Harvard University Introduction and Objective of Session The idea of a brand personality is familiar and accepted by most advertising

practitioners (e.g., Plummer 1985) and many marketing academics (e.g., Gardner and Levy 1955). For decades, researchers have argued that brand personality is an important topic of study because it can help to differentiate brands (e.g., Crask and Laskey 1990), develop the emotional aspects of a brand (e.g., Landon 1974) and augment the personal meaning of a brand to the consumer (e.g., Levy 1959). However, although brand personality is intuitively appealing and, as a result, has received considerable academic attention, it has been criticized on a number of dimensions; conceptual, methodological and substantive. First, at the conceptual level, there is still some ambiguity over what a brand personality is. How should it be defined and conceptualized? How (or when) is it different from brand image and/or user imagery? The answers to these questions have important implications for managers and academics interested in understanding the larger questions of why brand personality is important and how brand personality works. Second, at the methodological level: how is brand personality best measured? While most researchers generally rely on qualitative methods, such as photo-sorts, free associations, psychodramatic exercises (cf. Levy 1985) these openended techniques are often dropped in the later stages of research as marketers look for more quantitative ways to detect and enumerate differences among their brands (Blackston 1993), the most common of which is the differential semantic scale (e.g. Birdwell 1968; Plummer 1985). However, studies using such scales are limited since the "right" way to compile the adjectives has not yet been determined. [Some researchers have used adjectives extracted from personality inventories used for detecting emotional instability, schizophrenia or neuroticism (e.g., Maheshwari 1974). Others simply use attributes most related to the products being tested (e.g., Birdwell 1968; Schewe and Dillon 1978). Moreover, regardless of how the adjectives are selected, reliability and validity problems are generally not addressed. (See Sirgy 1982 for a more complete review of these and other measurement difficulties).] Clearly, a brand personality research program should flow from the conceptual definition that guides it. Moreover, it would likely include both qualitative and quantitative methodologies in order to retain the advantages of both. However, what those methodologies are, and how they work together to articulate the conceptualization remain unclear. Third, at the substantive level: what does personality do for a brand? What are the implications of having a brand personality? What marketing activities create or alter it? In the past, researchers have suggested that brand personality is most important when used as a research tool to identify personal meaning for the consumer (King 1989). Others assert that brand personality is needed as information for creatives when developing advertising (Lannon and Cooper 1983). Still others have suggested that brand personality should be seen as a more global construct: a key determinant of brand equity (Aaker 1991; Biel 1993). In brief, brand personality, as a construct, has multiple uses. However little systematic research has been conducted to understand or classify these uses. Is brand personality best used as a research tool, a clue for creatives or as a key element to brand equity? Or is the answer "D"? The primary objective of this session is to address these three areas of ambiguity in brand personality research. As illustrated by the set-up of the session, our goal is not to converge on one definition, conceptualization and measurement tool for brand personality. Rather, we draw on diverse literatures such as narrative theory, social psychology and psychometric theory, and illuminate their potential contributions to the study of brand personality. The secondary objective of this session is to provide a platform for future research on brand personalities and related topics. Upon reviewing the literature on brand personality, one gets the sense that each study does not receive the attention it may deserveCwheels are spinning yet brand personality research doesn't get very far. In order to give past, current and future studies some traction, solid theoretical frameworks and a sense of the topic's breadth are needed. By focusing on what brand personality is, how it can be measured and how it works, we hope to spur further research to take one of these three perspectives and address other issues of brand personality. [Further areas of research might include; to what extent does a brand take on a personality before vs. after use? What roles do brand names, logos and symbols play in developing a brand personality? What impact does a brand personality have on loyalty? Under what situations is one brand personality preferred over another? What type of advertising (e.g., transformational vs. informational) is most effective in developing a brands with a strong personality? The three papers in this session will raise these and other ideas for future research.] Orientation of Session and Topics Covered As outlined above, the goal of the proposed special session, "A Brand as a Character, a Partner and a Person: Three Perspectives on the Question of Brand Personality," is to serve as a forum to discuss current issues on brand personality and suggest areas for future research within the domain of brand personality. All three papers will address

document Type Author URN Document Title Degree Department Supervisor

Doctoral Thesis Ndlovu, Joram etd-09242009-225847 Branding as a strategic tool to reposition a destination : a survey of key tourism stakeholders in Zimbabwe PhD Tourism Management Advisor Name Title Prof E T Heath Supervisor

Keywords

market segmentation destination marketing positioning destination branding image brand equity competitiveness brand communication brand identity

Date Availability

2009-09-01 unrestricted

Abstract The main purpose of this study was to develop a destination branding and positioning framework, with particular reference to the Zimbabwean experience. The theoretical underpinnings and concepts used in this study were destination marketing, destination branding and positioning, image and destination competitiveness. To provide a strategic context to the study, branding as a key element of destination marketing was clarified; the strategic role of branding /re-branding in the positioning/repositioning of a destination was outlined; international trends and best practices in branding and positioning were evaluated; and the destination marketing situation in Zimbabwe, with particular emphasis on the status of branding and positioning, was determined. To determine key stakeholder attitudes, experiences and expectations regarding the branding and positioning of Zimbabwe as a tourism destination,

Jennifer Aaker, Susan Fournier (1995), "A BRAND AS A CHARACTER, A PARTNER AND A PERSON: THREE PERSPECTIVES ON THE QUESTION OF BRAND PERSONALITY", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 22, eds. Frank R. Kardes and Mita Sujan, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 391-395.

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 22, 1995

Pages 391-395

A BRAND AS A CHARACTER, A PARTNER AND A PERSON: THREE PERSPECTIVES ON THE QUESTION OF BRAND PERSONALITY Jennifer Aaker, Stanford University Susan Fournier, Harvard University Introduction and Objective of Session The idea of a brand personality is familiar and accepted by most advertising practitioners (e.g., Plummer 1985) and many marketing academics (e.g., Gardner and Levy 1955). For decades, researchers have argued that brand personality is an important topic of study because it can help to differentiate brands (e.g., Crask and Laskey 1990), develop the emotional aspects of a brand (e.g., Landon 1974) and augment the personal meaning of a brand to the consumer (e.g., Levy 1959). However, although brand personality is intuitively appealing and, as a result, has received considerable academic attention, it has been criticized on a number of dimensions; conceptual, methodological and substantive. First, at the conceptual level, there is still some ambiguity over what a brand personality is. How should it be defined and conceptualized? How (or when) is it different from brand image and/or user imagery? The answers to these questions have important implications for managers and academics interested in understanding the larger questions of why brand personality is important and how brand personality works. Second, at the methodological level: how is brand personality best measured? While most researchers generally rely on qualitative methods, such as photo-sorts, free associations, psychodramatic exercises (cf. Levy 1985) these open-ended techniques are often dropped in the later stages of research as marketers look for more quantitative ways to detect and enumerate differences among their brands (Blackston 1993), the most common of which is the differential semantic scale (e.g. Birdwell 1968; Plummer 1985). However, studies using such scales are limited since the "right" way to compile the adjectives has not yet been determined. [Some researchers have used adjectives extracted from personality inventories used for detecting emotional instability, schizophrenia or neuroticism (e.g., Maheshwari 1974). Others simply use attributes most related to the products being tested (e.g., Birdwell 1968; Schewe and Dillon 1978). Moreover, regardless of how the adjectives are selected, reliability and validity problems are generally not addressed. (See Sirgy 1982 for a more complete review of these and other measurement difficulties).] Clearly, a brand personality research program should flow from the

Two Keys to Brand Power Developing Brand Identity and Brand Personality Two of the key drivers to building brand strength are creating a distinct brand identity and developing a unique brand personality. Unfortunately, semantics often gets in the way of understanding how these two factors can influence brand power. Brand identity, for example, is often used in a limited, graphic-centric manner or used interchangeably with brand image. All too often, identity is seen as just the graphics, logos, colors, and symbols that generally make up corporate identity. Those elements are the appearance (which is very important) but not the substance of a brand, just as the clothes you wear are an important, even distinguishing, part of your identity, but not the substance of who you are as a person. According to Jean-Noel Kapferer, author of Strategic Brand Management, identity precedes image: "An obsession with image tends to attach greater importance to appearance than to inner reality. But brand identity is a richer, more substantial concept to embrace." To help clarify how these concepts differ, Figure 1 presents a detailed comparison of brand image and brand identity: Figure 1 Brand Image Versus Brand Identity Brand Image Brand Identity Appearance Substance More on the receivers side More on the senders side Passive Active Reflects superficial qualities Reflects enduring qualities Backward looking Forward looking Tactical Strategic Associations already there Associations aspired to As the comparison illustrates, these two concepts are quite different. Theres also a simple way to sum up and understand the essence of the two terms: image is how the marketplace perceives you; identity is who you really are. We recommend that companies focus on building brand identity as the driving brandstrategy component. Brand image is not to be diminished at all. It is, after all is said and done, how a company is perceived. But dont make the mistake of thinking your brand image is your identity. The challenge for brand strategists and champions is to align image and identity. That happens - and can only happen - by careful, proactive management of your brand identity