aaker 1997

Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  1




Title: DIMENSIONS OF BRAND PERSONALITY ,  By: Aaker, Jennifer L., Journal of Marketing
Research (JMR), 00222437, Aug97, Vol. 34, Issue 3
Database: Business Source Premier
DIMENSIONS OF BRAND PERSONALITY


Although a considerable amount of research in personality psychology has been done to
conceptualize human personality, identify the "Big Five" dimensions, and explore the meaning
of each dimension, no parallel research has been conducted in consumer behavior on brand
personality. Consequently, an understanding of the symbolic use of brands has been limited in
the consumer behavior literature. In this research, the author develops a theoretical framework
of the brand personality construct by determining the number and nature of dimensions of brand
personality (Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness). To measure
the five brand personality dimensions, a reliable, valid, and generalizable measurement scale is
created. Finally, theoretical and practical implications regarding the symbolic use of brands are
discussed.
In consumer behavior research, a considerable amount of attention has been given to the
construct brand personally, which refers to the set of human characteristics associated with a
brand. Researchers have focused on how the personality of a brand enables a consumer to
express his or her own self (Belk 1988), an ideal self (Malhotra 1988), or specific dimensions of
the self (Kleine, Kleine, and Kernan 1993) through the use of a brand. Practitioners view it as a
key way to differentiate a brand in a product category (Halliday 1996), as a central driver of
consumer preference and usage (Biel 1993), and as a common denominator that can be used
to market a brand across cultures (Plummer 1985).
However, despite this interest, research on brand personality and the symbolic use of brands
more generally has remained limited due in part to the lack of consensus regarding what brand
personality really is. How is it defined and thereby distinguished from related constructs? Does it
have a framework or set of dimensions similar to or different from the "Big Five" dimensions of
human personality? As a re-suit, an understanding of how and when brand personality relates
to a consumer's personality and thereby influences consumer preference has remained elusive
(see Sirgy 1982).
Furthermore, no research has been conducted to develop systematically a reliable, valid, and
generalizable scale to measure brand personality. Currently, researchers rely on measurement
scales that tend to be ad hoc (e.g., checklists, photo-sorts, symbolic analogy) or taken directly
from personality psychology but not validated in the context of brands (Kassarjian 1971). As a
result, the theoretical generalizability and implications stemming from the findings in the
research on the symbolic use of brands are questionable.
The objective of this research is to address these limitations by drawing on research on the "Big
Five" human personality structure to develop a theoretical framework of brand personality Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  2
dimensions (Norman 1963; Tupes and Christal 1958) and a reliable, valid, and generalizable
scale that measures these dimensions.
THE BRAND PERSONALITY CONSTRUCT
Brand personality is defined formally here as "the set of human characteristics associated with a
brand." To illustrate, Absolut vodka personified tends to be described as a cool, hip,
contemporary 25-year old, whereas Stoli's personified tends to be described as an intellectual,
conservative, older man. In contrast to "product-related attributes," which tend to serve a
utilitarian function for consumers, brand personality tends to serve a symbolic or self-expressive
function (Keller 1993).
It is argued that the symbolic use of brands is possible because consumers often imbue brands
with human personality traits (termed animism; e.g., Gilmore 1919). Consumers easily can think
about brands as if they were celebrities or famous historical figures (Rook 1985) and as they
relate to one's own self (Fournier 1994), which may be due in part to the strategies used by
advertisers to imbue a brand with personality traits such as anthropomorphization (e.g.,
California Raisins), personification (e.g., Jolly Green Giant), and the creation of user imagery
(e.g., Charlie girl). Through such techniques, the personality traits associated with a brand, such
as those associated with an individual, tend to be relatively enduring and distinct. For example,
the personality traits associated with Coca-Cola are cool, all-American, and real; these traits are
relatively enduring (Pendergrast 1993) and differentiate Coke from its competitors (e.g., Pepsi
being young, exciting, and hip; Dr Pepper being nonconforming, unique, and fun; Plummer
1985).
Motivated by this logic, previous research has suggested that the greater the congruity between
the human characteristics that consistently and distinctively describe an individual's actual or
ideal self and those that describe a brand, the greater the preference for the brand (e.g.,
Malhotra 1988; Sirgy 1982). However, the empirical exploration of this hypothesis has been
handicapped by a limited conceptual understanding of the brand personality construct and the
psychological mechanism by which it operates.
Antecedents of Brand Personality
Although human and brand personality traits might share a similar conceptualization (Epstein
1977), they differ in terms of how they are formed. Perceptions of human personality traits are
inferred on the basis of an individual's behavior, physical characteristics, attitudes and beliefs,
and demographic characteristics (Park 1986). In contrast, perceptions of brand personality traits
can be formed and influenced by any direct or indirect contact that the consumer has with the
brand (Plummer 1985). Personality traits come to be associated with a brand in a direct way by
the people associated with the brand -- such as the brand's user imagery, which is defined here
as "the set of human characteristics associated with the typical user of a brand"; the company's
employees or CEO; and the brand's product endorsers. In this way, the personality traits of the
people associated with the brand are transferred directly to the brand (McCracken 1989). In
addition, however, personality traits come to be associated with a brand in an indirect way
through product-related attributes, product category associations, brand name, symbol or logo,
advertising style, price, and distribution channel (Batra, Lehmann, and Singh 1993).
In addition to personality characteristics, researchers (Levy 1959, p. 12) argue that brand
personality includes demographic characteristics such as gender ("Usually it is hard to evade Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  3
thinking of inanimate things as male or female"), age ("Just as most people usually recognize
whether something is addressed to them as a man or a woman, so are they sensitive to
symbols of age"), and class ("The possession of mink is hardly a matter of winter warmth
alone"). Similar to personality characteristics, these demographic characteristics also are
inferred directly from the brand's user imagery, employees, or product endorsers and indirectly
from other brand associations. For example, driven by distinct user imagery, Virginia Slims
tends to be thought of as feminine, whereas Marlboro (currently) tends to be perceived as
masculine. Partly due to the relative recency with which the two brands entered the market,
Apple is considered to be young, and IBM is considered to be olden On the basis of their
different pricing strategies, Saks Fifth Avenue is perceived as upper class, whereas Kmart is
perceived as blue collar.
Measuring Brand Personality
To examine how the relationship between brand and human personality may drive consumer
preference, two types of brand personality scales are used. The first type are ad hoc scales,
which typically are composed of a set of traits ranging from 20 to 300. However, though useful,
these scales tend to be a theoretical in nature -- often developed for the purposes of a specific
research study. As a result, key traits may be missing from such scales. Furthermore, the traits
that are selected often are chosen arbitrarily, which casts doubt on the scales' reliability and
validity.
The second type of brand personality scales are those that are more theoretical in nature, but
are based on human personality scales that have not been validated in the context of brands
(e.g., Bellenger, Steinberg, and Stanton 1976; Dolich 1969). However, though some dimensions
(or factors) of human personality may be mirrored in brands, others might not. As a result, the
validity of such brand personality scales often is questionable, leading researchers to argue that
"if unequivocal results are to emerge [in the literature on the symbolic use of brands] consumer
behavior researchers must develop their own definitions and design their own instruments to
measure the personality variables that go into the purchase decision" (italics in original;
Kassarjian 1971, p. 415).
In this research, a framework of brand personality dimensions is developed. By isolating these
distinct dimensions versus treating brand personality as a unidimensional construct, the
different types of brand personalities can be distinguished, and the multiple ways in which the
brand personality construct influences consumer preference may be understood better.
In addition, a scale is developed to provide a basis for theory-building on the symbolic use of
brands. Drawing on research by Malhotra (1981), who outlines a process of scale development
for measuring self, person, and product constructs, reliability and validity are established by
relying on subjects representative of the U.S. population, systematically selecting from a large
pool of traits to establish content validity, and demonstrating the robustness of the five
dimensions with an independent set of brands and subjects.
Perhaps most important, this framework and scale are generalizable across product categories.
Beyond practical benefits, a generalizable framework and scale enable researchers to
understand the symbolic use of brands in general versus the symbolic use of brands within a
particular category. As a result, the symbolic nature of brands can be understood at the same
level as the utilitarian nature of brands, which tends to be captured by models that are
generalizable across product categories (e.g., multi-attribute model; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975).
Therefore, like the multi-attribute model, which sheds insight into when and why consumers buy Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  4
brands for utilitarian purposes, a cross-category framework and scale can provide theoretical
insights into when and why consumers buy brands for self-expressive purposes.
In contrast, consider the difficulties of a theoretician's attempt to explore hypotheses regarding
antecedents and consequences of brand personality using personality scales that apply only to
a single product category. It would be difficult to use cross-category stimuli, explore possible
moderating effects of product type, or examine the psychological mechanism that drives the
symbolic use of brands across product categories, individuals, and cultures. Thus, product
category-specific personality scales are of limited use in building theory.
WHAT IS BRAND PERSONALITY?
To establish content validity, the development of a comprehensive and representative set of
personality traits and the process of identifying a set of stimuli are described.
Personality Trait Generation
Overview. In the first stage of personality trait generation, a set of 309 candidate traits was
created by eliminating redundancy from trait lists optioned from three sources: personality
scales from psychology, personality scales used by marketers (academics and practitioners),
and original qualitative research. In the second stage, this set of traits was reduced to a more
manageable number (114).
First stage. Considerable research in psychology has converged on a stable, robust, and
reliable factorial composition of human personality, the "Big Five." A series of scales that have
been used to develop and refine the "Big Five," including the original work (Norman 1963;
Tupes and Christal 1958), NEO Model (McCrae and Costa 1989), Big Five Prototypes (John
1990), ACL (Piedmont, McCrae, and Costa 199l), and Inter-Circumplex Model (McCrae and
Costa 1989), contributed a total of 204 unique traits.
In addition, personality scales used by academics (All and Griggs 1988; Batra, Lehmann, and
Singh 1993; Levy 1959; Malhotra 1981; Plummer 1985; Wells et al. 1957) and practitioners (an
advertising agency, a market research supplier, and a client company) added a total of 133
unique traits.
Finally, to ensure that the list was complete and the traits were familiar and meaningful to
people, a free-association task was conducted. Subjects (n = 16, 50% female, mean age = 25)
were paid $40 each to participate in a study on the types of personality traits associated with
brands. Subjects were asked to write down the personality traits that first came to mind when
thinking about two brands in three types of product categories (as identified by Ratchford 1987
in the Appendix; think-feel dimensions): symbolic (jeans, cosmetics, and fragrance), utilitarian
(computers, electronics, and appliances), and both symbolic and utilitarian (automobiles,
beverages, and athletic shoes).[1] The symbolic-utilitarian framework (Katz 1960) was used
here and in subsequent studies as a systematic way to select brands that span a variety of
categories and serve multiple functions, so as to enhance the generalizability of the resulting
scale. The 295 unique traits resulting from this task were added to the pool of personality traits.
The result of the first trait generation stage left 309 nonredundant candidate personality traits.  Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  5
Second stage. In the second trait generation stage, the 309 traits were reduced to a more
manageable number. Subjects (n = 25, 70% female, mean age = 33) were paid $20 each to
participate in a study on the types of personality traits associated with brands. To communicate
the brand personality concept to subjects, subjects were given an example of the personality of
a brand in a symbolic product category (Wrangler jeans --macho, rough, and sturdy), a
utilitarian product category (Pepto Bismal stomach medication -- calm, sweet, and giving), and a
product category that was both symbolic and utilitarian (Dr Pepper soft drink --individualistic,
gregarious, and bold). In addition, to reduce the chances of focusing on a particular brand or
product category, subjects were told, "Since this study is not about any brand or product
category in particular, try to think of as many different types of brands in various product
categories when you evaluate each trait." Subjects rated how descriptive the 309 traits were of
brands in general (1 = not at all descriptive, 7 = extremely descriptive). To isolate the most
relevant traits, the cutoff for the final list of personality traits was a scale rating of 6 (very
descriptive), thereby leaving 114 personality traits for the study.
Stimuli Selection
Three criteria guided the selection of a comprehensive and representative set of brands: First,
salient, well-known brands were chosen so that a national sample could be used; second, a
wide variety of brands representing a spectrum of personality types was selected to enhance
the scope of the scale; and third, a range of product categories, both symbolic and utilitarian,
was drawn upon to enhance scale generalizability.
To identify the brands, an EquiTrend study (1992) was used. Here, 131 brands in 39 product
categories and services were rated by a national sample on both "salience" (proportion of
consumers who have an opinion about the brand) and "brand personality" (on the basis of 30
personality traits). The brands selected all had high salience ratings (above 50%). In addition,
they represented different personality profiles as determined by a clustering procedure in which
the 131 brands fell into nine distinct clusters. Four brands were chosen randomly from each of
these clusters on the basis of one guiding criteria: Approximately the same number of brands
were to be included from symbolic, utilitarian, and symbolic/utilitarian types of product
categories. This set of 37 brands included those that serve symbolic functions (e.g., clothing,
cosmetics, fragrance), utilitarian functions (e.g., film, pain relievers, toothpaste), and both
symbolic and utilitarian functions (e.g., computers, soft drinks, tennis shoes). For a list of the
brands, see Table 1.
Choosing a large number of brands has the advantage of increasing the generalizability and
robustness of the measurement scale. Its disadvantage, however, is possible subject fatigue
and boredom, which potentially could result in response bias. To minimize this problem, one
brand from each of the nine clusters was selected and placed into one of four "Brand Groups,"
such that each Brand Group contained a similar profile of brands. In this way, personality
heterogeneity in each of the Brand Groups similar to that of the total sample of brands was
maintained. Finally, one brand (Levi's jeans) was included in each of the four Brand Groups so
that the extent to which the four distinct groups of subjects differed in their brand personality
perceptions could be assessed. Thus, a total of 37 brands were included.
No significant differences were found among the mean ratings of Levi's jeans in the four groups,
which suggests high levels of agreement of the human characteristics associated with a
particular brand. Furthermore, the original ratings on the EquiTrend personality traits for the
nine sets of four brands were examined to confirm their high levels of similarity; each of the four
brands within each set were similar on all personality traits.  Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  6
METHOD
Subjects
The external validity and generalizability of the brand personality scale depended on the
subjects on which the scale was based. Therefore, a nonstudent sample was used; one that
represented the U.S. population with respect to five demographic dimensions (gender, age,
household income, ethnicity, and geographic location) as identified in the 1992 U.S. Bureau of
the Census. For example, 56% of the sample was female, 20% was 18-24 years of age, 34%
had a household income of more than $50,000, 10% was African-American, and 20% lived in
the Northeast. The subjects in the four Brand Groups were selected to have the same profiles
as the total sample. Unless otherwise specified, the same demographic profile of subjects is
used in all remaining stages of this research.
To stimulate a high return rate, a total of 1200 questionnaires was sent via Federal Express to
subjects from a national mail panel. Approximately 55% of the subjects returned the
questionnaires (n = 631).
Procedure
Subjects, who participated in the study in exchange for a gift of their choosing and a chance to
win three first prizes of $250 and five second prizes of $50, received the following set of
instructions:
Most of the following questions are about a variety of brands of products or services. We would
like you to think of each brand as if it were a person. This may sound unusual, but think of the
set of human characteristics associated with each brand. For example, you might think that the
human characteristics associated with Pepto Bismal are kind, warm, caring, soothing, gentle,
trustworthy and dependable. The human characteristics associated with Dr Pepper might be
non-con-forming, fun, interesting, exciting and off-beat. We're interested in finding out which
personality traits or human characteristics come to mind when you think of a particular brand.
Using a five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all descriptive, 5 = extremely descriptive), subjects
were asked to rate the extent to which the 114 personality traits describe a specific brand.[2]
Primarily positively valenced traits were used because brands typically are linked to positive
(versus negative) associations and because the ultimate use of the scale is to determine the
extent to which brand personality affects the probability that consumers will approach (versus
avoid) products.
Subjects repeated the rating task for the nine additional brands in the particular Brand Group.
To control for primacy and recency effects, the order in which the traits were presented for each
brand was counterbalanced. In addition, the order in which the ten brands were presented in the
questionnaire was rotated completely.
IDENTIFYING THE BRAND PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS
Because the objective of this stage was to identify the brand personality dimensions as
perceived in consumers' minds, rather than the individual differences in how different people
respond to single brands, a state (versus trait) "O" analysis was used where the correlation Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  7
matrix for the personality traits (n = 114) correlated across the brands (n = 37) is analyzed, and
the scores of each brand on each personality trait are averaged across subjects (n = 631). The
114 x 114 correlation matrix was factor-analyzed using principal components analysis and a
varimax rotation. A five-factor solution resulted on the basis of the following criteria:
1. All five factors had eigenvalues greater than one.
2. A significant dip in the Scree plot followed the fifth
   factor.
3. The first five factors were the most meaningful, rich, and
   interpretable.[3]
4. The five-factor solution explained a high level of variance
   in brand personality (92%).
5. The five-factor solution was the most stable and robust, as
   illustrated by subsample factor analyses described
   subsequently (e.g., males versus females, younger versus
   older subjects).
With the exception of four traits (urban, proud, healthy, and flexible), all of the traits had high
loadings (> .60) on one of the five factors and relatively low loadings on the other four factors.
Because traits that load below .40 do not add to measure purification (Nunnally 1978), these
four traits were removed and the factor analysis rerun. The result was an easily interpretable
five-factor solution with high loadings and communalities for each of the traits. Moreover, the
variance explained in each of the factors was relatively high (see Table 2).
The names determined to represent best the types of concepts subsumed in each of the five
dimensions were Sincerity (e.g., typified by Hallmark cards), Excitement (e.g., MTV channel),
Competence (e.g., The Wall Street Journal newspapers), Sophistication (e.g., Guess jeans),
and Ruggedness (e.g., Nike tennis shoes).[4]
ASSESSING THE STABILITY OF THE BRAND PERSONALITY
DIMENSIONS
One limitation associated with factor analysis is potential differences in the meaning of the
personality traits among distinct groups of people. Therefore, to test the generality of the five
brand personality dimensions and to determine if the measurement scale can be used in future
research with particular groups of subjects (e.g., students), separate principal component factor
analyses (with varimax rotation and unrestricted number of factors to be extracted) were run on
four subsamples of subjects; males (n = 278), females (n = 353), younger subjects (n = 316),
and older subjects (n = 315).
The similarity of the results from the four principal components factor analyses was assessed
both qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitatively, an inspection of the results shows that the
three criteria for similar factor structures were met (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum 1957): (1)
the same number of factors were extracted -- five; (2) the same type of five factors resulted (i.e.,
the same traits loaded on the same factors as in the total-sample factor analysis); (3) relatively
similar weights for the five factors existed among the four subpopulations. In addition, the
variance explained by each factor in the four groups was approximately the same. The largest
difference was for Sincerity, which explained 27% of the variance for the younger subject
sample versus 31% of the variance for the older subject sample. Quantitatively, factor
congruence correlations (the average factor correlations between the subsamples) were Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  8
calculated and ranged from .92 to .95. Although no statistical tests are associated with this
coefficient, the factor structure is interpreted as essentially invariant if congruence coefficients
are higher than .90 (Everett 1983).
REPRESENTING THE FIVE BRAND PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS:
THE FINAL SET OF PERSONALITY TRAITS
The goal of the next phase was to identify the traits that most reliably, accurately, and
comprehensively represent the five dimensions. Therefore, a facet identification phase was
conducted, whereby each set of items in the five factors identified in the principal components
analysis was factor-analyzed individually. The result of those five factor analyses was a set of
"facets." To provide a reliable representation of each facet (Nunnally 1978), three traits from
each facet were selected.
Facet Identification
Because many of the factors are broad, personality psychologists (e.g., Church and Burke
1994; McCrae and Costa 1989) focus on different "facets" subsumed by each factor to select
representative traits that provide both breadth and depth and to serve as a framework for
establishing the similarities and differences among alternative conceptions of the "Big Five." To
identify the facets, the set of items in each factor (which resulted from the principal components
analysis) is factor-analyzed individually, a process that results in an unconstrained set of facets.
For example, the Extroversion factor of human personality consists of six facets: Warmth,
Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity, Excitement-Seeking, and Positive Emotions. However,
it should be noted that these facets are not factors in and of themselves, but rather are "used to
select and refine items ... to improve the scales, not to revise the constructs" (Church and Burke
1994, p. 107).
Therefore, in this research, the set of items in each of the five factors was factor-analyzed
individually using principal components analysis, a varimax rotation scheme, and an
unrestricted number of factors to be extracted. The result of the five individual factor analyses
was a total of 15 facets: Sincerity and Excitement each had four facets, Competence had three,
and Sophistication and Ruggedness each had two.
The next stage was to select the best traits represented in each of the 15 facets to be included
in the scale. To add to the scale's reliability and comprehensiveness while minimizing trait
redundancy, a clustering procedure outlined by Nunnally (1978) was followed, whereby three
clusters were formed for each facet.[5] Next, the trait with the highest item-to-total correlation in
each cluster was identified, leaving 45 traits (3 traits for each of the 15 facets) to be included in
the final Brand Personality Scale. All of these traits had high item-to-total correlations on both
the facets (ranging from .75 to .98) and their factors (ranging from .50 to .97), thereby ensuring
high internal consistency. See Figure I for the brand personality framework, which includes the
five dimensions and 15 facets.
ARE THE FIVE BRAND PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS RELIABLE?
To determine the degree to which the five brand personality dimensions will yield consistent
results, reliability was assessed in two ways: test-retest correlations and Cronbach's alpha.  Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  9
Test-Retest Reliability
A random subset of 200 subjects (50 in each of the four Brand Groups) was selected from the
original sample of subjects. To minimize both potential memory effects, in which subjects might
remember their responses to the original questionnaire, and "brand personality" effects, in
which differences in the responses at Time 1 and 2 might differ because of gradual changes in
the brand personalities over time, the test-retest questionnaire was sent two months after the
original questionnaire. To avoid systematic bias, all 114 traits were included in the test-retest
questionnaire.
The test-retest sample was composed of 81 subjects (a 41% return rate). The average Pearson
correlation between Time I and Time 2 on the 45 traits was .80, ranging from .49 to .90. Three
traits with test-retest correlations below .60 were dropped from the scale. Based on the
remaining 42-trait scale, the test-retest correlations for each of the five factors were as follows:
Sincerity = .75, Excitement = .74, Competence = .76, Sophistication = .75, and Ruggedness =
.77, all of which met Nunnally's (1978) criterion of test-retest scores of greater than .70 at this
stage of research.
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's alphas were calculated for each of the five dimensions using the 42-trait scale. The
resulting values were high: Sincerity = .93, Excitement = .95, Competence = .93, Sophistication
= .91, and Ruggedness = .90. In addition, all traits within each of the five dimensions had high
item-to-total correlations (averaging .85, all exceeding .55), which indicate high levels of internal
reliability.
CONFIRMING THE BRAND PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS
The factor analysis conducted in the first measurement purification phase raises two questions:
First, to what extent are the five dimensions based on the particular brands selected as stimuli,
and therefore biased if another set of brands were used? Second, to what extent are the five
dimensions a function of the particular subject sample, and therefore would change if another
sample was used? To answer these questions, an additional phase of research was conducted:
the confirmation of the five dimensions of brand personality using a second independent sample
of brands and subjects.
Subjects and Procedure
A total of 250 questionnaires was sent via Federal Express to subjects from a national mail
panel. The end sample included 180 subjects (a 72% response rate) with the same
demographic profile as those in the first phase. Subjects followed the identical procedure as in
the first measurement purification phase, except for two changes: (1) 42 personality traits were
used (versus 114) and (2) a different set of brands was used.
Stimuli
The second sample of brands was drawn from the same source as the original set of brands
(EquiTrend 1992). Of the 39 product categories used in the original EquiTrend study, 23 were
used in the first study. Of the remaining 16 product categories, the 10 product categories that Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  10
included more than one brand were selected. Next, the two brands with the highest salience
ratings (all higher than 50%) in these 10 product categories were selected, for a total of 20
brands. However, unlike the first measurement purification phase, these brands were not
chosen on the basis of their personality, so as to provide (l) a randomly chosen independent
sample of brands and (2) a more stringent test of the five-factor structure. See Table 3 for a list
of these brands.
Analysis
Because the objective of the second measurement purification stage was to determine the
extent to which the five dimensions were robust over a new set of brands and subjects, a
confirmatory factor analysis (Generalized Least Squares was conducted), estimating a five-
factor model for 42 traits. When the five factors were allowed to correlate, the fit statistics
suggested a good model fit (cf. Bagozzi and Heatherton 1994; Bentler 1990): the confirmatory
fit index (CFI; Bentler 1990) = .98, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .91, adjusted goodness-of-fit
index (AGFI) = .86, root mean square residual (RMSR) = .07, and Chi-square = 9,216.80[6]
(with 809 degrees of freedom; p < .01). When the factors were restricted to be orthogonal, the fit
statistics were CFI = .94, GFI = .86, AGFI = .85, RMSR = .15, and Chi-square = 9,447.11 (with
819 degrees of freedom; p < .01). Finally, to provide convergent support of the robustness of
the structure, an exploratory principal components factor analysis was conducted using a
varimax rotation scheme and an unconstrained number of factors to be extracted. The results
showed that the same number of factors resulted, the same type of five factors resulted, and
similar weights for the five factors existed. Moreover, factor congruence correlations for the five
factors were high, ranging from .97 to .99, which provides support for the stability of the five-
factor structure. For a list of the final set of personality traits that measure the five dimensions of
brand personality, see Appendix A.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Summary of the Research
The objective of this research was to develop a framework of brand personality dimensions and
a reliable, valid, and generalizable scale to measure the dimensions. To identify the brand
personality dimensions, a total of 631 subjects rated a subset of 37 brands on 114 personality
traits. The results of an exploratory principal components factor analysis suggest that
consumers perceive that brands have five distinct personality dimensions: Sincerity,
Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness. The results of a series of factor
analyses run on subsets of subjects established the robustness of the brand personality
dimensions. In addition, high levels of reliability of the five dimensions were established through
test-retest correlations and Cronbach's alphas. Finally, the results of a confirmatory factor
analysis relying on 180 subjects, 20 brands in ten product categories, and 42 personality traits
provided additional support for the stability of the five dimensions. In summary, the results of
these analyses demonstrate that the framework of brand personality dimensions, as
represented by the 42-item Brand Personality Scale, is reliable, valid, and generalizable.
The Symbolic Use of Brands: Brand Personality Versus Human
Personality  Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  11
This research has both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, the brand
personality framework developed in this research suggests that one reason for the weak
findings in the self-congruity literature may be due to the asymmetric relationship in the
structure of brand versus human personality. Although it could be argued that three brand
personality dimensions relate to three of the "Big Five" human personality dimensions (i.e.,
Agreeableness and Sincerity both capture the idea of warmth and acceptance; Extroversion and
Excitement both connote the notions of sociability, energy, and activity; Conscientiousness and
Competence both encapsulate responsibility, dependability, and security), two dimensions
(Sophistication and Ruggedness) differ from any of the "Big Five" of human personality (Briggs
1992). This pattern suggests that brand personality dimensions might operate in different ways
or influence consumer preference for different reasons. For example, whereas Sincerity,
Excitement, and Competence tap an innate part of human personality, Sophistication and
Ruggedness tap a dimension that individuals desire but do not necessarily have. This premise
is consistent with the advertising created for prototypical Sophisticated brands (e.g., Monet,
Revlon, Mercedes), in which aspirational associations such as upper class, glamorous, and
sexy are a focus. Similarly, Ruggedness brands (e.g., Marlboro, Harley-Davidson, Levi's) tend
to glamorize American ideals of Western, strength, and masculinity.
If true, this premise would suggest that one reason for the weak empirical support for self-
congruity effects (both actual and ideal) is the focus on matching the personality between a
brand and a consumer at the aggregate level (i.e., across all personality traits). Rather, this
research suggests that dimensions of personalities must be examined (Kleine, Kleine, and
Kernan 1993; see also Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995). Furthermore, the importance of these
dimensions must be examined in order to understand their centrality to the self (Markus 1977;
Markus and Wurf 1987) and the extent to which they influence preference for brands across
situations.
Practical applications of this research also exist. This is the first attempt to develop a
measurement scale that is based on a representative sample of subjects, a comprehensive list
of traits, and a systematically chosen set of brands across product categories. Therefore,
practitioners have an alternative to the ad hoc scales currently used. Moreover, the scale can
be used to compare personalities of brands across product categories, thereby enabling
researchers to identify benchmark personality brands. To aid this process, a set of personality
trait norms is provided in Appendix A.
The Antecedents, Consequences, and Processing of Brand Personality
Assuming that having a brand personality is important, the question arises: How does a brand
go about developing one? The brand personality framework and scale developed in this
research also can be used to gain theoretical and practical insight into the antecedents and
consequences of brand personality, which have received a significant amount of attention but
little empirical testing. In terms of antecedents, many have suggested that brand personality is
created by a variety of marketing variables (e.g., user imagery, advertising, packaging; cf. Batra,
Lehmann, and Singh 1993; Levy 1959; Plummer 1985). However, the extent to which these
variables independently and interdependently influence brand personality has yet to be
determined. With the use of the Brand Personality Scale, the variables can be manipulated
systematically and their impact on a brand's personality measured. Similarly, in terms of
consequences, researchers suggest that brand personality increases consumer preference and
usage (Sirgy 1982), evokes emotions in consumers (Biel 1993), and increases levels of trust
and loyalty (Fournier 1994). These assertions can be tested by systematically manipulating
distinct dimensions of a brand's personality (e.g., Sincerity) and examining their impact on key Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  12
dependent variables. Theoretically, this learning would contribute to an overall understanding of
the symbolic use of brands. Practically, it would provide insight into the variables that influence
brand personality, as well as those that are influenced by brand personality.
Further research also is needed to examine how brand personality information is processed.
Past research demonstrates that under conditions of high motivation or ability, brand attributes
tend to be processed systematically (Maheswaran and Chaiken 1991). However, less is known
about attitude formation under conditions of low motivation or ability. One possibility is that
brand personality information, used as a heuristic cue, might influence consumer attitudes and
attenuate the processing of brand attribute information under low motivation. Another is that,
due to the matching process required to determine if a brand personality and one's own
personality are congruent versus incongruent, brand personality information might require
systematic processing, and therefore should influence attitudes additively under high motivation.
A final possibility that merits exploration is that brand personality could bias brand attribute
information, in which the brand attributes are interpreted differently given the personality
associated with a brand (cf. Chaiken and Maheswaran 1994).
The Symbolic Use of Brands Across Cultures
Finally, the brand personality framework and scale developed here have important implications
for researchers examining the perceptions of brand personality across cultures. For example,
the extent to which brand personality dimensions are cross culturally generalizable must be
examined. Although research has shown that the human personality dimensions remain robust
across cultures (Paunonen et al. 1992), the same may not be so for brand personality because
of differences in the antecedents of the two constructs. Consequently, the current scale might
not be appropriate for measuring brand personality in a different cultural context. Additional
research is needed to determine the extent to which these brand personality dimensions are
stable across cultures and, if not, theoretically why they might be altered. Answers to these
questions will shed insight into the extent to which a brand's personality (versus the brand's
attributes) should remain constant across cultures, what dimensions of brand personality are
valued across cultures, and how consumers use brands across cultures (cf. Aaker and
Maheswaran 1997).
Finally, little is known about the psychological mechanism by which brand personality operates
across cultures. However, recent research in cultural psychology suggests that the symbolic
use of brands differs considerably across cultures (Aaker and Schmitt 1997). For example, in
individualist cultures, where independence, autonomy, and uniqueness are valued (Markus and
Kitayama 1991), consumers are more likely to use brands to express how they are different
from members of their in-group. In contrast, in collectivist cultures, where interdependence,
conformity, and similarity are valued (Markus and Kitayama 199l), consumers are more likely to
use brands to express how they are similar to members of their in-group. Such research would
demonstrate that the symbolic or self-expressive use of brands is robust across cultures, while
the nature of that self-expression differs significantly.
1. To ensure that the pair of brands, which also vary on the symbolic-utilitarian continuum.
in a product category were selected systematically, an independent set of subjects (n =
20, 50% female, mean age = 28) was asked to rate the extent to which 36 brands in
nine product categories were relatively more "symbolic (i.e., self-expressive) versus
utilitarian (i.e., functional)" in nature. The brands that received the highest rating on the
"symbolic" dimension are listed first, followed by the brands that received the highest
rating on the "utilitarian" dimension: jeans (Guess, Wrangler), cosmetics (Revlon, Mary Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  13
Kay), fragrance (Obsession, Chanel), computers (IBM, Apple), electronics (GE, Sony),
appliances (Maytag, Kitchen Aid), cars (Porsche, Volvo), beverages (Diet Coke,
Calistoga) and athletic shoes (LA Gear, Adidas).
2. A Likert scale was preferred over a semantic-differential scale because the objective of
this study was to determine the extent to which a brand can be described by certain
human characteristics (i.e., brand personality content and strength), rather than to
determine when brands are associated with negative versus positive personality
characteristics (i.e., brand personality valence).
3. Although at least nine traits loaded on each of the first five factors, only three traits
loaded on the sixth ("special," "classic," and "tasteful") and seventh ("big," "successful,"
and "leader") factors. No traits loaded on any remaining factors. More detailed
information as well as the raw correlation matrix and factor scores are available from
the author.
4. These names were chosen after the second measurement phase but are reported here
to simplify the terminology used. Three of these names were represented in trait form in
the five dimensions (sincere, exciting, and rugged).
5. In this clustering procedure, the trait with the highest item-to-total correlation within a
facet was identified and formed the nucleus of the first cluster. Then, the traits that were
correlated most highly with the nucleus trait were identified (r > .90), forming the first
cluster in the facet. Next, the nucleus for the second cluster was obtained by identifying
the trait with the next highest item-to-total correlation in the facet. Traits with relatively
high correlations with the second nucleus and relatively low correlations (r < .89) with
the first nucleus were then identified to form the second cluster. This procedure was
repeated until all clusters of the facet were identified (which was three clusters for 13 of
the facets and four for the remaining 2 facets, with only one trait in the final fourth
cluster). For more details, see Church and Burke (1994).
6. The chi-square is of limited value in this context and greater weight should be given to
other fit statistics "because [the chi-square statistic] is sensitive to sample size and can
lead to a rejection of a model differing in a trivial way from the data" (Bagozzi and
Heatherton 1994, p. 45).
Table 1 FOUR BRAND GROUPS OF TEN BRANDS
Legend for Chart:

A - Brand Group 1
B - Brand Group 2
C - Brand Group 3
D - Brand Group 4

A                                  B
C                                  D

Crest toothpaste                   Kodak fil
Lego toys                          Cheerios cereal

Campbell's soup                    Hershey's candy bar
Hallmark cards                     Mattel toys

Kmart stores                       Pepsi Cola soft drinks
Lee jeans                          Saturn automobiles
 Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  14
Porsche automobiles                Oil of Olay lotion
Charlie perfume                    Guess? jeans

Reebok athletic shoes              AMEX credit cards
ESPN station                       Nike athletic shoes

Michelin tires                     Sony television
AT&T phone service                 CNN station

Diet Coke cola                     Advil pain reliever
Apple computers                    Revlon cosmetics

MTV station                        MCI telephone service
Avon cosmetics                     McDonald's restaurants

IBM computers                      Mercedes automobiles
Lexus automobiles                  Visa credit cards

Levi's jeans                       Levi's jeans
Levi's jeans                       Levi's jeans
Table 2 FIVE DIMENSIONS OF BRAND PERSONALITY
Legend for Chart:

A - Name
B - Dimension
C - Variance Explained
D - Eigenvalue
E - Traits with Highest Item-to-Total Correlations

A                   B                   C                  D
                    E

Sincerity           1                   26.5%              31.4
                    Domestic, honest, genuine, cheerful

Excitement          2                   25.1%              27.9
                    Daring, spirited, imaginative, up-to-date

Competence          3                   17.5%              14.2
                    Reliable, responsible, dependable, efficient

Sophistication      4                   11.9%               9.2
                    Glamorous, pretentious, charming, romantic

Ruggedness          5                    8.8%               6.7
                    Tough, strong, outdoorsy, rugged
Table 3 CONFIRMATORY SAMPLE OF BRANDS
Marriott hotels                    Holiday Inn hotels Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  15
Macy's stores                      Sears stores
The Wall Street Journal newspapers USA Today newspapers
Liz Claiborne clothing             Benetton clothing
Marlboro cigarettes                Virginia Slims cigarettes
Maytag appliances                  KitchenAid appliances
Metropolitan Life insurance        Prudential insurance
Taster's Choice coffee             Maxwell House coffee
Bic razors                         Gillette razors
Newsweek magazines                 People magazines
Appendix A A BRAND PERSONALITY SCALE (Means and Standard
Deviations)[*]
Legend for Chart:

A - Traits
B - Mean
C - Standard Deviation
D - Facet
E - Facet Name
F - Factor Name
G - Mean
H - Standard Deviation

A                                 B     C      D               E
                                  F     G      H

down-to-earth                  2.92  1.35   (1a)   Down-to-earth
                          Sincerity  2.72    .99

family-oriented                3.07  1.44   (1a)             --
                                 --    --     --

small-town                     2.26  1.31   (1a)             --
                                 --    --     --

honest                         3.02  1.35    (1b)         Honest
                                 --    --      --

sincere                        2.82  1.34    (1b)            --
                                 --    --      --

real                           3.28  1.33    (1b)            --
                                 --    --      --

wholesome                      2.81  1.36    (1c)      Wholesome
                                 --    --      --

original                       3.19  1.36    (1c)            --
                                 --    --      --

cheerful                       2.66  1.33    (1d)       Cheerful Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  16
                                 --    --      --

sentimental                    2.23  1.26    (1d)            --
                                 --    --      --

friendly                       2.95  1.37    (1d)            --
                                 --    --      --

daring                         2.54  1.36    (2a)         Daring
                         Excitement  2.79    1.05

trendy                         2.95  1.39    (2a)            --
                                 --    --      --

exciting                       2.79  1.38    (2a)            --
                                 --    --      --

spirited                       2.81  1.38    (2b)       Spirited
                                 --    --      --

cool                           2.75  1.39    (2b)            --
                                 --    --      --

young                          2.73  1.40    (2b)            --
                                 --    --      --

imaginative                    2.81  1.35    (2c)    Imaginative
                                 --    --      --

unique                         2.89  1.36    (2c)            --
                                 --    --      --

up-to-date                     3.60  1.30    (2d)     Up-to-date
                                 --    --      --

independent                    2.99  1.36    (2d)            --
                                 --    --      --

contemporary                   3.00  1.32    (2d)            --
                                 --    --      --

reliable                       3.63  1.28    (3a)       Reliable
                         Competence  3.17    1.02

hard working                   3.17  1.43    (3a)            --
                                 --    --      --

secure                         3.05  1.37    (3a)            --
                                 --    --      --

intelligent                    2.96  1.39    (3b)    Intelligent
                                 --    --      --
 Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  17
technical                      2.54  1.39    (3b)            --
                                 --    --      --

corporate                      2.79  1.45    (3b)            --
                                 --    --      --

successful                     3.69  1.32    (3c)     Successful
                                 --    --      --

leader                         3.34  1.39    (3c)            --
                                 --    --      --

confident                      3.33  1.36    (3c)            --
                                 --    --      --

upper class                    2.85  1.42    (4a)    Upper class
                     Sophistication  2.66    1.02

glamorous                      2.50  1.39    (4a)            --
                                 --    --      --

good looking                   2.97  1.42    (4a)            --
                                 --    --      --

charming                       2.43  1.30    (4b)       Charming
                                 --    --      --

feminine                       2.43  1.43    (4b)            --
                                 --    --      --

smooth                         2.74  1.34    (4b)            --
                                 --    --      --

outdoorsy                      2.41  1.40    (5a)      Outdoorsy
                         Ruggedness  2.49    1.08

masculine                      2.45  1.42    (5a)            --
                                 --    --      --

Western                        2.05  1.33    (5a)            --
                                 --    --      --

tough                          2.88  1.43    (5b)          Tough
                                 --    --      --

rugged                         2.62  1.43    (5b)            --
                                 --    --      --
* Based on n = 9, 910  
Figure 1: A BRAND PERSONALITY FRAMEWORK
REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer and Durairaj Maheswaran (1997), "The Impact of Cultural Orientation on
Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, forthcoming.
----- and Bernd Schmitt (1997), "The Influence of Culture on the Self-Expressive Use of Brands,"
Working Paper #274, UCLA Anderson Graduate School of Management.
Alt, Michael and Steve Griggs (1988), "Can A Brand Be Cheeky?" Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, 4 (6), 9-16.
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Todd F. Heatherton (1994), "A General Approach to Representing
Multifaceted Personality Constructs: Application to State Self-Esteem," Structural Equation
Modeling, 1 (1), 35-67.
Batra, Rajeev, Donald R. Lehmann, and Dipinder Singh (1993), "The Brand Personality
Component of Brand Goodwill: Some Antecedents and Consequences," in Brand Equity and
Advertising, David A. Aaker and Alexander Biel, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Belk, Russell W. (1988) "Possessions and the Extended Self," Journal of Consumer Research,
2 (September), 139-68.
Bellenger, Danny N., Earle Steinberg, and Wilbur W. Stanton (1976), "The Congruence of Store
Image and Self Image," Journal of Retailing, 52 (Spring), 17-32.
Bentler, Peter M. (1990), "Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models," Psychological Bulletin,
107, 238-46.
Biel, Alexander (1993) "Converting Image into Equity," in Brand Equity and Advertising, David
A. Aaker and Alexander Biel, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  18Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  19
Briggs, Steven (1992), "Assessing the Five-Factor Model of Personality Description," Journal of
Personality, 60 (2), 253-93.
Chaiken, Shelly and Durairaj Maheswaran (1994), "Heuristic Processing Can Bias Systematic
Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, Argument Ambiguity, and Task Importance on
Attribute Judgment," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (3), 460-73.
Church, Timothy A. and Peter J. Burke (1994), "Exploratory and Confirmatory Tests of the Big
Five and Tellegen's Three and Four-Dimensional Models," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66 (1), 93-114.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979), "A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs," Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64-73.
Digman, John M. (1990), "Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model," Annual
Review of Psychology, 41, 417-40.
Dolich, Ira J. (1969), "Congruence Relationship Between Self-Image and Product Brands,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 6 (February), 80-84.
Epstein, Seymour (1977), "Traits are Alive and Well," in Personality at the Crossroads, D.
Magnusson and N.S. Endler, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 83-98.
EquiTrend (1992), Total Research Corporation, Princeton, NJ.
Everett, John E. (1983), "Factor Comparability as a Means of Determining the Number of
Factors and Their Rotation," Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 197-218.
Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction
to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fournier, Susan (1994), "A Consumer-Brand Relationship Framework for Strategy Brand
Management" unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.
Gilmore, George W. (1919), Animism. Boston: Marshall Jones Company.
Halliday, Jean (1996), "Chrysler Brings Out Brand Personalities with '97 Ads," Advertising Age
(September 30), 3.
John, Oliver (1990), "The 'Big Five' Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions of Personality in the Natural
Language and in Questionnaires," in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, L.A.
Pervin, ed. San Francisco: Harper, 66-100.
Kassarjian, Harold H. (1971), "Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review," Journal of
Marketing Research, 8 (November) 409-18.
Katz, Daniel (1960), "The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes," Public Opinion
Quarterly, 24, 163-204.  Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  20
Keller, Kevin L. (1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand
Equity," Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 1-22.
Kleine, Robert E., Susan Schultz Kleine, and Jerome B. Kernan (1993), "Mundane
Consumption and the Self: A Social-Identity Perspective," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2
(3), 209-35.
Kleine, Susan Schultz, Robert E. Kleine III, and Chris T. Allen (1995), "How Is a Possession
'Me' or 'Not Me'? Characterizing Types and an Antecedent of Material Possession Attachment,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (December), 327-43.
Levy, Sidney J. (1959), "Symbols for Sales," Harvard Business Review, 37 (4), 117-24.
Maheswaran, Durairaj and Shelly Chaiken (1991), "Promoting Systematic Processing in Low
Motivation Settings: Effect of In-congruent Information on Processing Judgment," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.
Malhotra, Naresh K. (1981), "A Scale to Measure Self-Concepts, Person Concepts and Product
Concepts," Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (November), 456-64.
----- (1988), "Self Concept and Product Choice: An Integrated Perspective," Journal of
Economic Psychology, 9, 1-28.
Markus, Hazel (1977), "Self-Schemata and Processing Information About the Self," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (2), 63-78.
----- and Shinobu Kitayama (1991), "Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion
and Motivation," Psychology Review, 98, 224-53.
----- and Elissa Wurf (1987), "The Dynamic Self-Concept: A Social Psychological Perspective,"
Annual Review of Psychology, 38 (2), 299-337.
McCracken, Grant (1989), "Who Is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the
Endorsement Process," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (3), 310-21.
McCrae, Robert R. and Paul T. Costa, Jr. (1989), "The Structure of Interpersonal Traits:
Wiggins's Circumplex and Five-Factor Model," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56
(4), 586-95.
Norman, Warren T. (1963), "Toward an Adequate Taxonomy of Personality Attribute:
Replicated Factor Structure in Peer Nomination Personality Ratings," Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 66, 574-83.
Nunnally, Jura C. (1978), Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Osgood, Charles E., George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum (1957), The Measurement of
Meaning. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.  Retno Yustini W. 05/1770/PS  21
Park, Bernadette (1986), "A Method for Studying the Development of Impressions of Real
People," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 907-17.
Paunonen, Sampo V., Douglas N. Jackson, Jerzy Trzebinski, and Friedrich Forsterling (1992),
"Personality Structure Across Cultures: A Multimethod Evaluation," Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 62 (3), 447-56.
Pendergrast, Mark (1993), For God, Country and Coca-Cola. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons.
Piedmont, Ralph L., Robert R. McCrae, and Paul T. Costa, Jr. (1991), "Adjective Check List
Scales and the Five-Factor Model," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (4), 630-
37.
Plummer, Joseph T. (1985), "Brand Personality: A Strategic Concept For Multinational
Advertising," in Marketing Educators' Conference. New York: Young & Rubicam, 1-31.
Ratchford, Brian (1987), "New Insights About the FCB Grid," Journal of Advertising Research,
27 (August/September), 24-26.
Rook, Dennis W. (1985), "The Ritual Dimension of Consumer Behavior," Journal of Consumer
Research, 12 (December), 251-64.
Sirgy, Joseph (1982), "Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review," Journal of
Consumer Research, 9 (December) 287-300.
Tupes, Ernest C. and Raymond E. Christal (1958), "Stability of Personality Trait Rating Factors
Obtained Under Diverse Conditions," USAF WADS Technical Report No. 58-61. Lackland Air
Force Base, TX: U.S. Air Force.
Wells, William, Frank J. Andriuli, Fedele J. Goi, and Stuart Seader (1957), "An Adjective
Checklist for the Study of 'Product Personality,'" Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, 317-19.
~~~~~~~~
By JENNIFER L. AAKER
Jennifer Aaker is Assistant Professor of Marketing. Anderson School of Management,
University of California, Los Angeles. The author gratefully acknowledges the help of Richard
Bagozzi, Lauren Block, Susan Broniarczyk, Lee Cooper, Gavan Fitzsimons, Jim Lattin, Durairaj
Maheswaran, Don Morrison, Bernal Schmitt. the editor, and the reviewers; as well as Andre
Richards, David Spengler, and Steve Goldstein at Levi-Strauss, who provided the funding for
much of this research, Great amounts of thanks to Kevin Lane Keller who provided insight and
support at each stage of this research.

Brand Personality

Brand Personality
Sensitive management of a brand’s archetypal image is critical to the well
being of a brand and key to reversing the tide of ebbing brand loyalty.
Cognitive scientists  say all our store  of personal
knowledge   is   ultimately    traceable    to   brain-
mediated  models  of  the  self,  and  of  the  self  in
relationship  to  other things. We use  these models
as  metaphors  to  help  us  understand  what  exists
independently  of  us.  Consciousness  then,  is  a
sensation of the self.
To illustrate,  images represented by  the  words
up  and  down  draw  from  our  earliest  spatial
experiences.   As   infants,   help  comes   to  us
mostly  from above—mother  reaching down  to
feed us,    play  with us,  and  to  take  us  out of
our   cribs   into   her   arms.   These   early   life
experiences become metaphors that contribute
to  a  more positive  bias  to  the concept  of  up
than   the   concept   of   down.   When   we   are
happy,  we are  up.  When we  are sad,  we are
down.  When  sales  are  strong,  they  are  up.
When sales are weak, they are down. We place
God up in the heavens, and  the Devil down in
Hell.  Thus,  cognitive  scientists  propose  that
immaterial  thought  in  our  minds  is  linked  to
the material substance of our bodies.
We    have    had    uneasiness    about    the
relationship   between   mind   and   body   ever
since  Rene  Descartes  put   them  asunder  in
formulating modern scientific methodology. In
Descartes’    schemata,   pure   mind   had   no
connection with  the body.  Mind was  a  misty
realm with no temporal foundation, and came
to  be  widely  known   in  philosophy  as   the
“ghost  in  the  machine.”  It  had  no  corporeal
substance.  Descartes  argued  that  only  when
the mind operates  independently of  emotions
can    mental    output    be    trusted.    So,    he
separated   body   from   mind,   emotion   from
reason. Reason was raised up in human affairs,
while emotion was put down.
Descartes’  Error
In    his    book,    Descartes’    Error,    Antonio
Damasio  reports  intriguing  results  from  over
two decades  of research into the operations of
reason    and     emotion    that     have    major
implications  for  both  customer  research  and
marketing  practice.  Damasio,  who  heads  up
(not  down)  the  neurology  department  at  the
University  of  Iowa, studies  patients  who  are
rather like Star Trek’s Mr. Spock. Brain  trauma
has  robbed them of  their emotional capacities
while  leaving  reasoning  abilities  fully  intact.
Despite     normal    comprehension,     memory
acuity   and   reasoning   abilities,   Damasio’s
patients  have  a  hard  time  making  decisions
about  matters  in  which  they  have  a  stake  in
the outcome. Their brains cannot  form models
of self and the relationship of self to the world
beyond  their  bodies.  They  cannot  cognitively
connect  themselves with  others.  Their lack  of
emotionality  deprives  them  of  a  connectable
self.
Marketers   should   not   be   surprised   that
Damasio’s  patients  cannot  form relationships
with    brands.     Most    seasoned     marketers
already  know   that  customers’  relationships
with  brands   have  emotional  underpinnings.
Customer relationships with  brands  are never
based  on  reason, yet few  organizations strive
to understand the emotional dynamics of their
customers’ relationships with their brands.
Carl Jung’s Ideas Gain Credibility
For   many   decades,   the   ideas   of   Swiss
psychologist Carl Jung were out at the edges of
mainstream    behavioral   science.    His   most
influential    contribution    to    the    study    of
behavior was probably his construct of basic
© 2002 Booth Morgan Consulting, LLC Page 1
personality types  that  became the foundation
of  the widely  used Meyers-Briggs  personality
assessment.   But  relatively   few  behaviorists
gave   serious   attention   to   Jung’s   idea   that
people come into the world bearing archetypes.
Archetypes  are not  pictures and  sounds or
other sensory images stored  in brain cells like
a  song  stored  on  tape  or  undeveloped  film
stored   in   a   camera.   In   Damasio’s   terms,
archetypes   are   modeled   in   the   brain   as
dispositions  in clusters  of  dispositional  neurons.
Like  a  violin’s  strings disposed  to  acoustically
respond to the stimulus of the violinist’s bow,
the brain  contains  myriad clusters  of  neurons
that are disposed to respond to given stimuli.
We  arrive in  this  world  with vast  numbers
of  clusters of dispositional  neurons. When we
are hungry as infants, clusters  of dispositional
neurons  that   are  already  organized   in  our
brains   prompt  us   to  cry.   When  hunger   is
relieved   with   food,   inherited   dispositional
neurons prompt us to please mother with coos
and smiles. In so pleasing mother, we reinforce
her caring for us. We trigger the flow of  mood
uplifting  oxytocin—sometimes  called  the  love
chemical—which  mother  can  get  more  of  by
giving  us  more  care.  Pictures  of  infants  in
family  photo  albums  and  also  in  advertising
can  trigger  oxytocin,  although  in  much  lower
amounts.
As  we develop from infancy, we constantly
add   to  the  count   of  dispositional  neurons
through  the  experiences  we  have  and  their
memorization. But underlying all dispositional
neurons  acquired  by experience  are  those  we
are  born  with,  including  those  that  represent
Jung’s  archetypes,  awaiting  some  future  time
to   be    aroused.   A    marketer    could   view
dispositional  neurons as  “hot  buttons,”  some
of  which can trigger predisposed responses  to
the contents of the marketer’s message.
Archetypal “Hot Buttons”
In   another   web   site   article,   Listening   to
Customers, we describe a customer relationship
methodology  called  Developmental
Relationship     Marketing     or     DRM.     The
foundations of  DRM are  based  on archetypal
structures    that     predispose    attributes    of
behavior.  A  fundamental  premise  of  DRM  is
that  marketers should strive  to  key into these
archetypal  “hot  buttons”  in  every  marketing
campaign to arouse interest among the greatest
number of customers.
However,      more       commonly,      product
messages mainly key into superficial attributes
of     customers,    attributes     that     are     not
archetypal.  This  narrows  a  product’s  market
to    customers   with    those   attributes.    The
broader  approach  of  keying  into  archetypes
enlarges   a  product’s   market  to   encompass
everyone    with   a    need   for    the   product,
regardless        of       individual,        superficial
distinctions.  In  this  respect,  DRM  raises  this
counterintuitive proposition:
Relationship  marketing,   especially  in
its  application  to  mass  marketing,  is
more  effective  when  based on  customer
commonalities  rather  than on  customer
differences  as  argued  by  proponents  of
traditional   relationship  or   one-to-one
marketing.
That  is  not to say  that  customer differences
do  not  have  a  role  in  relationship  marketing.
They     do.     In     fact,      keying     marketing
communications   to   customer   differences   is
essential      to     building     strong,     enduring
relationships  with   customers.  However,  the
foundations    of    relationship    or    one-to-one
marketing   should   reflect   universal   human
properties.
© 2002 Booth Morgan Consulting, LLC Page 2
Coca-Cola  has  been particularly effective in
building    relationships   with    customers   by
connecting  with  their  commonalities.  In  the
1970s,   Coke  introduced  a  new  theme  song
with the words,  “I’d like to build the world a
home  and  furnish  it  with  love/Grow  apple
trees  and  honeybees  and  snow  white  turtle
doves.”  The  images  invoked  by  those  words
key    to    archetypal   desires—every    normal
person   has   them.   The   song   enjoyed   such
popular success that it ran for six years.
Michelin     also     connects     to     universal
commonalities  with its  depiction of  a  smiling
infant  sitting  in  a  tire  or  in  cherubic  ascent
against   a    blue   sky.    Invoking   the   Infant
archetype  (a  link  to  the  future  that  must  be
safeguarded   for   the  good   of   the   species),
Michelin’s  product   messages  spell  “safety”
without the word ever being used. It paves the
way  for  an  array  of  motivating  responses,
such as,  “I  want  to  protect  my  family,”  or “I
want to show that  I am a responsible person.”
Those thoughts may not rise in consciousness,
but they work in the background to help shape
customers’ archetypal reactions to Michelin ads.
Power Brands Project Strong,
Unambiguous  Archetypal  Images
Growing   interest   in   archetypes   signals   a
major  transformation  in  marketers’  attitudes
about  the misty regions behind the curtains of
consciousness.  Everyone  is  looking  for  new
answers.    Increasing    disappointment    with
traditional customer research is causing greater
tolerance  of  nontraditional ideas  and  making
it  more acceptable to  talk  about archetypes in
mainstream business.
In  their trailblazing  book, The  Hero and  The
Outlaw,  Margaret  Mark  and  Carol  Pearson
assert   that   12   archetypes   dominate   brand
genre.  They  base  their  claim  on  an  extensive
quantitative  analysis  of  brand  archetypes  in
which  they  identified  major  archetypes  and
examples of  brands that  invoke them (Exhibit
1 contains a sampling).
Archetypes and Their Primary Functions in People’s Lives Exhibit 1
Oprah’s Book Club Understand their world Sage
Levi’s Maintain  independence Explorer
Ivory Retain or renew faith Innocent
Calgon Affect  transformation Magician
Harley-Davidson Break the rules Outlaw
Nike Act  courageously Hero
Hallmark Find and give love Lover
Wendy’s Be OK just as they are Regular Guy/Gal
Miller Lite Have a good time Jester
American Express Exert control Ruler
AT & T (Ma Bell) Care for others Caregiver
Williams-Sonoma Craft something new Creator
Brand Example Helps  People Archetype
Source: The Hero and the Outlaw by Margaret Mark and Carol Pearson, McGraw-Hill, 2001
© 2002 Booth Morgan Consulting, LLC Page 3
In  another  web  site  article,  Speaking  with
Customers,   we   discuss   how   storytelling   is
becoming  the  heart  of  marketing.  Archetypes
play critical  roles in a storyteller’s tale. Stories
with  characters  that  have  weak  archetypal
definition  lack  dimension  and  will  likely  not
command   much   of  an   audience.   Similarly,
brands  with  weak  archetypal  definition  are
less  likely  to  have  strong  relationships  with
customers.Reflecting  the  idea  that  archetypes
help  us  find  meaning  in  what  we  encounter,
Mark   and   Pearson   call   brand   husbandry
meaning  management.  Product  messages  are
about  managing  the   meanings  of  products,
including their connections to customers in the
deeper    zones    of     their    existence    where
archetypes    exist    and    function.    Sensitive
management of  a  brand’s  archetypal  image is
critical to the well being of a brand, as a recent
Coke ad campaign demonstrates.
Coke’s  core archetype  is  the  Innocent. Red,
white and blue, all  things true. (Remember the
tagline,  “It’s  the  real  thing.”)  In  late  2000,
Coke  left  the  Innocent  archetype  reservation,
so  to  speak.  Looking  to  move  into  Pepsi’s
youth   market,   Coke   ran   several   edgy   TV
commercials   showing   people  throwing   ugly
tantrums  after  asking  for  a  Coke  and  being
told     Coke     was     not     available.     These
commercials   could   have  worked   for   Pepsi
with  its  Jester  archetype  image.  But  not  for
Coke. Coke  fans  around the  country phoned,
mailed  and  emailed  their   outrage  over  the
compromise    of   Coke,    the   Innocent.    The
spontaneity   of  negative   response  indicated
that  the commercials irritated something deep
within people’s psyches.  It struck them wrong
in  their gut.    The  meaning of  Coke’s Innocent
archetypal  image  was  not  well  managed  in
this case.
Coke’s     recent     experience     with     edgy
commercials    argues    a    critical    truth    in
marketing     that     has     not     been     widely
understood  and  appreciated—customers  own
brands, not  companies. Companies are only the
trustees of the brands they create for customer
consumption,    materially    and     perceptually.
When  a  company  changes  or  compromises  a
brand’s  persona,  it  invites  negative  reactions
from  customers who  have  identified with  the
persona of that brand.
While  Mark  and  Pearson  correctly  observe
that  a  brand  does  best  by  being  identifiable
with  a  single,  unambiguous  core  archetype,
product messages can also associate the brand
with  other  archetypes.  Done  in  a  way  that
does    not    compromise    the    brand’s    core
archetype,  this  will  broaden  market  appeal.
Brands, like people should not be held to some
rigid  expression of  persona.  As  social  beings,
we  continuously  shift  from  one  persona  to
another    in    our   interactions    with    others.
Healthy   brands   do   the   same,   frequently
through  surrogates—human  and  even  animal
and  cartoon characters  in broadcast  and print
advertising.  However, care  needs  to  be  taken
to   avoid   surrogates   who   conflict   with   a
brand’s  core  archetype,  as  happened  in  the
Coke example above.
Wild About Harry
The    California-based    HMO,    PacifiCare,
whose Medicare customers are primarily mid-
middle    class    and    a    bit    lower,   ran    an
astonishingly   successful   commercial   for   its
Medicare   brand,   Secure   Horizons.   In   the
commercial, a character  named Harry projects
the  Sage  archetype,  as  he  tends  his  plants
while   talking   about   how   Secure   Horizons
made it possible to give his wife topnotch care
with  a  minimum  of  financial  and  emotional
distress. Another Harry commercial was made
with similar success. Customers were just wild
about Harry.
The   success  of   this  customer-to-customer
approach    in    getting    its    message    across
inspired PacifiCare to develop several new TV
commercials   with   different   actors.   In   one
commercial, the  starring character  delivered a
similar  message  about  Secure  Horizons  as  he
handled   an   ornate   clock   from   his   clock
collection.   In   another   commercial,   the   star
© 2002 Booth Morgan Consulting, LLC Page 4
character  was  involved  with  a  horse.  When
both commercials failed expectations, we were
asked to analyze them for why.
The  personas   of  the  clock   hobbyist  and
horse  enthusiast  did  not  reflect  PacifiCare’s
core  market.  Harry’s  persona  was  more  in
sync  with  Secure  Horizon’s  core  market.  He
had  an  unhoned earthiness  and  an  authentic
personality  with  a  hint  of  benign  blue  collar
demeanor.     Harry     was     a     huggie     bear
personality  the  market  liked—no,  loved.  The
other  two  characters  were  too  refined.  Harry
was lovable, the other characters respectable.
The     importance     of     matching     actors’
personas  to customers seems so obvious as to
not  warrant  discussion.  Yet,   as   Mark  and
Pearson  observe  in  The  Hero  and  the  Outlaw,
creators  of  marketing  messages  routinely  fail
to   do   so.  This   supports   the   idea  that   if
creators  of  marketing  messages  had  a  better
understanding    of    human   behavior,    many
disappointing  results  in  marketing  could  be
avoided.
Archetypes  need   to  be  chosen   and  their
meanings     managed     with     sensitivity     to
customers’ season of life. As examples  of such
sensitivity,  Harley Davidson’s  “Outlaw”  and
Nike’s  “Hero”  clearly are  expressed  in  terms
of the behavioral proclivities in late Spring and
throughout   Summer.   On   the   other   hand,
Hallmark’s   Lover   has   been   developed   to
appeal  to  customers  in  every  season  of  life.
Keeping in  mind that  brand stories  with their
archetypal  characters  help customers  process
their  lives,  it  is  critically  important  that  the
primary  survival  focus  and  story  themes  of
each  season  of  life  be  taken  into  account  in
managing   archetypal   meanings.   To   repeat
those   survival   focuses   and   story   themes,
which are described in more detail in Speaking
with Customers:
Irony Reconciliation (making sense of life) Winter
Tragic
Romantic
Comedic
Story Theme
Play (learning)
Work-play (search for meaning) Fall
Work (becoming somebody) Summer
Spring
Primary Survival Focus Season
The  primary  survival  focus  of  each  season
provides   clues   as   to   content   of   product
messages,  while  the  story  theme  of  a  season
gives   guidance    for   the   style    of   content
presentation.   It   is   not   uncommon   for   a
product   message   to   use   an   inappropriate
message  voice  for  otherwise  sound  content.  A
hotel    television    commercial    that    yielded
unhappy  results  is  an  example.  The  content
was    sound:    a    waiting    staff    and    hotel
ambiance   would  help   relieve  the   stress  of
business  travel.  But  the  message  voice  was
wrong.   The  depiction   of  an   irate  business
traveler on his way  to  the hotel, blocked on a
narrow  road  by  the  car  of  an  elderly  couple
squabbling    as    their    vehicle    crept    along,
offended  seniors, a significant clientele for the
hotel. People don’t lose their sense of humor in
Winter,  but  they  do  have  humor  preferences
that   don’t   always   coincide   with   those   of
young      people      who      create      television
commercials.  Most  people  in  the  Winter  of
their  lives  generally do  not  appreciate  humor
that  makes  a  person  or  class  of  people  look
silly or stupid.  This is also  true for many who
are in the Fall of their lives. The kinder, gentler
© 2002 Booth Morgan Consulting, LLC Page 5
edge  that  commonly  emerges  in  the  Fall  and
Winter   of  life   changes  what   is  considered
funny.
The Brand Personality Book: Insurance
Against  Marketing  Blunders
Advertising  blunders  happen,  but  a  brand
personality   book   can   significantly   reduce
chances  of  that  happening.  Large  companies
take  great pains to  protect  their logos through
detailed   instructions   in   manuals   of   logo
presentation,       but       rarely       give       such
institutionalized   attention   to   protection   of
brand image in marketing communications. As
a   result,   product   messages   often   contain
conflicting personality images.
A  brand   personality  book   is  a   book  of
personality sketches. It defines the personality
attributes  of a  brand’s core archetypes and  of
the complimentary  archetypal  characters  that
may be projected into the marketplace through
surrogates.  The  character  sketches  should  be
developed  with keen  sensitivity to  variations
in    worldviews,     needs    and     motivations
between the four seasons  of  life. For example,
if  a  brand’s  core  archetype  is  the  Hero,  the
Hero  could  be  suitably  projected  into  youth
markets  with  narcissistic  overtones  to  imply
that   the   brand  can   augment   a   customer’s
social  standing. Nike does this  as  well as any
one does.
However, when the Hero represents a brand
with  a  strong  customer  base  in later  Summer
and older markets, it may be more effective to
project   the   Hero  with   altruistic   overtones.
Coke’s famous  “Mean Joe  Green” commercial
in   which   sports    bad    boy   Joe   Green   is
humanized by a small  boy’s offer of a  Coke is
a  compelling example  of  a  Hero presentation
with altruistic overtones.
Conducting   an   historical   assessment   of
personality    attributes    can     help    in    the
development  of   a  brand   personality  book.
This ensures continuity between  the past  and
the  present  should  a  decision  be  made  to
change  a  brand’s  personality  to  any  degree.
Often,  when  a  brand  appears  to  be  losing its
edge in  the marketplace, the agency  of  record
is  fired, and  a  new one brought in that feels  it
must  redefine  the  brand.  The  existing  brand
persona and  customers who identified with it
are  often  ignored  in  new  research  that  the
agency  uses  to  justify  a  new  brand  persona.
Miller  Lite  played  out  this  scenario  a  few
years  ago   when  it   launched  its   “Dick  the
copywriter” campaign  in which  it  lampooned
advertising.     The  campaign  hued   to  Miller
Lite’s  Jester  archetype,  but  went  too  far  into
the   realm   of   silliness,   and   worse,   into   a
farcical   regard   for   advertising   itself.   Sales
continued to fall.
Customer     research     will    obviously     be
necessary  to  learn  how  customers  currently
perceive the brand’s  personality. The research
may indicate a need to make changes in brand
personality along the lines of  what  Starbuck’s
Scott Bedbury meant when he said,   “A brand
is  a  metaphorical story  that’s  evolving  all  the
time.”  In  some  cases,  it  may  be  advisable  to
return  to  an  earlier personality  profile  as  the
Jack-in-the-Box brand  did  a  few years  ago to
rebuild sales after the company served tainted
hamburger meat to customers.
Developing  a  brand personality  book  is  an
exercise    in   applied    psychology.   Someone
should  manage  the  project  who  has  a  sound
footing in behavior. The advertising agency for
any   major   brand   has   a   team   of   account
planners   who  are   suited  for   managing  the
development   of  a   brand  personality   book.
Generally    speaking,    independent    research
houses that  specialize in quantitative research
are   not   the   best  candidates   for   the   task,
although  the  project  may  justify  quantitative
research.
Account planners, by tradition, tend to have
a  stronger  behavioral  orientation  than  most
quantitative     researchers.     Many     account
planners   are   now   drawing   extensively   on
anthropological research techniques to observe
© 2002 Booth Morgan Consulting, LLC Page 6
attributes of customers’ behavior that may not
be revealed by their direct testimony. In fact, it
would   be   worthwhile   to   add    a   cultural
anthropologist   to   the  team   developing   the
brand  personality   book.  The  services   of  a
Jungian   analyst   should  also   be   considered
because of  his or her intimate familiarity with
archetypes and Jungian personality types.
A  brand personality book can be invaluable
in   managing   the   meanings  of   a   brand   by
decreasing  the  influence  of  raw  opinion  on
marketing  decisions.  It  contains  benchmarks
against  which  every  campaign  and  product
message  can  be  assessed.   Movie  producers
have directors of  continuity to  make sure that
everything   hangs   together   in   a   film.   The
“continuing  metaphorical  story  of  a  brand”
should  be  given  similar  attention.  The  brand
personality  book  is  a  tool  to  help  maintain
continuity in a brand’s story  because it makes
it  more difficult  to  stray  from the  archetypal
reservation  without  solid  evidence  for  doing
so.
Why Brand Loyalty is Falling and What To
Do About It
Failure   to    appreciate    the   psychological
dimensions     of     brand     connections    with
customers’ psyches  may well be be one of  the
biggest  factors  in  the widely  reported decline
in  brand  loyalty.  Broad  consensus  once  held
that  promoting  product features  and  benefits
was  key  to  getting  customers  to  distinguish
between   brands.  It   has  now   become  more
difficult to distinguish brands by their features
and  benefits because  brands  within  the same
general    price     range    usually     have    few
differences.
Some  observers  think  product  parity  has
eroded  the importance  of  branding  products.
Most  companies  and  their customers  will not
be well served by  embracing this  view. Brand
loyalty has fallen largely because marketers, in
an  era in which product features and  benefits
have  become   less  influential   on  customers’
decisions,      have      not      developed      new
approaches      for      presenting     brands      to
customers. So, if product features and benefits
are not enough to bond a customer to a brand,
what  will?  What  is  the key to  halting decline
in brand loyalty?
Customers   are   attracted   to   brands   with
interesting  personalities,  the  same  way  they
are    attracted    to    people   with    interesting
personalities.    Steve    Jobs    brought    Apple
Computer back  from its deathbed  by focusing
on  the  personalities  of  the  company  and  its
products.    The    tagline    “Think    different”
aligned    the    company    with    breakthrough
thought  that  reflected  its  Outlaw  archetype.
Repackaging Apple  computers in fruit colored
cases   made   the  product  the   most  visually
engaging computer on the market.
Arguments  have been  waged for  years over
whether or not customers identify with brands
as  personalities.  New  insights  into  how  the
brain     works     and     research     by     media
communication  researchers  Byron Reeves  and
Clifford  Nass,   published  in  their   book  the
Media   Equation,   goes    far   to   resolve    the
argument.    It    can    now    be    stated    with
confidence    that    brands,    like    any    other
inanimate   object,   are   personalities.   People
react  to  brands  using  the  same  social  rules
they use in reacting to each other.
Across  12 years  of  research, which included
brain      scans      and      other     sophisticated
techniques,  Reeves  and  Nass  learned  that  at
the  deeper levels  of  brain functioning,  people
respond to depictions of reality using the same
rules they  use in  responding to  actual  reality.
To  the  brain,  in  its  preconscious  activities,
“People  presented  in media  are  perceived  as
actually  present,”  they  write.  This holds  true
for  what  is  happening  in  the  environment  of
people     shown     in    media.     A     depicted
thunderstorm  is  a  real  thunderstorm—not  to
the conscious mind of  course, but certainly to
the more primitive levels of the brain.
To   better  appreciate   how  the   brain  and
conscious  mind  can  differ  as  to  what  is  real
© 2002 Booth Morgan Consulting, LLC Page 7
and  what  is  not  real,  think  about  how  you
react  while watching an  intense action  film or
mystery  thriller.  While  your  conscious  mind
tells you it is  only a  movie, your brain pumps
out  adrenalin,  ratchets  up  your  heart  beat,
dries  up  saliva  flow,   changes  your  muscle
tone—all  of  which  are  ancient,  predisposed
responses to danger. Your primitive brain does
not   know  that   what  is   happening  on   the
screen  is  not  a  threat,  so  it  reorganizes  your
body chemistry to prepare for fight or flight.
Reeves    and    Nass’s    work    leads    to    a
conclusion  of  great  significance  in  marketing:
people  do  not  consciously anthropomorphize
inanimate   objects.   Inanimate   objects   enter
consciousness      already      bearing      human
attributes.  The  brain  divines  those  attributes
before it brings awareness of an object into the
conscious  mind.  Keeping  in  mind  the  earlier
discussion about  how  all  personal knowledge
is  traceable to  metaphors drawn from our self
awareness,  it  is  completely  logical  that  the
brain  sees  inanimate  objects  in  terms  of  our
self-aware humanness. In other words, the
only  way  we  can  relate to  a  brand  is  by  our
brain    reacting   to    it   as    though   it    were
human—like ourselves.
The issue of product parity aside, promoting
product features and benefits worked better in
the past when markets were youth-dominated.
As  discussed  in  our  website  article, The  New
Customer Majority, young  minds operate  more
objectively;   therefore    promoting   the   more
measurable aspects of  features and  benefits in
the  past  was  more  effective than  it  is  today.
Adults  in  the  Fall  and  Winter  of  their  lives
dominate   today’s   customer   universe.   They
have  developed  into   more  subjective,  more
qualitative,   and  more   relationship  sensitive
customers. They have no compelling interest in
staying in relationships with  brands  that  lack
interesting personalities. The present condition
of  declining brand loyalty was  predictable for
that  reason.  The  remedy  for  declining  brand
loyalty    begins    with    giving    brands    more
interesting personalities.
u u u
David Wolfe is a principal of Booth Morgan Consulting, LLC and author of Serving The Ageless
Market, McGraw-Hill, 1990. His latest book, The New Customer Majority, will be published by
Dearborn in 2003.
© 2002 Booth Morgan Consulting, LLC Page 8