Impact of Brand Gender, Customer Brand Engagement and Brand love on

Customer Based brand Equity

Myra Waqar: L1F19MSBA0004

Shumaila Zahid:L1F19MSBA0016

Aima Khan:L1F19MSBA0001

Wisha Nadeem:L1F19MSBA0021

Abstract

This study is conducted on the recent call of [ CITATION Mac19 \l 1033 ]The aim of this study
is to analyze the relationship of Masculine Brand personality, feminine brand personality, Brand
Love, Brand Equity according with Consumer Based Brand equity. This research has conducted
online on global social media platforms. 500 questionnaires were distributed to consumer in
apparel industry. Hence, the response rate remained 22%. In order to analyze the relationships of
independent and dependent variables, Pearson correlation and for prediction multiple liner
regression was used which resulted in three out of four hypotheses accepted. This study
suggested that people with strong gender identity will encourage Brand Love and Consumer
Brand Engagement.

Keywords: Masculine brand personality, Feminine Brand Personality, Brand Equity, Brand love,
Brand engagement
 Introduction

An emerging research stream on brand gender has been seen after the influential work done by
Grohmann (2009). The term brand gender is meant to have specific traits of personality which
are linked to masculinity and feminity which are appropriate and of significant importance for
brands. According to Grohmann, (2009), personality traits based on brand gender are further
divided into two universal and independent dimensions which are masculine and feminine brand
personality traits abbreviated as MBP and FBP respectively. It is well documented in the recent
literature related to brand gender that it is the most important precursor of brand success.
It was concluded by Azar, Aimé, and Ulrich (2018), that critical responses in relation to brand
consumer are based on the brand positioning such as masculine brand or feminine brand which
have a strong influence on consumer-based brand equity (Lieven & Hildebrand, 2016).
Grohmann, Herrmann, Landwehr, and Tilburg (2015) also supported these results.

Previous literature has explored the focal effects of brand gender on consumer-based brand
equity which explained more consumer-based brand equity in relation to the masculine or
feminine brands but consumer based brand equity is highly depended on the cultural aspects. So
the aim of the study to explore the relationship between MBP, FBP and CBBE in collectivistic
culture. As this era is considered as the era of information technology and social media has a
great influence on youth, so this study is predominantly applicable since the pages and groups on
Facebook have considered as dire networks for marketing of brands (Simon & Tossan, 2018).
Definitely, companies are allocating high budgets for marketing purpose especially on social
media (CMOsurvey.org, 2017).

Research Objectives
Since social media is the perspective of this study, it is dire to explore the relationship between
the consumer brand engagement (CBE), brand gender and consumer based brand equity.
Consumer brand engagement CBE is a major idea that is commonly deliberated in studies based
on social media (Simon & Tossan, 2018). CBE related prior research has revealed that CBE has
proved to be of great support as it has provided many significant opportunities to enhance the
value of the brands while acting as a crowdsourcing for new idea on social media (Azar,
Machado, Vacas-de-Carvalho, & Mendes, 2016). Brand evaluations and brand purchasing
intentions has been influenced by brand engagement on social media. This results in developing
a significant association which ultimately becomes the source of brand equity development.
(Naylor, Lamberton, & West, 2012; Tsai & Men, 2013; Beukeboom, Kerkhof, & de Vries,
2015).
Finally, it was aimed to explored that whether brand love (BL) is significantly associated with
Brand gender based on personality traits, i-e., MBP and FBP on social media (Langner, Bruns,
Fischer, & Rossiter, 2016).
Furthermore, brand love has found to be significantly motivating agent as it is considered as the
emotional responses of consumers towards specific brand (Vernuccio, Pagani, Barbarossa, &
Pastore, 2015). So it is very important to explore the association of brand love with MBP and
FBP, BE and CBBE on social media.
Research Questions
More precisely, this study stated the questions listed below:
Q1. What is the effect of brand gender on Customer based brand equity?
Q2: What is the effect of brand love on Customer based brand equity?
Q3: What is the effect of brand engagement on customer based brand equity?

Hypotheses based on Theoretical background

Aaker’s model of Brand personality (1997), matches the concept of brand gender definition as
brand gender is the vital characteristic of brand personality (Grohmann, 2009). According to
Grohmann, (2009), Brand personality may have a positive effect on affective responses of
consumers as well as attitudinal and behavioral responses towards a specific brand.
Certainly, gender is observed as an important establishing concept in brand conceptualization, as
customers generate, improve or achieve their gender individuality through the brands liked and
used by the consumers (Avery, 2012).
Brand gender is defined by Grohmann (2009, p. 106), as “the set of human personality traits
associated with masculinity and femininity applicable and relevant to brands.” It is perceived that
there are two independent dimensions of gender, i-e., MBP and FBP, resultant as brand profiles
that either be masculine which means more in masculinity and very much lesser in femininity,
whereas feminine is the other way around, indistinguishable (Unisex focused brand) or
androgynous which means higher in masculinity as well as higher in femininity (Lieven et al.,
2014; Azar, 2015).
Effects of brand gender were studied across cultures and countries which showed that brand
equity has increased if masculinity or femininity features added to the brand (Lieven &
Hildebrand, 2016).
Although these studies were not developed on Pakistani culture, their findings could be applied
to Pakistani context. While keeping the results of previous studies in mind, it was assumed that
CBBE will be higher among those consumers who have greater perception of brand gender as
feminine or masculine. Thus, it was hypothesized that:
H1a: there is a positive relationship between Masculine Brand Personality and Customer
based brand equity
H1b: there is a positive relationship between feminine Brand Personality and Customer
based brand equity
Consumer Brand Engagement has been getting growing consideration in the literature of
marketing from last 10 years (Hollebeek, Glynn, & Brodie, 2014). In spite of this substantial
attention, according to Dessart, Veloutsou, and Morgan-Thomas, (2015), there appears to be a
deficiency of agreement on the definition of consumer engagement. Few researchers, Brodie et
al., in 2011, Hollebeek, in 2011 and Hollebeek et al., in 2014, highlighting the psychological
progression that follows because of the involvement with a certain object such as brand whereas
others concentrating on the behavioral facets of this association (van Doorn et al., 2010).
This research is based on the behavioral approach to Consumer Based Engagement which is
based on the considerations of van Doorn et al. (2010, p. 254). According to which CBE
comprises of “customer's behavioral manifestations that have a brand or a firm focus, beyond
purchase, resulting from motivational drivers (van Doorn et al., 2010, p. 254).” Even though this
three-dimensional conceptualization of engagement is the accepted ground the globe at a
supreme level, in several studies, behavioral consumer engagement has used such as Gummerus
et al., (2012), Schamari and Schaeffers, (2015) and van Doorn et al., (2010), mainly among the
studies which were on CBE and social media. From the above-mentioned literature it was
hypothesized that:
H2a: There is a positive relationship between Masculine Brand Personality and Consumer
Brand Engagement
H2b: There is a positive relationship between Feminine Brand Personality and Consumer
Brand Engagement
Foregoing literature has proposed that brand affects are considerably influences by brand
personality, while directing towards Aaker's conceptualization of brand personality (Sung &
Kim, 2010), rises consumer inclination (Sirgy, 1982), induces positive brand passions (Lee,
Back, & Kim, 2009) and effects brand’s emotional affection (Orth, Lemon & Rose, 2010).
Additionally, exploration of brand personality on gendered dimensions has revealed that a strong
positioning of brand gender should certainly empower emotional reactions for a specific brand,
as well as brand affect and brand inclination (Grohmann, 2009).
Brand love (BL) is defined as “the degree of passionate emotional attachment a satisfied
consumer has for a particular trade name (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006, p. 81).” According to Batra,
Ahuvia, and Bagozzi, (2012), Brand Love can motivate the brand consumers to show critical
responses that act as a significant results for companies, and is reflected to be an association
between customers and the brands they like the most that includes an enduring, deep love for that
specific brand (Langner et al., 2016). According to Carroll and Ahuvia, (2006), Brand Love is
typically considered as qualitatively different from liking whereas it considered as additionally
passionate emotional response, but somehow brand love is still associated to liking according to
Sternberg (1987). Therefore, it could be expected that a vibrant positioning of brand gender may
also have a positive impact on Brand Love. Furthermore, studies on the backgrounds and results
of Brand Love has emphasized that if the brand is according to the personality of consumer and
ensure the expression of self-concept, the brand love will be higher. This argument was suppoted
by numerous researchers such as Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen, in (2010), Bıçakcıoğlu, İpek, and
Bayraktaroğlu, in (2016) and Rauschnabel, and colleagues in (2015). Current literature is also in
support of the argument that Brand Love has significantly affected by the insights with regards to
brand personality (Roy et al., 2016). Hence, it was hypothesize that:
H3a: MBP have a positive influence on Brand Love.
H3b: FBP have a positive influence on Brand Love.
Some of the research have tried to explain the function of Brand love with regards to the
antecedents and their effects, especially in the online setting (Albert & Merunka, 2013; Bergkvist
& Bech-Larsen, 2010; Roy, Eshghi, & Sarkar, 2013). In view of the offline setting, it was stated
by Algesheimer and colleagues (2005) that brand affection of consumer has positively influenced
by participating in a brand community. Other authors, for instance, Langner et al., (2016) and
Roy et al., (2013) have also claimed that promising brand practices over a period, separate from
social media, ensures the increase in Brand love as well as conservation of Brand Love, and that
unchecked brand transmissions are positively associated to Brand Love as per Roy et al., (2013).
Therefore, it was assumed that CBE will also positively affect Brand Love. Thus, it was
hypothesized that:
H4a: CBE is a positive predictor on BL.
Prior research has advocated that Brand Love is able to strengthen the prevailing connections
between brand and their customers, to support the relation and to fortify the brand views;
conversely, brand devotion and intentions of purchase might be raised due to brand love
(Bergkvist & Bech-Larsen, 2010; Loureiro et al., 2012; Roy et al., 2016). As brand love being an
important component of brand equity, is responsible for brand loyalty it was assumed that Brand
love has a positive effect on CBBE. Therefore, it was hypothesized that:
H4b: BL has a positive influence on CBBE.

Methodology

Masculine brand
personality

Feminine brand
Customer
personality
Based Brand
Brand Love
Equity

Brand Equity
DEPENDENT
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
VARIABLE
Sample and procedure
Data was collected in Pakistan through online questionnaire administration. Non-probability
convenient sample was used for sample selection (McDaniel Jr. & Gates, 2006). 110
questionnaires were returned as completely filled on which analysis was conducted. The
response rate was 22%. The sample was diverse consisted of 60% females and 40% males. The
average score for age was 26.50 years. The sample was consisted of job-holders (58%) and 42%
sample was of students (Azar et al., 2016). The questionnaire was constructed to explore the
aims of the study while following the process of funneling (from broad to narrow).
Assessment tool
The scale was obtained from the research done by Machado, Vacas-de-Carvalho, Azar, André and
dos Santos, 2019. Seven point Likert type scale was used to record the response. Brand gender was

assessed by using Grohmann’s scale containing12 item developed in 2009. It has two sub-scales
namely MBP and FBP containing 6 items each. This scale was used to evaluate the masculinity
and femininity levels. To assess Brand Love, a five-item scale modified by Loureiro et al. (2012)
was used. As a second-order latent variable, CBE on social media was taken which was
developed by Tsai and Men (2013). The indicators of that second-order latent variable were
consuming consisted of 3 items and contributing consisted of four items after modifying it
according to social media usage. Lastly, CBBE was measured by using unidimensional scale
with 4items from brand equity scale constructed by Yoo and Donthu (2001).
Measurement checks
The value of Cronbach Alpha for FBP subscales was .80 which means that data collected on this
scale is highly reliable. For MBP subscale, the value of Cronbach alpha was recorded as .81. The
Cronbach Alpha value of scale used to assess brand love was .90 whereas the Cronbach alpha for
Consumer based brand equity scale was .85. Lastly, the Cronbach Alpha value of scale used to
assess brand engagement was .91. So all the modified scales were having good reliability values
which means they are highly reliable.
Result
The results of Pearson Correlation revealed that FBP has a highly significant association with
CBBE (r=.90, p<.005). It was also found that MBP is highly significantly associated with
consumer based brand equity (r=.82, p<.005). Brand love was found to be significantly
correlated with consumer based brand equity (r=.87, p<.005). Furthermore, Brand engagement
was found to be associated with consumer based brand equity (r=.75, p<.005).
From the above mentioned findings of the study, it could be concluded that feminine brand
personality is more strongly associated with consumer based brand equity as compared to
masculine brand personality. Moreover, Brand love was found more among females as compared
to males, i-e. r=.78, p<.005 and r=.76, p<.005 respectively.
Table1| Correlation between Feminine Brand personality, Masculine Brand Personality,
Brand Love, Brand Engagement, and Consumer based Brand Equity
Variables M SD FBP MBP BL BE CBBE
Feminine Brand personality 3.55 .760 1 .86** .78** .67** .90**
Masculine Brand 3.6 .737 1 .76** .70** .82**
Personality
Brand Love 3.5 .736 1 .62** .87**
Brand Engagement 3.4 .855 1 .75**
Consumer based Brand 3.6 .807 1
Equity

Multiple linear regression was used to calculate whether Feminine brand personality,

masculine bran personality, Brand love and brand engagement are the predictors of consumer

based brand equity. Result of multiple linear regression shown the five predictors explained

96.0% of variance (R2 = .93, F (2, 108) = 161.269, p < .001). The result indicated that Feminine

brand personality, Brand love and brand engagement are significant positive predictor of

consumer based brand equity (β= .93, p < .001).

Table 2| Predictors of Consumer based Brand Equity
CBBE
Predictors
B Standard Error β
Constant -1.79** .213 . 96
FBP .211** .004 .224
MBP .129 .091 .133
BL .475** .098 .543
BE .295*** .120 .141
R2 .96
F 161. 269***

Discussion
The aim of current study was to explore the association of Masculine brand personality,

Feminine Brand personality, Brand Love and Brand Engagement with consumer based brand

equity which was found to be very much associated as supported by the previous literature.

According to Grohmann, (2009), Brand personality may have a positive effect on affective

responses of consumers as well as attitudinal and behavioral responses towards a specific brand.

Brand equity has increased if masculinity or femininity features added to the brand (Lieven &

Hildebrand, 2016) which were also the findings of this study that brand gender is positively

linked with the consumer based brand equity and positively enhance this phenomenon.

The other hypothesis of the was to explore the influence of Masculine brand personality,

Feminine Brand personality, Brand Love and Brand Engagement on consumer based brand

equity which showed that Masculine brand personality, Feminine Brand personality, Brand Love

and Brand Engagement are the positive predictors of consumer based brand equity. This means
that Masculine brand personality, Feminine Brand personality, Brand Love and Brand

Engagement positively enhance the consumer based brand equity while playing a significant role

in achieving high popularity among different brands. According to which CBE comprises of

“customer's behavioral manifestations that have a brand or a firm focus, beyond purchase,

resulting from motivational drivers (van Doorn et al., 2010, p. 254).” Even though this three-

dimensional conceptualization of engagement is the accepted ground the globe at a supreme

level, in several studies, behavioral consumer engagement has used such as Gummerus et al.,

(2012), Schamari and Schaeffers, (2015) and van Doorn et al., (2010). But the results of this

study explained that behavioral impact is less as compared to the psychological impact as the

results supported that brand engagement influence less than brand love. It was also proved that

Brand love is more effect predictor as compared to the brand engagement whereas among

personalities of brand gender, Feminine brand personality has more effect consumer based brand

equity as compared to the masculine brand personality. According to Grohmann, (2009), Brand

personality may have a positive effect on affective responses of consumers as well as attitudinal

and behavioral responses towards a specific brand.

In conclusion, Masculine brand personality, Feminine Brand personality, Brand Love and Brand

Engagement are the factors which are positively associated with consumer based brand equity

and all the independent variables contribute positively to enhance the consumer based brand

equity.

References

Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–
356.
Albert, N., & Merunka, D. (2013). The role of brand love in consumer–brand relationships.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(3), 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761311328928.
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand
community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(July), 19–34.
Avery, J. (2012). Defending the markers of masculinity: Consumer resistance to gender bending.
Azar, S. L., Aimé, I., & Ulrich, I. (2018). Brand gender-bending: The impact of an endorsed
brand strategy on consumers' evaluation of gendered mixed-target brands. European Journal of
Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-04-2017-0278.
Azar, S. L., Machado, J., Vacas-de-Carvalho, L., & Mendes, A. (2016). Motivations to interact
with brands on Facebook – Towards a typology of consumer–brand interactions. Journal of
Brand Management, 23(2), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm. 2016.3.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.09.0339.
Bergkvist, L., & Bech-Larsen, T. (2010). Two studies of consequences and actionable
antecedents of brand love. Journal of Brand Management, 17(7), 504–518.
Beukeboom, C. J., Kerkhof, P., & de Vries, M. (2015). Does a virtual like cause actual liking?
How following a brand's Facebook updates enhances brand valuations and purchase intention.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 32, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2015.09.003.
Bıçakcıoğlu, N., İpek, İ., & Bayraktaroğlu, G. (2016). Antecedents and outcomes of brand love:
The mediating role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing Communications, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1244108.
Carroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love.
Marketing Letters, 17(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-006-4219-2.
CMOsurvey.org (2017). The CMO survey report: Highlights and insights. August 2017
https://cmosurvey.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/15/2017/08/The_CMO_Survey-
Conway, J., & Lance, C. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common
method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015). Consumer engagement in online
brand communities: A social media perspective. Journal of Product and Brand Management,
24(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0635.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/ h0033731.
Grohmann, B. (2009). Gender dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research,
46, 105–119.
Gummerus, J., Lilijander, V., Weman, E., & Philström, M. (2012). Customer engagement in a
Facebook brand community. Management Research Review, 35(9), 857–877.
Highlights_and_Insights-Aug-2017.pdf, Accessed date: 2 June 2018.
Hollebeek, L. D. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. Journal
of Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555–573.
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social
media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
28, 149–165.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211256578.

International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 322–336.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.04.005.
Langner, T., Bruns, D., Fischer, A., & Rossiter, J. R. (2016). Falling in love with brands: A
dynamic analysis of trajectories of brand love. Marketing Letters, 27, 15–26.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9283-4.
Langner, T., Bruns, D., Fischer, A., & Rossiter, J. R. (2016). Falling in love with brands: A
dynamic analysis of trajectories of brand love. Marketing Letters, 27, 15–26.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9283-4.
Lee, Y.-K., Back, K.-J., & Kim, J.-Y. (2009). Family restaurant brand personality and its impact
on customer's emotion, satisfaction, and brand loyalty. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, 33(3), 305–328.
Lieven, T., & Hildebrand, C. (2016). The impact of brand gender on brand equity. International
Marketing Review, 33(2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-08- 2014-0276.
Lieven, T., Grohmann, B., Herrmann, A., Landwehr, J. R., & van Tilburg, M. (2015). The effect
of brand design on brand gender perceptions and brand preference. European Journal of
Marketing, 49(1(2)), 146–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2012-0456.
Lieven, T., Grohmann, B., Herrmann, A., Landwehr, J. R., & van Tilburg, M. (2014). The effect
of brand gender on brand equity. Psychology and Marketing, 31(5), 371–385.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20701.
Loureiro, S. M. C., Ruediger, K. H., & Demetris, V. (2012). Brand emotional connection and
loyalty. Journal of Brand Management, 20(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2012.3.
Naylor, R. W., Lamberton, C. P., & West, P. M. (2012). Beyound the like button: The effect
of mere virtual presence on brand evaluations and purchase intentions in social media settings.
Journal of Marketing, 76(November), 105–120.
Orth, U. R., Limon, Y., & Rose, G. (2010). Store-evoked affect, personalities and consumer
emotional attachment to brands. Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1202–1208.
Rauschnabel, P. A., Ahuvia, A. C., Ivens, B. S., & Leischnig, A. (2015). The personality of
brand lovers. In M. Fetscherin, & T. N. Heilmann (Eds.). Consumer–Brand Relationships (pp.
108–122). Palgrave Macmillan.
Roy, P., Khandeparkar, K., & Motiani, M. (2016). A loveable personality: The effect of brand
personality on brand love. Journal of Brand Management, 23(5), 97–113.
Roy, S. K., Eshghi, A., & Sarkar, A. (2013). Antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Journal of
Brand Management, 20(4), 325–332.
Schamari, J., & Schaeffers, T. (2015). Leaving the home turf: How brands can use webcare on
consumer-generated platforms to increase positive consumer engagement. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 30, 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2014.12.001.
Simon, F., & Tossan, V. (2018). Does brand-consumer social sharing matter? A relational
framework of customer engagement to brand-hosted social media. Journal of Business Research,
85(1), 175–184.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in marketing behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer
Research, 9(3), 287–300.
Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Liking versus loving: A comparative evaluation of theories.
Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 331–345.
Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect.
Psychology and Marketing, 27(July), 639–661.
Tsai, W.-H. S., & Men, L. R. (2013). Motivations and antecedents of consumer engagement with
brand pages on social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(2), 76–87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2013.826549.
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Doreen, P., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C.
(2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal
of Service Research, 13(3), 252–266.
Vernuccio, M., Pagani, M., Barbarossa, C., & Pastore, A. (2015). Antecedents of brand love in
online networkbased communities. A social identity perspective. Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 24(7), 706–719. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-12-2014-0772.