THE INFLUENCE OF BRAND PERSONALITY ON BRAND CHOICE: A …
Transcript of THE INFLUENCE OF BRAND PERSONALITY ON BRAND CHOICE: A …
THE INFLUENCE OF BRAND PERSONALITY ON BRAND CHOICE:
A CASE OF COLGATE PALMOLIVE IN NAIROBI
BY
KICHAMU DENNIS ALUSA
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY AFRICA
SUMMER 2018
ii
THE INFLUENCE OF BRAND PERSONALITY ON BRAND CHOICE:
A CASE OF COLGATE PALMOLIVE IN NAIROBI
BY
KICHAMU DENNIS ALUSA
A Research Project Report Submitted to the Chandaria School of Business in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Masters of Business
Administration (MBA)
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY AFRICA
SUMMER 2018
iii
STUDENT’S DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, declare that this is my original work and has not been submitted to any other
college, institution, or university other than the United States International University in Nairobi
for academic credit.
Signed: ________________________ Date: ______________________
Kichamu Dennis Alusa (ID No. 634778)
This project has been presented for examination with my approval as the appointed supervisor.
Signed: ________________________ Date: ______________________
Dr. Joseph Ngugi Kamau
Signed: ________________________ Date: ______________________
Dean, Chandaria School of Business
iv
ABSTRACT
Marketing in the 21st Century has greatly evolved and so have the dynamics involving brands
and consumer behavior. Brands in the fast moving consumer goods market realize that they can
no longer solely rely on aggressive mass marketing campaigns. To compete globally brands
ought to have personalities that will helpprovide a platform for them to leverage brand identity,
brand communication as well as setting the fundamental guidelines for marketing programs. The
purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of brand personality on the brand choice of
Colgate Palmolive consumers in Kenya. The study was guided by four research objectives: To
evaluate the influence of brand sincerity on brand choice, to establish the influence of brand
excitement elements on brand choice;to establish the influence of brand competence on brand
choice and lastly to establish the influence of brand gender on brand choice.
The study was guided by a positivist research philosophy and descriptive research design. The
population of the study consisted of 500 consumers of Colgate Palmolive consumers in three
estates in Nairobi County representing three different income levels. The study used cluster
sampling technique drawing a sample size of 166 respondents. Data was collected using self-
administered questionnaires. The data was then analyzed using descriptive statistics of
frequency, distribution, mean, and standard deviation. Additionally, inferential data analysis
methods of Pearson‟s correlation, ANOVA, and multiple linear regression were used to test the
hypotheses. Data was presented in tables and figures.
Regarding the influence of brand sincerity on brand choicethe correlation finding indicated that
thevariables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟ was positively correlated with „BS‟ r (107)
=.476, p<.05. the results of the multiple regression analysis showed that the value of variance R2
= 0.227, F (1, 105) =30.816, p-value = 0.001, indicating that 22.7% of brand Sincerity is
influenced by brand Choice while the remaining 77.3% of brand choice were attributed to other
factors other than brand sincerity. The coefficients model output shows brand sincerity
statistically predicted brand choice (β = .476, (.540) t = 5.551, p<.05. This means, one unit of
increase in brand sincerity increased the brand choice by .476. In relation to the influence of
brand excitement on brand choice, the correlation finding indicated thatvariables were highly
correlated; „brand choice‟ was positively correlated with „BE‟ r (107) =.404, p<.05; the
regression finding shows the value of variance R2 = 0.164, F (1, 105) =20.525, p-value = 0.001.
v
This shows that 16.4% of brand excitement is influenced by brand choice while the remaining
83.6% of brand choice were attributed to other factors other than brand excitement. The
coefficients model output shows brand excitement statistically predicted brand choice (β = .404,
(.381) t = 7.242, p<.05. This means, one unit of increase in brand excitement increased the brand
choice by .381.
With regard to the influence of brand competence on brand choice, the correlation finding
indicated that variables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟ was positively correlated with
„BC‟ r (107) =.571, p<.05; the regression finding shows the value of variance R2 = 0.327, F (1,
105) =50.925, p-value = 0.001. This shows that 32.7% of brand competence is influenced by
brand Choice while the remaining 67.3% of brand choice were attributed to other factors other
than brand competence. The coefficients model output shows brand competence statistically
predicted brand choice (β = .571, (.588) t = 7.136, p<.05. This means, one unit of increase in
brand competence increased the brand choice by .588. Lastly, in relation to the influence of
brand gender on brand choice, the correlation finding indicated thatvariables were highly
correlated; „brand choice‟ was positively correlated with „BG‟ r (107) =.634, p<.05. The
regression finding shows the value of variance R2 = 0.402, F (1, 105) =70.602, p-value = 0.001.
This shows that 40.2% of brand gender is influenced by brand choice while the remaining 59.8%
of brand choice were attributed to other factors other than brand gender. The coefficients model
output shows brand gender statistically predicted brand choice (β = .634, (.449) t = 8.403, p<.05.
This means, one unit of increase in brand on gender increased the brand choice by .449.
This study concluded that the four brand personality dimensions investigated all influenced the
brand choice of Colgate Palmolive consumers. The brand differentiated itself from competitors
based on the strength of the brand personality dimensions. This study recommends that brands
should have clearly defined personalities to effectively compete in the crowded market place.
Future studies should also address conceptual and methodological gaps that have not been
addressed in previous brand personality studies, especially the brand gender dimension.
Marketers should strive to define and create a well crafted brand gender positioning as strongly
gendered brands not only influence brand choice but also positively influence brand trust and
brand loyalty.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the entire teaching and support staff at United
States International University-Africa, and to especially highlight my gratitude to my professor,
Dr. Joseph Ngugi Kamau, for the invaluable support and guidance accorded to me throughout
this research project.
My special and heartfelt gratitude goes out to my entire family for believing in me and
supporting me at all times. They have demonstrated their unconditional love, encouragement,
and understanding throughout this period, and have ensured that I did not give up even on my
worst daysSpecial thanks also go out to all who took their time to respond to my questionnaire,
thereby helping me complete this study.
God bless you all.
vii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this project first to God who has been my strength throughout this journey, to my parents
Kichamu George and Kichamu Mary, lastly my fiancé Wangui Phoebe for your unending prayers
support and love.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STUDENT’S DECLARATION .................................................................................................. iii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................... vi
DEDICATION............................................................................................................................. vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 6
1.3 General Objective ................................................................................................................. 7
1.4 Specific Objectives ............................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 7
1.6 Scope of the Study ................................................................................................................ 8
1.7 Definition of Terms............................................................................................................... 8
1.8 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................. 9
CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 10
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 10
2.2 The Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice............................................................ 10
2.3 The Influence of Brand Excitement on Brand Choice ........................................................ 14
2.4 The Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice ...................................................... 21
2.5 The Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice .............................................................. 26
ix
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 33
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 33
3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 33
3.2 Research Design.................................................................................................................. 33
3.3 Population and Sampling Design ........................................................................................ 34
3.4 Data Collection Methods .................................................................................................... 36
3.5 Research Procedures ........................................................................................................... 36
3.6. Data Analysis Methods ...................................................................................................... 38
3.7 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................................... 40
4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................ 40
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 40
4.2 General Information of Respondents .................................................................................. 40
4.3 Descriptive Analysis ........................................................................................................... 43
4.4. Inferential Statistics ........................................................................................................... 47
4.5 Regression Model ............................................................................................................... 52
4.6 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................... 57
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 58
5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 58
5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 58
5.2 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 58
5.3 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 59
5.4 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 66
5.5 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 67
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 70
x
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 80
APPENDIX I: COVER LETTER ............................................................................................. 80
APPENDIX II: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................. 81
APPENDIX III: SUPPLEMENTARY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ..................................... 81
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Population Distribution Table ................................................................................... 34
Table 3.2 Sample Size Distribution .......................................................................................... 35
Table 4.1 Response Rate ........................................................................................................... 40
Table 4.2 Area of Residency of Respondents ........................................................................... 42
Table 4.3 Highest level of Academic Qualification .................................................................. 42
Table 4.4 Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice ......................................................... 44
Table 4.5 Influence of Brand Excitement Elements on Brand Choice ..................................... 45
Table 4.6 Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice ................................................... 46
Table 4.7Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice ............................................................ 47
Table 4.8 KMO and Bartlett's Test ........................................................................................... 48
Table 4.9 Total Variance Explained ......................................................................................... 48
Table 4.10: Pattern Matrix and Communality .......................................................................... 49
Table 4.11 Construct Reliability ............................................................................................... 50
Table 4.12 Summary Total Statistics ........................................................................................ 50
Table 4.13 Normality Test ........................................................................................................ 51
Table 4.14: VIF Test ................................................................................................................. 51
Table 4.15a: Model Summary ................................................................................................... 52
Table 4.15b: ANOVA Table ..................................................................................................... 52
Table 4.15c: Coefficient Table. ................................................................................................ 53
Table 4.16a: Model Summary ................................................................................................... 53
Table 4.16b: ANOVA Table ..................................................................................................... 54
Table 4.16c: Coefficient Table ................................................................................................. 54
xii
Table 4.17a: Model Summary ................................................................................................... 54
Table 4.17b: ANOVA Table ..................................................................................................... 55
Table 4.17c: Coefficient Table ................................................................................................. 55
Table 4.18a: Model Summary ................................................................................................... 56
Table 4.18b. ANOVA Table ..................................................................................................... 56
Table 4.18c: Coefficient Table ................................................................................................. 56
1
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Marketing practices have greatly evolved over the years and so have the dynamics involving
brands and consumer behavior. Organizations today must realize that their products and services,
regardless of how good they might be, simply do not sell on their own (Kotler & Keller, 2012).
Phenomena such as globalization and liberalization brought a wide variety of products into
markets. Consumers have therefore become exposed to many products of all qualities, designs,
makes and origin. Hence consumers today seek the best available products to satisfy their
specific needs (Milberg et al., 1997). Firms are face with the challenge of having many
substitutes readily available; therefore firms must find unique ways to differentiate their products
in the eyes of the consumers. This chain of events has lead many organizations to reevaluate the
branding concept.
A decline in the effectiveness of mass advertising is one of the many signs of distress that
marketers are concerned about. Marketers are also currently facing other challenges, among them
a general proliferation of media and distribution channels, declining trust in advertising, and the
materialization of digital technologies that give consumers more control over their media time.
These trends tend to simultaneously fragment both audiences and the channels required to reach
them. The danger for marketers is that change will render the time-honored way of getting
messages to consumers through TV commercials less effective at best and a waste of both time
and money at worst (Pessemier, 2012). Marketers therefore need to shift their focus from mass
marketing and focus more on tailoring a brand message that demonstrates brand personality
enabling consumers easily differentiate one brand from the next.
A study conducted by Louis and Lombart (2010) found that when consumers understand and
relate to the instrumental role of brands in achieving their goals, they often come to regard the
brands as meaningful and significant to them. As a result they become personally connected and
emotionally bonded to these brands. Thus, a causal link is formed between brand personality and
consumer attachment to the brand. Huang and Mitchell (2014) noted that marketers are
2
increasingly trying to build good relationships between their brands and consumers, reflected in
the quality of such relationships, that is, brand relationship quality.
Ngunjiri (2013) analyzed the effect of brand personality among insurance companies in Kenya
and found that unlike brand image which denotes the tangible (physical and functional) benefits
and attributes of a brand, brand personality indicates the intangible i.e. emotional associations of
the brand. The study also found that if a brand image is considered a comprehensive brand
according to consumers‟ opinion, then brand personality is that aspect of a comprehensive brand
which generates its associations and emotional character in consumers‟ mind. Brand personality
additionally aids in the building of brand equity through self-expression, and sets the brand
attitude. It influences marketing communication of a brand in that it is a key input towards the
look as well as feel of any communication or marketing activity by the brand. In addition it helps
in the organization get a better understanding of customers‟ feelings about the brand. Brand
personality helps brands differentiate from rivals especially when they are similar in many
attributes and can be used to make the brand strategy lively and signify the kind of relationship a
customer has with the brand.
A study by Grohmann, Giese, and Parkman (2013) on extending brand logo design research into
brand personality, found that the type font characteristics can be used to communicate brand
personality dimensions. For instance, the authors discovered that the “naturalness” of the font
type, which refers to how organic the font appears, increased perceptions of the sincerity and
excitement dimensions of brand personality. Furthermore, the researchers established that the
color of the type font influenced consumers‟ perceptions of brand personality independently, for
example, green type font positively influenced perceptions of brand ruggedness but negatively
influenced perceptions of brand sophistication
Muniz and Marchetti (2012) analyzed brand personality dimensions in the Brazilian context and
established that modern studies propose a scale for measuring brand experience and testing brand
personality constructs, through the application of a structural equation. There was indication of a
direct effect between brand experience, brand perception and the strength of the brand
personality, which in turn had a direct effect on consumer satisfaction and consumer loyalty
(Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonallo, 2009). According to the authors, the social and self-expressive
characteristic of the brand personality may account for its participation as an antecedent of
3
satisfaction and loyalty. To effectively put concept into use and test its antecedents and effects, it
is necessary to explore a measurement scale that is reliable and valid for brand personality.
Furthermore, the fit between brand personality intended by the firm and the consumer perception
also depends from other factors such as: singularity of the brand‟s personality profile,
competitive differentiation of the brand, credibility of brand related communication activities,
product involvement, and prior brand attitude (Malär, Krohmer & Nyfenneger 2012).
Brand personality can be evaluated through the dimensions of brand personality appeal (BPA):
favorability, originality and clarity. These three dimensions are extremely important in
developing brand personality and their optimization leads to higher levels of consumer purchase
intentions. Favorability can be defined as the evaluation of brand personality by consumers, how
consumers perceive the brand personality and how they evaluate the favorability of an attribute.
Originality is the perception of distinctiveness and uniqueness, the view of novelty. Clarity
represents the extent to which brand personality traits are visible and recognizable (Freling,
Crosno & Henard, 2011)
A study by Kum, (2012) on the moderating role of brand personality on products found that there
are two current trends which motivate a wider perspective on categorization where the emphasis
shifts towards brand based considerations. First, in an increasing number of product classes,
marketers see that attribute based and functional features are easily copied and soon lose their
competitive advantage (Aaker, 1996). Instead, brands differentiated on the basis of image
attributes, such as brand personality, appear more resilient to these threats (Aaker, 1996). For
example, the physical attribute „high engine capacity‟ is common to sports utility vehicles
(SUVs), but the BMW X6, Mitsubishi Pajero, and the Volvo XC90 (all brands of SUVs) could
be perceived by consumers to have distinct personalities, in line with the respective brands‟
positioning.
This study will focus on the influence of brand personality on brand performance of FMCG
products, specifically focusing on Colgate Palmolive products in Nairobi. A study by Klink and
Athaide (2012) found that brand personality is an important component of brand image. A
widely held contention is that preference for a brand is enhanced with greater congruity between
human characteristics of the brand i.e., its personality and one's actual or ideal self.
4
Aaker (1997) gives the definition of brand personality as the set of human characteristics
associated with a brand. To further illustrate using two alcoholic beverages by different brands,
Absolut vodka‟s persona tends to portray the brand as a cool, hip, modern 25-year old, whereas
another alcoholic beverage company; Stoli is seen to have the persona of an intellectual,
conservative, older person. This however highlights a contrast to product-related attributes,
which lean towards serving a utilitarian function for consumers. Brand personality on the other
hand serves a symbolic and self-expressive function
FMCG markets can be defined as frequently purchased, relatively inexpensive, and rapidly
consumed items on which buyers exert minimal purchasing effort (Malhotra, 2014).
Consequently, it is still unknown if relationships exist in these markets and whether consumers
want relationships in FMCG markets. Many of the players on the retail industry such as Walmart
supermarket, Carrefour and Tesco are among the largest and most recognized global companies.
Leaders in the global FMCG market include The Coca-Cola Company, General Mills, Pepsi
Johnson & Johnson, Colgate-Palmolive, Kellogg's, Heinz, Nestlé, Unilever, Procter & Gamble,
L‟Oreal, (Malhotra, 2014). The overall objective of the paper, therefore, is to establish from the
consumers‟ perspective, if brand personality influences their purchase decision and subsequently
brand choice in FMCG markets.
A study by Verhoef and Werner (2010) found that brand manufacturers in the fast moving
consumer goods industry are under pressure. Due to factors such as increased retailer
concentration, access to scanner technology, eroding brand loyalty, an increasing number of
price promotions and increasing market share of private labels e.g. in Kenya retailers such as
Nakumatt have the Nakumatt blue label products. Power is slowly shifting towards retailers.
Database base marketing can be an alternative for brand manufacturers in building brands and
gaining more knowledge about the customer before the organization can rebrand.A big
difference between now and a decade ago is how information technology enables producers as
well as retailers to store and use a significantly vast amount of data about their customers, as well
as their consumers (Deloitte trend report 2015).
Research by Malhotra (2014) established that since the Fast Moving Consumer Goods are low
priced and many brands and companies are involved in the manufacturing and production of
same categories of products, it can become challenging to constantly stay „top of the mind‟ in the
5
minds of FMCG buyers. Therefore, marketers have to come up with unique strategies and ways
in which they can constantly catch the attention of consumers towards their brands. These
strategies should be effective enough to flourish during normal economic circumstances as well
as the time when the economy is going through a recession or boom season. One of the unique
strategies this study will focus on is the development of brands that have appealing and clearly
defined personalities.
Colgate Palmolive is a global brand currently present in over 220 countries that began operations
in 1806. It was founded by Henry W. He started a starch soap and candy factory in New York
City under the name “William Colgate & Company”. However in 1867 William Colgate passed
on living the company under the management of his son Samuel Colgate who renamed it as
“Colgate & Company”. The firm introduced its first toothpaste in 1873 and sold it in jars and
began selling toothpaste in tubes in 1908. Colgate later merged with Palmolive which was a soap
making company that made soap out of entirely palm oil to the West of the United States and
was now known as Colgate Palmolive.
Colgate Palmolive Kenya started manufacturing in 1965. Its products include oral care,
household care, personal care and hard surface care. In the product portfolio, Colgate is the
market leader in Kenya, controlling over half of the market share (54%) with Aquafresh coming
a distant second (16 %) (Geopoll report 2016). The firm thrives on four strategic priorities which
focus on driving innovation, product and asset growth, product diversification and improving
long term financial performance.
6
1.2 Statement of the Problem
There are various studies on brand personality that have been done globally. Park and Roedder
(2010) investigated whether brand personalities have an influence on consumers. The findings
showed that appealing brand personalities can rub off on consumers, altering perceptions of their
own personalities. However the effects may not be permanent in nature, but self-perceptions are
altered regardless of whether the brand experience is short-lived or repeated over time. Research
by Escalas and Bettman (2009) focused on why consumers prefer brands with appealing
personalities. The findings show that consumers prefer and choose brands with appealing
personalities in an attempt to affirm and enhance a sense of self. Aaker (1996) examined how
brand personality can be used to build strong brands for businesses. The findings showed that
brand personality helps provide a platform for businesses to leverage brand identity, brand
communication as well as setting the fundamental guidelines for marketing programs. Brand
personality is meant to differentiate a brand from its competitors in the market environment.
Kotler (2012) focused on the effect of brand equity in marketing management. The findings
argue that despite brands being part of the marketing landscape for many years, things have
changed over the past few years with the future of brands and their personalities being
questioned. Plummer (2000) suggests that brand personality is critical to the understanding the
choice of brands consumers purchase. A significant number of other scholars have theorized
brand personality to be a significant source of customer-based brand equity and loyalty e.g.
(Aaker, 1996; Ang & Lim, 2013; Anisimova, 2007; Burmann et al., 2009). Nevertheless,
majority of these prior studies have focused on the theoretical aspect of describing and providing
an understanding of brand personality, leaving a wide knowledge gap that marketers need to
understand of the correlation between brand personality dimensions and brand choice
(Anisimova, 2007; Freling & Forbes, 2005). As a result, there is insufficient knowledge to guide
the development of brand personalities that enhance brand choice.
This study investigates how experiences with brands that have appealing personalities influence
some, but not all, consumers. Specifically, the study will highlight implicit self-theories that
consumers hold about their personalities as a key determinant of whether consumers perceive
themselves in a more positive light after using brands with appealing personalities. Kimeu (2016)
examined the effect of service brand personality on brand performance in Kenya‟s insurance
7
sector. The findings revealed that the consumers who endorsed a particular implicit self theory
ended up viewing these types of brand experiences as opportunities to signal to themselves or
even others that they possess the same appealing traits as the brand. Moreover these consumers
actually ended perceiving themselves in a more positive way after a brand experience. Previous
research has determined that brands actually do have personalities (Aaker, 1997; Aaker, 1999;
Wysong, Munch, & Kleiser, 2002; Beldona & Wysong, 2007), however there has been little
research to establish whether or not customers seek a brand with a personality based on the
situation (Sung, 2011).
1.3 General Objective
The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of brand personality on the brand
choice of Colgate Palmolive consumers in Nairobi.
1.4 Specific Objectives
1.4.1 To evaluate the influence of brand sincerity on brand choice
1.4.2 To establish the influence of brand excitement elements on brand choice
1.4.3 To establish the influence of brand competence on brand choice
1.4.4 To establish the influence of brand gender on brand choice.
1.5 Significance of the Study
1.5.1 Manufacturing Companies in Kenya
The study may assist the management of Colgate Palmolive Kenya to address the shortcomings
in the advertising and sales promotion of their brands. The study will also help address
challenges experienced in the implementation of advertising policies, and provide guidance in
the up scaling of their advertising activities for increased sales and revenue.
1.5.2 Policy Makers in Kenya
Policy makers and regulators such as the government may find the study very useful in the
implementation ofpolicies aimed at streamlining advertising activities in various sectors within
the country. The policy makers will also gain insight of advertising and sales promotion
dynamics and the responses that are appropriate and specific for various industries in Kenya, this
8
study can serve as a guide for designing appropriate policies that may ensure effective
implementation of advertising strategies.
1.5.3 Scholars and Academicians
Findings from the study will also be useful to scholars and academicians. It will provide
information to current and future scholars on matters regarding brand personality and how it can
be effectively studied to directly influence brand choice. In addition, researchers can also use the
findings of the study as a basis for further research on marketing.
1.6 Scope of the Study
This study was only limited to 500consumers of Colgate Palmolive products in Nairobi County.
The respondents targeted were between the ages of 18-60 years. The study was conducted over
the weekends, between 2p.m and 6p.m in the month of January 2018.
During the course of the study, there were certain limitations that hindered the study, for instance
truthfulness of respondents, lack of willingness to respond from respondents. However in order
to counter the limitations, the study guaranteed confidentiality to the respondents as well as
booking appointments and conducting follow ups to enhance response rate.
1.7 Definition of Terms
1.7.1 Brand Personality
Brand personality is defined as the set of human characteristics associated with a brand (Aaker,
1997).
1.7.2 Brand Choice
Brand choice is defined as the selection of one brand from a set of alternative brands (Kinjal,
2014).
1.7.3 Brand Sincerity
A scale which assesses the degree to which a brand is viewed as having personality like
characteristics such as being honest, sentimental, friendly, wholesome, original and realistic
(Sundar & Noseworthy, 2016).
9
1.7.4 Brand Excitement
A scale that evaluates the level consumers view a brand having personality like characteristics
such as being unique, spiritual, cool, daring, up-to-date, contemporary and trendy (Sundar &
Noseworthy, 2016).
1.7.5 Brand Competence
A dimension of brand personality that creates an image of reliability, responsibility,
dependability, intelligence and success (Wirunphan & Ussahawanitchakit, 2016).
1.7.6 Brand Gender
A scale that evaluates the level consumers view a brand personality with regards to masculinity
and/or femininity perceptions (Kraft & Weber, 2012).
1.7.7 Fast Moving Consumer Goods
Fast moving consumer goods (FMCGs) are defined as relatively inexpensive, frequently
purchased and rapidly consumed items on which buyers exert only minimal purchasing effort
(Malhotra, 2014).
1.8 Chapter Summary
The study seeks to find out the influence of brand personality on brand choice and how it shapes
consumer behavior. It seeks to find out whether brands with appealing personalities can out-
perform competitors in the market environment on the basis of their brand strength rather than on
the basis of other independent variables that may play out in the retail space such as competition
based on factors such as price and promotion. The next chapter reviews literature related to each
of the studies identified objectives. Chapter 3 gives a detailed description of the research
methodology that the study utilized with regards to the target population, sampling procedure,
and data collection method. Chapter 4 presents the results of the data that was collected in the
form of descriptive and inferential statistics. And finally chapter 5 provides recommendations
and conclusions for each objective based on the analysis derived in the previous chapter.
10
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter analyses the literature available in books and journals on how four brand personality
dimensions influence the brand choice of consumers. The brand personality dimensions are the
independent variables under study and they include: brand sincerity, brand excitement, brand
competence and brand gender. They therefore guide the 4 priorities for this chapter: Section 2.2
discusses how brand sincerity influences brand choice, section 2.3 discusses how brand
excitement influences brand choice, section 2.4 discusses how brand competence influences
brand choice and finally section 2.5 covers how brand gender influences brand choice.
2.2 The Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice
Brand personality is defined as the set of human characteristics that are associated with a brand
(Aaker, 1997). Over the last two decades, there has been increased focus on the concept of brand
personality among marketing scholars and practitioners, because consumers are continually
engaged in constructing their self-identities through their consumption. The symbolic meaning of
brands can play a pivotal role in a variety of consumer behaviors (Kim & Sung, 2013).
A brand personality scale is proposed by Aaker (1997) in order to generate a content-valid brand
personality associated by consumers to a brand. To measure brand personality effectively, Aaker
(1997) established a 42 item scale, which was arrived at by eliminating redundancy from the trait
list optioned from three sources. These sources include personality scales from psychologists,
marketers; both academics and practitioners, and lastly original qualitative researches. Aaker
(1997) proposed a Brand Personality Scale that describes and assists with measurement of the
personality of a brand in five main dimensions. The dimensions include sincerity, excitement,
competence, sophistication and ruggedness. Each of the dimensions is further divided into a set
of facets. Aaker‟s findings suggest that although the connection between brand and human
personality is not exactly similar, consumers tend to associate themselves with a product by
closely matching the brand personality of the product with their own (Ling et al., 2014).
11
Eisend and Stokburger-Sauer (2013) examined the antecedents and consequences of brand
personality traits as defined by Aaker (1997). They found that the major contributors to brand
personality were marketing communications with hedonic benefit claims, branding activities that
support the creation of a unique brand entity, a brand‟s country of origin, and the personalities of
the consumers themselves. Moreover, the brand personality dimensions of competence and
sincerity seemed to have the strongest influence on the success of a brand. Consequently, there is
meta-analysis level evidence to suggest that brand personality does have powerful implications
for marketing and managerial practice and is thus a construct that warrants further study.
A sincere brand is considered that who is honest and genuine, and an exciting character
represents the energy or extroversion dimension (Aaker, 1997). While research regarding the
direct impact of personality traits on brand evaluations is only recently emerging relationship
marketing theorists speculate that character personality characteristics promote a deeper
connection between consumers and brands (Batra, Lenk, & Wedel 2010). These observable
humanlike characteristics help humanize and give meaning to brands.
A study by Cuevas (2016) on exploring brand personality within the blogosphere found that
consumers identify a brand as sincere when their expectations for positive experiences are met
(Maehle, Otnes, & Supphellen, 2011). Consumer brand choice was positively influenced by a
brand which provides consumers with personal selling and guarantees such as positive service
experiences and promotional incentives, both contribute to the perceived sincerity of a brand
(Maehle et al., 2011). Sincerity is also established through passion and personalization, traits
which are often presented by human brands such as bestselling authors and fashion bloggers
(McQuarrie, Miller, & Phillips, 2013). Fashion bloggers are now able to document and share
their fervent appreciation for consumption online while providing insights and ultimately
generating credibility through personality traits (Opoku et al., 2007). The personalization of
information shared by fashion bloggers provides honesty and therefore, enables the development
of consumer-brand relationships as information delivered is relatable and not entirely
promotional. As a result, brand sincerity is a potent factor in determining consumer engagement
as trustworthiness drives consumers to willingly communicate their own opinions through
comments or evaluations online (Aaker, 1997; N‟Goala & Morrongiello, 2014).
12
A study by Aaker et al. (2004) on “when good brands do bad” found that sincere and exciting
brand personalities merit attention in light of their prominence in the marketing landscape.
Moreover, these two personalities are essential because they compose two of the three partner
ideals that affect intimate personal relations (Maehle et al., 2011). Sincere personalities that
dominate the world of classic brands to date include Hallmark, Ford, and Coca-Cola (Mohd,
2012). The sincere personality has been adopted by smaller companies looking to establish
themselves as warmer, more caring and considerate than larger, unwelcoming rivals (e.g.,
Gateway Cow campaign). Larger companies have also not been left behind as they seek a more
down-to-earth face in consumer-brand interaction, a good example is MetLife‟s use of Snoopy.
The study further suggests that sincere brands will garner relationship advantages as opposed to
other brand personality dimensions. Traits such as warmth, family-orientation, nurturance as well
as traditionalism, have been positively related to relationship strength (Maehle et al., 2011), are
characteristic of sincere personalities (Aaker 1997). In addition, the sincerity dimension also
spark inferences of partner dependability as well as simply trustworthiness (Aaker 1999), which
end up relaying feelings of vulnerability and support relationship growth
Sung and Kim (2010) found a link between brand personality traits, including sincerity and
excitement in particular, and brand trust. Findings from their study parallel those from studies in
marketing and the sister disciplines of management and psychology where positive traits like
sincere concern for others and agreeableness have been linked to trustworthiness perceptions
while both favorable traits of excitement and sincerity are positively related to trust. However,
prior work on trust by Sung and Kim (2010) suggests that sincerity is superior to excitement in
trust development, and a stronger relationship is expected to be found for the trait of sincerity.
A study by Malar et al. (2012) on emotional brand attachment and brand personality found that
companies are searching for ways to create increasingly, strong emotional brand connections
with consumers. This is motivated by the finding that such connections lead to higher levels of
consumer loyalty, which increases company financial performance (Park & Roedder, 2010). For
example, cosmetics companies have communicated for years to consumers that using their
products will make them more attractive and beautiful and bring them closer to realizing an ideal
vision of themselves. More recently, however, Unilever's Dove line took a different angle using
brand sincerity to appeal to consumers. The firm opted to used models who are more average in
13
appearance, presumably corresponding more closely to how the majority of consumers actually
see themselves. This approach hit a nerve with many consumers, causing them to form a strong
emotional connection with the brand.
A study by Puzakova, Kwak and Bell (2015) on the effect of brand sincerity on ethnic products
and brands highlights found that firms can build on the prosodic theory of accent. The study
established that prosodic features such as intonation tend to connote the brand as having
associations of sincerity and trustworthiness as a result influencing brand sincerity perceptions.
Furthermore, the study found that the effect of intonation depends on the degree level of
congruity between product ethnicity and a spokesperson‟s accent. Results revealed that when
these variables are congruent, then consumers tend to rely on the cues that are consistent with the
advertising appeals. For instance, when a message uses the sincerity appeal, falling intonation
leads to greater attributions of brand sincerity, whereas when a message uses the competence
appeal, rising as opposed to falling intonation triggers higher perceptions of brand sincerity.
Mohd (2012) conducted study on brand personality dimensions for a laptop computer using
Jennifer Aaker‟s brand personality scale. The study involved randomly selected 269 computer
students from Malaysian university. The findings revealed that laptop users associate themselves
with sincerity, while Laptop non-users associate this brand with ruggedness. In this research, the
result showed that differences existed in perceived brand personality associated with laptop
between users and non users, this implies that consumers‟ perception of brand personality of a
brand will often vary. Consumer perception could be influenced by their direct involvement with
the brand. This study can however not be generalized because it was only conducted on one
institution, therefore there was a methodological gap which ought to be addressed.
2.2.1 Brand Sincerity and Brand Loyalty
Kem, Sasa, Sesia, and Zhao (2014) carried a research on the Effects of Brand Personality on
brand loyalty in companies specifically focusing on micro blogs. The study investigated the
relationship between brand personality, brand loyalty and brand satisfaction. Findings showed
that all four dimensions of brand personality i.e. sincerity, excitement, sophistication and
competence, have positive impacts on consumer satisfaction in brand micro blogs. The study
further revealed that if consumers perceive a brand to be exciting, sophisticated, sincere and
14
competent, then they will be more likely to be satisfied by the brand. However, the brand
sincerity dimension was found to have the highest impact on brand choice and consumer
satisfaction than any other dimension. This study did not however address the impact of culture,
resulting to a conceptual gap which future researchers should explore by including cultural
dimension in their model.
Sajad, Mahdi, Hamed, Seyyed, and Tahereh (2013) conducted a research on Application of
Consumer Personality Trait, Brand Personality, Brand Loyalty and Brand Equity in the Mobile
Phone Industry. The study involved 400 randomly selected actual and potential customers of
Samsung mobile in Tehran. Brand personality was measured using three dominant brand
personality dimensions; brand sincerity, brand excitement, and qualified brand personality. The
findings from the study led to the conclusion that brand personality has a significant impact on
the buying of mobile phone. Moreover, brand sincere personality traits; agreeableness,
responsible and extraversion personality were considered to have the most impact. However the
study did not address adequately the effects of brand personality on mobile phones since it
largely focused on three dimensions of brand personality i.e. sincerity, excitement and
competence. As a result further study is necessary.
A study by Mohd (2012) established that different types of brand personalities exert different
responses from consumers in terms of loyalty and feedback to the brand‟s actions. Sincere
brands tend to develop longer and more loyal relationships from customers, strengthening with
time, while more exciting brands tend to be perceived as more short-term oriented. Whenever
there are transgressions committed by brands, relationships with sincere brands tend to be
severely affected while with exciting brands these tend to become less and sometimes even re-
energized. Specific brand personalities are associated with particular product categories (Maehle,
Otnes & Supphellen, 2011), for instance, as the authors support, sincere brands are commonly
associated with morals and family-values, exciting brands to special occasions and new feelings,
competent brands are associated with quality and expertise.
2.3 The Influence of Brand Excitement on Brand Choice
A second brand personality dimension that has received increased marketing interest is that of
the exciting personality dimension. Exciting brands are built around qualities of energy and
youthfulness (Aaker 1997). Exciting global brands include organizations such as MTV, Yahoo,
15
Virgin, and Mountain dew. This brands attempt differentiation through unique and irreverent
advertising using typical brand logos, and hip language that bring out the dimension effectively.
Brands have largely adapted exciting personalities when targeting younger demographics, for
example Mountain Dew‟s “Do the Dew” campaign, which was meant to reposition the brand for
increased cultural vitality. BMW also embraced the excitement dimension in their “Driving
Excitement” campaign, and wanted to seek differentiation against competitors in the market.
Global brands that have pursued the excitement dimension have done exceedingly well in
shaping consumer brand choice and satisfaction.
Consumer based brand personality requires that a brand elicits a certain range of excitement with
consumers. Tesfom and Birch (2011) define excitement as the state of being elated, and longing
for a given product or brand. Some of the attributes a brand has to possess to be regarded as
exciting is being trendy, and daring. According to Bouhlel et al. (2011) a trendy brand is a brand
that gains wider acceptability due to its fashion sense, usability, or even aesthetic value. In
FMCG branding, an organization has to ensure that its products are able to push the trendy
aspects of a product or brand to consumers. This can be accomplished through graphical
modulation of a product branding. Equally, Hoq and Amin (2010) noted that a product that is
daring in aesthetic value, usability and design has the potential to create brand awareness, and as
a result, shape consumers brand choice.
Consumers view a brand as exciting when exposed to aesthetically pleasing material such as
regular new clothing styles or the communication of excitement through advertisements
involving exciting experiences (Maehle et al., 2011). Coca Cola company has repeatedly
presented itself as a socially engaged brand, showcasing to consumers vivid images of friends
drinking Coca Cola brands amid festivities (Maehle et al., 2011). In regards to human brands,
methods of excitement may include bestselling authors‟ delivering plot twists to captivate
readers (Opoku et al., 2007). Similarly, fashion bloggers share a visual insight in the domain of
apparel, a daring liveliness essential to capturing consumer interest online (McQuarrie et al.,
2012). Research demonstrates that emotions such as excitement play a critical role in consumer
experience, influencing perceptions, consumer engagement and ultimately brand choice (Hwang
& Lim, 2015).
16
A study by Staples (2015) analyzed how brand personality is not only applicable to products but
also to services and sport organizations. There are brand personalities which shape the way
consumers (fans) interact with the organization, attend events, purchase merchandise, and
generally view different sport. Within spectator sport, the brand personality of a team can impact
the way fans of that team view their favorite team, as well as the way fans of other teams view
the organization. Brand personality differences provide product differentiation opportunities for
teams in a number of ways. Brand excitement is the most notable dimension used by sports
organizations for example, in a crowded college football market place teams like the University
of Oregon and Baylor University have used flashy uniforms and up-tempo offenses to create a
“cutting-edge” brand for their respective programs (Staples, 2015).
Hollenback (2012) conducted a study to conceptualize the brand personality of Mountain Dew, a
popular soft drink. He found that there are two major perspectives which could be used to
explore brand personality, the company‟s and the consumer‟s. In order to better understand the
subject, two directions were taken: firstly the one that proposes to analyze intended brand
personality and respective repercussions on brand equity, further finding out how the company
aims to develop its personality and how to transmit the desired associations to its consumers,
secondly the one that proposes to understand the consumer behavior side, how consumers really
perceive the brand personality, or brand image. After analyzing from both angles, findings found
that excitement collectively ranked as the most descriptive personality dimension of Mountain
Dew. Respondents felt that the commercials, which mainly highlighted extreme sports, gave off
an air of excitement. They felt that these commercials served to excite the consumers about the
drink by displaying high energy.
A study by Liang and Lee (2010) on Brand-personality focused on three categories of drinks;
Fizzy drink, Energy drinks and mineral water. The study involved 393 university students from
Austria, the results showed that brand personality influenced their choice between the three
brands, however the excitement dimension had a great impact for fizzy drink and energy drink
while sincerity had great impact on mineral water. Overall, the three drink categories were
differentiated to the greatest extent on the sincerity dimension. Mineral water drinks are
perceived as being the most sincere, followed by Fizzy drinks and Energy drinks. The results
also found that the sincerity dimension is the only distinctive characteristic that respondents
17
identified for mineral water drinks. Moreover mineral water was perceived to be more
sophisticated but less exciting and rugged than the other two drink categories. The study
however only involved fast moving consumer goods (drinks), therefore further study on other
product categories is appropriate.
Aaker (1997) found that the brand excitement dimension is related with the human personality
dimension of extraversion, whereby both share characteristics of sociability and kindness. Brand
excitement is expressed by traits such as advanced, energetic, exceptional, composed and
courageous. Gil and Hellgren (2011) argued that, if the brand is associated with characteristics of
exceptional, it means customers will be attracted to buying the product because it is perceived to
be unique from others.
Anja and Daniel (2011) conducted study on the Impact of Brand personality on brand trust and
brand choice of four products i.e. Nike, Apple, Mercedes Benz and Ikea. The comparative study
used non probability sampling techniques specifically convenient sampling method to select 317
respondents from Germany and Sweden, the outcome of the study showed that the brand
personality dimensions of sincerity and competence could explain better brand trust while the
excitement dimension explained better brand choice. The overall results showed that brand
personality dimensions correlate with identification, trust and preference. Therefore it was
possible to arrive at the conclusion that brand personalities have an effect on brand choice and
brand trust. The study however did not consider the possible effects of having a moderating
variable. Future studies should therefore explore possible effects of product involvement as
moderating variable between brand personality and customer purchase decision of Smartphone.
A study by Buresti and Rosenberger (2006) on brand personality differentiation in the Australian
Action sports (A/S) clothing market analyzed three firms; SMP, Hooker Technologies and
Volcom. The study found that brand personality dimensions for Hooker Technologies and
Volcom were similar, with Excitement, Competence and Ruggedness rating the highest of the
five brand personality dimensions for these brands. The three brands had similar brand
excitement and sincerity ratings, however, the dimensions of brand competence and ruggedness
did not rate as highly for SMP brand. The findings further revealed that the Australian A/S
market regard Hooker Technologies and Volcom as clothing brands with similar brand
personality dimensions, more specifically competence, excitement and ruggedness. SMP was
18
however found to be similar on the excitement dimension but rather weak on the competence and
ruggedness dimensions. The results from this study suggest that members of the Australian A/S
youth market identify the BP dimensions of excitement as being more descriptive of the
company brand. The findings from this study highlight the relevance of the brand personality
construct in measuring the differences in brand personality dimensions across different product
categories. This information will assist the marketing managers with relevant information
regarding the brand strategies required by the brand to build on these dimensions as well as to
differentiate their brand from A/S competitors and the global branded clothing market.
Sharma (2012) investigated the brand personality of tourism destinations and found that brands
can be described by personality characteristics such as colorful, youthful and noble. Aaker
(1996) argues that a brand's personality creates excitement, depth and emotion of the relationship
between the brand and consumer, and that a brand with personality, not unlike a person, missing
friends and can easily be overlooked. Aaker (1996) adds that brand personality makes a brand
more interesting and memorable. He further relates to measuring brand personality of a brand's
value and concludes that in measuring brand value he uses what he calls "The Brand Equity Ten"
which consists of ten factors grouped into five categories. Factor associations and differentiation
contains three variables, brand personality, perceived value and business associations.
A study by Plavini (2011) on how brand personality affects products with different involvement
levels showed that brand personality positively affects not only consumer brand choice but also
their purchase decision. The effect remains true for both high and low involvement products,
however the effect of brand personality is higher for high involvement products than low
involvement products. Brand personality can be enhanced by famous endorsers while in the case
of low involvement products, this can be done thorough strong positive argument about the
brand in case of high involvement products.
Kimeu (2016) found that strong brand personality is invaluable in building brand equity where
differentiation based on quality seems to be very little among competing firms. A significant
number of other scholars have theorized brand personality to be a significant source of customer-
based brand equity and loyalty. Research by Geyskens (2016) found that building and managing
strong brands is considered one of the most critical tasks in brand management. This is because
loyal customers create an entry barrier that makes it difficult for competitors to enter the market.
19
In addition, almost all marketing activities are directed toward this goal. The study further
reveals that although the areas of brand equity and brand loyalty have been extensively studied,
several important aspects such as antecedents, mediators, and consequences of brand personality
still require further research and clarification.
Brand personality skeptics suggest that despite exciting brands seeming attractive and gaining a
lot of attention and thus highly capable of generating interest and trial, they are still seen as
somehow less legitimate long-term partners (Louis & Lombart, 2010). Hence, although the
exciting dimension is viewed as an ideal in intimate relations, this personality may have intrinsic
disadvantages in contrast to the sincerity dimension which fosters perceptions of partner quality
and encouraging long-run relationship strength.
2.3.1 Congruence between Brand Personality and Self Image
A study by Klipfel et al. (2014) outlined the importance of self-concept theory in consumer
behavior research by explaining that consumers who perceive the product image of a brand to be
consistent with their actual self-concept have a higher likelihood to purchase and use a brands
offering. Consequently, congruence between ones self-image and the product image may have a
greater influence on consumer preference, purchase intention, customer satisfaction as well as
loyalty to the brand.
Self-congruity is further defined as the degree to which brand personality and self-concept are
compatible. Therefore it is a match between the products value-expressive attributes such as
product-user image as well as the audience‟s self-concept (Malar et al., 2012). According to the
self-congruity theory, self concept tends to influence consumer behavior in a way that results in
consumers purchasing of the product. A crucial factor in market segmentation is self-congruity,
which provides insight pertaining to effective brand positioning and advertising research for
marketers (Mohd, 2012). Marketers should therefore ensure they have adequate psychological
knowledge of target consumers rather than simple surface-based demographics so as to
accurately position their products in a way that appeals to consumers.
A study conducted by Graeff (1996) looked at the effect of congruence between brand image and
self image on brand evaluation concerning the promotion message. Findings from the study
established that under the promotion message that reminds consumers of their own self-image,
20
consumers give more positive evaluations of brands congruent with their own self-image. In
another similar study that he conducted involving beer product brands, the findings suggested
that positive brand attitude and purchase intention both increase as the congruence between
brand image and self image increases.
Consumers use brands as a symbol and they prefer brands with images or personalities that are
congruent with their self-image or brand personality. A study by Chang, Park, and Choi (2001),
established that consumers display a favorable feeling towards a brand whenever the brand
personality is congruent with their respective self-image. The congruence between brand
personality and self-image increases positive attitude of consumers who have high hedonic
attitude and emphasize symbolic values. Yi and La (2004) later found that brand personality has
an influence on brand identification, which subsequently has a direct impact on brand loyalty,
and had an indirect impact on brand satisfaction.
A study by Willems and Swinnen (2011) found that in addition to brand and product personality,
consumers can also experience congruity with store personality (SP). Store personality can be
defined as the way the shopper sees the store in their mind. SP can also be described as the image
that describes the store‟s psychological attributes as well as functional qualities (Willems &
Swinnen, 2011). Consumers should be able to have distinct images of stores and the products
they carry in their back of their minds (Rocereto & Mosca, 2012). In other words, a store‟s
personality is not automatically derived from the products on its shelves, hence marketers of the
store must therefore ensure good positioning of products in the store to appeal to their target
market (Rocereto & Mosca, 2012).
Aaker (1997) was among the first scholars to develop different measurement scales for human
personality as well as brand personality, a more recent study by Branaghan and Hildebrand
(2011) revamped the old measurement scales by being the first to measure brand personality
image and self image in the same associative network. Findings from the study established that
measuring brand personality images and self-image in the same associative network was
advantageous as it was very comprehensive. Marketers can visually see how the self relates to
selected brands while simultaneously seeing how these brands relate to each other (Branaghan &
Hildebrand, 2011).
21
Helgeson and Supphellen (2004) conducted a study on the relationship between self congruity
and brand personality, however the research specifically focused on investigating whether the
two constructs are empirically discriminant, which they were indeed found to be discriminant,
and also spoke to the moderating effect of socially desirable responding. Phau and Lau (2001)
pioneered the idea that customers can influence the way a brand personality is perceived, which
is a shift from the traditional thought that brand personality is solely the creation of marketers
and advertisers and is exclusively dependent on their actions and intentions.
The relationship between brand personality and self-congruity is anything but static. Klipfel et
al. (2014) found that self-congruity can be as much a determinant of brand personality however
also a product of brand personality. Marketers need to understand this relationship whenever it
applies to their specific brand. Before launching a brand, marketers should take steps to ensure
probable early adopters of their product are indeed the brands target consumers. The study
further establishes that existing brands should always carefully be monitored for brand
personality changes that may occur as a result of false congruity, real-ideal image discrepancy,
innovative as well as creative consumer behavior.
2.4 The Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice
Brands known for competence create an image of reliability, responsibility, dependability,
intelligence, efficiency and success. Companies that market their brands using this dimension
can compete with brands marketed for their excitement by presenting an alternative value.
Brands within the automotive industries for example, often compete in a fight that pits
competence dimension vs. excitement. This can be elaborated by the example of a car that will
safely deliver a family home through a violent storm will totally differentiate itself from a swift,
sleek automobile that has fantasies of winning racing championships for its owners. In the
information-technology industry, companies may compete with a brand that promises the
competence dimension and the excitement dimension simultaneously. A recent study by
Wirunphan and Ussahawanitchakit (2016) revealed that Microsoft cooperation was able to brand
the Surface tablet as a cutting-edge device with the capability to fully replicate the functions of a
laptop however still within an exciting, streamlined design.
A competent brand is seen as one that has the capability to interpret customers „trouble and to
meet the need. Brand competence is also a considerable manner which develops consumer trust
22
in brand. A brand must have some characteristics that satisfy consumers‟ needs (Klipfel et al.,
2014). Wirunphan and Ussahawanitchakit (2016) conducted a study on the cosmetic industry in
Thailand and established that organizations want to build their competence in few key areas and
to deal with their brand within these domains. The study further established that it is the duty of
every marketer to meet customers‟ exact demands which are related to their products.
Organizations should not create suspicion in the consumers‟ mind about brand competence.
Consumers must be persuaded to obtain a relation to the brand competence dimension. The study
also found that companies that make use of key opinion leaders and personas who are viewed as
authorities in particular areas, to present them as brand ambassadors and representatives; for
instance highly qualified engineers for technical tools and renowned physicians to represent
pharmaceutical products had greater breakthroughs towards influencing brand choice of
consumers.
Competent brands consist of crucial elements for solving consumers‟ issues. Consumers can find
out the competency of a brand through directly using it or as a result of word-of mouth
marketing, whereby they may hear the perception of another person who may have used the
brand. Competent brands are able to satisfy consumer needs and their attributes must be
compatible with consumer needs (Wirunphan & Ussahawanitchakit 2016).
Aaker (1999) established that the brand competence dimension entails that a brand had proven,
to consumers, its ability to deliver repeatedly. A strong brand personality leads to brand
competence that is unique, strong, favorable and congruent in the minds of consumers. A brand
intending to use this dimension as part of its personality traits must be able to align itself to
depict a quality of reliability, intelligence and success. This creates a high level of satisfaction to
consumers who patronize such business organizations. Brand competence plays an enormous
role in shaping brand choice in the service industry such especially in the banking sector. It is a
major factor or traits for differentiating items and influencer of brand choice (Aaker, 1999).
Huang, Wang, and Gong (2014) conducted empirical research on the brand personality of Smart
phones in China. The study involved 1335 online customers. Findings from the study revealed
that, building the brand personality dimensions of competence and excitement helped improve
the brand value of smart phones and greatly influencing brand choice. Moreover, the study also
found that competence and excitement were personality dimensions of successful smart phone
23
brands. Brands with these two aspects of personality were found to be widely accepted by
consumers.
Kinjal (2014) conducted a study on Brand Personality of Pepsi and Coca Cola. The study involved
100 respondents who were selected using quota sampling method, the overall results showed that
brand personality affects the customers purchase choice of each product. More specifically, the
findings revealed that consumers consider Coca-Cola to be a Sincere and Competent brand while
Pepsi is considered to be a Cheerful (young and trendy) brand. Coca-Cola was found to have the
elements of an intelligent and imaginative brand while Pepsi does not possess such elements. The
study involved only 100 customers who cannot adequately represent the consumers of Pepsi and
Coca-Cola, as a result further study is required to fill this gap.
2.4.1 Brand Loyalty
Louis and Lombart (2010) suggested that future studies to study the effect of brand personality
on other consequences such as loyalty, to specifically find out whether brand personality can
predict brand loyalty. A study by Sung and Kim (2010) confirmed the assertions that brand
personality evokes brand emotions which consequently increase the levels of brand satisfaction,
and as a result leads to building the level of brand loyalty. Similar research studies also reveal a
significant relationship exists between brand personality and brand loyalty (Lin, 2010), however
others noted an insignificant relationship.
Early studies about brand loyalty define the concept as a behavioral reaction and focus on
repetitive purchasing decisions (Ciftyıldız & Sütütemiz, 2007). Brand loyalty can further be
defined as consistent purchasing or being a customer for the same brand in the future, despite
there being other attractive brands for that products or service. It is highly likely that satisfied
customers will be loyal customers because high satisfaction leads to both emotional and rational
loyalty (Sum & Kim, 2010). The author further explains the concept as the tendency to pay more
for a product of specific brand among similar others and to recommend this brand to the others.
Bouhlel et al. (2011) studied 380 participants to identify if brand personality influences brand
loyalty trust and commitment. The study used two of Aaker's brand personality dimensions:
sincerity and competence. Findings from the study established that brand personality influences
customer loyalty, attachment as well as commitment for sincere and competent brands.
24
Rajagopal (2008) went ahead to study the interdependence of personality and brand identity in
measuring the influence on brand choice. The study used brand personality, brand image, brand
reputation and brand trust as independent variables, while brand choice was used as the
dependent variable. The findings from this study established that brand personality influences
consumer buying decision by greatly increasing the persuasive appeal of the product on
customers.
In a study on brand personality, loyalty and brand quality rating in the contact lens perspective,
Yeoh et al. (2014) opted to adopt Aaker's five dimensions of brand personality: brand
competence, sophistication, sincerity, excitement and brand ruggedness to measure consumers
attitudinal loyalties. Data was collected from 238 management students in Malaysian public
university using probability sampling; stratified random sampling method, and the result showed
that the dimensions of sincerity, excitement and competence of brand significantly affect brand
loyalty
2.4.2 Brand Satisfaction
Ouwersloot and Tudorica (2011) analyzed brand personality and found that companies should
consider brand personality as a means that empowers them to achieve satisfaction. Previous
research suggests a link between brand personality and satisfaction (Achouri & Bouslama, 2010).
For instance, Brakus et al. (2009) established that brand personality has a significant effect on
brand satisfaction. Similarly, Bouhlel et al. (2011) also found the positive effect of congruent
brand personality on customer satisfaction among 150 guests in a study of Season Hotel in
Indonesia. Similar findings were reported by Yong-Ki, Back, and Kim (2009) who explored the
influence of restaurant brand personality on satisfaction. In contrast however, Kem et al. (2014)
revealed an insignificant relationship between brand personality and brand satisfaction in the
service context.
Satisfaction is defined as an emotional response to the experiences provided by or associated
with particular products or services purchased. According to scholars Youl and John (2010),
brand satisfaction is one factor that influences brand loyalty. When customers are satisfied with a
brand, they are willing to use the same brand in the future. Nam et al. (2011) argue that customer
satisfaction is an overall emotion of customer response to the entire brand experience after the
25
last purchase. Brand satisfaction indirectly influences future purchasing patterns of consumers
and it enhances consumer desire for the specific product or service (Bennett & Rundle-Thiele,
2002). In a later study by the same author, satisfaction is viewed as a significant antecedent of
brand loyalty; increase in satisfaction leads to increase in brand loyalty (Bennett & Rundel-
Thiele, 2005).
Previous studies found a significant relationship between brand satisfaction and brand loyalty
(Andreani et al., 2012; Kuikka & Laukkanen, 2012). The findings from the above studies were
quite similar and revealed same results. After investigating the effects of brand satisfaction on
brand loyalty and the growing role of hedonic value within the brand loyalty experience in the
chocolate industry in Finland. They were able to establish that brand satisfaction is a strong
influence on behavioral brand loyalty. They also showed that brand satisfaction affects
attitudinal brand loyalty. Furthermore, they revealed that satisfaction is the most significant
influence on behavioral brand loyalty.
In contrast to the above findings, Belaid and Behi (2011) found that the correlation between the
two concepts; brand loyalty and brand satisfaction is negative and insignificant. This implied that
satisfaction plays a minute role at best in developing loyal consumers. Mohd (2012) conducted a
similar study and also found an insignificant relationship between satisfaction and brand loyalty
however towards lifestyle product brands, high-tech product brands, and service brands.
Similarly, insignificant findings were reported by Abdul and Rehman (2015) on the effect of
customer satisfaction and brand loyalty in his study on Pakistan. Lastly a recent study by
Mabkhot et al. (2015) conducted a study among university students investigating the relationship
between the two branding concepts towards the BMW car brand. The findings from the study
established that the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty is statistically
insignificant among students in Germany and Canada universities toward the BMW car brand.
2.4.3 Brand Personality and Purchase Intention
Nam et al. (2011) conducted a study on the major factors that influence customer intentions and
their moods. The study revealed that brand personality is the first factor that should be
considered by researchers. Brand personality is significant for marketers and customers, because
it can establish a link between the product and the customer. Brand personality creates a
26
mechanism which brands can use to differentiate themselves; it also acts as a key determinant for
customer buying intentions (Bruwer & Buller, 2005). In addition, a previous study by Aaker
(1997) further revealed that brand personality is the main variable in consumer purchase
decisions and is an critical concept when it comes to brand distinction and brand differentiation
as a result having a significant effect on the consumers purchase decisions.
Mengxia (2007) conducted a comparative study on 230 Chinese customers to find out whether
brand personality influenced their purchase intention of Nike and Sony brands. Findings from the
study revealed that brand personality has a positive and significant effect on the purchase
intention of consumers. Moreover, recent researches have confirmed the considerable effect of
brand personality on the purchase intention for example, Mohd (2012) conducted a study
analyzing consumers behavioral intentions with perceptions of Brand Personality. The study
explained that brand personality dimensions such as brand competence, excitement,
traditionalism and brand gender have significant and direct influence on consumer purchase
intention.The effects of competence and excitement are however found to be more significant
than the other two dimensions. Toldos-Romero and Orozco-Gómez (2015) also conducted a
study which focused on 400 Mexican undergraduate students. The study analyzed two groups of
users and non-users of a brand and multiple regression analysis revealed that brand personality
and its dimensions are significant predictors for purchase intention and brand personality effect
is higher among the users of the brands compared to the non-users. Consequently, despite many
factors having an influence on the consumer intentions and conditions, brand personality is a
significant factor that should be considered by researchers.
2.5 The Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice
According to Azar (2013) gender is one of the most basic dimensions of symbolism, therefore
gendered personality approach to brands plays a central role in the study of brand personality.
Grohmann (2009) confirmed this gendered perception of brands and studied the structure of
brand gender. She defined brand gender as “the set of human personality traits associated with
masculinity and femininity applicable and relevant to brands”. In this regard, we consider brand
gender to be a dimension of a brand‟s personality. Via a scale development she shows the bi-
dimensionality of this construct: brand masculine dimension and brand feminine dimension.
27
Lieven, Grohmann, Herrmann, Landwehr, and Van Tilburg (2014) found that brand gender
contributes to the strength of consumer-based brand equity above and beyond the equity
contribution of other brand personality dimensions. In other words, brands with high masculinity
and/or femininity perceptions may enjoy greater brand equity. In a more recent study by Lieven
and Hildebrand (2016) they established that androgynous brands enjoy the greatest consumer-
based brand equity ratings across countries and product categories. The researchers explained
this finding by relating to psychology research which established that humans with strong
masculine and strong feminine traits are perceived to be most likeable and successful in many
countries of the world (Lieven & Hildebrand, 2016). Nonetheless, this consumer-based brand
equity body of research suggests that brand gender personality dimensions are important factors
for managers to consider in branding activities and brand management strategy.
Kraft and Weber (2012) conducted a study on the implication of gender differences to marketing.
Their findings established that three companies that used the gender dimension to create brand
personality effectively were Apple, Volvo, and Whole Foods. All three companies had a
personality trait that appealed to women in a manner that feminine consumers felt they can trust
the products, the products were worth the price and were able to command a market premium.
Apple consistently delivers on their market promise which is the easy to use their products, high
quality goods, and lastly a passionate lifestyle. Volvo has not been left behind either, and has
opted to take women‟s input and developed key elements in their products that are important to
women such as color-coding fluid lids as well as easy to load trunks. In addition, Volvo also
tailored their marketing message to focus on safety and dependability and have largely delivered
on that promise. Lastly, Whole Foods Company focused on delivering a pleasant shopping
atmosphere comprising of friendly sales staff, quality and healthy foods, as well as hard-to find
products (Anderson 2012). Each of these companies have conducted research on what is
important to the women they wish to serve and focused in on providing superior results in those
areas. These companies do not just talk a good marketing game but back up their promises and
continue to build relationships with women, this further highlights the growing influence of
brand gender on brand choice.
A recent study by Workman and Lee (2012) on brand relationships and risk found that despite
the importance of gender differences in consumer behavior, little is known about how men and
28
women differ in risk avoidance or in brand relationship variables such as brand trust or brand
credibility. Women tend to have greater tolerance for risk-taking than men in terms of
willingness to try new or unusual products and enjoyment. Furthermore, women tend to be more
willing than men to adopt a fashion innovation earlier than other consumers, which is a risky
consumer behavior (Workman & Cho, 2012). Women are also more likely than men to purchase
products impulsively. Other research which did not examine risk related to purchasing apparel
found that women are more open to uncertain and unstructured contexts. Similar studies also
found that women score higher than men on brand sensitivity as well as brand consciousness
(Workman & Lee, 2013).
2.5.1 Traditional Approach to Brand Gender
Men and women are known to traditionally approach purchasing decisions differently. The
difference is observed because men and women often want different things out of a buying
decision. Whereas women may look to satisfy long term needs and wants, men focus on the
opposite; satisfying immediate or short term needs and wants (Baker, 2012). Traditionally the
purchasing decision is meant to start with customer awareness then generate interest in
purchasing and finally narrowing of options. Marketers who try and engage customers
everywhere they go constantly overwhelm the modern consumer. For instance, on an average
drive around, a potential customer is likely to encounter numerous advertisements; radio ads,
billboards, leaflets, and store signs. These same consumers are likely to have checked a news
website and accessed email or social media encountering banner adds all before work. The
constant marketing overload has caused a major shift in the process of arriving at purchasing
decisions. A recent survey discussed in the Harvard Business Review blog revealed that only
about a third of consumers still use the traditional approach to the purchasing decision. Another
third use the open-ended path, which refers to consumers who constantly research differences in
products before deciding about which brand to buy. The final third have abandoned the search
process entirely and tend to focus on one brand exclusively (Anderson, 2012).
Marketing to men is often more stereotypical. Marketers try to appeal to men with funny
marketing or bad-boy images. Sullivan, Higdon & Sink (SHS), is a firm known for their targeted
marketing campaigns directed specifically to men. SHS began by identifying five universal
truths about men to help in effective marketing. Those five truths are “men seek enlightenment,
29
experience, and success on their own terms. In addition, men happily define themselves as
principle-driven and identify themselves as family-centric (Moore, 2008).” Yet men often make
impulsive purchases (Levit, 2012). Men judge a shopping experience in utilitarian terms, judging
items such as parking availability, length of checkout lines, as well as the stock of the items they
came to buy.
Global changes to how men are viewed today and their role both at home and in society have
played a big role in changing the types of goods and services that can effectively be marketed to
men. For instance, there has been an increase in the number of men who participate in elective
plastic surgeries and skin care regimes over the last few years, a sharp contrast from the past
(Smith, 2012). A study by Skin Incorporation, found that men of today enjoy taking care of their
personal appearance. Guys want to feel good about their appearance but in a sort of undercover
way that does not feel like he is giving up on being one of the guys (Westerbeke, 2008). The
study also revealed that it is the significant female influences in their lives that are responsible
for starting men on the path of beauty purchases. Companies have thus found out that marketing
to the female in their life is often more effective as opposed to directly marketing to the men.
This mode of marketing is often more effective since a man‟s first spa experience typically
occurs from the need to clean up their eyebrows or body hair or rather a need to update a
hairstyle (Westerbeke, 2008). Daulatram (2008) went further to state that it is important to
market to real men, the kind of men who are “normal” are those that do more than go out, drink,
and look for hot girls
Mulyanegara and Tsarenko (2009) carried a research on the relationship between brand
personality and customer personality in the context of fashion products. The researchers used all
the five dimensions of brand personality. Findings from the study revealed that some of the five
dimensions have a significant relationship with brand choice. Results relevant to gender
demonstrate that female and male consumers are different in way of expressing their own
personality in case of brand personality.
Das (2014) conducted a study investigating whether the brand personality of retail is similar for
various retail brands, the study further investigated if the perceptions toward retail brand
personality are different between female and male shoppers. The findings revealed that brand
30
personality of retail is actually different for various retail brands. This research also showed that
perception toward retail brand personality is not similar between female and male shoppers.
Grohmann (2009) conducted a study on the gender dimensions of brand personality and
established that these dimensions of brand personality raises the concern that though most
personality inventories and scales measuring masculinity and femininity pre date Goldberg's
(1990) five-factor model, masculinity and femininity are not part of this model. However,
alternative integrations of personality factors resulted in multifactor models that include
masculinity. These relationships are still being investigated because of their complex nature. In
summary, there is precedence for the investigation of masculinity and femininity beyond the Big
Five.
Gender dimensions of brand personality arise from consumers need to express themselves along
multiple dimensions (Aaker 1997). An earlier study on brand gender found that the need to
express masculinity and femininity through brand choice is based on the notion that gender is
naturally part of consumer self-concept (Freimuth & Hornstein 1982).Masculine and feminine
personality traits help consumers associate with a brand to enhance their own personal degree of
masculinity or femininity whenever they use brands for self-expressive purposes. According to
Grohmann (2009), gender dimensions of personality appear to be especially relevant to brands
that have symbolic value for consumers attempting to reinforce their own gender e.g., personal
care, fragrance, apparel brands. In practice, marketers can support consumers need for self-
expression by creating masculine or feminine brand associations; for instance, using packaging
color e.g., bold versus pastel colors in deodorant packaging. This not only reinforces consumers
gender but also influences their brand choice.
Bao and Sweeney (2009) are of contrary opinion regarding the influence of gender on brand
personality. Their study established that using the gender approach to understand brand
personality could be problematic and called for a concise definition via methodological
evaluation. They argued that describing a brand as either feminine or masculine could lead to
confusion and misunderstanding because the brand may target both gender consumers. The study
further revealed that according to human personality theory research, masculine and feminine are
not considered personality traits.
31
2.5.2 Brand Gender and Consumer Behavior
A study on gender by Blankston et al. (2015) found that gender is one of the most profound
social factors that shapes and constructs our individual activities and group experiences. The
influence of gender effects have however been oversimplified in plenty of marketing literature
that address gender as a singular biological descriptor (Palan & Bakir, 2013). In todays market
place, gender concept is increasingly blurred as a result of rapid and turbulent social-economic
changes since the 1960s. Marketing practitioners are currently targeting emerging gender market
segments that are based on this trend. Accordant with the social and market changes, marketing
researchers are becoming increasingly sentient to the fallacy of a consonant biological approach
to brand identity and greater attention has been afforded to a more integrative approach for
understanding gender as a multi-factorial construct.
In recent years, launches of worldwide products and brands based on gender distinctions have
been carried out leading to new managerial concerns about brand gender. To appeal to male
consumers, brand managers are attributing a masculine sexual identity for traditionally non sex-
typed brands and products. That was the case of Coca-Cola when launching Coke Zero destined
to men. Pepsi Co. followed the same approach by launching Pepsi Max for the same target
group, the duo registered high sales signifying that brand gender actually has a direct effect on
brand choice. Enduing those brands with a masculine identity was made possible by work carried
on different aspects of the marketing mix such as the packaging (Azar, 2013).
Grohmann (2009) defined the gender dimensions of brand personality as the “set of human
personality traits associated with masculinity and femininity applicable and relevant to brands”.
They are particularly important to brands with symbolic value for consumers. Previous research
suggested that strongly gendered brands positively influence brand trust, brand choice, brand
loyalty, and shapes consumer behavior (Grohmann, 2009). Therefore, we assume that a clear
brand gender positioning i.e. high levels of brand masculinity or brand femininity positively
influences consumer engagement with the brand on social media, and also love towards this
brand. Moreover, brands with high levels of masculinity and femininity tend to be associated
with a higher brand equity and greatly shape brand choice (Lieven et al., 2014). Thus, we assume
that the greater the extend consumers perceive the brand as feminine or masculine, the higher it‟s
consumer based brand equity (CBBE).
32
2.6 Chapter Summary
This chapter has reviewed literature and provided insightful understanding on the four specific
research objectives that govern the scope of this study; the influence of brand sincerity on brand
choice, the influence of brand excitement on brand choice, the influence of brand competence on
brand choice and lastly the influence of brand gender on brand choice. The next chapter will
describe the research design adopted for the study, the target population and sampling design,
data collection methods, research procedures and finally, data analysis methods that will be used
in the study.
33
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of brand personality on the brand choice of
Colgate Palmolive consumers in Nairobi. This chapter presents the research design adopted for
the study, the target population and sampling design, data collection methods, research
procedures and finally, data analysis methods that will be used in the study.
3.2 Research Design
According to McMillan and Schumacher (2001) research design is a plan for selecting subjects,
research sites, and data collection procedures to answer the research questions. They further
indicate that the goal of a good research design is to provide results that are judged to be
credible. Durrheim and Blance (2004) however defined a research design as a strategic
framework for action that serves as a bridge between research questions and the execution, or
implementation of the research strategy.
This study adopted a descriptive survey research design. According to Mugenda and Mugenda
(2010) descriptive survey enables the researcher utilize both qualitative and quantitative in an
objective manner without altering the study environment. A study by Saunders and Thornhill
(2014) established that researchers are to remain objective while collecting and interpreting data
in order to avoid bias which may arise if the researcher introduces his/her opinion. Therefore,
descriptive survey research design was suitable for this study since it allows the research
objectivity, and it enabled the researcher to summarize data using descriptive and inferential
statistics, and as such, making it simpler to comprehend the findings. The study dependent
variable is brand personality, whereas brand sincerity, brand excitement, brand competence and
brand gender are the independent variables. Although the brand personality framework has five
elements, the study opted to leave out the elements of brand ruggedness and brand sophistication
as they would not be applicable for this study.
34
3.3 Population and Sampling Design
3.3.1 Population
Cooper and Schindler (2014) defined a population as a group of elements upon which a
researcher desires to draw a study sample and draw a conclusion. They further described a target
population as the complete set of people, objects or events that have similar characteristics from
which the researcher wants to draw generalizations from. This study targeted a total population of
500 consumers who frequently purchase Colgate Palmolive products in three estates in Nairobi
County. Specifically focusing on respondents from three estates, it comprised of the various
classes of demography in the population which includes class A; the affluent and the well to do
members of the society. Secondly, class B, which was made up of middle class of the population
and lastly class C was comprised of the low income earners.
Table 3.1 Population Distribution Table
Cluster Population
Class A (Akila/Airport view estate) 100
Class B (High rise estate) 300
Class C (Siranga estate) 100
Total 500
Source: Langata Residents Association (2016)
3.3.2 Sampling Design
Lavrakas (2008) defined a sample design as the framework, or road map which serves as the
basis for the selection of a survey sample and affects many other important aspects of a survey.
The sampling design comprises of the sampling frame, sampling technique and sample size.
3.3.2.1 Sampling Frame
According to Malhotra (2014) sampling frame can be defined as a representation of the elements
of the target population. It consists or set of directions for identifying the target population.
Examples of a sampling frame include the telephone book, an association directory listing the
firms in an industry, a city directory or a map. For the purposes of this study, the list of
respondents was acquired from the Langata Residents Association.
35
3.3.2.2 Sampling Technique
Kothari (2004) defines a sampling technique as a definite plan determined before any data is
actually collected for obtaining a sample from a given population. Selecting a sampling
technique involves several decisions of a broader nature. However the most important decision
about the choice of sampling technique is whether to use probability or non probability sampling
(Malhotra 2014). The sampling technique that was employed in this study was probability
sampling, more specifically cluster sampling technique. Cluster sampling is considered to be
efficient as the sample is spread more evenly over the population. Simple random sampling was
then used to select respondents from the specific clusters. As a result no large part failed to be
represented in the sample. The sample is evenly spread and cross section is better.
3.3.2.3 Sample Size
According to Collis and Hussey (2009) sample size can be defined as an unbiased subset that
represents the population and is related to the size of the population under consideration. Dodge
(2003) described sampling size as the number of sampling units which are to be included in the
sample. According to Sekeran and Bougie (2013) 95% confidence level is the conventionally
accepted level for most business research and thus it was adopted for this study. The sample size
of the proposed study was arrived at based on previous research studies conducted on brand
personality. The average sample size is 166 respondents. A study by Watt et al., (2002) on the
adequacy of response rates found that the overall response rate for online surveys was 32.6%,
while for paper surveys it was 33.3%. Cluster sampling was used to select 33.3% of the
consumers from the three different estates.
Table 3.2 Sample Size Distribution
Cluster Population Sample Size %
Class A (Akila/Airport view estate) 100 33 33.3%
Class B (High rise estate) 300 100 33.3%
Class C (Siranga estate) 100 33 33.3%
Total 500 166 100%
36
3.4 Data Collection Methods
The study will use a questionnaire to collect data from Colgate Palmolive consumers in Nairobi
County. Fully structured closed ended questions were used to collect data from the respondents.
With fully structured questions, a respondent‟s response may give an insight into his/her
feelings, background, interests and decisions and give as much information as possible without
holding back. The questionnaires were self administered by the respondent so they can fully and
sincerely respond thereby giving sufficient information without the influence of interviewers.
Respondents will be asked to indicate their response on a five level Likert scale ranging from 1
to 5 where 1 reflected Strongly Disagree, 2 reflected Disagree, 3 reflected Neutral, 4 reflected
Agree and 5 reflected Strongly Agree. The data was collected from the 3 clusters in Nairobi with
an aim of cutting across the demographic divide.
The questionnaire deployed in the study did not undergo any pilot study due to the fact that the
tool was adapted from preceding studies that had already carried out the procedure and had
deemed the instrument to be scientifically valid and reliable. It did however undergo pretesting
with 10 respondents. They were each briefed on the purpose of the pretesting. Feedback and
findings was used to further improve the ease of understanding instrument through the use of
simpler terms that respondents could easily comprehend irrespective of education levels.
3.5 Research Procedures
3.5.1 Permission
Permission to conduct this study was authorized in three phases; first by the researchers
respective supervisors and secondly by the Dean, of the Chandaria School of Business.
Subsequent compliance by relevant regulatory bodies in the education sector was then sought.
3.5.2 Reliability of Instruments
A study by Creswell (2014) explains that reliability of instruments is used to determine whether
questions in the data collection instrument are resolute, internally sound and whether the test
administration and scoring is deemed to be consistent. Cronbach‟s alpha was utilized to
determine the reliability of the study; whereby Cronbach's coefficient, having a value of more
than 0.7 is considered to be adequate for such descriptive work in a study (Nunnally, 1978).
37
The researcher personally administered printed questionnaires as well as the use of trained
research assistants who assisted in refining timings of the distribution of the questionnaires. The
research team strategically approached potential respondents, explained the research proposition,
and respondents who oblige were given questionnaires to fill. The research team further
discussed and agreed with the respondents on the specific time frame by which they hopefully
should have been done with answering the questionnaires. Adequate time was provided to the
respondents to respond to the questionnaire.
3.5.3 Validity of the Instruments
Validity of instruments is the quality attributed to proposition or measures of the measure to
which they conform to establish the truth (Cooper & Schindler, 2014). For this study, validity of
the instrument was attained through the adoption of questionnaires from similar studies with
sound construct, internal and external validity. The purpose of construct validity was to show
that the items measured were correlated with what they intend to measure, as well as demonstrate
correlation with other constructs. Internal validity refers to the correctness of inferences made
about the causal relationship between the independent and dependent variables, while external
validity refers to the extent to which findings can be generalized to other scenarios, people, as
well as time.
3.5.4 Ethical Considerations
Ethics in business research refers to a code of conduct or the expected societal norm of conduct
while undertaking research (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). Ethical conduct applies to everyone
involved in the research process i.e. the researcher, research assistants (if present), sponsors of
the research, the respondents that provide relevant data, as well as the analysts who provide the
results. The researcher ensured the respondents that information collected was confidential,
avoiding any disclosure of the respondent‟s identity or any other personal information they
provide. The researcher further ensured that ethical conduct was reflected in the behavior of the
entire research team and process.
38
3.6. Data Analysis Methods
3.6.1 Data Preparation
Before processing of responses, the researcher sort the received questionnaires, the complete
questionnaires were edited in order to clean them of any errors, removal of inconsistencies,
incomplete responses, misclassifications as well as identification of gaps in information (Kumar,
2011). The data was then coded to enable the responses to be grouped into various categories for
further analysis.
3.6.2 Descriptive Research
A study by Cooper and Schindler (2014) found that descriptive statistics are measures that
portray the center, spread and shape of distribution of a dataset. They act as a useful preliminary
tool for describing data through organizing and summarizing of data from a simplistic yet
meaningful perspective. Descriptive statistics enable a researcher discern patterns that are not
clearly apparent in raw data though the use of visual aids and graphical representations such bar
graphs, pie charts and frequency tables.
3.6.3 Inferential Statistics
Inferential statistics are measurement standards used to make inferences from a sample to an
entire population. Zikmund et al. (2013) stated that statistical analysis could be univariate;
implying testing an objective involving only one variable, bivariate;which implies when a study
involves two variables and lastly multivariate which involves three or more variables being
tested. This study utilized a multivariate approach and involved multiple regression and
correlation tests as a form of inferential statistical analysis in order to determine the relationship
between the dependent and independent variables.
3.7 Chapter Summary
This chapter described the research methodology that was be used to carry out this study. First it
defined the population then described the sampling technique, and size. This was followed by a
description of the method that will be used to conduct the research and the justification of the use
of the chosen method. At the end, the chapter looked at the data analysis methods which were
39
used by the researcher to analyze the collected data, and make conclusive remarks on the study.
Chapter four will discuss the results and findings of the study.
40
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
The chapter presents an analysis of the data that was collected using primary information by use
of questionnaire. This contains details of; general information, presentation of data analysis,
interpretation and discussion of findings. Data presentation is organized based on the specific
objectives of the study. The study aimed to investigate the influence of brand personality on the
brand choice of Colgate Palmolive consumers in Nairobi. The findings begin with the response
rate, demographic data, descriptive analysis, correlation analysis, regression analysis and
discussions of the research findings.
4.1.1 Response Rate
In this study, the researcher distributed 130 questionnaires out of which 107 were filled and
returned. This represents a response rate of 82% as shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Response Rate
Questionnaires Number Percentage
Filled and collected 107 82%
Contained errors 13 10%
Non-responded 10 8%
Total 130 100%
4.2 General Information of Respondents
4.2.1Gender of Respondents
The researcher sought to determine the gender of the respondents, from the findings on Figure
4.1, drawn above, 53% are male while 47% are female implying that the males are the main
consumers of Colgate brand of toothpaste.
41
Figure 4.1 Gender of Respondents
4.2.2 Age of Respondents
The findings on figure 4.2 drawn below, revealed that a greater proportion of the respondents
55% were aged between 26-35 years, 26% were aged below 25 years and 15% were aged
between 36-45 years. This implies that the main consumers of Colgate are in the age bracket of
26-35 years, the toothpaste brand is not popular among individuals aged above 45 years where it
was only 4% of the total sample.
Figure 4.2 Age of Respondents
Male
53%
Female
47%
Gender of Respondents
Male Female
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
25 and below 26-35 36-45 46 and above
26%
55%
15%
4%
Age of Respondents
42
4.2.3 Area of Residency of Respondents
The data on table 4.2below shows the findings of the respondents‟ areas of residence, a greater
proportion 62% reside in Highrise Estate, followed by Siranga Estate with 22% and lastly the
Akila/Airport view estate which was 16%. In view of this majority of the respondents comes
from the Highrise estate where they were interviewed on the perceptions of the influence of the
brand personality on the brand choice of Colgate Palmolive consumers.
Table4.2 Area of Residency of Respondents
Area Sample size Frequency Percent
Akila/Airport view estate 33 17 52%
Highrise estate 100 67 67%
Siranga estate 33 23 70%
Total 166 107 64%
4.2.4Highest level of Academic Qualification
Findings on table 4.3 reveal that a greater proportion of the respondents 31% have bachelor‟s
Degree, followed by secondary and Primary with a representation of 30%, those with
College/University Diploma was 20%, those with College certificate was 14% while 5% have
master‟s degrees. This suggests that the respondents were well conversant with the issues
relating to brand quality, advertisement and therefore made right decision while choosing their
favorite tooth paste brand.
Table 4.3 Highest level of Academic Qualification
Education Level Frequency Percent
Secondary/Primary 33 30%
College certificate 15 14%
College/University Diploma 21 20%
Bachelor‟s Degree 33 31%
Master‟s Degree 5 5%
Total 107 100%
43
4.2.5 Regular use of Colgate Toothpaste
The researcher sought to know the regular use of Colgate toothpaste and the greater proportion
of the respondents use Colgate which they respondent yes with 96%, and the remaining said no
with 4% response. The figure 4.3 shows the summary of the findings of the study.
Figure 4.3 Regular use of Colgate Toothpaste
4.3 Descriptive Analysis
4.3.1. Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice
The research sought to find out the influence of brand sincerity on brand choice, findings on
table 4.4 on the „Colgate is Down to earth‟ the response was 17% Disagreed, 21% were neutral,
and 63% Agreed;„Colgate is Honest‟ the response was 7% Disagreed, 21% were neutral, and
73% Agreed;„Colgate is Wholesome‟ the response was 2% Disagreed, 11% were neutral, and
87% Agreed;„Colgate is Original‟ the response was 5% Disagreed, 7% were neutral, and 88%
Agreed; „Colgate is Realistic‟ the findings was 5% Disagreed, 17% were neutral, and 79%
Agreed;„Colgate is Cheerful‟ the findings was 6% Disagreed, 23% were neutral, and 72%
Agreed; „Colgate is Sentimental‟ the findings was 5% Disagreed, 15% were neutral, and 80%
Agreed.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No
96%
4%
Regular use of Colgate Toothpaste
44
Other second part of questions on brand sincerity and brand choices, the responses were shown
on table 4.4 which were similar to first part, agreed as highly ranked. This shows Colgate seems
to be well established within the market having known as the brand of choice for the customers.
This implies that majority of the consumers believe Colgate is a sincere product and hence this
variable has a significant impact on the brand choice.
Table 4.4 Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
Colgate is Down to earth 7% 10% 21% 46% 17%
Colgate is Honest 1% 6% 21% 50% 23%
Colgate is Wholesome 1% 1% 11% 54% 33%
Colgate is Original 1% 4% 7% 37% 51%
Colgate is Realistic 1% 4% 17% 50% 29%
Colgate is Cheerful 1% 5% 23% 51% 21%
Colgate is Sentimental 2% 3% 15% 51% 29%
Sincere brands have high brand
attachment
.9 12.1 53.3 33.6
Sincere brands have lasting
impressions on consumers
2.8 2.8 54.2 40.2
Brand sincerity influences brand trust .9 .9 5.6 41.1 51.4
Brand sincerity enhances
differentiation
.9 5.6 9.3 49.5 34.6
I would purchase a sincere brand as
opposed to other brands
.9 .9 8.4 42.1 46.7
Sincere brands positively influence
brand loyalty
.9 .9 5.6 43.9 48.6
Sincere brands offer great satisfaction .9 .9 5.6 48.6 43.9
Sincere brands influence my purchase
intention
0.9 6.5 42.1 50.5
4.3.2. Influence of Brand Excitement Elements on Brand Choice
The research sought to find out the Influence of Brand Excitement on brand choice, findings on
table 4.5were as follow. On the „Colgate is Up to date‟ the response was 2% Disagreed, 5% were
neutral, and 93% Agreed; „Colgate is Cool‟ the response was 4% Disagreed, 15% were neutral,
and 82% Agreed;„Colgate is Spirited‟ the response was 10% Disagreed, 18% were neutral, and
45
73% Agreed; „Colgate is Daring‟ the response was 14% Disagreed, 21% were neutral, and 65%
Agreed; „Colgate is Contemporary‟ the findings was 4% Disagreed, 13% were neutral, and 83%
Agreed; „Colgate is Independent‟ the findings was 3% Disagreed, 12% were neutral, and 85%
Agreed.
Similarly, questions on brand excitement and brand personal choices were presented on table 4.5.
and all were ranked as agreed. This implies that the company has made efforts to ensure that
Colgate brand remains the most proffered brand by consumers since the level of the brand
excitement is very high to the consumers.
Table 4.5 Influence of Brand Excitement Elements on Brand Choice
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
Colgate is Up to date 1% 1% 5% 54% 39%
Colgate is Cool 1% 3% 15% 47% 35%
Colgate is Spirited 4% 6% 18% 53% 20%
Colgate is Daring 5% 9% 21% 39% 26%
Colgate is Contemporary 3% 1% 13% 53% 30%
Colgate is Independent 2% 1% 12% 42% 43%
Exciting brands have lasting
impressions on consumers
1.9 3.7 43.9 50.5
Brand excitement enhances
differentiation
.9 1.9 10.3 48.6 38.3
I would purchase an exciting
brand as opposed to other
brands
4.7 11.2 42.1 42.1
Exciting brands positively
influence brand loyalty
.9 3.7 9.3 45.8 40.2
Exciting brands offer great
satisfaction
.9 .9 8.4 41.1 48.6
Exciting brands influence my
purchase intention
.9 2.8 7.5 36.4 52.3
4.3.3. Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice
The research sought to find out the Influence of brand competence on brand choice, findings on
table 4.6 were as follow.„Colgate is Reliable‟ the response was 2% Disagreed, 6% were neutral,
46
and 93% Agreed; „Colgate is Secure‟ the response was 3% Disagreed, 9% were neutral, and 88%
Agreed; „Colgate is Hardworking‟ the response was 6% Disagreed, 18% were neutral, and 77%
Agreed; „Colgate is Successful‟ the response was 3% Disagreed, 9% were neutral, and 88%
Agreed; „Colgate is Leader‟ the findings was 4% Disagreed, 23% were neutral, and 73% Agreed;
„Colgate is Intelligent‟ the findings was 3% Disagreed, 15% were neutral, and 83% Agreed;
lastly, „Colgate is Technical‟ the findings was 4% Disagreed, 12% were neutral, and 84%
Agreed.
The second part of the question on influence of brand competence on brand choice was also
ranked as agreed as stipulated on table 4.6. This clearly shows Colgate as a brand has a very
strong presence on brand choice as all the variables were highly agreed.
Table 4.6 Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
Colgate is Reliable 0% 2% 6% 44% 49%
Colgate is Secure 0% 3% 9% 44% 44%
Colgate is Hardworking 1% 5% 18% 44% 33%
Colgate is Successful 0% 3% 9% 38% 50%
Colgate is Leader 1% 3% 23% 34% 39%
Colgate is Intelligent 1% 2% 15% 48% 35%
Colgate is Technical 0% 4% 12% 44% 40%
Competent brands have lasting
impressions on consumers
7.5 38.3 54.2
Brand personality enhances
brand image
.9 6.5 40.2 52.3
Brand competence enhances
differentiation
.9 .9 8.4 43.9 45.8
I would purchase a competent
brand as opposed to other
brands
1.9 6.5 41.1 50.5
Competent brands positively
influence brand loyalty
.9 1.9 6.5 31.8 58.9
Competent brands offer great
satisfaction
.9 5.6 39.3 54.2
Competent brands influence my
purchase intention
1.9 6.5 34.6 57.0
47
4.3.4. Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice
The research sought to find out the Influence of brand gender on brand choice, findings on table
4.7were as follow. „Masculine/Feminine brands offer great satisfaction‟ the response was 10%
Disagreed, 29% were neutral, and 61% Agreed; „Masculine/Feminine brands positively influence
brand loyalty‟ the response was 10% Disagreed, 29% were neutral, and 62% Agreed. On „the
purchase a masculine/feminine brand as opposed to other brands‟ the response was 17%
Disagreed, 28% were neutral, and 55% Agreed; „Masculine and feminine brands have lasting
impressions on consumers‟ the response was 8% Disagreed, 25% were neutral, and 67% Agreed;
on the „Masculine and feminine brand personality enhances differentiation‟ the findings was 8%
Disagreed, 28% were neutral, and 65% Agreed. Others were „Colgate is Cheerful‟ the findings
was 6% Disagreed, 23% were neutral, and 72% Agreed; and on the last question
„Masculine/feminine brands influence my purchase intention‟ the findings was 13% Disagreed,
24% were neutral, and 62% Agreed.
Table 4.7Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice
Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Masculine/Feminine brands offer
great satisfaction 0% 10% 29% 42% 19%
Masculine/Feminine brands positively
influence brand loyalty 2% 8% 29% 42% 20%
I would purchase a
masculine/feminine brand as opposed
to other brands 3% 14% 28% 32% 23%
Masculine and feminine brands have
lasting impressions on consumers 1% 7% 25% 45% 22%
Masculine and feminine brand
personality enhances differentiation 2% 6% 28% 43% 22%
Masculine/feminine brands influence
my purchase intention 2% 11% 24% 36% 26%
4.4. Inferential Statistics
Under inferential statistics, statistical tests carried to understand the data were Factor analysis,
Cronbach‟s alpha, Inter-item correlation, Normality test, and Multi-collinearity tests. Other tests
were correlation and regression model analysis.
48
4.4.1. Factor Analysis
Under factor analysis, three key tests were conducted; exploratory factor analysis (EFA), factor
pattern loading and lastly, commonality and rotational method.
4.4.1.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis
For EFA, questions that did not relate to construct were extracted from the analysis. Table 4.8
shows the factor derived Kaiser-Meyer result of 0.813(the closer to 1, the stronger the adequacy).
The Bartlett‟s test of Sphericity was significant at X2
(1326, N=52) = 4226.10, p<.05. The factor
was adequate for extraction of the component since Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure was greater
than 0.6 and the Bartlett‟s test was significant (p<.05).
Table 4.8 KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .813
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 4226.100
Df 1326
Sig. .000
4.4.1.2 Total Variance Explained
From Table 4.9, total of 4 factors were extracted from the variables in the study. The number of
factors were limited to four guided by the number of objectives of study. The exclusion criteria
was pair wise and absolute value of lower than .05 were suppressed from the variables. The
variance explained represents total of 52.55% of the sum of square loading with greater than 5%
variance of the Eigen values. Table 4.9 gives details of the variance explained (Appendix III).
4.4.1.3. Pattern Matrix and Communality
Communality measures the variance explained by all the combined factors of variables and is
interpreted as the reliability of the indicator. The stronger the value, the greater the communality
as lower value for less than 0.3 indicate that the variable is weak and not fit with other
components. Table 4.10 shows the factor loadings of the four components extracted; brand
sincerity (BS), brand excitement (BE), brand competency (BC) and brand gender (BG). Each of
these factors extracted had value of more than 0.5 indicating they were well loaded.
49
Table 4.10: Pattern Matrix and Communality
BE BS BC BG Communality
7BS .636 .567
9BS .590 .466
10BS .608 .392
11BS .534 .411
12BS .603 .566
13BS .593 .565
15BS .753 .490
16BS .663 .513
17BS .548 .454
18BS .624 .476
19BS .659 .558
20BS .760 .539
21BS .532 .413
22BS .677 .575
1BE .519 .383
2BE .639 .511
3BE .621 .496
5BE .591 .535
6BE .718 .599
9BE .619 .533
1BC .666 .551
2BC .608 .476
3BC .720 .699
4BC .691 .540
6BC .739 .610
7BC .831 .670
8BC .755 .626
9BC .645 .471
10BC .581 .497
11BC .775 .560
12BC .786 .700
13BC .837 .643
14BC .829 .657
1BG .585 .362
2BG .839 .692
3BG .917 .709
4BG .807 .670
5BG .800 .731
6BG .848 .753
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations.
50
4.4.1.4 Construct Reliability
Construct reliability was assessed using the Cronbach‟s alpha. The Cronbach alpha was .954
which was greater than .7 threshold indicating that all the variables in the study demonstrated
construct reliability as indicated in table 4.11.
Table 4.11 Construct Reliability
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items
N of Items
.952 .954 52
4.4.1.5 Convergent Validity.
To evaluate convergent validity, the total statistics of the variable were used as outlined on table
4.12. From the table, the value range of measure was nearly similar with minimum of .904 and
maximum of .959. Further, the variance of the inter-item covariance and inter-item correlation
were nearly similar between .012 and .048. This indicates that the items measurement had
stronger point of agreement hence good validity.
Table 4.12Summary Total Statistics
Mean Minimum Maximum Range Maximum /
Minimum
Variance N of
Items
Item Variances .696 .402 1.361 .959 3.384 .048 52
Inter-Item
Covariances .192 -.116 .787 .904 -6.760 .012 52
Inter-Item
Correlations .284 -.142 .833 .974 -5.877 .021 52
4.4.1.6 Correlation Coefficient.
Correlation analysis was conducted to test the significant association between dependent and
independent variables. Pearson correlation coefficient denoted by R is used to measure the
strength of a linear relationship between two variables. R can take a range of +1 and -1, where
the score is zero it implies that there exists no association between the variables, where a score
below zero shows that the relationship between the variables is a negative one. As shown in table
51
4.13, all the variables were highly correlated. The dependent variable „brand choice‟ was
positively correlated with „BS‟ r (107) =.476, p<.05; „BE‟ r (107) =.404, p<.05; „BC‟ r (107)
=.571, p<.05; and „BG‟ r (107) =.634, p<.05.
4.4.1.7 Normality Test
Statistical tests of Skewness and kurtosis statistics were used to test the normality. Normality is
positive when Skewness and kurtosis statistics in the range -1.0 and + 1.0. As indicated on table
4.14, BC and BG as independent variables passed the normality test while brand choice as
dependent variable passed the normality test.
Table 4.13 Normality Test
BS BE BC BG Brand_Choice
Skewness -1.268 -1.180 -.831 -.435 -.931
Std. Error of Skewness .234 .234 .234 .234 .234
Kurtosis 4.346 2.604 .367 -.479 1.760
Std. Error of Kurtosis .463 .463 .463 .463 .463
4.4.1.8 Multicollinearity Test
Multicollinearity test was tested by the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). This was performed to
determine if the values of independent variables and dependent variables had higher similarity
that will affect their regression analysis. From table 4.14, the VIF values were more than 1 and
less than 10 hence the factors were not multi-collerated.
Table 4.14: VIF Test
Model Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
1
BS .675 1.481
BE .591 1.691
BC .793 1.260
BG .798 1.253
a. Dependent Variable: Brand_Choice
52
4.5 Regression Model
Regression analysis was used to determine the relationship, magnitude/projection of the
influence of personnel expertise, management capability, and infrastructure flexibility on firms‟
performance. The specific objectives to be answered by the linear regression were; to evaluate
the influence of brand sincerity on brand choice, to establish the influence of brand excitement
elements on brand choice, to establish the influence of brand competence on brand choice and
lastly to establish the influence of brand gender on brand choice.
4.5.1. Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice
From the model summary table 4.16a, the value of variance R2 = 0.227, F (1, 105) =30.816, p-
value = 0.001. This shows that 22.7% of brand Sincerity is influenced by brand Choice while the
remaining 77.3% of brand choice were attributed to other factors other than brand sincerity.
Table 4.15a: Model Summary
Model R R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F
Change
df1 df2 Sig. F
Change
1 .476a .227 .220 .50780 .227 30.816 1 105 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), BS
ANOVA shows whether the regression model was fit to determine the predictor than using the
mean comparison. The ANOVA table 4.15b, the regression model was suitable for predicting the
outcome variable other than the mean outcome: F(1, 7.946) = 30.816, p<.05).
Table 4.15b: ANOVA Table
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 7.946 1 7.946 30.816 .000b
Residual 27.076 105 .258
Total 35.022 106
a. Dependent Variable: Brand_Choice
b. Predictors: (Constant), BS
Table 4.16c shows the regression coefficients model. The output shows brand sincerity
statistically predicted brand choice (β = .476, (.540) t = 5.551, p<.05. This means, one unit of
53
increase in brand sincerity increased the brand choice by .476. Table 4.15c shows the result of
the regression coefficient.
Brand Choice= 1.868 + 0.540 𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦.
Table 4.15c: Coefficient Table.
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. 95.0% Confidence
Interval for B
B Std. Error Beta Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1 (Constant) 1.868 .412 4.533 .000 1.051 2.686
BS .540 .097 .476 5.551 .000 .347 .732
a. Dependent Variable: Brand_Choice
4.5.2. Influence of Brand Excitement on Brand Choice
From the model summary table 4.16a, the value of variance R2 = 0.164, F (1, 105) =20.525, p-
value = 0.001. This shows that 16.4% of brand excitement is influenced by brand choice while
the remaining 83.6%% of brand choice were attributed to other factors other than brand
excitement.
Table 4.16a: Model Summary
Model R R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F
Change
df1 df2 Sig. F
Change
1 .404a .164 .156 .52821 .164 20.525 1 105 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), BE
ANOVA shows whether the regression model was fit to determine the predictor than using the
mean comparison. The ANOVA table 4.16b, the regression model was suitable for predicting the
outcome variable other than the mean outcome: F(1, 5.727) = 20.525, p<.05).
54
Table 4.16b: ANOVA Table
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 5.727 1 5.727 20.525 .000b
Residual 29.296 105 .279
Total 35.022 106
a. Dependent Variable: Brand_choice
b. Predictors: (Constant), BE
Table 4.16c shows the regression coefficients model. The output shows brand excitement
statistically predicted brand choice (β = .404, (.381) t = 7.242, p<.05. This means, one unit of
increase in brand excitement increased the brand choice by .381. Table 4.16c shows the result of
the regression coefficient.
Brand Choice= 2.557 + 0.381 𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡.
Table 4.16c: Coefficient Table
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.557 .353 7.242 .000
BE .381 .084 .404 4.530 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Brand_choice
4.5.3. Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice
From the model summary table 4.17a, the value of variance R2 = 0.327, F (1, 105) =50.925, p-
value = 0.001. This shows that 32.7% of brand competence is influenced by brand Choice while
the remaining 67.3%% of brand choice were attributed to other factors other than brand
competence.
Table 4.17a: Model Summary
Model R R
Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F
Change
df1 df2 Sig. F
Change
1 .571a .327 .320 .47393 .327 50.925 1 105 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), BC
55
ANOVA shows whether the regression model was fit to determine the predictor than using the
mean comparison. The ANOVA table 4.17b, the regression model was suitable for predicting the
outcome variable other than the mean outcome: F(1, 11.438) = 50.925, p<.05).
Table 4.17b: ANOVA Table
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 11.438 1 11.438 50.925 .000b
Residual 23.584 105 .225
Total 35.022 106
a. Dependent Variable: Brand choice
b. Predictors: (Constant), BC
Table 4.17c shows the regression coefficients model. The output shows brand competence
statistically predicted brand choice (β = .571, (.588) t = 7.136, p<.05. This means, one unit of
increase in brand competence increased the brand choice by .588. Table 4.17c shows the result of
the regression coefficient.
Brand Choice= 1.532 + .588 𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒.
Table 4.17c: Coefficient Table
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.532 .368 4.160 .000
BC .588 .082 .571 7.136 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Brand_choice
4.5.4. Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice
From the model summary table 4.19a, the value of variance R2 = 0.402, F (1, 105) =70.602, p-
value = 0.001. This shows that 40.2% of brand gender is influenced by brand choice while the
remaining 59.8% of brand choice were attributed to other factors other than brand gender.
56
Table 4.18a: Model Summary
Model R R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F
Change
df1 df2 Sig. F
Change
1 .634a .402 .396 .44659 .402 70.602 1 105 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), BG
ANOVA shows whether the regression model was fit to determine the predictor than using the
mean comparison. The ANOVA table 4.18b, the regression model was suitable for predicting the
outcome variable other than the mean outcome: F(1, 14.081) = 70.602, p<.05).
Table 4.18b. ANOVA Table
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 14.081 1 14.081 70.602 .000b
Residual 20.941 105 .199
Total 35.022 106
a. Dependent Variable: Brand_choice
b. Predictors: (Constant), BG
Table 4.18c shows the regression coefficients model. The output shows brand gender statistically
predicted brand choice (β = .634, (.449) t = 8.403, p<.05. This means, one unit of increase in
brand on gender increased the brand choice by .449. Table 4.18c shows the result of the
regression coefficient.
Brand Choice= 4.605 +× 0.289 𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟.
Table 4.18c: Coefficient Table
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.470 .203 12.145 .000
BG .449 .053 .634 8.403 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Brand_choice
57
4.6 Chapter Summary
The chapter looks at the demographic information of the respondents including the age, gender,
and education qualification. Objective one was to evaluate the influence of brand sincerity on
brand choice and the equation developed was= 1.868 + 0.540 brand sincerity. The second
equation was to establish the influence of brand excitement elements on brand choice and the
equation was= 2.557 + 0.381 Brand Excitement. The third objective was to establish the
influence of brand competence on brand choice and the equation
was= 1.532 + .588 Brand Competence. Lastly, to establish the influence of brand gender on
brand choice with the equation= 4.605 +× 0.289 Brand Gender. From the findings of the study
the consumers of the Colgate Palmolive tend to agree with the research variables thus the impact
of brand personality on brand choice is majorly high among the consumers in this areas. The
next chapter will discuss more on the research findings by giving summary of the study,
discussion, conclusions, and recommendations of the study.
58
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
The purpose of the study is to establish the influence of brand personality on the brand choice of
Colgate Palmolive consumers in Nairobi. The chapter will also draw conclusions from the
findings and make appropriate recommendations
5.2 Summary
The purpose of the study is to establish the influence of brand personality on the brand choice of
Colgate Palmolive consumers in Nairobi. The study was conducted by seeking to investigate the
following research objectives. To evaluate the influence of brand sincerity on brand choice; to
establish the influence of brand excitement on brand choice; to establish the influence of brand
competence on brand choice and to establish the influence of brand gender on brand choice.
The research was done using post-test descriptive research design to pursue the objectives of the
study, with no influence on the sample. This was helpful in gathering information about the
variables and to determine the effect on brand choice. A questionnaire with 57 questions was
distributed to the selected sample of respondents using hard paper copies by hand. Responses
were collected between January and April 2018. Descriptive analysis was performed on the data
collected for each of the research question and then inferential statistical analysis was done
thereafter. This included exploratory factor analysis, convergent validity testing, reliability and t-
tests.
On objective one the correlation finding indicates variables were highly correlated; „brand
choice‟ was positively correlated with „BS‟ r (107) =.476, p<.05. The regression finding shows
the value of variance R2 = 0.227, F (1, 105) =30.816, p-value = 0.001. indicating that 22.7% of
brand Sincerity is influenced by brand Choice while the remaining 77.3% of brand choice were
attributed to other factors other than brand sincerity. The coefficients model output shows brand
sincerity statistically predicted brand choice (β = .476, (.540) t = 5.551, p<.05. This means, one
unit of increase in brand sincerity increased the brand choice by .476. Table 4.15c shows the
result of the regression coefficient.
59
On „BE‟, the correlation finding indicates variables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟ was
positively correlated with „BE‟ r (107) =.404, p<.05; the regression finding shows the value of
variance R2 = 0.164, F (1, 105) =20.525, p-value = 0.001. This shows that 16.4% of brand
excitement is influenced by brand choice while the remaining 83.6% of brand choice were
attributed to other factors other than brand excitement. The coefficients model output shows
brand excitement statistically predicted brand choice (β = .404, (.381) t = 7.242, p<.05. This
means, one unit of increase in brand excitement increased the brand choice by .381. Table 4.16c
shows the result of the regression coefficient.
On „BC‟, the correlation finding indicates variables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟ was
positively correlated with „BC‟ r (107) =.571, p<.05; the regression finding shows the value of
variance R2 = 0.327, F (1, 105) =50.925, p-value = 0.001. This shows that 32.7% of brand
competence is influenced by brand Choice while the remaining 67.3% of brand choice were
attributed to other factors other than brand competence. The coefficients model output shows
brand competence statistically predicted brand choice (β = .571, (.588) t = 7.136, p<.05. This
means, one unit of increase in brand competence increased the brand choice by .588. Table 4.17c
shows the result of the regression coefficient.
Lastly on „BG‟, the correlation finding indicates variables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟
was positively correlated with „BG‟ r (107) =.634, p<.05. The regression finding shows the
value of variance R2 = 0.402, F (1, 105) =70.602, p-value = 0.001. This shows that 40.2% of
brand gender is influenced by brand choice while the remaining 59.8% of brand choice were
attributed to other factors other than brand gender. The coefficients model output shows Table
4.19c shows the regression coefficients model. The output shows brand gender statistically
predicted brand choice (β = .634, (.449) t = 8.403, p<.05. This means, one unit of increase in
brand on gender increased the brand choice by .449. Table 4.18c shows the result of the
regression coefficient.
5.3 Discussion
5.3.1 The Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice
The first objective of the study was to establish the influence of brand sincerity on brand choice.
The results showed that the variables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟ was positively
60
correlated with „BS‟ r (107) =.476, p<.05. The regression finding shows the value of variance R2
= 0.227, F (1, 105) =30.816, p-value = 0.001 indicating that 22.7% of brand Sincerity is
influenced by brand Choice while the remaining 77.3%% of brand choice were attributed to
other factors other than brand sincerity. The coefficients model output shows brand sincerity
statistically predicted brand choice (β = .476, (.540) t = 5.551, p<.05. This means, one unit of
increase in brand sincerity increased the brand choice by .476.
A study by Cuevas (2016) on exploring brand personality within the blogosphere found that
consumers identify a brand as sincere when their expectations for positive experiences are met.
Moreover consumer brand choice was positively influenced by a brand which provides
consumers with personal selling and guarantees such as positive service experiences and
promotional incentives, both contribute to the perceived sincerity of a brand (Maehle et al.,
2011). The findings are similar to this study‟s finding that „BS‟ influences „BC‟.
A study conducted in Malaysian university among laptop users found that the „BS‟ dimension
played a key role when it comes to influencing their brand choice. Majority of the users associate
themselves with the sincerity dimension, while Laptop non-users were more intrigued by brands
that had the ruggedness dimension. It clearly indicated the differences that existed in perceived
brand personality associated with laptop between users and non users, this implies that
consumers‟ perception of brand personality of a brand will certainly differ and this could be
influenced by their direct involvement with the brand (Mohd, 2012). The findings are similar to
this study‟s finding that BS influences BC.
A study by Mohd (2012) established that different types of brand personalities exert different
responses from consumers in terms of loyalty and feedback to the brand‟s actions. Sincere
brands tend to develop longer and more loyal relationships from customers, strengthening with
time, while more exciting brands tend to be perceived as more short-term oriented. Whenever
there are transgressions committed by brands, relationships with sincere brands tend to be
severely affected while with exciting brands these tend to become less and sometimes even re-
energized. Specific brand personalities are associated with particular product categories (Maehle,
Otnes & Supphellen, 2011), for instance, as the authors support, sincere brands are commonly
associated with morals and family-values, exciting brands to special occasions and new feelings,
competent brands are associated with quality and expertise. The study further validated the above
61
findings demonstrating that brand sincerity not only influences brand choice but further
influences brand loyalty.
Eisend and Stokburger-Sauer (2013) examined the antecedents and consequences of brand
personality traits as defined by Aaker (1997). They found that the major contributors to brand
personality were marketing communications with hedonic benefit claims, branding activities that
support the creation of a unique brand entity, a brand‟s country of origin, and the personalities of
the consumers themselves. Moreover, the brand personality dimensions of competence and
sincerity seemed to have the strongest influence on the success of a brand. Consequently, there is
meta-analysis level evidence to suggest that brand personality does have powerful implications
for marketing and managerial practice and is thus a construct that warrants further study. The
study further validated these findings showing that brand sincerity significantly influenced brand
choice.
5.3.2 The Influence of Brand Excitement on Brand Choice
On „BE‟, the correlation finding indicates variables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟ was
positively correlated with „BE‟ r (107) =.404, p<.05; the regression finding shows the value of
variance R2 = 0.164, F (1, 105) =20.525, p-value = 0.001. This shows that 16.4% of brand
excitement is influenced by brand choice while the remaining 83.6% of brand choice were
attributed to other factors other than brand excitement. The coefficients model output shows
brand excitement statistically predicted brand choice (β = .404, (.381) t = 7.242, p<.05. This
means, one unit of increase in brand excitement increased the brand choice by .381.
A second personality type that has received increased marketing attention is that of the exciting
brand built around qualities of energy and youthfulness (Aaker, 1997). Exciting brands,
including such exemplars as Yahoo, Virgin Atlantic, and MTV, attempt differentiation through
unique and memorable advertising, a typical brand logo, and hip language. Brands have pursued
exciting personalities when chasing younger demographics e.g., Mountain Dew‟s “Do the Dew”
campaign, repositioning for increased cultural vitality e.g., BMW‟s “Driving Excitement”
campaign, and seeking differentiation against incumbent market leaders e.g., Dr. Pepper vs.
Pepsi and Coca-Cola. Global brands that have pursued the excitement dimension have done
62
exceedingly well in shaping consumer brand choice and satisfaction. The findings coincide with
this study‟s finding that „BE‟ influences „BC‟.
Consumer based brand personality requires that a brand elicits a certain range of excitement with
consumers. Tesfom and Birch (2011) define excitement as the state of being elated, and longing
for a given product or brand. Some of the attributes a brand has to possess to be regarded as
exciting is being trendy, and daring. According to Consuegra et al. (2008) a trendy brand is a
brand that gains wider acceptability due to its fashion sense, usability, or even aesthetic value. In
FMCG branding, an organization has to ensure that its products are able to push the trendy
aspects of a product or brand to consumers. This can be accomplished through graphical
modulation of a product branding. Equally, Hoq and Amin (2010) noted that a product that is
daring in aesthetic value, usability and design has the potential to create brand awareness, and as
a result, shape consumers brand choice. Locally, Colgate Palmolive was the first toothpaste
brand to introduce the herbal toothpaste on a mass scale which was marketed through exciting
televised advertisements that shaped brand choice. The findings are similar to this study‟s
finding that „BE‟ influences „BC‟.
Consumers view a brand as exciting when exposed to aesthetically pleasing material such as
regular new clothing styles or the communication of excitement through advertisements
involving exciting experiences (Maehle et al., 2011). Coca Cola Company has repeatedly
presented itself as a socially engaged brand, showcasing to consumers vivid images of friends
drinking Coca Cola brands amid festivities (Maehle et al., 2011). In regards to human brands,
methods of excitement may include bestselling authors‟ delivering plot twists to captivate
readers (Opoku et al., 2007). Similarly, fashion bloggers share a visual insight in the domain of
apparel, a daring liveliness essential to capturing consumer interest online (McQuarrie et al.,
2012). Research demonstrates that emotions such as excitement play a critical role in consumer
experience, influencing perceptions, consumer engagement and ultimately brand choice (Hwang
& Lim, 2015). The findings are similar to this study‟s finding that BE influences BC.
Aaker (1997) found that the brand excitement dimension is related with the human personality
dimension of extraversion, whereby both share characteristics of sociability and kindness. Brand
excitement is expressed by traits such as advanced, energetic, exceptional, composed and
courageous. Gil and Hellgren (2011) argued that, if the brand is associated with characteristics of
63
exceptional, it means customers will be attracted to buying the product because it is perceived to
be unique from others. Anja and Daniel (2011) conducted study on the Impact of Brand
personality on brand trust and brand choice of four products i.e. Nike, Apple, Mercedes Benz
and Ikea. The comparative study used non probability sampling techniques specifically
convenient sampling method to select 317 respondents from Germany and Sweden, the outcome
of the study showed that the brand personality dimensions of sincerity and competence could
explain better brand trust while the excitement dimension explained better brand choice. The
findings are similar to this study‟s finding that „BE‟ influences „BC‟.
5.3.3 The Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice
On „BC‟, the correlation finding indicates variables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟ was
positively correlated with „BC‟ r (107) =.571, p<.05; the regression finding shows the value of
variance R2 = 0.327, F (1, 105) =50.925, p-value = 0.001. This shows that 32.7% of brand
competence is influenced by brand Choice while the remaining 67.3% of brand choice were
attributed to other factors other than brand competence. The coefficients model output shows
brand competence statistically predicted brand choice (β = .571, (.588) t = 7.136, p<.05. This
means, one unit of increase in brand competence increased the brand choice by .588. Table 4.18c
shows the result of the regression coefficient.
Wirunphan and Ussahawanitchakit (2016) conducted a study on the cosmetic industry in
Thailand and established that organizations want to build their competence in few key areas and
to deal with their brand within these domains. The study further established that it is the duty of
every marketer to meet customers‟ exact demands which are related to their products.
Organizations should not create suspicion in the consumers‟ mind about brand competence.
Consumers must be persuaded to obtain a relation to the brand competence dimension. The study
also found that companies that make use of key opinion leaders and personas who are viewed as
authorities in particular areas, to present them as brand ambassadors and representatives; for
instance highly qualified engineers for technical tools and renowned physicians to represent
pharmaceutical products had greater breakthroughs towards influencing brand choice of
consumers. The findings are similar to this study‟s finding that brand competence influences
brand choice.
64
Aaker (1999) established that the brand competence dimension entails that a brand had proven,
to consumers, its ability to deliver repeatedly. A strong brand personality leads to brand
competence that is unique, strong, favorable and congruent in the minds of consumers. A brand
intending to use this dimension as part of its personality traits must be able to align itself to
depict a quality of reliability, intelligence and success. This creates a high level of satisfaction to
consumers who patronize such business organizations. Brand competence plays an enormous
role in shaping brand choice in the service industry such especially in the banking sector. It is a
major factor or traits for differentiating items and influencer of brand choice (Aaker, 1999). The
findings are similar to this study‟s finding that brand competence influences brand choice.
Huang, Wang, and Gong (2014) conducted empirical research on the brand personality of Smart
phones in China. The study involved 1335 online customers. Findings from the study revealed
that, building the brand personality dimensions of competence and excitement helped improve
the brand value of smart phones and greatly influencing brand choice. Moreover, the study also
found that competence and excitement were personality dimensions of successful smart phone
brands. Brands with these two aspects of personality were found to be widely accepted by
consumers. The findings are similar to this study‟s finding that brand competence influences
brand choice.
A recent study by Wirunphan and Ussahawanitchakit (2016) revealed that brands known for
competence create an image of reliability, responsibility, dependability, intelligence, efficiency
and success. Companies that market their brands using this dimension can compete with brands
marketed for their excitement by presenting an alternative value. Brands within the automotive
industries for example, often compete in a fight that pits competence dimension vs. excitement.
This can be elaborated by the example of a car that will safely deliver a family home through a
violent storm will totally differentiate itself from a swift, sleek automobile that has fantasies of
winning racing championships for its owners. In the information-technology industry, companies
may compete with a brand that promises the competence dimension and the excitement
dimension simultaneously. The study gave the example of Microsoft cooperation which was able
to brand the Surface tablet as a cutting-edge device with the capability to fully replicate the
functions of a laptop however still within an exciting, streamlined design. The findings are
similar to this study‟s finding that brand competence significantly influences brand choice.
65
5.3.4 The Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice
Lastly on „BG‟, the correlation finding indicates variables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟
was positively correlated with „BG‟ r (107) =.634, p<.05. The regression finding shows the
value of variance R2 = 0.402, F (1, 105) =70.602, p-value = 0.001. This shows that 40.2% of
brand gender is influenced by brand choice while the remaining 59.8% of brand choice were
attributed to other factors other than brand gender. The coefficients model output shows Table
4.19c shows the regression coefficients model. The output shows brand gender statistically
predicted brand choice (β = .634, (.449) t = 8.403, p<.05. This means, one unit of increase in
brand on gender increased the brand choice by .449. Table 4.19c shows the result of the
regression coefficient.
A study by Azar (2013) established that in recent years, launches of worldwide products and
brands based on gender distinctions have been carried out leading to new managerial concerns
about brand gender. To appeal to male consumers, brand managers are attributing a masculine
sexual identity for traditionally non sex-typed brands and products. That was the case of Coca-
Cola when launching Coke Zero destined to men. Pepsi Co. followed the same approach by
launching Pepsi Max for the same target group, the duo registered high sales signifying that
brand gender actually has a direct effect on brand choice. The findings are similar to this study‟s
finding that brand gender influences brand choice.
Grohmann (2009) defined the gender dimensions of brand personality as the “set of human
personality traits associated with masculinity and femininity applicable and relevant to brands”.
They are particularly important to brands with symbolic value for consumers. Previous research
suggested that strongly gendered brands positively influence brand trust, brand choice, brand
loyalty, and the likelihood of WOM communication (Grohmann, 2009). Therefore, we assume
that a clear brand gender positioning i.e. high levels of brand masculinity or brand femininity
positively influences consumer engagement with the brand on social media, and also love
towards this brand. Moreover, brands with high levels of masculinity and femininity tend to be
associated with a higher brand equity and greatly shape brand choice (Lieven et al., 2014). The
findings are similar to this study‟s finding that brand gender influences brand choice.
66
Kraft and Weber (2012) conducted a study on the implication of gender differences to marketing.
Their findings established that three companies that used the gender dimension to create brand
personality effectively were Apple, Volvo, and Whole Foods. All three had a personality that
appealed to women in a manner that feminine consumers felt they can trust the products, the
products were worth the price and were able to command a market premium. Apple is
consistently delivering on their market promise of easy to use, high quality, and a passionate
lifestyle. Volvo has taken women‟s input and developed key elements important to women such
as color-coding fluid lids and easy to load trunks. They have also focused on safety and
dependability in their marketing message and delivered on that promise. Alternatively, Whole
Foods has put a focus on delivering a pleasant shopping atmosphere with friendly sales staff,
high quality healthy foods, and hard-to find products (Heermann, 2010). Each of these
companies have conducted research on what is important to the women they wish to serve and
focused in on providing superior results in those areas. These companies do not just talk a good
marketing game but back up their promises and continue to build relationships with women, this
further highlights the growing influence of brand gender on brand choice. The findings are
similar to this study‟s finding that brand gender influences brand choice.
5.4 Conclusions
5.4.1 The Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice
The study revealed that brand Sincerity is a statistically significant predictor of brand choice.
Therefore, a positive increase in sincerity positively affected brand choice. Brand sincerity also
proved to have significant influence on brand loyalty with a mean of 4.38. The management of
Colgate Palmolive should therefore aim at including the sincerity element in their adverts and in
customer‟s minds in order to have frequent and loyal customers.
5.4.2 The Influence of Brand Excitement on Brand Choice
The study shows that brand excitement is a statistically significant predictor of brand choice.
Therefore, a positive increase in excitement positively affected brand choice. The study also
revealed that products with the brand excitement dimension had lasting impressions on
customers with a mean of 4.41. Marketing managers need to incorporate the excitement
67
personalities to their brands to appeal more to the consumers. Up to date, independent and trendy
brands gain wider acceptability due to their fashion sense, usability, or even aesthetic value.
5.4.3 The Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice
Findings revealed that there is a significant positive correlation between Brand competence and
Brand choice (0.377). Therefore, a positive increase in competence positively affected brand
choice. Based on the study, brand competence also had a significant influence on customer
satisfaction and greatly influenced the purchase intention of respondents with both having a
mean of 4.47. Being already the market leader in Kenya, Colgate Palmolive should further
leverage on the Competence dimension to stay ahead of competitors in the market.
5.4.4 The Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice
The study revealed there was a positive correlation between brand gender and brand choice
(0.896). The study also revealed that masculine and feminine brands have lasting impressions on
consumers with a mean of 3.81. Brands which explored the gender dimension as a personality
greatly differentiated themselves from competitors with a mean of 3.77. Strongly gendered
brands also positively influence brand trust, brand choice and brand loyalty. Brands which would
like to use this dimension should however ensure that their products and services have a clear
brand gender positioning i.e. high levels of brand masculinity or brand femininity which
positively influence consumer engagement with the brand, and also love towards this brand.
Colgate Palmolive may not have used this dimension in a wholesome manner which may be
costing them a market segment that could increase their market share further.
5.5 Recommendations
5.5.1 Recommendations for Improvement
5.5.1.1 The Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice
As it has been observed that a positive increase in sincerity positively affects brand choice. The
management should therefore aim at including the brand sincerity dimension in their promotion
mix to ensure the product constantly communicates to customers the personality they want to
identify with. Therefore, companies need to have genuine commitment by looking to create
products and services which should solve a genuine need to the consumers through
68
manufacturing of quality products and rely on marketing which accurately outline the product
benefits.
5.5.1.2 The Influence of Brand Excitement on Brand Choice
To effectively embed the brand excitement dimension, the marketing team ought to build and
develop a creative and compelling story to share with the consumers. This should be presented in
a way that resonates well with consumers. Consumer based brand personality requires that a
brand elicits a certain range of excitement with consumers. An exciting brand is a brand that
gains wider acceptability due to its fashion sense, usability, or even aesthetic value. In FMCG
branding, an organization has to ensure that its products are able to push the trendy aspects of a
product or brand to consumers. Consumers view a brand as exciting when exposed to
aesthetically pleasing material such as regular new clothing styles and designs or the
communication of excitement through promotion involving exciting experiences. Brands should
also seek to be socially engaged on various platforms to constantly interact with consumers.
5.5.1.3 The Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice
Companies that market their brands using this dimension can compete with brands marketed for
their excitement by presenting an alternative value. Competent brands should have the capability
to interpret customers‟ troubles and to meet their respective needs. It should be the duty of every
marketer to meet customers‟ exact demands which are related to their products. Organizations
should not create suspicion in the consumers‟ mind about brand competence. Consumers must be
persuaded to obtain a relation to the brand competence dimension. Marketers can make use of
key opinion leaders and personas who are viewed as authorities in particular areas, to present
them as brand ambassadors and representatives of their brand; for instance highly qualified
engineers can be brand ambassadors for technical tools and renowned physicians and
pharmacists can represent pharmaceutical products.
5.5.1.4 The Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice
Gendered personality approach to brands plays a central role in the study of brand personality. In
recent years, launches of worldwide products and brands based on gender distinctions have been
carried out leading to new managerial concerns about brand gender. Gender dimensions of
69
personality are especially relevant to brands that have symbolic value for consumers attempting
to reinforce their own masculinity and femininity e.g., personal care, fragrance, apparel brands.
Marketers should strive to define and create a clear brand gender positioning i.e. high levels of
brand masculinity or brand femininity positively influences consumer engagement. Moreover,
brands with high levels of masculinity and femininity tend to be associated with higher brand
equity. Men and women traditionally approach purchasing decisions very differently. However
with time, changes in view of men and women and their role both at home and in society have
played a big role in changing the types of products that can effectively be marketed to both
gender. As a result marketers should therefore be cautious and conduct extensive research on
what is important to both men and women they wish to serve and focus on providing superior
results in those areas. The brand gender dimension should be well crafted as strongly gendered
brands not only influence brand choice but also positively influence brand trust and brand
loyalty.
5.5.2 Recommendations for Further Studies
Future researchers and practitioners would also benefit from the study since it will broaden and
deepen their understanding on how brand personality can influence customers brand choice of
fast moving consumer goods more specifically healthcare and hygiene products such as
toothpastes. Previous studies in developed countries have established that there is a significant
relationship between brand personality and brand choice. In Kenya‟s context, studies have
revealed that brand personality have a significant relationship with brand choice. However, these
studies had both conceptual and methodological gap which ought to be addressed. Previous
studies on brand personality have also largely focused on electronic products such as Laptops
and television sets ignoring the competitive FMCG industry that has rapidly grown over the
years. This study filled those gaps by employing a cross-sectional survey and explored a
descriptive research design. The study also contributes to empirical literature by revealing that
four brand personality variables; brand sincerity, brand excitement, brand competence and brand
gender, have significant influence on brand choice of Colgate Palmolive products in Kenya.
70
REFERENCES
Aaker, L. J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research. 34(3),
347-356.
Aaker D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California
Management Review,38,102-120.
Aaker, J. L. (1999). The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion. Journal of
Marketing Research, 36(1), 43-57.
Aaker, J., Fournier, S. & Brasel, S.A. (2004). When good brands do bad, Journal ofConsumer
Research, 31, 1-16.
Abdul, A., & Rehman, A. (2015). Impact of customer satisfaction on brand loyalty: An empirical
analysis of home appliances in Pakistan. Journal of Marketing Studies, 2, 18-32.
Achouri, A.,& Bouslama, N. (2010). The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality
and Self-Image on Consumer‟s Satisfaction and Loyalty. Ibima Business Review, 17.
Anderson, C. (2012). The Personal Sense of Power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313-344.
Andreani, F., Taniaji, T., Natalia, R., & Puspitasari, M. (2012). The Impact of Brand Image
Towards Loyalty with Satisfaction as A Mediator in McDonald's. Journal of Marketing,
14(1), 64-71.
Ang, S. H., & Lim, E. A. (2013). The influence of metaphors and product type on brand
personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 35(2).
Anja, G., Gil, M.,& Daniel H., (2011). Brand Personality: Impact on Brand Trust and
ConsumerPreferences; A comparative study of Germany and Sweden(Unpublished
thesis). Quirk's e-newsletter
Anisimova, T.A. (2007). The effects of corporate brand attributes on attitudinal and behavioral
consumer loyalty. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(7), 395-405.
Azar, S. (2013). Exploring brand masculine patterns: moving beyond monolithic masculinity.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(7).
Baker, H. (2012). Are Good Performers Bad Acquirers?Journal of Financial Management,
41(1), 95-118.
Batra, R., Lenk, W., & Wedel, M. (2010). Brand Extension Strategy Planning: Empirical
Estimation of Brand–Category Personality Fit and Atypicality. Journal of Marketing
Research, 47(2), 335-347.
71
Bao, J., & Sweeney, J. (2009). Comparing Factor Analytical and Circumplex Models of Brand
Personality in Brand Positioning. Psychology and Marketing, 26(10), 927 - 949
Belaid, S., & Behi, T. (2011). The role of attachment in building consumer brand relationships.
Journal of Product of Brand Management, 20(1).
Beldona, S., & Wysong, S. (2007). Putting the “brand” back into store brands: an exploratory
examination of store brands and brand personality. Emerald Journals, 16(4) 226-235.
Bennett, R., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2002). A comparison of attitudinal loyalty measurement
approaches. Journal of Brand Management, 9(3), 193-209.
Bennett, R., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2005). The brand loyalty lifecycle: Implications for marketers.
Journal of Brand Management, 12(4), 432.
Blankson, C., Ye, L., & Pelton, L. (2015). Gender, Self, and Brand: A Cross-Cultural Study on
Gender Identity and Consumerbased Brand Equity. Marketing Journals.
Bouhlel, O., Mzoughi, N., Hadiji, & Slimane I.B. (2011). Brand Personality's Influence on the
Purchase Intension. A Mobile Marketing Case. International Journal for Business and
Management.
Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, H, & Zarantonello, L. (2009). “Brand Experience: What is It? How is It
Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing ,73(3), 52–68.
Branaghan, R. J., & Hildebrand, E.A. (2011). Brand Personality, Self-Congruity, and Preference:
AKnowledge Structures Approach. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 10(5), 304–312.
Bruwer, J., & Buller, C. (2005). Country-of-origin brand preferences and associated knowledge
levels of Japanese wine consumers. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 25(1),
307–316.
Buresti, F.,& Rosenberger, P. (2006). Brand Personality Differentiation in the Australian Action
Sports Clothing Market. Marketing Bulletin.
Burmann, C., Jost-Benz, M.,& Riley, N. (2009). Towards an identity-based brand equity model.
Journal ofBusiness Research, 62, 390-397.
Chang, K. S., Park, J. Y., & Choi, I. H. (2001). The Influence of Self-Congruity between Brand
Personality and Self-Image on Attitude toward Brand. Korean Journal of Marketing,
3(2), 92-114.
Ciftyıldız S.S.,& Sütütemiz, N. (2007). Tüketici İlgisinin Marka Baglılıgına Etkisi. Kocaeli
University.The Journal of Social Science, 13(1), 37-55.
72
Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2009). Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and
Postgraduate Students. Palgrave Macmillan.
Consuegra, N., Collado, N., & Esteban A. (2008). An integrated model of price, satisfaction and
loyalty: An empirical analysis in the service sector. Journal of Product & Brand
Management 16(7).
Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2014). Business Research Methods (12th ed.)McGraw-Hill
Education.
Cresswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuevas, L. (2016).Fashion Bloggers as Human Brands; Exploring Brand Personality within the
Blogosphere(Doctoral Dissertation).Retrieved from
https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/6351
Das, G. (2014). Store personality and consumer store choice behavior: an empirical examination.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 32 (3), 375-394.
Daulatram, B. L. (2008). Gender differences in ethics judgment of marketing professionals in the
United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(4), 501-515
Deloitte Analytics Trend (2015). Retrieved from:
http://public.deloitte.com/media/analytics/trends/pdf/us-da-analytics-
analyticstrends2015.pdf
Durrheim, K., & Blance, M. (2004). Research in Practice. Software publications limited.
Eisend, M., & Stokburger, N. E. (2013). Brand personality: A meta-analytic review of
antecedents and consequences. Marketing Letters, 24(3), 205-216.
Escalas, J. E.,& Bettman, J. (2009). “You Are What They Eat: The Influence of Reference
Groups on Consumers‟ Connections to Brands.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13
(3), 339–48.
Fournier, S., (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-353.
Freling, T.H.,& Forbes, L. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. The
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(7), 404-413.
Freling, T. H., Crosno, J. L., & Henard, D. H. (2011). Brand personality appeal:
conceptualization and empirical validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 39(3), 392-406.
73
Freimuth, M., & Hornstein, G. A. (1982). A critical examination of the concept of gender.
Journal of Research, 8(5), 515-532.
Geyskens, I. (2016). Let your banner wave? Antecedents and performance implications of
retailers‟ private-label branding strategies. Journal of Marketing, 80, 1–19.
Gil, G., & Helgren, D. (2011). Brand Personality: Impact on Brand Trust and Consumer
Preferences: A comparative study of Germany and Sweden (Masters Thesis). Retrieved
from urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-45166.
Graeff, T. (1996). Using promotional messages to manage the effects of brand and self image on
brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(3).
Grohmann, B. (2009). Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing
Research, 46(1), 105-119.
Grohmann, B., Giese, J. L., & Parkman, I. D. (2013). Using type font characteristics to
communicate brand personality of new brands. Journal of Brand Management, 20(5),
389-403.
Helgeson, J., & Supphellen, M. (2004). A Conceptual and Measurement Comparison of Self-
Congruity and Brand Personality; The Impact of Socially Desirable Responding.
International Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 205-233.
Hollenback, C. (2012).Mountain Dew’s Brand Personality. University of Tenessee. Retrieved
from http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1524
Hoq, M. Z.,& Amin, M. (2010). The Role of Customer Satisfaction to enhance Customer
Loyalty. AfricanJournal of Business Management, 4(12), 2385-2392.
Huang, H. H., & Mitchell, V.W. (2014). “The Role of Imagination and Brand Personification in
Brand Relationships.” Psychology & Marketing, 31 (1), 38–47.
Huang, Y., Wang, B., &Gong Q., (2014). An Empirical Research on Brand Personality of Smart
phone: Retrieved from https// Marketing-trends-congress.com/archives/2014
Hwang, Y., & Lim, J. S. (2015). The impact of engagement motives for social TV on social
presence and sports channel commitment. Telematics and Informatics, 32(4), 755-765.
Kem, Z.,K., Z., Sasa, W., Sesia, J., &Zhao,N. (2014). Effect of Brand Personality on brand
loyalty in companies Microblogs; Retrieved from www.pacis-net.org/file/2014
Kim, E., & Sung, Y. (2013). To App or Not to App: Engaging Consumers via Branded Mobile
Apps. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(1).
74
Kimeu, M. S. (2016). Effects of Service Brand Personality on Brand Performance in the Context
of Kenya's Insurance Sector.European Journal of Business and Management. 8 (18)
Retrieved from www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Kinjal, G., (2014). A Study on Brand Personality of Coca-Cola and Pepsi A Comparative
Analysis in the Indian Market. International Journal of Conceptions on Management and
Social Sciences 2(2), 2357 – 2787.
Klink. R.R.,& Athaide G.A. (2012). Creating brand personality with brand names. Marketing
Letters, 23( 1), 109-117.
Klipfel, J., Barclay, A. & Bockorny, K. (2014). Self Congruity: A Determination of Brand
Personality.Prenthall publishers.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology Methods and Techniques. (2nd
ed). New Age
International Publishers, New Delhi.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. (2012) Marketing Management, Pearson publishers, 14.
Kpmg report (2012). Fast Moving Consumer Goods Sector Report. Retrieved from
http//www.kpmg.com
Kraft, H.,& Weber, J. (2012). A look at gender differences and marketing implications.
International Journal of Businesss and Social Science, 3.
Kuikka, A., & Laukkanen, T. (2012). Brand loyalty and the role of hedonic value. Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 21(7).
Kum, D. (2012). Brand Personality inference: the moderating role of product meaning. Journal
of Marketing Management, 28, 11-12.
Lavrakas, P.J. (2008) Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks.
Liang, J., & Lee, W., (2010). The brand-personality of three categories of drinks in Australia;
Marketing Insights, School of Marketing Working Paper Series: no. 2010008, Curtin
University of Technology, School of Marketing.
Lieven, T., Grohmann, B., Hermann, A., Landwehr, J., & Tilburg, M. (2014). The Effect of
Brand Gender on Brand Equity. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5), 371-385.
Lieven, T., & Hildebrand, C. (2016). The impact of brand gender on brand equity. International
Marketing Review, 33(2), 178-195
75
Lin, L. (2010). The Relationship of Customer Personality Traits, Brand Personality and Brand
loyalty: An Empirical Study of Toys and Video Games Buyers.Journal of Product and
Brand Management, 19(1), 4-17.
Louis, D.,& Lombart, C. (2010). Impact of Brand Personality on Three Major Relational
Consequences Trust, Attachment, and Commitment to the Brand.Journal of Product and
Brand Management, 19(2), 114-130.
Mabkhot, H., Shaari, H. & Salleh, S. (2015). The mediating effect of brand satisfaction on the
relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty: Evidence from Malaysia.
International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 6(1).
Mcmillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research Design in Education: A Conceptual
Introduction (5th
ed.) New York: Longman.
Maehle, N., Otnes, & Supphellen, M. (2011). Consumers' Perception of the Dimensions of Brand
Personality.Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(5), 290-303.
Malar, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W.D.& Nyffeneger, B. (2012). Emotional Brand Attachment and
Brand Personality: The Relative Importance of theActual and the Ideal Self. Journal of
Marketing, 75(4),35-52.
Malhotra, S., (2014). A study on marketing Fast Moving Consumer Goods
(FMCG).International Journal of Innovative Research and development, 3.
Merrilees, B., (2008).The performance benefits of being brand – oriented.Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 17(6),372-383.
Milberg, L., Salinas, E., Perez, J.M., Loken, B.F., Nathan, E.M, Spence, F.D.,…Peterson, K.D.
(1997). Modeling the Brand Extension Influence on Brand Image. Journal of Business
Research, 62, 50-60.
Mohd, A. (2012). Determination of brand personality dimensions for a Laptop computer using
Aaker‟s brand personality scale. Review of Integrative Business and Economics
Research, 1(1), 114.
McQuarrie, E. F., Miller, J., & Phillips, B. J. (2013). The megaphone effect: Taste and audience
in fashion blogging. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 136-158.
Mengxia, Z. (2007). Impact of Brand Personality on PALI: A Comparative Research between
Two Different Brands. International Management Review, 3.
Moore, S. (2008). Gender and the new paradigm of health. Sociology Compass, 2(1).
Mugenda, O., & Mugenda, A. (2010). Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative
approaches. Nairobi: ACT Press.
76
Mulyanegara R. C.,& Tsarenko, Y. (2009). “The Big Five and Brand Personality: Investigating
the Impact of Consumer Personality on Preferences Towards Particular Brand
Personality.”Journal of Brand Management, 16(4), 234-247.
Muniz, K.,& Marchetti, R. (2012). Brand Personality Dimensions in the Brazilian Context.
Retrieved from http://www.anpad.org.br/bar
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G. (2011) Brand equity, Brand loyalty and Consumer
satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 1009-1030.
Ngunjiri, S. (2013). Brand personality and market penetration among insurance companies in
Kenya (Masters Thesis). Retrieved from University of Nairobi repository, Access no.
D61/60085/2010
N'Goala, G., & Morrongiello, C. (2014). Converting opinion seekers in opinion givers in the
tourism industry: Building trust is critical. Customer & Service Systems, 1(1), 77-90.
Nunually, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory, (2nd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Opoku, R. A., Pitt, L. F., & Abratt, R. (2007). Positioning in cyberspace: Evaluating bestselling
authors' online communicated brand personalities using computer-aided content analysis.
South African Journal of Business Management, 38(4), 21-32.
Ouwersloot, H., & Tudorica, A. (2011). Brand Personality Creation through Advertising. Journal
of Marketing.
Palan, M., & Bakir, A. (2010. How are Children's Attitudes Toward Ads and Brands Affected by
Gender-Related Content in Advertising?Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 35-48.
Park, J. K.,& Roedder D. J. (2010). Got to Get You into My Life: Do Brand Personalities Rub
Off on Consumers? Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4), 655-669.
Phau, I.,& Lau, K. (2001). Brand personality and consumer self-expression. Single or dual
carriageway.The Journal of Brand Management, 8, 428-444.
Pessemier, E. A. (2012). Forecasting Brand Performance through Simulation
Experiments.Journal of Marketing, 28(2), 41-46.
Plavini, P., (2011). How Brand Personality affects Products with different Involvement
Levels.European Journal of Business and Management, 3(2), 104-107.
Plummer, J. T. (2000). How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising research, 40
(6) 79-83.
77
Puzakova, M., Kwak, H.,& Bell, M. (2015). Beyond Seeing McDonald‟s Fiesta Menu: The Role
of Accent in Brand Sincerity of Ethnic Products and Brands. Journal of Advertising,
44(3), 219–231.
Rajagopal, N. (2008). Measuring brand performance through metrics application. Emerald
Journals, 12(1), 29-38.
Rocereto, J., & Mosca, J. (2012). The Differential Roles Of Product Brand Image And Store
Brand Image In Retail Loyalty: A Self-Concept Image Congruity Perspective. The
Journal of Brand Management, 9(11).
Sajad, K., S., Mahdi, I., Hamed, G., Seyyed., S., K.,& Tahereh G., (2013). The Relationship of
Appliance Consumer Personality Trait, Brand Personality.International Journal of
Fundamental Psychology and Social Sciences, 3(4), 63-70.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2014). Research Methods for Business Students,
Harlow: Pearson Education, 5.
Sekeran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business: A skill Building Approach.
West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Sharma, R. (2012).The Brand personality of Tourism Destinations; A case of Kathmandu Nepal
(Masters Thesis). Retrieved from University of Nordland, Access number BE309E.
Sirgy, J. (1997). “Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review.” Journal of Consumer
Research, 9 (3), 287-300.
Smith, S. (2012). What Men Really Want. Retrieved from Engage: Men:
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/177735/what-men-really-want.html
Staples, A. (2015). What’s your program’s brand? What should it be? A look across the nation.
Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from http://www.si.com/college-football/2017/
11/11/college-football-teamsbrand
Sundar, A., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2016). Too Exciting to Fail, Too Sincere to Succeed: The
Effects of Brand Personality on Sensory Disconfirmation. Journal of Consumer
Research, 43(1), 44-67.
Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect.
Psychology and Marketing, 27(7), 639-661.
Sung, Y. (2011). The effect of usage situation on Korean consumers brand evaluation: The
moderating role of self-monitoring. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(1), 31-40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.344
78
Swaminathan, V., Karen, M. S., & Ahluwalia, R. (2009). “When Brand Personality Matters: The
Moderating Role of Attachment Styles.” Journal of Consumer Research, 35. 985–1002.
Tesform, G., & Birch, J. N. (2011). Do switching barriers in the retail banking industry influence
bank customers in different age groups differently?".Journal of Services Marketing, 25
(5), 371-380.
Toldoz-Romero, M., & Gomez, M. (2015). Brand Personality and Purchase Intention. European
Business Review, 27(5).
Twycross, A.,& Shields, L. (2004). Validity and reliability; What's it all about? Part 2 Reliability
in quantitative studies. Paediatric Nursing, 16 (10), 36.
Vallete-Florence, R., & Barnier, V. (2013). Towards a micro conception of brand personality:
An application for print media brands in a French context. Journal of Business Research,
66 (7), 897-903.
Verhoef, P.C., & Werner, J. (2010). Customer engagement as a new perspective in customer
management. Sage Journals.
Wells, D. J. (2011). What Signal Are You Sending? How Website Quality Influences
Perceptions of Product Quality and Purchase Intentions.Marketing Journals, 35(2), 373-
396.
Westerbeke, F. (2008). Maximizing the Male Market. Retrieved from Skin Inc.:
http://www.skininc.com/spabusiness/trends/15998307.html
Willems, K., & Swinnen, G. (2011). Am I cheap? Testing the role of store personality and self-
congruity in discount retailing. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer, 21(5), 513-539.
Wirunphan, P., &Ussahawanitchakit, D. (2016). Brand competency and brand performance: an
empirical research of cosmetic businesses and health products business in Thailand. The
Business and Management Review, 7(5).
Workman, J., & Cho, S. (2012). Gender, Fashion Consumer Groups, and Shopping Orientation.
Marketing Journals.
Workman, J., & Lee, S. (2013). Relationships among consumer vanity, gender, brand sensitivity,
brand consciousness and private selfconsciousness. International IJC, 37(2).
Yeoh, J. L., Mohd, S., Zakuan, N., Tajudin, M., Ishak, N., & Ismail, K. (2014). Brand
Personality, Brand Loyalty and Brand Quality Rating in the Contact Lens Perspective.
Review of Integrative Business and Economics, 3(2).
79
Yi, Y., & La, S. (2004). What Influences the Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and
Repurchase Intention? Investigating the Effects of Adjusted Expectations and Customer
Loyalty. Psychology and Marketing, 21(5), 351 – 373.
Yong-Ki, L., Back, K.,& Kim, J. (2009). Family Restaurant Brand Personality and Its Impact On
Customer's Emotion, Satisfaction, and Brand Loyalty. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research.
Yorkston, E. A., Nunes, J. C., & Matta, S. (2010). The malleable brand: the role of implicit
theories in evaluating brand extensions. Journal of Marketing,74.
Youl, H.,& John, J. (2010). Role of customer orientation in an integrative model of brand loyalty
in services. Service Industries Journal, 30(7).
Zikmund, W.G., Carr, B.J, Griffin, M. & Carr, J. (2013). Business Research Method. Dryden
Press Fort Worth publishers.
80
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I: COVER LETTER
Kichamu Dennis Alusa
P.O Box 54525
Nairobi
Dear Respondent,
RE: REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCHPROJECT
I am the above student currently pursuing a course towards conferment of Master of Business
Administration (MBA) from United States International University – Africa. In partial
fulfillment of the requirements of the award of the degree, I am conducting research project to
determine the extent to which brand personality affects brand choice. You have been randomly
selected to participate in this study. Participation is voluntary and I will spare a few minutes of
your time to fill in the blanks of the attached list of questions to the best of your knowledge.
Kindly complete all sections of the questionnaire to enable me complete the study. Please note
that the information you provide will be treated as confidential, and will only be used for purpose
of this research.
The findings of this study will inform the enable Colgate Palmolive in making the right decisions
as pertains to boosting your brand development and allowing you as the customer to participate
in building your brand. The response is targeted from consumers who frequently use Colgate
Palmolive products.
Your participation in this study will be highly appreciated.
Yours Sincerely,
Kichamu Dennis Alusa.
81
APPENDIX II: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
General Instructions: the purpose of this questionnaire was to collect data regarding “The
influence of brand personality on brand choice of Colgate Palmolive products in Nairobi. The
questionnaire consisted of two sections (1, & 2). Ensure you respond to all the statements.
SECTION 1: Demographic details and general information
Instructions:
Please tick the appropriate box or complete the answer. There is no right or Wrong answer
therefore Choose the answer which represents your opinion.
1. What is your gender?
� Male
� Female
2. Age
� Below 25
� 25-35
� 36-45
� Above 45
3. Area of Residency
� Akila/Airport view estate
� Highrise estate
� Siranga estate
4. Highest Academic qualification
� Secondary/Primary Education
� College certificate
� College/University Diploma
�Bachelors Degree
�Masters Degree
� None
5. Do you regularly use Colgate toothpaste, if not what do you use?
� Yes
� No
_________________________________
82
SECTION 2: Brand Personality and Product Attributes dimensions
The Influence of Brand Sincerity on brand choice
Instructions:
Think of Colgate Palmolive brand in terms of human characteristics and indicate the extent to
which you agree to the following statements by ticking the appropriate response.
(1=strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree
No. Statement Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
6 Colgate is Down to earth
7 Colgate is Honest
8 Colgate is Wholesome
9 Colgate is Original
10 Colgate is Friendly
11 Colgate is Family oriented
12 Colgate is Realistic
13 Colgate is Cheerful
14 Colgate is Sentimental
No. Statement Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
15 Sincere brands have high
brand attachment
16 Sincere brands have lasting
impressions on consumers
17 Brand sincerity influences
brand trust
18 Brand sincerity enhances
differentiation
19 I would purchase a sincere
brand as opposed to other
brands
20 Sincere brands positively
influence brand loyalty
21 Sincere brands offer great
satisfaction
22 Sincere brands influence my
purchase intention
83
SECTION 3: The Influence of Brand Excitement on brand choice
Instructions:
Think of Colgate Palmolive brand in terms of human characteristics and indicate the extent to
which you agree to the following statements by ticking the appropriate response.
(1=strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree
No. Statement Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
23 Colgate is Up to date
24 Colgate is Unique
25 Colgate is Cool
26 Colgate is Spirited
27 Colgate is Daring
28 Colgate is Trendy
29 Colgate is Young
30 Colgate is Contemporary
31 Colgate is Independent
32 Exciting brands have lasting
impressions on consumers
33 Brand excitement enhances
differentiation
34 I would purchase an exciting
brand as opposed to other
brands
35 Exciting brands positively
influence brand loyalty
36 Exciting brands offer great
satisfaction
37 Exciting brands influence my
purchase intention
SECTION 4: The Influence of Brand Competence on brand choice
Instructions:
Think of Colgate Palmolive brand in terms of human characteristics and indicate the extent to
which you agree to the following statements by ticking the appropriate response.
(1=strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree
No. Statement Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
38 Colgate is Reliable
39 Colgate is Secure
40 Colgate is Hardworking
41 Colgate is Successful
42 Colgate is Leader
84
43 Colgate is Intelligent
44 Colgate is Technical
45 Competent brands have
lasting impressions on
consumers
46 Brand personality enhances
brand image
47 Brand competence enhances
differentiation
48 I would purchase a
competent brand as opposed
to other brands
49 Competent brands positively
influence brand loyalty
50 Competent brands offer great
satisfaction
51 Competent brands influence
my purchase intention
SECTION 5: The Influence of brand gender on brand choice
Instructions:
Think of Colgate Palmolive brand in terms of human characteristics and indicate the extent to
which you agree to the following statements by ticking the appropriate response.
(1=strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree)
No. Statement Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
52 Masculine/Feminine brands
offer great satisfaction
53 Masculine/Feminine brands
positively influence brand
loyalty
54 I would purchase a
masculine/feminine brand as
opposed to other brands
55 Masculine and feminine
brands have lasting
impressions on consumers
56 Masculine and feminine
brand personality enhances
differentiation
57 Masculine/feminine brands
influence my purchase
intention
Thank you for your cooperation. God bless you
85
APPENDIX III: SUPPLEMENTARY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Table 4.9 Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Rotation
Sums of
Squared
Loadingsa
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total
1 15.841 30.464 30.464 15.841 30.464 30.464 11.363
2 4.415 8.490 38.954 4.415 8.490 38.954 11.171
3 3.878 7.458 46.412 3.878 7.458 46.412 8.958
4 3.194 6.142 52.554 3.194 6.142 52.554 8.568
5 2.382 4.581 57.135
6 1.766 3.397 60.532
7 1.560 2.999 63.531
8 1.281 2.463 65.994
9 1.250 2.403 68.398
10 1.173 2.256 70.654
11 1.111 2.136 72.789
12 1.072 2.062 74.852
13 1.026 1.973 76.825
14 .845 1.624 78.449
15 .763 1.468 79.917
16 .689 1.326 81.243
17 .658 1.265 82.508
18 .596 1.147 83.655
19 .580 1.116 84.771
20 .561 1.079 85.850
21 .521 1.002 86.852
22 .499 .959 87.812
23 .473 .910 88.722
24 .456 .877 89.600
25 .415 .797 90.397
26 .408 .784 91.181
27 .378 .727 91.908
28 .336 .647 92.555
29 .330 .635 93.190
30 .313 .601 93.791
31 .294 .565 94.357
32 .270 .519 94.876
33 .266 .511 95.387
34 .252 .485 95.872
35 .225 .432 96.304
86
36 .212 .407 96.711
37 .192 .369 97.080
38 .181 .348 97.428
39 .166 .320 97.748
40 .147 .284 98.032
41 .133 .256 98.288
42 .130 .249 98.537
43 .115 .221 98.758
44 .100 .192 98.950
45 .099 .191 99.141
46 .089 .171 99.312
47 .082 .158 99.469
48 .077 .147 99.617
49 .058 .112 99.729
50 .054 .104 99.833
51 .050 .096 99.929
52 .037 .071 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. When components are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total
variance.