Executive summary of “Brand personality and brand equity: evidence from the sportswear industry”

Citation

Cole, G. (2015), "Executive summary of “Brand personality and brand equity: evidence from the sportswear industry”", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2015-0826

Executive summary of “Brand personality and brand equity: evidence from the sportswear industry”

Article Type: Executive summary and implications for managers and executives From: Journal of Product & Brand Management, Volume 24, Issue 2

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the material present.

Building a strong brand is widely recognized as an effective means of securing a competitive edge and capturing market share. Strategies designed towards brand building invariably consider brand equity as a key component. Plenty evidence exists to show that building strong brand equity positively impacts on consumer attitudes and purchase intentions. Brand equity is also deemed responsible for how a brand performs and the successful introduction of brand extensions.

Various conceptualizations of brand equity have been forwarded. The most commonly used framework proposes the existence of four dimensions labeled as:

1. Brand awareness: This reflects consumers’ knowledge of the brand which makes it easier to recall from memory.

2. Brand associations: These are formed as a consequence of different experiences with the brand and can relate to such as the product, personality and the organization. They are subject to vary in respect of their favorability, strength and distinctiveness. It is claimed that associations have a more profound impact when they relate to various experiences or exposure to different communications.

3. Perceived quality: Judgment of a product’s superiority from the consumers’ perspective is reflected here. Like brand associations, perceived quality serves to differentiate the brand and to persuade the consumer to favor the brand over alternatives.

4. Brand loyalty: Different forms of loyalty are documented in the literature but most relate to attitude or behavior. Attitudinal loyalty reflects a deeper commitment to the brand which goes beyond the willingness to make frequent purchases that characterizes loyalty of the behavioral type.

The image of a brand significantly impacts on brand equity. Brand image is formed through the brand associations stored in the consumer’s memory, and several researchers purport that brand personality is among the most important of these associations.

Brand personality is the process by which people ascribe human traits to brands to understand and evaluate them better. Each direct and indirect encounter with the brand shapes consumer perceptions. Studies additionally point out how people use brand personality as a means to determine which brands they best identify with.

Seminal work resulted in the creation of a widely deployed scale which incorporates five separate brand personality dimensions:

1. Excitement: Which incorporates traits like daring, imaginative and spirited.

2. Sincerity: Honest, wholesome and down-to-earth belong in this dimension.

3. Competence: Of which reliable, successful and intelligent are key traits.

4. Sophistication: Reflected through characteristics such as glamorous, upper-class and charming.

5. Ruggedness: Examples of traits here include masculine, tough and outdoorsy.

Marketers and brand managers realize the key role brand personality plays in differentiating their offerings and impacting on consumer brand preference. Research suggests that brand personality becomes even more important in competitive markets. Sportswear is one category where competition is intense, and organizations typically view brand personality as crucial to building strong brand equity and thus customer loyalty.

The aim of the current study by Su & Tong is to identify which elements of brand personality are most influential in building equity for sportswear brands. One indication to emerge from earlier work is that certain personality dimensions are more relevant within specific product categories. Based on that possibility, preliminary work was carried out to determine personality traits for the top ten global sportswear brands based on market share. Results generated from this exercise were combined with personality traits from different frameworks to create an initial total of 210 unique traits that was eventually reduced to a more manageable list of 53.

For the main survey, students were recruited from two large US universities. This consumer segment was used because young people are the most important market for sportswear products. Females accounted for 70 per cent of the final sample of 420 subjects aged between 18 and 30. Various ethnicities were represented with Caucasians being the majority group. Subjects were first asked to choose a brand that they were most familiar with from the ten-strong list. The next task was to indicate the degree to which each of the 53 personality traits reflected their chosen brand, followed by an evaluation of its four brand equity dimensions.

Earlier research and initial examination of subject responses resulted in the creation of a model consisting of seven brand personality dimensions relating to sportswear brands. The innovation and activity dimensions were added to competence, sincerity, excitement and ruggedness from the original brand personality framework. Also included was attractiveness, which was deemed to be congruent with the sophistication dimension of that model. Data analysis revealed a positive and strong influence on brand equity of sportswear brands from the competence, attractiveness, sincerity and innovation dimensions. In contrast, impact of the activity, excitement and ruggedness dimensions was inconsequential.

The authors note how this work supports the belief that specific brand personality dimensions will be associated with certain product categories in the mind of consumers. In addition, scope for dimensions to have a differing impact on brand equity is also apparent. In the view of Su & Ting, competence fits well with the top sportswear brands such as Nike and Adidas due to the presence of traits like confident, successful and reliable. They likewise point out how particular traits in the sincerity dimension shape consumer beliefs about the superior quality and performance of leading brands in the category. Fast, active and disciplined are among the characteristics of the activity dimension which relates to the athleticism attributed to the personality of sportswear brands. Uniqueness and modernity are representatives of the innovation dimension, while excitement is reflected by traits, including fun and enthusiastic. Technical and tough are characteristics of ruggedness.

It has been previously stated that defining a brand’s personality permits comparison with rival brands and greater understanding of what consumers extract from their different experiences and encounters with the brand. On the evidence here, brand managers can also exploit brand personality dimensions with respect to positioning of the brand and increasing their awareness of what their target market needs. They are advised to create campaigns to help the process of developing and enhancing brand personalities which reflect the key dimensions associated with sportswear brands. Particular focus is recommended on the four dimensions identified as having the greatest effect on brand equity. Use of celebrity athletes to endorse products is a strategy frequently deployed to market sportswear products. The authors propose that using athletes who are seen as “competitive, attractive, sincere and innovative” is the best option. Such qualities are reflective of the key dimensions and ensure celebrity and brand image match and thus help strengthen brand equity.

The seeming insignificance of the other personality dimensions prompts Su & Ting to additionally suggest that firms dealing in sportswear products might be wasting valuable time and resources promoting their brands as being active or tough.

Research using a more diverse range of consumers is an option for the future. Examining the impact of brand personality on the individual brand equity dimensions provides another possibility. Studies might also investigate whether demographic variables or consumption-related factors have any bearing on brand personality’s influence.

To read the full article enter 10.1108/JPBM-01-2014-0482 into your search engine.

(A précis of the article “Brand personality and brand equity: evidence from the sportswear industry”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)