The Dimensions of Brand Familiarity
Michael Korchia*
* Doctoral Student, ESSEC Graduate School of Economics and Management1
Work-in-progress.
Track: Rethinking Consumer Decision Making.
Rethinking European Marketing: Proceedings from the 30th EMAC Conference,
Bergen, Norway. May 2001
This paper was downloaded from http://www.watoowatoo.net/mkgr/
0
The Dimensions of Brand Familiarity
Abstract
Different conceptualizations and operationalizations have hindered the use of the familiarity
construct. The goal of this study is to define and measure brand familiarity, a concept related to
the many experiences a consumer had with a brand. This study demonstrates that the brand
familiarity construct consists of three inter-related concepts - familiarity with brand
communication, interpersonal familiarity, and familiarity of products sold under the brand
umbrella. An empirical study demonstrates the predictive validity of the construct.
Keywords: brand knowledge, brand familiarity, memory.
Introduction
Consumer knowledge is defined as "information relating to the products and to the brands
which are stored in the memory of the consumer" (Engel, Blackwell and Miniard 1995).
Consumer knowledge is seen as consisting of networks of associations (Anderson, 1983;
Keller, 1993). It influences how consumers gather and organize information, and ultimately,
what products they buy and how they use them. It is believed that consumer knowledge is made
up of two complementary dimensions: familiarity (sometimes called experience) and expertise
(Alba and Hutchinson 1987, Jacoby et al. 1986).
Alba and Hutchinson (1987) were the first to distinguish conceptually between familiarity
and expertise, the two dimensions of consumer knowledge. Familiarity is defined as the
"number of product related experiences that have been accumulated by the consumer."
Increased familiarity with a brand may result in a better developed knowledge structure - both
in terms of what knowledge an individual has stored in memory as well as what people perceive
they know about a brand (Brucks 1985). Familiarity is the major antecedent of many consumer
constructs, including objective and subjective knowledge (Park et al. 1994, Cordell 1997) and
brand equity (Krishnan, 1996). Perceptions about a brand are reflected by the brand
associations held in consumer memory (i.e., brand image) and are created through the various
interactions with a brand that are experienced by the consumer (i.e., familiarity) (Keller 1993).
Brand familiarity also plays an important role in consumer information processing and
decision-making. Moreover, analyses showed that brand familiarity increased ad memorability,
produced greater recall of new information, and reduced the negative effects of competitive
interference (Kent & Allen 1994). It can also enhance the attitude toward a brand extension
(Roux and Boush, 1996) or toward a brand alliance (Simonin and Ruth, 1998). Thus, it seems
important to develop a reliable measure of this relevant and significant consumer construct.
This initial stage is necessary before creating a model connecting measurements of consumer
knowledge to other concepts such as the brand image or brand equity (Yoo, Donthu and Lee,
2000).
Surprisingly, a great number of articles published in consumer behavior relate to knowledge
of products, and not of brands. However, there should not be any obstacle to adapt the concepts
or definitions suggested for categories of products in the case of brands. In a variety of studies,
product familiarity has been used interchangeably with other constructs including subjective
knowledge and consumer expertise, or some combination of the above. As a function of
product experience, familiarity has been equated most frequently with product purchase,
possession, and usage.
Concept of Brand Familiarity
Baker et al. (1986, p.637) defined brand familiarity as "an unidimensional construct that is
directly related to the amount of time that has been spent processing information about the
brand, regardless of the type or content of the processing that was involved." The authors admit
that this definition was "very rudimentary, context-independent and is affected in more or less
the same way by the advertising exposure, purchase behavior, and the consumption or the use
1
of products of the brand." Other authors however suggest that familiarity is a multidimensional
phenomenon. Alba and Hutchinson (1987, p. 438) report that "different types of experiences
lead to the development of different dimensions of consumer expertise." One can take the case
of a person using the same perfume everyday. This person, who has a higher score on one of
the dimensions of familiarity (e.g., product usage dimension), will have a knowledge level
different from another person not using products of this brand, but who is interested in this
brand. Thus, one may think that the latter person has a better level of knowledge than does the
former person. The fact that different experiences (in this example, repetitive use versus
information search) may lead to different types of expertise is a good argument in favor of a
multidimensional concept of familiarity (Mitchell 1981). Krishnan (1996) also distinguishes
between direct experiences (trial, usage) and indirect experiences, which can be non-marketer
controlled (word of mouth) and marketer controlled (advertising).
Although there is conceptual evidence for brand familiarity as a multidimensional construct,
the operationalisation of brand familiarity always seems to have been unidimensional.
Traditionally, familiarity has been operationalized as accumulated purchases, or as search,
ownership, or experience (Bettman and Park 1980; Park et al., 1994).
Model of Brand Familiarity
Familiarity with a brand is a multidimensional construct connected to the various
experiences relating to a brand accumulated by a consumer. These dimensions include
advertising exposures (the media in general), information search, interactions with salespeople,
choice and decision-making, purchasing, and product usage in various situations (Alba and
Hutchinson, 1987). From a conceptual point of view, choice and decision-making should be
more similar to the concept of expertise than of familiarity. In agreement with Krishnan (1996),
we argue that there are three dimensions of brand familiarity, which tap all the relationships
suggested by Alba and Hutchinson. These dimensions are: familiarity with brand
communication, interpersonal familiarity, familiarity with the products (Figure 1).
INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE
Choice of Brands Studied
The variables making it possible to measure the dimensions of brand familiarity may vary
considerably according to the studied brand. The measurement of purchase will be different
according to whether the brand is H&M or Renault! Thus, it seems necessary to justify the
choice of the brands for the study before clarifying the model. Ready-to-wear clothing is a
product class which includes several strong brands and for which exists a wide variance of
knowledge and familiarity. The two selected brands were Kookaï and Celio, very popular
French brands. These two brands belong to the same product categories (mostly clothing, but
also perfume and accessories for Kookaï). However, their image is very different. Kookaï's
target market is primarily young women between the ages of 15 and 25. Their prices are low,
and advertisements show attractive young women who are supposed to be typical consumers.
On the other hand, Celio’s target market is men between 15 and 30. Celio is often seen as a
more functional brand.
Sample
494 women completed a self-administered questionnaire measuring the various types of
knowledge of Kookaï. 302 men completed the Celio questionnaire. Approximately 75% of
respondents were students in second university cycle or commercial school. The remaining
respondents were employed. The ages of respondents varied from 16 to approximately 40. It
took about 10 minutes to complete the questionnaire.
2
Model of Brand Familiarity for a Ready-to-Wear Brand
After a qualitative study, review of the literature and discussions with experts regarding the
experiences with a brand, the following model was postulated (Figure 2). The correlations
between the different dimensions and the errors terms are not represented to simplify the model.
To achieve identification2 and to assess predictive validity, we included a link from familiarity
to a construct called “number of brand associations” (Chin, 1998). This construct represents the
number of brand associations held in the consumer’s long-term memory (Korchia, 1999; Park
et al., 1994). The more experiences a consumer encounters with a brand, the more associations
he/she will keep in memory (Anderson, 1983; Melton, 1970). Six open-ended questions were
used to tap the knowledge of the brand. We summed the number of elicited statements as an
estimate of the construct.
INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE
Presentation of the variables selected:
- Xbefore: dichotomous variable indicating if respondent was consuming brand X two years
ago or more.
- Xbt: approximate number of products of brand X bought or offered during the past 2 years.
- Xdifbt: number of products different from brand X bought or offered during the last two
years. For example, a consumer having bought 4 perfumes, 3 sweaters, and a pair of shoes will
obtain a score of Xdifbt 3 and 8 for Xbt. This variable makes it possible to differentiate the
consumers always buying the same product from those trying to vary for pleasure.
- Xmnth: average number of products of the brand used each month. A consumer using
perfume 9 times per month, a sweater 3 times, and trousers 8 times will obtain a score of 20.
- Xdifmnth: types of products used each month. The preceding consumer would obtain a
score of 3.
- Xadmag and Xadbill are likert scales questions measuring exposure to the brand’s
billboards and magazines ads (both mediums are heavily used by both brands).
- Xpeople represents the number of individuals interested in the brand the respondent knows.
where X = Kookaï or Celio
As both Xdifbt and Xdifmnth are being calculated respectively starting from Xbt and of
Xmnth, it is natural to think that there is a correlation between the errors of measurement of
these variables (not shown on figure 2 to make the model more readable). Also, based on the
theoretical justification for a composite construct model, it is important to note that the relations
between under-dimensions of familiarity are causal, or formative (Bollen & Lennox 1991;
Edwards and Bagozzi, 2000). The concept of familiarity is regarded as an index or composite
construct, starting from causal under-dimensions. These dimensions are often called first-order
factors, while familiarity is a second-order factor. It is a linear function of the causal first-order
factors which determines the level of familiarity of an individual, and not the opposite. The fact
that a person uses products of the brand does not mean however that she has seen more of the
brand’s ads. An increase in the general level of familiarity does not imply an increase in the
level of each dimension, which is consistent with the conceptualization of Alba and Hutchinson
(1987). For the same reasons, interpersonal familiarity and familiarity with the brand
communication are formative: for example, a consumer can be exposed to a billboard, but not
to an ad by the same brand in a magazine. Formative constructs make it impossible to use
factorial analysis as the first step of a study (Bollen and Lennox 1991; Edwards and Bagozzi,
2000).
2
This model is undetermined (it can’t be assessed) if we don’t add a path from familiarity to another construct.
Another way to achieve identification would have been to suppose that the three paths from the dimensions of
familiarity to familiarity are equal, which is unrealistic (Bollen and Davis, 1994; Edward and Bagozzi, 2000).
3
Empirical Test Of The Proposed Model
The distribution of the responses deviated significantly from the normal for the majority of
the variables. Logarithmic transformation was used to normalize the distribution. The use of the
logarithm values has a benefit. It is possible "to chop" certain distributions of data, so that there
are more differences between two individuals for example wearing a jacket respectively 0 and
10 times than between other consumers wearing a jacket 10 and 20 times. The suggested model
was estimated by AMOS (table 1). The results are quite satisfactory for both brands. Paths are
significant and s.m.c. (R2) most often high.
INSERT TABLE 1 HERE
Conclusions and Limitations
This paper demonstrated that brand familiarity construct consist of three inter-related
concepts - familiarity with brand communication, interpersonal familiarity, and familiarity of
products. By focusing on theoretical rationale and empirical testing, we make a case for
considering brand familiarity as multidimensional. The conceptualization of brand familiarity
construct adopted in this paper allows, at least within the framework of the studied brands, to
explain the various experiences a consumer can have with a brand. This study was an attempt to
better comprehend consumer brand familiarity, which influences consumer subjective and
objective knowledge and several other constructs (brand image, brand equity, etc.).
However, some limitations of this study remain: the dimension "familiarity with brand
communication" is difficult to measure, because consumers seem to assess poorly their level of
familiarity on this dimension, maybe because ads are usually processed at a low level of
involvement. Also, the majority of the sample was comprised of students; this can pose a
problem. However, their responses do not seem to differ from those of the employed who
responded to the questionnaire. Moreover, they constitute the target for the two studied brands.
Last, there is an external validity problem. Would other brands for other types of products
demonstrate the same three dimensions of brand familiarity? Future research might focus on
whether the findings reported here can be replicated for other brands. However, it should be
noted that the results proved very similar for the two brands.
In conclusion, brand familiarity such as it was defined and measured in this study, seems to
be able to be integrated into other research aiming to understand and analyze consumer
behavior. Familiarity is an antecedent for other concepts, including objective and subjective
knowledge and brand image. Thus, to better understand the perceptions and decisions of the
consumers, a model linking the different concepts should be developed and estimated.
References
Aaker, D.A., 1991. Managing Brand Equity, New York: The Free Press.
Alba, J.W. and J.W. Hutchinson, 1987. Dimensions of Consumer Expertise. Journal of
Consumer Research, 13, 411-454.
Anderson J.R. (1983), The Architecture of Cognition, Cambridge MA., Harvard Univ. Press.
Baker, W., J.W. Hutchinson, D. Moore, and P. Nedungadi, 1986. Brand Familiarity and
Advertising: Effects on the Evoked Set and Brand Preference. Advances In Consumer
Research, 13, 637-642.
Bettman, J. R. and C.W. Park, 1980. Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of
the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis. Journal of
Consumer Research, 7, 234-248.
Bollen, K. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Bollen, K. and R. Lennox, 1991. Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A Structural
Equation Perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 2, 305-314.
4
Brucks, M., 1985. The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior.
Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 1-15.
Chin, W. W., 1998. Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. 22 (1).
Conover, J.N., 1981. Familiarity and the Structure of Consumer Knowledge. Advances In
Consumer Research, 9, 494-98.
Cordell, V.V., 1997. Consumer Knowledge Measures as Predictors in Product Evaluation.
Psychology and Marketing, 14, 241-260.
Edwards, J. R. & Bagozzi, R. P., 2000. On the Nature and Direction of Relationships Between
Constructs and Measure, 5 (2), 155-174.
Engel, Blackwell, & Miniard. 1995. Consumer Behavior. The Dryden Press, Harcourt Brace
College Publishers.
Jacoby, J., T. Troutman, A. Kuss and D. Mazursky, 1986. Experience and Expertise in
Complex Decision Making. Advances In Consumer Research, 13, 469-475.
Johnson, E.J., and J.E. Russo. 1984. Product Familiarity and Learning New Information.
Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 542-550.
Keller, K.L., 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity.
Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 1-22.
Kent, R.J. and C.T. Allen, 1994. Competitive Interference Effects in Consumer Memory for
Advertising: The Role of Brand Familiarity. Journal of Marketing, 58, 97-105.
Korchia, M., 1999. A New Typology of Brand Image. European Advances In Consumer
Research, 4, 147-154.
Krishnan H.S., 1996. Characteristics of memory associations: a consumer-based brand equity
perspective, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13 (4), 389-405.
MacCallum R.C. and M.W. Browne, 1993. The Use of Causal Indicators in Covariance
Structure Models: Some Practical Issues. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3, 533-541.
Melton, A. W., 1970. The Situation with Respect to the Spacing of Repetitions and Memory.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 596-606.
Mitchell, A. A., 1981. Models of Memory: Implications for Measuring Knowledge Structures.
Advances In Consumer Research, 9, 45-51.
Park, C. W., D.L. Mothersbaugh and L. Feick, 1994. Consumer Knowledge Assessment.
Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 71-82.
Raju, P. S., S.C. Lonial, and W.G. Mangold, 1996. Differential Effects of Subjective
Knowledge, Objective Knowledge and Usage Experience on Decision-Making: An Exploratory
Investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 153-180.
Simonin, B. L., Ruth, J. A., 1998. Is a Company Known by the Company It Keeps? Assessing
the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitude. Journal of Marketing
Research, 35, 30-42
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., Lee S., 2000. An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and
Brand Equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 197-213.
TABLES
Chi2
p value
Df
GFI
AGFI
RMSEA
CFI
NFI
Table 1: Model Estimates for Brand Familiarity Construct
Kookaï
Celio
48.787
44.195
<.01
<.01
19
19
0.979
.967
0.950
.921
0.056
.066
.990
.986
.983
.975
5
FIGURES
Figure 1: Dimensions of brand familiarity
Familiarity with brand communication
Interpersonal
familiarity
Brand
Familiarity
Familiarity with the products
Figure 2: Assessment of the brand familiarity construct
Xadmag
Familiarity with brand communication
Xadbill
Xpeople
Interpersonal
familiarity
Brand
Familiarity
# of elicited
Number of brand associations
statements
Xbt
Xdifbt
Xmnth
Familiarity with the products
Xdifmnth
Xbefore
6