Light and Corporate Identity: Using Lighting for Corporate Communication

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 285–295

Light and corporate identity: Using lighting for corporate communication T Schielke Architect Dipl-Ing Department for Architecture, Building Design and Technology and Lighting Technology, Darmstadt University of Technology, Darmstadt, Germany

Received 15 January 2010; Revised 1 March 2010; Accepted 21 March 2010

The central focus of this study is to investigate what potential exists for brand communication in the lighting of retail outlets. Lighting not only facilitates the visual task, helping to present the merchandise and contributing to the feeling of well-being, but can also augment the communication of a brand’s appearance. For this study, computer visualisations of retail outlets with different lighting variations are evaluated in terms of light, spatial setting and brand impression by regional and international groups using the semantic differential technique. A comparison between rooms with and without luminaires yet with the same lighting effect demonstrates the effect of luminaires as design objects. From the results it can be deduced that light can be used for brand communication in order to define the image of a company more clearly.

1. Introduction From the semiotics perspective, architecture can be seen as a symbol.4 A window, for In illuminating engineering, the perception of instance, not only fulfils the practical function lighting has long been evaluated in the of allowing the penetration of light but also context of safety and efficiency at the work- communicates meaning depending on its place. In recent times, however, there has shape and position. Accordingly, many sym- been an increase in the proportion of studies bols in architecture have an intention and looking at the atmosphere of the room – can be deciphered if the observer knows the whether aimed at increasing the motivation at code – maybe using architectural history for the workplace or at generally improving the instance. Thus, for example, Krampen and feeling of well-being in the premises.1–3 As a Kotler5 used the semantic differential analysis result, quantitative lighting design has been to identify the factors of meaning that con- expanded by the addition of an important nect people and buildings and Eco6 developed dimension, that is to say, by the inclusion of his semiotic model in which he distinguished this qualitative perspective. In the context of between denotation as a physical function and brand communication, two questions arise; connotation as a socio-anthropological func- what qualitative messages can be conveyed tion. Hence, the interest of brand communi- via architecture or architectural lighting, cation is primarily directed at the secondary respectively, and how is this aspect incorpo- function of architecture, the connotation. rated into marketing. Richter,7 in his architectural psychological work, describes how, for instance, consumer Address for correspondence: T Schielke, Department for worlds now make use of insignia from the Architecture, Building Design and Technology and Lighting sphere of religion in their spatial symbolism. Technology, Darmstadt University of Technology, El-Lissitzky-Strasse 1, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany. Conversely, the findings of brand manage- E-mail: [email protected]; www.arclighting.de ment form an important framework for

ß The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers 2010 10.1177/1477153510369526

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com by JC CONCEPCION on May 14, 2015 286 T Schielke dealing with the concept of brand communi- of brand knowledge.15 In this context, the cation. The analysis of the consumer market architecture of stores can be categorised as a and buying behaviour creates an essential pre- non-product-related attribute. It achieves a condition for developing new strategies.8 symbolic benefit which is appreciated by the Cultural, social, personal and psychological customer because it corresponds to his or her factors make a considerable contribution to self-concept. When making the decision to the decision to buy. Knowing the preferences buy, the emotional dimension can even of the respective target group will simplify the be greater than the functional aspect.16 propagation of brand messages aimed at Consumers and their emotions, social standing transmitting the image of a brand from the and value orientation are classified using company to the customer.9 milieu studies.13 The value orientation theory The American Marketing Association in social psychology was developed by defines the term ‘brand’ as follows: ‘A brand Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck and assumed that is a name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a understanding and communication could be combination of them, intended to identify the facilitated by analysing people’s orientation goods or services of one seller or group of in a cultural context.17 A survey consisting of sellers and to differentiate them from those of different situations with associated questions competitors.’ The dimensions of meaning served as a basic assessment instrument. embodied by the term ‘brand’ can extend in six Silberer18 drew the value orientation more directions: attributes, benefits, values, culture, into the context of companies and consumer personality or user.10 In addition to the service, behaviour. The allocation into groups within which reflects the brand values, the atmosphere this study plots the value judgment on the in the particular retail outlet also plays a Y-axis and social standing on the X-axis.13 significant role and must fit the target group.11 Lighting in the form of neon advertise- To investigate an effective communication ments has long been used for brand commu- strategy, marketing uses image analysis, which nication.19 Luminous texts or company logos in turn is often measured using semantic have increased a brand’s presence in the differential methods.12,13 Kotler11 explains urban area and, as a luminous feature at a that image ‘is the set of beliefs, ideas and shop’s entrance, have made it easier to impressions a person holds regarding an identify a brand-name store. Seen in terms object.’ Conversely, Stern et al.14 define the of semantics, light is directly used as a sign. term ‘image’ more in terms of communication Yet when consumers enter the store, they are theory, when they write: ‘Image is generally no longer confronted by the brand’s luminous conceived of as the outcome of a transaction signage but are standing in the light of that whereby signals emitted by a marketing unit brand, experiencing a specific atmosphere are received by a receptor and organised into a that is deliberately linked with the brand via mental perception of the sending unit’. In this the lighting. The consistent use of a uniform study, the term ‘image’ is related to the lighting concept for all the retail outlets of a external environment when the consumer brand helps a company to build up a uniform evaluates visualisations of retail outlets – in image for a clear brand identity. From the the sense of store image. ‘Psychologically- marketing point of view, the lighting not orientated definitions locate image in the only fulfils the function of facilitating vision consumer’s mind and treat it as a cognitive and of creating a hierarchy of perception and/or emotional construct based on con- using differentiated brightness levels for the sumers’ feelings’.14 Brand image and brand presentation of special products, but also awareness together form the two components reflects a brand identity. Within the corporate

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 285–295

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com by JC CONCEPCION on May 14, 2015 Light and corporate identity 287 architecture, the lighting then becomes an in lighting research, was reduced to just a few information medium for the corporate iden- dimensions in order to reveal clearer relation- tity.20 The value of a lighting system for ships.25 The inclusion of another data collec- salesrooms is therefore no longer seen solely tion method like paired comparison ratings in terms of how attractive it is in the sense of a was not carried out because this would have good general sales lighting for generating more been too time consuming even though it would sales turnover,21 but also in terms of how well have helped to reduce the inherent limitations it conveys the brand image. The existence of of the semantic differential method caused by uniform design guidelines for store lighting is the possibility of inconsistent use by the evidence of how light has now become a participants and make it easier to analyse the strategic component of companies’ corporate relevant dimensions. Eleven pairs of adjectives design manuals.22 This study sought to dem- covered the different dimensions. The light onstrate how the lighting can create different was evaluated via the following factors: brand images within the same room. The ‘bright–dark’, ‘high-contrast lighting–diffuse qualitative lighting design approach helps to lighting’, ‘cold–warm’. The room’s character- consider the principles of perception-oriented istics were rated using the paired adjectives lighting design as well as how luminaires ‘spacious–confined’. The adjective pair are integrated into architecture.23,24 ‘attractive–unattractive’ directly rated the subjective emotional impression in the sense of an affective evaluation.26 Attributive compo- 2. Method nents, representing a cognitive evaluation of mental concepts, were rated using: ‘natural– To investigate the hypothesis that solely technical’, ‘dramatic–relaxed’, ‘uniform– changing the lighting concept is sufficient to differentiated’ and ‘unobtrusive–expressive’. change the brand identity of a retail outlet, The dimensions of the brand were evaluated an empirical consumer investigation was relative to the social milieus of the consumers conducted. It was further assumed that light and to the possible allocation of brand fields on its own makes classification in the sense of to the attributive adjective pairs ‘traditional– social milieus possible and that luminaires are modern’ and ‘low budget–high class’. The test not absolutely necessary. This aspect could participants were surveyed online to keep the clarify the role of the lighting concept in workload and costs within appropriate limits, relation to the product design of the lumi- especially for the international survey. The naires within corporate lighting design online survey used the Limesurvey software, guidelines. A further hypothesis was that a which worked with a seven-point scale for the high-class store impression does not necessar- semantic differential for each question. The ily equate to simply increasing the brightness. two ends of the scale corresponded to ‘very The sample group was selected from volun- much;’ the middle was labelled ‘neutral’. The teers who had little to do with architectural results were evaluated using descriptive statis- lighting professionally. To analyse global dif- tics and correlation analysis. ferences, part of the study was conducted with an international sample group. To obtain an evaluation of different lighting situations, the 3. Results test participants were asked to give their judgment on the light, spatial setting and 3.1 Experiment 1: Evaluating the lighting brand. The psychophysical semantic differen- visualisation tial method of quantifying a stimulus and To evaluate one and the same room with subjective reactions, which is frequently used different lighting situations, the study used

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 285–295

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com by JC CONCEPCION on May 14, 2015 288 T Schielke lighting visualisations based on Dialux ren- colour channel for RGB. The aim of the derings. Various investigations have shown visualisations was to show how the appear- that the comments made about computer ance of the same interior changes solely due to simulations compare favourably with obser- the lighting. Refitting a room or constructing vations made about the real space and that the several otherwise identical salesrooms would comparison is therefore valid and accept- be logistically and economically highly able.27–29 Nevertheless, certain limitations impractical and therefore simulations were exist like the visual appearance of glare due used here. The simulated salesroom measured to reflection of lamps which could not be approximately 10 15 3.5 m3 (Figure 1). covered by graphical output devices that work Items of clothing were shown on shelves and with a low dynamic range of 255 tones per tables. The shop window and the background

(1a) Shop with luminaires (4a) Shop with luminaires (7a) Shop with luminaires

(1b) Shop without luminaires (4b) Shop without luminaires (7b) Shop without luminaires

(2a) Shop with luminaires (5a) Shop with luminaires (8a) Shop with luminaires

(2b) Shop without luminaires (5b) Shop without luminaires (8b) Shop without luminaires

(3a) Shop with luminaires (6a) Shop with luminaires

(3b) Shop without luminaires (6b) Shop without luminaires

Figure 1 Retail space visualisations. (These images are available in colour in the on-line version of this paper)

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 285–295

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com by JC CONCEPCION on May 14, 2015 Light and corporate identity 289 featured decorative points with mannequins, the appearance. Group 1.1 (n ¼ 18) were given which also gave an idea of the room’s size. As visualisations with luminaires (800 294 px); for the viewing position, the view looking into group 1.2 (n ¼ 22) received visualisations in the room through the shop window was the same format in which the luminaires were chosen as the central perspective. This is a erased. Eight different lighting scenes were perspective that consumers would be familiar given to each of the two groups for evaluation. with when walking past a store and standing in The sequence of the paired questions for each front of the entrance. Two on-line question- of the eight lighting situations was randomly naires were conducted in order to assess what placed in a new order to avoid repetition influence the design of the luminaires had on effects. Situation 1, for example, began with ‘low budget–high class’, whereas situation 2 Table 1 Test groups for experiments 1 and 2 started with ‘bright–dark’. The random order Group 1.1 1.2 2 was also used later for the evaluation in experiment 2. The personal details collected N 18 22 99 from the participants included age, sex and Female (%) 44 52 69 Male (%) 56 48 31 experience in lighting design (Table 1). Age average 28 25 31 Table 2 presents the results of groups 1.1 Lighting design experience (%) 31 45 61 No lighting design experience (%) 69 55 39 and 1.2 showing the mean and associated standard deviation for each semantic

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for experiment 1: Mean (M) and standard deviation (S). Situations 1a–8a shop with luminaires (group 1.1, n ¼ 18) and situations 1b–8b shop with erased luminaires (group 1.2, n ¼ 22)

Situation 1a 2a 3a 4a 5a 6a 7a 8a Shop with luminaires M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S

Attractive–Unattractive 0.4 1.8 0.1 1.5 0.3 1.9 0.2 2.0 0.5 1.9 0.2 1.8 0.1 2.2 1.1 1.6 Dramatic–Relaxed 0.1 1.4 0.3 1.4 0.8 1.8 0.2 1.6 1.5 1.7 0.3 1.3 0.9 2.0 0.8 1.5 Spacious–Confined 0.2 1.3 1.5 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.3 1.5 0.1 1.7 1.6 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.8 Uniform–Differentiated 0.1 1.3 0.3 1.5 1.5 1.2 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.8 1.3 1.4 0.8 1.8 1.9 1.5 Natural–Technical 0.9 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6 0.8 1.5 1.4 1.5 0.9 1.8 2.7 0.6 1.7 1.4 Bright–Dark 0.9 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.3 0.8 1.5 1.1 1.5 2.0 0.8 2.6 0.5 2.2 1.0 Cold–Warm 0.8 1.6 0.1 1.8 0.1 1.7 0.8 1.5 1.1 1.2 0.5 1.7 0.4 1.8 1.7 1.4 High-contrast 0.5 1.7 1.2 1.5 0.8 1.7 0.6 1.9 0.4 1.6 0.1 1.4 0.2 2.2 0.3 1.6 lighting–Diffuse l. Traditional–Modern 0.6 1.6 0.7 1.4 1.7 0.9 0.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 0.6 1.8 1.6 1.7 0.3 0.9 Low budget–High class 0.2 1.4 0.6 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.3 1.4 0.4 1.8 0.7 1.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 1.5 Unobtrusive–Expressive 0.4 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.6 0.1 1.5 2.1 1.3 0.9 1.4 1.6 2.0 0.3 1.7 Situation 1b 2b 3b 4b 5b 6b 7b 8b Shop with erased MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS luminaires Attractive–Unattractive 0.9 1.3 0.2 1.8 0.1 1.6 0.3 1.6 0.7 1.7 0.2 1.8 0.2 2.1 1.2 1.4 Dramatic–Relaxed 0.2 1.4 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.6 0.6 1.5 2.1 0.8 0.5 1.0 1.9 1.3 0.7 0.8 Spacious–Confined 0.0 0.8 0.4 1.2 0.9 1.2 0.1 1.2 0.0 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.6 0.4 1.8 Uniform–Differentiated 0.6 1.6 0.1 1.4 1.7 1.2 0.3 1.4 0.0 1.7 0.9 1.7 1.3 2.0 1.2 1.6 Natural–Technical 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.9 0.8 0.3 1.4 1.5 1.3 0.4 1.8 2.4 1.0 1.4 1.6 Bright–Dark 0.7 1.6 1.9 0.9 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.8 2.2 1.0 2.7 0.6 2.0 1.0 Cold–Warm 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.3 0.4 1.5 1.6 0.9 1.4 1.4 0.7 1.2 0.6 1.8 1.9 1.0 High-contrast 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 0.4 1.3 0.4 1.2 0.4 1.4 1.0 1.9 0.3 1.7 lighting–Diffuse l. Traditional–Modern 0.4 1.6 1.3 1.1 2.1 0.8 0.1 1.4 2.1 1.0 0.2 1.6 2.3 0.8 0.7 1.6 Low budget–High class 0.2 1.1 0.2 1.5 0.0 1.4 0.6 1.2 0.1 1.1 0.4 1.3 0.7 1.3 1.0 1.6 Unobtrusive–Expressive 1.3 1.1 1.3 0.8 1.8 1.1 0.5 1.3 2.3 0.8 0.1 1.4 2.3 1.0 0.2 1.6

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 285–295

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com by JC CONCEPCION on May 14, 2015 290 T Schielke

Table 3 Correlation analysis for situations 1a–8a shop with luminaires (group 1.1) and situations 1b–8b shop with erased luminaires (group 1.2)

Shop with luminaires P01 P02 P03 P04 P05 P06 P07 P08 P09 P10

P01 Attractive–Unattractive P02 Dramatic–Relaxed 0.531 P03 Spacious–Confined 0.134 0.196 P04 Uniform–Differentiated 0.310 0.146 0.846** P05 Natural–Technical 0.192 0.616 0.477 0.307 P06 Bright–Dark 0.226 0.238 0.950** 0.838** 0.439 P07 Cold–Warm 0.424 0.123 0.296 0.432 0.182 0.471 P08 High-contrast 0.079 0.400 0.141 0.318 0.212 0.081 0.209 lighting–Diffuse l. P09 Traditional–Modern 0.304 0.498 0.687 0.853** 0.455 0.758* 0.527 0.506 P10 Low budget–High class 0.792* 0.053 0.114 0.150 0.005 0.084 0.552 0.461 0.424 P11 Unobtrusive–Expressive 0.108 0.738* 0.127 0.307 0.502 0.261 0.502 0.712* 0.710* 0.602 Shop with erased luminaires P01 P02 P03 P04 P05 P06 P07 P08 P09 P10 P01 Attractive–Unattractive P02 Dramatic–Relaxed 0.168 P03 Spacious–Confined 0.015 0.315 P04 Uniform–Differentiated 0.464 0.365 0.851** P05 Natural–Technical 0.298 0.763* 0.562 0.456 P06 Bright–Dark 0.029 0.292 0.866** 0.755* 0.338 P07 Cold–Warm 0.423 0.024 0.288 0.449 0.34 0.493 P08 High-contrast 0.603 0.447 0.271 0.611 0.47 0.01 0.06 lighting–Diffuse l. P09 Traditional–Modern 0.281 0.744* 0.644 0.810* 0.655 0.65 0.406 0.556 P10 Low budget–High class 0.682 0.016 0.168 0.417 0.2 0.466 0.501 0.161 0.435 P11 Unobtrusive–Expressive 0.125 0.916** 0.489 0.626 0.701 0.375 0.225 0.668 0.837** 0.08

*Significance at 5% level; **significance at 1% level. differential scale. Where the spatial situation Table 4 Correlation analysis for groups 1.1 and 1.2 is the same but the lighting is different, great Scales Light- differences between the light scenes are luminaires apparent not only with the scales for light, but also with the attributes for the allocation Attractive–Unattractive 0.743* Dramatic–Relaxed 0.860** to the brand scales, that is, ‘traditional– Spacious–Confined 0.886** modern’, ‘low budget–high class’. For group Uniform–Differentiated 0.910** Natural–Technical 0.638 1.1, for instance, the relationship between the Bright–Dark 0.995** ‘traditional–modern’ scales and the adjective Cold–Warm 0.952** pairs ‘uniform-differentiated’ and ‘bright– High-contrast lighting–Diffuse lighting 0.718* Traditional–Modern 0.907** dark’ shows strong correlations (Table 3). Low budget–High class 0.772* Analysis of the mean values from the two Unobtrusive–Expressive 0.891** series of situations, 1.1 and 1.2, vividly demonstrates that a strong correlation (40.90) *Significance at 5% level; **significance at 1% level. exists for the four scales ‘uniform–differentiated’, ‘bright–dark’, ‘cold–warm’, ‘traditional– lighting effect demonstrates that, in the modern’. Six of the remaining seven scales have examples presented, the significant impression statistically significant correlations (Table 4). can be made just with the light alone. The This comparison of store situations with luminaires take on a subordinate role. This and without luminaires but with the same aspect can be quite different in real

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 285–295

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com by JC CONCEPCION on May 14, 2015 Light and corporate identity 291

Table 5 Descriptive statistics for experiment 2: mean (M) and standard deviation (S). Situations 1b–8b shop with erased luminaires (group 2, n ¼ 99)

Situation 1b 2b 3b 4b 5b 6b 7b 8b Shop with erased MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS luminaires

Attractive–Unattractive 0.6 1.7 0.1 1.7 0.8 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.7 0.6 2.2 1.1 1.8 Dramatic–Relaxed 0.0 1.4 0.8 1.4 1.5 1.3 0.0 1.7 2.0 1.2 0.6 1.5 2.2 1.4 0.5 1.2 Spacious–Confined 0.3 1.6 0.2 1.7 0.7 1.6 0.3 1.4 0.5 1.7 1.2 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.8 Uniform–Differentiated 0.4 1.7 0.3 1.8 1.5 1.3 0.8 1.5 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.5 Natural–Technical 0.9 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.9 1.1 0.1 1.6 2.1 1.0 0.2 1.6 2.5 0.7 0.4 1.7 Bright–Dark 1.0 1.5 1.8 1.2 0.4 1.4 0.5 1.4 0.9 1.5 2.2 0.9 2.5 0.9 1.8 1.1 Cold–Warm 0.8 1.5 0.4 1.5 0.1 1.5 1.4 1.4 0.5 1.8 0.1 1.8 1.1 1.8 1.4 1.4 High-contrast lighting– 0.8 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.3 0.7 1.7 1.0 1.7 0.1 1.6 1.6 1.9 0.8 2.0 Diffuse l. Traditional–Modern 0.5 1.7 0.6 1.7 2.1 0.9 0.2 1.4 2.1 1.1 0.1 1.8 2.5 0.9 0.5 1.9 Low budget–High class 0.4 1.6 0.3 1.5 0.9 1.4 0.7 1.5 0.6 1.5 0.1 1.7 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.8 Unobtrusive–Expressive 0.6 1.4 0.7 1.3 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.5 1.7 1.3 0.4 1.7 2.0 1.4 0.8 1.5

surroundings because the luminaires appear America–Europe. If the values are compared bigger in the room due to the change in with respect to the attributes, it is shown that perspective as the observer moves around. the strongest correlation exists for ‘bright– Nevertheless, for building a brand image, the dark’, followed by ‘traditional–modern’ and importance of the lighting concept compared ‘uniform–differentiated’. If the means of the to the choice of luminaires should not be correlation coefficients are considered, overall underestimated. there is a very strong correlation between the regions on all scales. However, if only the 3.2 Experiment 2: An international scales ‘traditional–modern’ and ‘low budget– comparison high class’ are considered, it becomes clear, as To analyse cultural differences in the con- Figure 2 shows, that the regions each give a text of global marketing strategies, the assess- similar evaluation yet can still be delineated ments of group 1.2, which originated from from each other, and the extent to which Germany, were compared with the assess- regional differences can arise also becomes ments of group 2, which had an international apparent. Figure 3 shows the assessments composition (n ¼ 99): group 2.1 ¼ Europe made by all five regions for all eight shop (n ¼ 24); group 2.2 ¼ America (n ¼ 20); group lighting schemes. 2.3 ¼ Middle East (n ¼ 26) and group Interestingly, if the ‘bright–dark’ scale is 2.4 ¼ Asia (n ¼ 17). Table 5 lists the means examined in relation to the scale ‘low budget– and standard deviations of the assessments high class’, it then becomes apparent that the made by the entire group 2 for the shop with evaluation of the attribute for the price image the erased luminaires. remains largely constant despite changing Table 6 shows the correlation coefficients brightness (Figure 4). The use of light to between different pairs of locations on each generate a high-price brand identity is there- scale and hence how greatly the different fore not necessarily dependent on higher regions of the world distinguish themselves luminous flux and thus higher energy con- from each other or resemble each other. The sumption. The price perception correlates to highest correlations are between the Middle a higher degree with the parameter, ‘high- East–Europe, followed by Europe–Asia and contrast lighting–diffuse lighting’, than with

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 285–295

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com by JC CONCEPCION on May 14, 2015 292 ihigRs Technol. Res. Lighting Table 6 Correlation analysis for different regions within group 2

Scales Region Mean Schielke T America– America– Europe– Middle East– Middle Middle East– Germany– Germany– Germany– Germany– Asia Europe Asia America East–Asia Europe America Asia Europe Middle East

Attractive–Unattractive 0.745* 0.779* 0.826* 0.714* 0.654 0.927** 0.529 0.592 0.818* 0.763* 0.735 Dramatic–Relaxed 0.911** 0.800* 0.937** 0.956** 0.961** 0.924** 0.698 0.800* 0.799* 0.734* 0.852

2010; Spacious–Confined 0.826* 0.883** 0.740* 0.912** 0.806* 0.942** 0.922** 0.949** 0.826* 0.865** 0.867 Uniform–Differentiated 0.952** 0.983** 0.979** 0.941** 0.922** 0.938** 0.814* 0.884** 0.827* 0.879** 0.912 Natural–Technical 0.926** 0.930** 0.972** 0.938** 0.923** 0.960** 0.674 0.828* 0.859** 0.721* 0.873 42

285–295 : Bright–Dark 0.931** 0.983** 0.965** 0.981** 0.966** 1.000** 0.964** 0.942** 0.984** 0.985** 0.970 Cold–Warm 0.918** 0.957** 0.930** 0.879** 0.882** 0.853** 0.896** 0.836** 0.854** 0.969** 0.897 High-contrast 0.928** 0.842** 0.862** 0.910** 0.895** 0.872** 0.579 0.650 0.921** 0.643 0.810

Downloaded from lighting–Diffuse l. Traditional–Modern 0.939** 0.991** 0.945** 0.937** 0.858** 0.920** 0.955** 0.950** 0.931** 0.927** 0.935 Low budget–High class 0.763* 0.914** 0.924** 0.678 0.831* 0.864** 0.501 0.677 0.627 0.755* 0.754 Unobtrusive–Expressive 0.949** 0.936** 0.940** 0.870** 0.822* 0.940** 0.797* 0.806* 0.912** 0.776* 0.875 lrt.sagepub.com Mean 0.890 0.909 0.911 0.883 0.865 0.922 0.757 0.810 0.851 0.820 0.862

*Significance at 5% level; **significance at 1% level. byJCCONCEPCION onMay14,2015 eaaemrsfrfv regions five for marks separate mrc,Ai,Erp,Mdl at emn.Situations Germany. 1b East, Middle Europe, Asia, America, iulsto fstain e iue1 Figure see situations of visualisation ru ( 2 group 3 Figure 2 Figure b( 8b

g Low budget–High class Low budget–High class –2 –1 –2 –1 ,2b o ru ( 2 group for ) 0 1 2 0 1 2 10123 2 1 0 –1 –10123 n iga fbadiae iuto b( 7b Situation image: brand of Diagram iga fbadiae iutos1–bfor 1b–8b Situations image: brand of Diagram Europe ¨ ¼ ,3b Middle East 9 n ru . ( 1.2 group and 99) America Germany N,4b n Traditional–Modern Asia ¼ Traditional–Modern 9 n ru . ( 1.2 group and 99) ,5b ¨ ,6b n Middle East ¼ 2 o ieregions: five for 22) N,7b Asia Germany g n America ,8b Europe ¼ 2 with 22) g and ) For . Light and corporate identity 293 the overall impression, ‘bright–dark’ (Table 7), illuminance is less important for the price even though simulations show a compressed perception in retail lighting than qualitative luminance contrast in comparison to the real lighting design issues. The latter, for example, environment. Therefore, the evaluation might consider the lighting contrast to accentuate differ in absolute numbers for a real situation certain areas or products, or to achieve a but it nevertheless indicates a relative rela- better modelling for objects. tionship. These correlations may also suggest that the technical approach of quantitative lighting design focusing on uniform 4. Discussion

This study establishes a connection between 2 lighting design and marketing to detect if lighting design is beneficial for the retail environment to enhance brand communication. A more sophisticated corporate visual 1 7b identity could help brands to be more easily 4b recognised and to create a characteristic 2b 1b 5b atmosphere to improve brand perception; in style or price image for example. Alone, 0 interior lighting may not have the potential 3b

Bright–Dark to explicitly communicate a specific brand name but it could facilitate sending a specific brand image. The image analysis approach –1 8b applied in this study is one method that has already been used in marketing for qualitative personality and value orientation. This study –2 presents a first step by using lighting visual- –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 isations as a basis for subjective assessment. Low budget–High class Likewise, the concurrent implementation in Figure 4 Relation between low budget–high class and an online survey allows an efficient way to bright–dark. Situation 1b–8b, group 2 (n ¼ 99) extend the evaluation internationally.

Table 7 Correlation analysis for situations 1b–8b shop with erased luminaires for group 2

Shop with luminaires P01 P02 P03 P04 P05 P06 P07 P08 P09 P10

P01 Attractive–Unattractive P02 Dramatic–Relaxed 0.585 P03 Spacious–Confined 0.629 0.823* P04 Uniform–Differentiated 0.855** 0.844** 0.917** P05 Natural–Technical 0.411 0.949** 0.770* 0.703 P06 Bright–Dark 0.473 0.678 0.930** 0.798* 0.606 P07 Cold–Warm 0.472 0.043 0.136 0.390 0.215 0.099 P08 High-contrast 0.878** 0.803* 0.652 0.844** 0.677 0.411 0.331 lighting–Diffuse l. P09 Traditional–Modern 0.693 0.958** 0.835** 0.885** 0.888** 0.735* 0.056 0.791* P10 Low budget–High class 0.933** 0.786* 0.786* 0.942** 0.626 0.625 0.435 0.946** 0.823* P11 Unobtrusive–Expressive 0.791* 0.947** 0.791* 0.916** 0.830* 0.606 0.244 0.938** 0.931** 0.916**

*Significance at 5% level; **significance at 1% level.

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 285–295

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com by JC CONCEPCION on May 14, 2015 294 T Schielke

The different image analyses permit the dynamic lighting effects. Additionally, a conclusion that various relationships exist higher number of participants for the evalu- between the architectural lighting and the ations would enable a more detailed investi- brand identity of a retail outlet. Groupings gation of different target groups and their for strategic marketing can be undertaken preferences. based on the attributes for social milieu in order to analyse the image of lighting designs for target groups via aspects such as value Acknowledgements orientation and social standing. The evaluation of the surveys shows that the presented The author would like to thank those who rooms can convey a very different image in participated in the survey and the following terms of brand identity simply through institutes for their cooperation: Darmstadt having different lighting. This phenomenon University of Technology, Dresden University can be used for brand communication in of Technology, Manipal University Dubai, order to more clearly define the image of a Tamasek Polytechnic Singapore, University business at the point of sale. The aspect of of Applied Sciences Bochum, University of brightness, although much discussed in light- Applied Sciences Cologne, University of ing research, actually only plays a subordi- Nebraska-Omaha, University of Siegen and nate role. A possible advantage of this is that Wismar University of Technology. This study was supported by the IALD Education Trust using light to construct a striking brand image Scholarship. does not necessarily entail higher energy consumption. The comparison of situations with and without luminaires for the same References lighting effect demonstrates that the essential impression is already reached via light and 1 Loe D, Mansfield K, Rowlands EA. A step in that visible luminaires are not strictly neces- quantifying the appearance of a lit scene. sary for a general architectural experience. Lighting Research and Technology 2000; 32: The international comparison reveals that 213–222. different groups evaluate the brand image 2 McCloughan C, Aspinall P, Webb R. The differently, although there are still strong impact of lighting on mood. Lighting Research correlations between them. Uniform lighting and Technology 1999; 31: 81–88. 3 Knez I. Effects of indoor lighting, gender and concepts could be implemented as global age on mood and cognitive performance. design guidelines for international markets if Environment and Behavior 2000; 32: 817–831. global variance is included. Lighting concepts 4No¨th W. Handbuch der Semiotik. Stuttgart: that are able to augment the brand identity Metzler, 1985. can generate added value for the business. 5 Krampen M, Kotler P. Marketing Management. The financial value of a lighting system would London: Pion, 1979. then no longer only consist of investment and 6 Eco U. A componential analysis of the archi- running costs but also of the contribution to tectural sign/column. Semiotica 1972; 5: 97–117. brand communication. 7 Richter P. Architekturpsychologie. Lengerich: Further studies could use these findings to Pabst Science Publishers, 2008. 8 Kotler P. Marketing Management. Upper apply the framework in models beyond light- Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000. ing simulations with online surveys and to 9 Foscht T, Maloles C. The impact of culture on collect data in real size mock-ups as well as brand perceptions: A six-nation study. Journal in on-site installations. The installations of Product and Brand Management 2008; 17: would also allow an easier evaluation of 131–142.

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 285–295

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com by JC CONCEPCION on May 14, 2015 Light and corporate identity 295

10 Kapferer J-N. Strategic Brand Management: Illuminating Engineering Society 1995; 24: New Approaches to Creating and Evaluating 21–49. Brand Equity. London: Kogan Page, 1992. 22 Scheer T. Die Volkswagen Architektur: 11 Kotler P. Atmospherics as a marketing Identita¨t und Flexibilita¨t als Konzept. tool. Journal of Retailing 1973–1974; 49: Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz, 2001. 48–64. 23 Ganslandt R, Hofmann H. Handbook of 12 Osgood C, Suci C, Tannenbaum P. The Lighting Design. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University Vieweg & Sohn, 1992. of Illinois Press, 1957. 24 Krautter M, Schielke T. Light Perspectives. 13 Florack A, Scarabis M, Primosch E. Psychologie Lu¨denscheid: ERCO, 2009. der Markenfu¨hrung. Munchen: Vahlen, 2007. 25 Houser K, Tiller D. Measuring the subjective 14 Stern B, Zinkhan G, Jaju A. Marketing response to interior lighting: Paired compari- images. Marketing Theory 2001; 1: sons and semantic differential scaling. 201–224. Lighting Research and Technology 2003; 35: 15 Keller K. Conceptualizing, measuring, and 183–198. managing customer-based brand equity. 26 Schierz C. Perception and assessment of arti- Journal of Marketing 1993; 57: 1–22. ficial indoor lighting. Zeitschrift fu¨r 16 Pawle J. Measuring emotion – lovemarks, the Arbeitswissenschaft 2004; 58: 74–83. future beyond brands. Journal of Advertising 27 Newsham G, Richardson C, Blanchet C, Research 2006; 46: 38–48. Veitch J. Lighting quality research using ren- 17 Kluckhohn F. Variations in Value Orientations. dered images of offices. Lighting Research and Westport: Greenwood Press, 1961. Technology 2005; 37: 93–115. 18 Silberer G. Werteforschung und Werteorientierung 28 Mahdavi A, Eissa H. Subjective evaluation of im Unternehmen. Stuttgart: Poeschel, 1991. architectural lighting via computationally ren- 19 Schivelbusch W. Licht, Schein und Wahn. dered images. Journal of the Illuminating Berlin: Ernst & Sohn, 1992. Engineering Society 2002; 31: 11–20. 20 Messedat J. Corporate Architecture.Ludwigsburg: 29 Rohrmann B, Bishop I. Subjective responses to Av Edition, 2005. computer simulations of urban environments. 21 Cuttle C, Brandston H. Evaluation of Journal of Environmental Psychology 2002; 22: retail lighting. Journal of the 319–331.

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 285–295

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com by JC CONCEPCION on May 14, 2015