a report on brand personality of nike and adidas

A PROJECT REPORT ON “THE BRAND PERSONALITY OF NIKE AND ADIDAS”

CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION OF COMPANY

Adidas and Nike are both successful sports apparel manufacturer company which sells sportwears clothes, shoes, sport tools, water bottles and more. Heavy competition in the sports industry has caused organisations like Nike and Adidas to focus on more than just selling sportswear- and equipment. Organisations need to differentiate themselves and focus on both product attributes and brand values when creating brand strategies. Therefore, we have found it interesting to see how Nike and Adidas communicate their branding strategy differently.

1.1 Company Profile at a Glance :

Company Name Adidas Nike

Type Public Public

Industry Clothing and consumer goods manufacture

Sportswear & Sports equipment

Founded 1924 1964

Founders Adolf Dassler William J. “Bill Bowerman, Philip H. Knight

Headquaters Herzogenaurauch, Germany Washington County, US

Area Served Worldwide Worldwide

Key People Herbert Hanier (CEO), Erich Stamminger, Igor Landau

Bob McDonald

Products Footwear, Sportswear, Sports equipment, Toiletries etc.

Athletic shoes, Apparel, Sports equipment, Accessories

SHREE CHIMANBHAI PATEL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_goods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing


Logo

Net Income (2009) US$ 10.38 Billion US$ 19.2 Billion

Employees 39,60030,200

Website adidas-group.com nike.com



1.2 Brief History of Company :

History of Adidas

Adidas was formally registered on 18 August 1949 as Adidas AG, by Adolf Adi Dassler, whose name formed the company’s title. Adolf Dassler was born in Bavaria and started making sports shoes in his mother’s kitchen after he returned from World War 1. He was joined in 1924 by his brother Rudolf Dassler and using their mother’s laundry as their manufacturing base, they began operations. Famously, during the 1936 Olympics, Adi Dassler drove to Munich and persuaded Olympic gold medal list Jesse Owens to wear his shoes which established his reputation among the sporting world and gave him lots of contracts and financial success. After the Second World War, though, the brothers split up and Rudolf Dassler went on to form his own company, which later became Puma. After the death of Horst Dassler, Adolf’s son, the company went through some troubled times. It was then bought by French industrialist Bernard Tapie and subsequently by Robert Louis-Dreyfus. In2001 Herbert Hainer took over as CEO of Adidas and has been leading the conglomerate ever since. A long line of innovative products and successes later, Adidas is one of the world ’s largest corporate, with a product line to envy and worth millions of dollars. The trademark three stripes and the slogan ‘Impossible is Nothing’ are Adidas’ identity, an image it spends a fortune to uphold. In2005 Adidas acquired British giant Reebok to further strengthen its market and customer base.

Adidas Product Portfolio:

Adidas manufactures running shoes under its adiStar and Supernova brands, which include the adistar Ride, the adiStar Control 5, the Supernova Sequence and the Supernova Glide. The famous Copa Mundial football boot is Adidas premier football boot, which later developed into the Predator range. For basketball, Adidas is most famous for its Superstar and Pro Model shoes. Beside these Adidas makes jerseys for national and domestic cricket, football, rugby, and tennis and lacrosse players with a separate line for gymnasts. Adidas has recently entered the sports lifestyle market, following on the heels of Puma and Reebok and has launched watches, eyewear and most recently, deodorants, aftershaves, perfumes and lotions.



Brand History Adidas:

The company’s clothing and shoe logo bear the trademark three stripes, which is the company’s corporate logo. Adidas also has a trefoil sign that it uses only on heritage products since 1972. The three stripes logo represents performance and the future of the Adidas Branding identity. It has become synonymous with Adidas and its dedication to producing high quality athletic product s to make athletes perform better.

When Adidas entered the marketplace some 50 years ago, its focus was to produce shoes crafted specifically for soccer and running.

The new millennium has since brought about an Adidas renaissance; the brand has steadily regained market share over the past five years to become the world's number two athletic shoe company (behind Nike). How did it go about repositioning to once again be among the coolest of kicks?

Adidas claims that, "the brand values of the company’s authenticity, inspiration, honesty and commitment are derived from sport." Historically, this sensibility was demonstrated through early and continued involvement with Olympic athletes, as well as active sponsorship of major global sporting events like the World Cup. Adidas’s rapid growth in Asia, where revenue rose by 15 percent to US$878M last year, may be further propelled in Japan and Korea when those two nations host the World Cup this year s an event which is expected to garner2.5M spectators and o ne billion TV viewers worldwide.



However, the key to revitalized success seems to lie in the considerable endorsement deals Adidas has developed with world class athletes. Recent sports figures representing Adidas don’t only score high marks in their game s they also score high in their celebrity quotient. British football star David Beckham’s relationship with Adidas has no doubt lent itself well to the brands visibility in the UK. Recently dubbed "Captain of England," Beckham led his team to victory in the2000 FIFA World Cup. With Europe as Adidas’s largest market, exposure like this reflects in the numbers; sales grew seven percent to US$ 2.7 billion, last year.

Reinvention was the key, not only for the Adidass marketing strategy, but also for its product line. Eclectic, individual, 'no-rules' sports such as snowboarding, inline skating and surfing have grown into significant categories. Activities such as golf, hiking and mountain biking, which were seen as lifestyle and leisure activities, are now part of mainstream sports. Increased product offerings in these categories have undoubtedly contributed to a better score for the brand.

To keep up with the competition, Adidas generates close to 60 new foot-friendly designs each year. The Adidas credo is to regard shoes as feet, resulting in a product with superior fit and performance capabilities. Tactics have been revised in getting these products out for consumption. As a result, products have been repositioned in higher-end and sports specialty stores.

In2002 Adidas footwear innovation, ClimaCool TM, made its debut. The new technology added breathable materials to the shoe. In July, the Group completed its three -divisional structure for its sore brand, Adidas, and positioned its third division as Adidas Sports Styles.

In2004 ‘Impossible is nothing’ became the central message of a global campaign that Adidas launched. It refers to the shared attitude with the athletes, of always pushing yourself further, to beat the limits. In September, Adidas & designer Stella McCartney announced their partnership, introducing the Adidas by Stella McCartney collection.

On January2006, Adidas announced the acquisition of Reebok LTD. By combining two of the most respected and well-known brands in the worldwide sporting goods industry, the new Group will benefit from a more competitive worldwide platform, well -defined and complementary brand identities, a wider range of products, and a stronger presence across teams, athletes, events and leagues.



Adidas continues to prove itself as a brand built to last through a game plan of reinvention. With the recent acquisition of a lifetime partnership with Orlando Magic's Tracy McGrady (basketball) and its heavy involvement with200 2 World Cup, it continues to strike savvy deals that capitalize on the star power of young athletes and increase its visibility in the marketplace.

It appears that team Adidas has honed its strategy to become a revitalized contender in today’s competitive sporting goods market and is now duly recognized as the sneaker of yesterday and today

Adidas Operations in India:

Though Adidas entered into a license agreement with Bata in 1989, it formally began operations only in 1996 with the establishment nt of Adidas India Marketing Private Limited. In 1998 Adidas pulled a masterstroke, they roped in Sachin Tendulkar as their brand ambassador which proved a sound business decision. In 1999, keeping in mind the price conscious Indian consumer, Adidas launched its cheapest ever shoes in India. In 2004, Adidas India launched the advantage Addidas campaign, which increased sales by 30%. In 2005, Andreas Gellner took over as Managing Director for Adidas India. Adidas sees India as a huge growth market and according to Gellner, Adidas will invest huge sums to take on its competitors here.

Adidas Competitors:

The chief competitors of adidas are PUMA and Nike. In August2005, the company announced that it had made a deal to acquire rival Reebok for $3.8 billion. The acquisition would increase its market share and to establish a stronger foothold in the Sports Industry. This merger is indeed a success which has achieved significant sales growth. Merger of Adidas & Reebok complement each other in competing with their competitors, Nike; and is

more cost efficient and beneficiary to both brands with Reeboks strong presence in US market and the global recognition of Adidas.

Nike

Red tape

Bata

Liberty

Puma



New Balance of Adidas:

Adidas is the main competitor for Nike. Adidas currently enjoying the fastest growth of any brand domestically, with a market share of 6% and revenues of $500 million. They have been shielded from bad publicity by the two Goliath’s of the industry, Nike and Reebok, and are reaping the rewards substantially. They have adjusted their manufacturing strategy, from a vertical operation in Germany in the 60’s and 70’s, to an outsourcing focus today throughout Asia. Unlike the big two, they do not have a code of conduct, and their factories are considered to be the worst in the industry. It is just a matter of time before they are exposed, with an underground swelling of negativity already occurring today. In order to avoid the negative effects and lost revenues that Nike and Reebok have received, they need to immediately begin to take a proactive stance in regards to the working conditions of their factories.

History of Nike:

Bill Bowerman and Philip Knight started the company we know today as Nike in 1962. It was originally known as Blue Ribbon Sports. Bowerman was Knight’s track and field coach at the University of Oregon. Philip Knight went on to study at Stanford where he published a paper on ending the German domination in the athletic footwear industry. He travelled to Japan and entered into an agreement with the Onitsuka Tiger Company and became their sole distributor in the US. Bowerman and Knight received their first shipment of200 shoes and sold them at local meets to make a good profit. Bowerman, who had earlier designed shoes for his athletes, joined hands with Tiger to make the famous Tiger Cortez shoes, which became worldwide bestsellers and launched the business. In 1971, Knight and Bowerman began to make their own shoes under the brand name of Nike, named after the Greek goddess of victory and bearing the Nike swoosh, which is one of the companys biggest strengths today. In 1972, Blue Ribbon Sports parted ways with Onitsuka Tiger and became Nike Inc.



Today Nike is the world leader in athletic footwear, with market shares exceeding the other major players by significant margins. The Swoosh and Just Do It slogan are huge brand identities. Nike is a truly global player and seen as a model for innovation driven growth.

Nike Product Portfolio:

Nike’s first products were track running shoes which came under the name Nike Air Max, followed recently by the Nike 6.0, Nike Nyx and the Nike SB skateboarding shoes. Recently, Nike launched special cricket shoes for bowlers and batsmen called the Nike Air Zoom Yorker and the Air Zoom Opener. But its bestselling line still remains the legendary Air Jordan basketball shoes, named after Michael Jordan. Air Jordan still contributes more than 30% of Nike’s shoe sales.

Like Adidas, Nike too entered the sports apparel and equipment market and makes jerseys and specialist apparel for various sports. Recently Nike teamed up with Apple to launch the Nike+ range, which can monitor a runner’s performance through a radio device linked to Apple’s ipod.

But Nike’s most recent product is the one making waves across the sports world. Called the Lunar Glide, Nike is using Flywire (A thread developed by Nike, composed of Vectran, a liquid crystal polymer) and Lunarlite Foam to make the world’s lightest shoes. Advertised using the slogan “Actually, it is Rocket Science”, it reiterates Nike’s commitment to technology.



Brand History of Nike:

Nike positions itself as the market leader of sports footwear and uses the greatest athletes and the record of their achievements in advertising. The swoosh logo was developed by Carolyn Davidson in 1971. Together with the Just Do It slogan, the Swoosh logo perfectly expresses the brand and its philosophy. It expresses a high ambition and a will for victory, which is a part of Nike’s brand image and corporate culture.

It was only36 years ago that we had a world without Nike, and in that period Nike has gone from the brash newcomer, to the number one mass-market leader. The Nike story begins with the meeting of its co-founders at the University of Oregon. It was here that middle-

Distance-running business student Phil Knight fell under the tutelage of the college athletics coach, Bill Bowerman. Nike would go on to grow out of the fusion of Bawerman's sporting innovation and Knight's marketing know-how.

Even at a very early stage it seemed that Knight had a far-reaching goal, to break the long- established brand nomination of the U.S. marketed by the then main player, Adidas.

In order to achieve this aim, legend has it that Knight and Bowerman each put in $55 0 tocement their partnership, and decided to call their new company Blue Ribbon Sports (BRS).BRS was basically the American distributor of Onitsuka training shoes.

In 1965, after a period of selling Onitsuka shoes from the back of their van at athletic meets, the company grew.

The company went from strength to strength, but after heated disagreements between BRS and Onitsuka, the new boss at BRS decided to split from Tiger in 1971 and create their own company manufacturing their own shoes. It is said that Jeff Johnson came with the idea for the new name, deciding to honour the Greek goddess of victory, and thus Nike was born.

It was also at this that the fledgling company had to decide on a logo for the brand, and another of the legends that the company managed to create for itself was developed.

Nike took off virtually instantly in the United States, and within a year company sales wereat almost2 million pairs. In 1981 Nike decided to take another major step, with the U.K.becoming the company's first wholly owned foreign distributorship.

However it was in 1985 that Nike really became a major player. It was in this year that itmanaged to persuade the then little known Chicago Bulls basketball rookie Michael Jordanto endorse his own range of shoes. Even Nike could not have imagined the effect that thissingle act would have on sales. The new Jordan endorsed range transported Nike andtrainers in general to a completely new lever of popularity It was after the introduction of



the Jordan shoes and mass-marketing that went with them that the "trainer wars" got underway. Each of the brands, desperate to stay one step ahead of the competition, came up with a continuous stream of developments and inventions of technical wizardry. For a while in the late 1980's Reebok actually overtook Nike to become the number one player (at least in terms of sales), but Nike came back strongly with its 'just do it' slogan in 1988, and regained the top spot in terms of market sales- a position they retain to the present day.

In2006, Nike entered the cricket market with a 5-year sponsorship of the Indian cricket team for US$43m. Nike and Apple released the Nike+iPod sports kit, enabling runners to log and monitor their runs via iTunes and the Nike+ website.

In2008, Nike introduced shoes featuring new Flywire and Lunarlit e Foam materials. Flywire is a new technology made up of thin wires of vectran fibers, which are 5 times

stronger than steel and never lose strength. Lunar Foam is a material developed by NASA that gives the shoe excellent shock absorption and a great feel with minimal weight.

Back in 1971, the newly created Nike Company was ready to hit the market with its shoes, and a logo to represent the brand was urgently needed.

Phil Knight turned to an associate from his teaching life and commissioned graphic-designstudent Carolyn Davison to work with his new brand. Knight wanted a design that wouldrepresent movement. Davidson supplied Knight with a few designs one of which was theinitial 'Swoosh' so well known today. Knight was not particular enamoured with any of these designs, but with deadlines to meet the Swoosh was chosenEven though Davidson was initially paid only $35 for her design, the story doesn't end there.In 1983, Knight took Davidson out for lunch and presented her with a diamond-encrustedNike ring, and also an envelope. The envelope contained Nike Stock.

Nike has continuously pushed back the boundaries of trainer design, staying focused under Phil Knight's guidance, and is going to take some dislodging.

Nike Operations in India:

Nike has been present in India for over a decade through its seven year license agreement with Sierra enterprises, which didn’t help much in the bigger scheme of things as Reebok and Adidas came to the country with fully owned subsidiaries. This explains why the global market leader is still lagging behind in India. In2004, instead of renewing its franchise, it became a subsidiary and started operating with more freedom and capital. The result was that the market share rose and Nike became a force to contend with in the Indian market. Probably the biggest sign of the change in guard was the heavy investment in Cricket by Nike, culminating in its bagging of the Indian cricket team’s jersey rights, worth Rs200 Crores. Nike then launched its special range of cricket shoes and sponsored the Indian



football team as well. Though Nike has entered the market in earnest very late, the world no.1 will stop at nothing to gain lost momentum in the Indian subcontinent.

Nike’s Competitors: NIKE is one of the most successful manufacturers of athletic footwear, competing with Reebok, L.A. Gear and Adidas, as well as with manufacturers of casual footwear. Nike is the world’s No.1 manufacturer and marketer of athletic footwear. Nike stands for success, excellence, high performance, fame etc.

Adidas Reebok Woodland Red tape Bata Liberty Puma

Nike is the official kit sponsor for the Indian cricket team for 5 years. Nike beat Adidas and Puma by bidding highest, US $ 43 million.

New balance of Nike

Nike enjoys a 47% market share of the domestic footwear industry, with sales of $ 3.77 billion. Nike has been manufacturing throughout the Asian region for over twenty-five years, and there are over 500,000 people today directly engaged in the production of their products. They utilize an outsourcing strategy, using only subcontractors throughout the globe. Their majority of their output today is produced in factories in China, Indonesia, and Vietnam, but they also have factories in Italy, the Philippines, Taiwan, and South Korea. These factories are 100% owned by subcontractors, with the majority of their output consisting solely of Nike products.



1.3 SWOT ANALYSIS :

Parameters Adidas Nike

Strengths Strong management team and good corporate strategy

Brand recognition and reputation

Diversity and variety in products offered Strong control over its own distribution channel

Innovative designs in footwear enabling consumers to design their own shoes online

Nike is a globally recognized for being the number one sportswear brand in the World.

They manufacture high quality at the lowest possible price, if prices rise due to price hike then the production process is made cheaper by changing the place of production.

It uses lunarlite foam and fly wire materials in order to make the manufactured shoes lighter and more

Weaknesses Negative image portrayed by poor working conditions in its overseas factories

The direct sale to consumers is creating conflicts with its own resellers Online customer service not "helpful" or easy to find

In spite of having diversified range of sports products, the income of the business is still heavily dependent upon its footwear market.

Constant focal point for negative criticism by the anti-globalization groups.

Opportunity New technology and innovation to stay on top of market needs Possibility of outsourcing the web development and e-commerce to a third party developer

E-commerce will reduce the cost of goods sold thus improving the "bottom line"

There is opportunity to develop fashion products.There is also the opportunity to develop products such as sport wear, sunglasses and jewellery. Such high value items do tend to have associated with them, high profits.Global marketing strategy for emerging countries like India and China.



Collaborate with other online retailers to offer Adidas products.

Threats Negative image due to "sweatshops"

Economic downturn in North America and Asian Countries

Increase in the price of providing technological solutions (e-commerce)

Continuing challenges in import/export duties

Nike's strong reputation in the footwear and apparel industry

Threats to free trade and foreign currency fluctuations

Nike is exposed to the international nature of trade. It buys and sells in different currencies and so costs and margins are not stable over long periods of time.

The market for sports shoes and garments is very competitive. Competitors are developing alternative brands to take away Nike's market share.

The retail sector is becoming price competitive. This ultimately means that consumer price sensitivity is a potential external threat to Nike.

CHAPTER -2

CONCEPTUAL STUDY

2.1 Brand personality :



Brand personality is an important element in branding. Aaker defines the associated personality of a brand as a set of (1) human demographic characteristics like age, gender, social class and race, (2) human lifestyle characteristics like activities, interest, and opinion, (3) human personality traits such as extroversion, agreeableness, dependability, warmth, concern, and sentimentality. The brand becomes a living person and often attached to a metaphor. In this way, it visualizes the abstract intangible assets and characteristics in a more concrete tangible appearance. Hence, customers interact with brands as if they where human been. As it is counts for human personality, brand personality is distinctive and enduring.

Aaker has developed a framework of brand personality dimensions on the bases of an extensive research across 37 brands (out of 60) with a high salience rating divided over 4 clusters with 114 personality traits (out of 309).The brand personality construct composes five personality factors so called "Big Five": sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. The big five includes 15 facets and 42 traits; they explain 92% of the variance between the brand personalities. See figure.

F igu re 3 .1 B rand pe r sona l i t y

Brand personality develops the interaction between the brand, product, service, organization and their users. Nearly everything associated with the brand affects the perceived brand



personality. For that, Aaker segregated two groups of brand personality drivers; product related and non-product related characteristics.

Product related Characteristics User imagery Characteristics

Product category

Package

Price

Attributes

User imagery

Sponsorships

Symbol, Age , Ad style

Country of origin

Company image, CEO

Celebrity endorsers

Table 3 .1 Brand persona l i ty dr iver s

User imagery, as defined as the associated set of human characteristics of the typical user, is a powerful brand personality driver. Where brand personality reflects to the brand, user imagery reflects to the typical user of the brand. Hence, user imagery should not necessarily be equal to the brand personality. The difference can be negligible, minor and significant. Nonetheless, both have a strategic value to the brand where user imagery enables the brand to focus on specific user reference groups (specific target markets) without jeopardizing the brand identity, heritage and brand personality (Aaker, 1996:170-173).



CHAPTER-3

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

3.1 Brand equity :

The concept of brand equity appeared in the eighties and several definitions were proposed (Aaker 1991; Dyson et al. 1996; Kapferer 1995; Keller 1993). One of the first definitions of brand equity was given by the Marketing Science Institute (MSI) in 1988: ‘a set of associations and behaviour of a brand’s consumers, of channels of distribution and the company of the brand, which allows the branded product to achieve volume and profit margins more important than without the brand’s name, and which gives them a sustained, strong and differentiated advantage regarding competitors’. Beside purely financial approaches, studies on brand equity have followed two different directions:

1. Consequences of brand equity: revealed by the preferences (Park and Srinivasan 1994) or choice (Kamakura and Russel 1993) of the consumer. Park and Srinivasan (1994) measure brand equity as the ‘difference for the consumer between overall preference for the branded product and the preference due to objective features of the product’.

2. Antecedents of brand equity: a set of strong, positive and unique associations to the brand (Aaker 1991; Keller 1993). Our study will focus on the second approach. Brand associations in the consumer’s mind form the perceptual dimension of brand equity (Changeur 1998), in opposition to the behavioural dimension. The literature generally divides the perceptual



dimension of brand equity into two components: brand awareness and brand image (Aaker 1991; Aaker and Keller 1990; Biel 1992; Keller 1993). The first component deals with the presence of the brand in the mind of the consumer (brand recognition and recall). Brand awareness or the attention accorded to the brand refers to the likelihood that the brand’s name comes to mind for the consumer (Keller 1993). It is composed of brand recognition (ability of the consumer to confirm a previous exposure to the brand) and brand recall or memorization (which asks the consumer to remember correctly brands and their attributes). The effects of website exposure on brand awareness will not be analysed in this paper. Instead, we will focus on the effects of exposure on brand image.

Brand image:

This second component of brand equity is defined as ‘perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory’ (Keller 1993). Aaker (1991) defines ten dimensions of brand image, namely product attributes, intangible features, consumer benefits, relative price, places, moments and forms of utilization, buyers and consumers, stars and characters attached to the brand, brand personality, product category and competitors. Keller (1993) theorizes that the quality of a brand’s image depends on the favourable or unfavourable nature of that brand’s associations, their uniqueness, their strength, their cohesion and their level of abstraction. These associations constitute in the consumer’s mind the value of the brand. Keller (1993) classifies associations in three groups: brand attributes benefits and attitudes. Brand attributes include at the same time intrinsic indicators (factors connected to the product) and extrinsic indicators (factors not related to the product, such as advertising investments, price, etc.). Benefits are also classified into three types: functional, experiential and symbolic benefits. Plummer (2000) considers that brand image is composed of three dimensions: product attributes, consumer benefits and brand personality. ‘Product attributes such as “miles per gallon” or “strong flavour”, and the consumer benefits such as “saves money” or “don’t have to wash hair so frequently” represent the means that can be used to achieve the desired ends’ [which are the personal values] (Aaker 1991: 145).

Plummer (2000) argues that brand personality is a determining element in the comprehension of consumer choice. For Kapferer (1995), it is preferable to use the concept of brand identity instead of brand image, because the second one is too ‘volatile and changeable: it worries too much about the appearing and not enough about the being of the brand’. He represents brand identity by a prism of six sides: physique, culture, relation, reflection, state of mind and brand personality. ‘The brand, when it communicates, acquires a character. The way of speaking about the products or services evokes a certain type of character, which it could incarnate if we would compare a brand to a person.’

The creation of brand personality:

Brand personality traits are formed and influenced by any direct or indirect contact that the consumer has with a brand. A brand, unlike a person, cannot think, feel or act. A brand has no objective existence at all; it is simply a collection of perceptions in the mind of the consumer. Consumers accept the marketing actions to humanize brands. One explanation for



this can be found in the theories of animism, which suggest that there exists need by people to anthropomorphize objects in order to facilitate interactions with the nonmaterial world (Fournier, 1998). Anthropomorphization occurs when human qualities are attributed to nonhuman objects, e.g. brands. Consumers easily assign personality qualities to inanimate objects like brands in thinking about brands as if they are human characters (Blackston, 1993; Fournier, 1998; J. Aaker, 1997). In a direct way, personality traits are associated with a brand by the people associated to that brand (J. Aaker, 1997). One direct way to form and influence brand personality is user imagery. User imagery is defined as the set of human characteristics associated with the typical or stereotype user of the brand. Associations with the company’s employees or CEO, and the brand’s product endorsers are also direct ways by which brand personality traits are formed and influenced. The personality traits of the people associated with a brand are transferred directly to the brand. The theories of animism describe another process mechanism that directly explains the specific ways in which the vitality of the brand can be realized (Fournier, 1998). Spokespersons that are used in advertising can have personalities that fit those of the brands they advertise. Over time, the personalities of the spokespersons are transmitted to the brand.

The brand-person associations can also have a more personal nature. Brands can be associated with persons who use or used that particular brand, for example a close friend or a family member. Also, brands received as gifts can also be associated with the person from whom the gift was received. These person associations serve to animate the brand as a vital entity in the minds of the consumers. Obviously, this aspect is much less under the control of marketers. Indirectly, the brand personality is created by all the elements of the marketing mix. Betra, Lehmann and Singh (1993) suggest that the personality of a brand is created over time, by the entire marketing mix of the brand – “its price (high or low, odd or even), retail store location (imagery associations), product formulation (ingredients, benefits), product form (solid/liquid, etc.), packaging details (colour, size, material, shape), symbol used in all phases of the brand communication, sales promotion, and media advertising”. Another form of animism explains how brand personality is created in a more indirect way. This form of animism involves complete anthropomorphization of the brand object itself. Human qualities of emotionality and thought are transferred to the brand. This is achieved with the help of the marketing actions, especially advertising. For example, the brand character of M&M in the M&M commercials has the capacity to laugh and joke. One of the advantages of brand a personality is that based on their distinctive personalities, consumers are able to differentiate between brands. Another advantage is that the consumer can interpret the brand’s image in such a way that it is personally more meaningful. Brand personality encourages more active processing on the part of the consumer. Thus, the consumer puts more effort in creating and using the brand personality. A further advantage of brand personality is that life is given to a brand. By vitalizing a brand, another perspective of brand personality can be examined, namely the role of a brand as a relationship partner in a consumer-brand relationship. Next we will concentrate on these consumer-brand relationships.

Consumer-brand relationships:



The theories of animism suggest that anthropomorphizing objects facilitates interactions with the nonmaterial world. By assigning human qualities to inanimate products, by giving brands personalities, the vitality of a brand is realized. By vitalizing a brand another perspective of brand personality can be examined, namely the role of a brand as a relationship partner in consumer-brand relationships. A consumer-brand relationship can be compared with an interpersonal relationship, where the brand personality indicates the type of person the brand is. People have different motives to engage in relationships. The motivation behind the relationships is driven by the needs that individuals want to satisfy. The most used and well-known classification of needs in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization needs. Fournier (1998) states that 12 relationships are “purposive, involving at their core the provision of meaning to the persons who engage them”. Three important sources of meaning are identified that explain the significance of the relationship for the person involved; the functional meanings, the psychological/emotional, and the sociocultural meanings (Fournier, 1998). Consumer- brand relationships provide a practical or functional meaning to the consumer (Franzen & Bouwman, 1999). In this case the brand is used for its functional benefits. For example, the functional benefit of the pasta brand Barilla is to still the hunger. Over time, using the same brand can become a question of habit and convenience. The psychological/emotional meanings of a relationship are highly related to the activity around the identity of a person. Because the sense of ‘self’ grows of reactions of significant others (the relationship partner), people engage in relationships to define the ‘self’. Consumers look for brand meanings that help to construct the ‘self’. This is most commonly done by brands representing ideal personalities, or alternative reflecting one’s own individual identity. Following the same line of reasoning we propose:

Proposition 1: In consumer-brand relationships, consumers search for brands that have personalities that are similar to their own, or personalities that represent the ideal personalities, in psychological/emotional terms

People are constantly constructing and reconstructing their self-identity (McCracken, 1993). In a consumer-brand relationship the consumers choose brands that help the individual reconstruct the ‘self’, where the brand personality is used to make the identity change. Hence, relationships also help the individual to change the ‘self’.

Consumer-brand relationships also help the individual to maintain the self-identity. Consumers will engage in relationships with brands that have similar personalities to their own. A long-term relationship with that particular brand makes sure that the self-identity is maintained.

Consumer-brand relationships also provide a link to the past (Fournier, 1998). A consumer has a relationship with a particular brand, for example because the brand was a present received in the past, or because that brand brings up memories from childhood. Another type of meaning that consumer-brand relationships provide is sociocultural of nature. There are five broad sociocultural contexts that describe relationship attitudes and behaviours; age/cohort, life cycle, gender, family/social network, and culture (Fournier, 1998). Here, the



13 brand personalities communicate these sociocultural contexts to the consumer. Related to the sociocultural meanings of the consumer-brand relationships we suggest.

Proposition 2: Consumers engage in relationships with brands that represent their age, stage in life cycle, gender, social network, and culture.

Thus, while the psychological/ emotional need is to construct, reconstruct and maintain the self-identity, the sociocultural need is to communicate to others the self-identity.

Types of relationships :

Just like with human relationships, consumer-brand relationships are based on attraction, but the ability of a relationship to endure is a function of investment and commitment by the consumer (Fajer & Schouten, 1995). The level of investment and commitment in consumerbrand relationships is represented by the level of consumer brand loyalty. Consumer-brand relationships can be ordered based on purchase behaviour and their interpersonal analogs, the level of brand loyalty (Fajer & Schouten, 1995). Accordingly, consumer-brand relationship can range from low-order relationships, where the level of consumer brand loyalty is low, to higher-order relationships, where the level of consumer brand loyalty is high.

Proposition 3: More investment in consumer-brand relationships leads to greater loyalty.

Information about the type of relationship (based on the level of brand loyalty) consumer have with brands is extremely valuable for marketers. Marketers know the levels of brand loyalty of their target market, and by using their marketing tools they can try to improve the level of brand loyalty for consumers that have low-order relationships with brands.

Perspectives on brand personality:

Aaker (1997) defined brand personality as the set of human characteristics that consumers associate with a brand. In this manner, attention to the emotional and symbolic, pseudo human personality aspects of a brand provides a consumer with additional reasons beyond utilitarian or functional characteristics, to connect with a brand (Keller, 1998). Aaker’s framework represented an adaptation of the “Big Five” personality model, prominent in psychological research.

Evidence suggests that brands do indeed possess personalities. Critically, to the extent that brands develop unique personalities, they can be differentiated in the consumers’ minds and accordingly choice preferences can be affected (Freling and Forbes, 2005; Crask and Laskey, 1990).McCracken (1986) even suggested that consumers might search for brands with a personality that coincides with and reinforces the self-concept they wish to project, offering additional considerations for the impact of the brand personality concept.

The conceptual linkages relevant to brand personality include self-congruity theory (Sirgy, 1982; Graeff, 1996).



Self-congruity theory holds that consumers compare their self-concept with the image that a brand projects, and in turn, prefer brands that are consistent with their self-concept.

Studies have found support that consumers choose products and services that they feel possess personalities that are similar to (congruent with) their own personalities (Linville and Carlston, 1994; Phau and Lau, 2001). Consistent with this line of reasoning, consumers prefer brands that are similar to the consumer’s personality. Arguments suggest that when consumers use self-congruent brands, it can be an expression of their personal identity (Kumar et al., 2006). Indeed, as

Belk (1988) has suggested, products may be a means of self expression. As such, brand personality helps to develop an emotional loyalty among consumers. Freling and Forbes (2005) found support that brand personality positively affects product evaluations and purchase intentions. Since brand personality appears to be less imitable than other product attributes, the dimension of brand personality may yield a more sustainable competitive advantage.

CHAPTER-4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research methodology is defined as the systematic and objective process of gathering, recording and analyzing data for gaining knowledge that does culture influences the consumer impulsive buying behaviour. For a successful research the most important thing is Systematic search of information. Also the Collected information should be accurate and objective. Then only the research can facilitate to getting knowledge. Respondents considered for the study are consumer’s who does their shopping in Retail stores based in Hyderabad. The study involved filling of questionnaire.

Research Objectives : To measure Brand Personality of Nike and Adidas To study the personal, demographic, and rational profile of Nike and Adidas’s

product users

Research Plan:

Sampling unit : Consumer Sample size : 30 respondents Sampling Procedure :



Researrch Instrument : Questionnaire Target Area : Ahmedabad city

Source of Data :

Primary data collection : Questionnaire Secondary data collection : Websites

Books.

Research Design :

Research design can be simply understood as a detailed plan outlining how observations will be made. It is a master plan specifying the methods and procedures for collecting and analysing the needed information.

Being a framework or plan for a study that guides the collection and analysis of the data. It can be divided into three types:

Exploratory Descriptive/Diagnostic Experimental

The research was mainly exploratory as there were very little information available and the study was conducted on selected cases. The primary objective of this study is “to measure out Brand Personality of the brand Nike & Adidas”.

Type of Research : Descriptive research

Scope of Research : With the advent of customer oriented marketing, there is increasing emphasis on the consumer behaviour. The need of the present study is to conceptualize and empirically investigate the impact of brand personality on some of the key variables in consumer behaviour. Brand differentiation is now becoming an important tactic for combating competition in the hostile marketplace. A viable solution for establishing the distinctiveness of a brand is through brand personality. Attaching personalities to brands contributes to a differentiating brand identity, which can make brands more desirable to the consumer. The present study is proposed to conduct in Hyderabad. It aims to explore the interrelationships among brand trust, brand affect, and brand loyalty with an emphasis on the predictive role played by the construct of brand personality.



CHAPTER-5

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

5.0 Data analysis: Sample size: 30

5.1 Demographical Analysis:

Gender wise Analysis of Sample:

Frequency PercentValid

PercentCumulative

Percent

Valid Male 23 77.0 77.0 77.0

Female 7 23.0 23.0 100.0

Total 30 100.0 100.0



Male Female0

5

10

15

20

25

23

7

In this survey of Brand personality measurement of Adidas & Nike 77% male participated against 23% female.

5.2 Marital Status wise Analysis of Sample:


PercentCumulative

Percent

Valid Unmarried 25 86.0 86.0 86.0

Married 5 14.0 14.0 100.0

Total 30 100.0 100.0



UnMarried Married0

5

10

15

20

25

30

25

5

In this survey of Brand personality measurement of Adidas & Nike 86% unmarried people participated against 14% married.

5.3 Age wise Analysis of Sample:


PercentCumulative

Percent

Valid 18-24 20 69.0 69.0 69.0

24-30 7 24.0 24.0 93.0

30-36 2 6.0 6.0 99.0

A 1 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 30 100.0 100.0



18-24 25-30 31-36 37 & above0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

20

7

21

In this survey of Brand personality measurement of Adidas & Nike the major participation age group of 18-24 (20%), 24-30 (24%), 30-36 (6%) and 1% people above 48 years.

5.4 Occupation wise Analysis of Sample:




PercentCumulative

Percent

Valid Student 23 77.0 77.0 77.0

Professional 3 10.0 10.0 87.0

GV. Employee

1 2.0 2.0 89.0

Businessman 1 3.0 3.0 92.0

Homemaker 2 8.0 8.0 100.0

Total 30 100.0 100.0

Student Professional Gov Emplooyee Businessman Home Maker0

5

10

15

20

25 23

3

1 12

In this survey of Brand personality measurement of Adidas & Nike the major participation of respondents are student 77%, Professional 10%, Government employee 2%, Businessman 3% and Homemaker 8%.



Cross tabulation analysis: Respondents perception about Brand personality attributes of Nike and Adidas

Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Sincerity- Down to Earth) of Adidas & Nike:

Sincerity (Nike And Adidas)strongly disagree

disagree neutral agree strongly agree

Nike (male) 1 3 6 8 5(female) 1 1 1 3 1

Adidas (male) 3 6 7 4 3(female) 1 2 2 1 1

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Nutral Agree Strongly Aagree0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

3

6

8

5

1 1 1

3

1

3

6

7

4

3

1

2 2

1 1

Nike MaleNike FemaleAdidas MaleAdidas Female

This graph of Sincerity attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 27% male and 10% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 16% male and 6% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Hardworking) of Adidas & Nike:



Hardworking (Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree


Nike (male) 1 4 7 6 5

(female)

1 1 2 2 1

Adidas (male) 1 4 5 10 3

(female)

1 1 2 2 1

Strongly Disagree


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

4

7

6

5

1 1

2 2

11

4

5

10

3

1 1

2 2

1


This graph of Hardworking attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 21% male and 7% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 34% male and 11% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.



Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Sophistication) of Adidas & Nike:

Sophistication(Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree


Nike (male) 1 3 6 8 5

(female)

1 1 2 2 1


(female)

1 1 3 1 1

Strongly Disagree Disagree Nutral Agree Strongly Aagree0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

3

6

8

5

1 1

2 2

11

2

7

8

5

1 1

3

1 1


This graph of Sophistication attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 26% male and 7% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 28% male and 8% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.



Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Feminine) of Adidas & Nike:

Feminine(Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree


Nike (male) 2 3 7 5 6

(female)

1 1 2 1 1


(female)

1 1 2 2 1

Strongly Disagree


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2

3

7

5

6

1 1

2

1 11

4

8 8

2

1 1

2 2

1


This graph of Feminine attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 17% male and 7% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 27% male and 8% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.



Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Ruggedness) of Adidas & Nike:

Ruggedness(Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree


Nike (male) 2 3 8 6 4

(female)

0 2 2 2 1


(female)

1 1 2 2 1

Strongly Disagree


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2

3

7

5

6

1 1

2

1 11

4

8 8

2

1 1

2 2

1


This graph of Ruggedness attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 22% male and 8% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 28% male and 8% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.



Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Outdoorsy) of Adidas & Nike:

Outdoorsy(Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree


Nike (male) 1 4 8 5 5

(female)

1 1 1 3 1


(female)

1 1 2 2 1

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Nutral Agree Strongly Aagree

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

4

8

5 5

1 1 1

3

1

2

3

8

7

3

1 1

2 2

1


This graph of Outdoorsy attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 19% male and 12% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 23% male and 9% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.



Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Trendy) of Adidas & Nike:

Trendy(Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree


Nike (male) 1 3 6 8 5

(female)

0 1 3 2 1


(female)

1 1 2 2 1

Strongly Disagree


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

3

6

8

5

0

1

3

2

1

2

3

8

6

4

1 1

2 2

1


This graph of Trendy attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 28% male and 8% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 21% male and 6% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.



Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Up to Date) of Adidas & Nike:

Up to Date(Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree


Nike (male) 1 6 6 7 3

(female) 1 1 2 2 1


(female) 1 1 3 1 1

Strongly Disagree


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

6 6

7

3

1 1

2 2

11

2

7

8

5

1 1

3

1 1




This graph of Up to date attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 23% male and 5% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 28% male and 8% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Family Oriented) of Adidas & Nike:

Family Oriented(Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree


Nike (male) 2 3 6 7 5

(female) 1 1 2 2 1


(female) 1 1 3 1 1

Strongly Disagree


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2

3

6

7

5

1 1

2 2

11

3

7

8

4

1 1

3

1 1




This graph of Family Oriented attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 22% male and 8% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 26% male and 6% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Tough) of Adidas & Nike:

Tough(Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree


Nike (male) 1 5 7 7 3

(female) 0 2 2 2 1


(female) 0 1 2 3 1

Strongly Disagree


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

5

7 7

3

0

2 2 2

11

3

6

9

4

0

1

2

3

1


This graph of Tough attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 23% male and 6% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 30% male and 11% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.



FINDINGS

6.1 Results:

The findings based on the data collected give a fairly good idea about the various aspects of some important popular brands such as Adidas and Nike.

In terms of awareness, people are aware of both the brands. But they have their own likings and disliking.

Sincerity attribute Brand Personality indicates that 27% male and 10% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 16% male and 6% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Hardworking attribute Brand Personality indicates that 21% male and 7% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 34% male and 11% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Sophistication attribute Brand Personality indicates that 26% male and 7% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 28% male and 8% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Feminine attribute Brand Personality indicates that 17% male and 7% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 27% male and 8% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Ruggedness attribute Brand Personality indicates that 22% male and 8% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 28% male and 8% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Outdoorsy attribute Brand Personality indicates that 19% male and 12% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 23% male and 9% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Trendy attribute Brand Personality indicates that 28% male and 8% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 21% male and 6% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.



Up to date attribute Brand Personality indicates that 23% male and 5% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 28% male and 8% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Family Oriented attribute Brand Personality indicates that 22% male and 8% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 26% male and 6% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Tough attribute Brand Personality indicates that 23% male and 6% female think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 30% male and 11% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

6.2 Conclusion:

In the current study, the quantitative data supported the five major dimensions of personality as designated by Aaker’s original work. Here, the qualitative data provided fuller and richer perspective. Respondents’ (consumers) expressed their personal impressions of their usage, experiences, and feelings towards the brands being studied. In turn, the respondents’ own words provided the basis for drawing brand characteristics.This study found that Adidas was perceived as a reliable and trendy brand. While these impressions appeared to be quite salient to the consumers’ choice process, these items were revealed only through our quantitative assessment.

Importantly though, the quantitative analysis (shown in graphical form) revealed key differences in perceived personality between Nike and Adidas. For example, Adidas rated statistically significantly higher than Adidas on items such as original, trendy, up to date, friendly, down-to-earth, family oriented and up-to-date. On the other hand, Nike was rated significantly higher than Adidas on items such as Daring, Yong, Imaginative, Unique, cheerful, Upper class and tough.Looking at the quantitative and qualitative assessments provides a broader and more complete image. The rating scales suggest that Adidas has captured a more Up to date, contemporary, and perhaps “edgier” feel than Nike.

These could be utilized to differentiate and justify the Adidas added perceived expense of over Nike. The Adidas brand impressions seem to indicate that consumers sense that with Adidas, one “gets what they pay for” (presumably a consistently reliable product).

To conclude, Brand personality being potent tool needs to be leveraged to achieve key objectives for existing & new brands. In this study it is found that Adidas has slight advantage over Nike brand. Respondents perceived Adidas as brand having versatile personality.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

AAKER, David building strong Brands, 1996. Sengupta, subrato Brand positioning – Strategies for competitive advantage" Tata

Mcgraw Hill, New Delhi 1990. Upshaw, Lynn B. Building Brand Identity, Jhon – Wiley & Sons 1995. Moorthi, YLR 'Brand Management The Indian Context Vikas publishing 2005. 5.

Kapferer, Jean Noel, Developing New Brands, Pitnam publishing 1973. Rajeev Batra, Myers Jhon.G, Aaker David, Advertising Management 5th edition,

Pearson Education Asia.

www.consumerbehavior.net www.mcdonaldsindia.com www.mcdonalds.com Measurement and Validity of Jennifer Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale for Colgate

Brand BEJOY JOHN THOMAS and P C SEKAR Dimensions of Brand Personality by JENNIFER L. AAKER Personality and Consumer Behaviour by LEON G. SCHIFFMAN and LESILE

LAZAR KANUK *http://www.adidas-salomon.com/en/investor/reports/default.asp, October 2003 *http://www.adidas-salomon.com/en/overview/history/default.asp, October 2003 *http://www.cybersource.com/solutions/success_stories/nike.xml, October 2003 *http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/nikebiz.jhtml?page=1, October 2003 *http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/nikebiz.jhtml?page=15, October 2003 *http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/news/pressrelease.jhtml?

year=1999&month=06&letter=d, October 2003 "Nike - Channel Conflict." Graduate School of Business, Stanford University,

February 2000



*Belch & Belch. "Advertising and Promotion." McGraw-Hill Irwin. New York. 2001. p.493

Brand Personality and Mobile Marketing:An Empirical Investigation by O. BOUHLEL, N. MZOUGHI, D. HADIJI, and I. BEN SLIMANE

QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire aim to measure out the brand dimension of two Popular brands like Addidas vs. Nike :

Name: ________________________________Sex: -Male/ Female Status: -Single/Married

Age (in Years): 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48 above 48

Occupation: Student Professional Govt. Employee Businessman Home Maker

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree5 4 3 2 1

Personality Attribute Brand_1 Brand_2Addidas Nike

5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1SINCERITYDown to earthFamily orientedHonestCheerfulSentimentalFriendlyDaringEXCITEMENTTrendyCoolYoungImaginativeUniqueUp to date



IndependentCOMPETENCEReliableHardworkingIntelligentTechnicalCorporateSuccessfulConfidentSOPHISTICATIONUpper classGlamorousFeminineSmoothMasculineRUGGEDNESSToughOutdoorsy


a report on brand personality of nike and adidas

Documents