Search results

The purpose of this paper is to browse literature based on Aaker’s brand personality modal and highlight criticism on it. Furthermore, the study proposes an Islamic brand personality modal based on Islamic teachings.

Extensive research on Muslim characteristics based on Qur’an, hadith and scholarly work of traditional and modern scholars has been used to assess Aaker’s model. Expert opinions of faculty members from relevant field are also taken into consideration to propose Islamic brand personality model.

Aaker’s brand personality dimensions have been revised in the light of Islamic teachings. As a result, few pre-existing dimensions have been re-named and several new dimensions such as moral character and trustworthiness are also included.

Considering the gap found in literature, the need to conduct brand personality research in the service industry such as Islamic banks is highlighted.

Islamic brand personality model may help marketers effectively differentiate Islamic brands such as Islamic banks. It may also reinforce advertising techniques/tools to attract a large Muslim consumer market.

This paper is one of the early attempts to see brand personality from Islamic perspective.

Aaker’s brand personality scale (BPS) published in 1997 has revived hitherto sluggish interest in brand personality research. With time, the BPS, most cited work in brand personality, also faced criticism across dimensions. This paper aims to review the popular journals published after 1997 for criticism related to BPS.

Papers using Aaker’s BPS without change/with change are identified and scrutinized for reasons for the usage of BPS. Papers on brand personality that have avoided BPS are also scrutinized for reasons of avoidance. Independent efforts of understanding brand personality without Aaker’s framework are also reviewed. In-depth study of all these papers is done to report the criticism of Aaker’s BPS.

This review identifies the criticism of BPS and classifies it across six categories – definition, dimension, methodology, concept, words and generalizability related criticism. This paper argues that some issues such as definition, conceptual understanding of brand personality and methodology used to develop BPS need further attention of scholars. On the other hand, issues of dimensions, words used and generalizability can be attributed to evident reasons, such as culture and meaning given to words because of native language.

This criticism and interest in Aaker’s BPS are unprecedented. It has been 20 years since BPS was published. Many scholars have countered the Aaker’s BPS through their work; however, a comprehensive review covering all criticisms and issues of BPS is still missing in literature. This paper is filling this gap in literature.

La Escala de Personalidad de Marca de Aaker fue publicada en 1997 y desde entonces ha motivado el interés por la investigación de la personalidad de la marca. Con el tiempo, esta escala se ha convertido en la más citada, pero también ha sido objeto de crítica. Este artículo revisa las principales críticas a la escala desde su publicación en 1997.

Se analizaron los artículos que utilizaron la escala de personalidad de marca de Aaker sin cambios o con cambios y los motivos de uso. Se examinaron los trabajos que evitaron utilizar la escala y las razones argumentadas. También se analizaron los esfuerzos realizados para comprender la personalidad de marca al margen de este enfoque. El análisis en profundidad de todos estos trabajos permitió sintetizar las principales críticas vertidas hacia la escala de personalidad de marca de Aaker.

Las críticas a la escala de personalidad de marca fueron clasificadas en seis categorías - Definición, Dimensión, Metodología, Concepto, Palabras utilizadas y Capacidad de generalización. El artículo argumenta que algunas cuestiones como la definición, la comprensión conceptual de la personalidad de la marca y la metodología utilizada para desarrollar la escala requieren mayor atención por parte de los académicos. Por otra parte, los problemas relacionados con las dimensiones, las palabras utilizadas y la capacidad de generalización pueden atribuirse a razones evidentes como la cultura, diferente significado de las palabras en distintos países, etc.

Las críticas e interés generado por la escala de personalidad de marca de Aaker no tienen precedentes. Han pasado 20 años desde su publicación y son muchos los investigadores han vertido sus críticas específicas. Sin embargo, en la literatura se echa en falta algún trabajo que revise todas estas críticas de forma integrada. Este artículo pretende cubrir este vacío en la literatura.

This empirical study examines the psychometric comparability of Aaker's Brand Personality Scale (Aaker, 1997) in sponsorship matching. It employs a structural validation protocol - the congenerity test (Ohanion, 1990) - to investigate the extent to which sports events and sponsors can be psychometrically matched. The results show that sports events and sponsors are comparable only in terms of limited numbers of the dimensions of the a priori scale. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the personalities that are associated with sportswear brands and tests the applicability of Aaker's brand personality framework in the context of sportswear brands.

This study employed Aaker's brand personality framework to empirically investigate the personality of sportswear brands based on data collected from 420 college students.

Results revealed that consumers perceive seven distinct personality dimensions and 53 personality traits in sportswear brands: Competence, Attractiveness, Sincerity, Innovation, Activity, Excitement, and Ruggedness.

This research developed a valid and reliable scale that measures personality for sportswear products and confirms that consumers do associate particular brand personality dimensions with sportswear brands. The findings would help managers in the sportswear market better understand the image of their brand in the minds of consumers and better distinguish their brand from competing brands.

This paper aims to explore the personalities of sportswear brands and their relationship to brand equity using Aaker’s methodology in the context of sportswear brands.

This paper used Aaker’s brand personality framework to empirically investigate the personality of sportswear brands and the impact of brand personality on brand equity based on data collected from 420 college students.

Results revealed that the personality of sportswear brands can be described in seven dimensions and 53 personality traits: competence, attractiveness, sincerity, innovation, activity, excitement and ruggedness. The study identified that four dimensions among all the seven personality dimensions, namely, competence, attractiveness, Sincerity and innovation, are the positive and significant contributing factors to the creation and enhancement of sportswear brand equity.

This study makes an important contribution to the understanding of brand personality and brand equity in the context of sportswear brands. It confirmed that consumers do associate particular brand personality dimensions with sportswear brands, and certain dimensions of brand personality have a direct impact on brand equity. The study showed that not all brand personality dimensions have the same influence in increasing the value of a sportswear brand from a consumer perspective, some dimensions being more efficient than others. The findings provide insights as to what dimensions of brand personality would deliver the best result in today’s competitive sportswear market.

This study has sought to examine the issue of 'brand image' and its potential impact on sports sponsorship. In particular, brand personality of a sports event and sponsor are considered in relation to sponsor-event fit and image transfer. The study proposes that if there are strong links in terms of brand personality between the Ryder Cup and IBM brands, then the stronger will be the shared 'brand image' and impact of the sponsorship relationship in the minds of consumers. For the purposes of this study it is assumed the sports event of The Ryder Cup is perceived as a 'brand' in its own right.

The purpose of this paper is to: distinguish between financial brand equity and perceptual brand equity; distinguish among different stakeholder perspectives on customer-based brand equity, consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) (consumer, customer, employee and resident); contrast the original definitions and measures of CBBE by Aaker and Keller; identify the deviations from the original conceptualizations and measures of CBBE by Aaker and Keller; discuss the evolution of the most commonly used CBBE components; analyze the structural relations of the most common CBBE components and generate conceptual, structural, relational and methodological suggestions for future research.

This critical review conducted a narrative analysis of the perceptual brand equity literature (CBBE) by inventorying about 200 empirical and conceptual CBBE studies in several different contexts. Studies that included CBBE, brand equity, customer-based brand equity and consumer-based brand equity were included in this review. Only 87 representative studies that either conceptually defined or empirically measured CBBE and its components were included in the deep analysis.

The review revealed that the literature is divergent in terms of CBBE components or structural relations among components in any context including tourism and hospitality. Even though about 40 different CBBE components exist in different contexts, the totality of the CBBE literature reflects a consensus on five components of CBBE, brand familiarity/brand awareness, brand image/brand associations, perceived quality, consumer value and brand loyalty, all of which collectively define the total meanings of a brand from consumer/customer perspective.

Keeping these five components intact, this study suggests a concise CBBE definition, conceptual clarifications for these components, a model reflecting their structural relations and a framework of parsimonious measures. The study makes future research recommendations in terms of using uniform CBBE components, measures and relational structure among components, identifying the relationship between CBBE and financial-based brand equity and comparing different stakeholder perspectives on CBBE in future research.

With these observations and suggestions, this critical review provides a guideline for more robust theory development of the CBBE construct. Additionally, it offers a parsimonious and practical CBBE blueprint for the practitioners who include CBBE as a strategic market metric in their marketing and research plans. Furthermore, it suggests standardization in CBBE research to enable systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the CBBE literature in the future. Using standard components, measures and relational models in CBBE research, as was suggested in this study, would allow meta-analysis for a meaningful comparison of results between different brands, products and even industries.

This study explores the relationship between brand image and brand equity in the context of sports sponsorship. Keller's (1993, 2003) customer-based brand equity models are the conceptual inspiration for the research, with Faircloth, Capella, and Alford's (2001) conceptual model – adapted from the work of Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) – the primary conceptual model. The study focuses on the sponsorship relationship between the New Zealand All Blacks and their major sponsor and co-branding partner, adidas. The sporting context for the study was the 2003 Rugby World Cup held in Australia. Data were collected from two independent samples of 200 respondents, utilizing simple random sampling procedures. A bivariate correlation analysis was undertaken to test whether there was any correlation between changes in adidas' brand image and adidas' brand equity as a result of the All Blacks' performance in the 2003 Rugby World Cup. Results support the view that Keller (1993, 2003) proposes that brand image is antecedent to the brand equity construct. Results are also consistent with the findings of Faircloth et al. (2001) that brand image directly impacts brand equity.

The present research aims to improve the measurement of consumer‐based brand equity. Current measurement of consumer‐based brand equity suffers from limitations, including: a lack of distinction between the dimensions brand awareness and brand associations, the use of non‐discriminant indicators in the measurement scales and of student samples.

Based on the recommendations of extant research, the scale constructed to measure consumer‐based brand equity in this study included brand personality measures. Brand associations were measured using a different set of items. Unlike many of the previous studies that had used student samples, the present study used a sample of actual consumers from an Australian state capital city. Confirmatory factor analysis employing structural equations modelling was used to measure consumer‐based brand equity in two product categories and across six brands.

Results support the hypothesised four‐dimension model of consumer‐based brand equity across two product categories and six brands. Brand awareness and brand associations were found to be two distinct dimensions of brand equity as conceptualised in the marketing literature. The present study contributes to the understanding of consumer‐based brand equity measurement by examining the dimensionality of this construct.

The principal contribution of the present research is that it provides empirical evidence of the multidimensionality of consumer‐based brand equity, supporting Aaker's and Keller's conceptualisation of brand equity. The present research also enriched consumer‐based brand equity measurement by incorporating the brand personality measures, as recommended by previous researchers. While earlier studies were conducted using US and Korean samples, the present study also used a sample of Australian consumers.

This paper aims to examine whether companies in business‐to‐business (B2B) markets can leverage their brands extended into business‐to‐consumer (B2C) markets and how consumers evaluate these extensions.

A model is developed by combining Aaker and Keller's brand extension model with theories from B2B branding as well as other consumer branding literature, and analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively to have an insight about how consumers evaluate brand extensions.

In the context of B2B brand extensions into B2C markets, consumers use brand concept consistency, product‐level relatedness and transferability of skills and resources as major cues to evaluate extensions. Perceived quality, innovativeness and environmental concerns are also relevant cues.

As a consequence of these findings, branding strategies that stretch B2B brands into the domain of consumer markets can be successful in cases where consumers perceive a fit with respect to skills and resources, brand concept, and existing products, and when the parent brand is perceived as being high quality, innovative and environmentally responsible.

The main contribution of the study is to replicate the analysis of brand extension evaluation in a different context, namely B2B brand extension into the B2C market.