Brand Personality in Context of Charity Brands - Research Paper Example

Brand personality in context of charity brands Introduction The term brand personality was coined as early as in 1950’s, followed by various attempts to explore it. But most of these attempts used the big 5 model of human personality. Aaker (1997) argued that brand personality need to be understood as a separate concept from human personality. Venable et al argued the brand personality model developed by Aaker (1997) is not suitable to explore charity brands thus he offered another model to understand charity brand personality (295-312). Literature Review Madrigal and Boush argued that marketers attempt at associating specific trait inferences with their brand by communicating them through their product design, advertising, spokespeople people sponsorships etc, the sum total of these traits is called as brand personality. The brand positioning also plays an important role in building a specific brand personality (538-540). Marketers attempt to differentiate themselves form their competitors and build preference for their brands. They do so not only on the basis of how functional attributes, but also on the basis of brand personality perceptions (Aaker 1997; Keller 1993). The underlying assumption is, apart from the considering the functionality, customers prefer brands those have personality aspects, congruent with their actual or desired self image (Belk139; Dolich 8). Brand personality can be defined “the set human of characteristics associated with a brand" Jennifer Aaker (347). Thus it is important that an organization focuses on brand personality in order to differentiate itself, as functionality can no more be considered a great source of differentiation. (Plummer, 1985) suggested that brand personality provides a point of differentiation. (Fournier, 343–373) argued that brand personality results in better customer relationship building. (Lau and Phau, 421-444) considered that brand personality may serve as a basis for brand extension. Aaker (347) argued that although, a great deal of research on personality dimensions had been conducted in personality psychology, however its application in brand personality context was lacking in the literature of consumer psychology. Aaaker(347-357), then attempted to develop specific scale to be used in consumer psychology to measure brand personality. The scale developed by Aaker (1997) consisted of 42 traits along five dimensions like: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. Small and Verrochi argued that very less research has focused on consumer spending for others’ welfare i.e. charity donation (777). In a review of the literature, Bendapudi, Singh, and Bendapudi argued that fewer than 30 articles on charitable giving had been written in marketing literature over a 20-year period (33-49). However, Brand personality in charity sector was given its due consideration by (Venable et al 295-312). (Venable et al 295-312) developed a specific scale meant for measuring brand personality in context of charity organization. Venable et al argued that the brand personality scale developed by Aaker 1997 is not very suitable for nonprofit organization, as supporting a charity organization is determined more by Social considerations rather than economic ones. Beyond tax benefit, donations to a charity can’t provide any economic benefit Thus Brand personality of a charity should project it’s the social orientation to be both distinctive and relevant(295-312). (Venable et al 295-312) argued that Aaker’s(1997), five dimensional brand personality model must be replaced by the four dimensional brand personality model specifically designed for Nonprofit. However, the model developed by venable et al shared two dimensions with (Aakers model 347-356) i.e. “sophistication” and “ruggedness”, but added “nurturance” and “integrity”, as two new dimensions (304). However,( Madrigal and Boush 539) suggested a new dimension of human personality identified in the Big Five theory but which is not included by Aaker i.e. Responsibility or conscientiousness. This trait best corresponds to (Aaker’s347-356) dimension of brand competence. But Madrigal and Boush contends that brand competence does not adequately represent brand responsibility, particularly social responsibility. The focus of their research was on social responsibility as a brand personality dimension, conceptualized in terms of a brand’s obligation to the society at large (539). For-profit organizations are now in direct competition in the social service arena and thus are posing great competitive threat to Nonprofit organizations (William P Ryan, 128). To deal with the increasing competition to retain existing donor base and acquire new donors, charity are competing with for profit organization. Increasing pressure is being placed on charities to finance their functions through private donations as there has been substantial downfall in government funding (Bendapudi, Singh and Bendapudi, 33-49). The number of charity organizations is increasing at a fast pace, however charity donation has not grown in line with the increased number of nonprofit organizations (Sargeant, 15:215-238), which is increasing competition within non for profit sector. And finally (Blum, 14 (11):7-10; Morley et al, 5-10) argued that there is increased pressure on charities for accountability. The new generation of donors demand greater accountability form charity firms.(Venable et al, 296) argued that the donor and stakeholders evaluation behaviour is an important but understudied area. Arnett et al argued that most of the relationship marketing research has focussed primarily on relationships that are: predominantly economic in nature, concerned with B2B marketing, and involved businesses" (89). Similarly, (Venable et al) argued research in branding and brand personality literature has focused on for-profit brands” (296). Venable et al argued that stakeholders in a charity organization are diverse. They are beneficiaries, donors, employees, and partners. They argued partners like: for-profit and government organizations are very important for a charity as charity often has to depend on them for the attainment of its social goals. (Venable et al, 295-302) argued the beneficiaries will prefer charity organization whose personality rates high on “Nurturance” and “Integrity”, while for corporate the preferred personality dimensions are: a clean and clear image which is free from any racial or prejudiced orientation. The effectiveness with which any particular brand personality dimension impacts a consumer’s decision to select the brand over another is determined by the amount of overlap existing between the consumer and the brand on that dimension (Aaker 347-356; Sirgy 287-300). Mulyanegara et al attempted to study how consumers who are dominant on particular dimensions of The Big Five, behave towards i.e. prefer or not the brands that are congruent with their own personality. Although, the result indicated a weak relation between brand personality and customer personality, however there was a strong relation on some dimensions of brand personality of the Big Five, like people high on conscientiousness preferred trusted brands (234-247). Fournier, on the other hand argued has that mere congruence of discrete product attributes and implied personality traits cannot determine much, it’s rather the perceived goal compatibility between the brand and the consumer that that determine long-term consumer–brand relationships (343-373). (Venable et al) argued since charities are primarily service organizations (297), and according to (Berry, 28 (1): 128-37) the service organization becomes the focal point for consumers. Thus developing a strong non-profit brand like a corporate brand is suggested. The benefits that a charity may offer are more social than, thus charity brand personality should be projected on social dimensions like Nurturance along with reliability and Integrity (Venable et al, 300). The social exchange theory helps explain the donors giving behavior (e.g., Bagozzi 32-39; Homans, 597-606),(Burnett and Wood 1988). Their meaning has to be far deeper than most of the commercial brands have. Their brand identity and image should also reflect their peculiar characteristic (Venable et al, 295-312). Charity organizations unlike, their for-profit counterparts can not spend heavily on promotions and brand building, they have to manage their brands but, in a limited budget. Brand personality may communicate to the stakeholders what is that the Charity does and what is that it stands for (Hankinson, 346-360): According to social exchange theory, donors consider the social benefit of their donations. If the brand personality is clear and strong, donors will find it easy expressing themselves by patronizing the charity brand. A charity with strong brand personality will attract more funds from the corporate sector (Hankinson, 346-360). Brand personality improves charity brand equity by differentiating it from its competitors (Aaker, 347-57). Small and Verrochi research attempted to study sympathy-generating attribute of charity appeals. They stated “charities usually do not portray their victims expressing sadness, while emotion expression matters most when people are thinking with their hearts and not scrutinizing information.”They argued while advertisements for charities must aim to evoke sympathy and solicit donations, not portraying the victims expressing sadness, can potentially affect the donations. Thus they created a framework for predicting when and how sad facial expressions influence sympathy and donation giving. They conducted a series of studies with the following conclusions: people who see a sad face felt sadder, and their sadness mediates the effect of emotion expression on sympathy. Other information in the advertisement moderates the effect on sympathy of emotion expression. People are neutral in their choice between a sad advertisements and a happy advertisement. Sadness arising from an unrelated source does not lead to sympathy (777-787). Brand Personality Analysis To analyze the brand personality of a charity we need to use various theories in conjunction. The reason for this is, no brand personality theory is able to cover all the relevant aspects in a charity brand. A charity organization has to serve a diverse set of stakeholders like: beneficiaries, volunteers, individual donors, corporate partners for co branding, government agencies, etc. Thus according to Fournier (1998), the charity must demonstrate goals that are compatible with the goals of the stakeholders. However according to (Dolich 80), who suggested that consumers prefer to buy products and brands that best reflect their personality, the charity brand must reflect a personality that is congruent to the personality of the interest group. For corporate partners preferred attributes will be socially responsible, sincerity and competence. For volunteers and donors the preferred personality traits will be socially responsible (Madrigal and Boush) and nurturance and integrity (Venable et al). While for the beneficiaries the most preferred trait may be nurturance and competence and ruggedness. The theories that will be utilized here are: Aaker’s theory with dimensions: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness (Madrigal and Boush 538-562) theory with social responsibility dimension (Venables et al) four dimensional theory, with dimensions like Nurturance, Integrity, Sophistication and ruggedness (296-312) The analysis will be based on the messages that the organizations sends out to public at large, through their values, missions, visions, principles etc, as core values of an organization determine the brand building for an organization (Urde 1017 -1040). Analysis of OXFAM The brand personality of Oxfam portrays traits like: competence, sincerity, integrity and excitement. Ruggedness is not at all projected by the charity brand. The target audience of the charity seems to be general people, as the charity does not reflect any differentiated personality since sincerity and integrity are the charity category personality traits. In Fact they can be considered as points of parity rather than as points of differentiation. Sophistication and competence to some extent may differentiate the charity brand. The company targets young people, as donors and volunteers, and corporate partners with exciting and competent personality traits. The corporate partners are often interested in competence and sincerity. The analysis was done by reading OXFAM’s vision, values and goals from their website www.oxfamamerica.org get the idea about its brand personality. Their purpose of existence projects sincerity and integrity i.e. empowering people, challenging poverty etc. The bright looks and colorful design reflects excitement. Analysis of The Salavation Army In the brand personality of The Salvation Army, ruggedness is most reflected and other personality traits like; nurturance and integrity are also portrayed. Sophistication does not get reflected at all. The kind of people the charity targets are Christian, conventional, and passionate about the cause. To motivate these people the charity reflects this kind of personality. However, I believe the brand has very religious image, with some rigidity portrayed. For corporate partners this kind of image may cause some trouble. Ruggedness is portrayed through the colour red, name i.e. army etc, their symbols like shield, crest and flags. These all also give it an image of competent personality. While its advertisement “We are all in this together” (youtube) highlights its nurturance and socially responsible image. Analysis of The Red Cross – The charity brand The Red Cross is one of the most popular charity brands in this world. The brand personality of Red Cross is characterized by competence, integrity and social responsibility, which is reflected by their guiding principles which are: Humanity, Impartiality, Voluntary Service, Neutrality, Independence, Universality, and Unity. Recommendation The Salvation Army is recommended to work on its brand image as the existing brand personality is characterized by traits such as religious. I would recommend that it attempt to portray competency and other traits like leadership and agreeableness as corporate partners will prefer a competent and agreeable partner who is flexible in approach. The religious image limits the scope for such partnerships. The importance of associating with corporate partners is high, as this will offer great source of funds and other resources. For doing so it is recommended that it communicate values like efficiency, openness, collaboration etc. Another recommendation will be to all the charity brands. The pictures of all the charity brand show victims who are happy, relived, compose etc. However as, Deborah and Nicole has suggested that the facial expression of the victims can generate the sympathy in the viewer only when they express sadness, thus they must portray the victims as highly distressed, sad etc (785-786). Plz refer exhibit 1. Conclusion The brand personality concept is gaining recognition in charity brand context also for various reasons. However further research is required to explore the right model of charity brand personality. As the charity ahs various stakeholders it must find some common traits that can work well along with the diverse set of stakeholders like: beneficiaries, individual donors, corporate partners, Volunteers, social agencies, government etc. The brand personalities of the three charities differed on certain dimensions like: The Salvation Army stands very high on ruggedness, while OXFAM is very exciting brand. The brand personality of The Red Cross is competence and integrity. However, all the three charity brand personalities exhibited some common traits like: social responsibility, nurturance, and sincerity, which can be considered as category personality traits for charity organizations. References Aaker Jennifer L. “Dimensions of Brand Personality.” Journal of Marketing Research 34.3 (1997): 347-357. Ang, Dubelaar and Kamakura. “Changing Brand Personality through Celebrity Endorsement”. Arnett, Dennis B., Steve D. German, and Shelby D. Hunt. "The Identity Salience Model of Relationship Marketing Success: The Case of Nonprofit Marketing." Journal of Marketing 67.2 (2003): 89-106. Bagozzi, Richard P. "Marketing as Exchange." Journal of Marketing 39 (1975): 32-39. Belk, Russell w. “Possessions and the Extended Self.” Journal of Consumer Research 2 (1988): 139-68. Bendapudi, N., S. N. Singh , and V. Bendapudi. "Enhancing Helping Behavior: An Integrative Framework for Promotion Planning?.” Journal of Marketing 60 (1996): 33-49. Berry, Leonard. "Cultivating Service Brand Equity." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28.1 (2000): 128-37. Blau, Peter M. “Exchange and Power in Social Life.” New York: John Wiley (1964). Blum, D. E. "Ties That Bind." The Chronicle of Philanthropy 14.11 (2002): 7-10. Bumett, J. J.. "Psychographic and Demographic Characteristics of Blood Donors." Journal of Consumer Research 8 (1981): 62-66. Ferrandi, J. M., P. Valette-Florence, and S. Fine-Falcy. "Aaker's Brand Personality Scale in a French Context: A Replication and a Preliminary Test of Its Validity." In Proceedings of Academy of Marketing Science 23 (2000): 7-13. Hankinson, P. "Brand Orientation in the Charity Sector: A Framework for Discussion and Research." international Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 6.3 (2001): 231-242. Hankinson, P. "Brand Orientation in Top 500 fundraising charities in UK.” Journal of Product and Brand Management 10.6 (2001): 346-360. Hayes, Alford and Capella. “When the goal is creating a brand personality, focus on user imagery” Academy of marketing studies Journal (2008). Homans, George C. "Social Behavior and Exchange." American Journal of Sociology 63 (1958): 597-606. Morley, E., E. Vinson, and H.P. Hatry. "Outcome Measurement in Nonprofit Organizations: Current Practices and Recommendations." In Independent Sector Washington, DC: Urban Institute (2001): 5-10. Rajgopal. “Brand Excellence: Measuring the Impact of Advertising and Brand Personality on Buying Decisions.” Measuring Business Excellence 10.3 (2006): 56-65. Sargeant, Adrian. "Charitable Giving : Towards a Model of Donor Behaviour." Journal of Marketing Management 15 (1999): 215-238. Urde Mats. “Core value-based corporate brand building.” European Journal of Marketing 37.7/8 (2003) : 1017-1040. Venable et al. “The Role of Brand Personality in Charitable Giving: An Assessment and Validation.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33.3: 295-312. Wentzel. “The Effect of Employee Behavior on Brand Personality Impressions And Brand Attitudes.” Journal of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 37 (2009): 359–374 William P. Ryan. “The New Landscape for Nonprofits", Harvard Business Review (1999). Wood. "A Proposed Model of the Donation Decision Process." Research in Consumer Behavior 3 (1988): 1-47. http://www.oxfam.org.au/about-us/our-vision-values-and-goals http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O326kA31Gy0 http://www.redcross.org Wood. "A Proposed Model of the Donation Decision Process." Research in Consumer Behavior 3 (1988): 1-47. Belk , R . W . “ Possessions and the extended self .“ Journal of Consumer Research 2 (1988): 139. Dolich , I . J . “Congruence relationships between self-images and product brands.” Journal of Marketing Research 6.1 ( 1969 ): 80 . Madrigal and Boush. “Social Responsibility as a Unique Dimension of Brand Personality and Consumers’ Willingness to Reward.” Psychology & Marketing 25.6 (2008) : 538–564. Small and Verrochi. “The Face of Need: Facial Emotion Expression on Charity Advertisements.” Journal of Marketing Research 44 (2009):777–787. Mulyanegara , Tsarenko, Y. and Anderson “The Big Five and brand personality: Investigating the impact of consumer personality on preferences towards particular brand personality.” Brand Management 16.4 (2009):234–247. Plummer, J. T. (1985). Brand personality: A strategic concept for multinational advertising. Paper presented at the Marketing Educators’ Conference, New York. Fournier, S.”Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research.” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (1998) : 343–373. Lau and Phau. “Extending symbolic brands using their personality: Examining antecedents and implications towards brand image fit and brand dilution.” Psychology & Marketing, 24 (2007): 421–444. Exhibit 1 The Salvation Army OXFAM USA The Red Cross USA Read More