Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity:

Implications for Advertising Strategy

Bilal Mustafa Khan*
Driven by the competitive environment in fashion business, marketers have realized that creating
a favorable brand image is a key to win larger market share. This paper examines the influence
of brand personality on advertising response in fashion lifestyle branding context. The research was
designed to explore the measurement and application of Brand Personality Congruence (BPC) and
attempts to establish a relationship between self-congruency and advertising response measures. The
study is empirical in nature and involved administering a questionnaire to the respondents, prior
to which they were shown print ads of leading fashion and lifestyle brands in India. Results indicate
the existence of a strong relationship between self-congruity and advertising response measures
which include attitude towards the ad, attitude towards the brand and behavioral intentions.

Introduction
In todays competitive environment, brand differentiation based on tangible attributes is
difficult to achieve. Therefore, concepts, like customer-brand relationship (Blackston,
1993), brand magic (Biel, 1997) or lovemark (Beckman, 2002) have become important
in brand building literature. The reason for the success of these lies in the emotional and
self-expression benefits that brands provide to their ultimate consumers. From the brand
building perspective, brand personality is considered as an important input variable in
branding strategy models (Kapferer, 1991; Keller, 1993; and Aaker, 1996). From the
customer perspective, the adoption of new brands is a consequence of advertising process
(Mehta, 1994 and 1999; Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995; and Meenaghan, 1995).
Consumer purchase products/brands not only on the basis of their functions or quality,
but do so, more importantly, because of the symbolic meanings contained in products/
brands (Veryzer, 1995). Brands offer different values to consumers: these values are
basically functional (i.e., the problem-solving capability of a brand), experiential
(i.e., benefits related to sensory enjoyment or cognitive arousal), and symbolic brand
benefits (i.e., the signal effects shown to others via the brand) (Keller, 1993).
Marconi (2000) asserted that brand personality, defined as the set of human
characteristics associated with a brand (Aaker, 1997), is of great consequence in
marketing because the building of a public identification of oneself with the brand can
lead to strong brand loyalty. Emphasizing key attributes that customers deem important
facilitates self-congruity with the brands personality, thus increasing the probability of
*

Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Management Studies and Research,
Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), India. E-mail: khanbilalmustafa@gmail.com

2010Personality
IUP. All Rights
Reserved. Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy
Brand
and Consumer

being chosen by the customer (Aaker, 1999; Kassarjian, 1971; Kotler, 2003; Sirgy, 1982;
and Wee, 2004).
Brand personality is an attractive and appealing concept in contemporary marketing.
It is one of the core dimensions of the brand identity (Aaker, 1996) and perhaps the one
closest to the consumers. The personality idea corresponds with the contemporary
societys ideology of revering the personal relationships. Relationships are central to any
individual and command his attention and respect. Maslows need hierarchy identified the
need of belongingness, love and esteem eons ago. Drawing on the same lines, the brand
personalities are created employing different ways and active communication tools on the
side of the firms. The intention is to influence and color the evaluation of alternative
stages of consumer buying behavior model. The power of advertising is used to make it
even more efficacious, compelling and convincing.
In this stage, and for these goals, advertising is considered to be the most effective
communication tool (Brassington and Pettitt, 2000).
Keller (1993) asserts that an integral component of building positive customer based
brand equity is brand knowledge. The theoretical framework proposed by Keller (1993)
states that brand knowledge has two primary dimensions: brand awareness and brand
image. Brand awareness is the ability for a buyer to recognize or recall that a brand is a
member of a certain product category (Aaker, 1991, p. 61). Brand image is the set of
associations linked to the brand that consumers hold in memory (Keller, 1993, p. 2). Both
of these dimensions play a role in affecting consumer decision making by increasing the
probability that the customer will choose the specific brand over other brands offering the
same product or service.
Keller (1993) suggested that brands offer three benefits for a consumer: Functional,
experiential, and symbolic. Of these, brand personality addresses the symbolic or
self-expressive function (Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1997; Siguaw et al., 1999; and Wee, 2004) and
these benefits impact the customers behavior towards a brand. Dolich (1969) suggested
that a consumer can maintain or enhance his/her self by using products or brands that
are symbolically similar to the self. Research has shown that consumers tend to support
brands and services whose personalities closely match their own (Sirgy, 1982; Fournier,
1994; Siguaw et al., 1999; Kotler, 2003; and Wee, 2004). This underlines the importance
of creating favorable, strong, and unique brand associations in the customers memory
(Keller, 1993). Increased levels of brand knowledge then can lead to greater profits and
sustained brand loyalty, even in the presence of switching motivators.
The main objective of this study is to evaluate the personality of fashion apparel brands
and to examine the influence of self concept and BPC on their advertising response. The
paper begins with a review of the literature and especially focuses on key concepts such
as brand personality and self congruence in branding advertising processing context. Later
on the results of an experimental study that was conducted in order to assess the brand
personality profile of 15 fashion apparel brands are discussed.
8

The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010

Literature Review
Keller (1998) states that, Brand personality reflects how people feel about a brand, rather
than what they think the brand is or does. The symbolic use of brands is possible because
consumers often give brands human personalities (Aaker, 1997). Consumers usually
perceive the brand as having quasi-human traits and an evaluation of a brand is done on
dimensions that typically capture a persons personality, and extend that to the domain
of brands. Brand personality is measured by extending the traits of human personality to
the domain of brands.
The research on brand personality suggests that consumers select brands that are
congruent with their needs and personal characteristics. Brand characteristics tend to be
similar with the consumers self concept and personality traits, therefore behavior choices
are predictable if marketers identify consumers self-images and brand perceptions. Freling
and Forbes (2005) found that brands with strong personalities are likely to generate
positive attitudes with consumers, which are likely to result in evaluations that are more
favorable. Brand meaning and personality is found to transcend cultural boundaries
and therefore coupled with consumer personality characteristics, would be a valuable
combination for marketing strategy purposes for all kinds of brands globally (Aaker and
Schmitt, 2001; and Escalas and Bettman, 2005).

Brand Personality and Consumers Self-Congruity

Self-congruity represents the degree of similarity between consumers self-image or
self concept and that of a brand. The degree of consistency between the self-image and brand
image is self-congruity (Sirgy, 1982). The four aspects of self-concept compose the global
self-image, which is hypothesized to influence consumer choices of products/brands through
self-image with brand image congruity (Johar and Sirgy, 1991; and Sirgy and Su, 2000).
Congruity impacts are desirable because they influence consumers
self-image positively, but inconsistencies or incongruity is likely to result in feelings of
inadequacy, and dissatisfaction with their choices (Johar and Sirgy, 1991; and Sirgy and Su,
2000). According to Pervin and John (2001), self-concept is often viewed as a component
of personality.
Identifying congruity relationships between brand image and consumers self-image
would enable marketers to position and promote products more effectively with the
appropriate target markets (Table 1). Identifying more clearly symbolic brand personality
meanings, consumer personality characteristics and the interrelationships between
consumer self-image and brand image, would provide an integrated homothetic approach
to understanding the symbolic with the actual consumer needs. Every brand communicates
distinctly with the specific personality traits of the individual consumers. The personality
constructs so created after the conjunction of brand image with consumers self-image are
universally acceptable as they transcend all cultural gulfs and remain stable for a long time.
Hence an exhaustive insight and an acute understanding of the same are indispensable
and crucial from the marketers perspective. (Jung, 1921 and 1971b; and McCrae and
Costa, 1997).
Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy

Table 1: Comparison of Self-Congruity (SC) and Brand Personality (BP)

Parameters

Self-Congruity

Brand Personality

Content/Focus of attention

Congruity between typical user

of brand and specified aspects of
the self-concept of respondents.

Descriptiveness of a set of
personality characteristics for a
given brand.

Scope

Narrowtypical user is basis for

determination.

Broad, multiple sources as basis

for determination (typical user is
but one).
Multiple direct and indirect
sources.

One direct source

Conceptual Variants

Actual SC
Ideal SC
Social SC
Ideal Social SC.

Minimal variants identified BP

of goods,
BP of services,
Retailer BP, etc.
All are conceptually similar.

Measurement Variants

Global measures (characteristics

not defined; self-report measure
of congruity).

General scales.

Specified measures (characteristics

defined; congruity estimated).

Idiographic measures (brand/

situation-specific characteristics
derived from pre-study).

Memory Process Involved

Recall (specified measures or

recall-based global measures).

Recognition
(personality
characteristics are listed).

Level of Induced Self-awareness

High (explicit focus on the self

of respondents).

Low/moderate (focus on the

brand).

Role of Advertising in Creation of Brand Personality and Consumer

Congruity
Advertising is a form of communication of used in helping sell products and services. It
communicates, informs, interacts, divulges and disseminates the essential information
(name of the product or service, etc.) and implicit benefits of the product among the
potential customers. The advertisements often experiment with the recreation and
reinvention of the brand image to carry the message forward and accentuate the
consumption patterns. For the same advertisements could be imbued with persuasion and
information.
Advertising is a promotional activity for marketing goods and services. It is heavily
used in the process of personality creation. In the process of personality creation,
advertising and marketing communication approaches are largely used to create a brands
personality (Redenbach, 2000). The execution strategies for conveying and imparting the
core idea can vary from the informational to emotional.
Through television, radio, cinema, magazines, newspapers, video games, carrier bags,
billboards, mail or post and Internet marketing brands reach large numbers of individuals
representing a wide range of cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Also the qualitative factors
10

The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010

associated with the content and/or execution of an advertisement has an impact on its
eventual effectiveness (MacKenzie et al., 1986).
Self concept and personality have been used interchangeably in existing marketing and
psychology literature. Rosenberg (1979) defined self concept as the totality of the
individuals thoughts and feelings having reference to him as an object (p. 7). Onkvisit
and Shaw (1987) augmented that definition by saying that an individual compares himself
to other objects in a frame of reference that is socially determined. In consumer research,
it is generally accepted that self concept (also referred to as self-image) has four aspects:
actual-self (how a person sees himself/herself), social-self (how others see him/her), idealself (how a person would like to see himself/herself), and ideal social-self (how a person
would like others to see him/her (Sirgy, 1982)). The view of self-image congruence states
that consumer preferences are determined by a cognitive harmony between consumer
self-image and brand image.
Johar and Sirgy (1991) posit two alternative routes to persuasion: (a) Self-congruity:
which is the match between the products value-expressive attributes and the audiences
self concept; (b) functional congruity: which is the match between the beliefs of products
functional attributes and the audiences referent attributes.
Rossiter and Percy (1987) opine that self congruence is the main route used in
transformational advertising, in contrast to functional congruity which is very often
used in informational advertising. Fashion apparel is a category with higher levels of
conspicuousness and consumer involvement, implying that self congruence is the
dominant persuasion route.
Apparels are a nonverbal form of communication of individual personality and
self-image (Thomas et al., 1991). The symbolic, self-expression and socialization roles of
apparel brands (Belleau et al., 1992; Elliot, 1994; and Shim and Koh, 1997) also enhance
the relevance of the study of the influence of self-image congruence upon purchase
intentions.

Hypotheses Development and Conceptual Framework

Research has shown that consumers tend to support brands and services whose
personalities closely match their own (Kassarjian, 1971; Sirgy, 1982; Batra et al., 1993;
Temporal, 2001; Kotler, 2003; and Wee, 2004), thus allowing them to express themselves
through the brands that they use (Dolich, 1969; Fournier, 1994; and Aaker, 1997). Wee
(2004) concurred by stating that consumers fulfill the need for identity through the
brands that they choose to support. This reinforces Grubb and Grathwohls (1967, p. 22)
conclusion that self-congruity, links the psychological construct of an individuals
self concept with the symbolic value of goods purchased in the marketplace. Literature
shows that there is a positive relationship between self-congruity and brand choice/
preference, purchasing and repurchasing decisions, and post-purchase attitudes such as
satisfaction and brand loyalty (Birdwell, 1968; Dolich, 1969; Sirgy, 1982; Sirgy and Samli,
1985; Ericksen, 1996; Graeff, 1996; Sirgy et al., 1997; and Back, 2005).
Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy

11

This research brings together two important areas that have been shown to be useful
in business and marketing applications: brand personality and congruence. Moreover,
marketing professionals will be provided information that may be useful in designing
marketing strategies to maximize the leverage that a well-established brand personality
provides. When the personalities of the brand and the customer are congruent, the
chances of a brand to succeed increase markedly (Temporal, 2001).
Therefore for the purpose of this research the main hypotheses are:
H1: Consumers will favor advertisements of brands (in terms of attitude towards the ad,
attitude towards the brand and purchase intention) with a personality congruent with
their (ideal) self concept.
H2: The higher the perceived degree of self-image and product brand personality congruity,
the more positive is the attitude towards the advertisement.
H3: The higher the perceived degree of self-image and product-brand personality congruity,
the more positive is the attitude towards the brand.
H4: The higher the perceived degree of self-image and product brand personality congruity,
the more likely is the purchase intention toward the brand.

Methodology
The process that produced the scale in this study involves a sequence of steps consistent
with conventional guidelines for scale development (Churchill, 1979; and Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988). Content validity was established by evaluating the items for conformity
to the theoretical definitions and for redundancy.

Brand Personality Measures (BP)

After a thorough review of the literature and on the basis of the previously established
definitions, two types of brand personality measures were found to exist in the literature:
general scales (i.e., those taken directly from personality psychology without validation for
brands; such as Neo-PI, MBTI and Big Five) and brand-specific measures. Only a few
studies have specifically developed measures for brand personality, including Aaker (1997)
(Figure 1). She proposes a five-dimensional scale, including sincerity (inclusive of downto-earth, honest, wholesome, and cheerful), excitement (daring, spirited, imaginative, and
up-to-date), competence (reliable, intelligent, and successful), sophistication (upper class
and charming) and ruggedness (outdoorsy and tough).

Attitude Towards the Advertisement (ATD)

Subjects ATD score was derived from an average of their ratings on five 7-point scales:
good/bad, like/dislike, interesting/boring, creative/uncreative and informative
uninformative. These scales, which include both affective and evaluative content, were
selected based on a review of existing research (e.g., Gardner, 1985; MacKenzie et al., 1986;
and Beihal et al., 1992).
12

The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010

Figure 1: Conceptual Model

Attitude
Towards the ad
Sincerity

Competence
BPC

Purchase Intention

Ruggedness

Excitement

Sophistication

Attitude Towards
the Brand

Attitude Towards the Brand (ATB)

Subjects overall attitude towards the brand score was obtained from average ratings on
four 7-point scales (bad/good, dislike quite a lot/like quite a lot, unpleasant/pleasant and
poor quality/good quality). Scale items were taken from existing research (e.g., Gardner
1985; Mitchell 1986; and Beihal et al., 1992).

Purchase Intention (PI)

Behavioral intentions were measured by four positive actions suggested by Vezina and Paul
(1997) to search information about the brand, to visit a store, to buy that brand and to
initiate positive word-of-mouth or recommend the brand.
Principal components analysis with varimax rotation was performed to identify the
factors of brand personality. Factor analysis is intended to classify a set of variables in
terms of a smaller number of theoretical variables or to explore underlying dimensions
(Kim and Mueller, 1978).
In the next step, internal consistency analysis was used for achieving reliability in the
scale based on exploratory factor analysis. Cronbachs Alpha, a traditional technique for
assessing reliabilities for each factor (Carmines and Zeller, 1979) was used. For internal
consistency, it was determined that reliabilities should not be below 0.6 (Churchill, 1979).
After the testing of instrument, the researchers were left with 20 items distributed equally
along the four dimensions of brand equity.

Data Collection
For the purpose of this study, a sample of 250 respondents were chosen. The sample
consisted of undergraduate as well as postgraduate students in North India, specifically in
Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy

13

New Delhi and National Capital Region (NCR). Some researchers have argued that the
use of student subjects in measurement/scale development research threatens the external
validity and generalizability of findings due to the non-representativeness and distinctive
characteristics of the population (e.g., Burnett and Dunne, 1986; and Wells, 1993).
However, the use of students as respondents in academic research is acceptable and
even desirable in many cases mostly when they constitute the major consumer segment
for the selected product (Yoo et al., 2000). More importantly, students are deemed
acceptable for theory testing research in which the multivariate relationships among
constructs, not the univariate differences (i.e., mean score comparisons) between samples,
are being investigated (Calder et al., 1981). In total, 223 questionnaires were deemed to
be useable for the final data analysis, which is well above the critical sample size of 200
multivariate analysis (Hair et al., 2003).
The data collection procedure involved a questionnaire organized around the following
themes. The first part of the questionnaire involved eliciting the level of involvement of
the respondent with respect to clothing. Scale items were taken from a study by Biehal
et al., (1992) and include statements like: Does clothing represent a way to express your
values and personality?(functional) and Do you regard clothing as a source of pleasure
or a way to indulge yourself? (hedonist) to assess the overall importance of fashion and
lifestyle product in the respondents life.
The second part of the questionnaire included a 42-item brand personality scale on
which respondents provided evaluations on 15 brands. The selection of these brands was
based on preliminary content analyses of their advertisements to ensure that they would
possess the required characteristics.
The self concept and BPC was measured with an adaptation of the method suggested
by Sirgy et al. (1997). In contrast to the more traditional measures, the global approach
requires the subject to first describe the brand user profile and then state directly the
congruence or consistency between the brand user profile and his (ideal) self concept.
On the survey instrument, respondents were asked to rate 15 fashion and lifestyle brands
on a 7-point scale of agreement-disagreement, rather than the 5-point response scale
employed by Yoo et al. (2000). The reason for using an interval scale is that it permits the
researchers to use a variety of statistical techniques which can be applied to nominal and
ordinal scale data in addition to the arithmetic mean, standard deviation, product-moment
correlations, and other statistics commonly used in marketing research (Malhotra, 2004).
The last section of the questionnaire contained items to measure the overall attitude
towards the ad (four items), attitude towards the brand (four items) and behavioral
intentions (four items).

Analysis and Interpretation

The design of the study assured independent and random responses. However, the scale
items were tested according to their distributional characteristics. Exploratory data
14

The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010

analysis was performed to weed out outliers and was examined for normality and kurtosis
in particular. None of the variables were found to have significant departure from
normality or pronounced kurtosis, and therefore all the variables were found suitable for
use. Some questionnaires were rejected as missing data was more than 75%.
The scale was refined initially through an iterative process of Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA) and reliability analysis. A total of five factors emerged after the refinement
round. EFA was done by using SPSS Statistics 17.0. The principal component analysis was
employed for extraction and Varimax method with Kaiser normalization was used for
rotation. The rotation converged in 21 iterations. The Bartletts test of sphericity was
significant and the Kaiser Meyer Olkin(KMO) measure of sample adequacy was found to
be 0.923. Researchers argue that for this measure, a value greater than 0.5 is desirable
(Malhotra, 2004). Therefore, it is concluded that factor analysis can be employed on the
data for analyzing the correlation matrix. Out of the 42 items employed, four were dropped
as their loadings were not significant (Table 2).
Table 2: Results of Factor Analysis
Items (Dimension in
Aaker Scale) (n = 223)

Factor 3
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 4
Factor 5
(Excitement) (Competence) (Sophistication) (Sincerity) (Ruggedness)

Young (Excitement)

0.749

Trendy (Excitement)

0.724

Cool (Excitement)

0.752

Exciting (Excitement)

0.740

Imaginative (Excitement)

0.738

Spirited (Excitement)

0.722

Up-to-date (Excitement)

0.675

Cheerful (Sincerity)

0.325

Daring (Excitement)

0.560

Unique (Excitement)

0.544

0.457
0.627
0.368

Successful (Competence)

0.701

Leader (Competence)

0.699

Intelligent (Competence)

0.660

Reliable (Competence)

0.663

Secure (Competence)

0.647

Contemporary (Excitement)

0.692

Confident (Competence)
Independent (Excitement)
Hard-working (Competence)

0.491

0.392
0.383

0.550
0.363

0.538
0.503

Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy

15

Table 2 (Cont.)
Items (Dimension in
Aaker Scale) (n = 223)

Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5
(Excitement) (Competence) (Sophistication) (Sincerity) (Ruggedness)

Glamorous (Sophistication)

0.831

Upper class (Sophistication)

0.824

Feminine (Sophistication)

0.718

Charming (Sophistication)

0.350

0.714

Smooth (Sophistication)

0.690

Good-looking (Sophistication)

0.441

0.663

Sentimental (Sincerity)

0.384

0.396

0.669

Sincere (Sincerity)

0.393

0.740

Honest (Sincerity)

0.389

0.739

Family-oriented (Sincerity)

0.684

Real (Sincerity)

0.351

0.655

Down-to-earth (Sincerity)

0.602

Original (Sincerity)

0.602

Wholesome (Sincerity)

0.599

Friendly (Sincerity)

0.405

0.680

Tough (Ruggedness)

0.811

Rugged (Ruggedness)

0.754

Masculine (Ruggedness)

0.655

Western/Adventurous
(Ruggedness)

0.408

0.658

Eigenvalue

7.012

5.348

Variance Explained

18.135%

12.443%

12.187%

11.043%

Cronbachs Alpha

0.906

0.893

0.827

0.839

5.01

4.196

2.575
6.776%
0.784

Analysis of tlhe respondents profile revealed that most of them were in the age group
of 21-26 and males outnumbered the females in terms of sheer number. Analysis by gender
reveals that 67% of the respondents were young males while the remaining 33% were
females. None of the respondents were married and most of them had considerable
purchasing power.
Analyses of the responses involving the elicitation of the level of involvement of the
respondent with respect to clothing revealed that most of the respondents bought fashion
and lifestyle products as these represent a way to express their values and personality and
also a majority overwhelmingly believe that fashion and lifestyle products are a source of
pleasure or a way to indulge themselves (hedonist). Overall fashion and lifestyle products
were found to be hugely important in the respondents life.
16

The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010

This is in keeping with the fact that most of the respondents are at that stage in a
life cycle where brands and products which have a self-expressive benefit are patronized.
Consumers view the brand as an extension of self and hence purchase products and brands
in conformance with their image.
Analysis of the brand personality dimensions reveal certain interesting facts. Brands
such as Monte Carlo and J Hampstead score highly on sincerity, sophistication and
competence and can be termed brands which are simple, caring and helpful while being
reliable, persevering and emotional at the same time (Table 3).
Table 3: Brand Personality Scores
Brand

Sincerity

Excitement

Competence

Sophistication

Ruggedness

Monte Carlo

3.55 (0.61)

3.08 (0.77)

3.19 (0.67)

3.43 (0.83)

2.58 (0.69)

Lee Cooper

2.08 (0.51)

3.59 (0.77)

2.82 (0.62)

2.94 (0.86)

3.41 (0.76)

Allen Solly

3.21 (0.57)

2.77 (0.75)

3.63 (0.71)

3.69 (0.72)

2.44 (0.76)

Woodland

2.97 (0.68)

3.47 (0.70)

2.95 (0.70)

2.63 (0.67)

3.27 (0.61)

J Hampstead

3.49 (0.97)

3.14 (0.92)

3.34 (0.77)

3.24 (0.75)

2.14 (0.66)

Wrangler

2.70 (0.66)

3.53 (0.76)

2.61 (0.78)

2.98 (0.81)

3.09 (0.60)

Bare Casuals

3.03 (0.63)

2.86 (0.65)

3.17 (0.70)

2.66 (0.89)

2.77 (0.78)

Van Heusen

2.44 (0.57)

3.65 (0.69)

3.44 (0.68)

3.67 (0.80)

1.80 (0.82)

Red Tape

2.91 (0.53)

3.51 (0.57)

3.18 (0.73)

3.18 (0.82)

3.39 (0.58)

Numero Uno

2.90 (0.72)

2.61 (0.70)

2.43 (0.66)

2.57 (0.88)

2.91 (0.72)

Arrow

2.97 (0.68)

3.47 (0.70)

3.19 (0.69)

3.67 (0.80)

2.23 (0.88)

Killer

2.34 (0.51)

3.90 (0.70)

2.63 (0.64)

2.90 (0.83)

3.53 (0.88)

Levis

2.55 (0.61)

3.58 (0.77)

2.79 (0.67)

2.93 (0.83)

3.48 (0.69)

Raymonds

3.52 (0.79)

3.65 (0.76)

3.48 (0.78)

3.93 (0.69)

2.98 (0.77)

Provogue

2.78 (0.78)

3.500 (0.57)

3.01 (0.67)

2.95 (0.72)

2.99 (0.85)

Brands such as Killer, Levis, and Lee-Cooper are rated as highly exciting and rugged
brands with an outdoorsy image. They can be termed as adventurous, active, outgoing and
cool while at the same time being rugged.
Allen Solly, Arrow and Raymonds are highly rated in terms of sophistication which
is perhaps due to the positioning that they have built over the years. These brands have
tremendous inspirational appeal.
Finally, Raymonds as a brand stands apart from the pack on all dimensions except
ruggedness. This is understandable as the research indicated that men did not really aspire
to be muscle rippling superstuds.
Accordingly, the Raymonds man was developedas someone more believable and fleshed
out than the standard cardboard cutouts of yore. But portraying a caring man was a revolution
in Indian advertising. Research has revealed that even though the sensibly sensitive and
Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy

17

emotional Raymonds man was strikingly apart from his more traditional Indian
counterpart, yet it succeeded in awakening the aspirations of millions of Indian males, who
acceded to evolve and explore these ambiguous and hidden aspects of his personality.
The reason why the brand is rated so high on all the dimensions can be credited to
the advertising strategy of the brand. The typical Indian male, even the well-educated
one, may not be the idealized person depicted by the campaign. But what is important is
that the brand and the advertisement gave wings to their aspirations. The brand has
tremendous aspirational appeal.
Analysis of congruency scores reveal that Lee Cooper, Levis and Raymonds have the
highest self congruence score and they are also the most valuable brands (Table 4).
Purchase intentions were the highest for Levis while Lee Cooper obtained the highest
attitude toward the ad score probably due to its print ad that connects with the youth.
Table 4: Attitudinal Dimensions of the Advertising Effectiveness
Brand

Brand Personality Attitude Toward

Congruence (BPC) the Ad (ATD)
(Mean on a
(Mean on a
1 to 5 Scale)
1 to 7 Scale)

Attitude Toward
the Brand (ATB)
(Mean on a
1 to 5 Scale)

Purchase
Intention (PI)
(Mean on a
1 to 5 Scale)

Monte Carlo

4.21

3.05

2.72

3.41

Lee Cooper

6.14

3.58

4.03

4.42

Allen Solly

4.73

3.15

3.92

4.01

Woodland

4. 18

3.79

3.67

4.21

J Hampstead

4.59

2.89

3.23

3.96

Wrangler

4.75

2.95

3.41

4.11

Bare Casuals

4.96

2.93

3.11

3.95

Van Heusen

5.26

3.10

3.42

4.12

Red Tape

5.14

2.87

3.39

4.32

Numero Uno

4.17

3.07

2.95

3.89

Arrow

4.67

3.32

3.23

4.26

Killer

5.36

3.23

3.51

4.57

Levis

5.94

3.42

3.92

4.68

Raymonds

6.04

3.50

4.12

4.41

Provogue

4.59

3.16

3.47

4.15

The most preferred brand was Raymonds probably owing to its heritage and the
fabulous advertising campaign that it has run over the years, which in turn has been able
to build brand preference.
Purchase intentions were highest for Levis and the probable reason why Raymonds
is a close second could be that the segment surveyed frequently buys jeans and casual wear
in comparison to suitings (product utility and need motive).
18

The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010

In line with the hypothized relationship (H1 to H4); significant positive correlations
between self concept and BPC and advertising response measures were found (Table 5).
Table 5: Correlation Coefficients Between Self-Congruency
and Advertising Response Measures
Brand

Self-Congruency
vs
ATD

Self-Congruency
vs
ATB

Self-Congruency
vs
PI

Monte Carlo

0.38

0.43*

0.54*

Lee Cooper

0.56*

0.72**

0.79**

Allen Solly

0.54*

0.63*

0.47**

Woodland

n.s

0.56*

0.53

J Hampstead

0.42**

0.54

0.49**

0.52**

0.48*

Wrangler

n.s.

Bare Casuals

0.56**

0.53**

0.63

Van Heusen

0.45*

0.37*

0.49**

Red Tape

n.s

0.65**

0.63**

Numero Uno

0.56*

0.60*

0.45**

Arrow

0.58*

0.59**

0.71**

Killer

0.62**

0.65*

0.54**

Levis

0.68**

0.78**

0.75**

Raymonds

0.79**

0.73**

0.75**

Provogue

0.55**

0.54

0.55

Note: Advertising response measure: Self-congruency; * p < 0.050; ** p < 0.010; *** p < 0.001; and
n.s. is not significant.

Conclusion
The results indicate the predictive power of consumer personality on brand preferences.
The results are consistent with research findings that consumers use brands to express
their actual personality.
Advertisement is inevitable to marketing as it deploys creativity, imagination,
ingenuity, chimera all rolled into one to communicate the information, and is thus a very
unique and an effective medium. Understanding of the brand personality, an area with
significant and far-reaching consequences yet an area less traversed, is inevitable and
crucial to any marketer. Hence, understanding the implications of the advertising
strategies in building brand personality and user congruity is essential in todays marketing
research.
The present research has emphasized the key attributes that customers deem important
and which facilitates self-congruity with the brands personality, thus increasing the
Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy

19

probability of being chosen by the customer (Kassarjian, 1971; Sirgy, 1982; Aaker, 1999;
Kotler, 2003; and Wee, 2004). It has also provided supporting evidence for a brand
personality congruence effect. This study contributes to the research on brand attachment
by investigating brand personality congruence as a determinant of product attachment
and consumers purchase decision.
From the brand building point of view, the results should help the understanding of
antecedents and consequences of brand personality dispensation, as proposed in several
branding models (Kapferer, 1991; Blackston, 1993 and 1995; Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1996;
and Fournier, 1998). Further these findings provide useful insights for brand managers in
promoting brand personalities that are relevant to their target audience.

Bibliography
1. Aaker D A (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name,
The Free Press, New York.
2. Aaker D (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York.
3. Aaker J L (1997), Dimensions of Brand Personality, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 347-356.
4. Aaker J L (1999), The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 45-57.
5. Aaker J L and Schmitt B (2001), Culture-Dependent Assimilation and Differentiation
of the Self: Preference for Consumption Symbols in the United Sates and China,
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32, September, pp. 561-576.
6. Anderson J C and Gerbing D W (1988), Structuring Equation Modeling in Practice:
A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103,
No. 3, pp. 411-423.
7. Azevedo Antonio (2005), Clothing Branding Strategies: Influence of Brand
Personality on Advertising Response, Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and
Management, Vol. 4, No. 3, Spring.
8. Back Ki-Joon (2005), The Effects of Image Congruence on Customers, Brand
Loyalty in the Upper Middle-Class Hotel Industry, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, Vol. 29, NO. 4, p. 448.
9. Batra R, Lehmann D and Singh D (1993), The Brand Personality Component of
Brand Goodwill: Some Antecedents and Consequences, in D Aaker and B L
Alexander (Eds.), Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertisings Role in Building Strong
Brands, pp. 83-95, Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers, Hillsdale, New Jersy.
10. Beckman S (2002), Managing Consumer-Brand Relationship: An Introduction in
the Lovemark Concept, 31st EMAC Conference Proceedings, 2002, Minho
Universitty, Braga, Portugal.
20

The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010

11. Belleau B D, Didier J T and LaMotte L (1992), College Students Attitudes Toward
Apparel and the Media, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 74 No. 3, Pt. 2, Special Issue,
pp. 1183-1192.
12. Biehal B, Stephens D and Curlo E (1992), Attitude Toward the Ad and Brand
Choice, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 19-36.
13. Biel A L (1997), Discovering Brand Magic: The Hardness of the Softer Side of
Branding, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 199-210.
14. Birdwell A (1968), A Study of Influence of Image Congruence on Consumer Choice,
Journal of Business, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 76-88.
15. Blackston M (1993), Beyond Brand Personality: Building Brand Relationships, in
D A Aaker and A Biel (Eds.), Brand Equity & Advertising: Advertisings Role in Building
Strong Brands, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 113-124, Hilsdale, New Jersey.
16. Blackston M (1995), The Qualitative Dimension of Brand Equity, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. RC-2-RC-7.
17. Brassington F and Pettitt S (2000), Principles of Marketing, 2nd Edition, Printice Hall,
Harlow, UK.
18. Burnett J J and Dunne P M (1986), An Appraisal of the Use of Student Subjects in
Marketing Research, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 29-43.
19. Calder B J, Philips L W and Tybout A M (1981), Designing Research for
Application, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, September, pp. 197-207.
20. Carmines E G and Richard A Zeller (1979), Reliability and Validity Assessment, Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
21. Churchill G A (1979), A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 64-73.
22. Cobb-Walgren C J, Ruble C A and Donthu N (1995), Brand Equity, Brand
Preference, and Purchase Intent, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 25-40.
23. Dolich I (1969), Congruence Relationships Between Self-Images and Product
Brands, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. VI, February, pp. 80-84.
24. Elliott R (1994), Exploring the Symbolic Meaning of Brands, British Journal of
Management, No. 5, Special Issue, pp. S13-S19.
25. Escalas J E and Bettman J R (2005), Self-Construal, Reference Groups and Brand
Meaning, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32, December, pp. 378-389.
26. Ericksen M K (1996), Using Self-Congruity and Ideal Congruity to Predict Purchase
Intention: A European Perspective, Journal of Euromarketing, Vol. 1, No. 6,
pp. 41-56.
Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy

21

27. Fournier S (1994), A Consumer-Brand Relationship Framework for Strategic Brand

Management, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
28. Fournier S (1998), Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory
in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 343-373.
29. Freling T H and Forbes L P (2005), An Empirical Analysis of the Brand Personality
Effect, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 14, No. 7, pp. 404-413.
30. Gardner Meryl Paula (1985), Does Attitude to the Ad Affect Brand Attitude Under
a Brand Evaluation Set?, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22, May, pp. 192-198.
31. Graeff T R (1996), Image Congruence Effects on Product Evaluations: The Role of
Self-Monitoring and Public/Private Consumption, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 13
No. 5, pp. 481-499.
32. Grubb E and Grathwohl H (1967), Consumer Self-Concept and Significant Others,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 382-385.
33. Hair J F Jr., Anderson R E, Tatham R L and Black W C (2003), Multivariate Data
Analysis, 5th Edition, Pearson Education India, New Delhi.
34. Johar J S and Sirgy M J (1991), Value-Expressive Versus Utilitarian Advertising
Appeals: When and Why to Use Which Appeal, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20,
No. 3, pp. 23-33.
35. Jung C (1921/1971), Psychological Types, Routledge and Keegan Paul Ltd., London.
36. Kapferer J (1991), Les marques capital de lentreprise, Les Editions dOrganization, Paris.
37. Kassarjian H (1971), Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 8, November, pp. 409-418.
38. Keller K L (1993), Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based
Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.
39. Keller K L (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand
Equity, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
40. Kim J and Mueller C (1978), Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical
Issues, in M S Lewis-Beck (Eds.), Factor Analysis and Related Techniques, Sage, London.
41. Kotler P (2003), Marketing Management , 11th Edition, Pearson Education (Singapore)
Pte. Ltd., Delhi, India.
42. MacKenzie S, Lutz R J and Belch G E (1986), The Role of Attitude Towards the Ad
as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, pp. 242-252.
43. Malhotra N K (2004), Marketing Research, 4th Edition, Pearson Education India, New
Delhi.
22

The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010

44. Marconi J (2000), The Brand Marketing Book: Creating, Managing, and Extending the Value
of Your Brand, NTC Business Books, Lincolnwood, IL.
45. McCrae R R and Costa P T Jr. (1987), Validation of the Five-Factor Model of
Personality Across Instruments and Observers, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 81-90.
46. Meenaghan T (1995), The Role of Advertising in Brand Image Development,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 23-34.
47. Mehta A (1994), How Advertising Response Modelling (ARM) Can Increase Ad
Effectiveness, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 62-74.
48. Mitchell Andrew A (1986), The Effect of Verbal and Visual Components of
Advertisements on Brand Attitudes and Attitude Toward the Advertisement,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, June, pp. 12-24.
49. Onkvisit S and Shaw J (1987), Self-Concept and Image Congruence: Some Research
and Managerial Implications, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 13-23.
50. Pervin L and John O (2001), Personality: Theory and Research, John Wiley & Sons Inc.,
New York.
51. Redenbach A (2000), A Multiple Product Endorser Can Be a Credible Source, The
Cyber- Journal of Sport Marketing, pp. 1-10, available at http://www.cjsm.com/Vol3/
redenbach31.htm
52. Rosenberg M (1979), Conceiving the Self, Basic Books, New York.
53. Rossiter J R and Percy L (1987), Advertising and Promotion Management, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York.
54. Shim S and Koh A (1997), Profiling Adolescent Consumer Decision Making Styles:
Effects of Socialization Agents and Social Structural Variables, Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 50-59.
55. Sirgy J and Su C (2000), Destination Image, Self-Congruity, and Travel Behavior:
Toward and Integrative Model, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38, pp. 340-352.
56. Sirgy J M (1982), Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 287-300.
57. Siguaw J A, Mattila A and Austin J R (1999), The Brand-Personality Scale: An
Application for Restaurants (Focus on Food Service), Cornell Hotel & Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 48-55.
58. Sirgy M and Samli A (1985), A Path Analytic Model of Store Loyalty Involving SelfConcept, Store Image, Geographic Loyalty and Socioeconomic Status, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 265-291.
Brand Personality and Consumer Congruity: Implications for Advertising Strategy

23

59. Sirgy M J, Grewal D, Mangleburg T F et al. (1997), Assessing the Predictive Validity
of Two Methods of Measuring Self-Image Congruence, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 229-241.
60. Temporal P (2001), Branding in Asia: The Creation, Development and Management of Asian
Brands for the Global Market, John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd., Singapore.
61. Thomas J B, Cassill N L and Forsythe S M (1991), Underlying Dimensions of
Apparel Iinvolvement in Consumers Purchase Decisions, Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 45-48.
62. Wee T T T (2004), Extending Human Personality to Brands: The Stability Factor,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11, April, pp. 317-330.
63. Wells W D (1993), Discovery Oriented Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 19, pp. 489-504.
64. Veryzer R W (1995), The Place of Product Design and Aesthetics in Consumer
Research, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, pp. 641-645.
65. Vezina R and Paul O (1997), Provocation in Advertising: A Conceptualization and
An Empirical Assessment, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14,
No. 2, pp. 177-192.
66. Yoo B, Donthu N and Lee S (2000), An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix
Elements and Brand Equity, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, No. 2,
pp. 195-211.
Reference # 25J-2010-03/06-01-01

24

The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010

Copyright of IUP Journal of Brand Management is the property of IUP Publications and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.