THE INFLUENCE OF BRAND PERSONALITY ON BRAND CHOICE:

A CASE OF COLGATE PALMOLIVE IN NAIROBI

BY

KICHAMU DENNIS ALUSA

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY AFRICA

SUMMER 2018

ii

THE INFLUENCE OF BRAND PERSONALITY ON BRAND CHOICE:

A CASE OF COLGATE PALMOLIVE IN NAIROBI

BY

KICHAMU DENNIS ALUSA

A Research Project Report Submitted to the Chandaria School of Business in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Masters of Business

Administration (MBA)

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY AFRICA

SUMMER 2018

iii

STUDENT’S DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, declare that this is my original work and has not been submitted to any other

college, institution, or university other than the United States International University in Nairobi

for academic credit.

Signed: ________________________ Date: ______________________

Kichamu Dennis Alusa (ID No. 634778)

This project has been presented for examination with my approval as the appointed supervisor.

Signed: ________________________ Date: ______________________

Dr. Joseph Ngugi Kamau

Signed: ________________________ Date: ______________________

Dean, Chandaria School of Business

iv

ABSTRACT

Marketing in the 21st Century has greatly evolved and so have the dynamics involving brands

and consumer behavior. Brands in the fast moving consumer goods market realize that they can

no longer solely rely on aggressive mass marketing campaigns. To compete globally brands

ought to have personalities that will helpprovide a platform for them to leverage brand identity,

brand communication as well as setting the fundamental guidelines for marketing programs. The

purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of brand personality on the brand choice of

Colgate Palmolive consumers in Kenya. The study was guided by four research objectives: To

evaluate the influence of brand sincerity on brand choice, to establish the influence of brand

excitement elements on brand choice;to establish the influence of brand competence on brand

choice and lastly to establish the influence of brand gender on brand choice.

The study was guided by a positivist research philosophy and descriptive research design. The

population of the study consisted of 500 consumers of Colgate Palmolive consumers in three

estates in Nairobi County representing three different income levels. The study used cluster

sampling technique drawing a sample size of 166 respondents. Data was collected using self-

administered questionnaires. The data was then analyzed using descriptive statistics of

frequency, distribution, mean, and standard deviation. Additionally, inferential data analysis

methods of Pearson‟s correlation, ANOVA, and multiple linear regression were used to test the

hypotheses. Data was presented in tables and figures.

Regarding the influence of brand sincerity on brand choicethe correlation finding indicated that

thevariables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟ was positively correlated with „BS‟ r (107)

=.476, p<.05. the results of the multiple regression analysis showed that the value of variance R2

= 0.227, F (1, 105) =30.816, p-value = 0.001, indicating that 22.7% of brand Sincerity is

influenced by brand Choice while the remaining 77.3% of brand choice were attributed to other

factors other than brand sincerity. The coefficients model output shows brand sincerity

statistically predicted brand choice (β = .476, (.540) t = 5.551, p<.05. This means, one unit of

increase in brand sincerity increased the brand choice by .476. In relation to the influence of

brand excitement on brand choice, the correlation finding indicated thatvariables were highly

correlated; „brand choice‟ was positively correlated with „BE‟ r (107) =.404, p<.05; the

regression finding shows the value of variance R2 = 0.164, F (1, 105) =20.525, p-value = 0.001.

v

This shows that 16.4% of brand excitement is influenced by brand choice while the remaining

83.6% of brand choice were attributed to other factors other than brand excitement. The

coefficients model output shows brand excitement statistically predicted brand choice (β = .404,

(.381) t = 7.242, p<.05. This means, one unit of increase in brand excitement increased the brand

choice by .381.

With regard to the influence of brand competence on brand choice, the correlation finding

indicated that variables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟ was positively correlated with

„BC‟ r (107) =.571, p<.05; the regression finding shows the value of variance R2 = 0.327, F (1,

105) =50.925, p-value = 0.001. This shows that 32.7% of brand competence is influenced by

brand Choice while the remaining 67.3% of brand choice were attributed to other factors other

than brand competence. The coefficients model output shows brand competence statistically

predicted brand choice (β = .571, (.588) t = 7.136, p<.05. This means, one unit of increase in

brand competence increased the brand choice by .588. Lastly, in relation to the influence of

brand gender on brand choice, the correlation finding indicated thatvariables were highly

correlated; „brand choice‟ was positively correlated with „BG‟ r (107) =.634, p<.05. The

regression finding shows the value of variance R2 = 0.402, F (1, 105) =70.602, p-value = 0.001.

This shows that 40.2% of brand gender is influenced by brand choice while the remaining 59.8%

of brand choice were attributed to other factors other than brand gender. The coefficients model

output shows brand gender statistically predicted brand choice (β = .634, (.449) t = 8.403, p<.05.

This means, one unit of increase in brand on gender increased the brand choice by .449.

This study concluded that the four brand personality dimensions investigated all influenced the

brand choice of Colgate Palmolive consumers. The brand differentiated itself from competitors

based on the strength of the brand personality dimensions. This study recommends that brands

should have clearly defined personalities to effectively compete in the crowded market place.

Future studies should also address conceptual and methodological gaps that have not been

addressed in previous brand personality studies, especially the brand gender dimension.

Marketers should strive to define and create a well crafted brand gender positioning as strongly

gendered brands not only influence brand choice but also positively influence brand trust and

brand loyalty.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the entire teaching and support staff at United

States International University-Africa, and to especially highlight my gratitude to my professor,

Dr. Joseph Ngugi Kamau, for the invaluable support and guidance accorded to me throughout

this research project.

My special and heartfelt gratitude goes out to my entire family for believing in me and

supporting me at all times. They have demonstrated their unconditional love, encouragement,

and understanding throughout this period, and have ensured that I did not give up even on my

worst daysSpecial thanks also go out to all who took their time to respond to my questionnaire,

thereby helping me complete this study.

God bless you all.

vii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this project first to God who has been my strength throughout this journey, to my parents

Kichamu George and Kichamu Mary, lastly my fiancé Wangui Phoebe for your unending prayers

support and love.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STUDENT’S DECLARATION .................................................................................................. iii

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................... vi

DEDICATION............................................................................................................................. vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background of the Study ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 6

1.3 General Objective ................................................................................................................. 7

1.4 Specific Objectives ............................................................................................................... 7

1.5 Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 7

1.6 Scope of the Study ................................................................................................................ 8

1.7 Definition of Terms............................................................................................................... 8

1.8 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................. 9

CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 10

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 The Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice............................................................ 10

2.3 The Influence of Brand Excitement on Brand Choice ........................................................ 14

2.4 The Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice ...................................................... 21

2.5 The Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice .............................................................. 26

ix

CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 33

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 33

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 33

3.2 Research Design.................................................................................................................. 33

3.3 Population and Sampling Design ........................................................................................ 34

3.4 Data Collection Methods .................................................................................................... 36

3.5 Research Procedures ........................................................................................................... 36

3.6. Data Analysis Methods ...................................................................................................... 38

3.7 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................... 38

CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................................... 40

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................ 40

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 40

4.2 General Information of Respondents .................................................................................. 40

4.3 Descriptive Analysis ........................................................................................................... 43

4.4. Inferential Statistics ........................................................................................................... 47

4.5 Regression Model ............................................................................................................... 52

4.6 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................... 57

CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 58

5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 58

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 58

5.2 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 58

5.3 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 59

5.4 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 66

5.5 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 67

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 70

x

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 80

APPENDIX I: COVER LETTER ............................................................................................. 80

APPENDIX II: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................. 81

APPENDIX III: SUPPLEMENTARY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ..................................... 81

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Population Distribution Table ................................................................................... 34

Table 3.2 Sample Size Distribution .......................................................................................... 35

Table 4.1 Response Rate ........................................................................................................... 40

Table 4.2 Area of Residency of Respondents ........................................................................... 42

Table 4.3 Highest level of Academic Qualification .................................................................. 42

Table 4.4 Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice ......................................................... 44

Table 4.5 Influence of Brand Excitement Elements on Brand Choice ..................................... 45

Table 4.6 Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice ................................................... 46

Table 4.7Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice ............................................................ 47

Table 4.8 KMO and Bartlett's Test ........................................................................................... 48

Table 4.9 Total Variance Explained ......................................................................................... 48

Table 4.10: Pattern Matrix and Communality .......................................................................... 49

Table 4.11 Construct Reliability ............................................................................................... 50

Table 4.12 Summary Total Statistics ........................................................................................ 50

Table 4.13 Normality Test ........................................................................................................ 51

Table 4.14: VIF Test ................................................................................................................. 51

Table 4.15a: Model Summary ................................................................................................... 52

Table 4.15b: ANOVA Table ..................................................................................................... 52

Table 4.15c: Coefficient Table. ................................................................................................ 53

Table 4.16a: Model Summary ................................................................................................... 53

Table 4.16b: ANOVA Table ..................................................................................................... 54

Table 4.16c: Coefficient Table ................................................................................................. 54

xii

Table 4.17a: Model Summary ................................................................................................... 54

Table 4.17b: ANOVA Table ..................................................................................................... 55

Table 4.17c: Coefficient Table ................................................................................................. 55

Table 4.18a: Model Summary ................................................................................................... 56

Table 4.18b. ANOVA Table ..................................................................................................... 56

Table 4.18c: Coefficient Table ................................................................................................. 56

1

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Marketing practices have greatly evolved over the years and so have the dynamics involving

brands and consumer behavior. Organizations today must realize that their products and services,

regardless of how good they might be, simply do not sell on their own (Kotler & Keller, 2012).

Phenomena such as globalization and liberalization brought a wide variety of products into

markets. Consumers have therefore become exposed to many products of all qualities, designs,

makes and origin. Hence consumers today seek the best available products to satisfy their

specific needs (Milberg et al., 1997). Firms are face with the challenge of having many

substitutes readily available; therefore firms must find unique ways to differentiate their products

in the eyes of the consumers. This chain of events has lead many organizations to reevaluate the

branding concept.

A decline in the effectiveness of mass advertising is one of the many signs of distress that

marketers are concerned about. Marketers are also currently facing other challenges, among them

a general proliferation of media and distribution channels, declining trust in advertising, and the

materialization of digital technologies that give consumers more control over their media time.

These trends tend to simultaneously fragment both audiences and the channels required to reach

them. The danger for marketers is that change will render the time-honored way of getting

messages to consumers through TV commercials less effective at best and a waste of both time

and money at worst (Pessemier, 2012). Marketers therefore need to shift their focus from mass

marketing and focus more on tailoring a brand message that demonstrates brand personality

enabling consumers easily differentiate one brand from the next.

A study conducted by Louis and Lombart (2010) found that when consumers understand and

relate to the instrumental role of brands in achieving their goals, they often come to regard the

brands as meaningful and significant to them. As a result they become personally connected and

emotionally bonded to these brands. Thus, a causal link is formed between brand personality and

consumer attachment to the brand. Huang and Mitchell (2014) noted that marketers are

2

increasingly trying to build good relationships between their brands and consumers, reflected in

the quality of such relationships, that is, brand relationship quality.

Ngunjiri (2013) analyzed the effect of brand personality among insurance companies in Kenya

and found that unlike brand image which denotes the tangible (physical and functional) benefits

and attributes of a brand, brand personality indicates the intangible i.e. emotional associations of

the brand. The study also found that if a brand image is considered a comprehensive brand

according to consumers‟ opinion, then brand personality is that aspect of a comprehensive brand

which generates its associations and emotional character in consumers‟ mind. Brand personality

additionally aids in the building of brand equity through self-expression, and sets the brand

attitude. It influences marketing communication of a brand in that it is a key input towards the

look as well as feel of any communication or marketing activity by the brand. In addition it helps

in the organization get a better understanding of customers‟ feelings about the brand. Brand

personality helps brands differentiate from rivals especially when they are similar in many

attributes and can be used to make the brand strategy lively and signify the kind of relationship a

customer has with the brand.

A study by Grohmann, Giese, and Parkman (2013) on extending brand logo design research into

brand personality, found that the type font characteristics can be used to communicate brand

personality dimensions. For instance, the authors discovered that the “naturalness” of the font

type, which refers to how organic the font appears, increased perceptions of the sincerity and

excitement dimensions of brand personality. Furthermore, the researchers established that the

color of the type font influenced consumers‟ perceptions of brand personality independently, for

example, green type font positively influenced perceptions of brand ruggedness but negatively

influenced perceptions of brand sophistication

Muniz and Marchetti (2012) analyzed brand personality dimensions in the Brazilian context and

established that modern studies propose a scale for measuring brand experience and testing brand

personality constructs, through the application of a structural equation. There was indication of a

direct effect between brand experience, brand perception and the strength of the brand

personality, which in turn had a direct effect on consumer satisfaction and consumer loyalty

(Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonallo, 2009). According to the authors, the social and self-expressive

characteristic of the brand personality may account for its participation as an antecedent of

3

satisfaction and loyalty. To effectively put concept into use and test its antecedents and effects, it

is necessary to explore a measurement scale that is reliable and valid for brand personality.

Furthermore, the fit between brand personality intended by the firm and the consumer perception

also depends from other factors such as: singularity of the brand‟s personality profile,

competitive differentiation of the brand, credibility of brand related communication activities,

product involvement, and prior brand attitude (Malär, Krohmer & Nyfenneger 2012).

Brand personality can be evaluated through the dimensions of brand personality appeal (BPA):

favorability, originality and clarity. These three dimensions are extremely important in

developing brand personality and their optimization leads to higher levels of consumer purchase

intentions. Favorability can be defined as the evaluation of brand personality by consumers, how

consumers perceive the brand personality and how they evaluate the favorability of an attribute.

Originality is the perception of distinctiveness and uniqueness, the view of novelty. Clarity

represents the extent to which brand personality traits are visible and recognizable (Freling,

Crosno & Henard, 2011)

A study by Kum, (2012) on the moderating role of brand personality on products found that there

are two current trends which motivate a wider perspective on categorization where the emphasis

shifts towards brand based considerations. First, in an increasing number of product classes,

marketers see that attribute based and functional features are easily copied and soon lose their

competitive advantage (Aaker, 1996). Instead, brands differentiated on the basis of image

attributes, such as brand personality, appear more resilient to these threats (Aaker, 1996). For

example, the physical attribute „high engine capacity‟ is common to sports utility vehicles

(SUVs), but the BMW X6, Mitsubishi Pajero, and the Volvo XC90 (all brands of SUVs) could

be perceived by consumers to have distinct personalities, in line with the respective brands‟

positioning.

This study will focus on the influence of brand personality on brand performance of FMCG

products, specifically focusing on Colgate Palmolive products in Nairobi. A study by Klink and

Athaide (2012) found that brand personality is an important component of brand image. A

widely held contention is that preference for a brand is enhanced with greater congruity between

human characteristics of the brand i.e., its personality and one's actual or ideal self.

4

Aaker (1997) gives the definition of brand personality as the set of human characteristics

associated with a brand. To further illustrate using two alcoholic beverages by different brands,

Absolut vodka‟s persona tends to portray the brand as a cool, hip, modern 25-year old, whereas

another alcoholic beverage company; Stoli is seen to have the persona of an intellectual,

conservative, older person. This however highlights a contrast to product-related attributes,

which lean towards serving a utilitarian function for consumers. Brand personality on the other

hand serves a symbolic and self-expressive function

FMCG markets can be defined as frequently purchased, relatively inexpensive, and rapidly

consumed items on which buyers exert minimal purchasing effort (Malhotra, 2014).

Consequently, it is still unknown if relationships exist in these markets and whether consumers

want relationships in FMCG markets. Many of the players on the retail industry such as Walmart

supermarket, Carrefour and Tesco are among the largest and most recognized global companies.

Leaders in the global FMCG market include The Coca-Cola Company, General Mills, Pepsi

Johnson & Johnson, Colgate-Palmolive, Kellogg's, Heinz, Nestlé, Unilever, Procter & Gamble,

L‟Oreal, (Malhotra, 2014). The overall objective of the paper, therefore, is to establish from the

consumers‟ perspective, if brand personality influences their purchase decision and subsequently

brand choice in FMCG markets.

A study by Verhoef and Werner (2010) found that brand manufacturers in the fast moving

consumer goods industry are under pressure. Due to factors such as increased retailer

concentration, access to scanner technology, eroding brand loyalty, an increasing number of

price promotions and increasing market share of private labels e.g. in Kenya retailers such as

Nakumatt have the Nakumatt blue label products. Power is slowly shifting towards retailers.

Database base marketing can be an alternative for brand manufacturers in building brands and

gaining more knowledge about the customer before the organization can rebrand.A big

difference between now and a decade ago is how information technology enables producers as

well as retailers to store and use a significantly vast amount of data about their customers, as well

as their consumers (Deloitte trend report 2015).

Research by Malhotra (2014) established that since the Fast Moving Consumer Goods are low

priced and many brands and companies are involved in the manufacturing and production of

same categories of products, it can become challenging to constantly stay „top of the mind‟ in the

5

minds of FMCG buyers. Therefore, marketers have to come up with unique strategies and ways

in which they can constantly catch the attention of consumers towards their brands. These

strategies should be effective enough to flourish during normal economic circumstances as well

as the time when the economy is going through a recession or boom season. One of the unique

strategies this study will focus on is the development of brands that have appealing and clearly

defined personalities.

Colgate Palmolive is a global brand currently present in over 220 countries that began operations

in 1806. It was founded by Henry W. He started a starch soap and candy factory in New York

City under the name “William Colgate & Company”. However in 1867 William Colgate passed

on living the company under the management of his son Samuel Colgate who renamed it as

“Colgate & Company”. The firm introduced its first toothpaste in 1873 and sold it in jars and

began selling toothpaste in tubes in 1908. Colgate later merged with Palmolive which was a soap

making company that made soap out of entirely palm oil to the West of the United States and

was now known as Colgate Palmolive.

Colgate Palmolive Kenya started manufacturing in 1965. Its products include oral care,

household care, personal care and hard surface care. In the product portfolio, Colgate is the

market leader in Kenya, controlling over half of the market share (54%) with Aquafresh coming

a distant second (16 %) (Geopoll report 2016). The firm thrives on four strategic priorities which

focus on driving innovation, product and asset growth, product diversification and improving

long term financial performance.

6

1.2 Statement of the Problem

There are various studies on brand personality that have been done globally. Park and Roedder

(2010) investigated whether brand personalities have an influence on consumers. The findings

showed that appealing brand personalities can rub off on consumers, altering perceptions of their

own personalities. However the effects may not be permanent in nature, but self-perceptions are

altered regardless of whether the brand experience is short-lived or repeated over time. Research

by Escalas and Bettman (2009) focused on why consumers prefer brands with appealing

personalities. The findings show that consumers prefer and choose brands with appealing

personalities in an attempt to affirm and enhance a sense of self. Aaker (1996) examined how

brand personality can be used to build strong brands for businesses. The findings showed that

brand personality helps provide a platform for businesses to leverage brand identity, brand

communication as well as setting the fundamental guidelines for marketing programs. Brand

personality is meant to differentiate a brand from its competitors in the market environment.

Kotler (2012) focused on the effect of brand equity in marketing management. The findings

argue that despite brands being part of the marketing landscape for many years, things have

changed over the past few years with the future of brands and their personalities being

questioned. Plummer (2000) suggests that brand personality is critical to the understanding the

choice of brands consumers purchase. A significant number of other scholars have theorized

brand personality to be a significant source of customer-based brand equity and loyalty e.g.

(Aaker, 1996; Ang & Lim, 2013; Anisimova, 2007; Burmann et al., 2009). Nevertheless,

majority of these prior studies have focused on the theoretical aspect of describing and providing

an understanding of brand personality, leaving a wide knowledge gap that marketers need to

understand of the correlation between brand personality dimensions and brand choice

(Anisimova, 2007; Freling & Forbes, 2005). As a result, there is insufficient knowledge to guide

the development of brand personalities that enhance brand choice.

This study investigates how experiences with brands that have appealing personalities influence

some, but not all, consumers. Specifically, the study will highlight implicit self-theories that

consumers hold about their personalities as a key determinant of whether consumers perceive

themselves in a more positive light after using brands with appealing personalities. Kimeu (2016)

examined the effect of service brand personality on brand performance in Kenya‟s insurance

7

sector. The findings revealed that the consumers who endorsed a particular implicit self theory

ended up viewing these types of brand experiences as opportunities to signal to themselves or

even others that they possess the same appealing traits as the brand. Moreover these consumers

actually ended perceiving themselves in a more positive way after a brand experience. Previous

research has determined that brands actually do have personalities (Aaker, 1997; Aaker, 1999;

Wysong, Munch, & Kleiser, 2002; Beldona & Wysong, 2007), however there has been little

research to establish whether or not customers seek a brand with a personality based on the

situation (Sung, 2011).

1.3 General Objective

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of brand personality on the brand

choice of Colgate Palmolive consumers in Nairobi.

1.4 Specific Objectives

1.4.1 To evaluate the influence of brand sincerity on brand choice

1.4.2 To establish the influence of brand excitement elements on brand choice

1.4.3 To establish the influence of brand competence on brand choice

1.4.4 To establish the influence of brand gender on brand choice.

1.5 Significance of the Study

1.5.1 Manufacturing Companies in Kenya

The study may assist the management of Colgate Palmolive Kenya to address the shortcomings

in the advertising and sales promotion of their brands. The study will also help address

challenges experienced in the implementation of advertising policies, and provide guidance in

the up scaling of their advertising activities for increased sales and revenue.

1.5.2 Policy Makers in Kenya

Policy makers and regulators such as the government may find the study very useful in the

implementation ofpolicies aimed at streamlining advertising activities in various sectors within

the country. The policy makers will also gain insight of advertising and sales promotion

dynamics and the responses that are appropriate and specific for various industries in Kenya, this

8

study can serve as a guide for designing appropriate policies that may ensure effective

implementation of advertising strategies.

1.5.3 Scholars and Academicians

Findings from the study will also be useful to scholars and academicians. It will provide

information to current and future scholars on matters regarding brand personality and how it can

be effectively studied to directly influence brand choice. In addition, researchers can also use the

findings of the study as a basis for further research on marketing.

1.6 Scope of the Study

This study was only limited to 500consumers of Colgate Palmolive products in Nairobi County.

The respondents targeted were between the ages of 18-60 years. The study was conducted over

the weekends, between 2p.m and 6p.m in the month of January 2018.

During the course of the study, there were certain limitations that hindered the study, for instance

truthfulness of respondents, lack of willingness to respond from respondents. However in order

to counter the limitations, the study guaranteed confidentiality to the respondents as well as

booking appointments and conducting follow ups to enhance response rate.

1.7 Definition of Terms

1.7.1 Brand Personality

Brand personality is defined as the set of human characteristics associated with a brand (Aaker,

1997).

1.7.2 Brand Choice

Brand choice is defined as the selection of one brand from a set of alternative brands (Kinjal,

2014).

1.7.3 Brand Sincerity

A scale which assesses the degree to which a brand is viewed as having personality like

characteristics such as being honest, sentimental, friendly, wholesome, original and realistic

(Sundar & Noseworthy, 2016).

9

1.7.4 Brand Excitement

A scale that evaluates the level consumers view a brand having personality like characteristics

such as being unique, spiritual, cool, daring, up-to-date, contemporary and trendy (Sundar &

Noseworthy, 2016).

1.7.5 Brand Competence

A dimension of brand personality that creates an image of reliability, responsibility,

dependability, intelligence and success (Wirunphan & Ussahawanitchakit, 2016).

1.7.6 Brand Gender

A scale that evaluates the level consumers view a brand personality with regards to masculinity

and/or femininity perceptions (Kraft & Weber, 2012).

1.7.7 Fast Moving Consumer Goods

Fast moving consumer goods (FMCGs) are defined as relatively inexpensive, frequently

purchased and rapidly consumed items on which buyers exert only minimal purchasing effort

(Malhotra, 2014).

1.8 Chapter Summary

The study seeks to find out the influence of brand personality on brand choice and how it shapes

consumer behavior. It seeks to find out whether brands with appealing personalities can out-

perform competitors in the market environment on the basis of their brand strength rather than on

the basis of other independent variables that may play out in the retail space such as competition

based on factors such as price and promotion. The next chapter reviews literature related to each

of the studies identified objectives. Chapter 3 gives a detailed description of the research

methodology that the study utilized with regards to the target population, sampling procedure,

and data collection method. Chapter 4 presents the results of the data that was collected in the

form of descriptive and inferential statistics. And finally chapter 5 provides recommendations

and conclusions for each objective based on the analysis derived in the previous chapter.

10

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter analyses the literature available in books and journals on how four brand personality

dimensions influence the brand choice of consumers. The brand personality dimensions are the

independent variables under study and they include: brand sincerity, brand excitement, brand

competence and brand gender. They therefore guide the 4 priorities for this chapter: Section 2.2

discusses how brand sincerity influences brand choice, section 2.3 discusses how brand

excitement influences brand choice, section 2.4 discusses how brand competence influences

brand choice and finally section 2.5 covers how brand gender influences brand choice.

2.2 The Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice

Brand personality is defined as the set of human characteristics that are associated with a brand

(Aaker, 1997). Over the last two decades, there has been increased focus on the concept of brand

personality among marketing scholars and practitioners, because consumers are continually

engaged in constructing their self-identities through their consumption. The symbolic meaning of

brands can play a pivotal role in a variety of consumer behaviors (Kim & Sung, 2013).

A brand personality scale is proposed by Aaker (1997) in order to generate a content-valid brand

personality associated by consumers to a brand. To measure brand personality effectively, Aaker

(1997) established a 42 item scale, which was arrived at by eliminating redundancy from the trait

list optioned from three sources. These sources include personality scales from psychologists,

marketers; both academics and practitioners, and lastly original qualitative researches. Aaker

(1997) proposed a Brand Personality Scale that describes and assists with measurement of the

personality of a brand in five main dimensions. The dimensions include sincerity, excitement,

competence, sophistication and ruggedness. Each of the dimensions is further divided into a set

of facets. Aaker‟s findings suggest that although the connection between brand and human

personality is not exactly similar, consumers tend to associate themselves with a product by

closely matching the brand personality of the product with their own (Ling et al., 2014).

11

Eisend and Stokburger-Sauer (2013) examined the antecedents and consequences of brand

personality traits as defined by Aaker (1997). They found that the major contributors to brand

personality were marketing communications with hedonic benefit claims, branding activities that

support the creation of a unique brand entity, a brand‟s country of origin, and the personalities of

the consumers themselves. Moreover, the brand personality dimensions of competence and

sincerity seemed to have the strongest influence on the success of a brand. Consequently, there is

meta-analysis level evidence to suggest that brand personality does have powerful implications

for marketing and managerial practice and is thus a construct that warrants further study.

A sincere brand is considered that who is honest and genuine, and an exciting character

represents the energy or extroversion dimension (Aaker, 1997). While research regarding the

direct impact of personality traits on brand evaluations is only recently emerging relationship

marketing theorists speculate that character personality characteristics promote a deeper

connection between consumers and brands (Batra, Lenk, & Wedel 2010). These observable

humanlike characteristics help humanize and give meaning to brands.

A study by Cuevas (2016) on exploring brand personality within the blogosphere found that

consumers identify a brand as sincere when their expectations for positive experiences are met

(Maehle, Otnes, & Supphellen, 2011). Consumer brand choice was positively influenced by a

brand which provides consumers with personal selling and guarantees such as positive service

experiences and promotional incentives, both contribute to the perceived sincerity of a brand

(Maehle et al., 2011). Sincerity is also established through passion and personalization, traits

which are often presented by human brands such as bestselling authors and fashion bloggers

(McQuarrie, Miller, & Phillips, 2013). Fashion bloggers are now able to document and share

their fervent appreciation for consumption online while providing insights and ultimately

generating credibility through personality traits (Opoku et al., 2007). The personalization of

information shared by fashion bloggers provides honesty and therefore, enables the development

of consumer-brand relationships as information delivered is relatable and not entirely

promotional. As a result, brand sincerity is a potent factor in determining consumer engagement

as trustworthiness drives consumers to willingly communicate their own opinions through

comments or evaluations online (Aaker, 1997; N‟Goala & Morrongiello, 2014).

12

A study by Aaker et al. (2004) on “when good brands do bad” found that sincere and exciting

brand personalities merit attention in light of their prominence in the marketing landscape.

Moreover, these two personalities are essential because they compose two of the three partner

ideals that affect intimate personal relations (Maehle et al., 2011). Sincere personalities that

dominate the world of classic brands to date include Hallmark, Ford, and Coca-Cola (Mohd,

2012). The sincere personality has been adopted by smaller companies looking to establish

themselves as warmer, more caring and considerate than larger, unwelcoming rivals (e.g.,

Gateway Cow campaign). Larger companies have also not been left behind as they seek a more

down-to-earth face in consumer-brand interaction, a good example is MetLife‟s use of Snoopy.

The study further suggests that sincere brands will garner relationship advantages as opposed to

other brand personality dimensions. Traits such as warmth, family-orientation, nurturance as well

as traditionalism, have been positively related to relationship strength (Maehle et al., 2011), are

characteristic of sincere personalities (Aaker 1997). In addition, the sincerity dimension also

spark inferences of partner dependability as well as simply trustworthiness (Aaker 1999), which

end up relaying feelings of vulnerability and support relationship growth

Sung and Kim (2010) found a link between brand personality traits, including sincerity and

excitement in particular, and brand trust. Findings from their study parallel those from studies in

marketing and the sister disciplines of management and psychology where positive traits like

sincere concern for others and agreeableness have been linked to trustworthiness perceptions

while both favorable traits of excitement and sincerity are positively related to trust. However,

prior work on trust by Sung and Kim (2010) suggests that sincerity is superior to excitement in

trust development, and a stronger relationship is expected to be found for the trait of sincerity.

A study by Malar et al. (2012) on emotional brand attachment and brand personality found that

companies are searching for ways to create increasingly, strong emotional brand connections

with consumers. This is motivated by the finding that such connections lead to higher levels of

consumer loyalty, which increases company financial performance (Park & Roedder, 2010). For

example, cosmetics companies have communicated for years to consumers that using their

products will make them more attractive and beautiful and bring them closer to realizing an ideal

vision of themselves. More recently, however, Unilever's Dove line took a different angle using

brand sincerity to appeal to consumers. The firm opted to used models who are more average in

13

appearance, presumably corresponding more closely to how the majority of consumers actually

see themselves. This approach hit a nerve with many consumers, causing them to form a strong

emotional connection with the brand.

A study by Puzakova, Kwak and Bell (2015) on the effect of brand sincerity on ethnic products

and brands highlights found that firms can build on the prosodic theory of accent. The study

established that prosodic features such as intonation tend to connote the brand as having

associations of sincerity and trustworthiness as a result influencing brand sincerity perceptions.

Furthermore, the study found that the effect of intonation depends on the degree level of

congruity between product ethnicity and a spokesperson‟s accent. Results revealed that when

these variables are congruent, then consumers tend to rely on the cues that are consistent with the

advertising appeals. For instance, when a message uses the sincerity appeal, falling intonation

leads to greater attributions of brand sincerity, whereas when a message uses the competence

appeal, rising as opposed to falling intonation triggers higher perceptions of brand sincerity.

Mohd (2012) conducted study on brand personality dimensions for a laptop computer using

Jennifer Aaker‟s brand personality scale. The study involved randomly selected 269 computer

students from Malaysian university. The findings revealed that laptop users associate themselves

with sincerity, while Laptop non-users associate this brand with ruggedness. In this research, the

result showed that differences existed in perceived brand personality associated with laptop

between users and non users, this implies that consumers‟ perception of brand personality of a

brand will often vary. Consumer perception could be influenced by their direct involvement with

the brand. This study can however not be generalized because it was only conducted on one

institution, therefore there was a methodological gap which ought to be addressed.

2.2.1 Brand Sincerity and Brand Loyalty

Kem, Sasa, Sesia, and Zhao (2014) carried a research on the Effects of Brand Personality on

brand loyalty in companies specifically focusing on micro blogs. The study investigated the

relationship between brand personality, brand loyalty and brand satisfaction. Findings showed

that all four dimensions of brand personality i.e. sincerity, excitement, sophistication and

competence, have positive impacts on consumer satisfaction in brand micro blogs. The study

further revealed that if consumers perceive a brand to be exciting, sophisticated, sincere and

14

competent, then they will be more likely to be satisfied by the brand. However, the brand

sincerity dimension was found to have the highest impact on brand choice and consumer

satisfaction than any other dimension. This study did not however address the impact of culture,

resulting to a conceptual gap which future researchers should explore by including cultural

dimension in their model.

Sajad, Mahdi, Hamed, Seyyed, and Tahereh (2013) conducted a research on Application of

Consumer Personality Trait, Brand Personality, Brand Loyalty and Brand Equity in the Mobile

Phone Industry. The study involved 400 randomly selected actual and potential customers of

Samsung mobile in Tehran. Brand personality was measured using three dominant brand

personality dimensions; brand sincerity, brand excitement, and qualified brand personality. The

findings from the study led to the conclusion that brand personality has a significant impact on

the buying of mobile phone. Moreover, brand sincere personality traits; agreeableness,

responsible and extraversion personality were considered to have the most impact. However the

study did not address adequately the effects of brand personality on mobile phones since it

largely focused on three dimensions of brand personality i.e. sincerity, excitement and

competence. As a result further study is necessary.

A study by Mohd (2012) established that different types of brand personalities exert different

responses from consumers in terms of loyalty and feedback to the brand‟s actions. Sincere

brands tend to develop longer and more loyal relationships from customers, strengthening with

time, while more exciting brands tend to be perceived as more short-term oriented. Whenever

there are transgressions committed by brands, relationships with sincere brands tend to be

severely affected while with exciting brands these tend to become less and sometimes even re-

energized. Specific brand personalities are associated with particular product categories (Maehle,

Otnes & Supphellen, 2011), for instance, as the authors support, sincere brands are commonly

associated with morals and family-values, exciting brands to special occasions and new feelings,

competent brands are associated with quality and expertise.

2.3 The Influence of Brand Excitement on Brand Choice

A second brand personality dimension that has received increased marketing interest is that of

the exciting personality dimension. Exciting brands are built around qualities of energy and

youthfulness (Aaker 1997). Exciting global brands include organizations such as MTV, Yahoo,

15

Virgin, and Mountain dew. This brands attempt differentiation through unique and irreverent

advertising using typical brand logos, and hip language that bring out the dimension effectively.

Brands have largely adapted exciting personalities when targeting younger demographics, for

example Mountain Dew‟s “Do the Dew” campaign, which was meant to reposition the brand for

increased cultural vitality. BMW also embraced the excitement dimension in their “Driving

Excitement” campaign, and wanted to seek differentiation against competitors in the market.

Global brands that have pursued the excitement dimension have done exceedingly well in

shaping consumer brand choice and satisfaction.

Consumer based brand personality requires that a brand elicits a certain range of excitement with

consumers. Tesfom and Birch (2011) define excitement as the state of being elated, and longing

for a given product or brand. Some of the attributes a brand has to possess to be regarded as

exciting is being trendy, and daring. According to Bouhlel et al. (2011) a trendy brand is a brand

that gains wider acceptability due to its fashion sense, usability, or even aesthetic value. In

FMCG branding, an organization has to ensure that its products are able to push the trendy

aspects of a product or brand to consumers. This can be accomplished through graphical

modulation of a product branding. Equally, Hoq and Amin (2010) noted that a product that is

daring in aesthetic value, usability and design has the potential to create brand awareness, and as

a result, shape consumers brand choice.

Consumers view a brand as exciting when exposed to aesthetically pleasing material such as

regular new clothing styles or the communication of excitement through advertisements

involving exciting experiences (Maehle et al., 2011). Coca Cola company has repeatedly

presented itself as a socially engaged brand, showcasing to consumers vivid images of friends

drinking Coca Cola brands amid festivities (Maehle et al., 2011). In regards to human brands,

methods of excitement may include bestselling authors‟ delivering plot twists to captivate

readers (Opoku et al., 2007). Similarly, fashion bloggers share a visual insight in the domain of

apparel, a daring liveliness essential to capturing consumer interest online (McQuarrie et al.,

2012). Research demonstrates that emotions such as excitement play a critical role in consumer

experience, influencing perceptions, consumer engagement and ultimately brand choice (Hwang

& Lim, 2015).

16

A study by Staples (2015) analyzed how brand personality is not only applicable to products but

also to services and sport organizations. There are brand personalities which shape the way

consumers (fans) interact with the organization, attend events, purchase merchandise, and

generally view different sport. Within spectator sport, the brand personality of a team can impact

the way fans of that team view their favorite team, as well as the way fans of other teams view

the organization. Brand personality differences provide product differentiation opportunities for

teams in a number of ways. Brand excitement is the most notable dimension used by sports

organizations for example, in a crowded college football market place teams like the University

of Oregon and Baylor University have used flashy uniforms and up-tempo offenses to create a

“cutting-edge” brand for their respective programs (Staples, 2015).

Hollenback (2012) conducted a study to conceptualize the brand personality of Mountain Dew, a

popular soft drink. He found that there are two major perspectives which could be used to

explore brand personality, the company‟s and the consumer‟s. In order to better understand the

subject, two directions were taken: firstly the one that proposes to analyze intended brand

personality and respective repercussions on brand equity, further finding out how the company

aims to develop its personality and how to transmit the desired associations to its consumers,

secondly the one that proposes to understand the consumer behavior side, how consumers really

perceive the brand personality, or brand image. After analyzing from both angles, findings found

that excitement collectively ranked as the most descriptive personality dimension of Mountain

Dew. Respondents felt that the commercials, which mainly highlighted extreme sports, gave off

an air of excitement. They felt that these commercials served to excite the consumers about the

drink by displaying high energy.

A study by Liang and Lee (2010) on Brand-personality focused on three categories of drinks;

Fizzy drink, Energy drinks and mineral water. The study involved 393 university students from

Austria, the results showed that brand personality influenced their choice between the three

brands, however the excitement dimension had a great impact for fizzy drink and energy drink

while sincerity had great impact on mineral water. Overall, the three drink categories were

differentiated to the greatest extent on the sincerity dimension. Mineral water drinks are

perceived as being the most sincere, followed by Fizzy drinks and Energy drinks. The results

also found that the sincerity dimension is the only distinctive characteristic that respondents

17

identified for mineral water drinks. Moreover mineral water was perceived to be more

sophisticated but less exciting and rugged than the other two drink categories. The study

however only involved fast moving consumer goods (drinks), therefore further study on other

product categories is appropriate.

Aaker (1997) found that the brand excitement dimension is related with the human personality

dimension of extraversion, whereby both share characteristics of sociability and kindness. Brand

excitement is expressed by traits such as advanced, energetic, exceptional, composed and

courageous. Gil and Hellgren (2011) argued that, if the brand is associated with characteristics of

exceptional, it means customers will be attracted to buying the product because it is perceived to

be unique from others.

Anja and Daniel (2011) conducted study on the Impact of Brand personality on brand trust and

brand choice of four products i.e. Nike, Apple, Mercedes Benz and Ikea. The comparative study

used non probability sampling techniques specifically convenient sampling method to select 317

respondents from Germany and Sweden, the outcome of the study showed that the brand

personality dimensions of sincerity and competence could explain better brand trust while the

excitement dimension explained better brand choice. The overall results showed that brand

personality dimensions correlate with identification, trust and preference. Therefore it was

possible to arrive at the conclusion that brand personalities have an effect on brand choice and

brand trust. The study however did not consider the possible effects of having a moderating

variable. Future studies should therefore explore possible effects of product involvement as

moderating variable between brand personality and customer purchase decision of Smartphone.

A study by Buresti and Rosenberger (2006) on brand personality differentiation in the Australian

Action sports (A/S) clothing market analyzed three firms; SMP, Hooker Technologies and

Volcom. The study found that brand personality dimensions for Hooker Technologies and

Volcom were similar, with Excitement, Competence and Ruggedness rating the highest of the

five brand personality dimensions for these brands. The three brands had similar brand

excitement and sincerity ratings, however, the dimensions of brand competence and ruggedness

did not rate as highly for SMP brand. The findings further revealed that the Australian A/S

market regard Hooker Technologies and Volcom as clothing brands with similar brand

personality dimensions, more specifically competence, excitement and ruggedness. SMP was

18

however found to be similar on the excitement dimension but rather weak on the competence and

ruggedness dimensions. The results from this study suggest that members of the Australian A/S

youth market identify the BP dimensions of excitement as being more descriptive of the

company brand. The findings from this study highlight the relevance of the brand personality

construct in measuring the differences in brand personality dimensions across different product

categories. This information will assist the marketing managers with relevant information

regarding the brand strategies required by the brand to build on these dimensions as well as to

differentiate their brand from A/S competitors and the global branded clothing market.

Sharma (2012) investigated the brand personality of tourism destinations and found that brands

can be described by personality characteristics such as colorful, youthful and noble. Aaker

(1996) argues that a brand's personality creates excitement, depth and emotion of the relationship

between the brand and consumer, and that a brand with personality, not unlike a person, missing

friends and can easily be overlooked. Aaker (1996) adds that brand personality makes a brand

more interesting and memorable. He further relates to measuring brand personality of a brand's

value and concludes that in measuring brand value he uses what he calls "The Brand Equity Ten"

which consists of ten factors grouped into five categories. Factor associations and differentiation

contains three variables, brand personality, perceived value and business associations.

A study by Plavini (2011) on how brand personality affects products with different involvement

levels showed that brand personality positively affects not only consumer brand choice but also

their purchase decision. The effect remains true for both high and low involvement products,

however the effect of brand personality is higher for high involvement products than low

involvement products. Brand personality can be enhanced by famous endorsers while in the case

of low involvement products, this can be done thorough strong positive argument about the

brand in case of high involvement products.

Kimeu (2016) found that strong brand personality is invaluable in building brand equity where

differentiation based on quality seems to be very little among competing firms. A significant

number of other scholars have theorized brand personality to be a significant source of customer-

based brand equity and loyalty. Research by Geyskens (2016) found that building and managing

strong brands is considered one of the most critical tasks in brand management. This is because

loyal customers create an entry barrier that makes it difficult for competitors to enter the market.

19

In addition, almost all marketing activities are directed toward this goal. The study further

reveals that although the areas of brand equity and brand loyalty have been extensively studied,

several important aspects such as antecedents, mediators, and consequences of brand personality

still require further research and clarification.

Brand personality skeptics suggest that despite exciting brands seeming attractive and gaining a

lot of attention and thus highly capable of generating interest and trial, they are still seen as

somehow less legitimate long-term partners (Louis & Lombart, 2010). Hence, although the

exciting dimension is viewed as an ideal in intimate relations, this personality may have intrinsic

disadvantages in contrast to the sincerity dimension which fosters perceptions of partner quality

and encouraging long-run relationship strength.

2.3.1 Congruence between Brand Personality and Self Image

A study by Klipfel et al. (2014) outlined the importance of self-concept theory in consumer

behavior research by explaining that consumers who perceive the product image of a brand to be

consistent with their actual self-concept have a higher likelihood to purchase and use a brands

offering. Consequently, congruence between ones self-image and the product image may have a

greater influence on consumer preference, purchase intention, customer satisfaction as well as

loyalty to the brand.

Self-congruity is further defined as the degree to which brand personality and self-concept are

compatible. Therefore it is a match between the products value-expressive attributes such as

product-user image as well as the audience‟s self-concept (Malar et al., 2012). According to the

self-congruity theory, self concept tends to influence consumer behavior in a way that results in

consumers purchasing of the product. A crucial factor in market segmentation is self-congruity,

which provides insight pertaining to effective brand positioning and advertising research for

marketers (Mohd, 2012). Marketers should therefore ensure they have adequate psychological

knowledge of target consumers rather than simple surface-based demographics so as to

accurately position their products in a way that appeals to consumers.

A study conducted by Graeff (1996) looked at the effect of congruence between brand image and

self image on brand evaluation concerning the promotion message. Findings from the study

established that under the promotion message that reminds consumers of their own self-image,

20

consumers give more positive evaluations of brands congruent with their own self-image. In

another similar study that he conducted involving beer product brands, the findings suggested

that positive brand attitude and purchase intention both increase as the congruence between

brand image and self image increases.

Consumers use brands as a symbol and they prefer brands with images or personalities that are

congruent with their self-image or brand personality. A study by Chang, Park, and Choi (2001),

established that consumers display a favorable feeling towards a brand whenever the brand

personality is congruent with their respective self-image. The congruence between brand

personality and self-image increases positive attitude of consumers who have high hedonic

attitude and emphasize symbolic values. Yi and La (2004) later found that brand personality has

an influence on brand identification, which subsequently has a direct impact on brand loyalty,

and had an indirect impact on brand satisfaction.

A study by Willems and Swinnen (2011) found that in addition to brand and product personality,

consumers can also experience congruity with store personality (SP). Store personality can be

defined as the way the shopper sees the store in their mind. SP can also be described as the image

that describes the store‟s psychological attributes as well as functional qualities (Willems &

Swinnen, 2011). Consumers should be able to have distinct images of stores and the products

they carry in their back of their minds (Rocereto & Mosca, 2012). In other words, a store‟s

personality is not automatically derived from the products on its shelves, hence marketers of the

store must therefore ensure good positioning of products in the store to appeal to their target

market (Rocereto & Mosca, 2012).

Aaker (1997) was among the first scholars to develop different measurement scales for human

personality as well as brand personality, a more recent study by Branaghan and Hildebrand

(2011) revamped the old measurement scales by being the first to measure brand personality

image and self image in the same associative network. Findings from the study established that

measuring brand personality images and self-image in the same associative network was

advantageous as it was very comprehensive. Marketers can visually see how the self relates to

selected brands while simultaneously seeing how these brands relate to each other (Branaghan &

Hildebrand, 2011).

21

Helgeson and Supphellen (2004) conducted a study on the relationship between self congruity

and brand personality, however the research specifically focused on investigating whether the

two constructs are empirically discriminant, which they were indeed found to be discriminant,

and also spoke to the moderating effect of socially desirable responding. Phau and Lau (2001)

pioneered the idea that customers can influence the way a brand personality is perceived, which

is a shift from the traditional thought that brand personality is solely the creation of marketers

and advertisers and is exclusively dependent on their actions and intentions.

The relationship between brand personality and self-congruity is anything but static. Klipfel et

al. (2014) found that self-congruity can be as much a determinant of brand personality however

also a product of brand personality. Marketers need to understand this relationship whenever it

applies to their specific brand. Before launching a brand, marketers should take steps to ensure

probable early adopters of their product are indeed the brands target consumers. The study

further establishes that existing brands should always carefully be monitored for brand

personality changes that may occur as a result of false congruity, real-ideal image discrepancy,

innovative as well as creative consumer behavior.

2.4 The Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice

Brands known for competence create an image of reliability, responsibility, dependability,

intelligence, efficiency and success. Companies that market their brands using this dimension

can compete with brands marketed for their excitement by presenting an alternative value.

Brands within the automotive industries for example, often compete in a fight that pits

competence dimension vs. excitement. This can be elaborated by the example of a car that will

safely deliver a family home through a violent storm will totally differentiate itself from a swift,

sleek automobile that has fantasies of winning racing championships for its owners. In the

information-technology industry, companies may compete with a brand that promises the

competence dimension and the excitement dimension simultaneously. A recent study by

Wirunphan and Ussahawanitchakit (2016) revealed that Microsoft cooperation was able to brand

the Surface tablet as a cutting-edge device with the capability to fully replicate the functions of a

laptop however still within an exciting, streamlined design.

A competent brand is seen as one that has the capability to interpret customers „trouble and to

meet the need. Brand competence is also a considerable manner which develops consumer trust

22

in brand. A brand must have some characteristics that satisfy consumers‟ needs (Klipfel et al.,

2014). Wirunphan and Ussahawanitchakit (2016) conducted a study on the cosmetic industry in

Thailand and established that organizations want to build their competence in few key areas and

to deal with their brand within these domains. The study further established that it is the duty of

every marketer to meet customers‟ exact demands which are related to their products.

Organizations should not create suspicion in the consumers‟ mind about brand competence.

Consumers must be persuaded to obtain a relation to the brand competence dimension. The study

also found that companies that make use of key opinion leaders and personas who are viewed as

authorities in particular areas, to present them as brand ambassadors and representatives; for

instance highly qualified engineers for technical tools and renowned physicians to represent

pharmaceutical products had greater breakthroughs towards influencing brand choice of

consumers.

Competent brands consist of crucial elements for solving consumers‟ issues. Consumers can find

out the competency of a brand through directly using it or as a result of word-of mouth

marketing, whereby they may hear the perception of another person who may have used the

brand. Competent brands are able to satisfy consumer needs and their attributes must be

compatible with consumer needs (Wirunphan & Ussahawanitchakit 2016).

Aaker (1999) established that the brand competence dimension entails that a brand had proven,

to consumers, its ability to deliver repeatedly. A strong brand personality leads to brand

competence that is unique, strong, favorable and congruent in the minds of consumers. A brand

intending to use this dimension as part of its personality traits must be able to align itself to

depict a quality of reliability, intelligence and success. This creates a high level of satisfaction to

consumers who patronize such business organizations. Brand competence plays an enormous

role in shaping brand choice in the service industry such especially in the banking sector. It is a

major factor or traits for differentiating items and influencer of brand choice (Aaker, 1999).

Huang, Wang, and Gong (2014) conducted empirical research on the brand personality of Smart

phones in China. The study involved 1335 online customers. Findings from the study revealed

that, building the brand personality dimensions of competence and excitement helped improve

the brand value of smart phones and greatly influencing brand choice. Moreover, the study also

found that competence and excitement were personality dimensions of successful smart phone

23

brands. Brands with these two aspects of personality were found to be widely accepted by

consumers.

Kinjal (2014) conducted a study on Brand Personality of Pepsi and Coca Cola. The study involved

100 respondents who were selected using quota sampling method, the overall results showed that

brand personality affects the customers purchase choice of each product. More specifically, the

findings revealed that consumers consider Coca-Cola to be a Sincere and Competent brand while

Pepsi is considered to be a Cheerful (young and trendy) brand. Coca-Cola was found to have the

elements of an intelligent and imaginative brand while Pepsi does not possess such elements. The

study involved only 100 customers who cannot adequately represent the consumers of Pepsi and

Coca-Cola, as a result further study is required to fill this gap.

2.4.1 Brand Loyalty

Louis and Lombart (2010) suggested that future studies to study the effect of brand personality

on other consequences such as loyalty, to specifically find out whether brand personality can

predict brand loyalty. A study by Sung and Kim (2010) confirmed the assertions that brand

personality evokes brand emotions which consequently increase the levels of brand satisfaction,

and as a result leads to building the level of brand loyalty. Similar research studies also reveal a

significant relationship exists between brand personality and brand loyalty (Lin, 2010), however

others noted an insignificant relationship.

Early studies about brand loyalty define the concept as a behavioral reaction and focus on

repetitive purchasing decisions (Ciftyıldız & Sütütemiz, 2007). Brand loyalty can further be

defined as consistent purchasing or being a customer for the same brand in the future, despite

there being other attractive brands for that products or service. It is highly likely that satisfied

customers will be loyal customers because high satisfaction leads to both emotional and rational

loyalty (Sum & Kim, 2010). The author further explains the concept as the tendency to pay more

for a product of specific brand among similar others and to recommend this brand to the others.

Bouhlel et al. (2011) studied 380 participants to identify if brand personality influences brand

loyalty trust and commitment. The study used two of Aaker's brand personality dimensions:

sincerity and competence. Findings from the study established that brand personality influences

customer loyalty, attachment as well as commitment for sincere and competent brands.

24

Rajagopal (2008) went ahead to study the interdependence of personality and brand identity in

measuring the influence on brand choice. The study used brand personality, brand image, brand

reputation and brand trust as independent variables, while brand choice was used as the

dependent variable. The findings from this study established that brand personality influences

consumer buying decision by greatly increasing the persuasive appeal of the product on

customers.

In a study on brand personality, loyalty and brand quality rating in the contact lens perspective,

Yeoh et al. (2014) opted to adopt Aaker's five dimensions of brand personality: brand

competence, sophistication, sincerity, excitement and brand ruggedness to measure consumers

attitudinal loyalties. Data was collected from 238 management students in Malaysian public

university using probability sampling; stratified random sampling method, and the result showed

that the dimensions of sincerity, excitement and competence of brand significantly affect brand

loyalty

2.4.2 Brand Satisfaction

Ouwersloot and Tudorica (2011) analyzed brand personality and found that companies should

consider brand personality as a means that empowers them to achieve satisfaction. Previous

research suggests a link between brand personality and satisfaction (Achouri & Bouslama, 2010).

For instance, Brakus et al. (2009) established that brand personality has a significant effect on

brand satisfaction. Similarly, Bouhlel et al. (2011) also found the positive effect of congruent

brand personality on customer satisfaction among 150 guests in a study of Season Hotel in

Indonesia. Similar findings were reported by Yong-Ki, Back, and Kim (2009) who explored the

influence of restaurant brand personality on satisfaction. In contrast however, Kem et al. (2014)

revealed an insignificant relationship between brand personality and brand satisfaction in the

service context.

Satisfaction is defined as an emotional response to the experiences provided by or associated

with particular products or services purchased. According to scholars Youl and John (2010),

brand satisfaction is one factor that influences brand loyalty. When customers are satisfied with a

brand, they are willing to use the same brand in the future. Nam et al. (2011) argue that customer

satisfaction is an overall emotion of customer response to the entire brand experience after the

25

last purchase. Brand satisfaction indirectly influences future purchasing patterns of consumers

and it enhances consumer desire for the specific product or service (Bennett & Rundle-Thiele,

2002). In a later study by the same author, satisfaction is viewed as a significant antecedent of

brand loyalty; increase in satisfaction leads to increase in brand loyalty (Bennett & Rundel-

Thiele, 2005).

Previous studies found a significant relationship between brand satisfaction and brand loyalty

(Andreani et al., 2012; Kuikka & Laukkanen, 2012). The findings from the above studies were

quite similar and revealed same results. After investigating the effects of brand satisfaction on

brand loyalty and the growing role of hedonic value within the brand loyalty experience in the

chocolate industry in Finland. They were able to establish that brand satisfaction is a strong

influence on behavioral brand loyalty. They also showed that brand satisfaction affects

attitudinal brand loyalty. Furthermore, they revealed that satisfaction is the most significant

influence on behavioral brand loyalty.

In contrast to the above findings, Belaid and Behi (2011) found that the correlation between the

two concepts; brand loyalty and brand satisfaction is negative and insignificant. This implied that

satisfaction plays a minute role at best in developing loyal consumers. Mohd (2012) conducted a

similar study and also found an insignificant relationship between satisfaction and brand loyalty

however towards lifestyle product brands, high-tech product brands, and service brands.

Similarly, insignificant findings were reported by Abdul and Rehman (2015) on the effect of

customer satisfaction and brand loyalty in his study on Pakistan. Lastly a recent study by

Mabkhot et al. (2015) conducted a study among university students investigating the relationship

between the two branding concepts towards the BMW car brand. The findings from the study

established that the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty is statistically

insignificant among students in Germany and Canada universities toward the BMW car brand.

2.4.3 Brand Personality and Purchase Intention

Nam et al. (2011) conducted a study on the major factors that influence customer intentions and

their moods. The study revealed that brand personality is the first factor that should be

considered by researchers. Brand personality is significant for marketers and customers, because

it can establish a link between the product and the customer. Brand personality creates a

26

mechanism which brands can use to differentiate themselves; it also acts as a key determinant for

customer buying intentions (Bruwer & Buller, 2005). In addition, a previous study by Aaker

(1997) further revealed that brand personality is the main variable in consumer purchase

decisions and is an critical concept when it comes to brand distinction and brand differentiation

as a result having a significant effect on the consumers purchase decisions.

Mengxia (2007) conducted a comparative study on 230 Chinese customers to find out whether

brand personality influenced their purchase intention of Nike and Sony brands. Findings from the

study revealed that brand personality has a positive and significant effect on the purchase

intention of consumers. Moreover, recent researches have confirmed the considerable effect of

brand personality on the purchase intention for example, Mohd (2012) conducted a study

analyzing consumers behavioral intentions with perceptions of Brand Personality. The study

explained that brand personality dimensions such as brand competence, excitement,

traditionalism and brand gender have significant and direct influence on consumer purchase

intention.The effects of competence and excitement are however found to be more significant

than the other two dimensions. Toldos-Romero and Orozco-Gómez (2015) also conducted a

study which focused on 400 Mexican undergraduate students. The study analyzed two groups of

users and non-users of a brand and multiple regression analysis revealed that brand personality

and its dimensions are significant predictors for purchase intention and brand personality effect

is higher among the users of the brands compared to the non-users. Consequently, despite many

factors having an influence on the consumer intentions and conditions, brand personality is a

significant factor that should be considered by researchers.

2.5 The Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice

According to Azar (2013) gender is one of the most basic dimensions of symbolism, therefore

gendered personality approach to brands plays a central role in the study of brand personality.

Grohmann (2009) confirmed this gendered perception of brands and studied the structure of

brand gender. She defined brand gender as “the set of human personality traits associated with

masculinity and femininity applicable and relevant to brands”. In this regard, we consider brand

gender to be a dimension of a brand‟s personality. Via a scale development she shows the bi-

dimensionality of this construct: brand masculine dimension and brand feminine dimension.

27

Lieven, Grohmann, Herrmann, Landwehr, and Van Tilburg (2014) found that brand gender

contributes to the strength of consumer-based brand equity above and beyond the equity

contribution of other brand personality dimensions. In other words, brands with high masculinity

and/or femininity perceptions may enjoy greater brand equity. In a more recent study by Lieven

and Hildebrand (2016) they established that androgynous brands enjoy the greatest consumer-

based brand equity ratings across countries and product categories. The researchers explained

this finding by relating to psychology research which established that humans with strong

masculine and strong feminine traits are perceived to be most likeable and successful in many

countries of the world (Lieven & Hildebrand, 2016). Nonetheless, this consumer-based brand

equity body of research suggests that brand gender personality dimensions are important factors

for managers to consider in branding activities and brand management strategy.

Kraft and Weber (2012) conducted a study on the implication of gender differences to marketing.

Their findings established that three companies that used the gender dimension to create brand

personality effectively were Apple, Volvo, and Whole Foods. All three companies had a

personality trait that appealed to women in a manner that feminine consumers felt they can trust

the products, the products were worth the price and were able to command a market premium.

Apple consistently delivers on their market promise which is the easy to use their products, high

quality goods, and lastly a passionate lifestyle. Volvo has not been left behind either, and has

opted to take women‟s input and developed key elements in their products that are important to

women such as color-coding fluid lids as well as easy to load trunks. In addition, Volvo also

tailored their marketing message to focus on safety and dependability and have largely delivered

on that promise. Lastly, Whole Foods Company focused on delivering a pleasant shopping

atmosphere comprising of friendly sales staff, quality and healthy foods, as well as hard-to find

products (Anderson 2012). Each of these companies have conducted research on what is

important to the women they wish to serve and focused in on providing superior results in those

areas. These companies do not just talk a good marketing game but back up their promises and

continue to build relationships with women, this further highlights the growing influence of

brand gender on brand choice.

A recent study by Workman and Lee (2012) on brand relationships and risk found that despite

the importance of gender differences in consumer behavior, little is known about how men and

28

women differ in risk avoidance or in brand relationship variables such as brand trust or brand

credibility. Women tend to have greater tolerance for risk-taking than men in terms of

willingness to try new or unusual products and enjoyment. Furthermore, women tend to be more

willing than men to adopt a fashion innovation earlier than other consumers, which is a risky

consumer behavior (Workman & Cho, 2012). Women are also more likely than men to purchase

products impulsively. Other research which did not examine risk related to purchasing apparel

found that women are more open to uncertain and unstructured contexts. Similar studies also

found that women score higher than men on brand sensitivity as well as brand consciousness

(Workman & Lee, 2013).

2.5.1 Traditional Approach to Brand Gender

Men and women are known to traditionally approach purchasing decisions differently. The

difference is observed because men and women often want different things out of a buying

decision. Whereas women may look to satisfy long term needs and wants, men focus on the

opposite; satisfying immediate or short term needs and wants (Baker, 2012). Traditionally the

purchasing decision is meant to start with customer awareness then generate interest in

purchasing and finally narrowing of options. Marketers who try and engage customers

everywhere they go constantly overwhelm the modern consumer. For instance, on an average

drive around, a potential customer is likely to encounter numerous advertisements; radio ads,

billboards, leaflets, and store signs. These same consumers are likely to have checked a news

website and accessed email or social media encountering banner adds all before work. The

constant marketing overload has caused a major shift in the process of arriving at purchasing

decisions. A recent survey discussed in the Harvard Business Review blog revealed that only

about a third of consumers still use the traditional approach to the purchasing decision. Another

third use the open-ended path, which refers to consumers who constantly research differences in

products before deciding about which brand to buy. The final third have abandoned the search

process entirely and tend to focus on one brand exclusively (Anderson, 2012).

Marketing to men is often more stereotypical. Marketers try to appeal to men with funny

marketing or bad-boy images. Sullivan, Higdon & Sink (SHS), is a firm known for their targeted

marketing campaigns directed specifically to men. SHS began by identifying five universal

truths about men to help in effective marketing. Those five truths are “men seek enlightenment,

29

experience, and success on their own terms. In addition, men happily define themselves as

principle-driven and identify themselves as family-centric (Moore, 2008).” Yet men often make

impulsive purchases (Levit, 2012). Men judge a shopping experience in utilitarian terms, judging

items such as parking availability, length of checkout lines, as well as the stock of the items they

came to buy.

Global changes to how men are viewed today and their role both at home and in society have

played a big role in changing the types of goods and services that can effectively be marketed to

men. For instance, there has been an increase in the number of men who participate in elective

plastic surgeries and skin care regimes over the last few years, a sharp contrast from the past

(Smith, 2012). A study by Skin Incorporation, found that men of today enjoy taking care of their

personal appearance. Guys want to feel good about their appearance but in a sort of undercover

way that does not feel like he is giving up on being one of the guys (Westerbeke, 2008). The

study also revealed that it is the significant female influences in their lives that are responsible

for starting men on the path of beauty purchases. Companies have thus found out that marketing

to the female in their life is often more effective as opposed to directly marketing to the men.

This mode of marketing is often more effective since a man‟s first spa experience typically

occurs from the need to clean up their eyebrows or body hair or rather a need to update a

hairstyle (Westerbeke, 2008). Daulatram (2008) went further to state that it is important to

market to real men, the kind of men who are “normal” are those that do more than go out, drink,

and look for hot girls

Mulyanegara and Tsarenko (2009) carried a research on the relationship between brand

personality and customer personality in the context of fashion products. The researchers used all

the five dimensions of brand personality. Findings from the study revealed that some of the five

dimensions have a significant relationship with brand choice. Results relevant to gender

demonstrate that female and male consumers are different in way of expressing their own

personality in case of brand personality.

Das (2014) conducted a study investigating whether the brand personality of retail is similar for

various retail brands, the study further investigated if the perceptions toward retail brand

personality are different between female and male shoppers. The findings revealed that brand

30

personality of retail is actually different for various retail brands. This research also showed that

perception toward retail brand personality is not similar between female and male shoppers.

Grohmann (2009) conducted a study on the gender dimensions of brand personality and

established that these dimensions of brand personality raises the concern that though most

personality inventories and scales measuring masculinity and femininity pre date Goldberg's

(1990) five-factor model, masculinity and femininity are not part of this model. However,

alternative integrations of personality factors resulted in multifactor models that include

masculinity. These relationships are still being investigated because of their complex nature. In

summary, there is precedence for the investigation of masculinity and femininity beyond the Big

Five.

Gender dimensions of brand personality arise from consumers need to express themselves along

multiple dimensions (Aaker 1997). An earlier study on brand gender found that the need to

express masculinity and femininity through brand choice is based on the notion that gender is

naturally part of consumer self-concept (Freimuth & Hornstein 1982).Masculine and feminine

personality traits help consumers associate with a brand to enhance their own personal degree of

masculinity or femininity whenever they use brands for self-expressive purposes. According to

Grohmann (2009), gender dimensions of personality appear to be especially relevant to brands

that have symbolic value for consumers attempting to reinforce their own gender e.g., personal

care, fragrance, apparel brands. In practice, marketers can support consumers need for self-

expression by creating masculine or feminine brand associations; for instance, using packaging

color e.g., bold versus pastel colors in deodorant packaging. This not only reinforces consumers

gender but also influences their brand choice.

Bao and Sweeney (2009) are of contrary opinion regarding the influence of gender on brand

personality. Their study established that using the gender approach to understand brand

personality could be problematic and called for a concise definition via methodological

evaluation. They argued that describing a brand as either feminine or masculine could lead to

confusion and misunderstanding because the brand may target both gender consumers. The study

further revealed that according to human personality theory research, masculine and feminine are

not considered personality traits.

31

2.5.2 Brand Gender and Consumer Behavior

A study on gender by Blankston et al. (2015) found that gender is one of the most profound

social factors that shapes and constructs our individual activities and group experiences. The

influence of gender effects have however been oversimplified in plenty of marketing literature

that address gender as a singular biological descriptor (Palan & Bakir, 2013). In todays market

place, gender concept is increasingly blurred as a result of rapid and turbulent social-economic

changes since the 1960s. Marketing practitioners are currently targeting emerging gender market

segments that are based on this trend. Accordant with the social and market changes, marketing

researchers are becoming increasingly sentient to the fallacy of a consonant biological approach

to brand identity and greater attention has been afforded to a more integrative approach for

understanding gender as a multi-factorial construct.

In recent years, launches of worldwide products and brands based on gender distinctions have

been carried out leading to new managerial concerns about brand gender. To appeal to male

consumers, brand managers are attributing a masculine sexual identity for traditionally non sex-

typed brands and products. That was the case of Coca-Cola when launching Coke Zero destined

to men. Pepsi Co. followed the same approach by launching Pepsi Max for the same target

group, the duo registered high sales signifying that brand gender actually has a direct effect on

brand choice. Enduing those brands with a masculine identity was made possible by work carried

on different aspects of the marketing mix such as the packaging (Azar, 2013).

Grohmann (2009) defined the gender dimensions of brand personality as the “set of human

personality traits associated with masculinity and femininity applicable and relevant to brands”.

They are particularly important to brands with symbolic value for consumers. Previous research

suggested that strongly gendered brands positively influence brand trust, brand choice, brand

loyalty, and shapes consumer behavior (Grohmann, 2009). Therefore, we assume that a clear

brand gender positioning i.e. high levels of brand masculinity or brand femininity positively

influences consumer engagement with the brand on social media, and also love towards this

brand. Moreover, brands with high levels of masculinity and femininity tend to be associated

with a higher brand equity and greatly shape brand choice (Lieven et al., 2014). Thus, we assume

that the greater the extend consumers perceive the brand as feminine or masculine, the higher it‟s

consumer based brand equity (CBBE).

32

2.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter has reviewed literature and provided insightful understanding on the four specific

research objectives that govern the scope of this study; the influence of brand sincerity on brand

choice, the influence of brand excitement on brand choice, the influence of brand competence on

brand choice and lastly the influence of brand gender on brand choice. The next chapter will

describe the research design adopted for the study, the target population and sampling design,

data collection methods, research procedures and finally, data analysis methods that will be used

in the study.

33

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of brand personality on the brand choice of

Colgate Palmolive consumers in Nairobi. This chapter presents the research design adopted for

the study, the target population and sampling design, data collection methods, research

procedures and finally, data analysis methods that will be used in the study.

3.2 Research Design

According to McMillan and Schumacher (2001) research design is a plan for selecting subjects,

research sites, and data collection procedures to answer the research questions. They further

indicate that the goal of a good research design is to provide results that are judged to be

credible. Durrheim and Blance (2004) however defined a research design as a strategic

framework for action that serves as a bridge between research questions and the execution, or

implementation of the research strategy.

This study adopted a descriptive survey research design. According to Mugenda and Mugenda

(2010) descriptive survey enables the researcher utilize both qualitative and quantitative in an

objective manner without altering the study environment. A study by Saunders and Thornhill

(2014) established that researchers are to remain objective while collecting and interpreting data

in order to avoid bias which may arise if the researcher introduces his/her opinion. Therefore,

descriptive survey research design was suitable for this study since it allows the research

objectivity, and it enabled the researcher to summarize data using descriptive and inferential

statistics, and as such, making it simpler to comprehend the findings. The study dependent

variable is brand personality, whereas brand sincerity, brand excitement, brand competence and

brand gender are the independent variables. Although the brand personality framework has five

elements, the study opted to leave out the elements of brand ruggedness and brand sophistication

as they would not be applicable for this study.

34

3.3 Population and Sampling Design

3.3.1 Population

Cooper and Schindler (2014) defined a population as a group of elements upon which a

researcher desires to draw a study sample and draw a conclusion. They further described a target

population as the complete set of people, objects or events that have similar characteristics from

which the researcher wants to draw generalizations from. This study targeted a total population of

500 consumers who frequently purchase Colgate Palmolive products in three estates in Nairobi

County. Specifically focusing on respondents from three estates, it comprised of the various

classes of demography in the population which includes class A; the affluent and the well to do

members of the society. Secondly, class B, which was made up of middle class of the population

and lastly class C was comprised of the low income earners.

Table 3.1 Population Distribution Table

Cluster Population

Class A (Akila/Airport view estate) 100

Class B (High rise estate) 300

Class C (Siranga estate) 100

Total 500

Source: Langata Residents Association (2016)

3.3.2 Sampling Design

Lavrakas (2008) defined a sample design as the framework, or road map which serves as the

basis for the selection of a survey sample and affects many other important aspects of a survey.

The sampling design comprises of the sampling frame, sampling technique and sample size.

3.3.2.1 Sampling Frame

According to Malhotra (2014) sampling frame can be defined as a representation of the elements

of the target population. It consists or set of directions for identifying the target population.

Examples of a sampling frame include the telephone book, an association directory listing the

firms in an industry, a city directory or a map. For the purposes of this study, the list of

respondents was acquired from the Langata Residents Association.

35

3.3.2.2 Sampling Technique

Kothari (2004) defines a sampling technique as a definite plan determined before any data is

actually collected for obtaining a sample from a given population. Selecting a sampling

technique involves several decisions of a broader nature. However the most important decision

about the choice of sampling technique is whether to use probability or non probability sampling

(Malhotra 2014). The sampling technique that was employed in this study was probability

sampling, more specifically cluster sampling technique. Cluster sampling is considered to be

efficient as the sample is spread more evenly over the population. Simple random sampling was

then used to select respondents from the specific clusters. As a result no large part failed to be

represented in the sample. The sample is evenly spread and cross section is better.

3.3.2.3 Sample Size

According to Collis and Hussey (2009) sample size can be defined as an unbiased subset that

represents the population and is related to the size of the population under consideration. Dodge

(2003) described sampling size as the number of sampling units which are to be included in the

sample. According to Sekeran and Bougie (2013) 95% confidence level is the conventionally

accepted level for most business research and thus it was adopted for this study. The sample size

of the proposed study was arrived at based on previous research studies conducted on brand

personality. The average sample size is 166 respondents. A study by Watt et al., (2002) on the

adequacy of response rates found that the overall response rate for online surveys was 32.6%,

while for paper surveys it was 33.3%. Cluster sampling was used to select 33.3% of the

consumers from the three different estates.

Table 3.2 Sample Size Distribution

Cluster Population Sample Size %

Class A (Akila/Airport view estate) 100 33 33.3%

Class B (High rise estate) 300 100 33.3%

Class C (Siranga estate) 100 33 33.3%

Total 500 166 100%

36

3.4 Data Collection Methods

The study will use a questionnaire to collect data from Colgate Palmolive consumers in Nairobi

County. Fully structured closed ended questions were used to collect data from the respondents.

With fully structured questions, a respondent‟s response may give an insight into his/her

feelings, background, interests and decisions and give as much information as possible without

holding back. The questionnaires were self administered by the respondent so they can fully and

sincerely respond thereby giving sufficient information without the influence of interviewers.

Respondents will be asked to indicate their response on a five level Likert scale ranging from 1

to 5 where 1 reflected Strongly Disagree, 2 reflected Disagree, 3 reflected Neutral, 4 reflected

Agree and 5 reflected Strongly Agree. The data was collected from the 3 clusters in Nairobi with

an aim of cutting across the demographic divide.

The questionnaire deployed in the study did not undergo any pilot study due to the fact that the

tool was adapted from preceding studies that had already carried out the procedure and had

deemed the instrument to be scientifically valid and reliable. It did however undergo pretesting

with 10 respondents. They were each briefed on the purpose of the pretesting. Feedback and

findings was used to further improve the ease of understanding instrument through the use of

simpler terms that respondents could easily comprehend irrespective of education levels.

3.5 Research Procedures

3.5.1 Permission

Permission to conduct this study was authorized in three phases; first by the researchers

respective supervisors and secondly by the Dean, of the Chandaria School of Business.

Subsequent compliance by relevant regulatory bodies in the education sector was then sought.

3.5.2 Reliability of Instruments

A study by Creswell (2014) explains that reliability of instruments is used to determine whether

questions in the data collection instrument are resolute, internally sound and whether the test

administration and scoring is deemed to be consistent. Cronbach‟s alpha was utilized to

determine the reliability of the study; whereby Cronbach's coefficient, having a value of more

than 0.7 is considered to be adequate for such descriptive work in a study (Nunnally, 1978).

37

The researcher personally administered printed questionnaires as well as the use of trained

research assistants who assisted in refining timings of the distribution of the questionnaires. The

research team strategically approached potential respondents, explained the research proposition,

and respondents who oblige were given questionnaires to fill. The research team further

discussed and agreed with the respondents on the specific time frame by which they hopefully

should have been done with answering the questionnaires. Adequate time was provided to the

respondents to respond to the questionnaire.

3.5.3 Validity of the Instruments

Validity of instruments is the quality attributed to proposition or measures of the measure to

which they conform to establish the truth (Cooper & Schindler, 2014). For this study, validity of

the instrument was attained through the adoption of questionnaires from similar studies with

sound construct, internal and external validity. The purpose of construct validity was to show

that the items measured were correlated with what they intend to measure, as well as demonstrate

correlation with other constructs. Internal validity refers to the correctness of inferences made

about the causal relationship between the independent and dependent variables, while external

validity refers to the extent to which findings can be generalized to other scenarios, people, as

well as time.

3.5.4 Ethical Considerations

Ethics in business research refers to a code of conduct or the expected societal norm of conduct

while undertaking research (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). Ethical conduct applies to everyone

involved in the research process i.e. the researcher, research assistants (if present), sponsors of

the research, the respondents that provide relevant data, as well as the analysts who provide the

results. The researcher ensured the respondents that information collected was confidential,

avoiding any disclosure of the respondent‟s identity or any other personal information they

provide. The researcher further ensured that ethical conduct was reflected in the behavior of the

entire research team and process.

38

3.6. Data Analysis Methods

3.6.1 Data Preparation

Before processing of responses, the researcher sort the received questionnaires, the complete

questionnaires were edited in order to clean them of any errors, removal of inconsistencies,

incomplete responses, misclassifications as well as identification of gaps in information (Kumar,

2011). The data was then coded to enable the responses to be grouped into various categories for

further analysis.

3.6.2 Descriptive Research

A study by Cooper and Schindler (2014) found that descriptive statistics are measures that

portray the center, spread and shape of distribution of a dataset. They act as a useful preliminary

tool for describing data through organizing and summarizing of data from a simplistic yet

meaningful perspective. Descriptive statistics enable a researcher discern patterns that are not

clearly apparent in raw data though the use of visual aids and graphical representations such bar

graphs, pie charts and frequency tables.

3.6.3 Inferential Statistics

Inferential statistics are measurement standards used to make inferences from a sample to an

entire population. Zikmund et al. (2013) stated that statistical analysis could be univariate;

implying testing an objective involving only one variable, bivariate;which implies when a study

involves two variables and lastly multivariate which involves three or more variables being

tested. This study utilized a multivariate approach and involved multiple regression and

correlation tests as a form of inferential statistical analysis in order to determine the relationship

between the dependent and independent variables.

3.7 Chapter Summary

This chapter described the research methodology that was be used to carry out this study. First it

defined the population then described the sampling technique, and size. This was followed by a

description of the method that will be used to conduct the research and the justification of the use

of the chosen method. At the end, the chapter looked at the data analysis methods which were

39

used by the researcher to analyze the collected data, and make conclusive remarks on the study.

Chapter four will discuss the results and findings of the study.

40

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

The chapter presents an analysis of the data that was collected using primary information by use

of questionnaire. This contains details of; general information, presentation of data analysis,

interpretation and discussion of findings. Data presentation is organized based on the specific

objectives of the study. The study aimed to investigate the influence of brand personality on the

brand choice of Colgate Palmolive consumers in Nairobi. The findings begin with the response

rate, demographic data, descriptive analysis, correlation analysis, regression analysis and

discussions of the research findings.

4.1.1 Response Rate

In this study, the researcher distributed 130 questionnaires out of which 107 were filled and

returned. This represents a response rate of 82% as shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Response Rate

Questionnaires Number Percentage

Filled and collected 107 82%

Contained errors 13 10%

Non-responded 10 8%

Total 130 100%

4.2 General Information of Respondents

4.2.1Gender of Respondents

The researcher sought to determine the gender of the respondents, from the findings on Figure

4.1, drawn above, 53% are male while 47% are female implying that the males are the main

consumers of Colgate brand of toothpaste.

41

Figure 4.1 Gender of Respondents

4.2.2 Age of Respondents

The findings on figure 4.2 drawn below, revealed that a greater proportion of the respondents

55% were aged between 26-35 years, 26% were aged below 25 years and 15% were aged

between 36-45 years. This implies that the main consumers of Colgate are in the age bracket of

26-35 years, the toothpaste brand is not popular among individuals aged above 45 years where it

was only 4% of the total sample.

Figure 4.2 Age of Respondents

Male

53%

Female

47%

Gender of Respondents

Male Female

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

25 and below 26-35 36-45 46 and above

26%

55%

15%

4%

Age of Respondents

42

4.2.3 Area of Residency of Respondents

The data on table 4.2below shows the findings of the respondents‟ areas of residence, a greater

proportion 62% reside in Highrise Estate, followed by Siranga Estate with 22% and lastly the

Akila/Airport view estate which was 16%. In view of this majority of the respondents comes

from the Highrise estate where they were interviewed on the perceptions of the influence of the

brand personality on the brand choice of Colgate Palmolive consumers.

Table4.2 Area of Residency of Respondents

Area Sample size Frequency Percent

Akila/Airport view estate 33 17 52%

Highrise estate 100 67 67%

Siranga estate 33 23 70%

Total 166 107 64%

4.2.4Highest level of Academic Qualification

Findings on table 4.3 reveal that a greater proportion of the respondents 31% have bachelor‟s

Degree, followed by secondary and Primary with a representation of 30%, those with

College/University Diploma was 20%, those with College certificate was 14% while 5% have

master‟s degrees. This suggests that the respondents were well conversant with the issues

relating to brand quality, advertisement and therefore made right decision while choosing their

favorite tooth paste brand.

Table 4.3 Highest level of Academic Qualification

Education Level Frequency Percent

Secondary/Primary 33 30%

College certificate 15 14%

College/University Diploma 21 20%

Bachelor‟s Degree 33 31%

Master‟s Degree 5 5%

Total 107 100%

43

4.2.5 Regular use of Colgate Toothpaste

The researcher sought to know the regular use of Colgate toothpaste and the greater proportion

of the respondents use Colgate which they respondent yes with 96%, and the remaining said no

with 4% response. The figure 4.3 shows the summary of the findings of the study.

Figure 4.3 Regular use of Colgate Toothpaste

4.3 Descriptive Analysis

4.3.1. Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice

The research sought to find out the influence of brand sincerity on brand choice, findings on

table 4.4 on the „Colgate is Down to earth‟ the response was 17% Disagreed, 21% were neutral,

and 63% Agreed;„Colgate is Honest‟ the response was 7% Disagreed, 21% were neutral, and

73% Agreed;„Colgate is Wholesome‟ the response was 2% Disagreed, 11% were neutral, and

87% Agreed;„Colgate is Original‟ the response was 5% Disagreed, 7% were neutral, and 88%

Agreed; „Colgate is Realistic‟ the findings was 5% Disagreed, 17% were neutral, and 79%

Agreed;„Colgate is Cheerful‟ the findings was 6% Disagreed, 23% were neutral, and 72%

Agreed; „Colgate is Sentimental‟ the findings was 5% Disagreed, 15% were neutral, and 80%

Agreed.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes No

96%

4%

Regular use of Colgate Toothpaste

44

Other second part of questions on brand sincerity and brand choices, the responses were shown

on table 4.4 which were similar to first part, agreed as highly ranked. This shows Colgate seems

to be well established within the market having known as the brand of choice for the customers.

This implies that majority of the consumers believe Colgate is a sincere product and hence this

variable has a significant impact on the brand choice.

Table 4.4 Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

Colgate is Down to earth 7% 10% 21% 46% 17%

Colgate is Honest 1% 6% 21% 50% 23%

Colgate is Wholesome 1% 1% 11% 54% 33%

Colgate is Original 1% 4% 7% 37% 51%

Colgate is Realistic 1% 4% 17% 50% 29%

Colgate is Cheerful 1% 5% 23% 51% 21%

Colgate is Sentimental 2% 3% 15% 51% 29%

Sincere brands have high brand

attachment

.9 12.1 53.3 33.6

Sincere brands have lasting

impressions on consumers

2.8 2.8 54.2 40.2

Brand sincerity influences brand trust .9 .9 5.6 41.1 51.4

Brand sincerity enhances

differentiation

.9 5.6 9.3 49.5 34.6

I would purchase a sincere brand as

opposed to other brands

.9 .9 8.4 42.1 46.7

Sincere brands positively influence

brand loyalty

.9 .9 5.6 43.9 48.6

Sincere brands offer great satisfaction .9 .9 5.6 48.6 43.9

Sincere brands influence my purchase

intention

0.9 6.5 42.1 50.5

4.3.2. Influence of Brand Excitement Elements on Brand Choice

The research sought to find out the Influence of Brand Excitement on brand choice, findings on

table 4.5were as follow. On the „Colgate is Up to date‟ the response was 2% Disagreed, 5% were

neutral, and 93% Agreed; „Colgate is Cool‟ the response was 4% Disagreed, 15% were neutral,

and 82% Agreed;„Colgate is Spirited‟ the response was 10% Disagreed, 18% were neutral, and

45

73% Agreed; „Colgate is Daring‟ the response was 14% Disagreed, 21% were neutral, and 65%

Agreed; „Colgate is Contemporary‟ the findings was 4% Disagreed, 13% were neutral, and 83%

Agreed; „Colgate is Independent‟ the findings was 3% Disagreed, 12% were neutral, and 85%

Agreed.

Similarly, questions on brand excitement and brand personal choices were presented on table 4.5.

and all were ranked as agreed. This implies that the company has made efforts to ensure that

Colgate brand remains the most proffered brand by consumers since the level of the brand

excitement is very high to the consumers.

Table 4.5 Influence of Brand Excitement Elements on Brand Choice

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

Colgate is Up to date 1% 1% 5% 54% 39%

Colgate is Cool 1% 3% 15% 47% 35%

Colgate is Spirited 4% 6% 18% 53% 20%

Colgate is Daring 5% 9% 21% 39% 26%

Colgate is Contemporary 3% 1% 13% 53% 30%

Colgate is Independent 2% 1% 12% 42% 43%

Exciting brands have lasting

impressions on consumers

1.9 3.7 43.9 50.5

Brand excitement enhances

differentiation

.9 1.9 10.3 48.6 38.3

I would purchase an exciting

brand as opposed to other

brands

4.7 11.2 42.1 42.1

Exciting brands positively

influence brand loyalty

.9 3.7 9.3 45.8 40.2

Exciting brands offer great

satisfaction

.9 .9 8.4 41.1 48.6

Exciting brands influence my

purchase intention

.9 2.8 7.5 36.4 52.3

4.3.3. Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice

The research sought to find out the Influence of brand competence on brand choice, findings on

table 4.6 were as follow.„Colgate is Reliable‟ the response was 2% Disagreed, 6% were neutral,

46

and 93% Agreed; „Colgate is Secure‟ the response was 3% Disagreed, 9% were neutral, and 88%

Agreed; „Colgate is Hardworking‟ the response was 6% Disagreed, 18% were neutral, and 77%

Agreed; „Colgate is Successful‟ the response was 3% Disagreed, 9% were neutral, and 88%

Agreed; „Colgate is Leader‟ the findings was 4% Disagreed, 23% were neutral, and 73% Agreed;

„Colgate is Intelligent‟ the findings was 3% Disagreed, 15% were neutral, and 83% Agreed;

lastly, „Colgate is Technical‟ the findings was 4% Disagreed, 12% were neutral, and 84%

Agreed.

The second part of the question on influence of brand competence on brand choice was also

ranked as agreed as stipulated on table 4.6. This clearly shows Colgate as a brand has a very

strong presence on brand choice as all the variables were highly agreed.

Table 4.6 Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

Colgate is Reliable 0% 2% 6% 44% 49%

Colgate is Secure 0% 3% 9% 44% 44%

Colgate is Hardworking 1% 5% 18% 44% 33%

Colgate is Successful 0% 3% 9% 38% 50%

Colgate is Leader 1% 3% 23% 34% 39%

Colgate is Intelligent 1% 2% 15% 48% 35%

Colgate is Technical 0% 4% 12% 44% 40%

Competent brands have lasting

impressions on consumers

7.5 38.3 54.2

Brand personality enhances

brand image

.9 6.5 40.2 52.3

Brand competence enhances

differentiation

.9 .9 8.4 43.9 45.8

I would purchase a competent

brand as opposed to other

brands

1.9 6.5 41.1 50.5

Competent brands positively

influence brand loyalty

.9 1.9 6.5 31.8 58.9

Competent brands offer great

satisfaction

.9 5.6 39.3 54.2

Competent brands influence my

purchase intention

1.9 6.5 34.6 57.0

47

4.3.4. Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice

The research sought to find out the Influence of brand gender on brand choice, findings on table

4.7were as follow. „Masculine/Feminine brands offer great satisfaction‟ the response was 10%

Disagreed, 29% were neutral, and 61% Agreed; „Masculine/Feminine brands positively influence

brand loyalty‟ the response was 10% Disagreed, 29% were neutral, and 62% Agreed. On „the

purchase a masculine/feminine brand as opposed to other brands‟ the response was 17%

Disagreed, 28% were neutral, and 55% Agreed; „Masculine and feminine brands have lasting

impressions on consumers‟ the response was 8% Disagreed, 25% were neutral, and 67% Agreed;

on the „Masculine and feminine brand personality enhances differentiation‟ the findings was 8%

Disagreed, 28% were neutral, and 65% Agreed. Others were „Colgate is Cheerful‟ the findings

was 6% Disagreed, 23% were neutral, and 72% Agreed; and on the last question

„Masculine/feminine brands influence my purchase intention‟ the findings was 13% Disagreed,

24% were neutral, and 62% Agreed.

Table 4.7Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree

Masculine/Feminine brands offer

great satisfaction 0% 10% 29% 42% 19%

Masculine/Feminine brands positively

influence brand loyalty 2% 8% 29% 42% 20%

I would purchase a

masculine/feminine brand as opposed

to other brands 3% 14% 28% 32% 23%

Masculine and feminine brands have

lasting impressions on consumers 1% 7% 25% 45% 22%

Masculine and feminine brand

personality enhances differentiation 2% 6% 28% 43% 22%

Masculine/feminine brands influence

my purchase intention 2% 11% 24% 36% 26%

4.4. Inferential Statistics

Under inferential statistics, statistical tests carried to understand the data were Factor analysis,

Cronbach‟s alpha, Inter-item correlation, Normality test, and Multi-collinearity tests. Other tests

were correlation and regression model analysis.

48

4.4.1. Factor Analysis

Under factor analysis, three key tests were conducted; exploratory factor analysis (EFA), factor

pattern loading and lastly, commonality and rotational method.

4.4.1.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis

For EFA, questions that did not relate to construct were extracted from the analysis. Table 4.8

shows the factor derived Kaiser-Meyer result of 0.813(the closer to 1, the stronger the adequacy).

The Bartlett‟s test of Sphericity was significant at X2

(1326, N=52) = 4226.10, p<.05. The factor

was adequate for extraction of the component since Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure was greater

than 0.6 and the Bartlett‟s test was significant (p<.05).

Table 4.8 KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .813

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 4226.100

Df 1326

Sig. .000

4.4.1.2 Total Variance Explained

From Table 4.9, total of 4 factors were extracted from the variables in the study. The number of

factors were limited to four guided by the number of objectives of study. The exclusion criteria

was pair wise and absolute value of lower than .05 were suppressed from the variables. The

variance explained represents total of 52.55% of the sum of square loading with greater than 5%

variance of the Eigen values. Table 4.9 gives details of the variance explained (Appendix III).

4.4.1.3. Pattern Matrix and Communality

Communality measures the variance explained by all the combined factors of variables and is

interpreted as the reliability of the indicator. The stronger the value, the greater the communality

as lower value for less than 0.3 indicate that the variable is weak and not fit with other

components. Table 4.10 shows the factor loadings of the four components extracted; brand

sincerity (BS), brand excitement (BE), brand competency (BC) and brand gender (BG). Each of

these factors extracted had value of more than 0.5 indicating they were well loaded.

49

Table 4.10: Pattern Matrix and Communality

BE BS BC BG Communality

7BS .636 .567

9BS .590 .466

10BS .608 .392

11BS .534 .411

12BS .603 .566

13BS .593 .565

15BS .753 .490

16BS .663 .513

17BS .548 .454

18BS .624 .476

19BS .659 .558

20BS .760 .539

21BS .532 .413

22BS .677 .575

1BE .519 .383

2BE .639 .511

3BE .621 .496

5BE .591 .535

6BE .718 .599

9BE .619 .533

1BC .666 .551

2BC .608 .476

3BC .720 .699

4BC .691 .540

6BC .739 .610

7BC .831 .670

8BC .755 .626

9BC .645 .471

10BC .581 .497

11BC .775 .560

12BC .786 .700

13BC .837 .643

14BC .829 .657

1BG .585 .362

2BG .839 .692

3BG .917 .709

4BG .807 .670

5BG .800 .731

6BG .848 .753

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations.

50

4.4.1.4 Construct Reliability

Construct reliability was assessed using the Cronbach‟s alpha. The Cronbach alpha was .954

which was greater than .7 threshold indicating that all the variables in the study demonstrated

construct reliability as indicated in table 4.11.

Table 4.11 Construct Reliability

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on

Standardized Items

N of Items

.952 .954 52

4.4.1.5 Convergent Validity.

To evaluate convergent validity, the total statistics of the variable were used as outlined on table

4.12. From the table, the value range of measure was nearly similar with minimum of .904 and

maximum of .959. Further, the variance of the inter-item covariance and inter-item correlation

were nearly similar between .012 and .048. This indicates that the items measurement had

stronger point of agreement hence good validity.

Table 4.12Summary Total Statistics

Mean Minimum Maximum Range Maximum /

Minimum

Variance N of

Items

Item Variances .696 .402 1.361 .959 3.384 .048 52

Inter-Item

Covariances .192 -.116 .787 .904 -6.760 .012 52

Inter-Item

Correlations .284 -.142 .833 .974 -5.877 .021 52

4.4.1.6 Correlation Coefficient.

Correlation analysis was conducted to test the significant association between dependent and

independent variables. Pearson correlation coefficient denoted by R is used to measure the

strength of a linear relationship between two variables. R can take a range of +1 and -1, where

the score is zero it implies that there exists no association between the variables, where a score

below zero shows that the relationship between the variables is a negative one. As shown in table

51

4.13, all the variables were highly correlated. The dependent variable „brand choice‟ was

positively correlated with „BS‟ r (107) =.476, p<.05; „BE‟ r (107) =.404, p<.05; „BC‟ r (107)

=.571, p<.05; and „BG‟ r (107) =.634, p<.05.

4.4.1.7 Normality Test

Statistical tests of Skewness and kurtosis statistics were used to test the normality. Normality is

positive when Skewness and kurtosis statistics in the range -1.0 and + 1.0. As indicated on table

4.14, BC and BG as independent variables passed the normality test while brand choice as

dependent variable passed the normality test.

Table 4.13 Normality Test

BS BE BC BG Brand_Choice

Skewness -1.268 -1.180 -.831 -.435 -.931

Std. Error of Skewness .234 .234 .234 .234 .234

Kurtosis 4.346 2.604 .367 -.479 1.760

Std. Error of Kurtosis .463 .463 .463 .463 .463

4.4.1.8 Multicollinearity Test

Multicollinearity test was tested by the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). This was performed to

determine if the values of independent variables and dependent variables had higher similarity

that will affect their regression analysis. From table 4.14, the VIF values were more than 1 and

less than 10 hence the factors were not multi-collerated.

Table 4.14: VIF Test

Model Collinearity Statistics

Tolerance VIF

1

BS .675 1.481

BE .591 1.691

BC .793 1.260

BG .798 1.253

a. Dependent Variable: Brand_Choice

52

4.5 Regression Model

Regression analysis was used to determine the relationship, magnitude/projection of the

influence of personnel expertise, management capability, and infrastructure flexibility on firms‟

performance. The specific objectives to be answered by the linear regression were; to evaluate

the influence of brand sincerity on brand choice, to establish the influence of brand excitement

elements on brand choice, to establish the influence of brand competence on brand choice and

lastly to establish the influence of brand gender on brand choice.

4.5.1. Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice

From the model summary table 4.16a, the value of variance R2 = 0.227, F (1, 105) =30.816, p-

value = 0.001. This shows that 22.7% of brand Sincerity is influenced by brand Choice while the

remaining 77.3% of brand choice were attributed to other factors other than brand sincerity.

Table 4.15a: Model Summary

Model R R

Square

Adjusted

R Square

Std. Error

of the

Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square

Change

F

Change

df1 df2 Sig. F

Change

1 .476a .227 .220 .50780 .227 30.816 1 105 .000

a. Predictors: (Constant), BS

ANOVA shows whether the regression model was fit to determine the predictor than using the

mean comparison. The ANOVA table 4.15b, the regression model was suitable for predicting the

outcome variable other than the mean outcome: F(1, 7.946) = 30.816, p<.05).

Table 4.15b: ANOVA Table

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

1

Regression 7.946 1 7.946 30.816 .000b

Residual 27.076 105 .258

Total 35.022 106

a. Dependent Variable: Brand_Choice

b. Predictors: (Constant), BS

Table 4.16c shows the regression coefficients model. The output shows brand sincerity

statistically predicted brand choice (β = .476, (.540) t = 5.551, p<.05. This means, one unit of

53

increase in brand sincerity increased the brand choice by .476. Table 4.15c shows the result of

the regression coefficient.

Brand Choice= 1.868 + 0.540 𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦.

Table 4.15c: Coefficient Table.

Model Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. 95.0% Confidence

Interval for B

B Std. Error Beta Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

1 (Constant) 1.868 .412 4.533 .000 1.051 2.686

BS .540 .097 .476 5.551 .000 .347 .732

a. Dependent Variable: Brand_Choice

4.5.2. Influence of Brand Excitement on Brand Choice

From the model summary table 4.16a, the value of variance R2 = 0.164, F (1, 105) =20.525, p-

value = 0.001. This shows that 16.4% of brand excitement is influenced by brand choice while

the remaining 83.6%% of brand choice were attributed to other factors other than brand

excitement.

Table 4.16a: Model Summary

Model R R

Square

Adjusted

R Square

Std. Error

of the

Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square

Change

F

Change

df1 df2 Sig. F

Change

1 .404a .164 .156 .52821 .164 20.525 1 105 .000

a. Predictors: (Constant), BE

ANOVA shows whether the regression model was fit to determine the predictor than using the

mean comparison. The ANOVA table 4.16b, the regression model was suitable for predicting the

outcome variable other than the mean outcome: F(1, 5.727) = 20.525, p<.05).

54

Table 4.16b: ANOVA Table

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

1

Regression 5.727 1 5.727 20.525 .000b

Residual 29.296 105 .279

Total 35.022 106

a. Dependent Variable: Brand_choice

b. Predictors: (Constant), BE

Table 4.16c shows the regression coefficients model. The output shows brand excitement

statistically predicted brand choice (β = .404, (.381) t = 7.242, p<.05. This means, one unit of

increase in brand excitement increased the brand choice by .381. Table 4.16c shows the result of

the regression coefficient.

Brand Choice= 2.557 + 0.381 𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡.

Table 4.16c: Coefficient Table

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 2.557 .353 7.242 .000

BE .381 .084 .404 4.530 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Brand_choice

4.5.3. Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice

From the model summary table 4.17a, the value of variance R2 = 0.327, F (1, 105) =50.925, p-

value = 0.001. This shows that 32.7% of brand competence is influenced by brand Choice while

the remaining 67.3%% of brand choice were attributed to other factors other than brand

competence.

Table 4.17a: Model Summary

Model R R

Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square

Change

F

Change

df1 df2 Sig. F

Change

1 .571a .327 .320 .47393 .327 50.925 1 105 .000

a. Predictors: (Constant), BC

55

ANOVA shows whether the regression model was fit to determine the predictor than using the

mean comparison. The ANOVA table 4.17b, the regression model was suitable for predicting the

outcome variable other than the mean outcome: F(1, 11.438) = 50.925, p<.05).

Table 4.17b: ANOVA Table

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

1

Regression 11.438 1 11.438 50.925 .000b

Residual 23.584 105 .225

Total 35.022 106

a. Dependent Variable: Brand choice

b. Predictors: (Constant), BC

Table 4.17c shows the regression coefficients model. The output shows brand competence

statistically predicted brand choice (β = .571, (.588) t = 7.136, p<.05. This means, one unit of

increase in brand competence increased the brand choice by .588. Table 4.17c shows the result of

the regression coefficient.

Brand Choice= 1.532 + .588 𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒.

Table 4.17c: Coefficient Table

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 1.532 .368 4.160 .000

BC .588 .082 .571 7.136 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Brand_choice

4.5.4. Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice

From the model summary table 4.19a, the value of variance R2 = 0.402, F (1, 105) =70.602, p-

value = 0.001. This shows that 40.2% of brand gender is influenced by brand choice while the

remaining 59.8% of brand choice were attributed to other factors other than brand gender.

56

Table 4.18a: Model Summary

Model R R

Square

Adjusted

R Square

Std. Error

of the

Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square

Change

F

Change

df1 df2 Sig. F

Change

1 .634a .402 .396 .44659 .402 70.602 1 105 .000

a. Predictors: (Constant), BG

ANOVA shows whether the regression model was fit to determine the predictor than using the

mean comparison. The ANOVA table 4.18b, the regression model was suitable for predicting the

outcome variable other than the mean outcome: F(1, 14.081) = 70.602, p<.05).

Table 4.18b. ANOVA Table

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1

Regression 14.081 1 14.081 70.602 .000b

Residual 20.941 105 .199

Total 35.022 106

a. Dependent Variable: Brand_choice

b. Predictors: (Constant), BG

Table 4.18c shows the regression coefficients model. The output shows brand gender statistically

predicted brand choice (β = .634, (.449) t = 8.403, p<.05. This means, one unit of increase in

brand on gender increased the brand choice by .449. Table 4.18c shows the result of the

regression coefficient.

Brand Choice= 4.605 +× 0.289 𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟.

Table 4.18c: Coefficient Table

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 2.470 .203 12.145 .000

BG .449 .053 .634 8.403 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Brand_choice

57

4.6 Chapter Summary

The chapter looks at the demographic information of the respondents including the age, gender,

and education qualification. Objective one was to evaluate the influence of brand sincerity on

brand choice and the equation developed was= 1.868 + 0.540 brand sincerity. The second

equation was to establish the influence of brand excitement elements on brand choice and the

equation was= 2.557 + 0.381 Brand Excitement. The third objective was to establish the

influence of brand competence on brand choice and the equation

was= 1.532 + .588 Brand Competence. Lastly, to establish the influence of brand gender on

brand choice with the equation= 4.605 +× 0.289 Brand Gender. From the findings of the study

the consumers of the Colgate Palmolive tend to agree with the research variables thus the impact

of brand personality on brand choice is majorly high among the consumers in this areas. The

next chapter will discuss more on the research findings by giving summary of the study,

discussion, conclusions, and recommendations of the study.

58

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

The purpose of the study is to establish the influence of brand personality on the brand choice of

Colgate Palmolive consumers in Nairobi. The chapter will also draw conclusions from the

findings and make appropriate recommendations

5.2 Summary

The purpose of the study is to establish the influence of brand personality on the brand choice of

Colgate Palmolive consumers in Nairobi. The study was conducted by seeking to investigate the

following research objectives. To evaluate the influence of brand sincerity on brand choice; to

establish the influence of brand excitement on brand choice; to establish the influence of brand

competence on brand choice and to establish the influence of brand gender on brand choice.

The research was done using post-test descriptive research design to pursue the objectives of the

study, with no influence on the sample. This was helpful in gathering information about the

variables and to determine the effect on brand choice. A questionnaire with 57 questions was

distributed to the selected sample of respondents using hard paper copies by hand. Responses

were collected between January and April 2018. Descriptive analysis was performed on the data

collected for each of the research question and then inferential statistical analysis was done

thereafter. This included exploratory factor analysis, convergent validity testing, reliability and t-

tests.

On objective one the correlation finding indicates variables were highly correlated; „brand

choice‟ was positively correlated with „BS‟ r (107) =.476, p<.05. The regression finding shows

the value of variance R2 = 0.227, F (1, 105) =30.816, p-value = 0.001. indicating that 22.7% of

brand Sincerity is influenced by brand Choice while the remaining 77.3% of brand choice were

attributed to other factors other than brand sincerity. The coefficients model output shows brand

sincerity statistically predicted brand choice (β = .476, (.540) t = 5.551, p<.05. This means, one

unit of increase in brand sincerity increased the brand choice by .476. Table 4.15c shows the

result of the regression coefficient.

59

On „BE‟, the correlation finding indicates variables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟ was

positively correlated with „BE‟ r (107) =.404, p<.05; the regression finding shows the value of

variance R2 = 0.164, F (1, 105) =20.525, p-value = 0.001. This shows that 16.4% of brand

excitement is influenced by brand choice while the remaining 83.6% of brand choice were

attributed to other factors other than brand excitement. The coefficients model output shows

brand excitement statistically predicted brand choice (β = .404, (.381) t = 7.242, p<.05. This

means, one unit of increase in brand excitement increased the brand choice by .381. Table 4.16c

shows the result of the regression coefficient.

On „BC‟, the correlation finding indicates variables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟ was

positively correlated with „BC‟ r (107) =.571, p<.05; the regression finding shows the value of

variance R2 = 0.327, F (1, 105) =50.925, p-value = 0.001. This shows that 32.7% of brand

competence is influenced by brand Choice while the remaining 67.3% of brand choice were

attributed to other factors other than brand competence. The coefficients model output shows

brand competence statistically predicted brand choice (β = .571, (.588) t = 7.136, p<.05. This

means, one unit of increase in brand competence increased the brand choice by .588. Table 4.17c

shows the result of the regression coefficient.

Lastly on „BG‟, the correlation finding indicates variables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟

was positively correlated with „BG‟ r (107) =.634, p<.05. The regression finding shows the

value of variance R2 = 0.402, F (1, 105) =70.602, p-value = 0.001. This shows that 40.2% of

brand gender is influenced by brand choice while the remaining 59.8% of brand choice were

attributed to other factors other than brand gender. The coefficients model output shows Table

4.19c shows the regression coefficients model. The output shows brand gender statistically

predicted brand choice (β = .634, (.449) t = 8.403, p<.05. This means, one unit of increase in

brand on gender increased the brand choice by .449. Table 4.18c shows the result of the

regression coefficient.

5.3 Discussion

5.3.1 The Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice

The first objective of the study was to establish the influence of brand sincerity on brand choice.

The results showed that the variables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟ was positively

60

correlated with „BS‟ r (107) =.476, p<.05. The regression finding shows the value of variance R2

= 0.227, F (1, 105) =30.816, p-value = 0.001 indicating that 22.7% of brand Sincerity is

influenced by brand Choice while the remaining 77.3%% of brand choice were attributed to

other factors other than brand sincerity. The coefficients model output shows brand sincerity

statistically predicted brand choice (β = .476, (.540) t = 5.551, p<.05. This means, one unit of

increase in brand sincerity increased the brand choice by .476.

A study by Cuevas (2016) on exploring brand personality within the blogosphere found that

consumers identify a brand as sincere when their expectations for positive experiences are met.

Moreover consumer brand choice was positively influenced by a brand which provides

consumers with personal selling and guarantees such as positive service experiences and

promotional incentives, both contribute to the perceived sincerity of a brand (Maehle et al.,

2011). The findings are similar to this study‟s finding that „BS‟ influences „BC‟.

A study conducted in Malaysian university among laptop users found that the „BS‟ dimension

played a key role when it comes to influencing their brand choice. Majority of the users associate

themselves with the sincerity dimension, while Laptop non-users were more intrigued by brands

that had the ruggedness dimension. It clearly indicated the differences that existed in perceived

brand personality associated with laptop between users and non users, this implies that

consumers‟ perception of brand personality of a brand will certainly differ and this could be

influenced by their direct involvement with the brand (Mohd, 2012). The findings are similar to

this study‟s finding that BS influences BC.

A study by Mohd (2012) established that different types of brand personalities exert different

responses from consumers in terms of loyalty and feedback to the brand‟s actions. Sincere

brands tend to develop longer and more loyal relationships from customers, strengthening with

time, while more exciting brands tend to be perceived as more short-term oriented. Whenever

there are transgressions committed by brands, relationships with sincere brands tend to be

severely affected while with exciting brands these tend to become less and sometimes even re-

energized. Specific brand personalities are associated with particular product categories (Maehle,

Otnes & Supphellen, 2011), for instance, as the authors support, sincere brands are commonly

associated with morals and family-values, exciting brands to special occasions and new feelings,

competent brands are associated with quality and expertise. The study further validated the above

61

findings demonstrating that brand sincerity not only influences brand choice but further

influences brand loyalty.

Eisend and Stokburger-Sauer (2013) examined the antecedents and consequences of brand

personality traits as defined by Aaker (1997). They found that the major contributors to brand

personality were marketing communications with hedonic benefit claims, branding activities that

support the creation of a unique brand entity, a brand‟s country of origin, and the personalities of

the consumers themselves. Moreover, the brand personality dimensions of competence and

sincerity seemed to have the strongest influence on the success of a brand. Consequently, there is

meta-analysis level evidence to suggest that brand personality does have powerful implications

for marketing and managerial practice and is thus a construct that warrants further study. The

study further validated these findings showing that brand sincerity significantly influenced brand

choice.

5.3.2 The Influence of Brand Excitement on Brand Choice

On „BE‟, the correlation finding indicates variables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟ was

positively correlated with „BE‟ r (107) =.404, p<.05; the regression finding shows the value of

variance R2 = 0.164, F (1, 105) =20.525, p-value = 0.001. This shows that 16.4% of brand

excitement is influenced by brand choice while the remaining 83.6% of brand choice were

attributed to other factors other than brand excitement. The coefficients model output shows

brand excitement statistically predicted brand choice (β = .404, (.381) t = 7.242, p<.05. This

means, one unit of increase in brand excitement increased the brand choice by .381.

A second personality type that has received increased marketing attention is that of the exciting

brand built around qualities of energy and youthfulness (Aaker, 1997). Exciting brands,

including such exemplars as Yahoo, Virgin Atlantic, and MTV, attempt differentiation through

unique and memorable advertising, a typical brand logo, and hip language. Brands have pursued

exciting personalities when chasing younger demographics e.g., Mountain Dew‟s “Do the Dew”

campaign, repositioning for increased cultural vitality e.g., BMW‟s “Driving Excitement”

campaign, and seeking differentiation against incumbent market leaders e.g., Dr. Pepper vs.

Pepsi and Coca-Cola. Global brands that have pursued the excitement dimension have done

62

exceedingly well in shaping consumer brand choice and satisfaction. The findings coincide with

this study‟s finding that „BE‟ influences „BC‟.

Consumer based brand personality requires that a brand elicits a certain range of excitement with

consumers. Tesfom and Birch (2011) define excitement as the state of being elated, and longing

for a given product or brand. Some of the attributes a brand has to possess to be regarded as

exciting is being trendy, and daring. According to Consuegra et al. (2008) a trendy brand is a

brand that gains wider acceptability due to its fashion sense, usability, or even aesthetic value. In

FMCG branding, an organization has to ensure that its products are able to push the trendy

aspects of a product or brand to consumers. This can be accomplished through graphical

modulation of a product branding. Equally, Hoq and Amin (2010) noted that a product that is

daring in aesthetic value, usability and design has the potential to create brand awareness, and as

a result, shape consumers brand choice. Locally, Colgate Palmolive was the first toothpaste

brand to introduce the herbal toothpaste on a mass scale which was marketed through exciting

televised advertisements that shaped brand choice. The findings are similar to this study‟s

finding that „BE‟ influences „BC‟.

Consumers view a brand as exciting when exposed to aesthetically pleasing material such as

regular new clothing styles or the communication of excitement through advertisements

involving exciting experiences (Maehle et al., 2011). Coca Cola Company has repeatedly

presented itself as a socially engaged brand, showcasing to consumers vivid images of friends

drinking Coca Cola brands amid festivities (Maehle et al., 2011). In regards to human brands,

methods of excitement may include bestselling authors‟ delivering plot twists to captivate

readers (Opoku et al., 2007). Similarly, fashion bloggers share a visual insight in the domain of

apparel, a daring liveliness essential to capturing consumer interest online (McQuarrie et al.,

2012). Research demonstrates that emotions such as excitement play a critical role in consumer

experience, influencing perceptions, consumer engagement and ultimately brand choice (Hwang

& Lim, 2015). The findings are similar to this study‟s finding that BE influences BC.

Aaker (1997) found that the brand excitement dimension is related with the human personality

dimension of extraversion, whereby both share characteristics of sociability and kindness. Brand

excitement is expressed by traits such as advanced, energetic, exceptional, composed and

courageous. Gil and Hellgren (2011) argued that, if the brand is associated with characteristics of

63

exceptional, it means customers will be attracted to buying the product because it is perceived to

be unique from others. Anja and Daniel (2011) conducted study on the Impact of Brand

personality on brand trust and brand choice of four products i.e. Nike, Apple, Mercedes Benz

and Ikea. The comparative study used non probability sampling techniques specifically

convenient sampling method to select 317 respondents from Germany and Sweden, the outcome

of the study showed that the brand personality dimensions of sincerity and competence could

explain better brand trust while the excitement dimension explained better brand choice. The

findings are similar to this study‟s finding that „BE‟ influences „BC‟.

5.3.3 The Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice

On „BC‟, the correlation finding indicates variables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟ was

positively correlated with „BC‟ r (107) =.571, p<.05; the regression finding shows the value of

variance R2 = 0.327, F (1, 105) =50.925, p-value = 0.001. This shows that 32.7% of brand

competence is influenced by brand Choice while the remaining 67.3% of brand choice were

attributed to other factors other than brand competence. The coefficients model output shows

brand competence statistically predicted brand choice (β = .571, (.588) t = 7.136, p<.05. This

means, one unit of increase in brand competence increased the brand choice by .588. Table 4.18c

shows the result of the regression coefficient.

Wirunphan and Ussahawanitchakit (2016) conducted a study on the cosmetic industry in

Thailand and established that organizations want to build their competence in few key areas and

to deal with their brand within these domains. The study further established that it is the duty of

every marketer to meet customers‟ exact demands which are related to their products.

Organizations should not create suspicion in the consumers‟ mind about brand competence.

Consumers must be persuaded to obtain a relation to the brand competence dimension. The study

also found that companies that make use of key opinion leaders and personas who are viewed as

authorities in particular areas, to present them as brand ambassadors and representatives; for

instance highly qualified engineers for technical tools and renowned physicians to represent

pharmaceutical products had greater breakthroughs towards influencing brand choice of

consumers. The findings are similar to this study‟s finding that brand competence influences

brand choice.

64

Aaker (1999) established that the brand competence dimension entails that a brand had proven,

to consumers, its ability to deliver repeatedly. A strong brand personality leads to brand

competence that is unique, strong, favorable and congruent in the minds of consumers. A brand

intending to use this dimension as part of its personality traits must be able to align itself to

depict a quality of reliability, intelligence and success. This creates a high level of satisfaction to

consumers who patronize such business organizations. Brand competence plays an enormous

role in shaping brand choice in the service industry such especially in the banking sector. It is a

major factor or traits for differentiating items and influencer of brand choice (Aaker, 1999). The

findings are similar to this study‟s finding that brand competence influences brand choice.

Huang, Wang, and Gong (2014) conducted empirical research on the brand personality of Smart

phones in China. The study involved 1335 online customers. Findings from the study revealed

that, building the brand personality dimensions of competence and excitement helped improve

the brand value of smart phones and greatly influencing brand choice. Moreover, the study also

found that competence and excitement were personality dimensions of successful smart phone

brands. Brands with these two aspects of personality were found to be widely accepted by

consumers. The findings are similar to this study‟s finding that brand competence influences

brand choice.

A recent study by Wirunphan and Ussahawanitchakit (2016) revealed that brands known for

competence create an image of reliability, responsibility, dependability, intelligence, efficiency

and success. Companies that market their brands using this dimension can compete with brands

marketed for their excitement by presenting an alternative value. Brands within the automotive

industries for example, often compete in a fight that pits competence dimension vs. excitement.

This can be elaborated by the example of a car that will safely deliver a family home through a

violent storm will totally differentiate itself from a swift, sleek automobile that has fantasies of

winning racing championships for its owners. In the information-technology industry, companies

may compete with a brand that promises the competence dimension and the excitement

dimension simultaneously. The study gave the example of Microsoft cooperation which was able

to brand the Surface tablet as a cutting-edge device with the capability to fully replicate the

functions of a laptop however still within an exciting, streamlined design. The findings are

similar to this study‟s finding that brand competence significantly influences brand choice.

65

5.3.4 The Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice

Lastly on „BG‟, the correlation finding indicates variables were highly correlated; „brand choice‟

was positively correlated with „BG‟ r (107) =.634, p<.05. The regression finding shows the

value of variance R2 = 0.402, F (1, 105) =70.602, p-value = 0.001. This shows that 40.2% of

brand gender is influenced by brand choice while the remaining 59.8% of brand choice were

attributed to other factors other than brand gender. The coefficients model output shows Table

4.19c shows the regression coefficients model. The output shows brand gender statistically

predicted brand choice (β = .634, (.449) t = 8.403, p<.05. This means, one unit of increase in

brand on gender increased the brand choice by .449. Table 4.19c shows the result of the

regression coefficient.

A study by Azar (2013) established that in recent years, launches of worldwide products and

brands based on gender distinctions have been carried out leading to new managerial concerns

about brand gender. To appeal to male consumers, brand managers are attributing a masculine

sexual identity for traditionally non sex-typed brands and products. That was the case of Coca-

Cola when launching Coke Zero destined to men. Pepsi Co. followed the same approach by

launching Pepsi Max for the same target group, the duo registered high sales signifying that

brand gender actually has a direct effect on brand choice. The findings are similar to this study‟s

finding that brand gender influences brand choice.

Grohmann (2009) defined the gender dimensions of brand personality as the “set of human

personality traits associated with masculinity and femininity applicable and relevant to brands”.

They are particularly important to brands with symbolic value for consumers. Previous research

suggested that strongly gendered brands positively influence brand trust, brand choice, brand

loyalty, and the likelihood of WOM communication (Grohmann, 2009). Therefore, we assume

that a clear brand gender positioning i.e. high levels of brand masculinity or brand femininity

positively influences consumer engagement with the brand on social media, and also love

towards this brand. Moreover, brands with high levels of masculinity and femininity tend to be

associated with a higher brand equity and greatly shape brand choice (Lieven et al., 2014). The

findings are similar to this study‟s finding that brand gender influences brand choice.

66

Kraft and Weber (2012) conducted a study on the implication of gender differences to marketing.

Their findings established that three companies that used the gender dimension to create brand

personality effectively were Apple, Volvo, and Whole Foods. All three had a personality that

appealed to women in a manner that feminine consumers felt they can trust the products, the

products were worth the price and were able to command a market premium. Apple is

consistently delivering on their market promise of easy to use, high quality, and a passionate

lifestyle. Volvo has taken women‟s input and developed key elements important to women such

as color-coding fluid lids and easy to load trunks. They have also focused on safety and

dependability in their marketing message and delivered on that promise. Alternatively, Whole

Foods has put a focus on delivering a pleasant shopping atmosphere with friendly sales staff,

high quality healthy foods, and hard-to find products (Heermann, 2010). Each of these

companies have conducted research on what is important to the women they wish to serve and

focused in on providing superior results in those areas. These companies do not just talk a good

marketing game but back up their promises and continue to build relationships with women, this

further highlights the growing influence of brand gender on brand choice. The findings are

similar to this study‟s finding that brand gender influences brand choice.

5.4 Conclusions

5.4.1 The Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice

The study revealed that brand Sincerity is a statistically significant predictor of brand choice.

Therefore, a positive increase in sincerity positively affected brand choice. Brand sincerity also

proved to have significant influence on brand loyalty with a mean of 4.38. The management of

Colgate Palmolive should therefore aim at including the sincerity element in their adverts and in

customer‟s minds in order to have frequent and loyal customers.

5.4.2 The Influence of Brand Excitement on Brand Choice

The study shows that brand excitement is a statistically significant predictor of brand choice.

Therefore, a positive increase in excitement positively affected brand choice. The study also

revealed that products with the brand excitement dimension had lasting impressions on

customers with a mean of 4.41. Marketing managers need to incorporate the excitement

67

personalities to their brands to appeal more to the consumers. Up to date, independent and trendy

brands gain wider acceptability due to their fashion sense, usability, or even aesthetic value.

5.4.3 The Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice

Findings revealed that there is a significant positive correlation between Brand competence and

Brand choice (0.377). Therefore, a positive increase in competence positively affected brand

choice. Based on the study, brand competence also had a significant influence on customer

satisfaction and greatly influenced the purchase intention of respondents with both having a

mean of 4.47. Being already the market leader in Kenya, Colgate Palmolive should further

leverage on the Competence dimension to stay ahead of competitors in the market.

5.4.4 The Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice

The study revealed there was a positive correlation between brand gender and brand choice

(0.896). The study also revealed that masculine and feminine brands have lasting impressions on

consumers with a mean of 3.81. Brands which explored the gender dimension as a personality

greatly differentiated themselves from competitors with a mean of 3.77. Strongly gendered

brands also positively influence brand trust, brand choice and brand loyalty. Brands which would

like to use this dimension should however ensure that their products and services have a clear

brand gender positioning i.e. high levels of brand masculinity or brand femininity which

positively influence consumer engagement with the brand, and also love towards this brand.

Colgate Palmolive may not have used this dimension in a wholesome manner which may be

costing them a market segment that could increase their market share further.

5.5 Recommendations

5.5.1 Recommendations for Improvement

5.5.1.1 The Influence of Brand Sincerity on Brand Choice

As it has been observed that a positive increase in sincerity positively affects brand choice. The

management should therefore aim at including the brand sincerity dimension in their promotion

mix to ensure the product constantly communicates to customers the personality they want to

identify with. Therefore, companies need to have genuine commitment by looking to create

products and services which should solve a genuine need to the consumers through

68

manufacturing of quality products and rely on marketing which accurately outline the product

benefits.

5.5.1.2 The Influence of Brand Excitement on Brand Choice

To effectively embed the brand excitement dimension, the marketing team ought to build and

develop a creative and compelling story to share with the consumers. This should be presented in

a way that resonates well with consumers. Consumer based brand personality requires that a

brand elicits a certain range of excitement with consumers. An exciting brand is a brand that

gains wider acceptability due to its fashion sense, usability, or even aesthetic value. In FMCG

branding, an organization has to ensure that its products are able to push the trendy aspects of a

product or brand to consumers. Consumers view a brand as exciting when exposed to

aesthetically pleasing material such as regular new clothing styles and designs or the

communication of excitement through promotion involving exciting experiences. Brands should

also seek to be socially engaged on various platforms to constantly interact with consumers.

5.5.1.3 The Influence of Brand Competence on Brand Choice

Companies that market their brands using this dimension can compete with brands marketed for

their excitement by presenting an alternative value. Competent brands should have the capability

to interpret customers‟ troubles and to meet their respective needs. It should be the duty of every

marketer to meet customers‟ exact demands which are related to their products. Organizations

should not create suspicion in the consumers‟ mind about brand competence. Consumers must be

persuaded to obtain a relation to the brand competence dimension. Marketers can make use of

key opinion leaders and personas who are viewed as authorities in particular areas, to present

them as brand ambassadors and representatives of their brand; for instance highly qualified

engineers can be brand ambassadors for technical tools and renowned physicians and

pharmacists can represent pharmaceutical products.

5.5.1.4 The Influence of Brand Gender on Brand Choice

Gendered personality approach to brands plays a central role in the study of brand personality. In

recent years, launches of worldwide products and brands based on gender distinctions have been

carried out leading to new managerial concerns about brand gender. Gender dimensions of

69

personality are especially relevant to brands that have symbolic value for consumers attempting

to reinforce their own masculinity and femininity e.g., personal care, fragrance, apparel brands.

Marketers should strive to define and create a clear brand gender positioning i.e. high levels of

brand masculinity or brand femininity positively influences consumer engagement. Moreover,

brands with high levels of masculinity and femininity tend to be associated with higher brand

equity. Men and women traditionally approach purchasing decisions very differently. However

with time, changes in view of men and women and their role both at home and in society have

played a big role in changing the types of products that can effectively be marketed to both

gender. As a result marketers should therefore be cautious and conduct extensive research on

what is important to both men and women they wish to serve and focus on providing superior

results in those areas. The brand gender dimension should be well crafted as strongly gendered

brands not only influence brand choice but also positively influence brand trust and brand

loyalty.

5.5.2 Recommendations for Further Studies

Future researchers and practitioners would also benefit from the study since it will broaden and

deepen their understanding on how brand personality can influence customers brand choice of

fast moving consumer goods more specifically healthcare and hygiene products such as

toothpastes. Previous studies in developed countries have established that there is a significant

relationship between brand personality and brand choice. In Kenya‟s context, studies have

revealed that brand personality have a significant relationship with brand choice. However, these

studies had both conceptual and methodological gap which ought to be addressed. Previous

studies on brand personality have also largely focused on electronic products such as Laptops

and television sets ignoring the competitive FMCG industry that has rapidly grown over the

years. This study filled those gaps by employing a cross-sectional survey and explored a

descriptive research design. The study also contributes to empirical literature by revealing that

four brand personality variables; brand sincerity, brand excitement, brand competence and brand

gender, have significant influence on brand choice of Colgate Palmolive products in Kenya.

70

REFERENCES

Aaker, L. J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research. 34(3),

347-356.

Aaker D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California

Management Review,38,102-120.

Aaker, J. L. (1999). The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion. Journal of

Marketing Research, 36(1), 43-57.

Aaker, J., Fournier, S. & Brasel, S.A. (2004). When good brands do bad, Journal ofConsumer

Research, 31, 1-16.

Abdul, A., & Rehman, A. (2015). Impact of customer satisfaction on brand loyalty: An empirical

analysis of home appliances in Pakistan. Journal of Marketing Studies, 2, 18-32.

Achouri, A.,& Bouslama, N. (2010). The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality

and Self-Image on Consumer‟s Satisfaction and Loyalty. Ibima Business Review, 17.

Anderson, C. (2012). The Personal Sense of Power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313-344.

Andreani, F., Taniaji, T., Natalia, R., & Puspitasari, M. (2012). The Impact of Brand Image

Towards Loyalty with Satisfaction as A Mediator in McDonald's. Journal of Marketing,

14(1), 64-71.

Ang, S. H., & Lim, E. A. (2013). The influence of metaphors and product type on brand

personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 35(2).

Anja, G., Gil, M.,& Daniel H., (2011). Brand Personality: Impact on Brand Trust and

ConsumerPreferences; A comparative study of Germany and Sweden(Unpublished

thesis). Quirk's e-newsletter

Anisimova, T.A. (2007). The effects of corporate brand attributes on attitudinal and behavioral

consumer loyalty. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(7), 395-405.

Azar, S. (2013). Exploring brand masculine patterns: moving beyond monolithic masculinity.

Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(7).

Baker, H. (2012). Are Good Performers Bad Acquirers?Journal of Financial Management,

41(1), 95-118.

Batra, R., Lenk, W., & Wedel, M. (2010). Brand Extension Strategy Planning: Empirical

Estimation of Brand–Category Personality Fit and Atypicality. Journal of Marketing

Research, 47(2), 335-347.

71

Bao, J., & Sweeney, J. (2009). Comparing Factor Analytical and Circumplex Models of Brand

Personality in Brand Positioning. Psychology and Marketing, 26(10), 927 - 949

Belaid, S., & Behi, T. (2011). The role of attachment in building consumer brand relationships.

Journal of Product of Brand Management, 20(1).

Beldona, S., & Wysong, S. (2007). Putting the “brand” back into store brands: an exploratory

examination of store brands and brand personality. Emerald Journals, 16(4) 226-235.

Bennett, R., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2002). A comparison of attitudinal loyalty measurement

approaches. Journal of Brand Management, 9(3), 193-209.

Bennett, R., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2005). The brand loyalty lifecycle: Implications for marketers.

Journal of Brand Management, 12(4), 432.

Blankson, C., Ye, L., & Pelton, L. (2015). Gender, Self, and Brand: A Cross-Cultural Study on

Gender Identity and Consumerbased Brand Equity. Marketing Journals.

Bouhlel, O., Mzoughi, N., Hadiji, & Slimane I.B. (2011). Brand Personality's Influence on the

Purchase Intension. A Mobile Marketing Case. International Journal for Business and

Management.

Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, H, & Zarantonello, L. (2009). “Brand Experience: What is It? How is It

Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing ,73(3), 52–68.

Branaghan, R. J., & Hildebrand, E.A. (2011). Brand Personality, Self-Congruity, and Preference:

AKnowledge Structures Approach. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 10(5), 304–312.

Bruwer, J., & Buller, C. (2005). Country-of-origin brand preferences and associated knowledge

levels of Japanese wine consumers. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 25(1),

307–316.

Buresti, F.,& Rosenberger, P. (2006). Brand Personality Differentiation in the Australian Action

Sports Clothing Market. Marketing Bulletin.

Burmann, C., Jost-Benz, M.,& Riley, N. (2009). Towards an identity-based brand equity model.

Journal ofBusiness Research, 62, 390-397.

Chang, K. S., Park, J. Y., & Choi, I. H. (2001). The Influence of Self-Congruity between Brand

Personality and Self-Image on Attitude toward Brand. Korean Journal of Marketing,

3(2), 92-114.

Ciftyıldız S.S.,& Sütütemiz, N. (2007). Tüketici İlgisinin Marka Baglılıgına Etkisi. Kocaeli

University.The Journal of Social Science, 13(1), 37-55.

72

Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2009). Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and

Postgraduate Students. Palgrave Macmillan.

Consuegra, N., Collado, N., & Esteban A. (2008). An integrated model of price, satisfaction and

loyalty: An empirical analysis in the service sector. Journal of Product & Brand

Management 16(7).

Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2014). Business Research Methods (12th ed.)McGraw-Hill

Education.

Cresswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods

Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cuevas, L. (2016).Fashion Bloggers as Human Brands; Exploring Brand Personality within the

Blogosphere(Doctoral Dissertation).Retrieved from

https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/6351

Das, G. (2014). Store personality and consumer store choice behavior: an empirical examination.

Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 32 (3), 375-394.

Daulatram, B. L. (2008). Gender differences in ethics judgment of marketing professionals in the

United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(4), 501-515

Deloitte Analytics Trend (2015). Retrieved from:

http://public.deloitte.com/media/analytics/trends/pdf/us-da-analytics-

analyticstrends2015.pdf

Durrheim, K., & Blance, M. (2004). Research in Practice. Software publications limited.

Eisend, M., & Stokburger, N. E. (2013). Brand personality: A meta-analytic review of

antecedents and consequences. Marketing Letters, 24(3), 205-216.

Escalas, J. E.,& Bettman, J. (2009). “You Are What They Eat: The Influence of Reference

Groups on Consumers‟ Connections to Brands.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13

(3), 339–48.

Fournier, S., (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer

research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-353.

Freling, T.H.,& Forbes, L. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. The

Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(7), 404-413.

Freling, T. H., Crosno, J. L., & Henard, D. H. (2011). Brand personality appeal:

conceptualization and empirical validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 39(3), 392-406.

73

Freimuth, M., & Hornstein, G. A. (1982). A critical examination of the concept of gender.

Journal of Research, 8(5), 515-532.

Geyskens, I. (2016). Let your banner wave? Antecedents and performance implications of

retailers‟ private-label branding strategies. Journal of Marketing, 80, 1–19.

Gil, G., & Helgren, D. (2011). Brand Personality: Impact on Brand Trust and Consumer

Preferences: A comparative study of Germany and Sweden (Masters Thesis). Retrieved

from urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-45166.

Graeff, T. (1996). Using promotional messages to manage the effects of brand and self image on

brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(3).

Grohmann, B. (2009). Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing

Research, 46(1), 105-119.

Grohmann, B., Giese, J. L., & Parkman, I. D. (2013). Using type font characteristics to

communicate brand personality of new brands. Journal of Brand Management, 20(5),

389-403.

Helgeson, J., & Supphellen, M. (2004). A Conceptual and Measurement Comparison of Self-

Congruity and Brand Personality; The Impact of Socially Desirable Responding.

International Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 205-233.

Hollenback, C. (2012).Mountain Dew’s Brand Personality. University of Tenessee. Retrieved

from http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1524

Hoq, M. Z.,& Amin, M. (2010). The Role of Customer Satisfaction to enhance Customer

Loyalty. AfricanJournal of Business Management, 4(12), 2385-2392.

Huang, H. H., & Mitchell, V.W. (2014). “The Role of Imagination and Brand Personification in

Brand Relationships.” Psychology & Marketing, 31 (1), 38–47.

Huang, Y., Wang, B., &Gong Q., (2014). An Empirical Research on Brand Personality of Smart

phone: Retrieved from https// Marketing-trends-congress.com/archives/2014

Hwang, Y., & Lim, J. S. (2015). The impact of engagement motives for social TV on social

presence and sports channel commitment. Telematics and Informatics, 32(4), 755-765.

Kem, Z.,K., Z., Sasa, W., Sesia, J., &Zhao,N. (2014). Effect of Brand Personality on brand

loyalty in companies Microblogs; Retrieved from www.pacis-net.org/file/2014

Kim, E., & Sung, Y. (2013). To App or Not to App: Engaging Consumers via Branded Mobile

Apps. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(1).

74

Kimeu, M. S. (2016). Effects of Service Brand Personality on Brand Performance in the Context

of Kenya's Insurance Sector.European Journal of Business and Management. 8 (18)

Retrieved from www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)

Kinjal, G., (2014). A Study on Brand Personality of Coca-Cola and Pepsi A Comparative

Analysis in the Indian Market. International Journal of Conceptions on Management and

Social Sciences 2(2), 2357 – 2787.

Klink. R.R.,& Athaide G.A. (2012). Creating brand personality with brand names. Marketing

Letters, 23( 1), 109-117.

Klipfel, J., Barclay, A. & Bockorny, K. (2014). Self Congruity: A Determination of Brand

Personality.Prenthall publishers.

Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology Methods and Techniques. (2nd

ed). New Age

International Publishers, New Delhi.

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. (2012) Marketing Management, Pearson publishers, 14.

Kpmg report (2012). Fast Moving Consumer Goods Sector Report. Retrieved from

http//www.kpmg.com

Kraft, H.,& Weber, J. (2012). A look at gender differences and marketing implications.

International Journal of Businesss and Social Science, 3.

Kuikka, A., & Laukkanen, T. (2012). Brand loyalty and the role of hedonic value. Journal of

Product and Brand Management, 21(7).

Kum, D. (2012). Brand Personality inference: the moderating role of product meaning. Journal

of Marketing Management, 28, 11-12.

Lavrakas, P.J. (2008) Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage Publications, Thousand

Oaks.

Liang, J., & Lee, W., (2010). The brand-personality of three categories of drinks in Australia;

Marketing Insights, School of Marketing Working Paper Series: no. 2010008, Curtin

University of Technology, School of Marketing.

Lieven, T., Grohmann, B., Hermann, A., Landwehr, J., & Tilburg, M. (2014). The Effect of

Brand Gender on Brand Equity. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5), 371-385.

Lieven, T., & Hildebrand, C. (2016). The impact of brand gender on brand equity. International

Marketing Review, 33(2), 178-195

75

Lin, L. (2010). The Relationship of Customer Personality Traits, Brand Personality and Brand

loyalty: An Empirical Study of Toys and Video Games Buyers.Journal of Product and

Brand Management, 19(1), 4-17.

Louis, D.,& Lombart, C. (2010). Impact of Brand Personality on Three Major Relational

Consequences Trust, Attachment, and Commitment to the Brand.Journal of Product and

Brand Management, 19(2), 114-130.

Mabkhot, H., Shaari, H. & Salleh, S. (2015). The mediating effect of brand satisfaction on the

relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty: Evidence from Malaysia.

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 6(1).

Mcmillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research Design in Education: A Conceptual

Introduction (5th

ed.) New York: Longman.

Maehle, N., Otnes, & Supphellen, M. (2011). Consumers' Perception of the Dimensions of Brand

Personality.Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(5), 290-303.

Malar, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W.D.& Nyffeneger, B. (2012). Emotional Brand Attachment and

Brand Personality: The Relative Importance of theActual and the Ideal Self. Journal of

Marketing, 75(4),35-52.

Malhotra, S., (2014). A study on marketing Fast Moving Consumer Goods

(FMCG).International Journal of Innovative Research and development, 3.

Merrilees, B., (2008).The performance benefits of being brand – oriented.Journal of Product &

Brand Management, 17(6),372-383.

Milberg, L., Salinas, E., Perez, J.M., Loken, B.F., Nathan, E.M, Spence, F.D.,…Peterson, K.D.

(1997). Modeling the Brand Extension Influence on Brand Image. Journal of Business

Research, 62, 50-60.

Mohd, A. (2012). Determination of brand personality dimensions for a Laptop computer using

Aaker‟s brand personality scale. Review of Integrative Business and Economics

Research, 1(1), 114.

McQuarrie, E. F., Miller, J., & Phillips, B. J. (2013). The megaphone effect: Taste and audience

in fashion blogging. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 136-158.

Mengxia, Z. (2007). Impact of Brand Personality on PALI: A Comparative Research between

Two Different Brands. International Management Review, 3.

Moore, S. (2008). Gender and the new paradigm of health. Sociology Compass, 2(1).

Mugenda, O., & Mugenda, A. (2010). Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative

approaches. Nairobi: ACT Press.

76

Mulyanegara R. C.,& Tsarenko, Y. (2009). “The Big Five and Brand Personality: Investigating

the Impact of Consumer Personality on Preferences Towards Particular Brand

Personality.”Journal of Brand Management, 16(4), 234-247.

Muniz, K.,& Marchetti, R. (2012). Brand Personality Dimensions in the Brazilian Context.

Retrieved from http://www.anpad.org.br/bar

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G. (2011) Brand equity, Brand loyalty and Consumer

satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 1009-1030.

Ngunjiri, S. (2013). Brand personality and market penetration among insurance companies in

Kenya (Masters Thesis). Retrieved from University of Nairobi repository, Access no.

D61/60085/2010

N'Goala, G., & Morrongiello, C. (2014). Converting opinion seekers in opinion givers in the

tourism industry: Building trust is critical. Customer & Service Systems, 1(1), 77-90.

Nunually, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory, (2nd

ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Opoku, R. A., Pitt, L. F., & Abratt, R. (2007). Positioning in cyberspace: Evaluating bestselling

authors' online communicated brand personalities using computer-aided content analysis.

South African Journal of Business Management, 38(4), 21-32.

Ouwersloot, H., & Tudorica, A. (2011). Brand Personality Creation through Advertising. Journal

of Marketing.

Palan, M., & Bakir, A. (2010. How are Children's Attitudes Toward Ads and Brands Affected by

Gender-Related Content in Advertising?Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 35-48.

Park, J. K.,& Roedder D. J. (2010). Got to Get You into My Life: Do Brand Personalities Rub

Off on Consumers? Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4), 655-669.

Phau, I.,& Lau, K. (2001). Brand personality and consumer self-expression. Single or dual

carriageway.The Journal of Brand Management, 8, 428-444.

Pessemier, E. A. (2012). Forecasting Brand Performance through Simulation

Experiments.Journal of Marketing, 28(2), 41-46.

Plavini, P., (2011). How Brand Personality affects Products with different Involvement

Levels.European Journal of Business and Management, 3(2), 104-107.

Plummer, J. T. (2000). How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising research, 40

(6) 79-83.

77

Puzakova, M., Kwak, H.,& Bell, M. (2015). Beyond Seeing McDonald‟s Fiesta Menu: The Role

of Accent in Brand Sincerity of Ethnic Products and Brands. Journal of Advertising,

44(3), 219–231.

Rajagopal, N. (2008). Measuring brand performance through metrics application. Emerald

Journals, 12(1), 29-38.

Rocereto, J., & Mosca, J. (2012). The Differential Roles Of Product Brand Image And Store

Brand Image In Retail Loyalty: A Self-Concept Image Congruity Perspective. The

Journal of Brand Management, 9(11).

Sajad, K., S., Mahdi, I., Hamed, G., Seyyed., S., K.,& Tahereh G., (2013). The Relationship of

Appliance Consumer Personality Trait, Brand Personality.International Journal of

Fundamental Psychology and Social Sciences, 3(4), 63-70.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2014). Research Methods for Business Students,

Harlow: Pearson Education, 5.

Sekeran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business: A skill Building Approach.

West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Sharma, R. (2012).The Brand personality of Tourism Destinations; A case of Kathmandu Nepal

(Masters Thesis). Retrieved from University of Nordland, Access number BE309E.

Sirgy, J. (1997). “Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review.” Journal of Consumer

Research, 9 (3), 287-300.

Smith, S. (2012). What Men Really Want. Retrieved from Engage: Men:

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/177735/what-men-really-want.html

Staples, A. (2015). What’s your program’s brand? What should it be? A look across the nation.

Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from http://www.si.com/college-football/2017/

11/11/college-football-teamsbrand

Sundar, A., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2016). Too Exciting to Fail, Too Sincere to Succeed: The

Effects of Brand Personality on Sensory Disconfirmation. Journal of Consumer

Research, 43(1), 44-67.

Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect.

Psychology and Marketing, 27(7), 639-661.

Sung, Y. (2011). The effect of usage situation on Korean consumers brand evaluation: The

moderating role of self-monitoring. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(1), 31-40.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.344

78

Swaminathan, V., Karen, M. S., & Ahluwalia, R. (2009). “When Brand Personality Matters: The

Moderating Role of Attachment Styles.” Journal of Consumer Research, 35. 985–1002.

Tesform, G., & Birch, J. N. (2011). Do switching barriers in the retail banking industry influence

bank customers in different age groups differently?".Journal of Services Marketing, 25

(5), 371-380.

Toldoz-Romero, M., & Gomez, M. (2015). Brand Personality and Purchase Intention. European

Business Review, 27(5).

Twycross, A.,& Shields, L. (2004). Validity and reliability; What's it all about? Part 2 Reliability

in quantitative studies. Paediatric Nursing, 16 (10), 36.

Vallete-Florence, R., & Barnier, V. (2013). Towards a micro conception of brand personality:

An application for print media brands in a French context. Journal of Business Research,

66 (7), 897-903.

Verhoef, P.C., & Werner, J. (2010). Customer engagement as a new perspective in customer

management. Sage Journals.

Wells, D. J. (2011). What Signal Are You Sending? How Website Quality Influences

Perceptions of Product Quality and Purchase Intentions.Marketing Journals, 35(2), 373-

396.

Westerbeke, F. (2008). Maximizing the Male Market. Retrieved from Skin Inc.:

http://www.skininc.com/spabusiness/trends/15998307.html

Willems, K., & Swinnen, G. (2011). Am I cheap? Testing the role of store personality and self-

congruity in discount retailing. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and

Consumer, 21(5), 513-539.

Wirunphan, P., &Ussahawanitchakit, D. (2016). Brand competency and brand performance: an

empirical research of cosmetic businesses and health products business in Thailand. The

Business and Management Review, 7(5).

Workman, J., & Cho, S. (2012). Gender, Fashion Consumer Groups, and Shopping Orientation.

Marketing Journals.

Workman, J., & Lee, S. (2013). Relationships among consumer vanity, gender, brand sensitivity,

brand consciousness and private selfconsciousness. International IJC, 37(2).

Yeoh, J. L., Mohd, S., Zakuan, N., Tajudin, M., Ishak, N., & Ismail, K. (2014). Brand

Personality, Brand Loyalty and Brand Quality Rating in the Contact Lens Perspective.

Review of Integrative Business and Economics, 3(2).

79

Yi, Y., & La, S. (2004). What Influences the Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and

Repurchase Intention? Investigating the Effects of Adjusted Expectations and Customer

Loyalty. Psychology and Marketing, 21(5), 351 – 373.

Yong-Ki, L., Back, K.,& Kim, J. (2009). Family Restaurant Brand Personality and Its Impact On

Customer's Emotion, Satisfaction, and Brand Loyalty. Journal of Hospitality and

Tourism Research.

Yorkston, E. A., Nunes, J. C., & Matta, S. (2010). The malleable brand: the role of implicit

theories in evaluating brand extensions. Journal of Marketing,74.

Youl, H.,& John, J. (2010). Role of customer orientation in an integrative model of brand loyalty

in services. Service Industries Journal, 30(7).

Zikmund, W.G., Carr, B.J, Griffin, M. & Carr, J. (2013). Business Research Method. Dryden

Press Fort Worth publishers.

80

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I: COVER LETTER

Kichamu Dennis Alusa

P.O Box 54525

denniskichamu@gmail.com

Nairobi

Dear Respondent,

RE: REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCHPROJECT

I am the above student currently pursuing a course towards conferment of Master of Business

Administration (MBA) from United States International University – Africa. In partial

fulfillment of the requirements of the award of the degree, I am conducting research project to

determine the extent to which brand personality affects brand choice. You have been randomly

selected to participate in this study. Participation is voluntary and I will spare a few minutes of

your time to fill in the blanks of the attached list of questions to the best of your knowledge.

Kindly complete all sections of the questionnaire to enable me complete the study. Please note

that the information you provide will be treated as confidential, and will only be used for purpose

of this research.

The findings of this study will inform the enable Colgate Palmolive in making the right decisions

as pertains to boosting your brand development and allowing you as the customer to participate

in building your brand. The response is targeted from consumers who frequently use Colgate

Palmolive products.

Your participation in this study will be highly appreciated.

Yours Sincerely,

Kichamu Dennis Alusa.

81

APPENDIX II: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE

General Instructions: the purpose of this questionnaire was to collect data regarding “The

influence of brand personality on brand choice of Colgate Palmolive products in Nairobi. The

questionnaire consisted of two sections (1, & 2). Ensure you respond to all the statements.

SECTION 1: Demographic details and general information

Instructions:

Please tick the appropriate box or complete the answer. There is no right or Wrong answer

therefore Choose the answer which represents your opinion.

1. What is your gender?

� Male

� Female

2. Age

� Below 25

� 25-35

� 36-45

� Above 45

3. Area of Residency

� Akila/Airport view estate

� Highrise estate

� Siranga estate

4. Highest Academic qualification

� Secondary/Primary Education

� College certificate

� College/University Diploma

�Bachelors Degree

�Masters Degree

� None

5. Do you regularly use Colgate toothpaste, if not what do you use?

� Yes

� No

_________________________________

82

SECTION 2: Brand Personality and Product Attributes dimensions

The Influence of Brand Sincerity on brand choice

Instructions:

Think of Colgate Palmolive brand in terms of human characteristics and indicate the extent to

which you agree to the following statements by ticking the appropriate response.

(1=strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree

No. Statement Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

6 Colgate is Down to earth

7 Colgate is Honest

8 Colgate is Wholesome

9 Colgate is Original

10 Colgate is Friendly

11 Colgate is Family oriented

12 Colgate is Realistic

13 Colgate is Cheerful

14 Colgate is Sentimental

No. Statement Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

15 Sincere brands have high

brand attachment

16 Sincere brands have lasting

impressions on consumers

17 Brand sincerity influences

brand trust

18 Brand sincerity enhances

differentiation

19 I would purchase a sincere

brand as opposed to other

brands

20 Sincere brands positively

influence brand loyalty

21 Sincere brands offer great

satisfaction

22 Sincere brands influence my

purchase intention

83

SECTION 3: The Influence of Brand Excitement on brand choice

Instructions:

Think of Colgate Palmolive brand in terms of human characteristics and indicate the extent to

which you agree to the following statements by ticking the appropriate response.

(1=strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree

No. Statement Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

23 Colgate is Up to date

24 Colgate is Unique

25 Colgate is Cool

26 Colgate is Spirited

27 Colgate is Daring

28 Colgate is Trendy

29 Colgate is Young

30 Colgate is Contemporary

31 Colgate is Independent

32 Exciting brands have lasting

impressions on consumers

33 Brand excitement enhances

differentiation

34 I would purchase an exciting

brand as opposed to other

brands

35 Exciting brands positively

influence brand loyalty

36 Exciting brands offer great

satisfaction

37 Exciting brands influence my

purchase intention

SECTION 4: The Influence of Brand Competence on brand choice

Instructions:

Think of Colgate Palmolive brand in terms of human characteristics and indicate the extent to

which you agree to the following statements by ticking the appropriate response.

(1=strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree

No. Statement Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

38 Colgate is Reliable

39 Colgate is Secure

40 Colgate is Hardworking

41 Colgate is Successful

42 Colgate is Leader

84

43 Colgate is Intelligent

44 Colgate is Technical

45 Competent brands have

lasting impressions on

consumers

46 Brand personality enhances

brand image

47 Brand competence enhances

differentiation

48 I would purchase a

competent brand as opposed

to other brands

49 Competent brands positively

influence brand loyalty

50 Competent brands offer great

satisfaction

51 Competent brands influence

my purchase intention

SECTION 5: The Influence of brand gender on brand choice

Instructions:

Think of Colgate Palmolive brand in terms of human characteristics and indicate the extent to

which you agree to the following statements by ticking the appropriate response.

(1=strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree)

No. Statement Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

52 Masculine/Feminine brands

offer great satisfaction

53 Masculine/Feminine brands

positively influence brand

loyalty

54 I would purchase a

masculine/feminine brand as

opposed to other brands

55 Masculine and feminine

brands have lasting

impressions on consumers

56 Masculine and feminine

brand personality enhances

differentiation

57 Masculine/feminine brands

influence my purchase

intention

Thank you for your cooperation. God bless you

85

APPENDIX III: SUPPLEMENTARY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Table 4.9 Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared

Loadings

Rotation

Sums of

Squared

Loadingsa

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

%

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

%

Total

1 15.841 30.464 30.464 15.841 30.464 30.464 11.363

2 4.415 8.490 38.954 4.415 8.490 38.954 11.171

3 3.878 7.458 46.412 3.878 7.458 46.412 8.958

4 3.194 6.142 52.554 3.194 6.142 52.554 8.568

5 2.382 4.581 57.135

6 1.766 3.397 60.532

7 1.560 2.999 63.531

8 1.281 2.463 65.994

9 1.250 2.403 68.398

10 1.173 2.256 70.654

11 1.111 2.136 72.789

12 1.072 2.062 74.852

13 1.026 1.973 76.825

14 .845 1.624 78.449

15 .763 1.468 79.917

16 .689 1.326 81.243

17 .658 1.265 82.508

18 .596 1.147 83.655

19 .580 1.116 84.771

20 .561 1.079 85.850

21 .521 1.002 86.852

22 .499 .959 87.812

23 .473 .910 88.722

24 .456 .877 89.600

25 .415 .797 90.397

26 .408 .784 91.181

27 .378 .727 91.908

28 .336 .647 92.555

29 .330 .635 93.190

30 .313 .601 93.791

31 .294 .565 94.357

32 .270 .519 94.876

33 .266 .511 95.387

34 .252 .485 95.872

35 .225 .432 96.304

86

36 .212 .407 96.711

37 .192 .369 97.080

38 .181 .348 97.428

39 .166 .320 97.748

40 .147 .284 98.032

41 .133 .256 98.288

42 .130 .249 98.537

43 .115 .221 98.758

44 .100 .192 98.950

45 .099 .191 99.141

46 .089 .171 99.312

47 .082 .158 99.469

48 .077 .147 99.617

49 .058 .112 99.729

50 .054 .104 99.833

51 .050 .096 99.929

52 .037 .071 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. When components are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total

variance.