How can the management of fitness centres be improved through corporate image and brand image?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research hypotheses.

Source: elaborated by authors from the statistical data.

Table 1. Items and descriptive values.

Factor	Item	M	SD
Corporate Image	Brand name is innovative and pioneering.	3.23	1.160
	This brand is successful and self-confident	3.57	1.077
	This brand is persuasive and shrewd	3.28	1.151
	Brand Name does business in an ethical way	3.47	1.132
	This brand is open and responsive to consumers	3.52	1.188
Credibility	I think brand name delivers what it promises	3.64	1.151
	The claims about this brand are believable	3.69	1.113
	This brand has a name you can trust	3.75	1.089
Trust	I trust this brand	3.40	1.235
	I rely on this brand	3.46	1.174
	Brand name is an honest brand	3.46	1.221
Recognition	Some characteristics of brand name come to my mind quickly	3.52	1.135
	I can recognize Brand Name quickly among other competing brands	3.77	1.085
	I am familiar with Brand Name	3.80	1.036
Attitudes	I like Brand Name	3.86	1.029
	Brand name is a very good brand	3.71	1.070
	I have a favourable disposition toward Brand Name	3.81	1.036
	My attitude toward this brand is very positive	3.74	1.095
Future Intentions	I would re-register at my sport centre	3.53	1.280
	Say positive things about Brand Name to other people	3.52	1.268
	Recommend Brand Name to someone who seeks your advice	3.54	1.277
	I will keep on participating in the services of this sport centre	3.63	1.199

Source: elaborated by authors from the statistical data.

Table 2. Discriminant validity indicators.

	CI (F1)	CR (F2)	TR (F3)	RG (F4)	AT (F5)	FI (F6)
CI (F1)	.86
CR (F2)	.87 (.84-.89)	.94
TR (F3)	.89 (.87-.91)	.88 (.85-.90)	.94
RG (F4)	.78 (.73-.82)	.74 (.69-.79)	.74 (.69-.79)	.80
AT (F5)	.85 (.82-.88)	.89 (.87-.91)	.85 (.82-.88)	.78 (.73-.82)	.94
FI (F6)	.71 (.65-.76)	.78 (.73-.82)	.75 (.70-.79)	.64 (.57-.70)	.75 (.70-.79)	.94

Note: The values of the square root of AVE are on the diagonal. Interval correlations in parentheses.

Source: elaborated by authors from the statistical data.

Table 3. Scale reliability.

Construct	N	β	Rjx	α	CR	AVE	Construct	N	β	Rjx	α	CR	AVE
Corporate Image	1	.84	.82	.94	.94	.74	Recognition	12	.90	.70	.85	.85	.65
	2	.91	.89					13	.82	.81
	3	.80	.79					14	.69	.67
	4	.87	.82				Attitudes	15	.92	.91	.97	.97	.89
	5	.89	.83					16	.95	.93
Credibility	6	.92	.90	.96	.96	.88		17	.95	.93
	7	.93	.92					18	.95	.93
	8	.96	.91				Future Intentions	19	.91	.89	.97	.97	.88
Trust	9	.93	.90	.96	.96	.88		20	.96	.93
	10	.94	.92					21	.97	.95
	11	.95	.91					22	.92	.91

Note: β = standardized beta coefficient; α = Cronbach's Alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = mean variance extracted; Rjx = item-scale correlation.

Figure 2. Causal relationships model.

Table 4. Summary of the hypotheses.

	Hypotheses		β	T Value	Significance
H1	Corporate-Credibility		.93	24.48*	Supported
H2	Corporate-Trust		.61	6.92*	Supported
H3	Credibility-Trust		.35	3.90*	Supported
H4	Corporate-Recognition		.88	21.98*	Supported
H5	Credibility-Attitudes		.66	7.07*	Supported
H6	Trust-Attitudes		.05	.536	Non-Supported
H7	Recognition-Attitudes		.29	4.23*	Supported
H8	Attitudes-Future Intentions		.78	19.39*	Supported

Note: *= Significant value of T-Statistic.