Chapter Two

2. Literature Review

2.1. Brand Evolution

Brands have been present for as long as has been possible to trace artifacts of human
Existence. Those dating to the early Bronze Age (2250BC), however, should be
discussed more as “prototype-brands” (Moore and Reid, 2008) as they display
prototype characteristics when related to brands as we understand them in the modern
world.

A typical prototype-brand attached information to a product or its packaging with

three main purposes in mind. Firstly, it was intended to provide information regarding
the source of origin, usually in the form of a known symbol, signature or even in the
physical properties of a raw material. Secondly, it provided a basic marketing function
which may have included sorting, transporting and storing. Thirdly, it provided
information as to quality, which would reduce the risk for consumers during product
recall situations. For example, the origin of a product could increase perceived
quality.

Records and artifacts dating back to Egyptian times show that producers of bricks
marked their products with symbols in order for them to be easily identifiable, as
materials from certain areas were of better quality. Similarly, in medieval Europe,
trade builds required "trademarks" to be placed upon goods as a confirmation to a
purchaser of consistent quality, while also offering a simplistic form of legal brand
ownership (Farquhar, 1989).

The term “Branding” was extended from “Brand”, originally the process of stamping
Wrongdoers, harlots (Henning, 2000) or animals with embers or hot irons in order to
be easily identifiable (Arnold and Hale, 1940).

The concept and term “Brand” developed further during the eighteenth century
as “brand names” and images of animals, source of origin, and celebrities of the
day replaced the traditional approach of simply providing the producers’ name.
Producers recognized the strength of associating a brand name with a product,
making products easier for consumers to recall and differentiate from those of
their competitors. For example, in the nineteenth century, high-quality whiskey
tended to be associated with smugglers and their unique process of distilling
alcohol. Consequently, the “Old smuggler” brand was launched in 1935, taking
advantage of these associations in the minds of consumers.
Whilst marketing practitioners had adopted the term “Brand” within the marketing
Environment by the 1920s (Stern, 2006), it did not become a focus of research until
the 1950s,

When studies which considered the consumer dimension of a brand (Gardner and
Levy, 1955) led to the symbolic meanings and associations of brands becoming
important. The concept of brands has evolved since the 1950s from being a simple
identification device into a comprehensive identity system representing meaning,
purpose and direction (Caperer, 1994).

2.1.1. Brand Definitions

Brands have become invaluable as an intangible asset of an organization, and therefore require
strategic management (Keller, 2008). Creating and nurturing strong brands can be of significant
advantage to organizations, but the process also poses considerable challenges.

The term “Brand” as we understand it today is defined in a number of different ways. De

Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Riley (1998,) acknowledge twelve main capacities of a
brand. These include the brand as a “legal instrument, logo, company, shorthand device,
risk reducer, identity system, image, values system, and personality, relationship, adding
value and evolving entity”.
Firstly, the brand as a “legal instrument” is simply the mark of the brand which
designates
Legal ownership. Historically this involved the branding of cattle, with the concept
developing more recently into that of a trade-mark, protecting an organization's
brand investment (Broadbent and Cooper, 1987).The brand as “logo” has been
define by the American Marketing Association as a “name, term, sign, symbol, or
design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods and services of one
seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competition”. This is
the aspect of brand which is fundamentally concerned with differentiation through
name and visual identity. This definition of a brand is important when considering
brand awareness, specifically brand recognition. The marketing and psychology
literature emphasizes that repeated exposure to cues in the form of a logo increases
the likelihood that the product will subsequently be judged acceptable for inclusion
in consumer consideration within purchase situations (Janiszewski and Midis, 2001).

The brand as the “Company” uses the equity accumulated by the company name,
applying it to its products which become an extension of the company (Cretu and
Brodie, 2007). This technique is becoming increasingly dominant due to the growing
instance of ‘own-labels’. This is demonstrated within the supermarket sector by
companies such as Tesco, which provide branded products such as Tesco pet laundry
soap, insurance, finest foods and many other own brands. This can be contrasted with a
house of Brands Company such as Nestle, which has 6,000 product brands ranging
from cereals to pet care (Asker, 2004).

The brand as “Shorthand” views a brand as acting to increase speed and brevity,
representing utilitarian and psychological individualities. This is to improve
recollection of information, resulting in faster transaction judgments (Cohen, 2009;
Jain and Golosinski, 2009).

The brand as a “Risk reducer” achieves an advantage due to the risk which consumers
perceive before and upon making purchases (Caperer, 2008). This allows brands to
present their products in order to increase confidence and lower perceived risk. It
becomes increasingly important for brands to provide consistent quality within
products and services in order to realize potential as a risk reducer. The brand as
“Identity system” (Caperer, 1994) can be defined by describing “the brand not as a
product, but the product's essence, its meaning, and its direction; it defines its identity in
time and space”. Caperer’s (1994) view is concerned with a deconstructionist attitude to
the brand as logo, and brand as legal instrument. To realize the true value of this
system, it is essential that the brands meaning is understood, aligned between the
employee and the consumer and consistent through all facets of the organization
(Jones, 2001). In particular, this means that any gaps between the employees and
consumers should be reduced (Davies and Chun, 2002). The brand as an “Image”
within a consumer’s mind emphasizes the commercial significance of image,
suggesting consumers do not react to realism, but to perceived dimensions of it
(Caperer, 2008). Brands are able to convey a certain image through advertising
strategies. These perceptions, beliefs and associations held by consumers provide a
differential effect between brands and products (Mody-Kamdar and Srivastava, 2009).
The concept of brand as a “Values System” argues that consumers make decisions
based on both their personal and cultural value systems. In order for a consumer to
find value in a brand, it is required that alignment exists between themselves and the
heritage of the brand. The brand as a “Personality” is an anthropomorphisation, derived
from the Latin “anthrōpos”. It involves attributing human characteristics to a non-
human creature or physical object. It is a way to sustain individuality through
emphasizing psychological values, beyond a brand or product’s functional utility.
Brand personality represents the character of the brand as if it were a person (Phau and
Lau, 2001; Capper et al., 2001; Asker, 1997; Frohman, 2009). The brand as a
relationship requires the above concept of “brand personality” as a condition for a
relationship between consumers and brands. If brands can be anthropomorphized,
consumers will not only recognize, but interact and form relationships with them (Asker
et al., 2004). The brand as “Adding value” is a means of differentiating brands
through creation of perceived value (Shaun et al., 2009), thus achieving competitive
advantage. This can possibly lead to charging a premium price, for instance a better
“quality” service.

The brand as an “Evolving entity” classifies brands as experiencing stages of progression.

Through each stage, the emphasis of a brand progressively shifts from company to
consumer (Rowley, 2006). For instance, an unbranded entity becomes a logo, then
develops a personality and a relationship with consumers, and finally has values
added to its original existence.

The brand as a logo is the most widely used in the literature (Asker, 1991; Kotler et al.,
2008; Asker, 1996a), however it is clear that such a concept does not encompass the
complete meaning of brand.

Rainer (1995) and De Chernatony (1998) criticize the definition as reliant on the
visual features of a brand rather than more intangible benefits. Chaffey (2009,) agrees
with this and defines the brand as including unique added values; “an identifiable
product or service augmented in such a way that the buyer or user perceives relevant
unique added values which match their needs most. Furthermore, its success results
from being able to sustain these added values in the face of competition”. Added
values are more intangible, but of equal importance.

2.2. Brand Identity

Chernatony’s theory is used in the inspection of brand identity, because it gives
practical view of company’s brand identity formation compared to the
competitive theories (e.g. Asker 2010,). According to the theory, brand identity
consists of brand personality, brand positioning, brand’s culture and vision,
relationships and presentation of the brand; factors
that are constantly affecting to each other and to the brand identity as a whole (De
Chernatony 1999,). The idea of the theory is presented in Figure 2 .The theory
bases on the idea that the main factors behind company’s brand identity are the
employees of the firm (De Chernatony 1999,); they are creating brand’s culture
hence affecting the formulation of brand personality.In addition, employees are
conveying the brand culture, as well as the brand personality to customers, as
they are typically in closest connection with the customers (Harris & De
Chernatony 2001,). According to the theory, adaptive, strategically appropriate
culture, which is consistently apparent throughout the organization, is likely to
be connected to good and healthy brand image (De Chernatony 1999,). In
addition, brand’s vision and culture are the main drivers of brand’s personality,
positioning and relationships (De Chernatony 1999). When presenting these
brand identity factors to the brand’s stakeholders, those should reflect the real
and desired self-images of the interest groups (Foster et. al 2010; Chernatony
1999,). Because this study is concentrated on to examine brand personality, and the
idea in this chapter is to form a picture of how brand personality is formed as a part
of bigger picture, brand identity gets more attention in this study than it
does in De Chernatony’s original model. As pointed out before, cohesive
brand identity is important to company’s success (Louis & Lombart 2010,). In
top of that, brand should be somehow special and distinctive from its competitors
(Carlson et. al 2008,); otherwise brand just becomes a part of the mass. Naturally,
it is not enough to merely decide what the brand personality is and create it; the
brand personality has to be presented to the crowd as well (De Chernatony 2010,). In
order to create unified brand experience to customers, employees’ behavior should be
aligned with brand personality, and brand personality should be reflected in their
everyday work (De Chernatony 1999). Unified brand identity tends to lead more
favorable brand evaluations from customers (Louis & Lombart 2010; Sirianni et. al
2013,).
Figure 1. ‘Brand Identity’ Model (Modified from De Chernatony's Brand Identity Model 1999,)

2.2.1. Brand Personality

As defined above, brand personality is “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand”
(Aaker 1997,).Alongside affecting other elements in brand’s identity, firm’s core values affect
strongly to brand personality (De Chernatony 1999, ). Brand personality is a part of company’s
brand identity, and with that the brand is possible to be made one of a kind, unique. With
interesting brand personality product can achieve more attractive and outstanding status in
consumers’ minds and evoke feelings (Kaput a 2012,). Brand is often sustained through enrobing
it with emotional values, which can be welcomed beyond functional utility from
customer’s point of view (Keller 2008,). From customer’s perspective, brand personality helps
to decrease the information research and processing as brand’s values can be easily recognized
through the presentation of personality (Aaker &Joachimsthaler 2000; Aaker 1997,). Brand
personality is passed to customers particularly through marketing communication (e.g. De
Chernatony & Riley 1998,). Brand personality should be managed carefully, in order to achieve
favorable brand image in consumers’ minds (Kim et. al 2001,). In addition, brand
identification can be developed and maintained through brand personality, which also
improves the long-term relationships (Kim et. al 2001; De Pelsmacker et. al 2007; 2001; Farhat
& Khan 2011,). These are important attributes from the company’s point of view, as long-term
customer relationships are typically desired (Farhat & Khan 2011,). When considering the
brand’s personality as a part of brand’s identity and on organizational level as well, it is
essential to put focus on the presentation of the brand through media with supporting and
harmonious behavior of employees (De Chernatony 1999; Hayes et. al 2008). It is crucial that
employees internalize the brand personality, so the message of the brand identity will be right
and cohesive to the customers (Harris & De Chernatony 2001). The communication is
effecting the customers’ perceptions of the brand, in positive or negative way (Hayes et. al
2008,).

In presented 'brand identity' concept, De Chernatony points out the connection between
positioning and brand personality, which is often overlooked by managers (1999,). Brand
positioning is the other important factor in brand identity affecting brand personality alongside
brand’s culture (De Chernatony 1999,). It is not enough to inspect only the connection
between brand’s value and brand personality planning; the effects from brand’s positioning to
brand personality have to be considered as well when the goal is to build cohesive brand
identity (De Chernatony 1999, ). Also Freling and Forbes(2005) accentuate the
Importance of concerning both brand personality and brand positioning together in
actions related to brand: “along with positioning, personality is a vital guide for
those seeking to get the brand across to consumers”.
2.2.2. Brand Positioning
Positioning means “the act of designing a company’s offering and image to occupy a
distinctive place in the minds of target market“ (Kotler & Keller 2012,). In other
words, the main idea in positioning is to distinguish the company’s brand from its
competitors in consumers’ minds (Bergh & Behrer 2011,). It can be noticed, that the
laundry soape of brand positioning resembles the laundry soape of brand
personality, as brand personality is also aiming to stand out from its
competitors. According to De Chernatony (2010,), successful brands have
positioning concentrating on certain attribute, so the brand is easier to remember.
Relying on previous, this kind of special attribute can be brand personality.
The difference between brand’s personality and positioning is that while brand
positioning defines, what brand can do for a customer, brand personality
concentrates on what the brand says about the customer (De Chernatony 2010,).
To set an example, clothing brand is taken under inspection. The positioning of
brand can be that it offers a status symbol by being an appreciated brand. When
using the brand, the brand personality can tell that the customer is stylish or brand
conscious. According to De Chernatony (1999,), brand's positioning needs to be in
line with company’s vision and values in order to create cohesive brand identity. In
practice this can mean, for instance, surveying whether employees share the
same perception of positioning, as it is desired in the whole company level. For
example, do employees regard the brand as pioneer brand that is aiming to conquer
the world. If the employees’ views differ from the desired view of positioning,
employees should be helped to understand how their views differentiate, and how
their views could be changed to match better the desired views. (De Chernatony
1999,)
Brand positioning occurs in two levels; in marketing level and in a more specific
level. In marketing level, an overall position has to be established. To set an
example, clothing store can choose to be a ‘youthful street wear’ company.
According to this positioning, the target market is defined. In the next level, more
exact positioning needs to be made in order to be
Distinguished from the competitors. More particular benefit can be to concentrate on rebellious
youngsters, who want to stand out from the crowd. (Rosenbaum-Elliot et. al 2011; Keller 2008,)
Measurement of brand personality

Similar to the“BigFive”modelofhumanpersonality(Goldberg,1990;McCraeandJohn, 1992), brand

personality is measured along five dimensions that uniquely apply to consumers’ brand characterization
(Aaker, 1997). Aaker’s research developed a generalizable (reliableandvalid) scale to assess brand
personality (KoebelandLadwein, 1999). Aaker (1997) developed a theoretical framework of the brand
personality construct by determining the number and nature of dimensions of brand personality traits. In
addition, Aaker (1997) developed a measurement scale called the Brand Personality Scale, which
consisted of 42 traits. Even when the sample was divided by age or sex, or when subgroupings of brands
were used, five personality dimensions emerged . These five brand personality dimensions desired by
many companies for their productsareSincerity,Excitement,Competence,SophisticationandRuggedness.
The impact of this model has been so profound that since 1997 most academic publications about brand
personality are based on Aaker’s methodology. This model has been adapted in other countries, such as
France(KoebelandLadwein,1999),Japan and Spain (Aaker et al., 2001), Mexico (Álvarez-Ortiz and
Harris, 2002; Toldos, 2012), Russia (Supphellen and Gronhaug, 2003), Korea (Lee and Oh, 2006) and
Venezuela (Pirelaetal.,2004).Thestudiesconductedinthesecountriesdifferedinthreeaspects:the use of
Aaker’s methodology , thedimensionsfoundandtheconclusions.Forexample,in a study conducted in
Mexico, Alvarez-Ortizand Harris(2002)foundadimensioncalled Gender, which was more representative
than that of Ruggedness and contained only feminine and masculine traits.In are cent study conducted in
Mexico by Toldos (2012), a factorial solution of seven factors was obtained; Success, Hipness/Vivacity,
Sophistication, Sincerity, Domesticity/Emotionality, Ruggedness and Professionalism. Also, the brand
personality dimensions were compared to analyze the differences between males and females; it was
found that women rated the brands higher for Success and Hipness/Vivacity, while men rated the brands
higher for Domesticity/ Emotionality, Ruggedness and Professionalism. Three of the brand personality
dimensionsintheToldos(2012)studywereverysimilartoAaker’sfindings:Sincerity,
Brand personality andpurchase intention

Sophistication and Ruggedness.Nevertheless,otherdimensionsthatwerefoundinthis study, such as Success,

Hipness/Vivacity, Domesticity/Emotionality and Professionalism, were found to carry more specific
cultural meanings. The brand personality dimensions that were found in this study were more similar to
those that Aaker originally proposed,compared with the dimensions found in other countries.

Brand personality and purchase intention Brand attitude can be defined as the expression of an
individual’s favorable or unfavorable evaluation or feelings toward a brand (Berger and Mitchell, 1989;
Kotler and Armstrong, 1996). Brand attitude and brand image have shown to have significantly positive
relationships with brand equity (Chang and Liu, 2009; Faircloth etal.,2001;Naetal.,1999).Brand equity
isessential because brands with higher levels of brand equity generate higher levels of customer brand
preference, purchase intentions (Berry, 2000; Chang and Liu, 2009; Senthilnathan and Tharmi, 2012) and
repurchase intention (Hellier et al., 2003). Therefore, brand personality as a component of brand
imagery–as of attribute of an image–helps to create brand equity(Batraetal., 1993;Biel,1993). Brand
personality has been one of the most important issues in marketing, because consumers tend to make
purchase decisions based on brand images that have already
beenformedintheirmindsratherthanfromoriginalattributesorcharacteristicsofthe product itself (Dick et al.,
1990). The importance of stored memories of a brand in consumerdecision-makinghasbeenwell-
documented(Keller,1993).Overtime,brands form powerful associations in the minds of consumers
(Saavedra, 2004) which help consumers recover information archived in their minds to make decisions:
once recovered, the information provides a reason to acquire the product (Aaker, 1992). Therefore,
distinctive brand personality can help create a set of unique and favorable associations in consumer
memory and thus build and enhance brand equity (Keller, 1993).Asaresult,brand personality is considered
to be an important factor for a brand’s success in terms of preference and choice (Biel, 1993). But the
importance of brand personality and its effect on purchase intention have not been widely acknowledged.
Some studies found that brand personality dimensions have a significant influence on brand choice,
regardless of product type. However, Lim et al. (2003) found that the relative influence of brand
personality dimensions compared with that of product attributes is different based on product type. While
the relative influence of brand personality is stronger than that of product attributes for low-involvement
products, product attributes had a much stronger influence on consumers’ brand choices for high-
involvement products. In addition, Lee and Oh (2006) found that personality dimensions, such as
Excitement/Sophistication, Competence, Sincerity and Ruggedness,were significant predictors of brand
preference, satisfaction and loyalty. In her study, Aaker (1997) measured the degree of positive or
negative attitude toward each brand and found that personality dimensions were significantly related to
attitude: that specific relationships varied with different brands. For example, Excitement and
Competence were related to positive attitudes toward Apple and American Express. Ruggedness was
related to positive attitudes toward Levi’s but to negative attitudes toward McDonald’s.Participants who
perceived MercedesorPorsche assophisticated were more likely to have appositive attitude toward the
brand .Of all the personality traits,those associated with positive attitudes were mainly the dimensions

Sincerity (e.g. real, sincere, original and honest) and Competence (e.g. reliable, secure, intelligent and
leader). These results explain why some brands have used these dimensions to create their personality.
For example, many brands have moved toward the authentic and genuine as part of their
basicidentity ;some even use these personality traits in their advertising slogans (e.g. Genuine Chevrolet,
Genuine Jockey Comfort, Dockers Authentic). Excitement is another personality trait that has worked
very well for cosmetic products, athletic equipment, cars, etc. An exciting personality, as compared with
aweak and boring one, appears much better to a consumer(Aaker,1996). Studies in Mexico about brand
personality and its relationship to consumers’ brand purchase intentions are limited, and none of them
compare different types of products and level of involvement. Therefore, this study explores the effects of
brand personality dimensions on purchase intention and the differences in product category-related
purchase intention. As Aaker (1996) suggests, brand personality dimensions might operate in different
ways or influence consumer preference for different reasons. Whereas Sincerity, Excitement and
Competence represent an innate part of human personality, Sophistication and Ruggedness tap
dimensions that individuals desire (Rajagopal, 2005). In the same way, Aaker (1996) found that the
personality traits associated with positive attitudes were the dimensions Sincerity, Competence and
Excitement. On the other hand, as various studies have shown, positive brand attitudes have significantly
positive relationships with brand equity (Chang and Liu, 2009; Faircloth et al., 2001; Na et al., 1999),
essential to the generation of higher levels of purchase intention
(Berry,2000;ChangandLiu,2009;Senthilna than and Tharmi,2012).

How brand personality is formed According to Aaker (1996), brand personality is formed both from
characteristics related to the product and those unrelated to it.Among the characteristics related to the
product,we find that the type of packaging,price,attributes and category of the product and even the
perceived socioeconomic class of the product can affect its personality.On the other hand,among the
characteristics unrelated to theproduct,which can affect its brand personality, are the style of advertising,
its symbol, its time in the market, its country of origin, the image of the company and its president, the
endorsement of celebrities, its sponsorship and the imagery of the user. Fournier(1994) suggests that in
thesamewaythatthebehaviorofapersonaffectstheperceptionsofothersofhisorher
personality,alsotheactionsofbrandsaffecttheirpersonality,andthereforethebrand– client relationship.
Because the use of and experience with brands provide consumers with favorable memories and enhance
brand equity, and because brand personality is formed by the consumer’s experience with the brand and
by advertising, another objective of this study was to compare the ratings of brand-personality dimensions
of users and non-users of brands. It is important to compare these groups to understand how they perceive
brands differently, and with this information help a company to
maintainsalesandbrandloyalty,orincreasethesizeofitsconsumerbase.Whenbrand personality is studied with
regard to users and non-users, significant differences are found. Brand users have a greater level of direct
experience with the brand than non-users do. This experience means that the quantity and power of
knowledge of the

Brand personality and purchase intention

brands,includingtheirpersonalitytraits,shouldbegreaterforusersthanfornon-users (Romaniuk, 2008). Each

experience with the brand reinforces the existing memory
associations,whichincreasestheaccessibilityofthosememoriesevenwiththepassage of time or there has been
interference from a competitor (Kent and Allen, 1994). Those
whodonotconsumeorbuyacertainbranddonothavethisopportunitytoconstructor reinforce these associations
in the memory. Therefore, users often perceive a brand as havingastrongerpersonalitythandonon-
users(Aaker,1996).Instudiessuchasthatof
LeeandOh(2006)itwasfoundthatuserstendedtorateallthepersonalitydimensions higher than did non-users.
As a result, the following was posited: H2. Comparedwithnon-
usersofthebrands,userswilltendtoratethebrandshigher for all the brand personality dimensions for all the
product categories.

set of human characteristics associated with a given brand and it tends to serve a symbolic or self-
expressive function rather than a utilitarian function.17,18 Brand personality, like human per- sonality, is
both distinctive and endur- ing. For example, the personality of Coke is seen to be ‘real and authentic’
while Pepsi is associated with ‘youth, spirit and excitement’. These have en- dured over time in spite of
efforts to augment or change them.19 Brand personality is one of the most universally mentioned features
of a brand20 and has been a fascinating subject for many researchers in the past.21,22 Several models
have been suggested to define brand personality. For instance, Kapferer proposes that brand personality
makes up one of the facets of the ‘brand identity prism’. He stressed that brand identity reveals a brand’s
richness, which can contribute a strong differentiating advantage for the brand.23 Others such as the NEO
model,24 Big Five prototypes25 and ACL26 all attempt to define traits that are related to the personality
of brands. There is one inherent weakness, how- ever. These models describe the per- sonality traits that
are perceived by consumers. They are not described as a set of consistent personality dimen- sions that
are available across other brands. Aaker attempts to bridge this gap by introducing five personality dimen-
sions. They are sincerity, excite- ment, competence, sophistication and ruggedness.27 These are derived
from 15 personality facets of brands. These facets can be further deconstructed into 42 personality traits.
The study was carried out on brands from 39 product categories, and these brands have been identified as
consistently possessing these five major dimensions in personality. With this, one can further explore how
these dimensions of brand personality would increase consumer preference and usage28 or evoke
consumer emotions.29 The personality of a brand encourages consumers to perceive attributes they aspire
to in the brand and hence the desire to associate with it.30 For instance, Guess and Esprit signify youth,
Marlboro cigarettes evoke images of masculinity, Gucci and BMW signify sophistication, Hewlett
Packard conveys competence, Hallmark and Kodak relate sincerity and Nike signifies fitness or even
Michael Jordan. It is also suggested that the personality dimensions of sincerity, excitement and
competence tap an innate part of the human personality, while sophistication and ruggedness tap
dimensions that an individual desires but does not necessarily have.31 Studies have also shown that the
development of a brand’s personality can be influenced by con- sumers’ personality,32 self-
congruity,33,34 culture35 and demographics

In recent years there has been a considerable amount of literature published on brand personality. Amidst
the existing researcher regarding brand equity, a central fundamental is concerned with the image of a
brand. The work of Kapferer and Theoning (1994) anticipated that brand image is the determinant of
mental representations, emotional and/or cognitive, an individual attribute to a brand or to an
organization. Brand personality is one of the indispensable constituent of brand image. Plummer (1985)
delineates brand personality as being perceptions of a consumer about a brand. The brand has a peculiar
personality profile. David Aaker (1991) in fact points out that any brand has an identity and nature, i.e a
brand personality. This view is supported by Keller (1993) concluding that it tends to serve a symbolic or
self-expressive function. Some researchers define brand personality from its expressions. Upshaw (1995)
argues that brand personality is the same as brand image or brand reputation. In fact, the visual aspect of a
brand is the extraneous personality depicted by the brand, like that of a person. An external personality is
something that is given to the characteristic of a brand, and functions as the causal connection between
the brand and the consumer either now or in the future. The more riveting and engrossing a brand, the
more emotional the consumer communication will be. Hence, like the idea of Macrcac (1996),
communication with consumers has the feature of variance dependant on brand personality profiles.
Furthermore, some researchers define brand personality from its construction. Rajeev Batra (1999) claim
that brand personality is the internal link of the whole brand image. It includes, but is not bounded to, all
of the relationships among the brand specialty, the brand identity, and the lifestyle and characteristics of a
consumer. All such relationships create the entire image of a brand. Langmeyer (1994) concludes a brand
personality is built by its characteristics and the fascinating response process of consumers in the market
surrounding; precisely like that the personality of a person is based on his or her genetic endowment and
his or her environment. Their researches show that the image of a product or service can be measured
independently, and it is not related to the target consumers.

Aaker (1997) considered that brand personality represents the set of human characteristics
associated with a brand. For example, Absolut Vodka was described as a cool, hip,
contemporary 25-year old man. The personality traits associated with a brand, such as those
associated with an individual, tend to be relatively enduring and distinct. Among all brand
research, little has been done based on the Chinese market, and far less is founded in the
perceptions of consumers about their preference, attitude, loyalty, and buying intent. Aaker
(1997) insisted that brand personality, used as a heuristic cue, might influence consumer
attitudes. The brand personality framework and scale developed by Aaker have important
applications for researchers examining the perceptions of brand personality across cultures.

2.2.3. Brand Vision & Culture

Brand’s vision gives the direction to company’s brand identity as well as brand
personality planning, and the company’s actions in the long run (De Chernatony
1999 Rude 2002,).In order to define a good vision, Collins &Pores(1996,) claim
that company’s management should consider brand surroundings at least five years
ahead. Vision should be clear and simple in order to be easily internalized,
especially by employees, as they are presenting the brand identity (Lemons
2006, ). On the basis of brand’s vision, brand personality is possible to be defined
and created (De Chernatony 1999; 2010,). In order to achieve the desired vision,
company as well as brand’s culture has to be in line with the vision (De Chernatony
1999). In other words employees should share similar understanding of patterns of
behavior inside the company, so that the mutual goal would be achieved (De
Chernatony 1999; Harris & Chernatony 2001,). To understand what culture means
in this context, the definition of culture is formed by combining the views of Schein
(1984,) and De Chernatony (2010,): culture is a sum of basic assumptions,
which certain group of people has invented, developed or found in order to deal
with issues, that rises from external changes or inner integration. These
assumptions are based on the values of the brand and the company (De
Chernatony 1999,). The assumptions are considered valid inside the
organization and those will be thought to the new members of the group (Kotter
& Heskett 1992,). Typically companies want to stand out from the competitors. This
can be seen as a vision, where brand personality is affecting behind (Kaputa
2012,). The same applies in the case of brand culture: when the brand culture is
well defined and internalized, it can also work as a tool of differentiation, such as
brand personality. As seen in De Chernatony model (Picture 2), these brand identity
factors are supporting and affecting to each other. The aim for all of these is to take
the brand closer to the mutual goal: unified brand identity.
2.2.4. Relationships
When the brand personality is created, the relationship starts to develop, just like in
any animate forms (Asker 2010,). The relationship formed is based on the values
that affected on the brand personality formulation, creating more cohesion to the
brand identity(Fournier 1998,; Avis et. 2012,). In DeChernatony’s model,
relationships are defined as relationships between employees, employees and
customers and employees and other stakeholders (De Chernatony 1999, ). After
time passes, these relationships develop through communication and the
relationships help different parties to understand each other better (De
Chernatony 1999,). Just like in every relationship, the other party has to be taken
into account; a selfish partner can easily wreck a relationship; once trust has been
created, it should be treasured in order to maintain commitment (Esch et. al 2006,
).
To set an example how the relationship between brand and consumer is
constructed, Fournier (1998,) found out in her case study, that consumers’
relationships with brands are “valid at the level of consumers’ lived
experiences.” This can be seen to mean that the relationships are based on
customers’ experiences, opinions and feelings related to brand. When viewing the
De Chernatony model, it can be observed that through employees’ actions,
brand personality is actually a part of every relationship formed (see Figure 2). In
order to achieve balanced brand identity, managers should help the employees to
understand, what kind of relationships are advisable to form with different
parties based on the brand. These relationships should be based on the brand’s
values and culture, brand personality, brand positioning and brand
presentation. It also has to be pointed out that these relationships should be
reviewed regularly. Staff should be taken into this evaluating process, so they could
realize in practice, how the relationships are affected by brand’s values, personality
and positioning. (De Chernatony 1999,) Relationships between customers and brands
have received quite a vast interest in the field of brand research (e.g. Asker 2010;
Keller 2008, ).
2.2.5. Brand Presentation
When planning the presentation of brand, the starting point should be to understand
how the brand identity could be presented in the way that appeals to target group’s
aspired characteristics (De Chernatony 1999,), as appealing brand is an
important factor of success. As noted before, appealing brand personality can be a
key for that. From the viewpoint of brand personality, it has to be underlined that
active communication, especially advertising, has an important laundry soaped in
creation of brand personality (Rajagobal 2006,). With communication, brand
personality can be made alive and to be more concrete (Rajagobal 2006,). For
example many older people are appealed with sporty and healthy looks (Caperer
1997,). Many dairy brands are positioned on lightness or fitness based on low fat
products as those reflects an image of sporty young female (Caperer 1997,). The
images are often found appealing from the perspective of older people, who are
often admiring youth (Caperer 1997, 103). As a consequence, these kinds of products
are often bought by older people, as they are presented in appealing way (Caperer
1997,).

Even though De Chernatony’s brand identity model (1999,) gives more practical
view of brand identity formulation compared to its rivals, it is still somewhat
complex as the model’s concepts are multifaceted, and so are the connections
between these variables as well. A summary from the model might be found useful.
The central point in any brand is its vision; where the brand desires to go to and what
does it want to achieve. Whether the aim is possible to achieve, depends on the
employees of the company. They are creating the general culture inside the company
alongside the managers. Managers have a general idea about how the
markets work and how the brand should be developed. These ideas form the core
thinking behind the brand, and those give the base to the brand’s positioning
strategy. The positioning of the brand manifests brand’s functional values as
well as brand’s personality; the factors that make the brand’s values alive in
practice. All of these different sections have to work coherently together; in
other words company’s employees have to internalize the main values of the brand
and work flawlessly according to those. At this way strong and successful brand
identity can be created. Finally, through presentation the brand identity is passed to
the stakeholders fromperspective of brand personality, presentation is in important
laundry soaped as through that the personality can be built, maintained and
developed. (De Chernatony 1999; 2010; Kim et. al 2001) All in all, it can be stated
that one of the main goals of brand personality is to stand out from its competitors.
Also other factors of brand identity, brand’s presentation, positioning, culture and
values as well as relationships, can be seen supporting the goal.

2.3 Brand Personality Drivers

Creation of brand personality can be seen as a ”joint venture” of both a customer and
a company. The concept of joint venture refers to a process, where both parties are
creating the brand personality from their own perspective: company is building and
developing brand personality through marketing, as well as with other various and
different tools. Moreover, both parties are affecting to brand personality.
(Feeling&Forbes 2005; Asker 2010; Rajagobal 2006,)
Customers typically experience the brand personality in dimensions that reflect a
customer’s personality (Rajagobal 2006,). According Feeling and Forbes (2005,),
brand personality is not created easily, but once created it tends to be long lasting.
The environment of brand is not constant, which leads to the fact that brand have to
be able to readjust to changes happening (Caperer 1997,). Through a multivariate
analysis methodology, J. Asker (1997) developed the Brand Personality
Dimensions (see fig. 2), operational in terms of human characteristics.
Brand personality model is represented by five factors, which are: Sincerity,
Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness. According to the author,
the Brand Personality Dimensions is a reliable framework for any kind of
productcategory.

Figure 2

Dimensions of Brand Personality

Brand Personality

Brand Personality

Sincerity
Sincerity Excitement
Excitement Competence
Competence Sophistication
Sophistication Ruggedness
Ruggedness

Down-to-earth Daring Reliable Upper class

Outdoorsy
Honest Spirited Intelligent Charming
Tough
Wholesome Imaginative Successful
Cheerful Up-to-date

source:J.Aaker,1997

In this study the concentration is on Asker’s theory concerning brand personality

drivers and the concentration is mainly on company’s point of view. According to
his view, there are two different characteristics in brand personality drivers:
product-related and non-product-related attributes. In addition, everything that is
somehow related to a brand affects to brand’s personality formed and
experienced. To company, this means that all these affecting characteristics should
be in line with the wanted brand personality in order to achieve desired goals and
cohesive brand personality. Since in the theory there are many drivers affecting
brand personality, not all of the factors are taken into closer inspection. (Asker
2010,).
2.3.1. Product-Related Characteristics
The strongest effect the brand personality has on product-related characteristics,
such as product category, package, price and product attributes (Asker 2010,).
Price-related characteristics are often under discussion when talking about brands
(Asker 2010,). For example DelVecchio and Puligadda (2012,) proved, alongside
numerous other researches, that a discounted product is associated with a lower
product quality; in other words, higher price as a product character can lead to an
image of good quality. The price of the product can determine whether the product is
upscale, middle-market or downscale (Asker 2010; De Chernatony & Riley 1998,).

2.3.2. Non-Product Related Characteristics

Non-product related characteristics also affect the brand personality. According to
Aaker (2010,), these kinds of characteristics are user imagery, sponsorship, age,
symbol, advertisement style, country of origin, company image, CEO and celebrity
endorsers. Rajagobal (2006,)
underlines the high power that celebrity endorses have in a brand personality
building process; when using a famous person as a means of marketing, brand can
lend the personality of the famous person and combine the image on its own.
Advertisements and advertising in general are playing an important laundry soape in
personality building (Aaker 2010,). This is a consequence of the fact that advertising
offers a practical way for creating associations in customers’ minds (Rajagobal
2006,). Through advertising, brand managers can contlaundry soap the extent of
which a particular personality trait becomes a part of brand’s overall image in
medium or long-term or at least to some degree (Hayes et. al 2011,). In addition to
Aaker (2010,), other researchers have also underlined the importance of advertising
as a tool for creating brand personality. For example Keller (2008,) believes that
one reason for why advertising is so influential is the customers’ tendency to
inferences concerning to the situation of usage depicted in an advertisement.
Company’s way to advertise the brand affects to brand personality as well: for
example a strong presence in advertisement channels and advertising frequency
do affect how brand’s personality is perceived (Rosenbaum-Elliot et. al 2007,).
The relationship between brand personality and advertising can be seen interactive:
brand personality does affect the marketing practices of the company (Freling et. al
2011,). Symbol, or the logo in the other words, forms a really important part of
brand and its personality as well (Keller 2008; Aaker & Joachimsthaler 2000,). Even
though it is only a picture with one or few words, the power of logo can be
enormous (Keller 2008; Aaker & Joachimsthaler 2000,). McDonald’s golden arches
can be set as an example of a powerful logo.
Aaker’s view of non-product related characteristics is supported with other brand
personality researches. For example Hayes et. al (2011,) investigated in their study,
whether it is possible to imbue a brand with meanings and give it a personality. They
used three types of associations for testing: product attributes, corporate
associations and user imagery; all of which are also presented in Asker’s (2010,)
‘brand personality drivers’ model. They found out that user imagery has the strongest
affection to brand personality (Hayes et. al 2011). Other important outcome from the
study was that different kinds of brand associations could be combined in order to
create a wanted brand personality profile (Hayes et. al 2011,).