Post on 07-Jan-2023
Brand Personality Orientation to its Brand
Loyalty: A Case Study on KILLER’s
Mueksh MishraSoumendra Kumar Patra
ABSTRACT
Although a considerable amount of research in personality
psychology has been done to conceptualize human personality.
There seems to be lack of studies to clearly establish the
relationship between the brand personality dimensions and
brand loyalty. The examination of brand personality will
advance the research in marketing, especially the growing
area of brand-consumer relationship. In this empirical
study, an attempt is made to understand the relationship
between brand personality dimensions and brand loyalty. The
conceptual model proposed in this study examines the
determinants of brand loyalty with respect to brand
personality dimensions such as sincerity, competence and
ruggedness and an important brand-consumer relationship
variable for a popular clothing brand in India.
Key words: Brand Loyalty, Sincerity, Excitement, Ruggedness, Competence.
1
Mukesh Kumar Mishra: Senior Lecturer, Regional College of
Management (Autonomous), Under AICTE, UGC, Bijupattnaik
University of Technology, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, email id:
mukesh26672@yahoo.co.in, 09668747470.
Soumendra Kumar Patra: Assistant Professor, Regional College
of Management (Autonomous), Under AICTE, UGC, Bijupattnaik
University of Technology, Bhubaneswar, Orissa,
get2rabi2003@yahoo.co.in, 9090080826.
1. INTRODUCTION
Brand differentiation is now becoming an important tactic
for combating competition in the hostile marketplace. A
viable solution for establishing the distinctiveness of a
brand is through brand personality. Attaching personalities
to brands contributes to a differentiating brand identity,
which can make brands more desirable to the consumer. Brand
differentiation is now becoming an important tactic for
combating competition in the hostile marketplace. A viable
solution for establishing the distinctiveness of a brand is
through brand personality. Attaching personalities to brands
contributes to a differentiating brand identity, which can
make brands more desirable to the consumer. Jennifer Aaker
developed a specialized brand personality scale, the five
2
dimensions of the scale being sincerity, excitement,
competence, sophistication, and ruggedness.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW:
Brands are sets of differentiating promises that link a
product to the consumer through a bundle of identifiable
attributes, physical marks, emotional markers and triggers
to memories of prior product experience or the assumed
experience based on the reputation of the product, provider
or service (Ahmed and Zairi, 1999; Agres and Dubitsky, 1997,
de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1997). Plummer (2000)
identified three core uses for brands - identifiers for
attributes, functional characteristics and portrayal of
brand personality. Brand personality represents the
anthropomorphisation of the brand as a quasi-human entity as
perceived by the customer (Keller, 1998; Aaker, 1997;
Freling and Forbes, 2005). Much of the contemporary
development of brand personality as a marketing concept is
attributed to the seminal work of Aaker (1997) who defined
brand personality as a set of human characteristics
associated with the brand, and refined a scale measurement
of brand against five dimensions of sincerity, excitement,
competence, sophistication and ruggedness.
To examine how the relationship between brand and human
personality may drive preference, Aaker (1997) indicates
3
that two types of brand personality scales can be used. The
first type is ad hoc scales, typically composed of a set of
traits ranging from 20 to 300 in number. However, though
useful, these scales tend not to be theoretical in nature
often having been developed for the purposes of a specific
research study. As a result, key traits may be missing from
such scales. Furthermore, the traits that are selected often
are chosen arbitrarily, which casts doubt upon the scales’
reliability and validity. The second type of brand
personality scales are those that are more theoretical in
nature, but are based on human personality scales that have
not been validated in the context of brands (e.g., Bellenger
et al., 1976; Dolich, 1969 as cited in Aaker, 1997). Some
dimensions (or factors) of human personality may be mirrored
in brands whilst others might not. As a result, the validity
of such brand personality scales often is questionable,
leading researchers to argue that “if unequivocal results are to
emerge (in the literature on the symbolic used of brands)
consumer behaviour researchers must develop their own definitions and design
their own instruments to measure the personality variables that go into the
purchase decision” (italics in original, Kassarjian 1971). It
was against this setting that Aaker (1997) developed a brand
personality scale by isolating these distinct dimensions,
further treating brand personality as a ‘unidimensional
construct’ and demonstrating how different types of brand
personalities can be distinguished. This has resulted in the
4
perception that there are multiple ways in which the brand
personality construct can influence a consumer’s preference,
and has provided investigators with tools so that these may
be better understood
Research in the area of brand personality has indirectly
rather superficially suggested about the outcome of specific
brand personality with respect to brand loyalty. There seems
to be lack of studies to clearly establish the relationship
between the brand personality dimensions and brand loyalty,
and its relative importance.
3. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:
In this empirical study, an attempt is made to understand
the relationship between brand personality dimensions and
brand loyalty. A popular clothing brand in India is examined
to test the impact of its brand personality dimensions on
brand loyalty.
The study is expected to be of significance to both
academicians and practitioners. from the practicener`s
perspective, this study emphasizes the marketers to
understand brand personality dimensions in the relationship
perspective and develop the long term relationship with
consumer through image differentiation.
5
4. RESSEARCH METHDOLOGY
4.1 Sampling Method
The population for this study consisted of all the households
in Bhubaneswar City. The sample for the study was selected
from the population by systematic sampling method.
4.2 Determination of Sample Size
A pilot study was conducted among 50 Killer brand users and
the standard deviation of the items was found to be 0.376.
Hence the sample size was determined to be 189*.
4.3 Model Development and Hypothesis
This section discusses the proposed conceptual model of
brand loyalty with respect to brand personality dimensions
sincerity, excitement, competence and ruggedness and a
consumer-based relationship variable, namely, relationship
length. It also highlights the rationale for the proposed
model and indicates the resulting hypotheses.
4.4 Model of Brand Loyalty
Figure 1 presents the proposed conceptual, model of
determinants of brand loyalty. The brand personality traits
– sincerity, excitement, competence and ruggedness with
which the customer relates himself – impact brand loyalty.
The relationship characteristics such as length of
6
relationship (period which customer has been associated with
the brand) enhance brand loyalty.
Sincerity
It can be defined as down to earth, family-oriented and
genuine. The relationship might be similar to one that
exists with a well-liked and respected member of family. If
an individual feels the brand to be like a member of family,
he/she will be committed to the relationship. Hence,
Hypothesis 1 (H1) is: Sincerity brand personality dimension will lead to
brand loyalty.
Excitement
Excitement means spirited, young, up-to-date and outgoing
personality. If an individual feels himself/ herself having
a spirited, young, up-to-date, and outgoing personality,
he/she would like to associate with such brand that provides
these personality characteristics. Although ‘excitement’
personality relates to youth, it does not mean that only
young people would like such brands. Old people would also
have such personality and continuously buy such a brand.
Hence, Hypothesis 2 (H2) is: Excitement brand personality dimension
will lead to brand loyalty.
Competence
7
It manifests the expertise power of the individuals’
personality. If an individual is competent, people rely on
him/her on the basis of his/her competence. Hence,
Hypothesis 3 (H3) is: Competence brand personality dimension will lead
to brand loyalty.
Ruggedness
‘Ruggedness’ means athletic and outdoorsy personality. This
personality dimension manifests in an individual who can
withstand any situation. If an individual thinks
himself/herself having a rugged personality and if there is
a brand that manifests such a personality, the individual
would be willing to buy it regularly. Hence, Hypothesis 4
(H4) is: Ruggedness brand personality dimension will lead to brand loyalty.
Relationship Length
Loyalty grows over time, as the customer gets familiar with
the product. The customer would have got positive
experiences with the product, which might also be the reason
why the customer buys the product again. If the customer’s
relationship length is higher, it shows that the customer is
loyal. Hence, length of relationship will also have impact
on brand loyalty. Hence, Hypothesis 5 (H5) is: Relationship
Length will increase brand loyalty.
Figure 1 :
8
(Conceptual Model of Brand Loyalty with respect to Brand
Personality)
5. METHDOLOGY
This section presents the methodology used to test the model
and the research hypotheses presented in the previous
section. The measurements of the variables, the sampling,
the data collection method and the methods of statistical
analysis are discussed here.
9
Sincerity
Relationship length
Ruggedness
Competence
Excitement
Brand Loyalty
5.1 Measurement of the Variables
The majority of the constructs were measured using multiple
items, where the respondents were asked to indicate their
agreement on a scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly
agree).
Brand Personality
Aaker (1997) measured brand personality on five dimensions
and 42 traits scale. The five dimensions were sincerity,
excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. In
this study, only four dimensions, namely sincerity,
excitement, competence and relationship length are included
to suit the nature of the brand name.
Demographics and General Information
The basic demographic information such as age, gender,
marital status, size of family and income were also included
in the questionnaire.
5.2 Sample and Data Collection Method
A survey was carried out to test the model and research
hypotheses. Brand name of a popular fabric company was used.
Since in India the chosen company’s customers are the
typical urban customers, the respondents selected for this
study were customers from Bhubaneswar city. A total sample
10
size of 350 was planned to enable the statistical analyses
required for this study and convenience sampling sampling
method was used for data collection.
5.3 Sample Characteristics
A total of 189 respondents from Bhubaneswar city were
contacted for the study. The demographic characterisitics of
the respondents were shown in Table 2. As many as 93.70% of
respondents were males. The respondents are well distributed
among all age groups. If we consider educations level, out
of total samples 1.10% of population belongs to Matriculate,
College level 21.20%, higher education 20.10% and
Professional is 57.70% which is high out of total sample.
Out of total population majority is unmarried i.e 83.10% and
married is, 16.90%. The family size with less than five was
dominant with 86.20%. More than half of the respondents had
an annual income of above Rs 1, 00,000.
Table 2 : Characteristics of Respondents
Frequency PercentGender Male 177 93.70 Female 12 6.30
11
Age 18 - 25 141 74.60 26 - 32 27 14.30 33 - 40 16 8.50 41 and
above5 2.60
Education Matriculate 2 1.10 College
level40 21.20
Higher
education38 20.10
Professional
education109 57.70
Marital Status Married 32 16.90 Single 157 83.10Family Size
0-5 163 86.206-9 23 12.2010 & above 3 1.60
Monthly IncomeLess than Rs
1000028 14.80
Rs 10000 - 15000 48 25.4015000 - 20000 52 27.50More than 25000 61 32.30
12
6. VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT:
6.1 Reliability Analysis
The reliability of each scale was assed via ‘item to total
correlation ( a method used to understand the reliability of
a particular measure wherein the responses of individual
item in the measure and the sum total of the responses of
all the items in the same measure are tested for
correlation) and Cronbach coefficient alpha.. The results of
the reliability analysis are provided in Table 3. All the
items of every measure except ruggedness used in this study
exceeded the cut-off point of 0.3. In Ruggedness measure all
the item fall below the cut off point 0.3, the measure i.e
frequent washing gives –ve value which indicates it is not
reliable or does not have any influence on ruggedness.
Table 3: Reliability Analysis ResultsScale Items Item-to-
total
Correlat
ion
Scale
Mean
Scale
Variance
Coeffici
ent
Alpha
Sincerit
y
Quality
Comfortab
le
Durabilit
0.456
0.428
0.349
0.501
18.02
17.93
18.06
18.18
7.766
7.856
8.066
7.563
0.540
0.549
0.577
0.522
13
y
BenefitsExciteme
nt
Style
Special
Occasion
Feeling
Feeling
Different
0.301
0.384
0.502
0.444
9.90
10.71
10.41
10.71
5.995
4.833
4.668
4.878
0.622
0.576
0.481
0.527Competen
cy
Fashionab
le
Reliabili
ty
Affinity
Faithfuln
ess
0.449
0.480
0.444
0.461
11.64
11.40
11.88
11.50
2.668
3.390
2.895
3.241
0.610
0.594
0.606
0.596
Ruggedne
ss
Rough &
Tough
Frequent
Washing
Outdoorsy
0.119
-0.031
0.118
6.35
7.56
6.47
1.611
1.875
1.740
0.018
0.404
-0.111Brand
Loyalty
User
feeling
User’s
Personali
ty
Consumer
0.460
0.443
0.459
6.94
6.69
7.40
2.491
2.865
2.251
0.528
0.560
0.537
14
Preferenc
e
6.2 Factor Analysis
As the first step in examining the validity of each measure,
explanatory factor analysis was employed using SPSS17.0. All
the items of all the measures were factor analysed together
to test convergent and discriminate validity of the
measures. The items were subjected to principal component
analysis (with Varimax Rotation). The factor loading
represented the correlation between the items with the
construct (Hair et al, 1992). In component analysis, only
the factor having Eigenvalues greater than 1 was considered
significant (Hair et al, 1992). A minimum value of 0.50 was
used to indicate the loading of any factor. The results of
factor analysis are presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Factor Analysis for Validity Testing1 2 3 4
Quality 0.619 0.141 -0.424 0.062Comfortabl
e
0.548 0.155 -0.363 0.383
Durability 0.492 0.177 -0.377 -0.395Benefits 0.536 0.135 -0.408 -0.160Style 0.531 0.242 0.537 0.161
15
Special
Occasion
0.477 -0.379 0.067 0.503
Feeling 0.549 -0.500 0.160 -0.032Feeling
Different
0.550 -0.525 0.062 -0.201
Fashionabl
e
0.540 0.395 0.327 0.054
Reliabilit
y
0.500 0.420 0.273 0.208
Affinity 0.691 0.176 -0.174 0.029Faithfulne
ss
0.540 0.363 0.228 -0.413
User
Feeling
0.675 -0.162 -0.079 0.024
User’s
Personalit
y
0.571 -0.286 0.329 -0.361
Consumer
Preference
0.662 -0.234 -0.037 0.142
Eigen
Values
4.858 1.461 1.323 1.022
% of
Variation
32.387 9.741 8.821 6.811
Cumulative
% of
Variation
32.387 42.128 50.949 57.760
*Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
16
**4 Components extracted
By factor analysis, the factors are reduced to only four
components. The component one leads to affinity and its
value is 0.691, component two leads to reliability and its
value is 0.420, but its value is below 0.5. Component three
leads to style and its value is 0.537. Component four leads
to special occasion and its value is 0.503 respectively.
These entire four components have Eigen values more than one
i.e. 4.858, 1.461, 1.323 and 1.022 respectively.
7. HYPOTHESES TESTING:
All hypotheses were first tested using multiple regression
and least squares estimation (Pedhazur, 1982). To test all
the hypotheses in the study, a multiple regression was
carried out with five independent variables – sincerity,
excitement, competency, ruggedness and relationship length
and brand loyalty as the dependent variable. The results of
the multiple regressions are discussed here.
Brand Personality
Table 5 provides the results of hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4 and
H5. All these hypotheses were tested using multiple
regression with the help of SPSS 17.0. If the company
promotes these personalities in their advertisement
17
campaigns, they will lead to loyal customers. There were
other factors which were also considered during the study
like sincerity, excitement, ruggedness and length of
relationship, which have positive impact on brand loyalty.
All these hypotheses were tested using multiple regressions
with the help of SPSS 17.0.
Table 5 provides the results of hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4
and H5. These hypotheses indicate how brand personalities
and length of relationship can lead to brand loyalty.
Table 5: Results of Hypothesis TestingHypotheses Independen
t Variable
P Value F Value Hypotheses
SupportedH1 Sincerity 0.139 1.639 YESH2 Excitement 0.374 1.068 YESH3 Competency 0.007* 3.686 NOH4 Ruggedness 0.648 0.551 YESH5 Length of
Relationsh
ip
0.098 2.130 YES
8. CONCLUSION:
This study examined the factors, which will lead the
customers to brand loyalty. A survey was conducted in
18
Bhubaneswar city. The survey was aimed at knowing the Brand
personality lead to Brand loyalty of the customers.
Trends come and go in the ever-changing world of fashion.
Staying in touch with the latest and striving to keep at the
forefront is one way of staying ahead in this competitive
field. Clothing is one form of self-expression. The brand
Personality that a company has plays a very important role
and to some extent it also leads to customer loyalty. From
this research it is found that the company having a brand
image of sincerity, excitement, ruggedness and length of
relationship. Thus, a company should think of enhance its
sincerity, excitement, ruggedness and length of relationship
personalities in the forefront.
Many companies are already promoting these personalities
through ad campaigns, which show them as untainted,
committed and trustworthy. This image can be promoted by
taking some real life examples where people show their
commitment and their loyalty to the company.
Here competency is another brand personality which we have
taken as hypotheses doesn’t lead to brand loyalty of the
customers. Ruggedness is another variable which also
influence the brand personality. Ruggedness means outdoorsy.
This brand personality manifests as today’s customers’
19
fashion needs and can be built through collections that
highlight by bringing new styles, comfort and coolness.
The company should think in the way in which it can promote
these personalities. At the same time, the company should
distinguish these two personalities and the target
customers. By doing this, the company can retain all its
customers who belong to different groups and whose tastes
are totally different. So, the company should be cautious in
using these dimensions of brand personality. It said that if
a customer has been buying a fabric from a certain company
for 25 years, he will be considered a loyal customer of that
company. But in this research it was found that relationship
length of does not have any impact on customer loyalty. If a
customer buys a company fabric for many years, it doesn’t
mean that he/she is loyal to the company, it may also be
because he/she does not have any other option.
9. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH:
The main objective of this research was to measure the brand
personality dimensions of the Killer brand using the Brand
Personality Scale suggested by Jennifer Aaker. A validity
check of the scale using factor analysis was carried out
which indicates that the number of dimensions of brand
20
personality is 4 and that about 10 items of Jennifer Aaker’s
Brand Personality Scale are not applicable in the Indian
situation. The applicability of this scale to the Indian
situation was not checked because it required an exploratory
study to identify the dimensions of brand personality in the
Indian situation. A study of Japanese and Spanish brand
personality constructs revealed that sincerity, excitement,
competence, and sophistication are common to both USA and
Japan. It also revealed that there were culture-specific
Japanese. (Peacefulness) and American (ruggedness)
dimensions.
The findings in the context of Spain yielded brand
personality dimensions common to both Spain and the United
States (sincerity, excitement, and sophistication), plus the
non-shared Spanish (passion) and American (competence and
ruggedness) dimensions. Hence, identifying the Indian brand
personality construct can be undertaken by future
researchers. Also, this research tried to identify the brand
personality in India which implies that researchers can
identify brand personality for service, retail, and consumer
durable brands. This research was conducted in the largest
city in Orissa and therefore future studies can be conducted
in other parts of India to improve the reliability of the
study.
21
10. REFERENCES:
o Aaker, D A (1996). Building Strong Brands, New York: The
Free Press.
o Aaker, J (1997). “Dimensions of Brand Personality,”
Journal of Marking Research, 34(3), pp.347-356.
o Aaker, Jennifer Lynn; Benet-Martínez, Verónica and
Garolera, Jordi (2001). “Consumption Symbols as Carriers
of Culture: A Study of Japanese and Spanish Brand
Personality Constructs,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81(3), 492-508.
o Banerjee, Ravi (2004), “ Smiles to Go,” Economic Times
(Brand Equity), 15 December, 1.
o Belch, G and Belch, A (2001). Advertising and Promotion:
An Integrated Marketing Communication Perspective, Fifth
Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.
o Bellenger, D N; Steinberg, E and Stanton, W W (1976).
“The Congruence of Store Image and Self Image, Journal
of Retailing, 52(1), 17–32.
o Dolich, Ira J (1969), “Congruence Relationship between
Self Image and Product Brands,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 6(1), 80-84.
o Kassarjian, H H (1971). “Personality and Consumer
Behavior: A Review,” Journal of Marketing Research,
84(4), 409–418.
o K Abdul Waheed, Neeti Yadav (2007), “A Study on Brand
Personality Orientation to Brand Loyalty”.
22
o Okazaki, Shintaro (2006). “Excitement or Sophistication?
A Preliminary Exploration of Online Brand Personality,”
International Marketing Review, 23(3), 279-303.
o Rojas-Méndez, José; Erenchun-Podlech, Isabel; Silva-
Olave, Elizabeth (2004). “The Ford Brand Personality in
Chile,” Corporate Reputation Review, 7(3), 232-251.
o Siguaw, Judy A; Mattila, Anna and Austin, Jon R (1999).
“The Brand-Personality Scale,” Cornell Hotel &
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 48-55.
o Su-e Park; Dongsung, Choi; Jinwoo, Kim (2005).
“Visualizing E-Brand Personality: Exploratory Studies on
Visual Attributes and E-Brand Personalities in Korea,”
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,
19(1), 7-34.
o Supphellen, Magne and Gronhaug, Kjell (2003). “Building
Foreign Brand Personalities in Russia: the Moderating
Effect of Consumer Ethnocentrism,” International Journal
of Advertising, 22(2), 203–226.
***
23