a mixed method approach to understanding brand personality.pdf

A mixed method approach to understandingbrand personality

Raj Arora

University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Kansas, USA, and

Charles StonerBradley University, Peoria, Illinois, USA

AbstractPurpose – This paper aims to use a mixed method (qualitative and quantitative) approach to exploring product personality. It also aims to focus on thepersonality dimensions of two retails stores (Target and Wal-Mart) and two athletic brands (Adidas and Nike). While personality has been investigatedin marketing settings, the focus has been limited to using quantitative scales. This approach has the potential of leaving out rich details of personalitynot captured by the scale, thereby offering little helpful information for advertising copy writers. While qualitative approaches may lack the formal testof hypotheses, they afford rich narrative that adds important insights about the products and practical help for advertising development.Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on a concurrent, two-studies design where qualitative and quantitative data are both collectedand analyzed separately (concurrently or sequentially). A survey is used to measure the personality dimensions based on Aaker’s five personalitydimensions. In addition, various personality dimensions are explored using in-depth, one-to-one interviews; grounded theory framework; and QDAsoftware that is especially suitable for text analysis.Findings – The findings reveal lack of convergence in personality dimensions. While full convergence is not expected due to method and samplecharacteristics, the findings revealed important dimensions that appeared only in either the qualitative or quantitative analysis. For example, theattributes of competence, sophistication, and ruggedness failed to emerge in the qualitative analyses.Research limitations/ implications – Caution is advised in extrapolating the results beyond the issues investigated in the study.Practical implications – The findings help marketers in formulating effective product design, positioning, and promotion strategies.Originality/value – Most of the research on the subject of personality has been designed around Aaker’s five dimensions of personality. There hasbeen some variation to the instrument to capture dimensions such as nurturance, and integrity, ruggedness, and sophistication. However, there is a voidin qualitative research that is oriented towards discovering (rather than testing) the dimensions of personality. This paper uses qualitative researchmethodology, specifically a grounded theory framework, to discover the personality of products, and to compare these outcomes with Aaker’s five-dimensional scale.

Keywords Brand image, Brand identity, Qualitative research

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction

The scene is striking. It is dusk as a lone automobile

powerfully ascends a mountain, moving toward the stately

Prince of Wales Hotel, sitting atop a bluff, overlooking

picturesque Waterton Lake and the town of Waterton,

Alberta, Canada. Arriving at the hotel entrance, the door

opens and a black-tie attired couple emerges. The

advertisement drips with images of luxury, quality, and

elegance – the exact images, the exact sense of personality,

that Lexus hopes its audience will receive.Drawing upon the pioneering work of Aaker (1997),

marketers have been intrigued by the conceptual implications

and pragmatic potential of the concept of brand personality.

Brand personality recognizes the symbolic and emotional

meaning that taps consumer appeal and affects purchase

decisions (Govers and Schoormans, 2005; McCracken, 1986;

Holman, 1981). Indeed, an ever-growing and diverse range of

entities has centered attention on brand personality as a

means to distinguish products and services (Smith et al.,2006; Venable et al., 2005; d’Astous et al., 2006; Kumar et al.,2006; Opoku et al., 2006; Wesley et al., 2006).

Although the significance of branding has been broadly

recognized and well- documented, the expanding role of

branding serves to underscore its topical importance.

Distinguishing brands based on physical attributes and

functionality have been the traditional foci. However,

attention to the arena of brand personality has expanded in

recent years, in part due to the difficulty of product

differentiation based on functionality and quality (Veryzer,

1995).Interestingly, as one would expect in any relatively new

arena of inquiry, the study of brand personality has spawned

both interest and criticism. At the heart of the research

reported here is recent concern about whether traditional

brand personality scales adequately capture the nuanced and

idiosyncratic nature of brand personality across varied

contexts. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm

Journal of Product & Brand Management

18/4 (2009) 272–283

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]

[DOI 10.1108/10610420910972792]

272

explore and examine how an understanding of brand

personality is affected through the utilization of a mixedmethodology (qualitative and quantitative) research design.

We seek to provide a better understanding of how the use of

both qualitative and quantitative methodologies providesricher perspectives of brand personality measurement than

scale-based approaches alone.

Review of literature

Perspectives on brand personality

Aaker (1997) defined brand personality as the set of humancharacteristics that consumers associate with a brand. In this

manner, attention to the emotional and symbolic, pseudohuman personality aspects of a brand provides a consumer

with additional reasons beyond utilitarian or functionalcharacteristics, to connect with a brand (Keller, 1998).

Aaker’s framework represented an adaptation of the “BigFive” personality model, prominent in psychological research

(Norman, 1963; Tupes and Christal, 1958; McCrae andCosta, 1989; John, 1990; Piedmont et al., 1991; McCrae and

Costa, 1989). Her framework was comprised of five brand

personality dimensions: sincerity (wholesome, honest, down-to-earth), excitement (exciting, imaginative, daring),

competence (intelligent, confident), sophistication(charming, glamorous, smooth), and ruggedness (strong,

masculine).Evidence suggests that brands do indeed possess

personalities – that is, research respondents have been ableto ascribe personality characteristics to brands (Aaker, 1997;

Venable et al., 2005). Critically, to the extent that brandsdevelop unique personalities, they can be differentiated in the

consumers’ minds and accordingly choice preferences can beaffected (Freling and Forbes, 2005; Crask and Laskey, 1990).

McCracken (1986) even suggested that consumers mightsearch for brands with a personality that coincides with and

reinforces the self-concept they wish to project, offering

additional considerations for the impact of the brandpersonality concept.

The conceptual linkages relevant to brand personalityinclude self-congruity theory (Sirgy, 1982; Graeff, 1996).

Self-congruity theory holds that consumers compare theirself-concept with the image that a brand projects, and in turn,

prefer brands that are consistent with their self-concept.Studies have found support that consumers choose products

and services that they feel possess personalities that are similarto (congruent with) their own personalities (Linville and

Carlston, 1994; Phau and Lau, 2001). Consistent with thisline of reasoning, consumers prefer brands that are similar to

the consumer’s personality. Arguments suggest that whenconsumers use self-congruent brands, it can be an expression

of their personal identity (Kumar et al., 2006). Indeed, as

Belk (1988) has suggested, products may be a means of self-expression. As such, brand personality helps to develop an

emotional loyalty among consumers.In addition, strong and favorable brand personalities may

offer consumers a sense of emotional fulfillment, offeringfurther evidence of brand personality congruence (Aaker,

1999). In an analogous study, Govers and Schoormans(2005) found that the realization of product-personality

congruence positively affected consumer preference. Frelingand Forbes (2005) found support that brand personality

positively affects product evaluations and purchase intentions.

Consequently, a range of arguments indicates that brand

personality provides a mechanism for marketers to distinguishor differentiate products and services. Further, since brand

personality appears to be less imitable than other productattributes, the dimension of brand personality may yield a

more sustainable competitive advantage (Ang and Lim,2006).

In summary, brand personality provides a form of identityfor consumers that conveys symbolic meaning for themselves

and for others (Holman, 1981; Solomon, 1983). Consumersappear to prefer brands that are similar to their own

personalities, and they prefer brands that project apersonality that is consistent with their self-concepts.

Importantly, when consumers choose cognitively congruentbrands, they may be expressing their personal identities and

projecting their unique personalities.

Measuring brand personality

Most studies have attempted to extend Aaker’s original workby exploring new areas of market application. These studies,with few exceptions, have begun with Aaker’s brand

personality framework and scale and offered uniquevariations that were drawn from a particular market context.

For example, Smith et al. (2006) utilized Aaker’s frameworkbut found that it did not fully capture the characteristics of a

membership-based sports organization. Consequently, theyadded the dimension of “innovation” to the original five

dimensions suggested by Aaker.Many uncertainties remain. Some researchers have

suggested that consumers’ interactions with brands aresimply too complex to be captured fully by Aaker’s

framework (Smith et al., 2006). Azoulay and Kapferer(2003) have argued that Aaker’s scale, as well as other

scales of brand personality, merges a number of dimensions ofbrand identity rather than specifically measure brand

personality. They contend that the effect is conceptualconfusion in branding research and limitation in branding

applications. A few studies have attempted to explore brandpersonality without a priori acceptance of Aaker’s framework.

For example, Venable et al. (2005) explored the impact ofbrand personality on charitable giving in a nonprofit context.These authors conducted a series of mixed method studies

(focus groups, qualitative assessment, and subsequentempirical analysis) and concluded that integrity, nurturance,

sophistication, and ruggedness were the four key dimensionsof brand personality for nonprofit organizations.

While accepting the importance of Aaker’s work, Austinet al. (2003) question the generalizability of Aaker’s

framework. Freling and Forbes (2005) argue thatadvancements in the study of brand personality have been

restricted by “limited theoretical or qualitative grounding.”Being intrigued by and theoretically compelled by these

observations and conclusions, studies must investigate brandpersonality and offer validation of Aaker’s framework, without

the obvious bias of the a priori use of the framework as thebasis for analysis.

The significance of qualitative and mixed methods

research approaches

It has been shown that the qualitative and quantitative

research methods have different assumptions and goals ofinquiry. For example, one of the goals of qualitative research

is to capture subjective realities from the perspectives of

A mixed method approach to understanding brand personality

Raj Arora and Charles Stoner


Volume 18 · Number 4 · 2009 · 272–283

273

participants (phenomenology). As such, researchers attempt

to select “information rich” respondents. Quantitative

researchers believe in a single quantifiable reality, measured(collapsed) from a large sample of respondents.

There seems to be little doubt that qualitative data offersdifferent perspectives and helps provide a richer and more

complex picture of the situation at hand (Creswell, 2002).However, even though qualitative research has been a

mainstay in certain fields (for example, education andnursing), social scientists generally prefer to rely on

statistically rigorous quantitative methods (Srnka and

Koeszegi, 2007). To some degree, the use of mixedmethodologies (qualitative and quantitative) helps mitigate

purists’ concerns and provides the needed depth ofunderstanding.

Despite the benefits of qualitative research methods, the useof thee tools in marketing is still very limited. Bezborodova

and Bennett (2004) investigated the reasons for the limiteduse of qualitative methods, especially emphasizing the

reluctance of available software to analyze the transcripts.

One of the major reasons provided for the limited use was the“long and steep” learning curve to achieve a high level of

familiarization with the software. Another reason providedwas the time pressures of commercial research practice,

leading to a financial concern over the resulting expense suchapproaches would encounter.

There are a variety of different methods available to thequalitative researcher. Among the more commonly used

methods are phenomenology, grounded theory, narrative

psychology, and focus groups. Each of these methods providesan approach to data collection that is appropriate given the

specific purposes of the research investigation. For example,the goal of phenomenology is to study the phenomenon from

the perspective the experiences and meanings ascribed by theindividual. Thus one selects individuals who have actually

experienced the phenomenon and can describe the details ofthe experience and the context within which the experience

takes place.Grounded theory on the other hand is used as an inductive

tool to explore and build a theoretical framework based on

rich transcripts and field notes. Thus, grounded theory relieson both positivistic elements as well as interpretive elements

of qualitative research to develop theory. Focus groups on theother hand, maintain the spirit of rich interpretive data using a

group setting instead of a one-to-one interview. This affordsthe benefit of a dynamic setting to explore new streams of

thought or to obtain feedback on existing objects (products,

advertisements, events, etc.).Qualitative research proponents have argued that the

perspectives and language of subjects experiencing aphenomenon should guide theory development (Strauss and

Corbin, 1998; Charmaz, 2000). For this inquiry onpersonality, grounded theory offers distinct benefits over

other approaches (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

Method

Item generation

A mixed methodology, based on a concurrent, two-studiesdesign was utilized (Srnka and Koeszegi, 2007). In two-

studies design the qualitative and quantitative data are bothcollected and analyzed separately (concurrently or

sequentially). The qualitative design was based on grounded

theory. In grounded theory, one begins the data collection

with a general set of questions related to the focal topic. The

theoretical framework is built and refined from the data. In

this sense, it is a theory building tool, rather than a theory-

confirming tool. The grounded theory approach contains

both positivistic elements (based on direction of inquiry) and

interpretive elements (based on respondents interviews).The quantitative aspect of the two-studies design was a

survey instrument designed to capture Aaker’s five personality

dimensions. Thus, two questionnaires (interviewer’s guide for

qualitative portion) were developed for data collection. The

first questionnaire was a structured questionnaire that was

based on Aaker’s (1997) five personality dimensions. Since

each of the brands measured in the study reflected multiple

products, respondents were instructed to consider the entire

product line in responding to the questions. Respondents

were asked to indicate the extent to which each item reflected

their perception of the object under consideration. A six-point

scale was used with end points of zero (indicating that the

item does not reflect the object) and five (indicating that the

item describes the object perfectly). The questionnaire

contained personality traits that were adapted from the

relevant literature in academic and trade sources and focused

on capturing major personality traits. A sample of the type of

items included in this questionnaire were: friendly, customer

focus, dominant, exciting, serious/lively, orderly,

disorganized, relaxed/tense, traditional, innovative, and open

to change.Second, the interviewers’ guide was developed to capture

the personality dimensions. The brand personality dimensions

for this phase were drawn from earlier research and findings in

personality.The interviews followed a semi-structured, open-ended

questionnaire format. Semi-structured interviews allow for a

focused and in-depth conversation. The respondents can

express their responses in any level of detail and the

interviewer can choose to go to the next question or probe

for further elaboration or clarification. Furthermore, since the

purpose of the research was to explore personality dimensions

from the respondent’s perspective, the questionnaire

contained both general as well as focused (on personality

traits) questions. The questions were developed based on

theoretical and applied work in personality. However, the

coding and the resulting framework that emerged were based

on the study of transcribed interviews.In order to capture a full-range of impressions, participants

were encouraged to provide detailed examples and stories of

their experiences or perceptions with the brands in question.

These interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis.

Respondents and data collection

Respondents for the study were residents of a major

metropolitan area in the Midwest. The sample size for the

quantitative study was understandably much larger than the

sample size for the qualitative portion. The number of

respondents for the quantitative analysis was 322. They were

evenly divided on gender (approximately 50 percent of each

group). Approximately 11 percent were high school

graduates; 30 percent had some college course work; and 40

percent had earned college degrees. The sample was tilted

towards younger audiences. In fact, 70 percent were under

and 30 percent were over 35 years of age.




Volume 18 · Number 4 · 2009 · 272–283

274

For the qualitative portion, Creswell (2002) has

emphasized the importance of selecting respondents that

will provide rich and complex responses to questions.

Consistent with this purpose and understanding, 32 subjects

were selected. Participants were informed that the study was

being conducted for academic purposes and that the

investigators were grateful for their help.

Selection of brands

Since the focus of the study was on brand personality, we

included brands that were dominant in the market, known to

consumers, and that had a distinct image in the market. We

did not include brands that intuitively appeared to be obscure

or bland in terms of personality. Since personality perceptions

may vary by product and by brand, we chose to include close

competitors in order to compare the differences in

personality. With these factors in consideration, one pair of

brands from the retail segment and another pair of brands

from the shoes and accessories category were selected for

study. Specifically, Wal-Mart and Target stores represented

the retail segment, and Nike and Adidas represented the shoes

and accessories segment.

Coding personality dimensions

Consistent with the procedures of grounded theory research,

the questions were developed based on theoretical and applied

work in personality. However, the coding and the resulting

framework that emerged were based on the study of the

transcribed interviews. The codes were not created from the

questions in the interviews. Rather, they emerged from the

meaning contained in the responses. In developing the

building blocks of personality, care was exercised to interpret

the meaning of the code (and the statement) and then bring

like codes together to build a concept.

Computer-aided analysis of qualitative data

In recent years, there has been considerable interest in

computer-assisted qualitative data analysis (CAQDAS)[1]. In

choosing a software package one must consider the goals of

the study and the compatibility of the software with that goal.

The central tenet common to all of these software packages is

the coding of the qualitative responses.Here, researchers can interpret the meaning of the to build

a concept. Alternatively, researchers can use one of several

software programs. Based on our extensive reviews of various

software packages, QDA Miner was particularly suited to join

the codes to build the concepts in the current study. Unlike

many other qualitative software packages, QDA Miner

provides tools for statistical analysis, as well as the graphical

display of these results. QDA Minor provides clustering

results in the form of a dendrogram. In addition to standard

coding of text and text retrieval, QDA Miner can investigate

co-occurrence of codes within a paragraph or within the entire

interview. These code co-occurrences can be further

investigated in the form of similarity among cases to plot

the results in the form of a cluster diagram, or a

multidimensional scaling plot or proximity to any selected

code. Since our focus was on discovering various personality

traits and how these traits grouped together, QDA Miner was

particularly valuable and relevant.

Results

Factor analysis of personality dimensions

The first phase of analysis utilized exploratory factor analysis

of the quantitative data. The initial solution, with minimum

eigenvalues set at 1.0, resulted in an eight- factor solution.

Although the eigenvalue rule suggested an eight-factor

solution, the scree plot of eigenvalues suggested a four-

factor solution. The eigenvalues and the proportion of

variance (in parenthesis) for the first eight factors were:

12.36 (29.43), 5.3 (12.22), 2.77 (6.58), 2.65 (6.31), 1.48

(3.54), 1.32 (3.15), 1.20 (2.84), and 1.05 (2.51). The plot

(not shown here) revealed that it became almost horizontal

after the first four factors. In the interest of comparing it with

Aaker’s five-factor solution, we rotated the first five factors.Table I shows a comparison of our five-factor solution with

the five major dimensions of Aaker’s solution. The pattern of

loading shows a convergence with the loadings of Aaker’s

personality attributes. Some exceptions are highlighted in

Table I. The loadings as well as the dimension in Aaker’s

analysis are shown. For example, in our analysis, the attribute

“wholesome” has a loading of 0.58 and loads on the

“excitement” dimension, whereas in Aaker’s analysis, it

loaded on the “sincerity” dimension. In a similar manner,

the attributes “reliable” and “hard working” load on

“sincerity” in our study, whereas they loaded on

“competence” in Aaker’s study. The major difference is in

the items under the “sophistication” dimension. These items

loaded on “excitement” in our current study. This may be a

function of data reduction. As noted earlier from the scree

test, our analysis leans towards using a four- factor solution

rather than a five- factor solution. In our case, the factors

“sophistication” and “excitement” converged to a single

dimension. For ease of interpretation, loadings of less than

0.5 are not shown in Table I.

Qualitative dimensions of personality

Overall personality dimensions

The first stage of the qualitative analyses explored the overall

personality dimensions. This set included all four brands

under investigation. The input for the qualitative analyses was

the various interviews. The QDA Miner has several different

procedures for analyzing the qualitative data. Here, once the

interviews were coded, Jaccard’s coefficient of similarity (JCS)

was utilized to cluster the co-occurrences of various

personality codes. The JCS ranges from zero to one and can

be interpreted similar to a correlation coefficient. QDA Miner

builds a dendrogram of the resulting cluster solution.

Consequently, researchers may use the value of JCS in

interpreting the cluster solution. The resulting solution is

shown in Figure 1.The analysis from QDA Miner revealed several distinct

personality dimensions and also revealed a lack of

correspondence between Aaker’s five dimensions with

respect to the number of dimensions as well as the items

within the personality dimensions.We did not expect to find strong convergence between the

qualitative findings from QDA and Aaker’s scale for two

fundamental reasons. First, the analysis was not confined to

items from Aaker’s scale. Second, the resulting dimensions

reflected aspects of the four brands under investigation rather

than generalized personality dimensions.




Volume 18 · Number 4 · 2009 · 272–283

275

The findings revealed that a large number of items belonged

to one cluster This cluster included items such as “authority,”

“dominance,” “forward looking,” “fun,” “lively,” “friendly,”

“reliable,” “trustworthy,” “customer focus,” and “relaxed.”

Collectively these items appeared to be captured by the

“sincerity and excitement” dimension. Among the items

shown in Figure 1 from this cluster that were not included in

Aaker’s scale are “tense,” and “open to change.” The next

cluster included the items “low prices,” “reactive,” and

“unimaginative.” This is followed by “high prices” and “not

trendy.” These two clusters may be unique to the brands in

this study. Finally, Aaker’s three clusters of “competence,”

“sophistication,” and “ruggedness” failed to emerge in this

analysis.In the next section we explore personality dimensions

between the competing sets of brands. First, we look at the

Nike and Adidas brands; next we explore the similarities and

differences between Target and Wal-Mart brands.

Nike versus Adidas

The resulting solution for Nike is shown in Figure 2. Nike

appeared to have a clear personality (image) with respect to

being an innovative company. The top three items –

“authority,” “forward looking,” and “innovative” – appeared

Table I Factor loadings of personality traits

Personality dimensions

Personality attribute Sincerity Excitement Competence Sophistication Ruggedness

Down to earth 0.77

Family oriented 0.73

Small town 0.57

Honest 0.78

Sincere 0.78

Real 0.70

Wholesome 0.75

Original 0.58 sincerity

Cheerful

Sentimental 0.53 sincerity

Friendly 0.66

Daring 0.54

Trendy 0.84

Exciting 0.79

Spirited 0.64

Cool 0.85

Young 0.81

Imaginative 0.76

Unique 0.78

Up to date 0.74

Independent

Contemporary

Reliable 0.53 competence

Hard working 0.57 competence

Secure

Intelligent

Technical

Corporate 0.61

Successful 0.77

Leader 0.82

Confident 70

Upper class 0.66 sophistication

Glamorous 0.72 sophistication

Good looking 0.76 sophistication

Charming

Feminine

Smooth 0.52 sophistication

Outdoorsy 0.82

Masculine 0.72

Western

Tough 0.85

Rugged 0.86




Volume 18 · Number 4 · 2009 · 272–283

276

to suggest a strong position in the market as an innovative

company. For example, one respondent noted:

Some of the new ads, their ads are always pretty interesting to watch. The

new ones with Kobe Bryant, they are different and kind of edgy. Some of the

new soccer ads are pretty interesting.

Another subject expressed:

In some of the lines, very creative and cutting-edge and the thing that

everybody wants. Specifically their basketball lines, not so much with

everyday wear they just kind of go with the flow nothing new or crazy and

they do a lot of throwback – which is kind of popular, everyone is doing that

now. But with their high-end basketball shoes I would say definitely.

Still another subject stated:

Nike is very creative. They are the most original sports gear company I can

think of. They are always using the new technology air-absorb, etc.

The next cluster contained the “down-to-earth” and

“practical” personality traits. Consider the statements from

one of the respondents:

Down to earth I would say. It is just the simplicity of Nike. When you are

wearing it you don’t have to worry about wearing it with a certain type of

clothing because you can wear it with everything.

Another respondent expressed it as:

I think down to earth because people wear it everywhere. I just don’t see a lotof flashy Nike stuff. The people might be flashy but I don’t think Nikemakes.

Doing a similar analysis for Adidas revealed a slightly different

personality. The first two items to form a cluster were

“customer focus” and “relaxed.” Next, several traits clustered

together. These were the items of “practical,” “trustworthy,”

“honest and forthright,” “forward looking,” and “friendly”

(see Figure 3). Some of the statements that subjects attributed

to Adidas’ trustworthiness were:

Yes they are because of the brand and it being well accepted all over. Theyare definitely trustworthy when it comes to soccer.

Another respondent stated:

I’d say they are both trustworthy. Mainly with respect to their products, youknow what you are going to get.

Finally, we examined the differences in brand personality

between Nike and Adidas. This is shown in Figure 4. The

findings indicated that while Nike was perceived as an

“authority” or “dominant force” in the market place, it was

Figure 1 Overall personality dimensions

Figure 2 Personality characteristics of Nike




Volume 18 · Number 4 · 2009 · 272–283

277

also perceived as being “high in prices.” Adidas was seen as

stronger on “customer focus,” and Adidas was perceived as

more “friendly” and “practical.”

Target versus Wal-Mart

The major personality characteristics of Target and Wal-Mart

were examined next. The dendrogram (Figure 5) showing the

clustering of items for Target revealed that Target was seen as

an “authority” and as a “dominant store” in the market place,

one that was “friendly,” “customer focused,” and

“dependable.” Respondents considered it a “fun place to

shop.” The store was “organized” and provided a “relaxed

atmosphere.” Target was also seen as “down-to-earth,”

“honest,” and “forthright.”

The dendrogram for Wal-Mart is shown in Figure 6. Wal-

Mart, similar to Target, was also seen as an “authority” and

“dominant store” in the market place. Clearly, their “low

prices” was an additional trait. Furthermore, the store was

viewed as having “courteous staff” and was perceived as

“trustworthy.” However, the atmosphere was seen as “tense.”

The trait “friendly” had a lower similarity index than did

Target. Wal-Mart also was distinct on “customer focus” and

“expediency.”Finally, Figure 7 shows the major differences between

Target and Wal-Mart stores. Wal-Mart was perceived as

higher in “dominance in market” and offering “low prices.”

On the negative side, the shopping environment of Wal-Mart

was seen as more “tense.” Target was seen as higher on

Figure 3 Personality characteristics of Adidas

Figure 4 Personality differences between Nike and Adidas




Volume 18 · Number 4 · 2009 · 272–283

278

Figure 5 Personality characteristics of Target

Figure 6 Personality characteristics of Wal-Mart

Figure 7 Personality differences between Target and Wal-Mart




Volume 18 · Number 4 · 2009 · 272–283

279

“customer focus,” “fun and lively place to shop,” and

“innovative.”

Summary

In the current study, the quantitative data (rating scale)

supported the five major dimensions of personality as

designated by Aaker’s original work. However, there was a

lack of correspondence between the quantitative and

qualitative dimensions of personality. Here, the qualitative

data provided fuller and richer perspectives than those

attained through the rating scales. Largely, this enhanced view

came from the narrative nature of the qualitative investigation.

Respondents’ (consumers) expressed their personal

impressions of their usage, experiences, and feelings towards

the brands being studied. In turn, the respondents’ own

words provided the basis for drawing brand characteristics.This study found that Nike was perceived as a reliable and

trustworthy brand. However, it was also perceived as a

relatively expensive brand. While these impressions appeared

to be quite salient to the consumers’ choice process, these

items were revealed only through our qualitative assessment.

The rating scales did not capture these items. In short, these

items were missing from the standard quantitative analyses.Importantly though, the quantitative analysis (not shown in

table form) revealed key differences in perceived personality

between Nike and Adidas. For example, Nike rated

statistically significantly higher than Adidas on items such as

original, trendy, exciting, imaginative, and up-to-date. On the

other hand, Adidas was rated significantly higher than Nike

on items such as down-to-earth, family oriented and small

town.Looking at the quantitative and qualitative assessments

provides a broader and more complete image. The rating

scales suggest that Nike has captured a more trendy,

contemporary, and perhaps “edgier” feel than Adidas.

These could be utilized to differentiate and justify the added

perceived expense of Nike over Adidas. However, the

qualitatively revealed themes of trustworthiness and

reliability offer a different angle or means of connecting

with potential consumers. The Nike brand impressions seem

to indicate that consumers sense that with Nike, one “gets

what they pay for” (presumably a consistently reliable

product).In a similar manner, the rating scales revealed that Target,

with statistical significance, was perceived as more of a small-

town store than Wal-Mart. Additionally, Target scored

significantly higher than Wal-Mart on items such as

cheerful, trendy, exciting, cool, and contemporary. These

appear to be dramatic differences in brand personality.However, the qualitative assessments revealed that

Wal-Mart was perceived as a trustworthy and courteous

brand with low prices. Further, one of the critical qualitative

differentiators between Target and Wal-Mart seemed to be the

contrast between the perceived relaxed atmosphere of Target

and the tense atmosphere of Wal-Mart. Again, this key

impression, an impression that may drive at least some

patronage decisions, was not captured through the standard

rating methodology.

Managerial implications and applications

The use of computer software for analyzing the rich narrativesof qualitative research is limited in academic as well as theresearch industry (Bezborodova and Bennett (2004). Themajor reasons are the time constraints – time to developexpertise in using the tools and the time requirements of themarketplace. Thus, one of the goals of this paper was to showthat these tools have the potential for major contributions inresearch and that through the judicious use of qualitative andquantitative tools, marketers can obtain richer data than byrelying on either single method.

Clearly, marketers will continue to utilize quantitatively-driven data to guide and drive key decisions. Decision makingwhich is void of such a foundation would be regressive andproblematic. However, as revealed in this study, rich,meaningful, and highly relevant data can emerge fromcareful qualitative analysis. These data can both augmentand extend that derived from more traditional scale-basedapproaches. Accordingly, the overall quality of the decisionprocess can be positively enhanced.

Perhaps the biggest advantage of the mixed methodologyreported here comes in the area of advertising, particularly thedevelopment of creative advertising strategy. Within thecontext of brand personality, advertisers must help consumersassociate meaning (symbolic and emotional, as well asfunctional) with the brand in question. Quantitativeresearch provides an objective base for such decisions. Assuch, understandably, the data drive the creative appeal.However, the nuance of personality that can be exactedthrough careful qualitative assessment simply adds creativerichness and the promise of a more accurate connectionbetween advertising and consumers. Looking carefully at thepoints of similarities and differences between qualitative andquantitative assessments allows marketers to capture a morecomplementary and expansive brand perspective than isoffered from either method in isolation.

Note

1 There is a web site devoted to CAQDAS that hasimportant links to articles and conferences on the subject.Several software packages are available; most of these areavailable commercially. For a good review article onvarious software packages and their correspondingfeatures, see the article by Lewins and Silver (http://caqdas.soc.surrey.ac.uk/ChoosingLewins&SilverV3Nov05.pdf). Software developers keep updating their softwareas new digital technologies become available, but thisarticle covers major names in CAQDAS.

References

Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, August, pp. 347-56.

Aaker, J.L. (1999), “The malleable self: the role of self-expression in personality”, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 45-57.

Ang, S.H. and Lim, E.A.C. (2006), “The influence ofmetaphors and product type on brand personalityperceptions and attitudes”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 35No. 2, pp. 39-53.

Austin, J.R., Siguaw, J.A. and Mattila, A.S. (2003), “A re-examination of the generalizability of the Aaker brand




Volume 18 · Number 4 · 2009 · 272–283

280

personality measurement framework”, Journal of Strategic

Marketing, Vol. 11, June, pp. 77-92.Azoulay, A. and Kapferer, J. (2003), “Do brand personality

scales really measure brand personality?”, Journal of Brand

Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 143-55.Bezborodova, E. and Bennett, B. (2004), “An investigation

into the non-usage of qualitative software in the marketing

research industry”, Irish Marketing Review, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2,

pp. 49-52.Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”,

Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 139-68.Charmaz, K. (2000), “Grounded theory: objectivist and

constructivist methods”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S.

(Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand

Oaks, CA.Crask, M.R. and Laskey, H.A. (1990), “A positioning-based

decision model for selecting advertising managers”, Journal

of Advertising Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, August/September,

pp. 32-8.Creswell, J. (2002), Educational Research: Planning,

Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative

Research, Merrill Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.d’Astous, A., Colbert, F. and d’Astous, E. (2006), “The

personality of cultural festivals: scale development and

applications”, International Journal of Arts Management,

Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 14-23.Freling, T.H. and Forbes, L.P. (2005), “An examination of

brand personality through methodological triangulation”,

Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 148-62.Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of

Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine

De Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY.Govers, P.C.M. and Schoormans, J.P.L. (2005), “Product

personality and its influence on consumer preference”, The

Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 Nos 4/5, pp. 189-97.Graeff, T.R. (1996), “Image congruence effects on product

evaluations”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3,

pp. 481-99.Holman, R. (1981), “Product use as communication: a fresh

appraisal of a venerable topic”, in Enis, B.M. and

Roering, K.J. (Eds), Review of Marketing, American

Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 106-19.John, O.P. (1990), “The ‘big five’ factor taxonomy:

dimensions of personality in natural language and in

questionnaires”, in Pervin, L.A. (Ed.), Handbook of

Personality: Theory and Research, Guilford, New York, NY,

pp. 66-100.Keller, K. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building

Meaning and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice-Hall, Upper

Saddle River, NJ.Kumar, R., Luthra, A. and Datta, G. (2006), “Linkages

between brand personality and brand loyalty: a qualitative

study in an emerging market in the Indian context”, South

Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 11-35.Linville, P.W. and Carlston, D. (1994), “Social cognition of

the self”, in Devine, P.G., Hamilton, D.L. and

Ostrom, T.M. (Eds), Social Cognition: Its Impact on Social

Psychology, Academy Press, New York, NY.McCracken, G. (1986), “Culture and consumption: a

theoretical account of the structure and movement of

cultural meaning of consumer goods”, Journal of Consumer

Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 71-84.

McCrae, R. and Costa, P.T. (1989), “The structure of

interpersonal traits: Wiggins’ circumplex and five-factor

model”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 56

No. 4, pp. 586-95.Norman, W. (1963), “Toward an adequate taxonomy of

personality attributes: replicated factor structure in peer

nomination personality ratings”, Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 574-83.

Opoku, R., Abratt, R. and Pitt, L. (2006), “Communicating

brand personality: are the websites doing the talking for the

top South African business schools?”, Brand Management,Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 20-39.

Phau, I. and Lau, K.C. (2001), “Brand personality and

consumer self-expression: single or dual carriage way?”,

Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 428-44.Piedmont, R.L., McCrae, R.R. and Costa, R.T. Jr (1991),

“Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model”,

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 4,

pp. 630-7.Sirgy, M.J. (1982), “Self-concept in consumer behavior: a

critical review”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3,

pp. 287-300.Smith, A.C.T., Graetz, B.R. and Westerbeek, H.M. (2006),

“Brand personality in a membership-based organization”,

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary SectorMarketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 251-66.

Solomon, M.R. (1983), “The role of products as socialstimuli: a symbolic interactionism perspective”, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 319-29.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of QualitativeResearch: Techniques and Procedures for Developing GroundedTheory, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Srnka, K.J. and Koeszegi, S.T. (2007), “From words to

numbers: how to transform qualitative data into meaningfulquantitative results”, SBR, Vol. 59, January, pp. 29-57.

Tupes, E.C. and Christal, R.E. (1958), Stability of PersonalityTrait Rating Factors Obtained under Diverse Conditions, USAF

WAD Technical Report No. 58-61, US Airforce, LacklandAirforce Base, Lackland, TX.

Wesley, S.C., Fowler, D.C. and Vazquez, M.E. (2006),

“Retail personality and the Hispanic consumer”, ManagingService Quality, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 167-84.

Venable, B.T., Rose, G.M., Bush, V.D. and Gilbert, F.W.

(2005), “The role of brand personality in charitable giving:

an assessment and validation”, Academy of MarketingScience Journal, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 295-312.

Veryzer, R.W. (1995), “The place of product design and

aesthetics in consumer research”, in Kardes, F.M. and

Sujan, M. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22,Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 641-5.

About the authors

Raj Arora (PhD Claremont University) is Schutte Professor of

Marketing at University of Missouri-Kansas City. His

research and publications are in the areas of consumerbehavior (consumption emotions, involvement, framing, and

credibility) and services marketing (service quality levels,

consumer choice in health care).Charles Stoner (DBA Florida State University) is Robert

A. McCord Professor of Management at Bradley University.

His current research and publications are in the area of

behavioral impacts of connectivity, with special attention to




Volume 18 · Number 4 · 2009 · 272–283

281

life balance and adversity. Charles Stoner is the corresponding

author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Executive summary and implications formanagers and executives

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executivesa rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with aparticular interest in the topic covered may then read the article intoto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of theresearch undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of thematerial present.

Consumers have traditionally used physical and functionalattributes as a means of distinguishing one brand from

another. However, marketing managers have found itincreasingly tough to differentiate their offerings on theseaspects alone. One outcome has been growing interest in

recent years in the concept of brand personality.

Brand personality

With origins in psychology research, brand personalityposits that products and brands have symbolic and

emotional appeal that can influence consumer purchasedecisions. Brand personality enables consumers to form

closer attachments to certain brands because of the humancharacteristics they have ascribed to them. It is believed thatconsumers seek those brands whose personalities reflect the

concept of themselves they want to project to others basedupon their “real” or “ideal” selves. Brands that providebetter congruence with their own personalities typically

appeal most and can result in the consumer becoming loyalto the brand in both behavioral and emotional terms.

Various studies conducted since pioneering work fromAaker in the late 1990s have supported these notions andlikewise highlighted the value of brand personality to

marketers because it may be less easy to replicate than moretangible product features.

A model for measuring the concept emerged from Aaker’sfindings. It posits that brand personality is comprised of fiveseparate dimensions, with each incorporating a range of

attributes and characteristics. These sincerity, excitement,competence, sophistication and ruggedness dimensions havebeen utilized as a framework for many brand personality

studies. Others have questioned the applicability of theframework to all contexts and have modified the dimensions

accordingly. For instance, an additional dimension relating to“innovation” was used to enhance one study of amembership-based sports organization.

A blended approach

Other scholars recognize the value of Aaker’s work but arguethat brand personality is too complex a concept to be fully

explained by this model alone. Some have used alternativemethods in their brand personality investigations, while a

mixed method approach utilizing such as focus groups,qualitative evaluation and empirical assessment has beenexplored within a study of nonprofit organizations.

In the present study, Arora and Stoner further explore theidea of incorporating qualitative research into the

measurement of brand personality. Those advocating suchan approach believe that it offers “subjective realities”,

“different perspectives” and “a richer and more complex

picture” of the context being analyzed. It is further argued

that the degree of understanding it enables cannot be

achieved through quantitative study alone. Marketing has,

however, been slow to incorporate qualitative methods, not

least because of the potential cost incurred in purchasing and

learning to use the software necessary for analyzing the data

that is generated. Focus groups, phenomenology and

narrative psychology are among the recognized qualitative

research methods but the authors felt that grounded theory

was a more appropriate tool in this context. A key feature of

this approach is that it enables new theory to be developed

from the research data.Midwest residents were recruited for the two-part study,

with 322 participating in the quantitative section of the work

but just 32 in the qualitative part in order to provide the depth

of response deemed necessary. The quantitative element

involved a structured questionnaire relating to Aaker’s five

personality dimensions. An extensive list of personality items

was included and participants were asked to indicate the

degree to which each item mirrored their perception of the

four brands under analysis. In order to generate “focused and

in-depth conversation”, a semi-structured questionnaire was

used for the qualitative part of the study. To enable direct

comparison of personalities, two brands were chosen from

within the retail and sportswear products segments. The retail

sector was represented by Wal-Mart and Target, with Nike

and Adidas as their sportswear counterparts.Analysis of the quantitative data revealed considerable

equivalence with Aaker’s personality framework.

Nevertheless, one notable difference was that certain

attributes loaded in a different dimension to the one

indicated in the original model. This led to Arora and

Stoner fusing sophistication and excitement into a single

dimension, resulting in an amended four dimensional

construct.Software used for qualitative assessment must be

appropriate for the specific study and QDA Miner met the

necessary criteria for the current project, not least because it

permits several different analysis procedures. The analysis

here indicated several differences from the five personality

dimensions in terms of both number of dimensions and

content within each one. Since the study had a specific rather

than general focus and thus permitted the inclusion of

dimensions external to the model, this finding was not

unexpected. For example, two categories deemed possibly

unique to the study brands were identified, while the

competence, sophistication and ruggedness dimensions were

found to be irrelevant.Through analysis of respondent answers, the authors were

able to determine that Nike and Adidas are perceived as

having different personalities. The presence of items like

“authority”, “forward looking” and “innovative” reflects

Nike’s image as a creative brand, while other significant

traits referred to the company being considered “down to

earth” yet charging high prices. In contrast, Adidas was

identified as being trustworthy, honest, friendly and customer

oriented.Some of the Adidas traits also applied to Target and the

brand was additionally perceived as “organized” and an

authority in its sector. The low price and market dominance

of Wal-Mart was noted, but its “tense” shopping environment




Volume 18 · Number 4 · 2009 · 272–283

282

contrasted sharply with the greater friendliness attributed toTarget, which was deemed a “fun place to shop”.

Marketing implications

The study highlighted the obvious limitations of dependingon a single type of analysis. On the other hand, blendingquantitative and qualitative forms can help realize a muchdeeper insight into consumer perspectives. Furtherillustration of this was provided by the fact that qualitativeanalysis of the study brands revealed key personality traits thatwere not detected through the regular quantitative method.The difference in atmosphere between Target and Wal-Martstores was one example. Arora and Stoner note the potentialfor this particular finding to drive “patronage decisions” asmight the knowledge that Nike is perhaps trendier and more

edgy than Adidas and therefore justified in charging higher

prices. On the other hand, the perceived trustworthiness of

Adidas provides scope for a different marketing angle.Ultimately, the combined approach to analysis has

particular significance to advertising strategy. Armed with

greater knowledge of the range of symbolic, emotional and

functional meanings consumers associate with a particular

brand, marketers will be better positioned to develop more

inspired and effective advertising campaigns.

(A precis of the article “A mixed method approach to

understanding brand personality”. Supplied by Marketing

Consultants for Emerald.)




Volume 18 · Number 4 · 2009 · 272–283

283

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

a mixed method approach to understanding brand personality.pdf

Documents