PAKISTAN'S BEVERAGES INDUSTRY IN FOCUS To CONGRUENCE and SATISFACTI PDF

PAKISTANS BEVERAGES INDUSTRY IN FOCUS
CONGRUENCE, SATISFACTION AND COMMITMENT WITH BRAND

PERSONALITY LEADS TO ENHANCED BRAND LOYALTY
Students of Methods of Business Research, Spring 2014
Program
BACHELORS OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Spring 2014
National University of Computer & Emerging Sciences

Management Science Department,
Karachi Campus
This study is done by the students of fast university, Pakistan.

1. Zulqurnan
zulqix@hotmail.com
2. Khurram Shahzad
khurram-shahzad2014@outlook.com
3. Hashim Iftikhar
hashimiftikhar@outlook.com
4. Kunal Kumar
kunalladhar@hotmail.com
5. Faisal Shamim
faisal_kps@hotmail.com
6. Zaib Un Nisa Murad zaibmurad@gmail.com

7. Samiya Yousaf
samiyayousaf93@gmail.com
8. Naresh Lohana
nareshlohana@gmail.com
9. Mohsin Ahmed
mohsinhmd15@gmail.com
10. Asra Tariq
heavenfairy@hotmail.com
11. Noman Ali
mani.ali2k@gmail.com
ii
Acknowledgement
Firstly, we would like to thank Allah, the merciful, for providing us the strength, courage,
direction and skills to learn, acquire knowledge and the ability to accept and meet challenges.
We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to Mr. Amir Adam for providing us his
precious time, guidance and instructions. We are also thankful to our parents who accommodated
us during those long hours of work in our project development. We hope the efforts that we have
put in would be fruitful for the students to come in FAST after us. Once again we are thankful to
all people who have been involved in this report directly or indirectly.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................. iii
Executive Summary ........................................................................................ xvii
Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of Thesis: Area of Research............................................................................................. 1
Pakistan Beverage Industry................................................................................................................... 1
Coca Cola ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Pepsi Co ................................................................................................................................................. 2
Gourmet ................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Research Question .............................................................................................................................. 5
1.4 Objectives of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 6
1.4.1 Broad Objective of the Study ....................................................................................................... 6
1.4.2 Specific Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Issues and Gap in Literature and the Studys Significance.................................................................. 7
1.5.1 Issues and Gap in Literature......................................................................................................... 7
1.5.2 Significance of the Thesis ........................................................................................................... 10
1.6 Contribution of Thesis in Three Context ........................................................................................... 11
1.6.1 Contribution of the Thesis towards Theory and Literature ....................................................... 11
1.6.2 Contribution of Thesis in the Context of Research .................................................................... 11
1.6.3 Contribution of the Thesis in the Context of the Objective ....................................................... 13
1.7 Conceptual Definitions...................................................................................................................... 14
1.7.1 Brand .......................................................................................................................................... 14
1.7.2 Congruence with Brand Personality .......................................................................................... 18
1.7.3 Satisfaction with the Brand Personality ..................................................................................... 20
1.7.4 Commitment with Brand Personality ........................................................................................ 21
1.7.5 Brand Personality ....................................................................................................................... 22
1.7.6 Brand Loyalty ............................................................................................................................. 23
1.8 Structure of the Thesis ...................................................................................................................... 24
Chapter 2:Literature Review ............................................................................. 25

2.1Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 25
2.1.1Brand ........................................................................................................................................... 25
iv
2.1.2What is Brand? ............................................................................................................................ 25

2.1.3Formation of Brand ..................................................................................................................... 26
2.1.4 Branding ..................................................................................................................................... 27
2.1.5 Brand Identity ............................................................................................................................ 27
2.1.6 Brand Image ............................................................................................................................... 28
2.1.7 Brand Equity ............................................................................................................................... 28
2.2 Context of the Research.................................................................................................................... 29
2.2.1 Beverage Industry in Pakistan .................................................................................................... 31
2.2.2 Pepsi ........................................................................................................................................... 32
2.2.3 Coca-Cola ................................................................................................................................... 34
2.2.4 Gourmet: .................................................................................................................................... 36
2.3 Brand personality .............................................................................................................................. 40
2.3.1 Dimension of Brand Personality: ............................................................................................... 48
2.3.2 Concept of Brand Personality: ................................................................................................... 55
2.3.3 The Creation of Brand Personality ............................................................................................. 55
2.3.4 Importance of Brand Personality ............................................................................................... 56
2.3.5 Consequences of Brand Personality .......................................................................................... 58
2.3.6 Effect of Brand Personality on Consumer Brand Preferences: .................................................. 60
2.3.7 Brand Personality Affects Leads to High and Low Involvement Products: ................................ 61
2.3.8 Brand Personalitys Influence on the Purchase Intention: ........................................................ 63
2.3.9 Micro vs. Macro Approaches to Brand Personality ................................................................... 64
2.3.10 Brand Personality Scale............................................................................................................ 68
2.3.11 Structure of the Brand Personality Measurement Scale ......................................................... 72
2.3.12 Brand Commitment: ................................................................................................................ 74
2.3.13Brand Attachment:.................................................................................................................... 75
2.3.14Brand Trust: .............................................................................................................................. 75
2.4 Studies on Congruence with Brand Personality ................................................................................ 76
2.4.1 Major causes of strong Congruence and personality with the brand: ...................................... 85
2.4.2 Congruence: A Crucial Variable in Marketing Congruence between Brand Personality and Selfimage................................................................................................................................................... 86
2.5 Studies on Commitment with Brand Personality.............................................................................. 89
2.5.1 Building commitment of consumers with new products......................................................... 101
2.5.2 Failure of new products with context to commitment............................................................ 102
v
2.5.3 Commitment with organizational citizenship behavior: .......................................................... 102

2.5.4 Brand Commitment and Loyalty: ............................................................................................. 104
2.5.5 The Importance of Commitment for a Certain Firm ................................................................ 110
2.5.6 Commitment as Multidimensional Construct .......................................................................... 112
2.5.7 Affective, Normative and Continuance Commitment ............................................................. 113
2.5.8 Commitment in Business Relationships ................................................................................... 114
2.5.9 Commitments Central Role: .................................................................................................... 117
2.6 Studies on Satisfaction on Brand Personality ................................................................................. 118
2.7 Brand Loyalty .................................................................................................................................. 139
2.7.1 Brand Loyalty with Celebrity Endorsement Model .................................................................. 162
2.7.2 Brand loyalty with Reference Group Theory ........................................................................... 165
2.8 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................................... 174
2.9 Hypothesis....................................................................................................................................... 176
2.9.1 Hypothesis on Congruence with Brand Personality................................................................. 176
2.9.2 Hypothesis on Satisfaction with Brand Personality ................................................................. 176
2.9.3 Hypothesis on Commitment with Brand Personality............................................................... 176
2.9.4 Hypothesis on Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty................................... 176
2.9.5 Hypothesis on Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty ................................... 177
2.9.6 Hypothesis on Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty................................. 177
2.9.7 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Congruence and Satisfaction ............................ 177
2.9.8 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Commitment and Satisfaction .......................... 177
2.9.9 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Congruence and Commitment ......................... 178
2.10 Literature Gap and Justification of the Study ............................................................................... 178
Chapter 3:Research Methodology ................................................................... 180

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 180
3.1.1 Why Do We Need a Methodology ........................................................................................... 180
3.2 Research Methodology ................................................................................................................... 181
3.3 Research Design .............................................................................................................................. 182
3.3.1 Research Philosophy ................................................................................................................ 183
3.3.2 Research Approaches............................................................................................................... 184
3.3.3 Research Strategy .................................................................................................................... 185
3.3.4 Time Horizons .......................................................................................................................... 185
3.3.5 Research Choices ..................................................................................................................... 185
vi
3.3.6 Research Technique and Procedure ........................................................................................ 186

3.4 Population ....................................................................................................................................... 186
3.5 Sample Size ..................................................................................................................................... 187
3.6 Sampling Techniques ...................................................................................................................... 187
3.7 Data Collection Procedure .............................................................................................................. 188
3.8 Scale Development ......................................................................................................................... 189
3.8.1 Definition of Scale .................................................................................................................... 189
3.8.2 Congruence (self with brand) Scale ......................................................................................... 191
3.8.3 Commitment to the Brand Scale.............................................................................................. 192
3.8.4 Satisfaction Scale ..................................................................................................................... 194
3.8.5 Loyalty Scale ............................................................................................................................. 196
3.8.6 Brand Personality Scale ............................................................................................................ 197
3.9 Data Collection Methods ................................................................................................................ 200
3.10 Correlation Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 201
3.11 Regression Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 201
3.11.1 Multiple Regressions .............................................................................................................. 203
Chapter 4:Data Analysis and Interpretations................................................... 204

4.1 Demographic Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 204
4.1.1 Gender ..................................................................................................................................... 204
4.1.2 Age ........................................................................................................................................... 207
4.1.3 Professions ............................................................................................................................... 210
4.1.4 Preferred Brand ....................................................................................................................... 213
4.2 Hypothesis Analysis......................................................................................................................... 214
4.2.1 Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality ....................................................... 214
4.2.2 Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality ........................................................ 216
4.2.3 Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality.................................................... 218
4.2.4 Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear Regression) ............. 220
4.2.5 Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) ............. 224
4.2.6 Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) .......... 229
4.2.7 Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction ................................................................. 233
4.2.8 Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment ............................................................... 236
4.2.9 Correlation between Congruence and Commitment .............................................................. 239
vii
Chapter 5:Conclusion andImplications ............................................................ 242

5.1 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 242
5.1.1Pepsi .......................................................................................................................................... 242
5.1.2Coca Cola................................................................................................................................... 245
5.1.3Gourmet .................................................................................................................................... 246
5.2 Limitations and Future Line of Research ........................................................................................ 248
References ...................................................................................................... 249

Appendix ........................................................................................................ 275
AppendixA: Questionnaire .................................................................................................................... 275
Appendix B: Pearsons r Correlation ..................................................................................................... 278
Appendix C: WEB Analysis..................................................................................................................... 279
Appendix D: SPSS Code Book ................................................................................................................ 285
Pepsi .................................................................................................................................................. 285
Coca Cola ........................................................................................................................................... 338
Gourmet Cola .................................................................................................................................... 392
Appendix E: Brand Image ...................................................................................................................... 446
Pepsi Cola .......................................................................................................................................... 446
Coca Cola ........................................................................................................................................... 447
Gourmet Cola .................................................................................................................................... 448
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Overview of Different Brand Personality Researches .................................................................. 69
Table 2: Brand Personality Scale Proposed by: (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, & Florence, 2004) ......... 71
Table 3: Brand Personality Scale ................................................................................................................ 73
Table 4: Repeat Purchase Possibility ........................................................................................................ 172
Table 5: Brand Personality Scale Proposed by (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, & Florence, 2004) ........ 199
Table 6: Total Number of Respondents .................................................................................................... 204
Table 7: Gender (Frequency) - Pepsi ........................................................................................................ 204
Table 8: Gender (Frequency) - Coca Cola ................................................................................................ 205
Table 9: Gender (Frequency) - Gourmet................................................................................................... 206
Table 10: Age Distribution of Respondents .............................................................................................. 207
Table 11: Age (Frequency) - Pepsi ........................................................................................................... 207
Table 12: Age (Frequency) - Coca Cola ................................................................................................... 208
Table 13: Age (Frequency) - Gourmet ...................................................................................................... 209
Table 14: Profession Distribution of Respondents.................................................................................... 210
Table 15: Profession (Frequency) - Pepsi ................................................................................................. 210
Table 16: Profession (Frequency) - Coca Cola ......................................................................................... 211
Table 17: Profession (Frequency) - Gourmet ........................................................................................... 212
Table 18: Preferred Brand ......................................................................................................................... 213
Table 19: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Pepsi .............................................. 214
Table 20: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Coca Cola ...................................... 215
Table 21: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Gourmet ......................................... 215
Table 22: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Pepsi ............................................... 216
Table 23: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Coca Cola....................................... 217
Table 24: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Gourmet ......................................... 217
Table 25: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Pepsi ........................................... 218
Table 26: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Coca Cola ................................... 219
Table 27: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Gourmet ..................................... 219
Table 28: Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Pepsi220
Table 29: Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Coca
Cola ........................................................................................................................................................... 221
Table 30: Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Gourmet
.................................................................................................................................................................. 222
Table 31: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Pepsi 224
Table 32: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Coca
Cola ........................................................................................................................................................... 225
Table 33: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Gourmet
.................................................................................................................................................................. 227
Table 34: Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Pepsi
.................................................................................................................................................................. 229
Table 35: Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Coca
Cola ........................................................................................................................................................... 230
ix
Table 36: Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) Gourmet .................................................................................................................................................... 231
Table 37: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Pepsi ........................................................ 233
Table 38: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Coca Cola ................................................ 234
Table 39: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Gourmet................................................... 235
Table 40: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Pepsi ...................................................... 236
Table 41: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Coca Cola .............................................. 237
Table 42: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Gourmet ................................................. 238
Table 43: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Pepsi ...................................................... 239
Table 44: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Coca Cola .............................................. 240
Table 45: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Gourmet ................................................ 241
Table 46: Overview Result of Rejection or Acceptance of all Three Brands ........................................... 242
Table 47: Estimates for Interpreting Strengths of Correlations ................................................................ 278
Table 48: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Pepsi .................................................................................. 279
Table 49: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Coca Cola .......................................................................... 280
Table 50: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Gourmet ............................................................................. 281
Table 51: Gender....................................................................................................................................... 285
Table 52: Age............................................................................................................................................ 285
Table 53: Profession ................................................................................................................................. 286
Table 54: Preferred Brand ......................................................................................................................... 287
Table 55: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would like to be ......... 288
Table 56: I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand ........................................................... 289
Table 57: I like to be known as a consumer of this brand......................................................................... 290
Table 58: This brand is the reflection of my ideal image ......................................................................... 291
Table 59: This brand is appealing to my actual image.............................................................................. 292
Table 60: The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me............................................... 293
Table 61: I am attached to this brand ........................................................................................................ 294
Table 62: This brand brings me safety ...................................................................................................... 295
Table 63: I strongly relate myself to this brand ........................................................................................ 296
Table 64: This brand is honest towards its client ...................................................................................... 297
Table 65: Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy ................................................. 298
Table 66: I like this brand ......................................................................................................................... 299
Table 67: I trust the quality of this brand .................................................................................................. 300
Table 68: This brand tries to improve its response to consumer needs on an ongoing basis .................... 301
Table 69: This brand has a lot of meaning to me ...................................................................................... 302
Table 70: This brand is sincere towards its consumer .............................................................................. 303
Table 71: I have lot of affection for this brand ......................................................................................... 304
Table 72: Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brands ..................................................... 305
Table 73: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands ............................................................. 306
Table 74: It would be too costly for me to switch brands ......................................................................... 307
Table 75: I like this brand ......................................................................................................................... 308
Table 76: This brand has a lot of meaning to me ...................................................................................... 309
Table 77: I am strongly related to this brand ............................................................................................ 310
Table 78: Brand Personality- Warm ......................................................................................................... 311
x
Table 79: Brand Personality- Pleasant ...................................................................................................... 312

Table 80: Brand Personality- Nice ............................................................................................................ 313
Table 81: Brand Personality- Imaginative ................................................................................................ 314
Table 82: Brand Personality- Inventive .................................................................................................... 315
Table 83: Brand Personality- Seductive.................................................................................................... 316
Table 84: Brand Personality- Attractive ................................................................................................... 317
Table 85: Brand Personality- Manipulative .............................................................................................. 318
Table 86: Brand Personality- Showy ........................................................................................................ 319
Table 87: Brand Personality- Arrogant ..................................................................................................... 320
Table 88: Brand Personality- Hypocrite ................................................................................................... 321
Table 89: Brand Personality- Deceptive ................................................................................................... 322
Table 90: Brand Personality- Liar ............................................................................................................. 323
Table 91: Brand Personality- Trendy ........................................................................................................ 324
Table 92: Brand Personality- Modern ....................................................................................................... 325
Table 93: Brand Personality- Sophisticated .............................................................................................. 326
Table 94: Brand Personality- Stylish ........................................................................................................ 327
Table 95: Brand Personality- Serious ....................................................................................................... 328
Table 96: Brand Personality- Strict........................................................................................................... 329
Table 97: Brand Personality- Reserved .................................................................................................... 330
Table 98: Brand Personality- Shy ............................................................................................................. 331
Table 99: I repeatedly purchase this brand ............................................................................................... 332
Table 100: I prefer buying this brand over other colas ............................................................................. 333
Table 101: Only this brand comes to my mind when I think of purchasing colas .................................... 334
Table 102: I recommend this brand those who ask my advice ................................................................. 335
Table 103: I say positive things about this brand to other persons ........................................................... 336
Table 104: I am pleased to buy this brand instead of other brands ........................................................... 337
Table 105: Gender..................................................................................................................................... 338
Table 106: Age.......................................................................................................................................... 339
Table 107: Profession ............................................................................................................................... 340
Table 108: Which brand do you prefer the most? ..................................................................................... 341
Table 109: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would like to be ....... 342
Table 110: I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand ......................................................... 343
Table 111: I like to be known as a consumer of this brand....................................................................... 344
Table 112: This brand is the reflection of my ideal image ....................................................................... 345
Table 113: This brand is appealing to my actual image............................................................................ 346
Table 114: The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me............................................. 347
Table 115: I am attached to this brand ...................................................................................................... 348
Table 116: This brand brings me safety .................................................................................................... 349
Table 117: I strongly relate myself to this brand ...................................................................................... 350
Table 118: This brand is honest towards its client .................................................................................... 351
Table 119: Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy ............................................... 352
Table 120: I like this brand ....................................................................................................................... 353
Table 121: I trust the quality of this brand ................................................................................................ 354
Table 122: This brand tries to improve its response to consumer needs on an ongoing basis .................. 355
xi
Table 123: This brand has a lot of meaning to me .................................................................................... 356

Table 124: This brand is sincere towards its consumer ............................................................................ 357
Table 125: I have lot of affection for this brand ....................................................................................... 358
Table 126: Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brands ................................................... 359
Table 127: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands ........................................................... 360
Table 128: It would be too costly for me to switch brands ....................................................................... 361
Table 131: I am strongly related to this brand .......................................................................................... 364
Table 132: Brand Personality- Warm ....................................................................................................... 365
Table 133: Brand Personality- Pleasant .................................................................................................... 366
Table 134: Brand Personality- Nice .......................................................................................................... 367
Table 135: Brand Personality- Imaginative .............................................................................................. 368
Table 136: Brand Personality- Inventive .................................................................................................. 369
Table 137: Brand Personality- Seductive.................................................................................................. 370
Table 138: Brand Personality- Attractive ................................................................................................. 371
Table 139: Brand Personality- Manipulative ............................................................................................ 372
Table 140: Brand Personality- Showy ...................................................................................................... 373
Table 141: Brand Personality- Arrogant ................................................................................................... 374
Table 142: Brand Personality- Hypocrite ................................................................................................. 375
Table 143: Brand Personality- Deceptive ................................................................................................. 376
Table 144: Brand Personality- Liar........................................................................................................... 377
Table 145: Brand Personality- Trendy ...................................................................................................... 378
Table 146: Brand Personality- Modern..................................................................................................... 379
Table 147: Brand Personality- Sophisticated ............................................................................................ 380
Table 148: Brand Personality- Stylish ...................................................................................................... 381
Table 149: Brand Personality- Serious ..................................................................................................... 382
Table 150: Brand Personality- Strict......................................................................................................... 383
Table 151: Brand Personality- Reserved ................................................................................................... 384
Table 152: Brand Personality- Shy ........................................................................................................... 385
Table 153: I repeatedly purchase this brand ............................................................................................. 386
Table 159: Gender..................................................................................................................................... 392
Table 160: Age.......................................................................................................................................... 392
Table 161: Profession ............................................................................................................................... 393
Table 162: Preferred Brand ....................................................................................................................... 394
Table 163: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would like to be ....... 395
Table 164: I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand ......................................................... 396
Table 165: I like to be known as a consumer of this brand....................................................................... 397
Table 166: This brand is the reflection of my ideal image ....................................................................... 398
xii
Table 167: This brand is appealing to my actual image............................................................................ 399

Table 168: The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me............................................. 400
Table 169: I am attached to this brand ...................................................................................................... 401
Table 170: This brand brings me safety .................................................................................................... 402
Table 171: I strongly relate myself to this brand ...................................................................................... 403
Table 172: This brand is honest towards its client .................................................................................... 404
Table 173: Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy ............................................... 405
Table 175: I trust the quality of this brand ................................................................................................ 407
Table 176: This brand tries to improve its response to consumer needs on an ongoing basis .................. 408
Table 178: This brand is sincere towards its consumer ............................................................................ 410
Table 179: I have lot of affection for this brand ....................................................................................... 411
Table 180: Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brands ................................................... 412
Table 181l: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands .......................................................... 413
Table 182: It would be too costly for me to switch brands ....................................................................... 414
Table 185: I am strongly related to this brand .......................................................................................... 417
Table 186: Brand Personality- Warm ....................................................................................................... 418
Table 187: Brand Personality- Pleasant .................................................................................................... 419
Table 188: Brand Personality- Nice .......................................................................................................... 420
Table 189: Brand Personality- Imaginative .............................................................................................. 421
Table 190: Brand Personality- Inventive .................................................................................................. 422
Table 191: Brand Personality- Seductive.................................................................................................. 423
Table 192: Brand Personality- Attractive ................................................................................................. 424
Table 193: Brand Personality- Manipulative ............................................................................................ 425
Table 194: Brand Personality- Showy ...................................................................................................... 426
Table 195: Brand Personality- Arrogant ................................................................................................... 427
Table 196: Brand Personality- Hypocrite ................................................................................................. 428
Table 197: Brand Personality- Deceptive ................................................................................................. 429
Table 198: Brand Personality- Liar........................................................................................................... 430
Table 199: Brand Personality- Trendy ...................................................................................................... 431
Table 200: Brand Personality- Modern..................................................................................................... 432
Table 201: Brand Personality- Sophisticated ............................................................................................ 433
Table 202: Brand Personality- Stylish ...................................................................................................... 434
Table 203: Brand Personality- Serious ..................................................................................................... 435
Table 204: Brand Personality- Strict......................................................................................................... 436
Table 205: Brand Personality- Reserved .................................................................................................. 437
Table 206: Brand Personality- Shy ........................................................................................................... 438
Table 207: I repeatedly purchase this brand ............................................................................................. 439
xiii
Table 213: SPSS Code Book .................................................................................................................... 445
xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Dimensions of Brand Personality ................................................................................................ 48
Figure 2: (Aaker & J.L, Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997) ............................................................. 50
Figure 3: Brand Personality Scale............................................................................................................... 70
Figure 4: Brand Personality Scale............................................................................................................... 72
Figure 5 : Consumer Information Process .................................................................................................. 90
Figure 6: Commitment with Brand Personality Model ............................................................................. 106
Figure 7: Commitment with Brand Personality Model ............................................................................. 107
Figure 8: (Basrawi, The influence of brands competitive advantage of consumer loyalty, 2009) ........... 158
Figure 9: Model of Brand Loyalty ............................................................................................................ 161
Figure 10: Conceptual Model by (Farhat & Khan, 2011) ......................................................................... 168
Figure 11: Winning Brands from AC Nielson (Knowles, 2004) .............................................................. 169
Figure 12: Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................... 175
Figure 13: Paradigms ................................................................................................................................ 183
Figure 14: Brand Personality Scale ........................................................................................................... 198
Figure 15: Gender- Pepsi .......................................................................................................................... 204
Figure 16: Gender- Coca Cola .................................................................................................................. 205
Figure 17: Gender- Gourmet ..................................................................................................................... 206
Figure 18: Age- Pepsi ............................................................................................................................... 207
Figure 19: Age- Coca Cola ....................................................................................................................... 208
Figure 20: Age- Gourmet .......................................................................................................................... 209
Figure 21: Profession- Pepsi ..................................................................................................................... 210
Figure 22: Profession- Coca Cola ............................................................................................................. 211
Figure 23: Profession- Gourmet ................................................................................................................ 212
Figure 24: Preferred Brand ....................................................................................................................... 213
Figure 25: Web Design of Brand Personality- Pepsi ................................................................................ 282
Figure 26: Web Design of Brand Personality- Coca Cola ........................................................................ 283
Figure 27: Web Design of Brand Personality- Gourmet ........................................................................... 284
xv
List of Images
Image 1: Pepsi Cola (1.5 ltr) ..................................................................................................................... 446
Image 2: Coca Cola (1.5 ltr) ..................................................................................................................... 447
Image 3: Gourmet Cola (1.5 ltr)................................................................................................................ 448
xvi
Executive Summary
At the present time a brutal rivalry exist between associations to achieve and protect greatest
piece of the overall industry. Building and overseeing brands to build purchaser loyalty can help
to surpass rivals in this fight. Advertisers use situating plans at creating and fulfilling a long haul
connection with clients. Creating brand picture that cultivate customer loyalty is essential in this
respect. Brand personality pays an essential part in securing a great picture of brand. The impact
of brand personality on shopper loyalty builds its vitality towards brand execution and brand
management. This exploration considers effect of brand personality on social outcomes towards
Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola and Gourmet Cola.
Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola are at present the business pioneers in customers Cola industry,
however, the intrusion of gourmet Cola in this industry may broaden the buyers of other cola to
itself. So the exploration investigates brand personality of Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola and Gourmet
Cola on the premise of their notoriety among Pakistani purchasers. This exploration examines
brand personality of Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola and Gourmet Cola and discovers their effect on
purchaser's Congruence, Satisfaction and Commitment with respective brands of Cola.
To get profound bits of knowledge research especially analyzes brand personality of Coca Cola,
Pepsi Cola and Gourmet Cola for buyers and non-shoppers of Cola and likewise for males and
females with distinctive age sections and diverse callings.
Populace savvy we are acknowledging entire Pakistan for this exploration. Quantitative
investigation system is utilized for this exploration. Self-managed surveys are utilized to
assemble data structure respondents.
xvii
For the examination of the results SPSS is utilized as a part of this exploration. Mean,
Correlation and multiple linear regressions are the different measurable tests which are
performed to get consequences of the exploration.
The discoveries of our examination secured that brand personality has impact on congruence,
satisfaction and commitment concerning Pepsi, Coca Cola and Gourmet. Qualities that are
negative in nature for instance misleading, introvert, conscientious have negative effects on
congruence, satisfaction and commitment when remembering our three brands of Cola drink.
While positive attributes like friendly, charming, elegant execute positive influence on
congruence, satisfaction and commitment of Colas. Our exploration discover reveal to us that
congruence in a brand heads towards satisfaction. On the off chance that brands can fulfill the
purchasers totally and in a positive way at exactly that point clients are joined to the brand and
get unwavering to it.
This implies that individuals can relate themselves to Pepsi with their appearance. Individuals are
likewise fulfilled by Gourmet in the Punjab district yet after this they are not equipped to get
steadfast with it. In this theory our exploration discoveries depicted that the purchasers of Pepsi
are substantially more dedicated as contrasted with other Cola brands.
xviii
Chapter 1: Introduction
The prime purpose of this research is to find out how congruence, satisfaction and commitment
with brand personality leads to enhanced brand loyalty, keeping in mind that the focus of the
research is on the beverage industry of Pakistan. The research that carried out is an applied
research. In this chapter a review is conducted. The most relevant, theories, models, and the
related constructs are presented. However, the deep knowledge of all the variables is not
illustrated in this chapter.
For the researchers this chapter provides insights about the foundation of all the variables that
leave an impact on consumer brand relationship and suggests future directions in order to
improve the knowledge in the field of this research.
1.1 Background of Thesis: Area of Research

Pakistan Beverage Industry
Over the time the beverage industry in Pakistan has grown rapidly. The industry has diversified
portfolio which consists of soft drinks, juices, syrups, milk and squashes. With about 170 units
presently running everywhere in the country, both upstream and downstream industries are
prospering (Naeem, 2003). According to the statistics, Pakistan soft drink industry has set to
experience volume sales growth of 30.5% till 2010. (Business Wire, June 29, 2007. - March 8,
2010). A leading carbonated drink brand has its annual sales up to 175-180 million crates
(Equities, February 07, 2010. - March 9, 2010.).
Coca Cola
In 1953, Coca-Cola started their operations in Pakistan. In the first stage, it was not the same as it
is now. In 1951, they just had franchise bottling and then afterwards in 1996, company took over
all the bottling system. The Coca-Cola Company has its own plants and operates supply chain
system.
The Coca-Cola System in Pakistan serves over 200,000 customers/retail outlets, which have
2500 employees that are working continuously for the company. Coca Cola has successfully
provided 54 years of dedicated service to its customers in Pakistan. Coca Cola Beverages
Pakistan has a very narrow product range in Pakistan. The brands that the company has are Coca
Cola, Fanta and Sprite. CCBPL has 6 plants and 13 warehouses throughout the country and
serves a population of more than 170 million with a production capacity of 111 million physical
cases (CCBPL, 2014). CCBPL is a significant player in the growth of Pakistans economy since
it is one of the countrys top foreign direct investments in FMCG sector (Coca Cola, 2014).
Pepsi Co
In 1979, the company introduced the franchise of Pepsi Cola International with the name of
Pepsi Beverage Company Limited of Pakistan.
Within five years of getting a franchise, Pepsi Beverages Pakistan Ltd. has managed to repeat the
success of previous work in the beverage market by becoming a market leader across the Sindh,
most specifically in the region of Karachi and later in Hyderabad. Dynamic partnership
established in 1979 between Pakistan Beverage Limited and Pepsi Cola International, in fact, is a
force to be reckoned with in the market, and that stands true to this day.
This great success flowed gradually to other cities of Pakistan in the south and north region, over
a period of time, which makes Pepsi and its brands the most popular cola beverage across the
country.
Today, with about 60 acres of space under the accumulated storage and processing, Pakistan
Beverage Company Limited is one of the bottling plants of Pepsi- Colas well-equipped and well
managed among all franchises in Pakistan (PBL, 2014).
Gourmet
In 1987, Gourmet Bakers and Sweets were founded by Mr. Nawaz Chatah as a single outlet of a
bakery unit, which is the largest food retail chain of Pakistan. It is located in Lahore, the second
biggest city in Pakistan known for its traditional food and passion for eating. The portfolio of
products that Gourmet has are Beverages, Milk, Ice cream, Water, Jam, Ketchup, Nimco, Juices,
Bread, Powder milk, Mithai and Bon Vivant.
Gourmet has more or less 120 outlets in Lahore and Faisalabad. It is the only local beverage
company in Pakistan which provides soft drink with price competiveness and standard quality
over the year. Gourmet food is one of the fastest growing bakers and confectioners store in
Pakistan (Gourmet, 2013).
1.2 Problem Statement

It may have something to do with the fact that the Pakistanis are estimated to spend around PKR
110 billion on carbonated beverages annually (Tirmizi, 2012). Pakistan beverage industry has
international brands which presents the outstanding quality of beverages. In the global vision,
brand personality has become the vital component of brand aesthetics i.e. a particular product or
a characteristic that serves to identify a particular product. Furthermore, the following question
arises that are very interesting subjects for the research about Pakistani beverage industry.
Are Congruence, Satisfaction and Commitment actually missing to create Brand Personality?
What would the company expect about the Brand Personality, when drawing lines of their Brand
Strategy?
When we look for Cola to drink, suddenly the brand which comes to mind is either Pepsi or Coca
Cola; these are the two main key players in the beverage industry of Pakistan. The problems that
are to be focused and find out in this research are:
Since 67 years of independence, why Pakistani local brands did not compete with these
international brands?
Why local brands still unknown by the consumers?
Why local brands would not be able to make any brand personality, which leads to brand
loyalty?
1.3 Research Question

Research Question # 1: Is there a causal link between congruence and brand personality with
the brand?
Research Question # 2: Is there a causal link between satisfaction and brand personality with
the brand?
Research Question # 3: Is there a causal link between commitment and brand personality with
the brand?
Research Question # 4: Does the congruence with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty?
Research Question # 5: Does the satisfaction with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty?
Research Question # 6: Does the commitment with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty?
Research Question # 7: Is there a causal link between congruence and satisfaction with the
brand?
Research Question # 8: Is there a causal link between satisfaction and commitment with the
brand?
Research Question # 9: Is there a causal link between congruence and commitment with the
brand?
1.4 Objectives of the Study

1.4.1 Broad Objective of the Study
The broad objective of the study focused to analyze:
If the congruence, satisfaction and commitment with the brand leads to the brand
personality and turn into brand loyalty.
If the congruence with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty.
If the satisfaction with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty.
If the commitment to the brand personality leads to brand loyalty.
If there is a causal link between congruence and satisfaction with the brand.
If there is a causal link between satisfaction and commitment with the brand.
The objective is to analyze the results and findings so that the management of local cola
company can better understand and know which decision that they need to take in order to make
the brand stronger and consistent in the minds of customers. This process will help in
strengthening the brand at the same time satisfying customers need. These results will further
help the local brand company to implement strategies that will improve the brand awareness
relating to international cola.
The empirical findings will shed light on how customers perceive local cola brand with regards
to its brand personality. Furthermore, these factors influence consumer decision making process
as well. This research would also enable the local cola company to come up with analysis of low
sales margin which further helps them to investigate what perception is being developed in the
consumer mind which causing hindrance in boosting up their sales in the local market.
Moreover, the findings of this research will help the local cola company to improvise its brand
image which helps in formulating brand personality which leads to brand loyalty.
1.4.2 Specific Objectives

Concerning to the broad objectives we would relate those objectives specifically to the local
brand of Pakistans Cola i.e. Gourmet Cola. Actually, it is the product of Gourmet which has the
diversified portfolio of various products i.e. dealing in sweets, bakery items, milk, ice cream,
water and many more. They are most successful in the province of Punjab especially in Lahore.
Our specific objective is to make it available across the Pakistan, for which we are doing the
research. The main concern of our research stand on three independent variables congruence,
commitment and satisfaction of the consumer towards the Gourmet Cola which would also be
compared with the international brands of beverages i.e. Pepsi and Coca-Cola.
1.5 Issues and Gap in Literature and the Studys Significance

1.5.1 Issues and Gap in Literature
Establishing a brand driven culture is a lifelong commitment to a mindset and a way of life that
takes time and planning that produces abstract outputs, which include greater customer
satisfaction, reduced price sensitivity, fewer customer defection, and a greater share of
customers wallet (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).
The brands that are stronger in their position enjoy customer loyalty, for that companies need to
have thorough understanding of customer beliefs, behaviors, product attributes and competitors.
The brand promise is the essence of the benefits i.e. both functional and emotional which
reflects the heart, soul and spirit of the brand. Successful brands are those which adapt well to
the environment, survive and flourish in the longer run (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).
The consumer behavior written works has increasingly shown that brand attitude and its
evaluation is not only known by functional facets of it, but also by the motivation of consumers
expressed to purchase goods and services that often is a part of their self-driving forces which
prompts them to buy goods (Kressmann & Sirgy, Direct and indirect effects of self-image
congruence on brand loyalty, 2006).
Self-image congruence refers to the match between consumers self-concept (actual self or ideal
self) and the users image (personality) of a given product self-image congruence and image
congruence are used interchangeably in the consumer behavior literature (Kressmann & Sirgy,
Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty, 2006).
The study focuses on inquiring the effects of congruence on brand loyalty in the context of Cola
beverages of Pakistan.
Past researches have shown that self-image congruence influences consumer behaviors directly
or indirectly through functional congruity, which refers to the match between consumers ideal
expectations of utilitarian product features and their perceptions of how the brand is perceived
along the same features (Sirgy & kressmann, Direct and indirect effects of self-image
congruence on brand loyalty, 2006). The study extends the research in the area that selfcongruity affects functional congruity under high than low product involvement conditions. And
also that it plays an important role in motivating customers to process information.
Brand loyalty, brand satisfaction, brand trust, brand personality are branding concepts which
have been investigated in association to consumer- brand relationship. The analysis of the casual
8
relationship concludes that that satisfaction is a necessary step in loyalty formation (Loureiro,
Consumer Brand Relationship, 2006).
To understand the sophistication of customer loyalty with the brand it is necessary to
comprehend the evaluations, perspectives, and purpose that influence the behavior of the
customers. Here, we focus on three prominent drivers of retention in the marketing literature;
overall customer satisfaction, congruence and commitment. Customer relationship benefits the
manager with a variety of variables that derive retention (Gustafsson, Johnson, & IngerRoos,
2005).
The overall satisfaction has a strong and positive impact on customers loyalty towards a brand.
Satisfaction mediates the effects of product quality as well as the service quality. Historically,
satisfaction was being used to explain loyalty as behavioral intention. There is a strong and a
nonlinear effect of customer satisfaction on repurchases behavior which is marginally increasing.
They also found large differences between the customer satisfaction retention relationships
across customer characteristics. Customers satisfaction is subsequently linked with the
individual loyalty towards a brand (Gustafsson, Johnson, & IngerRoos, 2005).
Based on this approach, we would be able to identify the satisfaction elements of the consumer
which strongly affects the bottom line along with those which dont. This would suggest that
where the expenditures might be necessary and where it should be curtail so that they dont leave
any adverse impact.
When consumers feel a strong force of attraction, a connection and identify themselves with the
brand and live a positive experience they can be aroused and this process of activation can
conduct to strong positive emotions such as delights consumers will be more satisfied. All that
involvement can deeply dig out the passion and love for the brand and they will positively
develop an association with the brand. A committed consumer is more willing to continue the
relationship with the brand and will be more advocate of delivering positivity, by saying positive
things that will contribute to a favorable image, reputation and credibility (Loureiro, Consumer
Brand Relationship, 2006).
1.5.2 Significance of the Thesis

Independent variables like commitment, congruence and satisfaction creates brand loyalty and
serves as competitive advantage for the company to differentiate product. The nexus between
branding and customer service is an important area to be considered. To build strong ties with
the customer that requires knowledge of marketing research coupled with sensitivity for the
customers concern by analyzing their behaviors and attitudes to design the study to make
affective changes.
It is significant for the company to improve the value of its consumers by reducing the
percentage of unsatisfied customers. For that they need to build the strategy of customer
retention and design it in a way that it becomes the best in interest of the customers and to retain
them with the company rather than switching to other brands. If they succeed to do this they will
observe significant increase in their profits. Customers, who would become loyal, will buy more
products. The benefits of brand loyalty are such that they are for longer term; customers
perceived value, brand trust, satisfaction, commitment, congruence, and repeat purchase
behavior would serve as the key influencing measures for brand loyalty. Loyal customers are
comparatively less price sensitive and would spread positive word of mouth and refer other
customers as well. Therefore, marketers need to build strong customer retention as a strategic
10
corporate goal and also recognize that all the customers are not the same and furnish them on the
basis of satisfaction, commitment and congruence (Schiffman, 2009).
1.6 Contribution of Thesis in Three Context

1.6.1 Contribution of the Thesis towards Theory and Literature
The idea of this research is to find out the brand building elements based on a journalism review
and study of successful brands in Pakistan. Brand is just not an identity, but its the feeling,
perception, benevolence, experiences and many more, which immediately pop-ups in ones
mind. Building a brand is a lifelong process, which takes ample of time, and planning that
produces intangible outputs, which moreover include greater customer satisfaction, customer
retention, fewer customer defections, customers brand loyalty and a high percentage of business
progress. Brand identity is based on understanding of companys customers, challengers and
business environment. Building a brand thoroughly requires its founders to understand its
competitors and consumers perceptions through rapid researches. As brand is refers as identity,
similarly this research also stands identical because it would contribute a lot to the literature of
the beverages industry of Pakistan (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).
1.6.2 Contribution of Thesis in the Context of Research

We have broadly discussed congruence, satisfaction and commitment which are linked with
brand personality that ultimately lead to brand loyalty in our research. The things that we have
contributed in this research regarding Pakistani beverages are as describe below. This includes
Pepsi, Coca cola, and Gourmet cola.
11
Continuously advertising campaign by the Coca Cola with new ideas and innovations and
targeting all different income level of families i.e. upper, middle and lower will boost their profit
margin and credibility in the market. The advertising campaign should focus on particular ideas
that is happiness like Pepsi do in their promotional campaign (Alexandrov & Alexei, 2011).
Why Pepsi is a strong brand in Pakistan, not any other local or foreign brand? This is the
question that we are going to research. Due to our study on Pepsi through different research
papers, we are able to conclude our thoughts, by saying that Pepsi is maintaining good quality in
Pakistan, through high tech machines, and through good and dedicated employees. The
availability of Pepsi is to be found in any location of Pakistan, their supply chain of products is
dramatically improving the demand of their consumer. Pepsi enjoy the brand loyalty, that people
are so much dedicated to their product. Another reason is due to their high market share, thats
why public trust their product. On the other hand, Pepsi Co. has related Pepsi with Pakistan
Cricket Team. They spend a large sum of money on their advertising, which create an image of
loyalty (Consumer Report Magazines, 2012).
On the other hand, the Gourmet cola, which is although available at very affordable prices, but
not be able to capture the complete market of Pakistan and restricted only in Punjab because of
their lack of advertising, as well as their lack of outlets. They are not preparing proper marketing
strategies to fight against big giants like Pepsi and Coca Cola. They should focus on their
product design because public are much more attractive to the product image as well as to the
low price. In order to gain their market share, they should also introduce their product across the
Pakistan so that would enhance the profitability and its awareness as well (Awan & Hassnain,
2013).
12
1.6.3 Contribution of the Thesis in the Context of the Objective

The objective of research is to find out the dilemma that why local Cola Company in Pakistan
could not established or capture the market share since independence. There are two giant of cola
companies working in Pakistan i.e. Pepsi and Coca Cola, these two brand have great influence
over their consumer thats why no other brand survived in the market over them in the
past(Tirmizi, 2012).
Many local cola brands were introduced to the market i.e. Makah cola, RC cola and many more,
but none of them survived and disappeared after a period of time. Those brands were failed to
achieve consumers preference and repeat purchase behavior.
Gourmet sweet and bakers is Pakistans local brand operating in Punjab side, after their success
in food industry, they introduced a cola with the name Gourmet cola, their cola got influence and
capture the market with the passage of time in Lahore and Faisalabad, they are targeting only
Punjab market and they constrained their company to Punjab region only.
Our contribution and research is to find why Gourmet Cola didnt come out of Punjab market
and sell their products to other provinces of Pakistan. The main area where the company is
lacking is publicity and advertising their product they didnt spend a sufficient amount on
marketing. On the other hand, Coca Cola and Pepsi spend huge amount on marketing and
promotion activities regularly to remain in consumers brain when they go to buy the soft drinks.
Gourmet Cola has limited themselves only in Lahore, they didnt consider other areas of
Pakistan as their target markets, they also have issues in finance as they are lacking in financial
resource and is unable to invest a huge amount as compared to their competitors, while Coca
Cola and Pepsi are investing 248 million and 1 billion in Pakistan (Tirmizi, 2012). They are
13
generating the annual sale of around million soft drinks. Pepsi is the market leader of carbonated
water in Pakistan having 65% of market shares and leading beverage company in Pakistan and
Coca Cola constitutes about (35) % market share (Tirmizi, 2012).
The other problem which we figured out is that Gourmet Cola does not have many potential
outlets and they have weak distribution channel system around Punjab province too, they left
open space for their competitors by not targeting hotel, colleges, canteen and etc. Their
placement is not good as they didnt establish maximum number of outlet they have no outlets in
different cities in Pakistan instead of Lahore and Faisalabad.
The company should plan to launch the Gourmet cola to other cities in Pakistan to enhance or
overcome their financial resources issue, they must works on their target market and
segmentation by not leaving open space for their competitors and they should start spending
budget on marketing, advertisement and promotion activities to give awareness about their
product like Pepsi and coke, in order to give tough competition to their competitors.
1.7 Conceptual Definitions

1.7.1 Brand
The word Brand means to burn by fire which is derived from Old Norse word Brandr as it
was the way through which owners of livestock used to mark their animals to identify them.
According to the American Marketing Association (AMA); brand is a name, term, sign, symbol
or design or a combination of them which is meant to identify products and services of sellers to
differentiate them from their competitors. Technically, when a marketer forms a new logo,
symbol, name for his new product, he has ultimately created a brand (Keller, Parameswaran, &
Jacob, 2011).
14
Customers see a brand as an essential part of a product as branding can add value to it. Customer
associate relationship with the brand and develop meaning with it. For example, a bottle of
White Linen perfume is a high quality product but if the same perfume is in an unmarked bottle
would be viewed as a lower quality one. Even, if the fragrance was identical. Today, rarely
anything goes unbranded as branding has become so influential. Brand name helps buyers in
many ways as it helps customers to identify the product that might be beneficial to them. Brands
notify about product quality and consistency as buyers who are likely to buy the same brand
know that they will receive the similar features, benefits and quality each time when they buy it.
The brand name becomes the platform on which the whole story about a product's special quality
can be built. Moreover, seller's brand name and trademark offer legal protection for unique
product features so that it cannot be copied by the competitors. Branding also helps the marketers
to segment markets (Kotler, Armstrong, Agnihotri, & Haque, 2010).
According to (Keller, Parameswaran, & Jacob, 2011), brands can serve as symbolic devices that
provide consumers to project their self-image that reflects different values or traits which are
associated with certain types of people. Brands can also play an essential role in signaling
product characteristics to customers. Researchers have classified products and their attributes
into three major categories which are Search Goods, Experience Goods and Credence Goods.
Brands can reduce the risks in product decisions as there are different types of risk associated in
buying and consuming a product which consumers may perceive are Functional Risk, Physical
Risk, Financial Risk, Psychological Risk, Social Risk and Time Risk.
Consumers can easily handle this risk in many ways but one way is to buy a well-known brand
(as they can be very important risk handling device) with which consumers have advantageous
experiences. Thus, brands take on unique personal meanings to customers that make easy their
15
day to day activities and augment their lives. Moreover, they have the ability to simplify decision
making and reduce risk.
Brands are beyond names and symbols. They are key essentials in the company's relationship
with customers as they represent consumer's perceptions and feelings regarding a product and its
efficiency. In the final analysis brands resides in the heads of consumers. Thus, once a one well
respected marketer said "Products are created in the factory but brands are created in the minds"
(Kotler, Armstrong, Agnihotri, & Haque, 2010).
Consumer brand knowledge can be defined in terms of personal meaning about a brand stored in
consumer's memory that is all descriptive and evaluate brand related information. A powerful
brand has high brand equity such brands provide long-term security and growth, higher
sustainable profits and increased asset value because they achieve competitive differentiation.
The brand promise is the essence of both functional and emotional benefits which customers can
expect to gain while experiencing a brand service or product which reflects heart, soul and spirit
of the brand. Many brands offer a mixture of symbolic, functional and experiential benefits. A
brand with a functional concept is defined as one which is designed to solve externally generated
consumption needs. Whereas, a brand with a symbolic concept is designed to link the individuals
with a specific group, role or self-image and a brand with an experiential concept is designed to
meet internally generated needs like sensory pleasure, variety and cognitive stimulation
(Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).
Brands emerge over time. The first level is to express the identity of the producer that is Label.
The second level is the functional superiority. Third level is referred as emotional touch whereas
fourth level pertains to the power of self-expression. At the top of the pyramid the highest level
is known as cult (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).
16
Brand identity is a unique set of brand associations which includes Core and Extended identities.
Core identity is the central, timeless essence of the brand that remains the same as the brand
proceeds to new markets and new products. It focuses on product attributes, services, and
product performance. Whereas, extended identity is woven around brand identity elements that
are organized in cohesive and meaningful groups which provides brand with texture and
completeness and takes into account brand personality relationship and strong symbol
association (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).
To excel a brand image should be well planned, nurtured, supported and vigilantly guarded.
Companies that show cohesive, distinctive and relevant brand identity are likely to create
preferences in the market place, add value and may command a price premium for their products
and services. When a brand faces aggressive competition brand personality and reputation of the
brand can help as competing offerings and results in differentiating the brand from competition.
Therefore, a company should form a clear and consistent brand identity by associating brand
attributes that can be easily understood by the customers (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).
The close relationship between a brand and a consumer could lead to a connection i.e. a deep self
and social identification with the brand. The mystery, the intimacy, the uniqueness, the
involvement based on past experiences, and all positive emotional connections lead to affection
towards the brand. A brand affectionate consumer is more willing to be committed with the
brand, forgiven less positive situations, advocate favorably and willing to sacrifice for the brand
beyond reason because of its extent of loyalty towards it (Loureiro, Consumer Brand
Relationship, 2006).
17
1.7.2 Congruence with Brand Personality

The idea of congruence of brand personality arises in the marketing field in the mid 1960s and
grew in the mid 1970s. The studies concentrating on the consumers behavior were interested in
individuals who seek to create the image that he has of a product and his image of himself
(Maehle & Shneor, 2009).
The studies on the congruence with brand personality try to clarify consumer choice such as
brand preference, purchase intention or usage and loyalty. Brands perform as social signals with
congruity of brands, which is viewed as a key motivational factor in consumer choice (Maehle &
Shneor, 2009). A number of studies prove that there is congruity between brand
image/personality, also studied the relationship between self-image and brand preference and
found that favored brands are reliable to self-concept and reinforced it. Moreover, found a
relationship between ideal self-image and product image. Structuring the concept that consumer
brand choices are to a large level self-confirmatory actions.
The element of brand personality is taken by aspects containing characters of being down-toearth, honest, wholesome and cheerful. Such character may be symbolizing strong people
orientations, cooperative tendencies and harmony seeking, all of which characterize the Red
personality and communicational strategy. The elements of Competence brand personality are
captured by aspects including characters of being reliable, intelligent and successful. Such
characters may be indicative of tendency towards task-orientation, being structured and logical,
all of which characterize the Blue personality and communicational strategy.
The element of Excitement brand personality is captured by aspects including aspects of being
daring, spirited, imaginative, and up-to-date. Such aspects may be revealing propensity towards
18
change, strong instinct, inspired imagination and interest, all of which describe the independent
Green type and communicational approach.
Sirgy as mentioned in (Maehle & Shneor, 2009) proposes congruity theory and he claims that
product indications relating images typically activate a self-scheme involving the same images.
Also, he outlines the position of self-concept theory in consumer behavior research by clarifying
that consumers who observe the product image to be reliable with their definite self-concept are
likely to feel interest to buy and consume that product. Therefore, congruence of product image
may have a greater effect on consumers inclination, purchase intent, ownership, usage and
allegiance to products and brands.
Graeff as mentioned in (Maehle & Shneor, 2009) studies the consequence of the congruence on
brand-image and its brand appraisal relating to promotion message. It proposes that under the
promotion message that prompts consumers of their own self-image, consumers give more
positive appraisals of brands congruent with their own self-image. In one of his other studies that
engaged beer product brands, he suggests that positive brand approach and purchase intent
increase as the congruence of brand-image rises.
Recently, numerous studies have been lead about the congruence on brand personality. Brand
personality denote to human features related with a brand (Maehle & Shneor, 2009). Reputes
brand personality as the class of brand-image ended by brand user and practice imagery traits.
Plummer as mentioned in (Maehle & Shneor, 2009) that one constituent of brand-image is the
character of the brand itself. His studies indicate that brands can be branded by personality
descriptions such as "youthful, colorful," and "gentle".
Aaker as mentioned in (Maehle & Shneor, 2009) attaches brand-image to brand personality as a
constituent of brand equity, and describes brand personality as the set of human characteristics
19
related with a brand. Brand personality contains five dimensions: competence, sincerity,
excitement, sophistication, and ruggedness.
Consumers use brands as a sign and they choose brands with images that are congruent with their
brand personality. When self-schema is consistent with brand personality, the brand attitude of a
low self-monitor is more satisfactory, and when the condition is consistent with self-schema, the
brand attitude of a high self-monitor is more satisfactory. Consumers display satisfactory
sensation toward a brand when the brand personality is matching with their own self-image.
Particularly, the congruence on brand personality surges positive attitude of consumers who have
high epicurean attitude and highlight representative values. Brand personality impacts brand
identification, and then brand identification has a direct impact on brand loyalty, as well as an
indirect impact via brand relationship satisfaction. Therefore, it can be inferred that the
congruence on brand personality has a positive effect on consumer satisfaction, consumer-brand
relationship, and brand loyalty.
1.7.3 Satisfaction with the Brand Personality

Satisfaction is an individual's feelings of delight or disappointment that result from
differentiating a product's supposed performance to expectations. Many companies are always
systematically monitoring their customers and their changing needs and wants. A satisfied
customer stays loyal to the company and talks good about it. They are relatively less worried
about the price changes the organization does. This means that companies are continuously
identifying new and innovative ways to make their customers satisfied. In this era it is very easy
for consumers to switch to different brands as there are many options available in the market
(Kotler & Keller, A Framework for Marketing Management, 2009).
20
According to (Wester, 2005), brands offer opportunity to build relationship with the customers.
This means that brands are a way to make a unique bond with customer. So that customers are
attracted to the brand personality and that they can relate to it.
(Stathakopoulas, 2004), have stated that retention of customers is only possible through nurturing
loyalty by making an emotional connection between the brand and the customer. These loyal
buyers will then contribute to making good feedbacks when in groups. They will be able to
attract new customers to the brands as they will be satisfied. Taking into account Coca Cola their
recent adverts were targeting on the family eating together they created an emotional connection
with their customers.
1.7.4 Commitment with Brand Personality

Commitment can be viewed as an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship with the
brand (Zaltman & Moorman, 1992). Intense business competition requires companies to work
harder to retain customers not only to exist but also to become the market leader. Today
successful companies whether large or small, domestic or global share a strong customer focus
and heavy commitment of brand.
Customer relationship management (CRM) i.e. the process of carefully managing detailed
information about individual customer and all customers (Kotler, Marketing Management,
2006). Companies seek to attract by promising superior value and to keep and grow brand
commitment. By carefully examining on this dynamic area will lead to brand commitment.
At the heart of customer-brand relationship is customer Commitment. Research into customer
commitment suggests that consumer-brand identification might be one factor that influences
it(Jetal, 2011). Customer needs a strong reason and emotional attachment with the brand to affect
21
their repurchase intentions. This relation actually develops a positive Brand personality in the
consumers mind.
Furthermore, Brand logos are a vital component of brand aesthetics. Companies frequently
redesign their logos, and these redesigned logos affect consumers brand attitude. Visually, brand
logos pass a very different meaning to consumers with strong brand commitment than to
consumers with moderate or no brand commitment. This is particularly true because, as a visual
cue, brand logos can become the basis for triggering brand-related associations and thoughts in
consumer memory (Keller, On Congruence between Brand and human Responsibilities, 1993).
Customers with strong brand relationship can easily connect or can easily associate themselves
with brand.
A strong commitment with the brand develops a strong brand personality in the consumers mind.
referring the term with the brand personality; it could be explained as any product that a
consumer is using for the longer period of time and that is also fulfilling the satisfaction level
ultimately turn it into the commitment of the product or brand towards the consumers attribute.
1.7.5 Brand Personality

The term as character of the personality that is used to distinguish a person and brand
association. It helps us in building up the understanding and the development and maintains
relationship between the consumers and the brands. Brand personality consists of a set of human
attributes associated with a specific brand. It is the set of traits people attribute to a product as if
it were a person (Solomon M. R., 2012).
Moreover, it is a set of human characteristics that are attributed to a brand name. A brand
personality is something to which the consumer can relate, and an effective brand will increase
22
its brand equity by having a consistent set of traits. This is the added-value that a brand gains,
aside from its functional benefits.
There are five main types of brand personalities:
1. Excitement:These are the most exciting brand that is energetic, creative, bold and
progressive.
2. Sincerity: Sincere brands are considered by the consumer as being practical, realistic,
wholesome, truthful and cheerful.
3. Ruggedness: These are the brand that are seen outdoorsy and though.
4. Competence: These brands are associated with dependability, cleverness, and success.
5. Sophistication: These are the brands that are fit for the upper classes and viewed as
delightful (Friend, 2010).
1.7.6 Brand Loyalty

The connection a customer has to a brand which reflects how likely a customer will be inclined
to switch to another brand is known as brand loyalty (Maehle & Shneor, 2009).
(Holbrook, 2001), have viewed brand loyalty as a linkage in the chain that ultimately connects
brand trust with the aspects of brand equity. Brand loyalty represents a positive behavior towards
a brands which results in the frequent purchase of the brand. They stated that customer retention
can only be practiced through loyalty by creating some feelings and emotional attachment. These
buyers later produce a favorable opinion when having conversation among their social circles.
Loyalty can be conceptualized in three approaches:
1. In the early literature (1950 and 1960) measurements and conceptualizations of loyalty
were based on the trends of past purchases.
23
2. Researchers believe that loyalty should be interpreted principally as an attitude towards a

given brand.
3. Now the widely accepted definition of Brand Loyalty is that brand loyalty buying pattern
of particular brand, that repetitive over time and is reinforced with a strong commitment
to that brand.
1.8 Structure of the Thesis

Chapter # 1 Introduction
Chapter # 2 Literature Review

Chapter # 3 Research Methodology
Chapter # 4 Data Collection/Analysis
Chapter # 5 Result/Conclusion/Recommendation
24
Chapter 2:Literature Review

2.1Introduction
2.1.1Brand
A brand can be defined as a differentiating uniqueness of a sellers product. The idea of brand
underway with defining a character to identify ones animal so that they dont get mixed up. The
work of a brand is more or less, still the same. Head & Shoulder, Pepsi, Levis Jeans, Tapal Tea
etc. are all the samples of brand that take place in the current society. A brand has a prominence
in terms of accounting which is calculated by gaining the difference between the market value of
the company and the real value of the assets of the company. The term Brand is also used for
the company that offers the brand (Hunt S. D., 2002).
2.1.2What is Brand?
The terms, brand or branding, are used by many people that have diverse meanings for them.
They practice it in different conditions, without articulating its real meaning. In the world of
business, it is principally defined as making an association with the company, product, service or
individual. Sporadically, companies make efforts to ratify their brands internationally whereas
sometimes, it is outside the companys control. For example, the negative word of mouth can
place a negative link and disintegrate the manufacturers general brand (Hunt S. D., 2002).
25
2.1.3Formation of Brand
A brand comes into survival when a cultural meaning is given to it by the consumers and it is the
marketing activities like advertising by an organization that relocate it to the brand. Assigning
the figurative meaning of a brand to a customer can only be effective if the customers play a
vigorous role in brand consumption. The customers, in todays world, have a strong capability to
develop a theory or notion on their own, hence the marketer cannot bequeath any story on the
brand but the consumer formulae it through a personal ingesting practice (Sung, Park, & Han,
2005).
The company has to comprise in brand management to build the customer loyalty towards their
brand. To fulfill this task, they need to find out what features would help to build the customer
devotion towards a brand.(Louis & Lombart, 2010), has found trust, attachment, and
commitment as being related to the creation of brand loyalty. In order to deliver customers with a
better brand understanding, the company can include in assured tasks like a brand community
activity. A brand community is a group of people who share common emotions towards a
product or brand. Nevertheless, the marketing can be more attentive if the related emotions are
besieged and apprehended.
26
2.1.4 Branding
The branding can be defined as the attempt by the company to manage the brand association in a
better way. If the marketers can know what traits are more persuaded towards making a brand
identity, then the marketers would be able to do the branding in a more proper way. They will be
able to present their brand as idiosyncratic individuality which is specially meant to be for them.
Although it is not probable to exercise a complete control but the scheming and marketing
exertions can do most of the tasks that will benefit the company. The facets of branding can
differ but the basic idea of being clear about what you stand for always applies (Hunt S. D.,
2002).
2.1.5 Brand Identity

David Aaker as mentioned in (Tudorica, Ouwersloot, & Anamaria, 2001) has established the
brand identity systeman outline for brand appraisal. When generating a brand identity, the firm
should consider four dimensions of brand identity: brand as a product, organization, person, and
symbol (Tudorica, Ouwersloot, & Anamaria, 2001). Brand identity is established of all features
forming the survival of the brand. The concept permits companies, through the six emanation
sides of the brand identity prism: physical facet, personality, culture, relationship, reflected
consumer and consumer metallization; to specify the meaning, the project, the designing of their
brands. Contrariwise, brand image is a greeting concept. It is the result of the consumers
interpretation of all the signs emitted by the brand (brand name, visual symbols,
communications, etc.) or external sources. As a result, brand identity comes before brand image.
The brand exclusivity is created by the firm and is communicated to consumers, who then
interpret it as the brand image (Louis & Lombart, 2010).
27
2.1.6 Brand Image

Brand image is defined as as perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations
held in consumer memory (Keller K. L., Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing CustomerBased Brand Equity, 1993). In consumers cognizance there are informational bulges linked to
brand bulge. These informational bulges represent brand connotations. Consumer can have
several links with the brand. Like for any Good Tea brand consumer can have connotations of
delicious, healthy, unique, and strong and so on. The stouter, satisfactory and unique these
associations are the more auspicious or positive brand knowledge consumer has about the brand
and the more happily consumer will value or appraise the brand. Relevant and stronger brand
image lies on this concept. Positively linked consumer behaviors will build a good image of the
brand in consumers awareness. More anxiety should be put on the brand connotations. While
building brands through research should be done on consumer profiling and target market
preferences. Based on the results brands should be intended that fit into the consumer
preferences and automatically engender satisfactory reaction.
2.1.7 Brand Equity

Customer based brand equity has been defined by (Keller K. L., Conceptualizing, Measuring and
Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, 1993) as the differential effect of brand knowledge
on consumer response to marketing of brand. Differential effect is the difference of customer
response to the marketing of a brand with respect to the marketing of other brand. Brand
Acquaintance is the customers awareness of the brand. It is how the buyer has observe the brand
and what insights the customer has in his or her mind about the brand remembered in terms of
brand connotation. Consumer reply to the marketing of the brand is in the practice of
preferences, liking and disliking. Brand Equity can be supposed to have positive or satisfactory
28
response of customers to the marketing efforts (Price, Product, Place and Promotion) of a brand
as compared to the competing brand. The auspicious influence of the brand knowledge on
consumers mind can grades it as high rank of the brand in consumers insight. Brand knowledge
is based on brand connotations, so to have brand link that clearly makes the brand impressive or
more valuable is very important. The more the consumer has brand cognizance and the more
favorably they understand the brand relations the greater will be probabilities of a positive
behavior of consumer to the brand. The higher the brand equity in the mind of patrons the more
returns brand is making for the organization so effectiveness is significantly improved.
2.2 Context of the Research

In this research we have thoroughly discussed the independent variables of our research, which
are Congruence, Satisfaction and Commitment that creates a brand personality, which eventually
leads to brand loyalty. Following are the points, which we have contributed in the context of this
research on the subject of Pakistan Cola Beverages are discussed below. We have three cola
brands in this research and the names of those brands are Pepsi Cola, Coca Cola and Gourmet
Cola.
Extensive advertising strategy and more & more advertising campaigns by the Coca Cola
Company with innovations and new ideas help them to compete with the Pepsi Cola and they
should have target different classes of the society, which are upper, middle and lower class. This
strategy will surely help them to increase their product demand, increase the gross margin on
sales and increase the trustworthiness in the market. Coca Cola advertisements are not focus on
one subject and by doing this they were lost their way of success. They should focus on one
29
slogan, which is happiness for the advertisement like what the Pepsi did in their advertisements
(Alexandrov A. , 2011).
Pepsi Cola is the leading brand in the Pakistan cola beverages industry, why not the local cola
brand or any other foreign brand leads the market? That is one of the questions, which we have
discussed in our research. On the basis of the previous researches on the Pepsi by studying
different research papers we have conclude that Pepsi provides great quality in their products and
the taste of their product is similar to that taste, which is commonly accepted by the consumers in
the Pakistan. They have healthy financial resources and they have no issue regarding finance.
They have high tech machines and equipment by which they manufacture great quality products.
They also have well trained and dedicated employee, which enhances the reputation of a
company. Their placement of a product is equally good because of the supply chain
infrastructure and their product is easily available all over the country. The consumer of the
Pepsi cola shows so much dedication to purchase the product of a Pepsi that is why Pepsi Cola
enjoys the brand loyalty. One more reason is market share, because the more market share means
the more trust on the product. Moreover, Pepsi itself associated with the Pakistan Cricket Team.
They invest a large sum of money to promote their product and to promote Pakistani cricketers
as well. Their advertisements guide consumers that cricketers are so much loyal to Pepsi cola and
cricketers are considered as role models in our country so that this concept eventually create an
image of a brand loyalty in the minds of consumers(PBL, 2012).
On the other hand, the Gourmet cola is available in cheap prices and the consumers of every
social class easily purchased their product, hence they are not be able to sell their product in the
whole country and they are only restrict themselves in the region of Punjab, because dont have
enough financial resources and they are not advertise their products as much as Pepsi and Coca
30
Cola does. They also have limited outlets only in Punjab. They have not made appropriate
marketing strategies for their products to face the challenge of big giants of Pakistan beverages
Industry, which are Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola. They should focus on the packaging of their
products, because the packaging creates a congruence, satisfaction and commitment with the
product, which leads to a brand personality that eventually achieve a brand loyalty. In order to
gain the market share to survive in the market, they should focus to make new strategies by
which they introduced their products all over the Pakistan and it enhance their profitability of the
product and awareness as well(Gourmet, 2013).
2.2.1 Beverage Industry in Pakistan

Pepsi, Coca Cola, Gourmet Cola and many other local companies are playing in the Pakistan
Beverages Industry. Pepsi and Coca Cola share most of the shares of the market i.e. more than
90% of the entire local market of Pakistan. It can be said that both the companies are enjoying
very stiff competition between them (Report, 2011).
Now a days new brand comes in the market, but most of the brands are facing difficulties to find
a respectable place in the market, and they do not considered as competitors for the Pepsi and
Coca Cola. There are many factors on which we repealed newly introduced companies from the
competition to Pepsi and Coca Cola and those factors are quality of the product, availability of
the product, visibility of the product and promotion of the product (Report, 2011).
Pepsi and Coca Cola are almost same in the positioning of the brands. They both brands are
considered as a substitute of each other. There are number of consumers, who find difficulties to
distinguish between those products. On the other hand, the newly introduced brands are fall in
the category of inferior brands on the basis of the quality of the product. Quality is one of the
31
reasons that is why the newly introduced brands are unable to create their own market and most
of the shares are captured by these two giants (Report, 2011).
The religious campaigns that give boost to the newly introduced companies to capture the market
by availing this opportunity and make the best out of it, but still they are struggling in the market.
Those religious campaigns were carried out by the religious groups of a country in the past years.
We are not considered that those campaigns are fully failed and do not disturb their businesses,
but those campaigns imposed a negative image on Pepsi in the minds of consumers due to the
affiliation of company with Israel (Report, 2011).
In the end, we can say that there are only two major competitors in the Pakistan Beverages
Industry similar to the other countries in the world. But the situation of the Pakistani market is
very much different from the other markets in the world. In Pakistan, Pepsi is the market leader
and Coca Cola is on the second position. But outside the Pakistan, Coca Cola is considering as a
top cola brand and Pepsi is nowhere near from it. Out of the 100% market shares, 60% shares
claimed by Pepsi. On the other hand, 30-35% shares claimed by Coca Cola. The market shares of
both the competitors are increasing day by day (Report, 2011).
2.2.2 Pepsi
In 1979, the company introduced the franchise of Pepsi Cola International with the name of
Pepsi Beverage Company Limited of Pakistan. Within five years of getting a franchise, Pepsi
Beverages Pakistan Ltd. has managed to repeat the success of previous work in the beverage
market by becoming a market leader across the Sindh, most specifically in the region of Karachi
and later in Hyderabad. Dynamic partnership established in 1979 between Pakistan Beverage
Limited and Pepsi Cola International, in fact, is a force to be reckoned with in the market, and
32
that stands true to this day. This great success flowed gradually to other cities of Pakistan in the
south and north region, over a period of time, which makes Pepsi and its brands the most popular
cola beverage across the country. Today, with about 60 acres of space under the accumulated
storage and processing Pakistan Beverage Company Limited is one of the bottling plants of
Pepsi- Colas well-equipped and well managed franchises (PBL, 2014).
Pepsi cola was started by Caleb Bradham in 1898 in North Carolina, when he was working as a
bar tender in his place (Pepsi Cola, 2014). Mr. Caleb prepared a drink, to which one of the
customer called the Bred Drink. Bred registered this drink with name of Pepsi cola in
1903.Bred Drink was later named Pepsi cola on June 16, 1903, then to Pepsi in 1961. When he
launched the company, people were associating Pepsi with coca cola. Sometime later people
started realizing Pepsi cola as a separate brand. Pepsi cola started operations in different
countries and started giving tough competition to coca cola. It started from western America to
eastern Asia, Northern Russia and Europe towards to Southern Africa. Pepsi is now one the
leading multinational companies in the world and comes at number 10 in the top 50 companies in
fortune ranking. In 1979, Pepsi started their operations in Pakistan. Pepsi has a market share of
70% in the Pakistani market which explains the defeat of coca cola in Pakistan. The market share
shows us the behavior of consumers in the market that many of them prefer Pepsi over Coca
cola. The understanding of the local culture and consumers is very important for both the
companies in order to gain success in the market of Pakistan. Pepsi, 7up and Miranda are the
major beverages produced by Pepsi co. In Pakistan, Pepsi also produces mineral water with the
tag name of Aquafina in Pakistan (Pepsi Cola, 2014).
33
2.2.3 Coca-Cola
First, Coca-Cola was introduced in Atlanta, Georgia. One of the pharmacists Dr. John
SythPermberton made Coca Cola syrup. He gave the syrup to the Jacobs Pharmacy for sale as
Cola fountain drink that cost five cents of the glass. Refreshment history was made by combining
new syrup with carbonated water. The name Coca Cola was suggested by Dr. Permbertons and
he also prepared his logo (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).
In 1882, the business was incorporated as The Coca Cola Company. In 1888, all rights of the
business were purchased by Mr. Asa G. Candlor in US $2300. In 1894, the first bottle machinery
of Coca Cola was installed in the candy store of Vicksberg, Mississippi by Joseph A. Biedelharn.
In 1897, first time Canada and Hawaii export Coca-Cola from Atlanta, Georgia. In 1900, first
time Coca Cola was exported in Europe and in 1995 in Canada Coca Cola was registered their
trademark. In 1953, Coca Cola started their operations in Pakistan. In 1970, Coca Cola
introduced their new product lines named Fanta and Sprite in Pakistan. In 1982, the Coca Cola
Company enhanced their business by entering in the entertainment business. In 1982, the
company in order to utilize their resources to benefits society was established as a foundation
(Report on Coca Cola, 2009).
2.2.3.1 Current status of Coca Cola
The company sold their products to distributors and wholesalers, which is around 3500, in
different countries. The consumption of Coca Cola is very high and more than 524 million
people wants a coke time by its name in more than 80 languages and in approximately 168
countries. There are more than 17000 people and 15000 jobs in the Coca Cola Company and
they also have thousands of wholesalers and distributors. Coca Cola have the largest brand
equity in the world (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).
34
Today, there are the three business sectors by which Coca Cola Company operates:
North America Soft Drink Business Sector
International soft drink business sector
Food business sector
2.2.3.2 The Nature of Soft Drink

The drinks that manufactured and sold by the Coca Cola Company are really refreshing thirst
quencher, which provides satisfaction to the consumers. The soft drink of a Coca Cola Company
contains carbonated water, nutritive sweeteners and flavors (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).
2.2.3.3 Nutrition
Carbonated soft drinks have a sum of liquid that provide to the people, which is important for the
decent health. Soft drinks provide calories to the consumers, which have nutritive sweetener that
uses the body of a consumer for the energy (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).
2.2.3.4 Health
Every time, the Coca-Cola company uses the safe guards in manufacturing and bottling process
that minimize the probability of off-taste products in the time of manufacturing. By doing this
company prevent itself to encounter with any problem and if some problem is happened then the
product should be returned before the point of purchase (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).
2.2.3.5 Quality
The qualities of the products of the Coca Cola Company ensures uniformity and the company
inspect their products on regular basis by sampling of beverages, which is manufactured in each
bottling plants (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).
35
2.2.3.6 Formula of Coca Cola is Secret

The largest seller of soft drinks in the world is Coca Cola Company and they follows all the laws
and practices of a country in which they are operate. The company is kept their formula secret,
because it is the property right for the company (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).
2.2.3.7 Coca Cola in Pakistan
In 1953, first time Coca Cola Company was introduced in Pakistan and the local plants of the
country which is situated in Karachi, Hyderabad, Gujranwala and Sialkot was purchased by the
company. There are almost 10 beverages plants of a Coca Cola Company in Pakistan. All the
beverages plants is situated in the well-known cities. The names of the cities are Karachi,
Hyderabad, Lahore, Sialkot, Gujranwala, Multan, Faisalabad, Rawalpindi, KPK and Rahim Yar
khan. The Coca Cola drink manufactures in Beverage plant, which manufactures Coca Cola in a
local drink factory in the place of Hyderabad under the name of cold drink. Pakistan has 35
plants of carbonated drinks all over the country. All of the plants mainly operate in the big cities
and those plants have manufactures 60 million crates of 24 bottles of 250ml. Coca Cola and
Pepsi are the two main giants of Pakistan Beverages Industry (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).
2.2.4 Gourmet:
In 1987, Mr. Nawaz Chatha the founder of the Gourmet Foods Pakistan has started his business
in Lahore with only one sale outlet. But today, Gourmet Foods Pakistan is one of the largest
food chain in Pakistan and is prominent for its traditional foods and obsession for eating. Initially
Gourmet has started its operation as a bakery and in the production of the dairy products only.
The main theme of its all productions is to provide its customer with the quality products for
which they have stretched out its network all across the Lahore with seven processing units and
ninety eight sales outlets. Over 25 years of its operation, it has diversified portfolio of food
36
companies which consist of not only Bakery and Mithai but also they are now manufacturing
dairy products, beverages, traditional halwas, candy, toffee, jams, ice cream, ketchup, nimco as
well. They are very much committed towards exercising their all efforts, expertise and resources
into the production so to provide the fine quality of food for their product consumer and as to
fulfill the meaning of GOURMET- the fine quality of foods and drinks lover as well(Gourmet
Pakistan, 2013).
With the passage of time Gourmet has made a tremendous and a rapid annual growth i.e. more
than twenty five percent since the date of operation- 1987. Commitment and exceptional efforts
of Mr. Nawaz Chatha has made Gourmet a remarkable producer of quality food which is also
having an unmatched approach of display in the local market of Pakistan. To meet up the quality
standard food Gourmet has always seek out for best quality of raw materials so that they can
provide maximum range of products to their consumers. For quality raw material i.e. raw cheese
and khoya for their dairy products and sweets they have their own setups and plants.
Construction of the bakery plant is based on the state of art, where they meet up all the
requirements of the safety and quality of foods under Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Points(HACCP), (Gourmet Foods - Pakistan, 2012).
Latest technology for producing all sort of beverages are also been installed. The range of
products under beverages are, Gourmet Cola, Malta, Lemon up, Apple and Ice-cream Soda, in
six different sizes ranging from 300ml to 2.25 liter. Moreover, other standard plants are also
installed for the production and bottling of mineral water and juices. For the bakery item they
have their own bakery house where they produce and sell buns, rusks, bread, cookies,
sandwiches, rolls, pastries, biscuits and many more.
37
Gourmet has not only restricted themselves only shelving their products like jam, pickles,
beverages, ice creams, dairy products and many more to their outlets, infect there distribution
and shelving are also placed in the retail shops and bakery outlets to compete with other
brands(Nabeel, 2009).
2.2.4.1 Concerning Beverages:
If we look into the market of the beverages i.e. of soft drinks many international brand came into
the Pakistani market but due to the somehow Islamic perspective scandals only the market of
Pepsi and Coca Cola sustained their market and taking edge over all other international brands.
But since independence no market of local beverage industry has been established and sustained
market to take over the monopoly of Pepsi and Coca Cola across Pakistan. After many years, the
initiatives were taken by Gourmet in 2007 and start their production in beverages with the
portfolio of Gourmet Cola, Malta, Lemon up, Apple and Ice-cream Soda, in six different sizes
ranging from 300ml to 2.25 liter. Today they are enjoying and had taken an edge over Pepsi and
Coca Cola in the region of Lahore, Punjab. Simultaneously another beverage product i.e.
ShandyCola (Lahore) is also trying their best to come into the local market but still need a lot of
effort and work to do to upgrade their market position(Gourmet, 2003-2014).
2.2.4.2 Gourmet Cola Marketing Plan:
Gourmet has launched their range of beverages in local market of Pakistan especially in Lahore
where their distribution services are at high level which further enhanced the market capture and
taken edge over Pepsi and Coca Cola. They launched in various range of sizes as Pepsi and Coca
Cola did i.e. from 300ml up to 2.25 liter in the affordable prices. The prime target market
segment is to keep remain focus on the consumers high demand of the beverages belonging to
all level of income groups (Gourmet, 2003-2014).
38
In Pakistan, it is difficult to break the market of the competitors like Pepsi and Coca Cola (the
giants of beverage industry). For this challenges Gourmet is putting up their best with an
effective and professional marketing plans. Further to implement their strategies effectively they
do need to make researches time to time so they could be able to meet the expectations of the
consumer demand (Gourmet, 2003-2014).
2.2.4.3 Current Marketing Situation
Over the period of time the market of beverages in Pakistan has been enjoying a dynamic growth
both in terms of volume and current value. Massive and large shares of sales are been done both
in on-trade and off-trade in the market of Pakistan. The consumption of beverages has been
turning into the part of Pakistani culture and for which many international brands like Pepsi and
Coca Cola are providing and maintaining their standards to provide high quality of carbonated
drinks over the years. It has been estimated that around 120 million sales are been recorded of
the beverages across the Pakistan annually (Gourmet, 2003-2014).
Keeping in mind regarding the high competition of beverages brand in Pakistan, Gourmet has
made a great influence by making it available in almost all the stores of Lahore and Punjab
region so that would attract the consumer and would result in boosting up their sales. Although
both Pepsi and Coca Cola shares 90% of the market among themselves but still Gourmet
sustained their market of Lahore and taken and edge over them(Gourmet, 2003-2014).
Currently Gourmet is now approaching and targeting the market out of the Punjab region. The
distribution and the pilot testing are been initiated in the region of Sindh were they are getting
positive response from the consumer of Pepsi and Coca Cola which is also the positive sign for
the company and evaluate the quality of the beverage as up to the best as a local brand. More or
39
less it is being foreseen that they will capture the market of Sindh region as well as they did in
Punjab region (Gourmet, 2003-2014).
2.3 Brand personality

Brand personality states to the human appearances related with a specific brand (Govers P. C.
M., 2009)(Aaker & J.L, The Impacts of Brand Personality and Congruity on Purchase Intention:,
2009).Changing the importance somewhat, (Govers & Schoormans, 2005) regard brand
personality from the viewpoint of an interpersonal relationship with the brand. They are certain
of that brand personality is the set of human personality characters that link to the interpersonal
field of human personality and are pertinent to describing the brand as a connection partner.
In general, the part of brand personality in marketing is typically viewed as an important
advertising tool tempting to targeted audiences for development of general image (Gwinner &
Eaton, 1999). To demonstrate this notion, Pepsi, for instance, may be portrayed with a
fashionable, bouncing, and modern young man; whereas Coca-Cola could be embodied with a
gentle and obedient man. This may be partly due to advertisers strategies to personify brands, so
that when consumers think about a particular brand, human personality traits would come to
mind, thus providing a basis for brand differentiation.
Furthermore,(Keller K. L., Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand
Equity, 1993)points out that brand personality possesses symbolic values rather than utilitarian
functions. By infusing brands with human personalities and through purchasing and/or using the
brands, consumers can achieve higher self-esteem (Belk, Kenneth, & Mayer, 1982).(McCraken,
1986), sources that contribute to the formation of brand personality can be classified into two
categories: direct and indirect sources .The direct sources include the set of human characteristics
40
associated with a typical brand user, company employees, the CEO of the company, and brand
endorsers. The indirect sources consist of all the decisions made by company managers, such as
decisions related to the product, its price, distribution, and promotion. Recent research findings
indicate that a strong and positive brand personality can result in favorable product evaluations
(Wang & Yang, 2008). Demonstrating this notion,(Freling & Forbes, 2005) find that, when
respondents are exposed to a brands positive personalities, they tend to have a greater
proportion of congruent brand associations, greater unique brand associations, and a greater
proportion of strong brand associations. (Fennis, Pruyn, & Maasland, 2005), observe that brand
personality dimensions could affect consumers self-perceptions with respect to agreeableness,
extroversion, conscientiousness, and intellect. (Aaker D. , Managing brand equity: Capitalizing
on the value of a brand name., 1991),also points out that a distinctively positive brand
personality could be highly indicative of more favorable brand equity than when only product
information is given.
In his works, (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997)defines brand personality as
being a set of human characteristics associated to a brand. The author postulates that it can
include certain characteristics such as age, socio-economic class, personality traits and feelings.
She developed a model of measurement of the personality of a brand by identifying 42 features
divided up among 15 facets and 5 factors of personality: sincerity, excitement, competence,
sophistication and ruggedness. However, Aakers founding definition has often been criticized.
(Viot & C, 2006), have postulates thatstartingfromthis definition the brand personality has
become a jumble concept. According to (J.N., A., & Kapferer, 2003), Aaker defines brand
personality, not uniquely as a facet of identity, but as a much more global construct. Both authors
conceptualize brand personality as the set of traits of human personality which are pertinent and
41
applicable to brands. (L., J-M., & D, 2003),also find this definition too global as it can comprise
some brand personality traits which have no equivalents at the human level; and also because it
can present some personality features which rather correspond to social judgments (provincial,
trendy, or aristocratic). Thus, the authors think that it is fairer to define brand personality as
being the set of traits of human personality associated to a brand.
Brand personality is a set of characteristics that describes a brand. Brand managers are interested
in promoting a brand personality that attracts consumers attention such that they may form a
preference for a brand. Consumer preferences are a pivotal concept in marketing, as they
underpin customer choice among alternatives. (Blackwell, Miniard, & Engel, 2001), defines
preferences as attitudes toward one object in relation to another. A preference may be
transformed into a motivation that ultimately finds expression in a specific behavior. Despite the
utility of this concept, it should, however, be noted that consumer preferences alone are not the
only factor implicated in a purchase decision. Factors such as price and in-store promotion can
moderate a purchase decision despite a consumers preference for a particular brand. The
premise of the research reported here is that if stability is a characteristic of personality, then
likewise the presentation of a consistent brand image with which consumers are comfortable will
promote brand preference, and may contribute to brand loyalty so long as instrumental needs are
met. This is essentially the argument stated by(Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality,
1997)who stated that the greater the congruity between the human characteristics that
consistently and distinctively describe an individuals actual or ideal self and those that describe
a brand, the greater the preference for the brand.(Aaker & Fournier, 1995), argued that a brand
can function as a character, partner and person. Thus, the premise of the research is to examine
the extent to which consumers use brand personality as a vehicle to express their personality.
42
Based on this premise, brand personality scales used in this study have been constructed that are
reflective of The Big Five Model. This is consistent with the research aim, which was to explore
the relationship between consumer personality and brand personality. An expectation of the
research was that each consumer personality dimension would be aligned with at least one brand
personality construct. The brand personality scale was constructed by identifying descriptors of
traits from The Big Five model that could be attributed to brand. It was found that some elements
such as worried and anxious could not be directly linked to brand. Thus, only those
descriptors that were transferable were entrenched in the scale (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand
Personality, 1997), conducted a study to measure the generalization of The Big Five model
across brand, and resolved five different dimensions, which are Sincerity, Excitement,
Competence, Sophistication and Ruggedness. Only three of the brand personality dimensions
(Sincerity, Excitement and Competence) were, however, found to associate directly with the
personality dimensions (Agreeableness, Extroversion and Conscientiousness).None of them
linked directly with Neuroticism and Openness to Experience. In the research reported here,
some elements of Aakers brand personality dimensions (Friendly, Cool, Reliable) were also
used in the construction of the gauges used to measure brand personality. It was expected that
respondents who were leading on a particular aspect of The Big Five would prefer a brand
personality that imitates that aspect or is close to it.
A number of studies have been undertaken on the subject of brand personality. The initial idea,
that a brand should be considered as a person or a human being, was given in the work of
(Gardner & Sidney Levy, 1955). Much later (Aaker & Fournier, 1995)in anexplanation of three
ideas tried to define brand personality from three perspectives which were, Conceptual,
methodological and substantive, and to develop a brand personality inventory based on
43
personality traits from psychology and marketing literature. They also conversed that the
theoretical and practical suggestions of the actuality of the big five factor structure and settled a
45 item pool which they called Brand Personality Inventory. This was followed by a study of
(Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997) in which she tried to develop a scale to
measure brand personality. (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997), came up with
five
distinct
brand
personality
dimensions
which
were
Sincerity,
Excitement,
Competence,Sophisticationand Ruggedness. (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality,

1997),alsoharangued that the five dimensions could be further divided into fifteen facets which
were: down to earth, honest, wholesome, cheerful, daring, spirited, imaginative, up-to-date,
reliable, intelligent, successful, upper-class, charming, outdoorsy and tough. (Aaker J. L.,
Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997), BP scale was later on used by a number of studies in
different backgrounds. (Supphellen, Magne, & Gfonhaug, 2003), did a study to test the
applicability of the BP scale in Russian context. The two major findings of their study were (a)
Brand personalities of western brands had a momentous impact on brand attitude, and (b) the
effect of western brand personalities was found to be by the consumer ethnocentrism. A study by
(T., Beverly, Rose, & Gilbert, 2003),which planned to measure brand personality of the nonprofit sector brands found out four extents out of the five by (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand
Personality, 1997)to be included in their study. Diamantopoulos et al. (2005) used (Aaker J. L.,
Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997)BP gauge and found out that brand personality of the
parent brand did not have any adverse effect on the delays. However, the (Aaker J. L.,
Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997) BP scale has been asked by some researchers. (Azoulay,
Audrey, & Kapferer, 2003),pointed to the flaws in the(Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand
Personality, 1997) BP scale and harangued that the measure does not actually measure the brand
44
personality concept but only masses some dimensions of brand identity. (Austin, Siguaw, &
Mattila, 2003), strained to find out the (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997) BP
and resolved that the framework does not simplify to individual brands in a generally defined
product category. Another important area where researchers have probed is that of gauging brand
personality of online brands personality (Okazaki, 2006). The association between self-concept
or consumer's own personality and BP has also been studied (Phau & Kong Lau, 2001) where the
researchers initiate out consumer's own personality has an impact on the apparent brand
personality. The other areas of brand personality, which have been deliberated by researches, are:
effect of brand personality on customer loyalty (Stephanie, Algesheimer, Huber, & Herrmann,
2003), cross cultural possessions on BP (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, & Garolera, Consumption
Symbols as Carriers of Culture: A Study of Japanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructs,
2001) and (Sung & Tinkham, Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea:
Common and Culture-Specific Factors, 2005), brand personality effects on consumer perceptions
towards store brands (Beldona & Wysong, 2007), being and effect of BP of purpose brand
(Triplett, 1994) and change in acuity of BP traits with time and data(Johar, Sengupta, & Aaker,
2005).
Consumers have recognized the importance of brand personality a very long time ago. Brand
personality is the set of human characteristics associated with the brand (J.N., A., & Kapferer,
2003). B. Reiger as mentioned in (Luckerath, 2010) wrote that a brand is the product of
personality and the factor of brand personality supports the brand identity. Those brands that do
not have a personality associated with them are known to be dead. Researchers and marketers are
interested in this phenomenon more than they were before. The understanding of the brand
enables a company to have a better understanding of the relationship of consumers with the
45
brand in order to build long term customer relationship and therewith also the brand equity. A
brand personality is difficult if not possible to copy by the competitors and can thus give
companies more competitive advantage over the other (Luckerath, 2010). It is argued that the
symbolic use of brands is possible because consumers always compare the brand with their
personality traits. Personality traits those associated with a brand and those associated with an
individual are relatively enduring and distinct (Luckerath, 2010). Brand personality is the process
of consumers self-expression and helps the consumer express different aspects of his or herself.
Aaker developed a systematic study of brand personality and told the importance of brand
personality dimensions which are Sincerity, Excitement, competence, sophistication and
ruggedness. From the above five dimensions, people who have sincere and excitement
personality captures the attention of the brands. Exciting and sincere personalities are the one
which are focused most because they are important in interpersonal relationships.
(Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997), said that nurturance, warmth, family
orientation and traditionalism are the characteristics of sincere brand personalities.
Brand personality is an asset for positioning the brands in the market. It helps in formulating
advertising policies and selling. There are various measures that can be used to conduct brand
personality. The famous method is the brand personality scale developed (Aaker J. L.,
Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997).
The scale considers 42 traits which are then eliminated into 5 dimensions: Sincerity, Excitement,
Competence, Sophistication and Ruggedness.
In 1955, the term brand personality was introduced in a lecture of American Associate of
advertising Agencies by David Ogilvy. The concept that emerges with this term was that with the
46
passage of time the things had been changed in term of technology, there has been much better
way and approaches to produce the product with respect to quality and quantity. This leads to
create the differentiation among the different producers and their products. On the other hand,
the customers of the product also want to make themselves differentiate by the consumption of
the respective product and identify themselves different from others. Hence, the term brand
personality was used to make identification of the product and moreover, satisfy the personal
necessities and the emotional of the customer (Anon, 2014).
Since its being 50 years the first concept of the brand personality came, from that time onwards
many version and its definition had being emerge where many authors has given many
definitions.
(Fournier, 1997), defines the term as character of the personality that is used to distinguish a
person and brand association. It helps us in building up the understanding and the development
and maintains relationship between the consumers and the brands.
Brand personality consists of a set of human attributes associated with a specific brand (Aaker J.
L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997). Or it is the set of traits people attribute to a product
as if it were a person (Solomon M. R., Consumer Behaviour, 2012).
47
2.3.1 Dimension of Brand Personality:

Dimensions of brand personality are derived and defined from the dimension of human
personality. (RajaGopa, 2006). Based on human personality traits of big 5 model, personality
traits related to brands were identified by (Aaker J. L., 1997). Aaker described forty two traits
and five personality dimension model which are as follows:
(Aaker & J.L, Dimensions of

Brand Personality, 1997)
Brand Personality Scale
Sincerity
Excitement
Competence
Sophistication
Ruggedness
Figure 1: Dimensions of Brand Personality
The human personality trait conscientiousness and competence of the brand personality
dimension are related to each other which show excellent skills, precaution and gives a lot of
attention to detail and surrounding. Extraversion and excitement are notions of enthusiasm. The
comparison of agreeableness and sincerity shows us that they are related to kindness, faithfulness
and mildness. Sophistication and ruggedness is not linked to any of the human personality traits.
The reason why it is not linked to any of the dimensions brand personality model is because of
the way the consumers operate and influence other consumers (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand
Personality, 1997). The measurement taken by Aaker does not even exist in the personality
measurement tool.(Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997), proposed measurement
48
tools are not equal in terms of the personality traits which match to the class of the upper and up
to date(Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, Vallete, & Florence, How Well does Brand Personality
Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale and Analysis using Binary Regression Models,
2005). The only thing that is applicable is the concept of brand image and brand personality
should be applicable across the product. The instrument used to measure brand image is specific
to a particular category and also brand specific whereas to measure brand personality can be
applied across different cultures and brands around the world. It also transfers the meaning from
human personality of consumers to the brands that are purchased or influenced to purchase,
prefer or reject.
Basically there are five dimension scale of brand personality presented by Aaker and these are:
1. Excitement: These are the most exciting brand that is energetic, creative, bold and
progressive.
2. Sincerity: Sincere brands are considered by the consumer as being practical, realistic,
wholesome, truthful, down to earth and cheerful.
3. Ruggedness: These are the brand that are seen outdoorsy and though.
4. Competence: These brands are associated with dependability, cleverness, and success.
5. Sophistication: These are the brands that are fit for the upper classes and viewed as
delightful.
With these dimension Aakers objective was to make clear about the concept and to build the
scale that can easily measure the brand personality (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand
Personality, 1997).
These brands are tailored made and fit for the upper class and viewed as delightful.
49
Figure 2: (Aaker & J.L, Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997)

(Aaker J. L., 1997), objective was to clear the concept and to build the scale that can easily
measure the brand personality.
In 1992, Goldberg also in contrast sketched the dimension scale named as Marker of the Big
Five model which is also abbreviated as OCEAN. These dimension scale was used to measure
the brand personality as Aaker did. It was the shorter bipolar inventory for the Big Five that
consist of on 35 bipolar scales. Despite it was not strength full as compared with the 100 unipolar
markers of the Big Five Model (Saucier, 1994). In all, Goldberg has tried to shorten the length of
Big Five model into five dimension scale and these are as follows:
1. Openness: Creative, imaginative, intellectual, philosophical, deep, complex, uncreative,
un-intellectual.
2. Conscientiousness: Efficient, organized, systematic, practical, disorganized, inefficient,
sloppy, careless.
3. Extraversion: Bold, extraverted, talkative, bashful, quiet, shy, withdrawn, and energetic.
4. Agreeableness: Kind, sympathetic, warm, cooperative, cold, unsympathetic, harsh, rude.
50
5. Neuroticism: Unenvious, relaxed, fretful, envious, jealous, moody, touchy, and

temperamental.
The mechanism of these markers of the Big Five model are based on the dimension that having a
high loading and low loading i.e. (close to the zero loading). The objective to develop was to
diminish the entire length of the questionnaire and also to avoid and reduce the exhaustion of the
respondent (Saucier, 1994).
By the time of 30s, (Guildford, 1959)started to develop questionnaires to explore the
characteristic traits which are under human behavior. Therefore, he explained personality as,
"unique pattern of traits"(Guildford, 1959). Guilford defined seven dimensions or characteristic
traits of personality which he further explains in four groups:
Semantic Characteristics: morphologic and physiologic traits
Aptitudes: Capabilities and Qualifications
Temperament
Motivational Characteristics: interests, needs and attitudes
Comparing Guilford's seven dimensions of personality, Cattle (1979) introduced the 16
personality factor inventory, which gives a complete and authentic description of the human
personality and which can be universally reproduce.
Cattle (1979) construct his research on the work of Allport and Odbert(Allport & Odbert, 1936)
who perform a psycho lexical study (John, 1988) in which they consider all personality related
expressions in the Webster's New International Dictionary.
51
The results of 17,953 expressions are divided into four categories:

Personal Traits
Passing Activities and States
Social Evaluations and Metaphorical
Doubtful Terms
Cattle used the 4,500 personality traits, 100 activities and states expressions and conclude them
down to finally sixteen dimensions (Pervin, 2005).
Cattel and Guilford both started by collecting personality facts from where they concluded the
separate personality dimensions. Comparing to that Eysenck used an inferential theoretical
approach which means, he compose the theoretical concept which he later examined (Fisseni,
1998).From the results of the studies, Eysenck primarily induced a two-factor-solution and
narrate human personality with only two dimensions ('Extraversion' and 'Neuroticism').
These two became the 'Big2' of human personality. Furthermost, Eysenck expanded this
personality framework and endorse an additional third dimension which is known as
'Psychoticism' (Eysenck, 1970).
From the study and research work of three different people, it has been concluded that no
authentic solution was determined to explain the construct of human personality. Three persons
concluded three different dimensions; Guildford constructed seven-factor-solution, Cattle
derived sixteen personality dimensions and Eysenck again formed only three dimensions.
The three obtained results are not completely different from each other, they have some
similarities like; Eysenck's personalitys dimensions are similar with Cattel's 16 Personality
52
Factor Inventory, they also unable to provide satisfactory description of the personality construct
(Luckerath, 2010).
Other than the developing regard in the brand personality concept, its calculation has been not
enough for many years. Till the mid-1990s, researchers had used "ad holic scales" or "personality
scales" gathered from human personality psychology to verify a brand's personality and to
measure its causes on customer purchase behavior. Both alternatives are insufficient with a view
to their representativeness.
"Ad hoc scales" are personal and as a result may add brand personality traits which are not
applicable or in turn minus other important characteristics. Human personality psychology has
the drawback that they are not directly applicable for brands. (Aaker J. , Dimensions of Brand
Personality, 1997).
(Wells, Andriuli, Goi, & Seaders, 1957), tried to describe brand personalities with assist of
adjective lists. The list was depended upon 'The Teacher's Word Book of 30,000 Words' from
Thorndike where they review all adjectives which were concentrated at least 50 times among the
millions people asked.
The followed adjective list was then minimize by all terms instead related to the explanation of
things than of customer, debatable expressions or terms not relevant to the purchasing process
(such as 'dead') and eventually accommodate 108 adjectives.
(Alt & Griggs, 1988), pursue a different approach and categorized brands in successful and less
successful brands.
Afterwards, they had detailed interviews where they asked experts to allocate attributes
individually to two brand clusters. The experts interviews cause three brand personality
53
dimensions which the researchers called 'Extraversion', 'Social Acceptability' and 'Virtue'. Fourth
factor 'Potency', demonstrate to be unstable.
Therefore, alike to the work of Wells et al., (Alt & Griggs, 1988) scale was not prove and could
more to be specific due to the small number of product categories used (Aaker J. , 1997).
(Batra & al, 1993), also tried to grow a suitable tool for the calculation of brand personality.
Their approach was dependent on a list with personality feature declaration assemble by
(Anderson N. , 1968), which they select the 200 declarations most suitable for the explanation of
the brands.
Accompany by the three adjectives; old, young and technical (Batra & al, 1993)asked a group of
graduates marketing students to cut down the list to 30 words. At last, fifteen test persons were
questioned to assess nine brands on the basis of the last create personality feature list.
(Batra, Lehmann, & Singh, 1993), get a seven-factor-solution where every individual of the
seven dimensions was more specified by two bipolar adjective pairs. Similar to the last brand
personality frameworks, Batra et al.'s research cannot be consumed as a representative calculated
tool because of the small sample and restricted number of brands included in the test design
(Luckerath, 2010).
At the end, (Strausbaugh, 1998) consumed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) for the
explanation of brand personality dimensions. The MBTI is an indicator consumed for the
typologisation of personalities and is an improvement of Jung's personality matrix. From the
MBTI, 16 personality types lives which results from contrasting along dichotomous pairs of
personality features.
54
Therefore, many consumers are unable to differentiate with the personality type that resulted
from the test which answered the model's validity. While the model is still famous in the USA, it
can't acquire any welcome among scientists in Europe (Luckerath, 2010),.
2.3.2 Concept of Brand Personality:

The concept of brand personality is derived from human personality. In this concept brands are
linked to human personality traits. (Fournier & Yao, 1997), has proposed that brands might be
differentiated on three aspects that are physical attributes (red color), functional characteristics or
benefits associated with the brand (remove stains without damaging clothes) and personality
traits (youthful) associated with the brand(Ambroise L. , et al., 2005). Concept of brand
personality in the field of marketing was first applied to advertising so that consumers can easily
associate brands with favorable personality traits that result in favorable brand image (Ambroise
L. , et al., 2005). Brand personality in marketing is generally used to build an overall image of
the brand by using it as a tactic appealing large groups of targeted audience. For instance CocaCola can be perceived family oriented while Pepsi as youthful. This might be true due to the
marketers or advertisers strategy to personify the brand so that when consumer thinks about a
particular brand they associate human personality trait with the brand that results in brand
differentiation (Bouhlel O. , Mzoughi, Hadiji, & Slimane, 2009).
2.3.3 The Creation of Brand Personality

All contact of consumer with the brand whether direct or indirect results in perception of brand
personality traits in the mind of consumer (Lombart, Louis, & Cindy, Impact of brand
personality on three major relational consequences (trust, commitment and attachment) to the
brand, 2010). Direct contact can be the result of user imagery with the brand that is the human
55
personality traits associated by common users of the brand. The perception of brand personality
in a direct way is established by human personality traits associated with the brand, perception of
the producer of the brand and of the person who indorses the brand. Indirectly consumers
perception of brand personality is established through product category association of brand,
price and brand symbols (name, logo etc.).
2.3.4 Importance of Brand Personality
Brand personality is considerably important to persuade the consumers towards the brand
Brand personality is an excellent way of distinguishing brand from the competitors

thereby increasing the effectiveness of marketing communication because they are based
on different brand personalities (Tudorica H. O., 2001). Intense competition between
brands makes it very difficult for marketers and brand managers to differentiate brand
solely on the basis of functional attribute. Incorporating brand personality in marketing
communication campaigns helps distinguishing brand form its competitors on symbolic
level. Also it helps to evaluate that whether marketing communication efforts to position
the brand are successful or not.
Although there are various ways through which
consumers learn about the brand such as product-usage experience, social communication
and the marketing environment but understanding and knowledge about brand construct
in terms of brand personality and image will help achieving successful differentiation
(Sung, Kim, & Jung, 2010).
Consumer use the brand because they want to create, reinforce and communicate their
self-concepts so consumer select and purchase the brand they like as they find the brand
consistent with their self-image and personalities. So brand personality construct can help
Marketers to better understand consumers who want to express themselves through the
56
commercial brand they use or purchase. That is why brand personality is considered to
the focal point in the establishment of positive attitude and preference towards the brand
(Sung, Kim, & Jung, 2010).
Implementing concept of brand personality guarantees a strong consumer and brand

relationship (Sung, Kim, & Jung, 2010). Perceiving favorable brand personality is
positively perceived by the consumer and they view brand as relationship partner in
consumer brand relationship (Tudorica H. O., 2001).
Perceiving brand personality consumer can interpret brand image that is personally more
meaningful. Consumer takes more active part in processing perceives brand personality
so they are more involve in the brand (Tudorica H. O., 2001).
The examination of brand personalities across dissimilar places can deliver awareness regarding
the cultural differences in consumer psychology and behavior which leads to directing the
expansion of more persuasive (either standardized or adapted) advertising and branding
strategies. So that for practitioners any person, who handle global account assertions, the grasp
of brand personality across cultures will assist them to write very productive global marketing
communication strategies (Sung, Kim, & Jung, 2010).
The concept of Brand personality is found to have an impact on the consumer-brand relationship
(Lombart, Louis, & Cindy, Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences
(trust, commitment and attachment) to the brand, 2010), (Ambroise L. , et al., 2005). Brand
personality well defines the consumer behavior pertaining to different brands. The concept of
brand personality is about how consumers perceived the personality traits of a brand and based
on that what their possible attitude is? Consumers develop liking towards the brand because they
have associated the brand with their favorable brand personality traits so that they are more
57
inclined towards it usage and ultimately adopting it to their regular usage pattern and becoming
heavy user or highly loyal towards the brand.
2.3.5 Consequences of Brand Personality

The various consequences of the brand personality can be;
Perceived brand quality
Attitude towards the brand
Intentions of future behavior
Attachment with the brand
Commitment towards the brand
Trust in the brand
Involvement in the brand
Loyalty towards the brand
Some of the past findings exhibiting the consequences of brand personality are discussed as
follow.
Consumers have thousands of choices available for brands. The most important reason behind
this is that brand personality successfully distinguishes one brand from other. Consumer choose
brand that they find more suitable for the purpose behind their purchase. The usage or experience
of the brand makes consumers habitual of them as they establish a strong liking for them. The
favorable attitude of consumer over a long period of time is truly because by purchasing the
brand they are ensure of quality and reliability of their performance (Rajagopal, 2008). Perceived
quality of a brand is strongly determined by the traits of brand personality. The research
conducted in India on Business Management students taken Nokia as brand to be studied found
58
that the most effective trait resulting in consumers high perception of the Nokia brand is
competence followed by ruggedness (Trott, 2011). A study in Korea suggests that different
dimensions of brand personality influence brand trust differently, for some brand personality
traits perceived by the consumer the trust is higher like sophistication trait perceived by Korean
consumers results in strong trust in the brand (Sung, Kim, & Jung, 2010). Research conducted
by (Gouteron & Szpiro, 2005)suggested that all significant personality traits have influence
attachment with a brand (Lombart, Louis, & Cindy, Impact of brand personality on three major
relational consequences (trust, commitment and attachment) to the brand, 2010). Using an
experiment, (Forbes, 2005) showed that consumers exposed to a product (bottle of water) with a
vignette presenting information about the brand personality of that product have a more
favorable attitude towards that brand than consumers exposed to the same product, without brand
personality information. Brand Personality positively affects not only consumer brand preference
but also purchase intention. The outcome remains true for both high and low involvement
products. But the effect of brand personality is higher for high involvement products than low
involvement products (Punyatoya, 2011). Commitment and attachment with brand depends upon
the involvement in the product. High involvement results in high attachment and commitment
whereas the low involvement has the opposite consequences. Brand personality builds
involvement in the brand which further results in high attachment and strong commitment. This
was proposed by (Ambroise L. , et al., 2005) when they conducted research on brand personality
effects on Nike, Adidas, Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Strong and favorable brand personality leads to
complimentary product evaluations and brand associations so a distinct positive personality of
brand enhances brand equity (Forbes, 2005). Brand personality affects the consumer buying
intention and loyalty even through relatively new modes of advertising and mobile marketing. It
59
was observed that brand personality affects the level of trust, commitment and attachment with
the brand whose advertising message is being sent through SMS. Attachment and commitment
for the brand enhances when the consumer perceive that the brand is sincere (Bouhlel O. ,
Mzoughi, Hadiji, & Slimane, 2009). Brand personality enhances attachment to the brand. A
study conducted in France showed that the developed brand personality barometer results on an
average 32.4 percent attachment to the brand (Ambroise L. , et al., 2005). A research conducted
in Chinas largest metropolitan city Beijing on Brand personality of Nokia and Sony found that
brand personality has a strong influence over the brand preference, brand attitude, brand loyalty,
and buying intent of consumer. The results also suggest that the sense of brand for Chinese
consumers is very strong (Mengxia & Zhang, 2007). Consumer brand relationship is determined
by perceived brand personality and consumers own personality. The quality of the brand is also
important in this aspect. Consumer- brand relation is dynamic, the relation merely not rests upon
actual physical attribute of the brand but the physiological elements are also very important in
this regard (Nobre, Becker, & Brito, Brand Relationships: A Personality-Based Approach, 2010).
Affective loyalty and action loyalty both are influenced by brand personality and human
personality traits. Research conducted in Taiwan on individuals buying video games and toys
found that competence and sophistication traits of brand personality results in high affective
loyalty whereas agreeableness and openness traits of human personality leads towards action
oriented loyalty (Lin L.-Y. , 2010).
2.3.6 Effect of Brand Personality on Consumer Brand Preferences:

The brand personality stated that there is a link between the characteristics of the human with the
specific brand which increases the commitment level of the consumer as well as it leads to
enhancing brand loyalty. Brand personality always had an impact on the consumer brand
60
preference and purchases. The intention is either high or on the low side, it mainly depends upon
the consumer in which he or she is. That intention is also affected by the brand personality
(Plavini, 2011). The concept and the term brand has been developed many years ago which was
different from the product or the service. The brand is attached to basic things such as symbols,
logo, brand association, brand name and awareness which differentiate the brand from the
competitors (Plavini, 2011). The more impact the brand personality has on the consumer the
more willing the consumer is to purchase that particular brand (Plavini, 2011).
As the brand personality broadly states that there is an association of characteristic of the human
with a certain brand that enhances the commitment level of the consumer as well which further
leads brand loyalty. In all, the brand personality has always the impact on the consumer brand
preferences and their purchase intention. The purchase and intention of the certain brand i.e.
either low or high is also being affected by the by the brand personality (Plavini, 2011).
The term and concept of brand has been developed a years ago that is different from the product
or services. The brand itself has been attached to the various elements i.e. symbols, logo, brand
association, brand name, brand awareness etc. which further leads to make the differentiation
among the competitors brand(Plavini, 2011).
The more the impact of the brand personality has on the consumer of the brand the more he or
she (consumer) will spend on that particular product (Plavini, 2011).
2.3.7 Brand Personality Affects Leads to High and Low Involvement

Products:
Brand personality has defiantly an edge in making the high and low involvement of the products
on the consumer end. In case of the high involvement products, when the consumer spend the
61
ample of time in purchasing and seek out the most information regarding the particular product
and finally conclude to make the decision in buying. Whereas, in case of the low involvement
products, it is when consumer frequently purchase and keep on purchasing the same product,
where that product needs minimum level of consideration and effort in purchasing. Low
involvement brand has no greater impact on the lifestyle of the consumer. Due to the familiarity
with the product the consumer least bother in seeking out the insight information regarding the
product and it is also been due to the repeatedly purchasing (Plavini, 2011).
Any brand that is placed and sold at the super market or at a local market itself communicate
something to the consumer of the particular product, but on the other hand consumer across the
world interprets the brand in many ways and filters it through their observations, knowledge,
misunderstandings and systems of value of the personalities and many more (Plavini, 2011).
Brand personality plays a vital role when making high and low involvement of the products that
consumers are willing to purchase. In the case of high involvement, the consumer spend a lot of
time to find out more information of that particular product in which the consumer comes to the
decision to purchase the product. In the case of low involvement, the consumer keeps on
purchasing the product without any consideration and low involvement of the information which
the product is offering. These low involvement brands has no big impact on the life style of the
consumers. Consumers do not have any intention or interest to the product information and keeps
spending the money on the product (Plavini, 2011).
A brand that is placed and sold at the super market or any retail outlet communicates something
to the consumer of the particular product, but on the other side consumers around the world tries
to filter the brand and picks out the best brand that is bonded with their knowledge, observation
62
and system of value (Plavini, 2011).The involvement of brands depends upon the image and
characteristics of the brand in the mind of the consumer. Most of the time consumer purchase
those brands which they are familiar with and ignores those brands which have not been tested or
does not grab the attention the consumer. The other reason is the consumer does not seek or tend
to investigate the brands or even comparing them with other brands in the outcome.
In a nut shell the involvement of the brand either it is low or high depends on the image and
characteristics of the particular brand in the consumer perception. Because the consumer opts to
purchase those brand blindly without any further investigation to which he or she (consumer) is
familiar but fail to those to which he or she is not familiar and make an in-depth investigation
and came across all the relevant information before buying it.
2.3.8 Brand Personalitys Influence on the Purchase Intention:

Many things seems despite to be achieved and to sustain them easily with the passage of time but
the relationship between the consumer of the particular brand and the brand personality is a just
like the relationship of with each other in the social context and frame work. According to the
(H. & P., 2005), it is only the Brand Personality that could create the bigger market of the
consumers and guide them towards the consumption and create a competitive advantage over the
competitors product. Brand personality that is well established in market influences bigger
preferences of the consumer and its investment (Malhotra N. , 1988), (Sirgy J. , 1982). And
moreover creates a stronger emotional connections and bonds (Biel A. , 1993), trust and brand
affection (Fournier, 1997).
Today in the highly globalized world the brand personality and its image in the global market is
being done so rapidly through the advancement in the communication and information
63
technologies by offering it through the marketing channels in the market. By this means the
general perception and its characteristic of the brand is transmitted easily in to the consumer
mind which further creates the intention of the buyer to purchase it. With the help of the
technology the communication and awareness of the brand can be created any time at any place
which again leads to create an intention of the consumer towards the particular brand (Bouhlel O.
, Mzoughi, Hadiji, & Slimane, 2011).
In all it would be summarized from the last paragraph that with the means of the advancement of
the technology the impact of the brand personality always have drawn the intention of the
consumer with respect to the purchase of the particular brand.
Moreover, the consumer brand relationship also helps in maintaining the self- identity of an
individual and tends to build up the strong interlink and commitment between the brand and the
consumer and that has the various dimensions in making up this relationship i.e. through
(Bouhlel O. , Mzoughi, Hadiji, & Slimane, 2011).
2.3.9 Micro vs. Macro Approaches to Brand Personality

The terms micro and macro were first introduced in two specific approaches of social
psychology and social values study (Reynolds T. , 1998).He introduced the term micro by taking
into account the specific area of investigation calls for a specific study and that the use of overly
generalized scale for different industry is inappropriate.
On the other hand, macro approach, proposed by (Schwartz, 1992)is taken as to measure social
values exhaustive through multiple scales of values (Valette-Florence & Barnier, 2012). They
argued that this epistemological question also arises in relation to the concept of brand
personality. For consumption practices are imprinted with characteristics that are both cultural
64
practice and link to product categories, thus raising doubts as the universal nature of brand
personality. A recent comprehensive literature review of (Valette-Florence & Barnier, 2012)
exposed that the most of the studies were undertaken in recent years in different areas. In it,
researchers claimed that field of brand personality has expanded rapidly after the seminal work
of (Aaker J. L., 1997). In multiple sectors like product, company, communication medium brand,
retail channel and services industry. Consequently, retail chains, services and media develop
their own brands (Kapferer, 2007)just because of identifying the importance of brand personality
(Venable, Rose, Bush, & Gilbert, 2005).
The better measurement of brand personality is actually dependent upon the area of study or
industry because there is hardly comparability between the available scales of brand personality.
In general, global approaches are viewable as a macro form of brand personality, for which
different brand domains are grouped together, such as tangible goods, services, and media and
telecom operators in his scale (Aaker J. L., 1997). At macro level, this approach involves into
inter-category dimensions of product and cross-cultural studies of it. Whereas, at micro level the
studies related to brand personality was conduct at specific areas.
(Aaker J. L., 1997), proposes a theoretical model of the brand personality concept through the
determination of the number and the nature of its dimensions. She defines brand personality as
the set of human characteristics associated with a brand. This definition basically explained
the concept but researchers criticized this because of its catch-all character and overly
vagueness, (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003).Apart from the issues associated with the formulation of
clear definition, (Ambroise & Valette-Florence, 2010) argued that it seems necessary to
question the validity of the ontological concept of brand personality. Therefore, its important to
65
highlight the criticism, shortcomings and limitations leveled against the brand personality
concept advanced by (Aaker J. L., 1997).
Researchers interest in developing a brand personality stretched quickly after the influential
work of Aaker framework. But to date, heavy criticism was revealed against Aakers multidimensional model to measure the brand personality construct. This actually promotes
researchers to review the literature and examines the effectiveness and the limitations of
Influential framework of brand personality, in order to help and inform for future research on this
particular area. Furthermore, Comprehensiveness of the Aakers framework is so generalize on
multiple product categories. Limitations include, Aakers scale is considered as unfinished
measure of brand personality as it basically transposed human personality traits rather than using
brands Personality themselves.
Additionally, Aakers five-dimensional structure is American culture specific and did not always
receive empirical support across different cultural settings in the world.
(Aaker J. L., 1997), mainly identifies five brand personality factors: sincerity, excitement,
competence, sophistication and ruggedness. If Aakers scale is an important first step for brand
personality, than some studies raises different questions on its structural and semantic validity. It
includes some variable having no comparison in terms of human personality like (sophistication
and ruggedness) and items (provincial or aristocratic) that seem in fact to be social judgments.
Finally, the proposed scale does not seem to be stable inter-culturally (Ferrandi, Fine-Falcy, &
Valette-Florence, 2000). Tests conducted in different countries generally lead to a five
dimensional solution as in the original scale, but some dimensions as peace in Japan, passion in
Spain or hospitality in France are country-specific. Of course, translation of a list of 42 initial
66
items, some of them being obviously strongly culturally rooted (such as westerner) poses a real
problem for international applications.
This may be considered one of the comprehensive frameworks of brand personality which can be
generalized over multiple product categories. The research conducted on brand personality is
considered as very young as compared to human personality studies. Some researchers like
(Sweeney & Brandon, 2006) also criticized the framework of Aaker because it only consisted of
positive attributes of the brand whereas some brands are not so wholesome. Negative factors
were excluded in the development of brand personality scale (Bosnjak, Bochmann, &
Hufschmidt, 2007).
There are several critical limitations of (Aaker J. L., 1997)frame work of brand personality
construct, which is associated with his scale. (Wee, 2004), argued that most studies conducted on
brand personality are majorly based on overlapping of theories and used crude measurement
tools that were originally developed for the measurement of human personality and were used
in Brand personality. This statement also supported by the study of (Caprara, Barbaranelli, &
Guido, 2001). In an Italian context, this basically showed that human personality scale cannot
switch to brands Personality directly. To overcome this issue numerous authors like (zsomer A,
2007), developed new scales of brand personality from his studies which are based on brands
them instead of transposing human personality traits.
The second limitation is associated with the semantic problems and measurement items
presented (Aaker J. L., 1997).The study of (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003) claimed that the items of
Competence dimensions should be excluded because it is associated with cognitive abilities
and intelligence of the individuals.
67
The third limitation in (Aaker J. L., 1997) model is that it basically associated with the
dimensions of American culture only (Helgeson & Supphellen, 2004) and (Sung & Tinkham,
2005). Furthermore, (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, & V, 2001)revealed the dimensions of brand
personality in different cultures such as Japan and Spain in comparison with USA. In addition,
Aakers original multi-dimensional structure did not always gains an empirical substantiation
from different regions. For example, (Park & John, 2010)developed 4-dimensional scale in
Korean context and (A & L, 2007) established a 6-dimensional scale in Canada.
2.3.10 Brand Personality Scale

The first ever scale was developed by (Aaker J. L., 1997). Different brand personality scales has
been developed to study the brand personality of various brand. Scales are developed in different
cultural context to find the relevant personality traits associated with brand in that particular
culture. Also brand personality scales are developed for different product categories and brands.
Following is the table that shows various studies of brand personality dimension (Patel,
MEASURING BRAND PERSONALITY: AN EMPERICAL STUDY, 2009)(Ambroise,
Ferrandi, Merunka, Vallete, & Florence, 2005).
68
Table 1: Overview of Different Brand Personality Researches
69
This is the previous model of Laure Ambroise Research and many researchers used this scale for
the study of brand Personality.
Brand Personality Scale (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, Vallete, & Florence, How Well does
Brand Personality Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale and Analysis using Binary
Regression Models, 2005)
Creative
Charming
Elegant
Ascendant
Misleading
Introvert
Conscientious
Figure 3: Brand Personality Scale
70
Friendly
Original
Table 2: Brand Personality Scale Proposed by:(Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, & Florence,
2004)
Brand Personality Traits
Items
Friendly
Warm, Pleasant, nice
Creative
Inventive, Imaginative
Charming
Attractive, Seductive
Ascendant
Manipulative, Arrogant, Showy
Misleading
Hypocrite, Lying, Deceptive
Original
Trendy, Modern
Elegant
Sophisticated, stylish
Conscientious
Strict, Serious
Introvert
Reserved, Shy
In (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, & Florence, 2004) and few other researchers (Ambroise, Ferrandi,
Merunka, & Vallette-Florence, 2005), combine with him studied the brand personality and proposed
the brand personality scale to measure the personality of the brand. Their scale has been used before
to measure the personality of a brand (Laure Ambroise, 2005).
This brand personality scale basically has nine traits of personality: Friendly, Creative, Charming,
Ascendant, Misleading, Original, Elegant, Conscientious, and Introvert. Furthermore, all these
personality traits are sub-divided in more items. For example: The group of Warm, Pleasant, and
71
Nice fall in the friendly trait and the group of Manipulative, Arrogant, and Showy fall in the
category of Ascendant trait.
2.3.11 Structure of the Brand Personality Measurement Scale
Glamorous
Reliable
Mature
Elegant
Natural
Secure
Exciting
Sweet
Outgoing
72
Cheerful
Mischievous
Rigorous
Table 3: Brand Personality Scale

Items
Glamorous
Charming, Sophisticated, Voluptuous
Elegant
Elegant, Stylish, Good Looking
Exciting
Funny, Imaginative, Original
Reliable
Comforting, Robust, Secure
Natural
Environmentally-friendly, Natural
Sweet
Likeable, Affectionate, Friendly
Cheerful
Trendy, Joyful, Spirited
Mature
Adult, Discrete, Thoughtful
Secure
Reliable, Successful
Outgoing
Lively, Popular, Sporty
Mischievous
Youthful, Comical
Rigorous
Determined, Efficient, Intelligent
Based on previous model of Laure Ambroise, she examines other most important variables like
Exciting, Mature, and Outgoing etc. who have strong relationship with developing brand
personality and used them in his research for further elaboration. This test cover two well
differentiated product categories and to include brands competing on these markets in order to be
able to contrast brand personalities. Furthermore this model is being tested in 3 different
countries in order to better understand the effectiveness of this model.
From a managerial perspective, the differentiating power of the personality scale is mostly
encouraging. Based on this proposed model, the scale actually measures a concept which differs
73
strongly from brand image (which is category-specific and often country-specific) and which
should allow brand managers to position and differentiate their brand from that of competitors.
From a theoretical perspective, this brand personality model and structure appears reliable and
valid and effective. It also seems to be stable across cultures sharing the same language (although
data available has not allowed conducting a formal test thereof through a multi-group analysis).
Further analysis is needed to help in three main directions.
Firstly, it seems important to test congruence between brand personality and Human personality
facets if we wish to better understand how consumers use brands to express self-concept or ideal
self. Secondly, if we believe that brand personality has an effect on consumer emotions, brand
preference, brand usage and brand loyalty; predictive validity has to be formally tested. If
differentiation through brand personality is an important result, consequences on consumer
behavior or consumer brand/relationships also need to be assessed.
Finally, the proposed scale should be compared to other existing scales both for cross-cultural
stability and for predictive validity.
2.3.12 Brand Commitment:

There are many ways that the firm or an organization can make their loyal customer towards
their brand and one of the best approaches is through creating the commitment of the brand with
the loyal customer. Once the strong relationship has been developed between the brand and the
customer, it is now being easy for any firm to prevent their customer product intention from their
competitors (S., Dobscha, & Mick, 1998).Has extended and enhanced the concept of the brand
commitment with the products of that is being placed across the world, they elaborate that any
product of the firm should have long lasting aspiration to sustain the valuable relationship with
74
their committed customer. Moreover, (G & Vergne, 2004)narrates that brand commitment should
be durable either in form of an implicit or explicit intention.
In all the commitment towards the particular brand is the main root that leads to the customer
commitment for the longer period of the time. Brand commitment itself has its shared value, trust
and the identification which boost the purchase intention and the commitment of the brand
towards their customer. Finally, the brand commitment has the great influence that helps in
drawing out the greater market of the customer for the long term period.
2.3.13Brand Attachment:
The term brand attachment is being defined as the reliable and the long lasting psychological and
the emotional relationship of the certain brand which results from the brand belief and
confidence and from the interlink of the companionship feelings (Lacoeuilhe, 1997).
The congruence theory has elaborated the concept of the brand attachment in a sense that
consumer becomes attached to the brand only when the particular brand meets or come up with
the expectation of the personality, image and the values of the consumer which further he or she
transmit those perception of the attachment to others (Geyer, 1991).
2.3.14Brand Trust:
Brand trust has the great influence with the brand commitment, once the trust has been
developed the commitment and the attachment itself comes along with it and it been further
explained by (Hess, 1995), as a belief, that is keeping with the view of the collective psychology
research or objective of the behavior towards the brand. Brand trust has been the perception of
the consumers brands i.e. honesty, self-sacrifice and the potential performance of the particular
product.
75
Brand trust creates a potential value and the reliability of the consumer with the brand and that
extends and boost towards the preferences and usage over the longer period of the time. The faith
and believe in the brand also leads to the positive image in the market and cause an edge over all
its competitors. Since the level of the brand trust exists till then the customer is loyal and
committed to that particular brand and once it gets depreciated ultimately the perception,
intention and preferences of the consumer will get shifting to the competitors brands.
2.4 Studies on Congruence with Brand Personality

In this section the topic of congruence between human, brand and store personality is considered.
For this purpose the stream of research focused on consumer self/image is taken into account as a
theoretical framework (Levy, 1959).Asserts the output a consumer buys have personal and social
meaning capable to strengthen the way the consumer contemplates himself. Brands perform their
role as social congruity mean between brand and user self-image, which is considered as a
significant motivational element in consumer choice (R.W, 1988). Many researches prove there
is congruity between brand image/personality and human personality. For example, (Vitz &
Johnston, 1965) observe the existence of an association between smokers perceptions of
cigarette features and the smokers masculinity and femininity. In the same direction (Dolich,
1969) analyzes the bonds between self-image and brand preference discovering the puncture
brands are consistent to self-concept and strengthen it. At the same time (Hamm & Cundiff,
1969)detect a liaison between ideal self-image and product image. On his side (Belk R. W.,
1988) states that belongings are not just things people own but self-concept extensions
(Einwiller, Fedorikhin, Johnson, & Kamins, 2006). Describe the emotional part of customer
company identification as follows: Strong identification occurs when a company becomes
personally relevant for consumers, and personal relevance creates the potential for emotional
76
reactions. Similarly (Homburg, Wieseke, & Hoyer, 2009) present a conceptual framework in
which customercompany identification predicts customer loyalty toward a company. Similarity
and complementarily have obviously been widely discussed in psych sociology in the field of
interpersonal attraction (Byrne D. E., 1971) whose balance theories (or cognitive consistency)
and self-enhancement are parties. From this perspective, the individual seeks to strengthen or
improve self-esteem and minimizing inconsistent affective states (Festinger, 1954)(Byrne &
Griffitt, 1973). These balance theories and self-image enhancement provided the conceptual
foundations for research on the congruence between self-concept and different variables in
consumer behavior. These include works linking self-concept and intention to purchase products
(Landon, 1974); Self-concept and advertising effectiveness (Zinkhan & Hong, 1991) selfconcept and store traffic (Dornoff & Tatham, 1972). However, the largest rivulet of research was
attentive in the relationship between self-image and brand (Jacobson & Kossoff, 1963)(Grubb &
Grathwohl, Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behavior : A theoretical approach,
1967)(Grubb & Stern, 1971) particularly when these brands are socially visible. Some scholars
were also interested in the relationship between consumer and point of sale (dAstous A., 2002).
The congruence is based on a vision of objects related to meanings by consumers. For (Maille,
2010), if the literature about congruence has been augmented by the diversity of work that has
been devoted to this concept, it suffers from frequent conceptual and empirical inconsistencies
that prevent any final conclusion on its effects. The first studies on this portent of supposed
congruence see it as an operational correspondence between two bodies (Johnspen,
2009)(Mandler., 1982). Self-congruity is defined as the similarity between the symbolic
attributes of the branded product and self-concept of the individual. The measure of congruence
between individual and brand has taken two main directions (Kressmann, et al., 2006). The
77
traditional method for measuring congruence is differential. Although bounds of prognostic

legitimacy of these measures have been reported, we will hold it at first. We then enhanced by
those from a line of research aims to grow global and direct measurement (Sirgy, et al., 1997).
To our knowledge no research has been lead on the congruence consumer/brand/store in the
specific case of luxury brands. Therefore, we wanted to sustain in parallel the two types of
measurement (direct and differential). To our knowledge, only few research detach conceptually
and empirically congruence through the self-image and brand personality (Supphellen &
Grnhaug, 2003). And even if this work achieve that significant differences occur, they have not
been exposed to adequate replications to be generalized (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1984). Therefore,
we choose to directly measure personality congruence between consumer, brand and store basing
this process on the self/image literature.
Brand personality, or a brands human-like characteristics, is a prominent tool for making a
brand different from you competitor. Most of the studies showed that consumers find it usual to
build or make relationship with brand. In his works (Aaker J. L., 1997)defines brand personality
as being a set of human characteristics associated to a brand. The author examine that it can
include certain characteristics such as age, Family, demographics, socio-economic class,
Geographic, personality traits and feelings. She developed a model of measurement of the
personality of a brand by identifying 42 features divided up among 15 facets and 5 factors of
personality: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. However, Aakers
founding definition has often been criticized.
(Viot & C, 2006), start his definition, the brand personality has become a jumble concept.
Despite the clarifications done by different authors about brand personality, measuring this
concept has remained a study topic for researchers. On the other hand, Congruence is actually an
78
attachment with the brand or to make the brand in a way that reflects your personality in a brand.
Congruity theory holds that the level of congruence between the personality of a consumer and
their perception of the image of a brand will influence their intention to buy that brand, or their
behavior towards that brand has changed.
According to the(Johnspen, 2009), in his article , I recently attended the national sales meeting
of a high-end boat manufacturer that our firm represents and was delighted to listen as one of
their top dealers gave an impassioned speech on the critical need for congruence when dealing
with their customers. I could not have agreed with him more, and was motivated to take a few
minutes to write out my thoughts on what this idea really means in the marketplace and why it is
absolutely essential to building a successful company. Companies are consistently superb in
delivering their brand promise to create brand attachment through different techniques, in order
to get premium for bringing that special experience to the customers. To be honest, brands do
have an impact on the consumers behavior; the consumer compares himself or his image to that
of the brand, whether completely or not. He frequently sets some imaginary relationships with
the brand. He becomes a stimulus and tries to give or develops a relation between himself and
brand through congruence, or more of it, between his own personality and that which he
attributes to a set brand.
According to the research of (Nobre, Becker, & Brito, Brand Relationships: Personality-Based,
2010), the experiential study has provided the relationship between brand personality and
congruence. The Research investigates the symbolic meaning to attach with the brand by seeing
brand personality. This study has developed two important theoretical propositions. (1) The
brand is a partner in a dyadic relationship with the consumer and (2) The brand personality
influences the relationship the consumer establishes with the brand. Furthermore Brand
79
personality develops a consumer brand relationship which influence the quality, or the strength
of the relation that consumer develops with the brand. The research incorporated several studies
which supported the idea of congruence and brand personality. Like,
Brand image is the result of how a customer perceives his relationship with the brand. This
relationship is a result of meaning to the person who engages it (Fournier, Dobscha, & Mick,
1998).
The study of (Aaker, J.S.Fournier, & S.A.Brasel, When Good Brands do Bad, 2004) was
inspirational in the development of a conceptual model. The models premise was that brand
Personality plays an important role in the establishment of ties with the consumer
According to this approach companies made their brand or make the consumer to think in a way
that brand actually reflects their personalities. The consequences of each of the several studies
conducted in this research presents that evidence supports strong influence of Brand Personality
on the relationship the consumer establishes with the brand.
According to the research of (Parker, 2009), companies communicate through their brand, in
brand communication strategy; a benchmark that drives a favorable brand attitude is a
determinant that predicts a post purchase behavior of the consumer. Sometimes the customer
gives attention to those brands that suits their attitude that demonstrates images which helps him
to express himself and develop motivation. In consumer behavior many researchers relate with
the self-congruity model. Self-congruity is the difference between ones image and the image of
the brand. The researchers on the phenomena of the self-brand congruity are determined
similarity between the perceptions of consumer and the perception of brand image.
This
research was considered to evaluate self-brand congruity optimized with both the brand
80
personality and brand user imagery which construct a basis for modeling the makeup of selfexpressive brand attitudes. The author proposed two concepts that represent different types of
self-brand congruity: user image self-congruity (UIC) and brand personality self-congruity
(BPC).
The research also incorporated such theories which support the idea of congruence and brand
personality. Like Self congruity theory suggests that people often use brand meaning for selfexpression, then consumers will have favorable predispositions towards, that is like products and
brands that serve to enhance perceptions of their own self-image(M.J.Sirgy, 1986 ).
Customers have variety of different needs and wants that derive their consumption pattern
behavior. In framing self-brand congruity theory, new ways or ideas and concepts are developing
for the management of strategic brand communications. Researches were pretty advanced and it
opens many doors for the agenda of future brand image researchers. Finally, creative ideas are
the key to innovation to develop better customer attitude towards brand.
According to the research (Ahouri & Bouslama, 2010) one of the main emphasis of this research
is on Congruence between brand personality and the consumers self-image has a positive effect
on brand and, their intention of future behavior towards this brand and his level of preference
towards this brand.
This research belongs to the field of relationship between congruence and brand personality
which is an important concept to better understand their brand as per the need of the consumers.
Indeed the existence of the link between these variables provides marketing managers a tool
which enables them to improve or strengthen their brands.
81
The research also incorporated several studies which supported the idea of congruence and brand
personality. Like, Within the framework of brand personality, several researchers have shown
that this variable is positively linked to the consumers loyalty (Fournier, Dobscha, & Mick,
1998).
According to the (Sirgy M. J., 1982), when the attitude or image of the brand is examined as
similar to the consumers attitude or image in terms of personality attribute, the consumer is
encouraged to develop a meaningful relation towards that brand when deciding about a purchase
or post purchase decision.
Furthermore, a number of studies examine that there is congruity between brand personality and
human personality. For example, (Vitz & Johnston, 1965)found the masculinity or femininity of
the smoker is the relation between smokers perception of cigarette image.(Dolich, 1969), also
work on the relationship between self-image and brand personality and brand preferences brand
preference and establish that preferential brands were reliable to self-concept and it actually
reinforced it. Moreover, (Hamm & Cundiff, 1969)work and found relationship between ideal
self-image/personality and product image/product personality. And others, such as Belk as
mentioned in (Belk R. W., 1988) suggested that the extensions of self-concept but that
possession is not just we own (Belk R. W., 1988).
All of these studies agree on the fact that the consumer prefers the product the image of which is
congruent with his self-image. In other words, consumers only have a favorable attitude towards
a specific brand after applying a set of personality attributes and linking them to their selfimages. Furthermore consumers with different personality type would prefer brand with
personalities that match their own.
82
Congruence between human, brand and store personality is considered. For this purpose the
stream of research focused on consumer self/image is taken into account as a theoretical
framework. (Levy, 1959), asserts the output a consumer buys have personal and social meaning
capable to strengthen the way the consumer contemplates himself. Brands perform their role as
social congruity mean between brand and user self-image, which is considered as a significant
motivational element in consumer choice(Belk R. W., 1988). Many researches prove there is
congruity between brand image/personality and human personality. For example, (Vitz &
Johnston, 1965)observe the existence of an association between smokers perceptions of
cigarette features and the smokers masculinity and femininity. In the same direction (Dolich,
1969)analyzes the bonds between self-image and brand preference discovering the puncture
brands are consistent to self-concept and strengthen it. At the same time (Hamm & Cundiff,
1969) detect a liaison between ideal self-image and product image. On his side (Belk R. W.,
1988) states that belongings are not just things people own but self-concept extensions.
(Einwiller, Fedorikhin, Johnson, & Kamins, 2006), describe the emotional part of customer
company identification as follows: Strong identification occurs when a company becomes
personally relevant for consumers, and personal relevance creates the potential for emotional
reactions. Similarly (Homburg, Wieseke, & Hoyer, 2009) present a conceptual framework in
which customercompany identification predicts customer loyalty toward a company. Similarity
and complementarily have obviously been widely discussed in psych sociology in the field of
interpersonal attraction (Byrne D. E., 1971) whose balance theories (or cognitive consistency)
and self-enhancement are parties. From this perspective, the individual seeks to strengthen or
improve self-esteem and minimizing inconsistent affective states (Festinger, 1954)(Byrne &
Griffitt, 1973). These balance theories and self-image enhancement provided the conceptual
83
foundations for research on the congruence between self-concept and different variables in
consumer behavior. These include works linking self-concept and intention to purchase products
(Landon, 1974); Self-concept and advertising effectiveness (Zinkhan & Hong, 1991) selfconcept and store traffic (Dornoff & Tatham, 1972). However, the largest rivulet of research was
attentive in the relationship between self-image and brand (Jacobson & Kossoff, 1963)(Grubb &
Grathwohl, Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behavior : A theoretical approach,
1967)(Grubb & Stern, 1971) particularly when these brands are socially visible. Some scholars
were also interested in the relationship between consumer and point of sale (dAstous A., 2002).
The congruence is based on a vision of objects related to meanings by consumers. For (Maille,
2010), if the literature about congruence has been augmented by the diversity of work that has
been devoted to this concept, it suffers from frequent conceptual and empirical inconsistencies
that prevent any final conclusion on its effects. The first studies on this portent of supposed
congruence see it as a operational correspondence between two bodies (Mandler., 1982). Selfcongruity is defined as the similarity between the symbolic attributes of the branded product and
self-concept of the individual. The measure of congruence between individual and brand has
taken two main directions (Kressmann, et al., 2006). The traditional method for measuring
congruence is differential. Although bounds of prognostic legitimacy of these measures have
been reported, we will hold it at first. We then enhanced by those from a line of research aims to
grow global and direct measurement (Sirgy, et al., 1997). To our knowledge no research has
been lead on the congruence consumer/brand/store in the specific case of luxury brands.
Therefore, we wanted to sustain in parallel the two types of measurement (direct and
differential). To our knowledge, only few research detach conceptually and empirically
congruence through the self-image and brand personality (Supphellen & Grnhaug, 2003). And
84
even if this work achieve that significant differences occur, they have not been exposed to
adequate replications to be generalized (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1984). Therefore, we choose to
directly measure personality congruence between consumer, brand and store basing this process
on the self/image literature.
2.4.1 Major causes of strong Congruence and personality with the brand:
The major cause which affect or develops the congruence between brand and human
personalities include self-image, or brand image.
2.4.1.1Self-image:
(M.Resenberg, 1979), define self-image as the, total sum of thoughts and feelings from which an
individual can explain himself as an object. Construction on this idea, (M.L.Brunel, 1990)has
considered the idea of self-image as a multidimensional variable which comprises at the same
time: a) a cognitive dimension, that is, any ideas, images and opinion an individual have of
himself; b) an emotional dimension, that is, any impressions and the feelings he has towards
himself; c) a social dimension, since the concept of self-image is a set of projection of the others
perceptions of the individual.
In the field of marketing but more specifically in the field of research on the consumers
behavior, the Concept of self-image is related to the image of self in a rather diminishing way
(E., 2003). The concept of self is conceived of as a multidimensional notion involving different
facets (D., 2003).
Researchers have enriched this definition by identifying four major dimensions of self-image
(Sirgy & Su, 2000);(Jamal & Goode, 2001):
The real self: the perception of an individual as he sees himself.

85
The dreamed self or the ideal self: the way I would like to be.
The real social self: the way others consider me.
The dreamed social self or the ideal social self: the way I would like others to consider
me.
2.4.1.2 Factor develops congruence with the Brand.

From the past researches we can find that the consumers become attach to a specific brand
because the consumers see a specific meaning and make a imaginary relation with that brand and
they see product as themselves or what they want themselves to be. From the past researches
there are four important factors which influence the consumers to attach themselves to a specific
product (Park M. &., 2006).
These four factors are:
Self-expression (how come I distinguish myself from others with the brand?)
Group Affiliation (does ownership of the brand connect me to a group?)
Memories (attachment of memory related to the brand)
Pleasure (satisfaction provided by the product)
2.4.2 Congruence: A Crucial Variable in Marketing Congruence between

Brand Personality and Self-image.
Brand personality and self-image are the two most important and interrelated research tracks
which increased our knowledge of the relationships between consumers and brands.
(Sirgy M. J., 1982), actually try to explain that the idea of self-image is used as a cognitive
referent in the evaluation of representative elements. The consumer tries to seek certain level of
86
congruence between the features of a brands image and the way his personality is presented
(Belk, Bahn, & Mayer, 1982),(Sirgy M. J., 1982).
In other words, the consumer would express his self-image by selecting brands the personality of
which appears to him close to his own personality (Vernette, 2008). Congruence with self-image
is apparent as the similar attitude between the brands symbolic Attributes and the consumers
self-image (Spivey & Munson, 2010);(M.J.Sirgy, 1986 ). According to (Zinkhan & Hong,
1991)explain congruence as the degree of coincidence between advertising Expressions of a
brand and self-image of the consumers.
Brand personality and self-image are two researches which augmented our information of the
associations among consumers and brands (Vernette, Personnalite' de la marquet image de soi,
2003). Sirgy as mentioned in (Belk R. W., 1988) clarifies that the idea of self-image is used as a
cognitive referent in the assessment of symbolic elements. The consumer seeks certain
congruence between the features of a brands image and the way his personality is
presented(Belk R. W., 1988),(Sirgy M. J., 1982). In other words, the consumer would express his
self-image by choosing brands the personality of which appears to him close to his own
personality (Vernette, Les atouts et les pieges de la personnalite de la marque, 2008). As a matter
of fact, brands have an impact on the consumers behavior, for the consumer compares his image
to that of the brand, whether implicitly or explicitly. He often sets some imaginary relationships
with it. He can situate himself in relation to a given brand through congruence, or lack of it,
between his own personality and that which he attributes to a given brand (Plummer, 1985),
(Biel A. , 1993). Congruence with self-image is perceived as the similitude between the brands
symbolic attributes and the consumers(Spivey & Munson, 2010) self-image,(Sirgy M. J., 1982).
Zinkhan and Hong (1991) as mentioned in (Sirgy M. J., 1982), defines congruence as the degree
87
of coincidence between advertising expression and self-image. Within the framework of personal
musical congruence, Galan defines congruence as being the adequacy or the coherence perceived
between music and the consumers self-image. The author suggests that it is possible for the
individual to judge the congruence between self-image and music. Seeing that judging personal
congruence relies on a four-dimensional concept of self, there are equally four types of
congruence as defined in the literature (Sirgy M. J., 1982),(Helgeson & Supphellen,
2004)(Galan, 2007). Congruence with the real self-image: it refers to the degree of similitude
between the real self-image of the consumer and the typical image the consumer has of the given
product. Led by their motivation to protect their own identity (Sirgy M. J., 1982), individuals
only consume the products which do reflect their genuine self (Galan, 2007). Congruence with
the ideal image of self: it refers to the degree of similitude between the consumers self-image
and the image of the typical consumer of a given product. Behavior is then determined by a need
of self-esteem. According to (Galan, 2007), reaching a certain ideal image of oneself through the
consumption or the possession of products which are consistent with ones ideal self-image
satisfies the consumers need for self-esteem. - Congruence with the social self-image: it
corresponds to the degree of similitude between the consumers social self-image and the image
of the typical consumer. Such appropriateness satisfies a need for social coherence which is in
fact a motivation to develop or keep attitudes and behaviors which cohere with the way others
perceive an individual (Galan, 2007).Congruence with the ideal social self-image: it represents
the degree of similitude between the consumers ideal social self-image and the image of the
typical consumer. Such congruence answers the individuals (Sirgy, et al., 1997)need for social
approbation, or his need to develop a set of cognitions. Congruence with the ideal social selfimage: it represents the degree of similitude between the consumers ideal social self-image and
88
the image of the typical consumer. Such congruence answers the individuals need for social
approbation, or his need to progress a set of cognitions.
Although the number of articles on the congruence between brand personality and self-image has
outstandingly augmented recently, scholars still unanimously criticize the limited amount of
study in this topic, as likened with the research dealing with brand personality, for example. This
works aims at inspiring the field. Clarifying the concept of congruence between brand
personality and self-image on the one hand, and explaining its effect on the customers
satisfaction and loyalty to the brand on the other. The current study wishes to show the vital role
of the congruence variable in the association between the brand and the consumer. Congruence
between brand personality and self-image is a significant notion which companies should take
into account in order to grow and better achieve their brand. This would attract consumers who
are sensitive to the personality features displayed or who wish to use them as a vehicle of the
conception they have of themselves. It would be worthwhile to develop the research empirical
protocols so as to show how the congruence between brand personality and self-image affects the
level of consumer satisfaction and his loyalty towards a brand.
2.5 Studies on Commitment with Brand Personality

According to (Keller K. , 2006), brand which is successful they identify the strategies that help to
the organization to create brand loyalty among the customers. It requires those strategies which
are used to capture and retains the customer. Companies have to be connected with their
customers.
Its a complete process which to select the customer, organize and interpret the information to
create a picture in the mind of customers. It not only related to the external sources or physical
89
stimuli, its also related to the stimuli of surrounding and environment in which the customers
are present
External source of information play a vital role to create a perception in the mind of the customer
regarding the brand. Companies should know that how customers are getting information from
external sources, how the information is translating to the customers (Belch, 2004). It has a
major concern regarding making the decision about information. It influences the customer to get
information from the sources and make a perception regarding the brand. It explains that how the
consumer behavior is focusing and understanding and making a perception towards the specific
brand. There are few steps that related to the consumer information processing:
EXPOSURE
EXPOSURE
ATTENTION
INTERPRETATION & COMPREHENSION
MEMORY &RETENTION
Figure 5 : Consumer Information Process

According to (Hawkings, 2001), exposure occurs when stimuli comes within the range of ones
sensory receptor nerve. In this stage customer needs to be allocate the information processing
capacity against the incoming information, or customer should decide not to allocate the
processing capacity.
According to(Ries, 2000), mostly customers go for that brands that are over communicate in
their living environment. Consumers are highly influenced by their surrounding information;
they use to highly create selective awareness and attention measures.
90
According to (Keller K. , 2006), the customers daily see the advertisement average around 1500.
From the advertisement consumer screen the information and give attention to the specific brand.
According to the (Mostert, 2002), the consumer will pay special attention to information that is
relevant to them. The consumer does not give any attention to irrelevant information. It can be
concluded that consumers due to the limited processing capacity and consumers pay selective
attention to the messages.
The term commitment explained as the engagement that in close the freedom of action (The
oxford english dictionary), this sounds negative, but isnt, It is held firmly with a vision and
enthusiasm and dedication to the process point of view. Commitment is the devotion or
dedication to specific cause or reason. Commitment is a vigorous belief on an idea or system.
Commitment is awareness, an attitude, being fully present at the moment of choice (Horosz,
1975).
If brand Personality is a convenient metaphor to describe stable characteristics associated with
brands, the concept originally used by advertising agencies had not been defined properly before
the work of (Aaker J. L., 1997).He defines brand personality as the set of human characteristics
associated with a brand. This definition is relying on the word characteristics. He also identifies
42 traits and 5 personality facts: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and
raggedness.
A major construct that has an impact on consumer behavior is attitude towards the brand (Allport
G. , 1935). Closer to the marketing paradigm important research has been established that
positive attitudes (for example in Morgan and Hunts 1994) will favor brand commitment. (Aasel,
1987), proposes that commitment arises from positive attitudes and (Chaudhuri & Holbrook,
91
2001) shown that commitment reflects the level of positive effect of generated by the brand.
Therefore, attitude towards the brand is expected to have impact on band commitment. Some
authors argue that brand personality might affect the consumer behavior.
Lastly, we consider the role of brand involvement. Brand personality should play a greater role
in explaining attitude formation and brand/consumer relationships when consumer involvement
is high. When the product category is more important to the consumers, the consumer seeks
more and is more sensitive to information concerning products and brands in the category.
Consequently, involved consumers probably have the sharper and the stronger perception of
personality traits associated to brands and better differentiates brands in terms of personality.
These brand personality difference have the potential of explaining the brand attitude or brand
commitment.
Commitment with brand explained or interpreted as the degree or level of attachment with the
brand it has four emotional and behavioral underlying contracts: (a) brand loyalty is the
emotional and behavioral which leads to the repurchasing of an specific brand (b) the satisfaction
creates the need to rehabilitation end of consumption pleasurable experience (c) the
embarrassment creates the strength of attachment including the relevance and impotence of
brand segment, and (d) the attachment with brand because the substitute brands are not able to
raise at level of comparison with the brand used by the committed customer (Shuv-Ami, 2011).
Maintaining or creating long-term relation with customers in term of brand commitment is the
major target of the company to achieve.(Touzani, 2009). Brand loyalty is main focus of the
company while launching a product; it is a main objective or strategy in marketing related to
consumer goods and commodities (Touzani, 2009). Those companies which enjoy the bucketful
92
of committed customers to the brand have greater market share and higher rates of return on
investments (Nawaz, 2011). The modification of brand personality among the companies have
increased in few couple of day, companies targeting customers to make them loyal not switch or
go for alternatives while choosing (Gustavsson, 2005).
It is the loyal and committed
customer who assures the products survival and growth for
decades, otherwise the switchers of brands are not the warranty for product to last in market
(Touzani, 2009). In brand loyalty consumer are emotionally attached to a specific brand. The
consumer assumes that brand is according to his expectation and identifies with the consumer on
a personal level. The buying behavior of the consumer and decision making might me conscious
or unconscious, but their choice will remain same.
Brand loyal customer doesnt go for alternatives while unavailability of their desired brand. They
can visit to multiple stores and forgo making a purchase if their brand cannot be found than they
are to purchase a substitute.
Commitment can be viewed as an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship with the
brand(Zaltman M. a., 1992). Companies more look about to attain superior values to keep
growing their brand commitment. Customers want strong emotional and relational attachment to
brand to repurchase it and to become the committed and loyal customer or consumer.
The organizational commitment of customers is indicative of the organization's likelihood of
developing or maintaining customer identification with organizational goals and values and
retaining the service customer as an active participant the service encounter (Al., 1992). Trust on
brand leads to commitment is one of the important factors in creating marketing strategy that can
93
create committed customers. Companies must focus to create trust with brand over customers
(Aleman, 2001).
Many companies have created the concept or assume that well handling the complaint and
properly dealing with their customer issues are source of brand commitment and loyalty
effectively handling of complaints and issues customers create trust or commitment and
dramatically increase the retention rate and improve service quality as well(Nawaz, 2011).
Consumers commitment to brand has been discovered or identified important for marketing now
days, because of the availability of numbers of substitute in market, marketers are focused on
creating brand commitment and committed customers (Philip, 2009).
Brand is advantaged by high profits while customer gains high value for the money that he or she
has exchanges in the form of benefits. Manufacturers of the brand consider brand commitment as
an indicator of superior performance so they try to build and increase consumer loyalty by
delivering superior benefits, establishing a positive image (companys value of social
responsibility and trustworthy manufactures) about the organization in consumers mind.
If we see the behavioral approach of brand loyalty, there are models which used to predict and
measure the loyalty of consumers are derived from the previous purchase patterns which leads to
ensure continuity in the future purchase behaviors. It means that the experience of customer on
the previous purchase leads to future purchase behaviors i.e. if the experience is either good or
bad leads to have impact on behaviors of future purchase. According to (1973), states that the
word commitment is very good predictor of differentiating brand loyalty and different forms of
repeat purchasing behaviors. It is also proved from their research that the concept of commitment
promises for assessing the relative degrees of brand loyalty.
94
Commitment is a physiological state that initially identifies the relationship with the brand or
organization and then it has the authority to make the decision to continue membership or
relationship with it (O'Callaghan, 2009).
The brand's commitment to research and manufacture the degree of attachment is defined as
consumer protection they use and re-buy or re-brand is a favorite.(Shuv-Ami, 2011), argued that
the Brand "based on the customer equity" based on the argument that the Brand and image
association attachments" series. The present study argues that Brand: The brand's commitment
attachments are represented by four basic composition Loyalty, brand, category and brand
involvement relative satisfaction with care Performance.
Commitment is defined by (Hunt, Morgan, & D., 1994) as an enduring desire to maintain a
valued relationship. Relational commitment is when both partners brand and consumer keep
faith that continuous relation is precious and significant, so they both assure that relation is
maintained. Commitment is explained as a desire to maintain a current relationship with a
brand (Fullerton, 2003). There are two factors affecting commitment; one is affective
commitment and other is continuance commitment (Lombart, Louis, & Cindy, Impact of brand
personality on three major relational consequences (trust, commitment and attachment) to the
brand, 2010).
A graphic identity is one of the most valuable assets of the brand. It symbolizes a complete set of
commitments: to see, to the value proposition, to the recipient. Market conditions may require a
re-think of any and all of these obligations, but unless and until that happens, usually stick to it
means staying true to the symbols that represent them.
95
There can be a feeling that either we can change it later if we do not like it, or even worse, it
does not generally does not matter much. Apart from the fact that the identity of the drawing can
be very expensive to change (production costs alone add up quickly), this way of thinking
reveals a bigger problem. A graphic identity is a constituent element of a promise to create a
brand in the minds of their customers. Change the slogan refers to the change in the brand
promise, and changes it on a whim risk of erosion of our brand.
Once identity is established appropriate fee for the organization, you need to abide by the
organization. Change is inevitable and companies must evolve with their customers, but the most
successful companies evolve from a strategic point.
Identity successful programs rely heavily on consistency. Consistency is a measure of
confidence. The companies will be confident that the program is committed to a strong identity
to see the best return on their investment. However, programs can have shorter life span identity
identities of the drawing. While the organization focuses strategically might consider changing
his identity drawing only once in a generation, you may need to be updated after the business
cycle to a three-year programs.
The program has necessitated by differences events campaigns, trade shows, and changing
seasons or customized. Strong identity programs allow for a good balance between consistency
and the difference is opportunistic. Decision makers who are confident and willing to commit to
some ideal brand see the application of the criteria but are not limited, but as an expression of
their commitment. Designers see this commitment as a kind of constraint and another as a source
of inspiration for finding solutions to problems. Frequency resolution is no way to build brand
value. When companies commit to the value proposition, and the public, and the position, they
96
create opportunities for a strong brand identity for growth. Not commit is one of the most
common ways to weaken the brand.
In many ways, brands are like people. People who are building a strong identity consistent
procedures, they became known by the reliability of the proceedings of their own obligations.
Brands are built or torn down to build on their willingness and ability to commit to follow-up.
Perceptions of early commitment in the field of marketing equated with brand loyalty and
defined in terms of consistency buy a certain brand. Followed these perceptions of sociology in
terms of commitment was seen as a solid line of behavior by an individual, maintained even
when faced with the choices of alternative or competing behavior. He said the commitment of
the brand and therefore behavioral phenomenon is usually defined in empirical studies that "the
proportion of the total purchases under the category of a particular product devoted to more
brands that are purchased frequently (Engel, 1982).
However, later on, this was recognized to be a narrow outlook not considering the reasons
underlying the frequency of brand purchase. As a result, later definitions expanded the scope of
commitment
by
including
attitudinal
aspects
of
the
construct.
For
example,
in
sociology,(Johnson, 1973) the definition of commitment is the extent of which is dedicated to

work for the completion of the line to work. In the field of marketing, and this means that the
nature of attitudes and increase individual commitment to the brand, is the largest fixed is brand
as the only option in this category of products. Using this perspective, the focus is on all the
cognitive and emotional components of the building. The measurement is based on purchase
intentions and preferences of purchase, rather than focusing on the operations of the actual
purchase. In this study, is conceived as a commitment to brand building positions and is known
97
as binding commitments from individual or his / her brand choice within the category of
product"(Gardner L. J., 1979). According to (Silverman, 1979), it should be noted that the
commitment of the brand thus relating although the brands, and is defined as a building at the
level of this category of products, which are conceived consumers have different levels of
commitment to the brand for different categories of products.
The studied experimental research precedents commitment to the brand, including personal
characteristics such as self-confidence and exposure to the impact of the reference group, as well
as store loyalty (Carman, 1970), but its connections with other consumer behavior constructs are
tenuous.
The perception of risk is perceived as a result of unforeseen consequences and uncertain of the
nature of the unpleasant result of buying the product (Bauer R. , 1960). In consumer behavior,
and the perception of risk in terms of loss and is thought to arise only from the potential negative
results, in contrast to other disciplines such as psychology, where is the positive and negative
consequences.
(Bettman, 1973), distinguish between the inherent risks and determines the risk of dealing with
the perceived risk as building specific class of product , any product different classes have
different levels of inherent risks and handle associated with them. Indicate the risk inherent in the
aspects of risk in the category of products that are stable while belong chronologically from the
risk of dealing with a more situational aspects of the product category. In this study, risk
perception is seen as a stable, class specific product, unique to the individual. In other words,
everyone is aware of each product category has certain levels of risk associated with it and these
levels for the product category different for different individuals. In this study, the definition of
98
risk is seen as a sign of personal losses resulting from the purchase and use of products of this
category of products. This definition is consistent with the definitions used in previous studies of
(Ryan & J, 1976).
The importance of the concept of the product is essential for consumer behavior acceptable on a
large scale to the idea that consumers consider different classes of products to be important
differences in consumer behavior (Hupfer, 1971). This construction is similar to building a wellthought of the involvement of the product, which is defined as "the extent to which the consumer
product connects to the objectives of the highlights of a particular situation or a permanent" have
been found to influence the consumer decision-making processes, and operations after the
decision and response to marketing communications (Richins, Bolch, & L, 1983).
The researchers hypothesized risk early in the existence of a positive relationship between
perceived risk and commitment to excellence commitment to the brand as a strategy to control or
avoid potential risks in buying brand untried or unfamiliar. Using this logic, the commitment of
the brand is essentially a strategy of risk reduction (Derbaix, 1983).Experimental studies show
that support this relationship, which run out of stock of the results of my favorite brands to
choose other varieties or sizes of the same brand or delay the purchase when the perceived risk
associated with the product category is high. Recently developed product classification
distinguishes products with high commitment to those adverse effects that have been purchased
from the rare presence of wrong decisions associated (Goodell, Martin, & N, 1991), thus
favoring a positive relationship between the two constructs.
However, empirical research also shows that the level of perceived risk and cites commonly
known as one of the important reasons to switch brands by consumers. Thus, consumers with
99
low perceived risk to switch to other brands because of curiosity while switching consumers in
search of high-risk brands better. In related work, and empirical studies show that an increase in
the perceived risk results to increase search for information based on the theme about different
brands (Capon & Burke, 1980). Review of existing literature and thus reveals conflicting results
about the relationship between perceived risk and the commitment of the brand despite the fact
that there is more support for a positive relationship.
The close links between the product and the importance of the commitment of the brand can be
found in many of the studies concerning the participation of the product's commitment to the
brand. A conclusion resulting from this area, however, is often confusing and contradictory, and
highlighted the similarities between the two structures through the use of (Krugman, 1965).
Concept at least explains the involvement of low commitment consumer behavior. The other
authors distinguish between the two constants by selecting the commitment that it refers to a
position or a certain position, whether it is positive in general, with regard to the brand, and
participation as the general level of interest or concern in the category of products without
reference to a specific position. After the commitment with other, authors identified as one
component of the involvement of the product (Gardner J. L., 1979).
The implication of several researchers that increased consumer involvement results in the
product's commitment to the brand. Traylor indicates that consumers show the behavior of the
most unstable, and is characterized by brand loyalty low and increase the variety seek when
dealing with products involving low to make the same argument, claiming that consumers with
the participation of the product low reflection in the category of the product and the trivial and
has a "bond a little bit" of their choice. One study found the level of participation of the pilot to
100
determine its relationship to the brand's commitment to (Taylor M. B., 1981). The products
showed low participation and a positive relationship to the commitment of the brand while
products with high involvement showed no relationship. Another study found the brand's
commitment to result from the involvement of purchase (Betty, Kahle, & Homer, 1988). But the
third pilot study found a strong relationship between the permanent involvement of consumers in
the category of the product and the tendency to engage in the collection of information about
ongoing product category(Richins, Bolch, & L, 1983). This indicates that consumers know about
the different brands in this category of products is likely to be high in these cases, resulting in a
less committed to the brand. Thus, the reviews of previous work suggest that although the two
constructs are closely linked, and the commitment is not necessarily relevant product or be
accepted as a dimension of the building in terms of importance.
2.5.1 Building commitment of consumers with new products

The main reason for the majority of new products failing is that the commitment of consumers to
the products they are already using is not taken into account, and that no matter how positively
the product completes in product tests, it is more likely to fail if consumers are already strongly
committed to their favorite brands. Enlightened marketers should use measures of commitment
to identify markets which will be easiest to enter, both geographically and by product category.
(Rice & Butch, 2001), explore this seemingly contradictory and illogical behavior and conclude
that commitment, and not satisfaction, is the key to sustaining brand profits. Religion and politics
rarely feature in marketing and branding texts, gaining at most a couple of sentences, usually to
do with the importance of scanning the macro environment.
101
2.5.2 Failure of new products with context to commitment

Four main conclusions are drawn regarding the potential success or failure of new product
launches. First, the greater the number of committed consumers in a market, the harder it will be
to launch a new product successfully; secondly, it is the uncommitted consumers of existing
brands who are more likely to try new products than committed consumers; thirdly, it is one
thing to get uncommitted consumers to try a new product but it is quite another to keep them;
and fourthly, uncommitted will only be kept if they can be turned into newly committed
consumers of a new brand. As is so often the case in the world of branding, none of this is rocket
science. But until such concepts as conversion and commitment are integrated into mainstream
brand management, the squandering of new product development budgets is unlikely to abate
(Rice & Butch, 2001).
2.5.3 Commitment with organizational citizenship behavior:

Within this repeated process the existing constructs of organizational citizenship behavior and
organizational commitment from organizational behavior were modified and combined into the
model in order to explain employees brand-related attitudes and behavior. The resulting
constructs and the full model are subsequently explained. Brand commitment is the key driver of
brand citizenship behavior. The authors define brand commitment as the extent of psychological
attachment of employees to the brand, which influences their willingness to exert extra effort
towards reaching the brand goalsin other words, to exert brand citizenship behavior. The term
commitment has been used frequently in the context of internal branding, but mostly in a rather
common-sense manner without theoretical foundation. In the case of a corporate brand, the brand
commitment construct as the authors understand it is synonymous with organizational
commitment, which is generally defined as a psychological bond between the employee and the
102
organization. Organizational commitment has been shown to induce functional extra-role

behavior.
It is easily comprehensible and has been empirically proven by OReilly and Chatman that
commitment based on compliance does not yield any behavior that goes beyond role
prescriptions. It will, however, ensure devotion to rules, which is a necessary basis for brand
citizenship behavior. Compliance is driven by the organizational structure, including incentive
systems that determine formal rewards and sanctions and the organizational culture that
determines informal rewards and sanctions through social control(OReilly & Chatman, 1986).
The brand commitment of each individual can be built on any one of the dimensions or on all
three, while the dominance of one or the other dimension might vary from person to person. The
brand citizenship behavior is not influenced by all of the dimensions in the same way.
Brand commitment does not emerge all by itself. Several empirical studies confirm this: the
surveys conducted by the Gallup Organization in Germany and by Towers Perrin in the USA
showed that under a fifth of responding employees were highly engaged for their corporate
brand, voluntarily giving that extra effort on an ongoing basis. An equal number were
disengaged, meaning they had probably checked out from their work. The remainderroughly
two-thirds of the sample were moderately engaged at best.
During the interviews, one very interesting discussion evolved around the question of whether
some people naturally have a disposition for higher brand commitment, while for some people it
is just part of their personality never to be committed to anything. In this generalized form, the
authors strongly disagree with this opinion. It can be assumed, however, that some people will
have a stronger congruence between their personal values and the brand values before entering
103
the company. Since in that case the core brand values are already part of their self-concept, less
socialization effort is necessary.
Employee participation will generate a stronger brand commitment based on identification and
internalization, while imposed behavior guidelines will only generate weak commitment based
on compliance. There is no consensus, however, among the brand managersat a large German
bank the guidelines are developed by employees and included in targets agreed with superiors.
Several practitioners emphasize the necessity for empowerment of employees in this context.
This fits in with this papers theoretical model, as employees with brand commitment based on
identification and internalization can and must be given more freedom than those without
commitment or with commitment based only on compliance.
As employees can only turn brand commitment into brand citizenship behavior if they have
access to the necessary resources and knowhow, appropriate information infrastructure,
planning, budgeting and controlling systems also need to be in place. Brand commitment based
on identification and internalization becomes difficult for an outsourced agent, as the emotional
distance to the brand organization is very high (Zeplin & Sabrina, 2005).
2.5.4 Brand Commitment and Loyalty:

The perceived equity, value and quality were determined to be input variables; brand
satisfaction, trust, affective commitment and continuance commitment were determined to be
intervening variables; repurchase intentions and loyalty were determined to be output variables.
A survey was conducted to undergraduate and graduate students of Ataturk University.
According to the results of the research, it was determined that brand equity, value and quality
had no effect on brand satisfaction, but had an effect on trust. It was determined that brand
104
satisfaction had an effect only on affective commitment, and trust had an effect both on affective
commitment and continuance commitment.
When customers are satisfied, they show commitment to continuously buy the same brand and
become a loyal customer (Ballantyne, 2006). No matter how satisfaction level affects loyalty, it
alone is not sufficient to create brand loyalty. Various factors such as brand trust, quality, image,
and equity affect brand loyalty. Determination of the factors effective in creating brand loyalty
apart from satisfaction will be helpful to understand the construct of the loyalty. From this point
of view, in the study, the variables including brand equity, brand value, brand quality, affective
commitment and continuance commitment were determined as the determinants of brand loyalty
and it was aimed to determine their effects on loyalty and repurchase intentions.
Commitment is divided into two as affective and continuance commitment. Affective
commitment is the emotional connection with the brand which represents strong sense of
personal identifications. Affective brand commitment is based on identification and shared
values with the brand (Pring, 2007). In evaluating affective commitment for some important
brands, Mc Alexander, Schouten and Koenig (2002) found affective commitment explains the
deep attachment to the focused brands. A study by (Verhoef, 2003), in the banking services
found the direct result of affective commitment on repurchases intention. At the same time brand
satisfaction, brand equity and perceived brand value were positive antecedents of effective
commitment, but they did not directly affect consumer repurchase behavior.
Continuance commitment defined as the consumers weak feelings for a brand. Because when
the consumers perceive high switching costs and few alternatives, they change their brands.
(Fullerton G. , 2003), has explained continuance commitment as a harmful effect on the
consumers willingness to engage in advocacy intentions. In another study, about commitment,
105
(Lindstrom, 2005)tested the commitment to a brand. In this study he asked consumers if they
would tattoo the name of the brand on their body. As a result of the research, many
respondents tattoo the brand image on their body. (Harrison-Walker, 2001), studies on
commitment and repurchase plans have shown continuance commitment destabilized consumer
behavior while consumers who have affective commitment act as a reference for a brand or
organization and want to help organization when they have a strong affective attachment to the
firms and firms brand. The study showed that continuance commitment had a weak effect on
repurchase intentions, and the academic literature suggested that driving force behind behavioral
loyalty is not motivated by attitudinal loyalty. On the other hand for other researchers
continuance commitment has a positive impact on the repurchase decisions. In the study of
(Gilliland, 2002), on clothing brands, the consumer can effect from brands feature like brand
quality, brand trust, brand value and integrate with the brand.
Trust and commitment are both very important elements in ensuring a long-term orientation
towards the firms brand. They are explained as antecedent of loyalty and repurchase intentions.
(Morgan R. &., 1994), assumed that commitment motivates buyers and suppliers to continue
their relationship with the brand in the future. In the other studies in which the effect of brand
trust on brand commitment was investigated, (Shergill, 2005)concluded that trust had a positive
effect on customer commitment. The present study examined trust as a precursor of commitment.
106
Continuance
Commitment
Affective
Commitment
Commitment
with Brand
Personality
Figure 7: Commitment with Brand Personality Model

2.5.4.1 Affective Commitment
The idea of commitment has been an important feature of studies on customer relationships over
the last decades (Gundlach, 1995). While the literature on commitment generally suggests that
the phenomenon exists in different forms (Allen & Meyer, 1990)most research has found the
affective kind of commitment to be a major determinant of customer loyalty, while the effects of
other types of commitment are more unclear (Kumar, Hibbard, & Stern, 1994)for a marketing
related study including all three forms discussed in the literature). Affective commitment is
based on emotions and affective attachments to the commitment object (Porter, Steers, Mowday,
& Boulian, 1974), and thus, it is grounded on customer partiality and positive feelings for the
relationship partner. If a customers affective commitment to a brand is high, this should bring
about a wish and motivation to continue the relationship. Since this type of commitment does not
include any instrumental cost-benefit evaluations, it is derived from the emotional pleasure
107
associated with the relationship partner, and the feelings of fondness developed within the
relationship. As such, affective committed parties are inclined to maintain the existing
relationship, an assumption extensively supported by previous research (Kumar, Hibbard, &
Stern, 1994); (Wieselquist, 1999). This study argues that consumers whose affective
commitment to a supplier is high will be less receptive to a newly introduced product in this
category. Regarding the brand extension, this implies that the intention to buy a new product will
be lower the higher the level of commitment to an incumbent brand (Hansen & Hem, 2004).
Affective commitment is more lasting than calculative or normative commitment, but it is not
certainly everlasting. It is possible for a team to lose its sacred position with admirers.
Affective commitment is the identification or liking of the brand, when consumer got
emotionally attached with the brand. It is the emotional attachment built-in between the brand
and the customer both enjoy the loyalty and membership as being a user of the brand (Fullerton,
2003). Affective commitment by the consumer is enduring desire to maintain a current
relationship (Hunt, Morgan, & D., 1994). This strong commitment is based on emotional
association that has been developed with the brand. On this basis the consumer will not sacrifice
usage of the brand and value their commitment and relation with the brand.
2.5.4.2 Continuous Commitment
Continuance commitment is when the consumer has no option or substitute available in the
market to market purchase or no other substitute is available at that price rate and the switching
is too costly (Lombart, Louis, & Cindy, 2010). The benefits consumers getting from a brand are
not replaceable by other brand so this prevents consumer switching. Potential loss of losing the
benefits associated with the brand is a key feature of continuance commitment (Fullerton, 2003).
Continuance commitment is the result of dependence of consumer on the brand either due to lack
108
of substitute or high switching cost like for expensive product consumers are reluctant to switch
over to other brands because they have already highly invested in the brand and they do not want
to again make high investment so the stick to the brand they are currently using. This is
particularly true when the product is complex.
A consumers commitment to a brand is related to her relative preference for the brand; in
general, the more strongly preferred the brand, the greater the commitment to the brand
(Montgomery & B., 1987).
Commitment with brand is now very hard or difficult to create when the competition with the
similar brand is very high and in case of Pepsi and coca cola the war of getting enough market
shares is the target or major objective of each brand to achieve. Sometime Pepsi get market share
and sometimes coke, but if we see globally coke is the market leader. But the scenario of
Pakistan is totally different people in Pakistan are more committed to Pepsi and this commitment
enhance and lead towards the brand loyalty. According to an article by a leading newspaper
Tribune that coke has market share of around 30% to 35% and Pepsi Cola has a market share
of 60% to 65% (Despite lead, Pepsi aims for bigger piece of the cake, 2012).
Both companies have applied and are using many strategies to make their consumer satisfied,
because the more they satisfied the more they will be committed to brand and through this the
brand loyalty will automatically increase. There are many advertising comparing run by Pepsi in
which they endorse group of celebrity which help them to increase the market share and level
commitment by satisfying the customers.
On the other hand if we see coke they also using deferent strategies to create their market and
attract customer towards the brand. They also establish a series of program Coke Studio which is
109
very successful trough this they tried to capture market share and attract people towards the
product.
From the above scenario it is easily observed that commitment plays an important role in brand
personality. Because of commitment consumers are strongly stick to brand and their commitment
will be long lasting. Eventually customer finds congruence and satisfaction with brand which
shows that their personality matches with brand. Pleasant experience of using same brand several
times enhance the level of satisfaction and lead the consumer make long lasting relationship
through the high level of commitment with brand.
2.5.5 The Importance of Commitment for a Certain Firm

Commitment to the squad often also means active conflict to rival teams. An Alabama fan
mentioned that Alabama fans have culture and Auburn fans have agriculture. Some Florida
fans delight in stating to rival Florida State as a girls school, referring to its origin as a college
for women. While these competitions are commonly pleasant, they imitate the stuff of purity
called opposition to the profane. Though informants did not use these terms, there is no doubt
that many of them would enjoy the idea of their sacred team versus the profane rival team.
Much study regarding commitment has been showed in the field of organizational behavior.
(Allen & Meyer, 1990), developed and verified a three-component model of commitment. It was
originally applied to the commitment of a worker to an organization. (Echambadi, 2000), applied
the framework of the model to the customer holding context. The three components of the
model, as expressed by (Allen & Meyer, 1990)are continuance, normative, and affective. The
resolution component of commitment states to the workers view of the costs of leaving the
organization as opposed to the benefits of remaining. Based on the items developed to measure
110
this element of the ideal, the focus is on the costs. This phase of commitment is characterized by
a need to be so. In our application of the model, the individuals livelihood is not generally
affected by ending the association. Subsequently, the individuals cognitive judgment is more
between the benefits received from supporting the team and the cost of giving that support. To
reflect the difference, we have adopted the term calculative which is more commonly used in
consumer behavior research for this element of commitment (Echambadi, 2000), (Hansen,
Sandvik, & FredSelnes, 2002). The normative section occurs when employees are loyal to the
organization because they feel that it is the moral and correct thing to dothat they have a
responsibility to the organization. This element of commitment as originally formulated. The
affective component operates when employees are loyal because they want to be. These are
employees who feel much linked and have strong affective feelings toward the organization. The
commitment framework that we apply to our model of consumer devotion includes the three
components of calculative, normative, and affective commitment.
Calculative commitment
means that, an individual will remain a fan of a team as long as the benefits of being a fan
compensate the costs (Etzioni, 1961); (Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). These are individuals who are
more expected to be fans during winning seasons, or when there is a player that is especially
exciting to watch. Normative commitment stems from internalized, normative pressures to
remain loyal. In that case, these are individuals who feel some sort of obligation to be a fan of
the team regard less of the balance of costs and benefits. Finally, affective commitment means
that there is an internalized emotional connection between the fan and the team and that the fan
feels that he or she identifies with the team and shares values with it.
Individuals who develop commitment to a team may do so to fulfill expectations that others have
of them, or to satisfy their own needs. In other words, the antecedents can be based
111
interpersonally or intra personally. In either case, developing commitment helps them to achieve
cognitive consistency (Heider, 1958). If a family has a tradition of supporting a college football
team, this tradition may have become established as a family norm (Fields, 1984). Individuals
who value their membership in the family will experience cognitive inconsistency if they do not
also become fans. For example, one informant stated that she had married into being a Florida
State fan. When asked if she was now a committed fan, her husband responded, She better
be.(Reynolds & E., 2004).
2.5.6 Commitment as Multidimensional Construct

Similar to the construct of trust, the roots of commitment research cannot be found in
economic science. Commitment-research has its roots in the social psychology research field
(Mowday, 1979). However, research in this field is limited to the relationship of two
persons. Organizational psychology extends the understanding of commitment and tries to
explain the interrelation between a person and an organization. In business relation research,
the organizational understanding is widened by focusing on the commitment of two
organizations. A more special focus is set on research between industrial manufacturers and
retailing firms e.g. (Joshi, 2009), (Vzquez & lvarez-gonzlez, 2005). A widely known
multidimensional model for commitment research was designed by (Allen & Meyer, 1990). They
distinguish three different components of commitment: affective, normative and calculative or
continuance commitment. The affective component deals with the emotional commitment. The
normative component relies on the feeling of responsibility, while the rational component takes
into account the costs of breaking up a business relationship. All three components can operate
simultaneously and do not exclude themselves(Allen & Meyer, 1990).
112
2.5.7 Affective, Normative and Continuance Commitment

Affective commitment deals with a demand-based relationship to an organization. (Bansal,
Irving, & Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service Providers,
2004). It aims at an emotional relation, the identification with the organization and the wish to be
part of it. (Mowday, 1979), define affective commitment as the relative strength of personal
identification with the organization and as certain participation. This affective power binds
thepartners because of their demand. Trust and satisfaction can be a motor for that kind of bond
(Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service
Providers, 2004). The affective commitment is characterized by a positive identification with
goals and magnitudes of an object and by an emotional bond. Furthermore it describes the wish
for membership due to positive feelings like loyalty and belonging (Allen & Meyer, The
Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the
Organization, 1990). A good example for affective commitment is the relationship of a
hair dresser and its customer (Price, 1999). A person feels a positive emotional relation because
ofits positive experiences. This positive emotion can be caused by the satisfaction about an
object (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Affective commitment is based on the identification with
common values and norms and the involvement in a business relation. Affective committed
people continue business relations, because they like their business partner and enjoy working
together. They feel loyalty and a certain kind of binding to their partner (Cater & Zabkar,
2009).
Continuance commitment describes the cost based binding. People feel forced to stay in a
relationship, because they have to. This is comparable with being jailed in a relationship
(Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service
113
Providers, 2004). This construct refers to a cost-benefit analysis that motivates people to
maintain the relationship. Therefore the person must hold on to the relationship, because
breaking it up would be too costly. People think that they cannot quit the relationship,
because this would cause too high economic, social or psychological costs (Bansal, Irving,
& Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service Providers, 2004).
Continuance commitment is therefore often called Calculative commitment. Crucial for the
development of the Calculative commitment are the switching costs that arise when a
relationship is broken up (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). The person would, for example experience
high losses, when he or she would stop the relationship. Due to this dimension of
commitment being not emotional, but rational, the person is just committed to an object, the
possible monetary losses, which would arise when quitting the relationship. This kind of
commitment could lead to negative emotions. This may result in a reduction of motivation
and
recommendation
about
the
relationship. Calculative commitment involves a rather
negative motivation to continue a relationship, because the partner is forced to keep it. This
constraint goes along with higher costs or lack of alternatives and makes a business
relationship a necessity (Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer
Commitment to Service Providers, 2004).
2.5.8 Commitment in Business Relationships

One of the first models about commitment in business relations was done by (Wilson &
Mummalaneni, 1987). They describe an accordance of demands and wishes of both business
partners as an assumption for all business relationships. If a business relationship turns out to be
positive and the demands of both parties are satisfied, satisfaction is built and more investments
are done. Commitment is stronger the higher satisfaction is and the higher investments are.
114
Commitment has a positive influence on a business relationship and supports investments and
influences a relationships duration positively (Wilson & Mummalaneni, 1987)(Anderson &
Weitz, 1992)focus on commitment in business relationships. They examine the antecedences
of commitment between manufacturers of industrial goods and their retailing firms and develop a
model that views commitment as a mutual, self-energizing process. The manufacturers
commitment is perceived by the retailer and this enforces his commitment. However, this
process is not the only reason for commitment. Idiosyncratic investments also enforce
commitment and show the willingness to stay in long-term relationships. The model shows the
self-enforcing process as well as the impact of specific investments (Anderson & Weitz, 1992),
(Morgan & Hunt, 1994) focus their research on the constructs commitment and trust. In their
work, the antecedences as well as the impact-factors are examined. Trust is the elementary
condition for the development of commitment in that model.
The affective commitment reflects the emotional commitment to an organization. Therefore this
commitment binds employees to an organization. The more an individual trusts, the more it will
have a positive feeling.
Hence, the more one trusts a business partner or an organization, the better the feeling
about a business relationship and emotional commitment will be. Studies have shown (Bansal,
Irving, & Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service Providers,
2004) that trust in an organization positively affects emotional commitment. Trust is a pre-stage,
or an assumption for commitment and successful relationships. It is based on past behavior
and allows for commitment in the future. In a relationship, in which both parties trust each
other, short-term profit will be denied for long-term success. If a party feels committed to
another, it is vulnerable. Therefore people will only feel committed to organizations, if they have
115
trust in them. Through trust, the motivation to maintain a relationship is more important to
companies, as the participants feel committed (affective dimension).
(Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, 2004), found out that affective commitment has a positive influence
on normative commitment. The persons that want to continue a business relationship because of
positive experiences feel some kind of responsibility to do that. In other words, persons can feel
committed to an organization, when they have made positive experiences with that organization
(Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, 2004), (Cater & Zabkar, 2009).
Pride of a brand is shown, if ones expectations are met or have been exceeded. If
someone is proud of a brand, he will feel emotionally committed.
Because
affective
commitment describes the emotional commitment with an object, the individual, who is
proud of a brand, will identify more with a company.
Therefore a high brand pride will have a positive influence on affective commitment.
People, who feel affectively committed, will feel more morally bond to an organization. The
more proud someone is of a brand, the more he or she will stay loyal to that brand, as he or she
feels morally bond. The continuance commitment has a negative influence on brand pride. This
construct implies that someone is forced to stay to an organization, because switching
costs are too high or there is a lack of alternatives. Persons with high continuance
commitment will feel no pride. Contrary, persons with high brand pride will not stay with a
brand because of lack of alternatives; instead they just want that only brand.
Undoubtedly trust and commitment have strongly influenced recent research. With
the
development and conceptualization of brand pride presented here, a further strong construct
in behavioral employee research is found which needs thorough further examination and
116
development. Therefore, a few suggestions for further research on this topic should be made.
First, all our propositions related to brand pride need empirical testing.
Although, the
relationships between trust and commitment, an examination of the role of pride should enhance
the understanding of this construct and the interaction between them. Furthermore, an
empirical approach would allow finding different items in order to measure (brand) pride
properly (Kuppelwieser, Grefrath, & Dziuk, 2011).
2.5.9 Commitments Central Role:

Recently, a harsh environment is seen. Marketers trying to build brand loyalty for which two
different upstream and downstream approaches can be checked through. A later point in time
refers to the brand's continued purchase. The first approach often buys brand looks for the
purposes of, and involvement with the brands commitment to some extent. Firms to value their
customers need to show continued interest. Before attract new customers, retain existing ones
first must be. And for that, consumers should be changed in association with the brand devotion
(Edmund, 2013).
In this way, a repetitive buying behavior and maintain the companys prime responsibility is
becoming a strategic focus. Well, the allegiance of consumers in terms of brand commitment
brand development is an important goal. Users create a relationship with the brand. It is
important to understand the importance and news. Behavior and attitudes, which can further be
defined in two ways through .it is not enough to, there should be some positive attitude towards
the brand for the presence (Edmund, 2013).
117
2.6 Studies on Satisfaction on Brand Personality

In this prosperous society of todays, the meaning of consumption is totally changed. Customers
prefer to satisfy their higher order needs rather than their physiological and safety needs. The
role of self-actualization and self-esteem are playing a vital role in the purchase of products
(Aaker D. , 1996).
Satisfaction has been derived from the Latin word satis (enough) and facere(to do or make). This
means that satisfying goods and services have the capability to provide what is required to the
point of being enough. A definition of satisfaction that has been proposed in the past is "An
evaluation rendered that the (consumption) experience was at least as good as it was supposed to
be". A more formal definition of Satisfaction is the customers execution reaction. It is a verdict
that a good/service feature, or the good or service itself, provided (or is providing) a gratifying
level of utilization related fulfillment, including under- or over fulfillment (Oliver R. L.,
Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, 2010).
Satisfaction is defined as the feeling of happiness or pleasure because you have achieved
something or got what you wanted. Customer satisfaction is divided into three categories;
including enquirers, complainants and review customers. Enquirer is defined as the member of
the public who gets in touch with us to organization to investigate complaint. A complaint is
someone whose complaint the organization is currently investigating. A review customer is
someone who has asked to review the decision about their enquiry or complaint (Ombudsman,
2012).
For Achour in the research of (Bouslama, Achouri, & Neji, "The Effect of the Congruence
between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumers Satisfaction and Loyalty", 2010),
118
satisfaction is defined as " An encouraging feeling a consumer has after a utilization experience
and springing out an assessment between the expectations from a product or a service and the
performance perceived from it."
Another definition of satisfaction has been derived that is the degree to which a product's
perceived performance matches a buyer's expectation. Customer Satisfaction is mostly dependent
on the product and services but there is another factor that determines it. That is the customer
expectation. The higher the consumer satisfaction the harder those satisfaction are fulfilled by
any goods or services. Thus, satisfaction tries to match the level of expectation with the
perception of consumers (Anantadjaya, Walidin, Waskita, & Nawangwulan, 2007).
Customer satisfaction is also defined as an emotional post- consumption reaction that may occur
as the result of comparing projected and real performance or it can be a conclusion that occurs
without comparing opportunity. However, researcher has said that the relation between
satisfaction and brand loyalty is moderated by psychological and situational factors (Thiele &
Rundle-, 2004).
Satisfaction is an individual's feelings of delight or disappointment that result from
differentiating a product's supposed performance to expectations. Many companies are always
systematically monitoring their customers and their changing needs and wants. A satisfied
customer stays loyal to the company and talks good about it. They are relatively less worried
about the price changes the organization does. This means that companies are continuously
identifying new and innovative ways to make their customers satisfied. In this era it is very easy
for consumers to switch to different brands as there are many options available in the market
(Kotler & Keller, A framework for marketing management, 2009).
119
Brand Personality has two different meanings: Firstly it is about the individual's internal
processes; it helps to understand why a person acts in a certain way and corresponds to "what I
say about myself). The second one concern the way in which a person is perceived by others"
what others say and think about me. Brand personality is the set of human characteristics
associated with a brand. But some of the American researchers think that this definition is quite
vague and indistinguishable from other closed concepts such as brand image or brand identity.
Most of the researchers talk about the "set of human traits related with a brand". It is a mean to
build a unique identity to the brand and plays a vital role in the understanding of consumers'
attitudes and choices (M'Sallem, Mzoughi, & Bouhlel, Customers' Evolution after a Bank
renaming: Effects of Brand name change on Brand Personality, Brand Attitude and Customer;
Satisfaction, 2009).
Brand personality is defined as the set of human characteristics, which are associated with the
brand (Keller K. L., 1993). Many consumers easily think of a brand as a celebrity or famous
historical figures. Different personality represent different traits, that is why people associate
themselves with product, for example; consumers of coca cola are associated with the term cool,
similarly in Pepsi consumers associate themselves as young, exciting and hip. In order to
examine the relationship with brand and human personality may drive consumer preference; two
types of brand personality scales are used the first type are ad hoc scales, which are typically
composed of a set of traits ranging from 30 to 200. However these scales are theoretical in
nature. The second types of brand personality are those that are based on human personality
scales and that have not been validated in context of brand.
According to San Martin the consumer satisfaction is cognitive but as well as emotional also.
There are two formulation of satisfaction, one is transaction specific which is defined as the
120
judgment of the consumer before buying the product, it can also be describe as the post purchase
evaluative decision (Oliver, 1993). It also suggested that satisfaction occur at the post
consumption stage.
On the other hand, the second one is Overall satisfaction, which is defined as the evaluative
decision of the last purchase occasion and it based on all encounters with service provider
(Bitner, 1994). In the end overall satisfaction is an aggregation of all transaction specific
satisfaction with service encounters (Veloutsou, 2005).
The brand offers opportunities to build connection with consumers. Thus, consumers want to
build relationship with a particular brand because they consider the brand as favorable or
precious to them. If customers feel that they are getting good value and are satisfied after initially
using the brand, they want to build a relationship with it. It is suggested that perceived
satisfaction has a positive effect on brand loyalty. Also that consumer satisfaction affects attitude
after purchase and this influences the repurchase intention. Consumer- brand relationship is a
blend of cognitive, emotional, behavioral processes that happen between brands and customers.
Consumers build an individual relationship with a particular product in the same way as people
take care of relations with other people. Thus, it tells us that both customers and brands add to
each other in a win- win situation. Researchers have identified six dimensions of brand
relationship quality: love/ passion, self-connection, interdependence, commitment, intimacy and
brand partner quality (Seong- Yeon Park, 2005).
Measurement for consumer satisfaction is the five dimensions of Seroquel:
Tangibles: which includes issues such as appearance of physical facilities?
Reliability: which covers issues such as ability to perform the promised services?
121
Responsiveness: willingness to help customers and provide quick services.
Assurance: knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and
confidence
Empathy: caring, individualized attention the firm provides to its customers.
In the services segment, satisfaction occurs when the perception of performance exceeds the
expected one. In this type of approach, Satisfaction is defined as "an individual's objectivity
resulting favorable evaluation of any outcome and/ or experience associated with consuming a
product". It is also defined as "the consumer's fulfillment response" (M'Sallem, Mzoughi, &
Bouhlel, Customers' Evolution after a Bank renaming: Effects of Brand name change on Brand
Personality, Brand Attitude and Customer; Satisfaction, 2009). Satisfaction is a positive affective
reaction to an outcome of a prior experience. The satisfaction and attitudes formed because of
former experience then has an impact on purchases, finishing the cyclical pattern (Sahin, Zehir,
& Kitapci, An Empirical Research on Global Brands, 2011).
Brand personality can include characteristics such as age, socio-economic class, personality traits
and feelings. A model for measurement was developed for the measurement of personality by
identifying 42 features divided up among 15 facets and 5 factors of personality. Those are
sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness (Bouslama, Achouri, & Neji,
"The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumers
Satisfaction and Loyalty", 2010).
Consumers are more educated, intellectual and knowledgeable in recent era; they know quality
of any companys product, as well as their alternatives. If the current product does not satisfy
their need, they will definitely switch to the next available alternative. Customer perceived value
122
is defined as the difference between customers evaluation of all the benefits of product and all
the cost of product. Total customer value is defined as the all attributes of product, service,
personnel, and image in the eyes of customer or people. Whereas on the other hand, the total
customer cost is the overall cost of the customer expectation about the product, which he or she
is using, obtaining, disposing and it includes market offering also. It can be better understand by
an example, suppose that a person wants to purchase a tractor, he has two choices in front of
him; that are Caterpillar and Komatsu after an evaluation he decided to buy a Caterpillar tractor,
because he knows that Caterpillar has greater product benefits, it has good reliability offer, and
above all it has good resale value plus a high quality performance engine and parts. He also
knows that Caterpillars employees are more knowledgeable, and they will provide better
service, for example; maintenance. Thus in the end, we can conclude he has make judgment on
the respected variables that are; product, services, personnel, things and quality.
Customer perceived value has divided into two sub headings that are total customer benefits and
total customer cost. Each of them is divided into four sub headings; total customer benefits
include; product benefit, customer benefit, personnel benefit and image benefit. On Contrary
total customer cost includes; monetary cost, time cost, energy cost and psychological cost.
Consumer satisfaction theory and research have consistently supported a positive relationship
between product satisfaction and repurchases intention (Howard and sheth, 1969).
Effects of brand personality: Discussing about the dependent variable which includes brand
attitude which is defined as the overall evaluation of a brand. Brand attitudes are essential
because they formulate consumer behavior; this is the reason that it is dependent variable. One
accepted model of brand attitudes leads to intentions which ultimately reach to actual behavior.
According to Keller (1993) writes that this model probably has been the most influential multi
123
attribute model to marketing. Considering Multi attribute model, brand attitude are a function of
characteristics plus benefits that are salient for the brand.
For marketers, satisfaction is one of the conditions for market continuation and expansion to take
place. Plus, a pleased customer is a non-complaining consumer- no time and money have to be
spent on making corrective actions by the firm. Also no unfavorable communication among
customers will take place. One of the models used by researchers is the two stage expectancy
model:
Brand choice is a function of intentions to act, which are influenced by beliefs and
attitudes.
The post usage experience begins with disconfirmation or fulfillment of pre-purchase

expectations and beliefs.
If expectations are fulfilled, satisfaction is the outcome.
Post usage attitude is a task of satisfaction. If the experience is positive, former attitude is
reinforced.
Future purchase intentions are directly affected by post- purchase attitude. And if the
purchase experience has been good, repurchase will happen.
Highly concerned customers have invested time and energy in their relationship with a firm. If
they experience dissatisfaction with the core factor, they may feel that a personal investment is
not yielding results and experience more overall dissatisfaction than customers who have no
personal involvement. There should be involvement effects when people are satisfied with the
core activity (Goodman, Fichman, Lerch, & Snyder, 1995).
124
Brands offer opportunity to build relationship with the customers. This means that brands are a
way to make a unique bond with customer. So that customers are attracted to the brand
personality and that they can relate to it.
Consumer Satisfaction is not only cognitive but emotional suggested by Rodriguez Del Bosque
and San Martin (2008). Overall satisfaction is an evaluative judgment of the last purchase
occasion and based on all encounters with service provider (Bitner, 1994).
Gounaris and Stathakopoulas have stated in (Attri, pahwa, & Urkude, Loyalty and customer
satisfaction with the public sector oil marketing companies: way forward for effective CRM
strategies, 2012) that retention of customers is only possible through nurturing loyalty by making
an emotional connection between the brand and the customer. These loyal buyers will then
contribute to making good feedbacks when in groups. They will be able to attract new customers
to the brands as they will be satisfied.
Examining the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty is quite complex yet marketing
literature suggests that satisfaction leads to attitudinal loyalty, which is defined as an intention to
make future purchases. Attitudinal loyalty is assumed to be a necessary implication of
satisfaction (Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, & Rundle- Thiele, Examining te Satisfaction- Loyalty
Relationship, 2004). Satisfaction is the emotional post-consumption response which is the result
of comparing actual and expected performance or t can also be the outcome of which occurs
without comparing(Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, & Rundle- Thiele, Examining te SatisfactionLoyalty Relationship, 2004).The relationship between satisfaction and loyalty is curvilinear and
is mediated by several psychological and situational factors (Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, &
Rundle- Thiele, Examining te Satisfaction- Loyalty Relationship, 2004).
125
The saturation of market and the maturity of consumers towards the brand and have urged the
companies to go beyond brand image to the relation brand (Bouslama, ACHOURI, & Neji,
2004). Now a days consumers tend for their decision to rely on the brand image as it is
developed in their minds rather than the inherent attributes and the characters of the product.
This actually turns customer loyalty into important primary marketing objective.
Our current studies are based on the effort of understanding the relationship and impact of
satisfaction on brand personality and brand loyalty. More precisely we will discuss and evaluate
the effect of consumers satisfaction on brand personality and brand loyalty (Bouslama, Achouri,
& Neji, "The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on
Consumers Satisfaction and Loyalty", 2010).
Personality is a psychological notion which is often presented as a stable and individualized
unity of behavior or a set of behaviors and structure of features. These features are defined as
tendencies which are meant to show coherent modes of cognitive and affective perception and
also the behavior on the part of individuals behavior. (Bouslama, Achouri, & Neji, "The Effect
of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumers Satisfaction and
Loyalty", 2010), other than this personality features are perceived as psychological
characteristics that gives meaning to human action and experiences (Bouslama, Achouri, & Neji,
"The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumers
Satisfaction and Loyalty", 2010).
Customer Satisfaction generates brand loyalty in marketing theory this supposition is made very
often on this supposition every producer of any kind of a good should affix chief importance to
creating customer satisfaction. There is a greater chance of repurchase of a brand by a consumer
who is satisfied rather than the customer who is dissatisfied. It is also assumed that the greater
126
amount of
customer satisfaction the greater the degree is of brand loyalty. For a firms
continuity and profit brand loyalty is an essential pillar (Bloemer & Kasper, 1994).
Consumer Satisfaction is not only important for producer but is equally important for consumer
him/herself as it means a positive evaluation of a manufactured goods or a brand that shows the
consumer that he is capable of making the right decision in terms of the product which he is
buying out of so many options. It also shows the consumer that his needs are fulfilled and he
does not need to go under any negative actions. And adversity for instance complaining doesnt
need to occur now (Bloemer & Kasper, 1994).
As we see that a number of studies have shown a positive relationship between customer
satisfaction and brand loyalty conversely the association is not that perfect. Before the further
analysis of the relationship between customer satisfaction and brand loyalty the main question
which arises that to what extent customer satisfaction can affect brand loyalty? For this it is
necessary for us to distinguish two types of consumer satisfaction which are:
Manifest Satisfaction
Latent Satisfaction
Secondly, it is also important to stress onto the differences between true brand loyalty and
spurious brand loyalty. Thirdly it is also important to describe the relationship between the two
types of customer satisfaction and brand loyalty (Bloemer & Kasper, 1994).
In the literature many conceptual and operational definitions of satisfaction can be found most of
these definitions are based on the comparison between expectation and performance while others
are merely based on performance. However satisfaction is relative in nature and it varies among
127
thing from which the comparison is being made therefore it should be directed under such
circumstances under which a comparison between performance and expectations can occur.
Up till now most approaches of consumer satisfaction seem to imply some kind of comparison
between expectation and performance but consumers may vary as to how explicit these
comparisons are made other than that it can be very hard for consumer to generate expectations
and to evaluate performance and also to compare the two as if they were independent variables
(Bloemer & Kasper, 1994).
If the customer is not aware of about the god at stake and has no experience with the alternatives
which might serve as reference point and are not capable and motivated t compute the difference,
correspondence and relationship between the performance and expectations. It might get hard to
complete this comparison. But even if the consumer is aware, capable to compute and motivated
to do so but the absence of perceived differences may hinder the consumer in doing it.(Bloemer
& Kasper, 1994), manifest satisfaction is the result of the explicit subjective evaluation that the
chosen alternative brand meets or exceeds the expectation. It is the result of the explicit and
extensive evaluation of brand choice. It is very well elaborated and the consumer is aware of it.
Thus it is assumed that it will be clearly related to future buying behavior. (Bloemer & Kasper,
1994), whereas, the latent satisfaction is result of implicit subjective evaluation that has chosen
alternatives of brand meets or exceeds the expectations. It is the result of the implicit evaluation
of the brand choice which isnt elaborated upon. Therefore it does not need to be unequivocally
related to future buying behavior. Thus we can conclude that manifest satisfaction will occur
only if the consumer is motivated to make an evaluation and has the capacity to do so (Bloemer
& Kasper, 1994).
128
Thus, Consumer satisfaction is the most essential and most researched topic in marketing. It is
important for long term success in business as it is determined to be one of the most fundamental
determinants of longer term success as it carries out the post consumption evaluation like
behavior (Nam, Ekinci, & Whyaltt, Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and Consumer Satisfaction,
2011).
According to (Behi, Belaid, & Temessek, 2010) in general satisfaction has been portrayed as:
An affective, a cognitive or a conative response that is based on an evaluation of product
standards, product consumption experience and product traits it occurs before or after
consumption or extended experience.
Early in 1960s definitions of brand loyalty incorporated both attitudinal and behavioral
concepts. Yet few empirical studies have incorporated both dimensions. Instead research in this
area seems to be fragmented into two distinct traditions with behavioral researchers focusing on
the observable action of loyal customer and attitudinal researchers investigating commitment to
bran and repurchase intensions of the consumers.
Industries seems to be more interested in forming everlasting relationships with it customers than
the telecommunication and media industry. For the past few years companies within both
industries have been operating within the environmental of digital junction which could be
defined as the dynamic approach or partial integration of different communication and
information based market application (Wirtz, 1999).
Customer satisfaction leads to brand loyalty. This is an assumption made very often in
marketing. The chance that a satisfied customer purchase a product that has satisfied him/her is
greater than the product that has not satisfied customer and a probability that he will buy it again
129
is having a less chance. It has been supposed that greater the degree of customer satisfaction is
directly proportional to the greater degree of brand loyalty. When discussing about the customer
satisfaction, we can say that it is not only important for producer but also for customer, it shows
that customer is capable of making the right decision for him/her. Furthermore, two types of
customer satisfaction has been discuss, firstly manifest satisfaction and secondly latent
satisfaction. Stress on the difference between true brand loyalty and spurious brand loyalty has
been emphasized. According to Jacoby and Chestnut true brand loyalty is defined as the biased
that is nonrandom, behavioral responses, expressed over time, by some decision making unit,
with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands, and is a function of
psychological processes resulting in brand commitment. He further defined spurious brand
loyalty has the biased, behavioral responses that is purchase, expressed over time, by some
decision making unit, with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands,
and is a function of inertia.
The major difference that has been notified between true brand loyalty and spurious loyalty is
that true brand loyalty is based on brand commitment where else spurious brand loyalty is not. In
addition, true brand loyal customer is one who is committed to his/her brand. He/she insist to buy
same brand again and again. On the contrary, spurious brand loyal customer is not committed to
a brand; the individual may buy a product, or he/she will not or there is big chance that he or she
will move to the next product that is available. The spurious loyal buyers lack any attachment to
brand attributes and they can be immediately captured by another brand that offers a better deal,
a coupon or enhanced point of purchase visibility through displays or other devices.
True brand loyalty is brand commitment for brand commitment is necessary condition for true
brand loyalty to occur. Brand commitment is defined as the pledging or binding of an individual
130
to his/her brand choice (Kiesler & Abelson, 1968). As a result of explicit and extensive decision
making and evaluative processes, a consumer becomes committed to the brand; the individual is
pledged and bound to the choice again.
When the decision making and evaluative processes are not explicit and only very limited the
consumer will not become committed to the brand and cannot be truly brand loyal. Then, only
spurious brand loyalty will result in case that individual buys the brand again.
The study hinges upon true brand loyalty. This means that we will explicitly take into account
the level of consumers commitment. Definitely the consumer world comprises of more situation
than these two extremes; consumers may differ in their degree of loyalty for various products.
Therefore, we assume that a continuum between true brand loyalty; the repeat buying of a brand
based on a maximum or infinite amount of commitment. On the contrary, one finds spurious
brand loyalty; they do again buying of the brand not based on any commitment at all, but on
inertia. In this way, brand commitment enables us to define the degree of true brand loyalty. We
have broadly discussed two different types of satisfaction and have stressed the difference among
true brand loyalty and spurious brand loyalty (Bloemer & Kasper, 1994).
Through consumer experience brands take on personality traits. Five dimensions of personality
are sincerity (e.g. down-to-earth), excitement (spirited, imaginative), competence (reliable,
intelligent), sophistication (upper class and charming) and ruggedness (tough)(Keller,
Parameswaran, & Jacob, 2011).
According to Ouwersloot and Tudorica in the research of (Bouslama, Achouri, & Neji, "The
Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumers Satisfaction
131
and Loyalty", 2010)companies should think about brand personality as a device that enables
them to reach their satisfaction goal.
On the whole satisfaction is an evaluative opinion of the last purchase incident and based on all
encounters with service giver (Nam, Ekinci, & Whyaltt, Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and
Consumer Satisfaction, 2011).
Many empirical studies have revealed that customer satisfaction secures future revenues, reduces
future transaction costs, decreases price elasticity and minimizes the likely hood of customers
detecting if quality flatters. Satisfaction plays a very important role in quality management.
Satisfaction also occurs when customer expectations are met or exceeded and the purchase
decision is reinforced. Satisfaction reinforces positive attitudes toward the brand, leading to the
greater likelihood that the consumer will repurchase the same brand. Dissatisfaction result when
consumer expectations when are not met, such disconfirmation of expectations is likely to level
to negative brand attitudes and lessens the likelihood that the consumer will buy the same brand
again.
Thus Satisfaction is very important, because a companys sales come from two basic groups
new customers and repeat purchase customers. It usually costs more to attract new customers
than to retain current ones, and the best way to retain current customers is to keep them satisfied.
Therefore, satisfaction will positively associate with re-purchase decision making.
According to Vilares and Cohelo, employee satisfaction not harms the commitment of employee
and his/her loyalty but it put an impact on customer satisfaction related variables. The
relationship between employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction has obtained a
confirmation of two strong studies. The relationship between employee satisfaction, customer
132
satisfaction as well as profit showing that, the effects of employee satisfaction and customer
satisfaction on business profit at a given point in time might not be noticeable; they become
prominent over time (Berhadt, Donthu and Kennett, 2000).
Furthermore, discussing the affect the of employee satisfaction on customer satisfaction;
employees that interact with customers are in a position to develop awareness of and respond to
customer goals and needs. Employees who are satisfied are more motivated also, that is they
have the motivational resources to deliver adequate effort and care. Satisfied employees are
empowered employees also they have the resources, training and responsibilities to understand
and serve customer needs and demands. They have high energy and willingness to give good
service at a very lowest; they can deliver a more positive perceptive of service and product that
are provided (Bulgarella, 2005).
Brands are focused to be positioned within the emotional and experimental world of the
customers. Within this structure, the personality brand management has found its way in the
business. This new understanding of brands authorizes an organization to utilize the emotional
comfort of a brand to develop long-term customer brand relationships and also with brand
equity.
Scientists have identified the significance of brand personality since a long time. (Domizlaff, '22
Basic Laws of Natural Branding', 1939), that - A brand's personality is the factor which supports
the brand's identity the most.
(Rieger, 1985), claimed that - brands without personality are blame to death. Even today brand
personalities are playing an effective role in the brand management.
133
Marketers are focused in the brand personality occurrence more than ever and pursue to grasp
the effect that brand personality has on customer behavior and satisfaction. The task of brands
inside organizations has changed over the last few years. Today the corporate value chains are
the key to an organization's success.
This evolution can be defined by the reality that the market satisfaction of a company does not
mostly come from its tactile assets any more, but its intangibles. Brands as bodiless assets thus
acquire more significance for an organization's existence. This mount position of brands within
organization compromises the desire to understand management of the brand governance
mechanisms efficiently in order to boost up the brand satisfaction and also organization's profit
as well (Bauer H. , The Value of the Brand, 2000).
Unfortunately, the organization dimensions have changed, which made productive brand
management tough. The life cycle of product is declining which indirect that new products are
entering the market more often. Inside the mount of this product organization's extend struggle to
distinguish their products from competitors.
The obtainable products are alike to each other and can be exchanged by many other products,
because they all please the same useful basic needs of the customers (Domizlaff, Translated from
German: Die 22 Gesetze der naturlichen Markenbildung ", 1939).
It is a fact that, products cannot replace in means of services and functions but also with the
quality of their service provision. Therefore, the product becomes replaceable which again make
a distinction tougher.
134
Also the concentration of the market consequences in a ravening competition which means the
organization's wealth can only increase by achieving success over customers from competitors
(Bauer & Huber, 1997).
An effective way to handle with the mentioned challenges is a personality- directed brand
management. The grasp of a brand as a personality authorize an organization to better utilize the
spiritual satisfaction of a brand to develop life time customer brand relationships and also brand
equity. The grasp of brands as personalities eases the distinction from other competitors.
Researchers have exhibit that non-product affiliated assigns such as the brand's personality are
much powerful distinct that purely product-related assign (Biel A. L., 1991).
A brand's personality is very tough if not bearable to copy by contestant and can therefore give
organizations a defendable ambitious benefit (Luckerath, 2010).
This model depicts that the important variable in this research include brand equity, consumer
satisfaction, brand loyalty. Further defining it independent variable is brand equity, consumer
satisfaction as the mediating role, and in last dependent variable is brand loyalty.
Brand equity is defined as the differential effect of brand knowledge on customers response to
the marketing of a brand. (Keller K. L., 1993),(Vazquez, Del Rio, & Iglesias, 2002), they
defined brand equity as the overall that the consumer associates with the use and consumption of
brand.
Further defining brand equity, it is notable because it distinguishes brand equity from brand
loyalty. Brand equity is conceptually broader which encompasses brand image and brand
familiarity. It has traditionally been conceived as a behavioral construct relating to intentions
towards repeat purchase. By contrast, brand equity entails favorable disposition that may not
135
necessarily result in purchasing behavior. Thus behavioral intentions are one of the consequences
of brand equity, rather than its component. Although consumer based brand equity is seen as
multi-dimensional within the marketing literature (Aaker D. A., 1991). There are many debates
exists as to whether the principles of branding within goods marketing could be directly applied
to service dominant brands. The research model proposes that the five dimensions of consumer
based brand equity; physical quality, staff behavior, ideal self-congruence, brand identification,
and lifestyle-congruence have positive effects on brand loyalty via consumer satisfaction. In
addition, describing these variables, Service quality as the independent variable. It is the central
development of strong service dominant brands because it enhances perceived superiority of the
brands and helps to differentiate brands in competitive markets (Low & Jr, 2000). Selfcongruence is the independent variable that can be viewed as the totality of an individuals
thoughts and feelings with reference to the person as an object of thought (Rosenberg, 1979). It
refers to the degree to which a consumers actual or ideal self-concept coincides with a brand
image (Sirgy M. , 1982). Brand identification is independent variable.
It is define as the
individual becomes a member of a social group in order to support his identity and his sense of
belonging. Likewise, consumers define their social identity by consuming brands or associating
with brands (Ro, Vzquez, & Vctor Iglesias, 2001). Lifestyle congruence is independent
variable, it includes life, beliefs, aspirations and demographic. The mediator variable is consumer
satisfaction. It proposed that consumer satisfaction is cognitive and emotional also (Bosque &
Martin, 2008). Brand loyalty is a dependent variable, it has been investigated that consumer
loyalty are discuss from two perspectives. First one is behavioral loyalty and the second one is
attitudinal loyalty (Nam, Ekinci, & Whyatt, 2011).
136
Another research paper describing frame work that leads customer loyalty are as follows;
Academics in the field of marketing are common in their view that customer loyalty is first and
prime a result of a customers satisfaction with the brand (Anderson & Sullivan, "The
antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for firms", 1993). Many empirical
studies have supported the supposed positive link between customer satisfaction and loyalty
(Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994),(Hallowell, 1996),(Rust & Zahorik, 1993).
In spite of satisfaction is a determinant of brand loyalty, a satisfied customer sometimes switches
to another brand or service provider if he/she is not satisfied. This limited analytical significance
of customer satisfaction for buyer loyalty can be explained not just empirically, but also with the
help of selected theoretical approaches. Additionally, the brand personality construct as a
concept of consumer experimental psychology (Aaker D. , 1996) has been proposed as an
important forerunner of customer loyalty. These approaches with their principle of theoretical
pluralism allow change barriers the pleasant appearance of rival products and services, variety
seeking and brand personality to be unwavering alongside customer satisfaction as central
determinants of customer loyalty.
The influence of switching barriers on a customers loyalty has been examined in different
contexts (Klemperer, 1995); (Weiss & Anderson, 1992).The basic idea behind all research done
in this context is that, once a transaction relationship is established, the cost of switching the
transaction partner becomes higher (Lee & Cunningham, 2001). Therefore, the change barriers a
customer is confronted with exert a positive influence on his or her loyalty, the barriers levels,
which may vary considerably, depend to a large extent on the nature of the transaction (Fornell,
1992). The concept itself is comprised of psychological, sociological and economic factors. For
example, the customers confidence in the suppliers reliable fulfillment ability often plays a
137
major role and leads to change barriers on the psychological side (Anderson & Weitz, 1989).
Thus, a customers loyalty increases with higher economic and socio psychological change
barriers.
Concerning economic switching barriers, one might expect that their increase may result in less
satisfied customers. In this context,(Hauser, Simester, & Werfelt, 1994) point out that
consumers become less sensitive to satisfaction level as switching costs increase. Consequently,
they might stay loyal, even if they are dissatisfied. As opposed to this, higher socio psychological
switching barriers may enhance trust in the service provider, and therefore may engage a higher
level of a customers satisfaction.
The brand personality construct is seen to be a brand image component consisting of the human
characteristics people associate with brands. Brand personality can serve as a basis for
meaningful and sustainable emotional differentiation (Farquhar, 1990). But first of all, the
concept enables customers to attribute an identity to a brand and therefore supports their
identification with the brand (Ambler, 1997). This in turn increases the personal meaning of the
brand. Primarily psychological factors such as the congruence between the brand image and the
customers reflection may result in change barriers (Wilson & Mummalaneni, 1986).
Furthermore, the apparent attractiveness of rival products and services has been shown to be a
central determinant of customer satisfaction and customer loyalty (Dick & Basu, 1994). This
relationship can be deduced from the definition of the customer satisfaction construct as the
result of the comparison between expectations and performances. The focus is not on
determining the effect of variety seeking on customer satisfaction and on customer loyalty. It
rather addresses the question whether or not the relationships between the latent variables are
moderated by the extent of variety customers are seeking for. There are only a few studies
138
examining the existence of external factors moderating the relationship between satisfaction,
brand loyalty and their determinants (Homborg & Giering, 2001).
In the case of causal models, two strategies are possible in order to examine the postulated effect
of a metric moderating variable (Jaccard & Wan, 1996): the first is to use an interaction effect to
test for moderation (Baron & Kenny, 1986); the second consists of performing a multiple group
analysis (Hayduk, 1988). If the moderating effect relates to only one or a few model parameters,
the first strategy seems to be more suitable. However, if one is interested in determining the
influence of the moderating variable on many or all model parameters, the second strategy is
suggested (Magin, Algesheimer, Huber, & Herrmann, 2003).
2.7 Brand Loyalty

Early in 1960s definitions of brand loyalty incorporated both attitudinal and behavioral
concepts. Yet few empirical studies have incorporated both dimensions. Instead research in this
area seems to be fragmented into two distinct traditions with behavioral researchers focusing on
the observable action of loyal customer and attitudinal researchers investigating commitment to
bran and repurchase intensions of the consumers (Russel-Bennet, McColl-Kennedy, & Coote,
2007).
Brand loyalty is considered to be the focal point of the interest for the marketers and practitioners
Past researchers suggests that loyal customers spend more than the customers who are not loyal
and also that they engage in positive word of mouth and that they are at the heart of a companys
most valuable customer(Russel-Bennet, McColl-Kennedy, & Coote, 2007).
Typically brand loyalty is defined as the repeat purchasing behavior of a product which reflects
the conscious pattern of decision making which continues in buying the same product. This
139
shows that consumer does not only buy the brand on regular basis but also carries a strong
impact regarding it rather than simply buying something out of habit. Brand loyal customers
carry something more than the positive attitude regarding the brand- they are more passionate
regarding the product. These are more like the emotional binds which consumers develop
towards the product and become true-blue users who react more intensely and passionately when
a company alters, changes, spruce up, revamp or eliminate their favorite brand (Solomon M. R.,
2012).
When a consumer falls in love with a brand it may become their favorite brand for life time. In a
few researches it is also seen that some brands are in sense are well known because they are well
known as assumed that if so many choose a product then it ultimately must be good.
Why people buy same things continuously when it comes to full fill the need. Brand loyalty
includes the customers that are devoted and emotional attach to a product. Manufacturers and
companies are trying to develop niche in the market by constructing their own base of loyal
customers, who over the period of time have accepted the product whole heartedly. Companies
spend large sum of money of the brand loyalty because of its importance. It also play vital role in
advertising (Loudon, 2001).
The measure of attachment that a consumer has to a brand and it reflects how likely a customer
will be leaning to switch to another brand. It is seen as a link in the chain of effects that in some
way connects brand trust with the market performance aspects of brand equity. It shows positive
feelings towards a brand resulting in frequent purchase of the brand over a period of time.
Researchers have said that customer withholding can only be achieved only through nurturing
loyalty by establishing an emotional attachment between brand and consumer. These types of
140
consumers can contribute to the positive word of mouth communications for the brand (Attri,
pahwa, & Urkude, 2012).
Loyalty is defined by Oliver in the research of(Sahin, Zehir, & Kitapci, 2011) as a deeply held
commitment to rebut or re- patronize a preferred product/ service consistently in the future,
theory causing repetitive same- brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite situational
influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior.
Runyun in the research of (Lin & Hsien, 2008), has defined brand loyalty as a unique case of
planned decision making when consumers adopt a decision tactic of giving all or most of their
support to a particular brand". It has also been defined as the behavioral outcome of a customer's
preference for a particular brand from a selection of similar brand over a period of time, which is
the result of evaluative decision making process.
According to (Attri, pahwa, & Urkude, 2012), from an attitudinal perspective, brand loyalty has
been defined as the tendency to be loyal to a focal brand as demonstrated by the intention to buy
it as a primary choice".
Marketers have developed tactics to build strong ties with the consumers in terms of brand
loyalty for which they have developed loyalty or frequency programs. The purpose of these
programs is identifying, maintaining and increasing the yield from a companys best customer
through long term value-added relationship these programs often include companys co-branding
arrangement or alliances(Keller K. L., 1993).
Copeland in the research of (Lee & Han, 1999) was the first to suggest a phenomenon related to
brand loyalty that is brand insistence. Researchers have concluded that individuals exhibit strong
and operative brand loyalty.
141
In the research of (Basrawi, 2009), Wilkie describes brand loyalty as a favorable attitude
towards, and consistent purchase of a particular brand". The companies who have special traits
and attributes in their brand can result in having large numbers of loyal customers which means
that when the brands establish a unique position in the minds and hearts of consumers they
become loyal to the brand.
Loyalty programs are being adopted by a wide range of industries as they often yield results. One
of the marketers say that a loyalty program reduces the defection rate by increasing retention and
therefore industry can win more of a customers purchasing share.(Keller K. L., 1993)
One way to build effective loyalty program is to follow the mentioned tips:
Know your audience
Change is good
Listen to your best customers
Engage people
Because of the importance of loyal customers it has become really important for the marketers to
build strong relationship with their consumers and make it a branding priority as customers
actual product experiences and its after-marketing activities have taken on a greater importance
in building customer-based brand equity and therefore it makes it necessary to fully understand
your customer and know that how they can provide you with greater value, before, during and
after purchase (Keller K. L., 1993).
142
Much of the researches on brand loyalty for the past three decades investigate customer loyalty
on two perspectives.
Attitudinal Loyalty
Behavioral Loyalty
Behavioral loyalty refers to the frequency of repeat purchase of a product, Whereas Attitudinal
loyalty refers to the psychological commitment that a consumer makes in the purchase act. Such
intentions lead to purchase and are an intention to recommend the product without necessarily
taking the actual repeat purchase behavior into action (Nam, Ekinci, & Whyatt, 2011).
Brand loyalty is a branding concept which has developed through investigations in association
with the customer brand relationship. The analysis of relationship between brand satisfaction and
loyalty concludes that satisfaction is an important step in loyalty formation. The two aspects of
brand loyalty are purchase and attitudinal loyalty which act as linking variable in the chain of
effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance. However there are three main
streams of research of loyalty which can be measured and distinguished i.e. behavioral loyalty,
attitudinal loyalty and composite loyalty (Loureiro, Consumer Brand relationship: foundation
and state of art, 2012).
In consumer research the expression the term customer loyalty is often measured by indicators
such as intentions to continue to buy the same product, or intention to buy more of the same
product and repeat purchases (behavioral measures) or can also be the willingness to recommend
the product to others which is attitudinal behavioral that reflects the product advocacy.
Moreover to determine the mass market brands in consumer settings we need to know about the
human personality and brand personality. Brand personality is a set of human characteristics
143
associated with the brand and it proposes five dimensions to brand personality namely sincerity
(down to earth, honest, wholesome and cheerful), excitement (daring, spirited imaginative, up-todate), competence (reliable, intelligent, and successful), sophistication (upper class charming),
and ruggedness (outdoorsy, tough), (Loureiro, Consumer Brand relationship: foundation and
state of art, 2012).
Jacoby and Chestnut have defined loyalty in the study of as (Basrawi, 2009), biased, behavioral
response, expressed over time, by some decision making unit and with respect to one or more
brands out of a set of such brands. Three kinds of categories were identified in which various
operational measures had been placed in: behavioral, attitudinal and composite. Another
definition based on the behavioral element proposes that brand loyalty is a role of a brand's
relative occurrence of purchase in both time- independent and time dependent situations. This
type of loyalty is dependent on sales figure and how many times an individual buys the brand.
The definition based on the attitudinal element viewed brand loyalty as the propensity for an
individual to carry on over time to display similar attitude in situations similar to those one
formerly encountered. According to Day in the research of (Basrawi, 2009)loyalty should be
evaluated with both the attitudinal and behavioral criteria.
Brand loyalty is considered to be the central point of the interest for the marketers and
practitioners Past researchers suggests that loyal customers spend more than the customers who
are not loyal and also that they connect in positive word of mouth and thus they are at the heart
of a companys most valuable customer. A shift in emphasis from satisfaction to loyalty appears
to be worthwhile change in the strategy for most of the firms, because the impact of the
businesses is more towards of having a loyal customer base (Oliver R. L., 1999).
144
Loyal customers are typically the satisfied customers. Satisfaction is a core concept for loyalty
without which loyalty cannot exist and also that it anchors loyalty. Loyalty may also become the
independent variable of satisfaction so that reversals in the satisfaction may be experienced that
is dissatisfaction and will not influence the loyalty state. In some studies loyalty is defined as
those who re-bought a brand, considered only that brand and did no brand related information
seeking. Thus all these definitions suffer from the problem that they only measure what the
consumer does and does not tap into the psychological meaning of satisfaction and loyalty
(Oliver R. L., 1999).
The deeply held commitment to rebuy or patronize a preferred product or service consistently in
the future or causing s repetitive same brand or same brand set purchasing despite the situational
influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior is termed as
loyalty(Oliver R. L., 1999).
Why would a consumer appear to be nave, unaware or fervent that he or she would seek outtone and only one branded object or brand set to fulfill his or her needs. This is a pertinent
question because the present era of global competition has seemingly enabled the consumers to
move to better alternatives as soon as they materialize (Oliver R. L., 1999).
Product improvement, refinements and innovations are now being accelerated to the point that
the increasing level of new product introduction is predicted to be at record levels (Oliver R. L.,
1999).
The research of(Oliver R. L., 1999),follows the cognition affect conation pattern but differs in
that he argues that customers can become loyal at each attitudinal phase relation to different
elements of the structure of attitude development consumers are theorized to become loyal in
145
cognitive sense first than later it is in the affective sense and more alter it is in the conation sense
or manner and finally it is in the behavioral manner which is described to be as action inertia.
Cognitive loyalty is the first phase of loyalty the brand attribute information is available to
consumers and it indicates that one brand is preferable to its alternatives. This phase is passed on
as cognitive loyalty or loyalty based on brand belief only (Oliver R. L., 1999).
Cognition can be based on prior or vicarious knowledge or can be based on recent experienced
information. Loyalty at this phase is directed towards the brand because of this information. This
consumer state is however of a shallow nature. The depth of loyalty is no deeper than only
performance. If satisfaction is carried forward it becomes a part of the customers experience and
he becomes to take an affective overtone (Oliver R. L., 1999).
Affective loyalty is the second phase of the loyalty development it is a liking or an attitude
towards the brand which has developed on the basis of cumulatively satisfying usage occasions.
This reflects the pleasure dimensions of the satisfaction which is the pleasurable fulfillments.
Commitment at this phase is referred to as affective loyalty and is encoded in the customers mind
as cognition and affect. Whereas cognition is directly subject to counter augmentations and affect
is not easily dislodged. The brand loyalty exhibited is directed at the degree of affect for the
brand. Thus it would be desirable if consumers were loyal at a deeper level of commitment
(Oliver R. L., 1999).
Conation level is the next phase of loyalty development it is the stage of behavioral intentions
and is influenced the repeated episodes of positive affect towards the brand. Conation if defined
implies a brand specific commitment to repurchase. Conation loyalty is a loyalty state that
contains what at first appears to be the deeply held commitment to buy noted in the loyalty
146
definition however this commitment is to the intention to re-buy the brand more to motivation
but similarly this desire may be the god intention and may be the anticipated but unrealized
action.
Next comes is the action loyalty that is the study of the mechanism by which intentions are
converted to actions and is referred to as the action control. In this action control sequence the
motivated intention in the past loyalty state is transformed into readiness to act. The action
control paradigm propose that this accompanied by an additional desire that overcomes the
hindrances that might have prevented the act. These actions are perceived as import result for
engaging both of these states. If this engagement is repeated action inertia is developed and
thereby facilitating purchases are reoccurred (Oliver R. L., 1999).
Other than this the most elaborate conceptual definition of brand loyalty are presented which can
be used to discuss further as it covers the most important aspects of brand loyalty, & since it
enjoys widespread support in the marketing literature thus according to this definition, brand
loyalty is: The (a) biased, (b) behavioral response, (c) expressed over time, (d) by some decision
making unit, (e) with respect to one or more alternative brands out of set of such brand, and (f) is
a function of psychological process Many of the less successful experience brands are not
meeting the challenge of a largely time-starved audience as time has become more desired than
money. Increasingly, people value experiences more than things. Consumers are really looking
for ways to make the most of everyday lived experiences. A brands role in becoming a
solution for its audience can make it stand out for customers. In that sense, the meaning of brand
is its use. Profitable customers are born when a powerful brand promise is fulfilled by a brand
experience that exceeds expectations and that is how the loyalty of these consumers towards such
brands is created (Gul, Jan, Baloch, Jan, & Jan, 2012).
147
Brand Image and loyalty are considered as the determinants of customer choices regarding any
product and these determine the competitive environment for a specific firm to compete in the
market. The present study was undertaken with the context that what particular factors contribute
towards brand loyalty and image that may be taken under consideration while developing a
particular marketing strategy.
With the exceptional returns to loyalty firms should devote to the loyalty program. The
relationship between loyalty and satisfaction is asymmetric and they are linked together
inextricably (Oliver R. L., 1999).
Aaker, explains in (Osman & Amber, A study on the association between brand awareness and
consumer/ brand loyalty for the packaged milk industry in pakistan, 2010) that loyalty is a
measured capacity of how much a purchaser can be emotionally involved in a brand. It tells us
how much a consumer is willing to switch to another brand, in situation when competing brand
are offering more than the brand which is currently being used. Over time loyalty increases, the
consumers' platform and the competition against other brands also strengthens.
The three types of loyalties are as follows:
Passive loyal: These are consumers who but the brand out of habit.
Fence sitters: These types of consumers are indifferent between two or more brands.
Committed: These are the consumers who are truly loyal to the brand.
Competitive Advantage is achieved by companies only if they are successful in creating

customer value. Since the middle of the twentieth century customer value is only created by
focusing towards manufacturing quality products with high quality. Researchers have also stated
that marketers use brand experience in three different ways: Their primary concern is with the
148
quality of the brand. The second is tied up with providing excellent brand experience when the
customer comes in contact with a particular good or service. The third is the experience that
marketers sell. It has also been said that loyalty should not be regarded as sheer repurchase
behavior. Because of this theory it opened lots of paths to examine different variables for the
consequences of different evaluative constructs in the studies of brand loyalty (Attri, pahwa, &
Urkude, 2012).
Brand loyalty has been defined as the propensity to be loyal to an important brand as verified by
the intention to buy it as a major choice". Researchers have also investigated the relational
variables that lie at the heart of a consumer- that is brand relationship which has led to brand
loyalty. It has been identified that there are two categories of brand loyal that are as follows:
Pseudo loyal: These are the consumers who go for continuous repurchases of a particular
product but do not have strong attitudes towards the brand.
Committed loyal: They are also known as active loyal. They are the customers who will
only purchase one particular brand (Attri, pahwa, & Urkude, 2012).
Based on the cognitive model of Oliver, LaBarbera and Mazursky in the research of (Polesz,
Bloemer, & C, 1989), measures the influence of satisfaction on post purchase thoughts, purpose
and actions. They assess repeat purchasing behavior which they presume to be equal to brand
loyalty. Satisfaction and intention are found to increase as the loyalty to brand increases. But on
the other hand, relative importance of satisfaction in predicting purchase appears to decrease as
loyalty increases. Therefore, it is likely that a certain threshold of satisfaction must be met to lead
to a purchase of a brand. It is revealed that brand loyalty varies directly with perceived
satisfaction with the old brand. Even though a direct relationship has been found, the correlation
149
is not perfect, in the sense that not all satisfied customers will be brand loyal. On the other hand,
not all dis-satisfied consumers are non-loyal.
According to (Polesz, Bloemer, & C, 1989), if a consumer shows repeat purchasing behavior and
satisfaction is only latently present one may speak of spurious brand loyalty. A distinction has
been made:
Spurious loyalty as a habit out of convenience
Spurious loyalty as a habit out of conviction
Habit out of conviction means acceptance only. The evaluation of the brand or in other terms, the
satisfaction with the brand does not reach the level of conscious awareness.
The consumer-brand relationship is significant to building of brand loyalty. Brand experiences
lead to brand loyalty, active referral of the brand and increased profitability for the brand.
Experiences encourage loyalty by creating emotional connections through an engaging,
compelling and consistent context. The context is the environment in which the service
encounter occurs. It includes physical and relational characteristics of the setting in which the
consumer consumes the service as well as everything that the customer interacts within the
setting. Under the definition of context physical context is generated by the sights, sound and
smells of the environment. Whereas relational context includes behaviors of people in which
they engage (Sahin, Zehir, & Kitapci, 2011).
Aaker also tells in (Osman & Amber, 2010)that brand awareness, perceived quality and clear
effective brand identity can contribute to higher loyalty.
Consumers' trust towards brand and positive brand image will also affect the attitudinal loyalty
towards the brand. Studies emphasized that there are several levels of consumer commitment
150
towards the brand in the context of brand loyalty. The commitments are as follows: trust,
continual purchase, reluctant to switch brands and the joy or happiness when consuming a brand.
The trust towards a brand will determine brand loyalty or consumer commitment towards the
brand because trust is potential in creating highly value relationship (Halim, The Effect of
relationship of Brand Trust and Brand affect on the Brand Performance: An analysis from Brand
Loyalty Perspective (A case of coffee instant product in Indonesia), 2006).
In the relationship between consumer loyalty and commitment it is found that a relationship
between loyalty and positive affect accepted by consumers exists. Strong and positive affect will
also cause an encouraging impact towards the consumer brand loyalty, in both purchases and
attitudinal loyalty (Halim, The Effect of relationship of Brand Trust and Brand affect on the
Brand Performance: An analysis from Brand Loyalty Perspective (A case of coffee instant
product in Indonesia), 2006).
In the research of (Halim, The Effect of relationship of Brand Trust and Brand affect on the
Brand Performance: An analysis from Brand Loyalty Perspective (A case of coffee instant
product in Indonesia), 2006), Chaudhuri and Holbrook have recommended that there is a positive
connection among brand loyalty and brand performance. They have said that high purchase
loyalty will result in increases in the market share of the brand. And this concept is supported by
The Double Jeopardy Theory in which has said that the brand which owns little market share will
result in having only a few buyers and the purchasing of the brand will also be less, or vice versa.
The brand of a person's option is usually supported by the brand's figure and significance. The
selection to keep on loyal to a brand over a period of time is based on the contemplating value
that is the: price and quality, image, convenience and availability, satisfaction, service and
guarantee or warranty (Basrawi, 2009).
151
Dick and Basu suggested in (Basrawi, 2009)that brand loyalty assist to spread the affirmative
elements of the product through the word of mouth. Loyal customers tend to show greater
struggle to other company's strategies. And because of this companies and marketers are always
encouraged to provide their loyal customers with what they want.
Brand loyalty is sometimes viewed as a special case of relationship marketing, where a consumer
has a psychological attachment to the brand (Attri, pahwa, & Urkude, 2012).
Two indirect sources of brand loyalty may get involved: those are high association in the product
category and the consumers' satisfaction with the brand resulting to its prior consumption.
Consumer involvement is presented in the literature as predecessor of brand loyalty. Involvement
must be understood as the supposed importance to someone or the special significance of a
product to an individual (Amine, 2011).
Some other sources of brand loyalty have been found. There are four factors: perceived
differences about alternatives, perceived risk, brand sensitivity and brand attachment/ liking
(Amine, 2011).
Two consequence of brand loyalty on consumers' attitudes and behaviors are positive word of
mouth or brand support. Both the variables are related to each other. The consumers' confidence
in brand allows them to maintain greatly their propensity to buy the purchased habitually and not
to switch to another brand. People may strongly defend a brand and may advise their relatives to
buy the brand (Amine, 2011).
Under the heading of internet brand loyalty; we can say that brand loyalty can achieve high goals
through medium of internet. As we know that it is the biggest medium of trade, and the size of
commodities present on the internet is incomparable to any other promoting business. The reason
152
behind the success of internet as a feasible trade option is because it is easy to tap and cater to a
very large audience, thus pitching your product to a consumer size that is unimaginable.
Advertising become an essential way of promoting product or service. The internet gives an
opportunity to promote, advertises, sell or buy things. E-marketers are increasing their sale by
targeting brand loyalist of other companies by advertising and creating relations on other loyalist
eccentric websites (Heyman, 2009). Explaining the year spend cost on advertising in United
States, shows that advertising is creating great brand loyalty rather than any other medium. The
expanses of advertising for nine years are as follows; in 2001 the cost is 7.10 billion dollars, in
2002 it is 6 billion, in 2003 it is 7.30 billion, in 2004 it is 9.60 billion, in 2005 it is 12.50 billion
dollar, in 2006 16.90 billion dollar, in 2007 it is 21.40 billion dollar, in 2008 it is 27.50 billion
dollars, and last recorded expanse was 32.50 billion dollar in 2009.
Factors that endorse brand loyalty in business to business and business to consumer are as
follow; in business to business factors includes; tangibility, functionality, cost to purchase, and
cost to maintain. On the other hand, business to consumers includes; relationship, trust, service,
and information. The question that has to answer includes how to create brand loyalty, by
awarding the customers. For creating the brand loyalty, we have to understand consumer
behavior; we have to understand consumer mindset and information of customer profile and last
one is customer lifetime value score. The attachment of these three leads to rewarding the
consumer and ensuring brand loyalty.
According to Jim Sterne and Matt Cutler, the consumer life cycle has five phases: First is
reaching a customer, Second is acquiring a customer, Third is converting a customer, fourth is
retaining a customer and last one is building customer loyalty. If you can keep hold of a
customer and make him a loyal to your services or product you get an upper hand over your
153
competitors. Hence an effective marketing strategy will concentrate on the first four phases
keeping the fifth phase as the final goal for achievement. The first four phases of the customer
life cycle focus on developing a sound customer retention strategy. The concept of creating
brand loyalty contains creating a true brand loyal, One who would like to repurchase a brand due
to acute liking and not because there are not many choices or options available. Customers who
are truly committed towards your brand would pay higher prices, incur less cost to serve, and
bring new customers to the firm. Thus, if we manage to build brand loyalist through effective
marketing strategy, then such a brand loyalist would further affect our marketing strategy by
bringing us more customers. The marketing activities targeted towards building brand loyalty are
mutually advantage activities.
Things that affect or loss brand loyalties are include; quality-compromise in the product quality
leads to a feeling of immense dissatisfaction. Price-Inadaptability to regularize product cost with
respect to competition. Service-Loss of efforts to maintain the same level of service makes the
consumer look elsewhere. Design- the product design and shape should be attractive (Agarwal &
Siddharth, 2010).
(Garland & Gendall, 2004), both of them conducted a study about antecedent and consequences
of a brand loyalty. They used a non-experimental, co relational survey research design, and a
positive factor analysis to test a model about antecedents factors influencing brand loyalty and
four types of brand loyalty. The sample includes eight hundred and fifty consumers of whisky
from shopping malls and in the street, Greece. Gounaris and Stathakopoulos literature review
was thorough, current in comparing theory of reasoned action and concept of a two dimensional
brand loyalty. Empirical studies of antecedents (risk aversion, variety seeking, brand reputation,
availability of substitute, brands, social group influences, and peers recommendation) and four
154
types of brand loyalty (buy nothing, buy alternative brand, word-of-mouth 73communication,
and visit other store) were examined, leading to the major gap in the literature about the need to
understand direct and indirect relationships among the concepts of brand loyalty identified by
many theorists.
The factors influencing customers brand loyalty have been explore for decades, so it is not a
new issue with theoretical development based on the theory cited in this assessment. Ajzen and
Fishbeins theory of reasoned action is a well-develop theory to predict individuals behavior.
The theory suggests that an individuals behavioral intentions are a function of two different
factors, attitude toward the behavior and the subjective standard. When applying the theory to
customer brand loyalty, it is reasonable to assume that attitude toward the behavior and
subjective norms will manipulate customers purchasing behavior, and will result in their brand
loyalty. The importance of the theoretical literature for the topic is that although the theory of
reasoned action may explain antecedent factors might influence customer purchasing behavior
and result in brand loyalty, other variables, such as the volitional control, and situational effects,
might interrupt the purchasing behavior and brand loyalty.
Dick and Basu have introduces their theoretical framework of customer loyalty based on
reasoned action theory and incorporated concepts of brand loyalty (Dick & Basu, 1994). This
framework identifies five major influencing factors of customer loyalty defined as Firstly,
cognitive antecedents (accessibility, confidence, centrality, clarity), Secondly, the affective
antecedents (emotion, feeling states/mood, primary affect, satisfaction), thirdly, conative
antecedents (switching cost, sunk cost, expectation), Fourthly social norms, and Fifth
situational influences. The moderators of the relationship are relative attitude and repeat
benefaction, and the consequence is customer loyalty. Brand loyalty is a two dimensional
155
construct involving relative attitude and repeat patronage/purchasing behavior. In the last decade,
the loyalty framework has been revised and adapted to brand management and marketing by
numerous scholars in the marketing field. Several empirical studies by Lim and Razzaque in
1997, Datta in 2003, and Gounaris and Stathakopoulos in 2004, lead to enhancement in the
conceptual framework. Gounaris and Stathakopoulos (2004) developed a conceptual model
adopted from the conceptual framework and a depicted direct and indirect relationship among
concepts described by Dick and Basu, which the conceptual framework is socially significant,
addressing essential issues about brand loyalty in the discipline of marketing, and is useful in
explaining and predicting the factors influencing brand loyalty. Thus it is a well-developed guide
to conduct the empirical research. The conceptual framework has a good balance between
simplicity and complexity, contributing to its usefulness. Studies by Garland and Gendall in
2004 verify the propositions of a two dimensional construct of brand loyalty involving relative
attitude and repeat patronage. The conceptual framework has been adapted to various research
fields such as management, brand management and marketing. This is the predominant
conceptual framework used to examine brand loyalty with well-developed propositions and
strong empirical support.
Customer loyalty is viewed as the strength of the relationship between an individuals relative
attitude and repeat patronage. The relationship is seen as mediated factors by social norms and
situational factors. Cognitive, affective, and co native previous circumstances of relative attitude
are identified as contributing to loyalty, along with motivational, perceptual, and behavioral
consequences. Based on the framework, the task of managing loyalty would involves,
determining the loyalty status of a target population in terms of strength of the relationship and
comparing it with challenging offerings, identifying relevant antecedents and consequences in a
156
given market context, determining the relative impact (or contributions) of antecedent factors
and the likelihood of different consequences, and to identifying causal variables on which the
target is underperforming compared to competitors, from which increase in loyalty may be
affected through strategic interventions.
Number of researches has been conducted to examine the relationship between the brand
personality and the brand loyalty of the consumer and the effect has been survey. Also, it has
been concluded that the brand loyalty can be enhanced, if there would be any involvement of the
concept of brand personality.
(Guo, 2003), also discovered that consumers may treat brands as real human beings, because
brands have their own identities. Therefore, brand personality has remarkable impact on brand
preference. In this situation, customers will anticipate the customer's words, attitudes, thoughts
and so on to encounter their respective personality traits (Aaker D. , 1996).
It might be that customers like the brands having more definite brand personality, and also
customers are more known with the brands they favor. Customers willingly use the brand and
products in line with their own personality traits or it may be like all the marketing movements
are aimed at having customers believe and recognize a brand personality, and strengthen the
transmission between the brand and the customer (Govers & Schoormans, 2005)in order to
increase the brand's loyalty and equity.
(Mengxia Z. , 2007), inquire into the effects of brand personality on customers brand preference,
affection, loyalty and purchasing intention. The outcome of his study shows that brand
personality has a true effect on brand preference, affection, loyalty and purchase intention. Brand
157
personality must be shaped to be forever and consistent. Excluding, it should be different from
other brands and meet customer's demands (Kumar et al., 2006).
After a research done by (Kumar et al., 2006) classify the link between brand personality and
brand loyalty, and separately used durable goods and customer goods to tour the association
between brand personality and brand loyalty. (New Media and Mass Communication , 2011) The
result shows that brand personality may affect customers' brand loyalty to consumable goods.
Figure 8: (Basrawi, The influence of brands competitive advantage of

consumer loyalty, 2009)
In the research of (Basrawi, 2009)researchers have investigated the effects of perceived product
characteristics and consumer value consciousness on private brand purchase intentions. Taylor in
(Basrawi, 2009) defines in his study which contributes to existing knowledge that the relative
influences of satisfaction, value, resistance to change, brand affect, trust and brand equity are
present on perceptions of customer loyalty. According to this research behavioral loyalty is
largely a function of brand equity and trust. Also, affect, resistance to change and value also
158
contribute to behavioral loyalty, but to a lesser level. However a statistically significant

relationship between satisfaction and behavioral loyalty was not found in this research. In terms
of attitudinal loyalty, brand equity and trust were significantly related to attitudinal loyalty.
Affect and satisfaction were also found to contribute to attitudinal loyalty but to a lesser effect
than in behavioral loyalty. However, unlike behavioral loyalty, a statistically significant
relationship between loyalty and value or resistance to change was not found.
These factors may have individual or unique characteristics in the brand which can give the
company a competitive advantage and these factors will also influence brand loyalty. The factors
are explained by researchers in (Basrawi, 2009) as follows:
Product involvement: refers to feelings of inherent needs, values, interest and enthusiasm
toward product categories according to Zaichkowskyin (Basrawi, 2009). This trait means
how much a human being is fond of the product brand he or she uses and whether or not
that specific product caters to their desired needs, values, interest and satisfaction.
Product type: Products can be classified into two distinctive types on the basis of the
related attributes or benefits. Attributes or benefits can be in the form of taste, aroma,
color, and texture.
Switching Cost: It is defined as the additional cost required to terminate a current

relationship with a product and to secure an alternative. It can also be known as the
consumer perception of the time, money and effort related to changing a brand or a
product.
Available Alternatives: (Muncy, 1996)says that in the absence of the perceived

differences between the product and its alternatives, there is difficulty in building brand
loyalty. Dick and Basu have also maintained this point of view that when a customer is
159
unable to make a distinction between a particular product and its alternative then true
brand loyalty cannot be build.
Price promotions: Few of the studies on brand loyalty found out those price promotions
as the antecedents of brand switching behavior. They have agreed that price promotions
ten to boost sales in the short term.
Satisfaction: Researchers have established that consumers are satisfied with the promoted
brand; their satisfaction is reinforcing and leads to an increase in the profitability of
choosing the brand again after the promotion is withdrawn which is in fact true brand
loyalty, especially for previous non-users of the brand according to (Louie, 1990).
Family background or Pedigree: Researchers have found that lineage or have been using
a particular brand in a family is an antecedent of brand loyalty. For example, (Lutz,
1989)have found out that mother and daughter had shown the same brand preferences
and shopping strategies. This is an important factor influencing brand loyalty.
Holding stock with the company: It is found that customers are more loyal to the brand if
the company were owned by the customers.
Size and structure of the company: It has been seen that people will buy more or will trust
more of the brand that is larger in size and is also well known.
160
Brand
Affective
Experience
Commitment
Brand
Loyalty
Figure 9: Model of Brand Loyalty

Another model of brand loyalty as suggested by (Iglesias, Sngh, & Batista-Foguet, 2011) is with
brand experience and customer commitment. Brand experiences are the distinct economic
offering, as distinct from services are from goods.
According to the brand management
viewpoint, an experience is a takeaway impression that is formed inside the mind of the
consumers as a result of the encounter with the holistic of a brand (Haeckel & H, 1994). The
relationship between brand experience and loyalty appears to be mediated by satisfaction which
is already known to be a major mediator of the consumption experience. Some researchers have
proposed that satisfaction is linked not only to cognitive judgments but also to emotional and
affective reactions to the consumption experience.
It has also been identified that customer commitment is also another antecedent to customer
loyalty. Customer Commitment encompasses the psychological and economic attachments that a
customer might have towards a particular brand. Researchers have identified that commitment is
of two types which are affective and continuance. Continuance or economic commitment is
characterized by the customers' need to stay in a relationship with a given brand because of lack
of other alternatives or high switching costs. According to (Mayer & P, 1990), affective
161
commitment is the customers' emotional attachment to a particular brand based on their

identification with the brand.
In the end, it is suggested that the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty is
mediated by affective commitment.
2.7.1 Brand Loyalty with Celebrity Endorsement Model

Brand loyalty framework has also been discussed with celebrity. Celebrity endorsement is one
out of two major factors in this study, leading to the natural approach of investigating and
providing knowledge regarding this area as an introductory stage. The first model, celebrity
endorsement, is investigated from numerous different aspects related to it. The purpose is to
highlight the foundation by dealing with the concept itself and its meaning. From that, the
linkage to contributing factors and resulting actions and outcomes is penetrated. Celebrity
endorsement is dependent upon and affects its surroundings by its existence. Therefore, factors
that concept is influencing, such as celebrity endorsement meaning transfer, reference groups,
product type categories, social adaptation theory etc. The second conception will be covered in a
similar manner, with an emphasis on the foundation of brand loyalty itself and the two different
types, attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty. In addition to the importance of covering this
area, it has to be acknowledged that brand loyalty does not happen by its pure nature, it is
affected by external forces. Therefore, related factors that are brand affect, brand trust, and the
ABC model are pointing at its influence and upcoming, are of great significance.
Symbolic properties belonging to an endorser have been transferred to a specific product or
brand, and then from the product to the consumers. This specific type of endorsement is different
from other general types of meaning transfer. Because of celebrities existing in our society for
162
meanings, it makes them valuable in the process of meaning transfer. The process of celebrity
endorsement consists of three stages (McCracken, 1989).
In first stage: Celebrity endorsement is done basically through advertisement and because of
this the advertisements have access to a group of persons from the cultural all around the world.
Endorsement also makes this group of people in charge of detailed and important meanings. As
celebrities enjoy a popular social appreciation and a unique reputation, they are able to deliver
more comprehensive and strength meaning compared to unknown endorsers. Celebrities are
powerful in media, though the meanings delivered are not difficult to find. Because of their
special and unique personal, outstanding from unidentified actors, they exert the meaning with
unforgettable impression. Due to their career specialty, every point of acting in a show, movie, or
musical gives them the possibility in contrast to a different group of objects, persons and context.
All of this is also a process of meaning transfer, that new properties will be resided within the
celebrities. Hence, when they appear in an advertisement, these properties will be transferred to
that specific product.
In Second stage: Tentatively, a celebrity endorser is chosen based on a desired meaning decided
by the marketers. The representative properties of the meaning and a product must be matched.
Perfectly, marketing or advertising companies can decide what type of symbolic properties
consumers are looking for. They can then find a perfect matched celebrity from a schedule to
represent this. However, this in fact, is impossible.
Advertising agents should make identifications and deliver these meanings to a specific product
when the selection is completed. The advertisement should then comprise all the meanings
needed to be obtained from the celebrity, especially the salient meanings. Only the meaning
intended to be delivered should be captured. Unwanted meanings should be kept out of the
163
evoked set by adding it into advertisements with people, objects and contents which have the
same meanings as the celebrity. All these are salient message cues that help the target consumers
to get whatever meanings they expect from the celebrity in question. Advertisements mostly only
transfer celebrities to a new role instead of purely transferring meaning of the celebrities.
Important to notice, there must be a connection between the product and the celebrity endorser in
order to have a high similarity. This will ensure consumers can transfer the meaning delivered
into their reality because of existing similarities.
In third stage: Explains the process of how celebrity endorsement makes the properties of a
product become the properties of consumers. It is the most complicated and difficult stage
compared to the previous two. In this material world, individuals are trying to explore and search
for products with practical meanings. Those meanings definitely are useful in helping the
individuals to equip aspects of the self and the world. As the meanings existing everywhere in
this world, the individuals have constantly been putting effort on searching the meanings they
need. However, it is not enough for consumers to understand the meaning of an object by simply
owning it. And the meaning cannot enter the consumers mind and self automatically. They
must claim, exchange, care for, and use the consumer good in order to possess the meaning.
Through different uniqueness and contexts in their acting career, celebrities have earned a lot of
attention and reputations in the first stage of the significance transfer. The self-created by
celebrities is also attractive in the eyes of the consumers. They have set an exemplary, desirable
role model for consumers. Consumers build up their aspects of the world and the self by moving
the symbolic properties of consumer goods into their lives, because those consumer goods are
associated with the celebrities they desire. But this does not mean that consumers only want to
follow what celebrities have done today.
164
However, celebrities certainly give the consumer goods some sort of personality traits in the
meaning transfer process. Consumers therefore also want to process the personalities attached to
the products, because they appreciate for meaning and are keen to build up their own aspects of
the world and the self by having celebrities as references. In this object world, celebrities are just
a small group compared to everything else. They are outstanding from the rest and therefore are
super consumers of a kind. It is also important to know that individualism and alienation exert a
right to individuals of freedom to define their aspects of the self and the world. Also because of
these, celebrities play a key role of meaning transfer to consumers. However, the meaning
transfer would not happen automatically. It needs cooperation from the celebrity to the
advertisement director, as well as from the other people involved. If the ideas in advertisements
cannot be understood by consumers, the use of celebrities is useless. As consumers are the final
act of the transfer process, they should be able to find the connection between the celebrity
endorser and the product in order to complete the transfer process.
2.7.2 Brand loyalty with Reference Group Theory

This theory is defined as the genuine or imaginary individual or group conceived of having
significant relevance upon an individuals evaluations, aspirations or behavior (Park & Lessig,
1977).
There are three variables or influencers have been discussed in this theory/model. The first one is
informational reference group it means that each individual tends to search products proven to
have positive credibility by independent expertise or professionals, which help to confirm their
existing knowledge or familiar environment. The individual searches product information from
groups or people who have sufficient knowledge about these products, such as people working
with the product or people who use the product. Through observing, the individuals learn from
165
others whom might confront the same situations or have previous experience. Furthermore,
according to the attribution theory, the purchasing decision of the individual is influenced by
another individuals or reference groups, such as experts, authorities or celebrities (Jones, et al.,
1972).
The second one is Utilitarian influence it means that the individual needs certain consistency in a
purchasing situation, otherwise it is dangerous not to conform (Asch, 1952). Seeking a
competition to what another individual or reference group prefers or satisfies is important when
making a purchase decision, as social interactions exist. Utilitarian influence also emphasizes
explicit rewards and punishments because of the individual having a desire to be more affirmed
or accepted by social involvement, such as a community, brand tribe or fan club. Therefore, an
attempt to satisfy others expectations is performed (Park & Lessig, 1977).
The third one is Value expressive influence: individual seek consistency between themselves and
a reference group by sharing something in common, like buying products used, or those
recommended by the reference group. A positive self-image is important, since an individual is
more willing to be associated with positive referents instead of negative ones. Liking a person or
a reference group in a product advertisement can lead an individual to purchase it, regardless
whether the product fits the individuals need or not.
Further explaining the function of how celebrity endorsement works, reference group theory
looked up the everywhere features of the celebrity market from a psychological view. The
reference group theory viewed the function of celebrities influence on consumers from three
difference perspectives. Because of their special social status in our society, they are often
chosen by marketers to speak for the products. Celebrities exert the power of reference group on
166
consumers. It was therefore chosen to be discussed in the literature study of this research. The
experimental research proved that endorsers should be used according to different product types.
Celebrity endorsers are broadly used primarily because of their attractiveness and likable
features. This helps to explain the widely usage of celebrities in cosmetics advertisements.
Friedmans experimental studies showed that costume jewelry endorsed by celebrities appeared
to be the best match. Although the result did not test the match between cosmetics and
celebrities, it highly suggested that if brand name and advertisement recall are most desirable,
advertisers should use a celebrity as an endorser.
Brands are companies most valuable asset which adds both economic and strategic value to its
proprietors. Its the essential feature for any company to look into Brand loyalty is most of the
times developed post purchase (Moisescu, 2006). To enhance brand loyalty, an organization
should be aware of their functional markets, target them, sustain their product, make certain easy
access of their product, offer customer satisfaction, and bring constant innovation in their
product so as to ensure that customers repeatedly purchase the product. It then ultimately creates
the brand trust in the minds of the customer towards the brand they are purchasing. (Farhat &
Khan, 2011).
167
Perceived
Brand
Quality
Brand
Personality:
Sincerity
Excitement
Competence
Sophistication
Ruggedness
Brand
Loyalty
Figure 10: Conceptual Model by (Farhat & Khan, 2011)

Brand Satisfaction
Winning brand is the procedure or a methodology which is developed by ACNielsen. Such that
in contrast to the attitudinal approach to brand equity measures which is embodied in the other
approaches describes that winning brand starts from a behavioral observation of a brand equity
Thus brand equity is then measured in terms of a customer frequency of purchase and the price
premium which is paid. Once favor behavior is seen. However this methodology seeks to
identify the attitudinal behavior and characteristics of such customers.(Knowles, 2004):
168
Awareness
Customer Loyalty
Consideration
Brand Equity Index

Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Price Premium
Attribute 3
Figure 11: Winning Brands from AC Nielson (Knowles, 2004)

Client faithfulness is seen as the qualities of the relationship between single relative dispositions
also rehash support. Here an endeavor has been made to test into the conduct of a clients'
readiness to purchase a brand/product, of what are the related elements which impacts his
purchasing conduct and mentality towards the brand. Many tests are carried out to highlight a
purpose of what are the impacting components which forces him to be devoted for a brand. The
speculations of brand identity with the essential dispositional variables are used to clarify the
client's dependability forms. A model or a skeleton might help the marketers to further explore
into the idea of brand identity upgrading the client dedication (Farhat & Khan, 2011).
169
In building a brand esteem 'recognition is more essential than actuality and as brands just exist
in the personalities of clients then the administration of brands itself. The brand chief's
employment is to see that fulfillment of the client is being supported, as far as item execution and
recognition is concerned. In this respect, of the present predominating focused situation, brands
are new business warriors and client maintenance plays a key part so the clients are stuck to an
offering on a long haul premise. Thus the accomplishment of any technique to lure buyers
generally relies on upon its ability to keep up its client maintenance and to raise ensured enclaves
of buyers to stick to the brand and show compaction. Today mark devotion has turned into a
point of convergence of enthusiasm for showcasing analysts and professionals. Few of inquires
about compresses that the reliable clients use more than non-steadfast clients, go about as
organization's most significant client bunch does. Besides, numerous studies uncover that brand
faithful clients are eager pay any costs and are less value touchy Maybe the advertising expense
is altogether less when the brand revels in a vast gathering of devoted clients. Nonetheless, the
written works on brand unwaveringness is fragmented in a few essential regards. A number of
the past looks into uncover that it is more beneficial to accompany the procedure of client
maintenance than to strive for new clients. Catching new clients is unreasonable in light of
publicizing advancement what's more bargains cost, and start-up working expenditures.
Additionally, advancement is likewise controlled in the vicinity of brand dedication i.e. there is
less need of advancement. Brand reliable clients decrease the promoting expenses of the firm as
the expenses of drawing in another client have been discovered to be something like six times
more than that of the original cost (Farhat & Khan, 2011).
Just a couple specialists, for example, Plummer and David Aaker as mentioned in (Farhat &
Khan, 2011) have called attention to the vitality of brand identity in building leeway and brand
170
faithfulness. The outcomes and the examination suggestions will help in understanding the idea
of brand identity and its part in building an uplifting disposition towards the brand and thus
making the brand driven clients steadfast towards the brand. This study inspects how brand
personality influences brand loyalty.
Brand Loyalty is an essential idea of today's brand advertising world. proposed by numerous
analysts, around which the most finish definition is being proposed brand is characterized as
steadfastness as the consequence from non-arbitrary, long presence conduct reaction, and it was
a mental buy procedure structured by some certain choice units who In right on time explores,
analysts generally took the demonstration of repurchase as the technique for measure brand
faithfulness. However a few analysts show that to measure brand faithfulness the Brand
reliability, in advertising, comprises of a purchaser's dedication to repurchase or overall proceed
utilizing the brand and could be showed by rehashed purchasing of an item or administration or
other positive practices such that the idea is characterized of brand loyalty as: "The (a) biased
(b) behavioral reaction, (c) communicated over the long run, (d) by some choice making unit, (e)
as for choice making, assessment forms of various brands". This definition distinguishes six
necessities of brand loyalty. The brand loyalty is classified into four parts: cognitive devotion,
full of feeling unwaveringness, conation steadfastness and movement faithfulness. The spurious
brand certainty shoppers may make rehashed buys just since the brand they buy is the one and
only decision in the stores. Whereas, the true brand loyalty buyers ought to show both mental
and emotional responsibilities in addition to repurchase consistency of any particular product.
171
1. True loyalty.
2. Latent loyalty.
3. Latent loyalty.
4. No loyalty.
(Farhat & Khan, 2011)
Table 4: Repeat Purchase Possibility
Repeat Purchase Possibility
High
High
Low
True loyalty.
Latent loyalty.
Spurious loyalty.
Latent loyalty.
Related Attitude
Low
Thus it shows that Loyal customer buy more products and that loyal customers are less price
sensitive and pay less attention to the competitors advertisements. The services existing
customers who are familiar with the offerings and processes is also cheaper. Along with this
loyal customers tend to spread positive word of mouth and refer the brand to others as well.
Brand loyalty of the client by including the idea of brand identity, the brand loyalty might be
improved additionally investigated that brand personality has critical impact on brand
inclination. Since brands have their own particular specific identities, customers may treat marks
as true human creatures. Thus, buyers will want the individuals' words, mentality, conduct or
considerations along these lines on to meet their particular identity qualities. It could be that
buyers like the brands having more different brand identity, and it is likewise likely that
purchasers are more acquainted with the brands they lean toward. Shoppers might likely utilize
the brand and items in accordance with their identity characteristics, as it were, all the
172
showcasing exercises are pointed at having purchasers accept and distinguish a brand identity,
and strengthening the correspondence between the brand and the purchaser to upgrade the
brand's devotion and value, the Influence of brand personality on customers' brand inclination,
love, dedication and obtaining plan. Thus brand personality has a positive impact on brand
preference, friendship, and unwaveringness and buys aim. A brand identity should be formed to
be dependable and predictable. Furthermore, it ought to additionally association between brand
personality and brand loyalty, therefore, relationship between brand identity and brand
dedication outcomes may indicate that brand personality may impact shoppers' brand devotion to
consumable merchandise, goods products or a brand (Farhat & Khan, 2011).
Brand personality not just assumes a critical part in customers maintenance, but has significant
impact on an organization's execution. A fruitful brand obliges the building of a unique brand
personality By utilizing different promoting methodologies, an organization may pass on their
brand personality to shoppers and have the purchasers of differing identity characteristics accept
and distinguish the organization's brand personality and that is how therefore shoppers may
create a relationship The relationship between fulfillment and unwaveringness appears to be
practically instinctive Without client dedication, even the best-outlined e-plan of action will soon
go into disrepair. In their mission to create a loyal consumer base, most organizations attempt
their best to constantly fulfill their clients and create long run associations with them. In short,
watchful administration of brand identity helps purchasers to create a positive picture of the
organization. By the above loyalty model, we can show help for a large portion of the
connections distinguished in past researches, and also a conceptualization of the general loyalty
build. The empowering news from this study is that brand identity reliably show up as most
persuasive in encouraging loyalty. These effects have immediate suggestions for streamlined
173
advertising specialists. Marketing specialists should seriously think about centering past client
fulfillment to coordinated advertising methods that cultivate brand trust and quality in the client
base in backing of customers loyalty programs (Farhat & Khan, 2011).
2.8 Conceptual Framework

This research study includes analysis of three independent variables which are congruence;
customer satisfaction and commitment with the brand, over the dependent variable that is brand
loyalty considering the brand personality as a superseding variable. As on the basis of these
variables, following model has been constructed in order to conduct this research study
Attachment with a brand is used as dependent and independent variable for investigating linkage
between consumers congruence and satisfaction, and commitment with it. It is hypothesized that
the positive relationship between satisfaction and brand loyalty is stronger like that of
congruence and commitment as they go hand in hand. In other words, a mediator effect of the
quantity of amplification on the relationship between consumer satisfaction and true brand
loyalty is expected and found. Some other effects are found demonstrating that the relationship
between consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty is not simple and straightforward.
According to researches, customer loyalty can arise even when the customers are not fully
satisfied by the products/services offered. In many occasions customers stick to a particular
manufacturer because of fewer options available. For instance, a manufacturer might not be
offering the best products/services. The customer might also face a fewer problems while dealing
with the manufacturer. It has been seen that in the above-mentioned scenarios, customers tend to
show loyalty for a long period. They buy repeatedly due to the low availability of other
competitor manufacturers. While such case of customer loyalty is rare nowadays as competition
174
has increased in every field), a few experts feel that such type of customer loyalty can be created
(Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, & Rundle- Thiele, 2004).
Congruence
Satisfaction
Brand
Personality
Commitment
Figure 12: Conceptual Framework
175
Brand
Loyalty
2.9 Hypothesis
2.9.1 Hypothesis on Congruence with Brand Personality
Ho
Congruence is positively correlated with Brand Personality.
In Hypothesis No. 1, Congruence is an independent variable and Brand Personality is dependent

variable.
2.9.2 Hypothesis on Satisfaction with Brand Personality

Ho
Satisfaction is positively correlated with Brand Personality.
In Hypothesis No. 2, Satisfaction is an independent variable and Brand Personality is dependent

variable.
2.9.3 Hypothesis on Commitment with Brand Personality

Ho
Commitment is positively correlated with Brand Personality.
In Hypothesis No. 3, Commitment is an independent variable and Brand Personality is dependent

variable.
2.9.4 Hypothesis on Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty

Ho
Congruence with Brand Personality leads to enhanced Brand Loyalty.
In Hypothesis No. 4, Congruence is an independent variable but Brand Personality and Brand
Loyalty both are dependent variable.
176
2.9.5 Hypothesis on Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty

Ho
Satisfaction with Brand Personality leads to enhanced Brand Loyalty.
In Hypothesis No. 5, Satisfaction is an independent variable but Brand Personality and Brand
2.9.6 Hypothesis on Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty

Ho
Commitment with Brand Personality leads to enhanced Brand Loyalty.
In Hypothesis No. 6, Commitment is an independent variable but Brand Personality and Brand
2.9.7 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Congruence and Satisfaction

Ho
There is no causal relationship between congruence and satisfaction with this brand.
In Hypothesis No. 7, Congruence is used as dependent variable and Satisfaction is used as

independent variable.
2.9.8 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Commitment and

Satisfaction
Ho
There is no causal relationship between satisfaction and commitment with this brand.
In Hypothesis No. 8, Satisfaction is used as dependent variable and Commitment is used as

177
2.9.9
Hypothesis on Causal
Relationship between Congruence and
Commitment
Ho
There is no causal relationship between congruence and commitment with this brand.
In Hypothesis No. 9, Congruence is used as dependent variable and Commitment is used as a

2.10 Literature Gap and Justification of the Study

This type of research is being conducted for the very first time. The three independent variables:
Congruence, Satisfaction and Commitment have previously been tackled alone. People have not
been able to do research on them together. Past studies have shown us that congruence alone has
impact on brand personality, satisfaction alone has impact on brand personality and likewise
commitment has impact on brand personality and later have impact on brand loyalty. But none of
past researches have provided any sort of link between the three independent variables
themselves. Our research also focuses on the relation between the three independent variables.
All the researches that we have studied have taken place mostly in overseas countries.
Researches like (Sahim, Kitapica, & Zehir, 2013),(Nam, Ekinci, & Whyaltt, 2011),(Halim,
2006),(M'Sallem, Mzoughi, & Bouhlel, 2009)have focused on the foreign markets. Few
researches have taken place in according to the Pakistani markets. Our research only takes into
account the effect of these variables on the Pakistani market. Also, it focuses on their perceptions
regarding these independent and dependent variables.
Researchers have previously focused on the cut throat competition between Pepsi and Coca Cola
(Yoffie, 2007). This research provides a bird eye view of the worldwide state of Pepsi and Coca
Cola. But this research does not take in to account the Pakistani Market; it only focuses on the
178
suppliers in United States of America and an overview of the worldwide situation. Also, this
literature review does not provide us with reasons why Pakistani Cola brands are not able to
make a successful impact in the minds of the consumers. Research on local brands like Gourmet
Cola has not been made before. Literature review failed to provide us information regarding our
local brand Gourmet Cola. Also our research will also address why local cola companies are
unable to make consumers associate themselves with the brand and there isn't any sort of
customer relationship developed.
Another gap we discovered in the literature review was that no research provides us information
why people in Pakistan prefer Pepsi over Coca Cola while in other countries people are more
inclined towards Coca Cola brand. Our research will also address this issue.
179
Chapter 3: Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction
Research methodology is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the techniques applied to a field
of study, or the theoretical analysis of the body of methods and principles associated with a
branch of knowledge. It, typically, encompasses concepts such as paradigm, theoretical model,
phases and quantitative or qualitative techniques. In Research methodology, researcher use
different criteria for solving the given problem (Saunders & Lewis, 2011).
In layman terms methodology can be defined as, it is used to give a clear idea that what
researcher is carrying out from his or her research and what method researcher will use during
research. Furthermore, methodology implies more than simply the methods a researcher plan to
use to collect data. It is frequently necessary to include a consideration of the concept and
theories which underlie the methods. For instance, if you intend to underline a specific attribute
of a sociological theory, you have to show that you understand the underlying concepts of the
methodology you will use in your research.
3.1.1 Why Do We Need a Methodology

Explaining research methodology helps others to know, why you want to do your research in a
particular way. It helps others know that you know what you are doing and how you are doing it.
Research methodology gives confidence to funding agencies that you are not going to waste their
money. If your methodology is new, innovative or just plain different then you have to write
more of a justification so that others will understand what you are trying to do and why it is
important to do it this new way.
180
Research methodology refers to the theory of the research and the reasons why the research has
been designed. Methodology basically explains the research question and why the question is so
significant. The methodology gives a proper justification for the approach a researcher takes and
demonstrates that the researcher isnt just doing things or using these methods because it is
convenient, cheap, or they just dont want to do anything else.
3.2 Research Methodology

Research refers to the search of knowledge. It is defined as the scientific and systematic search
of relevant information on a specific topic. According to Clifford Woody, as mentioned in
(Kaiser, 2009), the research comprises of ; defining and redefining problems, formulating
hypothesis or suggested solutions; collecting, organizing and evaluating data; making deductions
and reaching conclusions; and at last carefully testing the conclusions to determine whether they
fit the formulating hypothesis.
You begin your introduction by introducing the general area of research. Next discuss previous
research that is relevant to your research question in order to develop the problem. We should be
attempting to create a logical development to your introduction. Tell the reader what the general
problem is and then lead them through findings that are directly relevant to the research problem
you are writing about. Try to build a connection between the previous research findings and the
experiment that you are about to present. At the end of the introduction you should state your
hypothesis. Use specific terms, and make a prediction. Be sure to take in your independent and
dependent variables in your hypothesis.
We also add citation to the parts, which contain references of authors, books or journal articles.
How we going to that, explaining; there are specific ways for you to cite the literature that you
181
present in an introduction. If you were writing about a paper that found that reaction time is
slower after alcohol consumption, you could cite the reference in one of two ways. The first way
involves the authors of the paper as part of the sentence. When starting discussion part, you
should begin your discussion section by restating your hypothesis. Then discuss whether or not
your hypothesis was supported. Discuss whether findings in the present experiment are
consistent or inconsistent with the findings of previous experiments. Here you need to cite other
researchers work again in the same way that you did in the introduction. Briefly discuss any
flaws in the experiment. And in the end your discussion with a paragraph that tells the major
conclusions from your study, and what the implications of this study might be for people in the
real world (Kaiser, 2009).
3.3 Research Design

The research design is important because it tells us the key information regarding the features of
study, which can differ for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. The one common point
across the research design is that data are collected through numbers, words and gestures etc., in
different ways and purposes. (Crotty, 1998), described on four topics which are to be considered
in the research design.
182
3.3.1 Research Philosophy

There are two philosophical paradigms approaches which include:
Figure 13: Paradigms

The philosophy of our research is positivist paradigm because we are doing it independently and
focus on facts which we can be examined through different methods. For this we studied
different conceptual delimitations and their relationship among each other. Therefore we take
sample which reflects our target population and try to build up a hypothesis and test them in a
logical way.
183
3.3.2 Research Approaches

There are two research approaches in the research design, which are:
Deduction
Induction
3.3.2.1 Deduction
Deduction theory is related to the scientific research. It involves the development of a theory that
is subjected to a test. There are five stages through which deductive research will progress
deducing a hypothesis, expressing the hypothesis, testing the operational hypothesis, examining
the specific outcomes of the inquiry, if necessary, modify the theory in the light of findings
(Robson, 2002).
3.3.2.2 Induction
Inductive approach is concerned with the context in which such events were taking place. This
argues that the study of small sample of subjects might be appropriate when taking the large
sample as done in the deduction approach.
Our research is based on deduction theory because we are we are not developing a new kind of
theory. We are developing a frame work and make hypothesis which is an example of deduction
theory. Therefore, Deduction choice is more appropriate for us to use in this research. The main
reason is that the data collection method that we are using is the quantitative method and this
choice of research is appropriate for this particular data collection method. By using this
research choice, we would better analyze why taking large sample size is appropriate when
compared to small sample size.
184
3.3.3 Research Strategy

Clarifying what research strategy is needed is the most important aspect of the research. The
strategy that can be followed is exploratory, descriptive or explanatory research (Yin, 2003).
Our research is exploratory research therefore questionnaire tends to be used in our research.
Questionnaires enable us to examine and explain the relationship between variables in particular
cause and effect relationship.
3.3.4 Time Horizons

There are two parts of the time horizons. The snapshot view is called the cross sectional view
and the diary view is the Longitudinal view.
In this research, we are using cross-sectional view that is the study of the particular phenomenon
at a specific time, because we are completed this research at a given time and we are not doing
further research on it.
3.3.5 Research Choices

(Creswell, 2003), there are three research choices, we use in research design which are
Qualitative approach
Quantitative approach
Mixed methods
The research choice that we will be using is the quantitative method. The reason that we are
using quantitative research is because we are dealing with the numeric facts and numbers.
185
3.3.6 Research Technique and Procedure

There are two major data collection technique or procedure, firstly mono method and secondly
multi method. This choice that we are using is increasingly useful in business and management
research, where a research study may use quantitative and qualitative technique and procedure in
the combination of primary and secondary data. Choosing a mono method will combine either a
single quantitative data collection technique, such as questionnaires, with quantitative data.
(Curran & Blackburn, 2001), the multi method refers to those combinations where more than one
data collection technique is used but is restricted within either quantitative or qualitative world
view.
The method that we are using is the mono method. The reason why we are using this method is
because that the variables such as congruence, commitment and satisfaction that we have taken
would be analyzed through the help of a single questionnaire. Through this we would better
understand the phenomena of these variables.
3.4 Population
The total number of people occupies a specific area. It is basically a collection of individuals,
items or data from where a statistical sample can be taking (Houghton, 1995).
The entirety of all the elements, allocating some common set of features that comprises the
universe for the purpose of the marketing research problem.
Census A complete list of the elements of a population or study objects.
Sample A subgroup of the elements of the population selected for involvement in the study.
186
As the consumption pattern of the Cola across the Pakistan is comparatively high. The whole
population is the prime target of the research where almost each and every person with in the
minimum age of 5 up to maximum age of the people tends to consume cola.
3.5 Sample Size

It refers to how many respondents should be included in the inspection. This is an important
deliberation for researchers. The size of the sample drawn affects the standard and specificity of
the data. If the sample is too small, the acquired data may not be presentable. However,
according to (Cant, 2003), matter of resource accessibility in terms of time, money and
personnel; also have a collision on the size of the sample. Our targeted respondents are 840, with
in the age bracket from 18 to 55.
3.6 Sampling Techniques

According to (Cooper, Schindler, & Sharma, 2002) and (Malhotra N. K., Market Research: An
applied Orientation, 2007) sampling techniques could usually be classified as Non probability
and probability.
Probability Sampling is a restricted, randomized method which ensures that each population
component is given a known nonzero chance of selection: used to draw participants that are
representative of a target population: which is necessary for projecting findings from the sample
to the target population (Cooper, Schindler, & Sharma, 2002).
It is divided into four types that are Simple random, Systematic, Cluster, Stratified and Double
Sampling. In our research we will consider simple random and stratified sampling which comes
under the heading of probability sampling.
187
Simple Random Sampling is a probability sample in which each element has a known and equal
chance of selection (Cooper, Schindler, & Sharma, 2002). Its features can be easily
comprehended and can be projected to the target population. However, the disadvantages are that
it is often very difficult to construct a sampling frame that will permit a simple random sample to
be drawn. Also, the results in samples may be very large or spread over extensive geographic
regions which will result in increasing time and cost of data collection (Malhotra N. K., Market
Research: An applied Orientation, 2007).
The other way of sampling technique that will be used is stratified sampling which is a two-step
procedure to break up the population into subpopulations, or strata. Components are determined
from each stratum by a random procedure. The main objective of stratified sampling is to
increase precision without increasing costs. The variables used to partition the population into
strata are referred to as stratification variables. Variables that are commonly used for
stratification include demographic characteristics, type of customer, size of firm, or the type of
industry (Malhotra N. K., Market Research: An applied Orientation, 2007).
Stratified sampling can ensure that all the important subpopulations are represented in the
sample. This is very important if the distribution of the characteristic of interest in the population
is skewed (Malhotra N. K., Market Research: An applied Orientation, 2007).
3.7 Data Collection Procedure

There are two forms of data that is primary and secondary data. Our data collection procedure is
based on the primary data as we want to find out the relation between congruence, satisfaction,
commitment, brand personality and brand loyalty. Also, we want to address the question of why
any local brand is not able to leave impact on the customer.
188
The research methodology which we are using is Quantitative Research methodology. According
to (Cooper, Schindler, & Sharma, 2002), quantitative research is the accurate count of some
actions, understanding, judgment or perspective. Quantitative research is then divided into
descriptive and causal research design. Our focus is on both because we want to collect
information from surveys that come under the heading descriptive research design. Along with
this causal research is also going to be used as we want to find out the causal relationships
between the independent and dependent variables.
The sample size is drawn from whole population of Pakistan but, approaching each and every
person is rarely possible so, for that we have precisely targeted 840 respondents from various
areas of Karachi with the age bracket of 18 to 55 years.
3.8 Scale Development

3.8.1 Definition of Scale
The non-comparative scale employs whatever rating standard seems appropriate to them. They
do not compare the object being rated either to another object or to some specified standard such
as your ideal brand. They evaluate only one object at a time, and for this reason non comparative
technique consist of continuous and itemized rating scales (Tolliver, 2004). This includes;
continuous scales also known as the graphic scale, which is defined as the respondents rate the
objects by placing a mark at the appropriate position on a line that runs from one extreme of the
criterion variable to the other. Thus, the respondents are not restricted to selecting from marks
previously set by the researcher. They form of the continuous scale may vary considerably. For
example: reaction to the television commercials. It is easy to construct and the disadvantages
scoring can be cumbersome unless computerized. Itemized rating scale also comes under
189
heading of non-comparative scales; which is defined as the, the respondents are provided with a
scale that has a number or brief description associated with each category. The categories are
ordered in terms of scale position and the respondents are required to select the specified
category that best describes the object being rated. Itemized rating scales are widely used in
marketing research and form the basic components of more complex scales such as multi item
rating scales. We first describe the commonly used itemized rating scales, the Likert, semantic
differential, and Stapel scales, and then examine the major issues surrounding the use of these
scales. Likert scales are widely used rating scale that requires the respondents to indicate a
degree of agreement or disagreement with each of a series of statements about the stimulus
objects. For examples: measurement of attitudes and brand product and company images.
Advantages include easy constructing, administering and understanding. The disadvantages are
more time consuming. The semantic differential scale is defined as the seven rating point scale
with endpoints associated with bipolar labels that have semantic meaning. For example: Brand
product and company images. The advantage is versatile and disadvantages are controversy as to
whether the data are interval. The staple scale is defined as the measuring attitudes that consist of
a single adjective in the middle of an even numbered range of values from -5 to 5 without a
neutral point. For example: Measurement of attitudes and images. The advantages are easy to
construct administered over telephone. Whereas: the disadvantages are confusing and difficult to
apply (Malhotra N. K., 1981).
190
3.8.2 Congruence (self with brand) Scale

3.8.2.1 Scale Description
This scale is composed of seven Likert-type statements that are intended to measure the degree
to which a consumer views a similarity and connection between him/herself-image and that of a
particular brand.
3.8.2.2 Scale Origin
The scale was apparently developed and reported first by (Escalas & Bettman, You are what they
eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers' connections to brands, 2003).The version
used by (Escalas & Bettman, 2005) was very similar to previous version but not exactly the
same, e.g., different scale anchors and slightly different phrasing of items.
3.8.2.3 Reliability
The scale was used in the two studies reported by (Escalas & Bettman, 2005) and in both cases
had alphas of 0.96.
3.8.2.4 Validity
No information regarding the scales validity was provided by (Escalas & Bettman, 2005).
3.8.2.5 Scale Items
1. This brand reflects who I am.
2. I can identify with this brand.
3. I feel a personal connection to this brand.
4. I used this brand to communicate who I am to other people.
5. I think brand help me became the type of person I want to be.
6. This brand suits me well.
191
7. I consider this brand to be me (it reflects who I consider myself to be or the way that I
want to present myself to others).
3.8.3 Commitment to the Brand Scale

3.8.3.1 Scale description
The purpose of the scale is to scale the degree t which a consumer expresses devotion to a
specified brand versus a willingness to accept alternative brands even if they are cheaper or more
convenient. The scale is composed of three, nine point Likert-type statement. The scale was
called commitment to the target brand by (Ahluwalia, Examination of Psychological Processes
Underlying resistance to persuasion, 2000),(Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, & Unnava, Consumer
Responce to negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment, 2000),(Ahluwalia,
Unnava, & Robert E, 2001).
The scale was used by (Ahluwalia, Examination of Psychological Processes Underlying
resistance to persuasion, 2000)(Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, & Unnava, Consumer Responce to
negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment, 2000)(Ahluwalia, Unnava, & Robert
E, 2001) is original to (Beatty, Homer, & Kahle, 1988). They called it brand commitment rather
than brand loyalty since the letter suggests a behavioral dimension which the former does not.
Their work provided evidence that commitment is distinct from purchase involvement and ego
involvement but is influenced by them. The construct reliability was 0.75 and variance extracted
as 0.51.
192
3.8.3.3 Reliability
The alpha scale was used by Ahluwalia was 0.62 (Ahluwalia, Examination of Psychological
Processes Underlying resistance to persuasion, 2000). The lab study in Ahluwalia seems to be
the same as what is referred to as experiment one in (Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, & Unnava,
Consumer Responce to negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment, 2000) and
experiment two in (Ahluwalia, Unnava, & Robert E, 2001).
3.8.3.4 Validity
No examination of the scales validity was reported by (Ahluwalia, Examination of
Psychological Processes Underlying resistance to persuasion, 2000)(Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, &
Unnava, Consumer Responce to negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment,
2000)(Ahluwalia, Unnava, & Robert E, 2001).
3.8.3.5 Comments
See also Agarwal and Maheswaran (2005), as they appear to have used this scale or something
based on it.
3.8.3.6 Scale Items
1. If __________________ was not available at the store, it would make little difference to
me if I had to choose another brand.
2. I consider myself to be highly loyal to ________________.
3. When another brand is on sale, I will generally purchase it rather than ______________.
193
3.8.4 Satisfaction Scale

In its fullest form, the scale is comprised of twelve Likert-type items and measures a consumers
degree of satisfaction with a product he/she has recently purchased. Most of it uses have been in
reference to the purchase cars but(Mano & Oliver, 1993) appear to have adapted it so as to
general enough to apply to whatever product a respondent was thinking about. (Mattila & Wirtz,
2001), adapted a short version of scale to measure customers satisfaction with a shopping
experience. Seven of the items were modified by (Hausman, 2004) for use with the patientphysician encounter.
The Scale was originally generated and used by (Westbrook & Oliver, Developing Better
Measures of Consumer Satisfaction: Some preliminary Results, 1981) to measure consumer
satisfaction with cars and with calculators. Four other satisfaction measures were used as well
and their results compared in a multi-trait multi-method matrix. Convenience samples of students
were used from two different universities (n=68+107). In term of internal consistency, the alphas
were 0.93 and 0.96 as measured for cars in the two samples. For both samples, the scale showed
strong evidence of construct validity by converging with like constructs and discriminating
between unlike constructs. Compared to the others measures of satisfaction, the Likert version
produced the greatest dispersion of individual scores while maintaining a symmetrical
distribution.
194
3.8.4.3 Reliability
Alphas of 0.95, 0.08, and 0.94 were reported for the scale by (Mano & Oliver, 1993)(Oliver R.
L., Cognitive, Affective and attribute Bases of the Satisfaction Response, 1993)(Oliver & Swan,
1989b) and (Westbrook & Oliver, 1991) respectively. (Oliver, Rust, & Varki, 1997), reported
that the reliabilities were 0.89 and 0.87 in their first and second studies, respectively. The version
of the scale used by (Hausman, 2004) had alphas ranging from 0.79 and 0.94, with an alpha of
0.85 for the combined samples.
3.8.4.4 Validity
Examination of scales validity was rarely reported in the studies. However, (Mano & Oliver,
1993) performed a factor analysis which provided evidence that the scale was one-dimensional.
Using CFA, Evidence was provided by (Hausman, 2004) in support of her scales convergent
and discriminate validities.
3.8.4.5 Scale Items
1. This is the one of the best _______________ I could have bought.
2. This ____________ is exactly what I need.
3. This ___________hasnt worked out as well as I thought it would.
4. I am satisfied with my decision to buy this___________.
5. Sometimes I have mixed feelings about keeping it.
6. My choice to buy this ______________ was a wise one.
7. If I could do it over again, Id buy a different make/model.
8. I have truly enjoyed this____________.
9. I feel bad about my decision to buy this______________.
10. I am not happy that I bought this_____________.
195
11. Owning this ___________ has been a good experience.

12. I am sure it was the right thing to buy this ____________.
3.8.4.6 Comments
See (Wolnbarger & Gilly, 2003), where the author modified five of this scales items in order to
measure satisfaction with a consumers most recent online purchase at a website.
3.8.5 Loyalty Scale

This scale has three, ten points Likert-type statements that measure a consumers stated intention
to search for and purchase a particular brand of product(s) in the future.
The origin of the scale was not explicitly stated by (Algesheime, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005).
They appear to have adapted items from previous scales especially for their study. As used to
gather the data, the items were apparently in German.
3.8.5.3 Reliability
The composite reliability reported for the scale by (Algesheime, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005)
was 0.90.
3.8.5.4 Validity
(Algesheime, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005), used CFA with twelve latent constructs and twenty
measures. The measurement model fit the date well and two tests were used to provide evidence
of each scales discriminate validity. The average variance extracted for this scale was 0.75.
196
3.8.5.5 Scale Items

1. I intended to buy this brand in the near future.
2. I would actively search for this brand in order to buy it.
3. I intended to buy other products of this brand.
3.8.6 Brand Personality Scale

The first ever scale was developed by (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997).
Different brand personality scales has been developed to study the brand personality of various
brand. Scales are developed in different cultural context to find the relevant personality traits
associated with brand in that particular culture. Also brand personality scales are developed for
different product categories and brands. Following is the table that shows various studies of
brand personality dimension (Patel, Measuring Brand Personality: An Empirical Study, 2009),
(Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, Valette-Florence, & Barnier, How Well does Brand Personality
Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale, 2005).
In (Ambroise L. , et al., 2005) and few other researchers (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, ValetteFlorence, & Barnier, 2005), and (Merunka, 2003), combine with him studied the brand
personality and proposed the brand personality scale to measure the personality of the brand.
Their scale has been used before to measure the personality of a brand (Ambroise L. , et al.,
2005).
This brand personality scale basically has nine traits of personality: Friendly, Creative,
Charming, Ascendant, Misleading, Original, Elegant, Conscientious, and Introvert. Furthermore,
all these personality traits are sub-divided in more items. For example: The group of Warm,
197
Pleasant, and Nice fall in the friendly trait and the group of Manipulative, Arrogant, and Showy
fall in the category of Ascendant trait.
3.8.6.1 Structure of the Brand Personality Measurement Scale
Glamorous
s
Reliable
Mature
Elegant
Natural
Secure
Exciting
Sweet
Outgoing
198
Cheerful
Mischievou
s
Rigorous
Table 5: Brand Personality Scale Proposed by (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, &

Florence, 2004)
Items
Friendly
Warm, Pleasant, nice
Creative
Inventive, Imaginative
Charming
Attractive, Seductive
Ascendant
Manipulative, Arrogant, Showy
Misleading
Hypocrite, Lying, Deceptive
Original
Trendy, Modern
Elegant
Sophisticated, stylish
Conscientious
Strict, Serious
Introvert
Reserved, Shy
199
3.9 Data Collection Methods

The data collection method would be on the basis of scales, which we have developed the
conduct would take place through questionnaires, because it is an instrument delivered to the
participant via personal or non-personal means that is completed by the participants. Accuracy is
high while people responding to the questionnaires, it saves major two things time and money.
People more give truthful information regarding the controversial issues.
The structure that is going to be used for the response strategy is the structured response. That is
participant's response is limited to specific alternative provided i.e. closed response. And also our
questionnaire will be in the form of multiple choice questions which are appropriate when there
are more than two alternatives or when we seek gradations of fondness, attraction, or agreement.
Questionnaires often make use of reference tables and classification. These devices help simplify
and determine the behaviors and attitudes of people. A checklist is a list of behaviors and
characteristics, or other entities that the researcher is looking for. Either the researcher or
participant survey is achieved simply whether the observed every element of the list, or present,
or vice versa.
Furthermore, you can be used to improve the quality of evaluations based on a quantitative
survey, helping to generate hypotheses evaluation and design of survey questionnaires to
strengthen and expand or clarify the results of the quantitative evaluation.
200
3.10 Correlation Analysis

We are using Correlation Analysis, because it is main stream in numerous provisions in light of
the fact that it is a quantitative approach to assess whether two or more variables are connected
or not. Along these lines, correlation analysis permits to diminish the data held in and the
perceptions that have been measured on sets or assemblies of information to a solitary number
falling into a normed interval. It is also helpful to continue with the determined correlation
coecients for translating the relations.
On the other hand, it is regularly more significant to look at connections inside the information.
The point when inspecting information in SAS, correlation uncovers itself by the relationship.
The most well-known measure of correlation is known as the "Pearson product moment
correlation coefficient, the correlation measure just applies to two variables at once by,
x, y = cov(x, y)/ x y
We can often see a relationship between two variables by constructing a graph called scatter plot,
which is a chart that shows the qualities of to one another.
3.11 Regression Analysis

Keeping in mind our end goal is to battle these "spurious connections", regression analysis
permits numerous variables to be analyzed at the same time. The most broadly utilized system
for regression analysis is Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) works by making a "best fit" pattern line
through the greater part of the accessible information which focuses initially, the variables to be
incorporated in the analysis must be picked, and consolidated into the suitable model (thus, a
linear model).
Y = 0 + 1(x1) + 2(x2) + . +n(xn) +
201
Where:
Y is the dependent variable.
x1 xn are the independent variables.
o is the intercept.
1 n are the coefficients of interest.
is the error
In this model Y represents the variables of interest in the analysis while x..xn represents the
variables to be tested.
The coefficient on each of the independent variables (1..n) represents the effect that a
change in the independent variable (x1.xn) on the dependent variable (Y).
The sign on the coefficient reflects the direction of the relationship.
Next, a testable
hypothesis must be developed.

Ho: j = 0
H1: j 0
Where:
Ho is the hypothesis to be tested, or the null hypothesis.
H1is the alternative hypothesis.
This hypothesis tests whether the coefficient of a given ward variable equivalents zero (any
variable increased by zero equivalents zero, so a coefficient of zero covers the related
variable). In this manner, if the analysis finds that the invalid speculation might be rejected
(i.e. that the coefficient of investment does not actually equivalent zero), then that variable
has a huge impact on the ward variable (Y).
202
Both connection and regression analysis are great scientific instruments when executed
accurately figuring out how to utilize these routines, it is significant to precisely determine
the issue being examined, and the measurable systems being utilized (Stockwell, 2008).
3.11.1 Multiple Regressions

Multiple regressions are used as an unmistakable device in three sorts of circumstances.
Often used to create a self-weighting evaluating mathematical statement by which to

foresee esteem for a dependent variable (DV) from the qualities for a few independent
variables. (IV)
A Descriptive provision of numerous regression calls for controlling for jumbling

variables to better assess the commitment of other variable.
Multiple regressions are likewise used to test and illustrate causal speculations.
In this methodology, regularly alluded as way examination, regression is utilized to portray a

whole structure of linkages that have been progressed from a causal hypothesis. What's more of
being a distinct apparatus it is additionally utilized as an induction device to test speculation and
to gauge populace values (Cooper & Schindler, Business Research Methods, 2002).
Subsequently in our exploration we are contemplating the relationship around all the variables
towards brand personality and brand loyalty. We can utilize this technique to attempt to
anticipate the execution of coke, Pepsi and gourmet in the business sector.
203
Chapter 4:Data Analysis and Interpretations

4.1 Demographic Analysis
Table 6: Total Number of Respondents
Male
219
188
73
480
Pepsi Cola
Coca Cola
Gourmet Cola
Total
Female
181
143
36
360
Total
400
331
109
840
4.1.1 Gender
Table 7: Gender (Frequency) - Pepsi
Gender
Valid
Male
Female
Total
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
219
54.8
45.3
100.0
54.8
45.3
100.0
54.8
100.0
181
400
Figure 15: Gender- Pepsi

204
Interpretation:
There are 400 respondents of Pepsi cola out of 840 and above analysis shows that 54.8% of the
respondents are male while 45.3% of respondents of Pepsi are Female.
Table 8: Gender (Frequency) - Coca Cola

Gender
Valid
Missing
Total
Male
Female
Total
System
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
188
143
331
89
420
44.8
34.0
78.8
21.2
100.0
56.8
43.2
100.0
56.8
100.0
Figure 16: Gender- Coca Cola

Interpretation:
The total sample size for this research is 331 people and all of them were the respondents so the
response rate was 100%. Above analysis shows that about 56.79% respondents are male while
205
43.2% respondents are female. This includes 188 males and 143 females among 331
respondents.
Table 9: Gender (Frequency) - Gourmet
Valid
Male
Female
Total
Frequency
Gender
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
73
36
109
67.0
33.0
100.0
67.0
33.0
100.0
67.0
100.0
Figure 17: Gender- Gourmet

Interpretation:
There are 109 respondents of Gourmet Cola out of 840 and above analysis shows that 67% of the
respondent are male while 33% of respondent of Gourmet are Female.
206
4.1.2 Age
Table 10: Age Distribution of Respondents
Pepsi Cola
Coca Cola
Gourmet Cola
Total
18 to 25
277
106
51
434
26 to 35
50
110
36
196
36 to 45
68
79
13
160
46 to 55
5
36
9
50
Total
400
331
109
840
Table 11: Age (Frequency) - Pepsi
Valid
18 to 25
26 to 35
36 to 45
46 to 55
Total
Frequency
Age
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
277
50
68
5
400
69.3
12.5
17.0
1.3
100.0
69.3
12.5
17.0
1.3
100.0
69.3
81.8
98.8
100.0
Figure 18: Age- Pepsi
207
Interpretation:
Above analysis shows that age bracket of the Pepsi cola respondents. The highest number of
respondent belongs to the age of 18-25 years with 69.3%. The age group of 26-35 year has
12.5% of the total respondent. While 17% and 1.3% belongs to the respondent of age group of
36-45 and 46-55 respectively.
Table 12: Age (Frequency) - Coca Cola
Valid
Missing
Total
18 to 25
26 to 35
36 to 45
46 to 55
Total
System
Frequency
Age
Percent
106
110
79
36
331
89
420
25.2
26.2
18.8
8.6
78.8
21.2
100.0
Figure 19: Age- Coca Cola
208
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
32.0
33.2
23.9
10.9
100.0
32.0
65.3
89.1
100.0
Interpretation:
Above analysis shows the age bracket of the respondents. The highest numbers of respondents
belong to the age of 18-25 years with 32%. The age group of 26-35 years has 33% of the total
respondents. While, 24% is for the age bracket of 36-45 and 11% is for 46-55 years respectively.
Table 13: Age (Frequency) - Gourmet
Valid
18 to 25
26 to 35
36 to 45
46 to 55
Total
Frequency
Age
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
51
36
13
9
109
46.8
33.0
11.9
8.3
100.0
46.8
33.0
11.9
8.3
100.0
46.8
79.8
91.7
100.0
Figure 20: Age- Gourmet

Interpretation:
Above analysis shows that age bracket of the gourmet respondent. The highest number of
respondent belongs to the age of 18-25 years with 51%. The age group of 26-35 year has 36% of
the total respondent. While 13% and 9% belongs to the respondent of age group of 36-45 and 4655 respectively.
209
4.1.3 Professions
Table 14: Profession Distribution of Respondents
Student
Pepsi Cola
Coca Cola
Gourmet Cola
Total
311
132
62
505
Business
Professionals
53
77
23
153
House
Wife
27
79
14
120
Labor/
Worker
3
20
5
28
Others
Total
6
23
5
34
400
331
109
840
Table 15: Profession (Frequency) - Pepsi
Valid
Student
Business Professionals
House Wife
Labor/ Worker
Others
Total
Profession
Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
311
53
27
3
6
400
77.8
13.3
6.8
.8
1.5
100.0
77.8
91.0
97.8
98.5
100.0
77.8
13.3
6.8
.8
1.5
100.0
Figure 21: Profession- Pepsi
210
Interpretation:
Above analysis show that 77.8% of the respondents were students, 13.3% respondents were
business professionals. Moreover 6.8% respondents were housewives. The smallest portion of
analysis that is .8 % was labors/workers and 1.5 goes from other professions.
Table 16: Profession (Frequency) - Coca Cola

Profession
Frequency Percent
Valid
Missing
Total
Student
House Wife
Labor/ Worker
Others
Total
System
132
77
79
20
23
331
89
420
31.4
18.3
18.8
4.8
5.5
78.8
21.2
100.0
Figure 22: Profession- Coca Cola
211
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
39.9
23.3
23.9
6.0
6.9
100.0
39.9
63.1
87.0
93.1
100.0
Interpretation:
Above analysis show that 40% of the respondents were students, 23% respondents were business
professionals. Moreover 24% respondents were housewives. The smallest portion of analysis that
is 6% was labors/workers. The analysis further shows that 7% of the respondents belong to other
professional fields.
Table 17: Profession (Frequency) - Gourmet
Valid
Student
House Wife
Labor/ Worker
Others
Total
Profession
Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
62
23
14
5
5
109
56.9
21.1
12.8
4.6
4.6
100.0
56.9
78.0
90.8
95.4
100.0
56.9
21.1
12.8
4.6
4.6
100.0
Figure 23: Profession- Gourmet
212
Interpretation:
Above analysis show that 56.9% of the respondents were students, 21.1% respondents were
business professionals. Moreover 12.8% respondents were housewives. The smallest portion of
analysis that is 4.6% was labors/workers and from other professions.
4.1.4 Preferred Brand

Table 18: Preferred Brand
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Pepsi Cola
400
47.6
47.6
47.6
Coca Cola
331
39.4
39.4
87.0
Gourmet Cola
109
13.0
13.0
100.0
Total
840
100.0
100.0
Valid
Figure 24: Preferred Brand

213
Interpretation:
Above analysis show that 47.6% of the respondents preferred Pepsi Cola while 39.4% preferred
Coca Cola and the least preferred brand was Gourmet Cola which is 13%. This analysis further
tells that among all three brands Pepsi was highly preferred whereas Coca Cola was there almost
near in the preference competition in the market by the consumers.
4.2 Hypothesis Analysis

4.2.1 Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality
Table 19: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Pepsi
Correlations
Pearson Correlation
congruence
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Congruence
brand personality
.636**
400
.636**
.000
400
1
brand personality
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
N
400
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
400
Interpretation:
This is the correlation between independent variable congruence and dependent variable brand
personality of Pepsi Cola. It shows that the Pearson's Correlation between both the variables is
0.636 that is strong positive correlation. The significance level is 0.000 which is acceptable.
214
Table 20: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Coca Cola
Correlations
congruence
Pearson Correlation
1
Congruence
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
331
Pearson Correlation
.093
Brand personality Sig. (2-tailed)
.093
N
331
Brand personality
.093
.093
331
1
331
Interpretation:
personality of Coca Cola. It shows that the Pearson's Correlation between both the variables is
0.093 that is no or negligible relationship.
Table 21: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Gourmet
Correlations
congruence
congruence
Brand personality
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1
109
.117
.226
109
Brand personality
.117
.226
109
1
109
Interpretation:
personality of Gourmet. It shows that the Pearson's Correlation between both the variables is
.117 that is non-negligible relationship between variables.
215
4.2.2 Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality

Table 22: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Pepsi
Correlations
satisfaction
brand personality
.949**
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
400
.000
400
Pearson Correlation
.949**
Pearson Correlation
satisfaction
brand personality
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
N
400
400
Interpretation:
The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable satisfaction and
dependent variable brand personality such that the correlation between both the variables is
0.949 that is a very strong positive relation. The significance level is 0.000 that is statistically
acceptable.
216
Table 23: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Coca Cola
Correlations
satisfaction
Pearson Correlation
1
Satisfaction
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
331
Pearson Correlation
.194**
Brand personality
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
N
331
Brand personality
.194**
.000
331
1
331
Interpretation:
0.194 that is a no or negligible relationship.
Table 24: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Gourmet
Correlations
Satisfaction
Brand personality
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
satisfaction
Brand personality
.130
.179
109
1
109
.130
.179
109
109
Interpretation:
0.130 that is a negligible relationship between variables.
217
4.2.3 Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality

Table 25: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Pepsi
Correlations
commitment
Brand personality
.800**
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
400
.000
400
Pearson Correlation
.800**
Pearson Correlation
Commitment
brand personality
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
N
400
400
Interpretation:
The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable commitment
and dependent variable brand personality such that the correlation between both the variables is
0.800 that is a very strong positive relation. The significance level is 0.000 that is statistically
acceptable.
218
Table 26: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Coca Cola
Correlations
commitment
Commitment
Brand personality
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1
331
-.056
.308
331
Brand personality
-.056
.308
331
1
331
Interpretation:
-.056 that is a no or negligible relationship.
Table 27: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Gourmet
Correlations
commitment
Pearson Correlation
1
Commitment
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
109
Pearson Correlation
.275**
Brand personality
Sig. (2-tailed)
.004
N
109
Brand personality
.275**
.004
109
1
109
Interpretation:
0.275 that is a very weak positive relationship between variables. The significance level is 0.004
that is statistically acceptable.
219
4.2.4 Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear

Regression)
Table 28: Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear
Regression) - Pepsi
Model
ANOVAa
Sum of Squares Df
Mean Square
Regression
11.749
2
5.875
1
Residual
25.584
397
.064
Total
37.333
399
a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty
b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, congruence
Model
Sig.
91.157
.000b
Coefficients
Un-standardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
B
(Constant)
3.139
1
congruence
.359
brand personality .292
Std. Error
.250
.061
.052
Sig.
12.559
5.917
5.606
.000
.000
.000
Beta
.319
.302
Interpretation:
The above data shows the relationship of brand loyalty (dependent variable), congruence
(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the unstandardized coefficient of congruence and brand personality is 0.359 and 0.292. The analysis
shows that the unit increase in congruence would increase brand loyalty by 35.9% which has a
moderate positive relation. Furthermore, unit increase in brand personality increases brand
loyalty by 29.2% which has a weak positive relationship.
220
Regression) - Coca Cola
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares Df
Mean Square
Sig.
Regression
11.105
5.552
31.486
.000b
Residual
57.841
328
.176
Total
68.945
330
Sig.
16.511
.000

b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, congruence
Coefficients
Model

Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
4.289
.260
congruence
.023
.027
.044
.864
.388
-.367
.046
-.403
-7.934
.000
1
Brand
personality
Interpretation:
(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the unstandardized coefficient of congruence and brand personality is 0.023 and -0.367. The analysis
shows that the unit increase in congruence would increase brand loyalty by 2.3% which has a
221
negligible relation. Furthermore, unit increase in brand personality decreases brand loyalty by
36.7% which has a moderate negative relationship.
Regression) - Gourmet
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares Df
Mean Square
Sig.
Regression
5.880
2.940
1.691
.189b
Residual
184.256
106
1.738
Total
190.136
108
a. Dependent Variable: Brand loyalty

b. Predictors: (Constant), Brand personality , congruence
Coefficients
Model
Un-standardized Coefficients
Standardized
Sig.
3.833
.000
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
2.861
.746
congruence
.161
.093
.167
1.739
.085
.084
.215
.038
.391
.697
1
Brand
personality
Interpretation:
(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the un222
standardized coefficient of congruence and brand personality is 0.161 and 0.84. The analysis
shows that if 1 unit increase in congruence would increase brand loyalty is increased by 16.1%
which has a negligible relationship. Furthermore, if 1 unit increase is increase in brand
personality leads to the increase by 8.4% in brand loyalty which has no or negligible
relationship, while 1 unit increase in congruence leads to 16.1% increase in brand loyalty which
also has no or negligible relationship.
223
4.2.5 Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear
Regression)
Table 31: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear
Regression) - Pepsi
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares Df
Mean Square
Sig.
Regression
12.859
6.429
104.289
.000b
Residual
24.475
397
.062
Total
37.333
399

b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, satisfaction
Coefficients
Model
Sig.
2.831
.005
Coefficients
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
1.142
.403
satisfaction
-.639
.086
-.952
-7.389
.000
brand personality 1.364
.125
1.407
10.927
.000

Interpretation:
The above data shows the relationship of brand loyalty (dependent variable), satisfaction
(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the unstandardized coefficient of satisfaction and brand personality is -0.639 and 1.364. The analysis
224
shows that the unit increase in satisfaction; decreases brand loyalty by 63.9% which has a strong
negative relationship. In addition unit increase in brand personality increases brand loyalty by
136.4% which shows a very strong positive relationship.
Table 32: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear
ANOVAa
Sum of Squares Df
Mean Square
Sig.
Regression
11.461
5.731
32.699
.000b
Residual
57.484
328
.175
Total
68.945
330
Model

Coefficients
Model
Sig.
15.966
.000
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
4.201
.263
satisfaction
.082
.049
.086
1.669
.096
-.378
.047
-.416
-8.086
.000
1
Brand
personality
225
Interpretation:
(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the unstandardized coefficient of satisfaction and brand personality is 0.082 and -0.378. The analysis
shows that the unit increase in satisfaction; decreases brand loyalty by 8.2% which has a no or
negligible relationship. In addition unit increase in brand personality decreases brand loyalty by
37.8% which shows a moderate negative relationship.
226
Table 33: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares Df
Mean Square
Sig.
Regression
1.802
.901
.507
.604b
Residual
188.334
106
1.777
Total
190.136
108
Sig.
4.513
.000

Coefficients
Model
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
3.653
.809
satisfaction
-.091
.111
-.079
-.815
.417
.151
.218
.068
.693
.490
1
Brand
personality
Interpretation:
(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the unstandardized coefficient of satisfaction and brand personality is -0.091 and .151. The analysis
shows that if 1 unit increase in satisfaction; brand loyalty decreased by -9.1%% which has a
227
strong negative relationship. In addition if 1 unit increases in brand personality increases brand
loyalty is increased by 15.1% which shows a negligible relationship.
228
4.2.6 Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple

Linear Regression)
Table 34: Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear
Regression) - Pepsi
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares Df
Mean Square
Sig.
Regression
21.967
10.983
283.765
.000b
Residual
15.366
397
.039
Total
37.333
399

b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, commitment
Coefficients
Model
Sig.
26.015
.000
Coefficients
Std. Error
(Constant)
5.837
.224
commitment
.430
.024
.963
17.952
.000
.052
-.265
-4.951
.000
Brand personality -.257
Beta

Interpretation:
The above data shows the relationship of brand loyalty (dependent variable), commitment
(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the unstandardized coefficient of commitment and brand personality is 0.430 and -0.257. The analysis
229
shows that the unit increase in commitment; increases brand loyalty by 43.0% which has a strong
positive relationship. In addition unit increase in brand personality decreases brand loyalty by
25.7% which shows a weak negative relationship.
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares Df
Mean Square F
Sig.
Regression
15.150
7.575
Residual
53.795
328
.164
Total
68.945
330
46.187
.000b

b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, commitment
Coefficients
Model
Standardized
Sig.
18.680
.000
Coefficients
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
4.988
.267
commitment
-.188
.037
-.247
-5.047
.000
Brand personality -.376
.044
-.413
-8.450
.000
Interpretation:
(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the unstandardized coefficient of commitment and brand personality is -0.188 and -0.376. The analysis
shows that the unit increase in commitment, increases brand loyalty by 18.8% which has a no or
230
negligible relationship. In addition unit increase in brand personality decreases brand loyalty by
37.6% which shows a moderate negative relationship.
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares Df
Mean Square
Sig.
Regression
.701
.350
.196
.822b
Residual
189.435
106
1.787
Total
190.136
108

b. Predictors: (Constant), Brand personality, commitment
Coefficients
Model
Sig.
4.479
.000
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
3.286
.734
commitment
.022
.105
.021
.209
.835
.115
.225
.051
.510
.611
1
Brand
personality
Interpretation:
(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the un-
231
standardized coefficient of commitment and brand personality is .022 and .115. The analysis
shows that if 1 unit increases in commitment; brand loyalty is increased by .022% which has a
weak positive relationship. In addition if 1 unit is increase in brand personality than brand loyalty
is increased by 25.7% which shows a weak negative relationship.
232
4.2.7 Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction

Table 37: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Pepsi
Correlations
Pearson Correlation
Congruence
satisfaction
congruence
satisfaction
.792**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
400
400
Pearson Correlation
.792**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
400
400

Interpretation:
The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable Congruence
and dependent variable Satisfaction such that the correlation between both the variables is 0.792
that is a very strong positive relationship.
233
Table 38: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Coca Cola

Correlations
Pearson Correlation
Congruence
Satisfaction
congruence
satisfaction
.268**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
331
331
Pearson Correlation
.268**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
331
331

Interpretation:
and dependent variable Satisfaction such that the correlation between both the variables is 0.268
that is a weak positive relationship.
234
Table 39: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Gourmet

Correlations
Pearson Correlation
congruence
satisfaction
Congruence
satisfaction
.142
Sig. (2-tailed)
.142
109
109
Pearson Correlation
.142
Sig. (2-tailed)
.142
109
109
Interpretation:
and dependent variable Satisfaction such that the correlation between both the variables is .142
that is a negligible relationship between variables.
235
4.2.8 Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment

Table 40: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Pepsi
Correlations
Pearson Correlation
Satisfaction
Commitment
satisfaction
commitment
.596**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
400
400
Pearson Correlation
.596**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
400
400

Interpretation:
The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable Satisfaction
and dependent variable Commitment such that the correlation between both the variables is
0.596 that is a strong positive relationship. The significance level is 0.000 that is statistically
acceptable.
236
Table 41: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Coca Cola

Correlations
Pearson Correlation
Satisfaction
commitment
satisfaction
commitment
-.240**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
331
331
Pearson Correlation
-.240**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
331
331

Interpretation:
-0.240 that is a weak negative relationship.
237
Table 42: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Gourmet

Correlations
Pearson Correlation
satisfaction
commitment
satisfaction
commitment
-.103
Sig. (2-tailed)
.286
109
109
Pearson Correlation
-.103
Sig. (2-tailed)
.286
109
109
Interpretation:
and dependent variable Commitment such that the correlation between both the variables is -.103
that is a strong very strong negative relationship.
238
4.2.9 Correlation between Congruence and Commitment

Table 43: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Pepsi
Correlations
Pearson Correlation
congruence
commitment
congruence
commitment
.275**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
400
400
Pearson Correlation
.275**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
400
400

Interpretation:
0.275 that is a weak positive relationship. The significance level is 0.000 that is statistically
acceptable.
239
Table 44: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Coca Cola

Correlations
satisfaction commitment
satisfaction
Pearson Correlation 1
-.240**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
331
Pearson Correlation -.240**

commitment
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
331
331
1
331

Interpretation:
-0.240 that is a weak negative relationship.
240
Table 45: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Gourmet

Correlations
Pearson Correlation
congruence
commitment
congruence
commitment
-.102
Sig. (2-tailed)
.290
109
109
Pearson Correlation
-.102
Sig. (2-tailed)
.290
109
109
Interpretation:
and dependent variable Commitment such that the correlation between both the variables is -.102
that is a negligible relationship between variables.
241
Chapter 5:Conclusion andImplications

Table 46: Overview Result of Rejection or Acceptance of all Three Brands
Hypothesis
Pepsi
Coca Cola
Gourmet
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8
H9
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Reject
Reject
Accept
Accept
Accept
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Accept
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Accept
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
5.1 Conclusion
5.1.1 Pepsi
The results for our hypothesis 1 (i.e. correlation between congruence and brand personality)
shows that there is a relationship between our independent variable (congruence) and dependent
variable (brand personality).Relationship between congruence and brand personality is a positive
one. The Pearson's correlation coefficient r is 0.636. From this we can interpret that if more
consumers are congruent to Pepsi Cola, there will be increase in the brand personality of Pepsi.
Which means that if consumers are able to reflect their own image in Pepsi Cola, more will be
the brand personality?
Hypothesis 2 is correlation between satisfaction and brand personality. The independent variable
here is satisfaction while dependent variable is brand personality. The findings here show the
Pearson's correlation coefficient r as 0.949 that represents a strong relationship between
satisfaction and brand personality. If more consumers are pleased, happy and contented, this
242
would mean that more consumers will be able to relate themselves to Pepsi. From this we can
also conclude that the changes in satisfaction are strongly related with the changes in brand
personality.
Correlation between commitment and brand personality is our third hypothesis. The independent
variable in this case is commitment and the dependent variable is brand personality. The
Pearson's correlation coefficient r is shown as 0.800 which indicates a strong relationship
between commitment and brand personality. This means that if more consumers are committed
more will be the brand personality of Pepsi. The findings show that if more consumers are
faithful and have a good bond, more will they be able to relate themselves with Pepsi.
From the above hypothesis it can be seen that all the three independent variables (congruence,
satisfaction, commitment) have a relation with the dependent variable (brand personality). Its
shows that all the three are able to effect brand personality individually.
The fourth hypothesis in our research is congruence with brand personality and brand loyalty.
Here the dependent variables were congruence and brand personality, while brand loyalty was a
dependent variable. The un-standardized slope of 0.359 of congruence tells us that Pepsi's brand
loyalty will increase by 35.9% for every percentage increase in congruence. That means higher
congruence is associated with higher brand loyalty. Whereas, the un-standardized slope of 0.292
of brand personality tells us that Pepsi's brand loyalty will increase by 29.2% for every
percentage increase in brand personality. Thus, it means that higher brand personality is
associated with higher brand loyalty.
In hypothesis 5 i.e. satisfaction with brand personality and brand loyalty the independent
variables are satisfaction and brand personality, on the other hand brand loyalty is a dependent
243
variable. The un-standardized slope of satisfaction and brand loyalty show a negative result that
is of -0.639. This means that Pepsi's brand loyalty will decrease by 63.9% if there is one
percentage increase in satisfaction. While on the other hand findings on brand personality and
brand loyalty show a positive relation. It shows that the higher personality of Pepsi is related
with brand loyalty.
The sixth hypothesis is commitment with brand personality and brand loyalty. Un-standardized
slope of commitment and brand loyalty of Pepsi show that brand loyalty will increase by 43% for
every percentage increase in commitment. Thus, higher commitment is associated with higher
brand loyalty. Findings of brand personality show that if one unit of brand personality is
increased there will be a decrease in brand loyalty.
The independent variables also have a relationship between each other. In this independent
variable is congruence and dependent variable is satisfaction. The relationship between
congruence and satisfaction can be seen in hypothesis 7 i.e. correlation between congruence and
satisfaction. There is a very strong relation between both of them which shows that if the
consumers are able to reflect themselves with Pepsi that will result in increased satisfaction.
Hypothesis 8 is correlation between satisfaction and commitment. In this case independent
variable is satisfaction and commitment is considered as dependent variable. It seen that the
relation between them is strong positive which shows that if consumers are able to enjoy the
experience of Pepsi Cola they will more faithful and committed towards it.
Correlation between congruence and commitment is our 9th hypothesis. Congruence is treated as
independent variable whereas commitment is treated as dependent variable. The relationship
244
between them is weak positive. This result shows that if consumers are less likely to find their
reflection in Pepsi less of them will be committed towards it.
5.1.2 Coca Cola

To begin with speculation of Coca cola is demonstrating a relationship between congruence and
brand personality, in the wake of applying our tests the Pearson correlation indicates that there is
no negligible relationship between them.
Second theory indicates the relation between satisfaction and brand personality of Coca cola, the
Pearson correlation demonstrates that there is no or negligible relationship between these
variables.
So is with third hypothesis which is about commitment and brand personality indicating no or a
negligible relationship.
In hypothesis four the variables are congruence, brand personality and brand loyalty. Congruence
and brand personality are been acknowledged as independent variable and brand loyalty as
dependent variable. The un-institutionalized coefficient shows a moderate negative relationship
of brand loyalty with congruence and brand personality.
Besides, in fifth hypothesis the Results indicates that there is a moderate negative relationship.
In sixth speculation, acknowledging brand loyalty as dependent and commitment and also
personality as independent variable, the result demonstrates that there is no or negligible
relationship between commitment and brand loyalty.
The seventh hypothesis is indicating the relationship between independent variable congruence
and dependent variable satisfaction results demonstrates that there is weak positive relationship
between the variables. Furthermore, in eighth hypothesis the relationship is strong positive
245
among variables of satisfaction and commitment. Additionally, in our last hypothesis the
relationship between congruence and commitment is weak negative.
From all of the above relations we can conclude that majority of the customers of coca cola are
students however they take a stab at creating a brand personality by concentrating on
celebrations, family assembling and so forth the genuine shopper of coca cola are from the age
section of 18-25. In spite of, coca cola dont target everyone, and that startles individuals once in
a while. Suppose it is possible that coca cola push individuals away in light of the fact that brand
personality is excessively self-evident. If you don't push a couple of individuals away, you won't
generally draw in anybody. Thus, coca cola ought not to have a cleared and decently focused
brand personality.
The association of coinciding with brand personality is negligible which reflects that buyers
would not effectively relate themselves to the identity of the brand. It is troublesome for the
purchasers to secure a connection and relate their personality characteristics and human like
aspects with the coca cola brand. Additionally, on the off chance if we dissect congruence and
brand personality with regard to brand loyalty, it has been discovered that loyalty of coca cola
would not simply rely on them towards brand loyalty, congruence and commitment has a weaker
relationship as contrasted with Brand personality.
5.1.3 Gourmet
First hypothesis of Gourmet cola showing a relationship between congruence and brand
personality, after applying are responses the Pearson correlation shows that there is no negligible
relationship between them. This because of Gourmet is unsuccessful in creating its brand image
and lack of value.
246
Second hypothesis shows that relation between satisfaction and brand personality of gourmet
cola, the Pearson correlation shows that their negligible relationship between variables. This is
because of the fact that there are much better competitors colas in market, which make it
difficult to create satisfaction among people.
Similarly in third hypothesis which is about commitment and brand personality shows the
relationship, which is very weak positive relationship, although the significance level is
acceptable. Certain region of Pakistan shows that there is some commitment in people, which are
affecting their personality.
In hypothesis four the variables are congruence, brand personality and brand loyalty. Congruence
and brand personality been considered as independent variable and brand loyalty as dependent
variable. The un-standardized coefficient shows result that there is negligible relationship of
brand loyalty with congruence and brand personality. Gourmet is unsuccessful in creating
consumers loyalty, because it was previously failed in creating congruence and personality
which leads to consumer loyalty.
Furthermore, in fifth hypothesis the independent variable includes satisfaction and brand
personality, on the other hand dependent variable as brand loyalty. Results shows there is a
strong negative relationship between satisfaction and brand loyalty and negligible relationship
between brand personality and brand loyalty.
In sixth hypothesis, considering brand loyalty as dependent and commitment as well as
personality as independent variable, the result shows that there is a weak positive relationship
between and commitment and brand loyalty. And weak negative relationship between
247
personality and loyalty. Gourmet can work on its product personality which would result in good
brand loyalty.
In seventh hypothesis showing relationship between independent variable congruence and
dependent variable satisfaction results shows that there is negligible relationship between
variables. Similarly in hypothesis eight the relationship is strong negative among variables
between satisfaction and commitment. Also in our last hypothesis the relationship between
congruence and commitment is negligible.
The Gourmet Cola is significantly showing a weak or negligible relationship among variables,
total respondents of gourmet cola are one hundred and nine only. We have targeted universities,
friends and family members for our responses.
5.2 Limitations and Future Line of Research
248
References
A, d., & L, B. (2007). Positioning countries on personality dimensions: scale development and
implications for country marketing. Journal of Business Research, 2319.
Aaker, & J.L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347.
Aaker, & J.L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, N3, 347-356.
Aaker, & J.L. (2009, July 01). The Impacts of Brand Personality and Congruity on Purchase Intention:.
Journal of Global Marketing, 201-202.
Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York: The Free
press.
Aaker, D. (1996). Building. New york.
Aaker, D. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. London: The
Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building Strong Brands. Building Strong Brands.
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, N.3 , 347-356.
Aaker, J. (1997, August 1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality . Journal of Marketing Research, XXXIV,
347-356.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 347-356.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 347-356.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), 347-356.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34(No. 3), 347356.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34(No. 3), pp.
347-356.
Aaker, J. L. (1997, August). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Marketing Research, Vol. 34, No. 3 , 347357.
Aaker, J. L. (1997, August). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347356.
249
Aaker, J. L. (1997, August). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347356.
Aaker, J. L., Benet-Martinez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture: A
Study of Japanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructs. Journal o/Personality & Social
Psychology, 81 (3), 492-508.
Aaker, J., & Fournier, S. (1995). A brand as a character, a partner and a person: Three perspectives on
the question of brand. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, 391.
Aaker, J., & Fournier, S. (1995). A Brand as a Character, A Partner and a Person:Three Perspectives on
the Question of Brand Personality. Advances in Consumer Research, 22 (1), 391-395.
Aaker, J., Benet-Martinez, & V, G. J. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: a study of
Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. J Pers Soc Psychology, 492508.
Aaker, J.S.Fournier, & S.A.Brasel. (2004). When Good Brands do Bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 116.
Aasel, H. (1987). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action 3rd Edition. Boston: PWS:Kent.
Achouri, M. A., & Bouslama, N. (2010). The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and
Self-Image on Consumers Satisfaction and Loyalty. IBMA Business Review, 16.
Agarwal, A., & Siddharth, S. (2010). Retaining Brand Loyalty. Copperbridge Media.
Ahluwalia, R. (2000, September). Examination of Psychological Processes Underlying resistance to
persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 217-232.
Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000, May). Consumer Responce to negative Publicity:
The Moderating Role of Commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, XXXVII , 203-214.
Ahluwalia, R., Unnava, H. R., & Robert E, B. (2001, November). The Moderating Role of Commitment On
the Spillover Effect of Marketing Communications. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 458-470.
Ahouri, M. A., & Bouslama, N. (2010). The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and SelfImage on Consumers Satisfaction and Loyalty. IBMA Business Review, 16.
Al., K. e. (1992). In K. e. Al..
Aleman, B. a. (2001). In B. a. Aleman.
Alexandrov, & Alexei. (2011). Should You Sell Pepsi and Coke in the Same Aisle? Should You Sell Pepsi
and Coke in the Same Aisle?, 14.
Alexandrov, A. (2011, July). Should You Sell Pepsi and Coke in the Same Aisle? Journal of Personal Selling
and Sales Management, pg.14.
Algesheime, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005, July). The Social Influence of Brand Community:
Evidence from European Car Clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 19-34.
250
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective Continuance and
Normative Commitment to the Organization. Journal of Occupational Psychological Society, 118.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and
Allport, G. (1935). Atitudes. Handbook of social psychology, 798-884.
Allport, G., & Odbert, H. (1936). A Psycholexical Study in: Psychological Monographs (Vol. 47).
Alt, M., & Griggs, S. (1988). Can a Brand be Cheecky? Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing
Science, 4, no. 6, 9-16.
Ambler, T. (1997). Do Brands Benefit Consumers? International Journal of Advertising, 167-98.
Ambroise, L., & Valette-Florence, P. (2010). Mtaphore de la personnalit de la marque et stabilitinterproduits d'un baromtrespcifique. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 3-29.
Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., & Florence, P. V. (2004). How well does brand personality
predict brand choice? Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research.
Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., & Florence, P. V. (2004). How Well does Brand Personality
Predict Brand Choice? Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research.
Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., & Vallette-Florence, P. (2005). How Well Does Brand
Personality Predict brand choice. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 30-38.
Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., Valette-Florence, P., & Barnier, V. D. (2005). How Well Does
Brand Personality Predict Brand Choice? A Measurement Scale and Analysis Using Binary
Regression Models. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 30-38.
251
Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., Valette-Florence, P., & Barnier, V. D. (2005, January). How
Well does Brand Personality Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale. Advances in Consumer
Research, 6, 30-38.
Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., Vallete, P., & Florence. (2004). How Well does Brand
Personality Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale.
Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., Vallete, P., & Florence. (2005). How Well does Brand
Personality Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale and Analysis using Binary Regression
Models. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 30-38.
Ambroise, L., Sliman, S. B., Barnier, V. D., Ferrandi, J. M., Merunka, D., Roherich, G., & Florence, P. V.
(2005). The Impact of Brand Persoanlity on Attitude and Commitment Towards the Brand.
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Ambroise, L., Sliman, S. B., Bourgeat, P., Barnier, V. d., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., . . . Vallete-Florence,
P. (2005). The Impact of Brand Persoanlity on Attitude and Commitment Towards the Brand. 6878.
Amine, A.-m. (2011). Consumers' true brand loyalty: the central role of commitment. Journal of strategic
management, 305-309.
Anantadjaya, S. P., Walidin, A., Waskita, E. S., & Nawangwulan, I. M. (2007). Consumer Behavior, Supply
chain management and Customer satisfaction: An investigative study in small and medium
enterprises. Jakarta: International Seminar on Industrial Engineering and Management.
Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). "The antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction
for firms". Marketing Science, 125-43.
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and
Profitability. Journal Of Marketing, 53-66.
Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of continuity in Conventional Industrial Channel Dyads.
Marketing Sciences, 310-23.
Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1992). The Use of Pledges to build and Sustain Commitment in Distribution
Channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 18-34.
Anderson, N. (1968). Likableness Ratings of 555 Personality-Trait Words. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 9, no. 3, 272-279.
Anon.
(2014, March 9). Brand personality theory

http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp?id=166033
and
practice.
Retrieved
from
Asch, S. (1952). Social psychology. Social psychology.

Attri, R., pahwa, D. M., & Urkude, D. A. (2012). Loyalty and customer satisfaction with the public sector
oil marketing companies: way forward for effective CRM strategies. Indore Management
Journal, 99-113.
252
Attri, R., pahwa, D. M., & Urkude, D. A. (2012). Loyalty and customer satisfaction with the public sector
oil marketing companies: way forward for effective CRM strategies. Indore Management
Journal, 99-113.
Austin, J. R., Siguaw, J. A., & Mattila, A. S. (2003). A Re-examination of the Generalizability of the Aaker
Brand Personality Measurement Framework. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11 (2), 77-92.
Awan,
&
Hassnain,
A.
u.
(2013,
May
20).
Gourmet.
http://www.slideshare.net/ataulhassnain/marketing-revised-21543470
Retrieved
from
Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J. N. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality?
Brand Managment, 143155.
Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J.-N. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality?
Brand Management, 143155.
Azoulay, Audrey, & Kapferer, J.-N. (2003). "Do Brand Personality Scales Really Measure Brand
Personality? Journal of Brand Management, 11 (2), 143-155.
Ballantyne. (2006). The evolution of brand choice. Journal of Brand Management, 339-352.
Bansal, H. S., Irving, P. G., & Taylor, S. F. (2004). A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to
Service Providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 234250.
Bansal, H. S., Irving, P. G., & Taylor, S. F. (2004). A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to
Service Providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 234250.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). "The Moderator:Mediator Variable Distinction in Social
Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations". Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 11731182.
Basrawi, R. (2009). The influence of brands competitive advantage of consumer loyalty. United kingdom:
Brunel Business School.
Basrawi, R. (2009). The influence of Brands competitive advantage on the consumer loyalty: A study in
the UK's cosmetic and toiletries market. United Kingdom.
Batra, & al, e. (1993). Personality. New York.
Batra, R., Lehmann, D., & Singh, D. (1993). The Brand Personality Component of Brand Goodwill: Some
Antecedents and Consequences.
Bauer, H. (2000). The Value of the Brand. Mannheim : Institute for Marketing, University Mannheim.
Bauer, H., & Huber, F. (1997). valued Brands. Mannheim: Institue of Marketing.
Bauer, R. (1960). Consumer Behavior as risk taking.
Beatty, S. E., Homer, P., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). The Involvement-Commitment Model: Theory and
Implications. Journal of Business Research, 16(2), 149-167.
253
Behi, Belaid, S., & Temessek, A. (2010). The role of attachment in building consumer brand relationships:
an empirical investigation in utilitarian consumption context. Encole de Management de
Normandie Research paper, 9-10.
Belch, B. a. (2004). 113.
Beldona, S., & Wysong, S. (2007). Putting the "brand" back into store brands: an exploratory
examination of store brands and brand personality. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16
(4), 226-235.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139-168.
Belk, R. W. (1988, September). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15,
139-168.
Belk, R. W., Bahn, K. D., & Mayer, R. N. (1982). Developmental recognition of consumption symbolism.
Journal of Consumer research, 9(1), 417.
Belk, R., Kenneth, D. B., & Mayer, R. N. (1982). Developmental recognition of consumption symbolism.
Journal of Consumer research, 9(1), 417.
Bettman, J. R. (1973). Perceived Risk and its components: A model and Empirical risk. Journal of
marketing research.
Betty, S. E., Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. (1988). The involvement commitment model : Theory and
implications. Journal of business research.
Biel, A. (1993). Converting image into equity, Brand equity and Advertising. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbrum
Associates.
Biel, A. (1993). Coverting image to equity in brand equity and Advertising . Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 67-82.
Biel, A. L. (1991). Converting Image to Equity. (D. &. Aaker, Ed.) Hillsdale: NTC Publications Ltd.
Bitner, M. J. (1994). Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus quality. Encounter
satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus quality., 72-94.
Blackwell, R. .., Miniard, P. .., & Engel, J. .. (2001). Consumer Behavior (9th ed.). Harcourt,Fort Worth.
Bloemer, J. M., & Kasper, H. D. (1994). The Impact of Satisfaction on Brand Loyalty: Urging on classifying
Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and
Complaining Behavior, 152-159.
Bosnjak, M., Bochmann, V., & Hufschmidt, T. (2007). Dimensions of brand personality attributions: a
personcentric approach in the German cultural context. Social Behavior and Personality, 303
316.
Bosque, I. R., & Martin, H. S. (2008). Tourist satisfaction a cognitive affective model. Annals of Tourism
Research, 551573.
254
Bouhlel, O., Mzoughi, N., Hadiji, D., & Slimane, I. B. (2009). Brand Personality and Mobile Marketing:An
Empirical Investigation. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 703-710.
Bouhlel, O., Mzoughi, N., Hadiji, D., & Slimane, I. B. (2011). Brand Personalitys Influence on the
Purchase Intention: A Mobile Marketing Case. International Journal of Business and
Management, 210-218.
Bouslama, ACHOURI, M. A., & Neji. (2004). The effect of the Congruenece between Brand Personality an
Self Image on Consumer's Satisfaction and Loyalty: A Conceptual Framework. IBIMA Business
Review, 1-16.
Bouslama, Achouri, M. A., & Neji. (2010). "The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and
Self-Image on Consumers Satisfaction and Loyalty". IBMA Business Review, 16.
Bulgarella, C. C. (2005). Employee Satisfaction and customer satisfaction. Guide Star research, 6.
Business Wire. (June 29, 2007. - March 8, 2010). Pakistan Food & Drink Report, 2007.
Byrne, D. E. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. (1973). Interpersonal attraction. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, 317-336.
C.Whan, P. &. (1977). students and Housewives. students and Housewives:, 102-210.
Cant. (2003). Research Methodology. 48.
Capon, N., & Burke, M. (1980). Individual, Product class and task-related factors in consumer
information processing. Journal of consmer research.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Guido, G. (2001). Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit?
Journal of Economic Psychology, 377395.
Carman, M. J. (1970). Correlates of brand loyalty: Some positive results. Journal of marketing research,
67.
Cater, B., & Zabkar, V. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of commitment in marketing research
services: The client's perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 785797.
Cater, B., & Zabkar, V. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of commitment in marketing research
services: The client's perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 785797.
CCBPL. (2014, 1 24). Linkedin. Retrieved from http://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/10693944
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance. Journal of Marketing, 81-93.
Coca
Cola.
(2014).
Coke
Rozee.pk.
Retrieved
2014,
http://coke.rozee.pk/content.php?ulid=14107-coca-cola-about-us
from
Rozee.pk:
Consumer Report Magazines. (2012, Aug). Consumer Report Magazines. Retrieved from
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/08/claim-check-is-pepsi-next-the-nextbig-thing-in-sodas/index.htm
255
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2002). Business Research Methods. New Delhi: McGraw Hill Education
India Pvt. Ltd.
Cooper, D. R., Schindler, P. S., & Sharma, J. K. (2002). Business Research Methods (11th ed.). New Delhi:
McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method (2nd ed.).
California, California, USA: SAGE Publications.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process.
Research Design in Qualitative/Quantitative/Mixed Methods.
Curran, J., & Blackburn, R. (2001). Researching the small enterprise. U.K: Sage Publications.
D., Z. S. (2003). "Du soi au groupe : naissance du concept de nous et exploration dune chelle de
mesure de nous idal". Recherches et applications en Marketing,, 3-22.
dAstous A., I. S. (2002). Conception et test dune chelle de mesure de la personnalit des magasins.
Actes du XVIIIme Congrs International de lAssociation Franaise de Marketing, 23-24, 115130.
Derbaix, C. (1983). Perceived risk and risk relievers: An empirical investigation. Journal of economic
psychology.
Despite lead, Pepsi aims for bigger piece of the cake. (2012). Expree tribune.
Dick, A. &. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Customer loyalty:
Toward an integrated conceptual framework., 99-113.
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Cusomer loyalty Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 99-113.
Dolich, I. J. (1969). Congruence relationships between selfimages and product brands. Journal of
Marketing Research, 6, 80-84.
Domizlaff. (1939). '22 Basic Laws of Natural Branding'. Harper Business .
Domizlaff. (1939). Translated from German: Die 22 Gesetze der naturlichen Markenbildung ". Germany.
Dornoff, R. J., & Tatham, R. L. (1972). Congruence between personal image and store image. Journal of
Market Research Society, 14, 45-52.
E., V. (2003). " Personnalit de la marque et image de soi". 1-21.
Echambadi, R. (2000). Customer Retention: AnIntegrative Model and Empirical Test.
Edmund. (2013). 248.
Einwiller, S. A., Fedorikhin, A., Johnson, A. R., & Kamins, M. A. (2006). Enough Is Enough! When
Identification No Longer Prevents Negative Corporate Associations. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34, 185194.
Engel, J. a. (1982). Consumer Behavior (4 ed.). Chicago: Dryden Press.
256
Equities, F. C. (February 07, 2010. - March 9, 2010.). First Capital Equities Ltd. Daily Times Leading New
Resource to Pakistan Unilever.
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on
consumers' connections to brands. Journal of consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 339-348.
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Introduction to Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand
Meaning. Journal of consumer Research, 32, 378-389.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1970). The Structure of Human Personality. (3. R. edition, Ed.) Methuen: John Wiley &
Sons Inc.
Farhat, R., & Khan, D. B. (2011). Importance of Brand Personality To Customer Loyalty: A Conceptual
Study. New Media and Mass Communication, 1, 4-10.
Farquhar, P. H. (1990). Managing Brand Equity. Journal of Advertising Research, 7-11.
Fennis, B. M., Pruyn, A. T., & Maasland, M. (2005). Revisiting the malleable self: Brand effects on
consumer self-perceptions of personality traits. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 371377.
Ferrandi, J. M., Fine-Falcy, S., & Valette-Florence, P. (2000). Aakers Brand Personality Scale in a French
Context: A Replication and a Preliminary Test of its Validity. Academy of Marketing Science
Conference, 7-13.
Ferrell, J. a. (1988). "Dynamic Competition with switching cost". "Dynamic Competition with switching
cost", 12337.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison process. Human Relations, 117-140.
Fields, G. (1984). Why is there only One Baseball Team in Japan Worthy of Note? -The
Marketing/Advertising, 21-23.
Fisseni, H.-J. (1998). Personality Psychology- In search of a Science. (4. revised, Ed.) Gottingen.
Forbes, T. H. (2005). An empirical analysis of the Brand Perosnality Effect. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 14(7), 404-413.
Forbes, T. H. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. Journal of Product & Brand
Management-volume 14, 404-413.
Fornell, C. (1992). A National Customer Satisfaction barometer. Journal of Marketing, 6-21.
Fournier. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Marketing Research, 34, 347-357.
Fournier, S., & Yao, J. (1997). Reviving Brand Loyalty: A Reconceptualization within the Framework of
Consumer-Brand Relationships. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 451-472.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(97)00021-9
Fournier, S., Dobscha, S., & Mick, D. G. (1998). Preventing the premature death of relationship
marketing. Harvard Business Review, 42-51.
257
Freling, T. H., & Forbes, L. P. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. The Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 14(7), 404413.
Friend,
C. (2010, January 28). 5 dimensions of Brand Personality.

http://www.fuelyourbranding.com/the-5-dimensions-of-brand-personality/
Retrieved
from
Fullerton. (2003). pp. 333-344 .

Fullerton, G. (2003). When does commitment lead to loyalty? Journal of Service Research, 333-344.
G, M., & Vergne, J. (2004). Comment expliquer lattachement aux e-marques : applications aux Sites de
Ventes en Ligne ? Actes du XXme Congrs de lAssociation Franaise de Marketing.
Galan, J. P. (2007). Propositions d'une'echelle de mesure de la congruence entre la musique et le
concept de soi . Actes du XXIIIeme Congres International de 1'AFM, Aix-les-Bains.
Gardner, B. B., & Sidney Levy, J. (1955). The Product and the Brand. Harvard Business Review, 33-39.
Gardner, J. L. (1979). Components of involvement.
Gardner, L. J. (1979). Components of involovement.
Garland, R., & Gendall, P. (2004). Testing Dick and Basus customer loyalty model. Australasian
Marketing Journal, 81-87.
Geyer, P. D. (1991). Predicting Brand Commitment. Mid Atlantic Journal of business, 129-138.
Ghodeswar, & Bhimrao. (2008). Product and Brand Management. Building Brand Identity in Competitive
Markets: A Conceptual Model, 17.
Gilliland, D. &. (2002). The two sides of attitudinal commitment: The effect of calculative and loyalty
commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distribution channels. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 24-43.
Gillmore, G. W. (1919). Annimism. Boston.
Goodell, Martin, C. L., & N, P. (1991). Historical, Descriptive and strategic perspectives on the construct
of product commitment. Europan journal of marketing.
Goodman, P. S., Fichman, M., Lerch, F. J., & Snyder, P. R. (1995). Customer-Firm Relationships,
involvement and Customer Satisfaction. Academy of management Journal, 3.
Gourmet. (2003-2014). Gourmet Cola Marketing Plan Marketing Essay. Retrieved from UKEssays.com:
http://www.ukessays.com/essays/marketing/gourmet-cola-marketing-plan-marketingessay.php#ixzz2vkNu4E85
Gourmet. (2013, May 20). Gourmet. (Awan, & A. u. Hassnain, Editors) Retrieved from
http://www.slideshare.net/ataulhassnain/marketing-revised-21543470
Gourmet. (2013). Gourmet Sweets and Bakers. Retrieved from http://gourmetpakistan.com/archives/61
Gourmet
Foods
Pakistan.
(2012).
Retrieved
from
http://www.pakreviews.com/restaurants-cafes/gourmet-foods-pakistan#
258
Pak
Reviews:
Gourmet
Pakistan.
(2013).
Gourmet
http://gourmetpakistan.com/archives/61
Pakistan.
Retrieved
from
Gourmet:
Gouteron, S., & Szpiro, D. (2005). Excs de liquidit montaire et prix des actifs. Banque de France
Working Paper, 185-201.
Govers P. C. M., S. F. (2009, july 01). The Impacts of Brand Personality and Congruity on Purchase
Intention:. Journal of Global Marketing, 201-202.
Govers, P. C., & Schoormans, F. P. (2005). Product, Personality and its Influence on consumer
preference. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4/5), 189197.
Govers, P., & Schoormans, J. (2005). Product Personality abd its influence on Consumer Preference.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22, no 4 , 189-197.
Grubb, E. L., & Grathwohl, H. L. (1967, October). Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market
behavior : A theoretical approach. Journal of Marketing, 31, 22.
Grubb, E. L., & Stern, B. L. (1971). Self-concept and significant others. Journal of Marketing Research, 8,
382-385.
Guildford. (1959). Personality. New York.
Gul, M. S., Jan, D. F., Baloch, D. Q., Jan, M. F., & Jan, M. F. (2012). Brand Image and Brand Loyalty.
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, 3, 55-73.
Gundlach, G. T. (1995). The Structure of Commitment in Exchange. Journal of Marketing, 221-233.
Guo, L.-J. (2003). The Effects of Personality Trait and Brand Personality on Brand Preference. Chicago:
National Chiao Tung University.
Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. D., & IngerRoos. (2005, October). Journal of Marketing. The effects of
Customer satisfaction relationship commitment, dimensions and triggers on customer retention,
69.
Gustavsson, S. (2005). Customer Loyalty.
Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship. The role of Image
Transfer. Journal of Advertising, 38(4), 4757.
H., F. T., & P., F. L. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. Journal of Product and
Brand Management, 404-413. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420510633350
Haeckel, L. P., & H, S. (1994). Engineering customer experiences. Marketing Management, 3, 9-19.
Halim, R. E. (2006). The Effect of relationship of Brand Trust and Brand affect on the Brand Performance:
An analysis from Brand Loyalty Perspective (A case of coffee instant product in Indonesia).
working paper.
Halim, R. E. (2006). The Effect of relationship of Brand Trust and Brand affect on the Brand Performance:
An analysis from Brand Loyalty Perspective (A case of coffee instant product in Indonesia).
Indonesia.
259
Hallowell, R. (1996). The Relationships of Customer Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty, and Profitability: An
empirical study. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 27-42.
Hamm, B. C., & Cundiff, E. W. (1969, November). Self-actualization and product perception. Journal of
Marketing Research, 6, 470-472.
Hansen, H., & Hem, L. E. (2004). Brand Extension Evaluations: Effects of Affective Commitment,
Involvement, Price Consciousness and Preference for Bunding in the Extension Category.
Advances in Customer Research, 375-381.
Hansen, H., Sandvik, K., & FredSelnes. (2002). When Customers Develop Commitment to the Service
Employee: Exploring the Direct and Indirect Effects on the Propensity to Stay. Advances in
Consumer Research, 494-495.
Harrison-Walker, J. (2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of
service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research,
60-75.
Hauser, J. R., Simester, D. I., & Werfelt, B. (1994). Customer Satisfaction Incentives. Marketing Sciences,
327-50.
Hausman, A. (2004). Modeling the Patient-Physician Service Encounter: Improving the Patient
Outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(4), 403-417.
Hawkings. (2001). 285.
Hayduk, L. A. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, Essentials and Advances. JHU Press.
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. new york : John Wiley and Sons.
Heironimus, F. (2003). Personality-Directed Brand Management- An empirical study on the
measurement, perception and impact of brand personality . In F. a. Peter Lang.
Helgeson, J. G., & Supphellen, M. (2004). A conceptual and measurement comparison of self-congruity
and brand personality. International Journal of Market Research,, 205233.
Helgeson, J. G., & Supphellen, M. (2004). A conceptual and measurement comparison of self-congruity
and brand personality. International Journal of Market Research,, 205233.
Hess, J. (1995). Construction and assessment of a scale to measure consumer Trust. Conference AMA
Educators Enhancing Knowledge development in Marketing, Editions B.B. Stern et G.M. Zinkhan,
20-25.
Heyman, l. h. (2009). Digital Engagement. Digital Engagement, 196.
Hieronimus, F. (2003). Personality- Directed Brand Management- Perception and Impact of Brand
Personality. Peter Lang, Frankurt am Main.
Holbrook, C. (2001). Brand Equity, Brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction.
Homborg, C., & Giering, A. (2001). Personal Characteristics as Moderators of the Relationship Between
Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Empirical Analysis. Psychology and Marketing, 43-66.
260
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Hoyer, W. D. (2009, March). Social Identity and the ServiceProfit Chain.
Journal of Marketing, 73, 3854.
Horosz, W. (1975). The Crisis of Responsibility: Man as the Source of Accountability. Univ of Oklahoma
Pr.
Houghton. (1995). The American Heritage. America: Mifflin Company.
Howard and sheth, L. M. (1969). Brand Personality.
Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. (1972). Personal Role Related Factors in the Development of
Organizational Commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 555-572.
Huber, F. H. (1999). "The Antecedents of Customer Loyalty: Results of an Empirical Study in the
Automotive Industry". "The Antecedents of Customer Loyalty: Results of an Empirical Study in
the Automotive Industry", 69-72.
Hunt, Morgan, R. M., & D., S. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. journal
of marketing, 22 38.
Hunt, S. D. (2002). Foundations of marketing theory: toward a general theory of marketing. M E Sharp.
Hupfer, N. T. (1971). Differential Involvment with products and issues: An exploratory study. (pp. Pages
262-270). Illinois: Association for Consumer Research.
Iglesias, O., Sngh, J. J., & Batista-Foguet, J. M. (2011). The role of brand experience and affective
commitment in determining brand loyalty. Journal of Brand Management, 570-582.
J.N., A., A., & Kapferer. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality. Brand
Management, 11, N2, 143-155.
Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1996). LISREL Approaches to Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression,
Thousand oaks. SAGE Publications.
Jacobson, E., & Kossoff, J. (1963, August). Self-percept and consumer attitudes toward small cars.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 242-245.
Jamal, A., & Goode, M. M. (2001). Consumers and brand:a study of the impact of self image congruence
on brand preference and satisfaction. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19, 482-492.
Jetal, T. (2011). Bringing the Best Brand Management to People to Work.
Johar, G. V., Sengupta, J., & Aaker, J. L. (2005). Two Roads to Updating Brand Personality Impressions:
Trait Versus Evaluative Inferencing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (4), 458-469.
John. (1988). The Lexical Approach to Personality: A Historical Review of Trait Taxonomic Research.
Europe: Europeon Journal of Personality.
Johnson, P. M. (1973). Commitment: A conceptual structure and empirical application. The Sociological
Quarterly, 395-406.
Johnspen. (2009). Importance of Brand Congruence.
261
Jones, E. E., Kanhouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., & Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution
Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. General Learning Press.
Joshi, A. W. (2009). Continuous Supplier Performance Improvement: Effects of Collaborative
Communication and Control. Journal of Marketing, 133150.
Kaiser, D. H. (2009). Sample Paper for Experimental Psychology . RESEARCH METHODS PAPER, 11.
Kapferer, J. N. (2007). Les marques, Capital de l'entreprise, (Vol. 4th edition). Paris: Eyrolles / ditions
d'Organisation .
Keller. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing costumer based brand equity. Journal of
Marketing, 57(2), 122.
Keller. (1993). On Congruence between Brand and human Responsibilities. Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 19, 44-53.
Keller, K. (2006). 174.
Keller, K. L. (1993). "Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equit".
"Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity", 1-22.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing costumer based brand equity. Journal of
Marketing, 57(2), 122.
Keller, K. L. (1993, Jan.). Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer- Based Brand Equity.
Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
Keller, K. L. (1993, Jan.). Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity.
Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of
Marketing, 1-22.
Keller, K. L. (1993, Jan.). Journal of Marketing. 57(1), 1-22.
Keller, K. l., Parameswaran, & Jacob. (2011). Strategic Brand Management (3rd ed.). Dehli: Pearson.
Keller, K. L., Parameswaran, M. G., & Jacob, I. (2011). Strategic Brand Management. New delhi: Pearson.
Kiesler, C., & Abelson. (1968). Commitment. Theories of cognitive consistency, 448-455.
Klemperer, P. (1995). Competition When Consumers Have Switching Costs: An Overview With
Applications to Industrial Organization, Macroeconomics, and International Trade. Review of
Economic Studies, 525-24.
Knowles, J. (2004). In Search of a Reliable Measure of Brand Equity. Best of Marketing, 1 & 2, 60-63.
Kotler. (2006). Marketing Management. New Delhi: Pearson.
Kotler, Armstrong, Agnihotri, & Haque. (2010). Princples of Marketing (13 ed.). Chandigarh: Pearson
Education inc.
262
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). A framework for marketing management. Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). A Framework for Marketing Management (4th ed.). New Delhi: Pearson.
Kressmann, F., & Sirgy, M. J. (2006, June). Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand
loyalty. Journal of Business Research.
Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., & Lee, D.-J. (2006). Direct and indirect
effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59 (9), 955-964.
Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement. Public
opinion quarterly.
Kumar et al. (2006). Personality Traits.
Kumar, N., Hibbard, J. D., & Stern, L. W. (1994). The Nature and Consequences of Marketing Channel
Intermediary Commitment. 94-115.
Kuppelwieser, V. G., Grefrath, R., & Dziuk, A. (2011). A Classification of Brand Pride Using Trust and
Commitment. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2, 36-45.
L., A., J-M., F., & D, V.-F. P. (2003). Premire application du baromtre de mesure de la personnalit de
la marque deux enseignes franaises. Actes du 6 Colloque Etienne Thil, 25-26/09, La Rochelle.
Lacoeuilhe, J. (1997). Le rle du concept dattachement dans la formation du comportement de fidlit.
Revue Franaise du Marketing, 29-42.
Landon, E. L. (1974). Self concept, ideal self concept, and consumer purchase intentions. Journal of
Consumer Research, 1, 44-51.
Laure Ambroise, S. B. (2005). The Impact of Brand Persoanlity on Attitude and Commitment Towards the
Brand.
Lee, C. T., & Han, S. (1999). Consumer's trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty. Journal of Marketfocused management, 342.
Lee, M., & Cunningham, L. F. (2001). A Cost and Benefit Approach to Understanding Service Loyalty.
Journal of Services Marketing, 113-30.
Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sales. Harvard Business Review, 37 , 117-124.
Lin, L.-Y. (2010). The Relationship of Consumer Personality Trait, Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty:
An Empirical Study of Toys and Video Games Buyers. Journal of Product & Brand Management,
19(1), 4-17.
Lin, Y.-T. L., & Hsien, C. (2008). Factors influencing brand loyalty in professional sports fans. Gloal Journal
of Business Research, 72.
Lindstrom, M. (2005). Brand Sense. New york: Free Press.
263
Lombart, Louis, D., & Cindy. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences
(trust, commitment and attachment) to the brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management,
19(2), 114-30.
Lombart, Louis, D., & Cindy. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences
114-30.
Loudon. (2001). Consumer Behavior: Concepts And Application. New Delhi: McGraw Hill Education.
Louie, B. E. (1990). Effects of retraction of price promotions on brand choice behavior for variety seeking
and last purchase loyal consumers. Journal of Marketing research, 27, 279-289.
Louis, D., & Lombart, C. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences
(trust, attachment, and commitment to the brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management,
19(2), 114-130.
Louis, D., & Lombart, C. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences
19(2), 114-30.
Loureiro, S. M. (2006). Consumer Brand Relationship. Foundation and State of Art, 1-20.
Loureiro, S. M. (2006, Sandra Maria CorreiaLoureiro, ISCTE_IUL). Consumer Brand Relationship.
foundation and state of art, 413-434.
Loureiro, S. M. (2012). Consumer Brand relationship: foundation and state of art. (H. R. Panni, Ed.)
Customer centric marketing strategies: tools for building organizational performance, 413-434.
Low, G. S., & Jr, C. W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand association. Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 350 -370.
Luckerath, B. (2010). How brands become people: A study on the impact of brand personality on brand
value. MSc Marketing Communications Management, 56-60.
Lutz, E. S.-S. (1989). Intergenerational influences in the formation of consumer attitudes and beliefs
about the market place: mothers and daughters. Advances in consumer research, 15, 461-467.
M.J.Sirgy. (1986 ). Using Self Congruity and Ideal congruity to predict purchase Motivation . Journal of
Business Research, 195-206.
M.L.Brunel. (1990). "Introduction la conscience de soi et au concept de soi, tels quon les peroit
depuis William James". Revue Qubcoise de Psychologie.
M.Resenberg. (1979). Convincing the Self.
Maehle, N., & Shneor. (2009). Congruence between Brand and Human Personalities. Journal of Product
and brand Management, Vol, 19, 44-53.
Magin, S., Algesheimer, R., Huber, F., & Herrmann, A. (2003). The Impact of Brand Personality and
Customer Satisfaction on Customers loyalty. Electronic Markets, 294-308.
264
Maille, F. N. (2010). Trente ans de travaux contradictoires sur l'influence de la congruence perue par le
consommateur: synthse, limites et voies de recherch. Recherche et Applications en Marketing,
25 (4), 69-92.
Malhotra, N. (1988). Self Concept and Product choice: An integrated perspective. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 1-28.
Malhotra, N. K. (1981). A scale to measure self concept, person concept and product concept. Marketing
research, 456-464.
Malhotra, N. K. (2007). Market Research: An applied Orientation (5th ed.). New Delhi: Pearson
Education.
Mandler., G. (1982). Stress and thought processes, in Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical
Aspects, (eds.) L. Golberger and S. Breznitz. The Free Press, New-York, 88-104.
Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the Dimensionality and Structure of the Consumption
Experiance: Evaluation, Feeling, and Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 451-466.
Mattila, A. S., & Wirtz, J. (2001, April). Congruency of Scent and Music as a driver of in-store Evaluation
and Behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77, 273-289.
Mayer, N. J., & P, J. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative
commitment to organization. Journal of occupational psychology, 1-18.
McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Fundations of the Endorsement Process.
Jounal of Consumer Research, 310-319.
McCraken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: Atheoretical account of the structure and movement of
cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 13(1), 7184.
Mengxia, & Zhang. (2007). Impact of Brand Personality on PALI:A Comparative Research between Two
Different Brands. International Management Review, 3(3), 36-44.
Mengxia, Z. (2007). Impact of Brand Personality on PALI: a comparative research betweeen two different
brands (Vols. 3, no: 3 ). New York: International Management Review .
Merunka, D. (2003). publication of University of Aix en Provence, France.
Moisescu, O. I. (2006). A Conceptual Analysis of Brand Loyalty As Core Dimension of Brand Equity.
Competitiveness and Stability in the Knowledge-Based Economy No. International conference
proceedings, 1128-1136.
Montgomery, G. K., & B., D. (1987). ROUTINIZED CHOICE BEHAVIOR, BRAND COMMITMENT,.
Morgan, R. &. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 2038.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. journal of
Marketing.
265
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. journal of
Marketing.
Mostert. (2002). 89.
Mowday, R. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
224247.
M'Sallem, W., Mzoughi, N., & Bouhlel, O. (2009). Customers' Evolution after a Bank renaming: Effects of
Brand name change on Brand Personality, Brand Attitude and Customer; Satisfaction. Innovative
Marketing, 58-65.
M'Sallem, W., Mzoughi, N., & Bouhlel, O. (2009). Customers' Evolution after a Bank renaming: Effects of
Brand name change on Brand Personality, Brand Attitude and Customer; Satisfaction. Innovative
Marketing, 58-65.
Muncy, J. A. (1996). Measuring perceived brand parity. Advances in Consumer research, 23, 411-7.
Nabeel. (2009, August 19). Eat 'n Travel in Pakistan. Retrieved from Gourmet Soft Drinks Review:
http://eatntravel.pk/2009/08/19/gourmet-soft-drinks-review/comment-page-1/
Naeem, A. (2003). Reflection {Report}. Daily Report.
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyaltt, e. (2011). Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and Consumer Satisfaction. Annals
of Tourism Research, 1009-1030.
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyaltt, G. (2011). Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and Consumer Satisfaction. Annals
of Tourism Research, 1009-1030.
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G. (2011). Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction. Annals of
Tourism Research, 38, 1009-1030.
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G. (2011). Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and Customer Satisfaction. Annals of
Tourism Reseach, 1009-1030.
Nawaz, N.-U.-A. (2011). What Makes Customers Brand Loyal: A Study on Telecommunication Sector of
Pakistan. Hailey College of Commerce University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
New Media and Mass Communication . (2011). Retrieved from ISSN 2224-3267 : www.isste.org
Nobre, H. M., Becker, K., & Brito, C. (2010). Brand Relationships: A Personality-Based Approach. Jornal of
Service Science & Management, 3, 206-217.
Nobre, H. M., Becker, K., & Brito, C. (2010). Brand Relationships: Personality-Based. Journal of Service
Science & Management, 3, 206-217.
OReilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The
effects of internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492499.
O'Callaghan, E. (2009). Internal Branding and Brand Commitment: a. Dublin Institute of Technology.
266
Okazaki, S. (2006). Excitement or sophistication? A preliminary exploration of online brand personality.

International Marketing Review, 23 (3), 279-303.
Olive, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-34.
Oliver. (1993). Cognitive, affective and attribute bases of the satisfaction responses. Cognitive, affective
and attribute bases of the satisfaction responses.
Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, Affective and attribute Bases of the Satisfaction Response. Journal of
Consumer Research, 20, 418-430.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-34.
Oliver, R. L. (2010). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. M.E.Sharpe.
Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989b). Equity and Disconfirmation Perception as Influences on Merchant and
Product Satisfaction. Journal Of Consumer Research, 16(3), 372-383.
Oliver, R. L., Rust, R. T., & Varki, S. (1997). Customer Delight: Foundations, Findings, and Managerial
Insight. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 311-336.
Ombudsman. (2012). Customer Satisfaction Research. 12.
Osman, D. M., & Amber. (2010). A study on the association between brand awareness and consumer/
brand loyalty for the packaged milk industry in pakistan. South Asian Journal of Management
Sciences, 5, 5.
Osman, D. M., & Amber. (2010). A study on the association between brand awareness and consumer/
brand loyalty for the packaged milk industry in pakistan. South Asian Journal of Management
Sciences, 5, 5.
zsomer A, L. A. (2007). The structure of the brand personality construct and its impact on brand
purchase likelihood. EMAC Conference.
Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. P. (1977). Students and Housewives: Differences in Susceptibility to Reference
Group Infiuence. Journal of Consumer Research, 210.
Park, J., & John, D. R. (2010). Got to get you in to my life: Do brand personalities rub off on consumers?
Journal of Consumer Research,, 655669.
Park, M. &. (2006). 191-230.
Parker, B. T. (2009). A comparison of brand personality and brand user-imagery congruence. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 26, 175-184.
Patel, V. (2009). MEASURING BRAND PERSONALITY: AN EMPERICAL STUDY. PRERNA: JOURNAL OF
MANAGEMENT THOUGHT AND PRACTISE, 1(2), 59-67.
Patel, V. (2009). Measuring Brand Personality: An Empirical Study. JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT
THOUGHT AND PRACTISE, 1(2), 59-67.
267
PBL.
(2012,
Aug).
Consumer
Report
Magazines.
Retrieved
from
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/08/claim-check-is-pepsi-next-the-nextbig-thing-in-sodas/index.htm
PBL. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.pakbev.com

PBL. (2014). Pakitsan Beverage limited. Retrieved from PBL: http://pakbev.com/
Pepsi Cola. (2014). Retrieved from www.pepsicola.com
Pervin, L. C. (2005). Theories of Personality. Pervin.
Phau, l., & Kong Lau, C. (2001). Brand Personality and Consumer Self-expression: Single or Dual
Carriageway? Journal of Brand Management, 8 (6), 428-444.
Philip, K. (2009). In K. Philip, marketing management.
Plavini, P. (2011). Brand Personality affects Products with different Involvement Levels? European
Journal of Business and Management, 3, ISSN 2222-1905. Retrieved from
http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/EJBM/article/view/165
Plummer, J. T. (1985). How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising research, 27-31.
Polesz, Bloemer, J. M., & C, T. B. (1989). The illusion of consumer Satisfaction. CS/D & CB, 2, 2-3.
Porter, Steers, L. W., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational Commitment, JobSatisfaction, and Turnover Among Psychiatric Technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 603609.
Price, L. L. (1999). Commercial Friendships: Service Provider--Client Relationships in Context. Journal of
Marketing, 3856.
Pring. (2007). Going Underground: How ethnography helped the tube tunnel to the heart of its brand.
International Journal Of Market Research , 693-705.
Punyatoya, P. (2011). How Brand Personality affects Products with different Involvement Levels?
European Journal of Business and Management, 3(2), 1-8.
R.W, B. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Jounal of consumer Reserach, 139-168.
RajaGopa. (2006). Brand excellence: measuring the impact of advertising and brand personality on
buying decision. Measuring Brand Excellence, 56-65.
Rajagopal, D. (2008). Interdepnedence of persoanlity traits and brand identity in measuring brand
performance.
Rekha Attri, D. M. (2012). Loyalty and customer satisfaction with the public sector oil marketing
companies: way forward for effective CRM strategies. Indore Management Journal, 99-113.
Report
on
Coca
Cola.
(2009,
November).
reports.blogspot.com/2009/11/coca-cola.html
268
Retrieved
from
http://download-
Report, D. (2011, August). Retrieved from Coca Cola Internship Report: http://downloadreports.blogspot.com/2011/08/coca-cola-internship-report.html
Reynolds, R. W., & E., K. (2004). A MODEL FOR CONSUMER DEVOTION: AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT WITH
PROACTIVE SUSTAINING BEHAVIORS. A Model for Consumer Devotion, 5.
Reynolds, T. (1998). Implications for Value Research: A Macro vs. Micro Perspective. Psychology,
Marketing and Values, 2(4), 297305.
Rice, J. H. (2001). Commitment-led marketing. BRAND MANAGEMENT, 9, 7177.
Rice, J. H., & Butch. (2001). Commitment-led marketing. BRAND MANAGEMENT, 7177.
Richins, Bolch, P. H., & L, M. (1983). A theoretical model for the study of product importance
perceptions. Journal of marketing.
Richins, P. H. (1983). A theoretical Model for the study of product importance perceptions . Journal of
Marketing .
Rieger, B. (1985). Condemned to death from birth: Brands without personality. MSc Marketing
Communications Management, 47, 56-60.
Ries, R. a. (2000). 26.
Ro, A. B., Vzquez, R., & Vctor Iglesias. (2001). The effects of brand associations on consumer response.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 410425.
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (Vol. 2nd). U.K: Blackwell Publishing.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Concieving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis. (3,
Ed.) McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Russel-Bennet, R., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Coote, L. V. (2007). Involvement, satisfaction, and brand
loyaltyin a small business services setting. Journal of Business Research, 1253-1260.
Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, & Rundle- Thiele, S. (2004). Examining te Satisfaction- Loyalty Relationship.
Journal of service Marketing, 514-523.
Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, & Rundle- Thiele, S. (2004). Examining the Satisfaction- Loyalty Relationship.
Journal of Servics Marketing, 514-523.
Rust, R. T., & Zahorik, A. J. (1993). Customer satisfaction,Customer Retention, and Market Share. Journal
of Retailing, 193-215.
Ryan, J. P., & J, M. (1976). An investigation of perceived risk at the brand level. Journal of marketing
research.
S., F., Dobscha, S., & Mick, D. G. (1998). Preventing the premature death of relationship marketing.
Harvard Business Review, 42-51.
269
Sahim, A., Kitapica, H., & Zehir, C. (2013). Creating Commitment, trust and satisfaction for a brand: What
is the role of switching cost in mobile phone market. Turkey: Elseveir Ltd.
Sahin, A., Zehir, C., & Kitapci, H. (2011). An Empirical Research on Global Brands. Turkey: Elsevier Ltd.
Sahin, A., Zehir, C., & Kitapci, H. (2011). The effects of brand experiences, trust and satisfaction on
building brand loyalty: An emperical research on global brands. Turkey: Elsevier Ltd.
Sahin, A., Zehir, C., & Kitapci, H. (2011). The effects of brand experiences, trust and satisfaction on
building brand loyalty: An emperical research on global brands. Turkey: Elsevier Ltd.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Makers: A brief version of goldbergs unipolar big five markers. Journal of
personality Assesment, 506-516.
Saunders, M., & Lewis, P. (2011). Research Method for Business Students. New Delhi: Paerson.
Schiffman, L. G. (2009). Consumer Behavior. In L. G. Schiffman, Consumer Behavior (10th Edition ed., pp.
12-13). Pearson.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and
empirical tests in 20 countries:Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Advances in
experimental social psychology, 165.
Seong- Yeon Park, E. M. (2005). Congruence Between Brand Personality and Self-Image, and the
Mediating Roles of Satisfaction and Consumer-Brand Relationship on Brand Loyalty. Asia Pacific
advances in consumer research, 39-45.
Shergill, G. &. (2005). Internet banking-an empirical investigation of a trust and loyalty model for New
Zealand banks. Journal of Internet Commerce, 101-118.
Shuv-Ami, D. A. (2011). A New Brand Commitment Scale for Market Segmentation. The College of
Management.
Silverman, M. a. (1979). Attitude research plays for high stakes. Chicago: American marketing
association.
Sirgy, J. (1982). Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior:. A critical Review. Journal of consumer Research ,
287-300.
Sirgy, M. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. . Journal of consumer research.,
287-300.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of consumer research, 9,
287-300.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A critical Review. Journal of consumer Research,
287-300.
Sirgy, M. J., & kressmann, F. (2006, June). Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand
loyalty. Journal of Business Research.
270
Sirgy, M. J., & Su, C. (2000). Destination image Self congruity and travel behavior:Toward an integrative
model. Journal of Travel Research, 340-352.
Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J.-O., Chon, K.-S., Claiborne, C. B., . . . Berkman, H.
(1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring selfimage congruence.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (3), 229-241.
Solomon, M. R. (2012). Consumer Behavior. New Delhi: Pearson.
Solomon, M. R. (2012). Consumer Behaviour (9th ed.). New Delhi: Pearson.
Solomon, M. R. (2012). Consumer Behaviour (9th ed.). New Delhi: PHI Learning Private LTD.
Spivey, W. A., & Munson, J. M. (2010, July 01). Relation between social class and three aspects of self
concept:actual, ideal and egocentric self. Journal of Social Psychology, 85-94.
Stathakopoulas, G. (2004). Brand Equity, Brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction.
Stephanie, M., Algesheimer, R., Huber, F., & Herrmann, A. (2003). The Impact of Brand Personality and
Customer Satisfaction on Customer's Loyalty: Theoretical Approach and Findings of a Causal
Analytical Study in the Sector of Internet Service Providers. Electronic Markets, 13 (4), 294-308.
Stockwell, I. (2008). Introduction to Correlation and Regression Analysis. Statistics and Data Analysis, 18.
Strausbaugh, K. (1998). Miss Congeniality or No more Mr. Nice Guy?: On a Method for Assessing
Brand Personality and Building Brand Personality Profiles, Dissertation. Florida: University of
Florida.
Sung, Y., & Tinkham, S. F. (2005). Brand personality structures in the United States and Korea: Common
and culture-specific factors. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 334350.
Sung, Y., & Tinkham, S. F. (2005). Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea: Common
and Culture-Specific Factors. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (4), 334-350.
Sung, Y., Kim, J., & Jung, J.-H. (2010). The predictive Roles of Brand Personaity on Brand Trust and Brand
Affect. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 22, 5-17.
Sung, Y., Park, E., & Han, M. (2005). The Influences of the Brand Personality on Brand Attachment and
Brand Loyalty: Centered on the Differences Between the Brand Community Members and NonMembers", in AP - Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research. Asia Pacific Advances in
Consumer Research, 6, 156.
Supphellen, M., & Grnhaug, K. (2003). Building foreign brand personalities in Russia:The moderating
effect of consumer ethnocentrism. International Journal of Advertising, 22, 203-226.
Supphellen, Magne, & Gfonhaug, K. (2003). Building Foreign Brand Personalities in Russia: the
Moderating effect of Consumer Ethnocentrism. International Journal of Advertising, 22 (2), 203226.
271
Sweeney, J., & Brandon, C. (2006). Brand personality: exploring the potential to move from factor
analytical to circumplex models. Psychology and Marketing, 639663.
T., V., Beverly, Rose, G. M., & Gilbert, F. W. (2003). Measuring the Brand Personality of Non-Profit
Organizations. Advances in Consumer Research, 30 (l), 379-380.
Taylor, M. B. (1981). Product involvement and brand commitment. Journal of advertising research, 21.
Taylor, S. A. (1994). "An assessment the Relationship Between Service Quality and Customer satisfaction
in the formation of consumers' purchase intentions". "An assessment the Relationship Between
Service Quality and Customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers' purchase intentions",
163-78.
The oxford english dictionary. (n.d.).
Thiele, D. R., & Rundle-, S. (2004). Thiele, Dr Rebekah Bennett and Sharyn Rundle-. Journal of service
Marketing, 514-523.
Tirmizi, F. (2012, November 10). Why Coca cola is investing another $248 million in Pakistan. The Express
Tribune.
Tolliver, D. S. (2004). Cheif of New York-new jersey transit system. Cheif of New York-new jersey transit
system., 22-30.
Touzani, M. (2009). Brand Loyalty: Impact of Cognitive and Affective. Marketing Department, University
of Tunis.
Triplett, T. (1994). Brand Personality Must be Managed or it will Assume a Life of its Own. Marketing
News, 28 (l0), 9-9.
Trott, S. (2011). The Influnece of Brand Personality-Evidence from India. Globa Journal of Business
Research, 5(3), 79-83.
Tudorica, H. O. (2001, Februray 2). Brand Personality Creation through Advertising. MAXX WORKING
PAPER SERIES.
Tudorica, Ouwersloot, H., & Anamaria. (2001, Februray 2). Brand Personality Creation through
Advertising. MAXX WORKING PAPER SERIES.
Valette-Florence, A., & Barnier, V. (2012). Towards a micro conception of brand personality:An
application for print media brands in a French context. Journal of Business Research, 897-903.
Vzquez, R. I., & lvarez-gonzlez, L. I. (2005). Distribution Channel Relationships: The Conditions and
Strategic Outcomes of Cooperation between Manufacturer and Distributor. International Review
of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, 386-402.
Vazquez, R., Del Rio, A. B., & Iglesias, V. (2002). Consumer-based brand equity:Development and
validation of a measurement instrument. Journal of Marketing Management, 2748.
272
Veloutsou, C. G. (2005). Measuring transaction-specific satisfaction in services: Are the measures

transferable across cultures? Measuring transaction-specific satisfaction in services: Are the
measures transferable across cultures?, 606628.
Venable, B. T., Rose, G. M., Bush, V. D., & Gilbert, F. (2005). The role of brand personality and charitable
giving: An assessment and validation. (33, Ed.) Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
295312.
Verhoef, P. (2003). Understanding the effect of relationship management efforts on customer retention
and customer . Journal of Marketing, 30-45.
Vernette, E. (2003). Personnalite' de la marquet image de soi. Les tendances du marketing, 1-21.
Vernette, E. (2008). Les atouts et les pieges de la personnalite de la marque. Decisions marketing, 24.
Viot, & C. (2006). Personnalit de la marque:la mtaphore justifie-elle la transposition dchelles de
personnalit humaine ? 5th International congres Marketing Trends ,Venise.
Vitz, P. C., & Johnston, D. (1965, June). Masculinity of smokers and the masculinity of cigarette images.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 155-159.
Wang, X., & Yang, Z. (2008). Does country-of-origin matter in the relationship between brand personality
and purchase intention in emerging economies? Evidence fromChinas auto industry.
International Marketing Review, 25(4), 458474.
Wee, T. T. (2004). Extending human personality to brands: the stability factor. Journal of Brand
Management,, 31730.
Weis, M. a. (2000). The Value of Brand Personalitites: The Phenomenon of the Strategic Positioning of
Brands.
Weiss, A. M., & Anderson, E. (1992). Converting from Independent to Employee Salesforces: the role
percieved switching cost. Joumal of Marketing Research, 101-15.
Wells, W., Andriuli, F., Goi, F. J., & Seaders, S. (1957). An Adjective check list for the Study of "Product
Personality". Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, no. 5, 317-319.
Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1981). Developing Better Measures of Consumer Satisfaction: Some
preliminary Results. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 94-99.
Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1991). The Dimensionality of Consumption Emotion Patterns and
Consumer Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 84-91.
Wester. (2005). Congruence between Brand Personality and Self Image, and the Mediating roles of
Satisfaction and Consumer Brand relationship on Brand Loyality. 6, 39-45.
Wieselquist, J. C. (1999). Commitment, Pro-Relation-ship Behavior, and Trust in Close Relationships .
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 942-966.
Wilson, D. T., & Mummalaneni, V. (1986). Bonding and Commitment in BuyerSeller Relationships, A
Preliminary Conceptualization. Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, 44-58.
273
Wilson, D., & Mummalaneni, V. (1987). Bonding and commitment in buyer-seller relationships: A
preliminary conceptualization. Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, 44-58.
Wirtz, B. W. (1999). Convergence Processes, Value Constellations and Integration Strategies in the
Multimedia Business. Convergence Processes, Value Constellations and Integration Strategies in
the Multimedia Business.
Wolnbarger, M., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). eTailQ: Dimensionalizing, Measuring and Predicting eTail Quality.
Journal of Retailing, 79, 183-198.
Wood, L. (2000). Brands and Brand Equity: Definition and management. Management Decisions, 662669.
Woodside, A. G. (1989). "Linking Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and behavioural intention".
"Linking Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and behavioural intention", 5-18.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study Research: Design and Method (3rd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
Yoffie, D. R. (2007). Cola Wars Continue: Cock and Pepsi in 2006. United States: Harvard Business School.
Zaltman, & Moorman. (1992). The Dynamic of trust within and between Organization.
Zaltman, M. a. (1992).
Zeplin, C. B., & Sabrina. (2005). Building brand commitment: A behavioural approach to internal brand
management. BRAND MANAGEMENT, 12, 279300.
Zinkhan, G. M., & Hong, J. W. (1991, January). Self-concept and advertising effectiveness. A conceptual
model of congruency, conspicuousness, and response mode. Advances in Consumer Research,
18, 348-354.
274
Appendix
AppendixA: Questionnaire
FAST School of Management Sciences

Dear respondents, we are the students of FAST School of Management working on a comparative study on
Brand Personality of cola industry in Pakistan. Your respectable response will be highly appreciated.
1. Gender
Male
Female
2. Age
18 to 25
26 to 35
36 to 45
3. ProfessionsStudent
46 to 55
Business Professional
Housewife
Labor/worker
Others
4. Which brand do you prefer the most?

Pepsi Cola
Coca Cola
Gourmet Cola
5. Please rank the following according to your opinion about the preferred brand:
Niether
Strongly
Partially Agree Partially
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
nor
Agree
Agree
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of a person I would like to be
I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand
I would like to be known as a consumer of this brand
This brand is the reflection of my ideal image
This brand is appealing my actual image
The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me
275
Niether
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree nor Agree
Agree
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I am attached to this brand

This brand brings me safety
I strongly relate myself to this brand
This brand is honest towards its clients
Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy
This brand has a lot of meaning to me
I like this brand
I trust the quality of this brand
This brand tries to improve its response to consumers needs on an ongoing basis
This brand is sincere towards its consumers
I have a lot of affection for this brand Brand
Niether
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree nor Agree
Agree
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brand

My life would be disturbed if I had to switch brand
It would be too costly for me to switch brand
I like this brand
This brand has a lot of meaning to me
I am strongly related to this brand
276
8. You find your preferred brand as? Rank according to your opinion:
Strongly
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Disagree
Niether
Partially
Partially
Agree nor
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Warm
Pleasant
Nice
Imaginative
Inventive
Seductive
Attractive
Manipulative
Showy
Arrogant
Hypocrite
Deceptive
Liar
Trendy
Modern
Sophisticated
Stylish
Serious
Strict
Reserved
Shy
Niether
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree nor Agree
Agree
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
I repeatedly purchase this brand

I prefer buying this brand over other colas
Only this brand comes to my mind when I think of purchasing colas
I recommend this brand to those who ask my advice
I say positive things about this brand to others
I am pleased to buy this brand instead of other brands
277
Appendix B: Pearsons r Correlation

Rating scale as followed throughout the analysis:
Table 47: Estimates for Interpreting Strengths of Correlations
CO-RELATION
STRENGTH
If r = +.70 or higher
Very strong positive relationship
+.40 to +.69
Strong positive relationship
+.30 to +.39
Moderate positive relationship
+.20 to +.29
Weak positive relationship
+.01 to +.19
No or negligible relationship
-.01 to -.19
No or negligible relationship
-.20 to -.29
Weak negative relationship
-.30 to -.39
Moderate negative relationship
-.40 to -.69
Strong negative relationship
-.70 or higher
Very strong negative relationship
Source: http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/libarts/polsci/statistics.html
278
Appendix C: WEB Analysis

Table 48: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Pepsi
Mean
Warm
400
6.00
Pleasant
400
5.20
Nice
400
5.60
Imaginative
400
6.60
Inventive
400
6.60
Seductive
400
6.20
Attractive
400
6.20
Manipulative
400
6.00
Showy
400
6.00
Arrogant
400
6.40
Hypocrite
400
5.00
Deceptive
400
3.80
Liar
400
5.60
Trendy
400
5.40
Modern
400
5.40
Sophisticated
400
6.60
Stylish
400
6.40
Serious
400
6.60
Strict
400
6.40
Reserved
400
6.20
Shy
400
5.80
Valid N (list wise)
400
This table shows the average mean of brand personality items of Pepsi. Most of the respondents
think that Pepsi is sophisticated, serious, imaginative and inventive this reflects that
characteristics of this brand in term of these traits are present in the mind of consumers.
Furthermore, the average mean of Deceptive is lower than all other traits, Pepsi is considered to
be highly acceptable because what they mentioned they deliver.
279
Table 49: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Coca Cola
Mean
Warm
331
5.89
Pleasant
331
4.86
Nice
331
5.21
Imaginative
331
5.88
Inventive
331
4.02
Seductive
331
5.57
Attractive
331
5.54
Manipulative
331
5.56
Showy
331
5.06
Arrogant
331
5.36
Hypocrite
331
5.59
Deceptive
331
5.54
Liar
331
5.60
Trendy
331
5.44
Modern
331
5.17
Sophisticated
331
5.05
Stylish
331
5.50
Serious
331
4.88
Strict
331
5.21
Reserved
331
5.35
Shy
331
5.13
Valid N (list wise)
331
This table shows the average mean of brand personality items of Coca Cola. Most of the
respondents think that Coca Cola is warm and imaginative; this reflects that characteristics of
this brand in term of these traits are present in the mind of consumers. Furthermore, the average
mean of inventive is lower than all other traits, Coca Cola is considered to be least inventive.
280
Table 50: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Gourmet
Mean
Warm
109
3.62
Pleasant
109
3.34
Nice
109
3.22
Imaginative
109
3.26
Inventive
109
3.21
Seductive
109
3.02
Attractive
109
3.25
Manipulative
109
3.47
Showy
109
3.51
Arrogant
109
3.54
Hypocrite
109
3.68
Deceptive
109
3.44
Liar
109
3.09
Trendy
109
2.93
Modern
109
3.04
Sophisticated
109
2.85
Stylish
109
3.04
Serious
109
2.90
Strict
109
2.81
Reserved
109
2.81
Shy
109
3.28
Valid N (list wise)
109
This table shows the average mean of brand personality items of Gourmet. Average mean is not
up to the mark but most of the respondents think that Gourmet is Hypocrite; this reflects that
characteristics of this brand in term of these traits are present in the mind of consumers.
Furthermore, the least average mean of Gourmet is reserved and strict this reflects that brand is
not moving out of its territory.
281
Brand Personality of Pepsi

Friendly
8
Introvert
Creative
6
4
Conscienti
ous
Charming
Elegant
Ascendent
Original
Misleading
Figure 25: Web Design of Brand Personality- Pepsi
This figure summarizes the brand personality of Pepsi as perceived by the sample of 400 people
from the population. In Pepsi, Creative traits which include imaginative and inventive perceived
by different respondent have attained the most score. The second highest score is attained by
Charming trait which includes seductive and attractive items. People find Pepsi as creative so
this suggests that this brand is doing best with is its imaginative tools to convenience its
customers.
282
Brand personality of Coca Cola

Friendly
5.6
Introvert
Creative
5.4
5.2
5
Conscientiou
s
4.8
Charming
4.6
Elegant
Ascendent
Original
Misleading
Figure 26: Web Design of Brand Personality- Coca Cola
This figure summarizes the brand personality of Coke as perceived by the 331 respondent.
Misleading traits which include Hypocrite, deceptive and Liar perceived by soft drink consumers
and have attained the most score. The second highest score is attained by Charming trait which
include seductive and attractive. These suggest that Brand personality of a coke is misleading
and people would not properly relate themselves.
283
Brand personality of Gourmet

Friendly
4
Introvert
Creative
3
2
Conscientio
us
Charming
Elegant
Ascendent
Original
Misleading
Figure 27: Web Design of Brand Personality- Gourmet
This figure summarizes the brand personality of Gourmet as perceived by the 109 sample taken
from the population. Ascendant traits which include Manipulative, showy and arrogant perceived
by respondent and have attained the most score. The second highest score is attained by
Misleading trait which includes Hypocrite, deceptive and liar. This suggests that people find
Gourmet as arrogant, showy and manipulative.
284
Appendix D: SPSS Code Book

Pepsi
Table 51: Gender
Value
Position
Standard Attributes
Count
Percent
Label
Gender
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Nominal
Role
Input
Male
256
64.0%
Female
144
36.0%
Valid Values
Table 52: Age

Value
Position
Count
Percent
Label
Age
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Nominal
Role
Input
18 to 25
399
99.8%
26 to 35
0.2%
36 to 45
0.0%
46 to 55
0.0%
Standard Attributes
Valid Values
285
Table 53: Profession

Value
Position
Count
Percent
Label
Profession
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Nominal
Role
Input
Student
Standard Attributes
2
Valid Values
Business
Professionals
398
99.5%
0.5%
House Wife
0.0%
Labor/ Worker
0.0%
Others
0.0%
286

Value
Position
Count
Percent
5
Which brand do
Label
you prefer the

most?
Standard Attributes
Valid Values
Type
Numeric
Format
F8
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Pepsi Cola
400
100.0%
Coca Cola
0.0%
Gourmet Cola
0.0%
287
Table 55: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would like
to be
Value
Count
Position
6
The
Label
Percent
typical
person
who
drinks
this
brand
reflects
the
kind
of
person I would
Standard Attributes
like to be.
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
3
Valid Values
4
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
288
0.0%
80
20.0%
0.0%
80
20.0%
160
40.0%
0.0%
80
20.0%
Table 56: I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand

Value
Count
Position
7
I
like
to
myself
Label
Percent
see
as
typical
consumer
of
this brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
3
Valid Values
4
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Nor Disagree
80
20.0%
0.0%
240
60.0%
0.0%
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
80
20.0%
289
Table 57: I like to be known as a consumer of this brand

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
80
20.0%
8
I like to be
Label
known as a
consumer of
this brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
320
80.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
290
Table 58: This brand is the reflection of my ideal image

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
80
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9
This brand is
Label
the reflection of
my ideal image.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
160
40.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
160
40.0%
291
Table 59: This brand is appealing to my actual image

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
80
20.0%
160
40.0%
80
20.0%
10
This brand is
Label
appealing to my
actual image.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
292
Table 60: The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me
Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
160
40.0%
0.0%
11
The typical
person who
Label
drinks this
brand is very
much like me.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
80
20.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
160
40.0%
293
Table 61: I am attached to this brand

Value
Position
Label
Standard Attributes
0.0%
0.0%
160
40.0%
80
20.0%
I am attached to
this brand.
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
Percent
12
Type
Valid Values
Count
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
160
40.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
294
Table 62: This brand brings me safety

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
80
20.0%
160
40.0%
80
20.0%
13
This brand
Label
brings me
safety.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
80
20.0%
295
Table 63: I strongly relate myself to this brand

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
80
20.0%
0.0%
14
I strongly relate
Label
myself to this
brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
320
80.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
296
Table 64: This brand is honest towards its client

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
80
20.0%
80
20.0%
0.0%
15
This brand is
Label
honest towards
its client.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
160
40.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
80
20.0%
297
Table 65: Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy
Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
80
20.0%
160
40.0%
80
20.0%
16
Thinking about
this brand
Label
brings me a lot
of pleasure and
joy.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
298
Table 66: I like this brand

Value
Position
17
Label
I like this brand.
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
240
60.0%
80
20.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
80
20.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
299
Table 67: I trust the quality of this brand

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
80
20.0%
80
20.0%
18
I trust the
Label
quality of this
brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
80
20.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
80
20.0%
300
Table 68: This brand tries to improve its response to consumer needs on an ongoing basis
Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
160
40.0%
80
20.0%
0.0%
19
This brand tries
to improve its
response to
Label
consumer
needs on an
Standard Attributes
ongoing basis.
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
80
20.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
80
20.0%
301
Table 69: This brand has a lot of meaning to me

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
80
20.0%
0.0%
20
This brand has
Label
a lot of meaning
to me.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
240
60.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
80
20.0%
302
Table 70: This brand is sincere towards its consumer

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
160
40.0%
0.0%
21
This brand is
Label
sincere towards
its consumer.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
160
40.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
80
20.0%
303
Table 71: I have lot of affection for this brand

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
80
20.0%
22
I have lot of
Label
affection for this

brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
160
40.0%
Agree
160
40.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
304
Table 72: Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brands

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
160
40.0%
0.0%
23
Even if I
wanted, it would
Label
be hard for me
to switch
brands.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
160
40.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
305
Table 73: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands

Value
Position
Count
Percent
80
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
24
My life would be
Label
distributed if I
had to switch
brands.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
80
20.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
240
60.0%
306
Table 74: It would be too costly for me to switch brands

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
80
20.0%
0.0%
25
It would be too
Label
costly for me to
switch brands.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
160
40.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
80
20.0%
307

Value
Position
26
Label
I like this brand.
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
80
20.0%
0.0%
160
40.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
160
40.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
308

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
80
20.0%
0.0%
80
20.0%
27
This brand has
Label
a lot of meaning
to me.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
160
40.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
309
Table 77: I am strongly related to this brand

Value
Position
Count
Percent
160
40.0%
80
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
28
I am strongly
Label
related to this
brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
160
40.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
310
Table 78: Brand Personality- Warm

Value
Position
29
Label
Warm
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
80
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
320
80.0%
311
Table 79: Brand Personality- Pleasant

Value
Position
30
Label
Pleasant
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
80
20.0%
0.0%
80
20.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
160
40.0%
312
Table 80: Brand Personality- Nice

Value
Position
31
Label
Nice
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
80
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
160
40.0%
Strongly Agree
160
40.0%
313
Table 81: Brand Personality- Imaginative

Value
Position
32
Label
Imaginative
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
80
20.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
320
80.0%
314
Table 82: Brand Personality- Inventive

Value
Position
33
Label
Inventive
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
160
40.0%
Strongly Agree
240
60.0%
315
Table 83: Brand Personality- Seductive

Value
Position
34
Label
Seductive
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
320
80.0%
316
Table 84: Brand Personality- Attractive

Value
Position
35
Label
Attractive
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
80
20.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
240
60.0%
317
Table 85: Brand Personality- Manipulative

Value
Position
36
Label
Manipulative
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
400
100.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
318
Table 86: Brand Personality- Showy

Value
Position
37
Label
Showy
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
80
20.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
160
40.0%
Strongly Agree
160
40.0%
319
Table 87: Brand Personality- Arrogant

Value
Position
38
Label
Arrogant
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
80
20.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
240
60.0%
320
Table 88: Brand Personality- Hypocrite

Value
Position
39
Label
Hypocrite
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
80
20.0%
80
20.0%
0.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
160
40.0%
321
Table 89: Brand Personality- Deceptive

Value
Position
40
Label
Deceptive
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
160
40.0%
0.0%
160
40.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
80
20.0%
322
Table 90: Brand Personality- Liar

Value
Position
41
Label
Liar
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
80
20.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
160
40.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
160
40.0%
323
Table 91: Brand Personality- Trendy

Value
Position
42
Label
Trendy
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
240
60.0%
Agree
160
40.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
324
Table 92: Brand Personality- Modern

Value
Position
43
Label
Modern
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
80
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
80
20.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
240
60.0%
325
Table 93: Brand Personality- Sophisticated

Value
Position
44
Label
Sophisticated
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
80
20.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
320
80.0%
326
Table 94: Brand Personality- Stylish

Value
Position
45
Label
Stylish
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
80
20.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
240
60.0%
327
Table 95: Brand Personality- Serious

Value
Position
46
Label
Serious
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
80
20.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
320
80.0%
328
Table 96: Brand Personality- Strict

Value
Position
47
Label
Strict
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
80
20.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
240
60.0%
329
Table 97: Brand Personality- Reserved

Value
Position
48
Label
Reserved
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
160
40.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
240
60.0%
330
Table 98: Brand Personality- Shy

Value
Position
49
Label
Shy
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
160
40.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
240
60.0%
331
Table 99: I repeatedly purchase this brand

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
240
60.0%
50
I repeatedly
Label
purchase this
brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
160
40.0%
332
Table 100: I prefer buying this brand over other colas

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
51
I prefer buying
Label
this brand over

other colas.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
320
80.0%
333
Table 101: Only this brand comes to my mind when I think of purchasing colas
Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
52
Only this brand
comes to my
Label
mind when I
think of
purchasing
Standard Attributes
colas.
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
320
80.0%
334
Table 102: I recommend this brand those who ask my advice

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
53
I recommend
Label
this brand those

who ask my
advice.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
320
80.0%
335
Table 103: I say positive things about this brand to other persons
Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
54
I say positive
Label
things about this

brand to other
persons.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
320
80.0%
336
Table 104: I am pleased to buy this brand instead of other brands

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
55
I am pleased to
Label
buy this brand

instead of other
brands.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
80
20.0%
Agree
80
20.0%
Strongly Agree
240
60.0%
337
Coca Cola
Table 105: Gender
Value
Count
Percent
Position
Label
Gender
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Nominal
Role
Input
Male
188
44.8%
Female
143
34.0%
89
21.2%
Standard Attributes
Valid Values
Missing Values
System
338
Table 106: Age

Value
Count
Percent
Position
Label
Age
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Nominal
Role
Input
18 to 25
106
25.2%
26 to 35
110
26.2%
36 to 45
78
18.6%
46 to 55
36
8.6%
0.2%
System
89
21.2%
Standard Attributes
Valid Values
Missing Values
339

Value
Position
Label
Profession
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Nominal
Role
Input
Student
Count
Percent
132
31.4%
76
18.1%
Standard Attributes
2
Valid Values
Missing Values
Business
Professionals
House Wife
79
18.8%
Labor/ Worker
20
4.8%
Others
24
5.7%
89
21.2%
System
340
Table 108: Which brand do you prefer the most?

Value
Position
Count
Percent
5
Which brand do
Label
you prefer the

most?
Standard Attributes
Valid Values
Missing Values
Type
Numeric
Format
F8
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Pepsi Cola
0.0%
Coca Cola
331
78.8%
Gourmet Cola
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
341
Table 109: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would
like to be
Value
Position
Count
Percent
26
6.2%
33
7.9%
29
6.9%
109
26.0%
6
The typical
person who
drinks this
Label
brand reflects
the kind of
person I would
Standard Attributes
like to be.
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
23
5.5%
Agree
105
25.0%
Strongly Agree
1.4%
89
21.2%
System
342

Value
Position
Count
Percent
26
6.2%
32
7.6%
54
12.9%
81
19.3%
7
I like to see
myself as a
Label
typical
consumer of
this brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
53
12.6%
Agree
52
12.4%
Strongly Agree
33
7.9%
89
21.2%
System
343

Value
Position
Count
Percent
17
4.0%
55
13.1%
35
8.3%
105
25.0%
8
I like to be
Label
known as a
consumer of
this brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
34
8.1%
Agree
80
19.0%
Strongly Agree
1.2%
89
21.2%
System
344

Value
Position
Count
Percent
26
6.2%
23
5.5%
118
28.1%
58
13.8%
9
This brand is
Label
the reflection of
my ideal image.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
51
12.1%
Agree
55
13.1%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
345

Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
78
18.6%
64
15.2%
80
19.0%
10
This brand is
Label
appealing to my
actual image.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
24
5.7%
Agree
85
20.2%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
346
Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
79
18.8%
49
11.7%
119
28.3%
11
The typical
person who
Label
drinks this
brand is very
much like me.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
17
4.0%
Agree
67
16.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
347

Value
Position
Label
Standard Attributes
14.0%
27
6.4%
85
20.2%
73
17.4%
this brand.
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
Missing Values
59
I am attached to
Numeric
Percent
12
Type
Valid Values
Count
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
32
7.6%
Agree
55
13.1%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
348

Value
Position
Count
Percent
62
14.8%
76
18.1%
86
20.5%
49
11.7%
13
This brand
Label
brings me
safety.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
31
7.4%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
27
6.4%
89
21.2%
System
349

Value
Position
Count
Percent
89
21.2%
61
14.5%
87
20.7%
62
14.8%
14
I strongly relate
Label
myself to this
brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
Disagree
Valid Values
Neither Agree
Missing Values
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
32
7.6%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
350

Value
Position
Count
Percent
132
31.4%
1.4%
88
21.0%
77
18.3%
15
This brand is
Label
honest towards
its client.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
28
6.7%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
351
Value
Position
Count
Percent
88
21.0%
23
5.5%
37
8.8%
132
31.4%
16
Thinking about
this brand
Label
brings me a lot
of pleasure and
joy.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
51
12.1%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
352

Value
Position
17
Label
I like this brand.
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
52
12.4%
54
12.9%
109
26.0%
94
22.4%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
22
5.2%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
353

Value
Position
Count
Percent
80
19.0%
59
14.0%
69
16.4%
76
18.1%
18
I trust the
Label
quality of this
brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
42
10.0%
Agree
1.2%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
354
Value
Position
Count
Percent
1.2%
106
25.2%
94
22.4%
68
16.2%
19
This brand tries
to improve its
response to
Label
consumer
needs on an
Standard Attributes
ongoing basis.
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
58
13.8%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
355

Value
Position
Count
Percent
132
31.4%
1.4%
61
14.5%
82
19.5%
20
This brand has
Label
a lot of meaning
to me.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
50
11.9%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
356

Value
Position
Count
Percent
42
10.0%
77
18.3%
50
11.9%
105
25.0%
21
This brand is
Label
sincere towards
its consumer.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
57
13.6%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
357

Value
Position
Count
Percent
92
21.9%
32
7.6%
119
28.3%
58
13.8%
22
I have lot of
Label
affection for this

brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
25
6.0%
Agree
1.2%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
358

Value
Position
Count
Percent
26
6.2%
35
8.3%
101
24.0%
69
16.4%
23
Even if I
wanted, it would
Label
be hard for me
to switch
brands.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
95
22.6%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
1.2%
89
21.2%
System
359
Table 127: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands

Value
Position
Count
Percent
61
14.5%
40
9.5%
70
16.7%
89
21.2%
24
My life would be
Label
distributed if I
had to switch
brands.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
71
16.9%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
360

Value
Position
Count
Percent
72
17.1%
95
22.6%
58
13.8%
101
24.0%
25
It would be too
Label
costly for me to
switch brands.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
1.2%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
361

Value
Position
26
Label
I like this brand.
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
59
14.0%
61
14.5%
92
21.9%
87
20.7%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
32
7.6%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
362

Value
Position
Count
Percent
15
3.6%
103
24.5%
89
21.2%
119
28.3%
27
This brand has
Label
a lot of meaning
to me.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
1.2%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
363

Value
Position
Count
Percent
91
21.7%
69
16.4%
94
22.4%
72
17.1%
28
I am strongly
Label
related to this
brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
1.2%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
364

Value
Position
29
Label
Warm
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
1.4%
26
6.2%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
62
14.8%
Agree
142
33.8%
Strongly Agree
95
22.6%
89
21.2%
System
365

Value
Position
30
Label
Pleasant
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
20
4.8%
28
6.7%
84
20.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
86
20.5%
Agree
72
17.1%
Strongly Agree
41
9.8%
89
21.2%
System
366

Value
Position
31
Label
Nice
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
98
23.3%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
113
26.9%
Agree
71
16.9%
Strongly Agree
49
11.7%
89
21.2%
System
367

Value
Position
32
Label
Imaginative
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
24
5.7%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
98
23.3%
Agree
103
24.5%
Strongly Agree
106
25.2%
89
21.2%
System
368

Value
Position
33
Label
Inventive
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
26
6.2%
44
10.5%
64
15.2%
80
19.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
29
6.9%
Agree
57
13.6%
Strongly Agree
31
7.4%
89
21.2%
System
369

Value
Position
34
Label
Seductive
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
39
9.3%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
128
30.5%
Agree
99
23.6%
Strongly Agree
65
15.5%
89
21.2%
System
370

Value
Position
35
Label
Attractive
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
18
4.3%
34
8.1%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
112
26.7%
Agree
84
20.0%
Strongly Agree
83
19.8%
89
21.2%
System
371

Value
Position
36
Label
Manipulative
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
64
15.2%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
105
25.0%
Agree
56
13.3%
Strongly Agree
102
24.3%
89
21.2%
System
372

Value
Position
37
Label
Showy
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
1.4%
50
11.9%
62
14.8%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
76
18.1%
Agree
73
17.4%
Strongly Agree
64
15.2%
89
21.2%
System
373

Value
Position
38
Label
Arrogant
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
1.4%
23
5.5%
52
12.4%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
65
15.5%
Agree
135
32.1%
Strongly Agree
50
11.9%
89
21.2%
System
374

Value
Position
39
Label
Hypocrite
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
1.4%
18
4.3%
32
7.6%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
95
22.6%
Agree
78
18.6%
Strongly Agree
102
24.3%
89
21.2%
System
375

Value
Position
40
Label
Deceptive
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
1.4%
41
9.8%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
93
22.1%
Agree
151
36.0%
Strongly Agree
40
9.5%
89
21.2%
System
376

Value
Position
41
Label
Liar
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
77
18.3%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
104
24.8%
Agree
1.2%
Strongly Agree
140
33.3%
89
21.2%
System
377

Value
Position
42
Label
Trendy
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
62
14.8%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
121
28.8%
Agree
90
21.4%
Strongly Agree
58
13.8%
89
21.2%
System
378

Value
Position
43
Label
Modern
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
1.4%
0.0%
81
19.3%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
154
36.7%
Agree
26
6.2%
Strongly Agree
64
15.2%
89
21.2%
System
379

Value
Position
44
Label
Sophisticated
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
16
3.8%
17
4.0%
72
17.1%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
111
26.4%
Agree
60
14.3%
Strongly Agree
55
13.1%
89
21.2%
System
380

Value
Position
45
Label
Stylish
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
1.4%
0.0%
63
15.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
83
19.8%
Agree
110
26.2%
Strongly Agree
69
16.4%
89
21.2%
System
381

Value
Position
46
Label
Serious
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
24
5.7%
0.0%
34
8.1%
46
11.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
134
31.9%
Agree
17
4.0%
Strongly Agree
76
18.1%
89
21.2%
System
382

Value
Position
47
Label
Strict
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
34
8.1%
65
15.5%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
63
15.0%
Agree
136
32.4%
Strongly Agree
33
7.9%
89
21.2%
System
383

Value
Position
48
Label
Reserved
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
18
4.3%
46
11.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
145
34.5%
Agree
45
10.7%
Strongly Agree
77
18.3%
89
21.2%
System
384

Value
Position
49
Label
Shy
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
18
4.3%
1.4%
60
14.3%
1.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
63
15.0%
Agree
102
24.3%
Strongly Agree
78
18.6%
89
21.2%
System
385

Value
Position
Count
Percent
116
27.6%
85
20.2%
76
18.1%
54
12.9%
50
I repeatedly
Label
purchase this
brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
386

Value
Position
Count
Percent
69
16.4%
83
19.8%
154
36.7%
1.2%
51
I prefer buying
Label
this brand over

other colas.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
20
4.8%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
387
Value
Position
Count
Percent
93
22.1%
99
23.6%
22
5.2%
91
21.7%
52
Only this brand
comes to my
Label
mind when I
think of
purchasing
Standard Attributes
colas.
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
26
6.2%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
388

Value
Position
Count
Percent
67
16.0%
101
24.0%
32
7.6%
127
30.2%
53
I recommend
Label
this brand those

who ask my
advice.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
1.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
389
Value
Position
Count
Percent
82
19.5%
157
37.4%
10
2.4%
82
19.5%
54
I say positive
Label
things about this

brand to other
persons.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
390

Value
Position
Count
Percent
111
26.4%
76
18.1%
49
11.7%
95
22.6%
55
I am pleased to
Label
buy this brand

instead of other
brands.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Missing Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
0.0%
Agree
0.0%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
89
21.2%
System
391
Gourmet Cola
Table 159: Gender
Value
Count
Percent
Position
Label
Gender
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Nominal
Role
Input
Male
73
67.0%
Female
36
33.0%
Standard Attributes
Valid Values
Table 160: Age

Value
Count
Percent
Position
Label
Age
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Nominal
Role
Input
18 to 25
51
46.8%
26 to 35
36
33.0%
36 to 45
13
11.9%
46 to 55
8.3%
Standard Attributes
Valid Values
392

Value
Position
Label
Profession
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Nominal
Role
Input
Student
Count
Percent
62
56.9%
23
21.1%
Standard Attributes
2
Valid Values
Business
Professionals
House Wife
14
12.8%
Labor/ Worker
4.6%
Others
4.6%
393

Value
Position
Count
Percent
5
Which brand do
Label
you prefer the

most?
Standard Attributes
Valid Values
Type
Numeric
Format
F8
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Pepsi Cola
0.0%
Coca Cola
0.0%
Gourmet Cola
109
100.0%
394
Table 163: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would
like to be
Value
Position
Count
Percent
11
10.1%
18
16.5%
21
19.3%
31
28.4%
6
The typical
person who
drinks this
Label
brand reflects
the kind of
person I would
Standard Attributes
like to be.
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
15
13.8%
Agree
4.6%
Strongly Agree
7.3%
395

Value
Position
Count
Percent
3.7%
26
23.9%
13
11.9%
24
22.0%
7
I like to see
myself as a
Label
typical
consumer of
this brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
20
18.3%
Agree
19
17.4%
Strongly Agree
2.8%
396

Value
Position
Count
Percent
6.4%
22
20.2%
16
14.7%
31
28.4%
8
I like to be
Label
known as a
consumer of
this brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
22
20.2%
Agree
11
10.1%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
397

Value
Position
Count
Percent
11
10.1%
14
12.8%
17
15.6%
32
29.4%
9
This brand is
Label
the reflection of
my ideal image.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
18
16.5%
Agree
15
13.8%
Strongly Agree
1.8%
398

Value
Position
Count
Percent
11
10.1%
15
13.8%
16
14.7%
28
25.7%
10
This brand is
Label
appealing to my
actual image.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
26
23.9%
Agree
4.6%
Strongly Agree
7.3%
399
Value
Position
Count
Percent
7.3%
19
17.4%
15
13.8%
22
20.2%
11
The typical
person who
Label
drinks this
brand is very
much like me.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
32
29.4%
Agree
10
9.2%
Strongly Agree
2.8%
400

Value
Position
Label
Standard Attributes
0.0%
13
11.9%
17
15.6%
29
26.6%
I am attached to
this brand.
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
Percent
12
Type
Valid Values
Count
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
24
22.0%
Agree
19
17.4%
Strongly Agree
6.4%
401

Value
Position
Count
Percent
1.8%
8.3%
20
18.3%
17
15.6%
13
This brand
Label
brings me
safety.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
42
38.5%
Agree
7.3%
Strongly Agree
11
10.1%
402

Value
Position
Count
Percent
2.8%
14
12.8%
20
18.3%
19
17.4%
14
I strongly relate
Label
myself to this
brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
26
23.9%
Agree
15
13.8%
Strongly Agree
12
11.0%
403

Value
Position
Count
Percent
4.6%
13
11.9%
16
14.7%
23
21.1%
15
This brand is
Label
honest towards
its client.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
29
26.6%
Agree
10
9.2%
Strongly Agree
13
11.9%
404
Value
Position
Count
Percent
0.0%
6.4%
16
14.7%
26
23.9%
16
Thinking about
this brand
Label
brings me a lot
of pleasure and
joy.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
22
20.2%
Agree
22
20.2%
Strongly Agree
16
14.7%
405

Value
Position
17
Label
I like this brand.
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
0.9%
13
11.9%
13
11.9%
27
24.8%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
23
21.1%
Agree
15
13.8%
Strongly Agree
17
15.6%
406

Value
Position
Count
Percent
3.7%
18
16.5%
12
11.0%
21
19.3%
18
I trust the
Label
quality of this
brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
26
23.9%
Agree
18
16.5%
Strongly Agree
10
9.2%
407
Value
Position
19
Label
This brand
tries to
improve its
response to
consumer
needs on an
ongoing basis.
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Count
Percent
4.6%
7.3%
22
20.2%
26
23.9%
Partially Agree
25
22.9%
Agree
13
11.9%
Strongly Agree
10
9.2%
408

Value
Position
Count
Percent
5.5%
7.3%
14
12.8%
34
31.2%
20
This brand has
Label
a lot of meaning
to me.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
Valid Values
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
21
19.3%
Agree
14
12.8%
Strongly Agree
10
9.2%
1.8%
409

Value
Position
Count
Percent
3.7%
13
11.9%
12
11.0%
27
24.8%
21
This brand is
Label
sincere towards
its consumer.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
22
20.2%
Agree
18
16.5%
Strongly Agree
13
11.9%
410

Value
Position
Count
Percent
4.6%
10
9.2%
19
17.4%
19
17.4%
22
I have lot of
Label
affection for this

brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
20
18.3%
Agree
27
24.8%
Strongly Agree
8.3%
411

Value
Position
Count
Percent
10
9.2%
17
15.6%
17
15.6%
39
35.8%
23
Even if I
wanted, it would
Label
be hard for me
to switch
brands.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
14
12.8%
Agree
3.7%
Strongly Agree
7.3%
412
Table 181l: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands

Value
Position
Count
Percent
6.4%
19
17.4%
21
19.3%
27
24.8%
24
My life would be
Label
distributed if I
had to switch
brands.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
21
19.3%
Agree
12
11.0%
Strongly Agree
1.8%
413

Value
Position
Count
Percent
2.8%
19
17.4%
22
20.2%
33
30.3%
25
It would be too
Label
costly for me to
switch brands.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
22
20.2%
Agree
7.3%
Strongly Agree
1.8%
414

Value
Position
26
Label
I like this brand.
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
7.3%
16
14.7%
15
13.8%
32
29.4%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
23
21.1%
Agree
13
11.9%
Strongly Agree
1.8%
415

Value
Position
Count
Percent
7.3%
15
13.8%
18
16.5%
28
25.7%
27
This brand has
Label
a lot of meaning
to me.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
26
23.9%
Agree
5.5%
Strongly Agree
7.3%
416

Value
Position
Count
Percent
6.4%
18
16.5%
19
17.4%
24
22.0%
28
I am strongly
Label
related to this
brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
29
26.6%
Agree
8.3%
Strongly Agree
2.8%
417

Value
Position
29
Label
Warm
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
2.8%
15
13.8%
31
28.4%
40
36.7%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
14
12.8%
Agree
2.8%
Strongly Agree
2.8%
418

Value
Position
30
Label
Pleasant
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
4.6%
21
19.3%
38
34.9%
28
25.7%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
12
11.0%
Agree
3.7%
Strongly Agree
0.9%
419

Value
Position
31
Label
Nice
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
8.3%
20
18.3%
39
35.8%
25
22.9%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
12
11.0%
Agree
2.8%
Strongly Agree
0.9%
420

Value
Position
32
Label
Imaginative
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
10
9.2%
27
24.8%
24
22.0%
24
22.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
21
19.3%
Agree
2.8%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
421

Value
Position
33
Label
Inventive
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
10
9.2%
25
22.9%
27
24.8%
31
28.4%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
12
11.0%
Agree
2.8%
Strongly Agree
0.9%
422

Value
Position
34
Label
Seductive
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
12
11.0%
22
20.2%
37
33.9%
29
26.6%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
7.3%
Agree
0.9%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
423

Value
Position
35
Label
Attractive
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
8.3%
26
23.9%
26
23.9%
32
29.4%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
11
10.1%
Agree
2.8%
Strongly Agree
1.8%
424

Value
Position
36
Label
Manipulative
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
8.3%
22
20.2%
23
21.1%
31
28.4%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
14
12.8%
Agree
7.3%
Strongly Agree
1.8%
425

Value
Position
37
Label
Showy
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
6.4%
16
14.7%
29
26.6%
36
33.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
14
12.8%
Agree
5.5%
Strongly Agree
0.9%
426

Value
Position
38
Label
Arrogant
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
11
10.1%
18
16.5%
22
20.2%
28
25.7%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
20
18.3%
Agree
8.3%
Strongly Agree
0.9%
427

Value
Position
39
Label
Hypocrite
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
5.5%
17
15.6%
26
23.9%
33
30.3%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
15
13.8%
Agree
7.3%
Strongly Agree
3.7%
428

Value
Position
40
Label
Deceptive
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
7.3%
20
18.3%
26
23.9%
33
30.3%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
16
14.7%
Agree
4.6%
Strongly Agree
0.9%
429

Value
Position
41
Label
Liar
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
16
14.7%
30
27.5%
15
13.8%
29
26.6%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
15
13.8%
Agree
2.8%
Strongly Agree
0.9%
430

Value
Position
42
Label
Trendy
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
21
19.3%
30
27.5%
18
16.5%
24
22.0%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
8.3%
Agree
5.5%
Strongly Agree
0.9%
431

Value
Position
43
Label
Modern
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
16
14.7%
25
22.9%
26
23.9%
28
25.7%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
8.3%
Agree
4.6%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
432

Value
Position
44
Label
Sophisticated
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
15
13.8%
32
29.4%
31
28.4%
20
18.3%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
6.4%
Agree
3.7%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
433

Value
Position
45
Label
Stylish
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
14
12.8%
25
22.9%
31
28.4%
26
23.9%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
7.3%
Agree
4.6%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
434

Value
Position
46
Label
Serious
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
23
21.1%
25
22.9%
20
18.3%
28
25.7%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
6.4%
Agree
5.5%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
435

Value
Position
47
Label
Strict
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
19
17.4%
27
24.8%
29
26.6%
27
24.8%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
3.7%
Agree
2.8%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
436

Value
Position
48
Label
Reserved
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
22
20.2%
25
22.9%
30
27.5%
21
19.3%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
5.5%
Agree
4.6%
Strongly Agree
0.0%
437

Value
Position
49
Label
Shy
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Count
Percent
19
17.4%
21
19.3%
21
19.3%
23
21.1%
Standard Attributes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
13
11.9%
Agree
6.4%
Strongly Agree
4.6%
438

Value
Position
Count
Percent
8.3%
17
15.6%
18
16.5%
39
35.8%
50
I repeatedly
Label
purchase this
brand.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
13
11.9%
Agree
5.5%
Strongly Agree
6.4%
439

Value
Position
Count
Percent
8.3%
19
17.4%
20
18.3%
27
24.8%
51
I prefer buying
Label
this brand over

other colas.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
21
19.3%
Agree
12
11.0%
Strongly Agree
0.9%
440
Value
Position
Count
Percent
5.5%
19
17.4%
23
21.1%
28
25.7%
52
Only this brand
comes to my
Label
mind when I
think of
purchasing
Standard Attributes
colas.
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
23
21.1%
Agree
7.3%
Strongly Agree
1.8%
441

Value
Position
Count
Percent
12
11.0%
16
14.7%
12
11.0%
33
30.3%
53
I recommend
Label
this brand those

who ask my
advice.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
21
19.3%
Agree
11
10.1%
Strongly Agree
3.7%
442
Value
Position
Count
Percent
10
9.2%
14
12.8%
17
15.6%
28
25.7%
54
I say positive
Label
things about this

brand to other
persons.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
26
23.9%
Agree
6.4%
Strongly Agree
6.4%
443

Value
Position
Count
Percent
14
12.8%
20
18.3%
21
19.3%
18
16.5%
55
I am pleased to
Label
buy this brand

instead of other
brands.
Standard Attributes
Type
Numeric
Format
F1
Measurement
Ordinal
Role
Input
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Partially
3
Valid Values
4
Disagree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Partially Agree
27
24.8%
Agree
6.4%
Strongly Agree
1.8%
444
Table 213: SPSS Code Book

445
Appendix E: Brand Image

Pepsi Cola
Image 1: Pepsi Cola (1.5 ltr)
446
Coca Cola
Image 2: Coca Cola (1.5 ltr)
447
Gourmet Cola
Image 3: Gourmet Cola (1.5 ltr)
448

PAKISTAN'S BEVERAGES INDUSTRY IN FOCUS To CONGRUENCE and SATISFACTI PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

PAKISTAN'S BEVERAGES INDUSTRY IN FOCUS To CONGRUENCE and SATISFACTI PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

PAKISTANS BEVERAGES INDUSTRY IN FOCUS

CONGRUENCE, SATISFACTION AND COMMITMENT WITH BRAND

Students of Methods of Business Research, Spring 2014

National University of Computer & Emerging Sciences

This study is done by the students of fast university, Pakistan.

6. Zaib Un Nisa Murad zaibmurad@gmail.com

10. Asra Tariq

11. Noman Ali

Chapter 2:Literature Review ............................................................................. 25

2.1.2What is Brand? ............................................................................................................................ 25

2.5.3 Commitment with organizational citizenship behavior: .......................................................... 102

Chapter 3:Research Methodology ................................................................... 180

3.3.6 Research Technique and Procedure ........................................................................................ 186

Chapter 4:Data Analysis and Interpretations................................................... 204

Chapter 5:Conclusion andImplications ............................................................ 242

References ...................................................................................................... 249

Table 79: Brand Personality- Pleasant ...................................................................................................... 312

Table 123: This brand has a lot of meaning to me .................................................................................... 356

Table 167: This brand is appealing to my actual image............................................................................ 399

1.1 Background of Thesis: Area of Research

1.2 Problem Statement

Why local brands still unknown by the consumers?

1.3 Research Question

1.4 Objectives of the Study

If the congruence with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty.

If the satisfaction with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty.

If the commitment to the brand personality leads to brand loyalty.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

1.5 Issues and Gap in Literature and the Studys Significance

1.5.2 Significance of the Thesis

1.6 Contribution of Thesis in Three Context

1.6.2 Contribution of Thesis in the Context of Research

1.6.3 Contribution of the Thesis in the Context of the Objective

1.7 Conceptual Definitions

1.7.2 Congruence with Brand Personality

1.7.3 Satisfaction with the Brand Personality

1.7.4 Commitment with Brand Personality

1.7.5 Brand Personality

1.7.6 Brand Loyalty

2. Researchers believe that loyalty should be interpreted principally as an attitude towards a

1.8 Structure of the Thesis

Chapter # 2 Literature Review

Chapter 2:Literature Review

2.1.5 Brand Identity

2.1.6 Brand Image

2.1.7 Brand Equity

2.2 Context of the Research

2.2.1 Beverage Industry in Pakistan

North America Soft Drink Business Sector

International soft drink business sector

Food business sector

2.2.3.2 The Nature of Soft Drink

2.2.3.6 Formula of Coca Cola is Secret

2.3 Brand personality

Competence,Sophisticationand Ruggedness. (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality,

2.3.1 Dimension of Brand Personality:

(Aaker & J.L, Dimensions of

Figure 1: Dimensions of Brand Personality

Figure 2: (Aaker & J.L, Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997)

5. Neuroticism: Unenvious, relaxed, fretful, envious, jealous, moody, touchy, and

The results of 17,953 expressions are divided into four categories:

2.3.2 Concept of Brand Personality: