The Brand- personality Scale

The BrandpersonalityScale An Application for Restaurants

R,~s]iutan~,s rnav de';.~;iep tisiinclive personalities. The question is, can s~nsumers distinguish among those personalities?

by Judy A. Siguaw, Anna Mattila, and _]on R. Austin

Managers have long sought to differentiate their brands from others as one means of achieving competitive advantage. Traditionally, these brand-personality strategies centered on products or services and the corresponding functional or utilitarian benefits those products or services provide. In recent decades, however, the number of brands has proliferated and competition has intensified, making it difficult for managers to differentiate brands on the basis of functional attributes alone. As a result, symbolic meanings increasingly form a basis for brands' Judy A. Siguaw, D.B.A., ~, is an associateprofessor and .]on R. Austin, Ph.D., ~jral O@ cornell.edu,, is an assistant professor at the Cornell University School of Hotel Administration. Anna Mattila, Ph.D., ~~, is an assistant professor at Pennsylvania State University. © 1999,Cornel University

48

.: ,,i,,

HOTELANDRESTAURANTADMINISTRATIONQUARTERLY

positioning and differentiation) O f primary interest here are the frequent efforts by marketers to create meaningful and distinctive brand personalities in the minds of consumers.

Jennifer L. Aaker defined brand personality as "the set of human characteristics or traits that consumers attribute to a brand. ''2 Brand personality gives the consumer something to relate to that is vivid, alive, and more complete than what is conveyed by the generic offering. 3 A well-established brand personality can result in increased preference and usage, 4 higher emotional ties to the brand, s and trust and l o y a l t y . 6 To successfully differentiate a brand, the personality must be distinctive, robust, desirable, and constant, v Many service industries struggle with inconsistent, meaningless, or undesirable brand perceptions. For example, the quickservice industry for years conditioned consumers to focus solely See: Kevin Keller, Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998), pp. 145-146; Grant McCracken,"Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of Cultural Meanings of Consumer Goods,"Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13,June 1986, pp. 71-84; and Linda M. Scott,"Images in Advertising: The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric,"Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, September 1994, pp. 252-273. Jennifer L. Aaker, "Dimensions of Brand Personality,"Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, August 1997, pp. 347-356. Lynn Upshaw, Building Brand Identity: A Strategyfor Success in a Hostile Marketplace (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1995). ~Joseph Sirgy,"Self-concept in Consumer Behavior,"Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, December 1982, pp. 287-300. s Alexander Biel,"Converting Image into Equity," in Brand Equity and Advertising, ed. David Aaker and Alexander Biel (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993), pp. 67-82. 6 Susan Fournier, "A Consumer-brand Relationship Framework for Strategic Brand Management," doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1994. VJudie Lannon,"Asking the Right Questions: What Do People Do with Advertising?," in Brand Equity and Advertising, ed. David Aaker and Alexander Biel (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993), pp. 162-176.

on price. 8 That focus resulted in endless price wars that have sapped customer loyalty and diminished revenues. 9 To combat that problem, several quick-service chains have based their recent communication efforts on the premise of building distinctive brand personalities. Wendy's, for example, has built its personality around its founder, Dave Thomas, who, with his sheepish grin, has come to represent the lovable but clumsy guy next door in search of good fast food. t° That persona works in part because Dave is the genuine article. The McDonald's personality, we submit, has always been one of fun, as typified by R.onald McDonald and other cartoonish characters. The development of a clearly defined brand personality can be an important objective of brand management. Although the food-service industry spends billions of dollars each year on advertising and d6cor to build and maintain brand image,/ l we have found little research directed toward either determining restaurant-brand personalities or examining the extent to which brands are differentiated on personality dimensions. Our study seeks to provide empirical evidence regarding the extent to which restaurant brands have established clear and distinct brand personalities in the minds of consumers. For convenience in this initial study we fo-

and trust and ioyait!;.

See, for example: Mark Hamstra,"Sandwich Leaders Tap Bolder Flavors in Shifts Away from Low Price Points," Nation's Restaurant News, Vol. 35,June 22, 1998, pp. 108-112. 9See: Karen Benezra,"Brands: Restaurants" Adweek, Vol. 39, May 18,1998, p. $34; and Eric Wildermuth,"The Value Wars Leave More Casualties than Victors," Nation's Restaurant News, Vol. 28, February 7, 1994, p. 28. ,0 Gregg Cebrzynski,"Style and Tone over Sales? Ads Serve Variety of Purposes" Nation's Restaurant News, Vol. 32,June 15, 1998,p. 16. ~See: Juliette Boone, "Hotel-restaurant Cobranding," Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 5 (October 1997), pp. 34-43; and P,.osanna Caira,"Strength in Numbers" Foodservice Hospitality, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 35-36.

June 1999 • ~

Exhibit 1 Brand-personality dimensions and traits Competence

Sincerity

Excitement

Sophistication

Ruggedness

Reliable

Down-to-earth Family oriented

Daring Trendy

Upper-class Glamorous

Outdoorsy

Hard-working Secure

Small-town

Exciting

Western

Intelligent Technical

Honest Sincere

Spirited

Good-looking Charming

Real

Young

Corporate Successful Leader Confident

Cool

Feminine Smooth

Wholesome

Imaginative

Original Cheerful

Unique

Sentimental Friendly

Masculine

Tough Rugged

Up-to-date Independent Contemporary

The five dimensions at the head of the column comprise the traits listed below them, as identified by: Jennifer L. Aaker, "Dimensions of Brand Personality,"Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 (August 1997), pp. 347-356.

cused our study on a specific market segment--namely, college-age consumers. In our study, we measure the personalities of nine restaurants representing three restaurant segments: quick service, casual dining, and upscale dining.

The Brand PersonalityScale Recognizing the importance of brand personality to marketers, Aaker developed a framework intended to capture the key dimensions of brand personality. 12 She proposed the framework as a standard, universal way to measure brand personality. Aaker employed a rigorous set of procedures to develop and evaluate her brandpersonality scale. She began by assembling a list of traits used to measure the human personality in psychology and marketing studies. She then conducted a qualitative study in which she asked respondents to identify all of the traits that readily came to mind when thinking about specific brands. Those procedures generated a preliminary list of 309 discrete traits, which she reduced to t2 Aaker,

SO

op.cit.

I'J]~~ILL HOTELANDRESTAURANT ADMINISTRATION QUARTFRL¥

114 based on respondents' ratings of how descriptive the traits are of brands in general. Aaker next conducted a series of nationwide studies that asked consumers to rate how well the traits described each of 59 brands that were carefully selected to represent a broad array of product and service categories. Among the brands thus tested were food-service and lodging brands, including McDonald's, Marriott, and Holiday Inn. Using several complex statistical procedures to analyze the data generated in these studies, Aaker identified five underlying dimensions of brand personality. These dimensions were labeled (1) competence, (2) sincerity, (3) excitement, (4) sophistication, and (5) ruggedness. The 42 traits used to measure these dimensions are depicted in Exhibit 1.

Applied Brand Personality We sought to apply Aaker's brand personality approach to identify key points of differentiation between brands within and across classes of restaurant. To that end we collected data from 247 students at Cornell University. We offered students enrolled in eight different marketing courses the opportunity to volunteer as study participants in exchange for extra-credit points. Ages of respondents ranged from 18 to 42 years, with the vast majority (79.2 percent) in the 19-to-22 age bracket. Sixty percent of the participants were female, and 73 percent were U.S. citizens. We deemed students an appropriate population to sample in this study because (a) Cornell's students represent a broad spectrum of geographic areas within and outside the United States and (b) students represent one of the most important target markets for restaurants in Ithaca, a small, relatively insular university community. Students participated in one of ten sessions. We used that many

sessions to keep the number of participants in any one session at a manageable size and to offer scheduling options. At the beginning of each session, the facilitator read a script that explained the questionnaire to be completed and covered the requirement that all participants remain in the room a minimum of 30 minutes (to avoid students' giving no thought to their responses). The session facilitator and at least one assistant remained in the room while the respondents completed the questionnaires. Each respondent rated nine restaurants, one at a time, on each of the 42 personality traits. Participants were instructed to indicate the extent to which they thought each of the 42 personality traits described each of the restaurants under consideration in the study. Respondents recorded their responses using a five-point, Likert-type scale, where 1 = not at all descriptive and 5 = extremely descriptive. The order in which restaurant categories and the restaurants within each category appeared was rotated across questionnaires so as to minimize order bias. Accordingly, we administered nine different versions of the questionnaire. Brands. We selected brands in the quick-service and casual-dining categories based on the national presence of the brand as indicated by the 1997 CREST (Consumer Report on Eating Share Trends) Operator's List. The top three major chains in the quick service category were identified as McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's, while the major chains in the casual dining category included Chili's, Applebee's, and TGI Friday's. The upscale restaurants--John Thomas Steakhouse, Dafio's on Cayuga, and Renee's American Bistro--were selected based on several informal discussions with students and university faculty regarding their per-

ceptions of which local restaurants were most representative of the upscale category. We assessed the restaurants' personalities using Aaker's 42-item, five-dimension brand-personality scale. Ikespondents completed this scale for each of the nine restaurants. We should note that this survey tests perceptions, and does not examine respondents' actual interactions with the restaurants. In fact, we did not test whether the respondents had visited all nine of the restaurants we studied. We did, however, instruct the students not to rate any restaurants with which they were not familiar. (The result of this instruction was that the number of respondents was different for each of the nine restaurants.) Thus, we must infer that the ratings in this survey are based on at least some contact. However, only the three Q S R chains are represented in Ithaca (along with the local upscale restaurants), because its trading area is too small to support a Chili's, T.G.I. Friday's, or Applebee's. However, we believe that our respondents have had experience with those restaurants in other markets. At the same time we realize that readers likely have no direct knowledge of the three upscale restaurants in our study. Although upscale restaurants vary greatly, they still have certain attributes in common--most notably, the personality stamp of the chef-proprietor. Thus, we believe our analysis of the personalities of the three upscale restaurants in Ithaca will be helpful to other upscale operators.

i~,~i~ ~ ~.Ji~ ~ i ~ ~ ~~ i:~~ i~~ii,~!ii ~/i! ~i ~1~i

,

..... ,o L ..1 ....... tli?,

Testing on Five Dimensions

To test for differences among brands on each of the five personality dimensions (competence, sincerity, excitement, sophistication, and ruggedness), we applied multivariate analysis of variance. We used gender as a covariate to remove effects at-

June 1999 • 51

Exhibit 2

Personality profiles of three quick-service restaurants Not at all descriptive

Extremely descriptive

Competence

WB

Sincerity

M

B MW

Excitement

BW M

Sophistication

B

Ruggedness

WM

MW B

Note: B = Burger King; M = McDonald's; W = Wendy's. Statistically significant differences ( p < .05) are depicted in the figures by restaurant initials in color (separated from other restaurants' initials). The initials for restaurants that are not statistically significantly different on a dimension are plotted next to one another in gray type. The numbers of respondents were as follows: McDonald's, 244; Burger King, 242; and Wendy's, 236,

Exhibit 3

Personality profiles of three casual-dining restaurants Not at all descriptive

Extremely descriptive

Competence

CA F

Sincerity

C FA

Excitement Sophistication Ruggedness

A

C

F-

CA F A F

C

Note: A = Applebee's; C = Chili's; F = T.G.I. Friday's. Statistically significant differences ( p < .05) are depicted in the figures by restaurant initials in co/or(separated from other restaurants' initials). The initials for restaurants that are not statistically significantly different on a dimension are plotted next to one another in gray type. The numbers of respondents were as follows: T.G.I. Friday's, 233; Chili's, 191; and Applebee's, 179.

52

I,I}RX[},I,HOTELANDRESrAURANTADMINISTRATIONQUARTERLY

tributable to differences in perceptions between men and women. Our findings for each restaurant category are summarized in Exhibits 2, 3, and 4. Within the quick-servicerestaurant category, McDonald's is perceived as being more competent and exciting than the other two brands (see Exhibit 2). Burger King is seen as being the least sincere and sophisticated o f the three brands, but is also considered to be the most rugged. Although Wendy's is similar to McDonald's in terms o f being more sincere and sophisticated than Burger King, Wendy's is not viewed as being distinctive from those two competitors on any of the five personality dimensions. A m o n g casual-dining restaurants (see Exhibit 3), Chili's is perceived as being the most rugged. The only other point of significant differentiation among the three restaurants is on the excitement dimension. T.G.I. Friday's is considered the most exciting, followed by Chili's, and then Applebee's. As far as our respondents are concerned, none o f these casual-dining establishments has created a brand personality that distinguishes one restaurant from the other two on the traits of competence, sincerity, or sophistication. The respondents perceived relatively few significant differences among the upscale restaurants (see Exhibit 4).John Thomas Steakhouse is perceived as being more competent and rugged than the other two, but it is also considered to be the least exciting restaurant. Neither Dafio's on Cayuga nor Renee's American Bistro is perceived as being distinctive on any o f the five personality dimensions. For purposes of examining differences across classes of restaurants, we compared the means of the ratings for the three restaurants within each class, with the result shown in Exhibit 5. Overall, the three restaurant

categories are differentiated to the greatest extent on the sophistication dimension. As one might expect, upscale restaurants are perceived as being the most sophisticated, followed by casual-dining restaurants and QS1Ls. While sophistication is the only distinctive characteristic that our respondents identified for upscale restaurants, casual-dining restaurants are perceived to be more sincere but less competent than the other two restaurant categories. Moreover, quick-service restaurants are viewed as being less exciting and less rugged than the other two restaurant categories. Indeed, QSRs are not perceived as being distinctively positive on any of the five personality dimensions.

Developinga Personality A comparison of brand-personality profiles reveals that the points o f differentiation seem to correspond with the emphases of the restaurants' marketing communications, the nature of the products and services the restaurants offer, and their overall performance. Based on our limited sample, we believe that brand personality can be an effective means by which to differentiate one restaurant brand from another, and some restaurants appear to use this strategy well. However, the findings of this study also provide tentative evidence to indicate that the majority of restaurants do not effectively use brand personality as a means of brand differentiation, and much improvement is needed. Within the quick-service category, for example, McDonald's has the strongest points of favorable differentiation, on the dimensions of competence and excitement. McDonald's has long been the number-one QSP,, brand, and this dominance may well be driving respondents' perceptions that it is the most competent brand of the

Exhibit 4

Personality profiles of three upscale restaurants Not at all descriptive

Extremely descriptive

Competence

DR

Sincerity

R J D

Excitement

J

R D

Sophistication Ruggedness

J

J DR R D

J

Note: D = DaSo's on Cayuga; J = John Thomas Steakhouse; R = Renee's American Bistro. Statistically significant differences ( p < .05) are depicted in the figures by restaurant initials in color(separated from other restaurants' initials). The initials for restaurants that are not statistically significantly different on a dimension are plotted next to one another in gray type. The numbers of respondents were as follows: John Thomas Steakhouse, 183; Daho's on Cayuga, 100; and Renee's, 88. --J

Exhibit 5

Personality comparisons of restaurant segments Not at all descriptive

Extremely descriptive

Competence

C QU

Sincerity

QU

Excitement Sophistication Ruggedness

Q 0

CU C

Q

C

U

UC

Note: C = casual dining; Q = quick service; U = upscale. Statistically significant differences ( p < .05) are depicted in the figures by restaurant initials in color (separated from other restaurants' initials). The initials for restaurants that are not statistically significantly different on a dimension are plotted next to one another in gray type.

June 1999 • 53

Brand personality can be an effective means by which to differentiate

one

restaurP,nt

brand 1rom anothl,r.

54

three examined. Additionally, as compared to Burger King and Wendy's, we see McDonald's advertising and sales-promotion efforts as having a stronger and more consistent emphasis on youthfulness and action, as with its many merchandising tie-ins with popular movies. Those efforts by McDonald's may enable the brand to evoke a greater sense o f excitement among consumers, and explain why Burger King has sought to imitate those tie-ins. McDonald's and Wendy's are both perceived as being more sincere than Burger King. This finding may reflect the fact that Burger King is the only one o f the three brands that has not "personified" its brand by associating it with a readily identifiable individual to represent the chain. As we mentioned above, Wendy's has associated its brand with its founder, Dave Thomas, and McDonald's uses its Ronald McDonald character to represent its brand, as well as associate the chain with charitable causes (notably, the Ronald McDonald Houses). It may well be that consumers perceive these two restaurants to be more sincere because they view the associated characters to embody the many traits that constitute the sincerity dimension (e.g., honest, sincere, real, wholesome, original, cheerful, friendly, familyoriented). O n the other hand, our respondents perceived Burger King to be more rugged than either Wendy's or McDonald's. This point of differentiation may be the result o f Burger King's long-standing emphasis on its "flame-broiled burgers." By consistently communicating this message through the years, Burger King may have persuaded consumers to view its brand as being more outdoorsy, masculine, western, tough, and rugged than its competitors. P o o r l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . Fewer points of differentiation were found among casual-dining and upscale

tlt1~! [ i,!, HOTELANDRESTAURANTADMINISTRATIONQUARTERLY

restaurants. These findings are consistent with the fact that brands in these two categories run less advertising than do Q S R chains. That is, we argue that consumers receive less information regarding the brands and, therefore, may have greater difficulty distinguishing one brand from another. Nevertheless, the differences in brand personalities that emerged in this study seem to correspond with the brand names and general concepts of the restaurants examined. Within the casual-dining category, all three brands are perceived to be similar on the dimensions of competence, sincerity, and sophistication. Conversely, our respondents considered all three brands to be different in terms of excitement. As one might guess, T.G.I. Friday's is perceived to be the most exciting, a perception that seems consistent with its general concept. Compared to the other two brands, the inside atmosphere o f T.G.I. Friday's restaurants is active and noisy, and its employees dress in a contemporary attire (in place of a polyester uniform of some kind). The restaurants' atmosphere is one of many features intended to attract young adults, which is the population sampled in this study. By contrast, the respondents viewed Applebee's as being the least exciting. The chain positions itself strongly as a neighborhood restaurant, and we see that the "least exciting" designation seems to correspond with Applebee's greater emphasis on family dining. At the same time, that orientation is unlikely to be perceived as exciting by college-age consumers. Chili's is perceived as being more rugged than either T.G.I. Friday's or Applebee's. While there may be other contributing factors, its brand name alone may account for much o f this point of differentiation. The name "Chili's" connotes many of the traits that make up the rugged-

FOCUS

ness dimension such as western, tough, masculine, rugged, and outdoorsy. The chain's quasi-southwestern d&or certainly would contribute to this image. Individualistic. O f the three upscale restaurants studied, John Thomas Steakhouse is perceived to be more rugged and competent than are either Renee's American Bistro or Dafio's on Cayuga.John Thomas's distinctiveness on the ruggedness dimension is most logically explained by the fact that it is a steakhouse and the other two restaurants are not. We believe that this shows that the preparation and consumption of steak has developed a cultural meaning that reflects the various traits within the ruggedness dimension. Similarly, John Thomas's superiority on the competence dimension likely emanates from the fact that it has built its reputation by being the best at one thing, in this case, steak preparation. Renee's and Dafio's are also highly regarded restaurants, but are known to serve more varied cuisine. Indeed, the variety inherent in their menus may well be the reason Renee's and Dafio's are perceived as being more exciting than is John Thomas Steakhouse. As one might intuitively expect, upscale restaurants are perceived to have the greatest degree of sophistication, followed by casual restaurants, and then quick-service restaurants. The findings of the current study have important implications for the management of all nine brands investigated. Particularly striking is the fact that Wendy's, Applebee's, Dafio's, and Renee's restaurants are not perceived as being favorably distinctive on any of the five brandpersonality dimensions. Moreover, consumers see few differences on the brand-personality dimensions among any of the restaurants in either the casual-dining or upscale categories.

It is certainly possible that these brands have developed meaningful distinctions in respondents' minds on dimensions other than those captured by the brand-personality scale. Nevertheless, it seems likely that managers of these brands would want their restaurants' personalities to be viewed favorably and distinctively relative to key competitors. As we stated at the outset, differentiating a brand from its competitors has long been seen as a basic and necessaW component for successful brand management. On the five-point scale used in this study, none of the nine restaurants received mean ratings greater than 3.9 on any of the five personality dimensions. Additionally, although we identified statistically significant differences among the brands, most of those differences are not particularly large. Nevertheless, a significant difference on this scale should be taken seriously. In developing the scale, Aaker conducted several national studies. The dimensions she identified were confirmed across multiple studies employing brands from a wide range of product and service categories. Moreover, the measure was found to be highly reliable when administered to the same respondents on multiple occasions. Given the rigor of Aaker's research methods, we have good reason to believe that the brandpersonality scale measures important aspects of the personalities that consumers attribute to brands of all kinds. The findings of the current study suggest that all nine restaurants have the potential to improve their positioning, at least among collegeage consumers, by directing marketing efforts to establish strong brandpersonality associations among consumers. The choice of personality dimensions would be up to each restaurant's managers, but the personality should logically emphasize the brand's positioning strategy.

ON

FOOD

S E R V I C E

Limitations of the Study We have alluded to several limitations inherent in this study. First, because the respondents consisted of university students, the reader must be careful not to generalize the findings beyond this population. As was stated above, college students were deemed an appropriate population to sample because at this university they represent a wide variety of cultural and geographic backgrounds. Moreover, people in their early 20s represent an important target market, not only for Ithaca's restaurants, but for restaurants in many markets. Having said that, we recognize that the respondents' demographics may have influenced their perception of the restaurants' personalities. It is possible that the personality profiles for the nine restaurants would have been different had the sample included a broader crosssection of people, from various age and socio-economic groups. What we don't know is whether such a sampling would show greater differentiation among the restaurants or fewer distinctions. Since the majority of students in our sample are enrolled in the Cornell University School of Hotel Administration, they may be more knowledgeable about the restaurants we studied and their marketing communications than are consumers in the general population. Finally, as we mentioned above, our use of a student sample also may partially explain why so few differences in brand personality emerged in the upscale and casualdining categories. Limited budgets prevent many students from experiencing the upscale restaurants except on special occasions. Thus, the next step in this research would be to widen the respondent universe to include people with more diverse experience and, perhaps, deeper pocketbooks. CO

June 1999 • 55