ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 143–151

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

0969-69

doi:10.1

� Corr

E-m

natter@1 Vi

German

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

How storefront displays influence retail store image

Britta Cornelius, Martin Natter �, Corinne Faure 1

Department of Marketing, University of Frankfurt, Gruneburgplatz 1, 60323 Frankfurt, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:

Displays

Image spillover

Retailing

Store image

Store environment

89/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. A

016/j.jretconser.2009.11.004

esponding author. Tel.: +49 69 798 34637.

ail addresses: corneliu@wiwi.uni-frankfurt.de

wiwi.uni-frankfurt.de (M. Natter), faure@wiw

siting from the European Business Schoo

y.

a b s t r a c t

The image of retail stores offers an important means for differentiation in highly competitive retail

markets. Storefront displays generally function to increase attention to the store or generate unplanned

store visits, whereas their impact on store image remains unknown. This study therefore investigates

perceived image differences between commonly used types of storefront displays and tests whether an

image transfer takes place from the display to the retail store. The results show that more innovative

displays achieve better image valuations and that store image benefits from the presence of a storefront

display. Spillover effects from the display to the store even occur in the face of some resistance, such as

in familiar stores and among consumers who have negative attitudes toward such displays.

& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Since the introduction of store image as an antecedent of storechoice, marketing researchers have devoted much attention tothis concept (e.g. Martineau, 1958; Mazursky and Jacoby, 1986;Hildebrandt, 1988; Baker et al., 1994; Chze Lin Thang and LinBoon Tan, 2003; Hartman and Spiro, 2005). Mayer (1989)identifies store image as one of the main topics in retailingresearch, and a recent meta-analysis by Pan and Zinkhan (2006)reveals that store visit frequency depends strongly on store imageand attitude. Furthermore, in the past decade, increased (price)competition has forced traditional retail stores to search fordifferentiation strategies inside and outside the store. Store imageis an antecedent of competitive positioning (Pessemier, 1980),and the inside of the store (e.g., assortment, atmosphere, priceimage, service) has a clear influence on this store image (for anoverview, see Baker et al., 2002). Yet little attention focuses on thefront of the store and its possible influence on store image.

Many potential influences can appear at the front of the store:building signs, neon writing, display windows, merchandisepresentation, and so on. We focus on one such possibility, namely,storefront displays, which are either attached to the store fac-adeor placed in front of the store. These independent displays are notintegrated into display windows or the building architecture butrather are mobile and can be removed when the store is closed.A-boards containing information about special offers or small

ll rights reserved.

(B. Cornelius),

i.uni-frankfurt.de (C. Faure).

l, Schloss Reichartshausen,

flags attached to a store fac-ade promoting a special brand aretraditional versions of storefront displays, though more innova-tive displays also exist, including standing flags or air-filledfigures.

During a personal interview, the CEO of Entdecker (aninternational company that produces and distributes innovativestorefront displays) indicated that different retailers hold verydifferent attitudes about such displays. In his experience, retailersin the telecommunications industry appear very enthusiasticabout modern displays, whereas marketing managers from thebanking industry are afraid that a modern storefront displaymight not fit with their businesses or could harm their store’simage. It thus appears that retail managers speculate about theeffects of storefront displays on their store’s image, without anyevidence to support their impressions. This gap is particularlyrelevant because changing a firm’s image can be a hard andtedious task (e.g., Kotler, 2006). Finally, it suggests the need todistinguish more clearly among the different types of storefrontdisplays.

In this study, we empirically test the effects of differentstorefront displays on store image. However, due to the lack ofacademic knowledge about storefront displays, we first conducteda survey of retail managers to identify which storefront displaysthey used and for which purposes. In a second pilot study, wetested whether innovative displays are more effective in attract-ing consumer attention than are more traditional displays. Finally,we investigated, through two experimental studies, the spillovereffects of display image onto store image for different typesof displays. After an initial discussion of the relevant literatureand our theoretical framework, we present these studies anddiscuss their implications from both managerial and academicperspectives.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

B. Cornelius et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 143–151144

2. Background

2.1. Research on window and in-store displays

According to existing reviews of store atmospherics, theexterior of the store is the worst represented atmosphericstimulus in marketing literature (e.g., Turley and Milliman,2000; Eroglu and Machleit, 2008), even though the exterior isthe first set of cues consumers see. If external stimuli are poorlymanaged, the rest of the atmosphere may not matter (Turley andMilliman, 2000). The few studies that consider the exteriorgenerally address the effects of window displays (Edwards andShackley, 1992; Sen et al., 2002), which are designed to helpcreate and maintain an overall store image (Park et al., 1986). In astudy conducted among clothing retailers, Sen et al. (2002)demonstrate that the decision to enter a store relates toconsumers’ acquisition of store-related information (e.g., image)from the window displays. The outside of the store thus appearsto affect store image and consumer decisions.

Another related stream of research investigates in-storedisplays, which are physically similar to storefront displays.Although these in-store displays take a variety of forms, includingisland displays, floor graphics, and so forth (Vence, 2007),academic research mostly focuses on the impact of in-storeproduct supply displays, in combination with a price promotion(e.g., Wilkinson et al., 1982; Narasimhan et al., 1996; van Heerdeet al., 2000, 2001). The displays increase sales when combinedwith price discounts (e.g., Narasimhan et al., 1996) or used alone(e.g., Wilkinson et al., 1982; Inman et al., 1990). Other displayeffects have not been considered, nor are we aware of anyresearch that tests the transfer of image from in-store displays toa retailer’s overall store image.

Attitudes towards storefront displays

Store familiarity

Image of a classical storefront display

Image of an innovative storefront display

Spillover effect tostore image

Imag

e va

luat

ion

(H1)

+

-

H2a,b

H4

H3

Fig. 1. Theoretical framework.

2.2. Store image and image spillover effects

Store image refers to the way the store is perceived byshoppers and defined in shoppers’ minds (e.g., Hartman and Spiro,2005). Because customers perceive store image as a dynamicformation, a store image may change after each exposure(Oh et al., 2008). When considering the effects of storefrontdisplays on store image, we assert that spillover effects, which wedefine as an image transfer from one object to another, are ofparticular interest. The displays and the stores have separateimages, so image transfer should be a central focus. Spillovereffects are well recognized in previous marketing literature andoccur in response to several marketing-related activities (e.g.,McCracken, 1989; Tripp et al., 1994). For example, event sponsor-ships hinge on spillover effects, from the image of the sponsoredevent to that of the sponsoring company (Gwinner and Eaton,1999). Image might transfer from one brand to another throughbrand extensions or co-branding alliances (Rao and Ruekert,1994; Samu et al., 1999). Similarly, we posit that the image ofstorefront displays may transfer to the store, in the form of aspillover effect between the display image and the store image.

According to information integration theory (Anderson, 1971),spillover effects occur because people form and modify theirattitudes as they receive, evaluate, and then integrate newstimulus information into their existing attitudes (e.g., Simoninand Ruth, 1998). The two fundamental operations by which thetransfer occurs are valuation and integration. Anderson (1971)offers a simple model, in which each piece of information isrepresented by two parameters: a scale value and a weight.The value is the location of the information stimulus along thejudgment dimension, and the weight represents the psychologicalimportance of the information. Valuation therefore involves the

determination and measurement of parameters for a focalstimulus; integration focuses on the manner in which informationabout several stimuli can be combined effectively. New informa-tion gets integrated into existing judgments, and the associationsevoked by a new stimulus transfer to the associated object.Transferring this theory to a storefront display in a retail context,we expect that the image of the storefront displays becomesintegrated into consumer judgments about the stores. We there-fore investigate spillover effects from storefront displays to storeimages.

3. Hypotheses

Before focusing on these spillover effects, we distinguishamong different types of storefront displays that are likely tohave various images. Many different types of displays exist, butwe identify one feature, namely, the degree of novelty of thedisplay, that clearly differentiates them and is likely to have animpact on image valuations. Some displays are very common andhave been in use for many years; others are quite innovative andstill relatively new to the market. Product design researchsuggests different possibilities for the impact of novelty (versusprototypicality) on consumer responses. On the one hand, peoplemay respond favorably to objects that are highly prototypical andfamiliar (e.g., Carpenter and Nakamoto, 1989; Loken and Ward,1990; Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998), but on the other hand,people better remember novel stimuli (e.g., Woll and Graesser,1982). Furthermore, product form appears able to attractconsumer attention, especially in cluttered markets (Berkowitz,1987), as Bloch (1995) illustrates with examples of successfulnovel product forms. Because storefront displays are designed toattract consumer attention and not be purchased, we expect thatthe positive effects of novelty through greater attention willdominate, whereas the negative effects of novelty that emerge inchoice situations will have a lesser impact. Moreover, in the caseof storefront displays, novel, rarely used displays with innovativeforms should attract more attention and receive higher imageratings than do more traditional displays (see Fig. 1). This claim isconsistent with Razzouk et al.’s (2002) suggestion that the bestway to attract customer attention is to innovate in the area ofdisplays.

H1. Compared with classical storefront displays, innovativestorefront displays induce more positive display image valuations.

According to information integration theory, new informationgets integrated into former valuations through an additive model,whereby each piece of information is represented as a weightedscale value (e.g., Lafferty et al., 2004; Roggeveen et al., 2007).Therefore, if there is a significant positive difference between theimage valuation of a display and the original image valuation ofthe store, the store should be valued more positively when it uses

ARTICLE IN PRESS

A-board Wall-mounted flag

Columnstand

Standingflag

2.2m

1.5m

Fig. 2. Displays used in the Study 1.

B. Cornelius et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 143–151 145

the storefront display. In contrast, if the original image valuationof the store is significantly better than that of the display, thedifference becomes negative, and the store will suffer a lessfavorable valuation if it uses the storefront display; that is, theimage spillover effect from the display to the store is negative.

H2a. If the valuation of a display is significantly more positivethan the valuation of the original store image, a positive imagespillover effect occurs from the display to the store.

H2b. If the valuation of a display is significantly less positive thanthe valuation of the original store image, a negative imagespillover effect occurs from the display to the store.

We also searched for factors that might influence thesehypothesized spillover effects. For example, research on advertis-ing effectiveness suggests that consumer attitudes toward aspecific type of advertising can alter its effectiveness (e.g., Mehta,2000; Veloutsou and O’Donnell, 2005). In their research on taxiadvertising, Veloutsou and O’Donnell (2005) show that consu-mers with positive attitudes toward outdoor advertising pay moreattention and are more interested in this type of advertising.Consumers with negative attitudes toward storefront displaystherefore may not pay much attention, in which case the imagespillover may be weaker for these consumers. In contrast,consumers with positive attitudes toward storefront displaysshould pay more attention to the display and therefore exhibitspillover effects.

H3. Image spillover effects from displays to stores are moderatedby attitudes toward the displays; the effects are weaker forconsumers with a negative attitude toward storefront displaysand stronger for consumers with a positive attitude towardstorefront displays.

Familiarity or experience with an object also influences variousbehaviors and processes (e.g., brand alliances, Simonin and Ruth,1998; preferences and evaluations, Ratneshwar et al., 1987;learning, Johnson and Russo, 1984; satisfaction and loyalty,Brakus et al., 2009). Within the information integration frame-work, the sum of the weights of all pieces of information is equalto 1, which requires cognitive interaction because the weight of asingle informational stimulus must depend on the weights of allthe others. The weight of any new information thus may dependon the concreteness or strength of store images.

Research on attitude strength suggests that strong attitudesare quite resistant to change (Ajzen, 2001). For familiar objects,the relative degree of liking is well established and stable, becauserelated experiences and associations are extensive (Bettman andSujan, 1987). For relatively unfamiliar objects though, preexistingattitudes may be either unformed or weak in terms of attitudestrength (Fazio, 1986, 1989). Research on brand alliances thusshows that a partner brand that is more salient because of itsfamiliarity exerts a relatively greater effect on the alliance(Simonin and Ruth, 1998).

Familiarity with a store may stem from direct previousexperience or more general frequent exposure to the store.Construal-level theory proposes that the greater a person’spsychological distance from target events or objects, whethertemporal, spatial, or social, the greater is the likelihood that he orshe will use more abstract mental models to represent informa-tion about those target events and objects (Trope and Liberman,2000; Trope et al., 2007). Hamilton and Thompson (2007) alsodemonstrate that a direct product experience leads to moreconcrete mental representations than does an indirect experience.Therefore, we posit that when consumers have previous directexperience with a retailer, the retailer’s image is more concrete,

which may make it more difficult to change the store image (i.e.,spillover effects are less likely).

H4. Image spillover effects from displays to stores are moderatedby store familiarity, such that higher store familiarity reducesspillover effects.

4. Pilot studies

Before testing the hypotheses about the spillover effects, weconducted two separate pilot studies to gather a better under-standing of the use of storefront displays and their effects. First, inPilot Study 1, we assessed the extent of storefront displays andtheir perceived effects from the perspective of retail storemanagers, which enabled us to assess the extent of usage ofspecific displays as well; we used this information to identifyappropriate displays for the main studies. Furthermore, we gainedinsights into retailers’ beliefs about the use of such displays.Second, using a virtual shopping simulation in Pilot Study 2, weexperimentally tested the effects of innovative versus classicaldisplays on awareness. Our spillover hypotheses assume thatconsumers are aware of the displays (awareness is a necessarycondition for information processing), so we deemed it importantto confirm that they are.

4.1. Pilot Study 1: display usage behavior

Considering the lack of research on storefront displays, ourfirst step involved obtaining an assessment of the usage of suchdisplays by retail store managers. We gathered data with a surveyof 172 retail store managers in seven large cities in Germany. Toensure efficient data collection, we identified in each city themain shopping streets in the city centers (no mall locations) andsystematically asked all retailers on these streets to participate. Intotal, our survey captured various industries (e.g., telecommuni-cation services, clothing, financial services) and a mix of small,owner-led stores with large regional or (inter)national retailchains. Even though some retailers refused to participate, wefound no evidence of a systematic non-response bias in terms ofany of the relevant factors (e.g., store size, ownership).

Of the managers surveyed, 84.2 percent used storefrontdisplays, and 63.4 percent of these display users owned onlyone such display; the most commonly used formats wereA-boards and wall-mounted flags (see Fig. 2). More moderndisplays, such as standing flags or column stands, appeared onlyrarely used by the surveyed retailers. The retailers listed thefollowing motives for their use of storefront displays, in order ofimportance: attract attention (56.7 percent), directly increasesales (17.1 percent), increase store traffic (14.0 percent), make the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

B. Cornelius et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 143–151146

location of the store known (6.7 percent), and attract newconsumers (5.5 percent). These results reveal that storemanagers mostly use storefront displays to attract attention,though they attribute different awareness levels to differentdisplays. That is, 32.0 percent of store managers using a flagbelieved their displays increased store awareness, but only 11.6percent of the A-board users shared this belief.

4.2. Pilot Study 2: awareness effects

Pilot Study 1 indicated that store managers mostly usestorefront displays to attract attention and that they believe thedifferent types of displays are more or less successful in thatrespect. Because our hypotheses specifically assume consumersare aware of these displays (i.e., information processing of a newstimuli can occur only if consumers are aware of the stimuli), weconducted a second pilot study to compare the effects of twodifferent types of displays on both store and display awareness ina realistic shopping setting. For this purpose, we developed avirtual shopping simulation, in which study participants watcheda video that took the perspective of someone taking a walk downa shopping street. They imagined themselves taking this walk,such that during the one-minute video, the study participantsvirtually walked past 11 stores, two of which could be equippedwith storefront displays. To gain insights into the effects of thedifferent types of displays, we manipulated the degree ofinnovativeness of the two displays. An A-board represented thetraditional storefront display (consistent with the results of PilotStudy 1), whereas a standing flag with an innovative design (likean upside-down drop) served as the innovative display (such flagsare still relatively new on the market, used by only 15.9 percent ofthe retailers in Pilot Study 1). Four versions of the video weredeveloped. In the first, the A-board appeared in front of one of the11 stores; in the second video, the standing flag was shown infront of another store. In the third experimental video, both theA-board and the standing flag were depicted in front of theirrespective stores.3 Finally, the fourth video showed all 11 storeswithout storefront displays; we used this condition to assessparticipants’ store recall without displays.

The experiment proceeded as an online survey. An experienceddigital media and market research company recruited theparticipants, and the study took place as a one-time surveyof members of a representative online panel. A total of80 respondents participated, 54.4 percent men and 45.6 percentwomen, with an average age of 37 years. The four versions of thevideo were randomly assigned to respondents in a between-subjects design. After watching the video online, respondentsanswered some questions about the video. Specifically, theycompleted an unaided recall task, in which they first listed thenames of the stores they could remember, then indicated whetherthey could remember any advertising medium in front of anystore. If they could, they had to describe this advertising mediumin their own terms as precisely as possible. Two different judgesindependently coded whether the respondents described thedisplay accurately.4

An analysis of the store awareness results in the group thatsaw the stores without displays indicates that the two storesparticipating in the study had very high unaided awarenessrates—specifically, 71.4 percent for the store that could use theA-board display and 85.7 percent for the store that later appeared

3 Because we used real stores and displays, we are limited to the type of

display available at the participating stores.4 With a few exceptions, the participants who remember seeing a display

were also able to describe that display quite accurately. Therefore, the recall rates

and percentages of accurately described displays are almost identical.

with the standing flag. However, the relationship between storetype and store awareness was not significant (adjusted Yates’w2=.57, p=.47).5 Both stores are highly recognized, national retailbrands, and these high awareness rates might make it difficult toimprove store awareness through storefront displays. Indeed, thestore awareness rates with the displays did not significantlyimprove compared with these scores. Our main focus is displayawareness though, for which the results indicate that 27.8 percentof respondents exposed to the standing flag recalled the displayand were able to describe it accurately, whereas only 11.3 percentof the respondents exposed to the A-board could do so (w2=4.6,po .05). We therefore find evidence that the type of displayinfluences display awareness.

Pilot Study 2 offers significant evidence in support of the claimthat innovative displays are more effective in attracting consumerattention than are classical displays. This result is particularlyrelevant because awareness provides the foundation for otherhigher-level processes, such as choice behavior (Hoyer andBrown, 1990). Pilot Study 2 also highlights the potential forceiling effects for very well-known retail brands. The main studieswere designed with these concerns in mind; for example, in Study2, we carefully manipulate familiarity with the retail brands toaccount for these possible ceiling effects.

5. Main studies

Because we have shown that consumers are aware ofstorefront displays, we can test for the effects of these displayson store image. Two experimental studies test the hypothesespertaining to spillover effects. In the first study, we investigate H1and H2 regarding the effects of classical versus innovativedisplays on image spillover effects. The second study considersonly innovative displays and thereby tests for the moderatingeffects of attitudes towards the display and store familiarity onspillover effects (H3 and H4).

5.1. Study 1: types of displays and spillover effects

5.1.1. Experimental procedure

Consistent with other studies on image spillover (e.g., Roehmand Tybout, 2006; Votolato and Unnava, 2006), we used anexperimental setting to collect respondents’ image valuations ofthe different displays and stores. The comparisons pertain tovarious display images, store images without displays, and storeimages with displays. This study relied on existing displays fromreal stores, and we identified four actual types of displays, shownin Fig. 2: an A-board, a wall-mounted flag, a column stand, and astanding flag.

On the basis of the results from Pilot Study 1, we classified thedisplays in two groups according to their innovativeness. The firstgroup consists of classical displays that have long been used byretailers (i.e., A-board and wall-mounted flag), whereas thesecond contains more innovative displays that are newer to themarket (column stand and standing flag). To establish the successof this manipulation, respondents indicated whether they hadever seen the displays in use. For the A-boards, 100 percent of therespondents answered that they had seen them in use before;wall-mounted flags had been seen by 92.6 percent. However, only53.7 percent of the respondents had seen standing flags, and 48.1percent had seen column stands. Therefore, the manipulation ofdisplay innovativeness appears successful (w2=50.6, po .01).

5 The finding about display awareness therefore is not attributed to the store

awareness difference.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 3. Example of treatment for store fac-ades without and with storefront display.

reliableunreliable

unpleasant pleasantStandingflag

B. Cornelius et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 143–151 147

To test the hypotheses about spillover effects, we require threetypes of valuations: display valuations, store valuations withoutdisplays, and store valuations with displays. To avoid demandeffects, we use a between-subject design to assess the valuations,whereas we test the types of displays as a within-subject factor.Therefore, participants each rated four different displays or stores.The first experimental group (54 participants) viewed only thefour storefront displays and rated them on a series of imagescales. To avoid biases due to different message content, thisgroup only saw outlines of the displays, and the displays did notcontain any advertising messages. The 34 participants in thesecond experimental group viewed pictures of four different storefac-ades without a storefront display and rated the stores onthe same image scales. Finally, the last experimental group(32 participants) observed pictures of the same four stores butthis time with storefront displays; they also rated the stores onthe same scales. Fig. 3 provides an example of one of the storesused in the experiment, without and with its display.6 To avoidself-selection biases and control for sources of invalidity, therespondents were randomly assigned to one of the threeexperimental groups (Woodside, 1990). The four storesrepresented a variety of industries: two telecommunicationretailers, a fashion store, and a health food store. All stores wereestablished in the local market in which we conducted the study.

The experiment was conducted as an online survey, sent toparticipants whose names appeared on a university mailing list.This procedure ensured that the participants lived in the city fromwhich the stores were selected. The average age of theparticipants was 28 years; 42.4 percent were men, and57.6 percent were women. To ensure equivalent groups, wechecked for differences in the moderating factors that weinvestigate in Study 2, but we found no significant differencesacross experimental groups in their previous experience with thestores or attitudes toward storefront displays.

naive

modern

unusual

sophisticated

classical

usual

Columnstand

A-board

Wall-mounted flag

5.1.2. Assessment of display and store image

Of particular importance to this study is the measurement ofdisplay and store images. Previous research has relied on multi-attribute scales, semantic differential scales, or unstructured free-response methods to measure images (Hartman and Spiro, 2005).

6 As in Pilot Study 2, because we used real stores and displays, we could only

use one type of display for each store, that is, the type of display the store owned.

The study design implies that displays are nested within stores. The stores were

not randomly varied but remained in the same order for both groups.

Because our focus centers on image spillovers from one object toanother, our approach must apply to various objects. Imagespillover effects can best be measured on the basis of objectattributes (e.g., Park et al., 1996; Gwinner and Eaton, 1999);therefore, semantic differential scales (Osgood et al., 1957; Vosset al., 2003; Priluck and Till, 2004) seem most appropriate for ourpurposes. This method uses object-independent attributes tomeasure an object’s connotative meaning and is a robust means tocompare the images of different objects (Clevenger et al., 1965).

To generate relevant image components, we adopted existingbipolar attribute pairs (Aaker, 1997; Malhotra, 1981). The twoseparate scales—one focused on the overall image assessment(unpleasant/pleasant, naive/sophisticated, and unreliable/reli-able), and the other on modernity (old-fashioned/trendy, usual/unusual, and classical/modern)—apply to both display and storeimages.

5.1.3. Empirical analysis and results

The Cronbach’s a values indicate the reliability of the imagescales; they ranged from .71 to .85 for the overall assessmentscale and from .76 and .93 for the modernity scale in the differentjudgmental situations (stores, displays). Therefore, we aggregatethe scales using averaged sums.

In Fig. 4, we illustrate the ratings of the displays by imagecomponents for the first experimental group. In each case, twodisplays result in similar plots on the bipolar scales. The A-boardand the wall-mounted flag were rated worse than average on allimage components, whereas the column stand and the standingflag were rated better than the median on most imagecomponents. The standing flag achieved the best valuations forall image components and was the only display rated above themedian for all of them. The results therefore confirm that peopleperceive various storefront displays quite differently.

We expected better image valuations for the innovativedisplays, and our results show that the classical displays achievedsignificantly lower image valuations than did the innovativedisplays on all image subscales except for unpleasant/pleasant, insupport of H1. To confirm the success of the manipulations, wecompared the means of the different types of displays on theimage scales. The innovative displays were evaluated morepositively (m=3.10) and perceived to be more modern (m=3.73)than were the classical displays (m=2.70 and 2.01, respectively).Both tests were significant (po .01), which offers evidence of asuccessful manipulation check. Furthermore, innovative store-front displays achieved higher image valuations than classicaldisplays.

After testing the differential perceptions of the displays, webegan our investigation of the image spillover effects. An imagespillover effect is possible only if the retailer and display images

trendyold fashioned

1 2 3 4 5

Fig. 4. Semantic differential ratings for the four storefront displays.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1Average ratings over image dimensions.

Display

category

Image

dimension

Image valuations

Mean in the group rating

the display only (Group 1)

Mean in the group rating the

retailer without display (Group 2)

Mean in the group rating the

retailer with display (Group 3)

Difference between

Groups 1 and 2

Difference between

Groups 3 and 2

Classical Overall 2.70 (.75) 3.08 (.76) 3.17 (.76) � .38*** .09

Modernity 2.01 (.80) 2.66 (1.04) 2.87 (1.05) � .65*** .21

Innovative Overall 3.10 (.91) 3.07 (.86) 3.23 (.84) .03 .17

Modernity 3.73 (1.00) 3.15 (.80) 3.65 (.80) .58*** .50***

SDs reported in parentheses *po .10, **po .05, ***po .01.

B. Cornelius et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 143–151148

significantly differ; therefore, we compared the image ratings ofthe displays alone and the stores alone (i.e., without displays), andwe provide the means in all experimental groups in Table 1, withthe differences in ratings between image valuations of the grouprating the display only and the retailer only in column 6. Negativedifferences indicate that the store without the display achievedbetter values than the display, whereas positive differencessuggest the display earned better value ratings than the store.The images are sufficiently different to create the conditions forspillover effects in three of four cases.

According to H2, a significant shift in store image valuationswould occur in response to the use of a display if the differencebetween the display and the store images was significant. InTable 1, we find support for our hypotheses. Specifically, when ituses an innovative display, the retailer is rated as significantlymore modern, in support of H2a.7 However, we did not findnegative spillover effects in the cases in which we expected them;rather, the image valuations improved in all cases when the storeused a storefront display. Therefore, retail managers’ concernsabout damaging their store image through storefront displaysreceive no confirmation from our study, and we must reject H2b.

5.2. Study 2: moderating effects of attitudes toward storefront

displays and store familiarity

Because tests of moderating effects are possible only whenspillover effects exist, we focus solely on the type of display withthe strongest spillover effects according to Study 1, namely,standing flags. The study design closely followed that for Study 1.That is, 66 participants were recruited on campus to participate inan online survey, then assigned randomly to one of twoexperimental groups. The first group viewed pictures of six storeswithout displays, and the second considered the same six storeswith standing flags.

To test H3, we assessed the respondents’ attitudes towardstorefront displays with a three-item, five-point rating scalederived from Donthu and Garcia (1999) and Veloutsou andO’Donnell (2005). This scale achieves a reliability coefficient of.73, which indicates satisfactory reliability. To test H4, we firstmanipulated familiarity with the stores as a within-subject factor,

7 Because the type of storefront display was nested in the type of retail store,

the innovative storefront displays might have worked only for retailers with an

innovative image themselves. However, the stores in the innovative group

achieved very different scores on the image scales (i.e., the store associated with

the column stand was rated as more innovative than the store associated with the

flag), and the results hold for both stores independently. Furthermore, in Study 2,

using six stores with the same innovative display (standing flag), the image ratings

obtained by the stores did not correlate with the shift in image achieved by the

store (overall: r=� .12, p=.82; modernity: r=� .34, p=.51). Therefore, we can rule

out the possibility that spillover effects from the use of innovative displays only

apply to stores that already have innovative images.

according to the national or regional character of the stores.Because national retailers can invest more financial and humanresources than local or regional retailers in image-building efforts(e.g., television advertising, event sponsorships) and becauseconsumers are more likely to have been exposed to a givennational retailer, we posit that national retailers will be morefamiliar to consumers. Three of the stores included in Study 2were national retailers (telecommunication store, fast-food chain,and travel agency), whereas the other three were local retailbrands (clothing store, bookstore, and regional bank). To checkthe success of this manipulation, we asked study participants ifthey knew the stores pictured. As expected, the number ofrespondents who knew the regional and national retailers differedsignificantly (w2=201.0, po .01), and far more respondents knowthe national stores. To control for individual differences, partici-pants indicated whether they had ever personally visited thestores pictured, as a measure of experience with the retailer.When we compare the experimental groups on their attitudestoward storefront displays and previous experience with thestores, we find no significant differences between the experi-mental groups.

In H3, we hypothesized that image spillover effects from thedisplays to the stores would be stronger among consumers withpositive attitudes toward storefront displays. We used a multi-group analysis to test the moderating effects of attitudes towardthe storefront displays, such that we first divided the respondentsin three equal-sized groups on the basis of their responses to theattitude toward the storefront display scale, so that we couldcompare the spillover effects for the low and high attitude groups.As we show in Table 2, even among respondents with a negativeattitude toward storefront displays, a positive image spillovereffect occurred for the modernity scale. In addition, for customerswith a positive attitude toward storefront displays, imagespillover occurred for both image scales, and both themodernity and the overall image scales were positively affected.

Next, we undertook two sets of analyses to test the moderatingeffects of store familiarity on spillover effects. First, we comparedthe results for the national retailers with those of regionalretailers. The presumed higher familiarity with national retailersshould induce stronger spillover effects among the regionalretailers rather than for national retailers, because of the higherresistance to change for attitudes that are more strongly held. Thespillover effects followed a very similar pattern to the resultsobtained for H3 (see Table 2). That is, we find significant spillovereffects for both image scales for the stores that we expectedwould be influenced by the displays (i.e., regional retailers), aswell as spillover effects only for the modernity scale among thenational retailers.

Another multi-group analysis enabled us to investigate theimpact of experience with the retailer on image spillover.Specifically, we split the sample into two groups: respondents

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2Spillover effects as a function of moderating factors.

Image

dimension

Mean in the group rating the

retailer without display

Mean in the group rating

the retailer with display

Difference

between

groups

Mean in the group rating the

retailer without display

Mean in the group rating

the retailer with display

Difference

between

groups

Negative attitude Positive attitude

Overall 3.13 (.83) 3.19 (.91) .06 3.35 (.82) 3.70 (.74) .35**

Modernity 2.68 (.93) 3.07 (.87) .39** 2.94 (.94) 3.31 (.90) .37*

Regional retailers National retailers

Overall 3.12 (.81) 3.34 (.87) .22* 3.31 (.74) 3.47 (.77) .16

Modernity 2.73 (.77) 3.12 (.85) .39*** 2.91 (1.02) 3.24 (.96) .33***

Non-visitors Visitors

Overall 3.13 (.76) 3.36 (.84) .23** 3.72 (.69) 3.65 (.73) � .07

Modernity 2.81 (.91) 3.13 (.91) .32*** 2.92 (.86)8 3.43 (.83) .51***

SDs reported in parentheses *po .10, **po .05, ***po .01.

B. Cornelius et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 143–151 149

who had never visited the store and those who had (on average,15.4 percent of the participants had visited a given store). Weanticipate, according to H4, stronger spillover effects for the lessexperienced (non-visitor) group than for the experienced (visitor)group. As Table 2 shows, we find significant positive spillovereffects for both image scales for non-visitors, whereas thespillover effects are significant only for the modernity imagescale among the visitors. Therefore, spillover effects occur evenamong customers who have previous experience with the stores.

In summary, the pattern of results in Study 2 remains quiteconsistent. We had expected that spillover effects might dis-appear when consumers hold negative attitudes toward store-front displays or are very familiar with the store, but the resultsinstead indicate that spillover effects on the modernity scale arepersistent across all cases. Consistent with our argumentation forH3 and H4, spillover effects appear consistently stronger forconsumers with a positive attitude toward storefront displays andlow store familiarity, in that for these consumers the spillovereffects span both the modernity and the overall image of thestores. Therefore, the results provide support for H3 and H4,though in a somewhat unexpected manner. We had expectedspillover effects would be reduced in negative attitude and highfamiliarity groups, but instead, we find that the effects areamplified in the positive attitude and low familiarity groups.

6. Discussion

This study, to our knowledge, is the first to investigate theimpact of different types of storefront displays on store image;thus, it contributes to growing literature on store image. Webegan with a brief survey to discern the display usage practices ofretail managers, followed by a second pilot study that demon-strated that novel storefront displays are effective in attractingconsumer attention. Our Study 1 results reveal that differenttypes of storefront displays carry different image potential andthat innovativeness drives image valuations. These resultsemphasize the importance of continuously developing andadopting novel storefront displays. Study 2 further indicates thatspillover effects can occur even in cases in which we might expectsome resistance (e.g., consumers with negative attitudes towarddisplays or familiar with stores), though these effects are evenmore prominent and not limited to modernity scales whenconsumers’ resistance is lower.

The main contribution of this study derives from our findingsabout image spillover effects from storefront displays to stores.Such spillover effects happen only in a positive sense; thenegative dimensions of the displays do not transfer to store

image, and even negative attitudes about storefront displays donot affect image spillover negatively. Rather, storefront displaysseem to bother consumers less than other types of advertising.Fewer than 10 percent of the respondents indicated that they feltannoyed by storefront displays, compared with almost 76 percentwho indicated their belief that there is too much advertising onradio and television. These results suggest that stores might onlybenefit from using innovative storefront displays. Even customerswho were familiar with the stores or had negative attitudestoward storefront displays exhibited positive spillover effectsfrom innovative displays to the store’s modernity image. Forconsumers with less resistance (low familiarity, positive attitudestoward storefront displays), the effects strengthen to includepositive spillover effects on the overall store image.

The findings therefore suggest that storefront displays repre-sent an effective tool for transferring image components to a retailstore. Compared with costly in-store re-engineering or othermarketing activities, storefront displays offer an attractive, cost-effective alternative means to improve retail store image.In addition, this mode of advertising is especially effective fornew customers; our results show that people unfamiliar with thestore are influenced in both image dimensions by a storefrontdisplay.

In terms of the limitations of our studies, we could test onlyone type of display for each store, which is the price we paid forgreater realism. Because the studies used real pictures of storesand displays, they could not include displays that the participat-ing retailers did not own. Although it would be preferable to testboth display categories in front of each store, it is not feasible;retailers normally invest in only one type of display, as our initialstudy on retailer display usage behavior indicated. That is, 36.6percent of the retailers we surveyed used more than one display,but they rarely changed between display categories. Only 16.9percent used different display categories, but none of the retailersincluded in our studies owned different types of displays.Therefore, the results may be specific to the various storesstudied herein and not generalize entirely to other stores. Still,Study 2 (with six different stores, all using the same type ofdisplay) suggests that the results are quite stable, because thespillover effects are consistent. Testing the effects of differentdisplays in front of the same stores would allow for a morestringent test of our results and certainly be valuable. Perhaps ourstudy results can help encourage retailers to carry more than onetype of storefront displays and to alternate them for differentpurposes, which would facilitate future investigations of theirdifferential effects.

Our studies also suggest the great impact of using tools such asstorefront displays on store image. Because these studies focus on

ARTICLE IN PRESS

B. Cornelius et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 143–151150

just a few facets, we call for further research in this area. Threepotential research venues appear particularly promising. First, ourresearch focuses on the form of the displays, ignoring the contentof the messages that the displays advertise. This condition wasnecessary to ensure experimental controls in this early stage ofresearch, but studying the impact of different types of promo-tional messages likely would influence the results. It would be ofparticular interest to study the impact of price versus non-pricepromotional storefront displays on store image. Second, a logicalextension of this research would be to investigate whetherstorefront displays also influence other relevant store outcomes,such as the number or frequency of visits or sales. Third, ourstudies highlight the front of the store as an important antecedentof store image; other exterior elements, such as the windowdecoration and arrangement, entrances, or even building designand lighting, could have similar influences on store image.As Turley and Milliman (2000) note, marketing researchers havemostly concentrated on the inside of a store. We hope thisresearch triggers additional contributions from the outside.

References

Aaker, J.L., 1997. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research34, 347–356.

Ajzen, I., 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 52,27–58.

Anderson, N.H., 1971. Integration theory and attitude change. PsychologicalReview 78, 171–206.

Baker, J., Grewal, D., Parasuraman, A., 1994. The influence of store environment onquality inferences and store image. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience 22, 328–339.

Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., Voss, G.B., 2002. The influence of multiplestore environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronageintentions. Journal of Marketing 66, 120–141.

Berkowitz, M., 1987. Product shape as a design innovation strategy. Journal ofProduct Innovation Management 4, 274–283.

Bettman, J.R., Sujan, M., 1987. Effects of framing on evaluation of comparable andnoncomparable alternatives by expert and novice consumers. Journal ofConsumer Research 14, 141–154.

Bloch, P.H., 1995. Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response.Journal of Marketing 59, 16–29.

Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H., Zarantonel, Z., 2009. Brand experience: What is it? Howis it measured? Does it affect loyalty?. Journal of Marketing 73 (3), 52–68.

Carpenter, G.S., Nakamoto, K., 1989. Consumer preference formation andpioneering advantage. Journal of Marketing Research 26, 285–298.

Chze Lin Thang, D., Lin Boon Tan, B., 2003. Linking consumer perception topreference of retail stores: an empirical assessment of the multi-attributes ofstore image. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 10, 193–200.

Clevenger, T., Lazier, G.A., Leitner, C.M., 1965. Measurement of corporate images bythe semantic differential. Journal of Marketing Research 2, 80–82.

Donthu, N., Garcia, A., 1999. The internet shopper. Journal of Advertising Research39, 52–58.

Edwards, S., Shackley, M., 1992. Measuring the effectiveness of environments:window display as an element of the marketing mix. International Journal ofAdvertising 11, 193–202.

Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, S.K., 2008. Theory in consumer-environment research:diagnosis and prognosis. In: Haugtvedt, C.P., Herr, P., Kardes, F.R. (Eds.),Handbook of Consumer Psychology. Psychology.

Fazio, R.H., 1986. How do attitudes guide behavior?. In: Sorrentino, R.M., ToryHiggins, E. (Eds.), The Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations forSocial Behavior. Guilford Press, New York.

Fazio, R.H., 1989. On the power and functionality of attitudes: the role of attitudeaccessibility. In: Pratkanis, A., Breckler, S., Greenwald, A. (Eds.), AttitudeStructure and Function. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Gwinner, K.P., Eaton, J., 1999. Building brand image through event sponsorship:the role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising 28, 47–57.

Hamilton, R.W., Thompson, D.V., 2007. Is there a substitute for direct experience?Comparing consumers’ preferences after direct and indirect product experi-ences. Journal of Consumer Research 34, 546–555.

Hartman, K.B., Spiro, R.L., 2005. Recapturing store image in customer-basedstore equity. A construct conceptualization. Journal of Business Research 58,1112–1120.

Hildebrandt, L., 1988. Store image and the prediction of performance in retailing.Journal of Business Research 17, 91–100.

Hoyer, W.D., Brown, S.P., 1990. Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common,repeat-purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research 17, 141–148.

Inman, J., McAlister, L., Hoyer, W.D., 1990. Promotion signal: proxy for a price cut?Journal of Consumer Research 17, 74–81.

Johnson, E.J., Russo, J.E., 1984. Product familiarity and learning new information.Journal of Consumer Research 11, 542–550.

Kotler, P., 2006. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation andControl, 12th ed Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Lafferty, B.A., Goldsmith, R.E., Hult, G.T.M., 2004. The impact of the alliance onthe partners: a look at cause-brand alliances. Psychology & Marketing 21,509–531.

Loken, B., Ward, J., 1990. Alternative approaches to understanding the determi-nants of typicality. Journal of Consumer Research 17, 111–126.

Malhotra, N.K., 1981. A scale to measure self-concepts, person concepts, andproduct concepts. Journal of Marketing Research 18, 456–464.

Martineau, P., 1958. The personality of the retail store. Harvard Business Review36, 47–55.

Mayer, M.L., 1989. 1949–1989: retail reflections. Journal of Retailing 65,396–401.

Mazursky, D., Jacoby, J., 1986. Exploring the development of store images. Journalof Retailing 62, 145–165.

McCracken, G., 1989. Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of theendorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research 16, 310–321.

Mehta, A., 2000. Advertising attitudes and advertising effectiveness. Journal ofAdvertising Research 3, 67–72.

Narasimhan, C., Neslin, S.A., Sen, S.K., 1996. Promotional elasticities and categorycharacteristics. Journal of Marketing 60 (2), 17–31.

Oh, J., Fiorito, S.S., Cho, H., Hofacker, C.F., 2008. Effects of design factors on storeimage and expectation of merchandise quality in web stores. Journal ofRetailing and Consumer Services 15, 237–249.

Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., Tannenbaum, P.H., 1957. The Measurement of Meaning.University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.

Pan, Y., Zinkhan, G.M., 2006. Determinants of retail patronage: a meta-analyticalperspective. Journal of Retailing 82, 229–243.

Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J., MacInnis, D.J., 1986. Strategic brand concept-imagemanagement. Journal of Marketing 50 (4), 135–145.

Park, C.W., Jun, S.Y., Shocker, A.D., 1996. Composite brand alliances: aninvestigation of extension and feedback effects. Journal of Marketing Research33, 453–466.

Pessemier, E.A., 1980. Store image and positioning. Journal of Retailing 56, 94–106.Priluck, R., Till, B.D., 2004. The role of contingency awareness, involvement and

need for cognition in attitude formation. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience 32, 329–344.

Rao, A.R., Ruekert, R.W., 1994. Brand alliances as signals of product quality. SloanManagement Review 36, 87–97.

Ratneshwar, S., Shocker, A.D., Stewart, D.W., 1987. Toward understanding theattraction effect: the implications of product stimulus meaningfulness andfamiliarity. Journal of Consumer Research 13, 520–530.

Razzouk, N.Y., Seitz, V., Kumar, V., 2002. The impact of perceiveddisplay completeness/incompleteness on shoppers’ in-store selection ofmerchandise: an empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services9, 31–35.

Roehm, M.L., Tybout, A.M., 2006. When will a brand scandal spill over, and howshould competitors respond? Journal of Marketing Research 43, 366–373.

Roggeveen, A.L., Bharadwaj, N., Hoyer, W.D., 2007. How call center locationimpacts expectations of service from reputable versus lesser known firms.Journal of Retailing 83, 403–410.

Samu, S., Krishnan, S., Smith, R.E., 1999. Using advertising alliances for newproduct introduction. Interactions between product complementarity andpromotional strategies. Journal of Marketing 63, 57–74.

Sen, S., Block, L.G., Chandran, S., 2002. Window displays and consumer shoppingdecisions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 9, 277–290.

Simonin, B.L., Ruth, J.A., 1998. Is a company known by the company it keeps?Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes.Journal of Marketing Research 35, 30–42.

Turley, L.W., Milliman, R.E., 2000. Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior:a review of the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research 49,193–211.

Tripp, C., Jensen, T.D., Carlson, L., 1994. The effects of multiple productendorsements by celebrities on consumers’ attitudes and intentions. Journalof Consumer Research 20, 535–547.

Trope, Y., Liberman, N., 2000. Temporal construal and time-dependent changes inpreference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (6), 876–889.

Trope, Y., Liberman, N., Wakslak, C., 2007. Construal levels and psychologicaldistance: effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior.Journal of Consumer Psychology 17 (2), 83–95.

Van Heerde, H.J., Leeflang, P.S.H., Wittnik, D.R., 2000. The estimation of pre- andpostpromotion dips with store-level scanner data. Journal of MarketingResearch 37, 383–395.

Van Heerde, H.J., Leeflang, P.S.H., Wittnik, D.R., 2001. Semiparametric analysis toestimate the deal effect curve. Journal of Marketing Research 38, 197–215.

Veloutsou, C., O’Donnell, C., 2005. Exploring the effectiveness of taxis as anadvertising medium. International Journal of Advertising 24, 217–239.

Vence, D.L., 2007. Point of purchase displays. Marketing News 41 (18), 8.Veryzer, R., Hutchinson, J.W., 1998. The influence of unity and prototypicality on

aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research 24,374–394.

Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R., Grohmann, B., 2003. Measuring the hedonic andutilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research 40,310–320.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

B. Cornelius et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 143–151 151

Votolato, N.L., Unnava, H.R., 2006. Spillover of negative information on brandalliances. Journal of Consumer Psychology 16 (2), 196–202.

Wilkinson, J.B., Manson, J.B., Paksoy, C.H., 1982. Assessing the impact of short-termsupermarket strategy variables. Journal of Marketing Research 19, 72–86.

Woll, S., Graesser, A., 1982. Memory discrimination for information typical andatypical of person schemata. Social Cognition 1 (42), 287–310.

Woodside, A.G., 1990. Outdoor advertising as experiments. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science 18, 229–237.