Pakistan's Beverages Industry in Focus

PAKISTAN’S BEVERAGES INDUSTRY IN FOCUS

CONGRUENCE, SATISFACTION AND COMMITMENT WITH BRAND

PERSONALITY LEADS TO ENHANCED BRAND LOYALTY

Students of Methods of Business Research, Spring 2014

Program

BACHELORS OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Spring 2014

National University of Computer & Emerging Sciences

Management Science Department,

Karachi Campus

This study is done by the students of fast university, Pakistan.

1. Zulqurnan [email protected]

2. Khurram Shahzad [email protected]

3. Hashim Iftikhar [email protected]

4. Kunal Kumar [email protected]

5. Faisal Shamim [email protected]

6. Zaib Un Nisa Murad [email protected]

7. Samiya Yousaf [email protected]

8. Naresh Lohana [email protected]

9. Mohsin Ahmed [email protected]

10. Asra Tariq [email protected]

11. Noman Ali [email protected]

Acknowledgement

Firstly, we would like to thank Allah, the merciful, for providing us the strength, courage, direction and skills to learn, acquire knowledge and the ability to accept and meet challenges.

We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to Mr. Amir Adam for providing us his precious time, guidance and instructions. We are also thankful to our parents who accommodated us during those long hours of work in our project development. We hope the efforts that we have put in would be fruitful for the students to come in FAST after us. Once again we are thankful to all people who have been involved in this report directly or indirectly.

iii

Table of Contents Acknowledgement ...... iii Executive Summary ...... xvii Chapter 1: Introduction...... 1 1.1 Background of Thesis: Area of Research ...... 1 Pakistan Beverage Industry ...... 1 Coca Cola ...... 2 Pepsi Co ...... 2 Gourmet ...... 3 1.2 Problem Statement ...... 4 1.3 Research Question ...... 5 1.4 Objectives of the Study ...... 6 1.4.1 Broad Objective of the Study ...... 6 1.4.2 Specific Objectives ...... 7 1.5 Issues and Gap in Literature and the Study’s Significance ...... 7 1.5.1 Issues and Gap in Literature...... 7 1.5.2 Significance of the Thesis ...... 10 1.6 Contribution of Thesis in Three Context ...... 11 1.6.1 Contribution of the Thesis towards Theory and Literature ...... 11 1.6.2 Contribution of Thesis in the Context of Research ...... 11 1.6.3 Contribution of the Thesis in the Context of the Objective ...... 13 1.7 Conceptual Definitions ...... 14 1.7.1 Brand ...... 14 1.7.2 Congruence with Brand Personality ...... 18 1.7.3 Satisfaction with the Brand Personality ...... 20 1.7.4 Commitment with Brand Personality ...... 21 1.7.5 Brand Personality ...... 22 1.7.6 Brand Loyalty ...... 23 1.8 Structure of the Thesis ...... 24 Chapter 2:Literature Review ...... 25 2.1Introduction ...... 25 2.1.1Brand ...... 25

2.1.2What is Brand? ...... 25 2.1.3Formation of Brand ...... 26 2.1.4 Branding ...... 27 2.1.5 Brand Identity ...... 27 2.1.6 Brand Image ...... 28 2.1.7 Brand Equity ...... 28 2.2 Context of the Research ...... 29 2.2.1 Beverage Industry in Pakistan ...... 31 2.2.2 Pepsi ...... 32 2.2.3 Coca-Cola ...... 34 2.2.4 Gourmet: ...... 36 2.3 Brand personality ...... 40 2.3.1 Dimension of Brand Personality: ...... 48 2.3.2 Concept of Brand Personality: ...... 55 2.3.3 The Creation of Brand Personality ...... 55 2.3.4 Importance of Brand Personality ...... 56 2.3.5 Consequences of Brand Personality ...... 58 2.3.6 Effect of Brand Personality on Consumer Brand Preferences: ...... 60 2.3.7 Brand Personality Affects Leads to High and Low Involvement Products: ...... 61 2.3.8 Brand Personality’s Influence on the Purchase Intention: ...... 63 2.3.9 Micro vs. Macro Approaches to Brand Personality ...... 64 2.3.10 Brand Personality Scale ...... 68 2.3.11 Structure of the Brand Personality Measurement Scale ...... 72 2.3.12 Brand Commitment: ...... 74 2.3.13Brand Attachment:...... 75 2.3.14Brand Trust: ...... 75 2.4 Studies on Congruence with Brand Personality ...... 76 2.4.1 Major causes of strong Congruence and personality with the brand: ...... 85 2.4.2 Congruence: A Crucial Variable in Marketing Congruence between Brand Personality and Self- image...... 86 2.5 Studies on Commitment with Brand Personality ...... 89 2.5.1 Building commitment of consumers with new products ...... 101 2.5.2 Failure of new products with context to commitment ...... 102

2.5.3 Commitment with organizational citizenship behavior: ...... 102 2.5.4 Brand Commitment and Loyalty: ...... 104 2.5.5 The Importance of Commitment for a Certain Firm ...... 110 2.5.6 Commitment as Multidimensional Construct ...... 112 2.5.7 Affective, Normative and Continuance Commitment ...... 113 2.5.8 Commitment in Business Relationships ...... 114 2.5.9 Commitment’s Central Role: ...... 117 2.6 Studies on Satisfaction on Brand Personality ...... 118 2.7 Brand Loyalty ...... 139 2.7.1 Brand Loyalty with Celebrity Endorsement Model ...... 162 2.7.2 Brand loyalty with Reference Group Theory ...... 165 2.8 Conceptual Framework ...... 174 2.9 Hypothesis ...... 176 2.9.1 Hypothesis on Congruence with Brand Personality ...... 176 2.9.2 Hypothesis on Satisfaction with Brand Personality ...... 176 2.9.3 Hypothesis on Commitment with Brand Personality ...... 176 2.9.4 Hypothesis on Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty ...... 176 2.9.5 Hypothesis on Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty ...... 177 2.9.6 Hypothesis on Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty ...... 177 2.9.7 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Congruence and Satisfaction ...... 177 2.9.8 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Commitment and Satisfaction ...... 177 2.9.9 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Congruence and Commitment ...... 178 2.10 Literature Gap and Justification of the Study ...... 178 Chapter 3:Research Methodology ...... 180 3.1 Introduction ...... 180 3.1.1 Why Do We Need a Methodology ...... 180 3.2 Research Methodology ...... 181 3.3 Research Design ...... 182 3.3.1 Research Philosophy ...... 183 3.3.2 Research Approaches ...... 184 3.3.3 Research Strategy ...... 185 3.3.4 Time Horizons ...... 185 3.3.5 Research Choices ...... 185

3.3.6 Research Technique and Procedure ...... 186 3.4 Population ...... 186 3.5 Sample Size ...... 187 3.6 Sampling Techniques ...... 187 3.7 Data Collection Procedure ...... 188 3.8 Scale Development ...... 189 3.8.1 Definition of Scale ...... 189 3.8.2 Congruence (self with brand) Scale ...... 191 3.8.3 Commitment to the Brand Scale ...... 192 3.8.4 Satisfaction Scale ...... 194 3.8.5 Loyalty Scale ...... 196 3.8.6 Brand Personality Scale ...... 197 3.9 Data Collection Methods ...... 200 3.10 Correlation Analysis ...... 201 3.11 Regression Analysis ...... 201 3.11.1 Multiple Regressions ...... 203 Chapter 4:Data Analysis and Interpretations ...... 204 4.1 Demographic Analysis ...... 204 4.1.1 Gender ...... 204 4.1.2 Age ...... 207 4.1.3 Professions ...... 210 4.1.4 Preferred Brand ...... 213 4.2 Hypothesis Analysis ...... 214 4.2.1 Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality ...... 214 4.2.2 Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality ...... 216 4.2.3 Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality ...... 218 4.2.4 Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear Regression) ...... 220 4.2.5 Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) ...... 224 4.2.6 Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) ...... 229 4.2.7 Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction ...... 233 4.2.8 Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment ...... 236 4.2.9 Correlation between Congruence and Commitment ...... 239

vii

Chapter 5:Conclusion andImplications ...... 242 5.1 Conclusion ...... 242 5.1.1Pepsi ...... 242 5.1.2Coca Cola ...... 245 5.1.3Gourmet ...... 246 5.2 Limitations and Future Line of Research ...... 248 References ...... 249 Appendix ...... 275 AppendixA: Questionnaire ...... 275 Appendix B: Pearson’s r Correlation ...... 278 Appendix C: WEB Analysis...... 279 Appendix D: SPSS Code Book ...... 285 Pepsi ...... 285 Coca Cola ...... 338 Gourmet Cola ...... 392 Appendix E: Brand Image ...... 446 Pepsi Cola ...... 446 Coca Cola ...... 447 Gourmet Cola ...... 448

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Overview of Different Brand Personality Researches ...... 69 Table 2: Brand Personality Scale Proposed by: (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, & Florence, 2004) ...... 71 Table 3: Brand Personality Scale ...... 73 Table 4: Repeat Purchase Possibility ...... 172 Table 5: Brand Personality Scale Proposed by (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, & Florence, 2004) ...... 199 Table 6: Total Number of Respondents ...... 204 Table 7: Gender (Frequency) - Pepsi ...... 204 Table 8: Gender (Frequency) - Coca Cola ...... 205 Table 9: Gender (Frequency) - Gourmet ...... 206 Table 10: Age Distribution of Respondents ...... 207 Table 11: Age (Frequency) - Pepsi ...... 207 Table 12: Age (Frequency) - Coca Cola ...... 208 Table 13: Age (Frequency) - Gourmet ...... 209 Table 14: Profession Distribution of Respondents...... 210 Table 15: Profession (Frequency) - Pepsi ...... 210 Table 16: Profession (Frequency) - Coca Cola ...... 211 Table 17: Profession (Frequency) - Gourmet ...... 212 Table 18: Preferred Brand ...... 213 Table 19: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Pepsi ...... 214 Table 20: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Coca Cola ...... 215 Table 21: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Gourmet ...... 215 Table 22: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Pepsi ...... 216 Table 23: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Coca Cola ...... 217 Table 24: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Gourmet ...... 217 Table 25: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Pepsi ...... 218 Table 26: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Coca Cola ...... 219 Table 27: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Gourmet ...... 219 Table 28: Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Pepsi220 Table 29: Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Coca Cola ...... 221 Table 30: Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Gourmet ...... 222 Table 31: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Pepsi 224 Table 32: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Coca Cola ...... 225 Table 33: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Gourmet ...... 227 Table 34: Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Pepsi ...... 229 Table 35: Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Coca Cola ...... 230

Table 36: Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Gourmet ...... 231 Table 37: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Pepsi ...... 233 Table 38: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Coca Cola ...... 234 Table 39: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Gourmet...... 235 Table 40: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Pepsi ...... 236 Table 41: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Coca Cola ...... 237 Table 42: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Gourmet ...... 238 Table 43: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Pepsi ...... 239 Table 44: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Coca Cola ...... 240 Table 45: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Gourmet ...... 241 Table 46: Overview Result of Rejection or Acceptance of all Three Brands ...... 242 Table 47: Estimates for Interpreting Strengths of Correlations ...... 278 Table 48: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Pepsi ...... 279 Table 49: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Coca Cola ...... 280 Table 50: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Gourmet ...... 281 Table 51: Gender ...... 285 Table 52: Age ...... 285 Table 53: Profession ...... 286 Table 54: Preferred Brand ...... 287 Table 55: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would like to be ...... 288 Table 56: I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand ...... 289 Table 57: I like to be known as a consumer of this brand...... 290 Table 58: This brand is the reflection of my ideal image ...... 291 Table 59: This brand is appealing to my actual image...... 292 Table 60: The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me...... 293 Table 61: I am attached to this brand ...... 294 Table 62: This brand brings me safety ...... 295 Table 63: I strongly relate myself to this brand ...... 296 Table 64: This brand is honest towards its client ...... 297 Table 65: Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy ...... 298 Table 66: I like this brand ...... 299 Table 67: I trust the quality of this brand ...... 300 Table 68: This brand tries to improve its response to consumer needs on an ongoing basis ...... 301 Table 69: This brand has a lot of meaning to me ...... 302 Table 70: This brand is sincere towards its consumer ...... 303 Table 71: I have lot of affection for this brand ...... 304 Table 72: Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brands ...... 305 Table 73: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands ...... 306 Table 74: It would be too costly for me to switch brands ...... 307 Table 75: I like this brand ...... 308 Table 76: This brand has a lot of meaning to me ...... 309 Table 77: I am strongly related to this brand ...... 310 Table 78: Brand Personality- Warm ...... 311

Table 79: Brand Personality- Pleasant ...... 312 Table 80: Brand Personality- Nice ...... 313 Table 81: Brand Personality- Imaginative ...... 314 Table 82: Brand Personality- Inventive ...... 315 Table 83: Brand Personality- Seductive ...... 316 Table 84: Brand Personality- Attractive ...... 317 Table 85: Brand Personality- Manipulative ...... 318 Table 86: Brand Personality- Showy ...... 319 Table 87: Brand Personality- Arrogant ...... 320 Table 88: Brand Personality- Hypocrite ...... 321 Table 89: Brand Personality- Deceptive ...... 322 Table 90: Brand Personality- Liar ...... 323 Table 91: Brand Personality- Trendy ...... 324 Table 92: Brand Personality- Modern ...... 325 Table 93: Brand Personality- Sophisticated ...... 326 Table 94: Brand Personality- Stylish ...... 327 Table 95: Brand Personality- Serious ...... 328 Table 96: Brand Personality- Strict ...... 329 Table 97: Brand Personality- Reserved ...... 330 Table 98: Brand Personality- Shy ...... 331 Table 99: I repeatedly purchase this brand ...... 332 Table 100: I prefer buying this brand over other colas ...... 333 Table 101: Only this brand comes to my mind when I think of purchasing colas ...... 334 Table 102: I recommend this brand those who ask my advice ...... 335 Table 103: I say positive things about this brand to other persons ...... 336 Table 104: I am pleased to buy this brand instead of other brands ...... 337 Table 105: Gender ...... 338 Table 106: Age ...... 339 Table 107: Profession ...... 340 Table 108: Which brand do you prefer the most? ...... 341 Table 109: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would like to be ...... 342 Table 110: I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand ...... 343 Table 111: I like to be known as a consumer of this brand ...... 344 Table 112: This brand is the reflection of my ideal image ...... 345 Table 113: This brand is appealing to my actual image...... 346 Table 114: The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me...... 347 Table 115: I am attached to this brand ...... 348 Table 116: This brand brings me safety ...... 349 Table 117: I strongly relate myself to this brand ...... 350 Table 118: This brand is honest towards its client ...... 351 Table 119: Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy ...... 352 Table 120: I like this brand ...... 353 Table 121: I trust the quality of this brand ...... 354 Table 122: This brand tries to improve its response to consumer needs on an ongoing basis ...... 355

Table 123: This brand has a lot of meaning to me ...... 356 Table 124: This brand is sincere towards its consumer ...... 357 Table 125: I have lot of affection for this brand ...... 358 Table 126: Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brands ...... 359 Table 127: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands ...... 360 Table 128: It would be too costly for me to switch brands ...... 361 Table 129: I like this brand ...... 362 Table 130: This brand has a lot of meaning to me ...... 363 Table 131: I am strongly related to this brand ...... 364 Table 132: Brand Personality- Warm ...... 365 Table 133: Brand Personality- Pleasant ...... 366 Table 134: Brand Personality- Nice ...... 367 Table 135: Brand Personality- Imaginative ...... 368 Table 136: Brand Personality- Inventive ...... 369 Table 137: Brand Personality- Seductive ...... 370 Table 138: Brand Personality- Attractive ...... 371 Table 139: Brand Personality- Manipulative ...... 372 Table 140: Brand Personality- Showy ...... 373 Table 141: Brand Personality- Arrogant ...... 374 Table 142: Brand Personality- Hypocrite ...... 375 Table 143: Brand Personality- Deceptive ...... 376 Table 144: Brand Personality- Liar ...... 377 Table 145: Brand Personality- Trendy ...... 378 Table 146: Brand Personality- Modern ...... 379 Table 147: Brand Personality- Sophisticated ...... 380 Table 148: Brand Personality- Stylish ...... 381 Table 149: Brand Personality- Serious ...... 382 Table 150: Brand Personality- Strict ...... 383 Table 151: Brand Personality- Reserved ...... 384 Table 152: Brand Personality- Shy ...... 385 Table 153: I repeatedly purchase this brand ...... 386 Table 154: I prefer buying this brand over other colas ...... 387 Table 155: Only this brand comes to my mind when I think of purchasing colas ...... 388 Table 156: I recommend this brand those who ask my advice ...... 389 Table 157: I say positive things about this brand to other persons ...... 390 Table 158: I am pleased to buy this brand instead of other brands ...... 391 Table 159: Gender ...... 392 Table 160: Age ...... 392 Table 161: Profession ...... 393 Table 162: Preferred Brand ...... 394 Table 163: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would like to be ...... 395 Table 164: I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand ...... 396 Table 165: I like to be known as a consumer of this brand ...... 397 Table 166: This brand is the reflection of my ideal image ...... 398

xii

Table 167: This brand is appealing to my actual image...... 399 Table 168: The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me...... 400 Table 169: I am attached to this brand ...... 401 Table 170: This brand brings me safety ...... 402 Table 171: I strongly relate myself to this brand ...... 403 Table 172: This brand is honest towards its client ...... 404 Table 173: Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy ...... 405 Table 174: I like this brand ...... 406 Table 175: I trust the quality of this brand ...... 407 Table 176: This brand tries to improve its response to consumer needs on an ongoing basis ...... 408 Table 177: This brand has a lot of meaning to me ...... 409 Table 178: This brand is sincere towards its consumer ...... 410 Table 179: I have lot of affection for this brand ...... 411 Table 180: Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brands ...... 412 Table 181l: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands ...... 413 Table 182: It would be too costly for me to switch brands ...... 414 Table 183: I like this brand ...... 415 Table 184: This brand has a lot of meaning to me ...... 416 Table 185: I am strongly related to this brand ...... 417 Table 186: Brand Personality- Warm ...... 418 Table 187: Brand Personality- Pleasant ...... 419 Table 188: Brand Personality- Nice ...... 420 Table 189: Brand Personality- Imaginative ...... 421 Table 190: Brand Personality- Inventive ...... 422 Table 191: Brand Personality- Seductive ...... 423 Table 192: Brand Personality- Attractive ...... 424 Table 193: Brand Personality- Manipulative ...... 425 Table 194: Brand Personality- Showy ...... 426 Table 195: Brand Personality- Arrogant ...... 427 Table 196: Brand Personality- Hypocrite ...... 428 Table 197: Brand Personality- Deceptive ...... 429 Table 198: Brand Personality- Liar ...... 430 Table 199: Brand Personality- Trendy ...... 431 Table 200: Brand Personality- Modern ...... 432 Table 201: Brand Personality- Sophisticated ...... 433 Table 202: Brand Personality- Stylish ...... 434 Table 203: Brand Personality- Serious ...... 435 Table 204: Brand Personality- Strict ...... 436 Table 205: Brand Personality- Reserved ...... 437 Table 206: Brand Personality- Shy ...... 438 Table 207: I repeatedly purchase this brand ...... 439 Table 208: I prefer buying this brand over other colas ...... 440 Table 209: Only this brand comes to my mind when I think of purchasing colas ...... 441 Table 210: I recommend this brand those who ask my advice ...... 442

xiii

Table 211: I say positive things about this brand to other persons ...... 443 Table 212: I am pleased to buy this brand instead of other brands ...... 444 Table 213: SPSS Code Book ...... 445

xiv

List of Figures

Figure 1: Dimensions of Brand Personality ...... 48 Figure 2: (Aaker & J.L, Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997) ...... 50 Figure 3: Brand Personality Scale ...... 70 Figure 4: Brand Personality Scale ...... 72 Figure 5 : Consumer Information Process ...... 90 Figure 6: Commitment with Brand Personality Model ...... 106 Figure 7: Commitment with Brand Personality Model ...... 107 Figure 8: (Basrawi, The influence of brands competitive advantage of consumer loyalty, 2009) ...... 158 Figure 9: Model of Brand Loyalty ...... 161 Figure 10: Conceptual Model by (Farhat & Khan, 2011) ...... 168 Figure 11: Winning Brands from AC Nielson (Knowles, 2004) ...... 169 Figure 12: Conceptual Framework ...... 175 Figure 13: Paradigms ...... 183 Figure 14: Brand Personality Scale ...... 198 Figure 15: Gender- Pepsi ...... 204 Figure 16: Gender- Coca Cola ...... 205 Figure 17: Gender- Gourmet ...... 206 Figure 18: Age- Pepsi ...... 207 Figure 19: Age- Coca Cola ...... 208 Figure 20: Age- Gourmet ...... 209 Figure 21: Profession- Pepsi ...... 210 Figure 22: Profession- Coca Cola ...... 211 Figure 23: Profession- Gourmet ...... 212 Figure 24: Preferred Brand ...... 213 Figure 25: Web Design of Brand Personality- Pepsi ...... 282 Figure 26: Web Design of Brand Personality- Coca Cola ...... 283 Figure 27: Web Design of Brand Personality- Gourmet ...... 284

List of Images

Image 1: Pepsi Cola (1.5 ltr) ...... 446 Image 2: Coca Cola (1.5 ltr) ...... 447 Image 3: Gourmet Cola (1.5 ltr)...... 448

xvi

Executive Summary

At the present time a brutal rivalry exist between associations to achieve and protect greatest piece of the overall industry. Building and overseeing brands to build purchaser loyalty can help to surpass rivals in this fight. Advertisers use situating plans at creating and fulfilling a long haul connection with clients. Creating brand picture that cultivate customer loyalty is essential in this respect. Brand personality pays an essential part in securing a great picture of brand. The impact of brand personality on shopper loyalty builds its vitality towards brand execution and brand management. This exploration considers effect of brand personality on social outcomes towards

Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola and Gourmet Cola.

Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola are at present the business pioneers in customer’s Cola industry, however, the intrusion of gourmet Cola in this industry may broaden the buyers of other cola to itself. So the exploration investigates brand personality of Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola and Gourmet

Cola on the premise of their notoriety among Pakistani purchasers. This exploration examines brand personality of Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola and Gourmet Cola and discovers their effect on purchaser's Congruence, Satisfaction and Commitment with respective brands of Cola.

To get profound bits of knowledge research especially analyzes brand personality of Coca Cola,

Pepsi Cola and Gourmet Cola for buyers and non-shoppers of Cola and likewise for males and females with distinctive age sections and diverse callings.

Populace savvy we are acknowledging entire Pakistan for this exploration. Quantitative investigation system is utilized for this exploration. Self-managed surveys are utilized to assemble data structure respondents.

xvii

For the examination of the results SPSS is utilized as a part of this exploration. Mean,

Correlation and multiple linear regressions are the different measurable tests which are performed to get consequences of the exploration.

The discoveries of our examination secured that brand personality has impact on congruence, satisfaction and commitment concerning Pepsi, Coca Cola and Gourmet. Qualities that are negative in nature for instance misleading, introvert, conscientious have negative effects on congruence, satisfaction and commitment when remembering our three brands of Cola drink.

While positive attributes like friendly, charming, elegant execute positive influence on congruence, satisfaction and commitment of Colas. Our exploration discover reveal to us that congruence in a brand heads towards satisfaction. On the off chance that brands can fulfill the purchasers totally and in a positive way at exactly that point clients are joined to the brand and get unwavering to it.

This implies that individuals can relate themselves to Pepsi with their appearance. Individuals are likewise fulfilled by Gourmet in the Punjab district yet after this they are not equipped to get steadfast with it. In this theory our exploration discoveries depicted that the purchasers of Pepsi are substantially more dedicated as contrasted with other Cola brands.

xviii

Chapter 1: Introduction

The prime purpose of this research is to find out how congruence, satisfaction and commitment with brand personality leads to enhanced brand loyalty, keeping in mind that the focus of the research is on the beverage industry of Pakistan. The research that carried out is an applied research. In this chapter a review is conducted. The most relevant, theories, models, and the related constructs are presented. However, the deep knowledge of all the variables is not illustrated in this chapter.

For the researchers this chapter provides insights about the foundation of all the variables that leave an impact on consumer brand relationship and suggests future directions in order to improve the knowledge in the field of this research.

1.1 Background of Thesis: Area of Research

Pakistan Beverage Industry

Over the time the beverage industry in Pakistan has grown rapidly. The industry has diversified portfolio which consists of soft drinks, juices, syrups, milk and squashes. With about 170 units presently running everywhere in the country, both upstream and downstream industries are prospering (Naeem, 2003). According to the statistics, Pakistan soft drink industry has set to experience volume sales growth of 30.5% till 2010. (Business Wire, June 29, 2007. - March 8,

2010). A leading carbonated drink brand has its annual sales up to 175-180 million crates

(Equities, February 07, 2010. - March 9, 2010.).

Coca Cola

In 1953, Coca-Cola started their operations in Pakistan. In the first stage, it was not the same as it is now. In 1951, they just had franchise bottling and then afterwards in 1996, company took over all the bottling system. The Coca-Cola Company has its own plants and operates supply chain system.

The Coca-Cola System in Pakistan serves over 200,000 customers/retail outlets, which have

2500 employees that are working continuously for the company. Coca Cola has successfully provided 54 years of dedicated service to its customers in Pakistan. Coca Cola Beverages

Pakistan has a very narrow product range in Pakistan. The brands that the company has are Coca

Cola, Fanta and Sprite. CCBPL has 6 plants and 13 warehouses throughout the country and serves a population of more than 170 million with a production capacity of 111 million physical cases (CCBPL, 2014). CCBPL is a significant player in the growth of Pakistan’s economy since it is one of the country’s top foreign direct investments in FMCG sector (Coca Cola, 2014).

Pepsi Co

In 1979, the company introduced the franchise of Pepsi Cola International with the name of

Pepsi Beverage Company Limited of Pakistan.

Within five years of getting a franchise, Pepsi Beverages Pakistan Ltd. has managed to repeat the success of previous work in the beverage market by becoming a market leader across the Sindh, most specifically in the region of Karachi and later in Hyderabad. Dynamic partnership established in 1979 between Pakistan Beverage Limited and Pepsi Cola International, in fact, is a force to be reckoned with in the market, and that stands true to this day.

This great success flowed gradually to other cities of Pakistan in the south and north region, over a period of time, which makes Pepsi and its brands the most popular cola beverage across the country.

Today, with about 60 acres of space under the accumulated storage and processing, Pakistan

Beverage Company Limited is one of the bottling plants of Pepsi- Cola’s well-equipped and well managed among all franchises in Pakistan (PBL, 2014).

Gourmet

In 1987, Gourmet Bakers and Sweets were founded by Mr. Nawaz Chatah as a single outlet of a bakery unit, which is the largest food retail chain of Pakistan. It is located in Lahore, the second biggest city in Pakistan known for its traditional food and passion for eating. The portfolio of products that Gourmet has are Beverages, Milk, Ice cream, Water, Jam, Ketchup, Nimco, Juices,

Bread, Powder milk, Mithai and Bon Vivant.

Gourmet has more or less 120 outlets in Lahore and Faisalabad. It is the only local beverage company in Pakistan which provides soft drink with price competiveness and standard quality over the year. Gourmet food is one of the fastest growing bakers and confectioners store in

Pakistan (Gourmet, 2013).

1.2 Problem Statement

It may have something to do with the fact that the Pakistanis are estimated to spend around PKR

110 billion on carbonated beverages annually (Tirmizi, 2012). Pakistan beverage industry has international brands which presents the outstanding quality of beverages. In the global vision, brand personality has become the vital component of brand aesthetics i.e. a particular product or a characteristic that serves to identify a particular product. Furthermore, the following question arises that are very interesting subjects for the research about Pakistani beverage industry.

Are Congruence, Satisfaction and Commitment actually missing to create Brand Personality?

What would the company expect about the Brand Personality, when drawing lines of their Brand

Strategy?

When we look for Cola to drink, suddenly the brand which comes to mind is either Pepsi or Coca

Cola; these are the two main key players in the beverage industry of Pakistan. The problems that are to be focused and find out in this research are:

. Since 67 years of independence, why Pakistani local brands did not compete with these

international brands?

. Why local brands still unknown by the consumers?

. Why local brands would not be able to make any brand personality, which leads to brand

loyalty?

1.3 Research Question

Research Question # 1: Is there a causal link between congruence and brand personality with

the brand?

Research Question # 2: Is there a causal link between satisfaction and brand personality with

the brand?

Research Question # 3: Is there a causal link between commitment and brand personality with

the brand?

Research Question # 4: Does the congruence with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty?

Research Question # 5: Does the satisfaction with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty?

Research Question # 6: Does the commitment with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty?

Research Question # 7: Is there a causal link between congruence and satisfaction with the

brand?

Research Question # 8: Is there a causal link between satisfaction and commitment with the

brand?

Research Question # 9: Is there a causal link between congruence and commitment with the

brand?

1.4 Objectives of the Study

1.4.1 Broad Objective of the Study

The broad objective of the study focused to analyze:

 If the congruence, satisfaction and commitment with the brand leads to the brand

personality and turn into brand loyalty.

 If the congruence with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty.

 If the satisfaction with the brand personality leads to brand loyalty.

 If the commitment to the brand personality leads to brand loyalty.

 If there is a causal link between congruence and satisfaction with the brand.

 If there is a causal link between satisfaction and commitment with the brand.

The objective is to analyze the results and findings so that the management of local cola company can better understand and know which decision that they need to take in order to make the brand stronger and consistent in the minds of customers. This process will help in strengthening the brand at the same time satisfying customer’s need. These results will further help the local brand company to implement strategies that will improve the brand awareness relating to international cola.

The empirical findings will shed light on how customers perceive local cola brand with regards to its brand personality. Furthermore, these factors influence consumer decision making process as well. This research would also enable the local cola company to come up with analysis of low sales margin which further helps them to investigate what perception is being developed in the consumer mind which causing hindrance in boosting up their sales in the local market.

Moreover, the findings of this research will help the local cola company to improvise its brand image which helps in formulating brand personality which leads to brand loyalty.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

Concerning to the broad objectives we would relate those objectives specifically to the local brand of Pakistan’s Cola i.e. Gourmet Cola. Actually, it is the product of Gourmet which has the diversified portfolio of various products i.e. dealing in sweets, bakery items, milk, ice cream, water and many more. They are most successful in the province of Punjab especially in Lahore.

Our specific objective is to make it available across the Pakistan, for which we are doing the research. The main concern of our research stand on three independent variables congruence, commitment and satisfaction of the consumer towards the Gourmet Cola which would also be compared with the international brands of beverages i.e. Pepsi and Coca-Cola.

1.5 Issues and Gap in Literature and the Study’s Significance

1.5.1 Issues and Gap in Literature

Establishing a brand driven culture is a lifelong commitment to a mindset and a way of life that takes time and planning that produces abstract outputs, which include greater customer satisfaction, reduced price sensitivity, fewer customer defection, and a greater share of customer’s wallet (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).

The brands that are stronger in their position enjoy customer loyalty, for that companies need to have thorough understanding of customer beliefs, behaviors, product attributes and competitors.

The brand “promise” is the essence of the benefits i.e. both functional and emotional which

7 reflects the heart, soul and spirit of the brand. Successful brands are those which adapt well to the environment, survive and flourish in the longer run (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).

The consumer behavior written works has increasingly shown that brand attitude and its evaluation is not only known by functional facets of it, but also by the motivation of consumers expressed to purchase goods and services that often is a part of their self-driving forces which prompts them to buy goods (Kressmann & Sirgy, Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty, 2006).

Self-image congruence refers to the match between consumer’s self-concept (actual self or ideal self) and the users image (personality) of a given product “self-image congruence and image congruence” are used interchangeably in the consumer behavior literature (Kressmann & Sirgy,

Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty, 2006).

The study focuses on inquiring the effects of congruence on brand loyalty in the context of Cola beverages of Pakistan.

Past researches have shown that self-image congruence influences consumer behaviors directly or indirectly through functional congruity, which refers to the match between consumers’ ideal expectations of utilitarian product features and their perceptions of how the brand is perceived along the same features (Sirgy & kressmann, Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty, 2006). The study extends the research in the area that self- congruity affects functional congruity under high than low product involvement conditions. And also that it plays an important role in motivating customers to process information.

Brand loyalty, brand satisfaction, brand trust, brand personality are branding concepts which have been investigated in association to consumer- brand relationship. The analysis of the casual

8 relationship concludes that that satisfaction is a necessary step in loyalty formation (Loureiro,

Consumer Brand Relationship, 2006).

To understand the sophistication of customer loyalty with the brand it is necessary to comprehend the evaluations, perspectives, and purpose that influence the behavior of the customers. Here, we focus on three prominent drivers of retention in the marketing literature; overall customer satisfaction, congruence and commitment. Customer relationship benefits the manager with a variety of variables that derive retention (Gustafsson, Johnson, & IngerRoos,

2005).

The overall satisfaction has a strong and positive impact on customer’s loyalty towards a brand.

Satisfaction mediates the effects of product quality as well as the service quality. Historically, satisfaction was being used to explain loyalty as behavioral intention. There is a strong and a nonlinear effect of customer satisfaction on repurchases behavior which is marginally increasing.

They also found large differences between the customer satisfaction retention relationships across customer characteristics. Customer’s satisfaction is subsequently linked with the individual loyalty towards a brand (Gustafsson, Johnson, & IngerRoos, 2005).

Based on this approach, we would be able to identify the satisfaction elements of the consumer which strongly affects the bottom line along with those which don’t. This would suggest that where the expenditures might be necessary and where it should be curtail so that they don’t leave any adverse impact.

When consumers feel a strong force of attraction, a connection and identify themselves with the brand and live a positive experience they can be aroused and this process of activation can conduct to strong positive emotions such as delights consumers will be more satisfied. All that

9 involvement can deeply dig out the passion and love for the brand and they will positively develop an association with the brand. A committed consumer is more willing to continue the relationship with the brand and will be more advocate of delivering positivity, by saying positive things that will contribute to a favorable image, reputation and credibility (Loureiro, Consumer

Brand Relationship, 2006).

1.5.2 Significance of the Thesis

Independent variables like commitment, congruence and satisfaction creates brand loyalty and serves as competitive advantage for the company to differentiate product. The nexus between branding and customer service is an important area to be considered. To build strong ties with the customer that requires knowledge of marketing research coupled with sensitivity for the customer’s concern by analyzing their behaviors and attitudes to design the study to make affective changes.

It is significant for the company to improve the value of its consumers by reducing the percentage of unsatisfied customers. For that they need to build the strategy of customer retention and design it in a way that it becomes the best in interest of the customers and to retain them with the company rather than switching to other brands. If they succeed to do this they will observe significant increase in their profits. Customers, who would become loyal, will buy more products. The benefits of brand loyalty are such that they are for longer term; customers perceived value, brand trust, satisfaction, commitment, congruence, and repeat purchase behavior would serve as the key influencing measures for brand loyalty. Loyal customers are comparatively less price sensitive and would spread positive word of mouth and refer other customers as well. Therefore, marketers need to build strong customer retention as a strategic

10 corporate goal and also recognize that all the customers are not the same and furnish them on the basis of satisfaction, commitment and congruence (Schiffman, 2009).

1.6 Contribution of Thesis in Three Context

1.6.1 Contribution of the Thesis towards Theory and Literature

The idea of this research is to find out the brand building elements based on a journalism review and study of successful brands in Pakistan. Brand is just not an identity, but it’s the feeling, perception, benevolence, experiences and many more, which immediately pop-ups in one’s mind. Building a brand is a lifelong process, which takes ample of time, and planning that produces intangible outputs, which moreover include greater customer satisfaction, customer retention, fewer customer defections, customer’s brand loyalty and a high percentage of business progress. Brand identity is based on understanding of company’s customers, challengers and business environment. Building a brand thoroughly requires its founders to understand its competitors and consumers perceptions through rapid researches. As brand is refers as identity, similarly this research also stands identical because it would contribute a lot to the literature of the beverages industry of Pakistan (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).

1.6.2 Contribution of Thesis in the Context of Research

We have broadly discussed congruence, satisfaction and commitment which are linked with brand personality that ultimately lead to brand loyalty in our research. The things that we have contributed in this research regarding Pakistani beverages are as describe below. This includes

Pepsi, Coca cola, and Gourmet cola.

Continuously advertising campaign by the Coca Cola with new ideas and innovations and targeting all different income level of families i.e. upper, middle and lower will boost their profit margin and credibility in the market. The advertising campaign should focus on particular ideas that is happiness like Pepsi do in their promotional campaign (Alexandrov & Alexei, 2011).

Why Pepsi is a strong brand in Pakistan, not any other local or foreign brand? This is the question that we are going to research. Due to our study on Pepsi through different research papers, we are able to conclude our thoughts, by saying that Pepsi is maintaining good quality in

Pakistan, through high tech machines, and through good and dedicated employees. The availability of Pepsi is to be found in any location of Pakistan, their supply chain of products is dramatically improving the demand of their consumer. Pepsi enjoy the brand loyalty, that people are so much dedicated to their product. Another reason is due to their high market share, that’s why public trust their product. On the other hand, Pepsi Co. has related Pepsi with Pakistan

Cricket Team. They spend a large sum of money on their advertising, which create an image of loyalty (Consumer Report Magazines, 2012).

On the other hand, the Gourmet cola, which is although available at very affordable prices, but not be able to capture the complete market of Pakistan and restricted only in Punjab because of their lack of advertising, as well as their lack of outlets. They are not preparing proper marketing strategies to fight against big giants like Pepsi and Coca Cola. They should focus on their product design because public are much more attractive to the product image as well as to the low price. In order to gain their market share, they should also introduce their product across the

Pakistan so that would enhance the profitability and its awareness as well (Awan & Hassnain,

2013).

1.6.3 Contribution of the Thesis in the Context of the Objective

The objective of research is to find out the dilemma that why local Cola Company in Pakistan could not established or capture the market share since independence. There are two giant of cola companies working in Pakistan i.e. Pepsi and Coca Cola, these two brand have great influence over their consumer that’s why no other brand survived in the market over them in the past(Tirmizi, 2012).

Many local cola brands were introduced to the market i.e. Makah cola, RC cola and many more, but none of them survived and disappeared after a period of time. Those brands were failed to achieve consumers’ preference and repeat purchase behavior.

Gourmet sweet and bakers is Pakistan’s local brand operating in Punjab side, after their success in food industry, they introduced a cola with the name Gourmet cola, their cola got influence and capture the market with the passage of time in Lahore and Faisalabad, they are targeting only

Punjab market and they constrained their company to Punjab region only.

Our contribution and research is to find why Gourmet Cola didn’t come out of Punjab market and sell their products to other provinces of Pakistan. The main area where the company is lacking is publicity and advertising their product they didn’t spend a sufficient amount on marketing. On the other hand, Coca Cola and Pepsi spend huge amount on marketing and promotion activities regularly to remain in consumers’ brain when they go to buy the soft drinks.

Gourmet Cola has limited themselves only in Lahore, they didn’t consider other areas of

Pakistan as their target markets, they also have issues in finance as they are lacking in financial resource and is unable to invest a huge amount as compared to their competitors, while Coca

Cola and Pepsi are investing 248 million and 1 billion in Pakistan (Tirmizi, 2012). They are

13 generating the annual sale of around million soft drinks. Pepsi is the market leader of carbonated water in Pakistan having 65% of market shares and leading beverage company in Pakistan and

Coca Cola constitutes about (35) % market share (Tirmizi, 2012).

The other problem which we figured out is that Gourmet Cola does not have many potential outlets and they have weak distribution channel system around Punjab province too, they left open space for their competitors by not targeting hotel, colleges, canteen and etc. Their placement is not good as they didn’t establish maximum number of outlet they have no outlets in different cities in Pakistan instead of Lahore and Faisalabad.

The company should plan to launch the Gourmet cola to other cities in Pakistan to enhance or overcome their financial resources issue, they must works on their target market and segmentation by not leaving open space for their competitors and they should start spending budget on marketing, advertisement and promotion activities to give awareness about their product like Pepsi and coke, in order to give tough competition to their competitors.

1.7 Conceptual Definitions

1.7.1 Brand

The word ‘Brand’ means to burn by fire which is derived from Old Norse word “Brandr” as it was the way through which owners of livestock used to mark their animals to identify them.

According to the American Marketing Association (AMA); brand is a name, term, sign, symbol or design or a combination of them which is meant to identify products and services of sellers to differentiate them from their competitors. Technically, when a marketer forms a new logo, symbol, name for his new product, he has ultimately created a brand (Keller, Parameswaran, &

Jacob, 2011).

Customers see a brand as an essential part of a product as branding can add value to it. Customer associate relationship with the brand and develop meaning with it. For example, a bottle of

White Linen perfume is a high quality product but if the same perfume is in an unmarked bottle would be viewed as a lower quality one. Even, if the fragrance was identical. Today, rarely anything goes unbranded as branding has become so influential. Brand name helps buyers in many ways as it helps customers to identify the product that might be beneficial to them. Brands notify about product quality and consistency as buyers who are likely to buy the same brand know that they will receive the similar features, benefits and quality each time when they buy it.

The brand name becomes the platform on which the whole story about a product's special quality can be built. Moreover, seller's brand name and trademark offer legal protection for unique product features so that it cannot be copied by the competitors. Branding also helps the marketers to segment markets (Kotler, Armstrong, Agnihotri, & Haque, 2010).

According to (Keller, Parameswaran, & Jacob, 2011), brands can serve as symbolic devices that provide consumers to project their self-image that reflects different values or traits which are associated with certain types of people. Brands can also play an essential role in signaling product characteristics to customers. Researchers have classified products and their attributes into three major categories which are Search Goods, Experience Goods and Credence Goods.

Brands can reduce the risks in product decisions as there are different types of risk associated in buying and consuming a product which consumers may perceive are Functional Risk, Physical

Risk, Financial Risk, Psychological Risk, Social Risk and Time Risk.

Consumers can easily handle this risk in many ways but one way is to buy a well-known brand

(as they can be very important risk handling device) with which consumers have advantageous experiences. Thus, brands take on unique personal meanings to customers that make easy their

15 day to day activities and augment their lives. Moreover, they have the ability to simplify decision making and reduce risk.

Brands are beyond names and symbols. They are key essentials in the company's relationship with customers as they represent consumer's perceptions and feelings regarding a product and its efficiency. In the final analysis brands resides in the heads of consumers. Thus, once a one well respected marketer said "Products are created in the factory but brands are created in the minds"

(Kotler, Armstrong, Agnihotri, & Haque, 2010).

Consumer brand knowledge can be defined in terms of personal meaning about a brand stored in consumer's memory that is all descriptive and evaluate brand related information. A powerful brand has high brand equity such brands provide long-term security and growth, higher sustainable profits and increased asset value because they achieve competitive differentiation.

The brand promise is the essence of both functional and emotional benefits which customers can expect to gain while experiencing a brand service or product which reflects heart, soul and spirit of the brand. Many brands offer a mixture of symbolic, functional and experiential benefits. A brand with a functional concept is defined as one which is designed to solve externally generated consumption needs. Whereas, a brand with a symbolic concept is designed to link the individuals with a specific group, role or self-image and a brand with an experiential concept is designed to meet internally generated needs like sensory pleasure, variety and cognitive stimulation

(Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).

Brands emerge over time. The first level is to express the identity of the producer that is Label.

The second level is the functional superiority. Third level is referred as emotional touch whereas fourth level pertains to the power of self-expression. At the top of the pyramid the highest level is known as cult (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).

Brand identity is a unique set of brand associations which includes Core and Extended identities.

Core identity is the central, timeless essence of the brand that remains the same as the brand proceeds to new markets and new products. It focuses on product attributes, services, and product performance. Whereas, extended identity is woven around brand identity elements that are organized in cohesive and meaningful groups which provides brand with texture and completeness and takes into account brand personality relationship and strong symbol association (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).

To excel a brand image should be well planned, nurtured, supported and vigilantly guarded.

Companies that show cohesive, distinctive and relevant brand identity are likely to create preferences in the market place, add value and may command a price premium for their products and services. When a brand faces aggressive competition brand personality and reputation of the brand can help as competing offerings and results in differentiating the brand from competition.

Therefore, a company should form a clear and consistent brand identity by associating brand attributes that can be easily understood by the customers (Ghodeswar & Bhimrao, 2008).

The close relationship between a brand and a consumer could lead to a connection i.e. a deep self and social identification with the brand. The mystery, the intimacy, the uniqueness, the involvement based on past experiences, and all positive emotional connections lead to affection towards the brand. A brand affectionate consumer is more willing to be committed with the brand, forgiven less positive situations, advocate favorably and willing to sacrifice for the brand beyond reason because of its extent of loyalty towards it (Loureiro, Consumer Brand

Relationship, 2006).

1.7.2 Congruence with Brand Personality

The idea of congruence of brand personality arises in the marketing field in the mid 1960’s and grew in the mid 1970’s. The studies concentrating on the consumer’s behavior were interested in individuals who seek to create the image that he has of a product and his image of himself

(Maehle & Shneor, 2009).

The studies on the congruence with brand personality try to clarify consumer choice such as brand preference, purchase intention or usage and loyalty. Brands perform as social signals with congruity of brands, which is viewed as a key motivational factor in consumer choice (Maehle &

Shneor, 2009). A number of studies prove that there is congruity between brand image/personality, also studied the relationship between self-image and brand preference and found that favored brands are reliable to self-concept and reinforced it. Moreover, found a relationship between ideal self-image and product image. Structuring the concept that consumer brand choices are to a large level self-confirmatory actions.

The element of brand personality is taken by aspects containing characters of being down-to- earth, honest, wholesome and cheerful. Such character may be symbolizing strong people orientations, cooperative tendencies and harmony seeking, all of which characterize the Red personality and communicational strategy. The elements of Competence brand personality are captured by aspects including characters of being reliable, intelligent and successful. Such characters may be indicative of tendency towards task-orientation, being structured and logical, all of which characterize the Blue personality and communicational strategy.

The element of Excitement brand personality is captured by aspects including aspects of being daring, spirited, imaginative, and up-to-date. Such aspects may be revealing propensity towards

18 change, strong instinct, inspired imagination and interest, all of which describe the independent

Green type and communicational approach.

Sirgy as mentioned in (Maehle & Shneor, 2009) proposes congruity theory and he claims that product indications relating images typically activate a self-scheme involving the same images.

Also, he outlines the position of self-concept theory in consumer behavior research by clarifying that consumers who observe the product image to be reliable with their definite self-concept are likely to feel interest to buy and consume that product. Therefore, congruence of product image may have a greater effect on consumers’ inclination, purchase intent, ownership, usage and allegiance to products and brands.

Graeff as mentioned in (Maehle & Shneor, 2009) studies the consequence of the congruence on brand-image and its brand appraisal relating to promotion message. It proposes that under the promotion message that prompts consumers of their own self-image, consumers give more positive appraisals of brands congruent with their own self-image. In one of his other studies that engaged beer product brands, he suggests that positive brand approach and purchase intent increase as the congruence of brand-image rises.

Recently, numerous studies have been lead about the congruence on brand personality. Brand personality denote to human features related with a brand (Maehle & Shneor, 2009). Reputes brand personality as the class of brand-image ended by brand user and practice imagery traits.

Plummer as mentioned in (Maehle & Shneor, 2009) that one constituent of brand-image is the character of the brand itself. His studies indicate that brands can be branded by personality descriptions such as "youthful”, “colorful," and "gentle".

Aaker as mentioned in (Maehle & Shneor, 2009) attaches brand-image to brand personality as a constituent of brand equity, and describes brand personality as the set of human characteristics

19 related with a brand. Brand personality contains five dimensions: competence, sincerity, excitement, sophistication, and ruggedness.

Consumers use brands as a sign and they choose brands with images that are congruent with their brand personality. When self-schema is consistent with brand personality, the brand attitude of a low self-monitor is more satisfactory, and when the condition is consistent with self-schema, the brand attitude of a high self-monitor is more satisfactory. Consumers display satisfactory sensation toward a brand when the brand personality is matching with their own self-image.

Particularly, the congruence on brand personality surges positive attitude of consumers who have high epicurean attitude and highlight representative values. Brand personality impacts brand identification, and then brand identification has a direct impact on brand loyalty, as well as an indirect impact via brand relationship satisfaction. Therefore, it can be inferred that the congruence on brand personality has a positive effect on consumer satisfaction, consumer-brand relationship, and brand loyalty.

1.7.3 Satisfaction with the Brand Personality

Satisfaction is an individual's feelings of delight or disappointment that result from differentiating a product's supposed performance to expectations. Many companies are always systematically monitoring their customers and their changing needs and wants. A satisfied customer stays loyal to the company and talks good about it. They are relatively less worried about the price changes the organization does. This means that companies are continuously identifying new and innovative ways to make their customers satisfied. In this era it is very easy for consumers to switch to different brands as there are many options available in the market

(Kotler & Keller, A Framework for Marketing Management, 2009).

According to (Wester, 2005), brands offer opportunity to build relationship with the customers.

This means that brands are a way to make a unique bond with customer. So that customers are attracted to the brand personality and that they can relate to it.

(Stathakopoulas, 2004), have stated that retention of customers is only possible through nurturing loyalty by making an emotional connection between the brand and the customer. These loyal buyers will then contribute to making good feedbacks when in groups. They will be able to attract new customers to the brands as they will be satisfied. Taking into account Coca Cola their recent adverts were targeting on the family eating together they created an emotional connection with their customers.

1.7.4 Commitment with Brand Personality

Commitment can be viewed as “an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship” with the brand (Zaltman & Moorman, 1992). Intense business competition requires companies to work harder to retain customers not only to exist but also to become the market leader. Today successful companies whether large or small, domestic or global share a strong customer focus and heavy commitment of brand.

Customer relationship management (CRM) i.e. the process of carefully managing detailed information about individual customer and all customers (Kotler, Marketing Management,

2006). Companies seek to attract by promising superior value and to keep and grow brand commitment. By carefully examining on this dynamic area will lead to brand commitment.

At the heart of customer-brand relationship is customer Commitment. Research into customer commitment suggests that consumer-brand identification might be one factor that influences it(Jetal, 2011). Customer needs a strong reason and emotional attachment with the brand to affect

21 their repurchase intentions. This relation actually develops a positive Brand personality in the consumers mind.

Furthermore, Brand logos are a vital component of brand aesthetics. Companies frequently redesign their logos, and these redesigned logos affect consumers brand attitude. Visually, brand logos pass a very different meaning to consumers with strong brand commitment than to consumers with moderate or no brand commitment. This is particularly true because, as a visual cue, brand logos can become the basis for triggering brand-related associations and thoughts in consumer memory (Keller, On Congruence between Brand and human Responsibilities, 1993).

Customers with strong brand relationship can easily connect or can easily associate themselves with brand.

A strong commitment with the brand develops a strong brand personality in the consumers mind. referring the term with the brand personality; it could be explained as any product that a consumer is using for the longer period of time and that is also fulfilling the satisfaction level ultimately turn it into the commitment of the product or brand towards the consumer’s attribute.

1.7.5 Brand Personality

The term as character of the personality that is used to distinguish a person and brand association. It helps us in building up the understanding and the development and maintains relationship between the consumers and the brands. Brand personality consists of a set of human attributes associated with a specific brand. It is the set of traits people attribute to a product as if it were a person (Solomon M. R., 2012).

Moreover, it is a set of human characteristics that are attributed to a brand name. A brand personality is something to which the consumer can relate, and an effective brand will increase

22 its brand equity by having a consistent set of traits. This is the added-value that a brand gains, aside from its functional benefits.

There are five main types of brand personalities:

1. Excitement:These are the most exciting brand that is energetic, creative, bold and

progressive.

2. Sincerity: Sincere brands are considered by the consumer as being practical, realistic,

wholesome, truthful and cheerful.

3. Ruggedness: These are the brand that are seen outdoorsy and though.

4. Competence: These brands are associated with dependability, cleverness, and success.

5. Sophistication: These are the brands that are fit for the upper classes and viewed as

delightful (Friend, 2010).

1.7.6 Brand Loyalty

The connection a customer has to a brand which reflects how likely a customer will be inclined to switch to another brand is known as brand loyalty (Maehle & Shneor, 2009).

(Holbrook, 2001), have viewed brand loyalty as a linkage in the chain that ultimately connects brand trust with the aspects of brand equity. Brand loyalty represents a positive behavior towards a brands which results in the frequent purchase of the brand. They stated that customer retention can only be practiced through loyalty by creating some feelings and emotional attachment. These buyers later produce a favorable opinion when having conversation among their social circles.

Loyalty can be conceptualized in three approaches:

1. In the early literature (1950 and 1960) measurements and conceptualizations of loyalty

were based on the trends of past purchases.

2. Researchers believe that loyalty should be interpreted principally as an attitude towards a

given brand.

3. Now the widely accepted definition of Brand Loyalty is that brand loyalty buying pattern

of particular brand, that repetitive over time and is reinforced with a strong commitment

to that brand.

1.8 Structure of the Thesis

Chapter # 1 Introduction

Chapter # 2 Literature Review

Chapter # 3 Research Methodology

Chapter # 4 Data Collection/Analysis

Chapter # 5 Result/Conclusion/Recommendation

Chapter 2:Literature Review

2.1Introduction

2.1.1Brand

A brand can be defined as a differentiating uniqueness of a seller’s product. The idea of brand underway with defining a character to identify one’s animal so that they don’t get mixed up. The work of a brand is more or less, still the same. Head & Shoulder, Pepsi, Levis Jeans, Tapal Tea etc. are all the samples of brand that take place in the current society. A brand has a prominence in terms of accounting which is calculated by gaining the difference between the market value of the company and the real value of the assets of the company. The term ‘Brand’ is also used for the company that offers the brand (Hunt S. D., 2002).

2.1.2What is Brand?

The terms, brand or branding, are used by many people that have diverse meanings for them.

They practice it in different conditions, without articulating its real meaning. In the world of business, it is principally defined as making an association with the company, product, service or individual. Sporadically, companies make efforts to ratify their brands internationally whereas sometimes, it is outside the company’s control. For example, the negative word of mouth can place a negative link and disintegrate the manufacturer’s general brand (Hunt S. D., 2002).

2.1.3Formation of Brand

A brand comes into survival when a cultural meaning is given to it by the consumers and it is the marketing activities like advertising by an organization that relocate it to the brand. Assigning the figurative meaning of a brand to a customer can only be effective if the customers play a vigorous role in brand consumption. The customers, in today’s world, have a strong capability to develop a theory or notion on their own, hence the marketer cannot bequeath any story on the brand but the consumer formulae it through a personal ingesting practice (Sung, Park, & Han,

2005).

The company has to comprise in brand management to build the customer loyalty towards their brand. To fulfill this task, they need to find out what features would help to build the customer devotion towards a brand.(Louis & Lombart, 2010), has found trust, attachment, and commitment as being related to the creation of brand loyalty. In order to deliver customers with a better brand understanding, the company can include in assured tasks like a brand community activity. A brand community is a group of people who share common emotions towards a product or brand. Nevertheless, the marketing can be more attentive if the related emotions are besieged and apprehended.

2.1.4 Branding

The branding can be defined as the attempt by the company to manage the brand association in a better way. If the marketers can know what traits are more persuaded towards making a brand identity, then the marketers would be able to do the branding in a more proper way. They will be able to present their brand as idiosyncratic individuality which is specially meant to be for them.

Although it is not probable to exercise a complete control but the scheming and marketing exertions can do most of the tasks that will benefit the company. The facets of branding can differ but the basic idea of being clear about what you stand for always applies (Hunt S. D.,

2002).

2.1.5 Brand Identity

David Aaker as mentioned in (Tudorica, Ouwersloot, & Anamaria, 2001) has established the brand identity system—an outline for brand appraisal. When generating a brand identity, the firm should consider four dimensions of brand identity: brand as a product, organization, person, and symbol (Tudorica, Ouwersloot, & Anamaria, 2001). Brand identity is established of all features forming the survival of the brand. The concept permits companies, through the six emanation sides of the brand identity prism: physical facet, personality, culture, relationship, reflected consumer and consumer metallization; to specify the meaning, the project, the designing of their brands. Contrariwise, brand image is a greeting concept. It is the result of the consumers’ interpretation of all the signs emitted by the brand (brand name, visual symbols, communications, etc.) or external sources. As a result, brand identity comes before brand image.

The brand exclusivity is created by the firm and is communicated to consumers, who then interpret it as the brand image (Louis & Lombart, 2010).

2.1.6 Brand Image

Brand image is defined as “as perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory” (Keller K. L., Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-

Based Brand Equity, 1993). In consumer’s cognizance there are informational bulges linked to brand bulge. These informational bulges represent brand connotations. Consumer can have several links with the brand. Like for any Good Tea brand consumer can have connotations of delicious, healthy, unique, and strong and so on. The stouter, satisfactory and unique these associations are the more auspicious or positive brand knowledge consumer has about the brand and the more happily consumer will value or appraise the brand. Relevant and stronger brand image lies on this concept. Positively linked consumer behaviors will build a good image of the brand in consumer’s awareness. More anxiety should be put on the brand connotations. While building brands through research should be done on consumer profiling and target market preferences. Based on the results brands should be intended that fit into the consumer preferences and automatically engender satisfactory reaction.

2.1.7 Brand Equity

Customer based brand equity has been defined by (Keller K. L., Conceptualizing, Measuring and

Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, 1993) as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to marketing of brand”. Differential effect is the difference of customer response to the marketing of a brand with respect to the marketing of other brand. Brand

Acquaintance is the customer’s awareness of the brand. It is how the buyer has observe the brand and what insights the customer has in his or her mind about the brand remembered in terms of brand connotation. Consumer reply to the marketing of the brand is in the practice of preferences, liking and disliking. Brand Equity can be supposed to have positive or satisfactory

28 response of customers to the marketing efforts (Price, Product, Place and Promotion) of a brand as compared to the competing brand. The auspicious influence of the brand knowledge on consumer’s mind can grades it as high rank of the brand in consumer’s insight. Brand knowledge is based on brand connotations, so to have brand link that clearly makes the brand impressive or more valuable is very important. The more the consumer has brand cognizance and the more favorably they understand the brand relations the greater will be probabilities of a positive behavior of consumer to the brand. The higher the brand equity in the mind of patrons the more returns brand is making for the organization so effectiveness is significantly improved.

2.2 Context of the Research

In this research we have thoroughly discussed the independent variables of our research, which are Congruence, Satisfaction and Commitment that creates a brand personality, which eventually leads to brand loyalty. Following are the points, which we have contributed in the context of this research on the subject of Pakistan Cola Beverages are discussed below. We have three cola brands in this research and the names of those brands are Pepsi Cola, Coca Cola and Gourmet

Cola.

Extensive advertising strategy and more & more advertising campaigns by the Coca Cola

Company with innovations and new ideas help them to compete with the Pepsi Cola and they should have target different classes of the society, which are upper, middle and lower class. This strategy will surely help them to increase their product demand, increase the gross margin on sales and increase the trustworthiness in the market. Coca Cola advertisements are not focus on one subject and by doing this they were lost their way of success. They should focus on one

29 slogan, which is happiness for the advertisement like what the Pepsi did in their advertisements

(Alexandrov A. , 2011).

Pepsi Cola is the leading brand in the Pakistan cola beverages industry, why not the local cola brand or any other foreign brand leads the market? That is one of the questions, which we have discussed in our research. On the basis of the previous researches on the Pepsi by studying different research papers we have conclude that Pepsi provides great quality in their products and the taste of their product is similar to that taste, which is commonly accepted by the consumers in the Pakistan. They have healthy financial resources and they have no issue regarding finance.

They have high tech machines and equipment by which they manufacture great quality products.

They also have well trained and dedicated employee, which enhances the reputation of a company. Their placement of a product is equally good because of the supply chain infrastructure and their product is easily available all over the country. The consumer of the

Pepsi cola shows so much dedication to purchase the product of a Pepsi that is why Pepsi Cola enjoys the brand loyalty. One more reason is market share, because the more market share means the more trust on the product. Moreover, Pepsi itself associated with the Pakistan Cricket Team.

They invest a large sum of money to promote their product and to promote Pakistani cricketers as well. Their advertisements guide consumers that cricketers are so much loyal to Pepsi cola and cricketers are considered as role models in our country so that this concept eventually create an image of a brand loyalty in the minds of consumers(PBL, 2012).

On the other hand, the Gourmet cola is available in cheap prices and the consumers of every social class easily purchased their product, hence they are not be able to sell their product in the whole country and they are only restrict themselves in the region of Punjab, because don’t have enough financial resources and they are not advertise their products as much as Pepsi and Coca

Cola does. They also have limited outlets only in Punjab. They have not made appropriate marketing strategies for their products to face the challenge of big giants of Pakistan beverages

Industry, which are Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola. They should focus on the packaging of their products, because the packaging creates a congruence, satisfaction and commitment with the product, which leads to a brand personality that eventually achieve a brand loyalty. In order to gain the market share to survive in the market, they should focus to make new strategies by which they introduced their products all over the Pakistan and it enhance their profitability of the product and awareness as well(Gourmet, 2013).

2.2.1 Beverage Industry in Pakistan

Pepsi, Coca Cola, Gourmet Cola and many other local companies are playing in the Pakistan

Beverages Industry. Pepsi and Coca Cola share most of the shares of the market i.e. more than

90% of the entire local market of Pakistan. It can be said that both the companies are enjoying very stiff competition between them (Report, 2011).

Now a day’s new brand comes in the market, but most of the brands are facing difficulties to find a respectable place in the market, and they do not considered as competitors for the Pepsi and

Coca Cola. There are many factors on which we repealed newly introduced companies from the competition to Pepsi and Coca Cola and those factors are quality of the product, availability of the product, visibility of the product and promotion of the product (Report, 2011).

Pepsi and Coca Cola are almost same in the positioning of the brands. They both brands are considered as a substitute of each other. There are number of consumers, who find difficulties to distinguish between those products. On the other hand, the newly introduced brands are fall in the category of inferior brands on the basis of the quality of the product. Quality is one of the

31 reasons that is why the newly introduced brands are unable to create their own market and most of the shares are captured by these two giants (Report, 2011).

The religious campaigns that give boost to the newly introduced companies to capture the market by availing this opportunity and make the best out of it, but still they are struggling in the market.

Those religious campaigns were carried out by the religious groups of a country in the past years.

We are not considered that those campaigns are fully failed and do not disturb their businesses, but those campaigns imposed a negative image on Pepsi in the minds of consumers due to the affiliation of company with Israel (Report, 2011).

In the end, we can say that there are only two major competitors in the Pakistan Beverages

Industry similar to the other countries in the world. But the situation of the Pakistani market is very much different from the other markets in the world. In Pakistan, Pepsi is the market leader and Coca Cola is on the second position. But outside the Pakistan, Coca Cola is considering as a top cola brand and Pepsi is nowhere near from it. Out of the 100% market shares, 60% shares claimed by Pepsi. On the other hand, 30-35% shares claimed by Coca Cola. The market shares of both the competitors are increasing day by day (Report, 2011).

2.2.2 Pepsi

In 1979, the company introduced the franchise of Pepsi Cola International with the name of

Pepsi Beverage Company Limited of Pakistan. Within five years of getting a franchise, Pepsi

Beverages Pakistan Ltd. has managed to repeat the success of previous work in the beverage market by becoming a market leader across the Sindh, most specifically in the region of Karachi and later in Hyderabad. Dynamic partnership established in 1979 between Pakistan Beverage

Limited and Pepsi Cola International, in fact, is a force to be reckoned with in the market, and

32 that stands true to this day. This great success flowed gradually to other cities of Pakistan in the south and north region, over a period of time, which makes Pepsi and its brands the most popular cola beverage across the country. Today, with about 60 acres of space under the accumulated storage and processing Pakistan Beverage Company Limited is one of the bottling plants of

Pepsi- Cola’s well-equipped and well managed franchises (PBL, 2014).

Pepsi cola was started by Caleb Bradham in 1898 in North Carolina, when he was working as a bar tender in his place (Pepsi Cola, 2014). Mr. Caleb prepared a drink, to which one of the customer called the “Bred Drink”. Bred registered this drink with name of Pepsi cola in

1903.Bred Drink was later named Pepsi cola on June 16, 1903, then to Pepsi in 1961. When he launched the company, people were associating Pepsi with coca cola. Sometime later people started realizing Pepsi cola as a separate brand. Pepsi cola started operations in different countries and started giving tough competition to coca cola. It started from western America to eastern Asia, Northern Russia and Europe towards to Southern Africa. Pepsi is now one the leading multinational companies in the world and comes at number 10 in the top 50 companies in fortune ranking. In 1979, Pepsi started their operations in Pakistan. Pepsi has a market share of

70% in the Pakistani market which explains the defeat of coca cola in Pakistan. The market share shows us the behavior of consumers in the market that many of them prefer Pepsi over Coca cola. The understanding of the local culture and consumers is very important for both the companies in order to gain success in the market of Pakistan. Pepsi, 7up and Miranda are the major beverages produced by Pepsi co. In Pakistan, Pepsi also produces mineral water with the tag name of “Aquafina” in Pakistan (Pepsi Cola, 2014).

2.2.3 Coca-Cola

First, Coca-Cola was introduced in Atlanta, Georgia. One of the pharmacists Dr. John

SythPermberton made Coca Cola syrup. He gave the syrup to the Jacob’s Pharmacy for sale as

Cola fountain drink that cost five cents of the glass. Refreshment history was made by combining new syrup with carbonated water. The name Coca Cola was suggested by Dr. Permberton’s and he also prepared his logo (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

In 1882, the business was incorporated as “The Coca Cola Company”. In 1888, all rights of the business were purchased by Mr. Asa G. Candlor in US $2300. In 1894, the first bottle machinery of Coca Cola was installed in the candy store of Vicksberg, Mississippi by Joseph A. Biedelharn.

In 1897, first time Canada and Hawaii export Coca-Cola from Atlanta, Georgia. In 1900, first time Coca Cola was exported in Europe and in 1995 in Canada Coca Cola was registered their trademark. In 1953, Coca Cola started their operations in Pakistan. In 1970, Coca Cola introduced their new product lines named Fanta and Sprite in Pakistan. In 1982, the Coca Cola

Company enhanced their business by entering in the entertainment business. In 1982, the company in order to utilize their resources to benefits society was established as a foundation

(Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

2.2.3.1 Current status of Coca Cola

The company sold their products to distributors and wholesalers, which is around 3500, in different countries. The consumption of Coca Cola is very high and more than 524 million people wants a coke time by its name in more than 80 languages and in approximately 168 countries. There are more than 17000 people and 15000 jobs in the Coca Cola Company and they also have thousands of wholesalers and distributors. Coca Cola have the largest brand equity in the world (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

Today, there are the three business sectors by which Coca Cola Company operates:

 North America Soft Drink Business Sector

 International soft drink business sector

 Food business sector

2.2.3.2 The Nature of Soft Drink

The drinks that manufactured and sold by the Coca Cola Company are really refreshing thirst quencher, which provides satisfaction to the consumers. The soft drink of a Coca Cola Company contains carbonated water, nutritive sweeteners and flavors (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

2.2.3.3 Nutrition

Carbonated soft drinks have a sum of liquid that provide to the people, which is important for the decent health. Soft drinks provide calories to the consumers, which have nutritive sweetener that uses the body of a consumer for the energy (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

2.2.3.4 Health

Every time, the Coca-Cola company uses the safe guards in manufacturing and bottling process that minimize the probability of off-taste products in the time of manufacturing. By doing this company prevent itself to encounter with any problem and if some problem is happened then the product should be returned before the point of purchase (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

2.2.3.5 Quality

The qualities of the products of the Coca Cola Company ensures uniformity and the company inspect their products on regular basis by sampling of beverages, which is manufactured in each bottling plants (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

2.2.3.6 Formula of Coca Cola is Secret

The largest seller of soft drinks in the world is Coca Cola Company and they follows all the laws and practices of a country in which they are operate. The company is kept their formula secret, because it is the property right for the company (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

2.2.3.7 Coca Cola in Pakistan

In 1953, first time Coca Cola Company was introduced in Pakistan and the local plants of the country which is situated in Karachi, Hyderabad, Gujranwala and Sialkot was purchased by the company. There are almost 10 beverages plants of a Coca Cola Company in Pakistan. All the beverages plants is situated in the well-known cities. The names of the cities are Karachi,

Hyderabad, Lahore, Sialkot, Gujranwala, Multan, Faisalabad, Rawalpindi, KPK and Rahim Yar khan. The Coca Cola drink manufactures in Beverage plant, which manufactures Coca Cola in a local drink factory in the place of Hyderabad under the name of cold drink. Pakistan has 35 plants of carbonated drinks all over the country. All of the plants mainly operate in the big cities and those plants have manufactures 60 million crates of 24 bottles of 250ml. Coca Cola and

Pepsi are the two main giants of Pakistan Beverages Industry (Report on Coca Cola, 2009).

2.2.4 Gourmet:

In 1987, Mr. Nawaz Chatha the founder of the Gourmet Foods Pakistan has started his business in Lahore with only one sale outlet. But today, “Gourmet Foods Pakistan” is one of the largest food chain in Pakistan and is prominent for its traditional foods and obsession for eating. Initially

Gourmet has started its operation as a bakery and in the production of the dairy products only.

The main theme of its all productions is to provide its customer with the quality products for which they have stretched out its network all across the Lahore with seven processing units and ninety eight sales outlets. Over 25 years of its operation, it has diversified portfolio of food

36 companies which consist of not only Bakery and Mithai but also they are now manufacturing dairy products, beverages, traditional halwas, candy, toffee, jams, ice cream, ketchup, nimco as well. They are very much committed towards exercising their all efforts, expertise and resources into the production so to provide the fine quality of food for their product consumer and as to fulfill the meaning of GOURMET- the fine quality of foods and drinks lover as well(Gourmet

Pakistan, 2013).

With the passage of time Gourmet has made a tremendous and a rapid annual growth i.e. more than twenty five percent since the date of operation- 1987. Commitment and exceptional efforts of Mr. Nawaz Chatha has made Gourmet a remarkable producer of quality food which is also having an unmatched approach of display in the local market of Pakistan. To meet up the quality standard food Gourmet has always seek out for best quality of raw materials so that they can provide maximum range of products to their consumers. For quality raw material i.e. raw cheese and khoya for their dairy products and sweets they have their own setups and plants.

Construction of the bakery plant is based on the state of art, where they meet up all the requirements of the safety and quality of foods under Hazard Analysis and Critical Control

Points(HACCP), (Gourmet Foods - Pakistan, 2012).

Latest technology for producing all sort of beverages are also been installed. The range of products under beverages are, Gourmet Cola, Malta, Lemon up, Apple and Ice-cream Soda, in six different sizes ranging from 300ml to 2.25 liter. Moreover, other standard plants are also installed for the production and bottling of mineral water and juices. For the bakery item they have their own bakery house where they produce and sell buns, rusks, bread, cookies, sandwiches, rolls, pastries, biscuits and many more.

Gourmet has not only restricted themselves only shelving their products like jam, pickles, beverages, ice creams, dairy products and many more to their outlets, infect there distribution and shelving are also placed in the retail shops and bakery outlets to compete with other brands(Nabeel, 2009).

2.2.4.1 Concerning Beverages:

If we look into the market of the beverages i.e. of soft drinks many international brand came into the Pakistani market but due to the somehow Islamic perspective scandals only the market of

Pepsi and Coca Cola sustained their market and taking edge over all other international brands.

But since independence no market of local beverage industry has been established and sustained market to take over the monopoly of Pepsi and Coca Cola across Pakistan. After many years, the initiatives were taken by Gourmet in 2007 and start their production in beverages with the portfolio of Gourmet Cola, Malta, Lemon up, Apple and Ice-cream Soda, in six different sizes ranging from 300ml to 2.25 liter. Today they are enjoying and had taken an edge over Pepsi and

Coca Cola in the region of Lahore, Punjab. Simultaneously another beverage product i.e.

ShandyCola (Lahore) is also trying their best to come into the local market but still need a lot of effort and work to do to upgrade their market position(Gourmet, 2003-2014).

2.2.4.2 Gourmet Cola Marketing Plan:

Gourmet has launched their range of beverages in local market of Pakistan especially in Lahore where their distribution services are at high level which further enhanced the market capture and taken edge over Pepsi and Coca Cola. They launched in various range of sizes as Pepsi and Coca

Cola did i.e. from 300ml up to 2.25 liter in the affordable prices. The prime target market segment is to keep remain focus on the consumer’s high demand of the beverages belonging to all level of income groups (Gourmet, 2003-2014).

In Pakistan, it is difficult to break the market of the competitors like Pepsi and Coca Cola (the giants of beverage industry). For this challenges Gourmet is putting up their best with an effective and professional marketing plans. Further to implement their strategies effectively they do need to make researches time to time so they could be able to meet the expectations of the consumer demand (Gourmet, 2003-2014).

2.2.4.3 Current Marketing Situation

Over the period of time the market of beverages in Pakistan has been enjoying a dynamic growth both in terms of volume and current value. Massive and large shares of sales are been done both in on-trade and off-trade in the market of Pakistan. The consumption of beverages has been turning into the part of Pakistani culture and for which many international brands like Pepsi and

Coca Cola are providing and maintaining their standards to provide high quality of carbonated drinks over the years. It has been estimated that around 120 million sales are been recorded of the beverages across the Pakistan annually (Gourmet, 2003-2014).

Keeping in mind regarding the high competition of beverages brand in Pakistan, Gourmet has made a great influence by making it available in almost all the stores of Lahore and Punjab region so that would attract the consumer and would result in boosting up their sales. Although both Pepsi and Coca Cola shares 90% of the market among themselves but still Gourmet sustained their market of Lahore and taken and edge over them(Gourmet, 2003-2014).

Currently Gourmet is now approaching and targeting the market out of the Punjab region. The distribution and the pilot testing are been initiated in the region of Sindh were they are getting positive response from the consumer of Pepsi and Coca Cola which is also the positive sign for the company and evaluate the quality of the beverage as up to the best as a local brand. More or

39 less it is being foreseen that they will capture the market of Sindh region as well as they did in

Punjab region (Gourmet, 2003-2014).

2.3 Brand personality

Brand personality states to the human appearances related with a specific brand (Govers P. C.

M., 2009)(Aaker & J.L, The Impacts of Brand Personality and Congruity on Purchase Intention:,

2009).Changing the importance somewhat, (Govers & Schoormans, 2005) regard brand personality from the viewpoint of an interpersonal relationship with the brand. They are certain of that brand personality is “the set of human personality characters that link to the interpersonal field of human personality and are pertinent to describing the brand as a connection partner.

In general, the part of brand personality in marketing is typically viewed as an important advertising tool tempting to targeted audiences for development of general image (Gwinner &

Eaton, 1999). To demonstrate this notion, Pepsi, for instance, may be portrayed with a fashionable, bouncing, and modern young man; whereas Coca-Cola could be embodied with a gentle and obedient man. This may be partly due to advertisers’ strategies to personify brands, so that when consumers think about a particular brand, human personality traits would come to mind, thus providing a basis for brand differentiation.

Furthermore,(Keller K. L., Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand

Equity, 1993)points out that brand personality possesses symbolic values rather than utilitarian functions. By infusing brands with human personalities and through purchasing and/or using the brands, consumers can achieve higher self-esteem (Belk, Kenneth, & Mayer, 1982).(McCraken,

1986), sources that contribute to the formation of brand personality can be classified into two categories: direct and indirect sources .The direct sources include the set of human characteristics

40 associated with a typical brand user, company employees, the CEO of the company, and brand endorsers. The indirect sources consist of all the decisions made by company managers, such as decisions related to the product, its price, distribution, and promotion. Recent research findings indicate that a strong and positive brand personality can result in favorable product evaluations

(Wang & Yang, 2008). Demonstrating this notion,(Freling & Forbes, 2005) find that, when respondents are exposed to a brand’s positive personalities, they tend to have a greater proportion of congruent brand associations, greater unique brand associations, and a greater proportion of strong brand associations. (Fennis, Pruyn, & Maasland, 2005), observe that brand personality dimensions could affect consumers’ self-perceptions with respect to agreeableness, extroversion, conscientiousness, and intellect. (Aaker D. , Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name., 1991),also points out that a distinctively positive brand personality could be highly indicative of more favorable brand equity than when only product information is given.

In his works, (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997)defines brand personality as being “a set of human characteristics associated to a brand”. The author postulates that it can include certain characteristics such as age, socio-economic class, personality traits and feelings.

She developed a model of measurement of the personality of a brand by identifying 42 features divided up among 15 facets and 5 factors of personality: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. However, Aaker’s founding definition has often been criticized.

(Viot & C, 2006), have postulates thatstartingfromthis definition the brand personality has become a jumble concept. According to (J.N., A., & Kapferer, 2003), Aaker defines brand personality, not uniquely as a facet of identity, but as a much more global construct. Both authors conceptualize brand personality as “the set of traits of human personality which are pertinent and

41 applicable to brands”. (L., J-M., & D, 2003),also find this definition too global as it can comprise some brand personality traits which have no equivalents at the human level; and also because it can present some personality features which rather correspond to social judgments (provincial, trendy, or aristocratic). Thus, the authors think that it is fairer to define brand personality as being “the set of traits of human personality associated to a brand”.

Brand personality is a set of characteristics that describes a brand. Brand managers are interested in promoting a brand personality that attracts consumers’ attention such that they may form a preference for a brand. Consumer preferences are a pivotal concept in marketing, as they underpin customer choice among alternatives. (Blackwell, Miniard, & Engel, 2001), defines preferences as ‘attitudes toward one object in relation to another’. A preference may be transformed into a motivation that ultimately finds expression in a specific behavior. Despite the utility of this concept, it should, however, be noted that consumer preferences alone are not the only factor implicated in a purchase decision. Factors such as price and in-store promotion can moderate a purchase decision despite a consumer’s preference for a particular brand. The premise of the research reported here is that if stability is a characteristic of personality, then likewise the presentation of a consistent brand image with which consumers are comfortable will promote brand preference, and may contribute to brand loyalty so long as instrumental needs are met. This is essentially the argument stated by(Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality,

1997)who stated that ‘the greater the congruity between the human characteristics that consistently and distinctively describe an individual’s actual or ideal self and those that describe a brand, the greater the preference for the brand.(Aaker & Fournier, 1995), argued that a brand can function as a character, partner and person. Thus, the premise of the research is to examine the extent to which consumers use brand personality as a vehicle to express their personality.

Based on this premise, brand personality scales used in this study have been constructed that are reflective of The Big Five Model. This is consistent with the research aim, which was to explore the relationship between consumer personality and brand personality. An expectation of the research was that each consumer personality dimension would be aligned with at least one brand personality construct. The brand personality scale was constructed by identifying descriptors of traits from The Big Five model that could be attributed to brand. It was found that some elements such as ‘worried’ and ‘anxious’ could not be directly linked to brand. Thus, only those descriptors that were transferable were entrenched in the scale (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand

Personality, 1997), conducted a study to measure the generalization of The Big Five model across brand, and resolved five different dimensions, which are Sincerity, Excitement,

Competence, Sophistication and Ruggedness. Only three of the brand personality dimensions

(Sincerity, Excitement and Competence) were, however, found to associate directly with the personality dimensions (Agreeableness, Extroversion and Conscientiousness).None of them linked directly with Neuroticism and Openness to Experience. In the research reported here, some elements of Aaker’s brand personality dimensions (Friendly, Cool, Reliable) were also used in the construction of the gauges used to measure brand personality. It was expected that respondents who were leading on a particular aspect of The Big Five would prefer a brand personality that imitates that aspect or is close to it.

A number of studies have been undertaken on the subject of brand personality. The initial idea, that a brand should be considered as a person or a human being, was given in the work of

(Gardner & Sidney Levy, 1955). Much later (Aaker & Fournier, 1995)in anexplanation of three ideas tried to define brand personality from three perspectives which were, Conceptual, methodological and substantive, and to develop a brand personality inventory based on

43 personality traits from psychology and marketing literature. They also conversed that the theoretical and practical suggestions of the actuality of the big five factor structure and settled a

45 item pool which they called Brand Personality Inventory. This was followed by a study of

(Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997) in which she tried to develop a scale to measure brand personality. (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997), came up with five distinct brand personality dimensions which were Sincerity, Excitement,

Competence,Sophisticationand Ruggedness. (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality,

1997),alsoharangued that the five dimensions could be further divided into fifteen facets which were: down to earth, honest, wholesome, cheerful, daring, spirited, imaginative, up-to-date, reliable, intelligent, successful, upper-class, charming, outdoorsy and tough. (Aaker J. L.,

Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997), BP scale was later on used by a number of studies in different backgrounds. (Supphellen, Magne, & Gfonhaug, 2003), did a study to test the applicability of the BP scale in Russian context. The two major findings of their study were (a)

Brand personalities of western brands had a momentous impact on brand attitude, and (b) the effect of western brand personalities was found to be by the consumer ethnocentrism. A study by

(T., Beverly, Rose, & Gilbert, 2003),which planned to measure brand personality of the non- profit sector brands found out four extents out of the five by (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand

Personality, 1997)to be included in their study. Diamantopoulos et al. (2005) used (Aaker J. L.,

Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997)BP gauge and found out that brand personality of the parent brand did not have any adverse effect on the delays. However, the (Aaker J. L.,

Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997) BP scale has been asked by some researchers. (Azoulay,

Audrey, & Kapferer, 2003),pointed to the flaws in the(Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand

Personality, 1997) BP scale and harangued that the measure does not actually measure the brand

44 personality concept but only masses some dimensions of brand identity. (Austin, Siguaw, &

Mattila, 2003), strained to find out the (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997) BP and resolved that the framework does not simplify to individual brands in a generally defined product category. Another important area where researchers have probed is that of gauging brand personality of online brands personality (Okazaki, 2006). The association between self-concept or consumer's own personality and BP has also been studied (Phau & Kong Lau, 2001) where the researchers initiate out consumer's own personality has an impact on the apparent brand personality. The other areas of brand personality, which have been deliberated by researches, are: effect of brand personality on customer loyalty (Stephanie, Algesheimer, Huber, & Herrmann,

2003), cross cultural possessions on BP (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, & Garolera, Consumption

Symbols as Carriers of Culture: A Study of Japanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructs,

2001) and (Sung & Tinkham, Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea:

Common and Culture-Specific Factors, 2005), brand personality effects on consumer perceptions towards store brands (Beldona & Wysong, 2007), being and effect of BP of purpose brand

(Triplett, 1994) and change in acuity of BP traits with time and data(Johar, Sengupta, & Aaker,

2005).

Consumers have recognized the importance of brand personality a very long time ago. Brand personality is the set of human characteristics associated with the brand (J.N., A., & Kapferer,

2003). B. Reiger as mentioned in (Luckerath, 2010) wrote that a brand is the product of personality and the factor of brand personality supports the brand identity. Those brands that do not have a personality associated with them are known to be dead. Researchers and marketers are interested in this phenomenon more than they were before. The understanding of the brand enables a company to have a better understanding of the relationship of consumers with the

45 brand in order to build long term customer relationship and therewith also the brand equity. A brand personality is difficult if not possible to copy by the competitors and can thus give companies more competitive advantage over the other (Luckerath, 2010). It is argued that the symbolic use of brands is possible because consumers always compare the brand with their personality traits. Personality traits those associated with a brand and those associated with an individual are relatively enduring and distinct (Luckerath, 2010). Brand personality is the process of consumer’s self-expression and helps the consumer express different aspects of his or herself.

Aaker developed a systematic study of brand personality and told the importance of brand personality dimensions which are Sincerity, Excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. From the above five dimensions, people who have sincere and excitement personality captures the attention of the brands. Exciting and sincere personalities are the one which are focused most because they are important in interpersonal relationships.

(Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997), said that nurturance, warmth, family orientation and traditionalism are the characteristics of sincere brand personalities.

Brand personality is an asset for positioning the brands in the market. It helps in formulating advertising policies and selling. There are various measures that can be used to conduct brand personality. The famous method is the brand personality scale developed (Aaker J. L.,

Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997).

The scale considers 42 traits which are then eliminated into 5 dimensions: Sincerity, Excitement,

Competence, Sophistication and Ruggedness.

In 1955, the term brand personality was introduced in a lecture of American Associate of advertising Agencies by David Ogilvy. The concept that emerges with this term was that with the

46 passage of time the things had been changed in term of technology, there has been much better way and approaches to produce the product with respect to quality and quantity. This leads to create the differentiation among the different producers and their products. On the other hand, the customers of the product also want to make themselves differentiate by the consumption of the respective product and identify themselves different from others. Hence, the term brand personality was used to make identification of the product and moreover, satisfy the personal necessities and the emotional of the customer (Anon, 2014).

Since its being 50 years the first concept of the brand personality came, from that time onwards many version and its definition had being emerge where many authors has given many definitions.

(Fournier, 1997), defines the term as character of the personality that is used to distinguish a person and brand association. It helps us in building up the understanding and the development and maintains relationship between the consumers and the brands.

Brand personality consists of a set of human attributes associated with a specific brand (Aaker J.

L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997). Or it is the set of traits people attribute to a product as if it were a person (Solomon M. R., Consumer Behaviour, 2012).

2.3.1 Dimension of Brand Personality:

Dimensions of brand personality are derived and defined from the dimension of human personality. (RajaGopa, 2006). Based on human personality traits of big 5 model, personality traits related to brands were identified by (Aaker J. L., 1997). Aaker described forty two traits and five personality dimension model which are as follows:

(Aaker & J.L, Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997) Brand Personality Scale

Sincerity Excitement Competence Sophistication Ruggedness

Figure 1: Dimensions of Brand Personality

The human personality trait conscientiousness and competence of the brand personality dimension are related to each other which show excellent skills, precaution and gives a lot of attention to detail and surrounding. Extraversion and excitement are notions of enthusiasm. The comparison of agreeableness and sincerity shows us that they are related to kindness, faithfulness and mildness. Sophistication and ruggedness is not linked to any of the human personality traits.

The reason why it is not linked to any of the dimensions brand personality model is because of the way the consumers operate and influence other consumers (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand

Personality, 1997). The measurement taken by Aaker does not even exist in the personality measurement tool.(Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997), proposed measurement

48 tools are not equal in terms of the personality traits which match to the class of the upper and up to date(Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, Vallete, & Florence, How Well does Brand Personality

Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale and Analysis using Binary Regression Models,

2005). The only thing that is applicable is the concept of brand image and brand personality should be applicable across the product. The instrument used to measure brand image is specific to a particular category and also brand specific whereas to measure brand personality can be applied across different cultures and brands around the world. It also transfers the meaning from human personality of consumers to the brands that are purchased or influenced to purchase, prefer or reject.

Basically there are five dimension scale of brand personality presented by Aaker and these are:

1. Excitement: These are the most exciting brand that is energetic, creative, bold and

progressive.

2. Sincerity: Sincere brands are considered by the consumer as being practical, realistic,

wholesome, truthful, down to earth and cheerful.

3. Ruggedness: These are the brand that are seen outdoorsy and though.

4. Competence: These brands are associated with dependability, cleverness, and success.

5. Sophistication: These are the brands that are fit for the upper classes and viewed as

delightful.

With these dimension Aaker’s objective was to make clear about the concept and to build the scale that can easily measure the brand personality (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand

Personality, 1997).

These brands are tailored made and fit for the upper class and viewed as delightful.

Figure 2: (Aaker & J.L, Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997)

(Aaker J. L., 1997), objective was to clear the concept and to build the scale that can easily measure the brand personality.

In 1992, Goldberg also in contrast sketched the dimension scale named as ‘Marker” of the Big

Five model which is also abbreviated as OCEAN. These dimension scale was used to measure the brand personality as Aaker did. It was the shorter bipolar inventory for the Big Five that consist of on 35 bipolar scales. Despite it was not strength full as compared with the 100 unipolar markers of the Big Five Model (Saucier, 1994). In all, Goldberg has tried to shorten the length of

Big Five model into five dimension scale and these are as follows:

1. Openness: Creative, imaginative, intellectual, philosophical, deep, complex, uncreative,

un-intellectual.

2. Conscientiousness: Efficient, organized, systematic, practical, disorganized, inefficient,

sloppy, careless.

3. Extraversion: Bold, extraverted, talkative, bashful, quiet, shy, withdrawn, and energetic.

4. Agreeableness: Kind, sympathetic, warm, cooperative, cold, unsympathetic, harsh, rude.

5. Neuroticism: Unenvious, relaxed, fretful, envious, jealous, moody, touchy, and

temperamental.

The mechanism of these markers of the Big Five model are based on the dimension that having a high loading and low loading i.e. (close to the zero loading). The objective to develop was to diminish the entire length of the questionnaire and also to avoid and reduce the exhaustion of the respondent (Saucier, 1994).

By the time of 30s, (Guildford, 1959)started to develop questionnaires to explore the characteristic traits which are under human behavior. Therefore, he explained personality as,

"unique pattern of traits"(Guildford, 1959). Guilford defined seven dimensions or characteristic traits of personality which he further explains in four groups:

 Semantic Characteristics: morphologic and physiologic traits

 Aptitudes: Capabilities and Qualifications

 Temperament

 Motivational Characteristics: interests, needs and attitudes

Comparing Guilford's seven dimensions of personality, Cattle (1979) introduced the 16 personality factor inventory, which gives a complete and authentic description of the human personality and which can be universally reproduce.

Cattle (1979) construct his research on the work of Allport and Odbert(Allport & Odbert, 1936) who perform a psycho lexical study (John, 1988) in which they consider all personality related expressions in the Webster's New International Dictionary.

The results of 17,953 expressions are divided into four categories:

 Personal Traits

 Passing Activities and States

 Social Evaluations and Metaphorical

 Doubtful Terms

Cattle used the 4,500 personality traits, 100 activities and states expressions and conclude them down to finally sixteen dimensions (Pervin, 2005).

Cattel and Guilford both started by collecting personality facts from where they concluded the separate personality dimensions. Comparing to that Eysenck used an inferential theoretical approach which means, he compose the theoretical concept which he later examined (Fisseni,

1998).From the results of the studies, Eysenck primarily induced a two-factor-solution and narrate human personality with only two dimensions ('Extraversion' and 'Neuroticism').

These two became the 'Big2' of human personality. Furthermost, Eysenck expanded this personality framework and endorse an additional third dimension which is known as

'Psychoticism' (Eysenck, 1970).

From the study and research work of three different people, it has been concluded that no authentic solution was determined to explain the construct of human personality. Three persons concluded three different dimensions; Guildford constructed seven-factor-solution, Cattle derived sixteen personality dimensions and Eysenck again formed only three dimensions.

The three obtained results are not completely different from each other, they have some similarities like; Eysenck's personality’s dimensions are similar with Cattel's 16 Personality

Factor Inventory, they also unable to provide satisfactory description of the personality construct

(Luckerath, 2010).

Other than the developing regard in the brand personality concept, its calculation has been not enough for many years. Till the mid-1990s, researchers had used "ad holic scales" or "personality scales" gathered from human personality psychology to verify a brand's personality and to measure its causes on customer purchase behavior. Both alternatives are insufficient with a view to their representativeness.

"Ad hoc scales" are personal and as a result may add brand personality traits which are not applicable or in turn minus other important characteristics. Human personality psychology has the drawback that they are not directly applicable for brands. (Aaker J. , Dimensions of Brand

Personality, 1997).

(Wells, Andriuli, Goi, & Seaders, 1957), tried to describe brand personalities with assist of adjective lists. The list was depended upon 'The Teacher's Word Book of 30,000 Words' from

Thorndike where they review all adjectives which were concentrated at least 50 times among the millions people asked.

The followed adjective list was then minimize by all terms instead related to the explanation of things than of customer, debatable expressions or terms not relevant to the purchasing process

(such as 'dead') and eventually accommodate 108 adjectives.

(Alt & Griggs, 1988), pursue a different approach and categorized brands in successful and less successful brands.

Afterwards, they had detailed interviews where they asked experts to allocate attributes individually to two brand clusters. The expert’s interviews cause three brand personality

53 dimensions which the researchers called 'Extraversion', 'Social Acceptability' and 'Virtue'. Fourth factor 'Potency', demonstrate to be unstable.

Therefore, alike to the work of Wells et al., (Alt & Griggs, 1988) scale was not prove and could more to be specific due to the small number of product categories used (Aaker J. , 1997).

(Batra & al, 1993), also tried to grow a suitable tool for the calculation of brand personality.

Their approach was dependent on a list with personality feature declaration assemble by

(Anderson N. , 1968), which they select the 200 declarations most suitable for the explanation of the brands.

Accompany by the three adjectives; old, young and technical (Batra & al, 1993)asked a group of graduates marketing students to cut down the list to 30 words. At last, fifteen test persons were questioned to assess nine brands on the basis of the last create personality feature list.

(Batra, Lehmann, & Singh, 1993), get a seven-factor-solution where every individual of the seven dimensions was more specified by two bipolar adjective pairs. Similar to the last brand personality frameworks, Batra et al.'s research cannot be consumed as a representative calculated tool because of the small sample and restricted number of brands included in the test design

(Luckerath, 2010).

At the end, (Strausbaugh, 1998) consumed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) for the explanation of brand personality dimensions. The MBTI is an indicator consumed for the typologisation of personalities and is an improvement of Jung's personality matrix. From the

MBTI, 16 personality types lives which results from contrasting along dichotomous pairs of personality features.

Therefore, many consumers are unable to differentiate with the personality type that resulted from the test which answered the model's validity. While the model is still famous in the USA, it can't acquire any welcome among scientists in Europe (Luckerath, 2010),.

2.3.2 Concept of Brand Personality:

The concept of brand personality is derived from human personality. In this concept brands are linked to human personality traits. (Fournier & Yao, 1997), has proposed that brands might be differentiated on three aspects that are physical attributes (red color), functional characteristics or benefits associated with the brand (remove stains without damaging clothes) and personality traits (youthful) associated with the brand(Ambroise L. , et al., 2005). Concept of brand personality in the field of marketing was first applied to advertising so that consumers can easily associate brands with favorable personality traits that result in favorable brand image (Ambroise

L. , et al., 2005). Brand personality in marketing is generally used to build an overall image of the brand by using it as a tactic appealing large groups of targeted audience. For instance Coca-

Cola can be perceived family oriented while Pepsi as youthful. This might be true due to the marketer’s or advertiser’s strategy to personify the brand so that when consumer thinks about a particular brand they associate human personality trait with the brand that results in brand differentiation (Bouhlel O. , Mzoughi, Hadiji, & Slimane, 2009).

2.3.3 The Creation of Brand Personality

All contact of consumer with the brand whether direct or indirect results in perception of brand personality traits in the mind of consumer (Lombart, Louis, & Cindy, Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences (trust, commitment and attachment) to the brand, 2010). Direct contact can be the result of user imagery with the brand that is the human

55 personality traits associated by common users of the brand. The perception of brand personality in a direct way is established by human personality traits associated with the brand, perception of the producer of the brand and of the person who indorses the brand. Indirectly consumer’s perception of brand personality is established through product category association of brand, price and brand symbols (name, logo etc.).

2.3.4 Importance of Brand Personality

. Brand personality is considerably important to persuade the consumers towards the brand

. Brand personality is an excellent way of distinguishing brand from the competitors

thereby increasing the effectiveness of marketing communication because they are based

on different brand personalities (Tudorica H. O., 2001). Intense competition between

brands makes it very difficult for marketers and brand managers to differentiate brand

solely on the basis of functional attribute. Incorporating brand personality in marketing

communication campaigns helps distinguishing brand form its competitors on symbolic

level. Also it helps to evaluate that whether marketing communication efforts to position

the brand are successful or not. Although there are various ways through which

consumers learn about the brand such as product-usage experience, social communication

and the marketing environment but understanding and knowledge about brand construct

in terms of brand personality and image will help achieving successful differentiation

(Sung, Kim, & Jung, 2010).

. Consumer use the brand because they want to create, reinforce and communicate their

self-concepts so consumer select and purchase the brand they like as they find the brand

consistent with their self-image and personalities. So brand personality construct can help

Marketers to better understand consumers who want to express themselves through the

commercial brand they use or purchase. That is why brand personality is considered to

the focal point in the establishment of positive attitude and preference towards the brand

(Sung, Kim, & Jung, 2010).

. Implementing concept of brand personality guarantees a strong consumer and brand

relationship (Sung, Kim, & Jung, 2010). Perceiving favorable brand personality is

positively perceived by the consumer and they view brand as relationship partner in

consumer brand relationship (Tudorica H. O., 2001).

. Perceiving brand personality consumer can interpret brand image that is personally more

meaningful. Consumer takes more active part in processing perceives brand personality

so they are more involve in the brand (Tudorica H. O., 2001).

The examination of brand personalities across dissimilar places can deliver awareness regarding the cultural differences in consumer psychology and behavior which leads to directing the expansion of more persuasive (either standardized or adapted) advertising and branding strategies. So that for practitioners any person, who handle global account assertions, the grasp of brand personality across cultures will assist them to write very productive global marketing communication strategies (Sung, Kim, & Jung, 2010).

The concept of Brand personality is found to have an impact on the consumer-brand relationship

(Lombart, Louis, & Cindy, Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences

(trust, commitment and attachment) to the brand, 2010), (Ambroise L. , et al., 2005). Brand personality well defines the consumer behavior pertaining to different brands. The concept of brand personality is about how consumer’s perceived the personality traits of a brand and based on that what their possible attitude is? Consumers develop liking towards the brand because they have associated the brand with their favorable brand personality traits so that they are more

57 inclined towards it usage and ultimately adopting it to their regular usage pattern and becoming heavy user or highly loyal towards the brand.

2.3.5 Consequences of Brand Personality

The various consequences of the brand personality can be;

. Perceived brand quality

. Attitude towards the brand

. Intentions of future behavior

. Attachment with the brand

. Commitment towards the brand

. Trust in the brand

. Involvement in the brand

. Loyalty towards the brand

Some of the past findings exhibiting the consequences of brand personality are discussed as follow.

Consumers have thousands of choices available for brands. The most important reason behind this is that brand personality successfully distinguishes one brand from other. Consumer choose brand that they find more suitable for the purpose behind their purchase. The usage or experience of the brand makes consumers habitual of them as they establish a strong liking for them. The favorable attitude of consumer over a long period of time is truly because by purchasing the brand they are ensure of quality and reliability of their performance (Rajagopal, 2008). Perceived quality of a brand is strongly determined by the traits of brand personality. The research conducted in India on Business Management students taken Nokia as brand to be studied found

58 that the most effective trait resulting in consumer’s high perception of the Nokia brand is competence followed by ruggedness (Trott, 2011). A study in Korea suggests that different dimensions of brand personality influence brand trust differently, for some brand personality traits perceived by the consumer the trust is higher like sophistication trait perceived by Korean consumers’ results in strong trust in the brand (Sung, Kim, & Jung, 2010). Research conducted by (Gouteron & Szpiro, 2005)suggested that all significant personality traits have influence attachment with a brand (Lombart, Louis, & Cindy, Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences (trust, commitment and attachment) to the brand, 2010). Using an experiment, (Forbes, 2005) showed that consumers exposed to a product (bottle of water) with a vignette presenting information about the brand personality of that product have a more favorable attitude towards that brand than consumers exposed to the same product, without brand personality information. Brand Personality positively affects not only consumer brand preference but also purchase intention. The outcome remains true for both high and low involvement products. But the effect of brand personality is higher for high involvement products than low involvement products (Punyatoya, 2011). Commitment and attachment with brand depends upon the involvement in the product. High involvement results in high attachment and commitment whereas the low involvement has the opposite consequences. Brand personality builds involvement in the brand which further results in high attachment and strong commitment. This was proposed by (Ambroise L. , et al., 2005) when they conducted research on brand personality effects on Nike, Adidas, Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Strong and favorable brand personality leads to complimentary product evaluations and brand associations so a distinct positive personality of brand enhances brand equity (Forbes, 2005). Brand personality affects the consumer buying intention and loyalty even through relatively new modes of advertising and mobile marketing. It

59 was observed that brand personality affects the level of trust, commitment and attachment with the brand whose advertising message is being sent through SMS. Attachment and commitment for the brand enhances when the consumer perceive that the brand is sincere (Bouhlel O. ,

Mzoughi, Hadiji, & Slimane, 2009). Brand personality enhances attachment to the brand. A study conducted in France showed that the developed brand personality barometer results on an average 32.4 percent attachment to the brand (Ambroise L. , et al., 2005). A research conducted in China’s largest metropolitan city Beijing on Brand personality of Nokia and Sony found that brand personality has a strong influence over the brand preference, brand attitude, brand loyalty, and buying intent of consumer. The results also suggest that the sense of brand for Chinese consumers is very strong (Mengxia & Zhang, 2007). Consumer brand relationship is determined by perceived brand personality and consumer’s own personality. The quality of the brand is also important in this aspect. Consumer- brand relation is dynamic, the relation merely not rests upon actual physical attribute of the brand but the physiological elements are also very important in this regard (Nobre, Becker, & Brito, Brand Relationships: A Personality-Based Approach, 2010).

Affective loyalty and action loyalty both are influenced by brand personality and human personality traits. Research conducted in Taiwan on individuals buying video games and toys found that competence and sophistication traits of brand personality results in high affective loyalty whereas agreeableness and openness traits of human personality leads towards action oriented loyalty (Lin L.-Y. , 2010).

2.3.6 Effect of Brand Personality on Consumer Brand Preferences:

The brand personality stated that there is a link between the characteristics of the human with the specific brand which increases the commitment level of the consumer as well as it leads to enhancing brand loyalty. Brand personality always had an impact on the consumer brand

60 preference and purchases. The intention is either high or on the low side, it mainly depends upon the consumer in which he or she is. That intention is also affected by the brand personality

(Plavini, 2011). The concept and the term brand has been developed many years ago which was different from the product or the service. The brand is attached to basic things such as symbols, logo, brand association, brand name and awareness which differentiate the brand from the competitors (Plavini, 2011). The more impact the brand personality has on the consumer the more willing the consumer is to purchase that particular brand (Plavini, 2011).

As the brand personality broadly states that there is an association of characteristic of the human with a certain brand that enhances the commitment level of the consumer as well which further leads brand loyalty. In all, the brand personality has always the impact on the consumer brand preferences and their purchase intention. The purchase and intention of the certain brand i.e. either low or high is also being affected by the by the brand personality (Plavini, 2011).

The term and concept of brand has been developed a years ago that is different from the product or services. The brand itself has been attached to the various elements i.e. symbols, logo, brand association, brand name, brand awareness etc. which further leads to make the differentiation among the competitor’s brand(Plavini, 2011).

The more the impact of the brand personality has on the consumer of the brand the more he or she (consumer) will spend on that particular product (Plavini, 2011).

2.3.7 Brand Personality Affects Leads to High and Low Involvement

Products:

Brand personality has defiantly an edge in making the high and low involvement of the products on the consumer end. In case of the high involvement products, when the consumer spend the

61 ample of time in purchasing and seek out the most information regarding the particular product and finally conclude to make the decision in buying. Whereas, in case of the low involvement products, it is when consumer frequently purchase and keep on purchasing the same product, where that product needs minimum level of consideration and effort in purchasing. Low involvement brand has no greater impact on the lifestyle of the consumer. Due to the familiarity with the product the consumer least bother in seeking out the insight information regarding the product and it is also been due to the repeatedly purchasing (Plavini, 2011).

Any brand that is placed and sold at the super market or at a local market itself communicate something to the consumer of the particular product, but on the other hand consumer across the world interprets the brand in many ways and filters it through their observations, knowledge, misunderstandings and systems of value of the personalities and many more (Plavini, 2011).

Brand personality plays a vital role when making high and low involvement of the products that consumers are willing to purchase. In the case of high involvement, the consumer spend a lot of time to find out more information of that particular product in which the consumer comes to the decision to purchase the product. In the case of low involvement, the consumer keeps on purchasing the product without any consideration and low involvement of the information which the product is offering. These low involvement brands has no big impact on the life style of the consumers. Consumers do not have any intention or interest to the product information and keeps spending the money on the product (Plavini, 2011).

A brand that is placed and sold at the super market or any retail outlet communicates something to the consumer of the particular product, but on the other side consumers around the world tries to filter the brand and picks out the best brand that is bonded with their knowledge, observation

62 and system of value (Plavini, 2011).The involvement of brands depends upon the image and characteristics of the brand in the mind of the consumer. Most of the time consumer purchase those brands which they are familiar with and ignores those brands which have not been tested or does not grab the attention the consumer. The other reason is the consumer does not seek or tend to investigate the brands or even comparing them with other brands in the outcome.

In a nut shell the involvement of the brand either it is low or high depends on the image and characteristics of the particular brand in the consumer perception. Because the consumer opts to purchase those brand blindly without any further investigation to which he or she (consumer) is familiar but fail to those to which he or she is not familiar and make an in-depth investigation and came across all the relevant information before buying it.

2.3.8 Brand Personality’s Influence on the Purchase Intention:

Many things seems despite to be achieved and to sustain them easily with the passage of time but the relationship between the consumer of the particular brand and the brand personality is a just like the relationship of with each other in the social context and frame work. According to the

(H. & P., 2005), it is only the Brand Personality that could create the bigger market of the consumers and guide them towards the consumption and create a competitive advantage over the competitor’s product. Brand personality that is well established in market influences bigger preferences of the consumer and its investment (Malhotra N. , 1988), (Sirgy J. , 1982). And moreover creates a stronger emotional connections and bonds (Biel A. , 1993), trust and brand affection (Fournier, 1997).

Today in the highly globalized world the brand personality and its image in the global market is being done so rapidly through the advancement in the communication and information

63 technologies by offering it through the marketing channels in the market. By this means the general perception and its characteristic of the brand is transmitted easily in to the consumer mind which further creates the intention of the buyer to purchase it. With the help of the technology the communication and awareness of the brand can be created any time at any place which again leads to create an intention of the consumer towards the particular brand (Bouhlel O.

, Mzoughi, Hadiji, & Slimane, 2011).

In all it would be summarized from the last paragraph that with the means of the advancement of the technology the impact of the brand personality always have drawn the intention of the consumer with respect to the purchase of the particular brand.

Moreover, the consumer brand relationship also helps in maintaining the self- identity of an individual and tends to build up the strong interlink and commitment between the brand and the consumer and that has the various dimensions in making up this relationship i.e. through

(Bouhlel O. , Mzoughi, Hadiji, & Slimane, 2011).

2.3.9 Micro vs. Macro Approaches to Brand Personality

The terms micro and macro were first introduced in two specific approaches of social psychology and social values study (Reynolds T. , 1998).He introduced the term micro by taking into account “the specific area of investigation calls for a specific study and that the use of overly generalized scale for different industry is inappropriate”.

On the other hand, macro approach, proposed by (Schwartz, 1992)is taken as to measure social values exhaustive through multiple scales of values (Valette-Florence & Barnier, 2012). They argued that “this epistemological question also arises in relation to the concept of brand personality. For consumption practices are imprinted with characteristics that are both cultural

64 practice and link to product categories, thus raising doubts as the universal nature of brand personality”. A recent comprehensive literature review of (Valette-Florence & Barnier, 2012) exposed that the most of the studies were undertaken in recent years in different areas. In it, researchers claimed that field of brand personality has expanded rapidly after the seminal work of (Aaker J. L., 1997). In multiple sectors like product, company, communication medium brand, retail channel and services industry. Consequently, retail chains, services and media develop their own brands (Kapferer, 2007)just because of identifying the importance of brand personality

(Venable, Rose, Bush, & Gilbert, 2005).

The better measurement of brand personality is actually dependent upon the area of study or industry because there is hardly comparability between the available scales of brand personality.

In general, global approaches are viewable as a macro form of brand personality, for which different brand domains are grouped together, such as tangible goods, services, and media and telecom operators in his scale (Aaker J. L., 1997). At macro level, this approach involves into inter-category dimensions of product and cross-cultural studies of it. Whereas, at micro level the studies related to brand personality was conduct at specific areas.

(Aaker J. L., 1997), proposes a theoretical model of the brand personality concept through the determination of the number and the nature of its dimensions. She defines brand personality as

“the set of human characteristics associated with a brand”. This definition basically explained the concept but researchers criticized this because of its “catch-all character” and overly vagueness, (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003).Apart from the issues associated with the formulation of clear definition, (Ambroise & Valette-Florence, 2010) argued that “it seems necessary to question the validity of the ontological concept of brand personality”. Therefore, it’s important to

65 highlight the criticism, shortcomings and limitations leveled against the brand personality concept advanced by (Aaker J. L., 1997).

Researchers’ interest in developing a brand personality stretched quickly after the influential work of Aaker framework. But to date, heavy criticism was revealed against Aaker’s multidimensional model to measure the brand personality construct. This actually promotes researchers to review the literature and examines the effectiveness and the limitations of

Influential framework of brand personality, in order to help and inform for future research on this particular area. Furthermore, Comprehensiveness of the Aaker’s framework is so generalize on multiple product categories. Limitations include, Aaker’s scale is considered as unfinished measure of brand personality as it basically transposed human personality traits rather than using brands Personality themselves.

Additionally, Aaker’s five-dimensional structure is American culture specific and did not always receive empirical support across different cultural settings in the world.

(Aaker J. L., 1997), mainly identifies five brand personality factors: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. If Aaker’s scale is an important first step for brand personality, than some studies raises different questions on its structural and semantic validity. It includes some variable having no comparison in terms of human personality like (sophistication and ruggedness) and items (provincial or aristocratic) that seem in fact to be social judgments.

Finally, the proposed scale does not seem to be stable inter-culturally (Ferrandi, Fine-Falcy, &

Valette-Florence, 2000). Tests conducted in different countries generally lead to a five dimensional solution as in the original scale, but some dimensions as peace in Japan, passion in

Spain or hospitality in France are country-specific. Of course, translation of a list of 42 initial

66 items, some of them being obviously strongly culturally rooted (such as westerner) poses a real problem for international applications.

This may be considered one of the comprehensive frameworks of brand personality which can be generalized over multiple product categories. The research conducted on brand personality is considered as very young as compared to human personality studies. Some researchers like

(Sweeney & Brandon, 2006) also criticized the framework of Aaker because it only consisted of positive attributes of the brand whereas some brands are not so wholesome. Negative factors were excluded in the development of brand personality scale (Bosnjak, Bochmann, &

Hufschmidt, 2007).

There are several critical limitations of (Aaker J. L., 1997)frame work of brand personality construct, which is associated with his scale. (Wee, 2004), argued that most studies conducted on brand personality are majorly based on overlapping of theories and used “crude measurement tools” that were originally developed for the measurement of human personality and were used in Brand personality. This statement also supported by the study of (Caprara, Barbaranelli, &

Guido, 2001). In an Italian context, this basically showed that human personality scale cannot switch to brands Personality directly. To overcome this issue numerous authors like (Özsomer A,

2007), developed new scales of brand personality from his studies which are based on brands them instead of transposing human personality traits.

The second limitation is associated with the semantic problems and measurement items presented (Aaker J. L., 1997).The study of (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003) claimed that the items of

“Competence” dimensions should be excluded because it is associated with cognitive abilities and intelligence of the individuals.

The third limitation in (Aaker J. L., 1997) model is that it basically associated with the dimensions of American culture only (Helgeson & Supphellen, 2004) and (Sung & Tinkham,

2005). Furthermore, (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, & V, 2001)revealed the dimensions of brand personality in different cultures such as Japan and Spain in comparison with USA. In addition,

Aaker’s original multi-dimensional structure did not always gains an empirical substantiation from different regions. For example, (Park & John, 2010)developed 4-dimensional scale in

Korean context and (A & L, 2007) established a 6-dimensional scale in Canada.

2.3.10 Brand Personality Scale

The first ever scale was developed by (Aaker J. L., 1997). Different brand personality scales has been developed to study the brand personality of various brand. Scales are developed in different cultural context to find the relevant personality traits associated with brand in that particular culture. Also brand personality scales are developed for different product categories and brands.

Following is the table that shows various studies of brand personality dimension (Patel,

MEASURING BRAND PERSONALITY: AN EMPERICAL STUDY, 2009)(Ambroise,

Ferrandi, Merunka, Vallete, & Florence, 2005).

Table 1: Overview of Different Brand Personality Researches

This is the previous model of Laure Ambroise Research and many researchers used this scale for

the study of brand Personality.

Brand Personality Scale (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, Vallete, & Florence, How Well does

Brand Personality Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale and Analysis using Binary Regression Models, 2005)

Creative Charming Ascendant Misleading Original

Elegant Conscientious Introvert Friendly

Figure 3: Brand Personality Scale

Table 2: Brand Personality Scale Proposed by:(Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, & Florence, 2004)

Brand Personality Traits Items

Friendly Warm, Pleasant, nice

Creative Inventive, Imaginative

Charming Attractive, Seductive

Ascendant Manipulative, Arrogant, Showy

Misleading Hypocrite, Lying, Deceptive

Original Trendy, Modern

Elegant Sophisticated, stylish

Conscientious Strict, Serious

Introvert Reserved, Shy

In (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, & Florence, 2004) and few other researchers (Ambroise, Ferrandi,

Merunka, & Vallette-Florence, 2005), combine with him studied the brand personality and proposed

the brand personality scale to measure the personality of the brand. Their scale has been used before

to measure the personality of a brand (Laure Ambroise, 2005).

This brand personality scale basically has nine traits of personality: Friendly, Creative, Charming,

Ascendant, Misleading, Original, Elegant, Conscientious, and Introvert. Furthermore, all these

personality traits are sub-divided in more items. For example: The group of Warm, Pleasant, and

Nice fall in the friendly trait and the group of Manipulative, Arrogant, and Showy fall in the

category of Ascendant trait.

2.3.11 Structure of the Brand Personality Measurement Scale

Brand Personality Scale

Glamorous Elegant Exciting

Reliable Natural Sweet Cheerful

Mature Secure Outgoing Mischievous Rigorous

Figure 4: Brand Personality Scale

Table 3: Brand Personality Scale Brand Personality Traits Items

Glamorous Charming, Sophisticated, Voluptuous

Elegant Elegant, Stylish, Good Looking

Exciting Funny, Imaginative, Original

Reliable Comforting, Robust, Secure

Natural Environmentally-friendly, Natural

Sweet Likeable, Affectionate, Friendly

Cheerful Trendy, Joyful, Spirited

Mature Adult, Discrete, Thoughtful

Secure Reliable, Successful

Outgoing Lively, Popular, Sporty

Mischievous Youthful, Comical

Rigorous Determined, Efficient, Intelligent

Based on previous model of Laure Ambroise, she examines other most important variables like

Exciting, Mature, and Outgoing etc. who have strong relationship with developing brand personality and used them in his research for further elaboration. This test cover two well differentiated product categories and to include brands competing on these markets in order to be able to contrast brand personalities. Furthermore this model is being tested in 3 different countries in order to better understand the effectiveness of this model.

From a managerial perspective, the differentiating power of the personality scale is mostly encouraging. Based on this proposed model, the scale actually measures a concept which differs

73 strongly from brand image (which is category-specific and often country-specific) and which should allow brand managers to position and differentiate their brand from that of competitors.

From a theoretical perspective, this brand personality model and structure appears reliable and valid and effective. It also seems to be stable across cultures sharing the same language (although data available has not allowed conducting a formal test thereof through a multi-group analysis).

Further analysis is needed to help in three main directions.

Firstly, it seems important to test congruence between brand personality and Human personality facets if we wish to better understand how consumers use brands to express self-concept or ideal self. Secondly, if we believe that brand personality has an effect on consumer emotions, brand preference, brand usage and brand loyalty; predictive validity has to be formally tested. If differentiation through brand personality is an important result, consequences on consumer behavior or consumer brand/relationships also need to be assessed.

Finally, the proposed scale should be compared to other existing scales both for cross-cultural stability and for predictive validity.

2.3.12 Brand Commitment:

There are many ways that the firm or an organization can make their loyal customer towards their brand and one of the best approaches is through creating the commitment of the brand with the loyal customer. Once the strong relationship has been developed between the brand and the customer, it is now being easy for any firm to prevent their customer product intention from their competitors (S., Dobscha, & Mick, 1998).Has extended and enhanced the concept of the brand commitment with the products of that is being placed across the world, they elaborate that any product of the firm should have long lasting aspiration to sustain the valuable relationship with

74 their committed customer. Moreover, (G & Vergne, 2004)narrates that brand commitment should be durable either in form of an implicit or explicit intention.

In all the commitment towards the particular brand is the main root that leads to the customer commitment for the longer period of the time. Brand commitment itself has its shared value, trust and the identification which boost the purchase intention and the commitment of the brand towards their customer. Finally, the brand commitment has the great influence that helps in drawing out the greater market of the customer for the long term period.

2.3.13Brand Attachment:

The term brand attachment is being defined as the reliable and the long lasting psychological and the emotional relationship of the certain brand which results from the brand belief and confidence and from the interlink of the companionship feelings (Lacoeuilhe, 1997).

The congruence theory has elaborated the concept of the brand attachment in a sense that consumer becomes attached to the brand only when the particular brand meets or come up with the expectation of the personality, image and the values of the consumer which further he or she transmit those perception of the attachment to others (Geyer, 1991).

2.3.14Brand Trust:

Brand trust has the great influence with the brand commitment, once the trust has been developed the commitment and the attachment itself comes along with it and it been further explained by (Hess, 1995), as a belief, that is keeping with the view of the collective psychology research or objective of the behavior towards the brand. Brand trust has been the perception of the consumer’s brands i.e. honesty, self-sacrifice and the potential performance of the particular product.

Brand trust creates a potential value and the reliability of the consumer with the brand and that extends and boost towards the preferences and usage over the longer period of the time. The faith and believe in the brand also leads to the positive image in the market and cause an edge over all its competitors. Since the level of the brand trust exists till then the customer is loyal and committed to that particular brand and once it gets depreciated ultimately the perception, intention and preferences of the consumer will get shifting to the competitors brands.

2.4 Studies on Congruence with Brand Personality

In this section the topic of congruence between human, brand and store personality is considered.

For this purpose the stream of research focused on consumer self/image is taken into account as a theoretical framework (Levy, 1959).Asserts the output a consumer buys have personal and social meaning capable to strengthen the way the consumer contemplates himself. Brands perform their role as social congruity mean between brand and user self-image, which is considered as a significant motivational element in consumer choice (R.W, 1988). Many researches prove there is congruity between brand image/personality and human personality. For example, (Vitz &

Johnston, 1965) observe the existence of an association between smokers’ perceptions of cigarette features and the smokers ’masculinity and femininity. In the same direction (Dolich,

1969) analyzes the bonds between self-image and brand preference discovering the puncture brands are consistent to self-concept and strengthen it. At the same time (Hamm & Cundiff,

1969)detect a liaison between ideal self-image and product image. On his side (Belk R. W.,

1988) states that belongings are not just “things” people own but self-concept extensions

(Einwiller, Fedorikhin, Johnson, & Kamins, 2006). Describe the emotional part of customer– company identification as follows: “Strong identification occurs when a company becomes personally relevant for consumers, and personal relevance creates the potential for emotional

76 reactions.” Similarly (Homburg, Wieseke, & Hoyer, 2009) present a conceptual framework in which customer–company identification predicts customer loyalty toward a company. Similarity and complementarily have obviously been widely discussed in psych sociology in the field of interpersonal attraction (Byrne D. E., 1971) whose balance theories (or cognitive consistency) and self-enhancement are parties. From this perspective, the individual seeks to strengthen or improve self-esteem and minimizing inconsistent affective states (Festinger, 1954)(Byrne &

Griffitt, 1973). These balance theories and self-image enhancement provided the conceptual foundations for research on the congruence between self-concept and different variables in consumer behavior. These include works linking self-concept and intention to purchase products

(Landon, 1974); Self-concept and advertising effectiveness (Zinkhan & Hong, 1991) self- concept and store traffic (Dornoff & Tatham, 1972). However, the largest rivulet of research was attentive in the relationship between self-image and brand (Jacobson & Kossoff, 1963)(Grubb &

Grathwohl, Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behavior : A theoretical approach,

1967)(Grubb & Stern, 1971) particularly when these brands are socially visible. Some scholars were also interested in the relationship between consumer and point of sale (d’Astous A., 2002).

The congruence is based on a vision of objects related to meanings by consumers. For (Maille,

2009)(Mandler., 1982). Self-congruity is defined as the similarity between the symbolic attributes of the branded product and self-concept of the individual. The measure of congruence between individual and brand has taken two main directions (Kressmann, et al., 2006). The

77 traditional method for measuring congruence is differential. Although bounds of prognostic legitimacy of these measures have been reported, we will hold it at first. We then enhanced by those from a line of research aims to grow global and direct measurement (Sirgy, et al., 1997).

To our knowledge no research has been lead on the congruence consumer/brand/store in the specific case of luxury brands. Therefore, we wanted to sustain in parallel the two types of measurement (direct and differential). To our knowledge, only few research detach conceptually and empirically congruence through the self-image and brand personality (Supphellen &

Grønhaug, 2003). And even if this work achieve that significant differences occur, they have not been exposed to adequate replications to be generalized (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1984). Therefore, we choose to directly measure personality congruence between consumer, brand and store basing this process on the self/image literature.

Brand personality, or a brand’s human-like characteristics, is a prominent tool for making a brand different from you competitor. Most of the studies showed that consumers find it usual to build or make relationship with brand. In his works (Aaker J. L., 1997)defines brand personality as being “a set of human characteristics associated to a brand”. The author examine that it can include certain characteristics such as age, Family, demographics, socio-economic class,

Geographic, personality traits and feelings. She developed a model of measurement of the personality of a brand by identifying 42 features divided up among 15 facets and 5 factors of personality: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. However, Aaker’s founding definition has often been criticized.

(Viot & C, 2006), start his definition, “the brand personality has become a jumble concept”.

Despite the clarifications done by different authors about brand personality, measuring this concept has remained a study topic for researchers. On the other hand, Congruence is actually an

78 attachment with the brand or to make the brand in a way that reflects your personality in a brand.

Congruity theory holds that the level of congruence between the personality of a consumer and their perception of the image of a brand will influence their intention to buy that brand, or their behavior towards that brand has changed.

According to the(Johnspen, 2009), in his article , “I recently attended the national sales meeting of a high-end boat manufacturer that our firm represents and was delighted to listen as one of their top dealers gave an impassioned speech on the critical need for “congruence” when dealing with their customers. I could not have agreed with him more, and was motivated to take a few minutes to write out my thoughts on what this idea really means in the marketplace and why it is absolutely essential to building a successful company”. Companies are consistently superb in delivering their brand promise to create brand attachment through different techniques, in order to get premium for bringing that special experience to the customers. To be honest, brands do have an impact on the consumer’s behavior; the consumer compares himself or his image to that of the brand, whether completely or not. He frequently sets some imaginary relationships with the brand. He becomes a stimulus and tries to give or develops a relation between himself and brand through congruence, or more of it, between his own personality and that which he attributes to a set brand.

According to the research of (Nobre, Becker, & Brito, Brand Relationships: Personality-Based,

2010), the experiential study has provided the relationship between brand personality and congruence. The Research investigates the symbolic meaning to attach with the brand by seeing brand personality. This study has developed two important theoretical propositions. (1) The brand is a partner in a dyadic relationship with the consumer and (2) The brand personality influences the relationship the consumer establishes with the brand. Furthermore Brand

79 personality develops a consumer brand relationship which influence the quality, or the strength of the relation that consumer develops with the brand. The research incorporated several studies which supported the idea of congruence and brand personality. Like,

”Brand image is the result of how a customer perceives his relationship with the brand. This relationship is a result of meaning to the person who engages it (Fournier, Dobscha, & Mick,

1998).

“The study of (Aaker, J.S.Fournier, & S.A.Brasel, When Good Brands do Bad, 2004) was inspirational in the development of a conceptual model. The model’s premise was that brand

Personality plays an important role in the establishment of ties with the consumer”

According to this approach companies made their brand or make the consumer to think in a way that brand actually reflects their personalities. The consequences of each of the several studies conducted in this research presents that evidence supports strong influence of Brand Personality on the relationship the consumer establishes with the brand.

According to the research of (Parker, 2009), companies communicate through their brand, in brand communication strategy; a benchmark that drives a favorable brand attitude is a determinant that predicts a post purchase behavior of the consumer. Sometimes the customer gives attention to those brands that suits their attitude that demonstrates images which helps him to express himself and develop motivation. In consumer behavior many researchers relate with the self-congruity model. Self-congruity is the difference between one’s image and the image of the brand. The researchers on the phenomena of the self-brand congruity are determined similarity between the perceptions of consumer and the perception of brand image. This research was considered to evaluate self-brand congruity optimized with both the brand

80 personality and brand user imagery which construct a basis for modeling the makeup of self- expressive brand attitudes. The author proposed two concepts that represent different types of self-brand congruity: user image self-congruity (UIC) and brand personality self-congruity

(BPC).

The research also incorporated such theories which support the idea of congruence and brand personality. Like “Self congruity theory suggests that people often use brand meaning for self- expression, then consumers will have favorable predispositions towards, that is like products and brands that serve to enhance perceptions of their own self-image”(M.J.Sirgy, 1986 ).

Customers have variety of different needs and wants that derive their consumption pattern behavior. In framing self-brand congruity theory, new ways or ideas and concepts are developing for the management of strategic brand communications. Researches were pretty advanced and it opens many doors for the agenda of future brand image researchers. Finally, creative ideas are the key to innovation to develop better customer attitude towards brand.

According to the research (Ahouri & Bouslama, 2010) one of the main emphasis of this research is on “Congruence between brand personality and the consumer’s self-image has a positive effect on brand and, their intention of future behavior towards this brand and his level of preference towards this brand.”

This research belongs to the field of relationship between congruence and brand personality which is an important concept to better understand their brand as per the need of the consumers.

Indeed the existence of the link between these variables provides marketing managers a tool which enables them to improve or strengthen their brands.

The research also incorporated several studies which supported the idea of congruence and brand personality. Like, “Within the framework of brand personality, several researchers have shown that this variable is positively linked to the consumers’ loyalty” (Fournier, Dobscha, & Mick,

1998).

According to the (Sirgy M. J., 1982), “when the attitude or image of the brand is examined as similar to the consumer’s attitude or image in terms of personality attribute, the consumer is encouraged to develop a meaningful relation towards that brand when deciding about a purchase or post purchase decision”.

Furthermore, a number of studies examine that there is congruity between brand personality and human personality. For example, (Vitz & Johnston, 1965)found the masculinity or femininity of the smoker is the relation between smokers perception of cigarette image.(Dolich, 1969), also work on the relationship between self-image and brand personality and brand preferences brand preference and establish that preferential brands were reliable to self-concept and it actually reinforced it. Moreover, (Hamm & Cundiff, 1969)work and found relationship between ideal self-image/personality and product image/product personality. And others, such as Belk as mentioned in (Belk R. W., 1988) suggested that the extensions of self-concept but that possession is not just we own (Belk R. W., 1988).

All of these studies agree on the fact that the consumer prefers the product the image of which is congruent with his self-image. In other words, consumers only have a favorable attitude towards a specific brand after applying a set of personality attributes and linking them to their selfimages. Furthermore consumers with different personality type would prefer brand with personalities that match their own.

Congruence between human, brand and store personality is considered. For this purpose the stream of research focused on consumer self/image is taken into account as a theoretical framework. (Levy, 1959), asserts the output a consumer buys have personal and social meaning capable to strengthen the way the consumer contemplates himself. Brands perform their role as social congruity mean between brand and user self-image, which is considered as a significant motivational element in consumer choice(Belk R. W., 1988). Many researches prove there is congruity between brand image/personality and human personality. For example, (Vitz &

Johnston, 1965)observe the existence of an association between smokers’ perceptions of cigarette features and the smokers ’masculinity and femininity. In the same direction (Dolich,

1969)analyzes the bonds between self-image and brand preference discovering the puncture brands are consistent to self-concept and strengthen it. At the same time (Hamm & Cundiff,

1969) detect a liaison between ideal self-image and product image. On his side (Belk R. W.,

1988) states that belongings are not just “things” people own but self-concept extensions.

(Einwiller, Fedorikhin, Johnson, & Kamins, 2006), describe the emotional part of customer– company identification as follows: “Strong identification occurs when a company becomes personally relevant for consumers, and personal relevance creates the potential for emotional reactions.” Similarly (Homburg, Wieseke, & Hoyer, 2009) present a conceptual framework in which customer–company identification predicts customer loyalty toward a company. Similarity and complementarily have obviously been widely discussed in psych sociology in the field of interpersonal attraction (Byrne D. E., 1971) whose balance theories (or cognitive consistency) and self-enhancement are parties. From this perspective, the individual seeks to strengthen or improve self-esteem and minimizing inconsistent affective states (Festinger, 1954)(Byrne &

Griffitt, 1973). These balance theories and self-image enhancement provided the conceptual

83 foundations for research on the congruence between self-concept and different variables in consumer behavior. These include works linking self-concept and intention to purchase products

Grathwohl, Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behavior : A theoretical approach,

1967)(Grubb & Stern, 1971) particularly when these brands are socially visible. Some scholars were also interested in the relationship between consumer and point of sale (d’Astous A., 2002).

The congruence is based on a vision of objects related to meanings by consumers. For (Maille,

2010), if the literature about congruence has been augmented by the diversity of work that has been devoted to this concept, it suffers from frequent conceptual and empirical inconsistencies that prevent any final conclusion on its effects. The first studies on this portent of supposed congruence see it as a operational correspondence between two bodies (Mandler., 1982). Self- congruity is defined as the similarity between the symbolic attributes of the branded product and self-concept of the individual. The measure of congruence between individual and brand has taken two main directions (Kressmann, et al., 2006). The traditional method for measuring congruence is differential. Although bounds of prognostic legitimacy of these measures have been reported, we will hold it at first. We then enhanced by those from a line of research aims to grow global and direct measurement (Sirgy, et al., 1997). To our knowledge no research has been lead on the congruence consumer/brand/store in the specific case of luxury brands.

Therefore, we wanted to sustain in parallel the two types of measurement (direct and differential). To our knowledge, only few research detach conceptually and empirically congruence through the self-image and brand personality (Supphellen & Grønhaug, 2003). And

84 even if this work achieve that significant differences occur, they have not been exposed to adequate replications to be generalized (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1984). Therefore, we choose to directly measure personality congruence between consumer, brand and store basing this process on the self/image literature.

2.4.1 Major causes of strong Congruence and personality with the brand:

The major cause which affect or develops the congruence between brand and human personalities include self-image, or brand image.

2.4.1.1Self-image:

(M.Resenberg, 1979), define self-image as the, total sum of thoughts and feelings from which an individual can explain himself as an object. Construction on this idea, (M.L.Brunel, 1990)has considered the idea of self-image as a multidimensional variable which comprises at the same time: a) a cognitive dimension, that is, any ideas, images and opinion an individual have of himself; b) an emotional dimension, that is, any impressions and the feelings he has towards himself; c) a social dimension, since the concept of self-image is a set of projection of the others’ perceptions of the individual.

In the field of marketing but more specifically in the field of research on the consumer’s behavior, the Concept of self-image is related to the image of self in a rather diminishing way

(E., 2003). The concept of self is conceived of as a multidimensional notion involving different facets (D., 2003).

Researchers have enriched this definition by identifying four major dimensions of self-image

(Sirgy & Su, 2000);(Jamal & Goode, 2001):

 The real self: the perception of an individual as he sees himself.

 The dreamed self or the ideal self: the way I would like to be.

 The real social self: the way others consider me.

 The dreamed social self or the ideal social self: the way I would like others to consider

me.

2.4.1.2 Factor develops congruence with the Brand.

From the past researches we can find that the consumers become attach to a specific brand because the consumers see a specific meaning and make a imaginary relation with that brand and they see product as themselves or what they want themselves to be. From the past researches there are four important factors which influence the consumers to attach themselves to a specific product (Park M. &., 2006).

These four factors are:

• Self-expression (how come I distinguish myself from others with the brand?)

• Group Affiliation (does ownership of the brand connect me to a group?)

• Memories (attachment of memory related to the brand)

• Pleasure (satisfaction provided by the product)

2.4.2 Congruence: A Crucial Variable in Marketing Congruence between

Brand Personality and Self-image.

Brand personality and self-image are the two most important and interrelated research tracks which increased our knowledge of the relationships between consumers and brands.

(Sirgy M. J., 1982), actually try to explain that the idea of self-image is used as a cognitive referent in the evaluation of representative elements. The consumer tries to seek certain level of

86 congruence between the features of a brand’s image and the way his personality is presented

(Belk, Bahn, & Mayer, 1982),(Sirgy M. J., 1982).

In other words, the consumer would express his self-image by selecting brands the personality of which appears to him close to his own personality (Vernette, 2008). Congruence with self-image is apparent as the similar attitude between the brands’ symbolic Attributes and the consumer’s self-image (Spivey & Munson, 2010);(M.J.Sirgy, 1986 ). According to (Zinkhan & Hong,

1991)explain congruence as the degree of coincidence between advertising Expressions of a brand and self-image of the consumers.

Brand personality and self-image are two researches which augmented our information of the associations among consumers and brands (Vernette, Personnalite' de la marquet image de soi,

2003). Sirgy as mentioned in (Belk R. W., 1988) clarifies that the idea of self-image is used as a cognitive referent in the assessment of symbolic elements. The consumer seeks certain congruence between the features of a brand’s image and the way his personality is presented(Belk R. W., 1988),(Sirgy M. J., 1982). In other words, the consumer would express his self-image by choosing brands the personality of which appears to him close to his own personality (Vernette, Les atouts et les pieges de la personnalite de la marque, 2008). As a matter of fact, brands have an impact on the consumer’s behavior, for the consumer compares his image to that of the brand, whether implicitly or explicitly. He often sets some imaginary relationships with it. He can situate himself in relation to a given brand through congruence, or lack of it, between his own personality and that which he attributes to a given brand (Plummer, 1985),

(Biel A. , 1993). Congruence with self-image is perceived as the similitude between the brand’s symbolic attributes and the consumer’s(Spivey & Munson, 2010) self-image,(Sirgy M. J., 1982).

Zinkhan and Hong (1991) as mentioned in (Sirgy M. J., 1982), defines congruence as the degree

87 of coincidence between advertising expression and self-image. Within the framework of personal musical congruence, Galan defines congruence as being the adequacy or the coherence perceived between music and the consumer’s self-image. The author suggests that it is possible for the individual to judge the congruence between self-image and music. Seeing that judging personal congruence relies on a four-dimensional concept of self, there are equally four types of congruence as defined in the literature (Sirgy M. J., 1982),(Helgeson & Supphellen,

2004)(Galan, 2007). Congruence with the real self-image: it refers to the degree of similitude between the real self-image of the consumer and the typical image the consumer has of the given product. Led by their motivation to protect their own identity (Sirgy M. J., 1982), individuals only consume the products which do reflect their genuine self (Galan, 2007). Congruence with the ideal image of self: it refers to the degree of similitude between the consumer’s self-image and the image of the typical consumer of a given product. Behavior is then determined by a need of self-esteem. According to (Galan, 2007), reaching a certain ideal image of oneself through the consumption or the possession of products which are consistent with one’s ideal self-image satisfies the consumer’s need for self-esteem. - Congruence with the social self-image: it corresponds to the degree of similitude between the consumer’s social self-image and the image of the typical consumer. Such appropriateness satisfies a need for social coherence which is in fact a motivation to develop or keep attitudes and behaviors which cohere with the way others perceive an individual (Galan, 2007).Congruence with the ideal social self-image: it represents the degree of similitude between the consumer’s ideal social self-image and the image of the typical consumer. Such congruence answers the individual’s (Sirgy, et al., 1997)need for social approbation, or his need to develop a set of cognitions. Congruence with the ideal social self- image: it represents the degree of similitude between the consumer’s ideal social self-image and

88 the image of the typical consumer. Such congruence answers the individual’s need for social approbation, or his need to progress a set of cognitions.

Although the number of articles on the congruence between brand personality and self-image has outstandingly augmented recently, scholars still unanimously criticize the limited amount of study in this topic, as likened with the research dealing with brand personality, for example. This works aims at inspiring the field. Clarifying the concept of congruence between brand personality and self-image on the one hand, and explaining its effect on the customer’s satisfaction and loyalty to the brand on the other. The current study wishes to show the vital role of the congruence variable in the association between the brand and the consumer. Congruence between brand personality and self-image is a significant notion which companies should take into account in order to grow and better achieve their brand. This would attract consumers who are sensitive to the personality features displayed or who wish to use them as a vehicle of the conception they have of themselves. It would be worthwhile to develop the research empirical protocols so as to show how the congruence between brand personality and self-image affects the level of consumer satisfaction and his loyalty towards a brand.

2.5 Studies on Commitment with Brand Personality

According to (Keller K. , 2006), brand which is successful they identify the strategies that help to the organization to create brand loyalty among the customers. It requires those strategies which are used to capture and retains the customer. Companies have to be connected with their customers.

It’s a complete process which to select the customer, organize and interpret the information to create a picture in the mind of customers. It not only related to the external sources or physical

89 stimuli, it’s also related to the stimuli of surrounding and environment in which the customers are present

External source of information play a vital role to create a perception in the mind of the customer regarding the brand. Companies should know that how customers are getting information from external sources, how the information is translating to the customers (Belch, 2004). It has a major concern regarding making the decision about information. It influences the customer to get information from the sources and make a perception regarding the brand. It explains that how the consumer behavior is focusing and understanding and making a perception towards the specific brand. There are few steps that related to the consumer information processing:

EXPOSURE

EXPOSURE ATTENTION

INTERPRETATION & COMPREHENSION

MEMORY &RETENTION

Figure 5 : Consumer Information Process

According to (Hawkings, 2001), exposure occurs when stimuli comes within the range of one’s sensory receptor nerve. In this stage customer needs to be allocate the information processing capacity against the incoming information, or customer should decide not to allocate the processing capacity.

According to(Ries, 2000), mostly customers go for that brands that are over communicate in their living environment. Consumers are highly influenced by their surrounding information; they use to highly create selective awareness and attention measures.

According to (Keller K. , 2006), the customers daily see the advertisement average around 1500.

From the advertisement consumer screen the information and give attention to the specific brand.

According to the (Mostert, 2002), the consumer will pay special attention to information that is relevant to them. The consumer does not give any attention to irrelevant information. It can be concluded that consumers due to the limited processing capacity and consumers pay selective attention to the messages.

The term commitment explained as the engagement that in close the freedom of action (The oxford english dictionary), this sounds negative, but isn’t, It is held firmly with a vision and enthusiasm and dedication to the process point of view. Commitment is the devotion or dedication to specific cause or reason. Commitment is a vigorous belief on an idea or system.

Commitment is awareness, an attitude, being fully present at the moment of choice (Horosz,

1975).

If brand Personality is a convenient metaphor to describe stable characteristics associated with brands, the concept originally used by advertising agencies had not been defined properly before the work of (Aaker J. L., 1997).He defines brand personality as the set of human characteristics associated with a brand. This definition is relying on the word ‘characteristics’. He also identifies

42 traits and 5 personality facts: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and raggedness.

A major construct that has an impact on consumer behavior is attitude towards the brand (Allport

G. , 1935). Closer to the marketing paradigm important research has been established that positive attitudes (for example in Morgan and Hunts 1994) will favor brand commitment. (Aasel,

1987), proposes that commitment arises from positive attitudes and (Chaudhuri & Holbrook,

2001) shown that commitment reflects the level of positive effect of generated by the brand.

Therefore, attitude towards the brand is expected to have impact on band commitment. Some authors argue that brand personality might affect the consumer behavior.

Lastly, we consider the role of brand involvement. Brand personality should play a greater role in explaining attitude formation and brand/consumer relationships when consumer involvement is high. When the product category is more important to the consumers, the consumer seeks more and is more sensitive to information concerning products and brands in the category.

Consequently, involved consumers probably have the sharper and the stronger perception of personality traits associated to brands and better differentiates brands in terms of personality.

These brand personality difference have the potential of explaining the brand attitude or brand commitment.

Commitment with brand explained or interpreted as the degree or level of attachment with the brand it has four emotional and behavioral underlying contracts: (a) brand loyalty is the emotional and behavioral which leads to the repurchasing of an specific brand (b) the satisfaction creates the need to rehabilitation end of consumption pleasurable experience (c) the embarrassment creates the strength of attachment including the relevance and impotence of brand segment, and (d) the attachment with brand because the substitute brands are not able to raise at level of comparison with the brand used by the committed customer (Shuv-Ami, 2011).

Maintaining or creating long-term relation with customers in term of brand commitment is the major target of the company to achieve.(Touzani, 2009). Brand loyalty is main focus of the company while launching a product; it is a main objective or strategy in marketing related to consumer goods and commodities (Touzani, 2009). Those companies which enjoy the bucketful

92 of committed customers to the brand have greater market share and higher rates of return on investments (Nawaz, 2011). The modification of brand personality among the companies have increased in few couple of day, companies targeting customers to make them loyal not switch or go for alternatives while choosing (Gustavsson, 2005).

It is the loyal and committed customer who assures the product’s survival and growth for decades, otherwise the switchers of brands are not the warranty for product to last in market

(Touzani, 2009). In brand loyalty consumer are emotionally attached to a specific brand. The consumer assumes that brand is according to his expectation and identifies with the consumer on a personal level. The buying behavior of the consumer and decision making might me conscious or unconscious, but their choice will remain same.

Brand loyal customer doesn’t go for alternatives while unavailability of their desired brand. They can visit to multiple stores and forgo making a purchase if their brand cannot be found than they are to purchase a substitute.

Commitment can be viewed as “an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship” with the brand(Zaltman M. a., 1992). Companies more look about to attain superior values to keep growing their brand commitment. Customers want strong emotional and relational attachment to brand to repurchase it and to become the committed and loyal customer or consumer.

The organizational commitment of customers is indicative of the organization's likelihood of developing or maintaining customer identification with organizational goals and values and retaining the service customer as an active participant the service encounter (Al., 1992). Trust on brand leads to commitment is one of the important factors in creating marketing strategy that can

93 create committed customers. Companies must focus to create trust with brand over customers

(Aleman, 2001).

Many companies have created the concept or assume that well handling the complaint and properly dealing with their customer issues are source of brand commitment and loyalty effectively handling of complaints and issues customers create trust or commitment and dramatically increase the retention rate and improve service quality as well(Nawaz, 2011).

Consumers commitment to brand has been discovered or identified important for marketing now days, because of the availability of numbers of substitute in market, marketers are focused on creating brand commitment and committed customers (Philip, 2009).

Brand is advantaged by high profits while customer gains high value for the money that he or she has exchanges in the form of benefits. Manufacturers of the brand consider brand commitment as an indicator of superior performance so they try to build and increase consumer loyalty by delivering superior benefits, establishing a positive image (company’s value of social responsibility and trustworthy manufactures) about the organization in consumer’s mind.

If we see the behavioral approach of brand loyalty, there are models which used to predict and measure the loyalty of consumers are derived from the previous purchase patterns which leads to ensure continuity in the future purchase behaviors. It means that the experience of customer on the previous purchase leads to future purchase behaviors i.e. if the experience is either good or bad leads to have impact on behaviors of future purchase. According to (1973), states that the word commitment is very good predictor of differentiating brand loyalty and different forms of repeat purchasing behaviors. It is also proved from their research that the concept of commitment promises for assessing the relative degrees of brand loyalty.

Commitment is a “physiological state” that initially identifies the relationship with the brand or organization and then it has the authority to make the decision to continue membership or relationship with it (O'Callaghan, 2009).

The brand's commitment to research and manufacture the degree of attachment is defined as consumer protection they use and re-buy or re-brand is a favorite.(Shuv-Ami, 2011), argued that the Brand "based on the customer equity" based on the argument that the Brand and image association “attachments" series. The present study argues that Brand: The brand's commitment attachments are represented by four basic composition Loyalty, brand, category and brand involvement relative satisfaction with care Performance.

Commitment is defined by (Hunt, Morgan, & D., 1994) as “an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship”. Relational commitment is when both partners brand and consumer keep faith that continuous relation is precious and significant, so they both assure that relation is maintained. Commitment is explained as “a desire to maintain a current relationship with a brand” (Fullerton, 2003). There are two factors affecting commitment; one is affective commitment and other is continuance commitment (Lombart, Louis, & Cindy, Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences (trust, commitment and attachment) to the brand, 2010).

A graphic identity is one of the most valuable assets of the brand. It symbolizes a complete set of commitments: to see, to the value proposition, to the recipient. Market conditions may require a re-think of any and all of these obligations, but unless and until that happens, usually stick to it means staying true to the symbols that represent them.

There can be a feeling that either “we can change it later if we do not like it”, or even worse, it does not generally does not matter much. Apart from the fact that the identity of the drawing can be very expensive to change (production costs alone add up quickly), this way of thinking reveals a bigger problem. A graphic identity is a constituent element of a promise to create a brand in the minds of their customers. Change the slogan refers to the change in the brand promise, and changes it on a whim risk of erosion of our brand.

Once identity is established appropriate fee for the organization, you need to abide by the organization. Change is inevitable and companies must evolve with their customers, but the most successful companies evolve from a strategic point.

Identity successful programs rely heavily on consistency. Consistency is a measure of confidence. The companies will be confident that the program is committed to a strong identity to see the best return on their investment. However, programs can have shorter life span identity identities of the drawing. While the organization focuses strategically might consider changing his identity drawing only once in a generation, you may need to be updated after the business cycle to a three-year programs.

The program has necessitated by differences events campaigns, trade shows, and changing seasons or customized. Strong identity programs allow for a good balance between consistency and the difference is opportunistic. Decision makers who are confident and willing to commit to some ideal brand see the application of the criteria but are not limited, but as an expression of their commitment. Designers see this commitment as a kind of constraint and another as a source of inspiration for finding solutions to problems. Frequency resolution is no way to build brand value. When companies commit to the value proposition, and the public, and the position, they

96 create opportunities for a strong brand identity for growth. Not commit is one of the most common ways to weaken the brand.

In many ways, brands are like people. People who are building a strong identity consistent procedures, they became known by the reliability of the proceedings of their own obligations.

Brands are built or torn down to build on their willingness and ability to commit to follow-up.

Perceptions of early commitment in the field of marketing equated with brand loyalty and defined in terms of consistency buy a certain brand. Followed these perceptions of sociology in terms of commitment was seen as a solid line of behavior by an individual, maintained even when faced with the choices of alternative or competing behavior. He said the commitment of the brand and therefore behavioral phenomenon is usually defined in empirical studies that "the proportion of the total purchases under the category of a particular product devoted to more brands that are purchased frequently” (Engel, 1982).

However, later on, this was recognized to be a narrow outlook not considering the reasons underlying the frequency of brand purchase. As a result, later definitions expanded the scope of commitment by including attitudinal aspects of the construct. For example, in sociology,(Johnson, 1973) the definition of commitment is “the extent of which is dedicated to work for the completion of the line to work.” In the field of marketing, and this means that the nature of attitudes and increase individual commitment to the brand, is the largest fixed is brand as the only option in this category of products. Using this perspective, the focus is on all the cognitive and emotional components of the building. The measurement is based on purchase intentions and preferences of purchase, rather than focusing on the operations of the actual purchase. In this study, is conceived as a commitment to brand building positions and is known

97 as “binding commitments from individual or his / her brand choice within the category of product"(Gardner L. J., 1979). According to (Silverman, 1979), it should be noted that the commitment of the brand thus relating although the brands, and is defined as a building at the level of this category of products, which are conceived consumers have different levels of commitment to the brand for different categories of products.

The studied experimental research precedents commitment to the brand, including personal characteristics such as self-confidence and exposure to the impact of the reference group, as well as store loyalty (Carman, 1970), but its connections with other consumer behavior constructs are tenuous.

The perception of risk is perceived as a result of unforeseen consequences and uncertain of the nature of the unpleasant result of buying the product (Bauer R. , 1960). In consumer behavior, and the perception of risk in terms of loss and is thought to arise only from the potential negative results, in contrast to other disciplines such as psychology, where is the positive and negative consequences.

(Bettman, 1973), distinguish between the inherent risks and determines the risk of dealing with the perceived risk as building specific class of product , any product different classes have different levels of inherent risks and handle associated with them. Indicate the risk inherent in the aspects of risk in the category of products that are stable while belong chronologically from the risk of dealing with a more situational aspects of the product category. In this study, risk perception is seen as a stable, class specific product, unique to the individual. In other words, everyone is aware of each product category has certain levels of risk associated with it and these levels for the product category different for different individuals. In this study, the definition of

98 risk is seen as a “sign of personal losses “resulting from the purchase and use of products of this category of products. This definition is consistent with the definitions used in previous studies of

(Ryan & J, 1976).

The importance of the concept of the product is essential for consumer behavior acceptable on a large scale to the idea that consumers consider different classes of products to be important differences in consumer behavior (Hupfer, 1971). This construction is similar to building a well- thought of the involvement of the product, which is defined as "the extent to which the consumer product connects to the objectives of the highlights of a particular situation or a permanent" have been found to influence the consumer decision-making processes, and operations after the decision and response to marketing communications (Richins, Bolch, & L, 1983).

The researchers hypothesized risk early in the existence of a positive relationship between perceived risk and commitment to excellence commitment to the brand as a strategy to control or avoid potential risks in buying brand untried or unfamiliar. Using this logic, the commitment of the brand is essentially a strategy of risk reduction (Derbaix, 1983).Experimental studies show that support this relationship, which run out of stock of the results of my favorite brands to choose other varieties or sizes of the same brand or delay the purchase when the perceived risk associated with the product category is high. Recently developed product classification distinguishes products with high commitment to those adverse effects that have been purchased from the rare presence of wrong decisions associated (Goodell, Martin, & N, 1991), thus favoring a positive relationship between the two constructs.

However, empirical research also shows that the level of perceived risk and cites commonly known as one of the important reasons to switch brands by consumers. Thus, consumers with

99 low perceived risk to switch to other brands because of curiosity while switching consumers in search of high-risk brands better. In related work, and empirical studies show that an increase in the perceived risk results to increase search for information based on the theme about different brands (Capon & Burke, 1980). Review of existing literature and thus reveals conflicting results about the relationship between perceived risk and the commitment of the brand despite the fact that there is more support for a positive relationship.

The close links between the product and the importance of the commitment of the brand can be found in many of the studies concerning the participation of the product's commitment to the brand. A conclusion resulting from this area, however, is often confusing and contradictory, and highlighted the similarities between the two structures through the use of (Krugman, 1965).

Concept at least explains the involvement of low commitment consumer behavior. The other authors distinguish between the two constants by selecting the commitment that it refers to a position or a certain position, whether it is positive in general, with regard to the brand, and participation as the general level of interest or concern in the category of products without reference to a specific position. After the commitment with other, authors identified as one component of the involvement of the product (Gardner J. L., 1979).

The implication of several researchers that increased consumer involvement results in the product's commitment to the brand. Traylor indicates that consumers show the behavior of the most unstable, and is characterized by brand loyalty low and increase the variety seek when dealing with products involving low to make the same argument, claiming that consumers with the participation of the product low reflection in the category of the product and the trivial and has a "bond a little bit" of their choice. One study found the level of participation of the pilot to

100 determine its relationship to the brand's commitment to (Taylor M. B., 1981). The products showed low participation and a positive relationship to the commitment of the brand while products with high involvement showed no relationship. Another study found the brand's commitment to result from the involvement of purchase (Betty, Kahle, & Homer, 1988). But the third pilot study found a strong relationship between the permanent involvement of consumers in the category of the product and the tendency to engage in the collection of information about ongoing product category(Richins, Bolch, & L, 1983). This indicates that consumers know about the different brands in this category of products is likely to be high in these cases, resulting in a less committed to the brand. Thus, the reviews of previous work suggest that although the two constructs are closely linked, and the commitment is not necessarily relevant product or be accepted as a dimension of the building in terms of importance.

2.5.1 Building commitment of consumers with new products

The main reason for the majority of new products failing is that the commitment of consumers to the products they are already using is not taken into account, and that no matter how positively the product completes in product tests, it is more likely to fail if consumers are already strongly committed to their favorite brands. Enlightened marketers should use measures of commitment to identify markets which will be easiest to enter, both geographically and by product category.

(Rice & Butch, 2001), explore this seemingly contradictory and illogical behavior and conclude that commitment, and not satisfaction, is the key to sustaining brand profits. Religion and politics rarely feature in marketing and branding texts, gaining at most a couple of sentences, usually to do with the importance of scanning the macro environment.

101

2.5.2 Failure of new products with context to commitment

Four main conclusions are drawn regarding the potential success or failure of new product launches. First, the greater the number of committed consumers in a market, the harder it will be to launch a new product successfully; secondly, it is the uncommitted consumers of existing brands who are more likely to try new products than committed consumers; thirdly, it is one thing to get uncommitted consumers to try a new product but it is quite another to keep them; and fourthly, uncommitted will only be kept if they can be turned into newly committed consumers of a new brand. As is so often the case in the world of branding, none of this is rocket science. But until such concepts as conversion and commitment are integrated into mainstream brand management, the squandering of new product development budgets is unlikely to abate

(Rice & Butch, 2001).

2.5.3 Commitment with organizational citizenship behavior:

Within this repeated process the existing constructs of organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment from organizational behavior were modified and combined into the model in order to explain employees’ brand-related attitudes and behavior. The resulting constructs and the full model are subsequently explained. Brand commitment is the key driver of brand citizenship behavior. The authors define brand commitment as the extent of psychological attachment of employees to the brand, which influences their willingness to exert extra effort towards reaching the brand goals—in other words, to exert brand citizenship behavior. The term

‘commitment’ has been used frequently in the context of internal branding, but mostly in a rather common-sense manner without theoretical foundation. In the case of a corporate brand, the brand commitment construct as the authors understand it is synonymous with organizational commitment, which is generally defined as a psychological bond between the employee and the

102 organization. Organizational commitment has been shown to induce functional extra-role behavior.

It is easily comprehensible and has been empirically proven by O’Reilly and Chatman that commitment based on compliance does not yield any behavior that goes beyond role prescriptions. It will, however, ensure devotion to rules, which is a necessary basis for brand citizenship behavior. Compliance is driven by the organizational structure, including incentive systems that determine formal rewards and sanctions and the organizational culture that determines informal rewards and sanctions through social control(O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986).

The brand commitment of each individual can be built on any one of the dimensions or on all three, while the dominance of one or the other dimension might vary from person to person. The brand citizenship behavior is not influenced by all of the dimensions in the same way.

Brand commitment does not emerge all by itself. Several empirical studies confirm this: the surveys conducted by the Gallup Organization in Germany and by Towers Perrin in the USA showed that under a fifth of responding employees were highly engaged for their corporate brand, voluntarily giving that extra effort on an ongoing basis. An equal number were disengaged, meaning they had probably ‘checked out’ from their work. The remainder—roughly two-thirds of the sample —were moderately engaged at best.

During the interviews, one very interesting discussion evolved around the question of whether some people naturally have a disposition for higher brand commitment, while for some people it is just part of their personality never to be committed to anything. In this generalized form, the authors strongly disagree with this opinion. It can be assumed, however, that some people will have a stronger congruence between their personal values and the brand values before entering

103 the company. Since in that case the core brand values are already part of their self-concept, less socialization effort is necessary.

Employee participation will generate a stronger brand commitment based on identification and internalization, while imposed behavior guidelines will only generate weak commitment based on compliance. There is no consensus, however, among the brand managers—at a large German bank the guidelines are developed by employees and included in targets agreed with superiors.

Several practitioners emphasize the necessity for empowerment of employees in this context.

This fits in with this paper’s theoretical model, as employees with brand commitment based on identification and internalization can and must be given more freedom than those without commitment or with commitment based only on compliance.

As employees can only turn brand commitment into brand citizenship behavior if they have access to the necessary resources and knowhow, appropriate information infrastructure, planning, budgeting and controlling systems also need to be in place. Brand commitment based on identification and internalization becomes difficult for an outsourced agent, as the emotional distance to the brand organization is very high (Zeplin & Sabrina, 2005).

2.5.4 Brand Commitment and Loyalty:

The perceived equity, value and quality were determined to be input variables; brand satisfaction, trust, affective commitment and continuance commitment were determined to be intervening variables; repurchase intentions and loyalty were determined to be output variables.

A survey was conducted to undergraduate and graduate students of Ataturk University.

According to the results of the research, it was determined that brand equity, value and quality had no effect on brand satisfaction, but had an effect on trust. It was determined that brand

104 satisfaction had an effect only on affective commitment, and trust had an effect both on affective commitment and continuance commitment.

When customers are satisfied, they show commitment to continuously buy the same brand and become a loyal customer (Ballantyne, 2006). No matter how satisfaction level affects loyalty, it alone is not sufficient to create brand loyalty. Various factors such as brand trust, quality, image, and equity affect brand loyalty. Determination of the factors effective in creating brand loyalty apart from satisfaction will be helpful to understand the construct of the loyalty. From this point of view, in the study, the variables including brand equity, brand value, brand quality, affective commitment and continuance commitment were determined as the determinants of brand loyalty and it was aimed to determine their effects on loyalty and repurchase intentions.

Commitment is divided into two as affective and continuance commitment. Affective commitment is the emotional connection with the brand which represents strong sense of personal identifications. Affective brand commitment is based on identification and shared values with the brand (Pring, 2007). In evaluating affective commitment for some important brands, Mc Alexander, Schouten and Koenig (2002) found affective commitment explains the deep attachment to the focused brands. A study by (Verhoef, 2003), in the banking services found the direct result of affective commitment on repurchases intention. At the same time brand satisfaction, brand equity and perceived brand value were positive antecedents of effective commitment, but they did not directly affect consumer repurchase behavior.

Continuance commitment defined as the consumer’s weak feelings for a brand. Because when the consumers perceive high switching costs and few alternatives, they change their brands.

(Fullerton G. , 2003), has explained continuance commitment as a harmful effect on the consumer’s willingness to engage in advocacy intentions. In another study, about commitment,

105

(Lindstrom, 2005)tested the commitment to a brand. In this study he asked consumers if they would “tattoo the name of the brand on their body.” As a result of the research, many respondents tattoo the brand image on their body. (Harrison-Walker, 2001), studies on commitment and repurchase plans have shown continuance commitment destabilized consumer behavior while consumers who have affective commitment act as a reference for a brand or organization and want to help organization when they have a strong affective attachment to the firms and firm’s brand. The study showed that continuance commitment had a weak effect on repurchase intentions, and the academic literature suggested that driving force behind behavioral loyalty is not motivated by attitudinal loyalty. On the other hand for other researchers continuance commitment has a positive impact on the repurchase decisions. In the study of

(Gilliland, 2002), on clothing brands, the consumer can effect from brand’s feature like brand quality, brand trust, brand value and integrate with the brand.

Trust and commitment are both very important elements in ensuring a long-term orientation towards the firm’s brand. They are explained as antecedent of loyalty and repurchase intentions.

(Morgan R. &., 1994), assumed that commitment motivates buyers and suppliers to continue their relationship with the brand in the future. In the other studies in which the effect of brand trust on brand commitment was investigated, (Shergill, 2005)concluded that trust had a positive effect on customer commitment. The present study examined trust as a precursor of commitment.

106

Affective Continuance Commitment Commitment

Commitment

with Brand Personality

Figure 7: Commitment with Brand Personality Model

2.5.4.1 Affective Commitment

The idea of commitment has been an important feature of studies on customer relationships over the last decades (Gundlach, 1995). While the literature on commitment generally suggests that the phenomenon exists in different forms (Allen & Meyer, 1990)most research has found the affective kind of commitment to be a major determinant of customer loyalty, while the effects of other types of commitment are more unclear (Kumar, Hibbard, & Stern, 1994)for a marketing related study including all three forms discussed in the literature). Affective commitment is based on emotions and affective attachments to the commitment object (Porter, Steers, Mowday,

& Boulian, 1974), and thus, it is grounded on customer partiality and positive feelings for the relationship partner. If a customer’s affective commitment to a brand is high, this should bring about a wish and motivation to continue the relationship. Since this type of commitment does not include any instrumental cost-benefit evaluations, it is derived from the emotional pleasure

107 associated with the relationship partner, and the feelings of fondness developed within the relationship. As such, affective committed parties are inclined to maintain the existing relationship, an assumption extensively supported by previous research (Kumar, Hibbard, &

Stern, 1994); (Wieselquist, 1999). This study argues that consumers whose affective commitment to a supplier is high will be less receptive to a newly introduced product in this category. Regarding the brand extension, this implies that the intention to buy a new product will be lower the higher the level of commitment to an incumbent brand (Hansen & Hem, 2004).

Affective commitment is more lasting than calculative or normative commitment, but it is not certainly everlasting. It is possible for a team to lose its sacred position with admirers.

Affective commitment is the identification or liking of the brand, when consumer got emotionally attached with the brand. It is the emotional attachment built-in between the brand and the customer both enjoy the loyalty and membership as being a user of the brand (Fullerton,

2003). Affective commitment by the consumer is enduring desire to maintain a current relationship (Hunt, Morgan, & D., 1994). This strong commitment is based on emotional association that has been developed with the brand. On this basis the consumer will not sacrifice usage of the brand and value their commitment and relation with the brand.

2.5.4.2 Continuous Commitment

Continuance commitment is when the consumer has no option or substitute available in the market to market purchase or no other substitute is available at that price rate and the switching is too costly (Lombart, Louis, & Cindy, 2010). The benefits consumers getting from a brand are not replaceable by other brand so this prevents consumer switching. Potential loss of losing the benefits associated with the brand is a key feature of continuance commitment (Fullerton, 2003).

Continuance commitment is the result of dependence of consumer on the brand either due to lack

108 of substitute or high switching cost like for expensive product consumers are reluctant to switch over to other brands because they have already highly invested in the brand and they do not want to again make high investment so the stick to the brand they are currently using. This is particularly true when the product is complex.

A consumer’s commitment to a brand is related to her relative preference for the brand; in general, the more strongly preferred the brand, the greater the commitment to the brand

(Montgomery & B., 1987).

Commitment with brand is now very hard or difficult to create when the competition with the similar brand is very high and in case of Pepsi and coca cola the war of getting enough market shares is the target or major objective of each brand to achieve. Sometime Pepsi get market share and sometimes coke, but if we see globally coke is the market leader. But the scenario of

Pakistan is totally different people in Pakistan are more committed to Pepsi and this commitment enhance and lead towards the brand loyalty. According to an article by a leading newspaper

“Tribune” that coke has market share of around 30% to 35% and Pepsi Cola has a market share of 60% to 65% (Despite lead, Pepsi aims for bigger piece of the cake, 2012).

Both companies have applied and are using many strategies to make their consumer satisfied, because the more they satisfied the more they will be committed to brand and through this the brand loyalty will automatically increase. There are many advertising comparing run by Pepsi in which they endorse group of celebrity which help them to increase the market share and level commitment by satisfying the customers.

On the other hand if we see coke they also using deferent strategies to create their market and attract customer towards the brand. They also establish a series of program Coke Studio which is

109 very successful trough this they tried to capture market share and attract people towards the product.

From the above scenario it is easily observed that commitment plays an important role in brand personality. Because of commitment consumers are strongly stick to brand and their commitment will be long lasting. Eventually customer finds congruence and satisfaction with brand which shows that their personality matches with brand. Pleasant experience of using same brand several times enhance the level of satisfaction and lead the consumer make long lasting relationship through the high level of commitment with brand.

2.5.5 The Importance of Commitment for a Certain Firm

Commitment to the squad often also means active conflict to rival teams. An Alabama fan mentioned that “Alabama fans have culture and Auburn fans have agriculture.” Some Florida fans delight in stating to rival Florida State as a “girls’ school,” referring to its origin as a college for women. While these competitions are commonly pleasant, they imitate the stuff of purity called opposition to the profane. Though informants did not use these terms, there is no doubt that many of them would enjoy the idea of their “sacred” team versus the “profane” rival team.

Much study regarding commitment has been showed in the field of organizational behavior.

(Allen & Meyer, 1990), developed and verified a three-component model of commitment. It was originally applied to the commitment of a worker to an organization. (Echambadi, 2000), applied the framework of the model to the customer holding context. The three components of the model, as expressed by (Allen & Meyer, 1990)are continuance, normative, and affective. The resolution component of commitment states to the worker’s view of the costs of leaving the organization as opposed to the benefits of remaining. Based on the items developed to measure

110 this element of the ideal, the focus is on the costs. This phase of commitment is characterized by a need to be so. In our application of the model, the individual’s livelihood is not generally affected by ending the association. Subsequently, the individual’s cognitive judgment is more between the benefits received from supporting the team and the cost of giving that support. To reflect the difference, we have adopted the term “calculative” which is more commonly used in consumer behavior research for this element of commitment (Echambadi, 2000), (Hansen,

Sandvik, & FredSelnes, 2002). The normative section occurs when employees are loyal to the organization because they feel that it is the moral and correct thing to do—that they have a responsibility to the organization. This element of commitment as originally formulated. The affective component operates when employees are loyal because they want to be. These are employees who feel much linked and have strong affective feelings toward the organization. The commitment framework that we apply to our model of consumer devotion includes the three components of calculative, normative, and affective commitment. Calculative commitment means that, an individual will remain a fan of a team as long as the benefits of being a fan compensate the costs (Etzioni, 1961); (Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). These are individuals who are more expected to be fans during winning seasons, or when there is a player that is especially exciting to watch. Normative commitment stems from internalized, normative pressures to remain loyal. In that case, these are individuals who feel some sort of obligation to be a fan of the team regard less of the balance of costs and benefits. Finally, affective commitment means that there is an internalized emotional connection between the fan and the team and that the fan feels that he or she identifies with the team and shares values with it.

Individuals who develop commitment to a team may do so to fulfill expectations that others have of them, or to satisfy their own needs. In other words, the antecedents can be based

111 interpersonally or intra personally. In either case, developing commitment helps them to achieve cognitive consistency (Heider, 1958). If a family has a tradition of supporting a college football team, this tradition may have become established as a family norm (Fields, 1984). Individuals who value their membership in the family will experience cognitive inconsistency if they do not also become fans. For example, one informant stated that she had “married into” being a Florida

State fan. When asked if she was now a committed fan, her husband responded, “She better be.”(Reynolds & E., 2004).

2.5.6 Commitment as Multidimensional Construct

Similar to the construct of trust, the roots of commitment research cannot be found in economic science. Commitment-research has its roots in the social psychology research field

(Mowday, 1979). However, research in this field is limited to the relationship of two persons. Organizational psychology extends the understanding of commitment and tries to explain the interrelation between a person and an organization. In business relation research, the organizational understanding is widened by focusing on the commitment of two organizations. A more special focus is set on research between industrial manufacturers and retailing firm’s e.g. (Joshi, 2009), (Vázquez & Álvarez-gonzález, 2005). A widely known multidimensional model for commitment research was designed by (Allen & Meyer, 1990). They distinguish three different components of commitment: affective, normative and calculative or continuance commitment. The affective component deals with the emotional commitment. The normative component relies on the feeling of responsibility, while the rational component takes into account the costs of breaking up a business relationship. All three components can operate simultaneously and do not exclude themselves(Allen & Meyer, 1990).

112

2.5.7 Affective, Normative and Continuance Commitment

Affective commitment deals with a demand-based relationship to an organization. (Bansal,

Irving, & Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service Providers,

2004). It aims at an emotional relation, the identification with the organization and the wish to be part of it. (Mowday, 1979), define affective commitment as the relative strength of personal identification with the organization and as certain participation. This affective power binds thepartners because of their demand. Trust and satisfaction can be a motor for that kind of bond

(Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service

Providers, 2004). The affective commitment is characterized by a positive identification with goals and magnitudes of an object and by an emotional bond. Furthermore it describes the wish for membership due to positive feelings like loyalty and belonging (Allen & Meyer, The

Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the

Organization, 1990). A good example for affective commitment is the relationship of a hair dresser and its customer (Price, 1999). A person feels a positive emotional relation because ofits positive experiences. This positive emotion can be caused by the satisfaction about an object (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Affective commitment is based on the identification with common values and norms and the involvement in a business relation. Affective committed people continue business relations, because they like their business partner and enjoy working together. They feel loyalty and a certain kind of binding to their partner (Cater & Zabkar,

2009).

Continuance commitment describes the cost based binding. People feel forced to stay in a relationship, because they have to. This is comparable with being “jailed” in a relationship

(Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service

113

Providers, 2004). This construct refers to a cost-benefit analysis that motivates people to maintain the relationship. Therefore the person must hold on to the relationship, because breaking it up would be too costly. People think that they cannot quit the relationship, because this would cause too high economic, social or psychological costs (Bansal, Irving,

& Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service Providers, 2004).

Continuance commitment is therefore often called Calculative commitment. Crucial for the development of the Calculative commitment are the switching costs that arise when a relationship is broken up (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). The person would, for example experience high losses, when he or she would stop the relationship. Due to this dimension of commitment being not emotional, but rational, the person is just committed to an object, the possible monetary losses, which would arise when quitting the relationship. This kind of commitment could lead to negative emotions. This may result in a reduction of motivation and recommendation about the relationship. Calculative commitment involves a rather negative motivation to continue a relationship, because the partner is forced to keep it. This constraint goes along with higher costs or lack of alternatives and makes a business relationship a necessity (Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer

Commitment to Service Providers, 2004).

2.5.8 Commitment in Business Relationships

One of the first models about commitment in business relations was done by (Wilson &

Mummalaneni, 1987). They describe an accordance of demands and wishes of both business partners as an assumption for all business relationships. If a business relationship turns out to be positive and the demands of both parties are satisfied, satisfaction is built and more investments are done. Commitment is stronger the higher satisfaction is and the higher investments are.

114

Commitment has a positive influence on a business relationship and supports investments and influences a relationship’s duration positively (Wilson & Mummalaneni, 1987)(Anderson &

Weitz, 1992)focus on commitment in business relationships. They examine the antecedences of commitment between manufacturers of industrial goods and their retailing firms and develop a model that views commitment as a mutual, self-energizing process. The manufacturer’s commitment is perceived by the retailer and this enforces his commitment. However, this process is not the only reason for commitment. Idiosyncratic investments also enforce commitment and show the willingness to stay in long-term relationships. The model shows the self-enforcing process as well as the impact of specific investments (Anderson & Weitz, 1992),

(Morgan & Hunt, 1994) focus their research on the constructs commitment and trust. In their work, the antecedences as well as the impact-factors are examined. Trust is the elementary condition for the development of commitment in that model.

The affective commitment reflects the emotional commitment to an organization. Therefore this commitment binds employees to an organization. The more an individual trusts, the more it will have a positive feeling.

Hence, the more one trusts a business partner or an organization, the better the feeling about a business relationship and emotional commitment will be. Studies have shown (Bansal,

Irving, & Taylor, A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service Providers,

2004) that trust in an organization positively affects emotional commitment. Trust is a pre-stage, or an assumption for commitment and successful relationships. It is based on past behavior and allows for commitment in the future. In a relationship, in which both parties trust each other, short-term profit will be denied for long-term success. If a party feels committed to another, it is vulnerable. Therefore people will only feel committed to organizations, if they have

115 trust in them. Through trust, the motivation to maintain a relationship is more important to companies, as the participants feel committed (affective dimension).

(Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, 2004), found out that affective commitment has a positive influence on normative commitment. The persons that want to continue a business relationship because of positive experiences feel some kind of responsibility to do that. In other words, persons can feel committed to an organization, when they have made positive experiences with that organization

(Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, 2004), (Cater & Zabkar, 2009).

Pride of a brand is shown, if one’s expectations are met or have been exceeded. If someone is proud of a brand, he will feel emotionally committed. Because affective commitment describes the emotional commitment with an object, the individual, who is proud of a brand, will identify more with a company.

Therefore a high brand pride will have a positive influence on affective commitment.

People, who feel affectively committed, will feel more morally bond to an organization. The more proud someone is of a brand, the more he or she will stay loyal to that brand, as he or she feels morally bond. The continuance commitment has a negative influence on brand pride. This construct implies that someone is forced to stay to an organization, because switching costs are too high or there is a lack of alternatives. Persons with high continuance commitment will feel no pride. Contrary, persons with high brand pride will not stay with a brand because of lack of alternatives; instead they just want that only brand.

Undoubtedly trust and commitment have strongly influenced recent research. With the development and conceptualization of brand pride presented here, a further strong construct in behavioral employee research is found which needs thorough further examination and

116 development. Therefore, a few suggestions for further research on this topic should be made.

First, all our propositions related to brand pride need empirical testing. Although, the relationships between trust and commitment, an examination of the role of pride should enhance the understanding of this construct and the interaction between them. Furthermore, an empirical approach would allow finding different items in order to measure (brand) pride properly (Kuppelwieser, Grefrath, & Dziuk, 2011).

2.5.9 Commitment’s Central Role:

Recently, a harsh environment is seen. Marketers trying to build brand loyalty for which two different upstream and downstream approaches can be checked through. A later point in time refers to the brand's continued purchase. The first approach often buys brand looks for the purposes of, and involvement with the brand’s commitment to some extent. Firms to value their customers need to show continued interest. Before attract new customers, retain existing ones first must be. And for that, consumers should be changed in association with the brand devotion

(Edmund, 2013).

In this way, a repetitive buying behavior and maintain the company’s prime responsibility is becoming a strategic focus. Well, the allegiance of consumers in terms of brand commitment brand development is an important goal. Users create a relationship with the brand. It is important to understand the importance and news. Behavior and attitudes, which can further be defined in two ways through .it is not enough to, there should be some positive attitude towards the brand for the presence (Edmund, 2013).

117

2.6 Studies on Satisfaction on Brand Personality

In this prosperous society of todays, the meaning of consumption is totally changed. Customers prefer to satisfy their higher order needs rather than their physiological and safety needs. The role of self-actualization and self-esteem are playing a vital role in the purchase of products

(Aaker D. , 1996).

Satisfaction has been derived from the Latin word satis (enough) and facere(to do or make). This means that satisfying goods and services have the capability to provide what is required to the point of being enough. A definition of satisfaction that has been proposed in the past is "An evaluation rendered that the (consumption) experience was at least as good as it was supposed to be". A more formal definition of Satisfaction is the customer’s execution reaction. It is a verdict that a good/service feature, or the good or service itself, provided (or is providing) a gratifying level of utilization related fulfillment, including under- or over fulfillment (Oliver R. L.,

Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, 2010).

Satisfaction is defined as the feeling of happiness or pleasure because you have achieved something or got what you wanted. Customer satisfaction is divided into three categories; including enquirers, complainants and review customers. Enquirer is defined as the member of the public who gets in touch with us to organization to investigate complaint. A complaint is someone whose complaint the organization is currently investigating. A review customer is someone who has asked to review the decision about their enquiry or complaint (Ombudsman,

2012).

For Achour in the research of (Bouslama, Achouri, & Neji, "The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumer’s Satisfaction and Loyalty", 2010),

118 satisfaction is defined as " An encouraging feeling a consumer has after a utilization experience and springing out an assessment between the expectations from a product or a service and the performance perceived from it."

Another definition of satisfaction has been derived that is the degree to which a product's perceived performance matches a buyer's expectation. Customer Satisfaction is mostly dependent on the product and services but there is another factor that determines it. That is the customer expectation. The higher the consumer satisfaction the harder those satisfaction are fulfilled by any goods or services. Thus, satisfaction tries to match the level of expectation with the perception of consumers (Anantadjaya, Walidin, Waskita, & Nawangwulan, 2007).

Customer satisfaction is also defined as an emotional post- consumption reaction that may occur as the result of comparing projected and real performance or it can be a conclusion that occurs without comparing opportunity. However, researcher has said that the relation between satisfaction and brand loyalty is moderated by psychological and situational factors (Thiele &

Rundle-, 2004).

(Kotler & Keller, A framework for marketing management, 2009).

119

Brand Personality has two different meanings: Firstly it is about the individual's internal processes; it helps to understand why a person acts in a certain way and corresponds to "what I say about myself). The second one concern the way in which a person is perceived by others" what others say and think about me. Brand personality is the set of human characteristics associated with a brand. But some of the American researchers think that this definition is quite vague and indistinguishable from other closed concepts such as brand image or brand identity.

Most of the researchers talk about the "set of human traits related with a brand". It is a mean to build a unique identity to the brand and plays a vital role in the understanding of consumers' attitudes and choices (M'Sallem, Mzoughi, & Bouhlel, Customers' Evolution after a Bank renaming: Effects of Brand name change on Brand Personality, Brand Attitude and Customer;

Satisfaction, 2009).

Brand personality is defined as the set of human characteristics, which are associated with the brand (Keller K. L., 1993). Many consumers easily think of a brand as a celebrity or famous historical figures. Different personality represent different traits, that is why people associate themselves with product, for example; consumers of coca cola are associated with the term cool, similarly in Pepsi consumers associate themselves as young, exciting and hip. In order to examine the relationship with brand and human personality may drive consumer preference; two types of brand personality scales are used the first type are ad hoc scales, which are typically composed of a set of traits ranging from 30 to 200. However these scales are theoretical in nature. The second types of brand personality are those that are based on human personality scales and that have not been validated in context of brand.

According to San Martin the consumer satisfaction is cognitive but as well as emotional also.

There are two formulation of satisfaction, one is transaction specific which is defined as the

120 judgment of the consumer before buying the product, it can also be describe as the post purchase evaluative decision (Oliver, 1993). It also suggested that satisfaction occur at the post consumption stage.

On the other hand, the second one is Overall satisfaction, which is defined as the evaluative decision of the last purchase occasion and it based on all encounters with service provider

(Bitner, 1994). In the end overall satisfaction is an aggregation of all transaction specific satisfaction with service encounters (Veloutsou, 2005).

The brand offers opportunities to build connection with consumers. Thus, consumers want to build relationship with a particular brand because they consider the brand as favorable or precious to them. If customers feel that they are getting good value and are satisfied after initially using the brand, they want to build a relationship with it. It is suggested that perceived satisfaction has a positive effect on brand loyalty. Also that consumer satisfaction affects attitude after purchase and this influences the repurchase intention. Consumer- brand relationship is a blend of cognitive, emotional, behavioral processes that happen between brands and customers.

Consumers build an individual relationship with a particular product in the same way as people take care of relations with other people. Thus, it tells us that both customers and brands add to each other in a win- win situation. Researchers have identified six dimensions of brand relationship quality: love/ passion, self-connection, interdependence, commitment, intimacy and brand partner quality (Seong- Yeon Park, 2005).

Measurement for consumer satisfaction is the five dimensions of Seroquel:

 Tangibles: which includes issues such as appearance of physical facilities?

 Reliability: which covers issues such as ability to perform the promised services?

121

 Responsiveness: willingness to help customers and provide quick services.

 Assurance: knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and

confidence

 Empathy: caring, individualized attention the firm provides to its customers.

In the services segment, satisfaction occurs when the perception of performance exceeds the expected one. In this type of approach, Satisfaction is defined as "an individual's objectivity resulting favorable evaluation of any outcome and/ or experience associated with consuming a product". It is also defined as "the consumer's fulfillment response" (M'Sallem, Mzoughi, &

Bouhlel, Customers' Evolution after a Bank renaming: Effects of Brand name change on Brand

Personality, Brand Attitude and Customer; Satisfaction, 2009). Satisfaction is a positive affective reaction to an outcome of a prior experience. The satisfaction and attitudes formed because of former experience then has an impact on purchases, finishing the cyclical pattern (Sahin, Zehir,

& Kitapci, An Empirical Research on Global Brands, 2011).

Brand personality can include characteristics such as age, socio-economic class, personality traits and feelings. A model for measurement was developed for the measurement of personality by identifying 42 features divided up among 15 facets and 5 factors of personality. Those are sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness (Bouslama, Achouri, & Neji,

"The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumer’s

Satisfaction and Loyalty", 2010).

Consumers are more educated, intellectual and knowledgeable in recent era; they know quality of any company’s product, as well as their alternatives. If the current product does not satisfy their need, they will definitely switch to the next available alternative. Customer perceived value

122 is defined as the difference between customer’s evaluation of all the benefits of product and all the cost of product. Total customer value is defined as the all attributes of product, service, personnel, and image in the eyes of customer or people. Whereas on the other hand, the total customer cost is the overall cost of the customer expectation about the product, which he or she is using, obtaining, disposing and it includes market offering also. It can be better understand by an example, suppose that a person wants to purchase a tractor, he has two choices in front of him; that are Caterpillar and Komatsu after an evaluation he decided to buy a Caterpillar tractor, because he knows that Caterpillar has greater product benefits, it has good reliability offer, and above all it has good resale value plus a high quality performance engine and parts. He also knows that Caterpillar’s employees are more knowledgeable, and they will provide better service, for example; maintenance. Thus in the end, we can conclude he has make judgment on the respected variables that are; product, services, personnel, things and quality.

Customer perceived value has divided into two sub headings that are total customer benefits and total customer cost. Each of them is divided into four sub headings; total customer benefits include; product benefit, customer benefit, personnel benefit and image benefit. On Contrary total customer cost includes; monetary cost, time cost, energy cost and psychological cost.

Consumer satisfaction theory and research have consistently supported a positive relationship between product satisfaction and repurchases intention (Howard and sheth, 1969).

Effects of brand personality: Discussing about the dependent variable which includes brand attitude which is defined as the overall evaluation of a brand. Brand attitudes are essential because they formulate consumer behavior; this is the reason that it is dependent variable. One accepted model of brand attitudes leads to intentions which ultimately reach to actual behavior.

According to Keller (1993) writes that this model probably has been the most influential multi

123 attribute model to marketing. Considering Multi attribute model, brand attitude are a function of characteristics plus benefits that are salient for the brand.

For marketers, satisfaction is one of the conditions for market continuation and expansion to take place. Plus, a pleased customer is a non-complaining consumer- no time and money have to be spent on making corrective actions by the firm. Also no unfavorable communication among customers will take place. One of the models used by researchers is the two stage expectancy model:

 Brand choice is a function of intentions to act, which are influenced by beliefs and

attitudes.

 The post usage experience begins with disconfirmation or fulfillment of pre-purchase

expectations and beliefs.

 If expectations are fulfilled, satisfaction is the outcome.

 Post usage attitude is a task of satisfaction. If the experience is positive, former attitude is

reinforced.

 Future purchase intentions are directly affected by post- purchase attitude. And if the

purchase experience has been good, repurchase will happen.

Highly concerned customers have invested time and energy in their relationship with a firm. If they experience dissatisfaction with the core factor, they may feel that a personal investment is not yielding results and experience more overall dissatisfaction than customers who have no personal involvement. There should be involvement effects when people are satisfied with the core activity (Goodman, Fichman, Lerch, & Snyder, 1995).

124

Brands offer opportunity to build relationship with the customers. This means that brands are a way to make a unique bond with customer. So that customers are attracted to the brand personality and that they can relate to it.

Consumer Satisfaction is not only cognitive but emotional suggested by Rodriguez Del Bosque and San Martin (2008). Overall satisfaction is an evaluative judgment of the last purchase occasion and based on all encounters with service provider (Bitner, 1994).

Gounaris and Stathakopoulas have stated in (Attri, pahwa, & Urkude, Loyalty and customer satisfaction with the public sector oil marketing companies: way forward for effective CRM strategies, 2012) that retention of customers is only possible through nurturing loyalty by making an emotional connection between the brand and the customer. These loyal buyers will then contribute to making good feedbacks when in groups. They will be able to attract new customers to the brands as they will be satisfied.

Examining the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty is quite complex yet marketing literature suggests that satisfaction leads to attitudinal loyalty, which is defined as an intention to make future purchases. Attitudinal loyalty is assumed to be a necessary implication of satisfaction (Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, & Rundle- Thiele, Examining te Satisfaction- Loyalty

Relationship, 2004). Satisfaction is the emotional post-consumption response which is the result of comparing actual and expected performance or t can also be the outcome of which occurs without comparing(Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, & Rundle- Thiele, Examining te Satisfaction-

Loyalty Relationship, 2004).The relationship between satisfaction and loyalty is curvilinear and is mediated by several psychological and situational factors (Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, &

Rundle- Thiele, Examining te Satisfaction- Loyalty Relationship, 2004).

125

The saturation of market and the maturity of consumers towards the brand and have urged the companies to go beyond brand image to the relation brand (Bouslama, ACHOURI, & Neji,

2004). Now a day’s consumers tend for their decision to rely on the brand image as it is developed in their minds rather than the inherent attributes and the characters of the product.

This actually turns customer loyalty into important primary marketing objective.

Our current studies are based on the effort of understanding the relationship and impact of satisfaction on brand personality and brand loyalty. More precisely we will discuss and evaluate the effect of consumer’s satisfaction on brand personality and brand loyalty (Bouslama, Achouri,

& Neji, "The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on

Consumer’s Satisfaction and Loyalty", 2010).

Personality is a psychological notion which is often presented as a stable and individualized unity of behavior or a set of behaviors and structure of features. These features are defined as tendencies which are meant to show coherent modes of cognitive and affective perception and also the behavior on the part of individual’s behavior. (Bouslama, Achouri, & Neji, "The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumer’s Satisfaction and

Loyalty", 2010), other than this personality features are perceived as psychological characteristics that gives meaning to human action and experiences (Bouslama, Achouri, & Neji,

"The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumer’s

Satisfaction and Loyalty", 2010).

Customer Satisfaction generates brand loyalty in marketing theory this supposition is made very often on this supposition every producer of any kind of a good should affix chief importance to creating customer satisfaction. There is a greater chance of repurchase of a brand by a consumer who is satisfied rather than the customer who is dissatisfied. It is also assumed that the greater

126 amount of customer satisfaction the greater the degree is of brand loyalty. For a firm’s continuity and profit brand loyalty is an essential pillar (Bloemer & Kasper, 1994).

Consumer Satisfaction is not only important for producer but is equally important for consumer him/herself as it means a positive evaluation of a manufactured goods or a brand that shows the consumer that he is capable of making the right decision in terms of the product which he is buying out of so many options. It also shows the consumer that his needs are fulfilled and he does not need to go under any negative actions. And adversity for instance complaining doesn’t need to occur now (Bloemer & Kasper, 1994).

As we see that a number of studies have shown a positive relationship between customer satisfaction and brand loyalty conversely the association is not that perfect. Before the further analysis of the relationship between customer satisfaction and brand loyalty the main question which arises that to what extent customer satisfaction can affect brand loyalty? For this it is necessary for us to distinguish two types of consumer satisfaction which are:

 Manifest Satisfaction

 Latent Satisfaction

Secondly, it is also important to stress onto the differences between true brand loyalty and spurious brand loyalty. Thirdly it is also important to describe the relationship between the two types of customer satisfaction and brand loyalty (Bloemer & Kasper, 1994).

In the literature many conceptual and operational definitions of satisfaction can be found most of these definitions are based on the comparison between expectation and performance while others are merely based on performance. However satisfaction is relative in nature and it varies among

127 thing from which the comparison is being made therefore it should be directed under such circumstances under which a comparison between performance and expectations can occur.

Up till now most approaches of consumer satisfaction seem to imply some kind of comparison between expectation and performance but consumers may vary as to how explicit these comparisons are made other than that it can be very hard for consumer to generate expectations and to evaluate performance and also to compare the two as if they were independent variables

(Bloemer & Kasper, 1994).

If the customer is not aware of about the god at stake and has no experience with the alternatives which might serve as reference point and are not capable and motivated t compute the difference, correspondence and relationship between the performance and expectations. It might get hard to complete this comparison. But even if the consumer is aware, capable to compute and motivated to do so but the absence of perceived differences may hinder the consumer in doing it.(Bloemer

& Kasper, 1994), manifest satisfaction is the result of the explicit subjective evaluation that the chosen alternative brand meets or exceeds the expectation. It is the result of the explicit and extensive evaluation of brand choice. It is very well elaborated and the consumer is aware of it.

Thus it is assumed that it will be clearly related to future buying behavior. (Bloemer & Kasper,

1994), whereas, the latent satisfaction is result of implicit subjective evaluation that has chosen alternatives of brand meets or exceeds the expectations. It is the result of the implicit evaluation of the brand choice which isn’t elaborated upon. Therefore it does not need to be unequivocally related to future buying behavior. Thus we can conclude that manifest satisfaction will occur only if the consumer is motivated to make an evaluation and has the capacity to do so (Bloemer

& Kasper, 1994).

128

Thus, Consumer satisfaction is the most essential and most researched topic in marketing. It is important for long term success in business as it is determined to be one of the most fundamental determinants of longer term success as it carries out the post consumption evaluation like behavior (Nam, Ekinci, & Whyaltt, Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and Consumer Satisfaction,

2011).

According to (Behi, Belaid, & Temessek, 2010) in general satisfaction has been portrayed as:

“An affective, a cognitive or a conative response that is based on an evaluation of product standards, product consumption experience and product traits it occurs before or after consumption or extended experience.”

Early in 1960’s definitions of brand loyalty incorporated both attitudinal and behavioral concepts. Yet few empirical studies have incorporated both dimensions. Instead research in this area seems to be fragmented into two distinct traditions with behavioral researchers focusing on the observable action of loyal customer and attitudinal researchers investigating commitment to bran and repurchase intensions of the consumers.

Industries seems to be more interested in forming everlasting relationships with it customers than the telecommunication and media industry. For the past few years companies within both industries have been operating within the environmental of digital junction which could be defined as the dynamic approach or partial integration of different communication and information based market application (Wirtz, 1999).

Customer satisfaction leads to brand loyalty. This is an assumption made very often in marketing. The chance that a satisfied customer purchase a product that has satisfied him/her is greater than the product that has not satisfied customer and a probability that he will buy it again

129 is having a less chance. It has been supposed that greater the degree of customer satisfaction is directly proportional to the greater degree of brand loyalty. When discussing about the customer satisfaction, we can say that it is not only important for producer but also for customer, it shows that customer is capable of making the right decision for him/her. Furthermore, two types of customer satisfaction has been discuss, firstly manifest satisfaction and secondly latent satisfaction. Stress on the difference between true brand loyalty and spurious brand loyalty has been emphasized. According to Jacoby and Chestnut true brand loyalty is defined as “the biased that is nonrandom, behavioral responses, expressed over time, by some decision making unit, with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands, and is a function of psychological processes resulting in brand commitment. He further defined spurious brand loyalty has “ the biased, behavioral responses that is purchase, expressed over time, by some decision making unit, with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands, and is a function of inertia”.

The major difference that has been notified between true brand loyalty and spurious loyalty is that true brand loyalty is based on brand commitment where else spurious brand loyalty is not. In addition, true brand loyal customer is one who is committed to his/her brand. He/she insist to buy same brand again and again. On the contrary, spurious brand loyal customer is not committed to a brand; the individual may buy a product, or he/she will not or there is big chance that he or she will move to the next product that is available. The spurious loyal buyers’ lack any attachment to brand attributes and they can be immediately captured by another brand that offers a better deal, a coupon or enhanced point of purchase visibility through displays or other devices.

True brand loyalty is brand commitment for brand commitment is necessary condition for true brand loyalty to occur. Brand commitment is defined as the pledging or binding of an individual

130 to his/her brand choice (Kiesler & Abelson, 1968). As a result of explicit and extensive decision making and evaluative processes, a consumer becomes committed to the brand; the individual is pledged and bound to the choice again.

When the decision making and evaluative processes are not explicit and only very limited the consumer will not become committed to the brand and cannot be truly brand loyal. Then, only spurious brand loyalty will result in case that individual buys the brand again.

The study hinges upon true brand loyalty. This means that we will explicitly take into account the level of consumers’ commitment. Definitely the consumer world comprises of more situation than these two extremes; consumers may differ in their degree of loyalty for various products.

Therefore, we assume that a continuum between true brand loyalty; the repeat buying of a brand based on a maximum or infinite amount of commitment. On the contrary, one finds spurious brand loyalty; they do again buying of the brand not based on any commitment at all, but on inertia. In this way, brand commitment enables us to define the degree of true brand loyalty. We have broadly discussed two different types of satisfaction and have stressed the difference among true brand loyalty and spurious brand loyalty (Bloemer & Kasper, 1994).

Through consumer experience brands take on personality traits. Five dimensions of personality are sincerity (e.g. down-to-earth), excitement (spirited, imaginative), competence (reliable, intelligent), sophistication (upper class and charming) and ruggedness (tough)(Keller,

Parameswaran, & Jacob, 2011).

According to Ouwersloot and Tudorica in the research of (Bouslama, Achouri, & Neji, "The

Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumer’s Satisfaction

131 and Loyalty", 2010)companies should think about brand personality as a device that enables them to reach their satisfaction goal.

On the whole satisfaction is an evaluative opinion of the last purchase incident and based on all encounters with service giver (Nam, Ekinci, & Whyaltt, Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and

Consumer Satisfaction, 2011).

Many empirical studies have revealed that customer satisfaction secures future revenues, reduces future transaction costs, decreases price elasticity and minimizes the likely hood of customers detecting if quality flatters. Satisfaction plays a very important role in quality management.

Satisfaction also occurs when customer expectations are met or exceeded and the purchase decision is reinforced. Satisfaction reinforces positive attitudes toward the brand, leading to the greater likelihood that the consumer will repurchase the same brand. Dissatisfaction result when consumer expectations when are not met, such disconfirmation of expectations is likely to level to negative brand attitudes and lessens the likelihood that the consumer will buy the same brand again.

Thus Satisfaction is very important, because a company’s sales come from two basic groups — new customers and repeat purchase customers. It usually costs more to attract new customers than to retain current ones, and the best way to retain current customers is to keep them satisfied.

Therefore, satisfaction will positively associate with re-purchase decision making.

According to Vilares and Cohelo, employee satisfaction not harms the commitment of employee and his/her loyalty but it put an impact on customer satisfaction related variables. The relationship between employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction has obtained a confirmation of two strong studies. The relationship between employee satisfaction, customer

132 satisfaction as well as profit showing that, the effects of employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction on business profit at a given point in time might not be noticeable; they become prominent over time (Berhadt, Donthu and Kennett, 2000).

Furthermore, discussing the affect the of employee satisfaction on customer satisfaction; employees that interact with customers are in a position to develop awareness of and respond to customer goals and needs. Employees who are satisfied are more motivated also, that is they have the motivational resources to deliver adequate effort and care. Satisfied employees are empowered employees also they have the resources, training and responsibilities to understand and serve customer needs and demands. They have high energy and willingness to give good service at a very lowest; they can deliver a more positive perceptive of service and product that are provided (Bulgarella, 2005).

Brands are focused to be positioned within the emotional and experimental world of the customers. Within this structure, the personality brand management has found its way in the business. This new understanding of brands authorizes an organization to utilize the emotional comfort of a brand to develop long-term customer brand relationships and also with brand equity.

Scientists have identified the significance of brand personality since a long time. (Domizlaff, '22

Basic Laws of Natural Branding', 1939), that - A brand's personality is the factor which supports the brand's identity the most.

(Rieger, 1985), claimed that - brands without personality are blame to death. Even today brand personalities are playing an effective role in the brand management.

133

Marketers are focused in the brand personality occurrence more than ever and pursue to grasp the effect that brand personality has on customer behavior and satisfaction. The task of brands inside organizations has changed over the last few years. Today the corporate value chains are the key to an organization's success.

This evolution can be defined by the reality that the market satisfaction of a company does not mostly come from its tactile assets any more, but its intangibles. Brands as bodiless assets thus acquire more significance for an organization's existence. This mount position of brands within organization compromises the desire to understand management of the brand governance mechanisms efficiently in order to boost up the brand satisfaction and also organization's profit as well (Bauer H. , The Value of the Brand, 2000).

Unfortunately, the organization dimensions have changed, which made productive brand management tough. The life cycle of product is declining which indirect that new products are entering the market more often. Inside the mount of this product organization's extend struggle to distinguish their products from competitors.

The obtainable products are alike to each other and can be exchanged by many other products, because they all please the same useful basic needs of the customers (Domizlaff, Translated from

German: Die 22 Gesetze der naturlichen Markenbildung ", 1939).

It is a fact that, products cannot replace in means of services and functions but also with the quality of their service provision. Therefore, the product becomes replaceable which again make a distinction tougher.

134

Also the concentration of the market consequences in a ravening competition which means the organization's wealth can only increase by achieving success over customers from competitors

(Bauer & Huber, 1997).

An effective way to handle with the mentioned challenges is a personality- directed brand management. The grasp of a brand as a personality authorize an organization to better utilize the spiritual satisfaction of a brand to develop life time customer brand relationships and also brand equity. The grasp of brands as personalities eases the distinction from other competitors.

Researchers have exhibit that non-product affiliated assigns such as the brand's personality are much powerful distinct that purely product-related assign (Biel A. L., 1991).

A brand's personality is very tough if not bearable to copy by contestant and can therefore give organizations a defendable ambitious benefit (Luckerath, 2010).

This model depicts that the important variable in this research include brand equity, consumer satisfaction, brand loyalty. Further defining it independent variable is brand equity, consumer satisfaction as the mediating role, and in last dependent variable is brand loyalty.

Brand equity is defined as the “differential effect of brand knowledge on customers’ response to the marketing of a brand”. (Keller K. L., 1993),(Vazquez, Del Rio, & Iglesias, 2002), they defined brand equity as the overall that the consumer associates with the use and consumption of brand.

Further defining brand equity, it is notable because it distinguishes brand equity from brand loyalty. Brand equity is conceptually broader which encompasses brand image and brand familiarity. It has traditionally been conceived as a behavioral construct relating to intentions towards repeat purchase. By contrast, brand equity entails favorable disposition that may not

135 necessarily result in purchasing behavior. Thus behavioral intentions are one of the consequences of brand equity, rather than its component. Although consumer based brand equity is seen as multi-dimensional within the marketing literature (Aaker D. A., 1991). There are many debates exists as to whether the principles of branding within goods marketing could be directly applied to service dominant brands. The research model proposes that the five dimensions of consumer based brand equity; physical quality, staff behavior, ideal self-congruence, brand identification, and lifestyle-congruence have positive effects on brand loyalty via consumer satisfaction. In addition, describing these variables, Service quality as the independent variable. It is the central development of strong service dominant brands because it enhances perceived superiority of the brands and helps to differentiate brands in competitive markets (Low & Jr, 2000). Self- congruence is the independent variable that can be viewed as the totality of an individual’s thoughts and feelings with reference to the person as an object of thought (Rosenberg, 1979). It refers to the degree to which a consumer’s actual or ideal self-concept coincides with a brand image (Sirgy M. , 1982). Brand identification is independent variable. It is define as the individual becomes a member of a social group in order to support his identity and his sense of belonging. Likewise, consumers define their social identity by consuming brands or associating with brands (Río, Vázquez, & Víctor Iglesias, 2001). Lifestyle congruence is independent variable, it includes life, beliefs, aspirations and demographic. The mediator variable is consumer satisfaction. It proposed that consumer satisfaction is cognitive and emotional also (Bosque &

Martin, 2008). Brand loyalty is a dependent variable, it has been investigated that consumer loyalty are discuss from two perspectives. First one is behavioral loyalty and the second one is attitudinal loyalty (Nam, Ekinci, & Whyatt, 2011).

136

Another research paper describing frame work that leads customer loyalty are as follows;

Academics in the field of marketing are common in their view that customer loyalty is first and prime a result of a customer’s satisfaction with the brand (Anderson & Sullivan, "The antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for firms", 1993). Many empirical studies have supported the supposed positive link between customer satisfaction and loyalty

(Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994),(Hallowell, 1996),(Rust & Zahorik, 1993).

In spite of satisfaction is a determinant of brand loyalty, a satisfied customer sometimes switches to another brand or service provider if he/she is not satisfied. This limited analytical significance of customer satisfaction for buyer loyalty can be explained not just empirically, but also with the help of selected theoretical approaches. Additionally, the brand personality construct as a concept of consumer experimental psychology (Aaker D. , 1996) has been proposed as an important forerunner of customer loyalty. These approaches with their principle of theoretical pluralism allow change barriers the pleasant appearance of rival products and services, variety seeking and brand personality to be unwavering alongside customer satisfaction as central determinants of customer loyalty.

The influence of switching barriers on a customer’s loyalty has been examined in different contexts (Klemperer, 1995); (Weiss & Anderson, 1992).The basic idea behind all research done in this context is that, once a transaction relationship is established, the cost of switching the transaction partner becomes higher (Lee & Cunningham, 2001). Therefore, the change barriers a customer is confronted with exert a positive influence on his or her loyalty, the barriers’ levels, which may vary considerably, depend to a large extent on the nature of the transaction (Fornell,

1992). The concept itself is comprised of psychological, sociological and economic factors. For example, the customer’s confidence in the supplier’s reliable fulfillment ability often plays a

137 major role and leads to change barriers on the psychological side (Anderson & Weitz, 1989).

Thus, a customer’s loyalty increases with higher economic and socio psychological change barriers.

Concerning economic switching barriers, one might expect that their increase may result in less satisfied customers. In this context,(Hauser, Simester, & Werfelt, 1994) point out that

‘consumers become less sensitive to satisfaction level as switching costs increase. Consequently, they might stay loyal, even if they are dissatisfied. As opposed to this, higher socio psychological switching barriers may enhance trust in the service provider, and therefore may engage a higher level of a customer’s satisfaction.

The brand personality construct is seen to be a brand image component consisting of the human characteristics people associate with brands. Brand personality can serve as a basis for meaningful and sustainable emotional differentiation (Farquhar, 1990). But first of all, the concept enables customers to attribute an identity to a brand and therefore supports their identification with the brand (Ambler, 1997). This in turn increases the personal meaning of the brand. Primarily psychological factors such as the congruence between the brand image and the customer’s reflection may result in change barriers (Wilson & Mummalaneni, 1986).

Furthermore, the apparent attractiveness of rival products and services has been shown to be a central determinant of customer satisfaction and customer loyalty (Dick & Basu, 1994). This relationship can be deduced from the definition of the customer satisfaction construct as the result of the comparison between expectations and performances. The focus is not on determining the effect of variety seeking on customer satisfaction and on customer loyalty. It rather addresses the question whether or not the relationships between the latent variables are moderated by the extent of variety customers are seeking for. There are only a few studies

138 examining the existence of external factors moderating the relationship between satisfaction, brand loyalty and their determinants (Homborg & Giering, 2001).

In the case of causal models, two strategies are possible in order to examine the postulated effect of a metric moderating variable (Jaccard & Wan, 1996): the first is to use an interaction effect to test for moderation (Baron & Kenny, 1986); the second consists of performing a multiple group analysis (Hayduk, 1988). If the moderating effect relates to only one or a few model parameters, the first strategy seems to be more suitable. However, if one is interested in determining the influence of the moderating variable on many or all model parameters, the second strategy is suggested (Magin, Algesheimer, Huber, & Herrmann, 2003).

2.7 Brand Loyalty

2007).

Brand loyalty is considered to be the focal point of the interest for the marketers and practitioners

Past researchers suggests that loyal customers spend more than the customers who are not loyal and also that they engage in positive word of mouth and that they are at the heart of a company’s most valuable customer(Russel-Bennet, McColl-Kennedy, & Coote, 2007).

Typically brand loyalty is defined as the repeat purchasing behavior of a product which reflects the conscious pattern of decision making which continues in buying the same product. This

139 shows that consumer does not only buy the brand on regular basis but also carries a strong impact regarding it rather than simply buying something out of habit. Brand loyal customers carry something more than the positive attitude regarding the brand- they are more passionate regarding the product. These are more like the emotional binds which consumers develop towards the product and become true-blue users who react more intensely and passionately when a company alters, changes, spruce up, revamp or eliminate their favorite brand (Solomon M. R.,

2012).

When a consumer falls in love with a brand it may become their favorite brand for life time. In a few researches it is also seen that some brands are in sense are well known because they are well known as assumed that if so many choose a product then it ultimately must be good.

Why people buy same things continuously when it comes to full fill the need. Brand loyalty includes the customers that are devoted and emotional attach to a product. Manufacturers and companies are trying to develop niche in the market by constructing their own base of loyal customers, who over the period of time have accepted the product whole heartedly. Companies spend large sum of money of the brand loyalty because of its importance. It also play vital role in advertising (Loudon, 2001).

The measure of attachment that a consumer has to a brand and it reflects how likely a customer will be leaning to switch to another brand. It is seen as a link in the chain of effects that in some way connects brand trust with the market performance aspects of brand equity. It shows positive feelings towards a brand resulting in frequent purchase of the brand over a period of time.

Researchers have said that customer withholding can only be achieved only through nurturing loyalty by establishing an emotional attachment between brand and consumer. These types of

140 consumers can contribute to the positive word of mouth communications for the brand (Attri, pahwa, & Urkude, 2012).

Loyalty is defined by Oliver in the research of(Sahin, Zehir, & Kitapci, 2011) as a deeply held commitment to rebut or re- patronize a preferred product/ service consistently in the future, theory causing repetitive same- brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior.

Runyun in the research of (Lin & Hsien, 2008), has defined brand loyalty as “a unique case of planned decision making when consumers adopt a decision tactic of giving all or most of their support to a particular brand". It has also been defined as the behavioral outcome of a customer's preference for a particular brand from a selection of similar brand over a period of time, which is the result of evaluative decision making process.

According to (Attri, pahwa, & Urkude, 2012), from an attitudinal perspective, brand loyalty has been defined as “the tendency to be loyal to a focal brand as demonstrated by the intention to buy it as a primary choice".

Marketers have developed tactics to build strong ties with the consumers in terms of brand loyalty for which they have developed loyalty or frequency programs. The purpose of these programs is identifying, maintaining and increasing the yield from a company’s ‘best’ customer through long term value-added relationship these programs often include company’s co-branding arrangement or alliances(Keller K. L., 1993).

Copeland in the research of (Lee & Han, 1999) was the first to suggest a phenomenon related to brand loyalty that is brand insistence. Researchers have concluded that individuals exhibit strong and operative brand loyalty.

141

In the research of (Basrawi, 2009), Wilkie describes brand loyalty as “a favorable attitude towards, and consistent purchase of a particular brand". The companies who have special traits and attributes in their brand can result in having large numbers of loyal customers which means that when the brands establish a unique position in the minds and hearts of consumers they become loyal to the brand.

Loyalty programs are being adopted by a wide range of industries as they often yield results. One of the marketers say that a loyalty program reduces the defection rate by increasing retention and therefore industry can win more of a customer’s purchasing share.(Keller K. L., 1993)

One way to build effective loyalty program is to follow the mentioned tips:

 Know your audience

 Change is good

 Listen to your best customers

 Engage people

Because of the importance of loyal customers it has become really important for the marketers to build strong relationship with their consumers and make it a branding priority as customers’ actual product experiences and its after-marketing activities have taken on a greater importance in building customer-based brand equity and therefore it makes it necessary to fully understand your customer and know that how they can provide you with greater value, before, during and after purchase (Keller K. L., 1993).

142

Much of the researches on brand loyalty for the past three decades investigate customer loyalty on two perspectives.

 Attitudinal Loyalty

 Behavioral Loyalty

Behavioral loyalty refers to the frequency of repeat purchase of a product, Whereas Attitudinal loyalty refers to the psychological commitment that a consumer makes in the purchase act. Such intentions lead to purchase and are an intention to recommend the product without necessarily taking the actual repeat purchase behavior into action (Nam, Ekinci, & Whyatt, 2011).

Brand loyalty is a branding concept which has developed through investigations in association with the customer brand relationship. The analysis of relationship between brand satisfaction and loyalty concludes that satisfaction is an important step in loyalty formation. The two aspects of brand loyalty are purchase and attitudinal loyalty which act as linking variable in the chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance. However there are three main streams of research of loyalty which can be measured and distinguished i.e. behavioral loyalty, attitudinal loyalty and composite loyalty (Loureiro, Consumer Brand relationship: foundation and state of art, 2012).

In consumer research the expression the term customer loyalty is often measured by indicators such as intentions to continue to buy the same product, or intention to buy more of the same product and repeat purchases (behavioral measures) or can also be the willingness to recommend the product to others which is attitudinal behavioral that reflects the product advocacy.

Moreover to determine the mass market brands in consumer settings we need to know about the human personality and brand personality. Brand personality is a set of human characteristics

143 associated with the brand and it proposes five dimensions to brand personality namely sincerity

(down to earth, honest, wholesome and cheerful), excitement (daring, spirited imaginative, up-to- date), competence (reliable, intelligent, and successful), sophistication (upper class charming), and ruggedness (outdoorsy, tough), (Loureiro, Consumer Brand relationship: foundation and state of art, 2012).

Jacoby and Chestnut have defined loyalty in the study of as (Basrawi, 2009), biased, behavioral response, expressed over time, by some decision making unit and with respect to one or more brands out of a set of such brands. Three kinds of categories were identified in which various operational measures had been placed in: behavioral, attitudinal and composite. Another definition based on the behavioral element proposes that “brand loyalty is a role of a brand's relative occurrence of purchase in both time- independent and time dependent situations. This type of loyalty is dependent on sales figure and how many times an individual buys the brand.

The definition based on the attitudinal element viewed brand loyalty as the propensity for an individual to carry on over time to display similar attitude in situations similar to those one formerly encountered. According to Day in the research of (Basrawi, 2009)loyalty should be evaluated with both the attitudinal and behavioral criteria.

Brand loyalty is considered to be the central point of the interest for the marketers and practitioners Past researchers suggests that loyal customers spend more than the customers who are not loyal and also that they connect in positive word of mouth and thus they are at the heart of a company’s most valuable customer. A shift in emphasis from satisfaction to loyalty appears to be worthwhile change in the strategy for most of the firms, because the impact of the businesses is more towards of having a loyal customer base (Oliver R. L., 1999).

144

Loyal customers are typically the satisfied customers. Satisfaction is a core concept for loyalty without which loyalty cannot exist and also that it anchors loyalty. Loyalty may also become the independent variable of satisfaction so that reversals in the satisfaction may be experienced that is dissatisfaction and will not influence the loyalty state. In some studies loyalty is defined as those who re-bought a brand, considered only that brand and did no brand related information seeking. Thus all these definitions suffer from the problem that they only measure what the consumer does and does not tap into the psychological meaning of satisfaction and loyalty

(Oliver R. L., 1999).

The deeply held commitment to rebuy or patronize a preferred product or service consistently in the future or causing s repetitive same brand or same brand set purchasing despite the situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior is termed as loyalty(Oliver R. L., 1999).

Why would a consumer appear to be naïve, unaware or fervent that he or she would seek out- tone and only one branded object or brand set to fulfill his or her needs. This is a pertinent question because the present era of global competition has seemingly enabled the consumers to move to better alternatives as soon as they materialize (Oliver R. L., 1999).

Product improvement, refinements and innovations are now being accelerated to the point that the increasing level of new product introduction is predicted to be at record levels (Oliver R. L.,

1999).

The research of(Oliver R. L., 1999),follows the cognition affect conation pattern but differs in that he argues that customers can become loyal at each attitudinal phase relation to different elements of the structure of attitude development consumers are theorized to become loyal in

145 cognitive sense first than later it is in the affective sense and more alter it is in the conation sense or manner and finally it is in the behavioral manner which is described to be as action inertia.

Cognitive loyalty is the first phase of loyalty the brand attribute information is available to consumers and it indicates that one brand is preferable to its alternatives. This phase is passed on as cognitive loyalty or loyalty based on brand belief only (Oliver R. L., 1999).

Cognition can be based on prior or vicarious knowledge or can be based on recent experienced information. Loyalty at this phase is directed towards the brand because of this information. This consumer state is however of a shallow nature. The depth of loyalty is no deeper than only performance. If satisfaction is carried forward it becomes a part of the customer’s experience and he becomes to take an affective overtone (Oliver R. L., 1999).

Affective loyalty is the second phase of the loyalty development it is a liking or an attitude towards the brand which has developed on the basis of cumulatively satisfying usage occasions.

This reflects the pleasure dimensions of the satisfaction which is the pleasurable fulfillments.

Commitment at this phase is referred to as affective loyalty and is encoded in the customers mind as cognition and affect. Whereas cognition is directly subject to counter augmentations and affect is not easily dislodged. The brand loyalty exhibited is directed at the degree of affect for the brand. Thus it would be desirable if consumers were loyal at a deeper level of commitment

(Oliver R. L., 1999).

Conation level is the next phase of loyalty development it is the stage of behavioral intentions and is influenced the repeated episodes of positive affect towards the brand. Conation if defined implies a brand specific commitment to repurchase. Conation loyalty is a loyalty state that contains what at first appears to be the deeply held commitment to buy noted in the loyalty

146 definition however this commitment is to the intention to re-buy the brand more to motivation but similarly this desire may be the god intention and may be the anticipated but unrealized action.

Next comes is the action loyalty that is the study of the mechanism by which intentions are converted to actions and is referred to as the action control. In this action control sequence the motivated intention in the past loyalty state is transformed into readiness to act. The action control paradigm propose that this accompanied by an additional desire that overcomes the hindrances that might have prevented the act. These actions are perceived as import result for engaging both of these states. If this engagement is repeated action inertia is developed and thereby facilitating purchases are reoccurred (Oliver R. L., 1999).

Other than this the most elaborate conceptual definition of brand loyalty are presented which can be used to discuss further as it covers the most important aspects of brand loyalty, & since it enjoys widespread support in the marketing literature thus according to this definition, brand loyalty is: “The (a) biased, (b) behavioral response, (c) expressed over time, (d) by some decision making unit, (e) with respect to one or more alternative brands out of set of such brand, and (f) is a function of psychological process Many of the less successful experience brands are not meeting the challenge of a largely time-starved audience as time has become more desired than money. Increasingly, people value experiences more than things. Consumers are really looking for ways to make the most of everyday “lived” experiences. A brand’s role in becoming a solution for its audience can make it stand out for customers. In that sense, the meaning of brand is its use. Profitable customers are born when a powerful brand promise is fulfilled by a brand experience that exceeds expectations and that is how the loyalty of these consumers towards such brands is created (Gul, Jan, Baloch, Jan, & Jan, 2012).

147

Brand Image and loyalty are considered as the determinants of customer choices regarding any product and these determine the competitive environment for a specific firm to compete in the market. The present study was undertaken with the context that what particular factors contribute towards brand loyalty and image that may be taken under consideration while developing a particular marketing strategy.

With the exceptional returns to loyalty firms should devote to the loyalty program. The relationship between loyalty and satisfaction is asymmetric and they are linked together inextricably (Oliver R. L., 1999).

Aaker, explains in (Osman & Amber, A study on the association between brand awareness and consumer/ brand loyalty for the packaged milk industry in pakistan, 2010) that loyalty is a measured capacity of how much a purchaser can be emotionally involved in a brand. It tells us how much a consumer is willing to switch to another brand, in situation when competing brand are offering more than the brand which is currently being used. Over time loyalty increases, the consumers' platform and the competition against other brands also strengthens.

The three types of loyalties are as follows:

 Passive loyal: These are consumers who but the brand out of habit.

 Fence sitters: These types of consumers are indifferent between two or more brands.

 Committed: These are the consumers who are truly loyal to the brand.

Competitive Advantage is achieved by companies only if they are successful in creating customer value. Since the middle of the twentieth century customer value is only created by focusing towards manufacturing quality products with high quality. Researchers have also stated that marketers use brand experience in three different ways: Their primary concern is with the

148 quality of the brand. The second is tied up with providing excellent brand experience when the customer comes in contact with a particular good or service. The third is the experience that marketers sell. It has also been said that loyalty should not be regarded as sheer repurchase behavior. Because of this theory it opened lots of paths to examine different variables for the consequences of different evaluative constructs in the studies of brand loyalty (Attri, pahwa, &

Urkude, 2012).

Brand loyalty has been defined as “the propensity to be loyal to an important brand as verified by the intention to buy it as a major choice". Researchers have also investigated the relational variables that lie at the heart of a consumer- that is brand relationship which has led to brand loyalty. It has been identified that there are two categories of brand loyal that are as follows:

 Pseudo loyal: These are the consumers who go for continuous repurchases of a particular

product but do not have strong attitudes towards the brand.

 Committed loyal: They are also known as active loyal. They are the customers who will

only purchase one particular brand (Attri, pahwa, & Urkude, 2012).

Based on the cognitive model of Oliver, LaBarbera and Mazursky in the research of (Polesz,

Bloemer, & C, 1989), measures the influence of satisfaction on post purchase thoughts, purpose and actions. They assess repeat purchasing behavior which they presume to be equal to brand loyalty. Satisfaction and intention are found to increase as the loyalty to brand increases. But on the other hand, relative importance of satisfaction in predicting purchase appears to decrease as loyalty increases. Therefore, it is likely that a certain threshold of satisfaction must be met to lead to a purchase of a brand. It is revealed that brand loyalty varies directly with perceived satisfaction with the old brand. Even though a direct relationship has been found, the correlation

149 is not perfect, in the sense that not all satisfied customers will be brand loyal. On the other hand, not all dis-satisfied consumers are non-loyal.

According to (Polesz, Bloemer, & C, 1989), if a consumer shows repeat purchasing behavior and satisfaction is only latently present one may speak of spurious brand loyalty. A distinction has been made:

 Spurious loyalty as a habit out of convenience

 Spurious loyalty as a habit out of conviction

Habit out of conviction means acceptance only. The evaluation of the brand or in other terms, the satisfaction with the brand does not reach the level of conscious awareness.

The consumer-brand relationship is significant to building of brand loyalty. Brand experiences lead to brand loyalty, active referral of the brand and increased profitability for the brand.

Experiences encourage loyalty by creating emotional connections through an engaging, compelling and consistent context. The context is the environment in which the service encounter occurs. It includes physical and relational characteristics of the setting in which the consumer consumes the service as well as everything that the customer interacts within the setting. Under the definition of context physical context is generated by the sights, sound and smells of the environment. Whereas relational context includes behaviors of people in which they engage (Sahin, Zehir, & Kitapci, 2011).

Aaker also tells in (Osman & Amber, 2010)that brand awareness, perceived quality and clear effective brand identity can contribute to higher loyalty.

Consumers' trust towards brand and positive brand image will also affect the attitudinal loyalty towards the brand. Studies emphasized that there are several levels of consumer commitment

150 towards the brand in the context of brand loyalty. The commitments are as follows: trust, continual purchase, reluctant to switch brands and the joy or happiness when consuming a brand.

The trust towards a brand will determine brand loyalty or consumer commitment towards the brand because trust is potential in creating highly value relationship (Halim, The Effect of relationship of Brand Trust and Brand affect on the Brand Performance: An analysis from Brand

Loyalty Perspective (A case of coffee instant product in Indonesia), 2006).

In the relationship between consumer loyalty and commitment it is found that a relationship between loyalty and positive affect accepted by consumers exists. Strong and positive affect will also cause an encouraging impact towards the consumer brand loyalty, in both purchases and attitudinal loyalty (Halim, The Effect of relationship of Brand Trust and Brand affect on the

Brand Performance: An analysis from Brand Loyalty Perspective (A case of coffee instant product in Indonesia), 2006).

In the research of (Halim, The Effect of relationship of Brand Trust and Brand affect on the

Brand Performance: An analysis from Brand Loyalty Perspective (A case of coffee instant product in Indonesia), 2006), Chaudhuri and Holbrook have recommended that there is a positive connection among brand loyalty and brand performance. They have said that high purchase loyalty will result in increases in the market share of the brand. And this concept is supported by

The Double Jeopardy Theory in which has said that the brand which owns little market share will result in having only a few buyers and the purchasing of the brand will also be less, or vice versa.

The brand of a person's option is usually supported by the brand's figure and significance. The selection to keep on loyal to a brand over a period of time is based on the contemplating value that is the: price and quality, image, convenience and availability, satisfaction, service and guarantee or warranty (Basrawi, 2009).

151

Dick and Basu suggested in (Basrawi, 2009)that brand loyalty assist to spread the affirmative elements of the product through the word of mouth. Loyal customers tend to show greater struggle to other company's strategies. And because of this companies and marketers are always encouraged to provide their loyal customers with what they want.

Brand loyalty is sometimes viewed as a special case of relationship marketing, where a consumer has a psychological attachment to the brand (Attri, pahwa, & Urkude, 2012).

Two indirect sources of brand loyalty may get involved: those are high association in the product category and the consumers' satisfaction with the brand resulting to its prior consumption.

Consumer involvement is presented in the literature as predecessor of brand loyalty. Involvement must be understood as the supposed importance to someone or the special significance of a product to an individual (Amine, 2011).

Some other sources of brand loyalty have been found. There are four factors: perceived differences about alternatives, perceived risk, brand sensitivity and brand attachment/ liking

(Amine, 2011).

Two consequence of brand loyalty on consumers' attitudes and behaviors are positive word of mouth or brand support. Both the variables are related to each other. The consumers' confidence in brand allows them to maintain greatly their propensity to buy the purchased habitually and not to switch to another brand. People may strongly defend a brand and may advise their relatives to buy the brand (Amine, 2011).

Under the heading of internet brand loyalty; we can say that brand loyalty can achieve high goals through medium of internet. As we know that it is the biggest medium of trade, and the size of commodities present on the internet is incomparable to any other promoting business. The reason

152 behind the success of internet as a feasible trade option is because it is easy to tap and cater to a very large audience, thus pitching your product to a consumer size that is unimaginable.

Advertising become an essential way of promoting product or service. The internet gives an opportunity to promote, advertises, sell or buy things. E-marketers are increasing their sale by targeting brand loyalist of other companies by advertising and creating relations on other loyalist eccentric websites (Heyman, 2009). Explaining the year spend cost on advertising in United

States, shows that advertising is creating great brand loyalty rather than any other medium. The expanses of advertising for nine years are as follows; in 2001 the cost is 7.10 billion dollars, in

2002 it is 6 billion, in 2003 it is 7.30 billion, in 2004 it is 9.60 billion, in 2005 it is 12.50 billion dollar, in 2006 16.90 billion dollar, in 2007 it is 21.40 billion dollar, in 2008 it is 27.50 billion dollars, and last recorded expanse was 32.50 billion dollar in 2009.

Factors that endorse brand loyalty in business to business and business to consumer are as follow; in business to business factors includes; tangibility, functionality, cost to purchase, and cost to maintain. On the other hand, business to consumers includes; relationship, trust, service, and information. The question that has to answer includes how to create brand loyalty, by awarding the customers. For creating the brand loyalty, we have to understand consumer behavior; we have to understand consumer mindset and information of customer profile and last one is customer lifetime value score. The attachment of these three leads to rewarding the consumer and ensuring brand loyalty.

According to Jim Sterne and Matt Cutler, the consumer life cycle has five phases: First is reaching a customer, Second is acquiring a customer, Third is converting a customer, fourth is retaining a customer and last one is building customer loyalty. If you can keep hold of a customer and make him a loyal to your services or product you get an upper hand over your

153 competitors. Hence an effective marketing strategy will concentrate on the first four phases keeping the fifth phase as the final goal for achievement. The first four phases of the customer life cycle focus on developing a sound customer retention strategy. The concept of creating brand loyalty contains creating a true brand loyal, One who would like to repurchase a brand due to acute liking and not because there are not many choices or options available. Customers who are truly committed towards your brand would pay higher prices, incur less cost to serve, and bring new customers to the firm. Thus, if we manage to build brand loyalist through effective marketing strategy, then such a brand loyalist would further affect our marketing strategy by bringing us more customers. The marketing activities targeted towards building brand loyalty are mutually advantage activities.

Things that affect or loss brand loyalties are include; quality-compromise in the product quality leads to a feeling of immense dissatisfaction. Price-Inadaptability to regularize product cost with respect to competition. Service-Loss of efforts to maintain the same level of service makes the consumer look elsewhere. Design- the product design and shape should be attractive (Agarwal &

Siddharth, 2010).

(Garland & Gendall, 2004), both of them conducted a study about antecedent and consequences of a brand loyalty. They used a non-experimental, co relational survey research design, and a positive factor analysis to test a model about antecedents’ factors influencing brand loyalty and four types of brand loyalty. The sample includes eight hundred and fifty consumers of whisky from shopping malls and in the street, Greece. Gounaris and Stathakopoulos’ literature review was thorough, current in comparing theory of reasoned action and concept of a two dimensional brand loyalty. Empirical studies of antecedents (risk aversion, variety seeking, brand reputation, availability of substitute, brands, social group influences, and peer’s recommendation) and four

154 types of brand loyalty (buy nothing, buy alternative brand, word-of-mouth 73communication, and visit other store) were examined, leading to the major gap in the literature about the need to understand direct and indirect relationships among the concepts of brand loyalty identified by many theorists.

The factors influencing customers’ brand loyalty have been explore for decades, so it is not a new issue with theoretical development based on the theory cited in this assessment. Ajzen and

Fishbein’s theory of reasoned action is a well-develop theory to predict individual’s behavior.

The theory suggests that an individual’s behavioral intentions are a function of two different factors, attitude toward the behavior and the subjective standard. When applying the theory to customer brand loyalty, it is reasonable to assume that attitude toward the behavior and subjective norms will manipulate customers’ purchasing behavior, and will result in their brand loyalty. The importance of the theoretical literature for the topic is that although the theory of reasoned action may explain antecedent factors might influence customer purchasing behavior and result in brand loyalty, other variables, such as the volitional control, and situational effects, might interrupt the purchasing behavior and brand loyalty.

Dick and Basu have introduces their theoretical framework of customer loyalty based on reasoned action theory and incorporated concepts of brand loyalty (Dick & Basu, 1994). This framework identifies five major influencing factors of customer loyalty defined as Firstly, cognitive antecedents (accessibility, confidence, centrality, clarity), Secondly, the affective antecedents (emotion, feeling states/mood, primary affect, satisfaction), thirdly, conative antecedents (switching cost, sunk cost, expectation), Fourthly social norms, and Fifth situational influences. The moderators of the relationship are relative attitude and repeat benefaction, and the consequence is customer loyalty. Brand loyalty is a two dimensional

155 construct involving relative attitude and repeat patronage/purchasing behavior. In the last decade, the loyalty framework has been revised and adapted to brand management and marketing by numerous scholars in the marketing field. Several empirical studies by Lim and Razzaque in

1997, Datta in 2003, and Gounaris and Stathakopoulos in 2004, lead to enhancement in the conceptual framework. Gounaris and Stathakopoulos (2004) developed a conceptual model adopted from the conceptual framework and a depicted direct and indirect relationship among concepts described by Dick and Basu, which the conceptual framework is socially significant, addressing essential issues about brand loyalty in the discipline of marketing, and is useful in explaining and predicting the factors influencing brand loyalty. Thus it is a well-developed guide to conduct the empirical research. The conceptual framework has a good balance between simplicity and complexity, contributing to its usefulness. Studies by Garland and Gendall in

2004 verify the propositions of a two dimensional construct of brand loyalty involving relative attitude and repeat patronage. The conceptual framework has been adapted to various research fields such as management, brand management and marketing. This is the predominant conceptual framework used to examine brand loyalty with well-developed propositions and strong empirical support.

Customer loyalty is viewed as the strength of the relationship between an individual’s relative attitude and repeat patronage. The relationship is seen as mediated factors by social norms and situational factors. Cognitive, affective, and co native previous circumstances of relative attitude are identified as contributing to loyalty, along with motivational, perceptual, and behavioral consequences. Based on the framework, the task of managing loyalty would involves, determining the loyalty status of a target population in terms of strength of the relationship and comparing it with challenging offerings, identifying relevant antecedents and consequences in a

156 given market context, determining the relative impact (or contributions) of antecedent factors and the likelihood of different consequences, and to identifying causal variables on which the target is underperforming compared to competitors, from which increase in loyalty may be affected through strategic interventions.

Number of researches has been conducted to examine the relationship between the brand personality and the brand loyalty of the consumer and the effect has been survey. Also, it has been concluded that the brand loyalty can be enhanced, if there would be any involvement of the concept of brand personality.

(Guo, 2003), also discovered that consumers may treat brands as real human beings, because brands have their own identities. Therefore, brand personality has remarkable impact on brand preference. In this situation, customers will anticipate the customer's words, attitudes, thoughts and so on to encounter their respective personality traits (Aaker D. , 1996).

It might be that customers like the brands having more definite brand personality, and also customers are more known with the brands they favor. Customers willingly use the brand and products in line with their own personality traits or it may be like all the marketing movements are aimed at having customers believe and recognize a brand personality, and strengthen the transmission between the brand and the customer (Govers & Schoormans, 2005)in order to increase the brand's loyalty and equity.

(Mengxia Z. , 2007), inquire into the effects of brand personality on customers brand preference, affection, loyalty and purchasing intention. The outcome of his study shows that brand personality has a true effect on brand preference, affection, loyalty and purchase intention. Brand

157 personality must be shaped to be forever and consistent. Excluding, it should be different from other brands and meet customer's demands (Kumar et al., 2006).

After a research done by (Kumar et al., 2006) classify the link between brand personality and brand loyalty, and separately used durable goods and customer goods to tour the association between brand personality and brand loyalty. (New Media and Mass Communication , 2011) The result shows that brand personality may affect customers' brand loyalty to consumable goods.

Figure 8: (Basrawi, The influence of brands competitive advantage of consumer loyalty, 2009)

In the research of (Basrawi, 2009)researchers have investigated the effects of perceived product characteristics and consumer value consciousness on private brand purchase intentions. Taylor in

(Basrawi, 2009) defines in his study which contributes to existing knowledge that the relative influences of satisfaction, value, resistance to change, brand affect, trust and brand equity are present on perceptions of customer loyalty. According to this research behavioral loyalty is largely a function of brand equity and trust. Also, affect, resistance to change and value also

158 contribute to behavioral loyalty, but to a lesser level. However a statistically significant relationship between satisfaction and behavioral loyalty was not found in this research. In terms of attitudinal loyalty, brand equity and trust were significantly related to attitudinal loyalty.

Affect and satisfaction were also found to contribute to attitudinal loyalty but to a lesser effect than in behavioral loyalty. However, unlike behavioral loyalty, a statistically significant relationship between loyalty and value or resistance to change was not found.

These factors may have individual or unique characteristics in the brand which can give the company a competitive advantage and these factors will also influence brand loyalty. The factors are explained by researchers in (Basrawi, 2009) as follows:

 Product involvement: refers to feelings of inherent needs, values, interest and enthusiasm

toward product categories according to Zaichkowskyin (Basrawi, 2009). This trait means

how much a human being is fond of the product brand he or she uses and whether or not

that specific product caters to their desired needs, values, interest and satisfaction.

 Product type: Products can be classified into two distinctive types on the basis of the

related attributes or benefits. Attributes or benefits can be in the form of taste, aroma,

color, and texture.

 Switching Cost: It is defined as the additional cost required to terminate a current

relationship with a product and to secure an alternative. It can also be known as the

consumer perception of the time, money and effort related to changing a brand or a

product.

 Available Alternatives: (Muncy, 1996)says that in the absence of the perceived

differences between the product and its alternatives, there is difficulty in building brand

loyalty. Dick and Basu have also maintained this point of view that when a customer is

159

unable to make a distinction between a particular product and its alternative then true

brand loyalty cannot be build.

 Price promotions: Few of the studies on brand loyalty found out those price promotions

as the antecedents of brand switching behavior. They have agreed that price promotions

ten to boost sales in the short term.

 Satisfaction: Researchers have established that consumers are satisfied with the promoted

brand; their satisfaction is reinforcing and leads to an increase in the profitability of

choosing the brand again after the promotion is withdrawn which is in fact true brand

loyalty, especially for previous non-users of the brand according to (Louie, 1990).

 Family background or Pedigree: Researchers have found that lineage or have been using

a particular brand in a family is an antecedent of brand loyalty. For example, (Lutz,

1989)have found out that mother and daughter had shown the same brand preferences

and shopping strategies. This is an important factor influencing brand loyalty.

 Holding stock with the company: It is found that customers are more loyal to the brand if

the company were owned by the customers.

 Size and structure of the company: It has been seen that people will buy more or will trust

more of the brand that is larger in size and is also well known.

160

Brand Affective Experience Commitment

Brand Loyalty

Figure 9: Model of Brand Loyalty Another model of brand loyalty as suggested by (Iglesias, Sngh, & Batista-Foguet, 2011) is with brand experience and customer commitment. Brand experiences are the distinct economic offering, as distinct from services are from goods. According to the brand management viewpoint, an experience is a takeaway impression that is formed inside the mind of the consumers as a result of the encounter with the holistic of a brand (Haeckel & H, 1994). The relationship between brand experience and loyalty appears to be mediated by satisfaction which is already known to be a major mediator of the consumption experience. Some researchers have proposed that satisfaction is linked not only to cognitive judgments but also to emotional and affective reactions to the consumption experience.

It has also been identified that customer commitment is also another antecedent to customer loyalty. Customer Commitment encompasses the psychological and economic attachments that a customer might have towards a particular brand. Researchers have identified that commitment is of two types which are affective and continuance. Continuance or economic commitment is characterized by the customers' need to stay in a relationship with a given brand because of lack of other alternatives or high switching costs. According to (Mayer & P, 1990), affective

161 commitment is the customers' emotional attachment to a particular brand based on their identification with the brand.

In the end, it is suggested that the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty is mediated by affective commitment.

2.7.1 Brand Loyalty with Celebrity Endorsement Model

Brand loyalty framework has also been discussed with celebrity. Celebrity endorsement is one out of two major factors in this study, leading to the natural approach of investigating and providing knowledge regarding this area as an introductory stage. The first model, celebrity endorsement, is investigated from numerous different aspects related to it. The purpose is to highlight the foundation by dealing with the concept itself and its meaning. From that, the linkage to contributing factors and resulting actions and outcomes is penetrated. Celebrity endorsement is dependent upon and affects its surroundings by its existence. Therefore, factors that concept is influencing, such as celebrity endorsement meaning transfer, reference groups, product type categories, social adaptation theory etc. The second conception will be covered in a similar manner, with an emphasis on the foundation of brand loyalty itself and the two different types, attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty. In addition to the importance of covering this area, it has to be acknowledged that brand loyalty does not happen by its pure nature, it is affected by external forces. Therefore, related factors that are brand affect, brand trust, and the

ABC model are pointing at its influence and upcoming, are of great significance.

Symbolic properties belonging to an endorser have been transferred to a specific product or brand, and then from the product to the consumers. This specific type of endorsement is different from other general types of meaning transfer. Because of celebrities existing in our society for

162 meanings, it makes them valuable in the process of meaning transfer. The process of celebrity endorsement consists of three stages (McCracken, 1989).

In first stage: Celebrity endorsement is done basically through advertisement and because of this the advertisements have access to a group of persons from the cultural all around the world.

Endorsement also makes this group of people in charge of detailed and important meanings. As celebrities enjoy a popular social appreciation and a unique reputation, they are able to deliver more comprehensive and strength meaning compared to unknown endorsers. Celebrities are powerful in media, though the meanings delivered are not difficult to find. Because of their special and unique personal, outstanding from unidentified actors, they exert the meaning with unforgettable impression. Due to their career specialty, every point of acting in a show, movie, or musical gives them the possibility in contrast to a different group of objects, persons and context.

All of this is also a process of meaning transfer, that new properties will be resided within the celebrities. Hence, when they appear in an advertisement, these properties will be transferred to that specific product.

In Second stage: Tentatively, a celebrity endorser is chosen based on a desired meaning decided by the marketers. The representative properties of the meaning and a product must be matched.

Perfectly, marketing or advertising companies can decide what type of symbolic properties consumers are looking for. They can then find a perfect matched celebrity from a schedule to represent this. However, this in fact, is impossible.

Advertising agents should make identifications and deliver these meanings to a specific product when the selection is completed. The advertisement should then comprise all the meanings needed to be obtained from the celebrity, especially the salient meanings. Only the meaning intended to be delivered should be captured. Unwanted meanings should be kept out of the

163 evoked set by adding it into advertisements with people, objects and contents which have the same meanings as the celebrity. All these are salient message cues that help the target consumers to get whatever meanings they expect from the celebrity in question. Advertisements mostly only transfer celebrities to a new role instead of purely transferring meaning of the celebrities.

Important to notice, there must be a connection between the product and the celebrity endorser in order to have a high similarity. This will ensure consumers can transfer the meaning delivered into their reality because of existing similarities.

In third stage: Explains the process of how celebrity endorsement makes the properties of a product become the properties of consumers. It is the most complicated and difficult stage compared to the previous two. In this material world, individuals are trying to explore and search for products with practical meanings. Those meanings definitely are useful in helping the individuals to equip aspects of the self and the world. As the meanings existing everywhere in this world, the individuals have constantly been putting effort on searching the meanings they need. However, it is not enough for consumers to understand the meaning of an object by simply owning it. And the meaning cannot “enter” the consumers’ mind and self automatically. They must claim, exchange, care for, and use the consumer good in order to possess the meaning.

Through different uniqueness and contexts in their acting career, celebrities have earned a lot of attention and reputations in the first stage of the significance transfer. The self-created by celebrities is also attractive in the eyes of the consumers. They have set an exemplary, desirable role model for consumers. Consumers build up their aspects of the world and the self by moving the symbolic properties of consumer goods into their lives, because those consumer goods are associated with the celebrities they desire. But this does not mean that consumers only want to follow what celebrities have done today.

164

However, celebrities certainly give the consumer goods some sort of personality traits in the meaning transfer process. Consumers therefore also want to process the personalities attached to the products, because they appreciate for meaning and are keen to build up their own aspects of the world and the self by having celebrities as references. In this object world, celebrities are just a small group compared to everything else. They are outstanding from the rest and therefore are super consumers of a kind. It is also important to know that individualism and alienation exert a right to individuals of freedom to define their aspects of the self and the world. Also because of these, celebrities play a key role of meaning transfer to consumers. However, the meaning transfer would not happen automatically. It needs cooperation from the celebrity to the advertisement director, as well as from the other people involved. If the ideas in advertisements cannot be understood by consumers, the use of celebrities is useless. As consumers are the final act of the transfer process, they should be able to find the connection between the celebrity endorser and the product in order to complete the transfer process.

2.7.2 Brand loyalty with Reference Group Theory

This theory is defined as the genuine or imaginary individual or group conceived of having significant relevance upon an individual’s evaluations, aspirations or behavior (Park & Lessig,

1977).

There are three variables or influencers have been discussed in this theory/model. The first one is informational reference group it means that each individual tends to search products proven to have positive credibility by independent expertise or professionals, which help to confirm their existing knowledge or familiar environment. The individual searches product information from groups or people who have sufficient knowledge about these products, such as people working with the product or people who use the product. Through observing, the individuals learn from

165 others whom might confront the same situations or have previous experience. Furthermore, according to the attribution theory, the purchasing decision of the individual is influenced by another individuals or reference groups, such as experts, authorities or celebrities (Jones, et al.,

1972).

The second one is Utilitarian influence it means that the individual needs certain consistency in a purchasing situation, otherwise “it is dangerous not to conform” (Asch, 1952). Seeking a competition to what another individual or reference group prefers or satisfies is important when making a purchase decision, as social interactions exist. Utilitarian influence also emphasizes explicit rewards and punishments because of the individual having a desire to be more affirmed or accepted by social involvement, such as a community, brand tribe or fan club. Therefore, an attempt to satisfy others’ expectations is performed (Park & Lessig, 1977).

The third one is Value expressive influence: individual seek consistency between themselves and a reference group by sharing something in common, like buying products used, or those recommended by the reference group. A positive self-image is important, since an individual is more willing to be associated with positive referents instead of negative ones. Liking a person or a reference group in a product advertisement can lead an individual to purchase it, regardless whether the product fits the individuals’ need or not.

Further explaining the function of how celebrity endorsement works, reference group theory looked up the everywhere features of the celebrity market from a psychological view. The reference group theory viewed the function of celebrities influence on consumers from three difference perspectives. Because of their special social status in our society, they are often chosen by marketers to speak for the products. Celebrities exert the power of reference group on

166 consumers. It was therefore chosen to be discussed in the literature study of this research. The experimental research proved that endorsers should be used according to different product types.

Celebrity endorsers are broadly used primarily because of their attractiveness and likable features. This helps to explain the widely usage of celebrities in cosmetics advertisements.

Friedman’s experimental studies showed that costume jewelry endorsed by celebrities appeared to be the best match. Although the result did not test the match between cosmetics and celebrities, it highly suggested that if brand name and advertisement recall are most desirable, advertisers should use a celebrity as an endorser.

Brands are companies’ most valuable asset which adds both economic and strategic value to its proprietors. It’s the essential feature for any company to look into Brand loyalty is most of the times developed post purchase (Moisescu, 2006). To enhance brand loyalty, an organization should be aware of their functional markets, target them, sustain their product, make certain easy access of their product, offer customer satisfaction, and bring constant innovation in their product so as to ensure that customers repeatedly purchase the product. It then ultimately creates the brand trust in the minds of the customer towards the brand they are purchasing. (Farhat &

Khan, 2011).

167

Brand Personality: Perceived Sincerity Brand Brand Excitement Loyalty Quality Competence Sophistication Ruggedness

Figure 10: Conceptual Model by (Farhat & Khan, 2011)

Brand Satisfaction Winning brand is the procedure or a methodology which is developed by ACNielsen. Such that in contrast to the attitudinal approach to brand equity measures which is embodied in the other approaches describes that winning brand starts from a behavioral observation of a brand equity

Thus brand equity is then measured in terms of a customer frequency of purchase and the price premium which is paid. Once favor behavior is seen. However this methodology seeks to identify the attitudinal behavior and characteristics of such customers.(Knowles, 2004):

168

Awareness

Customer Loyalty Consideration

Brand Equity Index Attribute 1

Attribute 2 Price Premium

Attribute 3

Figure 11: Winning Brands from AC Nielson (Knowles, 2004)

Client faithfulness is seen as the qualities of the relationship between single relative dispositions

also rehash support. Here an endeavor has been made to test into the conduct of a clients'

readiness to purchase a brand/product, of what are the related elements which impacts his

purchasing conduct and mentality towards the brand. Many tests are carried out to highlight a

purpose of what are the impacting components which forces him to be devoted for a brand. The

speculations of brand identity with the essential dispositional variables are used to clarify the

client's dependability forms. A model or a skeleton might help the marketers to further explore

into the idea of brand identity upgrading the client dedication (Farhat & Khan, 2011).

169

In building a brand esteem 'recognition is more essential than actuality’ and as brands just exist in the personalities of clients then the administration of brands itself. The brand chief's employment is to see that fulfillment of the client is being supported, as far as item execution and recognition is concerned. In this respect, of the present predominating focused situation, brands are new business warriors and client maintenance plays a key part so the clients are stuck to an offering on a long haul premise. Thus the accomplishment of any technique to lure buyers generally relies on upon its ability to keep up its client maintenance and to raise ensured enclaves of buyers to stick to the brand and show compaction. Today mark devotion has turned into a point of convergence of enthusiasm for showcasing analysts and professionals. Few of inquires about compresses that the reliable clients use more than non-steadfast clients, go about as organization's most significant client bunch does. Besides, numerous studies uncover that brand faithful clients are eager pay any costs and are less value touchy Maybe the advertising expense is altogether less when the brand revels in a vast gathering of devoted clients. Nonetheless, the written works on brand unwaveringness is fragmented in a few essential regards. A number of the past looks into uncover that it is more beneficial to accompany the procedure of client maintenance than to strive for new clients. Catching new clients is unreasonable in light of publicizing advancement what's more bargains cost, and start-up working expenditures.

Additionally, advancement is likewise controlled in the vicinity of brand dedication i.e. there is less need of advancement. Brand reliable clients decrease the promoting expenses of the firm as the expenses of drawing in another client have been discovered to be something like six times more than that of the original cost (Farhat & Khan, 2011).

Just a couple specialists, for example, Plummer and David Aaker as mentioned in (Farhat &

Khan, 2011) have called attention to the vitality of brand identity in building leeway and brand

170 faithfulness. The outcomes and the examination suggestions will help in understanding the idea of brand identity and its part in building an uplifting disposition towards the brand and thus making the brand driven clients steadfast towards the brand. This study inspects how brand personality influences brand loyalty.

Brand Loyalty is an essential idea of today's brand advertising world. proposed by numerous analysts, around which the most finish definition is being proposed brand is characterized as steadfastness as the consequence from non-arbitrary, long presence conduct reaction, and it was a mental buy procedure structured by some certain choice units who In right on time explores, analysts generally took the demonstration of repurchase as the technique for measure brand faithfulness. However a few analysts show that to measure brand faithfulness the Brand reliability, in advertising, comprises of a purchaser's dedication to repurchase or overall proceed utilizing the brand and could be showed by rehashed purchasing of an item or administration or other positive practices such that the idea is characterized of brand loyalty as: "The (a) biased

(b) behavioral reaction, (c) communicated over the long run, (d) by some choice making unit, (e) as for choice making, assessment forms of various brands". This definition distinguishes six necessities of brand loyalty. The brand loyalty is classified into four parts: cognitive devotion, full of feeling unwaveringness, conation steadfastness and movement faithfulness. The spurious brand certainty shoppers may make rehashed buys just since the brand they buy is the one and only decision in the stores. Whereas, the true brand loyalty buyers ought to show both mental and emotional responsibilities in addition to repurchase consistency of any particular product.

171

1. True loyalty.

2. Latent loyalty.

3. Latent loyalty.

4. No loyalty.

(Farhat & Khan, 2011)

Table 4: Repeat Purchase Possibility

Repeat Purchase Possibility

High Low

High True loyalty. Latent loyalty.

Related Attitude Spurious loyalty. Latent loyalty. Low

Thus it shows that Loyal customer buy more products and that loyal customers are less price sensitive and pay less attention to the competitors advertisements. The services existing customers who are familiar with the offerings and processes is also cheaper. Along with this loyal customers tend to spread positive word of mouth and refer the brand to others as well.

Brand loyalty of the client by including the idea of brand identity, the brand loyalty might be improved additionally investigated that brand personality has critical impact on brand inclination. Since brands have their own particular specific identities, customers may treat marks as true human creatures. Thus, buyers will want the individuals' words, mentality, conduct or considerations along these lines on to meet their particular identity qualities. It could be that buyers like the brands having more different brand identity, and it is likewise likely that purchasers are more acquainted with the brands they lean toward. Shoppers might likely utilize the brand and items in accordance with their identity characteristics, as it were, all the

172 showcasing exercises are pointed at having purchasers accept and distinguish a brand identity, and strengthening the correspondence between the brand and the purchaser to upgrade the brand's devotion and value, the Influence of brand personality on customers' brand inclination, love, dedication and obtaining plan. Thus brand personality has a positive impact on brand preference, friendship, and unwaveringness and buys aim. A brand identity should be formed to be dependable and predictable. Furthermore, it ought to additionally association between brand personality and brand loyalty, therefore, relationship between brand identity and brand dedication outcomes may indicate that brand personality may impact shoppers' brand devotion to consumable merchandise, goods products or a brand (Farhat & Khan, 2011).

Brand personality not just assumes a critical part in customers’ maintenance, but has significant impact on an organization's execution. A fruitful brand obliges the building of a unique brand personality By utilizing different promoting methodologies, an organization may pass on their brand personality to shoppers and have the purchasers of differing identity characteristics accept and distinguish the organization's brand personality and that is how therefore shoppers may create a relationship The relationship between fulfillment and unwaveringness appears to be practically instinctive Without client dedication, even the best-outlined e-plan of action will soon go into disrepair. In their mission to create a loyal consumer base, most organizations attempt their best to constantly fulfill their clients and create long run associations with them. In short, watchful administration of brand identity helps purchasers to create a positive picture of the organization. By the above loyalty model, we can show help for a large portion of the connections distinguished in past researches, and also a conceptualization of the general loyalty build. The empowering news from this study is that brand identity reliably show up as most persuasive in encouraging loyalty. These effects have immediate suggestions for streamlined

173 advertising specialists. Marketing specialists should seriously think about centering past client fulfillment to coordinated advertising methods that cultivate brand trust and quality in the client base in backing of customers loyalty programs (Farhat & Khan, 2011).

2.8 Conceptual Framework

This research study includes analysis of three independent variables which are congruence; customer satisfaction and commitment with the brand, over the dependent variable that is brand loyalty considering the brand personality as a superseding variable. As on the basis of these variables, following model has been constructed in order to conduct this research study

Attachment with a brand is used as dependent and independent variable for investigating linkage between consumer’s congruence and satisfaction, and commitment with it. It is hypothesized that the positive relationship between satisfaction and brand loyalty is stronger like that of congruence and commitment as they go hand in hand. In other words, a mediator effect of the quantity of amplification on the relationship between consumer satisfaction and true brand loyalty is expected and found. Some other effects are found demonstrating that the relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty is not simple and straightforward.

According to researches, customer loyalty can arise even when the customers are not fully satisfied by the products/services offered. In many occasions customers stick to a particular manufacturer because of fewer options available. For instance, a manufacturer might not be offering the best products/services. The customer might also face a fewer problems while dealing with the manufacturer. It has been seen that in the above-mentioned scenarios, customers tend to show loyalty for a long period. They buy repeatedly due to the low availability of other competitor manufacturers. While such case of customer loyalty is rare nowadays as competition

174

has increased in every field), a few experts feel that such type of customer loyalty can be created

(Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, & Rundle- Thiele, 2004).

Congruence

Satisfaction Brand Brand Personality Loyalty

Commitment

Figure 12: Conceptual Framework

175

2.9 Hypothesis

2.9.1 Hypothesis on Congruence with Brand Personality

Ho Congruence is positively correlated with Brand Personality.

In Hypothesis No. 1, Congruence is an independent variable and Brand Personality is dependent variable.

2.9.2 Hypothesis on Satisfaction with Brand Personality

Ho Satisfaction is positively correlated with Brand Personality.

In Hypothesis No. 2, Satisfaction is an independent variable and Brand Personality is dependent variable.

2.9.3 Hypothesis on Commitment with Brand Personality

Ho Commitment is positively correlated with Brand Personality.

In Hypothesis No. 3, Commitment is an independent variable and Brand Personality is dependent variable.

2.9.4 Hypothesis on Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty

Ho Congruence with Brand Personality leads to enhanced Brand Loyalty.

In Hypothesis No. 4, Congruence is an independent variable but Brand Personality and Brand

Loyalty both are dependent variable.

176

2.9.5 Hypothesis on Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty

Ho Satisfaction with Brand Personality leads to enhanced Brand Loyalty.

In Hypothesis No. 5, Satisfaction is an independent variable but Brand Personality and Brand

Loyalty both are dependent variable.

2.9.6 Hypothesis on Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty

Ho Commitment with Brand Personality leads to enhanced Brand Loyalty.

In Hypothesis No. 6, Commitment is an independent variable but Brand Personality and Brand

Loyalty both are dependent variable.

2.9.7 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Congruence and Satisfaction

Ho There is no causal relationship between congruence and satisfaction with this brand.

In Hypothesis No. 7, Congruence is used as dependent variable and Satisfaction is used as independent variable.

2.9.8 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Commitment and

Satisfaction

Ho There is no causal relationship between satisfaction and commitment with this brand.

In Hypothesis No. 8, Satisfaction is used as dependent variable and Commitment is used as independent variable.

177

2.9.9 Hypothesis on Causal Relationship between Congruence and

Commitment

Ho There is no causal relationship between congruence and commitment with this brand.

In Hypothesis No. 9, Congruence is used as dependent variable and Commitment is used as a independent variable.

2.10 Literature Gap and Justification of the Study

This type of research is being conducted for the very first time. The three independent variables:

Congruence, Satisfaction and Commitment have previously been tackled alone. People have not been able to do research on them together. Past studies have shown us that congruence alone has impact on brand personality, satisfaction alone has impact on brand personality and likewise commitment has impact on brand personality and later have impact on brand loyalty. But none of past researches have provided any sort of link between the three independent variables themselves. Our research also focuses on the relation between the three independent variables.

All the researches that we have studied have taken place mostly in overseas countries.

Researches like (Sahim, Kitapica, & Zehir, 2013),(Nam, Ekinci, & Whyaltt, 2011),(Halim,

2006),(M'Sallem, Mzoughi, & Bouhlel, 2009)have focused on the foreign markets. Few researches have taken place in according to the Pakistani markets. Our research only takes into account the effect of these variables on the Pakistani market. Also, it focuses on their perceptions regarding these independent and dependent variables.

Researchers have previously focused on the cut throat competition between Pepsi and Coca Cola

(Yoffie, 2007). This research provides a bird eye view of the worldwide state of Pepsi and Coca

Cola. But this research does not take in to account the Pakistani Market; it only focuses on the

178 suppliers in United States of America and an overview of the worldwide situation. Also, this literature review does not provide us with reasons why Pakistani Cola brands are not able to make a successful impact in the minds of the consumers. Research on local brands like Gourmet

Cola has not been made before. Literature review failed to provide us information regarding our local brand Gourmet Cola. Also our research will also address why local cola companies are unable to make consumers associate themselves with the brand and there isn't any sort of customer relationship developed.

Another gap we discovered in the literature review was that no research provides us information why people in Pakistan prefer Pepsi over Coca Cola while in other countries people are more inclined towards Coca Cola brand. Our research will also address this issue.

179

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction

Research methodology is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the techniques applied to a field of study, or the theoretical analysis of the body of methods and principles associated with a branch of knowledge. It, typically, encompasses concepts such as paradigm, theoretical model, phases and quantitative or qualitative techniques. In Research methodology, researcher use different criteria for solving the given problem (Saunders & Lewis, 2011).

In layman terms methodology can be defined as, it is used to give a clear idea that what researcher is carrying out from his or her research and what method researcher will use during research. Furthermore, methodology implies more than simply the methods a researcher plan to use to collect data. It is frequently necessary to include a consideration of the concept and theories which underlie the methods. For instance, if you intend to underline a specific attribute of a sociological theory, you have to show that you understand the underlying concepts of the methodology you will use in your research.

3.1.1 Why Do We Need a Methodology

Explaining research methodology helps others to know, why you want to do your research in a particular way. It helps others know that you know what you are doing and how you are doing it.

Research methodology gives confidence to funding agencies that you are not going to waste their money. If your methodology is new, innovative or just plain different then you have to write more of a justification so that others will understand what you are trying to do and why it is important to do it this new way.

180

Research methodology refers to the theory of the research and the reasons why the research has been designed. Methodology basically explains the research question and why the question is so significant. The methodology gives a proper justification for the approach a researcher takes and demonstrates that the researcher isn’t just doing things or using these methods because it is convenient, cheap, or they just don’t want to do anything else.

3.2 Research Methodology

Research refers to the search of knowledge. It is defined as the scientific and systematic search of relevant information on a specific topic. According to Clifford Woody, as mentioned in

(Kaiser, 2009), the research comprises of ; defining and redefining problems, formulating hypothesis or suggested solutions; collecting, organizing and evaluating data; making deductions and reaching conclusions; and at last carefully testing the conclusions to determine whether they fit the formulating hypothesis.

You begin your introduction by introducing the general area of research. Next discuss previous research that is relevant to your research question in order to develop the problem. We should be attempting to create a logical development to your introduction. Tell the reader what the general problem is and then lead them through findings that are directly relevant to the research problem you are writing about. Try to build a connection between the previous research findings and the experiment that you are about to present. At the end of the introduction you should state your hypothesis. Use specific terms, and make a prediction. Be sure to take in your independent and dependent variables in your hypothesis.

We also add citation to the parts, which contain references of authors, books or journal articles.

How we going to that, explaining; there are specific ways for you to cite the literature that you

181 present in an introduction. If you were writing about a paper that found that reaction time is slower after alcohol consumption, you could cite the reference in one of two ways. The first way involves the authors of the paper as part of the sentence. When starting discussion part, you should begin your discussion section by restating your hypothesis. Then discuss whether or not your hypothesis was supported. Discuss whether findings in the present experiment are consistent or inconsistent with the findings of previous experiments. Here you need to cite other researchers’ work again in the same way that you did in the introduction. Briefly discuss any flaws in the experiment. And in the end your discussion with a paragraph that tells the major conclusions from your study, and what the implications of this study might be for people in the real world (Kaiser, 2009).

3.3 Research Design

The research design is important because it tells us the key information regarding the features of study, which can differ for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. The one common point across the research design is that data are collected through numbers, words and gestures etc., in different ways and purposes. (Crotty, 1998), described on four topics which are to be considered in the research design.

182

3.3.1 Research Philosophy

There are two philosophical paradigms approaches which include:

Figure 13: Paradigms

The philosophy of our research is positivist paradigm because we are doing it independently and focus on facts which we can be examined through different methods. For this we studied different conceptual delimitations and their relationship among each other. Therefore we take sample which reflects our target population and try to build up a hypothesis and test them in a logical way.

183

3.3.2 Research Approaches

There are two research approaches in the research design, which are:

 Deduction

 Induction

3.3.2.1 Deduction

Deduction theory is related to the scientific research. It involves the development of a theory that is subjected to a test. There are five stages through which deductive research will progress deducing a hypothesis, expressing the hypothesis, testing the operational hypothesis, examining the specific outcomes of the inquiry, if necessary, modify the theory in the light of findings

(Robson, 2002).

3.3.2.2 Induction

Inductive approach is concerned with the context in which such events were taking place. This argues that the study of small sample of subjects might be appropriate when taking the large sample as done in the deduction approach.

Our research is based on deduction theory because we are we are not developing a new kind of theory. We are developing a frame work and make hypothesis which is an example of deduction theory. Therefore, Deduction choice is more appropriate for us to use in this research. The main reason is that the data collection method that we are using is the quantitative method and this choice of research is appropriate for this particular data collection method. By using this research choice, we would better analyze why taking large sample size is appropriate when compared to small sample size.

184

3.3.3 Research Strategy

Clarifying what research strategy is needed is the most important aspect of the research. The strategy that can be followed is exploratory, descriptive or explanatory research (Yin, 2003).

Our research is exploratory research therefore questionnaire tends to be used in our research.

Questionnaires enable us to examine and explain the relationship between variables in particular cause and effect relationship.

3.3.4 Time Horizons

There are two parts of the time horizons. The snapshot view is called the cross sectional view and the diary view is the Longitudinal view.

In this research, we are using cross-sectional view that is the study of the particular phenomenon at a specific time, because we are completed this research at a given time and we are not doing further research on it.

3.3.5 Research Choices

(Creswell, 2003), there are three research choices, we use in research design which are

 Qualitative approach

 Quantitative approach

 Mixed methods

The research choice that we will be using is the quantitative method. The reason that we are using quantitative research is because we are dealing with the numeric facts and numbers.

185

3.3.6 Research Technique and Procedure

There are two major data collection technique or procedure, firstly mono method and secondly multi method. This choice that we are using is increasingly useful in business and management research, where a research study may use quantitative and qualitative technique and procedure in the combination of primary and secondary data. Choosing a mono method will combine either a single quantitative data collection technique, such as questionnaires, with quantitative data.

(Curran & Blackburn, 2001), the multi method refers to those combinations where more than one data collection technique is used but is restricted within either quantitative or qualitative world view.

The method that we are using is the mono method. The reason why we are using this method is because that the variables such as congruence, commitment and satisfaction that we have taken would be analyzed through the help of a single questionnaire. Through this we would better understand the phenomena of these variables.

3.4 Population

The total number of people occupies a specific area. It is basically a collection of individuals, items or data from where a statistical sample can be taking (Houghton, 1995).

The entirety of all the elements, allocating some common set of features that comprises the universe for the purpose of the marketing research problem.

Census – A complete list of the elements of a population or study objects.

Sample – A subgroup of the elements of the population selected for involvement in the study.

186

As the consumption pattern of the Cola across the Pakistan is comparatively high. The whole population is the prime target of the research where almost each and every person with in the minimum age of 5 up to maximum age of the people tends to consume cola.

3.5 Sample Size

It refers to how many respondents should be included in the inspection. This is an important deliberation for researchers. The size of the sample drawn affects the standard and specificity of the data. If the sample is too small, the acquired data may not be presentable. However, according to (Cant, 2003), matter of resource accessibility in terms of time, money and personnel; also have a collision on the size of the sample. Our targeted respondents are 840, with in the age bracket from 18 to 55.

3.6 Sampling Techniques

According to (Cooper, Schindler, & Sharma, 2002) and (Malhotra N. K., Market Research: An applied Orientation, 2007) sampling techniques could usually be classified as Non probability and probability.

Probability Sampling is a restricted, randomized method which ensures that each population component is given a known nonzero chance of selection: used to draw participants that are representative of a target population: which is necessary for projecting findings from the sample to the target population (Cooper, Schindler, & Sharma, 2002).

It is divided into four types that are Simple random, Systematic, Cluster, Stratified and Double

Sampling. In our research we will consider simple random and stratified sampling which comes under the heading of probability sampling.

187

Simple Random Sampling is a probability sample in which each element has a known and equal chance of selection (Cooper, Schindler, & Sharma, 2002). Its features can be easily comprehended and can be projected to the target population. However, the disadvantages are that it is often very difficult to construct a sampling frame that will permit a simple random sample to be drawn. Also, the results in samples may be very large or spread over extensive geographic regions which will result in increasing time and cost of data collection (Malhotra N. K., Market

Research: An applied Orientation, 2007).

The other way of sampling technique that will be used is stratified sampling which is a two-step procedure to break up the population into subpopulations, or strata. Components are determined from each stratum by a random procedure. The main objective of stratified sampling is to increase precision without increasing costs. The variables used to partition the population into strata are referred to as stratification variables. Variables that are commonly used for stratification include demographic characteristics, type of customer, size of firm, or the type of industry (Malhotra N. K., Market Research: An applied Orientation, 2007).

Stratified sampling can ensure that all the important subpopulations are represented in the sample. This is very important if the distribution of the characteristic of interest in the population is skewed (Malhotra N. K., Market Research: An applied Orientation, 2007).

3.7 Data Collection Procedure

There are two forms of data that is primary and secondary data. Our data collection procedure is based on the primary data as we want to find out the relation between congruence, satisfaction, commitment, brand personality and brand loyalty. Also, we want to address the question of why any local brand is not able to leave impact on the customer.

188

The research methodology which we are using is Quantitative Research methodology. According to (Cooper, Schindler, & Sharma, 2002), quantitative research is the accurate count of some actions, understanding, judgment or perspective. Quantitative research is then divided into descriptive and causal research design. Our focus is on both because we want to collect information from surveys that come under the heading descriptive research design. Along with this causal research is also going to be used as we want to find out the causal relationships between the independent and dependent variables.

The sample size is drawn from whole population of Pakistan but, approaching each and every person is rarely possible so, for that we have precisely targeted 840 respondents from various areas of Karachi with the age bracket of 18 to 55 years.

3.8 Scale Development

3.8.1 Definition of Scale

The non-comparative scale employs whatever rating standard seems appropriate to them. They do not compare the object being rated either to another object or to some specified standard such as your ideal brand. They evaluate only one object at a time, and for this reason non comparative technique consist of continuous and itemized rating scales (Tolliver, 2004). This includes; continuous scales also known as the graphic scale, which is defined as the respondents’ rate the objects by placing a mark at the appropriate position on a line that runs from one extreme of the criterion variable to the other. Thus, the respondents are not restricted to selecting from marks previously set by the researcher. They form of the continuous scale may vary considerably. For example: reaction to the television commercials. It is easy to construct and the disadvantages scoring can be cumbersome unless computerized. Itemized rating scale also comes under

189 heading of non-comparative scales; which is defined as the, the respondents are provided with a scale that has a number or brief description associated with each category. The categories are ordered in terms of scale position and the respondents are required to select the specified category that best describes the object being rated. Itemized rating scales are widely used in marketing research and form the basic components of more complex scales such as multi item rating scales. We first describe the commonly used itemized rating scales, the Likert, semantic differential, and Stapel scales, and then examine the major issues surrounding the use of these scales. Likert scales are widely used rating scale that requires the respondents to indicate a degree of agreement or disagreement with each of a series of statements about the stimulus objects. For examples: measurement of attitudes and brand product and company images.

Advantages include easy constructing, administering and understanding. The disadvantages are more time consuming. The semantic differential scale is defined as the seven rating point scale with endpoints associated with bipolar labels that have semantic meaning. For example: Brand product and company images. The advantage is versatile and disadvantages are controversy as to whether the data are interval. The staple scale is defined as the measuring attitudes that consist of a single adjective in the middle of an even numbered range of values from -5 to 5 without a neutral point. For example: Measurement of attitudes and images. The advantages are easy to construct administered over telephone. Whereas: the disadvantages are confusing and difficult to apply (Malhotra N. K., 1981).

190

3.8.2 Congruence (self with brand) Scale

3.8.2.1 Scale Description

This scale is composed of seven Likert-type statements that are intended to measure the degree to which a consumer views a similarity and connection between him/herself-image and that of a particular brand.

3.8.2.2 Scale Origin

The scale was apparently developed and reported first by (Escalas & Bettman, You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers' connections to brands, 2003).The version used by (Escalas & Bettman, 2005) was very similar to previous version but not exactly the same, e.g., different scale anchors and slightly different phrasing of items.

3.8.2.3 Reliability

The scale was used in the two studies reported by (Escalas & Bettman, 2005) and in both cases had alphas of 0.96.

3.8.2.4 Validity

No information regarding the scale’s validity was provided by (Escalas & Bettman, 2005).

3.8.2.5 Scale Items

1. This brand reflects who I am.

2. I can identify with this brand.

3. I feel a personal connection to this brand.

4. I used this brand to communicate who I am to other people.

5. I think brand help me became the type of person I want to be.

6. This brand suits me well.

191

7. I consider this brand to be “me” (it reflects who I consider myself to be or the way that I

want to present myself to others).

3.8.3 Commitment to the Brand Scale

3.8.3.1 Scale description

The purpose of the scale is to scale the degree t which a consumer expresses devotion to a specified brand versus a willingness to accept alternative brands even if they are cheaper or more convenient. The scale is composed of three, nine point Likert-type statement. The scale was called commitment to the target brand by (Ahluwalia, Examination of Psychological Processes

Underlying resistance to persuasion, 2000),(Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, & Unnava, Consumer

Responce to negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment, 2000),(Ahluwalia,

Unnava, & Robert E, 2001).

3.8.3.2 Scale Origin

The scale was used by (Ahluwalia, Examination of Psychological Processes Underlying resistance to persuasion, 2000)(Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, & Unnava, Consumer Responce to negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment, 2000)(Ahluwalia, Unnava, & Robert

E, 2001) is original to (Beatty, Homer, & Kahle, 1988). They called it brand commitment rather than brand loyalty since the letter suggests a behavioral dimension which the former does not.

Their work provided evidence that commitment is distinct from purchase involvement and ego involvement but is influenced by them. The construct reliability was 0.75 and variance extracted as 0.51.

192

3.8.3.3 Reliability

The alpha scale was used by Ahluwalia was 0.62 (Ahluwalia, Examination of Psychological

Processes Underlying resistance to persuasion, 2000). The lab study in Ahluwalia seems to be the same as what is referred to as experiment one in (Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, & Unnava,

Consumer Responce to negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment, 2000) and experiment two in (Ahluwalia, Unnava, & Robert E, 2001).

3.8.3.4 Validity

No examination of the scale’s validity was reported by (Ahluwalia, Examination of

Psychological Processes Underlying resistance to persuasion, 2000)(Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, &

Unnava, Consumer Responce to negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment,

2000)(Ahluwalia, Unnava, & Robert E, 2001).

3.8.3.5 Comments

See also Agarwal and Maheswaran (2005), as they appear to have used this scale or something based on it.

3.8.3.6 Scale Items

1. If ______was not available at the store, it would make little difference to

me if I had to choose another brand.

2. I consider myself to be highly loyal to ______.

3. When another brand is on sale, I will generally purchase it rather than ______.

193

3.8.4 Satisfaction Scale

3.8.4.1 Scale Description

In its fullest form, the scale is comprised of twelve Likert-type items and measures a consumer’s degree of satisfaction with a product he/she has recently purchased. Most of it uses have been in reference to the purchase cars but(Mano & Oliver, 1993) appear to have adapted it so as to general enough to apply to whatever product a respondent was thinking about. (Mattila & Wirtz,

2001), adapted a short version of scale to measure customer’s satisfaction with a shopping experience. Seven of the items were modified by (Hausman, 2004) for use with the patient- physician encounter.

3.8.4.2 Scale Origin

The Scale was originally generated and used by (Westbrook & Oliver, Developing Better

Measures of Consumer Satisfaction: Some preliminary Results, 1981) to measure consumer satisfaction with cars and with calculators. Four other satisfaction measures were used as well and their results compared in a multi-trait multi-method matrix. Convenience samples of students were used from two different universities (n=68+107). In term of internal consistency, the alphas were 0.93 and 0.96 as measured for cars in the two samples. For both samples, the scale showed strong evidence of construct validity by converging with like constructs and discriminating between unlike constructs. Compared to the others measures of satisfaction, the Likert version produced the greatest dispersion of individual scores while maintaining a symmetrical distribution.

194

3.8.4.3 Reliability

Alphas of 0.95, 0.08, and 0.94 were reported for the scale by (Mano & Oliver, 1993)(Oliver R.

L., Cognitive, Affective and attribute Bases of the Satisfaction Response, 1993)(Oliver & Swan,

1989b) and (Westbrook & Oliver, 1991) respectively. (Oliver, Rust, & Varki, 1997), reported that the reliabilities were 0.89 and 0.87 in their first and second studies, respectively. The version of the scale used by (Hausman, 2004) had alphas ranging from 0.79 and 0.94, with an alpha of

0.85 for the combined samples.

3.8.4.4 Validity

Examination of scale’s validity was rarely reported in the studies. However, (Mano & Oliver,

1993) performed a factor analysis which provided evidence that the scale was one-dimensional.

Using CFA, Evidence was provided by (Hausman, 2004) in support of her scale’s convergent and discriminate validities.

3.8.4.5 Scale Items

1. This is the one of the best ______I could have bought.

2. This ______is exactly what I need.

3. This ______hasn’t worked out as well as I thought it would.

4. I am satisfied with my decision to buy this______.

5. Sometimes I have mixed feelings about keeping it.

6. My choice to buy this ______was a wise one.

7. If I could do it over again, I’d buy a different make/model.

8. I have truly enjoyed this______.

9. I feel bad about my decision to buy this______.

10. I am not happy that I bought this______.

195

11. Owning this ______has been a good experience.

12. I am sure it was the right thing to buy this ______.

3.8.4.6 Comments

See (Wolﬁnbarger & Gilly, 2003), where the author modified five of this scale’s items in order to measure satisfaction with a consumer’s most recent online purchase at a website.

3.8.5 Loyalty Scale

3.8.5.1 Scale Description

This scale has three, ten points Likert-type statements that measure a consumer’s stated intention to search for and purchase a particular brand of product(s) in the future.

3.8.5.2 Scale Origin

The origin of the scale was not explicitly stated by (Algesheime, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005).

They appear to have adapted items from previous scales especially for their study. As used to gather the data, the items were apparently in German.

3.8.5.3 Reliability

The composite reliability reported for the scale by (Algesheime, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005) was 0.90.

3.8.5.4 Validity

(Algesheime, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005), used CFA with twelve latent constructs and twenty measures. The measurement model fit the date well and two tests were used to provide evidence of each scale’s discriminate validity. The average variance extracted for this scale was 0.75.

196

3.8.5.5 Scale Items

1. I intended to buy this brand in the near future.

2. I would actively search for this brand in order to buy it.

3. I intended to buy other products of this brand.

3.8.6 Brand Personality Scale

The first ever scale was developed by (Aaker J. L., Dimensions of Brand Personality, 1997).

Different brand personality scales has been developed to study the brand personality of various brand. Scales are developed in different cultural context to find the relevant personality traits associated with brand in that particular culture. Also brand personality scales are developed for different product categories and brands. Following is the table that shows various studies of brand personality dimension (Patel, Measuring Brand Personality: An Empirical Study, 2009),

(Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, Valette-Florence, & Barnier, How Well does Brand Personality

Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale, 2005).

In (Ambroise L. , et al., 2005) and few other researchers (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, Valette-

Florence, & Barnier, 2005), and (Merunka, 2003), combine with him studied the brand personality and proposed the brand personality scale to measure the personality of the brand.

Their scale has been used before to measure the personality of a brand (Ambroise L. , et al.,

2005).

This brand personality scale basically has nine traits of personality: Friendly, Creative,

Charming, Ascendant, Misleading, Original, Elegant, Conscientious, and Introvert. Furthermore, all these personality traits are sub-divided in more items. For example: The group of Warm,

197

Pleasant, and Nice fall in the friendly trait and the group of Manipulative, Arrogant, and Showy

fall in the category of Ascendant trait.

3.8.6.1 Structure of the Brand Personality Measurement Scale

Brand Personality Scale

Glamorous Elegant Exciting s

Reliable Natural Sweet Cheerful

Mature Secure Outgoing Mischievou Rigorous s

Figure 14: Brand Personality Scale

198

Table 5: Brand Personality Scale Proposed by (Ambroise, Ferrandi, Merunka, & Florence, 2004)

Brand Personality Traits Items

Friendly Warm, Pleasant, nice

Creative Inventive, Imaginative

Charming Attractive, Seductive

Ascendant Manipulative, Arrogant, Showy

Misleading Hypocrite, Lying, Deceptive

Original Trendy, Modern

Elegant Sophisticated, stylish

Conscientious Strict, Serious

Introvert Reserved, Shy

199

3.9 Data Collection Methods

The data collection method would be on the basis of scales, which we have developed the conduct would take place through questionnaires, because it is an instrument delivered to the participant via personal or non-personal means that is completed by the participants. Accuracy is high while people responding to the questionnaires, it saves major two things time and money.

People more give truthful information regarding the controversial issues.

The structure that is going to be used for the response strategy is the structured response. That is participant's response is limited to specific alternative provided i.e. closed response. And also our questionnaire will be in the form of multiple choice questions which are appropriate when there are more than two alternatives or when we seek gradations of fondness, attraction, or agreement.

Questionnaires often make use of reference tables and classification. These devices help simplify and determine the behaviors and attitudes of people. A checklist is a list of behaviors and characteristics, or other entities that the researcher is looking for. Either the researcher or participant survey is achieved simply whether the observed every element of the list, or present, or vice versa.

Furthermore, you can be used to improve the quality of evaluations based on a quantitative survey, helping to generate hypotheses evaluation and design of survey questionnaires to strengthen and expand or clarify the results of the quantitative evaluation.

200

3.10 Correlation Analysis

We are using Correlation Analysis, because it is main stream in numerous provisions in light of the fact that it is a quantitative approach to assess whether two or more variables are connected or not. Along these lines, correlation analysis permits to diminish the data held in and the perceptions that have been measured on sets or assemblies of information to a solitary number falling into a normed interval. It is also helpful to continue with the determined correlation coeﬃcients for translating the relations.

On the other hand, it is regularly more significant to look at connections inside the information.

The point when inspecting information in SAS, correlation uncovers itself by the relationship.

The most well-known measure of correlation is known as the "Pearson product moment correlation coefficient”, the correlation measure just applies to two variables at once by,

Ρx, y = cov(x, y)/σσ x y

We can often see a relationship between two variables by constructing a graph called scatter plot, which is a chart that shows the qualities of to one another.

3.11 Regression Analysis

Keeping in mind our end goal is to battle these "spurious connections", regression analysis permits numerous variables to be analyzed at the same time. The most broadly utilized system for regression analysis is Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) works by making a "best fit" pattern line through the greater part of the accessible information which focuses initially, the variables to be incorporated in the analysis must be picked, and consolidated into the suitable model (thus, a linear model).

Y = β0 + β1(x1) + β2(x2) + ⋯ . +βn(xn) + ε

201

Where:

• Y is the dependent variable.

• x1 … xn are the independent variables.

• βo is the intercept.

• β1 … βn are the coefficients of interest.

• ε is the error

In this model Y represents the variables of interest in the analysis while x…..xn represents the

variables to be tested.

The coefficient on each of the independent variables (β1…..βn) represents the effect that a

change in the independent variable (x1….xn) on the dependent variable (Y).

The sign on the coefficient reflects the direction of the relationship. Next, a testable

hypothesis must be developed.

Ho: βj = 0

H1: βj ≠ 0

Where:

• Ho is the hypothesis to be tested, or the “null hypothesis”.

• H1is the alternative hypothesis.

This hypothesis tests whether the coefficient of a given ward variable equivalents zero (any

variable increased by zero equivalents zero, so a coefficient of zero covers the related

variable). In this manner, if the analysis finds that the invalid speculation might be rejected

(i.e. that the coefficient of investment does not actually equivalent zero), then that variable

has a huge impact on the ward variable (Y).

202

Both connection and regression analysis are great scientific instruments when executed

accurately figuring out how to utilize these routines, it is significant to precisely determine

the issue being examined, and the measurable systems being utilized (Stockwell, 2008).

3.11.1 Multiple Regressions

Multiple regressions are used as an unmistakable device in three sorts of circumstances.

 Often used to create a self-weighting evaluating mathematical statement by which to

foresee esteem for a dependent variable (DV) from the qualities for a few independent

variables. (IV)

 A Descriptive provision of numerous regression calls for controlling for jumbling

variables to better assess the commitment of other variable.

 Multiple regressions are likewise used to test and illustrate causal speculations.

In this methodology, regularly alluded as way examination, regression is utilized to portray a whole structure of linkages that have been progressed from a causal hypothesis. What's more of being a distinct apparatus it is additionally utilized as an induction device to test speculation and to gauge populace values (Cooper & Schindler, Business Research Methods, 2002).

Subsequently in our exploration we are contemplating the relationship around all the variables towards brand personality and brand loyalty. We can utilize this technique to attempt to anticipate the execution of coke, Pepsi and gourmet in the business sector.

203

Chapter 4:Data Analysis and Interpretations

4.1 Demographic Analysis

Table 6: Total Number of Respondents

Male Female Total Pepsi Cola 219 181 400 Coca Cola 188 143 331 Gourmet Cola 73 36 109 Total 480 360 840

4.1.1 Gender

Table 7: Gender (Frequency) - Pepsi Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Male 219 54.8 54.8 54.8 Valid Female 181 45.3 45.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0

Figure 15: Gender- Pepsi

204

Interpretation:

There are 400 respondents of Pepsi cola out of 840 and above analysis shows that 54.8% of the respondents are male while 45.3% of respondents of Pepsi are Female.

Table 8: Gender (Frequency) - Coca Cola Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Male 188 44.8 56.8 56.8 Valid Female 143 34.0 43.2 100.0 Total 331 78.8 100.0 Missing System 89 21.2 Total 420 100.0

Figure 16: Gender- Coca Cola Interpretation:

The total sample size for this research is 331 people and all of them were the respondents so the response rate was 100%. Above analysis shows that about 56.79% respondents are male while

205

43.2% respondents are female. This includes 188 males and 143 females among 331

respondents.

Table 9: Gender (Frequency) - Gourmet Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Male 73 67.0 67.0 67.0 Valid Female 36 33.0 33.0 100.0 Total 109 100.0 100.0

Figure 17: Gender- Gourmet Interpretation:

There are 109 respondents of Gourmet Cola out of 840 and above analysis shows that 67% of the

respondent are male while 33% of respondent of Gourmet are Female.

206

4.1.2 Age

Table 10: Age Distribution of Respondents

18 to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 Total Pepsi Cola 277 50 68 5 400 Coca Cola 106 110 79 36 331 Gourmet Cola 51 36 13 9 109 Total 434 196 160 50 840

Table 11: Age (Frequency) - Pepsi Age Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

18 to 25 277 69.3 69.3 69.3 26 to 35 50 12.5 12.5 81.8 Valid 36 to 45 68 17.0 17.0 98.8 46 to 55 5 1.3 1.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0

Figure 18: Age- Pepsi

207

Interpretation:

Above analysis shows that age bracket of the Pepsi cola respondents. The highest number of

respondent belongs to the age of 18-25 years with 69.3%. The age group of 26-35 year has

12.5% of the total respondent. While 17% and 1.3% belongs to the respondent of age group of

36-45 and 46-55 respectively.

Table 12: Age (Frequency) - Coca Cola Age Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

18 to 25 106 25.2 32.0 32.0 26 to 35 110 26.2 33.2 65.3 Valid 36 to 45 79 18.8 23.9 89.1 46 to 55 36 8.6 10.9 100.0 Total 331 78.8 100.0 Missing System 89 21.2 Total 420 100.0

Figure 19: Age- Coca Cola

208

Interpretation:

Above analysis shows the age bracket of the respondents. The highest numbers of respondents

belong to the age of 18-25 years with 32%. The age group of 26-35 years has 33% of the total

respondents. While, 24% is for the age bracket of 36-45 and 11% is for 46-55 years respectively.

Table 13: Age (Frequency) - Gourmet Age Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

18 to 25 51 46.8 46.8 46.8 26 to 35 36 33.0 33.0 79.8 Valid 36 to 45 13 11.9 11.9 91.7 46 to 55 9 8.3 8.3 100.0 Total 109 100.0 100.0

Figure 20: Age- Gourmet

Interpretation:

Above analysis shows that age bracket of the gourmet respondent. The highest number of

respondent belongs to the age of 18-25 years with 51%. The age group of 26-35 year has 36% of

the total respondent. While 13% and 9% belongs to the respondent of age group of 36-45 and 46-

55 respectively.

209

4.1.3 Professions

Table 14: Profession Distribution of Respondents

Student Business House Labor/ Others Total Professionals Wife Worker Pepsi Cola 311 53 27 3 6 400 Coca Cola 132 77 79 20 23 331 Gourmet Cola 62 23 14 5 5 109 Total 505 153 120 28 34 840

Table 15: Profession (Frequency) - Pepsi Profession Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Student 311 77.8 77.8 77.8 Business Professionals 53 13.3 13.3 91.0 House Wife 27 6.8 6.8 97.8 Valid Labor/ Worker 3 .8 .8 98.5 Others 6 1.5 1.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0

Figure 21: Profession- Pepsi

210

Interpretation:

Above analysis show that 77.8% of the respondents were students, 13.3% respondents were

business professionals. Moreover 6.8% respondents were housewives. The smallest portion of

analysis that is .8 % was labors/workers and 1.5 goes from other professions.

Table 16: Profession (Frequency) - Coca Cola Profession Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Student 132 31.4 39.9 39.9 Business Professionals 77 18.3 23.3 63.1 House Wife 79 18.8 23.9 87.0 Valid Labor/ Worker 20 4.8 6.0 93.1 Others 23 5.5 6.9 100.0 Total 331 78.8 100.0 Missing System 89 21.2 Total 420 100.0

Figure 22: Profession- Coca Cola

211

Interpretation:

Above analysis show that 40% of the respondents were students, 23% respondents were business professionals. Moreover 24% respondents were housewives. The smallest portion of analysis that is 6% was labors/workers. The analysis further shows that 7% of the respondents belong to other professional fields.

Table 17: Profession (Frequency) - Gourmet Profession Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Student 62 56.9 56.9 56.9 Business Professionals 23 21.1 21.1 78.0 House Wife 14 12.8 12.8 90.8 Valid Labor/ Worker 5 4.6 4.6 95.4 Others 5 4.6 4.6 100.0 Total 109 100.0 100.0

Figure 23: Profession- Gourmet

212

Interpretation:

Above analysis show that 56.9% of the respondents were students, 21.1% respondents were business professionals. Moreover 12.8% respondents were housewives. The smallest portion of analysis that is 4.6% was labors/workers and from other professions.

4.1.4 Preferred Brand

Table 18: Preferred Brand

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Pepsi Cola 400 47.6 47.6 47.6 Coca Cola 331 39.4 39.4 87.0 Valid Gourmet Cola 109 13.0 13.0 100.0 Total 840 100.0 100.0

Figure 24: Preferred Brand

213

Interpretation:

Above analysis show that 47.6% of the respondents preferred Pepsi Cola while 39.4% preferred

Coca Cola and the least preferred brand was Gourmet Cola which is 13%. This analysis further tells that among all three brands Pepsi was highly preferred whereas Coca Cola was there almost near in the preference competition in the market by the consumers.

4.2 Hypothesis Analysis

4.2.1 Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality

Table 19: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Pepsi Correlations Congruence brand personality

Pearson Correlation 1 .636** congruence Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 400 400 Pearson Correlation .636** 1 brand personality Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 400 400 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation: This is the correlation between independent variable congruence and dependent variable brand personality of Pepsi Cola. It shows that the Pearson's Correlation between both the variables is

0.636 that is strong positive correlation. The significance level is 0.000 which is acceptable.

214

Table 20: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Coca Cola Correlations congruence Brand personality Pearson Correlation 1 .093 Congruence Sig. (2-tailed) .093 N 331 331 Pearson Correlation .093 1 Brand personality Sig. (2-tailed) .093 N 331 331 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation:

This is the correlation between independent variable congruence and dependent variable brand

personality of Coca Cola. It shows that the Pearson's Correlation between both the variables is

0.093 that is no or negligible relationship.

Table 21: Correlation between Congruence and Brand Personality- Gourmet Correlations congruence Brand personality Pearson Correlation 1 .117 congruence Sig. (2-tailed) .226 N 109 109 Pearson Correlation .117 1 Brand personality Sig. (2-tailed) .226 N 109 109

Interpretation:

This is the correlation between independent variable congruence and dependent variable brand

personality of Gourmet. It shows that the Pearson's Correlation between both the variables is

.117 that is non-negligible relationship between variables.

215

4.2.2 Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality

Table 22: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Pepsi Correlations satisfaction brand personality

Pearson Correlation 1 .949** satisfaction Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 400 400 Pearson Correlation .949** 1 brand personality Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 400 400 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation: The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable satisfaction and dependent variable brand personality such that the correlation between both the variables is

0.949 that is a very strong positive relation. The significance level is 0.000 that is statistically acceptable.

216

Table 23: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Coca Cola Correlations satisfaction Brand personality Pearson Correlation 1 .194** Satisfaction Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 331 331 Pearson Correlation .194** 1 Brand personality Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 331 331 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation: The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable satisfaction and

dependent variable brand personality such that the correlation between both the variables is

0.194 that is a no or negligible relationship.

Table 24: Correlation between Satisfaction and Brand Personality- Gourmet Correlations satisfaction Brand personality Pearson Correlation 1 .130 Satisfaction Sig. (2-tailed) .179 N 109 109 Pearson Correlation .130 1 Brand personality Sig. (2-tailed) .179 N 109 109

Interpretation:

The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable satisfaction and

dependent variable brand personality such that the correlation between both the variables is

0.130 that is a negligible relationship between variables.

217

4.2.3 Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality

Table 25: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Pepsi Correlations commitment Brand personality

Pearson Correlation 1 .800** Commitment Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 400 400 Pearson Correlation .800** 1 brand personality Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 400 400 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation: The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable commitment and dependent variable brand personality such that the correlation between both the variables is

0.800 that is a very strong positive relation. The significance level is 0.000 that is statistically acceptable.

218

Table 26: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Coca Cola Correlations commitment Brand personality

Pearson Correlation 1 -.056 Commitment Sig. (2-tailed) .308 N 331 331 Pearson Correlation -.056 1 Brand personality Sig. (2-tailed) .308 N 331 331

-.056 that is a no or negligible relationship.

Table 27: Correlations between Commitment and Brand Personality- Gourmet Correlations commitment Brand personality Pearson Correlation 1 .275** Commitment Sig. (2-tailed) .004 N 109 109 Pearson Correlation .275** 1 Brand personality Sig. (2-tailed) .004 N 109 109 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

0.275 that is a very weak positive relationship between variables. The significance level is 0.004 that is statistically acceptable.

219

4.2.4 Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear

Regression)

Table 28: Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear Regression) - Pepsi ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 11.749 2 5.875 91.157 .000b 1 Residual 25.584 397 .064 Total 37.333 399 a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, congruence

Coefficients Model Un-standardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig. Coefficients B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 3.139 .250 12.559 .000 1 congruence .359 .061 .319 5.917 .000 brand personality .292 .052 .302 5.606 .000 a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty

Interpretation: The above data shows the relationship of brand loyalty (dependent variable), congruence

(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the un- standardized coefficient of congruence and brand personality is 0.359 and 0.292. The analysis shows that the unit increase in congruence would increase brand loyalty by 35.9% which has a moderate positive relation. Furthermore, unit increase in brand personality increases brand loyalty by 29.2% which has a weak positive relationship.

220

Table 29: Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear Regression) - Coca Cola ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 11.105 2 5.552 31.486 .000b

1 Residual 57.841 328 .176

Total 68.945 330 a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, congruence

Coefficients

Model Un-standardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 4.289 .260 16.511 .000

congruence .023 .027 .044 .864 .388 1 Brand -.367 .046 -.403 -7.934 .000 personality a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty

Interpretation:

The above data shows the relationship of brand loyalty (dependent variable), congruence

(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the un- standardized coefficient of congruence and brand personality is 0.023 and -0.367. The analysis shows that the unit increase in congruence would increase brand loyalty by 2.3% which has a

221 negligible relation. Furthermore, unit increase in brand personality decreases brand loyalty by

36.7% which has a moderate negative relationship.

Table 30: Congruence with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear Regression) - Gourmet ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 5.880 2 2.940 1.691 .189b

1 Residual 184.256 106 1.738

Total 190.136 108 a. Dependent Variable: Brand loyalty b. Predictors: (Constant), Brand personality , congruence

Coefficients

Model Un-standardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 2.861 .746 3.833 .000

congruence .161 .093 .167 1.739 .085 1 Brand .084 .215 .038 .391 .697 personality a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty

Interpretation:

The above data shows the relationship of brand loyalty (dependent variable), congruence

(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the un-

222 standardized coefficient of congruence and brand personality is 0.161 and 0.84. The analysis shows that if 1 unit increase in congruence would increase brand loyalty is increased by 16.1% which has a negligible relationship. Furthermore, if 1 unit increase is increase in brand personality leads to the increase by 8.4% in brand loyalty which has no or negligible relationship, while 1 unit increase in congruence leads to 16.1% increase in brand loyalty which also has no or negligible relationship.

223

4.2.5 Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear

Regression)

Table 31: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear Regression) - Pepsi ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 12.859 2 6.429 104.289 .000b

1 Residual 24.475 397 .062

Total 37.333 399 a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, satisfaction

Coefficients

Model Un-standardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 1.142 .403 2.831 .005

1 satisfaction -.639 .086 -.952 -7.389 .000

brand personality 1.364 .125 1.407 10.927 .000 a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty

Interpretation:

The above data shows the relationship of brand loyalty (dependent variable), satisfaction

(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the un- standardized coefficient of satisfaction and brand personality is -0.639 and 1.364. The analysis

224 shows that the unit increase in satisfaction; decreases brand loyalty by 63.9% which has a strong negative relationship. In addition unit increase in brand personality increases brand loyalty by

136.4% which shows a very strong positive relationship.

Table 32: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (MultipleLinear Regression) - Coca Cola ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 11.461 2 5.731 32.699 .000b

1 Residual 57.484 328 .175

Total 68.945 330 a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, satisfaction

Coefficients Model Un-standardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 4.201 .263 15.966 .000

satisfaction .082 .049 .086 1.669 .096 1 Brand -.378 .047 -.416 -8.086 .000 personality a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty

225

Interpretation:

The above data shows the relationship of brand loyalty (dependent variable), satisfaction

(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the un- standardized coefficient of satisfaction and brand personality is 0.082 and -0.378. The analysis shows that the unit increase in satisfaction; decreases brand loyalty by 8.2% which has a no or negligible relationship. In addition unit increase in brand personality decreases brand loyalty by

37.8% which shows a moderate negative relationship.

226

Table 33: Satisfaction with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Gourmet ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 1.802 2 .901 .507 .604b

1 Residual 188.334 106 1.777

Total 190.136 108 a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, satisfaction

Coefficients Model Un-standardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 3.653 .809 4.513 .000

satisfaction -.091 .111 -.079 -.815 .417 1 Brand .151 .218 .068 .693 .490 personality a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty

Interpretation:

The above data shows the relationship of brand loyalty (dependent variable), satisfaction

(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the un- standardized coefficient of satisfaction and brand personality is -0.091 and .151. The analysis shows that if 1 unit increase in satisfaction; brand loyalty decreased by -9.1%% which has a

227 strong negative relationship. In addition if 1 unit increases in brand personality increases brand loyalty is increased by 15.1% which shows a negligible relationship.

228

4.2.6 Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple

Linear Regression)

Table 34: Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Pepsi ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 21.967 2 10.983 283.765 .000b

1 Residual 15.366 397 .039

Total 37.333 399 a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, commitment

Coefficients

Model Un-standardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 5.837 .224 26.015 .000

1 commitment .430 .024 .963 17.952 .000

Brand personality -.257 .052 -.265 -4.951 .000

a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty

Interpretation:

The above data shows the relationship of brand loyalty (dependent variable), commitment

(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the un- standardized coefficient of commitment and brand personality is 0.430 and -0.257. The analysis

229 shows that the unit increase in commitment; increases brand loyalty by 43.0% which has a strong positive relationship. In addition unit increase in brand personality decreases brand loyalty by

25.7% which shows a weak negative relationship.

Table 35: Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Coca Cola ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 15.150 2 7.575 46.187 .000b

1 Residual 53.795 328 .164

Total 68.945 330 a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty b. Predictors: (Constant), brand personality, commitment

Coefficients Model Un-standardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 4.988 .267 18.680 .000

1 commitment -.188 .037 -.247 -5.047 .000

Brand personality -.376 .044 -.413 -8.450 .000 a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty Interpretation:

The above data shows the relationship of brand loyalty (dependent variable), commitment

(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the un- standardized coefficient of commitment and brand personality is -0.188 and -0.376. The analysis shows that the unit increase in commitment, increases brand loyalty by 18.8% which has a no or

230 negligible relationship. In addition unit increase in brand personality decreases brand loyalty by

37.6% which shows a moderate negative relationship.

Table 36: Commitment with Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty (Multiple Linear Regression) - Gourmet ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression .701 2 .350 .196 .822b

1 Residual 189.435 106 1.787

Total 190.136 108 a. Dependent Variable: Brand loyalty b. Predictors: (Constant), Brand personality, commitment

Coefficients

Model Un-standardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 3.286 .734 4.479 .000

commitment .022 .105 .021 .209 .835 1 Brand .115 .225 .051 .510 .611 personality a. Dependent Variable: Brand loyalty

Interpretation:

The above data shows the relationship of brand loyalty (dependent variable), commitment

(independent variable) and brand personality (independent variable). It shows that the un-

231 standardized coefficient of commitment and brand personality is .022 and .115. The analysis shows that if 1 unit increases in commitment; brand loyalty is increased by .022% which has a weak positive relationship. In addition if 1 unit is increase in brand personality than brand loyalty is increased by 25.7% which shows a weak negative relationship.

232

4.2.7 Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction

Table 37: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Pepsi Correlations

congruence satisfaction

Pearson Correlation 1 .792**

Congruence Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 400 400

Pearson Correlation .792** 1 satisfaction Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 400 400

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation:

The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable Congruence and dependent variable Satisfaction such that the correlation between both the variables is 0.792 that is a very strong positive relationship.

233

Table 38: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Coca Cola Correlations

congruence satisfaction

Pearson Correlation 1 .268**

Congruence Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 331 331

Pearson Correlation .268** 1

Satisfaction Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 331 331

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation:

234

Table 39: Correlation between Congruence and Satisfaction- Gourmet Correlations

Congruence satisfaction

Pearson Correlation 1 .142 congruence Sig. (2-tailed) .142

N 109 109

Pearson Correlation .142 1 satisfaction Sig. (2-tailed) .142

N 109 109

Interpretation: The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable Congruence and dependent variable Satisfaction such that the correlation between both the variables is .142 that is a negligible relationship between variables.

235

4.2.8 Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment

Table 40: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Pepsi Correlations

satisfaction commitment

Pearson Correlation 1 .596**

Satisfaction Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 400 400

Pearson Correlation .596** 1

Commitment Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 400 400

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation:

The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable Satisfaction and dependent variable Commitment such that the correlation between both the variables is

0.596 that is a strong positive relationship. The significance level is 0.000 that is statistically acceptable.

236

Table 41: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Coca Cola Correlations

satisfaction commitment

Pearson Correlation 1 -.240**

Satisfaction Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 331 331

Pearson Correlation -.240** 1 commitment Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 331 331

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation:

The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable Satisfaction and dependent variable Commitment such that the correlation between both the variables is

-0.240 that is a weak negative relationship.

237

Table 42: Correlation between Satisfaction and Commitment- Gourmet Correlations

satisfaction commitment

Pearson Correlation 1 -.103 satisfaction Sig. (2-tailed) .286

N 109 109

Pearson Correlation -.103 1 commitment Sig. (2-tailed) .286

N 109 109

Interpretation:

The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable Satisfaction and dependent variable Commitment such that the correlation between both the variables is -.103 that is a strong very strong negative relationship.

238

4.2.9 Correlation between Congruence and Commitment

Table 43: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Pepsi Correlations

congruence commitment

Pearson Correlation 1 .275** congruence Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 400 400

Pearson Correlation .275** 1 commitment Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 400 400

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation:

The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable Congruence and dependent variable Commitment such that the correlation between both the variables is

0.275 that is a weak positive relationship. The significance level is 0.000 that is statistically acceptable.

239

Table 44: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Coca Cola Correlations

satisfaction commitment

Pearson Correlation 1 -.240**

satisfaction Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 331 331

Pearson Correlation -.240** 1

commitment Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 331 331

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation:

The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable Congruence and dependent variable Commitment such that the correlation between both the variables is

-0.240 that is a weak negative relationship.

240

Table 45: Correlation between Congruence and Commitment- Gourmet

Correlations

congruence commitment

Pearson Correlation 1 -.102

congruence Sig. (2-tailed) .290

N 109 109

Pearson Correlation -.102 1

commitment Sig. (2-tailed) .290

N 109 109

Interpretation:

The above chart shows the correlation analysis between the independent variable Congruence and dependent variable Commitment such that the correlation between both the variables is -.102 that is a negligible relationship between variables.

241

Chapter 5:Conclusion andImplications

Table 46: Overview Result of Rejection or Acceptance of all Three Brands Hypothesis Pepsi Coca Cola Gourmet H1 Accept Reject Reject H2 Accept Reject Reject H3 Accept Reject Accept H4 Accept Reject Reject H5 Reject Reject Reject H6 Reject Reject Reject H7 Accept Accept Reject H8 Accept Reject Reject H9 Accept Reject Reject

5.1 Conclusion

5.1.1 Pepsi

The results for our hypothesis 1 (i.e. correlation between congruence and brand personality) shows that there is a relationship between our independent variable (congruence) and dependent variable (brand personality).Relationship between congruence and brand personality is a positive one. The Pearson's correlation coefficient r is 0.636. From this we can interpret that if more consumers are congruent to Pepsi Cola, there will be increase in the brand personality of Pepsi.

Which means that if consumers are able to reflect their own image in Pepsi Cola, more will be the brand personality?

Hypothesis 2 is correlation between satisfaction and brand personality. The independent variable here is satisfaction while dependent variable is brand personality. The findings here show the

Pearson's correlation coefficient r as 0.949 that represents a strong relationship between satisfaction and brand personality. If more consumers are pleased, happy and contented, this

242 would mean that more consumers will be able to relate themselves to Pepsi. From this we can also conclude that the changes in satisfaction are strongly related with the changes in brand personality.

Correlation between commitment and brand personality is our third hypothesis. The independent variable in this case is commitment and the dependent variable is brand personality. The

Pearson's correlation coefficient r is shown as 0.800 which indicates a strong relationship between commitment and brand personality. This means that if more consumers are committed more will be the brand personality of Pepsi. The findings show that if more consumers are faithful and have a good bond, more will they be able to relate themselves with Pepsi.

From the above hypothesis it can be seen that all the three independent variables (congruence, satisfaction, commitment) have a relation with the dependent variable (brand personality). Its shows that all the three are able to effect brand personality individually.

The fourth hypothesis in our research is congruence with brand personality and brand loyalty.

Here the dependent variables were congruence and brand personality, while brand loyalty was a dependent variable. The un-standardized slope of 0.359 of congruence tells us that Pepsi's brand loyalty will increase by 35.9% for every percentage increase in congruence. That means higher congruence is associated with higher brand loyalty. Whereas, the un-standardized slope of 0.292 of brand personality tells us that Pepsi's brand loyalty will increase by 29.2% for every percentage increase in brand personality. Thus, it means that higher brand personality is associated with higher brand loyalty.

In hypothesis 5 i.e. satisfaction with brand personality and brand loyalty the independent variables are satisfaction and brand personality, on the other hand brand loyalty is a dependent

243 variable. The un-standardized slope of satisfaction and brand loyalty show a negative result that is of -0.639. This means that Pepsi's brand loyalty will decrease by 63.9% if there is one percentage increase in satisfaction. While on the other hand findings on brand personality and brand loyalty show a positive relation. It shows that the higher personality of Pepsi is related with brand loyalty.

The sixth hypothesis is commitment with brand personality and brand loyalty. Un-standardized slope of commitment and brand loyalty of Pepsi show that brand loyalty will increase by 43% for every percentage increase in commitment. Thus, higher commitment is associated with higher brand loyalty. Findings of brand personality show that if one unit of brand personality is increased there will be a decrease in brand loyalty.

The independent variables also have a relationship between each other. In this independent variable is congruence and dependent variable is satisfaction. The relationship between congruence and satisfaction can be seen in hypothesis 7 i.e. correlation between congruence and satisfaction. There is a very strong relation between both of them which shows that if the consumers are able to reflect themselves with Pepsi that will result in increased satisfaction.

Hypothesis 8 is correlation between satisfaction and commitment. In this case independent variable is satisfaction and commitment is considered as dependent variable. It seen that the relation between them is strong positive which shows that if consumers are able to enjoy the experience of Pepsi Cola they will more faithful and committed towards it.

Correlation between congruence and commitment is our 9th hypothesis. Congruence is treated as independent variable whereas commitment is treated as dependent variable. The relationship

244 between them is weak positive. This result shows that if consumers are less likely to find their reflection in Pepsi less of them will be committed towards it.

5.1.2 Coca Cola

To begin with speculation of Coca cola is demonstrating a relationship between congruence and brand personality, in the wake of applying our tests the Pearson correlation indicates that there is no negligible relationship between them.

Second theory indicates the relation between satisfaction and brand personality of Coca cola, the

Pearson correlation demonstrates that there is no or negligible relationship between these variables.

So is with third hypothesis which is about commitment and brand personality indicating no or a negligible relationship.

In hypothesis four the variables are congruence, brand personality and brand loyalty. Congruence and brand personality are been acknowledged as independent variable and brand loyalty as dependent variable. The un-institutionalized coefficient shows a moderate negative relationship of brand loyalty with congruence and brand personality.

Besides, in fifth hypothesis the Results indicates that there is a moderate negative relationship.

In sixth speculation, acknowledging brand loyalty as dependent and commitment and also personality as independent variable, the result demonstrates that there is no or negligible relationship between commitment and brand loyalty.

The seventh hypothesis is indicating the relationship between independent variable congruence and dependent variable satisfaction results demonstrates that there is weak positive relationship between the variables. Furthermore, in eighth hypothesis the relationship is strong positive

245 among variables of satisfaction and commitment. Additionally, in our last hypothesis the relationship between congruence and commitment is weak negative.

From all of the above relations we can conclude that majority of the customers of coca cola are students however they take a stab at creating a brand personality by concentrating on celebrations, family assembling and so forth the genuine shopper of coca cola are from the age section of 18-25. In spite of, coca cola don’t target everyone, and that startles individuals once in a while. Suppose it is possible that coca cola push individuals away in light of the fact that brand personality is excessively self-evident. If you don't push a couple of individuals away, you won't generally draw in anybody. Thus, coca cola ought not to have a cleared and decently focused brand personality.

The association of coinciding with brand personality is negligible which reflects that buyers would not effectively relate themselves to the identity of the brand. It is troublesome for the purchasers to secure a connection and relate their personality characteristics and human like aspects with the coca cola brand. Additionally, on the off chance if we dissect congruence and brand personality with regard to brand loyalty, it has been discovered that loyalty of coca cola would not simply rely on them towards brand loyalty, congruence and commitment has a weaker relationship as contrasted with Brand personality.

5.1.3 Gourmet

First hypothesis of Gourmet cola showing a relationship between congruence and brand personality, after applying are responses the Pearson correlation shows that there is no negligible relationship between them. This because of Gourmet is unsuccessful in creating its brand image and lack of value.

246

Second hypothesis shows that relation between satisfaction and brand personality of gourmet cola, the Pearson correlation shows that their negligible relationship between variables. This is because of the fact that there are much better competitors’ colas in market, which make it difficult to create satisfaction among people.

Similarly in third hypothesis which is about commitment and brand personality shows the relationship, which is very weak positive relationship, although the significance level is acceptable. Certain region of Pakistan shows that there is some commitment in people, which are affecting their personality.

In hypothesis four the variables are congruence, brand personality and brand loyalty. Congruence and brand personality been considered as independent variable and brand loyalty as dependent variable. The un-standardized coefficient shows result that there is negligible relationship of brand loyalty with congruence and brand personality. Gourmet is unsuccessful in creating consumer’s loyalty, because it was previously failed in creating congruence and personality which leads to consumer loyalty.

Furthermore, in fifth hypothesis the independent variable includes satisfaction and brand personality, on the other hand dependent variable as brand loyalty. Results shows there is a strong negative relationship between satisfaction and brand loyalty and negligible relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty.

In sixth hypothesis, considering brand loyalty as dependent and commitment as well as personality as independent variable, the result shows that there is a weak positive relationship between and commitment and brand loyalty. And weak negative relationship between

247 personality and loyalty. Gourmet can work on its product personality which would result in good brand loyalty.

In seventh hypothesis showing relationship between independent variable congruence and dependent variable satisfaction results shows that there is negligible relationship between variables. Similarly in hypothesis eight the relationship is strong negative among variables between satisfaction and commitment. Also in our last hypothesis the relationship between congruence and commitment is negligible.

The Gourmet Cola is significantly showing a weak or negligible relationship among variables, total respondents of gourmet cola are one hundred and nine only. We have targeted universities, friends and family members for our responses.

5.2 Limitations and Future Line of Research

248

References

A, d., & L, B. (2007). Positioning countries on personality dimensions: scale development and implications for country marketing. Journal of Business Research, 231–9.

Aaker, & J.L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347.

Aaker, & J.L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, N°3, 347-356.

Aaker, & J.L. (2009, July 01). The Impacts of Brand Personality and Congruity on Purchase Intention:. Journal of Global Marketing, 201-202.

Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York: The Free press.

Aaker, D. (1996). Building. New york.

Aaker, D. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. London: The Free Press.

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building Strong Brands. Building Strong Brands.

Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, N.3 , 347-356.

Aaker, J. (1997, August 1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality . Journal of Marketing Research, XXXIV, 347-356.

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

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 347-356.

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), 347-356.

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34(No. 3), 347- 356.

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34(No. 3), pp. 347-356.

Aaker, J. L. (1997, August). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Marketing Research, Vol. 34, No. 3 , 347- 357.

Aaker, J. L. (1997, August). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347- 356.

249

Aaker, J. L. (1997, August). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347- 356.

Aaker, J. L., Benet-Martinez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture: A Study of Japanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructs. Journal o/Personality & Social Psychology, 81 (3), 492-508.

Aaker, J., & Fournier, S. (1995). A brand as a character, a partner and a person: Three perspectives on the question of brand. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, 391.

Aaker, J., & 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, 22 (1), 391-395.

Aaker, J., Benet-Martinez, & V, G. J. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: a study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. J Pers Soc Psychology, 492–508.

Aaker, J.S.Fournier, & S.A.Brasel. (2004). When Good Brands do Bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 1- 16.

Aasel, H. (1987). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action 3rd Edition. Boston: PWS:Kent.

Achouri, M. A., & Bouslama, N. (2010). The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumer’s Satisfaction and Loyalty. IBMA Business Review, 16.

Agarwal, A., & Siddharth, S. (2010). Retaining Brand Loyalty. Copperbridge Media.

Ahluwalia, R. (2000, September). Examination of Psychological Processes Underlying resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 217-232.

Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000, May). Consumer Responce to negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, XXXVII , 203-214.

Ahluwalia, R., Unnava, H. R., & Robert E, B. (2001, November). The Moderating Role of Commitment On the Spillover Effect of Marketing Communications. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 458-470.

Ahouri, M. A., & Bouslama, N. (2010). The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self- Image on Consumer’s Satisfaction and Loyalty. IBMA Business Review, 16.

Al., K. e. (1992). In K. e. Al..

Aleman, B. a. (2001). In B. a. Aleman.

Alexandrov, & Alexei. (2011). Should You Sell Pepsi and Coke in the Same Aisle? Should You Sell Pepsi and Coke in the Same Aisle?, 14.

Alexandrov, A. (2011, July). Should You Sell Pepsi and Coke in the Same Aisle? Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, pg.14.

Algesheime, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005, July). The Social Influence of Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 19-34.

250

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization. Journal of Occupational Psychological Society, 1- 18.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization. Journal of Occupational Psychological Society, 1- 18.

Allport, G. (1935). Atitudes. Handbook of social psychology, 798-884.

Allport, G., & Odbert, H. (1936). A Psycholexical Study in: Psychological Monographs (Vol. 47).

Alt, M., & Griggs, S. (1988). Can a Brand be Cheecky? Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 4, no. 6, 9-16.

Ambler, T. (1997). Do Brands Benefit Consumers? International Journal of Advertising, 167-98.

Ambroise, L., & Valette-Florence, P. (2010). Métaphore de la personnalité de la marque et stabilitéinter- produits d'un baromètrespécifique. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 3-29.

Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., & Florence, P. V. (2004). How well does brand personality predict brand choice? Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research.

Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., & Florence, P. V. (2004). How Well does Brand Personality Predict Brand Choice? Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research.

Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., & Vallette-Florence, P. (2005). How Well Does Brand Personality Predict brand choice. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 30-38.

Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., Valette-Florence, P., & Barnier, V. D. (2005). How Well Does Brand Personality Predict Brand Choice? A Measurement Scale and Analysis Using Binary Regression Models. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 30-38.

251

Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., Valette-Florence, P., & Barnier, V. D. (2005, January). How Well does Brand Personality Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale. Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 30-38.

Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., Vallete, P., & Florence. (2004). How Well does Brand Personality Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale.

Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., Vallete, P., & Florence. (2005). How Well does Brand Personality Predict Brand Choice?A Measurement Scale and Analysis using Binary Regression Models. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 30-38.

Ambroise, L., Sliman, S. B., Barnier, V. D., Ferrandi, J. M., Merunka, D., Roherich, G., & Florence, P. V. (2005). The Impact of Brand Persoanlity on Attitude and Commitment Towards the Brand. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Ambroise, L., Sliman, S. B., Bourgeat, P., Barnier, V. d., Ferrandi, J.-M., Merunka, D., . . . Vallete-Florence, P. (2005). The Impact of Brand Persoanlity on Attitude and Commitment Towards the Brand. 68- 78.

Amine, A.-m. (2011). Consumers' true brand loyalty: the central role of commitment. Journal of strategic management, 305-309.

Anantadjaya, S. P., Walidin, A., Waskita, E. S., & Nawangwulan, I. M. (2007). Consumer Behavior, Supply chain management and Customer satisfaction: An investigative study in small and medium enterprises. Jakarta: International Seminar on Industrial Engineering and Management.

Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). "The antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for firms". Marketing Science, 125-43.

Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability. Journal Of Marketing, 53-66.

Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of continuity in Conventional Industrial Channel Dyads. Marketing Sciences, 310-23.

Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1992). The Use of Pledges to build and Sustain Commitment in Distribution Channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 18-34.

Anderson, N. (1968). Likableness Ratings of 555 Personality-Trait Words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, no. 3, 272-279.

Anon. (2014, March 9). Brand personality theory and practice. Retrieved from http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp?id=166033

Asch, S. (1952). Social psychology. Social psychology.

Attri, R., pahwa, D. M., & Urkude, D. A. (2012). Loyalty and customer satisfaction with the public sector oil marketing companies: way forward for effective CRM strategies. Indore Management Journal, 99-113.

252

Austin, J. R., Siguaw, J. A., & Mattila, A. S. (2003). A Re-examination of the Generalizability of the Aaker Brand Personality Measurement Framework. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11 (2), 77-92.

Awan, & Hassnain, A. u. (2013, May 20). Gourmet. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/ataulhassnain/marketing-revised-21543470

Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J. N. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality? Brand Managment, 143−155.

Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J.-N. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality? Brand Management, 143−155.

Azoulay, Audrey, & Kapferer, J.-N. (2003). "Do Brand Personality Scales Really Measure Brand Personality? Journal of Brand Management, 11 (2), 143-155.

Ballantyne. (2006). The evolution of brand choice. Journal of Brand Management, 339-352.

Bansal, H. S., Irving, P. G., & Taylor, S. F. (2004). A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service Providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 234–250.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). "The Moderator:Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1173–1182.

Basrawi, R. (2009). The influence of brands competitive advantage of consumer loyalty. United kingdom: Brunel Business School.

Basrawi, R. (2009). The influence of Brands competitive advantage on the consumer loyalty: A study in the UK's cosmetic and toiletries market. United Kingdom.

Batra, & al, e. (1993). Personality. New York.

Batra, R., Lehmann, D., & Singh, D. (1993). The Brand Personality Component of Brand Goodwill: Some Antecedents and Consequences.

Bauer, H. (2000). The Value of the Brand. Mannheim : Institute for Marketing, University Mannheim.

Bauer, H., & Huber, F. (1997). valued Brands. Mannheim: Institue of Marketing.

Bauer, R. (1960). Consumer Behavior as risk taking.

Beatty, S. E., Homer, P., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). The Involvement-Commitment Model: Theory and Implications. Journal of Business Research, 16(2), 149-167.

253

Behi, Belaid, S., & Temessek, A. (2010). The role of attachment in building consumer brand relationships: an empirical investigation in utilitarian consumption context. Encole de Management de Normandie Research paper, 9-10.

Belch, B. a. (2004). 113.

Beldona, S., & Wysong, S. (2007). Putting the "brand" back into store brands: an exploratory examination of store brands and brand personality. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16 (4), 226-235.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139-168.

Belk, R. W. (1988, September). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139-168.

Belk, R. W., Bahn, K. D., & Mayer, R. N. (1982). Developmental recognition of consumption symbolism. Journal of Consumer research, 9(1), 4–17.

Belk, R., Kenneth, D. B., & Mayer, R. N. (1982). Developmental recognition of consumption symbolism. Journal of Consumer research, 9(1), 4–17.

Bettman, J. R. (1973). Perceived Risk and its components: A model and Empirical risk. Journal of marketing research.

Betty, S. E., Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. (1988). The involvement commitment model : Theory and implications. Journal of business research.

Biel, A. (1993). Converting image into equity, Brand equity and Advertising. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbrum Associates.

Biel, A. (1993). Coverting image to equity in brand equity and Advertising . Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 67-82.

Biel, A. L. (1991). Converting Image to Equity. (D. &. Aaker, Ed.) Hillsdale: NTC Publications Ltd.

Bitner, M. J. (1994). Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus quality. Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus quality., 72-94.

Blackwell, R. .., Miniard, P. .., & Engel, J. .. (2001). ‘ Consumer Behavior (9th ed.). Harcourt,Fort Worth.

Bloemer, J. M., & Kasper, H. D. (1994). The Impact of Satisfaction on Brand Loyalty: Urging on classifying Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 152-159.

Bosnjak, M., Bochmann, V., & Hufschmidt, T. (2007). Dimensions of brand personality attributions: a personcentric approach in the German cultural context. Social Behavior and Personality, 303– 316.

Bosque, I. R., & Martin, H. S. (2008). Tourist satisfaction a cognitive affective model. Annals of Tourism Research, 551–573.

254

Bouhlel, O., Mzoughi, N., Hadiji, D., & Slimane, I. B. (2009). Brand Personality and Mobile Marketing:An Empirical Investigation. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 703-710.

Bouhlel, O., Mzoughi, N., Hadiji, D., & Slimane, I. B. (2011). Brand Personality’s Influence on the Purchase Intention: A Mobile Marketing Case. International Journal of Business and Management, 210-218.

Bouslama, ACHOURI, M. A., & Neji. (2004). The effect of the Congruenece between Brand Personality an Self Image on Consumer's Satisfaction and Loyalty: A Conceptual Framework. IBIMA Business Review, 1-16.

Bouslama, Achouri, M. A., & Neji. (2010). "The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image on Consumer’s Satisfaction and Loyalty". IBMA Business Review, 16.

Bulgarella, C. C. (2005). Employee Satisfaction and customer satisfaction. Guide Star research, 6.

Business Wire. (June 29, 2007. - March 8, 2010). Pakistan Food & Drink Report, 2007.

Byrne, D. E. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. (1973). Interpersonal attraction. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, 317-336.

C.Whan, P. &. (1977). students and Housewives. students and Housewives:, 102-210.

Cant. (2003). Research Methodology. 48.

Capon, N., & Burke, M. (1980). Individual, Product class and task-related factors in consumer information processing. Journal of consmer research.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Guido, G. (2001). Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit? Journal of Economic Psychology, 377−395.

Carman, M. J. (1970). Correlates of brand loyalty: Some positive results. Journal of marketing research, 67.

Cater, B., & Zabkar, V. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of commitment in marketing research services: The client's perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 785–797.

CCBPL. (2014, 1 24). Linkedin. Retrieved from http://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/10693944

Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance. Journal of Marketing, 81-93.

Coca Cola. (2014). Coke Rozee.pk. Retrieved 2014, from Rozee.pk: http://coke.rozee.pk/content.php?ulid=14107-coca-cola-about-us

Consumer Report Magazines. (2012, Aug). Consumer Report Magazines. Retrieved from http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/08/claim-check-is-pepsi-next-the-next- big-thing-in-sodas/index.htm

255

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2002). Business Research Methods. New Delhi: McGraw Hill Education India Pvt. Ltd.

Cooper, D. R., Schindler, P. S., & Sharma, J. K. (2002). Business Research Methods (11th ed.). New Delhi: McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method (2nd ed.). California, California, USA: SAGE Publications.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Research Design in Qualitative/Quantitative/Mixed Methods.

Curran, J., & Blackburn, R. (2001). Researching the small enterprise. U.K: Sage Publications.

D., Z. S. (2003). "Du soi au groupe : naissance du concept de nous et exploration d’une échelle de mesure de nous idéal". Recherches et applications en Marketing,, 3-22. d’Astous A., I. S. (2002). Conception et test d’une échelle de mesure de la personnalité des magasins. Actes du XVIIIème Congrès International de l’Association Française de Marketing, 23-24, 115- 130.

Derbaix, C. (1983). Perceived risk and risk relievers: An empirical investigation. Journal of economic psychology.

Despite lead, Pepsi aims for bigger piece of the cake. (2012). Expree tribune.

Dick, A. &. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework., 99-113.

Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Cusomer loyalty Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 99-113.

Dolich, I. J. (1969). Congruence relationships between selfimages and product brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 6, 80-84.

Domizlaff. (1939). '22 Basic Laws of Natural Branding'. Harper Business .

Domizlaff. (1939). Translated from German: Die 22 Gesetze der naturlichen Markenbildung ". Germany.

Dornoff, R. J., & Tatham, R. L. (1972). Congruence between personal image and store image. Journal of Market Research Society, 14, 45-52.

E., V. (2003). " Personnalité de la marque et image de soi". 1-21.

Echambadi, R. (2000). Customer Retention: AnIntegrative Model and Empirical Test.

Edmund. (2013). 248.

Einwiller, S. A., Fedorikhin, A., Johnson, A. R., & Kamins, M. A. (2006). Enough Is Enough! When Identification No Longer Prevents Negative Corporate Associations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 185–194.

Engel, J. a. (1982). Consumer Behavior (4 ed.). Chicago: Dryden Press.

256

Equities, F. C. (February 07, 2010. - March 9, 2010.). First Capital Equities Ltd. Daily Times Leading New Resource to Pakistan Unilever.

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers' connections to brands. Journal of consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 339-348.

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Introduction to Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning. Journal of consumer Research, 32, 378-389.

Etzioni, A. (1961). A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press.

Eysenck, H. J. (1970). The Structure of Human Personality. (3. R. edition, Ed.) Methuen: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Farhat, R., & Khan, D. B. (2011). Importance of Brand Personality To Customer Loyalty: A Conceptual Study. New Media and Mass Communication, 1, 4-10.

Farquhar, P. H. (1990). Managing Brand Equity. Journal of Advertising Research, 7-11.

Fennis, B. M., Pruyn, A. T., & Maasland, M. (2005). Revisiting the malleable self: Brand effects on consumer self-perceptions of personality traits. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 371–377.

Ferrandi, J. M., Fine-Falcy, S., & Valette-Florence, P. (2000). Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale in a French Context: A Replication and a Preliminary Test of its Validity. Academy of Marketing Science Conference, 7-13.

Ferrell, J. a. (1988). "Dynamic Competition with switching cost". "Dynamic Competition with switching cost", 123–37.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison process. Human Relations, 117-140.

Fields, G. (1984). Why is there only One Baseball Team in Japan Worthy of Note? -The Marketing/Advertising, 21-23.

Fisseni, H.-J. (1998). Personality Psychology- In search of a Science. (4. revised, Ed.) Gottingen.

Forbes, T. H. (2005). An empirical analysis of the Brand Perosnality Effect. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(7), 404-413.

Forbes, T. H. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. Journal of Product & Brand Management-volume 14, 404-413.

Fornell, C. (1992). A National Customer Satisfaction barometer. Journal of Marketing, 6-21.

Fournier. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Marketing Research, 34, 347-357.

Fournier, S., & Yao, J. (1997). Reviving Brand Loyalty: A Reconceptualization within the Framework of Consumer-Brand Relationships. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 451-472. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(97)00021-9

Fournier, S., Dobscha, S., & Mick, D. G. (1998). Preventing the premature death of relationship marketing. Harvard Business Review, 42-51.

257

Freling, T. H., & Forbes, L. P. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(7), 404–413.

Friend, C. (2010, January 28). 5 dimensions of Brand Personality. Retrieved from http://www.fuelyourbranding.com/the-5-dimensions-of-brand-personality/

Fullerton. (2003). pp. 333-344 .

Fullerton, G. (2003). When does commitment lead to loyalty? Journal of Service Research, 333-344.

G, M., & Vergne, J. (2004). Comment expliquer l’attachement aux e-marques : applications aux Sites de Ventes en Ligne ? Actes du XXème Congrès de l’Association Française de Marketing.

Galan, J. P. (2007). Propositions d'une'echelle de mesure de la congruence entre la musique et le concept de soi . Actes du XXIIIeme Congres International de 1'AFM, Aix-les-Bains.

Gardner, B. B., & Sidney Levy, J. (1955). The Product and the Brand. Harvard Business Review, 33-39.

Gardner, J. L. (1979). Components of involvement.

Gardner, L. J. (1979). Components of involovement.

Garland, R., & Gendall, P. (2004). Testing Dick and Basu’s customer loyalty model. Australasian Marketing Journal, 81-87.

Geyer, P. D. (1991). Predicting Brand Commitment. Mid Atlantic Journal of business, 129-138.

Ghodeswar, & Bhimrao. (2008). Product and Brand Management. Building Brand Identity in Competitive Markets: A Conceptual Model, 17.

Gilliland, D. &. (2002). The two sides of attitudinal commitment: The effect of calculative and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distribution channels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24-43.

Gillmore, G. W. (1919). Annimism. Boston.

Goodell, Martin, C. L., & N, P. (1991). Historical, Descriptive and strategic perspectives on the construct of product commitment. Europan journal of marketing.

Goodman, P. S., Fichman, M., Lerch, F. J., & Snyder, P. R. (1995). Customer-Firm Relationships, involvement and Customer Satisfaction. Academy of management Journal, 3.

Gourmet. (2003-2014). Gourmet Cola Marketing Plan Marketing Essay. Retrieved from UKEssays.com: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/marketing/gourmet-cola-marketing-plan-marketing- essay.php#ixzz2vkNu4E85

Gourmet. (2013, May 20). Gourmet. (Awan, & A. u. Hassnain, Editors) Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/ataulhassnain/marketing-revised-21543470

Gourmet. (2013). Gourmet Sweets and Bakers. Retrieved from http://gourmetpakistan.com/archives/61

Gourmet Foods - Pakistan. (2012). Retrieved from Pak Reviews: http://www.pakreviews.com/restaurants-cafes/gourmet-foods-pakistan#

258

Gourmet Pakistan. (2013). Gourmet Pakistan. Retrieved from Gourmet: http://gourmetpakistan.com/archives/61

Gouteron, S., & Szpiro, D. (2005). Excès de liquidité monétaire et prix des actifs. Banque de France Working Paper, 185-201.

Govers P. C. M., S. F. (2009, july 01). The Impacts of Brand Personality and Congruity on Purchase Intention:. Journal of Global Marketing, 201-202.

Govers, P. C., & Schoormans, F. P. (2005). Product, Personality and its Influence on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4/5), 189–197.

Govers, P., & Schoormans, J. (2005). Product Personality abd its influence on Consumer Preference. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22, no 4 , 189-197.

Grubb, E. L., & Grathwohl, H. L. (1967, October). Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behavior : A theoretical approach. Journal of Marketing, 31, 22.

Grubb, E. L., & Stern, B. L. (1971). Self-concept and significant others. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 382-385.

Guildford. (1959). Personality. New York.

Gul, M. S., Jan, D. F., Baloch, D. Q., Jan, M. F., & Jan, M. F. (2012). Brand Image and Brand Loyalty. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, 3, 55-73.

Gundlach, G. T. (1995). The Structure of Commitment in Exchange. Journal of Marketing, 221-233.

Guo, L.-J. (2003). The Effects of Personality Trait and Brand Personality on Brand Preference. Chicago: National Chiao Tung University.

Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. D., & IngerRoos. (2005, October). Journal of Marketing. The effects of Customer satisfaction relationship commitment, dimensions and triggers on customer retention, 69.

Gustavsson, S. (2005). Customer Loyalty.

Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship. The role of Image Transfer. Journal of Advertising, 38(4), 47–57.

H., F. T., & P., F. L. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 404-413. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420510633350

Haeckel, L. P., & H, S. (1994). Engineering customer experiences. Marketing Management, 3, 9-19.

Halim, R. E. (2006). The Effect of relationship of Brand Trust and Brand affect on the Brand Performance: An analysis from Brand Loyalty Perspective (A case of coffee instant product in Indonesia). working paper.

259

Hallowell, R. (1996). The Relationships of Customer Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty, and Profitability: An empirical study. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 27-42.

Hamm, B. C., & Cundiff, E. W. (1969, November). Self-actualization and product perception. Journal of Marketing Research, 6, 470-472.

Hansen, H., & Hem, L. E. (2004). Brand Extension Evaluations: Effects of Affective Commitment, Involvement, Price Consciousness and Preference for Bunding in the Extension Category. Advances in Customer Research, 375-381.

Hansen, H., Sandvik, K., & FredSelnes. (2002). When Customers Develop Commitment to the Service Employee: Exploring the Direct and Indirect Effects on the Propensity to Stay. Advances in Consumer Research, 494-495.

Harrison-Walker, J. (2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 60-75.

Hauser, J. R., Simester, D. I., & Werfelt, B. (1994). Customer Satisfaction Incentives. Marketing Sciences, 327-50.

Hausman, A. (2004). Modeling the Patient-Physician Service Encounter: Improving the Patient Outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(4), 403-417.

Hawkings. (2001). 285.

Hayduk, L. A. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, Essentials and Advances. JHU Press.

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. new york : John Wiley and Sons.

Heironimus, F. (2003). Personality-Directed Brand Management- An empirical study on the measurement, perception and impact of brand personality . In F. a. Peter Lang.

Helgeson, J. G., & Supphellen, M. (2004). A conceptual and measurement comparison of self-congruity and brand personality. International Journal of Market Research,, 205−233.

Hess, J. (1995). Construction and assessment of a scale to measure consumer Trust. Conference AMA Educators’ Enhancing Knowledge development in Marketing, Editions B.B. Stern et G.M. Zinkhan, 20-25.

Heyman, l. h. (2009). Digital Engagement. Digital Engagement, 196.

Hieronimus, F. (2003). Personality- Directed Brand Management- Perception and Impact of Brand Personality. Peter Lang, Frankurt am Main.

Holbrook, C. (2001). Brand Equity, Brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction.

Homborg, C., & Giering, A. (2001). ‘Personal Characteristics as Moderators of the Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Empirical Analysis. Psychology and Marketing, 43-66.

260

Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Hoyer, W. D. (2009, March). Social Identity and the Service–Profit Chain. Journal of Marketing, 73, 38–54.

Horosz, W. (1975). The Crisis of Responsibility: Man as the Source of Accountability. Univ of Oklahoma Pr.

Houghton. (1995). The American Heritage. America: Mifflin Company.

Howard and sheth, L. M. (1969). Brand Personality.

Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. (1972). Personal Role Related Factors in the Development of Organizational Commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 555-572.

Huber, F. H. (1999). "The Antecedents of Customer Loyalty: Results of an Empirical Study in the Automotive Industry". "The Antecedents of Customer Loyalty: Results of an Empirical Study in the Automotive Industry", 69-72.

Hunt, Morgan, R. M., & D., S. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. journal of marketing, 22 38.

Hunt, S. D. (2002). Foundations of marketing theory: toward a general theory of marketing. M E Sharp.

Hupfer, N. T. (1971). Differential Involvment with products and issues: An exploratory study. (pp. Pages 262-270). Illinois: Association for Consumer Research.

Iglesias, O., Sngh, J. J., & Batista-Foguet, J. M. (2011). The role of brand experience and affective commitment in determining brand loyalty. Journal of Brand Management, 570-582.

J.N., A., A., & Kapferer. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality. Brand Management, 11, N°2, 143-155.

Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1996). LISREL Approaches to Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression, Thousand oaks. SAGE Publications.

Jacobson, E., & Kossoff, J. (1963, August). Self-percept and consumer attitudes toward small cars. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 242-245.

Jamal, A., & Goode, M. M. (2001). Consumers and brand:a study of the impact of self image congruence on brand preference and satisfaction. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19, 482-492.

Jetal, T. (2011). Bringing the Best Brand Management to People to Work.

Johar, G. V., Sengupta, J., & Aaker, J. L. (2005). Two Roads to Updating Brand Personality Impressions: Trait Versus Evaluative Inferencing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (4), 458-469.

John. (1988). The Lexical Approach to Personality: A Historical Review of Trait Taxonomic Research. Europe: Europeon Journal of Personality.

Johnson, P. M. (1973). Commitment: A conceptual structure and empirical application. The Sociological Quarterly, 395-406.

Johnspen. (2009). Importance of Brand Congruence.

261

Jones, E. E., Kanhouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., & Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. General Learning Press.

Joshi, A. W. (2009). Continuous Supplier Performance Improvement: Effects of Collaborative Communication and Control. Journal of Marketing, 133–150.

Kaiser, D. H. (2009). Sample Paper for Experimental Psychology . RESEARCH METHODS PAPER, 11.

Kapferer, J. N. (2007). Les marques, Capital de l'entreprise, (Vol. 4th edition). Paris: Eyrolles / Éditions d'Organisation .

Keller. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing costumer based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(2), 1–22.

Keller. (1993). On Congruence between Brand and human Responsibilities. Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 19, 44-53.

Keller, K. (2006). 174.

Keller, K. L. (1993). "Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equit". "Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity", 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing costumer based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(2), 1–22.

Keller, K. L. (1993, Jan.). Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer- Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (1993, Jan.). Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (1993, Jan.). Journal of Marketing. 57(1), 1-22.

Keller, K. l., Parameswaran, & Jacob. (2011). Strategic Brand Management (3rd ed.). Dehli: Pearson.

Keller, K. L., Parameswaran, M. G., & Jacob, I. (2011). Strategic Brand Management. New delhi: Pearson.

Kiesler, C., & Abelson. (1968). Commitment. Theories of cognitive consistency, 448-455.

Klemperer, P. (1995). Competition When Consumers Have Switching Costs: An Overview With Applications to Industrial Organization, Macroeconomics, and International Trade. Review of Economic Studies, 525-24.

Knowles, J. (2004). In Search of a Reliable Measure of Brand Equity. Best of Marketing, 1 & 2, 60-63.

Kotler. (2006). Marketing Management. New Delhi: Pearson.

Kotler, Armstrong, Agnihotri, & Haque. (2010). Princples of Marketing (13 ed.). Chandigarh: Pearson Education inc.

262

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). A framework for marketing management. Prentice Hall.

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). A Framework for Marketing Management (4th ed.). New Delhi: Pearson.

Kressmann, F., & Sirgy, M. J. (2006, June). Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research.

Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., & Lee, D.-J. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59 (9), 955-964.

Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement. Public opinion quarterly.

Kumar et al. (2006). Personality Traits.

Kumar, N., Hibbard, J. D., & Stern, L. W. (1994). The Nature and Consequences of Marketing Channel Intermediary Commitment. 94-115.

Kuppelwieser, V. G., Grefrath, R., & Dziuk, A. (2011). A Classification of Brand Pride Using Trust and Commitment. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2, 36-45.

L., A., J-M., F., & D, V.-F. P. (2003). Première application du baromètre de mesure de la personnalité de la marque à deux enseignes françaises. Actes du 6° Colloque Etienne Thil, 25-26/09, La Rochelle.

Lacoeuilhe, J. (1997). Le rôle du concept d’attachement dans la formation du comportement de fidélité. Revue Française du Marketing, 29-42.

Landon, E. L. (1974). Self concept, ideal self concept, and consumer purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 44-51.

Laure Ambroise, S. B. (2005). The Impact of Brand Persoanlity on Attitude and Commitment Towards the Brand.

Lee, C. T., & Han, S. (1999). Consumer's trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty. Journal of Market- focused management, 342.

Lee, M., & Cunningham, L. F. (2001). A Cost and Benefit Approach to Understanding Service Loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 113-30.

Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sales. Harvard Business Review, 37 , 117-124.

Lin, L.-Y. (2010). The Relationship of Consumer Personality Trait, Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty: An Empirical Study of Toys and Video Games Buyers. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(1), 4-17.

Lin, Y.-T. L., & Hsien, C. (2008). Factors influencing brand loyalty in professional sports fans. Gloal Journal of Business Research, 72.

Lindstrom, M. (2005). Brand Sense. New york: Free Press.

263

Lombart, Louis, D., & Cindy. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences (trust, commitment and attachment) to the brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(2), 114-30.

Lombart, Louis, D., & Cindy. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences (trust, commitment and attachment) to the brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 114-30.

Loudon. (2001). Consumer Behavior: Concepts And Application. New Delhi: McGraw Hill Education.

Louie, B. E. (1990). Effects of retraction of price promotions on brand choice behavior for variety seeking and last purchase loyal consumers. Journal of Marketing research, 27, 279-289.

Louis, D., & Lombart, C. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences (trust, attachment, and commitment to the brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(2), 114-130.

Louis, D., & Lombart, C. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences (trust, commitment and attachment) to the brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(2), 114-30.

Loureiro, S. M. (2006). Consumer Brand Relationship. Foundation and State of Art, 1-20.

Loureiro, S. M. (2006, Sandra Maria CorreiaLoureiro, ISCTE_IUL). Consumer Brand Relationship. foundation and state of art, 413-434.

Loureiro, S. M. (2012). Consumer Brand relationship: foundation and state of art. (H. R. Panni, Ed.) Customer centric marketing strategies: tools for building organizational performance, 413-434.

Low, G. S., & Jr, C. W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand association. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 350 -370.

Luckerath, B. (2010). How brands become people: A study on the impact of brand personality on brand value. MSc Marketing Communications Management, 56-60.

Lutz, E. S.-S. (1989). Intergenerational influences in the formation of consumer attitudes and beliefs about the market place: mothers and daughters. Advances in consumer research, 15, 461-467.

M.J.Sirgy. (1986 ). Using Self Congruity and Ideal congruity to predict purchase Motivation . Journal of Business Research, 195-206.

M.L.Brunel. (1990). "Introduction à la conscience de soi et au concept de soi, tels qu’on les perçoit depuis William James". Revue Québécoise de Psychologie.

M.Resenberg. (1979). Convincing the Self.

Maehle, N., & Shneor. (2009). Congruence between Brand and Human Personalities. Journal of Product and brand Management, Vol, 19, 44-53.

Magin, S., Algesheimer, R., Huber, F., & Herrmann, A. (2003). The Impact of Brand Personality and Customer Satisfaction on Customer’s loyalty. Electronic Markets, 294-308.

264

Maille, F. N. (2010). Trente ans de travaux contradictoires sur l'influence de la congruence perçue par le consommateur: synthèse, limites et voies de recherché. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 25 (4), 69-92.

Malhotra, N. (1988). Self Concept and Product choice: An integrated perspective. Journal of Economic Psychology, 1-28.

Malhotra, N. K. (1981). A scale to measure self concept, person concept and product concept. Marketing research, 456-464.

Malhotra, N. K. (2007). Market Research: An applied Orientation (5th ed.). New Delhi: Pearson Education.

Mandler., G. (1982). Stress and thought processes”, in Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects, (eds.) L. Golberger and S. Breznitz. The Free Press, New-York, 88-104.

Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the Dimensionality and Structure of the Consumption Experiance: Evaluation, Feeling, and Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 451-466.

Mattila, A. S., & Wirtz, J. (2001, April). Congruency of Scent and Music as a driver of in-store Evaluation and Behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77, 273-289.

Mayer, N. J., & P, J. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to organization. Journal of occupational psychology, 1-18.

McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Fundations of the Endorsement Process. Jounal of Consumer Research, 310-319.

McCraken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: Atheoretical account of the structure and movement of cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 13(1), 71–84.

Mengxia, & Zhang. (2007). Impact of Brand Personality on PALI:A Comparative Research between Two Different Brands. International Management Review, 3(3), 36-44.

Mengxia, Z. (2007). Impact of Brand Personality on PALI: a comparative research betweeen two different brands (Vols. 3, no: 3 ). New York: International Management Review .

Merunka, D. (2003). publication of University of Aix en Provence, France.

Moisescu, O. I. (2006). A Conceptual Analysis of Brand Loyalty As Core Dimension of Brand Equity. Competitiveness and Stability in the Knowledge-Based Economy No. International conference proceedings, 1128-1136.

Montgomery, G. K., & B., D. (1987). ROUTINIZED CHOICE BEHAVIOR, BRAND COMMITMENT,.

Morgan, R. &. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 20- 38.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. journal of Marketing.

265

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. journal of Marketing.

Mostert. (2002). 89.

Mowday, R. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 224–247.

M'Sallem, W., Mzoughi, N., & Bouhlel, O. (2009). Customers' Evolution after a Bank renaming: Effects of Brand name change on Brand Personality, Brand Attitude and Customer; Satisfaction. Innovative Marketing, 58-65.

Muncy, J. A. (1996). Measuring perceived brand parity. Advances in Consumer research, 23, 411-7.

Nabeel. (2009, August 19). Eat 'n Travel in Pakistan. Retrieved from Gourmet Soft Drinks Review: http://eatntravel.pk/2009/08/19/gourmet-soft-drinks-review/comment-page-1/

Naeem, A. (2003). Reflection {Report}. Daily Report.

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyaltt, e. (2011). Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and Consumer Satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 1009-1030.

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyaltt, G. (2011). Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and Consumer Satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 1009-1030.

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G. (2011). Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 38, 1009-1030.

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G. (2011). Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and Customer Satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Reseach, 1009-1030.

Nawaz, N.-U.-A. (2011). What Makes Customers Brand Loyal: A Study on Telecommunication Sector of Pakistan. Hailey College of Commerce University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.

New Media and Mass Communication . (2011). Retrieved from ISSN 2224-3267 : www.isste.org

Nobre, H. M., Becker, K., & Brito, C. (2010). Brand Relationships: A Personality-Based Approach. Jornal of Service Science & Management, 3, 206-217.

Nobre, H. M., Becker, K., & Brito, C. (2010). Brand Relationships: Personality-Based. Journal of Service Science & Management, 3, 206-217.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of internalization on prosocial behavior’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499.

O'Callaghan, E. (2009). Internal Branding and Brand Commitment: a. Dublin Institute of Technology.

266

Okazaki, S. (2006). Excitement or sophistication? A preliminary exploration of online brand personality. International Marketing Review, 23 (3), 279-303.

Olive, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-34.

Oliver. (1993). Cognitive, affective and attribute bases of the satisfaction responses. Cognitive, affective and attribute bases of the satisfaction responses.

Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, Affective and attribute Bases of the Satisfaction Response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 418-430.

Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-34.

Oliver, R. L. (2010). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. M.E.Sharpe.

Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989b). Equity and Disconfirmation Perception as Influences on Merchant and Product Satisfaction. Journal Of Consumer Research, 16(3), 372-383.

Oliver, R. L., Rust, R. T., & Varki, S. (1997). Customer Delight: Foundations, Findings, and Managerial Insight. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 311-336.

Ombudsman. (2012). Customer Satisfaction Research. 12.

Osman, D. M., & Amber. (2010). A study on the association between brand awareness and consumer/ brand loyalty for the packaged milk industry in pakistan. South Asian Journal of Management Sciences, 5, 5.

Özsomer A, L. A. (2007). The structure of the brand personality construct and its impact on brand purchase likelihood. EMAC Conference.

Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. P. (1977). Students and Housewives: Differences in Susceptibility to Reference Group Infiuence. Journal of Consumer Research, 210.

Park, J., & John, D. R. (2010). Got to get you in to my life: Do brand personalities rub off on consumers? Journal of Consumer Research,, 655–669.

Park, M. &. (2006). 191-230.

Parker, B. T. (2009). A comparison of brand personality and brand user-imagery congruence. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26, 175-184.

Patel, V. (2009). MEASURING BRAND PERSONALITY: AN EMPERICAL STUDY. PRERNA: JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT THOUGHT AND PRACTISE, 1(2), 59-67.

Patel, V. (2009). Measuring Brand Personality: An Empirical Study. JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT THOUGHT AND PRACTISE, 1(2), 59-67.

267

PBL. (2012, Aug). Consumer Report Magazines. Retrieved from http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/08/claim-check-is-pepsi-next-the-next- big-thing-in-sodas/index.htm

PBL. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.pakbev.com

PBL. (2014). Pakitsan Beverage limited. Retrieved from PBL: http://pakbev.com/

Pepsi Cola. (2014). Retrieved from www.pepsicola.com

Pervin, L. C. (2005). Theories of Personality. Pervin.

Phau, l., & Kong Lau, C. (2001). Brand Personality and Consumer Self-expression: Single or Dual Carriageway? Journal of Brand Management, 8 (6), 428-444.

Philip, K. (2009). In K. Philip, marketing management.

Plavini, P. (2011). Brand Personality affects Products with different Involvement Levels? European Journal of Business and Management, 3, ISSN 2222-1905. Retrieved from http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/EJBM/article/view/165

Plummer, J. T. (1985). How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising research, 27-31.

Polesz, Bloemer, J. M., & C, T. B. (1989). The illusion of consumer Satisfaction. CS/D & CB, 2, 2-3.

Porter, Steers, L. W., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational Commitment, Job- Satisfaction, and Turnover Among Psychiatric Technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 603- 609.

Price, L. L. (1999). Commercial Friendships: Service Provider--Client Relationships in Context. Journal of Marketing, 38–56.

Pring. (2007). Going Underground: How ethnography helped the tube tunnel to the heart of its brand. International Journal Of Market Research , 693-705.

Punyatoya, P. (2011). How Brand Personality affects Products with different Involvement Levels? European Journal of Business and Management, 3(2), 1-8.

R.W, B. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Jounal of consumer Reserach, 139-168.

RajaGopa. (2006). Brand excellence: measuring the impact of advertising and brand personality on buying decision. Measuring Brand Excellence, 56-65.

Rajagopal, D. (2008). Interdepnedence of persoanlity traits and brand identity in measuring brand performance.

Rekha Attri, D. M. (2012). Loyalty and customer satisfaction with the public sector oil marketing companies: way forward for effective CRM strategies. Indore Management Journal, 99-113.

Report on Coca Cola. (2009, November). Retrieved from http://download- reports.blogspot.com/2009/11/coca-cola.html

268

Report, D. (2011, August). Retrieved from Coca Cola Internship Report: http://download- reports.blogspot.com/2011/08/coca-cola-internship-report.html

Reynolds, R. W., & E., K. (2004). A MODEL FOR CONSUMER DEVOTION: AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT WITH PROACTIVE SUSTAINING BEHAVIORS. A Model for Consumer Devotion, 5.

Reynolds, T. (1998). Implications for Value Research: A Macro vs. Micro Perspective. Psychology, Marketing and Values, 2(4), 297–305.

Rice, J. H. (2001). Commitment-led marketing. BRAND MANAGEMENT, 9, 71–77.

Rice, J. H., & Butch. (2001). Commitment-led marketing. BRAND MANAGEMENT, 71–77.

Richins, Bolch, P. H., & L, M. (1983). A theoretical model for the study of product importance perceptions. Journal of marketing.

Richins, P. H. (1983). A theoretical Model for the study of product importance perceptions . Journal of Marketing .

Rieger, B. (1985). Condemned to death from birth: Brands without personality. MSc Marketing Communications Management, 47, 56-60.

Ries, R. a. (2000). 26.

Río, A. B., Vázquez, R., & Víctor Iglesias. (2001). The effects of brand associations on consumer response. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 410–425.

Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (Vol. 2nd). U.K: Blackwell Publishing.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Concieving the self. New York: Basic Books.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis. (3, Ed.) McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Russel-Bennet, R., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Coote, L. V. (2007). Involvement, satisfaction, and brand loyaltyin a small business services setting. Journal of Business Research, 1253-1260.

Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, & Rundle- Thiele, S. (2004). Examining te Satisfaction- Loyalty Relationship. Journal of service Marketing, 514-523.

Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, & Rundle- Thiele, S. (2004). Examining the Satisfaction- Loyalty Relationship. Journal of Servics Marketing, 514-523.

Rust, R. T., & Zahorik, A. J. (1993). Customer satisfaction,Customer Retention, and Market Share. Journal of Retailing, 193-215.

Ryan, J. P., & J, M. (1976). An investigation of perceived risk at the brand level. Journal of marketing research.

S., F., Dobscha, S., & Mick, D. G. (1998). Preventing the premature death of relationship marketing. Harvard Business Review, 42-51.

269

Sahim, A., Kitapica, H., & Zehir, C. (2013). Creating Commitment, trust and satisfaction for a brand: What is the role of switching cost in mobile phone market. Turkey: Elseveir Ltd.

Sahin, A., Zehir, C., & Kitapci, H. (2011). An Empirical Research on Global Brands. Turkey: Elsevier Ltd.

Sahin, A., Zehir, C., & Kitapci, H. (2011). The effects of brand experiences, trust and satisfaction on building brand loyalty: An emperical research on global brands. Turkey: Elsevier Ltd.

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Makers: A brief version of goldbergs unipolar big five markers. Journal of personality Assesment, 506-516.

Saunders, M., & Lewis, P. (2011). Research Method for Business Students. New Delhi: Paerson.

Schiffman, L. G. (2009). Consumer Behavior. In L. G. Schiffman, Consumer Behavior (10th Edition ed., pp. 12-13). Pearson.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries:Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Advances in experimental social psychology, 1−65.

Seong- Yeon Park, E. M. (2005). Congruence Between Brand Personality and Self-Image, and the Mediating Roles of Satisfaction and Consumer-Brand Relationship on Brand Loyalty. Asia Pacific advances in consumer research, 39-45.

Shergill, G. &. (2005). Internet banking-an empirical investigation of a trust and loyalty model for New Zealand banks. Journal of Internet Commerce, 101-118.

Shuv-Ami, D. A. (2011). A New Brand Commitment Scale for Market Segmentation. The College of Management.

Silverman, M. a. (1979). Attitude research plays for high stakes. Chicago: American marketing association.

Sirgy, J. (1982). Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior:. A critical Review. Journal of consumer Research , 287-300.

Sirgy, M. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. . Journal of consumer research., 287-300.

Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of consumer research, 9, 287-300.

Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A critical Review. Journal of consumer Research, 287-300.

Sirgy, M. J., & kressmann, F. (2006, June). Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research.

270

Sirgy, M. J., & Su, C. (2000). Destination image Self congruity and travel behavior:Toward an integrative model. Journal of Travel Research, 340-352.

Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J.-O., Chon, K.-S., Claiborne, C. B., . . . Berkman, H. (1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring selfimage congruence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (3), 229-241.

Solomon, M. R. (2012). Consumer Behavior. New Delhi: Pearson.

Solomon, M. R. (2012). Consumer Behaviour (9th ed.). New Delhi: Pearson.

Solomon, M. R. (2012). Consumer Behaviour (9th ed.). New Delhi: PHI Learning Private LTD.

Spivey, W. A., & Munson, J. M. (2010, July 01). Relation between social class and three aspects of self concept:actual, ideal and egocentric self. Journal of Social Psychology, 85-94.

Stathakopoulas, G. (2004). Brand Equity, Brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction.

Stephanie, M., Algesheimer, R., Huber, F., & Herrmann, A. (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, 13 (4), 294-308.

Stockwell, I. (2008). Introduction to Correlation and Regression Analysis. Statistics and Data Analysis, 1- 8.

Strausbaugh, K. (1998). “Miss Congeniality” or “No more Mr. Nice Guy”?: On a Method for Assessing Brand Personality and Building Brand Personality Profiles, Dissertation. Florida: University of Florida.

Sung, Y., & Tinkham, S. F. (2005). Brand personality structures in the United States and Korea: Common and culture-specific factors. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 334–350.

Sung, Y., & Tinkham, S. F. (2005). Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea: Common and Culture-Specific Factors. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (4), 334-350.

Sung, Y., Kim, J., & Jung, J.-H. (2010). The predictive Roles of Brand Personaity on Brand Trust and Brand Affect. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 22, 5-17.

Sung, Y., Park, E., & Han, M. (2005). The Influences of the Brand Personality on Brand Attachment and Brand Loyalty: Centered on the Differences Between the Brand Community Members and Non- Members", in AP - Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 156.

Supphellen, M., & Grønhaug, K. (2003). Building foreign brand personalities in Russia:The moderating effect of consumer ethnocentrism. International Journal of Advertising, 22, 203-226.

Supphellen, Magne, & Gfonhaug, K. (2003). Building Foreign Brand Personalities in Russia: the Moderating effect of Consumer Ethnocentrism. International Journal of Advertising, 22 (2), 203- 226.

271

Sweeney, J., & Brandon, C. (2006). Brand personality: exploring the potential to move from factor analytical to circumplex models. Psychology and Marketing, 639–663.

T., V., Beverly, Rose, G. M., & Gilbert, F. W. (2003). Measuring the Brand Personality of Non-Profit Organizations. Advances in Consumer Research, 30 (l), 379-380.

Taylor, M. B. (1981). Product involvement and brand commitment. Journal of advertising research, 21.

Taylor, S. A. (1994). "An assessment the Relationship Between Service Quality and Customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers' purchase intentions". "An assessment the Relationship Between Service Quality and Customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers' purchase intentions", 163-78.

The oxford english dictionary. (n.d.).

Thiele, D. R., & Rundle-, S. (2004). Thiele, Dr Rebekah Bennett and Sharyn Rundle-. Journal of service Marketing, 514-523.

Tirmizi, F. (2012, November 10). Why Coca cola is investing another $248 million in Pakistan. The Express Tribune.

Tolliver, D. S. (2004). Cheif of New York-new jersey transit system. Cheif of New York-new jersey transit system., 22-30.

Touzani, M. (2009). Brand Loyalty: Impact of Cognitive and Affective. Marketing Department, University of Tunis.

Triplett, T. (1994). Brand Personality Must be Managed or it will Assume a Life of its Own. Marketing News, 28 (l0), 9-9.

Trott, S. (2011). The Influnece of Brand Personality-Evidence from India. Globa Journal of Business Research, 5(3), 79-83.

Tudorica, H. O. (2001, Februray 2). Brand Personality Creation through Advertising. MAXX WORKING PAPER SERIES.

Tudorica, Ouwersloot, H., & Anamaria. (2001, Februray 2). Brand Personality Creation through Advertising. MAXX WORKING PAPER SERIES.

Valette-Florence, A., & Barnier, V. (2012). Towards a micro conception of brand personality:An application for print media brands in a French context. Journal of Business Research, 897-903.

Vázquez, R. I., & Álvarez-gonzález, L. I. (2005). Distribution Channel Relationships: The Conditions and Strategic Outcomes of Cooperation between Manufacturer and Distributor. International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, 386-402.

Vazquez, R., Del Rio, A. B., & Iglesias, V. (2002). Consumer-based brand equity:Development and validation of a measurement instrument. Journal of Marketing Management, 27–48.

272

Veloutsou, C. G. (2005). Measuring transaction-specific satisfaction in services: Are the measures transferable across cultures? Measuring transaction-specific satisfaction in services: Are the measures transferable across cultures?, 606–628.

Venable, B. T., Rose, G. M., Bush, V. D., & Gilbert, F. (2005). The role of brand personality and charitable giving: An assessment and validation. (33, Ed.) Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 295−312.

Verhoef, P. (2003). Understanding the effect of relationship management efforts on customer retention and customer . Journal of Marketing, 30-45.

Vernette, E. (2003). Personnalite' de la marquet image de soi. Les tendances du marketing, 1-21.

Vernette, E. (2008). Les atouts et les pieges de la personnalite de la marque. Decisions marketing, 24.

Viot, & C. (2006). Personnalité de la marque:la métaphore justifie-elle la transposition d’échelles de personnalité humaine ? 5th International congres « Marketing Trends »,Venise.

Vitz, P. C., & Johnston, D. (1965, June). Masculinity of smokers and the masculinity of cigarette images. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 155-159.

Wang, X., & Yang, Z. (2008). Does country-of-origin matter in the relationship between brand personality and purchase intention in emerging economies? Evidence fromChina’s auto industry. International Marketing Review, 25(4), 458–474.

Wee, T. T. (2004). Extending human personality to brands: the stability factor. Journal of Brand Management,, 317–30.

Weis, M. a. (2000). The Value of Brand Personalitites: The Phenomenon of the Strategic Positioning of Brands.

Weiss, A. M., & Anderson, E. (1992). Converting from Independent to Employee Salesforces: the role percieved switching cost. Joumal of Marketing Research, 101-15.

Wells, W., Andriuli, F., Goi, F. J., & Seaders, S. (1957). An Adjective check list for the Study of "Product Personality". Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, no. 5, 317-319.

Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1981). Developing Better Measures of Consumer Satisfaction: Some preliminary Results. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 94-99.

Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1991). The Dimensionality of Consumption Emotion Patterns and Consumer Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 84-91.

Wester. (2005). Congruence between Brand Personality and Self Image, and the Mediating roles of Satisfaction and Consumer Brand relationship on Brand Loyality. 6, 39-45.

Wieselquist, J. C. (1999). Commitment, Pro-Relation-ship Behavior, and Trust in Close Relationships . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 942-966.

Wilson, D. T., & Mummalaneni, V. (1986). Bonding and Commitment in Buyer—Seller Relationships, A Preliminary Conceptualization. Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, 44-58.

273

Wilson, D., & Mummalaneni, V. (1987). Bonding and commitment in buyer-seller relationships: A preliminary conceptualization. Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, 44-58.

Wirtz, B. W. (1999). ‘Convergence Processes, Value Constellations and Integration Strategies in the Multimedia Business. ‘Convergence Processes, Value Constellations and Integration Strategies in the Multimedia Business.

Wolﬁnbarger, M., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). eTailQ: Dimensionalizing, Measuring and Predicting eTail Quality. Journal of Retailing, 79, 183-198.

Wood, L. (2000). Brands and Brand Equity: Definition and management. Management Decisions, 662- 669.

Woodside, A. G. (1989). "Linking Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and behavioural intention". "Linking Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and behavioural intention", 5-18.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study Research: Design and Method (3rd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

Yoffie, D. R. (2007). Cola Wars Continue: Cock and Pepsi in 2006. United States: Harvard Business School.

Zaltman, & Moorman. (1992). The Dynamic of trust within and between Organization.

Zaltman, M. a. (1992).

Zeplin, C. B., & Sabrina. (2005). Building brand commitment: A behavioural approach to internal brand management. BRAND MANAGEMENT, 12, 279–300.

Zinkhan, G. M., & Hong, J. W. (1991, January). Self-concept and advertising effectiveness. A conceptual model of congruency, conspicuousness, and response mode. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 348-354.

274

Appendix

AppendixA: Questionnaire

FAST School of Management Sciences

Dear respondents, we are the students of FAST School of Management working on a comparative study on Brand Personality of cola industry in Pakistan. Your respectable response will be highly appreciated.

1. Gender Male Female

2. Age 18 to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55

3. ProfessionsStudent Business Professional

Housewife Labor/worker

Others

4. Which brand do you prefer the most?

Pepsi Cola Coca Cola Gourmet Cola

5. Please rank the following according to your opinion about the preferred brand:

Niether Strongly Partially Agree Partially Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree nor Agree Agree Disagree 1 The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of a person I would like to be 2 I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand 3 I would like to be known as a consumer of this brand 4 This brand is the reflection of my ideal image 5 This brand is appealing my actual image 6 The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me

275

6. Please rank the following according to your opinion about the preferred brand:

Niether Strongly Partially Agree Partially Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree nor Agree Agree Disagree 1 I am attached to this brand 2 This brand brings me safety 3 I strongly relate myself to this brand 4 This brand is honest towards its clients 5 Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy 6 This brand has a lot of meaning to me 7 I like this brand 8 I trust the quality of this brand 9 This brand tries to improve its response to consumers needs on an ongoing basis 10 This brand is sincere towards its consumers 11 I have a lot of affection for this brand Brand

7. Please rank the following according to your opinion about the preferred brand:

Niether Strongly Partially Agree Partially Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree nor Agree Agree Disagree 1 Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brand 2 My life would be disturbed if I had to switch brand 3 It would be too costly for me to switch brand 4 I like this brand 5 This brand has a lot of meaning to me 6 I am strongly related to this brand

276

8. You find your preferred brand as? Rank according to your opinion:

Niether Strongly Partially Partially Strongly Disagree Agree nor Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree

1 Warm 2 Pleasant 3 Nice 4 Imaginative 5 Inventive 6 Seductive 7 Attractive 8 Manipulative 9 Showy 10 Arrogant 11 Hypocrite 12 Deceptive 13 Liar 14 Trendy 15 Modern 16 Sophisticated 17 Stylish 18 Serious 19 Strict 20 Reserved 21 Shy

9. Please rank the following according to your opinion about the preferred brand:

Niether Strongly Partially Agree Partially Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree nor Agree Agree Disagree 1 I repeatedly purchase this brand 2 I prefer buying this brand over other colas 3 Only this brand comes to my mind when I think of purchasing colas 4 I recommend this brand to those who ask my advice 5 I say positive things about this brand to others 6 I am pleased to buy this brand instead of other brands

277

Appendix B: Pearson’s r Correlation

Rating scale as followed throughout the analysis:

Table 47: Estimates for Interpreting Strengths of Correlations

CO-RELATION STRENGTH

If r = +.70 or higher Very strong positive relationship

+.40 to +.69 Strong positive relationship

+.30 to +.39 Moderate positive relationship

+.20 to +.29 Weak positive relationship

+.01 to +.19 No or negligible relationship

-.01 to -.19 No or negligible relationship

-.20 to -.29 Weak negative relationship

-.30 to -.39 Moderate negative relationship

-.40 to -.69 Strong negative relationship

-.70 or higher Very strong negative relationship

Source: http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/libarts/polsci/statistics.html

278

Appendix C: WEB Analysis

Table 48: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Pepsi

N Mean Warm 400 6.00 Pleasant 400 5.20 Nice 400 5.60 Imaginative 400 6.60 Inventive 400 6.60 Seductive 400 6.20 Attractive 400 6.20 Manipulative 400 6.00 Showy 400 6.00 Arrogant 400 6.40 Hypocrite 400 5.00 Deceptive 400 3.80 Liar 400 5.60 Trendy 400 5.40 Modern 400 5.40 Sophisticated 400 6.60 Stylish 400 6.40 Serious 400 6.60 Strict 400 6.40 Reserved 400 6.20 Shy 400 5.80

Valid N (list wise) 400

This table shows the average mean of brand personality items of Pepsi. Most of the respondents

think that Pepsi is sophisticated, serious, imaginative and inventive this reflects that

characteristics of this brand in term of these traits are present in the mind of consumers.

Furthermore, the average mean of Deceptive is lower than all other traits, Pepsi is considered to

be highly acceptable because what they mentioned they deliver.

279

Table 49: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Coca Cola

N Mean

Warm 331 5.89 Pleasant 331 4.86 Nice 331 5.21 Imaginative 331 5.88 Inventive 331 4.02 Seductive 331 5.57 Attractive 331 5.54 Manipulative 331 5.56 Showy 331 5.06 Arrogant 331 5.36 Hypocrite 331 5.59 Deceptive 331 5.54 Liar 331 5.60 Trendy 331 5.44 Modern 331 5.17 Sophisticated 331 5.05 Stylish 331 5.50 Serious 331 4.88 Strict 331 5.21 Reserved 331 5.35 Shy 331 5.13 Valid N (list wise) 331

This table shows the average mean of brand personality items of Coca Cola. Most of the

respondents think that Coca Cola is warm and imaginative; this reflects that characteristics of

this brand in term of these traits are present in the mind of consumers. Furthermore, the average

mean of inventive is lower than all other traits, Coca Cola is considered to be least inventive.

280

Table 50: Mean of Brand Personality Items- Gourmet

N Mean

Warm 109 3.62 Pleasant 109 3.34 Nice 109 3.22 Imaginative 109 3.26 Inventive 109 3.21 Seductive 109 3.02 Attractive 109 3.25 Manipulative 109 3.47 Showy 109 3.51 Arrogant 109 3.54 Hypocrite 109 3.68 Deceptive 109 3.44 Liar 109 3.09 Trendy 109 2.93 Modern 109 3.04 Sophisticated 109 2.85 Stylish 109 3.04 Serious 109 2.90 Strict 109 2.81 Reserved 109 2.81 Shy 109 3.28 Valid N (list wise) 109

This table shows the average mean of brand personality items of Gourmet. Average mean is not

up to the mark but most of the respondents think that Gourmet is Hypocrite; this reflects that

characteristics of this brand in term of these traits are present in the mind of consumers.

Furthermore, the least average mean of Gourmet is reserved and strict this reflects that brand is

not moving out of its territory.

281

Brand Personality of Pepsi

Friendly 8

Introvert 6 Creative

Conscienti 2 Charming ous 0

Elegant Ascendent

Original Misleading

Figure 25: Web Design of Brand Personality- Pepsi

This figure summarizes the brand personality of Pepsi as perceived by the sample of 400 people from the population. In Pepsi, Creative traits which include imaginative and inventive perceived by different respondent have attained the most score. The second highest score is attained by

Charming trait which includes seductive and attractive items. People find Pepsi as creative so this suggests that this brand is doing best with is its imaginative tools to convenience its customers.

282

Brand personality of Coca Cola Friendly 5.6 Introvert 5.4 Creative 5.2 5 Conscientiou 4.8 Charming s 4.6

Elegant Ascendent

Original Misleading

Figure 26: Web Design of Brand Personality- Coca Cola

This figure summarizes the brand personality of Coke as perceived by the 331 respondent.

Misleading traits which include Hypocrite, deceptive and Liar perceived by soft drink consumers and have attained the most score. The second highest score is attained by Charming trait which include seductive and attractive. These suggest that Brand personality of a coke is misleading and people would not properly relate themselves.

283

Brand personality of Gourmet

Friendly 4

Introvert 3 Creative

Conscientio 1 Charming us 0

Elegant Ascendent

Original Misleading

Figure 27: Web Design of Brand Personality- Gourmet

This figure summarizes the brand personality of Gourmet as perceived by the 109 sample taken from the population. Ascendant traits which include Manipulative, showy and arrogant perceived by respondent and have attained the most score. The second highest score is attained by

Misleading trait which includes Hypocrite, deceptive and liar. This suggests that people find

Gourmet as arrogant, showy and manipulative.

284

Appendix D: SPSS Code Book

Pepsi

Table 51: Gender

Value Count Percent Position 2 Label Gender Type Numeric

Standard Attributes Format F1 Measurement Nominal

Role Input

1 Male 256 64.0% Valid Values 2 Female 144 36.0%

Table 52: Age

Value Count Percent

Position 3

Label Age

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

1 18 to 25 399 99.8%

2 26 to 35 1 0.2% Valid Values 3 36 to 45 0 0.0%

4 46 to 55 0 0.0%

285

Table 53: Profession

Value Count Percent

Position 4

Label Profession

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

1 Student 398 99.5%

Business 2 2 0.5% Professionals Valid Values 3 House Wife 0 0.0%

4 Labor/ Worker 0 0.0%

5 Others 0 0.0%

286

Table 54: Preferred Brand

Value Count Percent

Position 5

Which brand do Label you prefer the most?

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F8

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

1 Pepsi Cola 400 100.0%

Valid Values 2 Coca Cola 0 0.0%

3 Gourmet Cola 0 0.0%

287

Table 55: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would like to be

Value Count Percent

Position 6

The typical person who drinks this Label brand reflects the kind of person I would Standard Attributes like to be.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 80 20.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 160 40.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 80 20.0%

288

Table 56: I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 7

I like to see myself as a Label typical consumer of this brand. Standard Attributes

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 80 20.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 240 60.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 80 20.0%

289

Table 57: I like to be known as a consumer of this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 8

I like to be known as a Label consumer of this brand. Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 80 20.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 320 80.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

290

Table 58: This brand is the reflection of my ideal image

Value Count Percent

Position 9

This brand is Label the reflection of my ideal image.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 160 40.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 160 40.0%

291

Table 59: This brand is appealing to my actual image

Value Count Percent

Position 10

This brand is Label appealing to my actual image.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

Partially 3 160 40.0% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 80 20.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

292

Table 60: The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me

Value Count Percent

Position 11

The typical person who Label drinks this brand is very much like me. Standard Attributes

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 160 40.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 80 20.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 160 40.0%

293

Table 61: I am attached to this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 12

I am attached to Label this brand.

Type Numeric Standard Attributes

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 160 40.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 80 20.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 160 40.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

294

Table 62: This brand brings me safety

Value Count Percent

Position 13

This brand Label brings me safety.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

Partially 3 160 40.0% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 80 20.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 80 20.0%

295

Table 63: I strongly relate myself to this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 14

I strongly relate Label myself to this brand.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 80 20.0% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 320 80.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

296

Table 64: This brand is honest towards its client

Value Count Percent

Position 15

This brand is Label honest towards its client.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

Partially 3 80 20.0% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 160 40.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 80 20.0%

297

Table 65: Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy

Value Count Percent

Position 16

Thinking about this brand Label brings me a lot of pleasure and joy. Standard Attributes

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

Partially 3 160 40.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 80 20.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

298

Table 66: I like this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 17

Label I like this brand.

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 240 60.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 80 20.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 80 20.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

299

Table 67: I trust the quality of this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 18

I trust the Label quality of this brand.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 80 20.0% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 80 20.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 80 20.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 80 20.0%

300

Table 68: This brand tries to improve its response to consumer needs on an ongoing basis

Value Count Percent

Position 19

This brand tries to improve its response to Label consumer needs on an Standard Attributes ongoing basis.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 160 40.0%

Partially 3 80 20.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 80 20.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 80 20.0%

301

Table 69: This brand has a lot of meaning to me

Value Count Percent

Position 20

This brand has Label a lot of meaning to me.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 80 20.0% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 240 60.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 80 20.0%

302

Table 70: This brand is sincere towards its consumer

Value Count Percent

Position 21

This brand is Label sincere towards its consumer.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 160 40.0% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 160 40.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 80 20.0%

303

Table 71: I have lot of affection for this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 22

I have lot of Label affection for this brand.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 80 20.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 160 40.0%

6 Agree 160 40.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

304

Table 72: Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brands

Value Count Percent

Position 23

Even if I wanted, it would Label be hard for me to switch brands. Standard Attributes

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 160 40.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 160 40.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

305

Table 73: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands

Value Count Percent

Position 24

My life would be distributed if I Label had to switch brands. Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 80 20.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 80 20.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 240 60.0%

306

Table 74: It would be too costly for me to switch brands

Value Count Percent

Position 25

It would be too Label costly for me to switch brands.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 80 20.0% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 160 40.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 80 20.0%

307

Table 75: I like this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 26

Label I like this brand.

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 160 40.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 160 40.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

308

Table 76: This brand has a lot of meaning to me

Value Count Percent

Position 27

This brand has Label a lot of meaning to me.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 80 20.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 160 40.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

309

Table 77: I am strongly related to this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 28

I am strongly Label related to this brand.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 160 40.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 160 40.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

310

Table 78: Brand Personality- Warm

Value Count Percent

Position 29

Label Warm

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 320 80.0%

311

Table 79: Brand Personality- Pleasant

Value Count Percent

Position 30

Label Pleasant

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 80 20.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 160 40.0%

312

Table 80: Brand Personality- Nice

Value Count Percent

Position 31

Label Nice

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 160 40.0%

7 Strongly Agree 160 40.0%

313

Table 81: Brand Personality- Imaginative

Value Count Percent

Position 32

Label Imaginative

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 80 20.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 320 80.0%

314

Table 82: Brand Personality- Inventive

Value Count Percent

Position 33

Label Inventive

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 160 40.0%

7 Strongly Agree 240 60.0%

315

Table 83: Brand Personality- Seductive

Value Count Percent

Position 34

Label Seductive

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 320 80.0%

316

Table 84: Brand Personality- Attractive

Value Count Percent

Position 35

Label Attractive

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 80 20.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 240 60.0%

317

Table 85: Brand Personality- Manipulative

Value Count Percent

Position 36

Label Manipulative

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 400 100.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

318

Table 86: Brand Personality- Showy

Value Count Percent

Position 37

Label Showy

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 80 20.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 160 40.0%

7 Strongly Agree 160 40.0%

319

Table 87: Brand Personality- Arrogant

Value Count Percent

Position 38

Label Arrogant

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 80 20.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 240 60.0%

320

Table 88: Brand Personality- Hypocrite

Value Count Percent

Position 39

Label Hypocrite

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 80 20.0%

Partially 3 80 20.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 160 40.0%

321

Table 89: Brand Personality- Deceptive

Value Count Percent

Position 40

Label Deceptive

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 160 40.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 160 40.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 80 20.0%

322

Table 90: Brand Personality- Liar

Value Count Percent

Position 41

Label Liar

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 80 20.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 160 40.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 160 40.0%

323

Table 91: Brand Personality- Trendy

Value Count Percent

Position 42

Label Trendy

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 240 60.0%

6 Agree 160 40.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

324

Table 92: Brand Personality- Modern

Value Count Percent

Position 43

Label Modern

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 80 20.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 80 20.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 240 60.0%

325

Table 93: Brand Personality- Sophisticated

Value Count Percent

Position 44

Label Sophisticated

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 80 20.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 320 80.0%

326

Table 94: Brand Personality- Stylish

Value Count Percent

Position 45

Label Stylish

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 80 20.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 240 60.0%

327

Table 95: Brand Personality- Serious

Value Count Percent

Position 46

Label Serious

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 80 20.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 320 80.0%

328

Table 96: Brand Personality- Strict

Value Count Percent

Position 47

Label Strict

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 80 20.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 240 60.0%

329

Table 97: Brand Personality- Reserved

Value Count Percent

Position 48

Label Reserved

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 160 40.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 240 60.0%

330

Table 98: Brand Personality- Shy

Value Count Percent

Position 49

Label Shy

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 160 40.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 240 60.0%

331

Table 99: I repeatedly purchase this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 50

I repeatedly Label purchase this brand.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 240 60.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 160 40.0%

332

Table 100: I prefer buying this brand over other colas

Value Count Percent

Position 51

I prefer buying Label this brand over other colas.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 320 80.0%

333

Table 101: Only this brand comes to my mind when I think of purchasing colas

Value Count Percent

Position 52

Only this brand comes to my mind when I Label think of purchasing Standard Attributes colas.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 320 80.0%

334

Table 102: I recommend this brand those who ask my advice

Value Count Percent

Position 53

I recommend this brand those Label who ask my advice. Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 320 80.0%

335

Table 103: I say positive things about this brand to other persons

Value Count Percent

Position 54

I say positive things about this Label brand to other persons. Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 320 80.0%

336

Table 104: I am pleased to buy this brand instead of other brands

Value Count Percent

Position 55

I am pleased to buy this brand Label instead of other brands. Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 0 0.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 80 20.0%

6 Agree 80 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 240 60.0%

337

Coca Cola

Table 105: Gender

Value Count Percent

Position 2

Label Gender

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

1 Male 188 44.8% Valid Values 2 Female 143 34.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

338

Table 106: Age

Value Count Percent

Position 3

Label Age

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

1 18 to 25 106 25.2%

2 26 to 35 110 26.2%

Valid Values 3 36 to 45 78 18.6%

4 46 to 55 36 8.6%

5 1 0.2%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

339

Table 107: Profession

Value Count Percent

Position 4

Label Profession

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

1 Student 132 31.4%

Business 2 76 18.1% Professionals Valid Values 3 House Wife 79 18.8%

4 Labor/ Worker 20 4.8%

5 Others 24 5.7%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

340

Table 108: Which brand do you prefer the most?

Value Count Percent

Position 5

Which brand do Label you prefer the most?

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F8

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

1 Pepsi Cola 0 0.0%

Valid Values 2 Coca Cola 331 78.8%

3 Gourmet Cola 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

341

Table 109: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would like to be

Value Count Percent

Position 6

The typical person who drinks this Label brand reflects the kind of person I would Standard Attributes like to be.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 26 6.2% Disagree

2 Disagree 33 7.9%

Partially 3 29 6.9% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 109 26.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 23 5.5%

6 Agree 105 25.0%

7 Strongly Agree 6 1.4%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

342

Table 110: I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 7

I like to see myself as a Label typical consumer of this brand. Standard Attributes

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 26 6.2% Disagree

2 Disagree 32 7.6%

Partially 3 54 12.9% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 81 19.3% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 53 12.6%

6 Agree 52 12.4%

7 Strongly Agree 33 7.9%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

343

Table 111: I like to be known as a consumer of this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 8

I like to be known as a Label consumer of this brand. Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 17 4.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 55 13.1%

Partially 3 35 8.3% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 105 25.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 34 8.1%

6 Agree 80 19.0%

7 Strongly Agree 5 1.2%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

344

Table 112: This brand is the reflection of my ideal image

Value Count Percent

Position 9

This brand is Label the reflection of my ideal image.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 26 6.2% Disagree

2 Disagree 23 5.5%

Partially 3 118 28.1% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 58 13.8% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 51 12.1%

6 Agree 55 13.1%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

345

Table 113: This brand is appealing to my actual image

Value Count Percent

Position 10

This brand is Label appealing to my actual image.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 78 18.6%

Partially 3 64 15.2% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 80 19.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 24 5.7%

6 Agree 85 20.2%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

346

Table 114: The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me

Value Count Percent

Position 11

The typical person who Label drinks this brand is very much like me. Standard Attributes

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 79 18.8%

Partially 3 49 11.7% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 119 28.3% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 17 4.0%

6 Agree 67 16.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

347

Table 115: I am attached to this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 12

I am attached to Label this brand.

Type Numeric Standard Attributes

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 59 14.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 27 6.4%

Partially 3 85 20.2% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 73 17.4% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 32 7.6%

6 Agree 55 13.1%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

348

Table 116: This brand brings me safety

Value Count Percent

Position 13

This brand Label brings me safety.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 62 14.8% Disagree

2 Disagree 76 18.1%

Partially 3 86 20.5% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 49 11.7% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 31 7.4%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 27 6.4%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

349

Table 117: I strongly relate myself to this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 14

I strongly relate Label myself to this brand.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 89 21.2% Disagree

2 Disagree 61 14.5%

Partially 3 87 20.7% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 62 14.8% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 32 7.6%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

350

Table 118: This brand is honest towards its client

Value Count Percent

Position 15

This brand is Label honest towards its client.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 132 31.4% Disagree

2 Disagree 6 1.4%

Partially 3 88 21.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 77 18.3% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 28 6.7%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

351

Table 119: Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy

Value Count Percent

Position 16

Thinking about this brand Label brings me a lot of pleasure and joy. Standard Attributes

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 88 21.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 23 5.5%

Partially 3 37 8.8% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 132 31.4% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 51 12.1%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

352

Table 120: I like this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 17

Label I like this brand.

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 52 12.4% Disagree

2 Disagree 54 12.9%

Partially 3 109 26.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 94 22.4% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 22 5.2%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

353

Table 121: I trust the quality of this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 18

I trust the Label quality of this brand.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 80 19.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 59 14.0%

Partially 3 69 16.4% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 76 18.1% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 42 10.0%

6 Agree 5 1.2%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

354

Table 122: This brand tries to improve its response to consumer needs on an ongoing basis

Value Count Percent

Position 19

This brand tries to improve its response to Label consumer needs on an Standard Attributes ongoing basis.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 5 1.2% Disagree

2 Disagree 106 25.2%

Partially 3 94 22.4% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 68 16.2% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 58 13.8%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

355

Table 123: This brand has a lot of meaning to me

Value Count Percent

Position 20

This brand has Label a lot of meaning to me.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 132 31.4% Disagree

2 Disagree 6 1.4%

Partially 3 61 14.5% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 82 19.5% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 50 11.9%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

356

Table 124: This brand is sincere towards its consumer

Value Count Percent

Position 21

This brand is Label sincere towards its consumer.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 42 10.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 77 18.3%

Partially 3 50 11.9% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 105 25.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 57 13.6%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

357

Table 125: I have lot of affection for this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 22

I have lot of Label affection for this brand.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 92 21.9% Disagree

2 Disagree 32 7.6%

Partially 3 119 28.3% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 58 13.8% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 25 6.0%

6 Agree 5 1.2%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

358

Table 126: Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brands

Value Count Percent

Position 23

Even if I wanted, it would Label be hard for me to switch brands. Standard Attributes

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 26 6.2% Disagree

2 Disagree 35 8.3%

Partially 3 101 24.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 69 16.4% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 95 22.6%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 5 1.2%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

359

Table 127: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands

Value Count Percent

Position 24

My life would be distributed if I Label had to switch brands. Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 61 14.5% Disagree

2 Disagree 40 9.5%

Partially 3 70 16.7% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 89 21.2% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 71 16.9%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

360

Table 128: It would be too costly for me to switch brands

Value Count Percent

Position 25

It would be too Label costly for me to switch brands.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 72 17.1% Disagree

2 Disagree 95 22.6%

Partially 3 58 13.8% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 101 24.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 5 1.2%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

361

Table 129: I like this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 26

Label I like this brand.

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 59 14.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 61 14.5%

Partially 3 92 21.9% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 87 20.7% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 32 7.6%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

362

Table 130: This brand has a lot of meaning to me

Value Count Percent

Position 27

This brand has Label a lot of meaning to me.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 15 3.6% Disagree

2 Disagree 103 24.5%

Partially 3 89 21.2% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 119 28.3% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 5 1.2%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

363

Table 131: I am strongly related to this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 28

I am strongly Label related to this brand.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 91 21.7% Disagree

2 Disagree 69 16.4%

Partially 3 94 22.4% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 72 17.1% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 5 1.2%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

364

Table 132: Brand Personality- Warm

Value Count Percent

Position 29

Label Warm

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 6 1.4% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 26 6.2% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 62 14.8%

6 Agree 142 33.8%

7 Strongly Agree 95 22.6%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

365

Table 133: Brand Personality- Pleasant

Value Count Percent

Position 30

Label Pleasant

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 20 4.8%

Partially 3 28 6.7% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 84 20.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 86 20.5%

6 Agree 72 17.1%

7 Strongly Agree 41 9.8%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

366

Table 134: Brand Personality- Nice

Value Count Percent

Position 31

Label Nice

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 98 23.3% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 113 26.9%

6 Agree 71 16.9%

7 Strongly Agree 49 11.7%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

367

Table 135: Brand Personality- Imaginative

Value Count Percent

Position 32

Label Imaginative

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 24 5.7% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 98 23.3%

6 Agree 103 24.5%

7 Strongly Agree 106 25.2%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

368

Table 136: Brand Personality- Inventive

Value Count Percent

Position 33

Label Inventive

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 26 6.2% Disagree

2 Disagree 44 10.5%

Partially 3 64 15.2% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 80 19.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 29 6.9%

6 Agree 57 13.6%

7 Strongly Agree 31 7.4%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

369

Table 137: Brand Personality- Seductive

Value Count Percent

Position 34

Label Seductive

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 39 9.3% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 128 30.5%

6 Agree 99 23.6%

7 Strongly Agree 65 15.5%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

370

Table 138: Brand Personality- Attractive

Value Count Percent

Position 35

Label Attractive

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 18 4.3% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 34 8.1% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 112 26.7%

6 Agree 84 20.0%

7 Strongly Agree 83 19.8%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

371

Table 139: Brand Personality- Manipulative

Value Count Percent

Position 36

Label Manipulative

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 4 1.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 64 15.2% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 105 25.0%

6 Agree 56 13.3%

7 Strongly Agree 102 24.3%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

372

Table 140: Brand Personality- Showy

Value Count Percent

Position 37

Label Showy

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 6 1.4%

Partially 3 50 11.9% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 62 14.8% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 76 18.1%

6 Agree 73 17.4%

7 Strongly Agree 64 15.2%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

373

Table 141: Brand Personality- Arrogant

Value Count Percent

Position 38

Label Arrogant

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 6 1.4%

Partially 3 23 5.5% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 52 12.4% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 65 15.5%

6 Agree 135 32.1%

7 Strongly Agree 50 11.9%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

374

Table 142: Brand Personality- Hypocrite

Value Count Percent

Position 39

Label Hypocrite

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 6 1.4%

Partially 3 18 4.3% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 32 7.6% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 95 22.6%

6 Agree 78 18.6%

7 Strongly Agree 102 24.3%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

375

Table 143: Brand Personality- Deceptive

Value Count Percent

Position 40

Label Deceptive

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 6 1.4% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 41 9.8% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 93 22.1%

6 Agree 151 36.0%

7 Strongly Agree 40 9.5%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

376

Table 144: Brand Personality- Liar

Value Count Percent

Position 41

Label Liar

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 5 1.2% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 77 18.3% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 104 24.8%

6 Agree 5 1.2%

7 Strongly Agree 140 33.3%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

377

Table 145: Brand Personality- Trendy

Value Count Percent

Position 42

Label Trendy

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 62 14.8% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 121 28.8%

6 Agree 90 21.4%

7 Strongly Agree 58 13.8%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

378

Table 146: Brand Personality- Modern

Value Count Percent

Position 43

Label Modern

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 6 1.4%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 81 19.3% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 154 36.7%

6 Agree 26 6.2%

7 Strongly Agree 64 15.2%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

379

Table 147: Brand Personality- Sophisticated

Value Count Percent

Position 44

Label Sophisticated

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 16 3.8%

Partially 3 17 4.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 72 17.1% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 111 26.4%

6 Agree 60 14.3%

7 Strongly Agree 55 13.1%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

380

Table 148: Brand Personality- Stylish

Value Count Percent

Position 45

Label Stylish

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 6 1.4%

Partially 3 0 0.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 63 15.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 83 19.8%

6 Agree 110 26.2%

7 Strongly Agree 69 16.4%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

381

Table 149: Brand Personality- Serious

Value Count Percent

Position 46

Label Serious

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 24 5.7% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 34 8.1% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 46 11.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 134 31.9%

6 Agree 17 4.0%

7 Strongly Agree 76 18.1%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

382

Table 150: Brand Personality- Strict

Value Count Percent

Position 47

Label Strict

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 34 8.1% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 65 15.5% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 63 15.0%

6 Agree 136 32.4%

7 Strongly Agree 33 7.9%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

383

Table 151: Brand Personality- Reserved

Value Count Percent

Position 48

Label Reserved

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 0 0.0%

Partially 3 18 4.3% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 46 11.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 145 34.5%

6 Agree 45 10.7%

7 Strongly Agree 77 18.3%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

384

Table 152: Brand Personality- Shy

Value Count Percent

Position 49

Label Shy

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 18 4.3% Disagree

2 Disagree 6 1.4%

Partially 3 60 14.3% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 4 1.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 63 15.0%

6 Agree 102 24.3%

7 Strongly Agree 78 18.6%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

385

Table 153: I repeatedly purchase this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 50

I repeatedly Label purchase this brand.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 116 27.6% Disagree

2 Disagree 85 20.2%

Partially 3 76 18.1% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 54 12.9% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

386

Table 154: I prefer buying this brand over other colas

Value Count Percent

Position 51

I prefer buying Label this brand over other colas.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 69 16.4% Disagree

2 Disagree 83 19.8%

Partially 3 154 36.7% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 5 1.2% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 20 4.8%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

387

Table 155: Only this brand comes to my mind when I think of purchasing colas

Value Count Percent

Position 52

Only this brand comes to my mind when I Label think of purchasing Standard Attributes colas.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 93 22.1% Disagree

2 Disagree 99 23.6%

Partially 3 22 5.2% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 91 21.7% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 26 6.2%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

388

Table 156: I recommend this brand those who ask my advice

Value Count Percent

Position 53

I recommend this brand those Label who ask my advice. Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 67 16.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 101 24.0%

Partially 3 32 7.6% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 127 30.2% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 4 1.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

389

Table 157: I say positive things about this brand to other persons

Value Count Percent

Position 54

I say positive things about this Label brand to other persons. Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 82 19.5% Disagree

2 Disagree 157 37.4%

Partially 3 10 2.4% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 82 19.5% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

390

Table 158: I am pleased to buy this brand instead of other brands

Value Count Percent

Position 55

I am pleased to buy this brand Label instead of other brands. Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 111 26.4% Disagree

2 Disagree 76 18.1%

Partially 3 49 11.7% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 95 22.6% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 0 0.0%

6 Agree 0 0.0%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

Missing Values System 89 21.2%

391

Gourmet Cola

Table 159: Gender

Value Count Percent

Position 2

Label Gender

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

1 Male 73 67.0% Valid Values 2 Female 36 33.0%

Table 160: Age

Value Count Percent

Position 3

Label Age

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

1 18 to 25 51 46.8%

2 26 to 35 36 33.0% Valid Values 3 36 to 45 13 11.9%

4 46 to 55 9 8.3%

392

Table 161: Profession

Value Count Percent

Position 4

Label Profession

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Nominal

Role Input

1 Student 62 56.9%

Business 2 23 21.1% Professionals Valid Values 3 House Wife 14 12.8%

4 Labor/ Worker 5 4.6%

5 Others 5 4.6%

393

Table 162: Preferred Brand

Value Count Percent

Position 5

Which brand do Label you prefer the most?

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F8

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

1 Pepsi Cola 0 0.0%

Valid Values 2 Coca Cola 0 0.0%

3 Gourmet Cola 109 100.0%

394

Table 163: The typical person who drinks this brand reflects the kind of person I would like to be

Value Count Percent

Position 6

The typical person who drinks this Label brand reflects the kind of person I would Standard Attributes like to be.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 11 10.1% Disagree

2 Disagree 18 16.5%

Partially 3 21 19.3% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 31 28.4% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 15 13.8%

6 Agree 5 4.6%

7 Strongly Agree 8 7.3%

395

Table 164: I like to see myself as a typical consumer of this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 7

I like to see myself as a Label typical consumer of this brand. Standard Attributes

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 4 3.7% Disagree

2 Disagree 26 23.9%

Partially 3 13 11.9% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 24 22.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 20 18.3%

6 Agree 19 17.4%

7 Strongly Agree 3 2.8%

396

Table 165: I like to be known as a consumer of this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 8

I like to be known as a Label consumer of this brand. Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 7 6.4% Disagree

2 Disagree 22 20.2%

Partially 3 16 14.7% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 31 28.4% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 22 20.2%

6 Agree 11 10.1%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

397

Table 166: This brand is the reflection of my ideal image

Value Count Percent

Position 9

This brand is Label the reflection of my ideal image.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 11 10.1% Disagree

2 Disagree 14 12.8%

Partially 3 17 15.6% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 32 29.4% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 18 16.5%

6 Agree 15 13.8%

7 Strongly Agree 2 1.8%

398

Table 167: This brand is appealing to my actual image

Value Count Percent

Position 10

This brand is Label appealing to my actual image.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 11 10.1% Disagree

2 Disagree 15 13.8%

Partially 3 16 14.7% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 28 25.7% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 26 23.9%

6 Agree 5 4.6%

7 Strongly Agree 8 7.3%

399

Table 168: The typical person who drinks this brand is very much like me

Value Count Percent

Position 11

The typical person who Label drinks this brand is very much like me. Standard Attributes

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 8 7.3% Disagree

2 Disagree 19 17.4%

Partially 3 15 13.8% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 22 20.2% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 32 29.4%

6 Agree 10 9.2%

7 Strongly Agree 3 2.8%

400

Table 169: I am attached to this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 12

I am attached to Label this brand.

Type Numeric Standard Attributes

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 13 11.9%

Partially 3 17 15.6% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 29 26.6% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 24 22.0%

6 Agree 19 17.4%

7 Strongly Agree 7 6.4%

401

Table 170: This brand brings me safety

Value Count Percent

Position 13

This brand Label brings me safety.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 2 1.8% Disagree

2 Disagree 9 8.3%

Partially 3 20 18.3% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 17 15.6% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 42 38.5%

6 Agree 8 7.3%

7 Strongly Agree 11 10.1%

402

Table 171: I strongly relate myself to this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 14

I strongly relate Label myself to this brand.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 3 2.8% Disagree

2 Disagree 14 12.8%

Partially 3 20 18.3% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 19 17.4% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 26 23.9%

6 Agree 15 13.8%

7 Strongly Agree 12 11.0%

403

Table 172: This brand is honest towards its client

Value Count Percent

Position 15

This brand is Label honest towards its client.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 5 4.6% Disagree

2 Disagree 13 11.9%

Partially 3 16 14.7% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 23 21.1% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 29 26.6%

6 Agree 10 9.2%

7 Strongly Agree 13 11.9%

404

Table 173: Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of pleasure and joy

Value Count Percent

Position 16

Thinking about this brand Label brings me a lot of pleasure and joy. Standard Attributes

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 0 0.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 7 6.4%

Partially 3 16 14.7% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 26 23.9% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 22 20.2%

6 Agree 22 20.2%

7 Strongly Agree 16 14.7%

405

Table 174: I like this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 17

Label I like this brand.

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 1 0.9% Disagree

2 Disagree 13 11.9%

Partially 3 13 11.9% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 27 24.8% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 23 21.1%

6 Agree 15 13.8%

7 Strongly Agree 17 15.6%

406

Table 175: I trust the quality of this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 18

I trust the Label quality of this brand.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 4 3.7% Disagree

2 Disagree 18 16.5%

Partially 3 12 11.0% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 21 19.3% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 26 23.9%

6 Agree 18 16.5%

7 Strongly Agree 10 9.2%

407

Table 176: This brand tries to improve its response to consumer needs on an ongoing basis

Value Count Percent

Position 19

This brand tries to improve its Label response to consumer needs on an Standard Attributes ongoing basis.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 5 4.6% Disagree

2 Disagree 8 7.3%

Partially 3 22 20.2% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 26 23.9% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 25 22.9%

6 Agree 13 11.9%

7 Strongly Agree 10 9.2%

408

Table 177: This brand has a lot of meaning to me

Value Count Percent

Position 20

This brand has Label a lot of meaning to me.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 6 5.5% Disagree

2 Disagree 8 7.3%

Partially 3 14 12.8% Disagree

Neither Agree Valid Values 4 34 31.2% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 21 19.3%

6 Agree 14 12.8%

7 Strongly Agree 10 9.2%

8 2 1.8%

409

Table 178: This brand is sincere towards its consumer

Value Count Percent

Position 21

This brand is Label sincere towards its consumer.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 4 3.7% Disagree

2 Disagree 13 11.9%

Partially 3 12 11.0% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 27 24.8% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 22 20.2%

6 Agree 18 16.5%

7 Strongly Agree 13 11.9%

410

Table 179: I have lot of affection for this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 22

I have lot of Label affection for this brand.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 5 4.6% Disagree

2 Disagree 10 9.2%

Partially 3 19 17.4% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 19 17.4% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 20 18.3%

6 Agree 27 24.8%

7 Strongly Agree 9 8.3%

411

Table 180: Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to switch brands

Value Count Percent

Position 23

Even if I wanted, it would Label be hard for me to switch brands. Standard Attributes

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 10 9.2% Disagree

2 Disagree 17 15.6%

Partially 3 17 15.6% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 39 35.8% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 14 12.8%

6 Agree 4 3.7%

7 Strongly Agree 8 7.3%

412

Table 181l: My life would be distributed if I had to switch brands

Value Count Percent

Position 24

My life would be distributed if I Label had to switch brands. Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 7 6.4% Disagree

2 Disagree 19 17.4%

Partially 3 21 19.3% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 27 24.8% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 21 19.3%

6 Agree 12 11.0%

7 Strongly Agree 2 1.8%

413

Table 182: It would be too costly for me to switch brands

Value Count Percent

Position 25

It would be too Label costly for me to switch brands.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 3 2.8% Disagree

2 Disagree 19 17.4%

Partially 3 22 20.2% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 33 30.3% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 22 20.2%

6 Agree 8 7.3%

7 Strongly Agree 2 1.8%

414

Table 183: I like this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 26

Label I like this brand.

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 8 7.3% Disagree

2 Disagree 16 14.7%

Partially 3 15 13.8% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 32 29.4% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 23 21.1%

6 Agree 13 11.9%

7 Strongly Agree 2 1.8%

415

Table 184: This brand has a lot of meaning to me

Value Count Percent

Position 27

This brand has Label a lot of meaning to me.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 8 7.3% Disagree

2 Disagree 15 13.8%

Partially 3 18 16.5% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 28 25.7% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 26 23.9%

6 Agree 6 5.5%

7 Strongly Agree 8 7.3%

416

Table 185: I am strongly related to this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 28

I am strongly Label related to this brand.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 7 6.4% Disagree

2 Disagree 18 16.5%

Partially 3 19 17.4% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 24 22.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 29 26.6%

6 Agree 9 8.3%

7 Strongly Agree 3 2.8%

417

Table 186: Brand Personality- Warm

Value Count Percent

Position 29

Label Warm

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 3 2.8% Disagree

2 Disagree 15 13.8%

Partially 3 31 28.4% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 40 36.7% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 14 12.8%

6 Agree 3 2.8%

7 Strongly Agree 3 2.8%

418

Table 187: Brand Personality- Pleasant

Value Count Percent

Position 30

Label Pleasant

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 5 4.6% Disagree

2 Disagree 21 19.3%

Partially 3 38 34.9% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 28 25.7% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 12 11.0%

6 Agree 4 3.7%

7 Strongly Agree 1 0.9%

419

Table 188: Brand Personality- Nice

Value Count Percent

Position 31

Label Nice

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 9 8.3% Disagree

2 Disagree 20 18.3%

Partially 3 39 35.8% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 25 22.9% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 12 11.0%

6 Agree 3 2.8%

7 Strongly Agree 1 0.9%

420

Table 189: Brand Personality- Imaginative

Value Count Percent

Position 32

Label Imaginative

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 10 9.2% Disagree

2 Disagree 27 24.8%

Partially 3 24 22.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 24 22.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 21 19.3%

6 Agree 3 2.8%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

421

Table 190: Brand Personality- Inventive

Value Count Percent

Position 33

Label Inventive

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 10 9.2% Disagree

2 Disagree 25 22.9%

Partially 3 27 24.8% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 31 28.4% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 12 11.0%

6 Agree 3 2.8%

7 Strongly Agree 1 0.9%

422

Table 191: Brand Personality- Seductive

Value Count Percent

Position 34

Label Seductive

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 12 11.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 22 20.2%

Partially 3 37 33.9% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 29 26.6% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 8 7.3%

6 Agree 1 0.9%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

423

Table 192: Brand Personality- Attractive

Value Count Percent

Position 35

Label Attractive

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 9 8.3% Disagree

2 Disagree 26 23.9%

Partially 3 26 23.9% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 32 29.4% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 11 10.1%

6 Agree 3 2.8%

7 Strongly Agree 2 1.8%

424

Table 193: Brand Personality- Manipulative

Value Count Percent

Position 36

Label Manipulative

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 9 8.3% Disagree

2 Disagree 22 20.2%

Partially 3 23 21.1% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 31 28.4% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 14 12.8%

6 Agree 8 7.3%

7 Strongly Agree 2 1.8%

425

Table 194: Brand Personality- Showy

Value Count Percent

Position 37

Label Showy

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 7 6.4% Disagree

2 Disagree 16 14.7%

Partially 3 29 26.6% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 36 33.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 14 12.8%

6 Agree 6 5.5%

7 Strongly Agree 1 0.9%

426

Table 195: Brand Personality- Arrogant

Value Count Percent

Position 38

Label Arrogant

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 11 10.1% Disagree

2 Disagree 18 16.5%

Partially 3 22 20.2% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 28 25.7% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 20 18.3%

6 Agree 9 8.3%

7 Strongly Agree 1 0.9%

427

Table 196: Brand Personality- Hypocrite

Value Count Percent

Position 39

Label Hypocrite

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 6 5.5% Disagree

2 Disagree 17 15.6%

Partially 3 26 23.9% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 33 30.3% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 15 13.8%

6 Agree 8 7.3%

7 Strongly Agree 4 3.7%

428

Table 197: Brand Personality- Deceptive

Value Count Percent

Position 40

Label Deceptive

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 8 7.3% Disagree

2 Disagree 20 18.3%

Partially 3 26 23.9% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 33 30.3% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 16 14.7%

6 Agree 5 4.6%

7 Strongly Agree 1 0.9%

429

Table 198: Brand Personality- Liar

Value Count Percent

Position 41

Label Liar

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 16 14.7% Disagree

2 Disagree 30 27.5%

Partially 3 15 13.8% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 29 26.6% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 15 13.8%

6 Agree 3 2.8%

7 Strongly Agree 1 0.9%

430

Table 199: Brand Personality- Trendy

Value Count Percent

Position 42

Label Trendy

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 21 19.3% Disagree

2 Disagree 30 27.5%

Partially 3 18 16.5% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 24 22.0% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 9 8.3%

6 Agree 6 5.5%

7 Strongly Agree 1 0.9%

431

Table 200: Brand Personality- Modern

Value Count Percent

Position 43

Label Modern

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 16 14.7% Disagree

2 Disagree 25 22.9%

Partially 3 26 23.9% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 28 25.7% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 9 8.3%

6 Agree 5 4.6%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

432

Table 201: Brand Personality- Sophisticated

Value Count Percent

Position 44

Label Sophisticated

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 15 13.8% Disagree

2 Disagree 32 29.4%

Partially 3 31 28.4% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 20 18.3% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 7 6.4%

6 Agree 4 3.7%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

433

Table 202: Brand Personality- Stylish

Value Count Percent

Position 45

Label Stylish

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 14 12.8% Disagree

2 Disagree 25 22.9%

Partially 3 31 28.4% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 26 23.9% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 8 7.3%

6 Agree 5 4.6%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

434

Table 203: Brand Personality- Serious

Value Count Percent

Position 46

Label Serious

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 23 21.1% Disagree

2 Disagree 25 22.9%

Partially 3 20 18.3% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 28 25.7% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 7 6.4%

6 Agree 6 5.5%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

435

Table 204: Brand Personality- Strict

Value Count Percent

Position 47

Label Strict

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 19 17.4% Disagree

2 Disagree 27 24.8%

Partially 3 29 26.6% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 27 24.8% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 4 3.7%

6 Agree 3 2.8%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

436

Table 205: Brand Personality- Reserved

Value Count Percent

Position 48

Label Reserved

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 22 20.2% Disagree

2 Disagree 25 22.9%

Partially 3 30 27.5% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 21 19.3% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 6 5.5%

6 Agree 5 4.6%

7 Strongly Agree 0 0.0%

437

Table 206: Brand Personality- Shy

Value Count Percent

Position 49

Label Shy

Type Numeric Standard Attributes Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 19 17.4% Disagree

2 Disagree 21 19.3%

Partially 3 21 19.3% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 23 21.1% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 13 11.9%

6 Agree 7 6.4%

7 Strongly Agree 5 4.6%

438

Table 207: I repeatedly purchase this brand

Value Count Percent

Position 50

I repeatedly Label purchase this brand.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 9 8.3% Disagree

2 Disagree 17 15.6%

Partially 3 18 16.5% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 39 35.8% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 13 11.9%

6 Agree 6 5.5%

7 Strongly Agree 7 6.4%

439

Table 208: I prefer buying this brand over other colas

Value Count Percent

Position 51

I prefer buying Label this brand over other colas.

Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 9 8.3% Disagree

2 Disagree 19 17.4%

Partially 3 20 18.3% Disagree

Valid Values Neither Agree 4 27 24.8% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 21 19.3%

6 Agree 12 11.0%

7 Strongly Agree 1 0.9%

440

Table 209: Only this brand comes to my mind when I think of purchasing colas

Value Count Percent

Position 52

Only this brand comes to my mind when I Label think of purchasing Standard Attributes colas.

Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 6 5.5% Disagree

2 Disagree 19 17.4%

Partially 3 23 21.1% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 28 25.7% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 23 21.1%

6 Agree 8 7.3%

7 Strongly Agree 2 1.8%

441

Table 210: I recommend this brand those who ask my advice

Value Count Percent

Position 53

I recommend this brand those Label who ask my advice. Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 12 11.0% Disagree

2 Disagree 16 14.7%

Partially 3 12 11.0% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 33 30.3% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 21 19.3%

6 Agree 11 10.1%

7 Strongly Agree 4 3.7%

442

Table 211: I say positive things about this brand to other persons

Value Count Percent

Position 54

I say positive things about this Label brand to other persons. Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 10 9.2% Disagree

2 Disagree 14 12.8%

Partially 3 17 15.6% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 28 25.7% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 26 23.9%

6 Agree 7 6.4%

7 Strongly Agree 7 6.4%

443

Table 212: I am pleased to buy this brand instead of other brands

Value Count Percent

Position 55

I am pleased to buy this brand Label instead of other brands. Standard Attributes Type Numeric

Format F1

Measurement Ordinal

Role Input

Strongly 1 14 12.8% Disagree

2 Disagree 20 18.3%

Partially 3 21 19.3% Disagree Valid Values Neither Agree 4 18 16.5% Nor Disagree

5 Partially Agree 27 24.8%

6 Agree 7 6.4%

7 Strongly Agree 2 1.8%

444

Table 213: SPSS Code Book

445

Appendix E: Brand Image

Pepsi Cola

Image 1: Pepsi Cola (1.5 ltr)

446

Coca Cola

Image 2: Coca Cola (1.5 ltr)

447

Gourmet Cola

Image 3: Gourmet Cola (1.5 ltr)

448