2010:006 MASTER'S THESIS Application of Brand Personality ...1026421/FULLTEXT01.pdf · Application...

2010:006

M A S T E R ' S T H E S I S

Application of Brand PersonalityScale In Automobile Industry

- the Study of SAMAND’S Brand Personality Dimensions

Somayeh Ranjbar

Luleå University of Technology

Master Thesis, Continuation Courses Marketing and e-commerce

Department of Business Administration and Social SciencesDivision of Industrial marketing and e-commerce

2010:006 - ISSN: 1653-0187 - ISRN: LTU-PB-EX--10/006--SE

1

Acknowledgement This thesis has been written during a two years period at Tarbiat Modares

University and Lulea University of Technology. These two years were full of challenges and new experiences and I’ve found a deeper understanding of Branding and Brand Management.

I would like to direct my special thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Mohammad Aghdasi. He was the person who showed me the research world and guided me through the challenges of this research. I also would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Amir Albadvi at Tarbiat Modares University for his kind help and support. My gratitudes also go to Dr Ahmad Roosta and Dr Shahriar Shafiee because of their participation in my interviews to share valuable information in this research area. And finally I should also thank my parents that without their support I could do nothing.

The knowledge I gained from this research helped me a lot in my business career and also my future academic life. I hope the people who read it can benefit too, and researchers and students get interested in the area so they continue the way.

2

Abstract This research has empirically measured the SAMAND’s (IranKhodro’s

manufactured car brand) brand personality in Iran, by using the five-dimension Brand Personality Scale developed by Aaker (1997) as a framework. So according to this framework which was originally conducted in 42 items (42 personality attributes)clustered in five personality dimensions and had been tested in different countries and industries, we prepared a questionnaire translated in Persian, and used the back translation method. With deep interviews among 12 Iranian experts about the 42 items scale and also a pilot study the original questionnaire changed to a 38 items scale and the survey had been run within five big branches of IranKhodro randomly chosen in the five parts of the Tehran.

The reliability and validity test of the questionnaire had been resulted in omitting one more item from the list. Then the student T-Test showed respondent’s ideas about the personality of SAMAND and they believed SAMANAD’s Personality Dimensions are: Sincerity, Competence and Ruggedness. They were not agreeing about the ‘Sophistication’ dimension that showed SAMAND is not a sophisticated brand. And the personality dimension “excitement” was not clear for this brand.

The confirmatory factor analysis of the measurement model and the structural model provided evidence that the ‘ruggedness’ dimension proposed by Aaker(1997) was not reliable, nor was it valid. And the relationship with the main construct ‘Brand Personality’ was weak. So to achieve good measurement framework, the other four dimensions had to be refined up to the point that there was no problem with combining them to form one higher construct namely ‘Brand Personality’. Then the five dimension model describing 38 attributes changed to a four dimension scale consisted of 24 items.

Finally there were hypothesis about demographic specifications of respondent’s having effect on their opinion about SAMAND’s Personality. And the results showed that different respondents have significant differences in their ideas about five personality dimensions of SAMAND.

3

Table of contents

Chapter 1 ........................................................................................................................... 9 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 9

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Problem Discussion ......................................................................................... 10 1.3 Research limitations ........................................................................................ 11 1.4 Research Problem and Research Questions .............................................. 12

Chapter 2 ......................................................................................................................... 13 Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 13 2 Literature Review ................................................................................................... 13

2.1 Brand ................................................................................................................. 14 2.1.1 Brand Importance ..................................................................................... 17 2.1.2 Brand Components .................................................................................. 18 2.1.3 Position of brand personality in the brand hierarchy: ......................... 19

2.2 Brand personality ............................................................................................. 23 2.2.1 Brand personality value ........................................................................... 25 2.2.2 Roots of Brand Personality Argue ......................................................... 26

2.2.2.1 Anthropomorphism Theory .............................................................. 26 2.2.2.2 Self-concept Theory ......................................................................... 27 2.2.2.3 Personality Theory ............................................................................ 28 2.2.2.4 Big Five Model ................................................................................... 28

2.2.3 Difference between brand personality and brand image ................... 30 2.2.4 Brand personality versus human personality ....................................... 31 2.2.5 Critics about brand personality............................................................... 33

2.3 Application of brand personality .................................................................... 33 2.3.1 Brand Personality Scale (BPS) .............................................................. 34 2.3.2 Application of BPS ................................................................................... 36

2.3.2.1 Application of BPS in culture trait: .................................................. 36 2.3.2.2 Application of BPS in products trait:............................................... 38

2.3.3 Critics about BPS ..................................................................................... 43 2.4 Brand Personality Building ............................................................................. 44

2.4.1 Advertising as the dominant tool ............................................................ 46 Chapter 3 ......................................................................................................................... 49 3 Research Methodology ......................................................................................... 49

3.1 Research purpose ........................................................................................... 50 3.2 Research Approach ......................................................................................... 51 3.3 Research Strategy ........................................................................................... 51 3.4 Research process ............................................................................................ 53 3.5 Research design .............................................................................................. 54

3.5.1 Research variables .................................................................................. 54 3.5.2 Methods and resources of data collection ............................................ 55

3.6 Statistical population and sample ................................................................. 55 3.7 Sampling methods ........................................................................................... 56

4

3.8 Measurement tool ............................................................................................ 56 3.8.1 Content validity of the measurement tool ............................................. 59 3.8.2 Factor validity of the measurement tool ................................................ 60 3.8.3 Results of factor analysis ........................................................................ 60

3.9 Statistical method utilized in the research ................................................... 64 3.9.1 Student t-test ............................................................................................. 64 3.9.2 Structural equations model ..................................................................... 64 3.9.3 One-way analysis of variance ................................................................ 65

Chapter 4 ......................................................................................................................... 66 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 66 4 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 66

4.1 Descriptive statistics ........................................................................................ 66 4.1.1 Description of respondent’s age: ........................................................... 67 4.1.2 Description of respondent’s sex: ............................................................ 67 4.1.3 Description of respondent’s career and jobs: ...................................... 68 4.1.4 Description of respondent’s educational degree: ................................ 69 4.1.5 Description of respondent’s income: ..................................................... 69 4.1.6 Description of respondent’s current car: ............................................... 70 4.1.7 Description of respondent’s SAMAND type ......................................... 71

4.2 Study of SAMAND’s current brand personality among customers of IRANKHODRO CO .................................................................................................... 72

4.2.1 One Sample T-Test .................................................................................. 72 4.2.1.1 One Sample T-Test for the first brand personality “SINCERITY” 72

4.2.1.2 One Sample T-Test for the second brand personality “EXCITEMENT” ................................................................................................... 75 4.2.1.3 One Sample T-Test for the third brand personality “COMPETENCE” ................................................................................................. 78 4.2.1.4 One Sample T-Test for the fourth brand personality “sophistication” ..................................................................................................... 81 4.2.1.5 One Sample T-Test for the fifth brand personality “RUGGEDNESS” ................................................................................................ 82

4.3 Evaluation of measurement models ................................................................... 84 4.3.1 CFA for 5 personality dimensions model ................................................... 84

4.4 Study secondary hypothesis of the research ............................................ 102 4.4.1 Differences based on respondent’s age ............................................. 105 4.4.2 Differences based on respondent’s sex ............................................. 108 4.4.3 Differences based on respondent’s career: ....................................... 109 4.4.4 Differences based on respondent’s educational degree: ................ 110 4.4.5 Differences based on respondent’s income: ...................................... 111 4.4.6 Differences based on having experience of owning SAMAND: ...... 113

Chapter 5 ....................................................................................................................... 115 5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 115

5.1 Overall conclusion ......................................................................................... 115

5

5.2 Managerial implications ................................................................................ 117 5.3 Future research .............................................................................................. 118

6 References ............................................................................................................... 120

6

List of tables

Table 2.1.1.1 Antecedents and Consequences to the brand construct .............................. 15 Table 2.2.2.1 Models of the brand .................................................................................... 18 Table 2.2.3.1 Categories of Experts Definition of brand .................................................. 20 Table 2.3.2.1 Examples of Adjectives, Q-Sort Items, and Questionnaire Scales Defining the Five Factors ................................................................................................................. 29 Table 2.4.1.1 Aaker’s brand personality dimensions with related items .......................... 35 Table 2.4.2.1 Summary of related researches ................................................................... 42 Table 2.5.1.1 Relevant situations for Different research strategies .................................. 53 Table 3.6.2.1 Persian translation of the questionnaire ...................................................... 57 Table 3.9.4.1 KMO and Bartlett's Test of sincerity .......................................................... 60 Table 3.9.4.2 Questions communality of sincerity ........................................................... 61 Table 3.9.4.3 KMO and Bartlett's Test for excitement ..................................................... 61 Table 3.9.4.4 Questions communality of excitement ...................................................... 62 Table 3.9.4.5 KMO and Bartlett's Test ............................................................................. 62 Table 3.9.4.6 Questions communality of competence ...................................................... 63 Table 3.9.4.7 KMO and Bartlett's Test ............................................................................. 63 Table 3.9.4.8 Questions communality of sophistication ................................................... 64 Table 3.9.4.9 KMO and Bartlett's Test ............................................................................. 64 Table 4.3.1.1 One Sample t-test for Sincerity ................................................................... 75 Table 4.3.1.2 One Sample T-Test for excitement dimension ........................................... 78 Table 4.3.1.3 One Sample T-Test for competence dimension .......................................... 80 Table 4.3.1.4 One Sample T-Test for sophistication dimension ....................................... 82 Table 4.3.1.5 One Sample T-Test for ruggedness dimension ........................................... 84 Table 4.4.1.1 CMIN of the original model ....................................................................... 89 Table 4.4.1.2 RMR, GFI ................................................................................................... 89 Table 4.4.1.3 Squared Multiple Correlations .................................................................... 89 Table 4.4.1.4 Squared Multiple Correlations for revised model .................................... 100 Table 4.4.1.5 Model fit summary for refined model ...................................................... 101 Table 4.4.1.6 RMR, GFI ................................................................................................. 101 Table 4.5.1.1 ANOVA test for age, sincerity dimension ................................................ 107 Table 4.5.1.2 ANOVA test for age, excitement dimension ............................................ 107 Table 4.5.1.3 ANOVA test for age, competence dimension .......................................... 107 Table 4.5.1.4 ANOVA test for age, sophistication dimension ....................................... 107 Table 4.5.1.5 ANOVA test of age, ruggedness dimension ............................................. 107 Table 4.5.2.1 ANOVA test for sex, sincerity dimension ................................................ 108 Table 4.5.2.2 ANOVA test for sex, excitement dimension ............................................ 108 Table 4.5.2.3 ANOVA test for sex, competence dimension ........................................... 108

7

Table 4.5.2.4 ANOVA test for sex, sophistication dimension ........................................ 108 Table 4.5.2.5 ANOVA test for sex, ruggedness dimension ............................................ 109 Table 4.5.3.1 ANOVA test for career, sincerity dimension ............................................ 109 Table 4.5.3.2 ANOVA test for career, excitement dimension ........................................ 109 Table 4.5.3.3 ANOVA test for career, competence dimension ...................................... 109 Table 4.5.3.4 ANOVA test for career, sophistication dimension ................................... 110 Table 4.5.3.5 ANOVA test for career, ruggedness dimension ....................................... 110 Table 4.5.4.1 ANOVA test for agree, sincerity dimension ............................................. 110 Table 4.5.4.2 ANOVA test for degree, excitement dimension ....................................... 110 Table 4.5.4.3 ANOVA test for degree, competence dimension ..................................... 111 Table 4.5.4.4 ANOVA test for degree, sophistication dimension .................................. 111 Table 4.5.4.5 ANOVA test for degree, ruggedness dimension ...................................... 111 Table 4.5.5.1 ANOVA test for income, sincerity dimension .......................................... 111 Table 4.5.5.2 ANOVA test for income, excitement dimension ...................................... 112 Table 4.5.5.3 ANOVA test for income, competence dimension .................................... 112 Table 4.5.5.4 ANOVA test for income, sophistication dimension ................................. 112 Table 4.5.5.5 ANOVA test for income, ruggedness dimension ..................................... 112 Table 4.5.6.1 ANOVA test for owners, sincerity dimension .......................................... 113 Table 4.5.6.2 ANOVA test for owners, excitement dimension ...................................... 113 Table 4.5.6.3 ANOVA test for owners, competence dimension .................................... 113 Table 4.5.6.4 ANOVA test for owners, sophistication dimension ................................. 113 Table 4.5.6.5 ANOVA test for owners, ruggedness dimension ...................................... 114 Table 4.5.6.1 personality attributes of SAMAND .......................................................... 116

8

List of Figures

Figure 2.2.1.1 Brand as an Interface .............................................................................................. 16 Figure 2.2.3.1 The Components of Brand Identity ........................................................................ 22 Figure 2.4.1.1 Aaker's brand personality dimensions .................................................................... 35 Figure 2.4.2.1 Five American brand personality dimensions ........................................................ 37 Figure 2.4.2.2 Five Japanese brand personality dimensions ......................................................... 37 Figure 2.4.2.3 Five Japanese brand personality dimensions ......................................................... 38 Figure 2.4.2.4 Brand personality dimensions in Russia ................................................................ 38 Figure 2.4.2.5 Dimensions of brand personality in destination personality .................................. 39 Figure 2.4.2.6 Application of BPS in two prestigious brands in automobile industry .................. 40 Figure 2.4.2.7 Application of BPS in chile (Automobile Industry) ............................................... 41 Figure 4.2.1.1 Respondent’s age ................................................................................................... 67 Figure 4.2.2.1 Respondent’s sex .................................................................................................... 68 Figure 4.2.3.1 Respondent’s career ............................................................................................... 68 Figure 4.2.4.1 Respondent’s degree .............................................................................................. 69 Figure 4.2.5.1 Respondent's income .............................................................................................. 70 Figure 4.2.6.1 Respondent’s car name .......................................................................................... 70 Figure 4.2.6.2 Respondent’s experience of owning SAMAND .................................................... 71 Figure 4.2.7.1 Respondent’s SAMAND model ............................................................................. 72 Figure 4.4.1.1 original model ........................................................................................................ 85 Figure 4.4.1.2 confirmatory factor analysis of the BPS ................................................................ 88 Figure 4.4.1.3 CFA for sincerity dimension .................................................................................. 93 Figure 4.4.1.4 CFA for excitement dimension .............................................................................. 94 Figure 4.4.1.5 CFA for competence dimension ............................................................................. 95 Figure 4.4.1.6 CFA for sophistication dimension ......................................................................... 96 Figure 4.4.1.7 CFA for ruggedness dimension .............................................................................. 97 Figure 4.4.1.8 BPS refined model ................................................................................................. 99

9

Chapter 1

Introduction

1 Introduction In this chapter topics included background, research problem and research

aims have been provided.

1.1 Background

Studies of product or brand personality began in the early 1960s. Some of the researchers investigated the relationship between self-concept and perceived personality of cars. These Researches has suffered, however, due to a lack of common theory and

10

consensual taxonomy of personality attributes to describe products and brands. Early researchers like Birdwell (1964) were mainly interested in studying the relationship between product and self-concept. For example, in his influential study, Birdwell (1964) investigated the relationship between customers’ self-concept and their perception of their car. The perceived personality of the car was measured using a compiled list of bipolar items. The adjectives chosen were appropriate to describe both automobile and human personalities. Later, Dolich (1969) adapted human personality scales to study the product personalities of four products (beer, Cigarettes, bar soap, and toothpaste) and their relationships with the consumers’ actual and ideal self-image. Research has suffered, however, from the lack of a common theory and of a consensual taxonomy of personality traits to be used in describing products. The validity of the early product personality scales, based on human personality, was questioned because human and product personalities might have different antecedents. Thus, product personality traits can be described as symbolic consumption of the product through direct and indirect contacts (e.g., Fournier 1998). Importantly, this approach introduced measurement instruments to capture the personality of products.

Aaker (1997), realizing this limitation and drawing on the big five model of human personality, developed the brand personality scale (BPS), which consists of five generic dimensions: excitement, sincerity, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. Since then, the brand personality dimensions have been applied to various settings across different cultures to gauge consumers’ symbolic consumption and their effects on behavior (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, and Garolera 2001; Supphellen and Grønhaug 2003). As a result, some dimensions of human personality might be mirrored in brands, whereas others might not (Aaker, 1997).

1.2 Problem Discussion

Consumers today not only want to be romanced by the brands they choose to bring into their lives, they absolutely want to establish a multifaceted holistic relationship with that brand, and this means they expect the brand to play a positive, proactive role in their lives. Thus, the strategic objective of brand personality is to forge strong and meaningful affective bonds with consumers and, in so doing, become part of their life stories, memories, and an important link in their social networks. Over the past few years, many well-known brands have adopted emotional-branding strategies, including Tide, Lexus, Apple, Nike, IBM, Cheerios, McDonald’s, and Starbucks.

Brand personality tends to show a kind of symbolic or self-expressive function in the minds of consumers. Products such as gold credit cards, watches or prestige items help people to express themselves to others by demonstrating that they are different and have achieved something which differs them from others. They act as extensions of the personality, so it really is ‘‘all in the mind’’, and the key to brand management and

11

development is a clear understanding of what benefits the customer is looking for. Asking consumers what comes to mind when they hear the name of a big brand such as BMW or Gucci, they will reply with a list of attributes which go far beyond the physical tangible aspects of product and delivery, but if there is one word which brings all these things Together in people’s mind, it is value.

Researchers have shown that the greater congruity between the human characteristics that consistently and distinctively describe an individual’s actual or ideal self and those that describe a brand, the greater the preference for the brand.

Brand personality is an attractive and appealing concept in the marketing of today. Aaker (1996) described it as one of the core dimensions of the brand identity and perhaps as the closest variable to the consumers’ decision making process on buying. Successfully positioning a brand’s personality within a product category requires measurement models that are able to disentangle a brand’s unique personality traits from those traits that are common to all brands in the product category.

The notion of brands can be associated with a set of human characteristics is well accepted by social psychologists. The basic argument is that attitude objects, such as brands, can be associated with personality traits that provide self-expressive or symbolic benefits for the consumer.

A distinctive brand personality can help to create a set of unique and favorable associations in consumer memory, and thus build and enhance brand equity. A well established brand personality influences consumer preference and patronage and develops stronger emotional ties, trust, and loyalty with the brand. Real brands were used with the objective to exploit the richness of the personality associated with them. A favorable brand personality is thought to provide a basis for product differentiation. In this instance, brand personality may provide the means for making a given brand stand out in the crowd. Stated differently, when intrinsic cues are very similar for competing brands, brand personality may create a basis for differentiation.

Aaker’s (1997) brand personality measurement framework represents an important tool with which researchers can begin to measure symbolic meanings of brands. Aaker (1997) suggested that the five dimensions of the BPS were generic and could be used to measure brand personality across product categories and cultures. In line with her suggestions for future research, many researchers have applied her framework through variety of products and countries in two main traits culture and brand.

1.3 Research limitations

Brand personality or related researches in Iran have not been done a lot. This research will be one of the premier studies in this topic. One of the main reasons of choosing the car product-category was the similar work in other countries like Chile.

12

One of the limitations of this study is the lack of researches in cultural-specific attributes of Iranian people’s personality which could help a lot in customizing the Aaker’s 42 item scale.

Another limitation is the one side effect of personality which requires future researches to study the customers of the different Iranian brands (not only cars). Also other studies are needed for different product categories to finally form the brand personality scale for brands in Iran. And so this model in the future will be more applicable for Iranian firms to define the personality of their brands.

1.4 Research Problem and Research Questions

This study will be a respond to Aaker’s (1997) argument that “additional research is needed to determine the extent to which these brand personality dimensions are stable across different products.” So the question arises here about the applicability of this model in Iran’s automobile market. And this has shown to what extend this framework is applicable internationally.

Branding and Brand management has become a new trend in Iran’s market. There are brands here which are used widely and the owner of the brand has cost a lot to bring it to the market and stand in the crowed but because of the lack of strategic planning for the brand in the long run, the new competitors will replace it easily. SAMAND which is an Iranian brand has been used widely recently. The company is not satisfied with the benefits, and is seeking to find a way, and one of their main issues is the brand marketing. So this research has found the personality dimensions of SAMAND. And has made a picture of what Irankhodro has done in the minds of the customers. Because this company believes “every Iranian individual can be a customer”.

So my Research questions which I have cover in my final thesis is:

1. Does car brand (SAMAND) in Iran perceive to have personalities? 2. If so, what are the underlying dimensions of its personality (Adopting BPS

model in Iran)? 3. How does the Brand Personality Scale fit in Iran’s automobile market?

13

Chapter 2

Literature Review

2 Literature Review This chapter aims to review the brand personality literature from all

dimensions. It has started from the broadest view (brand and its importance) and then has clarified the position of brand personality in the brand structure and then has been

14

narrowed to the brand personality concept and its application. It also has considered all psychological evidences and supports for this literature.

2.1 Brand

“A product’s brand connects a company’s output and reputation with customers’ needs and investors’ hopes” (Ulrich, 2007)

According to the marketing association (1960) brand is a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors. The definition has been criticized for being too product-oriented and lack of intangible features like image. (kotler 1996, wood 2000)

Later, other definitions highlighting other aspects of brand had been made, but every one of the them has focused on one side more that the other one, the concept of brand equity (keller 1993, Aaker 1996), brand personality (Aaker, 1997), added values (de chernatony, 1992) are examples of these different views. Wood (2000) in his research has shown that in different companies, based on their competitive advantage, the definition differs.” Competitive advantage for firms may be determined in terms of revenue, profit, added value or market share. Benefits the consumer purchases may be real or illusory, rational or emotional, tangible or intangible.”

Because of this overlap in definition, de chernatony (1998) in her research has categorized the literature in brand definitions in 12 themes:

1- Legal instrument 2- Logo 3- Company 4- Shorthand 5- Risk reducer 6- Identity system 7- Image in consumer’s mind 8- Value system 9- Personality 10- Relationship 11- Adding value 12- Evolving entity

15

Table 2.1.1.1 Antecedents and Consequences to the brand construct Brand definition Antecedents Consequences 1. legal Instrument

Mark of ownership. Name, logo, design, Trademark Prosecute infringers

2.Logo Name, term, sign, symbol, design. Product characteristics

Identity, differentiate through visual Identity and name. Quality assurance.

3. Company Recognizable corporate name and image. Culture, people, programs of organization defines corporate personality. CEO is brand manager.

Evaluate over long time horizon. Product lines benefit from corporate personality. Convey consistent message to stakeholders. Differentiation: proposition, relationship.

4. Shorthand Firm stresses quality not quantity of information

Rapidly recognize brand association. Facilitate information processing speed decisions.

5. Risk reducer Confidence that expectations being fulfilled.

Brand as a construct.

6. Identity system

More than just a name. Holistic, structured with six integrated facets, including brand's personality

Clarify direction, meaning, Strategic positioning, and Protective barrier. Communicate essence to stakeholders.

7. Image Consumer centered, Image in consumers' mind is brand "reality".

Firm's input activities managed using feedback of image to change identity. Market research important. Manage brand concept over time

8. Value system Consumer relevant values imbue the brand.

Brand values match relevant consumer values

9. Personality Psychological values, communicated through advertising and packaging define brand’s personality.

Differentiation from symbolism: human values projected. Stress added values beyond functional.

10. Relationship Consumer has attitude to brand. Brand as person has attitude to consumer

Recognition and respect for personality. Develop relationship

11. Adding value Non functional extras. Value satisfier. Consumers imbue brand with subjective meaning they value enough to buy. Aesthetics. Enhanced through design, mfr, and distribution.

Differentiate through layers of meaning. Charge price premium. Consumer experience. Perception of users. Belief in performance.

12. Evolving entity

Change by stage of development

Source (De Chernatony, 1998)

16

Finally she reaches to this point that brand is an interface between the firm’s activities and consumer’s interpretations.

Figure 2.1.1.1 Brand as an Interface Source (De Chernatony, 1998)

Power (2008) claims that there is no certain definition for “brands” or “branding”, but this definition should include both functional and emotional aspects.

Brands are born with distinctive names and then by the help of functional capabilities people start to recognize them, symbolic features are first steps to make the brand different in the mass market these features like brand personality makes the brand hard to copy. As consumer loyalty increases, they relate the brand becomes to unique added values “and then they become an effective shorthand notation representing a few high quality pieces of information facilitating rapid consumer choice”. (De Chernatony, 1997)

The brands emerged in 1900 because of different causes like new technologies, political and trade issues in the age of industrialized imperialism. And companies had more choice in spite of distances and new markets and this caused “a need for higher levels of product standardization and easily recognizable marks of quality and identity”. (wood, 2008)

Researches in strategic management and marketing have shown that brands are key organizational assets. (Aaker 1996, Malhotra 1999, Louro 2001) The different definitions of brand come from different philosophies and different views (stakeholder perspective or consumer perspective). (Wood, 2000)

Today definition of the brand is something beyond the simple view which researchers had about decades ago, not just a logo or advertising message; it is a

17

collection of expectations, hopes, relations which arises from a company or product. (leiser, 2004)

2.1.1 Brand Importance

By the start of 1980, companies were aware of financial value of brands, and since that time branding attracted many researchers and practitioners. (De chernatony, 1999) The way people think and feel about a brand, are the brand value which makes a unique relationship with its target customers. (Wood, 2008)

Wood (2008) has brought four reasons for the importance of the brand:

The first reason is brands are “well-labeled information packages created in the hope of offering individual consumers” which help them judge and have choices.

Second: brands help the companies to differentiate their products and services

Third: branded companies can rely on economies of scale and other cost efficiencies

Fourth: branding helps firms to enter new markets, even into areas outside their core activities like music firm Virgin’s diversification into everything from telephony to air travel.

Fifth: huge changes will be easier (organizational flexibility) like changes in ownership, changes in firms’ national or local affiliations, and changes to where and how products are made.

Sixth: co-branding advantages like in sportswear market, it has become popular for sports goods firms to co-brand with fashion designers: e.g., Puma and Jil Sander, Nike and Junya Watanabe, and Adidas and Yohij Yamamoto.

All the marketing efforts like name, packaging , advertising, promotion, pricing, sales force discipline, customer repurchases, etc create one image of a brand, the important issue here is ,this image is a combination of quality and price which are not separated, and when brands are not making values , people think the price is too high. And here comes the importance, brands are successful because people prefer them to ordinary products. The main psychological factor here is: brands help people to make choices. Brands give customers quality and service guarantee. (Rajagopal, 2006)

18

2.1.2 Brand Components

To better understand the brand and make it less complex researchers have tried to break it to different components. (keller 1993, de chernatony, 1997) Actually these components come from the different views and perceptions about brand. In de chernatony (1997) research, she has gathered these different definitions a summary of these findings: Table 2.1.2.1 Models of the brand

Authors Tangible and visual elements Intangible elements

Aaker (1992) Symbols and slogans Identity, corporate brand, integrated communications, customer

Bailey and Schechter (1994) Name, trademark Positioning, brand communications DMB & B(1993) product delivery User identification: opportunity to share a dream

de Chernatony (1993a and 1993b) (atomic model)

Functional capabilities, name, legal protection

Symbolic value, service, sign of ownership, shorthand notation

de chernatony and McWilliam (1989) Functionality Representationality Dyson et al. (1996) (Millward - Brown) Presence and performance Relevance, advantage, bond

Grossman (1994) Distinctive name, logotype, graphics and physical design

Kapferer(1992) Physique personality, relationship, culture, reflection, self-image

O'Malley (1991) Young and Rubicam (1994)

Functional values Differentiation Relevance, esteem and familiarity

Source (De chernatony, 1997) As you see in the table all these different models can be divided into two main

groups and we call it two sides of brand structure. (Tangible and intangible) Some researchers like Bailey and Schechter’s (1994) and Grossman’s (1994) has focused on tangible sides of the brand like name, logo, and design but some others have considered emotional and symbolic side of the brand. Brand personality is an important and one of the main parts of the intangible side which helps the customers make their self-images stronger.

One of the fames models in brand structure is “atomic model” which is consisted of both tangible and intangible part of the brand (de chernatony, 1993):

(1) Functional capability;

19

(2) Symbolic feature;

(3) Service;

(4) Distinctive name;

(5) Ownership;

(6) Shorthand notation;

(7) Legal protection;

(8) Risk reducer; and

(9) Strategic direction Because of the complex nature of the brand, every expert has its own mental

model and again all these models can be categorized in two parts (de chernatony, 1997):

(1) Functional capabilities, relating to the brands’ tangible, rationally assessed, product performance;

(2) Symbolic features, such as intangible, emotionally assessed, emotional values of the brand’s personality.

2.1.3 Position of brand personality in the brand hierarchy:

According to the De Chernatony’s model of components of a brand there were two major dimensions tangible and intangible. And she found that brand personality is one of the most important structures in the intangible or emotional side of the brand construct. Below table is the result of her findings in interview with experts:

20

Table 2.1.3.1 Categories of Experts Definition of brand

Themes From Literature

Number of experts mentioning

Illustrative explanation

Value system 11

"Real brands have an understanding of values that characterize them"

Personality 10

"The personality surrounding a product or a service

Image 9

"The way an object is perceived by consumers"

Logo 8

"A set of visual features animated by advertising"

Risk reducer 5

"It means that I know what I am getting from one purchase to the next"

Company 4

"The protection (of) that the organization is trying to engineer and maintain and achieve"

Adding value 4

Added values, qualities beyond product performance

Shorthand 3

"All we know, learn, taste, experience about the brand over a long period of time"

Legal Instrument 3 "A trade-mark in use: Identity 3 "A form of Identity" Relationship

3 "A relationship with a customer or a consumer"

Evolving 3

"Can mean different thing for different people in different scenarios"

Additional themes

Number of experts mentioning

Illustrative explanation

Positioning 2

"the attributes which are made to adhere to a product in order to give it attractiveness"

Vision 2

"(Brands) have vision and purpose to give them meaning to consumers"

Goodwill 1 "Accumulated weight of goodwill"

Source: (De Chernatony, 1998)

A tangible – intangible spectrum encompassed all their definitions, with a marked bias to intangible themes. As you see the majority of expert’s definitions are the notion of brands as value systems, personality and image.

21

Another evidence for highlighting the important role of brand personality in brand structure is Aaker’s (1997) 10 guidelines for building strong brands. He claims that through the 10 steps of achieving a successful brand is having an identity for the brand, “Have an identity for each brand. Consider the perspective of the brand-as-person, brand-as-organization, and brand-as-symbol, as well as the brand-as-product. Identify the core identity. Modify the identity as needed for different market segments and products. Remember that an image is how you are perceived, and an identity is how you aspire to be perceived”.

Aaker(1996) has introduced three elements of brand associations/differentiations, first is value measurement of the brand which provides a summary indicator of the brand success in value proposition.

Brand personality, the notion of the brand-as-person, is the second element. According to Aaker(1996) it is useful for some brands , especially ones which have little physical differences and play roles in social activities ,and can help them provide an strong relationship with self-expressive benefits. Some product groups may need specific personality dimensions like energy for retailing industry, exciting for cosmetic products, friendly and reliable for service firms and ruggedness for trucks. Before measuring any brand personality considering these points seems necessary:

a) The brand has a personality. b) The brand is interesting c) I have a clear image of the type of person who would use the brand. And the last one is brand-as-organization which deals with inside company

indicators like employees and programs. The figure in the next page is the model of core brand identity (kapferer, 1997)

which is based on six central components: physique, personality, culture, relationship, reflection and self-image.

22

Source: (Kapferer, 1993) According to this model, the core values of a brand are not just functional

abilities but also emotional ones like personality. As a matter of fact personality helps the company direct their marketing activities through what brand really stands for and in the other side helps the customers recognize, by quick and little information, what value the brand is offering. (Aaker, 1996)

According to Heylen et al. (1995) in Hussy (1999) when brands become more homogenous, consumers pay more attention on brand personality than identity. In his model of brand identity, one of the tools of brand identification is using the techniques of personification (a brand can have attributes of a person).

Figure 2.1.3.1 The Components of Brand Identity

23

2.2 Brand personality

Customer and brand has a kind of relationship which is like the relationship between two people. This relationship can be friendly and two partners act as close friends or just some kind of fun friends just comfortable to be around. (Rajagopal, 2006)

Aaker (1996) names brand personality a strategic tool and a metaphor that can help brand strategies to understand people’s perceptions of brand and differentiated brand identity and in the end creates brand equity.

“Today, consumers have deep personal relationships to brands and brand histories.” (Power, 2008) for example Tissot watches usually carry a book named “the story of a watch factory” in their packages.

Power (2008) believes that branding is the struggle of strategically personifying products.

Most of the researches in symbolic use of brands have shown that customers prefer brands matching their own personality. (Bosnjak, 2007)

Brand personality is a very attractive concept in today’s marketing and Aaker(1996) introduced it as one of the core dimensions of the brand identity and one of the closest variables to purchase decision making processes.

Brand personality deals with the importance of relations in social activities and gives the brand higher positions in the mind of consumers and makes the brand as their friends and belongings (Rajagopal, 2006) and is the all attitudes, perspectives, feelings and views customers have about a brand. (Guthrie, 2007)

Brand personality is “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand”. (Aaker, 1997)

The example can be the Marlboro brand personality combines the physical and emotional attributes of a product to specific customers who have or wish to have a certain life style. All prestige’s items like watches make individuals express themselves in an isolated world and they act as extensions of the personality. These are “all in mind” and when you ask them about big brands like BMW or Gucci, their answers are far beyond the physical features of the product. And if there is one word coming from the customer voices, that is value and the market leadership is all about value not price. (Rajagopal, 2006)

Brands can speak like human beings, they speak through the style tone of their advertising and like human speak, the audiences who are eager will listen. (Bulace 2000; cited by Guthrie 2007)

Aaker and Fournier (1995) have gathered all the researches around the brand personality topic in three main areas.

24

(a) Conceptual level (b) Relationship approach (c) Personality measurement scales

The first area of research is mainly about the perception of people about brands in daily activities. Narrative theory (people make stories about the behavior of each other) seems to be an effective tool here because it helps to understand the process consumers form personality. Some example questions here are: “to what extent does a brand take on a personality before vs. after use? What roles do brand names, logos and symbols play in developing a brand personality? What impact does a brand personality have on loyalty? Under what situations is one brand personality preferred over another? What type of advertising (e.g. transformational vs. informational) is most effective in developing a brands with a strong personality?”

The second area of research is dealing with brand as an active member of the relationship and consumers watch this activity during brand behavior. The brand is treated as “an active, contributing partner in the dyadic relationship that exists between the person and the brand, a partner whose behaviors and actions generate trait inferences that collectively summarize the consumer's perception of the brand's personality” and the writer brings here the concept of the brand-as-partner (BAP) And researches in this field believe that advertising is not enough for brand personality building but all marketing activities and also all strategic management decisions should consider it.

The last domain, which is mainly constructed by Jennifer Aaker(1997), is the way of applying brand personality by the help of core factors identifying personality.

She has examined the kind of product categories which has personality, the relation between self-concept and brand personality.

So the personality meaning of the brand is actually “the specific set of meanings which describe the "inner" characteristics of a brand. These meanings are constructed by a consumer based on behaviors exhibited by personified brands or brand characters.” (Aaker, 1995)

Some brands have well defined personalities. Starbucks’ is outgoing, youthful, personable, and friendly … a refreshing escape, freshness, warmth, and comfort. It is demonstrated through their service interactions, their packaging, their décor, their product offerings, and their corporate culture. MTV, on the other hand, is a total expression of youth, individuality, and breaking conventions … a loud shout for independence and freethinking.

25

Nike’s personality is unabashed … aggressive and empowering … somewhat self-important. It is about achievement and winners … a passion for competitiveness. To contrast this, Cricket Wireless is “every-man” … comfortable, welcoming, and relaxed (AMICUS Group Whitepapers Number 6)

2.2.1 Brand personality value

Brian Meredith’s (2003) has started his article with two interesting questions: “Does your business have a clearly articulated, perceived personality that has been developed by you? And can you distil its complexity into three, key words to capture the essence of who you are or want to be seen as being?”

He then brings an example: Suzanne Hogan said:”I think I can safely say that virtually everyone in the developed nations of the world is crystal clear about what the Disney brand stands for: imagination, wholesomeness, fun.”

Because competitors can copy brand’s functional benefits, psychological values are one of the ways to keep them unique. For example instead of focusing on different advertising or packaging, they can make the relationship with the target customers stronger. (De chernatony, 1998)

When it comes to choose between the brands in the same category, consumers evaluate the congruency between the personality of the brand and the personality they want to project. (Ibid)

The use of brand personality in brand management strategies can help the whole company gaining satisfaction, loyalty, profitability (Rajagopal, 2006) and an overall economic advantage over its competitors. (park, 2005)

When customers are buying a brand which has a clarified personality in their minds, they are buying symbolic meaning associated with the brand rather than its physical product-related features. And brand personality can cause increase in consumer preference, usage, trust and loyalty (Guthrie, 2007)

Researchers have claimed that brand personality is an important topic especially for differentiation and developing the emotional aspects of the brand and this concept has been well accepted by most advertising and marketing practitioners. (e.g Plummer 1985, D.Aaker 1996, J.Aaker 1997, park 2005, Diamantopoulos 2004, freling 2005, , bosnjak 2007, gupta 2008)

Strong, proprietary personalities are multi-dimensional. They are demonstrated and reinforced throughout the brand’s entire experience – both in front of the customer, as well as behind the scenes. It must be authentic and deliverable … and driven by conviction and strategic discipline. (AMICUS Group Whitepapers Number 6)

26

2.2.2 Roots of Brand Personality Argue

The relation between brands and their consumers have two sides that both of the partners have their roles in it. The focus on the role of consumers in the relationship (effect of the people who use the brand) can go to the self-concept theories and the focus on the role of static personality of a brand (the brand has certain personality in the whole market for all people) can be understood through personality theories like Big Five.

The first notion can be more flexible in brand identity because the focus is on the consumer behavior and perception toward the brand, but in the second one, attitudes of brand and its perception are clear in the market and have their segmentation of specific customers who have congruency with the brand. (rajagopal, 2006)

In a nutshell, individuals hold favorable attitudes towards, and will most probably purchase, those brands matching their own personality. It is along these lines that the concept of brand personality has emerged (Aaker, 1997).

Important issue to be considered here is, the brand personality is a metaphor; like the person-as-a-computer in psychology. (Aaker, 1995) and what we bring here, proves that brands can be personified.

The relationship between two people are directly influenced by their personalities and some traits like extroversion, traditionalism, warmth and flexibility underlie people’s conceptions of important attributes which effect a relationship. But in a marketing area these perceptions come from the promises which should be kept, no relationship failure, resolved problems and long term consumer interests are served And characters like dependability, reliability, trustworthiness, supportiveness , and accountability seems more significant. (Aaker, 2004)

Some basic theories in the support of brand personality have been brought here:

2.2.2.1 Anthropomorphism Theory

The word “anthropomorphism” comes from a Greek word “anthro pos” which means “human” and “morphe” stands for “shape” or “form”. Anthropomorphism goes beyond observable actions of a nonhuman agent and relating human like mental or physical characteristics to it (e.g. my dog loves me). (Epley, 2007)

27

Anthropomorphism is therefore a process of inference about unobservable characteristics of a nonhuman agent, rather than descriptive reports of a nonhuman agent’s observable or imagined behavior.

Imbuing the imagined or real behavior of nonhuman agents with humanlike characteristics, motivations, intentions, and emotions is the essence of anthropomorphism. These nonhuman agents may include anything that acts with apparent independence, including nonhuman animals, natural forces, religious deities, and mechanical or electronic devices. As the Oxford Dictionary (Soanes & Stevenson, 2005) more simply puts it, anthropomorphism is the “attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object” (p. 66). Debates have ensued about whether such anthropomorphism represents accurate or fallacious thinking, whether anthropomorphic descriptions have any place in scientific discourse, and whether anthropomorphism can account for phenomena ranging from religious belief to effective marketing campaigns. (Ibid)

2.2.2.2 Self-concept Theory

Self is significant qualities that isolated an individual from others and is the responsible part about all behaviors if its owner. The self-concept comes from many reasons that can be categorized in two: personality and situation. These two different sides comes from this idea that self is effected with both static personality characters and also social situation that individual is participating at the moment. Here comes an inter model named “malleable self” which claims self is a multidimensional concept which covers both personality and situational factors. The dimensions of self are consisted of: good self, bad self, hoped for self, feared self, not me self, ideal self, possible self and ought self who can emerge in different moments of an individual’s life. (Aaker, 1999) there are more categories of self in literature like sirgy’s (1982) research which has provided two dimensions: existing self and ideal self.

Brand personality can be used to express one’s ideal or other versions of self and can be applied to individual’s own personality or the kind of personality they wish to be known for. (Guthrie, 2007) For example in the research of Guthrie (2007) about cosmetic products, buying cosmetic brands is a way of matching the product with ideal self. As a result, though some personality dimensions are important to individuals, others are not and therefore might not be expressed. Thus, in prior research, the power of the self-concept was diffused. In this research, only the important or central aspects of self are examined to determine the extent to which brands are used for self-expression (Aaker, 1999)

“Preferences in consumption were actually more closely related to actual self concept than to the ideal self-concept for each of the brands in the product categories researched”. (Hussey, 1999)

28

According to self-concept theory the greater the congruity between the human attributes describing brand and an individual’s actual or ideal self the more preference for the brand. (Malhotra 1988, cited by Aaker 1997)

If the brand wants to connect to the stakeholders it should be congruent with their selves and they feel comfortable with the brand and help them express their selves to the others. (Aaker, 1996)

According to this theory brands more congruent with the self-image the more preference for the brand, and this congruity, because of the multidimensional nature of the self-concept should affect all the dimensions of the self. (Hussey, 1999)

2.2.2.3 Personality Theory

Personality is a series of dynamic and organized characters which an individual owns and specifically affects his motives and behavior in different situations. (Goldberg, 1993)

Different theories in personality psychology insist on providing a clear structure and framework of personality and its dimension to make any individual different from others.

Aaker(1995) describes personality “as the set of meanings constructed by an observer to describe the "inner" characteristics of another person” which is the result of behavior observation. Personality is used to break the complexity of behavior.

Individuals enjoy or suffer from a distinct personality or character in other people and these drivers are pieces of information or behaviors. These drivers come from thousands of pieces of information over time. Your perception can be good, bad. Maybe you are judging the person wrong (you don’t know his background and haven’t had enough communication with him).

2.2.2.4 Big Five Model

Human personality factors which is defined by individual’s behavior, appearance, attitude, beliefs and demographic characteristics has a five dimensional model named “Big Five “ human personality dimensions. The five-factor model of personality is a hierarchical organization of personality traits in terms of five basic dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Research using both natural language adjectives and theoretically based personality questionnaires supports the comprehensiveness of the model and its applicability across observers and cultures. (McCrae, 1993)

The importance of these five factors remained hidden from most personality psychologists throughout the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1980s, however, researchers from many different traditions were led to conclude that these factors were fundamental dimensions of personality, found in self-reports and ratings, in natural languages and

29

theoretically based questionnaires, in children, college students, and older adults, in men and women, and in English, Dutch, German, and Japanese samples (John, 1990a). All five factors were shown to have convergent and discriminate validity across instruments and observers, and to endure across decades in adults (McCrae & Costa, 1990). Table 2.2.2.1 Examples of Adjectives, Q-Sort Items, and Questionnaire Scales Defining the Five Factors

Factor Factor definers Name Number Adjectives Q-sort items Scales Extraversion (E) 1 Active Talkative Warmth Assertive Skilled in play, humor Gregariousness Energetic Rapid personal tempo Assertiveness Enthusiastic Facially, gutturally expressive Activity Outgoing Behaves assertively Excitement Seeking Talkative Gregarious Positive Emotions Agreeableness 2 Appreciative Not critical, skeptical Trust Forgiving behaves in giving way Straightforwardness Generous Sympathetic, considerate Altruism Kind Arouses liking Compliance Sympathetic Warm, compassionate Modesty Trusting Basically trustful Tender-Mindedness Conscientiousness 3 Efficient Dependable, responsible Competence Organized Productive Order Playful Able to delay gratification Dutifulness

Reliable Not self-indulgent Achievement Striving

Responsible Behaves ethically Self-Discipline Thorough Has high aspiration level Deliberation Neuroticism 4 Anxious Thin-skinned Anxiety Self-pitying Brittle ego defenses Hostility Tense Self-defeating Depression Touchy Basically anxious Self-Consciousness Unstable Concerned with adequacy Impulsiveness Worrying Fluctuating moods Vulnerability Openness 5 Artistic Wide range of interests Fantasy Curious Introspective Aesthetics Imaginative Unusual thought processes Feelings Insightful Values intellectual matters Actions

Original Judges in unconventional terms Ideas

Wide interests Aesthetically reactive Values

Source: (Marsh, 2006)

30

Personality researchers differentiate between core personality traits such as the Big Five and more malleable personality characteristics such as self-concept. The latter have also been called ‘‘surface characteristics’’. Core personality traits are believed to affect human behavior, but contextual influences, life events, and environmental factors are posited to have little or no effect on core personality factors. Self-concept researchers have also demonstrated that specific components of self-concept have important effects on subsequent performance such as academic accomplishments. However, unlike core personality factors, self-concept factors are highly influenced by context, environment, and life events. Thus, for example, there is growing support for a reciprocal-effects model of relations between academic self-concept and academic achievement where each is a cause and an effect of the other so that both will suffer if either is undermined. (Marsh, 2006)

The Big Five Model emerged in studies that examined the “language” of personality within the framework of the psycholexical approach. This approach originated from a hypothesis, formulated by Gordon Allport at the end of the 1930s and formalized by Raymond Cattell in the mid-1940s, as “linguistic sedimentation”, or the “lexical hypothesis”. According to this approach, nouns and adjectives that describe human personality are integral to the development and maintenance of social relations. As such, they become part of the vocabulary used by people every day, and are transmitted from one generation to another through processes of socialization. The practical consequence is that the vocabulary of natural languages represents the main source of descriptors of personality characteristics. Several studies, scanning thousands of adjectives and nouns in unabridged dictionaries of different languages, selected terms denoting stable characteristics of human personalities, which have been mostly referred as the least ambiguous, the most frequently used, and the most useful for human personality description (Goldberg, 1992).

2.2.3 Difference between brand personality and brand image

In Oxford Business English Dictionary (2005), the meaning of brand personality has defined as “the attractive and special human qualities that a company wants a product or group of products suggest to people” in other side brand image has this meaning “what people think or feel about a particular product, company, name or symbol”. Although brand personality is a viable metaphor for understanding consumers’ perceptions of brands, there has been a long-running debate in the generic marketing literature on the relationship between brand personality and brand image. Various definitional inconsistencies have blurred the distinction between brand image and brand personality. In other studies, the two concepts have been used interchangeably to gauge consumer perceptions of brands (e.g., Graeff 1997). For some authors, brand image is a more encapsulating term and has a number of inherent characteristics or dimensions,

31

including, among others, brand personality, user image, product attributes, and consumer benefits . For example, in Heylen, Dawson, and Sampson’s (1995) proposed model of brand image, brand personality and brand identity are two components of brand image, and Aaker(1996) claims that “brand personality strongly represents brand image”.

Another school of thought (Biel, 1993) views brand image “as a cluster of attributes and associations that consumers connect to a brand.” In this conceptualization, evoked associations can be either hard (tangible/functional attributes) or soft (emotional attributes). Brand personality is seen as the soft, emotional side of brand image (Biel, 1993). Likewise, Fournier (1998) argued that when brands are successful at satisfying consumer needs, consumers develop strong emotions toward them.

Czellar (2003) has called for research initiatives to examine the relative role of brand image and brand personality in brand level fit. Based on the notion that brand personality is a component of brand image (Aaker, 1996), the personality of a brand should also be used to establish perceptual fit. The concept of brand personality is considered as a subset of brand image and is therefore very closely related (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993). As such, studies have emerged that have indirectly associated the concept of brand personality and brand image in brand extension (Martinez & de Chernatony, 2004). In particular, with such close association that is commonly perceived between brand personality and brand image (Kapferer, 1997), brand personality fit in turn would invoke a causal inference process that would lead to perceived image fit (Burnett, 2005). Hence, this demonstrates that brand personality fit is causally related to brand image fit (Lau, 2007).

Freling (2005) in his research attempts to conceptually clarify the domain of the brand personality construct, and to disentangle brand personality from other related constructs such as brand identity and brand image. He conceptualized Brand personality as one of many associations comprising brand image, which in turn is a subset of brand identity. That is, brand personality was conceptualized as one type of brand association in consumer memory that may be accessed as the need or desire for a particular product arises, and that may influence consumer preferences.

2.2.4 Brand personality versus human personality

Although brand personality and human personality seem the same in the conceptualization level, but their objectives are completely different. Brands are inhuman agents and don not behave like human beings, and the perception of their personality comes from the people using them and also product-related attributes like performance. (Bosenjak, 2007)

32

Like human personalities, brand personalities can grow and evolve over time. Since brands, like persons, are usually described with adjectives, the psycho lexical approach seems to be a good method for identifying the main characteristics of brands' personalities in the perception of consumers, and to select the best adjectives for conveying certain characteristics. In reality, it remains questionable whether the principal features of brands (even the well-established ones) can be encoded as stable traits and expressed by single words, as seems to be the case with human traits (Caprara , 2001).

Even when the personality metaphor seems suitable for brands, marketers interested in shaping and reinforcing brands' desirable features need to know whether the same adjectives correspond to the same factors when used to describe personalities of different brands. According to Caprara (2001), it is important not only to ascertain the applicability to brands of those traits and markers that proved valid to describe humans, but also to select those traits and markers that fit best with the brand personality that the marketer intends to establish or reinforce. Caprara (2001) stated that, these are the questionable sides of the relationship between brand and human personality:

(a) Whether the Big Five Model of human personality is useful for the description of brand personality.

(b) Whether markers of human personality applied to brand personality are traceable to the same factor solution found in humans.

(c) Whether personality descriptors load under the same factor when used to describe human personality and brand personalities, and when used to describe the personalities of different brands.

Brand personality and human personality are not completely analogous, however. For example, human personality traits may have not only an implicit (perceived) component but also an actual (objective) component that is independent of the perceiver’s characterization of the individuals who possess them. In contrast, brands obviously do not have objective personality traits independent of a consumer’s perception of them. Instead, a brand’s personality is a hypothetical construct developed by the consumer. To this extent, issues that are related to the accuracy of such judgments of a brand’s personality might be moot apart from the question of whether consumers’ perceptions of a brand’s personality matches that intended by the marketer(Caprara , 2001). In addition, brand personality traits differ from implicit human personality traits in terms of how they are created (Aaker, 1997). A human’s personality traits are inferred from the individual’s behavior, physical characteristics, attitudes and beliefs, and demographic characteristics. In contrast, a brand’s personality can be created and shaped

33

by any direct and indirect brand contact that the consumer experiences with the brand (Plummer, 1985).

2.2.5 Critics about brand personality

Prior (2008) believes that brand personality doesn’t neglect tangible features behind a product and use of brand personality and emotional view of a brand is not just offering intangible advantages and “Brands need to consider the fundamental principles of their offer in terms of the tangible innovation and differentiation that they provide. They must think about their added value not just in terms of superficial design but as a complete equation of product, service and holistic experience”.

Brand personality has been criticized on 3 dimensions: conceptual, methodological and substantive. First questions arise from its definition and conceptualization and its difference with brand image. And why it is important. The second series of questions are about the way marketers can measure the personality of their brands and there is a trend which shows they are more eager to use quantitative methods like questionnaire based than qualitative ones like photo-sorting. And the last critics deal with the implications of having brand personality and the creation of it. (Aaker, Fournier 1995)

Many researchers have used adjectives from personality psychology which are usually used for detecting emotional instability, schizophrenia or neuroticism and other ones have used product related attributes but there is still reliability and validity problems. And because of these reasons researches in this topic have not received enough attention. (Ibid)

2.3 Application of brand personality

To find a unique position in the market by the help of brand personality the company needs to use measurement models which are able to clarify their brand’s personality traits. These traits should be unique in comparison to the brands in the same product category. (Rajagopal, 2006)

The personality of a brand must include the perceptions, motivations, and values of its targeted customers and the focus is on customer segment not all the people. For example, loyal users of American Express view the brand’s personality as sophisticated, dignified, and educated. On the other hand, those “outside the brand” tend to see American Express as sophisticated, classy, snobbish, and condescending. (AMICUS Group Whitepapers Number 6)

34

2.3.1 Brand Personality Scale (BPS)

Because consumers imagine the brands like human beings and give them personality characteristics, “the dimensions of brand personality can be defined by extending the dimensions of human personality to the domain of brands”. (Rajagopal, 2006)

Based on the human personality model (big five) Aaker(1997) found a new five dimensional model in the context of brands named Brand Personality Scale (BPS). Her work was the first step to generate a certain measurement personality model in the context of brand marketing. Before her trial, researchers used to use ad-hoc scales or scales gotten directly from personality psychology which had validity problem in the marketing domain. She conquered these problems by offering a theoretical framework of brand personality on the basis of the “Big Five” human personality structure.

Each of the five dimensions of the model includes several corresponding attributes. Sincerity for example includes adjectives like honesty and genuineness and ruggedness is described by strong and outdoorsy. (Guthrie, 2007)

Aaker(1997) factor analyzes the individual ratings of 40 brands on 114 personality traits by 631 respondents recruited in the United States. The principal components factor analysis resulted in five significant factors.

The BPs successfully met standards for internal reliability, test-retest reliability, content validity, nomological validity and construct validity. Tests of construct validity demonstrated that the traits which were positively related to a single factor had 1) high correlations with traits that measured the same factor and 2) low correlations with traits that measured other factors. Furthermore, although little theory exists to indicate what constructs brand personality predicts, attempts at illustrating predictive validity were made in two ways. First, the hypothesis that brands with strong personalities are associated with high levels of usage and preference was tested and supported. The hypothesis that correlations between self-concept and brands used are higher than those between self-concept and brands not used was tested and supported. (Aaker, 1995) The result of the exploratory principal component factor analysis has cleared five distinct personality dimensions: Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness. She claims that this model is generalizable across cultures and product categories.

35

Figure 2.3.1.1 Aaker's brand personality dimensions Source: (Aaker, 1997)

The traits associated with every factor have been shown in the next page:

Table 2.3.1.1 Aaker’s brand personality dimensions with related items

Factor Name Traits Factor Name Traits Sincerity 1 down-to-earth Competence 23 Reliable

2 family-oriented 24 hard working

3 small-town 25 Secure 4 Honest 26 Intelligent 5 Sincere 27 Technical 6 Real 28 Corporate 7 wholesome 29 Successful 8 Original 30 Leader 9 Cheerful 31 Confident 10 sentimental Sophistication 32 upper class 11 Friendly 33 Glamorous

Excitement 12 Daring 34 good looking

13 Trendy 35 Charming 14 Exciting 36 Feminine 15 Spirited 37 Smooth 16 Cool Ruggedness 38 Outdoorsy 17 Young 39 Masculine 18 imaginative 40 Western 19 Unique 41 Tough 20 up-t-date 42 Rugged 21 independent 22 contemporary

Brand Personality

Dimensions

Sincerity Excitement Competence Sophistication Ruggedness

Source: (Aaker, 1997)

36

Two of these dimensions have been under attention more because researches have shown them clearer; Sincerity and excitement. The brands which are seemed to have sincere brand personality are like Coca-Cola, Ford, and Hallmark. And the reason for choosing this kind of personality dimension differs among small and big businesses. For the small firms the main reason is they want to represent themselves as warmer and more caring in comparison to big firms. And large companies try to show a kind of down-to-earth characteristic of them by showing this kind of personality. The second personality type “exciting” are more related to brands like YAHOO!, Virgin and MTV who try to use especial advertisement and languages. (Aaker, 2004)

Some researches like Fennis(2007) have used the BPS model in the other side , the effect of brand personality on the consumers and have found that some BPS dimensions like sincerity can affect self perceptions of agreeableness and ruggedness dimension influences of the human character extroversion, exciting evokes hedonism and competent affects sophistication.

2.3.2 Application of BPS

Aaker (1997) suggested that the five dimensions of the BPS were generic and could be used to measure brand personality across product categories and cultures. In line with her suggestions for future research, many researchers have applied her framework through variety of products and countries in two main traits culture and brand:

2.3.2.1 Application of BPS in culture trait:

By comparing brand personality structures across cultures, values and needs of these cultures may be identified that are relevant to the way brands are perceived. Cultures that are quite different in their values and needs (e.g., Western vs. East Asian cultures) are more likely to exhibit culture-specific differences in brand personality. (Sung, 2005)

Aaker et al. (2001) conducted additional studies to examine how the symbolic and expressive attributes associated with commercial brands are structured and how this structure varies across three cultures: (a) the United States, (b) Japan, and (c) Spain. They identified a set of brand personality dimensions that share similar meaning in Japan and the United States (e.g., excitement) as well as other dimensions (e.g., peacefulness and ruggedness) that carry more specific cultural meaning. This finding of similarities and differences in basic structure was also supported by their other study, which compared Spain and the United States (Aaker et al., 2001).

37

As Aaker et al. (2001) noted, although the utilitarian attributes of commercial brands tend to exhibit limited variability in meaning or importance across cultures, the symbolic or value-expressive functions (the brand personality) associated with a brand tend to vary to some degree because of the variation of individuals’ needs and self-views and socialization. Also, cultural differences (Appendix 2) are linked with, and often motivate, variations in the strategies and tactics used to market consumer goods .This bidirectional causality suggests that cultural differences should be predictive of variations in the way even global brands are perceived, despite the fact that many are marketed with a standardized strategy. When these strategies are customized (adapted to known cultural characteristics), the extent of culture-related differences in brand perceptions should be even more evident.

Figure 2.3.2.1 Five American brand personality dimensions source (Aaker, 2001)

Figure 2.3.2.2 Five Japanese brand personality dimensions source: (Aaker, 2001)

American

Brand

Personality

Dimension

Sincerity Excitement Competence Sophistication Ruggedness

Japanese

Brand

Personality

Dimensions

Excitement Competence Peacefulness SinceritySophistication

38

Figure 2.3.2.3 Five Japanese brand personality dimensions source: (Aaker, 2001)

Supphellen and Grønhaug’s (2003) study in Russia provided another cross-cultural validation of the BPS, using the Ford and Levi’s brands. As in Aaker’s (1997) findings, the authors found five dimensions, which they identified as successful and contemporary, sincerity, excitement, sophistication, and ruggedness. The first dimension consisted of traits from four different BPS dimensions, but the other four resembled those in Aaker (1997). The authors’ findings provide further evidence that brand personality adjectives may shift from one dimension to another depending on the culture. Overall, the authors agree with Aaker’s (1997) contention that the brand personality scale is probably less cross-culturally robust than human personality measures.

Figure 2.3.2.4 Brand personality dimensions in Russia Source: (Supphellen and Grønhaug’s, 2003)

2.3.2.2 Application of BPS in products trait:

By Adopting Aaker’s brand personality scale, Ekini (2006) Aimed to identify whether tourists ascribed personality traits to tourism destinations .The findings of the study indicate that perception of destination personality is 3-dimensional: sincerity, excitement, and conviviality. The study also found that Destination Personality has

Spain

Brand

Personality

Dimensions

Excitement Sincerity Sophistication Peacefulness Passion

Brand personality in

Russia

Successful Ruggedness Sincerity Excitement Sophistication

39

positive impact on perceived destination image and intention to recommend. In particular, the conviviality dimension moderated the impact of cognitive image on tourists’ intention to recommend.

Because of the hedonic nature of the holiday experience and given that Tourism destinations are rich in terms of symbolic values; Ekini (2006) believes that the concept of brand personality can be applied to tourism destinations. Also he argues that Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale can be extended to gauge personality traits that tourists ascribe to destinations.

Figure 2.3.2.5 Dimensions of brand personality in destination personality Source: (Yuksel Ekinci and Sameer Hosany, 2006)

The results of his study indicates that tourists describe personality

Characteristics to destinations and destination personality can be described in three dimensions: sincerity, excitement, and conviviality. The dimensions were found to be reliable and valid, with sincerity and excitement as the two main factors. This is in line with previous research on the application of the BPS, in which the sincerity and excitement dimensions were found to capture the majority of variance in brand personality ratings (Aaker 1997). The third destination personality dimension, conviviality, was new and also specific to tourism destinations. It consists of traits such as friendly, family oriented, and charming. The findings of his study revealed that the BPS can be applied to tourism destinations.

Although the majority of the studies using the BPS have been carried out within the commercial brand settings, there exist some notable exceptions to its application in other contexts. Unlike previous research focusing on brand personality of consumer goods and services in the profit sectors, Venable et al. (2005) investigated the role of brand personality in nonprofit organizations. Using Aaker’s (1997) BPS and further complementing it with the results of qualitative studies, Venable et al. (2005) found four dimensions of brand personality for nonprofits organizations: integrity, nurturance, sophistication, and ruggedness. Siguaw, Mattila, and Austin’s (1999) study is one of the

Destination personality

sincerity excitement conviviality

40

few studies of brand personality in the context of hospitality and tourism. The authors investigated the brand personality of three broad categories of restaurants: quick service, casual dining, and upscale restaurants. Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale was used to gauge respondents’ perceptions of nine restaurants, three in each category. The findings revealed that restaurants can be differentiated on the basis of personality characteristics. Upscale restaurants were perceived as being more sophisticated, whereas casual restaurants were found to be more sincere and less competent when compared to the other two restaurants categories. Quick-service restaurants were viewed as being less exciting and less rugged.

Lau (2007), select two symbolic brands from the same product category with a significant difference in their prestige levels. From two focus group sessions, BMW and Volkswagen was identified as symbolic brands, whereby BMW was considered to be the higher prestige brand of the two. The key personality dimensions of BMW were “competent,” “excitement,” and “sophistication,” while Volkswagen portrayed strong personality dimensions of “sincerity,” “excitement,” “sophistication,” and “competent.”

Figure 2.3.2.6 Application of BPS in two prestigious brands in automobile industry

Source: (Kong Cheen Lau and Ian Phau, 2007)

In Matzler (2006) research, the hedonic value (defined as the pleasure potential of a product class) influences brands affect. He also found that two personality traits (extraversion and openness to experience) influence the perceived hedonic value of a product and brand affect.

Diamantopoulos (2004) used Aaker’s (1997) five brand personality dimensions as measures of core brand evaluation following the introduction of an extension. More specifically, he focuses on potential changes along these dimensions, i.e. he compares consumers’ pre- and post-extension scores on each brand personality dimension to identify any significant shifts attributable to the extension. He finally finds that brand personality is thus resilient to change as a result of an extension introduction, irrespective of the level of fit (and irrespective of whether the latter is operationalized as manipulated fit or perceived fit). The perceived quality of the core brand he also not found to moderate

BMW

Competent Excitement Sophistication

Volkswagen

Sincerity Excitement Sophistication Competent

41

the effect of extension fit on brand personality. However, core brand quality was consistently and positively related to the respondents’ initial perceptions of brand personality (with the exception of the “Sophistication” dimension).

Another research in Chile has studied the Ford brand personality and has shown that the applicable dimensions are 4 ones by omitting Ruggedness dimension.

Figure 2.3.2.7 Application of BPS in chile (Automobile Industry) Source: (Rojas-Mendez, 2004)

A research in Germany have shown four dimensions of brand personality (Drive, Conscientiousness, Emotion, and Superficiality) and the Aaker’s(1997) 42 item scale were customized to a 20-item instrument in German culture. (Bosenjak, 2007)

In application of BPS we should consider that sometimes the dimension described the brand is the product category related attribute and all the products in the same category are claimed to have the same personality. Example here is the research of Guthrie (2007) who has applied the BPS in cosmetic industry and found that the brand personality of “competent” was a common trait known for leader cosmetic brands.

Below is a summary of researches applying brand personality:

Chilian Brand

Personality

Dimensions

Excitement Competence SinceritySophistication

42

Table 2.3.2.1 Summary of related researches Selected Refrence Scale Used Number of

Dimensions Found

Settings Culture

Birdwell (1964) Own 1 dimension Automobile brands United States Dolich (1969) Own Not reported Commercial

brands United States

Malhotra (1981) Own 1 dimension Automobiles and actors

United States

Karande, Zinkhan, and Lum (1997)

Malhotra (1981) 1 dimension Automobile brands United States

Aaker (1997) Own 5 dimension Commercial brands

United States

Siguaw, Mattila, and Austin (1999)

Aaker (1997) 5 dimension Restaurants United States

Aaker, Benet- Martinez, and Garolera (2001)

Aaker (1997) 5 dimension Commercial brands

Japan and Spain

Caprara and Barbaranelli, (2001)

Goldberg (1990) 2 dimensions Commercial brands

United Kingdom

Davies, Chun, da Silva, and Roper (2001)

Aaker (1997) 5 dimensions

Corporate brands United States

Venable et al. (2005) Aaker (1997) 4 dimensions

Nonprofit organizations

Russia

Supphellen and Grønhaug (2003)


Commercial brands

United Kingdom

Ekinci and Riley (2003) Own 1 dimension Restaurants and hotels

United States

Rojas-Méndez, Erenchun-Podlech, and Silva-Olave (2004)


Automobile brands Chile

Shintaro Okazaki (2004) Aaker (1997) 5 dimensions commercial brands USA, UK, France, Germany and Spain

Kurt Matzler and Sonja Bidmon and Sonja Grubner (2006)

Aaker (1997) 2 dimensions Commercial brands Austria

Bob M. Fennis and Th. H. Pruyn (2007)

Aaker (1997) 5 dimensions Commercial brands Netherlands

Michael Bosnjak and Valerie Bochmann and Tanja Hufschmidt


commercial brands Germany

43

2.3.3 Critics about BPS

Big five model in human psychology is universal but dimensions of BPS can be quite cultural specific. (Bosnjak 2007,Aaker 2001, Ekini 2006, Mendez 2004, Tinkham 2005)

Aaker’s (1997) stated objective was to "develop a theoretical framework of brand personality dimensions and a reliable, valid, and generalizable scale that measures these dimensions". After completing her research, she concluded that all of these objectives regarding her brand personality framework, including the demonstration of generalizability, had been attained.

Austin (2003) claims that unfortunately, it is not entirely clear in Aaker’s article from what and to what the brand personality framework is generalizable. Although dire need has encouraged academicians and practitioners to readily embrace any scale that purports to measure brand personality, it is crucial to marketing thought and practice that the boundary conditions for the generalizability of Aaker’s research conclusions first be identified. He presented his findings from a series of confirmatory factor analyses, using a sample of students, that suggest the framework does not generalize to individual brands in a broadly defined product category (restaurants) included in Aaker’s research, nor does it generalize to the analysis of brands aggregated within this product category (nine quick service, casual dining, and upscale dining restaurant brands combined).

The clear delineation of brand personality, however, remains somewhat vague and indistinguishable from other constructs such as brand image or brand identity. Essentially, little is known about why consumers try to infuse human traits into brands. Further, there is a dearth of research that empirically demonstrates the utility of developing a strong, positive brand personality; that is, what is the effect that brand personality will have on consumer-related outcomes. While marketing practitioners seem to readily accept the notion that brand personality is related to favorable advantages, support for this assumption is primarily anecdotal and these relationships have not been subjected to extensive empirical testing (Freling, 2005).

In other research by Yuksel (2006) in the study of Brand Personality application in Tourism industry, that the “penta-factorial” structure hypothesized by Aaker (1997) cannot, however, be fully replicated. Instead, the 5-dimensional BPS needs adaptation when applied to tourism destinations.

Caprara's (2001) showed that the five-factor structure is not replicated when describing brands. Rather, at a higher level of abstraction in the hierarchical organization of personality characteristics, results supported a two-trait solution. He was also found

44

that descriptors of human personality convey different meanings when attributed to different brands. While the psycholexical approach remains a suitable procedure to identify brand descriptors, the factors used to describe human personalities appear to be inappropriate for describing the brands he studied. He also believes his findings are in line with those of Aaker (1997), who observed that “though some dimensions (or factors) of human personality may be mirrored in brands, others might not”. The traditional repertoire of human personality may serve for construing a brand personality, but only to a certain extent. When applied to products and brands, the Big Five Model needs revision and adaptation. Results show that only the two meta-factors, blends of the five main dimensions, are consistently replicated in brand perceptions. Most importantly, moreover, adjectives used to describe those traits may “shift” from one factor to another, according to the type of the selected stimulus brand.

In the cultural context, the structure of personality attributes associated with commercial brands research in Aaker's framework differs across cultural contexts (Diamantopoulos, 2004).

Such limitations, however, do not invalidate the use of the psycholexical approach as a vital tool for studying brand personality and detecting the best adjectives marketers can use to shape their desirable brand personality. This approach allows us to distinguish among the main distinctive “traits” of specific brands, and to select words and messages which may most effectively convey (and reinforce) the competitive characteristics of brands (Caprara, 2001).

Although some studies on the application and validation of Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale reveal the emergence of culturally specific dimensions, the BPS remains the most stable, reliable, and comprehensive measure to gauge brand/product personality. The BPS is the most comprehensive instrument for measuring brand or product personality (Ekini, 2006).

2.4 Brand Personality Building

Customers are very sensitive about symbolic meaning of the brands, sometimes companies try to show these meaning by advertising but they may be incongruity between the desired symbolic meanings portrayed in the advertising and employees' behavior. (Aaker, 1996)

Although past researches have shown that creative advertisement is a tool for personality building but later authors have suggested that the concept is more global and should be seen in brand equity building processes.(Aaker, 1991)

45

Batra() has brought two points to consider for marketers before creating a brand personality:

First: studying the existing brand personality that consumer has an image of in comparison with competitor brands (relevance of the personality)

Second: to what extend the segmented target consumers desire the specific kind of brand personality? (Value-creating of the personality)

Although there were not many papers showing exactly the whole constructs that create a brand personality in consumer’s minds, some researchers suggested examples to show how brand personality can be created.

Rajagopal (2006) claims that Consumers have only one image of a brand, one created by the deployment of the brand assets at your disposal: name, tradition, packaging, advertising, promotion posture, pricing, trade acceptance, sales force discipline, customer satisfaction, repurchases patterns, etc Indirectly, the brand personality is created by all the elements of the marketing mix.

Batra et al. (1993) suggest that the personality of a brand is created over time, by the all constituents of marketing-mix. The type of relationship that customers possess with the brands based on the loyalty levels is an extremely significant parameter for the marketers. He points some specific marketing activities like symbols used in all phases of brand communication, sales promotion, and media advertising. Duncan and Moriarty (1998) point out that each of the new generation marketing approaches include customer focused, market-driven, outside-in, one-to-one marketing, data-driven marketing, relationship marketing, integrated marketing, and integrated marketing communications that emphasize two-way communication through better listening to customers and the idea that communication before, during and after transactions can build or destroy important brand relationships.

The way consumers perceive brands is a key determinant of long-term business consumer relationships. A large proportion of consumer brand perception is obtained under low-involvement conditions and is therefore not consciously processed by the consumer’s brain. Such associations tend to be stored in terms of metaphors and importantly, they tend to aggregate in clusters (Rajagopal, 2006).

But in some industries there are some especial specifics that should been considered for example in an study of Brand Personality application in Tourism industry by Ekini (2006) the tools which build the destination personality in the minds of tourists are like Tourists receive and interpret the various messages sent by destinations, and

46

build a representation of the “behavior” of the destination. Personality traits can be associated with a destination in a direct way through citizens of the country, hotel employees, restaurants, and tourist attractions, or simply through the tourist’s imagery. In an indirect manner, personality traits can be attributed to destinations through marketing programs such as cooperative advertising, value pricing, celebrities of the country, and media construction of destinations. Accordingly, he argues that, similar to consumer goods/brands, tourism destinations are rich in terms of symbolic values and personality traits, given that they consist of a bundle of tangible and intangible components (e.g., visitor attractions, hotels, and people) associated with particular values, histories, events, and feelings.

Through all the marketing activities for building a brand and by the knowledge that all experiences of consumers with a brand will create a brand, advertising plays a dominant role in personality creation (Ibid).

2.4.1 Advertising as the dominant tool

When it comes to think about brand building processes first thing coming into mind is advertising. (rajagopal, 2006)

Rajagopal(2006) has a research on the effectiveness of advertising on brand personality building and in his paper he has analyzed different strategies of brand building and managing with the purpose of long term competitive advantage. And the focus is on symbiotic relationship of brands and their consumers by the help of media communication.

Brand personality is developed and created by advertisers and they hope customers would get their meaning. (Guthrie, 2007) All the business need is developing plans to convey the pieces of information that can portray the desired personality. (meredith, 2003)

Understanding how brand personality is created in the minds of consumers is essential for effective use of a company’s marketing tools. Effective brand management, encompassing brand personality is of paramount importance in reaching the overall company goals of satisfaction, loyalty, and profitability. Rajagopal (2006) claims that by the fact of brand personality has a vital role in effective brand management, companies use advertising for quick cognitive reflexes of customers and it is a common belief among the managers of multinational companies that advertising plays a pivotal role in building brand. He also in his study analyzed the influence of advertising practices on developing brand personality and their impact on the buying behavior of consumers. He found that in the process of brand personality building advertising plays a role as

47

brand drivers; brand typology, cognitive relationship between the consumer behaviors, communication and brand perceptions.

Advertising is heavily used in this process of personality creation. This follows logically from the fact that personalities are particularly useful for the creation of brand associations. Brand associations influence the ‘‘evaluation of alternatives’’ stage in basic consumer buying behavior models. At this stage, and for these goals, advertising is considered to be the most effective communication tools. Perhaps the most visible and best known way of personality creation is by means of celebrity endorsers. Public heroes, sports people, pop stars and movie stars have been hired to lend their personality to a brand for a long time and this practice is still growing in popularity today. Yet, basically all advertising influences the brand personality, not only when an endorser is used. In the process of personality creation, in reference to advertising and marketing, communication approaches are largely used to create brand personality. Many researchers have found that brands are sensitive to the communication and anchors which catalyze consumer behavior. It may be observed that a general model of advertising has been integrated with a model of brand personality creation as discussed in some of the studies. Based on that model a number of propositions are derived and presented thorough analyses of the role of brand personality in the creation of brand equity, thereby linking the core issue to one of general and increasing importance (Rajagopal, 2006).

Ang (2006) suggests use of metaphors in advertising for the purpose of personality creation, his findings suggests that metaphors, regardless of whether they are in verbal or pictorial form, influence brand personality perceptions. That similar findings were obtained for metaphoric headlines and pictures demonstrates the rigor of metaphors in influencing personality perceptions. Brands using metaphors were generally perceived to be more sophisticated and exciting, but also less sincere and competent, than brands using literal words and pictures. Metaphors can thus be used not only for short-term objectives such as breaking attention threshold, but also for longer term building of brand image and personality. The inherent

Characteristics of metaphors as artful deviations with imagery and decorative properties can be capitalized on to enhance the personality of products that lack such characteristics. Products can be made seemingly more sophisticated and exciting through the use of metaphors, although care should be taken to ensure that the sincerity and competence dimensions are not compromised. Managerially, his findings suggest that metaphoric pictures and metaphoric headlines are additional executional tools that advertisers can easily employ in ad creation to create the desired brand personality perceptions.

48

The relevant literature suggests that advertisers attempt to provide “stimuli” through various forms of brand communications, with the aim of making consumers perceive the intended personality (Okazaki, 2005).

49

Chapter 3

Research Methodology

3 Research Methodology This chapter is going to describe the research methods used in this study. This

research is going to apply Brand Personality Scale in SAMAND car brand. In order to do so the research methodology which is undertaken is as follow: First, the research approach suitable for this study is chosen, second, the research purpose is identified, third, different research strategies are investigated and the strategy appropriate for this study will be then recognized, forth, the data collection method used in this study is discussed. The figure 3.1 below provides an overview of the headings of the chapter.

50

Figure 3.1: headings of the chapter

3.1 Research purpose

Scientific research has three basic objectives (Svensson, 1999): Exploration: is needed when researcher is not sure which model is appropriate for

his work and wants to focus on developing a system of definitions (Robson, 1993). Exploratory studies aim for basic knowledge within the research purpose. The purpose with this kind of study is to decide and demonstrate the character of the problem by collecting information through exploration (Eriksson and Wiedersheim-Paul, 1999). Exploratory studies tend toward loose structures with the objective of discovering future research tasks (Cooper and Schindler, 2003). Its great advantage is that it is flexible and adaptable to change (Sunders et al., 2000). However; the flexibility inherent in exploratory research does not mean absence of direction to the enquiry (Adams and Schvaneveldt, 1991).

Description: the problem here is completely clear and well structured but the researcher doesn’t know the answer. The objective of descriptive research is 'to portray an accurate profile of persons, events or situations' (Robson, 1993) and to describe market characteristics or functions (Malhotra, 1996). The simplest descriptive study concerns a univariate question or hypothesis in which we ask about, or state something about, the size, form, distribution, or existence of a variable. If the research is concerned with finding out who, what, where, when or how much, then the study is descriptive (Cooper and Schindler, 2003).

Explanation: wants to describe the relation between and the cause to different phenomena.

Since this research is aiming to find out, test and describe the factors of Brand Personality Scale for two brands in Iran, the research purpose is descriptive. Therefore due to the fact that this research concerned with finding what by asking the questions "what are the underlying dimensions of this brand?" the suitable research purpose for this study will be descriptive.

Validity and reliability

Research purpose

Sample selection

Data collection

Research strategy

Research approach

Data analysis

51

3.2 Research Approach

By considering two research approaches qualitative and quantitative this research covers both.

In the quantitative part, applying the BPS model for chosen brand and underlying its dimensions the determination of the causal links specified by the hypothesis will result in the acceptance or rejection of the theoretical model. And by relying on analysis of statistical data, these dimensions will be clear.

In the qualitative session, by analyzing the open question, other specific attributes that can be added to the model is going to be found.

3.3 Research Strategy

The research strategy will be a general plan of how a researcher will go about answering the research question(s) he has set. It will contain clear objectives, derived from the research question(s), specify the sources from which the researcher intends to collect data and consider the constraints which he inevitably has.

A research can adopt any of the following research strategies:

• Experiment and quasi-experimental research: is a classical form of research that owes much to the natural sciences, although it features strongly in much social science research, particularly psychology (Sunders et al., 2000). In this kind of research strategy there is also the tendency to make use of hypotheses which the experiment seeks either to support or to refute. In other words, experimental research is usually deductive (Gray, 2004).

• Survey: survey are described by Fink (Fink, 1995) as a system for collecting information to describe, compare, or explain knowledge, attitude and behavior. The survey method is usually associated with the deductive approach. It is a popular and common strategy in business and management research. They allow the collection of a large amount of data from a sizable population in a highly economical way (Sunders et al., 2000). It has considerable ability to generate answers to the question 'what?' as well as 'how?' questions (Robson, 1993). Based most often on a questionnaire, these data are standardized allowing easy comparison. Using this strategy should give a researcher more control over the research process. However, much time will be spent in designing and piloting the questionnaire and also the data colleted by the survey may not be as wide ranging as those collected by quantitative research methods. The questionnaire, however, is not the only data collection device of the survey strategy. There are three main data collection devices which belong to survey category: questionnaire, structured observation and structured interview (Sunders et al., 2000). 'Structured' here refers to the degree of standardization imposed on the data collection process (Cooper and Schindler, 2003).

52

• Case study: Robson defines case study as "the development of detailed, intensive knowledge about a single case, or a small number of related cases" (Robson, 1993). This strategy will be of particular interest to the researcher if he or she wish to gain a rich understanding of the context of the research and the processes being enacted (Mooris and Wood, 1991). It's a very worthwhile way of exploring existing theory. The data collection methods include questionnaire, interviews, observation and documentary analysis (Sunders et al., 2000).

• Grounded theory: The grounded theory is often thought of as the best example of the inductive approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1976). Also some think of it as 'theory building' through a combination of induction and deduction. In grounded theory, data collection starts without the formation of an initial theoretical framework. Theory is developed from data generated by series of observations.

• Ethnography: It is also firmly rooted in the inductive approach. Ethnography emanates from the field of anthropology. The purpose is to interpret the social world the research subjects inhabit in the way in which they interpret it. This is obviously a research process that is very time consuming and takes place over an extended time period (Sunders et al., 2000).

• Action research: There are three common themes within the literature. The first focuses on and emphasizes the purpose of the research (Gunningham, 1995). The second relates to the involvement of practitioners in the research and in particular a close collaboration between practitioners and researchers. The final theme suggests that action research should have implications beyond the immediate project; in other words it must be clear that the results could inform other contexts (Sunders et al., 2000). Thus action research differs from other forms of applied research because of its explicit focus on action (Marsick and Watkins, 1997).

According to Wiedesheim-Paul and Eriksson (1998) there are three major research strategies available in social sciences: experiments, surveys and case studies. Yin(1994) proposes two additional: archival analysis and histories. Furthermore, what distinguishes these strategies can be determined by three different conditions:

1. The type of research question posed 2. The extent of control an investigator has over actual behavioral events 3. The degree of focus on contemporary as opposed to historical events Table 3.2, visualizes how Yin (1994) relates the three conditions to the different

strategies.

53

Table 2.4.1.1 Relevant situations for Different research strategies Research Strategy Form of

research question

Requires control over behavioral events

Focuses on contemporary events

Experiment How, why YES YES Survey Who, what,

where , how many, how much

NO YES

Archival analysis Who, What, where, how many, how much

NO YES/NO

History How, why NO NO Case study How, why NO YES

This research aims to test the model in a car brands from the customer’s point of view by considering “how” the Big Five model fits the brand so the appropriate strategy for this study is survey. In other words due to the fact that in survey respondents will be asked Aaker’s 42 item in order to find the factors of describing the chosen brand strategy.

3.4 Research process

The research process has been shown in figure 3.4.

54

Figure 3.4: research process

3.5 Research design

Research design is the plan and structure of investigation so conceived as to obtain answer to reach questions. The plan is the overall scheme or program of the research. It includes an outline of what the investigator will do from writing hypothesis and their operational implications to the final analysis of data. A research design expresses both the structure of the research problem and the plan of investigation used to obtain empirical evidence on relations of the problem. (Cooper and Schindler, 2003) In fact, the choice of research design must be appropriate to the subject under investigation.

3.5.1 Research variables

Distinction of variables is necessary in a research to reach to the response to a research question or hypothetical tests. Researchers are mostly interested in relationship among variables. The type of variables used in this research has been brought here:

Distribution and collection of the questionnaire

Study of reliability and validity of the questionnaire

Customizing the questionnaire

Designing a conceptual research model

Literature review

Research proposal preparation

Data collection

Data analysis

Conclusion and suggestions

55

1. Independent Variables: is a specialty from physical and social environment that is accepted after the selection, interference or modification by a quantitative researcher so that its impact may be observed on other variables (dependent variable).

2. Dependent variable: is a variable in which changes occur under the impact of independent variable.

3. Moderating variable: a moderating variable is a second independent variable that is included because it is believed to have a significant contributory or contingent effect on the originally stated dependent-independent variables relationship.

In this research the 42 items of Aaker’s Scale which are 42 personality attributes are independent variables. And the five factors of BPS model are dependent variables. And respondent’s demographic situation like age, sex, income and… are considered as moderating variables.

3.5.2 Methods and resources of data collection

Following methods have been applied during the data collections:

• Library method: to collect the information related to research literature and background (Secondary Data), the library method was applied. In this process 65 articles and books mainly about branding, brand personality and personality Psychology were collected mostly via internet and from data bases like :Emerald Insight, Business Source Elite (Ebsco), Science Direct,… the journal mostly used were: Caifornia Management Review, Advances in consumer research, Journal of personality and social psychology, Journal of marketing research, European journal of marketing, journal of marketing management and…

• Expert interview: personal interviews were used to customize the 42 items in BPS model by the help of 12 Iranian experts.

• Questionnaire: a questionnaire containing 38 questions was developed and used to collect the required data during a survey of more than 300 Irankhodro customers.

3.6 Statistical population and sample

Statistical population of this research is Iran Khodro company’s customers and mostly SAMAND owners or customer’s who have the experience of driving SAMAND. There were three reasons to choose this sample:

1- The experts’ suggestions who believed that this questionnaire is running for the first time in Iran. The customers will understand the purpose of study better and finally they care more about the brand.

56

2- The company’s idea about the influence of corporate personality on the brand personality which shows people in the branches environment are still judging about the brand by watching employees and all companies behavior.

3- The result of pilot test among 25 customers and non customers showed that customers give more reasonable answer to the questions.

By the support of Iran Khodro co. and SAPCO co. we distributed 500 questionnaires among 5 branches of Iran Khodro in 5 parts of the city northern part (gholhak branch), southern part (shoosh branch), west part (azadi branch), central part (fatemi branch) and east part ( resalat branch). These branches were chosen randomly for each region of the city. 313 out of 500 questionnaires had the reasonable answers, which show the response rate of 63%.

3.7 Sampling methods

The method of sampling for this research is cluster sampling in the category of probability sampling methods. In a simple random sample, each population element is selected individually. The population can also be divided into groups of elements with some groups randomly selected for study (Cooper and Schindler, 200). So five regions o Tehran were chosen (north, south, east, west and center) and in each region a branch was chosen randomly.

Most of the questionnaires were handed face to face and one person was ready to answer the possible questions from respondent. The people chosen for giving the questionnaire were first asked a few questions like have you ever taught that cars can have personality like human beings? Or are you interested to help us in this research?

These people were the customers who had come for receiving their car for the first time, or buying the car or just registering for the new car or people who had come for repair issues.

3.8 Measurement tool

Researchers apply measurement tools to collect and record the information in the research. Questionnaire is one of these tools which is a collection of written queries related to essential variables for the research and can be completed by respondents directly or indirectly. (cooper and schindler, 2003)

57

The whole set of personality traits used in this study was adapted from Aaker(1997). These traits were then discussed with 12 experts in Iran and then after some changes it had been reduced to 38 traits. These questions were structured in a Likert scale model (1 to 5) with ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘neither agree nor disagree’, ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ as the choices. And other sections of the questionnaire included questions regarding demographic and background information.

Since the scale was originally developed in English, the back translation procedure was employed to ensure equivalence between the English and Persian versions of the questionnaire. Table depicts the original terms used in the Aaker(1997) study and Persian translation. A pilot study then conducted in the sales and marketing department of IranKhodro co, with a total of 25 people.

Table 3.5.2.1 Persian translation of the questionnaire English personality attributes Persian translation

1 down to earth بودنمتواضع وخاآي

2 family oriented بودنخانوادگي

3 small-town بودن ساده وبي پيرايه

4 Honest بودنصادق

5 Sincere بودنصميمي

6 Real درمقابل شخصيت رياآارانه( بودنواقعي(

7 Wholesome بودنسالم

8 Original بودناصيل

9 Cheerful بودنشادوسرزنده

10 Sentimental بودنخيال انگيز

11 Friendly بودنصميمي ومهربان

12 Daring بودنشجاع

13 Trendy بودنمدرن

14 Exciting بودن پرهيجان وپرشور

15 Spirited بودنسرحال وسرزنده

16 Cool بودن محشر

17 Young بودنجوان

18 Imaginative بودنخالق

19 Unique بودنمنحصربفرد .بي نظيرو

20 up-to-date بودنبه روز

21 Independent بودنمستقل

22 Contemporary بودنجديد

58

23 Reliable بودنقابل اطمينان

24 hard working بودنسخت آوش

25 Secure بودن امن و بي خطر

26 Intelligent بودن باهوش و هوشمند

27 Technical متخصص بودن يافني

28 Corporate بودنمتعلق به جمع واشتراآي

29 Successful بودنموفق

30 Leader بودن سردسته ورهبر

31 Confident بودنبااعتمادبه نفس

32 upper class بودنباآالس

33 Glamorous بودنجذاب وخيره آننده

34 good looking بودن زيبا

35 Charming بودنخوش رو ومليح

36 Feminine بودنمونث يا زنانه

37 Smooth بودنلطيف وماليم

38 Outdoorsy بودناهل ورزش

39 Masculine بودنمردانه

40 Western بودنغربي يااروپائي يا آمريكائي

41 Tough بودنخشن وجدي

42 Rugged بودنزمخت وخالي ازظرافت

Reliability of measurement tool

According to Yin(1994) there are four tests commonly used to establish the quality of any empirical research, construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability.

Reliability or external validity: shows the similarity and reliability of the findings in the similar condition. Reliability means that if the test is repeated under similar condition, to what extent the findings are similar and reliable (Cooper and Schindler, 2003). Different methods are available to measure the reliability such as retest method, split-half method, parallel (equivalence) method, Richardson method and, Cronbach alpha coefficient method.

Construct validity: establishing correct operational measures for the concepts being studied.

59

Internal validity: establishing the domain to which a study’s findings can be generalized.

The common used method for measuring internal consistency is Cronbach alpha. Heir et al. (2007) have provided rules of thumb for interpreting alpha values. They mentioned an alpha of .70 or higher as an appropriate range to measure the reliability. Ro asses the reliability of the questionnaire during this research, alpha Cronbach was used. Result from the analysis of questionnaire reliability by using SPSS for the whole questionnaire is 96%, which is more than the minimum level (70%). And the test results for questions related to five main constructs are: 88% for 10 questions related to sincerity, 92% for 10 questions related to excitement, 91% for 9 questions related to competence, 87% for 5 questions related to sophistication, 75% for 4 questions related to ruggedness.

3.8.1 Content validity of the measurement tool

To determine the validity of questionnaires, various methods are available; one of them is content validity methods. Content validity method is used to study the formation ingredients of a measurement tool. This method usually is determined by experts in the proposed study subject. For the current research 6 experts who were university professors in the marketing research area and also had the experience of branding projects in the industry, 2 Irankhodro managers, 4 university professors in psychology, social science and English litreture were chosen. The name of these people and their field of research has been listed below:

1. Dr Rousta, associate professor in marketing management, Shahid Beheshti University, field of research mainly about consumer behavior, different projects in branding and marketing research, named the Iran’s father of new marketing. (face to face interview , 2hours)

2. Dr Adel Azar, associate professor in management, Tarbiyat modares university (mailed to his office)

3. Dr Amirshahi, associate professor in marketing management, AL Zahra university, field of research : brand management. (email)

4. Dr Shafiee, professor in marketing, Industrial Management Inst. , field of research: advertising psychology and marketing (face to face interview, 3 hours)

5. Dr Heiydarzade, accociate professor in marketing management, Azad university, field of study: brand management (email)

6. Dr safaeeyan: visiting professor in marketing management, Allameh university, field of research brand image (face to face interview , 1 hour)

7. Mr fakoori, marketing research manager, Irankhodro co. (face to face interview, different days)

60

8. Mr hashemi, marketing manager, Irankhordo co. (face to face interview, different days)

9. Mr Modarres nia, internal marketing strategy manager, Irankhodro co (face to face interview, different days)

10. Dr Kamboozia, asspciate professor in linguistics, Tarbiyat modares university

11. Dr Tabatabaei, associate professor in psychology, Tarbiyat modares university

12. Dr Amir albadvi, associate professor in industrial engineering, Tarbiyat modares university

These experts’ opinions were gathered through face to face interviews, emails or letters provided by a gift to their office.

3.8.2 Factor validity of the measurement tool

Factor validity is a kind of Construct validity that is acquired through factor analysis. In this research 10 questions represent the personality dimension of sincerity, 10 questions for the excitement, 9 explain competence, 5 for the sophistication and 4 questions make the personality dimension of ruggedness.

3.8.3 Results of factor analysis

Factor analysis of questions related to the personality dimension of sincerity:

For the sincerity dimension, 10 questions have been designed that after the first rank exploratory factor analysis the following results were acquired:

Table 3.8.3.1 KMO and Bartlett's Test of sincerity Table 3-6-3-1 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .901

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1246.302 Df 36 Sig. .000

Sufficiency and suitability test of data KMO for the execution of factor analysis for the sincerity dimension shows that data set were good enough for factor analysis because the measure of sample adequacy is greater than 0.6 (0.901). Similarly, number of significant Bartlett test is equal to 0.00 and is smaller than significant level of 0.05 that indicates correlation matrix possesses significant information. Furthermore, Communality

61

table, which shows the suitability of the ratio of questions communality, is greater than 0.50 for all the questions is the indicator of suitability of the questions. As Table shows, the proposed questions cover and explain 54.814 of variance of personality dimension of sincerity that in reality indicates the validity of questions.

Table 3.8.3.2 Questions communality of sincerity Component Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 4.933 54.814 54.814 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Factor analysis of questions related to the personality dimension of excitement:

For the excitement dimension, 10 questions have been designed that after the first rank exploratory factor analysis the following results were acquired:

Table 3.8.3.3 KMO and Bartlett's Test for excitement Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.

.904


Sufficiency and suitability test of data KMO for the execution of factor analysis for the excitement dimension shows that data set were good enough for factor analysis because the measure of sample adequacy is greater than 0.6 (0.904). Similarly, number of significant Bartlett test is equal to 0.00 and is smaller than significant level of 0.05 that indicates correlation matrix possesses significant information. Furthermore, Communality table, which shows the suitability of the ratio of questions communality, is greater than 0.50 for all the questions is the indicator of suitability of the questions. As Table shows, the proposed questions cover and explain 59.860 of variance of personality dimension of excitement that in reality indicates the validity of questions.

62

Table 3.8.3.4 Questions communality of excitement Component Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 5.986 59.860 59.860 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Factor analysis of questions related to the personality dimension of competence:

For the competence dimension, 9 questions have been designed that after the first

rank exploratory factor analysis the following results were acquired:

Table 3.8.3.5 KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.

.903


Sufficiency and suitability test of data KMO for the execution of factor analysis for the competence dimension shows that data set were good enough for factor analysis because the measure of sample adequacy is greater than 0.6 (0.903). Similarly, number of significant Bartlett test is equal to 0.00 and is smaller than significant level of 0.05 that indicates correlation matrix possesses significant information. Furthermore, Communality table, which shows the suitability of the ratio of questions communality, is greater than 0.50 for all the questions is the indicator of suitability of the questions. As Table shows, the proposed questions cover and explain 61.135 of variance of personality dimension of competence that in reality indicates the validity of questions.

63

Table 3.8.3.6 Questions communality of competence Component Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 5.502 61.135 61.135 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Factor analysis of questions related to the personality dimension of sophistication:

For the sophistication dimension, 5 questions have been designed that after the first rank exploratory factor analysis the following results were acquired:


.807


Sufficiency and suitability test of data KMO for the execution of factor analysis for the sophistication dimension shows that data set were good enough for factor analysis because the measure of sample adequacy is greater than 0.6 (0.807). Similarly, number of significant Bartlett test is equal to 0.00 and is smaller than significant level of 0.05 that indicates correlation matrix possesses significant information. Furthermore, Communality table, which shows the suitability of the ratio of questions communality, is greater than 0.50 for all the questions is the indicator of suitability of the questions. As Table shows, the proposed questions cover and explain 66.733 of variance of personality dimension of sophistication that in reality indicates the validity of questions.

64

Table 3.8.3.8 Questions communality of sophistication

Component Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 3.337 66.733 66.733 2 3 4 5

Factor analysis of questions related to the personality dimension of ruggedness:

For the sophistication dimension, 4 questions have been designed that after the first rank exploratory factor analysis the following results were acquired:


.514


3.9 Statistical method utilized in the research 3.9.1 Student t-test

Distribution (t) was developed with the name “student: in the year 1908 by V.S.Gost. This test now is usually known as “student test”. This can also be used for the hypothetical test that considers the social mean as equal, greater or smaller than a particular number, as well as, it also apply in the test related to average comparison of two society.

3.9.2 Structural equations model

SEM is a comprehensive statistical process which is a set of linear equations for testing the hypothesis about the relationship between observed and latent variables (Lavee, 1988) and uses a confirmatory approach (Byrne, 2001). Structural equation modeling techniques are a second-generation multivariate technique (Patrick, 1997) and have gained increasing popularity in management sciences, notably marketing and organizational behavior, in the last decade. Bagozzi (1980) cited by Patrick (1997) suggested that causal models developed following the structural equation modeling approach had a number of advantages: (1) they make the assumptions, constructs, and

65

hypothesized relationships in a researcher’s theory explicit; (2) they add a degree of precision to a researcher’s theory, since they require clear definitions of constructs, operationalizations, and the functional relationships between constructs; (3) they permit a more complete representation of complex theories; and (4) they provide a formal framework for constructing and testing both theories and measures. Selection of the sample size is very important in this stage because most of the available estimation methods in the structural equation modeling and assessing indicators of proportional model are sensitive compare to the sample size. Bentler suggested that ratio of 10 to 1 must always exist between sample size and number of free parameters that must be estimated. The main goal in SEM is to fin “the extent to which a hypothesized model ‘fits’ or, in other words, adequately describes the sample data” (Byrne, 2001).

3.9.3 One-way analysis of variance

The analysis of variance procedure is used to test the null hypothesis that the means of three or more population are the same against the alternative hypothesis that the means of three or more populations are the same against the alternative hypothesis that all population means are not the same. This method is established on the analysis of the identified and unidentified factors that explain the rate of scattered data.

66

Chapter 4

Data Analysis

4 Data Analysis In this chapter the analyzed data has been studied. First the demographic

information of the sample is represented by the help of descriptive statistics these demographic variables include specifications of respondents and the car model they have. The next analysis goes with the inferential statistics to measure how exactly the 38 variables describe SAMAND‘s personality and then the SEM approach shows the fitness of the big five model in the case of SAMAND. In the end One Sample T-test and one-way ANOVA are used respectively in order to shed light on different aspects of the research problem and to enrich our analysis.

4.1 Descriptive statistics

This section describes sample statistical

description with regard to the specifications of the respondents (age, sex, income, career and educational degree) and also the current automobile used by respondents and the SAMAND model they had or have and the year of buying the car.

and thall ag

Figure

basedmen t

4.1.1 D

The chhen between

ges in the sam

e 4.1.1.1 Respon

4.1.2 D

Chart bed on the factthan women

4.86%

11.11

escription

hart below shn 35 and 45 (mple.

ndent’s age

escription

low shows tt that, even

n.

15.97%

1%

17

n of respo

hows that th(27%). The

n of respo

that the majin a capital

4.87%

ondent’s a

he majority ofrequency sh

ondent’s s

jority of respcity like Te

86%

11.80%

Age

age:

of respondenhows that we

sex:

pondents weehran the m

21.18%

13.19

nts were bele had almost

ere men (72ajority of ca

%

6

low 35 (34%t people from

2%), which iar owners ar

below 20

20‐30

30‐35

35‐40

40‐45

45‐50

over 50

not clear

67

%) m

is re

Figure

Figure

3.13%

4

e 4.1.2.1 Respon

4.1.3 D

e 4.1.3.1 Respon

15.9

14.58%

%

4.86%

ndent’s sex

Descriptio

ndent’s career

7%

1

17.01%

n of respo

11.46%

3.47%

22.92%

c

ondent’s c

sex

4.17%

6.90%

22

career

career and

72.57%

2.92%

d jobs:

HOUSEW

RETIRED

STUDENT

EMPLOY

RUNNINGBUSINES

EXPERTs

MANAGE

6

male

female

not clear

WIVES

people

Ts

EEs

G THEIR OWN S

ERs

68

degre

Figure

6

4.1.4 D

Most of thee in Iran

e 4.1.4.1 Respon

4.1.5 D

Most of

9.03%

.94%

escription

he responden

ndent’s degree

escription

f the respond

15.63%

n of respo

nts had the B

n of respo

dent’s incom

2.78%

38.54%

d

ondent’s e

BS degree (3

ondent’s in

me was betwe

27.08%

degree

educationa

39%) which

ncome:

een 400000 a

al degree

is a commo

and 800000

BELOW DIP

below BS A

BS

MS

PHD

not clear

6

:

n educationa

toman

PLOMA

AND DIPLOMA

69

al

Figure

Figure

1

5.56%

1.39%

4.8

e 4.1.5.1 Respon

4.1.6 D

Most of th

e 4.1.6.1 Respon

49.65%

3

6.9

1.38%

%

%

5.56%

86%

ndent's income

escription

he responden

ndent’s car nam

3.47%

94%

17.36%

n of respo

nts were SA

me

11.45

2.02.08%

income

9.72%

ca

ondent’s c

AMAND own

5%

9.72%

08%

e (in tom

43.75%

ar name

current ca

ners (44%)

25%

man)

sam

pe

pev

pev

l90

pev

pey

ar:

40000

80000

12000

16000

16000

not cle

mand

vegout 206

vegout RD

vegout 405

vegout persia

ycan

7

0

0

00

00

00 and higher

ear

70

Figure

of LX

Descript

66% had t

e 4.1.6.2 Respon

4.1.7 D

Most of thX model (28%

25.69%

tion of SAM

the experien

ndent’s experien

escription

he SAMAND%)

%

exper

AND owner

nce of ownin

nce of owning S

n of respo

D customers

8.33%

rience o

rs currently o

ng the SAMA

SAMAND

ondent’s S

s who answe

f owning

or previously

AND.

SAMAND t

ered the ques

65.97%

g SAMA

y:

type

stion were th

AND

7

he customer

YES

NO

NOT CLEAR

71

’s

Figure

cust

persoabout

“SIN

the lethe al

is equearth)

e 4.1.7.1 Respon

4.2 Sttomers o

In thisonality attribt SAMAND

4.2.1 O4.2.1.1

NCERITY”

with thevel of agreell attributes r

Down to

H0: level ual to 3 (me)

H1: level

0.

40.9

ndent’s SAMAN

tudy of Sof IRANKH

s part, we bute and the.

ne SamplOne

he use of Onements amonrelated to it i

earth

of agreemeneans respond

of agreemen

5.5

.70%

98%

ND model

SAMAND’HODRO C

are going e big five m

le T-Test Sample T

ne Sample Tng the responis smaller th

nts about SAdents have n

nts about SA

56%

sama

’s currenCO

to evaluatemain constru

T-Test for

-Test procedndent’s abou

han 3 or not.

AMAND’S pno specific i

AMAND’S p

2

and mod

nt brand p

e the currenucts among

r the first

dure to find ut the first pHere are the

personality aidea about S

personality a

24.65%

28.13%

del

personali

nt status of IranKhodro

t brand p

out whetherpersonality de test hypoth

attribute of dSAMAND b

attribute of d

7

ity among

f each Brano’s customer

personalit

r the mean odimension anheses:

down to earteing down t

down to eart

classic

LX

soren

sarir

not clear

72

g

nd rs

ty

of nd

th to

th

73

is not equal to 3 (mean respondents thinking about SAMAND being down to earth or nit)

Family oriented

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Family oriented is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Family oriented)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Family oriented is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Family oriented or not)

Small-town

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Small-town is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Small-town)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Small-town is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Small-town or not)

Honest

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of honest is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being honest)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of honest is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being honest or not)

Real

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Real is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Real)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Real is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Real or not)

Wholesome

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Wholesome is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Wholesome)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Wholesome is

74

not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Wholesome or not)

Original

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Original is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Original)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Original is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Original or not)

Cheerful

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Cheerful is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Cheerful)

H1: level of Cheerful about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Original is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Cheerful or not)

Sentimental

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Sentimental is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Sentimental)

H1: level of Cheerful about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Sentimental is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Sentimental or not)

Friendly

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Friendly is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Friendly)

H1: level of Cheerful about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Friendly is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Friendly or not)

Sincerity

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of sincerity is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about the sincerity of SAMAND)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of is not equal to 3 (is less or more, respondents are believe SAMAN is sincere or not)

75

Below table shows the result of One Sample T-Test including p-value and a brief conclusion

Table 4.2.1.1 One Sample t-test for Sincerity T Df p-value Mean

difference lower Upper Conclusion

Down to earth -9.026 287 .000 -.51389 -.6260 -.4018 The mean is smaller than 3 Family oriented -22.248 287 .000 -1.14931 -1.2510 -1.0476 The mean is smaller than 3 Small-town -12.249 287 .000 -.71181 -.8258 -.5978 The mean is smaller than 3 Honest -3.598 287 .000 -.23611 -.3653 -.1069 The mean is smaller than 3 Real -6.838 287 .000 -.41319 -.5321 -.2943 The mean is smaller than 3 Wholesome -5.763 287 .000 -.38889 -.5217 -.2561 The mean is smaller than 3 Original -3.145 287 .002 -.23611 -.3839 -.0883 The mean is smaller than 3 Cheerful -2.302 287 .022 -.16319 -.3027 -.0237 The mean is smaller than 3 Sentimental .059 287 .953 .00347 -.1129 .1199 The mean is equal to 3 Friendly -7.263 287 .000 -.41667 -.5296 -.3038 The mean is smaller than 3 Sincerity -9.683 287 .000 -.42257 -.5085 -.3367 The mean is smaller than 3

The results of t-test show that respondent’s believe, SAMAND has a sincere personality. So the customers believe SAMAND is down to earth, family oriented, small-town, honest, real wholesome, original, cheerful and friendly. The only attribute they have no idea about is the sentimentalism. So it shows that Irankhodro Company has been successful in its marketing and manufacturing processes to make SAMAND a sincere brand. But they have to work on the sentimental attribute as well to increase the level of sincerity.

4.2.1.2 One Sample T-Test for the second brand personality “EXCITEMENT”

with the use of One Sample T-Test procedure to find out whether the mean of the level of agreements among the respondent’s about the second personality dimension and the all attributes related to it is smaller than 3 or not. Here are the test hypotheses:

Daring

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Daring is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Daring)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Daring is not equal to 3 (means respondents thinking about SAMAND being Daring or not)

Trendy

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of trendy is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being trendy)

76

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of trendy is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being trendy or not)

Exciting

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of exciting is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being exciting)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of exciting is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being exciting or not)

Spirited

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of spirited is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being spirited)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of spirited is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being spirited or not)

Cool

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of cool is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being cool)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of cool is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being cool or not)

Young

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of young is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being young)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of young is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being young or not)

Imaginative

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of imaginative is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being imaginative)

77

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of imaginative is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being imaginative or not)

Unique

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of unique is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being unique)

H1: level of Cheerful about SAMAND’S personality attribute of unique is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being unique or not)

Independent

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of independent is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being independent)

H1: level of agreement about SAMAND’S personality attribute of independent is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being independent or not)

Contemporary

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of contemporary is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being contemporary)

H1: level of Cheerful about SAMAND’S personality attribute of contemporary is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being contemporary or not)

Excitement

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of excitement is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about the excitement of SAMAND)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of excitement is not equal to 3 (is less or more, respondents are believe SAMAN is exciting or not)


78

Table 4.2.1.2 One Sample T-Test for excitement dimension T Df p-value Mean


Daring -8.642 287 .000 -.57986 -.7119 -.4478 The mean is smaller than 3 Trendy 1.211 287 .227 .08681 -.0543 .2279 The mean is equal to 3 Exciting 1.263 287 .208 .08333 -.0466 .2132 The mean is equal to 3 Spirited -1.969 287 .050 -.13194 -.2638 -.0001 The mean is equal to 3 Cool 7.999 287 .000 .50694 .3822 .6317 The mean is greater than 3 Young .949 287 .344 .06597 -.0709 .2029 The mean is equal to 3 Imaginative 1.901 287 .058 .125000 -.0044 .2544 The mean is equal to 3 Unique 5.505 287 .000 .38889 .2499 .5279 The mean is greater than 3 Independent -6.627 287 .000 -.39583 -.5134 -.2783 The mean is smaller than 3 contemporary -2.385 287 .018 -.15278 -.2789 -.0267 The mean is smaller than 3 Excitement -.007 287 .995 -.00035 -.1014 .1007 The mean is equal to 3

The results of t-test show that respondent’s do not have a clear idea about excitement personality. The respondents believe SAMAND is daring, independent and contemporary. But in the other side they think it is not cool or unique, and have no idea about SAMAND being imaginative, young, spirited, exciting or trendy. So the overall conclusion shows that they have no clear picture about the excitement of SAMAND’s personality. So IranKhodro has to do something about it. SAMAND is exciting or not? This is the first question they should ask themselves. For example, the attribute “young” must be clear is it an old or young brand. So in this part IranKhodro shows a kind of failure to represent this personality.

4.2.1.3 One Sample T-Test for the third brand personality “COMPETENCE”

with the use of One Sample T-Test procedure to find out whether the mean of the level of agreements among the respondent’s about the third personality dimension and the all attributes related to it is smaller than 3 or not. Here are the test hypotheses:

Reliable

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of reliable is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being reliable)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of reliable is not equal to 3 (means respondents thinking about SAMAND being reliable or not)

Hard working

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Hard working is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Hard working)

79

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Hard working is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Hard working or not)

Secure

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Secure is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Secure)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Secure is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Secure or not)

Intelligent

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Intelligent is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Intelligent)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Intelligent is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Intelligent or not)

Technical

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Technical is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Technical)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Technical is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Technical or not)

Corporate

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Corporate is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Corporate)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Corporate is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Corporate or not)

Successful

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Successful is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Successful)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Successful is

80

not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Successful or not)

Leader

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Leader is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Leader)

H1: level of Cheerful about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Leader is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Leader or not)

Confident

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Confident is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Confident)

H1: level of agreement about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Confident is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Confident or not)

Competence

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of competence is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about the competency of SAMAND)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of competence is not equal to 3 (is less or more, respondents are believe SAMAN is competence or not)


Table 4.2.1.3 One Sample T-Test for competence dimension T Df p-value Mean


Reliable -8.244 287 .000 -.52083 -.6452 -.3965 The mean is smaller than 3 Hard working -9.666 287 .000 -.60764 -.7314 -.4839 The mean is smaller than 3 Secure -10.565 287 .000 -.69792 -.8279 -.5679 The mean is smaller than 3 Intelligent -1.969 287 .050 -.12153 -.2430 -0.001 The mean is smaller than 3 Technical -3.189 287 .002 -.19097 -.3089 -.0731 The mean is smaller than 3 Corporate -10.465 287 .000 -.60764 -.7219 -.4934 The mean is smaller than 3 Successful -7.123 287 .000 -.42361 -.5407 -.3066 The mean is smaller than 3 Leader 2.606 287 .010 .16667 .0408 .2925 The mean is greater than 3 Confident -6.358 287 .000 -.36806 -.4820 -.2541 The mean is smaller than 3 Competence -7.816 287 .000 -.37461 -.4690 -.2803 The mean is smaller than 3

81

The results of t-test show that respondent’s are agreeing about the personality of competence. They believe that SAMAND is reliable, hard working, secure, intelligent, technical, corporate, successful, leader and confident. So the personality “competence” does exactly fits SAMAND. And Irankhodro has shown it clearly.

4.2.1.4 One Sample T-Test for the fourth brand personality “sophistication”

with the use of One Sample T-Test procedure to find out whether the mean of the level of agreements among the respondent’s about the fourth personality dimension and the all attributes related to it is smaller than 3 or not. here are the test hypotheses:

Upper class

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Upper class is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Upper class)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Upper class is not equal to 3 (means respondents thinking about SAMAND being Upper class or not)

Glamorous

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Glamorous is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Glamorous)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Glamorous is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Glamorous or not)

Good looking

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Good looking is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Good looking)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Good looking is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Good looking or not)

Feminine

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Feminine is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Feminine)

82

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Feminine is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Feminine or not)

Smooth

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Smooth is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Smooth)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Smooth is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Smooth or not)

Sophistication

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of sophistication is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about the sophistication of SAMAND)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of sophistication is not equal to 3 (is less or more, respondents are believe SAMAN is sophistication or not)


Table 4.2.1.4 One Sample T-Test for sophistication dimension T Df p-value Mean


Upper class -1.236 287 .218 -.08333 -.2161 .0494 The mean is equal to 3 Glamorous 1.154 287 .250 .07639 -.0539 .2067 The mean is equal to 3 Good looking -4.010 287 .000 -.26389 -.3934 -1.344 The mean is smaller than 3 Feminine 15.217 287 .000 .86806 .7558 .9803 The mean is greater than 3 Smooth 6.697 287 .000 .41667 .2942 .5391 The mean is greater than 3 sophistication 3.894 287 .000 .20278 .1003 .3053 The mean is greater than 3

The results of t-test show that respondent’s are not agree about the personality of sophistication. They believe that SAMAND is not feminine or smooth but is good looking. And they didn’t have any idea about samand being upper class or glamorous. And at the end they do not think SAMAND is a sophisticated brand. So we can say Irankhodro is a kind of clear about this dimension.

4.2.1.5 One Sample T-Test for the fifth brand personality “RUGGEDNESS”

83

with the use of One Sample T-Test procedure to find out whether the mean of the level of agreements among the respondent’s about the fifth personality dimension and the all attributes related to it is smaller than 3 or not. Here are the test hypotheses:

Outdoorsy

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Outdoorsy is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Outdoorsy)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Outdoorsy is not equal to 3 (means respondents thinking about SAMAND being Outdoorsy or not)

Masculine

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Masculine is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Masculine)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Masculine is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Masculine or not)

Tough

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Tough is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Tough)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Tough is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Tough or not)

Rugged

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Rugged is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Rugged)

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Rugged is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Rugged or not)

Ruggedness

H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of ruggedness is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about the ruggedness of SAMAND)

84

H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of ruggedness is not equal to 3 (is less or more, respondents are believe SAMAN is ruggedness or not)


Table 4.2.1.5 One Sample T-Test for ruggedness dimension T Df p-value Mean

difference Lower Upper Conclusion

Outdoorsy -1.159 287 .247 -.06944 -.1874 .0485 The mean is equal to 3 Masculine -15.738 287 .000 -.87500 -.9844 -.7656 The mean is smaller than 3 Tough -9.892 287 .000 -.59722 -.7161 -.4784 The mean is smaller than 3 Rugged -2.298 287 .022 -.15278 -.2836 -.0219 The mean is smaller than 3 Ruggedness -10.503 287 .000 -.42361 -.5030 -.3442 The mean is smaller than 3

The results of t-test show that respondent’s are agree about the personality of ruggedness. They believe that SAMAND is masculine, tough and rugged but they have no idea if it is outdoorsy or not. In the end we can say ruggedness fits SAMAND. And by the little work on the outdoorsy attribute the company can make a clearer picture.

4.3 Evaluation of measurement models

Confirmatory factor analysis for the BRAND PERSONALITY SCALE (BPS) is presented in this section.

4.3.1 CFA for 5 personality dimensions model

The question arises here: how well the empirical data conform to the hypothesized factor model of Brand Personality Scale? That is how well the data fit the mode. Measurement model of BPS elements with the use of confirmatory factor analysis in the non-standard estimate condition has been shown below. As illustrated, the model is of a five-factor structure. 10 indicators are loaded on the latent factor of sincerity, 10 indicators on the latent factor of excitement, 9 indicators on the competence, 5 indicators on the sophistication and finally 4 indicators are loaded on the latent factor of ruggedness.

85

Figure 4.3.1.1 original model

SIN1

SIN2

SIN3

SIN4 SINCERITY

1

er11

er21

er31

er4

1

EXCITEMENT

COMPETENCE

SOPHISTICATION

RUGGEDNESS

BRAND PERSONALITY

E11

E12

E13

E14

E15

E16

SIN5

SIN6

SIN7

SIN8

SIN9

SIN10

E17

E18

E19

E20

1

er51

e61

e71

e81

e91

e101

er111

er121

er131

er141

er151

er161er17

1

er181

er191

er20

C21

C22

C23

C24

C25

C26

C27

C28

1

e211

e221e23

1

e241

e251

e261

e271

e28

SOP30

SOP31

SOP32

SOP33

SOP34

1

e301

e311

e321

e331

e34

R35

R36

R37

R38

1

e351

e361

e371

e38

1

1

1

1

1

1

e391

e40

1

e421

e43

1

e41

1

e29C29

1

e44

1

86

The scale at a facet level proposed by Aaker (1997) was examined in detail for

dimensionality, reliability and validity.

Measurement model of BRAND PERSONALITY SCALE with the use of

confirmatory factor analysis in the non-standard estimate condition has shown in the next

page:

87

SIN1

SIN2

SIN3

SIN4 SINCERITY

1

er11

er21

er31

er4

1

EXCITEMENT

COMPETENCE

SOPHISTICATION

RUGGEDNESS

BRAND PERSONALITY

E11

E12

E13

E14

E15

E16

SIN5

SIN6

SIN7

SIN8

SIN9

SIN10

E17

E18

E19

E20

1

er51

e61

e71

e81

e91

e101

er111

er121

er131

er141

er151

er161er17

1

er181

er191

er20

C21

C22

C23

C24

C25

C26

C27

C28

1

e211

e221e23

1

e241

e251

e261

e271

e28

SOP30

SOP31

SOP32

SOP33

SOP34

1

e301

e311

e321

e331

e34

R35

R36

R37

R38

1

e351

e361

e371

e38

1

1

1

1

1

1

e391

e40

1

e421

e43

1

e41

1

e29C29

1

e44

1

88

Figure 4.3.1.2 confirmatory factor analysis of the BPS

.29

SIN1.72

SIN2.30

SIN3.56

SIN4

.82

SINCERITY

er1

er2

er3

er4

.84

.53

.84

.67

.54

.85.54

.75

.94

EXCITEMENT

.89

COMPETENCE

.77

SOPHISTICATION

1.00

RUGGEDNESS

.00

BRAND PERSONALITY

.91 .94

.97

.50

E11.61

E12.67

E13.68

E14.60

E15.45

E16

.46

SIN5.56

SIN6.34

SIN7.66

SIN8.11

SIN9.55

SIN10

.60

E17.50

E18.43

E19.51

E20

er5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

er11

er12

er13

er14

er15

er16

er17

er18

er19

er20

.56

C21.50

C22.48

C23.53

C24.71

C25.42

C26.69

C27.52

C28

e21

e22

e23

e24

e25

e26

e27

e28

.82

SOP30.74

SOP31.79

SOP32.19

SOP33.45

SOP34

e30

e31

e32

e33

e34

.43

R35.15

R36.07

R37.08

R38

e35

e36

e37

e38

.88

1.00

.68

.75.58.81.34.74

.73

.67

.81

.58

.94

.67

.71

.62

.58

.57

.63

.74

.63

.71

.76

.70

.77

.71.78

.82.82

.67

.78.71

.65.71

.66

.39

.26

-.28

.75.71

.69

.73

.84

.65.83

.72

.66

.71

.72

.68

.54

.76

.56

.70

.43

.51

.46

.90

-.74

-.75

-.92

.97

.96

.90.86

.89

.43

.67

e39 e40

e42

e43

e41

e29

.66

C29.58

.42 .33

.48

.06

.24

e44-1.00 .82

89

With regarded to the following results that have been acquired from the output of

AMOS 16.0 software.

Table 4.3.1.1 CMIN of the original model Model NPAR CMIN

Default model 80 2113.257

\ Table 4.3.1.2 RMR, GFI Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Default model .100 .967 .963 .864

All of the statistics values are in acceptable range

Table 4.3.1.3 Squared Multiple Correlations

Estimate

BRAND PERSONALITY

.000

RUGGEDNESS

.997

SOPHISTICATION

.773

EXCITEMENT

.942

COMPETENCE

.889

SINCERITY

.824

C29

.664

SOP34

.447

SOP33

.187

SOP32

.793

SOP31

.739

SOP30

.819

C28

.516

90

Estimate

C27

.687

C26

.418

C25

.711

C24

.533

C23

.483

C22

.499

C21

.558

R38

.078

R37

.067

R36

.153

R35

.435

E20

.508

E19

.425

E18

.499

E17

.603

E16

.453

E15

.600

E14

.678

E13

.669

E12

.610

E11

.500

SIN10

.553

91

Estimate

SIN9

.114

SIN8

.661

SIN7

.341

SIN6

.556

SIN5

.463

SIN4

.556

SIN3

.295

SIN2

.720

SIN1

.288

92

Results clearly indicated that the model should be accepted but it needs a kind

of purification. So according to rojas mendez (2004) research in Chile, testing the Brand

Personality Scale at a dimension level, was chosen as the next step. The analysis of the

dimensions followed the two step approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing

(1998). The first step involves the use of confirmatory factor analysis to develop an

acceptable measurement model. The test of a measurement model allows for assessing

whether observed variables are really measuring their underlying theoretical constructs

and whether the measurement model provides evidence of an acceptable fit to the sample

data. Then using structural equation modeling, with the maximum likelihood method, the

dimensions were tested to see whether they really measure the main construct of Brand

Personality.

The result at sincerity dimension model has shown below:

93

Figure 4.3.1.3 CFA for sincerity dimension

.39

SIN1

.63

SIN2

.39

SIN3

.64

SIN4

.00

SINCERITY

er1

er2

er3

er4

.78

.61

.78

.60

.63

.79

.62

.80.55

SIN5

.59

SIN6

.34

SIN7

.58

SIN8

.57

SIN10

er5

e6

e7

e8

e10

.74

.77

.58

.76

.76

.67

.64

.81

.65

.65

e39

1.00

94

The results postulate that the latent variable ‘sincerity’ which was composed of 11

observed variables in Aaker’s study. The results show that the remaining variables are

just 6 ones. So 5 items should be excluded in order to achieve a good fit of the scale to

the sample data. Therefore, only the following 6 items were kept for further analysis:

family oriented, honest, real, wholesome, cheerful and friendly.

The result at excitement dimension model has shown below:

the results postulate that the latent variable ‘excitement’ which was composed of

10 observed variables in Aaker’s study. The results show that the remaining variables are

8 ones. So 2 items should be excluded in order to achieve a good fit of the scale to the

sample data. Therefore, only the following 8 items were kept for further analysis: trendy,

exciting, sprited, cool, imaginative, unique, independent and contemporary.

Figure 4.3.1.4 CFA for excitement dimension

.00

EXCITEMENT

.38

E11.63

E12.69

E13.62

E14.64

E15.47

E16

.63

E17.58

E18.49

E19

.55

E20

er11

er12

er13

er14

er15

er16

er17

er18

er19

er20

.79

.61

.56

.62

.60

.73

.61

.65

.72

.67

.80

.61

.80

.83.78

.69

.79

.76

.70

.74

e42

1.00

95

The result at competence dimension model has shown below:

Figure 4.3.1.5 CFA for competence dimension

The results postulate that the latent variable ‘competence’ which was composed of

9 observed variables in Aaker’s study. The results show that the remaining variables are 6

ones. So 3 items should be excluded in order to achieve a good fit of the scale to the

sample data. Therefore, only the following 6 items were kept for further analysis:

reliable, hard working, secure, technical, successful and confident.

The result at sophistication dimension model has shown below:

.00

COMPETENCE

.60

C21.59

C22.58

C23.47

C24.58

C25.47

C26.67

C27.41

C28

e21

e22

e23

e24

e25

e26

e27

e28

.77.77

.76

.69

.76

.69.82

.64

.63

.64

.65

.73

.64

.73

.58

.77

e40

e29

.71

C29.53

1.00

.85

96

Figure 4.3.1.6 CFA for sophistication dimension

The results postulate that the latent variable ‘sophistication’ which was composed of 5 observed variables in Aaker’s study. The results show that the remaining variables are 4 ones. So 1 item should be excluded in order to achieve a good fit of the scale to the sample data. Therefore, the following 4 items were kept for further analysis: upper class, glamorous and smooth.

The result at ruggedness dimension model has shown below:

.00

SOPHISTICATION

.83

SOP30.77

SOP31

.75

SOP32.26

SOP33

.51

SOP34

e30

e31

e32

e33

e34

.42

.48

.50

.86

-.70

.91

.88

.87

.51

.71

e41

1.00

97

Figure 4.3.1.7 CFA for ruggedness dimension

Finally the analysis of the sub-scale for ‘ruggedness’ did not fit the sample data in an appropriate manner, mainly because three out of the 4 original items showed standardized regression weights that were lower than the baseline of 0.7 recommended by Aaker (1997).

So only 4 dimensions o the brand personality scale remained for further analysis. The refined model has been shown in the next page.

.00

RUGGEDNESS

.10

R35.47

R36.86

R37.07

R38

e35

e36

e37

e38

.31

.69

.93

.27

.95

.73

.37

.96

e43

1.00

98

SIN2

SIN4 SINCERITY

1

er2

1

er4

1

EXCITEMENT

COMPETENCE

SOPHISTICATION

BRAND PERSONALITY

E12

E13

E14

E15

SIN5

SIN6

SIN8

SIN10

E17

E18

E19

E20

1

er51

e6

1

e8

1

e10

1

er121

er131

er141

er15

1

er171

er181

er191

er20

C21

C22

C23

C25

C27

1

e211

e221e23

1

e25

1

e27

SOP30

SOP31

SOP32

SOP34

1

e301

e311

e32

1

e34

1

1

1

1

1

1

e391

e40

1

e42

1

e41

1

e29C29

1

e44

1

99

Figure 4.3.1.8 BPS refined model

.57

SIN2

.61

SIN4

.82

SINCERITY

er2

er4

.65

.62

.76

.78

.93

EXCITEMENT

.86

COMPETENCE

.82

SOPHISTICATION

.00

BRAND PERSONALITY

-.91 -.93

-.97

.64

E12.70

E13.69

E14.57

E15

.41

SIN5.58

SIN6

.70

SIN8

.48

SIN10

.59

E17.54

E18.50

E19.55

E20

er5

e6

e8

e10

er12

er13

er14

er15

er17

er18

er19

er20

.60

C21.56

C22.55

C23

.78

C25

.75

C27

e21

e22

e23

e25

e27

.83

SOP30.74

SOP31.81

SOP32

.47

SOP34

e30

e31

e32

e34

-.91

.64

.76

.84

.69

.77

.65

.55

.72

.60

.55

.56

.66

.64

.68

.71

.67

.75

.80

.84.83

.77.73

.70.74

.78.75

.74

.88

.87

.63

.66

.67

.47

.50

.41

.51

.44

-.72

.91.86

.90

.69

e39 e40

e42

e41

e29

.72

C29.53

-.42 .37

.42

.26

e44-1.00 .85

100

The preceding section measured the fit of each proposed sub-scale to the sample data. Confirmatory factor analysis is used again to test the adequacy of the combined measurement model and to evaluate the discriminate validity of the Brand Personality Scale.

A shorthand scale with four items for each one of the four dimensions of brand personality was retained, thus the revised scale has a total of 24 items.

Table 4.3.1.4 Squared Multiple Correlations for revised model Squared Multiple Correlations for revised model:

Estimate

BRAND PERSONALITY .000

SOPHISTICATION .825

EXCITEMENT .933

COMPETENCE .863

SINCERITY .825

C29 .723

SOP34 .475

SOP32 .810

SOP31 .738

SOP30 .830

C27 .749

C25 .779

C23 .551

C22 .561

C21 .602

101

Squared Multiple Correlations for revised model:

Estimate

E20 .551

E19 .496

E18 .540

E17 .589

E15 .569

E14 .690

E13 .700

E12 .641

SIN10 .480

SIN8 .702

SIN6 .584

SIN5 .411

SIN4 .609

SIN2 .571

Table 4.3.1.5 Model fit summary for refined model Model NPAR CMIN

Default model 50 535.969

Table 4.3.1.6 RMR, GFI Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Default model .085 .987 .985 .826

102

4.4 Study secondary hypothesis of the research

Here, we are going to analyze the effect of consumer’s demographic variables on

5 dimensions of brand personality. To reach this goal , we have used One-Way ANOVA

(Analysis of variance).

There are five groups of hypothesis in order to gain knowledge. First, hypothesis

related to relationship of Sincerity dimension and the consumer’s specifications.

There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with

respondent’s age.


respondent’s sex.


respondent’s career.


respondent’s degree.


respondent’s income.


respondent’s car model.


respondent’s experience having SAMAND or not.

Second, hypothesis related to relationship of excitement dimension and the

consumer’s specification.


respondent’s age.

103


respondent’s sex.











Third, hypothesis related to relationship of competence dimension and the



respondent’s age.


respondent’s sex.







104





Fourth, hypothesis related to relationship of sophistication dimension and the



respondent’s age.


respondent’s sex.











Fifth, hypothesis related to relationship of ruggedness dimension and the



respondent’s age.

105


respondent’s sex.











4.4.1 Differences based on respondent’s age

1- Design of null and alternative hypothesis

Sincerity

H0: no significant difference among means of Sincerity dimension and

respondent’s age.

H1: significant difference among means of Sincerity dimension and respondent’s

age.

Excitement

H0: no significant difference among means of Excitement dimension and

respondent’s age.

106

H1: significant difference among means of Excitement dimension and

respondent’s age.

Competence

H0: no significant difference among means of Competence dimension and

respondent’s age.

H1: significant difference among means of competence dimension and

respondent’s age.

Sophistication

H0: no significant difference among means of sophistication dimension and

respondent’s age.

H1: significant difference among means of sophistication dimension and

respondent’s age.

Ruggedness

H0: no significant difference among means of ruggedness dimension and

respondent’s age.

H1: significant difference among means of ruggedness dimension and

respondent’s age.

The figure shows the difference between the ideas of different groups of

respondents aged under 20, between 20 and 30, between 30 and 35, between 35 and 40,

between 40 and 45, between 45 and 50 and over 50.

107

Table 4.4.1.1 ANOVA test for age, sincerity dimension

Sum of Squares Df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 10.057 6 1.676 3.731 .001

Within Groups 104.227 232 .449

Total 114.284 238 Table 4.4.1.2 ANOVA test for age, excitement dimension

Sum of Squares Df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 12.644 6 2.107 3.086 .006


Total 171.048 238 Table 4.4.1.3 ANOVA test for age, competence dimension

Sum of Squares Df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 5.394 6 .899 1.467 .190


Total 147.546 238 Table 4.4.1.4 ANOVA test for age, sophistication dimension

Sum of Squares Df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 2.328 6 .388 .958 .455


Total 96.322 238 Table 4.4.1.5 ANOVA test of age, ruggedness dimension

Sum of Squares Df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 13.497 6 2.250 3.116 .006


Total 181.006 238

108

Table shows the result of One-Way ANOVA. Significant levels are greater than

0.05 for ruggedness and competence and H1 for this two dimension has no difference in

age factor but the other 3 ones has shown that different group of ages has different ideas

about the dimension of sincerity, excitement and sophistication.

4.4.2 Differences based on respondent’s sex

Table 4.4.2.1 ANOVA test for sex, sincerity dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 2.697 1 2.697 5.429 .021


Total 128.361 254 Table 4.4.2.2 ANOVA test for sex, excitement dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 4.140 1 4.140 6.430 .012


Total 167.037 254 Table 4.4.2.3 ANOVA test for sex, competence dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 3.370 1 3.370 4.616 .033


Total 188.054 254 Table 4.4.2.4 ANOVA test for sex, sophistication dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 7.414 1 7.414 9.601 .002


Total 202.769 254

109

Table 4.4.2.5 ANOVA test for sex, ruggedness dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 1.324 1 1.324 2.929 .088


Total 115.660 254

Tables show the result of One-Way ANOVA. Significant levels are smaller than

0.05 for all 4 dimensions except ruggedness and H0 for these four dimension has

significant difference in sex. so male and female respondents had different ideas about 4

dimensions

4.4.3 Differences based on respondent’s career:

Table 4.4.3.1 ANOVA test for career, sincerity dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 8.615 7 1.231 2.637 .012


Total 116.434 238 Table 4.4.3.2 ANOVA test for career, excitement dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 15.306 7 2.187 3.300 .002


Total 168.349 238 Table 4.4.3.3 ANOVA test for career, competence dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 18.564 7 2.652 4.893 .000


Total 143.760 238

110

Table 4.4.3.4 ANOVA test for career, sophistication dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 19.355 7 2.765 4.147 .000


Total 173.386 238 Table 4.4.3.5 ANOVA test for career, ruggedness dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 10.282 7 1.469 3.920 .000


Total 96.832 238

Tables show the result of One-Way ANOVA. Significant levels are smaller

than 0.05 for all 5 dimensions and H0 is rejected for these five dimensions have

significant difference in career. So respondents with different jobs have different ideas

about the dimensions.

4.4.4 Differences based on respondent’s educational degree:

Table 4.4.4.1 ANOVA test for agree, sincerity dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 8.702 4 2.176 4.636 .001


Total 120.380 242 Table 4.4.4.2 ANOVA test for degree, excitement dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 14.351 4 3.588 5.837 .000


Total 160.642 242

111

Table 4.4.4.3 ANOVA test for degree, competence dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 16.447 4 4.112 6.329 .000


Total 171.068 242 Table 4.4.4.4 ANOVA test for degree, sophistication dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 10.055 4 2.514 3.246 .013


Total 194.387 242 Table 4.4.4.5 ANOVA test for degree, ruggedness dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 5.713 4 1.428 3.276 .012


Total 109.482 242

Tables show the result of One-Way ANOVA. Significant levels are smaller than 0.05 for all 5 dimensions and H0 is rejected for these five dimensions has significant difference in degree.

4.4.5 Differences based on respondent’s income:

Table 4.4.5.1 ANOVA test for income, sincerity dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 2.996 4 .749 1.215 .307


Total 89.300 144

112

Table 4.4.5.2 ANOVA test for income, excitement dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 2.206 4 .552 .750 .560


Total 105.187 144 Table 4.4.5.3 ANOVA test for income, competence dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 4.033 4 1.008 1.323 .264


Total 110.714 144 Table 4.4.5.4 ANOVA test for income, sophistication dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 1.826 4 .457 .635 .639


Total 102.553 144 Table 4.4.5.5 ANOVA test for income, ruggedness dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 3.313 4 .828 1.624 .172


Total 74.713 144

Tables show the result of One-Way ANOVA. Significant levels are greater than

0.05 for all 5 dimensions and H1 is rejected. So for these five dimensions have not

significant differences in income.

113

4.4.6 Differences based on having experience of owning SAMAND:

Table 4.4.6.1 ANOVA test for owners, sincerity dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 3.837 1 3.837 7.878 .005


Total 131.430 263 Table 4.4.6.2 ANOVA test for owners, excitement dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 1.641 1 1.641 2.437 .120


Total 178.091 263 Table 4.4.6.3 ANOVA test for owners, competence dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 4.629 1 4.629 6.478 .011


Total 191.846 263 Table 4.4.6.4 ANOVA test for owners, sophistication dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 3.176 1 3.176 4.063 .045


Total 208.005 263

114

Table 4.4.6.5 ANOVA test for owners, ruggedness dimension

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .577 1 .577 1.202 .274


Total 126.398 263

Tables show the result of One-Way ANOVA. Significant levels for ruggedness

and competence are greater than 0.05. So there is no significant difference for these two

dimensions but for other 3 dimensions and H0 is rejected. So respondent’s who has or

had SAMAND have different idea about the 3dimensions (sincerity, excitement and

sophistication) comparing with those who never had this brand .

115

Chapter 5

5 Conclusions 5.1 Overall conclusion

This study empirically measured the SAMAND Brand Personality, using as a framework the five-dimension scale developed by Aaker (1997) for measuring Brand Personality.

This research was designed to answer following main questions:

Does SAMAND brand have human personality?

What are the underlying dimensions of its personality according to big five model?

Is the Brand Personality Scale applicable in this case?

116

Results showed that the ruggedness dimension originally developed by Aaker (1997) was not reliable or valid and the other four dimensions had to be refined by confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling and the 24 items were remained. So the 24 item brand personality scale seems to work better in automobile industry among Iranian customers. The results are showing that Aaker’s model is not totally applicable and the brand personality concept has a stronger cultural component as a moderator but this assumption has to be tested by future research in other countries and also industries.

The results also showed respondents believe SAMAND is sincere, competence and also rugged but not sophisticated, And had no idea about the excitement dimension. The table below shows the SAMAND attributes:

Table 4.4.6.1 personality attributes of SAMAND Personality attributes of SAMAND (agreed by respondents) Attributes agreed by customers (SAMAND’s personality attributes)

Attributes not agreed by customers

Not clear attributes

Down to earth Cool Sentimental Family oriented Unique Imaginative Small-town Feminine Young Honest Smooth Spirited Real Outdoorsy Wholesome Exciting Original Trendy Cheerful Upper class Friendly Glamorous Daring Independent Contemporary Reliable Hard working Secure Intelligent Technical Corporate Successful Leader Confident Good looking Masculine Tough Rugged

117

5.2 Managerial implications

The findings of this research as the managerial prospective has cleared the

SAMAND’s personality attributes and the items which are not clear, in the sincerity

dimension all attributes are agreed to be SAMAND’s, except the sentimentalism so some

sustaining programs to keep the image in consumer’s mind is vital in the long term , like

more emphasis on being family oriented in advertising and promotion programs, and

being honest in what this kind of brand presenting and the company should make it clear.

In the excitement part the analysis has shown that company’s attitudes and behavior

towered this dimension is not clear, and being unclear shows IranKhodro should apply

strategies in all aspects to clear the image, for example strategies in design phase to show

the SAMAND being young or old and this affects the market segment at the first level,

IranKhodro cannot gain the whole market by SAMAND now, and should focus on the

chosen segment of customers. In the competence dimension, it shows SAMAND is quite

a competent brand which is reliable and secure and most of this perception goes to the

design of the brand. And Irankhodro managers do believe that being big in size has done

a great deal in this image. About the fourth personality dimension “sophistication” results

have shown that customers do not believe this brand is sophisticated which means it is

not feminine or upper class. For brands having this personality factor, it reveals luxurious

image and when it comes to SAMAND in classical model because of the price class it

seems reasonable but for later models like SOREN, it brings difficulty for the company.

SOREN is a kind of expensive car ( in comparison to Iran’s automobile market) and not

being luxuries and in the other side being expensive not because of the better quality

offering but just what company desires cannot guarantee a better sale. Although the

consumer’s of SOREN may believe in being luxurious (which requires a market research)

but the holistic image is what the whole brand conveys not a niche part of customer’s

believe.

Although the main goal of this research was not gaining insight into how

cultural meaning is represented in individuals’ perceptions of symbolic objects such as

commercial icons. But study findings share similar meaning in Japan, United States,

Chile, Russia and Spain (Sincerity, excitement and sophistication).

118

5.3 Future research

These studies provide a direction for future. In the context of brand personality

there is still lots of empty holes. Researches by applying Aaker’s have been taken just

through recent years. Future studies should try to replicate these findings with larger

samples, other product categories and include other personality traits of the big five that

could be related to hedonic or utilitarian values sought (e.g. conscientiousness) and

negative emotions (neuroticism) (Matzler, 2006).

It appears to be several areas in need of future research. First, there is a need

to assess the role of antecedents in developing, maintaining, or changing a brand’s

personality. Antecedents that should be investigated include, but are not limited to user

imagery, product endorsers, and existing brand associations. This research should afford

a better understanding of how brand personality is created and aid in the development of

strategies for building brand personalities. Second, there is a need to test the relationship

of brand personality to additional performance measures, at both the individual and

product level. Important measures to investigate include brand awareness and brand

loyalty (individual-level measures), and brand equity and market share (product-level

measures). Finally, potential moderators of the brand personality effect (e.g. familiarity,

involvement, product type, and nature of the good) need to be assessed, so managers are

aware of factors that limit or enhance the effectiveness of brand personality. This is an

important consideration because devoting resources to develop and maintain a strong,

positive brand personality may be wasteful if there are contextual factors that hinder or

prevent such a brand personality from leading to higher performance (Freling, 2005).

This is not to suggest that there has been no academic study of brand

personality but that research to date has focused on the diagnosis of personality rather

than on its impact – we know that brands have personalities but do not know whether

these personalities matter. Or indeed whether there are circumstances where brand

personality is significant and situations where it has no impact on overall brand

perceptions (Freling, 2005).

119

As noted by Aaker (1997), the best way to compile adjectives for measuring

brand personality has not yet been defined. It is also questionable whether the same

markers can be applied to all brands. In fact, the same adjectives locate under different

factors not only when comparing descriptions of human and brand personalities, but also

when comparing descriptions of different brands. Several markers, like “energetic”,

“conscientious”, “stable”, and “creative”, shifted from one factor to another depending on

the brands they were describing (Caprara, 2001).

Accordingly, it is extremely important to carefully scrutinize this empirical

process to identify more precisely how the brand personality framework was developed,

what the personality dimensions represent, and how these results may limit the

generalizability of the brand personality framework. The preceding discussion suggests it

is highly improbable that a framework can be developed that

will be universally generalizable to any context in which brand personality (or any

other brandrelated construct) is to be measured. More realistically, additional research

likely is necessary to produce multiple-brand personality frameworks that capture

meaningful dimensions and/or distinctions between brands when the analysis focuses on

narrower sets of brands than those examined by Aaker (1997). Certainly, Aaker’s work

would provide very valuable contributions to such efforts. In particular, her original list

of 305 non-redundant traits would be an appropriate starting point for such endeavors

(AUSTIN, 2003).

120

6 References 1. Aaker, D. Building Strong Brands. Brand week. 2. Aaker, D. (1996) Measuring Brand Equity across Products and Markets.

California Management Review. 3. Aaker, J., Fournier, S. (1995), “A Brand as a Character, A Partner and a Person:

Three Perspectives on the Question of Brand Personality”, Advances in Consumer Research.

4. Aaker, J., Benet-Martinez, V., et al. (2001) Consumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture: A Study of Japanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

5. Aaker, J. (1997) Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research.

6. Aaker J. (1999) The Malleable Self: The Role Of Self Expression in Persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research.

7. Aaker, J. (1997) Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research.

8. Aaker, D. A. and E. Joachimsthaler (2000). "The Brand Relationship Spectrum: THE KEY TO THE BRAND ARCHITECTURE CHALLENGE." CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 42.

9. Ang S.H, et al. (2006) THE INFLUENCE OF METAPHORS AND PRODUCT TYPE ON BRAND PERSONALITY PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES Journal of Advertising.

10. Atkin, D (2004), The Culting of Brands: When Customers Become True Believers New York.

11. Austin R, J. A. S., ANNA S. MATTILA (2003) a re-examination of the generalizability of the Aaker brand personality measurement framework. Journal of Strategic Marketing.

12. Birdwell, Al E. (1968), "A Study of Influence if Image Congnience on Consumer,Choice," Journal of Business

13. Bosnjak, M., V. Bochmann, et al. (2007). "Dimensions of Brand Personality Attributions: A Person-Centric Aproach in the German Cultural Context." SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY 35: 303-316.

14. Caprara, G.V. and Barbaranelli, C. (2001) Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit? Journal of Economic Psychology.

15. Diamantopoulos, A., Smith, G., et al. (2004) The impact of brand extensions on brand personality: experimental evidence. European Journal of Marketing.

16. De Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1997) Modelling the components of the brand. European Journal of Marketing Matters.

17. De Chernatony, L and Dall’Olmo Riley, F (1998a) Defining A "Brand": Beyond The Literature With Experts Interpretations journal of Marketing Management.

18. De Chernatony L , AND FIONA HARRIS (1998) Criteria ti assecc brand success. Journal of Marketing Management

19. de, L. and Chematony (1999). "Brand Management Through Narrowing the Gap Between Brand Identity and Brand Reputation." Joumal of Marketing Managemen: 157-179.

121

20. Dolich, Ira J. (1969), "Congruence Relationship Between Self-Image and Product Brands," Journal of Marketing Researc.

21. Ekini, Y. and Hosany, S. (2006) Destination Personality: An Application of Brand Personality to Tourism Destinations. Journal of Travel Research.

22. Freling, T.H, Forbes, L.P. (2005) an empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. Journal of Product & Brand Management.

23. Govers, J. (2005) Product personality and its influence on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Marketing.

24. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). "The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits." American Psychologist.

25. Gupta, S., S. Grant, et al. (2008). "The expanding role of intangible assets of the brand." Management Decision 46: 948-960.

26. Guthrie, M. and H.-S. K. a. J. Jung (2008). "The effects of facial image and cosmetic usage on perceptions of brand personality." Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management Decision 12: 1361-2026.

27. Grubow, L. (2006) Salon Brands Bring Personality, Benefits to Mass. Marketing Matters.

28. Joachimsthaler, D. and Aaker D., (2000). "Review of Brand Leadership." The Free Press.

29. Keller, K. L. (1993) Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing.

30. Khalil L.ELYAS (2000) SYMBOLIC PRODUCTS: PRESTIGE, PRIDE AND IDENTITY GOODS Theory and Decision

31. Kotker P. (2001) Marketing Management, 11 edition 32. Lau, K. (2007) Extending Symbolic Brands Using Their Personality: Examining

Antecedents and Implications Towards Brand Image Fit and Brand Dilution. Psychology & Marketing.

33. Louro, P. (2001) Brand Management Paradigms. Journal of Marketing Management.

34. Malhotra, N. K. (1981). “A Scale to Measure Self-concepts, Person Concepts, and Product Concepts.” Journal of Marketing Research

35. Matzler K, Et Al. (2006) Individual determinants of brand affect: the role of the personality traits of extraversion and openness to experience. Journal of Product & Brand Management.

36. Maria João Louro1 and P. V. Cunha2 (2001,). "Brand Management Paradigms." Journal of Marketing Management: 849-875.

37. Marsh, H. W., O. L. d. Ulrich Trautwein, et al. (2006). "Integration of Multidimensional Self-Concept and Core Personality Constructs: Construct Validation and Relations to Well-Being and Achievement." Journal of Personality 74.

38. McCrae, R. R. and O. P. John "An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its Applications."

39. Michael Hussey and N. Duncombe (1999). "Projecting the right image: using projective techniques to measure brand image." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 2: 22-30.

122

40. Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz, et al. (2007). "On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism." Psychological Review 114: 864–886.

41. Okazaki, S. (2005) Excitement or sophistication? A preliminary exploration of online brand personality. International Marketing Review.

42. Soanes And Stevenson (2005) Oxford Business English Dictionary P.66 43. Plummer, J. T. (1985). How personality makes a difference? Journal of

Advertising Research 44. Pappu, R., P. G. Quester, et al. (2005). "Consumer-based brand equity: improving

the measurement – empirical evidence." Journal of Product & Brand Management 14: 143–154.

45. Park, S.-e., D. Choi, et al. (2005). "Visualizing E-Brand Personality: Exploratory Studies on Visual Attributes and E-Brand Personalities in Korea." INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 19: 7–34.

46. Patrick Y.K.C., (1997), "Reexamining A Model For Evaluating Information Center Success Using A Structural Equation Modeling Approach", Decision Sciences, 28, 2

47. POWER, D. and A. HAUGE (2008). "No Man’s Brand—Brands, Institutions, and Fashion." Growth and Change 39: 123–143.

48. RAJAGOPAL (2006) Insights from research Brand excellence: measuring the impact of advertising and brand personality on buying decisions. MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE.

49. Roha, T. H., Ahnb, C. K., & Hanc, I. (2005). The Priority Factor Model For Customer Relationship Management System Success. Expert Systems With Applications , 28, 641-654.

50. Rojas-Méndez, J. I., I. Erenchun-Podlech, and E. Silva-Olave (2004). “The Ford Brand Personality in Chile.” Corporate Reputation Review

51. Steenkamp, J-B.E.M, Baumgartner, H. (2002). On The Use of Structural Equation Models for Marketing Modeling, International Journal of research In Marketing, Vol 17 Pp.195-202.

52. Sirgy, M. J. (1982). “Self-concept in Consumer Behaviour: A Critical Review.” Journal of Consumer Research

53. Supphlen, M., and K. Grønhaug (2003). “Building Foreign Brand Personalities in Russia: The Moderating Effect of Consumer Ethnocentrism.” International Journal of Advertising

54. Tinkham, Y. (2005) Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea: Common and Culture-Specific Factors. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY.

55. Thompson G, A. R., & ZEYNEP ARSEL (2006) Emotional Branding and the Strategic Value of the Doppelgänger Brand Image. Journal of Marketing.

56. Ulrich D, N. S. (2007) BUILDING LEADERSHIP BRANDS. Harvard Business Review.

57. Venable, B. T., G. M. Rose, D. Bush, and F. W. Gilbert (2005). “The Role of Brand Personality in Charitable Giving: An Assessment and Validation.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

123

58. Whitelock J, F. F. (2007) Understanding international branding: defining the domain and reviewing the literature. International Marketing Review.

59. Wood, L. (2000) Brands and brand equity: definition and management. Management Decision.

60. Watson, L. and M. T. Spence (2007). "Causes and consequences of emotions on consumer behaviour A review and integrative cognitive appraisal theory." European Journal of Marketing 41: 487-511.

61. Wood, L. (2000). "Brands and brand equity: definition and management." Management Decision 38: 662±669.

62. Woodside, A. G., S. Sood, et al. (2008). "When Consumers and Brands Talk: Storytelling Theory and Research in Psychology and Marketing." Psychology & Marketing 25: 97–145.

63. Yin, R. K. (1994) “Case Study Research – Design and Methods”, (Second Edition), Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

64. Zinkhan, G. D., D. Haytko, and A. Ward (1996). “Self-concept Theory.” Journal of Marketing Communication

2010:006 MASTER'S THESIS Application of Brand Personality ...1026421/FULLTEXT01.pdf · Application...

Documents

Transcript of 2010:006 MASTER'S THESIS Application of Brand Personality ...1026421/FULLTEXT01.pdf · Application...