Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
BRANDING IN THE CHOICE OF PROPERTY PURCHASE IN MALAYSIA
Cheng Fan Fah a, Jason Cheok b, ψ and Liew Yoke Ying b
a
b
University Putra Malaysi, Malaysia
Sunway University College, Malaysia
Abstract
The new purchasers of properties are more sophisticated now. They are looking for living environments of
the 21st century with new standards in comfort and design. The new generation likes modern homes that
allow the best of man's technology to work harmoniously with nature. Modern townships that are planned
to be efficient and structured for the future with superb linkages and state-of-the-art support to create
effective business environments are the latest trends in property development. This paper is to study the
brand consciousness of property purchasers toward the property developers in Malaysia as a developing
country. This study used survey of purchasers in Klang Valley and tested the brand awareness and the
brand personality trait of property developers using a 5-point Likert scale. A total of 5000 questionnaires
were distributed and only 214 were usable for this study. The results show that property purchasers are
brand conscious about the property developers and they ranked developers based on the brand personalities.
Property purchasers ranked trend, professionalism and investment as the top three priorities in the property
brand personalities.
Keywords: Branding; Property purchase; Brand consciousness; Brand personality; Purchaser attitudes.
JEL Classification Codes: M3; M31.
1. Introduction
The theory on Branding was first introduced in marketing of the consumer products sector in the 1990’s. In
the past few decades, branding has become increasingly popular as a main strategic tool to differentiate
products from those of its competitors. Branding has impacted the way marketers do marketing as well as
designing and conceptualizing their products. More and more companies are doing market research to help
them address the branding issue correctly (Clegg, 2007). The real estate property sector has not been spared
from the branding phenomena either. This literature review seeks to research the role that branding plays in
affecting buyers purchasing decision of products in general and properties in particular. In conducting the
research, several characteristics of branding will be identified in the questionnaire survey methodology.
The association and reaction of property purchase towards these brand characteristics will then be
examined.
Asian consumers can cite the names of no less than twenty five brands within seconds. Brands like CocaCola, Nokia, Sony, Toyota, Shell, Colgate, Rolex, Nestle, to name a few, have influenced consumer
behavior consciously and unconsciously (Batey, 2002). The reason they remain so vividly in consumers’
minds is perhaps the constant effort these companies put in to fight for the mind space. Temporal (2000)
has written on how strategic communication via promotion, advertising, packaging and communication can
help in brand building. For example, through creative product design, attractive packaging, persistent good
quality together with constant advertisements, top brands have managed to establish a memorable brand
position in our minds.
Torsten (1998) in his book Competitive Branding has defined brand as a symbol with tremendous potential.
Other authors have linked attributes, actions and emotions to branding. Ellwood illustrated branding
ψ
Corresponding author. Jason Cheok. Sunway University College, Victoria University External
Programme, No 5, Jalan University, Bandar Sunway, 46150 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Email:
[email protected].
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
cleverly: ‘The brand therefore acts as a kind of flag, waving to consumers, creating awareness of the
product and differentiating it from other competitors’. He has also gone to the extent of humanizing and
personalizing branding. In his concept, branding possesses DNA blueprint, personality, value, experience
and identity (Ellwood, 2002). Similarly, many experts in the field of branding have used this persona
approach in understanding the study of branding (Morrow, 2007).
Psychologically, consumers’ knowledge and understanding of products are based on schema, which are a
set of associations linked to concepts. With branding, consumers link schemas through the brand’s
personality (Hoyer, 2004). Perhaps the most popular branding personality study was conducted by Aaker in
1997. She identified five main personality characteristics for brands. They are: Sincerity, Excitement,
Competence, Sophistication and Ruggedness (Aaker, 1997). These main personalities are further subdivided by several attributes. For example, the terms ‘honest’, ‘wholesome’ and ‘cheerful’ are used in
associate with Sincerity. ‘Reliable’, ‘intelligent’ and ‘successful’ are used to describe Competence.
Sophistication is linked with upper class and charm, while ‘daring’ and ‘imaginative’ are used to describe
Excitement. (Hoyer, 2004)
Therefore, this paper is to study the brand consciousness of property purchasers in Malaysia. The findings
will resolve the issue of whether the property purchasers go to these property developers for brand or for
other factors with the products and services offered by these developers. Therefore, this study will extend
the other studies in the develop countries on branding and find that their results can be generalized to
Malaysia.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. A review of the relevant literature is given in Section 2.
Section 3 outlines the objective and section 4 discusses data, hypotheses, and methodology. The findings
are presented and discussed in Section 5. Section 6 concludes the paper.
2. Literature review
Branding can be measured by brand success and this can be conducted/ performed through both
quantitative and qualitative methods (Temporal, 2001). The latter has received greater emphasis as it
provides more comprehensive information compared to quantitative method in the understanding of brand
success. Quantitative methods usually provide us with an indication of the value related to branding. CocaCola, for example, has a brand value of approximately 48,000 million USD compared to Pepsi which has a
brand value of approximately 8200 million USD (Buchholz, 2000). The numbers, however, are just figures
representing the brand can vendetta market share of the soft drinks giants. In contrast, the qualitative
measurement of branding is more significant in the current environment as it focuses on two major factors:
brand awareness and brand association (Temporal, 2001). These two factors provide better understanding
on the relation of consumer towards the branding of a company. Bu knowing the relationship, a company
can seek to establish favorable brand position in its consumers’ minds through brand awareness and
association as it would eventually translate into preference for that brand over those of the competitors
(Ford, 2005). Successful branding position in the mind of consumers could bring potential benefit in the
future. The qualitative measure based on brand awareness and brand recognition will be utilized in this
research.
Several methods are available in the pursuit of qualitative measurement of brand. One could use a set of
defined metrics to measure branding. Davies (2002) has suggested that there are three categories of
qualitative metrics: Pre-purchase, Purchase and Post-purchase. Under each category, the sub metrics could
be brand recognition, brand consciousness, brand awareness (for Pre-purchase), brand preference, brand
association, brand credibility (for Purchase), and brand satisfaction (for Post-purchase). According to
Davies (2002), increased customer recognition of brand would help to measure the particular brand
recognition magnitude. Increase customers’ preference over other options would help measure the brand
preference.
Whereas branding in consumer products market especially in the Fast Moving Consumers Products
(FMCP) is more dominant and well established, branding in real estate property market is considerably
new. Nevertheless, branding in property development is not unheard of. In fact, it is catching up at a very
fast speed. Globally, notable property developer like Nakheel’s has placed great emphasis in branding their
28
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Palm Jebel Ali Resort project in Dubai. So much so that they have established a special branding
department dedicated to branding the project on site. Other more significant global projects include the
Dongtan located near Shanghai and the New Songdo City in Korea has also integrated branding into their
marketing (Walsh, 2006). Branding has also impacted real estate sales agents. Increasingly, more calls are
being made to have real estate sales agents “brand” themselves (Fishwick, 2005).
The academic study in regards to branding impact on property market is limited. One of the earlier studies
on project branding was by Ashworth and Voogd (1990). They suggested that geographical marketing mix
is different from the traditional business marketing mix. Geographical marketing mixes defined by them are
a) promotional measures, b) spatial-functional measures c) organizational measures and d) financial
measures. The scope and effectiveness of property marketing is largely determined by selection and
application of the appropriate combination of these measures.
Viitanen (2004) has identified four factors of real estate brand, i.e. the images evoked by the real estate, the
premises themselves, their physical and operational functionality and the performance. These four factors
formed the basis by which a purchaser evaluates the branding of the developer. He has stressed that
building and implementing a brand is a strategic matter for each developer. A wider view by Hankinson
(2004) offered four branding perspectives on place branding management. He suggested brands as
perceptual entities, brands as communicators, brands as relationships and brands as value enhancers.
Kavaratzis (2005) in his explanation of place marketing theory suggests that place/property branding is a
complex subject. He has classified the trends of place/property branding into five major branding strategies
that a developer can adopt. The first is the place of origin branding, secondly the nation branding, followed
by the culture/entertainment branding, destination branding and lastly place/city branding. He has also
added the relevance of corporate branding that affects the overall branding of the property that is to be
developed by each developer. The brand is communicated effectively through many other strategies that a
developer has adopted. The primary communication to form a brand will include the landscaping/amenities
strategies, the infrastructure of the project being built, the organizational and administration structure of the
developer and finally the project behavior that encompasses the project vision and financial incentive
provided. The secondary communication strategies on brand building are like all forms of advertising,
public relations, graphic design, the use of logo and so forth.
3. Objective
The objective of this study is to test the effect of branding in property sector. The starting points of property
branding are brand awareness follow by brand personality test. The approach used in this study is through
development of a model using several metrics to test the qualitative aspect of branding through Brand
Awareness (consciousness) and Brand Differences (familiarity). The questions were divided into two main
sections: Brand awareness (brand consciousness) and brand differences via brand personality comparison.
Brand personality model in the study of branding has been widely used. The model involves assigning
human personalities to the subject (in this case, property developers). Here, the developers were
humanized, personalized or characterized in order for respondents to express their brand association with
the particular developers. For example, personality such as Sincerity, Excitement, Sophistication, and
Competence were used to express or associate the property brand. This result will enable the
“measurement” or categorizing of branding to be made to the various developers. Based on the survey, the
result could provide some marketing implications to property developers on how the targeted property
purchasers position and associate their brands.
4. Methodology
Survey development
In order to study the role of branding on property purchase, a quantitative research method using
questionnaire was employed in July 2007. The questionnaire was divided into several sections that include
components determining: demographics of respondents, purchasing preference, awareness in branding and
characteristics of branding. A pre-testing of the questionnaire was conducted through a convenience
sample with 22 respondents in May. On the basis of the pre-test response several changes were made. For
example, a common feedback was the clarity on terminology of the questions in relation to branding
characteristics. As a result, a short briefing on why branding was measured through branding
29
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
characteristics was provided in the introduction. In addition, the branding characteristics were rephrased to
reflect local understanding.
Table 1: Survey location
Location
Ampang
Bangsar
Damansara
Mont Kiara
Bukit Pantai
Petaling Jaya
Subang Jaya
Sunway
Taman Tun
Bandar Utama
Total
Number responded
22
11
28
14
5
42
41
26
13
12
214
% of total
10
5
13
6
2
20
20
12
6
6
100
Nine upper medium income locations around the Klang Valley and metropolitan Kuala Lumpur were
selected for the survey (refer to Table 1). Within the selected location, an array of property types was
chosen that includes semi-detached house, terrace linked double storey house, bungalow, condominium,
apartment, townhouse and single story linked house. The location and property type was chosen to reflect
the targeted survey respondents, in this case: male or female above 25 years old with monthly family
income above RM 5000.
In all, a total of 5000 questionnaires with self-reply envelopes were distributed in the selected location. The
respondents were given two weeks to complete the survey. Finally, 214 (4.6 %) valid responses were
received and used as the sample base for analysis.
5. Research results
Respondents’ demographics
Of the 214 respondents, 116 or 54% were male and 46 percent were female. Given the location, not
surprisingly, a majority of the respondents stated they had received at least some level of tertiary education.
More than seventy percent were married and out of this group, more than half of them indicated that they
have an average of two children in the family. In terms of household income, on the average, the married
group reported a combined monthly income between RM 5000 to RM 10,000; whereas the single group
reporting an average monthly income of RM 5,000. In term of ethnicity, majority or about sixty six percent
of the respondents were Chinese, Malay (17 percent) and Indian (17 percent) as shown in Table 2. Almost
all the respondents were Malaysian with less than three percent were foreigners. The highest response from
the survey comes from the Klang Valley suburb of Petaling Jaya and Subang Jaya vicinity (combine total
of 83%) as compared to KL Metropolitan. Less than twenty percent of the respondents reside in KL
responded to the survey (refer to Table 1).
As for property type, less than thirty percent of the respondents live in condominium or apartments.
Majority of them lives in landed property such as double story link house with an average build up of 2500
square foot. Seventy five percent of them have purchased or were owner of the property with the rest
renting the premises. Of all the respondents who own property, forty percent of them paid less than RM
200,000 purchasing price for their property. The rest, about thirty five percent paid more than RM 300,000
purchase price for their property and less than five percent has indicated owning property that cost more
than one million ringgit (Table 2).
Branding
Brand awareness/brand consciousness. A total of 21 questions related to branding in property were listed
in the questionnaires. The first section contains questions related to the awareness and importance of
branding in property purchase (Table 3). Several questions associating awareness and perception of
branding to qualities were asked using the five points Linkers scale. In addition, the relations of price
versus quality in relation to branding were also being tested. There were several interesting finding in the
understanding of branding awareness in the property industry. Firstly, surprisingly, most respondents did
30
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Table2: Profile of respondents
Demographic
Factors
Gender
Male
Female
% of Respondents
46.4
53.6
Demographic Factors
% of Respondents
Marital Status
Married
Single
Others
70.1
28.4
1.4
No. of Children
None
1–2
3–4
More than 4
30.8
47.4
19.0
2.8
Household Income
RM5,000 and less
5,001 – 10,000
10,001 – 15,000
Above 15,000
32.5
30.6
16.7
20.1
Race
Malay
Chinese
Indians
Other
16.9
66.2
13.1
3.8
Type of House
Apartment/condominium
Townhouse
Semi-detached house
Bungalow
25.8
56.3
6.6
11.3
Citizenship
Malaysian
Others
96.7
3.3
Ownership Status
Own
Rent
77.7
22.3
Purchase Price (Owners)
Below RM200,000
200,000 – 399,999
400,000 – 699,999
700,000 – 999,999
1 million and above
40.8
32.5
11.8
6.5
8.4
not associate high price to high quality in relationship to branding. More than eighty percents indicated
that they do not believe high price equates to high quality (Table 3). That is to say that high price
developers are not necessarily branded developers or quality developers.
High percentages in the result shows that most of the respondents did not agree to expensive developers are
better quality developers as shown in Table 3. Fifty percent showed that they have the understanding of
price differentiation among developers. The association of brand and quality were repeatedly exhibited in
the response. For example, about ninety percent indicated they are more likely to purchase from well
known or branded developer due to better quality. In a sense, most property buyers have their own set of
factors in their evaluation of a property dim to be of high quality other than price. Most of the respondents
have their respective criteria in the selection of ‘Branded” property developers. Secondly, in testing
awareness of branding, they were able to distinguish brand differences among the various developers. More
than twenty percent stated that not all developers are the same and that most developers have their own
unique branding attributes.
Table 3: Respondents’ property branding awareness
Agree (%)
Strongly
agree
Usually purchase from well-known developer
45.5
45.5
Less known developers’ projects inferior
25.0
19.9
All developers’ projects similar
15.2
4.2
Well known brand best
49.8
5.7
Prefer more expensive developers
16.5
6.1
Higher cost means higher quality
18.4
3.8
Price differences among developers are large.
44.8
2.4
Differences among developers difficult to assess
40.1
0.9
Brand awareness items
31
Combine
91.0
69.7
49.0
45.8
31.1
22.1
18.9
16.1
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Brand personality. In addition to brand awareness, the starting points of property branding measurement
are through the testing of brand personality. Table 4 shows the results using brand personality to test on
three developers. The testing of brand personality uses the second sections of the questionnaires designed
to test a set of brand personality through comparison among developers. Respondents were provided three
developers classified as developer A, B and C and were asked to brand them through a series of brand
personalities. The lists of brand personality used were taken from Aaker’s (1997) expanded version of
brand personality matrix. This method of testing branding through personified characteristics was fairly
common and widely used in consumer products. For this particular survey, the following characteristics
that reflect branding impression used were: modern, sophisticated, classy, contemporary, family oriented,
and professional. These pre-established characteristics enable respondents to expresses and associate their
impression of certain brands. In addition, other personality characteristics such as reliability, leader in the
field, confident and secure were also included to enable the respondents to further describe branding.
Table 4: Property developers branding awareness through branding personality
Brand personality
Trendy
Professional
Attractive investment
Reliable
Confident
Secure
Classy
Leader in field
Family-oriented
Contemporary
Technically sound
Developer A
31.4
43.9
36.9
47.5
39.8
35.6
27.0
36.5
44.0
34.8
34.2
Developer B
Developer C
51.3
59.7
58.8
64.3
64.8
54.9
47.3
50.3
56.1
50.9
52.7
78.2
78.0
77.6
77.2
76.2
75.7
74.1
73.8
72.8
70.8
70.1
The result in this section shows consistence with the developers overall branding awareness. For example,
developers A, B and C have very different score in term of all the personality traits. Their score are
distinctively difference between all the three developers. Trendy ness, professionalism and investment
scored the highest in developer A. Reliability, confidents and professionalism score the highest for
developer B. Finally, reliability, family oriented and professionalism score the highest for developer C. In
term of lowest score are family-oriented, contemporary and technically sound score the lowest for
developer A. The personality of classiness, leader in the field and contemporary scored the lowest for
developer B. Finally, The classiness, trendy ness and technically sound scored the lowest for developer C.
The branding personality comparison findings are further summarized in the Figure 1.
Figure 1: Comparison of property developers using branding personality
Respondents Ranking Developer A & B
Developer A
Developer B
C
on
fid
Te
e
ch
ni S nt
ca e
ll cu
Le y S re
ou
ad
nd
er
in
Fi
el
d
C
on Tr
e
te nd
m y
po
ra
ry
C
la
s
A
R sy
ttr P el
ac ro ia
tiv fe ble
e ss
In io
Fa ves nal
tm
m
ily
en
-o
t
rie
nt
ed
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Note: The developers’ names can be revealed upon request.
32
Developer C
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
6. Conclusion
This paper on branding in terms of the preference and buying decision of property buyers raises several
interesting findings. First, although the concept of branding in property development is not as common
when compared to general consumer products, the result indicated that the awareness of branding was
prominent. In property buyers’ mind, for example, there were distinctions between various property
developers and the distinction could be identified through the assigned property branding characteristics.
Branded property developers were usually on the property purchasers’ premium list. That means branded
developers usually obtain higher scoring in all the factors related to property purchase preference and
attitude.
The study also suggests that the role of branding is increasingly important even for the property industry.
Clearly, branding which has become the main emphasis and driving force in many industries such as
consumer products and services is spreading to affect property industry. Therefore, one of the implications
of the study is that property developers should increase the role and importance of branding. That is,
branding, should no longer be used just as a marketing gimmick but be a driving force in becoming the
direction and focus in any property company’s strategic planning. Perhaps, one of the examples would be
the Palm Island Project in Dubai where from the beginning, branding was the driving force in the project
development and marketing. Just like consumers product industry enjoying the benefits of branding,
similarly when a property company is able to achieve branding status, it will also enjoy a larger market
share and brand equity in the competitive environment.
Acknowledgement
This paper is part of a research by Sunway University College in determining the property markets in
Malaysia. We wish to express our sincere thanks to the following persons who have conducted the research
together. They are Leong Yin Ching, Cheong Kee Cheok and Teoh Tsien Jin. However, we are solely
responsible for any errors in this paper.
References
Aaker, J. L. (1997) Branding in Consumer Research. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 34.
Ashworth, G. J. and Voogd, H. (1990) Selling the City: Marketing Approaches in Public Sector Urban
Planning. London: Belhaven Press.
Batey, I. (2002) Asian Branding: A Great Way to Fly. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Bruner II, C. G. and Hensel, J. P. (2005) Marketing Sales Handbook. Chicago, IL.: American Marketing
Association.
Buchholz, A. (2000) What Makes Winning Brands Different. Sommerset: John Wiley and Sons.
Clegg, A. (2007) Unlock the power of brands. Marketing Week, 1, 23-25.
Davis, M. S. and Dunn, M. (2002) Building The Brand Driven Business. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ellwood, I. (2002) The Essential Brand Book. Great Britain: Kogan Page.
Fishwick, A. (2005) The power of branding for real estate agents. Real Estate Magazine, August 2005.
Ford, K. (2005) Brands Laid Bare. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons.
Hankinson, G. (2004) Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 10, 109-121.
Hoyer, D. W. (2004) Consumer Behavior. USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Kavartzis M. (2005) Place branding: A review of trends and conceptual models. The Marketing Review,
329-342.
Morrow, L. J. (2007) Brand Your Business, Rural Telecommunications. Rural Telecommunications, 23-27.
Stinnett, B. (2006) Think Like Your Customer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Temporal, P.(2001) Branding in Asia. Singapore: John Wiley and Sons (Asia).
Temporal, P. (2006) Asia Star Brands. Singapore: John Wiley and Sons (Asia).
Torsten, H. (1998) Competitive branding. West Sussex : John Wiley and Sons.
Viitanen, K. (2004) Brand in the real estate business: concept, idea, value. FIG Working Week, 4, 1-9.
Walsh, K. (2006) Branding the cities of god. Property Strategy, September 2006, 25-29.
33
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Appendix A: Questionnaire
Please tick the appropriate box or boxes for Questions 1 to 29.
A.
Background characteristics of respondent
1.
Age group
: 20 and below
21 to 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
51 and above
2.
Gender
:
Male
Female
3.
Race
:
Malay
Chinese
Indian
Others (please specify)
4.
Citizenship
:
Malaysian
Foreign (please specify)
5.
Marital status
:
Single
Married
Others (please specify)
6.
No. of children in the family
:
None
1 to 2
3 to 4
5 and above
7.
Household income per month
:
RM5,000 and below
RM5,001 to RM9,999
RM10,000 to RM14,999
RM15,000 and above
8.
Type of house
:
Apartment/Condominium
Town/Terrace house
Semi-detached
Bungalow
9.
Status of current house
:
Purchased
Rented
Others (please specify)
10.
If current status of house is purchased, please indicate the purchase price as shown below:
RM199,999 and below
RM200,000 to 399,999
RM400,000 to 499,999
RM500,000 to 599,999
RM600,000 to 699,999
RM700,000 to 799,999
RM800,000 to 899,999
RM900,000 to 999,999
RM1 million and above.
34
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Appendix A: Questionnaire(Continued)
B.
Branding
The following set of statements relate to your views of property developers in the housing sector. Please indicate
whether you Strongly agree, Agree, are Neutral, Disagree or Strongly disagree with the statements below. There is
no right or wrong answer. We are interested in your views only. Please circle the appropriate number which best
reflects your views on property developers in the housing sector.
Degree of Agreement
Strongly
Agree
(1)
No.
Statements
11.
Usually purchase houses which
developed by well-known developers.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
(2)
(3)
(4)
Strongly
Disagree
(5)
are
1
2
3
4
5
Less known property developers’ projects
are usually of a poor quality.
1
2
3
4
5
All developers’ house projects are about the
same.
1
2
3
4
5
A well-known property developer’s brand is
best for me.
1
2
3
4
5
I usually choose the more expensive of
property developers.
1
2
3
4
5
The higher the property cost, the better the
quality of the property.
1
2
3
4
5
The price difference
developers is large.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
among
property
The differences among property developers
are difficult to assess.
Brand personality is a set of human characteristics associated with a brand. Below are brand personality
traits to determine the brand personality of three developers. Please circle the number which indicates,
most appropriately, your perception of the brand personality, from the highest (1 and 2) to the lowest
rank (4 and 5). The names of these developers can be provided upon request only.
Housing Developers
Developer A
No.
Brand Personality
Highest
Rank
Developer B
Lowest
Rank
Highest
Rank
Developer C
Lowest
Rank
Highest
Rank
Lowest
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
19.
Confident
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.
Secure
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
21.
Technically sound
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
22.
Leader in field
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
23.
Trendy
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
24.
Contemporary
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
25.
Classy
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
26.
Reliable
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
27.
Professional
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
28.
Attractive investment
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
29.
Family-oriented
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
35