articals whole group

8/2/2019 Articals Whole Group

1/11


2/11

Harvard University

Introduction and Objective of Session

The idea of a brand personality is familiar and accepted by most advertising practitioners (e.g., Plummer 1985) andmany marketing academics (e.g., Gardner and Levy 1955). For decades, researchers have argued that brandpersonality is an important topic of study because it can help to differentiate brands (e.g., Crask and Laskey 1990),develop the emotional aspects of a brand (e.g., Landon 1974) and augment the personal meaning of a brand to theconsumer (e.g., Levy 1959). However, although brand personality is intuitively appealing and, as a result, has receivedconsiderable academic attention, it has been criticized on a number of dimensions; conceptual, methodological andsubstantive. First, at the conceptual level, there is still some ambiguity over what a brand personality is. How should itbe defined and conceptualized? How (or when) is it different from brand image and/or user imagery? The answers tothese questions have important implications for managers and academics interested in understanding the largerquestions of why brand personality is important and how brand personality works.

Second, at the methodological level: how is brand personality best measured? While most researchers generally relyon qualitative methods, such as photo-sorts, free associations, psychodramatic exercises (cf. Levy 1985) these open-ended techniques are often dropped in the later stages of research as marketers look for more quantitative ways todetect and enumerate differences among their brands (Blackston 1993), the most common of which is the differentialsemantic scale (e.g. Birdwell 1968; Plummer 1985). However, studies using such scales are limited since the "right"way to compile the adjectives has not yet been determined. [Some researchers have used adjectives extracted from

personality inventories used for detecting emotional instability, schizophrenia or neuroticism (e.g., Maheshwari1974). Others simply use attributes most related to the products being tested (e.g., Birdwell 1968; Schewe and Dillon1978). Moreover, regardless of how the adjectives are selected, reliability and validity problems are generally notaddressed. (See Sirgy 1982 for a more complete review of these and other measurement difficulties).] Clearly, a brandpersonality research program should flow from the conceptual definition that guides it. Moreover, it would likelyinclude both qualitative and quantitative methodologies in order to retain the advantages of both. However, whatthose methodologies are, and how they work together to articulate the conceptualization remain unclear.

Third, at the substantive level: what does personality do for a brand? What are the implications of having a brandpersonality? What marketing activities create or alter it? In the past, researchers have suggested that brandpersonality is most important when used as a research tool to identify personal meaning for the consumer (King1989). Others assert that brand personality is needed as information for creatives when developing advertising(Lannon and Cooper 1983). Still others have suggested that brand personality should be seen as a more globalconstruct: a key determinant of brand equity (Aaker 1991; Biel 1993). In brief, brand personality, as a construct, hasmultiple uses. However little systematic research has been conducted to understand or classify these uses. Is brand

personality best used as a research tool, a clue for creatives or as a key element to brand equity? Or is the answer "D"?

The primary objective of this session is to address these three areas of ambiguity in brand personality research. Asillustrated by the set-up of the session, our goal is not to converge on one definition, conceptualization andmeasurement tool for brand personality. Rather, we draw on diverse literatures such as narrative theory, socialpsychology and psychometric theory, and illuminate their potential contributions to the study of brand personality.

The secondary objective of this session is to provide a platform for future research on brand personalities and relatedtopics. Upon reviewing the literature on brand personality, one gets the sense that each study does not receive theattention it may deserveCwheels are spinning yet brand personality research doesn't get very far. In order to give past,current and future studies some traction, solid theoretical frameworks and a sense of the topic's breadth are needed.By focusing on what brand personality is, how it can be measured and how it works, we hope to spur further researchto take one of these three perspectives and address other issues of brand personality. [Further areas of research mightinclude; to what extent does a brand take on a personality before vs. after use? What roles do brand names, logos and

symbols play in developing a brand personality? What impact does a brand personality have on loyalty? Under whatsituations is one brand personality preferred over another? What type of advertising (e.g., transformational vs.informational) is most effective in developing a brands with a strong personality? The three papers in this session willraise these and other ideas for future research.]

Orientation of Session and Topics Covered

As outlined above, the goal of the proposed special session, "A Brand as a Character, a Partner and a Person: Three

Perspectives on the Question of Brand Personality," is to serve as a forum to discuss current issues on brand

personality and suggest areas for future research within the domain of brand personality. All three papers will address


3/11

document Type Doctoral Thesis

Author Ndlovu, Joram

URN etd-09242009-225847

Document Title Branding as a strategic tool to reposition a destination: a survey of key tourism stakeholders in Zimbabwe

Degree PhD

Department Tourism Management

Supervisor Advisor Name Title

Prof E T Heath Supervisor

Keywords market segmentation destination marketing positioning destination branding image brand equity competitiveness brand communication brand identity

Date 2009-09-01

Availability unrestricted

AbstractThe main purpose of this study was to develop a destination branding andpositioning framework, with particular reference to the Zimbabweanexperience. The theoretical underpinnings and concepts used in this studywere destination marketing, destination branding and positioning, image anddestination competitiveness.To provide a strategic context to the study, branding as a key element of

destination marketing was clarified; the strategic role of branding /re-brandingin the positioning/repositioning of a destination was outlined; internationaltrends and best practices in branding and positioning were evaluated; and thedestination marketing situation in Zimbabwe, with particular emphasis on thestatus of branding and positioning, was determined.To determine key stakeholder attitudes, experiences and expectationsregarding the branding and positioning of Zimbabwe as a tourism destination,


4/11


5/11


6/11

Jennifer Aaker, Susan Fournier (1995), "A BRAND AS A CHARACTER, A PARTNER AND

A PERSON: THREE PERSPECTIVES ON THE QUESTION OF BRAND PERSONALITY",

in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 22, eds. Frank R. Kardes and Mita Sujan, Provo, UT

: Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 391-395.

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 22, 1995 Pages 391-395

A BRAND AS A CHARACTER, A PARTNER AND A PERSON: THREE PERSPECTIVES

ON THE QUESTION OF BRAND PERSONALITY

Jennifer Aaker, Stanford University

Susan Fournier, Harvard University

Introduction and Objective of Session

The idea of a brand personality is familiar and accepted by most advertising practitioners (e.g.,

Plummer 1985) and many marketing academics (e.g., Gardner and Levy 1955). For decades,

researchers have argued that brand personality is an important topic of study because it can helpto differentiate brands (e.g., Crask and Laskey 1990), develop the emotional aspects of a brand

(e.g., Landon 1974) and augment the personal meaning of a brand to the consumer (e.g., Levy

1959). However, although brand personality is intuitively appealing and, as a result, has received

considerable academic attention, it has been criticized on a number of dimensions; conceptual,methodological and substantive. First, at the conceptual level, there is still some ambiguity over

what a brand personality is. How should it be defined and conceptualized? How (or when) is it

different from brand image and/or user imagery? The answers to these questions have importantimplications for managers and academics interested in understanding the larger questions of why

brand personality is important and how brand personality works.

Second, at the methodological level: how is brand personality best measured? While most

researchers generally rely on qualitative methods, such as photo-sorts, free associations,

psychodramatic exercises (cf. Levy 1985) these open-ended techniques are often dropped in the

later stages of research as marketers look for more quantitative ways to detect and enumerate

differences among their brands (Blackston 1993), the most common of which is the differential

semantic scale (e.g. Birdwell 1968; Plummer 1985). However, studies using such scales are

limited since the "right" way to compile the adjectives has not yet been determined. [Someresearchers have used adjectives extracted from personality inventories used for detecting

emotional instability, schizophrenia or neuroticism (e.g., Maheshwari 1974). Others simply use

attributes most related to the products being tested (e.g., Birdwell 1968; Schewe and Dillon

1978). Moreover, regardless of how the adjectives are selected, reliability and validity problems

are generally not addressed. (See Sirgy 1982 for a more complete review of these and other

measurement difficulties).] Clearly, a brand personality research program should flow from the


7/11

Two Keys to Brand Power

Developing Brand Identity and Brand Personality

Two of the key drivers to building brand strength are creating a distinct brand

identity and developing a unique brand personality. Unfortunately, semantics often

gets in the way of understanding how these two factors can influence brand power.

Brand identity, for example, is often used in a limited, graphic-centric manner or

used interchangeably with brand image. All too often, identity is seen as just the

graphics, logos, colors, and symbols that generally make up corporate identity.

Those elements are the appearance (which is very important) but not the substance

of a brand, just as the clothes you wear are an important, even distinguishing, part

of your identity, but not the substance of who you are as a person.

According to Jean-Noel Kapferer, author ofStrategic Brand Management, identity

precedes image: "An obsession with image tends to attach greater importance to

appearance than to inner reality. But brand identity is a richer, more substantial

concept to embrace."To help clarify how these concepts differ, Figure 1 presents a detailed comparison

of brand image and brand identity:

Figure 1 Brand Image Versus Brand Identity

Brand Image Brand Identity

Appearance Substance

More on the receivers side More on the senders side

Passive Active

Reflects superficial qualities Reflects enduring qualities

Backward looking Forward lookingTactical Strategic

Associations already there Associations aspired to

As the comparison illustrates, these two concepts are quite different. Theres also a

simple way to sum up and understand the essence of the two terms:

image is how the marketplace perceives you; identity is who you really are. We

recommend that companies focus on building brand identity as the driving brand-

strategy component. Brand image is not to be diminished at all. It is, after all is

said and done, how a company is perceived. But dont make the mistake of

thinking your brand image is your identity. The challenge for brand strategists and

champions is to align image and identity. That happens - and can only happen - by

careful, proactive management of your brand identity


8/11


9/11


10/11


11/11

articals whole group

Documents