The document summarizes research into measuring brand image using either personification or non-personification methods. It describes a study that used online questionnaires to assess the brand images of M&S (a corporate brand) and Pantene (a product brand) using both approaches. The results found some support for the hypothesis that personification provides a better explanation of dependent variables for product brands, but not corporate brands. Overall, the study found personification is not guaranteed to provide a better measurement approach than direct assessments, and further research is needed.

1. Measuring Brand Image: Personification versus Non-Personification Methods Melisa METE

2. Measuring Brand Image: Personification versus Non-Personification Methods
Melisa Mete
PhD Researcher-Manchester Business School
melisa.mete@postgrad.mbs.ac.uk
Gary Davies
Professor of Strategy-Manchester Business School
Susan Whelan
Senior Lecturer in Marketing-School of Business-Waterford Institute of Technology

3. Personification vs. Non-Personification
•Personification: “ If Marks & Spencer came to life as a person, do you think he/she would be friendly ?”
•Non-personification: “Marks & Spencer is a friendly company”

4. Brand Image & Personality
•Pros and cons of using personification metaphor
•Brand image: consumers’ perception and interpretation of a brand’s identity
•Brand personality: ‘the set of human characteristics associated with a brand’

5. Brand Image Dimensions
•Aaker (1997): 5 dimensions of brand personality: Sincerity (e.g. friendly), Competence (e.g. reliable), Excitement (e.g. trendy), Sophistication ( e.g. charming), Ruggedness (e.g. masculine).
•Davies et al (2001): 7 dimensions of corporate character: Agreeableness (e.g. friendly), Competence (e.g. reliable), Enterprise (e.g. cool), Chic (e.g. prestigious), Ruthlessness (e.g. arrogant), Machismo (e.g. masculine), Informality ( e.g. casual)
•Guens et al (2009): 15 studies, no consensus on dimensions

6. Stereotype Content Model: Warmth & Competence
Signaling Theory: Status
Theory Based Dimensions

7. Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Personification approach provides a better explanation of dependent variables such as reputation, satisfaction and purchase. Hypothesis 2 (H2): Personification approach provides a better explanation of dependent variables such as reputation, satisfaction and purchase for corporate brands than for product brands.

8. Methodology
Online questionnaires M&S for corporate brand Pantene for product brand

9. Survey Details
•400 respondents randomly assigned to one the four groups (M&S personification, M&S non- personification, Pantene personification, and Pantene non-personification).
•2 by 2 between subjects design, random assignment across treatments
•The sample :187 women (46.75%) and 213 men (53.25%).
•Filter questions
•Online survey May to June 2014

10. Survey Measures
•The measures were ordered by Demographics, Dependent Variables and Covariates, and Brand Image Dimensions’ Items.
•Demographics: Age, gender and education
•Measures of Involvement (2 items) Expertise (2 items) Satisfaction (4 items)
•Open ended question
•Items to measure brand image Warmth (6 items) Competence (5 items) Status (4 items)
•Purchase (2 items)

11. Brand Image Items
•Warmth dimension: friendly, helpful, trustworthy, ethical, sincere, honest, and socially responsible.
•Competence dimension: successful, leading, reliable, strong, and intelligent.
•Status dimension: sophisticated, prestigious, up-market, and chic.

12. Personification vs. Non-Personification
•“Instructions: Please READ each statement carefully and CIRCLE the appropriate box as follows: (5) Strongly Agree (4) Agree (3) Neutral / No opinion (2) Disagree (1) Strongly Disagree (if you don't understand the meaning of the word, please mark no.3)”
•Personification: “ If Marks & Spencer came to life as a person, do you think he/she would be friendly?”
•Non-personification: “Marks & Spencer is a friendly company”

13. Results & Discussion
•Cronbach’ Alpha Values of the scales for assessing the dimensions proved reliable:
•Warmth 0.94
•Competence 0.93
•Status 0.90

14. Results & Discussion cont’d
•The two way ANOVA test: no differences between the mean scores for the three image dimensions across the four cells

15. Results & Discussion cont’d
•Then we put covariates, first one at a time, purchase, gender, age, education then all together, still nothing.
•To eliminate the influence of familiarity with the brand, we put the mean of the two purchase items as a covariate: competence dimension showed a significant difference

16. Results & Discussion cont’d
Source
F
Sig.
Corrected Model
44.294
.000
Intercept
1072.657
.000
Purchase
169.375
.000
Type of measure
2.440
.119
Brand
6.959
.009
Type * Brand
3.921
.048
(Adjusted R Squared = .325)

17. Results & Discussion cont’d
Type
Brand
Mean
Personification
Pantene
3.805
M&S
3.761
Non-Personification
Pantene
4.043
M&S
3.732

18. Results & Discussion cont’d
•The data were then tested to see whether either measurement approach predicted greater variance in the potential dependent variables included in the survey.

19. Results & Discussion cont’d
Model
R2
Purchase
R2 Reputation
R2 Satisfaction
M&S (P)
.296
.602
.456
M&S (non P)
.431
.629
.656
Pantene (P)
.526
.495
.632
Pantene (non P)
.272
.524
.494
The R-Square values by method
Personification works better for product brands – Direct measurement works better for corporates.

20. Conclusion
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Personification approach provides a better explanation of dependent variables such as reputation, satisfaction and purchase. Finding: Supported for Pantene for satisfaction and purchase but not reputation, not supported for M&S. Hypothesis 2 (H2): Personification approach is more useful for corporate brands than non-personification methods of measurement. Not supported

21. Conclusion & Further Work
Personification as a measurement approach is not a guarantee of a better explanation than direct approach. BUT we can’t abandon personification method. Personification allows broader range of items, hence greater variance in dependent variables. In a context where respondents might be reluctant to give their replies and where a measure of reluctance is included; further work is needed.

22. Measuring Brand Image: Personification versus Non-Personification Methods
Melisa Mete
PhD Researcher-Manchester Business School
melisa.mete@postgrad.mbs.ac.uk
Gary Davies
Professor of Strategy-Manchester Business School
Susan Whelan
Senior Lecturer in Marketing-School of Business-Waterford Institute of Technology

23. References
•Aaker, J. L. (1997, August). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34,347−356).
•Aaker, D., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand leadership. New York: Free Press.
•Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R. V., & Roper, S. (2004). A corporate character scale to assess employee and customer views of organization reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 125-146.
•De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M., & Van den Bergh,J. (2007). Marketing communications 3rd ed. London: Pearson Education.
•Handbook of personality (pp. 102−138). New York: The Guilford P
•John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Ress.
•Kapferer, J. N. (2008).The new strategic brand management, 4th edition London: Kogan Page.
•Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management. Building, measuring, and managing brand equity, 3rd edition Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall