Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication on ...

Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication on Corporate Brand Personality Assessment Manit Mishra* and Seba Mohanty**

This paper explores the relationship between corporate communications in general, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) communication in particular, and brand personality associations. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) was used to create a perceptual map of four brands of beverages: (1) Tata Tea; (2) Bisleri; (3) Coca-Cola; and (4) Café-Coffee Day (CCD). The brand personalities were assessed by creating Brand Personality Index (BPI) for all the brands. The four corporate brands were distinct in terms of the emphasis on social problems in their corporate communication and other information regarding the corporate brand at the disposal of consumers. The study revealed two dimensions of the perceptual map generated for these corporate brands: (1) Concern for social issues vis-à-vis concern for self indulgence; and (2) Concern for consumer visà-vis concern for company. Furthermore, Tata Tea was distinctively positioned on the perceptual map. In terms of brand personality dimensions, Tata Tea was perceived as a brand which is highly competent, sincere and full of excitement but lacks sophistication and ruggedness.

Introduction Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and its impact in a social setting have been widely researched and discussed. However, comparatively lesser amount of attention has been paid by the research community towards the consequences of CSR in general and CSR communication in particular on the consumers’ psyche (for exception see Hoeffler and Keller, 2002). This is intriguing since irrespective of whether CSR communication from a brand is aimed at consumers or not, it is bound to have a collateral impact on their knowledge structure. The study aims at bridging this hiatus by empirically examining the association between two vital domains of research—CSR and corporate brand personality. *

Assistant Professor (Marketing & QT), International Management Institute, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India. E-mail: [email protected]

** Research Scholar, HSS Department, IIT Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West-Bengal, India. E-mail: [email protected] 26 The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XII, No. 4, 2013 © 2013 IUP. All Rights Reserved.

The study is based on the premise that CSR communication tends to impact the corporate brand personality, i.e., influences the human personality-like traits associated with a corporate brand. Aaker (1997) posits that a brand’s human personality traits result from any direct (endorser, spokesperson, CEO) or indirect (product attributes, product category, brand name and symbol, advertising approach and price) contact that an individual has with the brand. The process is aided, sometimes deliberately and at other times inadvertently, by corporate communication.

Literature Review CSR One of the earliest definitions of social responsibility (as CSR was known then) was given by Bowen (1953, p. 6) who stated that, “It refers to the obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society”. Friedman (1962) contended that the only responsibility that corporate officials have towards the society is to make as much money as possible for the stockholders. Davis and Blomstrom (1966, p. 12) put it in more specific context by defining social responsibility as “a person’s obligation to consider the effects of his decisions and actions on the whole social system. Businessmen apply social responsibility when they consider the needs and interest of others who may be affected by business actions. In so doing, they look beyond their firm’s narrow economic and technical interests”. On the other hand, Samuelson (1971) argued that engagement in socially responsible activities by corporate is no longer a matter of choice, but is a necessity. According to Carroll (1979, p. 500), CSR encompasses “the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary (philanthropic) expectations that society has of organizations at a given point of time”. Carroll (1983, p. 604) elaborates upon the discretionary activities by proposing that they are voluntary and philanthropic. Drucker (1984, p. 62) stated that business ought to carry out its social responsibility by converting social problem into economic opportunity resulting in holistic growth of not just the organization and its stakeholders, but of the society as a whole. Porter and Kramer (2006) delved into the relationship between competitive advantage and CSR. They argued that if “corporations were to analyze their prospects for social responsibility using the same frameworks that guide their core business choices, they would discover that CSR can be much more than a cost, a constraint, or a charitable deed—it can be a source of opportunity, innovation, and competitive advantage”. Thus, a coherent CSR initiative closely aligned with a company’s business provides it with an opportunity to leverage its resources to deliver greater social impact as well as attain competitive advantage. The present study is aimed at assessing one specific source of competitive advantage for a corporate brand, viz., brand personality. Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication on Corporate Brand Personality Assessment

27

Brand Personality Hoeffler and Keller (2002) contend that “consumers’ perception as a whole and its role in society can significantly affect a brand’s strength and equity”. This has led to a rise in use of Corporate Societal Marketing (CSM) which has been defined as “marketing initiatives that have at least one non-economic objective related to social welfare” (Drumwright and Murphy, 2001, p. 164). Thus, an advertisement highlighting the corporate brand and simultaneously spreading awareness about a social problem is likely to influence the way the brand is perceived. This study is concerned with the consumers’ association of human-like traits with a brand, called brand personality, on the basis of their selection, organization and interpretation of corporate brand communication. This premise is supported by the findings of Aaker (1997), who argued that brand personality is influenced by, amongst other things, the advertising approach adopted by the company for the brand. Brand personality is an outcome of consumers’ tendency to anthropomorphize, i.e., transfer human characteristics to inanimate objects on a regular basis (Boyer, 1996; and Bower, 1999). Aaker (1997) defined brand personality as “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand”. The underlying dimensions of these human characteristics being: Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication and Ruggedness. Azoulay and Kapferer (2003, p. 151) defined brand personality as “the set of ‘human personality traits’ that are both ‘applicable to’ and ‘relevant for’ brands”. The definitions emphasize upon brand personality as a collection of traits of human personality that can be attributed to a particular brand by consumers. Ogilvy (1983, p. 14) corroborated the relevance of brand personality when he suggested that brands have personalities that “can make or break them in the market place”. Brand personality can be conceptualized for corporate brands as well as product brands. Corporate branding refers to the strategy in which brand and corporate names are the same (De Chernatony, 1997). Corporate brand provides the firm with greater resources in an era when new product development and advertising costs are increasing, retailers are becoming dominant, and consumer expectations are touching new heights (Alan, 1996). It can also be profiled in terms of attributes: culture, intricate (multidimensional and multidisciplinary), tangible and ethereal (soft and subjective dimensions) (Balmer, 1998). A corporate brand can be regarded as the sum of the corporation’s marketing efforts to present a controlled representation of the corporation’s value system and identity (Ind, 1997; and Balmer, 2001). What makes corporate brand so vital to an organization is its reach and the range of advantages that it brings to the company. Its reach extends beyond customers to other stakeholders such as employees, investors, suppliers, partners, regulators and local communities (Hatch and Schultz, 2001). A corporate brand aids in differentiation from competitors (Balmer, 2001; and Harris and De Chernatony, 2001), enhances investor and employee confidence (Balmer and Gray, 2003), and enhances firm’s visibility, recognition and reputation (Xie and Boggs, 2006). 28

The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XII, No. 4, 2013

An important ingredient of the corporate identity management system is corporate personality (Stuart, 1999). The core of corporate branding consists of two important concepts: corporate identity and corporate associations (Dacin and Brown, 2002). Corporate associations refer to the beliefs and feelings that an individual has for an organization. Corporate identity refers to the associations that strategists in an organization want to implant in the minds of their internal and external constituencies. Keller and Richey (2006) define corporate brand personality as “a form of brand personality specific to a corporate brand”. Davies and Chun (2002) stated that while product brands may need to appeal to a limited group of stakeholders (mostly consumers), the corporate brands may need to appeal to a number of disparate groups such as employees, suppliers and customers. However, a corporate brand is perceived as a set of personality traits that is more diversified in comparison to the set of personality traits for each of the product brand owned by the company. Aaker (2004) posits that a corporate brand is different from a product brand in terms of the wide range of associations it generates related to heritage, assets and capabilities, people, values and priorities, a local or global frame of reference, citizenship programs and a performance record. In order to assess the influence of corporate communication on the consumers’ knowledge structure in shaping the brand personality, while simultaneously considering the distinction between corporate and product brands, the authors have taken into consideration those brands which use the company name prominently to label their individual product brands.

Background The process of formation of brand personality and the brand personality output perceived as a result of consumers’ exposure to corporate communication hold a lot of importance for any company in the social milieu. The present study emphasizes the notion that a better understanding of the relative contribution of CSR communication to the brand personality formation process and output would enable marketers in aligning it with their corporate objectives so as to create competitive advantage. The focus of the study was Tata Tea, since it has significant brand awareness, and the recent Jaago re campaign to spread awareness against various social problems has contributed towards its image. The execution of the campaign and a synergistic assimilation between corporate brand name and socially relevant message makes it an automatic choice as the focal point of the study. On the basis of brainstorming sessions with experts, three more brands were considered: Bisleri, Coca-Cola and Café Coffee Day (CCD). These four brands were comparable in terms of two commonalities: (1) They are all from the beverages industry; and (2) They have adopted similar brand architecture strategy. Urde (2003) asserts that there are four basic brand architectures available to firms: corporate, product, Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication on Corporate Brand Personality Assessment

29

corporate and product (with dominant use of the corporate brand) and product and corporate (with dominant use of product brands). The brands considered for this study are either using corporate brand architecture (Bisleri, Coca-Cola and CCD) or corporate and product brand architecture (Tata Tea). In either case it is the corporate brand name that gets prominently displayed. The brands, however, are different with respect to the copy and execution of the corporate communication. Tata Tea has resorted to brand communication with an inherent and relevant social message. The communication with the tag line Jaago re exhorted young men and women to rise against the various evils in our social system, e.g., not voting in elections, corruption, etc. Coca-Cola has also carried out communication related to social issues through its jingle, Ummeedon waali dhoop… (Ray of hope...); however, the advertisements are not so pronounced and explicit in their social content. Bisleri spreads awareness regarding fresh water scarcity on its website but has not executed any mass communication campaigns in this regard. And CCD’s communication is outright commercial, devoid of any social content.

Objectives of the Study The purpose of the study is to carry out exploratory research towards the contribution of corporate communication in general and CSR communication in particular in shaping brand personality. The paper intends to fulfill three objectives: 1. To identify unrecognized dimensions in brand personality formation as a result of corporate communication; 2. To obtain relative position of four corporate brands—Tata Tea, Bisleri, CocaCola and CCD—on a perceptual map. It is pertinent to mention here that while all the four corporate brands from beverages industry adopt a largely unitary branding strategy, they differ in terms of the socially relevant content in their corporate communication; and 3. To gauge the impact of Tata Tea’s CSR communication on its brand personality assessment by consumers.

Methodology Multidimensional Scaling (MDS), a decompositional multivariate analysis technique, is used as the research method since it has the capability of mapping out the perceptions held by consumers in terms of brand personality. A perceptual map was generated from the obtained responses using MDS which aided in fulfillment of the objectives of the study. The application of MDS is useful since it can produce a visual geometric representation of the subjective construct brand personality. For the purpose of our study, MDS is the relevant method since the focus is not on the object but on how the consumer perceives or interprets it. 30


Sample The assessment of a highly intangible aspect such as brand personality demanded the respondents to have an exposure to business management curriculum. Therefore, the sample primarily comprised of teachers and students belonging to various business management institutions affiliated to Biju Patnaik University of Technology (BPUT), Odisha. A total of 240 questionnaires (refer Appendix) were distributed, out of which 204 filled questionnaires were received. The sample comprised 104 men and 100 women.

Questionnaire Design The questionnaire for seeking responses was divided into three sections. The first section was meant for collection of similar data between all possible pairs of brands: Tata Tea and Bisleri, Tata Tea and Coca-Cola, Tata Tea and CCD, Bisleri and CocaCola, Bisleri and CCD, and Coca-Cola and CCD. The input data was obtained by asking the respondents to imagine the personality traits associated with a brand on the basis of its corporate communication content. To overcome any difficulty in getting started in their description, the questionnaire contained a snapshot of the actual communication by the brands to act as a guide. Thereafter, the respondents were asked to assess the pair-wise similarity among the brand personalities on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 – Highly dissimilar to 4 – Highly similar. The MDS PROXSCAL Version 1.0 program within SPSS 16.0 was used to combine the responses and create a single perceptual map through an aggregate analysis. The PROXSCAL routine created distances based on a Euclidean scaling model of two dimensions. The second section of questionnaire comprised queries on the extent of brand personality traits possessed by each brand under study. It has the advantage of offering respondents some semblance of tangibility, unlike the similarity ratings. The rating for each of the corporate brand was collected on each one of the 15 facets of brand personality using the Aaker’s (1997) Brand personality scale. Each corporate brand was rated on how descriptive each personality trait was for it according to a 4-point scale ranging from 1 – Not at all descriptive to 4 – Extremely descriptive on each facet. The 15 personality traits on which responses were solicited pertained to the five facets: sincerity (down-to-earth, honest, wholesome and cheerful), excitement (daring, spirited, imaginative and up-to-date), competence (reliable, intelligent and successful), sophistication (upper class and charming), and ruggedness (outdoorsy and tough). The interval data generated were aggregated for each brand on each one of the facets (sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness) so as to provide summary measures. The total ratings obtained were then indexed for each brand on each facet (Keller, 2003, p. 449) with respect to the base value of each facet. The base value was arrived at by considering a ‘descriptive’ response Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication on Corporate Brand Personality Assessment

31

(2) on the descriptiveness scale (1-4) for each facet separately. The Brand Personality Index (BPI) profile thus obtained for each brand was used to carry out relative comparison between the brands. BPI also facilitated identification of dimensions of the perceptual map derived from the similarity data using PROXSCAL. The third section of the questionnaire sought demographic information from the respondents.

Results and Discussion PROXSCAL, like other MDS techniques, involves applying a mathematical algorithm to a matrix of proximities. The algorithm performs calculations on the dissimilarity data provided to locate each brand on a multidimensional matrix. The optimal statistical fit for the multidimensional model generated is indicated by two statistics: (1) Stress measure; and (2) Squared correlation index (R2). The Kruskal’s S-stress is the most commonly used measure and indicates the ‘proportion of the variance of the disparities (differences in distances between objects on the perceptual map and the similarity judgments of the respondents) not accounted for by the MDS’. PROXSCAL calculates the Dispersion Accounted For (DAF) which is a reflection of R2. A low S-stress and high R2 value (above 0.60) suggests a good fit and aids in selecting the dimensionality of the perceptual map (Hair et al., 2006).

Figure 1 indicates that Tata Tea is positioned at the extreme positive level on one dimension (horizontal axis), while on the other dimension (vertical axis), it is positioned positively in comparison to most other brands. Overall, the distinctiveness of Tata Tea relative to other beverages brand is evident. 32

Dimension 2

The perceptual mapping of the brands was based on the similarity/dissimilarity evaluation carried out by the respondents. An assessment of the dissimilarity matrix involving the four corporate brands using PROXSCAL resulted in a two-dimensional perceptual map (Figure 1). The twoFigure 1: Aggregated Perceptual dimensional perceptual map was Map Based on Similarity Data considered optimal solution based on the values of stress (Kruskal’s SObject Points stress = 0.325) and R2 (DAF = 0.87). Common Space Thus, 87% of the variance of 0.6 disparities is accounted for, Bisleri suggesting that the two-dimensional 0.4 configuration obtained is an adequate reflection of the similarity Tata Tea evaluation by respondents. 0.2 0.0

–0.2

Coca-Cola CCD

–0.4 –0.6

–0.4

–0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Dimension 1


The MDS dimensions are most often labeled by inspection of location of the brands. For the present study, however, such a subjective evaluation was supplemented by constructing a BPI profile for each brand (Table 1). Table 1: Brand Personality Index Profile Brand/Facet

Tata Tea

Bisleri

Coca-Cola

CCD

Sincerity

1.56

1.27

1.39

1.23

Excitement

1.51

1.22

1.46

1.22

Competence

1.68

1.39

1.47

1.25

Sophistication

1.29

1.31

1.44

1.49

Ruggedness

1.36

1.21

1.39

1.11

A comparative assessment of brands on each trait indicates that Tata Tea stands out at the top position in BPI in terms of ‘competence’, ‘excitement’ and ‘sincerity’. However, the difference between Tata Tea and the second ranked brand on each of these facets is highest in case of ‘competence’ (0.21), followed by ‘sincerity’ (0.17) and ‘excitement’ (0.05). This is in conformity with the findings of some of the earlier researchers who have suggested that engagement in CSR activities would bolster the ‘sincerity’ facet of brand personality (Hoeffler and Keller, 2002). The finding has logical credibility, since upon exposure to CSR communication, consumers are likely to perceive the organization behind the brand as caring and genuine. The perception of Tata Tea as high on ‘competence’ perhaps stems from the combative nature of its communication wherein the protagonist faces the social problem (e.g., corruption) head-on while the corporate brand maintains its presence in the background. It is worth mentioning here that Tata Tea is lagging behind other brands when it comes to ‘sophistication’ (lowest in BPI) and ‘ruggedness’ (second to Coca-Cola). It is important to mention here that even as respondents were guided with glimpses of corporate brand communication, their perception regarding brand personality may have been influenced by information received from various other sources. Therefore, a subjective evaluation of the position of brands on the perceptual map (Figure 1) and the attribute ratings (Table 1) would indicate two dimensions, viz., ‘concern for social issues vis-à-vis concern for self indulgence’ (horizontal axis) and ‘concern for consumer vis-à-vis concern for company’ (vertical axis).

Conclusion The key findings of the study can be summarized as follows: •

The underlying dimensions of perceptual map created by consumers on the basis of exposure to communication regarding a corporate brand are:

Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication on Corporate Brand Personality Assessment

33

– Concern for social issues vis-à-vis concern for self-indulgence (horizontal axis). – Concern for consumer vis-à-vis concern for company (vertical axis). •

The perceptual mapping of the four corporate brands from beverages industry (Tata Tea, Bisleri, Coca-Cola and CCD) revealed that on a twodimensional solution, Tata Tea is perceived very distinctively from the other brands. It is considered to be extremely concerned towards social problems and highly concerned about its consumers.

•

Tata Tea is perceived as a highly competent and very sincere brand. The consumers also consider it to be having a personality that is full of excitement. However, the brand personality of Tata Tea lacks sophistication and ruggedness.

The paper conceptually establishes and empirically demonstrates the relationship between CSR communication and corporate brand personality, thus laying a baseline for future research. In times when firms are finding it increasingly difficult to beat the clutter and capture a share of consumers’ heart, mind and wallet, the study elucidates on the capability of CSR communication to shape a distinctive and relevant corporate brand personality. Tata Tea is a shining example of this. The study vindicates Tata Tea’s strategic thrust on making a difference, while simultaneously creating a differentiation for its corporate brand by exuding a distinct brand personality. @

References 1. Aaker D A (2004), “Leveraging the Corporate Brand”, California Management Review, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 6-18. 2. Aaker J L (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 347-356. 3. Alan M (1996), “Dangers of Corporate Branding”, Marketing Week, Vol. 19, No. 15, pp. 22-24. 4. Azoulay A and Kapferer J (2003), “Do Brand Personality Scales Really Measure Brand Personality?”, Brand Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 143-155. 5. Balmer J M T (1998), “Corporate Identity and the Advent of Corporate Marketing”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14, pp. 993-996. 6. Balmer J M T (2001), “The Three Virtues and Seven Deadly Sins of Corporate Brand Management”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 1-17. 7. Balmer J M T and Gray E R (2003), “Corporate Brands: What are They? What of Them?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, Nos. 7 & 8, pp. 972-997. 34


8. Bowen H R (1953), Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, Harper and Row. 9. Bower B (1999), “When Stones Come to Life: Researchers Ponder Curious Human Tendency to View all Sorts of Things as Alive”, Science News, Vol. 155, June, pp. 360-362. 10. Boyer P (1996), “What Makes Anthropomorphism Natural? Intuitive Ontology and Cultural Representations”, Journal of Royal Anthropology Institute, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 83-97. 11. Carroll A B (1979), “A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social Performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 497-505. 12. Carroll A B (1983), Corporate Social Responsibility: Will Industry Respond to Cutbacks in Social Program Funding?”, Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. 49, July, pp. 604-608. 13. Dacin P A and Brown T J (2002), “Corporate Identity and Corporate Associations: A Framework for Future Research”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5, Nos. 2 & 3, pp. 254-263. 14. Davies G and Chun R (2002), “Gaps Between the Internal and External Perceptions of the Corporate Brand”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5, Nos. 2 & 3, pp. 144-158. 15. Davis K and Blomstrom R L (1966), Business and Its Environment, McGraw-Hill, NY. 16. De Chernatony L (1997), “Integrated Brand Building using Brand Taxonomies”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 56-63. 17. Drucker P F (1984), “The New Meaning of Corporate Social Responsibility”, California Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 53-63. 18. Drumwright M and Murphy E (2001), “Corporate Societal Marketing”, in P N Bloom and G T Gundlach (Eds.), Handbook of Marketing and Society, pp. 162-183, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 19. Friedman M (1962), Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press. 20. Hair Jr. J F, Black W C, Babin B J, Anderson R E and Tatham R L (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, pp. 677-678, Pearson Education, New Delhi. 21. Harris F and De Chernatony L (2001), “Corporate Branding and Corporate Brand Performance”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 441-456. 22. Hatch M J and Schultz M (2001), “Are the Strategic Stars Aligned for your Corporate Brand?”, Harvard Business Review, February, pp. 128-134. 23. Hoeffler S and Keller K L (2002), “Building Brand Equity Through Corporate Societal Marketing”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 78-89. Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication on Corporate Brand Personality Assessment

35

24. Ind N (1997), The Corporate Brand, Macmillan, London. 25. Keller K L (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, PHI, India. 26. Keller K L and Richey K (2006), “The Importance of Corporate Brand Personality Traits to a Successful 21st Century Business”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14, pp. 74-81. 27. Ogilvy D (1983), Ogilvy on Advertising, Vintage Books, NY. 28. Porter M E and Kramer M R (2006), “Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, December, pp. 78-93. 29. Samuelson P A (1971), “Love that Corporation”, Mountain Bell Magazine. 30. Stuart H (1999), “Towards a Definitive Model of the Corporate Identity Management”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 200-207. 31. Urde M (2003), “Core Value-Based Corporate Brand Building”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, Nos. 7 & 8, pp. 1017-1039. 32. Xie H Y and Boggs D J (2006), “Corporate Branding Versus Product Branding in Emerging Markets: A Conceptual Framework”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 347-364.

36


Appendix

A. Above, is given the communication for four different brands: Tata Tea, Bisleri, Coca-Cola and Café Coffee Day (CCD). Assuming that these four brands transform into human beings, they are likely to display some unique personality characteristics (e.g. Mercedes-Benz would be a 50 year old successful, upper class man). Please assess the similarity in personality characteristics of the following pairs of brands. Award greater points on a (1-4) scale (1 – Highly dissimilar; 2 – Dissimilar; 3 –Similar; and 4 – Highly similar) for greater degree of similarity between the brands. Similarity

Similarity

Pair of Brands

Pair of Brands 1

2

3

4

1

Tata Tea and Bisleri

Bisleri and Coca-Cola

Tata Tea and Coca-Cola

Bisleri and CCD

Tata Tea and CCD

Coca-Cola and CCD

Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication on Corporate Brand Personality Assessment

2

3

4

37

Appendix (Cont.) B. Given below are 15 human personality characteristics. Assume that the brands (Tata Tea, Bisleri, Coca-Cola and CCD) transform into persons. Thereafter, kindly indicate how descriptive (well-suited) each personality trait is to each brand. Award greater points on a (1-4) scale (1 – Not at all descriptive; 2 – Descriptive; 3 – Very descriptive; and 4 – Extremely descriptive) for greater degree of descriptiveness (suitability) of a personality characteristic for a brand. Sl. No.

Brand Personality Facet

Tata Tea 1

1.

Down-to-Earth

2.

Honest

3.

Wholesome (Decent)

4.

Cheerful

5.

Daring

6.

Spirited

7.

Imaginative

8.

Up-to-Date

9.

Reliable

2

3

Bisleri 4

1

2

3

Coca-Cola 4 1

2

3

4 1

CCD 2

3

4

10. Intelligent 11. Successful 12. Upper Class 13. Charming 14. Outdoorsy 15. Tough C. Kindly furnish the following information. 1. Gender:

Male

Female

2. Marital Status:

Married

Single

3. Age (Years): 4. Occupation: 5. Monthly Family Income:

Reference # 02J-2013-10-02-01 38


Copyright of IUP Journal of Management Research is the property of IUP Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.