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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

competitively distinctive and desirable, and the personality sought is robust and kept consistent over time and over media (Batra et. al, 1993; Lannon, 1993). Although brand personality evolves over the brand’s life cycle, it must be stable and not subject to frequent or drastic changes that may lead to inconsistency and unpredictability from the consumer’s perspective (Temporal, 2001). A brand lacking a defined and stable personality weakens the customer experience (LePla & Parker, 1999) and will have difficulty in creating awareness and unique identity (Temporal, 2001), positioning (Back, 2005), and building strong brand- customer relationships (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000). Marketing literature is well populated with brand image research, however, empirical research on brand personality is generally lacking, more so in the realm of hospitality research. To fill this gap, the current study focuses on the measurement and application of brand personality in consumer behavior as opposed to brand image. Brand Personality Measurement Following the trait-based approach, Aaker’s (1997) model of brand personality is similar to The Big Five. Aaker (1997) empirically showed that brand personality has five dimensions, which in turn have characteristic facets that define them: sincerity (down-to- earth, honest, wholesome, and cheerful), excitement (daring, spirited, imaginative, and up-to- date), competence (reliable, intelligent, and successful), sophistication (upper class and charming), and ruggedness (outdoorsy and tough). The 15 facets are founded upon 42 personality traits that comprise the Brand Personality Scale (BPS). Because brand personality is a multidimensional construct, there is a multitude of ways that it can be designed so that it is “optimal” given a specific brand (Diamantopoulos et al, 2005). Thus it is reasonable to expect that brands will have different ratings on these dimensions depending on the brand’s marketing profile. Aaker (1997) suggested that sincerity, excitement, and competence are inherent in the brand and are most closely related to the Big Five dimensions of agreeableness, extroversion, and conscientiousness, respectively. Sophistication and ruggedness, however, are desired brand characteristics that do not have any direct counterparts within the Big Five dimensions. Caprara et al. (2001) likewise found that the Big Five framework could not directly be applied to brands and could be reduced to two primary factors: (1) agreeableness and 14
emotional stability (i.e. stability, predictability, pleasantness) and (2) extraversion and openness (i.e. dynamism, activity, innovation). These observations must be given consideration when applying the framework to studies investigating congruence between the brand and the consumer. Siguaw, Mattila, and Austin (1999) applied the BPS to three different restaurant brands each across three commercial foodservice segments (fast food, casual dining, and upscale dining) to investigate brand differentiation across the restaurant segments and the individual brands within the segments. Consumers saw little differentiation on brand personality dimensions among casual dining restaurants. Results implied the importance of brand management and positioning strategy because a differentiated brand is a means of achieving competitive advantage. Austin, Siguaw, & Mattila (2003) conducted a follow-up study to examine the generalizability of the BPS. Poor structural fit and mediocre reliability scores led the authors to conclude that the framework does not necessarily allow generalization to individual brands within one product category and indicated that caution should be taken with the application of the scale. A possible explanation for the unsatisfactory results may lay in the lack of clarity of the attributes chosen. Respondents may have interpreted the attributes differently from the context intended by Aaker (1997). Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) examined the measurement scale and expressed concerns that items on the BPS measure dimensions of product performance and cognitive capacities rather than brand personality. Other concerns with the use of the BPS include the lack of branding descriptors like “economical”, “famous”, or “convenient” (Caprara et al., 2001) and the lack of negative brand attributes like “arrogant”, “coy”, or “dominating” (Mark & Pearson, 2001; Sweeney & Brandon, 2006) which may be needed to fully capture the essence of the brand’s personality. Going beyond the factor analytical trait approach popularized by Aaker (1997), Sweeney and Brandon (2006) expanded the definition of brand personality by saying that it is the “set of human personality traits that correspond to the interpersonal domain of human personality and are relevant to describing the brand as a relationship partner.” With this concept, the authors have proposed an alternative for measuring the construct, which will facilitate a better understanding of brand personality, particularly in relation to consumer behavior. The model uses the interpersonal circumplex model (IPC), which shows bi-polar 15
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 and 26: linked to the brand that consumers
Page 27: standing (Temporal, 2001), and cons
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?