2010:006
MASTER'S THESIS
Application of Brand Personality
Scale In Automobile Industry
- the Study of SAMAND’S Brand Personality Dimensions
Somayeh Ranjbar
Luleå University of Technology
Master Thesis, Continuation Courses
Marketing and e-commerce
Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences
Division of Industrial marketing and e-commerce
2010:006 - ISSN: 1653-0187 - ISRN: LTU-PB-EX--10/006--SE
Acknowledgement
This thesis has been written during a two years period at Tarbiat Modares
University and Lulea University of Technology. These two years were full of challenges
and new experiences and I’ve found a deeper understanding of Branding and Brand
Management.
I would like to direct my special thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Mohammad
Aghdasi. He was the person who showed me the research world and guided me through
the challenges of this research. I also would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Amir
Albadvi at Tarbiat Modares University for his kind help and support. My gratitudes also
go to Dr Ahmad Roosta and Dr Shahriar Shafiee because of their participation in my
interviews to share valuable information in this research area. And finally I should also
thank my parents that without their support I could do nothing.
The knowledge I gained from this research helped me a lot in my business career
and also my future academic life. I hope the people who read it can benefit too, and
researchers and students get interested in the area so they continue the way.
1 Abstract
This research has empirically measured the SAMAND’s (IranKhodro’s
manufactured car brand) brand personality in Iran, by using the five-dimension Brand
Personality Scale developed by Aaker (1997) as a framework. So according to this
framework which was originally conducted in 42 items (42 personality
attributes)clustered in five personality dimensions and had been tested in different
countries and industries, we prepared a questionnaire translated in Persian, and used the
back translation method. With deep interviews among 12 Iranian experts about the 42
items scale and also a pilot study the original questionnaire changed to a 38 items scale
and the survey had been run within five big branches of IranKhodro randomly chosen in
the five parts of the Tehran.
The reliability and validity test of the questionnaire had been resulted in omitting
one more item from the list. Then the student T-Test showed respondent’s ideas about the
personality of SAMAND and they believed SAMANAD’s Personality Dimensions are:
Sincerity, Competence and Ruggedness. They were not agreeing about the
‘Sophistication’ dimension that showed SAMAND is not a sophisticated brand. And the
personality dimension “excitement” was not clear for this brand.
The confirmatory factor analysis of the measurement model and the structural
model provided evidence that the ‘ruggedness’ dimension proposed by Aaker(1997) was
not reliable, nor was it valid. And the relationship with the main construct ‘Brand
Personality’ was weak. So to achieve good measurement framework, the other four
dimensions had to be refined up to the point that there was no problem with combining
them to form one higher construct namely ‘Brand Personality’. Then the five dimension
model describing 38 attributes changed to a four dimension scale consisted of 24 items.
Finally there were hypothesis about demographic specifications of respondent’s
having effect on their opinion about SAMAND’s Personality. And the results showed that
different respondents have significant differences in their ideas about five personality
dimensions of SAMAND.
2 Table of contents
Chapter 1 ........................................................................................................................... 9 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 9 1.1 Background......................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Problem Discussion......................................................................................... 10 1.3 Research limitations ........................................................................................ 11 1.4 Research Problem and Research Questions.............................................. 12 Chapter 2 ......................................................................................................................... 13 Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 13 2 Literature Review ................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Brand ................................................................................................................. 14 2.1.1 Brand Importance ..................................................................................... 17 2.1.2 Brand Components .................................................................................. 18 2.1.3 Position of brand personality in the brand hierarchy: ......................... 19 2.2 Brand personality ............................................................................................. 23 2.2.1 Brand personality value ........................................................................... 25 2.2.2 Roots of Brand Personality Argue ......................................................... 26 2.2.2.1 Anthropomorphism Theory .............................................................. 26 2.2.2.2 Self-concept Theory ......................................................................... 27 2.2.2.3 Personality Theory ............................................................................ 28 2.2.2.4 Big Five Model ................................................................................... 28 2.2.3 Difference between brand personality and brand image ................... 30 2.2.4 Brand personality versus human personality ....................................... 31 2.2.5 Critics about brand personality............................................................... 33 2.3 Application of brand personality .................................................................... 33 2.3.1 Brand Personality Scale (BPS) .............................................................. 34 2.3.2 Application of BPS ................................................................................... 36 2.3.2.1 Application of BPS in culture trait: .................................................. 36 2.3.2.2 Application of BPS in products trait:............................................... 38 2.3.3 Critics about BPS ..................................................................................... 43 2.4 Brand Personality Building ............................................................................. 44 2.4.1 Advertising as the dominant tool............................................................ 46 Chapter 3 ......................................................................................................................... 49 3 Research Methodology ......................................................................................... 49 3.1 Research purpose ........................................................................................... 50 3.2 Research Approach......................................................................................... 51 3.3 Research Strategy ........................................................................................... 51 3.4 Research process ............................................................................................ 53 3.5 Research design .............................................................................................. 54 3.5.1 Research variables .................................................................................. 54 3.5.2 Methods and resources of data collection............................................ 55 3.6 Statistical population and sample ................................................................. 55 3.7 Sampling methods ........................................................................................... 56 3 3.8 Measurement tool ............................................................................................ 56 3.8.1 Content validity of the measurement tool ............................................. 59 3.8.2 Factor validity of the measurement tool................................................ 60 3.8.3 Results of factor analysis ........................................................................ 60 3.9 Statistical method utilized in the research ................................................... 64 3.9.1 Student t-test ............................................................................................. 64 3.9.2 Structural equations model ..................................................................... 64 3.9.3 One-way analysis of variance ................................................................ 65 Chapter 4 ......................................................................................................................... 66 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 66 4 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 66 4.1 Descriptive statistics ........................................................................................ 66 4.1.1 Description of respondent’s age: ........................................................... 67 4.1.2 Description of respondent’s sex: ............................................................ 67 4.1.3 Description of respondent’s career and jobs: ...................................... 68 4.1.4 Description of respondent’s educational degree: ................................ 69 4.1.5 Description of respondent’s income: ..................................................... 69 4.1.6 Description of respondent’s current car: ............................................... 70 4.1.7 Description of respondent’s SAMAND type ......................................... 71 4.2 Study of SAMAND’s current brand personality among customers of
IRANKHODRO CO .................................................................................................... 72 4.2.1 One Sample T-Test .................................................................................. 72 4.2.1.1 One Sample T-Test for the first brand personality “SINCERITY”
72 4.2.1.2 One Sample T-Test for the second brand personality
“EXCITEMENT” ................................................................................................... 75 4.2.1.3 One Sample T-Test for the third brand personality
“COMPETENCE” ................................................................................................. 78 4.2.1.4 One Sample T-Test for the fourth brand personality
“sophistication” ..................................................................................................... 81 4.2.1.5 One Sample T-Test for the fifth brand personality
“RUGGEDNESS” ................................................................................................ 82 4.3 Evaluation of measurement models ................................................................... 84 4.3.1 CFA for 5 personality dimensions model ................................................... 84 4.4 Study secondary hypothesis of the research ............................................ 102 4.4.1 Differences based on respondent’s age ............................................. 105 4.4.2 Differences based on respondent’s sex ............................................. 108 4.4.3 Differences based on respondent’s career: ....................................... 109 4.4.4 Differences based on respondent’s educational degree: ................ 110 4.4.5 Differences based on respondent’s income:...................................... 111 4.4.6 Differences based on having experience of owning SAMAND: ...... 113 Chapter 5 ....................................................................................................................... 115 5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 115 5.1 Overall conclusion ......................................................................................... 115 4 5.2 Managerial implications ................................................................................ 117 5.3 Future research .............................................................................................. 118 6 References ............................................................................................................... 120 5 List of tables
Table 2.1.1.1 Antecedents and Consequences to the brand construct .............................. 15 Table 2.2.2.1 Models of the brand .................................................................................... 18 Table 2.2.3.1 Categories of Experts Definition of brand .................................................. 20 Table 2.3.2.1 Examples of Adjectives, Q-Sort Items, and Questionnaire Scales Defining
the Five Factors ................................................................................................................. 29 Table 2.4.1.1 Aaker’s brand personality dimensions with related items .......................... 35 Table 2.4.2.1 Summary of related researches ................................................................... 42 Table 2.5.1.1 Relevant situations for Different research strategies .................................. 53 Table 3.6.2.1 Persian translation of the questionnaire ...................................................... 57 Table 3.9.4.1 KMO and Bartlett's Test of sincerity .......................................................... 60 Table 3.9.4.2 Questions communality of sincerity ........................................................... 61 Table 3.9.4.3 KMO and Bartlett's Test for excitement ..................................................... 61 Table 3.9.4.4 Questions communality of excitement ...................................................... 62 Table 3.9.4.5 KMO and Bartlett's Test ............................................................................. 62 Table 3.9.4.6 Questions communality of competence ...................................................... 63 Table 3.9.4.7 KMO and Bartlett's Test ............................................................................. 63 Table 3.9.4.8 Questions communality of sophistication ................................................... 64 Table 3.9.4.9 KMO and Bartlett's Test ............................................................................. 64 Table 4.3.1.1 One Sample t-test for Sincerity ................................................................... 75 Table 4.3.1.2 One Sample T-Test for excitement dimension ........................................... 78 Table 4.3.1.3 One Sample T-Test for competence dimension .......................................... 80 Table 4.3.1.4 One Sample T-Test for sophistication dimension ....................................... 82 Table 4.3.1.5 One Sample T-Test for ruggedness dimension ........................................... 84 Table 4.4.1.1 CMIN of the original model ....................................................................... 89 Table 4.4.1.2 RMR, GFI ................................................................................................... 89 Table 4.4.1.3 Squared Multiple Correlations .................................................................... 89 Table 4.4.1.4 Squared Multiple Correlations for revised model .................................... 100 Table 4.4.1.5 Model fit summary for refined model ...................................................... 101 Table 4.4.1.6 RMR, GFI ................................................................................................. 101 Table 4.5.1.1 ANOVA test for age, sincerity dimension ................................................ 107 Table 4.5.1.2 ANOVA test for age, excitement dimension ............................................ 107 Table 4.5.1.3 ANOVA test for age, competence dimension .......................................... 107 Table 4.5.1.4 ANOVA test for age, sophistication dimension ....................................... 107 Table 4.5.1.5 ANOVA test of age, ruggedness dimension ............................................. 107 Table 4.5.2.1 ANOVA test for sex, sincerity dimension ................................................ 108 Table 4.5.2.2 ANOVA test for sex, excitement dimension ............................................ 108 Table 4.5.2.3 ANOVA test for sex, competence dimension ........................................... 108 6 Table 4.5.2.4 ANOVA test for sex, sophistication dimension ........................................ 108 Table 4.5.2.5 ANOVA test for sex, ruggedness dimension ............................................ 109 Table 4.5.3.1 ANOVA test for career, sincerity dimension ............................................ 109 Table 4.5.3.2 ANOVA test for career, excitement dimension ........................................ 109 Table 4.5.3.3 ANOVA test for career, competence dimension ...................................... 109 Table 4.5.3.4 ANOVA test for career, sophistication dimension ................................... 110 Table 4.5.3.5 ANOVA test for career, ruggedness dimension ....................................... 110 Table 4.5.4.1 ANOVA test for agree, sincerity dimension ............................................. 110 Table 4.5.4.2 ANOVA test for degree, excitement dimension ....................................... 110 Table 4.5.4.3 ANOVA test for degree, competence dimension ..................................... 111 Table 4.5.4.4 ANOVA test for degree, sophistication dimension .................................. 111 Table 4.5.4.5 ANOVA test for degree, ruggedness dimension ...................................... 111 Table 4.5.5.1 ANOVA test for income, sincerity dimension .......................................... 111 Table 4.5.5.2 ANOVA test for income, excitement dimension ...................................... 112 Table 4.5.5.3 ANOVA test for income, competence dimension .................................... 112 Table 4.5.5.4 ANOVA test for income, sophistication dimension ................................. 112 Table 4.5.5.5 ANOVA test for income, ruggedness dimension ..................................... 112 Table 4.5.6.1 ANOVA test for owners, sincerity dimension .......................................... 113 Table 4.5.6.2 ANOVA test for owners, excitement dimension ...................................... 113 Table 4.5.6.3 ANOVA test for owners, competence dimension .................................... 113 Table 4.5.6.4 ANOVA test for owners, sophistication dimension ................................. 113 Table 4.5.6.5 ANOVA test for owners, ruggedness dimension ...................................... 114 Table 4.5.6.1 personality attributes of SAMAND .......................................................... 116 7 List of Figures
Figure 2.2.1.1 Brand as an Interface .............................................................................................. 16 Figure 2.2.3.1 The Components of Brand Identity ........................................................................ 22 Figure 2.4.1.1 Aaker's brand personality dimensions .................................................................... 35 Figure 2.4.2.1 Five American brand personality dimensions ........................................................ 37 Figure 2.4.2.2 Five Japanese brand personality dimensions ......................................................... 37 Figure 2.4.2.3 Five Japanese brand personality dimensions ......................................................... 38 Figure 2.4.2.4 Brand personality dimensions in Russia ................................................................ 38 Figure 2.4.2.5 Dimensions of brand personality in destination personality .................................. 39 Figure 2.4.2.6 Application of BPS in two prestigious brands in automobile industry .................. 40 Figure 2.4.2.7 Application of BPS in chile (Automobile Industry) ............................................... 41 Figure 4.2.1.1 Respondent’s age ................................................................................................... 67 Figure 4.2.2.1 Respondent’s sex .................................................................................................... 68 Figure 4.2.3.1 Respondent’s career ............................................................................................... 68 Figure 4.2.4.1 Respondent’s degree .............................................................................................. 69 Figure 4.2.5.1 Respondent's income .............................................................................................. 70 Figure 4.2.6.1 Respondent’s car name .......................................................................................... 70 Figure 4.2.6.2 Respondent’s experience of owning SAMAND .................................................... 71 Figure 4.2.7.1 Respondent’s SAMAND model ............................................................................. 72 Figure 4.4.1.1 original model ........................................................................................................ 85 Figure 4.4.1.2 confirmatory factor analysis of the BPS ................................................................ 88 Figure 4.4.1.3 CFA for sincerity dimension .................................................................................. 93 Figure 4.4.1.4 CFA for excitement dimension .............................................................................. 94 Figure 4.4.1.5 CFA for competence dimension ............................................................................. 95 Figure 4.4.1.6 CFA for sophistication dimension ......................................................................... 96 Figure 4.4.1.7 CFA for ruggedness dimension .............................................................................. 97 Figure 4.4.1.8 BPS refined model ................................................................................................. 99 8 Chapter 1
Introduction
1
Introduction
In this chapter topics included background, research problem and research
aims have been provided.
1.1
Background
Studies of product or brand personality began in the early 1960s. Some of the
researchers investigated the relationship between self-concept and perceived personality
of cars. These Researches has suffered, however, due to a lack of common theory and
9 consensual taxonomy of personality attributes to describe products and brands. Early
researchers like Birdwell (1964) were mainly interested in studying the relationship
between product and self-concept. For example, in his influential study, Birdwell (1964)
investigated the relationship between customers’ self-concept and their perception of
their car. The perceived personality of the car was measured using a compiled list of
bipolar items. The adjectives chosen were appropriate to describe both automobile and
human personalities. Later, Dolich (1969) adapted human personality scales to study the
product personalities of four products (beer, Cigarettes, bar soap, and toothpaste) and
their relationships with the consumers’ actual and ideal self-image. Research has
suffered, however, from the lack of a common theory and of a consensual taxonomy of
personality traits to be used in describing products. The validity of the early product
personality scales, based on human personality, was questioned because human and
product personalities might have different antecedents. Thus, product personality traits
can be described as symbolic consumption of the product through direct and indirect
contacts (e.g., Fournier 1998). Importantly, this approach introduced measurement
instruments to capture the personality of products.
Aaker (1997), realizing this limitation and drawing on the big five model of
human personality, developed the brand personality scale (BPS), which consists of five
generic dimensions: excitement, sincerity, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness.
Since then, the brand personality dimensions have been applied to various settings across
different cultures to gauge consumers’ symbolic consumption and their effects on
behavior (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, and Garolera 2001; Supphellen and Grønhaug 2003).
As a result, some dimensions of human personality might be mirrored in brands, whereas
others might not (Aaker, 1997).
1.2
Problem Discussion
Consumers today not only want to be romanced by the brands they choose to
bring into their lives, they absolutely want to establish a multifaceted holistic relationship
with that brand, and this means they expect the brand to play a positive, proactive role in
their lives. Thus, the strategic objective of brand personality is to forge strong and
meaningful affective bonds with consumers and, in so doing, become part of their life
stories, memories, and an important link in their social networks. Over the past few years,
many well-known brands have adopted emotional-branding strategies, including Tide,
Lexus, Apple, Nike, IBM, Cheerios, McDonald’s, and Starbucks.
Brand personality tends to show a kind of symbolic or self-expressive function
in the minds of consumers. Products such as gold credit cards, watches or prestige items
help people to express themselves to others by demonstrating that they are different and
have achieved something which differs them from others. They act as extensions of the
personality, so it really is ‘‘all in the mind’’, and the key to brand management and
10 development is a clear understanding of what benefits the customer is looking for. Asking
consumers what comes to mind when they hear the name of a big brand such as BMW or
Gucci, they will reply with a list of attributes which go far beyond the physical tangible
aspects of product and delivery, but if there is one word which brings all these things
Together in people’s mind, it is value.
Researchers have shown that the greater congruity between the human
characteristics that consistently and distinctively describe an individual’s actual or ideal
self and those that describe a brand, the greater the preference for the brand.
Brand personality is an attractive and appealing concept in the marketing of
today. Aaker (1996) described it as one of the core dimensions of the brand identity and
perhaps as the closest variable to the consumers’ decision making process on buying.
Successfully positioning a brand’s personality within a product category requires
measurement models that are able to disentangle a brand’s unique personality traits from
those traits that are common to all brands in the product category.
The notion of brands can be associated with a set of human characteristics is
well accepted by social psychologists. The basic argument is that attitude objects, such as
brands, can be associated with personality traits that provide self-expressive or symbolic
benefits for the consumer.
A distinctive brand personality can help to create a set of unique and favorable
associations in consumer memory, and thus build and enhance brand equity. A well
established brand personality influences consumer preference and patronage and develops
stronger emotional ties, trust, and loyalty with the brand. Real brands were used with the
objective to exploit the richness of the personality associated with them. A favorable
brand personality is thought to provide a basis for product differentiation. In this instance,
brand personality may provide the means for making a given brand stand out in the
crowd. Stated differently, when intrinsic cues are very similar for competing brands,
brand personality may create a basis for differentiation.
Aaker’s (1997) brand personality measurement framework represents an
important tool with which researchers can begin to measure symbolic meanings of
brands. Aaker (1997) suggested that the five dimensions of the BPS were generic and
could be used to measure brand personality across product categories and cultures. In line
with her suggestions for future research, many researchers have applied her framework
through variety of products and countries in two main traits culture and brand.
1.3
Research limitations
Brand personality or related researches in Iran have not been done a lot. This
research will be one of the premier studies in this topic. One of the main reasons of
choosing the car product-category was the similar work in other countries like Chile.
11 One of the limitations of this study is the lack of researches in cultural-specific
attributes of Iranian people’s personality which could help a lot in customizing the
Aaker’s 42 item scale.
Another limitation is the one side effect of personality which requires future
researches to study the customers of the different Iranian brands (not only cars). Also
other studies are needed for different product categories to finally form the brand
personality scale for brands in Iran. And so this model in the future will be more
applicable for Iranian firms to define the personality of their brands.
1.4
Research Problem and Research Questions
This study will be a respond to Aaker’s (1997) argument that “additional
research is needed to determine the extent to which these brand personality dimensions
are stable across different products.” So the question arises here about the applicability
of this model in Iran’s automobile market. And this has shown to what extend this
framework is applicable internationally.
Branding and Brand management has become a new trend in Iran’s market.
There are brands here which are used widely and the owner of the brand has cost a lot to
bring it to the market and stand in the crowed but because of the lack of strategic
planning for the brand in the long run, the new competitors will replace it easily.
SAMAND which is an Iranian brand has been used widely recently. The company is not
satisfied with the benefits, and is seeking to find a way, and one of their main issues is the
brand marketing. So this research has found the personality dimensions of SAMAND.
And has made a picture of what Irankhodro has done in the minds of the customers.
Because this company believes “every Iranian individual can be a customer”.
So my Research questions which I have cover in my final thesis is:
1.
Does car brand (SAMAND) in Iran perceive to have personalities?
2.
If so, what are the underlying dimensions of its personality (Adopting BPS
model in Iran)?
3.
How does the Brand Personality Scale fit in Iran’s automobile market?
12 Chapter 2
Literature Review
2
Literature Review
This chapter aims to review the brand personality literature from all
dimensions. It has started from the broadest view (brand and its importance) and then
has clarified the position of brand personality in the brand structure and then has been
13 narrowed to the brand personality concept and its application. It also has considered all
psychological evidences and supports for this literature.
2.1
Brand
“A product’s brand connects a company’s output and reputation with
customers’ needs and investors’ hopes” (Ulrich, 2007)
According to the marketing association (1960) brand is a name, term, sign,
symbol, or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods or services of
one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors. The
definition has been criticized for being too product-oriented and lack of intangible
features like image. (kotler 1996, wood 2000)
Later, other definitions highlighting other aspects of brand had been made, but
every one of the them has focused on one side more that the other one, the concept of
brand equity (keller 1993, Aaker 1996), brand personality (Aaker, 1997), added values
(de chernatony, 1992) are examples of these different views. Wood (2000) in his
research has shown that in different companies, based on their competitive advantage, the
definition differs.” Competitive advantage for firms may be determined in terms of
revenue, profit, added value or market share. Benefits the consumer purchases may be
real or illusory, rational or emotional, tangible or intangible.”
Because of this overlap in definition, de chernatony (1998) in her research
has categorized the literature in brand definitions in 12 themes:
123456789101112-
Legal instrument
Logo
Company
Shorthand
Risk reducer
Identity system
Image in consumer’s mind
Value system
Personality
Relationship
Adding value
Evolving entity
14 Table 2.1.1.1 Antecedents and Consequences to the brand construct
Brand
definition
Antecedents
1.
legal Mark of ownership. Name, logo,
Instrument
design, Trademark
2.Logo
Name, term, sign, symbol, design.
Product characteristics
3. Company
Recognizable corporate name and
image. Culture, people, programs
of organization defines corporate
personality. CEO is brand
manager.
Consequences
Prosecute infringers
Identity, differentiate through visual
Identity and name. Quality assurance.
Evaluate over long time horizon.
Product lines benefit from corporate
personality. Convey consistent message
to
stakeholders.
Differentiation:
proposition, relationship.
4. Shorthand
Firm stresses quality not quantity Rapidly recognize brand association.
of information
Facilitate information processing speed
decisions.
5. Risk reducer
Confidence that expectations being Brand as a construct.
fulfilled.
6.
Identity More than just a name. Holistic, Clarify direction, meaning, Strategic
system
structured with six integrated positioning, and Protective barrier.
facets,
including
brand's Communicate essence to stakeholders.
personality
7. Image
Consumer centered, Image in Firm's input activities managed using
consumers' mind is brand "reality". feedback of image to change identity.
Market research important. Manage
brand concept over time
8. Value system
Consumer relevant values imbue Brand values match relevant consumer
the brand.
values
9. Personality
Psychological
values, Differentiation
from
symbolism:
communicated through advertising human values projected. Stress added
and packaging define brand’s values beyond functional.
personality.
10. Relationship
Consumer has attitude to brand. Recognition
and
respect
Brand as person has attitude to personality. Develop relationship
consumer
11. Adding value
Non functional extras. Value
satisfier. Consumers imbue brand
with subjective meaning they
value enough to buy. Aesthetics.
Enhanced through design, mfr, and
distribution.
12.
entity
Evolving
for
Differentiate
through
layers
of
meaning. Charge price premium.
Consumer experience. Perception of
users. Belief in performance.
Change by stage of development
Source (De Chernatony, 1998)
15 Finally she reaches to this point that brand is an interface between the firm’s
activities and consumer’s interpretations.
Figure 2.1.1.1 Brand as an Interface
Source (De Chernatony, 1998)
Power (2008) claims that there is no certain definition for “brands” or
“branding”, but this definition should include both functional and emotional aspects.
Brands are born with distinctive names and then by the help of functional
capabilities people start to recognize them, symbolic features are first steps to make the
brand different in the mass market these features like brand personality makes the brand
hard to copy. As consumer loyalty increases, they relate the brand becomes to unique
added values “and then they become an effective shorthand notation representing a few
high quality pieces of information facilitating rapid consumer choice”. (De Chernatony,
1997)
The brands emerged in 1900 because of different causes like new technologies,
political and trade issues in the age of industrialized imperialism. And companies had
more choice in spite of distances and new markets and this caused “a need for higher
levels of product standardization and easily recognizable marks of quality and identity”.
(wood, 2008)
Researches in strategic management and marketing have shown that brands are
key organizational assets. (Aaker 1996, Malhotra 1999, Louro 2001) The different
definitions of brand come from different philosophies and different views (stakeholder
perspective or consumer perspective). (Wood, 2000)
Today definition of the brand is something beyond the simple view which
researchers had about decades ago, not just a logo or advertising message; it is a
16 collection of expectations, hopes, relations which arises from a company or product.
(leiser, 2004)
2.1.1 Brand Importance
By the start of 1980, companies were aware of financial value of brands, and
since that time branding attracted many researchers and practitioners. (De chernatony,
1999) The way people think and feel about a brand, are the brand value which makes a
unique relationship with its target customers. (Wood, 2008)
Wood (2008) has brought four reasons for the importance of the brand:
The first reason is brands are “well-labeled information packages created in
the hope of offering individual consumers” which help them judge and have choices.
Second: brands help the companies to differentiate their products and services
Third: branded companies can rely on economies of scale and other cost
efficiencies
Fourth: branding helps firms to enter new markets, even into areas outside
their core activities like music firm Virgin’s diversification into everything from
telephony to air travel.
Fifth: huge changes will be easier (organizational flexibility) like changes in
ownership, changes in firms’ national or local affiliations, and changes to where and how
products are made.
Sixth: co-branding advantages like in sportswear market, it has become
popular for sports goods firms to co-brand with fashion designers: e.g., Puma and Jil
Sander, Nike and Junya Watanabe, and Adidas and Yohij Yamamoto.
All the marketing efforts like name, packaging , advertising, promotion,
pricing, sales force discipline, customer repurchases, etc create one image of a brand, the
important issue here is ,this image is a combination of quality and price which are not
separated, and when brands are not making values , people think the price is too high.
And here comes the importance, brands are successful because people prefer them to
ordinary products. The main psychological factor here is: brands help people to make
choices. Brands give customers quality and service guarantee. (Rajagopal, 2006)
17 2.1.2 Brand Components
To better understand the brand and make it less complex researchers have tried
to break it to different components. (keller 1993, de chernatony, 1997) Actually these
components come from the different views and perceptions about brand. In de chernatony
(1997) research, she has gathered these different definitions a summary of these findings:
Table 2.1.2.1 Models of the brand
Authors
Tangible
elements
and
Aaker (1992)
Symbols and slogans
visual
Intangible elements
Identity, corporate brand, integrated communications,
customer
Bailey and Schechter
Name, trademark
(1994)
DMB & B(1993)
product delivery
Positioning, brand communications
User identification: opportunity to share a dream
de
Chernatony
(1993a and 1993b) Functional capabilities, name, Symbolic value, service, sign of ownership, shorthand
(atomic model)
legal protection
notation
de chernatony and
McWilliam (1989)
Functionality
Representationality
Dyson et al. (1996)
(Millward - Brown)
Presence and performance
Relevance, advantage, bond
Grossman (1994)
Distinctive name, logotype,
graphics and physical design
Kapferer(1992)
Physique
O'Malley
(1991)
Young and Rubicam Functional
(1994)
Differentiation
personality, relationship, culture, reflection, self-image
values
Relevance, esteem and familiarity
Source (De chernatony, 1997)
As you see in the table all these different models can be divided into two main
groups and we call it two sides of brand structure. (Tangible and intangible) Some
researchers like Bailey and Schechter’s (1994) and Grossman’s (1994) has focused on
tangible sides of the brand like name, logo, and design but some others have considered
emotional and symbolic side of the brand. Brand personality is an important and one of
the main parts of the intangible side which helps the customers make their self-images
stronger.
One of the fames models in brand structure is “atomic model” which is
consisted of both tangible and intangible part of the brand (de chernatony, 1993):
(1) Functional capability;
18 (2) Symbolic feature;
(3) Service;
(4) Distinctive name;
(5) Ownership;
(6) Shorthand notation;
(7) Legal protection;
(8) Risk reducer; and
(9) Strategic direction
Because of the complex nature of the brand, every expert has its own mental
model and again all these models can be categorized in two parts (de chernatony, 1997):
(1) Functional capabilities, relating to the brands’ tangible, rationally
assessed, product performance;
(2) Symbolic features, such as intangible, emotionally assessed, emotional
values of the brand’s personality.
2.1.3 Position of brand personality in the brand hierarchy:
According to the De Chernatony’s model of components of a brand there were
two major dimensions tangible and intangible. And she found that brand personality is
one of the most important structures in the intangible or emotional side of the brand
construct. Below table is the result of her findings in interview with experts:
19 Table 2.1.3.1 Categories of Experts Definition of brand
Themes
Literature
From
Value system
Personality
Image
Logo
Risk reducer
Number
experts
mentioning
of
11
"Real brands have an understanding of
values that characterize them"
10
"The personality surrounding a product or a
service
9
"The way an object is perceived by
consumers"
8
"A set of visual features animated by
advertising"
5
"It means that I know what I am getting
from one purchase to the next"
4
"The protection (of) that the organization is
trying to engineer and maintain and
achieve"
4
Added values, qualities beyond product
performance
3
"All we know, learn, taste, experience
about the brand over a long period of time"
Company
Adding value
Shorthand
Legal Instrument
Identity
Relationship
Evolving
Illustrative explanation
3
"A trade-mark in use:
"A form of Identity"
"A relationship with a customer or a
consumer"
3
"Can mean different thing for different
people in different scenarios"
3
3
Additional themes
Illustrative explanation
Number of experts
mentioning
Positioning
Vision
Goodwill
2
"the attributes which are made to adhere to
a product in order to give it attractiveness"
2
"(Brands) have vision and purpose to give
them meaning to consumers"
1
"Accumulated weight of goodwill"
Source: (De Chernatony, 1998)
A tangible – intangible spectrum encompassed all their definitions, with a
marked bias to intangible themes. As you see the majority of expert’s definitions are the
notion of brands as value systems, personality and image.
20 Another evidence for highlighting the important role of brand personality in
brand structure is Aaker’s (1997) 10 guidelines for building strong brands. He claims that
through the 10 steps of achieving a successful brand is having an identity for the brand,
“Have an identity for each brand. Consider the perspective of the brand-as-person, brandas-organization, and brand-as-symbol, as well as the brand-as-product. Identify the core
identity. Modify the identity as needed for different market segments and products.
Remember that an image is how you are perceived, and an identity is how you aspire to
be perceived”.
Aaker(1996)
has
introduced
three
elements
of
brand
associations/differentiations, first is value measurement of the brand which provides a
summary indicator of the brand success in value proposition.
Brand personality, the notion of the brand-as-person, is the second element.
According to Aaker(1996) it is useful for some brands , especially ones which have little
physical differences and play roles in social activities ,and can help them provide an
strong relationship with self-expressive benefits. Some product groups may need specific
personality dimensions like energy for retailing industry, exciting for cosmetic products,
friendly and reliable for service firms and ruggedness for trucks. Before measuring any
brand personality considering these points seems necessary:
a)
The brand has a personality.
b)
The brand is interesting
c)
I have a clear image of the type of person who would use the brand.
And the last one is brand-as-organization which deals with inside company
indicators like employees and programs.
The figure in the next page is the model of core brand identity (kapferer, 1997)
which is based on six central components: physique, personality, culture, relationship,
reflection and self-image.
21 Figure 2.1.3.1 The Components of Brand Identity
Source: (Kapferer, 1993)
According to this model, the core values of a brand are not just functional
abilities but also emotional ones like personality. As a matter of fact personality helps the
company direct their marketing activities through what brand really stands for and in the
other side helps the customers recognize, by quick and little information, what value the
brand is offering. (Aaker, 1996)
According to Heylen et al. (1995) in Hussy (1999) when brands become more
homogenous, consumers pay more attention on brand personality than identity. In his
model of brand identity, one of the tools of brand identification is using the techniques of
personification (a brand can have attributes of a person).
22 2.2
Brand personality
Customer and brand has a kind of relationship which is like the relationship
between two people. This relationship can be friendly and two partners act as close
friends or just some kind of fun friends just comfortable to be around. (Rajagopal, 2006)
Aaker (1996) names brand personality a strategic tool and a metaphor that can
help brand strategies to understand people’s perceptions of brand and differentiated brand
identity and in the end creates brand equity.
“Today, consumers have deep personal relationships to brands and brand
histories.” (Power, 2008) for example Tissot watches usually carry a book named “the
story of a watch factory” in their packages.
Power (2008) believes that branding is the struggle of strategically
personifying products.
Most of the researches in symbolic use of brands have shown that customers
prefer brands matching their own personality. (Bosnjak, 2007)
Brand personality is a very attractive concept in today’s marketing and
Aaker(1996) introduced it as one of the core dimensions of the brand identity and one of
the closest variables to purchase decision making processes.
Brand personality deals with the importance of relations in social activities and
gives the brand higher positions in the mind of consumers and makes the brand as their
friends and belongings (Rajagopal, 2006) and is the all attitudes, perspectives, feelings
and views customers have about a brand. (Guthrie, 2007)
Brand personality is “the set of human characteristics associated with a
brand”. (Aaker, 1997)
The example can be the Marlboro brand personality combines the physical and
emotional attributes of a product to specific customers who have or wish to have a certain
life style. All prestige’s items like watches make individuals express themselves in an
isolated world and they act as extensions of the personality. These are “all in mind” and
when you ask them about big brands like BMW or Gucci, their answers are far beyond
the physical features of the product. And if there is one word coming from the customer
voices, that is value and the market leadership is all about value not price. (Rajagopal,
2006)
Brands can speak like human beings, they speak through the style tone of their
advertising and like human speak, the audiences who are eager will listen. (Bulace 2000;
cited by Guthrie 2007)
Aaker and Fournier (1995) have gathered all the researches around the brand
personality topic in three main areas.
23 (a)
(b)
(c)
Conceptual level
Relationship approach
Personality measurement scales
The first area of research is mainly about the perception of people about brands
in daily activities. Narrative theory (people make stories about the behavior of each other)
seems to be an effective tool here because it helps to understand the process consumers
form personality. Some example questions here are: “to what extent does a brand take on
a personality before vs. after use? What roles do brand names, logos and symbols play in
developing a brand personality? What impact does a brand personality have on loyalty?
Under what situations is one brand personality preferred over another? What type of
advertising (e.g. transformational vs. informational) is most effective in developing a
brands with a strong personality?”
The second area of research is dealing with brand as an active member of the
relationship and consumers watch this activity during brand behavior. The brand is
treated as “an active, contributing partner in the dyadic relationship that exists between
the person and the brand, a partner whose behaviors and actions generate trait inferences
that collectively summarize the consumer's perception of the brand's personality” and the
writer brings here the concept of the brand-as-partner (BAP) And researches in this field
believe that advertising is not enough for brand personality building but all marketing
activities and also all strategic management decisions should consider it.
The last domain, which is mainly constructed by Jennifer Aaker(1997), is the
way of applying brand personality by the help of core factors identifying personality.
She has examined the kind of product categories which has personality, the
relation between self-concept and brand personality.
So the personality meaning of the brand is actually “the specific set of
meanings which describe the "inner" characteristics of a brand. These meanings are
constructed by a consumer based on behaviors exhibited by personified brands or brand
characters.” (Aaker, 1995)
Some brands have well defined personalities. Starbucks’ is outgoing, youthful,
personable, and friendly … a refreshing escape, freshness, warmth, and comfort. It is
demonstrated through their service interactions, their packaging, their décor, their product
offerings, and their corporate culture. MTV, on the other hand, is a total expression of
youth, individuality, and breaking conventions … a loud shout for independence and
freethinking.
24 Nike’s personality is unabashed … aggressive and empowering … somewhat
self-important. It is about achievement and winners … a passion for competitiveness. To
contrast this, Cricket Wireless is “every-man” … comfortable, welcoming, and relaxed
(AMICUS Group Whitepapers Number 6)
2.2.1 Brand personality value
Brian Meredith’s (2003) has started his article with two interesting questions:
“Does your business have a clearly articulated, perceived personality that has been
developed by you? And can you distil its complexity into three, key words to capture the
essence of who you are or want to be seen as being?”
He then brings an example: Suzanne Hogan said:”I think I can safely say that
virtually everyone in the developed nations of the world is crystal clear about what the
Disney brand stands for: imagination, wholesomeness, fun.”
Because competitors can copy brand’s functional benefits, psychological
values are one of the ways to keep them unique. For example instead of focusing on
different advertising or packaging, they can make the relationship with the target
customers stronger. (De chernatony, 1998)
When it comes to choose between the brands in the same category, consumers
evaluate the congruency between the personality of the brand and the personality they
want to project. (Ibid)
The use of brand personality in brand management strategies can help the
whole company gaining satisfaction, loyalty, profitability (Rajagopal, 2006) and an
overall economic advantage over its competitors. (park, 2005)
When customers are buying a brand which has a clarified personality in their
minds, they are buying symbolic meaning associated with the brand rather than its
physical product-related features. And brand personality can cause increase in consumer
preference, usage, trust and loyalty (Guthrie, 2007)
Researchers have claimed that brand personality is an important topic
especially for differentiation and developing the emotional aspects of the brand and this
concept has been well accepted by most advertising and marketing practitioners. (e.g
Plummer 1985, D.Aaker 1996, J.Aaker 1997, park 2005, Diamantopoulos 2004, freling
2005, , bosnjak 2007, gupta 2008)
Strong, proprietary personalities are multi-dimensional. They are demonstrated
and reinforced throughout the brand’s entire experience – both in front of the customer,
as well as behind the scenes. It must be authentic and deliverable … and driven by
conviction and strategic discipline. (AMICUS Group Whitepapers Number 6)
25 2.2.2 Roots of Brand Personality Argue
The relation between brands and their consumers have two sides that both of
the partners have their roles in it. The focus on the role of consumers in the relationship
(effect of the people who use the brand) can go to the self-concept theories and the focus
on the role of static personality of a brand (the brand has certain personality in the whole
market for all people) can be understood through personality theories like Big Five.
The first notion can be more flexible in brand identity because the focus is on
the consumer behavior and perception toward the brand, but in the second one, attitudes
of brand and its perception are clear in the market and have their segmentation of specific
customers who have congruency with the brand. (rajagopal, 2006)
In a nutshell, individuals hold favorable attitudes towards, and will most
probably purchase, those brands matching their own personality. It is along these lines
that the concept of brand personality has emerged (Aaker, 1997).
Important issue to be considered here is, the brand personality is a metaphor;
like the person-as-a-computer in psychology. (Aaker, 1995) and what we bring here,
proves that brands can be personified.
The relationship between two people are directly influenced by their
personalities and some traits like extroversion, traditionalism, warmth and flexibility
underlie people’s conceptions of important attributes which effect a relationship. But in a
marketing area these perceptions come from the promises which should be kept, no
relationship failure, resolved problems and long term consumer interests are served And
characters like dependability, reliability, trustworthiness, supportiveness , and
accountability seems more significant. (Aaker, 2004)
Some basic theories in the support of brand personality have been brought
here:
2.2.2.1
Anthropomorphism Theory
The word “anthropomorphism” comes from a Greek word “anthro pos” which
means “human” and “morphe” stands for “shape” or “form”. Anthropomorphism goes
beyond observable actions of a nonhuman agent and relating human like mental or
physical characteristics to it (e.g. my dog loves me). (Epley, 2007)
26 Anthropomorphism is therefore a process of inference about unobservable
characteristics of a nonhuman agent, rather than descriptive reports of a nonhuman
agent’s observable or imagined behavior.
Imbuing the imagined or real behavior of nonhuman agents with humanlike
characteristics, motivations, intentions, and emotions is the essence of
anthropomorphism. These nonhuman agents may include anything that acts with apparent
independence, including nonhuman animals, natural forces, religious deities, and
mechanical or electronic devices. As the Oxford Dictionary (Soanes & Stevenson, 2005)
more simply puts it, anthropomorphism is the “attribution of human characteristics or
behavior to a god, animal, or object” (p. 66). Debates have ensued about whether such
anthropomorphism represents accurate or fallacious thinking, whether anthropomorphic
descriptions have any place in scientific discourse, and whether anthropomorphism can
account for phenomena ranging from religious belief to effective marketing campaigns.
(Ibid)
2.2.2.2
Self-concept Theory
Self is significant qualities that isolated an individual from others and is the
responsible part about all behaviors if its owner. The self-concept comes from many
reasons that can be categorized in two: personality and situation. These two different
sides comes from this idea that self is effected with both static personality characters and
also social situation that individual is participating at the moment. Here comes an inter
model named “malleable self” which claims self is a multidimensional concept which
covers both personality and situational factors. The dimensions of self are consisted of:
good self, bad self, hoped for self, feared self, not me self, ideal self, possible self and
ought self who can emerge in different moments of an individual’s life. (Aaker, 1999)
there are more categories of self in literature like sirgy’s (1982) research which has
provided two dimensions: existing self and ideal self.
Brand personality can be used to express one’s ideal or other versions of self
and can be applied to individual’s own personality or the kind of personality they wish to
be known for. (Guthrie, 2007) For example in the research of Guthrie (2007) about
cosmetic products, buying cosmetic brands is a way of matching the product with ideal
self. As a result, though some personality dimensions are important to individuals, others
are not and therefore might not be expressed. Thus, in prior research, the power of the
self-concept was diffused. In this research, only the important or central aspects of self
are examined to determine the extent to which brands are used for self-expression (Aaker,
1999)
“Preferences in consumption were actually more closely related to actual self
concept than to the ideal self-concept for each of the brands in the product categories
researched”. (Hussey, 1999)
27 According to self-concept theory the greater the congruity between the human
attributes describing brand and an individual’s actual or ideal self the more preference for
the brand. (Malhotra 1988, cited by Aaker 1997)
If the brand wants to connect to the stakeholders it should be congruent with
their selves and they feel comfortable with the brand and help them express their selves to
the others. (Aaker, 1996)
According to this theory brands more congruent with the self-image the more
preference for the brand, and this congruity, because of the multidimensional nature of
the self-concept should affect all the dimensions of the self. (Hussey, 1999)
2.2.2.3
Personality Theory
Personality is a series of dynamic and organized characters which an
individual owns and specifically affects his motives and behavior in different situations.
(Goldberg, 1993)
Different theories in personality psychology insist on providing a clear
structure and framework of personality and its dimension to make any individual
different from others.
Aaker(1995) describes personality “as the set of meanings constructed by an
observer to describe the "inner" characteristics of another person” which is the result of
behavior observation. Personality is used to break the complexity of behavior.
Individuals enjoy or suffer from a distinct personality or character in other
people and these drivers are pieces of information or behaviors. These drivers come from
thousands of pieces of information over time. Your perception can be good, bad. Maybe
you are judging the person wrong (you don’t know his background and haven’t had
enough communication with him).
2.2.2.4
Big Five Model
Human personality factors which is defined by individual’s behavior,
appearance, attitude, beliefs and demographic characteristics has a five dimensional
model named “Big Five “ human personality dimensions. The five-factor model of
personality is a hierarchical organization of personality traits in terms of five basic
dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness
to Experience. Research using both natural language adjectives and theoretically based
personality questionnaires supports the comprehensiveness of the model and its
applicability across observers and cultures. (McCrae, 1993)
The importance of these five factors remained hidden from most personality
psychologists throughout the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1980s, however, researchers from
many different traditions were led to conclude that these factors were fundamental
dimensions of personality, found in self-reports and ratings, in natural languages and
28 theoretically based questionnaires, in children, college students, and older adults, in men
and women, and in English, Dutch, German, and Japanese samples (John, 1990a). All
five factors were shown to have convergent and discriminate validity across instruments
and observers, and to endure across decades in adults (McCrae & Costa, 1990).
Table 2.2.2.1 Examples of Adjectives, Q-Sort Items, and Questionnaire Scales Defining the Five Factors
Factor
Name
Extraversion (E)
Number
1
Agreeableness
2
Conscientiousness
3
Neuroticism
4
Openness
5
Factor definers
Adjectives
Q-sort items
Active
Talkative
Assertive
Skilled in play, humor
Energetic
Rapid personal tempo
Enthusiastic
Facially, gutturally expressive
Outgoing
Behaves assertively
Talkative
Gregarious
Appreciative Not critical, skeptical
Forgiving
behaves in giving way
Generous
Sympathetic, considerate
Kind
Arouses liking
Sympathetic Warm, compassionate
Trusting
Basically trustful
Efficient
Dependable, responsible
Organized
Productive
Playful
Able to delay gratification
Reliable
Responsible
Thorough
Anxious
Self-pitying
Tense
Touchy
Unstable
Worrying
Artistic
Curious
Imaginative
Insightful
Original
Wide
interests
Scales
Warmth
Gregariousness
Assertiveness
Activity
Excitement Seeking
Positive Emotions
Trust
Straightforwardness
Altruism
Compliance
Modesty
Tender-Mindedness
Competence
Order
Dutifulness
Achievement
Striving
Self-Discipline
Deliberation
Anxiety
Hostility
Depression
Self-Consciousness
Impulsiveness
Vulnerability
Fantasy
Aesthetics
Feelings
Actions
Not self-indulgent
Behaves ethically
Has high aspiration level
Thin-skinned
Brittle ego defenses
Self-defeating
Basically anxious
Concerned with adequacy
Fluctuating moods
Wide range of interests
Introspective
Unusual thought processes
Values intellectual matters
Judges in unconventional
terms
Ideas
Aesthetically reactive
Values
Source: (Marsh, 2006)
29 Personality researchers differentiate between core personality traits such as the
Big Five and more malleable personality characteristics such as self-concept. The latter
have also been called ‘‘surface characteristics’’. Core personality traits are believed to
affect human behavior, but contextual influences, life events, and environmental factors
are posited to have little or no effect on core personality factors. Self-concept researchers
have also demonstrated that specific components of self-concept have important effects
on subsequent performance such as academic accomplishments. However, unlike core
personality factors, self-concept factors are highly influenced by context, environment,
and life events. Thus, for example, there is growing support for a reciprocal-effects model
of relations between academic self-concept and academic achievement where each is a
cause and an effect of the other so that both will suffer if either is undermined. (Marsh,
2006)
The Big Five Model emerged in studies that examined the “language” of
personality within the framework of the psycholexical approach. This approach originated
from a hypothesis, formulated by Gordon Allport at the end of the 1930s and formalized
by Raymond Cattell in the mid-1940s, as “linguistic sedimentation”, or the “lexical
hypothesis”. According to this approach, nouns and adjectives that describe human
personality are integral to the development and maintenance of social relations. As such,
they become part of the vocabulary used by people every day, and are transmitted from
one generation to another through processes of socialization. The practical consequence
is that the vocabulary of natural languages represents the main source of descriptors of
personality characteristics. Several studies, scanning thousands of adjectives and nouns in
unabridged dictionaries of different languages, selected terms denoting stable
characteristics of human personalities, which have been mostly referred as the least
ambiguous, the most frequently used, and the most useful for human personality
description (Goldberg, 1992).
2.2.3 Difference between brand personality and brand image
In Oxford Business English Dictionary (2005), the meaning of brand
personality has defined as “the attractive and special human qualities that a company
wants a product or group of products suggest to people” in other side brand image has
this meaning “what people think or feel about a particular product, company, name or
symbol”. Although brand personality is a viable metaphor for understanding consumers’
perceptions of brands, there has been a long-running debate in the generic marketing
literature on the relationship between brand personality and brand image. Various
definitional inconsistencies have blurred the distinction between brand image and brand
personality. In other studies, the two concepts have been used interchangeably to gauge
consumer perceptions of brands (e.g., Graeff 1997). For some authors, brand image is a
more encapsulating term and has a number of inherent characteristics or dimensions,
30 including, among others, brand personality, user image, product attributes, and consumer
benefits . For example, in Heylen, Dawson, and Sampson’s (1995) proposed model of
brand image, brand personality and brand identity are two components of brand image,
and Aaker(1996) claims that “brand personality strongly represents brand image”.
Another school of thought (Biel, 1993) views brand image “as a cluster of
attributes and associations that consumers connect to a brand.” In this conceptualization,
evoked associations can be either hard (tangible/functional attributes) or soft (emotional
attributes). Brand personality is seen as the soft, emotional side of brand image (Biel,
1993). Likewise, Fournier (1998) argued that when brands are successful at satisfying
consumer needs, consumers develop strong emotions toward them.
Czellar (2003) has called for research initiatives to examine the relative role of
brand image and brand personality in brand level fit. Based on the notion that brand
personality is a component of brand image (Aaker, 1996), the personality of a brand
should also be used to establish perceptual fit. The concept of brand personality is
considered as a subset of brand image and is therefore very closely related (Aaker, 1996;
Keller, 1993). As such, studies have emerged that have indirectly associated the concept
of brand personality and brand image in brand extension (Martinez & de Chernatony,
2004). In particular, with such close association that is commonly perceived between
brand personality and brand image (Kapferer, 1997), brand personality fit in turn would
invoke a causal inference process that would lead to perceived image fit (Burnett, 2005).
Hence, this demonstrates that brand personality fit is causally related to brand image fit
(Lau, 2007).
Freling (2005) in his research attempts to conceptually clarify the domain of
the brand personality construct, and to disentangle brand personality from other related
constructs such as brand identity and brand image. He conceptualized Brand personality
as one of many associations comprising brand image, which in turn is a subset of brand
identity. That is, brand personality was conceptualized as one type of brand association in
consumer memory that may be accessed as the need or desire for a particular product
arises, and that may influence consumer preferences.
2.2.4 Brand personality versus human personality
Although brand personality and human personality seem the same in the
conceptualization level, but their objectives are completely different. Brands are inhuman
agents and don not behave like human beings, and the perception of their personality
comes from the people using them and also product-related attributes like performance.
(Bosenjak, 2007)
31 Like human personalities, brand personalities can grow and evolve over time.
Since brands, like persons, are usually described with adjectives, the psycho lexical
approach seems to be a good method for identifying the main characteristics of brands'
personalities in the perception of consumers, and to select the best adjectives for
conveying certain characteristics. In reality, it remains questionable whether the principal
features of brands (even the well-established ones) can be encoded as stable traits and
expressed by single words, as seems to be the case with human traits (Caprara , 2001).
Even when the personality metaphor seems suitable for brands, marketers
interested in shaping and reinforcing brands' desirable features need to know whether the
same adjectives correspond to the same factors when used to describe personalities of
different brands. According to Caprara (2001), it is important not only to ascertain the
applicability to brands of those traits and markers that proved valid to describe humans,
but also to select those traits and markers that fit best with the brand personality that the
marketer intends to establish or reinforce. Caprara (2001) stated that, these are the
questionable sides of the relationship between brand and human personality:
(a) Whether the Big Five Model of human personality is useful for the
description of brand personality.
(b) Whether markers of human personality applied to brand
traceable to the same factor solution found in humans.
personality are
(c) Whether personality descriptors load under the same factor when used to
describe human personality and brand personalities, and when used to describe the
personalities of different brands.
Brand personality and human personality are not completely analogous,
however. For example, human personality traits may have not only an implicit
(perceived) component but also an actual (objective) component that is independent of
the perceiver’s characterization of the individuals who possess them. In contrast, brands
obviously do not have objective personality traits independent of a consumer’s perception
of them. Instead, a brand’s personality is a hypothetical construct developed by the
consumer. To this extent, issues that are related to the accuracy of such judgments of a
brand’s personality might be moot apart from the question of whether consumers’
perceptions of a brand’s personality matches that intended by the marketer(Caprara ,
2001). In addition, brand personality traits differ from implicit human personality traits in
terms of how they are created (Aaker, 1997). A human’s personality traits are inferred
from the individual’s behavior, physical characteristics, attitudes and beliefs, and
demographic characteristics. In contrast, a brand’s personality can be created and shaped
32 by any direct and indirect brand contact that the consumer experiences with the brand
(Plummer, 1985).
2.2.5 Critics about brand personality
Prior (2008) believes that brand personality doesn’t neglect tangible features
behind a product and use of brand personality and emotional view of a brand is not just
offering intangible advantages and “Brands need to consider the fundamental principles
of their offer in terms of the tangible innovation and differentiation that they provide.
They must think about their added value not just in terms of superficial design but as a
complete equation of product, service and holistic experience”.
Brand personality has been criticized on 3 dimensions: conceptual,
methodological and substantive. First questions arise from its definition and
conceptualization and its difference with brand image. And why it is important. The
second series of questions are about the way marketers can measure the personality of
their brands and there is a trend which shows they are more eager to use quantitative
methods like questionnaire based than qualitative ones like photo-sorting. And the last
critics deal with the implications of having brand personality and the creation of it.
(Aaker, Fournier 1995)
Many researchers have used adjectives from personality psychology which are
usually used for detecting emotional instability, schizophrenia or neuroticism and other
ones have used product related attributes but there is still reliability and validity
problems. And because of these reasons researches in this topic have not received enough
attention. (Ibid)
2.3
Application of brand personality
To find a unique position in the market by the help of brand personality the
company needs to use measurement models which are able to clarify their brand’s
personality traits. These traits should be unique in comparison to the brands in the same
product category. (Rajagopal, 2006)
The personality of a brand must include the perceptions, motivations, and
values of its targeted customers and the focus is on customer segment not all the people.
For example, loyal users of American Express view the brand’s personality as
sophisticated, dignified, and educated. On the other hand, those “outside the brand” tend
to see American Express as sophisticated, classy, snobbish, and condescending.
(AMICUS Group Whitepapers Number 6)
33 2.3.1 Brand Personality Scale (BPS)
Because consumers imagine the brands like human beings and give them
personality characteristics, “the dimensions of brand personality can be defined by
extending the dimensions of human personality to the domain of brands”. (Rajagopal,
2006)
Based on the human personality model (big five) Aaker(1997) found a new five
dimensional model in the context of brands named Brand Personality Scale (BPS). Her
work was the first step to generate a certain measurement personality model in the
context of brand marketing. Before her trial, researchers used to use ad-hoc scales or
scales gotten directly from personality psychology which had validity problem in the
marketing domain. She conquered these problems by offering a theoretical framework of
brand personality on the basis of the “Big Five” human personality structure.
Each of the five dimensions of the model includes several corresponding
attributes. Sincerity for example includes adjectives like honesty and genuineness and
ruggedness is described by strong and outdoorsy. (Guthrie, 2007)
Aaker(1997) factor analyzes the individual ratings of 40 brands on 114
personality traits by 631 respondents recruited in the United States. The principal
components factor analysis resulted in five significant factors.
The BPs successfully met standards for internal reliability, test-retest reliability,
content validity, nomological validity and construct validity. Tests of construct validity
demonstrated that the traits which were positively related to a single factor had 1) high
correlations with traits that measured the same factor and 2) low correlations with traits
that measured other factors. Furthermore, although little theory exists to indicate what
constructs brand personality predicts, attempts at illustrating predictive validity were
made in two ways. First, the hypothesis that brands with strong personalities are
associated with high levels of usage and preference was tested and supported. The
hypothesis that correlations between self-concept and brands used are higher than those
between self-concept and brands not used was tested and supported. (Aaker, 1995) The
result of the exploratory principal component factor analysis has cleared five distinct
personality dimensions: Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and
Ruggedness. She claims that this model is generalizable across cultures and product
categories.
34 Brand Personality
Dimensions
Sincerity
Excitement
Competence
Sophistication
Ruggedness
Figure 2.3.1.1 Aaker's brand personality dimensions
Source: (Aaker, 1997)
The traits associated with every factor have been shown in the next page:
Table 2.3.1.1 Aaker’s brand personality dimensions with related items
Factor Name
Sincerity
Excitement
1
Traits
down-to-earth
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
family-oriented
small-town
Honest
Sincere
Real
wholesome
Original
Cheerful
sentimental
Friendly
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Daring
Trendy
Exciting
Spirited
Cool
Young
imaginative
Unique
up-t-date
independent
contemporary
Factor Name
Competence
Sophistication
Ruggedness
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Traits
Reliable
hard
working
Secure
Intelligent
Technical
Corporate
Successful
Leader
Confident
upper class
Glamorous
good
looking
Charming
Feminine
Smooth
Outdoorsy
Masculine
Western
Tough
Rugged
Source: (Aaker, 1997) 35 Two of these dimensions have been under attention more because researches
have shown them clearer; Sincerity and excitement. The brands which are seemed to have
sincere brand personality are like Coca-Cola, Ford, and Hallmark. And the reason for
choosing this kind of personality dimension differs among small and big businesses. For
the small firms the main reason is they want to represent themselves as warmer and more
caring in comparison to big firms. And large companies try to show a kind of down-toearth characteristic of them by showing this kind of personality. The second personality
type “exciting” are more related to brands like YAHOO!, Virgin and MTV who try to use
especial advertisement and languages. (Aaker, 2004)
Some researches like Fennis(2007) have used the BPS model in the other side ,
the effect of brand personality on the consumers and have found that some BPS
dimensions like sincerity can affect self perceptions of agreeableness and ruggedness
dimension influences of the human character extroversion, exciting evokes hedonism and
competent affects sophistication.
2.3.2 Application of BPS
Aaker (1997) suggested that the five dimensions of the BPS were generic and
could be used to measure brand personality across product categories and cultures. In line
with her suggestions for future research, many researchers have applied her framework
through variety of products and countries in two main traits culture and brand:
2.3.2.1
Application of BPS in culture trait:
By comparing brand personality structures across cultures, values and needs of
these cultures may be identified that are relevant to the way brands are perceived.
Cultures that are quite different in their values and needs (e.g., Western vs. East Asian
cultures) are more likely to exhibit culture-specific differences in brand personality.
(Sung, 2005)
Aaker et al. (2001) conducted additional studies to examine how the symbolic
and expressive attributes associated with commercial brands are structured and how this
structure varies across three cultures: (a) the United States, (b) Japan, and (c) Spain. They
identified a set of brand personality dimensions that share similar meaning in Japan and
the United States (e.g., excitement) as well as other dimensions (e.g., peacefulness and
ruggedness) that carry more specific cultural meaning. This finding of similarities and
differences in basic structure was also supported by their other study, which compared
Spain and the United States (Aaker et al., 2001).
36 As Aaker et al. (2001) noted, although the utilitarian attributes of commercial
brands tend to exhibit limited variability in meaning or importance across cultures, the
symbolic or value-expressive functions (the brand personality) associated with a brand
tend to vary to some degree because of the variation of individuals’ needs and self-views
and socialization. Also, cultural differences (Appendix 2) are linked with, and often
motivate, variations in the strategies and tactics used to market consumer goods .This
bidirectional causality suggests that cultural differences should be predictive of variations
in the way even global brands are perceived, despite the fact that many are marketed with
a standardized strategy. When these strategies are customized (adapted to known cultural
characteristics), the extent of culture-related differences in brand perceptions should be
even more evident.
American Brand Personality Dimension
Sincerity
Excitement
Competence
Sophistication
Ruggedness
Figure 2.3.2.1 Five American brand personality dimensions
source (Aaker, 2001)
Japanese
Brand Personality Dimensions
Excitement
Competence
Peacefulness
Sincerity
Sophistication
Figure 2.3.2.2 Five Japanese brand personality dimensions
source: (Aaker, 2001)
37 Spain
Brand Personality Dimensions
Excitement
Sincerity
Sophistication
Peacefulness
Passion
Figure 2.3.2.3 Five Japanese brand personality dimensions
source: (Aaker, 2001)
Supphellen and Grønhaug’s (2003) study in Russia provided another crosscultural validation of the BPS, using the Ford and Levi’s brands. As in Aaker’s (1997)
findings, the authors found five dimensions, which they identified as successful and
contemporary, sincerity, excitement, sophistication, and ruggedness. The first dimension
consisted of traits from four different BPS dimensions, but the other four resembled those
in Aaker (1997). The authors’ findings provide further evidence that brand personality
adjectives may shift from one dimension to another depending on the culture. Overall, the
authors agree with Aaker’s (1997) contention that the brand personality scale is probably
less cross-culturally robust than human personality measures.
Brand personality in Russia
Successful
Ruggedness
Sincerity
Excitement
Sophistication
Figure 2.3.2.4 Brand personality dimensions in Russia
Source: (Supphellen and Grønhaug’s, 2003)
2.3.2.2
Application of BPS in products trait:
By Adopting Aaker’s brand personality scale, Ekini (2006) Aimed to identify
whether tourists ascribed personality traits to tourism destinations .The findings of the
study indicate that perception of destination personality is 3-dimensional: sincerity,
excitement, and conviviality. The study also found that Destination Personality has
38 positive impact on perceived destination image and intention to recommend. In particular,
the conviviality dimension moderated the impact of cognitive image on tourists’ intention
to recommend.
Because of the hedonic nature of the holiday experience and given that
Tourism destinations are rich in terms of symbolic values; Ekini (2006) believes that the
concept of brand personality can be applied to tourism destinations. Also he argues that
Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale can be extended to gauge personality traits that
tourists ascribe to destinations.
Destination
personality
sincerity
excitement
conviviality
Figure 2.3.2.5 Dimensions of brand personality in destination personality
Source: (Yuksel Ekinci and Sameer Hosany, 2006)
The results of his study indicates that tourists describe personality
Characteristics to destinations and destination personality can be described in three
dimensions: sincerity, excitement, and conviviality. The dimensions were found to be
reliable and valid, with sincerity and excitement as the two main factors. This is in line
with previous research on the application of the BPS, in which the sincerity and
excitement dimensions were found to capture the majority of variance in brand
personality ratings (Aaker 1997). The third destination personality dimension,
conviviality, was new and also specific to tourism destinations. It consists of traits such as
friendly, family oriented, and charming. The findings of his study revealed that the BPS
can be applied to tourism destinations.
Although the majority of the studies using the BPS have been carried out within
the commercial brand settings, there exist some notable exceptions to its application in
other contexts. Unlike previous research focusing on brand personality of consumer
goods and services in the profit sectors, Venable et al. (2005) investigated the role of
brand personality in nonprofit organizations. Using Aaker’s (1997) BPS and further
complementing it with the results of qualitative studies, Venable et al. (2005) found four
dimensions of brand personality for nonprofits organizations: integrity, nurturance,
sophistication, and ruggedness. Siguaw, Mattila, and Austin’s (1999) study is one of the
39 few studies of brand personality in the context of hospitality and tourism. The authors
investigated the brand personality of three broad categories of restaurants: quick service,
casual dining, and upscale restaurants. Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale was used
to gauge respondents’ perceptions of nine restaurants, three in each category. The
findings revealed that restaurants can be differentiated on the basis of personality
characteristics. Upscale restaurants were perceived as being more sophisticated, whereas
casual restaurants were found to be more sincere and less competent when compared to
the other two restaurants categories. Quick-service restaurants were viewed as being less
exciting and less rugged.
Lau (2007), select two symbolic brands from the same product category with a
significant difference in their prestige levels. From two focus group sessions, BMW and
Volkswagen was identified as symbolic brands, whereby BMW was considered to be the
higher prestige brand of the two. The key personality dimensions of BMW were
“competent,” “excitement,” and “sophistication,” while Volkswagen portrayed strong
personality dimensions of “sincerity,” “excitement,” “sophistication,” and “competent.”
BMW
Competent
Excitement
Volkswagen
Sophistication
Sincerity
Excitement
Sophistication
Competent
Figure 2.3.2.6 Application of BPS in two prestigious
brands in automobile industry
Source: (Kong Cheen Lau and Ian Phau, 2007)
In Matzler (2006) research, the hedonic value (defined as the pleasure potential
of a product class) influences brands affect. He also found that two personality traits
(extraversion and openness to experience) influence the perceived hedonic value of a
product and brand affect.
Diamantopoulos (2004) used Aaker’s (1997) five brand personality dimensions
as measures of core brand evaluation following the introduction of an extension. More
specifically, he focuses on potential changes along these dimensions, i.e. he compares
consumers’ pre- and post-extension scores on each brand personality dimension to
identify any significant shifts attributable to the extension. He finally finds that brand
personality is thus resilient to change as a result of an extension introduction, irrespective
of the level of fit (and irrespective of whether the latter is operationalized as manipulated
fit or perceived fit). The perceived quality of the core brand he also not found to moderate
40 the effect of extension fit on brand personality. However, core brand quality was
consistently and positively related to the respondents’ initial perceptions of brand
personality (with the exception of the “Sophistication” dimension).
Another research in Chile has studied the Ford brand personality and has shown
that the applicable dimensions are 4 ones by omitting Ruggedness dimension.
Chilian
Brand Personality Dimensions
Excitement
Competence
Sincerity
Sophistication
Figure 2.3.2.7 Application of BPS in chile (Automobile Industry)
Source: (Rojas-Mendez, 2004)
A research in Germany have shown four dimensions of brand personality
(Drive, Conscientiousness, Emotion, and Superficiality) and the Aaker’s(1997) 42 item
scale were customized to a 20-item instrument in German culture. (Bosenjak, 2007)
In application of BPS we should consider that sometimes the dimension
described the brand is the product category related attribute and all the products in the
same category are claimed to have the same personality. Example here is the research of
Guthrie (2007) who has applied the BPS in cosmetic industry and found that the brand
personality of “competent” was a common trait known for leader cosmetic brands.
Below is a summary of researches applying brand personality:
41 Table 2.3.2.1 Summary of related researches
Selected Refrence
Scale Used
Birdwell (1964)
Dolich (1969)
Own
Own
Malhotra (1981)
Own
Karande, Zinkhan, and Lum
(1997)
Aaker (1997)
Malhotra (1981)
Number of Settings
Dimensions
Found
1 dimension Automobile brands
Not reported Commercial
brands
1 dimension Automobiles and
actors
1 dimension Automobile brands
Own
5 dimension
Commercial
brands
United States
Siguaw, Mattila, and Austin
(1999)
Aaker, Benet- Martinez, and
Garolera (2001)
Aaker (1997)
5 dimension
Restaurants
United States
Aaker (1997)
5 dimension
Commercial
brands
Japan and Spain
Caprara and Barbaranelli,
(2001)
Goldberg (1990)
2 dimensions
Commercial
brands
United Kingdom
Davies, Chun, da Silva, and
Roper (2001)
Venable et al. (2005)
Aaker (1997)
5
dimensions
4
dimensions
Corporate brands
United States
Nonprofit
organizations
Russia
United Kingdom
Aaker (1997)
Culture
United States
United States
United States
United States
Supphellen and Grønhaug
(2003)
Aaker (1997)
5
dimensions
Commercial
brands
Ekinci and Riley (2003)
Own
1 dimension
Restaurants
hotels
Rojas-Méndez,
Erenchun-Podlech,
and Silva-Olave (2004)
Aaker (1997)
4
dimensions
Automobile brands
Chile
Shintaro Okazaki (2004)
Aaker (1997)
5 dimensions
commercial brands
Kurt Matzler and Sonja Aaker (1997)
Bidmon
and
Sonja
Grubner (2006)
Bob M. Fennis and Th. Aaker (1997)
H. Pruyn (2007)
Michael
Bosnjak Aaker (1997)
and
Valerie
Bochmann
and
Tanja Hufschmidt
2 dimensions
Commercial brands
USA, UK, France,
Germany
and
Spain
Austria
5 dimensions
Commercial brands
Netherlands
4
dimensions
commercial brands
Germany
and United States
42 2.3.3 Critics about BPS
Big five model in human psychology is universal but dimensions of BPS can be
quite cultural specific. (Bosnjak 2007,Aaker 2001, Ekini 2006, Mendez 2004, Tinkham
2005)
Aaker’s (1997) stated objective was to "develop a theoretical framework of
brand personality dimensions and a reliable, valid, and generalizable scale that measures
these dimensions". After completing her research, she concluded that all of these
objectives regarding her brand personality framework, including the demonstration of
generalizability, had been attained.
Austin (2003) claims that unfortunately, it is not entirely clear in Aaker’s
article from what and to what the brand personality framework is generalizable. Although
dire need has encouraged academicians and practitioners to readily embrace any scale
that purports to measure brand personality, it is crucial to marketing thought and practice
that the boundary conditions for the generalizability of Aaker’s research conclusions first
be identified. He presented his findings from a series of confirmatory factor analyses,
using a sample of students, that suggest the framework does not generalize to individual
brands in a broadly defined product category (restaurants) included in Aaker’s research,
nor does it generalize to the analysis of brands aggregated within this product category
(nine quick service, casual dining, and upscale dining restaurant brands combined).
The clear delineation of brand personality, however, remains somewhat vague
and indistinguishable from other constructs such as brand image or brand identity.
Essentially, little is known about why consumers try to infuse human traits into brands.
Further, there is a dearth of research that empirically demonstrates the utility of
developing a strong, positive brand personality; that is, what is the effect that brand
personality will have on consumer-related outcomes. While marketing practitioners seem
to readily accept the notion that brand personality is related to favorable advantages,
support for this assumption is primarily anecdotal and these relationships have not been
subjected to extensive empirical testing (Freling, 2005).
In other research by Yuksel (2006) in the study of Brand Personality
application in Tourism industry, that the “penta-factorial” structure hypothesized by
Aaker (1997) cannot, however, be fully replicated. Instead, the 5-dimensional BPS needs
adaptation when applied to tourism destinations.
Caprara's (2001) showed that the five-factor structure is not replicated when
describing brands. Rather, at a higher level of abstraction in the hierarchical organization
of personality characteristics, results supported a two-trait solution. He was also found
43 that descriptors of human personality convey different meanings when attributed to
different brands. While the psycholexical approach remains a suitable procedure to
identify brand descriptors, the factors used to describe human personalities appear to be
inappropriate for describing the brands he studied. He also believes his findings are in
line with those of Aaker (1997), who observed that “though some dimensions (or factors)
of human personality may be mirrored in brands, others might not”. The traditional
repertoire of human personality may serve for construing a brand personality, but only to
a certain extent. When applied to products and brands, the Big Five Model needs revision
and adaptation. Results show that only the two meta-factors, blends of the five main
dimensions, are consistently replicated in brand perceptions. Most importantly, moreover,
adjectives used to describe those traits may “shift” from one factor to another, according
to the type of the selected stimulus brand.
In the cultural context, the structure of personality attributes associated with
commercial brands research in Aaker's framework differs across cultural contexts
(Diamantopoulos, 2004).
Such limitations, however, do not invalidate the use of the psycholexical
approach as a vital tool for studying brand personality and detecting the best adjectives
marketers can use to shape their desirable brand personality. This approach allows us to
distinguish among the main distinctive “traits” of specific brands, and to select words and
messages which may most effectively convey (and reinforce) the competitive
characteristics of brands (Caprara, 2001).
Although some studies on the application and validation of Aaker’s (1997)
brand personality scale reveal the emergence of culturally specific dimensions, the BPS
remains the most stable, reliable, and comprehensive measure to gauge brand/product
personality. The BPS is the most comprehensive instrument for measuring brand or
product personality (Ekini, 2006).
2.4
Brand Personality Building
Customers are very sensitive about symbolic meaning of the brands,
sometimes companies try to show these meaning by advertising but they may be
incongruity between the desired symbolic meanings portrayed in the advertising and
employees' behavior. (Aaker, 1996)
Although past researches have shown that creative advertisement is a tool for
personality building but later authors have suggested that the concept is more global and
should be seen in brand equity building processes.(Aaker, 1991)
44 Batra() has brought two points to consider for marketers before creating a
brand personality:
First: studying the existing brand personality that consumer has an image of in
comparison with competitor brands (relevance of the personality)
Second: to what extend the segmented target consumers desire the specific
kind of brand personality? (Value-creating of the personality)
Although there were not many papers showing exactly the whole constructs
that create a brand personality in consumer’s minds, some researchers suggested
examples to show how brand personality can be created.
Rajagopal (2006) claims that Consumers have only one image of a brand, one
created by the deployment of the brand assets at your disposal: name, tradition,
packaging, advertising, promotion posture, pricing, trade acceptance, sales force
discipline, customer satisfaction, repurchases patterns, etc Indirectly, the brand
personality is created by all the elements of the marketing mix.
Batra et al. (1993) suggest that the personality of a brand is created over time,
by the all constituents of marketing-mix. The type of relationship that customers possess
with the brands based on the loyalty levels is an extremely significant parameter for the
marketers. He points some specific marketing activities like symbols used in all phases of
brand communication, sales promotion, and media advertising. Duncan and Moriarty
(1998) point out that each of the new generation marketing approaches include customer
focused, market-driven, outside-in, one-to-one marketing, data-driven marketing,
relationship marketing, integrated marketing, and integrated marketing communications
that emphasize two-way communication through better listening to customers and the
idea that communication before, during and after transactions can build or destroy
important brand relationships.
The way consumers perceive brands is a key determinant of long-term
business consumer relationships. A large proportion of consumer brand perception is
obtained under low-involvement conditions and is therefore not consciously processed by
the consumer’s brain. Such associations tend to be stored in terms of metaphors and
importantly, they tend to aggregate in clusters (Rajagopal, 2006).
But in some industries there are some especial specifics that should been
considered for example in an study of Brand Personality application in Tourism industry
by Ekini (2006) the tools which build the destination personality in the minds of tourists
are like Tourists receive and interpret the various messages sent by destinations, and
45 build a representation of the “behavior” of the destination. Personality traits can be
associated with a destination in a direct way through citizens of the country, hotel
employees, restaurants, and tourist attractions, or simply through the tourist’s imagery. In
an indirect manner, personality traits can be attributed to destinations through marketing
programs such as cooperative advertising, value pricing, celebrities of the country, and
media construction of destinations. Accordingly, he argues that, similar to consumer
goods/brands, tourism destinations are rich in terms of symbolic values and personality
traits, given that they consist of a bundle of tangible and intangible components (e.g.,
visitor attractions, hotels, and people) associated with particular values, histories, events,
and feelings.
Through all the marketing activities for building a brand and by the
knowledge that all experiences of consumers with a brand will create a brand, advertising
plays a dominant role in personality creation (Ibid).
2.4.1
Advertising as the dominant tool
When it comes to think about brand building processes first thing coming into
mind is advertising. (rajagopal, 2006)
Rajagopal(2006) has a research on the effectiveness of advertising on brand
personality building and in his paper he has analyzed different strategies of brand
building and managing with the purpose of long term competitive advantage. And the
focus is on symbiotic relationship of brands and their consumers by the help of media
communication.
Brand personality is developed and created by advertisers and they hope
customers would get their meaning. (Guthrie, 2007) All the business need is developing
plans to convey the pieces of information that can portray the desired personality.
(meredith, 2003)
Understanding how brand personality is created in the minds of consumers
is essential for effective use of a company’s marketing tools. Effective brand
management, encompassing brand personality is of paramount importance in reaching the
overall company goals of satisfaction, loyalty, and profitability. Rajagopal (2006) claims
that by the fact of brand personality has a vital role in effective brand management,
companies use advertising for quick cognitive reflexes of customers and it is a common
belief among the managers of multinational companies that advertising plays a pivotal
role in building brand. He also in his study analyzed the influence of advertising practices
on developing brand personality and their impact on the buying behavior of consumers.
He found that in the process of brand personality building advertising plays a role as
46 brand drivers; brand typology, cognitive relationship between the consumer behaviors,
communication and brand perceptions.
Advertising is heavily used in this process of personality creation. This follows
logically from the fact that personalities are particularly useful for the creation of brand
associations. Brand associations influence the ‘‘evaluation of alternatives’’ stage in basic
consumer buying behavior models. At this stage, and for these goals, advertising is
considered to be the most effective communication tools. Perhaps the most visible and
best known way of personality creation is by means of celebrity endorsers. Public heroes,
sports people, pop stars and movie stars have been hired to lend their personality to a
brand for a long time and this practice is still growing in popularity today. Yet, basically
all advertising influences the brand personality, not only when an endorser is used. In the
process of personality creation, in reference to advertising and marketing, communication
approaches are largely used to create brand personality. Many researchers have found that
brands are sensitive to the communication and anchors which catalyze consumer
behavior. It may be observed that a general model of advertising has been integrated with
a model of brand personality creation as discussed in some of the studies. Based on that
model a number of propositions are derived and presented thorough analyses of the role
of brand personality in the creation of brand equity, thereby linking the core issue to one
of general and increasing importance (Rajagopal, 2006).
Ang (2006) suggests use of metaphors in advertising for the purpose of
personality creation, his findings suggests that metaphors, regardless of whether they are
in verbal or pictorial form, influence brand personality perceptions. That similar findings
were obtained for metaphoric headlines and pictures demonstrates the rigor of metaphors
in influencing personality perceptions. Brands using metaphors were generally perceived
to be more sophisticated and exciting, but also less sincere and competent, than brands
using literal words and pictures. Metaphors can thus be used not only for short-term
objectives such as breaking attention threshold, but also for longer term building of brand
image and personality. The inherent
Characteristics of metaphors as artful deviations with imagery and decorative
properties can be capitalized on to enhance the personality of products that lack such
characteristics. Products can be made seemingly more sophisticated and exciting through
the use of metaphors, although care should be taken to ensure that the sincerity and
competence dimensions are not compromised. Managerially, his findings suggest that
metaphoric pictures and metaphoric headlines are additional executional tools that
advertisers can easily employ in ad creation to create the desired brand personality
perceptions.
47 The relevant literature suggests that advertisers attempt to provide “stimuli”
through various forms of brand communications, with the aim of making consumers
perceive the intended personality (Okazaki, 2005).
48 Chapter 3
Research Methodology
3
Research
Methodology
This chapter is going to describe the research methods used in this study. This
research is going to apply Brand Personality Scale in SAMAND car brand. In order to do
so the research methodology which is undertaken is as follow: First, the research
approach suitable for this study is chosen, second, the research purpose is identified,
third, different research strategies are investigated and the strategy appropriate for this
study will be then recognized, forth, the data collection method used in this study is
discussed. The figure 3.1 below provides an overview of the headings of the chapter.
49 Figure 3.1: headings of the chapter
Validity and reliability Research purpose Research approach 3.1
Research strategy Data collection Sample selection Data analysis Research purpose
Scientific research has three basic objectives (Svensson, 1999):
Exploration: is needed when researcher is not sure which model is appropriate for
his work and wants to focus on developing a system of definitions (Robson, 1993).
Exploratory studies aim for basic knowledge within the research purpose. The purpose
with this kind of study is to decide and demonstrate the character of the problem by
collecting information through exploration (Eriksson and Wiedersheim-Paul, 1999).
Exploratory studies tend toward loose structures with the objective of discovering future
research tasks (Cooper and Schindler, 2003). Its great advantage is that it is flexible and
adaptable to change (Sunders et al., 2000). However; the flexibility inherent in
exploratory research does not mean absence of direction to the enquiry (Adams and
Schvaneveldt, 1991).
Description: the problem here is completely clear and well structured but the
researcher doesn’t know the answer. The objective of descriptive research is 'to portray
an accurate profile of persons, events or situations' (Robson, 1993) and to describe
market characteristics or functions (Malhotra, 1996). The simplest descriptive study
concerns a univariate question or hypothesis in which we ask about, or state something
about, the size, form, distribution, or existence of a variable. If the research is concerned
with finding out who, what, where, when or how much, then the study is descriptive
(Cooper and Schindler, 2003).
Explanation: wants to describe the relation between and the cause to different
phenomena.
Since this research is aiming to find out, test and describe the factors of Brand
Personality Scale for two brands in Iran, the research purpose is descriptive. Therefore
due to the fact that this research concerned with finding what by asking the questions
"what are the underlying dimensions of this brand?" the suitable research purpose for this
study will be descriptive.
50 3.2
Research Approach
By considering two research approaches qualitative and quantitative this
research covers both.
In the quantitative part, applying the BPS model for chosen brand and
underlying its dimensions the determination of the causal links specified by the
hypothesis will result in the acceptance or rejection of the theoretical model. And by
relying on analysis of statistical data, these dimensions will be clear.
In the qualitative session, by analyzing the open question, other specific
attributes that can be added to the model is going to be found.
3.3
Research Strategy
The research strategy will be a general plan of how a researcher will go about
answering the research question(s) he has set. It will contain clear objectives, derived
from the research question(s), specify the sources from which the researcher intends to
collect data and consider the constraints which he inevitably has.
A research can adopt any of the following research strategies:
•
Experiment and quasi-experimental research: is a classical form of
research that owes much to the natural sciences, although it features strongly in much
social science research, particularly psychology (Sunders et al., 2000). In this kind of
research strategy there is also the tendency to make use of hypotheses which the
experiment seeks either to support or to refute. In other words, experimental research is
usually deductive (Gray, 2004).
•
Survey: survey are described by Fink (Fink, 1995) as a system for
collecting information to describe, compare, or explain knowledge, attitude and behavior.
The survey method is usually associated with the deductive approach. It is a popular and
common strategy in business and management research. They allow the collection of a
large amount of data from a sizable population in a highly economical way (Sunders et
al., 2000). It has considerable ability to generate answers to the question 'what?' as well as
'how?' questions (Robson, 1993). Based most often on a questionnaire, these data are
standardized allowing easy comparison. Using this strategy should give a researcher more
control over the research process. However, much time will be spent in designing and
piloting the questionnaire and also the data colleted by the survey may not be as wide
ranging as those collected by quantitative research methods. The questionnaire, however,
is not the only data collection device of the survey strategy. There are three main data
collection devices which belong to survey category: questionnaire, structured observation
and structured interview (Sunders et al., 2000). 'Structured' here refers to the degree of
standardization imposed on the data collection process (Cooper and Schindler, 2003).
51 • Case study: Robson defines case study as "the development of detailed, intensive
knowledge about a single case, or a small number of related cases" (Robson, 1993). This
strategy will be of particular interest to the researcher if he or she wish to gain a rich
understanding of the context of the research and the processes being enacted (Mooris and
Wood, 1991). It's a very worthwhile way of exploring existing theory. The data collection
methods include questionnaire, interviews, observation and documentary analysis
(Sunders et al., 2000).
• Grounded theory: The grounded theory is often thought of as the best example of
the inductive approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1976). Also some think of it as 'theory
building' through a combination of induction and deduction. In grounded theory, data
collection starts without the formation of an initial theoretical framework. Theory is
developed from data generated by series of observations.
• Ethnography: It is also firmly rooted in the inductive approach. Ethnography
emanates from the field of anthropology. The purpose is to interpret the social world the
research subjects inhabit in the way in which they interpret it. This is obviously a
research process that is very time consuming and takes place over an extended time
period (Sunders et al., 2000).
• Action research: There are three common themes within the literature. The first
focuses on and emphasizes the purpose of the research (Gunningham, 1995). The second
relates to the involvement of practitioners in the research and in particular a close
collaboration between practitioners and researchers. The final theme suggests that action
research should have implications beyond the immediate project; in other words it must
be clear that the results could inform other contexts (Sunders et al., 2000). Thus action
research differs from other forms of applied research because of its explicit focus on
action (Marsick and Watkins, 1997).
According to Wiedesheim-Paul and Eriksson (1998) there are three major research
strategies available in social sciences: experiments, surveys and case studies. Yin(1994)
proposes two additional: archival analysis and histories. Furthermore, what distinguishes
these strategies can be determined by three different conditions:
1.
The type of research question posed
2.
The extent of control an investigator has over actual behavioral events
3.
The degree of focus on contemporary as opposed to historical events
Table 3.2, visualizes how Yin (1994) relates the three conditions to the different
strategies.
52 Table 2.4.1.1 Relevant situations for Different research strategies
Research Strategy
Experiment
Survey
Archival analysis
History
Case study
Form
research
question
of Requires
control
over
behavioral
events
How, why
YES
Who,
what, NO
where , how
many,
how
much
Who,
What, NO
where,
how
many,
how
much
How, why
NO
How, why
NO
Focuses
on
contemporary
events
YES
YES
YES/NO
NO
YES
This research aims to test the model in a car brands from the customer’s point of
view by considering “how” the Big Five model fits the brand so the appropriate strategy
for this study is survey. In other words due to the fact that in survey respondents will be
asked Aaker’s 42 item in order to find the factors of describing the chosen brand strategy.
3.4
Research process
The research process has been shown in figure 3.4.
53 Figure 3.4: research process
Research proposal preparation
Literature review
Designing a conceptual research model
Customizing the questionnaire
Distribution and collection of the questionnaire
Study of reliability and validity of the questionnaire Data collection
Data analysis
Conclusion and suggestions
3.5
Research design
Research design is the plan and structure of investigation so conceived as to
obtain answer to reach questions. The plan is the overall scheme or program of the
research. It includes an outline of what the investigator will do from writing hypothesis
and their operational implications to the final analysis of data. A research design
expresses both the structure of the research problem and the plan of investigation used to
obtain empirical evidence on relations of the problem. (Cooper and Schindler, 2003) In
fact, the choice of research design must be appropriate to the subject under investigation.
3.5.1 Research variables
Distinction of variables is necessary in a research to reach to the response to a
research question or hypothetical tests. Researchers are mostly interested in relationship
among variables. The type of variables used in this research has been brought here:
54 1.
Independent Variables: is a specialty from physical and social
environment that is accepted after the selection, interference or modification by a
quantitative researcher so that its impact may be observed on other variables (dependent
variable).
2.
Dependent variable: is a variable in which changes occur under the impact
of independent variable.
3.
Moderating variable: a moderating variable is a second independent
variable that is included because it is believed to have a significant contributory or
contingent effect on the originally stated dependent-independent variables relationship.
In this research the 42 items of Aaker’s Scale which are 42 personality attributes
are independent variables. And the five factors of BPS model are dependent variables.
And respondent’s demographic situation like age, sex, income and… are considered as
moderating variables.
3.5.2 Methods and resources of data collection
Following methods have been applied during the data collections:
•
Library method: to collect the information related to research literature
and background (Secondary Data), the library method was applied. In this process 65
articles and books mainly about branding, brand personality and personality Psychology
were collected mostly via internet and from data bases like :Emerald Insight, Business
Source Elite (Ebsco), Science Direct,… the journal mostly used were: Caifornia
Management Review, Advances in consumer research, Journal of personality and social
psychology, Journal of marketing research, European journal of marketing, journal of
marketing management and…
•
Expert interview: personal interviews were used to customize the 42 items
in BPS model by the help of 12 Iranian experts.
•
Questionnaire: a questionnaire containing 38 questions was developed and
used to collect the required data during a survey of more than 300 Irankhodro customers.
3.6
Statistical population and sample
Statistical population of this research is Iran Khodro company’s customers and
mostly SAMAND owners or customer’s who have the experience of driving SAMAND.
There were three reasons to choose this sample:
1The experts’ suggestions who believed that this questionnaire is running
for the first time in Iran. The customers will understand the purpose of study better and
finally they care more about the brand.
55 2The company’s idea about the influence of corporate personality on the
brand personality which shows people in the branches environment are still judging about
the brand by watching employees and all companies behavior.
3The result of pilot test among 25 customers and non customers showed
that customers give more reasonable answer to the questions.
By the support of Iran Khodro co. and SAPCO co. we distributed 500
questionnaires among 5 branches of Iran Khodro in 5 parts of the city northern part
(gholhak branch), southern part (shoosh branch), west part (azadi branch), central part
(fatemi branch) and east part ( resalat branch). These branches were chosen randomly for
each region of the city. 313 out of 500 questionnaires had the reasonable answers, which
show the response rate of 63%.
3.7
Sampling methods
The method of sampling for this research is cluster sampling in the category of
probability sampling methods. In a simple random sample, each population element is
selected individually. The population can also be divided into groups of elements with
some groups randomly selected for study (Cooper and Schindler, 200). So five regions o
Tehran were chosen (north, south, east, west and center) and in each region a branch was
chosen randomly.
Most of the questionnaires were handed face to face and one person was ready
to answer the possible questions from respondent. The people chosen for giving the
questionnaire were first asked a few questions like have you ever taught that cars can
have personality like human beings? Or are you interested to help us in this research?
These people were the customers who had come for receiving their car for the
first time, or buying the car or just registering for the new car or people who had come for
repair issues.
3.8
Measurement tool
Researchers apply measurement tools to collect and record the information in
the research. Questionnaire is one of these tools which is a collection of written queries
related to essential variables for the research and can be completed by respondents
directly or indirectly. (cooper and schindler, 2003)
56 The whole set of personality traits used in this study was adapted from
Aaker(1997). These traits were then discussed with 12 experts in Iran and then after some
changes it had been reduced to 38 traits. These questions were structured in a Likert scale
model (1 to 5) with ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘neither agree nor disagree’, ‘agree’
and ‘strongly agree’ as the choices. And other sections of the questionnaire included
questions regarding demographic and background information.
Since the scale was originally developed in English, the back translation
procedure was employed to ensure equivalence between the English and Persian versions
of the questionnaire. Table depicts the original terms used in the Aaker(1997) study and
Persian translation. A pilot study then conducted in the sales and marketing department of
IranKhodro co, with a total of 25 people.
1 Persian translation of the questionnaire.3.5.2 Table
Persian translation
‫ﻣﺘﻮاﺿﻊ وﺧﺎآﻲ ﺑﻮدن‬
English
attributes
personality
down to earth
1
family oriented
2
small-town
3
‫ﺻﺎدق ﺑﻮدن‬
Honest
4
‫ﺻﻤﻴﻤﻲ ﺑﻮدن‬
Sincere
5
Real
6
Wholesome
7
‫اﺻﻴﻞ ﺑﻮدن‬
Original
8
‫ﺷﺎدوﺳﺮزﻧﺪﻩ ﺑﻮدن‬
Cheerful
9
Sentimental
10
Friendly
11
‫ﺷﺠﺎع ﺑﻮدن‬
Daring
12
‫ﻣﺪرن ﺑﻮدن‬
Trendy
13
‫ﭘﺮهﻴﺠﺎن وﭘﺮﺷﻮر ﺑﻮدن‬
Exciting
14
‫ﺳﺮﺣﺎل وﺳﺮزﻧﺪﻩ ﺑﻮدن‬
Spirited
15
‫ﻣﺤﺸﺮ ﺑﻮدن‬
Cool
16
‫ﺟﻮان ﺑﻮدن‬
Young
17
‫ﺧﻼق ﺑﻮدن‬
Imaginative
18
Unique
19
up-to-date
20
Independent
21
Contemporary
22
‫ﺧﺎﻧﻮادﮔﻲ ﺑﻮدن‬
‫ﺳﺎدﻩ وﺑﻲ ﭘﻴﺮاﻳﻪ ﺑﻮدن‬
(‫واﻗﻌﻲ ﺑﻮدن )درﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ رﻳﺎآﺎراﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺳﺎﻟﻢ ﺑﻮدن‬
‫ﺧﻴﺎل اﻧﮕﻴﺰ ﺑﻮدن‬
‫ﺻﻤﻴﻤﻲ وﻣﻬﺮﺑﺎن ﺑﻮدن‬
‫ﻣﻨﺤﺼﺮﺑﻔﺮد ﺑﻮدن‬.‫ﺑﻲ ﻧﻈﻴﺮو‬
‫ﺑﻪ روز ﺑﻮدن‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﺑﻮدن‬
‫ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺑﻮدن‬
57 ‫ﻗﺎﺑﻞ اﻃﻤﻴﻨﺎن ﺑﻮدن‬
Reliable
23
‫ﺳﺨﺖ آﻮش ﺑﻮدن‬
hard working
24
Secure
25
‫ﺑﺎهﻮش و هﻮﺷﻤﻨﺪ ﺑﻮدن‬
Intelligent
26
‫ﻓﻨﻲ ﻳﺎ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺺ ﺑﻮدن‬
Technical
27
‫ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻪ ﺟﻤﻊ واﺷﺘﺮاآﻲ ﺑﻮدن‬
Corporate
28
‫ﻣﻮﻓﻖ ﺑﻮدن‬
Successful
29
‫ﺳﺮدﺳﺘﻪ ورهﺒﺮ ﺑﻮدن‬
Leader
30
‫ﺑﺎاﻋﺘﻤﺎدﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺑﻮدن‬
Confident
31
‫ﺑﺎآﻼس ﺑﻮدن‬
upper class
32
‫ﺟﺬاب وﺧﻴﺮﻩ آﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﻮدن‬
Glamorous
33
good looking
34
Charming
35
‫ﻣﻮﻧﺚ ﻳﺎ زﻧﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﻮدن‬
Feminine
36
‫ﻟﻄﻴﻒ وﻣﻼﻳﻢ ﺑﻮدن‬
Smooth
37
‫اهﻞ ورزش ﺑﻮدن‬
Outdoorsy
38
‫ﻣﺮداﻧﻪ ﺑﻮدن‬
Masculine
39
Western
40
Tough
41
Rugged
42
‫اﻣﻦ و ﺑﻲ ﺧﻄﺮ ﺑﻮدن‬
‫زﻳﺒﺎ ﺑﻮدن‬
‫ﺧﻮش رو وﻣﻠﻴﺢ ﺑﻮدن‬
‫ﻏﺮﺑﻲ ﻳﺎاروﭘﺎﺋﻲ ﻳﺎ ﺁﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎﺋﻲ ﺑﻮدن‬
‫ﺧﺸﻦ وﺟﺪي ﺑﻮدن‬
‫زﻣﺨﺖ وﺧﺎﻟﻲ ازﻇﺮاﻓﺖ ﺑﻮدن‬
Reliability of measurement tool
According to Yin(1994) there are four tests commonly used to establish the
quality of any empirical research, construct validity, internal validity, external validity
and reliability.
Reliability or external validity: shows the similarity and reliability of the findings
in the similar condition. Reliability means that if the test is repeated under similar
condition, to what extent the findings are similar and reliable (Cooper and Schindler,
2003). Different methods are available to measure the reliability such as retest method,
split-half method, parallel (equivalence) method, Richardson method and, Cronbach
alpha coefficient method.
Construct validity: establishing correct operational measures for the concepts
being studied.
58 Internal validity: establishing the domain to which a study’s findings can be
generalized.
The common used method for measuring internal consistency is Cronbach alpha.
Heir et al. (2007) have provided rules of thumb for interpreting alpha values. They
mentioned an alpha of .70 or higher as an appropriate range to measure the reliability. Ro
asses the reliability of the questionnaire during this research, alpha Cronbach was used.
Result from the analysis of questionnaire reliability by using SPSS for the whole
questionnaire is 96%, which is more than the minimum level (70%). And the test results
for questions related to five main constructs are: 88% for 10 questions related to sincerity,
92% for 10 questions related to excitement, 91% for 9 questions related to competence,
87% for 5 questions related to sophistication, 75% for 4 questions related to ruggedness.
3.8.1 Content validity of the measurement tool
To determine the validity of questionnaires, various methods are available; one of
them is content validity methods. Content validity method is used to study the formation
ingredients of a measurement tool. This method usually is determined by experts in the
proposed study subject. For the current research 6 experts who were university professors
in the marketing research area and also had the experience of branding projects in the
industry, 2 Irankhodro managers, 4 university professors in psychology, social science
and English litreture were chosen. The name of these people and their field of research
has been listed below:
1.
Dr Rousta, associate professor in marketing management, Shahid Beheshti
University, field of research mainly about consumer behavior, different projects in
branding and marketing research, named the Iran’s father of new marketing. (face to face
interview , 2hours)
2.
Dr Adel Azar, associate professor in management, Tarbiyat modares
university (mailed to his office)
3.
Dr Amirshahi, associate professor in marketing management, AL Zahra
university, field of research : brand management. (email)
4.
Dr Shafiee, professor in marketing, Industrial Management Inst. , field of
research: advertising psychology and marketing (face to face interview, 3 hours)
5.
Dr Heiydarzade, accociate professor in marketing management, Azad
university, field of study: brand management (email)
6.
Dr safaeeyan: visiting professor in marketing management, Allameh
university, field of research brand image (face to face interview , 1 hour)
7.
Mr fakoori, marketing research manager, Irankhodro co. (face to face
interview, different days)
59 8.
Mr hashemi, marketing manager, Irankhordo co. (face to face interview,
different days)
9.
Mr Modarres nia, internal marketing strategy manager, Irankhodro co
(face to face interview, different days)
10.
Dr Kamboozia, asspciate professor in linguistics, Tarbiyat modares
university
11.
Dr Tabatabaei, associate professor in psychology, Tarbiyat modares
university
12.
Dr Amir albadvi, associate professor in industrial engineering, Tarbiyat
modares university
These experts’ opinions were gathered through face to face interviews, emails or
letters provided by a gift to their office.
3.8.2 Factor validity of the measurement tool
Factor validity is a kind of Construct validity that is acquired through factor
analysis. In this research 10 questions represent the personality dimension of sincerity, 10
questions for the excitement, 9 explain competence, 5 for the sophistication and 4
questions make the personality dimension of ruggedness.
3.8.3 Results of factor analysis
Factor analysis of questions related to the personality dimension of sincerity:
For the sincerity dimension, 10 questions have been designed that after the first rank
exploratory factor analysis the following results were acquired:
Table 3.8.3.1 KMO and Bartlett's Test of sincerity
Table 3-6-3-1 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
Df
Sig.
.901
1246.302
36
.000
Sufficiency and suitability test of data KMO for the execution of factor analysis
for the sincerity dimension shows that data set were good enough for factor analysis
because the measure of sample adequacy is greater than 0.6 (0.901). Similarly, number of
significant Bartlett test is equal to 0.00 and is smaller than significant level of 0.05 that
indicates correlation matrix possesses significant information. Furthermore, Communality
60 table, which shows the suitability of the ratio of questions communality, is greater than
0.50 for all the questions is the indicator of suitability of the questions. As Table shows,
the proposed questions cover and explain 54.814 of variance of personality dimension of
sincerity that in reality indicates the validity of questions.
Table 3.8.3.2 Questions communality of sincerity
Component
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total
% of Variance
4.933
54.814
Cumulative %
54.814
Factor analysis of questions related to the personality dimension of excitement:
For the excitement dimension, 10 questions have been designed that after the first
rank exploratory factor analysis the following results were acquired:
Table 3.8.3.3 KMO and Bartlett's Test for excitement
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
Df
Sig.
.904
1877.732
45
.000
Sufficiency and suitability test of data KMO for the execution of factor analysis
for the excitement dimension shows that data set were good enough for factor analysis
because the measure of sample adequacy is greater than 0.6 (0.904). Similarly, number of
significant Bartlett test is equal to 0.00 and is smaller than significant level of 0.05 that
indicates correlation matrix possesses significant information. Furthermore, Communality
table, which shows the suitability of the ratio of questions communality, is greater than
0.50 for all the questions is the indicator of suitability of the questions. As Table shows,
the proposed questions cover and explain 59.860 of variance of personality dimension of
excitement that in reality indicates the validity of questions.
61 Table 3.8.3.4 Questions communality of excitement
Component
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total
% of Variance
5.986
59.860
Cumulative %
59.860
Factor analysis of questions related to the personality dimension of competence:
For the competence dimension, 9 questions have been designed that after the first
rank exploratory factor analysis the following results were acquired:
Table 3.8.3.5 KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
Df
Sig.
.903
1671.846
36
.000
Sufficiency and suitability test of data KMO for the execution of factor analysis
for the competence dimension shows that data set were good enough for factor analysis
because the measure of sample adequacy is greater than 0.6 (0.903). Similarly, number of
significant Bartlett test is equal to 0.00 and is smaller than significant level of 0.05 that
indicates correlation matrix possesses significant information. Furthermore, Communality
table, which shows the suitability of the ratio of questions communality, is greater than
0.50 for all the questions is the indicator of suitability of the questions. As Table shows,
the proposed questions cover and explain 61.135 of variance of personality dimension of
competence that in reality indicates the validity of questions.
62 Table 3.8.3.6 Questions communality of competence
Component
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total
% of Variance
5.502
61.135
Cumulative %
61.135
Factor analysis of questions related to the personality dimension of sophistication:
For the sophistication dimension, 5 questions have been designed that after the
first rank exploratory factor analysis the following results were acquired:
Table 3.8.3.7 KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
Df
Sig.
.807
875.951
10
.000
Sufficiency and suitability test of data KMO for the execution of factor analysis
for the sophistication dimension shows that data set were good enough for factor analysis
because the measure of sample adequacy is greater than 0.6 (0.807). Similarly, number of
significant Bartlett test is equal to 0.00 and is smaller than significant level of 0.05 that
indicates correlation matrix possesses significant information. Furthermore, Communality
table, which shows the suitability of the ratio of questions communality, is greater than
0.50 for all the questions is the indicator of suitability of the questions. As Table shows,
the proposed questions cover and explain 66.733 of variance of personality dimension of
sophistication that in reality indicates the validity of questions.
63 Table 3.8.3.8 Questions communality of sophistication
Component
1
2
3
4
5
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total
% of Variance
3.337
66.733
Cumulative %
66.733
Factor analysis of questions related to the personality dimension of ruggedness:
For the sophistication dimension, 4 questions have been designed that after the
first rank exploratory factor analysis the following results were acquired:
Table 3.8.3.9 KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
.514
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
3.9
Approx. Chi-Square
Df
Sig.
165.912
3
.000
Statistical method utilized in the research
3.9.1 Student t-test
Distribution (t) was developed with the name “student: in the year 1908 by
V.S.Gost. This test now is usually known as “student test”. This can also be used for the
hypothetical test that considers the social mean as equal, greater or smaller than a
particular number, as well as, it also apply in the test related to average comparison of
two society.
3.9.2
Structural equations model
SEM is a comprehensive statistical process which is a set of linear equations for
testing the hypothesis about the relationship between observed and latent variables
(Lavee, 1988) and uses a confirmatory approach (Byrne, 2001). Structural equation
modeling techniques are a second-generation multivariate technique (Patrick, 1997) and
have gained increasing popularity in management sciences, notably marketing and
organizational behavior, in the last decade. Bagozzi (1980) cited by Patrick (1997)
suggested that causal models developed following the structural equation modeling
approach had a number of advantages: (1) they make the assumptions, constructs, and
64 hypothesized relationships in a researcher’s theory explicit; (2) they add a degree of
precision to a researcher’s theory, since they require clear definitions of constructs,
operationalizations, and the functional relationships between constructs; (3) they permit a
more complete representation of complex theories; and (4) they provide a formal
framework for constructing and testing both theories and measures. Selection of the
sample size is very important in this stage because most of the available estimation
methods in the structural equation modeling and assessing indicators of proportional
model are sensitive compare to the sample size. Bentler suggested that ratio of 10 to 1
must always exist between sample size and number of free parameters that must be
estimated. The main goal in SEM is to fin “the extent to which a hypothesized model
‘fits’ or, in other words, adequately describes the sample data” (Byrne, 2001).
3.9.3 One-way analysis of variance
The analysis of variance procedure is used to test the null hypothesis that the
means of three or more population are the same against the alternative hypothesis that the
means of three or more populations are the same against the alternative hypothesis that all
population means are not the same. This method is established on the analysis of the
identified and unidentified factors that explain the rate of scattered data.
65 Chapter 4
Data Analysis
4
Data Analysis
In this chapter the analyzed data has been studied. First the demographic
information of the sample is represented by the help of descriptive statistics these
demographic variables include specifications of respondents and the car model they
have. The next analysis goes with the inferential statistics to measure how exactly the 38
variables describe SAMAND‘s personality and then the SEM approach shows the fitness
of the big five model in the case of SAMAND. In the end One Sample T-test and one-way
ANOVA are used respectively in order to shed light on different aspects of the research
problem and to enrich our analysis.
4.1
Descriptive statistics
This section describes sample statistical
description with regard to the specifications of the respondents (age, sex, income,
career and educational degree) and also the current automobile used by respondents and
the SAMAND model they had or have and the year of buying the car.
66 4.1.1 Description
n of respo
ondent’s age:
a
The ch
hart below shhows that thhe majority of
o respondennts were bellow 35 (34%
%)
and thhen between
n 35 and 45 (27%).
(
The frequency shhows that wee had almostt people from
m
all agges in the sam
mple.
Age
7%
17
4.8
86%
21.18%
1%
11.11
below 20
20‐30
30‐35
4.86%
13.19%
35‐40
40‐45
15.97%
11.80%
45‐50
over 50
not clear
Figuree 4.1.1.1 Respon
ndent’s age
4.1.2 Description
n of respo
ondent’s sex:
s
Chart below shows that
t
the majjority of resppondents weere men (722%), which is
i
basedd on the factt that, even in a capital city like Teehran the majority of caar owners arre
men than
t
women
n.
6
67 sex
1
11.46%
15.97%
male
female
72.57%
not clear
Figuree 4.1.2.1 Respon
ndent’s sex
4.1.3 Descriptio
D
n of respo
ondent’s career
c
and
d jobs:
c
career
HOUSEW
WIVES
3.47%
RETIRED people
17.01%
4
4.86%
4.17%
6.90%
STUDENTTs
3.13%
%
2.92%
22
EMPLOYEEs
14.58%
22.92%
RUNNING
G THEIR OWN BUSINESS
EXPERTs
MANAGEERs
Figuree 4.1.3.1 Respon
ndent’s career
6
68 4.1.4 Description
n of respo
ondent’s educationa
e
al degree:
Most of th
he respondennts had the BS
B degree (339%) which is a common educationaal
degreee in Iran
d
degree
2.78%
15.63%
6.94%
27.08%
BELOW DIP
PLOMA
below BS A
AND DIPLOMA
9.03%
BS
MS
38.54%
PHD
not clear
Figuree 4.1.4.1 Respon
ndent’s degree
4.1.5 Description
n of respo
ondent’s in
ncome:
Most off the responddent’s incom
me was betweeen 400000 and
a 800000 toman
6
69 income
e (in tom
man)
11.45
5%
400000
49.65%
25%
800000
1200000
1600000
9.72%
1600000 and higher
not cleear
08%
2.08% 2.0
Figuree 4.1.5.1 Respon
ndent's income
4.1.6 Description
n of respo
ondent’s current
c
ca
ar:
Most of th
he respondennts were SA
AMAND ownners (44%)
caar name
sam
mand
pevegout 206
4.8
86%
17.36%
43.75%
pevvegout RD
5.56%
pevvegout 405
1.39%
%
6.9
94%
5.56%
%
9.72%
l90
1
1.38%
pevvegout persia
3.47%
3
peyycan
Figuree 4.1.6.1 Respon
ndent’s car nam
me
7
70 Descripttion of SAMAND ownerrs currently or
o previouslyy:
66% had the
t experiennce of owninng the SAMA
AND.
experrience of owningg SAMA
AND
8.33%
25.69%
%
YES
65.97%
NO
NOT CLEAR
Figuree 4.1.6.2 Respon
ndent’s experien
nce of owning SAMAND
S
4.1.7 Description
n of respo
ondent’s SAMAND
S
t
type
Most of th
he SAMAND
D customerss who answeered the quesstion were thhe customer’s
of LX
X model (28%
%)
7
71 samaand mod
del
2
24.65%
40.9
98%
classic
LX
soren
28.13%
5.5
56%
sarir
not clear
0..70%
Figuree 4.1.7.1 Respon
ndent’s SAMAN
ND model
4.2 Sttudy of SAMAND’
S
’s curren
nt brand personali
p
ity among
g
custtomers of
o IRANKH
HODRO CO
C
In thiss part, we are going to evaluatee the currennt status off each Brannd
persoonality attrib
bute and thee big five main
m
construucts among IranKhodroo’s customerrs
aboutt SAMAND.
4.2.1 One Samplle T-Test
One Sample T-Test
T
forr the firstt brand personalit
p
ty
4.2.1.1
“SIN
NCERITY”
with th
he use of Onne Sample T-Test proceddure to find out whetherr the mean of
o
the leevel of agreeements amonng the responndent’s abouut the first personality
p
d
dimension
annd
the alll attributes related
r
to it is
i smaller thhan 3 or not. Here are thee test hypothheses:
Down to earth
AMAND’S personality
p
a
attribute
of down
d
to eartth
H0: level of agreemennts about SA
is equual to 3 (meeans responddents have no
n specific idea
i
about SAMAND
S
being down to
t
earth))
AMAND’S personality
p
a
attribute
of down
d
to eartth
H1: level of agreemennts about SA
7
72 is not equal to 3 (mean respondents thinking about SAMAND being down to earth or nit)
Family oriented
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Family
oriented is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being
Family oriented)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Family
oriented is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Family
oriented or not)
Small-town
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Small-town is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Small-town)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Small-town is
not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Small-town or not)
Honest
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of honest is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being honest)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of honest is not
equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being honest or not)
Real
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Real is equal
to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Real)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Real is not
equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Real or not)
Wholesome
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Wholesome is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Wholesome)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Wholesome is
73 not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Wholesome or not)
Original
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Original is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Original)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Original is not
equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Original or not)
Cheerful
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Cheerful is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Cheerful)
H1: level of Cheerful about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Original is not
equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Cheerful or not)
Sentimental
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Sentimental is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Sentimental)
H1: level of Cheerful about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Sentimental is
not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Sentimental or not)
Friendly
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Friendly is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Friendly)
H1: level of Cheerful about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Friendly is not
equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Friendly or not)
Sincerity
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of sincerity is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about the sincerity of SAMAND)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of is not equal
to 3 (is less or more, respondents are believe SAMAN is sincere or not)
74 Below table shows the result of One Sample T-Test including p-value and a brief
conclusion
Table 4.2.1.1 One Sample t-test for Sincerity
Down to earth
Family oriented
Small-town
Honest
Real
Wholesome
Original
Cheerful
Sentimental
Friendly
Sincerity
T
Df
p-value
-9.026
-22.248
-12.249
-3.598
-6.838
-5.763
-3.145
-2.302
.059
-7.263
-9.683
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.002
.022
.953
.000
.000
Mean
difference
-.51389
-1.14931
-.71181
-.23611
-.41319
-.38889
-.23611
-.16319
.00347
-.41667
-.42257
lower
Upper
Conclusion
-.6260
-1.2510
-.8258
-.3653
-.5321
-.5217
-.3839
-.3027
-.1129
-.5296
-.5085
-.4018
-1.0476
-.5978
-.1069
-.2943
-.2561
-.0883
-.0237
.1199
-.3038
-.3367
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is equal to 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The results of t-test show that respondent’s believe, SAMAND has a sincere
personality. So the customers believe SAMAND is down to earth, family oriented, smalltown, honest, real wholesome, original, cheerful and friendly. The only attribute they
have no idea about is the sentimentalism. So it shows that Irankhodro Company has been
successful in its marketing and manufacturing processes to make SAMAND a sincere
brand. But they have to work on the sentimental attribute as well to increase the level of
sincerity.
4.2.1.2
One Sample T-Test for the second brand personality
“EXCITEMENT”
with the use of One Sample T-Test procedure to find out whether the mean of the
level of agreements among the respondent’s about the second personality dimension and
the all attributes related to it is smaller than 3 or not. Here are the test hypotheses:
Daring
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Daring is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Daring)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Daring is not
equal to 3 (means respondents thinking about SAMAND being Daring or not)
Trendy
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of trendy is equal
to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being trendy)
75 H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of trendy is not
equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being trendy or not)
Exciting
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of exciting is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being exciting)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of exciting is not
equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being exciting or not)
Spirited
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of spirited is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being spirited)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of spirited is not
equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being spirited or not)
Cool
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of cool is equal
to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being cool)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of cool is not
equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being cool or not)
Young
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of young is equal
to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being young)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of young is not
equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being young or not)
Imaginative
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of imaginative is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being imaginative)
76 H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of imaginative is
not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being imaginative or not)
Unique
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of unique is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being unique)
H1: level of Cheerful about SAMAND’S personality attribute of unique is not
equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being unique or not)
Independent
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of independent is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being independent)
H1: level of agreement about SAMAND’S personality attribute of independent is
not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being independent or not)
Contemporary
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of contemporary
is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being
contemporary)
H1: level of Cheerful about SAMAND’S personality attribute of contemporary is
not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being contemporary or not)
Excitement
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of excitement
is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about the excitement of
SAMAND)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of excitement
is not equal to 3 (is less or more, respondents are believe SAMAN is exciting or not)
Below table shows the result of One Sample T-Test including p-value and a brief
conclusion
77 Table 4.2.1.2 One Sample T-Test for excitement dimension
Daring
Trendy
Exciting
Spirited
Cool
Young
Imaginative
Unique
Independent
contemporary
Excitement
T
Df
p-value
-8.642
1.211
1.263
-1.969
7.999
.949
1.901
5.505
-6.627
-2.385
-.007
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
.000
.227
.208
.050
.000
.344
.058
.000
.000
.018
.995
Mean
difference
-.57986
.08681
.08333
-.13194
.50694
.06597
.125000
.38889
-.39583
-.15278
-.00035
lower
Upper
Conclusion
-.7119
-.0543
-.0466
-.2638
.3822
-.0709
-.0044
.2499
-.5134
-.2789
-.1014
-.4478
.2279
.2132
-.0001
.6317
.2029
.2544
.5279
-.2783
-.0267
.1007
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is equal to 3
The mean is equal to 3
The mean is equal to 3
The mean is greater than 3
The mean is equal to 3
The mean is equal to 3
The mean is greater than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is equal to 3
The results of t-test show that respondent’s do not have a clear idea about
excitement personality. The respondents believe SAMAND is daring, independent and
contemporary. But in the other side they think it is not cool or unique, and have no idea
about SAMAND being imaginative, young, spirited, exciting or trendy. So the overall
conclusion shows that they have no clear picture about the excitement of SAMAND’s
personality. So IranKhodro has to do something about it. SAMAND is exciting or not?
This is the first question they should ask themselves. For example, the attribute “young”
must be clear is it an old or young brand. So in this part IranKhodro shows a kind of
failure to represent this personality.
4.2.1.3
One Sample T-Test for the third brand
personality “COMPETENCE”
with the use of One Sample T-Test procedure to find out whether the mean of
the level of agreements among the respondent’s about the third personality dimension and
the all attributes related to it is smaller than 3 or not. Here are the test hypotheses:
Reliable
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of reliable is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being reliable)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of reliable is not
equal to 3 (means respondents thinking about SAMAND being reliable or not)
Hard working
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Hard working
is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Hard
working)
78 H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Hard working
is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Hard working or
not)
Secure
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Secure is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Secure)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Secure is not
equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Secure or not)
Intelligent
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Intelligent is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Intelligent)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Intelligent is
not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Intelligent or not)
Technical
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Technical is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Technical)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Technical is
not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Technical or not)
Corporate
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Corporate is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Corporate)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Corporate is
not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Corporate or not)
Successful
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Successful is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Successful)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Successful is
79 not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Successful or not)
Leader
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Leader is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Leader)
H1: level of Cheerful about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Leader is not
equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Leader or not)
Confident
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Confident is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Confident)
H1: level of agreement about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Confident is
not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Confident or not)
Competence
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of competence
is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about the competency of
SAMAND)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of competence
is not equal to 3 (is less or more, respondents are believe SAMAN is competence or not)
Below table shows the result of One Sample T-Test including p-value and a brief
conclusion
Table 4.2.1.3 One Sample T-Test for competence dimension
Reliable
Hard working
Secure
Intelligent
Technical
Corporate
Successful
Leader
Confident
Competence
T
Df
p-value
-8.244
-9.666
-10.565
-1.969
-3.189
-10.465
-7.123
2.606
-6.358
-7.816
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
.000
.000
.000
.050
.002
.000
.000
.010
.000
.000
Mean
difference
-.52083
-.60764
-.69792
-.12153
-.19097
-.60764
-.42361
.16667
-.36806
-.37461
lower
Upper
Conclusion
-.6452
-.7314
-.8279
-.2430
-.3089
-.7219
-.5407
.0408
-.4820
-.4690
-.3965
-.4839
-.5679
-0.001
-.0731
-.4934
-.3066
.2925
-.2541
-.2803
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is greater than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
80 The results of t-test show that respondent’s are agreeing about the personality of
competence. They believe that SAMAND is reliable, hard working, secure, intelligent,
technical, corporate, successful, leader and confident. So the personality “competence”
does exactly fits SAMAND. And Irankhodro has shown it clearly.
4.2.1.4
One Sample T-Test for the fourth brand personality
“sophistication”
with the use of One Sample T-Test procedure to find out whether the mean of the
level of agreements among the respondent’s about the fourth personality dimension and
the all attributes related to it is smaller than 3 or not. here are the test hypotheses:
Upper class
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Upper class is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Upper class)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Upper class is
not equal to 3 (means respondents thinking about SAMAND being Upper class or not)
Glamorous
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Glamorous is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Glamorous)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Glamorous is
not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Glamorous or not)
Good looking
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Good looking
is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Good
looking)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Good looking
is not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Good looking or
not)
Feminine
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Feminine is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Feminine)
81 H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Feminine is
not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Feminine or not)
Smooth
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Smooth is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Smooth)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Smooth is not
equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Smooth or not)
Sophistication
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of
sophistication is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about the
sophistication of SAMAND)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of
sophistication is not equal to 3 (is less or more, respondents are believe SAMAN is
sophistication or not)
Below table shows the result of One Sample T-Test including p-value and a brief
conclusion
Table 4.2.1.4 One Sample T-Test for sophistication dimension
Upper class
Glamorous
Good looking
Feminine
Smooth
sophistication
T
Df
p-value
-1.236
1.154
-4.010
15.217
6.697
3.894
287
287
287
287
287
287
.218
.250
.000
.000
.000
.000
Mean
difference
-.08333
.07639
-.26389
.86806
.41667
.20278
lower
Upper
Conclusion
-.2161
-.0539
-.3934
.7558
.2942
.1003
.0494
.2067
-1.344
.9803
.5391
.3053
The mean is equal to 3
The mean is equal to 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is greater than 3
The mean is greater than 3
The mean is greater than 3
The results of t-test show that respondent’s are not agree about the personality
of sophistication. They believe that SAMAND is not feminine or smooth but is good
looking. And they didn’t have any idea about samand being upper class or glamorous.
And at the end they do not think SAMAND is a sophisticated brand. So we can say
Irankhodro is a kind of clear about this dimension.
4.2.1.5
One Sample T-Test for the fifth brand personality
“RUGGEDNESS”
82 with the use of One Sample T-Test procedure to find out whether the mean of the
level of agreements among the respondent’s about the fifth personality dimension and the
all attributes related to it is smaller than 3 or not. Here are the test hypotheses:
Outdoorsy
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Outdoorsy is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Outdoorsy)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Outdoorsy is
not equal to 3 (means respondents thinking about SAMAND being Outdoorsy or not)
Masculine
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Masculine is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Masculine)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Masculine is
not equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Masculine or not)
Tough
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Tough is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Tough)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Tough is not
equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Tough or not)
Rugged
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Rugged is
equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about SAMAND being Rugged)
H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality attribute of Rugged is not
equal to 3 (means respondents’ thinking about SAMAND being Rugged or not)
Ruggedness
H0: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of ruggedness
is equal to 3 (means respondents have no specific idea about the ruggedness of
SAMAND)
83 H1: level of agreements about SAMAND’S personality dimension of ruggedness
is not equal to 3 (is less or more, respondents are believe SAMAN is ruggedness or not)
Below table shows the result of One Sample T-Test including p-value and a brief
conclusion
Table 4.2.1.5 One Sample T-Test for ruggedness dimension
Outdoorsy
Masculine
Tough
Rugged
Ruggedness
T
Df
p-value
-1.159
-15.738
-9.892
-2.298
-10.503
287
287
287
287
287
.247
.000
.000
.022
.000
Mean
difference
-.06944
-.87500
-.59722
-.15278
-.42361
Lower
Upper
Conclusion
-.1874
-.9844
-.7161
-.2836
-.5030
.0485
-.7656
-.4784
-.0219
-.3442
The mean is equal to 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The mean is smaller than 3
The results of t-test show that respondent’s are agree about the personality of
ruggedness. They believe that SAMAND is masculine, tough and rugged but they have
no idea if it is outdoorsy or not. In the end we can say ruggedness fits SAMAND. And by
the little work on the outdoorsy attribute the company can make a clearer picture.
4.3
Evaluation of measurement models
Confirmatory factor analysis for the BRAND PERSONALITY SCALE (BPS) is
presented in this section.
4.3.1 CFA for 5 personality dimensions model
The question arises here: how well the empirical data conform to the hypothesized
factor model of Brand Personality Scale? That is how well the data fit the mode.
Measurement model of BPS elements with the use of confirmatory factor analysis in the
non-standard estimate condition has been shown below. As illustrated, the model is of a
five-factor structure. 10 indicators are loaded on the latent factor of sincerity, 10
indicators on the latent factor of excitement, 9 indicators on the competence, 5 indicators
on the sophistication and finally 4 indicators are loaded on the latent factor of ruggedness.
84 1
er1
1
1
1
SIN1
e39
SIN2
er2
1
e40
1
C21
e21
C22
e221
C23
e23
1
1
er3
SIN3
er4
SIN4
er5
SIN5
1
1
1
1
1
e6
e7
1
1
e8
1
e9
SINCERITY
C24 e241
COMPETENCE
C25 e25
1
1
e44
1
C26 e26
SIN6
1
1
SIN7
C27 e27
SIN8
C28 e281
1
BRAND PERSONALITY
SIN9
C29 e29
1
1
e10 SIN10
SOP30 e30
1
er11
1
er12
1
er13
1
er14
1
er15
1
1
E11
E12
E13
E15
E17
er19
SOP33 e33
1
e41
SOP34 e34
1
EXCITEMENT
E18
E19
1
R35
e35
1
R36
1
1
er20
1
1
1
E14
er17
1
SOP32 e32
1
E16
er18
1
SOPHISTICATION
er161
1
SOP31 e31
e36
1
RUGGEDNESS
R37
e42
e37
1
1
e43
R38
e38
E20
Figure 4.3.1.1 original model
85 The scale at a facet level proposed by Aaker (1997) was examined in detail for
dimensionality, reliability and validity.
Measurement model of BRAND PERSONALITY SCALE with the use of
confirmatory factor analysis in the non-standard estimate condition has shown in the next
page:
86 1
er1
1
1
1
SIN1
e39
SIN2
er2
1
e40
1
C21
e21
C22
e221
C23
e23
1
1
er3
SIN3
er4
SIN4
er5
SIN5
1
1
1
1
1
e6
e7
1
1
e8
1
e9
SINCERITY
C24 e241
COMPETENCE
C25 e25
1
1
e44
1
C26 e26
SIN6
1
1
SIN7
C27 e27
SIN8
C28 e281
1
BRAND PERSONALITY
SIN9
C29 e29
1
1
e10 SIN10
SOP30 e30
1
er11
1
er12
1
er13
1
er14
1
er15
1
1
E11
E12
E13
E15
E17
er19
E19
1
er20
SOP33 e33
1
e41
SOP34 e34
1
EXCITEMENT
1
R35
e35
1
R36
1
E18
1
1
1
E14
er17
1
SOP32 e32
1
E16
er18
1
SOPHISTICATION
er161
1
SOP31 e31
e36
1
RUGGEDNESS
R37
e42
e37
1
1
e43
R38
e38
E20
87 .29
.56
.66
C21.50 e21
.71
.84
er1
SIN1.72
er2
.84
er3
.53
SIN3.56
er5
.85
.54
e39
.75
.71
.69
.89
.33
.82
.68
C22.48 e22
.72
C23.53e23
.68
.73
SINCERITY
SIN4.46
C24.71e24
COMPETENCE
.73
.84
e44
.91
.83
.94
-1.00
.56
C27.52e27
.00
.70
C28.66e28
.94
.58
BRAND PERSONALITY
SIN9.55
C29 e29
.67
.50
.71
.77
E11.61
.58
er13
er14
.63
er15
E12.67
E14.60
.63
er17
e41
.71
RUGGEDNESS
.71
E18.43
e42
E19.51
.43
-.75
R35
e35
R36
e36
.15
-.92
1.00.39
.24
.70
er20
.66
E16.60
.78
E17.50 .65
e32
SOP34 e34
EXCITEMENT
.67
.79
.46
-.74
.94
.76
er19
.89
.77
.71
er18
.51
SOP31 e31
e33
SOP33
.45
1.00
.82
.82
e30
SOP30
.74
.43
SOP32
.19
.67
.90
.48
.78
E15.45
.74
er16
.97
.71
E13.68
.57
.90
.86
SOPHISTICATION
.62
er12
.82
.43
.88
e10 SIN10
er11
.76
C26.69e26
.72
.82
SIN8.11
e9
.54
.65C25.42e25
SIN5.75
.56
.58
.67
e6 SIN6.34
.81
.34
.81
e7 SIN7.66 .74
.58
e8
e40
.42
.75
.67
er4
.54
SIN2.30
.06
.26
.07
R37
-.28
.97
e37
.08
.96
e43
R38
e38
E20
Figure 4.3.1.2 confirmatory factor analysis of the BPS
88 With regarded to the following results that have been acquired from the output of
AMOS 16.0 software.
Table 4.3.1.1 CMIN of the original model
Model
NPAR
CMIN
Default model
80
2113.257
\
Table 4.3.1.2 RMR, GFI
Model
RMR
GFI
AGFI
PGFI
Default model
.100
.967
.963
.864
All of the statistics values are in acceptable range
Table 4.3.1.3 Squared Multiple Correlations
Estimate
BRAND PERSONALITY
.000
RUGGEDNESS
.997
SOPHISTICATION
.773
EXCITEMENT
.942
COMPETENCE
.889
SINCERITY
.824
C29
.664
SOP34
.447
SOP33
.187
SOP32
.793
SOP31
.739
SOP30
.819
C28
.516
89 Estimate
C27
.687
C26
.418
C25
.711
C24
.533
C23
.483
C22
.499
C21
.558
R38
.078
R37
.067
R36
.153
R35
.435
E20
.508
E19
.425
E18
.499
E17
.603
E16
.453
E15
.600
E14
.678
E13
.669
E12
.610
E11
.500
SIN10
.553
90 Estimate
SIN9
.114
SIN8
.661
SIN7
.341
SIN6
.556
SIN5
.463
SIN4
.556
SIN3
.295
SIN2
.720
SIN1
.288
91 Results clearly indicated that the model should be accepted but it needs a kind
of purification. So according to rojas mendez (2004) research in Chile, testing the Brand
Personality Scale at a dimension level, was chosen as the next step. The analysis of the
dimensions followed the two step approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing
(1998). The first step involves the use of confirmatory factor analysis to develop an
acceptable measurement model. The test of a measurement model allows for assessing
whether observed variables are really measuring their underlying theoretical constructs
and whether the measurement model provides evidence of an acceptable fit to the sample
data. Then using structural equation modeling, with the maximum likelihood method, the
dimensions were tested to see whether they really measure the main construct of Brand
Personality.
The result at sincerity dimension model has shown below:
92 .39
.78
e39
SIN1
er1
.63
.61
SIN2
er2
.63
.39
er3
.78
SIN3
1.00
.79
.64
.60
er4
.62
SIN4
.80
.55
.67
er5
SIN5
.59
.00
.74
SINCERITY
.77
.64
e6
SIN6
.34
.81
e7
.58
.76
SIN7
.76
.58
.65
e8
SIN8
.57
e10
.65
SIN10
Figure 4.3.1.3 CFA for sincerity dimension
93 The results postulate that the latent variable ‘sincerity’ which was composed of 11
observed variables in Aaker’s study. The results show that the remaining variables are
just 6 ones. So 5 items should be excluded in order to achieve a good fit of the scale to
the sample data. Therefore, only the following 6 items were kept for further analysis:
family oriented, honest, real, wholesome, cheerful and friendly.
The result at excitement dimension model has shown below:
the results postulate that the latent variable ‘excitement’ which was composed of
10 observed variables in Aaker’s study. The results show that the remaining variables are
8 ones. So 2 items should be excluded in order to achieve a good fit of the scale to the
sample data. Therefore, only the following 8 items were kept for further analysis: trendy,
exciting, sprited, cool, imaginative, unique, independent and contemporary.
.38
.79
E11
er11
.63
.61
E12
er12
.69
.56
er13
E13
.62
er14
.61
.62
E14
.80
.64
.60
er15
.83
.78
E15
.47
.80
.73
er16
E16
.63
.61
er17
E17
.79
.58
.65
er18
E18
.49
er19
.00
.69
EXCITEMENT
.76
.70
.74
.72
E19
.55
.67
er20
1.00
E20
e42
Figure 4.3.1.4 CFA for excitement dimension
94 The result at competence dimension model has shown below:
e40
1.00
.77
.77
.76
.00
.69
COMPETENCE
.60
.63
C21.59 e21
.64
C22.58 e22
.65
C23.47 e23
.73
C24.58e24
.76
.64
.69 C25.47e25
.82
.73
.64
.85
C26.67e26
.58
C27.41
e27
.77
e28
C28.71
.53
C29
e29
Figure 4.3.1.5 CFA for competence dimension
The results postulate that the latent variable ‘competence’ which was composed of
9 observed variables in Aaker’s study. The results show that the remaining variables are 6
ones. So 3 items should be excluded in order to achieve a good fit of the scale to the
sample data. Therefore, only the following 6 items were kept for further analysis:
reliable, hard working, secure, technical, successful and confident.
The result at sophistication dimension model has shown below:
95 .83
SOP30
.42
e30
.77
.91
SOP31
.88
.48
e31
.00
.87
SOPHISTICATION
.51
1.00
.75
.50
SOP32
e32
.26
.71
.86
e33
SOP33
e41
.51
SOP34
-.70
e34
Figure 4.3.1.6 CFA for sophistication dimension
The results postulate that the latent variable ‘sophistication’ which was composed
of 5 observed variables in Aaker’s study. The results show that the remaining variables
are 4 ones. So 1 item should be excluded in order to achieve a good fit of the scale to the
sample data. Therefore, the following 4 items were kept for further analysis: upper class,
glamorous and smooth.
The result at ruggedness dimension model has shown below:
96 .10
.95
.31
.00
.69
RUGGEDNESS
.93
.27
1.00
R35
e35
R36
e36
.47
.73
.86
R37
.37
e37
.07
.96
e43
R38
e38
Figure 4.3.1.7 CFA for ruggedness dimension
Finally the analysis of the sub-scale for ‘ruggedness’ did not fit the sample data in
an appropriate manner, mainly because three out of the 4 original items showed
standardized regression weights that were lower than the baseline of 0.7 recommended by
Aaker (1997).
So only 4 dimensions o the brand personality scale remained for further analysis.
The refined model has been shown in the next page.
97 1
1
1
e39
SIN2
er2
1
e40
1
C21
e21
C22
e221
C23
e23
1
1
1
er4
SIN4
er5
SIN5
1
1
e6
SINCERITY
1
COMPETENCE
1
C25 e25
1
e44
SIN6
1
1
e8
C27 e27
1
1
SIN8
1
BRAND PERSONALITY
C29 e29
1
1
e10 SIN10
SOP30 e30
1
SOP31 e31
1
er12
1
er13
1
er14
1
er15
1
SOPHISTICATION
E12
SOP32 e32
E13
1
1
e41
E14
E15
1
SOP34 e34
EXCITEMENT
1
er17
1
er18
1
er19
E17
1
1
E18
e42
E19
1
er20
E20
98 .60
.63
C21.56 e21
.66
.57
er2
er5
.82
SINCERITY
COMPETENCE
.76
.61
.78
SIN4.41
.64
-.42
.37
C22.55 e22
.67
e23
C23
.88
.77
.78
.47
C25 e25
SIN5.76
.58
.65
e6
e40
.78
.75
.74
.86
SIN2
.62
er4
e39
.65
-.91
SIN6 .84
e44
.87
-.93
-1.00
.75
.50
.85
C27 e27
.00
.70 .69
.55
e8
SIN8
.72
.53
BRAND PERSONALITY
C29 e29
.48
.72
e10 SIN10
.82
.64
.55
er13
er14
.66
er15
E12.70
E14.57
e30
SOP30
.74
.51
SOP31 e31
.90
.81
.44
SOP32 e32
.69
.80
e41
.84
.83
.93
.47
-.72
SOP34 e34
.75
EXCITEMENT
.59
.77
.73
E17.54 .70
.68
er18
.42
E15
.64
er17
-.97
E13.69
.56
.91
.86
SOPHISTICATION
.60
er12
.83
.41
-.91
.26
.74
E18.50
e42
.71
er19
E19.55
.67
er20
E20
Figure 4.3.1.8 BPS refined model
99 The preceding section measured the fit of each proposed sub-scale to the sample
data. Confirmatory factor analysis is used again to test the adequacy of the combined
measurement model and to evaluate the discriminate validity of the Brand Personality
Scale.
A shorthand scale with four items for each one of the four dimensions of brand
personality was retained, thus the revised scale has a total of 24 items.
Table 4.3.1.4 Squared Multiple Correlations for revised model
Squared Multiple Correlations for revised
model:
Estimate
BRAND PERSONALITY
.000
SOPHISTICATION
.825
EXCITEMENT
.933
COMPETENCE
.863
SINCERITY
.825
C29
.723
SOP34
.475
SOP32
.810
SOP31
.738
SOP30
.830
C27
.749
C25
.779
C23
.551
C22
.561
C21
.602
100 Squared Multiple Correlations for revised
model:
Estimate
E20
.551
E19
.496
E18
.540
E17
.589
E15
.569
E14
.690
E13
.700
E12
.641
SIN10
.480
SIN8
.702
SIN6
.584
SIN5
.411
SIN4
.609
SIN2
.571
Table 4.3.1.5 Model fit summary for refined model
Model
NPAR
CMIN
Default model
50
535.969
Table 4.3.1.6 RMR, GFI
Model
RMR
GFI
AGFI
PGFI
Default model
.085
.987
.985
.826
101 4.4
Study secondary hypothesis of the research
Here, we are going to analyze the effect of consumer’s demographic variables on
5 dimensions of brand personality. To reach this goal , we have used One-Way ANOVA
(Analysis of variance).
There are five groups of hypothesis in order to gain knowledge. First, hypothesis
related to relationship of Sincerity dimension and the consumer’s specifications.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s age.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s sex.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s career.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s degree.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s income.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s car model.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s experience having SAMAND or not.
Second, hypothesis related to relationship of excitement dimension and the
consumer’s specification.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s age.
102 There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s sex.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s career.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s degree.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s income.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s car model.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s experience having SAMAND or not.
Third, hypothesis related to relationship of competence dimension and the
consumer’s specification.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s age.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s sex.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s career.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s degree.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s income.
103 There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s car model.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s experience having SAMAND or not.
Fourth, hypothesis related to relationship of sophistication dimension and the
consumer’s specification.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s age.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s sex.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s career.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s degree.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s income.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s car model.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s experience having SAMAND or not.
Fifth, hypothesis related to relationship of ruggedness dimension and the
consumer’s specification.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s age.
104 There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s sex.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s career.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s degree.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s income.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s car model.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with
respondent’s experience having SAMAND or not.
4.4.1 Differences based on respondent’s age
1-
Design of null and alternative hypothesis
Sincerity
H0: no significant difference among means of Sincerity dimension and
respondent’s age.
H1: significant difference among means of Sincerity dimension and respondent’s
age.
Excitement
H0: no significant difference among means of Excitement dimension and
respondent’s age.
105 H1: significant difference among means of Excitement dimension and
respondent’s age.
Competence
H0: no significant difference among means of Competence dimension and
respondent’s age.
H1: significant difference among means of competence dimension and
respondent’s age.
Sophistication
H0: no significant difference among means of sophistication dimension and
respondent’s age.
H1: significant difference among means of sophistication dimension and
respondent’s age.
Ruggedness
H0: no significant difference among means of ruggedness dimension and
respondent’s age.
H1: significant difference among means of ruggedness dimension and
respondent’s age.
The figure shows the difference between the ideas of different groups of
respondents aged under 20, between 20 and 30, between 30 and 35, between 35 and 40,
between 40 and 45, between 45 and 50 and over 50.
106 Table 4.4.1.1 ANOVA test for age, sincerity dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares Df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
10.057
6
1.676
3.731
.001
104.227
232
.449
114.284
238
Table 4.4.1.2 ANOVA test for age, excitement dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares Df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
12.644
6
2.107
3.086
.006
158.404
232
.683
171.048
238
Table 4.4.1.3 ANOVA test for age, competence dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares Df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
5.394
6
.899
1.467
.190
142.153
232
.613
147.546
238
Table 4.4.1.4 ANOVA test for age, sophistication dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares Df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
2.328
6
.388
.958
.455
93.993
232
.405
96.322
238
Table 4.4.1.5 ANOVA test of age, ruggedness dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares Df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
13.497
6
2.250
3.116
.006
167.509
232
.722
181.006
238
107 Table shows the result of One-Way ANOVA. Significant levels are greater than
0.05 for ruggedness and competence and H1 for this two dimension has no difference in
age factor but the other 3 ones has shown that different group of ages has different ideas
about the dimension of sincerity, excitement and sophistication.
4.4.2 Differences based on respondent’s sex
Table 4.4.2.1 ANOVA test for sex, sincerity dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
2.697
1
2.697
5.429
.021
125.664
253
.497
128.361
254
Table 4.4.2.2 ANOVA test for sex, excitement dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
4.140
1
4.140
6.430
.012
162.897
253
.644
167.037
254
Table 4.4.2.3 ANOVA test for sex, competence dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
3.370
1
3.370
4.616
.033
184.684
253
.730
188.054
254
Table 4.4.2.4 ANOVA test for sex, sophistication dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
7.414
1
7.414
9.601
.002
195.356
253
.772
202.769
254
108 Table 4.4.2.5 ANOVA test for sex, ruggedness dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
1.324
1
1.324
2.929
.088
114.336
253
.452
115.660
254
Tables show the result of One-Way ANOVA. Significant levels are smaller than
0.05 for all 4 dimensions except ruggedness and H0 for these four dimension has
significant difference in sex. so male and female respondents had different ideas about 4
dimensions
4.4.3 Differences based on respondent’s career:
Table 4.4.3.1 ANOVA test for career, sincerity dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
8.615
7
1.231
2.637
.012
107.820
231
.467
116.434
238
Table 4.4.3.2 ANOVA test for career, excitement dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
15.306
7
2.187
3.300
.002
153.043
231
.663
168.349
238
Table 4.4.3.3 ANOVA test for career, competence dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
18.564
7
2.652
4.893
.000
125.196
231
.542
143.760
238
109 Table 4.4.3.4 ANOVA test for career, sophistication dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
19.355
7
2.765
4.147
.000
154.031
231
.667
173.386
238
Table 4.4.3.5 ANOVA test for career, ruggedness dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
10.282
7
1.469
3.920
.000
86.550
231
.375
96.832
238
Tables show the result of One-Way ANOVA. Significant levels are smaller
than 0.05 for all 5 dimensions and H0 is rejected for these five dimensions have
significant difference in career. So respondents with different jobs have different ideas
about the dimensions.
4.4.4 Differences based on respondent’s educational degree:
Table 4.4.4.1 ANOVA test for agree, sincerity dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
8.702
4
2.176
4.636
.001
111.678
238
.469
120.380
242
Table 4.4.4.2 ANOVA test for degree, excitement dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
14.351
4
3.588
5.837
.000
146.291
238
.615
160.642
242
110 Table 4.4.4.3 ANOVA test for degree, competence dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
16.447
4
4.112
6.329
.000
154.621
238
.650
171.068
242
Table 4.4.4.4 ANOVA test for degree, sophistication dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
10.055
4
2.514
3.246
.013
184.333
238
.775
194.387
242
Table 4.4.4.5 ANOVA test for degree, ruggedness dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
5.713
4
1.428
3.276
.012
103.769
238
.436
109.482
242
Tables show the result of One-Way ANOVA. Significant levels are smaller than
0.05 for all 5 dimensions and H0 is rejected for these five dimensions has significant
difference in degree.
4.4.5 Differences based on respondent’s income:
Table 4.4.5.1 ANOVA test for income, sincerity dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
2.996
4
.749
1.215
.307
86.304
140
.616
89.300
144
111 Table 4.4.5.2 ANOVA test for income, excitement dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
2.206
4
.552
.750
.560
102.981
140
.736
105.187
144
Table 4.4.5.3 ANOVA test for income, competence dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
4.033
4
1.008
1.323
.264
106.681
140
.762
110.714
144
Table 4.4.5.4 ANOVA test for income, sophistication dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
1.826
4
.457
.635
.639
100.727
140
.719
102.553
144
Table 4.4.5.5 ANOVA test for income, ruggedness dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
3.313
4
.828
1.624
.172
71.400
140
.510
74.713
144
Tables show the result of One-Way ANOVA. Significant levels are greater than
0.05 for all 5 dimensions and H1 is rejected. So for these five dimensions have not
significant differences in income.
112 4.4.6 Differences based on having experience of owning
SAMAND:
Table 4.4.6.1 ANOVA test for owners, sincerity dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
3.837
1
3.837
7.878
.005
127.593
262
.487
131.430
263
Table 4.4.6.2 ANOVA test for owners, excitement dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
1.641
1
1.641
2.437
.120
176.450
262
.673
178.091
263
Table 4.4.6.3 ANOVA test for owners, competence dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
4.629
1
4.629
6.478
.011
187.218
262
.715
191.846
263
Table 4.4.6.4 ANOVA test for owners, sophistication dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
3.176
1
3.176
4.063
.045
204.829
262
.782
208.005
263
113 Table 4.4.6.5 ANOVA test for owners, ruggedness dimension
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
.577
1
.577
1.202
.274
125.820
262
.480
126.398
263
Tables show the result of One-Way ANOVA. Significant levels for ruggedness
and competence are greater than 0.05. So there is no significant difference for these two
dimensions but for other 3 dimensions and H0 is rejected. So respondent’s who has or
had SAMAND have different idea about the 3dimensions (sincerity, excitement and
sophistication) comparing with those who never had this brand .
114 Chapter 5
5
Conclusions
5.1
Overall conclusion
This study empirically measured the SAMAND Brand Personality, using as a
framework the five-dimension scale developed by Aaker (1997) for measuring Brand
Personality.
This research was designed to answer following main questions:
Does SAMAND brand have human personality?
What are the underlying dimensions of its personality according to big five
model?
Is the Brand Personality Scale applicable in this case?
115 Results showed that the ruggedness dimension originally developed by Aaker
(1997) was not reliable or valid and the other four dimensions had to be refined by
confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling and the 24 items were
remained. So the 24 item brand personality scale seems to work better in automobile
industry among Iranian customers. The results are showing that Aaker’s model is not
totally applicable and the brand personality concept has a stronger cultural component as
a moderator but this assumption has to be tested by future research in other countries and
also industries.
The results also showed respondents believe SAMAND is sincere, competence
and also rugged but not sophisticated, And had no idea about the excitement dimension.
The table below shows the SAMAND attributes:
Table 4.4.6.1 personality attributes of SAMAND
Personality attributes of SAMAND (agreed by respondents)
Attributes agreed by customers Attributes not agreed by
(SAMAND’s
personality customers
attributes)
Down to earth
Cool
Family oriented
Unique
Small-town
Feminine
Honest
Smooth
Real
Wholesome
Original
Cheerful
Friendly
Daring
Independent
Contemporary
Reliable
Hard working
Secure
Intelligent
Technical
Corporate
Successful
Leader
Confident
Good looking
Masculine
Tough
Rugged
Not clear attributes
Sentimental
Imaginative
Young
Spirited
Outdoorsy
Exciting
Trendy
Upper class
Glamorous
116 5.2
Managerial implications
The findings of this research as the managerial prospective has cleared the
SAMAND’s personality attributes and the items which are not clear, in the sincerity
dimension all attributes are agreed to be SAMAND’s, except the sentimentalism so some
sustaining programs to keep the image in consumer’s mind is vital in the long term , like
more emphasis on being family oriented in advertising and promotion programs, and
being honest in what this kind of brand presenting and the company should make it clear.
In the excitement part the analysis has shown that company’s attitudes and behavior
towered this dimension is not clear, and being unclear shows IranKhodro should apply
strategies in all aspects to clear the image, for example strategies in design phase to show
the SAMAND being young or old and this affects the market segment at the first level,
IranKhodro cannot gain the whole market by SAMAND now, and should focus on the
chosen segment of customers. In the competence dimension, it shows SAMAND is quite
a competent brand which is reliable and secure and most of this perception goes to the
design of the brand. And Irankhodro managers do believe that being big in size has done
a great deal in this image. About the fourth personality dimension “sophistication” results
have shown that customers do not believe this brand is sophisticated which means it is
not feminine or upper class. For brands having this personality factor, it reveals luxurious
image and when it comes to SAMAND in classical model because of the price class it
seems reasonable but for later models like SOREN, it brings difficulty for the company.
SOREN is a kind of expensive car ( in comparison to Iran’s automobile market) and not
being luxuries and in the other side being expensive not because of the better quality
offering but just what company desires cannot guarantee a better sale. Although the
consumer’s of SOREN may believe in being luxurious (which requires a market research)
but the holistic image is what the whole brand conveys not a niche part of customer’s
believe.
Although the main goal of this research was not gaining insight into how
cultural meaning is represented in individuals’ perceptions of symbolic objects such as
commercial icons. But study findings share similar meaning in Japan, United States,
Chile, Russia and Spain (Sincerity, excitement and sophistication).
117 5.3
Future research
These studies provide a direction for future. In the context of brand personality
there is still lots of empty holes. Researches by applying Aaker’s have been taken just
through recent years. Future studies should try to replicate these findings with larger
samples, other product categories and include other personality traits of the big five that
could be related to hedonic or utilitarian values sought (e.g. conscientiousness) and
negative emotions (neuroticism) (Matzler, 2006).
It appears to be several areas in need of future research. First, there is a need
to assess the role of antecedents in developing, maintaining, or changing a brand’s
personality. Antecedents that should be investigated include, but are not limited to user
imagery, product endorsers, and existing brand associations. This research should afford
a better understanding of how brand personality is created and aid in the development of
strategies for building brand personalities. Second, there is a need to test the relationship
of brand personality to additional performance measures, at both the individual and
product level. Important measures to investigate include brand awareness and brand
loyalty (individual-level measures), and brand equity and market share (product-level
measures). Finally, potential moderators of the brand personality effect (e.g. familiarity,
involvement, product type, and nature of the good) need to be assessed, so managers are
aware of factors that limit or enhance the effectiveness of brand personality. This is an
important consideration because devoting resources to develop and maintain a strong,
positive brand personality may be wasteful if there are contextual factors that hinder or
prevent such a brand personality from leading to higher performance (Freling, 2005).
This is not to suggest that there has been no academic study of brand
personality but that research to date has focused on the diagnosis of personality rather
than on its impact – we know that brands have personalities but do not know whether
these personalities matter. Or indeed whether there are circumstances where brand
personality is significant and situations where it has no impact on overall brand
perceptions (Freling, 2005).
118 As noted by Aaker (1997), the best way to compile adjectives for measuring
brand personality has not yet been defined. It is also questionable whether the same
markers can be applied to all brands. In fact, the same adjectives locate under different
factors not only when comparing descriptions of human and brand personalities, but also
when comparing descriptions of different brands. Several markers, like “energetic”,
“conscientious”, “stable”, and “creative”, shifted from one factor to another depending on
the brands they were describing (Caprara, 2001).
Accordingly, it is extremely important to carefully scrutinize this empirical
process to identify more precisely how the brand personality framework was developed,
what the personality dimensions represent, and how these results may limit the
generalizability of the brand personality framework. The preceding discussion suggests it
is highly improbable that a framework can be developed that
will be universally generalizable to any context in which brand personality (or any
other brandrelated construct) is to be measured. More realistically, additional research
likely is necessary to produce multiple-brand personality frameworks that capture
meaningful dimensions and/or distinctions between brands when the analysis focuses on
narrower sets of brands than those examined by Aaker (1997). Certainly, Aaker’s work
would provide very valuable contributions to such efforts. In particular, her original list
of 305 non-redundant traits would be an appropriate starting point for such endeavors
(AUSTIN, 2003).
119 6
References
1. Aaker, D. Building Strong Brands. Brand week.
2. Aaker, D. (1996) Measuring Brand Equity across Products and Markets.
California Management Review.
3. Aaker, J., Fournier, S. (1995), “A Brand as a Character, A Partner and a Person:
Three Perspectives on the Question of Brand Personality”, Advances in Consumer
Research.
4. Aaker, J., Benet-Martinez, V., et al. (2001) Consumption Symbols as Carriers of
Culture: A Study of Japanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructs. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology.
5. Aaker, J. (1997) Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing
Research.
6. Aaker J. (1999) The Malleable Self: The Role Of Self Expression in Persuasion.
Journal of Marketing Research.
7. Aaker, J. (1997) Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing
Research.
8. Aaker, D. A. and E. Joachimsthaler (2000). "The Brand Relationship Spectrum:
THE KEY TO THE BRAND ARCHITECTURE CHALLENGE." CALIFORNIA
MANAGEMENT REVIEW 42.
9. Ang S.H, et al. (2006) THE INFLUENCE OF METAPHORS AND PRODUCT
TYPE ON BRAND PERSONALITY PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES
Journal of Advertising.
10. Atkin, D (2004), The Culting of Brands: When Customers Become True Believers
New York.
11. Austin R, J. A. S., ANNA S. MATTILA (2003) a re-examination of the
generalizability of the Aaker brand personality measurement framework. Journal
of Strategic Marketing.
12. Birdwell, Al E. (1968), "A Study of Influence if Image Congnience on
Consumer,Choice," Journal of Business
13. Bosnjak, M., V. Bochmann, et al. (2007). "Dimensions of Brand Personality
Attributions: A Person-Centric Aproach in the German Cultural Context."
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY 35: 303-316.
14. Caprara, G.V. and Barbaranelli, C. (2001) Brand personality: How to make the
metaphor fit? Journal of Economic Psychology.
15. Diamantopoulos, A., Smith, G., et al. (2004) The impact of brand extensions on
brand personality: experimental evidence. European Journal of Marketing.
16. De Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1997) Modelling the components of
the brand. European Journal of Marketing Matters.
17. De Chernatony, L and Dall’Olmo Riley, F (1998a) Defining A "Brand": Beyond
The Literature With Experts Interpretations journal of Marketing Management.
18. De Chernatony L , AND FIONA HARRIS (1998) Criteria ti assecc brand success.
Journal of Marketing Management
19. de, L. and Chematony (1999). "Brand Management Through Narrowing the Gap
Between Brand Identity and Brand Reputation." Joumal of Marketing
Managemen: 157-179.
120 20. Dolich, Ira J. (1969), "Congruence Relationship Between Self-Image and Product
Brands," Journal of Marketing Researc.
21. Ekini, Y. and Hosany, S. (2006) Destination Personality: An Application of Brand
Personality to Tourism Destinations. Journal of Travel Research.
22. Freling, T.H, Forbes, L.P. (2005) an empirical analysis of the brand personality
effect. Journal of Product & Brand Management.
23. Govers, J. (2005) Product personality and its influence on consumer preference.
Journal of Consumer Marketing.
24. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). "The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits."
American Psychologist.
25. Gupta, S., S. Grant, et al. (2008). "The expanding role of intangible assets of the
brand." Management Decision 46: 948-960.
26. Guthrie, M. and H.-S. K. a. J. Jung (2008). "The effects of facial image and
cosmetic usage on perceptions of brand personality." Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management Decision 12: 1361-2026.
27. Grubow, L. (2006) Salon Brands Bring Personality, Benefits to Mass. Marketing
Matters.
28. Joachimsthaler, D. and Aaker D., (2000). "Review of Brand Leadership." The
Free Press.
29. Keller, K. L. (1993) Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based
Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing.
30. Khalil L.ELYAS (2000) SYMBOLIC PRODUCTS: PRESTIGE, PRIDE AND
IDENTITY GOODS Theory and Decision
31. Kotker P. (2001) Marketing Management, 11 edition
32. Lau, K. (2007) Extending Symbolic Brands Using Their Personality: Examining
Antecedents and Implications Towards Brand Image Fit and Brand Dilution.
Psychology & Marketing.
33. Louro, P. (2001) Brand Management Paradigms. Journal of Marketing
Management.
34. Malhotra, N. K. (1981). “A Scale to Measure Self-concepts, Person Concepts, and
Product Concepts.” Journal of Marketing Research
35. Matzler K, Et Al. (2006) Individual determinants of brand affect: the role of the
personality traits of extraversion and openness to experience. Journal of Product
& Brand Management.
36. Maria João Louro1 and P. V. Cunha2 (2001,). "Brand Management Paradigms."
Journal of Marketing Management: 849-875.
37. Marsh, H. W., O. L. d. Ulrich Trautwein, et al. (2006). "Integration of
Multidimensional Self-Concept and Core Personality Constructs: Construct
Validation and Relations to Well-Being and Achievement." Journal of Personality
74.
38. McCrae, R. R. and O. P. John "An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its
Applications."
39. Michael Hussey and N. Duncombe (1999). "Projecting the right image: using
projective techniques to measure brand image." Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal 2: 22-30.
121 40. Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz, et al. (2007). "On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor
Theory of Anthropomorphism." Psychological Review 114: 864–886.
41. Okazaki, S. (2005) Excitement or sophistication? A preliminary exploration of
online brand personality. International Marketing Review.
42. Soanes And Stevenson (2005) Oxford Business English Dictionary P.66
43. Plummer, J. T. (1985). How personality makes a difference? Journal of
Advertising Research
44. Pappu, R., P. G. Quester, et al. (2005). "Consumer-based brand equity: improving
the measurement – empirical evidence." Journal of Product & Brand Management
14: 143–154.
45. Park, S.-e., D. Choi, et al. (2005). "Visualizing E-Brand Personality: Exploratory
Studies on Visual Attributes and E-Brand Personalities in Korea."
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 19:
7–34.
46. Patrick Y.K.C., (1997), "Reexamining A Model For Evaluating Information
Center Success Using A Structural Equation Modeling Approach", Decision
Sciences, 28, 2
47. POWER, D. and A. HAUGE (2008). "No Man’s Brand—Brands, Institutions, and
Fashion." Growth and Change 39: 123–143.
48. RAJAGOPAL (2006) Insights from research Brand excellence: measuring the
impact of advertising and brand personality on buying decisions. MEASURING
BUSINESS EXCELLENCE.
49. Roha, T. H., Ahnb, C. K., & Hanc, I. (2005). The Priority Factor Model For
Customer Relationship Management System Success. Expert Systems With
Applications , 28, 641-654.
50. Rojas-Méndez, J. I., I. Erenchun-Podlech, and E. Silva-Olave (2004). “The Ford
Brand Personality in Chile.” Corporate Reputation Review
51. Steenkamp, J-B.E.M, Baumgartner, H. (2002). On The Use of Structural Equation
Models for Marketing Modeling, International Journal of research In Marketing,
Vol 17 Pp.195-202.
52. Sirgy, M. J. (1982). “Self-concept in Consumer Behaviour: A Critical Review.”
Journal of Consumer Research
53. Supphlen, M., and K. Grønhaug (2003). “Building Foreign Brand Personalities in
Russia: The Moderating Effect of Consumer Ethnocentrism.” International
Journal of Advertising
54. Tinkham, Y. (2005) Brand Personality Structures in the United States and
Korea: Common and Culture-Specific Factors. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER
PSYCHOLOGY.
55. Thompson G, A. R., & ZEYNEP ARSEL (2006) Emotional Branding and the
Strategic Value of the Doppelgänger Brand Image. Journal of Marketing.
56. Ulrich D, N. S. (2007) BUILDING LEADERSHIP BRANDS. Harvard Business
Review.
57. Venable, B. T., G. M. Rose, D. Bush, and F. W. Gilbert (2005). “The Role of
Brand Personality in Charitable Giving: An Assessment and Validation.”Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science
122 58. Whitelock J, F. F. (2007) Understanding international branding: defining the
domain and reviewing the literature. International Marketing Review.
59. Wood, L. (2000) Brands and brand equity: definition and management.
Management Decision.
60. Watson, L. and M. T. Spence (2007). "Causes and consequences of emotions on
consumer behaviour A review and integrative cognitive appraisal theory."
European Journal of Marketing 41: 487-511.
61. Wood, L. (2000). "Brands and brand equity: definition and management."
Management Decision 38: 662±669.
62. Woodside, A. G., S. Sood, et al. (2008). "When Consumers and Brands Talk:
Storytelling Theory and Research in Psychology and Marketing." Psychology &
Marketing 25: 97–145.
63. Yin, R. K. (1994) “Case Study Research – Design and Methods”, (Second
Edition), Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
64. Zinkhan, G. D., D. Haytko, and A. Ward (1996). “Self-concept Theory.” Journal
of Marketing Communication
123