pakistan’s beverages industry in focus - … · pakistan’s beverages industry in focus ... all...

PAKISTAN’S BEVERAGES INDUSTRY IN FOCUS

CONGRUENCE, SATISFACTION AND COMMITMENT WITH BRAND

PERSONALITY LEADS TO ENHANCED BRAND LOYALTY

Students of Methods of Business Research, Spring 2014

Program

BACHELORS OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Spring 2014

National University of Computer & Emerging Sciences

Management Science Department,

Karachi Campus

ii

This study is done by the students of fast university, Pakistan.

1. Zulqurnan [email protected]

2. Khurram Shahzad [email protected]

3. Hashim Iftikhar [email protected]

4. Kunal Kumar [email protected]

5. Faisal Shamim [email protected]

6. Zaib Un Nisa Murad [email protected]

7. Samiya Yousaf [email protected]

8. Naresh Lohana [email protected]

9. Mohsin Ahmed [email protected]

10. Asra Tariq [email protected]

11. Noman Ali [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]











iii

Acknowledgement

Firstly, we would like to thank Allah, the merciful, for providing us the strength, courage,

direction and skills to learn, acquire knowledge and the ability to accept and meet challenges.

We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to Mr. Amir Adam for providing us his

precious time, guidance and instructions. We are also thankful to our parents who accommodated

us during those long hours of work in our project development. We hope the efforts that we have

put in would be fruitful for the students to come in FAST after us. Once again we are thankful to

all people who have been involved in this report directly or indirectly.

iv

Table of Contents Acknowledgement ............................................................................................. iii

Executive Summary ........................................................................................ xvii

Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background of Thesis: Area of Research ............................................................................................. 1

Pakistan Beverage Industry ................................................................................................................... 1

Coca Cola ............................................................................................................................................... 2

Pepsi Co ................................................................................................................................................. 2

Gourmet ................................................................................................................................................ 3

1.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................. 4

1.3 Research Question .............................................................................................................................. 5

1.4 Objectives of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 6

1.4.1 Broad Objective of the Study ....................................................................................................... 6

1.4.2 Specific Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 7

1.5 Issues and Gap in Literature and the Study’s Significance .................................................................. 7

1.5.1 Issues and Gap in Literature......................................................................................................... 7

1.5.2 Significance of the Thesis ........................................................................................................... 10

1.6 Contribution of Thesis in Three Context ........................................................................................... 11

1.6.1 Contribution of the Thesis towards Theory and Literature ....................................................... 11

1.6.2 Contribution of Thesis in the Context of Research .................................................................... 11

1.6.3 Contribution of the Thesis in the Context of the Objective ....................................................... 13

1.7 Conceptual Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 14

1.7.1 Brand .......................................................................................................................................... 14

1.7.2 Congruence with Brand Personality .......................................................................................... 18

1.7.3 Satisfaction with the Brand Personality ..................................................................................... 20

1.7.4 Commitment with Brand Personality ........................................................................................ 21

1.7.5 Brand Personality ....................................................................................................................... 22

1.7.6 Brand Loyalty ............................................................................................................................. 23

1.8 Structure of the Thesis ...................................................................................................................... 24

Chapter 2:Literature Review ............................................................................. 25

2.1Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 25

2.1.1Brand ........................................................................................................................................... 25

v

2.1.2What is Brand? ............................................................................................................................ 25

2.1.3Formation of Brand ..................................................................................................................... 26

2.1.4 Branding ..................................................................................................................................... 27

2.1.5 Brand Identity ............................................................................................................................ 27

2.1.6 Brand Image ............................................................................................................................... 28

2.1.7 Brand Equity ............................................................................................................................... 28

2.2 Context of the Research .................................................................................................................... 29

2.2.1 Beverage Industry in Pakistan .................................................................................................... 31

2.2.2 Pepsi ........................................................................................................................................... 32

2.2.3 Coca-Cola ................................................................................................................................... 34

2.2.4 Gourmet: .................................................................................................................................... 36

2.3 Brand personality .............................................................................................................................. 40

2.3.1 Dimension of Brand Personality: ............................................................................................... 48

2.3.2 Concept of Brand Personality: ................................................................................................... 55

2.3.3 The Creation of Brand Personality ............................................................................................. 55

2.3.4 Importance of Brand Personality ............................................................................................... 56

2.3.5 Consequences of Brand Personality .......................................................................................... 58

2.3.6 Effect of Brand Personality on Consumer Brand Preferences: .................................................. 60

2.3.7 Brand Personality Affects Leads to High and Low Involvement Products: ................................ 61

2.3.8 Brand Personality’s Influence on the Purchase Intention: ........................................................ 63

2.3.9 Micro vs. Macro Approaches to Brand Personality ................................................................... 64

2.3.10 Brand Personality Scale ............................................................................................................ 68

2.3.11 Structure of the Brand Personality Measurement Scale ......................................................... 72

2.3.12 Brand Commitment: ................................................................................................................ 74

2.3.13Brand Attachment:.................................................................................................................... 75

2.3.14Brand Trust: .............................................................................................................................. 75

2.4 Studies on Congruence with Brand Personality ................................................................................ 76

2.4.1 Major causes of strong Congruence and personality with the brand: ...................................... 85

2.4.2 Congruence: A Crucial Variable in Marketing Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-

image. .................................................................................................................................................. 86

2.5 Studies on Commitment with Brand Personality .............................................................................. 89

2.5.1 Building commitment of consumers with new products ......................................................... 101

2.5.2 Failure of new products with context to commitment ............................................................ 102

vi

2.5.3 Commitment with organizational citizenship behavior: .......................................................... 102

2.5.4 Brand Commitment and Loyalty: ............................................................................................. 104

2.5.5 The Importance of Commitment for a Certain Firm ................................................................ 110

2.5.6 Commitment as Multidimensional Construct .......................................................................... 112

2.5.7 Affective, Normative and Continuance Commitment ............................................................. 113

2.5.8 Commitment in Business Relationships ................................................................................... 114

2.5.9 Commitment’s Central Role: .................................................................................................... 117

2.6 Studies on Satisfaction on Brand Personality ................................................................................. 118

2.7 Brand Loyalty .................................................................................................................................. 139

2.7.1 Brand Loyalty with Celebrity Endorsement Model .................................................................. 162

2.7.2 Brand loyalty with Reference Group Theory ........................................................................... 165

2.8 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................................... 174

2.9 Hypothesis ....................................................................................................................................... 176

2.9.1 Hypothesis on Congruence with Brand Personality ................................................................. 176

2.9.2 Hypothesis on Satisfaction with Brand Personality ................................................................. 176

2.9.3 Hypothesis on Commitment with Brand Personality ............................................................... 176

2.9.4 Hypothesis on Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty ................................... 176

2.9.5 Hypothesis on Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty ................................... 177

2.9.6 Hypothesis on Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty ................................. 177

2.9.7 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Congruence and Satisfaction ............................ 177

2.9.8 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Commitment and Satisfaction .......................... 177

2.9.9 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Congruence and Commitment ......................... 178

2.10 Literature Gap and Justification of the Study ............................................................................... 178

Chapter 3:Research Methodology ................................................................... 180

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 180

3.1.1 Why Do We Need a Methodology ........................................................................................... 180

3.2 Research Methodology ................................................................................................................... 181

3.3 Research Design .............................................................................................................................. 182

3.3.1 Research Philosophy ................................................................................................................ 183

3.3.2 Research Approaches ............................................................................................................... 184

3.3.3 Research Strategy .................................................................................................................... 185

3.3.4 Time Horizons .......................................................................................................................... 185

3.3.5 Research Choices ..................................................................................................................... 185

vii

3.3.6 Research Technique and Procedure ........................................................................................ 186

3.4 Population ....................................................................................................................................... 186

3.5 Sample Size ..................................................................................................................................... 187

3.6 Sampling Techniques ...................................................................................................................... 187

3.7 Data Collection Procedure .............................................................................................................. 188

3.8 Scale Development ......................................................................................................................... 189

3.8.1 Definition of Scale .................................................................................................................... 189

3.8.2 Congruence (self with brand) Scale ......................................................................................... 191

3.8.3 Commitment to the Brand Scale .............................................................................................. 192

3.8.4 Satisfaction Scale ..................................................................................................................... 194

3.8.5 Loyalty Scale ............................................................................................................................. 196

3.8.6 Brand Personality Scale ............................................................................................................ 197

3.9 Data Collection Methods ................................................................................................................ 200

3.10 Correlation Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 201

3.11 Regression Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 201

3.11.1 Multiple Regressions .............................................................................................................. 203

Chapter 4:Data Analysis and Interpretations ................................................... 204

4.1 Demographic Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 204

4.1.1 Gender ..................................................................................................................................... 204

4.1.2 Age ........................................................................................................................................... 207

4.1.3 Professions ............................................................................................................................... 210

4.1.4 Preferred Brand ....................................................................................................................... 213

4.2 Hypothesis Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 214

4.2.1 Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality ....................................................... 214

4.2.2 Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality ........................................................ 216

4.2.3 Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality .................................................... 218

4.2.4 Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear Regression) ............. 220

4.2.5 Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) ............. 224

4.2.6 Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) .......... 229

4.2.7 Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction ................................................................. 233

4.2.8 Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment ............................................................... 236

4.2.9 Correlation between Congruence and Commitment .............................................................. 239

viii

Chapter 5:Conclusion andImplications ............................................................ 242

5.1 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 242

5.1.1Pepsi .......................................................................................................................................... 242

5.1.2Coca Cola ................................................................................................................................... 245

5.1.3Gourmet .................................................................................................................................... 246

5.2 Limitations and Future Line of Research ........................................................................................ 248

References ...................................................................................................... 249

Appendix ........................................................................................................ 275

AppendixA: Questionnaire .................................................................................................................... 275

Appendix B: Pearson’s r Correlation ..................................................................................................... 278

Appendix C: WEB Analysis..................................................................................................................... 279

Appendix D: SPSS Code Book ................................................................................................................ 285

Pepsi .................................................................................................................................................. 285

Coca Cola ........................................................................................................................................... 338

Gourmet Cola .................................................................................................................................... 392

Appendix E: Brand Image ...................................................................................................................... 446

Pepsi Cola .......................................................................................................................................... 446

Coca Cola ........................................................................................................................................... 447

Gourmet Cola .................................................................................................................................... 448

ix

List of Tables

Table 1: Overview of Different Brand Personality Researches .................................................................. 69

Table 2: Brand Personality Scale Proposed by: (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, & Florence, 2004) ......... 71

Table 3: Brand Personality Scale ................................................................................................................ 73

Table 4: Repeat Purchase Possibility ........................................................................................................ 172

Table 5: Brand Personality Scale Proposed by (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, & Florence, 2004) ........ 199

Table 6: Total Number of Respondents .................................................................................................... 204

Table 7: Gender (Frequency) - Pepsi ........................................................................................................ 204

Table 8: Gender (Frequency) - Coca Cola ................................................................................................ 205

Table 9: Gender (Frequency) - Gourmet ................................................................................................... 206

Table 10: Age Distribution of Respondents .............................................................................................. 207

Table 11: Age (Frequency) - Pepsi ........................................................................................................... 207

Table 12: Age (Frequency) - Coca Cola ................................................................................................... 208

Table 13: Age (Frequency) - Gourmet ...................................................................................................... 209

Table 14: Profession Distribution of Respondents.................................................................................... 210

Table 15: Profession (Frequency) - Pepsi ................................................................................................. 210

Table 16: Profession (Frequency) - Coca Cola ......................................................................................... 211

Table 17: Profession (Frequency) - Gourmet ........................................................................................... 212

Table 18: Preferred Brand ......................................................................................................................... 213

Table 19: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Pepsi .............................................. 214

Table 20: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Coca Cola ...................................... 215

Table 21: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Gourmet ......................................... 215

Table 22: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Pepsi ............................................... 216

Table 23: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Coca Cola ....................................... 217

Table 24: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Gourmet ......................................... 217

Table 25: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Pepsi ........................................... 218

Table 26: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Coca Cola ................................... 219

Table 27: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Gourmet ..................................... 219

Table 28: Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Pepsi220

Table 29: Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Coca

Cola ........................................................................................................................................................... 221

Table 30: Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Gourmet

.................................................................................................................................................................. 222

Table 31: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Pepsi 224

Table 32: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Coca

Cola ........................................................................................................................................................... 225

Table 33: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Gourmet

.................................................................................................................................................................. 227

Table 34: Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Pepsi

.................................................................................................................................................................. 229

Table 35: Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Coca

Cola ........................................................................................................................................................... 230

x

Table 36: Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) -

Gourmet .................................................................................................................................................... 231

Table 37: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Pepsi ........................................................ 233

Table 38: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Coca Cola ................................................ 234

Table 39: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Gourmet................................................... 235

Table 40: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Pepsi ...................................................... 236

Table 41: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Coca Cola .............................................. 237

Table 42: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Gourmet ................................................. 238

Table 43: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Pepsi ...................................................... 239

Table 44: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Coca Cola .............................................. 240

Table 45: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Gourmet ................................................ 241

Table 46: Overview Result of Rejection or Acceptance of all Three Brands ........................................... 242

Table 47: Estimates for Interpreting Strengths of Correlations ................................................................ 278

Table 48: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Pepsi .................................................................................. 279

Table 49: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Coca Cola .......................................................................... 280

Table 50: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Gourmet ............................................................................. 281

Table 51: Gender ....................................................................................................................................... 285

Table 52: Age ............................................................................................................................................ 285

Table 53: Profession ................................................................................................................................. 286

Table 54: Preferred Brand ......................................................................................................................... 287

Table 55: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would like to be ......... 288

Table 56: I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand ........................................................... 289

Table 57: I like to be known as a consumer of this brand......................................................................... 290

Table 58: This brand is the reflection of my ideal image ......................................................................... 291

Table 59: This brand is appealing to my actual image.............................................................................. 292

Table 60: The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me............................................... 293

Table 61: I am attached to this brand ........................................................................................................ 294

Table 62: This brand brings me safety ...................................................................................................... 295

Table 63: I strongly relate myself to this brand ........................................................................................ 296

Table 64: This brand is honest towards its client ...................................................................................... 297

Table 65: Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy ................................................. 298

Table 66: I like this brand ......................................................................................................................... 299

Table 67: I trust the quality of this brand .................................................................................................. 300

Table 68: This brand tries to improve its response to consumer needs on an ongoing basis .................... 301

Table 69: This brand has a lot of meaning to me ...................................................................................... 302

Table 70: This brand is sincere towards its consumer .............................................................................. 303

Table 71: I have lot of affection for this brand ......................................................................................... 304

Table 72: Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brands ..................................................... 305

Table 73: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands ............................................................. 306

Table 74: It would be too costly for me to switch brands ......................................................................... 307

Table 75: I like this brand ......................................................................................................................... 308

Table 76: This brand has a lot of meaning to me ...................................................................................... 309

Table 77: I am strongly related to this brand ............................................................................................ 310

Table 78: Brand Personality- Warm ......................................................................................................... 311

xi

Table 79: Brand Personality- Pleasant ...................................................................................................... 312

Table 80: Brand Personality- Nice ............................................................................................................ 313

Table 81: Brand Personality- Imaginative ................................................................................................ 314

Table 82: Brand Personality- Inventive .................................................................................................... 315

Table 83: Brand Personality- Seductive .................................................................................................... 316

Table 84: Brand Personality- Attractive ................................................................................................... 317

Table 85: Brand Personality- Manipulative .............................................................................................. 318

Table 86: Brand Personality- Showy ........................................................................................................ 319

Table 87: Brand Personality- Arrogant ..................................................................................................... 320

Table 88: Brand Personality- Hypocrite ................................................................................................... 321

Table 89: Brand Personality- Deceptive ................................................................................................... 322

Table 90: Brand Personality- Liar ............................................................................................................. 323

Table 91: Brand Personality- Trendy ........................................................................................................ 324

Table 92: Brand Personality- Modern ....................................................................................................... 325

Table 93: Brand Personality- Sophisticated .............................................................................................. 326

Table 94: Brand Personality- Stylish ........................................................................................................ 327

Table 95: Brand Personality- Serious ....................................................................................................... 328

Table 96: Brand Personality- Strict ........................................................................................................... 329

Table 97: Brand Personality- Reserved .................................................................................................... 330

Table 98: Brand Personality- Shy ............................................................................................................. 331

Table 99: I repeatedly purchase this brand ............................................................................................... 332

Table 100: I prefer buying this brand over other colas ............................................................................. 333

Table 101: Only this brand comes to my mind when I think of purchasing colas .................................... 334

Table 102: I recommend this brand those who ask my advice ................................................................. 335

Table 103: I say positive things about this brand to other persons ........................................................... 336

Table 104: I am pleased to buy this brand instead of other brands ........................................................... 337

Table 105: Gender ..................................................................................................................................... 338

Table 106: Age .......................................................................................................................................... 339

Table 107: Profession ............................................................................................................................... 340

Table 108: Which brand do you prefer the most? ..................................................................................... 341

Table 109: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would like to be ....... 342

Table 110: I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand ......................................................... 343

Table 111: I like to be known as a consumer of this brand ....................................................................... 344

Table 112: This brand is the reflection of my ideal image ....................................................................... 345

Table 113: This brand is appealing to my actual image............................................................................ 346

Table 114: The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me............................................. 347

Table 115: I am attached to this brand ...................................................................................................... 348

Table 116: This brand brings me safety .................................................................................................... 349

Table 117: I strongly relate myself to this brand ...................................................................................... 350

Table 118: This brand is honest towards its client .................................................................................... 351

Table 119: Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy ............................................... 352

Table 120: I like this brand ....................................................................................................................... 353

Table 121: I trust the quality of this brand ................................................................................................ 354

Table 122: This brand tries to improve its response to consumer needs on an ongoing basis .................. 355

xii

Table 123: This brand has a lot of meaning to me .................................................................................... 356

Table 124: This brand is sincere towards its consumer ............................................................................ 357

Table 125: I have lot of affection for this brand ....................................................................................... 358

Table 126: Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brands ................................................... 359

Table 127: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands ........................................................... 360

Table 128: It would be too costly for me to switch brands ....................................................................... 361



Table 131: I am strongly related to this brand .......................................................................................... 364

Table 132: Brand Personality- Warm ....................................................................................................... 365

Table 133: Brand Personality- Pleasant .................................................................................................... 366

Table 134: Brand Personality- Nice .......................................................................................................... 367

Table 135: Brand Personality- Imaginative .............................................................................................. 368

Table 136: Brand Personality- Inventive .................................................................................................. 369

Table 137: Brand Personality- Seductive .................................................................................................. 370

Table 138: Brand Personality- Attractive ................................................................................................. 371

Table 139: Brand Personality- Manipulative ............................................................................................ 372

Table 140: Brand Personality- Showy ...................................................................................................... 373

Table 141: Brand Personality- Arrogant ................................................................................................... 374

Table 142: Brand Personality- Hypocrite ................................................................................................. 375

Table 143: Brand Personality- Deceptive ................................................................................................. 376

Table 144: Brand Personality- Liar ........................................................................................................... 377

Table 145: Brand Personality- Trendy ...................................................................................................... 378

Table 146: Brand Personality- Modern ..................................................................................................... 379

Table 147: Brand Personality- Sophisticated ............................................................................................ 380

Table 148: Brand Personality- Stylish ...................................................................................................... 381

Table 149: Brand Personality- Serious ..................................................................................................... 382

Table 150: Brand Personality- Strict ......................................................................................................... 383

Table 151: Brand Personality- Reserved ................................................................................................... 384

Table 152: Brand Personality- Shy ........................................................................................................... 385

Table 153: I repeatedly purchase this brand ............................................................................................. 386






Table 159: Gender ..................................................................................................................................... 392

Table 160: Age .......................................................................................................................................... 392

Table 161: Profession ............................................................................................................................... 393

Table 162: Preferred Brand ....................................................................................................................... 394

Table 163: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would like to be ....... 395

Table 164: I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand ......................................................... 396

Table 165: I like to be known as a consumer of this brand ....................................................................... 397

Table 166: This brand is the reflection of my ideal image ....................................................................... 398

xiii

Table 167: This brand is appealing to my actual image............................................................................ 399

Table 168: The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me............................................. 400

Table 169: I am attached to this brand ...................................................................................................... 401

Table 170: This brand brings me safety .................................................................................................... 402

Table 171: I strongly relate myself to this brand ...................................................................................... 403

Table 172: This brand is honest towards its client .................................................................................... 404

Table 173: Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy ............................................... 405


Table 175: I trust the quality of this brand ................................................................................................ 407

Table 176: This brand tries to improve its response to consumer needs on an ongoing basis .................. 408


Table 178: This brand is sincere towards its consumer ............................................................................ 410

Table 179: I have lot of affection for this brand ....................................................................................... 411

Table 180: Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brands ................................................... 412

Table 181l: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands .......................................................... 413

Table 182: It would be too costly for me to switch brands ....................................................................... 414



Table 185: I am strongly related to this brand .......................................................................................... 417

Table 186: Brand Personality- Warm ....................................................................................................... 418

Table 187: Brand Personality- Pleasant .................................................................................................... 419

Table 188: Brand Personality- Nice .......................................................................................................... 420

Table 189: Brand Personality- Imaginative .............................................................................................. 421

Table 190: Brand Personality- Inventive .................................................................................................. 422

Table 191: Brand Personality- Seductive .................................................................................................. 423

Table 192: Brand Personality- Attractive ................................................................................................. 424

Table 193: Brand Personality- Manipulative ............................................................................................ 425

Table 194: Brand Personality- Showy ...................................................................................................... 426

Table 195: Brand Personality- Arrogant ................................................................................................... 427

Table 196: Brand Personality- Hypocrite ................................................................................................. 428

Table 197: Brand Personality- Deceptive ................................................................................................. 429

Table 198: Brand Personality- Liar ........................................................................................................... 430

Table 199: Brand Personality- Trendy ...................................................................................................... 431

Table 200: Brand Personality- Modern ..................................................................................................... 432

Table 201: Brand Personality- Sophisticated ............................................................................................ 433

Table 202: Brand Personality- Stylish ...................................................................................................... 434

Table 203: Brand Personality- Serious ..................................................................................................... 435

Table 204: Brand Personality- Strict ......................................................................................................... 436

Table 205: Brand Personality- Reserved .................................................................................................. 437

Table 206: Brand Personality- Shy ........................................................................................................... 438

Table 207: I repeatedly purchase this brand ............................................................................................. 439




xiv



Table 213: SPSS Code Book .................................................................................................................... 445

xv

List of Figures

Figure 1: Dimensions of Brand Personality ................................................................................................ 48

Figure 2: (Aaker & J.L, Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997) ............................................................. 50

Figure 3: Brand Personality Scale ............................................................................................................... 70

Figure 4: Brand Personality Scale ............................................................................................................... 72

Figure 5 : Consumer Information Process .................................................................................................. 90

Figure 6: Commitment with Brand Personality Model ............................................................................. 106

Figure 7: Commitment with Brand Personality Model ............................................................................. 107

Figure 8: (Basrawi, The influence of brands competitive advantage of consumer loyalty, 2009) ........... 158

Figure 9: Model of Brand Loyalty ............................................................................................................ 161

Figure 10: Conceptual Model by (Farhat & Khan, 2011) ......................................................................... 168

Figure 11: Winning Brands from AC Nielson (Knowles, 2004) .............................................................. 169

Figure 12: Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................... 175

Figure 13: Paradigms ................................................................................................................................ 183

Figure 14: Brand Personality Scale ........................................................................................................... 198

Figure 15: Gender- Pepsi .......................................................................................................................... 204

Figure 16: Gender- Coca Cola .................................................................................................................. 205

Figure 17: Gender- Gourmet ..................................................................................................................... 206

Figure 18: Age- Pepsi ............................................................................................................................... 207

Figure 19: Age- Coca Cola ....................................................................................................................... 208

Figure 20: Age- Gourmet .......................................................................................................................... 209

Figure 21: Profession- Pepsi ..................................................................................................................... 210

Figure 22: Profession- Coca Cola ............................................................................................................. 211

Figure 23: Profession- Gourmet ................................................................................................................ 212

Figure 24: Preferred Brand ....................................................................................................................... 213

Figure 25: Web Design of Brand Personality- Pepsi ................................................................................ 282

Figure 26: Web Design of Brand Personality- Coca Cola ........................................................................ 283

Figure 27: Web Design of Brand Personality- Gourmet ........................................................................... 284

xvi

List of Images

Image 1: Pepsi Cola (1.5 ltr) ..................................................................................................................... 446

Image 2: Coca Cola (1.5 ltr) ..................................................................................................................... 447

Image 3: Gourmet Cola (1.5 ltr)................................................................................................................ 448

.

xvii

Executive Summary

At the present time a brutal rivalry exist between associations to achieve and protect greatest

piece of the overall industry. Building and overseeing brands to build purchaser loyalty can help

to surpass rivals in this fight. Advertisers use situating plans at creating and fulfilling a long haul

connection with clients. Creating brand picture that cultivate customer loyalty is essential in this

respect. Brand personality pays an essential part in securing a great picture of brand. The impact

of brand personality on shopper loyalty builds its vitality towards brand execution and brand

management. This exploration considers effect of brand personality on social outcomes towards

Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola and Gourmet Cola.

Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola are at present the business pioneers in customer’s Cola industry,

however, the intrusion of gourmet Cola in this industry may broaden the buyers of other cola to

itself. So the exploration investigates brand personality of Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola and Gourmet

Cola on the premise of their notoriety among Pakistani purchasers. This exploration examines

brand personality of Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola and Gourmet Cola and discovers their effect on

purchaser's Congruence, Satisfaction and Commitment with respective brands of Cola.

To get profound bits of knowledge research especially analyzes brand personality of Coca Cola,

Pepsi Cola and Gourmet Cola for buyers and non-shoppers of Cola and likewise for males and

females with distinctive age sections and diverse callings.

Populace savvy we are acknowledging entire Pakistan for this exploration. Quantitative

investigation system is utilized for this exploration. Self-managed surveys are utilized to

assemble data structure respondents.

xviii

For the examination of the results SPSS is utilized as a part of this exploration. Mean,

Correlation and multiple linear regressions are the different measurable tests which are

performed to get consequences of the exploration.

The discoveries of our examination secured that brand personality has impact on congruence,

satisfaction and commitment concerning Pepsi, Coca Cola and Gourmet. Qualities that are

negative in nature for instance misleading, introvert, conscientious have negative effects on

congruence, satisfaction and commitment when remembering our three brands of Cola drink.

While positive attributes like friendly, charming, elegant execute positive influence on

congruence, satisfaction and commitment of Colas. Our exploration discover reveal to us that

congruence in a brand heads towards satisfaction. On the off chance that brands can fulfill the

purchasers totally and in a positive way at exactly that point clients are joined to the brand and

get unwavering to it.

This implies that individuals can relate themselves to Pepsi with their appearance. Individuals are

likewise fulfilled by Gourmet in the Punjab district yet after this they are not equipped to get

steadfast with it. In this theory our exploration discoveries depicted that the purchasers of Pepsi

are substantially more dedicated as contrasted with other Cola brands.

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

The prime purpose of this research is to find out how congruence, satisfaction and commitment

with brand personality leads to enhanced brand loyalty, keeping in mind that the focus of the

research is on the beverage industry of Pakistan. The research that carried out is an applied

research. In this chapter a review is conducted. The most relevant, theories, models, and the

related constructs are presented. However, the deep knowledge of all the variables is not

illustrated in this chapter.

For the researchers this chapter provides insights about the foundation of all the variables that

leave an impact on consumer brand relationship and suggests future directions in order to

improve the knowledge in the field of this research.

1.1 Background of Thesis: Area of Research

Pakistan Beverage Industry

Over the time the beverage industry in Pakistan has grown rapidly. The industry has diversified

portfolio which consists of soft drinks, juices, syrups, milk and squashes. With about 170 units

presently running everywhere in the country, both upstream and downstream industries are

prospering (Naeem, 2003). According to the statistics, Pakistan soft drink industry has set to

experience volume sales growth of 30.5% till 2010. (Business Wire, June 29, 2007. - March 8,

2010). A leading carbonated drink brand has its annual sales up to 175-180 million crates

(Equities, February 07, 2010. - March 9, 2010.).

2

Coca Cola

In 1953, Coca-Cola started their operations in Pakistan. In the first stage, it was not the same as it

is now. In 1951, they just had franchise bottling and then afterwards in 1996, company took over

all the bottling system. The Coca-Cola Company has its own plants and operates supply chain

system.

The Coca-Cola System in Pakistan serves over 200,000 customers/retail outlets, which have

2500 employees that are working continuously for the company. Coca Cola has successfully

provided 54 years of dedicated service to its customers in Pakistan. Coca Cola Beverages

Pakistan has a very narrow product range in Pakistan. The brands that the company has are Coca

Cola, Fanta and Sprite. CCBPL has 6 plants and 13 warehouses throughout the country and

serves a population of more than 170 million with a production capacity of 111 million physical

cases (CCBPL, 2014). CCBPL is a significant player in the growth of Pakistan’s economy since

it is one of the country’s top foreign direct investments in FMCG sector (Coca Cola, 2014).

Pepsi Co

In 1979, the company introduced the franchise of Pepsi Cola International with the name of

Pepsi Beverage Company Limited of Pakistan.

Within five years of getting a franchise, Pepsi Beverages Pakistan Ltd. has managed to repeat the

success of previous work in the beverage market by becoming a market leader across the Sindh,

most specifically in the region of Karachi and later in Hyderabad. Dynamic partnership

established in 1979 between Pakistan Beverage Limited and Pepsi Cola International, in fact, is a

force to be reckoned with in the market, and that stands true to this day.

3

This great success flowed gradually to other cities of Pakistan in the south and north region, over

a period of time, which makes Pepsi and its brands the most popular cola beverage across the

country.

Today, with about 60 acres of space under the accumulated storage and processing, Pakistan

Beverage Company Limited is one of the bottling plants of Pepsi- Cola’s well-equipped and well

managed among all franchises in Pakistan (PBL, 2014).

Gourmet

In 1987, Gourmet Bakers and Sweets were founded by Mr. Nawaz Chatah as a single outlet of a

bakery unit, which is the largest food retail chain of Pakistan. It is located in Lahore, the second

biggest city in Pakistan known for its traditional food and passion for eating. The portfolio of

products that Gourmet has are Beverages, Milk, Ice cream, Water, Jam, Ketchup, Nimco, Juices,

Bread, Powder milk, Mithai and Bon Vivant.

Gourmet has more or less 120 outlets in Lahore and Faisalabad. It is the only local beverage

company in Pakistan which provides soft drink with price competiveness and standard quality

over the year. Gourmet food is one of the fastest growing bakers and confectioners store in

Pakistan (Gourmet, 2013).

4

1.2 Problem Statement

It may have something to do with the fact that the Pakistanis are estimated to spend around PKR

110 billion on carbonated beverages annually (Tirmizi, 2012). Pakistan beverage industry has

international brands which presents the outstanding quality of beverages. In the global vision,

brand personality has become the vital component of brand aesthetics i.e. a particular product or

a characteristic that serves to identify a particular product. Furthermore, the following question

arises that are very interesting subjects for the research about Pakistani beverage industry.

Are Congruence, Satisfaction and Commitment actually missing to create Brand Personality?

What would the company expect about the Brand Personality, when drawing lines of their Brand

Strategy?

When we look for Cola to drink, suddenly the brand which comes to mind is either Pepsi or Coca

Cola; these are the two main key players in the beverage industry of Pakistan. The problems that

are to be focused and find out in this research are:

Since 67 years of independence, why Pakistani local brands did not compete with these

international brands?

Why local brands still unknown by the consumers?

Why local brands would not be able to make any brand personality, which leads to brand

loyalty?

5

1.3 Research Question

Research Question # 1: Is there a causal link between congruence and brand personality with

the brand?

Research Question # 2: Is there a causal link between satisfaction and brand personality with

the brand?

Research Question # 3: Is there a causal link between commitment and brand personality with

the brand?

Research Question # 4: Does the congruence with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty?

Research Question # 5: Does the satisfaction with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty?

Research Question # 6: Does the commitment with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty?

Research Question # 7: Is there a causal link between congruence and satisfaction with the

brand?

Research Question # 8: Is there a causal link between satisfaction and commitment with the

brand?

Research Question # 9: Is there a causal link between congruence and commitment with the

brand?

6

1.4 Objectives of the Study

1.4.1 Broad Objective of the Study

The broad objective of the study focused to analyze:

If the congruence, satisfaction and commitment with the brand leads to the brand

personality and turn into brand loyalty.

If the congruence with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty.

If the satisfaction with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty.

If the commitment to the brand personality leads to brand loyalty.

If there is a causal link between congruence and satisfaction with the brand.

If there is a causal link between satisfaction and commitment with the brand.

The objective is to analyze the results and findings so that the management of local cola

company can better understand and know which decision that they need to take in order to make

the brand stronger and consistent in the minds of customers. This process will help in

strengthening the brand at the same time satisfying customer’s need. These results will further

help the local brand company to implement strategies that will improve the brand awareness

relating to international cola.

The empirical findings will shed light on how customers perceive local cola brand with regards

to its brand personality. Furthermore, these factors influence consumer decision making process

as well. This research would also enable the local cola company to come up with analysis of low

sales margin which further helps them to investigate what perception is being developed in the

consumer mind which causing hindrance in boosting up their sales in the local market.

7

Moreover, the findings of this research will help the local cola company to improvise its brand

image which helps in formulating brand personality which leads to brand loyalty.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

Concerning to the broad objectives we would relate those objectives specifically to the local

brand of Pakistan’s Cola i.e. Gourmet Cola. Actually, it is the product of Gourmet which has the

diversified portfolio of various products i.e. dealing in sweets, bakery items, milk, ice cream,

water and many more. They are most successful in the province of Punjab especially in Lahore.

Our specific objective is to make it available across the Pakistan, for which we are doing the

research. The main concern of our research stand on three independent variables congruence,

commitment and satisfaction of the consumer towards the Gourmet Cola which would also be

compared with the international brands of beverages i.e. Pepsi and Coca-Cola.

1.5 Issues and Gap in Literature and the Study’s Significance

1.5.1 Issues and Gap in Literature

Establishing a brand driven culture is a lifelong commitment to a mindset and a way of life that

takes time and planning that produces abstract outputs, which include greater customer

satisfaction, reduced price sensitivity, fewer customer defection, and a greater share of

customer’s wallet (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).

The brands that are stronger in their position enjoy customer loyalty, for that companies need to

have thorough understanding of customer beliefs, behaviors, product attributes and competitors.

The brand “promise” is the essence of the benefits i.e. both functional and emotional which

8

reflects the heart, soul and spirit of the brand. Successful brands are those which adapt well to

the environment, survive and flourish in the longer run (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).

The consumer behavior written works has increasingly shown that brand attitude and its

evaluation is not only known by functional facets of it, but also by the motivation of consumers

expressed to purchase goods and services that often is a part of their self-driving forces which

prompts them to buy goods (Kressmann & Sirgy, Direct and indirect effects of self-image

congruence on brand loyalty, 2006).

Self-image congruence refers to the match between consumer’s self-concept (actual self or ideal

self) and the users image (personality) of a given product “self-image congruence and image

congruence” are used interchangeably in the consumer behavior literature (Kressmann & Sirgy,

Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty, 2006).

The study focuses on inquiring the effects of congruence on brand loyalty in the context of Cola

beverages of Pakistan.

Past researches have shown that self-image congruence influences consumer behaviors directly

or indirectly through functional congruity, which refers to the match between consumers’ ideal

expectations of utilitarian product features and their perceptions of how the brand is perceived

along the same features (Sirgy & kressmann, Direct and indirect effects of self-image

congruence on brand loyalty, 2006). The study extends the research in the area that self-

congruity affects functional congruity under high than low product involvement conditions. And

also that it plays an important role in motivating customers to process information.

Brand loyalty, brand satisfaction, brand trust, brand personality are branding concepts which

have been investigated in association to consumer- brand relationship. The analysis of the casual

9

relationship concludes that that satisfaction is a necessary step in loyalty formation (Loureiro,

Consumer Brand Relationship, 2006).

To understand the sophistication of customer loyalty with the brand it is necessary to

comprehend the evaluations, perspectives, and purpose that influence the behavior of the

customers. Here, we focus on three prominent drivers of retention in the marketing literature;

overall customer satisfaction, congruence and commitment. Customer relationship benefits the

manager with a variety of variables that derive retention (Gustafsson, Johnson, & IngerRoos,

2005).

The overall satisfaction has a strong and positive impact on customer’s loyalty towards a brand.

Satisfaction mediates the effects of product quality as well as the service quality. Historically,

satisfaction was being used to explain loyalty as behavioral intention. There is a strong and a

nonlinear effect of customer satisfaction on repurchases behavior which is marginally increasing.

They also found large differences between the customer satisfaction retention relationships

across customer characteristics. Customer’s satisfaction is subsequently linked with the

individual loyalty towards a brand (Gustafsson, Johnson, & IngerRoos, 2005).

Based on this approach, we would be able to identify the satisfaction elements of the consumer

which strongly affects the bottom line along with those which don’t. This would suggest that

where the expenditures might be necessary and where it should be curtail so that they don’t leave

any adverse impact.

When consumers feel a strong force of attraction, a connection and identify themselves with the

brand and live a positive experience they can be aroused and this process of activation can

conduct to strong positive emotions such as delights consumers will be more satisfied. All that

10

involvement can deeply dig out the passion and love for the brand and they will positively

develop an association with the brand. A committed consumer is more willing to continue the

relationship with the brand and will be more advocate of delivering positivity, by saying positive

things that will contribute to a favorable image, reputation and credibility (Loureiro, Consumer

Brand Relationship, 2006).

1.5.2 Significance of the Thesis

Independent variables like commitment, congruence and satisfaction creates brand loyalty and

serves as competitive advantage for the company to differentiate product. The nexus between

branding and customer service is an important area to be considered. To build strong ties with

the customer that requires knowledge of marketing research coupled with sensitivity for the

customer’s concern by analyzing their behaviors and attitudes to design the study to make

affective changes.

It is significant for the company to improve the value of its consumers by reducing the

percentage of unsatisfied customers. For that they need to build the strategy of customer

retention and design it in a way that it becomes the best in interest of the customers and to retain

them with the company rather than switching to other brands. If they succeed to do this they will

observe significant increase in their profits. Customers, who would become loyal, will buy more

products. The benefits of brand loyalty are such that they are for longer term; customers

perceived value, brand trust, satisfaction, commitment, congruence, and repeat purchase

behavior would serve as the key influencing measures for brand loyalty. Loyal customers are

comparatively less price sensitive and would spread positive word of mouth and refer other

customers as well. Therefore, marketers need to build strong customer retention as a strategic

11

corporate goal and also recognize that all the customers are not the same and furnish them on the

basis of satisfaction, commitment and congruence (Schiffman, 2009).

1.6 Contribution of Thesis in Three Context

1.6.1 Contribution of the Thesis towards Theory and Literature

The idea of this research is to find out the brand building elements based on a journalism review

and study of successful brands in Pakistan. Brand is just not an identity, but it’s the feeling,

perception, benevolence, experiences and many more, which immediately pop-ups in one’s

mind. Building a brand is a lifelong process, which takes ample of time, and planning that

produces intangible outputs, which moreover include greater customer satisfaction, customer

retention, fewer customer defections, customer’s brand loyalty and a high percentage of business

progress. Brand identity is based on understanding of company’s customers, challengers and

business environment. Building a brand thoroughly requires its founders to understand its

competitors and consumers perceptions through rapid researches. As brand is refers as identity,

similarly this research also stands identical because it would contribute a lot to the literature of

the beverages industry of Pakistan (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).

1.6.2 Contribution of Thesis in the Context of Research

We have broadly discussed congruence, satisfaction and commitment which are linked with

brand personality that ultimately lead to brand loyalty in our research. The things that we have

contributed in this research regarding Pakistani beverages are as describe below. This includes

Pepsi, Coca cola, and Gourmet cola.

12

Continuously advertising campaign by the Coca Cola with new ideas and innovations and

targeting all different income level of families i.e. upper, middle and lower will boost their profit

margin and credibility in the market. The advertising campaign should focus on particular ideas

that is happiness like Pepsi do in their promotional campaign (Alexandrov & Alexei, 2011).

Why Pepsi is a strong brand in Pakistan, not any other local or foreign brand? This is the

question that we are going to research. Due to our study on Pepsi through different research

papers, we are able to conclude our thoughts, by saying that Pepsi is maintaining good quality in

Pakistan, through high tech machines, and through good and dedicated employees. The

availability of Pepsi is to be found in any location of Pakistan, their supply chain of products is

dramatically improving the demand of their consumer. Pepsi enjoy the brand loyalty, that people

are so much dedicated to their product. Another reason is due to their high market share, that’s

why public trust their product. On the other hand, Pepsi Co. has related Pepsi with Pakistan

Cricket Team. They spend a large sum of money on their advertising, which create an image of

loyalty (Consumer Report Magazines, 2012).

On the other hand, the Gourmet cola, which is although available at very affordable prices, but

not be able to capture the complete market of Pakistan and restricted only in Punjab because of

their lack of advertising, as well as their lack of outlets. They are not preparing proper marketing

strategies to fight against big giants like Pepsi and Coca Cola. They should focus on their

product design because public are much more attractive to the product image as well as to the

low price. In order to gain their market share, they should also introduce their product across the

Pakistan so that would enhance the profitability and its awareness as well (Awan & Hassnain,

2013).

13

1.6.3 Contribution of the Thesis in the Context of the Objective

The objective of research is to find out the dilemma that why local Cola Company in Pakistan

could not established or capture the market share since independence. There are two giant of cola

companies working in Pakistan i.e. Pepsi and Coca Cola, these two brand have great influence

over their consumer that’s why no other brand survived in the market over them in the

past(Tirmizi, 2012).

Many local cola brands were introduced to the market i.e. Makah cola, RC cola and many more,

but none of them survived and disappeared after a period of time. Those brands were failed to

achieve consumers’ preference and repeat purchase behavior.

Gourmet sweet and bakers is Pakistan’s local brand operating in Punjab side, after their success

in food industry, they introduced a cola with the name Gourmet cola, their cola got influence and

capture the market with the passage of time in Lahore and Faisalabad, they are targeting only

Punjab market and they constrained their company to Punjab region only.

Our contribution and research is to find why Gourmet Cola didn’t come out of Punjab market

and sell their products to other provinces of Pakistan. The main area where the company is

lacking is publicity and advertising their product they didn’t spend a sufficient amount on

marketing. On the other hand, Coca Cola and Pepsi spend huge amount on marketing and

promotion activities regularly to remain in consumers’ brain when they go to buy the soft drinks.

Gourmet Cola has limited themselves only in Lahore, they didn’t consider other areas of

Pakistan as their target markets, they also have issues in finance as they are lacking in financial

resource and is unable to invest a huge amount as compared to their competitors, while Coca

Cola and Pepsi are investing 248 million and 1 billion in Pakistan (Tirmizi, 2012). They are

14

generating the annual sale of around million soft drinks. Pepsi is the market leader of carbonated

water in Pakistan having 65% of market shares and leading beverage company in Pakistan and

Coca Cola constitutes about (35) % market share (Tirmizi, 2012).

The other problem which we figured out is that Gourmet Cola does not have many potential

outlets and they have weak distribution channel system around Punjab province too, they left

open space for their competitors by not targeting hotel, colleges, canteen and etc. Their

placement is not good as they didn’t establish maximum number of outlet they have no outlets in

different cities in Pakistan instead of Lahore and Faisalabad.

The company should plan to launch the Gourmet cola to other cities in Pakistan to enhance or

overcome their financial resources issue, they must works on their target market and

segmentation by not leaving open space for their competitors and they should start spending

budget on marketing, advertisement and promotion activities to give awareness about their

product like Pepsi and coke, in order to give tough competition to their competitors.

1.7 Conceptual Definitions

1.7.1 Brand

The word ‘Brand’ means to burn by fire which is derived from Old Norse word “Brandr” as it

was the way through which owners of livestock used to mark their animals to identify them.

According to the American Marketing Association (AMA); brand is a name, term, sign, symbol

or design or a combination of them which is meant to identify products and services of sellers to

differentiate them from their competitors. Technically, when a marketer forms a new logo,

symbol, name for his new product, he has ultimately created a brand (Keller, Parameswaran, &

Jacob, 2011).

15

Customers see a brand as an essential part of a product as branding can add value to it. Customer

associate relationship with the brand and develop meaning with it. For example, a bottle of

White Linen perfume is a high quality product but if the same perfume is in an unmarked bottle

would be viewed as a lower quality one. Even, if the fragrance was identical. Today, rarely

anything goes unbranded as branding has become so influential. Brand name helps buyers in

many ways as it helps customers to identify the product that might be beneficial to them. Brands

notify about product quality and consistency as buyers who are likely to buy the same brand

know that they will receive the similar features, benefits and quality each time when they buy it.

The brand name becomes the platform on which the whole story about a product's special quality

can be built. Moreover, seller's brand name and trademark offer legal protection for unique

product features so that it cannot be copied by the competitors. Branding also helps the marketers

to segment markets (Kotler, Armstrong, Agnihotri, & Haque, 2010).

According to (Keller, Parameswaran, & Jacob, 2011), brands can serve as symbolic devices that

provide consumers to project their self-image that reflects different values or traits which are

associated with certain types of people. Brands can also play an essential role in signaling

product characteristics to customers. Researchers have classified products and their attributes

into three major categories which are Search Goods, Experience Goods and Credence Goods.

Brands can reduce the risks in product decisions as there are different types of risk associated in

buying and consuming a product which consumers may perceive are Functional Risk, Physical

Risk, Financial Risk, Psychological Risk, Social Risk and Time Risk.

Consumers can easily handle this risk in many ways but one way is to buy a well-known brand

(as they can be very important risk handling device) with which consumers have advantageous

experiences. Thus, brands take on unique personal meanings to customers that make easy their

16

day to day activities and augment their lives. Moreover, they have the ability to simplify decision

making and reduce risk.

Brands are beyond names and symbols. They are key essentials in the company's relationship

with customers as they represent consumer's perceptions and feelings regarding a product and its

efficiency. In the final analysis brands resides in the heads of consumers. Thus, once a one well

respected marketer said "Products are created in the factory but brands are created in the minds"

(Kotler, Armstrong, Agnihotri, & Haque, 2010).

Consumer brand knowledge can be defined in terms of personal meaning about a brand stored in

consumer's memory that is all descriptive and evaluate brand related information. A powerful

brand has high brand equity such brands provide long-term security and growth, higher

sustainable profits and increased asset value because they achieve competitive differentiation.

The brand promise is the essence of both functional and emotional benefits which customers can

expect to gain while experiencing a brand service or product which reflects heart, soul and spirit

of the brand. Many brands offer a mixture of symbolic, functional and experiential benefits. A

brand with a functional concept is defined as one which is designed to solve externally generated

consumption needs. Whereas, a brand with a symbolic concept is designed to link the individuals

with a specific group, role or self-image and a brand with an experiential concept is designed to

meet internally generated needs like sensory pleasure, variety and cognitive stimulation

(Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).

Brands emerge over time. The first level is to express the identity of the producer that is Label.

The second level is the functional superiority. Third level is referred as emotional touch whereas

fourth level pertains to the power of self-expression. At the top of the pyramid the highest level

is known as cult (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).

17

Brand identity is a unique set of brand associations which includes Core and Extended identities.

Core identity is the central, timeless essence of the brand that remains the same as the brand

proceeds to new markets and new products. It focuses on product attributes, services, and

product performance. Whereas, extended identity is woven around brand identity elements that

are organized in cohesive and meaningful groups which provides brand with texture and

completeness and takes into account brand personality relationship and strong symbol

association (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).

To excel a brand image should be well planned, nurtured, supported and vigilantly guarded.

Companies that show cohesive, distinctive and relevant brand identity are likely to create

preferences in the market place, add value and may command a price premium for their products

and services. When a brand faces aggressive competition brand personality and reputation of the

brand can help as competing offerings and results in differentiating the brand from competition.

Therefore, a company should form a clear and consistent brand identity by associating brand

attributes that can be easily understood by the customers (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).

The close relationship between a brand and a consumer could lead to a connection i.e. a deep self

and social identification with the brand. The mystery, the intimacy, the uniqueness, the

involvement based on past experiences, and all positive emotional connections lead to affection

towards the brand. A brand affectionate consumer is more willing to be committed with the

brand, forgiven less positive situations, advocate favorably and willing to sacrifice for the brand

beyond reason because of its extent of loyalty towards it (Loureiro, Consumer Brand

Relationship, 2006).

18

1.7.2 Congruence with Brand Personality

The idea of congruence of brand personality arises in the marketing field in the mid 1960’s and

grew in the mid 1970’s. The studies concentrating on the consumer’s behavior were interested in

individuals who seek to create the image that he has of a product and his image of himself

(Maehle & Shneor, 2009).

The studies on the congruence with brand personality try to clarify consumer choice such as

brand preference, purchase intention or usage and loyalty. Brands perform as social signals with

congruity of brands, which is viewed as a key motivational factor in consumer choice (Maehle &

Shneor, 2009). A number of studies prove that there is congruity between brand

image/personality, also studied the relationship between self-image and brand preference and

found that favored brands are reliable to self-concept and reinforced it. Moreover, found a

relationship between ideal self-image and product image. Structuring the concept that consumer

brand choices are to a large level self-confirmatory actions.

The element of brand personality is taken by aspects containing characters of being down-to-

earth, honest, wholesome and cheerful. Such character may be symbolizing strong people

orientations, cooperative tendencies and harmony seeking, all of which characterize the Red

personality and communicational strategy. The elements of Competence brand personality are

captured by aspects including characters of being reliable, intelligent and successful. Such

characters may be indicative of tendency towards task-orientation, being structured and logical,

all of which characterize the Blue personality and communicational strategy.

The element of Excitement brand personality is captured by aspects including aspects of being

daring, spirited, imaginative, and up-to-date. Such aspects may be revealing propensity towards

19

change, strong instinct, inspired imagination and interest, all of which describe the independent

Green type and communicational approach.

Sirgy as mentioned in (Maehle & Shneor, 2009) proposes congruity theory and he claims that

product indications relating images typically activate a self-scheme involving the same images.

Also, he outlines the position of self-concept theory in consumer behavior research by clarifying

that consumers who observe the product image to be reliable with their definite self-concept are

likely to feel interest to buy and consume that product. Therefore, congruence of product image

may have a greater effect on consumers’ inclination, purchase intent, ownership, usage and

allegiance to products and brands.

Graeff as mentioned in (Maehle & Shneor, 2009) studies the consequence of the congruence on

brand-image and its brand appraisal relating to promotion message. It proposes that under the

promotion message that prompts consumers of their own self-image, consumers give more

positive appraisals of brands congruent with their own self-image. In one of his other studies that

engaged beer product brands, he suggests that positive brand approach and purchase intent

increase as the congruence of brand-image rises.

Recently, numerous studies have been lead about the congruence on brand personality. Brand

personality denote to human features related with a brand (Maehle & Shneor, 2009). Reputes

brand personality as the class of brand-image ended by brand user and practice imagery traits.

Plummer as mentioned in (Maehle & Shneor, 2009) that one constituent of brand-image is the

character of the brand itself. His studies indicate that brands can be branded by personality

descriptions such as "youthful”, “colorful," and "gentle".

Aaker as mentioned in (Maehle & Shneor, 2009) attaches brand-image to brand personality as a

constituent of brand equity, and describes brand personality as the set of human characteristics

20

related with a brand. Brand personality contains five dimensions: competence, sincerity,

excitement, sophistication, and ruggedness.

Consumers use brands as a sign and they choose brands with images that are congruent with their

brand personality. When self-schema is consistent with brand personality, the brand attitude of a

low self-monitor is more satisfactory, and when the condition is consistent with self-schema, the

brand attitude of a high self-monitor is more satisfactory. Consumers display satisfactory

sensation toward a brand when the brand personality is matching with their own self-image.

Particularly, the congruence on brand personality surges positive attitude of consumers who have

high epicurean attitude and highlight representative values. Brand personality impacts brand

identification, and then brand identification has a direct impact on brand loyalty, as well as an

indirect impact via brand relationship satisfaction. Therefore, it can be inferred that the

congruence on brand personality has a positive effect on consumer satisfaction, consumer-brand

relationship, and brand loyalty.

1.7.3 Satisfaction with the Brand Personality

Satisfaction is an individual's feelings of delight or disappointment that result from

differentiating a product's supposed performance to expectations. Many companies are always

systematically monitoring their customers and their changing needs and wants. A satisfied

customer stays loyal to the company and talks good about it. They are relatively less worried

about the price changes the organization does. This means that companies are continuously

identifying new and innovative ways to make their customers satisfied. In this era it is very easy

for consumers to switch to different brands as there are many options available in the market

(Kotler & Keller, A Framework for Marketing Management, 2009).

21

According to (Wester, 2005), brands offer opportunity to build relationship with the customers.

This means that brands are a way to make a unique bond with customer. So that customers are

attracted to the brand personality and that they can relate to it.

(Stathakopoulas, 2004), have stated that retention of customers is only possible through nurturing

loyalty by making an emotional connection between the brand and the customer. These loyal

buyers will then contribute to making good feedbacks when in groups. They will be able to

attract new customers to the brands as they will be satisfied. Taking into account Coca Cola their

recent adverts were targeting on the family eating together they created an emotional connection

with their customers.

1.7.4 Commitment with Brand Personality

Commitment can be viewed as “an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship” with the

brand (Zaltman & Moorman, 1992). Intense business competition requires companies to work

harder to retain customers not only to exist but also to become the market leader. Today

successful companies whether large or small, domestic or global share a strong customer focus

and heavy commitment of brand.

Customer relationship management (CRM) i.e. the process of carefully managing detailed

information about individual customer and all customers (Kotler, Marketing Management,

2006). Companies seek to attract by promising superior value and to keep and grow brand

commitment. By carefully examining on this dynamic area will lead to brand commitment.

At the heart of customer-brand relationship is customer Commitment. Research into customer

commitment suggests that consumer-brand identification might be one factor that influences

it(Jetal, 2011). Customer needs a strong reason and emotional attachment with the brand to affect

22

their repurchase intentions. This relation actually develops a positive Brand personality in the

consumers mind.

Furthermore, Brand logos are a vital component of brand aesthetics. Companies frequently

redesign their logos, and these redesigned logos affect consumers brand attitude. Visually, brand

logos pass a very different meaning to consumers with strong brand commitment than to

consumers with moderate or no brand commitment. This is particularly true because, as a visual

cue, brand logos can become the basis for triggering brand-related associations and thoughts in

consumer memory (Keller, On Congruence between Brand and human Responsibilities, 1993).

Customers with strong brand relationship can easily connect or can easily associate themselves

with brand.

A strong commitment with the brand develops a strong brand personality in the consumers mind.

referring the term with the brand personality; it could be explained as any product that a

consumer is using for the longer period of time and that is also fulfilling the satisfaction level

ultimately turn it into the commitment of the product or brand towards the consumer’s attribute.

1.7.5 Brand Personality

The term as character of the personality that is used to distinguish a person and brand

association. It helps us in building up the understanding and the development and maintains

relationship between the consumers and the brands. Brand personality consists of a set of human

attributes associated with a specific brand. It is the set of traits people attribute to a product as if

it were a person (Solomon M. R., 2012).

Moreover, it is a set of human characteristics that are attributed to a brand name. A brand

personality is something to which the consumer can relate, and an effective brand will increase

23

its brand equity by having a consistent set of traits. This is the added-value that a brand gains,

aside from its functional benefits.

There are five main types of brand personalities:

1. Excitement:These are the most exciting brand that is energetic, creative, bold and

progressive.

2. Sincerity: Sincere brands are considered by the consumer as being practical, realistic,

wholesome, truthful and cheerful.

3. Ruggedness: These are the brand that are seen outdoorsy and though.

4. Competence: These brands are associated with dependability, cleverness, and success.

5. Sophistication: These are the brands that are fit for the upper classes and viewed as

delightful (Friend, 2010).

1.7.6 Brand Loyalty

The connection a customer has to a brand which reflects how likely a customer will be inclined

to switch to another brand is known as brand loyalty (Maehle & Shneor, 2009).

(Holbrook, 2001), have viewed brand loyalty as a linkage in the chain that ultimately connects

brand trust with the aspects of brand equity. Brand loyalty represents a positive behavior towards

a brands which results in the frequent purchase of the brand. They stated that customer retention

can only be practiced through loyalty by creating some feelings and emotional attachment. These

buyers later produce a favorable opinion when having conversation among their social circles.

Loyalty can be conceptualized in three approaches:

1. In the early literature (1950 and 1960) measurements and conceptualizations of loyalty

were based on the trends of past purchases.

24

2. Researchers believe that loyalty should be interpreted principally as an attitude towards a

given brand.

3. Now the widely accepted definition of Brand Loyalty is that brand loyalty buying pattern

of particular brand, that repetitive over time and is reinforced with a strong commitment

to that brand.

1.8 Structure of the Thesis

Chapter # 1 Introduction

Chapter # 2 Literature Review

Chapter # 3 Research Methodology

Chapter # 4 Data Collection/Analysis

Chapter # 5 Result/Conclusion/Recommendation

25

Chapter 2:Literature Review

2.1Introduction

2.1.1Brand

A brand can be defined as a differentiating uniqueness of a seller’s product. The idea of brand

underway with defining a character to identify one’s animal so that they don’t get mixed up. The

work of a brand is more or less, still the same. Head & Shoulder, Pepsi, Levis Jeans, Tapal Tea

etc. are all the samples of brand that take place in the current society. A brand has a prominence

in terms of accounting which is calculated by gaining the difference between the market value of

the company and the real value of the assets of the company. The term ‘Brand’ is also used for

the company that offers the brand (Hunt S. D., 2002).

2.1.2What is Brand?

The terms, brand or branding, are used by many people that have diverse meanings for them.

They practice it in different conditions, without articulating its real meaning. In the world of

business, it is principally defined as making an association with the company, product, service or

individual. Sporadically, companies make efforts to ratify their brands internationally whereas

sometimes, it is outside the company’s control. For example, the negative word of mouth can

place a negative link and disintegrate the manufacturer’s general brand (Hunt S. D., 2002).

26

2.1.3Formation of Brand

A brand comes into survival when a cultural meaning is given to it by the consumers and it is the

marketing activities like advertising by an organization that relocate it to the brand. Assigning

the figurative meaning of a brand to a customer can only be effective if the customers play a

vigorous role in brand consumption. The customers, in today’s world, have a strong capability to

develop a theory or notion on their own, hence the marketer cannot bequeath any story on the

brand but the consumer formulae it through a personal ingesting practice (Sung, Park, & Han,

2005).

The company has to comprise in brand management to build the customer loyalty towards their

brand. To fulfill this task, they need to find out what features would help to build the customer

devotion towards a brand.(Louis & Lombart, 2010), has found trust, attachment, and

commitment as being related to the creation of brand loyalty. In order to deliver customers with a

better brand understanding, the company can include in assured tasks like a brand community

activity. A brand community is a group of people who share common emotions towards a

product or brand. Nevertheless, the marketing can be more attentive if the related emotions are

besieged and apprehended.

27

2.1.4 Branding

The branding can be defined as the attempt by the company to manage the brand association in a

better way. If the marketers can know what traits are more persuaded towards making a brand

identity, then the marketers would be able to do the branding in a more proper way. They will be

able to present their brand as idiosyncratic individuality which is specially meant to be for them.

Although it is not probable to exercise a complete control but the scheming and marketing

exertions can do most of the tasks that will benefit the company. The facets of branding can

differ but the basic idea of being clear about what you stand for always applies (Hunt S. D.,

2002).

2.1.5 Brand Identity

David Aaker as mentioned in (Tudorica, Ouwersloot, & Anamaria, 2001) has established the

brand identity system—an outline for brand appraisal. When generating a brand identity, the firm

should consider four dimensions of brand identity: brand as a product, organization, person, and

symbol (Tudorica, Ouwersloot, & Anamaria, 2001). Brand identity is established of all features

forming the survival of the brand. The concept permits companies, through the six emanation

sides of the brand identity prism: physical facet, personality, culture, relationship, reflected

consumer and consumer metallization; to specify the meaning, the project, the designing of their

brands. Contrariwise, brand image is a greeting concept. It is the result of the consumers’

interpretation of all the signs emitted by the brand (brand name, visual symbols,

communications, etc.) or external sources. As a result, brand identity comes before brand image.

The brand exclusivity is created by the firm and is communicated to consumers, who then

interpret it as the brand image (Louis & Lombart, 2010).

28

2.1.6 Brand Image

Brand image is defined as “as perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations

held in consumer memory” (Keller K. L., Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-

Based Brand Equity, 1993). In consumer’s cognizance there are informational bulges linked to

brand bulge. These informational bulges represent brand connotations. Consumer can have

several links with the brand. Like for any Good Tea brand consumer can have connotations of

delicious, healthy, unique, and strong and so on. The stouter, satisfactory and unique these

associations are the more auspicious or positive brand knowledge consumer has about the brand

and the more happily consumer will value or appraise the brand. Relevant and stronger brand

image lies on this concept. Positively linked consumer behaviors will build a good image of the

brand in consumer’s awareness. More anxiety should be put on the brand connotations. While

building brands through research should be done on consumer profiling and target market

preferences. Based on the results brands should be intended that fit into the consumer

preferences and automatically engender satisfactory reaction.

2.1.7 Brand Equity

Customer based brand equity has been defined by (Keller K. L., Conceptualizing, Measuring and

Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, 1993) as “the differential effect of brand knowledge

on consumer response to marketing of brand”. Differential effect is the difference of customer

response to the marketing of a brand with respect to the marketing of other brand. Brand

Acquaintance is the customer’s awareness of the brand. It is how the buyer has observe the brand

and what insights the customer has in his or her mind about the brand remembered in terms of

brand connotation. Consumer reply to the marketing of the brand is in the practice of

preferences, liking and disliking. Brand Equity can be supposed to have positive or satisfactory

29

response of customers to the marketing efforts (Price, Product, Place and Promotion) of a brand

as compared to the competing brand. The auspicious influence of the brand knowledge on

consumer’s mind can grades it as high rank of the brand in consumer’s insight. Brand knowledge

is based on brand connotations, so to have brand link that clearly makes the brand impressive or

more valuable is very important. The more the consumer has brand cognizance and the more

favorably they understand the brand relations the greater will be probabilities of a positive

behavior of consumer to the brand. The higher the brand equity in the mind of patrons the more

returns brand is making for the organization so effectiveness is significantly improved.

2.2 Context of the Research

In this research we have thoroughly discussed the independent variables of our research, which

are Congruence, Satisfaction and Commitment that creates a brand personality, which eventually

leads to brand loyalty. Following are the points, which we have contributed in the context of this

research on the subject of Pakistan Cola Beverages are discussed below. We have three cola

brands in this research and the names of those brands are Pepsi Cola, Coca Cola and Gourmet

Cola.

Extensive advertising strategy and more & more advertising campaigns by the Coca Cola

Company with innovations and new ideas help them to compete with the Pepsi Cola and they

should have target different classes of the society, which are upper, middle and lower class. This

strategy will surely help them to increase their product demand, increase the gross margin on

sales and increase the trustworthiness in the market. Coca Cola advertisements are not focus on

one subject and by doing this they were lost their way of success. They should focus on one

30

slogan, which is happiness for the advertisement like what the Pepsi did in their advertisements

(Alexandrov A. , 2011).

Pepsi Cola is the leading brand in the Pakistan cola beverages industry, why not the local cola

brand or any other foreign brand leads the market? That is one of the questions, which we have

discussed in our research. On the basis of the previous researches on the Pepsi by studying

different research papers we have conclude that Pepsi provides great quality in their products and

the taste of their product is similar to that taste, which is commonly accepted by the consumers in

the Pakistan. They have healthy financial resources and they have no issue regarding finance.

They have high tech machines and equipment by which they manufacture great quality products.

They also have well trained and dedicated employee, which enhances the reputation of a

company. Their placement of a product is equally good because of the supply chain

infrastructure and their product is easily available all over the country. The consumer of the

Pepsi cola shows so much dedication to purchase the product of a Pepsi that is why Pepsi Cola

enjoys the brand loyalty. One more reason is market share, because the more market share means

the more trust on the product. Moreover, Pepsi itself associated with the Pakistan Cricket Team.

They invest a large sum of money to promote their product and to promote Pakistani cricketers

as well. Their advertisements guide consumers that cricketers are so much loyal to Pepsi cola and

cricketers are considered as role models in our country so that this concept eventually create an

image of a brand loyalty in the minds of consumers(PBL, 2012).

On the other hand, the Gourmet cola is available in cheap prices and the consumers of every

social class easily purchased their product, hence they are not be able to sell their product in the

whole country and they are only restrict themselves in the region of Punjab, because don’t have

enough financial resources and they are not advertise their products as much as Pepsi and Coca

31

Cola does. They also have limited outlets only in Punjab. They have not made appropriate

marketing strategies for their products to face the challenge of big giants of Pakistan beverages

Industry, which are Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola. They should focus on the packaging of their

products, because the packaging creates a congruence, satisfaction and commitment with the

product, which leads to a brand personality that eventually achieve a brand loyalty. In order to

gain the market share to survive in the market, they should focus to make new strategies by

which they introduced their products all over the Pakistan and it enhance their profitability of the

product and awareness as well(Gourmet, 2013).

2.2.1 Beverage Industry in Pakistan

Pepsi, Coca Cola, Gourmet Cola and many other local companies are playing in the Pakistan

Beverages Industry. Pepsi and Coca Cola share most of the shares of the market i.e. more than

90% of the entire local market of Pakistan. It can be said that both the companies are enjoying

very stiff competition between them (Report, 2011).

Now a day’s new brand comes in the market, but most of the brands are facing difficulties to find

a respectable place in the market, and they do not considered as competitors for the Pepsi and

Coca Cola. There are many factors on which we repealed newly introduced companies from the

competition to Pepsi and Coca Cola and those factors are quality of the product, availability of

the product, visibility of the product and promotion of the product (Report, 2011).

Pepsi and Coca Cola are almost same in the positioning of the brands. They both brands are

considered as a substitute of each other. There are number of consumers, who find difficulties to

distinguish between those products. On the other hand, the newly introduced brands are fall in

the category of inferior brands on the basis of the quality of the product. Quality is one of the

32

reasons that is why the newly introduced brands are unable to create their own market and most

of the shares are captured by these two giants (Report, 2011).

The religious campaigns that give boost to the newly introduced companies to capture the market

by availing this opportunity and make the best out of it, but still they are struggling in the market.

Those religious campaigns were carried out by the religious groups of a country in the past years.

We are not considered that those campaigns are fully failed and do not disturb their businesses,

but those campaigns imposed a negative image on Pepsi in the minds of consumers due to the

affiliation of company with Israel (Report, 2011).

In the end, we can say that there are only two major competitors in the Pakistan Beverages

Industry similar to the other countries in the world. But the situation of the Pakistani market is

very much different from the other markets in the world. In Pakistan, Pepsi is the market leader

and Coca Cola is on the second position. But outside the Pakistan, Coca Cola is considering as a

top cola brand and Pepsi is nowhere near from it. Out of the 100% market shares, 60% shares

claimed by Pepsi. On the other hand, 30-35% shares claimed by Coca Cola. The market shares of

both the competitors are increasing day by day (Report, 2011).

2.2.2 Pepsi

In 1979, the company introduced the franchise of Pepsi Cola International with the name of

Pepsi Beverage Company Limited of Pakistan. Within five years of getting a franchise, Pepsi

Beverages Pakistan Ltd. has managed to repeat the success of previous work in the beverage

market by becoming a market leader across the Sindh, most specifically in the region of Karachi

and later in Hyderabad. Dynamic partnership established in 1979 between Pakistan Beverage

Limited and Pepsi Cola International, in fact, is a force to be reckoned with in the market, and

33

that stands true to this day. This great success flowed gradually to other cities of Pakistan in the

south and north region, over a period of time, which makes Pepsi and its brands the most popular

cola beverage across the country. Today, with about 60 acres of space under the accumulated

storage and processing Pakistan Beverage Company Limited is one of the bottling plants of

Pepsi- Cola’s well-equipped and well managed franchises (PBL, 2014).

Pepsi cola was started by Caleb Bradham in 1898 in North Carolina, when he was working as a

bar tender in his place (Pepsi Cola, 2014). Mr. Caleb prepared a drink, to which one of the

customer called the “Bred Drink”. Bred registered this drink with name of Pepsi cola in

1903.Bred Drink was later named Pepsi cola on June 16, 1903, then to Pepsi in 1961. When he

launched the company, people were associating Pepsi with coca cola. Sometime later people

started realizing Pepsi cola as a separate brand. Pepsi cola started operations in different

countries and started giving tough competition to coca cola. It started from western America to

eastern Asia, Northern Russia and Europe towards to Southern Africa. Pepsi is now one the

leading multinational companies in the world and comes at number 10 in the top 50 companies in

fortune ranking. In 1979, Pepsi started their operations in Pakistan. Pepsi has a market share of

70% in the Pakistani market which explains the defeat of coca cola in Pakistan. The market share

shows us the behavior of consumers in the market that many of them prefer Pepsi over Coca

cola. The understanding of the local culture and consumers is very important for both the

companies in order to gain success in the market of Pakistan. Pepsi, 7up and Miranda are the

major beverages produced by Pepsi co. In Pakistan, Pepsi also produces mineral water with the

tag name of “Aquafina” in Pakistan (Pepsi Cola, 2014).

34

2.2.3 Coca-Cola

First, Coca-Cola was introduced in Atlanta, Georgia. One of the pharmacists Dr. John

SythPermberton made Coca Cola syrup. He gave the syrup to the Jacob’s Pharmacy for sale as

Cola fountain drink that cost five cents of the glass. Refreshment history was made by combining

new syrup with carbonated water. The name Coca Cola was suggested by Dr. Permberton’s and

he also prepared his logo (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

In 1882, the business was incorporated as “The Coca Cola Company”. In 1888, all rights of the

business were purchased by Mr. Asa G. Candlor in US $2300. In 1894, the first bottle machinery

of Coca Cola was installed in the candy store of Vicksberg, Mississippi by Joseph A. Biedelharn.

In 1897, first time Canada and Hawaii export Coca-Cola from Atlanta, Georgia. In 1900, first

time Coca Cola was exported in Europe and in 1995 in Canada Coca Cola was registered their

trademark. In 1953, Coca Cola started their operations in Pakistan. In 1970, Coca Cola

introduced their new product lines named Fanta and Sprite in Pakistan. In 1982, the Coca Cola

Company enhanced their business by entering in the entertainment business. In 1982, the

company in order to utilize their resources to benefits society was established as a foundation

(Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

2.2.3.1 Current status of Coca Cola

The company sold their products to distributors and wholesalers, which is around 3500, in

different countries. The consumption of Coca Cola is very high and more than 524 million

people wants a coke time by its name in more than 80 languages and in approximately 168

countries. There are more than 17000 people and 15000 jobs in the Coca Cola Company and

they also have thousands of wholesalers and distributors. Coca Cola have the largest brand

equity in the world (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

35

Today, there are the three business sectors by which Coca Cola Company operates:

North America Soft Drink Business Sector

International soft drink business sector

Food business sector

2.2.3.2 The Nature of Soft Drink

The drinks that manufactured and sold by the Coca Cola Company are really refreshing thirst

quencher, which provides satisfaction to the consumers. The soft drink of a Coca Cola Company

contains carbonated water, nutritive sweeteners and flavors (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

2.2.3.3 Nutrition

Carbonated soft drinks have a sum of liquid that provide to the people, which is important for the

decent health. Soft drinks provide calories to the consumers, which have nutritive sweetener that

uses the body of a consumer for the energy (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

2.2.3.4 Health

Every time, the Coca-Cola company uses the safe guards in manufacturing and bottling process

that minimize the probability of off-taste products in the time of manufacturing. By doing this

company prevent itself to encounter with any problem and if some problem is happened then the

product should be returned before the point of purchase (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

2.2.3.5 Quality

The qualities of the products of the Coca Cola Company ensures uniformity and the company

inspect their products on regular basis by sampling of beverages, which is manufactured in each

bottling plants (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

36

2.2.3.6 Formula of Coca Cola is Secret

The largest seller of soft drinks in the world is Coca Cola Company and they follows all the laws

and practices of a country in which they are operate. The company is kept their formula secret,

because it is the property right for the company (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

2.2.3.7 Coca Cola in Pakistan

In 1953, first time Coca Cola Company was introduced in Pakistan and the local plants of the

country which is situated in Karachi, Hyderabad, Gujranwala and Sialkot was purchased by the

company. There are almost 10 beverages plants of a Coca Cola Company in Pakistan. All the

beverages plants is situated in the well-known cities. The names of the cities are Karachi,

Hyderabad, Lahore, Sialkot, Gujranwala, Multan, Faisalabad, Rawalpindi, KPK and Rahim Yar

khan. The Coca Cola drink manufactures in Beverage plant, which manufactures Coca Cola in a

local drink factory in the place of Hyderabad under the name of cold drink. Pakistan has 35

plants of carbonated drinks all over the country. All of the plants mainly operate in the big cities

and those plants have manufactures 60 million crates of 24 bottles of 250ml. Coca Cola and

Pepsi are the two main giants of Pakistan Beverages Industry (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

2.2.4 Gourmet:

In 1987, Mr. Nawaz Chatha the founder of the Gourmet Foods Pakistan has started his business

in Lahore with only one sale outlet. But today, “Gourmet Foods Pakistan” is one of the largest

food chain in Pakistan and is prominent for its traditional foods and obsession for eating. Initially

Gourmet has started its operation as a bakery and in the production of the dairy products only.

The main theme of its all productions is to provide its customer with the quality products for

which they have stretched out its network all across the Lahore with seven processing units and

ninety eight sales outlets. Over 25 years of its operation, it has diversified portfolio of food

37

companies which consist of not only Bakery and Mithai but also they are now manufacturing

dairy products, beverages, traditional halwas, candy, toffee, jams, ice cream, ketchup, nimco as

well. They are very much committed towards exercising their all efforts, expertise and resources

into the production so to provide the fine quality of food for their product consumer and as to

fulfill the meaning of GOURMET- the fine quality of foods and drinks lover as well(Gourmet

Pakistan, 2013).

With the passage of time Gourmet has made a tremendous and a rapid annual growth i.e. more

than twenty five percent since the date of operation- 1987. Commitment and exceptional efforts

of Mr. Nawaz Chatha has made Gourmet a remarkable producer of quality food which is also

having an unmatched approach of display in the local market of Pakistan. To meet up the quality

standard food Gourmet has always seek out for best quality of raw materials so that they can

provide maximum range of products to their consumers. For quality raw material i.e. raw cheese

and khoya for their dairy products and sweets they have their own setups and plants.

Construction of the bakery plant is based on the state of art, where they meet up all the

requirements of the safety and quality of foods under Hazard Analysis and Critical Control

Points(HACCP), (Gourmet Foods - Pakistan, 2012).

Latest technology for producing all sort of beverages are also been installed. The range of

products under beverages are, Gourmet Cola, Malta, Lemon up, Apple and Ice-cream Soda, in

six different sizes ranging from 300ml to 2.25 liter. Moreover, other standard plants are also

installed for the production and bottling of mineral water and juices. For the bakery item they

have their own bakery house where they produce and sell buns, rusks, bread, cookies,

sandwiches, rolls, pastries, biscuits and many more.

https://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHazard_analysis_and_critical_control_points&ei=vXMhU_qOD4OrhAfWvYG4Ag&usg=AFQjCNFgg3MUzzEVR6KN25qXwiprjsj1QQ&bvm=bv.62922401,d.Yms

https://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHazard_analysis_and_critical_control_points&ei=vXMhU_qOD4OrhAfWvYG4Ag&usg=AFQjCNFgg3MUzzEVR6KN25qXwiprjsj1QQ&bvm=bv.62922401,d.Yms

38

Gourmet has not only restricted themselves only shelving their products like jam, pickles,

beverages, ice creams, dairy products and many more to their outlets, infect there distribution

and shelving are also placed in the retail shops and bakery outlets to compete with other

brands(Nabeel, 2009).

2.2.4.1 Concerning Beverages:

If we look into the market of the beverages i.e. of soft drinks many international brand came into

the Pakistani market but due to the somehow Islamic perspective scandals only the market of

Pepsi and Coca Cola sustained their market and taking edge over all other international brands.

But since independence no market of local beverage industry has been established and sustained

market to take over the monopoly of Pepsi and Coca Cola across Pakistan. After many years, the

initiatives were taken by Gourmet in 2007 and start their production in beverages with the

portfolio of Gourmet Cola, Malta, Lemon up, Apple and Ice-cream Soda, in six different sizes

ranging from 300ml to 2.25 liter. Today they are enjoying and had taken an edge over Pepsi and

Coca Cola in the region of Lahore, Punjab. Simultaneously another beverage product i.e.

ShandyCola (Lahore) is also trying their best to come into the local market but still need a lot of

effort and work to do to upgrade their market position(Gourmet, 2003-2014).

2.2.4.2 Gourmet Cola Marketing Plan:

Gourmet has launched their range of beverages in local market of Pakistan especially in Lahore

where their distribution services are at high level which further enhanced the market capture and

taken edge over Pepsi and Coca Cola. They launched in various range of sizes as Pepsi and Coca

Cola did i.e. from 300ml up to 2.25 liter in the affordable prices. The prime target market

segment is to keep remain focus on the consumer’s high demand of the beverages belonging to

all level of income groups (Gourmet, 2003-2014).

39

In Pakistan, it is difficult to break the market of the competitors like Pepsi and Coca Cola (the

giants of beverage industry). For this challenges Gourmet is putting up their best with an

effective and professional marketing plans. Further to implement their strategies effectively they

do need to make researches time to time so they could be able to meet the expectations of the

consumer demand (Gourmet, 2003-2014).

2.2.4.3 Current Marketing Situation

Over the period of time the market of beverages in Pakistan has been enjoying a dynamic growth

both in terms of volume and current value. Massive and large shares of sales are been done both

in on-trade and off-trade in the market of Pakistan. The consumption of beverages has been

turning into the part of Pakistani culture and for which many international brands like Pepsi and

Coca Cola are providing and maintaining their standards to provide high quality of carbonated

drinks over the years. It has been estimated that around 120 million sales are been recorded of

the beverages across the Pakistan annually (Gourmet, 2003-2014).

Keeping in mind regarding the high competition of beverages brand in Pakistan, Gourmet has

made a great influence by making it available in almost all the stores of Lahore and Punjab

region so that would attract the consumer and would result in boosting up their sales. Although

both Pepsi and Coca Cola shares 90% of the market among themselves but still Gourmet

sustained their market of Lahore and taken and edge over them(Gourmet, 2003-2014).

Currently Gourmet is now approaching and targeting the market out of the Punjab region. The

distribution and the pilot testing are been initiated in the region of Sindh were they are getting

positive response from the consumer of Pepsi and Coca Cola which is also the positive sign for

the company and evaluate the quality of the beverage as up to the best as a local brand. More or

40

less it is being foreseen that they will capture the market of Sindh region as well as they did in

Punjab region (Gourmet, 2003-2014).

2.3 Brand personality

Brand personality states to the human appearances related with a specific brand (Govers P. C.

M., 2009)(Aaker & J.L, The Impacts of Brand Personality and Congruity on Purchase Intention:,

2009).Changing the importance somewhat, (Govers & Schoormans, 2005) regard brand

personality from the viewpoint of an interpersonal relationship with the brand. They are certain

of that brand personality is “the set of human personality characters that link to the interpersonal

field of human personality and are pertinent to describing the brand as a connection partner.

In general, the part of brand personality in marketing is typically viewed as an important

advertising tool tempting to targeted audiences for development of general image (Gwinner &

Eaton, 1999). To demonstrate this notion, Pepsi, for instance, may be portrayed with a

fashionable, bouncing, and modern young man; whereas Coca-Cola could be embodied with a

gentle and obedient man. This may be partly due to advertisers’ strategies to personify brands, so

that when consumers think about a particular brand, human personality traits would come to

mind, thus providing a basis for brand differentiation.

Furthermore,(Keller K. L., Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand

Equity, 1993)points out that brand personality possesses symbolic values rather than utilitarian

functions. By infusing brands with human personalities and through purchasing and/or using the

brands, consumers can achieve higher self-esteem (Belk, Kenneth, & Mayer, 1982).(McCraken,

1986), sources that contribute to the formation of brand personality can be classified into two

categories: direct and indirect sources .The direct sources include the set of human characteristics

41

associated with a typical brand user, company employees, the CEO of the company, and brand

endorsers. The indirect sources consist of all the decisions made by company managers, such as

decisions related to the product, its price, distribution, and promotion. Recent research findings

indicate that a strong and positive brand personality can result in favorable product evaluations

(Wang & Yang, 2008). Demonstrating this notion,(Freling & Forbes, 2005) find that, when

respondents are exposed to a brand’s positive personalities, they tend to have a greater

proportion of congruent brand associations, greater unique brand associations, and a greater

proportion of strong brand associations. (Fennis, Pruyn, & Maasland, 2005), observe that brand

personality dimensions could affect consumers’ self-perceptions with respect to agreeableness,

extroversion, conscientiousness, and intellect. (Aaker D. , Managing brand equity: Capitalizing

on the value of a brand name., 1991),also points out that a distinctively positive brand

personality could be highly indicative of more favorable brand equity than when only product

information is given.

In his works, (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997)defines brand personality as

being “a set of human characteristics associated to a brand”. The author postulates that it can

include certain characteristics such as age, socio-economic class, personality traits and feelings.

She developed a model of measurement of the personality of a brand by identifying 42 features

divided up among 15 facets and 5 factors of personality: sincerity, excitement, competence,

sophistication and ruggedness. However, Aaker’s founding definition has often been criticized.

(Viot & C, 2006), have postulates thatstartingfromthis definition the brand personality has

become a jumble concept. According to (J.N., A., & Kapferer, 2003), Aaker defines brand

personality, not uniquely as a facet of identity, but as a much more global construct. Both authors

conceptualize brand personality as “the set of traits of human personality which are pertinent and

42

applicable to brands”. (L., J-M., & D, 2003),also find this definition too global as it can comprise

some brand personality traits which have no equivalents at the human level; and also because it

can present some personality features which rather correspond to social judgments (provincial,

trendy, or aristocratic). Thus, the authors think that it is fairer to define brand personality as

being “the set of traits of human personality associated to a brand”.

Brand personality is a set of characteristics that describes a brand. Brand managers are interested

in promoting a brand personality that attracts consumers’ attention such that they may form a

preference for a brand. Consumer preferences are a pivotal concept in marketing, as they

underpin customer choice among alternatives. (Blackwell, Miniard, & Engel, 2001), defines

preferences as ‘attitudes toward one object in relation to another’. A preference may be

transformed into a motivation that ultimately finds expression in a specific behavior. Despite the

utility of this concept, it should, however, be noted that consumer preferences alone are not the

only factor implicated in a purchase decision. Factors such as price and in-store promotion can

moderate a purchase decision despite a consumer’s preference for a particular brand. The

premise of the research reported here is that if stability is a characteristic of personality, then

likewise the presentation of a consistent brand image with which consumers are comfortable will

promote brand preference, and may contribute to brand loyalty so long as instrumental needs are

met. This is essentially the argument stated by(Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality,

1997)who stated 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.(Aaker & Fournier, 1995), argued that a brand

can function as a character, partner and person. Thus, the premise of the research is to examine

the extent to which consumers use brand personality as a vehicle to express their personality.

43

Based on this premise, brand personality scales used in this study have been constructed that are

reflective of The Big Five Model. This is consistent with the research aim, which was to explore

the relationship between consumer personality and brand personality. An expectation of the

research was that each consumer personality dimension would be aligned with at least one brand

personality construct. The brand personality scale was constructed by identifying descriptors of

traits from The Big Five model that could be attributed to brand. It was found that some elements

such as ‘worried’ and ‘anxious’ could not be directly linked to brand. Thus, only those

descriptors that were transferable were entrenched in the scale (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand

Personality, 1997), conducted a study to measure the generalization of The Big Five model

across brand, and resolved five different dimensions, which are Sincerity, Excitement,

Competence, Sophistication and Ruggedness. Only three of the brand personality dimensions

(Sincerity, Excitement and Competence) were, however, found to associate directly with the

personality dimensions (Agreeableness, Extroversion and Conscientiousness).None of them

linked directly with Neuroticism and Openness to Experience. In the research reported here,

some elements of Aaker’s brand personality dimensions (Friendly, Cool, Reliable) were also

used in the construction of the gauges used to measure brand personality. It was expected that

respondents who were leading on a particular aspect of The Big Five would prefer a brand

personality that imitates that aspect or is close to it.

A number of studies have been undertaken on the subject of brand personality. The initial idea,

that a brand should be considered as a person or a human being, was given in the work of

(Gardner & Sidney Levy, 1955). Much later (Aaker & Fournier, 1995)in anexplanation of three

ideas tried to define brand personality from three perspectives which were, Conceptual,

methodological and substantive, and to develop a brand personality inventory based on

44

personality traits from psychology and marketing literature. They also conversed that the

theoretical and practical suggestions of the actuality of the big five factor structure and settled a

45 item pool which they called Brand Personality Inventory. This was followed by a study of

(Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997) in which she tried to develop a scale to

measure brand personality. (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997), came up with

five distinct brand personality dimensions which were Sincerity, Excitement,

Competence,Sophisticationand Ruggedness. (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality,

1997),alsoharangued that the five dimensions could be further divided into fifteen facets which

were: down to earth, honest, wholesome, cheerful, daring, spirited, imaginative, up-to-date,

reliable, intelligent, successful, upper-class, charming, outdoorsy and tough. (Aaker J. L.,

Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997), BP scale was later on used by a number of studies in

different backgrounds. (Supphellen, Magne, & Gfonhaug, 2003), did a study to test the

applicability of the BP scale in Russian context. The two major findings of their study were (a)

Brand personalities of western brands had a momentous impact on brand attitude, and (b) the

effect of western brand personalities was found to be by the consumer ethnocentrism. A study by

(T., Beverly, Rose, & Gilbert, 2003),which planned to measure brand personality of the non-

profit sector brands found out four extents out of the five by (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand

Personality, 1997)to be included in their study. Diamantopoulos et al. (2005) used (Aaker J. L.,

Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997)BP gauge and found out that brand personality of the

parent brand did not have any adverse effect on the delays. However, the (Aaker J. L.,

Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997) BP scale has been asked by some researchers. (Azoulay,

Audrey, & Kapferer, 2003),pointed to the flaws in the(Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand

Personality, 1997) BP scale and harangued that the measure does not actually measure the brand

45

personality concept but only masses some dimensions of brand identity. (Austin, Siguaw, &

Mattila, 2003), strained to find out the (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997) BP

and resolved that the framework does not simplify to individual brands in a generally defined

product category. Another important area where researchers have probed is that of gauging brand

personality of online brands personality (Okazaki, 2006). The association between self-concept

or consumer's own personality and BP has also been studied (Phau & Kong Lau, 2001) where the

researchers initiate out consumer's own personality has an impact on the apparent brand

personality. The other areas of brand personality, which have been deliberated by researches, are:

effect of brand personality on customer loyalty (Stephanie, Algesheimer, Huber, & Herrmann,

2003), cross cultural possessions on BP (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, & Garolera, Consumption

Symbols as Carriers of Culture: A Study of Japanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructs,

2001) and (Sung & Tinkham, Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea:

Common and Culture-Specific Factors, 2005), brand personality effects on consumer perceptions

towards store brands (Beldona & Wysong, 2007), being and effect of BP of purpose brand

(Triplett, 1994) and change in acuity of BP traits with time and data(Johar, Sengupta, & Aaker,

2005).

Consumers have recognized the importance of brand personality a very long time ago. Brand

personality is the set of human characteristics associated with the brand (J.N., A., & Kapferer,

2003). B. Reiger as mentioned in (Luckerath, 2010) wrote that a brand is the product of

personality and the factor of brand personality supports the brand identity. Those brands that do

not have a personality associated with them are known to be dead. Researchers and marketers are

interested in this phenomenon more than they were before. The understanding of the brand

enables a company to have a better understanding of the relationship of consumers with the

46

brand in order to build long term customer relationship and therewith also the brand equity. A

brand personality is difficult if not possible to copy by the competitors and can thus give

companies more competitive advantage over the other (Luckerath, 2010). It is argued that the

symbolic use of brands is possible because consumers always compare the brand with their

personality traits. Personality traits those associated with a brand and those associated with an

individual are relatively enduring and distinct (Luckerath, 2010). Brand personality is the process

of consumer’s self-expression and helps the consumer express different aspects of his or herself.

Aaker developed a systematic study of brand personality and told the importance of brand

personality dimensions which are Sincerity, Excitement, competence, sophistication and

ruggedness. From the above five dimensions, people who have sincere and excitement

personality captures the attention of the brands. Exciting and sincere personalities are the one

which are focused most because they are important in interpersonal relationships.

(Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997), said that nurturance, warmth, family

orientation and traditionalism are the characteristics of sincere brand personalities.

Brand personality is an asset for positioning the brands in the market. It helps in formulating

advertising policies and selling. There are various measures that can be used to conduct brand

personality. The famous method is the brand personality scale developed (Aaker J. L.,

Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997).

The scale considers 42 traits which are then eliminated into 5 dimensions: Sincerity, Excitement,

Competence, Sophistication and Ruggedness.

In 1955, the term brand personality was introduced in a lecture of American Associate of

advertising Agencies by David Ogilvy. The concept that emerges with this term was that with the

47

passage of time the things had been changed in term of technology, there has been much better

way and approaches to produce the product with respect to quality and quantity. This leads to

create the differentiation among the different producers and their products. On the other hand,

the customers of the product also want to make themselves differentiate by the consumption of

the respective product and identify themselves different from others. Hence, the term brand

personality was used to make identification of the product and moreover, satisfy the personal

necessities and the emotional of the customer (Anon, 2014).

Since its being 50 years the first concept of the brand personality came, from that time onwards

many version and its definition had being emerge where many authors has given many

definitions.

(Fournier, 1997), defines the term as character of the personality that is used to distinguish a

person and brand association. It helps us in building up the understanding and the development

and maintains relationship between the consumers and the brands.

Brand personality consists of a set of human attributes associated with a specific brand (Aaker J.

L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997). Or it is the set of traits people attribute to a product

as if it were a person (Solomon M. R., Consumer Behaviour, 2012).

48

2.3.1 Dimension of Brand Personality:

Dimensions of brand personality are derived and defined from the dimension of human

personality. (RajaGopa, 2006). Based on human personality traits of big 5 model, personality

traits related to brands were identified by (Aaker J. L., 1997). Aaker described forty two traits

and five personality dimension model which are as follows:

The human personality trait conscientiousness and competence of the brand personality

dimension are related to each other which show excellent skills, precaution and gives a lot of

attention to detail and surrounding. Extraversion and excitement are notions of enthusiasm. The

comparison of agreeableness and sincerity shows us that they are related to kindness, faithfulness

and mildness. Sophistication and ruggedness is not linked to any of the human personality traits.

The reason why it is not linked to any of the dimensions brand personality model is because of

the way the consumers operate and influence other consumers (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand

Personality, 1997). The measurement taken by Aaker does not even exist in the personality

measurement tool.(Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997), proposed measurement

(Aaker & J.L, Dimensions of

Brand Personality, 1997)

Brand Personality Scale

Sincerity Sophistication Competence Excitement Ruggedness

Figure 1: Dimensions of Brand Personality

49

tools are not equal in terms of the personality traits which match to the class of the upper and up

to date(Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, Vallete, & Florence, How Well does Brand Personality

Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale and Analysis using Binary Regression Models,

2005). The only thing that is applicable is the concept of brand image and brand personality

should be applicable across the product. The instrument used to measure brand image is specific

to a particular category and also brand specific whereas to measure brand personality can be

applied across different cultures and brands around the world. It also transfers the meaning from

human personality of consumers to the brands that are purchased or influenced to purchase,

prefer or reject.

Basically there are five dimension scale of brand personality presented by Aaker and these are:

1. Excitement: These are the most exciting brand that is energetic, creative, bold and

progressive.

2. Sincerity: Sincere brands are considered by the consumer as being practical, realistic,

wholesome, truthful, down to earth and cheerful.

3. Ruggedness: These are the brand that are seen outdoorsy and though.

4. Competence: These brands are associated with dependability, cleverness, and success.

5. Sophistication: These are the brands that are fit for the upper classes and viewed as

delightful.

With these dimension Aaker’s objective was to make clear about the concept and to build the

scale that can easily measure the brand personality (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand

Personality, 1997).

These brands are tailored made and fit for the upper class and viewed as delightful.

50

(Aaker J. L., 1997), objective was to clear the concept and to build the scale that can easily

measure the brand personality.

In 1992, Goldberg also in contrast sketched the dimension scale named as ‘Marker” of the Big

Five model which is also abbreviated as OCEAN. These dimension scale was used to measure

the brand personality as Aaker did. It was the shorter bipolar inventory for the Big Five that

consist of on 35 bipolar scales. Despite it was not strength full as compared with the 100 unipolar

markers of the Big Five Model (Saucier, 1994). In all, Goldberg has tried to shorten the length of

Big Five model into five dimension scale and these are as follows:

1. Openness: Creative, imaginative, intellectual, philosophical, deep, complex, uncreative,

un-intellectual.

2. Conscientiousness: Efficient, organized, systematic, practical, disorganized, inefficient,

sloppy, careless.

3. Extraversion: Bold, extraverted, talkative, bashful, quiet, shy, withdrawn, and energetic.

4. Agreeableness: Kind, sympathetic, warm, cooperative, cold, unsympathetic, harsh, rude.

Figure 2: (Aaker & J.L, Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997)

51

5. Neuroticism: Unenvious, relaxed, fretful, envious, jealous, moody, touchy, and

temperamental.

The mechanism of these markers of the Big Five model are based on the dimension that having a

high loading and low loading i.e. (close to the zero loading). The objective to develop was to

diminish the entire length of the questionnaire and also to avoid and reduce the exhaustion of the

respondent (Saucier, 1994).

By the time of 30s, (Guildford, 1959)started to develop questionnaires to explore the

characteristic traits which are under human behavior. Therefore, he explained personality as,

"unique pattern of traits"(Guildford, 1959). Guilford defined seven dimensions or characteristic

traits of personality which he further explains in four groups:

Semantic Characteristics: morphologic and physiologic traits

Aptitudes: Capabilities and Qualifications

Temperament

Motivational Characteristics: interests, needs and attitudes

Comparing Guilford's seven dimensions of personality, Cattle (1979) introduced the 16

personality factor inventory, which gives a complete and authentic description of the human

personality and which can be universally reproduce.

Cattle (1979) construct his research on the work of Allport and Odbert(Allport & Odbert, 1936)

who perform a psycho lexical study (John, 1988) in which they consider all personality related

expressions in the Webster's New International Dictionary.

52

The results of 17,953 expressions are divided into four categories:

Personal Traits

Passing Activities and States

Social Evaluations and Metaphorical

Doubtful Terms

Cattle used the 4,500 personality traits, 100 activities and states expressions and conclude them

down to finally sixteen dimensions (Pervin, 2005).

Cattel and Guilford both started by collecting personality facts from where they concluded the

separate personality dimensions. Comparing to that Eysenck used an inferential theoretical

approach which means, he compose the theoretical concept which he later examined (Fisseni,

1998).From the results of the studies, Eysenck primarily induced a two-factor-solution and

narrate human personality with only two dimensions ('Extraversion' and 'Neuroticism').

These two became the 'Big2' of human personality. Furthermost, Eysenck expanded this

personality framework and endorse an additional third dimension which is known as

'Psychoticism' (Eysenck, 1970).

From the study and research work of three different people, it has been concluded that no

authentic solution was determined to explain the construct of human personality. Three persons

concluded three different dimensions; Guildford constructed seven-factor-solution, Cattle

derived sixteen personality dimensions and Eysenck again formed only three dimensions.

The three obtained results are not completely different from each other, they have some

similarities like; Eysenck's personality’s dimensions are similar with Cattel's 16 Personality

53

Factor Inventory, they also unable to provide satisfactory description of the personality construct

(Luckerath, 2010).

Other than the developing regard in the brand personality concept, its calculation has been not

enough for many years. Till the mid-1990s, researchers had used "ad holic scales" or "personality

scales" gathered from human personality psychology to verify a brand's personality and to

measure its causes on customer purchase behavior. Both alternatives are insufficient with a view

to their representativeness.

"Ad hoc scales" are personal and as a result may add brand personality traits which are not

applicable or in turn minus other important characteristics. Human personality psychology has

the drawback that they are not directly applicable for brands. (Aaker J. , Dimensions of Brand

Personality, 1997).

(Wells, Andriuli, Goi, & Seaders, 1957), tried to describe brand personalities with assist of

adjective lists. The list was depended upon 'The Teacher's Word Book of 30,000 Words' from

Thorndike where they review all adjectives which were concentrated at least 50 times among the

millions people asked.

The followed adjective list was then minimize by all terms instead related to the explanation of

things than of customer, debatable expressions or terms not relevant to the purchasing process

(such as 'dead') and eventually accommodate 108 adjectives.

(Alt & Griggs, 1988), pursue a different approach and categorized brands in successful and less

successful brands.

Afterwards, they had detailed interviews where they asked experts to allocate attributes

individually to two brand clusters. The expert’s interviews cause three brand personality

54

dimensions which the researchers called 'Extraversion', 'Social Acceptability' and 'Virtue'. Fourth

factor 'Potency', demonstrate to be unstable.

Therefore, alike to the work of Wells et al., (Alt & Griggs, 1988) scale was not prove and could

more to be specific due to the small number of product categories used (Aaker J. , 1997).

(Batra & al, 1993), also tried to grow a suitable tool for the calculation of brand personality.

Their approach was dependent on a list with personality feature declaration assemble by

(Anderson N. , 1968), which they select the 200 declarations most suitable for the explanation of

the brands.

Accompany by the three adjectives; old, young and technical (Batra & al, 1993)asked a group of

graduates marketing students to cut down the list to 30 words. At last, fifteen test persons were

questioned to assess nine brands on the basis of the last create personality feature list.

(Batra, Lehmann, & Singh, 1993), get a seven-factor-solution where every individual of the

seven dimensions was more specified by two bipolar adjective pairs. Similar to the last brand

personality frameworks, Batra et al.'s research cannot be consumed as a representative calculated

tool because of the small sample and restricted number of brands included in the test design

(Luckerath, 2010).

At the end, (Strausbaugh, 1998) consumed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) for the

explanation of brand personality dimensions. The MBTI is an indicator consumed for the

typologisation of personalities and is an improvement of Jung's personality matrix. From the

MBTI, 16 personality types lives which results from contrasting along dichotomous pairs of

personality features.

55

Therefore, many consumers are unable to differentiate with the personality type that resulted

from the test which answered the model's validity. While the model is still famous in the USA, it

can't acquire any welcome among scientists in Europe (Luckerath, 2010),.

2.3.2 Concept of Brand Personality:

The concept of brand personality is derived from human personality. In this concept brands are

linked to human personality traits. (Fournier & Yao, 1997), has proposed that brands might be

differentiated on three aspects that are physical attributes (red color), functional characteristics or

benefits associated with the brand (remove stains without damaging clothes) and personality

traits (youthful) associated with the brand(Ambroise L. , et al., 2005). Concept of brand

personality in the field of marketing was first applied to advertising so that consumers can easily

associate brands with favorable personality traits that result in favorable brand image (Ambroise

L. , et al., 2005). Brand personality in marketing is generally used to build an overall image of

the brand by using it as a tactic appealing large groups of targeted audience. For instance Coca-

Cola can be perceived family oriented while Pepsi as youthful. This might be true due to the

marketer’s or advertiser’s strategy to personify the brand so that when consumer thinks about a

particular brand they associate human personality trait with the brand that results in brand

differentiation (Bouhlel O. , Mzoughi, Hadiji, & Slimane, 2009).

2.3.3 The Creation of Brand Personality

All contact of consumer with the brand whether direct or indirect results in perception of brand

personality traits in the mind of consumer (Lombart, Louis, & Cindy, Impact of brand

personality on three major relational consequences (trust, commitment and attachment) to the

brand, 2010). Direct contact can be the result of user imagery with the brand that is the human

56

personality traits associated by common users of the brand. The perception of brand personality

in a direct way is established by human personality traits associated with the brand, perception of

the producer of the brand and of the person who indorses the brand. Indirectly consumer’s

perception of brand personality is established through product category association of brand,

price and brand symbols (name, logo etc.).

2.3.4 Importance of Brand Personality

Brand personality is considerably important to persuade the consumers towards the brand

Brand personality is an excellent way of distinguishing brand from the competitors

thereby increasing the effectiveness of marketing communication because they are based

on different brand personalities (Tudorica H. O., 2001). Intense competition between

brands makes it very difficult for marketers and brand managers to differentiate brand

solely on the basis of functional attribute. Incorporating brand personality in marketing

communication campaigns helps distinguishing brand form its competitors on symbolic

level. Also it helps to evaluate that whether marketing communication efforts to position

the brand are successful or not. Although there are various ways through which

consumers learn about the brand such as product-usage experience, social communication

and the marketing environment but understanding and knowledge about brand construct

in terms of brand personality and image will help achieving successful differentiation

(Sung, Kim, & Jung, 2010).

Consumer use the brand because they want to create, reinforce and communicate their

self-concepts so consumer select and purchase the brand they like as they find the brand

consistent with their self-image and personalities. So brand personality construct can help

Marketers to better understand consumers who want to express themselves through the

57

commercial brand they use or purchase. That is why brand personality is considered to

the focal point in the establishment of positive attitude and preference towards the brand

(Sung, Kim, & Jung, 2010).

Implementing concept of brand personality guarantees a strong consumer and brand

relationship (Sung, Kim, & Jung, 2010). Perceiving favorable brand personality is

positively perceived by the consumer and they view brand as relationship partner in

consumer brand relationship (Tudorica H. O., 2001).

Perceiving brand personality consumer can interpret brand image that is personally more

meaningful. Consumer takes more active part in processing perceives brand personality

so they are more involve in the brand (Tudorica H. O., 2001).

The examination of brand personalities across dissimilar places can deliver awareness regarding

the cultural differences in consumer psychology and behavior which leads to directing the

expansion of more persuasive (either standardized or adapted) advertising and branding

strategies. So that for practitioners any person, who handle global account assertions, the grasp

of brand personality across cultures will assist them to write very productive global marketing

communication strategies (Sung, Kim, & Jung, 2010).

The concept of Brand personality is found to have an impact on the consumer-brand relationship

(Lombart, Louis, & Cindy, Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences

(trust, commitment and attachment) to the brand, 2010), (Ambroise L. , et al., 2005). Brand

personality well defines the consumer behavior pertaining to different brands. The concept of

brand personality is about how consumer’s perceived the personality traits of a brand and based

on that what their possible attitude is? Consumers develop liking towards the brand because they

have associated the brand with their favorable brand personality traits so that they are more

58

inclined towards it usage and ultimately adopting it to their regular usage pattern and becoming

heavy user or highly loyal towards the brand.

2.3.5 Consequences of Brand Personality

The various consequences of the brand personality can be;

Perceived brand quality

Attitude towards the brand

Intentions of future behavior

Attachment with the brand

Commitment towards the brand

Trust in the brand

Involvement in the brand

Loyalty towards the brand

Some of the past findings exhibiting the consequences of brand personality are discussed as

follow.

Consumers have thousands of choices available for brands. The most important reason behind

this is that brand personality successfully distinguishes one brand from other. Consumer choose

brand that they find more suitable for the purpose behind their purchase. The usage or experience

of the brand makes consumers habitual of them as they establish a strong liking for them. The

favorable attitude of consumer over a long period of time is truly because by purchasing the

brand they are ensure of quality and reliability of their performance (Rajagopal, 2008). Perceived

quality of a brand is strongly determined by the traits of brand personality. The research

conducted in India on Business Management students taken Nokia as brand to be studied found

59

that the most effective trait resulting in consumer’s high perception of the Nokia brand is

competence followed by ruggedness (Trott, 2011). A study in Korea suggests that different

dimensions of brand personality influence brand trust differently, for some brand personality

traits perceived by the consumer the trust is higher like sophistication trait perceived by Korean

consumers’ results in strong trust in the brand (Sung, Kim, & Jung, 2010). Research conducted

by (Gouteron & Szpiro, 2005)suggested that all significant personality traits have influence

attachment with a brand (Lombart, Louis, & Cindy, Impact of brand personality on three major

relational consequences (trust, commitment and attachment) to the brand, 2010). Using an

experiment, (Forbes, 2005) showed that consumers exposed to a product (bottle of water) with a

vignette presenting information about the brand personality of that product have a more

favorable attitude towards that brand than consumers exposed to the same product, without brand

personality information. Brand Personality positively affects not only consumer brand preference

but also purchase intention. The outcome remains true for both high and low involvement

products. But the effect of brand personality is higher for high involvement products than low

involvement products (Punyatoya, 2011). Commitment and attachment with brand depends upon

the involvement in the product. High involvement results in high attachment and commitment

whereas the low involvement has the opposite consequences. Brand personality builds

involvement in the brand which further results in high attachment and strong commitment. This

was proposed by (Ambroise L. , et al., 2005) when they conducted research on brand personality

effects on Nike, Adidas, Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Strong and favorable brand personality leads to

complimentary product evaluations and brand associations so a distinct positive personality of

brand enhances brand equity (Forbes, 2005). Brand personality affects the consumer buying

intention and loyalty even through relatively new modes of advertising and mobile marketing. It

60

was observed that brand personality affects the level of trust, commitment and attachment with

the brand whose advertising message is being sent through SMS. Attachment and commitment

for the brand enhances when the consumer perceive that the brand is sincere (Bouhlel O. ,

Mzoughi, Hadiji, & Slimane, 2009). Brand personality enhances attachment to the brand. A

study conducted in France showed that the developed brand personality barometer results on an

average 32.4 percent attachment to the brand (Ambroise L. , et al., 2005). A research conducted

in China’s largest metropolitan city Beijing on Brand personality of Nokia and Sony found that

brand personality has a strong influence over the brand preference, brand attitude, brand loyalty,

and buying intent of consumer. The results also suggest that the sense of brand for Chinese

consumers is very strong (Mengxia & Zhang, 2007). Consumer brand relationship is determined

by perceived brand personality and consumer’s own personality. The quality of the brand is also

important in this aspect. Consumer- brand relation is dynamic, the relation merely not rests upon

actual physical attribute of the brand but the physiological elements are also very important in

this regard (Nobre, Becker, & Brito, Brand Relationships: A Personality-Based Approach, 2010).

Affective loyalty and action loyalty both are influenced by brand personality and human

personality traits. Research conducted in Taiwan on individuals buying video games and toys

found that competence and sophistication traits of brand personality results in high affective

loyalty whereas agreeableness and openness traits of human personality leads towards action

oriented loyalty (Lin L.-Y. , 2010).

2.3.6 Effect of Brand Personality on Consumer Brand Preferences:

The brand personality stated that there is a link between the characteristics of the human with the

specific brand which increases the commitment level of the consumer as well as it leads to

enhancing brand loyalty. Brand personality always had an impact on the consumer brand

61

preference and purchases. The intention is either high or on the low side, it mainly depends upon

the consumer in which he or she is. That intention is also affected by the brand personality

(Plavini, 2011). The concept and the term brand has been developed many years ago which was

different from the product or the service. The brand is attached to basic things such as symbols,

logo, brand association, brand name and awareness which differentiate the brand from the

competitors (Plavini, 2011). The more impact the brand personality has on the consumer the

more willing the consumer is to purchase that particular brand (Plavini, 2011).

As the brand personality broadly states that there is an association of characteristic of the human

with a certain brand that enhances the commitment level of the consumer as well which further

leads brand loyalty. In all, the brand personality has always the impact on the consumer brand

preferences and their purchase intention. The purchase and intention of the certain brand i.e.

either low or high is also being affected by the by the brand personality (Plavini, 2011).

The term and concept of brand has been developed a years ago that is different from the product

or services. The brand itself has been attached to the various elements i.e. symbols, logo, brand

association, brand name, brand awareness etc. which further leads to make the differentiation

among the competitor’s brand(Plavini, 2011).

The more the impact of the brand personality has on the consumer of the brand the more he or

she (consumer) will spend on that particular product (Plavini, 2011).

2.3.7 Brand Personality Affects Leads to High and Low Involvement

Products:

Brand personality has defiantly an edge in making the high and low involvement of the products

on the consumer end. In case of the high involvement products, when the consumer spend the

62

ample of time in purchasing and seek out the most information regarding the particular product

and finally conclude to make the decision in buying. Whereas, in case of the low involvement

products, it is when consumer frequently purchase and keep on purchasing the same product,

where that product needs minimum level of consideration and effort in purchasing. Low

involvement brand has no greater impact on the lifestyle of the consumer. Due to the familiarity

with the product the consumer least bother in seeking out the insight information regarding the

product and it is also been due to the repeatedly purchasing (Plavini, 2011).

Any brand that is placed and sold at the super market or at a local market itself communicate

something to the consumer of the particular product, but on the other hand consumer across the

world interprets the brand in many ways and filters it through their observations, knowledge,

misunderstandings and systems of value of the personalities and many more (Plavini, 2011).

Brand personality plays a vital role when making high and low involvement of the products that

consumers are willing to purchase. In the case of high involvement, the consumer spend a lot of

time to find out more information of that particular product in which the consumer comes to the

decision to purchase the product. In the case of low involvement, the consumer keeps on

purchasing the product without any consideration and low involvement of the information which

the product is offering. These low involvement brands has no big impact on the life style of the

consumers. Consumers do not have any intention or interest to the product information and keeps

spending the money on the product (Plavini, 2011).

A brand that is placed and sold at the super market or any retail outlet communicates something

to the consumer of the particular product, but on the other side consumers around the world tries

to filter the brand and picks out the best brand that is bonded with their knowledge, observation

63

and system of value (Plavini, 2011).The involvement of brands depends upon the image and

characteristics of the brand in the mind of the consumer. Most of the time consumer purchase

those brands which they are familiar with and ignores those brands which have not been tested or

does not grab the attention the consumer. The other reason is the consumer does not seek or tend

to investigate the brands or even comparing them with other brands in the outcome.

In a nut shell the involvement of the brand either it is low or high depends on the image and

characteristics of the particular brand in the consumer perception. Because the consumer opts to

purchase those brand blindly without any further investigation to which he or she (consumer) is

familiar but fail to those to which he or she is not familiar and make an in-depth investigation

and came across all the relevant information before buying it.

2.3.8 Brand Personality’s Influence on the Purchase Intention:

Many things seems despite to be achieved and to sustain them easily with the passage of time but

the relationship between the consumer of the particular brand and the brand personality is a just

like the relationship of with each other in the social context and frame work. According to the

(H. & P., 2005), it is only the Brand Personality that could create the bigger market of the

consumers and guide them towards the consumption and create a competitive advantage over the

competitor’s product. Brand personality that is well established in market influences bigger

preferences of the consumer and its investment (Malhotra N. , 1988), (Sirgy J. , 1982). And

moreover creates a stronger emotional connections and bonds (Biel A. , 1993), trust and brand

affection (Fournier, 1997).

Today in the highly globalized world the brand personality and its image in the global market is

being done so rapidly through the advancement in the communication and information

64

technologies by offering it through the marketing channels in the market. By this means the

general perception and its characteristic of the brand is transmitted easily in to the consumer

mind which further creates the intention of the buyer to purchase it. With the help of the

technology the communication and awareness of the brand can be created any time at any place

which again leads to create an intention of the consumer towards the particular brand (Bouhlel O.

, Mzoughi, Hadiji, & Slimane, 2011).

In all it would be summarized from the last paragraph that with the means of the advancement of

the technology the impact of the brand personality always have drawn the intention of the

consumer with respect to the purchase of the particular brand.

Moreover, the consumer brand relationship also helps in maintaining the self- identity of an

individual and tends to build up the strong interlink and commitment between the brand and the

consumer and that has the various dimensions in making up this relationship i.e. through

(Bouhlel O. , Mzoughi, Hadiji, & Slimane, 2011).

2.3.9 Micro vs. Macro Approaches to Brand Personality

The terms micro and macro were first introduced in two specific approaches of social

psychology and social values study (Reynolds T. , 1998).He introduced the term micro by taking

into account “the specific area of investigation calls for a specific study and that the use of overly

generalized scale for different industry is inappropriate”.

On the other hand, macro approach, proposed by (Schwartz, 1992)is taken as to measure social

values exhaustive through multiple scales of values (Valette-Florence & Barnier, 2012). They

argued that “this epistemological question also arises in relation to the concept of brand

personality. For consumption practices are imprinted with characteristics that are both cultural

65

practice and link to product categories, thus raising doubts as the universal nature of brand

personality”. A recent comprehensive literature review of (Valette-Florence & Barnier, 2012)

exposed that the most of the studies were undertaken in recent years in different areas. In it,

researchers claimed that field of brand personality has expanded rapidly after the seminal work

of (Aaker J. L., 1997). In multiple sectors like product, company, communication medium brand,

retail channel and services industry. Consequently, retail chains, services and media develop

their own brands (Kapferer, 2007)just because of identifying the importance of brand personality

(Venable, Rose, Bush, & Gilbert, 2005).

The better measurement of brand personality is actually dependent upon the area of study or

industry because there is hardly comparability between the available scales of brand personality.

In general, global approaches are viewable as a macro form of brand personality, for which

different brand domains are grouped together, such as tangible goods, services, and media and

telecom operators in his scale (Aaker J. L., 1997). At macro level, this approach involves into

inter-category dimensions of product and cross-cultural studies of it. Whereas, at micro level the

studies related to brand personality was conduct at specific areas.

(Aaker J. L., 1997), proposes a theoretical model of the brand personality concept through the

determination of the number and the nature of its dimensions. She defines brand personality as

“the set of human characteristics associated with a brand”. This definition basically explained

the concept but researchers criticized this because of its “catch-all character” and overly

vagueness, (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003).Apart from the issues associated with the formulation of

clear definition, (Ambroise & Valette-Florence, 2010) argued that “it seems necessary to

question the validity of the ontological concept of brand personality”. Therefore, it’s important to

66

highlight the criticism, shortcomings and limitations leveled against the brand personality

concept advanced by (Aaker J. L., 1997).

Researchers’ interest in developing a brand personality stretched quickly after the influential

work of Aaker framework. But to date, heavy criticism was revealed against Aaker’s multi-

dimensional model to measure the brand personality construct. This actually promotes

researchers to review the literature and examines the effectiveness and the limitations of

Influential framework of brand personality, in order to help and inform for future research on this

particular area. Furthermore, Comprehensiveness of the Aaker’s framework is so generalize on

multiple product categories. Limitations include, Aaker’s scale is considered as unfinished

measure of brand personality as it basically transposed human personality traits rather than using

brands Personality themselves.

Additionally, Aaker’s five-dimensional structure is American culture specific and did not always

receive empirical support across different cultural settings in the world.

(Aaker J. L., 1997), mainly identifies five brand personality factors: sincerity, excitement,

competence, sophistication and ruggedness. If Aaker’s scale is an important first step for brand

personality, than some studies raises different questions on its structural and semantic validity. It

includes some variable having no comparison in terms of human personality like (sophistication

and ruggedness) and items (provincial or aristocratic) that seem in fact to be social judgments.

Finally, the proposed scale does not seem to be stable inter-culturally (Ferrandi, Fine-Falcy, &

Valette-Florence, 2000). Tests conducted in different countries generally lead to a five

dimensional solution as in the original scale, but some dimensions as peace in Japan, passion in

Spain or hospitality in France are country-specific. Of course, translation of a list of 42 initial

67

items, some of them being obviously strongly culturally rooted (such as westerner) poses a real

problem for international applications.

This may be considered one of the comprehensive frameworks of brand personality which can be

generalized over multiple product categories. The research conducted on brand personality is

considered as very young as compared to human personality studies. Some researchers like

(Sweeney & Brandon, 2006) also criticized the framework of Aaker because it only consisted of

positive attributes of the brand whereas some brands are not so wholesome. Negative factors

were excluded in the development of brand personality scale (Bosnjak, Bochmann, &

Hufschmidt, 2007).

There are several critical limitations of (Aaker J. L., 1997)frame work of brand personality

construct, which is associated with his scale. (Wee, 2004), argued that most studies conducted on

brand personality are majorly based on overlapping of theories and used “crude measurement

tools” that were originally developed for the measurement of human personality and were used

in Brand personality. This statement also supported by the study of (Caprara, Barbaranelli, &

Guido, 2001). In an Italian context, this basically showed that human personality scale cannot

switch to brands Personality directly. To overcome this issue numerous authors like (Özsomer A,

2007), developed new scales of brand personality from his studies which are based on brands

them instead of transposing human personality traits.

The second limitation is associated with the semantic problems and measurement items

presented (Aaker J. L., 1997).The study of (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003) claimed that the items of

“Competence” dimensions should be excluded because it is associated with cognitive abilities

and intelligence of the individuals.

68

The third limitation in (Aaker J. L., 1997) model is that it basically associated with the

dimensions of American culture only (Helgeson & Supphellen, 2004) and (Sung & Tinkham,

2005). Furthermore, (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, & V, 2001)revealed the dimensions of brand

personality in different cultures such as Japan and Spain in comparison with USA. In addition,

Aaker’s original multi-dimensional structure did not always gains an empirical substantiation

from different regions. For example, (Park & John, 2010)developed 4-dimensional scale in

Korean context and (A & L, 2007) established a 6-dimensional scale in Canada.

2.3.10 Brand Personality Scale

The first ever scale was developed by (Aaker J. L., 1997). Different brand personality scales has

been developed to study the brand personality of various brand. Scales are developed in different

cultural context to find the relevant personality traits associated with brand in that particular

culture. Also brand personality scales are developed for different product categories and brands.

Following is the table that shows various studies of brand personality dimension (Patel,

MEASURING BRAND PERSONALITY: AN EMPERICAL STUDY, 2009)(Ambroise,

Ferrandi, Merunka, Vallete, & Florence, 2005).

69

Table 1: Overview of Different Brand Personality Researches

70

This is the previous model of Laure Ambroise Research and many researchers used this scale for

the study of brand Personality.

Brand Personality Scale (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, Vallete, & Florence, How Well does

Brand Personality Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale and Analysis using Binary

Regression Models, 2005)

Creative Charming Ascendant Misleading Original

Elegant Conscientious Introvert Friendly

Figure 3: Brand Personality Scale

71

In (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, & Florence, 2004) and few other researchers (Ambroise, Ferrandi,

Merunka, & Vallette-Florence, 2005), combine with him studied the brand personality and proposed

the brand personality scale to measure the personality of the brand. Their scale has been used before

to measure the personality of a brand (Laure Ambroise, 2005).

This brand personality scale basically has nine traits of personality: Friendly, Creative, Charming,

Ascendant, Misleading, Original, Elegant, Conscientious, and Introvert. Furthermore, all these

personality traits are sub-divided in more items. For example: The group of Warm, Pleasant, and

Brand Personality Traits Items

Friendly Warm, Pleasant, nice

Creative Inventive, Imaginative

Charming Attractive, Seductive

Ascendant Manipulative, Arrogant, Showy

Misleading Hypocrite, Lying, Deceptive

Original Trendy, Modern

Elegant Sophisticated, stylish

Conscientious Strict, Serious

Introvert Reserved, Shy

Table 2: Brand Personality Scale Proposed by:(Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, & Florence,

2004)

72

Nice fall in the friendly trait and the group of Manipulative, Arrogant, and Showy fall in the

category of Ascendant trait.

2.3.11 Structure of the Brand Personality Measurement Scale

Mature Secure Outgoing Mischievous Rigorous

Reliable Natural Sweet

Cheerful

Glamorous Elegant Exciting



73

Based on previous model of Laure Ambroise, she examines other most important variables like

Exciting, Mature, and Outgoing etc. who have strong relationship with developing brand

personality and used them in his research for further elaboration. This test cover two well

differentiated product categories and to include brands competing on these markets in order to be

able to contrast brand personalities. Furthermore this model is being tested in 3 different

countries in order to better understand the effectiveness of this model.

From a managerial perspective, the differentiating power of the personality scale is mostly

encouraging. Based on this proposed model, the scale actually measures a concept which differs

Table 3: Brand Personality Scale


Glamorous Charming, Sophisticated, Voluptuous

Elegant Elegant, Stylish, Good Looking

Exciting Funny, Imaginative, Original

Reliable Comforting, Robust, Secure

Natural Environmentally-friendly, Natural

Sweet Likeable, Affectionate, Friendly

Cheerful Trendy, Joyful, Spirited

Mature Adult, Discrete, Thoughtful

Secure Reliable, Successful

Outgoing Lively, Popular, Sporty

Mischievous Youthful, Comical

Rigorous Determined, Efficient, Intelligent

74

strongly from brand image (which is category-specific and often country-specific) and which

should allow brand managers to position and differentiate their brand from that of competitors.

From a theoretical perspective, this brand personality model and structure appears reliable and

valid and effective. It also seems to be stable across cultures sharing the same language (although

data available has not allowed conducting a formal test thereof through a multi-group analysis).

Further analysis is needed to help in three main directions.

Firstly, it seems important to test congruence between brand personality and Human personality

facets if we wish to better understand how consumers use brands to express self-concept or ideal

self. Secondly, if we believe that brand personality has an effect on consumer emotions, brand

preference, brand usage and brand loyalty; predictive validity has to be formally tested. If

differentiation through brand personality is an important result, consequences on consumer

behavior or consumer brand/relationships also need to be assessed.

Finally, the proposed scale should be compared to other existing scales both for cross-cultural

stability and for predictive validity.

2.3.12 Brand Commitment:

There are many ways that the firm or an organization can make their loyal customer towards

their brand and one of the best approaches is through creating the commitment of the brand with

the loyal customer. Once the strong relationship has been developed between the brand and the

customer, it is now being easy for any firm to prevent their customer product intention from their

competitors (S., Dobscha, & Mick, 1998).Has extended and enhanced the concept of the brand

commitment with the products of that is being placed across the world, they elaborate that any

product of the firm should have long lasting aspiration to sustain the valuable relationship with

75

their committed customer. Moreover, (G & Vergne, 2004)narrates that brand commitment should

be durable either in form of an implicit or explicit intention.

In all the commitment towards the particular brand is the main root that leads to the customer

commitment for the longer period of the time. Brand commitment itself has its shared value, trust

and the identification which boost the purchase intention and the commitment of the brand

towards their customer. Finally, the brand commitment has the great influence that helps in

drawing out the greater market of the customer for the long term period.

2.3.13Brand Attachment:

The term brand attachment is being defined as the reliable and the long lasting psychological and

the emotional relationship of the certain brand which results from the brand belief and

confidence and from the interlink of the companionship feelings (Lacoeuilhe, 1997).

The congruence theory has elaborated the concept of the brand attachment in a sense that

consumer becomes attached to the brand only when the particular brand meets or come up with

the expectation of the personality, image and the values of the consumer which further he or she

transmit those perception of the attachment to others (Geyer, 1991).

2.3.14Brand Trust:

Brand trust has the great influence with the brand commitment, once the trust has been

developed the commitment and the attachment itself comes along with it and it been further

explained by (Hess, 1995), as a belief, that is keeping with the view of the collective psychology

research or objective of the behavior towards the brand. Brand trust has been the perception of

the consumer’s brands i.e. honesty, self-sacrifice and the potential performance of the particular

product.

76

Brand trust creates a potential value and the reliability of the consumer with the brand and that

extends and boost towards the preferences and usage over the longer period of the time. The faith

and believe in the brand also leads to the positive image in the market and cause an edge over all

its competitors. Since the level of the brand trust exists till then the customer is loyal and

committed to that particular brand and once it gets depreciated ultimately the perception,

intention and preferences of the consumer will get shifting to the competitors brands.

2.4 Studies on Congruence with Brand Personality

In this section the topic of congruence between human, brand and store personality is considered.

For this purpose the stream of research focused on consumer self/image is taken into account as a

theoretical framework (Levy, 1959).Asserts the output a consumer buys have personal and social

meaning capable to strengthen the way the consumer contemplates himself. Brands perform their

role as social congruity mean between brand and user self-image, which is considered as a

significant motivational element in consumer choice (R.W, 1988). Many researches prove there

is congruity between brand image/personality and human personality. For example, (Vitz &

Johnston, 1965) observe the existence of an association between smokers’ perceptions of

cigarette features and the smokers ’masculinity and femininity. In the same direction (Dolich,

1969) analyzes the bonds between self-image and brand preference discovering the puncture

brands are consistent to self-concept and strengthen it. At the same time (Hamm & Cundiff,

1969)detect a liaison between ideal self-image and product image. On his side (Belk R. W.,

1988) states that belongings are not just “things” people own but self-concept extensions

(Einwiller, Fedorikhin, Johnson, & Kamins, 2006). Describe the emotional part of customer–

company identification as follows: “Strong identification occurs when a company becomes

personally relevant for consumers, and personal relevance creates the potential for emotional

77

reactions.” Similarly (Homburg, Wieseke, & Hoyer, 2009) present a conceptual framework in

which customer–company identification predicts customer loyalty toward a company. Similarity

and complementarily have obviously been widely discussed in psych sociology in the field of

interpersonal attraction (Byrne D. E., 1971) whose balance theories (or cognitive consistency)

and self-enhancement are parties. From this perspective, the individual seeks to strengthen or

improve self-esteem and minimizing inconsistent affective states (Festinger, 1954)(Byrne &

Griffitt, 1973). These balance theories and self-image enhancement provided the conceptual

foundations for research on the congruence between self-concept and different variables in

consumer behavior. These include works linking self-concept and intention to purchase products

(Landon, 1974); Self-concept and advertising effectiveness (Zinkhan & Hong, 1991) self-

concept and store traffic (Dornoff & Tatham, 1972). However, the largest rivulet of research was

attentive in the relationship between self-image and brand (Jacobson & Kossoff, 1963)(Grubb &

Grathwohl, Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behavior : A theoretical approach,

1967)(Grubb & Stern, 1971) particularly when these brands are socially visible. Some scholars

were also interested in the relationship between consumer and point of sale (d’Astous A., 2002).

The congruence is based on a vision of objects related to meanings by consumers. For (Maille,

2010), if the literature about congruence has been augmented by the diversity of work that has

been devoted to this concept, it suffers from frequent conceptual and empirical inconsistencies

that prevent any final conclusion on its effects. The first studies on this portent of supposed

congruence see it as an operational correspondence between two bodies (Johnspen,

2009)(Mandler., 1982). Self-congruity is defined as the similarity between the symbolic

attributes of the branded product and self-concept of the individual. The measure of congruence

between individual and brand has taken two main directions (Kressmann, et al., 2006). The

78

traditional method for measuring congruence is differential. Although bounds of prognostic

legitimacy of these measures have been reported, we will hold it at first. We then enhanced by

those from a line of research aims to grow global and direct measurement (Sirgy, et al., 1997).

To our knowledge no research has been lead on the congruence consumer/brand/store in the

specific case of luxury brands. Therefore, we wanted to sustain in parallel the two types of

measurement (direct and differential). To our knowledge, only few research detach conceptually

and empirically congruence through the self-image and brand personality (Supphellen &

Grønhaug, 2003). And even if this work achieve that significant differences occur, they have not

been exposed to adequate replications to be generalized (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1984). Therefore,

we choose to directly measure personality congruence between consumer, brand and store basing

this process on the self/image literature.

Brand personality, or a brand’s human-like characteristics, is a prominent tool for making a

brand different from you competitor. Most of the studies showed that consumers find it usual to

build or make relationship with brand. In his works (Aaker J. L., 1997)defines brand personality

as being “a set of human characteristics associated to a brand”. The author examine that it can

include certain characteristics such as age, Family, demographics, socio-economic class,

Geographic, personality traits and feelings. She developed a model of measurement of the

personality of a brand by identifying 42 features divided up among 15 facets and 5 factors of

personality: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. However, Aaker’s

founding definition has often been criticized.

(Viot & C, 2006), start his definition, “the brand personality has become a jumble concept”.

Despite the clarifications done by different authors about brand personality, measuring this

concept has remained a study topic for researchers. On the other hand, Congruence is actually an

79

attachment with the brand or to make the brand in a way that reflects your personality in a brand.

Congruity theory holds that the level of congruence between the personality of a consumer and

their perception of the image of a brand will influence their intention to buy that brand, or their

behavior towards that brand has changed.

According to the(Johnspen, 2009), in his article , “I recently attended the national sales meeting

of a high-end boat manufacturer that our firm represents and was delighted to listen as one of

their top dealers gave an impassioned speech on the critical need for “congruence” when dealing

with their customers. I could not have agreed with him more, and was motivated to take a few

minutes to write out my thoughts on what this idea really means in the marketplace and why it is

absolutely essential to building a successful company”. Companies are consistently superb in

delivering their brand promise to create brand attachment through different techniques, in order

to get premium for bringing that special experience to the customers. To be honest, brands do

have an impact on the consumer’s behavior; the consumer compares himself or his image to that

of the brand, whether completely or not. He frequently sets some imaginary relationships with

the brand. He becomes a stimulus and tries to give or develops a relation between himself and

brand through congruence, or more of it, between his own personality and that which he

attributes to a set brand.

According to the research of (Nobre, Becker, & Brito, Brand Relationships: Personality-Based,

2010), the experiential study has provided the relationship between brand personality and

congruence. The Research investigates the symbolic meaning to attach with the brand by seeing

brand personality. This study has developed two important theoretical propositions. (1) The

brand is a partner in a dyadic relationship with the consumer and (2) The brand personality

influences the relationship the consumer establishes with the brand. Furthermore Brand

80

personality develops a consumer brand relationship which influence the quality, or the strength

of the relation that consumer develops with the brand. The research incorporated several studies

which supported the idea of congruence and brand personality. Like,

”Brand image is the result of how a customer perceives his relationship with the brand. This

relationship is a result of meaning to the person who engages it (Fournier, Dobscha, & Mick,

1998).

“The study of (Aaker, J.S.Fournier, & S.A.Brasel, When Good Brands do Bad, 2004) was

inspirational in the development of a conceptual model. The model’s premise was that brand

Personality plays an important role in the establishment of ties with the consumer”

According to this approach companies made their brand or make the consumer to think in a way

that brand actually reflects their personalities. The consequences of each of the several studies

conducted in this research presents that evidence supports strong influence of Brand Personality

on the relationship the consumer establishes with the brand.

According to the research of (Parker, 2009), companies communicate through their brand, in

brand communication strategy; a benchmark that drives a favorable brand attitude is a

determinant that predicts a post purchase behavior of the consumer. Sometimes the customer

gives attention to those brands that suits their attitude that demonstrates images which helps him

to express himself and develop motivation. In consumer behavior many researchers relate with

the self-congruity model. Self-congruity is the difference between one’s image and the image of

the brand. The researchers on the phenomena of the self-brand congruity are determined

similarity between the perceptions of consumer and the perception of brand image. This

research was considered to evaluate self-brand congruity optimized with both the brand

81

personality and brand user imagery which construct a basis for modeling the makeup of self-

expressive brand attitudes. The author proposed two concepts that represent different types of

self-brand congruity: user image self-congruity (UIC) and brand personality self-congruity

(BPC).

The research also incorporated such theories which support the idea of congruence and brand

personality. Like “Self congruity theory suggests that people often use brand meaning for self-

expression, then consumers will have favorable predispositions towards, that is like products and

brands that serve to enhance perceptions of their own self-image”(M.J.Sirgy, 1986 ).

Customers have variety of different needs and wants that derive their consumption pattern

behavior. In framing self-brand congruity theory, new ways or ideas and concepts are developing

for the management of strategic brand communications. Researches were pretty advanced and it

opens many doors for the agenda of future brand image researchers. Finally, creative ideas are

the key to innovation to develop better customer attitude towards brand.

According to the research (Ahouri & Bouslama, 2010) one of the main emphasis of this research

is on “Congruence between brand personality and the consumer’s self-image has a positive effect

on brand and, their intention of future behavior towards this brand and his level of preference

towards this brand.”

This research belongs to the field of relationship between congruence and brand personality

which is an important concept to better understand their brand as per the need of the consumers.

Indeed the existence of the link between these variables provides marketing managers a tool

which enables them to improve or strengthen their brands.

82

The research also incorporated several studies which supported the idea of congruence and brand

personality. Like, “Within the framework of brand personality, several researchers have shown

that this variable is positively linked to the consumers’ loyalty” (Fournier, Dobscha, & Mick,

1998).

According to the (Sirgy M. J., 1982), “when the attitude or image of the brand is examined as

similar to the consumer’s attitude or image in terms of personality attribute, the consumer is

encouraged to develop a meaningful relation towards that brand when deciding about a purchase

or post purchase decision”.

Furthermore, a number of studies examine that there is congruity between brand personality and

human personality. For example, (Vitz & Johnston, 1965)found the masculinity or femininity of

the smoker is the relation between smokers perception of cigarette image.(Dolich, 1969), also

work on the relationship between self-image and brand personality and brand preferences brand

preference and establish that preferential brands were reliable to self-concept and it actually

reinforced it. Moreover, (Hamm & Cundiff, 1969)work and found relationship between ideal

self-image/personality and product image/product personality. And others, such as Belk as

mentioned in (Belk R. W., 1988) suggested that the extensions of self-concept but that

possession is not just we own (Belk R. W., 1988).

All of these studies agree on the fact that the consumer prefers the product the image of which is

congruent with his self-image. In other words, consumers only have a favorable attitude towards

a specific brand after applying a set of personality attributes and linking them to their self-

images. Furthermore consumers with different personality type would prefer brand with

personalities that match their own.

83

Congruence between human, brand and store personality is considered. For this purpose the

stream of research focused on consumer self/image is taken into account as a theoretical

framework. (Levy, 1959), asserts the output a consumer buys have personal and social meaning

capable to strengthen the way the consumer contemplates himself. Brands perform their role as

social congruity mean between brand and user self-image, which is considered as a significant

motivational element in consumer choice(Belk R. W., 1988). Many researches prove there is

congruity between brand image/personality and human personality. For example, (Vitz &

Johnston, 1965)observe the existence of an association between smokers’ perceptions of

cigarette features and the smokers ’masculinity and femininity. In the same direction (Dolich,

1969)analyzes the bonds between self-image and brand preference discovering the puncture

brands are consistent to self-concept and strengthen it. At the same time (Hamm & Cundiff,

1969) detect a liaison between ideal self-image and product image. On his side (Belk R. W.,

1988) states that belongings are not just “things” people own but self-concept extensions.

(Einwiller, Fedorikhin, Johnson, & Kamins, 2006), describe the emotional part of customer–

company identification as follows: “Strong identification occurs when a company becomes

personally relevant for consumers, and personal relevance creates the potential for emotional

reactions.” Similarly (Homburg, Wieseke, & Hoyer, 2009) present a conceptual framework in

which customer–company identification predicts customer loyalty toward a company. Similarity

and complementarily have obviously been widely discussed in psych sociology in the field of

interpersonal attraction (Byrne D. E., 1971) whose balance theories (or cognitive consistency)

and self-enhancement are parties. From this perspective, the individual seeks to strengthen or

improve self-esteem and minimizing inconsistent affective states (Festinger, 1954)(Byrne &

Griffitt, 1973). These balance theories and self-image enhancement provided the conceptual

84

foundations for research on the congruence between self-concept and different variables in

consumer behavior. These include works linking self-concept and intention to purchase products

(Landon, 1974); Self-concept and advertising effectiveness (Zinkhan & Hong, 1991) self-

concept and store traffic (Dornoff & Tatham, 1972). However, the largest rivulet of research was

attentive in the relationship between self-image and brand (Jacobson & Kossoff, 1963)(Grubb &

Grathwohl, Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behavior : A theoretical approach,

1967)(Grubb & Stern, 1971) particularly when these brands are socially visible. Some scholars

were also interested in the relationship between consumer and point of sale (d’Astous A., 2002).

The congruence is based on a vision of objects related to meanings by consumers. For (Maille,

2010), if the literature about congruence has been augmented by the diversity of work that has

been devoted to this concept, it suffers from frequent conceptual and empirical inconsistencies

that prevent any final conclusion on its effects. The first studies on this portent of supposed

congruence see it as a operational correspondence between two bodies (Mandler., 1982). Self-

congruity is defined as the similarity between the symbolic attributes of the branded product and

self-concept of the individual. The measure of congruence between individual and brand has

taken two main directions (Kressmann, et al., 2006). The traditional method for measuring

congruence is differential. Although bounds of prognostic legitimacy of these measures have

been reported, we will hold it at first. We then enhanced by those from a line of research aims to

grow global and direct measurement (Sirgy, et al., 1997). To our knowledge no research has

been lead on the congruence consumer/brand/store in the specific case of luxury brands.

Therefore, we wanted to sustain in parallel the two types of measurement (direct and

differential). To our knowledge, only few research detach conceptually and empirically

congruence through the self-image and brand personality (Supphellen & Grønhaug, 2003). And

85

even if this work achieve that significant differences occur, they have not been exposed to

adequate replications to be generalized (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1984). Therefore, we choose to

directly measure personality congruence between consumer, brand and store basing this process

on the self/image literature.

2.4.1 Major causes of strong Congruence and personality with the brand:

The major cause which affect or develops the congruence between brand and human

personalities include self-image, or brand image.

2.4.1.1Self-image:

(M.Resenberg, 1979), define self-image as the, total sum of thoughts and feelings from which an

individual can explain himself as an object. Construction on this idea, (M.L.Brunel, 1990)has

considered the idea of self-image as a multidimensional variable which comprises at the same

time: a) a cognitive dimension, that is, any ideas, images and opinion an individual have of

himself; b) an emotional dimension, that is, any impressions and the feelings he has towards

himself; c) a social dimension, since the concept of self-image is a set of projection of the others’

perceptions of the individual.

In the field of marketing but more specifically in the field of research on the consumer’s

behavior, the Concept of self-image is related to the image of self in a rather diminishing way

(E., 2003). The concept of self is conceived of as a multidimensional notion involving different

facets (D., 2003).

Researchers have enriched this definition by identifying four major dimensions of self-image

(Sirgy & Su, 2000);(Jamal & Goode, 2001):

The real self: the perception of an individual as he sees himself.

86

The dreamed self or the ideal self: the way I would like to be.

The real social self: the way others consider me.

The dreamed social self or the ideal social self: the way I would like others to consider

me.

2.4.1.2 Factor develops congruence with the Brand.

From the past researches we can find that the consumers become attach to a specific brand

because the consumers see a specific meaning and make a imaginary relation with that brand and

they see product as themselves or what they want themselves to be. From the past researches

there are four important factors which influence the consumers to attach themselves to a specific

product (Park M. &., 2006).

These four factors are:

• Self-expression (how come I distinguish myself from others with the brand?)

• Group Affiliation (does ownership of the brand connect me to a group?)

• Memories (attachment of memory related to the brand)

• Pleasure (satisfaction provided by the product)

2.4.2 Congruence: A Crucial Variable in Marketing Congruence between

Brand Personality and Self-image.

Brand personality and self-image are the two most important and interrelated research tracks

which increased our knowledge of the relationships between consumers and brands.

(Sirgy M. J., 1982), actually try to explain that the idea of self-image is used as a cognitive

referent in the evaluation of representative elements. The consumer tries to seek certain level of

87

congruence between the features of a brand’s image and the way his personality is presented

(Belk, Bahn, & Mayer, 1982),(Sirgy M. J., 1982).

In other words, the consumer would express his self-image by selecting brands the personality of

which appears to him close to his own personality (Vernette, 2008). Congruence with self-image

is apparent as the similar attitude between the brands’ symbolic Attributes and the consumer’s

self-image (Spivey & Munson, 2010);(M.J.Sirgy, 1986 ). According to (Zinkhan & Hong,

1991)explain congruence as the degree of coincidence between advertising Expressions of a

brand and self-image of the consumers.

Brand personality and self-image are two researches which augmented our information of the

associations among consumers and brands (Vernette, Personnalite' de la marquet image de soi,

2003). Sirgy as mentioned in (Belk R. W., 1988) clarifies that the idea of self-image is used as a

cognitive referent in the assessment of symbolic elements. The consumer seeks certain

congruence between the features of a brand’s image and the way his personality is

presented(Belk R. W., 1988),(Sirgy M. J., 1982). In other words, the consumer would express his

self-image by choosing brands the personality of which appears to him close to his own

personality (Vernette, Les atouts et les pieges de la personnalite de la marque, 2008). As a matter

of fact, brands have an impact on the consumer’s behavior, for the consumer compares his image

to that of the brand, whether implicitly or explicitly. He often sets some imaginary relationships

with it. He can situate himself in relation to a given brand through congruence, or lack of it,

between his own personality and that which he attributes to a given brand (Plummer, 1985),

(Biel A. , 1993). Congruence with self-image is perceived as the similitude between the brand’s

symbolic attributes and the consumer’s(Spivey & Munson, 2010) self-image,(Sirgy M. J., 1982).

Zinkhan and Hong (1991) as mentioned in (Sirgy M. J., 1982), defines congruence as the degree

88

of coincidence between advertising expression and self-image. Within the framework of personal

musical congruence, Galan defines congruence as being the adequacy or the coherence perceived

between music and the consumer’s self-image. The author suggests that it is possible for the

individual to judge the congruence between self-image and music. Seeing that judging personal

congruence relies on a four-dimensional concept of self, there are equally four types of

congruence as defined in the literature (Sirgy M. J., 1982),(Helgeson & Supphellen,

2004)(Galan, 2007). Congruence with the real self-image: it refers to the degree of similitude

between the real self-image of the consumer and the typical image the consumer has of the given

product. Led by their motivation to protect their own identity (Sirgy M. J., 1982), individuals

only consume the products which do reflect their genuine self (Galan, 2007). Congruence with

the ideal image of self: it refers to the degree of similitude between the consumer’s self-image

and the image of the typical consumer of a given product. Behavior is then determined by a need

of self-esteem. According to (Galan, 2007), reaching a certain ideal image of oneself through the

consumption or the possession of products which are consistent with one’s ideal self-image

satisfies the consumer’s need for self-esteem. - Congruence with the social self-image: it

corresponds to the degree of similitude between the consumer’s social self-image and the image

of the typical consumer. Such appropriateness satisfies a need for social coherence which is in

fact a motivation to develop or keep attitudes and behaviors which cohere with the way others

perceive an individual (Galan, 2007).Congruence with the ideal social self-image: it represents

the degree of similitude between the consumer’s ideal social self-image and the image of the

typical consumer. Such congruence answers the individual’s (Sirgy, et al., 1997)need for social

approbation, or his need to develop a set of cognitions. Congruence with the ideal social self-

image: it represents the degree of similitude between the consumer’s ideal social self-image and

89

the image of the typical consumer. Such congruence answers the individual’s need for social

approbation, or his need to progress a set of cognitions.

Although the number of articles on the congruence between brand personality and self-image has

outstandingly augmented recently, scholars still unanimously criticize the limited amount of

study in this topic, as likened with the research dealing with brand personality, for example. This

works aims at inspiring the field. Clarifying the concept of congruence between brand

personality and self-image on the one hand, and explaining its effect on the customer’s

satisfaction and loyalty to the brand on the other. The current study wishes to show the vital role

of the congruence variable in the association between the brand and the consumer. Congruence

between brand personality and self-image is a significant notion which companies should take

into account in order to grow and better achieve their brand. This would attract consumers who

are sensitive to the personality features displayed or who wish to use them as a vehicle of the

conception they have of themselves. It would be worthwhile to develop the research empirical

protocols so as to show how the congruence between brand personality and self-image affects the

level of consumer satisfaction and his loyalty towards a brand.

2.5 Studies on Commitment with Brand Personality

According to (Keller K. , 2006), brand which is successful they identify the strategies that help to

the organization to create brand loyalty among the customers. It requires those strategies which

are used to capture and retains the customer. Companies have to be connected with their

customers.

It’s a complete process which to select the customer, organize and interpret the information to

create a picture in the mind of customers. It not only related to the external sources or physical

90

stimuli, it’s also related to the stimuli of surrounding and environment in which the customers

are present

External source of information play a vital role to create a perception in the mind of the customer

regarding the brand. Companies should know that how customers are getting information from

external sources, how the information is translating to the customers (Belch, 2004). It has a

major concern regarding making the decision about information. It influences the customer to get

information from the sources and make a perception regarding the brand. It explains that how the

consumer behavior is focusing and understanding and making a perception towards the specific

brand. There are few steps that related to the consumer information processing:

According to (Hawkings, 2001), exposure occurs when stimuli comes within the range of one’s

sensory receptor nerve. In this stage customer needs to be allocate the information processing

capacity against the incoming information, or customer should decide not to allocate the

processing capacity.

According to(Ries, 2000), mostly customers go for that brands that are over communicate in

their living environment. Consumers are highly influenced by their surrounding information;

they use to highly create selective awareness and attention measures.

EXPOSURE

EXPOSURE

ATTENTION

INTERPRETATION & COMPREHENSION

MEMORY &RETENTION

Figure 5 : Consumer Information Process

91

According to (Keller K. , 2006), the customers daily see the advertisement average around 1500.

From the advertisement consumer screen the information and give attention to the specific brand.

According to the (Mostert, 2002), the consumer will pay special attention to information that is

relevant to them. The consumer does not give any attention to irrelevant information. It can be

concluded that consumers due to the limited processing capacity and consumers pay selective

attention to the messages.

The term commitment explained as the engagement that in close the freedom of action (The

oxford english dictionary), this sounds negative, but isn’t, It is held firmly with a vision and

enthusiasm and dedication to the process point of view. Commitment is the devotion or

dedication to specific cause or reason. Commitment is a vigorous belief on an idea or system.

Commitment is awareness, an attitude, being fully present at the moment of choice (Horosz,

1975).

If brand Personality is a convenient metaphor to describe stable characteristics associated with

brands, the concept originally used by advertising agencies had not been defined properly before

the work of (Aaker J. L., 1997).He defines brand personality as the set of human characteristics

associated with a brand. This definition is relying on the word ‘characteristics’. He also identifies

42 traits and 5 personality facts: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and

raggedness.

A major construct that has an impact on consumer behavior is attitude towards the brand (Allport

G. , 1935). Closer to the marketing paradigm important research has been established that

positive attitudes (for example in Morgan and Hunts 1994) will favor brand commitment. (Aasel,

1987), proposes that commitment arises from positive attitudes and (Chaudhuri & Holbrook,

92

2001) shown that commitment reflects the level of positive effect of generated by the brand.

Therefore, attitude towards the brand is expected to have impact on band commitment. Some

authors argue that brand personality might affect the consumer behavior.

Lastly, we consider the role of brand involvement. Brand personality should play a greater role

in explaining attitude formation and brand/consumer relationships when consumer involvement

is high. When the product category is more important to the consumers, the consumer seeks

more and is more sensitive to information concerning products and brands in the category.

Consequently, involved consumers probably have the sharper and the stronger perception of

personality traits associated to brands and better differentiates brands in terms of personality.

These brand personality difference have the potential of explaining the brand attitude or brand

commitment.

Commitment with brand explained or interpreted as the degree or level of attachment with the

brand it has four emotional and behavioral underlying contracts: (a) brand loyalty is the

emotional and behavioral which leads to the repurchasing of an specific brand (b) the satisfaction

creates the need to rehabilitation end of consumption pleasurable experience (c) the

embarrassment creates the strength of attachment including the relevance and impotence of

brand segment, and (d) the attachment with brand because the substitute brands are not able to

raise at level of comparison with the brand used by the committed customer (Shuv-Ami, 2011).

Maintaining or creating long-term relation with customers in term of brand commitment is the

major target of the company to achieve.(Touzani, 2009). Brand loyalty is main focus of the

company while launching a product; it is a main objective or strategy in marketing related to

consumer goods and commodities (Touzani, 2009). Those companies which enjoy the bucketful

93

of committed customers to the brand have greater market share and higher rates of return on

investments (Nawaz, 2011). The modification of brand personality among the companies have

increased in few couple of day, companies targeting customers to make them loyal not switch or

go for alternatives while choosing (Gustavsson, 2005).

It is the loyal and committed customer who assures the product’s survival and growth for

decades, otherwise the switchers of brands are not the warranty for product to last in market

(Touzani, 2009). In brand loyalty consumer are emotionally attached to a specific brand. The

consumer assumes that brand is according to his expectation and identifies with the consumer on

a personal level. The buying behavior of the consumer and decision making might me conscious

or unconscious, but their choice will remain same.

Brand loyal customer doesn’t go for alternatives while unavailability of their desired brand. They

can visit to multiple stores and forgo making a purchase if their brand cannot be found than they

are to purchase a substitute.

Commitment can be viewed as “an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship” with the

brand(Zaltman M. a., 1992). Companies more look about to attain superior values to keep

growing their brand commitment. Customers want strong emotional and relational attachment to

brand to repurchase it and to become the committed and loyal customer or consumer.

The organizational commitment of customers is indicative of the organization's likelihood of

developing or maintaining customer identification with organizational goals and values and

retaining the service customer as an active participant the service encounter (Al., 1992). Trust on

brand leads to commitment is one of the important factors in creating marketing strategy that can

94

create committed customers. Companies must focus to create trust with brand over customers

(Aleman, 2001).

Many companies have created the concept or assume that well handling the complaint and

properly dealing with their customer issues are source of brand commitment and loyalty

effectively handling of complaints and issues customers create trust or commitment and

dramatically increase the retention rate and improve service quality as well(Nawaz, 2011).

Consumers commitment to brand has been discovered or identified important for marketing now

days, because of the availability of numbers of substitute in market, marketers are focused on

creating brand commitment and committed customers (Philip, 2009).

Brand is advantaged by high profits while customer gains high value for the money that he or she

has exchanges in the form of benefits. Manufacturers of the brand consider brand commitment as

an indicator of superior performance so they try to build and increase consumer loyalty by

delivering superior benefits, establishing a positive image (company’s value of social

responsibility and trustworthy manufactures) about the organization in consumer’s mind.

If we see the behavioral approach of brand loyalty, there are models which used to predict and

measure the loyalty of consumers are derived from the previous purchase patterns which leads to

ensure continuity in the future purchase behaviors. It means that the experience of customer on

the previous purchase leads to future purchase behaviors i.e. if the experience is either good or

bad leads to have impact on behaviors of future purchase. According to (1973), states that the

word commitment is very good predictor of differentiating brand loyalty and different forms of

repeat purchasing behaviors. It is also proved from their research that the concept of commitment

promises for assessing the relative degrees of brand loyalty.

95

Commitment is a “physiological state” that initially identifies the relationship with the brand or

organization and then it has the authority to make the decision to continue membership or

relationship with it (O'Callaghan, 2009).

The brand's commitment to research and manufacture the degree of attachment is defined as

consumer protection they use and re-buy or re-brand is a favorite.(Shuv-Ami, 2011), argued that

the Brand "based on the customer equity" based on the argument that the Brand and image

association “attachments" series. The present study argues that Brand: The brand's commitment

attachments are represented by four basic composition Loyalty, brand, category and brand

involvement relative satisfaction with care Performance.

Commitment is defined by (Hunt, Morgan, & D., 1994) as “an enduring desire to maintain a

valued relationship”. Relational commitment is when both partners brand and consumer keep

faith that continuous relation is precious and significant, so they both assure that relation is

maintained. Commitment is explained as “a desire to maintain a current relationship with a

brand” (Fullerton, 2003). There are two factors affecting commitment; one is affective

commitment and other is continuance commitment (Lombart, Louis, & Cindy, Impact of brand

personality on three major relational consequences (trust, commitment and attachment) to the

brand, 2010).

A graphic identity is one of the most valuable assets of the brand. It symbolizes a complete set of

commitments: to see, to the value proposition, to the recipient. Market conditions may require a

re-think of any and all of these obligations, but unless and until that happens, usually stick to it

means staying true to the symbols that represent them.

96

There can be a feeling that either “we can change it later if we do not like it”, or even worse, it

does not generally does not matter much. Apart from the fact that the identity of the drawing can

be very expensive to change (production costs alone add up quickly), this way of thinking

reveals a bigger problem. A graphic identity is a constituent element of a promise to create a

brand in the minds of their customers. Change the slogan refers to the change in the brand

promise, and changes it on a whim risk of erosion of our brand.

Once identity is established appropriate fee for the organization, you need to abide by the

organization. Change is inevitable and companies must evolve with their customers, but the most

successful companies evolve from a strategic point.

Identity successful programs rely heavily on consistency. Consistency is a measure of

confidence. The companies will be confident that the program is committed to a strong identity

to see the best return on their investment. However, programs can have shorter life span identity

identities of the drawing. While the organization focuses strategically might consider changing

his identity drawing only once in a generation, you may need to be updated after the business

cycle to a three-year programs.

The program has necessitated by differences events campaigns, trade shows, and changing

seasons or customized. Strong identity programs allow for a good balance between consistency

and the difference is opportunistic. Decision makers who are confident and willing to commit to

some ideal brand see the application of the criteria but are not limited, but as an expression of

their commitment. Designers see this commitment as a kind of constraint and another as a source

of inspiration for finding solutions to problems. Frequency resolution is no way to build brand

value. When companies commit to the value proposition, and the public, and the position, they

97

create opportunities for a strong brand identity for growth. Not commit is one of the most

common ways to weaken the brand.

In many ways, brands are like people. People who are building a strong identity consistent

procedures, they became known by the reliability of the proceedings of their own obligations.

Brands are built or torn down to build on their willingness and ability to commit to follow-up.

Perceptions of early commitment in the field of marketing equated with brand loyalty and

defined in terms of consistency buy a certain brand. Followed these perceptions of sociology in

terms of commitment was seen as a solid line of behavior by an individual, maintained even

when faced with the choices of alternative or competing behavior. He said the commitment of

the brand and therefore behavioral phenomenon is usually defined in empirical studies that "the

proportion of the total purchases under the category of a particular product devoted to more

brands that are purchased frequently” (Engel, 1982).

However, later on, this was recognized to be a narrow outlook not considering the reasons

underlying the frequency of brand purchase. As a result, later definitions expanded the scope of

commitment by including attitudinal aspects of the construct. For example, in

sociology,(Johnson, 1973) the definition of commitment is “the extent of which is dedicated to

work for the completion of the line to work.” In the field of marketing, and this means that the

nature of attitudes and increase individual commitment to the brand, is the largest fixed is brand

as the only option in this category of products. Using this perspective, the focus is on all the

cognitive and emotional components of the building. The measurement is based on purchase

intentions and preferences of purchase, rather than focusing on the operations of the actual

purchase. In this study, is conceived as a commitment to brand building positions and is known

98

as “binding commitments from individual or his / her brand choice within the category of

product"(Gardner L. J., 1979). According to (Silverman, 1979), it should be noted that the

commitment of the brand thus relating although the brands, and is defined as a building at the

level of this category of products, which are conceived consumers have different levels of

commitment to the brand for different categories of products.

The studied experimental research precedents commitment to the brand, including personal

characteristics such as self-confidence and exposure to the impact of the reference group, as well

as store loyalty (Carman, 1970), but its connections with other consumer behavior constructs are

tenuous.

The perception of risk is perceived as a result of unforeseen consequences and uncertain of the

nature of the unpleasant result of buying the product (Bauer R. , 1960). In consumer behavior,

and the perception of risk in terms of loss and is thought to arise only from the potential negative

results, in contrast to other disciplines such as psychology, where is the positive and negative

consequences.

(Bettman, 1973), distinguish between the inherent risks and determines the risk of dealing with

the perceived risk as building specific class of product , any product different classes have

different levels of inherent risks and handle associated with them. Indicate the risk inherent in the

aspects of risk in the category of products that are stable while belong chronologically from the

risk of dealing with a more situational aspects of the product category. In this study, risk

perception is seen as a stable, class specific product, unique to the individual. In other words,

everyone is aware of each product category has certain levels of risk associated with it and these

levels for the product category different for different individuals. In this study, the definition of

99

risk is seen as a “sign of personal losses “resulting from the purchase and use of products of this

category of products. This definition is consistent with the definitions used in previous studies of

(Ryan & J, 1976).

The importance of the concept of the product is essential for consumer behavior acceptable on a

large scale to the idea that consumers consider different classes of products to be important

differences in consumer behavior (Hupfer, 1971). This construction is similar to building a well-

thought of the involvement of the product, which is defined as "the extent to which the consumer

product connects to the objectives of the highlights of a particular situation or a permanent" have

been found to influence the consumer decision-making processes, and operations after the

decision and response to marketing communications (Richins, Bolch, & L, 1983).

The researchers hypothesized risk early in the existence of a positive relationship between

perceived risk and commitment to excellence commitment to the brand as a strategy to control or

avoid potential risks in buying brand untried or unfamiliar. Using this logic, the commitment of

the brand is essentially a strategy of risk reduction (Derbaix, 1983).Experimental studies show

that support this relationship, which run out of stock of the results of my favorite brands to

choose other varieties or sizes of the same brand or delay the purchase when the perceived risk

associated with the product category is high. Recently developed product classification

distinguishes products with high commitment to those adverse effects that have been purchased

from the rare presence of wrong decisions associated (Goodell, Martin, & N, 1991), thus

favoring a positive relationship between the two constructs.

However, empirical research also shows that the level of perceived risk and cites commonly

known as one of the important reasons to switch brands by consumers. Thus, consumers with

100

low perceived risk to switch to other brands because of curiosity while switching consumers in

search of high-risk brands better. In related work, and empirical studies show that an increase in

the perceived risk results to increase search for information based on the theme about different

brands (Capon & Burke, 1980). Review of existing literature and thus reveals conflicting results

about the relationship between perceived risk and the commitment of the brand despite the fact

that there is more support for a positive relationship.

The close links between the product and the importance of the commitment of the brand can be

found in many of the studies concerning the participation of the product's commitment to the

brand. A conclusion resulting from this area, however, is often confusing and contradictory, and

highlighted the similarities between the two structures through the use of (Krugman, 1965).

Concept at least explains the involvement of low commitment consumer behavior. The other

authors distinguish between the two constants by selecting the commitment that it refers to a

position or a certain position, whether it is positive in general, with regard to the brand, and

participation as the general level of interest or concern in the category of products without

reference to a specific position. After the commitment with other, authors identified as one

component of the involvement of the product (Gardner J. L., 1979).

The implication of several researchers that increased consumer involvement results in the

product's commitment to the brand. Traylor indicates that consumers show the behavior of the

most unstable, and is characterized by brand loyalty low and increase the variety seek when

dealing with products involving low to make the same argument, claiming that consumers with

the participation of the product low reflection in the category of the product and the trivial and

has a "bond a little bit" of their choice. One study found the level of participation of the pilot to

101

determine its relationship to the brand's commitment to (Taylor M. B., 1981). The products

showed low participation and a positive relationship to the commitment of the brand while

products with high involvement showed no relationship. Another study found the brand's

commitment to result from the involvement of purchase (Betty, Kahle, & Homer, 1988). But the

third pilot study found a strong relationship between the permanent involvement of consumers in

the category of the product and the tendency to engage in the collection of information about

ongoing product category(Richins, Bolch, & L, 1983). This indicates that consumers know about

the different brands in this category of products is likely to be high in these cases, resulting in a

less committed to the brand. Thus, the reviews of previous work suggest that although the two

constructs are closely linked, and the commitment is not necessarily relevant product or be

accepted as a dimension of the building in terms of importance.

2.5.1 Building commitment of consumers with new products

The main reason for the majority of new products failing is that the commitment of consumers to

the products they are already using is not taken into account, and that no matter how positively

the product completes in product tests, it is more likely to fail if consumers are already strongly

committed to their favorite brands. Enlightened marketers should use measures of commitment

to identify markets which will be easiest to enter, both geographically and by product category.

(Rice & Butch, 2001), explore this seemingly contradictory and illogical behavior and conclude

that commitment, and not satisfaction, is the key to sustaining brand profits. Religion and politics

rarely feature in marketing and branding texts, gaining at most a couple of sentences, usually to

do with the importance of scanning the macro environment.

102

2.5.2 Failure of new products with context to commitment

Four main conclusions are drawn regarding the potential success or failure of new product

launches. First, the greater the number of committed consumers in a market, the harder it will be

to launch a new product successfully; secondly, it is the uncommitted consumers of existing

brands who are more likely to try new products than committed consumers; thirdly, it is one

thing to get uncommitted consumers to try a new product but it is quite another to keep them;

and fourthly, uncommitted will only be kept if they can be turned into newly committed

consumers of a new brand. As is so often the case in the world of branding, none of this is rocket

science. But until such concepts as conversion and commitment are integrated into mainstream

brand management, the squandering of new product development budgets is unlikely to abate

(Rice & Butch, 2001).

2.5.3 Commitment with organizational citizenship behavior:

Within this repeated process the existing constructs of organizational citizenship behavior and

organizational commitment from organizational behavior were modified and combined into the

model in order to explain employees’ brand-related attitudes and behavior. The resulting

constructs and the full model are subsequently explained. Brand commitment is the key driver of

brand citizenship behavior. The authors define brand commitment as the extent of psychological

attachment of employees to the brand, which influences their willingness to exert extra effort

towards reaching the brand goals—in other words, to exert brand citizenship behavior. The term

‘commitment’ has been used frequently in the context of internal branding, but mostly in a rather

common-sense manner without theoretical foundation. In the case of a corporate brand, the brand

commitment construct as the authors understand it is synonymous with organizational

commitment, which is generally defined as a psychological bond between the employee and the

103

organization. Organizational commitment has been shown to induce functional extra-role

behavior.

It is easily comprehensible and has been empirically proven by O’Reilly and Chatman that

commitment based on compliance does not yield any behavior that goes beyond role

prescriptions. It will, however, ensure devotion to rules, which is a necessary basis for brand

citizenship behavior. Compliance is driven by the organizational structure, including incentive

systems that determine formal rewards and sanctions and the organizational culture that

determines informal rewards and sanctions through social control(O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986).

The brand commitment of each individual can be built on any one of the dimensions or on all

three, while the dominance of one or the other dimension might vary from person to person. The

brand citizenship behavior is not influenced by all of the dimensions in the same way.

Brand commitment does not emerge all by itself. Several empirical studies confirm this: the

surveys conducted by the Gallup Organization in Germany and by Towers Perrin in the USA

showed that under a fifth of responding employees were highly engaged for their corporate

brand, voluntarily giving that extra effort on an ongoing basis. An equal number were

disengaged, meaning they had probably ‘checked out’ from their work. The remainder—roughly

two-thirds of the sample —were moderately engaged at best.

During the interviews, one very interesting discussion evolved around the question of whether

some people naturally have a disposition for higher brand commitment, while for some people it

is just part of their personality never to be committed to anything. In this generalized form, the

authors strongly disagree with this opinion. It can be assumed, however, that some people will

have a stronger congruence between their personal values and the brand values before entering

104

the company. Since in that case the core brand values are already part of their self-concept, less

socialization effort is necessary.

Employee participation will generate a stronger brand commitment based on identification and

internalization, while imposed behavior guidelines will only generate weak commitment based

on compliance. There is no consensus, however, among the brand managers—at a large German

bank the guidelines are developed by employees and included in targets agreed with superiors.

Several practitioners emphasize the necessity for empowerment of employees in this context.

This fits in with this paper’s theoretical model, as employees with brand commitment based on

identification and internalization can and must be given more freedom than those without

commitment or with commitment based only on compliance.

As employees can only turn brand commitment into brand citizenship behavior if they have

access to the necessary resources and knowhow, appropriate information infrastructure,

planning, budgeting and controlling systems also need to be in place. Brand commitment based

on identification and internalization becomes difficult for an outsourced agent, as the emotional

distance to the brand organization is very high (Zeplin & Sabrina, 2005).

2.5.4 Brand Commitment and Loyalty:

The perceived equity, value and quality were determined to be input variables; brand

satisfaction, trust, affective commitment and continuance commitment were determined to be

intervening variables; repurchase intentions and loyalty were determined to be output variables.

A survey was conducted to undergraduate and graduate students of Ataturk University.

According to the results of the research, it was determined that brand equity, value and quality

had no effect on brand satisfaction, but had an effect on trust. It was determined that brand

105

satisfaction had an effect only on affective commitment, and trust had an effect both on affective

commitment and continuance commitment.

When customers are satisfied, they show commitment to continuously buy the same brand and

become a loyal customer (Ballantyne, 2006). No matter how satisfaction level affects loyalty, it

alone is not sufficient to create brand loyalty. Various factors such as brand trust, quality, image,

and equity affect brand loyalty. Determination of the factors effective in creating brand loyalty

apart from satisfaction will be helpful to understand the construct of the loyalty. From this point

of view, in the study, the variables including brand equity, brand value, brand quality, affective

commitment and continuance commitment were determined as the determinants of brand loyalty

and it was aimed to determine their effects on loyalty and repurchase intentions.

Commitment is divided into two as affective and continuance commitment. Affective

commitment is the emotional connection with the brand which represents strong sense of

personal identifications. Affective brand commitment is based on identification and shared

values with the brand (Pring, 2007). In evaluating affective commitment for some important

brands, Mc Alexander, Schouten and Koenig (2002) found affective commitment explains the

deep attachment to the focused brands. A study by (Verhoef, 2003), in the banking services

found the direct result of affective commitment on repurchases intention. At the same time brand

satisfaction, brand equity and perceived brand value were positive antecedents of effective

commitment, but they did not directly affect consumer repurchase behavior.

Continuance commitment defined as the consumer’s weak feelings for a brand. Because when

the consumers perceive high switching costs and few alternatives, they change their brands.

(Fullerton G. , 2003), has explained continuance commitment as a harmful effect on the

consumer’s willingness to engage in advocacy intentions. In another study, about commitment,

106

(Lindstrom, 2005)tested the commitment to a brand. In this study he asked consumers if they

would “tattoo the name of the brand on their body.” As a result of the research, many

respondents tattoo the brand image on their body. (Harrison-Walker, 2001), studies on

commitment and repurchase plans have shown continuance commitment destabilized consumer

behavior while consumers who have affective commitment act as a reference for a brand or

organization and want to help organization when they have a strong affective attachment to the

firms and firm’s brand. The study showed that continuance commitment had a weak effect on

repurchase intentions, and the academic literature suggested that driving force behind behavioral

loyalty is not motivated by attitudinal loyalty. On the other hand for other researchers

continuance commitment has a positive impact on the repurchase decisions. In the study of

(Gilliland, 2002), on clothing brands, the consumer can effect from brand’s feature like brand

quality, brand trust, brand value and integrate with the brand.

Trust and commitment are both very important elements in ensuring a long-term orientation

towards the firm’s brand. They are explained as antecedent of loyalty and repurchase intentions.

(Morgan R. &., 1994), assumed that commitment motivates buyers and suppliers to continue

their relationship with the brand in the future. In the other studies in which the effect of brand

trust on brand commitment was investigated, (Shergill, 2005)concluded that trust had a positive

effect on customer commitment. The present study examined trust as a precursor of commitment.

107

2.5.4.1 Affective Commitment

The idea of commitment has been an important feature of studies on customer relationships over

the last decades (Gundlach, 1995). While the literature on commitment generally suggests that

the phenomenon exists in different forms (Allen & Meyer, 1990)most research has found the

affective kind of commitment to be a major determinant of customer loyalty, while the effects of

other types of commitment are more unclear (Kumar, Hibbard, & Stern, 1994)for a marketing

related study including all three forms discussed in the literature). Affective commitment is

based on emotions and affective attachments to the commitment object (Porter, Steers, Mowday,

& Boulian, 1974), and thus, it is grounded on customer partiality and positive feelings for the

relationship partner. If a customer’s affective commitment to a brand is high, this should bring

about a wish and motivation to continue the relationship. Since this type of commitment does not

include any instrumental cost-benefit evaluations, it is derived from the emotional pleasure

Affective

Commitment

Continuance

Commitment

Commitment

with Brand

Personality

Figure 7: Commitment with Brand Personality Model

108

associated with the relationship partner, and the feelings of fondness developed within the

relationship. As such, affective committed parties are inclined to maintain the existing

relationship, an assumption extensively supported by previous research (Kumar, Hibbard, &

Stern, 1994); (Wieselquist, 1999). This study argues that consumers whose affective

commitment to a supplier is high will be less receptive to a newly introduced product in this

category. Regarding the brand extension, this implies that the intention to buy a new product will

be lower the higher the level of commitment to an incumbent brand (Hansen & Hem, 2004).

Affective commitment is more lasting than calculative or normative commitment, but it is not

certainly everlasting. It is possible for a team to lose its sacred position with admirers.

Affective commitment is the identification or liking of the brand, when consumer got

emotionally attached with the brand. It is the emotional attachment built-in between the brand

and the customer both enjoy the loyalty and membership as being a user of the brand (Fullerton,

2003). Affective commitment by the consumer is enduring desire to maintain a current

relationship (Hunt, Morgan, & D., 1994). This strong commitment is based on emotional

association that has been developed with the brand. On this basis the consumer will not sacrifice

usage of the brand and value their commitment and relation with the brand.

2.5.4.2 Continuous Commitment

Continuance commitment is when the consumer has no option or substitute available in the

market to market purchase or no other substitute is available at that price rate and the switching

is too costly (Lombart, Louis, & Cindy, 2010). The benefits consumers getting from a brand are

not replaceable by other brand so this prevents consumer switching. Potential loss of losing the

benefits associated with the brand is a key feature of continuance commitment (Fullerton, 2003).

Continuance commitment is the result of dependence of consumer on the brand either due to lack

109

of substitute or high switching cost like for expensive product consumers are reluctant to switch

over to other brands because they have already highly invested in the brand and they do not want

to again make high investment so the stick to the brand they are currently using. This is

particularly true when the product is complex.

A consumer’s commitment to a brand is related to her relative preference for the brand; in

general, the more strongly preferred the brand, the greater the commitment to the brand

(Montgomery & B., 1987).

Commitment with brand is now very hard or difficult to create when the competition with the

similar brand is very high and in case of Pepsi and coca cola the war of getting enough market

shares is the target or major objective of each brand to achieve. Sometime Pepsi get market share

and sometimes coke, but if we see globally coke is the market leader. But the scenario of

Pakistan is totally different people in Pakistan are more committed to Pepsi and this commitment

enhance and lead towards the brand loyalty. According to an article by a leading newspaper

“Tribune” that coke has market share of around 30% to 35% and Pepsi Cola has a market share

of 60% to 65% (Despite lead, Pepsi aims for bigger piece of the cake, 2012).

Both companies have applied and are using many strategies to make their consumer satisfied,

because the more they satisfied the more they will be committed to brand and through this the

brand loyalty will automatically increase. There are many advertising comparing run by Pepsi in

which they endorse group of celebrity which help them to increase the market share and level

commitment by satisfying the customers.

On the other hand if we see coke they also using deferent strategies to create their market and

attract customer towards the brand. They also establish a series of program Coke Studio which is

110

very successful trough this they tried to capture market share and attract people towards the

product.

From the above scenario it is easily observed that commitment plays an important role in brand

personality. Because of commitment consumers are strongly stick to brand and their commitment

will be long lasting. Eventually customer finds congruence and satisfaction with brand which

shows that their personality matches with brand. Pleasant experience of using same brand several

times enhance the level of satisfaction and lead the consumer make long lasting relationship

through the high level of commitment with brand.

2.5.5 The Importance of Commitment for a Certain Firm

Commitment to the squad often also means active conflict to rival teams. An Alabama fan

mentioned that “Alabama fans have culture and Auburn fans have agriculture.” Some Florida

fans delight in stating to rival Florida State as a “girls’ school,” referring to its origin as a college

for women. While these competitions are commonly pleasant, they imitate the stuff of purity

called opposition to the profane. Though informants did not use these terms, there is no doubt

that many of them would enjoy the idea of their “sacred” team versus the “profane” rival team.

Much study regarding commitment has been showed in the field of organizational behavior.

(Allen & Meyer, 1990), developed and verified a three-component model of commitment. It was

originally applied to the commitment of a worker to an organization. (Echambadi, 2000), applied

the framework of the model to the customer holding context. The three components of the

model, as expressed by (Allen & Meyer, 1990)are continuance, normative, and affective. The

resolution component of commitment states to the worker’s view of the costs of leaving the

organization as opposed to the benefits of remaining. Based on the items developed to measure

111

this element of the ideal, the focus is on the costs. This phase of commitment is characterized by

a need to be so. In our application of the model, the individual’s livelihood is not generally

affected by ending the association. Subsequently, the individual’s cognitive judgment is more

between the benefits received from supporting the team and the cost of giving that support. To

reflect the difference, we have adopted the term “calculative” which is more commonly used in

consumer behavior research for this element of commitment (Echambadi, 2000), (Hansen,

Sandvik, & FredSelnes, 2002). The normative section occurs when employees are loyal to the

organization because they feel that it is the moral and correct thing to do—that they have a

responsibility to the organization. This element of commitment as originally formulated. The

affective component operates when employees are loyal because they want to be. These are

employees who feel much linked and have strong affective feelings toward the organization. The

commitment framework that we apply to our model of consumer devotion includes the three

components of calculative, normative, and affective commitment. Calculative commitment

means that, an individual will remain a fan of a team as long as the benefits of being a fan

compensate the costs (Etzioni, 1961); (Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). These are individuals who are

more expected to be fans during winning seasons, or when there is a player that is especially

exciting to watch. Normative commitment stems from internalized, normative pressures to

remain loyal. In that case, these are individuals who feel some sort of obligation to be a fan of

the team regard less of the balance of costs and benefits. Finally, affective commitment means

that there is an internalized emotional connection between the fan and the team and that the fan

feels that he or she identifies with the team and shares values with it.

Individuals who develop commitment to a team may do so to fulfill expectations that others have

of them, or to satisfy their own needs. In other words, the antecedents can be based

112

interpersonally or intra personally. In either case, developing commitment helps them to achieve

cognitive consistency (Heider, 1958). If a family has a tradition of supporting a college football

team, this tradition may have become established as a family norm (Fields, 1984). Individuals

who value their membership in the family will experience cognitive inconsistency if they do not

also become fans. For example, one informant stated that she had “married into” being a Florida

State fan. When asked if she was now a committed fan, her husband responded, “She better

be.”(Reynolds & E., 2004).

2.5.6 Commitment as Multidimensional Construct

Similar to the construct of trust, the roots of commitment research cannot be found in

economic science. Commitment-research has its roots in the social psychology research field

(Mowday, 1979). However, research in this field is limited to the relationship of two

persons. Organizational psychology extends the understanding of commitment and tries to

explain the interrelation between a person and an organization. In business relation research,

the organizational understanding is widened by focusing on the commitment of two

organizations. A more special focus is set on research between industrial manufacturers and

retailing firm’s e.g. (Joshi, 2009), (Vázquez & Álvarez-gonzález, 2005). A widely known

multidimensional model for commitment research was designed by (Allen & Meyer, 1990). They

distinguish three different components of commitment: affective, normative and calculative or

continuance commitment. The affective component deals with the emotional commitment. The

normative component relies on the feeling of responsibility, while the rational component takes

into account the costs of breaking up a business relationship. All three components can operate

simultaneously and do not exclude themselves(Allen & Meyer, 1990).

113

2.5.7 Affective, Normative and Continuance Commitment

Affective commitment deals with a demand-based relationship to an organization. (Bansal,

Irving, & Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service Providers,

2004). It aims at an emotional relation, the identification with the organization and the wish to be

part of it. (Mowday, 1979), define affective commitment as the relative strength of personal

identification with the organization and as certain participation. This affective power binds

thepartners because of their demand. Trust and satisfaction can be a motor for that kind of bond

(Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service

Providers, 2004). The affective commitment is characterized by a positive identification with

goals and magnitudes of an object and by an emotional bond. Furthermore it describes the wish

for membership due to positive feelings like loyalty and belonging (Allen & Meyer, The

Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the

Organization, 1990). A good example for affective commitment is the relationship of a

hair dresser and its customer (Price, 1999). A person feels a positive emotional relation because

ofits positive experiences. This positive emotion can be caused by the satisfaction about an

object (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Affective commitment is based on the identification with

common values and norms and the involvement in a business relation. Affective committed

people continue business relations, because they like their business partner and enjoy working

together. They feel loyalty and a certain kind of binding to their partner (Cater & Zabkar,

2009).

Continuance commitment describes the cost based binding. People feel forced to stay in a

relationship, because they have to. This is comparable with being “jailed” in a relationship

(Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service

114

Providers, 2004). This construct refers to a cost-benefit analysis that motivates people to

maintain the relationship. Therefore the person must hold on to the relationship, because

breaking it up would be too costly. People think that they cannot quit the relationship,

because this would cause too high economic, social or psychological costs (Bansal, Irving,

& Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service Providers, 2004).

Continuance commitment is therefore often called Calculative commitment. Crucial for the

development of the Calculative commitment are the switching costs that arise when a

relationship is broken up (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). The person would, for example experience

high losses, when he or she would stop the relationship. Due to this dimension of

commitment being not emotional, but rational, the person is just committed to an object, the

possible monetary losses, which would arise when quitting the relationship. This kind of

commitment could lead to negative emotions. This may result in a reduction of motivation

and recommendation about the relationship. Calculative commitment involves a rather

negative motivation to continue a relationship, because the partner is forced to keep it. This

constraint goes along with higher costs or lack of alternatives and makes a business

relationship a necessity (Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer

Commitment to Service Providers, 2004).

2.5.8 Commitment in Business Relationships

One of the first models about commitment in business relations was done by (Wilson &

Mummalaneni, 1987). They describe an accordance of demands and wishes of both business

partners as an assumption for all business relationships. If a business relationship turns out to be

positive and the demands of both parties are satisfied, satisfaction is built and more investments

are done. Commitment is stronger the higher satisfaction is and the higher investments are.

115

Commitment has a positive influence on a business relationship and supports investments and

influences a relationship’s duration positively (Wilson & Mummalaneni, 1987)(Anderson &

Weitz, 1992)focus on commitment in business relationships. They examine the antecedences

of commitment between manufacturers of industrial goods and their retailing firms and develop a

model that views commitment as a mutual, self-energizing process. The manufacturer’s

commitment is perceived by the retailer and this enforces his commitment. However, this

process is not the only reason for commitment. Idiosyncratic investments also enforce

commitment and show the willingness to stay in long-term relationships. The model shows the

self-enforcing process as well as the impact of specific investments (Anderson & Weitz, 1992),

(Morgan & Hunt, 1994) focus their research on the constructs commitment and trust. In their

work, the antecedences as well as the impact-factors are examined. Trust is the elementary

condition for the development of commitment in that model.

The affective commitment reflects the emotional commitment to an organization. Therefore this

commitment binds employees to an organization. The more an individual trusts, the more it will

have a positive feeling.

Hence, the more one trusts a business partner or an organization, the better the feeling

about a business relationship and emotional commitment will be. Studies have shown (Bansal,

Irving, & Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service Providers,

2004) that trust in an organization positively affects emotional commitment. Trust is a pre-stage,

or an assumption for commitment and successful relationships. It is based on past behavior

and allows for commitment in the future. In a relationship, in which both parties trust each

other, short-term profit will be denied for long-term success. If a party feels committed to

another, it is vulnerable. Therefore people will only feel committed to organizations, if they have

116

trust in them. Through trust, the motivation to maintain a relationship is more important to

companies, as the participants feel committed (affective dimension).

(Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, 2004), found out that affective commitment has a positive influence

on normative commitment. The persons that want to continue a business relationship because of

positive experiences feel some kind of responsibility to do that. In other words, persons can feel

committed to an organization, when they have made positive experiences with that organization

(Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, 2004), (Cater & Zabkar, 2009).

Pride of a brand is shown, if one’s expectations are met or have been exceeded. If

someone is proud of a brand, he will feel emotionally committed. Because affective

commitment describes the emotional commitment with an object, the individual, who is

proud of a brand, will identify more with a company.

Therefore a high brand pride will have a positive influence on affective commitment.

People, who feel affectively committed, will feel more morally bond to an organization. The

more proud someone is of a brand, the more he or she will stay loyal to that brand, as he or she

feels morally bond. The continuance commitment has a negative influence on brand pride. This

construct implies that someone is forced to stay to an organization, because switching

costs are too high or there is a lack of alternatives. Persons with high continuance

commitment will feel no pride. Contrary, persons with high brand pride will not stay with a

brand because of lack of alternatives; instead they just want that only brand.

Undoubtedly trust and commitment have strongly influenced recent research. With the

development and conceptualization of brand pride presented here, a further strong construct

in behavioral employee research is found which needs thorough further examination and

117

development. Therefore, a few suggestions for further research on this topic should be made.

First, all our propositions related to brand pride need empirical testing. Although, the

relationships between trust and commitment, an examination of the role of pride should enhance

the understanding of this construct and the interaction between them. Furthermore, an

empirical approach would allow finding different items in order to measure (brand) pride

properly (Kuppelwieser, Grefrath, & Dziuk, 2011).

2.5.9 Commitment’s Central Role:

Recently, a harsh environment is seen. Marketers trying to build brand loyalty for which two

different upstream and downstream approaches can be checked through. A later point in time

refers to the brand's continued purchase. The first approach often buys brand looks for the

purposes of, and involvement with the brand’s commitment to some extent. Firms to value their

customers need to show continued interest. Before attract new customers, retain existing ones

first must be. And for that, consumers should be changed in association with the brand devotion

(Edmund, 2013).

In this way, a repetitive buying behavior and maintain the company’s prime responsibility is

becoming a strategic focus. Well, the allegiance of consumers in terms of brand commitment

brand development is an important goal. Users create a relationship with the brand. It is

important to understand the importance and news. Behavior and attitudes, which can further be

defined in two ways through .it is not enough to, there should be some positive attitude towards

the brand for the presence (Edmund, 2013).

118

2.6 Studies on Satisfaction on Brand Personality

In this prosperous society of todays, the meaning of consumption is totally changed. Customers

prefer to satisfy their higher order needs rather than their physiological and safety needs. The

role of self-actualization and self-esteem are playing a vital role in the purchase of products

(Aaker D. , 1996).

Satisfaction has been derived from the Latin word satis (enough) and facere(to do or make). This

means that satisfying goods and services have the capability to provide what is required to the

point of being enough. A definition of satisfaction that has been proposed in the past is "An

evaluation rendered that the (consumption) experience was at least as good as it was supposed to

be". A more formal definition of Satisfaction is the customer’s execution reaction. It is a verdict

that a good/service feature, or the good or service itself, provided (or is providing) a gratifying

level of utilization related fulfillment, including under- or over fulfillment (Oliver R. L.,

Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, 2010).

Satisfaction is defined as the feeling of happiness or pleasure because you have achieved

something or got what you wanted. Customer satisfaction is divided into three categories;

including enquirers, complainants and review customers. Enquirer is defined as the member of

the public who gets in touch with us to organization to investigate complaint. A complaint is

someone whose complaint the organization is currently investigating. A review customer is

someone who has asked to review the decision about their enquiry or complaint (Ombudsman,

2012).

For Achour in the research of (Bouslama, Achouri, & Neji, "The Effect of the Congruence

between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumer’s Satisfaction and Loyalty", 2010),

119

satisfaction is defined as " An encouraging feeling a consumer has after a utilization experience

and springing out an assessment between the expectations from a product or a service and the

performance perceived from it."

Another definition of satisfaction has been derived that is the degree to which a product's

perceived performance matches a buyer's expectation. Customer Satisfaction is mostly dependent

on the product and services but there is another factor that determines it. That is the customer

expectation. The higher the consumer satisfaction the harder those satisfaction are fulfilled by

any goods or services. Thus, satisfaction tries to match the level of expectation with the

perception of consumers (Anantadjaya, Walidin, Waskita, & Nawangwulan, 2007).

Customer satisfaction is also defined as an emotional post- consumption reaction that may occur

as the result of comparing projected and real performance or it can be a conclusion that occurs

without comparing opportunity. However, researcher has said that the relation between

satisfaction and brand loyalty is moderated by psychological and situational factors (Thiele &

Rundle-, 2004).

Satisfaction is an individual's feelings of delight or disappointment that result from

differentiating a product's supposed performance to expectations. Many companies are always

systematically monitoring their customers and their changing needs and wants. A satisfied

customer stays loyal to the company and talks good about it. They are relatively less worried

about the price changes the organization does. This means that companies are continuously

identifying new and innovative ways to make their customers satisfied. In this era it is very easy

for consumers to switch to different brands as there are many options available in the market

(Kotler & Keller, A framework for marketing management, 2009).

120

Brand Personality has two different meanings: Firstly it is about the individual's internal

processes; it helps to understand why a person acts in a certain way and corresponds to "what I

say about myself). The second one concern the way in which a person is perceived by others"

what others say and think about me. Brand personality is the set of human characteristics

associated with a brand. But some of the American researchers think that this definition is quite

vague and indistinguishable from other closed concepts such as brand image or brand identity.

Most of the researchers talk about the "set of human traits related with a brand". It is a mean to

build a unique identity to the brand and plays a vital role in the understanding of consumers'

attitudes and choices (M'Sallem, Mzoughi, & Bouhlel, Customers' Evolution after a Bank

renaming: Effects of Brand name change on Brand Personality, Brand Attitude and Customer;

Satisfaction, 2009).

Brand personality is defined as the set of human characteristics, which are associated with the

brand (Keller K. L., 1993). Many consumers easily think of a brand as a celebrity or famous

historical figures. Different personality represent different traits, that is why people associate

themselves with product, for example; consumers of coca cola are associated with the term cool,

similarly in Pepsi consumers associate themselves as young, exciting and hip. In order to

examine the relationship with brand and human personality may drive consumer preference; two

types of brand personality scales are used the first type are ad hoc scales, which are typically

composed of a set of traits ranging from 30 to 200. However these scales are theoretical in

nature. The second types of brand personality are those that are based on human personality

scales and that have not been validated in context of brand.

According to San Martin the consumer satisfaction is cognitive but as well as emotional also.

There are two formulation of satisfaction, one is transaction specific which is defined as the

121

judgment of the consumer before buying the product, it can also be describe as the post purchase

evaluative decision (Oliver, 1993). It also suggested that satisfaction occur at the post

consumption stage.

On the other hand, the second one is Overall satisfaction, which is defined as the evaluative

decision of the last purchase occasion and it based on all encounters with service provider

(Bitner, 1994). In the end overall satisfaction is an aggregation of all transaction specific

satisfaction with service encounters (Veloutsou, 2005).

The brand offers opportunities to build connection with consumers. Thus, consumers want to

build relationship with a particular brand because they consider the brand as favorable or

precious to them. If customers feel that they are getting good value and are satisfied after initially

using the brand, they want to build a relationship with it. It is suggested that perceived

satisfaction has a positive effect on brand loyalty. Also that consumer satisfaction affects attitude

after purchase and this influences the repurchase intention. Consumer- brand relationship is a

blend of cognitive, emotional, behavioral processes that happen between brands and customers.

Consumers build an individual relationship with a particular product in the same way as people

take care of relations with other people. Thus, it tells us that both customers and brands add to

each other in a win- win situation. Researchers have identified six dimensions of brand

relationship quality: love/ passion, self-connection, interdependence, commitment, intimacy and

brand partner quality (Seong- Yeon Park, 2005).

Measurement for consumer satisfaction is the five dimensions of Seroquel:

Tangibles: which includes issues such as appearance of physical facilities?

Reliability: which covers issues such as ability to perform the promised services?

122

Responsiveness: willingness to help customers and provide quick services.

Assurance: knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and

confidence

Empathy: caring, individualized attention the firm provides to its customers.

In the services segment, satisfaction occurs when the perception of performance exceeds the

expected one. In this type of approach, Satisfaction is defined as "an individual's objectivity

resulting favorable evaluation of any outcome and/ or experience associated with consuming a

product". It is also defined as "the consumer's fulfillment response" (M'Sallem, Mzoughi, &

Bouhlel, Customers' Evolution after a Bank renaming: Effects of Brand name change on Brand

Personality, Brand Attitude and Customer; Satisfaction, 2009). Satisfaction is a positive affective

reaction to an outcome of a prior experience. The satisfaction and attitudes formed because of

former experience then has an impact on purchases, finishing the cyclical pattern (Sahin, Zehir,

& Kitapci, An Empirical Research on Global Brands, 2011).

Brand personality can include characteristics such as age, socio-economic class, personality traits

and feelings. A model for measurement was developed for the measurement of personality by

identifying 42 features divided up among 15 facets and 5 factors of personality. Those are

sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness (Bouslama, Achouri, & Neji,

"The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumer’s

Satisfaction and Loyalty", 2010).

Consumers are more educated, intellectual and knowledgeable in recent era; they know quality

of any company’s product, as well as their alternatives. If the current product does not satisfy

their need, they will definitely switch to the next available alternative. Customer perceived value

123

is defined as the difference between customer’s evaluation of all the benefits of product and all

the cost of product. Total customer value is defined as the all attributes of product, service,

personnel, and image in the eyes of customer or people. Whereas on the other hand, the total

customer cost is the overall cost of the customer expectation about the product, which he or she

is using, obtaining, disposing and it includes market offering also. It can be better understand by

an example, suppose that a person wants to purchase a tractor, he has two choices in front of

him; that are Caterpillar and Komatsu after an evaluation he decided to buy a Caterpillar tractor,

because he knows that Caterpillar has greater product benefits, it has good reliability offer, and

above all it has good resale value plus a high quality performance engine and parts. He also

knows that Caterpillar’s employees are more knowledgeable, and they will provide better

service, for example; maintenance. Thus in the end, we can conclude he has make judgment on

the respected variables that are; product, services, personnel, things and quality.

Customer perceived value has divided into two sub headings that are total customer benefits and

total customer cost. Each of them is divided into four sub headings; total customer benefits

include; product benefit, customer benefit, personnel benefit and image benefit. On Contrary

total customer cost includes; monetary cost, time cost, energy cost and psychological cost.

Consumer satisfaction theory and research have consistently supported a positive relationship

between product satisfaction and repurchases intention (Howard and sheth, 1969).

Effects of brand personality: Discussing about the dependent variable which includes brand

attitude which is defined as the overall evaluation of a brand. Brand attitudes are essential

because they formulate consumer behavior; this is the reason that it is dependent variable. One

accepted model of brand attitudes leads to intentions which ultimately reach to actual behavior.

According to Keller (1993) writes that this model probably has been the most influential multi

124

attribute model to marketing. Considering Multi attribute model, brand attitude are a function of

characteristics plus benefits that are salient for the brand.

For marketers, satisfaction is one of the conditions for market continuation and expansion to take

place. Plus, a pleased customer is a non-complaining consumer- no time and money have to be

spent on making corrective actions by the firm. Also no unfavorable communication among

customers will take place. One of the models used by researchers is the two stage expectancy

model:

Brand choice is a function of intentions to act, which are influenced by beliefs and

attitudes.

The post usage experience begins with disconfirmation or fulfillment of pre-purchase

expectations and beliefs.

If expectations are fulfilled, satisfaction is the outcome.

Post usage attitude is a task of satisfaction. If the experience is positive, former attitude is

reinforced.

Future purchase intentions are directly affected by post- purchase attitude. And if the

purchase experience has been good, repurchase will happen.

Highly concerned customers have invested time and energy in their relationship with a firm. If

they experience dissatisfaction with the core factor, they may feel that a personal investment is

not yielding results and experience more overall dissatisfaction than customers who have no

personal involvement. There should be involvement effects when people are satisfied with the

core activity (Goodman, Fichman, Lerch, & Snyder, 1995).

125

Brands offer opportunity to build relationship with the customers. This means that brands are a

way to make a unique bond with customer. So that customers are attracted to the brand

personality and that they can relate to it.

Consumer Satisfaction is not only cognitive but emotional suggested by Rodriguez Del Bosque

and San Martin (2008). Overall satisfaction is an evaluative judgment of the last purchase

occasion and based on all encounters with service provider (Bitner, 1994).

Gounaris and Stathakopoulas have stated in (Attri, pahwa, & Urkude, Loyalty and customer

satisfaction with the public sector oil marketing companies: way forward for effective CRM

strategies, 2012) that retention of customers is only possible through nurturing loyalty by making

an emotional connection between the brand and the customer. These loyal buyers will then

contribute to making good feedbacks when in groups. They will be able to attract new customers

to the brands as they will be satisfied.

Examining the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty is quite complex yet marketing

literature suggests that satisfaction leads to attitudinal loyalty, which is defined as an intention to

make future purchases. Attitudinal loyalty is assumed to be a necessary implication of

satisfaction (Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, & Rundle- Thiele, Examining te Satisfaction- Loyalty

Relationship, 2004). Satisfaction is the emotional post-consumption response which is the result

of comparing actual and expected performance or t can also be the outcome of which occurs

without comparing(Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, & Rundle- Thiele, Examining te Satisfaction-

Loyalty Relationship, 2004).The relationship between satisfaction and loyalty is curvilinear and

is mediated by several psychological and situational factors (Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, &

Rundle- Thiele, Examining te Satisfaction- Loyalty Relationship, 2004).

126

The saturation of market and the maturity of consumers towards the brand and have urged the

companies to go beyond brand image to the relation brand (Bouslama, ACHOURI, & Neji,

2004). Now a day’s consumers tend for their decision to rely on the brand image as it is

developed in their minds rather than the inherent attributes and the characters of the product.

This actually turns customer loyalty into important primary marketing objective.

Our current studies are based on the effort of understanding the relationship and impact of

satisfaction on brand personality and brand loyalty. More precisely we will discuss and evaluate

the effect of consumer’s satisfaction on brand personality and brand loyalty (Bouslama, Achouri,

& Neji, "The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on

Consumer’s Satisfaction and Loyalty", 2010).

Personality is a psychological notion which is often presented as a stable and individualized

unity of behavior or a set of behaviors and structure of features. These features are defined as

tendencies which are meant to show coherent modes of cognitive and affective perception and

also the behavior on the part of individual’s behavior. (Bouslama, Achouri, & Neji, "The Effect

of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumer’s Satisfaction and

Loyalty", 2010), other than this personality features are perceived as psychological

characteristics that gives meaning to human action and experiences (Bouslama, Achouri, & Neji,

"The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumer’s

Satisfaction and Loyalty", 2010).

Customer Satisfaction generates brand loyalty in marketing theory this supposition is made very

often on this supposition every producer of any kind of a good should affix chief importance to

creating customer satisfaction. There is a greater chance of repurchase of a brand by a consumer

who is satisfied rather than the customer who is dissatisfied. It is also assumed that the greater

127

amount of customer satisfaction the greater the degree is of brand loyalty. For a firm’s

continuity and profit brand loyalty is an essential pillar (Bloemer & Kasper, 1994).

Consumer Satisfaction is not only important for producer but is equally important for consumer

him/herself as it means a positive evaluation of a manufactured goods or a brand that shows the

consumer that he is capable of making the right decision in terms of the product which he is

buying out of so many options. It also shows the consumer that his needs are fulfilled and he

does not need to go under any negative actions. And adversity for instance complaining doesn’t

need to occur now (Bloemer & Kasper, 1994).

As we see that a number of studies have shown a positive relationship between customer

satisfaction and brand loyalty conversely the association is not that perfect. Before the further

analysis of the relationship between customer satisfaction and brand loyalty the main question

which arises that to what extent customer satisfaction can affect brand loyalty? For this it is

necessary for us to distinguish two types of consumer satisfaction which are:

Manifest Satisfaction

Latent Satisfaction

Secondly, it is also important to stress onto the differences between true brand loyalty and

spurious brand loyalty. Thirdly it is also important to describe the relationship between the two

types of customer satisfaction and brand loyalty (Bloemer & Kasper, 1994).

In the literature many conceptual and operational definitions of satisfaction can be found most of

these definitions are based on the comparison between expectation and performance while others

are merely based on performance. However satisfaction is relative in nature and it varies among

128

thing from which the comparison is being made therefore it should be directed under such

circumstances under which a comparison between performance and expectations can occur.

Up till now most approaches of consumer satisfaction seem to imply some kind of comparison

between expectation and performance but consumers may vary as to how explicit these

comparisons are made other than that it can be very hard for consumer to generate expectations

and to evaluate performance and also to compare the two as if they were independent variables

(Bloemer & Kasper, 1994).

If the customer is not aware of about the god at stake and has no experience with the alternatives

which might serve as reference point and are not capable and motivated t compute the difference,

correspondence and relationship between the performance and expectations. It might get hard to

complete this comparison. But even if the consumer is aware, capable to compute and motivated

to do so but the absence of perceived differences may hinder the consumer in doing it.(Bloemer

& Kasper, 1994), manifest satisfaction is the result of the explicit subjective evaluation that the

chosen alternative brand meets or exceeds the expectation. It is the result of the explicit and

extensive evaluation of brand choice. It is very well elaborated and the consumer is aware of it.

Thus it is assumed that it will be clearly related to future buying behavior. (Bloemer & Kasper,

1994), whereas, the latent satisfaction is result of implicit subjective evaluation that has chosen

alternatives of brand meets or exceeds the expectations. It is the result of the implicit evaluation

of the brand choice which isn’t elaborated upon. Therefore it does not need to be unequivocally

related to future buying behavior. Thus we can conclude that manifest satisfaction will occur

only if the consumer is motivated to make an evaluation and has the capacity to do so (Bloemer

& Kasper, 1994).

129

Thus, Consumer satisfaction is the most essential and most researched topic in marketing. It is

important for long term success in business as it is determined to be one of the most fundamental

determinants of longer term success as it carries out the post consumption evaluation like

behavior (Nam, Ekinci, & Whyaltt, Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and Consumer Satisfaction,

2011).

According to (Behi, Belaid, & Temessek, 2010) in general satisfaction has been portrayed as:

“An affective, a cognitive or a conative response that is based on an evaluation of product

standards, product consumption experience and product traits it occurs before or after

consumption or extended experience.”

Early in 1960’s definitions of brand loyalty incorporated both attitudinal and behavioral

concepts. Yet few empirical studies have incorporated both dimensions. Instead research in this

area seems to be fragmented into two distinct traditions with behavioral researchers focusing on

the observable action of loyal customer and attitudinal researchers investigating commitment to

bran and repurchase intensions of the consumers.

Industries seems to be more interested in forming everlasting relationships with it customers than

the telecommunication and media industry. For the past few years companies within both

industries have been operating within the environmental of digital junction which could be

defined as the dynamic approach or partial integration of different communication and

information based market application (Wirtz, 1999).

Customer satisfaction leads to brand loyalty. This is an assumption made very often in

marketing. The chance that a satisfied customer purchase a product that has satisfied him/her is

greater than the product that has not satisfied customer and a probability that he will buy it again

130

is having a less chance. It has been supposed that greater the degree of customer satisfaction is

directly proportional to the greater degree of brand loyalty. When discussing about the customer

satisfaction, we can say that it is not only important for producer but also for customer, it shows

that customer is capable of making the right decision for him/her. Furthermore, two types of

customer satisfaction has been discuss, firstly manifest satisfaction and secondly latent

satisfaction. Stress on the difference between true brand loyalty and spurious brand loyalty has

been emphasized. According to Jacoby and Chestnut true brand loyalty is defined as “the biased

that is nonrandom, behavioral responses, expressed over time, by some decision making unit,

with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands, and is a function of

psychological processes resulting in brand commitment. He further defined spurious brand

loyalty has “ the biased, behavioral responses that is purchase, expressed over time, by some

decision making unit, with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands,

and is a function of inertia”.

The major difference that has been notified between true brand loyalty and spurious loyalty is

that true brand loyalty is based on brand commitment where else spurious brand loyalty is not. In

addition, true brand loyal customer is one who is committed to his/her brand. He/she insist to buy

same brand again and again. On the contrary, spurious brand loyal customer is not committed to

a brand; the individual may buy a product, or he/she will not or there is big chance that he or she

will move to the next product that is available. The spurious loyal buyers’ lack any attachment to

brand attributes and they can be immediately captured by another brand that offers a better deal,

a coupon or enhanced point of purchase visibility through displays or other devices.

True brand loyalty is brand commitment for brand commitment is necessary condition for true

brand loyalty to occur. Brand commitment is defined as the pledging or binding of an individual

131

to his/her brand choice (Kiesler & Abelson, 1968). As a result of explicit and extensive decision

making and evaluative processes, a consumer becomes committed to the brand; the individual is

pledged and bound to the choice again.

When the decision making and evaluative processes are not explicit and only very limited the

consumer will not become committed to the brand and cannot be truly brand loyal. Then, only

spurious brand loyalty will result in case that individual buys the brand again.

The study hinges upon true brand loyalty. This means that we will explicitly take into account

the level of consumers’ commitment. Definitely the consumer world comprises of more situation

than these two extremes; consumers may differ in their degree of loyalty for various products.

Therefore, we assume that a continuum between true brand loyalty; the repeat buying of a brand

based on a maximum or infinite amount of commitment. On the contrary, one finds spurious

brand loyalty; they do again buying of the brand not based on any commitment at all, but on

inertia. In this way, brand commitment enables us to define the degree of true brand loyalty. We

have broadly discussed two different types of satisfaction and have stressed the difference among

true brand loyalty and spurious brand loyalty (Bloemer & Kasper, 1994).

Through consumer experience brands take on personality traits. Five dimensions of personality

are sincerity (e.g. down-to-earth), excitement (spirited, imaginative), competence (reliable,

intelligent), sophistication (upper class and charming) and ruggedness (tough)(Keller,

Parameswaran, & Jacob, 2011).

According to Ouwersloot and Tudorica in the research of (Bouslama, Achouri, & Neji, "The

Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumer’s Satisfaction

132

and Loyalty", 2010)companies should think about brand personality as a device that enables

them to reach their satisfaction goal.

On the whole satisfaction is an evaluative opinion of the last purchase incident and based on all

encounters with service giver (Nam, Ekinci, & Whyaltt, Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and

Consumer Satisfaction, 2011).

Many empirical studies have revealed that customer satisfaction secures future revenues, reduces

future transaction costs, decreases price elasticity and minimizes the likely hood of customers

detecting if quality flatters. Satisfaction plays a very important role in quality management.

Satisfaction also occurs when customer expectations are met or exceeded and the purchase

decision is reinforced. Satisfaction reinforces positive attitudes toward the brand, leading to the

greater likelihood that the consumer will repurchase the same brand. Dissatisfaction result when

consumer expectations when are not met, such disconfirmation of expectations is likely to level

to negative brand attitudes and lessens the likelihood that the consumer will buy the same brand

again.

Thus Satisfaction is very important, because a company’s sales come from two basic groups —

new customers and repeat purchase customers. It usually costs more to attract new customers

than to retain current ones, and the best way to retain current customers is to keep them satisfied.

Therefore, satisfaction will positively associate with re-purchase decision making.

According to Vilares and Cohelo, employee satisfaction not harms the commitment of employee

and his/her loyalty but it put an impact on customer satisfaction related variables. The

relationship between employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction has obtained a

confirmation of two strong studies. The relationship between employee satisfaction, customer

133

satisfaction as well as profit showing that, the effects of employee satisfaction and customer

satisfaction on business profit at a given point in time might not be noticeable; they become

prominent over time (Berhadt, Donthu and Kennett, 2000).

Furthermore, discussing the affect the of employee satisfaction on customer satisfaction;

employees that interact with customers are in a position to develop awareness of and respond to

customer goals and needs. Employees who are satisfied are more motivated also, that is they

have the motivational resources to deliver adequate effort and care. Satisfied employees are

empowered employees also they have the resources, training and responsibilities to understand

and serve customer needs and demands. They have high energy and willingness to give good

service at a very lowest; they can deliver a more positive perceptive of service and product that

are provided (Bulgarella, 2005).

Brands are focused to be positioned within the emotional and experimental world of the

customers. Within this structure, the personality brand management has found its way in the

business. This new understanding of brands authorizes an organization to utilize the emotional

comfort of a brand to develop long-term customer brand relationships and also with brand

equity.

Scientists have identified the significance of brand personality since a long time. (Domizlaff, '22

Basic Laws of Natural Branding', 1939), that - A brand's personality is the factor which supports

the brand's identity the most.

(Rieger, 1985), claimed that - brands without personality are blame to death. Even today brand

personalities are playing an effective role in the brand management.

134

Marketers are focused in the brand personality occurrence more than ever and pursue to grasp

the effect that brand personality has on customer behavior and satisfaction. The task of brands

inside organizations has changed over the last few years. Today the corporate value chains are

the key to an organization's success.

This evolution can be defined by the reality that the market satisfaction of a company does not

mostly come from its tactile assets any more, but its intangibles. Brands as bodiless assets thus

acquire more significance for an organization's existence. This mount position of brands within

organization compromises the desire to understand management of the brand governance

mechanisms efficiently in order to boost up the brand satisfaction and also organization's profit

as well (Bauer H. , The Value of the Brand, 2000).

Unfortunately, the organization dimensions have changed, which made productive brand

management tough. The life cycle of product is declining which indirect that new products are

entering the market more often. Inside the mount of this product organization's extend struggle to

distinguish their products from competitors.

The obtainable products are alike to each other and can be exchanged by many other products,

because they all please the same useful basic needs of the customers (Domizlaff, Translated from

German: Die 22 Gesetze der naturlichen Markenbildung ", 1939).

It is a fact that, products cannot replace in means of services and functions but also with the

quality of their service provision. Therefore, the product becomes replaceable which again make

a distinction tougher.

135

Also the concentration of the market consequences in a ravening competition which means the

organization's wealth can only increase by achieving success over customers from competitors

(Bauer & Huber, 1997).

An effective way to handle with the mentioned challenges is a personality- directed brand

management. The grasp of a brand as a personality authorize an organization to better utilize the

spiritual satisfaction of a brand to develop life time customer brand relationships and also brand

equity. The grasp of brands as personalities eases the distinction from other competitors.

Researchers have exhibit that non-product affiliated assigns such as the brand's personality are

much powerful distinct that purely product-related assign (Biel A. L., 1991).

A brand's personality is very tough if not bearable to copy by contestant and can therefore give

organizations a defendable ambitious benefit (Luckerath, 2010).

This model depicts that the important variable in this research include brand equity, consumer

satisfaction, brand loyalty. Further defining it independent variable is brand equity, consumer

satisfaction as the mediating role, and in last dependent variable is brand loyalty.

Brand equity is defined as the “differential effect of brand knowledge on customers’ response to

the marketing of a brand”. (Keller K. L., 1993),(Vazquez, Del Rio, & Iglesias, 2002), they

defined brand equity as the overall that the consumer associates with the use and consumption of

brand.

Further defining brand equity, it is notable because it distinguishes brand equity from brand

loyalty. Brand equity is conceptually broader which encompasses brand image and brand

familiarity. It has traditionally been conceived as a behavioral construct relating to intentions

towards repeat purchase. By contrast, brand equity entails favorable disposition that may not

136

necessarily result in purchasing behavior. Thus behavioral intentions are one of the consequences

of brand equity, rather than its component. Although consumer based brand equity is seen as

multi-dimensional within the marketing literature (Aaker D. A., 1991). There are many debates

exists as to whether the principles of branding within goods marketing could be directly applied

to service dominant brands. The research model proposes that the five dimensions of consumer

based brand equity; physical quality, staff behavior, ideal self-congruence, brand identification,

and lifestyle-congruence have positive effects on brand loyalty via consumer satisfaction. In

addition, describing these variables, Service quality as the independent variable. It is the central

development of strong service dominant brands because it enhances perceived superiority of the

brands and helps to differentiate brands in competitive markets (Low & Jr, 2000). Self-

congruence is the independent variable that can be viewed as the totality of an individual’s

thoughts and feelings with reference to the person as an object of thought (Rosenberg, 1979). It

refers to the degree to which a consumer’s actual or ideal self-concept coincides with a brand

image (Sirgy M. , 1982). Brand identification is independent variable. It is define as the

individual becomes a member of a social group in order to support his identity and his sense of

belonging. Likewise, consumers define their social identity by consuming brands or associating

with brands (Río, Vázquez, & Víctor Iglesias, 2001). Lifestyle congruence is independent

variable, it includes life, beliefs, aspirations and demographic. The mediator variable is consumer

satisfaction. It proposed that consumer satisfaction is cognitive and emotional also (Bosque &

Martin, 2008). Brand loyalty is a dependent variable, it has been investigated that consumer

loyalty are discuss from two perspectives. First one is behavioral loyalty and the second one is

attitudinal loyalty (Nam, Ekinci, & Whyatt, 2011).

137

Another research paper describing frame work that leads customer loyalty are as follows;

Academics in the field of marketing are common in their view that customer loyalty is first and

prime a result of a customer’s satisfaction with the brand (Anderson & Sullivan, "The

antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for firms", 1993). Many empirical

studies have supported the supposed positive link between customer satisfaction and loyalty

(Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994),(Hallowell, 1996),(Rust & Zahorik, 1993).

In spite of satisfaction is a determinant of brand loyalty, a satisfied customer sometimes switches

to another brand or service provider if he/she is not satisfied. This limited analytical significance

of customer satisfaction for buyer loyalty can be explained not just empirically, but also with the

help of selected theoretical approaches. Additionally, the brand personality construct as a

concept of consumer experimental psychology (Aaker D. , 1996) has been proposed as an

important forerunner of customer loyalty. These approaches with their principle of theoretical

pluralism allow change barriers the pleasant appearance of rival products and services, variety

seeking and brand personality to be unwavering alongside customer satisfaction as central

determinants of customer loyalty.

The influence of switching barriers on a customer’s loyalty has been examined in different

contexts (Klemperer, 1995); (Weiss & Anderson, 1992).The basic idea behind all research done

in this context is that, once a transaction relationship is established, the cost of switching the

transaction partner becomes higher (Lee & Cunningham, 2001). Therefore, the change barriers a

customer is confronted with exert a positive influence on his or her loyalty, the barriers’ levels,

which may vary considerably, depend to a large extent on the nature of the transaction (Fornell,

1992). The concept itself is comprised of psychological, sociological and economic factors. For

example, the customer’s confidence in the supplier’s reliable fulfillment ability often plays a

138

major role and leads to change barriers on the psychological side (Anderson & Weitz, 1989).

Thus, a customer’s loyalty increases with higher economic and socio psychological change

barriers.

Concerning economic switching barriers, one might expect that their increase may result in less

satisfied customers. In this context,(Hauser, Simester, & Werfelt, 1994) point out that

‘consumers become less sensitive to satisfaction level as switching costs increase. Consequently,

they might stay loyal, even if they are dissatisfied. As opposed to this, higher socio psychological

switching barriers may enhance trust in the service provider, and therefore may engage a higher

level of a customer’s satisfaction.

The brand personality construct is seen to be a brand image component consisting of the human

characteristics people associate with brands. Brand personality can serve as a basis for

meaningful and sustainable emotional differentiation (Farquhar, 1990). But first of all, the

concept enables customers to attribute an identity to a brand and therefore supports their

identification with the brand (Ambler, 1997). This in turn increases the personal meaning of the

brand. Primarily psychological factors such as the congruence between the brand image and the

customer’s reflection may result in change barriers (Wilson & Mummalaneni, 1986).

Furthermore, the apparent attractiveness of rival products and services has been shown to be a

central determinant of customer satisfaction and customer loyalty (Dick & Basu, 1994). This

relationship can be deduced from the definition of the customer satisfaction construct as the

result of the comparison between expectations and performances. The focus is not on

determining the effect of variety seeking on customer satisfaction and on customer loyalty. It

rather addresses the question whether or not the relationships between the latent variables are

moderated by the extent of variety customers are seeking for. There are only a few studies

139

examining the existence of external factors moderating the relationship between satisfaction,

brand loyalty and their determinants (Homborg & Giering, 2001).

In the case of causal models, two strategies are possible in order to examine the postulated effect

of a metric moderating variable (Jaccard & Wan, 1996): the first is to use an interaction effect to

test for moderation (Baron & Kenny, 1986); the second consists of performing a multiple group

analysis (Hayduk, 1988). If the moderating effect relates to only one or a few model parameters,

the first strategy seems to be more suitable. However, if one is interested in determining the

influence of the moderating variable on many or all model parameters, the second strategy is

suggested (Magin, Algesheimer, Huber, & Herrmann, 2003).

2.7 Brand Loyalty

Early in 1960’s definitions of brand loyalty incorporated both attitudinal and behavioral

concepts. Yet few empirical studies have incorporated both dimensions. Instead research in this

area seems to be fragmented into two distinct traditions with behavioral researchers focusing on

the observable action of loyal customer and attitudinal researchers investigating commitment to

bran and repurchase intensions of the consumers (Russel-Bennet, McColl-Kennedy, & Coote,

2007).

Brand loyalty is considered to be the focal point of the interest for the marketers and practitioners

Past researchers suggests that loyal customers spend more than the customers who are not loyal

and also that they engage in positive word of mouth and that they are at the heart of a company’s

most valuable customer(Russel-Bennet, McColl-Kennedy, & Coote, 2007).

Typically brand loyalty is defined as the repeat purchasing behavior of a product which reflects

the conscious pattern of decision making which continues in buying the same product. This

140

shows that consumer does not only buy the brand on regular basis but also carries a strong

impact regarding it rather than simply buying something out of habit. Brand loyal customers

carry something more than the positive attitude regarding the brand- they are more passionate

regarding the product. These are more like the emotional binds which consumers develop

towards the product and become true-blue users who react more intensely and passionately when

a company alters, changes, spruce up, revamp or eliminate their favorite brand (Solomon M. R.,

2012).

When a consumer falls in love with a brand it may become their favorite brand for life time. In a

few researches it is also seen that some brands are in sense are well known because they are well

known as assumed that if so many choose a product then it ultimately must be good.

Why people buy same things continuously when it comes to full fill the need. Brand loyalty

includes the customers that are devoted and emotional attach to a product. Manufacturers and

companies are trying to develop niche in the market by constructing their own base of loyal

customers, who over the period of time have accepted the product whole heartedly. Companies

spend large sum of money of the brand loyalty because of its importance. It also play vital role in

advertising (Loudon, 2001).

The measure of attachment that a consumer has to a brand and it reflects how likely a customer

will be leaning to switch to another brand. It is seen as a link in the chain of effects that in some

way connects brand trust with the market performance aspects of brand equity. It shows positive

feelings towards a brand resulting in frequent purchase of the brand over a period of time.

Researchers have said that customer withholding can only be achieved only through nurturing

loyalty by establishing an emotional attachment between brand and consumer. These types of

141

consumers can contribute to the positive word of mouth communications for the brand (Attri,

pahwa, & Urkude, 2012).

Loyalty is defined by Oliver in the research of(Sahin, Zehir, & Kitapci, 2011) as a deeply held

commitment to rebut or re- patronize a preferred product/ service consistently in the future,

theory causing repetitive same- brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite situational

influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior.

Runyun in the research of (Lin & Hsien, 2008), has defined brand loyalty as “a unique case of

planned decision making when consumers adopt a decision tactic of giving all or most of their

support to a particular brand". It has also been defined as the behavioral outcome of a customer's

preference for a particular brand from a selection of similar brand over a period of time, which is

the result of evaluative decision making process.

According to (Attri, pahwa, & Urkude, 2012), from an attitudinal perspective, brand loyalty has

been defined as “the tendency to be loyal to a focal brand as demonstrated by the intention to buy

it as a primary choice".

Marketers have developed tactics to build strong ties with the consumers in terms of brand

loyalty for which they have developed loyalty or frequency programs. The purpose of these

programs is identifying, maintaining and increasing the yield from a company’s ‘best’ customer

through long term value-added relationship these programs often include company’s co-branding

arrangement or alliances(Keller K. L., 1993).

Copeland in the research of (Lee & Han, 1999) was the first to suggest a phenomenon related to

brand loyalty that is brand insistence. Researchers have concluded that individuals exhibit strong

and operative brand loyalty.

142

In the research of (Basrawi, 2009), Wilkie describes brand loyalty as “a favorable attitude

towards, and consistent purchase of a particular brand". The companies who have special traits

and attributes in their brand can result in having large numbers of loyal customers which means

that when the brands establish a unique position in the minds and hearts of consumers they

become loyal to the brand.

Loyalty programs are being adopted by a wide range of industries as they often yield results. One

of the marketers say that a loyalty program reduces the defection rate by increasing retention and

therefore industry can win more of a customer’s purchasing share.(Keller K. L., 1993)

One way to build effective loyalty program is to follow the mentioned tips:

Know your audience

Change is good

Listen to your best customers

Engage people

Because of the importance of loyal customers it has become really important for the marketers to

build strong relationship with their consumers and make it a branding priority as customers’

actual product experiences and its after-marketing activities have taken on a greater importance

in building customer-based brand equity and therefore it makes it necessary to fully understand

your customer and know that how they can provide you with greater value, before, during and

after purchase (Keller K. L., 1993).

143

Much of the researches on brand loyalty for the past three decades investigate customer loyalty

on two perspectives.

Attitudinal Loyalty

Behavioral Loyalty

Behavioral loyalty refers to the frequency of repeat purchase of a product, Whereas Attitudinal

loyalty refers to the psychological commitment that a consumer makes in the purchase act. Such

intentions lead to purchase and are an intention to recommend the product without necessarily

taking the actual repeat purchase behavior into action (Nam, Ekinci, & Whyatt, 2011).

Brand loyalty is a branding concept which has developed through investigations in association

with the customer brand relationship. The analysis of relationship between brand satisfaction and

loyalty concludes that satisfaction is an important step in loyalty formation. The two aspects of

brand loyalty are purchase and attitudinal loyalty which act as linking variable in the chain of

effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance. However there are three main

streams of research of loyalty which can be measured and distinguished i.e. behavioral loyalty,

attitudinal loyalty and composite loyalty (Loureiro, Consumer Brand relationship: foundation

and state of art, 2012).

In consumer research the expression the term customer loyalty is often measured by indicators

such as intentions to continue to buy the same product, or intention to buy more of the same

product and repeat purchases (behavioral measures) or can also be the willingness to recommend

the product to others which is attitudinal behavioral that reflects the product advocacy.

Moreover to determine the mass market brands in consumer settings we need to know about the

human personality and brand personality. Brand personality is a set of human characteristics

144

associated with the brand and it proposes five dimensions to brand personality namely sincerity

(down to earth, honest, wholesome and cheerful), excitement (daring, spirited imaginative, up-to-

date), competence (reliable, intelligent, and successful), sophistication (upper class charming),

and ruggedness (outdoorsy, tough), (Loureiro, Consumer Brand relationship: foundation and

state of art, 2012).

Jacoby and Chestnut have defined loyalty in the study of as (Basrawi, 2009), biased, behavioral

response, expressed over time, by some decision making unit and with respect to one or more

brands out of a set of such brands. Three kinds of categories were identified in which various

operational measures had been placed in: behavioral, attitudinal and composite. Another

definition based on the behavioral element proposes that “brand loyalty is a role of a brand's

relative occurrence of purchase in both time- independent and time dependent situations. This

type of loyalty is dependent on sales figure and how many times an individual buys the brand.

The definition based on the attitudinal element viewed brand loyalty as the propensity for an

individual to carry on over time to display similar attitude in situations similar to those one

formerly encountered. According to Day in the research of (Basrawi, 2009)loyalty should be

evaluated with both the attitudinal and behavioral criteria.

Brand loyalty is considered to be the central point of the interest for the marketers and

practitioners Past researchers suggests that loyal customers spend more than the customers who

are not loyal and also that they connect in positive word of mouth and thus they are at the heart

of a company’s most valuable customer. A shift in emphasis from satisfaction to loyalty appears

to be worthwhile change in the strategy for most of the firms, because the impact of the

businesses is more towards of having a loyal customer base (Oliver R. L., 1999).

145

Loyal customers are typically the satisfied customers. Satisfaction is a core concept for loyalty

without which loyalty cannot exist and also that it anchors loyalty. Loyalty may also become the

independent variable of satisfaction so that reversals in the satisfaction may be experienced that

is dissatisfaction and will not influence the loyalty state. In some studies loyalty is defined as

those who re-bought a brand, considered only that brand and did no brand related information

seeking. Thus all these definitions suffer from the problem that they only measure what the

consumer does and does not tap into the psychological meaning of satisfaction and loyalty

(Oliver R. L., 1999).

The deeply held commitment to rebuy or patronize a preferred product or service consistently in

the future or causing s repetitive same brand or same brand set purchasing despite the situational

influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior is termed as

loyalty(Oliver R. L., 1999).

Why would a consumer appear to be naïve, unaware or fervent that he or she would seek out-

tone and only one branded object or brand set to fulfill his or her needs. This is a pertinent

question because the present era of global competition has seemingly enabled the consumers to

move to better alternatives as soon as they materialize (Oliver R. L., 1999).

Product improvement, refinements and innovations are now being accelerated to the point that

the increasing level of new product introduction is predicted to be at record levels (Oliver R. L.,

1999).

The research of(Oliver R. L., 1999),follows the cognition affect conation pattern but differs in

that he argues that customers can become loyal at each attitudinal phase relation to different

elements of the structure of attitude development consumers are theorized to become loyal in

146

cognitive sense first than later it is in the affective sense and more alter it is in the conation sense

or manner and finally it is in the behavioral manner which is described to be as action inertia.

Cognitive loyalty is the first phase of loyalty the brand attribute information is available to

consumers and it indicates that one brand is preferable to its alternatives. This phase is passed on

as cognitive loyalty or loyalty based on brand belief only (Oliver R. L., 1999).

Cognition can be based on prior or vicarious knowledge or can be based on recent experienced

information. Loyalty at this phase is directed towards the brand because of this information. This

consumer state is however of a shallow nature. The depth of loyalty is no deeper than only

performance. If satisfaction is carried forward it becomes a part of the customer’s experience and

he becomes to take an affective overtone (Oliver R. L., 1999).

Affective loyalty is the second phase of the loyalty development it is a liking or an attitude

towards the brand which has developed on the basis of cumulatively satisfying usage occasions.

This reflects the pleasure dimensions of the satisfaction which is the pleasurable fulfillments.

Commitment at this phase is referred to as affective loyalty and is encoded in the customers mind

as cognition and affect. Whereas cognition is directly subject to counter augmentations and affect

is not easily dislodged. The brand loyalty exhibited is directed at the degree of affect for the

brand. Thus it would be desirable if consumers were loyal at a deeper level of commitment

(Oliver R. L., 1999).

Conation level is the next phase of loyalty development it is the stage of behavioral intentions

and is influenced the repeated episodes of positive affect towards the brand. Conation if defined

implies a brand specific commitment to repurchase. Conation loyalty is a loyalty state that

contains what at first appears to be the deeply held commitment to buy noted in the loyalty

147

definition however this commitment is to the intention to re-buy the brand more to motivation

but similarly this desire may be the god intention and may be the anticipated but unrealized

action.

Next comes is the action loyalty that is the study of the mechanism by which intentions are

converted to actions and is referred to as the action control. In this action control sequence the

motivated intention in the past loyalty state is transformed into readiness to act. The action

control paradigm propose that this accompanied by an additional desire that overcomes the

hindrances that might have prevented the act. These actions are perceived as import result for

engaging both of these states. If this engagement is repeated action inertia is developed and

thereby facilitating purchases are reoccurred (Oliver R. L., 1999).

Other than this the most elaborate conceptual definition of brand loyalty are presented which can

be used to discuss further as it covers the most important aspects of brand loyalty, & since it

enjoys widespread support in the marketing literature thus according to this definition, brand

loyalty is: “The (a) biased, (b) behavioral response, (c) expressed over time, (d) by some decision

making unit, (e) with respect to one or more alternative brands out of set of such brand, and (f) is

a function of psychological process Many of the less successful experience brands are not

meeting the challenge of a largely time-starved audience as time has become more desired than

money. Increasingly, people value experiences more than things. Consumers are really looking

for ways to make the most of everyday “lived” experiences. A brand’s role in becoming a

solution for its audience can make it stand out for customers. In that sense, the meaning of brand

is its use. Profitable customers are born when a powerful brand promise is fulfilled by a brand

experience that exceeds expectations and that is how the loyalty of these consumers towards such

brands is created (Gul, Jan, Baloch, Jan, & Jan, 2012).

148

Brand Image and loyalty are considered as the determinants of customer choices regarding any

product and these determine the competitive environment for a specific firm to compete in the

market. The present study was undertaken with the context that what particular factors contribute

towards brand loyalty and image that may be taken under consideration while developing a

particular marketing strategy.

With the exceptional returns to loyalty firms should devote to the loyalty program. The

relationship between loyalty and satisfaction is asymmetric and they are linked together

inextricably (Oliver R. L., 1999).

Aaker, explains in (Osman & Amber, A study on the association between brand awareness and

consumer/ brand loyalty for the packaged milk industry in pakistan, 2010) that loyalty is a

measured capacity of how much a purchaser can be emotionally involved in a brand. It tells us

how much a consumer is willing to switch to another brand, in situation when competing brand

are offering more than the brand which is currently being used. Over time loyalty increases, the

consumers' platform and the competition against other brands also strengthens.

The three types of loyalties are as follows:

Passive loyal: These are consumers who but the brand out of habit.

Fence sitters: These types of consumers are indifferent between two or more brands.

Committed: These are the consumers who are truly loyal to the brand.

Competitive Advantage is achieved by companies only if they are successful in creating

customer value. Since the middle of the twentieth century customer value is only created by

focusing towards manufacturing quality products with high quality. Researchers have also stated

that marketers use brand experience in three different ways: Their primary concern is with the

149

quality of the brand. The second is tied up with providing excellent brand experience when the

customer comes in contact with a particular good or service. The third is the experience that

marketers sell. It has also been said that loyalty should not be regarded as sheer repurchase

behavior. Because of this theory it opened lots of paths to examine different variables for the

consequences of different evaluative constructs in the studies of brand loyalty (Attri, pahwa, &

Urkude, 2012).

Brand loyalty has been defined as “the propensity to be loyal to an important brand as verified by

the intention to buy it as a major choice". Researchers have also investigated the relational

variables that lie at the heart of a consumer- that is brand relationship which has led to brand

loyalty. It has been identified that there are two categories of brand loyal that are as follows:

Pseudo loyal: These are the consumers who go for continuous repurchases of a particular

product but do not have strong attitudes towards the brand.

Committed loyal: They are also known as active loyal. They are the customers who will

only purchase one particular brand (Attri, pahwa, & Urkude, 2012).

Based on the cognitive model of Oliver, LaBarbera and Mazursky in the research of (Polesz,

Bloemer, & C, 1989), measures the influence of satisfaction on post purchase thoughts, purpose

and actions. They assess repeat purchasing behavior which they presume to be equal to brand

loyalty. Satisfaction and intention are found to increase as the loyalty to brand increases. But on

the other hand, relative importance of satisfaction in predicting purchase appears to decrease as

loyalty increases. Therefore, it is likely that a certain threshold of satisfaction must be met to lead

to a purchase of a brand. It is revealed that brand loyalty varies directly with perceived

satisfaction with the old brand. Even though a direct relationship has been found, the correlation

150

is not perfect, in the sense that not all satisfied customers will be brand loyal. On the other hand,

not all dis-satisfied consumers are non-loyal.

According to (Polesz, Bloemer, & C, 1989), if a consumer shows repeat purchasing behavior and

satisfaction is only latently present one may speak of spurious brand loyalty. A distinction has

been made:

Spurious loyalty as a habit out of convenience

Spurious loyalty as a habit out of conviction

Habit out of conviction means acceptance only. The evaluation of the brand or in other terms, the

satisfaction with the brand does not reach the level of conscious awareness.

The consumer-brand relationship is significant to building of brand loyalty. Brand experiences

lead to brand loyalty, active referral of the brand and increased profitability for the brand.

Experiences encourage loyalty by creating emotional connections through an engaging,

compelling and consistent context. The context is the environment in which the service

encounter occurs. It includes physical and relational characteristics of the setting in which the

consumer consumes the service as well as everything that the customer interacts within the

setting. Under the definition of context physical context is generated by the sights, sound and

smells of the environment. Whereas relational context includes behaviors of people in which

they engage (Sahin, Zehir, & Kitapci, 2011).

Aaker also tells in (Osman & Amber, 2010)that brand awareness, perceived quality and clear

effective brand identity can contribute to higher loyalty.

Consumers' trust towards brand and positive brand image will also affect the attitudinal loyalty

towards the brand. Studies emphasized that there are several levels of consumer commitment

151

towards the brand in the context of brand loyalty. The commitments are as follows: trust,

continual purchase, reluctant to switch brands and the joy or happiness when consuming a brand.

The trust towards a brand will determine brand loyalty or consumer commitment towards the

brand because trust is potential in creating highly value relationship (Halim, The Effect of

relationship of Brand Trust and Brand affect on the Brand Performance: An analysis from Brand

Loyalty Perspective (A case of coffee instant product in Indonesia), 2006).

In the relationship between consumer loyalty and commitment it is found that a relationship

between loyalty and positive affect accepted by consumers exists. Strong and positive affect will

also cause an encouraging impact towards the consumer brand loyalty, in both purchases and

attitudinal loyalty (Halim, The Effect of relationship of Brand Trust and Brand affect on the

Brand Performance: An analysis from Brand Loyalty Perspective (A case of coffee instant

product in Indonesia), 2006).

In the research of (Halim, The Effect of relationship of Brand Trust and Brand affect on the

Brand Performance: An analysis from Brand Loyalty Perspective (A case of coffee instant

product in Indonesia), 2006), Chaudhuri and Holbrook have recommended that there is a positive

connection among brand loyalty and brand performance. They have said that high purchase

loyalty will result in increases in the market share of the brand. And this concept is supported by

The Double Jeopardy Theory in which has said that the brand which owns little market share will

result in having only a few buyers and the purchasing of the brand will also be less, or vice versa.

The brand of a person's option is usually supported by the brand's figure and significance. The

selection to keep on loyal to a brand over a period of time is based on the contemplating value

that is the: price and quality, image, convenience and availability, satisfaction, service and

guarantee or warranty (Basrawi, 2009).

152

Dick and Basu suggested in (Basrawi, 2009)that brand loyalty assist to spread the affirmative

elements of the product through the word of mouth. Loyal customers tend to show greater

struggle to other company's strategies. And because of this companies and marketers are always

encouraged to provide their loyal customers with what they want.

Brand loyalty is sometimes viewed as a special case of relationship marketing, where a consumer

has a psychological attachment to the brand (Attri, pahwa, & Urkude, 2012).

Two indirect sources of brand loyalty may get involved: those are high association in the product

category and the consumers' satisfaction with the brand resulting to its prior consumption.

Consumer involvement is presented in the literature as predecessor of brand loyalty. Involvement

must be understood as the supposed importance to someone or the special significance of a

product to an individual (Amine, 2011).

Some other sources of brand loyalty have been found. There are four factors: perceived

differences about alternatives, perceived risk, brand sensitivity and brand attachment/ liking

(Amine, 2011).

Two consequence of brand loyalty on consumers' attitudes and behaviors are positive word of

mouth or brand support. Both the variables are related to each other. The consumers' confidence

in brand allows them to maintain greatly their propensity to buy the purchased habitually and not

to switch to another brand. People may strongly defend a brand and may advise their relatives to

buy the brand (Amine, 2011).

Under the heading of internet brand loyalty; we can say that brand loyalty can achieve high goals

through medium of internet. As we know that it is the biggest medium of trade, and the size of

commodities present on the internet is incomparable to any other promoting business. The reason

153

behind the success of internet as a feasible trade option is because it is easy to tap and cater to a

very large audience, thus pitching your product to a consumer size that is unimaginable.

Advertising become an essential way of promoting product or service. The internet gives an

opportunity to promote, advertises, sell or buy things. E-marketers are increasing their sale by

targeting brand loyalist of other companies by advertising and creating relations on other loyalist

eccentric websites (Heyman, 2009). Explaining the year spend cost on advertising in United

States, shows that advertising is creating great brand loyalty rather than any other medium. The

expanses of advertising for nine years are as follows; in 2001 the cost is 7.10 billion dollars, in

2002 it is 6 billion, in 2003 it is 7.30 billion, in 2004 it is 9.60 billion, in 2005 it is 12.50 billion

dollar, in 2006 16.90 billion dollar, in 2007 it is 21.40 billion dollar, in 2008 it is 27.50 billion

dollars, and last recorded expanse was 32.50 billion dollar in 2009.

Factors that endorse brand loyalty in business to business and business to consumer are as

follow; in business to business factors includes; tangibility, functionality, cost to purchase, and

cost to maintain. On the other hand, business to consumers includes; relationship, trust, service,

and information. The question that has to answer includes how to create brand loyalty, by

awarding the customers. For creating the brand loyalty, we have to understand consumer

behavior; we have to understand consumer mindset and information of customer profile and last

one is customer lifetime value score. The attachment of these three leads to rewarding the

consumer and ensuring brand loyalty.

According to Jim Sterne and Matt Cutler, the consumer life cycle has five phases: First is

reaching a customer, Second is acquiring a customer, Third is converting a customer, fourth is

retaining a customer and last one is building customer loyalty. If you can keep hold of a

customer and make him a loyal to your services or product you get an upper hand over your

154

competitors. Hence an effective marketing strategy will concentrate on the first four phases

keeping the fifth phase as the final goal for achievement. The first four phases of the customer

life cycle focus on developing a sound customer retention strategy. The concept of creating

brand loyalty contains creating a true brand loyal, One who would like to repurchase a brand due

to acute liking and not because there are not many choices or options available. Customers who

are truly committed towards your brand would pay higher prices, incur less cost to serve, and

bring new customers to the firm. Thus, if we manage to build brand loyalist through effective

marketing strategy, then such a brand loyalist would further affect our marketing strategy by

bringing us more customers. The marketing activities targeted towards building brand loyalty are

mutually advantage activities.

Things that affect or loss brand loyalties are include; quality-compromise in the product quality

leads to a feeling of immense dissatisfaction. Price-Inadaptability to regularize product cost with

respect to competition. Service-Loss of efforts to maintain the same level of service makes the

consumer look elsewhere. Design- the product design and shape should be attractive (Agarwal &

Siddharth, 2010).

(Garland & Gendall, 2004), both of them conducted a study about antecedent and consequences

of a brand loyalty. They used a non-experimental, co relational survey research design, and a

positive factor analysis to test a model about antecedents’ factors influencing brand loyalty and

four types of brand loyalty. The sample includes eight hundred and fifty consumers of whisky

from shopping malls and in the street, Greece. Gounaris and Stathakopoulos’ literature review

was thorough, current in comparing theory of reasoned action and concept of a two dimensional

brand loyalty. Empirical studies of antecedents (risk aversion, variety seeking, brand reputation,

availability of substitute, brands, social group influences, and peer’s recommendation) and four

155

types of brand loyalty (buy nothing, buy alternative brand, word-of-mouth 73communication,

and visit other store) were examined, leading to the major gap in the literature about the need to

understand direct and indirect relationships among the concepts of brand loyalty identified by

many theorists.

The factors influencing customers’ brand loyalty have been explore for decades, so it is not a

new issue with theoretical development based on the theory cited in this assessment. Ajzen and

Fishbein’s theory of reasoned action is a well-develop theory to predict individual’s behavior.

The theory suggests that an individual’s behavioral intentions are a function of two different

factors, attitude toward the behavior and the subjective standard. When applying the theory to

customer brand loyalty, it is reasonable to assume that attitude toward the behavior and

subjective norms will manipulate customers’ purchasing behavior, and will result in their brand

loyalty. The importance of the theoretical literature for the topic is that although the theory of

reasoned action may explain antecedent factors might influence customer purchasing behavior

and result in brand loyalty, other variables, such as the volitional control, and situational effects,

might interrupt the purchasing behavior and brand loyalty.

Dick and Basu have introduces their theoretical framework of customer loyalty based on

reasoned action theory and incorporated concepts of brand loyalty (Dick & Basu, 1994). This

framework identifies five major influencing factors of customer loyalty defined as Firstly,

cognitive antecedents (accessibility, confidence, centrality, clarity), Secondly, the affective

antecedents (emotion, feeling states/mood, primary affect, satisfaction), thirdly, conative

antecedents (switching cost, sunk cost, expectation), Fourthly social norms, and Fifth

situational influences. The moderators of the relationship are relative attitude and repeat

benefaction, and the consequence is customer loyalty. Brand loyalty is a two dimensional

156

construct involving relative attitude and repeat patronage/purchasing behavior. In the last decade,

the loyalty framework has been revised and adapted to brand management and marketing by

numerous scholars in the marketing field. Several empirical studies by Lim and Razzaque in

1997, Datta in 2003, and Gounaris and Stathakopoulos in 2004, lead to enhancement in the

conceptual framework. Gounaris and Stathakopoulos (2004) developed a conceptual model

adopted from the conceptual framework and a depicted direct and indirect relationship among

concepts described by Dick and Basu, which the conceptual framework is socially significant,

addressing essential issues about brand loyalty in the discipline of marketing, and is useful in

explaining and predicting the factors influencing brand loyalty. Thus it is a well-developed guide

to conduct the empirical research. The conceptual framework has a good balance between

simplicity and complexity, contributing to its usefulness. Studies by Garland and Gendall in

2004 verify the propositions of a two dimensional construct of brand loyalty involving relative

attitude and repeat patronage. The conceptual framework has been adapted to various research

fields such as management, brand management and marketing. This is the predominant

conceptual framework used to examine brand loyalty with well-developed propositions and

strong empirical support.

Customer loyalty is viewed as the strength of the relationship between an individual’s relative

attitude and repeat patronage. The relationship is seen as mediated factors by social norms and

situational factors. Cognitive, affective, and co native previous circumstances of relative attitude

are identified as contributing to loyalty, along with motivational, perceptual, and behavioral

consequences. Based on the framework, the task of managing loyalty would involves,

determining the loyalty status of a target population in terms of strength of the relationship and

comparing it with challenging offerings, identifying relevant antecedents and consequences in a

157

given market context, determining the relative impact (or contributions) of antecedent factors

and the likelihood of different consequences, and to identifying causal variables on which the

target is underperforming compared to competitors, from which increase in loyalty may be

affected through strategic interventions.

Number of researches has been conducted to examine the relationship between the brand

personality and the brand loyalty of the consumer and the effect has been survey. Also, it has

been concluded that the brand loyalty can be enhanced, if there would be any involvement of the

concept of brand personality.

(Guo, 2003), also discovered that consumers may treat brands as real human beings, because

brands have their own identities. Therefore, brand personality has remarkable impact on brand

preference. In this situation, customers will anticipate the customer's words, attitudes, thoughts

and so on to encounter their respective personality traits (Aaker D. , 1996).

It might be that customers like the brands having more definite brand personality, and also

customers are more known with the brands they favor. Customers willingly use the brand and

products in line with their own personality traits or it may be like all the marketing movements

are aimed at having customers believe and recognize a brand personality, and strengthen the

transmission between the brand and the customer (Govers & Schoormans, 2005)in order to

increase the brand's loyalty and equity.

(Mengxia Z. , 2007), inquire into the effects of brand personality on customers brand preference,

affection, loyalty and purchasing intention. The outcome of his study shows that brand

personality has a true effect on brand preference, affection, loyalty and purchase intention. Brand

158

personality must be shaped to be forever and consistent. Excluding, it should be different from

other brands and meet customer's demands (Kumar et al., 2006).

After a research done by (Kumar et al., 2006) classify the link between brand personality and

brand loyalty, and separately used durable goods and customer goods to tour the association

between brand personality and brand loyalty. (New Media and Mass Communication , 2011) The

result shows that brand personality may affect customers' brand loyalty to consumable goods.

In the research of (Basrawi, 2009)researchers have investigated the effects of perceived product

characteristics and consumer value consciousness on private brand purchase intentions. Taylor in

(Basrawi, 2009) defines in his study which contributes to existing knowledge that the relative

influences of satisfaction, value, resistance to change, brand affect, trust and brand equity are

present on perceptions of customer loyalty. According to this research behavioral loyalty is

largely a function of brand equity and trust. Also, affect, resistance to change and value also

Figure 8: (Basrawi, The influence of brands competitive advantage of

consumer loyalty, 2009)

159

contribute to behavioral loyalty, but to a lesser level. However a statistically significant

relationship between satisfaction and behavioral loyalty was not found in this research. In terms

of attitudinal loyalty, brand equity and trust were significantly related to attitudinal loyalty.

Affect and satisfaction were also found to contribute to attitudinal loyalty but to a lesser effect

than in behavioral loyalty. However, unlike behavioral loyalty, a statistically significant

relationship between loyalty and value or resistance to change was not found.

These factors may have individual or unique characteristics in the brand which can give the

company a competitive advantage and these factors will also influence brand loyalty. The factors

are explained by researchers in (Basrawi, 2009) as follows:

Product involvement: refers to feelings of inherent needs, values, interest and enthusiasm

toward product categories according to Zaichkowskyin (Basrawi, 2009). This trait means

how much a human being is fond of the product brand he or she uses and whether or not

that specific product caters to their desired needs, values, interest and satisfaction.

Product type: Products can be classified into two distinctive types on the basis of the

related attributes or benefits. Attributes or benefits can be in the form of taste, aroma,

color, and texture.

Switching Cost: It is defined as the additional cost required to terminate a current

relationship with a product and to secure an alternative. It can also be known as the

consumer perception of the time, money and effort related to changing a brand or a

product.

Available Alternatives: (Muncy, 1996)says that in the absence of the perceived

differences between the product and its alternatives, there is difficulty in building brand

loyalty. Dick and Basu have also maintained this point of view that when a customer is

160

unable to make a distinction between a particular product and its alternative then true

brand loyalty cannot be build.

Price promotions: Few of the studies on brand loyalty found out those price promotions

as the antecedents of brand switching behavior. They have agreed that price promotions

ten to boost sales in the short term.

Satisfaction: Researchers have established that consumers are satisfied with the promoted

brand; their satisfaction is reinforcing and leads to an increase in the profitability of

choosing the brand again after the promotion is withdrawn which is in fact true brand

loyalty, especially for previous non-users of the brand according to (Louie, 1990).

Family background or Pedigree: Researchers have found that lineage or have been using

a particular brand in a family is an antecedent of brand loyalty. For example, (Lutz,

1989)have found out that mother and daughter had shown the same brand preferences

and shopping strategies. This is an important factor influencing brand loyalty.

Holding stock with the company: It is found that customers are more loyal to the brand if

the company were owned by the customers.

Size and structure of the company: It has been seen that people will buy more or will trust

more of the brand that is larger in size and is also well known.

161

Another model of brand loyalty as suggested by (Iglesias, Sngh, & Batista-Foguet, 2011) is with

brand experience and customer commitment. Brand experiences are the distinct economic

offering, as distinct from services are from goods. According to the brand management

viewpoint, an experience is a takeaway impression that is formed inside the mind of the

consumers as a result of the encounter with the holistic of a brand (Haeckel & H, 1994). The

relationship between brand experience and loyalty appears to be mediated by satisfaction which

is already known to be a major mediator of the consumption experience. Some researchers have

proposed that satisfaction is linked not only to cognitive judgments but also to emotional and

affective reactions to the consumption experience.

It has also been identified that customer commitment is also another antecedent to customer

loyalty. Customer Commitment encompasses the psychological and economic attachments that a

customer might have towards a particular brand. Researchers have identified that commitment is

of two types which are affective and continuance. Continuance or economic commitment is

characterized by the customers' need to stay in a relationship with a given brand because of lack

of other alternatives or high switching costs. According to (Mayer & P, 1990), affective

Figure 9: Model of Brand Loyalty

Brand

Experience

Affective

Commitment

Brand

Loyalty

162

commitment is the customers' emotional attachment to a particular brand based on their

identification with the brand.

In the end, it is suggested that the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty is

mediated by affective commitment.

2.7.1 Brand Loyalty with Celebrity Endorsement Model

Brand loyalty framework has also been discussed with celebrity. Celebrity endorsement is one

out of two major factors in this study, leading to the natural approach of investigating and

providing knowledge regarding this area as an introductory stage. The first model, celebrity

endorsement, is investigated from numerous different aspects related to it. The purpose is to

highlight the foundation by dealing with the concept itself and its meaning. From that, the

linkage to contributing factors and resulting actions and outcomes is penetrated. Celebrity

endorsement is dependent upon and affects its surroundings by its existence. Therefore, factors

that concept is influencing, such as celebrity endorsement meaning transfer, reference groups,

product type categories, social adaptation theory etc. The second conception will be covered in a

similar manner, with an emphasis on the foundation of brand loyalty itself and the two different

types, attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty. In addition to the importance of covering this

area, it has to be acknowledged that brand loyalty does not happen by its pure nature, it is

affected by external forces. Therefore, related factors that are brand affect, brand trust, and the

ABC model are pointing at its influence and upcoming, are of great significance.

Symbolic properties belonging to an endorser have been transferred to a specific product or

brand, and then from the product to the consumers. This specific type of endorsement is different

from other general types of meaning transfer. Because of celebrities existing in our society for

163

meanings, it makes them valuable in the process of meaning transfer. The process of celebrity

endorsement consists of three stages (McCracken, 1989).

In first stage: Celebrity endorsement is done basically through advertisement and because of

this the advertisements have access to a group of persons from the cultural all around the world.

Endorsement also makes this group of people in charge of detailed and important meanings. As

celebrities enjoy a popular social appreciation and a unique reputation, they are able to deliver

more comprehensive and strength meaning compared to unknown endorsers. Celebrities are

powerful in media, though the meanings delivered are not difficult to find. Because of their

special and unique personal, outstanding from unidentified actors, they exert the meaning with

unforgettable impression. Due to their career specialty, every point of acting in a show, movie, or

musical gives them the possibility in contrast to a different group of objects, persons and context.

All of this is also a process of meaning transfer, that new properties will be resided within the

celebrities. Hence, when they appear in an advertisement, these properties will be transferred to

that specific product.

In Second stage: Tentatively, a celebrity endorser is chosen based on a desired meaning decided

by the marketers. The representative properties of the meaning and a product must be matched.

Perfectly, marketing or advertising companies can decide what type of symbolic properties

consumers are looking for. They can then find a perfect matched celebrity from a schedule to

represent this. However, this in fact, is impossible.

Advertising agents should make identifications and deliver these meanings to a specific product

when the selection is completed. The advertisement should then comprise all the meanings

needed to be obtained from the celebrity, especially the salient meanings. Only the meaning

intended to be delivered should be captured. Unwanted meanings should be kept out of the

164

evoked set by adding it into advertisements with people, objects and contents which have the

same meanings as the celebrity. All these are salient message cues that help the target consumers

to get whatever meanings they expect from the celebrity in question. Advertisements mostly only

transfer celebrities to a new role instead of purely transferring meaning of the celebrities.

Important to notice, there must be a connection between the product and the celebrity endorser in

order to have a high similarity. This will ensure consumers can transfer the meaning delivered

into their reality because of existing similarities.

In third stage: Explains the process of how celebrity endorsement makes the properties of a

product become the properties of consumers. It is the most complicated and difficult stage

compared to the previous two. In this material world, individuals are trying to explore and search

for products with practical meanings. Those meanings definitely are useful in helping the

individuals to equip aspects of the self and the world. As the meanings existing everywhere in

this world, the individuals have constantly been putting effort on searching the meanings they

need. However, it is not enough for consumers to understand the meaning of an object by simply

owning it. And the meaning cannot “enter” the consumers’ mind and self automatically. They

must claim, exchange, care for, and use the consumer good in order to possess the meaning.

Through different uniqueness and contexts in their acting career, celebrities have earned a lot of

attention and reputations in the first stage of the significance transfer. The self-created by

celebrities is also attractive in the eyes of the consumers. They have set an exemplary, desirable

role model for consumers. Consumers build up their aspects of the world and the self by moving

the symbolic properties of consumer goods into their lives, because those consumer goods are

associated with the celebrities they desire. But this does not mean that consumers only want to

follow what celebrities have done today.

165

However, celebrities certainly give the consumer goods some sort of personality traits in the

meaning transfer process. Consumers therefore also want to process the personalities attached to

the products, because they appreciate for meaning and are keen to build up their own aspects of

the world and the self by having celebrities as references. In this object world, celebrities are just

a small group compared to everything else. They are outstanding from the rest and therefore are

super consumers of a kind. It is also important to know that individualism and alienation exert a

right to individuals of freedom to define their aspects of the self and the world. Also because of

these, celebrities play a key role of meaning transfer to consumers. However, the meaning

transfer would not happen automatically. It needs cooperation from the celebrity to the

advertisement director, as well as from the other people involved. If the ideas in advertisements

cannot be understood by consumers, the use of celebrities is useless. As consumers are the final

act of the transfer process, they should be able to find the connection between the celebrity

endorser and the product in order to complete the transfer process.

2.7.2 Brand loyalty with Reference Group Theory

This theory is defined as the genuine or imaginary individual or group conceived of having

significant relevance upon an individual’s evaluations, aspirations or behavior (Park & Lessig,

1977).

There are three variables or influencers have been discussed in this theory/model. The first one is

informational reference group it means that each individual tends to search products proven to

have positive credibility by independent expertise or professionals, which help to confirm their

existing knowledge or familiar environment. The individual searches product information from

groups or people who have sufficient knowledge about these products, such as people working

with the product or people who use the product. Through observing, the individuals learn from

166

others whom might confront the same situations or have previous experience. Furthermore,

according to the attribution theory, the purchasing decision of the individual is influenced by

another individuals or reference groups, such as experts, authorities or celebrities (Jones, et al.,

1972).

The second one is Utilitarian influence it means that the individual needs certain consistency in a

purchasing situation, otherwise “it is dangerous not to conform” (Asch, 1952). Seeking a

competition to what another individual or reference group prefers or satisfies is important when

making a purchase decision, as social interactions exist. Utilitarian influence also emphasizes

explicit rewards and punishments because of the individual having a desire to be more affirmed

or accepted by social involvement, such as a community, brand tribe or fan club. Therefore, an

attempt to satisfy others’ expectations is performed (Park & Lessig, 1977).

The third one is Value expressive influence: individual seek consistency between themselves and

a reference group by sharing something in common, like buying products used, or those

recommended by the reference group. A positive self-image is important, since an individual is

more willing to be associated with positive referents instead of negative ones. Liking a person or

a reference group in a product advertisement can lead an individual to purchase it, regardless

whether the product fits the individuals’ need or not.

Further explaining the function of how celebrity endorsement works, reference group theory

looked up the everywhere features of the celebrity market from a psychological view. The

reference group theory viewed the function of celebrities influence on consumers from three

difference perspectives. Because of their special social status in our society, they are often

chosen by marketers to speak for the products. Celebrities exert the power of reference group on

167

consumers. It was therefore chosen to be discussed in the literature study of this research. The

experimental research proved that endorsers should be used according to different product types.

Celebrity endorsers are broadly used primarily because of their attractiveness and likable

features. This helps to explain the widely usage of celebrities in cosmetics advertisements.

Friedman’s experimental studies showed that costume jewelry endorsed by celebrities appeared

to be the best match. Although the result did not test the match between cosmetics and

celebrities, it highly suggested that if brand name and advertisement recall are most desirable,

advertisers should use a celebrity as an endorser.

Brands are companies’ most valuable asset which adds both economic and strategic value to its

proprietors. It’s the essential feature for any company to look into Brand loyalty is most of the

times developed post purchase (Moisescu, 2006). To enhance brand loyalty, an organization

should be aware of their functional markets, target them, sustain their product, make certain easy

access of their product, offer customer satisfaction, and bring constant innovation in their

product so as to ensure that customers repeatedly purchase the product. It then ultimately creates

the brand trust in the minds of the customer towards the brand they are purchasing. (Farhat &

Khan, 2011).

168

Brand Satisfaction

Winning brand is the procedure or a methodology which is developed by ACNielsen. Such that

in contrast to the attitudinal approach to brand equity measures which is embodied in the other

approaches describes that winning brand starts from a behavioral observation of a brand equity

Thus brand equity is then measured in terms of a customer frequency of purchase and the price

premium which is paid. Once favor behavior is seen. However this methodology seeks to

identify the attitudinal behavior and characteristics of such customers.(Knowles, 2004):

Perceived

Brand

Quality

Brand

Personality: Sincerity Excitement Competence Sophistication Ruggedness

Brand

Loyalty

Figure 10: Conceptual Model by (Farhat & Khan, 2011)

169

Client faithfulness is seen as the qualities of the relationship between single relative dispositions

also rehash support. Here an endeavor has been made to test into the conduct of a clients'

readiness to purchase a brand/product, of what are the related elements which impacts his

purchasing conduct and mentality towards the brand. Many tests are carried out to highlight a

purpose of what are the impacting components which forces him to be devoted for a brand. The

speculations of brand identity with the essential dispositional variables are used to clarify the

client's dependability forms. A model or a skeleton might help the marketers to further explore

into the idea of brand identity upgrading the client dedication (Farhat & Khan, 2011).

Awareness

Consideration

Attribute 1

Attribute 2

Attribute 3

Brand Equity Index

Customer Loyalty

Price Premium

Figure 11: Winning Brands from AC Nielson (Knowles, 2004)

170

In building a brand esteem 'recognition is more essential than actuality’ and as brands just exist

in the personalities of clients then the administration of brands itself. The brand chief's

employment is to see that fulfillment of the client is being supported, as far as item execution and

recognition is concerned. In this respect, of the present predominating focused situation, brands

are new business warriors and client maintenance plays a key part so the clients are stuck to an

offering on a long haul premise. Thus the accomplishment of any technique to lure buyers

generally relies on upon its ability to keep up its client maintenance and to raise ensured enclaves

of buyers to stick to the brand and show compaction. Today mark devotion has turned into a

point of convergence of enthusiasm for showcasing analysts and professionals. Few of inquires

about compresses that the reliable clients use more than non-steadfast clients, go about as

organization's most significant client bunch does. Besides, numerous studies uncover that brand

faithful clients are eager pay any costs and are less value touchy Maybe the advertising expense

is altogether less when the brand revels in a vast gathering of devoted clients. Nonetheless, the

written works on brand unwaveringness is fragmented in a few essential regards. A number of

the past looks into uncover that it is more beneficial to accompany the procedure of client

maintenance than to strive for new clients. Catching new clients is unreasonable in light of

publicizing advancement what's more bargains cost, and start-up working expenditures.

Additionally, advancement is likewise controlled in the vicinity of brand dedication i.e. there is

less need of advancement. Brand reliable clients decrease the promoting expenses of the firm as

the expenses of drawing in another client have been discovered to be something like six times

more than that of the original cost (Farhat & Khan, 2011).

Just a couple specialists, for example, Plummer and David Aaker as mentioned in (Farhat &

Khan, 2011) have called attention to the vitality of brand identity in building leeway and brand

171

faithfulness. The outcomes and the examination suggestions will help in understanding the idea

of brand identity and its part in building an uplifting disposition towards the brand and thus

making the brand driven clients steadfast towards the brand. This study inspects how brand

personality influences brand loyalty.

Brand Loyalty is an essential idea of today's brand advertising world. proposed by numerous

analysts, around which the most finish definition is being proposed brand is characterized as

steadfastness as the consequence from non-arbitrary, long presence conduct reaction, and it was

a mental buy procedure structured by some certain choice units who In right on time explores,

analysts generally took the demonstration of repurchase as the technique for measure brand

faithfulness. However a few analysts show that to measure brand faithfulness the Brand

reliability, in advertising, comprises of a purchaser's dedication to repurchase or overall proceed

utilizing the brand and could be showed by rehashed purchasing of an item or administration or

other positive practices such that the idea is characterized of brand loyalty as: "The (a) biased

(b) behavioral reaction, (c) communicated over the long run, (d) by some choice making unit, (e)

as for choice making, assessment forms of various brands". This definition distinguishes six

necessities of brand loyalty. The brand loyalty is classified into four parts: cognitive devotion,

full of feeling unwaveringness, conation steadfastness and movement faithfulness. The spurious

brand certainty shoppers may make rehashed buys just since the brand they buy is the one and

only decision in the stores. Whereas, the true brand loyalty buyers ought to show both mental

and emotional responsibilities in addition to repurchase consistency of any particular product.

172

1. True loyalty.

2. Latent loyalty.

3. Latent loyalty.

4. No loyalty.

(Farhat & Khan, 2011)

Table 4: Repeat Purchase Possibility

Repeat Purchase Possibility

High

Related Attitude

Low

High Low

True loyalty. Latent loyalty.

Spurious loyalty. Latent loyalty.

Thus it shows that Loyal customer buy more products and that loyal customers are less price

sensitive and pay less attention to the competitors advertisements. The services existing

customers who are familiar with the offerings and processes is also cheaper. Along with this

loyal customers tend to spread positive word of mouth and refer the brand to others as well.

Brand loyalty of the client by including the idea of brand identity, the brand loyalty might be

improved additionally investigated that brand personality has critical impact on brand

inclination. Since brands have their own particular specific identities, customers may treat marks

as true human creatures. Thus, buyers will want the individuals' words, mentality, conduct or

considerations along these lines on to meet their particular identity qualities. It could be that

buyers like the brands having more different brand identity, and it is likewise likely that

purchasers are more acquainted with the brands they lean toward. Shoppers might likely utilize

the brand and items in accordance with their identity characteristics, as it were, all the

173

showcasing exercises are pointed at having purchasers accept and distinguish a brand identity,

and strengthening the correspondence between the brand and the purchaser to upgrade the

brand's devotion and value, the Influence of brand personality on customers' brand inclination,

love, dedication and obtaining plan. Thus brand personality has a positive impact on brand

preference, friendship, and unwaveringness and buys aim. A brand identity should be formed to

be dependable and predictable. Furthermore, it ought to additionally association between brand

personality and brand loyalty, therefore, relationship between brand identity and brand

dedication outcomes may indicate that brand personality may impact shoppers' brand devotion to

consumable merchandise, goods products or a brand (Farhat & Khan, 2011).

Brand personality not just assumes a critical part in customers’ maintenance, but has significant

impact on an organization's execution. A fruitful brand obliges the building of a unique brand

personality By utilizing different promoting methodologies, an organization may pass on their

brand personality to shoppers and have the purchasers of differing identity characteristics accept

and distinguish the organization's brand personality and that is how therefore shoppers may

create a relationship The relationship between fulfillment and unwaveringness appears to be

practically instinctive Without client dedication, even the best-outlined e-plan of action will soon

go into disrepair. In their mission to create a loyal consumer base, most organizations attempt

their best to constantly fulfill their clients and create long run associations with them. In short,

watchful administration of brand identity helps purchasers to create a positive picture of the

organization. By the above loyalty model, we can show help for a large portion of the

connections distinguished in past researches, and also a conceptualization of the general loyalty

build. The empowering news from this study is that brand identity reliably show up as most

persuasive in encouraging loyalty. These effects have immediate suggestions for streamlined

174

advertising specialists. Marketing specialists should seriously think about centering past client

fulfillment to coordinated advertising methods that cultivate brand trust and quality in the client

base in backing of customers loyalty programs (Farhat & Khan, 2011).

2.8 Conceptual Framework

This research study includes analysis of three independent variables which are congruence;

customer satisfaction and commitment with the brand, over the dependent variable that is brand

loyalty considering the brand personality as a superseding variable. As on the basis of these

variables, following model has been constructed in order to conduct this research study

Attachment with a brand is used as dependent and independent variable for investigating linkage

between consumer’s congruence and satisfaction, and commitment with it. It is hypothesized that

the positive relationship between satisfaction and brand loyalty is stronger like that of

congruence and commitment as they go hand in hand. In other words, a mediator effect of the

quantity of amplification on the relationship between consumer satisfaction and true brand

loyalty is expected and found. Some other effects are found demonstrating that the relationship

between consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty is not simple and straightforward.

According to researches, customer loyalty can arise even when the customers are not fully

satisfied by the products/services offered. In many occasions customers stick to a particular

manufacturer because of fewer options available. For instance, a manufacturer might not be

offering the best products/services. The customer might also face a fewer problems while dealing

with the manufacturer. It has been seen that in the above-mentioned scenarios, customers tend to

show loyalty for a long period. They buy repeatedly due to the low availability of other

competitor manufacturers. While such case of customer loyalty is rare nowadays as competition

175

has increased in every field), a few experts feel that such type of customer loyalty can be created

(Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, & Rundle- Thiele, 2004).

Congruence

Satisfaction

Commitment

Brand

Personality

Brand

Loyalty

Figure 12: Conceptual Framework

176

2.9 Hypothesis

2.9.1 Hypothesis on Congruence with Brand Personality

Ho Congruence is positively correlated with Brand Personality.

In Hypothesis No. 1, Congruence is an independent variable and Brand Personality is dependent

variable.

2.9.2 Hypothesis on Satisfaction with Brand Personality

Ho Satisfaction is positively correlated with Brand Personality.

In Hypothesis No. 2, Satisfaction is an independent variable and Brand Personality is dependent

variable.

2.9.3 Hypothesis on Commitment with Brand Personality

Ho Commitment is positively correlated with Brand Personality.

In Hypothesis No. 3, Commitment is an independent variable and Brand Personality is dependent

variable.

2.9.4 Hypothesis on Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty

Ho Congruence with Brand Personality leads to enhanced Brand Loyalty.

In Hypothesis No. 4, Congruence is an independent variable but Brand Personality and Brand

Loyalty both are dependent variable.

177

2.9.5 Hypothesis on Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty

Ho Satisfaction with Brand Personality leads to enhanced Brand Loyalty.

In Hypothesis No. 5, Satisfaction is an independent variable but Brand Personality and Brand


2.9.6 Hypothesis on Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty

Ho Commitment with Brand Personality leads to enhanced Brand Loyalty.

In Hypothesis No. 6, Commitment is an independent variable but Brand Personality and Brand


2.9.7 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Congruence and Satisfaction

Ho There is no causal relationship between congruence and satisfaction with this brand.

In Hypothesis No. 7, Congruence is used as dependent variable and Satisfaction is used as

independent variable.

2.9.8 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Commitment and

Satisfaction

Ho There is no causal relationship between satisfaction and commitment with this brand.

In Hypothesis No. 8, Satisfaction is used as dependent variable and Commitment is used as


178

2.9.9 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Congruence and

Commitment

Ho There is no causal relationship between congruence and commitment with this brand.

In Hypothesis No. 9, Congruence is used as dependent variable and Commitment is used as a


2.10 Literature Gap and Justification of the Study

This type of research is being conducted for the very first time. The three independent variables:

Congruence, Satisfaction and Commitment have previously been tackled alone. People have not

been able to do research on them together. Past studies have shown us that congruence alone has

impact on brand personality, satisfaction alone has impact on brand personality and likewise

commitment has impact on brand personality and later have impact on brand loyalty. But none of

past researches have provided any sort of link between the three independent variables

themselves. Our research also focuses on the relation between the three independent variables.

All the researches that we have studied have taken place mostly in overseas countries.

Researches like (Sahim, Kitapica, & Zehir, 2013),(Nam, Ekinci, & Whyaltt, 2011),(Halim,

2006),(M'Sallem, Mzoughi, & Bouhlel, 2009)have focused on the foreign markets. Few

researches have taken place in according to the Pakistani markets. Our research only takes into

account the effect of these variables on the Pakistani market. Also, it focuses on their perceptions

regarding these independent and dependent variables.

Researchers have previously focused on the cut throat competition between Pepsi and Coca Cola

(Yoffie, 2007). This research provides a bird eye view of the worldwide state of Pepsi and Coca

Cola. But this research does not take in to account the Pakistani Market; it only focuses on the

179

suppliers in United States of America and an overview of the worldwide situation. Also, this

literature review does not provide us with reasons why Pakistani Cola brands are not able to

make a successful impact in the minds of the consumers. Research on local brands like Gourmet

Cola has not been made before. Literature review failed to provide us information regarding our

local brand Gourmet Cola. Also our research will also address why local cola companies are

unable to make consumers associate themselves with the brand and there isn't any sort of

customer relationship developed.

Another gap we discovered in the literature review was that no research provides us information

why people in Pakistan prefer Pepsi over Coca Cola while in other countries people are more

inclined towards Coca Cola brand. Our research will also address this issue.

180

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction

Research methodology is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the techniques applied to a field

of study, or the theoretical analysis of the body of methods and principles associated with a

branch of knowledge. It, typically, encompasses concepts such as paradigm, theoretical model,

phases and quantitative or qualitative techniques. In Research methodology, researcher use

different criteria for solving the given problem (Saunders & Lewis, 2011).

In layman terms methodology can be defined as, it is used to give a clear idea that what

researcher is carrying out from his or her research and what method researcher will use during

research. Furthermore, methodology implies more than simply the methods a researcher plan to

use to collect data. It is frequently necessary to include a consideration of the concept and

theories which underlie the methods. For instance, if you intend to underline a specific attribute

of a sociological theory, you have to show that you understand the underlying concepts of the

methodology you will use in your research.

3.1.1 Why Do We Need a Methodology

Explaining research methodology helps others to know, why you want to do your research in a

particular way. It helps others know that you know what you are doing and how you are doing it.

Research methodology gives confidence to funding agencies that you are not going to waste their

money. If your methodology is new, innovative or just plain different then you have to write

more of a justification so that others will understand what you are trying to do and why it is

important to do it this new way.

181

Research methodology refers to the theory of the research and the reasons why the research has

been designed. Methodology basically explains the research question and why the question is so

significant. The methodology gives a proper justification for the approach a researcher takes and

demonstrates that the researcher isn’t just doing things or using these methods because it is

convenient, cheap, or they just don’t want to do anything else.

3.2 Research Methodology

Research refers to the search of knowledge. It is defined as the scientific and systematic search

of relevant information on a specific topic. According to Clifford Woody, as mentioned in

(Kaiser, 2009), the research comprises of ; defining and redefining problems, formulating

hypothesis or suggested solutions; collecting, organizing and evaluating data; making deductions

and reaching conclusions; and at last carefully testing the conclusions to determine whether they

fit the formulating hypothesis.

You begin your introduction by introducing the general area of research. Next discuss previous

research that is relevant to your research question in order to develop the problem. We should be

attempting to create a logical development to your introduction. Tell the reader what the general

problem is and then lead them through findings that are directly relevant to the research problem

you are writing about. Try to build a connection between the previous research findings and the

experiment that you are about to present. At the end of the introduction you should state your

hypothesis. Use specific terms, and make a prediction. Be sure to take in your independent and

dependent variables in your hypothesis.

We also add citation to the parts, which contain references of authors, books or journal articles.

How we going to that, explaining; there are specific ways for you to cite the literature that you

182

present in an introduction. If you were writing about a paper that found that reaction time is

slower after alcohol consumption, you could cite the reference in one of two ways. The first way

involves the authors of the paper as part of the sentence. When starting discussion part, you

should begin your discussion section by restating your hypothesis. Then discuss whether or not

your hypothesis was supported. Discuss whether findings in the present experiment are

consistent or inconsistent with the findings of previous experiments. Here you need to cite other

researchers’ work again in the same way that you did in the introduction. Briefly discuss any

flaws in the experiment. And in the end your discussion with a paragraph that tells the major

conclusions from your study, and what the implications of this study might be for people in the

real world (Kaiser, 2009).

3.3 Research Design

The research design is important because it tells us the key information regarding the features of

study, which can differ for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. The one common point

across the research design is that data are collected through numbers, words and gestures etc., in

different ways and purposes. (Crotty, 1998), described on four topics which are to be considered

in the research design.

183

3.3.1 Research Philosophy

There are two philosophical paradigms approaches which include:

The philosophy of our research is positivist paradigm because we are doing it independently and

focus on facts which we can be examined through different methods. For this we studied

different conceptual delimitations and their relationship among each other. Therefore we take

sample which reflects our target population and try to build up a hypothesis and test them in a

logical way.

Figure 13: Paradigms

184

3.3.2 Research Approaches

There are two research approaches in the research design, which are:

Deduction

Induction

3.3.2.1 Deduction

Deduction theory is related to the scientific research. It involves the development of a theory that

is subjected to a test. There are five stages through which deductive research will progress

deducing a hypothesis, expressing the hypothesis, testing the operational hypothesis, examining

the specific outcomes of the inquiry, if necessary, modify the theory in the light of findings

(Robson, 2002).

3.3.2.2 Induction

Inductive approach is concerned with the context in which such events were taking place. This

argues that the study of small sample of subjects might be appropriate when taking the large

sample as done in the deduction approach.

Our research is based on deduction theory because we are we are not developing a new kind of

theory. We are developing a frame work and make hypothesis which is an example of deduction

theory. Therefore, Deduction choice is more appropriate for us to use in this research. The main

reason is that the data collection method that we are using is the quantitative method and this

choice of research is appropriate for this particular data collection method. By using this

research choice, we would better analyze why taking large sample size is appropriate when

compared to small sample size.

185

3.3.3 Research Strategy

Clarifying what research strategy is needed is the most important aspect of the research. The

strategy that can be followed is exploratory, descriptive or explanatory research (Yin, 2003).

Our research is exploratory research therefore questionnaire tends to be used in our research.

Questionnaires enable us to examine and explain the relationship between variables in particular

cause and effect relationship.

3.3.4 Time Horizons

There are two parts of the time horizons. The snapshot view is called the cross sectional view

and the diary view is the Longitudinal view.

In this research, we are using cross-sectional view that is the study of the particular phenomenon

at a specific time, because we are completed this research at a given time and we are not doing

further research on it.

3.3.5 Research Choices

(Creswell, 2003), there are three research choices, we use in research design which are

Qualitative approach

Quantitative approach

Mixed methods

The research choice that we will be using is the quantitative method. The reason that we are

using quantitative research is because we are dealing with the numeric facts and numbers.

186

3.3.6 Research Technique and Procedure

There are two major data collection technique or procedure, firstly mono method and secondly

multi method. This choice that we are using is increasingly useful in business and management

research, where a research study may use quantitative and qualitative technique and procedure in

the combination of primary and secondary data. Choosing a mono method will combine either a

single quantitative data collection technique, such as questionnaires, with quantitative data.

(Curran & Blackburn, 2001), the multi method refers to those combinations where more than one

data collection technique is used but is restricted within either quantitative or qualitative world

view.

The method that we are using is the mono method. The reason why we are using this method is

because that the variables such as congruence, commitment and satisfaction that we have taken

would be analyzed through the help of a single questionnaire. Through this we would better

understand the phenomena of these variables.

3.4 Population

The total number of people occupies a specific area. It is basically a collection of individuals,

items or data from where a statistical sample can be taking (Houghton, 1995).

The entirety of all the elements, allocating some common set of features that comprises the

universe for the purpose of the marketing research problem.

Census – A complete list of the elements of a population or study objects.

Sample – A subgroup of the elements of the population selected for involvement in the study.

187

As the consumption pattern of the Cola across the Pakistan is comparatively high. The whole

population is the prime target of the research where almost each and every person with in the

minimum age of 5 up to maximum age of the people tends to consume cola.

3.5 Sample Size

It refers to how many respondents should be included in the inspection. This is an important

deliberation for researchers. The size of the sample drawn affects the standard and specificity of

the data. If the sample is too small, the acquired data may not be presentable. However,

according to (Cant, 2003), matter of resource accessibility in terms of time, money and

personnel; also have a collision on the size of the sample. Our targeted respondents are 840, with

in the age bracket from 18 to 55.

3.6 Sampling Techniques

According to (Cooper, Schindler, & Sharma, 2002) and (Malhotra N. K., Market Research: An

applied Orientation, 2007) sampling techniques could usually be classified as Non probability

and probability.

Probability Sampling is a restricted, randomized method which ensures that each population

component is given a known nonzero chance of selection: used to draw participants that are

representative of a target population: which is necessary for projecting findings from the sample

to the target population (Cooper, Schindler, & Sharma, 2002).

It is divided into four types that are Simple random, Systematic, Cluster, Stratified and Double

Sampling. In our research we will consider simple random and stratified sampling which comes

under the heading of probability sampling.

188

Simple Random Sampling is a probability sample in which each element has a known and equal

chance of selection (Cooper, Schindler, & Sharma, 2002). Its features can be easily

comprehended and can be projected to the target population. However, the disadvantages are that

it is often very difficult to construct a sampling frame that will permit a simple random sample to

be drawn. Also, the results in samples may be very large or spread over extensive geographic

regions which will result in increasing time and cost of data collection (Malhotra N. K., Market

Research: An applied Orientation, 2007).

The other way of sampling technique that will be used is stratified sampling which is a two-step

procedure to break up the population into subpopulations, or strata. Components are determined

from each stratum by a random procedure. The main objective of stratified sampling is to

increase precision without increasing costs. The variables used to partition the population into

strata are referred to as stratification variables. Variables that are commonly used for

stratification include demographic characteristics, type of customer, size of firm, or the type of

industry (Malhotra N. K., Market Research: An applied Orientation, 2007).

Stratified sampling can ensure that all the important subpopulations are represented in the

sample. This is very important if the distribution of the characteristic of interest in the population

is skewed (Malhotra N. K., Market Research: An applied Orientation, 2007).

3.7 Data Collection Procedure

There are two forms of data that is primary and secondary data. Our data collection procedure is

based on the primary data as we want to find out the relation between congruence, satisfaction,

commitment, brand personality and brand loyalty. Also, we want to address the question of why

any local brand is not able to leave impact on the customer.

189

The research methodology which we are using is Quantitative Research methodology. According

to (Cooper, Schindler, & Sharma, 2002), quantitative research is the accurate count of some

actions, understanding, judgment or perspective. Quantitative research is then divided into

descriptive and causal research design. Our focus is on both because we want to collect

information from surveys that come under the heading descriptive research design. Along with

this causal research is also going to be used as we want to find out the causal relationships

between the independent and dependent variables.

The sample size is drawn from whole population of Pakistan but, approaching each and every

person is rarely possible so, for that we have precisely targeted 840 respondents from various

areas of Karachi with the age bracket of 18 to 55 years.

3.8 Scale Development

3.8.1 Definition of Scale

The non-comparative scale employs whatever rating standard seems appropriate to them. They

do not compare the object being rated either to another object or to some specified standard such

as your ideal brand. They evaluate only one object at a time, and for this reason non comparative

technique consist of continuous and itemized rating scales (Tolliver, 2004). This includes;

continuous scales also known as the graphic scale, which is defined as the respondents’ rate the

objects by placing a mark at the appropriate position on a line that runs from one extreme of the

criterion variable to the other. Thus, the respondents are not restricted to selecting from marks

previously set by the researcher. They form of the continuous scale may vary considerably. For

example: reaction to the television commercials. It is easy to construct and the disadvantages

scoring can be cumbersome unless computerized. Itemized rating scale also comes under

190

heading of non-comparative scales; which is defined as the, the respondents are provided with a

scale that has a number or brief description associated with each category. The categories are

ordered in terms of scale position and the respondents are required to select the specified

category that best describes the object being rated. Itemized rating scales are widely used in

marketing research and form the basic components of more complex scales such as multi item

rating scales. We first describe the commonly used itemized rating scales, the Likert, semantic

differential, and Stapel scales, and then examine the major issues surrounding the use of these

scales. Likert scales are widely used rating scale that requires the respondents to indicate a

degree of agreement or disagreement with each of a series of statements about the stimulus

objects. For examples: measurement of attitudes and brand product and company images.

Advantages include easy constructing, administering and understanding. The disadvantages are

more time consuming. The semantic differential scale is defined as the seven rating point scale

with endpoints associated with bipolar labels that have semantic meaning. For example: Brand

product and company images. The advantage is versatile and disadvantages are controversy as to

whether the data are interval. The staple scale is defined as the measuring attitudes that consist of

a single adjective in the middle of an even numbered range of values from -5 to 5 without a

neutral point. For example: Measurement of attitudes and images. The advantages are easy to

construct administered over telephone. Whereas: the disadvantages are confusing and difficult to

apply (Malhotra N. K., 1981).

191

3.8.2 Congruence (self with brand) Scale

3.8.2.1 Scale Description

This scale is composed of seven Likert-type statements that are intended to measure the degree

to which a consumer views a similarity and connection between him/herself-image and that of a

particular brand.

3.8.2.2 Scale Origin

The scale was apparently developed and reported first by (Escalas & Bettman, You are what they

eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers' connections to brands, 2003).The version

used by (Escalas & Bettman, 2005) was very similar to previous version but not exactly the

same, e.g., different scale anchors and slightly different phrasing of items.

3.8.2.3 Reliability

The scale was used in the two studies reported by (Escalas & Bettman, 2005) and in both cases

had alphas of 0.96.

3.8.2.4 Validity

No information regarding the scale’s validity was provided by (Escalas & Bettman, 2005).

3.8.2.5 Scale Items

1. This brand reflects who I am.

2. I can identify with this brand.

3. I feel a personal connection to this brand.

4. I used this brand to communicate who I am to other people.

5. I think brand help me became the type of person I want to be.

6. This brand suits me well.

192

7. I consider this brand to be “me” (it reflects who I consider myself to be or the way that I

want to present myself to others).

3.8.3 Commitment to the Brand Scale

3.8.3.1 Scale description

The purpose of the scale is to scale the degree t which a consumer expresses devotion to a

specified brand versus a willingness to accept alternative brands even if they are cheaper or more

convenient. The scale is composed of three, nine point Likert-type statement. The scale was

called commitment to the target brand by (Ahluwalia, Examination of Psychological Processes

Underlying resistance to persuasion, 2000),(Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, & Unnava, Consumer

Responce to negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment, 2000),(Ahluwalia,

Unnava, & Robert E, 2001).


The scale was used by (Ahluwalia, Examination of Psychological Processes Underlying

resistance to persuasion, 2000)(Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, & Unnava, Consumer Responce to

negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment, 2000)(Ahluwalia, Unnava, & Robert

E, 2001) is original to (Beatty, Homer, & Kahle, 1988). They called it brand commitment rather

than brand loyalty since the letter suggests a behavioral dimension which the former does not.

Their work provided evidence that commitment is distinct from purchase involvement and ego

involvement but is influenced by them. The construct reliability was 0.75 and variance extracted

as 0.51.

193

3.8.3.3 Reliability

The alpha scale was used by Ahluwalia was 0.62 (Ahluwalia, Examination of Psychological

Processes Underlying resistance to persuasion, 2000). The lab study in Ahluwalia seems to be

the same as what is referred to as experiment one in (Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, & Unnava,

Consumer Responce to negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment, 2000) and

experiment two in (Ahluwalia, Unnava, & Robert E, 2001).

3.8.3.4 Validity

No examination of the scale’s validity was reported by (Ahluwalia, Examination of

Psychological Processes Underlying resistance to persuasion, 2000)(Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, &

Unnava, Consumer Responce to negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment,

2000)(Ahluwalia, Unnava, & Robert E, 2001).

3.8.3.5 Comments

See also Agarwal and Maheswaran (2005), as they appear to have used this scale or something

based on it.

3.8.3.6 Scale Items

1. If __________________ was not available at the store, it would make little difference to

me if I had to choose another brand.

2. I consider myself to be highly loyal to ________________.

3. When another brand is on sale, I will generally purchase it rather than ______________.

194

3.8.4 Satisfaction Scale


In its fullest form, the scale is comprised of twelve Likert-type items and measures a consumer’s

degree of satisfaction with a product he/she has recently purchased. Most of it uses have been in

reference to the purchase cars but(Mano & Oliver, 1993) appear to have adapted it so as to

general enough to apply to whatever product a respondent was thinking about. (Mattila & Wirtz,

2001), adapted a short version of scale to measure customer’s satisfaction with a shopping

experience. Seven of the items were modified by (Hausman, 2004) for use with the patient-

physician encounter.


The Scale was originally generated and used by (Westbrook & Oliver, Developing Better

Measures of Consumer Satisfaction: Some preliminary Results, 1981) to measure consumer

satisfaction with cars and with calculators. Four other satisfaction measures were used as well

and their results compared in a multi-trait multi-method matrix. Convenience samples of students

were used from two different universities (n=68+107). In term of internal consistency, the alphas

were 0.93 and 0.96 as measured for cars in the two samples. For both samples, the scale showed

strong evidence of construct validity by converging with like constructs and discriminating

between unlike constructs. Compared to the others measures of satisfaction, the Likert version

produced the greatest dispersion of individual scores while maintaining a symmetrical

distribution.

195

3.8.4.3 Reliability

Alphas of 0.95, 0.08, and 0.94 were reported for the scale by (Mano & Oliver, 1993)(Oliver R.

L., Cognitive, Affective and attribute Bases of the Satisfaction Response, 1993)(Oliver & Swan,

1989b) and (Westbrook & Oliver, 1991) respectively. (Oliver, Rust, & Varki, 1997), reported

that the reliabilities were 0.89 and 0.87 in their first and second studies, respectively. The version

of the scale used by (Hausman, 2004) had alphas ranging from 0.79 and 0.94, with an alpha of

0.85 for the combined samples.

3.8.4.4 Validity

Examination of scale’s validity was rarely reported in the studies. However, (Mano & Oliver,

1993) performed a factor analysis which provided evidence that the scale was one-dimensional.

Using CFA, Evidence was provided by (Hausman, 2004) in support of her scale’s convergent

and discriminate validities.

3.8.4.5 Scale Items

1. This is the one of the best _______________ I could have bought.

2. This ____________ is exactly what I need.

3. This ___________hasn’t worked out as well as I thought it would.

4. I am satisfied with my decision to buy this___________.

5. Sometimes I have mixed feelings about keeping it.

6. My choice to buy this ______________ was a wise one.

7. If I could do it over again, I’d buy a different make/model.

8. I have truly enjoyed this____________.

9. I feel bad about my decision to buy this______________.

10. I am not happy that I bought this_____________.

196

11. Owning this ___________ has been a good experience.

12. I am sure it was the right thing to buy this ____________.

3.8.4.6 Comments

See (Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003), where the author modified five of this scale’s items in order to

measure satisfaction with a consumer’s most recent online purchase at a website.

3.8.5 Loyalty Scale


This scale has three, ten points Likert-type statements that measure a consumer’s stated intention

to search for and purchase a particular brand of product(s) in the future.


The origin of the scale was not explicitly stated by (Algesheime, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005).

They appear to have adapted items from previous scales especially for their study. As used to

gather the data, the items were apparently in German.

3.8.5.3 Reliability

The composite reliability reported for the scale by (Algesheime, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005)

was 0.90.

3.8.5.4 Validity

(Algesheime, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005), used CFA with twelve latent constructs and twenty

measures. The measurement model fit the date well and two tests were used to provide evidence

of each scale’s discriminate validity. The average variance extracted for this scale was 0.75.

197

3.8.5.5 Scale Items

1. I intended to buy this brand in the near future.

2. I would actively search for this brand in order to buy it.

3. I intended to buy other products of this brand.

3.8.6 Brand Personality Scale

The first ever scale was developed by (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997).

Different brand personality scales has been developed to study the brand personality of various

brand. Scales are developed in different cultural context to find the relevant personality traits

associated with brand in that particular culture. Also brand personality scales are developed for

different product categories and brands. Following is the table that shows various studies of

brand personality dimension (Patel, Measuring Brand Personality: An Empirical Study, 2009),

(Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, Valette-Florence, & Barnier, How Well does Brand Personality

Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale, 2005).

In (Ambroise L. , et al., 2005) and few other researchers (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, Valette-

Florence, & Barnier, 2005), and (Merunka, 2003), combine with him studied the brand

personality and proposed the brand personality scale to measure the personality of the brand.

Their scale has been used before to measure the personality of a brand (Ambroise L. , et al.,

2005).

This brand personality scale basically has nine traits of personality: Friendly, Creative,

Charming, Ascendant, Misleading, Original, Elegant, Conscientious, and Introvert. Furthermore,

all these personality traits are sub-divided in more items. For example: The group of Warm,

198

Pleasant, and Nice fall in the friendly trait and the group of Manipulative, Arrogant, and Showy

fall in the category of Ascendant trait.

3.8.6.1 Structure of the Brand Personality Measurement Scale

Mature Secure Outgoing Mischievou

s

Rigorous

Reliable Natural Sweet

Cheerful

Glamorous

s

Elegant Exciting



199


Friendly Warm, Pleasant, nice

Creative Inventive, Imaginative

Charming Attractive, Seductive

Ascendant Manipulative, Arrogant, Showy

Misleading Hypocrite, Lying, Deceptive

Original Trendy, Modern

Elegant Sophisticated, stylish

Conscientious Strict, Serious

Introvert Reserved, Shy

Table 5: Brand Personality Scale Proposed by (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, &

Florence, 2004)

200

3.9 Data Collection Methods

The data collection method would be on the basis of scales, which we have developed the

conduct would take place through questionnaires, because it is an instrument delivered to the

participant via personal or non-personal means that is completed by the participants. Accuracy is

high while people responding to the questionnaires, it saves major two things time and money.

People more give truthful information regarding the controversial issues.

The structure that is going to be used for the response strategy is the structured response. That is

participant's response is limited to specific alternative provided i.e. closed response. And also our

questionnaire will be in the form of multiple choice questions which are appropriate when there

are more than two alternatives or when we seek gradations of fondness, attraction, or agreement.

Questionnaires often make use of reference tables and classification. These devices help simplify

and determine the behaviors and attitudes of people. A checklist is a list of behaviors and

characteristics, or other entities that the researcher is looking for. Either the researcher or

participant survey is achieved simply whether the observed every element of the list, or present,

or vice versa.

Furthermore, you can be used to improve the quality of evaluations based on a quantitative

survey, helping to generate hypotheses evaluation and design of survey questionnaires to

strengthen and expand or clarify the results of the quantitative evaluation.

201

3.10 Correlation Analysis

We are using Correlation Analysis, because it is main stream in numerous provisions in light of

the fact that it is a quantitative approach to assess whether two or more variables are connected

or not. Along these lines, correlation analysis permits to diminish the data held in and the

perceptions that have been measured on sets or assemblies of information to a solitary number

falling into a normed interval. It is also helpful to continue with the determined correlation

coefficients for translating the relations.

On the other hand, it is regularly more significant to look at connections inside the information.

The point when inspecting information in SAS, correlation uncovers itself by the relationship.

The most well-known measure of correlation is known as the "Pearson product moment

correlation coefficient”, the correlation measure just applies to two variables at once by,

Ρx, y = cov(x, y)/σσ x y

We can often see a relationship between two variables by constructing a graph called scatter plot,

which is a chart that shows the qualities of to one another.

3.11 Regression Analysis

Keeping in mind our end goal is to battle these "spurious connections", regression analysis

permits numerous variables to be analyzed at the same time. The most broadly utilized system

for regression analysis is Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) works by making a "best fit" pattern line

through the greater part of the accessible information which focuses initially, the variables to be

incorporated in the analysis must be picked, and consolidated into the suitable model (thus, a

linear model).

Y = β0 + β1(x1) + β2(x2) + ⋯ . +βn(xn) + ε

202

Where:

• Y is the dependent variable.

• x1 … xn are the independent variables.

• βo is the intercept.

• β1 … βn are the coefficients of interest.

• ε is the error

In this model Y represents the variables of interest in the analysis while x…..xn represents the

variables to be tested.

The coefficient on each of the independent variables (β1…..βn) represents the effect that a

change in the independent variable (x1….xn) on the dependent variable (Y).

The sign on the coefficient reflects the direction of the relationship. Next, a testable

hypothesis must be developed.

Ho: βj = 0

H1: βj ≠ 0

Where:

• Ho is the hypothesis to be tested, or the “null hypothesis”.

• H1is the alternative hypothesis.

This hypothesis tests whether the coefficient of a given ward variable equivalents zero (any

variable increased by zero equivalents zero, so a coefficient of zero covers the related

variable). In this manner, if the analysis finds that the invalid speculation might be rejected

(i.e. that the coefficient of investment does not actually equivalent zero), then that variable

has a huge impact on the ward variable (Y).

203

Both connection and regression analysis are great scientific instruments when executed

accurately figuring out how to utilize these routines, it is significant to precisely determine

the issue being examined, and the measurable systems being utilized (Stockwell, 2008).

3.11.1 Multiple Regressions

Multiple regressions are used as an unmistakable device in three sorts of circumstances.

Often used to create a self-weighting evaluating mathematical statement by which to

foresee esteem for a dependent variable (DV) from the qualities for a few independent

variables. (IV)

A Descriptive provision of numerous regression calls for controlling for jumbling

variables to better assess the commitment of other variable.

Multiple regressions are likewise used to test and illustrate causal speculations.

In this methodology, regularly alluded as way examination, regression is utilized to portray a

whole structure of linkages that have been progressed from a causal hypothesis. What's more of

being a distinct apparatus it is additionally utilized as an induction device to test speculation and

to gauge populace values (Cooper & Schindler, Business Research Methods, 2002).

Subsequently in our exploration we are contemplating the relationship around all the variables

towards brand personality and brand loyalty. We can utilize this technique to attempt to

anticipate the execution of coke, Pepsi and gourmet in the business sector.

204

Chapter 4:Data Analysis and Interpretations

4.1 Demographic Analysis

Table 6: Total Number of Respondents

Male Female Total

Pepsi Cola 219 181 400

Coca Cola 188 143 331

Gourmet Cola 73 36 109

Total 480 360 840

4.1.1 Gender

Table 7: Gender (Frequency) - Pepsi

Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Male 219 54.8 54.8 54.8

Female 181 45.3 45.3 100.0

Total 400 100.0 100.0

Figure 15: Gender- Pepsi

205

Interpretation:

There are 400 respondents of Pepsi cola out of 840 and above analysis shows that 54.8% of the

respondents are male while 45.3% of respondents of Pepsi are Female.

Table 8: Gender (Frequency) - Coca Cola

Gender


Valid

Male 188 44.8 56.8 56.8

Female 143 34.0 43.2 100.0

Total 331 78.8 100.0

Missing System 89 21.2

Total 420 100.0

Figure 16: Gender- Coca Cola

Interpretation:

The total sample size for this research is 331 people and all of them were the respondents so the

response rate was 100%. Above analysis shows that about 56.79% respondents are male while

206

43.2% respondents are female. This includes 188 males and 143 females among 331

respondents.

Table 9: Gender (Frequency) - Gourmet

Gender


Valid

Male 73 67.0 67.0 67.0

Female 36 33.0 33.0 100.0

Total 109 100.0 100.0

Interpretation:

There are 109 respondents of Gourmet Cola out of 840 and above analysis shows that 67% of the

respondent are male while 33% of respondent of Gourmet are Female.

Figure 17: Gender- Gourmet

207

4.1.2 Age

Table 10: Age Distribution of Respondents

18 to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 Total

Pepsi Cola 277 50 68 5 400

Coca Cola 106 110 79 36 331

Gourmet Cola 51 36 13 9 109

Total 434 196 160 50 840

Table 11: Age (Frequency) - Pepsi

Age


Valid

18 to 25 277 69.3 69.3 69.3

26 to 35 50 12.5 12.5 81.8

36 to 45 68 17.0 17.0 98.8

46 to 55 5 1.3 1.3 100.0

Total 400 100.0 100.0

Figure 18: Age- Pepsi

208

Interpretation:

Above analysis shows that age bracket of the Pepsi cola respondents. The highest number of

respondent belongs to the age of 18-25 years with 69.3%. The age group of 26-35 year has

12.5% of the total respondent. While 17% and 1.3% belongs to the respondent of age group of

36-45 and 46-55 respectively.

Table 12: Age (Frequency) - Coca Cola

Age


Valid

18 to 25 106 25.2 32.0 32.0

26 to 35 110 26.2 33.2 65.3

36 to 45 79 18.8 23.9 89.1

46 to 55 36 8.6 10.9 100.0

Total 331 78.8 100.0


Total 420 100.0

Figure 19: Age- Coca Cola

209

Interpretation:

Above analysis shows the age bracket of the respondents. The highest numbers of respondents

belong to the age of 18-25 years with 32%. The age group of 26-35 years has 33% of the total

respondents. While, 24% is for the age bracket of 36-45 and 11% is for 46-55 years respectively.

Table 13: Age (Frequency) - Gourmet

Age


Valid

18 to 25 51 46.8 46.8 46.8

26 to 35 36 33.0 33.0 79.8

36 to 45 13 11.9 11.9 91.7

46 to 55 9 8.3 8.3 100.0

Total 109 100.0 100.0

Figure 20: Age- Gourmet

Interpretation:

Above analysis shows that age bracket of the gourmet respondent. The highest number of

respondent belongs to the age of 18-25 years with 51%. The age group of 26-35 year has 36% of

the total respondent. While 13% and 9% belongs to the respondent of age group of 36-45 and 46-

55 respectively.

210

4.1.3 Professions

Table 14: Profession Distribution of Respondents

Student Business

Professionals

House

Wife

Labor/

Worker

Others Total

Pepsi Cola 311 53 27 3 6 400

Coca Cola 132 77 79 20 23 331

Gourmet Cola 62 23 14 5 5 109

Total 505 153 120 28 34 840

Table 15: Profession (Frequency) - Pepsi

Profession

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Student 311 77.8 77.8 77.8

Business Professionals 53 13.3 13.3 91.0

House Wife 27 6.8 6.8 97.8

Labor/ Worker 3 .8 .8 98.5

Others 6 1.5 1.5 100.0

Total 400 100.0 100.0

Figure 21: Profession- Pepsi

211

Interpretation:

Above analysis show that 77.8% of the respondents were students, 13.3% respondents were

business professionals. Moreover 6.8% respondents were housewives. The smallest portion of

analysis that is .8 % was labors/workers and 1.5 goes from other professions.

Table 16: Profession (Frequency) - Coca Cola

Profession


Percent

Valid

Student 132 31.4 39.9 39.9


House Wife 79 18.8 23.9 87.0

Labor/ Worker 20 4.8 6.0 93.1

Others 23 5.5 6.9 100.0

Total 331 78.8 100.0


Total 420 100.0

Figure 22: Profession- Coca Cola

212

Interpretation:

Above analysis show that 40% of the respondents were students, 23% respondents were business

professionals. Moreover 24% respondents were housewives. The smallest portion of analysis that

is 6% was labors/workers. The analysis further shows that 7% of the respondents belong to other

professional fields.

Table 17: Profession (Frequency) - Gourmet

Profession


Percent

Valid

Student 62 56.9 56.9 56.9


House Wife 14 12.8 12.8 90.8

Labor/ Worker 5 4.6 4.6 95.4

Others 5 4.6 4.6 100.0

Total 109 100.0 100.0

Figure 23: Profession- Gourmet

213

Interpretation:

Above analysis show that 56.9% of the respondents were students, 21.1% respondents were

business professionals. Moreover 12.8% respondents were housewives. The smallest portion of

analysis that is 4.6% was labors/workers and from other professions.

4.1.4 Preferred Brand

Table 18: Preferred Brand


Percent

Valid

Pepsi Cola 400 47.6 47.6 47.6

Coca Cola 331 39.4 39.4 87.0

Gourmet Cola 109 13.0 13.0 100.0

Total 840 100.0 100.0

Figure 24: Preferred Brand

214

Interpretation:

Above analysis show that 47.6% of the respondents preferred Pepsi Cola while 39.4% preferred

Coca Cola and the least preferred brand was Gourmet Cola which is 13%. This analysis further

tells that among all three brands Pepsi was highly preferred whereas Coca Cola was there almost

near in the preference competition in the market by the consumers.

4.2 Hypothesis Analysis

4.2.1 Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality

Table 19: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Pepsi

Correlations

Congruence brand personality

congruence

Pearson Correlation 1 .636**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 400 400

brand personality

Pearson Correlation .636** 1


N 400 400

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation:

This is the correlation between independent variable congruence and dependent variable brand

personality of Pepsi Cola. It shows that the Pearson's Correlation between both the variables is

0.636 that is strong positive correlation. The significance level is 0.000 which is acceptable.

215

Table 20: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Coca Cola

Correlations

congruence Brand personality

Congruence

Pearson Correlation 1 .093


N 331 331

Brand personality

Pearson Correlation .093 1


N 331 331


Interpretation:


personality of Coca Cola. It shows that the Pearson's Correlation between both the variables is

0.093 that is no or negligible relationship.

Table 21: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Gourmet

Correlations

congruence Brand personality

congruence



N 109 109

Brand personality



N 109 109

Interpretation:


personality of Gourmet. It shows that the Pearson's Correlation between both the variables is

.117 that is non-negligible relationship between variables.

216

4.2.2 Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality

Table 22: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Pepsi

Correlations

satisfaction brand personality

satisfaction



N 400 400

brand personality



N 400 400


Interpretation:

The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable satisfaction and

dependent variable brand personality such that the correlation between both the variables is

0.949 that is a very strong positive relation. The significance level is 0.000 that is statistically

acceptable.

217

Table 23: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Coca Cola

Correlations

satisfaction Brand personality

Satisfaction



N 331 331

Brand personality



N 331 331


Interpretation:



0.194 that is a no or negligible relationship.

Table 24: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Gourmet

Correlations

satisfaction Brand personality

Satisfaction



N 109 109

Brand personality



N 109 109

Interpretation:



0.130 that is a negligible relationship between variables.

218

4.2.3 Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality

Table 25: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Pepsi

Correlations

commitment Brand personality

Commitment



N 400 400

brand personality



N 400 400


Interpretation:

The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable commitment

and dependent variable brand personality such that the correlation between both the variables is

0.800 that is a very strong positive relation. The significance level is 0.000 that is statistically

acceptable.

219

Table 26: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Coca Cola

Correlations


Commitment

Pearson Correlation 1 -.056


N 331 331

Brand personality

Pearson Correlation -.056 1


N 331 331

Interpretation:



-.056 that is a no or negligible relationship.

Table 27: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Gourmet

Correlations


Commitment



N 109 109

Brand personality



N 109 109


Interpretation:



0.275 that is a very weak positive relationship between variables. The significance level is 0.004

that is statistically acceptable.

220

4.2.4 Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear

Regression)

Table 28: Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear

Regression) - Pepsi

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

1

Regression 11.749 2 5.875 91.157 .000b

Residual 25.584 397 .064

Total 37.333 399

a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty

b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, congruence

Coefficients

Model Un-standardized Coefficients Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 3.139 .250 12.559 .000

congruence .359 .061 .319 5.917 .000

brand personality .292 .052 .302 5.606 .000


Interpretation:

The above data shows the relationship of brand loyalty (dependent variable), congruence

(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the un-

standardized coefficient of congruence and brand personality is 0.359 and 0.292. The analysis

shows that the unit increase in congruence would increase brand loyalty by 35.9% which has a

moderate positive relation. Furthermore, unit increase in brand personality increases brand

loyalty by 29.2% which has a weak positive relationship.

221


Regression) - Coca Cola

ANOVAa


1

Regression 11.105 2 5.552 31.486 .000b

Residual 57.841 328 .176

Total 68.945 330


b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, congruence

Coefficients


Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 4.289 .260 16.511 .000

congruence .023 .027 .044 .864 .388

Brand

personality

-.367 .046 -.403 -7.934 .000


Interpretation:



standardized coefficient of congruence and brand personality is 0.023 and -0.367. The analysis

shows that the unit increase in congruence would increase brand loyalty by 2.3% which has a

222

negligible relation. Furthermore, unit increase in brand personality decreases brand loyalty by

36.7% which has a moderate negative relationship.


Regression) - Gourmet

ANOVAa


1

Regression 5.880 2 2.940 1.691 .189b

Residual 184.256 106 1.738

Total 190.136 108

a. Dependent Variable: Brand loyalty

b. Predictors: (Constant), Brand personality , congruence

Interpretation:



Coefficients


Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 2.861 .746 3.833 .000

congruence .161 .093 .167 1.739 .085

Brand

personality

.084 .215 .038 .391 .697


223

standardized coefficient of congruence and brand personality is 0.161 and 0.84. The analysis

shows that if 1 unit increase in congruence would increase brand loyalty is increased by 16.1%

which has a negligible relationship. Furthermore, if 1 unit increase is increase in brand

personality leads to the increase by 8.4% in brand loyalty which has no or negligible

relationship, while 1 unit increase in congruence leads to 16.1% increase in brand loyalty which

also has no or negligible relationship.

224

4.2.5 Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear

Regression)

Table 31: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear

Regression) - Pepsi

ANOVAa


1

Regression 12.859 2 6.429 104.289 .000b

Residual 24.475 397 .062

Total 37.333 399


b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, satisfaction

Coefficients


Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 1.142 .403 2.831 .005

satisfaction -.639 .086 -.952 -7.389 .000

brand personality 1.364 .125 1.407 10.927 .000


Interpretation:

The above data shows the relationship of brand loyalty (dependent variable), satisfaction


standardized coefficient of satisfaction and brand personality is -0.639 and 1.364. The analysis

225

shows that the unit increase in satisfaction; decreases brand loyalty by 63.9% which has a strong

negative relationship. In addition unit increase in brand personality increases brand loyalty by

136.4% which shows a very strong positive relationship.

Table 32: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear


ANOVAa


1

Regression 11.461 2 5.731 32.699 .000b

Residual 57.484 328 .175

Total 68.945 330



Coefficients


Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 4.201 .263 15.966 .000

satisfaction .082 .049 .086 1.669 .096

Brand

personality

-.378 .047 -.416 -8.086 .000


226

Interpretation:



standardized coefficient of satisfaction and brand personality is 0.082 and -0.378. The analysis

shows that the unit increase in satisfaction; decreases brand loyalty by 8.2% which has a no or

negligible relationship. In addition unit increase in brand personality decreases brand loyalty by

37.8% which shows a moderate negative relationship.

227

Table 33: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear


ANOVAa


1

Regression 1.802 2 .901 .507 .604b

Residual 188.334 106 1.777

Total 190.136 108



Coefficients


Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 3.653 .809 4.513 .000

satisfaction -.091 .111 -.079 -.815 .417

Brand

personality

.151 .218 .068 .693 .490


Interpretation:



standardized coefficient of satisfaction and brand personality is -0.091 and .151. The analysis

shows that if 1 unit increase in satisfaction; brand loyalty decreased by -9.1%% which has a

228

strong negative relationship. In addition if 1 unit increases in brand personality increases brand

loyalty is increased by 15.1% which shows a negligible relationship.

229

4.2.6 Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple

Linear Regression)

Table 34: Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear

Regression) - Pepsi

ANOVAa


1

Regression 21.967 2 10.983 283.765 .000b

Residual 15.366 397 .039

Total 37.333 399


b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, commitment

Coefficients


Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 5.837 .224 26.015 .000

commitment .430 .024 .963 17.952 .000

Brand personality -.257 .052 -.265 -4.951 .000


Interpretation:

The above data shows the relationship of brand loyalty (dependent variable), commitment


standardized coefficient of commitment and brand personality is 0.430 and -0.257. The analysis

230

shows that the unit increase in commitment; increases brand loyalty by 43.0% which has a strong

positive relationship. In addition unit increase in brand personality decreases brand loyalty by

25.7% which shows a weak negative relationship.



ANOVAa


1

Regression 15.150 2 7.575 46.187 .000b

Residual 53.795 328 .164

Total 68.945 330


b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, commitment

Coefficients


Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 4.988 .267 18.680 .000

commitment -.188 .037 -.247 -5.047 .000

Brand personality -.376 .044 -.413 -8.450 .000


Interpretation:



standardized coefficient of commitment and brand personality is -0.188 and -0.376. The analysis

shows that the unit increase in commitment, increases brand loyalty by 18.8% which has a no or

231

negligible relationship. In addition unit increase in brand personality decreases brand loyalty by

37.6% which shows a moderate negative relationship.



ANOVAa


1

Regression .701 2 .350 .196 .822b

Residual 189.435 106 1.787

Total 190.136 108


b. Predictors: (Constant), Brand personality, commitment

Coefficients


Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 3.286 .734 4.479 .000

commitment .022 .105 .021 .209 .835

Brand

personality

.115 .225 .051 .510 .611


Interpretation:



232

standardized coefficient of commitment and brand personality is .022 and .115. The analysis

shows that if 1 unit increases in commitment; brand loyalty is increased by .022% which has a

weak positive relationship. In addition if 1 unit is increase in brand personality than brand loyalty

is increased by 25.7% which shows a weak negative relationship.

233

4.2.7 Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction

Table 37: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Pepsi

Correlations

congruence satisfaction

Congruence



N 400 400

satisfaction



N 400 400


Interpretation:

The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable Congruence

and dependent variable Satisfaction such that the correlation between both the variables is 0.792

that is a very strong positive relationship.

234

Table 38: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Coca Cola

Correlations

congruence satisfaction

Congruence



N 331 331

Satisfaction



N 331 331


Interpretation:


and dependent variable Satisfaction such that the correlation between both the variables is 0.268

that is a weak positive relationship.

235

Table 39: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Gourmet

Correlations

Congruence satisfaction

congruence



N 109 109

satisfaction



N 109 109

Interpretation:


and dependent variable Satisfaction such that the correlation between both the variables is .142

that is a negligible relationship between variables.

236

4.2.8 Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment

Table 40: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Pepsi

Correlations

satisfaction commitment

Satisfaction



N 400 400

Commitment



N 400 400


Interpretation:

The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable Satisfaction

and dependent variable Commitment such that the correlation between both the variables is

0.596 that is a strong positive relationship. The significance level is 0.000 that is statistically

acceptable.

237

Table 41: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Coca Cola

Correlations


Satisfaction

Pearson Correlation 1 -.240**


N 331 331

commitment

Pearson Correlation -.240** 1


N 331 331


Interpretation:



-0.240 that is a weak negative relationship.

238

Table 42: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Gourmet

Correlations


satisfaction



N 109 109

commitment



N 109 109

Interpretation:


and dependent variable Commitment such that the correlation between both the variables is -.103

that is a strong very strong negative relationship.

239

4.2.9 Correlation between Congruence and Commitment

Table 43: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Pepsi

Correlations

congruence commitment

congruence



N 400 400

commitment



N 400 400


Interpretation:



0.275 that is a weak positive relationship. The significance level is 0.000 that is statistically

acceptable.

240

Table 44: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Coca Cola

Correlations


satisfaction

Pearson Correlation 1 -.240**


N 331 331

commitment

Pearson Correlation -.240** 1


N 331 331


Interpretation:



-0.240 that is a weak negative relationship.

241

Table 45: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Gourmet

Correlations

congruence commitment

congruence



N 109 109

commitment



N 109 109

Interpretation:


and dependent variable Commitment such that the correlation between both the variables is -.102

that is a negligible relationship between variables.

242

Chapter 5:Conclusion andImplications

Table 46: Overview Result of Rejection or Acceptance of all Three Brands

Hypothesis Pepsi Coca Cola Gourmet H1 Accept Reject Reject

H2 Accept Reject Reject

H3 Accept Reject Accept


H5 Reject Reject Reject

H6 Reject Reject Reject

H7 Accept Accept Reject



5.1 Conclusion

5.1.1 Pepsi

The results for our hypothesis 1 (i.e. correlation between congruence and brand personality)

shows that there is a relationship between our independent variable (congruence) and dependent

variable (brand personality).Relationship between congruence and brand personality is a positive

one. The Pearson's correlation coefficient r is 0.636. From this we can interpret that if more

consumers are congruent to Pepsi Cola, there will be increase in the brand personality of Pepsi.

Which means that if consumers are able to reflect their own image in Pepsi Cola, more will be

the brand personality?

Hypothesis 2 is correlation between satisfaction and brand personality. The independent variable

here is satisfaction while dependent variable is brand personality. The findings here show the

Pearson's correlation coefficient r as 0.949 that represents a strong relationship between

satisfaction and brand personality. If more consumers are pleased, happy and contented, this

243

would mean that more consumers will be able to relate themselves to Pepsi. From this we can

also conclude that the changes in satisfaction are strongly related with the changes in brand

personality.

Correlation between commitment and brand personality is our third hypothesis. The independent

variable in this case is commitment and the dependent variable is brand personality. The

Pearson's correlation coefficient r is shown as 0.800 which indicates a strong relationship

between commitment and brand personality. This means that if more consumers are committed

more will be the brand personality of Pepsi. The findings show that if more consumers are

faithful and have a good bond, more will they be able to relate themselves with Pepsi.

From the above hypothesis it can be seen that all the three independent variables (congruence,

satisfaction, commitment) have a relation with the dependent variable (brand personality). Its

shows that all the three are able to effect brand personality individually.

The fourth hypothesis in our research is congruence with brand personality and brand loyalty.

Here the dependent variables were congruence and brand personality, while brand loyalty was a

dependent variable. The un-standardized slope of 0.359 of congruence tells us that Pepsi's brand

loyalty will increase by 35.9% for every percentage increase in congruence. That means higher

congruence is associated with higher brand loyalty. Whereas, the un-standardized slope of 0.292

of brand personality tells us that Pepsi's brand loyalty will increase by 29.2% for every

percentage increase in brand personality. Thus, it means that higher brand personality is

associated with higher brand loyalty.

In hypothesis 5 i.e. satisfaction with brand personality and brand loyalty the independent

variables are satisfaction and brand personality, on the other hand brand loyalty is a dependent

244

variable. The un-standardized slope of satisfaction and brand loyalty show a negative result that

is of -0.639. This means that Pepsi's brand loyalty will decrease by 63.9% if there is one

percentage increase in satisfaction. While on the other hand findings on brand personality and

brand loyalty show a positive relation. It shows that the higher personality of Pepsi is related

with brand loyalty.

The sixth hypothesis is commitment with brand personality and brand loyalty. Un-standardized

slope of commitment and brand loyalty of Pepsi show that brand loyalty will increase by 43% for

every percentage increase in commitment. Thus, higher commitment is associated with higher

brand loyalty. Findings of brand personality show that if one unit of brand personality is

increased there will be a decrease in brand loyalty.

The independent variables also have a relationship between each other. In this independent

variable is congruence and dependent variable is satisfaction. The relationship between

congruence and satisfaction can be seen in hypothesis 7 i.e. correlation between congruence and

satisfaction. There is a very strong relation between both of them which shows that if the

consumers are able to reflect themselves with Pepsi that will result in increased satisfaction.

Hypothesis 8 is correlation between satisfaction and commitment. In this case independent

variable is satisfaction and commitment is considered as dependent variable. It seen that the

relation between them is strong positive which shows that if consumers are able to enjoy the

experience of Pepsi Cola they will more faithful and committed towards it.

Correlation between congruence and commitment is our 9th hypothesis. Congruence is treated as

independent variable whereas commitment is treated as dependent variable. The relationship

245

between them is weak positive. This result shows that if consumers are less likely to find their

reflection in Pepsi less of them will be committed towards it.

5.1.2 Coca Cola

To begin with speculation of Coca cola is demonstrating a relationship between congruence and

brand personality, in the wake of applying our tests the Pearson correlation indicates that there is

no negligible relationship between them.

Second theory indicates the relation between satisfaction and brand personality of Coca cola, the

Pearson correlation demonstrates that there is no or negligible relationship between these

variables.

So is with third hypothesis which is about commitment and brand personality indicating no or a

negligible relationship.

In hypothesis four the variables are congruence, brand personality and brand loyalty. Congruence

and brand personality are been acknowledged as independent variable and brand loyalty as

dependent variable. The un-institutionalized coefficient shows a moderate negative relationship

of brand loyalty with congruence and brand personality.

Besides, in fifth hypothesis the Results indicates that there is a moderate negative relationship.

In sixth speculation, acknowledging brand loyalty as dependent and commitment and also

personality as independent variable, the result demonstrates that there is no or negligible

relationship between commitment and brand loyalty.

The seventh hypothesis is indicating the relationship between independent variable congruence

and dependent variable satisfaction results demonstrates that there is weak positive relationship

between the variables. Furthermore, in eighth hypothesis the relationship is strong positive

246

among variables of satisfaction and commitment. Additionally, in our last hypothesis the

relationship between congruence and commitment is weak negative.

From all of the above relations we can conclude that majority of the customers of coca cola are

students however they take a stab at creating a brand personality by concentrating on

celebrations, family assembling and so forth the genuine shopper of coca cola are from the age

section of 18-25. In spite of, coca cola don’t target everyone, and that startles individuals once in

a while. Suppose it is possible that coca cola push individuals away in light of the fact that brand

personality is excessively self-evident. If you don't push a couple of individuals away, you won't

generally draw in anybody. Thus, coca cola ought not to have a cleared and decently focused

brand personality.

The association of coinciding with brand personality is negligible which reflects that buyers

would not effectively relate themselves to the identity of the brand. It is troublesome for the

purchasers to secure a connection and relate their personality characteristics and human like

aspects with the coca cola brand. Additionally, on the off chance if we dissect congruence and

brand personality with regard to brand loyalty, it has been discovered that loyalty of coca cola

would not simply rely on them towards brand loyalty, congruence and commitment has a weaker

relationship as contrasted with Brand personality.

5.1.3 Gourmet

First hypothesis of Gourmet cola showing a relationship between congruence and brand

personality, after applying are responses the Pearson correlation shows that there is no negligible

relationship between them. This because of Gourmet is unsuccessful in creating its brand image

and lack of value.

247

Second hypothesis shows that relation between satisfaction and brand personality of gourmet

cola, the Pearson correlation shows that their negligible relationship between variables. This is

because of the fact that there are much better competitors’ colas in market, which make it

difficult to create satisfaction among people.

Similarly in third hypothesis which is about commitment and brand personality shows the

relationship, which is very weak positive relationship, although the significance level is

acceptable. Certain region of Pakistan shows that there is some commitment in people, which are

affecting their personality.

In hypothesis four the variables are congruence, brand personality and brand loyalty. Congruence

and brand personality been considered as independent variable and brand loyalty as dependent

variable. The un-standardized coefficient shows result that there is negligible relationship of

brand loyalty with congruence and brand personality. Gourmet is unsuccessful in creating

consumer’s loyalty, because it was previously failed in creating congruence and personality

which leads to consumer loyalty.

Furthermore, in fifth hypothesis the independent variable includes satisfaction and brand

personality, on the other hand dependent variable as brand loyalty. Results shows there is a

strong negative relationship between satisfaction and brand loyalty and negligible relationship

between brand personality and brand loyalty.

In sixth hypothesis, considering brand loyalty as dependent and commitment as well as

personality as independent variable, the result shows that there is a weak positive relationship

between and commitment and brand loyalty. And weak negative relationship between

248

personality and loyalty. Gourmet can work on its product personality which would result in good

brand loyalty.

In seventh hypothesis showing relationship between independent variable congruence and

dependent variable satisfaction results shows that there is negligible relationship between

variables. Similarly in hypothesis eight the relationship is strong negative among variables

between satisfaction and commitment. Also in our last hypothesis the relationship between

congruence and commitment is negligible.

The Gourmet Cola is significantly showing a weak or negligible relationship among variables,

total respondents of gourmet cola are one hundred and nine only. We have targeted universities,

friends and family members for our responses.

5.2 Limitations and Future Line of Research

249

References

A, d., & L, B. (2007). Positioning countries on personality dimensions: scale development and

implications for country marketing. Journal of Business Research, 231–9.

Aaker, & J.L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347.

Aaker, & J.L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, N°3, 347-356.

Aaker, & J.L. (2009, July 01). The Impacts of Brand Personality and Congruity on Purchase Intention:.

Journal of Global Marketing, 201-202.

Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York: The Free

press.

Aaker, D. (1996). Building. New york.

Aaker, D. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. London: The

Free Press.

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building Strong Brands. Building Strong Brands.

Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, N.3 , 347-356.

Aaker, J. (1997, August 1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality . Journal of Marketing Research, XXXIV,

347-356.

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 347-356.

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 347-356.

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), 347-356.

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34(No. 3), 347-

356.

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34(No. 3), pp.

347-356.

Aaker, J. L. (1997, August). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Marketing Research, Vol. 34, No. 3 , 347-

357.

Aaker, J. L. (1997, August). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-

356.

250

Aaker, J. L. (1997, August). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-

356.

Aaker, J. L., Benet-Martinez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture: A

Study of Japanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructs. Journal o/Personality & Social

Psychology, 81 (3), 492-508.

Aaker, J., & Fournier, S. (1995). A brand as a character, a partner and a person: Three perspectives on

the question of brand. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, 391.

Aaker, J., & Fournier, S. (1995). A Brand as a Character, A Partner and a Person:Three Perspectives on

the Question of Brand Personality. Advances in Consumer Research, 22 (1), 391-395.

Aaker, J., Benet-Martinez, & V, G. J. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: a study of

Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. J Pers Soc Psychology, 492–508.

Aaker, J.S.Fournier, & S.A.Brasel. (2004). When Good Brands do Bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 1-

16.

Aasel, H. (1987). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action 3rd Edition. Boston: PWS:Kent.

Achouri, M. A., & Bouslama, N. (2010). The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and

Self-Image on Consumer’s Satisfaction and Loyalty. IBMA Business Review, 16.

Agarwal, A., & Siddharth, S. (2010). Retaining Brand Loyalty. Copperbridge Media.

Ahluwalia, R. (2000, September). Examination of Psychological Processes Underlying resistance to

persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 217-232.

Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000, May). Consumer Responce to negative Publicity:

The Moderating Role of Commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, XXXVII , 203-214.

Ahluwalia, R., Unnava, H. R., & Robert E, B. (2001, November). The Moderating Role of Commitment On

the Spillover Effect of Marketing Communications. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 458-470.

Ahouri, M. A., & Bouslama, N. (2010). The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-

Image on Consumer’s Satisfaction and Loyalty. IBMA Business Review, 16.

Al., K. e. (1992). In K. e. Al..

Aleman, B. a. (2001). In B. a. Aleman.

Alexandrov, & Alexei. (2011). Should You Sell Pepsi and Coke in the Same Aisle? Should You Sell Pepsi

and Coke in the Same Aisle?, 14.

Alexandrov, A. (2011, July). Should You Sell Pepsi and Coke in the Same Aisle? Journal of Personal Selling

and Sales Management, pg.14.

Algesheime, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005, July). The Social Influence of Brand Community:

Evidence from European Car Clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 19-34.

251

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective Continuance and

Normative Commitment to the Organization. Journal of Occupational Psychological Society, 1-

18.



18.



18.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and


18.



18.



18.

Allport, G. (1935). Atitudes. Handbook of social psychology, 798-884.

Allport, G., & Odbert, H. (1936). A Psycholexical Study in: Psychological Monographs (Vol. 47).

Alt, M., & Griggs, S. (1988). Can a Brand be Cheecky? Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing

Science, 4, no. 6, 9-16.

Ambler, T. (1997). Do Brands Benefit Consumers? International Journal of Advertising, 167-98.

Ambroise, L., & Valette-Florence, P. (2010). Métaphore de la personnalité de la marque et stabilitéinter-

produits d'un baromètrespécifique. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 3-29.

Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., & Florence, P. V. (2004). How well does brand personality

predict brand choice? Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research.

Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., & Florence, P. V. (2004). How Well does Brand Personality

Predict Brand Choice? Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research.

Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., & Vallette-Florence, P. (2005). How Well Does Brand

Personality Predict brand choice. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 30-38.

Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., Valette-Florence, P., & Barnier, V. D. (2005). How Well Does

Brand Personality Predict Brand Choice? A Measurement Scale and Analysis Using Binary

Regression Models. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 30-38.

252

Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., Valette-Florence, P., & Barnier, V. D. (2005, January). How

Well does Brand Personality Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale. Advances in Consumer

Research, 6, 30-38.

Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., Vallete, P., & Florence. (2004). How Well does Brand

Personality Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale.

Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., Vallete, P., & Florence. (2005). How Well does Brand

Personality Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale and Analysis using Binary Regression

Models. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 30-38.

Ambroise, L., Sliman, S. B., Barnier, V. D., Ferrandi, J. M., Merunka, D., Roherich, G., & Florence, P. V.

(2005). The Impact of Brand Persoanlity on Attitude and Commitment Towards the Brand.

Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Ambroise, L., Sliman, S. B., Bourgeat, P., Barnier, V. d., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., . . . Vallete-Florence,

P. (2005). The Impact of Brand Persoanlity on Attitude and Commitment Towards the Brand. 68-

78.

Amine, A.-m. (2011). Consumers' true brand loyalty: the central role of commitment. Journal of strategic

management, 305-309.

Anantadjaya, S. P., Walidin, A., Waskita, E. S., & Nawangwulan, I. M. (2007). Consumer Behavior, Supply

chain management and Customer satisfaction: An investigative study in small and medium

enterprises. Jakarta: International Seminar on Industrial Engineering and Management.

Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). "The antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction

for firms". Marketing Science, 125-43.

Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and

Profitability. Journal Of Marketing, 53-66.

Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of continuity in Conventional Industrial Channel Dyads.

Marketing Sciences, 310-23.

Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1992). The Use of Pledges to build and Sustain Commitment in Distribution

Channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 18-34.

Anderson, N. (1968). Likableness Ratings of 555 Personality-Trait Words. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 9, no. 3, 272-279.

Anon. (2014, March 9). Brand personality theory and practice. Retrieved from

http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp?id=166033

Asch, S. (1952). Social psychology. Social psychology.

Attri, R., pahwa, D. M., & Urkude, D. A. (2012). Loyalty and customer satisfaction with the public sector

oil marketing companies: way forward for effective CRM strategies. Indore Management

Journal, 99-113.

253

Attri, R., pahwa, D. M., & Urkude, D. A. (2012). Loyalty and customer satisfaction with the public sector

oil marketing companies: way forward for effective CRM strategies. Indore Management

Journal, 99-113.

Austin, J. R., Siguaw, J. A., & Mattila, A. S. (2003). A Re-examination of the Generalizability of the Aaker

Brand Personality Measurement Framework. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11 (2), 77-92.

Awan, & Hassnain, A. u. (2013, May 20). Gourmet. Retrieved from

http://www.slideshare.net/ataulhassnain/marketing-revised-21543470

Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J. N. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality?

Brand Managment, 143−155.

Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J.-N. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality?

Brand Management, 143−155.

Azoulay, Audrey, & Kapferer, J.-N. (2003). "Do Brand Personality Scales Really Measure Brand

Personality? Journal of Brand Management, 11 (2), 143-155.

Ballantyne. (2006). The evolution of brand choice. Journal of Brand Management, 339-352.

Bansal, H. S., Irving, P. G., & Taylor, S. F. (2004). A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to

Service Providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 234–250.

Bansal, H. S., Irving, P. G., & Taylor, S. F. (2004). A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to

Service Providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 234–250.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). "The Moderator:Mediator Variable Distinction in Social

Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations". Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 1173–1182.

Basrawi, R. (2009). The influence of brands competitive advantage of consumer loyalty. United kingdom:

Brunel Business School.

Basrawi, R. (2009). The influence of Brands competitive advantage on the consumer loyalty: A study in

the UK's cosmetic and toiletries market. United Kingdom.

Batra, & al, e. (1993). Personality. New York.

Batra, R., Lehmann, D., & Singh, D. (1993). The Brand Personality Component of Brand Goodwill: Some

Antecedents and Consequences.

Bauer, H. (2000). The Value of the Brand. Mannheim : Institute for Marketing, University Mannheim.

Bauer, H., & Huber, F. (1997). valued Brands. Mannheim: Institue of Marketing.

Bauer, R. (1960). Consumer Behavior as risk taking.

Beatty, S. E., Homer, P., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). The Involvement-Commitment Model: Theory and

Implications. Journal of Business Research, 16(2), 149-167.

254

Behi, Belaid, S., & Temessek, A. (2010). The role of attachment in building consumer brand relationships:

an empirical investigation in utilitarian consumption context. Encole de Management de

Normandie Research paper, 9-10.

Belch, B. a. (2004). 113.

Beldona, S., & Wysong, S. (2007). Putting the "brand" back into store brands: an exploratory

examination of store brands and brand personality. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16

(4), 226-235.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139-168.

Belk, R. W. (1988, September). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15,

139-168.

Belk, R. W., Bahn, K. D., & Mayer, R. N. (1982). Developmental recognition of consumption symbolism.

Journal of Consumer research, 9(1), 4–17.

Belk, R., Kenneth, D. B., & Mayer, R. N. (1982). Developmental recognition of consumption symbolism.

Journal of Consumer research, 9(1), 4–17.

Bettman, J. R. (1973). Perceived Risk and its components: A model and Empirical risk. Journal of

marketing research.

Betty, S. E., Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. (1988). The involvement commitment model : Theory and

implications. Journal of business research.

Biel, A. (1993). Converting image into equity, Brand equity and Advertising. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbrum

Associates.

Biel, A. (1993). Coverting image to equity in brand equity and Advertising . Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, 67-82.

Biel, A. L. (1991). Converting Image to Equity. (D. &. Aaker, Ed.) Hillsdale: NTC Publications Ltd.

Bitner, M. J. (1994). Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus quality. Encounter

satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus quality., 72-94.

Blackwell, R. .., Miniard, P. .., & Engel, J. .. (2001). ‘ Consumer Behavior (9th ed.). Harcourt,Fort Worth.

Bloemer, J. M., & Kasper, H. D. (1994). The Impact of Satisfaction on Brand Loyalty: Urging on classifying

Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and

Complaining Behavior, 152-159.

Bosnjak, M., Bochmann, V., & Hufschmidt, T. (2007). Dimensions of brand personality attributions: a

personcentric approach in the German cultural context. Social Behavior and Personality, 303–

316.

Bosque, I. R., & Martin, H. S. (2008). Tourist satisfaction a cognitive affective model. Annals of Tourism

Research, 551–573.

255

Bouhlel, O., Mzoughi, N., Hadiji, D., & Slimane, I. B. (2009). Brand Personality and Mobile Marketing:An

Empirical Investigation. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 703-710.

Bouhlel, O., Mzoughi, N., Hadiji, D., & Slimane, I. B. (2011). Brand Personality’s Influence on the

Purchase Intention: A Mobile Marketing Case. International Journal of Business and

Management, 210-218.

Bouslama, ACHOURI, M. A., & Neji. (2004). The effect of the Congruenece between Brand Personality an

Self Image on Consumer's Satisfaction and Loyalty: A Conceptual Framework. IBIMA Business

Review, 1-16.

Bouslama, Achouri, M. A., & Neji. (2010). "The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and

Self-Image on Consumer’s Satisfaction and Loyalty". IBMA Business Review, 16.

Bulgarella, C. C. (2005). Employee Satisfaction and customer satisfaction. Guide Star research, 6.

Business Wire. (June 29, 2007. - March 8, 2010). Pakistan Food & Drink Report, 2007.

Byrne, D. E. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. (1973). Interpersonal attraction. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, 317-336.

C.Whan, P. &. (1977). students and Housewives. students and Housewives:, 102-210.

Cant. (2003). Research Methodology. 48.

Capon, N., & Burke, M. (1980). Individual, Product class and task-related factors in consumer

information processing. Journal of consmer research.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Guido, G. (2001). Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit?

Journal of Economic Psychology, 377−395.

Carman, M. J. (1970). Correlates of brand loyalty: Some positive results. Journal of marketing research,

67.

Cater, B., & Zabkar, V. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of commitment in marketing research

services: The client's perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 785–797.

Cater, B., & Zabkar, V. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of commitment in marketing research

services: The client's perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 785–797.

CCBPL. (2014, 1 24). Linkedin. Retrieved from http://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/10693944

Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand

performance. Journal of Marketing, 81-93.

Coca Cola. (2014). Coke Rozee.pk. Retrieved 2014, from Rozee.pk:

http://coke.rozee.pk/content.php?ulid=14107-coca-cola-about-us

Consumer Report Magazines. (2012, Aug). Consumer Report Magazines. Retrieved from

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/08/claim-check-is-pepsi-next-the-next-

big-thing-in-sodas/index.htm

256

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2002). Business Research Methods. New Delhi: McGraw Hill Education

India Pvt. Ltd.

Cooper, D. R., Schindler, P. S., & Sharma, J. K. (2002). Business Research Methods (11th ed.). New Delhi:

McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method (2nd ed.).

California, California, USA: SAGE Publications.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process.

Research Design in Qualitative/Quantitative/Mixed Methods.

Curran, J., & Blackburn, R. (2001). Researching the small enterprise. U.K: Sage Publications.

D., Z. S. (2003). "Du soi au groupe : naissance du concept de nous et exploration d’une échelle de

mesure de nous idéal". Recherches et applications en Marketing,, 3-22.

d’Astous A., I. S. (2002). Conception et test d’une échelle de mesure de la personnalité des magasins.

Actes du XVIIIème Congrès International de l’Association Française de Marketing, 23-24, 115-

130.

Derbaix, C. (1983). Perceived risk and risk relievers: An empirical investigation. Journal of economic

psychology.

Despite lead, Pepsi aims for bigger piece of the cake. (2012). Expree tribune.

Dick, A. &. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Customer loyalty:

Toward an integrated conceptual framework., 99-113.

Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Cusomer loyalty Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework. Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, 99-113.

Dolich, I. J. (1969). Congruence relationships between selfimages and product brands. Journal of

Marketing Research, 6, 80-84.

Domizlaff. (1939). '22 Basic Laws of Natural Branding'. Harper Business .

Domizlaff. (1939). Translated from German: Die 22 Gesetze der naturlichen Markenbildung ". Germany.

Dornoff, R. J., & Tatham, R. L. (1972). Congruence between personal image and store image. Journal of

Market Research Society, 14, 45-52.

E., V. (2003). " Personnalité de la marque et image de soi". 1-21.

Echambadi, R. (2000). Customer Retention: AnIntegrative Model and Empirical Test.

Edmund. (2013). 248.

Einwiller, S. A., Fedorikhin, A., Johnson, A. R., & Kamins, M. A. (2006). Enough Is Enough! When

Identification No Longer Prevents Negative Corporate Associations. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 34, 185–194.

Engel, J. a. (1982). Consumer Behavior (4 ed.). Chicago: Dryden Press.

257

Equities, F. C. (February 07, 2010. - March 9, 2010.). First Capital Equities Ltd. Daily Times Leading New

Resource to Pakistan Unilever.

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on

consumers' connections to brands. Journal of consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 339-348.

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Introduction to Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand

Meaning. Journal of consumer Research, 32, 378-389.

Etzioni, A. (1961). A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press.

Eysenck, H. J. (1970). The Structure of Human Personality. (3. R. edition, Ed.) Methuen: John Wiley &

Sons Inc.

Farhat, R., & Khan, D. B. (2011). Importance of Brand Personality To Customer Loyalty: A Conceptual

Study. New Media and Mass Communication, 1, 4-10.

Farquhar, P. H. (1990). Managing Brand Equity. Journal of Advertising Research, 7-11.

Fennis, B. M., Pruyn, A. T., & Maasland, M. (2005). Revisiting the malleable self: Brand effects on

consumer self-perceptions of personality traits. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 371–377.

Ferrandi, J. M., Fine-Falcy, S., & Valette-Florence, P. (2000). Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale in a French

Context: A Replication and a Preliminary Test of its Validity. Academy of Marketing Science

Conference, 7-13.

Ferrell, J. a. (1988). "Dynamic Competition with switching cost". "Dynamic Competition with switching

cost", 123–37.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison process. Human Relations, 117-140.

Fields, G. (1984). Why is there only One Baseball Team in Japan Worthy of Note? -The

Marketing/Advertising, 21-23.

Fisseni, H.-J. (1998). Personality Psychology- In search of a Science. (4. revised, Ed.) Gottingen.

Forbes, T. H. (2005). An empirical analysis of the Brand Perosnality Effect. Journal of Product & Brand

Management, 14(7), 404-413.

Forbes, T. H. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. Journal of Product & Brand

Management-volume 14, 404-413.

Fornell, C. (1992). A National Customer Satisfaction barometer. Journal of Marketing, 6-21.

Fournier. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Marketing Research, 34, 347-357.

Fournier, S., & Yao, J. (1997). Reviving Brand Loyalty: A Reconceptualization within the Framework of

Consumer-Brand Relationships. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 451-472.

Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(97)00021-9

Fournier, S., Dobscha, S., & Mick, D. G. (1998). Preventing the premature death of relationship

marketing. Harvard Business Review, 42-51.

258

Freling, T. H., & Forbes, L. P. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. The Journal of

Product and Brand Management, 14(7), 404–413.

Friend, C. (2010, January 28). 5 dimensions of Brand Personality. Retrieved from

http://www.fuelyourbranding.com/the-5-dimensions-of-brand-personality/

Fullerton. (2003). pp. 333-344 .

Fullerton, G. (2003). When does commitment lead to loyalty? Journal of Service Research, 333-344.

G, M., & Vergne, J. (2004). Comment expliquer l’attachement aux e-marques : applications aux Sites de

Ventes en Ligne ? Actes du XXème Congrès de l’Association Française de Marketing.

Galan, J. P. (2007). Propositions d'une'echelle de mesure de la congruence entre la musique et le

concept de soi . Actes du XXIIIeme Congres International de 1'AFM, Aix-les-Bains.

Gardner, B. B., & Sidney Levy, J. (1955). The Product and the Brand. Harvard Business Review, 33-39.

Gardner, J. L. (1979). Components of involvement.

Gardner, L. J. (1979). Components of involovement.

Garland, R., & Gendall, P. (2004). Testing Dick and Basu’s customer loyalty model. Australasian

Marketing Journal, 81-87.

Geyer, P. D. (1991). Predicting Brand Commitment. Mid Atlantic Journal of business, 129-138.

Ghodeswar, & Bhimrao. (2008). Product and Brand Management. Building Brand Identity in Competitive

Markets: A Conceptual Model, 17.

Gilliland, D. &. (2002). The two sides of attitudinal commitment: The effect of calculative and loyalty

commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distribution channels. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 24-43.

Gillmore, G. W. (1919). Annimism. Boston.

Goodell, Martin, C. L., & N, P. (1991). Historical, Descriptive and strategic perspectives on the construct

of product commitment. Europan journal of marketing.

Goodman, P. S., Fichman, M., Lerch, F. J., & Snyder, P. R. (1995). Customer-Firm Relationships,

involvement and Customer Satisfaction. Academy of management Journal, 3.

Gourmet. (2003-2014). Gourmet Cola Marketing Plan Marketing Essay. Retrieved from UKEssays.com:

http://www.ukessays.com/essays/marketing/gourmet-cola-marketing-plan-marketing-

essay.php#ixzz2vkNu4E85

Gourmet. (2013, May 20). Gourmet. (Awan, & A. u. Hassnain, Editors) Retrieved from

http://www.slideshare.net/ataulhassnain/marketing-revised-21543470

Gourmet. (2013). Gourmet Sweets and Bakers. Retrieved from http://gourmetpakistan.com/archives/61

Gourmet Foods - Pakistan. (2012). Retrieved from Pak Reviews:

http://www.pakreviews.com/restaurants-cafes/gourmet-foods-pakistan#

259

Gourmet Pakistan. (2013). Gourmet Pakistan. Retrieved from Gourmet:

http://gourmetpakistan.com/archives/61

Gouteron, S., & Szpiro, D. (2005). Excès de liquidité monétaire et prix des actifs. Banque de France

Working Paper, 185-201.

Govers P. C. M., S. F. (2009, july 01). The Impacts of Brand Personality and Congruity on Purchase

Intention:. Journal of Global Marketing, 201-202.

Govers, P. C., & Schoormans, F. P. (2005). Product, Personality and its Influence on consumer

preference. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4/5), 189–197.

Govers, P., & Schoormans, J. (2005). Product Personality abd its influence on Consumer Preference.

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22, no 4 , 189-197.

Grubb, E. L., & Grathwohl, H. L. (1967, October). Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market

behavior : A theoretical approach. Journal of Marketing, 31, 22.

Grubb, E. L., & Stern, B. L. (1971). Self-concept and significant others. Journal of Marketing Research, 8,

382-385.

Guildford. (1959). Personality. New York.

Gul, M. S., Jan, D. F., Baloch, D. Q., Jan, M. F., & Jan, M. F. (2012). Brand Image and Brand Loyalty.

Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, 3, 55-73.

Gundlach, G. T. (1995). The Structure of Commitment in Exchange. Journal of Marketing, 221-233.

Guo, L.-J. (2003). The Effects of Personality Trait and Brand Personality on Brand Preference. Chicago:

National Chiao Tung University.

Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. D., & IngerRoos. (2005, October). Journal of Marketing. The effects of

Customer satisfaction relationship commitment, dimensions and triggers on customer retention,

69.

Gustavsson, S. (2005). Customer Loyalty.

Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship. The role of Image

Transfer. Journal of Advertising, 38(4), 47–57.

H., F. T., & P., F. L. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. Journal of Product and

Brand Management, 404-413. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420510633350

Haeckel, L. P., & H, S. (1994). Engineering customer experiences. Marketing Management, 3, 9-19.

Halim, R. E. (2006). The Effect of relationship of Brand Trust and Brand affect on the Brand Performance:

An analysis from Brand Loyalty Perspective (A case of coffee instant product in Indonesia).

working paper.

Halim, R. E. (2006). The Effect of relationship of Brand Trust and Brand affect on the Brand Performance:

An analysis from Brand Loyalty Perspective (A case of coffee instant product in Indonesia).

Indonesia.

260

Hallowell, R. (1996). The Relationships of Customer Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty, and Profitability: An

empirical study. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 27-42.

Hamm, B. C., & Cundiff, E. W. (1969, November). Self-actualization and product perception. Journal of

Marketing Research, 6, 470-472.

Hansen, H., & Hem, L. E. (2004). Brand Extension Evaluations: Effects of Affective Commitment,

Involvement, Price Consciousness and Preference for Bunding in the Extension Category.

Advances in Customer Research, 375-381.

Hansen, H., Sandvik, K., & FredSelnes. (2002). When Customers Develop Commitment to the Service

Employee: Exploring the Direct and Indirect Effects on the Propensity to Stay. Advances in

Consumer Research, 494-495.

Harrison-Walker, J. (2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of

service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research,

60-75.

Hauser, J. R., Simester, D. I., & Werfelt, B. (1994). Customer Satisfaction Incentives. Marketing Sciences,

327-50.

Hausman, A. (2004). Modeling the Patient-Physician Service Encounter: Improving the Patient

Outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(4), 403-417.

Hawkings. (2001). 285.

Hayduk, L. A. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, Essentials and Advances. JHU Press.

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. new york : John Wiley and Sons.

Heironimus, F. (2003). Personality-Directed Brand Management- An empirical study on the

measurement, perception and impact of brand personality . In F. a. Peter Lang.

Helgeson, J. G., & Supphellen, M. (2004). A conceptual and measurement comparison of self-congruity

and brand personality. International Journal of Market Research,, 205−233.

Helgeson, J. G., & Supphellen, M. (2004). A conceptual and measurement comparison of self-congruity

and brand personality. International Journal of Market Research,, 205−233.

Hess, J. (1995). Construction and assessment of a scale to measure consumer Trust. Conference AMA

Educators’ Enhancing Knowledge development in Marketing, Editions B.B. Stern et G.M. Zinkhan,

20-25.

Heyman, l. h. (2009). Digital Engagement. Digital Engagement, 196.

Hieronimus, F. (2003). Personality- Directed Brand Management- Perception and Impact of Brand

Personality. Peter Lang, Frankurt am Main.

Holbrook, C. (2001). Brand Equity, Brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction.

Homborg, C., & Giering, A. (2001). ‘Personal Characteristics as Moderators of the Relationship Between

Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Empirical Analysis. Psychology and Marketing, 43-66.

261

Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Hoyer, W. D. (2009, March). Social Identity and the Service–Profit Chain.

Journal of Marketing, 73, 38–54.

Horosz, W. (1975). The Crisis of Responsibility: Man as the Source of Accountability. Univ of Oklahoma

Pr.

Houghton. (1995). The American Heritage. America: Mifflin Company.

Howard and sheth, L. M. (1969). Brand Personality.

Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. (1972). Personal Role Related Factors in the Development of

Organizational Commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 555-572.

Huber, F. H. (1999). "The Antecedents of Customer Loyalty: Results of an Empirical Study in the

Automotive Industry". "The Antecedents of Customer Loyalty: Results of an Empirical Study in

the Automotive Industry", 69-72.

Hunt, Morgan, R. M., & D., S. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. journal

of marketing, 22 38.

Hunt, S. D. (2002). Foundations of marketing theory: toward a general theory of marketing. M E Sharp.

Hupfer, N. T. (1971). Differential Involvment with products and issues: An exploratory study. (pp. Pages

262-270). Illinois: Association for Consumer Research.

Iglesias, O., Sngh, J. J., & Batista-Foguet, J. M. (2011). The role of brand experience and affective

commitment in determining brand loyalty. Journal of Brand Management, 570-582.

J.N., A., A., & Kapferer. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality. Brand

Management, 11, N°2, 143-155.

Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1996). LISREL Approaches to Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression,

Thousand oaks. SAGE Publications.

Jacobson, E., & Kossoff, J. (1963, August). Self-percept and consumer attitudes toward small cars.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 242-245.

Jamal, A., & Goode, M. M. (2001). Consumers and brand:a study of the impact of self image congruence

on brand preference and satisfaction. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19, 482-492.

Jetal, T. (2011). Bringing the Best Brand Management to People to Work.

Johar, G. V., Sengupta, J., & Aaker, J. L. (2005). Two Roads to Updating Brand Personality Impressions:

Trait Versus Evaluative Inferencing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (4), 458-469.

John. (1988). The Lexical Approach to Personality: A Historical Review of Trait Taxonomic Research.

Europe: Europeon Journal of Personality.

Johnson, P. M. (1973). Commitment: A conceptual structure and empirical application. The Sociological

Quarterly, 395-406.

Johnspen. (2009). Importance of Brand Congruence.

262

Jones, E. E., Kanhouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., & Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution

Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. General Learning Press.

Joshi, A. W. (2009). Continuous Supplier Performance Improvement: Effects of Collaborative

Communication and Control. Journal of Marketing, 133–150.

Kaiser, D. H. (2009). Sample Paper for Experimental Psychology . RESEARCH METHODS PAPER, 11.

Kapferer, J. N. (2007). Les marques, Capital de l'entreprise, (Vol. 4th edition). Paris: Eyrolles / Éditions

d'Organisation .

Keller. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing costumer based brand equity. Journal of

Marketing, 57(2), 1–22.

Keller. (1993). On Congruence between Brand and human Responsibilities. Journal of Product and Brand

Management, Vol. 19, 44-53.

Keller, K. (2006). 174.

Keller, K. L. (1993). "Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equit".

"Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity", 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing costumer based brand equity. Journal of

Marketing, 57(2), 1–22.

Keller, K. L. (1993, Jan.). Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer- Based Brand Equity.

Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (1993, Jan.). Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity.

Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of

Marketing, 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (1993, Jan.). Journal of Marketing. 57(1), 1-22.

Keller, K. l., Parameswaran, & Jacob. (2011). Strategic Brand Management (3rd ed.). Dehli: Pearson.

Keller, K. L., Parameswaran, M. G., & Jacob, I. (2011). Strategic Brand Management. New delhi: Pearson.

Kiesler, C., & Abelson. (1968). Commitment. Theories of cognitive consistency, 448-455.

Klemperer, P. (1995). Competition When Consumers Have Switching Costs: An Overview With

Applications to Industrial Organization, Macroeconomics, and International Trade. Review of

Economic Studies, 525-24.

Knowles, J. (2004). In Search of a Reliable Measure of Brand Equity. Best of Marketing, 1 & 2, 60-63.

Kotler. (2006). Marketing Management. New Delhi: Pearson.

Kotler, Armstrong, Agnihotri, & Haque. (2010). Princples of Marketing (13 ed.). Chandigarh: Pearson

Education inc.

263

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). A framework for marketing management. Prentice Hall.

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). A Framework for Marketing Management (4th ed.). New Delhi: Pearson.

Kressmann, F., & Sirgy, M. J. (2006, June). Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand

loyalty. Journal of Business Research.

Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., & Lee, D.-J. (2006). Direct and indirect

effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59 (9), 955-964.

Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement. Public

opinion quarterly.

Kumar et al. (2006). Personality Traits.

Kumar, N., Hibbard, J. D., & Stern, L. W. (1994). The Nature and Consequences of Marketing Channel

Intermediary Commitment. 94-115.

Kuppelwieser, V. G., Grefrath, R., & Dziuk, A. (2011). A Classification of Brand Pride Using Trust and

Commitment. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2, 36-45.

L., A., J-M., F., & D, V.-F. P. (2003). Première application du baromètre de mesure de la personnalité de

la marque à deux enseignes françaises. Actes du 6° Colloque Etienne Thil, 25-26/09, La Rochelle.

Lacoeuilhe, J. (1997). Le rôle du concept d’attachement dans la formation du comportement de fidélité.

Revue Française du Marketing, 29-42.

Landon, E. L. (1974). Self concept, ideal self concept, and consumer purchase intentions. Journal of

Consumer Research, 1, 44-51.

Laure Ambroise, S. B. (2005). The Impact of Brand Persoanlity on Attitude and Commitment Towards the

Brand.

Lee, C. T., & Han, S. (1999). Consumer's trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty. Journal of Market-

focused management, 342.

Lee, M., & Cunningham, L. F. (2001). A Cost and Benefit Approach to Understanding Service Loyalty.

Journal of Services Marketing, 113-30.

Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sales. Harvard Business Review, 37 , 117-124.

Lin, L.-Y. (2010). The Relationship of Consumer Personality Trait, Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty:

An Empirical Study of Toys and Video Games Buyers. Journal of Product & Brand Management,

19(1), 4-17.

Lin, Y.-T. L., & Hsien, C. (2008). Factors influencing brand loyalty in professional sports fans. Gloal Journal

of Business Research, 72.

Lindstrom, M. (2005). Brand Sense. New york: Free Press.

264

Lombart, Louis, D., & Cindy. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences

(trust, commitment and attachment) to the brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management,

19(2), 114-30.

Lombart, Louis, D., & Cindy. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences


114-30.

Loudon. (2001). Consumer Behavior: Concepts And Application. New Delhi: McGraw Hill Education.

Louie, B. E. (1990). Effects of retraction of price promotions on brand choice behavior for variety seeking

and last purchase loyal consumers. Journal of Marketing research, 27, 279-289.

Louis, D., & Lombart, C. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences

(trust, attachment, and commitment to the brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management,

19(2), 114-130.

Louis, D., & Lombart, C. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences


19(2), 114-30.

Loureiro, S. M. (2006). Consumer Brand Relationship. Foundation and State of Art, 1-20.

Loureiro, S. M. (2006, Sandra Maria CorreiaLoureiro, ISCTE_IUL). Consumer Brand Relationship.

foundation and state of art, 413-434.

Loureiro, S. M. (2012). Consumer Brand relationship: foundation and state of art. (H. R. Panni, Ed.)

Customer centric marketing strategies: tools for building organizational performance, 413-434.

Low, G. S., & Jr, C. W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand association. Journal of

Product and Brand Management, 350 -370.

Luckerath, B. (2010). How brands become people: A study on the impact of brand personality on brand

value. MSc Marketing Communications Management, 56-60.

Lutz, E. S.-S. (1989). Intergenerational influences in the formation of consumer attitudes and beliefs

about the market place: mothers and daughters. Advances in consumer research, 15, 461-467.

M.J.Sirgy. (1986 ). Using Self Congruity and Ideal congruity to predict purchase Motivation . Journal of

Business Research, 195-206.

M.L.Brunel. (1990). "Introduction à la conscience de soi et au concept de soi, tels qu’on les perçoit

depuis William James". Revue Québécoise de Psychologie.

M.Resenberg. (1979). Convincing the Self.

Maehle, N., & Shneor. (2009). Congruence between Brand and Human Personalities. Journal of Product

and brand Management, Vol, 19, 44-53.

Magin, S., Algesheimer, R., Huber, F., & Herrmann, A. (2003). The Impact of Brand Personality and

Customer Satisfaction on Customer’s loyalty. Electronic Markets, 294-308.

265

Maille, F. N. (2010). Trente ans de travaux contradictoires sur l'influence de la congruence perçue par le

consommateur: synthèse, limites et voies de recherché. Recherche et Applications en Marketing,

25 (4), 69-92.

Malhotra, N. (1988). Self Concept and Product choice: An integrated perspective. Journal of Economic

Psychology, 1-28.

Malhotra, N. K. (1981). A scale to measure self concept, person concept and product concept. Marketing

research, 456-464.

Malhotra, N. K. (2007). Market Research: An applied Orientation (5th ed.). New Delhi: Pearson

Education.

Mandler., G. (1982). Stress and thought processes”, in Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical

Aspects, (eds.) L. Golberger and S. Breznitz. The Free Press, New-York, 88-104.

Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the Dimensionality and Structure of the Consumption

Experiance: Evaluation, Feeling, and Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 451-466.

Mattila, A. S., & Wirtz, J. (2001, April). Congruency of Scent and Music as a driver of in-store Evaluation

and Behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77, 273-289.

Mayer, N. J., & P, J. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative

commitment to organization. Journal of occupational psychology, 1-18.

McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Fundations of the Endorsement Process.

Jounal of Consumer Research, 310-319.

McCraken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: Atheoretical account of the structure and movement of

cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 13(1), 71–84.

Mengxia, & Zhang. (2007). Impact of Brand Personality on PALI:A Comparative Research between Two

Different Brands. International Management Review, 3(3), 36-44.

Mengxia, Z. (2007). Impact of Brand Personality on PALI: a comparative research betweeen two different

brands (Vols. 3, no: 3 ). New York: International Management Review .

Merunka, D. (2003). publication of University of Aix en Provence, France.

Moisescu, O. I. (2006). A Conceptual Analysis of Brand Loyalty As Core Dimension of Brand Equity.

Competitiveness and Stability in the Knowledge-Based Economy No. International conference

proceedings, 1128-1136.

Montgomery, G. K., & B., D. (1987). ROUTINIZED CHOICE BEHAVIOR, BRAND COMMITMENT,.

Morgan, R. &. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 20-

38.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. journal of

Marketing.

266

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. journal of

Marketing.

Mostert. (2002). 89.

Mowday, R. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

224–247.

M'Sallem, W., Mzoughi, N., & Bouhlel, O. (2009). Customers' Evolution after a Bank renaming: Effects of

Brand name change on Brand Personality, Brand Attitude and Customer; Satisfaction. Innovative

Marketing, 58-65.

M'Sallem, W., Mzoughi, N., & Bouhlel, O. (2009). Customers' Evolution after a Bank renaming: Effects of

Brand name change on Brand Personality, Brand Attitude and Customer; Satisfaction. Innovative

Marketing, 58-65.

Muncy, J. A. (1996). Measuring perceived brand parity. Advances in Consumer research, 23, 411-7.

Nabeel. (2009, August 19). Eat 'n Travel in Pakistan. Retrieved from Gourmet Soft Drinks Review:

http://eatntravel.pk/2009/08/19/gourmet-soft-drinks-review/comment-page-1/

Naeem, A. (2003). Reflection {Report}. Daily Report.

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyaltt, e. (2011). Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and Consumer Satisfaction. Annals

of Tourism Research, 1009-1030.

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyaltt, G. (2011). Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and Consumer Satisfaction. Annals

of Tourism Research, 1009-1030.

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G. (2011). Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction. Annals of

Tourism Research, 38, 1009-1030.

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G. (2011). Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and Customer Satisfaction. Annals of

Tourism Reseach, 1009-1030.

Nawaz, N.-U.-A. (2011). What Makes Customers Brand Loyal: A Study on Telecommunication Sector of

Pakistan. Hailey College of Commerce University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.

New Media and Mass Communication . (2011). Retrieved from ISSN 2224-3267 : www.isste.org

Nobre, H. M., Becker, K., & Brito, C. (2010). Brand Relationships: A Personality-Based Approach. Jornal of

Service Science & Management, 3, 206-217.

Nobre, H. M., Becker, K., & Brito, C. (2010). Brand Relationships: Personality-Based. Journal of Service

Science & Management, 3, 206-217.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The

effects of internalization on prosocial behavior’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499.

O'Callaghan, E. (2009). Internal Branding and Brand Commitment: a. Dublin Institute of Technology.

267

Okazaki, S. (2006). Excitement or sophistication? A preliminary exploration of online brand personality.

International Marketing Review, 23 (3), 279-303.

Olive, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-34.

Oliver. (1993). Cognitive, affective and attribute bases of the satisfaction responses. Cognitive, affective

and attribute bases of the satisfaction responses.

Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, Affective and attribute Bases of the Satisfaction Response. Journal of

Consumer Research, 20, 418-430.

Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-34.

Oliver, R. L. (2010). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. M.E.Sharpe.

Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989b). Equity and Disconfirmation Perception as Influences on Merchant and

Product Satisfaction. Journal Of Consumer Research, 16(3), 372-383.

Oliver, R. L., Rust, R. T., & Varki, S. (1997). Customer Delight: Foundations, Findings, and Managerial

Insight. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 311-336.

Ombudsman. (2012). Customer Satisfaction Research. 12.

Osman, D. M., & Amber. (2010). A study on the association between brand awareness and consumer/

brand loyalty for the packaged milk industry in pakistan. South Asian Journal of Management

Sciences, 5, 5.

Osman, D. M., & Amber. (2010). A study on the association between brand awareness and consumer/

brand loyalty for the packaged milk industry in pakistan. South Asian Journal of Management

Sciences, 5, 5.

Özsomer A, L. A. (2007). The structure of the brand personality construct and its impact on brand

purchase likelihood. EMAC Conference.

Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. P. (1977). Students and Housewives: Differences in Susceptibility to Reference

Group Infiuence. Journal of Consumer Research, 210.

Park, J., & John, D. R. (2010). Got to get you in to my life: Do brand personalities rub off on consumers?

Journal of Consumer Research,, 655–669.

Park, M. &. (2006). 191-230.

Parker, B. T. (2009). A comparison of brand personality and brand user-imagery congruence. Journal of

Consumer Marketing, 26, 175-184.

Patel, V. (2009). MEASURING BRAND PERSONALITY: AN EMPERICAL STUDY. PRERNA: JOURNAL OF

MANAGEMENT THOUGHT AND PRACTISE, 1(2), 59-67.

Patel, V. (2009). Measuring Brand Personality: An Empirical Study. JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT

THOUGHT AND PRACTISE, 1(2), 59-67.

268

PBL. (2012, Aug). Consumer Report Magazines. Retrieved from

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/08/claim-check-is-pepsi-next-the-next-

big-thing-in-sodas/index.htm

PBL. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.pakbev.com

PBL. (2014). Pakitsan Beverage limited. Retrieved from PBL: http://pakbev.com/

Pepsi Cola. (2014). Retrieved from www.pepsicola.com

Pervin, L. C. (2005). Theories of Personality. Pervin.

Phau, l., & Kong Lau, C. (2001). Brand Personality and Consumer Self-expression: Single or Dual

Carriageway? Journal of Brand Management, 8 (6), 428-444.

Philip, K. (2009). In K. Philip, marketing management.

Plavini, P. (2011). Brand Personality affects Products with different Involvement Levels? European

Journal of Business and Management, 3, ISSN 2222-1905. Retrieved from

http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/EJBM/article/view/165

Plummer, J. T. (1985). How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising research, 27-31.

Polesz, Bloemer, J. M., & C, T. B. (1989). The illusion of consumer Satisfaction. CS/D & CB, 2, 2-3.

Porter, Steers, L. W., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational Commitment, Job-

Satisfaction, and Turnover Among Psychiatric Technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 603-

609.

Price, L. L. (1999). Commercial Friendships: Service Provider--Client Relationships in Context. Journal of

Marketing, 38–56.

Pring. (2007). Going Underground: How ethnography helped the tube tunnel to the heart of its brand.

International Journal Of Market Research , 693-705.

Punyatoya, P. (2011). How Brand Personality affects Products with different Involvement Levels?

European Journal of Business and Management, 3(2), 1-8.

R.W, B. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Jounal of consumer Reserach, 139-168.

RajaGopa. (2006). Brand excellence: measuring the impact of advertising and brand personality on

buying decision. Measuring Brand Excellence, 56-65.

Rajagopal, D. (2008). Interdepnedence of persoanlity traits and brand identity in measuring brand

performance.

Rekha Attri, D. M. (2012). Loyalty and customer satisfaction with the public sector oil marketing

companies: way forward for effective CRM strategies. Indore Management Journal, 99-113.

Report on Coca Cola. (2009, November). Retrieved from http://download-

reports.blogspot.com/2009/11/coca-cola.html

269

Report, D. (2011, August). Retrieved from Coca Cola Internship Report: http://download-

reports.blogspot.com/2011/08/coca-cola-internship-report.html

Reynolds, R. W., & E., K. (2004). A MODEL FOR CONSUMER DEVOTION: AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT WITH

PROACTIVE SUSTAINING BEHAVIORS. A Model for Consumer Devotion, 5.

Reynolds, T. (1998). Implications for Value Research: A Macro vs. Micro Perspective. Psychology,

Marketing and Values, 2(4), 297–305.

Rice, J. H. (2001). Commitment-led marketing. BRAND MANAGEMENT, 9, 71–77.

Rice, J. H., & Butch. (2001). Commitment-led marketing. BRAND MANAGEMENT, 71–77.

Richins, Bolch, P. H., & L, M. (1983). A theoretical model for the study of product importance

perceptions. Journal of marketing.

Richins, P. H. (1983). A theoretical Model for the study of product importance perceptions . Journal of

Marketing .

Rieger, B. (1985). Condemned to death from birth: Brands without personality. MSc Marketing

Communications Management, 47, 56-60.

Ries, R. a. (2000). 26.

Río, A. B., Vázquez, R., & Víctor Iglesias. (2001). The effects of brand associations on consumer response.

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 410–425.

Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (Vol. 2nd). U.K: Blackwell Publishing.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Concieving the self. New York: Basic Books.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis. (3,

Ed.) McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Russel-Bennet, R., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Coote, L. V. (2007). Involvement, satisfaction, and brand

loyaltyin a small business services setting. Journal of Business Research, 1253-1260.

Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, & Rundle- Thiele, S. (2004). Examining te Satisfaction- Loyalty Relationship.

Journal of service Marketing, 514-523.

Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, & Rundle- Thiele, S. (2004). Examining the Satisfaction- Loyalty Relationship.

Journal of Servics Marketing, 514-523.

Rust, R. T., & Zahorik, A. J. (1993). Customer satisfaction,Customer Retention, and Market Share. Journal

of Retailing, 193-215.

Ryan, J. P., & J, M. (1976). An investigation of perceived risk at the brand level. Journal of marketing

research.

S., F., Dobscha, S., & Mick, D. G. (1998). Preventing the premature death of relationship marketing.

Harvard Business Review, 42-51.

270

Sahim, A., Kitapica, H., & Zehir, C. (2013). Creating Commitment, trust and satisfaction for a brand: What

is the role of switching cost in mobile phone market. Turkey: Elseveir Ltd.

Sahin, A., Zehir, C., & Kitapci, H. (2011). An Empirical Research on Global Brands. Turkey: Elsevier Ltd.

Sahin, A., Zehir, C., & Kitapci, H. (2011). The effects of brand experiences, trust and satisfaction on

building brand loyalty: An emperical research on global brands. Turkey: Elsevier Ltd.

Sahin, A., Zehir, C., & Kitapci, H. (2011). The effects of brand experiences, trust and satisfaction on

building brand loyalty: An emperical research on global brands. Turkey: Elsevier Ltd.

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Makers: A brief version of goldbergs unipolar big five markers. Journal of

personality Assesment, 506-516.

Saunders, M., & Lewis, P. (2011). Research Method for Business Students. New Delhi: Paerson.

Schiffman, L. G. (2009). Consumer Behavior. In L. G. Schiffman, Consumer Behavior (10th Edition ed., pp.

12-13). Pearson.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and

empirical tests in 20 countries:Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Advances in

experimental social psychology, 1−65.

Seong- Yeon Park, E. M. (2005). Congruence Between Brand Personality and Self-Image, and the

Mediating Roles of Satisfaction and Consumer-Brand Relationship on Brand Loyalty. Asia Pacific

advances in consumer research, 39-45.

Shergill, G. &. (2005). Internet banking-an empirical investigation of a trust and loyalty model for New

Zealand banks. Journal of Internet Commerce, 101-118.

Shuv-Ami, D. A. (2011). A New Brand Commitment Scale for Market Segmentation. The College of

Management.

Silverman, M. a. (1979). Attitude research plays for high stakes. Chicago: American marketing

association.

Sirgy, J. (1982). Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior:. A critical Review. Journal of consumer Research ,

287-300.

Sirgy, M. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. . Journal of consumer research.,

287-300.

Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of consumer research, 9,

287-300.

Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A critical Review. Journal of consumer Research,

287-300.

Sirgy, M. J., & kressmann, F. (2006, June). Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand

loyalty. Journal of Business Research.

271

Sirgy, M. J., & Su, C. (2000). Destination image Self congruity and travel behavior:Toward an integrative

model. Journal of Travel Research, 340-352.

Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J.-O., Chon, K.-S., Claiborne, C. B., . . . Berkman, H.

(1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring selfimage congruence.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (3), 229-241.

Solomon, M. R. (2012). Consumer Behavior. New Delhi: Pearson.

Solomon, M. R. (2012). Consumer Behaviour (9th ed.). New Delhi: Pearson.

Solomon, M. R. (2012). Consumer Behaviour (9th ed.). New Delhi: PHI Learning Private LTD.

Spivey, W. A., & Munson, J. M. (2010, July 01). Relation between social class and three aspects of self

concept:actual, ideal and egocentric self. Journal of Social Psychology, 85-94.

Stathakopoulas, G. (2004). Brand Equity, Brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction.

Stephanie, M., Algesheimer, R., Huber, F., & Herrmann, A. (2003). The Impact of Brand Personality and

Customer Satisfaction on Customer's Loyalty: Theoretical Approach and Findings of a Causal

Analytical Study in the Sector of Internet Service Providers. Electronic Markets, 13 (4), 294-308.

Stockwell, I. (2008). Introduction to Correlation and Regression Analysis. Statistics and Data Analysis, 1-

8.

Strausbaugh, K. (1998). “Miss Congeniality” or “No more Mr. Nice Guy”?: On a Method for Assessing

Brand Personality and Building Brand Personality Profiles, Dissertation. Florida: University of

Florida.

Sung, Y., & Tinkham, S. F. (2005). Brand personality structures in the United States and Korea: Common

and culture-specific factors. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 334–350.

Sung, Y., & Tinkham, S. F. (2005). Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea: Common

and Culture-Specific Factors. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (4), 334-350.

Sung, Y., Kim, J., & Jung, J.-H. (2010). The predictive Roles of Brand Personaity on Brand Trust and Brand

Affect. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 22, 5-17.

Sung, Y., Park, E., & Han, M. (2005). The Influences of the Brand Personality on Brand Attachment and

Brand Loyalty: Centered on the Differences Between the Brand Community Members and Non-

Members", in AP - Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research. Asia Pacific Advances in

Consumer Research, 6, 156.

Supphellen, M., & Grønhaug, K. (2003). Building foreign brand personalities in Russia:The moderating

effect of consumer ethnocentrism. International Journal of Advertising, 22, 203-226.

Supphellen, Magne, & Gfonhaug, K. (2003). Building Foreign Brand Personalities in Russia: the

Moderating effect of Consumer Ethnocentrism. International Journal of Advertising, 22 (2), 203-

226.

272

Sweeney, J., & Brandon, C. (2006). Brand personality: exploring the potential to move from factor

analytical to circumplex models. Psychology and Marketing, 639–663.

T., V., Beverly, Rose, G. M., & Gilbert, F. W. (2003). Measuring the Brand Personality of Non-Profit

Organizations. Advances in Consumer Research, 30 (l), 379-380.

Taylor, M. B. (1981). Product involvement and brand commitment. Journal of advertising research, 21.

Taylor, S. A. (1994). "An assessment the Relationship Between Service Quality and Customer satisfaction

in the formation of consumers' purchase intentions". "An assessment the Relationship Between

Service Quality and Customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers' purchase intentions",

163-78.

The oxford english dictionary. (n.d.).

Thiele, D. R., & Rundle-, S. (2004). Thiele, Dr Rebekah Bennett and Sharyn Rundle-. Journal of service

Marketing, 514-523.

Tirmizi, F. (2012, November 10). Why Coca cola is investing another $248 million in Pakistan. The Express

Tribune.

Tolliver, D. S. (2004). Cheif of New York-new jersey transit system. Cheif of New York-new jersey transit

system., 22-30.

Touzani, M. (2009). Brand Loyalty: Impact of Cognitive and Affective. Marketing Department, University

of Tunis.

Triplett, T. (1994). Brand Personality Must be Managed or it will Assume a Life of its Own. Marketing

News, 28 (l0), 9-9.

Trott, S. (2011). The Influnece of Brand Personality-Evidence from India. Globa Journal of Business

Research, 5(3), 79-83.

Tudorica, H. O. (2001, Februray 2). Brand Personality Creation through Advertising. MAXX WORKING

PAPER SERIES.

Tudorica, Ouwersloot, H., & Anamaria. (2001, Februray 2). Brand Personality Creation through

Advertising. MAXX WORKING PAPER SERIES.

Valette-Florence, A., & Barnier, V. (2012). Towards a micro conception of brand personality:An

application for print media brands in a French context. Journal of Business Research, 897-903.

Vázquez, R. I., & Álvarez-gonzález, L. I. (2005). Distribution Channel Relationships: The Conditions and

Strategic Outcomes of Cooperation between Manufacturer and Distributor. International Review

of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, 386-402.

Vazquez, R., Del Rio, A. B., & Iglesias, V. (2002). Consumer-based brand equity:Development and

validation of a measurement instrument. Journal of Marketing Management, 27–48.

273

Veloutsou, C. G. (2005). Measuring transaction-specific satisfaction in services: Are the measures

transferable across cultures? Measuring transaction-specific satisfaction in services: Are the

measures transferable across cultures?, 606–628.

Venable, B. T., Rose, G. M., Bush, V. D., & Gilbert, F. (2005). The role of brand personality and charitable

giving: An assessment and validation. (33, Ed.) Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,

295−312.

Verhoef, P. (2003). Understanding the effect of relationship management efforts on customer retention

and customer . Journal of Marketing, 30-45.

Vernette, E. (2003). Personnalite' de la marquet image de soi. Les tendances du marketing, 1-21.

Vernette, E. (2008). Les atouts et les pieges de la personnalite de la marque. Decisions marketing, 24.

Viot, & C. (2006). Personnalité de la marque:la métaphore justifie-elle la transposition d’échelles de

personnalité humaine ? 5th International congres « Marketing Trends »,Venise.

Vitz, P. C., & Johnston, D. (1965, June). Masculinity of smokers and the masculinity of cigarette images.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 155-159.

Wang, X., & Yang, Z. (2008). Does country-of-origin matter in the relationship between brand personality

and purchase intention in emerging economies? Evidence fromChina’s auto industry.

International Marketing Review, 25(4), 458–474.

Wee, T. T. (2004). Extending human personality to brands: the stability factor. Journal of Brand

Management,, 317–30.

Weis, M. a. (2000). The Value of Brand Personalitites: The Phenomenon of the Strategic Positioning of

Brands.

Weiss, A. M., & Anderson, E. (1992). Converting from Independent to Employee Salesforces: the role

percieved switching cost. Joumal of Marketing Research, 101-15.

Wells, W., Andriuli, F., Goi, F. J., & Seaders, S. (1957). An Adjective check list for the Study of "Product

Personality". Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, no. 5, 317-319.

Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1981). Developing Better Measures of Consumer Satisfaction: Some

preliminary Results. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 94-99.

Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1991). The Dimensionality of Consumption Emotion Patterns and

Consumer Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 84-91.

Wester. (2005). Congruence between Brand Personality and Self Image, and the Mediating roles of

Satisfaction and Consumer Brand relationship on Brand Loyality. 6, 39-45.

Wieselquist, J. C. (1999). Commitment, Pro-Relation-ship Behavior, and Trust in Close Relationships .

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 942-966.

Wilson, D. T., & Mummalaneni, V. (1986). Bonding and Commitment in Buyer—Seller Relationships, A

Preliminary Conceptualization. Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, 44-58.

274

Wilson, D., & Mummalaneni, V. (1987). Bonding and commitment in buyer-seller relationships: A

preliminary conceptualization. Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, 44-58.

Wirtz, B. W. (1999). ‘Convergence Processes, Value Constellations and Integration Strategies in the

Multimedia Business. ‘Convergence Processes, Value Constellations and Integration Strategies in

the Multimedia Business.

Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). eTailQ: Dimensionalizing, Measuring and Predicting eTail Quality.

Journal of Retailing, 79, 183-198.

Wood, L. (2000). Brands and Brand Equity: Definition and management. Management Decisions, 662-

669.

Woodside, A. G. (1989). "Linking Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and behavioural intention".

"Linking Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and behavioural intention", 5-18.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study Research: Design and Method (3rd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

Yoffie, D. R. (2007). Cola Wars Continue: Cock and Pepsi in 2006. United States: Harvard Business School.

Zaltman, & Moorman. (1992). The Dynamic of trust within and between Organization.

Zaltman, M. a. (1992).

Zeplin, C. B., & Sabrina. (2005). Building brand commitment: A behavioural approach to internal brand

management. BRAND MANAGEMENT, 12, 279–300.

Zinkhan, G. M., & Hong, J. W. (1991, January). Self-concept and advertising effectiveness. A conceptual

model of congruency, conspicuousness, and response mode. Advances in Consumer Research,

18, 348-354.

275

Appendix

AppendixA: Questionnaire

FAST School of Management Sciences

Dear respondents, we are the students of FAST School of Management working on a comparative study on

Brand Personality of cola industry in Pakistan. Your respectable response will be highly appreciated.

1. Gender Male Female

2. Age 18 to 25 26 to 35

36 to 45 46 to 55

3. ProfessionsStudent Business Professional Housewife Labor/worker Others

4. Which brand do you prefer the most?

Pepsi Cola Coca Cola Gourmet Cola

5. Please rank the following according to your opinion about the preferred brand:

Strongly

DisagreeDisagree

Partially

Disagree

Niether

Agree

nor

Disagree

Partially

AgreeAgree

Strongly

Agree

1 The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of a person I would like to be

2 I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand

3 I would like to be known as a consumer of this brand

4 This brand is the reflection of my ideal image

5 This brand is appealing my actual image

6 The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me

276



Strongly

DisagreeDisagree

Partially

Disagree

Niether

Agree

nor

Disagree

Partially

AgreeAgree

Strongly

Agree

1 I am attached to this brand

2 This brand brings me safety

3 I strongly relate myself to this brand

4 This brand is honest towards its clients

5 Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy

6 This brand has a lot of meaning to me

7 I like this brand

8 I trust the quality of this brand

9 This brand tries to improve its response to consumers needs on an ongoing basis

10 This brand is sincere towards its consumers

11 I have a lot of affection for this brand Brand

Strongly

DisagreeDisagree

Partially

Disagree

Niether

Agree

nor

Disagree

Partially

AgreeAgree

Strongly

Agree

1 Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brand

2 My life would be disturbed if I had to switch brand

3 It would be too costly for me to switch brand

4 I like this brand

5 This brand has a lot of meaning to me

6 I am strongly related to this brand

277

8. You find your preferred brand as? Rank according to your opinion:


Strongly

DisagreeDisagree

Partially

Disagree

Niether

Agree nor

Disagree

Partially

AgreeAgree

Strongly

Agree

1 Warm

2 Pleasant

3 Nice

4 Imaginative

5 Inventive

6 Seductive

7 Attractive

8 Manipulative

9 Showy

10 Arrogant

11 Hypocrite

12 Deceptive

13 Liar

14 Trendy

15 Modern

16 Sophisticated

17 Stylish

18 Serious

19 Strict

20 Reserved

21 Shy

Strongly

DisagreeDisagree

Partially

Disagree

Niether

Agree

nor

Disagree

Partially

AgreeAgree

Strongly

Agree

1 I repeatedly purchase this brand

2 I prefer buying this brand over other colas

3 Only this brand comes to my mind when I think of purchasing colas

4 I recommend this brand to those who ask my advice

5 I say positive things about this brand to others

6 I am pleased to buy this brand instead of other brands

278

Appendix B: Pearson’s r Correlation

Rating scale as followed throughout the analysis:

Table 47: Estimates for Interpreting Strengths of Correlations

CO-RELATION STRENGTH

If r = +.70 or higher Very strong positive relationship

+.40 to +.69 Strong positive relationship

+.30 to +.39 Moderate positive relationship

+.20 to +.29 Weak positive relationship

+.01 to +.19 No or negligible relationship

-.01 to -.19 No or negligible relationship

-.20 to -.29 Weak negative relationship

-.30 to -.39 Moderate negative relationship

-.40 to -.69 Strong negative relationship

-.70 or higher Very strong negative relationship

Source: http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/libarts/polsci/statistics.html

http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/libarts/polsci/statistics.html

279

Appendix C: WEB Analysis

This table shows the average mean of brand personality items of Pepsi. Most of the respondents

think that Pepsi is sophisticated, serious, imaginative and inventive this reflects that

characteristics of this brand in term of these traits are present in the mind of consumers.

Furthermore, the average mean of Deceptive is lower than all other traits, Pepsi is considered to

be highly acceptable because what they mentioned they deliver.

Table 48: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Pepsi

N Mean

Warm 400 6.00

Pleasant 400 5.20

Nice 400 5.60

Imaginative 400 6.60

Inventive 400 6.60

Seductive 400 6.20

Attractive 400 6.20

Manipulative 400 6.00

Showy 400 6.00

Arrogant 400 6.40

Hypocrite 400 5.00

Deceptive 400 3.80

Liar 400 5.60

Trendy 400 5.40

Modern 400 5.40

Sophisticated 400 6.60

Stylish 400 6.40

Serious 400 6.60

Strict 400 6.40

Reserved 400 6.20

Shy 400 5.80

Valid N (list wise) 400

280

Table 49: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Coca Cola

N Mean

Warm 331 5.89

Pleasant 331 4.86

Nice 331 5.21


Inventive 331 4.02

Seductive 331 5.57

Attractive 331 5.54


Showy 331 5.06

Arrogant 331 5.36

Hypocrite 331 5.59

Deceptive 331 5.54

Liar 331 5.60

Trendy 331 5.44

Modern 331 5.17


Stylish 331 5.50

Serious 331 4.88

Strict 331 5.21

Reserved 331 5.35

Shy 331 5.13


This table shows the average mean of brand personality items of Coca Cola. Most of the

respondents think that Coca Cola is warm and imaginative; this reflects that characteristics of

this brand in term of these traits are present in the mind of consumers. Furthermore, the average

mean of inventive is lower than all other traits, Coca Cola is considered to be least inventive.

281

Table 50: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Gourmet

N Mean

Warm 109 3.62

Pleasant 109 3.34

Nice 109 3.22


Inventive 109 3.21

Seductive 109 3.02

Attractive 109 3.25


Showy 109 3.51

Arrogant 109 3.54

Hypocrite 109 3.68

Deceptive 109 3.44

Liar 109 3.09

Trendy 109 2.93

Modern 109 3.04


Stylish 109 3.04

Serious 109 2.90

Strict 109 2.81

Reserved 109 2.81

Shy 109 3.28


This table shows the average mean of brand personality items of Gourmet. Average mean is not

up to the mark but most of the respondents think that Gourmet is Hypocrite; this reflects that

characteristics of this brand in term of these traits are present in the mind of consumers.

Furthermore, the least average mean of Gourmet is reserved and strict this reflects that brand is

not moving out of its territory.

282

Figure 25: Web Design of Brand Personality- Pepsi

This figure summarizes the brand personality of Pepsi as perceived by the sample of 400 people

from the population. In Pepsi, Creative traits which include imaginative and inventive perceived

by different respondent have attained the most score. The second highest score is attained by

Charming trait which includes seductive and attractive items. People find Pepsi as creative so

this suggests that this brand is doing best with is its imaginative tools to convenience its

customers.

0

2

4

6

8Friendly

Creative

Charming

Ascendent

MisleadingOriginal

Elegant

Conscientious

Introvert

Brand Personality of Pepsi

283

Figure 26: Web Design of Brand Personality- Coca Cola

This figure summarizes the brand personality of Coke as perceived by the 331 respondent.

Misleading traits which include Hypocrite, deceptive and Liar perceived by soft drink consumers

and have attained the most score. The second highest score is attained by Charming trait which

include seductive and attractive. These suggest that Brand personality of a coke is misleading

and people would not properly relate themselves.

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

5.4

5.6Friendly

Creative

Charming

Ascendent

MisleadingOriginal

Elegant

Conscientious

Introvert

Brand personality of Coca Cola

284

Figure 27: Web Design of Brand Personality- Gourmet

This figure summarizes the brand personality of Gourmet as perceived by the 109 sample taken

from the population. Ascendant traits which include Manipulative, showy and arrogant perceived

by respondent and have attained the most score. The second highest score is attained by

Misleading trait which includes Hypocrite, deceptive and liar. This suggests that people find

Gourmet as arrogant, showy and manipulative.

0

1

2

3

4Friendly

Creative

Charming

Ascendent

MisleadingOriginal

Elegant

Conscientious

Introvert

Brand personality of Gourmet

285

Appendix D: SPSS Code Book

Pepsi

Table 51: Gender

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 2

Label Gender

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

Valid Values 1 Male 256 64.0%

2 Female 144 36.0%

Table 52: Age

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 3

Label Age

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 18 to 25 399 99.8%

2 26 to 35 1 0.2%

3 36 to 45 0 0.0%

4 46 to 55 0 0.0%

286

Table 53: Profession

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 4

Label Profession

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Student 398 99.5%

2 Business

Professionals 2 0.5%

3 House Wife 0 0.0%

4 Labor/ Worker 0 0.0%

5 Others 0 0.0%

287


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 5

Label

Which brand do

you prefer the

most?

Type Numeric

Format F8

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Pepsi Cola 400 100.0%

2 Coca Cola 0 0.0%

3 Gourmet Cola 0 0.0%

288

Table 55: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would like

to be

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 6

Label

The typical

person who

drinks this

brand reflects

the kind of

person I would

like to be.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 80 20.0%

5 Partially Agree 160 40.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 80 20.0%

289

Table 56: I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 7

Label

I like to see

myself as a

typical

consumer of

this brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 80 20.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 240 60.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 0 0.0%


290

Table 57: I like to be known as a consumer of this brand

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 8

Label

I like to be

known as a

consumer of

this brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%


291

Table 58: This brand is the reflection of my ideal image

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 9

Label

This brand is

the reflection of

my ideal image.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 0 0.0%


292

Table 59: This brand is appealing to my actual image

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 10

Label

This brand is

appealing to my

actual image.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 160 40.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 80 20.0%


293

Table 60: The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 11

Label

The typical

person who

drinks this

brand is very

much like me.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 160 40.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 0 0.0%


294

Table 61: I am attached to this brand

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 12

Label I am attached to

this brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 160 40.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%


295

Table 62: This brand brings me safety

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 13

Label

This brand

brings me

safety.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 160 40.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%


296

Table 63: I strongly relate myself to this brand

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 14

Label

I strongly relate

myself to this

brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 80 20.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 0 0.0%


297

Table 64: This brand is honest towards its client

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 15

Label

This brand is

honest towards

its client.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 80 20.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 0 0.0%


298

Table 65: Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 16

Label

Thinking about

this brand

brings me a lot

of pleasure and

joy.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 160 40.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 80 20.0%


299

Table 66: I like this brand

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 17

Label I like this brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 240 60.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%


300

Table 67: I trust the quality of this brand

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 18

Label

I trust the

quality of this

brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 80 20.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 80 20.0%


301

Table 68: This brand tries to improve its response to consumer needs on an ongoing basis

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 19

Label

This brand tries

to improve its

response to

consumer

needs on an

ongoing basis.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 160 40.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 80 20.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 0 0.0%


302

Table 69: This brand has a lot of meaning to me

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 20

Label

This brand has

a lot of meaning

to me.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 80 20.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 0 0.0%


303

Table 70: This brand is sincere towards its consumer

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 21

Label

This brand is

sincere towards

its consumer.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 160 40.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 0 0.0%


304

Table 71: I have lot of affection for this brand

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 22

Label

I have lot of

affection for this

brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 160 40.0%


305

Table 72: Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brands

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 23

Label

Even if I

wanted, it would

be hard for me

to switch

brands.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 160 40.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 80 20.0%


306

Table 73: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 24

Label

My life would be

distributed if I

had to switch

brands.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 80 20.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 0 0.0%


307

Table 74: It would be too costly for me to switch brands

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 25

Label

It would be too

costly for me to

switch brands.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 80 20.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 80 20.0%


308


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 26


Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%


309


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 27

Label

This brand has

a lot of meaning

to me.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 80 20.0%


310

Table 77: I am strongly related to this brand

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 28

Label

I am strongly

related to this

brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 160 40.0%

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 160 40.0%


311

Table 78: Brand Personality- Warm

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 29

Label Warm

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 0 0.0%


312

Table 79: Brand Personality- Pleasant

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 30

Label Pleasant

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 80 20.0%


313

Table 80: Brand Personality- Nice

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 31

Label Nice

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 160 40.0%


314

Table 81: Brand Personality- Imaginative

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 32

Label Imaginative

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 0 0.0%


315

Table 82: Brand Personality- Inventive

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 33

Label Inventive

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 160 40.0%


316

Table 83: Brand Personality- Seductive

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 34

Label Seductive

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 80 20.0%


317

Table 84: Brand Personality- Attractive

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 35

Label Attractive

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 80 20.0%


318

Table 85: Brand Personality- Manipulative

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 36

Label Manipulative

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 400 100.0%


319

Table 86: Brand Personality- Showy

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 37

Label Showy

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 160 40.0%


320

Table 87: Brand Personality- Arrogant

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 38

Label Arrogant

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 80 20.0%


321

Table 88: Brand Personality- Hypocrite

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 39

Label Hypocrite

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 80 20.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 80 20.0%


322

Table 89: Brand Personality- Deceptive

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 40

Label Deceptive

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%


3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%


323

Table 90: Brand Personality- Liar

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 41

Label Liar

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%


324

Table 91: Brand Personality- Trendy

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 42

Label Trendy

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 160 40.0%


325

Table 92: Brand Personality- Modern

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 43

Label Modern

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 80 20.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 0 0.0%


326

Table 93: Brand Personality- Sophisticated

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 44

Label Sophisticated

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 0 0.0%


327

Table 94: Brand Personality- Stylish

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 45

Label Stylish

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 80 20.0%


328

Table 95: Brand Personality- Serious

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 46

Label Serious

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 0 0.0%


329

Table 96: Brand Personality- Strict

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 47

Label Strict

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 80 20.0%


330

Table 97: Brand Personality- Reserved

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 48

Label Reserved

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 0 0.0%


331

Table 98: Brand Personality- Shy

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 49

Label Shy

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%


332

Table 99: I repeatedly purchase this brand

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 50

Label

I repeatedly

purchase this

brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%


333

Table 100: I prefer buying this brand over other colas

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 51

Label

I prefer buying

this brand over

other colas.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 80 20.0%


334

Table 101: Only this brand comes to my mind when I think of purchasing colas

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 52

Label

Only this brand

comes to my

mind when I

think of

purchasing

colas.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 80 20.0%


335

Table 102: I recommend this brand those who ask my advice

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 53

Label

I recommend

this brand those

who ask my

advice.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 80 20.0%


336

Table 103: I say positive things about this brand to other persons

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 54

Label

I say positive

things about this

brand to other

persons.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 80 20.0%


337

Table 104: I am pleased to buy this brand instead of other brands

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 55

Label

I am pleased to

buy this brand

instead of other

brands.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 0 0.0%


6 Agree 80 20.0%


338

Coca Cola

Table 105: Gender

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 2

Label Gender

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Male 188 44.8%

2 Female 143 34.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

339

Table 106: Age

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 3

Label Age

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 18 to 25 106 25.2%

2 26 to 35 110 26.2%

3 36 to 45 78 18.6%

4 46 to 55 36 8.6%

5 1 0.2%


340


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 4

Label Profession

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Student 132 31.4%

2 Business


3 House Wife 79 18.8%


5 Others 24 5.7%


341

Table 108: Which brand do you prefer the most?

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 5

Label

Which brand do

you prefer the

most?

Type Numeric

Format F8

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Pepsi Cola 0 0.0%

2 Coca Cola 331 78.8%



342

Table 109: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would

like to be

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 6

Label

The typical

person who

drinks this

brand reflects

the kind of

person I would

like to be.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 26 6.2%

2 Disagree 33 7.9%

3 Partially

Disagree 29 6.9%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 105 25.0%



343


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 7

Label

I like to see

myself as a

typical

consumer of

this brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 26 6.2%

2 Disagree 32 7.6%

3 Partially

Disagree 54 12.9%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 52 12.4%



344


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 8

Label

I like to be

known as a

consumer of

this brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 17 4.0%

2 Disagree 55 13.1%

3 Partially

Disagree 35 8.3%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 80 19.0%



345


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 9

Label

This brand is

the reflection of

my ideal image.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 26 6.2%

2 Disagree 23 5.5%

3 Partially

Disagree 118 28.1%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 55 13.1%



346


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 10

Label

This brand is

appealing to my

actual image.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 78 18.6%

3 Partially

Disagree 64 15.2%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 85 20.2%



347


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 11

Label

The typical

person who

drinks this

brand is very

much like me.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 79 18.8%

3 Partially

Disagree 49 11.7%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 67 16.0%



348


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 12


this brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 59 14.0%

2 Disagree 27 6.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 85 20.2%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 55 13.1%



349


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 13

Label

This brand

brings me

safety.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 62 14.8%

2 Disagree 76 18.1%

3 Partially

Disagree 86 20.5%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%



350


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 14

Label

I strongly relate

myself to this

brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 89 21.2%

2 Disagree 61 14.5%

3 Partially

Disagree 87 20.7%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%



.

351


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 15

Label

This brand is

honest towards

its client.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 132 31.4%

2 Disagree 6 1.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 88 21.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%



352


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 16

Label

Thinking about

this brand

brings me a lot

of pleasure and

joy.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 88 21.0%

2 Disagree 23 5.5%

3 Partially

Disagree 37 8.8%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%



353


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 17


Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 52 12.4%

2 Disagree 54 12.9%

3 Partially

Disagree 109 26.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%



354


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 18

Label

I trust the

quality of this

brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 80 19.0%

2 Disagree 59 14.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 69 16.4%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 5 1.2%



355


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 19

Label

This brand tries

to improve its

response to

consumer

needs on an

ongoing basis.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 5 1.2%


3 Partially

Disagree 94 22.4%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%



356


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 20

Label

This brand has

a lot of meaning

to me.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 132 31.4%

2 Disagree 6 1.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 61 14.5%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%



357


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 21

Label

This brand is

sincere towards

its consumer.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 42 10.0%

2 Disagree 77 18.3%

3 Partially

Disagree 50 11.9%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%



358


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 22

Label

I have lot of

affection for this

brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 92 21.9%

2 Disagree 32 7.6%

3 Partially

Disagree 119 28.3%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 5 1.2%



359


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 23

Label

Even if I

wanted, it would

be hard for me

to switch

brands.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 26 6.2%

2 Disagree 35 8.3%

3 Partially

Disagree 101 24.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%



360

Table 127: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 24

Label

My life would be

distributed if I

had to switch

brands.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 61 14.5%

2 Disagree 40 9.5%

3 Partially

Disagree 70 16.7%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%



361


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 25

Label

It would be too

costly for me to

switch brands.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 72 17.1%

2 Disagree 95 22.6%

3 Partially

Disagree 58 13.8%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 5 1.2%



362


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 26


Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 59 14.0%

2 Disagree 61 14.5%

3 Partially

Disagree 92 21.9%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%



363


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 27

Label

This brand has

a lot of meaning

to me.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 15 3.6%


3 Partially

Disagree 89 21.2%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 5 1.2%



364


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 28

Label

I am strongly

related to this

brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 91 21.7%

2 Disagree 69 16.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 94 22.4%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%



365


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 29

Label Warm

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 6 1.4%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 142 33.8%



366


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 30

Label Pleasant

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 20 4.8%

3 Partially

Disagree 28 6.7%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 72 17.1%



367


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 31

Label Nice

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 71 16.9%



368


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 32

Label Imaginative

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 103 24.5%



369


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 33

Label Inventive

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 26 6.2%

2 Disagree 44 10.5%

3 Partially

Disagree 64 15.2%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 57 13.6%



370


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 34

Label Seductive

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 99 23.6%



371


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 35

Label Attractive

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 18 4.3%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 84 20.0%



372


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 36

Label Manipulative

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 4 1.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 56 13.3%



373


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 37

Label Showy

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 6 1.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 50 11.9%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 73 17.4%



374


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 38

Label Arrogant

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 6 1.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 23 5.5%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 135 32.1%



375


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 39

Label Hypocrite

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 6 1.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 18 4.3%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 78 18.6%



376


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 40

Label Deceptive

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 6 1.4%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 151 36.0%



377


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 41

Label Liar

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 5 1.2%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 5 1.2%



378


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 42

Label Trendy

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 90 21.4%



379


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 43

Label Modern

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 6 1.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 26 6.2%



380


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 44

Label Sophisticated

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 16 3.8%

3 Partially

Disagree 17 4.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 60 14.3%



381


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 45

Label Stylish

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 6 1.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 0 0.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 110 26.2%



382


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 46

Label Serious

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 24 5.7%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 34 8.1%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 17 4.0%



383


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 47

Label Strict

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 34 8.1%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 136 32.4%



384


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 48

Label Reserved

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

3 Partially

Disagree 18 4.3%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 45 10.7%



385


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 49

Label Shy

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 18 4.3%

2 Disagree 6 1.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 60 14.3%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 4 1.0%


6 Agree 102 24.3%



386


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 50

Label

I repeatedly

purchase this

brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 116 27.6%

2 Disagree 85 20.2%

3 Partially

Disagree 76 18.1%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%



387


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 51

Label

I prefer buying

this brand over

other colas.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 69 16.4%

2 Disagree 83 19.8%

3 Partially

Disagree 154 36.7%

4 Neither Agree

Nor Disagree 5 1.2%


6 Agree 0 0.0%



388


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 52

Label

Only this brand

comes to my

mind when I

think of

purchasing

colas.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 93 22.1%

2 Disagree 99 23.6%

3 Partially

Disagree 22 5.2%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%



389


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 53

Label

I recommend

this brand those

who ask my

advice.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 67 16.0%


3 Partially

Disagree 32 7.6%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 4 1.0%



390


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 54

Label

I say positive

things about this

brand to other

persons.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 82 19.5%


3 Partially

Disagree 10 2.4%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%



391


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 55

Label

I am pleased to

buy this brand

instead of other

brands.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 111 26.4%

2 Disagree 76 18.1%

3 Partially

Disagree 49 11.7%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 0 0.0%



392

Gourmet Cola

Table 159: Gender

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 2

Label Gender

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Male 73 67.0%

2 Female 36 33.0%

Table 160: Age

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 3

Label Age

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 18 to 25 51 46.8%

2 26 to 35 36 33.0%

3 36 to 45 13 11.9%

4 46 to 55 9 8.3%

393


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 4

Label Profession

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Student 62 56.9%

2 Business


3 House Wife 14 12.8%


5 Others 5 4.6%

394


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 5

Label

Which brand do

you prefer the

most?

Type Numeric

Format F8

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Pepsi Cola 0 0.0%

2 Coca Cola 0 0.0%


395

Table 163: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would

like to be

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 6

Label

The typical

person who

drinks this

brand reflects

the kind of

person I would

like to be.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 11 10.1%

2 Disagree 18 16.5%

3 Partially

Disagree 21 19.3%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 5 4.6%


396


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 7

Label

I like to see

myself as a

typical

consumer of

this brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 4 3.7%

2 Disagree 26 23.9%

3 Partially

Disagree 13 11.9%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 19 17.4%


397


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 8

Label

I like to be

known as a

consumer of

this brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 7 6.4%

2 Disagree 22 20.2%

3 Partially

Disagree 16 14.7%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 11 10.1%


398


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 9

Label

This brand is

the reflection of

my ideal image.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 11 10.1%

2 Disagree 14 12.8%

3 Partially

Disagree 17 15.6%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 15 13.8%


399


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 10

Label

This brand is

appealing to my

actual image.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 11 10.1%

2 Disagree 15 13.8%

3 Partially

Disagree 16 14.7%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 5 4.6%


400


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 11

Label

The typical

person who

drinks this

brand is very

much like me.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 8 7.3%

2 Disagree 19 17.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 15 13.8%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 10 9.2%


401


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 12


this brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 13 11.9%

3 Partially

Disagree 17 15.6%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 19 17.4%


402


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 13

Label

This brand

brings me

safety.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 2 1.8%

2 Disagree 9 8.3%

3 Partially

Disagree 20 18.3%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 8 7.3%


403


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 14

Label

I strongly relate

myself to this

brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 3 2.8%

2 Disagree 14 12.8%

3 Partially

Disagree 20 18.3%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 15 13.8%


404


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 15

Label

This brand is

honest towards

its client.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 5 4.6%

2 Disagree 13 11.9%

3 Partially

Disagree 16 14.7%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 10 9.2%


405


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 16

Label

Thinking about

this brand

brings me a lot

of pleasure and

joy.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 0 0.0%

2 Disagree 7 6.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 16 14.7%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 22 20.2%


406


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 17


Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 1 0.9%

2 Disagree 13 11.9%

3 Partially

Disagree 13 11.9%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 15 13.8%


407


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 18

Label

I trust the

quality of this

brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 4 3.7%

2 Disagree 18 16.5%

3 Partially

Disagree 12 11.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 18 16.5%


408


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 19

Label

This brand

tries to

improve its

response to

consumer

needs on an

ongoing basis.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 5 4.6%

2 Disagree 8 7.3%

3 Partially

Disagree 22 20.2%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 13 11.9%


409


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 20

Label

This brand has

a lot of meaning

to me.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 6 5.5%

2 Disagree 8 7.3%

3 Partially

Disagree 14 12.8%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 14 12.8%


8 2 1.8%

410


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 21

Label

This brand is

sincere towards

its consumer.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 4 3.7%

2 Disagree 13 11.9%

3 Partially

Disagree 12 11.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 18 16.5%


411


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 22

Label

I have lot of

affection for this

brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 5 4.6%

2 Disagree 10 9.2%

3 Partially

Disagree 19 17.4%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 27 24.8%


412


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 23

Label

Even if I

wanted, it would

be hard for me

to switch

brands.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 10 9.2%

2 Disagree 17 15.6%

3 Partially

Disagree 17 15.6%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 4 3.7%


413

Table 181l: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands

Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 24

Label

My life would be

distributed if I

had to switch

brands.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 7 6.4%

2 Disagree 19 17.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 21 19.3%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 12 11.0%


414


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 25

Label

It would be too

costly for me to

switch brands.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 3 2.8%

2 Disagree 19 17.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 22 20.2%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 8 7.3%


415


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 26


Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 8 7.3%

2 Disagree 16 14.7%

3 Partially

Disagree 15 13.8%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 13 11.9%


416


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 27

Label

This brand has

a lot of meaning

to me.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 8 7.3%

2 Disagree 15 13.8%

3 Partially

Disagree 18 16.5%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 6 5.5%


417


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 28

Label

I am strongly

related to this

brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 7 6.4%

2 Disagree 18 16.5%

3 Partially

Disagree 19 17.4%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 9 8.3%


418


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 29

Label Warm

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 3 2.8%

2 Disagree 15 13.8%

3 Partially

Disagree 31 28.4%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 3 2.8%


419


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 30

Label Pleasant

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 5 4.6%

2 Disagree 21 19.3%

3 Partially

Disagree 38 34.9%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 4 3.7%


420


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 31

Label Nice

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 9 8.3%

2 Disagree 20 18.3%

3 Partially

Disagree 39 35.8%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 3 2.8%


421


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 32

Label Imaginative

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 10 9.2%

2 Disagree 27 24.8%

3 Partially

Disagree 24 22.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 3 2.8%


422


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 33

Label Inventive

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 10 9.2%

2 Disagree 25 22.9%

3 Partially

Disagree 27 24.8%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 3 2.8%


423


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 34

Label Seductive

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 12 11.0%

2 Disagree 22 20.2%

3 Partially

Disagree 37 33.9%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 1 0.9%


424


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 35

Label Attractive

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 9 8.3%

2 Disagree 26 23.9%

3 Partially

Disagree 26 23.9%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 3 2.8%


425


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 36

Label Manipulative

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 9 8.3%

2 Disagree 22 20.2%

3 Partially

Disagree 23 21.1%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 8 7.3%


426


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 37

Label Showy

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 7 6.4%

2 Disagree 16 14.7%

3 Partially

Disagree 29 26.6%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 6 5.5%


427


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 38

Label Arrogant

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 11 10.1%

2 Disagree 18 16.5%

3 Partially

Disagree 22 20.2%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 9 8.3%


428


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 39

Label Hypocrite

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 6 5.5%

2 Disagree 17 15.6%

3 Partially

Disagree 26 23.9%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 8 7.3%


429


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 40

Label Deceptive

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 8 7.3%

2 Disagree 20 18.3%

3 Partially

Disagree 26 23.9%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 5 4.6%


430


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 41

Label Liar

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 16 14.7%

2 Disagree 30 27.5%

3 Partially

Disagree 15 13.8%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 3 2.8%


431


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 42

Label Trendy

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 21 19.3%

2 Disagree 30 27.5%

3 Partially

Disagree 18 16.5%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 6 5.5%


432


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 43

Label Modern

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 16 14.7%

2 Disagree 25 22.9%

3 Partially

Disagree 26 23.9%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 5 4.6%


433


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 44

Label Sophisticated

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 15 13.8%

2 Disagree 32 29.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 31 28.4%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 4 3.7%


434


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 45

Label Stylish

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 14 12.8%

2 Disagree 25 22.9%

3 Partially

Disagree 31 28.4%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 5 4.6%


435


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 46

Label Serious

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 23 21.1%

2 Disagree 25 22.9%

3 Partially

Disagree 20 18.3%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 6 5.5%


436


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 47

Label Strict

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 19 17.4%

2 Disagree 27 24.8%

3 Partially

Disagree 29 26.6%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 3 2.8%


437


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 48

Label Reserved

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 22 20.2%

2 Disagree 25 22.9%

3 Partially

Disagree 30 27.5%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 5 4.6%


438


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 49

Label Shy

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 19 17.4%

2 Disagree 21 19.3%

3 Partially

Disagree 21 19.3%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 7 6.4%


439


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 50

Label

I repeatedly

purchase this

brand.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 9 8.3%

2 Disagree 17 15.6%

3 Partially

Disagree 18 16.5%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 6 5.5%


440


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 51

Label

I prefer buying

this brand over

other colas.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 9 8.3%

2 Disagree 19 17.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 20 18.3%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 12 11.0%


441


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 52

Label

Only this brand

comes to my

mind when I

think of

purchasing

colas.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 6 5.5%

2 Disagree 19 17.4%

3 Partially

Disagree 23 21.1%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 8 7.3%


442


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 53

Label

I recommend

this brand those

who ask my

advice.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 12 11.0%

2 Disagree 16 14.7%

3 Partially

Disagree 12 11.0%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 11 10.1%


443


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 54

Label

I say positive

things about this

brand to other

persons.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 10 9.2%

2 Disagree 14 12.8%

3 Partially

Disagree 17 15.6%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 7 6.4%


444


Value Count Percent

Standard Attributes

Position 55

Label

I am pleased to

buy this brand

instead of other

brands.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Valid Values

1 Strongly

Disagree 14 12.8%

2 Disagree 20 18.3%

3 Partially

Disagree 21 19.3%

4 Neither Agree



6 Agree 7 6.4%


445

Table 213: SPSS Code Book

446

Appendix E: Brand Image

Pepsi Cola

Image 1: Pepsi Cola (1.5 ltr)

447

Coca Cola

Image 2: Coca Cola (1.5 ltr)

448

Gourmet Cola

Image 3: Gourmet Cola (1.5 ltr)

pakistan’s beverages industry in focus - … · pakistan’s beverages industry in focus ... all...

Documents