This document discusses the relationship between brand personality and word-of-mouth (WOM). It reviews literature showing that WOM influences purchasing decisions and occurs billions of times daily. A study measured the brand personalities of Apple and Microsoft using Aaker's five dimensions of sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. Regression analysis found that excitement and sophistication were possible predictors of WOM for both brands. The study provides initial evidence that certain dimensions of brand personality may influence the amount of positive WOM generated.

1. The Effects of Brand Personality
on Word of Mouth

2. Why focus on WOM and its antecedents?
“…the role of brand characteristics or
personality in WOM is not only critical but also
highly relevant for marketing scholars and
practitioners for a variety of reasons, such as
creating ‘talkable’ brands and maximize the
impact of branding activities”.
– (Lovett, Peres and Shachar, 2013)

4. Trust in advertising?

5. Who is more trusted? Brands or friends?

6. People like to talk…
• According to Balter (2008)
approximately 70 percent
of all purchasing decisions
are influenced by WOM
communication.
• Over 3.4 billion brand
conversations occur each
day (Keller and Fay,
2012).
• Marketers reportedly
spend over $1 billion on
WOM marketing
(McConnell, 2007).

7. WOM can have powerful implications when successfully leveraged by a company.

8. Word-of-mouth (WOM):
“Informal communication directed at other
consumers about the ownership, usage, or
characteristics of particular goods and
services or their sellers.”
(Westbrook, p. 261, 1987)

9. •Increase movie sales
(Liu, 2006)
•Adopt social media
platforms
(Trusov, Bucklin and Pauwels, 2008)
•Success of TV programs
(Godes and Mayzlin, 2004)
•Sales of craft beer
(Clemons, Gao and Hitt, 2006)

10. But little on what drives people to
share their experiences with brands

11. Psychological drivers of WOM
Social: Consumers seek products and services as ways to express
themselves and fulfill certain psychological needs.
Met through the desire to converse, self-enhance or showcase
uniqueness.
Functional: In certain exchanges individuals communicate useful or
practical information.
Emotional: Emotional responses boost interpersonal
communication. Individuals share things that arouse both positive and
negative emotions.

12. “…not much research has explored the
mechanism by which WOM is formed, its
antecedents, and how it can be
controlled”.
–Moldovan, Goldenberg and Chattopadhyay (2011)

13. Brand personality – fulfill certain motivations that
underlie – psychological drivers of WOM

14. Brand Personality
relate to a set of human characteristics personified by the brand
excitement
sincerity competence
sophistication ruggedness
(Aaker, 1997)

15. Sincerity

16. Excitement

17. Competence

18. Sophistication

19. Ruggedness

20. Research Question:
What is the relationship between each of the five
dimensions of brand personality and the amount
of word-of-mouth generated?

21. Methods
Convenience sampling method
155 participants (classrooms and offices)
Comparison of two brands:
• Apple
• Microsoft

22. Methods
Brand Personality Measurement
Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale
• 5 Personality Dimensions
Likert Scale
• 1 = Strongly Disagree
• 5 = Strongly Agree
WOM Generation Measurement
Four Questions
Likert Scale
• 1 = Strongly Disagree
• 5 = Strongly Agree

26. Findings
Our research question is as follows:
Is each dimension of the Aaker Brand Personality Scale
(1997) a predictor of word-of-mouth generation?
Through our testing, we have found that excitement and
sophistication are possible predictors in the amount of word-of-
mouth a brand generates.

27. Findings
An independent T-test was performed to measure the five dimensions
(sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness).

28. Findings
In our survey, Q1 represented Apple and Q2 represented
Microsoft. To examine the relationship between each of the
dimensions and word-of-mouth, a regression analysis was
performed. Table 4 represents a regression analysis for each of
the brand personalities and Apple and Microsoft.

29. Findings

30. Discussion
Finding No. 1: Means score
• Apple scored higher on most dimensions
• Apple highest on excitement and
competence
• Microsoft highest on competence and
sincerity

31. Discussion
Finding No. 2: Regression Analysis (Apple)
• Dimensions of excitement and
sophistication may lead to greater WOM

32. Discussion
Finding No. 3: Regression Analysis (Microsoft)
• Dimensions of sophistication and
excitement may lead to greater WOM

33. Limitations
• Convenience Sample
• Small sample – 155 respondents
• Attributes may not be relevant to Apple or
Microsoft
• In-person interviews may skew results
• Time constraints and deadline of project

34. Sources
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research. 34. 347-356
Balter, D. (2008). The word of mouth manual volume 2.
Clemons, E. K., Gao, G. & Hitt, L. (2006). When online reviews meet hyper differentiation: A study of the craft beer
industry. Journal of Management Information Systems. 23. 149-171,
Godes, D. & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word of mouth communications. Marketing
Science. 23. 545-560.
Keller, E. & Fay, B. (2012). The Face-to-face book: Why real relationships rule in a digital marketplace. New York: NY. Free
Press.
Liu, Y. (2006). Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. Journal of Marketing. 70. 74-
89.
Mcconnell, R. (2007). Spread the news: Word-of-mouth worth $1 billion. Advertising Age. Retrieved from:
http://adage.com/print/122025
Moldovan, S., Goldenberg, J. & Chattopadhyay, A. (2011). The different roles of product originality and usefulness in
generating word-of-mouth. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 28. 109-119.

35. Sources
The Nielson Company. (2011). Global trust in advertising and brand messages. New York, NY.
Peres, R., Muller, E. & Mahajan, V. (2010). Innovation diffusion and new product growth models: A critical
review and research directions. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 27. 91-106.
Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: Findings
from an internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing. 73. 90-102.
Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and post purchase processes. Journal
of Marketing Research. 24. 258-270.