Personification & Alliteration Personification & Alliteration.
Measuring brand image personification versus non personification methods - melisa mete
-
Upload
itibar-yoenetimi-enstituesue -
Category
Education
-
view
186 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Measuring brand image personification versus non personification methods - melisa mete
Measuring Brand Image: Personification versus Non-Personification Methods
Melisa METE
Measuring Brand Image: Personification
versus
Non-Personification Methods
Melisa Mete
PhD Researcher-Manchester Business School
Gary Davies
Professor of Strategy-Manchester Business School
Susan Whelan
Senior Lecturer in Marketing-School of Business-Waterford Institute of Technology
Personification vs. Non-Personification
• Personification: “ If Marks & Spencer
came to life as a person, do you think he/she
would be friendly ?”
• Non-personification: “Marks & Spencer is
a friendly company”
Brand Image & Personality
• Pros and cons of using personification
metaphor
• Brand image: consumers’ perception and
interpretation of a brand’s identity
• Brand personality: ‘the set of human
characteristics associated with a brand’
Brand Image Dimensions
• Aaker (1997): 5 dimensions of brand personality: Sincerity
(e.g. friendly), Competence (e.g. reliable), Excitement (e.g.
trendy), Sophistication ( e.g. charming), Ruggedness (e.g.
masculine).
• Davies et al (2001): 7 dimensions of corporate character:
Agreeableness (e.g. friendly), Competence (e.g. reliable),
Enterprise (e.g. cool), Chic (e.g. prestigious), Ruthlessness
(e.g. arrogant), Machismo (e.g. masculine), Informality ( e.g.
casual)
• Guens et al (2009): 15 studies, no consensus on dimensions
Stereotype Content Model: Warmth & Competence
Signaling Theory: Status
Theory Based Dimensions
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Personification approach provides a
better explanation of dependent variables such as
reputation, satisfaction and purchase.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Personification approach provides a
better explanation of dependent variables such as
reputation, satisfaction and purchase for corporate
brands than for product brands.
Methodology
Online questionnaires
M&S for corporate brand
Pantene for product brand
Survey Details
• 400 respondents randomly assigned to one the
four groups (M&S personification, M&S non-
personification, Pantene personification, and
Pantene non-personification).
• 2 by 2 between subjects design, random
assignment across treatments
• The sample :187 women (46.75%) and 213 men
(53.25%).
• Filter questions
• Online survey May to June 2014
Survey Measures • The measures were ordered by Demographics,
Dependent Variables and Covariates, and Brand
Image Dimensions’ Items.
• Demographics: Age, gender and education
• Measures of Involvement (2 items) Expertise (2
items) Satisfaction (4 items)
• Open ended question
• Items to measure brand image Warmth (6 items)
Competence (5 items) Status (4 items)
• Purchase (2 items)
Brand Image Items
• Warmth dimension: friendly, helpful,
trustworthy, ethical, sincere, honest, and
socially responsible.
• Competence dimension: successful, leading,
reliable, strong, and intelligent.
• Status dimension: sophisticated,
prestigious, up-market, and chic.
Personification vs. Non-Personification
• “Instructions: Please READ each statement carefully
and CIRCLE the appropriate box as follows: (5)
Strongly Agree (4) Agree (3) Neutral / No opinion (2)
Disagree (1) Strongly Disagree (if you don't understand
the meaning of the word, please mark no.3)”
• Personification: “ If Marks & Spencer came to life as a
person, do you think he/she would be friendly?”
• Non-personification: “Marks & Spencer is a friendly
company”
Results & Discussion
• Cronbach’ Alpha Values of the scales for
assessing the dimensions proved reliable:
• Warmth 0.94
• Competence 0.93
• Status 0.90
Results & Discussion cont’d
• The two way ANOVA test: no differences
between the mean scores for the three image
dimensions across the four cells
Results & Discussion cont’d
• Then we put covariates, first one at a time,
purchase, gender, age, education then all
together, still nothing.
• To eliminate the influence of familiarity
with the brand, we put the mean of the two
purchase items as a covariate: competence
dimension showed a significant difference
Results & Discussion cont’d
Source F Sig.
Corrected Model 44.294 .000
Intercept 1072.657 .000
Purchase 169.375 .000
Type of measure 2.440 .119
Brand 6.959 .009
Type * Brand 3.921 .048
(Adjusted R Squared = .325)
Results & Discussion cont’d
Type
Brand Mean
Personification Pantene 3.805
M&S 3.761
Non-Personification
Pantene 4.043
M&S 3.732
Results & Discussion cont’d
• The data were then tested to see whether
either measurement approach predicted
greater variance in the potential dependent
variables included in the survey.
Results & Discussion cont’d Model R2
Purchase
R2 Reputation R2
Satisfaction
M&S (P) .296 .602 .456
M&S (non P) .431 .629 .656
Pantene (P) .526 .495 .632
Pantene (non P)
.272 .524 .494
The R-Square values by method
Personification works better for product brands –
Direct measurement works better for corporates.
Conclusion
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Personification approach provides a
better explanation of dependent variables such as
reputation, satisfaction and purchase.
Finding: Supported for Pantene for satisfaction and
purchase but not reputation, not supported for M&S.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Personification approach is more
useful for corporate brands than non-personification
methods of measurement.
Not supported
Conclusion & Further Work
Personification as a measurement approach is not a
guarantee of a better explanation than direct approach.
BUT we can’t abandon personification method.
Personification allows broader range of items, hence
greater variance in dependent variables.
In a context where respondents might be reluctant to give
their replies and where a measure of reluctance is
included; further work is needed.
Measuring Brand Image: Personification
versus
Non-Personification Methods
Melisa Mete
PhD Researcher-Manchester Business School
Gary Davies
Professor of Strategy-Manchester Business School
Susan Whelan
Senior Lecturer in Marketing-School of Business-Waterford Institute of Technology
References
• Aaker, J. L. (1997, August). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34,347−356).
• Aaker, D., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand leadership. New York: Free Press.
• Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R. V., & Roper, S. (2004). A corporate character scale to assess employee and customer views of organization reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 125-146.
• De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M., & Van den Bergh,J. (2007). Marketing communications 3rd ed. London: Pearson Education.
• Handbook of personality (pp. 102−138). New York: The Guilford P
• John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Ress.
• Kapferer, J. N. (2008).The new strategic brand management, 4th edition London: Kogan Page.
• Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management. Building, measuring, and managing brand equity, 3rd edition Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall