Sport club brand personality scale (SCBPS): A new brand personality ...

Original Article

Sport club brand personality scale (SCBPS): A new brand personality scale for sport clubs Received (in revised form): 6th November 2014

Michael Schade is postdoctorate and lecturer at University of Bremen, Germany. His research interests include Strategic Brand Management, Sport Brand Management, and Place Branding.

Rico Piehler is postdoctorate and lecturer at University of Bremen, Germany. His research interests include Strategic Brand Management, Internal and Employer Branding, and Sport Brand Management.

Christoph Burmann is professor at University of Bremen, Germany. His research interests include Strategic Brand Management and Marketing.

ABSTRACT The concept of brand personality has become a popular topic in relation to professional sport clubs. The aim of the article is to develop and validate a new brand personality scale for professional sport clubs (sport club brand personality scale, SCBPS). The study includes a five-phase process, with three data collections. The SCBPS is developed and validated using an established, approved process. Consequently, the SCBPS reveals greater reliability and validity than former scales. Furthermore, the scale covers the different dimensions of former brand personality scales for professional sport clubs, and additionally contains further dimensions (‘Rebellious’) that can help sport clubs to build strong brand images. The proposed measure contains only personality traits and, therefore, applies a strict definition of brand personality. This article offers a framework for theoretical discussion and provides sport club managers with a tool to build strong brands.

Journal of Brand Management (2014) 21, 650–663. doi:10.1057/bm.2014.36 Keywords: brand personality; brand image; scale development; sport brands; brand management

INTRODUCTION Correspondence: Michael Schade, University of Bremen/Chair of Innovative Brand Management, Hochschulring 4, Bremen 28359 Germany. E-mail: [email protected]

Professional sports have emerged as a rewarding business with many opportunities to prosper (Kaynak et al, 2008). Increasing competition in the sport entertainment

market and the inherent lack of guarantees of success (only one club can win the championships) force professional sport clubs (for example, Manchester United, Chicago Cubs, New York Knicks, New

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 7/8, 650–663

www.palgrave-journals.com/bm/

A new brand personality scale for sport clubs

England Patriots) to face the constant challenge of achieving economic success independent of their sportive success (Gladden and Funk, 2002; Heere, 2010). In this context, sport managers increasingly view their clubs as brands to be managed, such that their professional aim is to create a strong brand that can influence the behavior of external target groups, independent of sportive success (Gladden and Funk, 2002). The behavior of external target groups toward a brand depends on its image defined as ‘the cumulative product of brand associations in the consumer’s mind’ (Keller, 1993, p. 3). Thus, a brand image includes associations such as brand attributes, brand benefits, typical users, brand heritage, and brand personality (Keller, 2008). The brand personality dimension has particular behavioral relevance (Plummer, 1985; Aaker, 1997). Therefore, brand personality enables sport club managers to build a behaviorally relevant brand image (Bee and Kahle, 2006; Ross, 2008; Carlson et al, 2009; Tsiotsou, 2012). To do so, they need a reliable, valid, applicable scale to measure the brand personality of sport clubs. This article seeks to develop such a brand personality scale, derived from the theoretical foundation of brand personality, therefore extending prior literature related to measuring brand personality First, the theoretical foundation of brand personality is presented in the next section. Thereafter, a literature review regarding measurement of brand personality is given. Based on this literature review the research objective of this article is derived. Next, a brand personality scale for professional sport clubs (sport club brand personality scale, SCBPS) is developed conducting a five-phase process. This article ends with the discussion of the results, managerial implications, and future research recommendations.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK To explain the theoretical foundation of brand personality, it is necessary to revisit

literature pertaining to personality psychology. In this research field, human personality is a ‘systematic description of traits’ (McCrae and Costa, 1987, p. 81), and traits are ‘relatively enduring styles of thinking, feeling, and acting’ (McCrae and Costa, 1997, p. 509). The concept of personality was initially restricted to human beings, but with the ‘theory of animism’ Gilmore (1919) argued that people have the need to inspirit anorganic objects by attributing human traits to them. This behavior extends to the context of brands (Aaker, 1996; Vernette, 2003). Thus, a brand personality represents the aggregate of all personality traits that a recipient associates with a brand (Vernette, 2003). Aaker (1997, p. 347) defines brand personality as ‘the set of human characteristics associated with a brand,’ but because she uses the term ‘characteristics’ instead of ‘traits’ (Geuens et al, 2009), this definition is too wide (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003). A loose definition of brand personality leads to dimensions that pertain to other characteristics (for example, age, gender, and social class), beyond personality, and thus construct validity problems arise (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003; Geuens et al, 2009). To prevent such concerns, we use the strict definition of brand personality proposed by Azoulay and Kapferer (2003, p. 151): ‘Brand personality is the set of human personality traits that are both applicable to and relevant for brands.’

LITERATURE REVIEW: MEASURING BRAND PERSONALITY The most pioneering work on measuring brand personality is the Brand Personality Scale (BPS) by Aaker (1997). This scale consists of five dimensions (‘Excitement’, ‘Sophistication’, ‘Ruggedness’, ‘Competence’, ‘Sincerity’) and provides a basis for substantial research into brand personality. However, Austin et al (2003) show that the


651

Schade et al

BPS may not generalize to individual brands or particular product categories. Different researchers have confirmed this finding (for example, Hayes, 1999; Villegas et al, 2000; Kim et al, 2001; Lin and Huang, 2012). Ross (2008) has also empirically proven that the BPS is not applicable for sport club brands. In 2009 Geuens et al developed a further non-specific brand personality scale with the aim of being universally generalizable. However, this scale was not developed and validated in the context of professional sport clubs. Following Austin et al (2003) as well as Ross (2008) it is highly improbable that non-specific brand personality scales like the BPS or the scale by Geuens et al (2009) could actually be developed for all product categories. These scales are not suitable to capture the specifics of brand personalities from unique product categories (Ross, 2008). The product category ‘sport clubs’ is unique and differs from other categories because of the unpredictable core product (that is, game output) and specific determinants of brand personality (for example, players, coaches, team managers, and fans) (Braunstein and Ross, 2010; Tsiotsou, 2012). Consequently, it can be assumed that non-specific scales neglect several aspects of the brand personality of professional sport clubs that could be substantial to build a strong brand image (that is, differentiating and behaviorally relevant). Therefore, different researchers conclude that non-specific scales are inappropriate to measure the brand personality of professional sport clubs, and it is necessary to generate a specific scale in this context (Ross, 2008; Carlson et al, 2009; Braunstein and Ross, 2010; Heere, 2010; Tsiotsou, 2012). In the following section, existing brand personality scales for professional sport clubs are discussed. Tsiotsou’s (2012) scale was developed for professional sport clubs in Greece (for example, Olympiakos Piraeus, Panathinaikos

652

Athens, AEK Athens), which relied solely on a website content analysis to generate personality traits. Further sources are neglected. According to Aaker (1997), Geuens et al (2009), Herbst and Merz (2011), and Homburg and Giering (1998), trait generation instead should be based on a broad literature analysis (of existing personality scales), combined with expert interviews. Otherwise, the brand personality scale probably would neglect specific aspects that might be required to build a strong brand image. Therefore, it can be assumed that Tsiotsou’s scale likely neglects different substantial aspects of the brand personality of professional sport clubs. The second criticism on this scale is that items such as ‘The team is rich and financially independent,’ ‘The team has received awards of distinction,’ or ‘The team has gained many championships and cups’ do not measure personality traits, understood as ‘relatively enduring style of thinking, feeling, and acting’ (McCrae and Costa, 1997, p. 509). Because Tsiotsou’s scale is not based on a strict definition of brand personality (for example, Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003), it actually measures different facets of brand image (for example, brand attributes), not just brand personality traits, and thus cannot ensure construct validity. Because this scale is de facto a brand image scale, not a brand personality scale, we exclude it from further consideration. The brand personality scale offered by Carlson et al (2009) refers to US college basketball teams and uses only five traits from the BPS. This implies that this scale likely neglects different aspects of the brand personality of sport clubs, which could be substantial to build a strong brand image. Furthermore, these authors did not report any empirical validation of this scale. Heere’s (2010) brand personality scale, which applies to netball clubs in New Zealand, generates personality traits through expert interviews with team managers. Although this scale considers an internal perspective ( Johar et al, 2005), it does not



contain a literature analysis. It consists of 10 personality traits (two dimensions) and probably neglects several substantial aspects of the brand personality of sport clubs. To validate this scale, Heere used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) but not confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Existing recommendations suggest validating brand personality scales with both EFA and CFA (Aaker, 1997; Geuens et al, 2009). Therefore, this scale is statistically insufficiently validated. Finally, Braunstein and Ross (2010) propose a brand personality scale for professional US sport clubs, using the BPS and other scales applied previously in sport settings. They did not conduct expert interviews to generate additional personality traits. Thus, even here, it can be assumed that different aspects of the brand personality of sport clubs, which could be substantial to build a strong brand image, are not considered. Braunstein and Ross (2010) identify six dimensions of brand personality, yet two factor loadings were lower than 0.40, two dimensions failed to meet the 0.70 minimum Cronbach’s α criterion, and four factors exhibited ‘poor AVE estimates’ (Braunstein and Ross, 2010, p. 13), so the reliability and validity of this scale is limited (Nunnally, 1978). This review indicates that trait generation in the existing scales is mainly based on a single type of source (BPS by Carlson et al, 2009; expert interviews by Heere, 2010; brand personality scales by Braunstein and Ross, 2010), not on a broad literature analysis combined with expert interviews. Therefore, we anticipate that these scales neglect some aspects of brand personalities of professional sport clubs that could be substantial to build strong brand images. Furthermore, none of the existing scales has been statistically confirmed as both reliable and valid.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE This study aims to develop a specific brand personality scale for professional sport clubs

(SCBPS) that fulfills five criteria. Unlike existing brand personality scales for sport clubs, it has to rely on comprehensive trait generation processes based on a broad literature analysis and expert interviews. Accordingly, the SCBPS should not only cover all the dimensions in existing brand personality scales but also consider other aspects of the brand personality of professional sport clubs that have been neglected so far but that might be influential for developing strong brand images (objective 1). According to Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) a brand personality scale should not describe characteristics of product categories (for example, high tech brands are systematically rated as ‘up to date’). Therefore, the SCBPS should not be the mirror face of the type of sport (objective 2). We also seek a scale that contains only personality traits (objective 3), which are appropriate to measure the brand personality of professional sport clubs (objective 4). Finally, the SCBPS should be statistically reliable and valid according to both an EFA and a CFA (objective 5).

SCALE DEVELOPMENT To achieve these objectives, we developed the new brand personality scale using an established, approved process. Brand personality is a complex construct, so the applied process reflects existing insights regarding the operationalization of complex marketing constructs. According to literature, the following process is required (Churchill, 1979; Aaker, 1997; Rossiter, 2002; Geuens et al, 2009): (1) Trait generation based on a broad literature analysis plus expert interviews to consider different substantial aspects of the construct (objective 1). As part of the interviews, personality traits that capture the differentiating traits of sport club personalities within the same type of sport are generated based on experts’ perceptions (objective 2).


653

Schade et al

(2) Elimination of non-personality items based on expert interviews (objective 3). (3) Elimination of inappropriate traits through expert interviews (objective 4). (4) Pretest (consumer survey) to eliminate further traits, when necessary, and estimate the dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the scale with an EFA (objective 5). (5) Main study (consumer survey) to identify the final dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the scale with an EFA and CFA (objective 5). Furthermore, the correlation between type of sport and personality dimensions is analyzed based on eta squared (objective 2). The SCBPS is the first brand personality scale for professional sport clubs, which is developed using an established, approved process. We developed this scale initially in the context of professional sport clubs from four major sports leagues in Germany (soccer, handball, basketball, and ice hockey).

Phase 1: Personality trait generation For the personality trait generation step, we began with a broad literature analysis. Following Braunstein and Ross (2010), we adopted personality traits from the BPS (Aaker, 1997), then integrated the brand personality scale proposed by Geuens et al (2009) and the corporate personality scale (CPS) developed by Davies et al (2003). The CPS differs from customer-oriented scales in its consideration of internal and external stakeholders. Furthermore, to address the specifics of the German cultural area, we applied brand personality scales by Hieronimus (2003) and Mäder (2005). Moreover, we collected traits from sport club-specific scales by Carlson et al (2009), Heere (2010), and Braunstein and Ross (2010). Next, we undertook a website content analysis, that is we analyzed the official websites of each club in the First and Second Fußball Bundesliga (professional

654

soccer leagues), Handball Bundesliga (professional handball league), Basketball Bundesliga (professional basketball league), and Deutsche Eishockeyliga (professional ice hockey league) – 86 web sites in total. The literature review and the content analysis produced 89 non-redundant personality traits. To enhance this list of traits with expert insights (Aaker, 1997; Homburg and Giering, 1998; Rossiter, 2002; Geuens et al, 2009; Herbst and Merz, 2011), we conducted 17 semi-structured interviews, in person or via telephone, with chief executive officers, marketing managers, and marketing personnel of 1. FC Köln (Fußball Bundesliga), FC St. Pauli (Fußball Bundesliga), TBV Lemgo (Handball Bundesliga), and ALBA Berlin (Basketball Bundesliga). This focus ensures an internal perspective of the club. Hence, a requirement by Heere (2010) and Johar et al (2005) is fulfilled. Furthermore, four sport marketing researchers from a German university also participated in the interviews, which took place between February and April 2010. Each participant provided insights about his or her own club (club employees) or favorite club in Germany (marketing researchers). The experts also discussed two German professional sport clubs with which they were familiar (external perspective). In total, we captured the brand personalities of 34 different clubs: 15 from First and Second Fußball Bundesliga, 8 from Basketball Bundesliga, 7 from Handball Bundesliga, and 4 from Deutsche Eishockeyliga. During the interviews, we asked participants to imagine the club as a person and describe, in their own words, its personality. We also defined personality traits as ‘relatively enduring styles of thinking, feeling, and acting’ (McCrae and Costa, 1997, p. 509). To capture any additional personality traits and to achieve objective 2, the participants also noted which personality traits differentiate the focal club brand from other professional sport club brands within



the same type of sport. These expert interviews generated 49 non-redundant personality traits. Finally, the personality traits generated by the literature review and the content analysis (89) and the expert interviews (49) were merged and cleared of redundancies, which left 105 items for further investigation.

Phase 2: Elimination of nonpersonality items To achieve the third objective (the final scale should contain only personality traits to ensure construct validity), we asked 14 marketing researchers from a German university and five personality psychology researchers from multiple universities in Germany and the Netherlands to indicate which of the 105 items represent personality traits. Items were eliminated when more than 40 per cent of the participants indicated that it could not be regarded as a personality trait. This low cut-off value ensures that the final brand personality scale only contains personality traits. The study revealed that 21 items needed to be eliminated (for example, `good looking,' `healthy'), leaving 84 personality traits for further analysis.

Phase 3: Elimination of inappropriate traits To achieve the fourth objective of including only personality traits that are appropriate for measuring the brand personality of professional sport clubs, we presented a list with the remaining 84 personality traits to 21 experts (17 executives from sport clubs and four marketing researchers from a German university). They were asked to indicate which traits were appropriate for measuring the brand personalities of professional sport clubs, with the following question: ‘Is the personality trait X generally appropriate to describe the brand personality of professional sport clubs?’ (six-point

scale, ranging from 1 = ‘is absolutely inappropriate’ to 6 = ‘is very appropriate’). To identify the most appropriate traits, we calculated the means for all 84 personality traits and selected the mean score of four as the cut-off level, in line with prior research (Aaker, 1997; Herbst and Merz, 2011). In total, 58 personality attributes were eliminated (for example, ‘soothing’, ‘educated’). This procedure resulted in 26 appropriate personality traits.

Phase 4: Pretest Data were collected from 47 German marketing students in April 2010, using a written survey. The authors received 40 usable questionnaires, resulting in a response rate of 85 per cent. Four questionnaires could not be considered because the participants indicated a lack of interest in soccer, leaving 36 questionnaires for further analysis. The average age of the participants was 23.5 years, and 55 per cent were men. Each participant rated the brand personalities of three professional German soccer clubs (FC St. Pauli, Werder Bremen, and Bayern München) using the 26 personality traits, on a five-point scale (1 = ‘does not describe the personality of club brand X at all’ to 5 = ‘describes the personality of club brand X very well’). Thus, the sample consisted of 108 evaluations of brand personalities of German soccer brands. According to Bartlett’s test of sphericity ( < 0.05) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) criterion ( > 0.5), the sample was appropriate to conduct an EFA. A Principal Components Analysis with Varimax rotation of the 26 personality traits resulted in five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. This five-factor solution explained 74.4 per cent of the variance. The 26 items all exhibited factor loadings of at least 0.52 with a maximum cross-loading of 0.44. The pretest results indicated five interpretable factors: ‘Extraversion’ (6 traits), ‘Rebellious’


655

Schade et al

(7 traits), ‘Open-Mindedness’ (5 traits), ‘Conscientiousness’ (5 traits), and ‘Optimistic’ (3 traits). The Cronbach’s α values for each factor (0.79, 0.85, 0.79, 0.88, and 0.71, respectively) exceeded the 0.70 threshold value (Nunnally, 1978), in support of factor reliability.

Phase 5: Main study We collected data from a German online panel generating 42.1 per cent response rate or 3175 responses. The average age of the respondents was 36.1 years and 70 per cent were men. Each participant rated the brand personalities of at least one professional sport club brand. The participants only answered questions about a club they were familiar with. The popularity of soccer in Germany led to a strong predominance of participants who indicated familiarity with club brands from the Fußball Bundesliga. In total, we captured perceived brand personalities of 13 clubs from four different sports, for example, Bayern München, Borussia Dortmund, and ALBA Berlin (for a complete list see Table 1). The brand personalities were evaluated according to the 26 personality traits, on the same five-point scale used in the pretest. After data cleansing we retained 2994 usable evaluations of brand personalities of German professional sport clubs. We split the full sample Table 1: Sport club brands captured in the main study Sport league

Sport club brand

First and Second German Fußball Bundesliga

Bayern München FC St. Pauli Borussia Dortmund FC Schalke 04 Bayer Leverkusen Hertha BSC Berlin 1. FC Köln Union Berlin Füchse Berlin TBV Lemgo Kölner Haie Eisbären Berlin ALBA Berlin

German Handball Bundesliga Deutsche Eishockeyliga German Basketball Bundesliga

656

randomly in main study 1 and main study 2. We used main study 1 to conduct an EFA and to reduce the items, if necessary. Main study 2 was used to conduct a CFA in order to confirm the reliability and validity of the new brand personality scale for professional sport clubs. Using the data of main study 1 Bartlett’s test of sphericity ( < 0.05) and the KaiserMeyer-Olkin (KMO) criterion ( > 0.5) provided support for sample adequacy (EFA). Principal Components Analysis with Varimax rotation lead to a four-factor solution with 17 of the original 26 items (see Table 2). The 17 items retained had (i) main loadings of at least 0.59, and (ii) maximum cross-loadings of 0.39. In total, these four factors explained 65.6 per cent of the variance. Moreover, the four factors met the 0.70 minimum α criterion (Nunnally, 1978) (see Table 2). In the next step, the correlation of each personality trait with the total score for each of the four personality dimensions was calculated. The corrected item-to-total correlation of the 17 items ranged between 0.44 and 0.80 and exceeded the threshold of 0.30 (Kumar et al, 1993). In addition, we analyzed if the four factors can be subdivided into facets (Aaker, 1997). Based on a Principal Component Analysis with Promax rotation on each dimension we confirmed that each of the four factors is one-dimensional. The EFA results thus indicate that the proposed brand personality scale for professional sport clubs is valid and reliable. Furthermore, the four-factor solution is interpretable. In accordance with the pretest, the first factor is called ‘Extraversion’ and is contentwise related to the ‘Extraversion’-factor of the Big Five (McCrae and Costa, 1997). Extraverted human beings are oriented to the ‘outer world’ ( Jung, 1923), and enjoy interaction with other persons. Extraverted professional sport clubs interact in a specific manner with the ‘outer world’ (fans,



Table 2: Factor reliabilities and item loadings for the new brand personality scale for professional sport clubs (Exploratory factor analysis) Factor

Personality traits

Cronbach’s α

Factor loading

Factor 1 ‘Extraversion’

— traditional faithful sociable family-oriented humorous cheerful

0.85 — — — — — —

— 0.76 0.74 0.68 0.66 0.59 0.59

Factor 2 ‘Rebellious’

— rebellious bold alternative

0.71 — — —

— 0.78 0.78 0.67

Factor 3 ‘Open-Mindedness’

— open-minded tolerant sophisticated social responsible

0.79 — — — —

— 0.80 0.75 0.68 0.68

Factor 4 ‘Conscientiousness’

— hard-working fighting spirit diligent tough

0.90 — — — —

— 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.81

inhabitants of the hometown, and so on), which is characterized by ‘sociable’, ‘cheerful’, ‘family-oriented’, and ‘humorous’. This personality dimension is connected with an enduring enjoyment of the respective club almost independent of sportive performance. Factor 2, ‘Rebellious,’ also emerged from the pretest, describing the non-conformity especially of sportive underdogs (‘rebellious’, ‘bold’, ‘alternative’). As in the pretest, the third factor is called ‘Open-Mindedness’ and describes the general mindset regarding society which results in behavior that is tolerant and social responsible. Such sport clubs are often perceived as being ‘sophisticated’. The fourth factor is called ‘Conscientiousness’ and is content-wise related to the respective dimension of the Big Five (McCrae and Costa, 1997). Human beings with a high score on ‘Conscientiousness’ show self-discipline and are dutiful in order to achieve their goals. Conscientious professional sport clubs are associated with high effort, hard work, diligence, fighting spirit, and toughness, according to the principle of

‘never give up’, in order to achieve their sportive goals. To confirm the reliability and validity of the new brand personality scale for professional sport clubs, we also conducted a CFA using AMOS 22.0 (main study 2). The data fit the four-factor model well (GFI = 0.95; AGFI = 0.93; RFI = 0.94; SRMR = 0.05; RMR = 0.05; RMSEA = 0.06; NFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.95; CFI = 0.96). All factor loadings were significant at the 0.001 level (critical ratios ranged from 18.2 to 37.5 and error terms ranged from 0.025 to 0.067), and the composite reliability of the factors ranged between 0.74 and 0.89, so the factors are reliable (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Furthermore, the personality scale fulfills the Fornell-Larcker criterion. For adequate discriminant validity, the diagonal elements in Table 3 should be greater than the offdiagonal elements (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Comparing all correlation coefficients with square roots of AVEs in Table 3, the results indicate evidence of discriminant validity. Additionally, we analyzed standardized residuals. Most of these standardized residuals (82 per cent) ranged between -2


657

Schade et al

Table 3: Discriminant validity: Inter-construct correlations Personality dimension

Extraversion

Rebellious

Open-Mindedness

Conscientiousness

Extraversion Rebellious Open-Mindedness Conscientiousness

0.69 0.51 0.67 0.41

— 0.70 0.32 0.48

— — 0.73 0.44

— — — 0.81

Diagonal elements are the result of the square root of AVE.

and 2, which supports a good fit of our model (Bollen, 1989). To summarize, based on EFA and CFA we confirmed that the SCBPS is a reliable, valid instrument for measuring the brand personality of professional sport clubs. Figure 1 contains the final scale. Finally, the SCBPS should not be the mirror face of the type of sport. This is statistically verified based on eta squared (Cohen, 1969). Eta squared measures the proportion of the total variance in a dependent variable (here, personality dimensions) that is associated with the membership of different groups defined by an independent variable (here, type of sport). This analysis indicated that the type of sport explained only a small amount of variance of the four personality dimensions. Based on the eta squared values the type of sport explained only 1.6 per cent of the variance of the dimension ‘Rebellious’, 2.7 per cent of the variance of the dimension ‘Extraversion’, 6.9 per cent of the variance of the dimension ‘Open-Mindedness’, and 12.3 per cent of the variance of the ‘Conscientiousness’dimension.

DISCUSSION Across five distinct steps, we developed the SCBPS as new brand personality scale for professional sport clubs. The SCBPS consists of four dimensions. Two dimensions (‘Extraversion’ and ‘Conscientiousness’) are content-wise related to the Big Five scale of human personality (McCrae and Costa, 1997). It can be assumed that these

658

dimensions enable sport clubs to establish emotional connections with external target groups in particular. Furthermore, the SCBPS is related to one of the basic dimensions (‘Extraversion’) of human personality ( Jung, 1923). The dimensions of the SCBPS differ in content from existing generic brand personality scales (Aaker, 1997; Geuens et al, 2009). On the item level, only a few traits appear in the BPS too (‘cheerful’, ‘familyoriented’, ‘hard-working’; Aaker, 1997). In contrast, various traits that are clearly necessary to measure the brand personalities of sport clubs do not appear in existing, generic brand personality scales (for example, ‘rebellious’ ‘sociable’, ‘faithful’, ‘social responsible’, ‘tolerant’). These results confirm the need to develop a specific brand personality scale for professional sport clubs (Ross, 2008). The SCBPS was developed based on an established, approved process. In the following will be discussed to what extent the new brand personality scale achieves the five objectives of this work. First, we initially attempted to cover all the dimensions included in existing specific brand personality scales. To assess whether we achieved this objective, we compare our new scale with existing scales by Carlson et al (2009), Braunstein and Ross (2010), and Heere (2010). The five traits listed by Carlson et al (2009) are covered by our ‘Extraversion’ and ‘Conscientiousness’ dimensions. The two dimensions provided by Heere (2010), ‘Event related’ and ‘Game related’, can also be included in our ‘Extraversion’ and



Extraversion

Rebellious

Open-Mindedness

• traditional

• •

rebellious bold

•

• faithful • sociable

•

alternative

•

• family-oriented • humorous

•

open-minded tolerant

sophisticated • social responsible

Conscientiousness • hard-working • fighting spirit • diligent • tough

• cheerful

Figure 1:

New brand personality scale for professional sport clubs.

‘Conscientiousness’ dimensions. Finally, we can link the six dimensions by Braunstein and Ross (2010) with our scale: The ‘Success’ dimension by Braunstein and Ross (2010) relates to our ‘Conscientiousness’ dimension, and Braunstein and Ross’s ‘Sophistication’ aligns with our ‘Open-Mindedness’ dimension. In addition, Braunstein and Ross’s ‘Sincerity’ and ‘Rugged’ dimensions are covered in our proposed scale by ‘Extraversion’ and ‘Rebellious’. Both the fifth (‘Communitydriven’) and sixth (‘Classic’) factor from Braunstein and Ross are part of our ‘Extraversion’ dimension. In conclusion, the different dimensions of the former brand personality scales for professional sport clubs are mostly covered in the new scale. In the next step, we analyze whether the new scale contains different substantial aspects of the brand personality of professional sport clubs, which do not appear in former scales: Only a part of the ‘Extraversion’ dimension is covered in prior scales. The orientation to the community is partly considered in the scale by Braunstein and Ross (2010). However, the new scale covers a further aspect of this personality dimension: the enduring enjoyment that several sport clubs represent (‘cheerful’, ‘humorous’). Enjoyment is a very influential factor over the behavior of sport club supporters (Gladden and Funk, 2002). This additional aspect could be substantial for strengthening sport club brands. Furthermore, only a part of the ‘OpenMindedness’ dimension is considered by prior

scales (‘sophisticated’ by Braunstein and Ross, 2010). However, former scales do not cover an open-minded, tolerant, and social-responsible personality as core of this dimension. Only the SCBPS considers this aspect, which is substantial because a club that is tolerant and open-minded toward different social groups and that assumes its social responsibility has a good opportunity to create a brand image that is highly relevant for a specific target group (Mohr et al, 2001). Additionally, the ‘Rebellious’ dimension is not considered in existing scales (only the personality trait ‘bold’ is part of Braunstein and Ross’s scale). The non-conformity (‘rebellious’, ‘alternative’) only appears in the SCBPS. This dimension offers a good opportunity to build a differentiating brand image especially for sportive underdogs (for example, FC St. Pauli, Chicago Cubs). It can be stated that the SCBPS is the first brand personality scale for professional sport clubs, which considers this important personality dimension (‘Rebellious’) in the context of sportive underdogs. Because former scales focus on established clubs they neglect this specific personality dimension of sportive underdogs. To conclude, the SCBPS (i) covers all the dimensions included in existing brand personality scales for professional sport clubs and (ii) contains different aspects of the brand personality of professional sport clubs, which are influential for building a strong brand image but do not appear in other scales. This indicates that the first objective


659

Schade et al

of this research is achieved. Moreover, these results confirm the need to generate personality traits based on a broad literature analysis, together with expert interviews. Based on an eta squared the type of sport explained only a small amount of variance of the four personality dimensions. Therefore, the personality dimensions do not reflect the type of sport; objective 2 is achieved. This is a result of the selection of personality traits in the scale development process. As part of the expert interviews, personality traits that capture the differentiating traits of sport club personalities within the same type of sport were generated based on experts’ perceptions. To achieve objectives 3 and 4, we conducted two studies involving expert interviews. According to our application of strict cut-off levels, the SCBPS contains only personality traits that are appropriate for measuring the brand personalities of professional sport clubs. In contrast to some existing scales (for example, Tsiotsou, 2012), the proposed brand personality scale is in line with a strict definition (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003) and exclusively measures the brand personality dimension, such that it offers construct validity. In a pretest and main study, we also validated the brand personality scale statistically. Braunstein and Ross (2010) offer the only other scale, which is validated using both EFA and CFA. The quality criteria also indicate the higher reliability and validity of our proposed new brand personality scale compared with their scale. The factor loadings of the new scale are at least 0.59, and our new scale fulfills the Fornell-Larcker (1981) criterion (discriminant validity). In contrast, two factor loadings from Braunstein and Ross’s scale were lower than 0.40, and four of their six factors failed discriminant validity. Therefore, the new scale is the first brand personality scale for professional sport clubs that is reliable and valid, according to both an EFA and a CFA (objective 5).

660

To conclude it can be stated that all five objectives of this study have been achieved. Furthermore, this study shows that it is necessary to use an established, approved process in order to develop a brand personality scale, which fulfills the criteria mentioned above.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS Brand personality is an important construct for sport club managers that can be used to develop a differentiating, behaviorally relevant brand image (Braunstein and Ross, 2010). Sport club managers can apply the SCBPS to compare consumer's perceptions of the personality of their own brand with the brand personality of competitors (external perception). The results reveal the brand personality dimensions that offer the potential for differentiation. Furthermore, the new scale can be used to empirically analyze the behavioral relevance of the four brand personality dimensions by measuring the impact of these dimensions on outcome variables like intention to purchase tickets. Based on external analyses, sport club managers can identify brand personality dimensions that fulfill two requirements for positioning a sport club brand: (i) potential for differentiation and (ii) behavioral relevance. A third requirement is that a brand personality dimension should be used to position a sport club brand if the respective dimension is in line with the brand identity of the internal groups (Kapferer, 2004). Otherwise, the respective brand personality dimension cannot be communicated in an authentic way. An inauthentic brand communication will lead to a weak brand image (Beverland and Farrelly, 2010). The internal perception of the brand personality of the respective club has to be measured as well. Because the new brand personality scale emerged through consideration of both external and internal perspectives (trait



generation), this scale can be used to measure the internal perception of the brand personality of a professional sport club. Thus, the new brand personality scale is applicable for evaluating all three requirements of brand positioning: (i) potential for differentiation, (ii) behavioral relevance, and (iii) fit with the brand identity of internal groups. The SCBPS is also of interest for sponsors of sport clubs. Substantial research has suggested the importance of image matching in sponsorship management (Gwinner, 1997; Musante et al, 1999). It is necessary to analyze the brand image of a potential sponsored sport club in comparison with the image of sponsor’s own brand. Because brand personality is an important image dimension (Aaker, 1997), our newly developed brand personality scale also might be used in conjunction with other measurement instruments (for example, brand benefit; Keller, 1993) to determine the brand image fit between the sponsor and the potential sponsored sport club.

Third, researchers could further investigate the antecedents and consequences of a sport club brand personality. The SCBPS could help to empirically test antecedents of brand personality dimensions such as players, coaches, management, typical fans, logos, club colors, sport leagues, stadiums, club tradition, sponsors, and owners (Bauer et al, 2008). Concerning consequences the SCBPS can be used to investigate the general impact of brand personality on outcome variables like brand preferences ( Jamal and Goode, 2001), brand attachment (Malär et al, 2011), and brand loyalty (Fang et al, 2012). By means of our scale, it can be empirically analyzed in detail to what extent the four brand personality dimensions have an impact on consequences (for example, brand preferences). Moreover, moderating effects could be investigated, for example, if the relationship between a brand personality dimension and brand preferences is influenced by the sportive success of a sport club.

FURTHER RESEARCH

CONCLUSION

The SCBPS was developed based on an established, approved process. However, this study is not without limitations. First, we empirically validated the scale only in Germany. Previous research on brand personality suggests that cultural adjustments might be necessary (Ferrandi et al, 2000; Aaker et al, 2001; Venable et al, 2005). Further research is needed to investigate the factor structure and stability of the SCBPS in different cultural areas. The scale also should be validated in different professional sport systems (for example, the ‘club system’ in Europe versus the ‘franchise system’ in North America). Second, the SCBPS has not been empirically validated (pretest and main study) for the internal target groups of professional sport clubs. A future study should empirically validate this scale considering internal target groups.

The aim of the study was to develop a new brand personality scale for professional sport clubs (SCBPS) which is based on an established, approved process and which fulfills five criteria: (1) It is the first brand personality scale for professional sport clubs which covers the different dimensions of prior brand personality scales for professional sport clubs and additionally contains further brand personality dimensions (‘Rebellious’) which are substantial to build up a strong brand image and which are not considered in other scales. (2) The personality dimensions of the scale do not reflect the type of sport. (3) The SCBPS contains only personality traits. (4) The used personality traits are appropriate to measure the brand personality of professional sport clubs.


661

Schade et al

(5) The SCBPS is the first brand personality scale for professional sport clubs, which is statistically reliable and valid, according to both EFA and CFA. Practitioners and scientific researchers can use the SCBPS for different purposes: (1) Sport club managers can use this scale to evaluate, if personality dimensions show potential for differentiation, show behavioral relevance, and are in line with the brand identity of internal groups. Based on these results they can identify appropriate personality dimensions for brand positioning. (2) Sponsors of professional sport clubs can use SCBPS to determine the brand personality fit between the sponsor and the potential sponsored sport club. (3) In future research the new scale can be used to empirically analyze antecedents (for example, players, coaches, management, club tradition, sponsors) and consequences (for example, brand attachment, brand loyalty) of a professional sport club brand personality.

REFERENCES Aaker, D.A. (1996) Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press. Aaker, J.L. (1997) Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research 34(3): 347–356. Aaker, J.L., Benet-Martinez, V. and Garolera, J. (2001) Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81(3): 492–508. Austin, J.R., Siguaw, J.A. and Mattila, A.S. (2003) A re-examination of the generalizability of the Aaker brand personality measurement framework. Journal of Strategic Marketing 11(2): 77–92. Azoulay, A. and Kapferer, J.-N. (2003) Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality? Journal of Brand Management 11(2): 143–155. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16(1): 74–94. Bauer, H.H., Stockburger-Sauer, N.E. and Exler, S. (2008) Brand image and fan loyalty in professional team sport: A refined model and empirical assessment. Journal of Sport Management 22(2): 205–226.

662

Bee, C.C. and Kahle, L.R. (2006) Relationship marketing in sports: A functional approach. Sport Marketing Quarterly 15(2): 102–110. Beverland, M.B. and Farrelly, F.J. (2010) The quest for authenticity in consumption: Consumers’ purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research 36(5): 838–856. Bollen, K.A. (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley. Braunstein, J.R. and Ross, S.D. (2010) Brand personality in sport: Dimension analysis and general scale development. Sport Marketing Quarterly 19(1): 8–16. Carlson, B.D., Donavan, D.T. and Cumiskey, K.J. (2009) Consumer-brand relationships in sport: Brand personality and identification. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 37(4): 370–384. Churchill, G. (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16(1): 64–73. Cohen, J. (1969) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press. Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R.V. and Roper, S. (2003) Corporate Reputation and Competitiveness. London: Routledge. Fang, L., Jianyao, L., Mizerski, D. and Huangting, S. (2012) Self congruity, brand attitude, and brand loyalty: A study on luxury brands. European Journal of Marketing 46(7/8): 922–937. Ferrandi, J.-M., Valette-Florence, P. and Fine-Falcy, S. (2000) Aaker’s brand personality scale in a French context – A replication and a preliminary test of its validity. Developments in Marketing Science 23: 7–13. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50. Geuens, M., Weijters, B. and De Wulf, K. (2009) A new measurement of brand personality. International Journal of Research in Marketing 26(2): 97–107. Gilmore, G.W. (1919) Animism: Or, Thoughts Currents of Primitive People. Boston: Marshall Jones Company. Gladden, J.M. and Funk, D.C. (2002) Developing an understanding of brand associations in team sport: Empirical evidences from consumers of professional sport. Journal of Sport Management 16(1): 54–81. Gwinner, K. (1997) A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship. International Marketing Review 14(3): 145–158. Hayes, J. (1999) Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Personality. Starkville: Mississippi State University. Heere, B. (2010) A new approach to measure perceived brand personality associations among consumers. Sport Marketing Quarterly 19(1): 17–24. Herbst, U. and Merz, M. (2011) The industrial brand personality scale: Building strong business-tobusiness brands. Industrial Marketing Management 40(7): 1072–1081. Hieronimus, F. (2003) Persönlichkeitsorientiertes Markenmanagement. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Homburg, C. and Giering, A. (1998) Konzeptualisierung und Operationalisierung komplexer Konstrukte –



Ein Leitfaden für die Marketingforschung. In: L. Hildebrandt and C. Homburg (eds.) Die Kausalanalyse – Ein Instrument der betriebswirtschaftlichen Forschung. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. Jamal, A. and Goode, M.M.H. (2001) Consumers and brands: A study of the impact of self-image congruence on brand preference and satisfaction. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 19(7): 482–492. Johar, G.V., Sengupta, J. and Aaker, J.L. (2005) Two roads to updating brand personality impressions: Trait versus evaluative inferencing. Journal of Marketing Research 42(4): 458–469. Jung, C.G. (1923) Psychological Types or The Psychology of Individuation. Reading: Routledge. Kapferer, J.-N. (2004) The New Strategic Brand Management – Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term. London: Kogan Page. Kaynak, E., Salman, G.G. and Tatoglu, E. (2008) An integrative framework linking brand associations and brand loyalty in professional sports. Journal of Brand Management 15(5): 336–357. Keller, K.L. (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57(1): 1–22. Keller, K.L. (2008) Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 3rd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kim, C.K., Han, D. and Park, S.-B. (2001) The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. Japanese Psychological Research 43(4): 195–206. Kumar, N., Scheer, L. and Steenkamp, J.B. (1993) Powerful Suppliers, Vulnerable Resellers, and the Effects of Supplier Fairness: A Cross-National Study. University Park, PA: Working paper of the Institute for the Study of Business Markets. Lin, X.-C. and Huang, P.-W. (2012) Effects of the big five brand personality dimensions on repurchase intentions: Using branded coffee chains as examples. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 15(1): 1–18. Mäder, R. (2005) Messung und Steuerung von Markenpersönlichkeit – Entwicklung eines Messinstruments und Anwendung in der Werbung mit prominenten Testimonials. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W.D. and Nyffenegger, B. (2011) Emotional brand attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self. Journal of Marketing 75(4): 35–52. McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1987) Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(1): 81–90. McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1997) Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist 52(5): 509–516. Mohr, L.A., Webb, D.J. and Harris, K.E. (2001) Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs 35(1): 45–72. Musante, M., Milne, G.R. and McDonald, M.A. (1999) Sport sponsorship: Evaluating the sport and brand image match. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 1(1): 32–37. Nunnally, J.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill. Plummer, J.T. (1985) How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising Research 24(6): 27–31. Ross, S.D. (2008) Assessing the use of the brand personality scale in team sport. International Journal of Sport Management 3(1/2): 23–38. Rossiter, J.R. (2002) The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing 19(4): 305–335. Tsiotsou, R. (2012) Developing a scale for measuring the personality of sport teams. Journal of Services Marketing 26(4): 238–252. Venable, B.T., Rose, G.M., Bush, V.D. and Gilbert, F. W. (2005) The role of brand personality in charitable giving: An assessment and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33(3): 295–312. Vernette, E. (2003) Personnalité de la marque et image de soi. Les tendances du Marketing, Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress Marketing Trends, Venice, 1–22. Villegas, J., Earnhart, K. and Burns, N.M. (2000) The Brand Personality Scale: An Application for the Personal Computer Industry. 108th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington DC.


663