Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 25
MUKESH PATEL SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING SVKM’ S NMIMS CONSUMER INTERPRETATION OF BRAND

MUKESH PATEL SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING

SVKM’S NMIMS

CONSUMER INTERPRETATION OF BRAND PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS IN INDIAN MARKET

A Research Project submitted to partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MBA (Tech)

By

Jinesh Damani (M015) Aman Golchha (M018) Rahul Kohli (M024) Kshitija Davda (I094)

Under Supervision

Of

Prof. Yashodhan Karulkar

DECLARATION

We hereby declare that the research project titled, “Consumer Interpretation of Brand Personality Dimensions in Indian Market”, submitted by us is based on original work carried out by us. We certify that it has not been submitted anywhere else. I further declare that Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management and Engineering NMIMS (deemed-to-be-university) will have the copyright on the project report submitted by me to the college (MPSTME).

Thanking You

Jinesh Damani

Aman Golchha

Rahul Kohli

Kshitija Davda

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

When we set goals to achieve for ourselves, there are always obstacles in our path and it becomes important to face this obstacles and overcome them. There are also people in our lives that are aware of our goals and motivates and helps us to continue regardless of these obstacles. It is now that we can formally thank those people for guiding us throughout our journey to achieve our goals before thanking anyone on this Earth, we must first take this opportunity to thank God for being always on our side and need God to continue blessing us.

We would also like to take this opportunity to thanks our faculty mentor Prof. Yashodhan Karulkar, NMIMS for the support and guidance whenever required and encouraging us to accomplishing our research project. Our mentor was always welcoming for the questions and doubts and always had answers for that. His level of expectations made us work harder which helped us to gain in depth understanding and knowledge for the subject.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

INTRODUCTION

1

Background of Study

1

Statement of the Problem

2

Purpose/Objectives of the study

2

LITERATURE REVIEW

3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

6

ANALYSIS

6

Brand personality and Analysis of Royal Enfield

6

Brand personality and Analysis of Raymond

10

CONCLUSIONS

14

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

14

LIMITATIONS

15

FUTURE RESEARCH

15

REFERENCES

16

APPENDIX

17

ABSTRACT

In current competitive scenario in market, brands wish for an important and a competitive advantage position in marketplace. With excessive ranges of equivalent products marketers sense the need to adopt a well-defined personality for a brand so that the brand is identified distinctively in the market and consumers as per their mutual personality traits with brands get connected emotionally and become loyal customers. This study helps in understanding the Jennifer Aaker’s brand personality scale and to understand Indian consumer’s interpretation of brand personality dimensions for two hugely used brands Raymond and Royal Enfield. For this study focus group was approached for a survey and data was collected using self-administered questionnaires. The study concluded that each brand has its own personality dimension that helps them stand different than other brand.

INTRODUCTION

Background of Study

The brand personality has been a topic of discussion for the academicians and researchers of all time. Researchers find this subject very essential to study and analyse, as they perceived it helps to differentiate the personalities of different brands. Research in consumer behaviour, a good amount of attention has been given to frame brand personality, which refers to the set of human characteristics associated with a brand, on how the personality of a brand makes a consumer to express his or her own self (Belk 1988) or the certain dimensions of one self through the use of brand. Basically brand personality reflects how people feel about a particular brand, rather than what they think the brand is or does. It’s the way the brand speaks and behaves. It means assigning human personality traits to a brand to differentiate it against the rest of the brands. To explain it with example, Absolut vodka is describes as a cool, hip, contemporary 25-year old while Stoli’s is described as intellectual, conservative, older man.

Brand personality inclines to provide a symbolic function. It is claimed that symbolic use of brands is possible due to consumers relate brands with human personality traits very often. Consumers easily can form an impression of brands as if they were celebrities or some famous iconic figures and as they relate to one’s self and which may be used as strategies by marketers and advertisers to personify the brand with most possible fitting personality traits. Such techniques the personality traits associated with the brand, such as the one associated with an individual results to be relatively distinct and enduring. For example, the personality traits associated with Coca-Cola are cool, all-American and real. These differentiates it from its competitors like Pepsi being young, exciting and hip.

Until 1997, research in personality psychology had been done to conceptualize human personality, identifying the “Big Five” dimensions, and explore the meaning of each dimension, no parallel research had been done to understand and conceptualizing the dimensions for the brand personalities. Then a researcher Jennifer L. Aaker studied and

1

constructed a model according to her study and findings so called “Aaker’s Scale”

which was for many years considered as the model to find the personality traits

consumers were associated with. Aaker defines the brand personality as “the set of

human characteristics associated with a given brand”. She worked on 37 brands on the

basis of 114 traits. And a framework was developed to determine the brand personality

by narrowing it down to five core dimensions, each one having its set of traits or facet.

Statement of the Problem To Study the Consumer Interpretation of Brand Personality of different brands in Indian

Market.

Purpose/Objectives of the study Though there have been many studies carried by many researchers on brand personality

in western part of the globe extensive and understanding and interpretation of brand

personality in Indian market, studying the personality traits associated with Indian

brands and Indian consumers is still not been studied to an extent as compared to

western part. The Aaker’s model is yet to be tested with the Indian culture whether it

stands true or not because research shows that the human personality dimensions remain

strong across different cultures but the case won’t be same for brand personalities as

there will be difference in antecedents of two constructs. So the main purpose of the

study is to find the brand personality dimensions associated with brands Raymond and

Royal Enfield, this will help the brands to understand how the consumers relate the

brands or perceive them accordingly the brands can evaluate themselves, evaluate their

market position using perceptual mapping and strategies their branding accordingly. To

see which factors forms the part of the dimension and contributes more to explain each

brand’s personality.

2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The importance of marketing has been increasing from a very long time. Nowadays in such competitive market, it becomes important for the brands to get notice and connect to their target customers. For this brands go beyond its functional loyalty to emotional loyalty. One of the way is to personify the brands that helps them to touch inner feeling of customers.

The foundation of brand personality was set up by Earnest Dichter, who used Freudian psychoanalytic concepts and techniques in business in order to do motivational studies and research. Motivational research lost its charm in the 1960s, as it claimed that it is too effective that it is manipulating people and due to different researchers coming to different conclusions for the same topic, hence it is not valid.

In 1980s, the study of brand personality made a comeback in the industry. It was the first big data era. Companies started using lifestyle based questioners in order to understand the market. The work of Danny Ariely and Danny Kahneman in behavioral economics proved that, customers are irrational in terms of buying. Researchers started studying consumer behavior and emotional connection of people and brands with the help of anthropological research and brainwave research, respectively.

David Allen Aaker, he is the creator of the Aaker Model, a marketing model that views brand equity as a combination of brand loyalty and brand awareness. According to David Aaker, brand identity has 812 elements which come under four core perspectives:

Brand as Product product attributes, consists of product scope, quality or value of the uses, product, users and country of origin. Brand as Organization consists of local workings versus global activities and organizational attributes. Brand as Symbol contains audio and visual imagery, metaphorical symbols and brand heritage.

3

Brand as Person contains brand personality and customer-brand relationships. (Aaker

A David, 1996).

To develop a framework Aaker attempted to develop brand personality dimensions and also build a valid and reliable scale for measuring dimensions, these dimensions and their facets are as follows:

Sincerity (honest, down to earth, cheerful)

Excitement (daring, spirited, imaginative, up-to-date)

Competence (reliable, intelligent, successful)

Sophistication (upper class, charming)

Ruggedness (outdoorsy, tough)

Personality is defined by psychologists as the "systematic description of traits" (McCrae and Costa, 1987). To describe personality research has framed five dimensions:

Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability or Neuroticism, Openness or Intellect. These are result of the analysis of the traits humans use to describe themselves (Goldberg, 1993). It has been found that consumers tends to have no problem in in assigning human characteristics to the brands, moreover they tend to build relationship with brands. Hence, the elements of human personality also extends

to brand personality.

Brand personality refers to “the set of human characteristics with a brand” (Jennifer L

Aaker, 1997). The human and a brand personality differ on how they are formed. Human personality includes, individual’s behavior, physical characteristics, demographic characteristics, attitude and beliefs (Park, 1986). Brand personality includes, product related attributes, product category associations, brand name, symbol or logo, style of advertisements, price and distribution channel (Batra, Lehmamm and Singh, 1993). Brand personality refers to “the set of human personality traits that are both applicable to and relevant for brands.” (Azoulay, A and Kapferer, J.N, 2003).

Research found that the behavior of brand forms the base of conclusion formed by the consumers about the brand and then as a result consumer tends to build a relationship with their similar personality traits and become a reason of choosing one brand over

4

another. A study by Ramasesham (2007) concluded that excitement and sophistication dimensions are strongly related. A direct relationship between brand personality and brand trust was found by Sung et al (2010). To analyze brand personality in India Saptrashi (2009) took some brands and used Aaker scale for analysis, 7up stood for sincerity, Samsung for Innovativeness, Motorola for feistiness. Mulyanegara (2009) studied and analyzed fashion product’s relationship between consumer personality and brand personality. There was a difference in result due to gender, where male respondents dominated to neuroticism and female respondents to consciousness dimensions.

Though Kapferer criticises that the Aaker model is not actually measuring the brad personality, but merges many brand identity’s dimensions which are supposed to be kept separate and not to be mixed on practical use and theoretical grounds. The brand personality definition is too wide, it embraces concepts beyond brand personality. Aaker uses ‘competence’ as one of her major trait. Competence means, to know how or the capacity to carry out an activity efficiently.

The definition of personality in psychology, excludes any item related to abilities or cognitive capacities. Most psychologists exclude intelligence, as a cognitive ability, from their personality tests. Aaker has taken ‘feminine’ as one of the facet in her model, however gender is missing from the psychology scales of personality.

Maggie Geuens, Kristof De Wulf, Bert Weijters, have developed a new scale of brand personality. The new scale developed consists of five factors that shows a link with the Big Five human personality dimensions. Unlike the other scales, this new scale has proved to be well founded for between-brand between-category comparisons, for between-brand within-category comparisons, and for between-respondent comparisons. It contains five factor, Responsibility (down to earth, stable, responsible), Activity (active, dynamic, innovative), Aggressiveness (aggressive, bold), Simplicity (ordinary, simple), Emotionality (romantic, sentimental). This new scale assures to be a viable tool for branding research and is important for both, practitioners and academics.

5

For practitioners, it is very essential that the scale can be used on both an individual brand level (for between-respondent analyses) and for any industry (for between-brand within-category comparisons) because these are the types of studies are very frequently carried out (Austin et al., 2003). Moreover, companies across the globe use this scale to study and evaluate to what extent their brands have a accurate global brand personality.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

To carry our study about brand personality dimensions and consumer interpretation on the same we took two well-known brands Raymond and Royal Enfield for the purpose of studying and identifying its dimensions. The sample group or say the respondents which consisted of Indian consumers of age above 20 both males and females. The respondents were approached and requested to participate in the survey. The survey needed few personal details of the participants which were collected using Nominal scale. Next the respondents needed to scale down 42 traits that are mentioned in Aaker’s scale using Numerical scale ranging from 1-7 where 1 being not descriptive and 7 being very descriptive, with the objective of measuring the five dimensions of brand personality. The data was collected and stored for analysis. As a result of data collection 100 participants responded for Royal Enfield and 92 for Raymond from different cities of India. Data were collected using self-administered questionnaires for each brand. All the questionnaires were same for both the brands Exploratory Factor Analysis has been used for analysing the data. For testing the reliability, the Chronbach’s Alpha has been used.

ANALYSIS

Brand personality and Analysis of Royal Enfield

We were able to collect a sample of 100 people, which consisted of questions of how do the Indian consumer perceives these brands. The data set consisted of all the 42 traits, and then only 15 facets (Aaker’s dimensions of brand personality model) were considered to get a more accurate result and precise result.

6

KMO for sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were in order to verify whether or not factor analysis would be suitable for this study or not. KMO test was carried out. It value comes out to be 0.894, which is more than the alpha value (level of significance) = 0.5, hence there exists a relationship among variables. Also as according to Bartlett's test of sphericity, p-value is coming out to be 0.000, which is less than the alpha of 0.001, again it proves that there exists a relationship among variables and thus number of variables can be reduced to form components.

Case Processing Summary
Case Processing Summary

Case Processing Summary

 

N

%

Cases

Valid

100

100.0

Excluded a

0

0.0

Total

100

100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

KMO and Bartlett's Test

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.

.894

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square

974.539

df

105

Sig.

.000

Cronbach's alpha test is conducted for reliability statistics of the data. It is a measure of internal consistency, that is, how closely related a set of items are as a group. The chronbach’s alpha value is greater than 0.9. Hence, the internal consistency is excellent.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items

.937

.939

15

In order to identify the number of dimensions in brand personality, factor analysis was performed on the data set to reduce the number of dimensions in order to identify the

7

main facets. Factor analysis was done on 15 main facets of Jennifer Aaker’s brand personality scale. Two factors have been extracted. As we had taken “1” as the factor of retention, the two factors having Eigen values greater than one have been identified. The first factor explains 61.99% of the variance in the model. By the proportion of the variance, a good amount of variance due to the retained factors is explained by the first factor, 54.41% of 61.99% and second factor, 7.58% of 61.99%. The variance was much better distributed in the rotated solution, with variances of 32.30% and 29.69%.

Total Variance Explained
Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues

 

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total

Variance

%

Total

Variance

%

Total

Variance

%

8.162

54.413

54.413

8.162

54.413

54.413

4.846

32.308

32.308

1.138

7.585

61.999

1.138

7.585

61.999

4.454

29.690

61.999

.904

6.030

68.028

.762

5.078

73.106

.679

4.524

77.630

.553

3.689

81.319

.472

3.148

84.467

.443

2.950

87.417

.426

2.841

90.259

.371

2.474

92.732

.321

2.138

94.870

.258

1.720

96.590

.237

1.578

98.168

.158

1.056

99.224

.116

.776

100.000

94.870 .258 1.720 96.590 .237 1.578 98.168 .158 1.056 99.224 .116 .776 100.000
94.870 .258 1.720 96.590 .237 1.578 98.168 .158 1.056 99.224 .116 .776 100.000
94.870 .258 1.720 96.590 .237 1.578 98.168 .158 1.056 99.224 .116 .776 100.000
94.870 .258 1.720 96.590 .237 1.578 98.168 .158 1.056 99.224 .116 .776 100.000
94.870 .258 1.720 96.590 .237 1.578 98.168 .158 1.056 99.224 .116 .776 100.000
94.870 .258 1.720 96.590 .237 1.578 98.168 .158 1.056 99.224 .116 .776 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

The solution was rotated using varimax rotation procedure, and factors with Eigen values greater than 1 were retained.

8

Rotated Component Matrix a

   

Component

 
1 2

1

1 2

2

down_to_earth

 

.149

 

.617

Honest

 

.642

 

.478

Wholesome

.658

 

.441

Cheerful

.638

 

.371

Daring

.843

 

.133

Spirited

.616

 

.401

Imaginative

 

.234

 

.854

Up_to_date

 

.299

.792

Reliable

 

.613

 

.477

Intelligent

 

.442

 

.730

Successful

 

.642

 

.447

Upper_class

 

.376

 

.635

Charming

 

.438

.695

Outdorsy

 

.676

 

.323

Tough

.752

 

.163

Extraction Method: Principal Component

a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

As we can observe, factor 1 consists of, 9 of 15 variables and factor 2 consists of, 6 of 15 variables (the absolute value of the factor loading is more than 0.5). In factor 1, these includes Honest, with 0.642; Wholesome, with 0.658; Cheerful, with 0.638; Daring, with 0.843; Spirited, with 0.616; Reliable, with 0.613; Successful, with 0.642; Outdoorsy, with 0.676; Tough, with a 0.752 as coefficients.

The variables corresponding to each of the factors do not necessarily suggest to a single personality dimension as defined in Aaker’s brand personality scale. Thus, to assign a personality dimension to each factor, the variable that has the largest coefficient in each factor is taken into consideration because it strongly represents

9

the

Here factor 1, which is correlated with variables like Honest, Wholesome, Cheerful, Daring, Spirited, Reliable, Successful, Outdoorsy, and Tough. As daring has the largest coefficient, 0.843. Hence, factor 1 reflects the Excitement of dimension of personality. Factor 2, which is correlated with variables like down to earth, with a coefficient of 0.617; Imaginative, with 0.854; Up to date, with 0.792; Intelligent, with 0.730; Upper class, with 0.635; Charming, with 0.695 as their coefficients. Imagination has the largest coefficient, 0.854. The variable of factor 2 reflects Excitement. Hence, it is clearly interpreted that the Indian consumer perceives Royal Enfield as Excitement.

factor.

Factor 1

Factor 2

Honest = 0.642 Wholesome= 0.658 Cheerful= 0.638

Down to earth= .617 Imaginative= 0.854 Up to date= 0.792 Intelligent= 0.730 Upper class= 0.635 Charming= 0.695

Daring= 0.843 Spirited= 0.616 Reliable= 0.613 Successful=

0.642

 

Outdoorsy= 0.676

Tough = 0.752

Brand personality and Analysis of Raymond

We were able to collect a sample of 92 people, which consisted of questions of how does the Indian consumer perceives these brands. The data set consisted of all the 42 traits, and then only 15 facets (Aaker’s dimensions of brand personality model) were considered to get a more accurate result and precise result.

10

Case Processing Summary
Case Processing Summary

Case Processing Summary

 

N

%

Cases

Valid

92

100.0

Excluded a

0

0.0

Total

92

100.0

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Based on

Alpha

Standardized

N of Items

.864

.867

15

The Cronbach’s alpha value is .864, our internal consistency is good. The result of KMO value is .798, which is more than alpha value (level of significance) = 0.5, hence there is relationship among variables.

KMO and Bartlett's Test

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.

.798

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square

528.042

df

105

Sig.

.000

The initial Eigen-values and proportions of variance is explained by each factor. Factors that were considered for further study had a value of at least 1. These four factors together justify 63.26% of the total variance. The first factor explains 35.85% of the variance in the model. The variance is more evenly distributed in the rotated solution, with variances of 20.59%, 18.92%, 12.805% and 10.93%

11

Total Variance Explained

Total Variance Explained

Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadi
Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadi
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadi Component Total %
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadi Component Total %

Initial Eigenvalues

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadi

Component

Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

Total

Variance

%

Total

Variance

%

1

5.378

35.853

35.853

5.378

35.853

35.853

3.089

20.594

20.594

2

1.768

11.787

47.640

1.768

11.787

47.640

2.839

18.928

39.523

3 1.208 4 1.136 5 .915 6 .778 7 .672 8 .633 9 .573 10
3 1.208 4 1.136 5 .915 6 .778 7 .672 8 .633 9 .573 10
3
1.208
4
1.136
5
.915
6
.778
7
.672
8
.633
9
.573
10
.439
11
.406
12
.338
13
.326
14
.239
15
.191
10 .439 11 .406 12 .338 13 .326 14 .239 15 .191 8.051 55.692 1.208 8.051

8.051

55.692

1.208

8.051

55.692

1.921

12.805

52.328

7.574

63.265

1.136

7.574

63.265

1.641

10.938

63.265

6.103

69.369

5.186

74.554

4.480

79.034

4.222

83.256

3.819

87.075

2.927

90.002

2.704

92.707

2.254

94.961

2.172

97.133

1.593

98.726

1.274

100.000

2.927 90.002 2.704 92.707 2.254 94.961 2.172 97.133 1.593 98.726 1.274 100.000
2.927 90.002 2.704 92.707 2.254 94.961 2.172 97.133 1.593 98.726 1.274 100.000
2.927 90.002 2.704 92.707 2.254 94.961 2.172 97.133 1.593 98.726 1.274 100.000
2.927 90.002 2.704 92.707 2.254 94.961 2.172 97.133 1.593 98.726 1.274 100.000
2.927 90.002 2.704 92.707 2.254 94.961 2.172 97.133 1.593 98.726 1.274 100.000
2.927 90.002 2.704 92.707 2.254 94.961 2.172 97.133 1.593 98.726 1.274 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

From the rotated component matrix, as Factors 1 2 3 would together explain 55.69% of 63.2%. These three factors had variables with large coefficients and thus best suitable to explain the personality of Raymond. The variables corresponding to each of the factors do not necessarily suggest to a single personality dimension as defined in Aaker’s brand personality scale. Thus, to attribute a personality dimension to each factor, the variable that has the largest coefficient in each factor is taken into consideration because it strongly represents the factor.

Factor 1 consists of Daring, with a coefficient of 0.630; spirited, with.613; Imaginative, with 0.703; Outdoorsy, with a 0.738; Tough, with 0.745 as their coefficients. Factor 1 can be described as Ruggedness. Factor 2 consists of Up to date, with 0.639; intelligent, with 0.592; Successful, with 0.790; Upper class, with 0.768; charming, with 0.627 as their coefficients. Factor 2 can be described as competence dimension of brand personality. Factor 3 can be described by down to earth, with 0.841 and honest, with 0.786 as their coefficients. Factor 3 is described most strongly by being Sincere. Hence Raymond is perceived as rugged, competent and sincere brand by the Indian consumers.

12

strongly by being Sincere. Hence Raymond is perceived as rugged, competent and sincere brand by the
strongly by being Sincere. Hence Raymond is perceived as rugged, competent and sincere brand by the

Rotated Component Matrix a

down_to_ea Honest Component 1 .149 .140 -.140 .403 4 2 3 .034 .222 .416 .007
down_to_ea Honest Component 1 .149 .140 -.140 .403 4 2 3 .034 .222 .416 .007
down_to_ea Honest Component 1 .149 .140 -.140 .403 4 2 3 .034 .222 .416 .007
down_to_ea Honest Component 1 .149 .140 -.140 .403 4 2 3 .034 .222 .416 .007
down_to_ea Honest Component 1 .149 .140 -.140 .403 4 2 3 .034 .222 .416 .007
down_to_ea Honest Component 1 .149 .140 -.140 .403 4 2 3 .034 .222 .416 .007
down_to_ea Honest Component 1 .149 .140 -.140 .403 4 2 3 .034 .222 .416 .007
down_to_ea Honest Component 1 .149 .140 -.140 .403 4 2 3 .034 .222 .416 .007

down_to_ea

Honest

down_to_ea Honest
down_to_ea Honest
down_to_ea Honest
down_to_ea Honest
down_to_ea Honest

Component

Component 1 .149 .140 -.140 .403 4 2 3 .034 .222 .416 .007 .841 .786 .270

1

Component 1 .149 .140 -.140 .403 4 2 3 .034 .222 .416 .007 .841 .786 .270

.149

.140

-.140

.403

Component 1 .149 .140 -.140 .403 4 2 3 .034 .222 .416 .007 .841 .786 .270
4

4

2

3

.034

.222

.416

.007

.841

.786

.270

-.007

-.102

.630

.069

.613

.205

.703

.155

.482

.639

.215

.160

.386

.407

.258

.282

.377

.435

.592

.156

.790

-.013

.768

.093

.627

.738

.063

.745

.092

-.024

.044

.100

.169

.097

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations.

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Daring= 0.630 Spirited= 0.613 Imaginative= 0.703 Outdoorsy= 0.738 Tough= 0.745

Up to date= 0.639 Intelligent= 0.592

Down to earth= 0.841 Honest= 0.786

Cheerful= .779

Reliable= 0.545

Successful=0.790

 

Upper class=0.768 charming= 0.627

13

Wholesome

Cheerful

Daring

Spirited

Imaginative

Up_to_date

Reliable

Intelligent

Successful

Upper_clas

Charming

Outdorsy

Tough

.013

.317

.435

.779

.181

.434

.022

-.119

.565

-.117

.058

.146

.253

.295

-.007

CONCLUSIONS

For the intention to study on “Consumer Interpretation of Brand Personality Dimensions in Indian Market” a survey carried among a sample of approx. 100 consumers of each Raymond and Royal Enfield using Numerical scale to our questionnaires resulted in collection of data whose factor analysis was carried. As a result we were able to find out that Raymond is perceived as rugged, competent and sincere brand by the Indian consumers and Royal Enfield as Excitement. These finding of dimensions of brand personality help in giving important implications to develop strategies for the brand to compete in the current competitive environment. The description of a brand’s personality may vary in different brands.

There are many variables in the making of a brand that helps them establish a brand personality (Levy, 1959). Brand personality is used by brands as tools to target consumers and a form a relationship with them (Aaker, 1996). Using these traits as precursor in form of advertisements, packaging’s, imagery etc. (Plummer, 1985; Levy, 1959), will help in growing consumer preference (Sirgy, 1982), an emotional connection and increase in loyalty and trust between the brand and consumers (Fournier,

1994).

Royal Enfield, the Indian market perceives it as an Exciting brand. Both the factors, daring and Imagination denote excitement. Raymond is perceived as a brand which is rugged, competent and sincere by the Indian market.

The present study was conducted to understand how the Indian market perceives the two brands, Royal Enfield and Raymond with the help of Aaker’s dimension of brand personality model.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

Using the analysis results and conclusions important suggestions for brand strategies can be done. Looking at the competitive environment, these days creating and developing a suitable brand personality has become essential for an effective brand positioning and differentiation. Adding to this, brand personality has a dominant effect on brand loyalty, brand association, brand loyalty and brand relationship strength.

14

LIMITATIONS

The study has certain limitations. The study was majorly conducted in the city of Mumbai and may not be representative of the entire nation’s perspective in different life cycles and may vary due to diversified cultures across India. The scale might not be reliable for measuring brand personality in different cultural context (Aaker1997). The Aaker scale does not hold true for different cultures. Here only two brands have been studied which might not help to conclude whether the Aaker scale will hold true for Indian culture or hold true to understand Indian consumers interpretation. Many other new scales have been developed as they have been seen as more reliable.

FUTURE RESEARCH

For the purpose of future research, study and investigations for the reliability and accuracy of Aaker’s scale for different cultures in India can be done, also among different brands and brand products. Two brands of same sector can be studied to understand the brand personality dimensions so that marketers can understand the position of their brands in compare to their competitive brands and products. Further studies can be carried to understand the relationship between Indian consumer and a brand by identifying the brand inclination of consumers depending upon its respective personality traits.

The same objective could be studied with the help of a more improved scale for the measurement of dimensions of brand personality. A more accurate scale to measure across different culture and brand. Maggie Geuens, Bert Weijters and Kristof De Wulf have developed a new measurement of brand personality. This new measure has proven to be a more reliable and appropriate scale for between-brand between-category comparisons, for between-brand within-category comparisons, and for between- respondent comparisons. Hence, further studies can be carried on those terms.

15

REFERENCES

Vance Oakley Packard

Aaker A David (1996). Building Strong Brands. Free Press. p. 400

Azoulay, A and Kapferer, J.N., "Do Brand Personality Scales Really Measure Brand Personality?" Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2003 p. 151

Jennifer L Aaker, JMR Journal of Marketing Research; Aug 1997; 34, 3; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 347

Sumatra Khandai, Bhawana Agrawal and Anju Gulla, “Brand Personality Scale: How Do Indian Consumers Interpret the Personality Dimensions?” Journal of Asian Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, 27-47, 2015

,
,

The Hidden Persuader (1957)

Austin, J. R., Siguaw, J. A., & Mattila, A. S. (2003, June). A re-examination of the generalizability of the Aaker brand personality measurement framework. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11, 77−92

Maggie Geuens, Bert Weijters, Kristof De Wulf (2009). A new measure of brand personality. Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 26 (2009) 97107

16

APPENDIX

For each brand

Questionnaire

1. Name *

2. Age *

3. Gender *

o

Male

o

Female

o

Other

4. City

5.Your participation in this survey is voluntary. Your responses will be confidential. The results of this study will be used for scholarly purposes only. *

Check all that apply. Accept

On a scale of 1-7, how strong would you say each of this trait describe the brand?

6. Down-to-earth *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

7. Family-oriented *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

8. Small-town *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

9. Honest *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

10. Sincere *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

17

11. Real *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

12. Wholesome *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

13. Original *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

14. Cheerful *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

15. Sentimental *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

16. Friendly *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

17. Daring *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

18. Trendy *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

19. Exciting *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

20. Spirited *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

21. Cool *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

22. Young *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

23. Imaginative *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

24. Unique *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

25. Up-to-date *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

18

26. Independent *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

27. Contemporary *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

28. Reliable *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

29. Hard-working *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

30. Secure *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

31. Intelligent *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

32. Technical *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

33. Corporate *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

34. Successful *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

35. Leader *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

36. Confident *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

37. Upper class *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

38. Glamorous *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

39. Good looking *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

40. Charming *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

19

41. Feminine *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

42. Smooth *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

43. Outdoorsy *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

44. Masculine *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

45. Western *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

46. Tough *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

47. Rugged *

Not descriptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very descriptive

20