, Inc. is the world’s leading innovator in athletic
footwear, apparel, equipment and accessories. Nike’s mission statement, bringing
inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world (“If you have a body, you are
an athlete” – Bill Bowerman) indicates that Nike is a sports brand. However
Schiffman & Kanuk (2006) argue that sportswear has grown from an athlete’s-only
niche market to become part of mainstream fashion. Some sportswear brands are
argued to have become highly iconic; Nike is a well-publicised example. Nike is said
to have a strong brand personality as consumers tend to see Nike as ‘the athlete in
all of us’.
Dawes (2009) says that Nike is ‘a good example of an emotional brand. It made
sportswear accessible to non-sports people with a brand story that inspired not just
success but energy and determination’. Thus reinforcing Levy’s (1959) argument that
consumers are becoming more focused on the symbolic meaning brands attribute.
Concurring with Schiffman & Kanuk (2006) Hargrave-Silk (2002) Found that Nike is
giving its range a fashion touch, launching Presto, a new product line to bridge the
gap between sports and fashion. Having previously insisted that it is a sports rather
than a fashion brand, Nike is counting on Presto to broaden its appeal in the 'mobile'
youth segment. Holmes (2003) added, by combining Nike's high-tech athletic
materials with casual fashion, she hopes to gain an edge over other apparel makers
in creating “must-have outfits.'' On the other hand, more recently NIKE (2012)
highlights that Nike has launched the NIKE+ Fuel Band, an innovative wristband that
tracks and measures everyday movement to motivate and inspire people to be more
active through Nike Fuel. Therefore this added to the debate that Nike is still a sports
orientated brand.
As previously mentioned, Kapferer (2003) states that brand image is the most
efficient way of communication with consumers, revealing the significance of brand
identity and this is reflected by the personality it projects to the audience. Thus
enforcing the importance brand identity has on the consumer, therefore it is vitally
important to establish the position of a brand.
Park et al. (1986) propose that brands should be positioned to appeal to either
functional or symbolic needs but not both, however a significant element of the
literature by Bhat and Reddy (1998) suggests that it is possible for brands to have
both functional and symbolic meanings for consumers and consumers do not have
any trouble accepting brands that have both a symbolic and a functional appeal.
Although there are conflicting issues debating whether or not brands are symbolic or
functional, there are no measures or scales that have been developed that would
assess whether a particular brand is symbolic or functional. It is evident that there is
room for additional study in this area; therefore this could be further investigated in
the primary research carried out in this study with particular focus on Nike.
Chapter 3: Research Design and Information Sources
3.1) Secondary research
Aaker (1996) and Blackston’s (1993) views on brand personality have helped the
direction of this study throughout the methodology. They suggest that Brand
personality could be used as a basis of establishing relationships between brands
and human beings. Biel (1993) added that brand personality is an enduring quality,
resisting change which is reinforced by Aaker’s (1996) idea that Brand personality
serves as a sustainable competitive advantage. Therefore achieving a brand
personality which matches consumers’ interests will be beneficial to the brand.
Supporting this, Malhotra (1981) and Sirgy (1982) suggest consumers prefer certain
brands when the brand personality is parallel to the consumer’s own personality
Following the idea that brand personality can be applied to an individual’s own
personality, the idea of the self- concept has aided the development of this study,
Ball and Tasaki (1992); and Grubb and Grathwohl (1967) found that consumers tend
to be most loyal towards those brands which most closely mirror aspects of their own
self-concepts. As a result if a brand is not positioned appropriately, then consumers’
relationship with a brand may not reflect their self-concept as the stronger
consumers identify with a brand, then their emotional connection to the brand will be
greater. Brand positioning is a crucial aspect of this study and has proposed
evidence for further research.
Brands can be positioned as functional or symbolic in their appeal to consumers,
also Park et al. (1986) notes that consumers’ needs could be considered as being
either functional or symbolic. They further debate that brands should be positioned to
appeal to either one of these types of needs, but not both. On the other hand, Bhat
and Reddy (1998) propose that it is possible to have brands that have both
functional and symbolic meanings for consumers. These conflicting arguments
provide evidence that there is room for additional study in this area and so this will
be further investigated in the primary research carried out in this study specifically
focusing on the brand Nike.
3.2) Primary research
3.3) Quantitative research
As part of my primary research, the quantitative research for my study will be based
around a questionnaire. The questionnaire will require participants over the age of
18, respondents will contribute to achieving the aim and objectives of this business
research project. Jancowikz (2005) found that an advantage to using questionnaires
is that they typically require less skill and sensitivity to complete as appose to semi–
structured or in-depth interviews if they are worded correctly. The chosen distribution
method for my questionnaire is to distribute it electronically, primarily through the use
of Facebook as this method is usually quicker and cheaper. Although response rates
from online questionnaires are likely to be very low (Coomber 1997), the reason for
this choice, as appose to sending out e-mails is backed up by Buglear (2005)
proposing that the recipient can dismiss it as another piece of junk mail and delete it.
To reduce the risk of this happening it is even more important to express the request
in a suitably polite and formal style, and to ensure that the questions are as clear and
concise as possible. Saunders (2012) found, in contrast to previous studies, the
return rate for the web was higher than that for mail responses; this justifies the
rational for utilising social media as a means to the distribution of the survey for this
project. Adopting this web-based approach means that respondents can provide
honest answers as their response will be anonymous this will allow them to feel of
equal importance.
The design and structure of the questionnaire will be simple and clear to reduce
possible distractions and disengagement of respondents. Dillman (2009) argues that,
to achieve as high a response rate as possible the reasoning for the respondent
completing the survey should be clearly stated on the first page of the questionnaire.
Questions will be easy for participants to follow through the use of closed questions
as depending on the answer they give Buglear (2005) suggests that they may be
directed to proceed straight to a subsequent section of the questionnaire. This will
retain their engagement and allow them to maintain focus. Although the Questions
will primarily be closed allowing the data to be easily coded, open questions will be
included to form a more informative response to further develop an argument for the
study. However Shank (2012) found that Open-ended information is difficult to
analyse, yet it is difficult to obtain in-depth information without using open-ended
questions. Therefore a balance of both open and closed questions will be
incorporated.
3.4) Sampling
The chosen method of sampling for this study is non-probability convenience
sampling, purely due to the wide demographic of Nikes consumers which will be at
the forefront of the questionnaire. The span of the demographic proposes that they
are easily accessible and suggests Facebook is a convenient tool to target this
market. However Lewis, Saunders, Thornhill (2012) found that convenience
sampling has been known to deliver bias results and uncontrollable influences, also
the findings of convenience sampling are frequently given very little credibility.
Saunders (2012) then argues that samples chosen for convenience often meet
deliberate sample selection criteria that are relevant to the research aim.
The chosen sample will represent people over the age of 18 for ethical reasoning.
The sample size needs to be taken in to consideration. As previously stated,
participants will be targeted through the use of Facebook, with a potential pool of
over 2,000 participants. Lewis, Saunders, Thornhill (2012) highlight the importance
of a large sample size, suggesting the larger the sample size is, the lower the likely
error in generalising to the population is. Therefore the research will be conducted
using a large sample.
In order to receive a high response rate from participants the survey will be aimed at
both the male and female gender. Groves and Peytcheva (2008) State that obtaining
as high a response rate as possible is hugely important to reduce the risk of non-
response bias. The reason for non-respondents is based upon the idea that some of
the population will be reluctant or unable to complete the request, due to the
possibility of non-respondents, the study is aiming for a minimum of 50 responses.
To reduce non-respondents Buglear (2005) specifies that having the correct details
of participants and directing them personally is beneficial. To ensure a high response
rate, the participants of this study will be directed with a personal message via
Facebook, with the message personally directed to them they will be less likely to
dismiss it and class it as junk mail. The study expects to have a response rate
3.5) Data analysis
Quantitative analysis techniques assist in analysing and interpreting data. Saunders
(2012) found that within quantitative analysis, calculations and chart drawing are
undertaken using analysis software such as Excel.
When analysing the data received from the questionnaire, depending on the
questions asked, the results obtained will vary. Some questions asked within the
questionnaire require a yes or no answer; therefore Dichotomous variables will be
used within the analysis as the variable is divided into two categories, in this case
yes or no and also the variable gender being divided into female and male
(Saunders 2012).
The questionnaire will be pre coded making it easier to analyse, when analysing the
data excel will be used, this analytical tool is easily accessible and has the ability to
analyse large amounts of data to discover trends and patterns within data received.
With an aim of at least 50 responses from respondents Saunders (2012) claims that
questionnaire data should be analysed by computer if 30 or more respondents have
been collected. The results of this research will be presented in the correct format,
acting as evidence to support the views and ideas of the project.
Diagrams will be used to display quantitative data, following from Turkey’s (1977)
emphasis of the use of diagrams to explore and understand data. The results of the
questionnaire will be translated into bar chart graphs using Excel, Saunders (2012)
states that bar charts provide a more accurate representation and should be used for
research reports. The bar charts will then be analysed to display trends
Once the data has been analysed, cross tabulation will be undertaken to view any
potential trends between differing demographics, in this case the variable of gender.
Although there isn’t any particular focus on gender within the study’s aims and
objectives, this information will be relevant to future studies evaluating the differing
opinions between genders regarding Nike and the functionalism and symbolism of
their products.
3.6) Piloting and testing research
Before distributing the questionnaire, in order to see if the questions are fit for
purpose and to find out what respondents see as the key issues, as well as ensuring
there are no problems when recording the data, a pilot study will be completed. Riley
et al. (2000) found piloting as a safety net to avoid mistakes and errors ruining the
questionnaire. Piloting the questionnaire will ensure reliability and validity of the data.
As much planning as possible must be done beforehand, this is followed up by
White’s (2002) idea that validity is concerned with the idea that the questionnaire
fully addresses the research questions and objectives.
White (2002) added that reliability is based around consistency. Expanding on this
Lewis, Saunders, Thornhill (2012) state that reliability refers to whether the data
collection would produce consistent findings if they were duplicated by a different
researcher. In order to establish content validity of the data provided in this study
and enable necessary amendments to be made, Lewis, Saunders, Thornhill (2012)
recommend the pilot study to be completed by a group as similar as possible to the
final population of the chosen sample.
The pilot study of the questionnaire for this research project will be carried out by
peers who fall under the category of the chosen sample; this will provide the most
accurate results and prove similar to the complete survey. Fink (2009) states that
each completed pilot questionnaire should be checked to guarantee that
respondents have had no problems understanding or answering the questions and
have followed all instructions correctly. Once the survey has undertaken a trial to
establish any errors or pitfalls, the feedback will then be analysed, the responses
given will provide an idea of the reliability and suitability of the questions to include in
the complete sample.
3.7) Project Management and Control
It is important to measure progress and stick to allocated time frames, White (2002)
asserts that effective time management is essential. A Gantt chart was included in
the project to indicate progress made and whether or not targets are being met, this
could indicate that more time may be needed to complete certain tasks. The main
aim of the Gantt chart is to help plan the order in which tasks should be performed,
prioritizing tasks in order of importance. A detailed Gantt chart can be seen in
appendix B.
Collecting primary data requires arrangement and will take time, Riley et al (2000)
states that the driving force of the research schedule will always be the process of
data collection. This indicates that a great deal of time will be needed as it involves
gaining access to other people. Time will be expected to be a major constraint when
receiving data, waiting for results and feedback from questionnaires and then
analysing the data. Whilst waiting for the data, time will be used tactically in order to
complete other tasks of equal importance as allocated by the schedule. Although
conducting a pilot study is beneficial to the project to reduce ambiguity and to alert
problems of analysis, it may be time consuming as Riley et al (2000) suggest that if
the effort that has to be expected in conducting a pilot eats into the amount of time
set aside for the main project, then piloting may be an unnecessary burden. However
White (2002) argues that with all questionnaires it is essential that a pilot is carried
out and time spent running the pilot and amending the questionnaire is not wasted.
In order to maintain control of the project, time will be set aside to complete a pilot
study, in doing so; results will be more accurate and appropriate for the study.
The cost of resources is next to none, primarily due to the distribution of the
questionnaires to be completed electronically through the use of Facebook; this is a
much simpler option and provides no paper costs. The foremost resource needed to
complete this project is time. It is essential that time is well managed in order to
complete tasks on time and of a high standard. Lewis, Saunders, Thornhill (2012)
ague that ‘however how well the researchers time is organised the whole process
seems to take longer than anticipated’, (Lewis, Saunders, Thornhill 2012, p. 55). This
reinforces the importance of the use of a Gantt chart to keep up to date with the
schedule.
Possible limitations which could affect the progress of this study could be ethical
issues and time constraints. Riley et al (2000) found that this level of research will
usually not raise too many ethical issues. As previously stated the questionnaire will
be targeting participants over the age of 18, this complies with ethical guidelines.
The research project was considered and approved by the ethics committee and the
project has abided ethical requirements.
Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings
The questionnaire results shown below will be analysed and the findings will be
compared to the theories stated in the literature review. The impact of results could
prompt the need for further research in the area of study. The first 3 questions
looked at the demographics of participants, some of which will be cross tabulated
later in the study. The analysis will begin from question 4.
Question 4 was asked to gain an understanding of the participants overall perceived
impression of Nike. The table below shows the results. Findings from this question
found that when asked to describe Nike in one word the majority of respondents
believe Nike to be a sports brand as appose to a fashion brand with most common
responses being ‘sport’, ‘sporty’ ‘sports’, ‘fitness’ and ‘athletic’. At this stage of the
analysis it is evident that consumer’s first thought of Nike is of its functional purposes
over the brands symbolic attributes; however with conflicting issues and control
questions later to be analysed, the basis of respondents opinions may differ.
In one word, describe Nike:Fashionablesporty x6athleticsport x8brandtick x2fitnessclassicshoesexpensivesportscooltremendousfashioninnovativeswooshclothingstatementsneakersdecent x2
comfyinternationallovelysmoothmakefreshcleverstylishpopular
Questions 5 and 6 are linked together and aim to establish whether those who have
an interest in sports then purchase Nike products. The results of Question 5 indicate
that 70% of the 51 participants surveyed in the questionnaire do have an interest in
sports and furthering respondents opinion that Nike is a sports brand 83.9% of those
who said they do have an interest in sports purchase Nike products to aid their
sporting activities. The impact of these results contradict the argument by Levy
(1959) that consumers are becoming more focused on the symbolic meaning brands
attribute rather than functions they possess.
Questions 7 and 8 link together and are conflicting against the previous findings. The
connecting questions aim to identify whether those participants who perceive
themselves as being fashion conscious then purchase Nike products to express their
fashion sense. Question 7’s findings signify that 80% of participants do see
themselves as having an interest in fashion, from this result Question 6 then states
87.5% who are fashion conscious do purchase Nike products as fashion garments.
Differing from the previous results to questions 5 and 6, these results reinforce
Levy’s (1959) argument regarding consumer’s functional and symbolic orientation of
brands. As the results develop, it is clear that a more balanced argument is being
formed as to whether consumers perceive Nike as a functional or symbolic brand.
Question 9 identifies participant’s level of loyalty towards Nike. The findings show
that the results are varied, as the majority of people were neutral regarding their level
of loyalty to the Nike brand, however more participants agreed they are loyal to the
brand, than disagreed with 26% agreeing and just 14% disagreeing with the
statement. This information will be useful to Nike when analysing their consumer’s
level of loyalty. The literature highlights that Fournier (1998) asserts that in order to
understand loyalty issues, it is vital to also consider the relationships between
consumers and their brands, the relationship between consumers and the brand will
be further analysed in following questions.
The question above clearly indicates that participant’s believe that Nike wishes to be
perceived as both sporty and fashionable. The results of question 10 show 74% of
respondents perceive Nike as aspiring to mirror both sport and fashion attributes.
This relates back to the literature with Keller and Aaker (1992) establishing that
consumer perceptions of a brand are influenced by their beliefs about the
corporation that produces it.
Has your perception of Nike changed over time, if yes how?
- ‘it has changed consumers perception from being a sport brand to a fashionbrand as the years have gone by.’
- ‘More fashionable’
- ‘Gone from just sports to more fashion focused’
- ‘It has become more fashionable rather than purely worn for sporting events’
- ‘Too expensive for what it is, but when I was younger I wanted it to be cool.’
Questions 11 and 12 relate to the quote by Erdem (1998) ‘as consumers experience
products, their perceptions of product quality may change. Consumers learn about
different brands from their experiences with the brands.’ This question tests whether
or not participant’s perception of Nike has changed from their experiences with the
brand. Question 11 shows that 55.1% of participants asked feel that their perception
of the brand Nike hasn’t been affected over time, whereas 44.9% feel that their view
of Nike has been changed. With such close results there isn’t a significant argument
to debate that Nike has altered their brand in any way to change consumer’s
perceptions. Question 12 found that the majority of participants who answered yes to
their perception of Nike changing over time feel it is because the brand is now more
fashion orientated.
Question 13 is used a control question against question 5 to check the validity of
participants responses. This question links into question 14 for the participants who
answered yes. The results from this question indicate that 79.6% do wear Nike
sports products; the linking question proposes that those who do wear Nike sports
products feel that Nike does not influence their performance. This could coincide with
findings by Hargrave-Silk (2002) that Nike is giving its range a fashion touch, a new
product line to bridge the gap between sports and fashion. Leading to suggestions
that Nike is now more of a fashion brand rather than a performance influencing
brand.
Questions 15 and 16 are connecting questions; Question 16 is a response question
if respondents answered yes to question 15. Question 15 is used as a control
question against question 7 to check the validity of participant’s responses. This also
tests whether participants wear Nike as a fashion brand. This question shows that
52% of participants wear Nike as a fashion brand, this could suggest that more
consumers view Nike as a fashion orientated brand. Question 16 tests if Nike fashion
products boost participant’s self-esteem when worn by the participants, this follows
research by Maslow (1954) who suggests that the self-esteem of consumers can be
enhanced by the perceived social image of others. The results of question 16
establish that when worn as a fashion brand 56.5% of participants believe Nike helps
enhance their self-esteem. This reinforces Dawes’ (2009) idea that Nike is ‘a good
example of an emotional brand’.
Question 17 follows research by Fournier (1998) revealing evidence that consumers
are prone to engage in consumer-brand relationships with brands that they feel most
closely resemble their own self-concepts. This question also relates to research by
Sirgy (1991) who highlighted that people prefer brands with images similar to their
actual self-images. This question tests both these theories. The results of this
question have discovered that the majority of respondents neither strongly agree nor
disagree that Nike reflects their individual self-image, however 24% agreed that Nike
does in fact reflect their individual self-image, strengthening Sirgy’s (1991) brand,
self-image relationship assumption.
Question 18 seeks to analyse participant’s view of Nike as a symbolic or functional
brand, question 18 has been split into three different graphs to demonstrate the level
of importance to consumers between social status, performance and product quality.
The results show that the most important factor to participants was product quality,
with the least important being social status. With both performance and social status
scoring low on consumer’s opinions of importance, it can be argued from this
question that consumers view of Nike as a functional brand is of no more greater
importance than as a symbolic brand, therefore the results of this question neither
reinforce or challenge Levy’s (1959) argument that consumers are becoming more
focused on the symbolic meaning brands attribute rather than functions they
possess.
Questions 19 and 20 are developed from research by Park et al. (1986) that brands
should be positioned to appeal to either a functional or symbolic need. Question 19
shows 58% of people asked, strongly agree that Nike is a sports brand, however
question 20 indicates that 50% agreed that Nike is a fashion brand, bearing this in
mind respondents perception of Nike can be categorised as both symbolic and
functional, challenging the argument by Park et al. (1986).
Question 21 links to the literature through a quote by Dawes (2009) “Nike is ‘a good
example of an emotional brand. It made sportswear accessible to non-sports
people”. The results from the question could compliment Schiffman & Kanuk (2006)
who argue that sportswear has grown from an athlete’s-only niche market to become
part of mainstream fashion. The results from question 21 show that 62.5% of
participants agree with the statement that wearing Nike sportswear in a non-sporting
environment has become more socially acceptable. The outcome supports both
arguments by Dawes (2009) and Schiffman & Kanuk (2006).
Question 22 relates to a quote by Levy (1959) ‘the consumer is not as functionally
oriented as he used to be — if he ever really was.' The results of this question
concur with Levy (1959) and additionally compliment the idea by McCracken (1986)
that consumers do not consume brands only for their material/functional benefits but
also consume the symbolic meaning of those brands as portrayed in their images.
The results of this question show that 35.4% of respondents either agree or are
neutral regarding purchasing Nike for symbolic meaning rather than their functional
attributes.
The results of this final question summarises the overall aim of the study whether
Nike is seen by participants as a symbolic brand, a functional brand or both. The
findings back up Oliver and Wallpach’s (2009) assumption that brands mean
different things to different consumers. The results will follow research by Park et al.
(1986); McCracken (1986); Austin et al. (2003); Levy (1959) and Kwon and
Armstrong (2006) who have all conducted research into symbolic and functional
meanings. The results of the final question establish that participants perceive Nike
as being both fashionable and sporty, correlating with the results from question 10.
Perception of Nike Male Female Differencefashionable 20.83% 15.38% 5.45%sporty 16.66% 15.38% 1.28%both 58.33% 65.38% -7.05%other 4.16% 3.85% 0.31%
The table above shows the cross tabulation between male and females overall
perception of Nike. The results indicate very little difference between gender and the
perception of Nike. The results will be useful to the Nike brand when wishing to
establish whether males and females perceive the brand differently.
Chapter 5: Conclusions
The conclusions of the study will be compared against the objectives of the overall study and will try to identify key theorists and theories highlighted throughout the project.
1.To define branding giving particular focus on brand identity and brand personality.
The literature review established that Keller (1993) and Kapferer (2003) were key
theorists in defining a brand. Brand identity offers the ability to better position brands
(de Chernatony, 2001). Kapferer categorised Brand Identity through a brand identity
prism and suggested that brand image is the most efficient way of communication
with consumers. Harris and DeChernatony (2001) proposed a link between brand
identity and brand personality highlighting that brand personality was one component
of a brands identity. Aaker’s idea that Brand personality serves as a sustainable
competitive advantage, reinforcing Aakers idea, Blackston (1993) suggested that
Brand personality could be used as a basis of establishing relationships.
2.To define consumer perception and examine whether Consumers' perception
changes.
In conclusion to perception research by Keller and Aaker (1992) found that
consumer’s brand perceptions are influenced by beliefs about the company and
Oliver and Wallpach (2009) assume that brands mean different things to different
consumers. Expanding on the overall view of perception and whether it is a
changeable factor Oliver and Wallpach (2009) assumption Consumers' perceptions
of quality change over time, this was backed up by Erdem (1998).
3. To understand the self-concept theory making specific considerations to the congruence between the self–concept and brand personality.
Overall research into the congruence between the self-concept and brand
personality found that consumer value can be created, forming a deeper relationship
Aaker (1997). Johar and Sirgy (1991) highlighted that there is a preference to brands
which are similar to the self-concept of consumers.
4.To identify whether there is a greater importance between functionality and symbolism with regards to brands.
Summarising functional and symbolic brands, there is a debate to whether or not a
brand is functional or symbolic. Secondary research suggests that brands are
becoming more symbolic rather than functional. Levy (1959) is a prominent theorist
strengthening this idea by arguing that the consumer is not as functionally oriented
as he used to be and add that symbolic meanings influence purchase decisions.
However primary research results concluded that functional and symbolic were of
equal importance with regards to Nike, with participants perceiving Nike as both
sporty and fashionable.
5.To explore consumer’s perception of Nike and discuss gender differences
Research from the literature review aided the conclusion of consumer’s perception of
Nike, with theorists arguing Nike is a sports brand but has made sportswear more
accessible to non-sports people. This objective summarises the overall aim of the
study whether Nike is seen by participants as a symbolic brand, a functional brand or
both. Findings back up Oliver and Wallpach’s (2009) assumption that brands mean
different things to different consumers. Findings discovering whether or not male and
females perceived Nike differently discovered very little difference, suggesting Nike
is no differently positioned to males than females. Research established that
consumers perceive Nike as being both fashionable and sporty, meaning Nike is
viewed for both its functionality and symbolism to consumers surveyed.
Chapter 6: Recommendations
Looking at research results and conclusions made, it is evident that further research
can be undertaken to gain a further understanding of consumer’s perception of Nike
on a broader scale. Nike is a well-established, worldwide brand and has consumers
all around the world who may possess different opinions and perceptions to those
found in this study, supporting Oliver and Wallpach’s (2009) assumption that brands
mean different things to different consumers.
Further research could be developed to examine if, how and why consumer’s
perception of Nike evolves over time. As primary research shown inconclusive
results regarding no difference to opinions between males and females, further
research by Nike could be undertaken to gain a greater overview of the difference
between gender variables. A recommendation for Nike is to review their brand
identity and establish whether or not they want to be perceived as becoming more of
a fashion brand and continue to evolve into the fashion market as primary research
suggested that participant’s perception of Nike has changed over time due to the
brand being more fashion focused over the years. Results from the questionnaire
also highlights that consumers strongly agree that wearing Nike sportswear in a non-
sporting environment has become more socially acceptable. Bearing in mind this
study is focused on a small scale of participants, Nike should aim to gain a
perspective of all consumers before they adjust their brand ethos and steer away
from their brand values and what they believe the brand should stand for.
If Nike continue to become more of a fashion brand it could tarnish the brands
sporting image and confuse the consumer with regards to what the brand actually
stands for, with their heritage basing the brand as a sports brand with their mission
statement, ‘bringing inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world’ (Nike,
2013). In the future Nike could aim to clearly define Nike as a sports or fashion brand
to clearly attach a definitive customer to allow for better targeting.
Chapter 7: Reflection
Honey and Mumford attach preferred learning styles to suit certain individuals. After
completing this study, I see myself as following a pragmatist learning style. Honey
and Mumford states pragmatists ‘are keen to try things out. They want concepts that
can be applied to their job. They tend to be impatient with lengthy discussions and
are practical and down to earth’ (Honey and Mumford, 2001. P.12
Maslow argues that all humans need to be arranged in a hierarchy, the level of
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs I feel I have satisfied is the esteem needs. Maslow
states that “satisfaction of the self-esteem needs leads to feelings of self-confidence,
worth, strength, capability and adequacy, of being useful and necessary in the world”
(Maslow, 1987, p. 21) this project has improved my self-confidence with personally
being proud of what I have completed.
Overall I feel my time management within this project has improved from the off set, I
completed tasks on time particularly through the use of a Gantt chart which has been
a really useful framework in guiding my project to completion. Without managing my
time effectively this project would not have been completed to a high standard and a
finished project I am proud of. My stress levels were reduced through continuous
support and encouragement from peers. My stress levels were also kept to a
minimum by completing one section at a time rather than tackling the project as a
whole document.
Appendices
Appendix A
Questionnaire
Questionnaire
Consumers’ Perception of Nike
Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. The researcher of this study, Tony Hudson is a Marketing and Advertising student at Teesside University. The aim of this survey is to gain a better understanding of whether consumers perceive Nike as a sports brand, a fashion brand or possibly both. The results of this survey will benefit the brand Nike when positioning their products to the correct market or demographic.
The data received from this questionnaire is strictly confidential and all participants will remain anonymous. Please ensure you read all questions carefully before completion. If you have any questions or queries regarding this questionnaire please do not hesitate to contact the researcher at: [email protected].
Please select just one response to the following questions.
1. How old are you?
18-20
21-23
24-26
27+
2. Are you Male or Female?
Male
Female
3. Which of the following best describes your current employment status?
Full time employment
Part time employment
Unemployed
Student
Questions 1, 2 and 3 were asked to identify different demographics, this will enable the research to be cross tabulated against other questions.
4. In one word, describe Nike:
……………
Question 4 was asked to gain an understanding of the participants overall perceived impression of Nike.
5. Are you interested in sports?
Yes
No
Question 5 is used to establish what type of interests participants have, primarily focusing on sports.
6. If yes, do you buy Nike products?
Yes
No
Question 6 links to question 5 in establishing whether the participants who have an interest in sports purchase Nike products.
7. Do you see yourself as fashion conscious?
Yes
No
Question 7 looks at whether participants are fashion conscious, this will link to the following question.
8. If yes do you buy Nike products?
Yes
No
Question 8 correlates whether or not participants still buy Nike products if they are fashion conscious, relating back to the literature Hargrave-Silk (2002) found that Nike is giving its range a fashion touch.
9. I am loyal towards the Nike brand
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Question 9 looks at participants level of loyalty towards Nike, the literature highlights that Fournier (1998) asserts that in order to understand loyalty issues, it is vital to also consider the relationships between consumers and their brands, the relationship between consumers and the brand will be further analysed in following questions.
10.How do you think Nike want to be perceived out of the following?
Fashionable
Sporty
Both
Other
If other please state….
This question generalises an idea of how participants believe Nike want their consumers to perceive the brand, Keller and Aaker (1992) establish that consumer perceptions of a brand are influenced by their beliefs about the corporation that produces it.
11. Has your perception of Nike changed over time?
Yes
No
12. If yes, how?
… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Questions 11 and 12 relate to the quote by Erdem (1998) ‘as consumers experience products, their perceptions of product quality may change. Consumers learn about different brands from their experiences with the brands.’ This question will test whether or not participant’s perception of Nike has changed from their experiences with the brand.
13.Do you ever wear Nike sports products?
Yes
No
Question 13 is used a control question against question 5 to check the validity of participants responses. This question will link into question 14 for the participants who answered yes.
14. If yes, does Nike have an influence or impact on your performance?
Yes
No
Question 14 relates to the idea by Park et al. (1986) that functional needs are related to specific and practical consumption. The question is trying to find out if Nike as a brand has functional attributes over symbolic.
15.Do you wear Nike as a fashion brand?
Yes
No
Question 15 is used as a control question against question 7 to check the validity of participant’s responses. This will also test whether participants wear Nike as a fashion brand.
16. If yes, does Nike boost your self-esteem?
Yes
No
Question 16 tests if Nike fashion products boost participant’s self-esteem when worn by the participants, this follows research by Maslow (1954) who suggests that the self-esteem of consumers can be enhanced by the perceived social image of others.
17. I feel Nike reflects my individual self-image
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Question 17 follows research by Fournier (1998) revealing evidence that consumers are prone to engage in consumer-brand relationships with brands that they feel most closely resemble their own self-concepts. This question also relates to research by Sirgy (1991) who highlighted that people prefer brands with images similar to their actual self-images. This question will test both these theories.
For the following question, ensure you rate the options in order of importance, 1 being the most important and 3 being the least important.
18.Rate the following in order of importance to you, with regards to Nike
Social status Performance Product Quality
Question 18 seeks to analyse participants view of Nike as a symbolic or functional brand, the results of this question will either reinforce or challenge Levy’s (1959) argument that consumers are becoming more focused on the symbolic meaning brands attribute rather than functions they possess.
19.Nike is a sports brand
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
20.Nike is a fashion brand
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Questions 19 and 20 are developed from research by Park et al. (1986) that brands should be positioned to appeal to either a functional or symbolic need. The results from these questions may challenge further research by Park et al. (1986) who argued that brands couldn’t be positioned as symbolic and functional.
21.Wearing Nike sportswear in a non-sporting environment has become more socially acceptable
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Question 21 links to the literature through a quote by Dawes (2009) “Nike is ‘a good example of an emotional brand. It made sportswear accessible to non-sports people”. The results from the question could compliment Schiffman & Kanuk (2006) who argue that sportswear has grown from an athlete’s-only niche market to become part of mainstream fashion.
22. I purchase Nike for their symbolic meaning rather than their functional attributes
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Question 22 is relates to a quote by Levy (1959) ‘the consumer is not as functionally oriented as he used to be — if he ever really was.' The results of this question could concur with Levy (1959) and could additionally compliment the idea by McCracken (1986) that consumers do not consume brands only for their material/functional benefits but also consume the symbolic meaning of those brands as portrayed in their images.
23.How do you perceive Nike out of the following?
Fashionable
Sporty
Both
Other
If other please state…..
The results of this final question summarises the overall aim of the study whether Nike is seen by participants as a symbolic brand, a functional brand or both. The findings could potentially back up Oliver and Wallpach’s (2009) assumption that brands mean different things to different consumers. The results will follow research by Park et al. (1986); McCracken (1986); Austin et al. (2003); Levy (1959) and Kwon and Armstrong (2006) who have all conducted research into symbolic and functional meanings.
Appendix B
Gantt Chart
Task Sept. Oct.Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Apr.
Identify research area
Formulate research questions Formulate research strategy, research design, and select methods
Write research outline/proposal
Negotiate access
Literature review
Research Design and Information Sources
Primary Research
Analysis and Findings
Conclusions, Recommendations and Reflection
Write final draft
Project due
Reference List
Aaker, D.A. (1996) Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, J.L. (1997) ‘Dimensions of Brand Personality’, Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), pp. 347-356.
Aaker, D. (2000) Brand Leadership. New York: The Free Press.
Adcock, D., Halborg, A. and Ross, C. (2001) Marketing principles and practice. 4th edn. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
American Marketing Association (2006) Marketing Terms Dictionary. Available at: www.marketing power.com/index (Accessed: 10 March 2013).
Austin, J.A., Siguaw and Mattila, A.S. (2003) ‘A Re-Examination of the Generalizability of the Aaker Brand Personality Measurement Framework’, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11(2), pp. 77-92.
Azoulay A. and Kapferer, J.N. (2003) ‘Do Brand Personality Scales Really Measure Brand Personality?’, Brand Management, 11, pp. 143-155.
Ball, D.A. and Tasaki, L.H. (1992) ‘The Role and Measurement of Attachment in Consumer Behavior’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), pp. 155-172.
Batra, R., Lehmann, D.R. and Singh, D. (1993) The brand personality component of brand goodwill: some antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.
Belk, R. W. (1988) ‘Possessions and the Extended Self’, Journal of Consumer Research, 15(9), pp. 139-168.
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998) ‘Symbolic and functional positioning of brands’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15(1), pp. 32-43.
Biel, A. L. (1993) Converting Image into Equity Brand Equity and Advertising. Hillsdalle, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Blackston, M. (1993) Beyond brand personality: Building brand relationship. Hillsdale: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.
Bokeno, M.R. (2011) ‘Learning in conflict: revisiting the role of perception’, Development and Learning in Organizations, 25(2), pp.15 – 17.
Buglear, J. (2005) Quantitative Methods For Business The A-Z of QM Oxford: Elvesier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Clark, P. Riley, M. Szivas, E. Wilkie, E. and Wood, R. (2000) Researching and writing Dissertations in Business and Management. London: Thompson Learning.
Coomber, R. (1997) ‘Using the internet for survey research’, Sociological Research Online, Vol. 2, No.2 Available at www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/2/2.html [Accessed 25 April 2013].
Dawes, J. (2009) ‘Brand loyalty in the UK sportswear market’, International Journal of Market Research, 51(4), pp. 449-463.
de Chernatony, L. (2001) From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation. London: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
de Chernatony, L. (2001) ‘Corporate branding and corporate brand performance’, European Journal of Marketing, 3(4), pp. 441-456.
Dillman, D.A. (2009) Internet, Mail and Mixed Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (3rd edn). New York: Wiley.
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, P.W. (1995) Consumer Behaviour. 8th edn. London: Forth Worth.
Erdem, T., Zhao, Y. and Valenzuela, A. (2004) 'Performance of Store Brands: A Cross-Country Analysis of Consumer Store-Brand Preferences, Perceptions, and Risk', Journal of Marketing Research, 41(1), pp. 86-100.
Fink, A. (2009) How to conduct surveys (4th edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fournier S. (1998) ‘Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research’, Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4) pp. 343–373.
Gamble, J., Gilmore, A., McCartan-Quinn, D. and Durkan, P. (2011) 'The Marketing concept in the 21st century: A review of how Marketing has been defined since the 1960s', Marketing Review, 11(3), pp. 227-248.
Govers, P.C.M. and Schoormans, J.P.L. (2005) ‘Product personality and its influence on consumer preference’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4), pp.189 – 197.
Graeff, T.R. (1996) ‘Using promotional messages to manage the effects of brand and self-image on brand evaluations’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(3), pp.4 – 18.
Groves, R.M and Peytcheva, E. (2008) ‘The importance of nonresponsive rates on nonresponse bias’ , Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 167-89.
Grubb, E.L., and Grathwohl, H.L. (1967) ‘Consumer Self-Concept, Symbolism, and Market Behaviour: A theoretical approach’, journal of marketing, 31(10), pp.22-27.
Hargrave-Silk, A. (2002) 'Nike turns to fashion in latest product line', Media: Asia's Media & Marketing,1, pp. 9-15.
Heath, A.P. and Scott, D. (1998) ‘The self-concept and image congruence hypothesis: An empirical evaluation in the motor vehicle market’, European Journal of Marketing, 32(11), pp.1110 – 1123.
Holmes, S. (2003) 'Nike's New Advice? just Strut it', Business week, (3856), pp. 40-40.
Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (2001) The Learners Styles Helper’s Guide. Maidenhead: Peter Honey Learning.
Jancowikz, A.D. (2005) Business Research Projects (4th edn). London: Thompson Learning.
Janonis, V., Dovalienė, A. and Virvilaitė, R. (2007) 'Relationship of Brand Identity and Image', Engineering Economics, 51(1), pp. 69-79.
Johar, J. S. and M. J. Sirgy (1991) ‘Value-Expressive Versus Utilitarian Advertising Appeals: When and Why to Use Which Appeal’, Journal of Advertising, 20(3), pp. 23-33.
Jung, W.L. (2009) 'Relationship between Consumer Personality and Brand Personality as Self-Concept: from the Case of Korean Automobile Brands', Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 13(1), pp. 25-44.
Kapferer, J.N. (2003) The New Strategic Brand Management. London: Kogan.
Keller, K. (1993) ‘Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity’, Journal of Marketing, 57(1), pp. 1-22.
Koll, O. and Wallpach, S.V. (2009) ‘One brand perception? Or many? The heterogeneity of intra-brand knowledge’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(5), pp. 338 – 345.
Kwon, H.H. and Armstrong, K.L. (2006) ‘Impulse Purchases of Sport Team Licensed Merchandise: What Matters?’, Journal of Sport Management, 20(1), pp. 12-33.
Levy, S.J. (1959) ‘Symbols for sale’, Harvard Business Review, 37, pp. 117-24.
Malhotra, N.K. (1981) ‘A Scale to Measure Self-Concepts, Person Concepts and Product Concepts’, Journal of Marketing Research, 23(11), pp. 456-464.
Maslow, A. (1987) Motivation and Personality. 3rd edn. United States of America: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.
McCracken, G. (1986) ‘Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods’, Journal of Consumer Research, 13(6), pp. 71-84.
NIKE, I. (2012) 'NIKE Announces New NIKE+ Fuel Band – Measuring Movement to Make Life A Sport', Business Wire (English).
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. (1986) ‘Strategic brand concept image management’, the journal of marketing, 50(4), pp. 135-145.
Rosenberg, M. (1979) Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Saunders, M.N.K. (2012) ‘Web versus mail: The influence of survey distribution mode on employees’ response’, Field Methods, Vol. 24, No 1.
Schiffman, L.G., and Kanuk, L.L. (2006) Consumer Behaviour. 8th ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall International.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982) ‘Self-Concept in Consumer Behaviour: A Critical Review’, Journal of Consumer Research, 9, pp. 287-300.
Shank, P. (2012) 'Getting the Answers You Need: Designing Good Surveys and Survey Questions', Canadian Learning Journal, 16(1), pp. 15-17.
Sung, Y. and Tinkham, S.F. (2005) ‘brand personality structures in the united states and Korea, common and culture-specific factors’, journal of consumer psychology, 15(4) pp. 334-350.
Tsiotsou, R. (2006) ‘The role of perceived product quality and overall satisfaction on purchase intentions’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30 (2), pp. 207-217.
Turkey, J.W (1977) Exploratory Data Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Warren, G. (2013) Diversity and Inclusion Available at: http://nikeinc.com/pages/diversity-inclusion (Accessed: 12 Feb 2013).
White, B. (202) Writing your MBA Dissertation. London: Thompson Learning.
William. J. (1890) The Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt.