Fluent Essays

need help with this short paper also need turnitin report also will supply references materials Competency In this assignment, you will demonstrate mastery of the following competency: · Apply best practices to create, build, and maintain a brand Scenario You are a communications professional and have been recently hired by Java Been to assist the company with developing branding guidelines. The company not only needs you to create specific brand elements, but it also needs guidance on building and maintaining the brand. Java Been faces a great amount of competition, and its customers have various options by which to obtain the same product or service. Java Been, therefore, has asked you to help them communicate to the public why their business is the one customers should choose. You explained that this distinction is something that goes beyond simply price or location, and instead is informed by a business’s brand identity, which represents the company’s personality—detailing who the company is, what the company’s values are, and the company’s mission. Java Been is interested in investing the time to develop a strong brand identity, to attract new customers as well as create a strong customer base that frequents the business. To assist you with the branding guidelines, Java Been has provided you with their  company profile . Creating the Brand Which Resources Can Help? Defines the key elements of the company’s profile that will be incorporated in the brand identity, explaining why these elements are important to the brand and how they align with the organization’s mission ☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Unit Resources: Creating a Brand Describes the brand’s personality, explaining how the personality defines the company culture ☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Unit Resources: Creating a Brand Provides recommendations to improve the current logo, justifying how the proposed recommendations will more effectively communicate the organization’s brand ☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Unit Resources: Creating a Brand Develops a tagline that provides the audience insight into the organization’s brand ☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Unit Resources: Creating a Brand Explains how to gain buy-in for the brand from the organization’s internal stakeholders, to develop brand ambassadors ☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Unit Resources: Creating a Brand Building the Brand Which Resources Can Help? Defines the product launch strategy, justifying how this strategy will uniformly update and communicate the company’s brand identity across all channels ☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Unit Resources: Building a Brand Explains how to monitor consumer attitudes toward the brand and remain flexible to make adjustments to the approach ☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Unit Resources: Building a Brand Maintaining the Brand Which Resources Can Help? Develops brand guidelines that employees must follow with internal and external communications, justifying how these guidelines ensure the organization maintains a consistent voice ☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Unit Resources: Maintaining a Brand Explain how the brand guidelines can be applied to a variety of communication channels, to maintain the integrity of the brand ☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Unit Resources: Maintaining a Brand General Which Resources Can Help? Clearly conveys meaning with correct grammar, sentence structure, and spelling; shows understanding of audience and purpose ☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Academic Support Lists sources where needed using citation methods with no major errors ☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet Directions You were recently hired by Java Been to assist the company with developing branding guidelines. The company not only needs you to create specific brand elements, but it also needs guidance on building and maintaining the brand. Mary Geer and Jay Sorth started Java Been three years ago, and since then, the company has grown tremendously. In the beginning, Mary and Jay focused their attentions entirely on ensuring their company would survive. Now that the company has grown, Mary and Jay want to shift their focus to recreating their brand identity and defining a brand strategy for the café. With the brand identity, the café can consistently communicate its values and personality, build loyalty and trust among its customer base, and differentiate itself from the competition. To assist you with the branding guidelines, Java Been has provided you with their  company profile . Specifically, you must address the criteria listed below. · Creating the Brand: Mary Geer and Jay Sorth stated that they need assistance recreating a brand identity for Java Been. Specifically, they would like you to help them define the brand’s personality, recommend improvements to the company’s logo, develop a tagline that aligns with the brand’s identity, and assist them in planning how to gain buy-in from Java Been’s internal stakeholders. As you create Java Been’s brand, be sure to address the following: · Define the key elements of the company’s profile that you will incorporate in the brand identity. Be sure to explain why these elements are important to the brand and how they align with the organization’s mission. · Describe the brand’s personality. Be sure to explain how the personality will define the company culture. In crafting your brand’s personality, you might consider the brand voice and emotional impact of the brand. · Provide recommendations to improve the current logo. Be sure to justify how your proposed recommendations will more effectively communicate the organization’s brand. For example, you might consider the colors or font used in the logo. · Develop a tagline that provides the audience insight into the organization’s brand. For example, consider the company’s values, personality, or desired experience for its consumers. · Explain how you will gain buy-in for the brand from the organization’s internal stakeholders, to develop brand ambassadors. · Building the Brand: Now that you have created Java Been’s identity, Mary and Jay have also asked for your assistance in determining how to communicate the brand to internal and external stakeholders. They explained that they would like your help in defining their company culture and then developing a product-launch strategy. In addition, Mary and Jay want your help in monitoring consumer attitudes, to ensure Java Been can respond appropriately. As you build Java Been’s brand, be sure to address the following: · Define the product launch strategy, justifying how this strategy will uniformly update and communicate the company’s brand identity across all channels. As you define your strategy, you might consider the following: · Which channels might you use to communicate the brand? · What is your timeline to launch the brand and update all representations of the brand? · What are the goals of your launch? · How will you test or practice your strategy? · Explain how you will monitor consumer attitudes toward the brand and remain flexible to make adjustments to your approach. · Maintaining the Brand: Mary and Jay are pleased with your work creating and building a brand for Java Been, but now they need your help to ensure that the brand is consistently communicated, and that the integrity of the brand is maintained. They would like you to assist them in developing specific brand guidelines, and they want your advice on how to communicate the guidelines across a variety of communication channels. As you develop a plan to maintain Java Been’s brand, be sure to address the following: · Develop brand guidelines that employees must follow with internal and external communications. Be sure to justify how these guidelines ensure the organization maintains a consistent voice. For example, is there a specific font or color that should be used when producing materials, or are there variations of the logo that will be used when communicating through different channels? · Explain how the brand guidelines can be applied to a variety of communication channels, to maintain the integrity of the brand. What to Submit Every project has a deliverable or deliverables, which are the files that must be submitted before your project can be assessed. For this project, you must submit the following: Branding Guidelines Develop a plan to create, build, and maintain a brand for a fictitious company. Your branding guidelines must be 750 to 1,250 words in length. Cite any and all sources appropriately. Supporting Materials The following resource(s) may help support your work on the project: Citation Help Need help citing your sources? Use the CfA Citation Guide and Citation Maker. Company Profile Java Been has provided you with its company profile to assist you as you develop the branding guidelines. Welcome to the Creating a Brand unit. In this unit, you will: · Align the key elements of a company’s profile to the mission and vision · Explain brand personality and its alignment to the brand’s identity · Design a corporate identity (i.e., logo) that communicates an organization’s brand · Explain the purpose of an organizations logo · Develop a brand tagline for a primary target audience · Explain how to gain internal organizational stakeholder buy-in for a brand Review the unit resources, then take the knowledge check to ensure you understand the concepts explored in this unit. Creating a Brand The economic recession of 2007–2008 reinforced the importance of companies considering themselves living entities. Just as we do, brands must have a defined identity, personality, and goals, which are stated by their mission and vision statements. This clear definition guides the creation of a companys communication material, consequently guiding the audience and stakeholders’ perception of the brand. To illustrate the point of this unit, consider your personal experiences with your favorite brand. How do you recognize its products? If this brand were a person, how would you describe its culture, personality, and dreams? Rory Sutherland: Perspective is everything | TED Talk Scott Galloway: How Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google manipulate our emotions | TED Talk Lieven, Theo; Grohmann, Bianca; Herrmann, Andreas; Landwehr, Jan R; Miriam van Tilburg.  European Journal of Marketing; Bradford Vol. 49, Iss. 1/2,  (2015): 146-169. DOI:10.1108/EJM-08-2012-0456 PDF Cite 1. Full text 2. Full text - PDF 3. Abstract/Details 4. References 94 Abstract Translate Top of Form Bottom of Form Purpose – This research aims to examine the impact of brand design elements (logo shape, brand name, type font and color) on brand masculinity and femininity perceptions, consumer preferences and brand equity. Design/methodology/approach – This research empirically tests the relation between brand design elements, brand masculinity and femininity and brand preferences/equity in four studies involving fictitious and real brands. Findings – Brand design elements consistently influenced brand masculinity and femininity perceptions. These, in turn, significantly related to consumer preferences and brand equity. Brand masculinity and femininity perceptions successfully predicted brand equity above and beyond other brand personality dimensions. Research limitations/implications – Although this research used a wide range of brand design elements, the interactive effects of various design elements warrant further research. Practical implications – This research demonstrates how markers of masculinity and femininity that are discussed in the evolutionary psychology literature can be applied to the brand design of new and existing brands. Originality/value – This research considers the impact of multiple brand design elements (logo shape, brand name, type font and color) and involves a wide range of brands and product categories. More Full Text Translate Top of Form Bottom of Form 0:00 /0:00 1. Introduction Brand design elements are names, signs and symbols that identify and differentiate the brand (Walsh et al., 2010, 2011), and include brand name, logo shape, color and type font. The marketing literature suggests that brand design elements influence consumers’ perceptions of brand personality (Batra et al., 1993) – the human personality traits consumers associate with a brand (Aaker, 1997). Brand personality consists of multiple dimensions (sincerity, excitement, sophistication, ruggedness and competence; Aaker, 1997; masculinity, femininity; Grohmann, 2009). Although research on the influence of brand design elements on brand personality dimensions is growing (Grohmann et al., 2012; Labrecque and Milne, 2012; Orth and Malkewitz, 2008), the impact of brand design on brand masculinity and femininity remains unexplored. The first objective of this article is to examine how brand design elements (logos, type font, brand name and color) influence brand masculinity and femininity perceptions. The second objective is to investigate whether brand-design induced brand masculinity and femininity perceptions ultimately relate to consumer preferences and brand equity. The literature suggests that brand personality contributes to brand equity (Keller, 1993) because it allows consumers to more easily relate to the brand (Fournier, 1998) or express themselves through brand use (Aaker, 1997). Emerging evidence indeed indicates that the masculinity and femininity dimensions of brand personality relate positively to consumer responses to the brand (e.g. attitude; Grohmann, 2009) and brand equity (Lieven et al., 2011). In providing further evidence for an impact of brand masculinity and femininity perceptions on consumer preferences and brand equity, we highlight the importance of brand design considerations in influencing managerially relevant outcomes (Aaker and Keller, 1990; Leuthesser et al., 1995; Salzer-Mörling and Strannegard, 2004). This research adopts an evolutionary psychology (EP) perspective to explain the influence of physical brand design characteristics on consumers’ perceptions of brand masculinity and femininity. Evolutionary psychology posits that psychological processes that influence preferences and behavior are the result of evolution by selection (Buss, 1995). The recent marketing literature indeed demonstrates that EP-based theories are useful in elucidating behaviors in the consumption domain (Griskevicius et al., 2012). In examining the influence of brand design elements on brand masculinity and femininity perceptions, consumer preferences and brand equity, this research contributes to the literature in several ways. first, although research has begun to examine the influence of brand design elements on brand personality perceptions (Labrecque and Milne, 2012; Grohmann et al., 2012), these investigations focus on a limited number of design elements, such as logo color (i.e. hue and saturation; Labrecque and Milne, 2012), or type font characteristics (i.e. elaborate, harmony, natural, flourish, weight) and type font hue (Grohmann et al., 2012). The current article extends the consideration of brand design elements to logo and brand name, and reinvestigates the influence of type font and color. From a theoretical standpoint, this article highlights the parsimony of an EP-based explanation for the effects of multiple and seemingly disparate design elements. From a managerial standpoint, this investigation of multiple brand design elements demonstrates their effectiveness in the creation of desired brand masculinity or femininity perceptions. Second, this research focuses on the influence of brand design on brand femininity and masculinity – two brand personality dimensions that have not been investigated despite their importance to brand positioning in many product categories (e.g. personal care products and fragrances). Prior brand design research (Labrecque and Milne, 2012; Grohmann et al., 2012) considered the sincerity, sophistication, excitement, competence and ruggedness dimensions (Aaker, 1997). Finally, this research is one of the few to examine whether design-evoked brand personality perceptions affect consumers’ responses to the brand. Although the literature suggests that brand masculinity and femininity result in positive consumer responses (Grohmann, 2009; Lieven et al., 2011), empirical evidence regarding this relation is limited. This research specifically addresses to what extent brand masculinity/femininity drives consumer preferences and consumer-based brand equity. 2. Conceptual background EP has emerged as a promising conceptual framework for marketing, and brand positioning research (Colarelli and Dettmann, 2003; Foxall, 1993; Foxall and James, 2003; Griskevicius et al., 2012; Griskevicius and Kenrick, 2013; Saad, 2013; Saad and Gill, 2000). EP holds that the human mind evolved through natural and sexual selection and represents an adaptation to challenges in various domains including survival, mating, kin selection and reciprocal altruism (Saad, 2013). Fundamental motives – such as self-protection from physical harm and disease, romantic partner attraction and retention, affiliation, status and caring for offspring (Kenrick et al., 2010) – influence perception, emotions, cognition and memory (Saad, 2013), and shape preferences and behavior (Griskevicius and Kenrick, 2013). This article extends EP-based research by examining whether brand design features influence consumers’ perceptions of brand masculinity and femininity. Brand design elements include brand name and symbols associated with the brand (e.g. logo shape, color, type font; Henderson and Cote, 1998) and play an important role in brand perception (Batra et al., 1993), identification and differentiation (Walsh et al., 2010, 2011). In connecting physical features to masculinity and femininity perceptions in a brand context, this research draws on the EP literature that links physical features to masculinity/femininity perceptions among people. This literature suggests that people’s inferences regarding masculinity and femininity based on physical features is rooted in psychological mechanisms pertaining to mate selection. The adaptation to the different reproductive roles influenced the development of several differences in physical characteristics between the sexes (i.e. sexual dimorphism; Darwin, 1874). To the extent that an individual’s level of masculine or feminine characteristics may allow him or her to more successfully compete against other individuals of the same sex (i.e. intrasexual competition; Buss and Barnes, 1986) and to increase the likelihood of being selected in mate choice (i.e. intersexual competition; Buss and Barnes, 1986), these characteristics tend to increase the competitive advantage in sexual selection and are passed on to future generations (Andersson, 1994). In the mate-selection process, physical characteristics may be used as indicators of quality and reproductive value of a potential mate (Rhodes, 2006; Symons, 1979; Gangestad and Scheyd, 2005). The more prominent physical features signaling masculinity (or femininity) in an individual, the greater may be their perceived genetic fitness (and thus contribution to the offspring’s genetic fitness) and attractiveness as a potential mate (Kaplan and Gangestad, 2005; Grammer et al., 2003). The evolutionary-based tendency to seek a genetically fit and therefore attractive mate likely increases people’s level of attention to physical features that relate to attractiveness (Jokela, 2009). This suggests that humans may be highly responsive to physical features signaling masculinity and femininity. Importantly, masculine and feminine features tend to enhance perceived attractiveness – regardless of the perceiver’s sex (Grammer and Thornhill, 1994; Johnston et al., 2001; Penton-Voak et al., 2001; Perrett et al., 1998; Rhodes et al., 2003). This may be due to intrasexual competition, which requires competence in interpreting masculine and feminine features to judge same-sex competitors and to gauge what characteristics might increase attractiveness to the opposite sex (Buss and Schmitt, 1993). Similarly, individuals tend to select mates that match their own level of attractiveness, which requires that individuals judge their own level of attractiveness, as well as that of a potential mate (Buss and Schmitt, 1993). In sum, physical features influence femininity and masculinity perceptions to some extent (Furnham and Radley, 1989), and the degree to which an individual displays feminine or masculine features plays a role in others’ judgments of their attractiveness (Kaplan and Gangestad, 2005). Because these psychological mechanisms relate to fundamental motives (Buss, 1989, 1994), it is plausible that consumers may recognize and respond positively to physical features conveying masculinity and femininity in brand design. We now turn to the discussion of specific brand design elements (logo shape, type font, brand name and color) and their effect on brand femininity/masculinity, brand preferences and brand equity. 2.1 Logo shape Logo shape refers to a brand logo’s graphic design (Henderson and Cote, 1998). Because logos are physical manifestations of brands, logo shape might influence perceived brand masculinity/femininity in line with EP principles. The EP literature suggests that physical characteristics – such as shoulders, upper-body musculature and biceps, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), body mass index and waist-to-chest ratio (WCR) – influence masculinity and femininity perceptions (Horvath, 1981; Rhodes, 2006; Singh, 1993; Symons, 1979; Gangestad and Scheyd, 2005). Two dimensions of physical appearance – angularity versus roundness, and heavier versus slender build – appear to play an important role in these perceptions: the literature suggests that an angular, V-shaped torso consistent with physical strength and muscle development in the upper body increases perceived attractiveness in men (Furnham and Radley, 1989). In addition, a muscular physique is one of the factors influencing perceptions of male attractiveness (Fisher et al., 2002). On average, male attractiveness ratings increase with a heavier build, but decrease for overweight and obese body shapes (Furnham and Radley, 1989). Whereas the prototypical masculine body shape involves an angular V-shape induced by a low WCR (Horvath, 1981) and moderate heaviness (Furnham and Radley, 1989), a curved (“hourglass”) body shape characterized by a WHR of about 0.7 and a slender build is associated with femininity and female attractiveness (Singh and Young, 1995). The presence of heavier versus slender, and more angular versus rounder features (which describe a typically masculine and feminine body shape, respectively) in a brand logo might thus influence consumers’ perceptions of brand masculinity and femininity. The prediction regarding angularity and roundness is also echoed in the marketing aesthetics literature, which links angular forms to masculinity, and round forms to femininity (Schmitt and Simonson, 1997). H1. Logo shape influences perceived brand masculinity/femininity, such that (a) a heavier and more angular logo enhances brand masculinity (MBP) and (b) a slender and rounder logo enhances brand femininity (FBP). 2.2 Type font The effects of angular/round and heavier/slender features on masculinity/femininity perceptions might also apply to other brand design elements, such as type font. Peacock (2005) reports that fine, sleek, elegant and serif-type fonts are perceived as feminine, whereas solid, bold-face type fonts are perceived as masculine. Similarly, Shaikh et al. (2006) find that script fonts (e.g. Monotype Corsiva, Kristen) communicate femininity, whereas modern display fonts (e.g. Impact, Agency FB) signal masculinity. Overall, slender, round type fonts likely signal brand femininity, whereas heavier (i.e. boldface, hereinafter referred to as bold), angular fonts signal brand masculinity. H2. Type font influences perceived brand masculinity/femininity, such that (a) a bold and more angular type font enhances brand masculinity (MBP) and (b) a slender and rounder type font enhances brand femininity (FBP). 2.3 Brand name Evolutionary phonology describes the evolution of language as an adaptive process and relates to evolutionary psychology (Blevins, 2004; Croft, 2008). Language involves the interpretation of sound. In this context, sound symbolism posits that word meaning derives from the sound of phonemes (i.e. smallest units of sound: vowels or consonants) it contains. Research supports a relation between vowel sounds and brand perception (Klink, 2000, 2003; Yorkston and Menon, 2004). For example, products with brand names containing front vowels (e.g. i, e) – as opposed to back vowels (e.g. o, u) – were perceived as more feminine, lighter in color and weight, milder, thinner, weaker, softer, faster, colder, prettier, bitter and friendlier (Klink, 2000). A second phoneme category consists of consonants (i.e. stops such as p, t, b and k; fricatives such as f, s, v and z). Brand names are perceived to be more masculine, larger, slower or heavier when they contain stops as opposed to fricatives (Klink, 2000). This research focuses on the influence of vowels on brand masculinity and femininity perceptions. We expect that femininity perceptions are influenced by use of front vowels, whereas masculinity perceptions are influenced by use of back vowels. H3. Brand names influence perceived brand masculinity/femininity, such that (a) back vowels enhance perceived brand masculinity MBP) and (b) front vowels enhance perceived brand femininity (FBP). 2.4 Color Color conveys brand meaning and creates brand identity in the context of advertising, packaging, distribution and brand logo design (Klink, 2003). The relation between color and masculinity/femininity perceptions is often examined in the context of sex-related stereotyping of colors in socialization processes (Picariello et al., 1990; Pomerleau et al., 1990) and the cultural perpetuation of gender-stereotypes related to color associations (Cunningham and Macrae, 2011). EP provides a parsimonious explanation for the link between color and masculinity/femininity in that face color may serve as marker of masculinity and femininity: women tend to be more light-skinned than men (Jablonski and Chaplin, 2000) because of higher estrogen levels (Perrett et al., 1998). Within ethnic groups, the literature documents mate choice preferences that tend to favor women with skin tones lighter than the local average, and men with darker complexions than the local average (van den Berghe and Frost, 1986). This preference for women with lighter skin tone may be based on an association of lighter skin with health (and thus reproductive fitness; Stephen et al., 2009), as well as increased facial contrast between lighter skin and lips or eyes, which also serves as an indicator of femininity (Russell, 2009). This suggests that lighter colors may be more strongly associated with femininity, whereas darker colors may be more strongly associated with masculinity. It is likely that use of light colors to represent the brand increases brand femininity perceptions, whereas use of dark colors might increase brand masculinity perceptions. EP furthermore suggests a mate-attraction-based link between the color red, perceived femininity and attractiveness (Elliot and Niesta, 2008; Pazda et al., 2012), likely because of estrogen/progesterone balance-induced blood flow during the ovulation phase of the menstrual cycle (Elliot and Niesta, 2008; Fortney et al., 1988). The effect of color on masculinity and femininity perceptions thus appears to involve both hue (e.g. blue versus red or pink; Alexander, 2003; Elliot and Niesta, 2008) and brightness (dark versus light; Jablonski and Chaplin, 2000). H4. Color influences perceived brand masculinity/femininity, such that (a) darker (blue) color enhance perceived brand masculinity (MBP) and (b) lighter (red/pink) color enhance perceived brand femininity (FBP). 2.5 Impact of brand design based masculinity and femininity perceptions on brand preferences and equity EP suggests that physical features may influence perceived attractiveness (Barrett et al., 2002; Buss, 2005). Women tend to rate status, strength and the ability to protect others as desirable male traits, whereas men tend to perceive fertility as a desirable attribute in females (Buss, 1989, 1994; Buss and Schmitt, 1993). Markers of femininity and masculinity that suggest the presence of these desirable attributes therefore play a role in attractiveness perceptions and mate selection preferences (Gangestad and Simpson, 2000; Symons, 1979): a highly masculine appearance indicating strength and status, or a highly feminine appearance indicating fertility is often considered attractive (Etcoff, 2000). The relation between masculinity or femininity and attractiveness may suggest that there is a link between highly masculine and feminine brands and consumers’ responses to such brands. The fact that consumers perceive brands in terms of masculinity and femininity (Grohmann, 2009) and apply social judgment to non-human entities (Aaker et al., 2010) suggests that they recognize and interpret physical markers of masculinity and femininity in a brand context. Hence, masculinity and femininity perceptions may influence brand preferences and – consequently – brand equity because of positively valenced (i.e. highly masculine or feminine) features. Prior literature also suggests that brand preference and brand equity are strongly and positively related. Keller (1993) conceptualizes brand equity as a differential effect on consumer responses which are influenced by consumer preferences. Similarly, Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995) found that high equity brands generate significantly higher brand preference. H5. Highly masculine (feminine) brands evoke greater brand preference and equity compared to moderately masculine (feminine) brands. We now turn to the empirical tests of the hypotheses. 3. Empirical studies Study 1 examines the effect of brand logo shape on masculinity and femininity perceptions (H1). Study 2 investigates the effect of type fonts and brand names on perceived brand gender (H2, H3) and brand preferences (H5). Study 3 focuses on the influence of color and type fonts on brand gender perceptions (H4) and preference (H5). Study 4 then examines the effects of modifications of existing brand designs on perceived brand gender and equity. 3.1 Study 1: logo shapes and brand masculinity/femininity 3.1.1 Design, stimuli and procedure. Study 1 used a 2 (heavy vs slender) × 2 (angular vs round) between-participants design. To rule out brand familiarity effects, we relied on a fictitious brand logo selected from Henderson and Cote (1998). As illustrated in Table I, the logo was modified such that it differed along the heavy/slender and angular/round dimensions. Participants were members of a European consumer panel (with 65,000 members) who responded to an e-mail including a survey link that invited them to participate in an online-study. Participants were randomly assigned to logo condition. Participants (n = 548, 40.0 per cent female, M Age = 45.3, SDAge = 12.1) rated the logo on two semantic differential scales that reflect heaviness/slenderness and angularity/roundness in a design context (1 = bold/solid, 11 = airy/delicate; 1 = angular/sharp, 11 = round/smooth; Björntorp, 1987). Participants then rated perceived brand gender associated with the logos on two seven-point femininity and masculinity scales. 3.1.2 Results. An ANOVA with brand masculinity serving as dependent variable and the two logo shape dimensions as independent variables shows that heavy logos were rated as more masculine (M = 4.50) compared to slender logos (M = 3.92; F(1, 544) = 25.30, p < 0.001) and angular logos (M = 4.82) were rated as more masculine compared to round logos (M = 3.60; F(1, 544) = 105.67, p < 0.001). In an ANOVA with brand femininity serving as dependent variable and the logo shape dimensions serving as independent variables, heavy logos (M = 3.29) were perceived as less feminine compared to slender logos (M = 3.76; F(1, 544) = 16.31, p < 0.001) and angular logos (M = 2.87) were rated as less feminine compared to round logos (M = 4.18; F(1, 544) = 115.71, p < 0.001). No significant interaction effects emerged (brand masculinity p > 0.49; brand femininity p > 0.82). 3.1.3 Discussion. In support of H1, logo shape influenced brand masculinity and femininity perceptions, such that heavier and angular logos increased brand masculinity, whereas slender and round logos enhanced brand femininity. 3.2 Study 2: Type font, brand name, brand masculinity/femininity and brand preferences Study 2 considers the effect of type font and brand name in a within-participants design that more closely approximates brand evaluation contexts consumers usually face. It also examines the relation between type font (H2) and brand name (H3), brand masculinity/femininity and resulting consumer preferences for brands within a product category (H5). Because the effects of brand masculinity/femininity on brand preferences may be contingent upon product category gender associations, this study further explores the effect of congruence between brand and product category masculinity and femininity on preferences. Similar to brands, product categories are associated with masculinity and femininity (Fugate and Phillips, 2010; Milner and Fodness, 1996). Because product-level associations influence how consumers perceive brands (Keller, 1993), they may reinforce or weaken brand associations. Based on categorization theory and the finding that facilitated categorization increases liking (Lamberts and Brockdorff, 1997; Solomon et al., 1999), it is likely that congruence between brand masculinity/femininity and product category masculinity/femininity influences brand preferences positively. In other words, congruence between brand and product category masculinity/femininity (e.g. a masculine brand in a masculine product category) likely reinforces brand masculinity/femininity perceptions and enhances preferences, whereas incongruence (i.e. feminine brand in a masculine product category) may lead to more difficult categorization – as well as dilution of brand-level associations through mismatching product category associations – and ultimately influences preferences negatively. It is important to note that in categories that are used to a similar extent by men and women (e.g. cars, smartphones, deodorants), brands can position themselves anywhere along the masculinity/femininity continuum to appeal to a desired target segment (i.e. men only, women only, consumers from both groups). The brand association and categorization literatures suggest, however, that a brand position that is more congruent with product category femininity/masculinity reinforces brand masculinity/femininity and benefits the brand. H6. Greater congruence between brand masculinity/femininity (MBP, FBP) and product category masculinity/femininity (MPG, FPG) enhances to brand preferences. In testing the effects of brand masculinity/femininity on preferences, Study 2 also considers the impact of product category masculinity/femininity associations (H6). 3.2.1 Design, stimuli, and procedure. A 2 (brand name) × 4 (type font) within-participant experiment examined the effect of brand name and type font on brand masculinity and femininity, and brand preferences. Brand name manipulations consisted of two fictitious brand names with front (Edely) or back vowels (Bloyt). Type font manipulations consisted of two slender/round fonts (Monotype Corsiva, Kristen) and two bold/angular fonts (Impact, Agency FB; Shaikh et al., 2006). Participants (n = 657, 44.2 per cent female, M Age = 41.2, SDAge = 12.2) were recruited from a European consumer panel through an e-mail including a survey link. They first rated the two brand names (printed in Arial font) in terms of brand name masculinity and brand name femininity (1 = not at all masculine [feminine], 7 = very masculine [feminine]), and the four type fonts (based on a string of letters) on two semantic differential scales (1 = bold/solid, 11 = airy/delicate; 1 = angular/sharp, 11 = round/smooth). They also rated type font femininity and masculinity (1 = not at all masculine [feminine], 7 = very masculine [feminine]) based on a type sample (string of letters). Afterward, they rated brand femininity (FBP) and masculinity (MBP) arising from each of the eight brand name/type font combinations (i.e. two brand names displayed in four type fonts). Participants were then randomly assigned to 3 of 12 product categories (fragrance/cosmetics, sweets/snacks, food, soft drinks, apparel, alcohol/tobacco, household products, financial services, electronics, cars, information technology and transportation) and rated product category masculinity/femininity perceptions (MPG, FPG) on the MBP/FBP items (MPG: α = 0.88; FPG: α = 0.92; r FPG–MPG = 0.67). They then distributed 100 points across the eight brand name/type font combinations to express brand preference in that product category. 3.2.2 Results. Table II summarizes brand name and type font perceptions, as well as MBP, FBP and MBP-FBP difference ratings. First, paired-samples t-tests examined the effects of brand name and type font on perceived brand gender. Compared to the brand name including front vowels, the brand name including a back vowel was perceived as more masculine (Mback = 4.53; Mfront = 2.38, t(647) = 24.95, p < 0.001) and less feminine (Mback = 1.97; Mfront = 4.27, t(642) = −29.28, p < 0.001). We averaged the data over the two slender/round fonts (Monotype, Kristen) and the two bold/angular fonts (Impact, Agency) and found that compared to the slender/round fonts the bold/angular fonts were perceived as more solid (Mbold/angular = 4.02; Mslender/round = 7.29, t(653) = −35.54, p < 0.001), less round (Mbold/angular = 4.01; Mslender/round = 8.34, t(652) = −39.41, p < 0.001), more masculine (Mbold/angular = 4.71; Mslender/round = 2.59, t(653) = 30.73, p < 0.001) and less feminine (Mbold/angular = 2.52; Mslender/round = 4.70, t(652) = −33.89, p < 0.001). To analyze the relationships between brand design elements, perceived brand gender, fit between brand and product category gender and brand preference, we aggregated the data across participants such that the eight versions of the brand name for each of the 12 product categories that constitute 96 cases for the subsequent analyses. Table III depicts perceived product category masculinity/femininity and average preference rankings for the eight brand designs in each product category. To account for product category effects on brand perceptions, the Euclidian distance served as a measure of dissimilarity between brand and product category gender: Equation 1 Figure 1 outlines the relationships between brand design elements, brand masculinity/femininity and preferences tested in linear regression analyses. Regression of type font masculinity on the type font design characteristics provided evidence that airy/delicate (b = −0.49, p < 0.001) and round/smooth (b = −0.56, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.98; F(2, 93) = 2,814.07, p < 0.001) fonts reduced perceived masculinity. Regression of font femininity on the type font characteristics showed that more airy/delicate (b = 0.44, p < 0.001) and round/smooth type fonts (b = 0.60, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.99; F(2, 93) = 4,453.02, p < 0.001) were perceived as more feminine. Regression analyses also supported an influence of brand design perceptions on brand masculinity (R2 = 0.97; F(2, 93) = 1,291.66, p < 0.001; masculine brand name gender perceptions b = 0.42, p < 0.001; masculine type font gender perceptions b = 0.89, p < 0.001) and brand femininity (R2 = 0.97; F(2, 93) = 1,629.84, p < 0.001; feminine name gender perceptions b = 0.48, p < 0.001; feminine font gender perceptions b = 0.86, p < 0.001). A regression of the brand equity on MBP, FBP and the distance vector (F(3, 92) = 18.66, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.38) showed a positive and significant effect of MBP (b = 2.05, p < 0.001) and FBP (b = 2.27, p < 0.001) and a negative effect of the distance between product category and brand masculinity/femininity (b = −0.61, p < 0.001) on brand preferences. In support of H5, brand masculinity and femininity positively related to brand preferences. In support of H6, this relation was stronger when brand and product category masculinity and femininity were more congruent. A simultaneous least square regression model (Ringle et al., 2005) replicated these findings. 3.2.3 Discussion. Results supported H2, H3, H5 and H6. Brand logos including bold, angular type fonts (H2a) and brand names containing back vowels (H3a) signal brand masculinity, whereas brand logos with slender, round type fonts (H2b) and brand names including front vowels (H3b) increase brand femininity perceptions. Use of consistent cues result in more pronounced masculinity and femininity perceptions, which – in turn – increased brand preference (H5). A consideration of product category-brand masculinity/femininity congruence demonstrates that greater congruence between brand and product category masculinity/femininity increases preferences (H6). 3.3 Study 3: Type font, color, brand masculinity/femininity and brand preference Study 3 examines the influence of type font (H2) and color (H4) on brand masculinity and femininity perceptions, replicates the findings regarding the relation between brand masculinity/femininity and brand preferences (H5) and provides additional evidence for regarding congruence between brand and product masculinity/femininity (H6). 3.3.1 Design, stimuli and procedure. This study used a 2 (type font) × 2 (color) × 2 (product category) between-participants design, with product categories differing in terms of masculinity/femininity associations (i.e. deodorants, smartphones). Deodorants and smartphones have similar usage rates among men and women, yet Study 2 suggests that the product categories cosmetics (i.e. the category deodorant belongs to) and information technology products (i.e. the category smartphones belong to) are associated with femininity and masculinity, respectively. Stimuli consisted of four brand designs that combined a bold/angular type font (Impact) or slender/round type font (Monotype) with a dark hue/brightness color (navy blue [RGB 0, 0, 128]) or a light hue/brightness color (bright pink [RGB 255, 0, 127]). Color selection was based on prior research on color-related masculinity and femininity perceptions (Picariello et al., 1990), and did not involve an independent manipulation of hue and brightness. These designs were applied to a deodorant dispenser (fictitious brand “Young”), and to a smartphone (fictitious brand “Connect”). Figure 2 illustrates the stimuli. Participants recruited from a European consumer panel (n = 1,103; 41.3 per cent female, M Age = 44.7, SDAge = 12.1) participated in an online study, and were randomly assigned to the deodorant (n = 516) or smartphones (n = 587) category and one brand design associated with. Participants rated the brand in terms of MBP and FBP (Grohmann, 2009). Participants then saw all four brand designs in the product category and expressed their relative preference on a 100-point constant sum scale. 3.3.2 Results. The effect of type fonts and color on brand masculinity, femininity and the MBP–FBP difference score was analyzed in a series of ANOVAs. H2a received partial support in that bold/angular type font significantly enhanced brand masculinity in one product category (deodorant: F(1, 496) = 7.92, p < 0.01, smartphone: p > 0.58). The MBP–FBP difference score was positively influenced by use of a bold/angular-type font (deodorant: F(1, 496) = 27.44, p < 0.001, smartphone: F(1, 557) = 9.75, p < 0.01). H2b was supported in that use of a slender/round type font significantly enhanced brand femininity (deodorant: F(1, 496) = 6.09, p < 0.05, smartphone: F(1, 557) = 7.24, p < 0.01). H4a was only partially supported: a dark color did not enhance brand masculinity (deodorants: p > 0.92, smartphone: p > 0.55). However, the effect of color on the MBP–FBP difference score was significant (deodorants: F(1, 496) = 12.28, p < 0.01, smartphone: F(1, 557) = 7.83, p < 0.01), such that a darker color enhanced brand masculinity. Partial support emerged for H4b, such that brand femininity was enhanced by a light color in only one of the product categories (deodorants: F(1, 496) = 12.02, p < 0.05, smartphone: p > 0.15). The type font × color interactions did not reach significance (ps > 0.16). In ordinal regressions of standardized MBP–FBP scores on preference ratings for four groups that expressed the match between participants’ sex and product category (female participants/deodorants, female participants/smartphones, male participants/deodorants and male participants/smartphones), all coefficients differed significantly from 0 (χ2(1) > 16, ps < 0.001). For female participants/deodorant, the coefficient was −0.62 (i. e. the more masculine the deodorant brand, the less preferred it was). For female participants/smartphones, the coefficient was −0.24; for male participants/deodorants, the coefficient was 0.21; and for male participants/smartphones, the coefficient was 0.27. These results suggest that female (male) consumers prefer feminine (masculine) brands, but even more so in feminine (masculine) product categories. Figure 2 illustrates the odds ratios for the preference ratings distribution (female participants/deodorant = 0.54, female participants/smartphone = 0.79, male participants/deodorant = 1.23, male participants/smartphone = 1.32; odds ratio = 1 indicates an equal distribution of preference ratings, an odds ratio = 1.32 indicates a 31.5 per cent higher probability for the brand to receive a higher preference score when it is more masculine/its MBP–FBP difference score increases by 1 unit). The distribution of preference ratings significantly differed from equal distribution (χ2(3) = 31.38, p < 0.001). These results support H6. 3.3.3 Discussion. This study generally supports an impact of type fonts on brand masculinity/femininity (H2). Support for an effect of color on brand masculinity/femininity (H4) was weak, however. An important contribution of this study was a further investigation of consumer preferences for masculine/feminine brands in masculine/feminine product categories. Results suggest that brand preferences are driven by congruence between brand masculinity/femininity and consumers’ sex. This preference shifts based on the masculinity/femininity of the product category: When the product category is feminine (masculine), feminine (masculine) brands are more preferred, regardless of consumers’ sex. 3.4 Study 4: Modification of brand communication for existing brands and brand equity Studies 1 through 3 established that brand design elements associated with unfamiliar brands shape brand masculinity/femininity perceptions. Study 4 examines: · whether modifications of brand design elements embedded in brand communications are effective in changing brand masculinity/femininity perceptions for existing brands; · whether such modifications negatively affect existing brands’ equity. These issues are important considerations for brand repositioning. Because brand masculinity and brand femininity are often conceptualized as dimensions of brand personality (Grohmann, 2009); and · investigates whether brand masculinity and femininity contribute to brand equity above and beyond the impact of other brand personality dimensions (i.e. sincerity, sophistication, excitement, competence and ruggedness; Aaker, 1997). Study 4 therefore provides a more rigorous test of H5. 3.4.1 Design, stimuli and procedure. This study included existing print advertisements for Mercedes (masculine brand: M MBP = 5.26, M FBP = 4.08) and Dove (feminine brand: M MBP = 4.02, M FBP = 4.82), based on a pretest. The original Mercedes advertisement included dark blue color (RGB 50, 50, 55) and bold type font (Centaur; hereafter referred to as dark/bold design). The modified advertisement included light red color (RGB 145, 100, 125) and slender type font (Monotype; hereafter referred to as light/delicate design). The original Dove print advertisement featured light gold – brown color (RGB 150, 130, 80) and a slender type font (MyriadPro; light/delicate design), whereas the modified advertisement included color blue (RGB 50, 80, 100) and a bold type font (Arial Rounded MT Bold; dark/bold design). In a 2 (brand: Mercedes, Dove) × 2 (brand design: dark/bold, light/delicate) between-participants online study with random assignment to one advertisement, 413 participants (44 per cent female, M Age = 42.8, SDAge = 11.8) rated the advertised brand on the 42 brand personality items (Aaker, 1997), 12 MBP/FBP items (Grohmann, 2009) and 6 brand equity items (based on Yoo et al., 2000). 3.4.2 Results. Brand design elements embedded in advertisements successfully changed brand masculinity and femininity perceptions for established brands: for Mercedes, the dark/bold design increased brand masculinity (MBP dark/bold = 4.83, MBP light/delicate = 4.18; t(272) = 4.77, p < 0.001), and decreased brand femininity (FBP dark/bold = 3.42, FBP light/delicate = 3.88; t(272) = 2.99, p < 0.01) perceptions. These results generally held for Dove (MBP dark/bold = 4.06, MBP light/delicate = 3.71, t(137) = 1.86, p < 0.07; FBP dark/bold = 3.47, FBP light/delicate = 4.87, t(137) = 6.57, p < 0.001). The MBP–FBP difference (Uzzel and Horne, 2006) also indicated that dark/bold designs evoked higher degrees of brand masculinity (Mercedes: M dark/bold = 1.41, M light/delicate = 0.30, t(272) = 6.19, p < 0.001; Dove: M dark/bold = 0.59, M light/delicate = −1.17, t(137) = 7.47, p < 0.001). Brand equity differed for Mercedes (BE dark/bold = 4.34, BE light/delicate = 3.73, t(272) = 3.28, p < 0.001), but not Dove (p > 0.55). The relative impact of brand personality dimensions on brand equity was examined in a linear regression with brand equity as the criterion and the 15 brand personality facets (Aaker, 1997) as predictors (R2 = 0.65; F(15, 397) = 48.71, p < 0.001). Adding MBP and FBP significantly improved model fit (ΔF(2, 405) = 3.15, p < 0.05). The model regressing equity on MBP and FBP only was significant (R2 = 0.43; F(2, 410) = 151.23, p < 0.001; b MBP = 0.48, b FBP = 0.38, ps < 0.001). 3.4.3 Discussion. Study 4 shows that brand masculinity and femininity of existing brands can be modified through use of design elements embedded in brand communication. Using existing brands, this study replicated previous results with regard to the influence of brand design on brand masculinity/femininity, and – for one of the brands – with regard to the relation between brand masculinity/femininity and brand equity (H5). The finding that brand masculinity and brand equity did not differ significantly across Dove brand designs may be because of a limitation arising from stimulus calibration: The Dove light/delicate design used a neutral (i.e. gold/brown) rather than femininity-associated color scheme; the modification to a bold/dark design may therefore have affected brand masculinity perceptions and (in)congruence with the brand to a lesser degree than did the modification of the Mercedes advertisement from a color associated with femininity (i.e. red in the light/delicate design) to one associated with masculinity (i.e. blue in the bold/dark design). This study also showed that brand masculinity and femininity contributed to brand equity above and beyond the five personality dimensions (Aaker, 1997), and explained a significant amount of variance in brand equity when considered as sole predictors. 4. General discussion and implications This article examines whether brand design elements influence brand masculinity and femininity perceptions, and ultimately, brand preferences and equity. Study 1 shows that angular, bold logo shapes increase brand masculinity perceptions, whereas round, slender logo shapes enhance brand femininity perceptions. Study 2 demonstrates that type fonts and brand names affect brand masculinity/femininity perceptions. Brand masculinity/femininity, in turn, increase brand preferences, particularly when brand masculinity/femininity more closely matches the masculinity/femininity associated with the product category. Study 3 finds limited support for an effect of color on brand masculinity/femininity, but supports that greater congruence between brand and product category masculinity/femininity increases preference ratings. Study 4 shows that design elements embedded in brand communications change brand masculinity/femininity perceptions for existing brands, and demonstrates that brand masculinity/femininity predicts brand equity, even if other brand personality dimensions are considered. This research developed EP-based predictions, and shows that EP has implications for branding: brand designs based on EP principles successfully shaped brand masculinity and femininity perceptions. This research thus contributes to the emerging literature that demonstrates EP’s usefulness in understanding and explaining consumer behavior and marketing outcomes (Griskevicius et al., 2009, 2010; Saad and Gill, 2000). This research also contributes to the investigation of antecedents of brand personality perceptions (Grohmann et al., 2012; Labrecque and Milne, 2012; Orth and Malkewitz, 2008; Wentzel, 2009). Although previous research examines how the “big five” brand personality dimensions (i.e. sincerity, sophistication, competence, excitement, ruggedness; Aaker, 1997) arise, this research is among the first to consider design-related sources of brand masculinity and femininity perceptions. This research also relates to the literature on package design effects on brand impressions. Orth and Malkewitz (2008), for example, find that contrasting (i.e. low harmony, natural, flourish and compressed) package designs are low in femininity, while natural (i.e. highly natural, harmony, elaborate, symmetry and flourish) packaging designs are highly feminine. Although the current research generally supports Orth and Malkewitz’s (2008) findings regarding the impact of design elements on femininity (e.g. the effect of round, slender and therefore more natural logos on femininity perceptions), the current research relies on an experimental manipulation of design elements (logo, font, colors, brand names) and pinpoints the levels of these design factors that are most effective in creating femininity perceptions. In addition, the current research adds to insights regarding design effects in that it considers their impact on masculinity and femininity – operationalized as two discrete dimensions of brand perceptions. 4.1 Managerial implications This research provides useful guidelines regarding the choice of design elements to signal brand masculinity and femininity. The use of bold, angular logo shapes and type fonts and back vowels in brand names enhances brand masculinity. The use of slender, round logo shapes and type fonts and front vowels enhances brand femininity. The findings of this research indicate that high levels of either brand masculinity or brand femininity are associated with more positive consumer responses to the brand (i.e. brand preference, brand equity). Furthermore, this research suggests that congruence between brand and product category masculinity and femininity relates positively to consumer preference ratings. This implies that brand positioning with regard to masculinity or femininity should be considered in light of consumers’ product category perceptions. This research documents an influence of brand design elements on brand masculinity and femininity perceptions on unfamiliar, as well as established, brands. Brand design elements facilitate not only initial brand positioning in terms of masculinity and femininity but also repositioning of existing brands (e.g. to attract new consumer segments). Although modifications of brand design elements successfully changed brand masculinity and femininity perceptions, brand equity ratings may be negatively affected by a modified design – as in the case of the Mercedes advertisement including slender type fonts and light colors. This suggests that although a consistent use of brand designs over time is desirable in terms of strengthening brand associations and recognition, it may also lead to consumer expectations regarding the nature of the design elements representing the brand. Modified designs that deviate from consumers’ expectations can trigger negative consumer responses to the brand (Walsh et al., 2010). 4.2 Limitations and directions for future research This research contributes to the emerging literature on the relation between brand gender and brand equity (Lieven et al., 2011), in that it examined both brand preferences and consumer-based brand equity. Brand preferences reflect brand equity (Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995) and served as proxy for brand equity in two of the studies. In Studies 2 and 3, preferences among brands were measured on a constant sum scale, whereas Study 4 measured brand equity on the overall brand equity scale (Yoo et al., 2000). Both operationalizations reflect a unidimensional view of brand equity, although it is often considered as multi-dimensional (Christodoulides and Chernatony, 2010; Keller, 1993). The use of brand preferences as a proxy measure and the application of a unidimensional brand equity measure are limitations of this research, and future research examining the brand masculinity/femininity-brand equity relation might benefit from a multi-dimensional brand equity operationalization. We acknowledge that the operationalization of color in this research confounded hue and brightness and therefore allows for only limited conclusions regarding the role of color in shaping consumers’ brand gender perceptions. EP suggests that both hue and brightness influence masculinity/femininity perceptions. In selecting the colors used in Study 3, we relied on prior research (Picariello et al., 1990) and tested the effect of color on brand masculinity/femininity perceptions using a light pink and a dark navy blue. A more rigorous test of color effects on brand masculinity/femininity perceptions would entail an experimental design that crosses the hue and brightness dimensions. Despite the limitations regarding the operationalization of color, this research nonetheless points toward the future potential of this line of inquiry; it hopefully also highlights the need for more rigorous operationalization of color in future research. This research finds consistent main effects of design elements on brand gender perceptions, and some patterns of results consistent with interaction effects (e.g. effects of type font and brand name in Study 2). Although significant interaction effects did not emerge in Study 3, this may have been because of limitations regarding the manipulation of color. Relatedly, we found a weaker relative effect of color compared to other brand design elements, possibly because of the same limitation. Future research exploring the relative impact of brand design elements and their potential interactions would therefore be beneficial. An important theoretical limitation regarding EP pertains to the consideration of sound symbolism effects within an EP framework. Although evolutionary phonology is related to other evolutionary models (Blevins, 2004; Croft, 2008), the literature is equivocal on whether evolutionary adaptations and language developed in lockstep (Croft, 2008). Further research is needed to clarify whether the evolution of sound perception followed adaptive processes captured by other evolutionary models (Croft, 2008), as this has implications for the use of EP in the explanation of linguistic effects. The second limitation is this context is that we did not test directly whether evolutionary associations underlie the relation between design elements and brand masculinity/femininity perceptions observed in this research. Nonetheless, the patterns in masculinity and femininity perceptions arising in response to multiple design elements (and across multiple studies) are consistent with EP-based predictions. This suggests that EP theories are appropriate for an investigation of consumer perceptions and behaviors (Griskevicius et al., 2012). Stronger support for an EP-based explanation of the effect of brand design hinges on cumulative evidence provided by future research in this domain, however. David Carson: Design and discovery | TED Talk PMPA maStON wiEngifD fTODucn, assocwoh V j- : / j T o o l s Y o u C a n U s a V i s i o n , M i s s i o n . . . P u r p o s e ? By Miles Free, D irector o f Industry Research and Technology, PMPA :: [email protected] Vision and mission statements have become about as commonplace as letters to Santa in December. Like letters to Santa, most vision and mission statements I have encountered describe an organization far differ­ ent from the one I see on a daily basis. To get past the, I’ve been a good boy this year, I suggest that you explore in ­ stead the organizations purpose. This is often unstated, but key to what is actually going on. Can your managers and employees explain what the companys purpose is or what their purpose is? Can you? Like the letter to Santa, vision statements are aspirational in nature. They describe a future state that the company or organization would like to achieve; the desired impact that the company would like to have in its customer base, the larger market, the industry or economy. A vision statement is not a business plan, which describes the steps to achieve those goals. The vision statement is there to tell the world what it is that the company would like to achieve or accom­ plish. The purpose of a vision statement is twofold; the first is to inform about the company’s aspirations for the future, the second is to motivate and inspire employees and stake­ holders to act on those aspirations. Take a look at your companys vision statement. Do you see the aspirational part? Do you see the motivational part? Do both of these accurately reflect the direction for your company? While many people confuse vision and mission state­ ments, or use them interchangeably, the difference is that f I N T H I S I S S U E • Vision, Mission ... Purpose? • Growing PMPA Member Kalkaska Screw Products Values Active Involvement • Consolidate Orders to Save on Shipping • Craftsmans Cribsheet: Regulatory • Listserve Topics • PMPA Calendar ______________________________________ a mission statement is present-based, rather than future­ looking. The role of the mission statement is to answer, Why does this organization exist? What is it that we do? PMPA’s vision statement, for example, is: To be the pro­ vider that best understands and exceeds the needs of our members while advocating for the success of our industry.” That “to be phrase shows the aspirational (future state) di­ rection of this vision statement. Our mission statement (present-based) describes what we do and why: provide information, resources, advoca­ cy and networking opportunities that advance and sustain our members. Our mission is present-based and explains what we do and why. We can see that the vision statem ent is aspirational/ inspirational and that our mission statem ent explains what we do and why. But are these enough? I think vision and mission are not, by themselves, enough. I think the organization and its managers and em ­ ployees need to have a purpose. p r o d u c t io n m a c h in in g .c o m :: 17 Vision, Mission ... Purpose? Continued from page 17 What makes up a purpose statement? I have seen defini­ tions of purpose statements that seem to be confused with mission statements. I propose that a purpose statement exists to describe the impact that the company and the employee have on its customers, clients and stakeholders. It describes the com­ panys activities/ram the customers point o f view. In today’s world, our companies are battered daily by VUCA, Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity. These forces are created by customers, markets, suppliers, regulations, interruptions in infrastructure, global events and even weather. These VUCA forces create risk for our m em ber companies I feel that the purpose of PMPA, and our role as its staff, is: To reduce the risk that our members face so they can make the high-precision and hum an safety components that are critical in todays technologies.” This purpose state­ m ent describes the impact of PMPA, and its work from our customers point of view. How does PMPA act on or enable this purpose? By help­ ing PMPA members with specification interpretations, as­ sisting them with material properties data, collecting and publishing wage information or business trends reports, we help to reduce their risk by eliminating uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. By being proactive on govern­ m ent regulations, we help to eliminate the risk of uncer­ tainty and volatility of the consequences of those regu­ lations on the operation of their shops and provision of their products. Our members also face a great challenge in finding people with skills to add value in their shops. So an additional purpose statement for PMPA could be: To help create awareness and promote career opportunities, career training and change the conversation about the advanced manufacturing jobs we have in our m ember company shops. PMPA offers National Technical Conferences, PMTS (a national-level Precision Machining Technology Show), regional mini-conferences and a host of employee development support tools, including CEU credit for PMPA- provided or recognized training to help people succeed on the job in our industry. I know your company has a vision statement. I know you have a mission statement. But does your company have a purpose statement? Can you explain it? Do your managers and employees know it? Share it? Live it? What is your purpose? How are you doing with that? At PMPA, our job is to protect our members from risk and serve our m em bers the things that they need to sus­ tain and advance their businesses in todays VUCA envi­ ronm ent. We arent Santa Claus, but if you are a preci­ sion machining, advanced m anufacturing company, we have stuff on our list that can help advance and sustain you as you concentrate on making high precision and hum an safety com ponents that are critical in todays technologies. A p u rp o s e s ta te m e n t d escrib es t h e im p a c t o f t h e c o m p a n y ’s a c tiv itie s fr o m t h e c u s to m e r ’s p o in t o f view . Growing PMPA M ember Kalkaska Screw Products Values Active Involvement own board to bounce ideas off of in order to accom­ plish the goals of your company. Just as KSP chooses to be active in the community, Mr. Schlueter ensures that it gives back to the associ­ ation as well. In October, Mr. Schlueter began serving on the PMPA Finance Committee. It was a thrill to be nominated, and I’m really looking forward to being more involved in an offi­ cial capacity, Mr. Schlueter adds. I also feel that its a good thing to give back to other organizations the little nuggets of information that you have learned along the way that help you be successful. I think PMPA is very valu­ able for organizations that are in this industry because of the connections you can make.” Kalkaska Screw Products is located at 775 Rabourn Road NE, Kalkaska, Michigan 49646. Phone: 231-258-2560. Website: kalkaskascrew.com p r o d u c t i o n m a c h i n i n g . c o m :: 19 Copyright of Production Machining is the property of Gardner Publications, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holders express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Company Profile Business Name: Java Been Business Address: 681 Real Ave, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Email: [email protected] Tel: 555-123-4567 Company History: Founded just under three years ago, Java Been is now a bustling café. With its high ceilings and “found space” appeal, the café has come to host exhibitions, meetings, and local bands. It has become an integral part of the arts revival community that has taken root in the old factory mill buildings along the river. Mission: Spread the love and appreciation of quality coffee and quality living to all customers and beyond. Vision: The owners take pride in their community, striving to provide a creative space with gourmet coffee, tantalizing baked goods, and music to inspire the artist’s soul. Current Logo: mailto:[email protected] Primary Customer Demographic: Throughout the day, self-employed and remote workers enjoy a focused space away from home to get in a few productive hours. At night, the space comes alive with artists, student study groups, and everyday people just looking to enjoy a cultured night on the town. During these evening activities, the café offers a variety of beverages, as well as light food offerings, allowing customers to enjoy a community activity. Specifically, the café was able to collect the following demographics on their customers: Consumer Attitudes: Customers have quickly embraced Java Been, and the café has acquired a dedicated customer base. Returning customers have expressed their appreciation for the quality coffee and locally sourced baked goods. In response, the café has expanded their “specialty drink” offerings with monthly specials, priding themselves on their creativity and focus on farm-to-table ingredients. Returning customers have also expressed their love of the arts and interest in developing a sense of community, so Java Been has provided artists a space to share their work by hosting various art exhibits and musical acts. The main feedback from customers that do not return to Java Been is that the service is too slow, the drinks take too long to make, and the drink options are too complicated. Competitors: Java Been is located in downtown Columbus, Ohio. The city is bustling with cafés, and there are three cafés within a two-block radius of Java Been. One café is part of a chain of cafés, and focuses on providing coffee at a quick pace so customers may grab their drinks and continue on with their days. The second café focuses on roasting their own coffee beans and selling the packaged beans to the public, and the third café is located within a bookstore.