Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation-2012-Kang-323-35

http://abr.sagepub.com/and Innovation

Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research

http://abr.sagepub.com/content/8/3/323The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/2319510X1200800312

2012 8: 323Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and InnovationAmanpreet Kang and Himani Sharma

LuxUsing Brand Personality to Enhance Brand Trust and Perceived Value: An Empirical Study of the Brand

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Asia-Pacific Institute of Management

can be found at:Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and InnovationAdditional services and information for

http://abr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://abr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://abr.sagepub.com/content/8/3/323.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Sep 1, 2012Version of Record >>

by Monica Mihaela on October 30, 2013abr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Monica Mihaela on October 30, 2013abr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Monica Mihaela on October 30, 2013abr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Monica Mihaela on October 30, 2013abr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Monica Mihaela on October 30, 2013abr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Monica Mihaela on October 30, 2013abr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Monica Mihaela on October 30, 2013abr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Monica Mihaela on October 30, 2013abr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Monica Mihaela on October 30, 2013abr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Monica Mihaela on October 30, 2013abr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Monica Mihaela on October 30, 2013abr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Monica Mihaela on October 30, 2013abr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Monica Mihaela on October 30, 2013abr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Monica Mihaela on October 30, 2013abr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Monica Mihaela on October 30, 2013abr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://abr.sagepub.com/

http://abr.sagepub.com/content/8/3/323

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.asiapacific.edu

http://abr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://abr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://abr.sagepub.com/content/8/3/323.refs.html

http://abr.sagepub.com/content/8/3/323.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml
















Using Brand Personality to Enhance Brand Trust and Perceived Value: An Empirical Study of the Brand Lux

Amanpreet Kang Himani Sharma

AbstractThe purpose of this article is to investigate the role of brand personality as an effective tool to create positive perceived values and brand trust. The authors propose to establish a relationship between brand personality, perceived value and brand trust. The results present support for our inference that Lux as a brand enjoys positively perceived personality characteristics, which can be leveraged for developing a higher trust index. The questionnaire was developed by using measurement scales used by previous researchers. The instrument was evaluated for reliability and validity. The data was collected through a self-administered questionnaire. The results of statistical analysis show that trust in a brand is important when customers choose personal care products and that perceived value is significantly enhanced when customers have positive connotations of brand personality. To recapitulate, we concentrated on the rela-tionship between brand and product in terms of personality dimensions and intended to investigate whether brand personality affects the consumers’ perceived value and acceptance of the brand as a trustworthy brand.

KeywordsBrand identity, brand personality, brand trust, customer perceived value, marketing scales, personal care products

Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation

8(3) 323–335© 2012 Asia-Pacific

Institute of Management SAGE Publications

Los Angeles, London,New Delhi, Singapore,

Washington DCDOI: 10.1177/2319510X1200800312

http://apjmri.sagepub.com

Article

IntroductionIn today’s competitive environment, marketers vie for cus-tomers’ attention by creating and promoting brands. The word brand has been derived from the Norse word brandr and is defined by American Marketing Association (AMA) as ‘a name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or a group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors’(Kotler, Keller, Joshi & Jha, 2009). A brand is one of the important elements in the strategy of product manufacturers and is used as a distinct identity for the product in terms of quality and credibility. A brand rep-resents a pillar of strong presence in the market and asso-ciation in the minds of customers.

Branding guru Trout (2007) points out that ‘products are created in the factory, but brands are created in the mind’. The marketers are also incessantly engaged in creat-ing an identity for their brands. Aaker (1996) suggests that brand identity represents,

…a unique set of brand associations that the brand strategist aspires to create or maintain. These associations represent

Amanpreet Kang, Assistant Professor, Amity Business School, Sector-125, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India. E-mail: [email protected] Sharma, Assistant Professor, Amity Business School, Sector-125, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India. E-mail: [email protected]

what the brand stands for and imply a promise to customers from the organisation members. Brand identity should help establish a relationship between the brand and the customer by generating a value proposition involving functional, emo-tional, or self-expressive benefits.

Several marketing models related to brand identity have been developed by researchers like Aaker (1991), Kapferer (2007), etc. In all the models related to brand identity, brand personality is an important element. Brand personality is defined as a set of human characteristics or traits that con-sumers attribute to or associate with a brand (Aaker, 1997). This association may consist of demographic variables (that is, age, gender and social class), lifestyle (that is, activities and beliefs), cultural (values, perceptions, preferences, etc.) and personality traits (that is, excitement, sophistication, sin-cerity, ruggedness, etc.). Brand personality develops the interaction between the brand, product, service, organisation and the customers/users. Almost everything associated with the brand affects the perceived brand personality. A unique brand personality can help create a set of unique and favour-able associations in the minds of consumers, and thus, build and enhance brand equity (Keller, 2003).

324 Amanpreet Kang and Himani Sharma

Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 8, 3 (2012): 323–335

Brand personality helps in shaping consumers’ brand choice behaviour. Customer perceived value is also an accepted determinant of consumer buying behaviour. Also, customers’ trust in a brand is likely to influence consumers’ willingness to keep the relationship and encourage future purchases. It may be inferred that the brand enhances the capital value of the organisation and brand personality enhances perceived value and trust in the brand, leading to stronger customer preference when making a choice. The present work endeavours to study the influence of brand personality on consumers’ perceived value and trust in a brand.

Literature ReviewThe brand plays a vital role in the process of customer pref-erence and choice of products. A famous brand can spread the benefits of the product and lead to delivery of informa-tion related to these benefits more than uncommon brands (Keller, 1993). Although there are a lot of unfamiliar brands in the market, customers prefer famous and known brands. A preferential famous brand is not only attractive for the customer to buy the product but also brings the behaviour of repetitive purchase and reduces behaviour resulting from price volatility (Cadogan & Foster, 2000). In addition, brand allows the development of the product identity (Kohli & Thakor, 1997). In sum, a brand is impor-tant for a company because it helps the organisation to attract customers, influences customer behaviour and encourages him or her for repeat purchases.

The marketers use brand elements (logo name, slogan, etc.) and brand identity to facilitate unique brand associa-tions and eventually achieve brand differentiation. The per-ception about the brand, in the minds of the consumers, is known as brand image and is created by the marketers through brand identity. Brand identity represents how the brand wants to be perceived and is related to marketing activities of the organisation. Kapferer (2007) developed a brand identity prism distinguishing between the sender and recipient side. He provided six identity facets that express the tangible and intangible characteristics of the brand. These help in defining brand identity from six different perspectives including physique, personality, culture, rela-tionship, reflection and self-image. Aaker (1991) devel-oped the brand identity model around 4 different perspectives and 12 dimensions. The four different per-spectives include brand as a product, brand as an organisa-tion, brand as a person and brand as a symbol.

Brand personality is a very distinct perspective and an integral part of brand identity models. The associated per-sonality of a brand as a set of (a) human demographic char-acteristics like age, gender, social class and race; (b) human

lifestyle characteristics like activities, interests and opin-ions; and (c) human personality traits such as extroversion, agreeableness, dependability, warmth, concern and senti-mentality. The brand becomes a living person and is often attached to a metaphor. In this way, it visualises the abstract intangible asset (the brand) and characterises it in a more concrete tangible appearance. Hence, customers interact with brands as if they are human beings. As it is true for human personality, brand personality is distinctive and enduring (Aaker, 1996).

According to the AMA:

brand personality is the psychological nature of a particular brand as intended by its sellers, though persons in the mar-ketplace may see the brand otherwise (called brand image). These two perspectives compare to the personalities of indi-vidual humans: what we intend or desire, and what others see or believe. (AMA, 2008)

Brand personality lines help consumers express their self-concept and experiment symbolic benefits from the possession or consumption of brands (Fournier, 1995). Brand personality is a vehicle of consumer self-expression and can be instrumental in helping a consumer express dif-ferent aspects of his or her self. Consumers exploit brands to construct and to maintain their identity (Fiske, 1982), and to experience emotional gratification (O’Donohoe, 1994). Marketers attempt to differentiate and build prefer-ence for their brands not only on the basis of how consum-ers perceive them functionally but also on the basis of these brand personality perceptions (Aaker, 1997).

Keller (1993) persuasively demonstrates the existence of a consumer–brand relationship by highlighting the ways in which brands can be animated, humanised, or to some extent personalised. The brand personality may be defined through a series of attributes which evoke feelings and behaviour. The brand can be extroverted, friendly, consci-entious, old-fashioned, modern, exotic, etc. Plummer (1984) suggested that ‘the perception of personality traits is deduced by any direct or indirect contact that the con-sumer has with the brand. Brands are inanimate objects which are associated with personality traits through mar-keting communications’. Aaker (1997) developed a brand personality scale on the basis of personality scales from psychology, scales used by marketers and the original qual-itative research of a number of brands’ personality traits. Subsequently, many marketing scales have been developed to capture brand personality.

Conceptually, it has been argued that a brand personal-ity contributes to the brand differentiation from brands of competitors; contributes to brand equity and is able to enhance trust in the brand, brand attachment and the for-mation of consumer brand relationships (Biel, 1993). Past

Using Brand Personality to Enhance Brand Trust 325


research suggests that brand personality boosts consumer preference (Zhang, 2007) and has a positive relationship with levels of consumer trust and loyalty (Wysong, Munch & Kleiser, 2004). Barney and Hansen (1994) suggested that trust is the mutual confidence that no party in an exchange will exploit another’s vulnerability. Morgan and Hunt (1994) suggested that trust exists ‘when one party has confidence in an exchange partner’s reliability and integ-rity’. Consumers develop trust in a brand based on positive beliefs regarding their expectation for the behaviour of the organisation and the performance of products a brand rep-resents (Ashley & Leonard, 2009).

Trust can be defined as a consumer’s confident beliefs that he or she can rely on the seller to deliver promised services, whereas a relational value can be defined as consumer’s perceptions of the benefits enjoyed versus the cost incurred in the maintenance of an ongoing exchange relationship (Agustin & Singh, 2005). Value has been considered as the ‘fundamental basis for all marketing activity’ (Holbrook, 1994). Customer perceived value is defined as ‘the trade-off between the multiple benefits and sacrifices of a supplier’s offering, as perceived by key decision- makers in the customer’s organisation, and taking into consideration the available alternative suppliers’ offerings in a specific use situation’ (Eggert & Ulaga, 2002). Alter-natively, customer perceived value consists of ‘take-factor’—the benefits a purchaser obtained from the vendor’s contribution—and the ‘give-factor’—the buyer’s cost of receiving the offering (Dodds, 1991; Zeithmal, 1988). Many studies emphasise on product quality as the primary take factor and price as the give factor (Chiu et.al, 2008). The features of a product are both tangible and intangible. The intangible association includes association with brand, brand image and brand personality. Hence, the brand personality is also likely to influence customers’ perceived value.

The study was conducted to understand consumers’ per-ception of brand personality of Lux, using Jennifer Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale (BPS). On identifying the distinct personality dimensions that consumers associate with the brand Lux, the research will focus on the association between brand personality, customers’ perceived value and brand trust. A descriptive research study was conducted with the following objectives:

1. To explore the use of personal care products by Indian consumers.

2. To find out the brand personality dimensions for the brand Lux using Jennifer Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale.

3. To evaluate whether brand personality influences customers’ perceived value of Lux and customers’ trust.

4. To evaluate whether brand personality influences customers’ trust in the brand Lux.

Need for the StudyThe fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector is wit-nessing new product launches, widening product lines and a proliferation of brands and brand extensions almost every day (Pande & Chaturvedi, 2011). This phenomenon is true, especially for the personal care segment in the Indian market. Fast growth in this segment can be attributed to large market potential and interest shown by multinational companies in emerging markets in Asia, especially India and China. Many established brands in the Indian market are also vying to capitalise and leverage their brand equity developed over the years. The brand equity is also helping them to launch new brand extensions to capture a larger market share and establish a stronger position in this segment. A positive brand image is needed for stronger brand equity. As discussed in previous sections, one of the tools to enhance brand image is brand personality. Lux, a soap brand of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), has focused on creating a very strong brand personality. In this study, we try to understand the perceived brand personality of Lux. We further evaluate whether brand personality enhances the perceived value of the brand and hence posi-tively influences the consumers’ trust. The brand personal-ity should be thought about carefully and communicated well to secure consumers’ mind share. This can be one of the most important success factors for FMCG brands, where most of the products are purchased due to brand recall and impulse purchase.

MethodologyBrand Selection

Lux is one of the leading brands in the personal care product line of HUL. Lux was the second most trusted brand in the Brand Equity Most Trusted Brands Survey, 2011 (The Economic Times, 2012). Lux, the name derived from ‘luxury’, was launched in India in 1929 and ever since it has helped people feel and look good. It is referred to as the ‘Beauty Soap of “The” Filmstars’. While Leela Chitnis was the first to promote Lux when it was intro-duced, the brand has been endorsed by about 50 Bollywood actors till date (Hindustan Unilever Limited, 2012). The brand has continuously updated its product offering and endeavoured to attract both rural and urban audiences. The present research will help us clearly understand how Lux’s focused approach towards creating a definite brand person-ality helped it in creating value for its customers.



Sampling Method

The questionnaire was administered to employees and postgraduate students enrolled in a private university. A total of 208 complete questionnaires (complete in all respects) were obtained. The reasons for obtaining feed-back from the employees and postgraduate students were easy accessibility, budget constraints and quality responses. Demographic data was obtained to generate a profile of the respondents.

Instrument Design and Data Collection

A structured non-disguised questionnaire was prepared based on Jennifer Aaker’s BPS. We have used this measure because over the past decade the brand personality scale developed by Aaker (1997) has been the most commonly used measure in both academic and commercial brand personality research (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003; Parker, 2009). The questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first part of the questionnaire contained questions relating to personal care products’ usage and factors influencing purchase decisions of consumers. The second part of the questionnaire contained questions relating to 42 traits corresponding to ‘five’ brand personality dimensions, namely, Sincerity (down-to-earth, family-oriented, small-town, honest, sincere, realistic, wholesome, original, cheerful, sentimental, friendly), Excitement (contemporary, independent, up-to-date, unique, imaginative, young, cool, spirited, exciting, trendy, daring), Competence (reliable, hard-working, secure, intelligent, technical, corporate, successful, leader, confident), Sophistication (upper-class, glamorous, good-looking, charming, feminine, smooth) and Ruggedness (outdoorsy, masculine, Western, tough, rugged). The third part of the questionnaire contained questions related to demographic characteristics.

Data Analysis and InterpretationThe demographic profile of the respondents is presented in Table 1. About 68 per cent of the respondents were males; 87 per cent of males were in the age group of 18 to 24 years and were professional graduates/postgraduates and 44 per cent of them had an annual household income of ` 0.5–1.0 million. Sixty-five (65) per cent females were in the age group of 18 to 24 years; most of the female respondents were general graduates/postgraduates and 48 per cent reported an annual household income of ` 0.5–1.0 million.

The usage of personal care products by the respondents is presented in Figure 1.

Among the personal care products, soaps and face wash were used by majority of the respondents. Body moisturiser, face cream/moisturiser and sunscreen were primarily used by females. It was interesting to note that the proportion of males and females using fairness creams was the same (that is, 6 per cent approximately). Face wash has gained acceptance in the personal care regime of respondents and is the second most used product. Almost 78 per cent respondents daily use face wash along with soap. Himalaya (26 per cent), Garnier (24 per cent) and Clean & Clear (7 per cent) were the brands used by the majority of the respondents (Figure 2).

Among soaps, Dove (22 per cent), Lux (11 per cent), Dettol (11 per cent) and Pears (9 per cent) were the brands of soaps used by the majority (53 per cent) of the respond-ents (Figure 3). The respondents were asked to name the brand that first comes to their mind when they think of soaps. The result is presented in Figure 4. Lux emerged as a brand that enjoys maximum unaided recall (32 per cent of the respondents think of Lux). However, when it comes to actual usage, Lux is not the brand used by majority of respondents surveyed. The study reveals that the brand Lux does occupy the mind-space of the respondents, clearly

Table 1. Profile of the Respondents

Gender Male Female

Total Respondents 142 66

Age profile Less than 18 years 1% 0%

18 to 24 years 87% 65%

25 to 34 years 11% 26%

35 to 44 years 0% 9%

45 years and above 1% 0%

Education Class 10 (matriculate) 1% 0%

Class 12+ but not graduate

1% 8%

Graduate/ postgraduate—General

38% 54%

Graduate/ postgraduate—Professional

60% 38%

Annual household income (`)

Less than 0.2 million 2% 2%

0.2 to 0.5 million 22% 23%

0.5 to 1.0 million 44% 48%

1.0 million and above 32% 27%

Source: Primary data.



87%

77%

19%

27%

17%

6% 5%11%

86%

79%

50%55% 56%

6% 8%

21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Soaps Face wash Sunscreen Face cream/moisturiser

Body moisturiser

Fairness cream

Cleansing milk/

cleanser

Any other

Male Female


Figure 1. Usage of Personal Care Products by Males and Females

Ponds6%

Lakme4%

Others15%

Himalaya26%

Garnier24%

Clean & Clear7%

Johnson & Johnson3%

L’oreal3%

Lotus3%

EverYuth2%

Neutrogena2%

Nivea2%

Jovees1%

Oriame2%


Figure 2. Brands of Face Wash Used

suggesting that most of the respondents have a deep asso-ciation and understanding about the brand.

The reliability and equivalence of the different items of BPS was checked by analysing Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and Hotelling’s T-squared test. Table 2 shows that all the

dimensions, namely, sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness achieved a high Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, suggesting a high reliability (greater than 0.6 recommended by Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) and internal consistency. Also, the overall Cronbach’s alpha



DoveLux

DettolPears

LirilPark Avenue

CintholLifebuoy

NiveaSantoor

MargoPersonna

Godrej No.1GarnierCamayOthers

0%

9%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%2%2%3%

3%3%

6%6%6%

9%11%11%

22%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Mysore SandalImperial Leather

MedimixJohnson & Johnson

Fiama di Wills

Figure 3. Brands of Soaps Used


Figure 4. Unaided ‘Soap Brand’ Recall


coefficient for the all the 42 brand personality items was 89.7 per cent. Finally, the results of Hotelling’s T-squared test confirmed that the mean of different brand personality items under the five dimensions was significantly different from each other at 0.5 per cent level. This indicates that there is no equivalence between all the 42 items and that they are different.

Brand Personality of LUX: Result of Factor Analysis

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and the Bartlett test for sphericity were con-ducted and the results are presented in Table 3.

The KMO measure of sampling adequacy is 0.841. It is greater than 0.5, which is the recommended value for

DoveLux

DettolPears

Liril

Park Avenue

CintholLifebuoy

Santoor

BreezeAxe

Others

0%

11%9%

3%3%

3%2%2%

2%1%

1%1%1%

6%

32%23%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

MedimixJohnson & Johnson

Fiama di Wills



Table 2. Reliability and Equivalence of Various Items in Brand Personality Dimensions

Dimensions Number of ItemsCronbach’s

AlphaHotelling’s T-Squared F-value df p-Value

Sincerity 11 0.792 195.196 18.658 10,195 0.000

Excitement 11 0.822 178.504 17.067 10,196 0.000

Competence 9 0.849 334.169 40.345 8,198 0.000

Sophistication 6 0.812 135.329 26.540 5,202 0.000

Ruggedness 5 0.648 189.656 46.724 4,203 0.000

All 42 0.897 986.316 19.221 41,159 0.000


Table 3. KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.841

Bartlett’s test of sphericity

Approx. Chi-square 3,644.317

df 861

Sig. 0.000


acceptance of results of factor analysis by Kaiser (1974). However, the result of Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and chi-square (χ2) transformation suggests that the correlation matrix of the 42 brand personality items was not an identity matrix at 0.5 per cent level, that is, some of the 42 items were inter-correlated.

Table 4 displays the results of factor analysis conducted for the 42 brand personality items. The results suggest that the eigenvalue, for the extracted 12 dimensions, was greater than recommended level of 1. This reveals that from the 42 brand personality items included in factor analysis, only 12 dimensions were extracted and emerged with a cumulative variance of 67.379 per cent. These 12 dimensions explained 67.379 per cent variance of the brand personality of Lux.

The extraction method used was the Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The communalities in the column labelled ‘extraction’ reflected the common vari-ance in data structure. After extraction, some factors, whose eigenvalues were less than 1, were dropped. Further to decide the number of factors to be interpreted, we also referred to the results of Figure 5, that is, the Screen Plot. It clearly depicts the point/s of inflexion on the curve. There is a distinct drop after the third and the fourth dimensions. However, these (that is, the first four dimensions) explain approximately 30 per cent variance in data. Hence, based on the results of Table 4 and Figure 5, we considered retain-ing 12 dimensions.

Table 5 is the Rotated Component Matrix and is used to interpret the dimensions. The factor loadings above 0.500 have been highlighted and used to interpret the dimensions. The results of Table 5 have been obtained using PCA as the extraction method and Varimax rotation with Kaiser-normalisation as the rotation method.

From Table 5, it can be inferred that Dimension 1 com-prised of the brand personality items—young, cool, spir-ited, exciting and trendy. Similarly, Dimension 2 was represented by reliable, hard-working, secure, intelligent and technical items; Dimension 3 comprised of upper-class, glamorous, good-looking and charming items; Dimension 4 comprised of the brand personality items—successful, leader and confident. Dimension 5 comprised of the brand personality items—honest, sincere and realistic; Dimension 6 comprised of the brand personality items outdoors, mas-culine and tough; Dimension 7 comprised of down-to-earth, family-oriented and small-town and Dimension 8 com-prised of the brand personality items—independent and up-to-date. Dimension 9 comprised of the brand personality items—feminine and smooth. Dimension 10 comprised of the brand personality items—wholesome and original; Dimension 11 comprised of cheerful and sentimental and Dimension 12 comprised of contemporary items. Table 5 also shows that the items such as friendly, unique, imagina-tive, daring, corporate, Western and rugged do not have adequate loadings (that is, greater than 0.500) in any of the 12 dimensions. Hence we infer that the number of dimen-sions, of brand personality of Lux, are 12 and about 7 items of Jennifer Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale are not applica-ble in the present research. The interpretation of the dimen-sions of brand personality has been provided in Table 6.

Hence, the personality of the brand Lux can best be described as follows:

‘Vivacious, Trustworthy, Charismatic, Best-selling, Bona fide, Rough, Practical, Individualistic, Tender, Complete, Effervescent and Latest’



Table 4. Total Variance Explained

Totalvariance Explained

Component

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total% of

VarianceCumulative

% Total% of

VarianceCumulative

% Total% of

VarianceCumulative

% 1 8.806 20.967 20.967 8.806 20.967 20.967 3.504 8.344 8.344 2 4.910 11.691 32.657 4.910 11.691 32.657 3.351 7.979 16.323 3 2.839 6.759 39.417 2.839 6.759 39.417 3.121 7.431 23.754 4 1.692 4.029 43.446 1.692 4.029 43.446 2.621 6.240 29.995 5 1.568 3.734 47.180 1.568 3.734 47.180 2.410 5.737 35.732 6 1.434 3.415 50.595 1.434 3.415 50.595 2.395 5.702 41.434 7 1.322 3.148 53.743 1.322 3.148 53.743 2.069 4.925 46.359 8 1.243 2.959 56.702 1.243 2.959 56.702 2.049 4.880 51.239 9 1.219 2.903 59.604 1.219 2.903 59.604 1.929 4.592 55.83110 1.155 2.749 62.354 1.155 2.749 62.354 1.747 4.159 59.98911 1.102 2.625 64.978 1.102 2.625 64.978 1.626 3.872 63.86112 1.008 2.401 67.379 1.008 2.401 67.379 1.477 3.518 67.37913 0.972 2.314 69.693 14 0.863 2.056 71.749 15 0.788 1.877 73.626 16 0.769 1.830 75.456 17 0.732 1.744 77.199 18 0.667 1.589 78.788 19 0.605 1.442 80.230 20 0.586 1.395 81.625 21 0.579 1.379 83.003 22 0.552 1.315 84.319 23 0.544 1.295 85.614 24 0.512 1.218 86.832 25 0.484 1.152 87.984 26 0.460 1.096 89.080 27 0.414 0.986 90.066 28 0.386 0.919 90.985 29 0.375 0.893 91.877 30 0.358 0.853 92.730 31 0.344 0.818 93.548 32 0.330 0.786 94.334 33 0.301 0.717 95.051 34 0.290 0.689 95.741 35 0.271 0.646 96.387 36 0.264 0.629 97.016 37 0.248 0.591 97.606 38 0.234 0.556 98.162 39 0.208 0.496 98.658 40 0.196 0.467 99.126 41 0.189 0.451 99.577 42 0.178 0.423 100.000 Source: Primary data.Notes: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; 12 components extracted.



Table 5. Rotated Component Matrix

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Down-to-earth 0.048 0.259 −0.079 0.159 0.192 0.224 0.619 0.209 0.027 0.113 0.023 −0.049Family-oriented −0.209 0.199 −0.019 0.235 0.397 0.193 0.536 0.051 0.040 −0.047 0.131 −0.162Small-town −0.094 0.305 −0.142 0.057 0.089 −0.052 0.666 −0.065 −0.119 0.028 0.036 0.122Honest −0.024 0.214 0.063 0.204 0.764 0.042 0.156 0.004 −0.039 0.193 −0.146 −0.026Sincere 0.054 0.190 0.016 0.208 0.747 0.063 0.078 0.071 0.018 0.112 0.150 −0.009Realistic 0.083 0.262 0.018 −0.021 0.569 0.047 −0.006 0.146 0.064 0.400 0.125 0.123Wholesome 0.085 0.124 0.020 0.153 0.215 0.154 0.048 0.099 0.028 0.721 0.058 0.128Original 0.099 0.226 0.178 0.031 0.229 −0.007 0.054 0.081 0.145 0.636 0.168 0.026Cheerful 0.231 0.034 0.297 0.045 0.096 −0.182 0.072 0.021 −0.086 0.261 0.698 −0.118Sentimental −0.141 0.233 −0.119 0.157 0.010 0.227 −0.036 0.053 0.086 0.034 0.625 0.101Friendly 0.152 0.107 −0.040 0.366 0.157 0.145 0.194 0.371 −0.024 0.097 0.381 0.269Contemporary 0.011 0.141 −0.011 0.063 −0.025 −0.037 −0.008 0.156 0.027 0.127 0.007 0.818Independent 0.131 0.105 0.212 0.135 −0.038 −0.084 0.075 0.686 0.036 0.186 −0.065 0.197Up-to-date 0.298 −0.028 0.315 0.066 0.205 −0.031 −0.041 0.587 −0.028 0.116 0.111 0.100Unique 0.323 0.170 0.040 0.115 0.173 0.132 −0.488 0.253 0.110 −0.048 0.293 0.112Imaginative 0.344 0.235 0.166 0.143 0.101 0.004 −0.272 0.496 0.003 −0.143 0.188 −0.105Young 0.560 0.055 0.262 −0.026 0.215 −0.146 −0.231 0.252 0.141 −0.269 0.151 0.050Cool 0.767 0.025 0.119 0.047 0.189 0.095 0.037 0.123 −0.009 −0.123 0.045 0.112Spirited 0.756 0.071 −0.040 0.202 −0.072 0.066 0.033 0.048 0.029 0.210 −0.093 −0.063Exciting 0.740 0.012 0.181 0.069 −0.004 0.089 −0.142 0.067 −0.108 0.229 −0.062 −0.096Trendy 0.654 0.103 0.294 0.077 −0.174 0.076 −0.119 0.090 0.014 0.052 0.138 0.223Daring 0.365 0.375 −0.046 −0.031 0.017 0.348 0.047 0.202 −0.015 0.096 0.171 −0.190Reliable 0.194 0.642 −0.053 0.181 0.225 −0.001 0.037 −0.164 0.084 0.240 0.148 0.113Hard-working 0.063 0.744 −0.064 0.164 0.126 0.160 0.226 0.084 0.052 −0.018 0.042 −0.060Secure 0.127 0.693 0.005 0.150 0.209 −0.037 0.202 −0.055 0.044 0.155 0.030 0.210Intelligent 0.038 0.572 0.114 0.174 0.215 0.102 0.129 0.343 −0.110 −0.012 0.128 0.077Technical −0.110 0.689 0.182 0.023 0.029 0.189 −0.023 0.151 −0.259 0.158 0.013 −0.019Corporate 0.029 0.397 0.299 0.392 0.037 0.158 −0.016 −0.030 −0.376 0.019 0.177 0.213Successful 0.099 0.140 0.139 0.794 0.162 −0.107 0.066 0.142 0.090 −0.009 0.092 −0.054Leader 0.099 0.176 0.157 0.812 0.109 0.008 0.102 0.093 0.108 0.134 0.079 −0.002Confident 0.225 0.241 0.268 0.606 0.212 0.019 −0.034 0.043 0.065 0.099 −0.009 0.251Upper-class 0.150 0.044 0.560 0.205 0.127 0.160 −0.372 0.276 0.025 0.164 −0.210 0.036Glamorous 0.090 −0.030 0.761 0.177 0.015 −0.087 −0.058 0.257 0.117 0.108 −0.087 −0.123Good-looking 0.295 0.079 0.752 0.112 0.039 −00.099 −0.111 0.057 0.183 0.064 0.159 0.179Charming 0.136 0.067 0.724 0.160 −0.029 0.023 −0.003 0.091 0.372 −0.056 0.084 −0.029Feminine −0.049 −0.074 0.216 0.143 −0.058 −0.171 −0.006 0.127 0.769 0.113 −0.006 −0.061Smooth 0.013 −0.014 0.313 0.055 0.116 −0.011 −0.117 −0.157 0.763 0.057 0.047 0.140Outdoorsy 0.113 −0.007 0.177 0.238 −0.047 0.629 −0.083 0.227 0.275 0.110 −0.010 −0.041Masculine 0.058 0.147 −0.074 −0.049 0.116 0.752 −0.102 −0.078 −0.106 −0.043 −0.064 0.009Western 0.324 −0.098 0.374 −0.023 0.331 0.304 −0.046 0.071 −0.031 −0.033 0.150 0.419Tough 0.057 0.140 −0.043 −0.074 0.032 0.704 0.274 −0.068 −0.209 0.097 0.095 −0.005Rugged 0.104 0.078 −0.103 −0.168 0.068 0.488 0.272 −0.248 −0.271 0.120 0.249 0.142Source: Primary data.Notes: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation.




10

8

6

4

2

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142

Eige

nval

ue

Component Number

Figure 5. Screen Plot

Table 6. Interpreting the Dimensions for Brand Personality of Lux

Dimension Items Included Label

Dimension 1 Young, cool, spirited, exciting and trendy

Vivacious

Dimension 2 Reliable, hard-working, secure, intelligent and technical

Trustworthy

Dimension 3 Upper-class, glamorous, good-looking and charming

Charismatic

Dimension 4 Successful, leader and confident

Best-selling

Dimension 5 Honest, sincere and realistic Bona fide

Dimension 6 Outdoorsy, masculine and tough

Rough

Dimension 7 Down-to-earth, family-oriented and small-town

Practical

Dimension 8 Independent and up-to-date Individualistic

Dimension 9 Feminine and smooth Tender

Dimension 10 Wholesome and original Complete

Dimension 11 Cheerful and sentimental Effervescent

Dimension 12 Contemporary Latest


Discussion and ImplicationsProfile of Soap Users

The personal and demographic profile indicates that major-ity of the respondents are young males in their early twen-ties or late twenties and belong to the middle-income group. The rational profile of the soap users indicates that most of the users prefer using soaps along with face wash; a majority of them could recall the brand Lux instantane-ously when one mentions the word soap, suggesting that Lux dominates the ‘evoked brand set’ of soap users. The soap brands used by majority include Dove, Dettol, Lux, Pears and Cinthol. Some consumers have also suggested that they use different brands in different seasons (espe-cially summers and winters). Dove and Pears are liked pri-marily because of the perceived ‘softness’ of the product. Also, these products are considered to be milder than Lux. The majority of the users buy the products themselves, and suggest that factors that influence their buying decisions include perceptions about quality, previous use experience (habitual buying) and trust on the specific brand used. Further they feel that advertisements on television are the most important source of information about these brands and they also rely on recommendations (word of mouth) by



family and friends. The data also suggests that sales pro-motion schemes are not likely to influence the decision of the buyers.

Brand Personality of Lux

When the respondents were asked to describe the personal-ity of Lux, the respondents suggested that the following traits would provide a clear description—feminine, young (between the age of 20 to 30 years), beautiful, celebrity, actor/model, glamorous, genuine, independent, charming, etc. Also, when asked to identify the brand ambassador to endorse the brand, the respondents suggested the names of Katrina Kaif, Aishwarya Rai and some other leading ladies of Bollywood.

The result of factor analysis suggested that the five dimensions of Jennifer Aaker’s BPS are not sufficient to describe the personality of brand Lux. However, many of the items representing specific dimensions of Jennifer Aaker’s BPS have grouped together in the result of factor analysis. The first, second and third dimensions of the result of factor analysis are loaded with items representing Excitement, Competence and Sophistication dimensions of Aaker’s scale. In the present work, these have been named—Vivacious, Dependable and Charismatic. When the dimensions are interpreted along with the verbatim comments given by the respondents and suggestions regarding acceptable celebrity endorsers are viewed, it can be clearly stated that the respondents trust the brand Lux and feel that it is full of energy and has a charisma. This suggests that the company should stress more on the emo-tional benefits whenever the company introduces a new variant, new advertisement campaign or any other form of communication with the user. The brand can use emotional connect to counter stiff competition that it faces from rela-tively newer brands like Dove, etc. The communication regarding the brand should be in line with the perceived personality of the brand Lux expressed through the dimen-sions in the previous section. Even if the company consid-ers introducing brand extensions, it should project these dimensions in those specific categories.

Sincerity Dimension

The items under the sincerity dimension of Aaker’s scale have grouped to form the following dimensions—Bona fide, Practical, Complete and Effervescent. The items rep-resenting these dimensions are extremely relevant for Lux as the respondents feel that the brand offers a complete and practical product which is worth trusting. The emo-tional connect is formed with the emotional connect with the celebrity endorsers. Hence, Lux provides a satisfying

experience to the users. The company may want to empha-sise that the brand offers satisfaction to the consumers, based on functional benefits.

Exciting Dimension

The items—unique, imaginative and daring—are not asso-ciated with the brand Lux, because the respondents believe that the product, its packaging, the advertisements, com-munication, etc., are very conventional and lack newness. The customers feel that the brand lacks unique, innovative offerings in the personal care segment and should focus on providing the same. Lux has always involved the leading celebrities of tinsel town. The respondents strongly relate to the brand being vivacious, individualistic and the latest. This is primarily because of the strong association with the celebrity endorser. The brand should connect with the con-sumers through new channels like social media, adver-games, etc., to convey the core values.

Competence Dimension

The item—corporate, under the Competence dimension—is not applicable in the case of Lux. The users believe that it is a dependable brand and is a best-seller. It is indeed one of the most successful brands in India. This is reaffirmed by it being ranked as the second most trusted brand in the Brand Equity Survey (2011). Moreover, the brand personality is associated more with celebrities, actors, models, etc., rather than corporate professionals. This is completely in line with the brands’ communication message.

Sophistication Dimension

The items clubbed by Aaker under this dimension are grouped to form two different dimensions under the present analysis. The dimensions indicate that the brand belongs to a particular social class and gender. The dimensions are labelled as—Charismatic and Tender. It suggests that usage of this brand helps the customer look and feel good and generates admiration. Hence, the brand may continue to highlight the concept of a Lux user being admired by others, in promotional messages. It is unanimously per-ceived to be a feminine brand. Competitors like ITC are introducing differentiated products for men and women. Lux may also wish to introduce variants based on specific needs of each gender. Also, when the respondents were asked to suggest the products that could be introduced under the brand Lux, they felt that specific products for men, women and children could be introduced. This may help improve the perceived image of the brand.



Ruggedness Dimension

The items—Western and rugged—under the Ruggedness dimension are not applicable to the brand, because Lux users do not feel that it is a foreign brand. The rest of the items get clubbed to form a dimension that has been named rough. When analysed along with the verbatim customer feedback, it appears that the ingredients are perceived to be strong/harsh/chemical in nature in comparison with products offered by Dove and Pears. Also, some of the respondents feel that the ingredients make their skin rough and feel that the product is synthetic in nature. Lux may want to introduce milder versions of the product and also consider providing products with herbal ingredients because the respondents feel that this would make the product safe for their skin.

Brand Personality, Perceived Value and Trust

The parent company suggests that Lux is a brand that will help people look and feel good. Hence the value that is being communicated is the same. When we studied whether the customers also perceive the same, a strong association was observed. Two dimensions that have appeared as a result of factor analysis include Bona fide (represented by honest, sincere and realistic) and Charismatic (represented by upper-class, glamorous, good-looking and charming). The attributes that are used to study the perceived value of the brand include under-standing perception about trust, reliability, safety and honesty. These are also some of the items included in the sincerity dimension on Jennifer Aaker’s BPS. Hence it may be concluded that a strong perception about brand personality of Lux has also resulted in building customers’ perceived value and trust in the brand Lux. The dimen-sions that have emerged depict that the organisation’s focused approach in creating the brand personality has positively influenced customers’ brand trust and perceived value. It can be clearly concluded that brand personality is an effective tool for enhancing brand trust and perceived value.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

The validity of Jennifer Aaker’s BPS was checked using factor analysis (PCA). We obtained 12 dimensions of brand personality and 7 items of the scale were not applicable in assessing the brand personality of Lux. We tried to analyse how brand personality influences brand trust and perceived value. This was done using the items in Jennifer Aaker’s BPS. Hence some of the aspects which are not a part of this scale could have been missed. An exploratory study to identify the dimensions of brand personality (other than

those mentioned in the scale), relevant to Indians, can be carried out by future researchers. Further, this research was conducted only in the northern part of India and therefore, future studies can be conducted in other parts of India to improve the reliability of the study.

ReferencesAaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York, NY: Free

Press. Aaker, J.L. (1996). Exploring brand equity: Building strong

brands. New York: The Free Press.——— (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of

Marketing Research, 34(3): 347–356.Agustin, C. & Singh, J. (2005). Curvilinear effects of consumer

loyalty determinants in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 96–108.

American Marketing Association (AMA) (2008). Definitions. Retrieved 21 July 2012, from www.marketingpower.com

Ashley, C. & Leonard, H.A. (2009). Betrayed by the buzz? Covert content and consumer brand relationships. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 28(2), 212–220.

Azoulay, A. & Kapferer, J.N. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality? Brand Management, 2(2), 143–155.

Barney, J.B. & Hansen, M.H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S1), 175–190.

Biel, A. (1993). Converting image into equity. In David A. Aaker & Alexander Biel (Eds), Advertising and building strong brands (pp. 67–83). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Cadogan, J.W. & Foster, B.D. (2000). Relationship selling and customer loyalty: An empirical investigation. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 18(4), 185–199.

Chiu, K. K.-S., Chiu, K.P., Hsu, M.K. & Chang, T. Y.-T. (2008). The relationships among brand personality, brand prefer-ences and customer perceived value: An empirical study in Taiwan for the luxury goods industry. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association of Collegiate Marketing Educators, pp. 96–109. Retrieved 1 July 2012, from http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/acme/2008/p12.pdf

Dodds, W.B. (1991). In search of value—How price and store name information influence buyers’ product perceptions. Journal of Services Marketing, 5(Summer), 27–36.

Eggert, A. & Ulaga, W. (2002). Customer perceived value—A substitute for satisfaction in business markets. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 17(2/3), 107–118.

Fiske, S.T (1982). Schema triggered affect: Applications to social perception. Affect and Cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition.

Fournier, S. (1995). Toward the development of relationship the-ory at the level of the product and brand. In Frank R. Kardes and Mita Sujan (Eds), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 22, pp. 661–662).

Hindustan Unilever Limited (2012). Retrieved 21 July 2012, from http://www.hul.co.in/brands/personalcarebrands/Lux.aspx



Holbrook, M.B. (1994). The nature of customer value: An axi-ology of services in the consumption experience. In Roland T. Rust & Richard L. Oliver (Eds), Service quality: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 21–71). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Kaiser, H.F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.

Kapferer, J.-N. (2007). The new strategic brand management (3rd ed.). London: Kogan Page.

Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.

Keller, K.L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kohli, C. & Thakor, M. (1997). Branding consumer goods: Insights from theory and practice. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14, 206–219.

Kotler, P., Keller, K., Koshy, A. & Jha, M. (2009). Marketing management—A South Asian perspective (13th ed.). New Delhi: Pearson Education.

Morgan, R.M. & Hunt, S.D. (1994). The commitment–trust the-ory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.

Nunnally, J.C. & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

O’Donohoe, S. (1994). Advertising uses and gratifications. European Journal of Marketing, 28(8/9), 52–75.

Pande, S. & Chaturvedi, A. (2011, 12 June). Eat, pray, love innovations: FMCG sector raises product-launch capacity to benefit from high consumption. Business Today. Retrieved 21 June 2012, from http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/fmcg-sector-new-launches-products/1/15747.html

Parker, B.T. (2009). A comparison of brand personality and brand user-imagery congruence. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3(26), 175–184.

Plummer J.T. (1984). How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising Research, 24(December–January), 27–31.

The Economic Times (2012). Most trusted brand survey, 2011. Retrieved 21 July 2012, from http://economictimes.india-times.com/features/brand-equity/most-trusted-brands-2011-how-colgate-regained-the-top-spot/articleshow/10127446.cms

Trout, J. (2007). Branding simplified. Forbes. Retrieved 19 April 2007, from www.forbes.com.

Wysong, S., Munch, J. & Kleiser, S. (2004). This brand’s for you—An exploratory look at how individual variables can influence brand personality perceptions. American Marketing Association Conference Proceedings, 15, 239–246.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(July), 2–22.

Zhang, M. (2007). Impact of brand personality on PALI—A com-parative research between two different brands. International Management Review, 3(3), 36–47.

Documents

Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation-2012-Kang-323-35