Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. i Can modern approaches generate fresh insights into Māori brands? A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Studies in Marketing at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand Kerrianne Joe 2020 i ABSTRACT Elements that typify Māori culture are increasingly used to add economic value and to sell New Zealand’s uniqueness globally. Māori enterprises and the Māori economy have grown significantly over the last 100 years and are major contributors to the New Zealand economy, currently representing over $50 billion in assets. Despite the growing importance of Māori enterprise to the New Zealand economy, how Māori brands are perceived by consumers is unclear and there is little research as to whether using a Māori brand affects customer-based brand equity. Such knowledge is vital information for the marketers of Māori brands in order to compete in an already crowded global marketplace, and to the economic future of Māori enterprises. While non-Māori enterprises can also capitalise on this cultural distinctiveness, they need to be conscious of the risks of cultural appropriation. Consequently, Māori enterprises also need to be cognisant of the protective mechanisms for indigenous rights in New Zealand to protect their culture and intellectual property from being exploited. Despite advancements in the field of customer-based brand equity, previous research is problematic due to the methodologies employed. Previous research utilised simple rating scale methods (Lockshin & Hall, 2003), which are criticised for their inability to accurately predict customer behaviour (Cohen, 2009). Applying modern methodologies and techniques may shed new light on branding theory and insights into the new field of Māori branding. This research replicates the methodologies deployed by Wright, Teagle, and Feetham (2014), adapted from the ‘mental market share’ model developed by Romaniuk (2013) and successfully extends it to the field of Māori branding. It also advances previous work by applying Best Worst Scaling (BWS). These two modern methodologies are used to investigate whether consumer perceptions differ between Māori and non-Māori brands in the domestic market for wine and honey products. Romaniuk’s (2013) proposed methodology is grounded in the theory of brand saliency, arguing that the strength of memory brand associations attributed to a brand is an indicator of the performance and future success of a brand. BWS is applied in this research to investigate the most salient product feature attributes to consumers when considering a wine or honey purchase, as well as the levels of utility and familiarity with Māori brands. BWS is derived from discrete choice method and founded on random utility theory (Louviere, Flynn, & Marley, 2015). BWS is thought to overcome many of the issues often associated with simple rating methods used in previous research (Adamsen, Rundle-Thiele, & Whitty, 2013). ii The results show that applying two modern techniques, mental market share and BWS, can provide fresh insights into the new field of Māori branding. The two techniques are complementary rather than contested when applied together, measuring different brand information at different stages of the consumer purchase decision process. To the researcher’s best knowledge, no previous research has applied mental market share and BWS together, nor applied it to Māori branding. The results also show that perceptions of Māori and non-Māori branded wine and honey products among New Zealand consumers vary distinctively. The Māori brands skew positively towards the attribute ‘Made in New Zealand’. In contrast, the non-Māori brands are almost diametrical opposites as they skew negatively from this attribute. These findings suggest using a Māori brand positively affects customer-based brand equity in certain categories, provided that ‘Made in New Zealand’ or ‘New Zealand’ itself has positive associations for the consumer. Furthermore, Māori branded wine and honey products were less familiar to respondents and have lower utility compared to non-Māori brands, suggesting that Māori brands may not be in consumers’ consideration sets. This research contributes important findings to branding theory, by applying two modern techniques together and extending it to the new field of Māori branding. This also helps fill the gap in Māori and indigenous branding literature and has several managerial implications. A better understanding of Māori branding will foster Māori development and contribute to growing the Māori and New Zealand economy. This research can help Māori brands sustain a competitive advantage in the global marketplace while retaining and protecting Māori culture. Further research could further investigate the uses of the two techniques and expand into New Zealand export destinations in order to progress generalisability. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Pam Feetham for introducing me to the world of marketing early on in my university career and for all the opportunities it has brought. Thank you for believing in me and supporting me throughout this experience despite all the ups and downs. I simply could have not done this without you. I have learned so much from you and gained a friend and mentor in the process. I will be forever grateful. To Professor Malcolm Wright, thank you for your support and wonderful insights. It is a joy to see someone so passionate about marketing and who can ignite that passion in others. It has been a privilege working with you and learning from you. I would also like to thank my family. To my parents, and my aunty and uncle, who have always worked so hard and sacrificed so much to give me the opportunities I could have only dreamt of. I would not be in the position I am now without you. Thank you for all that you do. To my friends, Alice, Kieran, Laura, Michael, and William, thank you for supporting me throughout university and continuing to support me through work and life. We have grown up together and had so many adventures all around the world. You have always encouraged me and made me laugh when I most needed it. I am so proud to be able to call you my friends. To Hew, thank you for always being my greatest supporter and for being there every step of the way. I couldn’t have done this without you, especially all the cups of tea and snacks. You always believe in me when I don’t believe in myself. Finally, I dedicate this thesis to my grandma, whom I love so much. Thank you for always taking such good care of me, my sisters and cousins when we were young. I will always be so thankful for everything you did. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. viii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 10 1.1 Research Relevance and Purpose ............................................................................... 10 1.2 Organisation of this Thesis ........................................................................................ 12 2.0 MĀORI BRANDING .................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Defining Māori Branding........................................................................................... 13 2.3 Consumer Perceptions of Māori Brands ..................................................................... 15 2.4 Competitive Advantage of Being a Māori Business ................................................... 19 2.5 Cultural Authenticity ................................................................................................. 21 2.6 Misuse of Māori Intellectual Property ........................................................................ 23 2.7 Māori Branding Summary ......................................................................................... 26 3.0 BRAND ASSOCIATIONS ........................................................................................... 28 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 28 3.2 Customer-Based Brand Equity and Brand Image ....................................................... 28 3.3 Brand Attributes ........................................................................................................ 32 3.4 Brand Attribute Elicitation ......................................................................................... 34 3.5 Mental Market Share ................................................................................................. 35 3.6 Brand Associations Summary .................................................................................... 39 4.0 BRAND FAMILIARITY .............................................................................................. 43 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 43 v 4.2 Defining Brand Familiarity ........................................................................................ 44 4.3 Brand Familiarity and Information Processing ........................................................... 44 4.4 Brand Familiarity and Confidence on Purchase Intention ........................................... 48 4.5 Brand Familiarity and Brand Attitudes ...................................................................... 53 4.6 Brand Familiarity Summary ...................................................................................... 54 5.0 COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN .............................................................................................. 56 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 56 5.2 Defining the COO Effect ........................................................................................... 56 5.3 The COO Effect on Consumer Choice ....................................................................... 57 5.4 Familiarity and the COO Effect ................................................................................. 58 5.5 COO Effects and Wine .............................................................................................. 59 5.6 Negative COO Effects ............................................................................................... 61 5.7 COO Summary .......................................................................................................... 63 6.0 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................... 65 6.1 Research Problem ...................................................................................................... 65 6.2 Research Objectives and Questions ........................................................................... 65 7.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 67 7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 67 7.2 Theoretical Foundation and Methodologies Used ...................................................... 68 7.2.1 Best Worst Scaling (BWS).................................................................................. 68 7.2.2 Mental Market Share .......................................................................................... 71 7.3 Research Design ........................................................................................................ 72 7.4 Stage One: Content Analysis ..................................................................................... 74 7.4.1 Attribute Selection .............................................................................................. 74 7.5 Stage Two: Pilot Survey ............................................................................................ 76 7.5.1 Data Collection ................................................................................................... 76 7.5.2 Sample Characteristics ........................................................................................ 77 vi 7.5.3 Attribute Level Design ........................................................................................ 77 7.5.4 Best Worst Scaling Choice Sets .......................................................................... 80 7.5.5 Best Worst Scaling and Familiarity ..................................................................... 83 7.5.6 Pilot Results........................................................................................................ 84 7.5.7 Pilot Survey Summary ........................................................................................ 90 7.6 Stage Three: Online Quantitative Survey ................................................................... 90 7.6.1 Data Collection ................................................................................................... 90 7.6.2 Survey Sample .................................................................................................... 90 7.6.3 Survey Design .................................................................................................... 91 7.6.4 Brand Attributes Association .............................................................................. 92 7.6.5 Brand Attributes Association Analysis ................................................................ 93 8.0 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 94 8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 94 8.2 Wine.......................................................................................................................... 94 8.2.1 Wine Sample Characteristics .............................................................................. 94 8.2.2 Importance of Attributes ..................................................................................... 94 8.2.3 Impact of Different Levels of the Attribute on Choice ......................................... 96 8.2.4 Brand Familiarity ................................................................................................ 97 8.2.5 Brand Associations ............................................................................................. 98 8.2.6 Reduced Attribute Set ......................................................................................... 98 8.2.7. Raw Attribute Counts ...................................................................................... 100 8.2.8 Percentage Point Deviations from Expected Attribute Counts ........................... 100 8.2.9 Wine Brand Concept Maps ............................................................................... 101 8.3 Honey ...................................................................................................................... 104 8.3.1 Honey Sample Characteristics........................................................................... 104 8.3.2 Importance of Attributes ................................................................................... 104 8.3.3 Impact of Different Levels of the Attribute on Choice ....................................... 104 vii 8.3.4 Brand Familiarity .............................................................................................. 105 8.3.5 Brand Associations ........................................................................................... 106 8.3.6 Reduced Attribute Set ....................................................................................... 107 8.3.7. Raw Attribute Counts ...................................................................................... 108 8.3.8 Percentage Point Deviations from Expected Attribute Counts ........................... 108 8.3.9 Honey Brand Concept Maps ............................................................................. 109 9.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ 112 9.1 Discussion of Findings ............................................................................................ 112 9.2 Applying Modern Approaches ................................................................................. 112 9.2.1 Generating Fresh Insights ................................................................................. 113 9.2.2 Complementary or Contested? .......................................................................... 114 9.3 Sources of Brand Strength and Māori Brand Strength in the Studied Categories ...... 114 9.3.1 BWS - The Most Salient Product Attributes ...................................................... 115 9.3.2 BWS and Levels of Familiarity ......................................................................... 117 9.3.3 Mental Market Share ........................................................................................ 119 9.5 Limitations and Future Research.............................................................................. 122 10.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 124 11.0 APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 143 Appendix A: Pilot Survey Sample Demographics .......................................................... 143 Appendix B: Wine and Honey Profile Design................................................................ 145 Appendix C: Online Quantitative Survey Sample Demographics ................................... 147 Appendix D: Wine Online Quantitative Survey ............................................................. 148 Appendix E: Honey Online Quantitative Survey ............................................................ 184 Appendix F: Matrix of Average Kendall Tau-b Nonparametric Correlation (Wine) ....... 220 Appendix G: Matrix of Average Kendall Tau-b Nonparametric Correlation (Honey)..... 221 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. List of Potential Elements Associable to Different Price Points.............................. 75 Table 2. List of Attributes Used in Stage Two Pilot Survey ................................................. 76 Table 3. Wine Attribute Levels............................................................................................ 78 Table 4. Honey Attribute Levels .......................................................................................... 79 Table 5. Best Worst Scaling – Pair Frequency ..................................................................... 81 Table 6. Best Worst Scaling Design for 16 Profiles ............................................................. 81 Table 7. Wine Importance of Attributes ............................................................................... 85 Table 8. Utility Scores of Wine Attribute Levels ................................................................. 86 Table 9. Wine Brand Familiarity – BW scores..................................................................... 87 Table 10. Honey Importance of Attributes ........................................................................... 87 Table 11.Utility Scores of Honey Attribute Levels .............................................................. 88 Table 12. Honey Brand Familiarity - BW scores ................................................................. 89 Table 13. Wine - Importance of Attributes Values ............................................................... 95 Table 14. Utility Scores of Attribute Levels......................................................................... 96 Table 15. Brand Familiarity - Best Worst Scores ................................................................. 97 Table 16. Attribute Association by Percentage of All Attribute Mentions ............................ 98 Table 17. Reduced Attribute Set Associations by Percentage of All Attribute Mentions ...... 99 Table 18. Attribute Counts After Elimination of Overlapping Attributes (n=399) .............. 100 Table 19. Percentage Point Deviations from Expected Attribute Counts ............................ 101 Table 20. Honey - Importance of Attributes Values ........................................................... 104 Table 21. Utility Scores of Attribute Levels....................................................................... 105 Table 22. Brand Familiarity - Best Worst Scores ............................................................... 106 Table 23. Attribute Association by Percentage of All Attribute Mentions .......................... 106 Table 24. Reduced Attribute Set Association by Percentage of All Attribute Mentions ...... 107 Table 25. Attribute Counts After Elimination of Overlapping Attributes (n=402) .............. 108 Table 26. Percentage Point Deviations from Expected Attribute Counts ............................ 109 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Wine Choice Set Example .................................................................................... 82 Figure 2. Honey Choice Set Example .................................................................................. 83 Figure 3. Wine Brands - Familiarity Example...................................................................... 83 Figure 4. Honey Brands - Familiarity Example .................................................................... 84 Figure 5. Wine Brand Images .............................................................................................. 92 Figure 6. Honey Brand Images ............................................................................................ 92 Figure 7. Brand Association Question Example ................................................................... 92 Figure 8. Non-Maori Branded Wines Concept Map ........................................................... 101 Figure 9. Maori Branded Wines Concept Map ................................................................... 102 Figure 10. Wine Brands Concept Maps ............................................................................. 103 Figure 11. Non-Maori Branded Honey Concept Images .................................................... 109 Figure 12. Maori Branded Honey Concept Maps ............................................................... 110 Figure 13. Honey Brands Concept Maps ........................................................................... 111 https://d.docs.live.net/1ab0461acd18509a/Master's%20Thesis/Latest%20Thesis%20Files/KJOE_MASTER_COPY_V2.docx#_Toc56112173 https://d.docs.live.net/1ab0461acd18509a/Master's%20Thesis/Latest%20Thesis%20Files/KJOE_MASTER_COPY_V2.docx#_Toc56112174 https://d.docs.live.net/1ab0461acd18509a/Master's%20Thesis/Latest%20Thesis%20Files/KJOE_MASTER_COPY_V2.docx#_Toc56112176 https://d.docs.live.net/1ab0461acd18509a/Master's%20Thesis/Latest%20Thesis%20Files/KJOE_MASTER_COPY_V2.docx#_Toc56112178 https://d.docs.live.net/1ab0461acd18509a/Master's%20Thesis/Latest%20Thesis%20Files/KJOE_MASTER_COPY_V2.docx#_Toc56112179 https://d.docs.live.net/1ab0461acd18509a/Master's%20Thesis/Latest%20Thesis%20Files/KJOE_MASTER_COPY_V2.docx#_Toc56112180 https://d.docs.live.net/1ab0461acd18509a/Master's%20Thesis/Latest%20Thesis%20Files/KJOE_MASTER_COPY_V2.docx#_Toc56112181 https://d.docs.live.net/1ab0461acd18509a/Master's%20Thesis/Latest%20Thesis%20Files/KJOE_MASTER_COPY_V2.docx#_Toc56112182 10 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research Relevance and Purpose Māori are the indigenous people of New Zealand, and although fully assimilated into New Zealand society, Māori have a distinct culture that deviates from the mainstream population (Harmsworth & Tahi, 2008). Elements that typify Māori culture are increasingly used to add economic value and to sell New Zealand’s uniqueness in crowded global markets (Edmond, 2005). Both Māori and non-Māori enterprises are capitalising on this cultural distinctiveness as it is becoming a significant asset (Harmsworth, 2008; Panoho, 2007). Māori enterprises and the Māori economy have grown significantly over the last 100 years and are major contributors to the New Zealand economy (MBIE, 2015). The Māori economy currently represents $50 billion in assets, approximately 6% of the total New Zealand asset base and contributed $12 billion to New Zealand’s GDP in 2015 (MBIE, 2017). The Māori economy is also growing rapidly (>5% per annum) compared to the New Zealand economy (2%-3% per annum) and is aided through the Crown-Māori Economic Growth partnership (MBIE, 2017). Some overseas markets are responsive to Māori branding (Klap, 2006; New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, 2005; Wingham, Anderson, Gibson, & Giberson, 2004) which presents significant opportunities for further advancing and developing Māori enterprise. Despite the growing importance of Māori enterprise to the New Zealand economy, how Māori brands are perceived by consumers is unclear. An increasing number of non-Māori enterprises in New Zealand are utilising Māori brands to sell their products which suggests doing so enhances consumer perceptions positively (Skerrett, 2019), despite the risks of cultural appropriation. Karaitiana Taiuru, an advocate and proponent for online digital Māori rights and representation, believes that cultural appropriation of Māori has become normalised over multiple generations by New Zealand businesses (Skerrett, 2019). Taiuru also identified large corporate enterprises such as Fonterra, BP and, The Warehouse as appropriating Māori culture in their marketing and branding (Taiuru, 2019). Why are these non-Māori enterprises using Māori brands? How are Māori brands perceived by consumers in New Zealand and in our export destinations? There is a lack of knowledge on consumer preferences for Māori brands and whether using a Māori brand affects customer-based brand equity. As Māori branding is a relatively new field of research, a large knowledge gap exists. This lack of knowledge 11 highlights the need for new methodologies to gain insights into consumer preferences for Māori brands. Traditionally, Māori have operated successfully in the farming and agribusiness sector and continue to leverage their significant assets in farming, fishing, forestry and viticutlure (MBIE, 2017). Wine is the most significant export ($1.4 billion) and more recently honey products are also being exported in growing quantities (MBIE, 2017). Given that Māori horticultural exports are expected to grow to $5.7 billion by 2020, the present research aims to investigate consumer perceptions of Māori and non-Māori branded wine and honey products in the domestic market. This research also explores the use of two methodologies to help understand consumer preferences for Māori branded products. Firstly, the research replicates the methodologies deployed by Wright, et al., (2014), adapted from the ‘mental market share’ model developed by Romaniuk (2013). Romaniuk’s (2013) proposed methodology is grounded in the theory of brand saliency, arguing that the strength of brand associations attributed to a brand is an indicator of the performance and future success of a brand. This method allows for Māori and non-Māori brands to be compared and investigates whether consumer perceptions differ between them. Identifying attributes associated with Māori brands can help inform future marketing communications and strategies, illustrating their strengths and weaknesses based on a brand’s attributes. The present research can help provide guidance for Māori brands to develop stronger, more distinctive brand associations. Strong distinctive, associations lead to the creation of a stronger brand image, keeping the brand top of mind for consumers and facilitating brand growth (Sharp, 2010). The present research also applies Best Worst Scaling (BWS) to investigate the most salient product attributes to consumers when considering a wine or honey purchase, as well as consumer levels of utility and familiarity with Māori brands. BWS is derived from the discrete choice method and founded on random utility theory (Louviere, Flynn, & Marley, 2015). The term utility refers to the perceived value of the brand on an individual attribute level and microeconomic theory assumes consumers select alternatives that maximise the value of their utility function (Mühlbacher, Zweifel, Kaczynski, & Johnson, 2016). BWS is believed to overcome many of the issues that are often associated with simple rating methods (Adamsen et al., 2013; Cohen, 2009). Applying BWS may provide a more robust evaluation of Māori 12 branded products, exploring how different levels of attributes affect consumer choice during the latter stages of the consumer purchase decision process. 1.2 Organisation of this Thesis The thesis begins by examining the current literature on Māori branding and how domestic consumers perceive Māori brands. This chapter is followed by a discussion of the concept of customer-based brand equity and brand associations, drawing on the mental availability metrics developed by Romaniuk (2013). The literature review also explores the role of brand familiarity and the country-of-origin effect on consumer choice. Following the literature review, the objective and research problems are outlined in chapter 6, and the methodology is described in chapter 7. In chapter 8, the findings of this research are presented, followed by a discussion of these findings, the limitations of this study, and future areas of research in chapter 9. 13 2.0 MĀORI BRANDING 2.1 Introduction This chapter defines Māori branding, tracing its evolution from the pre-colonial period, and reviews the limited literature on consumer perceptions of Māori branding. A discussion is provided of authenticity and the misuse of Māori culture in branding for commercial gain. The commercial exploitation of Māori culture and intellectual property is increasing, and Māori are unable to exercise control of the trade of their culture in any real or comprehensive sense under the existing intellectual property rights and protections (Buchanan, 2010). Due to the limited research on Māori branding, perceptions of other indigenous populations and their branding (e.g. Australian Aboriginal cultures) are also included in this literature review. Since little is known about how consumers perceive Māori branding, the present research investigates whether applying modern and advanced techniques can provide fresh insights and increase knowledge about consumer perceptions of Māori and non-Māori brands. Knowledge of how Māori branding is currently perceived by consumers can help inform Māori enterprises and their future marketing strategies, including developing their own distinctive brand images. 2.2 Defining Māori Branding Māori branding is an integral part of Māori culture, an active expression of the culture by using te reo Māori1, imagery, symbols, beliefs, colours, music, dance and spiritual concepts (Harmsworth, Gilbert, Taylor, & Stafford, 2009). Stafford (2005) defines indigenous Māori branding as: “ a unique cultural association of stories, images, names and symbols which serve to differentiate competing products or services, and to provide both a physical and emotional trigger to create a relationship between consumers and the product or service.” (p.3). The term ‘tohu Māori’, developed by Gilbert (2007), is used to refer to the collective elements of Māori culture used in business and marketing to establish an indigenous or Māori brand (Gilbert, 2007; Harmsworth et al., 2009). Māori branding has evolved alongside the growth of commercialisation, adaptation, globalisation, and encouraged exploitation by non-Māori enterprises. The exploitation of Māori 1 te reo Māori: Māori language 14 culture threatens the preservation of the values and traditional knowledge on which Māori culture is based. This threat aligns with the WAI 262 claim, a Waitangi Tribunal claim about mātauranga Māori2 and its’ place in modern New Zealand life (Waitangi Tribunal, 2011). WAI 262 claimants sought relevant protection measures to ensure that mātauranga Māori would be available for future generations. Distinct time periods exhibiting the different ways Māori branding has been used are identified by Harmsworth et al. (2009). In the pre-colonial period (1801-1841), trade developed predominantly around food, and Māori taonga3 were traded for European goods. A high value began to be placed on Māori goods and moko4, such as Māori artworks, carvings and pendants. Non-Māori enterprises began to use, sell and trade Māori goods to differentiate them in the international market (Gilbert, 2007). The 19th century (1842-1899) saw a boom in Māori goods as New Zealand became a prime destination for tourists and new migrants (Harmsworth et al., 2009). Māori dominated an emerging tourism industry, with tours around the Rotorua geothermal areas, Māori villages and the Tarawera Pink and White Terraces (Gilbert, 2007). Māori culture grew but was documented through a European perspective and non-Māori enterprise increasingly modified tohu Māori5 (Durie, 1998; Harmsworth et al., 2009). During this tourism boom, a plethora of tourist items were produced, many using elements of Māori culture (Gilbert, 2007). In the first half of the 20th century (1900-1945), many Māori were involved in the two world wars (Harmsworth et al., 2009). Māori brands then began to reflect Māori military prowess and the notion of strong Māori chiefs (Harmsworth et al., 2009). Between 1946 and 1999, travel and communication further advanced and trade between countries increased significantly (Harmsworth et al., 2009). Indigenous populations in countries colonised by Europeans would often experience poorer economic outcomes than their fellow countrymen (Kauffman, 2005). Māori culture however, was rebuilding and the period from 1946 to 1999 marked a cultural renaissance (Harmsworth et al., 2009), aided by the introduction of the 1975 Waitangi Tribunal Act and establishment of the Māori Language Commission in 1987. The use of te reo Māori was promoted throughout New Zealand and in schools as a living language and everyday means 2 Mātauranga Māori: the values, concepts, meanings and traditional knowledge of Māori culture 3 Taonga: goods, possession; treasure, anything prized 4 Moko: Māori tattoo designs; logo, trademark 5 Tohu Māori: elements of culture used in business and marketing to establish an indigenous or Māori brand (Gilbert, 2007) 15 of communication (Maori Language Commission, 2015). A strong sense of cultural identity became important and, consequently, Māori enterprise emerged and accelerated. New Zealand businesses recognised the advantage of cultural distinctiveness and increased their use of Māori symbols (Harmsworth et al., 2009). In the 21st century (2000 to the present), a growing global fascination and appreciation of Māori culture has seen Māori tattoo patterns and moko2 become a fashion statement and popularised by celebrities (Te Awekotuku, 2007). According to the Māori Language Commission (2006) New Zealand’s international image is now defined by the Māori language and culture. Compared to the past, Māori branding is becoming more mainstream and commonly used by businesses as a means of competitive advantage (Buchanan, 2010; Warriner, 2009). As a result, there are increased opportunities for developing Māori branding and increased contributions to the Māori economy. The Māori economy continues to grow as Treaty of Waitangi settlements mature, more iwi groups get involved with the domestic market and the adoption of tikanga6 occurs in a commercial context (McNicol, 2017). The increasing use of Māori branding by both Māori and non-Māori enterprises led the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) to develop a guide to help businesses to integrate Māori cultural elements into their intellectual property (New Zealand Intellectual Property Office, 2016). IPONZ examiners also use special processes to protect mātauranga7 - a unique arrangement in the world of intellectual property – to guide how people can respectfully integrate Māori cultural elements into their intellectual property. 2.3 Consumer Perceptions of Māori Brands Despite the evolution and increased use of Māori branding, there is limited research on the consumer perceptions of Māori branding and its effect on consumer preferences. The available research mostly focuses on the wine and tourism industry as wine, the creative arts and tourism are considered high added-value markets for Māori companies (Mana Taiao Limited, 2005). For wine products, brand naming strategies often include a reference or link to country or region of origin. Country-of-origin is a tactic that adds credibility and implies a level of quality to the product (Aaker, 1996). Similarly, brand names are associated with consumer perceptions of quality and purchase intentions (Aaker, 1991) and can elicit positive or negative images in 6 Tikanga: protocols, customs and traditional knowledge 7 Mātauranga Māori: the values, concepts, meanings and traditional knowledge of Māori culture 16 the minds of consumers by building upon their existing consumer knowledge (Forbes & Dean, 2013). In a novel New Zealand study, Forbes & Dean (2013) examined the influence of wine brand names on consumer perceptions of price and product quality. Forbes and Dean (2013) classified brand names into seven categories, including an ‘indigenous’ category (brand name based on a Māori word or name). An online questionnaire was developed and distributed to New Zealand consumers through the websites of established specialty wine stores. Using Likert scales ranging between three and five points, respondents were asked to rate the quality of the wine brand, likelihood to purchase, ability to pronounce the brand name, a price they would be willing to pay and how comfortable they would be asking for the brand name in a restaurant. Data analysis was conducted on cases where the respondent had no previous purchasing or consumption experience of the example wine brand provided (Forbes & Dean, 2013). This approach ensured the respondent’s perceptions were not influenced by prior brand experience or loyalty. A series of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed across the brand categories and all of the ANOVAs generated significant results (Forbes & Dean, 2013). Respondents in Forbes and Dean’s (2013) study showed an overall positive perception of indigenous brands. Indigenous brand names ranked significantly higher than other brands for likelihood to purchase and quality perceptions and ranked second highest in price prepared to pay (Forbes & Dean, 2013). Despite indigenous brand names scoring the lowest score in pronounceability, they ranked first equally in the respondents’ level of comfort asking for the brand name at a restaurant. Te reo Māori is an official language of New Zealand, but only 3.7% of all people living in New Zealand understand it comprehensively (Stats NZ, 2013). This statistic highlights that most New Zealand consumers are unlikely able to correctly pronounce Māori brand names, but the result is interesting. An inability to pronounce a brand name did not affect the respondents’ reported comfort level in requesting it at a restaurant or store. In Forbes and Dean’s study (2013), respondents were all New Zealand domestic consumers and most respondents found it difficult to pronounce indigenous brand names. The ability to pronounce indigenous brand names would likely affect consumer perceptions differently in overseas markets. Some companies found that using Māori place names in the marketplace is negatively perceived if consumers cannot pronounce them (Edmond, 2005). Tohu Wines established in 1998 and one of the pioneers of Māori branding faced this challenge when exporting to new markets. To overcome this potential obstacle, Tohu Wines contracted New 17 Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) to research what Māori brand names could be easily pronounced in the United States of America (USA), and used Māori motifs to ensure their brand would stand out (Edmond, 2005). Like Tohu Wines, Mana Taiao Limited (2013) also sought to understand how Māori brands can gain a competitive advantage in the global marketplace. Mana Taiao Limited (2013) established a four-year research project (2004-2007) called Waka Tohu. The research project aimed to provide insights into tourism and increasing export sales, addressing barriers to growth and exploring how Māori enterprises can protect Māori branding. The Waka Tohu project used Māori consultants and researchers working with NZTE, who then engaged with established and emerging Māori enterprises and national Māori business networks (Mana Taiao Limited, 2013). Compared to Forbes and Dean (2013), who targeted New Zealand consumers and their perception of wine brand names, the Waka Tohu research targeted importers, distributors, retail buyers and brand consultants in the food and beverage industry both in New Zealand and overseas. Waka Tohu found some overseas markets were responsive to Māori branding (Edmond, 2005). Rugby-playing nations where the haka8 is recognized and places with cultural similarities to Māori, such as China, Greece and, Italy responded well to Māori culture (Edmond, 2005). Like Māori, these cultures share strong values around respecting elders, hospitality and intergenerational values. Waka Tohu also assessed the potential added value of Māori branded products in other overseas markets including the USA, Singapore, Canada and Germany (Harmsworth et al., 2009; Klap, 2006). Survey questionnaires were completed with the target groups: up to 10 beverage distributors; up to 10 beverage retailers and up to three advertising and brand agencies in each of the four countries (Klap, 2006). Respondents were asked about Māori knowledge, pricing, and Māori branded products (MBP) as a point of differentiation and as a sales and marketing tool (Klap, 2006). In contrast to the findings of Forbes and Deans (2013), most distributors and retailers from the USA, Canada, Singapore, and Germany (who had no prior brand experience) did not consider MBPs to be an effective marketing tool (Klap, 2006). Retailers who found MBPs to be an effective marketing tool tended to represent smaller niche specialty stores. Respondents from advertising agencies stated that significant marketing efforts and resources would be required 8 Haka: traditional Māori war cry, war dance or challenge. Popularised by the All Blacks-the New Zealand Rugby Union Team, who perform it before a rugby match. Also used during celebrations to honour guests. 18 initially to increase the awareness of Māori culture if MBPs were to ‘crack’ the market and be successful. An education programme preceding a marketing campaign would be needed to establish the quality of goods and the cultural underpinnings of MBPs (Edmond, 2005). Klap (2006) suggested that promotional efforts would need to coattail on the success of other New Zealand promotions initially and then focus on Māori products and services. In the USA, most distributors and retailers did not have a good understanding of MBPs but showed a positive reception towards the idea of MBPs (Klap, 2006). The USA advertising agencies were aware of indigenous branded products and believed they were an emerging and powerful trend (Klap, 2006). Niche opportunities exist in the wider market and although opportunities may be limited to smaller specialty stores, it is an encouraging sign for MBPs considering the significant size of the USA market. Canada viewed New Zealand as a well- known tourist destination, but not for food and beverage products. There was some Canadian awareness of Māori culture and there may also be a niche in the Canadian marketplace for indigenous branded products (Klap, 2006). Similarly, in Singapore, Klap (2006) found Māori culture was effective in promoting New Zealand as a tourist destination but not for creating competitive advantages for food and beverages. In Germany, the image of Māori was very stereotyped (i.e. tattoos, war dances, living in huts) and was often confused with Australian Aboriginal cultures (Klap, 2006). Although New Zealand products have a reputation of being high quality and therefore demanding a premium price, respondents from all four markets stated that product quality was the key driver of success out of all the factors tested, and branding alone would not attract consumer interest (Klap, 2006). Klap’s (2006) research contained a small sample of respondents in each country and only provides a snapshot of those four markets. Contrary to Klap’s (2006) findings, Tohu Wines experiences great success in the United States, United Kingdom, and Asian markets (New Zealand Story, 2019). Respondents in Klap’s (2006) research showed a less favourable perception of Māori branded products compared to the research by Forbes and Dean (2013), which found positive consumer perceptions of Māori branding and positive influences on consumer preference. However, Forbes and Dean (2013) sampled New Zealand consumers and Klap (2006) sampled distributors, retailers and advertising agencies in overseas markets, making direct comparisons difficult. For overseas markets, Klap (2006) found Māori branded products would not be successful unless sufficient awareness of Māori culture was established. Forbes and Dean 19 (2013) found domestic consumers perceived Māori brands positively, likely reflecting how familiar and strongly established Māori culture now is in New Zealand society. Consumers expressed difficulty in pronouncing the name, but it did not affect their overall perceptions. These few studies suggest that Māori brands are more likely to be perceived more positively by consumers in markets where Māori culture is well established. This suggests the New Zealand domestic consumers in the present research would respond more positively to Māori branded products than international consumers who are less familiar with Māori culture, as Māori culture is well established domestically. However, both studies by Forbes and Dean (2013) and Klap (2006) utilised simplistic methodologies to gather data, employing simple rating scales. As simple rating scales for measurement have several limitations, such as “socially desirable responding, acquiescence bias, hypothetical bias and scalar equivalence” (Adamsen et al., 2013, pg.10), the results of past research remain debatable, until better methodologies can be applied. The present research used a novel approach, applying two modern techniques to examine and compare perceptions of Māori brands to non-Māori brands. The application of two new techniques may provide a more robust evaluation of consumer perceptions of Māori brands. Compared to the New Zealand domestic market, Māori branded products in foreign markets face challenges of initially raising awareness of Māori culture. 2.4 Competitive Advantage of Being a Māori Business Māori culture is well established in the New Zealand tourism industry and provides a useful context to investigate the competitive advantage of being a Māori business (Jones & Morrison- Briars, 2004). The tourism industry is widely influenced by global travel and experiences in international markets. Māori tourism operators compete with other indigenous cultures and significant competition stems from within the Pacific, a region dominated by seasonal visitor patterns (Jones & Morrison-Briars, 2004). Māori tourism is made up of unique experiences that are connected to whakapapa9, and whenua10, and include performing arts, food and adventures connected to Māori owners or operators. A thread throughout tourism literature assumes that indigenous populations can utilise their cultural resources to provide for their economic development (Weaver, 2002). Developing sustainable tourism is a means of achieving this. However, an ability to utilise cultural resources is based on the underlying assumption that an indigenous culture provides sufficient leverage to achieve economic development. 9 Whakapapa: genealogy, lineage, descent 10 Whenua: land 20 As part of the Waka Tohu project, Jones and Morrison-Briars (2004) sought to investigate the perceived advantage of being a Māori business within the New Zealand tourism industry. Using a qualitative approach, a bicultural research team conducted in-depth interviews with individual Māori business operators and regional representatives, followed by cultural visitor surveys (Jones & Morrison-Briars, 2004). Participants were chosen from businesses that reflected the diverse tourism products on offer, and from both indigenous and Western business models. Survey respondents were recruited from regional tourism operators and the ‘critical incident interview technique’ (CIIT) was used. The CIIT is a research method in which the research participants are asked to recall and describe an ’incident’, a time when a behaviour, action or occurrence impacted either positively or negatively on a specified outcome (Flanagan, 1954). To be critical, an incident must occur in a situation where the purpose of the act is clear to the observer and the consequences are sufficiently definite (Flanagan, 1954). The CIIT was used to obtain narratives from primary research participants describing positive and less positive incidents they had experienced in their businesses. The CIIT yielded 87 usable critical incidents (Jones & Morrison-Briars, 2004). Key findings identified no clear competitive advantage of being a Māori business within the tourism industry. However, Jones and Morrison-Briars forward the notion that ‘added value’ is a more meaningful concept when describing the advantages of being a Māori tourism business (2004). Their business structures and models impacted on the implementation of the Māori experience. One end of the business model continuum was the local model, characterised by low levels of research and a strong reliance on personal characteristics and whānau11based intelligence (Jones & Morrison-Briars, 2004). On the opposite continuum was the global model, founded on Western-business practices that take a more strategic approach to their businesses. The study by Jones and Morrison-Briars (2004) showed that Māori tourism enterprises have potential to add value to the international visitor experience and success depended on the integration of Māori methods with Western methods. Applying a mixed cultural business model could lift capability and capacity of Māori operators in the tourism industry. The results also showed an overall demand for global indigeneity, authentic Māori experiences that allow people to connect with the land and its resources. Jones and Morrison- Briars’ (2004) model could be applied to other industry sectors, and this research aims to further 11 Whānau: extended family, family group, a familiar term of address to a number of people - the primary economic unit of traditional Māori society. 21 investigate the perceived or potential ‘added value’ of being a Māori brand in the food and beverage industry. 2.5 Cultural Authenticity Integral to global indigeneity is the ‘cultural authenticity’ in Māori product offerings. There is increased interest in the commercial and personal value of cultural authenticity (Taylor, 2001), and demand is growing for indigenous and authentic experiences (Powell & White, 2011). Desires for authenticity favours countries that have more unique cultures. A sense of place, culture and character must also be evident when developing such offerings (Country Brand Index, 2006). The Country Brand Index (2006) ranked New Zealand second in ‘authenticity’, defined as the presentation of distinctive, genuine and unique cultures. As a unique culture, Māori branding can emphasise the cultural authenticity in their product offerings, as authenticity is highly valued by consumers and influences purchase decisions (Asplet & Cooper, 2000; Gilmore & Pine II, 2007). The effect of the authenticity of Māori brandings is not well understood but is of commercial and cultural interest given the number of Māori brands appearing on products such as wine. The tourism industry presents numerous opportunities for cultural authenticity as consumers spend more money and time to look at branding and question what it means (Gilmore & Pine II, 2007). Insights into authentic tourism offerings could also apply across product categories making tourism a valuable starting point for developing more culturally authentic products. Consumers are now more informed and are probably not as susceptible to familiar traditional marketing ploys (Sinha & Foscht, 2015). Now, in a more sophisticated marketplace, the demand for authenticity is changing. Former Chief Executive Officer of Tourism New Zealand George Hickton says “increasingly, tourists are looking to purchase an experience, not a product.” (Edmond, 2005, p.1). Gilmore and Pine II (2007) coin this shift from purchasing a product to purchasing an experience as the ‘experience economy’, where goods and services are no longer sufficient, and consumers want experiences that are memorable. Consumer purchase intentions are heavily influenced by how real or authentic they perceive it to be, with authenticity linked to greater liking, quality perceptions, value perceptions and likelihood to purchase a product (Gilmore & Pine II, 2007). Pomering and White (2011) found the tourism sector had responded to this increased demand for supposedly ‘authentic’ experiences but notes that industry can only offer commodified authenticity in a ‘packaged’ format. In a world filled with staged 22 experiences, the management of consumer perceptions of authenticity becomes a source of competitive advantage (Gilmore & Pine II, 2007). To maintain competitive advantage, Māori tourism branding often includes promotional material stressing the ‘authentic’ and ‘traditional’ Māori cultural experiences to tourists (Hodgson, 2007). The creation of authenticity prompts the production of value. However, Taylor (2001) found that there was an essentialised notion of “Māori-ness” inherent in the Māori experiences offered, but the respondents in Taylor’s (2001) research largely ignored the cultural modernism of Māori culture. McIntosh (2004) identified five dimensions generated from tourists’ reflections on their experiences and preferences for Māori cultural experiences. Authenticity was one of these five dimensions and Hodgson (2007) found that tourists interpreted ‘authentic’ experiences as experiencing daily life, engaging with the experience with a Māori guide offering their perspective. Respondents also showed an interest in contemporary Māori lifestyle rather than just historic and traditional culture (Pitcher, 1999). As Lane & Waitt (2001) also identified, the experience of contemporary indigenous culture was one of the determining factors for authenticity. Some overseas markets have supported the values inherent in Māori branding, and applying traditional Māori knowledge has helped make more valuable and authentic offerings (Edmond, 2005). To maintain the authenticity and competitive advantage for Māori brands, it is essential that brand strategies are rooted in Māori values and knowledge (Harmsworth et al., 2006). It is these Māori values and the underlying factors of a company that are likely to reflect a more ‘authentic’ product to consumers. Cultural authenticity also appears to encapsulate both traditional and contemporary aspects of Māori culture (Lane & Waitt, 2001) and should be taken into consideration when incorporating Māori culture into business practices and product offerings. The research by Gilmore and Pine II (2007) suggests that if consumers perceive Māori brands as ‘authentic’, Māori brands can achieve a competitive advantage and are more likely to enhance their quality and value perceptions, and purchase intentions (Starr, 2011). Understanding the effects of Māori branding can help Māori enterprises develop more ‘authentic’ products to achieve a competitive advantage in the marketplace. 23 2.6 Misuse of Māori Intellectual Property Authenticity has also led to the growing concern of cultural appropriation, exploitation and the misuse of Māori intellectual property as evidenced by the WAI 262 claim (Waitangi Tribunal, 2011). Reports indicate that Māori branding was typically expressed through Māori names, symbols, imagery, storytelling, and iconography on product or service marketing, labelling, brochures, staff, relationships and distinct organisational culture (Gilbert, 2007; Harmsworth, 2010; Stafford, 2005; Taylor, 2007). This was often in line with tikanga12. However, Jones, Gilbert and Morrison-Briars (2005) investigated the underlying motivations for including Māori cultural elements within the business sector and revealed there were clear differences between Māori and non-Māori enterprises. Key characteristics of a Māori enterprise include various levels of Māori participation, a distinct Māori style of governance and management, and a focus on Māori frameworks or philosophy. (Harmsworth & Tahi, 2008; Story, 2005). Although no two organisations are the same, alongside the general principles of governance, many Māori organisations are driven by tikanga12, kawa13 and values that take into account the aspirations of whānau14, hapū15 and iwi16 (Te Puni Kokiri, 2018). Cultural considerations often take precedence over purely economic factors, and often take into account the way in which Māori relate to the assets and what they are used for. Commercial objectives are oftened balanced with the need to safeguard assets for future generations (Te Puni Kokiri, 2018). Jones et al. (2005) carried out in-depth qualitative interviews with Māori and non-Māori enterprises. Māori participants were targeted through engaging in cultural protocols (Harmsworth & Tahi, 2008) while non-Māori research participants were gathered from industry sectors. Māori business operators focused on the values and the emotive aspects of expressing Māori culture, utilising Māori knowledge with non-Māori influences in a constantly changing environment. Māori participants felt they were contributing to the fabric of New Zealand culture, as stewards of Māori culture. For Māori enterprises, Māori branding is used as a medium to reflect core values and confirm a cultural identity. It is about being a proud 12 Tikanga: protocols, customs and traditional knowledge 13 Kawa: Māori protocol and etiquette, particularly the behaviour expected in a marae 14 Whānau: extended family, family group, a familiar term of address to a number of people - the primary economic unit of traditional Māori society. 15 Hapū: kinship group, clan, tribe, subtribe - section of a large kinship group and the primary political unit in traditional Māori society. 16 Iwi: extended kinship group, tribe, nation, people, nationality, race - often refers to a large group of people descended from a common ancestor and associated with a distinct territory. 24 Māori and wanting to communicate that message globally (Harmworth & Tahi, 2008; Harmsworth, 2010). Māori participants showed enormous pride in being a successful Māori business and it was a demonstration of responsibility to their ancestors (Jones et al., 2005). In contrast, non-Māori business operators clearly defined the strategic advantage of using Māori elements and the deliberate use of Māori brands as promotional vehicles (Jones et al., 2005). Non-Māori were utilising elements of Māori culture into their businesses primarily for profit or gain, or to be demonstrating a sense of awareness or empathy with Māori (Gilbert, 2007; Jones et al., 2005). Māori responses suggested they understood Māori branding at a superficial level but showed concern that Māori knowledge and values will be lost through commercialisation. The participants stated there are many iwi perspectives and rights of use that lack a regulated framework (Jones et al., 2005). In the tourism industry, indigenous peoples are sometimes portrayed in a way that perpetuates stereotypes to appeal to Western consciousness and how they imagine indigenous culture to be (Hodgson, 2007). With the lack of cultural understanding, the use of Māori cultural elements by non-Māori often results in misuse of intellectual property and indicates the need for more robust systems to protect Māori intellectual property (Harmsworth & Tahi, 2008). The misuse of intellectual property of indigenous populations is not limited to Māori people. The use and misrepresentation of Aboriginal peoples’ intellectual property in Australia is also a common marketing strategy. Pomering and White (2011) reviewed an advertising campaign used in Australia’s destination marketing, which attempted to leverage off the international exposure of Australia: The Movie. This campaign featured a near-naked Indigenous actor whispering to New Yorkers and showing shamanistic powers. Indigenous Australian identity was appropriated to create an illusion of the extraordinary world of Australia. The advertising is a form of ‘staged authenticity’ where cultural products are staged to look authentic based on pre-conceived stereotypes (Pomering & White, 2011; MacCannell, 1973). Modern indigenous culture is often ignored in favour of the more primitive state (Craw, 2008), and it is important to realise that any culture is dynamic and not static. This may however, be perceived to lack legitimacy and persuasiveness, making it difficult to portray modern indigenous culture. Brand perceptions of indigenous or Māori tourism has the potential to flow on to the evaluations of other product categories including negative effects on consumer perceptions of other Māori branded products. 25 Other product categories that may be affected include the Australian native foods industry, where large numbers of Aboriginal people are involved with the collection of raw produce (Craw, 2008). This industry is focused on non-Aboriginal horticultural enterprises, yet it rests on Aboriginal traditional knowledge. This information is unprotected in Australian intellectual property law, and emerging Aboriginal enterprises are hindered by a lack of resources to claim intellectual property rights (Morse, 2005 as cited in Craw, 2008). The marketing of native food products in Australia is often done without any acknowledgement of Indigenous culture, and references to Aboriginal cultures does not necessarily mean Aboriginal involvement (Craw, 2008). Aboriginal peoples’ concerns are not always acknowledged and Maddison (2012) stresses the need for participation by indigenous peoples, not only to be consulted by government but as partners when developing economic policy. New Zealand faces a similar problem in relation to Māori intellectual property. Despite New Zealand being committed to the Treaty of Waitangi and the legal requirement to consult Māori in matters of policy, the consultation may be either meaningful or tokenistic (Harmsworth et al., 2009). The Mataatua Declaration (1993) also serves as a protection mechanism for Indigenous rights in New Zealand but may not be robust enough to protect Māori culture from being exploited. The current situation reinforces the need for research to understand the effects of Māori branding and the use of Māori cultural elements across all industries. Public engagement could help educate and inform consumers about Māori culture, help preserve Māori culture and hopefully prevent further misuse or appropriation. Issues associated with Māori branding may also be improved or resolved if Māori are active participants in discussions regarding branding and setting guidelines and standards in both Māori and non-Māori enterprises (Harmsworth, 2010; Harmsworth & Tahi, 2008; Harmsworth et al., 2009). If non-Māori brands and enterprises incorporate elements of Māori branding into their products without the integrity and understanding of Māori culture, Māori brands may lose their uniqueness, authenticity and intellectual property. Te Puni Kōkiri (Ministry of Māori Development) commissioned the Federation of Māori Authorities (2006) to identify key business characteristics of Māori enterprises. Te Puni Kōkiri say Māori branding should be based on an identity, aligning Māori cultural values to that of the marketplace (Harmsworth et al., 2009; Rigby, Mueller, & Baker, 2011). It is a challenge for many Māori enterprises to balance aspirations for cultural enrichment and preservation with Māori economic growth in the modern context (Clydesdale, 2007). The literature highlights the need for more consultation with Māori when exploring business opportunities, including more effective models of 26 governance for Māori and non-Māori enterprises as well as partnering with Māori in forming economic policies. 2.7 Māori Branding Summary The research reviewed in this chapter highlights how Māori branding has evolved to become a means of competitive advantage in the marketplace. From the pre-colonial period to the 21st Century, Māori branding has helped accelerate Māori enterprise and the Māori economy (Harmsworth et al., 2006). Both Māori and non-Māori enterprises have recognised the advantage of cultural distinctiveness and consequently increased the use of Māori cultural elements and symbols in their branding strategies. Despite the increased use of Māori branding, there is currently limited research on how consumers perceive Māori branding. The literature reviewed also has limitations as it predominantly focuses on the wine and tourism industry. Forbes and Dean (2013) found New Zealand consumers have a positive perception of Māori branded wines, ranking them significantly higher than other wine brands for likelihood of purchase and quality perceptions. However, Waka Tohu (Mana Taiao Limited, 2005) explored perceptions of Māori branded products in the food and beverage industry in the USA, Singapore, Canada and Germany. Results showed a less favourable outlook on Māori branded products but acknowledged that niche opportunities existed. For Māori branded products to be successful, significant marketing efforts and resources are needed initially to increase consumer awareness of Māori culture. Jones and Morrison-Briars (2004) investigated whether there was a competitive advantage of being a Māori business in the tourism industry. A qualitative approach using in-depth interviews and secondary surveys did not identify a clear competitive advantage of being a Māori business in the tourism industry. Instead, Jones and Morrison-Briars (2004) suggested that the concept of ‘added’ value is a more meaningful concept to describe the advantages of being a Māori tourism business. The integration of Māori and Western business models and practices was also identified as essential for the future implementation of Māori experiences and Māori product offerings. Integral to the success of Māori product offerings is ‘cultural authenticity’. Fortunately for New Zealand, the country is deemed to have a high level of authenticity due to its unique Māori culture (Country Brand Index, 2006). Authenticity is highly valued by consumers and the management of this perception of authenticity becomes another source of competitive 27 advantage. To make more valuable and authentic offerings, it is essential Māori branding strategies are rooted in Māori values and reflect both the traditional and contemporary aspects of Māori culture (Edmond, 2005; Harmsworth et al., 2006; Lane & Waitt, 2001). Authenticity has also led to the growing concern about cultural appropriation, as both Māori and non- Māori enterprises use Māori branding. Māori enterprises were found to have a distinct Māori style of governance and considered themselves stewards of Māori culture (Harmsworth & Tahi, 2008). However, non- Māori enterprises focused on the strategic advantage of Māori branding and using it for promotional purposes (Jones et al., 2005). Without cultural understanding, stereotypes are perpetuated, and this outcome often results in the misuse of intellectual property. Māori need to be consulted when incorporating elements of Māori branding to preserve Māori culture and to achieve Māori economic prosperity. Understanding the evolution of Māori branding and the challenges Māori face in terms of cultural appropriation and loss of intellectual property when developing their product offerings helps establish the context of the present research. The limited research on consumer perceptions of Māori brands suggests there is a competitive advantage in Māori branded products, but perceptions vary between domestic and international markets. Markets such as New Zealand, where Māori culture is well established, suggest domestic consumers in the present research would have a positive perception of Māori branded products. However, previous research on consumer perceptions of Māori brands relied on simplistic approaches to gather data, thus findings from previous research remain tentative. To help reduce this void in knowledge and overcome the limitations associated with simplistic approaches, the present research applies two of the latest techniques, mental market share and BWS. Applying these two new techniques may provide new knowledge into consumer perceptions of Māori and non- Māori branded products in the domestic marketplace and extend the work of previous research. The following chapter focuses on the literature that examines current customer-based brand equity and brand association theories as they affect a consumer’s response to the marketing of a brand. The concept of customer-based brand equity and brand associations also forms the theoretical foundation for the present research. 28 3.0 BRAND ASSOCIATIONS 3.1 Introduction This chapter explores the interplay of brand image with customer-based brand equity and how it affects a consumer’s response to the marketing of a brand. The added value that brand equity generates is generally accepted as a critical success factor to differentiating a brand from its competitor (Chen, 2008) and the present research aims to determine whether having a Māori brand effects customer-based brand equity. A literature review is followed by discussion of strength based theories that are used to explain how brand images are processed, stored and retrieved in consumer memory, including the ‘associative network theory’ (ANT) of memory (Anderson & Bower, 1973) , and the ‘active control of thought model’ (ACT) (Anderson, 1976). Closely linked to these strength-based theories is Romaniuk’s (2013) mental market share model, a customer-based brand equity measure. The present research draws on the mental availability metrics developed by Romaniuk (2013) to investigate whether perceptions of Māori and non-Māori brands differ. Romaniuk’s (2013) metrics measure the strength of consumer memory structures, or network of brand associations, relative to competitors (Romaniuk 2013; Romaniuk & Sharp 2000; 2016; Wright et al., 2014). The results of this research are presented using Romaniuk’s (2013) mental market share metric, together with the brand image concept maps applied by Wright et al. (2014). 3.2 Customer-Based Brand Equity and Brand Image Brand associations and ‘brand image’ are key drivers of ‘brand equity’. The two terms are defined and applied in various ways by different researchers. Peter Druker, widely recognised as the ‘father’ of modern management, believed that the point of marketing is branding, and the strength of the brand is what makes it possible to sell certain products without any attempts to persuade consumers with marketing strategies (Druker & Maciariello, 2008). As a result, much attention is paid to the concept of brand equity (Aaker, 1991;1993; Keller, 1993). A widely accepted definition of brand equity is a “set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service” (Aaker, 1991, p.15). Keller (1993) uses the term ‘customer-based brand equity’ (CBBE) to refer to brand equity and defines it as “the differential effect of brand knowledge 29 on a consumer response to the marketing of the brand” (p.2). The added value brand equity generates can help businesses’ long term interests and capabilities, and is generally accepted as a critical success factor to differentiate brands from their competitors (Chen, 2008). Marketing managers seek to understand brand loyalty, since past research has shown brands with higher levels of equity are associated with higher brand loyalty (Allaway et al., 2001; Day, 1976; Hem & Iversen, 2003; Keller & Lehmann, 2003; Sharma, 2017). Past research findings concluded that customers with brand loyalty demonstrate patterns of repeat purchasing of their preferred brand. Customers with brand loyalty are also less vulnerable to price fluctuations and more willing to pay premium prices (Keller & Lehmann, 2003). Aaker’s (1992) model provides a comprehensive framework of CBBE to suggest a variety of measures and methods to estimate brand equity. The framework consists of five elements as the source of value creation from a customer-based approach. These include brand loyalty, brand name awareness, perceived brand quality, brand associations, and other propriety brand assets. From this framework, Aaker (1992) suggests using repurchase rates, level of satisfaction, switching costs, preference for the brand and perceived quality on various product and service dimensions as potential measures of CBBE (Farjam & Hongyi, 2015). However, another framework of CBBE from a customer-based approach was proposed by Keller (1993). Keller’s (1993) model defined CBBE at an individual level taking brand knowledge and conceptualising it as an associative network, where the associations are nodes - stored information connected by links that vary in strength. Keller (1993) conceptualised how customers think and feel about the product or service offering, and proposed that a business should create a situation where customers will have positive thoughts, feelings and perceptions concerning the brand (Farjam & Hongyi, 2015). Keller (1993) identifies six elements in his CBBE model in order to build brand equity, including brand salience, brand imagery, brand performance, brand feelings, brand judgments and brand resonance (relationships). Keller (1993) also suggested correct top-of-mind recall, free associations, ratings of evaluations, and beliefs of associations as some of the measures of brand knowledge. Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) conceptualised brand equity in a different way, but both defined brand equity from a customer perspective. CBBE occurs when the consumer is familiar with the brand and holds some strong, favourable and unique brand associations in their memory (Keller, 1993). The present research will draw on the well-established concept that consumers have associations with brands and aims to identify the most salient brand attributes 30 to consumers when evaluating Māori branded wine and honey products. Aaker (1991) and Keller’s (1993) frameworks illustrate that building positive CBBE for Māori brands may have a competitive advantage, including long-term revenues, customers’ willingness to seek out for themselves new channels of distribution, the ability of firms to command higher prices, and the effectiveness of marketing communications (Keller, 2003). Another driver of brand equity is brand image and forms the basis for better strategic marketing decisions (Lee, James, & Kim, 2014). Managers of Māori brands need to sustain and support a positive and unique brand image (Lee, James, & Kim, 2014). A blanket definition of brand image is the sum total of impressions the consumer receives from multiple sources (Herzog, 1973). According to Keller (1993), brand image is defined as a perception about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory. Brand associations vary in strength, type, and uniqueness (Keller, 1993) and contribute to the strength of brand equity. Positive brand associations are thought to influence perceptions of a brand, so it is expected that the stronger and more numerous brand attributes associated with Māori brands are, the stronger their brand equity is. Identifying positive associations with a Māori brand helps inform their positioning in the market and the brand image they portray to consumers. Both positioning and brand image help guide future marketing strategies and communications. 3.3 Strength-Based Theories How brand associations are stored and retrieved from consumer memory in Aaker’s (1991) and Keller’s (1993) models are explained by strength-based activation theories (Anderson, 1983). Strength based theories are based on ANT. ANT is a psychological single-process theory of human memory which explains the cognitive processes of encoding, storage and information retrieval when making choices and decisions (Anderson, 1976; 1983; Anderson & Bower, 1973; Raajmakers & Shiffrin, 1980; Stocchi, Wright, & Driesener, 2016). Brand imaging uses ANT to conceptualise how associations in human memory consist of a set of nodes and interconnecting links (Romaniuk & Sharp, 2004). Nodes represent stored concepts and the links represent the relationships or strengths between the information (Anderson & Bower, 1973; Morton, Hammersley, & Bekerian, 1985). At the heart of ANT lies association and the existence of cues or stimuli that bring about ‘spread activation’. Links between the nodes vary in strength according to how often the associations are encountered or used, suggesting that the activation between them is crucial for efficiency in information retrieval (Reder, 1987; Stocchi, 2011). 31 Information retrieval occurs when an external cue or stimuli from the environment activates the source node, resulting in a spread activation from the source node to all other links connected to it. The activation continues down all connecting pathways until the targeted node (or needed concepts) is discovered and retrieved from memory (Anderson & Bower, 1973). The spreading activation of these networks of brand associations enables information retrieval (Keller, 1993). Evoked associations indicate the memory structures associated with a concept that can be measured to provide a brand’s concept image (Romaniuk 2013; Romaniuk & Sharp, 2004; Stocchi et al., 2016). The quantity and quality of brand image associations influence the chances of retrieval from memory and ultimately influences consumer choice (Alba & Marmorstein, 1987). Another theory of memory and recall function is the ACT model developed by psychologist John R. Anderson (1976). Human memory is considered to have two parts: a long-term memory which contains our factual knowledge and short-term memory which holds the information we are currently processing (Anderson, 1983). Working memory is assumed to have limited capacity and when information is no longer needed it is dropped from working memory (Anderson, 1983). Anderson posits there are three types of memory - a working memory (limited capacity, short term), declarative long-term memory and procedural long-term memory. According to ACT, all knowledge begins as declarative information (knowledge that something is) and procedural knowledge (how to do something) is learned by making inferences from already existing factual knowledge (Anderson, 1976). Anderson’s (1976) ACT model discusses memory as a propositional network of interconnected nodes, where only a small portion of this network is active at one time. Information can be retrieved by spreading activation from active nodes to new nodes and network paths. The likelihood that declarative information is activated depends on the level and strength of activation in working memory (Anderson & Bower, 1973). The level of activation refers to the total number of activated nodes in a network and the strength of activation refers to the number of times a particular node or concept has been activated in the past (Reder, 1988). The combined level and strength of activation determines their processing fluency. The greater the processing fluency of a concept, the greater the likelihood it will be activated (Fuller, 2017; Reder, 1988). Likewise, the likelihood that declarative information is activated depends on the level and strength of activation in working memory. 32 However, working memory has limited cognitive capacity to process all the available information and it is the relative fluency of concepts that is important to information activation (Newell & Broder, 2008). Nodes compete with each other for activation. Those with a greater relative processing fluency have a greater chance of being activated in memory (Anderson & Bower, 1973). The spreading of activation theory suggests that nodes are not just activated directly but activation can spread indirectly to associated nodes which is known as the fan effect (Collins & Loftus, 1975). Though the fan effect means there are more chances of activation in larger networks (i.e. through indirect activations), interference can also occur (Anderson, 1983). Interference occurs because activation dissipates as it spreads from one node to another or from concept-to-concept, reducing the level of activation any one concept reaches. Anderson (1976) explains that to prevent activation growing continuously, a dampening process occurs that periodically deactivates all but a few nodes. Both ANT and ACT theories suggest brand retrieval is determined by the size, strength and recentness of activation of the brand associations that consumers hold in memory (Keller, 1993). These theories suggest that a Māori brand with more (positive) associations will have more pathways of retrieval and therefore consumers are more likely to think of the brand (Romaniuk, 2013). The present research can help inform strategies for strengthening consumers’ associations with brands to increase the likelihood of retrieval in brand choice decisions (Romaniuk & Sharp, 2016). When marketers examine brand retrieval, they typically focus on brand attributes, a type of brand information stored in memory. 3.3 Brand Attributes Brand attributes often refer to the descriptive features of a good or service and can be product- related or non-product related (Fuller, 2017). Product-related attributes are intrinsic brand attributes. They are related to the product’s physical composition and are requisite for the consumer (Wang & Tang, 2011). Intrinsic attributes are distinguished by the product’s essential ingredients and features which determine the nature and level of product performance (Keller, 1998). Intrinsic brand attributes refer to measurable and verifiable superiority on some predetermined ideal standard(s) and serve as a measure of quality (Wang & Tang, 2011). They also help simplify the consumer choice process (Zeithaml, 1988). Extrinsic brand attributes are non-product related attributes and are defined as external characteristics of the product or service that relate to its purchase or consumption (Keller, 1993). Examples of extrinsic brand attributes include price, packaging, user imagery and usage 33 imagery (Keller, 1993). They are related to the brand’s symbolism, often satisfying the underlying needs for social approval or self-esteem of the consumer. They allow consumers to experience positive emotions and help them communicate their values (through consumption) and personal characteristics (Fandos & Flavian, 2006). Positive attitudes and feelings towards symbolic factors are fundamental components of attitudinal loyalty (Fandos & Flavian, 2006). Brand attributes are different from brand benefits - the personal value that customers attach to product attributes (Keller, 1993) and from brand attitudes - the overall evaluation of a brand (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975). Marketers focus on brand attributes as it is argued that both brand beliefs and brand attitudes are based on brand attributes (Keller, 1993). To hold an attitude or belief about a brand, the consumer must have first stored an ‘attribute’ in long-term memory to which they relate the attitude or belief. Brand attitudes are also mediated by the decision rules that the consumer applies to the choice. For example, when a consumer wants to buy the ‘cheapest’ brand, then brand attitudes have less impact on brand choice (Punj & Hillyer, 2004). Keller’s (1993) research suggests that brand attributes provide more stable and enduring information about brands. They are also considered to be the key component of brand knowledge in CBBE research (Keller, 1993 as cited in Fuller, 2017) and the ‘building blocks’ of consumer brand choice (Romaniuk & Sharp, 2004). Consequently, market researchers focus on understanding how brand attributes are activated in brand association networks in relation to brand retrieval (Fuller, 2017). How brand attributes are organised in brand association network can show whether the brand attributes are activated on a given purchase occasion. When stimuli are present, brands and brand attributes can be activated, either directly or indirectly by activation spreading around the network of associations (Collins & Loftus, 1975). The greater number of brand attributes in a network, the greater the likelihood to cue the brand (Keller, 1993; Romaniuk, 2003; Romaniuk &Sharp, 2004). Likewise, the more frequently and recently brand attributes are activated in a network, the more likely they will be activated in a given purchase occasion (Krishnan, 1996). This effect can be demonstrated by the measurement of brand attributes in brand image survey (Romaniuk, 2013; Wright et al., 2014). 34 3.4 Brand Attribute Elicitation Measuring brand image requires the identification of relevant attributes and is elicited by various methods. The extent to which these relevant attributes are incorporated in the research design critically affects the validity of the results obtained by these elicitation methods (Steenkamp & Van Trijp, 1997). Elicitation attempts to bring to the surface concepts from the consumer’s knowledge structure relevant to the perception of stimuli within a specific product category. Elicitation methods tend to differ in the cues they provide to the consumer. Steenkamp and Van Trijp (1997) compared three attribute elicitation methods commonly applied in marketing research - free elicitation, hierarchical dichotomization, and Kelley’s repertory grid - on type of information generated, convergent validity, efficiency in data collection and respondent reaction to an elicitation task. In free elicitation, respondents are asked to verbalise the attributes the consider relevant in their perception of different product alternatives in the category under investigation (Steenkamp & Van Trijp, 1997). Memory probes such as a set of brand names may be used to assist the respondent in triggering the elicitation process and draws on spreading activation theory (Collins & Loftus, 1975). Activation spreads from the brands to other related concepts in the cognitive structure and the respondent is then able to verbally report some or most of the content. Steenkamp and Van Trijp (1997) describe free elicitation as a directive intended to trigger a particular structure of stored attribute knowledge, related to the perception of the product category under investigation. In hierarchical dichotomization, respondents are confronted with a set of product alternatives and asked to divide the set into two groups based on their perceived (dis)similarity (Aaker, 1991; Steenkamp & Van Trijp, 1997). Respondents verbalise the attribute(s) used for this decision; the procedure is repeated for each of the two groups separately and is continued until the respondent indicates that no further partitions are possible (Steenkamp & Van Trijp, 1997). The procedure is inspired by schemata theory and proposes that memory structures are organised by hierarchies (Cantor & Mischel, 1979). Kelly’s (1955) repertory grid task presents the consumer with triads of product alternatives and is an integral part of Kelly’s personal construct theory. Kelly’s theory proposes individuals develop their own personal repertoire of constructs or attributes they use to structure and interpret a product category. According to Kelly, a construct is a way in which two things (such 35 as persons or brands) are alike and different from a third (Steenkamp & Van Trijp, 1997). The basic procedure presents the respondent with three stimuli at a time, drawn from the total pool of stimuli. The respondent is asked to indicate which two stimuli are most alike and on which attribute(s) they differ from the third stimulus. The process is repeated for different triads until the attributes of the respondent are exhausted (Steenkamp & Van Trijp, 1997). Steenkamp and Van Trijp (1997) found free elicitation yielded more attributes, a higher proportion of abstract attributes, and a higher level of articulation, and was more time efficient than the other two elicitation techniques. Free elicitation was also evaluated more positively by respondents than the other two techniques. Steenkamp and Van Trijp (1997) posited unless the marketing research technique for which the attributes are elicited requires attributes at a low level of abstraction, free elicitation is preferred to hierarchical dichotomization and Kelly’s (1995) repertory grid. Dreisener and Romaniuk (2006) also examined three common brand elicitation techniques used to capture brand attributes in brand image surveys including: ‘rating scales’, ‘ranking measures’ and ‘pick any’ free association brand-attribute association measures. Dreisener & Romaniuk (2006) found the three measures provided similar results . However, the time taken to administer each of the three elicitation techniques found the free eleicitation pick any approach took half the time of the other methods to collect image data. Romaniuk (2013) posits that for associations, that a free choice pick any format is the only technique that can provide the data necessary for using the ‘negative binomial distribution’ (NBD). These studies have shown that the free elicitation method may be the most suitable and easiest to administer. Therefore, the present research replicates Romaniuk’s methodology and uses a pick any method in an online quantitative survey. The pick any method is closely linked to top-of-mind mental associations (Sjostrom, Corsi & Lockshin, 2014) and requires exposing respondents to a list of brands and brand attributes. 3.5 Mental Market Share These top-of-mind mental associations in consumer memory are an important component of CBBE (Keller & Lehmann, 2003). Marketers seek to influence consumers’ associative network of brands through marketing activities to establish, grow and refresh brand associations in consumer memory (Romaniuk, 2013). The size of the brand’s associative network or the number of brand-attribute links in consumer memory influences future brand choice (Anderson & Bower, 1973; Collins & Loftus, 1975; Romaniuk, 2013). The ANT and the retrieval cue 36 process suggest that a brand with more associations will have more pathways to retrieval, meaning consumers are more likely to think of the brand (Alba & Marmorstein, 1987) and the higher the brand’s equity (Krishnan, 1996). Romaniuk and Sharp (2003) showed a positive relationship between the number of associations and customer loyalty in one of three studies that tested three hypotheses. The first hypothesis (H1) was: “there are attributes that are more strongly related to brand loyalty than other attributes” (Romaniuk & Sharp, 2003, p.219.), Hypothesis two (H2): “there will be specific clusters of attributes that will be related to higher loyalty to the brand” (Romaniuk & Sharp, 2003, p.220.), and the third hypothesis (H3): “there will be a positive relationship between the number of image attributes the brand is associated with and loyalty to that brand” (Romaniuk & Sharp, 2003, p.220). The research was conducted in a subscription market, where consumers typically use only one brand for the service, with the three brands used representing over 95% of the total share of the market. Image attribute responses were collected using a free choice, pick any format where both brands and perceptions were provided to the respondent. Brand loyalty was captured using a derivative of the verbal probability scale, an 11-point probabilistic measure of brand switching, and respondents gave loyalty scores that ranged from zero to 10. Zero meaning no chance of staying with the brand and 10 represented staying with the brand. Romaniuk and Sharp (2003) found that (a) there was little evidence that any particular attributes were more related to customer loyalty than any others, and (b) that there were no specific brand positions that were uniquely associated with a higher loyalty. They did, however, find the more attributes associated with a brand the more loyal the customer. However, Romaniuk (2013) argues that all brands face competition and the presence of competitor brands in a consumer’s memory inhibits the process of brand retrieval (Alba & Chattopadhyay, 1986); therefore, the value of the brand’s associative network is in its strength relative to competitors (Romaniuk, 2013). Past research into the size of associative networks ignores the impact of competitor brand links to the same attributes. Romaniuk (2013) proposes that any associative network size measures need to account for the strength of competitor brands. This combination of brand and competitor effects make up a market of associations for brands in a category. Each brand has a share of the total market associations or ‘mental market share’ as Romaniuk (2013) terms it. Romaniuk’s (2013) mental market share refers to the size and structure of a brand’s associative network in the mind of consumers and is modelled by comparing observed 37 counts to theoretical benchmarks. To calculate a brand’s mental market share, the number of attribute associations given to a brand is divided by all the total number of attribute associations for all brands in a product category. This method is based on the NBD-Dirichlet model (Goodhardt, Ehrenberg, & Chatfield, 1984). The NBD is a stochastic mathematical model for competitive brands in repeat-purchase markets (Goodhardt et al., 1984) and is successfully applied to markets globally (Ehrenberg, Uncles, & Goodhardt, 2004). These stochastic models imply there are underlying tendencies that lead to consumers buying some brands more than others (Romaniuk, 2013; Goodhardt et al., 1984) and there is no certainty about which brand a consumer will buy at a single moment in time, making the buying process somewhat random. Consumers retrieval of brands via the activation of cues follows a similar process, and brand associations may enhance a consumer’s choice probabilities. (Romaniuk, 2013). Romaniuk (2013) theorises that the underlying brand associations mimic the underlying structures of brand buying – making the NBD model appropriate in the mental market share model. Buying and retrieving brands are also both competitive processes and the NBD model considers both brand and competitor strength when calculating theoretical values (Romaniuk, 2013). Romaniuk (2013) studied the markets of carbonated drinks and financial services to test the appropriateness of the NBD-Dirichlet model to provide benchmarks for the size and underlying structure of a brand’s associative network (Goodhardt et al., 1984). Market research interviews and brand tracking surveys provided the necessary data. Sixteen attributes were initially selected and represented concepts marketers consider important for consumers in the carbonated drinks study. Qualitative research, separate to Romaniuk’s study and ref