I Know You, but Do I Like You?
Personal Branding with an Explorative Study
of Recognition, Associations, Responses and Resonance
C.A.P. Broeren, 11402717
MSc. in Business Administratio n – Market ing Track UvA, Facu lt y o f Econo mics and Business
Superviso r: Drs. J. Labadie MBM Second assessor: Dr. R.E.W. Pruppers
2 August 2017 Master Thesis
Statement of originality
This document is written by Claartje Broeren
who declares to take responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is 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.
Abstract
Personal branding’s popularity has increased due to the emerge of the internet and the
evolving communication technology. The aim is to brand oneself to be high visible and create and achieve personal success. Knowledge on how to effectively manage and build a personal brand has stayed behind, up to now. The aim of the presents study was to explore the personal branding concept to contribute with knowledge on how to build personal brand equity. This is done from a traditional brand building’s view; with the customer based brand equity model of Kevin Lane Keller (2001). This is studied from the first level, personal brand recognition, to answer the question: what is the influence of personal brand recognition on the meaning, responses and resonance of personal brands? The results indicate that a recognised personal brand evokes more thoughts and ideas about the brand (e.g. strength) which are more positive and more unique, compared to an unrecognised personal brand. Besides, a recognised
personal brand evokes more positive judgements, like a better overall opinion and an opinion about the qualities of the personal brand. Additionally, a recognised personal brand evokes more positive feelings, like warmth and fun, than an unrecognised personal brand. These aspects are positively related to each other regarding the favourability and when the personal brand recognition is clearly demarcated. Furthermore, people feel more connected and have a better relationship (i.e. resonance) with a personal brand they recognise. To build a strong brand it seems useful to provide information about the job of the person, the country of origin and the category as well as information of the origin of knowing the person. Enhancing recognition might lead to more uniquely attributable associations of the person. Without recognition, the associations are not unique for the person. It seems necessary to avoid creating unfavourable associations in order to avoid creating negative effects. Instead, enhancing and focusing on positive and neutral associations to build a strong personal brand is recommended. Future research should study the personal branding’s process with more personal brands to be able to draw clearer conclusions, obtain more knowledge and elaborate on the present study.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ...1
1.1 Enable to create ...1
1.1.1. We are brands ...1
1.1.2. Personal branding interests...1
1.1.3. Personal branding’s brand equity ...2
1.2 Research gap ...3
1.3 Research question ...3
1.3.1. Sub-questions ...4
1.3.2. Delimitations of the study ...5
1.4 Contributions ...5
1.4.1. Theoretical contributions ...5
1.4.2. Managerial contributions ...6
1.5 Structure of this paper ...6
Chapter 2: Theoretical framework - Personal branding ...7
2.1 Personal branding ...7
2.1.1. History and trend ...7
2.1.2. Definition and concept ...9
2.1.3. Who and what ... 10
2.1.4. Process ... 11
2.2 Branding ... 11
2.2.1. Traditional branding ... 11
2.2.2. Brand personality ... 12
2.2.3. Personal branding in a traditional branding context ... 13
2.2.4. Differences between personal and traditional brands ... 14
Chapter 3: Theoretical framework - Customer-Based Brand Equity ... 16
3.1.1. Brand equity ... 16
3.1.2. Customer-based ... 16
3.2 Brand Resonance Pyramid... 17
3.3 Brand awareness, brand recognition ... 18
3.4 Brand meaning, responses and resonance ... 20
3.5 Brand positioning in traditional and personal branding ... 21
Chapter 4: Hypotheses development ... 24
4.1. Development of hypotheses ... 24
4.2 Conceptual model ... 29
Chapter 5: Methods ... 31
5.1 Research design ... 31
5.2 Concepts and operationalization ... 31
5.2.1. Stimuli development ... 31
5.2.2. Personal brand recognition ... 32
5.2.3. Personal brand meaning ... 33
5.2.4. Personal brand responses ... 33
5.2.5. Personal brand resonance ... 34
5.2.6. Additional items, brand personality dimensions ... 34
5.3 Measurement design ... 36
5.3.1. Pre-test ... 36
5.3.2. Main measurement... 36
5.3.3. Data collection procedure and participants ... 37
5.4 Analyses ... 37
Chapter 6: Results ... 40
6.1 Pre-test analysis ... 40
6.2 Participants, reliability and assumption checks ... 41
6.2.2. Reliability checks ... 42
6.2.3. Compute scale means ... 42
6.2.4. Correlations ... 43
6.2.5. Assumption checks ... 43
6.3 Manipulation check and comparison of study variables’ means ... 45
6.3.1. Manipulation check... 45
6.3.2. Comparison of study variables’ means ... 46
6.4 Analyses of hypotheses one, two and three ... 47
6.4.1. Results of hypothesis 1: personal brand recognition and meaning ... 48
6.4.2. Results of hypothesis 2: personal brand recognition and responses ... 51
6.4.3. Results of hypothesis 3: personal brand recognition and resonance ... 53
6.5 Analysis of hypothesis four ... 53
6.5.1. Results of hypothesis 4a: mediation of strength of associations ... 55
6.5.2. Results of hypothesis 4b: mediation of favourability of associations ... 55
6.5.3. Results of hypothesis 4c: mediation of uniqueness of associations ... 56
6.6 The personal brands in detail ... 57
6.6.1. Proposition: characteristics of the personal brand’s associative networks ... 57
6.6.2. Analysis of brand personality dimensions and interest ... 62
Chapter 7: Discussion ... 65
7.1 Discussion of the results ... 66
7.1.1. Personal brand recognition and personal brand meaning ... 66
7.1.2. Personal brand recognition and personal brand response ... 67
7.1.3. Personal brand recognition and personal brand resonance ... 68
7.1.4. Mediation of personal brand meaning between recognition and responses ... 68
7.1.5. Characteristics of the associative networks of the brands... 70
7.2 Implications ... 74
7.2.2. Managerial implications ... 75
7.3 Limitations and future research ... 78
Chapter 8: Conclusion ... 80
References ... 82
Appendices ... 87
Appendix A: Questionnaire pre-test ... 87
Appendix B: Main questionnaire ... 96
Appendix C: Categorisation table ... 103
Appendix D: Pre-test analysis, SPSS output ... 104
Appendix E: Participants SPSS output ... 105
Appendix F: Normality, homoscedasticity and linearity checks ... 107
Appendix G: One sample t-tests between the personal brands ... 109
Appendix H: SPSS output of linear regression analyses with dummy variables ... 111
Appendix I: SPSS output of linear regression analyses with both personal brands ... 119
Appendix J: Mediation analysis, PROCESS output ... 126
Appendix K: Percentage of strength of the associations per subcategory ... 138
Appendix L: ProBAR Analysis ... 139
List of Tables Table 1: Recognition of Brand Names and Pictures ... 40
Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Estimates and Correlations ... 43
Table 3: Skewness and Kurtosis of Study Variables ... 44
Table 4: Linear Regression Analyses of Personal Brands’ Recognition on Meaning ... 49
Table 5: Linear Regression Analyses with Total Score of Recognition on Meaning ... 50
Table 6: Linear Regression Analyses of Personal Brands’ Recognition on Responses ... 51
Table 7: Linear Regression Analyses with Total Score of Recognition on Responses... 52
Table 8: Linear Regression Analyses of Personal Brand Recognition on Resonance ... 53 Table 9: Results of associative network analysis of brand personality variables and interest . 64
List of Figures
Figure 1: Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid ... 18
Figure 2: Comparing and contrasting product and person brand positioning ... 23
Figure 3: Conceptual models of the present study ... 29
Figure 4: Mean values of the recognised and unrecognised brand ... 46
Figure 5: Strongest categories of associations for the recognised personal brand ... 59
Figure 6: Moderately strong categories of associations for the recognised personal brand ... 60
Figure 7: Strongest categories of associations for the unrecognised personal brand ... 61 Figure 8: Moderately strong categories of associations for the unrecognised personal brand . 62
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Enable to create
In today’s society where the arise of the internet provides the ability to create, initiate and circulate information, personal and professional profiles are developed, for example on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and LinkedIn (Kerrigan, Brownlie, Hewer, & Daza-LeTouze, 2011; Khedher, 2013). The circulation of information enables educating each other about brands, products, services, issues and personalities (Nandan, 2005). Besides, it provides the ability to achieve personal visibility, manage one’s reputation and to create and grow a personal brand (Khedher, 2013).
1.1.1. We are brands
Brands today can be everything (Peters, 1997). Traditionally, brands were only associated with products, services, businesses and organisations, but nowadays it is recognised by researchers that brands can also be human (Khedher, 2013). Every human being is a personal brand (Rampersad, 2008) and personal branding has become an important marketing task for people (Khedher, 2013). People’s behaviour and choices affect their personal brand; such as the way they talk, walk, dress, their neighbourhood, education, profession and their skills (Montoya & Vandehey, 2003). Every person has a chance to build, learn and improve their skills, to stand out and to be a brand worthy of remark (Peters, 1997). The problem is: most people are not aware of it and they do not manage their personal brand effectively, strategically and consistently (Rampersad, 2008). Besides, it is unknown how to do it exactly. Personal branding is quite a new phenomenon in the marketing area and there is little research about this phenomenon (Hughes, 2007). Personal branding requires deeper examination (Lair, Sullivan, & Cheney, 2005) to understand the concept and processes involved, better. Knowledge of this concept can be useful for everyone, since every person is a personal brand (Rampersad, 2008).
1.1.2. Personal branding interests
Personal brands such as politicians, chief executives, actors and athletes are seen as intangible assets with their name, reputation, image and credibility (Kerrigan et al., 2011). The former president of the United States Bill Clinton for example look like a noble,
attractive and credible statesman. However, due to his past actions, most people perceive him very differently (Montoya & Vandehey, 2003).
Brooks, 2010). Three different situations in which different areas of personal branding reveal different targets and interests of personal brands, show the importance of positive evaluations on the personal brand. First, in politics it is found that personal, political brands have a significant impact on the formation of people’s political preferences (Guzmán, Paswan, & Van Steenburg, 2015). Judgements on these personal brands are influenced by marketers by means of political campaigns. Much money is involved in order to influence these
judgements. In the past decade, the marketing of political candidates has become a multimillion dollar business (Guzmán et al., 2015). Second, in the job market is personal branding used to present and position oneself in order to compete with others and find a job or manage career progression. Key factors to present and position oneself are enhancing
recognition and establishing brand identity (Khedher, 2013). Third, celebrity brands need to satisfy the needs of the media and public with fame, allure, glamour and charisma in order to be positively evaluated and create economic value. When celebrity brands are used as
endorsed brands, they are used to increase brand awareness and consumer attention to generate growth of the endorsed brand (Kerrigan et al., 2011). There are a lot of celebrity brands. Examples are Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, J.K. Rowling and Tiger Woods. These names can be associated with several associations and responses like with feelings of warmth, and thoughts of women’s empowerment, gadgets, the Harry Potter series and the greatest golfer in the world (Rampersad, 2008).
1.1.3. Personal branding’s brand equity
Today’s challenging and unforgiving world makes branding difficult. The brand construction is complex; brands are not born, they are made (Kevin Lane Keller & Lehmann, 2006). Means which help to create and build brands are therefore welcomed (Kevin L Keller, 2005). In traditional branding literature, brand recognition, brand’s associations and brand’s responses create and build customer based brand equity (CBBE) (Kevin Lane Keller, 2001). Brand equity in a general sense is defined as “the marketing effects uniquely attributable to the brand” (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993, p. 1) Accordingly, customer based brand equity is “the incremental value added by a brand name to a product” (Spry, Pappu, & Bettina Cornwell, 2011, p. 883).
Personal branding is a relatively new concept in marketing (Hughes, 2007) and therefore it did not belong to the traditional branding literature. It can be argued that personal branding can be studied from the traditional branding’s perspective. Khedher (2014), for instance, argues that persons could be marketed like products. Hughes (2007) states that
personal branding could be used with existing brand strategies and argues that “there is no reason why the other aspects of branding could not be extended to personal brands” (Hughes, 2007, p. 1115).
However, “people’s knowledge of branding has been partial and mainly written from a product or corporation perspective” (Chen, 2013, p. 344). There is no research yet which studies personal branding’s brand equity from the perspective of the CBBE model of Kevin Lane Keller (2001). Thus, it is unknown if the CBBE for personal brands is built similarly to traditional brands. So the question remains if recognition, which belongs to the first step of Kellers’ CBBE model (2001) and which maintains a personal brand according to Khedher (2013), positively contributes to the subsequent steps of Keller’s model (2001) which are the brand associations, responses and relationships.
1.2 Research gap
Personal branding and its possible brand building components like brand image, have been quite neglected by the academic marketing literature. Despite its growing importance, all these authors state that there is almost no academic literature about personal branding: Arai, Ko, and Kaplanidou (2013), Chen (2013), Guzmán et al. (2015), Labrecque, Markos, and Milne (2011), Lehman (2009) and Shepherd (2005). Therefore, there is an academic gap in personal branding’s theory and development (Hughes, 2007). If the concept is studied, there still remains a lot of missing elements, gaps and contradictions (Shepherd, 2005). If the concept was academically studied it was studied much more narrowly, like in athletes (Arai et al., 2013), in politics with presidential candidates (Guzmán et al., 2015), with online personal brands who use social media (Chen, 2013; Labrecque et al., 2011), in self-marketing
(Lehman, 2009), analysing personal branding ICT strategies of executives in non-profit organisations (Nolan, 2015) or with a literature review (Hughes, 2007; Khedher, 2014; Shepherd, 2005). Besides, the concept was never studied from a traditional branding
perspective, with a variety of personal brands which are evaluated by others. Therefore, this underdeveloped phenomenon in academic literature invites further examination (Khedher, 2013). This study will incorporate this suggestion and tries to fill the gap by exploring and studying the concept of personal branding from the beginning of customer-based brand equity’s process.
1.3 Research question
What is the influence of personal brand recognition on the meaning, responses and resonance of personal brands?
1.3.1. Sub-questions
Due to the large size of the research gap of personal branding, this study does not want to focus on a small aspect of personal branding only, since it would limit valuable
possibilities. Though, academic studies need thoroughness. The aim is to explore the concept in order to contribute more broadly to the existing literature and study how personal branding is constructed. The research sub-questions will therefore be divided in three parts.
First, personal branding’s concept will be studied. This leads to the following sub-questions:
What is the definition of personal branding?
How is the concept of personal branding related to and different from the traditional branding concept?
Second, personal branding’s brand equity will be studied with the traditional branding’s CBBE model. This will be done based on the beginning of the model; based on the first level of brand recognition. The relationship between personal brand recognition and the other levels of the CBBE model will be studied as well as the proposed process of traditional branding of the CBBE model; with the second and third level. The following sub-questions are derived:
Is personal brand recognition related to personal brand meaning?
o Is personal brand recognition related to the strength, favourability and uniqueness of the associations of the personal brand?
Is personal brand recognition related to personal brand responses?
o Is personal brand recognition related to the personal response judgements and feelings?
Is personal brand recognition related to personal brand resonance?
Do personal brand recognition and personal brand meaning lead to personal brand responses?
How are personal brand recognition, meaning and responses related?
Third, participants’ thoughts about the personal brands will be further explored by studying their (free) associations. This leads to the last sub-question:
1.3.2. Delimitations of the study
The present study is a cross-sectional study which focuses on the relationships between the brand awareness of personal brands and the brand associations, brand responses and brand resonance of these personal brands. The attempt is to explore the concept of personal branding. Especially since academic studies need thoroughness, not everything can be explored at once. To be able to study the concept properly, choices have been made. For instance, the present study focuses on only two personal brands. To ensure a variety in the first level of the CBBE model, personal brand recognition, the recognition will be
manipulated which will lead to one recognised personal brand and one unrecognised personal brand. Besides, the personal brands have been created with the same appearances and their names with the same textual features in order to make it possible to compare the differences between them properly. Not all the possible process options will be studied, but the focus will be on the first three levels of the CBBE pyramid to study at least the beginning of the process. Finally, the first level, brand awareness, will be studied with brand recognition. This choice have been made based on the statement that brand awareness does not necessarily require recall of the brand name (Macdonald & Sharp, 2003) and that “recognition is almost always better than recall” (Lynch & Srull, 1982, p. 21). The personal brand meaning will be studied based on the measuring components of strength (i.e. number) of associations, favourability of associations and uniqueness of associations separately. The brand responses will be studied as a whole and it will be divided in its components of judgements and feelings. Lastly, personal brand resonance will be analysed.
1.4 Contributions
1.4.1. Theoretical contributions
The present study contributes to the theoretical field of branding and marketing in several manners. It attempts to fill the gap, at least a bit, of the personal branding literature congruent with a suggestion of Kevin Lane Keller and Lehmann (2006) who state that many important branding issues and questions still need to be resolved and with a suggestion of Hughes (2007) who state that the gap in many areas of branding needs to be closed by the conduction of future research. By studying personal branding from a traditional branding’s perspective, it broadens the scope of marketing and it studies personal branding from the basic principles of marketing’s perspective, just as Shepherd (2005) mentions. By studying personal branding within the CBBE model of Kevin Lane Keller (2001), it will be examined if the model can be broadened and generalised from traditional branding theory (Kevin Lane Keller,
2003) to a relatively new area, which personal branding is (Hughes, 2007). Future research into personal branding should focus on factors which contribute to the knowledge of how to use personal brands in a way that it strengthens those personal brands, according to Hughes (2007). This is exactly in accordance with the aim of the present study; to explore the concept and study how personal branding is constructed. Lastly, completely consistent with the statement of Nolan (2015, p. 291) “this study also paves the way for new and additional personal branding research”.
1.4.2. Managerial contributions
This study has several practical and managerial contributions. Personal branding is a relevant concept; it is a trend which’ popularity is increasing and it is an important concept for a variety of people (Lair, Sullivan, & Cheney, 2005). “People are our most important asset” according to Pfeffer and Veiga (1999, p. 37). Personal branding can lead to financial success and economic profitability and branded people generate increased value for themselves (Khedher, 2014). Though, up to now the knowledge on personal branding and building its brand equity is limited. By providing knowledge regarding personal brand building from the first step of the process, personal brand recognition, with the use of the CBBE model (Keller, 2001), knowledge will be gained about the process of brand building. This can possibly contribute to the leverage and building of strong personal brands (Krishnan, 1996). It will be done by studying the differences between an established, recognised personal brand and a new, unrecognised personal brand. Thereby, it can help managers and persons themselves to improve and adjust strategies to build their personal brand and achieve the desired
performance (Ghodeswar, 2008). 1.5 Structure of this paper
This study will elaborate on the prior section with a theoretical framework which will explain and describe the existing knowledge and theories regarding the present study further. The first concept which is important to elaborate on is personal branding. After which,
branding in general will be described. In the followed chapter brand equity, the brand building CBBE model of Kevin Lane Keller (2001) and its components will be explained. Thereafter, the hypotheses will be presented. Following on this, the methods will be described after which the results will be presented. After this, the results will be interpreted. The present study will draw conclusions and it will provide implications and suggestions for future research.
Chapter 2: Theoretical framework - Personal branding
2.1 Personal branding
Before finding an answer on the research question, it is necessary to take a step back and uncover the first relevant concept: personal branding. “Everyone has a personal image. It is the collection of qualities people identify with you: your fashion style, your hairstyle, your sense of humour, etcetera. Together, these qualities help people form a mental picture of you. A personal brand is different because it shows how other people perceive you. On the outside, former president Bill Clinton looks like a noble, attractive and credible statesman, but because of his past actions, most people perceive him very differently.” (Montoya & Vandehey, 2003, p. 2). The logic in studying personal branding from a branding’s perspective simply lies in applying the same marketing and branding theories and principles, which were used for products and services, to people (Shepherd, 2005). It can be seen as a logic extension on previous brand forms (Lair et al., 2005). The logic in studying personal branding based on brands recognition lies in the statements that visibility the most important driver for personal branding is. Personal branding in the beginning is an attention-getting device with a goal to achieve competitive advantage in the current, crowded modern world – especially since the emerge of online environments (Shepherd, 2005). Name recognition is an important concept on which celebrities like David Bowie, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Joran and Madonna serve on, according to consultants who use them as examples to demonstrate the efficacy of personal branding (Lair et al., 2005).
2.1.1. History and trend
There is a debate when exactly the concept of personal branding emerged. Some authors argue that personal branding was first introduced in 1959 by Erving Goffman in the book “The presentation of self in everyday life” where Goffman views people as actors engaging in performance to produce the most favourable impression which influences other’s reactions (Khedher, 2014). In 1980 Al Ries and Jack Trout first introduced, according to Khedher (2014), individual branding in their book `Positioning: The Battle for you Mind”. Personal branding as its concept name became popular in 1997. Though some authors state that Montoya claimed to be a pioneer in the concept in 1997 (Lair et al., 2005), most authors mention that the consultant Tom Peters’ played as a key role in the beginning of the
phenomenon (Chen, 2013; Gehl, 2011; Hughes, 2007; Khedher, 2014; Labrecque et al., 2011; Lair et al., 2005; Lehman, 2009; Shepherd, 2005; Stanton & Stanton, 2013). In his article “The brand called you” Peters stated “We are CEOs of our own companies: Me Inc. To be in
business today, our most important job is to be head marketer for the brand called You” (Peters, 1997, p. 83) The concept was applied to individuals’ conduct in business (Khedher, 2014). After this article, it became a popular management and employment consultation (Lehman, 2009); a lot of popular business self-improvement books were written and
published, websites emerges and self-help courses and consultancies arose (Khedher, 2013; Shepherd, 2005).
The key premise of the original personal branding concept is that everyone has a personal brand, a sign of distinction, but not everyone is aware of it. Personal branding’s major selling proposition is that individuals need to manage their own brand. Others will brand themselves, so individuals must brand themselves too (Lair et al., 2005).The fear is that if they do not do that, others will manage it for them. Managing your own brand would ensure individuals to stay ahead of others (Khedher, 2013; Shepherd, 2005).
The emerging online environment of internet changed markets by economic
globalisation, new areas of competition and rapidly evolving information and communication technology (Lair et al., 2005). Personal branding changed from a tactic for celebrities and leaders in business and politics only to an important marketing task for everyone (Labrecque et al., 2011). Personal branding’s popularity increased due to this change, because internet represents an increasingly competitive attention economy. Branding oneself to be high visible, create oneself in a new version, taking advantage and achieve personal and professional success are important goals (Khedher, 2013).
Personal branding can be seen as a trend. Individuals can use it to express and present themselves for instance via social media (Chen, 2013), implicitly and explicitly online (Labrecque et al., 2011). It led to a consumer-to-consumer driven information market where consumes are more demanding than ever and where relationships can be build (Chen, 2013). Artists for instance want to and can market themselves and sell their output (Lehman, 2009). The trend turned branding intro an understanding of corporate’s world and increased feelings of responsibility for individuals (Lair et al., 2005). Individuals can manage their personal brand, fine-tune their profiles and share their ideas (Labrecque et al., 2011). They get the feeling that they can successfully develop their brand which will enable them to achieve success, compete in the crowded market and gain success in the business world (Khedher, 2014). They want to achieve success by means of self-improvement (Lair et al., 2005) with the goal to seek and gain advancements in their profession (Parmentier, Fischer, & Reuber, 2013).
2.1.2. Definition and concept
Now it is known when personal brand was introduced and in which situations its popularity has increased and is still increasing, it is important to define the concept to determine what personal branding exactly is.
There are quite some definitions of personal branding. Shepherd (2005, p. 6) states “personal branding is permission to be your authentic self” with a definition of personal branding as “varied activities undertaken by individuals to make themselves known in the marketplace” (Shepherd, 2005, p. 1). It includes “that people can be considered as brands, everyone has a personal brand and that regardless of age, regardless of position, regardless of the business, and everyone has a chance to be a brand worthy of remark, that, personal branding if applied correctly can transform any person into a brand in any field” (Khedher, 2013, p. 1). Khedher (2014, p. 33) states that it is “the process of establishing a unique personal identity, developing an active communication of one's brand identity to a specific target market and evaluating its impact on one’s image and reputation, and that to fulfil personal and professional objectives”. It is “the process that takes your skills, personality and unique characteristics and packages them into a powerful identity that lifts you above the sea of anonymous faces and competitors” (Montoya & Vandehey, 2003, p. 1).
A personal brand is then “the powerful and clear idea that comes to mind whenever they think of you” (Montoya & Vandehey, 2003, p. 1). According to Hughes (2007, p. 1115) “a personal brand can be defined as being a person, name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of these, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller, or group of sellers, and to differentiate them from those of competitors.” It is “the synthesis of all the expectations, images, and perceptions it creates in the minds of others when they see or hear your name”(Rampersad, 2008, p. 34). It is “the public projection of certain aspects of a person’s personality, skills or values that stimulate precise, meaningful perceptions in its audience about the values and qualities that person stands for” (Montoya & Vandehey, 2002, p. 4). “A personal brand is a perception in the minds of others that must be developed, nurtured and managed” (Vitberg, 2010, p. 45).
As can be seen, there is no overall, commonly accepted definition of personal branding or personal brands. Since the present study explores personal branding from a traditional branding’s perspective, it seems useful to look at the traditional definition of a brand. A brand has been defined as “a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors” (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993, p. 2). Elaborating on this
definition of a traditional brand in combination with the personal brand definitions mentioned before, a personal brand could be defined. The present study defines a personal brands as: a person who uses their skills, personality and characteristics to fulfil personal objectives and differentiate from other persons.
2.1.3. Who and what
According to Montoya and Vandehey (2003), independent service professionals like architects and authors, personal service business like bakeries and cleaners and value-adding product sellers like bookstores and retail, are three specific categories of business who need personal branding. Previous authors mention several other different types of individuals who are involved in personal branding. It is according to them amongst others used by politicians, businessmen, businesswomen, scientists, artists, sport professionals, pop stars, movie stars and other showbiz, fashion and TV individuals (Arai et al., 2013; Chen, 2013; Nessmann, 2008). Though in general it can be stated that everyone has a personal brand and have a chance to be a brand worthy of remark, regardless of age, position and business (Khedher, 2014).
A personal brand describes the strengths, values, goals and personality of a person. Which explained who someone is, what he or she does and why he or she is unique. It includes on the other hand the public perception of someone’s personality and abilities
(Shepherd, 2005). Individuals differentiate themselves from others (Khedher, 2013) and at the same time they promote their individual strengths and uniqueness’s to a target audience (Labrecque et al., 2011). By manage this strategically, personal and professional goals would be achieved (Khedher, 2013). “Success is not determined by individuals internal sets of skills, motivations, and interests but, rather by how effectively they are arranged, crystallized, and labelled - in other words, branded” (Lair et al., 2005, p. 308). At the most general level, personal branding is the process of self-commodification, turning oneself into a product (Lair et al., 2005). Persons could be marketed, just like products (Parmentier et al., 2013).
There are two main disadvantages of personal branding: like any other brand, it will only have a finite life span in the marketplace and “they are based on a person and no person is perfect” (Hughes, 2007, p. 1117). We trust people more than corporations, according to Montoya and Vandehey (2003), because they have more to lose, they are more accountable and they care more, than corporations. There are three main benefits of personal branding; it is universally available to all people, it allows people to express their unique identities and it leads, if cultivated, to personal and financial success (Gehl, 2011).
2.1.4. Process
“Personal branding is a very complex phenomenon” (Gehl, 2011, p. 3). According to Khedher (2014) personal branding consists of three phases, just like other brands. The first phase is establishing brand identity, the second phase is developing brand’s positioning and the third phase is evaluating the brand’s image. The first phase, brand identity, is the self-presentation as an identity Labrecque et al. (2011) which includes establishing attributes, values, beliefs, motives and experiences by which individuals define themselves in a role (Khedher, 2014). In the second phase, “brand positioning refers to the active communication of one's brand identity to a specific target market” (Labrecque et al., 2011, p. 44). The brand will be, with the use of active marketing communication of the brand identity, positioned in other’s minds. With brand positioning individuals want to highlight their positive attributes, differentiate themselves from others and increase value for their target audience (Labrecque et al., 2011). Individuals in this phase enhance recognition and establish reputation and
credibility (Khedher, 2014). After that, the brand’s image is evaluated. The goal is to ‘brand’ oneself positively in the public eye (Nessmann, 2008).
2.2 Branding
2.2.1. Traditional branding
Consumer brands emerged in the late 19th century when products were associated with identifiable brand names. With advertisements, primarily focused on households and house wives, its importance increased from 1920 to 1970. Brand products were marketed as unique goods which provided unique advantages. The brand name distinguished the product from competitors. The increased use of media, due to the development of cable television, broad audience groups with more specific interests could be targeted. The market expanded. As a result, marketing communication strategies became more important. The cultural and economic globalization led to the growth of worldwide brands. Brands were not primarily associated with products, but they became more innovative and represented services as well (Lair et al., 2005). According to Low and Lamb Jr (2000, p. 362) “10 Years from now, brands will be even more important”. Although these developments happened a few decades ago, personal branding, introduced in 1997 by Tom Peters (1997), is still seen as a relatively new concept (Nolan, 2015) which definition is not yet included in the definition of traditional brands.
A brand can be defined as a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and
to differentiate them from those of competitors” (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993, p. 2). This definition is, in contrast to personal brands, more commonly accepted. Brands affect the evaluation of products and services of consumers (Smith, 2009) and they provide added value to consumers and firms (Nandan, 2005). Brands are intangible assets and contain the
knowledge held in consumer’s memory about a particular object which form a complex associative network (Smith, 2009). A strong brand has strong and positive associations (Low & Lamb Jr, 2000) and it has relevant and unique value to customers. It is a credible guarantee for its products and services, since it allows consumers to identify and specify the offered added value (Ghodeswar, 2008).
Brands can build shareholder value which value can only be determined when it becomes a subject of a specific business acquisition and sales transaction (Nandan, 2005). Successful brands can identify an attractive customer value proposition which is an integrated and coherent approach (Green, 2012). A brand’s value proposition is a statement of the benefits of the brand which provide value to the customers. These benefits can be emotional, functional and self-expressive. The emotional benefits are related to positive feelings after and during experience with the brand. The functional benefits provide utility. The symbolic
benefits are related to personal identification, self enhancement, role position and group membership. The experiential benefits are related to senses of pleasure and cognitive
stimulation (Ghodeswar, 2008). Thus, customers care about the relational and emotional parts of their brand perception (Kervyn, Fiske, & Malone, 2012). They choose brands by which they can identify themselves with. From a consumer’s perspective a brand is a total
accumulation of their experiences, built on all the contact points between the brand and the consumers (Ghodeswar, 2008). Consumers are then capable of expressing their (ideal) selves and personalize themselves with the brand (J. L. Aaker, 1997).
2.2.2. Brand personality
Hand in hand with the personalisation of consumers with a brand, goes the development of creating relationships with a brand, which is essential in creating brand loyalty. Relationships with brands can be created when there are personality associations with brands (Nandan, 2005), which can be indicated as brand personality. A brand personality is “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand” (J. L. Aaker, 1997, p. 347). Consumers perceive the brands to have a certain personality, including all the represented benefits and values (Guzmán et al., 2015). It is a component of a brand’s image (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993) and affects how consumers perceive, feel and behave towards the brand
(Kervyn et al., 2012). Brand image is the total impression in the mind of consumers (Nandan, 2005). In their brand perception, consumers care about the relational aspect of brands (Kervyn et al., 2012).
Brands with strong, positive brand personalities have, according to research, numerous of benefits. For instance, it increases consumer preference and usage, it increases consumer’s emotions, levels of loyalty and trust towards the brand (Freling & Forbes, 2013). A distinctive brand personality provides unique and favourable associations in consumer’s memory
(Smith, 2009), so it is a basis for product differentiation. Besides, just like human
personalities, brand personalities are thought to be quite enduring (Freling & Forbes, 2013). It is beneficial for consumers since it enables them to express the ideal self (J. L. Aaker, 1997) and it gives them the opportunity to socially identify themselves with the brand (Hughes, 2007).
J. L. Aaker (1997) built a brand personality framework which consists of five
personality clusters with 15 personality facets (Kervyn et al., 2012). According to J. L. Aaker (1997) brand personality can be divided into the clusters: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. “Sincerity relates to traits such as honest and genuine.
Excitement relates to traits such as spirited, daring, and imaginative. Competence relates to traits such as efficient, dependable, and reliable. Sophistication relates to traits such as glamorous and pretentious. And ruggedness relates to traits such as tough, strong, and outdoorsy” (Kervyn et al., 2012, p. 8).
One of the main interesting aspects of the concept of brand personality in the present study is related to a statement of Kervyn et al. (2012) who proposed that consumers perceive brands in the same way as they perceive people.
2.2.3. Personal branding in a traditional branding context
J. L. Aaker (1997) states that “perceptions of human personality traits are inferred on the basis of an individual's behavior, physical characteristics, attitudes and beliefs and
demographic characteristics. In contrast, perceptions of brand personality traits can be formed and influenced by any direct or indirect contact that the consumer has with the brand.” J. L. Aaker (1997, p. 348) introduces the second sentence as a “contrast”, but if the personal branding perspective is taken into account, it is not necessarily a contrast, but an addition to the prior sentence.
D. A. Aaker (1996) considered a brand as a product, organisation, symbol and a person. The statement was that a brand is like a person, with its own personality. Thus, a
brand can have a brand personality. Though it is not the same as personal branding, it was a first step from a traditional branding perspective towards branding including persons.
According to Smith (2009) and Freling and Forbes (2013), the formation of brand personality is determined by the same process as the formation of human personality. This involves human traits and the personification of the observation of behaviours. If a brand is just like a person, can a brand also be a person?
According to Chen (2013) it can. She states that the corporate branding process is mirrored, by personal branding. According to Lehman (2009) it is time to extend the marketing principles and techniques to non-traditional settings such as individuals. Hughes (2007) studied personal branding from a political marketing perspective, but states that there is no doubt that it exists in many areas of marketing. According to Khedher (2014)
researchers today recognise that a brand can also be human. Parmentier et al. (2013, p. 374) adds to this with the following sentence: “if a brand in general is thought of as the set of associations that a group of people identify with the goods or services of a particular seller, then a person brand can be considered the set of associations that a group of people identify with a particular person”.
Looking at the definitions of branding and the traditional definition of brands, two similarities can be found. First of all, persons of personal branding is included in the
following definition of branding. Branding can be defined as “a programmatic approach to the selling of a product, service, organisation, cause, or person that is fashioned as a proactive response to the emerging desires of a target audience or market (Lair et al., 2005, p. 309). Secondly, both personal branding and traditional brands are stated to be intangible assets (Kerrigan et al., 2011).
It also works the other way around: personal branding can use traditional branding as well with the use of traditional marketing techniques. The concepts of product development and promotion for instance, are used to market persons (Lair et al., 2005). Based on this chapter, the present study has attempted to substantiate that personal branding can be studied from a traditional branding’s perspective.
2.2.4. Differences between personal and traditional brands
Now a general definition of personal branding is created based on a combination of traditional brand’s definition and personal branding’s definitions and it is substantiated that personal branding can be studied rom a traditional branding’s perspective, differences in addition to the definitions will be discussed. One difference is the perspective of the personal
brand compared to the traditional brand. The traditional brand is managed by marketers who manage brands from a customer-based perspective. A personal brand can be managed by the person itself, possibly with the support of others (Khedher, 2014). To fulfil personal
objectives, a personal brand want to achieve success by means of self-improvement (Lair et al., 2005), instead of improving others.
Another element is the characteristics. A personal brand has four important
characteristics; attributes, benefits, values and personality. A personal brand’s meaning to a consumer is based around each of these four characteristics, and it is up to the marketer to decide what emphasis to place on each so that a brand can be established (Hughes, 2007)”. A traditional brand’s associations can be classified intro the three categories: attributes, benefits and attitudes (Belén del Río, Vazquez, & Iglesias, 2001). So, instead of attitudes, a personal brand has values and personality, which are their own characteristics. A traditional brand can be associated with personality. Personal branding adds something to that; is has a personality. This is important to create relationships with others. Based from traditional branding’s theory, it is known that relationships with brands can be created when there are personality
Chapter 3: Theoretical framework - Customer-Based Brand Equity
3.1 Customer-Based Brand Equity
3.1.1. Brand equity
Literature on brand equity is substantial, but fragmented (Christodoulides & De Chernatony, 2010). This study attempts to still provide a clear overview of brand equity and the related concept, customer based brand equity.
Brand are built on its products and services and on their use and marketing activity. Therefore, they reflect customer experience, the effectiveness of marketing and the financial aspect of the asset. The value accrued by these benefits, so the added value for both the firm and the consumer, can be referred to as brand equity (Kevin Lane Keller & Lehmann, 2006; Krishnan, 1996; Nandan, 2005). Brand equity in a general sense is defined “in terms of the marketing effects uniquely attributable to the brand” (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993, p. 1). It represents both the quality of the product or service and the various intangible factors (Ghodeswar, 2008).
Building a strong brand is the main target for many, which implies having significant brand equity, which is related to positive consequences (Kevin Lane Keller, 2001). An enhanced brand equity is related to more favourable, unique and strong brand associations (Freling & Forbes, 2013). “Marketers are increasingly embracing alternative forms of brand-building activities (Kevin Lane Keller & Lehmann, 2006, p. 744). Which is one of the aims of the present study.
Brand equity is a multidimensional concept which depends amongst others on the knowledge structures present in the minds of consumers (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993) created after the communication of the brand image to the consumers (Belén del Río et al., 2001). Managing brand equity involves managing the knowledge structures and associations related to the brand (Till, 1998). To manage it properly, marketers should know what brand equity is precisely based on. The value of a brand is mainly derived from the actions and words of consumers; they decide. Therefore, this study focuses on the consumer based brand equity, which is the brand equity, from the consumer’s point of view (Kevin Lane Keller & Lehmann, 2006).
3.1.2. Customer-based
“Consumer based brand equity is defined as the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand” (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993, p. 2). The
human memory can be seen as a network of nodes, activated with stimuli, each with pieces of information, connected via associative links (Spry et al., 2011). Brand knowledge is “a network of nodes and links where the brand node memory has a variety of associations or simple unique associations linked to it” (Cheng-Hsui Chen, 2001, p. 439). It is a combination of brand awareness and brand image. Brand awareness consists of recognition and recall. Brand image are the perceptions about a brand reflected by the associations people held in their memory. The brand knowledge emerges in reality to several things like the brand
awareness, attributes, benefits, but also to feelings, attitudes, thoughts images and experiences (Kevin Lane Keller, 2003). Understanding of brand knowledge is important because it
influence what comes to mind when people think of a brand. If a consumer acts favourable to the brand, the customer-based equity is more positive (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993).
From the traditional branding perspective, before the concept of personal branding was developed and named in 1997 (Peters), Kevin Lane Keller (1993, p. 2) stated, that CBBE “occurs when the consumer is familiar with the brand and holds some favourable, strong and unique brand associations in memory”. CBBE was according to him useful for both marketing strategies and tactics and research. Kevin Lane Keller (2001) developed a CBBE model to develop guidelines and assist managerial decision making.
3.2 Brand Resonance Pyramid
Customer-based brand equity is decomposed by Kevin Lane Keller (2001) who created the Customer-Based Brand Equity pyramid for product and service brands based on four steps. The basic premise of the model is that the brand resides in the minds of consumers and it is based on what consumers have heard, felt, seen and learned about the brand over time (Kevin Lane Keller, 2001). All kinds of information can be linked to a brand, including
people’s or the brand’s experiences, thoughts, images, feelings, awareness, attributes, attitudes and benefits (Kevin Lane Keller, 2003). According to this model, these four steps build a strong brand. The first one is brand salience, then brand meaning, consumers’ brand responses and finally consumers’ brand resonance. More specifically, the first step includes establishing brand awareness, the second step creating the brand meaning with the creation of strong, favourable and unique associations, the third step includes eliciting positive and accessible responses and the fourth step, the ultimate aim, is to build brand relationships, which is characterised by brand loyalty. Each step, when applied to product brands, is
The Customer-Based Brand Equity model is illustrated in Figure 1. The strongest brand excel in all the six areas of the Customer-Based Brand Equity pyramid (Kevin Lane Keller, 2001). The next paragraphs elaborate further and in more detail on this model.
Figure 1: Cus tomer -Bas ed Brand Equity Pyrami d
Figure1. Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid. Reprinted from “Building customer-based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong brands”, by Keller, K. L., (2001), Marketing Science Institute Cambridge, MA.
3.3 Brand awareness, brand recognition
The first step of the brand equity model of Kevin Lane Keller (2001) is brand salience, consisting of brand awareness, answering the question ‘Who are you?’. Simple but clearly stated: “a brand that is not considered cannot be chosen” and “without brand awareness occurring, no other communication effects can occur” (Macdonald & Sharp, 2003, p. 1). These sentences make it clear: the condition of brand salience must be met in order to climb up the ladder of the equity pyramid. At least, in traditional branding.
Brand awareness is traditionally defined as “the ability of a potential buyer to
recognise or recall that a brand is a member of a certain product category” (Ghodeswar, 2008, p. 7). It reflects the ability of people to identify the brand under different conditions.
Therefore, brand awareness is related to people’s memory and the establishment of a brand node in one’s memory. It makes knowledge of the brand traceable and makes it able to adapt or add information about the brand in one’s memory (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993). Brand awareness can be divided by brand recognition and brand recall. Brand recall is the ability to retrieve the brand in different purchase or usage situations and circumstances (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993). Recall is not necessary to gain brand awareness, but can be necessary to
develop the brand equity (Macdonald & Sharp, 2003). Lynch and Srull (1982, p. 21) state that “recognition is almost always better than recall”, since recall depends on situations and
recognition has the same outcome in different kinds of situations (one is recognised, or is not). In addition to these statements, the present study will focus on the recognition part of brand awareness. It is the most applicable components of brand awareness to personal brands. Recall, which include the retrieval of information of different purchase or usage situations, does not seem that relevant for personal brands. Recognition however, is seen as a building step in personal, self-marketing (Lehman, 2009). Besides, recognition occurs in stimuli-based situations, recall in memory-based situations. Therefore, with the presentation of brand names and brand pictures in the present study, recognition will be activated. Because of this, the present study focuses on this part of brand awareness.
Recognition is the ability to correctly discriminate the brand as having seen or heard before (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993). Brand recognition is a part of brand knowledge, since brand knowledge consists of brand awareness and brand image (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993). Brand image was traditionally defined as: the set of associations linked to the brand that consumers hold (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993).
According to Kevin Lane Keller (2003), at least traditionally, brand knowledge’s components interact. Traditionally, brand image and brand identity are essential ingredients for strong brands (Nandan, 2005). Strong brand awareness and brand familiarity is a
perquisite for certain types of associations, thoughts, feelings and attitudes. According to the memory theory, brand awareness is a vital step in creating and bundling brand associations in people’s memory (Macdonald & Sharp, 2003). Kuhn et al. (2008) describes the traditional branding process in which a strong brand is built by creating an identification of the brand with customers and forming associations about the brand. Unfamiliar brands may have to work harder in order to build positive attitudes compared to familiar brands, according to Campbell and Keller (2003). Though, it is not certain that awareness only positively influences the associations and evaluations of a brand. A brand can also be well known for having a bad quality for instance (Cheng-Hsui Chen, 2001).
Brand awareness involves linking and influencing certain associations in memory (Kevin Lane Keller, 2001) by positioning and establishing key associations in people’s (Kevin Lane Keller & Lehmann, 2006). Brand awareness in personal branding has never been
academically studied. Kevin Lane Keller and Lehmann (2006) suggest and state that it is important to study intangible assets and brand equity. Personal brands are intangible assets (Kerrigan et al., 2011). There is some knowledge about persons and brand awareness. Linking persons to other brands has been studied. It can affect existing brand knowledge and it can create new brand knowledge (Kevin Lane Keller, 2003).
According to Montoya and Vandehey (2002), personal brands have to be seen; the task is to get the personal brand known. According to Brown (2010), one will never build a good reputation without visibility. That brand awareness is important nowadays can be concluded from this quote: “With the explosion of social media and other new digital tactics, however, "push" is giving way to "dialogue," where people to- people-driven information is becoming an important way to create personal awareness, establish credibility, drive differentiation at the personal level, and invite prospects into relationships that can be transformed into new business. The new mantra for today's younger partners and rising stars is: it's not who you know, but who knows you; and it's not what you know, but how quickly you share your knowledge, observations and insights” (Vitberg, 2010, p. 42).
3.4 Brand meaning, responses and resonance
The second level of the CBBE model of (Kevin Lane Keller, 2001) consists of brand associations. The aim of brand associations is to create meaning for the consumers, to establish brand image. Brand equity depends a great deal on the associations of people about the brands. Therefore, a deep understanding of brand associations is important when building strong brands (Cheng-Hsui Chen, 2001). Brand associations are informational nodes in people’s memory (Cheng-Hsui Chen, 2001). It is a group of concepts of anything that people associate with a brand linked in their memory. The process consist of an activation. When the activation passes a threshold, it can lead to the activation of brand nodes (Till, 1998). Brand associations can be perceptions, preferences and choices (Cheng-Hsui Chen, 2001). The exact association set of someone of the brand will vary per individual (Till, 1998). Associations are multidimensional (Low & Lamb Jr, 2000) and they can vary broadly (Henderson, Iacobucci, & Calder, 1998). The associations can be broadly classified intro three major categories: attributes, benefits and attitudes (Belén del Río et al., 2001). Attributes are descriptive features that characterise the brand, e.g. size, weight, colour (Nandan, 2005). Benefits are personal values that people associative with the brand. Attitudes are the overall evaluations of the brand (Cheng-Hsui Chen, 2001).
Kevin Lane Keller (1993) breaks down brand knowledge into brand awareness (consisting of recognition and recall) and brand image. Brand image is measured in terms of the strength, favourability and uniqueness of the brand associations (Till, Baack, &
Waterman, 2011). These components are all constructs on itself. The brand strength measures how strong the brand is identified with a brand association (Kevin Lane Keller, 2001). It is the link to the brand’s node in memory. The stronger the association, the more accessible the
association will be. The favourability is related to the evaluations of the associations; positively or negative (Till et al., 2011). It measures how important or valuable the brand association is to other. The uniqueness measures how distinctively the brand is identified with the brand association (Kevin Lane Keller, 2001). Some associations are shared with
competing brands and therefore less unique. This is the case with category associations for instance. Some associations are more unique than others. Brand positioning strategies use it as a source of differentiation to create competitive advantage (Till et al., 2011). Creating strong, favourable and unique associations is essential to build customer-based brand equity. These three dimensions produce the most positive brand responses (Kevin Lane Keller, 2001). Brand responses is the third step of the CBBE model of Kevin Lane Keller (2001) and it refers to the responses of others towards the brands; what they think and feel of it. The brand responses can be divided in brand judgements and brand feelings. Brand judgement focuses on the personal opinions and evaluations of the brand . Types of judgements are brand quality, credibility, consideration and superiority. Brand feelings consists of emotional
responses and reactions to the brand like warmth, fun, excitement, security, social approval and self-respect (Kevin Lane Keller, 2001). Research indicates that judgements of other individuals are made on the basis of minimal interactions or even mere glimpses of them (Ambady, Hallahan, & Rosenthal, 1995). “Mindsets influence a wide variety of human behaviors” (John & Park, 2016, p. 156).
The last step of the CBBE model consists of the brand relationships, the brand resonance. It is the feeling of people that they are connected with the brand (Kevin Lane Keller, 2001). The brand relationship consist of active loyalty between people and the brand. It consists of four elements: behavioural loyalty, attitudinal attachment, sense of community and active engagement (Kuhn et al., 2008). This is the ‘top of the pyramid’ and when it is achieved, people feel a sense of commitment and almost passion towards the brand
(Ghodeswar, 2008). The outcome of all these elements is customer-based brand equity (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993).
3.5 Brand positioning in traditional and personal branding
To position traditional brands, marketers need to ask themselves three questions: have we established a frame? Are we levering our point of parity? Are the points of difference compelling? Brand positioning starts with a frame of reference; which signals the goal which can be achieved while using the brand and dictates the type of associations related to the brand. Thereafter, the points of parity (PoP) must be established and met to create legitimacy
and credibility. After this, points of difference (PoD) should be created and attention should be drawn to them (Kevin Lane Keller, Sternthal, & Tybout, 2002).
What are PoP’s and PoD’s exactly? Associations which are strong, favourable, but not unique are referred to as Points of Parity (PoP) (Labadie & Pruppers, 2015). These
associations are shared; shared characteristics in the category (Kevin Lane Keller et al., 2002). PoP’s are necessary to be considered as a brand. In product brands they are useful since companies want to offer their value proposition by “fitting in” the product category and creating favourable associations (Parmentier et al., 2013).
Differentiation it is seen as one of the core elements of marketing (Romaniuk, Sharp, & Ehrenberg, 2007). Associations which are strong, favourable and unique are referred to as Points of Difference (PoD). PoD’s are associations that distinguish the brand from other brands in the same frame of reference. PoD’s are the properties that makes the brand more special than other brands and they are fundamental for successful brand positioning (Kevin Lane Keller et al., 2002).
The three types of differences in product brand are brand imagery associations, brand performance associations and consumer insight associations (Kevin Lane Keller et al., 2002). In personal branding, these types seem a bit odd. Though, the story of PoP’s and PoD’s in general seems to make sense. Personal brands do not necessarily need to position themselves as valuable and sell their value proposition, but they position themselves with higher levels of the same values of specific capital compared to their competitors. Product brands need to differentiate themselves from others based on their associations. Personal brands need to do the same. Authors argue that it is necessary for personal brands to compete with others with unique, distinguished characteristics; to “stand out” and establish PoD’s (Parmentier et al., 2013). According to Romaniuk et al. (2007) that is what PoD’s do; they are essential to stand out. As an example of the differences between product brands and personal brands. Figure 2,which can be found on the next page, illustrates the differences in positioning between product brands and personal brands who seek work in established organizational fields.
Figure 2: Compa ring and cont ras ting product and pers on brand pos itio ning
Figure 2. Comparing and contrasting product and person brand positioning. Reprinted from “Positioning person brands in established organizational fields”, by Parmentier, M.-A., Fischer, E., & Reuber, A. R., (2013), Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(3), p. 373-387.
Based on the associations and ‘characteristics’ of the associations (strength,
favourability and uniqueness) Labadie and Pruppers (2015) created the brand SWOT model. The model has a positive and a negative side. The positive side is divided in PoP’s and PoD’s, the negative side is divided in category problems and brand problems. Category problems (CP) are associations which are strong, unfavourable and not unique (shared), brand problems (BP) are associations which are strong, unfavourable and unique associations. The model is useful since it provides insights in the function of associations and it provides the possibility to create an overview of the associative network of a brand.
Chapter 4: Hypotheses development
Personal branding has almost never been academically studied. This statement has been written down by all these authors: Arai et al. (2013), Chen (2013), Guzmán et al. (2015), Labrecque et al. (2011), Lehman (2009) and Shepherd (2005). Thus, there is no research yet about building personal branding’s brand equity and its elements. This study described theories and literature based on the information there is about personal branding and based on literature about traditional branding. Besides, it studies personal branding, using the
Customer-Based Brand Equity model of Kevin Lane Keller (2001). Based on the theoretical framework of the previous chapters, hypotheses have been developed to help to answer sub-questions and the main research question: what is the influence of personal brand recognition on the meaning, responses and resonance of personal brands?
The first two sub-questions have been answered in the previous chapters. The literature of concepts of traditional branding and personal branding has been studied thoroughly. Based on literature research on all the definitions of personal branding and traditional branding, the overall definition of personal branding has been developed. A personal brand is defined as a person who uses their skills, personality and characteristics to fulfil personal objectives and differentiate from other persons. Hypotheses which help to answer the other sub-questions, will be developed in this chapter.
4.1. Development of hypotheses
The first sub-questions which search for answers from the bottom level of the
pyramid, personal brand recognition, seeks to find out whether personal brand recognition is related to personal brand meaning, personal brand responses and personal brand resonance, separately. Brand recognition is a part of brand awareness and the first level of the CBBE pyramid; brand salience. The other levels are brand meaning, brand responses and brand resonance (Kevin Lane Keller, 2001). According to Kuhn et al. (2008) the first step in
building a strong brand, is to establish a brand identity. To do this, brand salience must exists. When a brand is strong, the most valuable block of the CBBE pyramid will be reached; brand resonance. Though this only occurs when the other blocks have been established, according to the founder of the CBBE pyramid Kevin Lane Keller (2001). This implies that the first level of the brand pyramid, is related to the others. Which is in line with a statement of Kuhn et al. (2008) who states that each step of the CBBE pyramid, is dependent on the successful achievement of the previous step. This indicates a positive relationship. It makes sense: “a brand that is not considered cannot be chosen” (Macdonald & Sharp, 2003, p. 1). Without
brand awareness, attitudes and images of the brand cannot be formed (Macdonald & Sharp, 2003). Unfamiliar brands, compared to familiar brans, may have to work harder to build positive attitudes (Campbell & Keller, 2003). An example is Coke, it became a favoured brand, once it was known (Smith, 2009).
Brand awareness is a part of brand knowledge, with brand associations
(Christodoulides & De Chernatony, 2010), which indicates a relationship between these two elements. It is known that high equity brands are related to a higher number of brand
associations, which is mentioned in the present study as having a high strength (Cheng-Hsui Chen, 2001). Besides, it is known that familiar brands have more highly developed brand association structures (Low & Lamb Jr, 2000). High developed association structures include having a great number of associations. Also, it includes having favourable associations and unique associations (Krishnan, 1996). Hence, the following hypothesis is developed: Hypothesis 1: Personal brand recognition is positively related to personal brand meaning.
Hypothesis 1a: Personal brand recognition is positively related to the personal brand meaning’s strength of associations.
Hypothesis 1b: Personal brand recognition is positively related to the personal brand meaning’s favourability of associations.
Hypothesis 1c: Personal brand recognition is positively related to the personal brand meaning’s uniqueness of associations.
A step further, recognition can influence people’s brand evaluations. If consumers are not familiar with the brand, there is nothing they can add and transfer to it. If they are aware of the brand, ideally they will hold positive judgements and feelings about it (Kevin L Keller, 2005). In traditional branding, knowing a brand dramatically affects the evaluation of the brand. According to Macdonald and Sharp (2003) it makes sense to evaluate a brand
positively and qualitative when a brand is profitable and when its company can spend a lot of money on advertising for instance. In personal brands, it has never been studied before, though following the same reasoning it makes sense to believe that a famous person in society, would have some additional positive characteristics that makes him or her famous. Besides, once people know a person, they can build associations and look for more and more positive ones. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is formulated:
