Effects of Brand Personality on Word-of-mouth

The Effects of Brand Personality on Word of Mouth

Why focus on WOM and its antecedents?

“…the role of brand characteristics or personality in WOM is not only critical but also highly relevant for marketing scholars and practitioners for a variety of reasons, such as creating ‘talkable’ brands and maximize the impact of branding activities”.

– (Lovett, Peres and Shachar, 2013)

On average, a person is exposed to over 3,000 advertising messages everyday.

Trust in advertising?

Who is more trusted? Brands or friends?

People like to talk…

• According to Balter (2008) approximately 70 percent of all purchasing decisions are influenced by WOM communication.

• Over 3.4 billion brand conversations occur each day (Keller and Fay, 2012).

• Marketers reportedly spend over $1 billion on WOM marketing (McConnell, 2007).

WOM can have powerful implications when successfully leveraged by a company.

Word-of-mouth (WOM):

“Informal communication directed at other consumers about the

ownership, usage, or characteristics of particular goods and services or

their sellers.”

(Westbrook, p. 261, 1987)

• Increase movie sales (Liu, 2006)

• Adopt social media platforms

(Trusov, Bucklin and Pauwels, 2008)

• Success of TV programs (Godes and Mayzlin, 2004)

• Sales of craft beer (Clemons, Gao and Hitt, 2006)

But little on what drives people to share their experiences with

brands

Psychological drivers of WOM

Social: Consumers seek products and services as ways to express themselves and fulfill certain psychological needs.

Met through the desire to converse, self-enhance or showcase uniqueness.

Functional: In certain exchanges individuals communicate useful or practical information.

Emotional: Emotional responses boost interpersonal communication. Individuals share things that arouse both positive and negative emotions.

“…not much research has explored the mechanism by which WOM is

formed, its antecedents, and how it can be controlled”.

–Moldovan, Goldenberg and Chattopadhyay (2011)

Brand personality – fulfill certain motivations that underlie – psychological drivers of WOM

Brand Personality

relate to a set of human characteristics personified by the brand

excitementsincerity

competence

sophistication ruggedness

(Aaker, 1997)

Sincerity

Excitement

Competence

Sophistication

Ruggedness

Research Question:

What is the relationship between each of the five dimensions of brand personality and the amount of word-of-mouth generated?

Methods

Convenience sampling method 155 participants (classrooms and offices)

Comparison of two brands:• Apple• Microsoft

Methods

Brand Personality MeasurementAaker’s Brand Personality Scale• 5 Personality DimensionsLikert Scale• 1 = Strongly Disagree• 5 = Strongly Agree

WOM Generation MeasurementFour QuestionsLikert Scale• 1 = Strongly Disagree• 5 = Strongly Agree

Findings

Our research question is as follows:

Is each dimension of the Aaker Brand Personality Scale (1997) a predictor of word-of-mouth generation?

Through our testing, we have found that excitement and sophistication are possible predictors in the amount of word-of-mouth a brand generates.

Findings

An independent T-test was performed to measure the five dimensions (sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness).

Findings

In our survey, Q1 represented Apple and Q2 represented Microsoft. To examine the relationship between each of the dimensions and word-of-mouth, a regression analysis was performed. Table 4 represents a regression analysis for each of the brand personalities and Apple and Microsoft.

Findings

Discussion

Finding No. 1: Means score

• Apple scored higher on most dimensions

• Apple highest on excitement and competence

• Microsoft highest on competence and sincerity

Discussion

Finding No. 2: Regression Analysis (Apple)

• Dimensions of excitement and sophistication may lead to greater WOM

Discussion

Finding No. 3: Regression Analysis (Microsoft)

• Dimensions of sophistication and excitement may lead to greater WOM

Limitations

• Convenience Sample• Small sample – 155 respondents• Attributes may not be relevant to Apple or

Microsoft• In-person interviews may skew results• Time constraints and deadline of project

SourcesAaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research. 34. 347-356

Balter, D. (2008). The word of mouth manual volume 2.

Clemons, E. K., Gao, G. & Hitt, L. (2006). When online reviews meet hyper differentiation: A study of the craft beer industry. Journal of Management Information Systems. 23. 149-171,

Godes, D. & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word of mouth communications. Marketing Science. 23. 545-560.

Keller, E. & Fay, B. (2012). The Face-to-face book: Why real relationships rule in a digital marketplace. New York: NY. Free Press.

Liu, Y. (2006). Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. Journal of Marketing. 70. 74-89.

Mcconnell, R. (2007). Spread the news: Word-of-mouth worth $1 billion. Advertising Age. Retrieved from: http://adage.com/print/122025

Moldovan, S., Goldenberg, J. & Chattopadhyay, A. (2011). The different roles of product originality and usefulness in generating word-of-mouth. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 28. 109-119.

SourcesThe Nielson Company. (2011). Global trust in advertising and brand messages. New York, NY.

Peres, R., Muller, E. & Mahajan, V. (2010). Innovation diffusion and new product growth models: A critical review and research directions. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 27. 91-106.

Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: Findings from an internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing. 73. 90-102.

Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and post purchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research. 24. 258-270.