App-to-date
– A study about how mobile applications can
help companies to get an image that fit their
corporate identity
Authors: Marie Andersson,
Marketing, Master Programme
Sanna Jörgensen,
Marketing, Master Programme
Johanna Olsson,
Marketing, Master Programme
Tutor: Sarah Philipson
Subject: Marketing
PREFACE
We as authors want to thank those who helped us with the work with this thesis. First, we would like to thank Sarah Philipson for excellent tutoring and spell checking.
We would also like to thank Pressbyrån, Company X and Max
Hamburgerrestauranger AB because you took your time to participate in our interviews. We thank the respondents in our focus groups because you took your time
when others let us down. We would also like to thank ourselves because we started the thesis journey in Milan where we found a lot of inspiration.
Finally, thanks Campus for these four unforgettable and crazy years. It is time to grow up…
--- --- ---
Marie Andersson Sanna Jörgensen Johanna Olsson
Abstract
Authors: Marie Andersson, Sanna Jörgensen and Johanna Olsson Tutor: Sarah Philipson
Title: App-to-date -A study about how mobile applications can help companies to get an
image that fit their corporate identity
Keywords: Corporate Identity, Image, Mobile Applications
Background: The number of smartphones has increased rapidly in the last years. With the
expansion of smartphones came the increased development and use of mobile applications. Companies market their company through applications because they want to reach, inform and remind their customers. Depending on the companies, its size and the industry, companies have different purposes with their apps.
Purpose: We intend to study how mobile applications can help companies to get an image
that fit their corporate identity
Method: Our thesis is based on multiple case studies of three Swedish companies. We have
chosen to use a qualitative research method. We have gathered our empirical data by doing telephone interviews and focus groups.
Conclusions: Consumer form their image trough reputation, communication and experience.
Building a strong corporate identity is the main factor that helps to improve a company’s image. The use of mobile applications can both improve and worsen a company’s image. It is therefore necessary that the application is well made and has a clear connection to the identity to be able to improve an image.
Suggestions for further research: A more extensive industry study could be done, by adding
more companies. Other age segments could be studied. The influence of mobile applications that cost could be studied. It could also be interesting to study consumers that had downloaded the mobile applications on their own will.
Table of content
1 Introduction ... 1 1.1 Background ... 1 1.2 Problem discussion ... 2 1.3 Purpose ... 3 2 Theoretical framework ... 4 2.1 Corporate Identity ... 4 2.2 Image ... 62.3 State of the art ... 9
2.4 Research question ... 10 3 Methodology ... 11 3.1 Research design ... 11 3.1.1 Case study ... 11 3.1.2 Telephone interview ... 11 3.1.3 Focus groups ... 12
3.2 Population and Sample ... 13
3.3 Operationalization ... 14 3.4 Validity ... 15 3.5 Reliability ... 15 4 Empirical data ... 16 4.1 Company backgrounds ... 16 4.1.1 Pressbyrån ... 16 4.1.2 Company X ... 16 4.1.3 Max Hamburgerrestauranger AB ... 16 4.2 Matrixes ... 17
4.2.1 Matrix A- Company interview ... 17
4.2.2 Matrix B- Focus groups ... 19
5 Analysis ... 23 5.1 Corporate identity ... 23 5.2 Image ... 25 6 Conclusion ... 32 7 Further suggestions ... 33 References ... 34 Appendix ... 38
Appendix A- Interview guide, companies ... 39
Appendix B- Interview guide, focus groups ... 40
Appendix C- Pictures of applications ... 41
Appendix D- Interview with Pressbyrån ... 42
Appendix E- Interview with Max Hamburgerrestauranger AB ... 44
Appendix F- Interview with Company X ... 46
Appendix G- Focus group 1 ... 48
Appendix H- Focus group 2 ... 53
Appendix I- Focus group 3 ... 58
1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The number of smartphones has increased rapidly in the last years; in 2010 the market for smartphone’s increased with 244 percent (pcforalla.idg.se, 2011). A smartphone is defined as a middle thing between a handheld computer and a mobile phone, simply a “smart phone” (cellphones.about.com, 2011). Reasons for the rapid increase of smartphones are that more and more users are discovering the flexibility and freedom of surfing with their mobile phone (mynewsdesk.com, 2010).
With the expansion of smartphones came the increased development and use of mobile applications. A mobile application, also known as an “app” (will be used from now on), is software that can run on a mobile device. (hudsonhorizons.com, 2011) 2,5 billion apps were downloaded in 2009 and the downloads are expected to increase distinctly. Most of the apps downloaded in 2010, 82 percent, were free. (telenor.se, 2010) Each month 40.000 new applications are created and released (metro.se, 2010) and an average user around the world spends more than 30 minutes on apps each day (gizmodo.com, 2010).
Companies market their company through apps because they want to reach, inform and remind their customers. Hence mobile marketing should not only be seen as the creation of cool apps, but about creating apps that inform and remind consumers about the company’s message, brand, location and opening hours, etcetera. (nyheter.widespace.com, 2011)
Since several new apps are released every day, companies’ apps need to stand out against the rest of the apps. One of the Swedish companies who have been successful with their app is Arla. Their Arla cookbook app is one of the most downloaded in Sweden. An average user uses the mobile cookbook frequently and has shown the application to 2.8 persons, thereby promoting the Arla brand and the mobile cookbook. (goldengekko.com, 2011)
Another way to make use of an app is by trying to seize consumers before they have a need of using the products or services of the company. Procter & Gamble did that with their brand Pampers and won the price for 2010’s best marketing app at the yearly mobile phone festival in Sweden (mobil.se, 2010). The purpose with the app was to increase the interest for the brand; with this app Pampers could reach more customers and create interest in their product even before the child was born (mynewsdesk.com, 2010).
2
Depending on the company, its size and the industry, companies have different purposes with their apps. An app can support the company and the brand, for example by apps that are spread by viral marketing. Apps can be the foundation of a loyalty program, or apps can be a pure sales channel. (telenor.se, 2010) An app can for example add value and satisfy consumer needs (x8.telia.se, 2010). An app could also be used as an effective channel of information (dn.se, 2010). For example an app can guide you to the nearest McDonalds when you are hungry and the company can thus strengthen the relationship with the consumers (digitalbroker.se, 2011).
A company can constantly be visible to consumers with an app, since they throughout the day frequently interact with their smartphones (Smith, 2009). As mentioned, both Arla and Pampers have developed their brand by the release of an app. They have also managed people to download their apps and to get people to interact with the company and their brand in new innovative ways.
1.2 Problem discussion
One way for companies to not be part of the mass, due to increased competition in the markets, is to build a strong corporate identity. Balmer (1999) states that to acquire a favorable image and reputation, as perceived by the audience, it is necessary to have a well-managed corporate identity. Corporate identity can be seen as “the sum of all the factors that
define and project ‘what the organization is’, ‘what it stands for’, ‘what it does’, ‘how it does it’ and ‘where it is going’” (Melewar, 2003:197). It includes a company’s visual and verbal
presentation, the position in the marketplace and also their competitive differentiation (Melewar, 2003). Companies can use corporate identity to distinguish themselves from one another (Markwick & Fill, 1997). It is also a communication process where the company has the intention to convey a specific message, about themselves to an audience (van Riel & Balmer, 1997). However, are there only advantages with building up a good corporate identity or are there any negative consequences that should be considered? It takes time and effort to change a company’s corporate identity. Hence it is necessary to be clear of the message that the company wants to communicate to the audience. (van den Bosch et al., 2005)
When a message is communicated the receiver might not get the intended message (Christensen & Askegaard, 1999). Hence, the image of the company can be very different from the corporate identity. Barich & Kotler (1994) after Furman (2010:69) choose to define image as “the sum of objects, attitudes, and impressions that a person or group has of an
3
object. The object may be a company, product, brand, place, or person”. The image is
developed and established in consumers mind through previously experienced events and communication (Andreassen, 1997). The company does not control the image, it is the customers’ perception of the company. However, it is impossible for a company to influence or change the image, or can a strong corporate identity change the consumers’ perception? Despite that corporate identity can be seen as an effective strategy (Melewar, 2003), it can be very difficult to communicate a company’s identity to the audience (Christensen & Askegaard, 1999). Maybe the gap between the corporate identity and the image can be diminished if the company can communicate in an innovative way? Companies and their brands have always been communicated and marketed in different ways and through different channels. Is the common and traditional ways of marketing the most effective to convey a company’s identity to the consumers? Or are there other options? Since the image is constructed by consumers, it is very important to communicate a strong corporate identity to their consumer. Hence, it is necessary to find new, interesting, different and inspiring ways to communicate with the consumers. We will study if mobile apps can be such a new way to communicate a corporate identity.
1.3 Purpose
We intend to study how mobile applications can help companies to get an image that fit their corporate identity.
4
2 Theoretical framework
2.1 Corporate Identity
Many authors have chosen to not define corporate identity because it is highly contentious (Melewar & Jenkins, 2002; Melewar & Saunders, 2000; Markwick & Fill, 1997). Some authors view corporate identity as the sum of all the factors defining what an organization is (Melewar, 2003). This is also what Balmer (1999) states and also means that corporate identity includes; history, philosophy, business scope, strategy, the range and type of product and services they offer and how they communicate themselves both formally and informally. Others describe corporate identity as a set of symbolic representations, including; graphic design and organizational behavior (Abratt, 1989; Olins, 1978; van Riel & Balmer, 1997 after Balmer, 1999).
The interest in corporate identity has increased over the years due to changes in technology, consumer behavior, values and market dynamics. Some factors that have contributed to this are; deregulations, internationalization and more sophisticated consumers. (Melewar, 2003) Cornelissen et al., (2007) state that the corporate identity concept has grown out of the design, marketing and corporate communications communities. This is also stated by Melewar (2003) who says that the concept of corporate identity has contributions from different disciplines and includes behavior, culture and communication. Initially the concept was restricted to logos and elements of visual design, but it has gradually come to include communication and other forms of outward-facing behavior in the market that gives the company its specificity and coherence (Cornelissen et al., 2007; Christensen & Askegaard, 1999).
The concept of corporate identity refers to the distinct attributes of an organization and it deals with the questions `Who are we?´ and `What are we?´. The identity of an organization contains many values that are derived from a group of subcultures, which can be found both externally and internally in the organization. These values are evolving and the mix of values is what gives the organization its distinctiveness. (Balmer & Gray, 2003) Cornelissen et al. (2007) focus more on the external factors, where the corporate identity is connected with questions concerning the way a company positions themselves and how the organization promotes themselves to others. We agree that corporate identity is something that needs to be created both internally and externally, though we argue that it is important to have a clear corporate identity internally before trying to communicate it externally. Hence, it is important
5
to know who and what the company is before the company decides where to position and how to promote themselves.
It is important to build a strong corporate identity so the audience can recognize and distinguish the company from others (Abratt, 1989). Margulies (1977) after Christensen & Askegaard (1999:29) describe it as important since it is: “the sum of all the way a company
chooses to identify itself to all its publics; the community, customer, employees, the press, present and potential stockholders, security analysts, and investment bankers”. Corporate
identity is also important since it can be seen as a strategic tool and a source for competitive advantage. It is regarded as a strategic resource, since it builds credibility and support among stakeholders and since it can give competitive advantage in a new business environment. (Melewar, 2003)
Christensen & Askegaard, (1999) explains that corporate identity should not only be seen as a symbolic factor, but also as a communication process, where the company is the sender and the audience is the receiver. The problem is that the company wants consumers to have an image of the company that fits the corporate identity, but that is difficult to manage. It is almost impossible for the company to send out messages that will be received in the same way by the audience. (Christensen & Askegaard, 1999) Researchers’ state that it is highly important that the corporate identity and the image fit. If not, there is a risk of employee disengagement and consumer dissatisfaction. (Cornelissen et al., 2007)
Melewars (2003) model “The proposed corporate identity taxonomy” gives seven core components a company need to include in the process of building the corporate identity; corporate communication, corporate design, corporate culture, behavior, corporate structure, industry identity and corporate strategy.
Corporate communication is defined “as the management of the perceptions of an
organization and the management of change” (Chaloner, 1990 after Melewar, 2003:199). It is about how the organization communicates with its stakeholders (Melewar, 2003) and every message it will send and every activity it is involved in will have an impact on stakeholder’s perception of the company (Baker & Balmer, 1997). Corporate design is the corporate visual identity that can be seen as “the outer sign of the inward commitment of a company” (Abratt, 1989; Melewar & Saunders, 2000 after Melewar, 2003:201). Hence, the corporate visual identity is what makes an audience recognize and differentiate the company from other companies. The visual identity includes five main components; organizations name, slogan,
6
logotype/symbol, color and typography. These can be conveyed through advertising and promotion. Corporate culture is the organizations core value, behavior and beliefs. Behavior of employees and management behavior is also a part of the process of corporate identity.
Corporate structure consists of both branding structure and organizational structure. Industry identity refers to features that are fundamental to the industry, such as competiveness and size. Corporate strategy refers to the overall strategies on the market(s) where the company has
chosen to compete. (Melewar, 2003; Melewar et al., 2005) Through the development of a positive corporate identity a company can hopefully manage to keep the consumers from creating negative associations to the company (Melewar, 2003).
2.2 Image
According to Aaker & Myers (1082) after Furman (2010:68) image is defined as a “…set of
meanings by which an object is known and through which people describe, remember, and relate to it. That is, it is the net result of the interaction of a person’s beliefs, ideas, feelings, and impressions about an object”. Christiansen & Askegaard (1999) have another approach;
they argue that the image can be seen as a false representation of an organization because the symbolic representation is only a partial reflection and does not often match the company’s reality. Some authors use the concept of corporate image instead. Furman (2010) argues that the definition of corporate image is a bit unclear and persons often have their own view and idea of the concept but one way to describe corporate image can be through asking two questions; `Who do they think we are?´ and `Who do they think we should be?´. However, whatever the definitions, Gray & Balmer (1998) tries to explain the concept corporate image as the first picture of the company that a stakeholder get in his or her mind when they think about the company.
We are from now on going to use both the concept of image and corporate image. However, it is important to remember that image is not something that the company can send out or manage directly. The image is a perception in the mind of the consumer and not something that the company can manage.
In the communication process, where the identity and image is in the opposite ends of each other, the image is something that is outside the limits of the company. Hence, it is “sent” back to the company through external analyses. These analyses can be thoughts of individuals or a group that has the same image about the company and these images are external to the organization. (Christensen & Askegaard, 1999)
7
Gray & Balmer (1998) argue that image and reputation is what the viewer perceives and that it is necessary to manage image and reputation. This is something that becomes even more important since the world is getting more globalized, which leads to more competitors. To succeed, despite increasing competition, the company needs to have a positive image. (Gray & Balmer 1998) It is important to have a good image but the image is nothing that a company can control and manage itself. So, even if a company's goal is to have a good image it can be hard to reach this goal. Gray & Balmer (1998) state that the image can be established faster and easier than the reputation. The image can be built up through co-ordinated image-building campaigns, which embraces a formal communication system, name, logo, signage, corporate advertising and public relations (Gray & Balmer, 1998).
A purpose with the corporate identity is to build an “intended image” in the minds of the company’s consumers, through creating strong brand recognition among the company’s target stakeholders, but also by creating a good reputation in their minds (Gray & Balmer, 1998). A company can have a really good reputation without having a prominent image. For example a small company can have an excellent reputation and trustworthiness for their business, communicated through word-of-mouth. Even though the reputation is really good they need to have a good and stronger image if they want their business to grow. (Gray & Balmer, 1998) According to Philipson (2010) the concept of image can be seen as how customers perceive, interpret and judge a company. If the customers are positive to the company, it is the result of:
How good the company knows the identity of the target group Their business idea of how they deliver value to their target group
Their ability to get the employees to accept and behave in accordance with the business idea. This builds the corporate identity.
How well they communicate the corporate identity
The affect of competition and the environment, including uncontrolled word-of-mouth, and their own experiences of the company and how it affects the target groups perception of the corporate identity
(Philipson, 2010)
There are several reasons why companies should realize the importance of good image. One reason is that a good image influence the behavior of people, another important reason is that people often do not have experience and knowledge about the company, hence it is important
8
to try to create a good image (Furman 2010). Andreassen (1997) states that image is important because it affects consumers purchase decisions and hence, to have a good image is important so the consumers choose your brand instead of competitors.
A company wants their stakeholders to have a correct and positive image of the company; this means that the company always needs to consider the value of a good image. The purpose is therefore that the stakeholders perceive the image in the right way. (Gray & Balmer, 1998) This is confirmed by Markwick & Fill (1997) and Karaosmanoglu & Melewar (2006), whom argue that an image is the summary of what a company’s stakeholders have in their mind when they think about the organization identity. As discussed earlier, the stakeholders’ image of the company is extremely important, because if stakeholders have a negative image to it will affect the company negatively (Gray & Balmer, 1998).
According to Andreassen (1997) image is related positively with perceived quality, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. The image is developed and established in consumers mind through previously experienced events and communication. If the customers are satisfied with the company, they will also have a good attitude to the company. This is why image become complex, because it includes both attitudes and beliefs of consumers. (Andreassen, 1997) Both Javalgi et al., (1994) and Andreassen (1997) argue that image is important both for the company itself, but also for the evaluation of the company. Abratt (1989) argues that image is a key to get public trust for a company. The image could be seen as the result of a process that includes various types of information that reaches the consumers. The information could come by advertising and word-of-mouth. (Weiwei, 2007) All authors above argue that image affects a company in several ways. We argue that the impact of image is as strong for the company as it is for the consumers. The image that a company has in consumers’ minds plays a significant role in the consumer decision making.
Gürhan-Canli & Batra (2004) state that it exist different types of image associations and prior research has shown that innovation, trustworthiness and corporate social responsibility is especially important. A company’s level of innovation is important for the consumers to know because it gives a hint of what the company stands for and what they want to develop in the future. Hence, it affects the consumers’ evaluation of the company, in turn affecting the image. Another important part that affects the image is trustworthiness; the company’s reliability, honesty, credibility and benevolence. If consumers feel that they can trust the company and are positive to it, the image will probably be stronger and more positive. A
9
company with corporate social responsibility often has a better image than companies that do not. (Gürhan-Canli & Batra, 2004) We believe there are other types of image associations that are of equal importance as these three. Maybe the author argues for these because they are more important for his study or for the companies in the study and therefore we do not believe these are the most important associations for all companies.
Berman & Evans (1995) after Weiwei (2007) argue that image could be seen as a function of the accumulation of purchasing experience overtime and it has two components: functional and emotional experiences. The functional component includes tangible attributes and the emotional component includes psychological dimensions like feeling and attitudes to a company. The feelings often come from the consumer’s own experience and thoughts about the company, but also from information which in turn leads to the creation of the image. (Weiwei, 2007)
Richins (1983) argues that both positive and negative Word-of-mouth (WOM) can influence a company and its image in many ways, and that are almost impossible to manage. Negative WOM is a problem for a company, positive WOM gives a lot of benefits. If a consumer is satisfied with the product/brand they will continue to buy the product and tell other people, which may influence the image. When a consumer is dissatisfied with the product/brand they will probably not buy it again. If the number of consumers that are dissatisfied is high it will affect the company and their image negatively. (Richins, 1983)
Competition is another factor that affects and influences a company’s image. Competition is not always bad; it can strengthen the company, as it makes the company aware of competitors. Another benefit of competition is that it forces the company to constantly develop. The image can also change because of competition. If a consumer like or dislike a competitor it will affect their perception of another company in the industry. (Till et al., 2011)
2.3 State of the art
In this thesis we have used the two concepts of corporate identity and image. We mainly found accepted, but hardly any empirically validated, theories.
There is no clear definition of corporate identity. Many authors have their own view of what the concept stands for. van Riel (1995), Balmer (1999) and Markwick & Fill (1997) statements are accepted, but there are not enough with empirically validated data to consider it to be a dominant definition. Theories from Melewar (2003), Christensen & Askegaard (1999),
10
Cornelissen et al., (2007) are emergent, in the sense that they are some acceptance in the field. There is no significant validation for these theories.
All theories we found about corporate identity states that companies need to work hard to develop a strong corporate identity. Christensen & Askegaard (1999), Melewar (2003) Cornelissen et al. (2007) describe the importance of communicating with stakeholders, while Balmer & Gray (2003) highlights both internal and external factors to be necessary tools, when the company wants to build a strong corporate identity. van den Bosch (2005) and van Riel & Balmer (1997) state that the company’s mission is to get a favorable reputation. Since, all theories are emergent it is hard to determine which is most accepted.
We have found several definitions of image and “corporate image”, but we have not discovered any well-accepted definition of image. The definitions of Gray & Balmer (1998), Andreassen (1997), Furman (2010), Christensen & Akergaard (1999), describes image as something that occurs in the consumer's mind and a sum of all impressions of an object. Although, the authors do not have exactly the same definitions, they are still similar. Even though much research has been done in this field it is not empirically validated and therefore we argue that the concepts of image can be considered as emerging theories.
A good image is important, but there are different opinions of why it is important. Furman (2010) argues that a good image is important because it influences the behavior of people, but also because people often do not have experience and knowledge about the company. Andreassen (1997) on the other hand, states that image is important because it affects consumers’ purchase decisions. These two authors have different views of why image is good and hence these theories are conflicting, though Andreassen’s theory is more accepted and can be considered as an emerging theory.
None of the authors have explained how a company can send an indented identity in an effective way so that it will fit the perception/image of the company. Therefore we consider this to be a theoretical gap. Also on a more detailed level, there is no research done on how mobile applications can be used to influence the image. Hence, we consider this to be a gap.
2.4 Research question
11
3 Methodology
3.1 Research design
According to Bryman & Bell (2007) qualitative studies is appropriate when the researchers wants to study values and attitudes, or they want to gain a deeper knowledge of a specific subject. In this thesis we found that a qualitative approach was most suitable, since we were going to study image, which is a question of values. In this way we would get a better understanding of the phenomena we studied and a closer relationship with the respondents in the study. One main disadvantage with a qualitative study is that it is hard to make the study generalizable (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Since the chosen phenomenon is quite new, we considered it to be more important to go deeper and hence take the risk of losing generalizability.
3.1.1 Case study
A case study is a detailed analysis of an individual case. A case can for example be described as a company, a specific event within a company or the launch of a new product or service. A close study of these will hopefully give the researcher a better understanding. One main disadvantage with a case study was that it is not as generalizable as other methods. Benefits with doing a case study were that the researcher gets a better feeling about reality and also new discoveries that would not be found in other studies. (Yin, 2007) Therefore we found multiple case studies to be the most suitable for our thesis since we wanted to get an understanding for how companies explain and use their corporate identity.
3.1.2 Telephone interview
Telephone interviews are usable when it would require too much time to do face-to-face interviews. An advantage with the conduction of a telephone interview was that there were possibilities to ask the interviewee follow-up questions and it also gave the interviewee opportunities to elaborate their answers. (Bryman & Bell, 2007) Telephone interviews also reduced the “interview effect”, meaning that the interviewer’s presence could make the respondent uncertain and behave abnormal (Jacobsen, 2002). Disadvantages with telephone interviews were that it was harder for the interviewer to create a personal connection with the interviewee and there was also no way to see how the respondents reacted and understood the questions. Hence, there was a higher risk of misunderstanding than with other interview methods. (Bryman & Bell, 2007) In our study the choice of doing telephone interviews was appropriate since we considered that face to face interviews were unnecessary considering the
12
time it would have demanded and we believed that it would not have given us any better information.
In this study telephone interviews were conducted with, Pressbyrån, Max Hamburger-restauranger AB and Company X. The same interview guide was used for all the interviews (see Appendix A). The first interview (2011-05-11) was with Mariette Kristenson, Director of Marketing at Pressbyrån (see Appendix D). The second interview (2011-05-11) was with Henrik Eriksson, Director of Marketing at Max Hamburgerrestauranger AB (see Appendix E). The third interview (2011-05-18) was with X, Web Director at Company X (see Appendix F).
3.1.3 Focus groups
A focus group is a form of an open group interview, where a discussion is held about a relatively limited phenomenon. This method is useful when the researcher want to gain new knowledge about a phenomenon. It also works well when the researchers want to know the individuals experience about a specific subject, but also when the interviewer wants to know why the respondents hold an opinion. Another advantage with focus groups was that the respondents sometimes asked other respondents questions, which lead to more discussion. Something that was important to consider was that if the interview themes were too wide, the discussion will be to wide too and will possibly derail and be hard to analyze. (Jacobsen, 2002) Since the chosen subject of the thesis was new, there was not much previous research done, hence we considered focus groups to be the best choice for gaining profound knowledge to the thesis. It was also suitable since we wanted a discussion about the apps.
The data collection consisted of three focus groups, since according to the theory it was most appropriate to work with two or three focus groups (Jacobsen, 2002). The focus groups consisted of 6-7 respondents per group and the same interview guide (see Appendix B) was used for all three focus groups. We choose this number of respondents because it gave all the respondents a chance to discuss what they thought and give their own opinion. The respondents were first asked and had a discussion about their general image of the company in question. After that they were introduced to the mobile application of the company (see Appendix C for pictures of apps). Then a discussion followed concerning the perception of the application and if the perception of the company had changed. No one in the focus groups has had any previous contact with the companies’ applications.
13 3.2 Population and Sample
A convenience sample was made for the focus groups in this study. This sampling method is conducted by choosing people that is easy to get access to. Advantages with this kind of sample were that it was cost-effective and less time-consuming. Disadvantages were that relevant groups might not be selected and hence the study would be hard to generalize from sample to population. (Jacobsen, 2002) In our focus groups we chose people that were between 20-30 years old. We considered this to be a relevant segment for the study, since they were active users of their smartphones. This study will therefore only be generalizable for this specific segment.
In this thesis we chose to study three Swedish companies, in different industries, and their mobile applications. The reason for why we chose to study only three companies was to get a deeper understanding, since the subject was fairly new. Why we selected Swedish companies was because it would then be more generalizible to Swedish companies.
The three companies are: Pressbyrån, Company X and Max Hamburgerrestauranger AB. We chose these companies to see if there were differences between industries. A second reason was because the companies had three completely different apps. The intention was not to make a complete industry study. Hence, we chose to study only one company in three industries and to get a deeper rather than wider understanding. All of these companies are brick and mortar companies and hence, we cannot generalize this study to companies that are not in this segment.
A smartphone can both be an iPhone or an Android phone, because of the broader offer that the iPhone had, we just focused on mobile applications for iPhones. We also chose to focus on free mobile apps, because of the cost of downloading and due to the fact that there were a lot more free applications on the market.
We tried to investigate how many Swedish companies, targeting consumers, which have iPhone apps. We tried to get hold of this information by contacting companies that created mobile applications and through Apple's headquarter in Sweden. From all places, the answer was that it was impossible to get access to such statistics and it was not certain that it even exists. The only remaining way for us to get hold of that information was by doing our own search for Swedish companies in the iPhone App store. The probability that we would miss a large number of companies was high, giving a skewed number of companies. Hence, we chose to not make any statements about how many Swedish companies that have apps.
14 3.3 Operationalization
In the following table the operationalization of this study is shown. Based on the theory we formulated questions to the interviews and focus groups, which became the basis for the collection of empirical data. We linked the theory with the empirical data and the operationalization model then became the starting position for how the analysis would be structured and written. In the operationalization model we did not include mobile applications since there are no existing theories concerning that. Also it is neither the subject of the thesis.
Theoretical concept Interview theme
Company Interview theme Focus groups Empirical data Corporate identity 2.1
The company’s stated corporate identity
-How they perceive it -How they convey their identity
Matrix A
The purpose with corporate identity
-Why it is important -Benefits
Matrix A
Components of the company’s corporate identity
Matrix A
The influence of corporate identity Matrix A
Image 2.2
What is an image? The importance of image
Matrix B
What influences the creation of an image
Matrix B
What can contribute to a positive image of a company
15 3.4 Validity
Validity is based in full and accessible explanation of all phases of the research and it argues if the study generated the result it was aimed to generate (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Validity indicates whether we measure what we want to measure. Focus groups measure the views or give an appearance of agreement or disagreement within a group. (Jacobsen, 2002) We compared the respondents’ opinions and statements in the focus group against each other to get what differentiated and what was common among them. Since we used a multiple case study we compared each interviewed company’s opinions and statements against each other and were able to find patterns from the three companies. This in combination with a thoroughly made operationalization we could more easily and better connect the theoretical framework to our collected empirical data. We also considered that our sample was relevant for our study and contributed to a higher validity. We felt that we largely received the data we had hoped to get and thereby we have been able to measure what we intended to and hence we consider the validity in this thesis to be rather high.
3.5 Reliability
According Bryman & Bell (2007) the result should be reliable to make the results credible in the eyes of others and if a study is conducted with high reliability the results should turn out similar when doing the study again. To make this thesis reliable we interviewed three companies and held three focus groups. The expectations were that the companies would give a relevant picture of the companies’ identity and explain the purpose with their mobile application. The focus group in turn would discuss what image they had about each company and what they thought about their apps. By doing that we would get different perspectives of each company that we could combine and then select relevant key words for our empirical data. Various methods, such as individual interviews and focus groups greatly affect the studies reliability. In interviews and focus groups, the interviewer's behavior may have had affected the respondent, which may have created biased results. The place where the interview is conducted could also affect the reliability of the study. (Jacobsen, 2002) Also even though the respondents may have had the same attitudes and thoughts about a topic, the answers might not be the same if the respondent would be asked again in another study. Hence, the reliability is usually low in a qualitative research. (Bryman & Bell, 2007) Although, we consider that the results would be fairly the same if the study would be done again given that we explained well the choices we made. Hence we consider the reliability to be rather high in this thesis.
16
4 Empirical data
4.1 Company backgrounds
4.1.1 Pressbyrån
Pressbyrån is a Swedish chain of convenience stores with approximately 325 stores nationwide. Pressbyråns consumers often want to eat or use what they bought directly. Therefore, the supply consists mainly of confectionery, drinks, fast food, tickets, lottery tickets, newspaper, magazines and tobacco. The company’s ambition is to offer this in a quick and convenient way. Each store is run by a franchisee and the location of the stores will be where a lot of people circulate. (pressbyran.se)
In Pressbyråns app the consumer can buy mobile gift vouchers that they can send out to their friends as a gift. The app also provides the consumer with a push notice when there are any persons in their phonebook that have a name-day. Every day from 13 to 14 the company loads the app with offers that the consumer can get. All they have to do is press a button sometime between 13-14 and they will have a chance to win a product at Pressbyrån. The app also has a store locator, so the consumer can see where the nearest store is. (appstore via iPhone)
4.1.2 Company X
Company X is a Swedish clothing company, which has 88 stores in Sweden, Norway and Finland. Their mission is to sell a unique mix of fashion and interior design inspired by India, which will appeal to many. They choose to call their “style” Bohemian Modern - a bohemian style that is always modern. (Company X.com)
Company X’s app gives the consumer the opportunity to look at new arrivals, receive discounts, and locate a Company X store. The persons who use the app get an update every week about the latest in-store collection. The persons can also share their clothes on Facebook and via e-mail. (appstore via iPhone)
4.1.3 Max Hamburgerrestauranger AB
Max is a Swedish hamburger chain. The company’s ambition is to use the best ingredients and serve the best hamburgers. Their vision is to become the world’s best hamburger chain. (max.se)
Max mobile application is called Max Locator. With this app the consumer can find the nearest Max-restaurant rapidly and easy. There are several service descriptions for each
17
restaurant, like road description, opening hours and telephone numbers. The app also shows the latest campaigns and gives special offers. (appstore via iPhone)
4.2 Matrixes
From the collected empirical data we found a lot of words that the focus groups and the interviews had in common but also words that differed. We highlighted these words in the text and after that we placed the words in one matrix for the company interviews and one matrix for the focus groups. We could then see patterns from the focus groups and patterns from the companies. We then created generic key words that summed up what the three focus groups and companies said as answers for each question. The words we did not find any pattern for we placed under odd comments. We found several pattern in our empirical data collection. For explanation of the patterns see Appendix J.
4.2.1 Matrix A- Company interview
A B C D E F
1 Generic keywords Pressbyrån Company X Max
How do you perceive your company's identity?
2 Responsibility Dependability Social responsibility
Social perspective
3 Quality Service, quality Taste, good quality 4 Offers Appealing supply Uniqueness
5 Odd comments Fast & Easy, everyday joy
Perception
What do you want to convey through your identity?
6 Value adding Added value Good quality, taste
7 Loyalty Building understanding
Engagement, trust
8 Responsibility Responsibility Social responsibility
9 Odd comments Permeate whole company
Inspiring, uniqueness What is your purpose with
creating a strong identity?
10 Create strength Strengthening Show our strengths
11 Communicate Communication Communication 12 Social responsibility Show
responsibility
Convey sustainable social responsibility
13 Odd comments Convey experience, understanding for the company
18 What do you consider to be
advantages with a strong identity?
14 Create insight Creates an understanding
Consumer awareness
Relatable
15 Distinguishing Distinguishing Distinguishing 16 Competition Competition Competitive 17 Odd comments Recognition,
stronger relationships
More satisfied customers
Do you believe that you can influence how the consumer perceives your identity?
18 Yes Yes, compliance is important
Yes, constant work
Yes, through marketing
Which of these parts are important for your identity; communication, symbolism, culture, employees, structure, strategy, size and
competitiveness, other?
19 Employees Employees Employees Employees 20 Business strategy Business model
mix
Business strategy 21 Communication Communication Communication 22 Culture/History History History
23 Depends on all factors
Mix of everything Mix of everything
24 Odd comments Customer evaluations
Symbolism
What is the purpose/idea with your app?
25 Pleasure Generate joy Inspiration Entertainment 26 Value adding Core value Value Add value
27 Ease Facilitation Accessibility
28 Communicate Communicate Build loyalty Communicate with customers
29 Odd comments Complement to
the brand Is one purpose to convey your
identity through your app? If yes, how? If no, what do you want to convey?
30 Yes Yes, through communication of all core values
Yes, through influencing
customer perception
31 Odd comments Important that the app is fast and easy
Partly, complement
Do you believe that you can influence the consumers perception of your company through your app?
32 Yes Yes, if customers is already positive
Absolutely Yes, but only fragments of the customer base 33 Odd comments Hard to influence
behavior
How do you believe that the customers perception accord with what you are trying to convey?
32 Good High accordance Accordance High compliance where it is already established
19
4.2.2 Matrix B- Focus groups
A B C D E F
1 Generic Keywords Focus group 1 Focus group 2 Focus group 3
What is an image for you?
2 Perception Perceive Perceive Perceive, other perceive something 3 A picture Picture of
themselves
General picture Company try to convey
4 Want to be/reach Achieve Company’s goal
5 In their mind Association, never
constant, fuzzy
Spontaneous thoughts
6 Odd comments Turn out to be outward, appear
Experience
How important do you think it is for a company that consumers have a positive image of the company?
7 Important 70% important Important Very Important
8 Associations Good
associations
Associate Associate 9 The product decides Depends on the
product
Depends on the product
10 The price decides Pay more Depends on the price
11 Relationships Longterm customers Increased loyalty
12 Odd comments The image
What affects your view of a company?
13 The overall experience Personal experience
Experience Treatment, quality
14 Marketing Marketing Media
15 Appearance Logotype, homepage
Color, logotype
16 Perception Perception Perception,
compliance
17 Odd comments Social responsibility
What makes you positive to a company?
18 Communication Communication Communication Communication
19 Experience Own experience Experience
20 Reputation Reputation Reputation, recommendation
21 The products Product range Product range,
20 22 Treatment/trustworthiness Treatment, openness Treatment, service minded, customer behavior
23 Odd comments Competition, right
values
Price
What is your opinion of Pressbyrån?
24 Expensive Expensive Expensive Expensive
25 Generous opening hours Generous opening hours
Generous opening hours
Generous opening hours
26 Availability Availability Availability Availability
27 Boring Boring Boring, less exciting Boring appearance
28 Product range Limited product range
Basic product range Good range of products
What do you think of Pressbyråns app?
29 The company connection Clear view of the company
Symbolizing the company
30 Boring app Boring,
pointless
Boring, confusing
31 Product range Limited product range
Limited product range
32 Purchasing possibilities Like the shop Good shop
33 Odd comments Very good, easy to understand
Budget app Like the name-day, no connection to the company What is your
perception of Pressbyrån through this app? Has it change or is it the same?
34 Unchanged picture Same image Same picture Same picture
35 Worse image Budget feeling Worse image
36 Still expensive Expensive Expensive
37 Better picture Better image Positive picture 38 No value added Meaningless Pointless
39 Odd comments Availability, Funny, innovative,
Budget feeling, succeed
Worse image
What do you think Pressbyrån wants to achieve through this app?
40 Increased profits More customer More money
41 Join the ”app world” Keep updated, join the ”app world”
Just to have one
42 Odd comments More personal No purpose, market themselves, reputation
Availability
What is your opinion of
21
Company X? 44 Negative experience Bad experience Disappointment Trapped feeling
45 No experience No experience No picture/image, skew picture
46 Positive experience Positive picture Inspired, comfortable
47 Odd comments Less media activity
Good interior products
Different environment
What do you think of Company X’s app?
48 Slow app Slow Slow Slow
49 Positive attitude Very good, visual, inspired
Really good, serious, well made
Very good, nice, effective
50 Good content Good offers Highlight offers Useful, a lot to do.
51 Informative Good with information
Informative
52 Odd comments Missing buy button What is your
perception of Company X through this app? Has it change or is it the same?
53 Professional approach Professional, quality impression
Serious approach Professional
54 Better attitude to the company Change perception
Better picture, positive
Change image, positive 55 Odd comments Same picture,
clear connection
Missing connection, new information
Good offers, odd company
What do you think Company X wants to achieve through this app?
56 Clarify the approach Clearer picture Market, new marketing channel
Change image
57 Positive attitude Inspire, entertainment
Innovate, trendy
58 Identity Quality
impression
Show the product range
59 Odd comments Just to have an app,
reach existing customers
Reach new target group, create benefits, change image
What is your opinion of Max?
60 Fresh Fresh Fresh Fresh
61 Origin Swedish meat Swedish Swedish
62 Taste Good
hamburger
Nice hamburger, quality
63 Distinguish Different Better than
competitors 64 Negative associations Expensive Takes time 65 Positive associations Amazing,
inviting
22
66 Odd comments Youthful, genuine
Loyal customers, social responsibility
Unfresh
What do you think of Max app?
67 Identity Environmental aspect
Historical aspect Swedish feeling
68 Negative attitude Very bad Boring, bad offers, no discounts, too much texts
Boring, too much texts
69 Good content Good location Good navigator, informative
Informative
70 Positive attitudes Useful Nice, updated
71 Odd comments Competitive advantage, missing order button/ menu, little information, just to have an app What is your perception of Max through this app? Has it change or is it the same?
72 No connection to the identity Missing
connection, why black?, not black, not consistent Not Swedish, American Missing connection
73 Negative attitude Lower image Negative picture
74 Unchanged attitude Indifferent Same positive picture
75 Odd comments Less creative Positive
What do you think Max wants to achieve through this app?
76 Facilitate Show location Easier to find
77 Information source Inform the
customers
Inform 78 Odd comments Do not know,
too advanced, send out core value
Find new customers be different, Swedish, healthy
23
5 Analysis
5.1 Corporate identity
It is difficult to state what identity stands for, because many authors chose not to define what it is (Melewar & Jenkins, 2002; Melewar & Saunders, 2000; Markwick & Fill, 1997). In our study we found similar patterns in how the companies described their identity. All stated that responsibility (Matrix A:C2) is one factor that is included in their identity. Two other keywords we found were quality and offers (Matrix A:C3;C4). Melewar (2003) describe identity as the sum of all factors that the company possesses. According to Pressbyrån and Max it is the mix of everything that the company possesses that is important for their identity (Matrix A:C23). A company’s identity is often something individual that the company has developed through their core values and often there are some key words that companies would like to stand for.
Other elements that an identity includes are; history, philosophy, business scope, strategy, range/type of product, service and how they communicate themselves (Balmer, 1999). In our study we found patterns that showed that all of these factors are more or less important parts of and reasons for building a company’s identity (Matrix A:C19-24). According to Abratt (1989): Olins (1978); van Riel & Balmer (1997) after Balmer (1999) identity is factors of symbolical representations. We did not find any patterns that showed that symbolic representation was important for a corporate identity. This could depend on the choice of companies. The symbolic representation is more important when the company produces something where consumers can wear and show off their brand and that is not the case for the three studied companies. Even though the clothing industry is a good example of an industry where the symbolic representation is important, we do not consider Company X to be a “brand” in that sense.
Cornelissen et al., (2007), Christensen & Askegaard, (1999) and Melewar (2003) state that identity has grown from symbolic elements to include behavior, culture and communication. This is confirmed by Company X and Max, because they want to show good behavior in the form of environmental responsibility (Matrix A:C8). Culture and historical aspects are important for the companies, probably because they want to tell who they are and their background (Matrix A:C22). Communication is necessary for two of the companies, since they want to convey what they stand for and try to communicate the core values to their customer (Matrix A:C21).
24
Melewars (2003) model “The proposed corporate identity taxonomy” gives seven core components; corporate communication, corporate design, corporate culture, behavior, corporate structure, industry identity and corporate strategy, which all needs to be included in the process of building the corporate identity. In our study none of the components is more important than another (Matrix A:C23), since none of the companies could rank them. However, we found four factors that were more prominent than the other; behavior of employees, business strategy, communication and culture/history (Matrix A:C19;20;21;22). The first factor, behavior of employees, if the employees are a good face of the company it can create a strong image, but if they are a bad face the opposite might happen. The second factor, business strategy, is important because the company is build around several factors that needs to be well made and be clear to everyone in the company. The third factor communication is important, because every activity will probably have an impact the stakeholder’s perception of the company. The last one; culture/history, is the company’s core values and beliefs and the company mission is to convey those values to the audience, to differentiate themselves from competitors.
According to Balmer & Gray (2003) corporate identity deals with the questions of whom and what we are. The identity derives from values that are found both externally and internally in the organization and is what gives the company its distinctiveness (Balmer & Gray, 2003). Cornelissen et al., (2007) instead state that it is connected to questions concerning how the company position and promotes itself to others and Abratt (1989) states that it is a way to make the company recognized and distinguished from others. In our study we that a strong identity is important, since it creates insight, distinguishes the company and is important in competition (Matrix A:C14;C15;C16). We can here see that the companies describe identity to be important mainly because it is important for external reasons, rather than internally as the theory states. We also found that the purpose of creating a strong identity is to communicate and become stronger (Matrix A:C11;C10). This can be related to theories from Melewar (2003), who states that the identity can be a strategic tool for competitive advantage. It is necessary for companies to build competitive advantage, because of globalization and stronger competition in most markets. If a company can manage to build and maintain a strong corporate identity, it will be easier for them to gain competitive advantage. Though the problem is still there; even though a company believes that they have a strong identity it does not matter if the consumers’ image of the company does not match.
25
According to Melewar (2003) a strong corporate identity can build credibility. In our study we found that loyalty was important for the identity (Matrix A:C7). If a company can manage, through their identity, to show what they are and what they stand for, it will be easier to gain credibility with consumers and hence create loyalty. Both Company X and Max want to convey through their identity that they stand for social responsibility (Matrix A:C12). If they manage to communicate this part of their identity in a good way, people who regard social responsibility as important will see them as more credible and become more loyal to these companies in question. This will be what distinguishes them from competitors and gives them an upper hand against those who is not associated with social responsibility.
Corporate identity should not only be seen as a symbolic factor, but as something a company should communicate to people. The company tries to communicate their identity and the audience receives and then creates an image. The problem is that it is almost impossible to send out a message that will be received in the same way by the audience. (Christensen & Askegaard, 1999) The companies in the study want to send/communicate their identity through their app (Matrix A:C28;A:C30), though this identity is not always perceived in the same way by the respondents in the focus groups (Matrix B:C25-28;C43-47;C60-C66). Max identity is rather clear for the respondents in the focus groups, since they have almost the same picture of Max (Matrix A:D2;D5; Matrix B:D25;D26;D28). Even though Max has succeeded to convey their identity, they have failed to do it through their app. We found that the focus groups felt that Max was missing to connect to their identity in the app (Matrix B:C72) and it gave them a negative attitude (Matrix B:C68). If a company wants to communicate their identity through an app it might be of importance that they do it in the same way as they communicate in other channels, otherwise the consumers feel that the identity is unclear. The company might lose the influence over how the consumers perceive the company.
5.2 Image
According to Furman (2010) the definition of image is unclear, and persons often have their own idea of what image is. Aaker & Myers (1982) after Furman (2010) state that an image is what an object is known as, and what kind of feelings, beliefs and impressions persons have of this object. According to Gray & Balmer (1998) an image is the first picture of a company that shows up in a person’s mind when thinking about that company. In the focus groups we found similar statements. According to the respondents, image is the perceptions and pictures of something (Matrix B:C2;C3). They also consider image to be something that exists in the
26
minds of persons (Matrix B:C5). This shows that even though persons often have their own idea of what image is, they have the same pattern of thoughts and explains image in similar ways. Still, it is important to remember that even though image is described similarly, by each person, the perceptions and pictures of one specific object are most likely different from person to person.
Furman (2010) states that corporate image can be described by answering two questions; who do they think we are and who do they think we should be. According to our focus groups image can also be explained as something that the consumer or company want to be or something that the company wants to reach (Matrix B:C4). This can be interpreted as if image is something that is in the control of the company, since the respondents connects image with something that the company wants to be. According to Christensen & Akergaard (1999) it is only identity that can be controlled by the company and image is something that is on the other end of the communication process and outside the limits of the company. We see here that consumers believe that image is something that the company decides and sends, but in theory this is not possible. If consumers believe that image can be controlled by the company, it is also likely that companies believe the same. We argue that it is here the concept of identity and image gets mixed up. Image is something that only can be “managed” by the company through the perception of their consumers and something that is external to the company is always very hard to influence. Since the image is in the consumers’ mind it is always fuzzy and never constant.
Andreassen (1997) highlights that consumers’ form an image in their mind through experience and influenced by communication. According to our focus groups the overall experience that the consumer holds affect their view of a company and decides if they have a positive image or not (Matrix B:C13). It is therefore important how the company communicates with their consumer and that can bring positive associations. Further on Andreassen (1997) states that if the consumer is pleased with what the company mediates, they the perception will automatically be more positive. We believe that if the respondents have experience of a company they will automatically have some attitude towards its brand. It is not only image that is produced in the minds of consumers, but also the reputation of a company (Gray & Balmer, 1998). According to our focus groups, reputation is a key element to get a positive attitude to a company, hence creating a good image (Matrix B:C20). According to Gray & Balmer (1998) companies can try to influence the image by communicating with the consumer through their name, logo advertising and public relations.
27
When asking the focus groups what affects their view of a company, we found that it was marketing, appearance, perception, experience and reputation (Matrix B:C14;C15;C13,C16). If a company works hard with these elements, it will affect the view of the company and if they can manage it in accordance with their identity the image will be improved. We argue that the image will be improved even more if the reputation about the company is good and it is important for the company to try to influence the reputations, even though this is not something they can do directly. If a company can work interactively with their consumers, they can increase the possibility of influencing the reputations, and an app might be one way. According to Gürhan-Canli & Batra (2004) innovation, trustworthiness and corporate social responsibility are especially important for a company’s image. Our study confirms that product range and trustworthiness are important factors for consumers’ creation of a good image (Matrix B:C21;C22). Regarding the importance of corporate social responsibility we did not find anything confirming this theory. Reasons for this could be that the age segment of our focus groups does not consider social responsibility to be as important as the theory states. Instead our study showed that the treatment that the company gives their consumers in different ways is of higher importance.
According to Gray & Balmer (1998) it is necessary to try to maintain a good image. All the respondents’ in our focus groups states that it is important for a company that consumers have a good image of them (Matrix B:C7). Though they also state that the importance of a company’s image depends on the type of products (Matrix B:C9) that the company sells; for example consumers feel that the image of the company is more important when they buy products where the brand is more visible and important. In our focus groups the thought about Max where that the origin (Matrix B:C61) is important, and hence consumers who feels that it is important to support Swedish companies will chose Max over other chains.
There are several reasons why companies should realize the importance of good image. A good image can influence the behavior of people, their knowledge about the company, their purchase decisions and competition. (Furman 2010; Andreassen 1997) According to our focus groups it is very important for a company to have a good image (Matrix B:C7). Hence, it is necessary for companies that consumers have a positive image. If consumers do not have a good picture of the company they will not purchase their products or speak well about the company. Companies must also realize what consumers really think about the company and not just what they believe that the consumers think about them, otherwise they cannot try to
