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 8–12 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

N %
Cases Valid 100 100.0
a
Excluded 0 0.0
Total 100 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

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

Cronbach's Alpha Standardized Items 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

Initial Eigenvalues
% of Cumulative Extraction Sums%of of
Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of
Cumulative %Squared
of Loadings
Cumulative
Component Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 8.162 54.413 54.413 8.162 54.413 54.413 4.846 32.308 32.308
2 1.138 7.585 61.999 1.138 7.585 61.999 4.454 29.690 61.999
3 .904 6.030 68.028
4 .762 5.078 73.106
5 .679 4.524 77.630
6 .553 3.689 81.319
7 .472 3.148 84.467
8 .443 2.950 87.417
9 .426 2.841 90.259
10 .371 2.474 92.732
11 .321 2.138 94.870
12 .258 1.720 96.590
13 .237 1.578 98.168
14 .158 1.056 99.224
15 .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 Matrixa
Component
1 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

Analysis.
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 factor.
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 1 Factor 2
Honest = 0.642 Down to earth= .617
Wholesome= 0.658 Imaginative= 0.854
Cheerful= 0.638 Up to date= 0.792
Daring= 0.843 Intelligent= 0.730
Spirited= 0.616 Upper class= 0.635
Reliable= 0.613 Successful= Charming= 0.695
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
N %
Cases Valid 92 100.0
Excludeda 0 0.0
Total 92 100.0

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
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

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
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of
% Squared
of Loadings Rotation Sums%ofofSquared
Cumulative Loadings
Cumulative
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 8.051 55.692 1.208 8.051 55.692 1.921 12.805 52.328
4 1.136 7.574 63.265 1.136 7.574 63.265 1.641 10.938 63.265
5 .915 6.103 69.369
6 .778 5.186 74.554
7 .672 4.480 79.034
8 .633 4.222 83.256
9 .573 3.819 87.075
10 .439 2.927 90.002
11 .406 2.704 92.707
12 .338 2.254 94.961
13 .326 2.172 97.133
14 .239 1.593 98.726
15 .191 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
 Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4
down_to_ea .149 .034 .841 .013
rth
Honest .140 .222 .786 .317
Wholesome -.140 .416 .270 .435
Cheerful .403 .007 -.007 .779
Daring .630 .069 -.102 .181
Spirited .613 .205 .160 .434
Imaginative .703 .155 .386 .022
Up_to_date .482 .639 .258 -.119
Reliable .215 .407 .282 .565
Intelligent .435 .592 .377 -.117
Successful .156 .790 -.024 .058
Upper_clas -.013 .768 .044 .146
sCharming
.093 .627 .100 .253
Outdorsy .738 .063 .169 .295
Tough .745 .092 .097 -.007
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations.

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Daring= 0.630 Up to date= 0.639 Down to earth= 0.841 Cheerful= .779
Spirited= 0.613 Intelligent= 0.592 Honest= 0.786 Reliable= 0.545
Imaginative= 0.703 Successful=0.790
Outdoorsy= 0.738 Upper class=0.768
Tough= 0.745 charming= 0.627

13
 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, The Hidden Persuader (1957)

 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
http://web.usm.my/aamj/20012015/Art%202%20(1)%20(27-47).pdf
 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) 97–107

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