Value Amplification:
Developing Authentic Brands Through
an Exploration of Corporate Values.
by
Glenn Reid
E: glenn@grmmarketing.co.uk
W: www.grmmarketing.co.uk
T: @glenn_reid_
“It is in the heart that the values lie.”
Mark Twain (1906)

Introduction
For decades corporate brand specialists have been interested in understanding the secret to
developing an authentic brand that is able to make meaningful connections with not only customers,
but a wide variety of stakeholders (Maheshwari et al 2011, Murphy 1989, Tichy et al 1979). In
response, this paper argues that a brand’s values forms the foundation of an emotional connection
between brand and consumer. Moreover, it serves to fill the gap in literature that explores how
values may be anthropomorphised into a brand personality and amplified through 3 key areas of the
brand using the value amplifier model (Fig.1) resulting in the establishment, development and
broadcasting of corporate brand values to its desired audience.
The Value Amplifier Model
The model created for this paper, entitled the Value Amplifier Model (Fig.1), may be considered to
be the process of exploring and uncovering a brand’s values for the purpose of creating an
anthropomorphised personality that promotes authenticity. Anthropomorphism is the psychological
phenomenon that sees human domains assign human characteristics and traits to non-human
entities (Epley et al 2007, Duffy 2003, Boyer 1996). This newly identified personality is the link to
consumers perceiving the values of a brand to be authentic (Beverland 2005) when applied over long
periods of time. It has been suggested that it is this authenticity that ultimately forms the emotional
relationship between consumer and brand (Shen and Kim 2012, Ramperstad 2008).
A brand might use the value amplifier model to anthropomorphise itself; however the model
suggests the brand entity is required to then amplify itself through three factors that allow all
stakeholders to be reached. Stakeholders may be identified by brand managers who make use of a
stakeholder analysis (Merrilees et al 2005, Clulow 2005, Mendelow 1986). The three amplification
factors found within the value amplifier model each target a specific cluster of stakeholders (Fig.2)
and exist to allow each specific stakeholder to be exposed to the anthropomorphised brand
personality born of the brand values.
It is imperative that the brand values that are amplified by the model are consistent in a way that
creates authenticity (Gilmore and Pine 2001, Godin 2012). It has been suggested that consumers are
becoming increasingly savvy at researching brands and recognising brand personalities for multiple
brands simultaneously (Thaler and Tucker 2013). It is accepted that there is increasingly greater
competition than ever before between brands seeking to attract and retain the attention of the
consumer (Webb and Ray 1979, Teixeira 2014). Through consumers having greater choice it has
become essential for brands to win the consumers emotional favour. Moreover, increased digital
access by consumers has created an online environment that allows publics to share their opinions
on a brand and influence the opinions of others (Solis and Breakenridge 2009).
This new connected era presents brand specialists with potential PR dilemmas on a permanent basis
which only serves to cause tremors within the consumer’s perception of a brand. In recent years,
even Nestle, a company with a well-established brand that includes household brand names
suffered greatly at the hands of digital pitchforks. Greenpeace (2016), questioning the ethics of
Nestle’s sourcing of paper and palm oil, used social media to rally a global scale boycott of the Nestle

brand causing enormous intangible and tangible damage to the foodstuff producer’s brand image
and balance-sheet. Nestle’s reaction to the scandal garnered further criticism as it was accepted as
counter-productive (Poerkson and Detel 2014) and the company ultimately met the demands of the
infamous pressure group. This instance might suggest to a commentator on the scandal that Nestle’s
“150 years of good food, good life” (Nestle 2016) was not as authentic as the brand claimed. It has
been suggested by research that PR crises are unavoidable and risk of crisis increases parallel to the
increase of brand value (Fink 1986, Piazza 2010). Consequently, the value amplifier not only serves
to create an authentic brand designed to resonate with 21st
Century consumers, but also create an
emotional connection strong enough to survive turbulence through crisis.
Brand Values
It has been suggested that consumer groups are able to connect with brands at an emotional level
through the process of submerging themselves in the brand values expressed by a business or
organisation (Napoli 2014). The value amplifier model requires careful consideration toward the
values of a business or organisation to remain authentic during application of the
anthropomorphised brand personality. Brand values may be described as the intangible emotive
connections (Creative Emporium 2014) that are self-allocated by an organisation in order to
effectively convey the beliefs of a corporate brand or in some cases, its owners.
Brand specialists often strive to broadcast brand values into the market environment in an attempt
to create a connection with consumers. Since the 1980s, organisations have increasingly used
mission statements to convey brand values to its employees (Klemm et al 1991). The mission
statement of an organisation is a method to establish the desired values of a corporate brand. The
organisation must strive to downplay their commercial motives in a statement to authentically
communicate its values to this extended variety of stakeholders (Alexander 2009.) However, this
paper is of the belief that stating what the values of a brand are is not enough to ignite an authentic
connection between brand and consumer and the mission statement’s purpose it to formally
recognise what values the organisation holds dear. This may be considered the corner stone of the
value amplifier model. To successfully convey a brand’s values in an authentic way, the values must
begin to influence consumer perception (Rokeach 1979).
Since the early 1950s it has been accepted that brand image has remained an important aspect of
the process of influencing consumer perception (Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990). Brand image has been
referred to as a business’s “symbolic utility” in an effort to best describe the intangibility of the
phenomenon (Pohlman and Mudd, 1973). The question remains, how do brands transfer its self-
allocated values from its mission statement to the anthropomorphised form that is capable of
entering an authentic relationship? Acknowledgment of the intangibility of the concept has led to
commentators conducting a deeper analysis of the consumer’s internal process that might be seen
as the initial connection between the buyer and seller.
Brand Personality
It has been suggested that it is brand personality that allows for the baseline emotional connection
between a consumer and a business that maintains characteristics that resonate with them. Brand
personality has been defined as “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand” (Aaker,
1997). The idea of anthropomorphism has been prevalent throughout human history and has been

researched appropriately (Epley et al, 2007). Through the in-depth research on the topic to further
understand the phenomenon, it is of little surprise that practitioners of branding have adopted the
psychological concept and applied it to brand development. This paper recognises the importance of
maintaining authenticity when considering the personality traits of a brand. To achieve this, the
value amplifier requires a brand’s personality to be derived from its values.
Research conducted by Aaker (1997) has identified five dimensions attributed to brand personality.
These dimensions are; sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. It has
been suggested by human behaviour experts that personality traits often stem from an individual’s
values (Yik and Tang, 1996). Consequently, brand developers might also consider this tendency if
attempting to anthropomorphise a brand to create meaningful connections with consumers. This
paper argues that Aaker’s well regarded method of identifying brand personality traits may produce
the most authentic results when the brand personality is derived directly from the brand’s values.
Fig 3 shows an example of a complete table that pertains to the personified personality traits that
have been derived from the self-described brand values of Virgin Media (2016). These corporate
brand values are; Quality, authentic, innovative and engaging.
Consumers may attach personality traits to a brand that do not stem from the brand values and
remain an entirely unintended consequence. A brand’s promise runs the risk of appearing insincere
and unauthentic which affects the consumer’s perception of the anthropomorphised personality
(Wallstrom et al 2008). Although unintended personality traits might appear to be unavoidable, it
can be hypothesised that actions that remain consistent with the brand’s values and subsequent
personality will engrain deeper in the consumer’s memory. Consequently, the value amplifier model
requires the brand’s personality to constantly and consistently refer back to the brand’s values with
the intent to remain authentic over long periods of time.
A practitioner of branding would desire their publics to experience the faded affect bias. This
psychological phenomenon is when individuals recall consistent pleasant memories over
inconsistent negative memories. As time passes, the consistent feeling is prioritised moreover the
inconsistent feeling (Walker and Skowronski, 2009). Research suggests that the removal of
reinforced consistent demonstrations of dimensions of personality might lead to a consistency bias.
This form of memory bias is best described as incorrectly remembering past feelings and replacing
them with more recent feelings (Peeters 2006). When memory bias are considered within the
context of branding it is suggested by Keller’s Brand Equity Model (2013) that consumers will
remember the consistent personality traits as more authentic whilst forgiving temporary stray from
the brand’s personality more quickly. To achieve this state of cognitive bias, this paper stresses the
importance of referring to the brand’s values.
A major function of the value amplifier is the creation of an anthropomorphised brand entity that is
made authentic by evolving the personality traits from the values that remain at the heart of the
brand. The intended result is the creation of a meaningful and lasting relationship between brand
and consumer. Moreover, to achieve this, the model states that the newly formed value led brand
personality must be consistently conveyed through three key factors: Value Proposition, CSR and
Leadership. Each factor is of equal importance and would ultimately reflect the values of a brand.
Value Proposition

The value proposition of a brand was described by Lanning and Michaels (1988) as the value
delivered by an organisation to its stakeholders. The value proposition is created following careful
analyses of data obtained on segments and what each segment views as valuable. Since 1988, both
academics and marketing professionals have adopted the concept of value proposition and
expanded upon it. Research has shown that there are four elements to delivering high value
proposition which include pricing structure, functionality, emotion and symbolic offering (Rintamaki
et al 2007). This paper attempts to connect the brand values to all four elements of value
proposition.
When pricing and functionality is considered consumers may notice the connection between a
brand’s personality and the cost of their product or service. Specifically, the sophistication
dimension of brand personality might be reflected in the pricing structure. Fig 4 is a comparison of
Aaker’s (1997) “sophistication” dimension applied to Apple and Ryan Air. Apple is recognised
(Fitzsimons et al 2008) as an innovative high end brand with pricing to reflect this whilst Ryan Air is a
low end brand that boasts its cheap price point and “no frills” (Edwards 2015). The comparison
shows the interesting interlinks between the personality dimension and the consumer targeted by
each brand’s appropriate offering. It is apparent that both brand’s anthropomorphised personalities
represent the customer and what the customer perceives as valuable. Moreover, this paper refers
back to customer’s perception of authenticity and how the phenomenon effects the emotional
connection between brand and consumer.
Value proposition is seen to be co-created (Frow and Payne 2011) by a brand and its various
stakeholders. This is especially true when creating the intangible emotional and symbolic offering
through consistent experiences of a brand’s personality being implemented over periods of time
(Ponsonby-McCabe and Brown 2010). Consequently, this report is of the belief that the emotion and
symbolic offering of a brand’s value proposition is communicated heavily through stakeholder’s
consistent exposure to the brand’s value created personality dimensions.
Effective Leadership
Leadership comes in various forms within the organisational structure of a business (Nohria N and
Eccles R 1992, Morgan 2015, Lister 2016). This paper argues that the brand values must be applied
by all elements of leadership within an organisation regardless of seniority (Henkel et al 2007). To
best apply the value amplifier model the most senior leaders in an organisation should effectively
convey the anthropomorphised brand entity to their subordinate managers who will in turn
communicate the same values down the chain (Fig.5) until the customer is reached (Morhart et al
2009, King and Grace 2010).
Although leadership is prioritised equally against CSR and value proposition in the value amplifier
model, more vigilance might be considered toward senior leadership for a number of reasons: It
remains the responsibly of senior leaders to establish the values that filter into the value amplifier
model. This paper is carried on the recurring theme that an anthropomorphic brand is the key to
authenticity; therefore the brand’s most senior leader might be compared to the parental figure to
the personified brand. Studies show that a persons values are inherited by their parents (Kagen
1999, Kasser et al 2002, Longest et al 2013) and in a branding context it becomes clear that the
leaders representation of values are vital to the brand’s values remaining consistent. Moreover, it is
these senior figures that must adapt the brand’s values to remain both current and compatible with

the strategic goals of the business. In some cases it may be noted that it is the brand’s CEO or
founder that acts as a brand mascot that embodies the brand’s values, and thus, personality. A
fitting example of this may be found in the late Steve Jobs and his values orientated leadership of
Apple (Nova Media 2015).
CSR Strategy
It is widely believed that corporate social responsibility (CSR) is beneficial for the society that it
pertains to (Steurer et al 2005, McWilliams and Siegel 2001, Pedersen 2009). In recent years it has
been theorised (Lacey 2014, Paswan et al 2005, Rodrigo and Arenas 2008) that CSR has transformed
from a “motivational factor” to a “hygiene factor” (Herzberg 1974) in the mind of various
stakeholders (Amin-Chaudry 2016, Amaeshi et al 2013). This evolution in CSR leads this paper to
conclude that the concept must be considered when attempting to develop a brand worthy of
emotional connection. In these contemporary times where CSR is expected, the concept has been
considered an amplifier of the brand (McElhaney 2009). CSR has an important role in authentically
communicating brand values within the value amplifier model (Beckman et al 2009). The transparent
nature of CSR (McWilliams et al 2006) allows for the appearance of authenticity which when applied
to the value amplifier model leads to an emotional connection with consumers. Moreover, it has
been claimed that 88% of customers are more likely to purchase a brand that implements a CSR
policy (Simply CSR 2016). Luan and Ailawadi (2009) suggest that customers remain more loyal to a
brand when its CSR activities directly affect their experience with the company. There remains a
clear overlap in the value amplifier model through the experiential element of proposition value and
the customer’s tendency to resonate with the CSR experience.
Conclusion
In the interest of developing authenticity that allows for emotional and memorable connection with
consumers, this paper emphasises the need to not only create a profound anthropomorphic brand
entity but ensure that it exercises its brand values across multiple elements of the brand. This paper
finds that the value amplifier model might be considered a reference point by corporate brand
specialists to formalise such a brand birth experience. Moreover, the practitioner of brand
development may reflect on the model to correctly determine if the brand’s actions are consistent
with the values and personality matrix that form what, or equally who, the brand is.

References
Aaker J (1997), Dimensions of Brand Personality, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 34, Iss 3, Pg
347-356.
Alexander N (2009), Brand authentication: creating and maintaining brand auras, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol 43, Iss: 3/4, pg 551-562.
Amaeshi K, Nnodim P and Onyeka O (2013), Corporate Social Responsibility, Entrepreneurship and
Innovation, 1st Edition, New York, Routledge.
Amin-Chaudhry A (2016), Corporate social responsibility: From a mere concept to an expected
business practice, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol 12, Iss 1, Pg 190-207.
Apple (2016), Inclusion and Diversity, http://www.apple.com/diversity/ accessed on 20/04/16
Beckman T, Colwell A and Cunningham P (2009), The Emergence of Corporate Social Responsibility in
Chile: The Importance of Authenticity and Social Networks, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 86, Iss 2,
Pg 191-206.
Beverland M (2005), Brand management and the challenge of authenticity, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, Vol 14, Iss 7, Pg 460-461.
Boyer P (1996), What Makes Anthropomorphism Natural: Intuitive Ontology and Cultural
Representations, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol 2, Iss 1, Pg 83-97.
Clulow V (2005), Future dilemmas for marketers: Can stakeholder analysis add value?, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol 39, Iss 9, Pg 978-997.
Creative Emporium (2014), Branding Series (Part 1): Creating Brand Values,
http://www.creativeemporium.co.uk/branding-series-part-1-creating-brand-values/ accessed on
11/04/2016.
Dobni D and Zinkhan G (1990), In Search of Brand Image: A Foundation Analysis, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol 17, Pg 110-119.
Duffy B (2003), Anthropomorphism and the social robot, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Vol 42,
Iss 3-4, Pg 177-190.
Edwards N (2015), Brand Value, The Marketing Eye,
http://www.themarketingeye.com/blog/branding/post/brand-value.html, accessed on 20/04/16
Epley N, Waytz N and Cacioppo J (2007), On seeing human: A three-factor theory of
anthropomorphism, Psychological Review, Vol 114, Iss 4, Pg 864-886.
Fink S (1986), Crisis Management: Planning for the Inevitable, 1st Edition, American Management
Association, New York.

Fitzsimmons G, Chartrand T and Fitzsimons GJ (2008), Automatic effects of brand exposure on
motivated behavior: How Apple makes you “Think Different”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 35,
Iss 1, Pg 21-35.
Frow P and Payne A (2011), A stakeholder perspective of the value proposition concept, Journal of
European Marketing, Vol 45, Iss 1, Pg 223-240.
Gilmore J and Pine B (2001), Authenticity: Contending with the new customer sensibility, Boston,
Harvard Business School Publishing.
Godin S (2012), All Marketers Are Liars: The Underground Classic That Explains How Marketing Really
Works - And Why Authenticity Is the Best Marketing of All, New York, Penguin Group.
Green Peace (2016), Give the orang-tang a break,
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/po/index.html, accessed on 25/04/2016.
Henkel S, Tomczak T, Heitmann M and Herrmann A (2007), Managing brand consistent employee
behaviour: relevance and managerial control of behavioural branding, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol 16, Iss 5, Pg 310-320.
Herzberg F (1974), Motivation-hygiene profiles, Organizational Dynamics, Vol.3, Iss 2, Pg 18-29.
Kagen J (1999), The Role of Parents in Children's Psychological Development, American Academy of
Pediatrics, Vol 104, Iss 1.
Kasser T, Koestner R and Lekes N (2002), Early Family Experiences and Adult Values: A 26-Year,
Prospective Longitudinal Study, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol 28, Iss 6, Pg 826-835.
Keller K (2013), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 4th
Edition, New York, NY: Prentice‐Hall
King C and Grace D (2010), Building and measuring employee‐based brand equity, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol 44, Iss 7, Pg 938-971.
Klemm M, Sanderson S and Luffman G (1991), Mission statements: Selling corporate values to
employees, Long Range Planning, Vol 24, Iss 3, Pg 73-78.
Lacey R, (2014), Is corporate social responsibility a motivator or hygiene factor? Insights into its
bivalent nature, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol 43, Iss 3, Pg 315-332.
Lanning M and Michaels E (1988), A business is a value delivery system, McKinsey Staff Paper, Iss 41.
Lister (2016), The Difference Between Top Down and Bottom Up Strategic Management, Small
Business, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-top-down-bottom-up-strategic-
management-25957.html, accessed 22/04/2016
Longest K, Hitlin S and Vaisey (2013), Position and Disposition: The Contextual Development of
Human Values, Social Forces, Vol 91, Iss 4, Pg 1499-1528.

Maheshwari V, Vandewalle I and Bamber D (2011), Place branding’s role in sustainable
development, Journal of Place Management and Development, Vol 4, Iss 2, Pg 198-213.
McElhaney K (2009), A strategic approach to corporate social responsibility, Leader to Leader, Vol
2009, Iss 52, Pg 30-36.
McWilliams A and Siegel D (2001), Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm
Perspective, The Academy of Management Review, Vol 26, Iss 1, Pg 117.
McWilliams A, Siegel D and Wright P (2006), Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol 43, Iss 1, Pg 1-18.
Mendelow A (1986) Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information Systems,
Cambridge.
Merrilees B, Getz D and O’Brien D (2005), Marketing stakeholder analysis: Branding the Brisbane
Goodwill Games", European Journal of Marketing, Vol 39, Iss 9-10, Pg 1060-1077.
Morgan J (2015), The 5 types of organizational structures: Part 1-5, Forbes,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2015/07/06/the-5-types-of-organizational-structures-
part-1-the-hierarchy/#38e9c9a23853, accessed on 22/04/2016.
Morhart F, Herzog W and Tomczat T (2009), Brand-Specific Leadership: Turning Employees into
Brand Champions, Journal of Marketing, Vol 73, Iss 5, Pg 122-142.
Murphy J (1989), Brand Valuation: Establishing a True and Fair View, Hutchinson Business Books,
New York.
Napoli J (2014), Measuring consumer-based brand authenticity, The Journal of Business Research,
Vol 67, Iss 6, Pg 1090-1098.
Nestle (2016), Nestle UK Homepage, http://www.nestle.co.uk/, accessed on 19/04/2016
Nohria N and Eccles R (1992), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and
Action, Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
Nova Media (2015), Steve Jobs – Brand Values, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBaHobFUdgE,
accessed on 23/04/2016.
Paswan A, Pelton L and True S (2005), Perceived managerial sincerity, feedback‐seeking orientation
and motivation among front‐line employees of a service organization, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol 19, Iss 1, Pg 3-12.
Peeters G (2006), The positive-negative asymmetry: On cognitive consistency and positivity bia,
European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol 1, Iss 4, Pg 455-474.
Pedersen E (2009), Modelling CSR: How managers understand the responsibilities of business
towards society, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 91, Iss 2, Pg 155-166.

Piazza R (2010), Growth and Crisis: Unavoidable Connection?, International Monetary Fund, working
paper, 10-267
Poerkson B and Detel H (2014), The Unleashed Scandal: The End of Control in the Digital Age, 1st
Edition, Exeter, Imprint Academic.
Pohlman A and Mudd S (1973), Market Image as a Function of Group and Product Type: A
Quantitative Approach, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 57, Iss 2, Pg 167-71.
Ponsonby-McCabe S and Brown S (2010), How value is culturally co-constructed over time: An
interpretive framework for mythical-level analysis, The Marketing Review, Vol 10, Iss 4, Pg 305-318.
Ramperstad H (2008), A new blueprint for powerful and authentic personal branding, Performance
Improvement, Vol 47, Iss 6, Pg 34-37.
Rokeach M (1979), Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal, 1st Edition, London, Collier
MacMillan Publishers.
Rodrigo P and Arena D (2008), Do Employees Care About CSR Programs? A Typology of Employees
According to their Attitudes, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 83, Iss 2, Pg 265-283.
Rintamaki T, Kuusela H, and Mitronen L (2007), Identifying competitive customer value propositions
in retailing, Managing Service Quality, Vol 17, Iss 6, pg 621‐34.
RyanAir (2016), Our Guarantee, http://corporate.ryanair.com/about-us/our-guarantee/, accessed on
20/04/16.
Shen H and Kim J (2012), The Authentic Enterprise: Another Buzz Word, or a True Driver of Quality
Relationships?, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol 24, Iss 4, Pg 371-389.
Simply CSR (2016), The Benefits of Corporate Social Responsibility, http://www.simplycsr.co.uk/the-
benefits-of-csr.html, accessed on 23/04/2016.
Solis B and Breakenridge D (2009), Putting the Public Back in Public Relations: How social media is
reinventing the ageing business of PR, 1st Edition, New York, Pearson Education.
Steurer R, Langer M, Konrad and Martinuzzi A (2005), Corporations, Stakeholders and Sustainable
Development: A Theoretical exploration of business-society relations, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol
61, Iss 3, Pg 263-281.
Teixeira T (2014), The Rising Cost of Consumer Attention: Why You Should Care, and What You Can
Do about It, Harvard Business School, working paper, 14-055.
Tichy M, Tushman L and Fombrun C. (1979), Social Network Analysis for Organizations, Academy of
Management Review, Vol 4, Iss 4, Pg 507–519.
Thaler R and Tucker W (2013), Smarter information smarter consumers, Harvard Business Review,
https://hbr.org/2013/01/smarter-information-smarter-consumers, accessed on 21/04/2016/
Twain M (1906), Eve’s Diary, Manhattan, Harper & Brothers.

Virgin Media (2016), Our Values, http://careers.virginmedia.com/about-us/our-values/, accessed on
10/04/2016.
Walker R and Skowronski J (2009), The fading affect bias: But what the hell is it for?, Applied
Cognitive Psychology, Vol 23, Iss 8, Pg 1122-1136.
Wallstrom A, Karlsson T and Salehi-sangari E (2008), Building a corporate brand: the internal brand
building process in Swedish services firms, Brand Management, Vol 16, Iss 2, Pg 40-50.
Webb P and Ray M (1979), Effects of TV clutter, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol 19, Iss 3, Pg 7-
12.
Yik and Tang (1996), Linking personality and values: The importance of a culturally relevant
personality scale, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol 21, Iss 5, Pg 767-774.

Appendix.
Fig. 1: Value Amplifier Model
Fig. 2: 3 Amplification Factors and Corresponding Stakeholders
Leadership CSR Strategy Value Proposition
Employees (Senior & Junior) Pressure Groups/Charities Customers
Government Communities Consumers
Partners (eg. suppliers) Charities
Competitors International Government (eg. EU)
Banks & Shareholders Local Government
Fig. 3: Five Dimensions of Personality (Aaker 1997.)
(Virgin Media 2016.)
Sincerity Excitement Competence Sophistication Ruggedness
Family Daring Reliable Charming Maverick
Honest Spirited Hardworking Attractive Edgy
Original Imagination Leader Extravagant Rebel
Cheerful Up to date Confident
Fig. 4: Sophistication Comparison of Apple and Ryan Air
(Apple 2016, RyanAir 2016)
Apple (high end brand) Ryan Air (low end brand)
Sophistication Sophistication
Chic & Stylish Unassuming
Futuristic Serves purpose (no frills)
Vibrant Basic aesthetic design

Fig. 5: Leadership Top-to-Customer Chain
CEO
Senior Managers
Junior Managers
Non-Managerial Employees
Customer