0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
21 vues19 pages
This paper examines the influence of brand personality on advertising response in fashion lifestyle branding context. The research is designed to explore the measurement and application of Brand Personality Congruence (BPC) Results indicate the existence of a strong relationship between self-congruency and advertising response measures.
This paper examines the influence of brand personality on advertising response in fashion lifestyle branding context. The research is designed to explore the measurement and application of Brand Personality Congruence (BPC) Results indicate the existence of a strong relationship between self-congruency and advertising response measures.
This paper examines the influence of brand personality on advertising response in fashion lifestyle branding context. The research is designed to explore the measurement and application of Brand Personality Congruence (BPC) Results indicate the existence of a strong relationship between self-congruency and advertising response measures.
7 Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy
2010 IUP. All Rights Reserved.
Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy Bilal Mustafa Khan* Driven by the competitive environment in fashion business, marketers have realized that creating a favorable brand image is a key to win larger market share. This paper examines the influence of brand personality on advertising response in fashion lifestyle branding context. The research was designed to explore the measurement and application of Brand Personality Congruence (BPC) and attempts to establish a relationship between self-congruency and advertising response measures. The study is empirical in nature and involved administering a questionnaire to the respondents, prior to which they were shown print ads of leading fashion and lifestyle brands in India. Results indicate the existence of a strong relationship between self-congruity and advertising response measures which include attitude towards the ad, attitude towards the brand and behavioral intentions. * Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Management Studies and Research, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), India. E-mail: khanbilalmustafa@gmail.com Introduction In todays competitive environment, brand differentiation based on tangible attributes is difficult to achieve. Therefore, concepts, like customer-brand relationship (Blackston, 1993), brand magic (Biel, 1997) or lovemark (Beckman, 2002) have become important in brand building literature. The reason for the success of these lies in the emotional and self-expression benefits that brands provide to their ultimate consumers. From the brand building perspective, brand personality is considered as an important input variable in branding strategy models (Kapferer, 1991; Keller, 1993; and Aaker, 1996). From the customer perspective, the adoption of new brands is a consequence of advertising process (Mehta, 1994 and 1999; Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995; and Meenaghan, 1995). Consumer purchase products/brands not only on the basis of their functions or quality, but do so, more importantly, because of the symbolic meanings contained in products/ brands (Veryzer, 1995). Brands offer different values to consumers: these values are basically functional (i.e., the problem-solving capability of a brand), experiential (i.e., benefits related to sensory enjoyment or cognitive arousal), and symbolic brand benefits (i.e., the signal effects shown to others via the brand) (Keller, 1993). Marconi (2000) asserted that brand personality, defined as the set of human characteristics associated with a brand (Aaker, 1997), is of great consequence in marketing because the building of a public identification of oneself with the brand can lead to strong brand loyalty. Emphasizing key attributes that customers deem important facilitates self-congruity with the brands personality, thus increasing the probability of The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010 8 being chosen by the customer (Aaker, 1999; Kassarjian, 1971; Kotler, 2003; Sirgy, 1982; and Wee, 2004). Brand personality is an attractive and appealing concept in contemporary marketing. It is one of the core dimensions of the brand identity (Aaker, 1996) and perhaps the one closest to the consumers. The personality idea corresponds with the contemporary societys ideology of revering the personal relationships. Relationships are central to any individual and command his attention and respect. Maslows need hierarchy identified the need of belongingness, love and esteem eons ago. Drawing on the same lines, the brand personalities are created employing different ways and active communication tools on the side of the firms. The intention is to influence and color the evaluation of alternative stages of consumer buying behavior model. The power of advertising is used to make it even more efficacious, compelling and convincing. In this stage, and for these goals, advertising is considered to be the most effective communication tool (Brassington and Pettitt, 2000). Keller (1993) asserts that an integral component of building positive customer based brand equity is brand knowledge. The theoretical framework proposed by Keller (1993) states that brand knowledge has two primary dimensions: brand awareness and brand image. Brand awareness is the ability for a buyer to recognize or recall that a brand is a member of a certain product category (Aaker, 1991, p. 61). Brand image is the set of associations linked to the brand that consumers hold in memory (Keller, 1993, p. 2). Both of these dimensions play a role in affecting consumer decision making by increasing the probability that the customer will choose the specific brand over other brands offering the same product or service. Keller (1993) suggested that brands offer three benefits for a consumer: Functional, experiential, and symbolic. Of these, brand personality addresses the symbolic or self-expressive function (Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1997; Siguaw et al., 1999; and Wee, 2004) and these benefits impact the customers behavior towards a brand. Dolich (1969) suggested that a consumer can maintain or enhance his/her self by using products or brands that are symbolically similar to the self. Research has shown that consumers tend to support brands and services whose personalities closely match their own (Sirgy, 1982; Fournier, 1994; Siguaw et al., 1999; Kotler, 2003; and Wee, 2004). This underlines the importance of creating favorable, strong, and unique brand associations in the customers memory (Keller, 1993). Increased levels of brand knowledge then can lead to greater profits and sustained brand loyalty, even in the presence of switching motivators. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the personality of fashion apparel brands and to examine the influence of self concept and BPC on their advertising response. The paper begins with a review of the literature and especially focuses on key concepts such as brand personality and self congruence in branding advertising processing context. Later on the results of an experimental study that was conducted in order to assess the brand personality profile of 15 fashion apparel brands are discussed. 9 Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy Literature Review Keller (1998) states that, Brand personality reflects how people feel about a brand, rather than what they think the brand is or does. The symbolic use of brands is possible because consumers often give brands human personalities (Aaker, 1997). Consumers usually perceive the brand as having quasi-human traits and an evaluation of a brand is done on dimensions that typically capture a persons personality, and extend that to the domain of brands. Brand personality is measured by extending the traits of human personality to the domain of brands. The research on brand personality suggests that consumers select brands that are congruent with their needs and personal characteristics. Brand characteristics tend to be similar with the consumers self concept and personality traits, therefore behavior choices are predictable if marketers identify consumers self-images and brand perceptions. Freling and Forbes (2005) found that brands with strong personalities are likely to generate positive attitudes with consumers, which are likely to result in evaluations that are more favorable. Brand meaning and personality is found to transcend cultural boundaries and therefore coupled with consumer personality characteristics, would be a valuable combination for marketing strategy purposes for all kinds of brands globally (Aaker and Schmitt, 2001; and Escalas and Bettman, 2005). Brand Personality and Consumers Self-Congruity Self-congruity represents the degree of similarity between consumers self-image or self concept and that of a brand. The degree of consistency between the self-image and brand image is self-congruity (Sirgy, 1982). The four aspects of self-concept compose the global self-image, which is hypothesized to influence consumer choices of products/brands through self-image with brand image congruity (Johar and Sirgy, 1991; and Sirgy and Su, 2000). Congruity impacts are desirable because they influence consumers self-image positively, but inconsistencies or incongruity is likely to result in feelings of inadequacy, and dissatisfaction with their choices (Johar and Sirgy, 1991; and Sirgy and Su, 2000). According to Pervin and John (2001), self-concept is often viewed as a component of personality. Identifying congruity relationships between brand image and consumers self-image would enable marketers to position and promote products more effectively with the appropriate target markets (Table 1). Identifying more clearly symbolic brand personality meanings, consumer personality characteristics and the interrelationships between consumer self-image and brand image, would provide an integrated homothetic approach to understanding the symbolic with the actual consumer needs. Every brand communicates distinctly with the specific personality traits of the individual consumers. The personality constructs so created after the conjunction of brand image with consumers self-image are universally acceptable as they transcend all cultural gulfs and remain stable for a long time. Hence an exhaustive insight and an acute understanding of the same are indispensable and crucial from the marketers perspective. (Jung, 1921 and 1971b; and McCrae and Costa, 1997). The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010 10 Role of Advertising in Creation of Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity Advertising is a form of communication of used in helping sell products and services. It communicates, informs, interacts, divulges and disseminates the essential information (name of the product or service, etc.) and implicit benefits of the product among the potential customers. The advertisements often experiment with the recreation and reinvention of the brand image to carry the message forward and accentuate the consumption patterns. For the same advertisements could be imbued with persuasion and information. Advertising is a promotional activity for marketing goods and services. It is heavily used in the process of personality creation. In the process of personality creation, advertising and marketing communication approaches are largely used to create a brands personality (Redenbach, 2000). The execution strategies for conveying and imparting the core idea can vary from the informational to emotional. Through television, radio, cinema, magazines, newspapers, video games, carrier bags, billboards, mail or post and Internet marketing brands reach large numbers of individuals representing a wide range of cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Also the qualitative factors Table 1: Comparison of Self-Congruity (SC) and Brand Personality (BP) Content/Focus of attention Scope Conceptual Variants Measurement Variants Memory Process Involved Level of Induced Self-awareness Parameters Self-Congruity Brand Personality Congruity between typical user of brand and specified aspects of the self-concept of respondents. Narrowtypical user is basis for determination. One direct source Actual SC Ideal SC Social SC Ideal Social SC. Global measures (characteristics not defined; self-report measure of congruity). Specified measures (characteristics defined; congruity estimated). Recall (specified measures or recall-based global measures). High (explicit focus on the self of respondents). Descriptiveness of a set of personality characteristics for a given brand. Broad, multiple sources as basis for determination (typical user is but one). Multiple direct and indirect sources. Minimal variants identified BP of goods, BP of services, Retailer BP, etc. All are conceptually similar. General scales. Idiographic measures (brand/ situation-specific characteristics derived from pre-study). Recognition (personality characteristics are listed). Low/moderate (focus on the brand). 11 Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy associated with the content and/or execution of an advertisement has an impact on its eventual effectiveness (MacKenzie et al., 1986). Self concept and personality have been used interchangeably in existing marketing and psychology literature. Rosenberg (1979) defined self concept as the totality of the individuals thoughts and feelings having reference to him as an object (p. 7). Onkvisit and Shaw (1987) augmented that definition by saying that an individual compares himself to other objects in a frame of reference that is socially determined. In consumer research, it is generally accepted that self concept (also referred to as self-image) has four aspects: actual-self (how a person sees himself/herself), social-self (how others see him/her), ideal- self (how a person would like to see himself/herself), and ideal social-self (how a person would like others to see him/her (Sirgy, 1982)). The view of self-image congruence states that consumer preferences are determined by a cognitive harmony between consumer self-image and brand image. Johar and Sirgy (1991) posit two alternative routes to persuasion: (a) Self-congruity: which is the match between the products value-expressive attributes and the audiences self concept; (b) functional congruity: which is the match between the beliefs of products functional attributes and the audiences referent attributes. Rossiter and Percy (1987) opine that self congruence is the main route used in transformational advertising, in contrast to functional congruity which is very often used in informational advertising. Fashion apparel is a category with higher levels of conspicuousness and consumer involvement, implying that self congruence is the dominant persuasion route. Apparels are a nonverbal form of communication of individual personality and self-image (Thomas et al., 1991). The symbolic, self-expression and socialization roles of apparel brands (Belleau et al., 1992; Elliot, 1994; and Shim and Koh, 1997) also enhance the relevance of the study of the influence of self-image congruence upon purchase intentions. Hypotheses Development and Conceptual Framework Research has shown that consumers tend to support brands and services whose personalities closely match their own (Kassarjian, 1971; Sirgy, 1982; Batra et al., 1993; Temporal, 2001; Kotler, 2003; and Wee, 2004), thus allowing them to express themselves through the brands that they use (Dolich, 1969; Fournier, 1994; and Aaker, 1997). Wee (2004) concurred by stating that consumers fulfill the need for identity through the brands that they choose to support. This reinforces Grubb and Grathwohls (1967, p. 22) conclusion that self-congruity, links the psychological construct of an individuals self concept with the symbolic value of goods purchased in the marketplace. Literature shows that there is a positive relationship between self-congruity and brand choice/ preference, purchasing and repurchasing decisions, and post-purchase attitudes such as satisfaction and brand loyalty (Birdwell, 1968; Dolich, 1969; Sirgy, 1982; Sirgy and Samli, 1985; Ericksen, 1996; Graeff, 1996; Sirgy et al., 1997; and Back, 2005). The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010 12 This research brings together two important areas that have been shown to be useful in business and marketing applications: brand personality and congruence. Moreover, marketing professionals will be provided information that may be useful in designing marketing strategies to maximize the leverage that a well-established brand personality provides. When the personalities of the brand and the customer are congruent, the chances of a brand to succeed increase markedly (Temporal, 2001). Therefore for the purpose of this research the main hypotheses are: H 1 : Consumers will favor advertisements of brands (in terms of attitude towards the ad, attitude towards the brand and purchase intention) with a personality congruent with their (ideal) self concept. H 2 : The higher the perceived degree of self-image and product brand personality congruity, the more positive is the attitude towards the advertisement. H 3 : The higher the perceived degree of self-image and product-brand personality congruity, the more positive is the attitude towards the brand. H 4 : The higher the perceived degree of self-image and product brand personality congruity, the more likely is the purchase intention toward the brand. Methodology The process that produced the scale in this study involves a sequence of steps consistent with conventional guidelines for scale development (Churchill, 1979; and Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Content validity was established by evaluating the items for conformity to the theoretical definitions and for redundancy. Brand Personality Measures (BP) After a thorough review of the literature and on the basis of the previously established definitions, two types of brand personality measures were found to exist in the literature: general scales (i.e., those taken directly from personality psychology without validation for brands; such as Neo-PI, MBTI and Big Five) and brand-specific measures. Only a few studies have specifically developed measures for brand personality, including Aaker (1997) (Figure 1). She proposes a five-dimensional scale, including sincerity (inclusive of down- to-earth, honest, wholesome, and cheerful), excitement (daring, spirited, imaginative, and up-to-date), competence (reliable, intelligent, and successful), sophistication (upper class and charming) and ruggedness (outdoorsy and tough). Attitude Towards the Advertisement (ATD) Subjects ATD score was derived from an average of their ratings on five 7-point scales: good/bad, like/dislike, interesting/boring, creative/uncreative and informative uninformative. These scales, which include both affective and evaluative content, were selected based on a review of existing research (e.g., Gardner, 1985; MacKenzie et al., 1986; and Beihal et al., 1992). 13 Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy Attitude Towards the Brand (ATB) Subjects overall attitude towards the brand score was obtained from average ratings on four 7-point scales (bad/good, dislike quite a lot/like quite a lot, unpleasant/pleasant and poor quality/good quality). Scale items were taken from existing research (e.g., Gardner 1985; Mitchell 1986; and Beihal et al., 1992). Purchase Intention (PI) Behavioral intentions were measured by four positive actions suggested by Vezina and Paul (1997) to search information about the brand, to visit a store, to buy that brand and to initiate positive word-of-mouth or recommend the brand. Principal components analysis with varimax rotation was performed to identify the factors of brand personality. Factor analysis is intended to classify a set of variables in terms of a smaller number of theoretical variables or to explore underlying dimensions (Kim and Mueller, 1978). In the next step, internal consistency analysis was used for achieving reliability in the scale based on exploratory factor analysis. Cronbachs Alpha, a traditional technique for assessing reliabilities for each factor (Carmines and Zeller, 1979) was used. For internal consistency, it was determined that reliabilities should not be below 0.6 (Churchill, 1979). After the testing of instrument, the researchers were left with 20 items distributed equally along the four dimensions of brand equity. Data Collection For the purpose of this study, a sample of 250 respondents were chosen. The sample consisted of undergraduate as well as postgraduate students in North India, specifically in Figure 1: Conceptual Model Attitude Towards the ad Purchase Intention BPC Attitude Towards the Brand Sincerity Competence Ruggedness Excitement Sophistication The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010 14 New Delhi and National Capital Region (NCR). Some researchers have argued that the use of student subjects in measurement/scale development research threatens the external validity and generalizability of findings due to the non-representativeness and distinctive characteristics of the population (e.g., Burnett and Dunne, 1986; and Wells, 1993). However, the use of students as respondents in academic research is acceptable and even desirable in many cases mostly when they constitute the major consumer segment for the selected product (Yoo et al., 2000). More importantly, students are deemed acceptable for theory testing research in which the multivariate relationships among constructs, not the univariate differences (i.e., mean score comparisons) between samples, are being investigated (Calder et al., 1981). In total, 223 questionnaires were deemed to be useable for the final data analysis, which is well above the critical sample size of 200 multivariate analysis (Hair et al., 2003). The data collection procedure involved a questionnaire organized around the following themes. The first part of the questionnaire involved eliciting the level of involvement of the respondent with respect to clothing. Scale items were taken from a study by Biehal et al., (1992) and include statements like: Does clothing represent a way to express your values and personality?(functional) and Do you regard clothing as a source of pleasure or a way to indulge yourself? (hedonist) to assess the overall importance of fashion and lifestyle product in the respondents life. The second part of the questionnaire included a 42-item brand personality scale on which respondents provided evaluations on 15 brands. The selection of these brands was based on preliminary content analyses of their advertisements to ensure that they would possess the required characteristics. The self concept and BPC was measured with an adaptation of the method suggested by Sirgy et al. (1997). In contrast to the more traditional measures, the global approach requires the subject to first describe the brand user profile and then state directly the congruence or consistency between the brand user profile and his (ideal) self concept. On the survey instrument, respondents were asked to rate 15 fashion and lifestyle brands on a 7-point scale of agreement-disagreement, rather than the 5-point response scale employed by Yoo et al. (2000). The reason for using an interval scale is that it permits the researchers to use a variety of statistical techniques which can be applied to nominal and ordinal scale data in addition to the arithmetic mean, standard deviation, product-moment correlations, and other statistics commonly used in marketing research (Malhotra, 2004). The last section of the questionnaire contained items to measure the overall attitude towards the ad (four items), attitude towards the brand (four items) and behavioral intentions (four items). Analysis and Interpretation The design of the study assured independent and random responses. However, the scale items were tested according to their distributional characteristics. Exploratory data 15 Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy analysis was performed to weed out outliers and was examined for normality and kurtosis in particular. None of the variables were found to have significant departure from normality or pronounced kurtosis, and therefore all the variables were found suitable for use. Some questionnaires were rejected as missing data was more than 75%. The scale was refined initially through an iterative process of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and reliability analysis. A total of five factors emerged after the refinement round. EFA was done by using SPSS Statistics 17.0. The principal component analysis was employed for extraction and Varimax method with Kaiser normalization was used for rotation. The rotation converged in 21 iterations. The Bartletts test of sphericity was significant and the Kaiser Meyer Olkin(KMO) measure of sample adequacy was found to be 0.923. Researchers argue that for this measure, a value greater than 0.5 is desirable (Malhotra, 2004). Therefore, it is concluded that factor analysis can be employed on the data for analyzing the correlation matrix. Out of the 42 items employed, four were dropped as their loadings were not significant (Table 2). Young (Excitement) 0.749 Trendy (Excitement) 0.724 Cool (Excitement) 0.752 Exciting (Excitement) 0.740 Imaginative (Excitement) 0.738 Spirited (Excitement) 0.722 Up-to-date (Excitement) 0.675 0.457 Cheerful (Sincerity) 0.325 0.627 Daring (Excitement) 0.560 Unique (Excitement) 0.544 0.368 Successful (Competence) 0.701 Leader (Competence) 0.699 Intelligent (Competence) 0.660 Reliable (Competence) 0.663 0.392 Secure (Competence) 0.647 Contemporary (Excitement) 0.692 0.491 0.383 Confident (Competence) 0.550 Independent (Excitement) 0.363 0.538 Hard-working (Competence) 0.503 Table 2: Results of Factor Analysis Factor 5 (Ruggedness) Factor 4 (Sincerity) Factor 3 (Sophistication) Factor 2 (Competence) Factor 1 (Excitement) Items (Dimension in Aaker Scale) (n = 223) The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010 16 Analysis of tlhe respondents profile revealed that most of them were in the age group of 21-26 and males outnumbered the females in terms of sheer number. Analysis by gender reveals that 67% of the respondents were young males while the remaining 33% were females. None of the respondents were married and most of them had considerable purchasing power. Analyses of the responses involving the elicitation of the level of involvement of the respondent with respect to clothing revealed that most of the respondents bought fashion and lifestyle products as these represent a way to express their values and personality and also a majority overwhelmingly believe that fashion and lifestyle products are a source of pleasure or a way to indulge themselves (hedonist). Overall fashion and lifestyle products were found to be hugely important in the respondents life. Table 2 (Cont.) Factor 5 (Ruggedness) Factor 4 (Sincerity) Factor 3 (Sophistication) Factor 2 (Competence) Factor 1 (Excitement) Items (Dimension in Aaker Scale) (n = 223) Glamorous (Sophistication) 0.831 Upper class (Sophistication) 0.824 Feminine (Sophistication) 0.718 Charming (Sophistication) 0.350 0.714 Smooth (Sophistication) 0.690 Good-looking (Sophistication) 0.441 0.663 Sentimental (Sincerity) 0.384 0.396 0.669 Sincere (Sincerity) 0.393 0.740 Honest (Sincerity) 0.389 0.739 Family-oriented (Sincerity) 0.684 Real (Sincerity) 0.351 0.655 Down-to-earth (Sincerity) 0.602 Original (Sincerity) 0.602 Wholesome (Sincerity) 0.599 Friendly (Sincerity) 0.405 0.680 Tough (Ruggedness) 0.811 Rugged (Ruggedness) 0.754 Masculine (Ruggedness) 0.655 Western/Adventurous (Ruggedness) 0.408 0.658 Eigenvalue 7.012 5.348 5.01 4.196 2.575 Variance Explained 18.135% 12.443% 12.187% 11.043% 6.776% Cronbachs Alpha 0.906 0.893 0.827 0.839 0.784 17 Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy This is in keeping with the fact that most of the respondents are at that stage in a life cycle where brands and products which have a self-expressive benefit are patronized. Consumers view the brand as an extension of self and hence purchase products and brands in conformance with their image. Analysis of the brand personality dimensions reveal certain interesting facts. Brands such as Monte Carlo and J Hampstead score highly on sincerity, sophistication and competence and can be termed brands which are simple, caring and helpful while being reliable, persevering and emotional at the same time (Table 3). Brands such as Killer, Levis, and Lee-Cooper are rated as highly exciting and rugged brands with an outdoorsy image. They can be termed as adventurous, active, outgoing and cool while at the same time being rugged. Allen Solly, Arrow and Raymonds are highly rated in terms of sophistication which is perhaps due to the positioning that they have built over the years. These brands have tremendous inspirational appeal. Finally, Raymonds as a brand stands apart from the pack on all dimensions except ruggedness. This is understandable as the research indicated that men did not really aspire to be muscle rippling superstuds. Accordingly, the Raymonds man was developedas someone more believable and fleshed out than the standard cardboard cutouts of yore. But portraying a caring man was a revolution in Indian advertising. Research has revealed that even though the sensibly sensitive and Table 3: Brand Personality Scores Brand Monte Carlo 3.55 (0.61) 3.08 (0.77) 3.19 (0.67) 3.43 (0.83) 2.58 (0.69) Lee Cooper 2.08 (0.51) 3.59 (0.77) 2.82 (0.62) 2.94 (0.86) 3.41 (0.76) Allen Solly 3.21 (0.57) 2.77 (0.75) 3.63 (0.71) 3.69 (0.72) 2.44 (0.76) Woodland 2.97 (0.68) 3.47 (0.70) 2.95 (0.70) 2.63 (0.67) 3.27 (0.61) J Hampstead 3.49 (0.97) 3.14 (0.92) 3.34 (0.77) 3.24 (0.75) 2.14 (0.66) Wrangler 2.70 (0.66) 3.53 (0.76) 2.61 (0.78) 2.98 (0.81) 3.09 (0.60) Bare Casuals 3.03 (0.63) 2.86 (0.65) 3.17 (0.70) 2.66 (0.89) 2.77 (0.78) Van Heusen 2.44 (0.57) 3.65 (0.69) 3.44 (0.68) 3.67 (0.80) 1.80 (0.82) Red Tape 2.91 (0.53) 3.51 (0.57) 3.18 (0.73) 3.18 (0.82) 3.39 (0.58) Numero Uno 2.90 (0.72) 2.61 (0.70) 2.43 (0.66) 2.57 (0.88) 2.91 (0.72) Arrow 2.97 (0.68) 3.47 (0.70) 3.19 (0.69) 3.67 (0.80) 2.23 (0.88) Killer 2.34 (0.51) 3.90 (0.70) 2.63 (0.64) 2.90 (0.83) 3.53 (0.88) Levis 2.55 (0.61) 3.58 (0.77) 2.79 (0.67) 2.93 (0.83) 3.48 (0.69) Raymonds 3.52 (0.79) 3.65 (0.76) 3.48 (0.78) 3.93 (0.69) 2.98 (0.77) Provogue 2.78 (0.78) 3.500 (0.57) 3.01 (0.67) 2.95 (0.72) 2.99 (0.85) Sincerity Excitement Competence Sophistication Ruggedness The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010 18 emotional Raymonds man was strikingly apart from his more traditional Indian counterpart, yet it succeeded in awakening the aspirations of millions of Indian males, who acceded to evolve and explore these ambiguous and hidden aspects of his personality. The reason why the brand is rated so high on all the dimensions can be credited to the advertising strategy of the brand. The typical Indian male, even the well-educated one, may not be the idealized person depicted by the campaign. But what is important is that the brand and the advertisement gave wings to their aspirations. The brand has tremendous aspirational appeal. Analysis of congruency scores reveal that Lee Cooper, Levis and Raymonds have the highest self congruence score and they are also the most valuable brands (Table 4). Purchase intentions were the highest for Levis while Lee Cooper obtained the highest attitude toward the ad score probably due to its print ad that connects with the youth. The most preferred brand was Raymonds probably owing to its heritage and the fabulous advertising campaign that it has run over the years, which in turn has been able to build brand preference. Purchase intentions were highest for Levis and the probable reason why Raymonds is a close second could be that the segment surveyed frequently buys jeans and casual wear in comparison to suitings (product utility and need motive). Table 4: Attitudinal Dimensions of the Advertising Effectiveness Brand Monte Carlo 4.21 3.05 2.72 3.41 Lee Cooper 6.14 3.58 4.03 4.42 Allen Solly 4.73 3.15 3.92 4.01 Woodland 4. 18 3.79 3.67 4.21 J Hampstead 4.59 2.89 3.23 3.96 Wrangler 4.75 2.95 3.41 4.11 Bare Casuals 4.96 2.93 3.11 3.95 Van Heusen 5.26 3.10 3.42 4.12 Red Tape 5.14 2.87 3.39 4.32 Numero Uno 4.17 3.07 2.95 3.89 Arrow 4.67 3.32 3.23 4.26 Killer 5.36 3.23 3.51 4.57 Levis 5.94 3.42 3.92 4.68 Raymonds 6.04 3.50 4.12 4.41 Provogue 4.59 3.16 3.47 4.15 Brand Personality Congruence (BPC) (Mean on a 1 to 7 Scale) Attitude Toward the Ad (ATD) (Mean on a 1 to 5 Scale) Attitude Toward the Brand (ATB) (Mean on a 1 to 5 Scale) Purchase Intention (PI) (Mean on a 1 to 5 Scale) 19 Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy In line with the hypothized relationship (H 1 to H 4 ); significant positive correlations between self concept and BPC and advertising response measures were found (Table 5). Conclusion The results indicate the predictive power of consumer personality on brand preferences. The results are consistent with research findings that consumers use brands to express their actual personality. Advertisement is inevitable to marketing as it deploys creativity, imagination, ingenuity, chimera all rolled into one to communicate the information, and is thus a very unique and an effective medium. Understanding of the brand personality, an area with significant and far-reaching consequences yet an area less traversed, is inevitable and crucial to any marketer. Hence, understanding the implications of the advertising strategies in building brand personality and user congruity is essential in todays marketing research. The present research has emphasized the key attributes that customers deem important and which facilitates self-congruity with the brands personality, thus increasing the Table 5: Correlation Coefficients Between Self-Congruency and Advertising Response Measures Brand Monte Carlo 0.38 0.43* 0.54* Lee Cooper 0.56* 0.72** 0.79** Allen Solly 0.54* 0.63* 0.47** Woodland n.s 0.56* 0.53 J Hampstead 0.42** 0.54 0.49** Wrangler n.s. 0.52** 0.48* Bare Casuals 0.56** 0.53** 0.63 Van Heusen 0.45* 0.37* 0.49** Red Tape n.s 0.65** 0.63** Numero Uno 0.56* 0.60* 0.45** Arrow 0.58* 0.59** 0.71** Killer 0.62** 0.65* 0.54** Levis 0.68** 0.78** 0.75** Raymonds 0.79** 0.73** 0.75** Provogue 0.55** 0.54 0.55 Self-Congruency vs ATD Self-Congruency vs ATB Self-Congruency vs PI Note: Advertising response measure: Self-congruency; * p < 0.050; ** p < 0.010; *** p < 0.001; and n.s. is not significant. The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010 20 probability of being chosen by the customer (Kassarjian, 1971; Sirgy, 1982; Aaker, 1999; Kotler, 2003; and Wee, 2004). It has also provided supporting evidence for a brand personality congruence effect. This study contributes to the research on brand attachment by investigating brand personality congruence as a determinant of product attachment and consumers purchase decision. From the brand building point of view, the results should help the understanding of antecedents and consequences of brand personality dispensation, as proposed in several branding models (Kapferer, 1991; Blackston, 1993 and 1995; Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1996; and Fournier, 1998). Further these findings provide useful insights for brand managers in promoting brand personalities that are relevant to their target audience. Bibliography 1. Aaker D A (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, The Free Press, New York. 2. Aaker D (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York. 3. Aaker J L (1997), Dimensions of Brand Personality, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 347-356. 4. Aaker J L (1999), The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 45-57. 5. Aaker J L and Schmitt B (2001), Culture-Dependent Assimilation and Differentiation of the Self: Preference for Consumption Symbols in the United Sates and China, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32, September, pp. 561-576. 6. Anderson J C and Gerbing D W (1988), Structuring Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp. 411-423. 7. Azevedo Antonio (2005), Clothing Branding Strategies: Influence of Brand Personality on Advertising Response, Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, Vol. 4, No. 3, Spring. 8. Back Ki-Joon (2005), The Effects of Image Congruence on Customers, Brand Loyalty in the Upper Middle-Class Hotel Industry, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 29, NO. 4, p. 448. 9. Batra R, Lehmann D and Singh D (1993), The Brand Personality Component of Brand Goodwill: Some Antecedents and Consequences, in D Aaker and B L Alexander (Eds.), Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertisings Role in Building Strong Brands, pp. 83-95, Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers, Hillsdale, New Jersy. 10. Beckman S (2002), Managing Consumer-Brand Relationship: An Introduction in the Lovemark Concept, 31 st EMAC Conference Proceedings, 2002, Minho Universitty, Braga, Portugal.
21 Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy
11. Belleau B D, Didier J T and LaMotte L (1992), College Students Attitudes Toward Apparel and the Media, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 74 No. 3, Pt. 2, Special Issue, pp. 1183-1192. 12. Biehal B, Stephens D and Curlo E (1992), Attitude Toward the Ad and Brand Choice, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 19-36. 13. Biel A L (1997), Discovering Brand Magic: The Hardness of the Softer Side of Branding, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 199-210. 14. Birdwell A (1968), A Study of Influence of Image Congruence on Consumer Choice, Journal of Business, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 76-88. 15. Blackston M (1993), Beyond Brand Personality: Building Brand Relationships, in D A Aaker and A Biel (Eds.), Brand Equity & Advertising: Advertisings Role in Building Strong Brands, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 113-124, Hilsdale, New Jersey. 16. Blackston M (1995), The Qualitative Dimension of Brand Equity, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. RC-2-RC-7. 17. Brassington F and Pettitt S (2000), Principles of Marketing, 2 nd Edition, Printice Hall, Harlow, UK. 18. Burnett J J and Dunne P M (1986), An Appraisal of the Use of Student Subjects in Marketing Research, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 29-43. 19. Calder B J, Philips L W and Tybout A M (1981), Designing Research for Application, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, September, pp. 197-207. 20. Carmines E G and Richard A Zeller (1979), Reliability and Validity Assessment, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. 21. Churchill G A (1979), A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 64-73. 22. Cobb-Walgren C J, Ruble C A and Donthu N (1995), Brand Equity, Brand Preference, and Purchase Intent, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 25-40. 23. Dolich I (1969), Congruence Relationships Between Self-Images and Product Brands, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. VI, February, pp. 80-84. 24. Elliott R (1994), Exploring the Symbolic Meaning of Brands, British Journal of Management, No. 5, Special Issue, pp. S13-S19. 25. Escalas J E and Bettman J R (2005), Self-Construal, Reference Groups and Brand Meaning, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32, December, pp. 378-389. 26. Ericksen M K (1996), Using Self-Congruity and Ideal Congruity to Predict Purchase Intention: A European Perspective, Journal of Euromarketing, Vol. 1, No. 6, pp. 41-56. The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010 22 27. Fournier S (1994), A Consumer-Brand Relationship Framework for Strategic Brand Management, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 28. Fournier S (1998), Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 343-373. 29. Freling T H and Forbes L P (2005), An Empirical Analysis of the Brand Personality Effect, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 14, No. 7, pp. 404-413. 30. Gardner Meryl Paula (1985), Does Attitude to the Ad Affect Brand Attitude Under a Brand Evaluation Set?, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22, May, pp. 192-198. 31. Graeff T R (1996), Image Congruence Effects on Product Evaluations: The Role of Self-Monitoring and Public/Private Consumption, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 481-499. 32. Grubb E and Grathwohl H (1967), Consumer Self-Concept and Significant Others, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 382-385. 33. Hair J F Jr., Anderson R E, Tatham R L and Black W C (2003), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5 th Edition, Pearson Education India, New Delhi. 34. Johar J S and Sirgy M J (1991), Value-Expressive Versus Utilitarian Advertising Appeals: When and Why to Use Which Appeal, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 23-33. 35. Jung C (1921/1971), Psychological Types, Routledge and Keegan Paul Ltd., London. 36. Kapferer J (1991), Les marques capital de lentreprise, Les Editions dOrganization, Paris. 37. Kassarjian H (1971), Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, November, pp. 409-418. 38. Keller K L (1993), Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22. 39. Keller K L (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 40. Kim J and Mueller C (1978), Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues, in M S Lewis-Beck (Eds.), Factor Analysis and Related Techniques, Sage, London. 41. Kotler P (2003), Marketing Management , 11 th Edition, Pearson Education (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Delhi, India. 42. MacKenzie S, Lutz R J and Belch G E (1986), The Role of Attitude Towards the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, pp. 242-252. 43. Malhotra N K (2004), Marketing Research, 4 th Edition, Pearson Education India, New Delhi. 23 Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy 44. Marconi J (2000), The Brand Marketing Book: Creating, Managing, and Extending the Value of Your Brand, NTC Business Books, Lincolnwood, IL. 45. McCrae R R and Costa P T Jr. (1987), Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Instruments and Observers, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 81-90. 46. Meenaghan T (1995), The Role of Advertising in Brand Image Development, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 23-34. 47. Mehta A (1994), How Advertising Response Modelling (ARM) Can Increase Ad Effectiveness, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 62-74. 48. Mitchell Andrew A (1986), The Effect of Verbal and Visual Components of Advertisements on Brand Attitudes and Attitude Toward the Advertisement, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, June, pp. 12-24. 49. Onkvisit S and Shaw J (1987), Self-Concept and Image Congruence: Some Research and Managerial Implications, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 13-23. 50. Pervin L and John O (2001), Personality: Theory and Research, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. 51. Redenbach A (2000), A Multiple Product Endorser Can Be a Credible Source, The Cyber- Journal of Sport Marketing, pp. 1-10, available at http://www.cjsm.com/Vol3/ redenbach31.htm 52. Rosenberg M (1979), Conceiving the Self, Basic Books, New York. 53. Rossiter J R and Percy L (1987), Advertising and Promotion Management, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. 54. Shim S and Koh A (1997), Profiling Adolescent Consumer Decision Making Styles: Effects of Socialization Agents and Social Structural Variables, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 50-59. 55. Sirgy J and Su C (2000), Destination Image, Self-Congruity, and Travel Behavior: Toward and Integrative Model, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38, pp. 340-352. 56. Sirgy J M (1982), Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 287-300. 57. Siguaw J A, Mattila A and Austin J R (1999), The Brand-Personality Scale: An Application for Restaurants (Focus on Food Service), Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 48-55. 58. Sirgy M and Samli A (1985), A Path Analytic Model of Store Loyalty Involving Self- Concept, Store Image, Geographic Loyalty and Socioeconomic Status, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 265-291. The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010 24 Reference # 25J-2010-03/06-01-01 59. Sirgy M J, Grewal D, Mangleburg T F et al. (1997), Assessing the Predictive Validity of Two Methods of Measuring Self-Image Congruence, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 229-241. 60. Temporal P (2001), Branding in Asia: The Creation, Development and Management of Asian Brands for the Global Market, John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd., Singapore. 61. Thomas J B, Cassill N L and Forsythe S M (1991), Underlying Dimensions of Apparel Iinvolvement in Consumers Purchase Decisions, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 45-48. 62. Wee T T T (2004), Extending Human Personality to Brands: The Stability Factor, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11, April, pp. 317-330. 63. Wells W D (1993), Discovery Oriented Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 489-504. 64. Veryzer R W (1995), The Place of Product Design and Aesthetics in Consumer Research, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, pp. 641-645. 65. Vezina R and Paul O (1997), Provocation in Advertising: A Conceptualization and An Empirical Assessment, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 177-192. 66. Yoo B, Donthu N and Lee S (2000), An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and Brand Equity, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 195-211. Copyright of IUP Journal of Brand Management is the property of IUP Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.