Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TABLE 1
McDonald’s Factor Scores for each Brand Personality Trait
Factor 1 Factor 2
Successful +3 -1
Corporate +3 -2
Leader +3 -1
Family-oriented +2 +2
Friendly +2 +2
Up-to-Date +2 -1
Cheerful +2 +3
Confident +2 0
Reliable +1 0
Imaginative +1 +1
Secure +1 -1
Young +1 +2
Spirited +1 +1
Original +1 +2
Hard Working +1 -1
Trendy +1 -2
Real 0 +1
Exciting 0 0
Independent 0 0
Intelligent 0 -1
Cool 0 +1
Contemporary 0 -2
Down-to-earth 0 +1
Honest 0 +3
Smooth 0 -1
Sincere 0 +2
Masculine -1 0
Sentimental -1 +1
Technical -1 -3
Good-looking -1 -1
Feminine -1 0
Daring -1 -2
Small-Town -1 0
Charming -1 +1
Unique -2 +1
Wholesome -2 +3
Tough -2 -3
Rugged -2 -3
Outdoorsy -2 0
Western -3 0
Glamorous -3 -1
Upper Class -3 0
538 / Profiling the Brand Personality of Specific Brands
the negative end of the profile (e.g., successful, leader, intelligent, on this dominant factor explaining 41.2% of the variance with an
hard-working). eigenvalue of 13.18. The extremely characteristic (+3) brand per-
sonality traits associated with Subway are successful, friendly and
COMPARISON OF THE BRAND PERSONALITY wholesome (see Table 2).
OF BURGER KING, WENDY’S AND SUBWAY Successful, as discussed above, is a common trait of all four
The study was extended to Burger King, Wendy’s and Subway brands being studied. Friendly occurs in the +3 category of both
to demonstrate that Q methodology can be used to differentiate Burger King and Wendy’s. The trait of wholesome represents the
between brands in the same product category. As in the case of most distinguishing brand personality trait for Subway. Whole-
McDonald’s, college students are very familiar with these brands some fell into the quite uncharacteristic category (-2) for
and they represent a sizable consumer segment of these fast food McDonald’s, the somewhat uncharacteristic category (-1) for Burger
chains. Burger King and Wendy’s resemble McDonald’s in the King, and the neither characteristic nor uncharacteristic category
food items on the menu and the business operations. Subway, (0) for Wendy’s. In other words, “wholesome,” one of the most
however, differs from these burger chains in light of claims made descriptive personality traits of Subway, is perceived to be unchar-
of healthier food and food preparation (i.e., preparing food in front acteristic of McDonald’s and Burger King and neutral for Wendy’s.
of customers). Thus, on an a priori basis, we would expect the brand Healthier food is a heavily advertised claim of Subway. Although
personality of Wendy’s and Burger King to more closely resemble it is not surprising that Subway is viewed as having a wholesome
that of McDonald’s and the brand personality of Subway to be brand personality, it does demonstrate that Q methodology can
different. differentiate the personalities of brands within the same product
Following the same procedure as the McDonald’s study, category. Another noticeable difference between Subway and the
college students participated in the study in exchange for class other three brands is the presence of the trait of corporate, which
credits. Forty students Q sorted the 42 brand personality traits for occurs in the +1 category for Subway, in the + 3 category for both
Burger King, 42 sorted Wendy’s, and 34 sorted Subway. Following McDonald’s and Burger King, and in the +2 category for Wendy’s.
the same steps of analysis reported above, we were able to establish This suggests that participants in this study perceived Subway to be
the brand personality profiles for each brand. The results are the least corporate brand of four fast food brands under examina-
presented in Table 2 for the comparison among the four brands. tion.
TABLE 2
Factor Score Ranking of Brand Personality Traits for Four Fast Food Brands
McDonald's Burger King Wendy's Subway
Successful +3 +3 +3 +3
Corporate +3 +3 +2 +1*
Leader +3 +2 +2 +2
Family-oriented +2 +3* +3* +2
Friendly +2 +2 +3* +3
Up-to-Date +2 +2 +1 +2
Cheerful +2 +2 +2 +1
Confident +2 +1 +1 +1
Reliable +1 +2 +2 +2
Imaginative +1 +1 0 0
Secure +1 +1 +1 0
Young +1 +1 0 +1
Spirited +1 0 +1 0
Original +1 0 +1 +2
Hard Working +1 +1 +1 +1
Trendy +1 0 0 0
Real 0 +1 0 +1
Exciting 0 0 -1 0
Independent 0 0 -1 0
Intelligent 0 0 0 -1
Cool 0 0 0 0
Contemporary 0 +1 0 0
Down-to-earth 0 0 +1 +1
Honest 0 +1 +2 +1
Smooth 0 -1 -1 -1
Sincere 0 0 +1 0
Masculine -1 0 -1 -1
Sentimental -1 -2 0 -2
Technical -1 -1 -2 -3
Good-looking -1 -1 -1 -1
Feminine -1 -2 -1 -1
Daring -1 -1 -2 -1
Small-Town -1 -1 0 -1
Charming -1 -2 -1 -1
Unique -2 -1 -1 0
Wholesome -2 -1 0 +3*
Tough -2 -2 -3 -2
Rugged -2 -2 -2 -2
Outdoorsy -2 -3 -2 -2
Western -3 -1 -2 -3
Glamorous -3 -3 -3 -3
Upper Class -3 -3 -3 -2
* Traits that manifest differences among the brands.
540 / Profiling the Brand Personality of Specific Brands
thus providing an economical tool for profiling an individual Bosnjak, M, Rammstedt, B., & Tuten, T. (2005). What does
brand’s personality. Moreover, Q methodology can be used as a Aaker’s brand personality really measure. Paper presented at
segmentation tool to group a company’s customers according to the Consumer Personality and Research Methods 2005
their perspectives. As found in the study of McDonald’s, Q meth- Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia. [Abstract available online:
odology identified two groups of participants who view McDonald’s http://www.cpr2005.info].
brand personality differently. With further information on the Brown, S. R. (1980). Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q-
members’ usage rate, attitude toward the brand and satisfaction Methodology in Political Science, New Haven: Yale
with the service, a company can achieve a better understanding of University Press.
why customers see the brand differently. In this manner, applying Brown, S.R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant
Q methodology to the examination of a brand’s personality can Subjectivity, 16, 91-138.
provide meaningful information for a company’s marketing strat- Brown, S. R. (1996). Q Methodology and qualitative research.
egy development. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 561-567.
As with many other studies, our research has its limitations. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of
Due to a concern with maintaining consistency with existing assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.),
research, we adopted Aaker’s (1997) 42-item brand personality Testing Structural Equation Models, 136-162. Newbury
scale. Among these 42 traits, there may be some items that are not Park, CA: Sage.
applicable to fast-food brands, such as intelligent and independent. Ferrandi, J., Valette-Florence, P., & Fine-Falcy, S. (2000).
This represents a limitation of this study. In future research a new Aaker’s brand personality in a French context: a replication
scale for the measurement of brand personality can be developed. and a preliminary test of its validity. Developments in
Another limitation is that the college student participants only Marketing Science, 23, 7-13.
represent a certain segment of the market for four fast food brands. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing
Whether these brands are perceived to have different brand person- relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of
ality profiles among other customer segments remains to be inves- Consumer Research, 24, 343-373.
tigated. In future research on the brand personality of McDonald’s Hilden, A. H. (1954). Manual for Q-sort and Random Sets of
it would be particularly worthwhile to add to the comparison the Personal Concepts. Webster Groves 19, Mo.: Author.
brand personality profiles of African-American and Hispanic con- Huschmidt, T., & Bosnjak, M. (2005). Dimensions of brand
sumers. personality in Germany: the German brand personality scale
This study demonstrated only some aspects of the potential of ‘DEMASK.’ Paper presented at the Consumer Personality
Q methodology in measuring a person’s subjectivity in general, and and Research Methods 2005 Conference, Dubrovnik,
perceptions of brand personality in particular. Future research Croatia. [Abstract available online: http://
should examine the stability of the interpretations across different www.cpr2005.info].
populations, brands and traits. In addition, we can apply our study Jöreskog, K.-G., and Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural
in an international context and examine possible differences in Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language,
people’s perception of a brand’s personality between countries and Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
cultures. Keller, K. L. (2003a). Strategic Brand Management:Building,
Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 2e. Upper Saddle
REFERENCES River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Keller, K. L. (2003b). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality
Marketing Research, 24, 347-356. of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1),
Albanese, P. (1993). Personality and consumer behavior: an 595-600.
operational approach. European Journal of Marketing, 27(8), Kim, H. (2000). Examination of brand personality and brand
28-37. attitude within the apparel product category. Journal of
Austin, J., Siguaw, J., & Mattila, A. (2003). A re-examination of Fashion Marketing and Management, 4(3), 243-252.
the generalizability of the Aaker brand personality measure- King, S. (1970). What is a Brand? J. Walter Thompson
ment framework. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11, 77-92. Company Limited: London.
Azoulay, A. & Kapferer, J. (2003). Do brand personality scales Kleine, R. E., Kleine S. S., & Allen, C. (1995). How is a
really measure brand personality? Brand Management, 11(2), possession ‘me’ or ‘not me’? Characterizing types and an
143-155. antecedent of material possession attachment. Journal of
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and Consumer Research, 22, 327-343.
goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Martineau, P. (1958). The personality of a retail store. Harvard
Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. Business Review, 36(1), 47-55.
Best, R. G. (2005). Market-Based Management: Strategies for McKeown, B.F. & Thomas, D. B. (1988). Q-Methodology, from
Growing CustomerValue and Profitability 4e, Upper Saddle Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Vol. 66,
River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Block, J. (1955). Personality characteristics associated with Muller, B. & Chandon, J. (2003). The impact of visiting a brand
fathers’ attitudes toward child-rearing. Child Development, website on brand personality. Electronic Marketing, 13(3),
26, 41-48. 210-221.
Block, J. & Bailey, D. F. (1954). Q-sort item analyses of a Plummer, J. T. (1985). How personality makes a difference?
number of MMPI measures of personality, interest and Journal of Advertising Research, 24(1), 27-31.
intellect. IPAR Research Re-port, Prepared under Contract Rojas-Mendez, J., Erenchun-Podlech, I., & Silva-Olave, E.
No. AF 18 (600)-8. (2004). The Ford brand personality in Chile. Corporate
Block, J. & Robins, R. W. (1993). A longitudinal study of Reputation Review, 7(3), 232-251.
consistency and change in self-esteem from early adoles- Stephenson, W. (1935). Correlating persons instead of tests.
cence to early adulthood. Child Development, 64, 909-923. Character and Personality, 4, 17-24.
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 35) / 541
Stephenson, W. (1953). The Study of Behavior: Q-technique and
its Methodology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stephenson, W. (1954). Psychoanalysis and Q-Method: A
Scientific Model for Psychoanalytic Doctrine, unpublished
book manuscript.
Stephenson, W. (1977). Factors as operant subjectivity. Operant
Subjectivity, 1(1), 3-16.
Stephenson, W. (1993). Introduction to Q-methodology. Operant
Subjectivity, 17(1) 1-13.
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.
Van Rankom, J., Jacobs, G., Verlegh, P.W.J. (2006). Measuring
and managing the essence of a brand personality. Marketing
Letters, 17(3), 181-192.
Venable, B. T., Rose, G.M., Bush, V.D. & Gilbert, F. W.
(2005). The role of brand personality in charitable giving: An
assessment and validation. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 33(3), 295-312.