What Dimensions of Brand Personality are Valued in
Different Cultures? A Study on Four Nations
Bachelor Thesis
Tomas Mockus (5793416)
Thesis Supervisor: Pawan Bhansing
Universiteit van Amsterdam
August, 2011
2 TableofContents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 5
Brand Personality ........................................................................................................................ 5
Cultural Differences ..................................................................................................................... 8
Propositions .................................................................................................................................. 14
Method .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Results .......................................................................................................................................... 19
Discussion and Implications ......................................................................................................... 25
Limitations and Guidelines for Future Research .......................................................................... 27
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 29
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 32
3 Abstract
This paper is about brand personality and how it varies through cultures. This research focuses
on Heineken beer brand personality perceptions in four different countries – the USA, the
Netherlands, Lithuania, and Thailand. In addition, two most popular beer brands are evaluated
based on their brand personality perceptions in each of the countries of the research. Aaker’s
brand personality scale on five dimensions (Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication,
and Ruggedness) is used to rank brand personality. Cultural differences concept is based on
Hofstede’s national culture framework on five dimensions (Power Distance Index, Individualism,
Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long Term Orientation). Research findings suggest
that Heineken brand personality has differences in some countries despite its similar positioning
in those countries. Furthermore, similar organization of brand personality of successful beer
brands was found in the research countries. Research results could be applied for positioning
brands globally or locally, orientating into niche or mass markets.
Keywords: brand personality, brand positioning, brand image, cultural differences,
international marketing, national culture.
4 Introduction
Culture, in any kind of form, shapes believes and values of society. On the other hand, society
makes decisions on what is acceptable, likable, and preferable. When we talk about brands,
society distinguishes and chooses brands that are mind-share, has a connection through the
unique attributes that relate consumer and brand. Indeed, understanding the culture is very
important for companies and brands as culture is like a framework which influences the brand
success. This research is about how deeply brands are involved in a specific culture, how
brands interact with local norms and cultural philosophies. It is hoping that the study will answer
the question, what dimensions of brand personality are valued in different cultures?
The research will present results of a cross-cultural analysis of various local American,
Dutch, Lithuanian, and Thai brand personalities in those countries (USA, the Netherlands,
Lithuania, and Thailand). It is assumed that brand personalities will differ amongst different
countries. The need for this research is suggested by the gap in the existing literature
concerning the relationship between brand personality and national culture (Okazaki and
Mueller, 2007). In addition, with an exception of the USA and the Netherlands, there are only a
few cross-cultural studies done in Lithuania and Thailand. And even though the changing
markets in the Baltic States (represented by Lithuania), and South East Asia (represented by
Thailand) attract a lot of journalist observations, there is almost no academic research
conducted in those countries concerning marketing.
This paper presents results of a cross-cultural study of brand personality. Firstly, it
investigates how different Heineken brand personality is across countries – the USA, the
Netherlands, Lithuania, and Thailand. Furthermore, it analyses if there is a “successful” set of
beer brand personality dimensions in the selected countries.
5 LiteratureReview
BrandPersonality
Quite a few instruments measuring brand equity across products and markets are available and
been used in various marketing researches. Aaker (1996) presents a set of ten different
measures for any brand. However, not all of them are appropriate in all cases, and modifications
should be done to fit the content and task (Aaker, 1996). Only measures that focus on brand
association with individuals (or culture in broader terms) will be taken into account in this
research, as the center of attention here is brand involvement in a specific culture. Out of three
associations / differentiation measures (Perceived Value, Brand Personality, and Organizational
Associations) that fall into this category, only brand personality is based on brand-as-person
perspective and can make a visible statement about consumer (Aaker, 1996). Furthermore,
brand personality can represent the values and believes of the culture (Aaker, 1997).
Personality can be defined as unique characteristic patterns of behaviors, feelings, and
thoughts coming from an individual and making the individual unique. A multi-method evaluation
of personality across different cultures is analyzed by Paunonen et al. (1992). Along with other
methods, a viability of the “Big Five” factors of Conscientiousness, Openness, Neuroticism,
Agreeableness, and Extraversion is tested and analyzed in 4 different countries (Canada,
Finland, Poland, and Germany). Their study results indicate that the structure of personality is
remarkably robust, no matter if it was measured by traditional verbal questionnaires or by
nonverbal materials (Paunonen et al., 1992). Now the idea is to transfer this personality concept
from individual psychology theory into marketing research.
Any human feature can be used in order to define a brand. The associations might be
linked to certain demographic features (such as age, gender, race, or social status), beliefs,
activities, and personality traits (Rojas-Mendez et al., 2004). Human characteristics linked with
6 brands define brand personality. In other words, if brand is turned into a human, what words
would you use to describe this human? Brand personality tells to what extend a consumer can
associate his or her own self (Aaker, 1997). So the dimensions that can be applied to human
personally in individual psychology apply to brands in marketing theory as well.
Brand personality creates not only strong long lasting relationship with a brand, serves
as a differentiation factor, but also increases loyalty and trust (Aaker, 1997), influences
consumer choice, patronage, and usage, also forms expectations for features, benefits and
performance (Okazaki, 2006), has an effect on consumer intention to purchase and intention to
recommend behavior (Ekinci and Hosany, 2006). In addition, brand personality often forms
emotional and self-expressive settlement (Aaker, 1996), sort of real connection which is alive,
vivid, and more complete in comparison with just a simple offer (Ekinci and Hosany, 2006).
Brand personality bounds with consumer just as people make friendships (Wee, 2004). This
way brand is no longer a passive object, it is alive in consumer’s mind. Stronger relationship
between the two – brand and human – personalities increases the preference of the brand
(Okazaki, 2006) which leads to a better positioning. This is especially important for brands that
have only minor physical differences, also for brands used in a social setting (Aaker, 1996).
A theoretical framework on brand personality is developed by Aaker (1996). Based on
the “Big Five” model, the dimensions of brand personality are determined – Sincerity,
Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, Ruggedness. See Figure 1. First three dimensions are
also present in human personality scales, but Sophistication and Ruggedness are more unique,
representing wealth and status. Aaker (1996) creates a measurement scale to test reliability,
validity, and, most important, generalization across product categories of those five brand
dimensions, and discusses theoretical and practical implications regarding the symbolic use of
brands. The framework also created new research opportunities regarding perception of brand
7 personality across cultures (Aaker, 1997). However, there is a need to examine how
generalizable the scale is across cultures.
Brand Personality
Sincerity
Excitement
Competence
Sophistication
Ruggedness
Down‐to‐earth
Daring
Reliable,
Upper class
Outdoorsy
Family oriented
Trendy
Hard‐working
Glamorous
Masculine
Small town
Exciting
Secure
Good looking
Western
Honest
Spirited
Intelligent
Charming
Tough
Sincere
Cool
Technical
Feminine
Rugged
Smooth
Real
Young
Corporate
Wholesome
Imaginative
Successful
Original
Unique
Leader
Cheerful
Up‐to‐date
Confident
Sentimental
Independent
Friendly
Contemporary
Figure 1. Brand personality dimensions and their items
Quite a few studies focus on how brand personality dimensions are dependent on
cultural differences. Foscht et al. (2008) test whether the originator “Big Five” dimensions are
perceived in the same way in six different nations. Their study results indicate that it is not the
case, the same brand is perceived differently in different cultures. Aaker (1997) showed that
most of brand personality dimensions (Sincerity, Excitement, Competence and Sophistication)
of the 42 item scale are similar cross-culturally, where others appeared different (peacefulness
in Japan, ruggedness in the USA, and passion in Spain) (Okazaki, 2006).
8 CulturalDifferences
Various definitions of culture could be found in relevant literature. These could range from
definitions based on shared values, problem solving to more abstract, and in some cases
esoteric and spiritual, as summarized by Straub et al. (2002). This work will identify culture as a
set of core values shared by people of a particular country.
When applying the culture concept to marketing, it can mean that brands may be better
perceived by the people of a particular culture if they fit the cultural perceptions of that culture
(Foscht et al., 2008). A global setting study of six countries from three continents conducted by
Foscht et al. (2008) provides evidence that the same brand is perceived differently in different
cultures, even if it is positioned the same way in those countries. In their research Foscht et al.
(2008) conclude that in order to create the same brand personality perception in different
countries it is necessary to adjust brand positioning strategies so the customers are evaluating
brand personality of a product in the same way. Furthermore, cultures that differ in their needs
and values (for example, Western and Asian countries), are more likely to have culture specific
differences in their brand personality (Sung and Tinkham, 2004). Culture specific factors
analyze brand personality structures in Sung and Tinkham (2004) research. A set of global
brands is rated on the same personality attributes in two different countries – the United States
and Korea. Observations point out that Korean brand personality structure carries cultural
meaning, reflecting the importance of Confucian values in Korea’s social and economic
systems, where the USA sample point to changing cultural values associated with occupational
status and gender roles (Sung and Tinkham, 2004).
Cultural differences are analyzed based on brand designs and tagline appeals in Jun
and Lee (2007) study conducted in two countries - the United States and Korea - setting. The
study focuses on a sample of brand logos and taglines of 100 companies from each country.
The findings indicate that Korean brands tend to be more abstract and symbolic compared to
9 the US brands. In addition, the US brands that also contain less additional values (Jun and Lee,
2007). Cayla and Eckhardt (2008) study also suggests that Asian brands emphasize “the
common experience of globalization, evoke a generic, hyper-urban, and multicultural
experience, and are infused with diverse cultural referents”. These types of brands picture Asia
as urban, modern, and multicultural.
National culture framework. Hofstede’s (1980) typology is one of the most common
use and most important framework in cultural studies (Okazaki and Mueller, 2007). Based on
88.000 respondents from 66 countries, Hofstede identified four dimensions that can classify a
society: Power Distance Index, Individualism, Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance Index.
Later researches added the fifth dimension – Long Term Orientation (Okazaki and Mueller,
2007). This study will focus on all five core dimensions of national culture framework. See
Figure 2.
National Culture
Power Distance Index
Individualism
Masculinity
Uncertainty Avoidance Index
Long Term Orientation
Figure 2. National culture dimensions
Power Distance Index (PDI) describes how important is hierarchy, a ranking system in a
particular society. Societies with high power distance have small middle class, an individual rank
and status is more important comparing to societies with small power distance (Hofstede, 1980).
It is important to note that the inequality is defined from below, not above. Power Distance Index
identifies “the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions
10 accept and expect that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 1980). In countries where
power distance is high consumers choose brands that represent their social standing or for
social approval in the respective social group (Kuester et al., 2007), express how they are
different from other classes. In case of low power distance, focus is required on mass market for
extensive middle class.
Individualism (IDV) or its opposite, Collectivism, is described as one of the core values
that define the concept of how individual is dealing with society, and integrates into groups.
Collectivistic societies are known for a narrow network with important family values,
responsibility towards the group, where interdependence, conformity, and similarity are valued
(Markus and Kitayama, 1991). In the case of individualism all the rights are focused around the
individual, autonomy, independence, and uniqueness are valued (Hofstede, 1980). In countries
where individualism is high brand identification is more significant, consumers can express their
actual or ideal image with the brand (Kuester et al., 2007), show how they are different from
members of their group (Aaker, 1997). In contrast, in countries where collectivism is high
consumers are more likely to be using brands in order to show how they are similar to members
of their group (Aaker, 1997). In Western cultures, people value privacy, autonomy, emotional
independence, and individual need (Sung and Tinkham, 2004). In comparison, group harmony,
cohesion, and cooperation are emphasized in Asian cultures, where collective has a higher
value then individual (Sung and Tinkham, 2004). The similarities and differences of both
societies – Western and Asian – should appear in brand personality dimensions and their
attributes’ values (Sung and Tinkham, 2004).
Masculinity (MAS) or its opposite Femininity reflects gender allocation and
characteristics applicable to each sex. Masculine societies have higher values over success,
power, competition, where feminine societies focus on teamwork, sacrifice for other, traditional
values (Hofstede, 1980). In addition, men and women values in feminine societies are the same
11 – modest and carrying. On the opposite side, masculine societies show a gap between men and
women values. Masculine countries are more motivated to express one's ideal self-concept
through the certain brands (Kuester et al., 2007). Traditionally, men of masculine countries are
responsible for larger purchases, and women – for smaller, daily shopping. Feminine countries
are not so fond of advertising, especially when masculine values are advertised (De Mooij,
2003).
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) explains society tolerance for uncertainty and
ambiguity. The index indicates whether members of society feel comfortable or uncomfortable
when dealing with different from usual, unknown, surprising situations. “Uncertainty avoiding
cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety and
security measures, and on the philosophical and religious level by a belief in absolute Truth”
(Hofstede, 1980).
Long Term Orientation (LTO) is opposite to Short Term Orientation. This dimension was
added later by study of students in 23 countries (Okazaki and Mueller, 2007). Thrift and
perseverance are the values associated with Long Term Orientation; while respect for tradition,
fulfilling social obligations, and protecting one's 'face' are the values associated with Short Term
Orientation (Hofstede, 1980).
Later studies propose other frameworks that can characterize societies or countries on
various dimensions, such as Schwartz’s study involving seven different dimensions, or a more
recent GLOBE framework witch outlined nine cultural dimensions (Okazaki and Mueller, 2007).
However, despite some limitations and critics Hofstede’s national culture framework is widely
used in marketing and advertising researches (Okazaki and Mueller, 2007).
Cultural differences of the USA, the Netherlands, Lithuania, and Thailand. Four
countries, namely USA, the Netherlands, Lithuania, and Thailand, have been selected for the
12 research that represents wide range of national culture dimensions. Countries differ not only
geographically (North America, East and West Europe, Asia), but also have strong cultural
differences according to Hofstede’s cultural framework. See Figure 3.
Out of four countries analyzed, Thailand ranks highest on Power Distance Index
dimension. The high Power Distance (PDI) represents a large difference of wealth and power in
the society (Hofstede, 1980). In general, Asian countries score quite high on Power Distance,
which is rather cultural. The USA, the Netherlands, and Lithuania score about the same on this
dimension, but less comparing to Thailand. This represents more equal social levels such as
government, corporate, or even family itself (Hofstede, 1980).
More diverse results could be found on Individualism (IDV) dimension, where Thailand
ranks lowest, USA ranks highest. A low score, as Thailand has, shows that the society is
Collectivist. This type of society is distinguished by attachment to a group of any meaning. It
could be a family, a company, or any other relationship. On the opposite side, individualistic
country such as the USA is associated with rather independent attitude toward each other,
loose bonding with other individuals; the population is more self-reliant, absent for a closer
bounding (Hofstede, 1980). The Netherlands has also very high Individualism rating comparing
to the worlds average.
USA has the highest rating in the dimension of Masculinity (MAS) too. This is an
indicative of a higher separation of male and female roles within society. Relatively low MAS
Index value for the Netherlands and Lithuania may be indicative of a low level of differentiation
and discrimination between genders. In those cultures, females are treated more equally to
males in all aspects of society (Hofstede, 1980).
Lithuania is scoring the highest out of these four countries on Uncertainty Avoidance
(UAI). However it is still in line with world’s average score – 64. A moderate UAI score may
13 indicate a cultural tenancy to minimize or reduce the level of uncertainty within the population by
enacting rules, laws, policies, and regulations to cover most any and all situations or
circumstances. A lower ranking of this dimension, such as USA has, is a sign of a less rule
based society which has less control over results and outcomes. Furthermore, a high tolerance
for differentiation of ideas, believes and thoughts is more valued in this type of society.
Thailand is leading on dimension of Long Term Orientation. This means that country
values thrift and perseverance. Lower ranked USA and Lithuania associate their values with
Short Term Orientation which includes respecting traditions, social obligations, and protecting
one's 'face' (Hofstede, 1980).
100
90
80
70
60
USA
50
The Netherlands
40
Lithuania
30
Thailand
20
10
0
PDI
IDV
MAS
UAI
Figure 3. National Culture dimensions for the selected countries
LTO
14 Propositions
The literature presented above deals with the subjects of brand personality based on Aaker
(1997) brand personality dimensions and cultural differences based on a national culture
framework established by Hofstede (1980). The general idea here is to see how cultural
differences influence brand personality. Aaker (1997) suggested that further researches could
deepen the knowledge of how brand personality is influenced by cultures. Quite a few
researches were presented since the invention of brand personality dimensions covering
various countries and industries. Most of the researches focused on the USA (Siguaw et al.,
1999; Venable et al., 2005; Foscht et al., 2008)), Western Europe countries (Foscht et al., 2008;
Ekincy and Hosany, 2006, Koudelova and Whitelock, 2001), East Asia countries (Jun and Lee,
2007, Foscht et al., 2008), and South America countries (Rojas-Méndez et al., 2004). Out of
those, the largest amount and most diverse countries are analyzed by Foscht et al. (2008) study
on Red Bull brand carried out in six nations – Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, UK, USA, and
Singapore. Other studies focused on different product groups ranging from automobile brands
(Rojas-Méndez et al., 2004) to IT products (Okazaki, 2006, Opoku et al., 2006) or even tourist
destinations (Ekincy and Hosany, 2006).
Unfortunately most of the studies on brand personality cover only one country or a
limited amount of countries, which is understandable because of the nature of the study which
requires an extensive investigation. This study does not aim on investigating as many countries
as possible but rather focus on a cultural variety. Selected countries differ not only
geographically (North America, East and West Europe, and Asia), but also have strong cultural
differences according to Hofstede’s cultural framework. Furthermore, it is a first research where
brand personality concept is applied for an alcoholic beverage – beer. Only minor physical
differences distinguishing beers of the same type and social setting where it is consumed make
this product group not only interesting but also valuable for such a research.
15 While the first proposition has been tested and proven right on different sets of countries
and various products, this research still aims to test whether different cultures have different
organizations of brand personality dimensions on a selected beer brand – Heineken.
P1: Unique organization of Heineken brand personality dimensions will be discerned
despite identical positioning of the brand in the different countries.
Based on the assumption that differences of Heineken brand personality dimensions in
different cultures exist, the present study will investigate whether there is an organization of
brand personality dimensions which would be valued in each of the selected countries. In other
words, what would be a successful brand personality of a beer product group in the countries of
the research? Previous studies (Foscht et al., 2008) discovered that there is a relationship
between certain brand personality dimensions and amount consumed. This research would like
to extend it further – to see if there is an organization of brand personality dimensions for a
brand to be successful.
P2: Similar organization of brand personality dimensions will be visible in successful
beer brands of a certain country.
Furthermore, based on the assumption that differences of Heineken brand personality
dimensions in different cultures exist and that similar organization of brand personality
dimensions will be visible in successful beer brands of a certain country, it is also interesting to
investigate to what extend those beer brand personality dimensions relate to cultural
dimensions. As other studies suggest (Foscht et al., 2008), perception of brand personality is
related to certain cultural dimensions. However, this relationship is still very vague, more
contribution towards explaining how different cultural dimensions might lead to different brand
personality perceptions is needed.
16 Method
Beer market was selected for this investigation because all four countries covered by this
research have quite strong beer drinking culture with their own brands and traditions around
them. Beer brands have only minor physical differences (only a small number of consumers can
distinguish between beers of the same type) but are consumed in a social setting where a brand
can make a visible statement about the consumer. In that case a brand personality can be vital
(Aaker, 1996). Even thought the goal of this research is to develop general measures that will
apply across products and markets, there is a need to choose a particular product category
because not all of the product categories would have a diverse range of brand personality
dimensions. Some product groups have certain dimensions that are product specific (like hotels
- friendly). Beer brands not only have personality, are interesting, but also develop a clear image
of the type of person who would use that brand. And that reflects user imagery, which is the key
driver of brand personality (Aaker, 1996).
The study investigated beer brands in each of the four selected countries - USA,
Lithuania, Thailand (3 beer brands), and the Netherlands (2 beer brands). Firstly, two of the
most popular local (highest sales) beer brands in each country were selected. In addition,
Heineken, as the most popular beer brand of the Netherlands (93th place in Best Global Brands
(2010) ranking by Interbrand), with a major market share, a strong brand personality and similar
positioning in the rest of the world, was selected as a “testing brand” and was investigated in all
four countries. This have resulted 8 different beer brands in total. See Table 1. Such a selection
of brands should be sufficient enough to have high salience rating, also covers all of the
dominant beer brands that have strong personality association in each country.
17 Table 1 Beers selected for the research USA
Netherlands
Lithuania
Thailand
Heineken
Heineken
Heineken
Heineken
Budweiser
Grolsch
Svyturys Extra
Singha
Utenos Auksinis
Chang
Bud Light
The sample consisted of 124 respondents – frequent beer drinkers almost equally split
by gender: 57% male, 43% female. The only limitation for respondent age was legal drinking
age defined by law at the countries of the research: 21 year for the USA, 16 for the Netherlands,
18 for Lithuania and Thailand. The average respondent age was 33 years. See Table 2 for other
sample characteristics.
Table 2 Sample characteristics Number of people surveyed
USA
Netherlands
Lithuania
Thailand
25
31
38
30
Percentage of men
49
68
45
67
Percentage of women
51
32
55
33
Average age (years)
Average consumption of beer over
a week period (liters)
35
32
28
34
3.2
2.5
2.6
1.9
All 8 beer brands (2 for the Netherlands, 3 for each other participating country) were
examined based on their brand personality using Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale.
Asker’s brand personality scale is chosen for two reasons: first, it is the most comprehensive for
measuring brand or product personality; and second, previous studies successfully used this
scale to measure brand personality (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006).
In order to adapt Aaker’s (1997) scale for this research, the content validity of the scale
was tested to justify how it is relevant to measure beer brand personality. Based on similar
studies (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006), the content validity test had 20 subjects (5 of each country the
research is focusing on) used to assess whether 42 brand personality variables are relevant to
18 their description of beer brand personality. There were no requirements for this respondent
sample, but it was expected that respondents are frequent beer drinkers. The following direction
was given to the participating respondents:
“The following adjectives (Table 3) are mostly used to describe characteristics of people in daily
life. However, some of them can be used to describe products, services, and… BEER! This may sound
unusual, but I would like you to think of the last beer you have tasted as if it were a person. Think of the
set of human characteristics associated to that beer. I am interested in finding out which personality traits
or human characteristics come to your mind when you think of that beer. Please tick in the box if you
agree that the adjectives provided below can be used to describe a beer:”
down-to-earth
original
spirited
contemporary
successful
feminine
family-oriented
cheerful
cool
reliable
leader
smooth
small-town
sentimental
young
hard working
confident
outdoorsy
Honest
friendly
imaginative
secure
upper class
masculine
Sincere
daring
unique
intelligent
glamorous
Western
Real
trendy
up-to-date
technical
good looking
tough
Wholesome
exciting
independent
corporate
charming
rugged
The criteria set out for content validity was that traits should be chosen by at least 60%
of the respondents. A similar content validity test was applied by Ekinci and Hosany (2006)
when testing content validity for the destination personality.
A total of 25 traits were left after validity test, which spread out through 5 brand
dimensions: Sincerity (original, down-to-earth, cheerful, real, friendly, honest, sincere,
wholesome); Excitement (cool, trendy, exciting, independent, up-to-date, young, unique,
imaginative); Competence (intelligent, confident); Sophistication (good looking, smooth,
charming, glamorous); Ruggedness (masculine, tough, outdoorsy). Other traits were excluded
19 from further research as they were not appropriate for beer definition and would lead to
inaccurate results.
Each respondent evaluated brand personality of 3 beer brands (or 2 beer brands in the
Netherlands) based on remaining traits on a five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all descriptive, 5 =
extremely descriptive). Aaker (1997) suggested using Likert scale in his research, also this
scale been widely in other recent researches (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006).
Brand personality variables Sincerity (made of 8 items), Excitement (8 items),
Competence (2 items), Sophistication (4 items), Ruggedness (3 items) had obtained Cronbach’s
Alpha score of 0.79, 0.83, 0.78, 0.76 and 0.71 respectively, which indicate high (Excitement) or
reasonable (Sincerity, Competence, Sophistication, Ruggedness) reliability. Deleting items did
not increase Chronbach’s Alpha for any variable, so all the items were kept. See Table 3.
Table 3 Reliability statistics for brand personality variables α
N
α if N1
deleted
α if N2
deleted
α if N3
deleted
α if N4
deleted
α if N5
deleted
α if N6
deleted
α if N7
deleted
α if N8
deleted
Sincerity
0.79
8
0.77
0.79
0.77
0.76
0.77
0.76
0.76
0.79
Excitement
0.83
8
0.81
0.80
0.80
0.82
0.80
0.82
0.83
0.82
Competence
0.78
2
n/a
n/a
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sophistication
0.76
4
0.70
0.69
0.69
0.75
-
-
-
-
Ruggedness
0.71
3
0.62
0.59
0.65
-
-
-
-
-
Results
Heineken beer brand was evaluated in all four countries of the research. Differences appeared
in Heineken brand personality perception in those countries. Respondents of Lithuania valued
most of Heineken brand personality dimensions higher than respondents of other countries
(except for Ruggedness dimension valued highest in Thailand). On the other hand, Americans
valued all Heineken brand personality dimensions lower than others. Ratings of other countries
were about equal, supporting either lower or higher end values. See Table 4 and Figure 4.
20 Sincerity
4
3,5
3
Ruggedness
Excitement
2,5
USA
Netherlands
2
Lithuania
Thailand
Sophistication
Competence
Figure 4. Heineken brand personality dimension in the selected countries A one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was conducted for Heineken brand
personality dimensions among the participating countries. All differences in values of Heineken
brand personality dimensions were found significant with p<0.05. See Table 5. However, post
hoc analyses using Gabriel’s procedure for significance indicated significant differences of
Heineken brand personality dimensions observed only in Lithuania and the USA (all five
dimensions differ significantly), and Thailand and the USA (only Ruggedness dimension differ
significantly).
Two most popular local beer brands of each country were evaluated. In all four countries
researched only slight differences appeared between personalities of two local beer brands.
See Tables 6 and 7 and Figures 5-8. In addition, t-test did not prove any of the differences to be
significant.
21 Table 4 Heineken brand personality dimension in the selected countries USA
Mean
Netherlands
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
Thailand
SD
Mean
Total
SD
Mean
SD
α
Sincerity
2.91
0.76
3.37
0.61
3.60
0.67
3.31
0.64
3.33
0.71
0.79
Excitement
2.89
0.82
3.35
0.77
3.42
0.82
3.20
0.61
3.25
0.78
0.83
Competence
2.92
0.98
3.15
0.91
3.67
0.80
3.40
0.75
3.32
0.89
0.78
Sophistication
2.73
0.84
2.90
1.01
3.40
0.86
2.89
0.76
3.02
0.90
0.76
Ruggedness
2.97
0.91
3.22
0.76
3.64
0.85
3.72
0.76
3.42
0.86
0.71
Notes: Scale: 1 = not at all descriptive; 5 = extremely descriptive
Table 5 ANOVA test for Heineken brand personality dimensions F
p
Sincerity
5.42
0.002
Excitement
2.75
0.046
Competence
4.50
0.005
Sophistication
3.75
0.013
Ruggedness
5.41
0.002
Lithuania
22 Table 6 Personality dimensions of local beer brands in the selected countries (USA and Netherlands) USA
Budweiser
Netherlands
Bud Light
Heineken
Grolsch
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
Difference
t
p
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
Difference
t
p
Sincerity
2.98
0.69
3.12
0.62
-0.14
-0.73
0.47
3.37
0.61
3.58
0.56
-0.22
-1.46
0.15
Excitement
2.77
0.72
3.04
0.64
-0.27
-1.40
0.17
3.35
0.77
3.24
0.70
0.11
0.60
0.55
Competence
3.14
0.86
3.24
1.07
-0.10
-0.36
0.72
3.15
0.91
3.45
0.94
-0.31
-1.31
0.20
Sophistication
2.83
0.80
2.71
0.82
0.12
0.52
0.60
2.90
1.01
3.00
0.80
-0.10
-0.42
0.68
Ruggedness
3.33
0.96
3.28
0.98
0.05
0.19
0.85
3.22
0.76
3.46
0.70
-0.25
-1.34
0.19
Mean
Difference
t
p
Notes: Scale: 1 = not at all descriptive; 5 = extremely descriptive
Table 7 Personality dimensions of local beer brands in the selected countries (Lithuania and Thailand) Lithuania
Svyturys Extra
Mean
SD
Thailand
Utenos Auksinis
Mean
SD
Singha
Mean
Difference
t
p
Mean
Chang
SD
Mean
SD
Sincerity
3.39
0.67
3.27
0.48
0.12
0.91
0.37
3.55
0.58
3.65
0.52
-0.10
-0.67
0.51
Excitement
3.23
0.71
3.27
0.72
-0.03
-0.20
0.84
3.33
0.66
3.42
0.78
-0.08
-0.45
0.66
Competence
3.26
0.79
3.34
0.78
-0.08
-0.44
0.66
3.67
0.55
3.38
0.75
0.28
1.67
0.10
Sophistication
3.17
0.70
3.09
0.70
0.09
0.53
0.60
3.37
0.76
3.38
0.82
-0.01
-0.04
0.97
Ruggedness
3.23
0.77
3.43
0.69
-0.20
-1.20
0.23
3.71
0.92
3.58
0.89
0.13
0.57
0.57
Notes: Scale: 1 = not at all descriptive; 5 = extremely descriptive
23 Sincerity
4
3,5
3
Ruggedness
2,5
Excitement
Heineken
Budweiser
2
Bud Light
Sophistication
Competence
Figure 5. Personality dimensions of Heineken and local beer brands in the USA Sincerity
4
3,5
3
Ruggedness
2,5
Excitement
Heineken
2
Sophistication
Grolsch
Competence
Figure 6. Personality dimensions of local beer brands in the Netherlands 24 Sincerity
4
3,5
3
Ruggedness
Excitement
2,5
Heineken
Svyturys Extra
2
Utenos Auksinis
Sophistication
Competence
Figure 7. Personality dimensions of Heineken and local beer brands in Lithuania Sincerity
4
3,5
3
Ruggedness
2,5
Excitement
Heineken
Singha
2
Chang
Sophistication
Competence
Figure 8. Personality dimensions of Heineken and local beer brands in Thailand 25 DiscussionandImplications
Although a lot of researches were conducted on brand personality and even more on cultural
differences, still there are no clear conclusions how those two models interact with each other
(Okazaki and Mueller, 2007). It is not an easy question to answer as culture is a complex
concept with its various definitions, measures and applications. So is branding – a broad range
of measures is available to determine brand equity (Aaker, 1996), but it is still not clear what
makes brand stronger, successful, and adored by a customer… This research tried to contribute
to existing academic research by looking at brand personality of Heineken beer brand and two
other successful local beer brands in four countries – the USA, the Netherlands, Lithuania, and
Thailand. The idea here was to see if there are any differences of Heineken brand personality
perceptions across the countries and similarities of brand personality of successful local beer
brands within those countries.
P1 was about organization of brand personality dimensions on a selected beer brand
Heineken in various countries. While the first proposition has been tested and proven right on
different sets of countries and various products in most of the cases, it has never been neither
generalized nor applied on an alcoholic beverage – beer. Differences were found in Heineken
brand personality dimensions across countries when looking at the research sample in general.
However, analysis of each brand personality dimension in each of the four countries showed
significant differences between the USA and Lithuania (differ in all five brand personality
dimensions) and the USA and Thailand (differ in Ruggedness dimension only). Despite identical
positioning of Heineken beer brand in the countries researched and previous researches on
other products it was expected to find more significant differences in the perception of brand
personality.
It is not easy to make any conclusions about appeared differences in brand personality
dimensions having only Heineken brand in mind. However, two countries – the USA and
26 Lithuania, that showed significant differences in all Heineken personality dimensions, are quite
distant in Hofstede’s cultural framework too. See Figure 3. Large differences appear in
Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Individualism indexes between those two countries
(Hofstede, 1994; Huettinger, 2008). Despite the fact that the USA is a very masculine and
individualistic country, it showed lower rankings in all dimensions of Heineken brand personality
if compared to Lithuania. The USA and Thailand valued differently on Ruggedness dimension in
brand personality also differ on all dimensions of Hofstede’s cultural framework. Unfortunately,
further research is needed to understand how exactly brand personality dimensions are
interacting with Hofstede’s cultural framework.
P2 was about similarities of successful beer brands in those four countries. Only two
most popular local beer brands from each one of the countries were selected with intention to
prove that there is a successful organization of beer brand personality dimensions. This
proposition was not trying to show that all of the beers produced in a certain country should
have the same organization of personality dimensions, but rather to explore if there is a trend in
what masses like (mass marketing vs. niche marketing). There were no significant differences
found between two successful local beer brand personality dimensions in all four countries of
the research. So P2 can be confirmed for those countries. It means that targeting mass market
in beer production in those countries might be easier by adjusting certain personality
dimensions of a beer brand to what masses like.
This research tried to prove that brand personality dimensions differ across countries
despite identical positioning of the brand. Even though there was not enough evidence
supporting P1 completely in all of the countries researched, some significant results were found.
To conclude, in order to have identical personality dimensions emphasized different marketing
strategies need to be taken across the countries. Furthermore, it is proved that successful
organization of brand personality dimensions exist. In order to compete in a mass market where
27 two or more dominant brands share the same brand personality dimensions, it might be an idea
to create marketing and promotional strategies that would emphasize same “successful” brand
personality dimensions. Or on the other hand, there might be an idea to be different and focus
on a niche market focusing on personality dimensions that appeal to smaller groups of
customers.
LimitationsandGuidelinesforFutureResearch
Even though the study is focusing on four culturally very different countries, the findings cannot
be generalized for the whole set of cultures. However, the main aim of this study was to identify
whether brands of a certain product group from different countries will differ based on brand
personality dimensions, also to see if there is an organization of brand personality dimensions
valued in a certain country. Future studies could focus on creating more generalizable results
for brand personality perceptions across countries.
Now the question is whether the “successful” organization of beer brand personality
dimensions could be anyhow linked to Hofstede’s cultural framework. The USA had its local
beer brand personality valued highest on Ruggedness and Competence, does it link to cultural
dimensions of Individualism and Masculinity where it scores most? The Netherlands ranked
highest on Sincerity but lower on Sophistication, does it relate to the fact that country is quite
individualistic and feminine? Furthermore, why does Thailand have high rank on Sincerity and
Ruggedness dimensions? This research could be a starting point to answer all of these
questions.
Studies about cultural differences should be more diverse in terms of country selection.
Even though four countries of this research are quite different not only geographically (North
America, East and West Europe, Asia), but also have strong cultural differences according to
Hofstede’s cultural framework, they do not exactly represent different ends of Hofstede’s
28 framework. Either more countries should be researched or a selection of countries should be
done focusing more on their Hofstede’s cultural framework scores.
Selection of beer brands in this research was limited. A broader selection could lead to
more extensive results with focus on niche markets. Future researches could deepen the
knowledge on how brand personalities of local and imported beers relate.
More than one brand from various product groups should be selected for evaluation in
terms of brand personality. More extensive research should be done on how brand personality
changes despite identical positioning across borders. Focusing only on beer product group,
brand personality of a few beers should be rated in the countries of research.
In search of successful organization of brand personality dimensions, more local beers
should be tested. In addition, a general personality for the product group (in this case - beer)
should be researched in order to see what personality dimensions are valued in this specific
product group in the first place.
Finally, it would be interesting to research the difference between customer’s perception
of brand personality, and the personality that brand actually creates though advertising and
marketing strategies.
29 Bibliography
Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring Brand Equity across Products and Markets”, California
Management Review, Vol 38 No 3, pp. 102-120.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34
No 3, pp. 347-356.
Best Global Brands. (2010). Retrieved August 12, 2011 from http://www.interbrand.com/en/bestglobal-brands/best-global-brands-2008/best-global-brands-2010.aspx
Cayla J. and Eckhardt, G.M. (2008), “Asian Brands and the Shaping of a Transnational
Imagined Community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 35, pp. 216-230.
De Mooij, M. (2003), “Convergence and Divergence in Consumer Behavior: Implications for
Global Advertising”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol 22 No 2, pp. 183-202.
Ekinci, Y. and Hosany, S. (2006), “Destination Personality: An Application of Brand Personality
to Tourism Destinations”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol 45, pp. 127-139.
Foscht, T., Maloles, C., Swoboda, B., Morschett, D. and Sinha, I. (2008), “The Impact of Culture
on Brand Perceptions: A Six-Nation Study”, Journal of Product and Brand Management,
Vol 17 No 3, pp. 131-142.
Hofstere, G. (1994), “Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind”, McGraw Hill,
Cambrige, MA.
Huettinger, M. (2008), “Cultural Dimensions in Business Life: Hofstede’s Indices for Latvia and
Lithuania”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol 3 No 3, pp. 359-376.
Jun, J.W. and Lee, H.S. (2007), “Cultural Differences in Brand Designs and Tagline Appeals”,
International Marketing Review, Vol 24 No 4, pp. 474-491.
30 Koudelova, R. and Whitelock, J. (2001), “A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Television Advertising in
the UK and the Check Republic”, International Marketing Review, Vol 18 No 3, pp. 286300.
Kuester, S., Hess, S.C., Hinkel, J. and Young, J. (2007), “Brands as Means of Self-Expression:
A Cross-Cultural Study”, University of Mannheim, Germany.
Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1991), “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion
and Motivation”, Psychology Review, Vol 98 No 1, pp. 224-53.
McSweeney, B. (2002), “Hofstede's Model of National Cultural Differences and Their
Consequences: A Triumph of Faith - a Failure of Analysis”, Human Relations, Vol 55 No
1, pp. 89-118.
Okazaki, S. (2006), “Excitement or Sophistication? A Preliminary Exploration of Online Brand
Personality”, International Marketing Review, Vol 23 No 3, pp. 279-303.
Okazaki, S. and Mueller, B. (2007), “Cross-Cultural Advertising Research: Where We Have
Been and Where We Need to Go”, International Marketing Review, Vol 24 No 5, pp.
499-518.
Opoku, R., Abratt, R. and Pitt, L. (2006), “Communicating Brand Personality: Are the Websites
Doing the Talking for the Top South African Business Schools?”, Brand Management,
Vol 14 No 4, pp. 20-39.
Paunonen, S.V., Douglas, N.J., Trzebinski, J. and Friedrich, F. (1992), “Personality Structure
Across Cultures: A Multimethod Evaluation”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol 62 No 3, pp. 447-456.
31 Rojas-Méndez, J. I., Erenchun-Podlech, I., and Silva-Olave, E. (2004), “The Ford Brand
Personality in Chile”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol 7 No 3, pp. 232-251.
Siguaw, J. A., Mattila, A., and Austin, J.R. (1999), “The Brand Personality Scale: An Application
for Restaurants”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol 40 No 3,
pp. 48-55.
Straub, D. Loch, K., Evaristo, R., Karahanna, E. and Srite, M. (2002), “Toward a Theory-Based
Measurement of Culture”, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol 10 No 1, pp.
13-23.
Sung, Y. and Tinkham S.F. (2005), “Brand Personality Structures in the United States and
Korea: Common and Culture-Specific Factors”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol 15
No 4, pp. 334-350.
Venable, B. T., Rose, G. M., Bush, D., and Gilbert, F. W. (2005), “The Role of Brand Personality
in Charitable Giving: An Assessment and Validation”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol 33 No 3, pp 295-312.
Wee, T.T.T. (2004), “Extending Human Personality to Brands: the Stability Factor”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol 11 No 4, pp. 317-30.
Williams, J.D., Han, S.L., and Qualls, W.J. (1998), “A Conceptual Model and Study of CrossCultural Business Relationships”, Journal of Business Research, Vol 42 No 4, pp. 135143.
Appendix
Questionnaire
What year were you born? {1900..1994}
What is your gender? {male / female}
What is your nationality? {American / Dutch / Lithuanian / Thai}
The following adjectives are mostly used to describe characteristics of people in daily life. However, some
of them can be used to describe products, services, and… BEER! This may sound unusual, but I would
like you to think of NAME1 beer as if it were a person. Think of the set of human characteristics
associated to NAME brand. I am interested in finding out which personality traits or human characteristics
come to your mind when you think of this beer.
Using a five point scale (strongly disagree - strongly agree), please rate the extent to which the 25
personality traits describe NAME brand:
original
down-to-earth
cheerful
real
friendly
honest
sincere
wholesome
cool
trendy
exciting
independent
up-to-date
young
unique
imaginative
intelligent
confident
good looking
smooth
charming
glamorous
masculine
tough
outdoorsy
Strongly
Disagree
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Disagree
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
NAME refers to a specific beer brand rated in that country. See Table 1.
Agree
Strongly Agree
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o