W

C

Ronald VoornDaan Muntinga

27-01-2017Tilburg

Brand Stereotype Content Model: Does it matter for

all product categories?

Human Brands

We Anthropomorphize

Brand Stereotype Content Model

W

C

W

C

Different quadrantsdifferent reactions

W

C

W

C

Sympathy &

Indifference Neglect

Admiration &

AttractionAffiliationLoyalty

Contempt &

RejectionDisassociation

Envy &

DistrustMust cooperate/

Association

Research Questions and hypothesis1.Do warmth & competence predict WoM

Brandbonding & Repurchase intentions differently for different categories?

2.What is the predictive power per product category?

Hypothesis: Non-Profit category brands will score higher than any other category (Aaker et al., 2010; Bernritter et al., 2016)

Method & Measures• Datacollection funded by Mensch Creative Agency• Online Questionnaire panel (N = 419, Mage = 45, SD =

1.13; 55.1% female) • Respondents random in one of 6 categories 2 brands

per respondent (32 total)• Four items scale (Kervyn et al., 2012) (7-point Likert

scale; Mwarmth = 4.6, SD = 1.3; Mcompetence = 4.6, SD = 1.2).

• WoM intentions (Mwom = 4.2, SD = 1.7). • Brandbonding scale Park et al. (2013) (Mbonding = 6.9, SD

= 2.1)• Repurchase intention 7-point Likert scale (Mrepurchase =

4.8, SD = 1.6). • All scales Cronbach’s alfa > .75

W+C significantly predicted

• WoM: (R2 = .44, F(2,817) = 319.4 , p < .001)• Brandbonding: (R2 = .40, F(2,817) = 268.5, p < .001) • Re-purchase intentions: (R2 = .24, F(2,582) = 90.3, p

< .001).

WoM Brandbonding Re-purchase intention0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

W+C different influence per category

Retail Banks Insurance Charity Icons Cars0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

WoMBondingRepurchaseR2

Adj

W+C predict outcomes differently

  WoM Bonding Repurchase

  Warmth Competence Warmth Competence Warmth Competence

Retail * *** ns ** * ns

Banks *** ns *** ns ns ns

Insurance ns ** ns ** ns ns

Charity ns ** ns ** ns ns

Icons ** *** * *** ns ***

Cars ns ns ns ** ns *

Warmth: Charity highest (Anova: Mwarmth = 5.5, SD = 1.2, p<.001)

Retail Banks Insurance Charity Icons Cars4.00

4.20

4.40

4.60

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

Warmth

Competence: Charity highest (Anova: Mcompetence= 5.1, SD = 1.1, p<.01)

Retail Banks Insurance Charity Icons Cars4.00

4.20

4.40

4.60

4.80

5.00

5.20

Compe

tence

Conclusions & Limitations

1. For most brands in study W+C important predictors

2. Especially Non-profits seem to profit from W+C.

3. New findings are that importance W+C depends on category

4. Number of categories was a (practical) limitation

Future

• More different product categories• Cultural differences• Antecedents warmth and competence

per category?

Thank You