This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication in Toronto, Canada, August 2004.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
[log in to unmask] For an explanation of the subject line, send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Oct 2004)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
************************************************************************
The Impact of CEO Reputation, Corporate Credibility, and Brand Loyalty in
Relationships Building
by
ChangHyun Jin
April 1, 2004
Paper submitted to
Associations for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,
Toronto, Canada
August, 2004
Please do not quote without authors' consent.
ChangHyun Jin is doctoral student, [log in to unmask] College of Journalism
and Communications, G035, Weimer Hall, Po Box 117420, The University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7420
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to identify the effect of CEO Reputation,
corporate credibility, and brand loyalty in relationship building. Also
examined how people evaluate CEO and Company in comparing consumer
responses in conceptual model. Understanding how CEO Reputation and
corporate credibility influences brand loyalty and (create goodwill)
relationship building can increase the improvement of management or between
CEO and consumers such as how to develop corporate image and CEO to enhance
the relationship.
This study found that corporate credibility has a positive impact on brand
loyalty and the relationship building. The results indicate that CEO
reputation and corporate credibility had a positive impact of brand
loyalty. Furthermore, brand loyalty also important played a role in
relationship building. Thus, CEO Reputation, corporate credibility and
brand loyalty are likely to affect by moderating in relationship building.
The Impact of CEO Reputation, Corporate Credibility, and Brand Loyalty in
Relationships Building
The emergence of the relationship paradigm in current public situation is
closely pay attention the issue due to the critical point to play in the
development and maintenance of business relationship as well as intensify
customer relationship. Thus, Company credibility, CEO reputation is raised
major issue in public relationship. When consumers are familiar with a
company, they have already developed a perception about the credibility of
that company. The company knowledge that consumers already have makes up
part of the information consumers use to evaluate new information they
receive about the product/brand (Brown and Dacin 1997). Bentele (1998)
described public relations as the "management of information and
communication processes between organizations on the one side and their
internal and external environments (publics) on the other side. Public
Relations serve the functions of information, communications, persuasion,
image building, continuous building of trust management of conflicts and
the generation of social consensus" (p.33). In order to accomplish customer
relationship, the PR of the primary goals is to generate the good image
through internal and external communication.
Previous research indicates that consumers are influenced by the
credibility of a company when forming their favorable attitudes. According
to a study by David (1994), most consumers have stated that their product
purchase decisions are at least in part influenced by their view of the
parent company's good citizenship. Goldsmith, Lafferty, and Newell (2000)
suggest that corporate credibility plays an important role in consumers'
reactions to advertisements and brands. When subjects are aware of the
reputation of the company, it would seem likely that they would incorporate
this information into their decision-making and be more motivated to use
this information when assessing the ad and the brand (Lafferty and
Goldsmith 1999). Thus, companies are concerned with their corporate image,
for example, their own credibility. For this reason, corporations spend
billions on their institutional and corporate advertising (Fombrun, 1996).
Recent research suggests that there is a positive relationship between a
company's corporate social responsibility action and consumers' attitude
toward that company and its products (Brown and Dacin, 1997).
A positive attitude formation through brand loyalty toward company and CEO
is associated with that company image as well as the way to create the good
consumer relationship. Generally, beliefs are based on personal experience,
advertising, and discussions with other people. This intangible asserts
should be studied in this field because it is an extension of company success.
Previous research regarding consumer relationship provides some useful
insight for this study. Based on previous studies, this article has two
research goals. Through empirical study, this study provides information
about better relationship building and relationship CEO reputation,
corporate credibility, brand loyalty and good relationship building. It is
true that brand loyalty plays as moderator when creating goodwill between
consumer and businesses. Thus, the second purpose is to see how does brand
loyalty has a moderating effect on the good relationship building.
Theoretical and Empirical Backgrounds
Corporate Credibility
Credibility in Persuasive Communication Consumer's purchase behavior may be
understood as persuasion because it entails a change in one's behavior.
From this viewpoint, persuasion as a specific type of communication is the
process by which people's attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors are changed over
time, based on information transmitted or exchanged. Harmon and Coney
(1982), Wu and Shaffer (1987) pointed out, these dimensions of source
expertise and trustworthiness are important to conceptualizing credibility
and have been shown to be influential in persuading consumers. Since
Aristotle, a lot of people have analyzed and written about persuasion in
various fields. Particularly, much of the early work on persuasion in mass
communication was done following World War II. A series of works by Carl
Hovland and his fellows in the late 1940s and early 1950s have been
perceived as laying the foundation of contemporary research on persuasion
(Severin & Tankard, 1997). In the book Communication and Persuasion (1953),
Hovland examined four factors of persuasion based on Harold Lasswell's
communication model: communicator, content of the communication, audience
predispositions, and responses. The factor most influential to this study
is the communicator and its credibility as a source.
Corporate credibility is defined as "the perceived reputation of the firm
or company that makes or produces the product" (Goldberg and Hartwick,
1990). Corporate credibility is at an all-time low, and public mistrust has
spilled over into investment markets. This creates a considerable need to
restore public faith, and public relations professionals will play a vital
role in leading the charge (Johnston 2003). Corporate reputation is often
cited as one of the important ingredients in a firm's success. The value of
a firm's overall reputation is easily seen in its relationship to a firm's
revenues, and a firm with a good overall reputation owns a valuable asset.
The better a company's reputation, the higher its chances are of getting a
favorable first hearing for a new product and of getting early adoption of
that product.
Sternthal (1978) stated that reputation is one of the primary contributors
to perceived quality. Fombrun (1996) defines corporate reputation as "a
perceptual reputation of a company's past actions and future prospects that
are an aggregate of many personal judgments about the company." Fombrun
calls this "Reputational Capital" (the value of reputation (the goodwill
caused by a solid reputation) that can affect company market value. The
market reacts to changes in corporate reputation by decreasing or
increasing this reputational capital, and the company's market value varies
accordingly. Fombrun incorporates corporate credibility as one important
aspect of corporate reputation.
Keller (1998) defines corporate credibility as "the extent to which
consumers believe that a firm can design and deliver products and services
that satisfy customer needs and wants." Keller also makes corporate
credibility one aspect of corporate reputation and refers to "expertise"
and "trustworthiness" as important elements of corporate credibility.
According to Hovland, Janis, and Kelley (1953), credibility comprises two
components, expertise and trustworthiness. Expertise is the extent to which
a speaker is perceived to be capable of making correct assertions, and
trustworthiness is the degree to which an audience perceives the assertions
made by a communicator to be valid. Belch and Belch (1994) and Ohanian
(1990) define credibility as "the extent to which the source is perceived
as possessing expertise relevant to the communication topic and can be
trusted to give an objective opinion on the subject." Expertise is derived
from knowledge of the subject, and trustworthiness refers to the honesty
and believability of the source (McGinnies and Ward 1980). These dimensions
are important to conceptualizing credibility and have been shown to be
influential in persuading consumers and in influencing their attitudes. In
a word, corporate credibility can be referred to as the reputation of a
company for honesty and expertise.
CEO Reputation
PR researchers and practitioner have been seeking the effective
relationship between the CEO's reputation and the success of their company.
Company's managers is recognized the relationship to construct the
well-being of a company and intensify the reputation of their CEO.
Reputation can account for a large portion of a company's market
capitalization as well as can be its most important long-term asset.
Gaines-Ross (2003) mentioned that CEO reputation describes as intangible
asserts (e.g., the established relationship with customers, company or
brand reputation, human capital, marketing savvy, and company know-how) and
the tangible assert such as finance and manufacturing, and product
inventories. Of course the tangible assert could be important. However, the
intangible asserts is critical point to create goodwill and play in their
companies successes. This study needed to deeply research on intangible
assert such as corporate credibility, CEO reputation, and brand loyalty.
That is, these asserts could be the way to understand the relationship
these asserts and customers.
Burson-Marsteller's research (2001) reported that five factors are the "C"
factors and "M" factors. Those factors should be considered by CEO. These
"C" factors are Credibility, Code of ethics, and Communication internally.
These "C" factors are central to building a favorable CEO reputation
(Gaines-Ross 2003) and the 'M" factors are (a) Attracting and retaining a
quality Management team and (b) Motivating and inspiring employees. The CM
factors are critical facto to successfully establishing the CEO reputation.
According to Shaw (1999), interaction between events and the favorability
of news media coverage drives much of the change in voters' preferences.
And also the favorability or unfavorability of news media coverage of major
events should be significantly correlated with changes in public opinion.
Candidate's image in news media coverage should be important factor when
voters decided. Cowles (1997) pointed out that understanding of the concept
of "trust" realize when minimizing the customer's perceived risk and
reducing customer perceptions of reliance on the marketing entity (p.280).
People image in media coverage could be affect audience. Furthermore, trust
on corporate, CEO, and brand are critical issue in current public relation
to increase corporate image as well as CEO image.
Given global economic situation, global marketplace is increasingly
competitive. Moreover, the role of CEO raise the most important issue to
make good relation between company and customer in modern society as well
as the importance of CEO reputation is on the rise more than ever before.
Whether it's regarding a crisis, earnings report or succession plan, a
CEO's reputation plays a critical role in determining how internal and
external audiences evaluate – and respond to – a company. CEO reputation
should be affect to communication between customer and company. The
reputations of CEOs and the companies they lead are deeply and inextricably
linked. The manner in which the media, investors, analysts, employees, and
even the general public perceive a chief executive has tremendous influence
over the company's prosperity, standing, and destiny (Gaines-Ross 2003).
Thus, it is necessary that this study provide landmark to PR's researcher
and practitioner by studying on CEO reputation and its impact on corporate
reputation. The CEO's reputation is a major driver of a company's reputation.
Brand Loyalty
Trust plays an important role in building and maintaining brand loyalty in
between consumer and business (Cowless 1997; Gommans, Krishnan & Scheffold
2001). It can be said that brand trust is a central factor when building
brand loyalty. Besides, brand loyalty is an extension of creating goodwill
in both consumer and company. Brands can serve as symbolic devices,
allowing consumers to project their own self-images (Keller 1997, p.8).
Brands can also play an especially significant role in signaling certain
product characteristics to consumers (Allan & Chay 1992) as well as provide
a number of valuable functions to firms (Leslie & McWilliam 1989). Customer
satisfaction and repeat buying patterns are often indicators of a healthy
brand, and programs to enhance them will build brand strength (Aaker 1996,
p.21).
Jacoby and Kyner (1973) mentioned that brand loyalty is expressed by a set
of six necessary and collectively sufficient conditions. These are that
brand loyalty is the biased, behavioral response, expressed over time, by
some decision-making unit, with respect one or more alternative brands out
of a set of such brands, and is a function of psychological processes and
also brand loyalty consists of both behavioral and attitudinal components
(Jacoby and Kyner 1973, p.2). Behavioral, or purchase, loyalty consists of
repeated purchases of the brand, whereas attitudinal brand loyalty includes
a degree of dispositional commitment in terms of some unique value
associated with the brand, whereas attitudinal brand loyalty includes a
degree of dispositional commitment in terms of some unique value associated
with the brand. (Chaudhuri & Holbrook 2001, p.82). Their result indicated
that when the product-and brand level variables are controlled for, brand
trust and trust and brand affect combine to determine purchase loyalty and
attitudinal loyalty. Purchase loyalty, in turn, leads to greater market
share, and attitudinal loyalty leads to a higher relative price for the
brand (Chaudhuri & Holbrook 2001, p.81). Their study result showed that
brand loyalty is closely related with decision-making (e.g., purchasing
behavior). This means brand loyalty play by effecting on consumer behavior.
Wansink (2003) stressed that the need of the brand loyalty program is to
obtain a wealth of customer information such as product usage data,
purchasing habits, feeling and attitudes (p.302). He also pointed out that
successful loyalty program must be based on long-term proposition because
it is help develop relationship with customers. Given a previous
literature, brand loyalty not only played a critical role in between
attitude and behavior but also can maintain the customers loyal to brand.
Brand Loyalty is a favorable attitude toward and consistent purchase of a
single brand over time. Brand loyalty is a consumer's preference to buy a
particular brand in a product category. Brand loyalty is equal with
consumer loyalty because favorable brand attitudes are the determinants of
brand loyalty – consumers must like the product in order to develop loyalty
to it (Giddens 2002, p.1). Consumers must be reminded of the product
experience and encouraged to continue purchasing the product in the future.
In other word, brand is the company's face as well as plays as moderate to
link between company and valuable customer.
The components of loyalty can range from the practical (features, price,
availability, etc) to the emotional (relief, enjoyment, confidence) or
aspirational (status). Understanding the critical importance of the
customer satisfaction and loyalty improvement process needed to make good
relation between audience and company. While businesses face the similar
challenge of retaining customers and improving customer relationships, the
aspects of addressing this goal vary dramatically across industries,
organizations, and your specific customer base. Successful companies go
beyond delivery of a commodity; they pursue developing a relationship with
their customers.
Fombrun (1996) research reported that companies with positive reputations
would seem to be in a better position to change consumers' attitudes. Also
Newell (1993) reported that corporate credibility had a direct effect on
attitude formation. Goldsmith, Lafferty, and Lowell (2000) also found that
corporate credibility positively and directly influenced consumer behavior.
Corporate credibility influences purchase intention because consumer
perceptions of the trustworthiness and expertise of a company are part of
the information they use to judge the quality of the company's product
regardless whether they want to buy them or not (Fombrun 1996). A high
corporate credibility is important factor when consumer are forming
positive attitudes toward objects (Fombrum 1996). Winters (1988) reported
that as perceived company credibility increased, sales increased. Lafferty
and Goldsmith (1999) and Goldsmith, Lafferty, and Lowell (2000) found that
corporate credibility had a positive effect on purchase intention.
There are the dimensions of organization-public relationships for
maintaining favorable relationships (Broom, Casey, and Ritchey 1997; Grunig
and Huang 2000; Grunig and Ehling 1992; Thomlison 2000; Ledingham 2001;
Ledingham and Bruning 1998). Credibility and Reputation and Loyalty (Brand,
customer loyalty) are main elements of organization-public-relationships
for this study. These factors also are critical elements as mediator to
develop and maintain the customer relation. Corporate and CEO image are
good information to enhance customer cognitive formation. Brand loyalty is
the ultimate goal when a company sets for a branded product. Brand loyalty
is equal with consumer loyalty because favorable brand attitudes are the
determinants of brand loyalty. Consumers must like the product as well as
strong brand loyalty could be formed their favorable attitude toward company.
The public's decision-making includes emotional inclination, schemas, and
attitudinal preferences (Thomlison 2000). Sometimes people choose products
because they feel comfortable through continued use. Loyalty can explain
this humanistic view. Loyalty represents a long-term, committed, and
emotional response, resulting in appositive view of the actions and
activities of an organization (Fournier 1998; Ledingham 2001; Ledingham &
Bruning 1998; Legingha, et al., 1999). Thus, public relations practitioners
should consider both aspects of relationships to build favorable
relationships with publics: offering quality products or services beyond
the publics' expectation level and fostering committed relationships or
services through empathic interchange (Thomlison 2000, p.204).
According to Thomlison (2000), in order to generate the strong relationship
building, displaying state of the art technology is important factor to
enhance favorable attitudes as well as practitioners should be considered
reputation, community involvement, commitment, and satisfactory experience.
Understanding the cognitive attitude such as public attitude, knowledge,
and behavior could find the specific linkage customer relationship.
Theoretical foundation and methodological development in public relations
is necessary to predict public loyalty, satisfaction, and behavior
(Ledingham 2003).
These factors such as credibility, trust should be considered in public
relations as measure of relationship state and conceptual elements to
examine along an individual continuum (Lucarelli-Dimmick, Bell, Burgiss,
and Ragsdale 2000; Toth 2000). It is can be said that these are the part of
the keys to maintain organization-public relationships.
"Effectively managing organizational-public relationships around common
interests and shared goals, over time, results in mutual understanding and
benefit for interacting organizations and public" (Ledingham 2003, p.190).
Thus, this study expected that corporate credibility and CEO reputation
will influence the effect of brand loyalty on better relation building.
Hypothesis:
Based on the literature review, this study proposes that there will be
positive relationships among credibility, reputation, brand loyalty and
relations building. This expectation led to the following hypotheses:
H1a: A high level corporate credibility will have a positive effect on
brand loyalty.
H1b: A high level corporate credibility will have a positive effect on the
relationship building.
H1c: A high level of CEO reputation will have a positive effect on brand
loyalty.
H1d: A high level of CEO reputation will have a positive effect on the
relationship building.
H2: The brand loyalty will have a positive effect on the good relationship
building.
H3: There will be a moderating effect of corporate credibility on the
relationship between brand loyalty and the good relations building.
H4: There will be a moderating effect of CEO reputation on the relationship
between brand loyalty and the good relations building.
Data Collection Procedure
The primary data for this study were gathered through questionnaires.
Before the actual survey, a pretest was conducted to ensure that the
directions and questions were clear and unambiguous. Also, another
objective of the pretest was to check the dimension of credibility,
reputation, and brand loyalty variables of the company, CEO selected for
this study. Since this study examined the relationships among variables
according to the source of credibility (expertise and trustworthiness), and
CEO reputation, brand loyalty, and other variables, it was important to
capture variance in people's perceptions of the company and CEO. This
pretest was administered to 35 graduate students at the University of
Florida. After the pretest, a few minor changes in wording were made to
increase the clarity of the instructions, and the time for viewing the
company's website and the articles with information on this company, CEO,
and products adjusted from 10 minutes to 5 minutes. Most participants
thought 10 minutes was too long to read on news related the company and CEO.
The data of main survey were collected from students of the University of
Florida. A total of 130 undergraduate students took part in this survey by
completing the questionnaire while reading the articles. In the first
section of the questionnaire, participants were asked to complete the
questions related to "credibility," "reputation", and "brand loyalty."
Then, participants were instructed to read on the company's articles for
five minutes. After finishing reading the news article, they completed the
items measuring "CEO reputation and brand loyalty. The total length of time
to complete the whole questionnaire averaged 15-20minutes.
For this study, "Microsoft Corporation (http://www.mocrosoft.com)" was
selected, because MS's product widely use in the world. Bill Gate as CEO
was selected. This company is global company as well as he is multinational
CEO.
While most previous studies have used a fictional company to measure
corporate credibility by manipulating the descriptions negatively and
positively, this research used a real company. The reason was so that the
company could be used as an exposure. Corporate credibility is more of a
central processing cue (MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989). When processing
information regarding MS's product, consumers are likely to consider a
central processing cue as an important decision-making factor. Thus, the
company and product type can be regarded appropriate for this study.
Measurements
To measure corporate credibility, the scale developed by Keller and Aaker
(1992) was used. This is a five-item, seven-point Likert type scale in
which three items measured expertise and two items measured
trustworthiness. To measure CEO reputation, the scale suggested by
political research and Gaines-Ross (2003). This is a four-item, seven-point
Likert type scale in which three items measured image and CEO as spokesman.
To measure the brand loyalty, the scale suggested by Aaker (1992) and
Jacoby and Kyner (1973) Cowless (1997); Gommans, Krishnan & Scheffold
(2001) were used. And subjects were asked to provide an overall rating of
the brand featured in the product using eleven seven-point, bipolar
adjective scales. Relationship building is defined as a subjective
likelihood of buying a brand or favorable to CEO and company. To measure
relationship building, subjects were asked how likely they would be to
consider.
Evidence of the internal consistence of the constructs was found in this
study. Cronbach's alpha was .77 for corporate credibility. CEO reputation,
brand loyalty possessed sufficient reliability, as Cronbach's alpha were
.66, .71 and .89 for CEO reputation, and brand loyalty, and relationship
building each other, respectively.
Results
In order to test Hypothesis H1a, H1b, H1c, and H1d, multivariate analysis
of variance (MANOVA) was used. MANOVA was used to assess whether an overall
difference was found between groups, and then a t-test was employed to
address the individual differences for each dependent variables. Corporate
credibility and CEO reputation were divided into two groups by the median
value of the participants' responses (e.g., positive corporate credibility,
reputation and negative corporate credibility, reputation).
The results are presented in Table 1. In general, the significant Wilk's
Lambda (F=31.788, p=.000) indicates that the variation in the predictor
variable (corporate credibility) was having a strong effect on the set of
dependent variables. Moreover, the significant Wilk's Lambda (F=27.880,
p=.000) indicates that the variation in the predictor variable (CEO
reputation) was having a strong effect on the set of dependent variables.
Also, Hypothesis 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d were supported by the t-test. A high
level of corporate credibility had a more positive impact on brand loyalty
(M=5.67, SD=.785) than did a low level of it (M=5.49, SD=1.48, t=.865,
p=.000). The subject tended to have a more positive attitude toward the
relationship building when they perceived the company to have higher
corporate credibility (M=4.35, SD=.870) rather than lower corporate
credibility (M=3.98, SD=1.30, t=1.857, p=.000). However, subject with a
high level of CEO reputation had lower brand loyalty (M=5.51, SD=1.247)
than those with a low level of CEO reputation (M=5.75, SD=.663, t=-1.311,
p=.000). In the relationship building, that is not statistically
significant. So, H1d was not supported by the result. In sum, the result
indicated that a higher level of corporate credibility resulted in a higher
brand loyalty and higher the relationship building.
Table 1. The Effect of Credibility and Reputation on brand loyalty and the
relationship building
Variables
F
Mean
High(SD)
N=94
Low(SD)
N=36
Brand Loyalty
Wilk's Lambda
31.788*
Univerariate Tests
T
Brand loyalty
.865*
5.67(.785)
5.49(1.48)
Relationship
1.857*
4.35(.870)
3.98(1.30)
Relationship
Variables
F
Mean
High(SD)
N=70
Low(SD)
N=60
Wilk's Lambda
27.880*
Univerariate Tests
T
Brand loyalty
-1.311*
5.51(1.247)
5.75(.663)
Relationship
.170(p=.287)
4.26(.929)
4.23(1.12)
*p<.05
In order to test hypothesis, 2, simple regression analysis was used.
Hypothesis was examined by means of regression with brand loyalty as the
predictor and relationship as the criterion variable and supported by
regression analysis. Hypothesis 2, predicts that brand loyalty will have a
positive relationship to the relationship building. The result found that
brand loyalty influenced the relationship building positively, and this
influence was statistically significant (B=.429, p=.000). This result
indicates that the more favorable brand loyalty had, the more favorable the
relationship building subjects had. The correlation coefficient (R) of this
model is .43, and this model is statistically significant (F=29.3, df
(1,128), p=.000). According to, brand loyalty explained 43% of the variance
in the dependent variable, the relationship building (R2=.19).
Table 3. Regression Results for brand loyalty on the relationship building
B
Beta
t
p
R
R2
Standard Error of the Estimate
F
I.V;
Brand
D.V:
Relation
(Constant)
1.830
4.042
.000
.432a
.186
.9212
29.32*
Loyalty
.429
.079
5.415
.000
*p<.05, D.V: Dependent variable
In order to test Hypothesis 3and 4, univariate analysis was used.
Hypothesis 3 and 4 predicted a positive moderating effect of corporate
credibility and reputation on the relationship between brand loyalty and
the relationship building. The dependent variable was the relationship
building and the independent variable were Credibility, reputation, brand
loyalty, and the interaction between brand loyalty and credibility and
reputation. The table shows the result of this hypothesis. According to the
result, R2 of this model are .987, .850 and the model was proved to be
statistically significant (F=222.849, p=000; F=15.307, p=000 for
credibility and reputation) respectively.
As shown in table 3, when the two variables, credibility, reputation and
brand loyalty, interacted with each other, the moderating effect of
credibility, reputation on brand loyalty and the relationship building were
found. That is, credibility and reputation moderated on the relationship
between brand loyalty and the relationship building.
Table 3. The univariate analysis of Credibility and Reputation
H3
R2
Adjusted R2
F
P
Constant
.987
.981
222.849
.000
Credibility
75.279
.000
Brand loyalty
192.664
.000
Credibility * brand loyalty
123.910
.000
H4
Constant
.850
.794
15.307
.000
Reputation
10.808
.000
Brand loyalty
22.560
.000
Reputation* brand loyalty
5.373
.000
*p<.05
Discussions and Conclusions
The results supported that subjects were influenced by corporate
credibility as well as CEO reputation when they formulated brand loyalty
and the relationship building. There were positive relationships between
credibility and reputation and brand loyalty and the relationship building.
That is, the source of credibility subjects had the more positive attitudes
they had. It implies that subjects may look credibility to determine how
they perceive the company and its brand. This finding is consistent with
previous studies by Davis (1994), Laroche, Kim, and Zhou (1996), Lafferty
and Goldsmith (1999), and Goldsmith, Lafferty, and Newell (2000),
suggesting that perceived both source of credibility is positively
associated with consumer attitude formation. It can be interpreted that
credibility as well as reputation is closely related to create the good
relation between company and customers. Consequently, corporate credibility
is likely to affect a company's success even on generating a good image. In
a word, a consumer's positive attitude formation toward company can be
reinforced by corporate credibility and CEO reputation.
Consumers may form inferences about missing product attributes by drawing a
connection between an available piece of information such as corporate
credibility and the missing attribute. Familiarity with a brand influences
consumers' confidence in the brand, which affects their purchase behavior
as well as creates a good relation (Laroche, Kim and Zhou, 1996).
Understanding how corporate credibility and CEO reputation influence
consumer's attitudes and the good relationship can increase the ability of
a marketer to manage important decisions such as how to develop the
management to increase corporate credibility and CEO reputation. And
understanding how CEO Reputation and corporate credibility influences brand
loyalty and (create goodwill) relationship building can increase the
improvement of management or between CEO and consumers such as how to
develop corporate image and CEO to enhance the relationship.
As Gaines-Ross (2003) mentioned intangible assert such as credibility, CEO
and brand reputation, the well-established relationship with customers
could be a key to enhance their company's success. Moreover, the tangible
assert could be important, intangible asserts is critical point to create
goodwill and play in their companies successes.
The formation of attitudes may differ depending on familiarity with a
corporation and the degree of purchase risk or involvement. Furthermore,
corporate credibility and reputation are an important central cue for
forming attitudes and for influencing purchase behavior and the good
relationship in other products and companies (MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989;
Cacioppo and Petty, 1985). Thus, the findings might be limited to the
product type and company tested. Future research should consider a
different level of involvement, different product types, or companies as
well as further study on the attitude formation should be consider the
difference between group or nation when analyzing the corporate credibility
and reputation. This research used one company to measure attitude. Thus,
further study should consider a different type of company and CEO. Studies
of attitude formation are in the early stage in this field, and there is no
consistent definition or measurement. Therefore, further measurement
development is needed.
References
Allan D. Shocker and Richard Chay, (1992). "How Marketing Researchers Can
Harness the Power of Brand Equity," Presentation to New Zealand Marketing
research Society, (August 1992).
Brown, Tom J. and Peter A. Dacin (1997), "The Company and the Product
Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses," Journal of
Marketing, 61 (January), 6884.
Bruning, L. A. J. a. S. D. (1998). "Relationship management in public
relations: dimensions of an organization-public relationship." Public
Relations Review 24(1): 55-65.
Bruning, D. S. a. J. A. L. (1999). "Relationships between organizations and
publics: development of a multi-dimensional organization-public
relationship scale." Public Relat
|
