1

A Survey on Lee’s Brand Personality Orientation to itsBrand Loyalty

Arijit Basu.*

PGDM. Regional College Of Management, Bhubaneswar.

ABSTRACT

Although a considerable amount of research in personality psychology has been done toconceptualize human personality. There seems to be lack of studies to clearly establishthe relationship between the brand personality dimensions and brand loyalty. Theexamination of brand personality will advance the research in marketing, especially thegrowing area of brand-consumer relationship. In this empirical study, an attempt is madeto understand the relationship between brand personality dimensions and brand loyalty.The conceptual model proposed in this study examines the determinants of brand loyaltywith respect to brand personality dimensions such as sincerity, competence andruggedness and an important brand-consumer relationship variable for a popular clothingbrand in India.

INTRODUCTIONBrand differentiation is now becoming an important tactic for combating competition inthe hostile marketplace. A viable solution for establishing the distinctiveness of a brand isthrough brand personality. Attaching personalities to brands contributes to adifferentiating brand identity, which can make brands more desirable to the consumer.Jennifer Aaker developed a specialized brand personality scale, the five dimensions ofthe scale being sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness.

To examine how the relationship between brand and human personality may drivepreference, Aaker (1997) indicates that two types of brand personality scales can be used.The first type is ad hoc scales, typically composed of a set of traits ranging from 20 to300 in number. However, though useful, these scales tend not to be theoretical in natureoften having been developed for the purposes of a specific research study. As a result,key traits may be missing from such scales. Furthermore, the traits that are selected oftenare chosen arbitrarily, which casts doubt upon the scales’ reliability and validity. Thesecond type of brand personality scales are those that are more theoretical in nature, butare based on human personality scales that have not been validated in the context ofbrands (e.g., Bellenger et al., 1976; Dolich, 1969 as cited in Aaker, 1997). Somedimensions (or factors) of human personality may be mirrored in brands whilst othersmight not. As a result, the validity of such brand personality scales often is questionable,leading researchers to argue that “if unequivocal results are to emerge (in the literature onthe symbolic used of brands) consumer behaviour researchers must develop their owndefinitions and design their own instruments to measure the personality variables that gointo the purchase decision” (italics in original, Kassarjian 1971). It was against thissetting that Aaker (1997) developed a brand personality scale by isolating these distinctdimensions, further treating brand personality as a ‘unidimensional construct’ anddemonstrating how different types of brand personalities can be distinguished. This hasresulted in the perception that there are multiple ways in which the brand personality

2

construct can influence a consumer’s preference, and has provided investigators withtools so that these may be better understood

Research in the area of brand personality has indirectly rather superficially suggested aboutthe outcome of specific brand personality with respect to brand loyalty. There seems to belack of studies to clearly establish the relationship between the brand personality dimensionsand brand loyalty, and its relative importance.

In this empirical study, an attempt is made to understand the relationship between brandpersonality dimensions and brand loyalty. A popular clothing brand in India is examined totest the impact of its brand personality dimensions on brand loyalty.

The study is expected to be of significance to both academicians and practitioners. from thepracticener`s perspective, this study emphasizes the marketers to understand brandpersonality dimensions in the relationship perspective and develop the long term relationshipwith consumer through image differentiation

Sampling Method

The population for this study consisted of all the households in Bhubaneswar City. The samplefor the study was selected from the population by systematic sampling method.

Determination of Sample Size

A pilot study was conducted among 50 Lee brand users and the standard deviation of the itemswas found to be 0.376. Hence the sample size was determined to be 189*.

Model Development and HypothesisThis section discusses the proposed conceptual model of brand loyalty with respect tobrand personality dimensions sincerity, excitement, competence and ruggedness and aconsumer-based relationship variable, namely, relationship length. It also highlights therationale for the proposed model and indicates the resulting hypotheses.

Model of Brand LoyaltyFigure 1 presents the proposed conceptual, model of determinants of brand loyalty. Thebrand personality traits – sincerity, excitement, competence and ruggedness with whichthe customer relates himself – impact brand loyalty. The relationship characteristics suchas length of relationship (period which customer has been associated with the brand)enhance brand loyalty.

SincerityIt can be defined as down to earth, family-oriented and genuine. The relationship mightbe similar to one that exists with a well-liked and respected member of family. If anindividual feels the brand to be like a member of family, he/she will be committed to therelationship. Hence, Hypothesis 1 (H1) is: Sincerity brand personality dimension will leadto brand loyalty.

3

ExcitementExcitement means spirited, young, up-to-date and outgoing personality. If an individualfeels himself/ herself having a spirited, young, up-to-date, and outgoing personality,he/she would like to associate with such brand that provides these personalitycharacteristics. Although ‘excitement’ personality relates to youth, it does not mean thatonly young people would like such brands. Old people would also have such personalityand continuously buy such a brand. Hence, Hypothesis 2 (H2) is: Excitement brandpersonality dimension will lead to brand loyalty.

CompetenceIt manifests the expertise power of the individuals’ personality. If an individual iscompetent, people rely on him/her on the basis of his/her competence. Hence, Hypothesis3 (H3) is: Competence brand personality dimension will lead to brand loyalty.

Ruggedness‘Ruggedness’ means athletic and outdoorsy personality. This personality dimensionmanifests in an individual who can withstand any situation. If an individual thinkshimself/herself having a rugged personality and if there is a brand that manifests such apersonality, the individual would be willing to buy it regularly. Hence, Hypothesis 4 (H4)is: Ruggedness brand personality dimension will lead to brand loyalty.

Relationship LengthLoyalty grows over time, as the customer gets familiar with the product. The customerwould have got positive experiences with the product, which might also be the reasonwhy the customer buys the product again. If the customer’s relationship length is higher,it shows that the customer is loyal. Hence, length of relationship will also have impact onbrand loyalty. Hence, Hypothesis 5 (H5) is: Relationship Length will increase brandloyalty.

Figure 1 : Conceptual Model of Brand Loyalty with respect to Brand Personality

Sincerity

Relationshiplength

Ruggedness

Competence

Excitement

Brand Loyalty

4

METHDOLOGYThis section presents the methodology used to test the model and the research hypothesespresented in the previous section. The measurements of the variables, the sampling, thedata collection method and the methods of statistical analysis are discussed here.

Measurement of the VariablesThe majority of the constructs were measured using multiple items, where therespondents were asked to indicate their agreement on a scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to5 (Strongly agree).

Brand PersonalityAaker (1997) measured brand personality on five dimensions and 42 traits scale. The fivedimensions were sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. Inthis study, only four dimensions, namely sincerity, excitement, competence andrelationship length are included to suit the nature of the brand name.

Demographics and General InformationThe basic demographic information such as age, gender, marital status, size of family andincome were also included in the questionnaire.

Sample and Data Collection MethodA survey was carried out to test the model and research hypotheses. Brand name of apopular fabric company was used. Since in India the chosen company’s customers are thetypical urban customers, the respondents selected for this study were customers fromBhubaneswar city. A total sample size of 350 was planned to enable the statisticalanalyses required for this study and convenience sampling sampling method was used fordata collection.

Sample CharacteristicsA total of 189 respondents from Bhubaneswar city were contacted for the study. Thedemographic characterisitics of the respondents were shown in Table 2. As many as93.70% of respondents were males. The respondents are well distributed among all agegroups. If we consider educations level, out of total samples 1.10% of population belongsto Matriculate, College level 21.20%, higher education 20.10% and Professional is57.70% which is high out of total sample. Out of total population majority is unmarriedi.e 83.10% and married is, 16.90%. The family size with less than five was dominant with86.20%. More than half of the respondents had an annual income of above Rs 1, 00,000.

5

Table 2 : Characteristics of Respondents

Frequency PercentGender

Male 177 93.70Female 12 6.30

Age

18 - 25 141 74.60

26 - 32 27 14.30

33 - 40 16 8.50

41 and above 5 2.60Education

Matriculate 2 1.10

College level 40 21.20

Higher education 38 20.10

Professional education 109 57.70Marital Status

Married 32 16.90

Single 157 83.10Family Size

0-5 163 86.20

6-9 23 12.20

10 & above 3 1.60Monthly Income

Less than Rs 10000 28 14.80

Rs 10000 - 15000 48 25.40

15000 - 20000 52 27.50

More than 25000 61 32.30

Validity and Reliability Assessment

Reliability AnalysisThe reliability of each scale was assed via ‘item to total correlation ( a method used tounderstand the reliability of a particular measure wherein the responses of individual item inthe measure and the sum total of the responses of all the items in the same measure are testedfor correlation) and Cronbach coefficient alpha.. The results of the reliability analysis areprovided in Table 3. All the items of every measure except ruggedness used in this studyexceeded the cut-off point of 0.3. In Ruggedness measure all the item fall below the cut offpoint 0.3, the measure i.e frequent washing gives –ve value which indicates it is not reliableor does not have any influence on ruggedness.

6

Table 3: Reliability Analysis ResultsScale Items Item-to-

totalCorrelation

Scale Mean ScaleVariance

CoefficientAlpha

Sincerity QualityComfortableDurabilityBenefits

0.4560.4280.3490.501

18.0217.9318.0618.18

7.7667.8568.0667.563

0.5400.5490.5770.522

Excitement StyleSpecialOccasionFeelingFeelingDifferent

0.3010.384

0.502

0.444

9.9010.71

10.41

10.71

5.9954.833

4.668

4.878

0.6220.576

0.481

0.527Competency Fashionable

ReliabilityAffinityFaithfulness

0.4490.4800.4440.461

11.6411.4011.8811.50

2.6683.3902.8953.241

0.6100.5940.6060.596

Ruggedness Rough &ToughFrequentWashingOutdoorsy

0.119

-0.031

0.118

6.35

7.56

6.47

1.611

1.875

1.740

0.018

0.404

-0.111BrandLoyalty

User feelingUser’sPersonalityConsumerPreference

0.4600.443

0.459

6.946.69

7.40

2.4912.865

2.251

0.5280.560

0.537

Factor Analysis

As the first step in examining the validity of each measure, explanatory factor analysis wasemployed using SPSS17.0. All the items of all the measures were factor analysed together totest convergent and discriminate validity of the measures. The items were subjected toprincipal component analysis (with Varimax Rotation). The factor loading represented thecorrelation between the items with the construct (Hair et al, 1992). In component analysis,only the factor having Eigenvalues greater than 1 was considered significant (Hair et al,1992). A minimum value of 0.50 was used to indicate the loading of any factor. The resultsof factor analysis are presented in Table 4.

7

Table 4: Factor Analysis for Validity Testing1 2 3 4

Quality 0.619 0.141 -0.424 0.062Comfortable 0.548 0.155 -0.363 0.383Durability 0.492 0.177 -0.377 -0.395Benefits 0.536 0.135 -0.408 -0.160Style 0.531 0.242 0.537 0.161SpecialOccasion

0.477 -0.379 0.067 0.503

Feeling 0.549 -0.500 0.160 -0.032FeelingDifferent

0.550 -0.525 0.062 -0.201

Fashionable 0.540 0.395 0.327 0.054Reliability 0.500 0.420 0.273 0.208Affinity 0.691 0.176 -0.174 0.029Faithfulness 0.540 0.363 0.228 -0.413User Feeling 0.675 -0.162 -0.079 0.024User’sPersonality

0.571 -0.286 0.329 -0.361

ConsumerPreference

0.662 -0.234 -0.037 0.142

Eigen Values 4.858 1.461 1.323 1.022% of Variation 32.387 9.741 8.821 6.811Cumulative %of Variation

32.387 42.128 50.949 57.760

*Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis**4 Components extracted

By factor analysis, the factors are reduced to only four components. The component oneleads to affinity and its value is 0.691, component two leads to reliability and its value is0.420, but its value is below 0.5. Component three leads to style and its value is 0.537.Component four leads to special occasion and its value is 0.503 respectively. These entirefour components have Eigen values more than one i.e. 4.858, 1.461, 1.323 and 1.022respectively.

Hypotheses Testing ResultsAll hypotheses were first tested using multiple regression and least squares estimation(Pedhazur, 1982). To test all the hypotheses in the study, a multiple regression was carriedout with five independent variables – sincerity, excitement, competency, ruggedness andrelationship length and brand loyalty as the dependent variable. The results of the multipleregressions are discussed here.

Brand PersonalityTable 5 provides the results of hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4 and H5. All these hypotheses weretested using multiple regression with the help of SPSS 17.0. If the company promotes thesepersonalities in their advertisement campaigns, they will lead to loyal customers. There wereother factors which were also considered during the study like sincerity, excitement,

8

ruggedness and length of relationship, which have positive impact on brand loyalty. All thesehypotheses were tested using multiple regressions with the help of SPSS 17.0.

Table 5 provides the results of hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4 and H5. These hypothesesindicate how brand personalities and length of relationship can lead to brand loyalty.

Table 5: Results of Hypothesis TestingHypotheses Independent

VariableP Value F Value Hypotheses

SupportedH1 Sincerity 0.139 1.639 YESH2 Excitement 0.374 1.068 YESH3 Competency 0.007* 3.686 NOH4 Ruggedness 0.648 0.551 YESH5 Length of

Relationship0.098 2.130 YES

CONCLUSION:This study examined the factors, which will lead the customers to brand loyalty. A surveywas conducted in Bhubaneswar city. The survey was aimed at knowing the Brand personalitylead to Brand loyalty of the customers.

Trends come and go in the ever-changing world of fashion. Staying in touch with the latestand striving to keep at the forefront is one way of staying ahead in this competitive field.Clothing is one form of self-expression. The brand Personality that a company has plays avery important role and to some extent it also leads to customer loyalty. From this research itis found that the company having a brand image of sincerity, excitement, ruggedness andlength of relationship. Thus, a company should think of enhance its sincerity, excitement,ruggedness and length of relationship personalities in the forefront.

Many companies are already promoting these personalities through ad campaigns, whichshow them as untainted, committed and trustworthy. This image can be promoted by takingsome real life examples where people show their commitment and their loyalty to thecompany.

Here competency is another brand personality which we have taken as hypotheses doesn’tlead to brand loyalty of the customers. Ruggedness is another variable which also influencethe brand personality. Ruggedness means outdoorsy. This brand personality manifests astoday’s customers’ fashion needs and can be built through collections that highlight bybringing new styles, comfort and coolness.

The company should think in the way in which it can promote these personalities. At thesame time, the company should distinguish these two personalities and the target customers.By doing this, the company can retain all its customers who belong to different groups andwhose tastes are totally different. So, the company should be cautious in using thesedimensions of brand personality. It said that if a customer has been buying a fabric from acertain company for 25 years, he will be considered a loyal customer of that company. But inthis research it was found that relationship length of does not have any impact on customerloyalty. If a customer buys a company fabric for many years, it doesn’t mean that he/she isloyal to the company, it may also be because he/she does not have any other option.

9

LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH:

The main objective of this research was to measure the brand personality dimensions of the Leebrand using the Brand Personality Scale suggested by Jennifer Aaker. A validity check of thescale using factor analysis was carried out which indicates that the number of dimensions ofbrand personality is 4 and that about 10 items of Jennifer Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale arenot applicable in the Indian situation. The applicability of this scale to the Indian situation wasnot checked because it required an exploratory study to identify the dimensions of brandpersonality in the Indian situation. A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personalityconstructs revealed that sincerity, excitement, competence, and sophistication are common toboth USA and Japan. It also revealed that there were culture-specific Japanese. (Peacefulness)and American (ruggedness) dimensions.

The findings in the context of Spain yielded brand personality dimensions common to bothSpain and the United States (sincerity, excitement, and sophistication), plus the non-sharedSpanish (passion) and American (competence and ruggedness) dimensions. Hence, identifyingthe Indian brand personality construct can be undertaken by future researchers. Also, thisresearch tried to identify the brand personality in India which implies that researchers canidentify brand personality for service, retail, and consumer durable brands. This research wasconducted in the largest city in Orissa and therefore future studies can be conducted in otherparts of India to improve the reliability of the study.

REFERENCES:

o Aaker, D A (1996). Building Strong Brands, New York: The Free Press.

o Aaker, J (1997). “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marking Research,

34(3), 347-356.

o Aaker, Jennifer Lynn; Benet-Martínez, Verónica and Garolera, Jordi (2001).

“Consumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture: A Study of Japanese and Spanish Brand

Personality Constructs,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 492-508.

o Banerjee, Ravi (2004), “ Smiles to Go,” Economic Times (Brand Equity), 15

December, 1.

o Belch, G and Belch, A (2001). Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing

Communication Perspective, Fifth Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.

o Bellenger, D N; Steinberg, E and Stanton, W W (1976). “The Congruence of Store

Image and Self Image, Journal of Retailing, 52(1), 17–32.

o Dolich, Ira J (1969), “Congruence Relationship between Self Image and Product

Brands,” Journal of Marketing Research, 6(1), 80-84.

o Kassarjian, H H (1971). “Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review,” Journal of

Marketing Research, 84(4), 409–418.

o K Abdul Waheed, Neeti Yadav (2007), “A Study on Brand Personality Orientation to

10

Brand Loyalty”.

o Okazaki, Shintaro (2006). “Excitement or Sophistication? A Preliminary Exploration of

Online Brand Personality,” International Marketing Review, 23(3), 279-303.

o Rojas-Méndez, José; Erenchun-Podlech, Isabel; Silva-Olave, Elizabeth (2004). “The

Ford Brand Personality in Chile,” Corporate Reputation Review, 7(3), 232-251.

o Siguaw, Judy A; Mattila, Anna and Austin, Jon R (1999). “The Brand-Personality

Scale,” Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 48-55.

o Su-e Park; Dongsung, Choi; Jinwoo, Kim (2005). “Visualizing E-Brand Personality:

Exploratory Studies on Visual Attributes and E-Brand Personalities in Korea,”

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1), 7-34.

o Sung, Yongjun and Tinkham, Spencer F (2005). “Brand Personality Structures in the

United States and Korea: Common and Culture Specific Factors,”Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 15(4), 334- 350.

o Supphellen, Magne and Gronhaug, Kjell (2003). “Building Foreign Brand Personalities

in Russia: the Moderating Effect of Consumer Ethnocentrism,” International Journal of

Advertising, 22(2), 203–226.