Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Measuring brand image personification versus non personification methods - melisa mete

1,257 views

Published on

Measuring Brand Image Personification versus Non-Personification Methods - Melisa METE

Published in: Education
  • Have you ever used the help of ⇒ www.HelpWriting.net ⇐? They can help you with any type of writing - from personal statement to research paper. Due to this service you'll save your time and get an essay without plagiarism.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • You can try to use this service ⇒ www.HelpWriting.net ⇐ I have used it several times in college and was absolutely satisfied with the result.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Hello! I can recommend a site that has helped me. It's called ⇒ www.HelpWriting.net ⇐ So make sure to check it out!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Hello! I do no use writing service very often, only when I really have problems. But this one, I like best of all. The team of writers operates very quickly. It's called ⇒ www.WritePaper.info ⇐ Hope this helps!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • You can hardly find a student who enjoys writing a college papers. Among all the other tasks they get assigned in college, writing essays is one of the most difficult assignments. Fortunately for students, there are many offers nowadays which help to make this process easier. The best service which can help you is ⇒ www.HelpWriting.net ⇐
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Measuring brand image personification versus non personification methods - melisa mete

  1. 1. Measuring Brand Image: Personification versus Non-Personification Methods Melisa METE
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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”
  4. 4. 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’
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. Stereotype Content Model: Warmth & Competence Signaling Theory: Status Theory Based Dimensions
  7. 7. 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.
  8. 8. Methodology Online questionnaires M&S for corporate brand Pantene for product brand
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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)
  11. 11. 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.
  12. 12. 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”
  13. 13. Results & Discussion •Cronbach’ Alpha Values of the scales for assessing the dimensions proved reliable: •Warmth 0.94 •Competence 0.93 •Status 0.90
  14. 14. Results & Discussion cont’d •The two way ANOVA test: no differences between the mean scores for the three image dimensions across the four cells
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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)
  17. 17. Results & Discussion cont’d Type Brand Mean Personification Pantene 3.805 M&S 3.761 Non-Personification Pantene 4.043 M&S 3.732
  18. 18. 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.
  19. 19. 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.
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. 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.
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. 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

×