2010:006 MASTER'S THESIS Application of Brand Personality Scale In Automobile...

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 sincer

2010:006 MASTER'S THESIS Application of Brand Personality Scale In Automobile...

Documents

Transcript of 2010:006 MASTER'S THESIS Application of Brand Personality Scale In Automobile...