The Influence of Advertising Logo Characteristics on

Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising

ISSN: 1064-1734 (Print) 2164-7313 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujci20

The Influence of Advertising Logo Characteristics on Audience Perceptions of a Nonprofit Theatrical Organization Marla Royne Stafford Ph.D. , Carolyn Tripp Ph.D. & Carol C. Bienstock Ph.D. To cite this article: Marla Royne Stafford Ph.D. , Carolyn Tripp Ph.D. & Carol C. Bienstock Ph.D. (2004) The Influence of Advertising Logo Characteristics on Audience Perceptions of a Nonprofit Theatrical Organization, Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26:1, 37-45, DOI: 10.1080/10641734.2004.10505155 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2004.10505155

Published online: 08 May 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 86

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujci20 Download by: [73.5.80.240]

Date: 23 December 2015, At: 20:48

The Influence of Advertising Logo Characteristics on Audience Perceptions of a Nonprofit Theatrical Organization

Downloaded by [73.5.80.240] at 20:48 23 December 2015

MavZa Royne StafSord, CavoZyn Tripp, and Carol C. Bienstock

The investment in a logo is generally justified because of its ability to visually articulate an organization‘s identity. This exploratory research investigates the relationship between consumers’ perceptions of a logo, the organization it represents and the organization’s pevformance byfocusing on a nonprofit pevforming arts group. Path analysis results indicate signifcant relationships between the perceived image of the logo and organizational perceptions, and between organizational perceptions and audience perceptions of pevformances presented by an organization. Analyses also reveal signifcant relationships between logo attractiveness and recognizability and audience perceptions of a theatrical group’s pevformances. Implications of these findings are discussed. Nonprofit organizations are increasingly facing significant challenges. The number of nonprofit organizations continues to grow, while government funding during the last decade has decreased, forcing nonprofits to increasingly compete among themselves for donors as well as patrons (Feder 1998;Beardi 1999). Consequently, efficient marketing and advertising programs are becoming increasingly important since more revenues must be acquired with decreased promotional dollars. At the same time, Scheff and Kotler (1996) point out that audiences for nonprofits are shrinking because of a lack of marketing knowledge. Because nonprofit organizations with a stronger market orientation have greater customer satisfaction and customer satisfaction predicts growth in resources (Gainer and Padanyi 2002), marketing and advertising issues are critical for nonprofit organizations in their efforts to achieve their financial goals. Recognizing this, Consultancy Interbrand Group, a unit of Omnicom, created the Interbrand Foundation, whose focus is on branding strategies for nonprofit organizations (Beardi 1999). A spokesperson for this firm believes that branding is more important for nonprofits than for corporate clients because nonprofits compete for public attention, volunteers, patrons, and benefactors.

Marla Royne Stafford (Ph.D., University of Georgia) is Associate Professor of Marketing in Fogelman College of Business and Economics at the University of Memphis. Carolyn Tripp (Ph.D.) is Professor of Marketing in the College of Business and Technology at Western Illinois University. Carol C. Bienstock (Ph.D.) is Assistant Professor of Marketing in the College of Business & Economics at Radford University.

Brand meaning research generally accepts that a brand relies heavily on its symbolic meaning or connotation as conveyed through advertising symbols (e.g., Durgee and Stuart 1987). One such symbol is a logo, defined as the “official representation of a corporate or brand name” (Schechter 1993). The advertising logo is typically a graphical element (integrated with text or standing alone) that a company uses in advertising and other marketing communications for identification of the company or a particular brand (Henderson and Cote 1998;Bennett 1995).As part of a graphic identity system, a logo serves as a tangible cue for brand image. Further, research supports the transfer of evaluations from logos to the company name and/or brand (Schechter 1993). Generally, five major design categories are recognized: pictorials, character marks, abstracts, wordmarks, and designs (Schechter 1993).Regardless of the creative execution, a logo is generally designed with the objective of creating positive feelings toward the identified company or brand (Henderson and Cote 1988). When well designed, a logo is felt to have a positive influence on fund raising, corporate sponsorship, merchandise sales, patron subscriptions, brand loyalty, good will, employee morale, and volunteer recruitment (Selame and Selame 1985; Dennis 1996; Feder 1998; Henderson and Cote 1998). A creative and effective logo seems critical to a successful marketing program since a logo is one of the primary vehicles a company uses to communicate image, gain attention and generate recognition Iozirnol of Curreizt Zssires nizd Research in Advertising, Volume 26, Number 1 (Spring 2004).


38

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

(Henderson and Cote 1998).Although logos are exposure-intensive marketing communication devices (Janiszewski and Meyvis 2001; Schechter 1993), little research has examined the impact and influence an advertising logo has on perceptions of an organization and its services (Henderson and Cote 1998). Despite a logo's importance and high costs ($30,000 to $300,000, according to Feder 1998), logo designers generally do not conduct research to evaluate potential effectiveness (Colman, Wober and Norris 1995). Surprisingly little research documents the characteristics of an effective logo or consumer evaluations of logos (Henderson and Cote 1998). Only Schechter (1993) has examined the degree of influence a logo has on perceptions of a company or brand name. Schechter found that logo designs have a positive, negative, or neutral influence on the way consumersperceive company and brand names. Therefore, the benefit of quantifying a logo's influence on consumer perceptions remains an important area of investigation. Given the financial investment in logo designs and their perceived importance in delivering organizational image, along with the limited research on logos for nonprofits, it seems useful to further investigate the role that logos play in advertising for nonprofit organizations. Since Schechter's work did not specifically include nor address nonprofit organizations, the purpose of the current research is to examine the relationships between logo perceptions and audience perceptions of nonprofit organizations.More specifically, this research investigates whether or not there are relationships among audience perceptions of the logo of a community performing arts group and audience perceptions of the organization itself as well as of the organization's performances (see Figure 1).In addition, perceptions of the performances presented by the organization are included in our model in order to investigatethe relationshipbetween the organization's logo and audience perceptions of performances.

logo that appear to be consistently important: recognizability (e.g., familiarity), ability to evoke positive affect (e.g., attractiveness),and ability to evoke a common shared meaning (e.g., image) (Schechter 1993; Henderson and Cote 1998; and Janiszewski and Meyvis 2001), Summarizingfrom Henderson and Cote (1998), an easily recognizable logo is important; for a logo to remind consumers of the company, they must first remember being exposed to it. Positive affective reactions to the logo are desirable because those are transferable to the company and its products. Finally, the less ambiguous the logo, the more likely its intended meaning will be shared across a variety of people. Clear meaning also aids recall /association between the logo and the company it represents. Due to the absence of norms against which to compare logo performance, the Schechter Logo Value Survey was completed in 1992. Using a national sample of 1,800 consumers, 47 logos from five major design categories were tested on two measures identified as critical by logo design experts: image contribution (i.e., the degree to which a logo design influences perceptions of a company) and recognition/ association (i.e., degree to which the logo's visual elements are associated with the company). The results indicated that abstract logos (those not intrinsically linked to the company) were the least effective in generating positive image and recognition/ association. Recognizing the nonexistence of systematic marketing research on logo designs and consumer perceptions of them, Henderson and Cote (1998) examined 13 different visual characteristics of a logo and how consumers evaluate these characteristics. According to Henderson and Cote (1998), noted experts (e.g., Cohen 1986; Peter 1989; Schechter 1993) agree that a "good logo should include design elements that are recogrzizable,familiar, elicit shared meaning and evoke positive affect. Based on their analysis of 195 real logos, Henderson and Cote concluded that logos perceived to have more familiar meaningswere liked more than those perceived to have an unfamiliar meaning. They also found that consumer interest and liking generallyresult from more complex and elaborate logos. Janiszewskiand Meyvis (2001) reported that a brand logo's meaning and familiarity (in combinationwith its exposure schedule)influenceboth affective (preference) and nonaffective (consumerjudgment) variables. Their data support dual process theory predictions for consumer response to brand logos. In particular, logos with sigruficant (multiple) meaning are less likely to wear out (be disliked)due to repeated exposure. These three studies examined the characteristics of logos by type or category, demonstrating that certain

Conceptual Framework and Model Logo Perceptions Logo perceptions are one component in what Mackenzie and Lutz (1989) called ad perceptions (i.e., "the multidimensional array of consumer perceptions of the advertising stimulus," p. 51). Clearly, logo perceptions (i.e., beliefs and feelings) are critical if the logo is to achieve its intended purpose: creating a positive perception of .the company or brand the logo represents. Based on previous research (discussed below), the current study models three perceptions of a

Spring 2004

design properties result in perceptions that ”Logo A is better than ”Logo B.” Only Schechter’s research takes these evaluations of stimulus effects a step further by examining the impact certain logo design styles have on perceptions of the company or its products. A discussion of the role of logos in influencing organizational and performance perceptions is presented next.


Organizational and Performance Perceptions Logos may generate a wide range of feelings and attitudes attributed to the organization. Patrons, donors, employees, volunteers, and other constituents may infer the organization to be lively, vibrant, forward-thinking, progressive, strong in personality, legitimate, relevant, active, involved, a leader in its field, reputable, socially beneficial, or professional (Feder 1998; Selame and Selame 1985; Dennis 1996).Clearly, logos develop meanings and associations that affect a consumer’s perception of the company (Keller 1998) or its identity (Baker and Balmer 1997). Logos, as visual brand symbols, play a critical role in building a company’s brand awareness, image and equity. In fact, it has been suggested that the logo, as a visual flag of a company, is a ”catalyst” for good or bad feelings toward the firm and its products (Gob6 2001). ”Logos are now being designed specifically to bridge the gap between corporations and people, and these ‘connected,’ branded logo designs can help to better define and communicate the desired personality of the company” (Gob6 2001, p. 123). In short, logos can help to define and communicate the image of the company it represents. Logos are particularly important for services because of their intangibility and abstractness (Keller 1998).And nonprofit organizations are identified with the service industry when 1)their products are relatively intangible; 2) there is simultaneous production and consumption; 3) production capacity is time dependent and, thus, perishable; and 4)there is variability in quality due to human interaction (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry 1985). Services have consistently been considered performances, and a community theater organization fits the definition of a nonprofit service well. When judging services and making service provider selections, consumers are said to evaluate search, experience, and /or credence cues (e.g., Nelson 1970). Search cues are those aspects of the service that may be evaluated prior to the performance of the service. As a tangible search cue, the organization’slogo will likely lead to inferences about the organization itself, or possibly about the actual performance delivered.

39

According to Gob6 (2001), a company’s high-quality reputation transfers to perceptions of superior product quality through the logo. Janiszewski and Meyvis (2001) found that single meaning logos of familiar companies influenced consumer judgments of the brand’s expensiveness.Expensiveness was judged highest at two exposures but dropped at higher exposure levels. Similarly, Henderson and Cote (1998) believe that positive affect can be directly translated from the logo to the company or even the product, and existing literature on logos, in particular, articles specifically discussing nonprofit logos (e.g., Feder 1998; Selame and Selame 1985;Dennis 1996), suggests that logos directly influence consumer perceptions of the company and brand, although the brands discussed were ”company” or organizational brands. Moreover, the actions and apparent beliefs of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (Feder 1998)and the Habitat for Humanity (Dennis 1996) support the notion that a logo has a direct influence on perceptions of the nonprofit organization. This is the basis of the proposed relationship between logo perceptions and organizational perceptions as shown in Figure 1. Yet the influence of a logo does not stop at the organization. Existing literature suggests that consumer perceptions of business or company logos may play a role in transferring company perceptions to product perceptions (Gob6 2001; Janiszewski and Meyvis 2001; Schechter 1993).More specifically, Gob6 (2001) notes that a high-quality corporate reputation may transfer to high quality product perceptions via the company logo. Schechter (1993) found that the logo design influenced perceptions of the quality of product offered by a company, whether the product is ”for today’s lifestyles,’’ and whether a consumer would choose to use the company’s product. Extending this literature to nonprofit organizations indicates that consumer perceptions of the logo may ultimately be transferred to the service or performance itself. By definition, the actual theatrical production constitutes the service performed by a nonprofit theater. As noted, tangible search cues such as the logo may provide an image and indication of the type of performance (i.e., show) produced by the organization and therefore, may even influence audience perceptions of the performance itself. The existingfor pro$t literature suggests that a logo influences perceptions of the company it represents, as well as perceptions of the product offerings. What has not been examined is the relationship between the logo and the actual product or service performance, an influence which is expected to be mediated by consumer perceptions of the organization (Gob6 2001). That is, positive (negative) per-

Journa2 of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

40

Figure 1 Proposed Model

Attractiveness

Performance Perceptions

Organizational Perceptions

--

I I


-b Recognizability 0

Logo Perceptions

1

ceptions of the logo should be correlated with positive (negative) perceptions of the organization, which in turn would be correlated with positive (negative) perceptions of the service performance. These relationships are illustrated by the model presented in Figure 1.In addition, Figure 1illustrates the assumed correlations among the three logo variables.

Method As part of a larger marketing and advertising study for a local community performing arts group, a questionnaire was developed in consultation with the group’s governing board. To assist the board in a logo evaluation and potential redesign, the questionnaire contained items to assess perceptions of the organization in general, its performances, and its current logo. The questionnaire was given to patrons as they entered the theater to watch one of the organization’s main season productions. Individuals were asked to complete the survey during intermission after Act I of the show. To encourage completion of the questionnaire, respondents were given a free soft drink in exchange for their completed survey. In addition, the questionnaire was developed so that patrons could realistically complete it during the intermission.

Questionnaire The questionnaire contained three specific questions related to perceptions of the logo. The first question

asked if the organization’s logo accurately portrayed the organization’s image. The second stated, ”I think the organization’s logo is attractive,” and the third stated, ”I think the organization’s logo is instantly recognizable.” Five point Likert scales were used for each question, with five (5)representing strongly disagree and one (1) representing strongly agree. The logo (the graphic image and the organization name that was an integral part of the logo) was included on the questionnaire. Perceptions of the organization were measured using a semantic differential anchored by “very positive” and “very negative.” Performance perceptions were assessed with a semantic differential anchored by ”excellent” and “very poor.” Since patrons of the nonprofit organization completed the questionnaire during intermission of a performance, it was important that the questionnaire’s length be kept to a minimum. Therefore, all of the measures to assess logo characteristics, performance perceptions, and organization perceptions consisted of single item indicators. Other questions included on the questionnaire related to season tickets, membership, and demographics.

Sample One hundred questionnaires were randomly distributed at each of six performances of the fall musical production for a sample size of 600. A total of 331 questionnaires were returned for an initial response

Spring 2004

41

Table 1 Sample Characteristics Total Sample (n=296)*

Gender Male Female

Number

Percent

100 196

33.8 66.2

44 44 73 53 43 39

14.9 14.9 24.7 17.9 14.5 13.2

39 63 68 43 41

13.2 21.3 23.0 14.5 13.9

90 198

30.4 66.9

35 260

11.8 87.8

28 262

9.5 88.5


Age 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 Over 65

Income Under 25,000 Over 25,000-50,000 Over 50,000-75,000 Over 75,000-100,000 Over 100,000 Marital Status Single/divorced Married Current Season Ticket Holder Yes No Current Organization Member Yes No *Some respondentsdid not provide all demographic data.

rate of 55.1 percent. After eliminatingincompletequestionnaires, 296 questionnaires were used for a final usable response rate of 49.3 percent. As shown in Table 1,females comprised over 66 percent of the sample. This is consistent with existing research that suggests that women are more avid theater-goers than men (e.g., Kaali-Nagy and Garrison 1972; Andreasan and Belk 1980).Ages ranged from 18 to over 65 and were fairly evenly distributed except for the 36-45 year old age bracket which comprised 25 percent of the sample. The majority of the respondents were married with 44 percent indicating incomes between $25,000 and $75,000. Just under 12 percent of respondents were season ticket holders and less than 10 percent were members (donors) of the organization.

Analysis and Results To test the proposed conceptual model, a path analysis was specified in AMOS 4.0. This path analysis included all of the relationships illustrated in Figure 1;results of this model are presented in Table 2. As indicated, the model was not particularly wellfitting, although several overall fit indicators did fall above .90. However, the RFI=.847, the TLI=.868 and the AGFI=.875, suggesting that improvements could be made to the model. In addition, the RMSEA=.136 and the x * (3) =19.49 (p=.OOO)also indicating that potential improvements could be made to the model. In addition, two of the specified paths were not significant: 1)the path from logo recognizability to organi-


42

Table 2 Path Analysis Results Proposed & Final Models Standardized Path Estimates, Overall Fit Indices, and Squared Multiple Correlations

Standardized Path Estimates (t-values) Final Model (Figure 2)

Proposed Model (Figure 1)


Image-Logo Recognizability Logo Attractiveness-.Logo Recognizability Image-Logo Attractiveness Image-Organizational Perceptions Organizational Perceptions-Perf. Perceptions Logo Recognizability-.Org. Perceptions Logo Attractiveness-.Org. Perceptions

.443 (6.52)* .252 (4.23)* .727 (14.29)* .143 (2.02)* .428 (10.48)* ,104 (1.82) .067 (1.12) Overall Fit Indices

.626 (11.62)* .227 (4.23)* 585 (9.75)* .257 (4.98)* .375 (9.30)* .I00 (2.61)* .075 (2.00)*

19.49 (p=.OOO) .960 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .954 Incremental Fit Index (IFI) .961 Relative Fit Index (RFI) .847 Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) .868 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .975 Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) .875 Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA) .136 Sauared MultiRle Correlations

5.844 (p=.l19) .993 .986 .993 .954 .977 .992 .961 .057

xComparative *w Fit Index (CFI)

~

Logo Attractiveness Logo Recognizability Organizational Perceptions Performance Perceptions

.406 .353 .095 .271

~~

~~

~

.406 .353 .070 .300

* ps0.05

zational perceptions (est.=.104, t=1.82, p>.05) and 2) the path from logo attractiveness to organizational perceptions (est.=.067, t=1.12, p>.05). The other two hypothesized relationships were significant (i.e., the relationship between logo image and organizational perceptions, and the relationship between organizational perceptions and performance perceptions). While the basic premise of our model (company perceptions as a mediating variable for performance perceptions) was supported for the logo image variable, it was not supported for the two other logo characteristics. This finding was not expected as we had assumed that all logo characteristicswould behave in the same manner. Clearly, our results suggest otherwise. Yet, the literature strongly suggests that logos do have an influence on organizational perceptions and product (service) perceptions. Recalling that Schechter (1993) had noted that specific elements of

logo design may directly influence product (service) perceptions, and given that the three logo perceptions clearly do not behave in a consistent manner, we chose to explore the possibility that different logo characteristics have a different influence on different perceptions and that two of those characteristics (recognizability and attractiveness) might influence performance (service) perceptions directly. This model re-specification was also supported by the modification indices provided by AMOS,although clearly, this was an exploratory analysis. Following this premise, the model was re-specified with the two non-sigruficant paths eliminated; additionally, the paths between logo recognizability and performance perceptions and between logo attractiveness and performance perceptions were included. This revised model is shown in Figure 2. As shown in Table 2, the revised model was significantly stronger than the original one. The CFI=.993,

Spring 2004

43

Figure 2 Final Model

I Image

7 Organizational Perceptions

+

I

Attractiveness

9

+

Performance Perceptions


Recognizability

Logo Perceptions the NFI=.986, the IFI=.993, the RFI=.954, the TLI=.977, the GFI=.992 and the AGFI=.961; the RMSEA decreased to .057 and the X2(3)decreased to 5.844(~=.119), clearly demonstrating improvements to the overall model fit. Moreover, the squared multiple correlations (shown in Table 2) indicate that the explained variance for the endogenous variables range from 7% to 40.6%, and that all of the hypothesized relationships are significant. Thus, the model in Figure 2 is consistent with our data, with the results indicating that, although logo characteristics are positively related to audience perceptions, these logo characteristics do not have the same effect on audience perceptions. Thus, although there are direct relationships between logo attractiveness and performance perceptions and logo recognizability and performance perceptions, the relationship between logo image and performance perceptions appears to be mediated by organizational perceptions. Clearly, these results are exploratory in nature and should be confirmed in future research.

Discussion This research sought to better understand the relationships among logos and audience perceptions of a nonprofit organization, in particular, a performing arts group. Results of the current exploratory study suggest that there are, indeed, significant relationships among the current patrons’ perceptions of the

organization’s logo and their perceptions of the organization and its performances. This study indicates that while there is a direct relationship between organizational perceptions and logo image, organizational perceptions mediate the relationship between logo image and audience perceptions of the performances presented by the organization. Furthermore, logo characteristics such as attractiveness and recognizability are directly related to consumer perceptions of the actual performances presented by the organization. These findings are particularly interesting, because it shows that the differentialnature of the relationships among the three logo characteristics (image, attractiveness, and recognizability), and audience perceptions of both an organization and the performances it presents. The nature of both the data collection and the analysis require that our findings for the model in Figure 2 be viewed with caution; the analysis was clearly exploratory in nature, and, therefore, should be confirmed in future research. However, despite the exploratory nature of our results, we feel that our findings regarding the differential nature of the relationships between logo components and audience perceptions constitute a unique contribution of this study. Such results have marketing and potentially financial implications for nonprofit services. Keeping in mind that nonprofit organizations have three markets (patrons of the service, volunteers for the service, and donors to the service [benefactors]), the results


44


reported here suggest that organizations need to consider their specific market when developing logos. For example, patrons of a performing arts group may decide to attend a production based on their expectations of what they will experience at the performance, which may be based on their past perceptions of the organization’sperformances.If theatergoers do not form positive perceptions of performances, their expectations will likely not motivate them to attend a show. Given that an attractiveand recognizablelogo seems to be related to performance perceptions, it appears that a logo embodying these characteristicsis important in attracting an audience and patronage, and may in turn, impact the bottom line. For example, donors (benefactors) to an organization may or may not attend a performance. This is evidenced by the fact that only 10% of respondents were organizational members, a number consistent with previous research on nonprofit organizations (Renschler et al. 2002). Yet donors are highly critical to a nonprofit organization’s existence. In fact, Ignacio et al. (2002) emphasize that nonprofits need to market specifically to the resource donors since a large amount of funding comes from contributions rather than revenues. Therefore, when targeting potential donors, it appears that the logo’s accurate and positive image is the most critical characteristic. A similar line of reasoning exists for volunteers. Given that the image of a logo affects perceptions of the organization, the image characteristic seems to also be a critical factor when targeting volunteers. Important here is the potentially positive impact this factor has on the bottom line of the non-profit organization by stripping out organizational costs. For example, consider the out-of-pocket expense of hiring a fund-raising firm to conduct an annual season ticket drive versus handling it with organizational volunteers. Clearly, the use of organizational volunteers can save the organization such out-of-pocketexpenses. Certainly, a logo-on its own-is not likely to affect an organization’s finances drastically. However, the potential implications that may arise from negative logo perceptions cannot be ignored, because logos do contribute to both organization and performance perceptions, and these perceptions do ultimately affect finances. Just as a logo played a part in the success of Nike and the CSO, the logo plays an important role in community theater organizations.If it conveys a negative image or is poorly associated with the organization, volunteer, donor and audience recruitment may be affected, along with the potential associated financial outcomes. Thus, regardless of the organization’s objectives, this research underscores the importance

of developing an effective logo for nonprofit organizations. It is clear that perceptions of an organization‘s logo will affect consumer perceptions, so leadership of the nonprofit institution should carefully invest their dollars into development of a logo that will effectively translate the image they are seeking to the desired target group.

Limitations, Future Research and Conclusions This research provides insight into the development of logos for nonprofit organizations, specifically nonprofit performing arts entities. However, there are limitations in the current study that constrain its generalizability.First, the nature of the data collected (survey data with single item measurements) and the type of analysis used in this study suggest that conclusions with regard to causal relationships are inappropriate. And although we provided exploratory support for the final model presented in Figure 2, future research should address these limitations by manipulating some aspect of the model (e.g., the logo design or type of audience) using an experimental or quasi-experimentaldesign. Moreover, future research of this type should consider surveying individuals outside of the organization’s current audience. Another limitation is that our use of single item indicators precluded us from providing evidence of minimal measurement error in our path analysis. These simple items were utilized due to the intended brief nature of the questionnaire (to be filled out during intermission) and the necessity to include other questions requested by the organization’s board. Future research should address this limitation by using multiple item indicators for these constructs, which would strengthen the exploratory conclusionsreached in this research. In addition, it is possible that the influence of the logo on performance perceptions may have been affected by the data collection process because it occurred during a performance. Future research can attempt alternative data collection methods Finally, the research was limited to one particular type of nonprofit organization in a single city: a community theater group that performs musical productions. Nonprofit performing groups are distinctly specialized by the arts (e.g, music, dance, theater). Moreover, symphonies, ballets, comedy troupes, dramatic companies exist at both the professional and community level. It is possible that logos may be perceived differently between professional versus nonprofessional groups. Thus, future research should examinelogo characteristics for professional performing arts and community groups, as well as for other


Spring 2004

45

performing arts categories (e.g., symphony, ballet) in a variety of metropolitan statistical areas. Yet despite these limitations, the findings here provide some useful preliminary results for nonprofit performing arts groups competing in the challenging environment of reduced funding. The development or redesign of an organization’s logo is an expensive endeavor, and the results reported here can aid organizations in creating the most effective logo based on the organization’s objectives and intended market(s). When creating or updating an existing logo, a performing arts organization should pretest the graphic design on a group of patrons, volunteers, and benefactors. An analysis of several designs can allow an evaluation process to determine which generates more positive perceptions and, thus, give the organization specific information on which logo can ultimately impact the finances of the organization. Because a logo can potentially impact the operating budget of a nonprofit organization, it is important to know-rather than guess-what difference a logo makes.

References Andreasen, A. R. and R.W. Belk (1980), “Predictorsof Attendance at the Performing Arts,” Joumnl ofConsunier Research, 7 (Z), 112-120. Baker, Michael J. and John M. T. Balmer (1997), ”Visual Identify: Trappings or Substance?” European Journal of Marketing, 31 (May-June), 366-382. Beardi, Cara (1999), “Interbrand Opens Foundation to Concentrate on Nonprofits,” Advertising Age, 70 (46), November 8,120. Berry, Norman C. (1988), “Revitalizing Brands,” ]ournu1 of Consuiner Marketing, 5 (3), 15-20. Bennett, Peter D. (1995), Dictionary ofMarketing Terms, Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books. Cohen, Dorothy (1986). ”Trademark Strategy,” Journal ofMarketing, 50 (January), 61-74. Colman, Andrew M., J. Mallory Wober, and Claire E. Norris (1995), “Sight Bites: A Study of Viewers‘ Impressions of Corporate Logos in the Communication Industries,” Journal ofthe Market Research Society, 37 (October), 405-416. Dennis, Anita (1996), “1996 Grand Makeover: A Nonprofit Organization’s ID System Gets a Face-Lift,” Publish!: The HowTo Magazine of Desktop Publishing, 11(April l),52-60.

Durgee, Jeffrey F. and Robert W. Stuart (1987), “Advertising Symbols and Brand Names that Best Represent Key Product Meanings,“ Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4 (3), 15-24. Feder, Laura Koss (1998), “Branding Culture,” Marketing News, 32 (I), January 5,1-2. Gainer, Brenda and Paulette Padanyi (2002), “Applying the Marketing Concept to Cultural Organisations: An Empirical Study of the Relationship Between Market Orientation and Performance,“ International Journal of Nonprofit b Voluntay Sector Marketing, 2 (May), 182-193. Gob6, Marc (2001), Eniotional Branding: The New Paradigm for Connecting Brands to People, New York Allworth Press. Harari, Oren (1998), “Lessons From the Swoosh,” Managenzent Review, 87 Uuly/August), 39-42. Henderson, PamelaW. and JosephA. Cote (1998),”Guidelinesfor Selecting or Modifying Logos,”Journal OfMarketing, 62 (2), 14-30. Ignacio, Luis, Alvarez Vijande Gonzalez, Maria Leticia Santos Casielles, and Rodolfo Vazquez (2002), ”The Market Orientation Concept in the Private Nonprofit Organisation Domain,” International Journal of Nonprofit b Voluntary Sector Marketing, 1(February), 55-67. Janiszewski, Chris and Tom Meyvis (2001), ”Effects of Brand Logo Complexity, Repetition, and Spacing on Processing Fluency and Judgment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (I), 18-32. Kaali-Nagy, C. and Lee C. Garrison (1972), ”Profiles of Users and Nonusers of the Los Angeles Music Center,” California Managenzent Review, 15 (Winter), 133-143. Keller, Kevin Lane (1998), Strategic Brand Manageinent: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand €quity, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Mackenzie, Scott B. and Richard J. Lutz (1989), “An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, No. 2,48-65. Nelson, Phillip (1970), “Information and Consumer Behavior,” Journnl ofPolitica1 €cononzy, 78 (20), 311-329. Peter, John (1989), “Designing Logos,” Folio, 18 (July), 139-41. Renschler, Ruth, Jennifer Radbourne, Rodney Carr, and John Rickard (2002), ”Relationship Marketing, Audience Retention and Performing Arts Organisation Viability,” journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7 (May), 118-130. Selame, Joseph and Elior Selame (1985), “Corporate Identity: Fund Raisiig MarketingTool,“ Fund Raising Management, 16 (9), 96,98. Schechter, Alvin H. (1993), ”Measuring the Value of Corporate and Brand Logos,“ Design Managenzent Journal, 4 (Winter), 33-39. Scheff, J. and Philip P. Kotler (1996), Standing Roorn Only, New York Prentice Hall Publishers. Zeithaml, Valarie A., A. Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry (1985), “Problems and Strategies in Services Marketing,” journal of Marketing, 49 (2), 33-46.