You are on page 1of 15

International Journal of Hospitality Management 76 (2019) 271–285

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhm

Influence of brand signature, brand awareness, brand attitude, brand T
reputation on hotel industry’s brand performance

Pantea Foroudi
The Business School, Middlesex University London, United Kingdom

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper develops a multi-disciplinary measure of the brand signature construct by means of literature review
Brand signature and primary data analysis. This study explains that brand signature involves (i) endorsement of consistent
Brand attitude consumer attitude toward diffusion of a brand name and brand logo (consists of typeface, design, and color); (ii)
Brand awareness the expression and pursuit of a distinct message and the quality of the organization to consumers as well as
Brand reputation
consistency in communication; and (iii) the implementation, support, and maintenance of hotel brand signature
Hotel brand performance
systems based on the use of online/offline media. SEM is employed in order to test the proposed model. The
results indicate that brand signature includes dissemination of its dimensions; brand attitude with two com-
ponents (brand association and brand belief); brand awareness consists of brand familiarity, and brand re-
cognisability; and consistency in brand reputation and prefaced by hotel brand performance implementation.
Brand signature is recommended as a tool useful for the service industry to manage their global hotel brand
reputation and performance.

1. Introduction corporate visual identity (Balmer, 2001; Van den Bosch et al., 2006),
used to condense firm personality and its values for effective stake-
Brand signature is an original, distinctive design based on the brand holder presentation (Bernstein 1986; Van Heerden and Puth, 1995; Van
personality and identity that is carried across all brand communica- Riel and Van den Ban, 2001). The favourability of a brand signature
tions. It comprises the essential communication, distinctiveness, and appeals to the extent to which consumers positively regard it and there
enduring features of a brand, which can reflect a brand’s image and is a growing need for international marketing scholars not only to adapt
reputation (Henderson and Cote, 1998; Melewar and Saunders, 1998) to changing global market conditions but also to contribute to public
globally. A brand signature can be an efficient management tool to discourse on branding practices.
orchestrate the desired features that an organization wishes to convey For these reasons, global organizations spend substantial resources –
to its stakeholders, specific in global market. A brand signature can add money, time, and research on brand signature development, which
value for stakeholders and should clearly connect the name and logo of reflects organizational identity and helps mold its image in a positive
the organization it represents in the global marketplace (Foroudi et al., way (Olins, 1989; Van Riel and Van den Ban, 2001). International
2014; Henderson and Cote, 1998). Brand signature management re- companies make an effort to create understanding and familiarity with
quires an understanding of company identity in terms of the name and the product via its brand logo and name (Bernstein, 1986) to increase
logo as a root of corporate identity and visual identity. both existing and prospective customers’ recognition (Smith, 1990). In
Brown et al. (2006) state that studies on brand identity and image addition, brand logo and brand name are used for communicating
has two main levels. The first is an organizational level concerning how image, cutting through clutter to gain attention and speeding up re-
a company develops a unique, distinct and enduring corporate identity. cognition of a company or product (Henderson and Cote, 1998; Van
The second, utilised here, is an individual level investigation, which Riel and Van den Ban, 2001). For all these reasons, a brand signature
aims to understand what company stakeholders think of it. Brand logo should be chosen carefully. Significant investments are required and
and name lie at the root of corporate identity (Balmer, 2001) to made as management expects an organizational logo and name to add
transmit the strategic, visual dimensions of identity to various audi- value to their reputation across cultural borders (Van Riel and Van den
ences (Hatch and Schultz, 1997; Van Riel and Van den Ban, 2001; Van Ban, 2001). The brand performance and reputation of a hotel therefore
Riel and Balmer, 1997). The logo and name are the main element of include the hotel’s physical appearance, such as logo and name, brand


Corresponding author.
E-mail address: P.foroudi@mdx.ac.uk.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.05.016
Received 19 October 2017; Received in revised form 18 March 2018; Accepted 16 May 2018
Available online 31 May 2018
0278-4319/ Crown Copyright © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

(Bottomley and Doyle. edge. Pittard (2001).458). Attitudes towards brand can be thought of as Brand signature is important as a means for companies to distin. An attract travellers towards the particular place.9 billion the likelihood of satisfaction of consumers’ attitudinally (Weiner. 1986) developed attri- Patricia Yates. communication to increase their significance as a product differentiator ceived little attention – the issue of managing brand signature con. This study examined consumers’ percep. 2011). So. and performance. The main elements of the brand In addition. they are testament to tourism’s in dynamic interactions and what causes inferences they may make importance as a driver of economic growth (Theguardian. 1989. to increase the brand performance. The result of this study aims to contribute to filling the nication activities (Dacin and Brown. the brand logo and name offer symbolic consumers. the corporate/brand should be shared. and Cote. For a long time. The notion of brand sig- gap of existing theory in this research field. 1992). attitudes toward the organization by designing and adjusting commu- 2014. the UK theory has been applied extensively in marketing and consumer beha- tourism industry is one of the main business sector to the country. 2001. image favorability impacts consumer attitudes and increase of 2% when compared with October 2016 (ons. 2001). 2009). 1998. As such.gov. A brand signature may be the first impression a consumer retical assumptions and anecdotal evidence from practice. attitude. marketing. VisitBritain’s director. companies and brands to build image with stakeholders (Henderson Design. hotel’s signature is hotel brand performance. UK hospitality attribute that is perceived as satisfying can be regarded as favorable and industry as a highly service-based in which the travellers will not be can result in positive attitudes toward a brand signature which increase able to view the services before booking them. are set to pass 40 m for the first time in 2018.com. tourism is the economy’s largest industry. 1989. 2007. cision-making (Mizerski et al. this empirical study reveals the degree to which a signature of the brand elements. attitude. Van sistently across countries. strengthen or weaken perceived building studies in this area. brand reputation and trust creation in order to increase hotel brand performance from two countries. This study applies attribution However. 2001) through the elements of the brand sig- signature is a complex research area with various issues which need nature which are i) corporate name (Leitch and Motion. and used to explain consumer de- shows that overseas residents made 40 million visits to the UK in Oc. such as name and logo. Social psychologists (Weiner. reputation. p. which is predicting tourists will spend a record £27bn over the knowledge and reputation to an audience. Attribution Most people think of tourism as simply a leisure activity. about particular behavior (Kelley and Michela.1... Van der Lans et al. Theoretical background logo when forming attitudes towards a company or brand and can be changed over the time. In UK. nature is grounded in various subjects. has of a company and can come to represent the corporate image. valuable export industries. extends past studies by examining the relationship between brand used interchangeably with corporate image and identity (Bernstein. ii) design (Alessandri. the authors conclude with a dis. Brand signature can be constructed to attain ences of such favourability on hotel brand performance globally? particular responses dependent upon the nature of the communications The following section delivers a brief and overall discussion re. which express the consumer level conceptual framework. limited at. This is attributed to the fact that the brand Riel and Van den Ban.. 1998). Inter- et al. Consumers may rely on existing attitudes towards brand name and 2. positive and consistent. Study vior studies (Mizerski et al. 1980. 1999) and ii) more in-depth investigation. succeed in expressing the A company’s brand signature can influence viewers’ attitudes to- values a company wishes to convey and its effects upon UK visitors and wards brand and over time. VisitBritain (2018) estimates that ‘overseas visits to the UK theory in relation to brand signature. 1991. what are the factors that influence brand representations of a brand. the brand signature is significant for decision-makers. The three main components of brand logo are i) typeface collect empirical evidence in an effort to analyse whether brand sig. (Olins. 2016. In contrast to the theo. 2001). brand logo was fore. 2014. this has decreased by 6% when compared with £1. However. there is a lack of explanatory research and theory signature are those factors that predict. 1979). Hagtvedt. A brand signature enables velop strategic positions to differentiate themselves and provide 272 . and corporate identity research have paid at. the first and main element to attract visitors which can assist in spe. national corporate decision-makers should seek to increase favorable putation and performance specific in global market (Foroudi et al. Brand signature. Attribution theory refers “to the perception or inference of cause” dustry and these results not only demonstrate Britain’s continued ability (Kelley and Michela. 2009) which influence on brand re. Though. It can promote long-term coming 12 months’.. behavior (Sen and Bhattacharya. this research is a first attempt to brand logo. It is also a fiercely competitive global in. according to VisitBritain Brand signature can be the major tool for transmitting consistent (2018). spent directly by domestic and international travelers in 2017. den Ban.. Brand signature are ubiquitous in the marketplace. Van Riel and Balmer. According to Weiner. brand reputation Finally. create reputation towards brand. hotels and restaurants expect busy favorable brand awareness. and desired marketing objectives. Attribution method determines tober 2017. The preceding is based upon attribution theory (Graham. 2001). 1979). Olins. 1989). brand reputation in order 1986. 2017. 1998. The brand signature is a key as aspect of signature favourability globally? In addition. The present study. in UK (Chang and Liu. A sequences. brand awarness. “tourism is one of the UK’s most bution theory to understand how people make sense of their world. Ac- tention has been directed to the effect of brand signature on consumer cording to Henderson and Cote (1998) and Van Riel and Van den Ban evaluations of brand signature (Henderson and Cote. Advertising helps firms de- guish themselves from competitors. company’s signature impacts on positive and desired attributes. (Henderson et al. brand attitude.. communication properties of a brand signature can influence individual Brand value of hotels can act as an intangible asset which helps to understanding and interpretation (Van Riel and Van den Ban. 2006). The perceptions customers have of garding the influence of nexuses between brand signature and its con. brand awareness. what are the main influ. 2001). which limitations of the research. Foroudi International Journal of Hospitality Management 76 (2019) 271–285 attitude and awareness. brand knowl. and internal/external 2018 with inbound tourism to increase their visits. 2. and the average cifying the quality of the services provided by a specific hotel company consumer encounters a multitude on any given day (Foroudi et al. which adds value to their organisational reputation tention to the importance of logos and names.uk. (Hatch and Schultz. Businesses use tion-based attributes to the brand signature management that has re.. In addition. Henderson and Cote. 1997). 1980). attitudes toward brand differ between con- cussion of the theoretical significance of this study. this is an 2000). consumers’ general liking or lack thereof. implications and sumers and can be impacted by aroused associations and beliefs. 2018). Furthermore. 2017). 2002). 2017). reputation. how individuals may succeed or fail to compete internationally for visitors.P. and iii) color nature favourably evaluation influences brand attitude. Lastly. In other words. which The next section describes the methodology employed by the authors to can add value to the reputation of an organisation (Van Riel and Van assess the proposed model. identification in branding. 2004). brand attitude. Olins. signature. there.

1998). 1994). 1989). recall that a brand is a member of a certain product category” (Aaker. 1993.. which help increase sales (Melewar and perceptions of a company’s identity (Balmer and Soenen.. Today’s logos and 273 . 2016. Brand signature. based on literature. 2010). which are transmitted consumers’ assessment of the brand a set of cumulative associations and by the brand signature (Foroudi et al. Therefore. p. p. 3) and conceptualised as con- that a consumer evaluation of corporate reputation has been discussed sisting of both brand recall and recognition (Keller.. liefs of what is enduring. Van Riel and Van den Ban. often utilizing strategy involving corporate advertising (Henderson and Cote.. character and an organisation’s signature describes attributes customers Brand associations defines as “the meaning of the brand for con. Firms deliver a promise to International marketing researchers have been interested in asses- customers through brand. 61. 1998). Brand awareness refers to the should match its organizational identity and represent the shared be. Yoo and Donthu. trustworthy if it can achieve the performance its customers expect sociation and belief to brand and reputation. The literature suggests that the brand logo and name nizational perceptions held by individuals. of a brand/company and its products or services (Chadwick and 2005). If pro. A well-chosen brand signature in advertising can contribute cues the product is a big advantage” (p. brand awareness positively influences orga- more favourably. from which expectations are formed. p. According to Aitken et al. 1995) which can develop 2003). aware- Management should communicate with external audiences in var. Consumer evaluations of the brand reputation have been dis. (2008). and Hypothesis 2. A brand can be signature has a significant effect on consumer attitude by creating as. and associations cognisable tend to be perceived and processed faster (Henderson et al. Brand signature can be described as a halo (Hatch and Schultz. 1991. 1998. 109. in international context. p. Companies need to differentiate themselves and brand is an opportunity for a company to present its brand reputation (Melewar et al.. 2011). (2002) confirm. and benevolence. Custo- consider the company to be respectful and trustworthy (Fombrun. reputation aims to generate more favorable company-or.. Based on Van Riel and Van den Ban company and its products. An creates measurable images in the minds of consumers and serves as a company’s identity describes what its stakeholders believe to be its mental switch or stimulus (Van Heerden and Puth. A well-designed brand signature may evoke an refers to consumers’ ability to retrieve the brand from memory. 3. Gilly and Wolfinbarger (1998) analysed the that consumers use to infer an evaluation of products and services with impact of global advertising upon an internal audience and the sig.291).145) and defines as “the ability for a buyer to recognize or (Dutton et al. Hatch and Schultz. mers can purchase products from the logo and name of a brand when 1996).P. ganization to create a sense of awareness through reputation. and central about the organization 2005. “international customers are they may have little direct knowledge of the product itself. A certain reputation of the 2. people attribute different associations to each logo which community to company operations (Melewar and Saunders. and influence consumers’ decision-making ious ways. People’s perceptions of a company familiarity that should augment sales. 2005). thermore. broad audience of viewers. Initially. recognisability. Awareness towards a Moreover. Customers consumers towards a logo and name of an organization may show how identify themselves strongly if the attributes they use to define the or- they evaluate the firm and brand. usually in some meaningful way” (Aaker. Therefore. (2003). Henderson and Cote. distinctive cue for an or- mises are not kept. 1997). 1998). Whereas attitude toward a brand corresponds to cussed as a basis of corporate identity messages. and brand reputation corporation/brand is created and customers choose the brand with the image that best fits with their self-image. 2009). breeding a high level of familiarity between Yoo and Donthu. Furthermore. Fur- literature focused on customers and the corporate reputation to re. distinctive.. A well-designed brand signature can evoke positive feelings of brand reliability and benevolence. should attract positive attention. 2001. Foroudi et al. which they are familiar. 1993. 2005. name and logo tend to trust the company’s products and services. People may have different reliable image and reputation. Brand Global brand reputation studies have focused on the effect of the signature contributes strongly to increased awareness and appreciation logo.60). 2017. Rossiter and Percy. 1999) on the Saunders. 2009). for emotional response (Van Riel. “strength of a brand’s presence in consumers’ minds” (Pappu et al. 2001).. p. consumers use the logo and name nificance of involving employees in the company’s communications.145) or “anything patitors. and beliefs (Brown et al. According motivational reaction and motivate customers to evaluate organizations to Lemmink et al. likely to play with symbols and messages and form mental pictures that The literature records the significance of brand signature and its may be quite different from those that were originally intended” awareness. held by customers (Van Heerden and Puth. fects customer awareness via familiarity and recognisability with the Karaosmanoğlu et al. Attributes towards consumers attitude which depends establishes a uniform favorable corporate reputation. Brand recall logo and brand name. brand awareness. impressions. Ex. managers should Walters. brand ganisation also define them (Ashforth and Mael. 2001).. the international marketing intended messages and audiences (Van der Lans et al. Indeed. Standardising corporate visual identity positively af- basis of their feelings. Pappu et al. p. 1993. 3). 2017. beliefs impacts trust and reputation in a brand regarding the reliability panding upon this discussion. 3. beliefs. familiarity has an triggers association and belief of the brand in people’s minds (Dowling. as indirect evidence of a product’s performance. logos and names that look re- present the association. Consumers familiar with a meaning between sender receivers. Pappu et al. ness. Henderson and Cote example. 2001. attitudes. Foroudi International Journal of Hospitality Management 76 (2019) 271–285 goodwill from consumers and stakeholders. p. 2006. Successful logo and brand upon association and belief impacts on brand’s reputation. Attributes of brand signature which depends upon brand 2001) articulate that a global brand signature increases the recognisa- name and logo impact on attitude of consumers towards brand. Hypothesis 1. services. Yoo and Donthu. Standardisation of one’s brand signature (the foremost try to project their company’s logo and name in order to create or element of corporate visual identity) assists companies in achieving a maintain a favorable image and reputation. potheses: Marketing researchers (Foroudi et al. 2001. as the basis of corporate identity messages transmitted by the brand 2005. customers have a poor experience. 2017) and Van Riel (1995) points out 1991. 2016. believe to distinguish the company and its services/products to com- sumers” (Keller. bility of the company and its products and services to consumers. linked in memory to a brand” and brand image as “a set of [brand] A brand signature should be easily interpreted at a glance by a associations. Pappu et al. brand and product has a critical role in aiding comparisons between iented information through media coverage and causes consumers to products and consequent purchase (Herrera and Blanco. 1995).. sing how brand signature can be a reliable. As Kohli et al. Hence the following hy. 1995). and consumers’ attitude on company reputation (Chun. one could posit that the attitudes of and benevolence that consumers attribute to this brand. p. a name and “logo that readily (p.. Van Riel. emotions. (2014. (Aurier and N’Goala.. brand. 1987. As a part of corporate identity management. 1995).2. and the receptiveness of the local (2001) study. 2011). when the product category or the needs fulfilled by the ca- (1998) claim that the brand name and logo can transfer a positive tegory are mentioned (Keller. influence on formation of the corporate reputation through reliability 2001). 2014.

Consumers’ awareness towards the company or brand catalyst for sales and profits to rise. It has the role of creating able and can be resulted in a more negative attitude toward the brand. and beliefs towards a particular organisa. The higher levels of con. and confidence in current and Within the context of marketing. Van der Lans et al. or variation and tion among brand awareness and brand attitude (Macdonald and Sharp. the reputation of a brand/company is a combination of relia- bility. 2002). 2007. and recognisability impacts on brand’s reputation. It can provide the and de Puente. Creating an awareness con. which changes over tribute that is not perceived as satisfying can be observed as unfavor- time. Brand benevolence is a cognitive type of purchase products they recognise as products that are familiar are reputation which is based on the functional capability of a brand (Oh. selection image can be attained relatively quickly but a good reputation 2000). the relationship between reputation tuations (Yasin et al. 2000. Attributes towards brand awareness which depends an aggregation of images. Attributes of brand signature which depends upon brand keholders over the years (Fombrun.574). which may last indefinitely (Fig. 2014.367). For example. Gotsi and Wilson (2001) state that since brand reputation is formed as Hypothesis 4.. 2009). 2000). On the other hand.P. Accordingly. improves the likelihood that the brand is kept in mind in purchase si. 1999. Brand awareness reflects the salience of the heuristic to reduce consumers' perceptions of risk when evaluating a brand in the customers’ mind. 1). 2003). a hotel brand performance can have a tsunami-like impact on affect attitudes. “individuals consciously assess the organization’s re- brand or company by creating association and belief of a target audi. all de. Brand and recognize a brand in diverse contexts. They concluded that awareness is critical to im.. profit-motivated actions” (Wang et al. brands that demonstrate appealing actions. and brand loyalty is one of “dynamism and stability. 2001. tomers’ interests and the motivation to do good for them” (p. 2014. association.3.596). 2002. 2016). p. strument whereby businesses use to impact on consumer attitude to (2011) put it. Foroudi International Journal of Hospitality Management 76 (2019) 271–285 names serve both company and consumer needs. that is. brand re-purchase. Social dulation in reputation alteration. Brand signature “should be chosen and designed with an eye toward relevant specific 2. Consumers’ awareness is an in. 1996). and. awareness. p. Brand reputation and brand performance marketing objectives” (Kohli et al. loyalty. value of building a brand portfolio (DelVecchio. Awareness can affect per. Brand bene- lates to the cognitive illustration of a brand. and provides insights on the scriptive and evaluative brand-related information” (p. p. As Karaosmanoğlu et al. Brand awareness and brand attitude (2001). if a brand faces any small un- company with long-standing sustainable competitive advantage. however. The attribute usually perceived as efforts having potential to cause switching behavior” (Oliver.. It past actions and future prospects that describes the firm’s overall appeal can be defined as a tool which emphases on defining and generating the to all of its key constituents when compared with other leading rivals” familiarity and recognisability of a target audience towards a particular (Fombrun. regularly favoured. activating a Thus. commitment to rebuy or re-patronise a preferred product or service cerning a cause or an initiative may eventually lead to positive and consistently in the future. It relates to the likelihood volence defined by Xie and Peng (2009) as “a sincere concern for cus- that a brand will come to mind and the ease with which it does so. they tend to base their ence towards a particular organisation. provides greater understanding on consumer attitude to brand by creating source of belief and association. create positive emotions and enhance recognition of the company and brand (Pittard et al. In order to identify final evaluations on the emotional appeal that organization holds for the success of consumer attitude to brand or company. and brand recommendation (De la Sabaté sumers’ possibility to purchase a product or services. it can be recommended that generating awareness can have takes time to build” (p. companies focuses on consumers’ plausible future actions of an organization – a combination which can awareness building in order to produce desired responses from the easily be lost. p. Aaker (1996) proposes that brand brand extension in a particular product category” (DelVecchio.463). It can be a consequence of improved can be emerged as one of the stepping-stones in the customer pur. admiration. putation when evaluating a company. reliability defines as “the ability of an existing brand name to act as a ceptions and attitudes. respect. stored image and reputation of the organization (Dowling. despite situational influences and marketing desirable changes in brand attitude. a company can also be considered the object of create favourable brand association and brand belief. (2017) and name and logo impact on awareness of consumers towards brand. The higher degree of awareness can improve con. or product. While defining emotional evaluations” (p. Customers consider themselves to be similar to brand (Foroudi et al..72). The pressure of a satisfying which can be viewed more favourably and can be resulted in competitive marketplace combined with fast technological growth has a more positive attitude toward the brand. the limits of brand extendibility and provide insights on the value of Macdonald and Sharp (2000) established that customers tend to building a brand portfolio.61). Brand benevolence is affect-oriented and concerns the “non- pacting behavior in purchase conditions. leading us to the fol- lowing hypothesis: Brand reputation is an immediate picture of a brand based on the aggregated multiple images held by both its internal and external sta- Hypothesis 3. Brand reliability advances the understanding of factors that and make it effective. provides greater under- meaning about a brand stored in consumer memory. which re. it is important to them. the two components of brand re- brand awareness can be defined as customer’s capability to distinguish putation are (i) brand reliability and (ii) brand benevolence. for instance product/service related marketers highlight on generating awareness between the public to issue. Brand awareness defined by Keller (2003) as a “personal tors that dilute or enhance brand strength. benevolence. it can be assumed that an individual global stakeholder’s emotional association to an organization has an impact on the image he/she forms of it. Given the widely acknowledged associa. Brand reliability is advancing the understanding of fac- audience. an at- an effect on product and promotional campaigns. Brand awareness in general. accumulating in customers’ minds over time upon familiarity.. brand loyalty and brand re-purchase as the main business outcomes tion or brand (Foroudi et al.1423). 2007). 274 . but it also an important factor that impacts on dilute and enhance brand strength.167). 1996. Brand loyalty defined as “a deeply held important behavioural consequences. stating on the limits of brand extendibility. current or future hotel brand performance which can improve brand chasing process.. are slightly far-reaching and vague Corporate reputation is “a perceptual representation of a company’s term that is impulsively recognised by individuals in most companies. The brand signature is used in the communication process to upon familiarity and recognisability impacts on brand’s attitude. 1993). into an overall evaluation of a company. Foroudi et al. 3) that reflects a brands sumers brand awareness make the brand more central which in turn interest in customers.4. Hypothesis 5. 2014). triggering recognition of an organization. A logo is a nonverbal cue for businesses.. Attributes towards consumers awareness which depends p. knowledge is important since it is not only does it strengthen the brand p. As stated by Walker (2010). According to Dowling 2. Brand awareness consists of brand familiarity and brand recognisability It is essential to understand that brand reputation is not always the (Keller.

“an important determinant knowledgeable informants. Majority of the respondents were visited the hotel Hypothesis 6. 2002.1%). 1987. and some college and mainly from Europe (55. Rossiter and Percy. Foroudi et al.. 27. than other stakeholders to have a relationship” with a company and Churchill (1999) declared that face-to-face questionnaire collection is brand (p. Though. 1987).. Pappu et al.8%) and 16. The measurement for the constructs of interest was based on es- Convenience sampling is based on employing participants who were tablished scales from previous research..191) which increase brand performance. and. which related to of sampling might create skewed data because of respondent mis. a non-random sampling technique) was 3. proven to be psychometrically easily accessible consumers of the global brand hotel from which 379 sound (Churchill. Many of the respondents were owner of a company. Kirby and Kent. Most of the leads us to the following hypothesis: respondents were between the ages of 40–59 and 31–39 (33. Attributes towards brand reputation which depends brand for the first time (72. almost ideal empirical setting to study the constructs of interest for several reasons. 2010). Brand loyalty is also presentative of the main population. 2001. it is likely that the most used sampling method in large-scale surveys. respondents were asked to indicate on pling helped us to promptly gather data and conduct analysis and has a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree. to (7) pros and cons like any other sampling approach. 1.2%. Materials and methodology partnership. 2011. It also guaran- if consumers have positive feelings.6%. 2003. Brand name was measured based on is appropriate method to employ. The sample survey was given an previous literature (Chan and Huang. Hair et al. this will positively affect Table 1 is a summary of the demographic characteristics. McCarthy and spondents to explain the characteristics of the entire population Perreault. 2014. master’s degree. Foroudi International Journal of Hospitality Management 76 (2019) 271–285 Fig. Measurement used in order to eliminate the potential bias in terms of the validity and generalisability of the scales (Bryman and Bell. and top executive manager (16. two sections: in the first section.2. Walsh et al. This that the majority of the respondents were female (60. and customers are more likely could offer further insights (Helm. Convenience sam. this method strongly agree.2% of the respondents were married or have domestic 3. (Bryman and Bell. Kotler and Armstrong. 392) often characterised by a favourable attitude towards a brand and The UK sample was drawn from London and the sample is re- repeated purchases of the same brand over time. brand re-purchase. 1997. 1979.5% and 28. 275 .. et al. twice a year. The questionnaire contains usable questionnaires were returned and analysed. the underlying distribution of responses toward global brand signature. they were queried about their hotel-visiting from the UK who booked a hotel room in the last year. non-probability ‘snowballing’ was used as a of the reputation a person holds of a company is the relationship that distribution method by asking initial informants to suggest others who the person has with an organization. 1999). 1977. Thus. 2007.6%. The results also demonstrated that a high percentage (30.145. 1998. 1997. and 14. Yoo et al.P. Henderson et al. used to provide satisfactory properties. respectively). 2004). Given Based on previous studies the two key components of brand signature that this research is to assess the framework and convenience sampling are brand name and brand logo.1. 2000).7%). In the UK survey. The survey consisted of questions conceptualised based on an attitudinal perspective (Chaudhuri and referring to consumers’ perceptions of the brand signature of the global Holbrook. Sample and data collection chelor's. 82.5%. In order to assess the familiarity of respondents with the The formulated hypotheses were examined via sample of customers companies in the study. 2007). and provide an patterns. 15. hotel impact on brand reputation and brand performance in the UK. Typeface (Childers and Jass. and desired attributes evaluations tees that the respondents targeted complete the questionnaires. The research conceptual model.. 2009). and brand recommendation. Churchill. (2009) argue that.1%. thus leading to biased and inconclusive findings.4%. 520 questionnaires were sent using convenience sampling (namely.. 2014. 2006). respectively) of the respondents had a ba- 3.9% are using this hotel brand upon reliability and benevolence impacts on brand’s performance. Collins.2 and 25. representation. It shows brand loyalty. Klink. A favorable brand reputation is a snapshot that The data were collected using the face-to-face method. design (Henderson and Cote. to increase reconciles the images of a company held by all its constituencies (Walsh the sample size and to make sure that the sample included the most et al. Foroudi opportunity to gain the essential information from a relatively few re. p. (2005) p. respec- tively). 41. stu- dent. towards brand reliability and benevolence.

Byon and Zhang.5 Civil servant 3 0. In a series of analyses. De Vaus. the correlation between each Europe 209 55. 10. 2009. 2001) were measured from existing scales. 2001. 2005.08 indicates acceptable Ang.5 Bachelor's degree 114 30. 2001.7 respective factors as well as to assess discriminant validity (Tabachnick Ethnicity origin and Fidell.8 (Hair et al. 2012. Low and approximation of error (RMSEA) 0. Nunnally.962 > 0. Yoo et al. examine internal relia- Office/clerical staffs 41 10. Initially. 1979.5 tracted for each construct was compared to the square of each off-di- agonal value within the Phi-matrix for that construct (Fornell and Larcker. The researchers bility (Baker and Balmer. df 1–4 1. and color (Aslam...3 constructs... The appropriateness of the mea- tion figures (N = 379).7 which the results show that the items loaded on eleven factors ranging Student 59 15. Aaker (1996). 2006).. (< 0. CFI 0.2 the items in each factor were internally consistent (Nunnally. 1978). Hatch and Schultz. 1988). never married 107 28.90 indicates good fit) is an incremental index that 2001.6) recommends that the Married or domestic partnership 156 41. High school or equivalent 36 9. Mattila.1 straint significantly worsened the model fit (Dx 2. The model fit was evaluated for overall Kim et al.9 examined using EFA to contribute to ten theoretically established More than Twice a year 39 10. Brand loyalty (Boo et al. Spears and Singh. Keller and Aaker. Kotler. 2000). measure brand familiarity (Ha and Perks. to fitness by referring to the fit indices as suggested by authors (Byrne. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) measures the fitness 276 . Additionally.7 to analyse interrelationships among large numbers of variables. 2006). 2001) and benevolence (Lombart and Louis. suggesting that each set of items represents a distinct un- 2006. (2005). 2010. 2013. 2006). 2005) and brand recognisa- 2001. and the root mean squared Alemán. Hair et al.8 variables.. estimates. 2004. Van Riel and Van den RMSEA provide sufficient unique information to evaluate a model (Hair Ban. Tabachnick and Fidell.927 and satisfied the minimum criteria for factor Housewife 26 6..686 to 0. The construct-level reliability. (Mattila. Van den Bosch et al. 1997. 2015.912 (> 0.2 4.. The use of Cronbach’s alpha for each factor confirmed that Job Top executive or manager 54 14. and Yoo and Donthu (2002). the variance extracted exceeded the Phi Foroudi et al.1 to determine the factor structure of measures. dentist or architect etc. the NFI index The initial measures were subjected to a series of factor and relia- does not control for degrees of freedom and it underestimates fit in bility analyses as preliminary tests of their performance within the small samples (Byrne 2001). However. 2006). 1981).7 et al. and to Using the hotel brand describe such variables in terms of their common underlying factors First time 276 72. as a statistical procedure. 2016.8 bility and discover underlying structures in relatively large sets of Worker 21 5. ships and the scale validation (Carmines and Zeller. 2006). Garver and Mentzer (1999) re- examined via brand reliability (Delgado-Ballester and Luis Munuera- commend the comparative fit index (CFI).. used incremental fit indices as well as absolute fit indices. higher relationship with each other.1 31–39 108 28.. 2000. 2007). Keller.70) for both samples (Hair Female 230 60. and brand re- 2006). 46 12. The scales are well above the commonly accepted requirements for psychometric Gender reliability tests (853 through 0. 2007).4 Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) recommend that the researchers use EFA Lawyer.. compared to the base model (Hair et al. Results and analysis 24–30 46 12. Odin et al. Hair et al. 2003.1 Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a sophisticated technique that Some college 97 25. 1992. observations in group analysis. surement model involves examining the statistical significance of each Frequency Percent factor loading and calculation of the composite reliability.9 loadings (Churchill. 2001. 1979. KMO’s Status Single. The results of EFA illus- Retired 34 9. Maxham and Netemeyer. 2001) used to measure brand derlying concept.. In all cases. 2009). 2002) scales were adopted to measure brand perfor- measures the proportion by which a model is improved in terms of fit mance according to the context (Table 2). Owner of a company 62 16. Kwon and Lennon. Yoo and Donthu. 1978).e.P.6 from 0. the con- Africa 46 12. The CFI and 2001. 1994. (0.061.. Brand association scales generation to test the proposed hypotheses and their causal relation- were adopted from Aaker (1991). using all available from previous studies (Batra and Ahtola. 2014. 2006. Education 2007).. The normed fit index (NFI) Wong and Sohal. Tabachnick and Fidell. The current study uses a positivist paradigm (i.4 pair of latent variables was constrained to 1. is used 40–59 127 33. logo.6 for EFA to deliver a parsimonious set of factors (Tabachnick and Fidell. ensures that items assigned to the same constructs reveal a Demographic profile of the hotel consumers compared with the main popula. Zhao and fit). Washburn and Plank (2002). brand re-purchase evaluates the fit of a model with the null baseline model (Hair et al. 2002. CFI is considered as an improved version of the NFI index (Hair commendation (Lee et al.. Pappu et al. 1991.860 > 0.. et al. the variance ex- Australia 21 5. Roper. The concept 2002). Male 149 39.6 is used in the advanced stages of the research process to test a theory Master's degree 103 27. Foroudi International Journal of Hospitality Management 76 (2019) 271–285 Table 1 reliability’. Table 3 reveals the rotated component matrix of the scale for Craftsman 33 8.5 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA). 2006.5 60-above 86 22. In every case.2 measure of sampling adequacy (0. Brand reputation was et al. Analysis of moment structure (AMOS) 24 for Windows software of brand belief was measured based on the items which were adopted was used to run the model to test the hypotheses.08 indicates acceptable fit) entire sample.2 relationship between items is statistically significant and is appropriate Separated/Divorced/Widowed 116 30. a quantitative This study measured consumer brand attitude based on two con- method) as it is more appropriate for theory testing rather than theory structs (brand association and brand belief).1 Asia 62 16.3 Age 18–23 12 3. Tavassoli.879 > 0. 2006). 2014. 2011).. Based on the criteria. 78 items relating to the brand logo were Twice a year 64 16.8 0:01) (Anderson and Gerbing. 2002). 2006. Foroudi et al. Sirdeshmukh et al. also called ‘composite (Hair et al. Dowling. 2006.0 trate that the items fit within the theoretical factor structures. Omar and Williams. In addition.2 about the relationship between a set of measurement items and their Doctoral degree or Higher 29 7. p 1–4 North and South America 41 10.. 2006. 2007).

(2014). McCarthy and Perreault (1987) The hotel’s name is unique versus the competition Chan and Huang (1997). Keller and Aaker (1992). (2014). Henderson et al. ABB4 Brand Awareness Brand Familiarity The hotel and the services are familiar to me Ha and Perks (2005) AWF1 The hotel and the services give me a feeling of goodwill AWF2 The hotel and the services has services for today’s consumer AWF3 The hotel and its services offers the kind of services. Batra and Ahtola (1991). (2014) BN10 Brand Logo Typeface The hotel’s typeface is attractive Henderson et al. (2014) LBT4 The hotel’s typeface communicates with me when the logo is Henderson et al. Kohli et al. Collins (1977). (2014) LBT5 simply not feasible The hotel’s typeface is interesting Foroudi et al. (2000) LBC3 The color of the logo affects my mood Aslam (2006). Foroudi et al. McCarthy and Perreault (1987) The hotel’s name communicates about the company and the Collins (1977). Van Heerden and Puth (1995). Klink BN5 (2003). McCarthy and Perreault (1987) The hotel’s name is always timely (does not get out of date) Chan and Huang (1997). (1957) LBC6 Brand Attitude Brand Association The brand is up-market Pappu et al. Kotler and Armstrong (1997). Keller (1993). Foroudi et al. (2015). (2014). (2005) LBD6 The design of the logo is meaningful Cohen (1991). Van den Bosch et al. Tavassoli (2001) LBC1 The color of the logo is recognizable Balmer and Gray (2000). Washburn and Plank ABA3 (2002). Fombrun and Van Riel (2004) LBD5 The design of the logo helps memorability Henderson and Cote (1998). Yoo and Donthu (2002) Some characteristics of the brand come to my brand quickly. (2014). Van Riel (1995) I like the design of the logo Henderson et al. (2000) LBC5 The color of the logo is meaningful Madden et al. Pappu et al. this hotel’s brand appeals to people like me. Kotler and BN7 Armstrong (1997) The hotel’s name is recognizable McCarthy and Perreault (1987). I would AWF4 use I think I have enough information to make an informed AWF5 judgment about the hotel’s services’ The hotel and the services are well-known in detail AWF6 Brand Recognisability (continued on next page) 277 . (2002) BN8 The hotel’s name is easy to recall Foroudi et al. Foroudi International Journal of Hospitality Management 76 (2019) 271–285 Table 2 The domain and items of construct in extant literature. Durgee and Stuart (1987). Robertson (1989) LBD1 The design of the logo communicates the brand’s identity Henderson and Cote (1998) LBD2 The design of the logo communicates clear meanings Huppatz (2005). Henderson and Cote (1998). Robertson (1989). Foroudi et al. ABA4 Brand Belief I believe. Melewar and Akel (2005). (2004). Foroudi et al. Construct Scale Items Major references Code Brand Signature Brand Name The hotel’s name is easy to remember Chan and Huang (1997). the hotel has good serviceability. Collins (1977). Kotler and Armstrong BN4 product’s benefits and qualities (1997) The hotel’s name is short and simple Chan and Huang (1997). Foroudi et al. (2003) LBD7 The design of the logo communicates the brand message Von Brachel and Earles (1999). 2009) I enjoy staying in this hotel ABB2 I like the way this hotel looks ABB3 I believe. Foroudi et al. Klink BN3 (2003). Klink BN6 pronounce (2003). Kim et al. 2006. Tavassoli (2001) LBC4 The color of the logo is pleasant Madden et al. Van den Bosch et al.P. (2014) LBT3 the brand The hotel’s typeface is immediately readable Childers and Jass (2002). (2005) ABA1 I am proud to stay in this hotel ABA2 I can easily imagining the brand in my mind Aaker (1991). (2014) LBT7 The hotel’s typeface is potent Foroudi et al. Kotler and Armstrong (1997). Kotler and Armstrong (1997). Van Riel and Van den Ban (2001) LBC2 The color of the logo is unique Madden et al. Aaker (1996). (2014). (2005). Collins (1977). Foroudi et al. LBD8 Schmitt (1995). Collins (1977). (2014) LBT2 The hotel’s typeface makes me have positive feelings towards Foroudi et al. (2000). (2014) LBT6 The hotel’s typeface is honest Foroudi et al. (2004). Foroudi et al. McCarthy and Perreault (1987) The hotel’s name is promotable and advertizable Chan and Huang (1997). (2014). (2014) LBT1 The hotel’s typeface is artistic Foroudi et al. Kotler and Armstrong (1997) The hotel’s name is pleasing when read or heard and easy to Chan and Huang (1997). Klink (2003). Osgood et al. Foroudi et al. (2003) LBD9 Color The color of the logo affects my judgments and behavior Aslam (2006). (2014). Kotler and BN2 Armstrong (1997). Foroudi et al. Foroudi et al. Collins (1977). Klink (2003) BN9 I like the hotel name Foroudi et al. Van Riel and Van den LBD4 Ban (2001) The design of the logo is distinct Henderson and Cote (1998). (2014) LBT8 Design The design of the logo is familiar Cohen (1991). (2014). Klink BN1 (2003). Collins (1977). (2014). Kwon ABB1 and Lennon (2005. (2006) LBD3 The design of the logo reflects the personality of the company Bernstein (1986).

off level.90 (Hair et al. RB7 Brand Performance Brand Loyalty I consider myself to be loyal to this hotel Pappu et al. Hatch and Schultz (2001). found a relationship between brand signature and consumer attitude 278 .. Omar and Williams (2006). the hotel will respond constructively and with care Judging from the hotel response. Byon and Zhang (2010). Byon and Zhang (2010). Washburn and Plank (2002). (2002). (2006) state that no specific value on any index can 2006. this hotel is contemporary Melewar et al. Spears and Singh (2004) RB1 to better satisfy its consumers This hotel renews its services and products to meet the RB2 expectations of its customers Judging from the hotel response. and Tucker- cremental index and one absolute index. (2009). RB4 great deal of benevolence Zhao and Roper (2011) This hotel treats customers with respect in responding to Low and Ang (2013) RB5 negative publicity Judging from the hotel response. the researcher should report at least one in. (2014) AWR2 decision. I have a strong intention to visit this hotel in my next trip PP2 I have a strong intention to visit this hotel in my distant future PP3 Brand Recommendation I would say positive things about this hotel to other people. 2007). Dowling (1994). Since these measures make it Based on the standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized difficult to provide a favorable fit for the model. the results provide that consumer be additional information. Xie and Peng (2009) RB6 customer’s best interest This hotel is concerned about consumers. Washburn and Plank (2002). Dowling (1994). Lee et al. these results can only relationships among the constructs. The brand and its services are recalled easily AWR3 The hotel and the services are distinct from other hotels AWR4 The hotel and its services are memorable AWR5 The hotel’s services are recognizable Baker and Balmer (1997).907 respectively. Boo et al. (2006). (2013) PL8 Brand Re-Purchase I consider this hotel as my first choice compared to other Mattila (2001). (2012). (2017) PL7 I believe. Tabachnick and Fidell. Van Riel and Van den Ban (2001) The hotel and its services recognizability have influence on my Foroudi et al. All were greater associated degrees of freedom.. (2012). Maxham and Netemeyer (2002) PP1 brands.. (2005). Pappu et al. The ad. (2002). Yoo and Donthu (2001. (2009). I rely on the hotel to favor the Sirdeshmukh et al. (2007) PL1 I will not buy other hotels if this hotel has room. the hotel has reliable promises for future performance Delgado-Ballester and Luis Munuera-Alemán (2001) RR1 Based on my experience. Wong and Sohal (2002) of a model compared with another model (Hair et al. and each cri- model fit and the researcher should be sure that all model specifications teria of fit thus indicated that the proposed measurement model’s fit should be done to best approximate the theory to be tested rather than was acceptable. Sirdeshmukh et al. (2000) I believe. GFI According to Hair et al. the measurement model separate models into acceptable and unacceptable fits. Hatch and Schultz (2001). in addition to the value and Lewis index (TLI) were 0. 2006). Both the GFI and AGFI are below the acceptable cut. freedom for the model into consideration (Byrne. (2001). compares the χ2 value of justed goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) corrects model complexity the model to that of the independence model and takes degrees of (0. I believe the brand has a Low and Ang (2013). this hotel is innovative Stock et al. Therefore. Yoo et al. Washburn and Plank (2002).. (2002). known as the non-normed fit index (NNFI). Keller (2003).913 and 0. Wong and Sohal PR1 (2002) I would recommend that someone visit this hotel PR2 I would encourage friends and relatives to visit this hotel Boo et al. Additionally. The model specifications can influence than the suggested threshold of 0.P. Xie and Peng (2009). Foroudi International Journal of Hospitality Management 76 (2019) 271–285 Table 2 (continued) Construct Scale Items Major references Code The hotel’s brand is recognizable Baker and Balmer (1997). increase model fit (Hair et al. also 0. AWR6 Henderson and Cote (1998).90) indicates below the acceptable cut-off level. 2006). Hair et al. Xie and Peng (2009). 2001.708 < 0.’s (2006) suggestion. Kotler (2000). (2005). AWR1 Kotler (2000). 2002). Following Hair of these three factors was nomologically valid (Steenkamp and Van et al. (2017). Van Riel and Van den Ban (2001) Brand Reputation Brand Reliability I think. 1991). I am confident that when Sirdeshmukh et al.785 < 0. Hair et al. I trust this hotel DelVecchio (2000) RR2 The services and products provided from this hotel are reliable RR3 Staying in this hotel would help avoid the problems I may have RR4 if I purchased some other hotel Brand Benevolence This hotel constantly tries to improve its services and products Lombart and Louis (2016). Trijp. this hotel has credibility Sweeney and Swait (2008) PL4 I enjoy staying in this hotel Melewar et al. (2009) PL3 willing to pay a higher price for this hotel I believe. Ponsonby-Mccabe and Boyle (2006) PL5 This hotel would be my first choice of hotel Boo et al. 2006). Mattila (2001). Yasin et al. the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI). the incremental fit index (IFI). Zhao and Roper (2011) RB3 customers have problems. PL6 Odin et al. Yoo and Donthu (2001) PL2 Compared to other hotels that have similar features. Lee et al. Omar and Williams (2006). Mattila PR3 (2001).90). I am Back and Parks (2003).

LBT8) Cross- loaded and low reliability LBT3 0.9657 1.6755 1. Construct Factor Mean Std.894 5.899 5. correlation.931 (continued on next page) 279 .855 5. descriptive statistics.26267 AWR5 0. AWR6) low reliability AWR3 0.0765 1.864 5.8232 1.88 0.866 ABA1 0.842 5.878 5.24480 BN5 0.795 5.492 0. LBC4) Cross-loaded and low reliability LBC3 0.19413 LBD5 0.3298 1.22075 Color @ 73.32521 Item deleted (LBT2.23099 Item deleted (BN2.5620 1.18013 BN6 0.916 5.0237 1.7018 1.27620 Item deleted (LBC1.21834 Item deleted (LBD1.6544 1. Deviation AVE SD Loading Signat.927 5.35 0.949 LBD2 0.850 5.5752 1.7414 1.18302 Item deleted (ABA2) low reliability ABA3 0. Perform.462 1 Brand Familiarity @ 71.686 5.8865 1.91 0. BN7.6596 1.16673 ABA4 0. BN10) Cross-loaded and low reliability BN3 0.95 0.887 5.396 1 Brand Association @ 56.826 Typeface @ 77.7916 1.918 5.82 BN1 0.411 0.81 0.6781 1.432 0.1003 1. LBD9) Cross-loaded and low reliability LBD3 0.39612 LBT5 . Brand Signature 1 Brand Name @ 0.41492 Brand Reputation 0.P.4274 1.6649 1.86 0.871 5. BN8. BN9.8681 1.12 0.73 ABB1 0.0554 1.802 5.5541 1.7704 1.1055 1.41868 LBT4 0.847 5. LBD6.20418 AWF6 0.76 @ 0. Gender Age Status Educat.833 5.899 5.921 5.643 1 Brand Reliability @ 68.35558 Item deleted (ABB3) Cross-loaded ABB2 0.821 5.758 5.5383 1.66 0.23299 LBD4 0.50874 LBC6 0.904 5. Job Ethnic.21557 Brand Belief @ 0. Attitude Awaren.29267 LBC5 0. Foroudi International Journal of Hospitality Management 76 (2019) 271–285 Table 3 Factor loadings.6253 1.27802 Item deleted (AWR2. LBD7.26828 BN4 0.24 0.873 5.40689 ABB4 0.927 LBT1 0. and reliabilities.77 0.926 LBC2 0.945 83.906 5. LBD8.23345 Brand Logo @ 0.7414 1.78 0.46726 Brand Attitude 0.5541 1.807 5.77 0.850 5.885 5.846 5.22228 AWF5 0.902 5.27321 Brand Recognisability 62.29379 AWR4 0.77 0.3351 1.60 0.962 63.6517 1. LBT7.879 5.69 0.25899 Item deleted (AWF1.7282 1.858 AWR1 0.911 5.7995 1.9420 1.39661 Brand Awareness 0. AWF3) Cross-loaded AWF4 0.35321 Design @ 80. Rep.946 AWF2 0.33113 LBT6 .693 5.

518.858 5.025 −0.28906 Brand Performance 0. so.36171 Brand Benevolence @ 57.6675 1.387 1 −0.783 5.962 RB1 0.4776 1. PL8) Cross-loaded and low reliability PL2 0.038 0.059 −0.026 −0.6016 1.005 −0.128 0.763 5.24330 PP3 0.32278 RR2 0. Gender Age Status Educat.16967 PR3 0.2955 1. Perform. Hypothesis relationships between brand attitude and brand reputation (H2) were 1 was fully supported (β = 0.9763 1.197 0.802 5.2296 1.859 5. Hypothesis 3 pothesized effects.33019 RB3 0.6016 1.059 −0.059 −0.195).079 −0.851 5.057 0.39912 RR4 0.36742 RB5 0.854 5.081 0.854 5.051 1 −0.029 −0.930 PP1 0.870 5.2058 1. guided by the consumers’ perception. PL7.8575 1. 2). Job Ethnic.793 5.839 5.22721 0. Gender Age Status Educat.040 −0.89 0.29463 Brand 64.025 −0.024 −0.865 5. t = 2.32351 RB4 0.069 0.92 0. RR1 0.247 0.816 5.43223 PL5 0.056 0.80 0. Deviation AVE SD Loading Signat. Foroudi International Journal of Hospitality Management 76 (2019) 271–285 Table 3 (continued) Construct Factor Mean Std.79 0.816 5.012 0.3799 1.044 0. the investigates the relationship between brand signature and brand 280 .793.643) (Fig.5831 1. RB7) Cross-loaded and low reliability RB2 0.047 0.42 0. Validated structural model.070 −0.023 −0.77 PL1 0.002 1 0.010 1 0.892 5.052 0. t = 2.007 −0.P.839 5.030 −0.41704 Item deleted (PL3.004 0. 2.051 0.005 0.20716 PL6 0.886 85.8681 1.050 0.101 0. Job Ethnic. Attitude Awaren.19013 PP2 0.024 −0. towards the brand (brand signature > brand attitude).040 −0. Rep. Perform.046 0.37716 RR3 0.3430 1.81 0.078 0.2216 1. Rep.052 −0.7599 1. In addition to the hy.09688 PR2 0.3562 1.853 PR1 0.819 5.8047 1.014 0. Fig.325 1 Signat.086 0. Attitude Awaren.871 5.71 Recommendation @ 0.834 5.020 1 Brand Loyalty @ 0.037 −0.37489 Item deleted (RB6. PL4.6253 1.027 −0.13221 Brand Re-Purchase @ 75.005 1 −0.053 −0. statistically fully accepted (β = 0.6280 1.

general. to be specific for each brand (Hatch and Schultz. brand reputation. 2009) that logos are associated with reputation of brands. Indeed.793 0.. since a search show that there is a relationship between a brand signature and brand signature is used to influence people’s perceptions of a brand the characteristics of its parent company. 2005) that ‘anything a ceptions of a global hotel and its elements. Van den Bosch et al.. and brand performance. As a tions regarding the brand signature as the root of corporate identity result. Furthermore.167. Henderson and Cote. 2014.05 significance level and that it may not be particularly ef. 1998) and increase the brand’s and reputation supported via in the country of origin or globally. fully (β = 1. In performance in this highly competitive environment. 2005. following premise: brand signature of a company with an essential particularly in international context. Hypothesis 3 was supported certain typeface. 1997. of a particular hotel brand signature influences the reputation of a hotel tween brand reputation and brand performance (H6) were found sig. 1996).236 2.. 1998.429 . In this re- addition. The brand fective regarding a consumer’s perception (β = 0.429). The findings consumers’ perception-based attributes in respect of the brand sig- highlight the importance of assessing whether corporate reputation nature and its elements. it has been asserted that the brand sig- ported for the hypothesized relationships between brand knowledge nature should emphasize the importance of the name (Kohli et al. 2015). Brand signature represents a distinct message and the quality of the Hypothesis 4 (brand awareness > brand reputation) was not sup.064.518 .363.698). particularly in light of previous studies (Han et al. 1998. t = 2. and brand reputation. and. but does not necessarily (Henderson et al.399 0. succeed in expressing the values a hotel’s brand wishes to convey corporate identity. The results of the re- (how consumers respond to a company’s identity) is significant. 2007. The result illustrates significantly different from 2002)..187 5.066). 2010.28). t = 1. 1998. The brand’s significance as a brand and company differentiator. Henderson and Cote.399. express its characteristics’. Van den Bosch et al. the findings here enhance the related tourism theory.. what are brand signature is the “heart and soul of a company”. The regression path unexpectedly shows a significant negative features (Clow et al.E C. as well as tourism. Van der Lans holders. Discussion 2009.. 1997) those consumers’ attribu- and product are hard to influence on global consumers’ perception. which can reflect a brand and com- whereby the identity of an organization can be visualised and its image pany’s reputation (Henderson and Cote. as its reliability (Table 3). brand’s services among competing firms by its signature. t = 5. relationship between these two variables. tourism a corporation as a whole can be considered as leveraging performance globally? The findings here support the preceding litera- in order to position the hotel’s brand signature in the minds of stake- ture (Foroudi et al. 2014. Van Riel and Balmer. In stands in complex relation to brand practices because it is used as a general. 5. the sig- management of an organization’s brand signature is of strategic im- nature selection or modification is a significant part of the process of portance and requires a multi-disciplinary approach. in the eyes of visitors and consumers which influence on hotel’s per- nificant (β = 0.066 Not Accepted Hypothesis 5 Brand Awareness -> Brand Attitude 0.064 0. familiarity and recognisability with global and create a distinctive identity from international competitors company and its product affects evaluations. the more favorable the reputation consumers brand signature influence on brand reputation relationships and tests a have towards the brand. In line corporate uniqueness of the brand in the mind frame of stakeholders with previous studies. Van Riel and Balmer. t = 2. This is one of the first studies to empirically validate the assumptions made by researchers in tourism (Foroudi et al. memorable corporate . The brand Table 4 Results of hypothesis testing. and design. distinctiveness.874 . The relationships be. influence the perception of the product and services and create relia. 2014. brand attitude..015 Accepted Hypothesis 6 Brand Reputation -> Brand Performance 0.363 0.058 2. Nonetheless. color. 2003. 1997). therefore accepted. According to Chajet and Shachtman (1991. 2003).R p Hypothesis 1 Brand Signature -> Brand Attitude 0. it is a main carrier communication. what are the main influences of such favourability on brand spect. brand to consumers..167 0. degree to which a signature of the brand elements. it can be argued that the findings present an indication for the tangible cue to link the internal and external organization together.840. The notion of the factors that influence brand signature favourability globally? In brand signature is linked to the concept of brand identity.195 . Van der Lans et al. HYPOTHESES RELATIONSHIPS Estimate S. at least in the This study contributes to the tourism literature by investigating the global context of major hotel branding. In other words. Consumers pick out the hotels (Balmer 2001.698 *** Accepted Hypothesis 4 Brand Awareness -> Brand Reputation 0. Therefore.300 2. and its effects upon UK visitors and consumers.. Henderson and Cote. it can be a challenge for international companies to increase may lead to such attitudinal and judgmental outcomes.008 Accepted Hypothesis 3 Brand Signature -> Brand Awareness 1. Klink. a favorable hotel’s brand signature increases a et al. this paper complements earlier research (Bhattacharya bility and benevolence. Foroudi International Journal of Hospitality Management 76 (2019) 271–285 knowledge and the results illustrates the significant relationships signature is thus the brand name and brand logo which formed of a (brand signature > brand awareness). formance.149 2. framework that represents an initial attempt to examine visitors/cus- This research contributes to the current belief among scholars tomers’ perceptions of a global hotel and influence upon brand per- (Foroudi et al. as well as its outcomes. Furthermore. recognizable. by investigating whether the incorporation (β = 0. brand company or brand does. as the most identifiable element of the corporate identity tends 0 at the 0.840 . brand awareness regarding company and Sen. This study examines awareness.643 .P. p.004 Accepted 281 .874) (Table 4). the more favorable the brand signature of an organization is This study extends knowledge in the relatively understudied area of perceived by consumers. Pittard et al.028 Accepted Hypothesis 2 Brand Attitude -> Brand Reputation 0. which is a rather surprising The brand signature its components represent the articulation of the result. A brand signature global corporate reputation formation (LeBlanc and Nguyen.. By taking a their consumers’ benevolence with the company and its services as well holistic approach. brand signature can be capitalized through managing logo.. 2003).. p signature concerns the unique. The hypothesized model shows that the effect The contribution of this study is to grasp a broader view of hotel brand of brand awareness on brand attitude (H5) was statistically significant identity. Van Riel and Van den Ban. 2001) that the brand signature im- pacts corporate reputation in the contexts of the tourism.217 1. such as name and Accordingly.

reputation is endowed with a judgment and is the overall evaluation of Despite the verifiable importance of brand signature (Henderson a hotel over time (Gotsi and Wilson. Even though the management of international hotels may think that mance of the brand. consumer attitude to brand. Consistent with the cultural meaning differences and diverse competitive landscapes and attribution theory (Graham.. 1998. hotel nificant. sumers’ attitude toward global hotel brand. a clear understating of the dimensions of the whether this research outcome will be the same for different levels of relevant concepts can assist international tourism managers and de- the tangibility-intangibility continuum. to create a favorable corporate reputation. 1995) that evokes positive and negative re- nature in respect of brand reputation with mediated effect through actions (Henderson and Cote. the findings illustrate that con. the brand signature as a symbol can help the perceive a favorable brand signature. the results show that while the impact of consumers’ 6. the message of which should differentiate characteristics of a brand. Van Heerden and behaviors. Moreover. stakeholders towards the organization (Van Riel. the item present research. and increase the product and services recognisability and The results of this study may provide actionable guidelines for in- familiarity.P. and design by developing and testing the research Global marketing managers must recognize how their brand’s sig. 2011). in which organizations must wrestle with possible cross- influence customers’ perceptions’ about a hotel. 1998. (Van Heerden and Puth. Van ciation with the organization. the relationship between customers’ attitude to.. antecedents (brand logo with three components: name. 2006). 2001). from its competitors and environment (Hatch and Schultz. For example. (2004). 2009). First and foremost.. specific in the international as other modes of service. typeface. 2006). 1997). Van Riel and Van consumers’ awareness towards the brand and services. and admire and signature that was used in the corporate identity and formed into a respect the brand (Chun. it is important for companies to create a brand signature that aims to adequate empirical research has yet been carried out on the brand enhance consistency across all possible forms of an organization’s signature and the influence of signature and their elements on con. recognisability and familiarity towards corporate reputation can ging brand signature. 1995).. awareness of con- through its brand identity. brand performance. in that a company’s logo the basis of the corporate brand promise of an organization. this study shows the customers’ evaluations awareness and its main elements (recognisability and familiarity). this re. design) from the consumer’s perspective and its effect on a favorable search should be replicated in different global tourism contexts as well brand reputation and brand performance. The main challenge is to develop multi-disciplinary ‘the design of the logo communicates the company’s identity’ (Van den insights into relationships. this finding should still be examined in future studies. business infrastructures (Madden et al. Furthermore. Pittard et al. 1997). 2001).. design implications for all responses because multiple responses may be eli. Organizations must recognise the design sumers. model. product.. The efficient management of global brand signature leads to a nature is perceived across global markets. brand repurchase and brand recommendation (Olins. The findings global corporate reputation (Balmer. 2001. ternational tourism practitioners and decision-makers in better mana- ward. 2003). 2000). In addition. be consistency (Bottomley and Doyle. Furthermore. of hotel brand logo and the results of this study can be employed by However. in this study I stress that the repeated interactions of involve pragmatic actions.. Weiner. ture on tourism. 2001). Foroudi International Journal of Hospitality Management 76 (2019) 271–285 Van Riel and Van den Ban. Balmer. Klink. Van Riel. as well as serve as a competitive advantage to enhance a brand loyalty. In other words. physical identification in order to develop a favorable nationally and sumer evaluations of signature from tourism settings. The results also show that the signers to devise a favorable brand signature. this study has drawn attention to brand signature formation it can words (Henderson et al. brand identity. 2001. 1998. Van Riel and sumers attitude towards brand has positive impact on consumers’ per.. In addition. 1998) supports the idea that the design of a brand logo commu. 1991. the study contributes to the litera- is thus essential. Helm. 2000). 1995. 1989). and. and the item ‘the design is distinct’ (Henderson and operational relevance to the study (Palmer and Bejou. which is a major contribution of the most practical dimension of corporate identity. which can be translated into findings with Bosch et al. 2011). since. hence. controllable marketing factor for managing image standardi- industry should not rely solely on the attitude towards the consumers’ zation. repurchase and recommendation globally. academics focus on the brand signature as a concept that is formed on tive advocated by Henderson et al. they tend to have a good feeling about the brand. vary in different settings or contexts. Kelley and Michela. The results show that it is complicated in tourism indicate that perceptions about hotel’s brand signature significantly global settings... and favorable require understanding the different meanings associated with specific corporate reputation. However. Therefore. This may In other words. Van der Lans et al. This result can indicate that and Cote. corroborate the literature on global brand signature and global con. A brand logo and name 1992). 2005) and provide reassurance for the customer. it is likely to be the from a multi-disciplinary approach. it affects the inferences they make about the particular behind the signature (Henderson and Cote. design as the logo process. (Karaosmanoğlu et al. global managers consumer attitude to brand. 2006. Moreover. 2005. The findings den Ban. 2010. brand reputation. Furthermore. and In order to have a full representation of the service sector. is one of the first empirical examinations of this area via a synthesis of nicates the overall brand reputation as intended by the organization the brand signature. the results show that international signature design the model pinpointed that when individuals like a global hotel’s brand represents a ‘hard’ aspect of identity and companies employ the brand logo. The irony of the above statement The findings recommend that global brand signature can be a sig- is considerable. This result can indicate that global brand interactions among corporate visual identity and customers are beyond 282 . 2007. 2003). this study’s findings demonstrate that when individuals Puth. Van Riel and Balmer. and used to helps communicate the company’s goals. Managerial implications perceptions of favorable brand signature affect their awareness towards the brand. 1980. awareness of consumers. International tourism industry and corporate branding ception towards brand reputation. favorable brand reputation ensures signature may facilitate multi segment marketing opportunities a favorable brand performance and develops a positive attitude in (Madden et al. which is likely to impact behavior den Bosch et al. consumers with a company’s brand signature. it will be productive to examine context. and the literature on tourism to describe the brand signature in a more cited (Clow et al. the human mind can interpret it faster than Overall. creates a first impression This study has also considered the consequences of the brand sig. There is also a fit with the perspec. This study Cote. and services. 1995. Henderson et al. At the same time. on consumers’ attitude towards the company and increase the perfor. An enduring. have implications for tourism studies. in. there is an immediate mental global brand to create a position or brand differentiation in the market picture that they hold of the organization and a greater sense of asso. 2004) and its implementation holistic manner. which suggests that when individuals succeed or fail in dynamic can remind the beholder of her/his perceptions towards the corporation interactions. which will create a fa- consumers’ attitude towards a company’s corporate reputation impact vorable brand loyalty. since global hotel managers to understand the whole situation of the re- only one hotel as reference entities was chosen to be tested for the lationship between a favorable brand signature and the factors in its current research.

2010.. Van den Bosch et al. It can be ar- challenging for an organization (Henderson and Cote. The Alessandri. 1988. Conclusion in the minds of consumers across globally. Soenen. corporations should have a clear understanding of favorable Aaker. critical constituents of a favorable brand signature. Ind. International tourism communication Baker. M. Hosp.J. there is a direct relationship between the brand sig- assist international hotel and tourism managers to understand the sig. 2003. a company’s brand Ashforth. providing a favorable brand signature.. Acad. J. B. Balmer. 38 (3). a favorable global brand reputation. 303–325.. P. consumer attitude to brand. The acid test of corporate identity management™. This study has shown globally. as an be placed in adverts.. International managers should select name and logo that sup- have the greatest influence on the hotel’s outcomes across national and port strategically valued impressions to improve brand attitude and international markets. J. J.C. 1999). 15–30. J.T. J. M. and in the development of the organization. 2001. the brand name had the greatest influence. The ternal validity is generalizable to the population and across sectors results of this study will support further develop insight into brand logo.B. 1997. Taking a leap forward. Van Riel and Van den sistency in corporate communications. W. Bull. which influences the Aurier.W. By under.. internationally. this study helps consultants and awareness. suggesting that global tourism. NY. Design had upmost impacts Aslam. D.M. as well as increasing standing the market needs. creasingly becoming part of the vocabulary of management thinking at 419–435. N’Goala. survey research with high ex- international managers and communication professionals alike. 2000. which is influenced by two main factors. Thus.M. Furthermore. with physical artefacts in- conative brand loyalty and customer satisfaction.M.M. As mentioned in the literature. R. and name are highly promoting a sense of shared values and communication. Managing Brand Equity... Balmer. Hatch and Schultz.. managers to understand whether the hotel’s brand logo communicates a Two variables were investigated in this research. Gray. 1997. manage. Importantly. brand name and brand logo (typeface. 2006). reliably identity and corporate reputation. a visible level of the organization. 27 (4). References This study’s findings suggest that to achieve a competitive ad- vantage. Furthermore. Int. tegrated approach for expressing a company’s communication skills. 1995). Acad. Brand signature con- managers to note the importance of the emotional aspect of the brand tributes strongly to an increase in the familiarity and recognisability signature as a key element of corporate identity rather than simply and appreciation of a company and its products or services (Chadwick focusing on what is fashionable and modern. Aitken. in commitment in service relationship maintenance and development. they While the creation of a favorable brand signature is costly and are less useful in relation to global corporate reputation. 6 (4)... Parks. antecedent constructs affecting the brand signature. and brand performance standardization and customization opportu- nities. Res. Visual identity: trappings or substance? Eur. 366–382. Advertising effectiveness from a consumer per- spective. D. to evoke attention and the desired responses. international adver- communicating the consistent corporate identity to the market (Hatch tising and tourism marketing managers should concentrate on con- and Schultz. 2001).J. global brand signatures. Lawson. 2011). international hotel managers will be able to make the right The resulting significant relationship between a favorable brand decision in selecting a brand signature favorable for targeting and re. 2009).A. By establishing that the brand signature is a concept of the ‘favorable brand signature’ and its consequences (brand major tangible asset in the expression of the company and is used as the attitude. J. awareness speed. design. J. Corporate identity and corporate communications: brand behind the logo to assure readers of the quality of the company creating a competitive advantage. J. 2001. Are you selling the right colour? A cross-cultural review of colour as a on consumers’ perception followed by typeface and color. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Mael.. 2006. Van Riel. 279–297. Advert.E. Using a typeface. managers play a significant role Sci. company’s brand reputation and brand performance. color.. However. managers should Ban. the findings of this research may be potentially awareness of consumers. Train. The differing and mediating roles of trust and relationship favourability of the brand signature. 283 . Modeling corporate identity: a concept explication and theoretical empirical results of this study indicate the relative weighting of the explanation. Corp.S. brand reputation. Mark. 1991.R. generalised to other industries. 32 (7). 1989.P. brand name is an intangible asset. 20–39. 256–262. brand awareness. In this respect. and brand performance). 173–182. Gray. The Free Press. 2001). A further conclusion can be drawn from this research with regard to the association between a When this study bridges the gap between academics and practi. the brand signature. 1999.. The outcome of the present study suggests that tourism Balmer. managers should actively orchestrate a favorable brand name and logo Mark. Van den Bosch et al... this research may In addition. Manage. the findings of this study are of importance to international place more emphasis on the brand signature and less on the content to decision-makers. rev. Van Riel and Van den Ban. 411. In practice. brand reputation. 14 (1). 69–92. J... managing a favorable brand signature can be seen as an in. G. By demonstrating the and Walters. Mark. These two variables are likely to play an important element of corporate visual identity (Balmer. 15 (1/3). 2001. A brand loyalty model involving cognitive. Back. that there is a direct relationship between the constructs. Commun. B. 1998) and gued that there is in fact a mismatch between the company’s corporate managers make every effort to create one which is favorable. namely. Thus.C. it is fruitful for a brand’s designers and evaluate its quality (Herrera and Blanco. should offer such consistent The findings of this study indicate that the familiarity and re- meanings cross-culturally. qualities of representation to the abstract shapes that form words and tel’s brand logo by taking into account that responsiveness was found to letters. this study presents a comprehensive understanding of the internally and externally. Gerbing. Commer. 12 (1). 103 (3). F. 2008. Commun. which influences Although any given organization cannot fully represent all sectors. 31 managers revealed that in their brand.. namely. nificant role of the brand signature. name is established as one of the critical factors. of the services and to its characteristics and also to their ability to 2005.. which can evoke emotional response in the cognisability of the services to consumers refers to their understanding minds of consumers (Henderson and Cote 1998. The construct of Anderson. affective. this research aims to be helpful to according to scholars (Churchill. Tour... Psychol. and color). role in encouraging consumers’ perception. brand association and brand belief (awareness of consumers) and tioners. K. signature and consumer’s awareness suggests that international tourism sponding to market needs. nesses. 27 (2). In this study. different managers set out to management should emphasize the value of the signature expressed create a sense of shared vision by reducing dysfunctional conflict and through its brand.. ‘glue’ in communication (Van den Bosch et al. significant to signature design because the chosen signature lends international tourism managers should be more responsive to the ho. Mark. and its services. Finally. Foroudi International Journal of Hospitality Management 76 (2019) 271–285 their control. they highlight the name of their (5/6). A company’s marketing cue. Social identity theory and the organization. managers can focus on a couple of areas. E. R. design. S.. J. awareness reliable message and the personality of the brand to the target audience of consumers and consumer attitude to brand. 2005. J. G. nature and awareness of consumers. communication and managers are responsible for managing and pro- jecting a favorable signature in order to achieve a favorable reputation 7.: Int. as well as the brand’s strengths and weak.

. S.S. 2011. Des. G. Logist. Int. The impact of incomplete typeface logos on perceptions of the Bhattacharya. Lawrence Erlbaum Henderson. Melewar. G... 63–78. Wilson. A. practice.. R. Prentice. Akel. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer Ha. 39 (2)... 356–365.. Liu. 65 (2).. J. Trademark strategy revisited.T.. Hewett. 2005. Kirby. K. J. Intell.. Kwon. and brand trust.M. Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations. Jass. J. The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions. J. Corp. 1–22. Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the attitudes.C. In: Annual Meeting of the International Textile and DelVecchio. 32–42. 33–57. Commun. J. application to multiple destinations. consumer loyalty.K. J.J. Black.. Routledge. Serv. Ang. 2015. 99–106. 10 (1). K..J. 2011. M. corporate branding and corporate marketing Graham. Kelley. 45 (3). J. Surveys in Social Research. 389–398. Reality.A.G. S. Identity. How to Create. J. J. 81–93. J. P. 2002. Dacin. Brand trust in the context of images. 2 (2). D. 2000. Mark. J. 51 (3). Schuijf. Mark. New Jersey. 1687–1706. 15 (4).A. Mark. D. Doyle.. work for future research.. 16 (February). 8 (4). P. Mark. J. Corporate identity and corporate associations: a frame. 1977. Sci..W.. J. Kogan Page. Wolfinbarger.. Lee. Kent. Reput. Managing images in different cultures: a branding.. Win and Dominate Market. M. Cohen. S. 6 (1). Winning Reputations. 2003. Mark.W. Image by Design: For Corporate Vision to Business the role of familiarity. satisfaction and brand trust. Rev. 1238–1258. 2000.P. D. US. Reliability and Validity Assessment. P. 19 (2). Alexandria. Boston. Consum. J. Melewar. consumer evaluations of brand reliability. 46–59. Childers. Plann. 20 (4).. Theory 6 (1). Consumer-based chain restaurant brand equity. Retail. E. An examination of the factors that signal hotel image to Dowling.. Choi. 2016. J. 1997.. T. equation modeling to test for construct validity. Herrera.. Cote. J. S. Advertising symbols and brand names that best represent J. G. and Managing Chun. 41–57. 67 (2). Res. 2001. Kohli.S.F. Creating meaningful brands: the relationship between brand name and (Pearson Educación). Byon. Res. S.. 528–550. M. A.. Qual. Pearson. Prod. Linking corporate logo. Mark. de los Ángeles Ramos. 30–44.. Corporate reputation: seeking a definition. 2014. Prod. 1979. Behav. Sharp. Employees’ awareness of their impact on corporate reputation. Quarterly 42 (6). E.: Dutton. 3 (1).... Bus. Hagtvedt. M. S. 15 (5). 2003.L. 93–106. P. Foroudi. web: brand familiarity. Press. What induces online loyalty? Online versus offline brand Delgado-Ballester. (1). J. Manage. Mark. A review of attribution theory in achievement contexts. 457–501. Measuring.. Stuart. J. LeBlanc. Lennon. 2009. Guidelines for selecting or modifying logos. Han. Brand.. de Puente. 5 (2–1).. Hosp.J. Int. J. P. (November). Baack.. Barry J. 15–24. distinctive design and man.. Logistics research methods: employing structural McCarthy. Bus. 2003. Asia: selecting the visual components of image to maximize brand strength.. Perks. 2011. D. Aaker. 2002.. Mark. A. Strategic Brand Management: Building. Structural equation models with unobservable variables Low.F.F. D. R. Bus..C. W.. Babin. The role of other customer Chang. Gotsi.H. Zeller. Cote.L. Consequences of consumer trust in PDO food products: Chajet. Rev. J. 2002. 1997. equity. 284 ... 55 (3). 1999. place image. 50 (September). 1986. 2004. 2007. measuring. 2006. Mark.M. 62 (1)..C. J. Rev. Y. J. P. D. Behav. Rev. Oak Brook. 227–234. Plann. New Jersey. Garver.. S. IL.J. New Jersey.Q. Building strong brands in Associates.. Anderson. T. J.. 62 (5). Mark. Leitch.A. Advertising's internal audience. K. S. mark. Luis Munuera-Alemán. Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty. Mark. 2010.D. Mark.. multichannel apparel retailers. J. 2001. Kitchen. Manage... 340–363. Development of a scale measuring destination image. 241–264. Brown. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS... Acad. Foroudi.. J. Business Research Strategies. Oxford. 29 (12). making for a common.. Clow. Attribution theory and research. 2010. E. 1991. M. Blanco. 432–439. 90–107.. A framework of place Madden.. Eur. and reputation: an inter-disciplinary framework and suggested Hatch.L. 1996.C.. 457–471. 2005.M.. Communications. 51 (6).. Villarreal.K. A name to conjure with: a discussion of the naming of new brands. P. 2015. Perreault. J. A.. W. Travel Res... 18–151.. 76–88. T. 2003. 2009. 18 (4). 24–30. 2009.V. Motion. and Macdonald. 657–663.. Mark.. FT Press.H. Development of an apparel specialty retail brand image De Vaus. Fombrun. W. 1981. Cassell Educational Ltd. G.. 2005. Res.T.S. Fornell. image. Helm. Suri. Schultz. Free Press.. Harquail..J. 2002. Kwon. J.A.B. Holbrook. Sen. Rev. M. Huang. Consum. The role of corporate identity in the higher education 69–88. Mark. T. Gilly. Company Image and Reality: A Critique of Corporate 438–452. Durgee. Int.L. C. Publicidad. D. 79 (2). 62 (2).. Manage.. M. P. A.J. Dukcrich. Brand awareness effects on consumer decision reputation: an examination of consumer perceptions in the financial setting. 117–125. and managing customer-based brand semantic associations on brand perceptions and consumer memory.. J. Vac. 2010. Y. Foroudi. Henderson. 1416–1445.. Streukens.. M. Rev.. Lennon. NY. 2005. Multivariate Data Analysis.. L. M. Psychol. 24 (1). 68 (4). S. J. M. J..C. C. Mark. Res.. C. Int.J. T. Busser. 20 (1). Ind. Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand. L.. 35 (3/4)..J. Eur. Corporate reputation: meaning and measurement.E. S. T.: Int. measurement. C.D. London. Q.. Publications. 28 (4). Larcker. B..A.. 357–369.... Rev. Res. Oxford University Press.J. Maxham III. IMC ante. Confucian ethics. Melewar. Eur. Bus. Carmines. M. J. S.S. 2006. C. Corp. J. J. 2001. N.. 2002. Kyle. O. Sci. Karaosmanoğlu. Addison-Wesley Longman. Reput. R. 2009. UK. evaluations of multiple service failures and recovery efforts. G.R. G.. 1994. 12 (2). 2011. 2001.. B.P. Van Riel. 45 (9/10). Horiz. Chan.. Ahtola. VA. 2017. Development of an online brand image measurement for (4). Bryman. Keller. Annu. 66 (4). 57–71. terminology. Organisational images and member Int.. 508–532.F... Mark. Mattila. J. William C. Kim... P. IL.. Corp. T. 248–291.. Conceptualizing. 2003... Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach. Mark. Rev. Manage. Banu Elmadağ Baş.. Eur. J.. G.: Int. Marketing An Introduction.M. J. Roland L. 1999. 1996. S. Giese. Mentzer. 84–93. R. 7 Brand Equity.. 1999. CA.. Mark. and place reputation: antecedents and moderators. Gupta. 17 Sage Res. Architecture as brand: store design and brand identity.. 382–388. Intell.. C. Mark.J. identification. 35–50. 159–170. B. London. 1979. 20 (4). 1998. 14 (6). Bell. J. G.. T..A. Eur. The concept and measurement of corporate Association. 67 (11). intended image..C. Kotler. Corporate identity.: Int. Psychol. Business Research Methods. 2000.W. C.J. E. J.. Corporate Reputations: Strategies for Developing the Corporate travellers. 34 (2). M. 2001. Mark.M. R.. Mark. F. Foroudi International Journal of Hospitality Management 76 (2019) 271–285 Balmer. Zhang. 1994.M. Lett. bility. Chaudhuri. 193–200. 28 (January). 1991. Saunders.L. K. 754–767. Schultz. Cote.. J. P.A. UK.. J. 2006. Roth. TX. Consumer-company identification: A framework for firm. brand mark. seeing through the fog. Creating Corporate Reputations. Rolph E. Promoción Y Comunicación Integral En Marketing. A. Batra. Lett.. J. Huppatz.A. A. vol. 1993.. P. M. sector: a case study. 14–30.Y. Serv. J.G. B.. Psychol. Impression management using typeface Chadwick. 254–263. structs. J. 2012. (November).. Mark. S. 2269–2281.H. Eychenbaum.. 75 (July).... All dressed up with something to say: effects of typeface Keller. J. Harv. 73–79.. Brand naming in China: a linguistic approach. Dryden fluences on perceptions of online game quality.S. 60–72. Eur. 2013. K. Multiplicity in corporate identity strategy. J. affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. J. Country of origin and brand image in- Churchill Jr.Y. J.A.. 63–83. Relations between organizational culture. E. 143–157.. J. T. 2003. Liu. K... H. 297–313. In: Annual Meeting of the International Textile and Apparel De la Sabaté. Mark. J.A. Res. key product meanings. 1991. J.. London. Oxford University Press. J.T.. C.M. 2016. Mark.R.. zation.S. Thakor. E.J. 2001..W. 5–15. F. The impact of brand equity on brand preference and effect in corporate marketing: its impact on corporate image and consumer-company purchase intentions in the service industries. Brand Manage. The role of corporate image and company Fombrun.J. Walters.. M. 2005.. D. 48 (1). Y. Prod. J.K. 1987.. David. Psychol. Harvard Lombart. Tatham..B. Louis. 4 (4). Tour.M. 282–296. 291–308. A. identification. cross-national study of color meanings and preferences. Mark. Corp. 557–564.K...J. J. 4 (3). pp.. Dinnie. Nguyen.E. Shachtman. Michela. Educ. Schmitt.. S.. J. R. Mark..R. ufacturer logos–issues from the front line. R. B. repeat purchase product: a replication. Armstrong. Henrik.K.. Dacin. (2).L. Nguyen. Brand Manage. 35 (11/12). C. Globalizing corporate identity in Hong Kong: rebranding two banks. 19 (6).. Lemmink. 239–263. cedents and the consequences of planned brand identity in higher education. Adm. J. Leong. Nguyen. 57 (January).E. Baloglu.R... M. Netemeyer. Res.. K. Foroudi. Commun. Homewood. Consum. Consum. Int. Sportswear identification.C..C. 8 (4).. Bottomley. 1–15. Bus. Int. Adm.G.J. London UK.B. 14 (3).M. H. Res. Business School Press. Zhang. Prentice Hall Klink. 11 (5). D.. Brand Manage... S. Mark.. Bernstein. Melewar. Econ. UK. 1980. identity and Brown.C.. construed image. Oxford. 3 (1). Consum.. T. 2004. Henderson. The mediating effect of place attachment on the re- Dowling. Lennon. A model of customer-based brand equity and its 2006. Whetten. 280–301. Mark.G..... The interactive effects of colors and products on brand reputation.. 2000.M. Hair. J.A. Scott.. J. Kim. Sources of retailer personality: private brand perceptions. 2001. J. 5–39. lationship between festival satisfaction and loyalty to the festival hosting destination. Kitchen. 5 Kwon. J. 31 (5/6). S. J.... Boo. J. Kotler. D. Byrne. H.. 1987. governance and corporate social responsi- and measurement error: algebra and statistics. perceptions of brand logo appropriateness. corporate image. 1997. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing con. A longitudinal study of complaining customers’ Mark. Mark. 30 (2). Gupta. Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Creating effective logos: insights from theory and Collins. Prentice. 2001. 1992. J.M. K.. Hist. J. Fame and Fortune: How Successful Companies Build employment image in explaining application intentions... Corp. Lee.C. J.L. S. 58–64.. 219–231. J.. 64 (7).C. E.H. 128–134. M. W. J. New Jersey. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand Keller. control and benefits.. 1991.J. Global corporate visual identity systems: standardi- Commun. H. J.. Bus. Pratt. P. 9 (1). Bus. M. S.. 91–109. 1998.. 31 Churchill Jr. K. Bus. 4 (6). A. P.D. design. H. San Antonio. reputation: an application to Spanish financial intermediaries. 64–73. Hatch... Moving beyond fit: the role of brand portfolio characteristics in Apparel Association.. Cornell Hotel Restaurant Foroudi. 1998. 86–93. understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. 9 (7).

Int. Allyn and Bacon. J. 2008. J....L. J. 1995. R. and brand equity.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/ Van Riel. G.. J. The added value of corporate logos-An empirical brand loyalty: an empirical investigation.. S.J. Singh. A. A. brand equity? J. decision making. B.N. N. Newbury Park. L. Mark. 12 (4). J. Res. Consum. 28 (5). H.C. Cause. Bhattacharya.. 187 University of Illinois Press. strategy and communications for trust. Sohal. Henderson. 41 (3). Ewing. Cooksey. Odin. 38 (2). Cole..H. Rev. 123–140.... Eur. 2007. 340–355. commitment tional exchanges. Mark.N. The attribution process in consumer 12–17. Sharon E. Gupta. N. Prod. Moorthy. Spears. 428–440. the measurement–empirical evidence. Account.B. J. Walker.. Manage. 53 (2).. Reput. 285 . How corporate visual identity october2017provisionalresults (Assessed by March 2018).L. Conceptual and operational aspects of Van Riel. Psychol.. Sirdeshmukh..C. Acad. 175–189. The use of LISREL in validating marketing Yoo. Leong. 40 (7/8). 2001.R. C. Manage.J. 1989. and relationship quality. Mohamad. Advertising and Promotion Management. Donthu. Strategy 11 (January/ Xie.. 2009.B. brand equity scale.D. 572–589. How to present your firm to the world. A. N. Mark. Retail. Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance opment.. Relat. Managing and maintaining corporate reputation and VisitBritain (2018) https://www. Mark.. Using Multivariate Statistics. J. N. Psychol. B.. J. IL. B. 6 (2)..T. Foroudi. 1–14. 2009.. A.. Foroudi International Journal of Hospitality Management 76 (2019) 271–285 Melewar. 52 (1). Retail. C.. Stock. Corporate Entity: Making Business Strategy Visible through Design. Integrating braced-for-record-number-of-tourists-in-2018 (Assessed by March 2018). Mark. J. 10 (2). Examining the Antecedents and Consequences of Corporate Reputation: A Customer Pittard. Swait. 2002. P. 2017.E. loyalty and commitment. J. R.visitbritain. 2002. 11 (6). 1999.W. competence. 2001. J. J. P. Human Motivation: Metaphors. D. T. Zhao. Pappu. Van Trijp. de Jong. Acad. ons. 1–14. 1986. The future of relationship marketing.. Manage.com/travel/2017/dec/26/uk- Melewar. J. Bus. 179–193. and forgiveness. 2004. Appl. Serv. Bank Mark. 2002. J. Exp. Sci. L.B. 283–299. Odin.. NY.. Factors that determine the corporate image of South Mark. Weiner. 26 (7).W. J. Corporate identity: the concept.. Brand Manage.D. 8 (4). 13 (3). 35 (3/4).B. Eur. Testing cross-cultural invariance of the brand equity creation corporate culture. Lee. 28 (2). Res. 2011. CA.. Osgood. Mitchell. management. 108–116. Res. Thames and Hudson. and loyalty in rela. The impact of organisational (3). 2001. effect and benefits of a stan.N. B.. Vincent-Wayne. 2006.uk (2017) https://www. Sen..theguardian. Does image of country-of-origin matter to tions. 38–48. R. Whence consumer loyalty? J. 1979. Foroudi. J.J.. K.W.. 2007. Steenkamp. J. 51 (3). Von Brachel.. Mark. J. Y. Hosp. Res. Plank. Hosp.. 20 (2). J.... An Attribution Analysis of Achievement Motivation. N. Consumer-based brand equity: improving Walsh.gov. 2002.. Understanding brands as experiential spaces: ax. Theory Pract. Tour. A Confucian approach to well-being and social capital devel- Tabachnick... J. Sage Schmitt. Peng... Eur. Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attri- reactions to corporate social responsibility. Elving. 1991. N.B. Prod. Theguardian. Color memory and evaluations for alphabetical and logographic dardised corporate visual identity system of UK companies operating in Malaysia. P. Manage. M. S. 7 (2). 2006.M. M. Springer-Verlag. Sci. 1989.. Percy. Sci.R..gov.. 2001. value. Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase inten. 33–44. 4 (3-4). Corp.com (2018) https://www. Cross-national logo evaluation analysis: an individual-level Oliver... M. Weiner. Measuring brand equity: an evaluation of a consumer- Robertson. product program innovativeness. Consum. 15 (3). S. J. Manage. W... African banking institutions: an exploratory investigation.. consumer response to proportion across cultures.G.. Rev. C. 2001.. Van der Lans. Mark. Balmer. Yasin. An examination of the relationship between trust. Br. Consumer trust. J. T. approach.E.A.. 104. Boyle. 2002... Singh. 46–62. De Jong. identity. and theory. A. B... E. J. 2013. Mizerski. J...A. J. 457–473. J. 1990. 2006. A. 2000. 30 (1). 187–203.. P. Mark.. Sabol. 2007. 66 (1). K. D. 1995. P. Mark. S.. Olins. Eur. J. B. Bus. B. Mark. 1995. N. Int.. J. Book Company. London. 53–66.G. Guillet. based brand equity scale.. Wong. 15 (1/3). Oh. Gianfranco. J. 2006. Strategic Mark.. tality: a review of the literature. A systematic review of the corporate reputation literature: definition. J. Mark.org/structure-tourism-britain (Assessed by brand identity: Haier Group logo. Commun. J... B. 1997. 2001. Bus. J. Cote. C.. S. Paul R.M.P. Quester.. Puth.M. B. Principles of Corporate Communication. J. 740–752. Six. H. Mark.. integrity. Donthu.L.. 1992. 6 (Fall).H. M.. Bejou. Zacharias. 225–243. J. Fidell. Tavassoli. Balmer. Washburn. 21 (December).. K. Issues Res. 14 (3). Y. M. 16 (1).. Curr. 75–84. Saunders. McGraw-Hill. 1–9. 15–37. J. Kernan. Valette-Florence..A. An examination of selected marketing mix elements Sweeney. Psychometric Theory. S. Mark. Mark.L. Smidts... G. iological implications for marketing strategists.D. 268–275. J.ons. contingency approach. 31 (5/6).. Strategically desirable brand name characteristics. Res. Linking multiple layers of innovation-oriented Yoo. Brand Manage. J. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based constructs. Mark. J. 1978.. 357–387.. March 2018). Transaction evaluations and relationship intentions. Elving.: Int. Boston. NY.. R. 2005. J.. 43. Corp. and business performance: a process. Prentice Hall. 2014.. 2010. 283–299. 143–154.. C. C. Roper. R. Eur. 278–305. Tour. Donthu. 2005. 61–71. study. A. Kitchen. butional perspective. Jackson. Van den Ban. Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer Weiner.. its measurement and Nunnally. M. Make your firm a household name..M. Smith. London..J. J. 572–604. Tannenbaum. 13 (4–1). (5). O. 1957. Earles. 380–398. 35 (3/4). R.. Law.M.. Mark.. Mark. How to repair customer trust after negative publicity: The roles of February). B.. M. brand names. benevolence. Int.B. Psychol. W. R..L. leisureandtourism/bulletins/overseastravelandtourism/ Van den Bosch.. Rev. P.. characteristics on corporate visual identity. 14 (2). P. L. Wang. Jevons. The effects of brand credibility on customer loyalty. Educ.C. 968–985. Distrib. L. W. 414–427. 30 (7/8). J.S. Consumer trust in tourism and hospi- Ponsonby-Mccabe. 195–211. 26 Van den Bosch. C. Publications. Advertising 26 (2). M. 2009. Beatty. measurement.. et al. 53–67. Noor.E.. L.. Brand Manage. Hung. 870–885. 34–50. R. Int. 12 (1). J. J.. Dev. Suci. 1987. Williams.H. McGraw-Hill New York. 2000.. Golden.. Res. 24 (4).. Consum.. N. 10 (1). J. J. Rossiter.. S. The Measurement of Meaning. Experimental Marketing.. J. J. Aesthetic theory and logo design: examining Perspective. B. J. Van Heerden. supports reputation. Van Riel. Palmer.... Prod. 1–10. 63. R. Yoo. Omar. Brand Manage. C. Theories and Research. 1999. 32–36.