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...

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

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.

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

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 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.

소비자 개념의 재정립

서희석 한국소비자법학회 2017 소비자법연구 Vol.3 No.2

Most countries that have a consumer's definition in the civil law or other laws generally define consumers as "natural persons who act for consumption purposes (or for purposes other than business purposes).” This means that any natural person who has a consumption purpose in the context of an individual legal act may be recognized as a consumer, but it also means that he may not be a consumer (relative consumer concept). In relation to this, "framework act on consumers” generally defines the consumer as "a person who uses goods or services provided by a business person for consumption, or a person who finally uses it for production activities". It is the same as other legislation in that it requires a consumer purpose, but it is a definition based on economics in that it does not require natural person. In other words, the relationship with the natural person or legal person(corporation) as the subject of the rights and obligation is missing, so the act has failed to define the consumer as a legal entity. For this reason, consumers' categories are ambiguous and the definition of human scope is unclear in individual laws. This is an important task to be solved in the field of consumer law and civil law. Based on this problem consciousness, this paper attempted to redefine the consumer concept that encompasses consumer law and civil law. As a conclusion, it emphasized that it is urgent theoretical task of consumer law and civil law to solve the problem of consumer’s definition under the current "framework act on consumers”, which is adhering to consumption-oriented legislation. The definition of consumer is necessary to be limited to natural persons who act for purposes other than the business purpose and is desirable to be improved to the direction that, if necessary, the category of consumer may be extended to individual or small businesses or non-profit corporations. 민법 또는 그 외의 법률에 소비자의 개념 정의를 두고 있는 대부분의 국가들에서는 대체적으로 소비자를 “소비목적으로 (또는 사업목적 이외의 목적으로) 행위하는 자연인”으로 정의한다. 이것은 개별적인 법률행위의 장면에서 소비목적을 갖고 있는 자연인이라면 누구나가 소비자로 인정될 수 있지만 소비자가 아닐 수도 있다는 의미이다(상대적 소비자개념). 이점과 관련하여 우리 「소비자기본법」은 소비자를 대체적으로 “사업자가 제공하는 물품이나 용역을 소비생활에 사용하는 자 또는 생산활동에 사용하되 최종적으로 사용하는 자”로 정의하는데, 이것은 소비목적이라는 개념표지를 요구한다는 점에서는 다른 입법례와 같으나 자연인일 것을 요구하지 않는다는 점에서 지극히 경제학적인 개념정의이다. 즉 권리의무의 주체로서 자연인 또는 법인과의 관계설정이 누락되어 있기 때문에 소비자를 법적인 존재로 규율하는 데에 실패하고 있는 것이다. 이러한 이유 때문에 소비자를 보호하기 위한 개별 법률에서 소비자의 범주가 애매하고 인적 적용범위의 획정이 불명확하다는 문제가 발생하게 된다. 이것은 우리의 소비자법학과 민법학이 해결하여야 할 중요한 과제라 하지 않을 수 없다. 본고에서는 이와 같은 문제의식에 입각하여 소비자법학과 민법학을 아우르는 소비자 개념의 재정립을 시도하였다. 그 결론으로서 소비목적중시형 입법을 고수하고 있는 현행 「소비자기본법」상 소비자 정의의 문제점을 해소하는 것이 소비자법학과 민법학이 안고 있는 시급한 이론적 과제라는 점을 강조하였다. 소비자의 정의는 “사업목적 이외의 목적으로 행위하는 자연인”과 같이 자연인에 한정되도록 재정립하고, 필요하다면 개별법에서 정책적으로 개인사업자(소상공인)나 비영리법인 등으로 그 범주를 확장할 수 있음을 인정하는 방향의 개선이 바람직하다고 생각한다.

보험에 대한 소비자지식 및 태도가 보험상품 구매의도에 미치는 영향

김혜연(Hyeyeon Kim),김시월(Siwuel Kim) 한국FP학회 2016 Financial Planning Review Vol.9 No.4

오늘날 우리는 저성장, 저금리, 인구고령화 등으로 특징 지워지는 소위 뉴 노멀(New normal)시대를 살아가며 언제 닥칠지 모르는 위험을 보장하는 장기자금으로써 매력적인 대안이라 할 수 있는 보험에 대한 관심이 증대되고 있다. 보험에 대한 소비자의 관심과 요구는 증가하고 있지만, ‘장기간의 복잡한 약속’이라는 보험의 특성으로 보험에 대한 소비자태도에는 긍정과 부정이라는 양면성이 공존하고 있다. 본 연구는 금융 관련 기업 및 기관에 대한 관심도가 높은 잠재적 보험 수요자라 할 수 있는 대학생소비자를 대상으로 성격유형별 보험에 대한 지식 및 태도가 보험상품 구매의도에 미치는 영향을 분석하였다. 이를 위해 선행연구를 참조하여 구조화된 설문지를 작성하고 서울시의 2개 대학교, 인천시의 2개 대학교, 충청북도의 1개 대학교 등 유의적으로 표집한 대학생소비자를 대상으로 조사하였다. 소비자의 성격유형별 보험에 대한 소비자지식 및 태도가 보험상품 구매의도에 미치는 영향력은 어떠한지 경로분석을 실시한 결과, 판단기능에서 사고형과 감정형 성격의 보험소비자 모두 보험에 대한 지식은 보험에 대한 태도 및 보험상품 구매의도에 유의미한 영향을 미치지 않는 것으로 나타났으며, 보험에 대한 긍정적 태도는 보험상품 구매의도에 유의한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 보험에 대한 긍정적 태도가 보험상품 구매의도에 영향을 미치는 정도에 두 성격유형 간 유의미한 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 사고형 성격의 소비자가 감정형 성격의 소비자 보다 보험에 대한 긍정적 태도가 형성되어 있을 때 보험상품에 대해 적극적 구매의도를 갖는 것을 알 수 있었다. 본 연구는 보험상품 구매 및 수혜의 주체라 할 수 있는 보험소비자에 보다 주목하여, 보험에 대한 소비자지식 및 태도가 보험상품 구매의도에는 어떤 영향을 미치고, 소비자의 성격유형별로는 어떠한 차이를 나타내는지 분석해 봄으로써 소비자가 보험상품을 구매하는 과정의 인과관계를 규명해 보고자 하였다. 한편, 소비자에게는 자신의 성격과 지식/정보, 태도형성 수준에 적합한 보험상품 선택과 인지를 도모하고, 기업에게는 다양한 보험소비자에 대한 맞춤형 정보제공 및 선택을 제안하는 기초자료로 의미가 있을 것으로 사료된다. 또한 대학생소비자를 조사대상으로 선정하여, 사회진출을 앞두고 있는 잠재적 생산자로서 보험의 필요성을 인식시키고, 보험지식, 보험정보, 보험선택, 보험활용 등에 대해 성격유형별 차별화된 소비자교육이 필요함을 시사하고자 하였다. This study is investigated how knowledge of and attitude towards insurance according to personality type affect the purchase intention of insurance, targeting college student consumers, who are often considered as prospected insurance buyers, due to their interest in finance-related companies and organizations. The path analysis of the effect of consumer knowledge of and consumer attitude on insurance according to personality type of consumer on the purchase intention of insurance revealed that consumer knowledge on insurance does not have any significant impact on consumers’ attitudes or their purchase intention of insurance for either type, thinking and feeling. On the other hand, a positive consumer attitude on insurance appeared to have a significant influence. It also showed that there is a significant difference between these two personality types when it comes to the influence of positive attitudes to insurance on purchase intention. Consumers of the thinking type are more likely to have an aggressive purchase attitude on insurance than those of the feeling type when positive attitudes are formed. The results of this research will help consumers recognize and decide which insurance is suitable for them according to their personality and the level of consumer knowledge and consumer information, etc. Also, they will help firms to devise customized marketing strategies for the various types of insurance consumers. Furthermore, we tried to make the college student consumers feel the need for insurance by targeting them as research subjects, since they are about to enter into society, and suggest that education for consumers about insurance knowledge, insurance information, insurance choices and insurance utilization, differentiated by personality type, is essential.

브랜드 개성이 소비자-브랜드 관계와 소비자만족 및 브랜드 충성도에 미치는 영향 -스타벅스를 중심으로-

김도희,김영국 한국관광학회 2014 관광학연구 Vol.38 No.8

The purpose of this research is to investigate the effect of Starbucks' brand personality on consumer-brand relationships, consumer satisfaction, and brand loyalty. Another purpose is to examine the mediating role of the consumer- brand relationship between brand personality and consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty. A convenience sample of 340 customers who have visited a Starbucks coffee shop at least one time was analyzed. The study's findings show that brand personality had a positive effect on the consumer-brand relationship and consumer satisfaction. The consumer-brand relationship also positively influenced consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty. Further, consumer satisfaction positively influenced brand loyalty. However, brand personality had an indirect effect on brand loyalty through the consumer- brand relationship. This study also found that consumer-brand relationships play an important role in mediating between brand personality and consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed for the coffee shop market. 국내커피시장의 확대와 치열한 경쟁상황 속에서 기업들의 경쟁기업과 차별화 되고, 자사의 점유율과 수익성 확보를 위해 브랜드를 적극 활용하고 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 국내 커피시장의 브랜드 전략의 중요성을 인식하게 한 스타벅스를 대상으로 브랜드 개성이 소비자-브랜드 관계, 소비자 만족과 브랜드 충성도에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지를 파악하고, 브랜드 개성과 소비자 만족 및 브랜드 충성도간에 소비자-브랜드 관계의 매개효과를 살펴보고자 하였다. 본 연구 수행을 위해 2013년 11월 1일부터 15일까지 서울 및 춘천소재 스타벅스 매장을 방문한 고객들을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하였고, 340명의 편의표본을 대상으로 분석을 실시하였다. 연구결과에 따르면, 브랜드 개성은 소비자-브랜드 관계와 소비자 만족에 직접적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났고, 소비자-브랜드 관계는 소비자 만족과 브랜드 충성도에 긍정적인 영향을 미쳤다. 또한 소비자만족은 브랜드 충성도에 긍정적인 유의한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 하지만 브랜드 개성이 브랜드 충성도에 미치는 영향력에서 소비자-브랜드 관계의 매개변수를 통해서만 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 드러났다. 이러한 연구결과는 소비자-브랜드 관계는 브랜드 개성과 소비자 만족 및 브랜드 충성도에 매우 중요한 매개역할을 하고 있음을 입증한다. 따라서 브랜드 개성은 소비자 만족에 직접적 효과를 주며, 브랜드 충성도에는 소비자-브랜드 관계를 통해 간접적으로 영향을 주는 것을 알 수 있다. 연구결과를 바탕으로 이론적 시사점이 논의되었으며, 스타벅스 브랜드 관리 및 전략을 위한 실무적 시사점이 제시되었다.

부정적 사건 발생이 소비자-브랜드 관계와 브랜드 태도에 미치는 영향

이희정(Lee, Hee Jung),강명수(Kang, Myung Soo) 한국소비문화학회 2013 소비문화연구 Vol.16 No.3

본 연구는 기업이나 브랜드에 불가피하게 발생할 수 밖에 없는 부정적 사건에 대응하기 위한 전략적 방법에 대하여 연구하였다. 장기적 관점의 소비자-브랜드 관계와 상대적으로 단기적 관점의 브랜드 태도가 부정적 사건의 발생으로 인해 어떤 영향을 받는지 확인하고 구체적으로 소비자의 손실 유형과 브랜드 성격에 따라 부정적 사건의 영향력이 어떻게 달라지는지 알아보았다. 또한 부정적 사건 이후에 기업이나 브랜드 차원의 회복 노력이 소비자-브랜드 관계와 브랜드 태도에 미치는 영향을 알아보고 소비자 손실 유형과 회복 노력 유형의 일치 여부에 따른 회복 정도를 살펴보았다. 부정적 사건으로 인한 소비자의 손실 유형은 경제적 유형의 손실과 사회적 유형의 손실로 구분하였으며 브랜드 성격에 따른 영향은 가장 많은 비중을 차지하는 성실한 브랜드와 흥미진진한 브랜드에 대하여 살펴보았다. 기존 부정적 사건에 대한 연구는 포괄적 부정적 사건에 대해 다루거나 기업 입장의 부정적 사건 발생 원인에 대해 다루고 있는 것이 대부분이라 소비자 입장에서 부정적 사건으로 인해 어떤 손실을 입게 되며 이를 회복하기 위해 소비자에게 어떤 조치를 취해야 하는지에 대한 연구는 부족했다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 소비자 입장에서 부정적 사건으로 인해 받는 손실의 유형에 따른 영향력에 대해 알아본 데 의미가 있겠다. 본 연구는 총 8가지 종류의 실험 상황을 통해 연구가설을 검증하였다. 두 가지 성격의 브랜드에 대한 평소의 소비자-브랜드 관계와 브랜드 태도를 알아본 후 경제적, 사회적 손실을 주는 두 유형의 부정적 사건을 제시하고 2가지 종속변수를 재측정하였다. 이후 부정적 사건에 대한 회복 노력의 두 가지 유형을 제시하여 2가지 종속변수를 측정하여 회복 정도를 파악하였다. 이를 통해 부정적 사건은 소비자-브랜드 관계와 브랜드 태도에 부정적 영향을 주며 성실한 브랜드가 흥미진진한 브랜드보다 부정적 사건에 더 민감하였다. 다음으로 부정적 사건 이후 회복 노력을 기울였을 때 긍정적 영향이 발생했으며 특히 경제적 유형의 손실을 주는 부정적 사건의 경우 회복 노력의 긍정적 영향이 더 높았고 부정적 사건의 손실 유형과 회복 노력의 유형이 일치할 때 소비자에게 더 긍정적 영향이 발생한 것을 확인하였다. This article reports strategies of coping with the inevitable crisis of brands or products. We research the effects of crisis on the consumer-brand relationship and brand attitude. Specifically, we study the differences of the effect according to the consumer loss type and brand personality. Also we consider the effects of recovery action on the consumer-brand relationship and brand attitude and the effects of the accordance of consumer loss type and recovery action type. The consumer loss types are economic loss and social loss. In prior research, consumers were more sensitive about economic risks. Thus, we suggest that a crisis resulting in consumers' economic loss affects more negatively on the consumer-brand relationship and brand attitude. The brand personalities are sincere and exciting. This study examines hypotheses with 8 kinds of experimental situations (2 brand personality x 2 consumer loss type x 2 recovery action). After the participants were provided with information about crisis and recovery action, they evaluated the loss types caused by crisis and types of recovery action. We checked that the participants properly recognized the difference between loss types and recovery action types. As a result, a crisis affects negatively on the consumer-brand relationship and brand attitude. But there is no difference of effect on the consumer-brand relationship and attitude by loss type of crisis. Also, as was hypothesized, a sincere brand is more sensitive to a crisis than an exciting brand. The results also reveal that recovery actions for consumer loss due to crisis have a positive effect on the recovery of a consumer-brand relationship and brand attitude. Concretely speaking, when an economic loss crisis occurs compared to when a social loss crisis does, the degree of recovery of the dependent variables is higher. In conclusion, this research investigated differentiated influences of consumer loss type of crisis on the consumer-brand relationship and brand attitude. Also, we identified different influences of brand personality and the effect of the accordance of recovery action with loss type caused by a crisis. Thus, we insist that this research has merits in that it could identify the impact of the loss type of crisis, brand personality and recovery action type on the consumerbrand relationship and brand attitude.