Comparing Free Associations and Brand Concept Maps an Evaluation of the Brand Meaning of Fischer in Cross-Country Skiing

Comparing Free Associations and Brand Concept Maps An Evaluation of the Brand Meaning of Fischer in Cross-country Skiing

DIPLOMA THESIS

submitted at the Leopold-Franzens-University of Innsbruck Faculty of Business and Management Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism

to obtain the Academic Degree of Diploma of Social and Business Sciences

lodged with Mr. Dr. Roland SCHROLL, MSc

submitted by Anna GMEINER, BSc

Innsbruck, 4th of June 2019

Declaration of Academic Integrity

I hereby declare that this Diploma thesis is my own and autonomous work. All sources and aids used have been indicates as such. All texts either quoted directly or paraphrased have been indicated by in-text citations. Full bibliographic details are given in the list of works cited at the end of the paper. This work has not been submitted to any other examination authority.

4th of June 2019

Abstract

Understanding brand meaning means detecting strong, favourable and unique brand associations that consumers hold. This thesis aims to evaluate two research methods for eliciting brand meaning form memory. On that account, surveys of free associations and brand concept maps (BCM) are conducted in order to uncover the brand meaning of Fischer in cross- country skiing. Data collection of the two studies was done in wintertime of 2017/18 in Seefeld in Tyrol, Austria. First, the free associations technique was conducted in order to discover consumers’ brand association. Second, the brand concept maps study was performed with the objective of eliciting brand association networks from consumers. Results from both research methods display a similar brand meaning of Fischer in cross-country skiing, which for the most part reflects Fischer’s understanding of its brand identity. Respondents show a positive perception of the brand, whereas ‘well-known brand’, ‘elite sports’, ‘Austrian company’, ‘black- yellow design’ and ‘top brand’ are the most relevant associations. The comparison of the two research methods unveils that the free associations task convinces by its little resource- intensity but does not offer any information regarding the linkage of associations to the brand and among one another. Therefore, it is suggested to apply the BCM additionally, as its results deliver valuable insights in the association networks consumers hold in their memory.

Keywords: brand meaning, free associations, brand concept maps

III

Table of contents

I. List of Abbreviations ...... VI

II. List of figures ...... VI

1 Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Problem Statement ...... 1

1.2 Research Aim ...... 2

1.3 Selected Research Methods ...... 2

1.4 Structure of the Thesis ...... 3

2 Theoretical Background ...... 5

2.1 The Value of Brands ...... 5

2.1.1 Brand Knowledge (according to Keller 1993) ...... 6

2.1.2 Brand Equity (according to Aaker 1991) ...... 11

2.1.3 Brand Identity vs. Brand Image ...... 16

2.1.4 Brand Meaning ...... 20

2.2 Methods to Evaluate Brand Meaning ...... 21

2.2.1 Qualitative Methods ...... 22

2.2.1.1 Free Associations ...... 24

2.2.1.2 Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique (ZMET) ...... 26

2.2.1.3 Brand Concept Maps (BCM) ...... 28

2.2.2 Quantitative Methods ...... 31

3 Empiricism ...... 33

3.1 Study I: Free Associations ...... 34

3.1.1 Research Design...... 34

3.1.2 Empirical Study ...... 35

3.1.3 Results ...... 36

3.1.3.1 Comparing Consumer Groups ...... 39

3.1.3.2 Classification to Association Types according to D. A. Aaker (1991) ...... 40

3.2 Study II: Brand Concept Maps ...... 42

3.2.1 Research Design...... 42

3.2.2 Empirical Study ...... 44

3.2.3 Results ...... 45

3.2.3.1 Favourability of Core Associations ...... 49

3.2.3.2 Comparing Consumer Groups ...... 50

4 Comparison of Study I and Study II ...... 52

4.1 Comparing Samples of Study I and Study II ...... 52

4.2 Comparing Results of Study I and Study II ...... 54

4.3 Comparing Fischer’s brand identity and brand image ...... 56

4.4 Analysis and Comparison of the Research Methods Free Associations and BCM .. 57

5 Discussion ...... 62

5.1 Managerial Recommendations for Fischer ...... 62

5.2 Contributions to Brand Management ...... 64

5.3 Contributions to Brand Measurement ...... 64

5.4 Theoretical Conclusion ...... 65

5.5 Limitations and Future Research ...... 65

6 References ...... 68

7 List of Appendices ...... 73

I. List of Abbreviations

BANV Brand association network value

BCM Brand concept maps

IMC Integrated marketing communications

ZMET Zaltman Metapher Elicitation Technique

II. List of figures

Figure 1: Dimensions of brand knowledge (adapted from (1993, p. 7; Keller 1993, p. 7) ...... 7

Figure 2: A mental network (adapted from Aaker 1996, p. 94) ...... 13

Figure 3: Brand meaning model (adapted from Batey 2008, p. 131) ...... 20

Figure 4: Example BCM (adapted from John et al. 2006, p. 553) ...... 30

Figure 5: Biggest association categories of study I ...... 38

Figure 6: Analysis of brand association links ...... 48

Figure 7: Consensus brand map of Fischer ...... 49

Figure 8: Gender distribution study I and II ...... 52

Figure 9: Distribution of ski brands study I and study II ...... 53

1 Introduction

1.1 Problem Statement

As the market and the industries develop and grow, competition turns more and more difficult and hostile. Over time, the value of brands has been discovered as a vital factor in the challenge of creating competitive advantage over fellow competitors (Aaker 1996; Aaker and Shansby 1982). Understanding and managing brands and the aspect of brand building itself have become important assets in today’s marketing efforts (Aaker 1996; Batey 2008, 2008, 2008).

Scientific research has thoroughly examined the subject of brands from various different approaches. It has shown that the brand image, which is defined by a network of associations in the mind of the consumer, is of great importance for consumers’ decision-making in the process of purchasing goods and services (Anderson 1983; Aaker 1991). Furthermore, it is a basic element of the concept of brand equity, which has developed since the 1980s and has become a major marketing concept (Aaker 1991; Keller 1993; Tsordia et al. 2017; Anderson 1983).

Nowadays, the brand image is one of the crucial assets of a company, as it can establish a competitive advantage, but most importantly helps the company to stay in the mind of the consumer and at best, turns them into customers (Deheshti et al. 2016). Hence, understanding the consumer’s feelings and thoughts towards a brand is the key to a valuable brand management and suitable marketing and managerial decisions (Keller 1993; Batey 2008). For that, it is crucial to identify consumers’ networks of associations that, as a whole, form the brand image (Anderson 1983; Keller 1993; Deheshti et al. 2016; Batey 2008).

Consequently, over the years various methods for eliciting brand associations from consumers have been developed and researched (Keller 1998; Batey 2008; Schnittka et al. 2012). The different approaches differ from each other in terms of practical application, resource requirements and extent of retrieved information (Schnittka et al. 2012; John et al. 2006; Zaltman and Coulter 1995).

A quite simple but very powerful and therefore popular research approach is the ‘free associations’ method. Brand meaning is elicited by asking respondents to name the first set of words and terms that come to mind when hearing a certain brand name or product category. By that a wide range of brand associations that consumers hold in their mind, can be

determined. Therefore, this approach has proven useful for detecting the most important aspects of brand image (Keller 1998; Aaker 1991).

Another promising methodology for eliciting brand image is the ‘brand concept maps’ (BCM), which was only been introduced a few years ago. It offers brand managers more detailed information, as it enables the detection of brand association networks in the memory of consumers. The result of this approach is a consensus brand map that shows the core associations of the brand image and illustrates how associations are linked to the brand and to one another (John et al. 2006; Schnittka et al. 2012).

In the following, this diploma thesis assesses the value of the two analytical techniques ‘free associations’ and ‘brand concept maps’ (BCM) for revealing consumers’ perceptions, by applying them to the Austrian cross-country ski brand Fischer.

1.2 Research Aim

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the different methods of examining brand meaning. On that account the research field is analysed by using two different research methods that will be assessed and compared in the end. They are applied to elicit the brand meaning of Fischer in cross-country skiing. The free associations method and the brand concept maps method (BCM) are conducted. The subsequent comparison of the two methods intends to give further insight into the benefits of the different choices. It is aimed to clarify if there is additional value to the results when using the BCM in addition to the free associations.

Therefore, this thesis aims to provide an adequate answer to the following research question:

Research Question: What are the benefits of using free associations and brand concept maps with regard to brand management?

1.3 Selected Research Methods

The methods were chosen in consideration of the extent of this thesis regarding resources, time investment and prior experience of the researcher. Prior research of literature has led to the conclusion, that free associations and brand concept maps are auspicious methods for eliciting brand meaning from consumers. These methods are suitable especially for retrieving the primary brand meaning, which according to Batey (2008) is “a summation of the

consumer’s primary associations and dominant perceptions about a brand” (p. 125-126). As a result, researching the primary brand meaning of consumers can help brand managers to evaluate, if the consumers’ perception of the brand matches the intentions of the marketing message (Batey 2008). Therefore, the free associations and BCM are valuable approaches to identify the primary brand meaning of Fischer in cross-country skiing.

Furthermore, data collection is not too time intensive, as the BCM method is based on the results of the free association method. Also, the additional benefits of using brand concept maps in comparison to the free associations approach can be depicted well. The researcher only needs little experience and instruction, which reduces possible issues with reliability and credibility. Hence, the two selected methods are suitable for meeting the purpose of this thesis.

1.4 Structure of the Thesis

Chapter one introduces the reader into the topic of this thesis, thoroughly describing the problem statement and the aim of the work by outlining the research question. The reasoning behind the choice of the methods for retrieving the brand meaning of Fischer in cross-country skiing – free associations and brand concept maps – is explained above.

The following chapter aims to summarize the theoretical background substantial for the empirical part of this thesis. It attends to the question of how brands create value for companies as well as consumers. Furthermore, the two popular brand concepts of K. L. Keller (1993) and D. A. Aaker (1991) are described and subsequently the difference between the terms brand image and brand identity are outlined. Next, the characteristics of primary and implicit brand meaning are illustrated, followed by an analysis of the different research methods for retrieving brand associations. The Zaltman Metapher Elicitation Technique (ZMET) is explained in greater detail, as it represents the basis of the methods applied in this thesis and which are described next – the free associations and the brand concept maps (BCM).

Chapter three covers the empirical part of the thesis, describing both chosen methods into greater detail. First, study I which makes use of the free associations method is described, followed by study II, the BCM. The research design, the empirical study and the results of both conducted studies are outlined in an adequate and structured manner. The results of the free associations method and the following BCM method are then analysed and compared regarding the characteristics gender, nationality and use of ski brand.

Next, chapter four compares the sample and the results of the two studies. This is followed by a comparison of Fischer’s brand identity and brand image. Subsequently, an analysis and comparison of the two research methods free associations and brand concept maps is made and their benefits and value are evaluated.

The following chapter five intends to adequately answer the research question introduced at the beginning of the thesis. The results of the studies are aligned with recent literature. Managerial implications for Fischer regarding its brand image and brand identity in cross- country skiing are offered. Finally, the limitations of the studies are outlined and recommendations for future research are given.

2 Theoretical Background

2.1 The Value of Brands

As commonly cited in literature, the term brand can be defined as “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 1991, p. 442). This is also the definition of the American Marketing Association from 1960 (Chernatony and Riley 1997). But branding has evolved over time and nowadays the definition has to be extended to also include perceptions and feelings of consumers. Batey (2008) states the brand as the “set of associations, perceptions and expectations existing in his or her [the consumer’s, author’s note] mind” (p. 4).

As the market becomes more and more difficult and the competition intensifies, brand management has become an essential aspect for many companies. Researchers as well as marketing managers have discovered the value of brands as a strategic asset and as a crucial source of competitive advantage for firms, and therefore a vital component of business success (Aaker 1996; Chatzipanagiotou et al. 2016; Christodoulides et al. 2015).

Brands help companies to differentiate from competitors along more emotional lines by positioning the product or service in the mind of consumers (Batey 2008). They serve as a distinguishing mark for identification and intend to make a product or service more memorable. Hence, brands can help companies to achieve that their products stay in the minds of their consumers, which, in the best case, results in loyal customers (Deheshti et al. 2016). Furthermore, a brand serves as protection against imitation by competitors. Additionally to the reasons mentioned above, brands mean such great value for firms because they allow charging highly profitable margins (Batey 2008).

Still, brands are of good value for consumers as well. They are a tool of navigation when choosing a product or service among plenty of different options. Moreover, a brand means security when it comes to the quality of goods and services, because through good brand communication the consumers know what to expect (Wheeler 2013). Another big aspect is the symbolic meaning that consumers associate with brands, which help them express and define themselves by the consumption or use of certain products and brands (Kwak and Kang 2009; Batey 2008). Therefore, brands make for an easier decision-making process for consumers when purchasing and comparing different goods and services.

Because of the above mentioned reasons which explain the value of brands to companies as well as to consumers, it is crucial for brand managers to thoroughly understand, measure and

evaluate their brand (Anselmsson et al. 2017; Keller 1993). As a consequence of the evolution of brands and branding over time, different brand concepts have been developed and defined by various authors. Since a brand has to be seen as a crucial part of a company’s capital, the question emerges of how to measure its value. A close review of recent literature shows, that even though a lot of attention has been set on the concept of brand equity, there is no universal definition and method of measurement for it (Keller 1993). Still, two prevailing perspectives exist (Kapferer 2012): One is a financial approach and centres on the monetary valuation of a firm’s brand (Simon and Sullivan 1993; Farquhar 1989; Lassar et al. 1995). The other one is about how consumers percept and evaluate brands, which is crucial to know for improving marketing productivity (Aaker 1991; Keller 1993; Park and Srinivasan 1994). Over the years the brand definition has been amplified and implicates more aspects such as brand personality (Aaker 1997) and brand identity (Nandan 2005; Aaker 1996). The aim of this thesis is to evaluate how consumers perceive the brand Fischer in cross-country skiing and therefore the focus lies on the concepts of consumer-based brand equity.

2.1.1 Brand Knowledge (according to Keller 1993)

Keller (1993) views brand equity from the perspective of the consumer and describes it as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand” (p. 8). Thus, this differential effect denotes the different reactions of consumers to an element of the marketing mix for a certain brand, compared with the reactions to the same element of the marketing mix of an unnamed or fictitiously named version of the product or service. Consumers’ response or reaction to marketing actions is – in other words – how he or she perceives the brand and behaves during the decision-making process when purchasing a certain product or service.

Brand knowledge consists of two terms, namely brand awareness and brand image. The first aspect, brand awareness, is constituted of brand recall and brand recognition by consumers. The second term, brand image, consists of the set of associations consumers link to a brand in their memory. When consumers hold favourable, strong and unique brand associations, it helps them to differentiate products or services. Consequently, this can lead to a better financial outcome for the firm (Keller 1993). Figure 1 provides an overview on Keller’s concept of brand knowledge which is described in more detail in the section below.

Figure 1: Dimensions of brand knowledge (adapted from (1993, p. 7; Keller 1993, p. 7)

To better understand brand knowledge, the memory structure and processes of people need to be explained in more detail. The human brain structures memory in different types of associative models. One of them, the ‘associative network memory model’ describes memory – or knowledge – as being made of so-called nodes and links (Keller 1993). Thereby, a node represents a memorized piece of information, such as a brand, a product or an attribute (Krishnan 1996). These nodes are furthermore interconnected through links of different strength. Consequently, the stored information is retrieved by a ‘spreading activation’ from one node linked to another node and so on. This spreading activation varies in extent depending on the strength of the links between the different nodes (Anderson 1983; Keller 1993; Raaijmakers and Shiffrin 1981). Thus, like an associative network memory model, brand knowledge can be seen as a brand node in the memory of a consumer which unites different associations linked to the latter. Keller (1993) uses Pepsi as an example to explain this process: When thinking about soft drinks, Pepsi may come to mind because it has a strong association with the product category in the consumers’ mind. Moreover, taste, sugar, etc. also comes to mind, as they are strongly linked to the node ‘Pepsi’.

Brand awareness – this dimension of brand knowledge is the probability with which a certain brand name will come to mind and how easily this process is happening. The process of

remembering a brand should be facilitated by identity terms like the brand name or the brand’s logo. Moreover, brand awareness is defined by two concepts, brand recognition and brand recall. On the one hand, brand recognition of a consumer is his or her capability of remembering that he or she has already seen or heard of the brand when given the name of the respective brand. On the other hand brand recall is when a consumer can generate the brand name from memory when given a cue such as e.g. the product category (Rossiter and Percy 1987; Keller 1993). The importance of brand awareness is outlined by the following three reasons: First of all, it is crucial that consumers connect the brand to the product category, so when they are dealing with a certain product category, that certain brand will be part of the consideration set (Baker et al. 1986). Also, decisions about brands can be influenced by brand awareness, meaning that for purchase decisions with a low involvement level the consumer might choose a product just because of a small amount of brand awareness (Bettman and Park 1980). In addition, brand awareness affects the strength and formation of brand associations in the brand image and therefore influences the consumer in his or her decision- making process. A crucial element when creating a brand image is that first a brand node needs to exist in the memory of the consumer, thereafter the type of node defines how well information can be connected to the brand (Keller 1993).

Brand image can be defined as “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory” (Keller 1993, p. 3). These brand associations are, as already explained in the paragraph above, further nodes containing information which are connected to the brand node in the memory of consumers. Brand associations can be categorized into three different classes, according to the amount of information that is outlined in the concerning association (Alba and Hutchinson 1987). Those are attributes, benefits and attitudes, whereas attributes have the smallest scope and attitudes comprise the largest scope of information.

Attributes depict the descriptive features of a product or service and can be categorized into product-related attributes, which are the products’ physical composition or the requirements for a service to function, and non-product-related attributes, which are external elements of the product or service concerning the purchase or consumption by a consumer. Those include information on the price, the outward appearance or packaging, the user imagery, which is about what kind of people use the product or service, and the usage imagery, which is defined by the situation in which a product or service is used (Keller 1993; Myers and Shocker 1981).

Benefits are described as the personal value a consumer gives a certain product or service and can be divided into three different categories, depending on the related underlying motivations (Keller 1993; Park et al. 1986). Firstly, functional benefits describe the more

intrinsic advantages of consuming a product or service. They are often related to basic needs like physiological and safety needs (Maslow 1970). Normally these benefits match the product- related attributes. Secondly, experiential benefits depend on the feeling a consumer has when using a product or service. They too, typically conform to the product-related attributes. Thirdly, symbolic benefits describe the more extrinsic advantages a consumer gets when using a product or service. These are underlying needs like social approval or personal expression to ones’ surroundings. In consequence, symbolic benefits can be allocated to non-product- related attributes (Keller 1993).

Brand attitudes are the overall evaluation a consumer has about a certain brand (Wilkie 1986). Furthermore, brand attitudes consist of striking attributes and benefits that a consumer has concerning a certain brand and are therefore of crucial importance, because consumers regularly choose a brand because of their brand attitude (Keller 1993).

In conclusion, it can be said that brand image is made of different types of brand associations which contain – like described in the paragraph above – on the one hand product-related or non-product-related attributes, on the other hand functional, experiential or symbolic benefits and also the overall brand attitudes of consumers (Keller 1993).

Brand associations differ regarding the dimensions of favourability, strength and uniqueness. The favourability of brand associations depends on how they are evaluated by the consumer, meaning if people have the feeling that attributes and benefits satisfy certain needs and therefore create a positive overall brand attitude (Keller 1993). Not every attribute of a product or service will be evaluated by the consumer, but generally they are more likely to assess an attribute which is also seen as important (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). Likewise, every situation itself also influences if an association is evaluated or not – when being in a hurry, speed of service may be very important, but it may lose its impact in less stressful situations (Miller and Ginter 1979).

Furthermore, associations vary in their strength of connection to the brand node. This depends on the quantity of information regarding the brand which a consumer is encountering, and on the quality of information. Hence, the strength of an association in the memory of the consumer increases the more meaning is put on the regarding information during the process of encoding. In conclusion, the stronger the association, the better it is accessible and the easier it can be recalled (Keller 1993).

The uniqueness of different brand associations also plays an important role. To gain a competitive advantage over a fellow competitor, it is crucial to have a ‘unique selling proposition’ (Aaker and Shansby 1982). Differences like these can be grounded on all, product-

and non-product-related attributes as well as functional, experiential or image benefits. Hence, the success of a brand is highly depends on having strong and favourably judged associations, which above all are unique in comparison to other brands (Keller 1993). If brand associations are congruent, meaning they share its sense or topic with one another, it influences how well they can be recalled and how well new associations can be linked to the already existing brand node. Generally, similar information is learned and remembered better. When the associations of a brand are congruent, the brand image is ‘cohesive’. Consumers are more likely to react holistic to a cohesive brand image, than to a ‘diffuse’ one with less harmonizing associations. Associations which are shared among different brands, help establish category membership (Sujan and Bettman 1989). According to researchers, this leads to different advantages and disadvantages. Category membership helps consumers in the decision-making process, but as a consequence it leads to them having certain expectations about brands of one category. So if the consumer has a bad attitude to e.g. banks in general, he or she will probably have a negative attitude towards a certain bank as well, because of the category membership (Keller 1993). When communicating and advertising brands, the competitive overlap with other brands of the same category might easily confuse consumers, because of ‘interference’ in their memory (Keller 1987). This issue can be counteracted with ad retrieval cues given directly at the point of purchase (Keller 1991).

In conclusion, Keller (1993) shows that the originally mentioned definition of brands by the American Marketing Association is not including all aspects sufficiently. His definition of brand knowledge states, that for a developing consumer-based brand equity more is needed than just simply selecting and combining suiting brand elements. In his latest edition of the strategic brand management textbook, Keller suggests a four-step model for establishing consumer- based brand equity – the so-called brand resonance model (Keller 2013). It shows how to develop intense, active and most importantly loyal relationships with consumers of the brand. The crucial aspect of the model is to see the four steps as a sequence, whereas the next step can only follow when the previous one has been completed successfully.

Firstly, brand identity needs to be developed by creating salience or awareness among consumers. This is the frequency and the ease with which consumers evoke the brand in different situations. Brand managers’ goal should be to ensure consumers can differentiate the brand from fellow competitors and are aware of the customer’s need which the brand satisfies (Keller 2013).

After successfully implementing step one, brand meaning must be established by linking strong brand associations in consumers’ minds. Brand meaning is divided into two components, namely performance and imagery. Brand performance relates to how well consumers’ more

functional needs are met by the product or service. Hence, this mostly concerns associations in relation to performance advantages such as primary ingredients, reliability, efficiency, design or price occur. Brand imagery describes the type of person or organization who purchases or uses the concerning brand, therefore it relates to the more psychological and social needs of consumers. Examples are associations linked to brand users and their characteristics, purchase and usage circumstances, brand personality and values as well as brand history (Keller 2013).

The third step of the brand resonance model is to create adequate consumer responses to the brand. Brand meaning induces the development of these responses, whereas the aim is to receive positive reactions. Brand responses can either be judgments, which are personal opinions and evaluations of the brand, regarding for example quality and credibility, or feelings which are customers’ emotional responses and reactions to the brand. Strong and favourable emotional linkages to the brand can lead to a positive influence on consumer behaviour (Keller 2013).

The last step in the process of achieving brand resonance concerns brand relationships. The ultimate goal is to create an intense, active and loyal relationship between customers and the concerning brand. People with a deep personal attachment to the brand tend to purchase a product or service regularly. Therefore, it is crucial to encourage active engagement and furthermore establish a sense of community among loyal users, as this helps to maintain a positive brand attitude (Keller 2013).

A lasting and firm brand equity can only be achieved by implementing all four steps in the given order (Keller 2013). For this, the important basis is to rely on strong, favourable and unique brand associations. In the following chapter the concept of D. A. Aaker (1991) is discussed, where the author explains the importance of brand associations for establishing a good market position in greater detail.

2.1.2 Brand Equity (according to Aaker 1991)

David A. Aaker describes brand equity as “a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol, that add or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to that firm’s customers” (Aaker 1991, p. 15). These assets and liabilities, which are the basis of brand equity, can be classified into five categories: brand loyalty, name awareness, perceived quality, brand associations in addition to perceived quality and other

proprietary brand assets such as patents, trademarks, channel relationships, etc. Consequently, brand equity generates value for costumers as well as for firms (Aaker 1991).

One of the customers’ advantages of brand equity is, that strong brand equity assets facilitate the interpretation, processing and storage of huge quantities of information by the customers. Also, if a customer is familiar with the brand, he or she is more confident in the purchase decision. Moreover, the customers’ satisfaction with the use experience can increase because of perceived quality and positive brand associations. Knowing e.g. where a certain product is coming from, can directly influence the use experience and satisfaction. According to Aaker (1991) brand equity can also provide value to the firm, mostly by producing marginal cash flow in various different manners. First of all, it helps to win new customers or regain old ones, as marketing programs are more productive if the brand is already familiar and the customers know the brand quality. It is important to state that brand loyalty is enhanced by the other four categories of brand equity, namely perceived quality, associations and a known brand name. They can give the customers reasons to buy a product or service and might also affect the use satisfaction. Therefore, brand loyalty on the one hand is part of the brand equity concept, but on the other hand is also influenced by brand equity. Moreover, brand equity can add further value because of higher margins, which are made possible by premium pricing and less required marketing expenses. Furthermore, it can provide growth through brand extensions, leverage distribution and create competitive advantage. Like this, all five dimensions of brand equity can positively influence the customers’ attitude to the brand and consequently the purchase decision. All the assets need investment in order to develop and will decay over time if not maintained properly (Aaker 1991). The topic of this thesis has a focus on brand associations, therefore this asset of the brand equity model will be discussed in further detail below.

“A brand association is anything ‘linked’ in memory to a brand“ (Aaker 1991, p. 109). This definition by D. A. Aaker resembles the one of K. L. Keller (1993). The strength of the associations depends on consumers’ experiences and exposures to marketing as well as on how well they are connected to other links. A set of these associations, strong and weak ones, organized meaningfully, builds the brand image. Aaker (1991) here uses the example of the well-known fast food chain McDonald’s to underline his definition: The brand McDonald’s is linked to various different things, like a feeling such as fun or a product characteristic such as service, and so on. The various links can then be organized by categorizing them into different clusters. Visual images, such as the Golden Arches or the mascot Ronald McDonald, are added as well. The then emerging associative network shows the important brand associations but also gives information on their interconnections – from association to association or to the

brand itself (Aaker 1991). As an example, Figure 2 below represents an associative network of the well-known brand McDonald’s.

Figure 2: A mental network (adapted from Aaker 1996, p. 94)

Brand maps can vary from individual to individual. There might be associations about McDonald’s that nearly every person shares, but there might also be certain associations that only few people think about when the brand is mentioned. When associations are strong and shared among many people, they have a stronger influence on the buying behaviour. Consequently, they make for a positive attitude towards the brand and create brand loyalty. Developing and managing such strong brand associations is the goal of a firm, because that way it is possible to position the product in the market. Positioning always has to be seen in comparison to competition, therefore it is crucial to emphasize unique brand features in order to differentiate the brand from competitors (Aaker 1991). In other words, for a successful brand, the brand associations that support the desired position in the market are of essential value. Aaker (1991) categorizes associations into eleven different types, which are product attributes, intangibles, customer benefits, relative price, use/application, user/customer, celebrity/person, life-style/personality, product class, competitors and country/geographic area. These different types will be discussed in the following section.

Associating an object with a product attribute might be the most popular way of positioning. It is most effectively, because purchase decisions are directly influenced by meaningful attributes. There are product classes, where different brands manage to be associated with different attributes and thereby have managed to position themselves differently than the direct competitors. Aaker (1991) uses car brands for explanation, where e.g. Volvo stands for durability, BMW for performance and Mercedes for an excellent engineering. The challenge for a brand is to find an attribute that is both important to a big segment of consumers and still not taken by a fellow competitor. That way, the ultimate goal is to find an attribute that solves a new or still unsolved customer problem. When a brand is associated with various attributes, it might lead to a confusing and even contradicting image. Only when different attributes support each other, it might work to still create a coherent brand image (Aaker 1991).

Even though a lot of brands engage in so-called ‘shouting matches’ where they claim to e.g. have fewer calories or a longer life than competitors, this positioning based on specification is vulnerable to innovation and loses credibility over time. Intangible attributes, which are general attributes, such as perceived quality, technological leadership or healthy food, are way more effective. Also, they are not as easy to outrun by competitors. Moreover, for big companies who sell a wide variety of products and services, intangible associations can prove very useful because e.g. innovation can be an association of all their different products or services (Aaker 1991).

The majority of product attributes also provide customer benefits, whereas it can be crucial for the brand to know which of both the dominant association is. A difference has to be made between rational benefits, which are closely connected to a product attribute and psychological benefits, which are the feelings that are developed while buying or using a specific brand. Research has shown, that psychological benefits, such as e.g. confidence about looks or feeling professional, can be very powerful associations. But still, when combined with a rational benefit, such as easy to use or having full, thick hair, it will be more effective (Aaker 1991).

Relative price is an important decision maker and therefore considered a separate product attribute. There are product classes with different price levels, such as a premium category, an economy category or so-called ‘store brands’. As a consequence, positioning in respect to relative price has to be thoroughly planned, because it is crucial to first consider the price level and then offer away from competitors of that same price category. It is important to offer a credible combination of price and quality, or the brand will not be successful in its positioning (Aaker 1991).

Associating the brand with a use or an application is another way of positioning. Examples can be coffee for ‘to start the day’ or soup as ‘a lunchtime product’. Products can have complex positioning strategies, but having various different ones usually bears difficulties. Mostly, positioning the brand regarding the use or application is the second or third important strategy, whereas often the objective is to expand the brand’s market (Aaker 1991).

Another option is to associate a brand with a certain target segment, in other words a type of product user or customer. A user positioning strategy can be very successful, as it can combine both, a positioning and a segmentation strategy. But a strong user association, such as being associated to a certain age group, can also be a limitation, because it can hinder the expanding of a brands’ market (Aaker 1991).

When linking a celebrity, a fictional person or a cartoon symbol with strong associations to a brand, these associations can be transferred to the brand. A good example is a sports star who uses a certain product of a sports brand. By the simple fact, that a high class athlete uses the product, it will credibly be seen as a quality product. Because people think, that if the product was not convincing, it would be a disadvantage for the top athlete, and he or she would not compete with it. It has to be stated, that the firm has more control over a fictional character which will always stand for the same associations, such as Michelin the tire giant, than a real person who ages and changes over time (Aaker 1991).

Another type of associations is life-style/personality. It means that like a person, a brand can depict a certain – rich, complex, vivid and distinctive – life-style and personality for the consumer (Aaker 1991).

Some brands need to face critical decisions when it comes to positioning according to product- class associations, because this decision will define with whom they will compete in the market. E.g. the soft drink 7-up was perceived by consumers as a mixer beverage, upon which the firm started to reposition the brand as a soft drink (Aaker 1991).

Often the positioning strategy is implicitly or explicitly put in proportion to fellow competitors. If the competitor already disposes of a well-developed image, it can be worthwhile to also use it for creating a new image in reference to the already established one. Moreover, sometimes it is purchase argument enough to convince consumers that the brand is just better than the one of the competitor. Mostly, positioning in respect to the competitors is used on a specific product characteristic, such as price-quality. Hence, it can be realized by comparative advertising campaigns (Aaker 1991).

Countries or geographic areas can display strong associations too. E.g. Germany is associated with upscale automobiles and France with fashion and perfume. The country of origin can have a great impact on a brand. Though it is important to note, that these perceptions of certain countries can be seen very differently by people of different nations and also depend on who had already visited the respective country (Aaker 1991).

Every brand has its various types of associations which – altogether – portray the brand image. The market position of the brand is viewed from the point of view of the customer, in other words how the customer perceives the brand in comparison to competitors. But this does not necessarily correspond with the market position that the brand managers and the firm had intended to achieve. In conclusion, the objective is to link and communicate the brand with associations that on the one hand fit consumers’ expectations and on the other hand also ensure differentiation and advantage from the competition (Aaker 1991). This difference of positioning between customers and the company directly leads to the topic of the following chapter, which discusses the distinction of brand image from brand identity.

2.1.3 Brand Identity vs. Brand Image

Brand identity and brand image are two related concepts, but need to be distinguished strictly. They are not the same and the two terms cannot be used interchangeably (Nandan 2005).

“Brand identity originates from the company” (Nandan 2005, p. 265), meaning that the concept refers to how a brand sees its own identity. It is the companies’ effort of showing individuality and distinct itself from other competitors. Therefore, managers try to create a unique brand through the development of such an identity (Nandan 2005). Similar to a real persons’ identity, brand identity serves to give direction, meaning and purpose to the brand itself. The identity of a brand is central to the strategic vision of brand management (Aaker 1996). “Brand identity is a unique set of brand associations that the brand strategist aspires to create or maintain. These associations represent what the brand stands for and imply a promise to customers from the organization members” (Aaker 1996, p. 68). In other words, the brand identity is defined by what the firm itself wants its brand to stand for – it is a concept built on the brand’s heritage. It is the message or the associations of the brand that the brand manager wants to get across to the consumers. The goal of the firm is to define the soul and vision of the brand, forming basic characteristics that can survive over time. Therefore, brand identity should be an asset which looks into the future actively, representing all the associations that are crucial for the

brand. There should be a strategic thought with the objective to create sustainable competitive advantage (Aaker 1996).

In comparison to brand identity, the concept of brand image describes “how consumers and others perceive the brand” (Aaker 1996, p. 69). Keller (1998, p. 93) defines brand image as “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory”. In other words, it is a summary of beliefs consumers hold about a certain brand (Kotler 1991; Kotler et al. 2016). This subjective evaluation of the brand in the mind of the consumer does not necessarily reflect true reality (Nandan 2005). Brand image can be seen as a passive asset that is defined by the past, as consumers’ subjective evaluation of the brand is defined by already existing mindsets (Aaker 1996). All the different definitions imply that brand image is a consumer-constructed concept based on subjective perceptions and associations they have about the brand (Nandan 2005). Researchers and brand managers have long been aware of the importance of the concept of brand image, because consumers are ultimately the ones who should be purchasing the brand (Keller 1998).

Therefore, companies try to communicate their brand identity through different branding and advertising strategies. However, consumers evaluate and interpret these messages subjectively, which can lead to a different brand image in the consumers’ mind than the original message of the company. Hence, brand image is the result of three steps, beginning with decoding a message regarding the brand, extracting its meaning and then interpreting the signs. Therefore, a certain source – in this context the company – encodes and sends a message to the receiving person – here the consumer – who decodes the message based on his or her subjective frame of reference. During this process, the consumer is influenced by various external distractions and also exposed to communication messages from competitors (Kapferer 2012). If a discrepancy between the encoded and the decoded message occurs, this is called a communication gap. In other words, when talking about the context of brands, this phenomenon can be explained with the brand identity – the encoded message that is sent – and the brand image – the subjectively decoded message. Hence, brand identity is the companies’ reality whereas brand image is the perception of the consumer (Nandan 2005).

Consequently, the goal of brand managers needs to be the minimization of the communication gap. Only with the identity and the image concept being in harmony, it is possible to create brand loyalty among consumers. When the two concepts are congruent, it shows that consumers have understood the brand message well and are more likely to be loyal to the concerning brand. Only in that way value for both, the company and the consumer can be established. The preconditions for this are strong connections between the brand and the consumers through well-directed dialogue. The marketing message should trigger consumer

needs and show the core benefits of the brand that can solve those needs. Hence, the goal is to effectively communicate the identity of the brand to the consumer in order for him or her to have a consumption experience that satisfies his or her prior expectations (Nandan 2005). In conclusion, only by strengthening the linkage between brand identity and brand image through effective communication, it is possible to create value for the consumer. As a result, value for the firm is created as well, because brand loyalty among consumers is stimulated (Nandan 2005).

Nandan (2005) furthermore explains guidelines for brand managers to achieve the intended brand loyalty. A crucial element for creating congruence between brand identity and brand image is to know and understand the market environment and its constant changes, especially regarding communications and information technologies. An ever-growing competition in the market, developments in consumer behaviour and new tactics in marketing also have an impact on the brand concept. In conclusion, it is the goal to balance dynamic and consistency. Nandan (2005) sees consistency of the brand concept as the key for consumers to understand the brand image, as it facilitates recognition and recall. Contrary to that, Berthon et al. (2009) imply that brands must stay relevant in a dynamic market environment. Depending on different segments of consumers, a brand can represent different meanings. That for, a consistent brand meaning is neither desirable nor obtainable. Exemplary, the brand Levi’s denim jeans stood for freedom and rebelliousness for the generation of the so-called ‘baby-boomers’, whereas the next generation perceived them as jeans for old people (Berthon et al. 2009).

Still, the authors of both papers conform that it is crucial for communication to be both ways and work interactively in order to build long-term relationships to consumers. Only with feedback from consumers it is possible to know if they understand and share the same brand meaning as the firm itself. Nandan (2005) recommends having a cross-functional brand management, where not only marketing managers, but also staff with expertise from various different areas are involved in the bigger picture of brand management. Therewith, the brand identity should become more holistic and the link between brand identity and brand image should be strengthened. For establishing such a congruence between brand identity and image, integrated marketing communications (IMC) can be a tool of help. It makes for the coordination of different marketing activities and consequently ensures that the message is delivered consistently to all ‘touch points’, which are contact points of the consumer with the brand. Meaning, that regardless of the medium or media with which the message is delivered, consumers need to receive a synchronized message when in contact with the brand. IMC stresses the importance of consistency of the message through different marketing activities, because this reinforcement of the message can positively influence consumer loyalty. Also, by

addressing consumer needs with personalized approaches, relationships between consumers and the brand can be established (Nandan 2005).

Berthon et al. (2009) approach this topic by building on the theory of mutual knowledge from Clark and Marshall (1981), and explain the significance of having a mutual knowledge base within the different stakeholder groups. This is crucial because groups with differing knowledge bases will understand marketing messages differently and consequently elicit different brand meanings. That might explain the various and sometimes even inconsistent brand meanings, as consumers interpret the brand differently, being influenced by their personal background, social surroundings, consumption situation and frames of reference. In other words, gaps can also appear between stakeholders’ brand perceptions, not only between the company and stakeholders. Hence, successful communication occurs, when sender and receiver share the same common knowledge. Another aspect, that needs to be considered, is the fact that nowadays consumers co-create brand meaning through interaction with one another (Berthon et al. 2009). Members of a brand community interact with one another, but also with marketers, and share their feelings regarding the brand. As a result they also create and negotiate brand meaning (McAlexander et al. 2018). Therefore, through ongoing dialogue and open communication with customers, brand co-creation can be managed in a better way and enable the company to establish a common understanding of the brand. For groups with divergent knowledge bases, different marketing messages are necessary. Subsequently, knowing the users and their perceptions and getting feedback through mutual communication, help to adjust the brands’ marketing program in order to achieve and maintain a congruent brand meaning among different stakeholders (Berthon et al. 2009).

Recapitulating, it can be stated that brand identity is the viewpoint of the firm, which is the sender of the brand message. Whereas brand image is the point of view of the consumer, the receiver, who interprets the message subjectively. The point of overlap of the two concepts defines the positioning of the brand. Both concepts in combination are crucial for creating a strong and long-living brand (Nandan 2005; Aaker 1996). Tough it is not possible to entirely control the various brand meanings and perceptions that different groups of stakeholders develop and hold (Berthon et al. 2009; Kates and Goh 2003; Berthon et al. 2009). Still, the objective of brand managers needs to be the minimizing of the gap between brand identity and brand image in order to create a holistic brand meaning.

2.1.4 Brand Meaning

Brand meaning is defined by how the brand is perceived at both, a conscious level and a semi- or subconscious level. It sums up all the different elements of a brand that a consumer has in mind, including brand associations as well as consumer needs or qualities of the product and/or the brand itself. Consequently, brand meaning can be divided into primary brand meaning, which includes the salient and conscious aspects of the brand, and implicit brand meaning, consisting of deeper meanings and instinctive interpretations (Batey 2008). Figure 3 illustrates how to distinguish the two concepts and how they interrelate with one another.

Figure 3: Brand meaning model (adapted from Batey 2008, p. 131)

Primary brand meaning depicts the core brand meaning, displaying how consumers define or perceive the brand. In other words it consists of the dominant perceptions of consumers about the brand, which come to mind immediately. Mostly, primary brand meaning is strongly impacted by functional attitudes of the product and therefore also by the product category and product characteristics. The research of this concept of brand meaning is important for marketers to assess if consumers’ brand definition coincide with the companies’ intentions and can therefore help to identify and possibly rectify misconceptions about the brand (Batey 2008).

The second concept, implicit brand meaning, “refers to the ultimate emotional and psychological implications and significance of a brand, to the psychic resonance that the brand has for its consumers” (Batey 2008, p. 128). Brand attitudes, benefits and associations and their more subconscious significance form the implicit brand meaning, taping deeper into consumer values or archetypal influences. It depicts the dynamics of consumer decision- making. Implicit brand meaning consists of symbols and is greatly affected by cultural values. The basis of it lies in the deep-seated emotional bond of the consumer to the product. Often brand managers tend to underestimate the importance of implicit brand meaning, even though it is the point where consumers really link with the brand and can find identification (Batey 2008).

These two concepts of brand meaning are different but show some degree of interrelationship when forming the total brand meaning. Each of the concepts resembles a different lookout on the brand, focusing on it in a different notion. Brand managers should always be aware of the symbolic potential of the brand, as fitting archetypes or myth hold the brands’ status in the longer term. Still, consumers usually access brands through their products, so highlighting sensory information, quality, new features or line extensions is also of major importance. Consequently, a robust brand meaning emerges when both primary and implicit brand meaning are connected and in synergy. In other words, only when the use of a product causes a higher brand meaning for the consumer, then the total brand meaning is convincing. It is essential to note that brand meaning is enduring and consistent, it can hardly be changed by short-term advertising. But still, brand meaning needs to be sustained in ever-changing market conditions and across different target groups and cultures (Batey 2008).

2.2 Methods to Evaluate Brand Meaning

In order to make effective brand management decisions, it is important for marketers to thoroughly understand consumers’ brand knowledge structures. Nevertheless, detecting consumers’ brand meaning is a complex task. Eliciting and understanding all their opinions, feelings, beliefs and attitudes towards a certain brand is almost impossible. Researchers have developed various detailed and sophisticated research techniques and methods to get a thorough understanding of consumer knowledge and brand meaning (Keller 1998). The sources of consumer-based brand equity can be measured by retrieving the brand knowledge of individuals. Researchers generally distinct between qualitative and quantitative approaches (Keller 1998; Aaker 1991; Keller 2013). Both will be explained in further detail in the following section of this paper, whereas the focus lies on qualitative methods, as they are of greater

relevance for the empirical part of this paper. The most important measurements for brand meaning are given in the next chapters.

2.2.1 Qualitative Methods

Qualitative research methods are generally more unstructured and allow a wider range of possible responses. They enable to identify a wide range of possible brand associations and sources of brand equity in order to give a rich and insightful picture of the brand meaning (Keller 1998; Aaker 1991). Because of the less-structured layout, qualitative methods are often applied as a first step when analysing brand and product perceptions of consumers, as respondents are mostly free to state all associations, attributes or benefit beliefs that come to mind (Keller 1998).

Aaker (1991) distinguishes between direct and indirect approaches for eliciting brand perceptions. Applying a direct approach means asking consumers directly about what the brand means to them. A useful tool are in-depth discussions about a brand with individuals or with a focus group. Expedient questions, among others, can be: What brand do you use? Why do you use the brand? What do you associate with the brand? Still, respondents are mostly not very likely to reveal true feelings, thoughts and attitudes when asked directly (Aaker 1991).

A problem of direct approaches can be respondents’ unwillingness to reveal true feelings, which often originates in them feeling that the concerning information is either embarrassing or private or both. Therefore, they tend to refuse an answer or give made-up answers, which seem more rational to them. Aaker (1991) gives the example of someone wearing designer jeans to feel socially accepted, but pointing out prize and quality of the product as a more rational and less ‘embarrassing reason for purchasing them. In other words, respondents might modify their answers in order to appear in the desired identity and regulate the image that an interviewer has of them (Batey 2008). Sometimes respondents do not have a real reason to why they buy certain products and are therefore unable to provide this information. They might not be consciously aware of a particular feeling because they are suppressing it by a defence mechanism or because it has not ever arisen (Aaker 1991).

In short, detecting the implicit brand meaning in consumers’ minds is a difficult task. As Gardner and Levy (1955) explain, brand meaning can be either clear or relatively vague, simple or complex, impressive or shallow. And above all it might not even appear relevant to people who are aware of what a product or brand is actually like (Gardner and Levy 1955). Moreover, feelings and associations concerning a certain brand can be memorized at a very

subconscious level, since many of them are formed in situations where people have a low involvement with the product or brand. Therefore, people are often unaware of their true attitudes toward a brand. Besides, many associations are stored in consumer memories as visual, emotional or sensory modes (Batey 2008). Hence, because of the above mentioned issues regarding the detection of brand associations, more indirect approaches might lead to more genuine results (Aaker 1991). Furthermore, researchers recommend to make use of several methods that complement each other in order to gain a true insight into the brand image (Keller 1993; Batey 2008).

Many of the various approaches in qualitative research are projective methods, which hide the real objective of the search and try to detect deeper attitudes and associations (Aaker 1991). They have proven useful in order to avoid the aforementioned problems of more-direct questions (Hofstede et al. 2007; Koll et al. 2010). This follows the argumentation of Levy (1981), who states that more specific questions lead to a narrow range of information of the respondent, whereas open-ended questions, which are less restrained provide more information. Thus, the questions should focus on topics such as user experience, the decision process or the brand user, as opposed to centring directly on the brand. Respondents are not restricted in their answer possibilities and can freely express their feelings, attitudes and experiences. Indirect approaches are therefore useful tools to elicit the brand meaning of people. Still, for deriving specific brand management implications, they should be repeated from time to time and with different consumer segments and should furthermore be complemented by more structured research approaches (Aaker 1991; Batey 2008). Over time, researchers have developed various verbal and visual methods over the past decades, which are discussed below (Koll et al. 2010).

A widely used indirect method to identify brand associations and feelings is the so-called free associations method. It is quite simple and straight forward to handle and therefore has been conducted frequently by researchers (Krishnan 1996; Keller 1993; Koll et al. 2010; Chen 2001). The goal is to detect the top-of-mind brand associations of consumers with questions similar to “When you think of this brand, what comes to mind?” (Keller 2013, p. 296). As the free association task is applied in this thesis, it is discussed in further detail in the following chapter.

Another approach that has proven very useful is the comparing task. There, respondents are asked to make a comparison of brands with certain objects, e.g. famous personalities, animals, locations, cars, etc. The results should offer a wide characterization of the brand, giving indications to brand managers on which associations to develop further and which to avoid prospectively (Aaker 1991).

When respondents have difficulties in verbalizing their feeling regarding a brand, visual techniques can be applied (Zaltman and Coulter 1995; Zaltman 1997; Koll et al. 2010). Here, brand meaning is revealed by using images, photos, etc. as descriptive tools, whereas the creation of collages is an often used technique. An example are mood boards, used by Hofstede et al. (2007), where respondents were asked to use magazine clippings to create a collage about how they feel about a certain topic. Consumers can use people, animals, colours, objects – whatever seems fitting. Hence, this method can be applied to several research topics (Hofstede et al. 2007).

A very valuable result of qualitative research are mental maps, which illustrate all prominent brand associations and responses of a certain target audience. Additionally, it has also proven to be useful to categorize brand associations into descriptive terms, so-called core brand associations. These core brand associations are the most relevant attributes and benefits which characterize the brand (Keller 2013).

Qualitative research mostly implies projective techniques and relatively small samples. Hence, the advantages are that these are relatively inexpensive methods that actively involve respondents and, most importantly, offer brand managers close contact with their customers. The non-intuitive insights of such studies can provide crucial information for adapting the brand strategy (Aaker 1991).

2.2.1.1 Free Associations

The free associations method is one of the simplest and most powerful indirect research approaches. It has become very popular for eliciting brand meaning and has been used since the 1980s (Krishnan 1996; Keller 1993; Reilly 1990, 1990; Koll et al. 2010; Reilly 1990; Chen 2001). As already mentioned, the free associations method is used in this paper and is therefore described in further detail in this section.

The aim of the free associations method is to determine the crucial elements of brand image, without letting respondents getting into a thinking process. Individuals get asked to name the first set of words that come to mind when hearing or thinking about a stimulus, such as a certain brand name or even just a product category. The responses are given in an unstructured and non-restrictive way. When conducting a free association task, it is important to ask questions without biasing the results. It is best to start with more general questions and then move to the more specific considerations (Keller 1998; Aaker 1991; Keller 2013). An often used version of free associations is sentence completion. Examples could be ‘People like Fischer because…’

or ‘Fischer is symbolized by…’ (Aaker 1991). People should give words and thoughts as they arrive, without thinking about them or even evaluating them. The method can be conducted by having respondents write down their answers, but oral responses are to be preferred, as they are normally more likely to produce spontaneous thoughts. The objective is to gain knowledge on the wide range of possible brand associations that consumers have in mind (Keller 1998; Aaker 1991).

After the task of collection of associations, the encoding of data is done by allocating the different associations of consumers to certain categories. This helps to then be able to count the frequency of mentions of the different brand associations (Keller 1998; Reilly 1990; Koll et al. 2010). Subsequently, a discussion about why the different thoughts emerged, can follow (Keller 1998; Aaker 1991). The results of the free association task can be used to build a rough mental map for the concerning brand (Keller 2013).

The free association approach is very useful for getting honest feedback (Aaker 1991; Keller 1998). It can also give a rough indication about the strength, uniqueness and favourability of associations, when analysing their order of mention. Therefore, first mentioned associations tend to be strong ones and influence consumer behaviour. Associations mentioned later on by consumers are normally weaker and have less effect on the purchase decision. Information on the uniqueness of associations can be gained by comparing them to those of competitive brands. The way in which the different associations are stated, might also give information regarding their favourability. For a better estimation of favourability and uniqueness of associations, follow-up questions can be used. These can cover among others topics like advantages and disadvantages of the brand, differences in comparison to competitors or user situations of the brand (Keller 1998, 2013). Furthermore, evaluating the numerous words that come up during the word association task quantitatively, is also possible: A target segment is asked to rank the different associations on a five-point scale from ‘it fits the brand extremely well’ to ‘it does not fit the brand well at all’ (Aaker 1991).

This simple approach shows great value for determining the most important aspects of brand image (Keller 1998). It is possible to determine a big range of brand associations and therewith it can help to reveal differences or overlaps between the brand meaning of consumers and the brand managers’ definition of the brand. Also, by deducting the method on competitors as well, similarities and differences of brand associations between competitive brands can be revealed (Aaker 1991). Another advantage is that there are various ways to collect data, such as face- to-face interview, online questionnaires or via telephone. Also, it can be conducted with small sample sizes and require relatively little time, labour and monetary resources. Research staff does not need much prior experience or education regarding the research method, as its

execution is not very complex. Furthermore, the results are not biased if respondents do not know the brand, it only leads to a smaller number or zero brand associations. Additionally, it is possible to compare different target groups in the analysis of the free associations task (Reilly 1990).

Still, some disadvantages have to be mentioned as well. When categorizing the numerous associations, interpretational biases might occur. Therefore, this process has to be executed carefully in order to minimize possible mistakes in interpretation. Hence, in comparison to free associations, more traditional methods of scaling might lead to results that show more reliability and validity (Reilly 1990). The free associations task accesses thoughts that are stored in semantic memory and can be expressed verbally. Because of that, it is valuable for revealing conscious brand knowledge, but does not unveil the deeper-lying implicit brand knowledge (Batey 2008; Koll et al. 2010).

2.2.1.2 Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique (ZMET)

Metaphors can help interpret perceptions, they allow new connections and facilitate the development of new meanings. They can uncover thinking processes and thoughts that are not expressed otherwise. Research approaches that elicit metaphors can be useful for revealing unconscious attitudes and sensations (Batey 2008; Zaltman 2003, 1997). A much- cited multi-method approach for eliciting metaphors and brand meaning is the Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique, in short ZMET, developed by Gerald Zaltman and Robin Higie Coulter (Batey 2008; Keller 1998; John et al. 2006; Schnittka et al. 2012; Kokko and Lagerkvist 2017). It is explained in further detail in this chapter, because ZMET is a consumer mapping technique, similar to the brand concept maps technique, which is applied in this thesis and described in the next chapter.

The two authors of the ZMET realized that non-verbal channels and communication was being overlooked by existing research methods. ZMET therefore aims to also detect the subconscious mental models that influence consumers’ decision-making and purchase behaviour. The method tries to elicit the constructs that influence thoughts and behaviour, which are often explained best by using metaphors (Keller 1998, 2013). Zaltman and Coulter (1995) state that “For the most part, it is only through their metaphors that we can understand consumer thinking and behaviour and thus learn to develop and market goods and services successfully” (p. 6-7). The ZMET technique combines projective methodology with in-depth interviews and is therefore especially useful to discover implicit brand meaning. By using

qualitative methods, ZMET elicits metaphors, constructs and mental models from consumers with the help of visual and sensory images.

In the elicitation stage a subject group of consumers, typically around 20 people, are asked to collect pictures and photographs which illustrate what the regarding brand means to them. Seven to ten days later, they bring the collected pieces and take part in a two-hour one-on- one guided interview. This interview, which is led by using advanced interview techniques, aims to reveal the respondents’ ideas, themes and emotions. The conversation includes a series of ten consecutive steps, where the collected images are analysed and further discussed. These steps urge respondents to further explore and expand the metaphoric meaning of the collected images and the relationships to each other, creating a visual summary of the researched brand (Batey 2008; Keller 1998; Zaltman and Coulter 1995; Zaltman 1997).

The ten different steps of the guided conversation include several qualitative research techniques in order to reveal implicit brand knowledge. First it starts with storytelling, where respondents talk about the pictures and photos they have brought with them, explaining how they relate to the brand. Then, they are to explain missing pictures which they were unable to find and describe, what they should have depicted. Furthermore, participants are asked to allocate the images into meaningful piles and name the different piles. In step four the authors of the ZMET apply the Kelly Repertory Grid technique (Kelly 1963) and the Laddering technique (Reynolds and Gutman 1988), whereas participants define how any two of three images are similar but different from a third picture. The grid technique is helpful to elicit constructs from respondents, the laddering exercise then reveals the connections and patterns of the different constructs. The combination of the two techniques has proven useful, because as aforementioned they complement each other well. In the next step the participant has to name the most representative image regarding his or her feelings toward the topic. Then, the interviewer asks for an image that describes the opposite of the given task. Next up, the respondent has to use all the senses to describe the topic by non-visual sensory images. Step eight is of crucial importance, as is the initiation of the creation of a brand map later on. First, all selected constructs are discussed to evaluate their accuracy and completeness. Then, the participant creates a map with all the selected constructs and shows how they connect with one another and with the topic. The next step aims to develop a summary image or montage out of the selected images. Digital mapping techniques facilitate this step, as they can help participants to express their feelings on the topic. In the last step the participant is asked to make a vignette or a short video that contains all important issues (Zaltman and Coulter 1995; Batey 2008).

After analysing the data of all the interviews, a consensus map can be drawn. In this so-called aggregation stage, researches extract key themes, encode the data and then form a consensus map that includes all the important constructs. The two criteria used, are, on the one hand the number of respondents who mentioned a certain construct and, on the other hand the number of individuals who bring up a connection between two constructs. ZMET can give great insight into how consumers perceive a brand. Further quantitative analysis of the data can help derive further managerial implications regarding brand marketing decisions (Keller 1998, 2013; Zaltman and Coulter 1995; Zaltman 1997; John et al. 2006).

The ZMET has shown to be a valid and reliable method. It is very effective in revealing conscious as well as unconscious brand associations because of its multi-method approach. However, applying ZMET is very labour-intensive for both the researcher and the participants of the study. Furthermore, it requires well-educated researchers, who know the foundations of the technique as well as cognitive neuroscience and psycholinguistics, in order to prevent misuse of the tool and the collected data (Zaltman and Coulter 1995; Zaltman 1997; John et al. 2006). Therefore, small firms with no prior brand research knowledge will find it difficult to use ZMET (John et al. 2006). With the goal of eliminating the aforementioned disadvantages, John et al. (2006) offer a new consumer mapping approach – the Brand Concept Maps – which will be described in the following chapter.

2.2.1.3 Brand Concept Maps (BCM)

As outlined in the previous chapters of this thesis, brand equity is based on strong, favourable and unique brand associations (Keller 1993). These associations are typically arranged in networks in an individual’s memory (Anderson 1983). John et al. (2006) introduced a new methodology for eliciting those brand association networks consumers hold in their mind – the Brand Concept Maps (BCM). The method results in a consensus brand map which includes the core associations of a brand’s image and illustrates how associations are linked to the brand and to one another. BCM is a more standardized method which is easier to conduct as for example the ZMET and is also less time intensive for the participants of the study. Furthermore, researchers do not need specific knowledge or sophisticated statistical capabilities (John et al. 2006). The BCM approach will be explained in greater detail as it is one of the methodologies used in the empirical part of this thesis.

Since the introduction of BCM, researchers have used the approach for various studies in different research areas. It has been conducted to detect core associations and brand

networks of product brands such as ‘H&M’ or consumer items like ‘Milka’, ‘Burger King’ or coffee shop brands (Böger et al. 2017; Erdoğmuş and Dirsehan 2017). Furthermore, the BCM approach has been used to analyse service brands e.g. the Mayo Clinic as well as to elicit the brand meaning of destinations such as Seoul (Ci and Choi 2017; John et al. 2006). Also, political parties have been studied with the BCM (French and Smith 2010). Schnittka et al. (2012) have further developed the method to also measure the favourability of elicited brand associations.

In their paper, John et al. (2006) differ techniques into ‘consumer mapping’, which elicits brand maps directly from consumers – such as the ZMET or BCM – and ‘analytical mapping’ which creates brand maps through the use of analytical tools. The second technique discovers brand associations from participants, but uses analytical tools to create a brand map. Therefore, a big benefit of BCM is, that the method enables to elicit brand association networks from individuals and then aggregate them into an overall consensus map. Moreover, the BCM approach is a useful tool when brand managers already know the associations consumers associate with the brand, but want to know how these are connected to the brand and to one another. Furthermore, the method is easy to conduct, as it does not require special statistical knowledge and furthermore is less time-consuming and less subjective as e.g. the ZMET (John et al. 2006; Schnittka et al. 2012).

The approach is based on the measurement techniques of concept maps, which origin in physical sciences. But these concept map procedures so far did not have criteria for aggregating individual maps into consensus maps. Therefore, all the different steps of the BCM method are designed for subsequent aggregation of individual maps into a consensus brand map (John et al. 2006; Schnittka et al. 2012).

Three consecutive stages define the BCM method, which lead to the result of a consensus map with the network of brand associations that consumers have in their mind. The first step is the brand elicitation stage which aims to identify crucial brand associations from consumers. The necessary information can be obtained by conducting a short study or using existing data from previous consumer research. There are a few criteria that should be kept in mind for the elicitation stage: When eliciting associations, it is important to question the same consumer population as in the succeeding mapping stage of the BCM method. Also, associations should be identified by asking open-ended questions which do not restrict consumers in naming their brand associations. Then “the most frequently mentioned brand associations should be selected to form the final set” (John et al. 2006, p. 552) which in the next step will be used for the mapping stage. The selected associations should be expressed in the same wording as

consumers used in their answers, rather than adapting them to the terms of the brand managers (John et al. 2006; Keller 2013; Schnittka et al. 2012).

In the second stage, the mapping stage, respondents are guided to draw their own brand map. First, cards with the selected brand associations form the elicitation stage are shown to respondents. They are requested to select the associations which illustrate what they think and feel about the regarding brand. In order to prevent the absence of salient associations, blank cards are provided for additional and yet missing brand associations. With the selected associations respondents are asked to draw their own brand map. For guidance, they are shown an example of a brand map beforehand. Lastly, participants have to connect the associations with one another or with the brand according to their own perception of the brand. There are cards with three different types of connecting lines, whereas a single line shows a weak connection, a double line a stronger one and a tripe line the strongest connection of the items (John et al. 2006; Keller 2013; Schnittka et al. 2012).

The third and concluding step of the BCM method is the aggregation stage. Here, the individual brand maps are merged into a consensus brand map. A set of basic rules gives guidance for this stage, whereas they are quite simple to apply and researchers do not need any specific knowledge of research methods. The consensus brand map is created by analysing the frequencies of the mentioned associations and the different interconnections (John et al. 2006; Schnittka et al. 2012). Figure 4 shows a BCM, a consensus brand map, using the example of the car ‘Volkswagen Beetle’.

Figure 4: Example BCM (adapted from John et al. 2006, p. 553)

The results of the conducted studies by John et al. (2006) using the BCM shows evidence of reliability, when assessed with split-half reliability, and validity, nomological and convergent one, of the then newly introduced method. The advantages of the BCM method are its easy execution and analysation, where researchers only need minimal training and respondents are done with the study in about 15 to 20 minutes. Furthermore, data processing and analysation is quite simple, because only frequency counts are necessary to build the brand consensus map. Since the aggregation step is standardized by clear rules, subjectivity is reduced. Moreover, the method shows flexibility regarding customer segments, geographic regions and research topics. Also, the method allows using already existing consumer research in the elicitation stage. Therefore, BCM proves to be a useful tool for a wide range of companies for identifying core brand associations and their connection to the brand and to one another. Still, it is important to note that this technique might not catch all associations, especially the ones that are more unconsciously linked in consumer memory (John et al. 2006).

Nevertheless, there are also some issues regarding the BCM approach that need to be addressed. It is important to emphasize that only conscious associations of consumers can be detected. As a consequence, the superficial retrieval of brand associations in the elicitation stage influences the results of the whole study (John et al. 2006). In addition, an aggregation bias can negatively influence reliability and validity. Böger et al. (2017) state, that the original aggregation rules of John et al. (2006) show methodological and practical drawbacks. Moreover, the original approach does not give information regarding the favourability of brand associations. A further development to bypass this issue is the brand association network value (BANV), a further evolved BCM, which also measures favourability (Schnittka et al. 2012). Still, John et al. (2006) expound, that the results of their research studies prove the reliability and validity of the BCM, on condition that all aggregation rules are obeyed.

2.2.2 Quantitative Methods

Even though qualitative research approaches are useful for identifying a wide range of brand associations, brand managers often ask for more specific information for strategic brand management decisions (Keller 2013). Quantitative research methods make use of scale questions and allow numerical representations of the answers. The depth of brand awareness, the strength, favourability and uniqueness of brand associations as well as attributes, benefits and attitudes can be measured over time. Quantitative methods give brand managers more concrete and comparable results and permit more defensible strategic and tactical recommendations. Therefore, they are useful tools to apply in addition to qualitative

techniques, in order to gain further insight in the already elicited brand associations (Keller 1998, 2013).

The most common possibility of quantitative research is asking participants to rate various attitudes or benefits they connect with a certain brand. Scales for answering can be of different formats, such as Likert scales or the semantic differential (Aaker 1991; Keller 1998, 2013). Another useful approach to detect a brand’s image compared to a competitor is multidimensional scaling, so-called perceptual maps. There, participants are asked to compare competitive brands regarding similarity or preference. The relative images of the different brands are then shown in a perceptual map, whereas brands perceived as similar are positioned closer to each other. This method is more complex, but has proven useful in examining brand perceptions in relation to competitors (Keller 1998, 2013). As this thesis does not make use of quantitative methods, a further discussion of those is not considered.

3 Empiricism

This chapter describes the methodology of the paper. To evaluate the brand meaning of Fischer in cross-country skiing, two different research methods are conducted – the free associations and the brand concept maps. In the following subchapters, the free associations method and its results are discussed first, followed by the details regarding the second study, the BCM. This is due the fact that the free associations technique is applied before the BCM approach, since the results of the former provide necessary information in order to create the questionnaire for the brand concept maps in the subsequent survey.

Worldwide, around 1.8 million cross-country skis are sold annually, whereas the ski manufacturer Fischer has a market share of over 50% (Die Welt 2004; WKO Österreich 2018). The Fischer Sports GmbH is the global leader in Nordic skiing and has established a reputation of innovation and cutting-edge technology. Fischer was founded in 1924 in Ried im Innkreis, Austria. The company is held privately and counts over 2,000 employees in Austria, where the global headquarters and part of the manufacturing are located, and in Ukraine where the other part of the manufacturing takes place (Fischer Sports GmbH 2018). Still, it cannot deny the challenging market developments and increased competition that the sports industry faces nowadays (Deheshti et al. 2016). Therefore, Fischer have become highly aware of the importance of the brand image that consumers hold of their brand. Fischer wants to be the athlete’s brand of choice and is aiming to be known for outstanding products (Fischer Sports GmbH 2018). The company indicates a clearly defined brand identity, which is described in detail on its website. Fischer’s core values are being an Austrian company and confirming its position as global market leader in Nordic skiing. The firm wants to be thought of as innovative and offering premium quality products. Since its foundation it is a family-owned company and proves to be a reliable partner for world-class athletes as well as for customers and employees. Fischer states to offer an outstanding skiing experience (Fischer Sports GmbH 2018). Consequently, the crucial step for marketers is to accomplish communicating the brand’s identity to the consumers believably (Aaker 1996; Nandan 2005).

In the stage of development of the two different questionnaires for the empirical studies, important general guidelines are considered in order to create suitable questions. To ensure comprehension by interviewees and consequently receive explicit and clear responses, it is crucial to phrase questions understandably and distinctively. Furthermore, a simple and straightforward formatting style and a logical sequence of questions enables respondents to complete the questionnaire in the littlest possible time and obviates questions on how to handle the survey (Saris and Gallhofer 2007; Bradburn et al. 2004).

In order to get the best possible information on the brand meaning of Fischer, the target group for both surveys of this thesis are individuals who practice cross-country skiing. As the second study is based on the results of the first one, it is of crucial importance that the samples of both conducted surveys show as many similar or equal characteristics as possible. On that account, data collection was done in Seefeld in Tyrol, Austria, for both questionnaires. The small town of Seefeld is a well-known winter sports resort for Nordic winter sports, where lots of tourists and local residents make use of the big network of well-prepared cross-country ski tracks. With its 245 kilometres of cross-country ski tracks in all levels of difficulty, the site makes for a great hotspot for practising Nordic winter sports (Olympiaregion Seefeld 2019). Since both questionnaires are carried out in Seefeld, directly targeting cross-country skiers, the two samples should show similar characteristics and allow an analysis and a comparison of the two respondent groups in order to detect similarities or differences.

Data were captured by paper-and-pencil interview and then digitalized and transformed using Microsoft Excel. The statistical program used for further analysis of data is IBM SPSS Statistics 23. Tables and graphs of the paper are created with Microsoft Excel 2013. The outcome of the statistical analysis and results are described in the following sub-chapters.

3.1 Study I: Free Associations

The free associations method is the first study applied in this thesis. This approach is used because, as mentioned before in previous chapters, it is a useful tool for eliciting brand meaning from consumers and it has proven to deliver viable results since its first occurrence in the 1980s (Krishnan 1996; Reilly 1990; Keller 1998; Aaker 1991).

3.1.1 Research Design

The free associations study in this thesis is conducted by a structured questionnaire in German language with six questions. It includes open questions and single option questions, whereas it took respondents about two to five minutes to complete all proposed questions. In addition to the questioning regarding free associations on the brand Fischer in cross-country skiing, some basic demographic information is obtained from interviewees as well. The full questionnaire is attached in Appendix A.

The survey starts with a short description of the topic of the study and ensures respondents, that the collected data will be handled confidentially and anonymously. Furthermore, an indication is given on how long the completion of the questionnaire will take approximately. With the first question, respondents are asked directly if they know Fischer as a brand of cross- country skiing. Question number two concerns the free association task. Based on Aaker (1991), it is worded as follows: ‘What comes to mind spontaneously when thinking about Fischer as a cross-country skiing brand?’ Multiple blank lines are given in order to encourage individuals to give not only one, but several associations as an answer. Thereafter, the interviewee is asked to assess his or her answers of the free elicitation task with either a plus for perceiving the concerning association as positive, a minus for negative or a wave for neutral. In the following question, participants have to indicate if they see themselves as active cross-country skiers or not. When answering yes, a follow-up question asks about the brand of cross-country ski they use. Subsequently, three demographic questions conclude the questionnaire in order to gain a better picture of the characteristics of the sample. These questions inquire age, gender and nationality of participating individuals as well as their federal state.

A pre-test of the questionnaire by different volunteers resulted in an adaption of the survey. The first part with the description of the research topic was shortened, as test persons claimed it is too long. Apart from that, the questionnaire was perceived as clearly understandable and no further improvement suggestions were given.

3.1.2 Empirical Study

This subchapter gives detailed information on the sampling method of study I. The profile and characteristics of respondents is outlined thoroughly.

The questionnaire for eliciting brand associations with the free associations approach was printed out and could be filled in with provided pens. The survey was conducted by the author of this thesis in the time period from December the 2nd to December the 20th 2017. Directly at the main entrance point of the cross-country ski track in Seefeld in Tyrol, Austria, people were asked to participate in the study. Many individuals could be reached around lunchtime, since they would end or start their practice around that time. A simple random sampling method was used, where interviewees participated voluntarily. In addition to the self-administered questionnaire that the researcher handed out on clipboards, it was offered to read out the question aloud and fill in the orally stated answers of the participant. This form of face-to-face

interview is known to be superior at capturing spontaneously occurring associations and thoughts (Aaker 1991). Still, it is more time-intensive for the researcher than having respondents write the words on paper themselves, therefore both options were offered. Because of cold temperatures and individuals just being on their way to the track or on their way home, where they did not want to take off their gloves, nearly all of them chose to have the researcher fill in their answers. Additionally to looking for participants in Seefeld in Tyrol, the questionnaire was handed out to friends and acquaintances who are known to go cross- country skiing in Seefeld.

A total of 101 individuals completed the questionnaire of study I. All of which answered all six questions and therefore their questionnaires can be used for further analysis. Hence, the sample size is 101. 38.6% of respondents are female, 61.4% are male, whereas the overall average age lies at 44.2 years. The average age of women and men only vary slightly from 42.4 years for female respondents and 45.3 years for male ones. With a share of 76.2% most participants are Austrians, followed by 21.8% Germans and 1% each are from Switzerland and Norway. Nearly all interviewees from Austria are from the federal state of Tyrol (96.1%), only few are from the federal states Styria (2.1%) and Salzburg (1.3%). When looking at German respondents, 95.5% live in the federal state of Bavaria, which is directly bordering to Tyrol, Austria, and the residual 4.5% filled in Rhineland-Palatinate as their home federal state. 95% of the sampled population state to be active cross-country skiers, whereas 5% answered in the negative on the concerning question number three of the survey. The majority has cross- country skis from the brand Fischer (57.4%), followed by Rossignol (11.9%), Salomon (10.9%), Madshus (9.9%) and Atomic (6.9%). The remaining 3% of respondents named Kneissel, SC V3Tec and Tecno Pro as their ski brand. All 101 individuals know Fischer as a cross-country ski brand.

3.1.3 Results

The following subchapter outlines the results of the free associations surveys. Tables and graphs are illustrated in order to facilitate the demonstration of results.

Elicitation stage – The basic goal of the survey free associations is to collect brand associations that consumers connect with Fischer in the field of cross-country skiing. Overall, participants gave 254 associations, which represents 2.5 associations per person. This number can be considered quite low (Krishnan 1996), but might be affiliated to the cold temperatures at the cross-country track and interviewees not wanting to stand still in the cold for longer than

necessary. Therefore, they tend to give just a few quick answers and then move on. However, the author of the study noticed that the majority of respondents named the associations immediately without thinking about the question beforehand. This can be considered as a positive indicator, since the given associations should therefore represent the first thing that comes to mind. Respondents perceive the majority of associations as positive with as share of 59%, 33% as negative and the remaining 8% are labelled as neutral. 166 different associations are discovered, whereas the maximum of terms a single interviewee named is six, the minimum is one.

Categorization stage – In this step all associations which have the same meaning are pooled under one representative term. For some of them it is clear how to assemble them to one category, as participants describe the associations with the exact same words. Examples are ‘good skis’ (gute Ski) which is mentioned by 14.9% of respondents or ‘black-yellow’ (schwarz- gelb) regarding the design which is named by 9.9% of all participants. On the contrary, associations regarding the brand’s good quality show many diversions. This includes examples like ‘quality product’ (Qualitätsprodukt), ‘good skis’ (gute Ski) or ‘top cross-country ski’ (top Langlaufski). A lot of associations concern the price of Fischer products, often referring to a good or a bad perceived cost-benefit-ratio. In total, 18 categories have been selected to assemble the different associations. 234 associations are allocated to one of the categories, 20 do not fit any of the determined categories. More than 40 terms regarding ‘good product quality’ (e.g. guter Ski, hält lange, gute Qualität) have been mentioned by respondents, which therefore represent the biggest category. 26 associations connected to ‘elite sports’ can be pooled, which depict 11.1% of all categorized associations (e.g. Sport, Langlauf, erfolgreich). Participants named 24 associations regarding ‘design’ (e.g. drei Dreiecke, schwarz-gelb, gelbe Ski) which forms the third biggest category. It is followed by the category ‘top brand’ (e.g. Top- Marke, sehr gut, tolle Marke) with 18 fitting associations and ‘brand awareness’ (e.g. bekannte Marke, fahren viele, Bekanntheit) with 14. Next up are the categories ‘ski models’ (e.g. Lochski, Speedmax) and ‘bad cost-benefit ratio’ (e.g. teuer, schlechte Preis-Leistung), which both show a total of 13 assigned terms. The category ‘fast’ (e.g. Schnelligkeit, laufen gut), ‘athletes’ (e.g. Rennläufer, Athleten) and ‘mine’ (e.g. mein Ski, meine Marke, immer gehabt) summarize 12 associations each. Terms joint in the category ‘mine’ cannot really be considered as associations regarding the brand image, as people are just stating that they own or use products of the brand. Still, because a lot of terms like ‘my ski’ or ‘my brand’ occurred, a separate category was created for them. In the more detailed analysis of data which follows below, the category ‘mine’ will be disregarded because of the foregoing reasons. Some more examples of the smaller categories regarding the number of allocated associations are ‘good cost-benefit ratio’, ‘content’, ‘Austrian company’ or ‘tradition’. All categories and their assigned

associations as well as all associations without categorization can be found in Appendix C. Figure 5 below illustrates the biggest association categories of the results of study I.

Biggest association categories of study I 50

40 45

26 20 24 18

Number of mentionsNumberof 10 14 13 13 12 12 12 11 9 0 good product quality elite sports design top brand brand awareness ski models bad cost-benefit ratio mine fast athletes good cost-benefit ratio content

Figure 5: Biggest association categories of study I

The process of creating categories for associations can be challenging and might leave room for interpretation and dissimilarity. Respecting Fischer in cross-country skiing, various associations are about similar issues, but are still not exactly the same. ‘Elite sports’ and ‘athletes’ are two examples for that. Some might argue that these terms indicate the same meaning. Nevertheless, the former directly denotes the form of sports or the league in which the sport is exerted, while the latter represents the person who is doing the sport. Because of that, two different categories are created. It is crucial, that the associations are represented well in the concerning categories and that no important topic is ignored (Reilly 1990). All categories are built carefully by considering various different options and by integrating all relevant associations. Even though it is possible to create a slightly different arrangement as the one indicated here, the author has chosen in all conscience. An aspect that cannot be overlooked is, that in some questionnaires one individual named several associations that are later grouped into the same category. An example is one interviewee who stated ‘resourceful’ (einfallsreich) and ‘always something new’ (immer etwas neues) in his or her association task. Both terms are allocated to the category ‘innovative’ (innovativ). Therefore, care has to be taken when interpreting data and making conclusion derived from the aforementioned results.

Special focus has to be put on categories that include the biggest number of associations, as they represent the feelings and thoughts that respondents connect to the brand the most.

Therefore, the most important groups are ‘good product quality’ (mentioned 45 times), ‘elite sports’ (26), ‘design’ (24) and ‘top brand’ (18). Moreover, ‘brand awareness’ (14), ‘ski models’ (13), ‘bad cost-benefit ratio’ (13), ‘mine’ (12), ‘fast’ (12), ‘athletes’ (12), ‘good cost-benefit ratio’ (11) and ‘content’ (9) are vital groups as well (see figure 5). Furthermore, research argues that relative association strength of the detected associations can be derived from the order of mention (Keller 1998; Krishnan 1996). In other words, mentions that are top of mind – meaning they are retrieved of consumers memory immediately and easily – are highly probable to be stronger associations than the ones mentioned later on. Of all participants who mention ‘top brand’, over 60% name it as their first term. Therefore, ‘top brand’ is not only one of the most stated associations quantitatively, but can also be considered a strong one. Other categories whose assigned associations are mentioned as the first one by more than 50% and thus can be classified as strong ones, are ‘brand awareness’ and ‘ski models’. Still, the three largest categories ‘good product quality’, ‘elite sports’ and ‘design’ are named as first or second expression by at least 60% of mentions or more. The category ‘innovative’ is a rather small one with only four associations, but is also the only one which does not show a single first mention and has therefore to be considered a rather weak association. Because of the relatively low number of mentions per person (2.5 mentions per person), these interpretations have to be viewed with caution.

3.1.3.1 Comparing Consumer Groups

In order to detect possible differences between consumer groups of study I, the following ones are compared: women vs. men, respondents with Fischer skis vs. respondents with other brands of skis and Austrians vs. Germans. Only the most frequently mentioned and therefore most important association categories are analysed in more detail.

When dividing the group into women and men, not many salient differences can be pointed out. Both named an average of around 2.5 associations per person. In both groups the category ‘good product quality’ was the most mentioned term and therefore the most important one. Female participants state ‘design’ as the second most frequently mentioned category (13% of all associations mentioned by women), followed by ‘top brand’ (9%) and ‘fast’ (8%). In contrast, ‘design’ is only in fourth place in the male group (7.1% of all associations mentioned by men). Men’s second most mentioned category after ‘good product quality’ is ‘elite sports’ with a percentage of 12.3%, followed by ‘brand awareness’ and the aforementioned ‘design’ with 7.1% each.

Differences between respondents with Fischer skis and respondents who use other cross- country ski brands are standing out more. Results show noticeable differences in nearly all association categories. Fischer ski users’ top category is ‘good product quality’ with a remarkable percentage of 22.7% of all mentioned associations by this group. This is followed by the categories ‘fast’ and ‘top brand’ with 7.8% each, and then by brand awareness and good cost-benefit ratio with a percentage of 7.1% each. All of these association categories are positive terms. Participants with ski brands different from Fischer associate various different thoughts and feelings with the brand Fischer. First up are the terms ‘elite sports’ (16.8%) and ‘design’ (15%), followed by ‘good product quality’ (11.5%). Next are the negative association categories ‘bad cost-benefit ratio’ and ‘ski models’ with 8.8% each. Consequential, Fischer consumers seem to have a very different brand image than consumers who use competitive brands.

Comparing the two groups Austrians and Germans has to be treated with caution, as the sample sizes differ strongly. 77 participants are Austrians, whereas only 22 are German citizens. Still, both groups name ‘good product quality’ and ‘top brand’ among their most frequently mentioned associations. Austrian citizens show ‘elite sports’ in the second place, whereas German interviewees mention ‘design’ and ‘brand awareness’ as important aspects of their brand image regarding Fischer.

It has to be said that all the above mentioned comparisons need to be viewed and interpreted with caution, since splitting up the groups regarding gender, ski brand or nationality leads to relatively low samples sizes and therefore aggravate valid interpretations.

3.1.3.2 Classification to Association Types according to D. A. Aaker (1991)

Classifying the determined association categories to the association types defined by Aaker (1991) might give another point of view on the elicited associations regarding the brand Fischer in cross-country skiing. As described in greater detail in chapter 2.1.2, associations can be categorized into elven types which are product attributes, intangibles, customer benefits, relative price, use and/or application, user and/or customer, celebrity and/or person, life-style and/or personality, product class, competitors and country and/or geographic area.

The elicited associations on Fischer show that participants either refer to the products of the brand or to the brand itself. Some terms can also be interpreted as regarding both, a product and the concerning brand Fischer. Therefore, some elicited associations can be allocated to the type product attributes, such as the association category ‘design’. Hence, ‘design’ –

interviewees mostly referred to the colours yellow and black – is seen as a characteristic of Fischer’s sporting goods. Because of that, the term ‘top brand’ is also allocated to the type product attributes, even though it actually refers to the brand itself. Moreover, the various different ski models such as ‘skis with a hole’ (Loch-Ski) and ‘skis with skin’ (Fell-Ski) are categorized as product attributes.

Some product attributes are customer benefits at the same time. One example is the association category ‘good product quality’, where results show that it represents a very important association. The same holds true for ‘fast’ and for ‘reliability’, both of which provide customer benefits while at the same time being product characteristics.

‘Bad cost-benefit ratio’ and ‘good cost-benefit ratio’ naturally regard the relative price of the brand or the products. They do give an indication on the product class and its price levels, but mainly define how consumers perceive the price in relation to the quality of the acquired product.

Another perspective of consumers is associating the brand with a certain use or application. The elicitation task shows that ‘elite sports’ and ‘top athletes’ are an integral part of Fischer’s brand meaning. The terms which are summarized in the category ‘elite sports’ reveal that consumers see Fischer as a product or brand used at top of the world leagues. This is underlined by the association ‘athletes’ which indicates on the one hand the use of the brand by top sportsmen – hence it can also be assigned to the type user/customer – but, on the other hand, can also be allocated to the type celebrity/person when consumers associate the brand with a certain world-class athlete. Examples for that from study I are the elicited names ‘Schlierenzauer’ (well-known Austrian ski jumper) or ‘Stecher’ (well-known former Austrian Nordic combined athlete).

The type life-styles/personality stands for associations to the brand that resemble character traits of real human beings. Of the ones mentioned by participants of study I, the following can be assigned to this group: ‘brand awareness’, ‘content’, ‘tradition’ (or traditional), ‘innovative’, and ‘family company’. All of these represent life-style characteristics and further define Fischer’s brand image.

Some associations are mentioned in a way that the frame of reference regards the competition. This is the case for the term ‘market leader’, meaning that consumers perceive Fischer as leading brand in the market of cross-country skiing.

Lastly, the association category ‘Austrian company’ can clearly be allocated to the type country or geographic area. Since customers perceive the brand as Austrian, which it is in reality, they

will associate Austrian stereotypes or characteristics directly with the brand as well. The impact of country of origin can be a decisive factor of brand image (Aaker 1991).

The one association category that will not be assigned to any type is the term ‘mine’. This is because of the aforementioned reasons which also lead to leaving these associations out in the description of the results of study I.

3.2 Study II: Brand Concept Maps

The second method used in this thesis is the brand concept maps technique. As already mentioned before in previous chapters, researchers have applied concept maps in a wide range of fields in order to reveal networks of associations consumers hold in their mind since three decades (John et al. 2006; Böger et al. 2017; French and Smith 2010). Therefore, the BCM is conducted in order to gain additional information on the brand meaning of Fischer in cross-country skiing, after having already executed a free association task.

3.2.1 Research Design

For the creation of the questionnaire, some results of the first study are used. Again, the survey is phrased in German language.

The elicitation stage for the BCM is almost completed, as the central brand associations for Fischer in cross-country skiing have already been detected by study I, using the free associations method. The most mentioned associations have been categorized and summarized with one expression and are the following eleven terms: ‘well-known brand’ (bekannte Marke), ‘top brand’ (Top-Marke), ‘skis with skin’ (Fell-Ski), ‘good skis’ (gute Ski), ‘elite sports’ (Spitzensport), ‘fast’ (schnell), ‘skis with hole’ (Loch-Ski), ‘bad cost-benefit ratio’ (schlechte Preis-Leistung), ‘black-yellow design’ (schwarz-gelbes Design), ‘athletes’ (Athleten), ‘good cost-benefit ratio’ (gute Preis-Leistung). Some associations that are not among the most mentioned ones of the results of study I are included as well because they also appear in the mission statement of Fischer Sports GmbH. Those are the six terms ‘innovative’ (innovativ), ‘market leader’ (Marktführer), ‘tradition’ (Tradition), ‘Austrian company’ (Österreichisches Unternehmen), ‘reliability’ (Verlässlichkeit) and ‘family business’ (Familienunternehmen).

In further consequence, assessing and conducting if these associations are only part of the brand identity, but not the brand image, or if they are also part of consumers’ perception of Fischer, is the goal of this study. Two of the above mentioned terms refer to special or new product lines and for this very reason they are included in the survey as well (skis with hole, skis with skin). It has to be mentioned, that some expressions or association categories have been rephrased in order to match the language and terms used by participants of study I, and to avoid using terms only employed by researchers or managers (John et al. 2006). These are ‘well-known brand’ (former: brand awareness), ‘good skis’ (former: good product quality) and ‘black-yellow design’ (former: design). These associations which are elicited in the first study, are supplemented by one key topic of the mission statement of Fischer that has not been mentioned by participants in the previous study. It is the term ‘outstanding skiing experience’ (perfektes Skierlebnis), which seems to be an important part of Fischer’s brand identity. It does not necessarily mean that the self-defined core values of Fischer are shared by consumers as well, but in order to find out whether this might be the case, they are included as well. After the determination of these 18 terms as the final set of associations, the questionnaire for the following mapping stage of the BCM survey is developed. The full version can be found in appendix B.

Like the previous one, the survey begins with asking respondents if they know Fischer as a brand of cross-country skiing. This is followed by the single-option question on whether the participant is an active cross-country skier or not. Again, when ticking yes, a follow-up question elicits the brand of cross-country ski he or she uses. Next up is the part regarding the creation of BCM. A paragraph explains how to choose associations and draw and connect them in order to create a brand concept map. For better understanding an exemplary brand concept map is illustrated, using the example of the car Volkswagen Beetle. As this survey is conducted outdoors, directly at an event, a more practical method as John et al. (2006)’s card method had to be found. Hence, all associations are given in a table, whereas the interviewee can select them by crossing them off. In the next step, the respondent has to choose a maximum of ten associations from the 18 given terms and draws his or her brand concept map. For that, a blank page with the logo of Fischer placed in the middle is given in the questionnaire. In case that an important association is missing, participants are asked to add the concerning term to the set of already given associations. Strength of associations has to be indicated by the lines connecting the chosen items to one another or to the brand. A single line represents the weakest connection, a double line a stronger one and a triple line the strongest possible connection. The original BCM method by John et al. (2006) only includes association strength and uniqueness, but does not measure favourability which is another important notion for establishing brand image (Keller 1993; Schnittka et al. 2012). Therefore, in this questionnaire

a favourability measure is included additionally. Each chosen association has to be evaluated according to how it is perceived by the individual – a plus for positive, a minus for negative or a wave for neutral. After that, the questionnaire concludes with the same three basic demographic question as used in study I, concerning age, gender, nationality and federal state of participants.

The questionnaire was pretested by volunteers and slightly adapted according to their feedback. This mainly concerned the order of questions and some restatements of the paragraph describing the creation of the brand concept map. Besides that, the volunteers claimed that the quite complex task is described understandably and gives all information necessary for thorough completion.

3.2.2 Empirical Study

This subchapter describes the sampling method of the BCM survey. Detailed information on the profile of respondents and their characteristics is given.

Study II is a three-page questionnaire that was given out in printed form on a clipboard and could be completed with provided pens. The author of the thesis conducted the survey in Seefeld in Tyrol on the weekend of January the 27th and 28th 2018. That weekend the competitions of the Nordic Combined Triple, one of the highlights in the Nordic combined World Cup calendar, took place in Seefeld. Additionally, the cross-country skiers also had World Cup events there at the same time. This was meant to be a final rehearsal for the FIS Nordic Ski World Championships that Seefeld would host in the following year, in February 2019 (Olympiaregion Seefeld 2019; Mein Bezirk 2018). Directly at the venue, the author approached spectators who were not currently watching a competition and asked them to participate in the study. The goal was to get a sample with similar characteristics as the one of the first study. Because the second study took up more time to complete, the decision was to ask people at an event, where they are normally more willing to give time than when they are exercising themselves. Since a cross-country and Nordic combined event in Seefeld was chosen, the expectation was that a lot of spectators would also be cross-country skiers themselves and would therefore resemble the sample of the first study. In order to convince more people to complete the questionnaire of the study, some sweets were offered as a little reward. Since this survey took interviewees quite a long time to complete, at a minimum around 15 minutes, most of them could be convinced to take part at the hospitality area, where they were having a break anyway. Again, a simple random sampling method was applied, where respondents

took part on a voluntary basis. The researcher gave an explanation of the task and then stood by in order to be available for questions regarding the creation of the brand concept map. Because of the more complex task of drawing a concept map, most participants had additional questions. No time limit was put on participating individuals and they could use the example of the brand concept map of the Volkswagen Beetle as a lead. Again, also friends and acquaintances who go cross-country skiing in Seefeld in Tyrol have been asked to fill in the questionnaire.

A total of 36 individuals took part in the second survey of this paper, which was conducted at Nordic events in Seefeld. All respondents completed the questions entirely, so the sample size is 36. Gender distribution shows 41.7% women who have an average age of 42.5 years and 58.3% men whose average age lies at 46.1 years. Consequently, the overall average age is 44.6 years. The nationality of the sample is distributed between Austria (55.6%) and Germany (44.4%). Austrians are mainly from the federal state of Tyrol with 80%, followed by Styria with 10% and Salzburg and Vienna with 5% each. German participants’ federal states are Bavaria (50%), followed by Hesse (12.5%) and North Rhine-Westphalia (12.5%). The remaining German interviewees are from Lower Saxony, Saarland and Saxony with 6.3% each. With a percentage of 97.3% nearly all participants see themselves as active cross-country skiers, only 2.8% say not to be. The ski brand Fischer is the most used one with a share of 61.1%, followed by Rossignol and Salomon with 22.7% each. Next is the brand Peltonen with 13.6% and Atomic with 4.5%. All respondents answered the question, if they know the cross-country ski brand Fischer, in the affirmative.

3.2.3 Results

The following subchapter describes the results of study II, the brand concept maps. Graphs and charts are created to underline the outcomes of the survey.

Elicitation stage – The free associations task of study I gives the elicited associations to use for the questionnaire of the BCM approach. Therefore, the elicitation stage is already concluded.

Mapping stage – Consumers choose their associations and draw their individual brand concept map of Fischer. On average, the participating individuals chose 6.7 associations to create their own brand map. The minimum of associations that were selected by the 36 participants is three, the person with the most selected associations chose twelve. In the questionnaire, individuals are asked to evaluate their picked associations with either a plus when perceiving

it as positive, a minus for negative or a wave for a neutral term. They did as asked when it was not clear which way the term is interpreted such as the word ‘tradition’, but did not mark the word, when it was clear anyway, such as when choosing the term ‘good skis’. 75.5% of the selected associations are perceived as positive, 22% as neutral and the remaining 2.5% as negative. Therefore, not many respondents have a very negative perception of the brand. When drawing their brand map, interviewees made use of all strength of interconnections, choosing single lines as well as double and triple lines.

Aggregation stage – In order to develop a consensus brand map, five steps have to be concluded on the encoded data of study II (John et al. 2006). Appendix D shows all the important key figures of the survey. On request, a comprehensive version with all indicators included can be obtained.

First of all, the questionnaires are evaluated on how often a certain association appears across all maps. The number of times an association is used on the maps of participants is revealed by the term ‘frequency of mention’ and given as a percentage in ‘ratio of mention’. The most frequently used term is ‘good skis’, which was mentioned on 25 of 36 brand maps, which measures up to 69.4%. It is followed by ‘black-yellow design’ and ‘elite sports’ with 61.1% each. Next up are ‘top brand’ (55.6%), ‘market leader’ (50%) and ‘athletes’ (47.2%). Associations that respondents added to the already given set are the following ten terms: triangle (Dreieck), quality (Qualität), bad absorption of wax (schlechte Wachsaufnahme), development (Entwicklung), RC4, bad experience (schlechte Erfahrung), bad ski (schlechte Ski), close-fitting shoes (eng anliegende Schuhe), sports (Sport) and edgeless (stump). Only the first three of these occur twice on all maps, all the others are only used by one individual. Because of that, none of them are included in the more detailed analysis of results. In a short conclusion it can be said, that this confirms a valuable use of the free associations method, as most of the relevant associations consumers hold in their mind have been elicited and included in the given terms in the questionnaire of study II.

Because “frequently mentioned associations with many interconnections are the strongest candidates for being chosen as “core” brand associations on the consensus brand map” (John et al. 2006, p. 553), the use of interconnections (single, double and triple ones) is analysed next. The term ‘number of interconnections’ stands for the number of times a brand association is linked to another association. The highest number of interconnections can be detected for ‘good skis’ (11), ‘elite sports’ (10) and ‘top brand’ (10). In this study the core brand associations are defined as terms with the following characteristic: they occur on at least 25% of all maps. The number of interconnections shows a lot of variation among the most mentioned associations. Therefore, in this study the number of interconnections is not included as criteria

for determining core associations. Hence, the 13 chosen core brand associations are ‘good skis’, ‘black-yellow design’, ‘elite sports’, ‘top brand’, ‘market leader’, ‘athletes’, ‘well-known brand’, ‘reliability’, ‘innovative’, ‘fast’, ‘Austrian company’, ‘good cost-benefit ratio’ and ‘tradition’.

After the determination of core brand associations, the second step is to analyse where the above chosen core associations are to be placed on the consensus brand map. A term can be linked directly to the brand and would therefore be a first-order association or it can be connected to the brand via other associations, which is called a second-order association (John et al. 2006). In the aggregation stage, first-order associations are characterized by being connected to the brand directly on many of respondent’s brand maps. The key figure ‘frequency of first-order mentions’ stands for the number of times an association is directly linked to the brand across all 36 maps, whereas the ‘ratio of first-order mentions’ stands for the percentage of times a brand association is connected directly to the brand when included on a brand map. Moreover, ‘subordinate connections’ state that the association is situated below another association, ‘superordinate connections’ when it is placed above another association. Next, the difference between superordinate and subordinate connections is determined. Thereby, associations “with more superordinate than subordinate connections are strong candidates for being directly connected to the brand in the consensus map” (John et al. 2006, p. 554). From the further above elicited core brand associations, in this thesis the first- order associations are identified by the following criteria: a ratio of first-order mention of at least 80% and more superordinate than subordinate connections. Hence, the first-order associations which show these characteristics are ‘black-yellow design’, ‘elite sports’, ‘top brand’, ‘well-known brand’ and ‘Austrian company’. They are placed on the consensus map and are directly linked to the Fischer brand. This can be seen in Figure 7 below.

The third step is about placing and linking the remaining core brand associations on the consensus map. Hence, it is counted how frequently a certain link between the same associations occurs across maps. As shown in Figure 6, 33 association links are only used on one map, six association links appear on two maps and there is one that can be found on eight individual brand maps. The regarding frequency counts only show links between associations in one direction and does not include them vice versa. For example the connection from ‘well- known brand’ to ‘top brand’ occurs on several maps, whereas ‘top brand’ to ‘well-known brand’ is not used once across all individual maps. Most of all association links never even exist on one single map (266 out of 306 possible links). The inflection point in Figure 6 can be identified at two, therefore the decision is made to include all links that can be found on at least two of

respondents’ maps. Hence, seven different links between core associations are drawn on the consensus brand map.

Analysis of brand association links 35 33

10 6

Numberof association paris 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Number of interconnections across respondents' maps

Figure 6: Analysis of brand association links

Step four regards the links between core associations and non-core associations. Often it is vital for managers to see the non-core associations that drive consumer perception of the core associations (John et al. 2006). As in this thesis all important links occur among core associations, no further non-core brand associations have to be added to the consensus brand map (Figure 7).

In the fifth step, the number of connecting lines (single, double or triple) is identified. For that, the average number of lines individuals drew to connect associations among one another or directly to the brand is determined and rounded up or down to the closest integer. These connecting lines are added to the consensus brand map. The lines drawn as an arrow represent a connection that only occurred in the direction of the arrow and not also vice versa (Figure 7 further below).

Figure 7: Consensus brand map of Fischer

3.2.3.1 Favourability of Core Associations

In this study, the author added an additional sixth step to the original analytic procedure of the BCM approach by John et al. (2006). Because brand image is not only defined by the strength and uniqueness of brand associations (Keller 1993; Schnittka et al. 2012), but also by the favourability of the latter, a simple measure for evaluation of chosen associations was incorporated in study II.

In order to assess the perception of each of the associations, respondents had to evaluate them either as positive, neutral or negative. When an association is ranked positive (+) in 75% or more cases, the regarding association is coloured green in the consensus brand map of Fischer (Figure 7 above). The terms with less than 25% positive evaluations and with neutral (~) evaluations (but no negative (-) one) are coloured grey.

The result of study II is a complete brand consensus map of Fischer in cross-country skiing. The regarding illustration is shown in Figure 7. A German version of the brand consensus map can be found in Appendix E.

3.2.3.2 Comparing Consumer Groups

As in study I, different consumer groups are compared in order to detect possible differences. Again, the three pairs of groups for the analysis are: women vs. men, respondents with Fischer skis vs. respondents with other brands of skis and Austrian vs. German citizens. For eliciting core brand associations and in continuation first-order associations etc., the same criteria are used as for creating the overall consensus brand map of Fischer in the preceding chapter. When splitting the sample size up according to gender, some minor differences can be noted between women and men. Both show an average number of 6.7 chosen associations per person. The core associations are mainly the same, only ‘skis with hole’ can only be found in the men’s group, whereas the women’s group chose ‘tradition’ and ‘skis with skin’, two terms that the men did not take. The first-order associations of female respondents are ‘market leader’, ‘black-yellow design’, ‘well-known brand’ and ‘skis with skin’. In contrast, men show more first-order associations, which turn out to be the terms ‘black-yellow design’, ‘well-known brand’, ‘good skis’, ‘elite sports’, ‘top brand’ and ‘Austrian company’.

The differences between respondents with Fischer skis and ones with other cross-country ski brands show quite similar results as well. The major difference is the variation in the average number of associations, which is 6.2 associations per person for Fischer users and 7.5 for non- Fischer skiers. When taking a closer look on the core brand associations, the two groups share exactly the same ones, except for ‘skis with hole’ which only shows in the group of respondents with ski brands different from Fischer. First-order associations are very alike, whereas Fischer users have ‘elite sports’, ‘top brand’, ‘black-yellow design’, ‘well-known brand’ and ‘Austrian company’. Respondents who use competitive brands of Fischer show ‘elite sports’, ‘top brand’, ‘black-yellow design’, ‘well-known brand’ and ‘good skis’ as their first-order associations.

The comparison of Germans and Austrians shows the most remarkable differences. Austrians chose an average of 7.4 associations per person for their individual brand map, Germans took 5.8. Beside the core associations that are shared by both groups, Austrians also show ‘fast’, ‘Austrian company’ and ‘tradition’, whereas German citizens have ‘good cost-benefit ratio’ as an additional core association. The first-order associations only show some variation. Both groups have ‘elite sports’, ‘top brand’ and ‘well-known brand’ as first order associations, whereas Austrians also have ‘black-yellow design’ and Germans show ‘market leader’ additionally.

In summary, even though some differences could be spotted when comparing the different groups, these results have to be viewed with caution. When splitting the participants of study II up, the sample sizes of the various groups become significantly lower. Therefore, the results

are not very representative and make meaningful interpretations difficult. Because of that, no further interpretations and comparison of consumer groups are made for study II.

4 Comparison of Study I and Study II

In this chapter a thorough comparison between the two conducted studies is made. The samples as well as the results of both surveys are reviewed and differences and similarities are pointed out. Also, the brand identity and brand image of Fischer in cross-country skiing is compared and possible communication gaps are worked out. This is followed by an analysis of the two selected research methods of this paper – the free associations and the brand concept maps – according to five different criteria.

4.1 Comparing Samples of Study I and Study II

The samples of the two surveys show a similar profile of respondents. This is remarkable, since the size of samples vary from N = 101 (study I) to N = 36 (study II).

Study I has an average age of 44.1 years, study II shows an average age of 44.5 years. Moreover, the gender distribution does not vary much between the two surveys, with both showing roughly about one-third women and two-thirds men. Figure 8 below shows the gender distribution for study I and study II.

Gender distribution study I Gender distribution study II

39% 42%

61% 58%

N = 101 N = 36

female male female male

Figure 8: Gender distribution study I and II

When looking at the nationality of respondents, the first study includes a bigger share of Austrians (76.2%) than the second one (55.6%), but both show Germany as second (21.8% respectively 44.4%). This could be an indicator that more Germans travel to Seefeld in order to attend a sports event than go there to practice cross-country skiing themselves. Therefore, the bigger percentage of German citizens could be led back to them being event tourists. Also,

the federal state of Tyrol is represented strongest among Austrians in both studies and so is Bavaria among Germans. Both samples show that the majority of participants see themselves as active cross-country skiers with percentages of 95% in study I and 97.2% in study II.

The distribution of the ski brands used by respondents show, that in both studies about two- thirds of individuals own Fischer cross-country skis. Hence, it can be said that both surveys can confirm Fischer as market leader in the area of cross-country skiing regarding the skis used. The distribution of ski brands of the two surveys is illustrated in Figure 9 below, whereas brands different from Fischer are summarized with the term ‘others’, meaning that the share of Fischer skis and other ski brands is shown.

Ski brands study I Ski brands study II

43% 39%

57% 61%

N = 101 N = 36

Fischer Others Fischer Others

Figure 9: Distribution of ski brands study I and study II

To sum up, it can be said that both samples show very similar characteristics. The only remarkable difference is in the nationality of respondents. Study II includes a bigger share of Germans than study I, even though the majority of participants still is from Austria. This could be an indication that more Germans travel to Seefeld in Tyrol to attend Nordic sports events like the Nordic Combined Triple and the cross-country World Cup (study II) than visit the small town in order to go cross-country skiing themselves (study I). Still, all other characteristics of the samples are very alike, meaning that the similarities of the two surveyed groups are sufficient to be able to compare the results of the studies and furthermore draw conclusions in the following chapters of this thesis.

4.2 Comparing Results of Study I and Study II

The results of the free associations method show that the brand image of Fischer in cross- country skiing is a mainly positive one. The five most important associations held by the respondents – and therefore the ones that should receive the most attention as they directly reflect people’s thoughts and feelings towards the brand – are ‘good product quality’, ‘elite sports’, ‘design’, ‘top brand’ and ‘brand awareness’. Altogether, 18 association categories are built with the results of the free associations method. The outcome of the following BCM method shows generally similar results. Again, the chosen terms for the consensus brand map are primarily positive, completed with only a few ones seen as neutral by participants. The first- order associations and therefore the ones best connected to the brand are the five terms ‘well- known brand’, ‘elite sports’, ‘Austrian company’, ‘black-yellow design’ and ‘top brand’. All in all 13 core brand associations have been identified. This means that in general, the results of both studies allow the conclusion that the investigated groups of both surveys show quite a similar brand meaning of Fischer. In general, consumers’ selection of the brand associations is not unexpected when being familiar with the brand, as Fischer is quite popular in winter sports and lots of people use their products. All elicited terms are comprehensible and give a good overview on the current brand image of Fischer in cross-country skiing.

When comparing the results of the two studies in greater detail, only a few differences can be pointed out. Generally, the brand meaning derived from the two surveys is very similar and shows the same core brand associations. All terms that form the consensus brand map of the BCM method have already been mentioned by participants of the free associations method. Only the phrasing of the terms differs slightly, which can be led back to rephrasing of the categories during the creation of the questionnaire of study II. The five most mentioned associations of the free associations technique are also central elements of the BCM. The only terms that can be found in study I, but do not make for important associations in study II are ‘ski models’, ‘bad cost-benefit ratio’, ‘mine’ (which was sorted out for study II because it does not represent a real brand association), ‘family company’ and ‘content’. It has to be mentioned that the term ‘outstanding skiing experience’ was added to the set of given associations of the BCM questionnaire, even though it has not been elicited in the previous free associations technique. This has been done because the term represents an important aspect of Fischer’s brand identity. Still, the term has not been chosen very often by participants and does not make it into the final brand consensus map.

A closer look is also taken on the comparison of subgroups of both studies. When splitting the samples up regarding gender, nationality or ski brand used, the two research techniques exhibit slightly different variations concerning the subgroups. Neither of the studies detects

major differences between men and women. However, when splitting up the sample according to the use of cross-country ski brand (Fischer vs. non-Fischer users) the free associations method shows some differences in the brand meaning (see chapter 3.1.3.1). This could indicate that individuals who have user experience of the product, associate different feelings and thoughts with the brand than others. Nevertheless, this difference is not confirmed by study II. On the contrary, the most noticeable differences in the BCM study can be found when comparing German and Austrian citizens (see chapter 3.2.3.2). Still, as already mentioned in the concerning chapters, the comparison of the various consumer groups has to be viewed with great caution, as the sample sizes of the sub-groups become rather small when splitting them up according to certain characteristics.

Analysing the results of the two studies as a whole allows for some general assumptions regarding the brand meaning of Fischer in cross-country skiing. The results demonstrate a wide range of brand associations toward Fischer. Even though the interviewees gave a rather low number of associations per person (study one: average of 2.5 per person; study two: average of 6.7 per person), the final brand meaning of both surveys consists of quite a large number of different associations. Therefore, Fischer can be considered a mature and strong brand, since a higher number of associations make it easier to access a brand node from memory and is an indicator for a higher level of awareness (Krishnan 1996). Also, Chen (2001) states, that a greater number of brand associations results in a higher brand equity. Another core point of brand equity is the relative presence of positive versus negative associations, in other words, the favourability of the various terms and consequently the brand itself (Krishnan 1996), which also shows the strength of the brand Fischer. Still, it is important for a brand to not just have many brand associations, but to represent unique ones in order to build competitive advantage (Chen 2001; Krishnan 1996). Schnittka et al. (2012) argue, that the BCM technique can give information regarding the uniqueness of associations, assuming that the more brand-specific associations in a brand map, the higher the probability that they are unique. Nevertheless, in order to gain specific information on the uniqueness, the results have to be compared to those of competitive brands (Keller 1998, 2013). Following that, the term ‘black-yellow design’ makes for a very unique brand association for Fischer, since it is a brand- specific term. As for the other core associations of the results, detailed comparisons with competitive brands are in need. For that, further research would be necessary as for this thesis no results regarding competition are available.

4.3 Comparing Fischer’s brand identity and brand image

This chapter puts the results of the studies into relation with the self-description of the brand Fischer in order to find out if the core values of its brand identity correspond with the actual brand image. It is to find out if the brand Fischer has a congruent brand image and brand identity regarding cross-country skiing or if a certain communication gap needs to be overcome.

Fischer defines its brand identity quite clearly and detailed on its company website. The firm sees its core values in being an Austrian company and global market leader in Nordic skiing. The company states that it is known for innovation and only offers premium quality products. Ever since, Fischer has been under family ownership and makes for a reliable partner for the top athletes as well as for customers and employees. The brand offers an outstanding skiing experience (Fischer Sports GmbH 2018).

When comparing Fischer’s brand identity with the results of the studies, some differences can be noticed. The free associations technique showed ‘good product quality’, ‘elite sports’, ‘design’ and ‘top brand’ as the most mentioned associations. These were followed by ‘brand awareness’, ‘ski models’, ‘bad cost benefit ratio’, ‘fast’, ‘athletes’ and ‘good cost-benefit ratio’. The BCM survey gave similar results by detecting the following 13 terms as core brand associations: ‘well-known brand’, ‘market leader’, ‘good cost-benefit ratio’, ‘elite sports’, ‘athletes’, ‘Austrian company’, ‘tradition’, ‘black-yellow design’, ‘top brand’, ‘reliability’, ‘good skis’, ‘innovative’ and ‘fast’. It is obvious, that some core values of Fischer’s brand identity are congruent with the brand meaning that consumers hold. Clearly, the brand is perceived as a top brand that offers skis with a good product quality, which stand out for being fast. Also, consumers see Fischer as a well-known brand that is market leader in cross-country skiing. Furthermore, ‘elite sports’ and ‘athletes’ are closely connected to the brand in the consumers’ mind. Even though some respondents also know Fischer as an Austrian company and link the values reliability and innovation to the brand, this connection is significantly weaker. Two of the core values of the brand identity are not shared by consumers and therefore a communication gap can be detected. ‘Family company’ and ‘outstanding skiing experience’ did hardly occur in study I (family company has been mentioned once) and do not make for the brand consensus map of study II, even though they were given in the association set of the questionnaire for the BCM. But then again, one topic is ever-present among participants and refers to the design of Fischer with its black and yellow colours. This association is shared by a majority of participants and shows to be connected to the brand strongly, since it appears among the first mentioned terms in study I and is a first-order association in study II with two connecting lines to the brand node. Another dominating topic of the brand meaning is the

product price in relation to the quality, even though it is not represented as often as the above mentioned association regarding the brand’s design. In study I consumers mentioned both, a good and a bad cost-benefit ratio, whereas the brand consensus map of study II only features ‘good cost-benefit ratio’. This can be seen as a positive value for the brand, as it underlines the good product quality, one of the core values of the brand identity. The last term that appears in the brand meaning, but is not mentioned directly in the brand identity is ‘tradition’. It is one of the less important ones for respondents, but still shows that consumers perceive Fischer as a company with tradition, which underlines that the brand is known for its long history.

The foundation of a lasting brand image are strong, favourable and unique brand associations (Aaker 1991; Schnittka et al. 2012). Both surveys prove that Fischer’s brand awareness is high and strong associations are apparent. Nearly all the terms can be evaluated as positive and the strength of connections from associations to the brand is good. The brand has managed to communicate its core values well, as the majority of them is rediscovered in the elicited brand meaning of consumers. Still, a communication gap can be identified on some core brand values.

4.4 Analysis and Comparison of the Research Methods Free Associations and BCM

In order to illustrate the value of the two research methods free associations and brand concept maps, both survey methods will be compared and discussed in the following section. Different criteria have been chosen to validate the use of the free associations technique to show a clear picture of Fischer’s brand meaning and to detect if the BCM provides the expected additional value. The criteria have been determined by adapting them from the papers of Klooster et al. (2008) and Koll et al. (2010).

Feasibility and resource intensity – when analysing the required efforts for data collection, evaluation and subsequent interpretation, the execution of the two studies has to be evaluated thoroughly. For this thesis, both surveys have been conducted as a street survey, applying a simple random sampling method with the goal of targeting the same consumer sample. The free association task was either completed self-administered or by responding orally, whereas the author took down the given associations. The second approach, the BCM, was a solely self-administered task, where the author only helped with the initial explanation and when additional questions emerged. Both techniques do not require much prior training of the researcher (John et al. 2006; Reilly 1990). The free associations task could be completed in little time, at an average of about three minutes, whereas the BCM took respondents roughly

15 minutes to fill out. A bigger sample size could be reached with study I, as the task was easy and fast to fulfil and therefore more people were willing to participate. Because of the more complicated and time-intensive BCM technique, in a similar time period fewer individuals could be convinced to participate in study II, even though a little reward was offered. For the analysis of data no profound statistical knowledge is of need, as both research methods make use of frequency counts. Still, because of the amount of different key figures for creating a consensus brand map, the data analysis of the BCM method takes more effort and is more time-intensive than the simple categorization of elicited associations of study I. In conclusion, when only evaluating feasibility and resource intensity, the free associations approach has to be preferred.

Gain of knowledge – the free associations technique is a tool for detecting primary brand meaning and for identifying a wide range of brand associations (Aaker 1991). The objective is to reveal as many associations as possible that consumers connect to the brand Fischer in cross-country skiing and then determine the most important ones. Participants have named more than 230 associations, which have been categorized in order to detect the relevant ones of the brand image. The free associations approach can only give a slight indication on the strength of associations when analysing the order of mention. Terms mentioned early on, tend to be connected to the brand more strongly and have a higher impact on consumer behaviour. The results showed that a few associations referred to unique characteristics of Fischer, such as ‘black-yellow design’ and consequently can be considered as unique brand associations. Apart from that, the free associations method does not provide a measure for uniqueness of associations, hence for that a further comparison with competitive brands would be necessary. An insight into the favourability of associations could be gained, as an additional question asked participants to evaluate their answers. Still, the free associations does not provide any information regarding how consumers connect the brand associations to the brand and to one another in their mind (Keller 1998, 2013; Krishnan 1996). This is where the BCM method offers a very suitable approach. The individual brand maps of participants and the consensus brand map gives detailed information on the interconnections of associations among themselves and with the brand (John et al. 2006; Böger et al. 2017; Schnittka et al. 2012). In addition, a better insight in the strength and favourability of brand associations can be gained, as the map makes it possible to depict first-order and second-order associations as well as three different strength of connecting lines. Moreover, because of an additional question in the survey, positive, neutral or negatively perceived associations can be spotted immediately. For the analysis of the brand Fischer in cross-country skiing, valuable additional information could be gained by conducting study II. In order to gain more precise information on the uniqueness of associations, a comparison with competitive brands would be required (Keller 2013). Still, none of the two

methods reveal unconscious and underlying thoughts and feelings of consumers towards the brand. For that, different methods such as the previously described method of ZMET would have to be applied (Zaltman and Coulter 1995; Batey 2008).

Congruence of outcomes – when assessing whether the important associations of study I can be found again in study II, it has to be kept in mind, that the BCM already uses results of the free associations task. Therefore, it is of crucial importance to analyse and categorize associations of study I precisely and correctly in order not to bias the results of the following study II. The BCM method is less vulnerable regarding subjective interpretations of the researcher, as there are explicit steps to follow in the analysis of data. Still, the BCM serves as a verification of the free associations task, when asking respondents to add missing terms to the given set of associations. As for Fischer, no core association was missing, which therefore proves the accuracy of study I. Moreover, the biggest association categories of the elicitation task and for that reason the most important brand associations are shown amongst the core associations of the consensus brand map as well. As discussed in chapter 4.2, all 13 core brand associations of the BCM approach were already mentioned in the previous free associations task. The five most mentioned associations of study I are also central elements of the consensus brand map. This is further evidence for the effectiveness of the free associations technique. Even though some associations that are part of the consensus brand map were not among the most important categories of study I, in general the two studies revealed very similar outcomes. This suggests that applying a second study can be valuable to assess results of a first one.

Comparability of outcomes – results prove valuable when they allow comparison over time and across target groups as well as across competition. The free associations task is a simple and powerful tool to examine brand meaning over time. Possible changes of associations as well as their frequency of mention can be assessed easily. Furthermore, differences between consumer segments or among competitive brands can be analysed by simply conducting the same study on different target groups or for different brands (Reilly 1990). In this thesis, the comparison of different sub-groups has only shown minor differences, as described in chapter 4.2. John et al. (2006) declare, that this also holds true for the brand concept maps. The possible variations and developments of core associations can be monitored well over time. By splitting up the sample according to certain characteristics the BCM allows the comparison of different customer segments by creating various consensus brand maps. Again, in this thesis no major differences in the brand meaning of Fischer could be detected when comparing different segments. Though it has to be pointed out that the sample size is rather low and therefore does not allow verified conclusions. The only possibility to compare the results of the

BCM with competitive brands would be to conduct the same survey to main competitors as well.

Usefulness of results – the value of the methods is analysed regarding their causalities of results, their contribution of managerial implication and their ability to detect core brand values. Unfortunately, none of the two methods display substantial information on the reasons why consumers state the regarding associations (Ci and Choi 2017; John et al. 2006). Some terms might hint on personal experiences with the brand or certain products that led to the concerning association, such as ‘good cost-benefit ratio’ or ‘good skis’, but realistically the real reasons can only be conjectured. The BCM offers a little more insight, as the interconnections between terms can be analysed. Still, only the mainly conscious brand associations are elicited and therefore the underlying relationships between consumers and the brand stay undetected. This issue could be bypassed by extending the survey with follow-up questions in order to gain deeper insights. But the two methods are unable to give precise reasons for consumers’ brand associations by themselves. When taking a closer look on the usefulness of results, both survey approaches give results that make the derivation of recommendations for brand managers possible, as they expose strong and weak points of the brand. Hence, marketing strategies can be implemented accordingly (Reilly 1990; Chen 2001; Schnittka et al. 2012). As already discussed in the paragraphs above, the BCM offers more insightful information than the free associations, leading to brand managers being able to take more specific strategic actions. Recommendations for Fischer’s brand managers have already been given in chapter 4.2. Another aspect that needs to be analysed is the capability of showing variations between brand identity and brand image. Brand managers need to understand whether consumers perception of the brand matches the desired brand identity (Nandan 2005; Kapferer 2012; Aaker 1991). It is most crucial to identify core brand associations, as they are the ones that drive the image of the brand and should be “the focus of management efforts to build, leverage, and protect brands” (John et al. 2006, p. 562). In study I the results can be compared to important brand values and associations of the brand’s identity. Therewith, possible discrepancies or congruencies between brand image and brand identity can be outlined (Ci and Choi 2017). In the case of Fischer in cross-country skiing, this has already been realized in foregoing chapters. The BCM approach offers the possibility to add associations and terms of interest to the set of associations provided to the participants in the questionnaire in order to capture if consumers will choose them (John et al. 2006; Erdoğmuş and Dirsehan 2017). In this thesis, this was done with the term ‘outstanding skiing experience’, which in the end was not chosen very often and did not reach the consensus brand map. So both methods are valuable for comparing consumers’ brand associations with the core values of the brand.

Clearly, the basic requirement is that the company is aware of its core brand values in the first place, otherwise prior research within the firm would be necessary.

In conclusion, both methods show their individual advantages and disadvantages. As discussed above and shown in this thesis, the free associations approach is less time-intensive and demands less resources, but still offers suitable results for basic analysis. A first indication on strength, uniqueness and favourability of associations is gained. The results can provide a valuable basis for further research, as a wide range of brand associations have already been detected. Certainly, the BCM convinces with useful additional information, as it uncovers the associative brand networks that consumers hold in their minds. The summarizing consensus brand map gives insight in the core brand associations as well as their connections to the brand and to one another. Therefore, the delivered results give more concrete indications for brand managers to derive suitable brand management measures. Naturally, when choosing the right method for brand research, the company has to weigh time and resource intensity with the desired depth and detail of results (Koll et al. 2010). Because of that, brand managers should consider thoroughly beforehand what kind of information they need and then decide on the appropriate research tool. Still, taking all the above discussed reasons into account, it is advisable to conduct a BCM survey in addition to the free associations method.

5 Discussion

In the following chapters, managerial recommendations are given and contributions to brand management and brand measurement are outlined. The research question is answered, managerial implications are proposed and limitations are pointed out.

5.1 Managerial Recommendations for Fischer

The results of the two studies show that the brand identity and brand image linkage of Fischer is rather strong and the two concepts overlap on many important values. Still, some measures could be taken to strengthen the connection of certain associations to the brand. This is important as “the ability of a brand to maintain congruence between its image and identity will largely depend on how effectively management reacts to various kinds of consumer feedback” (Nandan 2005, p. 274).

The first recommendation regards the reduction of negative perceptions. Consumers should be made aware of the fact that good quality products have a certain prize. The results of the surveys have shown that some consumers tend to perceive the brand and its products as having a bad cost-benefit ratio. Because of that, it can be presumed that brand managers and marketers currently do not communicate the high quality of Fischer products well enough. Therefore, a focus could be put on reducing the negative attitudes regarding the prize by enforcing the marketing message of high quality products. Krishnan (1996) has shown that it is possible to turn negative prejudices into positive attributes by providing more specific information and highlighting fitting positive features of the product or the whole brand. So by treating the problem of the perceived bad cost-benefit ratio, the goal should be to reduce the negative sentiments and at the same time further strengthen the connection of the association ‘high quality’ to the brand.

Results have shown a strong linkage between ‘elite sports’ and ‘athletes’ to the brand. According to Aaker (1991), linking the brand to a celebrity or person of interest can transfer their character traits to the brand’s personality. Having elite sports stars linked to the brand is therefore a really positive trait, as athletes are characterized to be determined, hard-working, motivated and devoted. As the associations ‘elite sports’ and ‘athletes’ do not denote a specific person, the risk of having negative actions or perceptions of a single celebrity/athlete interfere with the principally positive association is reduced. Still, caution has to be taken regarding certain negative aspects of athletes or the elite sports itself. A constantly recurring issue in sports is doping and doping cases. This is an issue that the brand should be aware of and be

prepared to react to with distancing marketing measures, in case an athlete related to Fischer was involved in a doping case.

Moreover, uniqueness of brand associations is of crucial importance when positioning the brand and creating a sustainable competitive advantage (Keller 1993; Deheshti et al. 2016; Erdoğmuş and Dirsehan 2017). A brand’s competitive advantage is only true if consumers perceive the brand as better than a competitive brand of the same category (Chatzipanagiotou et al. 2016; Aaker and Shansby 1982). Because of the constantly increasing competition and aggressive advertising and promotion in the sports industry, it has become more difficult to distinguish from competitive brands (Nandan 2005; McAlexander et al. 2018; Deheshti et al. 2016). Therefore, it is advisable for brand managers to intensify analysis of competition and to compare the results to competitive brands in order to detect unique associations. One unique association which already forms part of consumers’ brand image is the ‘black-yellow design’ of the brand. This should be taken into consideration for further marketing efforts.

As congruency of brand image and brand identity leads to more loyal customers, this has to be evaluated thoroughly (Nandan 2005; Deheshti et al. 2016; Batey 2008). Fischer has shown a good overlap of these to brand concepts, but still exhibits some possibilities for improvement. In order to further emphasize consistency of brand image and brand identity, a close connection between the brand and consumers has to be aspired by suitable dialogue and interactions (Chatzipanagiotou et al. 2016). Hence, it is advisable to consider making use of integrated marketing communications (Nandan 2005; Kates and Goh 2003).

In further consequence, it is crucial to react to already existing variations between the brand identity and its image. Brand managers should enforce efforts to reduce such communication gaps in order to strengthen the brand (Nandan 2005). The most important drivers of the brand image are the core brand associations, therefore enhanced efforts should be put in building and directing them (John et al. 2006). When looking at the main associations of Fischer’s brand image, like ‘top brand’, ‘good skis’ and ‘athletes’, managers need to ensure that these associations stay closely connected to the brand in consumers’ perception, as they directly reflect the desired brand identity. Also, core brand associations have to be guarded, so they do not experience dilution or deterioration (John et al. 2006). All terms regarding the high quality of Fischer’s products need to be confirmed again and again by continuously showing and communicating the benefits of the brand and its products. In general, caution has to be taken with activities that do not match the desired brand identity or oppose certain traits that the brand wants to represent (John et al. 2006).

Furthermore, brand managers need to consider is the constant transformation of mass media. The numerous channels for communicating marketing messages ask for a constant adaption and evolution of measures that explain the brand identity (Nandan 2005). Also, the increasing globalization requires brands to develop strong global brands in order to be able to compete internationally (Christodoulides et al. 2015).

Changes in the brand identity and the marketing messages should be evaluated from time to time, e.g. by conducting similar surveys in predefined intervals. Only that way, Fischer can truly react to alterations in consumers’ perception of its brand and decide the best way to stay relevant in a constantly changing marketplace (Berthon et al. 2009).

5.2 Contributions to Brand Management

In this thesis, managerial recommendations for the brand Fischer in cross-country skiing can be derived. The results of the free associations as well as the BCM method offer a substantial picture of how consumers perceive the brand. Hence, with an additional comparison of the results with Fischer’s self-described core values from the company website, suitable suggestions on marketing measures can be made (chapter 4.3).

Nevertheless, in order to ensure a consistent and adequate brand management, the changes in consumers’ perception of Fischer in cross-country skiing should be monitored over time. Therefore, it is advisable to repeat the surveys every three to five years so that possible changes and developments of consumers’ perception of core associations can be tracked and brand managers can react accordingly (John et al. 2006).

5.3 Contributions to Brand Measurement

The two studies conducted within this thesis confirm, that the free associations technique as well as the BCM are useful tools to elicit brand meaning (John et al. 2006; Schnittka et al. 2012; Böger et al. 2017; Ci and Choi 2017). It can be shown that John et al.’s BCM method, which was introduced in 2006, offers valuable results on core brand associations and how they are interconnected with one another and with the brand in consumers’ minds. This research technique can be combined very well with the free associations approach, since those results can be used as the elicitation stage of the BCM. The additional questions asking respondents

to evaluate the brand associations with plus, minus or neutral regarding their perception have delivered useful additional information.

The combination of both approaches used in this thesis has generated comprehensive results on the primary brand meaning of Fischer in cross-country skiing. Moreover, the execution of the surveys is straightforward and the decision rules are easy to deploy. Therefore, this combination of free associations and BCM can be recommended for future research with the objective of eliciting primary brand meaning.

5.4 Theoretical Conclusion

The aim of the paper is stated at the very beginning with the research question. This chapter concludes it by a short summary of the respective answer, which has been worked out in great detail in the foregoing main chapters of this thesis.

Research Question: What are the benefits of using free associations and brand concept maps with regard to brand management?

Chapter 4 and part of the discussion (chapter 5.4) of this paper seek to answer the research question of this paper. The two methods for eliciting brand meaning are compared strictly and advantages and disadvantages are outlined. It is recommended to apply the BCM method additionally to the free associations approach in order to gain further insights and more detailed information, keeping in mind that this means more time and resource investment.

5.5 Limitations and Future Research

The surveys of this thesis were conducted with the upmost care and best possible correctness, always working towards the objective of accurate results. Even though certain limitations have to be addressed.

The researcher is the one developing the questionnaires, conducting the survey in the stage of data collection and analysing the results. Therefore, the reliability of the outcomes also depends on the credibility of the researcher, especially since qualitative research is sensitive and susceptible to bias. Both studies performed for this thesis did not require much prior experience or special training, still, complete correctness of result cannot be ensured.

Another aspect is the possible bias of the results of the BCM, as the basis for the pre- determined set of associations used in the questionnaire of study II are the categorized results of the free associations method. Even though the categorization of brand associations has been realized with great care, an interpretational bias might have been occurred.

During data collection of study I, only a rather small average number of associations per person could be reached. This might have been due to bad weather conditions and cold temperatures. It is possible that when moving the survey inside into a restaurant or something similar, more information could have been retrieved from participants. The difficulty of study II was to find enough individuals willing to participate. Because of the rather complicated task of drawing a brand concept map, many were put off by the necessary time investment of about 15 minutes. Hence, a higher sample size of both studies would have led to more representative results. A solution might be to offer a higher reward for participation in form of a special goodie or a voucher. Another possibility is to modify the research tool and facilitate the data collection by developing a computer-aided questionnaire (John et al. 2006).

The results could also be biased by participants of the studies, as they might have been influenced by their brand image regarding Fischer in alpine skiing. Alpine sports are very popular in Austria, therefore individuals could have mixed up their brand associations regarding their brand image on the Nordic or alpine section of Fischer.

As mentioned in previous chapters, the knowledge retrieval of the two research techniques is limited. Even though, valuable results and consequential managerial recommendations can be retrieved, the research only accomplishes to elicit primary brand meaning and does not provide an insight in more sub-conscious thoughts and feelings. Additional questions and the execution of a projective research technique could help to elicit further information. This would have exceeded the scope of this thesis, but should be included in future research. Also, the added favourability measures only provide restricted evidence on the evaluative judgement of each association. Future surveys could extend the BCM approach and conduct a BANV (brand association network value), as proposed by Schnittka et al. (2012). Furthermore, additional procedures for assessing the nature of relationships between associations could be incorporated in continuative research (John et al. 2006).

Moreover, the results of both studies only give an overview of the brand meaning of the regarding sample group. Therefore, the results do not offer general validity. Also, the results reflect the brand meaning of the sample at the exact time the survey has been conducted. No future perceptions or developments of brand perception can be derived (Batey 2008).

Further considerations would include a comparison of results to major competitors in order to evaluate the uniqueness of associations (Böger et al. 2017). Consequently, specific management measures could be derived for beneficial positioning of the brand and for creating a unique selling proposition.

The comparison of the two research methods free association and BCM is certainly limited, as the second study is based on the results of study I. Still, the combination of both techniques has proven very valuable to elicit the brand meaning of Fischer in cross-country skiing. Additional research and usage of this combination of techniques is necessary in order to determine the applicability and general meaningfulness for other types of brands.

6 References

Aaker, David A. (1991): Managing brand equity. New York, NY: Free Press.

Aaker, David A. (1996): Building strong brands. New York, NY: Free Press.

Aaker, David A.; Shansby, J.Gary (1982): Positioning your product. In Business Horizons 25 (3), pp. 56–62.

Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997): Dimensions of Brand Personality. In Journal of Marketing Research 34 (3), p. 347.

Ajzen, Icek; Fishbein, Martin (1980): Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Alba, Joseph W.; Hutchinson, J. Wesley (1987): Dimensions of Consumer Expertise. In Journal of Consumer Research 13 (4), pp. 411–454.

Anderson, John R. (1983): The architecture of cognition. Cambridge Mass. u.a.: Harvard Univ. Pr (The cognitive science series, 5).

Anselmsson, Johan; Burt, Steve; Tunca, Burak (2017): An integrated retailer image and brand equity framework. Re-examining, extending, and restructuring retailer brand equity. In Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 38, pp. 194–203.

Baker, William; Hutchinson, J. Wesley; Moore, Danny; Nedungadi, Prakash (1986): Brand Familiarity and Advertising. Effects on the Evoked Set and Brand Preference. In NA - Advances in Consumer Research (13), pp. 637–642.

Batey, Mark (2008): Brand meaning. New York: Routledge.

Berthon, Pierre; Pitt, Leyland F.; Campbell, Colin (2009): Does brand meaning exist in similarity or singularity? In Journal of Business Research 62 (3), pp. 356–361.

Bettman, James R.; Park, C. Whan (1980): Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes. A Protocol Analysis. In Journal of Consumer Research 7 (3), p. 234.

Böger, Daniel; Kottemann, Pascal; Meißner, Martin; Decker, Reinhold (2017): A mechanism for aggregating association network data. An application to brand concept maps. In Journal of Business Research 79, pp. 90–106.

Bradburn, Norman M.; Sudman, Seymour; Wansink, Brian (2004): Asking questions. The definitive guide to questionnaire design - for market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chatzipanagiotou, Kalliopi; Veloutsou, Cleopatra; Christodoulides, George (2016): Decoding the complexity of the consumer-based brand equity process. In Journal of Business Research 69 (11), pp. 5479–5486.

Chen, Arthur Cheng‐Hsui (2001): Using free association to examine the relationship between the characteristics of brand associations and brand equity. In Journal of Product & Brand Management 10 (7), pp. 439–451.

Chernatony, Leslie de; Riley, Francesca Dall'Olmo (1997): The chasm between managers' and consumers' views of brands. The experts' perspectives. In Journal of Strategic Marketing 5 (2), pp. 89–104.

Christodoulides, George; Cadogan, John W.; Veloutsou, Cleopatra (2015): Consumer-based brand equity measurement. Lessons learned from an international study. In International Marketing Review 32 (3/4), pp. 307–328.

Ci, Cunhyeong; Choi, Sujin (2017): How to manage a city’s image using the brand concept map and network analysis. A case of Seoul. In Qual Quant 51 (6), pp. 2441–2456.

Clark, Herbert; Marshall, Catherine (1981): Definite reference and mutual knowledge. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press.

Deheshti, Mohammad; Adabi Firouzjah, Javad; Alimohammadi, Hossein (2016): The Relationship between Brand Image and Brand Trust in Sporting Goods Consumers. In Annals of Applied Sport Science 4 (3), pp. 27–34.

Die Welt (2004): Die großen Skihersteller. Available online at https://www.welt.de/print- welt/article289824/Die-grossen-Skihersteller.html, checked on 3/9/2019.

Erdoğmuş, İrem Eren; Dirsehan, Taşkın (2017): Exploring local vs global brand associations in an emerging market using BCM technique. In Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 20 (3), pp. 266–288.

Farquhar, P. H. (1989): Managing Brand Equity. In Marketing Research (1(3)), pp. 24–33.

Fischer Sports GmbH (2018): About Fischer Sports. Available online at https://www.fischersports.com/us_en/fischer/company/fischer-sports, checked on 8/28/2018.

French, Alan; Smith, Gareth (2010): Measuring political brand equity: a consumer oriented approach. In European Journal of Marketing 44 (3-4), pp. 460–477.

Gardner, B. B.; Levy, Sidney J. (1955): The product and the brand. In Harvard Business Review (March-April), pp. 33–39.

Hofstede, Anouk; van Hoof, Joris; Walenberg, Natascha; Jong, Menno de (2007): Projective techniques for brand image research. Two personification‐based methods explored. In Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 10 (3), pp. 300–309.

John, Deborah Roedder; Loken, Barbara; Kim, Kyeongheui; Monga, Alokparna Basu (2006): Brand Concept Maps. A Methodology for Identifying Brand Association Networks. In Journal of Marketing Research 43 (4), pp. 549–563.

Kapferer, Jean-Noël (2012): The new strategic brand management. Advanced insights and strategic thinking. 5. ed. London: Kogan Page.

Kates, Steven M.; Goh, Charlene (2003): Brand Morphing--Implications for Advertising Theory and Practice. In Journal of Advertising 32 (1), pp. 59–68.

Keller, Kevin Lane (1987): Memory Factors in Advertising. The Effect of Advertising Retrieval Cues on Brand Evaluations. In Journal of Consumer Research 14 (3), p. 316.

Keller, Kevin Lane (1991): Memory and Evaluation Effects in Competitive Advertising Environments. In Journal of Consumer Research 17 (4), p. 463.

Keller, Kevin Lane (1993): Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. In Journal of Marketing 57 (1), pp. 1–22.

Keller, Kevin Lane (1998): Strategic brand management. Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. 2. ed., internat. ed. Upper Saddle River NJ u.a.: Prentice Hall Pearson Education.

Keller, Kevin Lane (2013): Strategic brand management. Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. Fourth edition, global edition. Boston, Mass.: Pearson.

Kelly, George A. (1963): A theory of personality. New York: Norton.

Klooster, Peter M. ten; Visser, Martijn; Jong, Menno D.T. de (2008): Comparing two image research instruments. The Q-sort method versus the Likert attitude questionnaire. In Food Quality and Preference 19 (5), pp. 511–518.

Kokko, Suvi; Lagerkvist, Carl Johan (2017): Using Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique to Map Beneficiaries’ Experiences and Values. In American Journal of Evaluation 38 (2), pp. 205–225.

Koll, Oliver; Wallpach, Sylvia von; Kreuzer, Maria (2010): Multi-method research on consumer- brand associations. Comparing free associations, storytelling, and collages. In Psychol. Mark. 27 (6), pp. 584–602.

Kotler, Philip (1991): Marketing management. Analysis, planning, implementation, and control. 7th ed., 2. print. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kotler, Philip; Keller, Kevin Lane; Brady, Mairead; Goodman, Malcolm; Hansen, Torben (2016): Marketing management. 3rd edition. Harlow, England, London, New York, Boston, San Francisco, Toronto, Sydney: Pearson.

Krishnan, H. S. (1996): Characteristics of memory associations. A consumer-based brand equity perspective. In International Journal of Research in Marketing 13 (4), pp. 389–405.

Kwak, Dae Hee; Kang, Joon‐Ho (2009): Symbolic purchase in sport. The roles of self‐image congruence and perceived quality. In Management Decision 47 (1), pp. 85–99.

Lassar, Walfried; Mittal, Banwari; Sharma, Arun (1995): Measuring customer‐based brand equity. In Journal of Consumer Marketing 12 (4), pp. 11–19.

Levy, Sidney J. (1981): Intepreting Consumer Mythology. A Structural Approach to Consumer Behavior. In Journal of Marketing 45 (3), p. 49.

Maslow, Abraham H. (1970): Motivation and Personality. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.

McAlexander, James H.; Schouten, John W.; Koenig, Harold F. (2018): Building Brand Community. In Journal of Marketing 66 (1), pp. 38–54.

Mein Bezirk (2018): Startschuss für das „Seefeld Nordic Weekend“ - mit Video. Available online at https://www.meinbezirk.at/telfs/c-sport/startschuss-fuer-das-seefeld-nordic-weekend-mit- video_a2387202, checked on 3/13/2019.

Miller, Kenneth E.; Ginter, James L. (1979): An Investigation of Situational Variation in Brand Choice Behavior and Attitude. In Journal of Marketing Research 16 (1), p. 111.

Myers, J. H.; Shocker, A. D. (1981): The Nature of Product-Related Attributes. In Research in Marketing (5), pp. 211–236.

Nandan, Shiva (2005): An exploration of the brand identity–brand image linkage. A communications perspective. In J Brand Manag 12 (4), pp. 264–278.

Olympiaregion Seefeld (2019): Langlauf in Tirol - am schönsten Hochplateau in den Alpen. Available online at https://www.seefeld.com/urlaub-tirol-langlauf, checked on 3/13/2019.

Park, C. Whan; Jaworski, Bernard J.; MacInnis, Deborah J. (1986): Strategic Brand Concept- Image Management. In Journal of Marketing 50 (4), pp. 135–145.

Park, Chan Su; Srinivasan, V. (1994): A Survey-Based Method for Measuring and Understanding Brand Equity and Its Extendibility. In Journal of Marketing Research 31 (2), p. 271.

Raaijmakers, Jeroen G.; Shiffrin, Richard M. (1981): Search of associative memory. In Psychological Review 88 (2), pp. 93–134.

Reilly, Michael D. (1990): Free Elicitation Of Descriptive Adjectives For Tourism Image Assessment. In Journal of Travel Research 28 (4), pp. 21–26.

Reynolds, Thomas J.; Gutman, Jonathan (1988): Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. In Journal of Advertising Research 28 (1), pp. 11–31.

Rossiter, John R.; Percy, Larry (1987): Advertising and promotion management. New York NY u.a.: McGraw-Hill (McGraw-Hill series in marketing).

Saris, Willem E.; Gallhofer, Irmtraud N. (2007): Design, evaluation, and analysis of questionnaires for survey research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.

Schnittka, Oliver; Sattler, Henrik; Zenker, Sebastian (2012): Advanced brand concept maps. A new approach for evaluating the favorability of brand association networks. In International Journal of Research in Marketing 29 (3), pp. 265–274.

Simon, Carol J.; Sullivan, Mary W. (1993): The Measurement and Determinants of Brand Equity. A Financial Approach. In Marketing Science 12 (1), pp. 28–52.

Sujan, Mita; Bettman, James R. (1989): The Effects of Brand Positioning Strategies on Consumers' Brand and Category Perceptions. Some Insights from Schema Research. In Journal of Marketing Research 26 (4), p. 454.

Tsordia, Ch.; Papadimitriou, D.; Parganas, P. (2017): The influence of sport sponsorship on brand equity and purchase behavior. In Journal of Strategic Marketing 26 (1), pp. 85–105.

Wheeler, Alina (2013): Designing brand identity. An essential guide for the whole branding team. 4. ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Wilkie, William L. (1986): Comsumer behavior. New York: Wiley.

WKO Österreich (2018): Österreichische Skiindustrie. Available online at https://www.wko.at/branchen/industrie/holzindustrie/Ski.html, checked on 3/9/2019.

Zaltman, Gerald (1997): Rethinking Market Research. Putting People Back In. In Journal of Marketing Research 34 (4), p. 424.

Zaltman, Gerald (2003): How customers think. Essential insights into the mind of the market. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

Zaltman, Gerald; Coulter, Robin H. (1995): Seeing the Voice of the Customer. Metaphor-based Advertising Research (35). In Journal of Advertising Research (4), pp. 35–51.

7 List of Appendices

Appendix A: Questionnaire Free Associations ...... 74

Appendix B: Questionnaire Brand Concept Maps ...... 75

Appendix C: Free Associations – Assignment to association categories ...... 78

Appendix D: BCM – Key figures ...... 80

Appendix E: German consensus brand map of Fischer ...... 83

Appendix A: Questionnaire Free Associations

Fragebogen zur Wahrnehmung der Marke Fischer im Langlaufbereich

Im Rahmen meiner Diplomarbeit an der Universität Innsbruck führe ich eine Untersuchung über das Markenimage der Marke Fischer im Langlaufbereich durch. Ich würde mich sehr über Ihre Unterstützung bei dieser Studie freuen. Die Befragung nimmt ca. 2 Minuten Ihrer Zeit in Anspruch. Ihre Aussagen werden vertraulich und anonym behandelt. Die erhobenen Daten lassen keine Rückschlüsse auf Ihre Person zu.

1. Kennen Sie die Marke Fischer als Langlaufmarke? □ Ja □ Nein

2. Wenn Sie an Fischer als Langlaufmarke denken, was fällt Ihnen spontan ein? 1. …………………………………………………………………………………………… 2. …………………………………………………………………………………………… 3. …………………………………………………………………………………………… 4. …………………………………………………………………………………………… 5. ……………………………………………………………………………………………

Weitere: ……………………………………………………………………………………..

 Bitte bewerten Sie Ihre oben angegebenen Assoziationen, ob Sie diese als positiv + , negativ - oder neutral ~ empfinden.

3. Sind Sie aktive/r Langläufer/in?  Ja – Ich benutze Langlaufski der Marke:………………………………………  Nein

4. Nationalität: Aus welchem Land bzw. Bundesland kommen Sie?

Land:………………………………………………………….. Bundesland: ………………………………………………….

5. Was ist Ihr Geschlecht? □ weiblich □ männlich

6. Wie alt sind Sie? ….. Jahre

Vielen Dank für die Teilnahme an dieser Studie.

Appendix B: Questionnaire Brand Concept Maps

Fragebogen zur Wahrnehmung der Marke Fischer im Langlaufbereich

1. Kennen Sie die Marke Fischer als Langlaufmarke?  Ja  Nein

2. Sind Sie aktive/r Langläufer/in?

 Ja – Ich benutze Langlaufski der Marke:………………………………………………………

 Nein

3. Brand Concept Map

Auf der folgenden Seite wählen Sie die Assoziationen aus, die Sie am stärksten mit der Marke Fischer im Langlaufbereich verbinden. Mit diesen bilden Sie dann eine Brand Concept Map. Dabei werden die versch. Begriffe mit der Marke und/oder miteinander in Beziehung gesetzt.

Als Vorlage sehen Sie hier eine Brand Concept Map am Beispiel des Volkswagen Beetle:

Wichtig ist:

 Assoziationen können direkt mit der Marke verbunden sein (z.B. Fahrspaß) oder indirekt über eine oder mehrere Assoziationen (z.B. Limonengrün).  Die Anzahl der Verbindungslinien beschreibt die Assoziationsstärke d.h. wie stark der jeweilige Begriff mit der Marke selbst oder einem anderen Ausdruck verbunden ist. Diese kann durch eine (z.B. einfach zu parken), zwei (z.B. preiswert) oder drei Linien (z.B. Fahrspaß) abgebildet werden, wobei drei Linien die stärkste Verbindung darstellen.

4. Wählen Sie die Assoziationen aus, welche Sie am stärksten mit der Marke Fischer im Langlaufbereich verbinden (max. 10) und bilden Sie eine Brand Concept Map. Bewerten Sie, ob Sie den jeweiligen Begriff als positiv (+), negativ (-) oder neutral (~) empfinden. Falls für Sie wichtige Auswahlmöglichkeiten fehlen, fügen Sie diese selbst hinzu.

Bekannte Marke Fell-Ski gute Ski

Spitzensport perfektes Skierlebnis Verlässlichkeit

Top-Marke Familienunternehmen schnell

Loch-Ski Österreichisches Unternehmen Marktführer

Tradition schlechte Preis-Leistung schwarz-gelbes Design

Athleten gute Preis-Leistung innovativ

5. Nationalität: Aus welchem Land bzw. Bundesland kommen Sie?

Land:…………………………………………………………… Bundesland:……………………………………………………

6. Was ist Ihr Geschlecht?

 weiblich

 männlich

7. Wie alt sind Sie?

….. Jahre

Vielen Dank für die Teilnahme an dieser Studie.

Appendix C: Free Associations – Assignment to association categories

Association category Frequency of Associations (Kategorie) mention (N=254) good product quality 45 gute(r) Ski (15), gute Qualität (8), beste(r) Ski (5), gut (4), (gute Produktqualität) ganz ok (2), leicht (1), Qualität (1), Qualitätsprodukt (1), die besten Skier der Welt (1), sportlich ok (1), leichte Ski (1), top Langlaufski (1), hohe Qualität (1), Qualität super (1), geht bei allen Bedingungen (1), hält lange (1) elite sports 26 Langlauf (4), Biathlon (2), Fernsehen (2), alle Sparten (2), (Spitzensport) erfolgreich (2), 50 WM Titel (1), Ski-Langlauf (1), Profiski (1), Wettkampf (1), im Weltcup top (1), Wintersport (1), Erfolg (1), Weltklasse (1), Spitzensport (1), Weltcup (1), Weltcup-Siege (1), Erfolg im Langlauf (1), sehr Skispringen (1), Sport (1) design (Design) 24 schwarz-gelb (10), gelb (2), gut ausschauen (1), gelb+schwarz (1), schaut gut aus (1), silber/gelb (1), Skioptik und Form gefällt mir nicht (1), Farbe gelb (1), gefällt das Logo nicht (1), Optik ist mir egal (1), optisch Oldschool (1), drei Dreiecke (1), gelb auf schwarz aufgedruckt (1), gelbe Ski (1) top brand (Topmarke) 18 super (3), gute Marke (3), gut (3), renommierte Marke (1), top Marke (1), empfohlen worden (1), guter Ruf (1), beste Marke im Langlaufsport (1), sehr top (1), ausgezeichnet (1), Top-Marke (1), tolle Marke (1) brand awareness 14 bekannt (2), bekannteste Marke (2), bekannte Marke (1), (bekannte Marke) laufen fast alle (1), alle laufen mit Fischer (1), viel verbreitet (1), Marke von vielen (1), häufigste Marke (1), jeder in der Familie hat Fischer (1), Familienski (1), eine von mehreren bekannten Marken (1), fahren viele (1) ski models 13 Lochski (2), Ski (2), Langlaufski (1), vorne Loch (1), Loch (Skimodelle) im Ski (1), Speedmax (1), Fischer Zero Degree (1), Fellski (1), Loch in Spitze (1), Dreieck/Loch (1), 3 verschiedene Ski (1) bad cost-benefit ratio 13 teuer (8), hoher Preis (1), eher teuer (1), Preis-Leistung (schlechte Preis- schlecht (1), zu teuer (1), teurer Ski (1) Leistung)

mine (mein) 12 mein(e) Ski (4), meine Marke (2), immer gehabt (2), mein Skater Schi (1), habe Fischer-Langlaufski seit ca. 25 Jahren (1), schon immer unsere Marke (1), hatte ich früher mal (1) fast (schnell) 12 schnell (4), schneller Ski (2), laufen gut (2), schnelle Ski (1), laufen immer noch super (1), dynamisch (1), Schnelligkeit (1) athletes (Athleten) 12 Athleten (3), gute Rennläufer (2), Langläufer (2), Rennläufer (1), Profiteam (1), Stecher (1), Schlierenzauer (1), gute Athleten (1) good cost-benefit ratio 11 gute Preis-Leistung (4), Leistung ok (2), angemessener (gute Preis-Leistung) Preis (1), Preis- gut aber auch teuer (1), Preis-Leistung sehr gut (1), günstig (1), Preis-Leistung passt gut (1) content (zufrieden) 9 zufrieden (7), mag sie am liebsten (1), fühle mich gut (1) Austrian company 7 Österr. Marke (4), heimische Marke (1), Ried im Innkreis (Österreichisches (1), Österreich (1) Unternehmen) tradition (Tradition) 6 Tradition (3), alteingesessene Firma (1), traditionelle Marke (1), traditionell (1) market leader 5 für mich führende Langlaufmarke (1), Marktführer – einer (Marktführer) davon (1), Weltmarkführer (1), Marktführer (1), führende Marke (1) innovative (innovativ) 4 innovativ (2), einfallsreich (1), immer was Neues (1) reliability 2 Verlässlichkeit (2) (Verlässlichkeit) family company 1 Familienbetrieb (1) (Familienunternehmen) not categorized 20 alpin (2), Werbung wirkt (1), skating nicht klassisch (1), mittelmäßig (1), wenig Unterschiede zwischen Marken (1), vor ein paar Tagen gekauft (1), Sven Fischer (1), zu harte Schuhe (1), mein Mann (1), Winter (1), Seefeld (1), sportlich (1), mag Marke Fischer generell nicht (1), Alpinbereich (1), würde jetzt auch Fischer kaufen (1), TT (1), nix für mich (1), frische Luft (1), Sven Fischer (1)

Appendix D: BCM – Key figures

Brand association Frequency Ratio of Number of Evaluation Frequency Ratio of of mention mention intercom- (+) of first- first- (N=241) (%) nections (~) order order (-) mention mention (%) Good skis (gute 25 69.4% 11 (+) 100% 18 72% Ski) black-yellow design 22 61.1% 5 (+) 27.3%, 21 95.5% (schwarz-gelbes (~) 72.7% Design) elite sports 22 61.1% 10 (+) 77.3%, 20 90.9% (Spitzensport) (~) 22.7% top brand (Top- 20 55.6% 10 (+) 100% 18 90% Marke) market leader 18 50% 9 (+) 27.8%, 13 72.2% (Marktführer) (~) 72.2% athletes (Athleten) 17 47.2% 8 (+) 88.2%, 9 52.9% (~) 11.8% well-known brand 16 44.4% 9 (+) 56,3%, 16 100% (bekannte Marke) (~) 43,8% reliability 15 41.7% 2 (+) 100% 13 86.7% (Verlässlichkeit) innovative 13 36.1% 4 (+) 100% 9 69.2% (innovativ) fast (schnell) 13 36.1% 6 (+) 100% 8 61.5% Austrian company 11 30.6% 8 (+) 90.9%, 9 81.8% (Österreichisches (~) 9.1% Unternehmen) good cost-benefit 10 27.8% 2 (+) 100% 8 80% ratio (gute Preis- Leistung) tradition (Tradition) 9 25% 1 (+) 77.8%, 8 88.9% (~) 22.2% skis with hole 7 19.4% 5 (+) 42.9%, 3 42.9% (Loch-Ski) (~) 57.1% skis with skin (Fell- 5 13.9% 3 (+) 80%, 4 80% Ski) (~) 20% triangle (Dreieck) 2 5.6% 2 (~) 100% 0 0%

family business 2 5.6% 0 (+) 100% 1 50% (Familienunterneh- men) outstanding skiing 2 5.6% 1 (+) 100% 1 50% experience (perfektes Skierlebnis) quality (Qualität) 2 5.6% 3 (+) 100% 2 100% bad absorption of 2 5.6% 2 (-) 100% 1 50% wax (schlechte Wachsaufnahme) development 1 2.8% 0 (+) 100% 1 100% (Entwicklung) RC4 1 2.8% 0 (+) 100% 1 100% bad experience 1 2.8% 1 (-) 100% 0 0% (schlechte Erfahrung) bad cost-benefit 1 2.8% 0 (-) 100% 1 100% ratio (schlechte Preis-Leistung) bad ski (schlechter 1 2.8% 2 (-) 100% 1 100% Ski) close-fitting shoes 1 2.8% 0 (+) 100% 1 100% (Schuhe eng anliegend) sports (Sport) 1 2.8% 1 (+) 100% 0 0% edgeless (stumpf) 1 2.8% 1 (-) 100% 0 0%

Brand association Frequency of Frequency of Difference superordinate – subordinate superordinate subordinate connections connections connections

Good skis (gute Ski) 7 4 -3 black-yellow design (schwarz- 1 4 3 gelbes Design) elite sports (Spitzensport) 2 8 6 top brand (Top-Marke) 2 8 6 market leader (Marktführer) 5 4 -1 athletes (Athleten) 8 0 -8

well-known brand (bekannte 0 9 9 Marke) reliability (Verlässlichkeit) 2 0 -2 innovative (innovativ) 4 0 -4 fast (schnell) 5 1 -4 Austrian company 2 6 4 (Österreichisches Unternehmen) good cost-benefit ratio (gute 2 0 -2 Preis-Leistung) tradition (Tradition) 1 0 -1 skis with hole (Loch-Ski) 4 1 -3 skis with skin (Fell-Ski) 1 2 1 triangle (Dreieck) 2 0 -2 family business 0 0 0 (Familienunterneh-men) outstanding skiing experience 1 0 -1 (perfektes Skierlebnis) quality (Qualität) 0 3 3 bad absorption of wax 1 1 0 (schlechte Wachsaufnahme) development (Entwicklung) 0 0 0 RC4 0 0 0 bad experience (schlechte 1 0 -1 Erfahrung) bad cost-benefit ratio 0 0 0 (schlechte Preis-Leistung) bad ski (schlechter Ski) 1 2 1 close-fitting shoes (Schuhe 0 0 0 eng anliegend) sports (Sport) 1 0 -1 edgeless (stumpf) 1 0 -1

Appendix E: German consensus brand map of Fischer