A Conceptual Model of Brand Talkability in Automobile Industry Based on Interpretive-structural Modelling Approach

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Assistant Prof., Department of Management, Faculty of Management, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Prof., Department of Management, Faculty of Management, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Business Management, Kish International Campus, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran


In this research, we will examine the various dimensions of the brand, to identify the necessary background for the formation of brand talkability and thereby provide a solution for developing and increasing the power of talkability among Iranian brands, especially in the automotive industry. Given the fact that the automotive industry is considered to be the key to industrial communication in a chain of industries and has a high potential for job creation and economic development, this issue is of great importance to study. On the other hand, the lack of sufficient studies in the field of marketing and branding in the automotive industry has made it necessary to address this issue, remove the existing gap and develop the business in this industry. It can also answer the following questions: What are the factors affecting brand talkability in the automotive industry? What is the relationship between the factors and concepts associated with brand talkability in the automotive industry?
The present research is a mixed method of quantitative-qualitative approach. It is considered to be a developmental and descriptive-analytic in nature. This research was carried out in two main stages. First, using theme analysis based on the collected data through semi-structured interviews, the factors related to the brand talkability power were identified and then, using structural-interpretation method, through determining the interactions between the components, the leveling and identification of the key factors of the first phase of the model, the ultimate conceptual model of the research was presented. Data analysis was carried out using two methods of topic analysis (theme) and interpretive structural modeling.
Based on the analysis, 142 unique codes were identified as initial codes. Among the identified codes, some were more abundant than other codes, indicating the importance of these codes and their greater impact on brand talkability power from the interviewees’ viewpoint. These codes include: brand credibility; proud ownership; the creation of a sense of pride; feedback from others' experience; the impact of social networking; the importance of customers to the brand; the sense of consumer leading; the sense of brand image; communication and the context for brand engagement; brand trust; honesty; luxury products; the desire to use a brand; brand standing; the feeling of distinctiveness and the exchange of thoughts. After categorizing the codes, 14 final themes were identified and a conceptual model of brand talkability power was presented. The factors associated with brand talkability power presented in the conceptual model are: Brand Benefits; Experience; Consumer Support; Brand Relationship; Brand Social Benefits; Brand Intrinsic Value; Brand Marketing Communications (Traditional); Brand Marketing Communications (Modern); Reference Groups; Brand Psychological Behavior; Brand Equity; Consumer Support; Product Features and Brand Controversy. Based on the analysis of influence-dependency power in the interpretive structural model of brand talkability power, three groups of factors (independent, dependent, and linked) were identified.
A product with more benefits will be more likely to talk and advise to the others. The experience of the brand by others, followed by advising others, makes the feedback pass to others in the form of sharing comments. Providing a product that is priced in line with its perceived quality as well as being accountable and responsive are among the most prominent examples of brand support. Brand communication provides the basis for brand talkability by creating and developing communications and providing the groundwork for brand engagement. Based on the interpretive structural model, we can conclude that the factors associated with brand talkability are complex and tightly interconnected. Also, the inherent value of the brand is the most important underlying factor affecting other factors.


Main Subjects

Abdolvand, M.A & Ghafari Ashtiani, P. (2009). A model for assessment of effective factors on positive word of mouthbin service market, Case study: Arak Banks. Management survey journal, 20(2), 25-51. (in Persian)
Amirkhani, A.H & Amani, M. (2012). Investigation of the brand Valuation on customers` loyalty, Hygienic products. Commercial surveys journal, 10(55), 12-55. (in Persian)
Arndt, J. (1967) Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4 (3), 291-295.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology journal, 3(2), 123-140.
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. sage.
Danayifard, H & Alvani, M. & Azar, A. (2010). Qualitative surveys methods in management researches, Comprehensive approaches, Tehran: Saffar publication. (in Persian)
Hassangholipour, T. & Rahravi, A. & Abachian Ghasemi, R. (2013). Theoretical & empirical study of determinants of word of mouth in airline companies: The case of Iran Airlines Company. Commerce management journal, (5), 41-60. (in Persian)
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., and Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of interactive marketing, Vol.18, No. 1, pp. 38-52
Jalilvand, M.R. & Ebrahimi, A. (2011). The influence of word of mouth on purchase of local made cars, Case study: Samand from Irankhodro Company in city of Isfahan. Commerce management journal, 3(9), 57-70. (in Persian)
Katler, P. (2004). Marketing Encyclopedia. Translated by Ebrahimi, A., Tehran: Seateh Publication. (in Persian)
Kilik, U. (2014). Brand Talkability: An investigation of the concept of brand talkability and its antecedents. Thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of MSC, Department of Marketing, Birmingham Business School, College of Social Sciences, University of Birmingham.
Kozinets, R.V., de Valck, K. & Wojnicki, A.C., Wilner, S.J.S. (2010). Networked narratives: Understanding Word-of-Mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of Marketing, 74, 71-89.
Kudeshia, C. & Kumar, A. (2017). Social E-WOM: Does it affect the brand attitude and purchase intention of brands. Management Research Review, 40(3), 310-330.
Lau, G. T. & Ng, S. (2001) Individual and situational factors influencing negative Word-of-Mouth behaviour. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18 (3), 163-178.
Maheri, M & Hosseini, M., (2014). Investigation of electronic word of mouth on brands in Iran, Nethnography of an internet based association. Management surveys in Iran, 18(4), 139-150. (in Persian)
Mazzarol, T., Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2007), “Conceptualizing word-of-mouth activity, triggers and conditions: an exploratory study”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 3/4, pp. 344-64.
McConnell, B. & Huba, J. (2003). Creating Customer Evangelists: How Loyal Customers Become a Volunteer Salesforce. Dearborn, Chicaco, IL.
Motameni, A., Moradi, H., Hemati, A. (2014). Identifying consumption values for automobile owners and its effect on brand selection (Case study, Iran Khodro). Developent & Revolution gazette, 6(18), 31-39. (in Persian)
Mohan, B.C.; Sequeira, A. H. (2016). The impact of customer-based brand equity on the operational performance of FMCG companies in India. IIMB Management Review, 28, 13–19.
Moradi, M. & Alipour Darvish, Z. (2012). Peoples` motivation of sending electronic messages to others, (Virus Marketing). Economic & business journal, 3(1), 55-63. (in Persian)
Park, C. W. Eisigerich, A. B. & Park, J. W. (2013). Attachment –aversion (AA). Model of customer-brand relationship. Journal of consumer psychology. 23(2): 229-248.
Pfohl, H.C., Gallus, P., Thomas, D. (2011). Interpretive Structural Modeling of Supply Chain Risks. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 41(9), 839-859.
Pimentel, R.W. & Reynolds, K.E. (2004). A model for consumer devotion: affective commitment with proactive sustaining behaviors. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 5(1), 1-45.
Raiz, A.L., Raiz, L. (2002). 22 fixed rules for stabling a brand. Translated by Behzad, Manizheh, Tehran: Ann publication. (in Persian)
Sahin, A., Zehir, C. & Kitapci, H. (2011). The effects of brand experiences, trust and satisfaction on building loyalty, An Empirical Research On Global Brands. 7th International Strategic Management Conference; Science direct, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1288–1301.
Sashi, C. M. (2012) Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media. Management Decision, 50 (2), 253-272.
Sawhney, R. (2011). How do you turn your customers into brand evangelists? Fast Company, available at: www. fastcodesign.com/1664135/how-do-you-turn-your-customers- into-brand-evangelists (accessed March 1, 2013).
Silverman, G. (2001). The Secrets of Word-of- Mouth Marketing: How to Trigger Exponential Sales through Runaway Word of Mouth. 2nd ed., AMACOM, New York, NY.
Thompson, S.A. & Sinha, R.K. (2008). Brand communities and new product adoption: the influence and limits of oppositional loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 72(6), 65-80.
Wong, H.Y., Merrilees, B. (2015). An empirical study of the antecedents and consequences of brand engagement. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 33(4), 575 – 591.
Zamil, A. (2011). The Impact of Word of Mouth (WOM) on the Purchasing Decision of the Jordanian Consumer. Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes, 20, 24-29.
Yap, K.B., Soetarto, B. & Sweeney, C. (2013). The relationship between electronic word-of-mouth motivations and message characteristics: The sender’s perspective. Australasian Marketing Journal, 21(1), 66–74.