Rmm Essay Dec 09

MSc Marketing & Strategy IB9X30 Research Methods for Marketing & Strategy Individual Assignment B) Select one of the papers and write an in-depth critical review of the methodological approache(es) taken within that paper. Elliott, Richard & Yannopoulou, Natalia. 2007. The Nature of trust in brands: A psychological model. European Journal of Marketing. 41:9/10. 988-998. ‘Placing trust in the hands of a brand: An Empirical study on the relationship between consumer trust and brands as a mechanism for safe puchase decisions.’ Submission Date: 07/12/2009 Student Number: 0961973 Word Count: 1,880

‘All the work contained in this work is my own, original unaided effort. I have read and understand, and the work conforms to, the University’s guidelines on plagiarism’

Abstract

Motivation: The purpose of this piece of work was to critically review the paper put forward by Elliott and Yannopolou on the nature of trust in brands. Problem Statement: The authors sought to empirically explore the issue and develop a model on functional and symbolic brands in relation to trust. Approach: I approached the review from the standpoint that strengths and weaknesses were evident in the paper, and that a firm stance could not be taken as a result of the many positive and negative issues put forward. Results: Trust is key to the consumer brand relationship and is an important factor in the purchase decision of both functional and symbolic brands, to different extents. Conclusion: A highly original body of work has been put forward by the authors, however not enough data was obtained to substantiate the grounded theory and there is an issue of transferability. More qualitative data would have added depth to the theory.

The purpose of this paper; ‘The Nature and Trust in brands: a psychosocial model’, put forward by Elliot and Yannopoulou, is to investigate the notion of trust in relation to consumer brands and to develop a model on both functional and symbolic brands. The paper aims to explore the experience of consumer trust in brands empirically, utilising inductive qualitative research in the form of in-depth interviews, and using the data to compound a grounded theory based on objectivity and realism on the researchers part. The main findings of the paper were that in the decision making process, a product or service of low cost is indicitive of low risk and a familiarity with the brand will suffice in the decision to purchase. In contrast, a product or service of higher cost will indicate a greater level of risk and hence a consumer will seek a ‘safe’ choice in terms of a functional brand, whilst a symbolic brand will rely on an element of trust in order to make a purchase decision. The argument and findings put forward by the authors of the paper would indicate an importance on the element of trust in the purchasing decision when high levels of risk are percieved along with a high level of credence. The opposite holds true for purchase decsions of low cost and low risk. Based on the paper I believe that the research implications hold true however, the methodology of 14 in-depth interviews was not enough to derive a grounded theory on. Analysis of the text found three key points with which the in depth interviews focused on and a grounded theory was developed. Firstly, the social theory of trust and how it comes into being along the paradigms of familiarity, confidence and finally trust. It is a linear development. Secondly, how trust develops over time in human relationships and the issue of transference of brand trust through immeadiate friends and family. Finally, the authors discussed the link between risk and brands, particularly amongst ‘symbolic brands’ and the impact on the relationship with a given brand when trust is broken or jepordised. The text in orgainsed by briefly discussing the relevant social constructs and theories necessary to gauge the text and then exploring the grounded theory study via the in depth interviews. Finally, a psychological model of brand trust is put forward, along with any practical implications for the brand strategy. Throughout the paper, the authors intend to generate a theory out of the results of

their qualitative data. My overall critique of the paper is one that neither seeks to fully criticise nor fully praise the theory put forward, preferring to acknowledge both the positive and negative elements of the text, along with its many strengths and weaknesses. The authors have generated a theory based on the findings from their in depth interviews, but is a grounded theory based on only fourteen in depth interviews enough to puport a theory of this size? The ideas are there, but the limited data and research put forward was, in my opinion, not enough to support the theory that emerged from the data. There is an issue of transferability in relation to basing a theory on a limited scale of data; would the findings from the study hold true in another context or even in a similar context at a different time? (Bryman and Bell 2007) Here I make my first negative critique in that a ‘thicker description’ is needed. By incorporating more qualitative research into the study, strength could have been added to the grouded theory. Focus groups, to allow for interaction and joint construction of meaning (Bryman and Bell, 2007) would have complemented the findings of the in-depth interviews and added some depth to the theory. Documents such as diaries could also have complemented the study, as the nature of the research was inherently personal to the respondents emotions and documentation of behaviours and emotions displayed during the in depth interviews could have been noted and later incorporated into the research data. An empirical approach was taken for the research study. Empiricism denotes a general approach to the study of reality which suggests that only the knowledge gained through experience and senses is acceptable, and that accumulation of facts is a legitimate goal in its own right - naïve empiricism, (Bryman and Bell, 2007).Whilst the findings corroborate with this approach in that the purchase of a brand is an experience in itself, and sensory perception is an important factor in the decision making model (Schiffman, Kanuk, Hansen 2008), I am of the opinion that an emotionalism approach would have better suited the design and the desired outcome of the research. Relationships, and the very nature of trust are built on emotions and emotional responses, and for these reasons I believe that the wrong qualitative standpoint was taken (Corbetta, 2003).

The strengths of the study lie in its ability to deliver an original piece of grounded theory, which offers genuine value and intrigue to both marketing practitioners and academics in the sociological and psychological fields. It sheds light on the importance of the element of trust in the relationship between consumer and brand, along with its implications in purchasing behaviour. Interestingly the paper acknowledges the variance in the level of trust needed for both functional and symbolic brands. The paper also addresses the risk variable in the relationship between consumer and brand, and the instability of trust by its very nature. Finally, it summarises the implications trust has on the brand strategy, offering insight to the marketing practitioners that trust is key to the successful building of a brand relationship with a consumer. The Straussian approach of grounded theory is evident in the paper as it is by its very nature a ‘way of thinking about and studying social reality’ (Strauss, Corbin 1990). The authors have drawn conclusions from their data collected via the in-depth interviews through a process known as coding; this is part of the grounded theory methodology whereby the data collected is broken down, analysed and formulated to create a theory based on findings and the researchers interpretation (Strauss, Corbin 1990). Another key aspect of the Straussian approach evident throughout the paper is the vision aspect, ‘where is it the researcher wants to go with the research’. (Strauss, Corbin 1990). One can see a logical flow from start to finish of where exactly the authors intend their findings to go; explore the issue of trust in consumer brands and build a model focusing on both functional and symbolic brands based on the data unearthed from the qualitative research. ‘Analysis is the interplay between researchers and data’ – this is another key element of the Straussian approach eveident in the paper. Obviously a substantial amount of creativity and objectivity was required to substantaite fourteen in depth interviews and produce a grounded theory. Elliott and Yannopoulou were able to extract meaning from unorganised data, and compound it to provide real insight into the lived experience of trust in consumer brands. Their coding analysis followed the guidelines of both Strauss and Corbin, 1997 and Morse, 1994, as noted in the paper. Another strength in the paper lies in the structure itself. It has been written with the reader in mind, taking a perspective that both academics and non-academics would be

reading it. A logical flow of information is presented so that all aspects of trust and consumer brands are covered before offering the findings and implications of the research. Whilst I have already argued that an emotionalism approach would have better suited the research design of this paper, some strengths can be clearly seen from the empiricist approach taken in this paper. Empiricsim calls for experience and evidence that has arisen from sense experience, and as trust grows from familiarity or a familiarity from brand usage and experience, there is a fit for this approach in the research design method. The paper argues that the best time to explore trust is when it is being compromised in times of stress and conflict (Rempel et al, 1985). This is when consumer confidence in the brand is tested, and becomes ‘make or break’ decision time. When trust is betrayed, consumers can either choose to stick with the brand or seek an alternative. The key issue here is for consumers to recall their previous experiences with the brand and draw on ‘credibility, dependability and trust…in relation to both functional and symbolic brands’ (Park et al, 1986). The variance in trust in relation to both functional and symbolic brands is an important research element of the study, again drawing on the experience of consumers in relation to percieved risk in the buying choices of specific brands. The paper has already highlighted that when risk is low, along with cost, a functional brand will suffice as familiarity with a brand is enough to warrant confidence. However when risk is high, trust becomes necessary for purchase decision and brand is viewed as an active member of the relationship. Symbolic brands therefore offer quality and security in the minds of the consumer (Aaker, 1991), thus reducing percieved risk. Trust in brands thus develops over time through lived experience and aids in reducing risk in both symbolic and functional brands. Grounded theory essentially contradicts the norm of the scientific method by analysing the collected data first and then theorising based on the results. Elliott and Yannopoulou have presented a grounded theory in this paper where by they have formulated a hypothesis based on the findings of conceptual ideas and discoveries from their in depth interviews. They have asked what the key issues are in terms of the buying choices of functional and symbolic brands, the risk implications and the reliance on trust in the decsion making process, and how the consumers go about

solving trust issues, should they arise. Empiricism was the basis for the research design method and fit the parameters to a certain extent, however an emotionalism design would have better suited the nature of the study as consumer brands and trust have deep seated emotional roots and purchase decisions are almost always emotionally based, on both a conscious and subconscious level (Knowledge at Emory, 2008). The psychological model of trust in brands put forward by the authors draws on the conclusions of the data that emerged from the interviews and highlights the many implications that trust has on the consumer relationship with a given brand. It reduces perieved risk when in doubt about a purchase decision, and is also subject to unpredictable change in terms of the betrayal of the trust. Trust is deemed to be an active and unstable element in the consumer/brand relationship. The psychological model also unearthed the issue of the transference of brand trust from one person to another, based on the lived experience a peer had with a particular brand. This showed that trust in relation to brands can be two fold; when we trust a person, we may transfer their trust in a given brand that they recommend. Key strengths and weaknesses have been discussed and ultimately an interesting, and highly original body of work was put forward by the authors, however not enough research data was collected, and transferability remains a possible issue for the model put forward.

Bibliography

‘Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory’ Strauss, Al. and Corbin, J. Sage Publications (1990) ‘Business Research Methods’ Bryman, A. and Bell, E. Oxford 2nd Edition (2007) ‘Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods’ Patton, Michael Quinn Sage Publications 2nd Edition (1990) ‘Consumer Behaviour – A European Outlook’ Schiffman, L., Kanuk, L. and Hansen, H. FT Prentice Hall (2008) ‘How to do Research – The complete guide to designing and managing research projects’ Moore, Nick Facet Publishing 3rd Edition (2000) ‘Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research – Challenges and Rewards’ Padgett, Deborah K. Sage Publications (1998) ‘Emotions and Fieldwork’ Kleinman, Sherryl & Copp, Martha A. Qualitative Research Methods Series 28 Sage Publications (1993)

‘Research Methods and Data Analysis in the Social Sciences’ Herzog, Thomas

Harper Collins College Publishers (1996) ‘Social Research Methods – A Reader’ Seale, Clive Routledge (2004) ‘Social Research: Theory, Methods and Techniques’ Corbetta, Piergiorio Sage Publications (2003) http://knowledge.emory.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1115