Document 5

Understanding Consumer Perception
of Brand Personality
Anuja Pandey*
The ever-changing marketing dynamics and increased competitive scenario have amplified the role
of brands to a great extent. Brand marketers seek ways to achieve growth while reducing the cost
of new product introduction as well as the risk of new product failure. A popular way of launching
new products has therefore been to leverage the brand equity of an existing brand into a new sector,
market or product category. Brand extension today is an important strategic tool to rejuvenate and
revitalize an existing brand. The success of brand extension depends on the strength of the parent
brand personality and its brand equity. A strong brand equity is related to distinct brand personality.
Before going for any brand extension, it is important to understand the parent brand personalities
and thereafter attaching the desirable brand personalities to the extended brand. This paper aims
at identifying the parent brand personalities as perceived by the consumer. To understand brand
personality, Jennifer Aakers Brand Personality Scale (BPS) has been used. The validity of the scale
is examined using factor analysis. Descriptive research, using stratified random sampling,
is undertaken. The study also aims at identifying the distinct brand personality of the proposed
brand and suggests the brand extension categories and strategies, with special reference to the brand
Dove.
Introduction
The changing market dynamics and heightened competition of the global economy have
taken the role of brands to an unsurpassed level. Brand marketers seek ways to achieve
growth while reducing both the cost of new product introductions and the risk of new
product failure.
A popular way of launching new products has therefore been to leverage the equity of
an existing brand into a new sector, market or product categorythe so-called brand
extension. Launching new products can be an attractive growth strategy to further
penetrate the existing market, however, this strategy is not without risks. Some estimate
that 30-35% of all the new products fail (Booz et al., 1982; and Montoya-Weiss and
Calantone, 1994), while others (e.g., Crawford, 1977) are even more pessimistic, citing
that only two out of 10 new launches succeed. Due to factors such as high advertising cost
and increasing competition for shelf space, it has become more difficult to succeed with
new products (Aaker, 1997). An increasing popular approach to reducing risk when
launching new products is to follow a brand extension strategy. This is followed in as many
as eight out of 10 new product launches (Ourosoff et al., 1992). One of the most popular
ways to achieve this is to put a new product in another category under the name of an
existing brand. This is called brand extension (Fox et al. 2001).
* Assistant Professor, All India Management Association, New Delhi, India. E-mail: anuja07@yahoo.com
2009 IUP. All Rights Reserved.
26
The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VI, Nos. 3 & 4, 2009
A brand extension takes place when a company extends its brands into new product
classes. Brand extension might not only increase the returns but also help penetrate and
capture new markets. A good brand extension strategy is one where the brand name
aids the extension, while a very good brand extension also enhances the brand name
(Aaker, 1991).
Some brand extensions are not promising because the extended brands might work
against the original personality of the parent brand. By extending the brand, the focal
point of its parent brands personality might get distorted in the minds of the consumer
if the extended brands personalities fall outside the original brand characteristics.
In contrast, if brand extension is done properly, it will possibly create a tremendous rise
in brand distinctiveness.
Brand extensions and brand personality, the focus of our research, are attractive to
firms that face the reality of high new product failure rates because they provide a way to
take advantage of brand name recognition and image to enter a new market. Managers
assume they can exploit the equity of a well-known brand when entering new markets,
capitalizing on recognition, goodwill and any positive association. Moreover, brand
extensions can decrease the costs of gaining distribution and/or increasing the efficiency
of promotional expenditure (Murphy and Medin, 1985).
According to Keller and Sood (2003), one of the most significant advantages of a strong
brand is the fact that it makes it easier for consumers to accept brand extensions. Still,
brand extensions can be a double-edge sword (Keller and Sood 2003, p. 12).
Over the past 15-20 years, research on brand extensions has been a subject of interest
among researchers across the world. Two seminal North American articles (Bousch, 19871993; and Aaker and Keller, 1990) initiated systematic research on how consumers
evaluate brand extensions. Since then, more than 55 studies have analyzed the impact of
certain success factors (such as quality of parent brand and perceived fit between the
parent and extended product) on consumer evaluation of brand extension. One of the
most important criteria for consumer evaluation of brand perception is the brand
personality. A distinct brand personality helps to create brand distinctiveness and at the
same time helps the marketer identify the key personality factor which can then help
brand extension by creating a generalization of stimuli, thereby reducing the rate of
rejection.
Literature Review
Advertisers and marketing practitioners have been the first ones to coin the term brand
personality, well before the academicians studied and accepted the concept. As early as
1958, P Martineau used the word to refer to the non-material dimensions that make a
store special, its character.
King (1970) writes that people choose their brands the same way they choose their
friends in addition to the skills and physical characteristics, they simply like them as people.
Understanding Consumer Perception of Brand Personality
27
He goes on to quote research from J Walter Thomson Advertising Agency, indicating that
consumers do tend to attribute personality facets to their brands and talk fluently about
these facets. Plummer (1984-85) speaks of Orangina soft drink as having a sensuous
personality. In addition, motivation research has made popular the common use of
projective techniques to capture these facets: for instance, it has become a classic to make
use of metaphors in focus groups, where consumers are asked to speak of their brands as
if they were a person, a movie star or an animal.
The brand identity frameworks have always quoted brand personality as a dimension
or a facet of brand identity, namely those traits of human personality that can be
attributed to the brand. Among other dimensions are the brand inner values (its cultural
facet), the brand relationship facet (its style of behavior and conduct), the brand reflected
consumer facet, and the brand physical facet (its material distinguishing traits).
Keller (1993 and 1998) refers to consumer perceptions of brands as brand knowledge,
consisting of brand awareness (recognition and recall) and brand image. Keller defines
brand image as perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in
consumer memory. These associations include perceptions of brand quality and attitudes
toward the brand. Similarly, Aaker (1991 and 1996) proposes that brand associations are
anything linked in memory to a brand.
In recent years, there has been an increased interest in the brand personality construct
as its strategic importance has become more apparent. Brand personality is defined as the
set of human characteristics associated with a brand (Aaker, 1997, p. 347). A distinctive
brand personality can help create a set of unique and favorable associations in consumer
memory and thus build and enhance brand equity (Keller, 1993; Johnson et al., 2000; Phau
and Lau, 2000). As a result, brand personality is considered to be an important factor for
the success of a brand in terms of preference and choice (Batra et al., 1993; and Biel, 1993).
Indeed, a well-established brand personality can result in consumers having stronger
emotional ties to the brand and greater trust and loyalty (Siguaw et al., 1999; and Johnson
et al., 2000), thus providing an enduring basis for differentiation (Aaker and Fournier,
1995; Halliday, 1996; and Haigood, 1999) which is difficult to copy (Aaker, 1996).
From a managerial perspective, brand personality enables firms to communicate with
their customers about the brand more effectively and plays a major role in advertising and
promotional efforts (Plummer, 1985; Batra et al., 1993; and Aaker, 1996). As such,
marketing practitioners have become increasingly aware of the importance of building a
clear and distinctive brand personality (Yaverbaum, 2001, p. 20).
Aaker (1997) has developed a robust and reliable brand personality inventory, which
has been hypothesized to be a generalized brand personality construct and tested with a
number of product categories in the US. The Aaker scale was developed by isolating the
distinct unidimensional construct. The final scale contains 42 personality traits, which are
28
grouped into five major dimensions and 15 facets (Figure 1 and Table 1). The Aaker brand
personality inventory has demonstrated empirically psychometric rigor and therefore it is
a valid and reliable instrument.
Figure 1: Aakers Five Dimensions of Brand Personality
Sincerity
Excitement
Brand
Personality
Competence
Sophistication
Ruggedness
Table 1: Aakers Brand Personality Scale and the Psychological Five Factors Model
Authors
Aaker
Sauchers 40
Mini-Makers
Dimensions
(**) Facets or (***) Items
Sincerity
(**) Down-to-earth, honest, wholesome and cheerful
Excitement
Daring, spirited, imaginative and up-to-date
Competence
Reliable, intelligent and successful
Sophistication
Upper class and charming
Ruggedness
Outdoorsy and tough
Openness (or intellect)
(***) Creative imaginative, intellectual,

philosophical, deep, complex, uncreative and
unintellectual
Conscientiousness
Efficient, organized, systematic, practical,

disorganized, inefficient, sloppy and careless
Extraversion
Bold, extraverted, talkative, bashful, quiet, shy,

withdrawn and energetic
Agreeableness
Kind sympathetic, warm, cooperative and cold

Unsympathetic, harsh and rude
Neuroticism (or
Emotional Stability)
Unenvious, relaxed, fretful, envious, jealous,

moody, touchy and temperamental
29
Problem Discussion
In the last few years, many new product lines have been extended and launched in the
personal care segment in the Indian market. This ever-growing segment has large market
potential. Many established brands in this segment are capitalizing and leveraging the
brand equity developed over the years. The brand equity may help the new brand
extensions to capture a larger market share and establish a new and stronger position in
this segment. But there are doubts that the brand and its extended brands are perceived
by consumers in different ways. For example, certain extensions might exploit the brand
assets, while other extensions might have a neutral effect, and a few others might help
develop and foster a negative meaning of the parent brands personality in the consumer
mind.
In this study, the researcher tries to argue that it is highly critical for the company to
tactically and proactively design their brands personalities. The well-judged brand
personality design needs to be planned and communicated within the organization and
all related partners to secure sustainable brand personalities. This can be one of the most
important success factors for the fast moving consumer good industry, where most of the
products are purchased due to brand recall and impulse purchase in which product
personality perception works very strongly.
The case company studied is a leading fast moving consumer personal grooming
product company in India. In the last few years, the company has differentiated its brands
to target consumer in different segments. The brand considered in this study is an
upmarket aspiration brand, which has been very successful in the soap category and is now
introduced in shampoo and deodorant product concepts. This kind of extension
hereafter referred to as Brand Extension by Product Categorywill be used often in this
study. These two brand extensions are new in the Indian market, where the soap brand
is well established. In this research, an attempt has been made to understand the consumer
perception of brand personalities for Dove soap and find the major personalities which are
unique and distinct to Dove soap.
To understand the distinct brand personalities of the brand, Jennifer Aakers Brand
Personality Scale (BPS) has been used. Brand personality implies the set of human
characteristics associated with a brand or the personification of the brand by the
consumers and the communicators (Aaker, 1997).
Research Objectives
The study focused on the following objectives:
To measure the brand personality of Dove;
To understand and explore the model validity of Jennifer Aakers BPS in the
Indian context;
To evaluate the demographic profile of Dove users; and
To explore possible brand categories for extended brand Dove
30
Methodology
Brand Selection
Dove has become a well-established brand in the Indian market. And recently the
company introduced two major brand extensions in the Indian market. All these brand
extensions target more or less the same segments. The brand has been perceived as a
distinct brand in the cluttered market. The brand is perceived as aspiration brand. Major
marketing initiatives are taken by the company at this point of time to fully leverage the
brand equity. This makes the choice of brand logical. To understand the brand personality
of Dove, Jennifer Aaker scale has been used in this research.
Research Design
The cross-sectional study is the most frequently used descriptive design in market
research. In this research, we have used single cross-sectional design where one sample of
a respondent is drawn from the target population and information is obtained from this
sample only once. This design is also called sample survey research design.
Sampling Method
Stratified random sampling was used. The elements were picked on the basis of gender, age
and income when selecting the recipients in order to make sure that the sample falls in
the target group. The study was limited to youth and middle-aged urban population,
as this is an important Indian market. According to The Marketing White Book (2009),
youth and middle-aged urban population constitute 61.8% of Indian population.
Data Collection
A structured survey questionnaire instrument was developed based on Jennifer Aakers
Dimension of Brand Personality. The Jennifer Aaker BPS factor was adopted to suit the
target market. The questionnaire comprised nine questions. The first part of the
questionnaire had four questions related to brand awareness and association. The second
part of questionnaire had 45 questions relating to the 45 traits corresponding to the five
brand personality dimensions:
Sincerity: Down-to-earth, family-oriented, small town, honest, sincere, realistic,
wholesome, original, cheerful, sentimental and friendly.
Excitement: Contemporary, independent, up-to-date, unique, imaginative, young, cool,
spirited, exciting, trendy and daring.
Competency: Reliable, hardworking, sincere, intelligent, technical, corporate, successful,
leader and confident.
Sophistication: Upper class, glamor, good-looking, charming, feminine and smooth.
Ruggedness: Outdoorsy, masculine, western, tough and rugged.
The third part of the questionnaire contained four questions pertaining to
demographic factors of users. The study was conducted across Delhi/National Capital
31
Region (NCR). Both personal interview and mailed questionnaire were used. Stratified
random sampling was done, using age, income, occupation and gender as major qualifiers.
The personality orientation instruments containing 45 items were scored on Likert
scale.
Analysis
About 55% of the respondents surveyed were in the age group of 18-24 years, and 41.5%
were in the age group of 24-35 years. The number of male and female surveyed was almost
evenly distributed, with 53% male and 47% female. Though almost equal number of
questionnaires were sent to males and females, the response from males was a little better.
Almost 76.8% of the respondents were working.
Dove was launched in India in the year 1995. Figure 2 shows that the brand recall
of Dove was almost 25% which was second only to Lux at 61%, and the next was Cinthol
at 12.4%. This proves that Dove might have been a recent entry in the soap category, but
it enjoys a good brand recall among young working population.
Figure 2: Which Brand Comes to Your Mind When You Think of Soap
60
50
Frequency
40
30
20
10
0
Lux
Cinthol
Dove
Lifebuoy
Brand
As far as the brand association is concerned, almost 70% of the respondents associate
Dove with soap and 19.5% associate Dove with shampoo (Figure 3). The overall
association of Dove with deodorant and other haircare products was negligible. 48.8% of
the respondents considered Dove as gentle, which is one of the strongest characteristics
of the brand personality of Dove. Around 26% respondents regarded Dove as a product
for young people.
32
Figure 3: Consumer Association with Word Dove

What Dove Means to You?
Baby Soap
Body Lotion
Bodywash
Deo
Extra Mild
Facewash
Haircare Product
Soft
Soap
Shampoo
Soap
Scale Validity
The scale used for analysis was Jennifer Aaker BPS with minor modifications. The same
dimensions of personalities were gauged. The scale was tested for internal reliability of
scale and sub-scale items. According to various authors (Churchill, 1979; Peter, 1981; and
Malhotra, 2004), a multi-item scale should be evaluated for accuracy and applicability, and
emphasis should be on developing measures, which have desirable, reliable and valid
properties. The various measures suggested to be followed were, reliability with Cronbachs
alpha, t-test for testing the discriminating ability of the statement and assessment of each
items correlation using total correlation matrix (Table 2).
Table 2: Reliability and Equivalence of Various Items in Brand Dimensions
No. of
Items
Cronbanchs
Alpha
Hotelling t
Squared
F-Value
df
p-Value
Sincerity
12
0.8826
126.2734
14.42
70-78
0.000
Excitement
12
0.9166
104.1033
14.41
69-770
0.000
Competence
0.8969
18.77
1.40
70-568
0.0475
Sophistication
0.8902
13.8913
2.15
69-350
0.0323
Ruggedness
0.7976
123.6517
30.81
70-355
0.000
Overall
45
0.9484
760.3789
25.14
66-2948
0.000
Dimension
Sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness, all achieved a high

Cronbachs alpha coefficient, suggesting high reliability (greater than 0.6 as recommended
by Nunally and Bernstein). The researcher has used the option Scale if item deleted,
33
which provides a value of Cronbachs alpha for each item on the scale. It also tells us what
the value of alpha would be if that item was deleted. 0.8 is seen as a good value for alpha
the results showed thatonly ruggedness has lower Cronbachs alpha coefficient at
0.7976; rest of the dimensions were higher than 0.8.
The overall Cronbachs alpha coefficient for 45 brand personality items was 0.948.
Hotellings t-squared test confirmed that the mean of different brand personality items
under the five dimensions vary significantly from each other at 1 per level. This indicates
that there is no equivalence between all the 45 items and they are all different and possess
unique personality characteristics. All t-values were significant at 0.5 level of significance.
Total item correlation was above 0.63.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett test for sphericity were
conducted in Table 3.
Table 3: Model Validity of Jennifer Aakers Brand Personality Scale
Using Factor Analysis
KMO and Bartletts Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy
0.743
Bartletts Test of
Approx.
Sphericity
df
0.990
Sig.
0.000
2291.687
Kaiser (1974) recommends accepting values greater than 0.5. KMO of 0.743 is accepted
and explains the adequacy of sample.
The results of Bartletts test of sphericity and chi-square 2) transformation suggest
that the correlation matrix of 45 brand personality items is highly significant (p < 0.001),
and therefore factor analysis is appropriate and there is some relationship between the
variables.
Pearson correlation coefficient was used between all pairs of questions. One-tailed
coefficient was also done to find the significance of these coefficients. The determinant
for this data is of the value of 8.345E20 (which is 0.0008345), which is greater than the
necessary value of 0.0001. Therefore, multi-colinearity is not a problem for this data.
All the questions in the questionnaire correlate fairly well and none of the correlation
coefficient is particularly large; therefore, there is no need to consider eliminating any
question.
Table 4 exhibits the result of factor analysis conducted for the 45 brand personality
items. The results suggest that the eigenvalue is greater than the recommended level of
1 for the extracted 11 dimensions.
This reveals that from 45 brand personality items included in the factor analysis, only
11 dimensions are extracted and emerged with cumulative variance of 76.545%. This
indicated that the 11 dimensions explained 76.54% variance of the brand personality.
34
Table 4: Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues
Extraction Sums
of Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums
of Squared Loadings
Component
Total
1.
13.500
30.000
30.000
13.500
30.000
30.000
4.576
10.170
10.170
2.
4.206
9.348
39.348
4.206
9.348
39.348
4.431
9.847
20.017
3.
3.916
8.703
48.051
3.916
8.703
48.051
3.887
8.637
28.654
4.
2.317
5.148
53.199
2.317
5.148
53.199
3.813
8.474
37.127
5.
2.265
5.033
58.231
2.265
5.033
58.231
3.115
6.921
44.049
6.
1.785
3.967
62.198
1.785
3.967
62.198
2.825
6.278
50.326
7.
1.606
3.569
65.767
1.606
3.569
65.767
2.744
6.099
56.425
8.
1.327
2.949
68.717
1.327
2.949
68.717
2.657
5.904
62.329
9.
1.266
2.813
71.529
1.266
2.813
71.529
2.522
5.604
67.933
10.
1.207
2.682
74.211
1.207
2.682
74.211
2.094
4.654
72.587
11.
1.050
2.334
76.545
1.050
2.334
76.545
1.781
3.958
76.545
12.
0.984
2.186
78.731
13.
0.789
1.753
80.484
14.
0.719
1.599
82.083
15.
0.677
1.504
83.586
16.
0.610
1.357
84.943
17.
0.582
1.293
86.236
18.
0.514
1.143
87.379
19.
0.496
1.102
88.481
20.
0.495
1.099
89.581
21.
0.449
0.998
90.579
22.
0.403
0.895
91.473
23.
0.364
0.808
92.281
24.
0.342
0.760
93.041
25.
0.320
0.711
93.752
26.
0.281
0.624
94.376
27.
0.258
0.574
94.950
28.
0.244
0.543
95.493
29.
0.229
0.509
96.002
30.
0.223
0.495
96.498
31.
0.190
0.423
96.921
32.
0.183
0.406
97.326
Variance Cumul(%)
ative (%)
Total
Variance Cumul(%) ative (%)
Total
35
Table 4 Cont.
Component
Initial Eigenvalues
Total
Variance Cumul(%)
ative (%)
33.
0.181
0.402
97.728
34.
0.152
0.338
98.066
35.
0.143
0.317
98.383
36.
0.137
0.304
98.687
37.
0.104
0.232
98.919
38.
0.102
0.227
99.146
39.
9.925E-02 0.221
99.367
40.
8.197E-02 0.182
99.549
41.
7.368E-02 0.164
99.713
42.
4.783E-02 0.106
99.819
43.
3.577E-02 7.949E-02
99.899
44.
2.370E-02 5.268E-02
99.951
45.
2.195E-02 4.878E-02 100.000
Extraction Sums
of Squared Loadings
Total
Rotation Sums
of Squared Loadings
Total
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; 11 Components extracted.
However, among these 11 dimensions, dimension 1 had a greater eigenvalue (13.5) and
explained 30% of variance. This shows dimension 1 explained most of the variance among
the 45 brand personality items.
Rotated sums of squared loading were done and the eigenvalues of the factor after
rotation were displayed so that the relative importance of the eleven factors equalized.
Before rotation, dimension 1 explained more variance than the remaining 10 dimensions
(30%), compared to (9.348%, 8.70%, 5.1%, 5.03%, 3.967%, 3.569%, 2.94%, 2.813%,
2.682%, 2.33%), however after extraction it explained only 10 % variance, compared to
(9.847%, 8.6%, 8.47%, 6.9%, 6.2%, 6.0%, 5.9%, 5.6%, 4.6%, 3.9% explained by other 10
respectively).
Principal component analysis was done on the data. The communalities in the
column labeled extraction reflected the common variance in the data structure. After
extraction some factors were dropped. The component matrix showed factor loading
before rotation. From this, 11 components were extracted (Appendix, Table A1, A2 and A3).
Figure 4 clearly shows the point of inflexion on the curve. There is a distinct drop after
the 9th dimension. Therefore, we could probably justify retaining either 11th or 9th
dimensions.
Further on, the data factor analysis was done using Varimax rotation based on the
technique of principal component analysis method (Table 5).
36
Figure 4: Scree Plot

16
14
Eigenvalue
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
Component Number
Table 5: Extracted Personality Dimensions of Brand Dove

Dimension 1 comprises brand personality itemscontemporary, enduring, modern, dynamic, secure and
unique. These attributes are representative of dimension 1, which can be termed as charismatic.
Dimension 2 represents honest, secure, real and original. These attributes are representative of
dimension 2, which can be termed as authentic.
Dimension 3 is represented by young , cool, spirited and inspired. These attributes are representative
of dimension 3, which can be termed as blossom.
Dimension 4 comprises rugged, masculine, thrilling, daring, tough and western. These attributes are
representative of dimension 4, which can be termed as enchanting.
Dimension 5 comprises upper class, glamorous and appealing. These attributes are representative of
dimension 5, which can be termed as lovable.
Dimensions 6 represents leader, successful and confident. These attributes are representative of
dimension 6, which can be termed as advantageous.
Dimension 7 represents polished, competent, and intelligent. These attributes are representative of
dimension 7, which can be termed as elegant.
Dimension 8 represents sentimental, flavoring and wholesome. These attributes are representative of
dimension 8, which can be termed as affectionate.
Dimension 9 represents smooth, feminine and charming. These attributes are representative of dimension
9, which can be termed as emotion.
Dimension 10 represents simple and down-to-earth and can be termed flawless.
Dimension 11 represents exciting and sensible and is termed as logical.
37
The results also show that dimensions such as reliability, friendly, simple and easy,
cheerful, imaginative and trendy do not have adequate loading in any of the 11
dimensions. Therefore, we can infer that the number of dimensions of brand personality
is 11 and about six items in this adapted Jennifer BPS are not relevant in the context of
grooming products in India.
Implications
Dove Brand Personality
Dove is considered as an honest brand, as respondents believe that the claims made in
the product promotion about gentle, neutral pH, etc., are found to be true after use. The
brand is also considered to be sincere and real, as it stands by all the advertisement
promises. The respondents have also rated Dove as a young brand with energy, freshness
and high spirits. The product shape, color and package support the polished competent
characteristics, as accepted by the respondent. Respondents also feel that Dove is simple
to use and down-to-earth in its claims. The product also gives an upper class, glamorous
appeal to the brand, even when the brand is not promoted by any celebrity like other
brands, e.g., Lux, Fiama Di Wills, etc. The users of the brand consider it as a feminine
brand, though it is used by males also. But some of the major characteristics that emerged
after applying Varimax with Kaiser normalization were the contemporary, enduring,
modern, dynamic, secure and unique dimensions. These dimensions together explained
almost 30% of the brands characteristics. The youth consider Dove as modern with
unique qualities; at the same time, it is dynamic and contemporary, with an enduring
effect. These personalities were given the dimension name charismatic. This word goes
a long way in explaining the brand Dove personality.
The modern, dynamic and enduring dimensions can be more emphasized in brand
promotion. Since the current ad campaign focuses more on secure and unique
characteristics.
Most of the users of the product are youth and middle-aged people. One of the reasons
for it can be the high promotion of brand through digital media and comparatively low
promotion and advertising in electronic media and less on TV advertising. Digital
promotions and Dove beauty campaign have connected people across the world with no
distinction between color, class, creed or country. The brand needs to catch up with the
middle-aged users. These people, in the age group of 45-55, are an aging population,
looking for mild and gentle products, which have no side effects. If the company also
includes these aging females in its target population, probably the market size and the role
of product can increase by leaps and bounds.
The company should stress more on its functional benefits and try to strike an
emotional chord with the users.
The brand stands above the clutter of other brands by not using any celebrity
endorsement. But as per research findings in India, endorsement by Katrina Kaif can help
promote the brand among the funky youth population.
38
The respondents also wanted the product to extend its product line. Facewash,
lip rouge emerged as the most demanded brand extensions.
A very interesting finding of the research concerns the male population. Though the
male respondents rated Dove soap bar as a feminine product, they were in favor of brand
extension mainly in male product categories like shaving gel, hair gel, and after-shave
lotion.
Limitations of the Study: The main objective of this research was to measure the brand
personality dimensions of the brand Dove using adopted brand personality scale as
suggested by Jennifer Aaker. A validity check of the scale, using factor analysis, was carried
out, which indicated that the number of dimensions of brand personality is 11 and about
six items of Jennifer Aakers brand personality scale are not applicable in grooming
products in Indian situations.
The major dimensions of brand personality of Dove are now revealed. The company
can consider them as the key personality dimensions and can carefully include them in
new brand extensions that the company is planning. Since the consumers associate these
dimensions with brand, the extension of brand product with these dimensions can help
in leveraging the brand.
The major limitation of this paper is that the questionnaire was administrated to youth
and early middle-aged population mainly residing in Delhi and NCR. The findings of the
results cannot be generalized to all ages or locations. The consumer perception about the
product can be very different in a hot and humid location as well as among non-urban
population.
Scope for Future Research: The validity, reliability, robustness and applicability of the brand
personality scale have been checked in this research. This research can further be extended
to test various hypotheses like gender biasness towards the brand, brand associations and
how the consumer views the extended brands of Dove. Any brand personality distortion in
the extended brand can be a potential area for future research.
Bibliography
1. Aaker D A (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name,
The Free Press, New York.
2. Aaker D A (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York.
3. Aaker J L (1997), Dimensions of Brand Personality, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 24, pp. 347-356.
4. Aaker Jennifer L (1999), The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in
Persuasion, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, February, pp. 45-57.
5. Aaker D A and Keller K L (1990), Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 27-41.
39
6. Aaker J L and 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, Vol. 22, pp. 391-395.
7. Aaker D and Joachimsthaler E (2000), Brand Leadership, The Free Press, New York.
8. Aaker J L, Benet-Martinez V and Garolera J (2001), Consumption Symbols as
Carriers of Culture: A Study of Japanese, Spanish and North American Brand
Personality Dimensions, Marketing Science Institute Working Paper No. 1-113.
9. Allport G W and Odbert H S (1936), Trait Names: A Psycho-Lexical Study,
Psychological Monographs, Vol. 47, No. 211, pp. 1-171.
10. Batra R, Lehmann D R and Singh D (1993), The Brand Personality Component of Brand
Goodwill: Some Antecedents and Consequences.
11. Batra, Rajeev and Pamela Miles Homer (2004), The Situational Impact of Brand
Image Beliefs, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 318-30.
12. Biel A (1993), Converting Image into Equity, in Aaker D and Biel A (Eds.), Brand
Equity and Advertising, pp. 67-82, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
13. Booz E, Allen J and Hamilton C (1982), New Products Management for the 1980s, BoozAllen & Hamilton, New York.
14. Bousch David (1987-1993), Brands as Categories, in Aaker D and Biel A (Eds.)
(1993), Brand Equity and Advertising, Lawerence Elbraum Associates, Hill Side.
15. Cattel R B (1945), The Description of Personality: Principles and Findings in a
Factor Analysis, American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 59-90.
16. Churchill G A Jr. (1979), A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs, Vol. 6, pp. 64-73.
17. Crawford M (1977), Marketing Research and the New Product Failure Rate, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 41, pp. 51-61.
18. Caprara G V, Barbaranelli C and Guido G (2001), Brand Personality: How to Make
the Metaphor Fit?, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 377-395.
19. Digman J M (1990), Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model,
Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 417-440.
20. Dolich I (1969), Congruence Relationships Between Self Images and Product
Brands, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 6, February, pp. 80-84.
21. Donald R Lehmann and Dipinder Singh (1993), The Brand Personality Component
of Brand Goodwill: Some Antecedents and Consequences, in Aaker David A and
Biel Alexander (Eds.), Brand Equity and Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, NJ.
40
22. Eysenck H J (1991), Dimensions of Personality: 16, 5, or 3? Criteria for a Taxonomic

Paradigm, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 667-673.
23. Fournier S (1998), Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory
in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 343-373.
24. Fox R J, Reddy S K and Swaminathan V (2001), The Impact of Brand Extension
Introduction on Choice, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, No. 4.
25. Goldberg L R (1992), The Development of Markers for the Big Five Factor
Structure, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 26-42.
26. Guilford J P (1975), Factors and Factors of Personality, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 82, pp. 802-814.
27. Haigood T L (1999), The Brand Personality Effect: An Empirical Investigation,
Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Winter Educators Conference, Vol. 10,
pp. 149-150, American Marketing Association, New York.
28. Halliday J (1996), Chrysler Brings Out Brand Personalities with 97 Ads., Advertising
Age, Vol. 67, No. 40.
29. Johnson L W, Soutar G N and Sweeney J C (2000), Moderators of the Brand Image/
Perceived Product Quality Relationship, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 7,
No. 6, pp. 425-433.
30. Kaiser H F (1974), An Index of Factorial Simplicity, Psychometrika, Vol. 39, pp. 31-35.
31. Kapferer J N (1992), Strategic Brand Management, Free Press, New York and Kogan Page,
London.
32. Kapferer J N (1998a), Strategic Brand Management, 2nd Edition, Kogan Page, New York
and London.
33. Kapferer J N (1998b), The Role of Branding in Medical Prescription: An Empirical
Investigation, HEC Working Paper, Jouy en Josas, France.
34. Keller K L (1993), Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand
Equity, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 1-22.
35. Keller K L (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand
Equity, Prentice-Hall International, Hemel, Hempstead.
36. Keller Kevin Lane and Sood Sanjay (2003), Brand Equity Dilution, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 12-15.
37. King S (1970), What is a Brand?, J Walter Thompson Company Limited, London.
38. Malhotra N K (2004), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 4th Edition,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
39. Martineau P (1958), The Personality of a Retail Store, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 36, November-December.
41
40. McCrae R and Costa P T (1985), Updating Normans Adequate Taxonomy:

Intelligence and the Personality Dimensions in Natural Language and in
Questionnaires, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
41. Montoya-Weiss M and Calantone Roger (1994), Determinants of New Product
Performance: A Review and Meta-Analysis, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 397-417.
42. Murphy G L and Medin D L (1985), The Role of Theories in Conceptual
Coherence, Psychological Review, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 289-316.
43. Ourusoff A, Ozanian M, Brown P B and Starr J (1992), What the Worlds Top Brands
are Worth, Financial World, Vol. 1, No. 32.
44. Peter J P (1981), Construct Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing
Practices, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 133-145.
45. Plummer J T (1984-85), How Personality Makes a Difference, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 24, December-January, pp. 27-31.
46. Plummer J T (1985), Brand Personality: A Strategic Concept for Multinational
Advertising, Marketing Educators Conference, Young & Rubicam, pp. 1-31,
New York.
47. Phau I and Lau K C (2000), Conceptualising Brand Personality: A Review and
Research Propositions, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing,
Vol. 9 pp. 52-69.
48. Romaniuk J and Ehrenberg A (2003), Do Brands Lack Personality?, Marketing
Science Center Research Report No. 14, May, University of South Australia.
49. Siguaw J A, Mattila A and Austin J R (1999), The Brand-Personality Scale, Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, pp. 48-55.
50. Sirgy M J, Grewal D, Mangleburg T F et al. (1997), Assessing the Predictive Validity
of Two Methods of Measuring Self-Image Congruence, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 229-241.
51. The Marketing White Book (2009-2010), Businessword Publication, pp. 46-48.
52. Tupes E C and Christal R E (1961), Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait
Ratings, Technical Report, USAF, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.
53. Veronica Benet-Martinez and Jordi Gariolera (2001), Consumption Symbols as
Carriers of Culture: A Study of Japanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructs,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81, September, pp. 492-508.
54. Wiggins J S (1980), Circumflex Models of Interpersonal Behavior in Clinical
Psychology, in Wheeler L (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 1, pp. 265-294, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
55. Yaverbaum E (2001), The Right Touch, Adweek, Vol. 42, No. 4, p. 20.
42
Appendix
Table A1: Communalities
Components
Initial
Extraction
Down-to-earth
1.000
0.680
Simple
1.000
Sensible
Components
Initial
Extraction
Contemporary
1.000
0.734
0.803
Reliability
1.000
0.733
1.000
0.797
Enduring
1.000
0.776
Honest
1.000
0.852
Secure
1.000
0.866
Sincere
1.000
0.860
Intelligent
1.000
0.713
Real
1.000
0.798
Competent
1.000
0.798
Wholesome
1.000
0.732
Polished
1.000
0.788
Flavoring
1.000
0.777
Successful
1.000
0.833
Original
1.000
0.779
Leader
1.000
0.812
Cheerful
1.000
0.707
Confident
1.000
0.875
Sentimental
1.000
0.782
Upper class
1.000
0.857
Friendly
1.000
0.745
Glamorous
1.000
0.840
Daring
1.000
0.688
Appealing
1.000
0.773
Trendy
1.000
0.742
Charming
1.000
0.689
Thrilling
1.000
0.765
Feminine
1.000
0.729
Spirited
1.000
0.678
Smooth
1.000
0.800
Cool
1.000
0.810
Simple and Easy
1.000
0.621
Young
1.000
0.875
Masculine
1.000
0.668
Imaginative
1.000
0.650
Western
1.000
0.771
Unique
1.000
0.742
Tough
1.000
0.701
Exciting
1.000
0.794
Inspired
1.000
0.729
Modern
1.000
0.794
Rugged
1.000
0.741
Dynamic
1.000
0.750
Note: Extraction Method: Principal component analysis.

43
44
0.711
0.692
0.687
0.521
0.463
0.108
0.163
0.156
Modern
Dynamic
Secure
Unique
Reliability
Honest
Sincere
Real
0.234
0.382
9.911E02
0.222
0.201
0.304
6.291E02
Cool
Spirited
Inspired
Simple and Easy
Cheerful
Imaginative
Rugged
0.230
0.203
Thrilling
Daring
7.458E02
5.734E02
Young
Musculine
0.203
Freindly
5.698E02
0.719
Enduring
Original
0.722
Contemporary
4.384E02
9.024E02
2.179E04
0.105
1.099E02
0.254
0.267
0.383
2.615E02
2.639E02
0.177
0.480
0.726
0.805
0.865
0.868
0.438
0.271
0.318
9.573E03
0.137
0.111
7.208E02
0.205
0.310
6.096E02
7.405E02
0.437
0.473
0.497
0.536
0.554
0.824
0.861
0.169
0.121
0.135
6.992E02
7.522E02
2.918E03
0.296
0.174
0.322
0.346
1.419E02
0.121
0.676
0.700
0.709
0.804
0.282
4.161E02
0.307
0.231
0.277
0.183
0.163
2.089E02
0.112
5.471E02
4.839E02
9.288E02
1.912E02
2.124E02
4.386E02
0.260
9.912E02
0.136
0.138
2.814E02
8.991E02
0.190
5.650E02
0.366
9.833E02
6.757E02
0.113
0.104
8.248E02
0.126
6.249E02
6.818E02
0.185
5.825E02
9.372E02
0.310
0.257
8.064E02
0.220
0.191
8.136E04
0.137
5.742E02
0.404
0.100
0.411
4.230E02
0.101
0.234
8.104E02
0.141
8.477E02
0.281
4.104E02
4.636E02
0.160
5.610E02
0.189
0.428
0.133
5.282E02
0.203
9.097E02
1.420E02
0.417
0.313
2.496E02
0.133
6.200E02
8.207E02
3.139E03
0.120
3.928E02
0.163
0.320
5.790E02
5.187E02
5.138E02
0.264
0.188
0.280
4.485E02 0.111
4.847E02 0.212
0.117
3.343E02
5.454E02
6.078E02 8.029E02
0.120
0.181
0.411
5.951E02 0.183
1.697E02 0.127
6.162E02
0.306
7.123E02
0.181
6.128E02 6.378E02
0.157
0.125
0.243
0.166
0.143
0.102
0.141
0.171
Table A2: Rotated Component Martix
Appendix (Cont.)
9.117E02
0.149
3.190E02
0.112
9.901E02
2.904E02
8.342E02
9.549E02
0.109
9.396E02
1.605E02
1.077E02
0.173
8.933E02
2.177E02
4.400E02
0.189
0.195
8.700E02
0.136
5.729E02
7.465E02
0.296
4.677E02
6.068E02
6.996E02
3.422E02
0.355
5.733E02
7.092E02
0.219
3.139E02
6.246E02
11
0.160
0.406
2.237E02
8.125E02
0.187
0.199
3.140E02
0.243
0.256
0.175
0.180
0.140
0.173
3.777E02
2.179E02
0.311
0.329
7.929E02
6.880E02
0.120
4.146E02 1.723E02
8.763E02
1.638E02
1.715E02 6.369E02
0.156
0.212
0.159
8.908E02
0.102
0.182
5.867E02
7.154E02
0.209
0.155
10
45
0.298
0.191
0.146
0.143
0.151
0.248
0.337
Trendy
Upper Class
Glamorous
Appealing
Leader
Successful
Confident
9.391E02
0.100
0.148
5.045E02
7.808E02
0.110
0.374
0.115
Smooth
Feminine
Charming
Simple
Down to earth
Exciting
Sensible
7.047E02
0.115
0.198
0.193
0.160
3.313E02
0.394
9.062E02
0.359
0.466
1.555E02
0.192
0.346
0.140
6.990E02
3.188E02
0.313
4.303E02
0.174
0.135
0.113
2.488E02
0.328
0.103
7.949E03
0.151
3.688E02
3.026E02
0.197
3.429E02
8.574E02
5.534E02
0.109
5.220E02 0.130
0.269
0.274
0.100
4.951E02
6.606E03
0.109
6.746E02
0.200
7.109E02
8.386E02
8.944E02
0.220
5.951E02
3.566E02
8.791E02
1.976E02
0.115
0.306
0.244
0.199
9.525E02
4.245E02
0.102
0.128
3.060E02
6.271E03
0.102
9.953E02
0.437
0.539
0.620
4
0.197
0.183
0.202
0.246
0.189
0.716
0.766
0.778
6.403E02
0.134
0.118
0.251
0.172
1.590E02
0.189
0.463
0.241
0.295
1.238E02
3.553E03
0.154
0.216
0.135
0.686
0.693
0.716
0.264
0.224
4.069E02
5.557E03
4.003E03
7.286E02
7.511E02
8.161E02
1.899E02
0.147
0.107
0.226
5.849E02
3.139E02
0.107
5.181E02
8.300E02
1.958E02 6.598E02
8.483E03
0.226
0.359
0.119
0.543
0.687
0.845
0.316
0.158
0.211
0.113
6.162E02
1.465E02 5.335E02
0.115
0.328
7.913E02
1.448E02 2.932E02
1.480E02
6.605E02
0.313
0.108
0.239
8.095E03 0.120
4.259E02 2.950E02
0.103
0.128
4.826E02
4.912E02
6.028E02
0.147
0.229
0.714
0.818
0.869
5.282E02 0.195
1.789E02 0.247
8.603E02
2.286E02
0.149
1.232E02
1.846E03
0.545
0.782
0.787
8.993E02
0.148
0.121
2.856E02
2.087E02
7.437E02
0.227
0.176
0.165
0.398
0.259
0.148
0.316
0.364
5.548E02
11
0.356
0.108
3.461E02
0.150
9.094E02
7.245E03
0.134
6.270E03
4.633E02
7.892E02
7.394E02
0.379
8.213E02
0.747
0.776
3.514E02
7.909E02
6.501E02
0.545
0.691
2.949E02
8.384E02
0.115
2.566E02
5.272E02
7.417E02 0.155
0.194
0.142
0.272
0.193
8.360E03
1.257E02
5.042E02 1.739E02
5.392E02
3.016E03
0.103
4.817E02 1.245E02
0.149
0.229
2.386E02 0.282
10
Note: Extraction Method: Principal component analysis; Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization; a Rotation converged in 23 iterations.
9.498E02
0.247
Sentimental
Wholesome
0.394
Intelligent
Flavoring
0.373
Competent
2.895E02
0.206
Western
Polished
1.440E02
Tough
Table A2 (Cont.)
Appendix (Cont.)
46
0.708
0.693
0.683
0.681
0.675
0.663
0.653
0.644
0.638
0.636
0.634
0.618
0.609
0.604
0.602
0.593
0.589
0.575
0.570
0.563
0.556
0.554
Secure
Unique
Dynamic
Cheerful
Inspired
Modern
Successful
Contemporary
Real
Enduring
Freindly
Confident
Spirited
Leader
Honest
Imaginative
Young
Thrilling
Exciting
Reliability
Charming
Cool
0.712
Simple and Easy
0.194
0.248
0.140
0.189
0.213
0.294
4.859E03
0.211
8.090E02
0.166
0.276
7.984E02
2.033E02
0.266
0.290
8.312E02
0.242
0.200
4.581E02
0.145
0.497
7.247E02
3.731E02 0.458
0.373
0.265
0.460
0.335
0.421
0.411
0.203
0.456
0.394
0.231
0.155
0.359
9.944E02 0.215
0.255
0.142
6.923E02
4.288E02
0.284
0.103
0.341
8.683E02
0.160
0.358
0.163
0.300
0.120
7.932E02
0.127
0.123
0.116
0.184
4.926E02
5.112E02
0.289
9.967E02
0.287
9.588E02
0.455
8.972E02
9.793E02
0.284
0.245
0.418
1.153E02
0.109
0.110
4.706E02
0.112
0.174
3.790E02
0.511
3.150E02
0.398
2.663E02
1.061E03
6.626E02
5.794E02
0.120
0.234
9.531E02 0.160
0.115
0.146
0.176
0.113
0.124
0.239
2.857E02
4.303E02
0.168
9.602E03
2.790E02
0.171
0.217
5.000E03
6.017E02
8.813E02
1.585E02
0.140
0.124
7.094E02 0.377
0.306
9.980E02
1.896E02 0.119
0.100
4.718E02 3.125E02 9.240E02
1.796E04 0.458
9.529E04 0.138
0.412
8.732E02
3.042E02
9.447E02
5.953E03
1.978E02 0.103
1.894E02 4.494E02 1.454E02
0.131
0.136
4.908E02
3.797E02 1.923E02
4.143E02 4.405E02 8.613E02
0.192
0.108
0.107
8
4.137E02
5.928E02 6.869E02
2.609E02 0.350
7.300E02 0.355
0.379
0.416
4.478E02
1.276E02
6.805E03
0.235
5.887E02 3.245E02
6.664E02 0.318
0.178
0.214
0.211
3.229E02
Table A3: Component Matrix
Appendix (Cont.)
9
0.287
1.407E02
2.891E02
5.459E02
4.942E02
0.517
0.107
1.999E02
5.054E03
4.706E02
1.398E02
7.845E02
0.215
2.449E02
0.224
2.305E02
0.112
0.139
4.422E02
1.796E02
4.158E02
2.819E02
0.151
10
11
4.844E02
0.179
0.104
0.229
9.497E02
0.179
0.220
0.126
0.221
0.265
0.133
5.761E02
5.116E02
0.141
0.180
0.170
7.069E02
0.175
0.162
0.239
0.158
0.159
0.220
2.722E02
0.132
0.375
0.238
4.653E02
2.042E02
6.343E02
0.136
8.611E02
0.261
0.325
9.405E02
0.122
6.906E02
0.120
4.071E03
0.126
6.884E02
7.150E02
0.133
6.153E02 0.119
0.172
47
0.544
0.527
0.526
0.515
0.503
0.455
0.421
0.417
0.448
0.241
0.327
0.517
0.537
0.467
0.434
0.319
0.389
0.376
0.320
0.415
0.372
Trendy
Competent
Sincere
Intelligent
Original
Wholesome
Sensible
Tough
Daring
Polished
Feminine
Glamorous
Appealing
Upper Class
Smooth
Simple
Down to Earth
Musculine
Flavoring
Western
Rugged
0.103
0.352
0.319
0.115
0.356
0.334
9.031E02
0.406
3.191E02
2.166E02
0.321
0.545
0.559
0.308
6.664E02
1.703E02
0.319
0.109
0.393
0.390
0.175
0.197
0.346
0.410
0.421
1.726E02 0.504
9.551E02 0.530
0.104
0.195
2.192E02 0.572
0.492
0.507
0.403
0.307
0.122
0.406
0.480
0.384
0.471
0.429
7.384E02
0.190
0.181
0.460
0.396
4.363E02
0.126
0.360
0.249
0.257
0.290
0.251
0.195
8.270E02
0.290
0.126
0.219
0.325
0.173
6.760E03
0.155
2.141E02
5.720E02
1.935E02
0.102
3.375E02
9.953E02
0.344
3.570E02
6.796E02
0.514
0.190
0.136
0.239
8.454E02
0.395
0.185
2.813E02
0.128
1.625E02
8.183E02
0.244
0.213
9.001E02
3.938E02
1.137E02
9.368E02
0.167
0.492
0.565
0.313
0.198
0.310
0.374
5.004E02
4.459E02
0.150
0.179
0.453
0.369
7.854E02
0.250
0.412
0.178
0.153
7.235E02
5.682E02 0.257
0.275
0.190
6.567E02 0.159
0.138
0.121
3.837E02
0.101
0.254
0.144
7.447E02
0.163
4.415E02 8.039E02 9.714E02
8.049E02 5.751E02
0.102
6.891E02
3.449E02
6.200E02 2.418E02
0.294
2.007E02
5.114E02 0.327
0.114
0.349
9.647E03 7.143E02
0.145
0.445
9.908E02
0.161
0.394
0.287
9.414E02 0.185
0.339
0.428
0.459
2.967E03
0.206
Note: Component Matrix; Extraction Method: Principal component analysis; a 11 components extracted.
0.550
Sentimental
Table A3 (Cont.)
Appendix (Cont.)
3.685E02
0.249
2.926E02
0.188
0.243
0.116
9.503E02
0.203
5.626E02
0.129
8.003E02
0.305
0.186
4.246E02
6.182E02
1.554E03
0.216
8.660E03
5.004E02
0.146
0.275
0.452
4.443E02
0.112
8.627E02
6.624E02
0.216
3.287E02
11
0.270
1.386E02
0.214
0.123
3.961E02
0.183
8.521E02
8.114E02
0.334
0.308
1.330E02
6.044E02
0.115
0.110
4.300E02
0.140
2.910E02
4.542E02
2.423E02 0.294
9.502E02 0.136
6.174E02 0.170
0.139
0.123
0.146
7.539E03 0.186
0.190
7.287E02 0.216
0.207
0.185
0.258
0.177
0.197
6.813E03
10
Annexure
The questionnaire is designed to measure your perception regarding brand and
extended brand personalities. Please tick your choice.
1. When you think of soap, which brand first comes to your mind?
Lux
Cinthol
Dove
Lifebouy
Fiama Di Wills
2. When thinking of shampoos, which brand comes to your mind?

Sunsilk
Head & Shoulder
Clinic All Clear
Lifebouy
Dove
Pantene
3. When we mention the brand Dove, what products come to your mind?
..............................................................................................................................................................
4. As far as you know, what products are brought out by the brand Dove?
..............................................................................................................................................................
5. Could you please rate how the following personalities agree with the characteristics
of brand Dove. Please circle the right choice, 1 being does not agree and 6 being
fully agree?
48
Down-to-earth
Simple
Sensible
Does not agree

Does not agree
Does not agree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Fully agree
Fully agree
Fully agree
Honest
Sincere
Real
Does not agree

Does not agree
Does not agree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Fully agree
Fully agree
Fully agree
Wholesome
Flavoring
Original
Does not agree

Does not agree
Does not agree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Fully agree
Fully agree
Fully agree
Cheerful
Sentimental
Friendly
Does not agree

Does not agree
Does not agree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Fully agree
Fully agree
Fully agree
Daring
Trendy
Thrilling
Does not agree

Does not agree
Does not agree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Fully agree
Fully agree
Fully agree
Spirited
Cool
Young
Does not agree

Does not agree
Does not agree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Fully agree
Fully agree
Fully agree
Imaginative
Unique
Exciting
Does not agree

Does not agree
Does not agree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Fully agree
Fully agree
Fully agree
Annexure (Cont.)
H
Modern
Dynamic
Contemporary
Does not agree

Does not agree
Does not agree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Fully agree
Fully agree
Fully agree
Reliability
Enduring
Secure
Does not agree

Does not agree
Does not agree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Fully agree
Fully agree
Fully agree
Intelligent
Competent
Polished
Does not agree

Does not agree
Does not agree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Fully agree
Fully agree
Fully agree
Successful
Leader
Confident
Does not agree

Does not agree
Does not agree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Fully agree
Fully agree
Fully agree
Upper Class
Glamorous
Appealing
Does not agree

Does not agree
Does not agree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Fully agree
Fully agree
Fully agree
Charming
Feminine
Smooth
Does not agree

Does not agree
Does not agree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Fully agree
Fully agree
Fully agree
Simple & Easy

Masculine
Western
Does not agree

Does not agree
Does not agree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Fully agree
Fully agree
Fully agree
Tough
Inspired
Rugged
Does not agree

Does not agree
Does not agree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Fully agree
Fully agree
Fully agree
6. What improvements would you suggest for brand Dove? (Tick any one only)
Should be available in other product categories

Should decrease the prices of its products
Should come in more fragrances
Should increase the availability of product in more number of retail outlets.
7. When you personify Dove, it is personified as ____________________________

a)
Actor
b)
Actress
c)
Young
d)
Old
e)
Gentle
f)
Stubborn
g)
Teacher
h)
Corporate
8. If Dove goes for celebrity endorsement it should use_______________________

a)
Katrina Kaif
b)
Kareena Kapoor
c)
Hema Malini
d)
Angelina Jolie
e)
Sania Mirza
f)
Aishwarya Rai
49
Annexure (Cont.)
9. If Dove goes for extending its brand, it should make _______________________
Please fill the following details:
Name: __________________________________________________________________
Your age in years:
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45 and above
You are: Male Female

Occupation:
Self-employed Working
Student (Studying)
Housewife
Non-Working
Reference # 25J-2009-09/12-02-01
50
Copyright of IUP Journal of Brand Management is the property of ICFAI University Press and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Document 5

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

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

Document 5

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Understanding Consumer Perception

(**) Facets or (***) Items

(**) Down-to-earth, honest, wholesome and cheerful

Daring, spirited, imaginative and up-to-date

Reliable, intelligent and successful

Upper class and charming

Outdoorsy and tough

Openness (or intellect)

(***) Creative imaginative, intellectual,

Efficient, organized, systematic, practical,

Bold, extraverted, talkative, bashful, quiet, shy,

Kind sympathetic, warm, cooperative and cold

Unenvious, relaxed, fretful, envious, jealous,

Understanding Consumer Perception of Brand Personality

Figure 3: Consumer Association with Word Dove

Sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness, all achieved a high

Table 4: Total Variance Explained

Understanding Consumer Perception of Brand Personality

Variance Cumul(%) ative (%)

Variance Cumul(%) ative (%)

2.195E-02 4.878E-02 100.000

Variance Cumul(%) ative (%)

Variance Cumul(%) ative (%)

Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; 11 Components extracted.

Figure 4: Scree Plot

Table 5: Extracted Personality Dimensions of Brand Dove

6. Aaker J L and Fournier S (1995), A Brand as a Character, A Partner and a Person:

22. Eysenck H J (1991), Dimensions of Personality: 16, 5, or 3? Criteria for a Taxonomic

40. McCrae R and Costa P T (1985), Updating Normans Adequate Taxonomy:

Simple and Easy

Note: Extraction Method: Principal component analysis.

Simple and Easy

Table A2: Rotated Component Martix

Understanding Consumer Perception of Brand Personality

Simple and Easy

4.718E02 3.125E02 9.240E02

1.894E02 4.494E02 1.454E02

4.143E02 4.405E02 8.613E02

Table A3: Component Matrix

Understanding Consumer Perception of Brand Personality

4.415E02 8.039E02 9.714E02

2. When thinking of shampoos, which brand comes to your mind?

Head & Shoulder

Clinic All Clear

Does not agree

Does not agree

Does not agree

Does not agree

Does not agree

Does not agree

Does not agree

Does not agree

Does not agree

Does not agree

Does not agree

Does not agree

Does not agree

Simple & Easy

Does not agree

Does not agree

Should be available in other product categories

7. When you personify Dove, it is personified as ____________________________

8. If Dove goes for celebrity endorsement it should use_______________________

Understanding Consumer Perception of Brand Personality

() Facets or (*) Items