exploring brand personality congruence - K-REx - Kansas State ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

esearch foci have aimed to examine factors that will enable researchers to predict, modify, and control human behavior, relying greatly on knowledge from psychology, sociology, and psychiatry (Sweeney & Brandon, 2006). By far the most popular model of human personality is the trait-based theory of The Big Five, popularized by Allport and Odbert (1936), Cattell (1946), Norman (1967), and Goldberg (1990), among others. McShane and Von Glinow (2005, p.59) gave the following outline of The Big Five’s dimensions (characteristics): conscientiousness (careful, dependable, self-disciplined), agreeableness (courteous, good-natured, empathic, caring), neuroticism (anxious, hostile, depressed), openness to experience (sensitive, flexible, creative, curious), and extroversion (outgoing, talkative, sociable, assertive). Although some debate exists on the dimensionality, appropriateness, and clinical applicability of the Big Five, Sweeney and Brandon (2006) still assert that it provides a useful and reliable means of measuring and characterizing individual differences. Although related, personality should not be confused with self-concept because the latter can vary between the private and public selves (how the consumer sees one’s self and how others see the consumer) and may constantly change as the individual matures, while personality is more enduring and stable (Kotler, 2003) and is largely formed before the age of seven (Temporal, 2001). The current study will focus on personality as it relates to branding and consumer behavior. Brand Image and Brand Personality Just as self-image and personality are discrete, brand image and brand personality are also distinct constructs, even if they are both components of customer-based brand equity (Keller, 1998). As previously mentioned, brand image is “the set of associations linked to the brand that consumers hold in memory” (Keller, 1993, p.2). These are based on subjective and perceptual reasons and emotions (Helgeson & Supphellen, 2004) and can be short term and tactical (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000). On the other hand, brand personality involves “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand” as well as the characteristics associated with the company’s employees, managers, and endorsers (Aaker, 1997, p. 347). These associations are more memorable (Aaker, 2000), meaningful (O’Shaughnessy & O’Shaughnessy, 2004), emotionally powerful (Temporal, 2001; Upshaw, 1995), long 12
standing (Temporal, 2001), and consistent (LePla & Parker, 1999; Temporal, 2001) in comparison to brand image associations. In addition, brand personality echoes how people feel about a brand (Keller, 1998) and defines for the consumer the emotions that can be experienced upon its consumption (Batra, Lehmann, & Singh, 1993), whereas brand image reflects what the consumer perceives the brand is (Temporal, 2001) and what he/she expects the brand to do (American Marketing Association, 2006; Keller, 1998). Temporal (2001, p.33) states that, “brand image should reflect and express the brand personality.” Aaker and Fournier (1995) seem to support the trait-based approach as they defined personality as the “set of meanings constructed by an observer to describe the ‘inner’ characteristics of another person…that can be used to summarize complex behaviors and form expectations of future behaviors” (p. 392). The authors then equated brand personality as the ‘inner’ characteristics of a brand that are created by consumers using behavior exhibited by personified brands or brand characters. That is, brand personality is a consumer’s evaluation of a brand on a pattern of traits that are typically used to describe a person’s personality (Batra, et al., 1993). This is the nature of the brand as intended by its sellers (American Marketing Association, 2006). In maturing markets where competition is intense (i.e. casual dining restaurants with the same theme / menu concepts), consumers may view brands as the same, with little excitement to offer, minimal differentiation, and a general lack of vigor. Price may begin to be the most important competitive edge. This then leads to having less reason to be committed to a brand, meaning a weaker foundation for loyalty (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000; Aaker, 2004). This supports the assertion that brand differentiation is an important key in attaining a competitive advantage (Aaker, 2004). When not much product differentiation is present, the symbolic meaning and the experience becomes more crucial than what the brand can do functionally (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000; O’Shaughnessy & O’Shaughnessy, 2004; Temporal, 2001). For example, new menu items, products extensions (i.e. signature sauces sold in supermarkets), services, or loyalty programs can be copied, but a distinct brand personality is an intangible differentiator that is specifically created, owned, and difficult to replicate (Aaker, 2004; Temporal, 2001). A well established brand personality must have the following characteristics: elements of the brand’s marketing mix are deliberately coordinated, personality sought is 13
Page 1 and 2: EXPLORING BRAND PERSONALITY CONGRUE
Page 3 and 4: elationship between BPC and satisfa
Page 5 and 6: Copyright AMELIA ESTEPA ASPERIN 200
Page 7 and 8: elationship between BPC and satisfa
Page 9 and 10: Survey Instrument..................
Page 11 and 12: References.........................
Page 13 and 14: List of Tables Table 3.1 Mailing li
Page 15 and 16: CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION As the num
Page 17 and 18: on relational variables such as sat
Page 19 and 20: models, there was a need to reasses
Page 21 and 22: References Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dim
Page 23 and 24: Upshaw, L.B. (1995). Building brand
Page 25: linked to the brand that consumers
Page 29 and 30: emotional stability (i.e. stability
Page 31 and 32: eferent restaurant chain is Applebe
Page 33 and 34: Research has shown that consumers t
Page 35 and 36: once trust is built, this reliance
Page 37 and 38: satisfaction with the current dinin
Page 39 and 40: Figure 2.1 Conceptual framework of
Page 41 and 42: Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J. (2003).
Page 43 and 44: Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., &
Page 45 and 46: Onkvisit, S. & Shaw, J. (1987). Sel
Page 47 and 48: CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY The overall
Page 49 and 50: espondents to evaluate the focal re
Page 51 and 52: Figure 3.2 Modified Tailored Design
Page 53 and 54: otation (SPSS, v.13) was then perfo
Page 55 and 56: Direct Personality Comparison. A si
Page 57 and 58: y-invitation only panel as the samp
Page 59 and 60: Figure 3.5 Phase II data analysis f
Page 61 and 62: Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic con
Page 63 and 64: Introduction As global competitiven
Page 65 and 66: depressed), openness to experience
Page 67 and 68: purchased in the marketplace.” Li
Page 69 and 70: Based on the pilot test, a response
Page 71 and 72: Indicators (Aaker, 1997) Brand Pers
Page 73 and 74: unique .68 young .66 original .64 i
Page 75 and 76: Table 4.4 Standardized Factor Loadi
Page 77 and 78:
Table 4.5 Factor Loadings, Eigenval
Page 79 and 80:
personality dimensions among casual
Page 81 and 82:
References Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dim
Page 83 and 84:
Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic bra
Page 85 and 86:
CHAPTER 5 - EXPLORING BRAND PERSONA
Page 87 and 88:
BPC, defined as the gap between the
Page 89 and 90:
marketing practitioners should expl
Page 91 and 92:
was modified where congruence was o
Page 93 and 94:
match their own (Kassarjian, 1971;
Page 95 and 96:
Survey Instrument Because the sampl
Page 97 and 98:
Baltimore, Denver, Pittsburg, Portl
Page 99 and 100:
Table 5.1 Demographic Characteristi
Page 101 and 102:
Table 5.2 Means, Standard Deviation
Page 103 and 104:
ehavior rather than only the direct
Page 105 and 106:
Theoretical Model Testing Using a s
Page 107 and 108:
Table 5.5 Standardized correlations
Page 109 and 110:
Mediating Effect of Trust and Satis
Page 111 and 112:
Figure 5.4 Structural model testing
Page 113 and 114:
ecause satisfaction has no signific
Page 115 and 116:
ehavior. Additionally, image, conce
Page 117 and 118:
directly and indirectly through tru
Page 119 and 120:
Back, K. J. (2005). The effects of
Page 121 and 122:
Graeff, T.R. (1996). Consumption si
Page 123 and 124:
O’Shaughnessy, J., & O’Shaughne
Page 125 and 126:
CHAPTER 6 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Page 127 and 128:
loaded on the customer personality
Page 129 and 130:
XYZ as a person, please indicate a
Page 131 and 132:
help managers determine what is imp
Page 133 and 134:
The BPC framework presented in the
Page 135 and 136:
References Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dim
Page 137 and 138:
Dear Faculty/Staff member: Appendix
Page 139 and 140:
125
Page 141 and 142:
127
Page 143 and 144:
129
Page 145 and 146:
131
Page 147 and 148:
Document version for non-HTML email
Page 149 and 150:
135
Page 151 and 152:
137
Page 153 and 154:
139
Page 155 and 156:
141
show all

exploring brand personality congruence - K-REx - Kansas State ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?