Family businesses can play a decisive role in the corporate landscape of a country (Miroshnychenko et al., 2020). In Germany, for example, they account for over 90 percent of all companies (Stiftung Familienunternehmen, 2007). The family as a source of identity has a significant influence on the strategy and management of the company (Chua et al., 1999) and is characterized by a consistent value system, tradition or long-term orientation (Baumgartner, 2009; Buß, 2006; Diez, 2006; Hirmer, 2015) compared to non-family businesses. This suggests that family businesses have a high marketing potential, but so far, little research has been done on the effectiveness of this potential (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Kashmiri and Mahajan, 2010; Reuber and Fischer, 2011; Rovelli et al., 2022). Content analyses of family business websites suggest that only about half communicate their status as a family business (Botero et al., 2013), with tradition being the most common aspect emphasized (Micelotta and Raynard, 2011). Surveys using correlative data show that family businesses are associated with a certain tradition, a manageable company size and trustworthiness (Binz and Smit, 2013; Botero et al., 2018) as well as attributes such as honest, dedicated, responsible or long-term oriented (Koiranen, 2002; Zellweger et al., 2012). Presumed effects, which, to our knowledge, have not yet been experimentally tested, are that family businesses, compared to non-family businesses, could be perceived as more authentic brands (Lude and Prügl, 2018; Zanon et al., 2019), that are trusted more (Beck and Prügl, 2018; Gallucci et al., 2015), that are more likely to be recommended (Sageder et al., 2015) and evoke a stronger purchase intention or even purchase decision among consumers (Beck and Kenning, 2015; Binz et al., 2013; Craig et al., 2008; Jaufenthaler et al., 2025) and lead to higher customer satisfaction (Schellong et al., 2019). In addition, a match between the name of the family that owns the company and the name of the company (Deephouse and Jaskiewicz, 2013; Kashmiri and Mahajan, 2010) should be beneficial for the company's performance and reputation.

An initial study comparing family businesses and non-family businesses in a kind of experimental setting suggests that family businesses may be rated higher than non-family businesses in terms of service, trust in employees, problem-solving orientation, and customer satisfaction. The results should be viewed with caution, however, because in this study, the manipulation was created using only two different text vignettes about a supposed new grocery store that will be locating in town next fall. The test subjects were not shown anything visual, and the type of text vignette seemed very unusual or artificial and therefore did not correspond to any externally valid scenario. In addition, all dependent variables were queried with regard to the store, not with regard to the brand of the family business (Orth and Green, 2009).

In view of the current state of research, it can be concluded that the cause-and-effect mechanisms in the processing of genuine advertising communication by family businesses vs. non-family businesses have not yet been investigated. Which aspects of communication make a difference in the perception of the brand? On what dimensions is the brand of a family business perceived differently from a comparable brand of a non-family-business, and what psychological processes subsequently influence the evaluation of this brand and the intention to purchase products from this brand? One possible central construct for explaining the positive effects of brands in family ownership is brand credibility, since this can provide consumers with an important point of orientation in the flood of offers (e.g., Eisend, 2003). The effect of brand credibility in connection with family businesses has not yet been investigated. Therefore, the aim of this experimental study was to make an important contribution to the expansion of the research field and to examine whether and why family businesses can claim an advantage in brand credibility compared to non-family businesses and what the resulting consequences are.

The manipulation check showed a successful experimental manipulation. The advertisement of the family business (M = 6.45, SD = 0.94) was recognized as “from a family business” more strongly than the advertisement of the non-family business (M = 3.91, SD = 1.93), t_(124.83) = 11.11, p < 0.001, d = 1.67.

As expected in the context of the first hypothesis, it was found that subjects rated the brand personality of family businesses (M = 5.46, SD = 0.85) as more sincere compared to non-family businesses (M = 4.52, SD = 1.17), t_(158.41) = 6.18, p < 0.001, d = 0.93. Similarly, the brand personality of brands from family businesses (M = 5.24, SD = 0.97) was judged to be more reliable than brands from non-family businesses (M = 4.78, SD = 1.09), t₍₁₇₈₎ = 2.96, p < 0.01, d = 0.44. Hypotheses 1a and 1b are therefore confirmed.

Further hypothesis testing was carried out by calculating four serial mediation analyses according to Hayes (2013) (see Figure 3 for details). As assumed in the second hypothesis, the brand was perceived as more credible the more sincere it was (b_S = 0.56, p < 0.001). Similarly, stronger brand credibility also resulted from a more reliable perception (b_R = 0.53, p < 0.001), so that hypotheses 2a and 2b are confirmed.

As expected, increased brand credibility—either initiated through sincerity or reliability—led to both a more positive attitude toward the brand (b_S = 0.60, p < 0.001; b_R = 0.64, p < 0.001) and an increased purchase intention (b_S = 0.39, p < 0.001; b_R = 0.39, p < 0.001), so that hypotheses 3a and 3b can also be confirmed.

When the mediators of sincerity, reliability, and brand credibility were included, significant indirect effects of brand origin on attitude toward the brand [b_S = 0.71, [0.42, 1.00]; b_R = 0.53, [0.29, 0.79]] and purchase intention [b_S = 0.39, [0.22, 0.59]; b_R = 0.32, [0.16, 0.49]] can be observed on a 95% confidence interval. Consequently, hypotheses 4a and 4b as well as 5a and 5b are also confirmed. The individual mediation models explained 58 percent (mediators: sincerity and brand credibility) and 56 percent (mediators: reliability and brand credibility) of the variance in attitudes toward the brand and 40 percent of the variance in purchase intention, respectively.

This study has responded to the call for research into the marketing of family businesses (Rovelli et al., 2022) by examining the credibility of family-owned brands for the first time. The key factors of sincerity and reliability emerged as important characteristics in the differentiation of family and non-family businesses. Incidentally, post-hoc analyses with the remaining brand personality dimensions (Aaker, 1997) could not determine any further differences between the two experimental groups, which underlines the prominent position of sincerity and reliability as important distinguishing features between brands from family-owned companies and brands from non-family-owned companies. Furthermore, they provide a good explanation as to why family-owned brands are perceived as more credible than brands from non-family-owned companies (cf. Jin and Sung, 2008, 2009; Kyung et al., 2010; Lude and Prügl, 2018). The consequences of this are, in particular, a more positive attitude toward the brand, but also an increased purchase intention (cf. Kemp and Bui, 2011; Laksamana, 2016; Li et al., 2011; Sheeraz et al., 2012, 2016; Wang and Yang, 2010, 2011). The stronger effect of credibility on attitude toward the brand, in contrast to purchase intention, can be explained by the fact that it takes less effort to adapt one's attitude toward a brand than it does to actually purchase the brand, which would require not only cognitive resources but also physical and material resources.

In order to counteract the current lack of experimental research in the field of family businesses, the study was conducted as an online experiment. In order to achieve the best possible internal validity, a randomized assignment was used, a fictitious brand was chosen to avoid attitudes toward the brand prior to contact with the stimulus, and both cheese preference and awareness of the advertising face were included as possible confounding factors. The fact that both experimental groups had a broad age spectrum and a balanced gender distribution was in turn beneficial to external validity.

It should be noted critically that the brand origin was manipulated using several differentiating characteristics of family and non-family businesses and is therefore to be regarded as a syndrome-like variable that bundles several variables (Trepte and Wirth, 2004). It is possible that differences in the perception of brand origin could have already resulted from a single differentiation characteristic. Perhaps simply mentioning the ownership structure (company owned by a family vs. company whose shares are listed on the stock exchange) would have been a sufficient distinguishing criterion, and the other descriptive characteristics could have been kept constant between the two stimuli. However, it could then have been the case that the remaining information, e.g., regionality, values and company size, would have been perceived as inappropriate or implausible for one of the two stimuli. Nevertheless, the subsequent manipulation check showed that the different brand origins were perceived by the subjects to the desired extent and that using fewer differentiation characteristics as a manipulation would probably have been too weak, so we feel vindicated in our approach.

Due to the still relatively young research field, there are numerous possibilities for further studies. Following on from this research, for example, replication with other industries or product groups would be interesting. For example, it is entirely plausible that not all types of products are suited to a brand with a family character—just think of an international and ambitious technology brand. Therefore, the perception of the fit between products and the type of company (= communicator) should be particularly decisive for credibility (cf., for effects of the fit between products and communicators: Breves et al., 2019; Janssen et al., 2021; Schramm and Kraft, 2024). An investigation into age- or culture-specific differences would also be interesting. We know, for example, that for many people, the “family” as the epitome of home becomes increasingly important as a symbol of belonging and security throughout their lives (Schramm et al., 2022), and that cultures can differ greatly in their affinity for individualism and thus for the primacy of the individual over collective forms of life, such as the family (Hofstede, 1993; Akolkar et al., 2024). For a replication of the study, the inclusion of further moderating factors such as individual awareness of tradition or different advertising formats could be considered.

The finding that brands can benefit from a family-oriented image in communication has proven to be particularly relevant in practice. This appears to be worthwhile not only for family businesses, but also for non-family businesses that consciously rely on an honest and reliable brand personality in their marketing strategy. However, attention should be paid to the fit with the product or brand, since this study examined dairy products as examples. Nevertheless, this study is an important advance in the expansion of the field of research and provides valuable insights for practitioners.