The Influence of Brand Personality on Consumers: Singapore Airlines - Literature review Example

The influence of brand personality on consumers and their purchase decision making process: The case of Singapore Airlines CHAPTER INTRODUCTION Introduction Today, brands are generally considered to have a significant influence in a variety of fast moving consumer markets. Apart from representing businesses, they play an important role in a firm’s performance by acting as a variable where customers develop loyalty to definite brands (Chaudhuri; Holbrook, 2001). The impacts of both globalization and rapid development in internet technology have facilitated businesses to compete for market existence by valuing their brands in a variety of features such as having a favorable brand reputation (Martin, 2005; Ferrell, 2011). Therefore branding is crucial in shaping the image of any organization in the face of an aggressive and otherwise, competitive environment. Morgan (1994) argues that brand is primarily an intangible asset in determining the competitive advantage of businesses as it portrays trust and assurance and is perceived as a key indicator of quality supported by Rao and Monroe (1989). According to Baumgartner (2000), branding plays a key role as the ultimate decider of consumer purchasing patterns. Thus functional attributes are not sufficient for consumer retention. To keep consumers satisifed and increase the probability of retention, organizations need to create brands that adds value, emotions and personality beyond functionalism (Keller, 2003; de Chernatony et al., 2013). As a direct consequence, organizations tend to spend significant amount of money on product advertising in an attempt to create a unique brand identity in consumers mind in order to stand out amongst the competition and earn their brand loyalty (Kotler, 2000). Previous studies conducted by Reicheld and Saser (1990) and Reicheld and Detrick (2003) show that a business profit could be increased up to 95% if there is an increase in consumer retention by 5%. Hence a distinct brand personality provides a basis for product differentiation. It underpins the relationship between the brand and consumers where a brand personality should be favourable to iincrease consumer preference and usage (Sirgy, 1982). Besides, it should encourage active processing on the part of the consumer (Biel, 1992). With distinct brand personality, consumers may associate themselves to brands that represent their personality traits. When human personality traits and brand personality are aligned, an increase in both emotional attachment (Biel, 1993) and levels of trust and loyalty (Fournier, 1998) in consumers can be recognized. The following dissertation thus provides an exploratory study of the impact brand personality has on consumer purchase decision making with Singapore Airlines. The paper begins by examining the marketing literature on brands, brand personality and consumer purchase behaviour. This paper also examines how brands may be differentiated based on perceptions of brand personality. Drawing from the literature, a hybrid of Aaker (1996) model of big five dimensions of brand personality and Assael (1987) model of consumer buying behaviours was developed. A survey will be conducted with consumers to examine how consumers compare and form impressions of competing brands within the airline industry. This would enable an analysis of the influences brand personality has on the consumer purchase decision making process in Singapore Airlines. The final chapters would draw out the practical implications of the findings, discuss the limitations of the research, and offer ideas for future research into B2C branding. Project Aims and Objectives As the author has established, the aim of this dissertation is to put into perspective the concept of brand personality as well as assess its role in the consumer purchase decision making process. This will be brought into focus by a critical evaluation of how Singapore Airlines has used its brand personality to infuse consumer confidence and loyalty that attributes the purchase decision making process of consumers allowing them to pay a premium. In order to meet these outcomes, the author has set the following research question: “Determine the impact brand personality has on consumers and their purchase decision making process by assessing its use of Singapore Airlines to influence the purchase decision of consumers in the airline industry in Singapore.” In order to answer this research question, the following objectives have been set: 1. To present the key concepts behind brand personality, 2. To determine the influence of brand personality on consumer purchase behaviour, 3. To critically asses the impact of brand personality via Singapore Airline’s usage of branding to secure its market presence in the airline industry in Singapore, 4. To examine the influences brand personality has on consumer purchase behaviour towards Singapore Airlines. CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Literature Review Introduction “A brand is, tangible and intangible, practical and symbolic, visible and invisible under conditions that are economically viable for the company” (Kapferer, 1992). Today, the primary capitals of most businesses are built around their brands (Brown, 2009). The author argues that it has recently been recognized that company’s real value lies outside business itself, in the minds of potential buyers or consumers as “strong brands help build strong businesses” in contrast to the traditional value of a company measured in terms of its real estate, tangible assets and equipment. The following section will look into the idea of brands and brand personality in relation to consumer purchase decision. Brands and Personality Brand is the name, term, symbol, design or any characteristic feature that is used to make out a trader’s service or goods different from those of other merchants (American Marketing Association Dictionary. Cited by Aaker, 1996). According to the argument of Morgan, (1994) and Tolba, (2011), brand trust plays a very critical role in mounting constructive as well as positive approach which in turn leads to consumer attention towards a definite brand to generate a booming association between the consumer and the brand. More importantly, the association generated is supported in the literature by Aaker (1997, p. 347) who defines brand personality as “the set of human traits associated with a brand.” The brand personality definition corresponds to The “Big Five” human personality structure developed by Batra et al. (1993) and includes: Extroversion/introversion, Agreeableness, Consciousness, Emotional stability, and Culture. Building on these human personality dimensions, Aaker (1997) identifies the new ‘‘Big Five’’ dimensions related to brands. These are Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness: Sincerity typified by traits such as wholesome, cheerful, down-to- earth, and honest; Excitement typified by traits such as daring, imaginative, spirited and up-to-date; Competence typified by traits such as intelligent, reliable, secure, and confident; Sophistication typified by traits such as glamorous, upper class, and charming; Ruggedness Typified traits such as outdoorsy, tough, masculine, and western traits. Similarly, Aaker et al. (2001) conducted a brand personality study in Japan and argued that these attributes capture brand meaning allowing consumers to identify and attach values a consumer adheres to. For example, a refined and genteel persona is associated with the sponsorship of a classical music event as opposed to a rugged or solid personality associated with sponsoring rugby match (de Chernatony et al., 2013). Objectively, brand marketers are required to determine the tangible characteristic of the product that hold the brand name and the emotional or psychological benefits consumers accrue from the product. As suggested by Rajagopal, (2006) this notion may be described to be the meaning of ‘‘value’’ to a typical loyal customer; and what, ultimately, is the character and essential nature of the brand over time. An example of this is an advertisement for BMW’s Mini ‘I am Mini, hear me roar’, and the accompanying website (http://www.hearmeroar.com), which claim personality traits such as ‘Attitude’, ‘Performance’, ‘Hero’, ‘Gutsy’, and asks the consumer ‘Why whisper when you can ROAR?’ (de Chernatony et al., 2013). Therefore, this shows that brands, values and personality are factors that affect consumers’ attitudes and behaviours towards a particular product or a brand choice and a basis to build strong relationships. Blackston (1992) argues that the relationship between consumers and brands can be determined through the attitudes and behaviours towards each other underpins how consumers perceive and react to brand and how the brand behave and reacts to the consumers. Levy (1959) indicates that demographic features such as age, gender and social class are contained in the brand personality and they may be influenced directly by the personnel, image of the brand users and product spokespersons. They may be indirectly affected by the attributes of the products as well. For example, a cigarette brand by the name Marlboro is more likely to be smoked by males due to the fact that the brand image built up by Marlboro is titled “macho cowboys.” There is a tendency of those higher in the social class to drive Mercedes cars because Mercedes flaunts an image of high efficiency and high quality. It was noted that consumers usually select brands having self-concept congruence. However, sometimes, there is selection of brands by consumers based on their ideal self-concept or the social self- concept. Thus, brand personality may have the function of expressing and demonstrating your own personality at the same time. (Kotler & Keller, 2005) Karande et al. (1997) believed that marketing personnel and product designers may benefit from the brand personality features since they may develop their marketing plans in relation to the features. In addition, with brand personality, one can differentiate a product from other brands. Furthermore, brand personality can develop brand affection, which can as a result reinforce the brand personality of a consumer. Different brands have different personalities and this allows for users to select products matching their preferences and personalities according to how the product images are identified (Milewicz & Herbig, 1994). A successful brand is one capable of building its well-defined brand personality thereby facilitating clients to know about its unique brand personality. By this, a strong binding relationship is developed towards the brand (Doyle, 1990). The most important element in establishing brand personality is to find a clear differentiation in conveying brand personality. Over the long run the personality shall be persistently and consistently cultivated. When trying to change ways in which a brand image is portrayed, first there is strengthening of the original brand personality and value strengthened so as to reduce to the minimum client’s feelings of inconsistency and chaos (Kumar et al, 2006). Essentially, consumers give brands personality to conceptualize non living things, living, where brand values and human values are congruent for them to relate and identify to. Hence, as brands evolve over time (Kunde, 2000), branding changes from being something the owner of the brand does to the consumer to something being done to the brand by the consumer (Lannon, 1992; Senior, 2008). This could include forming a relationship or enabling the communication of his / her self concept (Rosenberg, 1979; Sirgy, 1982). Brands influence consumer decisions. Powerful brands often make strong image statements influencing consumers to choose them because of their quality and the images they project. These perceptions are created and reinforced by brand marketers by their brand positioning. A study by advertising agency BBDO found that consumers are more likely to find differences between competing brands where emotional appeals are used, such as beers, than between those predominantly relying on rational appeals (de Chernatony et al., 2013). The dimensions of brand personality traits provide symbolic meaning or emotional value that can be more sustainable than functional attributes. Thus, the appeal with the inter-relationships of brand personality and consumer notably influence brand marketers to attempt to infuse their brand with a personality. Argued by de Chernatony et al. (2013), having a functional advantage, such as faster processing speed or a greater number of pixels, may be a competitive advantage today but over time, it becomes dated. By contrast, when associating a brand with particular values, such as being honest and dependable, these values have a greater chance of lasting as they are more personally meaningful and thus help to ensure longevity of the brand. However as consumers perceive brands adhering to their personality and attach their own values to them, Elliot and Wattanasuwan (1998) show that the symbolic interpretation of each brand varies by type of person although competing firms are striving to portray unique values of their brands. Different people attach different meanings to the same products and this challenges brand marketers to align human values to brand values as the brand’s symbolic meaning may not be the same amongst the target market. To conclude, brands have meaning and meaning has value. Consumers have a tendency of associating themselves to brands that represent their personality i.e. what they say about them and/or how they want others to see them as. When brand meaning resonates with the target market where value as an individual aligns with value as a brand i.e. what it stands for, consumers could attach value to the associated meaning allowing consumers to pay a premium. Along with symbolic interactions and emotional appeal justified by functionality of products, the inter-relationships of brand personality and the consumer notably influence brand marketers to attempt to infuse their brand with a personality, adding value beyond functionalism. Consumer Purchase Decision The study of consumer purchase decision process is a critical notion in today’s brand marketing world. One type of explanatory framework that has dominated the consumer behaviour literature is the hierarchy-of-effects models where consumer involvement and cognitive, affective and conative aspects of message processing have been studied extensively (de Pelsmacker et al. 2010). According to the author, involvement is defined as the importance people attach to a product or a buying decision, the extent to which one has to think it over and the level of perceived risk associated with an inadequate brand choice. Belch & Belch (2009) support this by coming to a conclusion that a number of the hierarchy-of-effects models have emerged depicting the stages a consumer may pass through in progressing from a stage of not having knowledge of a company, product, or brand to actual purchase behaviour (p. 147). Cognitive stage refers to consumers engaging in mental processes (thinking) which lead to awareness and knowledge of the brand communicated, affective stage refers to emotional responses (feel) occur which are associated with the advertised brand and inclinations towards the brand are formed and lastly, conative stage refers to undertaking actions with respect to the advertised brand such as buying it (do) (Lavidge and Steiner 1961; de Pelsmacker et al. 2010). To fully ascertain the effects that branding has on the consumer decision-making process, the Howard-Sheth (1969) Decision-making model was selected. The academic model explains the process of consumer decision-making during purchasing activities and facilitates the understanding of pre and post purchasing activities. Figure 1: John A. Howard and Jagdish N. Sheth, The Theory of Buyer behaviour, New York, John Wiley, 1969 The model’s core assumption lies in the key to determining consumer behaviour in relation to cognitive functioning and to provide an empirically testable picture of such behaviour and its results (Howard 1977). The Howard-Sheth model explains that empirical decision-making process in which a consumer is involved in mentally processing information that impacts his or her selection of brands where the five output variables (in the right hand portion of the model) represent the buyers observable reactions in relation to the stimulus inputs. Based on the fact that the brand has a very dynamic influence on the recurrent purchasing patterns of customers coupled with preferences to the brand, the emphasis on the development of brand personality contributes significantly to the customer loyalty creation (Escalas, 2004). In highly competitive markets, tangible attributes of products often differ slightly. Thus to differentiate and stand out in the client’s mind, branding plays an important role where brand marketers combine the tangible benefits (i.e. price, features, functions) with the intangible aspects (i.e. image, associations, reputation) associated with the product (Aaker, 1996 and Keller 1993). These dimensions hence differentiate a brand from its unbranded product equivalent and give it equity. This is the sum of consumers’ perceptions and feelings about the product’s characteristics in terms of their performance, about the brand name and what it represents, and about the company related to the brand (Achenbaum, 1993). Assael (1987) differentiates four types of behaviours related to consumer buying as seen in Figure 2. Figure 2: Source: Assael, H, 1987, Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action, 6th edition, p. 67 Drawing from Assael (1987) model, complex buying behaviour suggest purchase decisions characterized by high involvement and rational decision criteria with assumption of the consumer to first learn about the product and gather information on various brands accessible in the market so as to facilitate their conclusion. Assael (1987) classifies consumers who exhibit dissonance-reducing behaviour as consumers who are highly associated with the purchasing experience, however, see few differences between brands and believe in adopting their own ideas based on their experience. Habitual buying behaviour, characterized by low involvement suggests consumers will purchase products with regard to biased information via the company’s promotional efforts via television, radio or print advertising. This behavioural type shows consumers having interest in different brands and their specialty and would display a very habitual buying behaviour as beliefs are already planted within their minds (Assael, 1987). According to Assael’s (1987) model, wide-ranged consumers are the last behavioural type. Their kind of product purchasing is summarized by low-level connection with a market that displays high levels differentiation of products. “Brand switching,” familiar to this type of consumer, allows for their satisfaction in their need for diversification. Brand Personality and Consumer Purchase Decision Relationships A triumphant brand is familiar on how to build its distinct brand personality to enable customers to perceive the unique brand persona and develop a strong binding relationship with the brand (Doyle, 1990). Supported by Aaker (1995); Keller (2003); Kumar et al. (2006), marketers face a challenge in the establishment of a strong brand through ensuring that clients have the right type of experiences with services and products and marketing programs accompanying them so that the desired thoughts, images, feelings, beliefs, opinions, perceptions and so on are clearly differentiated and connected to the brand. Several studies were carried out in order to reveal the relationship between the purchase decisions of the customer and the brand personality and the outcomes have been analysed. Additionally, it is concluded that involving the idea of brand personality infuses consumer confidence and brand loyalty that attributes the purchase decision making process of consumers allowing them to pay a premium. The influence of brand personality on consumers’ brand preference, affection, loyalty and purchasing intention was investigated by Mengxia (2007). Brand personality positively influences brand preference, loyalty, affection and purchase intention according to the outcomes of his study. A brand personality should be modelled to be long-lasting, consistent, differentiated and be able to meet demands from consumers (Kumar et al., 2006). Also, a similar study which was conducted by Kumar et al. (2006) allowed sorting out the relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty with consumer goods (tooth-pastes), and separately used durable goods (cars) to explore the relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty. The result reveals the inherent effect brand personality has on consumers’ brand loyalty to consumable goods. This was supported by Guo’s (2003) exploration that revealed that brand personality has significant influence on brand preference, consumers are likely to use products and brands in accordance to their own personality traits, integrating marketing activities with an objective of making consumers believe and acknowledging a brand personality, and boost the communication between the consumer and the brand (Govers & Schoormans, 2005), thereby enhancing the brand’s loyalty and equity as a result. According to Meenaghan (1995), there is a noticeable correlation between branding and the display of brand loyalty in consumer purchasing patterns where loyalty is defined as “A deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behaviour" (Oliver, 1999, p.34). To emphasize, Quester and Smart (1998) argue that it is common to find consumers having baseless attachments to products. Levitt (1983), however, suggests that clients form attachments to certain products as a direct outcome of a company’s effort to create personal connection between them and the consumer. As brand loyalty is a direct result of the ability to better satisfy the desires of a client that main rivals do, these connections are necessarily generated through creation of characteristics that grow from the appearance of the product, or personality copied by the brand itself. Levitt (1983) comes into a conclusion that there is nothing illogical in consumers forming deep attachments to certain brands when experiences from the past heavily impact consumers. More importantly, Levitt (1983) states that the extent of loyalty can be measured by comprehending the personal attributes of the intended consumer market section. Therefore, the fact that these characteristics are considerable in the provision of competitive advantage, seeing as without them, then the only consumer used factor to distinguish company offerings will thereby be competitive pricing. Singapore Airlines In contemporary society, branding plays a very crucial role in representation of the company and its products or services and also creating an association of perceived quality, the lifestyle, taste and social class to the particular product. At Singapore Airlines it is important to diversify the considerations of the influence of branding to the decision making process of consumers as they make their purchases and the choice of diverse services offered at Singapore Airlines (Cunningham, 2000). Singapore Airlines (SIA), which was launched in 1972, is a worldwide renowned brand and among airlines which make more profits in the world (www.singaporeair.com, 2011). Its main vision relies on the in-flight experience; personalized service and comfortable in-flight entertainment. The airline and its credibly successful branding campaign embodies its iconic sarong kebaya-clad stewardesses whom have become both global and local icons famously known as ‘the Singapore Girls’. The ‘Singapore Girl’ advocates SIA’s unique style of service as she ‘mirrors her Asian heritage – natural grace, natural femininity, and warmth, and a natural, gentle way with people’ (Batey, 2002: 120; Lindstrom, 2005: 85). To ensure that clients enjoy the best in-flight experience, a number of service ‘firsts’ has been initiated in the airline industry by SIA. These include offering the largest complement of cabin crew, the largest drink menu in the skies, and the most comfortable seats (Batey, 2002: 136). With a brand platform that promotes relaxation, their strategy was to present themselves as an entertainment company and drift away from portraying themselves as an airline by introducing their campaign based exclusively on the emotional experience of air related and travel (Lindstrom, 2005: 85). The airline’s innovative offerings, world-class service, and modern fleet have boosted the company with numerous international accolades over the years. Fortune magazine ranked SIA in 2006 to being one of the world’s most admired 20 companies. Apart from Toyota, it was the only other Asian company in the list and the only airline chosen (Demos, 2006). According to its website, SIA won the Best Inflight Service award in 2013 and Brand of the Year 2013 by Korea Economic Daily & Korean Consumer’s Forum (www.singaporeair.com, 2013). Essentially, Singapore Airlines was clear in establishing a true brand encounter which based on so much more than what the passengers could see and hear. However, there are a number of significant challenges that are a setback to SIA and other international airlines profitability and survival (With the new millennium witnessing the bankruptcy of airlines such as Northwest Airlines and Swiss Air and others not listed.) These include the threat of new entrants (such as JetStar Asia and Tiger Air- ways in Asia) which carry at low costs, the upward trend in fuel costs and global terrorism. Although, SIAs’ brand, service and operations having been greatly admired, this study underpins the investigation on how the company’s brand personality infuses consumer confidence and loyalty that attributes the purchase decision making process of consumers allowing them to pay a premium. CHAPTER 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY Journals Arjun Chaudhuri, Morris B. Holbrook (2001) The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing: April 2001, Vol. 65, No. 2, pp. 81-93. Lindstrom, Martin. Sense” “The Brand Sense Web site", 2005, accessed on line 10 September 2010. Ferrell, W., (2011). Marketing Express, 2nd edition, USA: Nelson. Morgan, R., (1994) The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 20-38. Keller, K.L., (2003), Brand Synthesis: the Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 29, 595-600. Baumgartner, A., (2000). Reference points used in quality and value judgements,Marketing Letters, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 299-310. Rao, A. R. and Monroe, K. B. (1989), “The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store Name on Buyers’ Perceptions of Product Quality: An Integrative Review”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, pp. 351- 357. Escalas, J. (2004), Narrative processing: building consumer connections to brands, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 168-80. Kapferer, J.N. (1992), Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating and Evaluating Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY. Millward Brown (2009) “The business of brands” A 2009 publication featuring Collective Intelligence for Marketing, Millward Brown © 2013 American Marketing Association Dictionary. Retrieved 2011-06-29. The Marketing Accountability Standards Board (MASB) endorses this definition as part of its ongoing Common Language: Marketing Activities and Metrics Project. Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California Management Review, Vol. 38, pp. 102-20. Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity, Journal of Marketing, 57(1):1-22. Achenbaum, A. (1993), The mismanagement of brand equity, in ‘ARF Fifth Annual Advertising and Promotion Workshop’, February. Aaker, D.A. (1996). Building Strong Brands , 1st edition, Pearson. Morgan, R., (1994) The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 20-38. Tolba, A.H. (2011). The Impact of Distribution Intensity on Brand Preference and Brand Loyalty , International Journal of Marketing Studies , vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 56-66. Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 347-56. Batra, R., Lehmann, D. and Singh, D. (1993), ‘‘The brand personality component of brand goodwill: some antecedents and consequences’’, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (Eds), Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 83-95. Leslie de Chernatony, Malcolm McDonald, Elaine Wallace (2013),”Creating powerful brands” Fourth Edition, pp.123-204 Rajagopal 2006 MEASURING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE , VOL. 10 NO. 3 2006, pp. 56-65, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1368-3047 Sirgy, J. (1982), “Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 287-300. Biel, A. (1992), “How brand image drives brand equity”, Journal of Advertising Research, November, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. RC6-RC12. Biel, A. (1993), “Converting image into equity”, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A. (Eds), Brand Equity and Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 67-82. Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-73. Blackston,M. (1992) A brand with an attitude:a suitable case for treatment. Journal of Marketing Research Society, 31(3),231-241 Sellers, D.-(2008). Apple’s customer among ‘socially elite’. Available at http://www.macnews.com/content/apples-customers-among-sociologically-elite. Accessed 19 September 2013 Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22. Goodyear, M. (1996). Divided by a common language. Journal of the Market Research Society, 38, 105-122. Kunde, J. (2000). Corporate Religion, London, Pearson Education. Lannon, J. (1992). Asking The Right Questions - What Do People Do With Advertising? ADAMP, March, 11-16. Senior, R. (2008). Can Adland Change Its Unhealthy Competitive Pitching? Yes It Can! The Independent, p.11, Media Supplement Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self,, New York, Basic Sirgy, J. M. (1982). Self Concept in Consumer Behaviour: A Critical Review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 287-300. Elliot, R., & Wattanasuwan, K. (1998). Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of identity. International Journal of Advertising, 17(2), 131-144. Cunningham, P., (2000). Revisiting small business, Bests Rev., vol. 101, no. 6, p. 118. Batey, I. (2002) Asian branding: A Great Way to Fly, Prentice-Hall, UK. Patrick De Pelsmacker, Maggie Geuens, Joeri Van den Bergh (2010) Marketing Communications: A European Perspective, Publisher: Financial Times/ Prentice Hall; 4th edition (25 Mar 2010), 688 pages, ISBN-10: 0273721380, ISBN-13: 978-0273721383 Belch, G.E. & Belch, M.A. (2009), Advertising & Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective (8th edn), The McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston. Lavidge, R.J. & Steiner, G.A. (1961), “A Model for Predictive Measurements of Advertisin Effectiveness”,  Journal of  Marketing  25(6), 59-62. Vaughn, R. (1986), ‘How Advertising Works: A Planning Model Revisited’, Journal of Advertising Research, 26(1), 57–66. Peter Doyle, (1990) "Building Successful Brands: The Strategic Options", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 7 Iss: 2, pp.5 - 20 Kumar, R., Luthra, A. and Datta, G. (2006), “Linkages between brand personality and brand loyalty: a qualitative study in an emerging market in the Indian context”, South Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 13 No.2, pp. 11-35. Mengxia, Z. (2007), “Impact of brand personality on PALI: a comparative research between two different brands”, International Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 36-46. Kumar, R., Luthra, A. and Datta, G. (2006), “Linkages between brand personality and brand loyalty: a qualitative study in an emerging market in the Indian context”, South Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 11-35. Guo, L.-J. (2003), The Effects of Personality Trait and Brand Personality on Brand Preference, Graduate Institute of Management Science, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu. Govers, P.C.M. and Schoormans, J.P.L. (2005), “Product personality and its influence on consumer preference”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 189-97. John A. Howard and Jagdish N. Sheth, The Theory of Buyer behaviour, New York, John Wiley, 1969 Meenaghan, T. (1995) The role of advertising in brand image development, Journal of Brand and Product Management, Vol. 4 Issue 4, pp.23-24. Levitt, T. (1983) The globalization of markets, Harvard Business Review, May/June, pp.23-26. Quester, P. and Smart, J. (1998) The influence of consumption situation and product involvement over consumers use of product attribute, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 Issue 3, pp.220-229. Martin Lindstrom, Broad sensory branding, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Volume 14 · Number 2 · 2005 · 84–87 Kotler, P. (2000) Marketing management, Millennium Edition, US: Prentice Hall. Oliver, L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?” Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 33–44. Reicheld, F. & Saser, J. (1990) “Zero defections: Quality comes to services,” Harvard Business Review, 68(5), 105. Reicheld, F. & Detrick, C. (2003), “Loyalty: A prescription for cutting costs”, Marketing Management, 12(5), 24–25. Seale, C., Gobb, G., & Gubrium, J. 2004. Qualitative Research Practice, Sage Publications Ltd, London. Assael, H. (1998). Customer Behaviour and Marketing Action, 8th edn. Boston: Kent Publishing Ltd. Levy, S.J. (1959), “Symbols for sales”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 117-24. Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2005), Marketing Management, 12th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Karande, K., Zinkhan, G.M. and Lum, A.B. (1997), Brand Personality and Self-Concept: A Replication and Extension, American Marketing Association Summer Conference, Vol. 8, pp. 165-71. Read More