Brand image problems in a personal context
Author: Falk Wiemer
Student number: 11089075 Date of submission: 24.06.2016
Qualification: M.Sc. Business Administration – Marketing Track Institution: University of Amsterdam – Amsterdam Business School Supervisor: Drs. Roger Pruppers
II
Statement of originality
This document is written by Falk Wiemer who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
III
Abstract
Despite the relevance of and great interest in personal branding academic literature on this topic is rare and mainly theoretical. In fact, thus far not much has been written about how personal brands work in the minds of consumers. By focusing on personal branding from a negative perspective and examining the impact of brand image problems on the brand evaluations of celebrity personal brands this thesis suggests that personal brands can be organized in associative networks. Furthermore, this study distinguishes between different brand image problems that may occur in the associative networks of personal brands and may vary in terms of the strength, favorability, uniqueness and type of brand associations as well as by the number of different combinations of problems. With respect to the consequences of these brand image problems this thesis shows that brand image problems negatively affect the brand evaluation of celebrity personal brands and that the number of brand image problems also plays an important role. The results further suggest that unique brand image problems are more severe compared to non-unique problems and that functional brand image problems appear to be more serious compared to symbolic problems. Furthermore, this study points out the importance of positioning not only to create strong brands with great equity but also to compensate for brand image problems.
IV
Acknowledgements
This Master thesis would have not been possible without the support and help of many people who I would like to thank very much for their efforts and time.
First, I would like to thank my supervisor Roger Pruppers and his colleague Jorge Labadie for not only for introducing me to branding as such but also for introducing me to the interesting subtopic of problem brands. Second, I have to especially thank my supervisor Roger Pruppers for guiding and supporting me throughout this entire journey. It has been a challenge but certainly a positive one. Third, I would like to thank all people who participated in this research. Without investing time in filling out the extensive questionnaire this research would have not been possible. Fourth, I have to thank my family and friends not only for supporting me throughout this entire process but also for standing me and my issues during the last half year. Last, I would like to especially thank my girlfriend for always being there for me and understanding me which was definitely not always easy.
V Table of contents Statement of originality... II Abstract ... III Acknowledgements ... IV Table of contents ... V 1. Introduction ... 1
1.1 Football as motivation for personal branding ... 1
1.1.1 Personal branding phenomenon ... 1
1.1.2 Personal branding from a negative perspective ... 2
1.2 Problem definition ... 3
1.2.1 Problem statement ... 3
1.2.2 Subquestions ... 4
1.2.3 Delimitations of the study ... 4
1.3 Contribution ... 5
1.3.1 Theoretical contribution ... 5
1.3.2 Managerial contribution ... 6
1.4 Structure ... 6
2. The brand as an associative network ... 7
2.1 Traditional branding as a departure point ... 7
2.2 Customer-based brand equity ... 7
2.3 Associative network memory model ... 8
2.4 Brand positioning ... 10
2.4.1 Strength, favorability and uniqueness of brand associations ... 11
2.4.2 Points-of-difference and points-of-parity ... 11
3. Problem brands ... 13
3.1 Brand association problems ... 13
3.1.1 Problems in strength ... 14
3.1.2 Problems in favorability ... 15
3.1.3 Problems in uniqueness... 16
3.1.4 Combination of SFU problems ... 16
3.1.5 Other problems... 17
4. Personal Branding ... 19
4.1 Branding in other contexts ... 19
4.2 The brand as a person ... 19
VI
4.3.1 Personal branding in the popular literature ... 20
4.3.2 Personal branding in the academic literature ... 21
4.3.3 Explanations for a lacking foundation of personal branding ... 22
4.4 Towards the personal brand as an associative network... 24
5. Hypotheses development ... 25
6. Method ... 30
6.1 Free association method ... 30
6.2 Research design ... 31
6.3 Stimuli development ... 31
6.4 Stimuli testing ... 34
6.5 Sample and procedure ... 37
6.6 Measures... 38
7. Results ... 40
7.1 General descriptive statistics ... 40
7.2 Data preparation and manipulation checks ... 40
7.2.1 Data screening ... 40
7.2.2 Celebrity personal brand familiarity ... 41
7.2.3 Computing reliability and scale means ... 42
7.2.4 Manipulation check ... 44
7.2.5 Categorization key ... 47
7.2.6 Verification of the categorization key... 50
7.2.7 Capturing the brand image ... 52
7.3 Hypotheses testing... 57
7.4 Additional analyses ... 63
7.4.1 From a negative perspective ... 63
7.4.2 From a positive perspective ... 69
8. Discussion ... 72 8.1 Findings ... 72 8.2 Implications ... 78 8.2.1 Theoretical implications... 78 8.2.2 Managerial Implications ... 79 9. Conclusion ... 82 9.1 Recap ... 82
9.2 Limitations and recommendations for future research ... 85 References ... VII Appendices ... XIII
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Football as motivation for personal branding
Recently, there is a new trend observable among professional football players – personal branding – that increasingly establish themselves as personal brands. David Beckham was the first player who achieved global recognition not only as a footballer, but also as a fashion icon. Throughout his career he endorsed multiple products and now, after his career, he is still involved in a co-branding partnership with the Swedish fashion company H&M (Forbes, 2015b). Another example of successful personal branding is Cristiano Ronaldo, who not only has a greater online community than Coca-Cola and engages in several endorsements, but also uses his acronym ‘CR7’ as a brand to promote different products such as underwear, socks, shoes, fragrances, books, apps, a movie or even a museum (Forbes, 2015a).
However, examples such as German international Marco Reus, who drove several years without a valid drivers’ license (BBC, 2014), or Brazil forward Neymar, who is currently accused of tax evasion and forgery in both Brazil and Spain (BBC, 2016a), show that many professional footballers and, thus, personal brands have problems regarding their brand image. But what can actually go wrong in the brand image of footballers? How are these different brand image problems perceived by fans and thus consumers? How are these problems evaluated? What are the consequences and implications? Which problems are more severe than others? These are some interesting questions that this thesis tries to answer throughout its further course. The focus of this thesis is, however, not solely on football players, but also on other domains such as leaders in politics or celebrities in the entertainment industry and, thus, on celebrity personal brands in general.
1.1.1 Personal branding phenomenon
Personal branding as a concept is based on the logic of applying product branding principles to individuals. Therefore, it can be described as the process individuals engage in to promote themselves as well as their careers as personal brands in order to obtain brand equity.
The phenomenon of personal branding has been practiced for decades by an ever increasing number of celebrities or leaders in businesses, politics and the entertainment industry (Shepherd, 2005). With regard to these domains, personal branding can be considered as a
2 consequence of the increased association of people with brands in the popular press or with advertising (Bendisch et al., 2007). Recent examples such as Donald Trump, who makes use of his provocative personal brand for the 2016 Presidential race (Forbes, 2016), or Elon Musk, who promotes several brands (e.g. Tesla, SpaceX, Hyperloop) with his business rock star image (Inc., 2015), proof that personal branding is still relevant in these fields.
However, it was until Peter’s (1997) article in ‘Fast Company’, titled ‘The Brand Called You’ that personal branding was expanded onto the individual and, thus, became popular to a wider audience. This popularization is also due to the complex and uncertain environment at that time (Lair et al., 2005). As a response, an entire industry evolved around the concept of personal branding, as evident form the constant stream of management books (e.g. Kaputa, 2012; Montoya & Vandehey, 2002; Peters, 1999) and the emergence of web sites, courses, self-help gurus and consultancies that are all devoted to personal branding (Shepherd, 2005). Most of these contents on personal branding are, however, of a popular nature and guarantee individual success by following some simple rules (e.g. McNally & Speak, 2002). Although, most personal branding literature is thus process-oriented in the sense of ‘what to do’ and operational in terms of ‘how to do it’, the personal branding is still of great importance. This is evident from a keyword search of ‘personal branding’ for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 on Google which revealed a strong increase from ca. 3.450.000 to ca. 6.330.000 and to ca. 15.500.000 results, respectively (Google, 2016). In addition, Amazon.com lists 2.832 books on personal branding with several best sellers among those (Amazon.com, 2016).
1.1.2 Personal branding from a negative perspective
Despite the relevance of and great interest in personal branding, academic literature on this topic is rare and mainly theoretical. So far, only a few authors have considered personal branding, although, without developing a robust conceptualization (Bendisch et al., 2007). Personal branding is, therefore, in some ways associated with, and developed from, but not yet linked properly to the traditional and more fundamental principles and concepts of product branding (Shepherd, 2005).
Similar to the popular literature which primarily focuses on ‘success stories’, most of the academic literature on personal branding focuses on studying the phenomenon from a positive perspective in terms of how to improve the personal brand image. Personal branding has, thus, not yet been studied from a negative perspective. This is not further surprising since
3 academic literature with emphasis on negativity does not receive much attention in general, as also evident in the traditional branding context. Yet, focusing on brand image problems can generate valuable insights, because negative information is considered to be more diagnostic and informative than positive information (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990). Studying brand image problems in a personal context may even be more interesting, since the most important driver of personal brand image is the behavior of the person itself and because these persons are rarely experienced brand managers. Consequently, personal brands are at a higher risk to engage in potentially harmful behavior compared to commercial brands. Zlatan Ibrahimović, for example, insulted after a defeat not only the referee, but the entire French nation. As a consequence he got suspended for four matches and was confronted with major criticism (The Guardian, 2015). Another example of potentially harmful behavior is Luis Suárez, who bit an opponent during the 2014 World Cup and, consequently, got suspended from all football-related activity for four months (The Guardian, 2014). These examples demonstrate that the idea of brand problems may be even more important in a personal context, where brands are simply under the control of individuals, compared to the product branding context, where brands are under control of professional brand managers. Studying personal branding from a negative perspective, which academic literature has so far failed to address is, thus, an interesting research subject.
1.2 Problem definition
1.2.1 Problem statement
The aim of this thesis is to address the existing gap in the literature of personal branding and to thereby generate a better understanding of how personal brands work in the minds of consumers. However, as it would certainly go beyond the scope of this work to close the vast gap in the literature of personal branding this thesis addresses a specific part of the overall gap by focusing on personal branding from a negative perspective.
So far academic literature has failed to consider the relevance of studying personal brands with respect to problems regarding their associative network. This negative approach may, however, be more diagnostic compared to the positive approach to personal branding (see Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990). Studying the problems and the resulting consequences and implications of these problems may, in fact, create a better understanding and more
4 valuable insights regarding the creation of strong brands and hence brand equity. Due to the lack of academic literature, this study is of an explorative nature, putting special emphasis on problems in the associative network of personal brands. The problem statement is as follows:
What is the impact of brand image problems on brand evaluations in a personal branding context?
1.2.2 Subquestions
This overall problem statement is further divided into several subquestions to allow for a more structured analysis. First, it is important to establish whether there are differences between the brand image of personal and traditional, commercial brands, since the concept of brand image is contextual. Second, it is necessary to understand the different brand image problems that may occur in the associative networks of personal brands. These problems may have different causes and, third, may lead to different consequences and implications in terms of how they affect the brand evaluation. Last, it is important to understand and distinguish which brand image problems are more serious than others. The subquestions are as follows:
1. How is brand image different for personal brands than for traditional brands?
2. What brand image problems can be distinguished in the associative networks of personal brands?
3. What are the consequences and implications of these brand image problems? 4. Which brand image problems are perceived to be more severe than others?
1.2.3 Delimitations of the study
As already mentioned earlier, this thesis focuses on personal branding from a negative perspective. More specifically, this work investigates different brand image problems of personal brands that may occur in the associative networks of personal brands, their consequences and their influence on the overall brand evaluation in terms of severity.
This is done by comparing the associative networks of personal brands which are confronted with brand image problems with the ones of personal brands which are not confronted with image problems. In this regard, associative networks of personal brands are developed
5 throughout the further course of this study. However, it is important to mention that due to the limited scope of this thesis only celebrity personal brands will be considered. Focusing on this group implies that this work will not take other domains of personal branding into consideration. Furthermore, this study will solely consider a limited number of brand image problems. Besides the impact of multiple problems at the same time, this thesis will focus on problems which are characterized by strong and negative associations that may further vary in terms of the uniqueness and type of associations.
1.3 Contribution
1.3.1 Theoretical contribution
Since the majority of academic contributions are of a positive nature and because personal branding has not yet been studied from a negative perspective this thesis provides some important theoretical contributions.
First, this thesis shows that despite some important differences between the product and personal context not only product brands but also personal brands can be organized in associative networks. Therefore, this study establishes a foundation of personal branding – about how personal brands work in the minds of consumers. Second, by establishing that most contents on personal branding are process-oriented, operational and focused on ‘success stories’ this study introduces an alternative, promising approach to personal branding by focusing on the different types of problems that may occur in the associative networks of personal brands. More specifically, this study suggests that personal brands may be confronted with problems regarding the strength, favorability, uniqueness and type of brand associations as well as with multiple combinations of problems. Third, this thesis makes a contribution to the rare and mainly theoretical academic literature of personal branding by investigating the consequences of the different brand image problems personal brands may be confronted with. In this regard, this thesis shows that the severity of brand image problems is driven by an interaction of associations which go beyond Keller’s (1993, 2002) SFU criteria. Last, this thesis generates important insights beyond personal branding. This is because this is the first exploratory study that not only focuses on brand positioning from a positive perspective in terms of Keller’s (1993, 2002) SFU criteria but also one the negative side of Keller’s (1993, 2002) SFU criteria as well as on the complexity of different associations.
6
1.3.2 Managerial contribution
From a managerial point of view the results of this thesis are also of great importance, since there exist various examples of celebrities who are confronted with brand image problems and because the results provide managers with a better understanding of how personal brands work in the minds of consumers in terms of brand image and positioning.
First, this thesis shows that besides the fact that brand image problems have a negative impact on the brand evaluation of celebrity personal brands, the number of brand image problems also plays an important role. Second, with respect to the uniqueness of brand image problems this thesis suggests that personal brand managers should avoid unique brand image problems as they are more severe. Third, with respect to the functional versus symbolic dimension of brand image problem the results of this study point out that functional brand image problems appeared to be more severe than symbolic ones. Last, this thesis shows that brand managers should not only focus on the positioning form a positive perspective in order to create strong brands with great equity but that personal brand managers should also take into consideration that points-of-difference (PODs) can compensate for brand image problems.
1.4 Structure
This thesis will proceed as follows: A literature review from chapter 2 to 4 establishes the theoretical foundation for this work. Chapter 2 focuses on the traditional branding literature and creates an understanding of how brands work in the minds of consumers in terms of brand image and brand positioning. Chapter 3 concentrates on brand image problems and more specifically on what can go wrong in the associative networks of traditional brands. Chapter 4 makes a transition towards personal branding by elaborating on the differences between the traditional and personal context and the hereof resulting consequences regarding the applicability of the traditional concepts and models for personal branding. Chapter 5 defines the hypotheses that will be tested throughout the further course of this study. Chapter 6 describes the underlying research method. Chapter 7 describes the data analyzation process and presents the results of this study. Chapter 8 discusses the findings of this thesis and introduces the theoretical as well as managerial implications. Chapter 9 sums up the most important findings of this research and concludes this work with possible limitations and directions for further research.
7
2. The brand as an associative network
2.1 Traditional branding as a departure point
To study personal brands, and more specifically image problems of personal brands, it is essential to first establish an understanding of how brands work in the minds of consumers. Therefore, this study first elaborates on the concepts of traditional branding to provide such an understanding, before making the transition towards image problems and personal brands.
2.2 Customer-based brand equity
The brand, which is often defined as “a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or a group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors” (Kotler, 1991: 442), is one of the most valuable assets to any organization (Keller & Lehmann, 2003). This places special emphasis on branding – on creating, managing and measuring brand equity (D. A. Aaker, 1996).
Brand equity which is the added value created by the brand can be distinguished in terms of financial and customer-based brand equity (CBBE). Financial brand equity refers to the financial value of a brand whereas CBBE refers to the value in terms of the customer mindset (Keller, 1993). Financial brand equity is further driven by the customer mindset as illustrated by Keller & Lehmann’s (2003) ‘brand value chain’. CBBE is, thus, an antecedent of financial brand equity and a source of competitive advantage (D. A. Aaker, 1992).
Keller (1993) defines CBBE “as the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand.” (Keller, 1993: 2) A widely recognized model of customer mindset and hence CBBE is Keller’s (2009) ‘brand resonance model’ (see also Keller, 2001) which illustrates that CBBE in terms of brand resonance is driven by the underlying associations (see Figure 1). Brand resonance which can be divided into an attitudinal (customer mindset) and behavioral component develops when customers have deep and broad brand awareness, hold strong, favorable and unique brand associations and if these associations elicit the right brand response in the customers’ minds. Brand resonance and can further be created following two different paths along the ‘brand resonance model’: Either along functional brand associations (i.e. performance) and cognition (i.e. judgements) or along symbolic brand associations (i.e. imagery) and affect (i.e. feelings).
8 Figure 1: Brand resonance model adapted from (Keller, 2009)
2.3 Associative network memory model
So far we have established that brand associations are essential to CBBE. The essence of brand value comes, thus, from associations – from what consumers know about the brand and how they think about it. From a cognitive psychological perspective we know that human memory consists of knowledge and information, which are organized in associative networks (Krishnan, 1996). Figure 2 illustrates such an associative network memory model for the color red and shows how related knowledge and information is organized.
According to the ‘associative network memory model’ (J. R. Anderson, 1983), each associative network consists of a set of nodes and links. Nodes are any piece of stored information and represent the building blocks of associative networks (Keller, 1993). Nodes are connected to each other by links which suggest an association in the consumer’s mind (Krishnan, 1996). Associative links between any two nodes require a contiguous perception of both nodes (Carr, 1931). Therefore, both nodes have to be observed at the same time to create a link in the consumer’s mind. The links between nodes are, furthermore, bidirectional and their directional strength is not necessarily symmetric (Lei et al., 2008).
Since nodes can be described as any piece of stored information, nodes can of course also represent knowledge about product brands (e.g. Nike), products (e.g. football shoes) or
Judgements Performance Feelings Imagery Salience Resonance 4. Relationships
What about you and me?
3. Response
What about you?
2. Meaning
What are you?
1. Identity
Who are you? Points-of-parity &
difference
Deep, broad brand awareness Stages of brand development Branding objectives at each stage Intense , active loyalty Positive, accessible reactions
9 product attributes (e.g. durability). It thus makes sense that knowledge and information about brands are also stored in associative networks (see Figure 3 for an example of Nike).
Figure 2: Associative network memory model adapted from Collins and Loftus (1975)
Figure 3: Associative network of Nike adapted from Krishnan (1996)
The retrieval from long-term memory in terms of information is determined by a ‘spreading activation’ process from one node to another. Activation spreads out along the links of the associative network in a decreasing gradient and starts at one node a time (Collins & Loftus, 1975). There are two ways a node can become an activation source for other, linked nodes: First by encoding of external information or second by retrieval of internal information from
Red Orange Yellow Green Fire House Fire Engine Bus Truck Ambu-lance Vehi-cle Roses Flow-ers Violets Sun-sets Sun-rises Clouds Apples Cher-ries Pears Nike Football Shoes Sports Brand Greek Goddess Adidas Cristiano Ronaldo Dura-bility Practice Swoosh Expen-sive Street Wear Football
10 long-term memory. The brand node Nike may, thus, either be activated by a directly related advertisement or by thinking first about the general category sports brands and then about Nike itself. Either way, in order for one node to spread, activate and recall the information contained in other, linked nodes, the spreading activation needs to exceed a certain threshold level. The extent of spreading activation and information retrieval from long-term memory, therefore, depends on the strength of association between the activated and all other, linked nodes (Keller, 1993). Again, if consumers think about the category sports brands the brand node Nike may be activated due to the strong association with that particular category. Additionally, information from other, linked nodes may be retrieved such as price perceptions, thoughts about the products’ durability or images of logos and endorsers.
The strength of association is, furthermore, positively influenced by the number of times the nodes have been associated with each other in the past and by the depth of processing (D. A. Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Till & Shimp, 1998). This is also referred to as the law of repetition. The spreading activation is further determined by other associative laws. First, the law of similarity states that if two nodes share the same or similar content and links, they are perceived to belong together. It thus may be that consumers link Nike to direct competitors such as Adidas. Second, the law of vividness suggests that more vivid and striking associations are easier to remember. Last, the law of recency states that recently learned associations are also easier to remember (Carr, 1931). Yet, this is not always the case since certain associations may be so strong that it is difficult to learn new ones. This is also referred to as associative inhibition (Franzen & Bouwman, 1999).
Overall, brands can thus be organized in associative networks which are driven by brand associations – by anything linked in memory to a brand (D. A. Aaker, 1991). Brand associations which are, therefore, reflections of how the brand is perceived in the consumers’ minds create the brand image (Keller, 1993) which is complex and different from one brand to another in terms of the characteristics of the brand associations (see Krishnan, 1996).
2.4 Brand positioning
The process of creating an attractive brand image to occupy a distinctive position in the minds of consumers can be defined as brand positioning (Keller, 2009). The essence of brand positioning is to establish a brand with a sustainable competitive advantage or unique selling proposition in terms of superior and distinctive customer value that provides customers with
11 an indispensable reason for buying that brand (Keller, 1993). The goal of positioning is thus to create a strong associative network and brand image in order to contribute to CBBE.
2.4.1 Strength, favorability and uniqueness of brand associations
Keller (1993) suggests that a strong brand, hence a strong associative network, is characterized by strong, favorable and unique brand associations (SFU criteria).
First, strength relates to the intensity of the link between the association and brand node (Till et al., 2011). Thus, associations differ in terms of connection strength to the brand node – the stronger the association, the greater the spreading activation and information retrieval. Stronger brand associations are, therefore, activated faster than weaker associations. As already mentioned earlier, the association strength is determined by the quantity and quality of processing the connection between the association and node. The brand node Nike may, thus, trigger associations such as sports brand before associations like football practice. Second, favorability refers to how favorable associations are evaluated by consumers. Associations can be evaluated positively and negatively. Favorable brand associations are evoked in the case consumers believe the brand to have attributes and benefits that satisfy their needs and wants. Therefore, favorability implies that the underlying associations have to be relevant for consumers (MacKenzie, 1986). If a consumer evaluates Nike’s football shoe association positively, thus, implies that this association is also perceived as important.
Third, uniqueness describes how distinct brand associations are perceived as brand features within the product category. In this regard, some associations may be unique to just one brand, while other associations might be shared with many competing brands (Till et al., 2011). Compared to Nike’s sports brand association which is shared with competitors, the ‘swoosh’ association is differentiating. The perception of unique associations, thus, requires a detailed understanding of the brand and its competitors. However, positioning that solely focuses on differentiation is not sufficient nor sustainable (Keller et al., 2002).
2.4.2 Points-of-difference and points-of-parity
Keller et al. (2002) stress the importance of both difference (PODs) and points-of-parity (POPs) within a specific frame of reference to successfully position a brand.
12 First, PODs correspond to the SFU criteria and are characterized by strong, favorable and unique brand associations that distinguish a brand from competitors. PODs may be based on any type of attribute or benefit, represent the unique selling point and provide the reason to buy. There are three criteria for assessing PODs: desirability, deliverability and differentiability. Desirability suggests that consumers have to perceive the association as relevant, believable and credible. Deliverability implies that it must be feasible and profitable for the organization to create the association in the consumers’ minds and that the association is communicable and difficult to attack by competitors. Differentiability requires the association to be perceived as distinctive and unique. Nike’s ‘swoosh’ association represents such a POD since for most consumers it is desirable in the sense that it indicates high quality and because it represents a key differentiating factor in comparison to other brands.
Second, POPs are strong, favorable but not unique brand associations which are, in fact, shared with competitors. There are two basic types of POPs: category and competitive POPs. Category POPs on the one hand are associations that consumers consider essential within an established product category to understand the brand’s meaning. POPs are, thus, necessary to establish a category membership within the specific frame of reference. Nike’s sports brand association is, for example, such a category POP. Competitive POPs, on the other hand, are associations created to negate the competitors’ PODs. In other words, they are responsible to ‘break even’ with competitors by removing their competitive advantage (Keller, 2009). Nike’s expensive association which is shared with Adidas can be understood as such a competitive POP, as it indicates that Nike’s products are of a similar high quality.
13
3. Problem brands
3.1 Brand association problems
Thus far we have established that a strong associative network is essential for CBBE. However, we do not know yet what happens if something in the underlying associative network goes wrong. What occurs if there are problems in the brand’s associative network? Some brands may evoke strong, favorable but not unique associations in the consumers’ minds, while other brands may create strong, unique but unfavorable associations.
There is plentiful academic literature on brand image, but the focus so far has been solely on studying brand image from a positive perspective (Winchester & Romaniuk, 2003). The fact that studying brand image from a negative perspective has not yet received much attention is not further surprising, since there is only little academic literature with emphasis on negativity in general. However, brand image problems have been highlighted as areas for future research (Hoek et al., 2000; Winchester & Romaniuk, 2003) and, as already mentioned earlier, may be more diagnostic compared to traditional branding approaches.
Some authors have already identified the relevance of brand problems and investigated some specific influencing factors (see Winchester & Romaniuk, 2008). Nevertheless, it is more important to first get a better understanding of problem brands in terms of problems that may occur in the brands’ associative networks. Following this line of reasoning, Haveman and Labadie (2003) define a problem brand as a brand that, from a consumer point of view, either misses crucial brand associations or has strong negative brand associations which ultimately prevent consumers from buying it. Furthermore, they identify 12 different types of problem brands (see Table 1) with respect to their associative networks and stress that brands can create CBBE once they take care of the brand association problems in the consumers’ minds. It appears that their perspective on CBBE is similar to the one of Keller (1993), although Haveman and Labadie (2003) focus on a deviation from Keller’s (1993) SFU criteria. In line with Keller (1993) and Haveman and Labadie (2003) a problem brand can, thus, be defined as a brand that either lacks strong, favorable or unique brand associations – or any combination of them. The types of problem brands developed by Haveman and Labadie (2003) are, therefore, confronted with problems regarding the strength, favorability and uniqueness of brand associations.
14
Type Negative aspect Lacking Example
Dusty Dusty, dull, boring Dynamics Nova, GAK
Out of Touch Outdated Contemp. connection Old Spice
Indifferent Exchangeable Distinction Hertz, Avis
Suspicious Imbalance Quality McDonald’s
Emotionless Pure rationality Emotional connection House brands
Taboo Shame of use, fear Social acceptance Mercedes
Kelvin Vagueness Any association Ericsson, Kelme
Donut Concavity, imitation True identity Spice Girls
Fragmented Disorder, chaos Coherence Dommelsch
Trapped Rigidity Diversity Biotex
Scandal Very diverse Trust Enron, Ahold
Suggestive Very diverse Fit with reality Foster Parents Plan
Table 1: Twelve types of problem brands adapted from Haveman and Labadie (2003)
3.1.1 Problems in strength
Problem brands can first be described by problems regarding the association strength. Strength is considered to be the most important dimension of associations as it does not matter how unique or favorable associations are unless they are not being recalled and linked to the brand (Keller, 2001). Association strength is, thus, a pre-requisite for the bottom level of the ‘brand resonance model’ (Keller, 2009).
Haveman and Labadie (2003) distinguish between two types of problem brands in terms of association strength. Kelvin brands on the one hand fail to evoke associations. Since these brands lack ties to other, linked nodes and consumers are, thus, unable to understand the brand’s meaning, kelvin brands are unlikely to enter the consumer’s consideration set. Furthermore, it is questionable whether kelvin brands can be considered as true brands. Fragmented brands on the other hand elicit brand associations which are lacking coherence. Since the brand node may have links to other, related nodes which differ from person to person, fragmented brands have an inconsistent brand meaning which clearly prevents these brands from achieving higher levels of the ‘brand resonance model’.
Despite the importance of problems regarding the association strength, academic literature focuses predominantly on the opposite – on how to create strong brands with strong associations and great equity (e.g. Hoeffler & Keller, 2003; Keller, 2005; Keller & Lehmann, 2003) – since CBBE is considered a source of competitive advantage (D. A. Aaker, 1992;
15 Keller, 1993). Keller (2005), for example, proposes that brands can create CBBE in two simple ways. First, brands can choose memorable, meaningful and likeable primary brand elements to enhance the brand awareness and facilitate the formation of strong associations. Second, brands can leverage secondary associations which link the brand to strong associations of other entities. However, the vast amount of literature dedicated to creating strong brands with strong associations suggests that problems regarding the brand association strength are a relevant dimension of problem brands.
3.1.2 Problems in favorability
Problem brands can also be defined in terms of problems regarding the favorability of associations. In this regard, Haveman and Labadie (2003) distinguish between two broad categories. First, they identify different types of problem brands which are not able to create favorable links in the associative networks. These brands, thus, fail to create favorable associations in the consumers’ minds which may ultimately prevent consumers from buying them. Second, Haveman and Labadie (2003) distinguish between different types of brands that create negative brand associations (see also Greyser, 2009). Therefore, these brands exhibit links to other nodes with a negative valence which may dilute the brand image and might also prevent the consumers from purchasing these brands.
However, especially the role of negative brand associations is particularly interesting, since negative stimuli tend to have a greater effect on a subject than equally intense positive or neutral stimuli. In cognitive psychology this is described as negativity effect (Peeters & Czapinski, 1990). Therefore, people tend to rely more on negative than positive information in forming overall evaluations of a subject (Klein, 1996; Skowronski & Carlston, 1989). Explanations for the negativity effect are that negative information is more attention getting than positive information (Fiske, 1980) and that negative information is considered more informative and diagnostic than positive information (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990). The negativity effect may, thus, imply that negative associations have a greater impact on the brand evaluation than positive associations.
The idea of negative associations is also relevant in the academic literature. This is evident from several contributions regarding product-harm crises, which can be described as well-publicized events caused by products that are found to be defective or dangerous (Dawar & Pillutla, 2001), and brand misconduct, which goes beyond product harm-crises by also
16 including socially or ethically debatable actions (Huber et al., 2010). Brand crises which cause negative brand associations that ultimately devastate brand equity (Van Heerde et al., 2007) can, thus, either be performance-related, affecting the brand’s functional benefits, or values-related, affecting the brand’s symbolic benefits (Pullig et al., 2006). Greyser (2009) who identifies different causes of brand crises emphasizes that theses crises are most serious if they affect the brand’s core associations. These and other examples (e.g. Ahluwalia et al., 2001; Campbell & Warren, 2012; Roehm & Tybout, 2006; Romani et al., 2012) indicate that problems regarding the favorability of associations are important.
3.1.3 Problems in uniqueness
Problem brands can further be characterized in terms of problems regarding the uniqueness of brand associations. Haveman and Labadie (2003) identify indifferent brands as brands that lack differentiation and more specifically PODs. In this regard, they exhibit some strong links to other nodes which are, however, shared with competitors. Therefore, indifferent brands will always end up in the consideration set but are unlikely to become the preferred brand, because consumers cannot identify the unique selling point or reason to buy.
Problems in uniqueness are also identified in the academic literature which mostly suggests that undifferentiated brands are more likely to fail than differentiated brands since consumers are not motivated to buy them (see Davidson, 1976). This notion is also supported by literature on store brands. Although store brands provide an opportunity for retail differentiation (Collins-Dodd & Lindley, 2003), they are often perceived as just another brand. Therefore, consumers have no preference of where to buy store brands which makes the management of store brands a ‘zero sum’ game (Richardson, 1997). However, it is important to mention that some authors argue that brands should emphasize distinctiveness rather than uniqueness, because differentiation plays are more limited role than actually assumed (Romaniuk et al., 2007). Nevertheless, problems regarding the uniqueness of brand associations can, thus, also be considered as a relevant dimension of problem brands.
3.1.4 Combination of SFU problems
Problem brands can, of course, also be confronted with combinations of association problems. One tool that illustrates all combinations with respect to the SFU criteria is the
17 ‘Brand SWOT’ (37°Celsius, 2016) depicted in Figure 4. The left side of the ‘Brand SWOT’ captures all combinations of positive brand associations. If associations are further strong and distinctive they represent PODs. If they are strong but shared they can be defined as POPs. In the case that associations are weak instead of strong, PODs and POPs turn into potential PODs and POPs, respectively. The right side of the ‘Brand SWOT’ depicts all combinations of negative brand associations. If associations are also strong and distinctive they represent brand problems (BPs). If they are strong and shared they constitute category problems (CPs). Also, if associations are weak, BPs and CPs turn into threats of BPs and CPs, respectively.
Figure 4: Brand SWOT adapted from 37°Celsius (2016)
3.1.5 Other problems
Furthermore, Haveman and Labadie (2003) suggest that brands may also be confronted with problems that go beyond the SFU criteria. Besides suggestive brands which risk becoming scandal brands because they try to create associations that are not coherent with the brand meaning and trapped brands which are caught in very strong associations and, thus, face associative inhibition, Haveman and Labadie (2003) describe emotionless brands as brands which are completely functional and lack emotion. The brand node is, therefore, only linked to functional, performance-related and not to symbolic, imagery-related brand associations. Consequently, emotionless brands are only bought for rational reasons.
From academic literature it is evident that both the functional and symbolic brand concept influence the relationship between the consumer and the brand (Low & Lamb Jr., 2000). Although brand performance is considered to be at the heart of brand equity, in the sense that functional brand associations are essential to create parity, performance-related deficiencies are seldom overcome and performance-related associations tend to be more important to the overall brand evaluation, symbolic brand associations also play an important role. Compared
Positive Potential POD POD Potential POP POP Distinctive Shared Negative Threat of BP BP Threat of CP CP Distinctive Shared Weak Strong
18 to functional associations, symbolic brand associations are considered to be more important for higher levels of CBBE and as a source of competitive advantage in terms of positioning and differentiation (Keller, 2002). This is because symbolic brand meaning is seen as longer lasting and less likely to suffer from erosion compared to functional brand meaning (Lynch & De Chernatony, 2004). Since functional brands need to incorporate an emotional brand concept to achieve higher levels of CBBE, problems regarding the type of brand associations (functional versus symbolic) also constitute a relevant dimension of problem brands.
Despite these problems, problem brands may, however, also be confronted with multiple problems at the same time. In terms of the associative networks, these brands may for example be linked to several unfavorable brand associations. This is also evident from the service context where higher magnitude or intensity levels of service failure lead to higher levels of dissatisfaction and more negative evaluations of the service experience overall (Sengupta et al., 2015). In this regard, problems brands may be confronted with problems which go beyond the SFU criteria as well as multiple problems at the same time.
19
4. Personal Branding
4.1 Branding in other contexts
In the previous chapters we have established that CBBE depends on a strong associative network and we have emphasized the relevance of different problems in the associative networks of brands. However, thus far both chapters have focused on the concepts and models of traditional product branding instead of personal branding to provide an understanding of how brands work in the minds of consumers. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to make a transition towards personal branding by elaborating on the differences between the traditional and personal context and assessing how this may affect the applicability of the traditional concepts and models for personal branding.
As evident from a wide stream of literature, there has been a growing interest to expand product branding onto other contexts (Bendisch et al., 2007; Lair et al., 2005). Amongst others, branding can be applied to locations (e.g. Hankinson, 2001; Kavaratzis, 2004; Morgan et al., 2002), education (e.g. Gray et al., 2003; Kotler & Fox, 1985), health (e.g. Kotler & Clarke, 1987) the monarchy (e.g. Greyser et al., 2006), religions (e.g. Gray et al., 2003; Rein et al., 1997; Shepherd, 2004), politics (e.g. Lees-Marshment, 2001; Newman, 1999; Wring, 1999), business-to-business (e.g. Kuhn et al., 2008) or services (e.g. Berry, 2000).
Although traditional branding can be expanded to numerous other contexts, attempts to do so are still the subject of considerable resistance and debate. This is because of conceptual and practical difficulties that arise from the application of traditional branding principles and techniques to other contexts (Shepherd, 2005). Service branding, for example, differs from product branding in several important ways, mainly because of the general differences between products and services (Berry, 2000). Consequently, not all concepts and models of traditional branding can be applied to service branding (De Chernatony & Segal-Horn, 2003). To assess the applicability of the concepts of product branding in a personal context it is, therefore, essential to elaborate the contextual differences between products and persons.
4.2 The brand as a person
Despite the fact that traditional branding can be applied to various contexts, consumers often perceive brands as if they were real persons. This is because they attribute brands with a
20 certain brand personality which can be defined as “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand.” (J. L. Aaker, 1997: 347) In other words, brand personality refers to the brand associations which relate to human characteristics and is, therefore, a component of brand image. Similar to the conceptualization of human personality, J. L. Aaker (1997) describes brand personality as a multi-dimensional construct composed of five distinct dimensions: Sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. Brand personality which is hard to copy and less vulnerable to competitive positioning, furthermore, tends to serve a symbolic or self-expressive function which is considered to be important for higher levels of CBBE and may represent a source of competitive advantage.
However, it is important to note that human personality traits are formed differently from brand personality traits (J. L. Aaker, 1997). While the perception of human personality traits is formed and influenced by the individual’s behavior, attitudes and beliefs, physical characteristics and demographic characteristics (Park, 1986), the perception of brand personality traits is based on any direct or indirect contact consumers’ have with the brand (Plummer, 1985). Furthermore, it is also important to mention that brand personality may operate in different ways or influence consumer preference for different reasons than human personality. This is due to the asymmetric relationship in the structure of the human compared to the brand personality which comprises two additional dimensions (J. L. Aaker, 1997). Consequently, the conceptualizations of brand and human personality are similar but also different in terms of how they are formed and how they work in the consumers’ minds.
4.3 The person as a brand
Thus far we have established that traditional branding can be applied to different contexts, but that it is essential to consider the differences between the traditional and new context and the resulting consequences. Furthermore, we have outlined the similarities and differences between the brand and human personality and shown that brands can be seen as persons. Thus, it should also work the other way round, in the sense that we can see persons as brands.
4.3.1 Personal branding in the popular literature
Most of contents on personal branding are of a popular nature and focus on providing strategies for individual success. The lack of consistent terminology throughout the popular
21 literature places personal branding currently in a ‘free-for-all’ surrounding (Shepherd, 2005). Despite this fact, most popular contributions share certain similarities, regardless of their source. First, the focus on self-commodification – turning oneself into a product – serves as the common denominator (Lair et al., 2005). Second, personal branding is claimed to be inevitable. This is because nowadays almost everybody makes use of it in some way such as creating a profile on LinkedIn. Third, most subject matter guarantees individual success by following some simple rules. Carnegie (1938), for example, proposes in his book ‘How to win friends and influence people’: Six ways to make people like you; twelve ways to win people to your way of thinking; nine ways to change people without giving offence or arousing resentment; and seven rules for making your home life happier (see also Covey, 1989). The popular personal branding literature is, therefore, process-oriented in the sense of ‘what to do’ and operational in terms of ‘how to do it’. Last, most personal branding contents share that they are in some ways associated with, and developed from, but not yet linked properly to the traditional principles and concepts of product branding (Shepherd, 2005).
4.3.2 Personal branding in the academic literature
Despite the relevance of and great interest in personal branding, which is evident from the multitude of popular contributions, academic literature on this topic is rare and mainly theoretical. Similar to the popular literature, which predominantly focuses on ‘success stories’, most academic literature focuses on how to use personal branding in order to build personal brands and how to manage personal brands in terms of improving the brand image. Especially personal branding in a social media context currently gains a lot of attention (e.g. C.-P. Chen, 2013; Labrecque et al., 2011), since it provides individuals with the opportunity to promote themselves as personal brands in a relatively cheap and efficient manner (Karaduman, 2013). Individuals brand themselves using contents they place on social media to develop consumer-personal brand relationships or to create their online fans communities (C.-P. Chen, 2013). Additionally, Karaduman (2013) found that personal branding in a social media context not only creates value for the personal purposes, but also for the corporate purposes of top level executives. Personal branding is also relevant in the non-profit sector, because it can add to the success of corporate image and reputation (Nolan, 2015).
Taken together, most academic literature is similar to the popular literature in the sense that it is process-oriented and operational. Not much has yet been written about the basic foundation
22 of personal branding – about how personal brands work in the minds of consumers – in terms of brand image and brand positioning. Some authors (e.g. Lair et al., 2005; Shepherd, 2005) suggest that the differences between the product and personal context and the hereof arising difficulties are responsible for the lack of such a basic foundation of personal branding.
4.3.3 Explanations for a lacking foundation of personal branding
Different perspectives
Bendisch et al. (2007) who apply the different product branding dimensions to persons in order to assess the applicability of traditional branding concepts for personal branding identify some of these differences. They suggest that one difference between traditional product brands and personal brands is related to the perspective both concepts have to be considered from. Product brands can be organized into either a consumer or organization perspective (Kapferer, 1997), while personal brands require an extension of these perspectives. First, the consumer perspective must be extended into a stakeholder perspective, as personal brands do not only have consumers but also stakeholders. Second, the organization perspective has to be extended to a brand creator perspective, because personal brands can also be created by other entities or by the individuals themselves. However, this can also lead to a brand conflict between the personal and organizational brand, since there is no clear dividing line of whether the individual should market its personal versus the organizational brand (Shepherd, 2005). For example, celebrity endorsers may only endorse a brand if it also serves to enhance their own personal brand image (Pringle, 2004). Personal brands may, however, also benefit from synergies between both brands (Shepherd, 2005). Human identity
In line with J. L. Aaker’s (1997) argumentation that the brand and human personality exhibit some important differences, Bendisch et al. (2007) also identify differences between the product and personal brand identity. They suggest that the personal brand identity has to be extended by the human identity that influences the personal brand image. This human identity can be described as a person’s mental model of itself and is defined by the relationship between the “individual’s self-definition (‘self’), the meaning of its role in society (‘personal identity’) and its behavior in society (‘social identity’).” (Bendisch et al., 2007: 16) While the brand identity of products is defined by the organization, the personal brand identity can
23 either be based on the human identity of the person or it can be created detached from it. Personal brands can, thus, either be product-centric (based on inherent values) or customer-centric (built for the satisfaction of other needs and wants) (Shepherd, 2005).
Product-centric approach
Although both approaches are advocated in the personal branding literature, the majority of contents are concentrated on the product-centric approach. This is because personal branding is “essentially an inside-out process that serves to encapsulate the current strengths and uniqueness of the individual in relation to a target market.” (Shepherd, 2005: 602) A personal brand identity which is based on inherent values is, further, considered to be more powerful, credible and sustainable (Bendisch et al., 2007). From the product context we also know that brands should be clear and consistent. The importance of developing a coherent brand image may, however, represent a potential issue for personal brands, because individuals tend to develop multiple personal brands according to their different personas in their personal, social and working lives (Shepherd, 2005). From a product branding standpoint we know that brands with an incoherent image, hence Fragmented brands, prevent consumers from creating a clear brand meaning. An incoherent brand image as a result of the multiple personal brands of an individual can, further, lead to both brand conflict and dilution (Shepherd, 2005). However, for a brand to be successful not the behavior of the person has to be constant and coherent, but the core parts of both human and brand identity (Bendisch et al., 2007).
Individual visibility
Another difference between the product and personal context in terms of individual visibility is that personal brands are exposed to a higher number of competitors. Yet, celebrity personal brands are affected to a lesser extent by the problem of individual visibility since the distribution of awareness corresponds to the Zipf curve, in which celebrities benefit from a majority of public awareness (Shepherd, 2005).
Overall, there are some important differences between the product and personal context and, thus, possible explanations for the lack of a foundation of personal branding, which have to be kept in mind regarding the applicability of the traditional branding concepts for persons.
24
4.4 Towards the personal brand as an associative network
However, despite the differences between the product and personal context, the general perception holds that people can legitimately be considered as brands, since both concepts exhibit some strong similarities (Bendisch et al., 2007). Therefore, it appears logic to apply the basic traditional branding concepts in a personal context, in order to get a better understanding of how personal brands work in the minds of consumers. Since knowledge and information about brands are stored in associative networks, it makes sense that knowledge and information about personal brands are also organized in associative networks (see Figure 5). From this it follows that strong associative networks of personal brands should also be characterized by strong, favorable and unique brand associations (SFU criteria). Furthermore, it makes sense that personal brands may also be confronted with any combination of problems regarding the SFU criteria, with problems that go beyond the SFU criteria as well as with multiple problems at the same time.
Figure 5: Associative network of Cristiano Ronaldo based on Krishnan (1996) Cristiano Ronaldo Ballon d‘Or Nike Most goals in CL season Lionel Messi Real Madrid Football FC Barcelona Fragrance Perfor-mance Adidas FIFA
25
5. Hypotheses development
As already mentioned earlier, the purpose of this thesis is to focus on personal branding from a negative perspective and to analyze the impact of brand image problems on the evaluation of personal brands. Thus far we showed that despite the differences between the product and personal context, personal brands can be organized in associative networks and that strong personal brands are characterized by the SFU criteria. Furthermore, we established that personal brands may be confronted with problems regarding the SFU criteria, with problems that go beyond the SFU criteria and with multiple problems at the same time.
However, considering all these problems and their combinations would certainly go beyond the scope of this work. In this regard, this thesis focuses on just a limited number of problems which are considered to be the most severe in the personal context. First, regarding the strength of brand associations this thesis will only consider brand image problems that are characterized by strong instead of weak brand associations. This is because problems which are characterized by weak associations are more difficult and work intensive to capture and less informative. In other words, the added value is unlikely to compensate for the required efforts. Second, regarding the favorability of brand associations this work will predominately consider brand image problems that are caused by negative associations. Therefore, POPs will not be considered as brand image problems in the first instance, although there is no doubt that brands with solely POPs are unlikely to become the preferred brand. Yet, brand image problems which are characterized by negative associations are considered to be more severe and important. Third, although problems regarding both the flexibility and type (functional versus symbolic) of brand associations seem relevant in a personal context this thesis will only consider the type of brand associations. This is because problems regarding the type of brand associations are likely to be more prevalent among celebrity personal brands compared to problems regarding the flexibility of associations. Another reason for focusing on the type instead of on the flexibility of brand associations is the fact that associative inhibition is not necessarily negative and, thus, may not lead to brand image problems (see Franzen & Bouwman, 1999). Last, this thesis will consider single as well as multiple problems since multiple problems may be more severe (see Sengupta et al., 2015). Despite focusing solely on brand image problems that personal celebrity brands may be confronted with, this thesis also considers the positive counterparts of these problems as a frame of reference. In this regard, this thesis takes all the theoretical combinations which are
26 depicted in Figure 6 into account and treats them as independent variables to measure their respective impact on the brand evaluation as the dependent variable. Furthermore, the number of the different BPs, CPs, etc. will also be included as an independent variables of this study.
Figure 6: Different combinations of brand associations that will be considered as independent variables to measure the impact on the dependent variable brand evaluation
Favorability of brand associations
In order to assess the consequences of brand image problems in the associative networks of personal brands in terms of the brand evaluation, this study will first focus on the most basic form of problems – on problems regarding the favorability of brand associations – irrespective the uniqueness of the associations.
As already mentioned earlier, it can be assumed that negative brand associations have a greater impact on the overall brand evaluation compared to positive associations. This is due to the negativity effect which refers to the fact that negative stimuli tend to have a greater effect on a subject than equally intense positive or neutral stimuli (Peeters & Czapinski, 1990). In this regard, the overall brand evaluation of a celebrity personal brand whose brand node is linked to at least one strong and unfavorable brand association should be more negative compared to the brand evaluation of a personal celebrity brand which lacks negative associations and whose brand node is, thus, solely linked to strong brand associations which are, furthermore, neutral or favorable. Again, this should be the case regardless of the uniqueness of brand associations. In other words, this should apply to brands with a BP, which is characterized by strong, unfavorable and unique associations, as well as to brands with a CP, which can be described in terms of strong, unfavorable and not unique brand associations. Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 are as follows:
Functional Functional POP Functional POD Functional CP Functional BP Positive Negative Strong Symbolic Symbolic POP Symbolic POD Symbolic CP Symbolic BP Positive Negative Shared Distinctive
27 H1: A celebrity personal brand with at least one BP is evaluated more negatively than
a celebrity personal brand without a BP.
H2: A celebrity personal brand with at least one CP is evaluated more negatively than a celebrity personal brand without a CP.
Number of brand image problems
To analyze which brand image problems in the associative networks of personal brands are perceived to be more severe than others, this thesis will first concentrate on the number of brand image problems, irrespective of the uniqueness of the associations.
Thus far this study established that in the service context higher magnitude or intensity levels of service failure lead to higher levels of dissatisfaction and more negative evaluations of the service experience overall (Sengupta et al., 2015). Furthermore, this is in line with the findings of Lei et al. (2008) which indicate that the magnitude or intensity of negative spillover in brand portfolios not only depends on the strength and directionality of brand associations, but also on the number of associations linked to the brand. A brand which is linked to more strong and unfavorable brand associations and, thus, more problems compared to a brand which is linked to fewer problems should, therefore, be evaluated more negatively. Again, this is irrespective of the uniqueness of brand associations and should, therefore, apply to both brands with BPs and CPs. Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4 are as follows:
H3: A celebrity personal brand with multiple BPs is evaluated more negatively than a celebrity personal brand with a single BP.
H4: A celebrity personal brand with multiple CPs is evaluated more negatively than a celebrity personal brand with a single CP.
Uniqueness of brand associations
After assessing the severity of brand image problems for personal brands with respect to the number of problems, the next step is to assess how differentiating this problem is in terms of the uniqueness of brand associations.
