Focus Group Analysis

The analysis of the focus group has been divided into two parts. The first part considered the car brand images and associations were outlined for each brand (Appendices 1-3). The second part dealt with the country image of a number of chosen countries that produce stereo brands (Appendix 4).

10.2.1 Car Brand Images

The participants of the focus group were given a blank piece of paper, which only contained the name and logo of a car brand; next they where to make an associative exercise, wherein they should compose a mind-map of all the associations that came to mind, when being confronted with the respective car brand. The associative network memory model was chosen

since it is useful when assessing CBBE (Keller 2008: 51). Associative learning is a theory investigating how consumers process cues and use these when evaluating brands. This model outlines nodes which are extracted from memory and used by consumers in the evaluation of brands. Some nodes are more powerful than others, because not all associations are directly related to the point of departure; here the car brand (Keller 1993).

As mentioned, the associations are divided into attributes, attitudes and benefits (Heding et al.

2009). Attributes are seen as descriptive and characterizing features. In this focus group, both product-related attributes as speed, quality properties, and design were noted along with non-product-related attributes such as use imaginary of the car brand being a mother‟s, CEO‟s or grand father‟s car. Benefits associations are personal values attached to the brand. In this case, it was the associations which the respondents stated repeatedly and they are therefore the most prevalent associations. Overall, benefits associations were found to be functional (e.g. being suitable for the European roads), experiential (e.g. being nice-to-drive) or symbolic benefits (e.g. Ford being associated with a positive history of Henry Ford). This type of associations express what the brand can do for the consumer. Attitude associations are the overall

evaluation of the brand. In terms of attitudes, the respondents had a strong mind-set towards the brand, whether or not it was negative or positive. At times, their opinion was not founded in any tangible claim; rather it was made up of intangible and personal values.

The most remarkable findings for each of the car brands are listed below. (For a further elaboration of BMW and KIA see appendices 1-2.)

Tata Motors (India)

When we displayed Tata Motors the congruence among the participants was not prevalent.

Many words where very resembling and repeated among participants, but still others were contradictory. Associations “low quality, cheap to look at, plastic” were opposed to “value for money” and “innovation”; thus the group did hold different opinions of the brand. The

Country of Origin of Tata Motors was noted, and it was commented that it apparently would be suitable for the Indian traffic; hence a valuable brand in the home-country.

Volvo (Sweden)

An interesting finding here, was that one participant associated Volvo with Swedish quality.

This is actually a biased response, since it states Swedish and not just quality in general. It indicates that the consumer has a pre-assumption of Sweden making high-quality cars, and

since Volvo is a Swedish brand, it must be of superior quality. Moreover, the most frequently mentioned associations were “family-car, safety, and solid”, which corresponds well to Volvo‟s communicated brand image.

BMW (Germany)

When evaluating BMW, Country of Origin associations were underlined. Actually, each participant mentioned Germany in some relation; and as found in the case of Volvo, BMW was equivalently connected with German quality. The strongest nodes were quality, Germany, innovation, and speed. Thus, both functional (safety, fast, high quality) and

expressive values (image, expensive, CEO) are cited. BMW received the highest brand equity of the car brands.

KIA (Korea)

The overall brand evaluation of KIA is not overwhelmingly positive. It is deemed to be an

“uncle and mom‟s car, ugly, and dull”. Surprisingly, one judges the brand to be “very good for European roads”; it is puzzling where this association comes from – maybe the respondent has previous experience with the brand in use. Here, Country of Origin was again mentioned, thus it appears as if the respondents were aware of its Korean origin, though it has a negative impact on the brand evaluation. Overall, KIA was judged to have the lowest brand equity among the brands.

Ford (USA)

As the only of the selected brands, Ford is a brand that leads your thoughts to the founder namely Henry Ford and his home country: The USA. It is “an all American car”, which makes the participants‟ associations run to other famous American brands such as “Ray Ban”.

The dominant nodes are the states, Henry Ford, and the long history. However, the participants find consensus on the lack of innovation, modernity, enhancement, and improvement.

Fiat (Italy)

The primary associations when confronted with Fiat were “low quality, cheap, not safe, grandfather, and Italy”. But words as “revival, progress, and upgrading” also came into the minds of the test persons. The positive association was conjointly related to expressive (design) and functional (quality) values.

10.2.2 Country Image

In this part, we wanted to establish how the respondents evaluated the image of certain countries. The evaluation was based on the fact that they were a stereo producing country.

When questioned to judge the quality of the product category „stereos‟ within the chosen countries, we discovered interesting findings. Every respondent, besides two, rated Denmark as being „excellent‟ (7) in making stereos. The remaining two respondents awarded Denmark with 6; the second highest possible choice. At the other end of the scale we found Mexico, which was granted the lowest scores (1-2) (appendix 4). Confronted with the question of

„why‟ they had chosen Denmark as the country producing best quality stereo brands and Mexico having the worst brands, the respondents obviously considered B&O, as a front-figure, while they could not even mention one Mexican stereo brand; nevertheless, they still evaluated Mexico negatively.