Basic Dimensions Of The Corporate Image. 4p5u10

Basic Dimensions of the Corporate Image Author(s): Aaron J. Spector Source: The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 6 (Oct., 1961), pp. 47-51 Published by: American Marketing Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1248513 Accessed: 25/03/2010 10:43 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/.jsp. JSTOR's and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please [email protected].

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org

Basic of

Dimensions the

Corporate

Image

* AARON J. SPECTOR Studies of corporate image often proceed on the assumption that "expert" judges know which dimensions of a corporation's image the respondents consider when they think about the corporation. This article describes a factor-analytic study in which the image dimensions were obtained empirically,and compares the images held by two groups of respondents. NE OF THE popular tools in the marketing man's tool box is the concept of the "corporate image." The concept is based on the recognition that clients buy brand products not only because of their inherent qualities but also because of a bias, a disposition toward products of selected manufacturers. People develop attitudes toward a manufacturer and perceive him to have certain characteristics, some of which they ire and appreciate. Others may see the same manufacturer in a different light, perceiving him to have negative characteristics. In either event, the image of the manufacturer affects people's selection or rejection of his products. Whether sales are enhanced more by a favorable image than they are impeded by a negative image is a subject for conjecture, although there are reasonable grounds for believing the negative image to be the more potent determinant of consumers' choices. James A. Bayton has pointed out that people tend to "humanize" companies, to attribute personality characteristics to them, to see them much as they do humans, in of being "mature," "liberal," * ABOUT THE AUTHOR. Dr. Spector is a VicePresident of National Analysts, Inc. He has a Ph.D. in psychology from Boston University. Dr. Spector was formerly Head, Morale And Motivation Research Branch of the Navy, and later was the Assistant Director, Personnel Measurement Research Department. He has done extensive research on attitudes and motives that influence behavior.

"friendly," etc.' The sum total of their perceptions of the corporation's personality characteristics is what we refer to as the corporate image. Although two people may perceive the same characteristic in a given company, it does not always follow that they had the same experiences with it. For example, both may consider the company to be conservative, one because of the design of its packages and the other because of the company's sales practices. The fact is that any number of diverse experiences might lead different people to the same conclusion. Furthermore, they may have opposite opinions as to whether conservatism is to be ired or frowned upon. Perception of a personality characteristic and evaluation of it are separate processes. Image research must distinguish between: (1) a company's image or personality; (2) the determinants of the imagethat is, the experiences with the company which led to its being perceived as "honest" or "friendly"; and (3) the evaluation of the characteristics. Furthermore, if a corporation is to derive any value from research on its image, it is necessary to measure the image in of meaningful characteristics that reflect the dimensions the respondents use when they evaluate the corporation's image. Factor analysis can be used to derive dimensions of personality that underlie per1James A. Bayton, "Researching the Cor-

porate Image," PR, Vol. 4 (October, 1959), pp. 3-8.

47

JOURNAL OF MARKETING

48

ceptions of the corporate image, as will be shown. DETERMINATION OF DIMENSIONS

In a report to the Advertising Research Foundation, Edgar E. Gunther described attempts by two different research firms to uncover the dimensions of personality attributed to companies.2 The two firms used essentially judgmental approaches to determine the dimensions, and arrived at different conclusions. One firm had a of research executives and company executives take 50 items from a check-list and regroup them into four subject areas. The other firm examined every word in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary and in Roget's International Thesaurus. "Words which could reasonably be used to describe a company" were divided into synonym groups; from these, 58 "traits" were selected. Several years earlier Charles E. Osgood and colleagues separately went through the Thesaurus and selected 289 adjective-pairs from the categories listed.3 These were regrouped, and 76 pairs were selected to represent the 289 pairs. By factor analysis performed on the University of Illinois Computer, Osgood was able to place all 76 adjectives on 8 dimensions, or factors. In other words, the 76 adjective pairs, representing all the adjective pairs in the Thesaurus, were measuring only 8 independent factors. He performed the factor analysis because he knew that the adjectives were somewhat redundant, and were intercorrelated. They had to have some common threads or dimensions, and he wanted to find out how many common dimensions there were. This is better explained analogously. If one were to take a ruler and make a large 2 Edgar E. Gunther,"Evaluating Corporate Image Measurements: A Review of Techniques," Proceedings: Advertising Research Foundation, 5th Annual Conference, (New York, 1959). 3 Reported in Charles E. Osgood, George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum,The Meas-

urement of Meaning (Urbana: University of

Illinois Press, 1957).

October,

1961

variety of measurements of the size of a room, a factor analysis of these measurements would show that basically the measurements were made on only three dimensions-height, width, and length. In other words, these three dimensions would suffice to describe a room. Our own analysis to determine how many dimensions were needed to describe a corporate image revealed only 6 factors to for almost all of the measurements made. SIX BASIC DIMENSIONS

Corporations are "humanized"; they are viewed as though they have personalities. Therefore, our basic measurements were made in of personality characteristics. The 45 characteristics used were selected from well established psychological tests of personality, and from previous image research data. Each characteristic was rated on a 6point scale, which at one end read "Not like........ (name of the corporation being rated)"-at the other end it read "Much like........ (name of the corporation being rated)."

The respondent circled

a point somewhere along the scale. The items were intercorrelated and a Principal Components factor analysis was performed on the IBM 650. After fifteen hours the computer had produced six factors. (These were rotated according to the principles of simple structure and orthogonality, by the graphic method. There were 37 items with loadings of 40 or greater in the rotated factors.) Taken as a composite, these 6 factors tell us more reliably and meaningfully how people perceive the corporate image than do the 45 traits taken separately. We could never get as good a picture of the corporate image by examining the items singly or in total as when we examined the responses on the 6 factors. We can place much more confidence in the reliability and validity of the scores on each of these factors than we can in the scores of the separate items. Each factor is independent of the others, which means that we are not measuring the same thing in several different ways while thinking that

49

BASIC DIMENSIONS OF THE CORPORATEIMAGE we are getting new information from each measurement. Each factor is meaningful in that it ties together and summarizes many related evaluations. The factors are empirically derived from evaluations of the personality characteristics of a corporation and, therefore, reflect the basic dimensions of the corporate image as seen by the respondents rather than by a of "experts." An interesting thing about the factors is that the respondents were not aware that they used these dimensions in appraising the corporation's image. If they were asked to name the criteria that they used in evaluating a corporation, they probably would be unable to identify them accurately. In a sense, they were using criteria on a somewhat subconscious level, just as most of us do when we evaluate a painting. While students of art may recognize the criteria they use in judging paintings, most of us "like" or "dislike" a painting but cannot always say why. Factor analysis

can be used to tell us what we look for in a painting or in a corporate image. Figure 1 shows the 6 factors respondents used when they rated a corporation's image. Dynamic

The factor which ed for most of the variance, which dominated their image of the corporation, was dynamic. They asked themselves, "Is this corporation pioneering?" "Does it attract attention to itself?" "Is it flexible, active, goal-oriented, etc?" Their opinions on these and similar questions can be summed up simply by asking, "Is it dynamic?" The answer to this question tells more about the corporate image than does any other. Co-operative

Second in importance is the factor we have termed co-operative. This includes such personality characteristics as being friendly, well-liked, maintains self-respect, eager to please, etc.

'

1~4 I 11

?s0~

F

-

I It I NE

S S-W

H A R A C T

I

XYZ Corporation

E

II C

c

s

s

U

I

a

FIGURE1. The basic factors in a corporate image.

50

JOURNAL OF MARKETING

October,

1961

THE FACTOREDIMAGE PROFILE

Business-wise

Another aspect of the corporate image centers on business characteristics, including such traits as shrewd, persuasive, wellorganized, etc. Character

Most organizations jealously guard their fair name, and well they might, since an important dimension of corporate image revolves about perceptions of it as having a character that is ethical, reputable, respectful, etc. Successful

Another dimension, successful, includes characteristics referring to finances, selfconfidence, etc. Withdrawn

An aloof, secretive, cautious firm would be sure to have a high withdrawn score. This is the weakest of the six factors in the image but, nevertheless, enters into the evaluation of the organization.

The Factored Image Profile allows us to examine both the absolute and the relative strength of each of the factors in a corporation's image as it is perceived by different groups of people. For illustrative purposes, consider the image of a large manufacturer of soft goods, as it was measured. Figure 2 shows the image of a corporation as viewed by two groups of respondents, each having an important relationship to the corporation. In both cases, the respondents viewed the company's character as its greatest strength, asg it almost the maximum score possible. Similarly, they rated it highly on co-operative and successful. While they differed considerably in their views of how withdrawn the company is (secretive, aloof, etc.), and to a lesser extent on how dynamic it is, they agreed closely on a fairly low score for businesswise.

I

It

Corporation

*IllllGroup

B_?ir

1

2 Group Z

FIGURE2. The corporate image as seen by two groups of respondents.

BASIC DIMENSIONS OF THE CORPORATEIMAGE

51

TABLE 1 IMAGE SCORES RANKED ACCORDING TO Knowing that the company is strong on STRENGTH AND IMPORTANCE a given factor is not sufficient, since the (By Group 1) strength may be on a factor that the reRank by Rank by spondents considered of little importance. strength importance Each factor must be evaluated in light of 1. 1. Dynamic the importance of the factor to some stand- 2. Character 2. Co-operative Co-operative ard. The standard may be based on the 3. Successful 3. Business-wise Withdrawn 4. Character respondents' image of an "ideal" company, 4. 5. 5. Successful or a competitive company. The standard 6. Dynamic Business-wise 6. Withdrawn may be the respondents' arbitrary evaluation of how important each factor is, or go," "flexible," "alive," etc. Despite their may be deduced from statements made awareness of the company's recent actions, about the company. they still considered it to be weak on the When the data are factor analyzed, the dynamic factor. Why? Perhaps this seemfactors can be assigned to rank-order posi- ing anomaly is mute testimony to the fact tions according to the amount they con- that attitudes are tenaciously held, even tributed to the total variance. In the in the face of evidence opposing them. An image held by the people who interpresent study, the first ranked factor was more important in the corporate image act with the company is not easily nor than the second ranked factor, etc. In quickly improved, since the image assumes other words, their over-all image was more the nature of an attitude, and the latter have influenced by the characteristics which are emotional components resistant to change. described by the first factor than by char- Attempts to induce changes in the image acteristics in other factors. must take of the emotions, must To illustrate how this information is deal with the emotions on their own level, used, Table 1 shows the factors (of Group not with a straightforward presentation 1) ranked according to the size of scores, of facts. The corporate image seemed to and according to their importance in the be entrenched in the respondents' minds, and it would take time and continued effort image. to change it. Nevertheless, the image is Supplementary Data definitely changing, slowly perhaps. Additional information about the corporation's image was obtained by asking IMPLICATIONS the respondents to indicate where they felt The image profile discussed is illustrative that change is needed. In their opinion, of one company only. When we studied a the company should be more dynamic and company in another industrial category, the less withdrawn; they feel it needs little same factors were ranked quite differently improvement on character. Similar infor- in of their importance in the image. mation was obtained on the "ideal" com- Further research with the Factored Image pany and on competitive companies. All Profile should result in the development of these data are pertinent to decisions about profiles showing the importance of each facchanges that should be made in the cor- tor for each industrial category. porate image. An attempt has been made to demonAlthough the organization appeared to strate the utility and economy of describbe vulnerable on dynamic, there was room ing the corporate image on the same difor optimism as shown by the responses mensions that people perceive the image. made to other questions. Respondents in- Each of the 6 dimensions is complex, indicated a recognition of the fact that the corporating evaluations of many expericompany was in a state of transition, ences and observations. The dimensions changing from a staid, conservative organi- derived from the factor analysis appear to zation to a much more aggressive, rapid- be meaningful perceptual units for the moving firm. They said that it was "on the study of a corporate image. Relative Importance of the Factors