Brand Use and Consumer Identity - Literature review Example

Brand use and consumer identity This paper tries to address the question: “Is it true to say that nowadays people choose their identities through their choice of the products and services they buy and consume?” In doing so, it first clarifies some basic concepts particularly the two key complex terminologies – brand use and consumer identity. Then, it goes on to show how brand use is connected to or tries to get linked to consumer identity. As this task is done, there is an exposition of (marketing) theories and research studies that recognize the link between consumption behavior and consumer personality and bank on this link for purposes of winning over new and retaining the already captured groups of consumers. At the outset, though, this paper recognizes that the task is never simple as it may seem to appear. For one, with it go the theoretical difficulties such as the proper delineation of the involved self of the consumer in the process of preferring a product or service. Will it be the ideal, actual, stereotypical, etc., self? (cf. Green, Maheshwari & Rao 1969, pp. 343). Too, there is quite broad a range of variables that are involved in consumer behavior, such as purchase behavior, media choice, innovation, segmentation – to mention just a few. Likewise, consumer psychologists do use multiple variable drawn from psychology – e.g., the constructs of self-concept, self-actualization, self-image, etc. – to understand the issue of consumer personality and consumption behavior (Shank & Langmeyer 1994). The personalities of the consumer and his brand(s) Insofar as psychology is concerned, the word “identity” is related to the concept of “self,” “self-concept,” “personality,” and “self-identity”. It refers to the generalized pattern of response or modes of coping with the world (Nakanishi 1972), and the totality of anyone’s psychological traits, characteristics, motives, habits, attitudes, beliefs and outlooks. As a concept, it may have been given complex and often inconsistent meanings, but at least there are two more or less constant elements that are consistently ascribed to it – i.e., it is subjective and at the same time multi-faceted (Dittmar & Halliwell 2008, pp. 8). It is subjective because it is how one sees, feels and thinks about oneself; and, thus, it differentiates or sets one apart from the others. It is multi-faceted as it consists of diverse self-representations. Too, it is usually described in terms of (concrete or observable) traits. And, as such, it is an influencing factor in consumer behavior (De Mooij pp. 95-96). Now, brands are made and understood to have anthropomorphic qualities too (see Chen 2005). For instance, a camping boots are introduced as rugged, reliable, tough and very masculine. Too, Virginia Slims cigarette is thought of to be feminine while Marlboro is masculine; Apple is young, while IBM is older; Saks Fifth Avenue (New York) is upper class, while K-Mart is blue collar (Aaker 1997, pp. 348). A unique set of human characteristics that are both applicable and related to a brand that is very well appraised by the consumer, brand personality intends to influence consumer’s perception and work subliminally (to influence people’s consumption decision). Too, it differentiates one product from among the rest (see Moser 2003, pp. 67). As such, since it serves as primary source of competitive advantage and a valuable strategic asset, brand personality is very important in brand positioning. To provide a more complete backdrop on the subject of this paper, it is deemed required to mention too that there are actually research studies that demonstrate weak relationship between the consumer personality and brand personality. For one, these research studies hold that consumer personality is merely negligibly affecting or is affected by consumption behavior of people (cf. Shank & Langmeyer 1994). In fact, as these studies hold, human nature is so complex – hence, very difficult to trust as reliable – tool to predict human behavior. In addition, there are actually more powerful tools to do fulfill the task of anticipating consumer behavior such as the price, value (of goods or service), utility of the product, and product perception or impression (see Mulyanegara & Tsarenko 2005, pp. 58). Summers, Belleau & Yu (2006), for instance, argue that there is in fact no relation between consumer personality and the purchase intention of luxury products. But, there are more studies that hold otherwise – and they will be the primary basis of this paper. Decades of research works on the relationship between consumer and the brands that they prefer have yielded assumptions that are so far considered conventions in the field of consumer behavior. Firstly, it is held true that consumers manifest behaviors that convey to others the kind of persons they think, or want, themselves to be. Secondly, brands connote various images to the consumers that may match one’s self-image. And, thirdly, consumers are said to seek out brands whose images are congruent to or in harmony with their self-concepts (see Green, Maheshwari & Rao 1969, pp. 343). Along this line, Aaker (1996) posits that the relationship between the consumer personality and the brand personality is defined in two accounts. First, there is the relationship between the brand-as-person and the customer-as-person that is akin to relationship between two people. Based on functional benefit, this relationship has a strictly business nature. However, brands are made to represent (human) personality typologies – which subsequently provide depth, feelings and liking to the brand-customer relationship (see Aaker 1996, pp. 137-174) especially since brands either shape one’s personality or help one project a new identity (Huntley 2006, pp. 158). The “surface-level” relationship between consumer and the brand(s) In general, people like people. Hence, since a personality can be created and ascribed to a brand, consumer may be drawn to it. Consumers are drawn when they find the brand personality appealing, or they like the characteristics of the product or service at least insofar as the practical or functional purpose of the goods or service is concerned (see Chiu et al. 2007) Marketers are very well aware of this (see Chen 2005). In fact, in securing a market niche to their products, marketers intentionally craft a brand personality that would appeal to most of their potential consumers. They ensure, for instance, that their product is healthy and/or environment-friendly, their organization trustworthy, their service reliable, and their employees honest and dedicated. For who would resist to be drawn by these qualities? Hence, they define their target audience, find out what they need, want and like, and build a consumer personality profile. All these they do in order to create a product personality to precisely match their consumer profile (Temporal 2000). Such an approach is adopted by companies that fastidiously study their potential consumers. That is why Levi Strauss, for instance, has come up with a master brand personality with characteristics of being original, masculine, sexy, youthful, rebellious, individual, free and American. For its part, Levi’s 501, which is intended for specific customer group, is intentionally made to appear romantic, sexually attractive, rebellious, physical prowess, resourceful, independent and likes being admired (see Temporal 2000). These profiles are obviously crafted to appeal mostly to the people’s emotions – that is, to their feelings and sensory function. They seek to reinforce the impression by the consumer that the product or brand has qualities that he/she likes, admires, and believes in. Anker (2009) calls this tapping into the consumer’s profile obtained through market research convergent marketing. In effect, it addresses and tries to match the consumer’s identity by attempting to target the consumer’s actual set of beliefs, desires, hopes, dreams and so forth. It appeals to consumer’s dream universe and links the product to the consumer’s actual dream of something. But, this functional relationship sets forth into further level. And, it happens when emotional dimension intensifies or becomes dominant with the brand’s provision of emotional difference and experience to the consumer (Temporal 2000). For, aside from the functional relationship between consumer and the brand of goods or services they prefer, there is also between them an emblematic or symbolic relationship (Chiu et al 2007). The deeper relationship between consumer and the brand(s) Products and services have emblematic or symbolic dimension. That is, they do not only offer utility, function and performance; they also carry with themselves image and status. In this connection, when consumers consume the product or enjoy the service, they also consume or enjoy the symbolic meaning of those products as portrayed in their images (see Elliot 1997, pp. 286). And, with this symbolic meaning of the products or services that they consume or enjoy, consumers express how they are either similar to or delineated from the groups in their society (see Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This is a further point of interest – that is, more than the idea that consumers prefer to have brands whose personalities they like to serve their functional or practical purpose – that people tend to choose a brand over others that fit their self-concept or match their own self-images. As in human relationships where people tend to like personalities that are similar to theirs or to those whom they admire, brands that have personalities similar to those of certain groups of consumers definitely have the edge over others. For, the closer the brand personality is to the consumer personality or to the one that is admired by the consumer, the greater is the consumer’s willingness to patronize the brand, the more favorable is the evaluation of the brand, and the deeper is the brand loyalty (Aaker 1997; Temporal 2000; see also Graeff 1996, pp. 5). De Chernatonyi & De Mello (1995), for one, hold that between self-perception by consumers and the brands’ images there are similarities (see also Grimm 2003; Worthing, Ventasekamm & Smith 1973; Jamal & Goode 2001, pp. 483). Put differently, consumers prefer a brand whose image is parallel to their self-concept (Abdallat & El-Emam 2007). Ericksen (1996) also found out that self-expression is an influencing factor over consumer’s product preferences and peoples purchase intentions. For example, there is a significant relationship between self-image and one’s intention to buy an American automobile (Ford Escort). And, Shank & Langmeyer (1994) suggest that, in fact, possessions are more than mere objects; they are extensions of self-concept. Mulyanegara & Tsarenko (2008) focused on the particular role of human values over consumer preference especially in the context of fashion industry. They concluded that indeed consumer values are better predictors of brand preferences, and suggested that marketers should in fact align customer values with fashion brand personality when designing promotional materials so as to effectively appeal to their target customers. Ahmed (1972) found out that personality characteristics – particularly gender – incrementally predict cigarette usage level of cigarette smokers in London and Ontario. In fact, there are a couple of theories on how gender – in as far as it is constitutive element of human personality – impacts consumer behavior. The first theory holds that gender makes individuals acquire and display traits, attitudes and behaviors consistent with their (gender) identity; hence, gender is predictive of broad gender-related constructs. The second theory maintains that gender identity is multifactorial with gender traits comprising but one factor; thus, gender identity is predictive only of situations in which gendered traits are likely to have impact. Be that as it may, gender – as constitutive part of self-concept – is influential in one’s consumption behavior (Palan 2001). Now, this assertion makes sense particularly because to date consumption culture has become modern means of acquiring, expressing, and attempting to enhance identity. The material goods by the consumers are made to signify social status, express unique aspects of the person, and symbolized hoped for, better and/or more ideal identities. That is why advertisers associate goods with idealized images of people. And consumers are often motivated to buy these images hoping to appropriate the symbolic meanings associated with goods in their attempt to move close to an ideal identity (Dittmar & Halliwell 2008, pp. 12). Chiu et al (2007) write that consumers in luxury goods industry purchase not only high-quality products, but also the prestige and social status that go with them. In many circumstances, the consumer’s purchase decision is even determined by the consumer’s self-image. It is because they use products to illustrate, maintain and reinforce their self-concepts to themselves and to others (Zinkham & Hong 1991). For, over all, consumption behavior is an avenue for self-expression (Jamal & Goode 2001, pp. 483). Even much deeper relationship is formed between consumers and the brands that they use when the brand personality comes to influence the impression formation by the consumers. Fennis & Pryun (2006) have studied this dimension of consumer-brand relationship, and found out that the impact of brand personality over consumer personality is stronger when the situational context embedding the brand and the consumer is consistent with the key association that the brand evokes. This means that, when under time pressure, consumers tend to rely only on brand personality as a basis for forming an impression. However, when the consumer is freer or has more time to impression formation task, the impact of the brand personality decreases. As it is known, impression formation is an initial step in consumption decision. This is supported by Abdallat & El-Emam (2007) who found out in their study that the consuming behavior of an individual is directed towards furthering and enhancing the consumers’ self-concept throughout the consumption of goods. This, according to them, leads to brand loyalty – i.e., the biased or non-random behavioral response expressed over time by a consumer with respect to one or more brands out of a set of such brands. Anker (2009) has a name for this marketing approach that may be adapted following the recognition that consumer identity is shaped by consumer behavior. This approach may consist of the potential to improve human behavior through its techniques. Divergent marketing as it is called, it tries to change the personal identity of the consumer by transforming his or her web of beliefs, desires, hopes, dreams, actions and so forth. Doing more than tapping the consumer’s actual dream universe and linking a product to this new dream or set of dreams, divergent approach to marketing actually changes the consumer’s worldview as it encourages reflection on consumer’s stereotypes and promotes new social and political ideas. Conclusion This paper concludes by answering in the affirmative the question that was posed at the beginning. Indeed, it is true that individuals choose their identities by the brands that they prefer, purchase and use. Consumers are human-beings-in-action. That is, they decide for their consumption as they would do for their relationships insofar as brands of products and services have their “human” characteristics, too. And, as in human relationships, the partners get changed by the process of dealing with each other, so in consumer-brand relationship both parties get formed too. A task by the marketers, the brand personality is made to conform to the personality of its consumers. Concomitantly, the consumer’s personality similarly bends as it gets impacted by the personality of the product or service. References: Aaker, D. 1996. Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press. Aaker, J. 1997. Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (August), 347-356. Abdallat, M. & El-Emam, H., 2007. Self congruity and the impact of customer satisfaction on tourist loyalty. Available at: http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/73944/Pages/Self%20Congruity%20and%20the%20Impact%20of%20Customer%20Satisfaction%20on.aspx [Accessed 6 June 2010]. Ahmed, S.A., 1972. Prediction of cigarette consumption level with personality and socio-economic variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56 (5), pp. 437-438 [Online]. Abstract from PsyNet database. Available at: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1973-06914-001&CFID=5337207&CFTOKEN=29307131 [Accessed 6 January 2010] Anker, T.B., 2009. Demolition or remake?: critical marketing between hardliners and engagers. Available at: http://humanisticmarketing.blogspot.com/ [Accessed 7 January 2010]. Chen, A., 2005. Shaping consumer behavior. Available at: http://www.clickz.com/3527566 [Accessed 7 January 2010]. Chiu, K., Lin, R.J., Chiu, C., & Chang, T., 2007. The relationship among brand personality, brand preferences, and customer values: an empirical study in Taiwan for the luxury goods industry. [Online]. Available at: http://ibacnet.org/bai2007/proceedings/Papers/2007bai7123.doc [Accessed 5 January 2010]. De Chernatonyi, L. & De Mello, B., 1995. Predicting brand preferences using self-concept theory. Journal of Marketing Communications, [Online] 1 (3). Abstract from Informa database. Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a739443028&db=all [Accessed 6 January 2010]. De Mooij, M., 2004. Consumer behavior and culture: consequences for global marketing and advertising. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, Inc. Dittmar, H. & Halliwell, E., 2008. Consumer culture, identity and well-being: the search for the “good life” and the “body perfect”. New York: Psychology Press. Elliot, R., 1997. Existential consumption and irrational desire. European Journal of Marketing, 31 (3/4), pp. 285-296. Ericksen, M.K. 1996. Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase intention: a European perspective. Journal of Euro-Marketing, 6(1), 41-56. Fennis, B. & Pryun, A., 2006. You are what you wear: brand personality influences on consumer impression formation. Journal of Business research, [Online], 60 (6), pp. 634-639. Abstract from ScienceDirect database. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7S-4MV1P09-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1159682838&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1426cecaa5b3f5ab787f099f710e8e61 [Accessed 8 January 2010]. Graeff, T.R. 1996. Using promotional messages to manage the effects of brand and self-image on brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(3), 4-18. Grimm, P., 2003. Ab components’ impact on brand preference. Journal of Business Research, [Online], 58 (4). Abstract from Elsevier B.V. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7S-49M0VXH-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1155637451&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=21ec7ed17aecd3ed30af9bcde064bb68 [Accessed 6 January 2010]. Green, P., Maheshwari, A. & Rao, V., 1969. Self-concept and brand preference: an empirical application of multidimensional scaling. Journal of Market Research Society, 11(4), pp. 343-360. Huntley, R., 2006. The world according to Y: inside the new adult generation. Maryborough: McPherson’s Printing Group. Jamal, A. & Goode, M. 2001. Consumers and brands: a study of the impact of self-image congruence on brand preference and satisfaction. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19 (7), 482-492. Markus, H. and Kitayama, Shinobu. 1991. Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychology Review, 98, 224-253. Moser, M., 2003. United we brand: how to create a cohesive brand that’s seen, heard, and remembered. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Mulyanegara, R. & Tsarenko, Y., 2005. A conceptual model of consumer personality-brand preference relationship. Available at: http://smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/WWW/ANZMAC2005/cd-site/pdfs/2-Branding/2-Mulyanegara.pdf [Accessed 6 January 2010]. Mulyanegara, R. & Tsarenko, Y., 2008. Predicting brand preferences: an examination of the predictive power of consumer personality and values in Australian fashion market. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=/published/emeraldfulltextarticle/pdf/jfmm-01-2008-0002_rtc_cl_final.pdf [Accessed 6 January 2010]. Nakanishi, M., 1972. Personality and consumer behavior: extensions. Available at: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=11991 [Accessed 6 January 2010]. Palan, K.M., 2001. Gender identity in consumer behavior research: a literature review and research agenda. Available at: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/palan10-2001.pdf [Accessed 6 January 2010]. Shank, M.D. & Langmeyer, L., 1994. Does personality influence brand image? Journal of Psychology, 148, [Online]. Abstract from Questia database. Available at: http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LGWK2hS2Lg2t7nYp4rJmdhyD5JTJKhnvnCcGMLp60qsVJdXvtLF4!-1986555990!888687908?docid=76933825 [Accessed 6 January 2010]. Summers, T., Belleau, B. & Xu, Y., 2006. Predicting luxury apparel product. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 10 (4), pp. 405-419. Temporal, P., 2000. Why brand personality. Available at: http://www.brandingasia.com/columns/temporal3.htm [Accessed 9 January 2010]. Worthing, P.M., Venkatesam, M. & Smith, S., 1973. Personality and product use revisited: an exploration with the Personality Research Form. Journal of Applied Psychology, [Online], 57 (2). Abstract from APA PsycInfo Database Records. Available at: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1975-03163-001&CFID=5233839&CFTOKEN=81447729 [Accessed 6 January 2010]. Zinkham, G.M. & Hong, J.W. 1991. Self concept and advertising effectiveness: a conceptual model of congruency, conspicuousness, and response mode, Paper Presented in Holman, R.H. and Solomon, M.R. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 348-54. Association for Consumer Research, Provo: UT. Read More