Measuring Brand Image: Personification versus Non-Personification Methods

Melisa METE

Measuring Brand Image: Personification

versus

Non-Personification Methods

Melisa Mete

PhD Researcher-Manchester Business School

melisa.mete@postgrad.mbs.ac.uk

Gary Davies

Professor of Strategy-Manchester Business School

Susan Whelan

Senior Lecturer in Marketing-School of Business-Waterford Institute of Technology

Personification vs. Non-Personification

• Personification: “ If Marks & Spencer

came to life as a person, do you think he/she

would be friendly ?”

• Non-personification: “Marks & Spencer is

a friendly company”

Brand Image & Personality

• Pros and cons of using personification

metaphor

• Brand image: consumers’ perception and

interpretation of a brand’s identity

• Brand personality: ‘the set of human

characteristics associated with a brand’

Brand Image Dimensions

• Aaker (1997): 5 dimensions of brand personality: Sincerity

(e.g. friendly), Competence (e.g. reliable), Excitement (e.g.

trendy), Sophistication ( e.g. charming), Ruggedness (e.g.

masculine).

• Davies et al (2001): 7 dimensions of corporate character:

Agreeableness (e.g. friendly), Competence (e.g. reliable),

Enterprise (e.g. cool), Chic (e.g. prestigious), Ruthlessness

(e.g. arrogant), Machismo (e.g. masculine), Informality ( e.g.

casual)

• Guens et al (2009): 15 studies, no consensus on dimensions

Stereotype Content Model: Warmth & Competence

Signaling Theory: Status

Theory Based Dimensions

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Personification approach provides a

better explanation of dependent variables such as

reputation, satisfaction and purchase.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Personification approach provides a

better explanation of dependent variables such as

reputation, satisfaction and purchase for corporate

brands than for product brands.

Methodology

Online questionnaires

M&S for corporate brand

Pantene for product brand

Survey Details

• 400 respondents randomly assigned to one the

four groups (M&S personification, M&S non-

personification, Pantene personification, and

Pantene non-personification).

• 2 by 2 between subjects design, random

assignment across treatments

• The sample :187 women (46.75%) and 213 men

(53.25%).

• Filter questions

• Online survey May to June 2014

Survey Measures • The measures were ordered by Demographics,

Dependent Variables and Covariates, and Brand

Image Dimensions’ Items.

• Demographics: Age, gender and education

• Measures of Involvement (2 items) Expertise (2

items) Satisfaction (4 items)

• Open ended question

• Items to measure brand image Warmth (6 items)

Competence (5 items) Status (4 items)

• Purchase (2 items)

Brand Image Items

• Warmth dimension: friendly, helpful,

trustworthy, ethical, sincere, honest, and

socially responsible.

• Competence dimension: successful, leading,

reliable, strong, and intelligent.

• Status dimension: sophisticated,

prestigious, up-market, and chic.

Personification vs. Non-Personification

• “Instructions: Please READ each statement carefully

and CIRCLE the appropriate box as follows: (5)

Strongly Agree (4) Agree (3) Neutral / No opinion (2)

Disagree (1) Strongly Disagree (if you don't understand

the meaning of the word, please mark no.3)”

• Personification: “ If Marks & Spencer came to life as a

person, do you think he/she would be friendly?”

• Non-personification: “Marks & Spencer is a friendly

company”

Results & Discussion

• Cronbach’ Alpha Values of the scales for

assessing the dimensions proved reliable:

• Warmth 0.94

• Competence 0.93

• Status 0.90

Results & Discussion cont’d

• The two way ANOVA test: no differences

between the mean scores for the three image

dimensions across the four cells

Results & Discussion cont’d

• Then we put covariates, first one at a time,

purchase, gender, age, education then all

together, still nothing.

• To eliminate the influence of familiarity

with the brand, we put the mean of the two

purchase items as a covariate: competence

dimension showed a significant difference

Results & Discussion cont’d

Source F Sig.

Corrected Model 44.294 .000

Intercept 1072.657 .000

Purchase 169.375 .000

Type of measure 2.440 .119

Brand 6.959 .009

Type * Brand 3.921 .048

(Adjusted R Squared = .325)

Results & Discussion cont’d

Type

Brand Mean

Personification Pantene 3.805

M&S 3.761

Non-Personification

Pantene 4.043

M&S 3.732

Results & Discussion cont’d

• The data were then tested to see whether

either measurement approach predicted

greater variance in the potential dependent

variables included in the survey.

Results & Discussion cont’d Model R2

Purchase

R2 Reputation R2

Satisfaction

M&S (P) .296 .602 .456

M&S (non P) .431 .629 .656

Pantene (P) .526 .495 .632

Pantene (non P)

.272 .524 .494

The R-Square values by method

Personification works better for product brands –

Direct measurement works better for corporates.

Conclusion

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Personification approach provides a

better explanation of dependent variables such as

reputation, satisfaction and purchase.

Finding: Supported for Pantene for satisfaction and

purchase but not reputation, not supported for M&S.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Personification approach is more

useful for corporate brands than non-personification

methods of measurement.

Not supported

Conclusion & Further Work

Personification as a measurement approach is not a

guarantee of a better explanation than direct approach.

BUT we can’t abandon personification method.

Personification allows broader range of items, hence

greater variance in dependent variables.

In a context where respondents might be reluctant to give

their replies and where a measure of reluctance is

included; further work is needed.

Measuring Brand Image: Personification

versus

Non-Personification Methods

Melisa Mete

PhD Researcher-Manchester Business School

melisa.mete@postgrad.mbs.ac.uk

Gary Davies

Professor of Strategy-Manchester Business School

Susan Whelan

Senior Lecturer in Marketing-School of Business-Waterford Institute of Technology

References

• Aaker, J. L. (1997, August). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34,347−356).

• Aaker, D., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand leadership. New York: Free Press.

• Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R. V., & Roper, S. (2004). A corporate character scale to assess employee and customer views of organization reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 125-146.

• De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M., & Van den Bergh,J. (2007). Marketing communications 3rd ed. London: Pearson Education.

• Handbook of personality (pp. 102−138). New York: The Guilford P

• John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Ress.

• Kapferer, J. N. (2008).The new strategic brand management, 4th edition London: Kogan Page.

• Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management. Building, measuring, and managing brand equity, 3rd edition Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall