Aakers Brand Personality Framework - Essay Example

? BRAND PERSONALITY Introduction According to Aaker and Fournier (1995), brand personality is 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 concept of brand personality eludes clear definition. Anandan (2009) provides what is probably the most practicable description: ‘Simply put, brand personality answers the question “What happens when the brand turns into a human being?” or “What happens when the brand comes alive?” (p. 139). Brand personality is also defined as “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand” (Asperin, 2007, p. 49). The concern of marketing practitioners as far as brand marketing is concerned is therefore how to personify a brand. Kumar (2009) links brand personality to self-concept, and it is self-expression, rather than emotion, that more significantly develops brand personality (p. 177-178). Brand personality is achieved by associating human characteristics that consumers commonly attribute to a brand. The characteristic may be in terms of demographic attributes (age, gender, status), lifestyle (activities, social class), culture (values, beliefs), and other personality traits. The brand may be associated with celebrities or historical figures, and several devices may be used such as animism, anthropomorphism, personification, and user imagery (Purkayastha, 2009). A well established brand personality must possess the following attributes: (1) elements of the brand’s marketing mix are deliberately coordinated; (2) personality sought is competitively distinctive and desirable; and (3) the personality sought is robust and kept consistent over time and over media (Aaker & Biel, 1993, p. 49). Brand personality influences the choice of consumers by enabling them to express who they are by the brands they use (Asperin, 2007, p. 49). Brand personality can help marketers in: (1) the conception and creation of a brand; (2) evaluating its perception in the minds of the customer and compare it with what was expected; and (3) incorporating necessary changes to make the brand more attractive in order to meet the goals of creating lasting consumer satisfaction and loyalty (Purkayastha, 2009). In recent years, brand personality has become a topic of interest not only among academic researchers but more especially among marketing managers and strategists. This is evident in a scan of professional and academic journals on marketing research and applications. The principal theoretical framework employed in academic literature is the multidimensional framework, first devised by Aaker, and later developed by other researchers to account for market-specific factors and universal, cross-cultural studies. Aaker’s Brand Personality Framework In applying brand personality constructs, the theoretical paradigm most commonly used is the multi-dimensional framework devised by Aaker, which is considered the prevailing standard. The Aaker framework is accepted as a comprehensive framework that may be generalised over a broad number of product categories (Malik & Naeem, 2012). The Aaker framework underlies the Brand Personality Scale, or BPS, developed by the same author. Based on an extensive study of American consumers, Aaker derived a framework comprised of five core dimensions and their facets, as follows (Guse, 2011): (1) Sincerity (Domestic, honest, genuine, cheerful); (2) Excitement (Daring, spirited, imaginative, up-to-date); (3) Competence (Reliable, responsible, dependable, efficient); (4) Sophistication (Glamorous, pretentious, charming, romantic); and (5) Ruggedness (Tough, strong, outdoorsy, rugged). The study of Malik and Naeem (2012), however, called attention to the perception that Aaker’s framework provides only a crude estimation of brand personality because it transposes human personality traits instead of using the brands themselves. The study also expresses concern that the original 5-dimensional structure may be specific to American culture, because it had received scant validation across different cultural settings, at least outside the US cultural setting. Aaker’s framework is the first multidimensional framework of brand personality formulated, but it is not the only one. Others have emerged which are guided by the same principles, but which have specified other dimensions which are more closely aligned with other cultures, and some dimensions have been identified which are universally applicable – that is, they are non-culture specific, and tend to reflect the same consumer responses across cultures than the culture-specific factors in Aaker’s framework, and those devised for country-contained studies. Factor analysis and other similar methods are used by researchers to identify new dimensions or constructs which are included in the framework specification. How marketers make use of brand personality Purkayastha (2009) set out to empirically measure the brand loyalty in the context of the Indian market. The brand personality of four brands were measured, namely Motorola, Raymonds, Samsung, and 7 Up. Respondents in Hyderabad were asked 15 questions that measured different dimensions of brand personality, and responses were recorded through a Likert scale. Using factor analysis, the findings suggested that each brand had a different personality: 7 Up stood for Sincerity, Samsung for Innovativeness, Motorola for Feisty, and Raymonds for Excitement. Because of their differences, they should be treated differently and cannot be generalised (Purkayastha, 2009). The implication in marketing applications is that while the study is particular to India, it most probably will reflect differently in another culture, therefore brand advertisements intended for one culture should not automatically be adopted in another culture without careful scrutiny. World-wide advertising and promotions campaigns are better segmented according to market culture rather than launched as a single global theme. Another study was conducted on brand personality dimensions in China. Six brand personality dimensions were made the topic of a study among consumers in China. Three of the six dimensions, namely competence, excitement, and sophistication, are consistent with the same responses in the USA, while the other three dimensions – traditionalism, joyfulness, and trendiness – have shown uniquely culture-specific meanings. The findings suggested that the Chinese brand personality structure exhibits the influence of both western modernism and Chinese traditionalism (Shu-Chuan & Yongjun, 2011). Similar to the findings in Purkayastha, it is evident that the brand personality dimensional structure in China and that in the USA differ from each other, although Shu-Chuan & Yongjun makes it evident that there is sufficient common ground for a unified brand personality theme to be built upon. The common ground lies in that area where Chinese and US consumer responses overlap (Chu & Sung, 2011) – that is, in the dimensions of competence, excitement and sophistication. A brand personality study was also conducted in Chile, using the emic-etic approach. Emics pertain to culture-specific concepts that operate only in one culture, while etics refer to those concepts that do not attach to any culture (non-culture specific) and that therefore operate in different societies. Etic research is more widely used, it usually addresses phenomena from outside the system, and may involve more than one culture, and uses criteria external to the system in evaluating phenomena. Olvarrieta, Friedmann, and Manzur (2010), while deciding to conduct an etic study, decided to combine it with an emic component in order to capture culture-driven factors in brand personality development. The study sought to evaluate brand personality within the context of the Chilean culture. The result of the study is presented in the following table, juxtaposing the 2010 Olvarrieta, et al. Chilean results with those of the 1997 Aaker US study. Most representative brands for each brand personality dimension (Chilean vs US Aaker study) Source: Olvarrieta, et al., 2010, p. 44 The value of this method is readily evident for marketing managers. Qualitatively describing the brand personalities, as perceived by the particular market in combination with the universal attribution of the brand name, helps a manager to address the perception of the local market while maintaining an aspect of the international market to which the brand name relates. The marketing manager can therefore more effectively position the product to appeal more to consumers in the target market. Studies on cross-cultural brand personality constructs provide insight into the country-specificity of brand personalities. Sung & Tinkham (2005) rated a set of global brands on the same personality traits, for consumers in the United States and Korean markets. Two culture-specific factors emerged for Korea, namely Passive Likeableness and Ascendancy, which affirms hypothesis that the importance of Confucian values imbues cultural meaning in Korea’s social and economic systems. For the US the cultural meaning is not as evident, although 2 cultural-specific factors – White Collars and Androgyny – emerged for the U.S. sample, which suggests a trend towards changing cultural values linked to gender roles and occupational status. The study brought to focus the fact that commercial brands are symbols that are vested with cultural significance, therefore brand personality constructs tend to diverge between cultures despite the advancement of cultural modernity and economic progress. Beside cultural constructs, there are other factors which influence the formulation of brand personality, as follows: Emotional attitudes. Brand personality also attaches to services. In the case of two mobile telephone operators in Tunisia, a survey of 272 students found that brand personality is influenced principally by emotional attitudes within consumers. The empirical investigation sheds much light for managers concerning the main brand personality traits, namely agreeableness, conscientiousness, sophistication, and youth (Klabi & Debabi, 2011). The study endorses the emotion-oriented approach as a key branding management strategy, since the attachment to the brand relates well to the emotional brand attraction measurement scale. It should be noted, however, that the culture-specific nature of the dimensional constructs used make the results valid for Tunisia, and further investigation should be conducted before the same results can be fielded for other cultures. Favourability, originality and clarity. Freling, Crosno & Henard (2010) sought to conceptualise, develop, and validate measures for assessing how customers perceive brand personality appeal, or BPA. Three dimensions of BPA were empirically proven to directly and positively impact on consumer purchase intentions. These dimensions re are favourability, originality, and clarity. In this context, favourability refers to the extent that consumers tend to positively consider the brand’s personality. Originality is the degree to which the brand’s personality is viewed by the consumers as novel and distinct from other competing brands. Finally, clarity is the level to which a brand’s personality is considered obvious and recognizable to consumers. The orientation of all three dimensions are founded upon the cultural context of the market, although the dimensions themselves are universal among a variety of cultures. Brand name phonetics and gender brand personalities. One of the strategies which marketers have explored is the creation of gender brand personalities with brand names. Lan, Klink & Jiansheng (2011) conducted two interesting experiments on gender brand personalities. One of the experiments tests whether phonetic symbolism, or using brand names the sound of which is gender related, can create gender brand personality and influence the buying decision of consumers. The second experiment tested whether the sound of a brand name is congruent with the brand’s gender target (i.e., compared to whether it was incongruent), to influence customers to respond favourably to the brand. Both experiments proved that phonetic effects in brand names – that is, apart from their semantic definitions – can impact on how consumers perceived the brand name, choice of an appropriate brand name, and attitudinal response related to brand names (Lan, et al., 2011). Bodily experiences in brand personality interpretation. Moller and Herm (2011) conducted a study in, applied in the German market, concerning the interpretation of brand personalities by consumers and how these shape the expectations of consumers, thereby influencing their purchase decision. While the preceding study by Lan, et al. (2011) investigated the phonetic characteristic of brand names as shaping brand personality, this study by Moller and Herm (2011) focus upon the domain of embodiment (i.e., body experience) in the formulation fo the brand personality. The study’s findings suggested that bodily experiences, or the memory of it, transferred into the brand personality trait, play a significant role in the processing of brand personality traits. Associations can be linked bodily experiences, which influence personal interpretations of the brand personality and brand preference impact upon the decision of consumers to purchase the product or service. A good example of this is the shampoo and condition brand, Gee,Your Hair Smells Terrific, which pertains to the body’s sense of smell, while most airlines construct their brand personality around comfort and convenience, all of which are bodily experiences. Some use a negative tact, building their brand personalities as the opposite of what people normally experience as a disagreeable form of body experience. Sports brand personalities. Brand personality in membership-based sport organisations was also examined, using Aaker’s modified 6-brand personality framework. In the application by Smith, Graetz & Westerbeck (2006), findings suggested that the use of Aaker’s framework did not sufficiently capture the changes in responses among respondents in Australia. The researchers therefore fine-tuned the framework by adding a seventh dimension, Innovation, which resulted in a model that better explained the changes in responses than did the original Aaker framework. In this case, the sport was netball and the membership-based organisation was Netball Victoria. As a brand name, Netball Victoria was strongly associated with the dimensions Competence, Innovation, and Sincerity, moderately associated with Sophistication and Excitement, and with a low association to Ruggedness. The results show a high level of robustness among the various respondents, enabling the organisation’s brand personality as derived to be used as a diagnostic tool to determine rebranding, positioning, and undertaking other marketing strategies (Smith, Graetz & Westerbeek, 2006). In sporting associations, for instance, the World Wrestling Federation, the brand personality of which is easily masculine, rugged, and adversarial. Brand personality in sports necessitates its own dimensional traits used for analysis (Braunstein & Ross, 2010). Conclusion Brand personality is described as the association of personality traits with brands, in order to convey to consumers a particular sentiment or perception about the brand, and in the course of doing so influence their buying decision. The attribute is not an actual physical trait of the product, but the personification of the brand that creates a sentiment, belief, or perception in the collective consumer psyche which identified with such a personification. For instance, the brand Rexona chose the slogan, ‘Won’t let you down,’ which conveys the reliability of a friend who can be counted upon during adversity. For a marketing manager or strategist to associate the most effective traits to the brand, he/she must conduct a multidimensional analysis of the brand among consumers. The determination must be done within a cultural context, because people of different cultures perceive certain traits as desirable or preferable, and some as undesirable. For instance, in the African culture competitiveness is discouraged while collectiveness is encouraged, the opposite of most Western brands which may be introduced into the market. Aside from culture, other factors to be considered in effectively choosing brand personality traits are the consumers’ emotional attitudes, the triple dimensions of favourability, originality and clarity, phonetics, bodily experiences, and demographic criteria such as age, gender, and status. It also serves to personify particular the brand’s underlying business, such as its nature as a sports organisation, etc. The multidimensional brand personality framework developed by Aaker is a most helpful guide, but which may further be refined to suit specific conditions and situations. The literature scan briefly conducted here shows that brand personality is a powerful market strategy which marketing managers should explore to succeed. It is a subtle means of conveying a specific brand image to consumers that would influence the consumers’ attitude and receptiveness of the brand, and therefore serves to enhance the brand’s potential drawing power. References Aaker, D A & Biel, A L (1993) Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Aaker, J L (1997). "Dimensions of brand personality". Journal of Marketing Research 34 (3): 347 Aaker, J & Fournier, S (1995) "A Brand As a Character, a Partner and a Person: Three Perspectives on the Question of Brand Personality", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 22, eds. Frank R. Kardes and Mita Sujan, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 391-395. Anandan, C (2009) Product Management, 2nd edition. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education Private Ltd. Asperin, A E (2007) Exploring Brand Personality Congruence: Measurement and Application in the Casual Dining Restaurant Industry. Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University. Braunstein, l. R., & Ross, S. D. (2010). Brand Personality in Sport: Dimension Analysis and General Scale Development. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19(1), 8-16. Chu, S., & Sung, Y. (2011). Brand personality dimensions in China. Journal Of Marketing Communications, 17(3), 163-181. doi:10.1080/13527260903387931 Freling, T. H., Crosno, J. L., & Henard, D. H. (2011). Brand personality appeal: conceptualization and empirical validation. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 39(3), 392-406. doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0208-3 Guse, K S (2011) Brand Personalities and Consumer-brand Relationships as Elements of Successful Brand Management. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press Klabi, F., & Debabi, M. (2011). Brand Personality and Emotional Attitudes: The Case of Mobile Telephone Operators. Journal Of Global Marketing, 24(3), 245-262. doi:10.1080/08911762.2011.592460 Kumar, S R 2009 Consumer Behaviour and Branding: Concepts, Readings and Cases. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley Pvt. Ltd. Lan, W., Klink, R. R., & Jiansheng, G. (2011). Brand Personality: Creating Gender Brand Personality With Brand Names. AMA Summer Educators' Conference Proceedings, 22414-415. Malik, ME & Naeem, B 2012 ‘Aaker’s Brand Personality Framework: A Critical Commentary.’ Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research. 2(12) 11992-11996 Moller, J., & Herm, S. (2011). Brand Personality: What Makes A Brand Exciting? The Role Of Bodily Experiences In Brand Personality Interpretation. AMA Summer Educators' Conference Proceedings, 22416-417. Olavarrieta, S., Friedmann, R., & Manzur, E. (2010). Brand Personality in Chile: a combined emic-etic approach. Estudios De Administracion, 17(1), 25-50. Purkayastha, S. (2009). Brand Personality: An Empirical Study of Four Brands in India. ICFAI Journal Of Management Research, 8(4), 7-20. Smith, A. T., Graetz, B. R., & Westerbeek, H. M. (2006). Brand personality in a membership-based organisation. International Journal Of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(3), 251-266. doi:10.1002/nvsm.51 Sung, Y., & Tinkham, S. F. (2005). Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea: Common and Culture-Specific Factors. Journal Of Consumer Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 15(4), 334-350. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1504_8 Bibliography Aaker, D A & Biel, A L (1993) Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Aaker, J L (1997). "Dimensions of brand personality". Journal of Marketing Research 34 (3): 347 Aaker, J & Fournier, S (1995) "A Brand As a Character, a Partner and a Person: Three Perspectives on the Question of Brand Personality", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 22, eds. Frank R. Kardes and Mita Sujan, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 391-395. Anandan, C (2009) Product Management, 2nd edition. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education Private Ltd. Asperin, A E (2007) Exploring Brand Personality Congruence: Measurement and Application in the Casual Dining Restaurant Industry. Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University. Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality?. Journal Of Brand Management, 11(2), 143-155. Branaghan, R. J., & Hildebrand, E. A. (2011). Brand personality, self-congruity, and preference: A knowledge structures approach. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(5), 304-312. doi:10.1002/cb.365 Braunstein, l. R., & Ross, S. D. (2010). Brand Personality in Sport: Dimension Analysis and General Scale Development. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19(1), 8-16. Chu, S., & Sung, Y. (2011). Brand personality dimensions in China. Journal Of Marketing Communications, 17(3), 163-181. doi:10.1080/13527260903387931 Eisend, M., & Langer, A. (2007). The Impact Of Brand Personality Dimensions On Brand Performance. AMA Winter Educators' Conference Proceedings, 18168-169. Freling, T. H., Crosno, J. L., & Henard, D. H. (2011). Brand personality appeal: conceptualization and empirical validation. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 39(3), 392-406. doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0208-3 Fry, J. N. (1971). Personality Variables and Cigarette Brand Choice. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 8(3), 298-304. Guse, K S (2011) Brand Personalities and Consumer-brand Relationships as Elements of Successful Brand Management. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press Klabi, F., & Debabi, M. (2011). Brand Personality and Emotional Attitudes: The Case of Mobile Telephone Operators. Journal Of Global Marketing, 24(3), 245-262. doi:10.1080/08911762.2011.592460 Krohmer, H., Malar, L., & Nyffenegger, B. (2007). The Fit Between Brand Personality And Consumer's Self: The Importance Of Self-Congruence For Brand Performance. AMA Winter Educators' Conference Proceedings, 18172-173. Kumar, S R 2009 Consumer Behaviour and Branding: Concepts, Readings and Cases. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley Pvt. Ltd. Lan, W., Klink, R. R., & Jiansheng, G. (2011). Brand Personality: Creating Gender Brand Personality With Brand Names. AMA Summer Educators' Conference Proceedings, 22414-415. Malik, ME & Naeem, B 2012 ‘Aaker’s Brand Personality Framework: A Critical Commentary.’ Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research. 2(12) 11992-11996 Matzler, K., Pichler, E., Fuller, J., & Mooradian, T. A. (2011). Personality, person-brand fit, and brand community: An investigation of individuals, brands, and brand communities. Journal Of Marketing Management, 27(9/10), 874-890. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2010.543634 Moller, J., & Herm, S. (2011). Brand Personality: What Makes A Brand Exciting? The Role Of Bodily Experiences In Brand Personality Interpretation. AMA Summer Educators' Conference Proceedings, 22416-417. Olavarrieta, S., Friedmann, R., & Manzur, E. (2010). Brand Personality in Chile: a combined emic-etic approach. Estudios De Administracion, 17(1), 25-50. Purkayastha, S. (2009). Brand Personality: An Empirical Study of Four Brands in India. ICFAI Journal Of Management Research, 8(4), 7-20. Smith, A. T., Graetz, B. R., & Westerbeek, H. M. (2006). Brand personality in a membership-based organisation. International Journal Of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(3), 251-266. doi:10.1002/nvsm.51 Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect. Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 639-661. Sung, Y., & Tinkham, S. F. (2005). Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea: Common and Culture-Specific Factors. Journal Of Consumer Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 15(4), 334-350. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1504_8 Sweeney, J. C., & Brandon, C. (2006). Brand personality: Exploring the potential to move from factor analytical to circumplex models. Psychology & Marketing, 23(8), 639-663. Valette-Florence, R., de Barnier, V., & Valette-Florence, P. (2011). Personality: Can "Micro" And "Macro" Approaches Of Brand Personality Coexist? An Illustration For Print Media Brands In A French Setting. AMA Summer Educators' Conference Proceedings, 22418-419. Read More