Sample Project Report

BRAND PERSONALITY
(CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS
& MEASUREMENTS)
OVERVIEW
CANDIDATE NAME:__________
ADMISSION NO.__________
SPECIALIZATION: MARKETING
PRIN L N WELINGKAR INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH

YEAR OF SUBMISSION: JANUARY 2015
Brand Personality – contributory factors & measurements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
“Acknowledgement is an art, one can write glib stanzas without meaning a word, and on the
other hand one can make a simple expression of gratitude.”
I take the opportunity to express my gratitude to all of them who in some or other way helped me
to accomplish this challenging project. No amount of written expression is sufficient to show my
deepest sense of gratitude to them.
I am extremely thankful and pay my gratitude to our (Guide‟s Name) and for their valuable
guidance and support on completion of this project in it‟s presently.
A special appreciative “Thank you” in accorded to all staff of TATA Motor Co. for their positive
support.
I also acknowledge with a deep sense of reverence, my gratitude towards my parents and
member of my family, who has always supported me morally as well as economically.
At last but not least gratitude goes to all of my friends who directly or indirectly helped me to
complete this project report.
2
CERTIFICATE FROM THE GUIDE

This is to certify that the Project work titled “Brand Personality – contributory factors &
measurements” is a bonafide work carried out by (Candidate Name / Admission No.), a
candidate for the Post Graduation Diploma program of the Welingkar Institute of Management
under my guidance and direction.
Name:
Designation:
Date: 31st January, 2015
Place: Mumbai
3
DECLARATION
I, (Candidate Name) hereby declare that this project report titled “Brand Personality –
contributory factors & measurements” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
“Post Graduation of Diploma in Marketing Management” is my original work and it has not
formed the basis for the award of any other degree.
Name:
Admission No.:
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31st January, 2015
Signature:
4
ABSTRACT
This research has empirically measured the NANO‟s (TATA Motor‟s manufactured car brand)
brand personality in India, by using the five-dimension Brand Personality Scale developed by
Aaker (1997) as a framework. So according to this framework which was originally conducted in
42 items (42 personality attributes) clustered in five personality dimensions and had been tested
in different countries and industries, we prepared a questionnaire translated in Persian, and used
the back translation method. With deep interviews among 12 Indian experts about the 42 items
scale and also a pilot study the original questionnaire changed to a 38 items scale and the survey
had been run within five big branches of TATA Motor‟s randomly chosen in the five parts of the
city.
The reliability and validity test of the questionnaire had been resulted in omitting one more item
from the list. Then the student T-Test showed respondent‟s ideas about the personality of NANO
and they believed NANO‟s Personality Dimensions are: Sincerity, Competence and Ruggedness.
They were not agreeing about the „Sophistication‟ dimension that showed NANO is not a
sophisticated brand. And the personality dimension “excitement” was not clear for this brand.
The confirmatory factor analysis of the measurement model and the structural model provided
evidence that the „ruggedness‟ dimension proposed by Aaker(1997) was not reliable, nor was it
valid. And the relationship with the main construct „Brand Personality‟ was weak. So to achieve
good measurement framework, the other four dimensions had to be refined up to the point that
there was no problem with combining them to form one higher construct namely „Brand
Personality‟. Then the five dimension model describing 38 attributes changed to a four
dimension scale consisted of 24 items.
Finally there were hypothesis about demographic specifications of respondent‟s having effect on
their opinion about NANO‟s Personality. And the results showed that different respondents have
significant differences in their ideas about five personality dimensions of NANO.
5
INDEX
SR. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION 8
1 Introduction 8
1.1 Background 8
1.2 Problem Discussion 8
1.3 Research limitations 10
1.4 Research Problem and Research Questions 10
CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW 11
2 Literature Review 11
2.1 Brand 11
2.1.1 Brand Importance 14
2.1.2 Brand Components 14
2.1.3 Position of brand personality in the brand hierarchy 16
2.2 Brand Personality 19
2.2.1 Brand personality value 20
2.2.2 Roots of Brand Personality Argue 21
2.2.2.1 Anthropomorphism Theory 22
2.2.2.2 Self-concept Theory 22
2.2.2.3 Personality Theory 23
2.2.2.4 Big Five Model 24
2.2.3 Difference between brand personality and brand image 25
2.2.4 Brand personality versus human personality 26
2.2.5 Critics about brand personality 27
2.3 Application of brand personality 28
2.3.1 Brand Personality Scale (BPS) 28
2.3.2 Application of BPS 30
2.3.2.1 Application of BPS in culture trait 30
2.3.2.2 Application of BPS in products trait 32
2.3.3 Critics about BPS 35
2.4 Brand Personality Building 36
2.4.1 Advertising as the dominant tool 37
CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 40
3 Research Methodology 40
3.1 Research Purpose 40
3.2 Research Approach 41
3.3 Research Strategy 41
3.4 Research Process 43
3.5 Research Design 44
3.5.1 Research variables 44
3.5.2 Methods and resources of data collection 44
3.6 Statistical population and sample 45
3.7 Sampling methods 45
3.8 Measurement tool 45
6
3.8.1 Content validity of the measurement tool 47

3.8.2 Factor validity of the measurement tool 47
3.8.3 Results of factor analysis 47
3.9 Statistical method utilized in the research 50
3.9.1 Student t-test 50
3.9.2 Structural equations model 50
3.9.3 One-way analysis of variance 50
CHAPTER FOUR – DATA ANALYSIS 51
4 Data Analysis 51
4.1 Descriptive statistics 51
4.1.1 Description of respondent‟s age 51
4.1.2 Description of respondent‟s sex 51
4.1.3 Description of respondent‟s career and jobs 52
4.1.4 Description of respondent‟s educational degree 52
4.1.5 Description of respondent‟s income 53
4.1.6 Description of respondent‟s current car 53
4.1.7 Description of respondent‟s NANO type 54
4.2 Study of NANO‟s current brand personality among customers of TATA 55
MOTORS
4.2.1 One Sample T-Test 55
4.2.1.1 One Sample T-Test for the first brand personality “SINCERITY” 55
4.2.1.2 One Sample T-Test for the second brand personality “EXCITEMENT” 58
4.2.1.3 One Sample T-Test for the third brand personality “COMPETENCE” 60
4.2.1.4 One Sample T-Test for the third brand personality “SOPHISTICATION” 63
4.2.1.5 One Sample T-Test for the third brand personality “RUGGEDNESS” 64
4.3 Study secondary hypothesis of the research 66
4.3.1 Differences based on respondent‟s age 68
4.3.2 Differences based on respondent‟s sex 70
4.3.3 Differences based on respondent‟s career 71
4.3.4 Differences based on respondent‟s educational degree 72
4.3.5 Differences based on respondent‟s income 72
4.3.6 Differences based on having experience of owning NANO 73
CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSION 75
5 Conclusions 75
5.1 Overall conclusion 75
5.2 Managerial implications 76
5.3 Future research 77
6 REFERENCE 79
7
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1. Introduction:
In this chapter topics included background, research problem and research aims have been
provided.
1.1 Background
Studies of product or brand personality began in the early 1960s. Some of the researchers
investigated the relationship between self-concept and perceived personality of cars. These
Researches has suffered, however, due to a lack of common theory and consensual taxonomy of
personality attributes to describe products and brands. Early researchers like Birdwell (1964)
were mainly interested in studying the relationship between product and self-concept. For
example, in his influential study, Birdwell (1964) investigated the relationship between
customers‟ self-concept and their perception of their car. The perceived personality of the car
was measured using a compiled list of bipolar items. The adjectives chosen were appropriate to
describe both automobile and human personalities. Later, Dolich (1969) adapted human
personality scales to study the product personalities of four products (beer, Cigarettes, bar soap,
and toothpaste) and their relationships with the consumers‟ actual and ideal self-image. Research
has suffered, however, from the lack of a common theory and of a consensual taxonomy of
personality traits to be used in describing products. The validity of the early product personality
scales, based on human personality, was questioned because human and product personalities
might have different antecedents. Thus, product personality traits can be described as symbolic
consumption of the product through direct and indirect contacts (e.g., Fournier 1998).
Importantly, this approach introduced measurement instruments to capture the personality of
products.
Aaker (1997), realizing this limitation and drawing on the big five model of human personality,
developed the brand personality scale (BPS), which consists of five generic dimensions:
excitement, sincerity, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. Since then, the brand
personality dimensions have been applied to various settings across different cultures to gauge
consumers‟ symbolic consumption and their effects on behavior (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, and
Garolera 2001; Supphellen and Gronhaug 2003). As a result, some dimensions of human
personality might be mirrored in brands, whereas others might not (Aaker, 1997).
1.2 Problem Discussion

Consumers today not only want to be romanced by the brands they choose to bring into their
lives, they absolutely want to establish a multifaceted holistic relationship with that brand, and
this means they expect the brand to play a positive, proactive role in their lives. Thus, the
strategic objective of brand personality is to forge strong and meaningful affective bonds with
consumers and, in so doing, become part of their life stories, memories, and an important link in
their social networks. Over the past few years, many well-known brands have adopted
emotional-branding strategies, including Tide, Lexus, Apple, Nike, IBM, Cheerios, McDonald‟s,
and Starbucks.
8
Brand personality tends to show a kind of symbolic or self-expressive function in the minds of
consumers. Products such as gold credit cards, watches or prestige items help people to express
themselves to others by demonstrating that they are different and have achieved something
which differs them from others. They act as extensions of the personality, so it really is „„all in
the mind‟‟, and the key to brand management and development is a clear understanding of what
benefits the customer is looking for. Asking consumers what comes to mind when they hear the
name of a big brand such as BMW or Volkswagen, they will reply with a list of attributes which
go far beyond the physical tangible aspects of product and delivery, but if there is one word
which brings all these things Together in people‟s mind, it is value.
Researchers have shown that the greater congruity between the human characteristics that
consistently and distinctively describe an individual‟s actual or ideal self and those that describe
a brand, the greater the preference for the brand.
Brand personality is an attractive and appealing concept in the marketing of today. Aaker (1996)
described it as one of the core dimensions of the brand identity and perhaps as the closest
variable to the consumers‟ decision making process on buying. Successfully positioning a
brand‟s personality within a product category requires measurement models that are able to
disentangle a brand‟s unique personality traits from those traits that are common to all brands in
the product category.
The notion of brands can be associated with a set of human characteristics is well accepted by
social psychologists. The basic argument is that attitude objects, such as brands, can be
associated with personality traits that provide self-expressive or symbolic benefits for the
consumer.
A distinctive brand personality can help to create a set of unique and favorable associations in
consumer memory, and thus build and enhance brand equity. A well established brand
personality influences consumer preference and patronage and develops stronger emotional ties,
trust, and loyalty with the brand. Real brands were used with the objective to exploit the richness
of the personality associated with them. A favorable brand personality is thought to provide a
basis for product differentiation. In this instance, brand personality may provide the means for
making a given brand stand out in the crowd. Stated differently, when intrinsic cues are very
similar for competing brands, brand personality may create a basis for differentiation.
Aaker‟s (1997) brand personality measurement framework represents an important tool with
which researchers can begin to measure symbolic meanings of brands. Aaker (1997) suggested
that the five dimensions of the BPS were generic and could be used to measure brand personality
across product categories and cultures. In line with her suggestions for future research, many
researchers have applied her framework through variety of products and countries in two main
traits culture and brand.
9
1.3 Research limitations

Brand personality or related researches in India have not been done a lot. This research will be
one of the premier studies in this topic. One of the main reasons of choosing the car product-
category was the similar work in other countries like Chile.
One of the limitations of this study is the lack of researches in cultural-specific attributes of
Indian‟s personality which could help a lot in customizing the Aaker‟s 42 item scale.
Another limitation is the one side effect of personality which requires future researches to study
the customers of the different Indian brands (not only cars). Also other studies are needed for
different product categories to finally form the brand personality scale for brands in India. And
so this model in the future will be more applicable for Indian firms to define the personality of
their brands.
1.4 Research Problem and Research Questions

This study will be a respond to Aaker‟s (1997) argument that “additional research is needed to
determine the extent to which these brand personality dimensions are stable across different
products.” So the question arises here about the applicability of this model in Indian automobile
market. And this has shown to what extend this framework is applicable internationally.
Branding and Brand management has become a new trend in Indian market. There are brands
here which are used widely and the owner of the brand has cost a lot to bring it to the market and
stand in the crowed but because of the lack of strategic planning for the brand in the long run, the
new competitors will replace it easily. NANO which is an Indian brand has been used widely
recently. The company is not satisfied with the benefits, and is seeking to find a way, and one of
their main issues is the brand marketing. So this research has found the personality dimensions of
NANO. And has made a picture of what TATA Motors has done in the minds of the customers.
Because this company believes “every Indian individual can be a customer”.
So my Research questions which I have cover in my final thesis is:

1. Does car brand (NANO) in India perceive to have personalities?
2. If so, what are the underlying dimensions of its personality (Adopting BPS model in India)?
3. How does the Brand Personality Scale fit in Indian automobile market?
10
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2. Literature Review:
This chapter aims to review the brand personality literature from all dimensions. It has started
from the broadest view (brand and its importance) and then has clarified the position of brand
personality in the brand structure and then has been narrowed to the brand personality concept
and its application. It also has considered all psychological evidences and supports for this
literature.
2.1 Brand
“A product‟s brand connects a company‟s output and reputation with customers‟ needs and
investors‟ hopes” (Ulrich, 2007)
According to the marketing association (1960) brand is a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or
a combination of them, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers
and to differentiate them from those of competitors. The definition has been criticized for being
too product-oriented and lack of intangible features like image. (Kotler 1996, wood 2000)
Later, other definitions highlighting other aspects of brand had been made, but every one of them
has focused on one side more that the other one, the concept of brand equity (Keller 1993, Aaker
1996), brand personality (Aaker, 1997), added values (de chernatony, 1992) are examples of
these different views. Wood (2000) in his research has shown that in different companies, based
on their competitive advantage, the definition differs.” Competitive advantage for firms may be
determined in terms of revenue, profit, added value or market share. Benefits the consumer
purchases may be real or illusory, rational or emotional, tangible or intangible.”
Because of this overlap in definition, de chernatony (1998) in her research has categorized the
literature in brand definitions in 12 themes:
1- Legal instrument
2- Logo
3- Company
4- Shorthand
5- Risk reducer
6- Identity system
7- Image in consumer‟s mind
8- Value system
9- Personality
10- Relationship
11- Adding value
12- Evolving entity
11
Table 2.1.1.1 Antecedents and Consequences to the brand construct
Brand Definitions Antecedents Consequences

1. Legal Instrument Mark of ownership. Name, Prosecute infringers
logo, design, trademark
2. Logo Name, term, sign, symbol, Identity, differentiate through
design. Product characteristics visual identity and name.
Quality assurance.
3. Company Recognizable corporate name Evaluate over long time
and image. Culture, people, horizon. Product lines benefits
programs of organization from corporate personality.
defines corporate personality. Convey consistent message to
CEO is brand manager. stakeholders. Differentiation:
proposition, relationship.
4. Shorthand Firm stresses quality not Rapidly recognize brand
quantity of information. association, Facilitate
information processing speed
decisions.
5. Risk reducer Confidence that expectations Brand as a construct.
being fulfilled.
6. Identity system More than just a name. Clarify direction, meaning,
Holistic, structured with six Strategic positioning, and
integrated facets, including protective barrier.
brand‟s personality, Communicate essence to
stakeholders.
7. Image Consumer centered, Image in Firm‟s input activities
consumer‟s mind is brand managed using feedback of
“reality”. image to change identity.
Market research important.
Manage brand concept over
time.
8. Value system Consumer relevant values Brand values match relevant
imbue the brand. consumer values.
9. Personality Psychological values, Differentiation from
communicated through symbolism: human values
advertising and packaging projected. Stress added values
define brand‟s personality. beyond functional.
10. Relationship Consumer has attitude to Recognition and respect for
brand. Brand as a persona has personality. Develop
attitude to consumer. relationship.
11. Adding value Non functional extras, value Differentiate through layers of
satisfier. Consumers imbue meaning. Charge price
brand with subjective meaning premium. Consumer
they value enough to buy. experience. Perception of
Aesthetics. Enhanced through users. Belief in performance.
12
design, mfr and distribution.

12. Evolving entity - Change by stage of
development.
Source (De Chernatony, 1998)
Finally she reaches to this point that brand is an interface between the firm‟s activities and
consumer‟s interpretations.
Figure 2.1.1.1 Brand as an Interface

Source (De Chernatony, 1998)
Power (2008) claims that there is no certain definition for “brands” or “branding”, but this
definition should include both functional and emotional aspects.
Brands are born with distinctive names and then by the help of functional capabilities people
start to recognize them, symbolic features are first steps to make the brand different in the mass
market these features like brand personality makes the brand hard to copy. As consumer loyalty
increases, they relate the brand becomes to unique added values “and then they become an
effective shorthand notation representing a few high quality pieces of information facilitating
rapid consumer choice”. (De Chernatony, 1997)
The brands emerged in 1900 because of different causes like new technologies, political and
trade issues in the age of industrialized imperialism. And companies had more choice in spite of
distances and new markets and this caused “a need for higher levels of product standardization
and easily recognizable marks of quality and identity”. (Wood, 2008)
Researches in strategic management and marketing have shown that brands are key
organizational assets. (Aaker 1996, Malhotra 1999, Louro 2001) The different definitions of
brand come from different philosophies and different views (stakeholder perspective or
consumer perspective). (Wood, 2000)
Today definition of the brand is something beyond the simple view which researchers had about
decades ago, not just a logo or advertising message; it is a collection of expectations, hopes,
relations which arises from a company or product. (Leiser, 2004)
13
2.1.1 Brand Importance

By the start of 1980, companies were aware of financial value of brands, and since that time
branding attracted many researchers and practitioners. (De chernatony, 1999) The way people
think and feel about a brand, are the brand value which makes a unique relationship with its
target customers. (Wood, 2008)
Wood (2008) has brought four reasons for the importance of the brand:
The first reason is brands are “well-labeled information packages created in the hope of offering
individual consumers” which help them judge and have choices.
Second: brands help the companies to differentiate their products and services
Third: branded companies can rely on economies of scale and other cost efficiencies
Fourth: branding helps firms to enter new markets, even into areas outside their core activities
like music firm Virgin‟s diversification into everything from telephony to air travel.
Fifth: huge changes will be easier (organizational flexibility) like changes in ownership, changes
in firms‟ national or local affiliations, and changes to where and how products are made.
Sixth: co-branding advantages like in sportswear market, it has become popular for sports goods
firms to co-brand with fashion designers: e.g., Puma and Jil Sander, Nike and Junya Watanabe,
and Adidas and Yohij Yamamoto.
All the marketing efforts like name, packaging , advertising, promotion, pricing, sales force
discipline, customer repurchases, etc create one image of a brand, the important issue here is ,this
image is a combination of quality and price which are not separated, and when brands are not
making values , people think the price is too high. And here comes the importance, brands are
successful because people prefer them to ordinary products. The main psychological factor here
is: brands help people to make choices. Brands give customers quality and service guarantee.
(Rajagopal, 2006)
2.1.2 Brand Components

To better understand the brand and make it less complex researchers have tried to break it to
different components. (Keller 1993, de chernatony, 1997) Actually these components come from
the different views and perceptions about brand. In de chernatony (1997) research, she has
gathered these different definitions a summary of these findings:
Table 2.1.2.1 Models of the brand
Authors Tangible and visual elements Intangible elements

Aaker (1992) Symbols and slogans Identity, corporate brand,
integrated communications,
14
customer
Bailey and Name, trademark Positioning, brand
Schechter (1994) communications
DMB & B (1993) Product delivery User identification: opportunity to
share a dream
De Chernatony Functional capabilities, name, Symbolic value, service, sign of
(1993a and 1993b) legal protection ownership, shorthand notation
(atomic model)
De Chernatony and Functionality Representationality
McWilliam (1989)
Dyson et al. (1996) Presence and performance Relevance, advantage, bond
(Millward – Brown)
Grossman (1994) Distinctive name, logotype, -
graphics and physical design
Kapferer (1992) Physique Personality, relationship, culture,
reflection, self-image
O’Malley (1991) Functional values differentiation Relevance, esteem and familiarity
Young and
Rubicam (1994)
Source (De chernatony, 1997)
As you see in the table all these different models can be divided into two main groups and we
call it two sides of brand structure. (Tangible and intangible) Some researchers like Bailey and
Schechter‟s (1994) and Grossman‟s (1994) has focused on tangible sides of the brand like name,
logo, and design but some others have considered emotional and symbolic side of the brand.
Brand personality is an important and one of the main parts of the intangible side which helps the
customers make their self-images stronger.
One of the fames models in brand structure is “atomic model” which is consisted of both tangible
and intangible part of the brand (de chernatony, 1993):
(1) Functional capability;

(2) Symbolic feature;
(3) Service;
(4) Distinctive name;
(5) Ownership;
(6) Shorthand notation;
(7) Legal protection;
(8) Risk reducer; and
(9) Strategic direction
Because of the complex nature of the brand, every expert has its own mental model and again all
these models can be categorized in two parts (de chernatony, 1997):
(1) Functional capabilities, relating to the brands‟ tangible, rationally assessed, product
performance;
15
(2) Symbolic features, such as intangible, emotionally assessed, emotional values of the brand‟s
personality.
2.1.3 Position of brand personality in the brand hierarchy:

According to the De Chernatony‟s model of components of a brand there were two major
dimensions tangible and intangible. And she found that brand personality is one of the most
important structures in the intangible or emotional side of the brand construct. Below table is the
result of her findings in interview with experts:
Table 2.1.3.1 Categories of Experts Definition of brand
Themes from Number of Experts Illustrative explanation

Literature mentioning
Value system 11 “Real brands have an understanding of values
that characterize them”
Personality 10 “The personality surrounding a product or a
service”
Image 9 The way an object is perceived by consumers”
Logo 8 “A set of visual features animated by
advertising”
Risk reducer 5 “I means that I know what I am getting from
one purchase to the next”
Company 4 “The protection (of) that the organization is
trying to engineer and maintain and achieve.
Adding value 4 Added values, qualities beyond product
performance
Shorthand 3 “All we know, learn, taste, experience about the
brand over a long period of time”
Legal instrument 3 “A trade-mark in use”
Identity 3 “A form of identity”
Relationship 3 “A relationship with a customer or a consumer”
Evolving 3 “Can mean different thing for different people
in different scenarios”
Additional themes Number of Experts Illustrative explanation
mentioning
Positioning 2 “the attributes which are made to adhere to a
product in order to give it attractiveness”
Vision 2 “(Brands) have vision and purpose to give them
meaning to consumers”
Goodwill 1 “Accumulated weight of Goodwill”
Source: (De Chernatony, 1998)
A tangible – intangible spectrum encompassed all their definitions, with a marked bias to
16
intangible themes. As you see the majority of expert‟s definitions are the notion of brands as
value systems, personality and image.
Another evidence for highlighting the important role of brand personality in brand structure is
Aaker‟s (1997) 10 guidelines for building strong brands. He claims that through the 10 steps of
achieving a successful brand is having an identity for the brand, “Have an identity for each
brand. Consider the perspective of the brand-as-person, brand-as-organization, and brand-as-
symbol, as well as the brand-as-product. Identify the core identity. Modify the identity as needed
for different market segments and products. Remember that an image is how you are perceived,
and an identity is how you aspire to be perceived”.
Aaker (1996) has introduced three elements of brand associations/differentiations, first is value
measurement of the brand which provides a summary indicator of the brand success in value
proposition.
Brand personality, the notion of the brand-as-person, is the second element. According to Aaker
(1996) it is useful for some brands, especially ones which have little physical differences and
play roles in social activities, and can help them provide a strong relationship with self-
expressive benefits. Some product groups may need specific personality dimensions like energy
for retailing industry, exciting for cosmetic products, friendly and reliable for service firms and
ruggedness for trucks. Before measuring any brand personality considering these points seems
necessary:
a) The brand has a personality.

b) The brand is interesting
c) I have a clear image of the type of person who would use the brand.
And the last one is brand-as-organization which deals with inside company indicators like
employees and programs.
The figure in the next page is the model of core brand identity (Kapferer, 1997) which is based
on six central components: physique, personality, culture, relationship, reflection and self-image.
17
Figure 2.1.3.1 The Components of Brand Identity

Source: (Kapferer, 1993)
According to this model, the core values of a brand are not just functional abilities but also
emotional ones like personality. As a matter of fact personality helps the company direct their
marketing activities through what brand really stands for and in the other side helps the
customers recognize, by quick and little information, what value the brand is offering. (Aaker,
1996)
According to Heylen et al. (1995) in Hussy (1999) when brands become more homogenous,
consumers pay more attention on brand personality than identity. In his model of brand identity,
one of the tools of brand identification is using the techniques of personification (a brand can
have attributes of a person).
18
2.2 Brand Personality

Customer and brand has a kind of relationship which is like the relationship between two people.
This relationship can be friendly and two partners act as close friends or just some kind of fun
friends just comfortable to be around. (Rajagopal, 2006) Aaker (1996) names brand personality a
strategic tool and a metaphor that can help brand strategies to understand people‟s perceptions of
brand and differentiated brand identity and in the end creates brand equity.
“Today, consumers have deep personal relationships to brands and brand histories.” (Power,
2008) for example Tissot watches usually carry a book named “the story of a watch factory” in
their packages.
Power (2008) believes that branding is the struggle of strategically personifying products.
Most of the researches in symbolic use of brands have shown that customers prefer brands
matching their own personality. (Bosnjak, 2007)
Brand personality is a very attractive concept in today‟s marketing and Aaker(1996) introduced
it as one of the core dimensions of the brand identity and one of the closest variables to purchase
decision making processes.
Brand personality deals with the importance of relations in social activities and gives the brand
higher positions in the mind of consumers and makes the brand as their friends and belongings
(Rajagopal, 2006) and is the all attitudes, perspectives, feelings and views customers have about
a brand. (Guthrie, 2007)
Brand personality is “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand”. (Aaker, 1997)
The example can be the Marlboro brand personality combines the physical and emotional
attributes of a product to specific customers who have or wish to have a certain life style. All
prestige‟s items like watches make individuals express themselves in an isolated world and they
act as extensions of the personality. These are “all in mind” and when you ask them about big
brands like BMW or Gucci, their answers are far beyond the physical features of the product.
And if there is one word coming from the customer voices, that is value and the market
leadership is all about value not price. (Rajagopal, 2006)
Brands can speak like human beings, they speak through the style tone of their advertising and
like human speak, the audiences who are eager will listen. (Bulace 2000; cited by Guthrie 2007)
Aaker and Fournier (1995) have gathered all the researches around the brand personality topic in
three main areas:
(a) Conceptual level

(b) Relationship approach
(c) Personality measurement scales
19
The first area of research is mainly about the perception of people about brands in daily
activities. Narrative theory (people make stories about the behavior of each other) seems to be an
effective tool here because it helps to understand the process consumers form personality. Some
example questions here are: “to what extent does a brand take on a personality before vs. after
use? What roles do brand names, logos and symbols play in developing a brand personality?
What impact does a brand personality have on loyalty? Under what situations is one brand
personality preferred over another? What type of advertising (e.g. transformational vs.
informational) is most effective in developing a brands with a strong personality?”
The second area of research is dealing with brand as an active member of the relationship and
consumers watch this activity during brand behavior. The brand is treated as “an active,
contributing partner in the dyadic relationship that exists between the person and the brand, a
partner whose behaviors and actions generate trait inferences that collectively summarize the
consumer's perception of the brand's personality” and the writer brings here the concept of the
brand-as-partner (BAP) And researches in this field believe that advertising is not enough for
brand personality building but all marketing activities and also all strategic management
decisions should consider it.
The last domain, which is mainly constructed by Jennifer Aaker (1997), is the way of applying
brand personality by the help of core factors identifying personality.
She has examined the kind of product categories which has personality, the relation between
self-concept and brand personality.
So the personality meaning of the brand is actually “the specific set of meanings which describe
the "inner" characteristics of a brand. These meanings are constructed by a consumer based on
behaviors exhibited by personified brands or brand characters.” (Aaker, 1995)
Some brands have well defined personalities. Starbucks‟ is outgoing, youthful, personable, and
friendly … a refreshing escape, freshness, warmth, and comfort. It is demonstrated through their
service interactions, their packaging, their décor, their product offerings, and their corporate
culture. MTV, on the other hand, is a total expression of youth, individuality, and breaking
conventions … a loud shout for independence and freethinking.
Nike‟s personality is unabashed … aggressive and empowering … somewhat self-important. It is

about achievement and winners … a passion for competitiveness. To contrast this, Cricket
Wirelessis “every-man” … comfortable, welcoming, and relaxed (AMICUS Group Whitepapers
Number 6)
2.2.1 Brand personality value

Brian Meredith‟s (2003) has started his article with two interesting questions: “Does your
business have a clearly articulated, perceived personality that has been developed by you? And
can you distil its complexity into three, key words to capture the essence of who you are or want
to be seen as being?”
20
He then brings an example: Suzanne Hogan said:”I think I can safely say that virtually everyone
in the developed nations of the world is crystal clear about what the Disney brand stands for:
imagination, wholesomeness, fun.”
Because competitors can copy brand‟s functional benefits, psychological values are one of the
ways to keep them unique. For example instead of focusing on different advertising or
packaging, they can make the relationship with the target customers stronger. (De chernatony,
1998)
When it comes to choose between the brands in the same category, consumers evaluate the
congruency between the personality of the brand and the personality they want to project. (Ibid)
The use of brand personality in brand management strategies can help the whole company
gaining satisfaction, loyalty, profitability (Rajagopal, 2006) and an overall economic advantage
over its competitors. (Park, 2005)
When customers are buying a brand which has a clarified personality in their minds, they are
buying symbolic meaning associated with the brand rather than its physical product-related
features. And brand personality can cause increase in consumer preference, usage, trust and
loyalty (Guthrie, 2007)
Researchers have claimed that brand personality is an important topic especially for
differentiation and developing the emotional aspects of the brand and this concept has been well
accepted by most advertising and marketing practitioners. (E.g. Plummer 1985, D.Aaker 1996,
J.Aaker 1997, park 2005, Diamantopoulos 2004, freling 2005, bosnjak 2007, gupta 2008)
Strong, proprietary personalities are multi-dimensional. They are demonstrated and reinforced
throughout the brand‟s entire experience – both in front of the customer, as well as behind the
scenes. It must be authentic and deliverable … and driven by conviction and strategic discipline.
(AMICUS Group Whitepapers Number 6)
2.2.2 Roots of Brand Personality Argue

The relation between brands and their consumers have two sides that both of the partners have
their roles in it. The focus on the role of consumers in the relationship (effect of the people who
use the brand) can go to the self-concept theories and the focus on the role of static personality of
a brand (the brand has certain personality in the whole market for all people) can be understood
through personality theories like Big Five.
The first notion can be more flexible in brand identity because the focus is on the consumer
behavior and perception toward the brand, but in the second one, attitudes of brand and its
perception are clear in the market and have their segmentation of specific customers who have
congruency with the brand. (Rajagopal, 2006)
In a nutshell, individuals hold favorable attitudes towards, and will most probably purchase,
those brands matching their own personality. It is along these lines that the concept of brand
21
personality has emerged (Aaker, 1997).
Important issue to be considered here is, the brand personality is a metaphor; like the person-as-
a-computer in psychology. (Aaker, 1995) and what we bring here, proves that brands can be
personified.
The relationship between two people are directly influenced by their personalities and some traits
like extroversion, traditionalism, warmth and flexibility underlie people‟s conceptions of
important attributes which effect a relationship. But in a marketing area these perceptions come
from the promises which should be kept, no relationship failure, resolved problems and long
term consumer interests are served And characters like dependability, reliability, trustworthiness,
supportiveness , and accountability seems more significant. (Aaker, 2004)
Some basic theories in the support of brand personality have been brought here:
2.2.2.1 Anthropomorphism Theory

The word “anthropomorphism” comes from a Greek word “anthro pos” which means “human”
and “morphe” stands for “shape” or “form”. Anthropomorphism goes beyond observable actions
of a nonhuman agent and relating human like mental or physical characteristics to it (e.g. my dog
loves me). (Epley, 2007)
Anthropomorphism is therefore a process of inference about unobservable characteristics of a

nonhuman agent, rather than descriptive reports of a nonhuman agent‟s observable or imagined
behavior.
Imbuing the imagined or real behavior of nonhuman agents with humanlike characteristics,
motivations, intentions, and emotions is the essence of anthropomorphism. These nonhuman
agents may include anything that acts with apparent independence, including nonhuman animals,
natural forces, religious deities, and mechanical or electronic devices. As the Oxford Dictionary
(Soanes & Stevenson, 2005) more simply puts it, anthropomorphism is the “attribution of human
characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object”. Debates have ensued about whether such
anthropomorphism represents accurate or fallacious thinking, whether anthropomorphic
descriptions have any place in scientific discourse, and whether anthropomorphism can account
for phenomena ranging from religious belief to effective marketing campaigns. (Ibid)
2.2.2.2 Self-concept Theory

Self is significant qualities that isolated an individual from others and is the responsible part
about all behaviors if its owner. The self-concept comes from many reasons that can be
categorized in two: personality and situation. These two different sides comes from this idea that
self is effected with both static personality characters and also social situation that individual is
participating at the moment. Here comes an inter model named “malleable self” which claims
self is a multidimensional concept which covers both personality and situational factors. The
dimensions of self are consisted of: good self, bad self, hoped for self, feared self, not me self,
ideal self, possible self and ought self who can emerge in different moments of an individual‟s
22
life. (Aaker, 1999) there are more categories of self in literature like sirgy‟s (1982) research
which has provided two dimensions: existing self and ideal self.
Brand personality can be used to express one‟s ideal or other versions of self and can be applied
to individual‟s own personality or the kind of personality they wish to be known for. (Guthrie,
2007) For example in the research of Guthrie (2007) about cosmetic products, buying cosmetic
brands is a way of matching the product with ideal self. As a result, though some personality
dimensions are important to individuals, others are not and therefore might not be expressed.
Thus, in prior research, the power of the self-concept was diffused. In this research, only the
important or central aspects of self are examined to determine the extent to which brands are
used for self-expression (Aaker, 1999)
“Preferences in consumption were actually more closely related to actual self concept than to the
ideal self-concept for each of the brands in the product categories researched”. (Hussey, 1999)
According to self-concept theory the greater the congruity between the human attributes
describing brand and an individual‟s actual or ideal self the more preference for the brand.
(Malhotra 1988, cited by Aaker 1997)
If the brand wants to connect to the stakeholders it should be congruent with their selves and
they feel comfortable with the brand and help them express their selves to the others. (Aaker,
1996)
According to this theory brands more congruent with the self-image the more preference for the
brand, and this congruity, because of the multidimensional nature of the self-concept should
affect all the dimensions of the self. (Hussey, 1999)
2.2.2.3 Personality Theory

Personality is a series of dynamic and organized characters which an individual owns and
specifically affects his motives and behavior in different situations. (Goldberg, 1993)
Different theories in personality psychology insist on providing a clear structure and framework
of personality and its dimension to make any individual different from others.
Aaker (1995) describes personality “as the set of meanings constructed by an observer to
describe the "inner" characteristics of another person” which is the result of behavior
observation. Personality is used to break the complexity of behavior.
Individuals enjoy or suffer from a distinct personality or character in other people and these
drivers are pieces of information or behaviors. These drivers come from thousands of pieces of
information over time. Your perception can be good, bad. Maybe you are judging the person
wrong (you don‟t know his background and haven‟t had enough communication with him).
23
2.2.2.4 Big Five Model

Human personality factors which is defined by individual‟s behavior, appearance, attitude,
beliefs and demographic characteristics has a five dimensional model named “Big Five “ human
personality dimensions. The five-factor model of personality is a hierarchical organization of
personality traits in terms of five basic dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Research using both natural
language adjectives and theoretically based personality questionnaires supports the
comprehensiveness of the model and its applicability across observers and cultures. (McCrae,
1993)
The importance of these five factors remained hidden from most personality psychologists
throughout the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1980s, however, researchers from many different
traditions were led to conclude that these factors were fundamental dimensions of personality,
found in self-reports and ratings, in natural languages and theoretically based questionnaires, in
children, college students, and older adults, in men and women, and in English, Dutch, German,
and Japanese samples (John, 1990a). All five factors were shown to have convergent and
discriminate validity across instruments and observers, and to endure across decades in adults
(McCrae & Costa, 1990).
Table 2.2.2.1 Examples of Adjectives, Q-Sort Items, and Questionnaire Scales Defining the
Five Factors
Factor Factor definers
Name Number Adjectives Q-sort items Scales
Extraversion (E) 1 Active Talkative Warmth
Assertive Skilled in play, humor Gregariousness
Energetic Rapidly personal tempo Assertiveness
Enthusiastic Facially, expressive Activity
Outgoing Behaves assertively Excitement seeking
Talkative Gregarious Positive emotions
Agreeableness 2 Appreciative Not critical, skeptical Trust
Forgiving Behaves in giving way Straightforwardness
Generous Sympathetic, considerate Altruism
Kind Arouses liking Compliance
Sympathetic Warm, compassionate Modesty
Trusting Basically trustful Tender-mindedness
Conscientiousness 3 Efficient Dependable, responsible Competence
Organized Productive Order
Playful Able to delay Dutifulness achievement
gratification
Reliable Not self-indulgent Striving
Responsible Behaves ethically Self-discipline
Through High aspiration level Deliberation
Neuroticism 4 Anxious Thin-skinned Anxiety
Self-pitying Brittle ego defenses Hostility
Tense Self-defeating Depression
Touchy Basically anxious Self-consciousness
Unstable Concerned with Impulsiveness
24
adequacy
Worrying Fluctuating moods Vulnerability
Openness 5 Artistic Wide range of interests Fantasy
Curious Introspective Aesthetics
Imaginative Unusual thought process Feelings
Insightful Values intellectual Actions
matters
Original Judges in Ideas
unconventional terms
Wide interests Aesthetically reactive Values
Source: (Marsh, 2006)
Personality researchers differentiate between core personality traits such as the Big Five and
more malleable personality characteristics such as self-concept. The latter have also been called
„„surface characteristics‟‟. Core personality traits are believed to affect human behavior, but
contextual influences, life events, and environmental factors are posited to have little or no effect
on core personality factors. Self-concept researchers have also demonstrated that specific
components of self-concept have important effects on subsequent performance such as academic
accomplishments. However, unlike core personality factors, self-concept factors are highly
influenced by context, environment, and life events. Thus, for example, there is growing support
for a reciprocal-effects model of relations between academic self-concept and academic
achievement where each is a cause and an effect of the other so that both will suffer if either is
undermined. (Marsh, 2006)
The Big Five Model emerged in studies that examined the “language” of personality within the
framework of the psychological approach. This approach originated from a hypothesis,
formulated by Gordon Allport at the end of the 1930s and formalized by Raymond Cattell in the
mid-1940s, as “linguistic sedimentation”, or the “lexical hypothesis”. According to this
approach, nouns and adjectives that describe human personality are integral to the development
and maintenance of social relations. As such, they become part of the vocabulary used by people
every day, and are transmitted from one generation to another through processes of socialization.
The practical consequence is that the vocabulary of natural languages represents the main source
of descriptors of personality characteristics. Several studies, scanning thousands of adjectives
and nouns in unabridged dictionaries of different languages, selected terms denoting stable
characteristics of human personalities, which have been mostly referred as the least ambiguous,
the most frequently used, and the most useful for human personality description (Goldberg,
1992).
2.2.3 Difference between brand personality and brand image

In Oxford Business English Dictionary (2005), the meaning of brand personality has defined as
“the attractive and special human qualities that a company wants a product or group of products
suggest to people” in other side brand image has this meaning “what people think or feel about a
particular product, company, name or symbol”. Although brand personality is a viable metaphor
for understanding consumers‟ perceptions of brands, there has been a long-running debate in the
generic marketing literature on the relationship between brand personality and brand image.
Various definitional inconsistencies have blurred the distinction between brand image and brand
25
personality. In other studies, the two concepts have been used interchangeably to gauge
consumer perceptions of brands (e.g., Graeff 1997). For some authors, brand image is a more
encapsulating term and has a number of inherent characteristics or dimensions, including, among
others, brand personality, user image, product attributes, and consumer benefits . For example, in
Heylen, Dawson, and Sampson‟s (1995) proposed model of brand image, brand personality and
brand identity are two components of brand image, and Aaker (1996) claims that “brand
personality strongly represents brand image”.
Another school of thought (Biel, 1993) views brand image “as a cluster of attributes and
associations that consumers connect to a brand.” In this conceptualization, evoked associations
can be either hard (tangible/functional attributes) or soft (emotional attributes). Brand personality
is seen as the soft, emotional side of brand image (Biel, 1993). Likewise, Fournier (1998) argued
that when brands are successful at satisfying consumer needs, consumers develop strong
emotions toward them.
Czellar (2003) has called for research initiatives to examine the relative role of brand image and
brand personality in brand level fit. Based on the notion that brand personality is a component of
brand image (Aaker, 1996), the personality of a brand should also be used to establish perceptual
fit. The concept of brand personality is considered as a subset of brand image and is therefore
very closely related (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993). As such, studies have emerged that have
indirectly associated the concept of brand personality and brand image in brand extension
(Martinez & de Chernatony, 2004). In particular, with such close association that is commonly
perceived between brand personality and brand image (Kapferer, 1997), brand personality fit in
turn would invoke a causal inference process that would lead to perceived image fit (Burnett,
2005). Hence, this demonstrates that brand personality fit is causally related to brand image fit
(Lau, 2007).
Freling (2005) in his research attempts to conceptually clarify the domain of the brand
personality construct, and to disentangle brand personality from other related constructs such as
brand identity and brand image. He conceptualized Brand personality as one of many
associations comprising brand image, which in turn is a subset of brand identity. That is, brand
personality was conceptualized as one type of brand association in consumer memory that may
be accessed as the need or desire for a particular product arises, and that may influence consumer
preferences.
2.2.4 Brand personality versus human personality

Although brand personality and human personality seem the same in the conceptualization level,
but their objectives are completely different. Brands are inhuman agents and don not behave like
human beings, and the perception of their personality comes from the people using them and also
product-related attributes like performance. (Bosenjak, 2007)
Like human personalities, brand personalities can grow and evolve over time. Since brands, like
persons, are usually described with adjectives, the psycho lexical approach seems to be a good
method for identifying the main characteristics of brands' personalities in the perception of
consumers, and to select the best adjectives for conveying certain characteristics. In reality, it
26
remains questionable whether the principal features of brands (even the well-established ones)
can be encoded as stable traits and expressed by single words, as seems to be the case with
human traits (Caprara , 2001).
Even when the personality metaphor seems suitable for brands, marketers interested in shaping
and reinforcing brands' desirable features need to know whether the same adjectives correspond
to the same factors when used to describe personalities of different brands. According to Caprara
(2001), it is important not only to ascertain the applicability to brands of those traits and markers
that proved valid to describe humans, but also to select those traits and markers that fit best with
the brand personality that the marketer intends to establish or reinforce. Caprara (2001) stated
that, these are the questionable sides of the relationship between brand and human personality:
(a) Whether the Big Five Model of human personality is useful for the description of brand
personality.
(b) Whether markers of human personality applied to brand personality are traceable to the same
factor solution found in humans.
(c) Whether personality descriptors load under the same factor when used to describe human
personality and brand personalities, and when used to describe the personalities of different
brands.
Brand personality and human personality are not completely analogous, however. For example,
human personality traits may have not only an implicit (perceived) component but also an actual
(objective) component that is independent of the perceiver‟s characterization of the individuals
who possess them. In contrast, brands obviously do not have objective personality traits
independent of a consumer‟s perception of them. Instead, a brand‟s personality is a hypothetical
construct developed by the consumer. To this extent, issues that are related to the accuracy of
such judgments of a brand‟s personality might be moot apart from the question of whether
consumers‟ perceptions of a brand‟s personality matches that intended by the marketer (Caprara ,
2001). In addition, brand personality traits differ from implicit human personality traits in terms
of how they are created (Aaker, 1997). A human‟s personality traits are inferred from the
individual‟s behavior, physical characteristics, attitudes and beliefs, and demographic
characteristics. In contrast, a brand‟s personality can be created and shaped by any direct and
indirect brand contact that the consumer experiences with the brand (Plummer, 1985).
2.2.5 Critics about brand personality

Prior (2008) believes that brand personality doesn‟t neglect tangible features behind a product
and use of brand personality and emotional view of a brand is not just offering intangible
advantages and “Brands need to consider the fundamental principles of their offer in terms of the
tangible innovation and differentiation that they provide. They must think about their added
value not just in terms of superficial design but as a complete equation of product, service and
holistic experience”.
Brand personality has been criticized on 3 dimensions: conceptual, methodological and
27
substantive. First questions arise from its definition and conceptualization and its difference with
brand image. And why it is important. The second series of questions are about the way
marketers can measure the personality of their brands and there is a trend which shows they are
more eager to use quantitative methods like questionnaire based than qualitative ones like photo-
sorting. And the last critics deal with the implications of having brand personality and the
creation of it. (Aaker, Fournier 1995)
Many researchers have used adjectives from personality psychology which are usually used for
detecting emotional instability, schizophrenia or neuroticism and other ones have used product
related attributes but there is still reliability and validity problems. And because of these reasons
researches in this topic have not received enough attention. (Ibid)
2.3 Application of brand personality

To find a unique position in the market by the help of brand personality the company needs to
use measurement models which are able to clarify their brand‟s personality traits. These traits
should be unique in comparison to the brands in the same product category. (Rajagopal, 2006)
The personality of a brand must include the perceptions, motivations, and values of its targeted
customers and the focus is on customer segment not all the people. For example, loyal users of
American Express view the brand‟s personality as sophisticated, dignified, and educated. On the
other hand, those “outside the brand” tend to see American Express as sophisticated, classy,
snobbish, and condescending. (AMICUS Group Whitepapers Number 6)
2.3.1 Brand Personality Scale (BPS)

Because consumers imagine the brands like human beings and give them personality
characteristics, “the dimensions of brand personality can be defined by extending the dimensions
of human personality to the domain of brands”. (Rajagopal, 2006)
Based on the human personality model (big five) Aaker (1997) found a new five dimensional
model in the context of brands named Brand Personality Scale (BPS). Her work was the first step
to generate a certain measurement personality model in the context of brand marketing. Before
her trial, researchers used to use ad-hoc scales or scales gotten directly from personality
psychology which had validity problem in the marketing domain. She conquered these problems
by offering a theoretical framework of brand personality on the basis of the “Big Five” human
personality structure.
Each of the five dimensions of the model includes several corresponding attributes. Sincerity for
example includes adjectives like honesty and genuineness and ruggedness is described by strong
and outdoorsy. (Guthrie, 2007)
Aaker (1997) factor analyzes the individual ratings of 40 brands on 114 personality traits by 631
respondents recruited in the United States. The principal components factor analysis resulted in
five significant factors.
28
The BPs successfully met standards for internal reliability, test-retest reliability, content validity,
homological validity and construct validity. Tests of construct validity demonstrated that the
traits which were positively related to a single factor had 1) high correlations with traits that
measured the same factor and 2) low correlations with traits that measured other factors.
Furthermore, although little theory exists to indicate what constructs brand personality predicts,
attempts at illustrating predictive validity were made in two ways. First, the hypothesis that
brands with strong personalities are associated with high levels of usage and preference was
tested and supported. The hypothesis that correlations between self-concept and brands used are
higher than those between self-concept and brands not used was tested and supported. (Aaker,
1995) The result of the exploratory principal component factor analysis has cleared five distinct
personality dimensions: Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness.
She claims that this model is generalizable across cultures and product categories.
Figure 2.3.1.1 Aaker's brand personality dimensions

Source: (Aaker, 1997)
The traits associated with every factor have been shown in the next table:
Table 2.3.1.1 Aaker’s brand personality dimensions with related items

Factor Name Traits Factor Name Traits
Sincerity 1 Down-to-earth Competence 23 Reliable
2 Family- 24 Hard working
oriented
3 Small-town 25 Secure
4 Honest 26 Intelligent
5 Sincere 27 Technical
6 Real 28 Corporate
7 Wholesome 29 Successful
8 Original 30 Leader
9 Cheerful 31 Confident
10 Sentimental Sophistication 32 Upper class
11 Friendly 33 Glamorous
Excitement 12 Daring 34 Good looking
13 Trendy 35 Charming
14 Exciting 36 Feminine
15 Spirited 37 Smooth
16 Cool Ruggedness 38 Outdoorsy
17 Young 39 Masculine
29
18 Imaginative 40 Western
19 Unique 41 Tough
20 Up-to-date 42 Rugged
21 Independent Source: (Aaker, 1997)
22 Contemporary
Two of these dimensions have been under attention more because researches have shown them
clearer; Sincerity and excitement. The brands which are seemed to have sincere brand
personality are like Coca-Cola, Ford, and Hallmark. And the reason for choosing this kind of
personality dimension differs among small and big businesses. For the small firms the main
reason is they want to represent themselves as warmer and more caring in comparison to big
firms. And large companies try to show a kind of down-to-earth characteristic of them by
showing this kind of personality. The second personality type “exciting” are more related to
brands like YAHOO!, Virgin and MTV who try to use especial advertisement and languages.
(Aaker, 2004)
Some researches like Fennis (2007) have used the BPS model in the other side , the effect of
brand personality on the consumers and have found that some BPS dimensions like sincerity can
affect self perceptions of agreeableness and ruggedness dimension influences of the human
character extroversion, exciting evokes hedonism and competent affects sophistication.
2.3.2 Application of BPS

Aaker (1997) suggested that the five dimensions of the BPS were generic and could be used to
measure brand personality across product categories and cultures. In line with her suggestions for
future research, many researchers have applied her framework through variety of products and
countries in two main traits culture and brand:
2.3.2.1 Application of BPS in culture trait:

By comparing brand personality structures across cultures, values and needs of these cultures
may be identified that are relevant to the way brands are perceived. Cultures that are quite
different in their values and needs (e.g., Western vs. East Asian cultures) are more likely to
exhibit culture-specific differences in brand personality. (Sung, 2005)
Aaker et al. (2001) conducted additional studies to examine how the symbolic and expressive
attributes associated with commercial brands are structured and how this structure varies across
three cultures: (a) the United States, (b) Japan, and (c) Spain. They identified a set of brand
personality dimensions that share similar meaning in Japan and the United States (e.g.,
excitement) as well as other dimensions (e.g., peacefulness and ruggedness) that carry more
specific cultural meaning. This finding of similarities and differences in basic structure was also
supported by their other study, which compared Spain and the United States (Aaker et al., 2001).
As Aaker et al. (2001) noted, although the utilitarian attributes of commercial brands tend to
exhibit limited variability in meaning or importance across cultures, the symbolic or value-
expressive functions (the brand personality) associated with a brand tend to vary to some degree
30
because of the variation of individuals‟ needs and self-views and socialization. Also, cultural
differences (Appendix 2) are linked with, and often motivate, variations in the strategies and
tactics used to market consumer goods .This bidirectional causality suggests that cultural
differences should be predictive of variations in the way even global brands are perceived,
despite the fact that many are marketed with a standardized strategy. When these strategies are
customized (adapted to known cultural characteristics), the extent of culture-related differences
in brand perceptions should be even more evident.
Figure 2.3.2.1 Five American brand personality dimensions

Figure 2.3.2.2 Five Japanese brand personality dimensions

Figure 2.3.2.3 Five Spain’s brand personality dimensions

Supphellen and Gronhaug‟s (2003) study in Russia provided another cross-cultural validation of
the BPS, using the Ford and Levi‟s brands. As in Aaker‟s (1997) findings, the authors found five
dimensions, which they identified as successful and contemporary, sincerity, excitement,
sophistication, and ruggedness. The first dimension consisted of traits from four different BPS
31
dimensions, but the other four resembled those in Aaker (1997). The authors‟ findings provide
further evidence that brand personality adjectives may shift from one dimension to another
depending on the culture. Overall, the authors agree with Aaker‟s (1997) contention that the
brand personality scale is probably less cross-culturally robust than human personality measures.
Figure 2.3.2.4 Brand personality dimensions in Russia

Source: (Supphellen and Gronhaug‟s, 2003)
2.3.2.2 Application of BPS in products trait:

By Adopting Aaker‟s brand personality scale, Ekini (2006) Aimed to identify whether tourists
ascribed personality traits to tourism destinations .The findings of the study indicate that
perception of destination personality is 3-dimensional: sincerity, excitement, and conviviality.
The study also found that Destination Personality has positive impact on perceived destination
image and intention to recommend. In particular, the conviviality dimension moderated the
impact of cognitive image on tourists‟ intention to recommend.
Because of the hedonic nature of the holiday experience and given that Tourism destinations are
rich in terms of symbolic values; Ekini (2006) believes that the concept of brand personality can
be applied to tourism destinations. Also he argues that Aaker‟s (1997) brand personality scale
can be extended to gauge personality traits that tourists ascribe to destinations.
Figure 2.3.2.5 Dimensions of brand personality in destination personality

Source: (Yuksel Ekinci and Sameer Hosany, 2006)
The results of his study indicates that tourists describe personality
Characteristics to destinations and destination personality can be described in three dimensions:

sincerity, excitement, and conviviality. The dimensions were found to be reliable and valid, with
32
sincerity and excitement as the two main factors. This is in line with previous research on the
application of the BPS, in which the sincerity and excitement dimensions were found to capture
the majority of variance in brand personality ratings (Aaker 1997). The third destination
personality dimension, conviviality, was new and also specific to tourism destinations. It consists
of traits such as friendly, family oriented, and charming. The findings of his study revealed that
the BPS can be applied to tourism destinations.
Although the majority of the studies using the BPS have been carried out within the commercial
brand settings, there exist some notable exceptions to its application in other contexts. Unlike
previous research focusing on brand personality of consumer goods and services in the profit
sectors, Venable et al. (2005) investigated the role of brand personality in nonprofit
organizations. Using Aaker‟s (1997) BPS and further complementing it with the results of
qualitative studies, Venable et al. (2005) found four dimensions of brand personality for
nonprofits organizations: integrity, nurturance, sophistication, and ruggedness. Siguaw, Mattila,
and Austin‟s (1999) study is one of the few studies of brand personality in the context of
hospitality and tourism. The authors investigated the brand personality of three broad categories
of restaurants: quick service, casual dining, and upscale restaurants. Aaker‟s (1997) brand
personality scale was used to gauge respondents‟ perceptions of nine restaurants, three in each
category. The findings revealed that restaurants can be differentiated on the basis of personality
characteristics. Upscale restaurants were perceived as being more sophisticated, whereas casual
restaurants were found to be more sincere and less competent when compared to the other two
restaurants categories. Quick-service restaurants were viewed as being less exciting and less
rugged.
Lau (2007), select two symbolic brands from the same product category with a significant
difference in their prestige levels. From two focus group sessions, BMW and Volkswagen were
identified as symbolic brands, whereby BMW was considered to be the higher prestige brand of
the two. The key personality dimensions of BMW were “competent,” “excitement,” and
“sophistication,” while Volkswagen portrayed strong personality dimensions of “sincerity,”
“excitement,” “sophistication,” and “competent.”
33
Figure 2.3.2.6 Application of BPS in two prestigious brands in automobile industry

Source: (Kong Cheen Lau and Ian Phau, 2007)
In Matzler (2006) research, the hedonic value (defined as the pleasure potential of a product
class) influences brands affect. He also found that two personality traits (extraversion and
openness to experience) influence the perceived hedonic value of a product and brand affect.
Diamantopoulos (2004) used Aaker‟s (1997) five brand personality dimensions as measures of
core brand evaluation following the introduction of an extension. More specifically, he focuses
on potential changes along these dimensions, i.e. he compares consumers‟ pre- and post-
extension scores on each brand personality dimension to identify any significant shifts
attributable to the extension. He finally finds that brand personality is thus resilient to change as
a result of an extension introduction, irrespective of the level of fit (and irrespective of whether
the latter is operationalized as manipulated fit or perceived fit). The perceived quality of the core
brand he also not found to moderate the effect of extension fit on brand personality. However,
core brand quality was consistently and positively related to the respondents‟ initial perceptions
of brand personality (with the exception of the “Sophistication” dimension).
Another research in Chile has studied the Ford brand personality and has shown that the
applicable dimensions are 4 ones by omitting Ruggedness dimension.
Figure 2.3.2.7 Application of BPS in Chile (Automobile Industry)

Source: (Rojas-Mendez, 2004)
A research in Germany have shown four dimensions of brand personality (Drive,

Conscientiousness, Emotion, and Superficiality) and the Aaker‟s(1997) 42 item scale were
customized to a 20-item instrument in German culture. (Bosenjak, 2007)
34
In application of BPS we should consider that sometimes the dimension described the brand is
the product category related attribute and all the products in the same category are claimed to
have the same personality. Example here is the research of Guthrie (2007) who has applied the
BPS in cosmetic industry and found that the brand personality of “competent” was a common
trait known for leader cosmetic brands.
2.3.3 Critics about BPS

Big five model in human psychology is universal but dimensions of BPS can be quite cultural
specific. (Bosnjak 2007, Aaker 2001, Ekini 2006, Mendez 2004, Tinkham 2005)
Aaker‟s (1997) stated objective was to "develop a theoretical framework of brand personality
dimensions and a reliable, valid, and generalizable scale that measures these dimensions". After
completing her research, she concluded that all of these objectives regarding her brand
personality framework, including the demonstration of generalizability, had been attained.
Austin (2003) claims that unfortunately, it is not entirely clear in Aaker‟s article from what and
to what the brand personality framework is generalizable. Although dire need has encouraged
academicians and practitioners to readily embrace any scale that purports to measure brand
personality, it is crucial to marketing thought and practice that the boundary conditions for the
generalizability of Aaker‟s research conclusions first be identified. He presented his findings
from a series of confirmatory factor analyses, using a sample of students, that suggest the
framework does not generalize to individual brands in a broadly defined product category
(restaurants) included in Aaker‟s research, nor does it generalize to the analysis of brands
aggregated within this product category (nine quick service, casual dining, and upscale dining
restaurant brands combined).
The clear delineation of brand personality, however, remains somewhat vague and
indistinguishable from other constructs such as brand image or brand identity. Essentially, little
is known about why consumers try to infuse human traits into brands. Further, there is a dearth
of research that empirically demonstrates the utility of developing a strong, positive brand
personality; that is, what is the effect that brand personality will have on consumer-related
outcomes. While marketing practitioners seem to readily accept the notion that brand personality
is related to favorable advantages, support for this assumption is primarily anecdotal and these
relationships have not been subjected to extensive empirical testing (Freling, 2005).
In other research by Yuksel (2006) in the study of Brand Personality application in Tourism
industry, that the “penta-factorial” structure hypothesized by Aaker (1997) cannot, however, be
fully replicated. Instead, the 5-dimensional BPS needs adaptation when applied to tourism
destinations.
Caprara's (2001) showed that the five-factor structure is not replicated when describing brands.
Rather, at a higher level of abstraction in the hierarchical organization of personality
characteristics, results supported a two-trait solution. He was also found that descriptors of
human personality convey different meanings when attributed to different brands. While the
35
psychological approach remains a suitable procedure to identify brand descriptors, the factors
used to describe human personalities appear to be inappropriate for describing the brands he
studied. He also believes his findings are in line with those of Aaker (1997), who observed that
“though some dimensions (or factors) of human personality may be mirrored in brands, others
might not”. The traditional repertoire of human personality may serve for construing a brand
personality, but only to a certain extent. When applied to products and brands, the Big Five
Model needs revision and adaptation. Results show that only the two meta-factors, blends of the
five main dimensions, are consistently replicated in brand perceptions. Most importantly,
moreover, adjectives used to describe those traits may “shift” from one factor to another,
according to the type of the selected stimulus brand.
In the cultural context, the structure of personality attributes associated with commercial brands
research in Aaker's framework differs across cultural contexts (Diamantopoulos, 2004).
Such limitations, however, do not invalidate the use of the psychological approach as a vital tool
for studying brand personality and detecting the best adjectives marketers can use to shape their
desirable brand personality. This approach allows us to distinguish among the main distinctive
“traits” of specific brands, and to select words and messages which may most effectively convey
(and reinforce) the competitive characteristics of brands (Caprara, 2001).
Although some studies on the application and validation of Aaker‟s (1997) brand personality
scale reveal the emergence of culturally specific dimensions, the BPS remains the most stable,
reliable, and comprehensive measure to gauge brand/product personality. The BPS is the most
comprehensive instrument for measuring brand or product personality (Ekini, 2006).
2.4 Brand Personality Building

Customers are very sensitive about symbolic meaning of the brands, sometimes companies try to
show these meaning by advertising but they may be incongruity between the desired symbolic
meanings portrayed in the advertising and employees' behavior. (Aaker, 1996)
Although past researches have shown that creative advertisement is a tool for personality
building but later authors have suggested that the concept is more global and should be seen in
brand equity building processes.(Aaker, 1991)
Batra et al. (1993) has brought two points to consider for marketers before creating a brand
personality:
First: studying the existing brand personality that consumer has an image of in comparison with
competitor brands (relevance of the personality)
Second: to what extend the segmented target consumers desire the specific kind of brand
personality? (Value-creating of the personality)
Although there were not many papers showing exactly the whole constructs that create a brand
personality in consumer‟s minds, some researchers suggested examples to show how brand
36
personality can be created.
Rajagopal (2006) claims that Consumers have only one image of a brand, one created by the
deployment of the brand assets at your disposal: name, tradition, packaging, advertising,
promotion posture, pricing, trade acceptance, sales force discipline, customer satisfaction,
repurchases patterns, etc Indirectly, the brand personality is created by all the elements of the
marketing mix.
Batra et al. (1993) suggest that the personality of a brand is created over time, by the all
constituents of marketing-mix. The type of relationship that customers possess with the brands
based on the loyalty levels is an extremely significant parameter for the marketers. He points
some specific marketing activities like symbols used in all phases of brand communication, sales
promotion, and media advertising. Duncan and Moriarty (1998) point out that each of the new
generation marketing approaches include customer focused, market-driven, outside-in, one-to-
one marketing, data-driven marketing, relationship marketing, integrated marketing, and
integrated marketing communications that emphasize two-way communication through better
listening to customers and the idea that communication before, during and after transactions can
build or destroy important brand relationships.
The way consumers perceive brands is a key determinant of long-term business consumer
relationships. A large proportion of consumer brand perception is obtained under low-
involvement conditions and is therefore not consciously processed by the consumer‟s brain. Such
associations tend to be stored in terms of metaphors and importantly, they tend to aggregate in
clusters (Rajagopal, 2006).
But in some industries there are some especial specifics that should been considered for example
in an study of Brand Personality application in Tourism industry by Ekini (2006) the tools which
build the destination personality in the minds of tourists are like Tourists receive and interpret
the various messages sent by destinations, and build a representation of the “behavior” of the
destination. Personality traits can be associated with a destination in a direct way through
citizens of the country, hotel employees, restaurants, and tourist attractions, or simply through
the tourist‟s imagery. In an indirect manner, personality traits can be attributed to destinations
through marketing programs such as cooperative advertising, value pricing, celebrities of the
country, and media construction of destinations. Accordingly, he argues that, similar to consumer
goods/brands, tourism destinations are rich in terms of symbolic values and personality traits,
given that they consist of a bundle of tangible and intangible components (e.g., visitor
attractions, hotels, and people) associated with particular values, histories, events, and feelings.
Through all the marketing activities for building a brand and by the knowledge that all
experiences of consumers with a brand will create a brand, advertising plays a dominant role in
personality creation (Ibid).
2.4.1 Advertising as the dominant tool

When it comes to think about brand building processes first thing coming into mind is
advertising. (Rajagopal, 2006)
37
Rajagopal (2006) has a research on the effectiveness of advertising on brand personality building
and in his paper he has analyzed different strategies of brand building and managing with the
purpose of long term competitive advantage. And the focus is on symbiotic relationship of
brands and their consumers by the help of media communication.
Brand personality is developed and created by advertisers and they hope customers would get
their meaning. (Guthrie, 2007) All the business need is developing plans to convey the pieces of
information that can portray the desired personality. (Meredith, 2003)
Understanding how brand personality is created in the minds of consumers is essential for
effective use of a company‟s marketing tools. Effective brand management, encompassing brand
personality is of paramount importance in reaching the overall company goals of satisfaction,
loyalty, and profitability. Rajagopal (2006) claims that by the fact of brand personality has a vital
role in effective brand management, companies use advertising for quick cognitive reflexes of
customers and it is a common belief among the managers of multinational companies that
advertising plays a pivotal role in building brand. He also in his study analyzed the influence of
advertising practices on developing brand personality and their impact on the buying behavior of
consumers. He found that in the process of brand personality building advertising plays a role as
brand drivers; brand typology, cognitive relationship between the consumer behaviors,
communication and brand perceptions.
Advertising is heavily used in this process of personality creation. This follows logically from
the fact that personalities are particularly useful for the creation of brand associations. Brand
associations influence the „„evaluation of alternatives‟‟ stage in basic consumer buying behavior
models. At this stage, and for these goals, advertising is considered to be the most effective
communication tools. Perhaps the most visible and best known way of personality creation is by
means of celebrity endorsers. Public heroes, sports people, pop stars and movie stars have been
hired to lend their personality to a brand for a long time and this practice is still growing in
popularity today. Yet, basically all advertising influences the brand personality, not only when an
endorser is used. In the process of personality creation, in reference to advertising and marketing,
communication approaches are largely used to create brand personality. Many researchers have
found that brands are sensitive to the communication and anchors which catalyze consumer
behavior. It may be observed that a general model of advertising has been integrated with a
model of brand personality creation as discussed in some of the studies. Based on that model a
number of propositions are derived and presented thorough analyses of the role of brand
personality in the creation of brand equity, thereby linking the core issue to one of general and
increasing importance (Rajagopal, 2006).
Ang (2006) suggests use of metaphors in advertising for the purpose of personality creation, his
findings suggests that metaphors, regardless of whether they are in verbal or pictorial form,
influence brand personality perceptions. That similar findings were obtained for metaphoric
headlines and pictures demonstrates the rigor of metaphors in influencing personality
perceptions. Brands using metaphors were generally perceived to be more sophisticated and
exciting, but also less sincere and competent, than brands using literal words and pictures.
Metaphors can thus be used not only for short-term objectives such as breaking attention
38
threshold, but also for longer term building of brand image and personality. The inherent
Characteristics of metaphors as artful deviations with imagery and decorative properties can be
capitalized on to enhance the personality of products that lack such characteristics. Products can
be made seemingly more sophisticated and exciting through the use of metaphors, although care
should be taken to ensure that the sincerity and competence dimensions are not compromised.
Managerially, his findings suggest that metaphoric pictures and metaphoric headlines are
additional execution tools that advertisers can easily employ in ad creation to create the desired
brand personality perceptions.
The relevant literature suggests that advertisers attempt to provide “stimuli” through various
forms of brand communications, with the aim of making consumers perceive the intended
personality (Okazaki, 2005).
39
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3. Research Methodology:
This chapter is going to describe the research methods used in this study. This research is going
to apply Brand Personality Scale in NANO car brand. In order to do so the research methodology
which is undertaken is as follow: First, the research approach suitable for this study is chosen,
second, the research purpose is identified, third, different research strategies are investigated and
the strategy appropriate for this study will be then recognized, forth, the data collection method
used in this study is discussed. The figure 3.1 below provides an overview of the headings of the
chapter.
Figure 3.1: headings of the chapter
3.1 Research purpose

Scientific research has three basic objectives (Svensson, 1999):
Exploration: is needed when researcher is not sure which model is appropriate for his work and
wants to focus on developing a system of definitions (Robson, 1993). Exploratory studies aim for
basic knowledge within the research purpose. The purpose with this kind of study is to decide
and demonstrate the character of the problem by collecting information through exploration
(Eriksson and Wiedersheim-Paul, 1999). Exploratory studies tend toward loose structures with
the objective of discovering future research tasks (Cooper and Schindler, 2003). Its great
advantage is that it is flexible and adaptable to change (Sunders et al., 2000). However; the
flexibility inherent in exploratory research does not mean absence of direction to the enquiry
(Adams and Schvaneveldt, 1991).
Description: the problem here is completely clear and well structured but the researcher doesn‟t
know the answer. The objective of descriptive research is 'to portray an accurate profile of
persons, events or situations' (Robson, 1993) and to describe market characteristics or functions
(Malhotra, 1996). The simplest descriptive study concerns a univariate question or hypothesis in
which we ask about, or state something about, the size, form, distribution, or existence of a
variable. If the research is concerned with finding out who, what, where, when or how much,
then the study is descriptive (Cooper and Schindler, 2003).
Explanation: wants to describe the relation between and the cause to different phenomena.
40
Since this research is aiming to find out, test and describe the factors of Brand Personality Scale
for two brands in India, the research purpose is descriptive. Therefore due to the fact that this
research concerned with finding what by asking the questions "what are the underlying
dimensions of this brand?" the suitable research purpose for this study will be descriptive.
3.2 Research Approach

By considering two research approaches qualitative and quantitative this research covers both.
In the quantitative part, applying the BPS model for chosen brand and underlying its dimensions
the determination of the causal links specified by the hypothesis will result in the acceptance or
rejection of the theoretical model. And by relying on analysis of statistical data, these dimensions
will be clear.
In the qualitative session, by analyzing the open question, other specific attributes that can be
added to the model is going to be found.
3.3 Research Strategy

The research strategy will be a general plan of how a researcher will go about answering the
research question(s) he has set. It will contain clear objectives, derived from the research
question(s), specify the sources from which the researcher intends to collect data and consider
the constraints which he inevitably has.
A research can adopt any of the following research strategies:
• Experiment and quasi-experimental research: is a classical form of research that owes much to
the natural sciences, although it features strongly in much social science research, particularly
psychology (Sunders et al., 2000). In this kind of research strategy there is also the tendency to
make use of hypotheses which the experiment seeks either to support or to refute. In other words,
experimental research is usually deductive (Gray, 2004).
• Survey: Survey are described by Fink (Fink, 1995) as a system for collecting information to
describe, compare, or explain knowledge, attitude and behavior. The survey method is usually
associated with the deductive approach. It is a popular and common strategy in business and
management research. They allow the collection of a large amount of data from a sizable
population in a highly economical way (Sunders et al., 2000). It has considerable ability to
generate answers to the question 'what?' as well as 'how?' questions (Robson, 1993). Based most
often on a questionnaire, these data are standardized allowing easy comparison. Using this
strategy should give a researcher more control over the research process. However, much time
will be spent in designing and piloting the questionnaire and also the data collected by the survey
may not be as wide ranging as those collected by quantitative research methods. The
questionnaire, however, is not the only data collection device of the survey strategy. There are
three main data collection devices which belong to survey category: questionnaire, structured
observation and structured interview (Sunders et al., 2000). 'Structured' here refers to the degree
of standardization imposed on the data collection process (Cooper and Schindler, 2003).
41
• Case study: Robson defines case study as "the development of detailed, intensive knowledge
about a single case, or a small number of related cases" (Robson, 1993). This strategy will be of
particular interest to the researcher if he or she wishes to gain a rich understanding of the context
of the research and the processes being enacted (Mooris and Wood, 1991). It's a very worthwhile
way of exploring existing theory. The data collection methods include questionnaire, interviews,
observation and documentary analysis (Sunders et al., 2000).
• Grounded theory: The grounded theory is often thought of as the best example of the inductive
approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1976). Also some think of it as 'theory building' through a
combination of induction and deduction. In grounded theory, data collection starts without the
formation of an initial theoretical framework. Theory is developed from data generated by series
of observations.
• Ethnography: It is also firmly rooted in the inductive approach. Ethnography emanates from the
field of anthropology. The purpose is to interpret the social world the research subjects inhabit in
the way in which they interpret it. This is obviously a research process that is very time
consuming and takes place over an extended time period (Sunders et al., 2000).
• Action research: There are three common themes within the literature. The first focuses on and
emphasizes the purpose of the research (Gunningham, 1995). The second relates to the
involvement of practitioners in the research and in particular a close collaboration between
practitioners and researchers. The final theme suggests that action research should have
implications beyond the immediate project; in other words it must be clear that the results could
inform other contexts (Sunders et al., 2000). Thus action research differs from other forms of
applied research because of its explicit focus on action (Marsick and Watkins, 1997).
According to Wiedesheim- Paul and Eriksson (1998) there are three major research strategies
available in social sciences: experiments, surveys and case studies. Yin (1994) proposes two
additional: archival analysis and histories. Furthermore, what distinguishes these strategies can
be determined by three different conditions:
1. The type of research question posed

2. The extent of control an investigator has over actual behavioral events
3. The degree of focus on contemporary as opposed to historical events
Table 3.2, visualizes how Yin (1994) relates the three conditions to the different strategies.
Table 2.4.1.1 Relevant situations for Different research strategies

Research Strategy Form of Research Requires Control Focuses on
Questions over Behavioral Contemporary
Events Events
Experiment How, Why YES YES
Survey Who, What, Where, NO YES
How many, How
much
42
Archival Analysis Who, What, Where, NO YES/NO

How many, How
much
History How, Why NO NO
Case Study How, Why NO YES
This research aims to test the model in a car brands from the customer‟s point of view by
considering “how” the Big Five model fits the brand so the appropriate strategy for this study is
survey. In other words due to the fact that in survey respondents will be asked Aaker‟s 42 item in
order to find the factors of describing the chosen brand strategy.
3.4 Research process

The research process has been shown in figure 3.4.
Figure 3.4: research process
Research proposal
preparation
Literature review
Designing a conceptual
research model
Customising the
questionnaire
Distrubution & collection

of questionnaire
Study of reliability &

validity of questionnaire
Data collection
Data analysis
Conclusion & suggestion
43
3.5 Research design

Research design is the plan and structure of investigation so conceived as to obtain answer to
reach questions. The plan is the overall scheme or program of the research. It includes an outline
of what the investigator will do from writing hypothesis and their operational implications to the
final analysis of data. A research design expresses both the structure of the research problem and
the plan of investigation used to obtain empirical evidence on relations of the problem. (Cooper
and Schindler, 2003) In fact, the choice of research design must be appropriate to the subject
under investigation.
3.5.1 Research variables

Distinction of variables is necessary in a research to reach to the response to a research question
or hypothetical tests. Researchers are mostly interested in relationship among variables. The type
of variables used in this research has been brought here:
1. Independent Variables: is a specialty from physical and social environment that is accepted
after the selection, interference or modification by a quantitative researcher so that its impact
may be observed on other variables (dependent variable).
2. Dependent variable: is a variable in which changes occur under the impact of independent
variable.
3. Moderating variable: a moderating variable is a second independent variable that is included

because it is believed to have a significant contributory or contingent effect on the originally
stated dependent-independent variables relationship.
In this research the 42 items of Aaker‟s Scale which are 42 personality attributes are independent
variables. And the five factors of BPS model are dependent variables. And respondent‟s
demographic situation like age, sex, income and… are considered as moderating variables.
3.5.2 Methods and resources of data collection

Following methods have been applied during the data collections:
• Library method: to collect the information related to research literature and background
(Secondary Data), the library method was applied. In this process 65 articles and books mainly
about branding, brand personality and personality Psychology were collected mostly via internet
and from data bases like: Emerald Insight, Business Source Elite (Ebsco), Science Direct,… the
journal mostly used were: Caifornia Management Review, Advances in consumer research,
Journal of personality and social psychology, Journal of marketing research, European journal of
marketing, journal of marketing management and…
• Expert interview: personal interviews were used to customize the 42 items in BPS model by the
help of 12 Indian experts.
44
• Questionnaire: a questionnaire containing 38 questions was developed and used to collect the
required data during a survey of more than 300 TATA Motors customers.
3.6 Statistical population and sample

Statistical population of this research is TATA Motors company‟s customers and mostly NANO
owners or customer‟s who have the experience of driving NANO.
There were three reasons to choose this sample:
1- The experts‟ suggestions who believed that this questionnaire is running for the first time in
India. The customers will understand the purpose of study better and finally they care more about
the brand.
2- The company‟s idea about the influence of corporate personality on the brand personality
which shows people in the branches environment are still judging about the brand by watching
employees and all companies behavior.
3- The result of pilot test among 25 customers and non customers showed that customers give
more reasonable answer to the questions.
By the support of TATA Motors co. we distributed 500 questionnaires among 5 branches of
TATA motors in 5 parts of the city. These branches were chosen randomly for each region of the
city. 313 out of 500 questionnaires had the reasonable answers, which show the response rate of
63%.
3.7 Sampling methods

The method of sampling for this research is cluster sampling in the category of probability
sampling methods. In a simple random sample, each population element is selected individually.
The population can also be divided into groups of elements with some groups randomly selected
for study.
Most of the questionnaires were handed face to face and one person was ready to answer the
possible questions from respondent. The people chosen for giving the questionnaire were first
asked a few questions like have you ever taught that cars can have personality like human
beings? Or are you interested to help us in this research?
These people were the customers who had come for receiving their car for the first time, or
buying the car or just registering for the new car or people who had come for repair issues.
3.8 Measurement tool

Researchers apply measurement tools to collect and record the information in the research.
Questionnaire is one of these tools which is a collection of written queries related to essential
variables for the research and can be completed by respondents directly or indirectly.
45
The whole set of personality traits used in this study was adapted from Aaker (1997). These traits
were then discussed with 12 experts in the city and then after some changes it had been reduced
to 38 traits. These questions were structured in a Likert scale model (1 to 5) with „strongly
disagree‟, „disagree‟, „neither agree nor disagree‟, „agree‟ and „strongly agree‟ as the choices.
And other sections of the questionnaire included questions regarding demographic and
background information.
Table depicts the original terms used in the Aaker (1997). A pilot study then conducted in the
sales and marketing department of TATA Motors Co., with a total of 25 people.
3.5.2. Table
Personality Attributes Personality Attributes
1 Down to earth 22 Contemporary
2 Family oriented 23 Reliable
3 Small-town 24 Hard working
4 Honest 25 Secure
5 Sincere 26 Intelligent
6 Real 27 Technical
7 Wholesome 28 Corporate
8 Original 29 Successful
9 Cheerful 30 Leader
10 Sentimental 31 Confident
11 Friendly 32 Upper class
12 Daring 33 Glamorous
13 Trendy 34 Good Looking
14 Exciting 35 Charming
15 Spirited 36 Feminine
16 Cool 37 Smooth
17 Young 38 Outdoorsy
18 Imaginative 39 Masculine
19 Unique 40 Western
20 Up to date 41 Tough
21 Independent 42 Rugged
Reliability of measurement tool
According to Yin (1994) there are four tests commonly used to establish the quality of any
empirical research, construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability.
Reliability or external validity: shows the similarity and reliability of the findings in the similar
condition. Reliability means that if the test is repeated under similar condition, to what extent the
findings are similar and reliable (Cooper and Schindler, 2003). Different methods are available
to measure the reliability such as retest method, split-half method, parallel (equivalence) method,
Richardson method and, Cronbach alpha coefficient method.
Construct validity: establishing correct operational measures for the concepts being studied.
46
Internal validity: establishing the domain to which a study‟s findings can be generalized.
The common used method for measuring internal consistency is Cronbach alpha. Heir et al.
(2007) have provided rules of thumb for interpreting alpha values. They mentioned an alpha of
.70 or higher as an appropriate range to measure the reliability. Ro asses the reliability of the
questionnaire during this research, alpha Cronbach was used. Result from the analysis of
questionnaire reliability by using SPSS for the whole questionnaire is 96%, which is more than
the minimum level (70%). And the test results for questions related to five main constructs are:
88% for 10 questions related to sincerity, 92% for 10 questions related to excitement, 91% for 9
questions related to competence, 87% for 5 questions related to sophistication, 75% for 4
questions related to ruggedness.
3.8.1 Content validity of the measurement tool

To determine the validity of questionnaires, various methods are available; one of them is
content validity methods. Content validity method is used to study the formation ingredients of a
measurement tool. This method usually is determined by experts in the proposed study subject.
For the current research 6 experts who were university professors in the marketing research area
and also had the experience of branding projects in the industry, 2 TATA Motors managers, and
4 university professors in psychology, social science and English literature were chosen.
These experts‟ opinions were gathered through face to face interviews, emails or letters provided
by a gift to their office.
3.8.2 Factor validity of the measurement tool

Factor validity is a kind of Construct validity that is acquired through factor analysis. In this
research 10 questions represent the personality dimension of sincerity, 10 questions for the
excitement, 9 explain competence, 5 for the sophistication and 4 questions make the personality
dimension of ruggedness.
3.8.3 Results of factor analysis

Factor analysis of questions related to the personality dimension of sincerity: For the sincerity
dimension, 10 questions have been designed that after the first rank exploratory factor analysis
the following results were acquired:
Table 3.8.3.1 KMO and Bartlett's Test of sincerity

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Samplying Adequacy .901
Bartlett‟s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-square 1246.302
Df 36
Sig. .000
Sufficiency and suitability test of data KMO for the execution of factor analysis for the sincerity
dimension shows that data set were good enough for factor analysis because the measure of
sample adequacy is greater than 0.6 (0.901). Similarly, number of significant Bartlett test is equal
47
to 0.00 and is smaller than significant level of 0.05 that indicates correlation matrix possesses
significant information. Furthermore, Communality table, which shows the suitability of the ratio
of questions communality, is greater than 0.50 for all the questions is the indicator of suitability
of the questions. As Table shows, the proposed questions cover and explain 54.814 of variance
of personality dimension of sincerity that in reality indicates the validity of questions.
Table 3.8.3.2 Questions communality of sincerity

Component Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of variance Cumulative%
1 4.933 54.814 54.814
Factor analysis of questions related to the personality dimension of excitement:
For the excitement dimension, 10 questions have been designed that after the first rank
exploratory factor analysis the following results were acquired:
Table 3.8.3.3 KMO and Bartlett's Test for excitement

Df 45
Sig. .000
Sufficiency and suitability test of data KMO for the execution of factor analysis for the
excitement dimension shows that data set were good enough for factor analysis because the
measure of sample adequacy is greater than 0.6 (0.904). Similarly, number of significant Bartlett
test is equal to 0.00 and is smaller than significant level of 0.05 that indicates correlation matrix
possesses significant information. Furthermore, Communality table, which shows the suitability
of the ratio of questions communality, is greater than 0.50 for all the questions is the indicator of
suitability of the questions. As Table shows, the proposed questions cover and explain 59.860 of
variance of personality dimension of excitement that in reality indicates the validity of questions.
Table 3.8.3.4 Questions communality of excitement

Component Extraction Sums of Square Loading
Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 5.986 59.860 59.860
Factor analysis of questions related to the personality dimension of competence:
For the competence dimension, 9 questions have been designed that after the first rank
exploratory factor analysis the following results were acquired:
Table 3.8.3.5 KMO and Bartlett's Test

Df 36
Sig. ,000
48
competence dimension shows that data set were good enough for factor analysis because the
variance of personality dimension of competence that in reality indicates the validity of
questions.
Table 3.8.3.6 Questions communality of competence

1 5.502 61.135 61.135
Factor analysis of questions related to the personality dimension of sophistication: For the
sophistication dimension, 5 questions have been designed that after the first rank exploratory
factor analysis the following results were acquired:

Df 10
Sig. .000
sophistication dimension shows that data set were good enough for factor analysis because the
variance of personality dimension of sophistication that in reality indicates the validity of
questions.
Table 3.8.3.8 Questions communality of sophistication

1 3.337 66.733 66.733
Factor analysis of questions related to the personality dimension of ruggedness: For the
sophistication dimension, 4 questions have been designed that after the first rank exploratory
factor analysis the following results were acquired:
49

Df 3
Sig. .000
3.9 Statistical method utilized in the research
3.9.1 Student t-test

Distribution (t) was developed with the name “student: in the year 1908 by V.S. Gost. This test
now is usually known as “student test”. This can also be used for the hypothetical test that
considers the social mean as equal, greater or smaller than a particular number, as well as, it also
apply in the test related to average comparison of two society.
3.9.2 Structural equations model

SEM is a comprehensive statistical process which is a set of linear equations for testing the
hypothesis about the relationship between observed and latent variables (Lavee, 1988) and uses a
confirmatory approach (Byrne, 2001). Structural equation modeling techniques are a second-
generation multivariate technique (Patrick, 1997) and have gained increasing popularity in
management sciences, notably marketing and organizational behavior, in the last decade.
Bagozzi (1980) cited by Patrick (1997) suggested that causal models developed following the
structural equation modeling approach had a number of advantages: (1) they make the
assumptions, constructs, and hypothesized relationships in a researcher‟s theory explicit; (2) they
add a degree of precision to a researcher‟s theory, since they require clear definitions of
constructs, operationalizations, and the functional relationships between constructs; (3) they
permit a more complete representation of complex theories; and (4) they provide a formal
framework for constructing and testing both theories and measures. Selection of the sample size
is very important in this stage because most of the available estimation methods in the structural
equation modeling and assessing indicators of proportional model are sensitive compare to the
sample size. Bentler suggested that ratio of 10 to 1 must always exist between sample size and
number of free parameters that must be estimated. The main goal in SEM is to fin “the extent to
which a hypothesized model „fits‟ or, in other words, adequately describes the sample data”
(Byrne, 2001).
3.9.3 One-way analysis of variance

The analysis of variance procedure is used to test the null hypothesis that the means of three or
more population are the same against the alternative hypothesis that the means of three or more
populations are the same against the alternative hypothesis that all population means are not the
same. This method is established on the analysis of the identified and unidentified factors that
explain the rate of scattered data.
50
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS

4. Data Analysis
In this chapter the analyzed data has been studied. First the demographic information of the
sample is represented by the help of descriptive statistics these demographic variables include
specifications of respondents and the car model they have. The next analysis goes with the
inferential statistics to measure how exactly the 38 variables describe NANO„s personality and
then the SEM approach shows the fitness of the big five model in the case of NANO. In the end
One Sample T-test and one-way ANOVA are used respectively in order to shed light on different
aspects of the research problem and to enrich our analysis.
4.1 Descriptive statistics

This section describes sample statistical description with regard to the specifications of the
respondents (age, sex, income, career and educational degree) and also the current automobile
used by respondents and the NANO model they had or have and the year of buying the car.
4.1.1 Description of respondent’s age:

The chart below shows that the majority of respondents were below 35 (34%) and then between
35 and 45 (27%). The frequency shows that we had almost people from all ages in the sample.
Age
4.86%
below 20
17.00%
21.18% 20-30
11.11% 30-35
13.19% 35-40
40-45
15.97%
4.86% 11.80% 45-50
over 50
not clear
Figure 4.1.1.1 Respondent’s age
4.1.2 Description of respondent’s sex:
Chart below shows that the majority of respondents were men (72%), which is based on the fact
that, even in a capital city like Tehran the majority of car owners are men than women.
51
Sex
11.46%
15.97%
Male
Female
72.57%
Not clear
Figure 4.1.2.1 Respondent’s sex
4.1.3 Description of respondent’s career and jobs:
Career
3.47% 4.17% Housewives
6.90%
Retired people
4.86% 17.01%
Students
3.13%
22.92% Employees
14.58%
businessmen
22.92% Experts
Managers
Others
Not clear
Figure 4.1.3.1 Respondent’s career
4.1.4 Description of respondent’s educational degree:

Most of the respondents had the Graduation degree (52.33%) which is a common educational
degree in India.
52
Degree
5.10%
11% 4%
Undergraduate
Graduate
18.82%
52.33% Diploma
8% Post graduate
PHD
Not clear
Figure 4.1.4.1 Respondent’s degree
4.1.5 Description of respondent’s income:

Most of the respondent‟s income was between 400000 and 800000 p.a.
Income
19.80% 11.45%
upto 400000
13% 400000-800000
39.10% 800000-1200000
17% more than 1200000
Not clear
Figure 4.1.5.1 Respondent's income
4.1.6 Description of respondent’s current car:
Most of the respondents were NANO owners (44%)
53
Car Name
26%
YES
66% NO
Figure 4.1.6.1 Respondent’s car name
Description of NANO owners currently or previously:
66% had the experience of owning the NANO.
Experience of Owing NANO

8.33%
26%
YES
66% NO
Not clear
Figure 4.1.6.2 Respondent’s experience of owning NANO
4.1.7 Description of respondent’s NANO type
Most of the NANO customers who answered the question were the customer‟s of LX model
(32.6%)
54
TATA Nano's Model
13% 11% TATA Nano STD

9% 15% TATA Nano CX
19% TATA Nano LX
32.60% TATA Nano Twist XT

TATA Nano XM
Not clear
Figure 4.1.7.1 Respondent’s NANO model
4.2 Study of NANO’s current brand personality among customers of TATA

Motors Co.
In this part, we are going to evaluate the current status of each Brand personality attribute and the
big five main constructs among TATA Motors‟s customers about NANO.
4.2.1 One Sample T-Test
4.2.1.1 One Sample T-Test for the first brand personality “SINCERITY”
with the use of One Sample T-Test procedure to find out whether the mean of the level of
agreements among the respondent‟s about the first personality dimension and the all attributes
related to it is smaller than 3 or not. Here are the test hypotheses:
Down to earth
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of down to earth is equal to 3
(means respondents have no specific idea about NANO being down to earth)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of down to earth is not equal to 3
(mean respondents thinking about NANO being down to earth or nit)
Family oriented
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Family oriented is equal to 3
(means respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Family oriented)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Family oriented is not equal to 3
55
(means respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Family oriented or not)
Small-town
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Small-town is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Small-town)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Small-town is not equal to 3
(means respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Small-town or not)
Honest
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of honest is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being honest)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of honest is not equal to 3 (means
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being honest or not)
Real
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Real is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Real)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Real is not equal to 3 (means
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Real or not)
Wholesome
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Wholesome is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Wholesome)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Wholesome is not equal to 3
(means respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Wholesome or not)
Original
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Original is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Original)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Original is not equal to 3 (means
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Original or not)
Cheerful
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Cheerful is equal to 3 (means
56
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Cheerful)
H1: level of Cheerful about NANO‟s personality attribute of Original is not equal to 3 (means
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Cheerful or not)
Sentimental
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Sentimental is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Sentimental)
H1: level of Cheerful about NANO‟s personality attribute of Sentimental is not equal to 3
(means respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Sentimental or not)
Friendly
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Friendly is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Friendly)
H1: level of Cheerful about NANO‟s personality attribute of Friendly is not equal to 3 (means
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Friendly or not)
Sincerity
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality dimension of sincerity is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about the sincerity of NANO)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality dimension of is not equal to 3 (is less or
more, respondents are believe NANO is sincere or not)
Below table shows the result of One Sample T-Test including p-value and a brief conclusion
Table 4.2.1.1 One Sample t-test for Sincerity

T Df P-value Mean Lower Upper Conclusion
Difference
Down to earth -9.026 287 .000 -.51389 -.6260 -.4018 Mean is < 3
Family oriented -22.248 287 .000 -1.14931 -1.2510 -1.0476 Mean is < 3
Small-town -12.249 287 .000 -.71181 -.8258 -.5978 Mean is < 3
Honest -3.598 287 .000 -.23611 -.3653 -.1069 Mean is < 3
Real -6.838 287 .000 -.41319 -.5321 -.2943 Mean is < 3
Wholesome -5.763 287 .000 -.38889 -.5217 -.2561 Mean is < 3
Original -3.145 287 .002 -.23611 -.3839 -.0883 Mean is < 3
Cheerful -2.302 287 .022 -.16319 -.3027 -.0237 Mean is < 3
Sentimental .059 287 .953 .00347 -.1129 .1199 Mean is = 3
Friendly -7.263 287 .000 -.41667 -.5296 -.3038 Mean is < 3
Sincerity -9.683 287 .000 -.42257 -.5085 -.3367 Mean is < 3
57
The results of t-test show that respondent‟s believe, NANO has a sincere personality. So the
customers believe NANO is down to earth, family oriented, small-town, honest, real wholesome,
original, cheerful and friendly. The only attribute they have no idea about is the sentimentalism.
So it shows that TATA Motor Company has been successful in its marketing and manufacturing
processes to make NANO a sincere brand. But they have to work on the sentimental attribute as
well to increase the level of sincerity.
4.2.1.2 One Sample T-Test for the second brand personality

“EXCITEMENT”
agreements among the respondent‟s about the second personality dimension and the all attributes
Daring
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Daring is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Daring)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Daring is not equal to 3 (means
respondents thinking about NANO being Daring or not)
Trendy
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of trendy is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being trendy)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of trendy is not equal to 3 (means
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being trendy or not)
Exciting
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of exciting is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being exciting)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of exciting is not equal to 3 (means
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being exciting or not)
Spirited
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of spirited is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being spirited)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of spirited is not equal to 3 (means
58
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being spirited or not)
Cool
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of cool is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being cool)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of cool is not equal to 3 (means
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being cool or not)
Young
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of young is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being young)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of young is not equal to 3 (means
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being young or not)
Imaginative
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of imaginative is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being imaginative)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of imaginative is not equal to 3
(means respondents‟ thinking about NANO being imaginative or not)
Unique
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of unique is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being unique)
H1: level of Cheerful about NANO‟s personality attribute of unique is not equal to 3 (means
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being unique or not)
Independent
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of independent is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being independent)
H1: level of agreement about NANO‟s personality attribute of independent is not equal to 3
(means respondents‟ thinking about NANO being independent or not)
Contemporary
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of contemporary is equal to 3
59
(means respondents have no specific idea about NANO being contemporary)
H1: level of Cheerful about NANO‟s personality attribute of contemporary is not equal to 3
(means respondents‟ thinking about NANO being contemporary or not)
Excitement
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality dimension of excitement is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about the excitement of NANO)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality dimension of excitement is not equal to 3 (is
less or more, respondents are believe NANO is exciting or not)
T Df P-value
Mean Lower Upper Conclusion
difference
Daring -8.642 287 .000 -.57986 -.7119 -.4478 Mean is < 3
Trendy 1.211 287 .227 .08681 -.0543 .2279 Mean is = 3
Exciting 1.263 287 .208 .08333 -.0466 .2132 Mean is = 3
Spirited -1.969 287 .050 -.13194 -.2638 -.0001 Mean is = 3
Cool 7.999 287 .000 .50694 .3822 .6317 Mean is > 3
Young .949 287 .344 .06597 -.0709 .2029 Mean is = 3
Imaginative 1.901 287 .058 .125000 -.0044 .2544 Mean is = 3
Unique 5.505 287 .000 .38889 .2499 .5279 Mean is > 3
Independent -6.627 287 .000 -.39583 -.5134 -.2783 Mean is < 3
Contemporary -2.385 287 .018 -.15278 -.2789 -.0267 Mean is < 3
Excitement -.007 287 .995 -.00035 -.1014 .1007 Mean is = 3
Table 4.2.1.2 One Sample T-Test for excitement dimension
The results of t-test show that respondent‟s do not have a clear idea about excitement personality.
The respondents believe NANO is daring, independent and contemporary. But in the other side
they think it is not cool or unique, and have no idea about NANO being imaginative, young,
spirited, exciting or trendy. So the overall conclusion shows that they have no clear picture about
the excitement of NANO‟s personality. So TATA Motor has to do something about it. NANO is
exciting or not? This is the first question they should ask themselves. For example, the attribute
“young” must be clear is it an old or young brand. So in this part TATA Motor shows a kind of
failure to represent this personality.
4.2.1.3 One Sample T-Test for the third brand personality “COMPETENCE”
agreements among the respondent‟s about the third personality dimension and the all attributes
60
Reliable
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of reliable is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being reliable)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of reliable is not equal to 3 (means
respondents thinking about NANO being reliable or not)
Hard working
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Hard working is equal to 3
(means respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Hard working)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Hard working is not equal to 3
(means respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Hard working or not)
Secure
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Secure is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Secure)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Secure is not equal to 3 (means
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Secure or not)
Intelligent
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Intelligent is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Intelligent)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Intelligent is not equal to 3
(means respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Intelligent or not)
Technical
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Technical is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Technical)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Technical is not equal to 3
(means respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Technical or not)
Corporate
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Corporate is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Corporate)
61
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Corporate is not equal to 3
(means respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Corporate or not)
Successful
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Successful is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Successful)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Successful is not equal to 3
(means respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Successful or not)
Leader
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Leader is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Leader)
H1: level of Cheerful about NANO‟s personality attribute of Leader is not equal to 3 (means
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Leader or not)
Confident
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Confident is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Confident)
H1: level of agreement about NANO‟s personality attribute of Confident is not equal to 3 (means
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Confident or not)
Competence
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality dimension of competence is equal to 3
(means respondents have no specific idea about the competency of NANO)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality dimension of competence is not equal to 3
(is less or more, respondents are believe NANO is competence or not)
Table 4.2.1.3 One Sample T-Test for competence dimension

Difference
Reliable -8.244 287 .000 -,52083 -.6452 -.3965 Mean is < 3
Hard -9.666 287 .000 -.60764 -.7314 -.4839 Mean is < 3
working
Secure -10.565 287 .000 -.69792 -.8279 -.5679 Mean is < 3
Intelligent -1.969 287 .050 -.12153 -.2430 -0.001 Mean is < 3
Technical -3.189 287 .002 -.19097 -.3089 -.0731 Mean is < 3
62
Corporate -10.465 287 .000 -.60764 -.7219 -.4934 Mean is < 3

Successful -7.123 287 .000 -.42361 -.5407 -.3066 Mean is < 3
Leader 2.606 287 .010 1.6667 -.0408 .2925 Mean is > 3
Confident -6.358 287 .000 -.36806 -.4820 -.2541 Mean is < 3
Competence -7.816 287 .000 -.37461 -.4690 -.2803 Mean is < 3
The results of t-test show that respondent‟s are agreeing about the personality of competence.
They believe that NANO is reliable, hard working, secure, intelligent, technical, corporate,
successful, leader and confident. So the personality “competence” does exactly fit NANO. And
TATA Motor has shown it clearly.
4.2.1.4 One Sample T-Test for the fourth brand personality “sophistication”
agreements among the respondent‟s about the fourth personality dimension and the all attributes
Upper class
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Upper class is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Upper class)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Upper class is not equal to 3
(means respondents thinking about NANO being Upper class or not)
Glamorous
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Glamorous is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Glamorous)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Glamorous is not equal to 3
(means respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Glamorous or not)
Good looking
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Good looking is equal to 3
(means respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Good looking)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Good looking is not equal to 3
(means respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Good looking or not)
Feminine
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Feminine is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Feminine)
63
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Feminine is not equal to 3
(means respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Feminine or not)
Smooth
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Smooth is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Smooth)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Smooth is not equal to 3 (means
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Smooth or not)
Sophistication
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality dimension of sophistication is equal to 3
(means respondents have no specific idea about the sophistication of NANO)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality dimension of sophistication is not equal to 3
(is less or more, respondents are believe NANO is sophistication or not)
Table 4.2.1.4 One Sample T-Test for sophistication dimension

difference
Upper class -1.236 287 .218 -.08333 -.2161 .0494 Mean is = 3
Glamorous 1.154 287 .250 .07639 -.0539 .2067 Mean is = 3
Good looking -4.010 287 .000 -.26389 -.3934 -1.344 Mean is < 3
Feminine 15.217 287 .000 .86806 .7558 .9803 Mean is > 3
Smooth 6.697 287 .000 .41667 .2942 .5391 Mean is > 3
Sophistication 3.894 287 .000 .20278 .1003 .3053 Mean is > 3
The results of t-test show that respondent‟s are not agree about the personality of sophistication.
They believe that NANO is not feminine or smooth but is good looking. And they didn‟t have
any idea about NANO being upper class or glamorous. And at the end they do not think NANO
is a sophisticated brand. So we can say TATA Motor is a kind of clear about this dimension.
4.2.1.5 One Sample T-Test for the fifth brand personality “RUGGEDNESS”
agreements among the respondent‟s about the fifth personality dimension and the all attributes
Outdoorsy
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Outdoorsy is equal to 3 (means
64
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Outdoorsy)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Outdoorsy is not equal to 3
(means respondents thinking about NANO being Outdoorsy or not)
Masculine
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Masculine is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Masculine)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Masculine is not equal to 3
(means respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Masculine or not)
Tough
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Tough is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Tough)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Tough is not equal to 3 (means
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Tough or not)
Rugged
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Rugged is equal to 3 (means
respondents have no specific idea about NANO being Rugged)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality attribute of Rugged is not equal to 3 (means
respondents‟ thinking about NANO being Rugged or not)
Ruggedness
H0: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality dimension of ruggedness is equal to 3
(means respondents have no specific idea about the ruggedness of NANO)
H1: level of agreements about NANO‟s personality dimension of ruggedness is not equal to 3 (is
less or more, respondents are believe NANO is ruggedness or not)
Table 4.2.1.5 One Sample T-Test for ruggedness dimension

difference
Outdoorsy -1.159 287 .247 -.06944 -.1874 .0485 Mean is = 3
Masculine -15.738 287 .000 -.87500 -.9844 -.7656 Mean is < 3
Tough -9.892 287 .000 -.59722 -.7161 -.4784 Mean is < 3
Rugged -2.298 287 .022 -.15278 -.2836 -.0219 Mean is < 3
65
Ruggedness -10.503 287 .000 -.42361 -.5030 -.3442 Mean is < 3
The results of t-test show that respondent‟s are agreeing about the personality of ruggedness.
They believe that NANO is masculine, tough and rugged but they have no idea if it is outdoorsy
or not. In the end we can say ruggedness fits NANO. And by the little work on the outdoorsy
attribute the company can make a clearer picture.
4.3 Study secondary hypothesis of the research

Here, we are going to analyze the effect of consumer‟s demographic variables on 5 dimensions
of brand personality. To reach this goal, we have used One-Way ANOVA (Analysis of
variance).
There are five groups of hypothesis in order to gain knowledge. First, hypothesis related to
relationship of Sincerity dimension and the consumer‟s specifications.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with respondent‟s age.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with respondent‟s sex.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with respondent‟s career.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with respondent‟s degree.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with respondent‟s income.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with respondent‟s car
model.
There is a significant difference among means of sincerity dimension with respondent‟s

experience having NANO or not.
Second, hypothesis related to relationship of excitement dimension and the consumer‟s

specification.
66
model.

Third, hypothesis related to relationship of competence dimension and the consumer‟s

specification.
model.

Fourth, hypothesis related to relationship of sophistication dimension and the consumer‟s

specification.
model.

Fifth, hypothesis related to relationship of ruggedness dimension and the consumer‟s

specification.
67
model.

4.3.1 Differences based on respondent’s age

1- Design of null and alternative hypothesis
Sincerity
H0: no significant difference among means of Sincerity dimension and respondent‟s age.
H1: significant difference among means of Sincerity dimension and respondent‟s age.
Excitement
H0: no significant difference among means of Excitement dimension and respondent‟s age.
H1: significant difference among means of Excitement dimension and respondent‟s age.
Competence
H0: no significant difference among means of Competence dimension and respondent‟s age.
H1: significant difference among means of competence dimension and respondent‟s age.
Sophistication
H0: no significant difference among means of sophistication dimension and respondent‟s age.
H1: significant difference among means of sophistication dimension and respondent‟s age.
Ruggedness
68
H0: no significant difference among means of ruggedness dimension and respondent‟s age.
H1: significant difference among means of ruggedness dimension and respondent‟s age.
The figure shows the difference between the ideas of different groups of respondents aged under
20, between 20 and 30, between 30 and 35, between 35 and 40, between 40 and 45, between 45
and 50 and over 50.
Table 4.3.1.1 ANOVA test for age, sincerity dimension

Sum of Df Mean F Sig
Squares Square
Between Groups 10.057 6 1.676 3.731 .001
Within Groups 104.227 232 .449
Total 114.284 238
Table 4.3.1.2 ANOVA test for age, excitement dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 12.644 6 2.107 3.086 .006
Total 171.048 238
Table 4.3.1.3 ANOVA test for age, competence dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 5.394 6 .899 1.467 .190
Total 147.546 238
Table 4.3.1.4 ANOVA test for age, sophistication dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 2.328 6 .388 .958 .455
Total 96.322 238
Table 4.3.1.5 ANOVA test of age, ruggedness dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 13.497 6 2.250 3.116 .006
Total 181.006 238
Table shows the result of One-Way ANOVA. Significant levels are greater than 0.05 for
ruggedness and competence and H1 for this two dimension has no difference in age factor but
the other 3 ones has shown that different group of ages has different ideas about the dimension of
sincerity, excitement and sophistication.
69
4.3.2 Differences based on respondent’s sex

Table 4.3.2.1 ANOVA test for sex, sincerity dimension
Squares Square
Between Groups 2.697 1 2.697 5.429 .021
Total 128.361 254
Table 4.3.2.2 ANOVA test for sex, excitement dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 4.140 1 4.140 6.430 .012
Total 167.037 254
Table 4.3.2.3 ANOVA test for sex, competence dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 3.370 1 3.370 4.616 .033
Total 188.054 254
Table 4.3.2.4 ANOVA test for sex, sophistication dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 7.414 1 7.414 9.601 .002
Total 202.769 254
Table 4.3.2.5 ANOVA test for sex, ruggedness dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 1.324 1 1.324 2.929 .088
Total 115.660 254
Tables show the result of One-Way ANOVA. Significant levels are smaller than 0.05 for all 4
dimensions except ruggedness and H0 for these four dimensions has significant difference in sex.
So male and female respondents had different ideas about 4 dimensions
70
4.3.3 Differences based on respondent’s career:

Table 4.3.3.1 ANOVA test for career, sincerity dimension
Squares Square
Between Groups 8.615 7 1.231 2.367 .012
Total 116.434 238
Table 4.3.3.2 ANOVA test for career, excitement dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 15.306 7 2.187 3.300 .002
Total 168.349 238
Table 4.3.3.3 ANOVA test for career, competence dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 18.564 7 2.652 4.893 .000
Total 143.760 238
Table 4.3.3.4 ANOVA test for career, sophistication dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 19.355 7 2.765 4.147 .000
Total 173.386 238
Table 4.3.3.5 ANOVA test for career, ruggedness dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 10.282 7 1.469 3.920 .000
Total 96.832 238
dimensions and H0 is rejected for these five dimensions have significant difference in career. So
respondents with different jobs have different ideas about the dimensions.
71
4.3.4 Differences based on respondent’s educational degree:

Table 4.3.4.1 ANOVA test for agree, sincerity dimension
Squares Square
Between Groups 8.702 4 2.176 4.636 .001
Total 120.380 242
Table 4.3.4.2 ANOVA test for degree, excitement dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 14.351 4 3.588 5.837 .000
Total 160.642 242
Table 4.3.4.3 ANOVA test for degree, competence dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 16.447 4 4.112 6.329 .000
Total 171.068 242
Table 4.3.4.4 ANOVA test for degree, sophistication dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 10.055 4 2.514 3.264 .013
Total 194.387 242
Table 4.3.4.5 ANOVA test for degree, ruggedness dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 5.713 4 1.428 3.276 .012
Total 109.482 242
dimensions and H0 is rejected for these five dimensions has significant difference in degree.
4.3.5 Differences based on respondent’s income:
Table 4.3.5.1 ANOVA test for income, sincerity dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 2.996 4 .749 1.215 .307
Total 89.300 144
72
Table 4.3.5.2 ANOVA test for income, excitement dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 2.206 4 .552 .750 .560
Total 105.187 144
Table 4.3.5.3 ANOVA test for income, competence dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 4.033 4 1.008 1.323 .264
Total 110.714 144
Table 4.3.5.4 ANOVA test for income, sophistication dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 1.826 4 .457 .635 .639
Total 102.553 144
Table 4.3.5.5 ANOVA test for income, ruggedness dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 3.313 4 .828 1.624 .172
Total 74.713 144
Tables show the result of One-Way ANOVA. Significant levels are greater than 0.05 for all 5
dimensions and H1 is rejected. So for these five dimensions have not significant differences in
income.
4.3.6 Differences based on having experience of owning NANO:
Table 4.3.6.1 ANOVA test for owners, sincerity dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 3.837 1 3.837 7.878 .005
Total 131.430 263
Table 4.3.6.2 ANOVA test for owners, excitement dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 1.641 1 1.641 2.437 .120
Total 178.091 263
73
Table 4.3.6.3 ANOVA test for owners, competence dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 4.629 1 4.629 6.478 .011
Total 191.846 263
Table 4.3.6.4 ANOVA test for owners, sophistication dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups 3.176 1 3.176 4.063 .045
Total 208.005 263
Table 4.3.6.5 ANOVA test for owners, ruggedness dimension

Squares Square
Between Groups .577 1 .577 1.202 .274
Total 126.398 263
Tables show the result of One-Way ANOVA. Significant levels for ruggedness and competence
are greater than 0.05. So there is no significant difference for these two dimensions but for other
3 dimensions and H0 is rejected. So respondent‟s who has or had NANO have different idea
about the 3dimensions (sincerity, excitement and sophistication) comparing with those who
never had this brand.
74
CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSION
5. Conclusions:
5.1 Overall conclusion

This study empirically measured the NANO Brand Personality, using as a framework the five-
dimension scale developed by Aaker (1997) for measuring Brand Personality.
This research was designed to answer following main questions:
Does NANO brand have human personality?
What are the underlying dimensions of its personality according to big five model?
Is the Brand Personality Scale applicable in this case?
Results showed that the ruggedness dimension originally developed by Aaker (1997) was not
reliable or valid and the other four dimensions had to be refined by confirmatory factor analysis
and structural equation modeling and the 24 items were remained. So the 24 item brand
personality scale seems to work better in automobile industry among Indian customers. The
results are showing that Aaker‟s model is not totally applicable and the brand personality concept
has a stronger cultural component as a moderator but this assumption has to be tested by future
research in other countries and also industries.
The results also showed respondents believe NANO is sincere, competence and also rugged but
not sophisticated, And had no idea about the excitement dimension.
The table below shows the NANO attributes:
Table 4.4.6.1 personality attributes of NANO

Personality attributes of NANO (agreed by customers)
Attributes agreed by customers Attributes not agreed by Not clear attributes
(NANO’s personality customers
attributes)
Down to earth Cool Sentimental
Family oriented Unique Imaginative
Small-town Feminine Young
Honest Smooth Spirited
Real Outdoorsy
Wholesome Exciting
Original Trendy
Cheerful Upper class
Friendly Glamorous
Daring
Independent
75
Contemporary
Reliable
Hardworking
Secure
Intelligent
Technical
Corporate
Successful
Leader
Confident
Good looking
Masculine
Tough
Rugged
5.2 Managerial implications

The findings of this research as the managerial prospective has cleared the NANO‟s personality
attributes and the items which are not clear, in the sincerity dimension all attributes are agreed to
be NANO‟s, except the sentimentalism so some sustaining programs to keep the image in
consumer‟s mind is vital in the long term , like more emphasis on being family oriented in
advertising and promotion programs, and being honest in what this kind of brand presenting and
the company should make it clear.
In the excitement part the analysis has shown that company‟s attitudes and behavior towered this
dimension is not clear, and being unclear shows TATA Motor should apply strategies in all
aspects to clear the image, for example strategies in design phase to show the NANO being
young or old and this affects the market segment at the first level, TATA Motor cannot gain the
whole market by NANO now, and should focus on the chosen segment of customers. In the
competence dimension, it shows NANO is quite a competent brand which is reliable and secure
and most of this perception goes to the design of the brand. And TATA Motors managers do
believe that being big in size has done a great deal in this image. About the fourth personality
dimension “sophistication” results have shown that customers do not believe this brand is
sophisticated which means it is not feminine or upper class. For brands having this personality
factor, it reveals luxurious image and when it comes to NANO in classical model because of the
price class it seems reasonable but for later models like TATA NANO Twist XT, it brings
difficulty for the company.
TATA NANO Twist XT is a kind of expensive car ( in comparison to Indian automobile market)
and not being luxuries and in the other side being expensive not because of the better quality
offering but just what company desires cannot guarantee a better sale. Although the consumer‟s
of TATA NANO Twist XT may believe in being luxurious (which requires a market research)
but the holistic image is what the whole brand conveys not a niche part of customer‟s believe.
Although the main goal of this research was not gaining insight into how cultural meaning is
represented in individuals‟ perceptions of symbolic objects such as commercial icons. But study
76
findings share similar meaning in Japan, United States, Chile, Russia and Spain (Sincerity,
excitement and sophistication).
5.3 Future research

These studies provide a direction for future. In the context of brand personality there is still lots
of empty holes. Researches by applying Aaker‟s have been taken just through recent years.
Future studies should try to replicate these findings with larger samples, other product categories
and include other personality traits of the big five that could be related to hedonic or utilitarian
values sought (e.g. conscientiousness) and negative emotions (neuroticism) (Matzler, 2006).
It appears to be several areas in need of future research. First, there is a need to assess the role of
antecedents in developing, maintaining, or changing a brand‟s personality. Antecedents that
should be investigated include, but are not limited to user imagery, product endorsers, and
existing brand associations. This research should afford a better understanding of how brand
personality is created and aid in the development of strategies for building brand personalities.
Second, there is a need to test the relationship of brand personality to additional performance
measures, at both the individual and product level. Important measures to investigate include
brand awareness and brand loyalty (individual-level measures), and brand equity and market
share (product-level measures). Finally, potential moderators of the brand personality effect (e.g.
familiarity, involvement, product type, and nature of the good) need to be assessed, so managers
are aware of factors that limit or enhance the effectiveness of brand personality. This is an
important consideration because devoting resources to develop and maintain a strong, positive
brand personality may be wasteful if there are contextual factors that hinder or prevent such a
brand personality from leading to higher performance (Freling, 2005).
This is not to suggest that there has been no academic study of brand personality but that
research to date has focused on the diagnosis of personality rather than on its impact – we know
that brands have personalities but do not know whether these personalities matter. Or indeed
whether there are circumstances where brand personality is significant and situations where it
has no impact on overall brand perceptions (Freling, 2005).
As noted by Aaker (1997), the best way to compile adjectives for measuring brand personality
has not yet been defined. It is also questionable whether the same markers can be applied to all
brands. In fact, the same adjectives locate under different factors not only when comparing
descriptions of human and brand personalities, but also when comparing descriptions of different
brands. Several markers, like “energetic”, “conscientious”, “stable”, and “creative”, shifted from
one factor to another depending on the brands they were describing (Caprara, 2001).
Accordingly, it is extremely important to carefully scrutinize this empirical process to identify

more precisely how the brand personality framework was developed, what the personality
dimensions represent, and how these results may limit the generalizability of the brand
personality framework. The preceding discussion suggests it is highly improbable that a
framework can be developed that will be universally generalizable to any context in which brand
personality (or any other brand related construct) is to be measured. More realistically, additional
research likely is necessary to produce multiple-brand personality frameworks that capture
77
meaningful dimensions and/or distinctions between brands when the analysis focuses on
narrower sets of brands than those examined by Aaker (1997). Certainly, Aaker‟s work would
provide very valuable contributions to such efforts. In particular, her original list of 305 non-
redundant traits would be an appropriate starting point for such endeavors (AUSTIN, 2003).
78
6 REFERENCES
BOOKS & MAGAZINES:
►Dimensions of Brand Personality – Journal of marketing Research by Aaker, J.
►Modeling the components of the Brand – Journal of marketing matters by De Chernatony
►Brand Personality Attributes by Aaker, J
►Brand Management Paradigms
WEBSITES:
►www.wikipedia.com
►www.managementstudyguide.com
►www.school-for-champions.com
►www.managementhelp.org
►www.marketresearch.com
79

Sample Project Report

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Sample Project Report

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

BRAND PERSONALITY

PRIN L N WELINGKAR INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH

CERTIFICATE FROM THE GUIDE

Date: 31st January, 2015

Date: 31st January, 2015

3.8.1 Content validity of the measurement tool 47

1.2 Problem Discussion

1.3 Research limitations

1.4 Research Problem and Research Questions

So my Research questions which I have cover in my final thesis is:

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Table 2.1.1.1 Antecedents and Consequences to the brand construct

Brand Definitions Antecedents Consequences

design, mfr and distribution.

Figure 2.1.1.1 Brand as an Interface

2.1.1 Brand Importance

2.1.2 Brand Components

Table 2.1.2.1 Models of the brand

Authors Tangible and visual elements Intangible elements

(1) Functional capability;

2.1.3 Position of brand personality in the brand hierarchy:

Table 2.1.3.1 Categories of Experts Definition of brand

Themes from Number of Experts Illustrative explanation

a) The brand has a personality.

Figure 2.1.3.1 The Components of Brand Identity

2.2 Brand Personality

(a) Conceptual level

Nike‟s personality is unabashed … aggressive and empowering … somewhat self-important. It is

2.2.1 Brand personality value

2.2.2 Roots of Brand Personality Argue

personality has emerged (Aaker, 1997).

2.2.2.1 Anthropomorphism Theory

Anthropomorphism is therefore a process of inference about unobservable characteristics of a

2.2.2.2 Self-concept Theory

2.2.2.3 Personality Theory

2.2.2.4 Big Five Model

2.2.3 Difference between brand personality and brand image

2.2.4 Brand personality versus human personality

2.2.5 Critics about brand personality

Brand personality has been criticized on 3 dimensions: conceptual, methodological and

2.3 Application of brand personality

2.3.1 Brand Personality Scale (BPS)

Figure 2.3.1.1 Aaker's brand personality dimensions

Table 2.3.1.1 Aaker’s brand personality dimensions with related items

2.3.2 Application of BPS

2.3.2.1 Application of BPS in culture trait:

Figure 2.3.2.1 Five American brand personality dimensions

Figure 2.3.2.2 Five Japanese brand personality dimensions

Figure 2.3.2.3 Five Spain’s brand personality dimensions

Figure 2.3.2.4 Brand personality dimensions in Russia

2.3.2.2 Application of BPS in products trait:

Figure 2.3.2.5 Dimensions of brand personality in destination personality

The results of his study indicates that tourists describe personality

Characteristics to destinations and destination personality can be described in three dimensions:

Figure 2.3.2.6 Application of BPS in two prestigious brands in automobile industry

Figure 2.3.2.7 Application of BPS in Chile (Automobile Industry)

A research in Germany have shown four dimensions of brand personality (Drive,

2.3.3 Critics about BPS

2.4 Brand Personality Building

personality can be created.

2.4.1 Advertising as the dominant tool

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Figure 3.1: headings of the chapter