Building Brand Authenticity in Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Via Consumer Perceptions of Brand Marketing Communications

European Journal of Marketing
Building brand authenticity in fast-moving consumer goods via consumer

perceptions of brand marketing communications
Abhishek Dwivedi, Robert McDonald,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Abhishek Dwivedi, Robert McDonald, (2018) "Building brand authenticity in fast-moving consumer
goods via consumer perceptions of brand marketing communications", European Journal of
Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2016-0665
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2016-0665
Downloaded on: 03 April 2018, At: 10:27 (PT)
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:27 03 April 2018 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 88 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:178665 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
Consumer
Building brand authenticity in perceptions of
fast-moving consumer goods via brand
marketing
consumer perceptions of brand
marketing communications
Abhishek Dwivedi Received 25 November 2016
Revised 10 September 2017
School of Management and Marketing, Charles Sturt University, 2 December 2017
Albury, Australia, and Accepted 19 February 2018
Robert McDonald
Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA
Abstract
Purpose – Brand authenticity has emerged as a strategic imperative for many firms. The purpose of this
paper is to empirically examine the effect of consumer perceptions of brand marketing communications on
brand authenticity of fast-moving consumer goods.
Design/methodology/approach – Direct and indirect pathways from brand marketing communications
to brand authenticity were conceptualized. Data were collected from US energy drink consumers and
analysed using structural equation modelling. Multiple marketing mix variables and context-relevant
covariates have been controlled for.
Findings – Direct and indirect pathways to building brand authenticity have been observed. The total effect
of brand marketing communications on brand authenticity is strong, thereby highlighting the predictor’s
overall effectiveness in shaping the ultimate outcome.
Research limitations/implications – The focus on consumer-perceived authenticity as opposed to
objective authenticity complements the prior literature. An integrative perspective on brand marketing
communications is offered, specifying it as an antecedent of perceived brand authenticity.
Practical implications – An important implication is that investments into brand marketing
communications will likely influence perceived brand authenticity. Such investments may also have
favourable implications for the clarity of brand positioning. Overall, brand marketing communications are
effective tools for building consumer-perceived brand authenticity.
Originality/value – A need to outline managerially controllable drivers of authenticity was addressed.
How consumer perceptions of brand marketing communications influence brand authenticity via direct and
indirect mechanisms was demonstrated. The existence of authenticity in fast-moving consumer goods was
also demonstrated.
Keywords Brand authenticity, Brand marketing communications, Clarity of positioning
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Authenticity has emerged as a consumer-desired attribute, reflecting a perception of a brand
being unique, genuine or original (Bruhn et al., 2012) and to help marketers to differentiate
their brands from competing brands. The need for authentic brands is perhaps an outcome
of a general air of consumer mistrust towards business (Young and Rubicam, 2013). European Journal of Marketing
Academic research offers various conceptualizations of authenticity and insights into © Emerald Publishing Limited
0309-0566
how consumers ascribe authenticity to objects, such as, through examining factual DOI 10.1108/EJM-11-2016-0665
EJM (e.g. spatio-temporal) indexical cues (Grayson and Shulman, 2000), inherent connections
with an object’s heritage, pedigree and craftsmanship (Beverland, 2006) or through
existential and self-enhancing means (Leigh et al., 2006). Though offering rich foundational
insights, such conceptualizations are derived mainly from premium and niche consumption
contexts, such as vintage/classic vehicles (Brown et al., 2003; Leigh et al., 2006), themed
heritage attractions (Goulding, 2000; Grayson and Martinec, 2004) and ultra-premium wine
(Beverland, 2006).
We enter the ongoing discourse on authenticity from a different perspective. There are
many products and brands that do not possess inherent (e.g. heritage- or craftsmanship-
based) authenticity as articulated in the influential works, yet strive to attain competitive
differentiation. Such brands are mass-produced, frequently purchased and consumed, fast-
moving consumer goods (FMCGs). FMCG brands are typically low-involvement products
with limited inherent/objective authenticity. Worldwide, the consumer packaged goods
market in 2014 was $8tn and may grow to $14tn by 2025 (McKinsey, 2015).
Within this category, we focus on perceived brand authenticity, that is, a brand evaluated
in light of consumers’ beliefs, expectations and perspectives (Morhart et al., 2015), and we
define an authentic brand as one that is perceived by consumers as having a clear

philosophy; one with a sense of what it stands for; a brand that lives up to its promise and is
true to itself. Consumer evaluations of brand marketing communications may play a role in
shaping brand authenticity perceptions directly and through clarifying a brand’s
positioning. For instance, Dove’s® Campaign for Real Beauty has been instrumental in
clarifying Dove’s® brand positioning, and subsequently establishing it as an authentic
brand. Yet, little extant research has investigated the role of consumer evaluation of brand
marketing communication on brand positioning clarity and perceived brand authenticity in
FMCGs. Thus, there is a need for developing a clear, empirical relationship among these
constructs, especially in case of products with little inherent authenticity and low
involvement.
Through our enquiry, we offer two main contributions. First, we are among the early
investigators to conceive and investigate brand authenticity for FMCGs brands. Second, we
conceptualize and test direct and indirect effects of consumer perception of brand marketing
communications on brand authenticity, and show that the effect is partially mediated
through clarity of positioning. Moreover, we examine these effects by controlling for the
effects of other elements of the marketing mix. In the following section, we review the
literature on brand authenticity, then we describe our research design, analysis and
findings, and then end with a discussion and recognition of limitations, and suggestions for
further research.
2. Brand authenticity: Literature review

The predominant conceptualizations of brand authenticity are summarized in Table I. As
the literature continues to evolve, various definitions of the concept do as well.
Early studies focused mainly on understanding aspects that form the basis of consumer
authenticity judgements, resulting in nuanced conceptualizations across diverse contexts.
Examining retro brands, such as Volkswagen® Beetle or Star Wars®, Brown et al. (2003)
conceived authenticity as brand “aura” or essence that is linked to a unique sense of historic
tradition, a “spirit of the past”. Goulding (2000) observed that visitors of heritage attractions
used different cues to deduce authenticity. Some searched for meaning in the past, whereas
others relied mainly on tangible cues such as an attraction’s attention to detail for judging
authenticity. Those who sought a sense of escape deduced authenticity through imaginative
experiences. Grayson and Martinec (2004) introduced indexical and iconic authenticity. The
Study Conceptualization Product context
Consumer
perceptions of
Goulding (2000) Authenticity interpretations varied across Heritage attractions
different types of visitors. For instance, while one brand
group relied more on tangible/observable cues, marketing
others relied more on imagination-based
experiential cues
Brown et al. (2003) Authenticity as an “aura” or a brand’s essence Marketing of retro brands
that is linked to a unique sense of historic
tradition (i.e. a “spirit of the past”) (e.g.
Volkswagen’s® Beetle brand)
Grayson and Conceptualize authenticity in terms of indexical Themed tourist attractions (e.g. Sherlock
Martinec (2004) and iconic authenticity and outline cues that Holmes Museum)
consumers use to judge each type
Beverland (2006) Identify six aspects that consumers use to judge Ultra-premium wine
authenticity of fine wine. These are heritage and
pedigree, stylistic consistency, quality
commitments, relationship to place, method of
production and downplaying commercial
considerations
Leigh, Peters and Authenticity is multifaceted and can be conceived MG brand of cars
Shelton (2006) in terms of objective, constructive and existential

forms. Authenticity is derived from object and its
ownership, consumer experiences and identity
construction and confirmation
Beverland et al. Conceptualize consumer interpretations of Trappist beer
(2008) authenticity in terms of pure (literal) approximate
and moral authenticity
Bruhn et al. (2012) Conceptualize authenticity in terms of a brands’ Product brands
continuity, originality, reliability and naturalness
Gundlach and Outline multiple factors determining perceived Regular beer
Neville (2012) authenticity such as heritage, ingredients,
production methods, originality and relationship
to place, to name a few
Spiggle et al. (2012) Conceive brand authenticity of a brand extension Product brand extensions (e.g. Nike®
in terms of maintaining standards/style, brand Vitamins)
heritage, brand essence and avoiding exploitation
Newman and Dhar Authenticity in terms of consumers’ perceptions of Clothing (i.e. Levis® jeans) brand
(2014) a product’s connection to place of production (i.e.
manufacturing location)
Schallehn, Conceptualize brand authenticity (using a socio- Beer and fast food
Burmann and Riley psychological perspective) as consumer
(2014) perception of brand behaviour that mirrors
consumers’ notion of being true to oneself in the
face of external corrupting pressures
Choi et al. (2015) Conceive brand authenticity as authority, Sports shoes
fashionability, consistency, innovativeness,
sustainability, origin and heritage
Morhart et al. (2015) Brand authenticity is conceived in terms of Various brands Table I.
continuity, credibility, integrity and symbolism
Prominent
Napoli et al. (2016) Brand authenticity as quality commitment, Various brands
heritage and sincerity as cues that drive consumer conceptualizations of
perceptions of authenticity brand authenticity
former refers to something that is judged as “the original”, through the use of cues or an
“index”, spatio-temporal cues tied to a time or place. Iconic authenticity refers to “something
whose physical manifestation resembles something that is indexically authentic” (Grayson
and Martinec, 2004, p. 298, emphasis added).
Beverland (2006) outlines six aspects of authenticity in the context of ultra-premium
wine. These attributes are heritage and pedigree, stylistic consistency, quality commitments,
EJM relationship to place, method of production and downplaying commercial considerations.
These attributions of authenticity are consistent with the types of authenticity outlined by
Grayson and Martinec (2004). For instance, “heritage and pedigree” and “relationship to
place” may connote indexical (inherent) authenticity to consumers by virtue of a wine’s
spatio-temporal link with the place of production (e.g. a 400-year-old Bordeaux).
Importantly, such highly nuanced forms of authentic identities in niche markets need to be
astutely managed. Research of luxury winemakers reveals how these firms independently
manage or “decouple” an externally projected authentic identity and internal firm operations
(Beverland and Luxton, 2005). Fundamentally, these firms externally project an aura of
authenticity based on espoused values (e.g. “downplaying commercial considerations”)
while internally adopting seemingly contradictory commercial strategies to stay relevant
and viable.
Leigh et al. (2006) broadened the view of authenticity to include the consumer,
specifically studying drivers of MG cars. To them, authenticity has multiple meanings
based on objective, experiential and self-authenticating forms. Objective authenticity denotes
an absolute criterion (an ideal), i.e. restoring a car to its “true” self. Experiential authenticity
is derived from consumer–object interactions, whereas a self-identity authenticating

meaning reflects the fulfilment of self-identity benefits that stem from social roles of
consumers within the MG subculture.
Beverland et al. (2008) conceptualize marketer-projected authenticity as pure,
approximate and moral authenticity in the context of Trappist beer. Pure authenticity refers
to a link with place of origin or valued tradition, similar to indexical authenticity (Grayson
and Martinec 2004). Approximate authenticity reflects symbolic or abstract representations
of tradition created by brand advertisements, thereby creating a historical nostalgic link.
Such symbolism or abstraction is consistent with Brown et al.’s (2003) view of aura- or
essence-based authenticity. Lastly, moral authenticity denotes a perception of genuineness
of an actor’s intentions/actions and passion for the task at hand. Here, consumers tend to
judge those brands as being authentic that seem to prioritize genuine intent and love of craft
rather than financial motives (Beverland et al., 2008).
The more recent literature focuses on operationalizing brand authenticity. A highlight of
this literature is the application of the concept across mass-market products such as regular
beer (Gundlach and Neville, 2012), clothing (Newman and Dhar, 2014), food (Schallehn et al.,
2014) and sport shoes (Choi et al., 2015). These conceptualizations however are context-
dependent.
Bruhn et al. (2012) conceptualize authenticity as continuity (e.g. stability over time),
originality (e.g. perceptions of creativity and innovativeness), reliability (e.g. keeping
promises) and naturalness (e.g. perceived genuineness). Napoli et al. (2014) offer some newer
aspects; quality commitment (e.g. maintaining quality standards), heritage (e.g. conveying
tradition) and sincerity (e.g. staying true to espoused values) as cues that drive consumer
perceptions of authenticity. More recently, Morhart et al. (2015) operationalize the construct
as continuity (e.g. a sense of timelessness), credibility (e.g. keeping stated promises), integrity
(e.g. demonstrating strong morals) and symbolism (e.g. enabling a self-brand connection).
Beverland and Farrelly (2010) show that the process of authenticating an object or
experience is contingent on consumer goals. The search for the authentic is a way to find
meaning and virtuousness in one’s life (Arnould and Price, 2000; Beverland and Farrelly,
2010; Morhart et al., 2015). In essence, “authenticity encapsulates what is genuine, real and/
or true” (Beverland and Farrelly, 2010, p. 839).
Owing to these developments, numerous dimensions of brand authenticity have
emerged, though with some conceptual overlap. For example, the continuity dimension
offered by Bruhn et al. (2012) and Morhart et al. (2015) seem conceptually comparable. Consumer
Similarly, Bruhn et al.’s (2012) reliability dimension, Napoli et al.’s (2014) sincerity dimension perceptions of
and Morhart et al.’s (2015) credibility dimension seem to conceptually overlap somewhat.
Thus, the authenticity concept remains indeterminate, and a universally accepted
brand
conceptualization remains elusive. marketing
Nevertheless, consistent characteristics of the construct have emerged. First, brand
authenticity can be subjective, that is, brand authenticity is a socially constructed concept
that resides in consumers’ minds (Gundlach and Neville, 2012). Brand authenticity does not
connote an object’s inherent (objective) quality, instead it reflects consumer interpretation/
perception of observed brand behaviour (Beverland and Farrelly, 2010; Grayson and
Martinec, 2004). Second, many existing conceptualizations of brand authenticity are context-
dependent. Grayson and Martinec (2004, p. 299) note that authenticity entails an
“assessment made by a particular evaluator in a particular context”. In the present study, we
adopt a relatively generalizable measure of brand authenticity. Third, consumer judgements
of brand authenticity do not entail an “either–or” logic, instead these judgements are
situated along a continuum, implying that consumers can judge the degree of brand
authenticity (Chhabra, 2008; Napoli et al., 2016). Fourth, given the self-identity benefits of the
consumer authentication process (Leigh et al., 2006; Schallehn et al., 2014), building brand
authenticity may be related to strengthening a consumer–brand relationship.
We investigate brand authenticity for commonly used brands where consumer
perceptions are vital to attaining differentiation. Firstly, we adopt a subjective view of
authenticity, i.e. the consumer perception of authenticity which represents an aspect of
brand image. Many seminal studies conceptualize authenticity mainly as an aspect of brand
identity, projected by the marketer (Beverland, 2006; Brown et al., 2003). Distinguishing
between “identity” as being marketer-defined and “image” as being consumer-defined
(Madhavaram et al., 2005), our conceptualization of authenticity is consumer-defined.
Secondly, we conceptualize perceived authenticity based on the notion that consumers tend
to evaluate brands using the behavioural norms expected of other individuals, such that a
violation of a norm, such as a brand promise could lead to negative attitudes/evaluations
(Aggarwal, 2004). Thus, we define an authentic brand as one that is perceived by consumers
as having a clear philosophy it lives by; one with a sense of what it stands for; a brand that
lives up to its promise. That is, authenticity refers to the idea that a brand demonstrates the
strength of character to do what it says.
Our definition of authenticity is consistent with the prior literature. Our definition reflects
aspects of credibility and integrity (Bruhn et al., 2012), reliability and naturalness (Gundlach
and Neville, 2012), as well as sincerity (Beverland, 2006; Napoli et al., 2014). Moreover, our
definition reflects consumer perceptions of authentic brands as reported by Gundlach and
Neville (2012) who examined authenticity across several mass-market brands such as Axe®,
Nivea® and Nutella®. Next, we present our conceptual framework.
3. Conceptual framework: building brand authenticity via consumer-evaluated

brand marketing communications
3.1 Conceptualizing brand marketing communications
Brand marketing communications represent a vital element of a brand’s marketing strategy
(Madhavaram et al., 2005). We adopt a consumer perspective of brand marketing
communications rather than the conventional inside out, firm view (Finne and Grönroos,
2009). The effects of consumer evaluations of individual brand communication elements on
brand outcomes have been examined in a somewhat piecemeal manner. Separate studies
report that consumer brand perceptions are shaped by evaluations of advertising (Buil et al.,
EJM 2013; Villarejo-Ramos and Sánchez-Franco, 2005), sponsorships (Gwinner and Eaton, 1999;
Mazodier and Merunka, 2012), social media activity (Kim and Ko, 2012; Yazdanparast et al.,
2016) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Nan and Heo, 2007; Westberg and Pope,
2014).
We conceptualize consumer evaluation of brand marketing communications as a holistic
construct, representing overall consumer judgement based on consumer knowledge of a
brand’s marketing communication stored in memory. We incorporate consumer evaluations
of four forms of communications, namely, advertising, sponsorship, social media and CSR as
dimensions of brand marketing communications. These evaluative measures summarize
consumers’ knowledge, attitudes, perceptions and value-based judgements with regard to a
particular communication element. Consumer evaluation of advertising was conceptualized
as perceptions of advertising spending or its ubiquity and memorability. Consumer
evaluations of sponsorship and social media evaluations are conceived as overall
evaluations of a brand’s sponsorship and social media activities judged as appropriate and
favourable. Consumer evaluation of CSR was included in the conceptualization because it is
recognized as a form of communication in today’s networked society (Schultz et al., 2013). It
is conceptualized as the consumer perception of a brand’s involvement in CSR, reflecting a

summary assessment of the brand’s commitment beyond itself to its community.
Consumers’ brand knowledge is multidimensional (Keller, 2003), and they will incorporate
various aspects of brand communication into their knowledge.
Generally, consumers tend to form Gestalt judgements of complex marketing
environments containing diverse stimuli (Diamond et al., 2009). The contemporary media
landscape represents a complex environment where consumers are exposed to countless
messages across diverse media formats. Owing to commonality of a brand’s projected
themes/imagery, copy/scripts, brand usage situations and consumer-generated content
across diverse communication options in an integrated marketing communication strategy,
we argue that consumers may cognitively resort to grouping by similarity to form a unified
impression of projected brand communication (Spears et al., 1996). Further, because
marketing communication elements typically speak with one voice (Fitzpatrick, 2005), this
synergistic aspect suggests that consumers’ evaluations of each element are likely
interrelated. We argue that consumer evaluations of advertising, sponsorships, social media
and CSR may reflect their holistic judgement of brand marketing communication. Hence, we
conceptualize consumer evaluation of brand marketing communications as a higher-order
construct reflected by the four dimensions.
3.2 Brand marketing communication and brand authenticity

Brand marketing communications possess the ability to influence perceptions of brand
authenticity (O’Guinn et al., 2014) via two mechanisms. First, consumer evaluations of brand
marketing communications exert a direct influence on brand authenticity by way of
providing diagnostic information (i.e. cues) that consumers use to deduce brand
authenticity. Second, we expect an additional mediated mechanism whereby brand
marketing communications first shape brand meaning by clarifying a brand’s positioning
which in turn affects brand authenticity (Figure 1 depicts our conceptual model). We present
our hypotheses next.
3.2.1 Direct effect. How brand marketing communications potentially shape perceptions
of brand authenticity can be understood using cultural meaning transfer mechanisms
(McCracken, 1986). Culturally relevant meaning ascribed to consumption objects gets
transferred via marketing communication into specific brands (McCracken, 1986).
Consumers then consume the culturally constituted meaning through their use of those
Advertising
Consumer
perceptions of
brand
Social media
marketing
Perceived brand Clarity of Perceived brand
marketing positioning authenticity
communications
Sponsorship
MARKETING MIX CONTROLS:

CSR
a) Brand satisfaction
b) Store image
c) Price
COVARIATES: d) Price deals
a) Product category involvement e) Distribution intensity
b) Brand relevance in category f) Brand popularity Figure 1.
The conceptual
model
Note: CSR refers to Corporate Social Responsibility
brands (O’Guinn et al., 2014). A brand thus becomes synonymous with certain desirable
cultural values (Napoli et al., 2014). For instance, the popularity of energy drinks among
younger consumers is partly owing to the imagery and associations of speed, energy and
risk-taking (Brasel and Gips, 2011) that are routinely projected and reinforced via associated
marketing communications (Heckman et al., 2010). Consumers then consume this symbolic
brand meaning through their use of preferred brands.
Along with symbolism, consumer judgements of marketing communication can instil a
sense of integrity into the brand through its philosophy, its socially conscious behaviour
such as CSR (Morhart et al., 2015). Further, consumer’s favourable evaluations of a brand’s
marketing communications may impact positive impressions of a brand in consumer
memory (Krishnan, 1996). If a brand sponsors activities that consumers believe in and
behaves in a civically responsible manner, consumers will then regard that brand as having
strong character and philosophy. The volume of advertising might be interpreted by
consumers as a reiteration of the brand’s promise and commitment to its customers, a
willingness to tell the world what it stands for. And the social media activity might be
construed as the brand’s willingness to engage with its stakeholders. A consumer might
holistically view the totality of this communication effort as the brand knowing what it
stands for and an unwillingness to distort itself or be malleable under pressure.
Brand marketing communications not only represent the voice of a brand (Keller, 2009)
but are also a visible manifestation of a brand’s marketing efforts (Stern, 1994). Favourable
evaluation of such efforts by consumers have implications for consumer-perceived
authenticity. For instance, Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes® newly introduced marketing
communications campaign called “what gets you started” comprises advertising,
sponsorship and social media executions (Lukovitz, 2017). We argue that consumer
favourable evaluations of the campaign may enhance their perceptions of the brand’s efforts
towards promoting a healthy lifestyle, thereby shaping perceptions of brand authenticity.
Additionally, if the totality of the communication efforts are favourably evaluated by
consumers, these may also affect emotional impressions among consumers; this too may
affect authenticity judgements (Beverland et al., 2008). Moreover, firms may engage
consumers differently through various, complementary communication options.
EJM Advertising may be mainly geared towards projecting a brand’s personality and ethos,
sponsorships may focus on creating/enhancing desired consumer experiences, whereas
social media activity typically engages consumers in a conversation with a brand and CSR
activity may intend to project a brand’s moral authenticity. Holt (2002) cites the case of
Harley Davidson® that projects authenticity through product design, staged events and
sponsorship, thus projecting an idea that the brand is true to its archetypical roots.
Consumers are unable to understand the marketer’s intention unless it is clearly and
consistently communicated from the marketer through the brand stewards to the consumers
(Madhavaram et al., 2005). In the case of the consumers’ perception of brand authenticity,
this means communicating the brand’s philosophy and promise, demonstrating how it lives
up to both and then delivering consistently and with integrity (Morhart et al. 2015; Schallehn
et al. 2014). Research has identified implicit links between consumer-perceived brand
authenticity and brand marketing communications. For instance, respondents in the study
by Bruhn et al. (2012) reported favourable judgments of brand marketing communications
for brands perceived as being authentic (Bruhn et al., 2012), indicative of a potential
explanatory relationship. Cumulatively, favourable consumer evaluations of brand
marketing communication will likely have a positive impact on brand authenticity. Hence,
we hypothesize:
H1. Consumer judgements of brand marketing communications exert a direct positive
influence on perceived brand authenticity.
3.2.2 Indirect effect via clarity of positioning. A fundamental goal of the marketing mix is to
create the positioning that is attractive to the target segment. However, the positioning of a
brand in the consumer’s mind does not always match that intended by the marketer (Fuchs
and Diamantopoulos, 2010). Therefore, it is critical that the marketer be as clear as possible
in communicating the intended positioning to the consumer. This research makes the
assumption that competitive brands within a category attempt to project an authentic
identity through their communication (message) strategies, and focus on the clarity of the
consumer-perceived positioning.
We focused on the clarity of positioning as opposed to the content of positioning. In
highly competitive and mature FMCG markets, multiple brands position themselves along
positive positioning platforms via their communications. Hence, the content of positioning
across multiple brands within a given category tends to converge towards an “ideal” point
(Carpenter, 1989; Law, 2002). For example, brands of toothpaste position around “fresh
breath” and “oral health” properties. The content of positioning commonly provides a point-
of-parity across FMCG brands within a category, demonstrating a brand’s legitimacy within
the category and hence may not be useful to explain perceived brand authenticity.
Yet some brands stand out from the clutter because of the clarity of their brand
associations in consumers’ minds; this clarity emphasizes points-of-difference, possibly
because clarity of positioning alters (heightens) the value of a brand as a signal (Simmons
and Becker-Olsen, 2006). Clarity of positioning also relates to the strength of brand
associations in memory (Keller, 1993). Strong brand associations are easily recalled and
contribute towards generating consumer perceptions of brand authenticity.
We conceptualize an indirect pathway from consumer evaluation of brand marketing
communications to brand authenticity that flows through clarity of brand positioning. This
indirect mechanism is based on the associative network memory theory (Keller, 1993;
Krishnan, 1996). Consumer knowledge of a brand in memory is represented conceptually as
a network of stored information nodes (Keller, 1993). These nodes are interconnected by
links, referred to as associations. Some associations are related to brand attributes and
others to benefits, whereas some may represent consumers’ brand experiences (Krishnan, Consumer
1996). When a node is activated, it potentially activates other nodes through a process of perceptions of
spreading activation. These associations may vary in strength, which determines brand
information retrieval from memory.
brand
However, associations pertaining to a particular brand do not exist in isolation, but marketing
embedded within a broader product category-based memory structure. That is,
consumer brand association networks about a product category may contain
information on multiple brands (Henderson et al., 1998). For instance, when consumers
think of energy drinks, they may think of multiple brands within that category. Each
brand in turn has a specific brand association structure (Krishnan, 1996). Some of the
category associations may overlap among brands, whereas other associations may be
brand-specific. In product categories where multiple brands attempt to position
themselves on similar attributes and benefits, consumers may not perceive real
differences among brands.
Considering that brand association networks are fuzzy structures in memory (Krishnan,
1996), we argue that consumer evaluations of a brand’s marketing communications may
help clarify brand-specific associations. This clarity of positioning then forms a basis of
perceptions of brand authenticity because consumers are able to fully appreciate and
understand what is it that a brand stands for (relative to other brands within a category).
Furthermore, this clarity can be interpreted as an indication of the brand’s reliability,
reinforcing brand authenticity (Fritz et al., 2017). For example, consumers might view Nike’s
positioning, as emphasized by its brand mantra “authentic athletic performance” as a
commitment to producing products for people who are dedicated to an active, athletic
lifestyle.
Consumer evaluations of brand marketing communications may help shape the
number and valence of brand-related associations in consumer memory (Krishnan, 1996),
thereby affecting the clarity of brand positioning. Favourable evaluations of brand
marketing communications may increase the number of brand associations enabling the
formation of larger set of brand-specific semantic linkages in memory relative to
competing brands. This may further enable consumers to easily access the relevant
brand nodes from memory (Krishnan, 1996), thereby potentially enhancing brand
salience and positioning clarity, especially as the number of competing brands increase in
a market. Further, consumer evaluations of brand marketing communications may
increase the net positive valence of brand associations in consumer memory. Brands tend
to consistently highlight their positive aspects across their communications, striving to
increase the net positive associations (Krishnan, 1996). Marketing communication (e.g.
advertising) can favourably influence consumer brand associations/perceptions (Buil
et al., 2013).
Furthermore, we expect the clarity of perceived positioning to accentuate the
credibility of the overall brand narrative relative to competing offerings. From a brand
signalling perspective, the clarity of brand positioning refers to the lack of ambiguity of
brand-related information (Erdem and Swait, 1998). This clarity of brand positioning is
shown to be positively associated with consumer-perceived brand credibility mainly
because of the consumer belief that brands that are willing and capable of offering the
promised products would send clear signals (Erdem and Swait, 1998). Recent empirical
evidence suggests that brand clarity favourably impacts consumer-perceived brand
authenticity (Fritz et al., 2017). Hence:
H2. Consumer perceptions of brand marketing communication exert an indirect effect
on perceived brand authenticity via clarity of brand positioning.
EJM 4. Research design
4.1 Stimulus design
The multibillion energy drink industry in the United States has experienced a substantial
growth lately (Heckman et al., 2010) reaching $12.2bn in 2014 (Statista.com, 2016). This
trend is expected to continue (Medgadget.com, 2016). The industry is highly concentrated
(Heckman et al., 2010), and the associated marketing communication activity is geared
primarily towards attracting Millennials (Heckman et al., 2010).
Beverage brands in general represent good stimuli for studying brand authenticity. Soft
drink brands such as Mountain Dew® and spirit brands like Jack Daniels® have attained
iconic status and are perceived as being authentic among their consumers (Holt, 2003, 2007).
Even well-established brands such as Coca-Cola® are striving to build brand authenticity
among young consumers (Roderick, 2016). Energy drink brands promote an on-the-go
lifestyle and reflect the changing desires and values in society especially among younger
consumers, and are thus appropriate for our study. Further, intense marketing
communication activity characterizes the US energy drinks industry, as evidenced by the
high levels of advertising. Emond et al. (2015) report that in one year, 83,071 advertisements
for energy drinks were aired over 139 network and cable channels in the United States.
These advertisements totalled 36,501 min (or 608 h) of airtime.
We recruited brand users for the study because users are assumed to have more brand
knowledge as compared to non-users (Krishnan, 1996). Users possess direct experience with
a brand and thus their knowledge structures (memory associations) are well developed. As a
result, users’ brand beliefs are held with more certainty (Krishnan, 1996). This aspect is vital
to the study of brand authenticity.
The respondents purchased energy drinks 19 times on average in the past six months.
Our observed frequency of purchase is consistent with studies that report that about half of
college students consume at least one energy drink per month (Heckman et al., 2010). At the
beginning of the survey, we asked responders to nominate a brand that they normally
purchase and to address the survey based on the identified brand.
4.2 Data collection method

Data were collected using an online self-administered survey of 315 undergraduate students
enrolled in a business college in a large public university in the southwestern United States.
Our sample size is consistent with samples used in authenticity studies (Napoli et al., 2016).
The students participated as part of a research pool in exchange for course credit. Student
samples are used in advertising research (Baek and Morimoto, 2012). These are considered
maximally homogenous, the advantages of which are reduced error variance, permitting
stronger theory-testing (Baek and Morimoto, 2012; Yoo et al., 2000). Further, university
students typically comprise the Millennials (18-34 year old) cohort, which is characterized by
the desire to seek authentic experiences (Holt, 2002) These consumers tend to have highly
active lifestyles, which makes them the primary target for energy drink brands (Heckman
et al., 2010), and in fact the respondents are regular consumers of the product. The higher
usage levels of university students (as compared to non-university educated consumers) also
means that students potentially have higher levels of exposure to brand marketing
communications (Andrews et al., 1991). Additionally, younger consumers’ high degree of
receptiveness towards energy drink communications (Heckman et al., 2010) also makes
them suitable for this study. We collected the data within four weeks of launch of the survey.
The average time taken to complete the survey was approximately 15 min.
4.3 Questionnaire design Consumer
Through questionnaire design, we attempted to address certain response and non-response perceptions of
biases that may affect research validity. The survey items were worded in accordance with
conventional usage (i.e. there were no double-barrelled questions), potentially minimizing
brand
respondent confusion that may produce response errors. Given the self-administered survey, marketing
common method bias was a concern. We addressed this bias using page breaks and section
headers. We also avoided mixing of items across constructs and negatively worded items
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). We ensured that there were no hidden cues in the questionnaire, and
also maintained respondent confidentiality (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Additionally, we
attempted to create cognitive separation between the hypothesized antecedents and the
dependent variable by placing relevant items furthest from each other. Such separation also
allowed us to minimize potential self-generated validity (Feldman and Lynch, 1988). The
survey’s self-administered feature helps to minimize potential acquiescence/disacquiescence
bias (Jaffe and Pasternak, 1997), and respondent anonymity helps to minimize potential
social desirability bias.
4.4 Measures
All constructs were measured using seven-point Likert-type scales anchored at strongly
agree (7) and strongly disagree (1). We measured consumer evaluations of brand marketing
communications through evaluation of advertising, sponsorships, social media activity and
CSR. Consumer assessment of advertising was measured using five items (Yoo et al., 2000;
Villarejo-Ramos and Sánchez-Franco, 2005). Sponsorship was measured using four items
(Pappu and Cornwell, 2014; Simmons and Becker-Olsen, 2006), social media evaluation was
operationalized using four items (Schivinski and Dabrowski, 2016) and CSR was measured
using four items (Menon and Kahn, 2003). Three items measured clarity of positioning
(Pappu and Cornwell, 2014). Perceived brand authenticity was measured using six items
derived from Schallehn et al. (2014). Schallehn et al.’s (2014) measure fits well with our
conceptualization of perceived brand authenticity that reflects the central idea that a “brand
demonstrates strength of character; does what it says”.
Because we examine the effect of brand marketing communications – the “promotion”
element of the marketing mix – it was vital to control for the other elements of the marketing
mix. The “product” element of the marketing mix was operationalized as consumer
satisfaction with a brand (three items; Aurier and N’Goala, 2010; Homburg et al., 2005), and
store image (three items; Yoo et al., 2000). The “price” element was operationalized as
consumer perceptions of a brand’s price image and its price deals, each measured with three
items (Yoo et al., 2000). The “place” (or distribution) element was measured as distribution
intensity using three items (Yoo et al., 2000).
Product category involvement and brand relevance in category were specified as
contextual covariates because these reflect the degree of consumer relevance ascribed to the
product category and the brand, respectively. Category involvement and brand relevance in
category were measured using four items each derived from Yoo and Donthu (2001) and
Fisher et al. (2010), respectively. Also, while estimating our structural model, we specified a
single-item popularity measure (i.e. “My brand of energy drink is a very popular brand”;
Netemeyer et al., 2004) as a control variable in the model. Perceived brand popularity is a
purported driver of brand authenticity (Authentic Brand Index, 2016). Lastly, we also
collected data on a theoretically unrelated marker variable (Lindell and Whitney, 2001). This
variable was measured as the respondents’ use of public transport using a single item
(Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos, 2013).
EJM 5. Analysis
5.1 Sample description
Our sample, comprising undergraduate university business students, was almost equally
balanced in terms of gender (52 per cent male; 48 per cent female), and in terms of age,
around 80 per cent of the respondents were between 20 and 24 years of age, almost 13
per cent of the responders classified themselves as “19 or younger” and almost 7 per cent
classified themselves as “25 years or older”. Thus, our sample is a part of the Millennials
cohort, representing the main target group of energy drink marketers (Heckman et al., 2010).
Further, a majority (68 per cent) were full-time students.
Regarding nominated brands, 42 per cent of the respondents nominated Red Bull® as the
normally purchased brand. Almost 38 per cent of the responders nominated Monster®,
consistent with its share in the US energy drink industry (Mitchell, 2015). The remainder 20
per cent was shared with other energy drinks such as 5-Hour Energy®, Rockstar® and
Advocare®. Our sample is consistent with the brand shares in the US energy drinks market
in which Red Bull alone accounts for 42 per cent of the market share (Heckman et al., 2010).
5.2 Common method bias

We examined common method bias using three tests. First, a Harman’s single-factor test
was conducted using an (unrotated) exploratory factor analysis. The first factor accounted
for around 23 per cent of a total of 71 per cent variation in the data. Second, a latent method
factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) conducted using a confirmatory factor analysis, revealed a
poor fit of the single factor model (e.g. CFI = 0.37; RMSEA = 0.125). In comparison, our
hypothesized measurement model yields a better fit (e.g. CFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.048).
Third, a marker variable correlation test (Lindell and Whitney, 2001) was conducted. None
of the observed variables were significantly correlated with the marker variable at 95 per
cent level of significance. Jointly, the three tests indicate that common method bias may not
be problematic.
5.3 Non-response bias

We conducted a non-response bias test with the assumption that late responders are similar
to theoretical non-responders (Christodoulides et al., 2006). We compared the means of the
observed variables for the first one-third of the respondents (n = 100 cases) with the last one-
third. We found that the means of six items differed across early versus late responses.
These items were as follows: one item measuring price perceptions (i.e. [Brand] is expensive;
Mean Early = 4.90, Mean Late = 4.47); two items measuring CSR activity (i.e. [Brand] believes
in philanthropy and giving generously to worthy causes; Mean Early = 4.28, Mean Late = 3.91
and [Brand] is highly concerned about environmental issues; Mean Early = 4.02, Mean Late =
3.70); one item measuring social media activity (i.e. I am satisfied with [brand’s] social media
communications for my brand; Mean Early = 5.04, Mean Late = 4.68); two items measuring
brand authenticity (i.e. considering its brand promise, [brand] does not pretend to be
someone else; Mean Early = 5.46, Mean Late = 5.12 and the [Brand] shows self-esteem;
Mean Early = 5.51, Mean Late = 5.15). However, an examination of the 95 per cent confidence
intervals (CIs) around the bootstrapped means (across 2,000 subsamples) revealed that these
intervals overlapped. For instance, in case of the price item, the 95 per cent CI around mean
for early responders (4.65-5.15) overlapped with the mean for late responders (4.18-4.74).
Thus, the non-response bias is deemed as non-threatening.
5.4 Descriptive statistics and correlations Consumer
The bivariate correlation matrix shows no indication of high correlations that might imply perceptions of
multicollinearities [Table II reports sample descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations and
square root of average variance extracted (AVE) estimates].
brand
marketing
5.5 Measurement model
A first-order confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) model yielded an acceptable fit to data: Chi-
square, x 2 (1048) = 1851.76, p < 0.05 (CFI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.049). The standardized item
loadings (l ) exceeded the 0.50 threshold (Hair et al., 2010), except for two items. These items,
pertaining to advertising (i.e. ‘I like the advertising campaigns for my brand’; l = 0.40), and
store image (i.e. ‘The stores where I can buy my brand have well-known brands’; l = 0.43)
had low loadings, and were thus deleted. The measurement model was re-estimated,
yielding adequate fit [i.e. x 2 (955) = 1645.97, p < 0.05; CFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.048].
The standardized loadings exceeded 0.50, signalling convergent validity, which was also
indicated by the AVE estimates that exceeded 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Refer to
Table III for a listing of the items, respective standardized loadings, AVE scores and
reliability estimates. Discriminant validity is supported (refer to Table II) by the Fornell–
Larcker condition, whereby the square root of the AVE for each construct exceeded its
bivariate correlation estimate with other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Additionally, we observed acceptable levels of construct reliability. The Cronbach’s
alpha estimates ranged from 0.78-0.91 for all constructs, demonstrating adequate internal
consistency of scale items. The CFA-derived composite reliability estimates also exceeded
0.70 (refer to Table II).
5.6 Structural model

Our structural model yielded an acceptable fit: x 2 (1025) = 1836.58, p < 0.05; Normed x 2 =
1.79; CFI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.050 (Table IV). We first examined the higher-order model of
brand marketing communications, observing that the higher-order construct is significantly
measured by its first-order dimensions, that is, advertising (standardized path coefficient,
b = 0.61; p < 0.01), sponsorships ( b = 0.79; p < 0.01), social media activity ( b = 0.79; p <
0.01) and CSR activity ( b = 0.57; p < 0.01).
Consumer evaluation of brand marketing communication exerted a significant direct
effect on brand authenticity ( b = 0.50; p < 0.01), thereby supporting H1. We then examined
the individual paths that comprise the indirect effect. Brand marketing communication
exerted a significant direct effect on clarity of positioning ( b = 0.55; p < 0.01). The clarity of
positioning exerted a significant positive impact on brand authenticity ( b = 0.35; p < 0.01).
We examined the significance of the hypothesized indirect effect via conducting
bootstrapping across 5,000 subsamples (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). This effect was
significant (i.e. standardized indirect effect = 0.19**, p < 0.01; 95 per cent CI = 0.11-0.32),
thus supporting H2. The significance of H2 in comparison with the result of H1 suggests a
partially mediated pathway from brand marketing communications to brand authenticity.
Overall, our model explained approximately 41 per cent (95 per cent CI = 25-53 per cent) of
the variance in clarity of positioning, and roughly 64 per cent (95 per cent CI = 49-74 per
cent) of the variance in brand authenticity. These variance-explained estimates indicate our
model’s acceptable predictive ability.
Regarding the control variables, only brand satisfaction exerted significant positive
effects on clarity of positioning ( b = 0.27; p < 0.01) and brand authenticity ( b = 0.16; p <
0.05). All other control influences were non-significant. This is an interesting result because
EJM
estimates
Table II.
and validity
Sample descriptives,
bivariate correlations
Construct 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
1. Advertising 0.74
2. Social media 0.43** 0.84
3. Sponsorship 0.44** 0.55** 0.80
4. Corporate social
responsibility 0.21** 0.44** 0.40** 0.72
5. Clarity of positioning 0.28** 0.37** 0.46** 0.30** 0.78
6. Brand authenticity 0.24** 0.53** 0.50** 0.38** 0.59** 0.70
7. Price 0.35** 0.23** 0.23** 0.09n.s. 0.10n.s. 0.14* 0.88
8. Price deals 0.21** 0.05n.s. 0.09n.s. 0.16** 0.03n.s. 0.02n.s. 0.01n.s. 0.74
9. Distribution intensity 0.50** 0.28** 0.18** 0.08n.s. 0.16** 0.16** 0.29** 0.32** 0.75
10. Store image 0.13* 0.23** 0.22** 0.25** 0.13* 0.12* 0.09n.s. 0.30** 0.22** 0.86
11. Brand satisfaction 0.14* 0.29** 0.30** 0.19** 0.39** 0.43** 0.10n.s. 0.06n.s. 0.10n.s. 0.09n.s. 0.77
12. Product category
involvement 0.01n.s. 0.20** 0.19** 0.23** 0.09n.s. 0.17** 0.02n.s. 0.08n.s. 0.10n.s. 0.18** 0.22** 0.78
13. Brand relevance in
category 0.24** 0.18** 0.28** 0.16** 0.20** 0.22** 0.27** 0.12* 0.24** 0.11* 0.39** 0.14** 0.75
Score 4.84 4.87 5.06 4.13 5.25 5.11 4.73 3.86 4.96 4.69 5.90 3.89 5.15
Standard deviation 1.32 1.03 1.00 0.95 1.04 0.85 1.29 1.20 1.21 1.34 0.76 1.35 1.27
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01;n.s. non-significant. The square root of AVE is typed along the upper diagonal in italics
Consumer
Standardized Average variance Composite
Construct/items loading extracted reliability
perceptions of
brand
Advertising 0.55 0.82
My brand is intensively advertised, compared to
marketing
competing brands 0.90**
The advertising campaigns for my brand are seen
frequently 0.84**
The ad campaigns for my brand seem very expensive
compared to others 0.65**
I remember the last advertising campaign for my brand 0.50**
Sponsorship 0.65 0.88
My brand’s sponsorship activities are good 0.88**
I find my brand’s sponsorship activities very positive 0.86**
My brand’s sponsorship activities are very appealing 0.79**
I am favourably disposed towards my brand’s
sponsorship activities 0.67**
Social media 0.71 0.91
Social media communications for my brand meets my

expectations 0.88**
Social media communications for my brand are very
attractive 0.84**
I am satisfied with social media communications for my
brand 0.84**
Social media communications for my brand perform well,
when compared with social media communications of
other companies 0.80**
Corporate social responsibility 0.52 0.81
The brand believes in philanthropy and giving
generously to worthy causes 0.82**
The brand is genuinely concerned about consumer
welfare 0.69**
The brand is highly concerned about environmental
issues 0.68**
The brand is highly involved in community activities 0.68**
Clarity of positioning 0.62 0.83
My brand conveys a clear image in all its actions 0.86**
My brand has an image that is easy to understand 0.82**
My brand clearly communicates what it stands for 0.66**
Brand authenticity 0.50 0.85
Considering its brand promise, my brand does not
pretend to be someone else 0.80**
My brand knows exactly what it stands for and does not
promise anything which contradicts its character 0.75**
My brand does not seem to distort itself 0.69**
I find the brand as truly authentic 0.68**
The brand shows self-esteem 0.65**
My brand possesses a clear philosophy which guides the
brand promise 0.64**
Product category involvement 0.62 0.86
I consume energy drinks often 0.90**
Energy drinks are very important to me 0.83**
I am very involved with energy drinks 0.82** Table III.
I consider myself an energy drink expert 0.54** Construct validity
(continued) estimates
EJM
Standardized Average variance Composite
Construct/items loading extracted reliability
Brand relevance in category 0.56 0.83

When purchasing energy drinks, I focus mainly on the
brand 0.90**
The brand plays – compared to other things – an
important role 0.84**
The brand plays a significant role as to how satisfied I
am with the product 0.61**
To me, it is important to purchase a brand name product 0.60**
Price image 0.77 0.91
The products of my brand of energy drink have high
prices 0.94**
My brand of energy drink is expensive 0.92**
My brand of energy drink charges a premium price 0.77**
Price deals 0.55 0.78
Too many times price deals for my brand are presented 0.75**
Price deals for my brand are emphasized more than
seems reasonable 0.75**
Price deals for my brand are frequently offered 0.72**
Brand satisfaction 0.60 0.82
I am satisfied with my chosen brand of energy drink 0.83**
My brand of energy drink meets my expectations 0.77**
I did the right thing when I signed up with this brand 0.73**
Store image 0.74 0.85
The stores where I can buy my brand carry products of
high quality 0.93**
The stores where I can buy my brand would be of high
quality 0.79**
Distribution intensity 0.56 0.79
The number of the stores that deal with [brand] is more
than that of its rivals 0.89**
More stores sell my brand as compared to its competing
brands 0.68**
My brand is distributed through as many stores as
possible 0.65**
Table III. Note: **p < 0.01
it indicates that other elements of the marketing mix – barring brand satisfaction – have
little influence on consumers’ brand authenticity judgements.
Lastly, we examined the total effect of brand marketing communication on brand
authenticity to inform practitioners of the total potency of perceived brand marketing
communications in shaping brand authenticity. We found this total effect to be strong (i.e.
standardized total effect = 0.69**, p < 0.01; 95 per cent CI = 0.52-0.84).
6. Discussion
6.1 Theoretical implications
We offer several theoretical implications. First, our focus on perceived authenticity
complements the literature that outlines the role of consumer perceptions in shaping
authenticity (Beverland and Farrelly, 2010; Gundlach and Neville, 2012), in viewing
Hypothesized path b CR 95% CI Bootstrap P Path support
Consumer
perceptions of
Brand marketing communications ! brand
Brand authenticity 0.50** 4.94 0.29-0.69 0.001 Supported
Brand marketing communications ! marketing
Clarity of positioning 0.55** 5.85 0.36-0.74 0.001 Supported
Clarity of positioning ! Brand
authenticity 0.35** 4.60 0.18-0.50 0.001 Supported
Control influences
Brand satisfaction ! Clarity of
positioning 0.27** 3.76 0.08-0.44 0.002 Supported
Store image ! Clarity of positioning 0.04 0.59 0.20-0.11 0.62 Not supported
Price ! Clarity of positioning 0.09 1.42 0.22-0.05 0.21 Not supported
Price deals ! Clarity of positioning 0.03 0.37 0.19-0.15 0.73 Not supported
Brand popularity ! Clarity of
positioning 0.06 0.87 0.21-0.08 0.40 Not supported
Distribution intensity ! Clarity of
positioning 0.01 0.08 0.17-0.19 0.90 Not supported
Brand satisfaction ! Brand

authenticity 0.16* 2.58 0.03-0.31 0.01 Supported
Store image ! Brand authenticity 0.06 1.12 0.19-0.06 0.30 Not supported
Price ! Brand authenticity 0.05 1.02 0.17-0.06 0.36 Not supported
Price deals ! Brand authenticity 0.03 0.49 0.18-0.11 0.70 Not supported
Distribution intensity ! Brand
authenticity 0.04 0.57 0.20-0.12 0.61 Not supported
Brand popularity ! Brand authenticity 0.01 0.14 0.15-0.13 0.90 Not supported
Indirect effect
Brand marketing communications !
Brand authenticity 0.19** – 0.11-0.32 0.000 Supported Table IV.
Notes: **p < 0.01; Beta ( b ) is the standardized coefficient; CR is Critical Ratio; CI is confidence interval; Structural model
Bootstrap P is the bootstrapped significance estimates
authenticity as a facet of brand image based on consumer perceptions/beliefs (Morhart et al.,

2015). This differs from some pioneering studies that examine authenticity from a brand
identity perspective (Beverland, 2006; Brown et al., 2003). We concur that authenticity is
negotiated and socially constructed (Leigh et al., 2006), and is therefore not limited to
consumer assessments of niche or heritage-orientated brands. Similarly, brand identity
represents the marketer’s aspirations for the brand, whereas brand image is the consumer’s
perception of the brand (Madhavaram et al., 2005). Moreover, perceived brand authenticity
as operationalized in our study incorporates an interpersonal relationship perspective (Ilicic
and Webster, 2014; Schallehn et al., 2014). Our conceptualization of brand authenticity
complements the literature on consumer-brand relationships in that consumers’ brand
authenticity perceptions may influence a consumer–brand relationship.
Second, we adopt an integrative focus on brand marketing communications. We argued
that consumers tend to develop an overall impression of a brand’s communication activity.
Our holistic approach is novel and is based on the synergistic use of brand marketing
communications in projecting a unified identity across various communication options
(Madhavaram et al., 2005). Our study suggests that consumers’ can form holistic evaluations
of brand marketing communications. Third, we explicate the explanatory effects of brand
marketing communications on brand authenticity. We introduce consumer evaluation of
EJM brand marketing communications as an antecedent of brand authenticity, expanding its
nomological network, simultaneously addressing a need for examining managerially
controllable drivers of brand authenticity (Bruhn et al., 2012). We observed that brand
marketing communications impact brand authenticity via two pathways. The first pathway
entails a direct effect of brand marketing communications on brand authenticity. This result
provides empirical support to meaning-transfer mechanisms (McCracken, 1986), whereby
cultural meaning is transferred by the marketing communication system into brands. The
second pathway entails a mediated effect, in which brand marketing communications
clarifies the brand positioning, which in turn shapes brand authenticity. Our finding is
consistent with Fritz et al. (2017) who observed a positive influence of brand clarity on
consumer-perceived authenticity.
Fourth, our study examined perceived brand authenticity development within the unique
context of low product category involvement and high brand relevance in category, as
signalled by the mean scores of these variables. Interestingly, although product category
involvement was low, consumers placed a high degree of importance on brands within the
category. A high brand relevance is indicative of the variety and strengths of constituent
brands in that category (Fisher et al., 2010). Consumers seemed highly brand-driven, and
may be highly receptive to brand marketing communications. Our results seem to
compare favourably with a high-brand-involvement brand processing strategy
(Mitchell, 1981), whereby consumers devote a high degree of attention to the available
marketing communications, and form evaluations based on exposure to such
communications (Mitchell, 1981). The strong effect of consumer evaluation of brand
marketing communications on brand authenticity seems to support this logic. Further,
the low-involvement context also adds value, suggesting that firms operating in low-
involvement, mass-marketed product categories can shape consumer perceptions of
brand authenticity through their brand communications, reinforcing our view that
authenticity judgements are not limited to high-end brands.
Lastly, the results pertaining to the control variables, the other elements of the marketing
mix – except for brand satisfaction – have little influence on brand authenticity judgements.
Perhaps consumers might not consider the product’s distribution, its price and image of
stores that carry the product as relevant to their brand authenticity judgement because of
the low product category involvement. Therefore, in case of low energy drink involvement,
we offer early insights that price- and distribution-related variables play little role in
influencing consumer brand authenticity. Future research may consider designing studies
in high-involvement product categories to examine whether or not other marketing mix
elements have a role to play in shaping brand authenticity.
6.2 Managerial implications

First, our results indicate that perceptions of brand authenticity can be developed for FMCG
brands, specifically energy drinks, with the use of marketing communications. A
managerial implication of the perceived authenticity perspective is that a perception of
authenticity can be pivotal to success when brands tend to become functionally congruent in
mature categories such as energy drinks. Thus, a perception of authenticity can serve as a
competitive point-of-difference in such markets. Further, based on our findings, we suggest
that marketers of low-involvement, mass-marketed products, can influence consumers’
perceptions of brand authenticity and that this is especially important for those products
where consumers place a high degree of importance on the brand within the product
category. It is important to communicate with these consumers before they reach the store,
to persuade them of the brand’s authenticity and to fulfil the promise of that authenticity.
Second, our results indicate that consumer evaluations of brand marketing Consumer
communications help shape clarity of brand positioning, which in turn affects perceived perceptions of
brand authenticity. A managerial implication of this indirect effect of brand marketing
communication on brand authenticity is that investments towards enhancing the interim
brand
outcome of clarity of positioning matter. However, such investments must complement the marketing
overall brand marketing strategy. Higher expenditure alone is not going to lead to a
successful program. Making campaigns that are understandable by the audiences may help
reap greater benefits from the campaign. For developing authenticity (as we define it), every
element of the communication strategy must incorporate and effectively communicate the
philosophy, promise and character of the brand to consumers and ultimately, deliver on that
promise. These key elements of the brand identity need to be communicated by the brand
stewards as accurately as possible so that the brand image matches as closely as possible to
the brand identity (Madhavaram et al., 2005).
Third, given that brand marketing communications normally speak with one voice, a
managerial implication of adopting an integrative focus on brand marketing
communications is that consumers will evaluate such communications holistically, and that
these efforts must be measured and managed accordingly. A holistic impression of a brand’s
marketing communication in cluttered FMCG marketplace is vital to subsequent
perceptions of brand authenticity. This may be particularly true among Millennials who are
less reliant on traditional advertising for marketing information (Atkinson, 2015) and less
trusting of that information if it comes solely from advertising (Huffington Post, 2017). We
observed that evaluations of sponsorships and social media activity played particularly
strong roles in respondents’ evaluations of brand marketing communications, consistent
with how millennials engage with brand communications. A clear recommendation is that
managers must consider adopting an integrative view that combines Millennials’
evaluations of advertising, social media, sponsorships and CSR activity. This approach, as
we observed in this study, was potent in affecting consumer-perceived brand authenticity.
Fourth, we shed light on how millennials may respond to brand marketing
communications. Normally, these consumers are viewed by firms as being less responsive to
conventional mass marketing communications. We present a more optimistic view. Our
results inform practitioners about how millennials’ evaluation of a brand’s marketing
communications translates into perceptions of brand authenticity. We outline clear
pathways between Millennials’ evaluation of brand marketing communications and
perceptions of brand authenticity. A clear recommendation is to pretest the favourability of
marketing communications with millennial consumers so as to maximize the potential
benefits.
7. Limitations and future research

As with any research, there are limitations in this work. First, we did not examine the
influence of message content. We assumed message strategy as integrated, aimed at
creating the intended identity elements and focused on consumer evaluations of marketing
communications. Future research may incorporate message elements in the model, though
considering the inextricable linkage between a given medium and the projected message.
Second, our results pertain to the energy drinks category which represents one category
amongst the broad FMCG sector. We tentatively expect that our results may potentially
extend to similar mass-marketed, low-involvement, FMCG categories such as potato chips
and soft drinks. However, extrapolating our results to other categories will require further
research. One interesting avenue for future research is to examine our hypotheses across
low-involvement service categories such as drive-through coffee or fast food. Further, high-
EJM involvement products might not respond the same way to brand communication elements
and so future studies should investigate consumer perceptions of brands in high-
involvement categories such as clothing and luxury goods. Next, although Millennials were
the appropriate demographic group for the product category in this study, studies with
other groups might lead to different outcomes. The model was tested in the United States
and so it should be tested in other countries for robustness. Another limitation of the study
is its cross-sectional nature, a limitation of survey research. Future studies could investigate
how marketers develop or strengthen brand authenticity by various means. Finally, we did
not address executional aspects of brand marketing communication, e.g. the volume or
frequency of communication. These could well influence consumers’ perceived authenticity.
8. Conclusion
In response to the consumer quest of authentic offerings, building brand authenticity has
emerged as a strategic imperative for marketers. The issue that we addressed is how
consumer evaluations of brand marketing communications may help develop consumer
perceptions of brand authenticity. Using the context of Millennials evaluating energy drink
brands, we showed that brand marketing communications not only impacted brand
authenticity directly, but also indirectly via affecting clarity of brand positioning. The
strong overall effect of brand marketing communications on brand authenticity leads us to
advocate the importance of brand marketing communication in an authenticity-building
strategy. Brand authenticity as a differentiating factor will likely shape the marketing
landscape in the years to come, and our study suggests that brand marketing
communications will likely remain a potent tool for marketers towards building brand
authenticity among their consumers.
References
Aggarwal, P. (2004), “The effects or brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 87-101.
Andrews, J.C., Lysonski, S. and Durvasula, S. (1991), “Understanding cross-cultural student perceptions
of advertising in general: implications for advertising educators and practitioners”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 15-28.
Arnould, E.J. and Price, L.L. (2000), “Questing for self and community”, in The Why of Consumption:
Contemporary Perspectives on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires, S. Ratneshwar, Mick, D. G.
and Huffman, C. (Eds), Routledge, New York, NY.
Atkinson, C. (2015), “Millennials ditching their TV sets at a record rate”, (16 February), available at:
http://nypost.com/2015/02/16/millenials-ditching-their-tv-sets-at-a-record-rate/ (accessed 14
November 2016).
Aurier, P. and N’Goala, G. (2010), “The differing and mediating roles of trust and relationship
commitment in service relationship maintenance and development”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 303-325.
Authentic Brand Index (2016), available at: www.authenticbrandindex.com (accessed 25 October 2016).
Baek, T.H. and Morimoto, M. (2012), “Stay away from me”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 59-76.
Beverland, M. (2006), “The ‘real thing’: branding authenticity in the luxury wine trade”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 251-258.
Beverland, M.B. and Farrelly, F.J. (2010), “The quest for authenticity in consumption: consumers’
purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 838-856.
Beverland, M.B., Lindgreen, A. and Vink, M.W. (2008), “Projecting authenticity through advertising: Consumer
consumer judgments of advertisers’ claims”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 5-15.
perceptions of
Beverland, M.B. and Luxton, S. (2005), “Managing integrated marketing communication (IMC) through
strategic decoupling: how luxury wine firms retain brand leadership while appearing to be
brand
wedded to the past”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 103-116. marketing
Brasel, S.A. and Gips, J. (2011), “Red Bull ‘gives you wings’ for better or worse: a double-edged impact
of brand exposure on consumer performance”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 57-64.
Brown, S., Kozinets, R.V. and Sherry, J.F. Jr (2003), “Teaching old brands new tricks: retro branding and
the revival of brand meaning”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 19-33.
Bruhn, M., Schoenmüller, V., Schäfer, D. and Heinrich, D. (2012), “Brand authenticity: towards a deeper
understanding of its conceptualization and measurement”, Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 40, pp. 567-576.
Buil, I., De Chernatony, L. and Martínez, E. (2013), “Examining the role of advertising and sales
promotions in brand equity creation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 115-122.
Carpenter, G.S. (1989), “Perceptual position and competitive brand strategy in a two-dimensional, two-
brand market”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 1029-1044.

Chhabra, D. (2008), “Positioning museums on an authenticity continuum”, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 427-447.
Choi, H., Ko, E., Kim, E.Y. and Mattila, P. (2015), “The role of fashion brand authenticity in product
management: a holistic marketing approach”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 233-242.
Christodoulides, G., De Chernatony, L., Furrer, O., Shiu, E. and Abimbola, T. (2006), “Conceptualising
and measuring the equity of online brands”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22 Nos 7/8,
pp. 799-825.
Diamond, N., Sherry, J.F., Muniz, A.F., McGrath, M.A., Kozinets, R.V. and Borghini, S. (2009),
“American girl and the brand gestalt: closing the loop on sociocultural branding research”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 118-134.
Emond, J.A., Sargent, J.D. and Gilbert-Diamond, D. (2015), “Patterns of energy drink advertising over
US television networks”, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 120-126.
Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998), “Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 131-157.
Feldman, J.M. and Lynch, J.G. (1988), “Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on
belief, attitude, intention and behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 421-435.
Finne, Å. and Grönroos, C. (2009), “Rethinking marketing communication: from integrated marketing
communication to relationship communication”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 15
Nos 2/3, pp. 179-195.
Fisher, M., Völckner, F. and Sattler, H. (2010), “How important are brands? A cross-category, cross-
country study”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 823-839.
Fitzpatrick, K.R. (2005), “The legal challenge of integrated marketing communication (IMC): integrating
commercial and political speech”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 93-102.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fritz, K., Schoenmueller, V. and Bruhn, M. (2017), “Authenticity in branding–exploring antecedents and
consequences of brand authenticity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 324-348.
Fuchs, C. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2010), “Evaluating the effectiveness of brand-positioning
strategies from a consumer perspective”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Nos 11/12,
pp. 1763-1786.
EJM Goulding, C. (2000), “The commodification of the past, postmodern pastiche, and the search for
authentic experiences at contemporary heritage attractions”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 835-853.
Grayson, K. and Martinec, R. (2004), “Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their
influence on assessments of authentic market offerings”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31
No. 2, pp. 296-312.
Grayson, K. and Shulman, D. (2000), “Indexicality and the verification function of irreplaceable
possessions: a semiotic analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-30.
Gundlach, H. and Neville, B. (2012), “Authenticity: further theoretical and practical development”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 484-499.
Gwinner, K.P. and Eaton, J. (1999), “Building brand image through event sponsorships: the role of
image transfer”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 47-57.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Pearson College Division, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Heckman, M.A., Sherry, K. and de Mejia, E.G. (2010), “Energy drinks: an assessment of their market
size, consumer demographics, ingredient profile, functionality, and regulations in the United
States”, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 303-317.
Henderson, G.R., Iacobucci, D. and Calder, B.J. (1998), “Brand diagnostics: mapping branding effects
using consumer associative networks”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 111
No. 2, pp. 306-327.
Holt, D.B. (2002), “Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and
branding”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 70-90.
Holt, D.B. (2003), “What becomes an icon most?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 43-49.
Holt, H. (2007), “Jack Daniel’s America: iconic brands as ideological parasites and proselytizers”, in
European Advances in Consumer Research, Borghini, S, McGrath, M A, Otnes, C. (Eds),
Association for Consumer Research, Duluth, MN, Vol. 8, pp. 145-149.
Homburg, C., Koschate, N. and Hoyer, W.D. (2005), “Do satisfied customers really pay more? A study of
the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to pay”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 84-96.
Huffington Post (2017), “Millennials want brands to be more authentic. here’s why that matters”, 20
January 2017, available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-tyson/millennials-want-brands-
t_b_9032718.html (accessed 30 November 2017).
Ilicic, J. and Webster, C.M. (2014), “Investigating consumer–brand relational authenticity”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 342-363.
Jaffe, E.D. and Pasternak, H. (1997), “A note on the response effects of laboratory-versus respondent-
located computer-administered questioning”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 237-243.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (2003), “Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 595-600.
Keller, K.L. (2009), “Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications environment”,
Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 15 Nos 2/3, pp. 139-155.
Kim, A.J. and Ko, E. (2012), “Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An
empirical study of luxury fashion brand”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 10,
pp. 1480-1486.
Krishnan, H.S. (1996), “Characteristics of memory associations: a consumer-based brand equity
perspective”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 389-405.
Law, S. (2002), “Can repeating a brand claim lead to memory confusion? The effects of claim similarity Consumer
and concurrent repetition”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 366-378.
perceptions of
Leigh, T.W., Peters, C. and Shelton, J. (2006), “The consumer quest for authenticity: the multiplicity of
meanings within the MG subculture of consumption”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
brand
Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 481-493. marketing
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional
research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-121.
Lukovitz, K. (2017), “Kellogg Continues ‘What Gets You Started?’ For Winter Games (October 30)”,
available at: www.mediapost.com/publications/article/309491/kellogg-continues-what-gets-you-
started-for-win.html (accessed 24 November 2017).
McCracken, G. (1986), “Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and
movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
McKinsey (2015), “Three myths about growth in consumer packaged goods”, June, available at www.
mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/three-myths-about-growth-in-
consumer-packaged-goods (accessed 21 August 2017).
Madhavaram, S., Badrinarayanan, V. and McDonald, R.E. (2005), “Integrated marketing

communication (IMC) and brand identity as critical components of brand equity strategy:
a conceptual framework and research propositions”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 69-80.
Mazodier, M. and Merunka, D. (2012), “Achieving brand loyalty through sponsorship: the role of fit and
self-congruity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 807-820.
Medgadget.com (2016), “Energy drinks market US Industry analysis and forecast till 2025”, 20 October,
available at: www.medgadget.com/2016/10/energy-drinks-market-us-industry-analysis-and-
forecast-till-2025.html (accessed 23 October 2016).
Menon, S. and Kahn, B.E. (2003), “Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: when do
they impact perception of sponsor brand?”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 316-327.
Mitchell, A.A. (1981), “The dimensions of advertising involvement”, In NA – Advances in Consumer
Research, Kent, B. and Monroe, A. A. (Eds), Association for Consumer Research, MI, Vol. 08,
pp. 25-30.
Mitchell, D. (2015), “These Are the Top 5 Energy Drinks”, 11 May, available at: http://time.com/
3854658/these-are-the-top-5-energy-drinks/ (accessed 23 October 2016).
Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guevremont, A., Girardin, F. and Grohmann, B. (2015), “Brand authenticity: an
integrative framework and measurement scale”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 200-218.
Nan, X. and Heo, K. (2007), “Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives:
examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 36
No. 2, pp. 63-74.
Napoli, J., Dickinson, S.J., Beverland, M.B. and Farrelly, F. (2014), “Measuring consumer-based brand
authenticity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 1090-1098.
Napoli, J., Dickinson-Delaporte, S. and Beverland, M.B. (2016), “The brand authenticity continuum:
strategic approaches for building value”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 13/14,
pp. 1-29.
Netemeyer, R.G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth, F. (2004),
“Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 209-224.
Newman, G.E. and Dhar, R. (2014), “Authenticity is contagious: brand essence and the original source
of production”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 371-386.
EJM O’Guinn, T., Allen, C., Semenik, R.J., and Scheinbaum, A.C. (2014), Advertising and Integrated Brand
Promotion, Cengage Learning, Stamford, CT.
Pappu, R. and Cornwell, T.B. (2014), “Corporate sponsorship as an image platform: understanding the
roles of relationship fit and sponsor–sponsee similarity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 490-510.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K. and Hayes, A. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Roderick, L. (2016), “Why Coca-Cola’s CokeTV must prioritise authenticity to reach young consumers”,
Marketing Week, 19 January, available at: www.marketingweek.com/2016/07/04/why-coca-
colas-coketv-must-prioritise-authenticity-to-reach-young-consumers/ (accessed 18 October 2016).
Schallehn, M., Burmann, C. and Riley, N. (2014), “Brand authenticity: model development and empirical
testing”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 192-199.
Schivinski, B. and Dabrowski, D. (2016), “The effect of social media communication on

consumer perceptions of brands”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 189-214.
Schultz, F., Castello, I. and Morsing, M. (2013), “The construction of corporate social
responsibility in network societies: a communication view”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 115 No. 4, pp. 681-692.
Sichtmann, C. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2013), “The impact of perceived brand globalness, brand origin
image, and brand origin–extension fit on brand extension success”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 567-585.
Simmons, C.J. and Becker-Olsen, K.L. (2006), “Achieving marketing objectives through social
sponsorships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 154-169.
Spears, N., Mowen, J. and Chakraborty, G. (1996), “Symbolic role of animals in print advertising:
content analysis and conceptual development”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 87-95.
Spiggle, S., Nguyen, H.T. and Caravella, M. (2012), “More than fit: brand extension authenticity”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 967-983.
Statista.com (2016), “Statistics and facts on the energy drinks in the US (March 29)”, available at: www.
statista.com/topics/1687/energy-drinks/ (accessed 14 November 2016).
Stern, B. (1994), “Authenticity and the textual persona: postmodern paradoxes in advertising
narrative”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 387-400.
Villarejo-Ramos, A.F. and Sánchez-Franco, M.J. (2005), “The impact of marketing communication and
price promotion on brand equity”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 431-444.
Westberg, K. and Pope, N. (2014), “Building brand equity with cause-related marketing: a
comparison with sponsorship and sales promotion”, Journal of Marketing Communications,
Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 419-437.
Yazdanparast, A., Joseph, M. and Muniz, F. (2016), “Consumer based brand equity in the 21st
century: an examination of the role of social media marketing”, Young Consumers, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 243-255.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand
equity scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand
equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 195-211.
Young and Rubicam (2013), “Let’s Get Real – The Power of Brand Authenticity”, available at: http:// Consumer
www.yr.com/articles/lets-get-real-power-brand-authenticity (accessed 4 November 2016).
perceptions of
Further reading brand
Advertising Age (2016), Brand Authenticity: Is It for Real? Three Tips for Marketers to Reach marketing
Millennials by Being Truly Authentic (23 March), http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/brand-
authenticity-real/303191/ (accessed 4 November).
About the authors

Abhishek Dwivedi (PhD Marketing) is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing in the School of Management
and Marketing, at Charles Sturt University. He conducts research in brand equity, brand extensions,
consumer-brand relationships, brand engagement and social entrepreneurship. Some of his research
appears in the Journal of Brand Management, the Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, the
Journal of Product and Brand Management and the International Journal of Advertising. Abhishek
Dwivedi is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: adwivedi@csu.edu.au
Robert McDonald (PhD University of Connecticut) is the United Supermarkets Professor of
Marketing in the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University. In addition to work in
branding, he conducts research in strategy and non-profit marketing. He has published in the Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, the Journal of Advertising, the Journal of World Business and
Industrial Marketing Management.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Building Brand Authenticity in Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Via Consumer Perceptions of Brand Marketing Communications

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Building Brand Authenticity in Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Via Consumer Perceptions of Brand Marketing Communications

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

European Journal of Marketing

Building brand authenticity in fast-moving consumer goods via consumer

References: this document contains references to 88 other documents.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

deﬁne an authentic brand as one that is perceived by consumers as having a clear

2. Brand authenticity: Literature review

Shelton (2006) in terms of objective, constructive and existential

is derived from consumer–object interactions, whereas a self-identity authenticating

3. Conceptual framework: building brand authenticity via consumer-evaluated

is conceptualized as the consumer perception of a brand’s involvement in CSR, reﬂecting a

3.2 Brand marketing communication and brand authenticity

MARKETING MIX CONTROLS:

4.2 Data collection method

5.2 Common method bias

5.3 Non-response bias

5.6 Structural model

Social media communications for my brand meets my

Brand relevance in category 0.56 0.83

Brand satisfaction ! Brand

authenticity as a facet of brand image based on consumer perceptions/beliefs (Morhart et al.,

6.2 Managerial implications

7. Limitations and future research

brand market”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 1029-1044.

Madhavaram, S., Badrinarayanan, V. and McDonald, R.E. (2005), “Integrated marketing

Schivinski, B. and Dabrowski, D. (2016), “The effect of social media communication on

About the authors

Potrebbero piacerti anche