Brand Personality Impressions and Brand Relationship Quality in Vietnam

Nguyen Dinh Tho, University of Economics, HCM City and University of Technology
Nguyen Thi Mai Trang, Vietnam National University, HCM City
Nguyen Dong Phong, University of Economics, HCM City

Abstract

This study examines the impact of brand personality impressions on brand relationship quality in
a transition market, Vietnam. It also explores the role of consumer attitudes toward advertising
and public relations in brand personality impressions and brand relationship quality. A test based
on a sample of 477 consumers in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, reveals that brand personality
impressions have a positive impact on brand relationship quality. In addition, attitude toward
public relations has positive impacts on both brand personality impressions and brand
relationship quality. Finally, attitude toward advertising has a positive impact on brand
personality impressions but not on brand relationship quality. These findings suggest that brand
personality impressions play an important role in building brand-customer relationships.

Introduction

Branding plays a central role in marketing and has been the focus of attention of both academics
and practitioners in advanced economies for many years (eg., Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Erdem
and Swait, 1998). However, less attention has been paid to branding issues in the developing
world, especially in countries which have recently transformed from centrally planned economies
to market-oriented economies, such as Vietnam. The role of brands has only recently become of
interest to Vietnamese practitioners. In the past, most Vietnamese firms have not recognized the
importance of brands and branding. Unbranded practice or the use of a company’s name as a
brand name to distinguish one product from others has been a common approach. After the
introduction of the open-door policy of the Vietnamese government, the entry of multinational
enterprises (MNEs) such as P&G and Unilever, together with the launching and promoting of
international brands by MNEs have shifted Vietnamese consumers’ shopping habits from buying
a product to buying a brand. Also, this development has encouraged Vietnamese firms to adopt
branding practices resulting in the launching of several local brands such as MissSaigon
(perfume), Yomilk (yogurt), Bitis’ (shoes), Thaituan (clothes), etc. (Nguyen et al., 2003).

Academics and practitioners have focused on how to build a strong brand (e.g., Aaker, 1991;
Woodside and Walser, 2006). Accordingly, a number of approaches have been developed which
characterize the strength of a brand. Some stem from cognitive psychology, i.e., based on
consumer cognitive processes, such as brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty, and
brand associations (e.g., Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). Others come from information economics,
i.e., based on the signal of the brand to the consumer such as brand credibility and brand clarity
(e.g., Erdem and Swait, 1998). Whilst based on different perspectives, their common focus is on
what makes a brand become strong, i.e., building a high quality relationship between the brand
and the consumer (Fournier, 1998; de Wulf et al., 2001).

The relationship between brands and consumers has been studied by academics for several years
(e.g., Aaker et al., 2004; Fournier, 1998; de Wulf et al., 2001). Marketers are increasingly trying

1
to build the relationship between their brands and consumers. Fournier (1998) offers a
comprehensive model of brand-consumer relationships. This model covers all aspects that
contribute to a high quality relationship between the brand and the consumer. In this study, we
examine the impact of brand personality impressions on brand relationship quality in a transition
market, Vietnam. We also explore the role of consumer attitudes toward advertising and public
relations in brand personality impressions and brand relationship quality.

Literature review and hypotheses

We propose a model, depicted in Figure 1, in which brand personality impressions are an

antecedent of brand relationship quality. In addition, attitudes toward advertising and public
relations have impacts on both brand personality impressions and brand relationship quality.

Figure 1. Conceptual model

H2
Attitude toward
Advertising H3
Brand Relationship Quality
Brand Personality H1 Passion/Self -Connection/
Impressions Commitment/Interdependence
H5
Intimacy/Trust
Attitude toward
H4
Public Relations

Brand relationship quality

Firms have recognized the need to invest in relationships between their brands and customers.
The development and support of customer relationships is important to the long-term survival
and enhanced profitability of firms. Therefore, investments in long-term relationships with
customers are of critical importance for the development of firms (de Wulf et al., 2001). Success
in building such relationships will lessen a major concern by every firm, i.e., customer switching.
Research has indicated that the cost of recruiting new customers is very high due to advertising,
personal selling, setting up new accounts, and customer training (e.g., Mittal and Lassar, 1998).
More importantly, profits generated by loyal customers increase significantly over time. For
example, Reichheld and Sasser (1990) discovered that profits created by loyal customers in a
financial service (credit card) includes profits from increased purchase and higher balance, from
reduced operating costs, from referrals, and from price premiums. Accordingly, establishing,
developing, and nurturing high quality relationships between brands and customers, with an aim
of decreasing the customer switching rate, are among key tasks that marketers should always take
into account when formulating their marketing strategies.

In consumer markets, brand relationship quality refers to the strength and depth of the
relationship between the individual consumer and the brand (Smit et al., 2007). Fournier (1998),
based on her qualitative study, proposes six components of brand relationship quality, i.e., love
and passion, self-connection, commitment, interdependence, intimacy, and brand partner quality.
Love and passion reflect strong affection for a specific brand. Consumers with strong affection
for the brand will feel that something is missing if the brand is not used (Fournier, 1998; Smit et

2
al., 2007). Self-connection reflects “the degree to which the brand delivers on important identity
concerns, tasks, or themes, thereby expressing a significant aspect of the self” (Fournier, 1998,
364) i.e., “the brand is part of the self” (Smit et al., 2007, 628). Commitment refers to the degree
to which consumers are loyal to the brand. They feel that the brand is irreplaceable and are
willing to make sacrifices to own the brand (Fournier 1998; Smit et al. 2007). Interdependence
refers to the mutual dependency between the brand and its customers (Fournier 1998; Kressmann
et al., 2006). Intimacy reflects customers’ knowledge about, and understanding of, the brand
Kressmann et al., 2006). Finally, brand partner quality relates to “the consumers’ evaluation of
the brand’s performance in its partnership role” (Fournier 1998, 365). Aaker et al. (2004) utilize
four dimensions of Fournier’s conceptualization to measure brand relationship quality, i.e.,
commitment, intimacy, self-connection, and satisfaction. These researchers use brand partnership
quality as an antecedent of brand relationship quality. Kressmann et al. (2006) use four
dimensions, i.e., love and passion, intimacy, interdependence and partnership quality. They argue
that self-conception is similar to self-congruity, and commitment is closely related to brand
loyalty. Smit et al. (2007) include trust in their brand relationship quality measures. Their
empirical investigation results in two factors. In this study, we utilize Fournier’s (1998)
conceptualization of brand relationship quality with a modification. Trust plays an important role
in the business relationship literature, and the concepts of trust and partner quality are closely
related, i.e., relationship partners are willing to fulfill their promises (Aaker et al., 2004). In
addition, trust and partner quality were combined into one factor in Kressmann et al.’s (2006)
study. Therefore, we use trust instead of partner quality as a component of brand relationship
quality.

Brand personality impressions

Brand personality has emerged as an important tool that generates consumer impressions (Johar
et al., 2005; Orth and Malkewitz, 2008). Brand personality will make a brand distinctive (i.e., it is
a means of brand distinction) (Aaker, 1997). The social identity theory indicates that individuals
tend to classify themselves as belonging to a specific group, distinguishing from other groups.
Brands are no longer objects of economic exchange but help consumers identify themselves
(Szmigin, 2003). Consumers use a brand when its personality assists them in identifying
themselves, based on the information about the brand they integrate over the time (Fennis and
Pruyn, 2007). Research on brand-consumer relationships has shown that consumer brand
personality enables consumers to express their self, forming the relationship between brands and
consumers (e.g., Aaker et al., 2004).

Attitudes toward advertising and public relations

The attitude of customers toward advertising, which can be defined as “a learned predisposition
to respond in a consistently favorable manner toward advertising in general” (MacKenzie and
Lutz, 1989, 53-54), has received considerable attention from researchers and practitioners (Heath
and Gaeth, 1994; Mehta, 2000). Advertising is believed to be an effective tool to promote brands
and their personality. Positive attitudes of consumers toward advertising programs of a brand will
stimulate consumers to recognize the personality of the brand and to compare it with competing
brands. In addition, when consumers prefer the brand’s advertising programs, they intend to
search for more information about the brand. This improves customers’ attitudes and perceptions
about the brand (Kirmani and Zeithaml, 1993; MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989; Mehta, 2000).

3
Together with advertising, public relations plays a pivotal role in building brand images. It can be
defined as a marketing function that focuses on long-term patterns of interaction between an
organization or its brands and publics, with the aim of establishing their mutual understanding,
and goodwill and support, thus enhancing their relationships (Smith, 2005). Compared to
advertising, public relations is more authentic and credible to customers (e.g., Kotler, 2003).
Therefore, when customers have a favorable attitude toward the public relations programs of a
brand, they form positive impressions toward the brand.

H1: Brand personality impressions and brand relationship quality are positively related.
H2: Attitude toward advertising and brand relationship quality are positively related.
H3: Attitude toward advertising and brand personality impressions are positively related.
H4: Attitude toward public relations and brand relationship quality are positively related.
H5: Attitude toward public relations and brand personality impressions are positively
related.

Method

Measurement

Brand relationship quality was a second-order construct consisting of six components:

interdependence, passion, self-connection, commitment, intimacy, and trust. Each of these
components was measured by three items. These items were based on Aaker et al. (2004) and
Smit et al. (2007). Brand personality impressions were measured by four items. Attitude toward
adverting was measured by three items. Finally, attitude toward public relations was also
measured by three items. All were seven-point Likert scales, anchored by 1: strongly disagree
and 7: strongly agree. (see Appendix for the scale items).

Sample

To test the model, a sample of 477 consumers of a variety of brands (including high involvement
brands such as cars, and low involvement brands such as detergents, as well as local and
international brands), was surveyed by means of face-to-face interviews. Consumers were located
in Ho Chi Minh City, the major business center of Vietnam. The sample included 242 (50.7%)
female consumers and 235 (49.3%) male consumers. In terms of age, there were 303 (63.5%)
consumers who were aged 30 years or younger, and 174 (36.5%) consumers who were older than
30 years. In terms of income, 311 (65.2%) consumers had a monthly income lower than or equal
to US$ 400, and 166 (34.8%) consumers had a monthly income higher than US$ 400.

Data analysis and results

Measurement validation

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the measures. The data exhibited slight
deviations from normal distribution, however, all univariate kurtoses and skewnesses were within
the range of [-1, 1]. Therefore, the maximum likelihood estimation method was used (Muthen
and Kaplan, 1985). The results indicate that the CFA model of brand relationship quality received

4
an acceptable fit: χ2(120) = 407.65 (p = .000); GFI = .916; CFI = .957; and, RMSEA = .071. All
factor loadings were substantial (≥ .57) and significant (p < .001). All factor correlations were
significantly below unity (p < .001). These findings supported the convergent and with-construct
discriminant validity between the components of brand relationship quality constructs
(Steenkamp and van Trijp, 1991). The CFA results of the final measurement model also received
an acceptable fit: χ2(263) = 972.71 (p = .000); GFI = .866; CFI = .921; and, RMSEA = .075. All
factor loadings were substantial (≥ .57) and significant (p < .001). All construct correlations were
significantly below unity (p < .001). These findings supported the convergent and across-
construct discriminant validity. Further, all measures satisfied the requirement for composite
reliability (Steenkamp and van Trijp, 1991) and variance extracted (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Structural results

Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses. The results indicate that the model
received an acceptable fit: χ2(263) = 972.71 (p = .000); GFI = .866; CFI = .921; and, RMSEA =
.075. It is noted that the measurement model and the structural model had the same degrees of
freedom. The standardized structural coefficients are presented in Figure 2. The results also
indicate that hypothesis H2 (Attitude toward advertising → Brand relationship quality) was not
significant. All other hypotheses were significant (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Structural results (standardized estimates)

.57 .83 .86 .87 .86

.90 .93 .82

Inter - Love and

Attitude toward Dependence Passion
Advertising
.94
.66 .82 .96
.48 a .07 NS Self -
.87 Connection
.92
.61
.91 Brand Personality .67 a Brand Relationship
.48 a
Impressions Quality
.85 .30* .62* .89 .71

.16 a .89 !2 (263) = 972.71

Commitment
.11 b .71 .82 (p = .000)
.86
GFI = .866
Attitude toward
Public Relations CFI = .921
Trust
Intimacy .84 RMSEA = .075
(a) p < .001
.95 .91 .78 (b) p < .05
.74 NS: non -significant
.72 .86 .90
(*) squared multiple
coefficients

Summary and conclusion

The purpose of this study is to examine the role of brand personality impressions on brand
relationship quality in Vietnam. It also explores the role of consumer attitudes toward advertising
and public relations in brand personality impressions and brand relationship quality. We found

5
that brand personality impressions have a positive impact on brand relationship quality. In
addition, attitude toward public relations has positive impacts on both brand personality
impressions and brand relationship quality. However, attitude toward advertising has a positive
impact on brand personality impressions but not on brand relationship quality. These findings
suggest that brand personality impressions play an important role in building brand-customer
relationships. Consequently, it is necessary for brands to develop effective communication
strategies in order to promote unique brand personality.

References

Aaker, D. A. 1991. Managing Brand Equity. New York, The Free Press.

Aaker, J. 1997. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.

Aaker, J., Fournier, S. and Brasel, S. A. 2004. When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31(June), 1-16.

Aggarwal, P. 2004. The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behaviour.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31(June), 87-101.

De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schoroder, G., and Iacobucci, D. 2001. Investments in consumer

relationships: A cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65(4), 33-50.

Erdem, T. and Swait, J. 1998. Brand equity as signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 7(2), 131-157.

Fennis, B. M. and Pruyn, A. T. H. 2007. You are what you wear: Brand personality influences on
consumer impression formation. Journal of Business Research, 60, 634-639.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1), 39-50.

Fournier, S. 1998. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March), 343-373.

Keller, K. L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.

Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

Kirmani, A. and Zeithaml, V. 1993. Advertising, perceived quality, and brand image. In Aaker,
D. A. and Biel, A. L. (eds). Brand Equity and Advertising. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, pp. 143-161.

Kotler, P. 2003. Marketing Management. 11th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., and Lee, D.-J. 2006. Direct and
indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59,
955-964.

6
Lassar, W. M., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. 1995. Measuring customer-based brand equity. Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 11-19.

MacKenzie, S. B. and Lutz, R. J. 1989. An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of

attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53(April), 48-
65.

Mehta, A. 2000. Advertising attitudes and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising

Research, 40(3), 67-72.

Mittal, B. and Lassar, W. M. 1998. Why do consumers switch? the dynamics of satisfaction
versus loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 12(3), 177-194.

Mittal, V. and Kamakura, W. A. 2001. Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behaviour.
Journal of Marketing Research, 38(February), 131-142.

Muthen, B. and Kaplan, D. 1985. A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of
non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,
38(May), 171-180.

Nguyen, T. D., Nguyen, T. M. T., and Barrett, N. J. 2003. Brand equity and its antecedents.
Economic Development, 13 (July), 2-5 (in Vietnamese).

Orth, U. R. and Malkewitz, K. 2008. Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions,
Journal of Marketing, 72(May), 64-81.

Reichheld, F. E. and Sasser, Jr., W. E. 1990. Zero defections: quality comes to services. Harvard
Business Review, 68(5), 105-111.

Smit, E., Bronner, F., and Tolboom, M. 2007. Brand relationship quality and its value for
personal contact. Journal of Business Research, 60, 627-633.

Smith, R. D. 2005. Strategic Planning for Public Relations, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Steenkamp, J-B. E. M. and van Trijp, H. C. M. 1991. The use of LISREL in validating marketing
constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(4), 283-299.

Szmigin, I. 2003. Understanding the Consumer, London, Sage.

Woodside, A. G. and Walser, M. G. 2007. Building strong brands in retailing. Journal of

Business Research, 60(1), 1-10.

7
Appendix: Scale items
Brand relationship quality
Love and passion
I feel very lovely when talking about X
I feel great affection for X
I feel very peaceful when mentioning about X
Self-connection
X helps me to express myself
X reflect my personality
X enhances myself
Commitment
I always stick with X
To me, X is an irreplaceable brand
I am very loyal to X
Interdependence
The success of X is my success
I feel embarrassed when someone criticizes X
When some one criticizes X I feels insulted
Intimacy
I have a deep understanding of
I deeply sympathize with X
I become very knowledgeable about X
Trust
X is capable of delivering what it promises
I always receive what X promises to provide
My experiences with X show that X never promises what it doesn’t have
Brand personality impressions
Compared to other brands, X is very attractive
Compared to other brands, X is very distinctive
Overall, X is very impressive
Attitude toward advertising
The ad of X is very attractive
I like the ad of X
Attitudes toward public relations
The public relations programs of X are very valuable for society
I highly value the public relations programs of X