Brand Personality: An Empirical

Study of Four Brands in India

Saptarshi Purkayastha*

The main objective of this study is to empirically measure the brand personality
of four chosen brands, viz., Motorola, Raymonds, Samsung and 7 Up in the Indian
context using a framework of brand personality scale, as developed by Aaker
(1997). The study was carried out in Hyderabad. A questionnaire was designed
for this purpose. It contained the entire set of personality traits from the Aaker’s
brand personality scale. In the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to
answer 15 questions with the purpose of measuring different dimensions of brand
personality. These questions were structured on the Likert scale model. The data,
obtained when analyzed using factor analysis, gave different brand personality
dimensions which contained separate variables for different brands, indicating that
each brand should be treated separately and the scale cannot be generalized for
different types of brands: 7 Up stood for sincerity, Samsung stood for
innovativeness, Motorola for feisty and Raymonds for excitement.

Introduction
As the number of brands has proliferated, competition has intensified across all
industries globally, thus making it difficult for managers to differentiate between
brands, particularly on the basis of functional attributes alone (Siguaw et al., 1999).
Therefore, differentiation and positioning are increasingly based on symbolic or
emotional or other meanings. Here comes the importance of providing a brand
with a distinct and functional ‘Brand Personality’. Brand personality has been
defined as a set of human characteristics or traits that consumers attribute to
or associate with a brand (Aaker, 1997). This association may consist of
demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, and social class), lifestyle (i.e., activities
and beliefs), cultural (values, perceptions, preferences, etc.) and personality traits
(i.e., excitement, sophistication, sincerity, etc.). In contrast to the ‘product related
attributes’, which tend to serve a utilitarian function for the consumers, brand
personality tends to serve a symbolic or self-expressive function (Keller, 1993).
It is argued that the symbolic use of brands is possible because consumers often
instill a brand with personality traits (termed animism; e.g., Gilmore, 1919) and
can easily think of brands as if they were celebrities or famous historical figures
(Rook, 1985) and which may be due to the strategies used by advertisers to imbue
a brand with personality traits, such as anthropomorphization (e.g., California
raisins), personification (e.g., jolly green giant), and the creation of user imagery
(e.g., Charlie girl). Through such techniques, the personality traits associated with

* Assistant Professor, The I cfai Business School, Hyderabad, I ndia.

E-mail: spurkayastha1@gmail.com

© 2009
Brand The Icfai University
Personality: Press.
An Empirical AllofRights
Study Reserved.
Four Brands in India 7
a brand, tend to be fairly lasting and distinctive. By isolating the distinct
dimensions, different types of brand personalities can be distinguished, and the
manifold ways in which the brand personality construct may influence consumer
behavior could be understood better which will help in decision making. Aaker
(1997) developed a framework of brand personality dimensions in his research.
Also, a scale was developed for providing the basis for theory building on the
symbolic use of brands. This framework and scale were generalizable across
product categories. This study uses the framework of brand personality
dimensions and the scale developed by Jennifer Aaker, to check the brand
personality of various brands associated with Swamy BBDO, as perceived by the
consumers of these brands. Brand personality is one of the core dimensions of
brand equity, since it refers to the emotional side of a brand image. It is created
by the sum of experiences of consumers with a brand. Advertizing plays a
dominant role in personality creation. Hence, this study may be of interest and
useful to ad agencies in assessing the brand-image of its clients, which it creates/
influences with its efforts.

Motivation
The identity of brand, from the viewpoint of consumers, is the basis for a good
and effective brand-building program. Effective brand management encompassing
brand personality is essential for achieving the overall company goals of
satisfaction, loyalty, and profitability. In recent years, there has been increased
interest in the brand personality construct as its strategic importance has become
more evident. A unique brand personality can help create a set of unique and
favorable associations in the minds of consumers, and thus, build and enhance
brand equity (Keller, 1993; Johnson et al., 2000; and Phau and Lau, 2000). As
a result, brand personality is considered to be an important factor for the success
of a brand in terms of preference and choice (Batra et al., 1993; and Biel, 1993).
Indeed, a well-established brand personality can result in consumers having
stronger emotional ties with the brand, resulting in greater faith and loyalty. Most
of the studies regarding brand personalities have been carried out in foreign
context and a few have been conducted in India. This study aims to fill this gap
by finding the brand personalities of some well-known foreign and domestic
brands popular in India, thus, providing an insight into the mindset of the Indian
customer and the cultural and demographic differences that may exist therein.

With increasing industrialization and globalization, the number of products as

well as the number of brands offered by the companies are increasing making
it difficult for the marketers to position and differentiate their brands on the basis
of functional attributes only. An efficient brand management program is essential
which should take into account symbolic or emotional side of the brand image as
well. This would involve creating, assessing and using the brand personality in the
right way. From a managerial point of view, this would further make the study of brand
personality more interesting and useful for marketers/advertizers, as its proper use
can help them escape the advertising clutter and overcome competition.

8 The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 4, 2009

In other words, brand personality enables firms to communicate more effectively
and efficiently with their customers about the brand.

An understanding of brand personality is essential for an understanding of

brand-building as it can help in:

• Conception and creation of a brand;

• Evaluating its perception in the minds of the customer and compare it with
what was expected; and

• Incorporating necessary changes to make the brand more attractive in

order to meet the goals of creating lasting consumer satisfaction and
loyalty.

Review of Literature
A critical review of literature reveals that one of the most relevant studies was
developed by Aaker and Fournier (1995). The basic objective of their study was
to define brand personality from three perspectives, viz., conceptual,
methodological and substantive, and to develop an inventory of brand
personality. For this, they took a sample of 631 respondents who were asked
to rate 114 personality traits on 40 brands in different product categories. When
a factor analysis was done on the data, it resulted in a highly stable structure,
which they called ‘the Big Five’. Another factor analysis, run individually on each
of the big five factors, gave a 15 factor structure, termed as ‘the Little Fifteen’.
When a cluster analysis was run through this, it gave a 45-item Brand Personality
Inventory (BPI). The paper also discusses the theoretical and practical implications
of the existence of these big five factor structure and the 45-item BPI. It concludes
that brands with strong personalities are associated with high levels of usage
and preference; correlations between self-concept and brands used are higher
than those between self-concept and brands not used.

Aaker (1997) developed a framework for representing different dimensions of

brand personality and a scale for measuring these dimensions. For this study,
a sample of 1,200 respondents was asked to rate the extent to which the 114
personality traits described a specific brand. The study suggested that the
consumers perceive the brands to have five distinct personality dimensions such
as, sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness; which
could be internally subdivided into another 15 factors: down-to-earth, honest,
wholesome, cheerful, daring, spirited, imaginative, up-to-date, reliable, intelligent,
successful, upper-class, charming, outgoing and tough.

Phau and Lauin (2000) tried to prove that consumers have a part to play in
influencing how a brand’s personality is perceived. They also examined the impact
of cultural orientation and self-congruity on brand personality. For this, they took
a sample of 400 respondents who were asked to rate their preference for beer
on a specially designed questionnaire. The consumers’ personality preference and

Brand Personality: An Empirical Study of Four Brands in India 9

their perceived personality for beer was assessed and to denote them, two new
indices were developed: Personality Preference Index (PPI) and the Brand
Personality Index (BPI). Regression analysis was then done by taking PPI as the
independent variable and BPI as the dependent variable. The results show that
the preferred personality of the consumer has an influence over the perceived
personality of their preferred brands.

Suphellen and Gronhaug (2003) conducted a study to test the applicability of

Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale in the Russian context and to identify
important similarities and differences in brand personality perceptions in different
internal settings. A sample of 200 respondents was taken, who replied to the
questionnaires designed to assess measures of attitude towards two selected
US products (Ford and Levi’s) marketed in Russia and brand personality measures
like—successful and contemporary, excitement, ruggedness, sincerity, sophistication.
These two were then taken as dependent and independent variables for
regression analysis. The results showed that brand personalities of western
brands have an impact on brand attitude among Russian consumers. Further,
it was also found that the effect of western brand personalities is highly
moderated by consumer ethnocentrism. Sung and Tinkham (2005) compared the
brand personality structures in the US and Korea in order to test whether brand
personality can represent the values and belief of a culture by studying a set
of global brands on the same personality attributes. A sample of 367 and 409
respondents was taken from the US Korea, respectively. The study found out six
common dimensions of brand personality which were applicable to both the
cultures and two dimensions unique to each culture. The six common dimensions
of brand personality were likeableness, trendiness, competence, sophistication,
traditionalism and ruggedness. The two culture-specific factors in Korea were
passive likableness and ascendancy and those in the US were white collar and
androgyny.

Researchers have also argued against Aaker (1997) scale. Azoulay and
Kapferer (2003) pointed out that the existing measures for the construct of brand
personality do not actually measure that construct but merge a number of
dimensions of brand identity (personality being one of them) thereby introducing
conceptual confusion.

Researchers have also tried to find out the impact of brand personality and
customer satisfaction on customer’s loyalty. Magin et al. (2003) did a regression
analysis with customer loyalty, as the dependent variable and the measures for
economic change, attractiveness of rival products and services, self-congruity,
sociopsychological change barriers and customer satisfaction as independent
variables. They found that customer satisfaction is an important antecedent of
customer loyalty, the attractiveness of rival products and services exert
a significant direct impact on customer loyalty; strength of sociopsychological
change barriers also found to impact customer loyalty.

10 The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 4, 2009

 Studies were also conducted to conceptualize and measure brand personality
in the non-profit sector. Venable et al. (2003) conducted qualitative studies to
explore individuals’ perceptions of brand personality related to three different
product categories of non-profit organizations: Health, environment/rights, and
arts/humanities.

This initial study showed that people could differentiate between non-profit
organizations on the basis of human personality traits. Thereafter, building on
the results of these studies, a quantitative approach was taken to empirically
examine the brand personalities of non-profit organizations. The measurement
of brand personality was done by adopting the scale developed by Aaker (1997).
The research concluded that individuals could easily ascribe human personality
traits to non-profit organizations and these associations varied across different
product categories.

With the spread of the Internet, studies were done to identify the brand
personality dimensions that were created by online communication. To identify
the different brand personality dimensions that American firms intend to create
in the minds of online consumers by a study of 270 websites, personality
dimensions, such as sophistication, excitement, affection, popularity, competence
were used as dependent variables and measures of stakeholder relations, direct
sales, choice functions, connectedness, indirect sales, orientation and product
positioning as independent variables. The variables direct sales, choice functions,
connectedness, orientation and choice functions were found to be significant,
whereas the variables stakeholder relations and indirect sales were found to be
insignificant. Five underlying dimensions of brand personality stimuli, such as
excitement, sophistication, affection, popularity and competence. The principal
forms of online communications consist of stakeholder relations, direct/indirect
sales, choice functions, connectedness, orientation and product positioning. The
research found out that there were modest but consistent associations between
the intended brand personality dimensions and the forms of online communications.

Park et al. (2005) tried to identify the dimensions of e-brand personality for
diverse websites. The sample consisted of 470 respondents, all from Korea. Four
e-brand personality dimensions, such as bold, analytical, and friendly and
sophisticated were identified.

Different researchers at different times have found the importance of brand

personality across different cultures. Although, Aaker (1997) scales have been
widely used, there is always a disadvantage of reliability of these scales across
different cultures. The current study initially proposes to test the scale in the
Indian context using six brands, viz., Microsoft, NDTV, Motorola, Raymond, Samsung,
and 7 Up.

Brand Personality: An Empirical Study of Four Brands in India 11

Methodology
A questionnaire was designed for the purpose of the study. The entire set of
personality traits used in this study was adopted from Aaker (1997), with some
changes for different brands using synonyms of the terms used in Aaker’s (1997)
scale to better describe the brand. In all, six different questionnaires were
designed for six different brands under the study. The survey instrument asked
the respondents to answer 15 items with the purpose of measuring five
dimensions of brand personality. These questions were structured in
a Likert scale model (1 to 5) with, 1 as (Most descriptive), and 5 as (Least
descriptive). The other three questionnaires were used to find out the
respondent’s overall attitude towards a brand. These too were structured in a
Likert scale model (1 to 5) with, 1 as strongly dislike and 5 as strongly like. Other
sections of the questionnaire included questions regarding demographic and
background information.

In order to have a proper sample for such a study the number of respondents
should be around 4-5 times the number of items in the questionnaire, i.e., there
should be around 72 to 90 respondents for each brand questionnaire. Here, for
convenience, we took a sample of 100 respondents for each brand, so that finally
data insufficiency due to ‘no response’ and ‘extreme responses’ could be overcome.

The data collected was analyzed using appropriate multivariate tools. We used
exploratory factor analysis as the tool for data analysis as it was also used by
Aaker (1997) to identify facets within the five dimension scale. Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA) seeks to uncover the underlying structure of a relatively large set
of variables. The researcher’s à priori assumption is that any indicator may be
associated with any factor.

The brands were chosen on the following criteria:

• It should be a client of a major advertizing agency in India (Name of the

advertising agency withheld for the purpose of confidentiality);

• Salient, well-known brands were chosen so that a national sample could

be used;

• A variety of brands representing different personality types was selected

to enhance the scope of the study and prevent respondents from boredom
and giving clichéd/false responses;

• Based on the above three criteria, a total of six brands were selected for
the study. These were Microsoft, NDTV, Samsung, 7 Up, Motorola and
Raymond. Two brands out of these six; i.e., Microsoft and NDTV were
dropped from the study after Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic for sampling
adequacy came very low. The study was further carried out with the
remaining four brands viz., Samsung, 7 Up, Motorola and Raymond.
Questionnaire for one brand, 7 Up, is enclosed in Annexure 1. The
questionnaires for the remaining brands are identical except for the name.

12 The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 4, 2009

Data collection
Respondents were contacted in person at various malls, cafeterias, colleges and
bus stops in Hyderabad. Places visited for the survey were Q-mart, City-center,
McDonalds restaurant, Café Coffeeday (at Nagarjuna circle), outside Magnus
Business School, bus stop at Road No. 3. and Flora Apartments (on Road No. 3).
Arrangements were then made to pick up the completed questionnaires at
a specified time, generally one or two days later.

Table 1: Criteria for KMO Values, Descriptive Statistics for Brand

Kaiser (1974) ‘7 Up’

• Above 0.90 is ‘marvelous’

Correlation Matrix

• In the 0.80s is ‘meritorious’ A correlation matrix shows the simple

• In the 0.70s is just ‘middling’
• Less than 0.60 is ‘mediocre’
Table 2: KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure
of Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 1290.814
df
Sig.
correlations between all possible pairs of
variables included in the analysis. The most
commonly used correlation in correlation
matrix is the Pearson Product Moment
Correlation, which is used here also. The
correlation matrix for 7 Up data and the
0.894 significance is presented in Annexure 2.
Two tests, KMO1 statistic for sampling
adequacy (Table 1) and Bartlett’s test of
153 sphericity,2 were undertaken to test
whether factor analysis would be
0.000
appropriate for his study.

For the sample, the KMO statistic is 0.894 (Table 2) and Bartlett’s test of
sphericity is significant, hence, the correlation matrix in Annexure 1 can be used
for the factor analysis.

Extracting the Factors

The process of factor analysis involves the following steps:
• Defining the unrotated factor matrix; and
• Rotating the factor matrix to obtain better interpretation.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) takes all the three sources of variance,
viz., common, specific and error into consideration in the identification of factors
or components. Each of the factors extracted are independent of each other.

1
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic for sampling adequacy—Measured by the KMO
statistics, sampling adequacy predicts that if data are likely to factor well, based on
correlation and partial correlation. KMO varies from 0 to 1.0 and KMO overall should be
0.60 or higher to proceed with factor analysis.
2
Used to examine the hypothesis that the variables are uncorrelated in the population.
It is used only as a bare-minimum standard for assessing the quality of correlation
matrix. For the correlation matrix to be not an identity matrix p<0.05.

Brand Personality: An Empirical Study of Four Brands in India 13

The variables being used need to be standardized, i.e., they should be based
on similar units of variance. This is accomplished by the factor analysis as it uses
matrix correlation, which is a ratio and hence, independent of units. The initial
factors were extracted using the Eigenvalues>1.

Unrotated Principal Component Analysis

The component matrix shows the loadings of the variables on the three extracted
factors. The loading value tells about the extent to which the factor contributes
to the variable. The unrotated component matrix shows that factor 1 is having
the most number of variables and explaining 49.819 percent of the variation.
However, unrotated solutions are hard to interpret because variables tend to load
on multiple factors.

Variance Explained
The total variation explained is shown in Annexure 2. It shows the Eigenvalues,
which represent the extent of coverage of the critical factors included in factor
analysis. The first factor has the highest significance.

Table 3: Rotated Component Matrix Rotated Component Matrix

Components As unrotated solutions are hard to
Names of the
1 2 3
interpret, we use varimax rotation.
Variables
Varimax rotation is an orthogonal
rotation of the factor axes to maximize
Down-to-earth – 0.680 –
the variance of the squared loadings
Honest – 0.777 –
of a factor (column) on all the variables
Pure – 0.795 – (rows) in a factor. A varimax solution
Cheerful – 0.853 – yields results which make it as easy as
Daring – 0.601 0.643 possible to identify each variable with
Spirited – – 0.766 a single factor. This is the most
Imaginative – – 0.795 common rotation option. The rotated
matrix, using PCA analysis, is shown in
Up-to-date 0.634 – 0.583
Table 3.
Reliable 0.607 – –
Intelligent 0.687 – – Three factors, such as elite,
sincerity and excitement, were
Successful 0.737 – –
identified from Table 3. These factors
Upper-class 0.740 – –
and the variables constituting these
Charming 0.782 – –
factors are presented in Table 4.
Outgoing 0.727 – –
Descriptive Statistics
Tough 0.758 – –
for Brand Samsung
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis. We did similar analysis for Samsung,
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Motorola and Raymonds. The factors
Normalization. Rotation converged in and the variables identified are
8 iterations. provided in Tables 5, 6 and 7.

14 The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 4, 2009

 Table 4: Factors Identified for Brand ‘7 Up’

Factor 1 (Elite) Factor 2 (Sincerity) Factor 3 (Excitement)

Reliable Down-to-earth Daring

Intelligent Honest Spirited

Successful Pure Imaginative

Upper-class Cheerful Up-to-date

Charming – –

Outgoing – –

Tough – –

Table 5: Factors Identified for Brand ‘Samsung’

Factor 1 (Innovative) Factor 2 (Elegant)

Honest Successful
Original Upper-class
Cheerful Charming
Daring Masculine
Spirited Tough
Imaginative –
Up-to-date –
Reliable –
Intelligent –

Table 6: Factors Identified for Brand ‘Motorola’

Factor 1 (Feisty) Factor 2 (Authentic) Factor 3 (Suave)
Cheerful Down-to-earth Intelligent
Daring Honest Successful
Spirited Original Charming
Upper-class Reliable Masculine
– – Tough

Table 7: Factors Identified for Brand ‘Raymond’

Factor 1 (Elite) Factor 2 (Excitement) Factor 3 (Sincerity)
Intelligent Daring Down-to-earth
Successful Spirited Honest
Upper-class Imaginative Authentic
Charming Up-to-date –
Westernized – –
Tough – –

Brand Personality: An Empirical Study of Four Brands in India 15

Conclusion
The data obtained when analyzed using factor analysis, gave different brand
personality dimensions containing separate variables for different brands indicating
that each brand should be treated separately and the scale cannot be generalized
for different types of brands. The results demonstrate that Aaker’s (1997) scale is not
totally applicable. However, this assumption needs to be further tested by research
in other countries and industries with a larger sample size. The results of this study
using their original scale, are discussed below with respect to different brands:
• 7 Up: The results clearly reveal that the dimensions ‘sincerity’ and
‘excitement’ are identified with the same variables as they were in the
original scale, i.e., down-to-earth, honest, pure and cheerful for the Factor 2
or ‘sincerity’; and daring, spirited, imaginative and up-to-date for the Factor
3 or ‘excitement’. However, variables like reliable, intelligent, successful,
upper-class, charming, outgoing and tough have coupled together which
form Factor 1 and are named as ‘elite’.
• Samsung: The results gave two new factors for brand Samsung. Factor 1
consisted of variables such as honest, original, cheerful, daring, spirited,
imaginative, up-to-date, reliable and intelligent. It indicates that
respondents have given similar rating to brand Samsung on all these
parameters. This factor was named as ‘Innovative’. Factor 2 included
variables, such as successful, upper-class, charming, masculine and tough
and it was named as ‘elegant’.
• Motorola: The results for brand, Motorola, showed that 15 variables of
Aaker’s (1997) scale coupled into three entirely new combinations giving
three new factors. Factor 1 consisted of variables, such as cheerful, daring,
spirited, and upper-class; and was named as ‘feisty’. Factor 2 included
variables like down-to-earth, honest, original and reliable. This factor
seems to resemble the factor ‘sincerity’ of the original scale, but has one
extra variable added to it called reliable, indicating that brand ‘Motorola’
has been given similar ratings on all these variables. Hence, this factor
was renamed ‘authentic’. Factor 3 had variables, such as intelligent,
successful, charming, masculine and tough, which was called as ‘suave’.
• Raymond: Three factors were identified for brand Raymond. Two of these
were the same as predicted by the original scale and identified with the same
variables as they did in the original scale: Factor 2 includes the variables such
as daring, spirited, imaginative and up-to-date, which was called as
‘excitement’; and Factor 3 was known as ‘sincerity’ which comprised
variables, such as down-to-earth, honest and authentic. However, Factor 1
was different and consisted of variables like intelligent, successful, upper-
class, charming, westernized and tough. This was christened as ‘elite’.
Hence, we conclude that our analysis gives different results for different
brands indicating that each brand should be treated separately while studying
their brand personality. The results also give a deeper insight into what
variables come together in the minds of the Indian customer, when he perceives
different brands.

16 The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 4, 2009

 The study, however, has certain limitations, since it only takes the sample
from people in Hyderabad. For gaining deeper insights, the data can be collected
from large number of cities. Further, the study was carried out only on brands
in product category, however, a similar study can be extended to more number
of products and categories. 

References
1. Aaker J L and Fournier S (1995), “A Brand as a Character, a Partner and a
Person: Three Perspectives on the Question of Brand Personality”, Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, pp. 391-395.
2. Aaker Jennifer (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 347-356.
3. Azoulay Audrey and Kapferer Jean-Noel (2003), “Do Brand Personality Scales
Really Measure Brand Personality?”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11,
No. 2, pp. 143-155.
4. Batra Rajeev, Donald R Lehmann and Dipinder Singh (1993), “The Brand
Personality Component of Brand Goodwill: Some Antecedents and
Consequences”, in Aaker D and Biel A (Eds.), Brand Equity and Advertising,
pp. 83-96, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
5. Biel A (1993), “Converting Image into Equity”, in Aaker D and Biel A (Eds.),
Brand Equity and Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NY.
6. Gilmore George W (1919), Animism, Marshall Jones Company, Boston.
7. Keller K L (1993), “Conceptualising, Measuring and Managing Customer-
Based Brand Equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 1-22.
8. Magin Stephanie, René Algesheimer, Huber Frank and Andreas Herrmann
(2003), “The Impact of Brand Personality and Customer Satisfaction on
Customer's Loyalty: Theoretical Approach and Findings of a Causal Analytical
Study in the Sector of Internet Service Providers”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 13,
No. 4, pp. 294-308.
9. Park Su-e, Choi Dongsung and Kim Jinwoo (2005), Visualizing E-Brand
Personality: Exploratory Studies on Visual Attributes and E-Brand
Personalities in Korea, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,
Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 7-34.
10. Phau I and Lau K C (2000), “Conceptualising Brand Personality: A Review
and Research Propositions”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis
for Marketing, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 52-69.
11. Siguaw Judy A, Anna S Mattila and Jon Austin (1999), “The Brand Personality
Scale: An Application for Restaurants”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40, June, pp. 48-55.
12. Sung Yongjun and Tinkham Spencer F (2005), “Brand Personality Structures
in the United States and Korea: Common and Culture-Specific Factors”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 334-350.

Brand Personality: An Empirical Study of Four Brands in India 17

13. Supphellen Magne and Kjell Gronhaug (2003), “Building Foreign Brand
Personalities in Russia: The Moderating Effect of Consumer Ethnocentrism”,
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 203-226.
14. Venable Beverly T, Rose Gregory M and Gilbert F’aye W (2003), “Measuring
the Brand Personality of Non-Profit Organizations”, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 379-380.

Annexure 1
Questionnaire for Brand ‘7 Up’

Dear Sir/Ma’am

I am doing a project on ‘brand personality’ for a reputed Advertising Agency.

I am trying to find out how you perceive the brand 7 Up on the following
parameters. Kindly extend your cooperation by answering the following
questions and help me in completing my research successfully:

1. How do you describe the brand ‘7 Up’ on the following parameters?

(Rate the following factors on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = most descriptive
and 5 = least descriptive).

(Most (Least
Sl. Descriptive) Descriptive)
Variables
No.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1. Down-to-earth o o o o o

2. Honest o o o o o

3. Original o o o o o

4. Cheerful o o o o o

5. Daring o o o o o

6. Spirited o o o o o

7. Imaginative o o o o o

8. Up-to-date o o o o o

9. Reliable o o o o o

10. Intelligent o o o o o

11. Successful o o o o o

12. Upper-class o o o o o

13. Charming o o o o o

14. Outgoing o o o o o

15. Tough o o o o o

(Contd...)

18 The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 4, 2009

 Annexure 1 (...contd)

Questionnaire for Brand ‘7 Up’

2. What is your overall attitude towards ‘7 Up’?

(1 = strongly dislike; and 5 = strongly like)

Strongly dislike Strongly like

1 2 3 4 5

o o o o o

Unfavorable Favorable

1 2 3 4 5

o o o o o

Negative Positive

1 2 3 4 5

o o o o o

Brand Personality: An Empirical Study of Four Brands in India 19

 20
Annexure 2
Correlation Matrix for Brand ‘7 UP’

Pure
Tough

Daring

Honest
Reliable

Spirited
Outgoing

Variables
Charming

Cheerful
Successful

Intelligent

Up-to-Date

Imaginative
Upper-Class

Down-to-Earth
Down-to-earth 1.000 0.690 0.594 0.639 0.591 0.549 0.596 0.618 0.597 0.494 0.597 0.580 0.559 0.628 0.569

Honest 0.690 1.000 0.804 0.847 0.663 0.697 0.449 0.741 0.785 0.606 0.692 0.690 0.687 0.529 0.500

Pure 0.594 0.804 1.000 0.808 0.594 0.692 0.525 0.707 0.716 0.531 0.687 0.626 0.727 0.577 0.563

Cheerful 0.639 0.847 0.808 1.000 0.756 0.751 0.618 0.779 0.705 0.630 0.760 0.645 0.706 0.603 0.551

Daring 0.591 0.663 0.594 0.756 1.000 0.750 0.736 0.647 0.635 0.572 0.502 0.523 0.550 0.640 0.569

Spirited 0.549 0.697 0.692 0.751 0.750 1.000 0.633 0.730 0.669 0.507 0.582 0.597 0.624 0.568 0.526

Imaginative 0.596 0.449 0.525 0.618 0.736 0.633 1.000 0.642 0.472 0.537 0.428 0.576 0.549 0.652 0.595

Up-to-date 0.618 0.741 0.707 0.779 0.647 0.730 0.642 1.000 0.809 0.710 0.791 0.753 0.789 0.603 0.558

Reliable 0.597 0.785 0.716 0.705 0.635 0.669 0.472 0.809 1.000 0.631 0.695 0.674 0.712 0.583 0.546

Intelligent 0.494 0.606 0.531 0.630 0.572 0.507 0.537 0.710 0.631 1.000 0.611 0.649 0.600 0.710 0.629

Successful 0.597 0.692 0.687 0.760 0.502 0.582 0.428 0.791 0.695 0.611 1.000 0.697 0.725 0.593 0.563

Upper-class 0.580 0.690 0.626 0.645 0.523 0.597 0.576 0.753 0.674 0.649 0.697 1.000 0.755 0.663 0.627

Charming 0.559 0.687 0.727 0.706 0.550 0.624 0.549 0.789 0.712 0.600 0.725 0.755 1.000 0.676 0.591

Outgoing 0.628 0.529 0.577 0.603 0.640 0.568 0.652 0.603 0.583 0.710 0.593 0.663 0.676 1.000 0.825

Tough 0.569 0.500 0.563 0.551 0.569 0.526 0.595 0.558 0.546 0.629 0.563 0.627 0.591 0.825 1.000

Reference # 02J-2009-04-01-01

The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 4, 2009