Abstract

This research draws on social identity theory and social role theory of gender stereotypes to investigate the role of brand gender personality (masculine and feminine) on generating brand warmth and competence, and how consumers’ agentic and communal values condition the effects of brand stereotypes on consumer–brand identification. The theoretical model is tested via two different studies. In the first study (N = 490), 21 brands across different product categories are used to test the theoretical model. Then, a second study (N = 469) corroborates the previously identified relationships and further shows that the effect of brand stereotypes on consumer–brand identification is moderated by agentic and communal motivations. The present study contributes to research on brand stereotyping while providing managerial insights that can be used to enhance the relationship between brands and consumers.

Introduction

A multitude of reports published by Deloitte, Havas Group, McKinsey & Company and Consumer Brands Association underscore a growing expectation gap in consumer-brand relationships. Consumers increasingly perceive that promises made by brands are unfulfilled, leading to a sense of distrust. In their pursuit of competency, transparency and honesty they perceive that brands are falling short (McKinsey & Company, 2021). Additionally, the global survey Meaningful Brands (2021) by Havas Media1 reveals that brand meaningfulness has reached an all-time low, contributing to the escalating mistrust in brands.

In response to this heightened disaffection and rising scepticism, brand management has been promoted under the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework (BIAF). This framework claims that consumers’ impressions of brand warmth (worthy intentions) and competence (ability) are crucial in shaping interactions with brands (Kervyn et al., 2022). Building on the work of Diamantopoulos et al., 2021, Xue et al., 2020, Kervyn et al., 2012, and Kolbl et al. (2020), it is evident that both warmth and competence significantly influence brand admiration, emotions, value perceptions, and purchase intentions. Given the intensified scrutiny on brands, understanding the formation of these brand stereotypes (warmth and competence) and their role in building robust bonds with consumers has become imperative (Rather et al., 2022).

While antecedents of brand warmth and competence, along with their consequences, have been identified in previous research within the BIAF (see Appendix A for a summary), three major gaps persist. This study aims to address them by integrating insights from Social Role Theory and Social Identification Theory to enrich the BIAF.

General discussion and implications

While previous research has extensively explored the antecedents and consequences of brand warmth and competence stereotypes (see Appendix A), our study is the first to empirically examine how these stereotypes are influenced by gendered brand personality and how consumers’ agentic and communal values serve as a boundary condition in the link between brand stereotypes and consumer-brand identification.

6.1. Theoretical contributions
In line with social role theory of gender stereotypes, our study contributes to branding literature by establishing masculine and feminine brand personality as antecedents of brands stereotypes. This relationship is demonstrated for both real (Study 1) and fictitious brands (Study 2). This focus on gendered brand personality adds theoretical value by addressing gaps in current knowledge related to the impact of consumer gender (Eagly and Wood, 2012, Fiske et al., 2007) and gendered brand cues (Hess & Melnyk, 2016) on stereotypes. Our findings reveal the asymmetrical importance of the two gendered personalities in influencing brand stereotypes, aligning with prior research that evidences that masculine traits are more diagnostically relevant than femininity traits (see Hess and Melnyk, 2016, Vacas de Carvalho et al., 2020). Notably, our results show that gendered brand personality effects hold over and above the perceived hedonic and utilitarian product properties, which have previously been linked to brand warmth and competence (Peter & Ponzi, 2018).

Abstract

Introduction

Prior Literature

Methodology

Discussion

Conclusion

References

Abstract

     Tools for analyzing social media text data to gain marketing insight have recently emerged. While a wealth of research has focused on automated human personality assessment, little research has focused on advancing methods for obtaining brand personality from social media content. Brand personality is a nuanced aspect of brands that has a consistent set of traits aside from its functional benefits. In this study, we introduce a novel, automated, and generalizable data analytics approach to extract near real-time estimates of brand personalities in social media networks. This method can be used to track attempts to change brand personality over time, measure brand personality of competitors, and assess congruence in brand personality. Applied to consumer data, firms can assess how consumers perceive brand personality and study the effects of brand–consumer congruence in personality. Our approach develops a novel hybrid machine learning algorithmic design (LDA2Vec), which bypasses often extensive manual coding tasks, thus providing an adaptable and scalable tool that can be used for a range of management studies. Our approach enhances the theoretical understanding of channeled and perceived brand personality as it is represented in social media networks and provides practitioners with the ability to foster branding strategies by using big data resources.

Introduction

     A brand is regarded as one of the most valuable assets owned by a firm. Strong and distinguished brands significantly enhance firm performance (Madden, 2006) and play a key role in building consumer perceptions about products and firms. In fact, scholars have demonstrated that brands exhibit personalities similar to human personalities (Aaker, 1997). As brands build these personalities, consumers sometimes interact with brands as if they were human (Levy, 1985) and form meaningful relationships with brands (Fournier, 1998). Naturally, consumers seek brands with personalities that are congruent with either their own or their aspirational (ideal) personalities (Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2012; Sirgy, 1982). Developing and measuring a strong brand personality is therefore key to many marketing efforts.

     The growth of social media platforms has sparked an opportunity to understand how firms foster meaningful brands and use brand personality in these media. Due to the growing potential for social media networks to be used as efficient marketing and brand-building platforms, firms have increasingly expanded branding efforts to this digital interactive medium. As a result, branding in the digital medium has become an essential form of marketing communication to convey core brand personality. Having the ability to use an effective marketing communications strategy to distinguish a brand from competitors fosters customer relationships and can build brand equity. Thus, for a firm to understand their brand personality in social media, they must develop the capability to assess both the intended and perceived brand personality through the generation of branded content and interactive dialog with consumers.

Conclusion

     Brand personality is a critical resource for the firm that binds together many different stakeholders—consumers, employees, shareholders, and management. It helps delineate the character of a firm and its products and facilitates the emotional connection between a brand and its target audience. Today’s firms are challenged to efficiently define, manage, and control their own brand personality to succeed in a competitive advantage over competitors (Madden, 2006). Brand personality can be an influential tool to induce emotions, build trust and loyalty (Fournier, 1998), and enhance consumer preference (Aaker, 1997). Social media is a natural platform in which brand personality is discussed—both by consumers and by brands—and therefore a natural arena in which to measure, compare, and track brand perceptions. To the best of our knowledge, our proposed approach is pioneering. It provides several opportunities for both researchers and practitioners especially in generating personality assessments regularly, easily, and efficiently for brands of interest.

1- Introduction: corporate social responsibility and luxury brands

2- The sophistication liability of luxury brands

3- Identity goals and perceived brand ethicality

4- CSR focus and luxury brands

5- Overview of the studies

6- Pilot study: brand personality associations with brand ethicality and luxury

7- Study 1: the moderating role of identity goals

8- Study 2: mitigating the sustainability liability of luxury brands

9- Results 10. General discussion

11- Theoretical contributions

12- Managerial implications

13- Generalizability of findings and limitations

14- Conclusion

References

Abstract

Past research suggests that consumers may negatively evaluate luxury brands that engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) because they do not perceive a consistency between luxury and ethical consumption (sophistication liability). As luxury is an increasingly relevant industry, it is important to understand how to promote ethical luxury consumption and cleaner production practices in luxury. This article extends previous findings and provides a framework that shows the conditions under which luxury and ethical consumption can be compatible. In particular, we find that consumers perceive sophisticated brands as less ethical than sincere brands when their social identity goals are salient (i.e., they focus on their social relationships); however, when consumers personal identity goals are salient (i.e., they focus on themselves), they perceive sophisticated brands as equally ethical as sincere brands. Finally, we also show that luxury brands’ CSR actions should focus on the firms’ own consumers whereas sincere brands’ CSR actions should focus on society in general. This research contributes to the literature on sustainability by demonstrating when and how sophisticated brands can engage in socially responsible practices like CSR and cleaner production.

Introduction: corporate social responsibility and luxury brands

Every year, brands invest billions of dollars in corporate social responsibility (The Economist, 2015), in the hope of improving consumers’ brand perceptions and attitudes. While extensive literature has examined the effects of ethics on consumer perceptions of non-luxury commodity brands (Brammer and Millington, 2005; Hsu, 2012; Maignan and Ferrell, 2001; Moraes et al., 2017), research and practice of business ethics in luxury consumption has been more limited. Unfortunately for brands and beneficiaries of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, literature has shown that CSR does not always lead to improved perceptions of brand ethicality (Davies et al., 2012) and, particularly in the case of luxury brands, can even backfire. In contrast with non-luxury brands, luxury ones are often associated with concepts like selfenhancement (Torelli et al., 2012). The concept of selfenhancement itself may be perceived by consumers as not compatible with social responsibility, because the social responsibility implies a general benefit for society. When consumers do not perceive a consistency between the brand and CSR (Kapferer and Michaut-Denizeau, 2014; Torelli et al., 2012), they may negatively perceive a brand’s ethicality (i.e., the degree to which a brand is perceived to be ethical) and have worse brand attitudes. This literature suggests that CSR may be beneficial for some brands that present traits consistent with ethical behavior (e.g., brands concerned with moral obligations and promote society’s well-being) but can hurt others with traits perceived to be inconsistent with ethical behavior (e.g., brands that satisfy self-enhancement need of consumers, luxury brands). This raises important concerns since consumer perceptions of CSR of brands affect their willingness to buy certain brands (Torelli et al., 2012) which, in turn, affects firms’ decisions to invest in Corporate Social Responsibility. A question that arises, thus, is “whether and how luxury brands can engage in CSR to be perceived as more ethical by consumers, without incurring any adverse outcomes?” The answer to this question has important implications for business ethics and sustainability literature.

1- Introduction

2. Conceptual framework and research hypotheses

3- Method

4- Findings and discussion

5- Conclusions

6- Implications and limitations

References

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the influences of brand personality on consumer behavior, with a special emphasis on the brand love construct. The aim is to expand upon existing literature in the field of branding, investigating the relationship between brand love and brand personality through experiential approaches to consumer behavior.
Design/methodology/approach – The conceptual model and the analysis of related hypotheses were based on a sample of 478 Portuguese clothing brand consumers. The data were collected using an online survey and the data analysis was done using the structural equations modeling.
Findings – The results show that brand personality has a positive and significant impact on brand love, resistance to negative information and self-disclosure and brand love has a positive and significant impact on brand loyalty, word-of-mouth, resistance to negative information, willingness to pay more, self-disclosure and active engagement.
Research limitations/implications – This study has some methodological limitation affecting its potential contributions. This investigation has a cross-sectional nature and only tested a few variables as consequences of brand personality.
Practical implications – This investigation provides evidence of the major impacts of both brand personality and brand love, showing how they combine to boost relevant outcomes like brand loyalty, WOW, willingness to pay more, resistance to negative information, self-disclosure or active engagement.
Originality/value – The originality of this research is related to three fundamental aspects: it is the first time the relationship between brand personality and brand love is tested using second-order modeling to capture the combined effects of all dimensions of brand personality; the influence of brand personality is usually related to attitudes (e.g. word-of-mouth, willingness to pay more, etc.) and not with feelings, such as love, the most powerful feeling that can be established between two people or between a person and a brand (in the case of brand love); and the authors tested brand love by linking brand personality and some traditional relational outcomes under the assumption that brand love can strengthen such relationships.

Introduction

Our daily lives are full of different fashion brands constantly fighting for our attention. In addition to this vigorous competition between fashion brands, consumers are also more discriminating and knowledgeable than ever, which results in more carefully considered purchasing decisions. Faced with this new reality, creating an emotional brand attachment is a key issue in brand management (Malär et al., 2011). Many researchers have noted that consumers develop relationships with brands that reflect their relationships with people (Liu and Chang, 2017). In this sense, companies are increasingly searching for strategies that enable them to establish a strong emotional bond with consumers. According to Roy et al. (2016), customer brand relationship management is a significant topic of study for both practitioners and academics. Two widely researched constructs in this field are brand personality and brand love. Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) show that hedonic and self-enhancing products are more prone to fostering brand love. The anthropomorphism found between human love and brand love, like human personality and brand personality (Aaker, 1997), demonstrates that the relationship between brand love and brand personality requires further exploration (Batra et al., 2012; Huber et al., 2015). The need for further study is compounded by the fact that the existing studies that have attempted to establish a link between brand personality and brand love have failed to define more than just partial relationships between a few dimensions of these two constructs (Becheur et al., 2017).

In spite of the ubiquity of brand personification (BP) in advertising, research that examines it effects directly is limited. This study explores the effect of verbal BP on consumer response and the underlying mechanisms involved. In addition, we identified the conditions under which BP has no effect. Unlike prior research, this study focuses on the two types of verbal BP images: internal (“kind”) and external (“good-looking”). Specifically, Study 1 tests the moderating effect of Brand Knowledge (BK) between internal verbal BP and consumer’s evaluation of brand and the underlying mechanisms (brand intimacy and psychological discomfort). Study 2 validates the effect—in particular, that of the need-for-cognition on the attitude toward a BP advertisement—of external verbal BP on the evaluation of advertisements and the underlying mechanisms (perceived novelty and cognitive resistance). This research could provide marketers developing headline copies and slogans for BP advertisements with useful guidelines through a better understanding of the boundary conditions and mechanisms determining the impact of BP.

Introduction

Advertisers have frequently created novel advertisements to gain more attention of, and impressions for, the brand’s target consumers (Batra, Lehmann, Burke, & Pae, 1995; Eastlack & Rao, 1986; Cornwell, Lipp, & Purkis, 2016; Taylor & Costello, 2017). Brand personification (BP) strategy is a branding tool that cultivates a unique brand personality and brand differentiation (Fleck, Michel, & Zeitoun, 2014). It shapes consumers’ brand image (Islam & Rahman, 2016); imbuing the brand with human-like traits encourages target consumers to have affective associations with the brand, thereby increasing emotional attachment toward it (Fleck et al., 2014; Aaker, 1997; Fournier, 1998; Park & Kim, 2015). Brand-elicited human-like traits and emotions affect brand preference, while strengthening the brand-consumer relationship (Delbaere, McQuarrie, & Phillips, 2011; Fleck et al., 2014). BP is “the use by a brand of a character with human-like characteristics in packaging, promotion, public relations, or other marketing related purposes” (Cohen, 2014, p.3). Imbuing the brand with humanlike characteristics, motivations, intentions, and emotions is the essence of BP. Therefore, it creates favorable consumer responses, such as positive brand outcomes and advertising outcomes (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007).

For several decades, marketing literature has addressed the assignment of human personality traits to brands. The theory of animism lies behind this approach (Gilmore 1919; Harvey 2005), in which tangible objects are characterized by attributes that are typically associated with humans. The association of human personality traits with brands encourages consumers to characterize brands as their partners or friends (Fournier 1998). Personality scales help marketers position and reposition their brands (Grohmann 2009). Brand personality is a strong predictor of brand equity (Aaker 1997; Grohmann 2009). One facet of brand personality is brand gender (Grohmann 2009). The positive effect of brand gender on brand equity has been demonstrated (Lieven et al. 2014). Thus, brand personality appears to be an ideal instrument to manage brands, to adjust brand personality according to consumers’ perceptions, and to compare a company’s own brands with competitors’ brands. As with any comparison, the measuring tool has to be valid and stable. Otherwise, comparisons are vacuous. Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998) postulate the generalizability of consumer behavior theories to make them applicable across different countries. This is achieved when the measurements are equivalent and invariant. This holds whether the measurements occur among different brands, industry sectors, consumer groups, or countries and cultures.1 In recent years, scholars made recommendations to increase confidence in scientific findings by testing their reproducibility (Open Science Collaboration 2015). Sev- & Theo Lieven eral attempts have been made to test the reproducibility of the most famous brand personality model (Aaker 1997). The ambiguous results have been widely discussed in other literature. Thus, unlike the concept of brand equity that is shaped rather consistently in literature, with only few equity models not differing substantially from each other (Brady et al. 2008; Keller 1993; Yoo et al. 2000), it seems that a valid and reproducible brand personality model is unavailable. Moreover, the personality models themselves and their conceptualization have been challenged as being unable to measure brand personality (Azoulay and Kapferer 2003). Freling and Forbes (2005), for instance, argued that the definition of brand personality as ‘‘…the set of human characteristics associated to a brand’’ (Aaker 1997, p. 347) was vague and indistinguishable from brand image or brand identity. To narrow the purport of ‘‘brand personality,’’ Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) defined the term more precisely as the ‘‘…set of human personality traits that are both applicable to and relevant for brands’’ (p. 151). Even more precisely, Caprara et al. (2001) presented the most stringent constraint, claiming that ‘‘…personality descriptors [should] load on the same factor when used to describe human personality and brand personalities’’ (p. 381).

Since Aaker’s (1997) seminal work on brand personality (BP), a growing body of research on this topic has been built. The concept of BP is based on human personality using a brand-as-person metaphor to understand brand perception (Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Guido, 2001). BP is defined as “the set of human personality traits that are both applicable to and relevant for brands” (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003, p. 151). BP is an important concept for marketing since consumers assign personality qualities to brands in an anthropomorphism process to animate, humanize or personalize brands in order to build a strong consumer-brand relationship (CBR) (Fournier, 1998). In recent years, the values of BP for the success of a brand have been well documented in the literature (e.g., Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009; Sung & Kim, 2010) and BP is among the most important research streams on CBR research (Fetscherin & Heinrich, 2015). A number of studies have been focusing on the development of reliable, valid and practical measurement tools of BP (see Geuens, Weijters, & De Wulf, 2009; Rauschnabel, Krey, Babin, & Ivens, 2016). Among these studies, the predominantly applied measure is the Aaker’s (1997) BP scale (BPS) (Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013). She adapts the human five-factor model of personality “the Big Five” to develop a five-dimension BPS: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. In spite of the wide use of Aaker’s BPS in research and its important contribution for the theory of BP, it also received several criticisms due to its conceptual and applicability limitations (Avis, Forbes, & Ferguson, 2014; Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003; Geuens et al., 2009; Rauschnabel et al., 2016). In response, researchers offer a wide range of BPS alternatives (Avis et al., 2014). However, most of them include human attributes (e.g., age, gender), and only “a few studies focus exclusively on attributes derived from human personality research” (Rauschnabel et al., 2016, p. 3078). A BPS based exclusively on human personality traits avoids the conceptual and empirical muddle among distinct brand identity facets (e.g., physical facet, culture, relationship) that can be induced by a tooglobal definition of BP (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003). In regard to this, Geuens et al. (2009) propose a new five-dimensions BPS (i.e., responsibility, activity, aggressiveness, simplicity, and emotionally) based only on attributes derived from human personality (Rauschnabel et al., 2016), that is reliable and cross-culturally valid that resembles but distinct from Aaker’s BPS. However, only a few studies apply Geuens et al.’s BPS (e.g., Garsvaite & Caruana, 2014; Goldsmith & Goldsmith, 2012; Gordon, Zainuddin, & Magee, 2016; Matzler, Strobl, StokburgerSauer, Bobovnicky, & Bauer, 2016). Geuens et al. (2009) suggest that a further investigation of the antecedents and consequences of the different BP dimensions is needed. In an attempt to provide further empirical evidence on the validity of Geuens et al.’s BPS, the present study tests the scale in a nomological network that includes two BP dimensions (i.e., responsibility and activity); four brand experience (BE) dimensions (i.e., sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual) as their antecedents; and three CBR constructs (i.e., satisfaction, trust, and loyalty) as their consequences. Responsibility includes three personality traits: down to earth, stable, and responsible; while activity refers to the other three personality traits: active, dynamic, and innovative. This study focuses on these two dimensions of BP because responsibility and activity dimensions are the two most relevant BP traits with regard to CBR (Clemenz, Brettel, & Moeller, 2012; Gordon et al., 2016). In addition, nowadays brands are more interested in being perceived as either socially responsible (Sen, Du, & Bhattacharya, 2016) or dynamic and innovative (Nguyen, Yu, Melewar, & Chen, 2015).

For decades, creating good brand relationship with consumers has been the ultimate goal of many businesses especially in the context of marketing and brand management. One of the common strategic approaches in promoting a brand is through the media in order to keep reminding the target consumers about the brand. Even though this approach is still practiced in many emerging economies such as Malaysia, it is less valued by consumers and they keep on switching brands. Therefore, the term “consumer brand loyalty” has been a central attention in marketing, consumer behaviour, and brand management studies as consumer loyalty (i.e., retention) is considered as the currency of the market place (Gopal Das, 2014). However, researchers believe that consumer retention, which is a result of loyalty, can cost five times less than acquiring a new one (Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2001). Consequently, creating customer brand loyalty by getting the support of branding strategy has gathered momentum among researchers. Previous studies highlighted numerous benefits of building customer brand loyalty with existing customers. For instance, brand loyal customers are inclined to pay premium price, therefore they are less price sensitive (Schiffman, O’Cass, Paladino, & Carlson, 2013) and more engaged in positive word of mouth communication (Schiffman et al., 2013). Furthermore, studies showed that a small increase in customer brand loyalty’s rates can result in a tremendous increase in the firm’s profitability (Gopal Das, 2014). The marketing and consumer behaviour literature has demonstrated that the evaluation of the brand as well as brand attitude is not only a result of the functional facets of the brand but can also be from the symbolic criteria of the brand (Kressmann et al., 2006). According to Oliver (1999), loyalty is engendered through three sequential phases: cognitive loyalty, affective loyalty, and conative loyalty which are all the outcomes of information processing. Each stage of these loyalty facets is effected by different attitudinal factors such as self-image (Kressmann et al., 2006) and self-congruity (Sirgy, Johar, Samli, & Claiborne, 1991). Recently, a small number of researchers investigated and confirmed the impacts of self-image on consumer brand loyalty with most of them considering brand loyalty as a single construct (e.g., Gopal Das, 2014; Kressmann et al., 2006). In order for researchers and brand managers to attain deep insights into how consumer’s brand loyalty is structured and developed, all stages of brand loyalty and its relationships with brand personality and functional congruity should be examined. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, no research has hypothesized the relationship between brand personality and functional congruity and literature lacks in demonstrating the impacts of brand personality and functional congruity on cognitive, affective, and conative loyalties. Furthermore, numerous studies argued that the buying behaviour of consumers vary across genders (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2006), and research also revealed that consumer perception towards the symbolic benefits of brand differ across gender groups, for instance, the symbolic benefits of brand personality between males and females (Gopal Das, 2014; Grohmann, 2009). Therefore, the role of gender requires more investigation in relation to branded products.

Because products and services are not differentiated regarding their most basic functions in this century, the importance of branding cannot be ignored. Branding is a strategical process that enables the consumers to choose a product in an easier way and provides various benefits to its consumers, manufacturers, and mediators, and it also includes elements such as symbols and slogans. While branding is quite common for merchandise, it is not quite common for the service sector. There are several difficulties of branding for services that include the tourism sector as well. First of all, services cannot be stocked and standardized and have heterogeneity in their structure, which results from the service provider. Hotels included in the accommodation enterprises that are an important element of touristic products are able to overcome this problem with branding, and they differentiate from their competitors in this way. In today’s marketing world where consumers prevail, an extremely significant problem for business managements is determining which motivations brands are chosen for. Learning about the motives of tourists for choosing a specific hotel enterprise will provide several benefits such as competition advantage between enterprises. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to reveal the cultural characteristics and attitudes related to the brand personality tourists are affected by and identify the effects of performance perceptions of the hotel enterprise on loyalty attitudes. For this purpose, the cultural characteristics of tourists, their brand personality attitudes, and perceptions regarding brand performance were researched and the effect of these variables on brand loyalty was evaluated by analyzing the data obtained.

2 | CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 | Culture

The effect of culture in intercultural studies is discussed and researched extensively in marketing and management literatures (Elliott & Tam, 2014). Even though culture is a topic that is frequently researched by marketing experts, a commonly accepted definition is out of question. In addition to this, the most extensively accepted definition of culture includes studies regarding its being “behaviour patterns and common sets of values shared by community members.” Culture is also interpreted by primarily common forms of feelings, thoughts, and reactions as several behavioral patterns that are copied from the childhood period until one’s death are either learned or written and are both directly and indirectly distinctive. These common forms of feelings, thoughts, and behaviors shaped by values are acquired and transferred through symbols. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) define culture as traditional ideas and values from the past. Kapferer suggests that brand itself is a culture. Powerful brands have a powerful vision. Brands are ideologies rather than the benefits and personalities of their products. The cultural aspect of it concretizes the brand.

Industrial companies are continually looking to improve their business turnover and improve practices to achieve this objective. Vincent et al. (2013) analyzed overall performance models to allow the decision-makers to select potential actions to launch, regarding given decision criteria. The Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approaches have been developed to deal with problems such as ranking, sorting and quantification. Gurumurthy and Kodali (2012) identified the different attributes that are to be considered when making the decision to select a suitable product development methodology. For the selection of such a methodology, especially for making a strategic decision within the product design and development department of an organization, the most commonly used MCDM model is the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Goyal et al. (2015) identified and prioritized corporate sustainability practices to improve the corporate sustainability performance in the manufacturing sector. Further, these practices were being prioritized to discover the essential practices to ensure logical allocation of limited resources. Then, AHP was used to assess the identified practices of corporate sustainability and to find their priorities for improvement of corporate sustainability performance. Globalization has opened up new opportunities and challenges for companies and brands (Alden et al., 1999). In the past, globalization of a product was a sign of its quality and the success of the company that produced it. Nowadays, products are often globally available irrespective of their reception and quality, and customers have a chance to assess and compare the quality of products from local and international producers. In this process, a local brand may have a chance to fulfill the requirements of the customers and win their satisfaction, while a well-established global brand may fail to do so (Milberg and Sinn, 2008). Globalization exposes customers in most countries to many foreign and local brands. Increasing competition has occurred between local and foreign brands not only in developed countries (e.g. Japan) but also in countries with newly industrialized economies (e.g. Korea and Mexico), as well as developing countries such as Iran. In this mass market, retail talent is considered a valuable resource in branding a product, and the service quality presented by retailers will add to a brand’s reputation. It is possible for companies to place themselves in the mass market by providing interactions with important customers who develop a brand’s values and advantages. A new trend in marketing science focuses on marketing activities in order to attract the attention and reception of local customers, and to be remembered as a quality product by them. Different studies show that the perception of potential customers of the value of a product is largely independent of its real value, i.e., the quality of the product or the services provided to the customers, rather, it relies primarily on success in branding and marketing activities (Kapferer, 2008; Keller, 2008; Kim et al., 2015).

Sponsorship has become a widely used marketing tool employed by businesses of varying size and scope as part of their brand building strategy. Global sponsorship spending was expected to rise by 4.5 percent in 2017 reaching $62.8 billion, as reported by the International Event Group (IEG) (2017), the prevailing sponsorship organization. In all, 70 percent of the total sponsorship expenditure in 2016 was invested in the sport industry, rendering it the most popular sponsored property type (IEG, 2017). Indeed, sport sponsorship has attracted the interest of companies for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the characteristics of sport consumers. Sport consumers are diverse and passionate and are perceived to be more relaxed and potentially more receptive to the messages delivered by sponsoring companies (Mullin et al., 2014). Based on that, sponsors expect that the strong affiliation that fans have with their favorite sport team will, by association, result in positive outcomes for their brand (Dalakas and Levin, 2005). Previous sponsorship research has highlighted the return on sponsorship investment with reference to a variety of brand-related goals (e.g. Cornwell et al., 2001; Donlan, 2014), purchase behavior toward sponsors’ products and services (e.g. Biscaia et al., 2013; Herrmann et al., 2016; Zaharia et al., 2016), and brand switching intentions (e.g. Parganas et al., 2017). It is generally accepted that sponsorship benefits a sponsor’s brand by increasing awareness levels, creating positive attitudes, and building brand loyalty (Cornwell et al., 2001; Donlan, 2014; Grohs et al., 2004; Jalleh et al., 2002). More recent studies have dealt with the process through which sponsorship can result in tangible sponsorship goals (Biscaia et al., 2013; Zaharia et al., 2016). While the formation of a sponsor’s brand personality has also been explored as a sponsorship effect (Cornwell et al., 2001; Deane et al., 2003), there is not enough evidence of its role in influencing more tangible branding evaluations within the sport sponsorship context, such as higher perceived brand quality, brand engagement, and brand loyalty. Given that building brand personality, perceived brand quality, and brand loyalty is a more difficult task for sponsors than raising awareness or strengthening their image (Cornwell et al., 2001), the process by which these variables interact constitutes a significant topic for examination. Moreover, there is increasing evidence of the beneficial effects of sport sponsorship on brand-related sponsorship outcomes with regards to the fans of the sponsored team (Becker-Olsen and Hill, 2006; Donlan, 2014; Roy and Cornwell, 2003). However, research on other groups exposed to the sponsorship promotional activities, such as fans of the rival team, is still in early stages.

Brand personality refers to “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand” (Aaker, 1997, p. 347). Brands, as consumption symbols, not only can help consumers express their various self-concepts but also can represent the values and beliefs of a culture. For example, Aaker, Benet-Martínez, and Garolera (2001) find that Japan and the United States share a certain set of brand personality dimensions, including sincerity, excitement, competence, and sophistication, but also have culture-specific Japanese (peacefulness) and American (ruggedness) dimensions. By asking consumers to rate a set of global brands on the same personality attributes in Korea and the United States, Sung and Tinkham (2005) identify six common brand personality traits (i.e., likeableness, trendiness, competence, sophistication, traditionalism, and ruggedness). More importantly, they also find two culture-specific attributes (i.e., passive likeableness and ascendancy) in Korea and two unique attributes (white collar and androgyny) in the United States, indicating that cultural meaning is embedded in brand personality structure. Indeed, cultural values and beliefs change consumer brand personality perceptions. It is thus desirable and important to examine how cultural beliefs influence evaluations of brand personality. Traditionally, cross-cultural researchers have studied extensively the influence of individualism/collectivism (or independent/interdependent self-construal at the individual level) on brand meanings (e.g., Wong & Ahuvia, 1998). For example, Escalas and Bettman (2005) observe that all consumers have high self-brand connections for ingroup brands, but for outgroup brands, independents have lower selfbrand connections than interdependents do. However, limited research attention has been paid to power distance belief (PDB), the first cultural dimension studied by Hofstede (2001, p. 79), and its influence on consumer perceptions and behavior. Hofstede (2001, p. 83) states that PDB refers to the extent to which people “accept and expect that power is distributed unequally” throughout society. Although within a culture and also across cultures human inequality in power, wealth, and prestige is ubiquitous in social societies, only recently has the topic of how PDB influences consumers’ attitudes and behavior gradually gained attention. To date, a handful of studies have examined the effect of PDB on impulsive buying (Zhang, Winterich, & Mittal, 2010), charitable donations (Winterich & Zhang, 2011), price-quality judgments (Lalwani & Forcum, 2016), status consumption (Gao, Winterich, & Zhang, 2016; Kim & Zhang, 2014), and life insurance consumption (Chui & Kwok, 2008). Various theoretical mechanisms have been proposed to account for the effects of PDB. For example, Zhang et al. (2010) suggest that high PDB activates greater self-control, which in turn reduces impulsive buying. Winterich and Zhang (2011) argue that high PDB triggers low perceived responsibility, which leads to low charity donations. Most recently, Lalwani and Forcum (2016) show that consumers with high PDB have a higher need for structure, which results in a greater tendency to use price to judge quality.

A “brand” is a “name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other sellers” (Common Language in Marketing: Dictionary, n.d.). This seemingly simple concept has many meanings and has produced thousands of articles. According to Moore and Reid (2008, p. 421): (1) “Brands, from all periods in history, display two immutable characteristics related to conveying information to stakeholders: information to indicate the origin of the product and information about quality.” (2) “The evolution of brands shows a movement to greater complexity in character, including the addition of image or meaning to information elements.” (3) “Brands, from ancient times to today, played critical roles not only for end customers, but for also for stakeholders throughout the channel.” In this article, we look at the aspect of branding known as the “self-brand” or “personal brand” or “professional brand.” Self-branding denotes how we want to be perceived by employers, potential employers, clients, professional peers, and others in a way that will boost short- and long-term career prospects. In our career roles, self-branding can be a tremendous marketing asset or a drain on career potential. By taking a holistic, strategic perspective with self-branding, we can greatly enhance chances for success – just like companies and their products do. To succeed in self-branding, a person unfamiliar to the target audience must well communicate his/her attributes: How does this person fulfill a specific job’s requirements? How is he/she better than other candidates? If a job applicant is recognized in the marketplace, he/she must proactively reinforce a positive image and communicate that his/her career path has been strong and will continue to be (Evans, 2014a). In either case, individuals must be able to answer self-branding questions such as these. Yet, many professionals are unprepared for at least some of them: • Can you summarize yourself professionally in 15 words or less? • Do you have the skill set that employers want? • Is your skill set distinctive? • Do you regularly review and update your self-positioning statement? • Do you regularly add to your skill set? • Is your self-positioning statement well-articulated on your resume and at your LinkedIn profile? • Do you seek out feedback about your personal social media sites or listings? • Is your self-branding an honest reflection of yourself? Because self-branding is a type of branding, we begin by examining four topics that place self-branding in the proper context: an overview of branding, brand personality and brand (product) positioning, brand equity and related topics, and corporate branding. Tables 1–4 highlight selected academic research on these aspects of branding; for each article, the author, date, key topics, and major contributions are outlined.