Impact of Brand Personality on Consumer Decision Making - Essay Example

 An Exploration of the Impact of Brand Personality on Consumer Decision Making TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 3 1.0 Methodology 4 1.1 Research Philosophy and Approach 4 1.2 Information Search 5 1.3 Research Strategy 5 1.4 Methodology 6 2.0 Literature Review 9 3.0 Conclusion 16 Bibliography 18 Abstract In equating the impact of a brand’s personality on the consumer decision making process, Hofmeyr and Rice (2000, pp. 21-22) in a book titled “Commitment-Led Marketing: The Key to Brand Profits Is in the Customer's Mind” aptly sums up the purpose of this study. They advise us that commitment is what brands seek to establish with consumers as it represents what they feel about a company, as opposed to loyalty, which they describe as what consumers do (Hofmeyr and Rice, 2000, p. 3). In order to gain a level of commitment from consumers, a brand must establish some sort of relationship as well as image that transmits and provides them with a reason or reasons to act upon that foundation. In delving into this study, certain key words as represented by its purpose, are integral to understanding the foregoing. A brand, according to the Concise Dictionary of Business Management (Statt, p. 17) is “A mark, name, logo or trade mark that identifies a product or services or organisation and distinguishes it from its competitors. It is study, brand personality encompasses branding, which the Concise Dictionary of Business Management (Statt, p. 17) defines as “The use of a brand to describe a product service or organisation”. In considering the term brand personality one needs to understand that it means “1. the quality or condition of being a person … the totality of qualities and traits … that are peculiar to a specific person … the pattern of collective character, behavioural, temperamental, emotional and mental traits …” In equating the preceding application to brand personality, substituting brand for person provides the context. Aaker (1996, p. 45) tells us that “The brand personality provides depth, feelings and liking to the relationship”. He adds that “Of course, a brand-customer relationship can also be based on a functional benefit, just as two people can have a strictly business relationship” (Aaker, 1996, p. 45). The preceding brief exploration has sought to acquaint you with the foundational precepts in this exploration that includes the third facet, consumer decision making. This last area represents the core question and focus of marketing professionals for over 70 years, with its roots tracing back approximately 300 years as led by economist Nicholas Bernoulli (Machina, 2008, pp. 124-126). Bernoulli’s ground breaking work paved the way for von Neumann and Morgenstern who extended his work into what is called the Utility Theory (Machina, 2008, pp. 124-126). Their hypothesis, von Neumann and Morgenstern, is based upon the theory “…that individuals evaluate uncertain prospects according to their expected level of satisfaction or utility (Machina, 2008, pp. 125). The preceding represents one of a number of consumer decision making theories and or models, which for the purposes of time, only a few shall be covered in this examination. The highly competitive world of business, where most products and or services share common and or similar characteristics, brand distinctions represent an important advantage that companies seek to establish. This study will seek to explain and examine the relationships between these areas, and explain the nuances as well as linkages that make brand personality an important part of the consumer decision making process. 1.0 Methodology The subject matter under examination brings into the equation a broad number of facets that are a part of understanding the impact of brand personality on the consumer decision-making process. As indicated thus far, those differing areas synthesise down into what brand personality is, and its impact upon branding, and the subsequent decision processes. 1.1 Research Philosophy and Approach The study utilised a combination of qualitative and quantitative research in combination with primary, as well as secondary sources. Saunders et al (2006) tells us research philosophy represents an “… overreaching term … (that) … relates to the development of knowledge and the nature of that knowledge”. The combination of methodologies helped in the understanding of important facets with regard to market occurrences. Combining research methods is advised by Saunders et all (2006, p. 119) who cites Robson (2002, p. 59) indicates that such can enhance the study quality. 1.2 Information Search The vast views of approach, and thought contained in understanding medical versus legal utilised a wide range of secondary research to provide exposure representing a balanced view. Secondary research permits being in touch with many differing points of view, but it cannot be relied upon as the wrong materials might have been used in making the analysis, and key points potentially missed that were might not have been available, or not known when the study was conducted. 1.3 Research Strategy Easterby-Smith et al (2002, 13-15) tell us inductive and deductive research can be brought together to find the opinions as well as views of small and large samples, for a comparison of views to possibly arrive at an enhanced understanding. Saunders et al (2006, p. 119) advises that through combining research methods the quality of a study can be improved and cites Robson (2002, p. 59) to make his point. Positivism represents the approach utilised by social scientists which entails “… working with an observable social reality and that the end product of such research can be law-like generalisations similar to those produced by the physical and natural scientists” (Remenyi et al, 1998, p. 32). Via this method the phenomena observed points the path to data that is creditable, through the use of existing theory to develop the hypothesis (Remenyi et al, 1998, p. 32). Saunders’ (2006, p. 103) tells us the benefit of using this type of approach, positivism, is the research path or direction consists of a method that is “… value-free …”. Remenyi et al (1998, p. 33) calls this deductive, in that the researcher “… is independent of and neither affects nor is affected by the subject of the research”. In advising concerning inductive Sanders (2006, p.120) tells us that it: 1. provides an understanding concerning the meanings that people attach to various events, 2. aids us in obtaining a better understanding regarding the research context, 3. inductive research gathers qualitative data, 4. it, inductive research, is a more flexible methodology that allows changes to be made to the emphasis of the research as information uncovered dictates, 5. under this approach, the researcher is a definitive part of the process, and as a result, 6. the researcher thus has less concern with generalisation. With respect to deductive research Saunders (2006, p.120) advises: 1. in contract to delving into the understanding of meanings, deductive research uses scientific techniques and principles, 2. movement from theory to data represents a key foundation, 3. quantitative data is collected, 4. it utilises controls as a means to ensure data validity, 5. deductive research represents an approach that is highly structured, 6. under this method the researcher and the research are independent, 7. and the process consists of the collection of research that represents large-scale size in order to ensure conclusions have enough information. 1.4 Methodology The aspects falling in the preceding, under Objectives, revealed the best course of research represented the use of secondary research as it uses different sources of information as its basis. The preceding can encompass (Mann, 2005, p. 45): 1. books 2. journals 3. magazines articles, 4. newspaper articles, 5. surveys Secondary source material represented a wide technique in data gathering that permitted scanning of a large wealth of sources to look at different views, and therefore increase the objectivity (Patzer, 1995, p. 3). Secondary information represents material that has been compiled for a purpose other than what is being investigated (MacFarlane, 1991, pp. 35-36). All research endeavours entail the gathering of facts that entails sources, either primary, or secondary ((Mann, 2005, p. 45). The benefits of using secondary research is illustrated as follows (Powell, 1991, pp. 29-30): 1. Secondary sources are plentiful. 2. Care needs to be exercised in order to obtain information pertinent to the study. 3. Secondary data in large volumes can be gathered in a time frame that is reasonable. 4. Secondary information usually provides information that is in general more accurate than primary information as many different sources can be used. The techniques indicated were utilised to form a more balanced assessment of the examination, as quantitative research entails that the researcher does not participate in, and does not influence the subject matter under study, whereas in qualitative research the researcher tends to be immersed in the subject matter to learn about the situation(s). While the writing and research conducted by others represents a good source of information, it is important to critically assess the source material through accessing a broad range of information from other areas to evaluate the reliability of the material. In this examination, no less than two sources were utilised for each area thus researched, and in most cases more. The preceding permitted a higher degree of confidence in the views accessed as well as broadened the knowledge base utilised herein. The foregoing methodology, meaning the use of more than one source for each area of data, also guarded against validity, the subject matter being dated, and or supplanted by newer findings, and or developments. In extolling the benefits of secondary research, it is also necessary to look at its shortcomings (FAO Corporate Document Repository, 2000): 1. Definitions In utilising the research of others, one needs to exercise caution in terms of the use of definitions contained therein, as the meanings might imply a slightly or broadly different context. 2. Measurement Error The manner in which data is collected represents a potential source of bias, and or sampling error that could lead to incorrect determinations, formulations, and or directions. An in equating error, it is important to distinguish between outright error, and levels of accuracy as some parts, or segments of the research, or source might be correct, while other parts may either be outdated, wrong, or unknown. 3. Source Bias Just as is the case in sampling error and survey / questionnaire bias, this form also exists in secondary source materials. Bias can be varied forms, such as the bias in the mind of the researcher to make a point, or points regardless of the contravening facts. It can also represent incomplete, and or inaccurate sources utilised, to name a few. 4. Reliability The accuracy as well as reliability of published materials can vary as time progresses. Data collection methods, available information and newer findings can make previously reliable findings less than correct. In the case of this examination, a broad array of published dates were utilised as a comparative foundation. The information thus seemed to have a higher degree of reliability, and accuracy as the foundation of the information remained constant during differing time periods as shown by different sources. 5. Time Scale This area has some similarities to the preceding section in terms of information reliability. To guard against the preceding, as mentioned, this examination utilised a broad range of source material for each area to thus determine if a common consensus existed on the subject. This added the facet of reliability as well as relative accuracy to the findings. It is understood that despite the preceding safeguards, it is possible that the source materials had been outdated by newer findings that were not located, or are in the process of being validated. The research might also be subject to limitations as a result of potential sources that were not located that provide better, and or more relevant information than the material utilised despite the multiple source safeguard methodology. Qualitative research formed the basis for this examination in that it seeks out the why as opposed to the how of quantitative research (QSR International, 2008). It, qualitative research looks into the why as well as how connected to the making of decisions as opposed to the what / where / when of quantitative research (Daymon and Holloway, 2002, pp. 7-10). However, aspects of the examination did call for the what / where / when of quantitative research, and thus were included to augment, and or support the research uncovered. 2.0 Literature Review As brought forth under the Abstract, there are varied facets that comprise what represents brand personality, meaning the factors that are a part of it as well as multiple theoretical as well as models that represent views of the consumer decision making process. The concept of brand started back centuries ago when farmers and other tradesmen would imprint on their livestock as well as products that buyers would utilise as a symbol of quality, and distinguish one brand of cattle from another (Clifton and Simmons, 2008, pp. 23-24). This early use represents the case where the utility of brands was established, making one farmer or trades person’s goods more desired than others. As far back as ancient Rome, the principle of commercial law was developed that acknowledged the existence and title of potter’s marks that were symbols (Clifton and Simmons, 2008, p. 25). These early uses included the distinguishing marks of emperors and kings, but it was not until the 17th and 18th centuries when porcelain manufacturing generated large volumes, along with tapestries and furniture as a result of patronage by royalty, did the importance of brands begin what we understand today (Clifton and Simmons, 2008, p. 25). The foregoing represented a means to distinguish quality goods, with the use of brands in the late 19th and early 20th centuries becoming the phenomenon we are familiar with today (Clifton and Simmons, 2008, p. 25). The first vestiges of brand use and awareness represents the distinguishing colours, symbols and designs, which was followed by jingles, advertising slogans and consumer identification with traits such as the Marlboro man’s cowboy image, the three Kellogg’s Corn Flakes elves, and Apple’s apple. Branding, in terms of consumer identification with logos, images, and their perceptions of the brand as a result of years of activity, and exposure. De Chernatony and McDonald (2003, p. 74). Included in this brand identification equation is the public’s conception of the brand as formed through use, and transmitted to friends and associates. The preceding represents one of, if not, the strongest conveyors of what a brand truly is (De Chernatony and McDonald, 2003, p. 74). As globalisation, the information age as well as general consumer awareness and sophistication has increased, manufacturers have been forced to delve ever deeper into the psyche of consumers, and their own brands in order to uncover and discover unique features, attributes and connections to consumers that were heretofore uncharted. Brand personality links to consumer usage, and perceptions of a brand that have developed as a result of the types of consumers the brand has attracted, the attributes of the brand in terms of the market it seeks to cultivate as well as the relationship that consumers have with brands (Hofmeyr and Rice, 2000, p. 12). As mentioned, commitment is stronger than loyalty, in that commitment dictates the manner in which the relationship between the brand and consumer should be managed (Hofmeyr and Rice, 2000, p. 21). Loyalty, on the other hand, does not necessarily entail commitment, thus a consumer can be prone to switch brands the next time they purchase (Hofmeyr and Rice, 2000, p. 21). Hofmeyr and Rice (2000, pp. 22 - 24) tell us that the factors that determine why customers identify with brands represent satisfaction, perception of alternatives, the importance of brand choice, and degree of ambivalence. Of the preceding, satisfaction and the importance of brand choice correlate to brand personality, which provides leverage, to branch into the development of a brand personality that grows from the preceding through usage, and consumer identification (Court et al, 1999). A brand can find quick growth as well as long term success if it establishes a foundation established on performance, personality as well as presence whereby it creates innovative strategies to address consumer decision making processes (Court et al, 1999). That last facet represents the reason(s) for branding and the associated theories and practices, including brand personality. Tollington (2002, p. 98) advises that the perception of a brand is determined by the extent of use and or exposure that people have with it. The preceding does not necessarily extend to ownership, as familiarity with a brand can come from information as provided by friends and or associates, as well as brands that one sees in use, brands used at work, and in the instance of vehicles, one that an individual rents. The foregoing provides an advance view of a brand that can translate into ownership. Regardless of how a person becomes familiar with a brand, the satisfaction in use is the most telling aspect (Knowles, 2001, p. 21) advises that brands matter because of the fact that they communicate meaning. They, brands, “… communicate a rich set of messages and allow us to feel that we can relate to the underlying offer …” (Knowles, 2001, p. 21). The preceding provides insight as to the importance of brand personality. He adds that “Branding is the process of transforming functional assets into relationship assets …”, adding, that “A brand has to do with a psychological affinity to a product or service” (Knowles, 2001, pp. 21-22). Kapferer (2006, p. 34) advises that the foregoing make up a brand’s personality, as it is a product of its perception, and that the foregoing is “… conveyed less by words than by a way of being …”. In citing examples of the preceding Kapferer (2006, p. 112) states that “… brands inspire confidence, and have an attractive personality …”, but that brands “… must deliver material benefits … (Kapferer, 2006, p. 183). Wheeler (2005, p. 42) tells us that when all of the aforementioned are brought together, meaning trial, use, satisfaction, and perceptions, then these can be leveraged to expand the range of the brand’s acceptance versus competition. Aaker (1996, p. 159) in his book “Building Strong Brands” states that the brand personality is a basis model entails the brand, and the consumer, which includes the personality type attributed to the brand through years or decades of use and perceptions. To illustrate the preceding, Aaker (1996, pp. 159 – 160) provides the following example: 1. Sincerity This is represented by brands that are termed as being family oriented, down to earth, old-fashioned, and genuine. Attributes that would be used to describe companies such as Coke, and Hallmark whose brands are well known, well liked, or in other words a trusted member of the family that can be counted upon to deliver what is promised. 2. Excitement This is termed as being young, up-to-date as well as young and outgoing, attributes that Aaker (1996, p. 159) states fits Pepsi, more than Coke. In the vehicle segment, BMW’s lines of sport sedans would fall into this category, as opposed to Volvo, which would fit in the next category. 3. Competence Venerable products such as The Wall Street Journal, Volvo, along with Black and Decker fit this description as it indicates accomplishments in terms of aiding people in their tasks. Its attributes signify influential as well. 4. Sophistication Pretentious, wealthy and having advanced features represent this brand personality category. Brands exhibiting this type of personality is evidenced by Mercedes Benz, and BMW, along with Apple, because of its innovativeness, and Braun appliances. 5. Ruggedness The personality characteristics of athletic as well as outdoors signify the attributes of this classification for which examples such as the Marlboro Man, Range Rover, Jeep and Caterpillar represent. The foregoing examples speak to consumers regarding the types of attributes they find interesting or prefer, but at the same time do not necessarily represent what and whom they are. This difference is that consumers can like and or admire a trait or characteristic, without actually having it themselves. “Brand perceptions…”, states Adamson and Sorrell (2006, p. 136) “… are shaped through words and actions …” thus is it not what a company says it is, brand personality must reflect what consumers think it is. This represents the performance of the brand in the marketplace, as well as the reputation it builds for itself, as well as in relationship to other brands. Examples of performance are found in the products of Apple, that has built a good part of its reputation on user friendliness, as evidenced by the iPod, where the design is different, but what made the iPod is its unique mode of use that is easy to understand and master (Adamson and Sorrell (2006, p. 24). Neumeier (2006, p. 67) in his book “Zag: The Number One Strategy of High-Performance Brands” states that functionality, or ease of use, represent a defining difference that consumers look for and seek. When a company consistently achieves this facet they bring froth brands that are charismatic, one “… that customers wouldn’t trade for love nor money …” then they have captured the consumer’s imagination (Neumeier, 2006, p. 156). The preceding translates into creating a brand franchise where the promise of what a brand is, meets the reality, helping to add to or define its personality. (Ries and Ries, 2002, p. 61) tell us that aspects such as easy of use, reliability, unique features and the innovativeness and or word of mouth mystique that a brand builds, represent brand differences that marketers seek to utilise and help to create consumer perceptions, along with brand personality facets. Keller (1993, pp. 780-782) tells us that marketers seek to uncover and utilise brand differences that are based on preferences that include the aforementioned functionality, quality, reliability, innovativeness, but also seek to weave in the perceptions consumers have concerning personality facets. Tybout (2005, p. 18), in commenting up consumer preferences, advises that “Some brands claim relatively concrete, functional benefits such as superior performance or greater economy … (while) … other brands promise more abstract, emotional benefits related to how important …” the products are in one’s life. Vinjamuri (2007, p. 56) and Vaid (2003, p. 21) state, respectively that user desired functions “… strengthen the brand …” and “The best brand names are brought to life with strong, clear and memorable visual identities that encapsulate the brand’s personality … (with) … the goal to … engage audiences externally (customers) …”. The differentiation that companies seek to instil in their brands, is a concerned effort to make their brand stand out in consumer minds. Included in the preceding is the creation of value propositions, as well as the varied facets mentioned herein as these contribute to the brand’s identity, and thus its personality. The foregoing differentiation between a company’s product and the rest of the field is an important, and perhaps the all important goal of branding (Gobe, 2005, p. 83). It, differentiation, goes beyond pricing, as well as functional differences, “ … they must differ – entiate themselves from an emotional perspective as well”. He continues that the foregoing, emotional point, sparks and or helps consumers to either make or add their own fantasy elements that adds to value creation, and thus a reason to purchase (Gobe, 2005, p. 245) Differentiation in terms of brand association, also with relevance and value creation are necessary components, and that these facets are needed in order to create a brand personality association. Brand personality measurements have been in existence for over twenty years with reliable as well as viable measurements utilising surveys developed by a number of researchers work being the most noteworthy. She conducted studies and surveys that factored and analysed between brand variance after she averaged the scores for brands on traits for personality (Aaker, 1997, pp. 350-351). These resulted in the five factors mentioned above, 1. sincerity, 2. excitement, 3. competence, 4. sophistication, and 5. ruggedness. The point is, that uncovering and or knowing the brand characteristics can aid marketers in crafting campaigns to influence consumer decision-making. Another example of the foregoing is the use of what is termed as licensing to other companies to create a brand personality that may be weak, or needs reinforcement. The preceding is evidenced by Harley Motorcycles having a license from Wolverine Footwear to increase its ruggedness image, and Eddie Baur’s association with Ford Trucks (Batra et al, 2005) These subtle yet definitive moves represent direct influence the consumer decision-making process. One of the more well used methods is represented by the means end chain that approaches the consumer decision-making process as a process that involves problem solving (Reynolds and Olsen, 2001, p. 34). The term means end chain represents the fact that consumers select a course of action, which in this instance is termed as a means, via which to reach an end (Reynolds and Olsen, 2001, p. 56). Reynolds and Olsen (2001, p. 3) tell us that “The fundamental idea underlying the means-end approach is that decision makers choose courses of action (including behaviours such as the purchase of particular brands) that seem most likely to achieve important outcomes”. He adds that “The “… means-end approach” is an umbrella term that refers to a set of methods for interviewing consumers about the reasons for their decision choice and interpreting consumers' responses in terms of linkages between outcomes” (Reynolds and Olsen, 2001, p. 3). Illustrated as a series, the means end chain looks as follows (skymax-dg.com, 2007): Through the utilisation of the means end theory as a component, marketing is thus able to connect “…the tangible, concrete attributes of a product to highly abstract and intangible personal and emotional values (goals or needs) through a chain of increasingly relevant abstract outcomes that also become increasingly personal, emotional, motivating, and self-relevant” (Reynolds and Olsen, 2001, p. 14). It, the means end chain, “…first identifies which choice consumers consider in evaluating alternative actions and selecting a chosen alternative …”, then it “…provides the critical understanding of why these factors are salient in the decision-making process by identifying the personally relevant consequences of the choice criteria, as seen by consumers” (Reynolds and Olsen, 2001, p. 14). The foregoing consequences, as explained by Reynolds and Olsen (2001, p. 14), “…can exist at different levels of abstraction, from immediate functional outcomes to more personally psychological consequences to highly personal and subjective life goals or values”. The preceding is important in understanding the role the means end chain plays in helping to formulate marketing strategies, and thus adapt the manner in which a company approaches the market to thereby improve its relationship with consumers through perception (Varey, 2001, p. 20). There are a host of consumer decision-making models and theories that have not been discussed as the objective has been to draw a link between the preceding and brand personality. Marketers utilise the models and or theories, or combinations thereof, best suited to their objectives, thus the consumer decision-making process is the last step in the equation after the discovery of the brand personality. 3.0 Conclusion This study has sought to equate the impact of brand personality on the consumer decision-making process. Evidence as gathered from the works of De Chernatony and McDonald (2003, p. 74) brought forth the applications of brand personality as shown by the Marlboro man’s cowboy image, as well as other examples. Aaker’s (1996, pp. 159 –160) five categories as represented by sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness provided examples of the aforementioned brand personality that provided insight into how brand personality is used in products we recognise. The identification of the brand personality types is the most important facet of crafting the appropriate consumer decision-making model or theory to be applied, based upon the circumstances of the product type. Other consumer making decision process theories and models represent the utility theory that proposes consumers arrive at decisions based upon expected outcomes of decisions, where they are viewed in the process as being rational actors that can estimate the outcomes, probabilities, of decisions that are uncertain, and arrive at the outcome selection (Machina, 2008, pp. 124-126). Another model, as proposed by Simon in the 1950s represented what he termed as Satisficing, whereby they reach the approximate place they want to go in the decision making process, and stop (Pollitt, 2008). The preceding means that they might not and usually did not take all of the steps in the process. The general model of the consumer decision-making process refers to them utilising the steps of 1. need recognition, 2. searching for product information to satisfy their need(s), 3. alternative selections, 4. making a decision as to but the product, and 5. their post purchase behaviour (Machina, 2008, pp. 124-126). As put forth by Hofmeyr and Rice (2000, pp. 21-22) commitment is what brands seek to establish with consumers as it represents what they feel about a company, as opposed to loyalty, which they describe as what consumers do. In order to achieve this, a brand must establish a relationship that provides a reason, through linking with the consumer on a mental level. Aaker’s (1996, pp. 159 – 160) five characteristics 1. sincerity, 2. excitement, 3. competence, 4. sophistication, and 5. ruggedness represent the categories of brand personality that are used to accomplish this. This study has concentrated primarily on the brand personality aspect as this represented the key facet in the process. Linking with consumers on a product as well as personal level provides the foundation for achieving lasting brand increases, as well as repeat purchases, the objective of all good consumer decision making processes. Bibliography Aaker, D. (1996) Building Strong Brands. The Free Press. New York, New York, United States Aaker, J. (1997) Dimensions of Brand Personality. Vol. 34. Journal of Marketing Research Adamson, A., Sorrell, M. (2006) BrandSimple: How the Best Brands Keep it Simple and Succeed. Palgrave Macmillan. London, United Kingdom Batra, R., Lenk, P., Wedel, M. (2005) Separating Brand from Category Personality. Retrieved on 19 December 2008 from http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/plenk/Brand%20Personality.pdf Daymon, C., Holloway, I. (2002) Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and Marketing Communications. Routledge. London, United Kingdom. P. 221 De Chernatony, L., McDonald, M. (2003) Creating Powerful Brands. Butterworth-Heinemann. London, United Kingdom Dolich, I. (1969) Congruence Relationships Between Self Images and Product Brands. Vol. 6. Journal of Marketing Research Easterby-Smith,, M., Thorpe, R., Lowe, A. (2002) Management Research: An Introduction. Sage Publications. London, United Kingdom. pp 13.15 FAO Corporate Document Repository (2004) Market Entry Strategies. Retrieved on 18 December 2008 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/W5973E/w5973e0b.htm#entry%20strategies Gobe, M. (2005) Humanising Brands Through Emotional Design. Allworth Press. London, United Kingdom Hofmeyr, J., Rice, B. (2000) Commitment-Led Marketing: The Key to Brand Profits Is in the Customer's Mind. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chichester, United Kingdom Kapferer, J. (2006) The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term. Kogan Page. London, United Kingdom Knowles, J. (2001) The Role of Brands in Business. In Brands: Visions and Values. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester, United Kingdom MacFarlane, I. (1991) Do It Yourself Marketing Research. Management Review Machina, M. (2008) Expected Utility Hypothesis. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. London, United Kingdom Mann, T. (2005) The Oxford Guide to Library Research. Oxford University Press. Oxford, United Kingdom Neumeier, M. (2006) Zag: The Number One Strategy of High-Performance Brands. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester, United Kingdom Patzer, G. (1995) Using Secondary Data in Marketing Research: United States and Worldwide. Westport, CT, United States. p. 5 Pollitt, C. (2008) Moderation in all Things: Governance Quality and Performance Measurement. Retrieved on 19 December 2008 from http://www.qog.pol.gu.se/working_papers/SOG%20papers/Pollitt%20-%20SOG%20Conference%20Nov08.pdf QSR International (2007) What is Qualitative Research? Retrieved on 17 December 2008 from http://www.qsrinternational.com/what-is-qualitative-research.aspx Remenyi, D., Money, A., Twite, A. (1998) A Guide to Measuring and Managing IT Benefits. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford, United Kingdom Reynolds, T., Olson, J. (2001) Understanding Consumer Decision Making: The Means-End Approach to Marketing and Advertising Strategy. Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, N.J., United States Ries, A., Ries, L. (2992) The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding. HarperCollins. London, United Kingdom Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practioner-Researchers. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, United Kingdom Saunders, M., Thi¡ornhill, A., Lewis, P. (2006) Research Methods for Business Students. Preason Publishing, London, United Kingdom skymax—dg.com (2007) The means end chain model. Retrieved on 17 December 2008 from http://www.skymax-dg.com/mecanalyst/chain.html Statt, D. (1999) Concise Dictionary of Business Management. Routledge. London, United Kingdom Tollington, T. (2002) Brand Assets. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester, United Kingdom Tybout, A. (2005) Kellogg on Branding: The Marketing Faculty of the Kellogg School of Management. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester, United Kingdom Vaid, H. (2003) Branding: Brand Strategy, Design, and Implementation of Corporate and Product Identity. Watson-Guptill. London, United Kingdom Varey, R. (2001) Marketing Communication: Principles and Practice. Routledge. London, United Kingdom Vinjamuri, D. (2007) Accidental Branding: How Ordinary People Build Extraordinary Brands. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester, United Kingdom Wheeler, A. (2005) Designing Brand Identity: A Complete Guide to Creating, Building, and Maintaining Strong Brands. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester, United Kingdom Read More