브랜드 개성과 소비자 유형간 적합성 연구

이재진(Lee, Jaejin),이만홍(Lee, Manhong) 한국상품학회 2015 商品學硏究 Vol.33 No.4

기업은 적절한 커뮤니케이션 전략을 통하여 브랜드 개성을 구축하고 특정 성향을 가진 소비자에게 보다 더 소구하기 위한 노력을 한다. 이를 통하여 우호적인 브랜드 태도를 유도하고 중장기적인 고객관계를 유지하는데 중요한 기반으로 활용할 수 있다. 또한 브랜드 개성을 강화하는 것은 브랜드 관리의 최고 반열이라 할 수 있는 소비자와 브랜드 간 동일시를 기대할 수 있다. 본 연구에서는 인간행동의 심리적 기저가 될 수 있는 중요한 심리학적 개념 중에서 ‘위험에 대한 지각’과 ‘타인 또는 자기 중심적 사고'에 주시하여 위험감수(risk taking) 성향과 자아해석(self-construal)을 근거로 소비자유형을 구분하고 각각의 소비자 특성에 따른 최적의 브랜드 개성을 찾아내고자 하였다. 더불어 브랜드 개성차원을 독립적으로만 보던 관점에서 벗어나 소비자유형과 특정 브랜드 개성간의 상호작용에 의해 상대적, 대칭적관계가 형성될 수 있다는 것을 보여주고자 하였다. 연구결과, 브랜드 개성‘진실’에 대하여 독립적 자아해석의 소비자가 긍정적 태도를 보이고, ‘세련’인 브랜드에 대하여 상호의존적 자아해석의 소비자가 높은 긍정적 태도를 보였다. 자아해석에 의한 소비자 유형에 있어서 브랜드 개성 ‘진실’과 ‘세련’은 각각 대칭적 관계임을 확인 할 수 있었다. ‘또한 위험감수 성향과 관련하여 ’활기’의 브랜드에 대하여 위험감수의 소비자가 호의적인 태도를 보였으며, ‘강인’의 브랜드에 대하여 위험회피의 소비자가 높은 브랜드태도를 보였다. 위험감수성향에 의한 소비자 유형에 있어서 브랜드 개성 ‘활기’와 ‘강인’은 각각 대칭적 관계임을 보여주었다. 본 연구를 통해 표적소비자의 유형과 특성에 따른 적절한 브랜드 개성 확립의 중요성을 일깨워 주고 학문적, 실무적 시사점을 제시하고 한다. Company makes an efforts to build brand personalities and appeal consumers with particular traits through appropriate communication strategies. We effectively can utilizes these strategies to lead favorable brand attitudes and maintain long termconsumer relationship. Besides this, brand personality could be expected to make consumers identify brands, which is premier status in brand management. In this study, recognizing just two critical concept, perception about risk and others or self-centered thought, we classified consumer types based on risk taking and self construal consept and find an optimum brand personality according to each consumer trait. Plus, departing from the independent view of brand personality dimensions,We intended to showthat relative and symmetric relationship could formby the interaction between consumer's trait and brand personality. To sum up the study, independent self-construal consumers have a favorable attitude toward brand personality 'Sincerity' and independent self-construal consumers have a favorable attitude toward brand personality 'Sophistication'. As for self-construal consumer types, personality 'Sincerity' and brand personality 'Sophistication' are symmetric relation with each other. In addition, As for risk taking trait, risk taking consumers have a favorable attitude toward brand personality 'Excitement' and risk aversion consumers have a favorable attitude toward brand personality 'Ruggedness' As for risk taking consumer types, personality 'Excitement' and brand personality 'Ruggedness' are symmetric relation with each other. This study should be able to propose academic and practical implications by arousing the importance of building proper brand personality fit for target consumer type and traits.

브랜드 체험이 브랜드 개성 및 브랜드 자산에 미치는 영향 - 제품군과 소비자 관여도의 조절효과를 중심으로 -

심현숙 한국기업경영학회 2016 기업경영연구 Vol.23 No.1

Consumers strongly tend to choose products based on not only their functional benefits but also brand experiences. Because of this trend, both scholars and marketers express high interest in brand experiences, and emphasize the importance of them in developing strategies for products and services. Nevertheless, research in brand experience and which sub-dimension of experiences affect brand equity and brand loyalty have not been carried out extensively. Even though the research has dealt with brand experience, it has had limitation, as they have not measured brand experience with a systematized scale. In this study, the researcher investigated the causal relationship between brand experience, brand equity like brand personality and brand affect, and brand loyalty; brand experience was measured by the scale which Brakus et al.(2009) developed whereby reliability and validity were proved. Brand experience is divided 4 sub-dimensions: sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual. The researcher hypothesized that product type and product involvement and consumers's involvement would make a moderating role in the relationship between brand experience, brand personality, brand affect, and brand loyalty. 1519 questionnaires were distributed to a sample group of people aged between 20-40. The data were analyzed with a structural equation model using the AMOS 18.0 program. The results of this study are summarized as follows. 1. Reliability of items used in this study were proved by Cronbach's alpha value, CR(construct reliability), and AVE(average variance extracted) value. Discriminant validities of constructs were also verified by correlation value, comparision between squared correlation and ave value, and others. These two validities were based on the values through the results of CFA(Confirmatory Factor Analysis). 2. Brand experiences affected brand personality, brand affect, and brand loyalty. The strength of influence varied according to the sub dimension of brand experience. Brand personality and brand affect are accelerating by sensory, affective and intellectual brand experience not by behavioral experience of brand. In the relationship between brand personality and brand affect, brand affect is promoted by sincerity, excitement, sophistication, and indulgence of brand personality except brand capability personality. In the relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty, only brand capablilty factor of personality affected on brand loyalty. 3. Brand personality, brand attachment, brand image, brand attitude, and brand affect that the researcher set up as brand equity elements affected brand loyalty both directly and/or indirectly. As a result, their mediating roles of them were supported; previous researches have rarely dealt with. 4. The relationship between brand experience, brand equity, and brand loyalty was different according to consumers' involvement. To the consumers who have low personal involvement, brand sincerity, excitement, capability tend to be accelerated when sensory experience of brand is promoted. Not like low personal involvement consumers, positive brand affect is facilitated when brand sophistication is stressed to the high personal involvement consumers. 5. The relationship between brand experience, brand equity, and brand loyalty also differed according to whether the products are high involvement products or low involvement products, and whether they are functional products or hedonic products. These results imply that products type and involvement make moderating role in the relationship between brand experience, brand equity, and brand loyalty. Their moderating roles are identified for the first time in the research field of brand experience. In the final session, academic and managerial implications are discussed and the limitation of this study and the future research directions are suggested. 본 연구에서는 소비자의 브랜드 체험을 측정하여 브랜드 체험 유형에 따라 브랜드 자산인 브랜드 개성, 브랜드 감정 및 브랜드 충성도가 달라 질 수 있는지 파악하고자 하였다. 이 과정에서 제품에 대한 소비자의 관여도와 제품 관여도 및 제품 카테고리인 실용적, 쾌락적 제품 여부에 따른 조절효과를 검증하고자 하였다. 연구모형 검증을 위해 서울시에 소재하는 대학생과 직장인 1800명을 대상으로 설문조사를 행하여 구조방정식 모형으로 실증분석을 하였다. 분석 결과 첫째, 브랜드에 대한 4가지 체험 유형 중 감각적, 감성적, 지적체험이 많을수록 브랜드 개성 중 성실성, 활기, 역량 및 세련성이 촉진되는 것으로 나타났다. 이에 비하여 행동적 체험은 브랜드 역량에는 유의한 영향을 미치지는 않아 브랜드 개성을 촉진하기 위해서는 행동적 체험보다는 감각적 체험, 감성적 체험 및 지적 체험을 활성화하는 것이 유효하다는 것을 시사하였다. 브랜드 체험이 브랜드 감정에 미치는 영향을 보면 감각적, 감성적 체험 및 지적 체험만 브랜드 감정에 유의한 영향을 미쳐 브랜드에 대한 긍정적 감정을 도모하기 위해서는 감각적, 감성적 체험과 더불어 지적 체험을 유발시켜야 할 필요가 있음을 시사하고 있다. 브랜드 개성 차원에 따라 브랜드 감정 및 브랜드 충성도에 대한 영향도 다르게 나타났다. 둘째, 다중집단 분석 결과 제품에 대한 소비자의 관여도와 제품군에 따라 브랜드체험-브랜드 충성도 간의 관계가 다르게 나타나 조절효과가 검증되었다. 조절효과 검증 결과, 브랜드 체험이 브랜드 개성에 미치는 영향에서는 관여도가 높은 제품군인 패션제품과 화장품 및 휴대폰과 관여도가 낮은 제품인 커피전문점 및 음료수 간에 그리큰 차이가 나타나지 않았다. 그러나 브랜드에 대한 감정과 브랜드 개성과의 관계에서는 고관여 제품군인 휴대폰, 패션제품과 저관여 제품인 커피전문점, 음료수 간에는 차이가 뚜렷하게 있는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 연구결과를 바탕으로 브랜드 관리에 대한 실무적 제언을 하였다.

스타벅스 브랜드 개성이 소비자 만족과 소비자 웰빙에 미치는 영향

이지원(Jiwon Lee),김도희(Dohee Kim) 대한경영학회 2016 大韓經營學會誌 Vol.29 No.6

Relationship between brand personality and the personality of consumers, and its application to corporate branding strategy

김영이,이정완,이용기 한국마케팅과학회 2008 마케팅과학연구 Vol.18 No.3

Many consumers enjoy the challenge of purchasing a brand that matches well with their own values and personalities (for example, Ko et al., 2008; Ko et al., 2006). Therefore, the personalities of consumers can impact on the final selection of a brand and its brand personality in two ways: first, the consumers may incline to purchase a brand or a product that reflects their own personalities; second, consumers tend to choose a company that has similar brand personalities to those brands that are being promoted. Therefore, the objectives of this study are following: 1. Is there any empirical relationship between a consumer’s personality and the personality of a brand that he or she chooses? 2. Can a corporate brand be differentiated by the brand personality? In short, consumers are more likely to hold favorable attitudes towards those brands that match their own personality and will most probably purchase those brands matching well with their personality. For example, Matzler et al. (2006) found that extraversion and openness were positively related to hedonic product value; and that the personality traits directly (openness) and indirectly (extraversion, via hedonic value) influenced brand effects, which in turn droved attitudinal and purchase loyalty. Based on the above discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 1: the personality of a consumer is related to the brand personality of a product/corporate that he/she purchases. Kuksov (2007) and Wernerfelt (1990) argued that brands as a symbolic language allowed consumers to communicate their types to each other and postulated that consumers had a certain value of communicating their types to each other. Therefore, how brand meanings are established, and how a firm communicate with consumers about the meanings of the brand are interesting topics for research (for example, Escalas and Bettman, 2005; McCracken, 1989; Moon, 2007). Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 2: A corporate brand identity is differentiated by the brand personality. And there are significant differences among companies. A questionnaire was developed for collecting empirical measures of the Big-Five personality traits and brand personality variables. A survey was conducted to the online access panel members through the Internet during December 2007 in Korea. In total, 500 respondents completed the questionnaire, and considered as useable. Personality constructs were measured using the Five-factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) scale and a total of 30 items were actually utilized. Brand personality was measured using the five-dimension scale developed by Aaker (1997). A total of 17 items were actually utilized. The seven-point Likert-type scale was the format of responses, for example, from 1 indicating strongly disagreed to 7 for strongly agreed. The Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) was used for an empirical testing of the model, and the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) was applied to estimate numerical values for the components in the model. To diagnose the presence of distribution problems in the data and to gauge their effects on the parameter estimates, bootstapping method was used. The results of the hypothesis-1 test empirically show that there exit certain causality relationship between a consumer’s personality and the brand personality of the consumer’s choice. Thus, the consumer’s personality has an impact on consumer’s final selection of a brand that has a brand personality matches well with their own personalities. In other words, the consumers are inclined to purchase a brand that reflects their own personalities and tend to choose a company that has similar brand personalities to those of the brand being promoted. The results of this study further suggest that certain dimensions of the brand personality cause consumers to have preference to certain (corporate) brands. For example, the conscientiousness... Many consumers enjoy the challenge of purchasing a brand that matches well with their own values and personalities (for example, Ko et al., 2008; Ko et al., 2006). Therefore, the personalities of consumers can impact on the final selection of a brand and its brand personality in two ways: first, the consumers may incline to purchase a brand or a product that reflects their own personalities; second, consumers tend to choose a company that has similar brand personalities to those brands that are being promoted. Therefore, the objectives of this study are following: 1. Is there any empirical relationship between a consumer’s personality and the personality of a brand that he or she chooses? 2. Can a corporate brand be differentiated by the brand personality? In short, consumers are more likely to hold favorable attitudes towards those brands that match their own personality and will most probably purchase those brands matching well with their personality. For example, Matzler et al. (2006) found that extraversion and openness were positively related to hedonic product value; and that the personality traits directly (openness) and indirectly (extraversion, via hedonic value) influenced brand effects, which in turn droved attitudinal and purchase loyalty. Based on the above discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 1: the personality of a consumer is related to the brand personality of a product/corporate that he/she purchases. Kuksov (2007) and Wernerfelt (1990) argued that brands as a symbolic language allowed consumers to communicate their types to each other and postulated that consumers had a certain value of communicating their types to each other. Therefore, how brand meanings are established, and how a firm communicate with consumers about the meanings of the brand are interesting topics for research (for example, Escalas and Bettman, 2005; McCracken, 1989; Moon, 2007). Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 2: A corporate brand identity is differentiated by the brand personality. And there are significant differences among companies. A questionnaire was developed for collecting empirical measures of the Big-Five personality traits and brand personality variables. A survey was conducted to the online access panel members through the Internet during December 2007 in Korea. In total, 500 respondents completed the questionnaire, and considered as useable. Personality constructs were measured using the Five-factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) scale and a total of 30 items were actually utilized. Brand personality was measured using the five-dimension scale developed by Aaker (1997). A total of 17 items were actually utilized. The seven-point Likert-type scale was the format of responses, for example, from 1 indicating strongly disagreed to 7 for strongly agreed. The Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) was used for an empirical testing of the model, and the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) was applied to estimate numerical values for the components in the model. To diagnose the presence of distribution problems in the data and to gauge their effects on the parameter estimates, bootstapping method was used. The results of the hypothesis-1 test empirically show that there exit certain causality relationship between a consumer’s personality and the brand personality of the consumer’s choice. Thus, the consumer’s personality has an impact on consumer’s final selection of a brand that has a brand personality matches well with their own personalities. In other words, the consumers are inclined to purchase a brand that reflects their own personalities and tend to choose a company that has similar brand personalities to those of the brand being promoted. The results of this study further suggest that certain dimensions of the brand personality cause consumers to have preference to certain (corporate) brands. For example, the conscientiousness, neuroticism, and extraversion of the consumer p...

RESPONSIBLE VS. ACTIVE BRANDS? A PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF BRAND PERSONALITY ON CONSUMER-BRAND RELATIONSHIPS

Sebastian Molinillo,Arnold Japutra 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2016 Global Marketing Conference Vol.2016 No.7

Increasingly, there is a rise of interests from practitioners and academics on the topic of consumer-brand relationships (CBR). It has been argued that consumer build relationship with a brand in consonance with its personalities. Thus, this study investigates the role of brand personality in predicting prominent CBR constructs, such as brand awareness, brand trust, and brand loyalty. Researchers consider brand personality as one of the prominent constructs in predicting consumer preferences and choices (e.g. Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013; Gordon, Zainuddin, & Magee, 2016; Guèvremont & Grohmann, 2013). It has been established that brands are capable to have personalities (Aaker, 1997; Geuens, Weijters, & De Wulf, 2009). The study of brand personality flourished since Aaker (1997) created a brand personality scale (BPS). According to her, brand personality reflects five main dimensions: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. Out of these dimensions, many studies mainly focus on two dimensions, sincerity and excitement respectively (e.g. Aaker, Benet-Martinez, & Garolera, 2001; Hosany, Ekinci, & Uysal, 2006; Ivens & Valta, 2012; Sung, Choi, Ahn, & Song, 2015). These studies consider these two dimensions to be of important since these dimensions appear to capture much of the variance in personality ratings of brands (Aaker, 1997) and are considered prominent to the marketing landscape (Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004; Guèvremont & Grohmann, 2013; Toldos-Romero & Orozco-Gómez, 2015). Although Aaker's BPS represents the most prominent operationalization of brand personality (Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013; Matzler, Strobl, Stokburger-Sauer, Bobovnicky, & Bauer, 2016; Freling, Crosno, & Henard, 2011), her model has been the subject of several critiques. Researchers argue that the scale measures brand identity rather than brand personality (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003), the scale is too general and simplistic (Austin, Siguaw, & Mattila, 2003), the scale does not include negative factors (Bosnjak, Bochmann, & Hufschmidt, 2007), and the scale is non-generalizable and non-replicable cross culturally (Arora & Stoner, 2009; Geuens et al., 2009). These shortcomings led researchers to construct an alternative to Aaker’s BPS. Geuens et al. (2009) develop a new measure of brand personality, which includes five dimensions: responsibility, activity, aggressiveness, simplicity, and emotionality. Although many studies scrutinize on Aaker’s brand personality scale, only limited studies apply Geuens et al.’s BPS (e.g. Garsvaite & Caruana, 2014; Goldsmith & Goldsmith, 2012; Gordon et al., 2016; Matzler et al., 2016). Thus, the present study investigates the relationships between brand personality, using Geuens et al.’s (2009) scale, and three important consumer-brand relationships (CBR) constructs. These three constructs are brand awareness, brand trust, and brand loyalty. Aaker (1991) conceptualize brand equity to include five important constructs, which includes brand awareness and brand loyalty. Meanwhile, Keller (1993) notes that brand knowledge is an important component of brand equity, consists of brand awareness and brand image. In addition, brand trust has been considered to be essential in influencing brand performance (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Hence, the focus of the present study lies on these three variables. As it has been discussed above, researchers consider sincerity and excitement to be essential in investigating consumer behavior. In light of a shortage of studies in applying Geuens et al.’s (2009) BPS, the present study examines two personality dimensions, which are conceptually similar to Aaker’s (1997) BPS: responsibility to replace sincerity and activity to replace excitement (see Table 1). To the best of our knowledge, no research has investigated the relationships between these three consumer-brand relationships constructs (i.e. brand awareness, brand trust and brand loyalty) and the two most relevant brand personality dimensions (i.e. responsibility and activity). The present study contributes to the marketing literature in three different ways. First, this study adds to the body of knowledge on the relationship between brand personality and CBR constructs using the new measure of BPS. Second, this study assesses the individual level of the new BPS, particularly responsibility and activity, on the three CBR constructs. In doing so, this study responds Keller and Lehmann’s (2006) and Geuens et al.’s (2009) call to assess the individual capacity of the brand personality dimensions to get consumer preference or loyalty. Third, this study displays which out of the two dimensions of the new BPS (i.e. responsible and active) are more important to predict the three CBR constructs. In this research, data were collected from Spanish respondents using online survey with snowballing technique. In total, 347 respondents participated in the survey. After checking for incomplete questionnaires and missing values, 8 questionnaires were dropped. Hence, 339 questionnaires were used for the analysis. Before conducting multivariate analysis, normality tests were conducted. The measurement and structural models was tested using AMOS 18, employing the Maximum Likelihood (ML) method. We find that brand personality predicts these three CBR constructs. Brand personality explains 56%, 58%, and 45% of the variance in brand awareness, brand trust, and brand loyalty, respectively. The results show that the strongest link is between brand personality and brand trust. Su and Tong (2015) find that there is no relationship between exciting personality and brand awareness. On the contrary, this study displays that being an active brand leads to higher brand awareness. Even the results show that active brands are more likely to build brand awareness compared to responsible brands. However, in order to build brand trust and brand loyalty, responsible brands are more preferred compared to active brands. These results are in line with Eisend and Stokburger-Sauer (2013) that reveal weak relationships between excitement on brand attitude and brand commitment. These days, consumers prefer the brands to be more responsible or sincere. As Kotler (2011) argues that there is a shift in marketing that consumers pay more attention toward social responsibilities. Interestingly, the results show that being too active could negatively affect brand trust and brand loyalty. Although the association is not statistically significant, Banerjee (2016) finds that excitement brand personality has a negative association with brand preference. A study also finds that excitement does not predict employer brand trust (Rampl & Kenning, 2014). One explanation could be that the brands would like to be something that is an opposite of what they are claiming. Guèvremont and Grohmann (2013) argue that when a sincere brand attempts to flatter the consumers, it decreases brand attitude and increases disappointment. However, this does not occur when flattery comes from exciting brands. Brand managers should be very careful in communicating their brands personalities. Communicating to the consumers that their brands are responsible as well as active is good. However, brand managers should understand the interplay between these two opposing personalities. Consumers may believe that the brand is a responsible brand but also a little bit active. However, communicating two different opposing personalities at the same time may confuse the consumers. This is due to consumers’ disconfirmation of expectations (Guèvremont & Grohmann, 2013). Although this study enlightens the literature of brand management, it is not without its limitations. This study collects data from a cross-sectional study in Spain. In order to generalize the results of this study, future studies should replicate the conceptual framework cross culturally. Particularly on the negative effects of active personality toward the three CBR constructs. Furthermore, Spanish has been regarded as individuals with high uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2001). Uncertainty avoidance increases the reliability of the brand personality dimensions, namely sincerity and excitement (Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013). Thus, it would be interesting to know whether differences occur between high and low uncertainty avoidance respondents. In addition, future studies should also account for other individual differences, such as attachment style. Japutra, Ekinci, Simkin, and Nguyen (2014) note that attachment style plays a prominent role in predicting consumer behaviors.

브랜드개성, 소비자 개성 간의 관계, 그러고

김영이 ( Young Ei Kim ),이정완 ( Jung Wan Lee ),이용기 ( Yong Ki Lee ) 한국마케팅과학회 2008 마케팅과학연구 Vol.18 No.3

본 연구는 브랜드 개성과 소비자 개성간의 인과성을 연구하고, 이러한 관계들이 기업브랜드 전략에 어떻게 적용되는 가를 실증분석 하였다. 분석자료는 한국의 자동차 소비자들로부터 수집되었으며, 요인분석, 분산분석, 그리고 구조모형분석을 이용하여 분석되었다. 본 연구의 결과는 브랜드 개성과 소비자 개성간의 유의한 관계가 있음을 보여주고 있다. 연구의 마지막에는 기업 브랜드 전략을 위한 관리적 시사점과 향후 연구방향이 제시되었다. Many consumers enjoy the challenge of purchasing a brand that matches well with their own values and personalities (for example, Ko et al., 2008; Ko et al., 2006). Therefore, the personalities of consumers can impact on the final selection of a brand and its brand personality in two ways: first, the consumers may incline to purchase a brand or a product that reflects their own personalities; second, consumers tend to choose a company that has similar brand personalities to those brands that are being promoted. Therefore, the objectives of this study are following: 1. Is there any empirical relationship between a consumer`s personality and the personality of a brand that he or she chooses? 2. Can a corporate brand be differentiated by the brand personality? In short, consumers are more likely to hold favorable attitudes towards those brands that match their own personality and will most probably purchase those brands matching well with their personality. For example, Matzler et al. (2006) found that extraversion and openness were positively related to hedonic product value; and that the personality traits directly (openness) and indirectly (extraversion, via hedonic value) influenced brand effects, which in turn droved attitudinal and purchase loyalty. Based on the above discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 1: the personality of a consumer is related to the brand personality of a product/corporate that he/she purchases. Kuksov (2007) and Wernerfelt (1990) argued that brands as a symbolic language allowed consumers to communicate their types to each other and postulated that consumers had a certain value of communicating their types to each other. Therefore, how brand meanings are established, and how a firm communicate with consumers about the meanings of the brand are interesting topics for research (for example, Escalas and Bettman, 2005; McCracken, 1989; Moon, 2007). Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 2: A corporate brand identity is differentiated by the brand personality. And there are significant differences among companies. A questionnaire was developed for collecting empirical measures of the Big-Five personality traits and brand personality variables. A survey was conducted to the online access panel members through the Internet during December 2007 in Korea. In total, 500 respondents completed the questionnaire, and considered as useable. Personality constructs were measured using the Five-factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) scale and a total of 30 items were actually utilized. Brand personality was measured using the five-dimension scale developed by Aaker (1997). A total of 17 items were actually utilized. The seven-point Likert-type scale was the format of responses, for example, from 1 indicating strongly disagreed to 7 for strongly agreed. The Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) was used for an empirical testing of the model, and the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) was applied to estimate numerical values for the components in the model. To diagnose the presence of distribution problems in the data and to gauge their effects on the parameter estimates, bootstapping method was used. The results of the hypothesis-1 test empirically show that there exit certain causality relationship between a consumer`s personality and the brand personality of the consumer`s choice. Thus, the consumer`s personality has an impact on consumer`s final selection of a brand that has a brand personality matches well with their own personalities. In other words, the consumers are inclined to purchase a brand that reflects their own personalities and tend to choose a company that has similar brand personalities to those of the brand being promoted. The results of this study further suggest that certain dimensions of the brand personality cause consumers to have preference to certain (corporate) brands. For example, the conscientiousness, neuroticism, and extraversion of the consumer personality have positively related to a selection of "ruggedness" characteristics of the brand personality. Consumers who possess that personality dimension seek for matching with certain brand personality dimensions. Results of the hypothesis-2 test show that the average "ruggedness" attributes of the brand personality differ significantly among Korean automobile manufacturers. However, the result of ANOVA also indicates that there are no significant differences in the mean values among manufacturers for the "sophistication," "excitement," "competence" and "sincerity" attributes of the corporate brand personality. The tight link between what a firm is and its corporate brand means that there is far less room for marketing communications than there is with products and brands. Consequently, successful corporate brand strategies must position the organization within the boundaries of what is acceptable, while at the same time differentiating the organization from its competitors.

브랜드 개성이 브랜드 사랑을 매개해 브랜드 충성도에 미치는 영향: 브랜드 애착의 조절된 매개 역할

배병렬,장곤우,송종현 대한경영학회 2023 大韓經營學會誌 Vol.36 No.10

기업이 강한 브랜드 충성도를 구축하는 것은 고객유지를 위해 필요하다. 본 연구는 브랜드 충성도(brand loyalty)에 영향을 미칠 것으로 기대되는 브랜드 개성(brand personality), 브랜드 사랑(brand love), 브랜드애착(brand attachment)을 연구모형에 포함하였다. 브랜드 개성을 세 차원(진실감, 흥분감, 유능감)으로 나누었다. 브랜드 개성이 브랜드 사랑에 영향을 주고, 이 브랜드 사랑이 브랜드 충성도에 영향을 주는 것으로 가설화 하였다. 브랜드 애착이 이들 간의 효과를 조절하는가를 연구 문제로 설정하였다. 이들 가설을 검정하기 위해 중국 소비자389명이 선호하는 화장품 브랜드를 대상으로 SmartPLS 4.0을 이용하여 분석하였다. 연구 결과를 요약하면 다음과같다. 첫째, 브랜드 개성의 세 차원은 모두 브랜드 사랑에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 브랜드 개성의세 차원 가운데 진실감이 브랜드 사랑에 가장 큰 영향을 주는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 브랜드 개성의 세 차원은모두 브랜드 충성도에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 브랜드 개성의 세 차원 가운데 진실감이 브랜드충성도에 가장 큰 영향을 주는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 브랜드 사랑은 브랜드 충성도에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는것으로 나타났다. 넷째, 브랜드 사랑은 브랜드 개성의 세 차원과 브랜드 충성도 간의 관계를 매개하는 것으로나타났다. 마지막으로, 브랜드 애착은 브랜드 개성이 브랜드 사랑에 영향을 주고 브랜드 사랑이 브랜드 충성도에주는 매개효과를 조절하는 조절된 매개효과(moderated mediation effect)가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 즉 브랜드애착이 클수록 매개효과는 커지는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과를 토대로 관리적 시사점, 이론적 시사점, 연구의한계 및 향후의 연구 방향에 관해 기술하였다. Strong brand loyalty is essential for customer retention. This study included brand personality, brand love, and brand attachment, which are expected to influence brand loyalty, in the research model. The following research questions are raised. First, does brand personality (authenticity, excitement, competence) affect brand love? Second, does brand personality affect brand loyalty? Third, Does brand love affect brand loyalty? Fourth, does brand love have a mediating effect in the relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty? Fifth, does brand attachment moderate the mediating effect of brand personality (authenticity, excitement, and competence) on brand loyalty through brand love (moderated mediation effect)? To solve these research questions, the purpose of the study was to study the relationship between brand personality (authenticity, excitement, and competence), brand love, and brand attachment regarding loyalty to their preferred cosmetics brand among 389 Chinese. Specifically, this study aimed to examine the influence of brand personality's three dimensions (sincerity, excitement, competence) on brand love, its impact on brand loyalty, and the potential mediating role of brand love in the relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty. The investigation focused on 389 Chinese consumers and their preferred cosmetic brands, utilizing SmartPLS 4.0 for hypothesis testing. The key findings of the study can be summarized as follows. First, all three dimensions of brand personality positively affected brand love. Among the three aspects (i.e., sincerity, excitement, and competence) of brand personality, it was discovered that sincerity had the most significant impact on fostering brand love. Second, these dimensions also positively influenced brand loyalty. Among the three aspects of brand personality, it was discovered that sincerity had the most significant impact on fostering brand loyalty. Third, brand love had a favorable effect on brand loyalty. Fourth, brand love acted as a mediator between the three dimensions of brand personality and brand loyalty. Fifth, brand attachment was found to moderate this mediated relationship, intensifying the relationship between brand personality, brand love, and brand loyalty. The study discussed implications for both managerial practices and theoretical insights, outlined limitations, and suggested avenues for future research.

온라인 브랜드 개성의 진화모형: 종단연구

하홍열(Ha, Hong Youl) 한국상품학회 2012 商品學硏究 Vol.30 No.3

브랜드 개성 연구자들은 브랜드 개성의 측정문제와 문화적인 측면의 측정 응용부분에 초점을 둔 반면, 장기적 관점에서 종단연구를 통해 브랜드 개성의 변화를 조사한 연구는 제한적이었다. 본 연구는 브랜드 개성의 진화모형을 예측하고, 그에 따른 시간효과와 이월효과를 조사한다. 본 연구에서 제안된 브랜드 개성의 진화모형은, 먼저 브랜드 개성을 구성하는 하위 요인들과 만족, 애호도의 관계를 시간 경과에 따른 시간효과와 이월효과로 구분하여 온라인 쇼핑사이트를 대상으로 조사하였다. 본격적인 모형 검증에 앞서, 온라인 쇼핑사이트에서 브랜드 개성을 구성하는 5개 하위요인(성실, 열정, 능력, 세련됨, 강인함) 중 세련됨과 강인함은 신뢰도 분석과 요인분석에서 유의하지 않아, 본 연구의 모형측정에서 제외되었다. 연구 결과, 브랜드 개성의 3가지 구성요인 중 성실과 열정은 T+1 시점에서 시간효과의 감소를 나타내었으나, 각각의 동일 요인에게 영향을 미치는 이월효과는 유의하게 조사되었다. 브랜드 개성과 만족의 시간효과는 T+1 시점에서 감소되는 현상이 나타났으나, 만족과 애호도의 시간효과는 큰 차이를 보이지 않았다. 또한 만족(T)과 만족(T+1), 애호도(T)와 애호도(T+1)의 이월효과는 유의하게 조사되었으나, 브랜드 개성의 이월효과는 나타나지 않았다. 즉, 소비자는 각 쇼핑사이트 자체의 브랜드 개성을 평가하는 것 보다, 시간이 지남에 따라 브랜드 개성을 구성하는 각각의 하위 요인들의 지속적인 영향에 의해 각 쇼핑사이트의 개성이 평가되어진다. 이 결과를 이론적인 측면에서 살펴보면, 브랜드 개성자체만의 이월효과(carryover effect)는 발생하지 않는다는 것이 마케팅 문헌에 상당한 공헌을 할 수 있는 점이라 판단된다. Many researchers have focused on measures of brand personality and applications of cultural perspective, whereas there is a lack of research using a longitudinal study. This study is to predict the evolution model of brand personality and, in turn, investigate both temporal and carryover effects. In so doing, the current study, first, identifies sub-dimensions of brand personality, satisfaction, and loyalty intentions. Second, these constructs are tested to examine temporal and carryover effects using a longitudinal study. Before the full-scale analysis, this study deleted two sub-dimensions(e.g., sophistication and ruggedness) of brand personality developed by Jennifer Aaker(1997). This was because the results from both reliability and exploratory factor analysis were not significantly supported. After that, we incorporate the results into the proposed model and then, test a revised model using the same data sets. The findings showthat both sincerity and excitement, two-dimensions of brand personality, reduce the temporal effect at time T+1, but the carryover effect that influences the same construct from time period T is significant. The temporal effect between brand personality and satisfaction reduces at time T+1, whereas the temporal effect between satisfaction and loyalty intentions at time T+1 is very similar at time T. Furthermore, the carryover effects of both satisfaction(T) - satisfaction(T+1) and loyalty intentions(T) - loyalty intentions(T+1) are significantly supported, but the carryover effect of brand personality is insignificant. The latter indicates that consumers are not likely to evaluate the brand personality of the website itself. More specifically, brand personality of the website is evaluated by changes in sub-dimensions of brand personality over time. From the theoretical perspective, the finding contributes to enhance scholars' knowledge of brand personality, indicating that there is no carryover effect of brand personality itself.

Relationship between Brand Personality and the Personality of Consumers, and its Application to Corporate Branding Strategy

Kim Young-Ei(金?伊),Jung-Wan Lee(李正?),Yong-Ki Lee(李勇基) 한국마케팅과학회 2008 마케팅과학연구 Vol.18 No.3

  본 연구는 브랜드 개성과 소비자 개성간의 인과성을 연구하고, 이러한 관계들이 기업브랜드 전략에 어떻게 적용되는 가를 실증분석 하였다. 분석자료는 한국의 자동차 소비자들로부터 수집되었으며, 요인분석, 분산분석, 그리고 구조모형분석을 이용하여 분석되었다. 본 연구의 결과는 브랜드 개성과 소비자 개성간의 유의한 관계가 있음을 보여주고 있다. 연구의 마지막에는 기업 브랜드 전략을 위한 관리적 시사점과 향후 연구방향이 제시되었다.   Many consumers enjoy the challenge of purchasing a brand that matches well with their own values and personalities (for example, Ko et al., 2008; Ko et al., 2006). Therefore, the personalities of consumers can impact on the final selection of a brand and its brand personality in two ways: first, the consumers may incline to purchase a brand or a product that reflects their own personalities; second, consumers tend to choose a company that has similar brand personalities to those brands that are being promoted. Therefore, the objectives of this study are following:<BR>  1. Is there any empirical relationship between a consumer"s personality and the personality of a brand that he or she chooses?<BR>  2. Can a corporate brand be differentiated by the brand personality?<BR>  In short, consumers are more likely to hold favorable attitudes towards those brands that match their own personality and will most probably purchase those brands matching well with their personality. For example, Matzler et al. (2006) found that extraversion and openness were positively related to hedonic product value; and that the personality traits directly (openness) and indirectly (extraversion, via hedonic value) influenced brand effects, which in tum droved attitudinal and purchase loyalty. Based on the above discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed:<BR>  Hypothesis 1: the personality of a consumer is related to the brand personality of a product/corporate that he/she purchases.<BR>  Kuksov (2007) and Wernerfelt (1990) argued that brands as a symbolic language allowed consumers to communicate their types to each other and postulated that consumers had a certain value of communicating their types to each other. Therefore, how brand meanings are established, and how a firm communicate with consumers about the meanings of the brand are interesting topics for research (for example, Escalas and Bettman, 2005; McCracken, 1989; Moon, 2007). Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:<BR>  Hypothesis 2: A corporate brand identity is differentiated by the brand personality. And there are significant differences among companies.<BR>  A questionnaire was developed for collecting empirical measures of the Big-Five personality traits and brand personality variables. A survey was conducted to the online access panel members through the Internet during December 2007 in Korea. In total, 500 respondents completed the questionnaire, and considered as useable.<BR>  Personality constructs were measured using the Five-factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) scale and a total of 30 items were actually utilized. Brand personality was measured using the five-dimension scale developed by Aaker (1997). A total of 17 items were actually utilized. The seven-point Likert-type scale was the format of responses, for example, from 1 indicating strongly disagreed to 7 for strongly agreed.<BR>  The Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) was used for an empirical testing of the model, and the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) was applied to estimate numerical values for the components in the model. To diagnose the presence of distribution problems in the data and to gauge their effects on the parameter estimates, bootstapping method was used.<BR>  The results of the hypothesis-l test empirically show that there exit certain causality relationship between a consumer"s personality and the brand personality of the consumer"s choice. Thus, the consumer"s personality has an impact on consumer"s final selection of a brand that has a brand personality matches well with their own personalities. In other words, the consumers are inclined to purchase a brand that reflects their own personalities and tend to choose a company that has similar brand personalities to those of the brand being promoted.<BR>  The results of this study further suggest t

BUILDING BRAND PERSONALITY IN THE HIGH-END CULTURAL AND CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

Klaus Heine,Marco Eisenberg,Vera Seidemann 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2017 Global Fashion Management Conference Vol.2017 No.07

In response to growing instability and a perceived over-commercialization also of luxury brands, there is a trend among consumers to search for meaning and for experiences that feel genuine. The “humanization” of brands may feed the consumers growing desire for authenticity. This paper combines the brand personality concept and brand anthropomorphization and introduces the notion of personality-driven brand management especially for luxury brands and high-end cultural and creative businesses. After an introduction into the concept of brand personality, and with reference to identitydriven brand management, we explain what personality-driven brand management actually means. When the focal point of brand management shifts to the enlivened brand, the brand personality becomes the main source of inspiration for brand-building and influences all branding decisions. With personality-driven branding, managers may leverage the full potential of brand anthropomorphization. For instance, it can help to turn the brand into a strong character, which can spark the employee’s enthusiasm and thus also the customer’s passion for the brand. As a prerequisite of (internal) brand anthropomorphization, managers need to decide what kind of person they would like their brand to represent. For this purpose, they can consult a framework of brand personality dimensions for some guidance. A central part of this paper is a study about the major dimensions of luxury brand personality. Results suggest that there exist five distinct luxury personality dimensions including tradition, modesty, elitism, eccentricity, and sensuality. They help brand managers to develop distinct brand personalities by encouraging them to decide between contrasting traits. After presenting the major strategies to bring a luxury brand personality alive, the paper discusses the benefits of personality-based brand management and concludes with some major lessons learned.