See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/5152992

Measuring the essence of a brand personality. Mark Lett

Article  in  Marketing Letters · July 2006

DOI: 10.1007/s11002-006-5362-5 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS

85 1,784

3 authors:

Johan van Rekom Gabriele Jacobs

Rotterdam School of Management Erasmus University Rotterdam
29 PUBLICATIONS   922 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   700 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Peeter Verlegh
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
69 PUBLICATIONS   4,503 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Composite View project

Composite View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Peeter Verlegh on 07 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Market Lett (2006) 17:181–192
DOI 10.1007/s11002-006-5362-5

Measuring and managing the essence of a brand

personality

Johan van Rekom · Gabriele Jacobs ·

Peeter W. J. Verlegh


C Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Abstract Brand managers constantly face the dilemma of adapting their brands to
changing consumer taste without diluting the brand’s essence. This study presents
an approach that can be used to establish which features constitute the essence of
a brand, and how candidate new features would affect the perceived essence of the
brand. We build on Ahn’s (1998) causal status hypothesis, which holds that the essence
of concepts (e.g., brands) consists of those features perceived to cause most other
features of the brand. We empirically illustrate how this approach provides important
information about consumer perceptions of envisaged changes to an existing brand.

Keywords Branding · Positioning

1. Introduction

In mature and crowded markets, brand positioning has become more and more of
a challenge. Product quality is often viewed as a given, and new product features
are difficult to develop and easy to copy. In light of these developments, brands are
increasingly seeking to position themselves in terms of a distinct brand image. Such
an image is often conceptualized in terms of personality traits (e.g., Aaker 1997).

J. van Rekom
Department of Marketing, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The
Netherlands

G. Jacobs
Department of Organization and Personnel Management, Rotterdam School of Management,
Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

P. W. J. Verlegh ()
Department of Marketing Management, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: pverlegh@rsm.nl
Springer
182 Market Lett (2006) 17:181–192

Recently, De Chernatony (2001) argued that personality features are the most fruitful
ingredient in designing an appealing brand positioning and are readily translatable
into appealing communication imagery.
Brand image is a powerful determinant of brand equity. Successful brand man-
agement requires monitoring consumers’ brand perceptions, and timely adapting the
brand to market developments. Brand image is commonly viewed as consumers’ more
or less coherent set of associations with regard to a brand (Aaker, 1996; Krishnan,
1996). Such associations are reinforced by marketing communications and advertising
imagery. The core of a brand is formed by its most essential features, which play a
crucial role in creating and maintaining brand equity (De Chernatony, 2001; Keller,
1993). De Chernatony (1999) describes how organizations with a strong culture in-
scribe their core values into the identity of their brands. Because brand image is formed
in the consumer’s mind as a reflection of the identity of the brand, these organizations
are able to manage and maintain brand equity over time.
Brand management involves the adaptation of a brand to changes in the market. To
maintain the meaning of a brand, and avoid alienation of loyal customers, adjustments
in brand positioning should not affect the perceived essence of a brand. Ideally, such
adjustments reinforce the meaning of a brand, and shed new light on existing brand
features (Keller, 2003). Brand managers are therefore constantly facing the challenge
of adapting their brands without diluting its essence. This is not easy, as illustrated
by the introduction of Harley Davidson fragrances, which alienated loyal customers
who could not link fragrances to Harley’s core features of ruggedness and masculinity
(Haig, 2003).
How can marketers establish which features constitute the essence of a brand? So
far, there is no method available to determine which features consumers perceive to be
essential, and which features are more peripheral to the brand. We propose a method
that establishes brand essence by examining the coherence between a brand’s features.
In addition, we show how this method can be used to examine how the addition of
one or more new features influences the perception of the brand’s essential features.
This issue is crucial when managers seek to adjust or change the positioning of their
brands.
We illustrate our approach in a “real world” setting (Klink & Smith, 2001) where
we provide input to brand managers who sought to reposition a large European de-
tergent brand. For reasons of confidentiality, we refer to this brand as “Brand X”.
As with many brands in mature markets, there was little room for differentiation on
the basis of the physical product. Illustratively, the two biggest detergent producers
Procter & Gamble and Unilever both acknowledged that the brands in this market
barely differ in terms of product quality (Baltesen, 2001). The management for Brand
X sought to strengthen the brand’s image among younger consumers without losing
its stronghold in the segment of faithful elderly buyers. To establish a unique posi-
tioning, the brand therefore focused on the enhancement of its brand personality. This
approach is a common theme in the current literature on brand management (e.g.,
De Chernatony, 2001; Keller, 2003). In this study, we examine which personality
traits form the essence of Brand X, and predict how new features would impact this
essence.
The remainder of our paper is structured as follows: First, we discuss the concept
of essence, as well as the intuition for our method to establish brand essence. Next,
Springer
Market Lett (2006) 17:181–192 183

we discuss an empirical application, which demonstrates our method, and shows how
it can be used to determine brand essence and predict how the addition of specific
new features would influence brand essence. In the next section, we discuss this case
and our method, and set the agenda for future research in this area. We end with a
concluding paragraph that emphasizes some of the advantages of our method.

2. Theoretical framework: Essence as a matter of causality

Brand images are conceptualized as sets of associations, but how do consumers struc-
ture these associations? Murphy and Medin (1985) propose that people use “naı̈ve
theories” to make sense of the world around them. These theories provide causal links
between the different features of a concept. For instance, a cat “has sharp claws”
and “climbs trees”. Those features cohere: a cat can climb trees because it has sharp
claws. The causal relations between features enable people to understand and explain
the meaning of concepts. Similarly, Clement and Gentner (1991) investigated the sys-
tematicity of analogies, and found that analogies were more convincing if they were
based on causal communalities. Such relations are based on subjective beliefs, and do
not need to be “objectively true” or have a scientific basis.
The causal relations among different features of a concept combine to form an
associative network. Some features in the network will be perceived to cause more
features than others. Changes in such a “central” feature should have a greater effect
on brand image than changes in more peripheral features (Murphy and Medin, 1985).
Psychologists have long argued that people are highly motivated to perceive the world
in ways that satisfy prior epistemic commitments (Jost et al., 2003). Sloman et al.
(1998) argue that an individual’s general resistance to proposed changes in causally
central features is due to the uncertainty-provoking cascade of revisions that such a
change inevitably triggers. By extension, this suggests that the more central a feature
is believed to be to the answer to the question, “What is this brand”? the more likely
people will resent proposed changes to that feature. For instance: Let’s assume that
removing dirt and making clothes smell nicer are two features of detergents. These
associations seem causally related: detergents make clothes smell better because de-
tergents remove dirt. This relationship is asymmetric: Clothes can also smell nicer if
the dirt is not removed. Thus, for the a detergent, “removing dirt” is more essential than
“improving smell”: an odorless (or even smelly) detergent remains a detergent, while
a product that improves smell without removing dirt is more likely to be perceived as
something else (e.g., perfume). Changing a central feature thus leads to a complete
recategorization of a product, while changing a peripheral feature has only a minor
effect on the product’s positioning.
The predominance of causes over consequences is summarized in Ahn’s (1998)
“causal status hypothesis”, which states that in a set of causally related features, people
attach greater importance to features that appear to cause other features, than to features
that are caused by other features. This hypothesis has been tested and confirmed for
concepts such as television sets, mirrors and ants. Ahn (1998) proposes that features
are more “essential” to a concept when they are perceived to cause a greater number
of other features. In line with this, we propose that brand associations (or features)
are more essential when they cause a greater number of other brand features. This
Springer
184 Market Lett (2006) 17:181–192

conceptualization proposes that essence is a matter of degree, and acknowledges the

more central role of features that underlie others.

2.1. Actual and potential features

If the pattern of causal relations between features indeed matters that much to con-
sumers, it is important for brand managers to establish the causal relations among the
different features of a brand. This could be graphed in a causal map that reveals which
features are perceived to be most essential to a brand, and which other features are
consequences of these features. If consumers agree that a new brand feature B could
be caused by an existing essential feature A, this new feature B would fit well into
the existing structure of causal relations, and would not deteriorate the essence of the
brand. In fact, B would even reinforce the perception that A is essential to the brand,
because the addition of B adds to the number of features caused by A. If consumers
cannot regard a new feature as the consequence of an existing feature, the image of
the brand may be diluted. We illustrate this with another example for a detergent: The
feature “cleans at low temperatures” may match well with “innovative”: if consumers
perceive a brand as innovative, a new feature that allows the detergent to clean well at
low temperatures is an additional confirmation of innovativeness. Ideally, the percep-
tion of causation could work here in both directions: Because Brand X works at low
temperatures, it is even more innovative.
To avoid serious mistakes in repositioning campaigns, it is important to know which
features are seen as essential, and why these features are seen as essential. Our method
shows marketers exactly which features can be changed and which cannot, because it
maps which feature causes which other feature. The concept of essence as perceived
causation further specifies the coherence notion of “fit” (Aaker and Keller, 1990):
Knowledge of the perceived causal relations between a brand’s features facilitates the
creation of a convincing, coherent brand positioning. Correlational measures such as
similarity-based measures of fit can assess an overall compatibility of brand extensions
(Keller, 2003), but do not pinpoint the exact features that should be maintained. This
is particularly risky, as the effects of individual features can render the results of more
global approaches to fit, such as similarity measures, uninformative or even misleading
(Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994).
Let us consider the following example: A health insurance has the core features
“friendly” and reliable”. It improves its customer management system in such a way
that it is easier to contact them. For a marketer it would not be enough to know that
the new feature “availability” fits with the core features “friendly” and “reliable”.
Customers could, for instance, associate a strong focus on high availability with the
idea that the insurance will now have unfriendly and unreliable employees in their call-
centers. It would be important to know if “availability” is perceived as a consequence
of “friendliness” and “reliability”, thus as a peripheral feature. If this is the case,
it should be loaded with the core features “friendliness” and “reliability”, thus the
marketer should come up with a message like: “Our health insurance is friendly and
reliable. Therefore, it is important to us that we are available for you 24/7”. Such
causal arguments have been shown to be more persuasive than non-causal arguments
(Slusher and Anderson, 1996). By their very nature, correlational methods cannot
establish causality, and cannot distinguish between cause and effect. Therefore, they
Springer
Market Lett (2006) 17:181–192 185

cannot be used to identify the opportunities that can be created by the use of appropriate
causal arguments in persuasion.

3. Empirical illustration

The use of our methodology is demonstrated in an application in which we provide

advice for the repositioning of a large European detergent Brand X. In this application
we examine how the image of X can be enhanced by adding new personality traits to
the existing set of traits, without compromising the essence of the brand. We conducted
two pretests to (1) establish the traits currently associated with the brand, and (2) select
new features that may be added in order to make the brand more appealing to younger
customers. To establish current traits, we conducted a series of short, open-ended
interviews (N = 12), in which we asked respondents to “Imagine that Brand X was a
human being”, and to “tell us what kind of person X would be”. In our main study, we
used those features mentioned by at least 50% of respondents. These were: “reliable”,
“caring”, “friendly”, “committed”, “helpful”, “down-to-earth” and “honest”. The left
column in Table 1 shows the number of respondents mentioning each feature.

Table 1 Current and potential features of Brand X∗

How often Is Brand X Number of features

mentioned without this Number of features of which this
Current qualitative feature still caused by this feature is a
features phase (N = 12) Brand X? feature∗∗ consequence∗

Reliable 9 5.04 (1.96)a 4.95 (1.76)a 3.31 (1.86)a,c,d,e

Caring 8 4.47 (1.81)b 4.11 (2.06)b 3.63 (1.85)b,c,d
Friendly 7 3.80 (1.57)c 2.23 (2.21)c 3.51 (2.27)a,b,c,d
Committed 7 4.26 (1.80)b 3.19 (2.36)d 3.42 (1.88)a,b,c,d,e
Helpful 7 4.82 (1.80)a,b 3.79 (2.16)e 3.54 (1.77)a,b,c,d
Down-to-Earth 6 3.96 (1.69)c 2.00 (2.37)c 3.12 (2.51)a,e
Honest 6 4.67 (1.80)b 3.73 (2.28)e 3.45 (1.66)a,b,c,d,e
Overall 4.43 (1.82) 3.43 (1.66) 3.43 (1.66)

How often mentioned Is Brand X without Number of features Number of features

Potential in qualitative this feature caused by this of which this feature
new features phase (N = 16) still Brand X? feature∗∗∗ is a consequence∗∗∗

Joyful 10 3.42 (1.48)a 1.05 (2.64)a 3.65 (3.31)a

Lively 9 3.43 (1.41)a 1.49 (2.62)b 2.90 (3.23)b
Original 12 3.39 (1.49)a 2.30 (3.96)c 3.16 (3.79)a,b
Modern 12 3.63 (1.60)a 2.03 (3.96)b,c 3.71 (3.27)a
Expressive 9 3.31 (1.46)a 0.57 (2.80)a 2.66 (3.11)b
Overall new 3.44 (1.49) 1.50 (2.41) 3.19 (2.72)
features
∗ The numbers in brackets are standard deviations; Values with the same alphabet(s) do not differ significantly

(α = .05)
∗∗ These computations only include the currently perceived features of Brand X.
∗∗∗ These computations include all 11 other features (current as well as potential).

Springer
186 Market Lett (2006) 17:181–192

To select features that could be added to the brand, a market research agency
interviewed sixteen consumers within the “young” segment that Brand X wanted to
target. They asked respondents about the features they would like to see in Brand
X. Inspection of these data revealed five features that were desirable to at least half
of those respondents: “original”, “modern”, “joyful”, “lively” and “expressive” (left
column in Table 1).

3.1. The main study

We used a questionnaire to measure the degree to which consumers perceived each

of these features to cause other features. Following an introduction, the questionnaire
included 12 pages (one for each feature), on which consumers could rate their percep-
tion of the relations between that feature and the 11 other features. The order of the
features was randomized. Each page contained a list of 11 statements like this: Brand
X is [feature A], because Brand X is [feature B]. For example, the page for the feature
“Reliable” included eleven statements like “Brand X is reliable because Brand X is
modern”.
For each combination, respondents could check one of the following answers: “no,
on the contrary”, “these two features are unrelated”, “I agree, but this does not apply to
Brand X”, “Yes, I agree”. These answers were used as input for a measure of perception
of causation of each feature, and were coded by the following coding scheme: “yes,
I agree” was coded as 1; “these two are unrelated to each other” was coded as “0”.
If respondents agree with the proposed relation, but for some reason think that this
does not apply to Brand X, they answered “I agree, but this does not apply to Brand
X”. This was coded as “0”. On average, this option was marked by less than 10% of
respondents. Finally, “No, on the contrary” was coded as “−1”, because in this case
one feature would thwart the realization of another feature. For each feature and for
each respondent, we computed the causal status of each feature, by summing all 11
answers (−1, 0 or 1) for a feature. Along the same line, we computed for each feature
and for each respondent the degree to which a feature is the consequence of all other
features. For each feature Y, this was done by summing the answers (−1, 0 or 1) to
the questions: “Brand X has feature Y, because. . .” for all the 11 remaining features.
In this way, the resulting sum represents the net number of features of which feature
Y is the consequence. We refer to this measure as “consequential status”.
We compare these measures to a direct measure of brand essence suggested by
Ahn (1998), who established essence by asking respondents whether a kind of animal
would still be the same kind of animal if an essential feature disappeared (cf., Michel
and Ambler, 1999). This measure was worded as follows: “Would Brand X still be
Brand X if only this feature was absent?” Respondents answered on a seven-point
scale, ranging from “1” = “yes, it is still absolutely Brand X” to “7” = no, it is no
longer Brand X”. A higher score on this item means that a feature is more essential to
the brand. We refer to this measure as “perceived necessity”.

3.2. Sample

The questionnaire was mailed to 1000 users of Brand X, selected from a panel of a
market research agency. Response was encouraged by a lottery with attractive prizes.
Springer
Market Lett (2006) 17:181–192 187

146 questionnaires were returned (124 females and 12 males, data on gender was miss-
ing for 7 respondents). The average household size of respondents was 2.6 (SD = 1.1).
Analyses of early and late responses did not indicate non-response bias (Armstrong
and Overton, 1977): We used t-tests to compare the scores on the 21 questionnaires
returned on the first day to the 31 questionnaires that arrived last. These tests revealed
no differences significant at the 5% level, neither for the focal constructs nor for
demographic variables as gender or family size.

3.3. Results

Table 1 shows that current features of Brand X had a higher perceived necessity to
the brand than the potentially new features. Table 1 also shows that current features
generally cause more of the other features than the potentially new ones, and that the
brand can more easily do without the not-yet existing features. These data provide face
validity for our approach and for the selection of features made through our pre-study.
The rank order correlation between perceived necessity and causal status (viz., the
3rd and 4th column in Table 1) is .86 ( p < 0.01). This result is encouraging. We
note, however, that the rank order correlation might overestimate coherence because
respondent heterogeneity is “averaged out” when we correlate group means rather
than individual level data. We hence included a more refined analysis: Because each
respondent has rated the original seven features on causal status, consequential status
and perceived necessity, we have individual level measures of these variables for each
of the seven features. Based on these seven data points, we can compute respondent-
level correlations between the three variables. Averaged across respondents, these
correlations provide insight into the coherence of our variables. Correlations were
Fisher-Z transformed before averaging, and the average of the Z-values was then
transformed back into group-level correlations (Rosenthal, 1991). The results show
that perceived necessity is significantly and positively correlated with causal status
(r = .49, p < .001), but not with consequential status (r = −0.09; p > .10). The
correlation between perceived necessity and causal status and is significantly less than
1 ( p < .001), which establishes discriminant validity of our measure. Face validity
is supported by a small negative correlation between perceptions of causal status and
consequential status (r = −.20, p < .001). The results discussed here are similar to
those obtained with a random effects model, which accounts for multiple observations
per subject (results may be obtained from the first author).
An additional disadvantage of the “perceived necessity” measure is the fact that
respondents seem to find it difficult to distinguish between more and less indispensable
features. The right column of Table 1 shows that the causal status scores discriminate
better between features than the perceived necessity scores, which suggests that the
causal approach to essence is better able to separate more essential features from
less essential ones. The lower part of Table 1 shows that this difference is even more
striking for new features.

3.4. Evaluating candidate features

Next to establishing causal status, our method enables managers to assess whether the
addition of a new brand feature has an impact on the perceived essence of the brand.
Springer
188 Market Lett (2006) 17:181–192

This requires a straightforward extension of our approach. Whenever management

considers adding new features to an existing brand image (as was the case with Brand
X), it is advisable to make an overview as to how these new features causally relate to
the most essential features of that brand. Table 2 provides an overview for Brand X. The
numbers represent the average causality scores for each relationship. For instance, for
the item “Brand X is reliable because Brand X is lively” (8th value in the first column),
we find a score of .11, which is based on 15% of respondents answering this question
with “yes, I agree” (coded as 1), and 4.5 % marking “no, on the contrary” (coded as
−1). Table 2 reveals that “reliable” is most essential to Brand X. This is the only feature
with causality scores higher than .80. Reliability causes strong perceptions of Brand X
being “caring”, “helpful” and “honest” (first row in Table 2). Figure 1 provides a visual
illustration of this, with bold arrows representing these three strongest relations (scores
>.80), and other arrows representing scores of .70–.80. We note that these benchmarks
are ad-hoc, and are the result of a trade-off between the desire to include the most
relevant relationships, and the desire to maintain a limited number of key relations.
The cut-off values for displaying relationships can be adapted to the situation.
Figure 1 illustrates a strong point of our approach. In one graph, it shows managers
which features are most essential, and why they are most essential. Because our method
also reveals the causal structure of brand features cohere, it also shows exactly how
features depend on other features. These insights provide essential information to
brand managers seeking to add features to the image of their brands.
Brand X management considered five features for the brand’s repositioning. These
are printed in italics in Table 2. The values indicate that consumers perceive “joyful”,
“original”, and “modern” to result from the reliability of Brand X (with scores >.50).
These three potentially new features are thus credible consequences of the most es-
sential features of Brand X. Consumers do not perceive a link between reliability and
being “expressive” or “lively”. The latter two associations should therefore be avoided
by management, because the introduction of features that do not support the essence
of a brand implies an inherent risk of dilution of brand meaning, which may be detri-
mental to brand value (Keller, 2003). Although new features that support less essential
features may in the long run make these other features more essential, such shifts in
brand image represent a complex process that is difficult to manage. Therefore, there
is a good reason to choose features of which the currently most essential feature could
be a credible consequence. A closer look at Table 2 reveals that “modern” may be
the best feature to communicate in a repositioning effort. Of the five proposed new
features, “modern” provides the strongest support (0.24, in the first numeric column
in Table 2) for “reliable”, which is the most essential current feature of Brand X.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to find a way to establish the essence of a brand. Our core
argument when operationalizing the concept of “brand essence” is that those features,
on which the consumer believes that most other brand features depend, constitute the
perceived essence of that brand. The results support our core argument. This study is
the first to show that Ahn’s (1998) “causal status hypothesis” applies to brands. In this
approach, essence is not a question of “all or nothing”, but a matter of degree. The
Springer
 Table 2 Average ratings of the causal relations between currently perceived and potential new features of Brand X

Currently perceived features Potentially new features

Brand X is: Reliable Caring Friendly Committed Helpful Down-to-earth Honest Joyful Lively Original Modern Expressive

Because Brand X: . . . .
is reliable 0.85 0.77 0.79 0.86 0.74 0.85 0.51 0.35 0.59 0.67 0.39
is caring 0.77 0.72 0.68 0.76 0.51 0.67 0.36 0.27 0.46 0.56 0.30
is friendly 0.34 0.43 0.40 0.39 0.33 0.37 0.49 0.28 0.27 0.34 0.26
is committed 0.52 0.58 0.54 0.58 0.47 0.50 0.31 0.23 0.38 0.43 0.26
Market Lett (2006) 17:181–192

is helpful 0.73 0.76 0.67 0.56 0.50 0.62 0.40 0.37 0.44 0.46 0.22
is down-to-earth 0.31 0.37 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.40 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.19 0.12
is honest 0.70 0.59 0.53 0.68 0.57 0.61 0.39 0.37 0.44 0.42 0.32

is joyful 0.05 0.05 0.18 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.25 0.09 0.15 0.19
is lively 0.11 0.08 0.22 0.13 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.28 0.14 0.17 0.23
is original 0.09 0.15 0.21 0.15 0.18 0.27 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.28
is modern 0.24 0.15 0.22 0.27 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.27 0.24 0.25 0.20
is expressive −0.02 0.04 0.06 0.00 −0.02 −0.02 0.02 0.18 0.16 0.02 0.08

Respondents indicated whether they agreed with the proposed cause-effect relations (score ‘1’), whether they thought there was no relation between the two (score ‘0’) or believed
that the proposed cause prevented the proposed consequence from occurring (score ‘−1’). The numbers in this table provide the averages of these scores across respondents.
Scores of 0.08 and larger differ significantly from zero (t-test, two-sided, α = .05). Values in italics represent potential new features for Brand X.

Springer
189
190 Market Lett (2006) 17:181–192

Fig. 1 The most dominant perceptions of causation among the features of Brand X

method proposed in this study makes it possible to establish whether one feature is
more essential than the other. It makes it possible to map the whole underlying pattern
of causal relations. This detailed information about why one feature is more essen-
tial than the other is very useful for purposes of brand positioning. In this sense our
method adds to methods for measuring brand meaning, like the Hierarchical Catego-
rization Method (HCAT) (Oakenfull et al., 2000). HCAT establishes which attributes
are most definitive of the brand, but does not explicitly address the pattern of perceived
causation among the features. Knowledge of this pattern allows marketers not only to
establish brand-specific associations, but also provides insight into how brand-specific
associations moderate the acceptance of brand extensions and modifications, which is
crucial information for sound marketing decisions (Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994).
In the case of Brand X, this detailed information about perception of causation
has made it possible to select “modern” as the feature most suitable for repositioning
it. Additionally, Table 2 offers insight in how “modern” could be embedded in new
advertising campaigns. The top right corner of Table 2 shows the extent to which
respondents agreed with relations suggesting that features not yet incorporated into
the image of the brand were the consequences of the perceived current features of
Brand X. These data offer arguments that can be used to substantiate the new features
in terms of already existing features. For instance, Brand X can be “modern” because
it is perceived as “reliable”—this relation has the highest proportion of agreement in
the top right corner of Table 2 (.67).
An advantage of our survey approach, as opposed to laboratory studies, is that with
this method it is not necessary to propose possible brand extensions, the validity of
whose evaluations is subject to the validity limitations of laboratory research (Klink
and Smith, 2001). Assessments of coherence between existing and potentially new
features can be obtained unobtrusively and incorporated into the design of brand
modifications or extensions without the need of prefabricating a prototype.
Methodologically, this study goes one step further than the original work of Ahn
(1998): The method presented here empirically establishes the pattern of causal asso-
ciations between brand features. This is different to earlier research in the area of cog-
nitive psychology where the causal status hypothesis has been tested by manipulation
of the respondents’ perceptions of the relations between features and subsequently
Springer
Market Lett (2006) 17:181–192 191

assesses the effect of these manipulations (Ahn, 1998; Sloman et al., 1998). Addi-
tionally, our approach tackles an important bottleneck in brand image research, the
assessment of consumers’ knowledge structures (Keller, 2003). Our approach enables
researchers to map the pattern of perceived causal links between brand features. In
this way, management can map consumers’ mental blueprints and let these blueprints
guide their strategic and tactical branding decisions.
Our study suggests several important questions for future research. A disadvantage
of our method is that its execution in the field takes quite some time, and is not suitable
for telephone interviews, because respondents are asked to fill out a complete matrix
of perception of causation. Future research should focus on methods that are able to
provide the same information, with a higher degree of convenience. A second question
for further research concerns the link between the essence of a brand and its distinctive-
ness from competing brands. It is tempting to equate “essence” with “distinctiveness”.
However, distinctive features need not to be the most essential features, and essential
features need not to be the most distinctive. The insurance company mentioned above
might very well distinguish itself with the relatively peripheral feature of “availabil-
ity around the clock” instead of with its more essential feature “friendliness”. Given
the prominence of differentiation in marketing, it seems interesting to investigate this
relation between perceived essence and distinctiveness for brands.
Last but not least, further research should focus on finding evidence that changing
different dimensions actually would alter attitudes in proportion to their dominance as
measured in the manner we described in this paper. Experimental studies could exam-
ine how changing more or less essential features would affect consumer evaluations
of the brand.

5. Conclusion

We develop and illustrate an approach that helps managers and researchers establish
which features form the essence of a brand. This provides a useful point of departure
for brand communications. We apply our method to advise brand management about
the incorporation of additional features in a brand’s positioning. The research method
presented here uses a questionnaire where the potentially new features are randomly
mixed between currently already acknowledged brand features. This avoids the risks
associated with explicitly presented brand modifications that may be evaluated by
consumers in a biased manner.
Our assessment of whether and how envisaged features fit in with consumers’
beliefs about a brand provides detailed insights about the positioning perspectives for
a brand. This provides a clear value added. The case of Brand X illustrates some of the
possibilities: Like many mature brands, Brand X has a group of loyal customers, which
are a strong asset in its marketing strategy. At the same time, the brand seeks to expand
its market share by appealing to new (younger) consumers. Such revitalization should
carefully avoid the danger of alienating or even offending loyal customers (Wansink,
1997). Knowledge about the perceived causal relations among the features facilitates
such an approach. Such knowledge can also be used to create persuasive marketing
communications that capitalize on these causal links, and resonate with consumers.
Thus, our method could provide a first step toward answering Keller’s (1993, 2003)
Springer
192 Market Lett (2006) 17:181–192

question of how to manage the consistency and the coherence of the image of a brand
across different market segments and over longer periods of time.

Acknowledgements The authors thank Ale Smidts for his comments on an earlier version of this paper,
and Tessa van Steekelenburg for her essential contribution to collection of the data

References

Aaker, D.A. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347–356.
Aaker, D.A., & Keller, K.L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54,
27–41.
Ahn, W.-K. (1998). Why are different features central for natural kinds and artifacts? The role of causal
status in determining feature centrality. Cognition, 69, 135–178.
Armstrong, J.S., & Overton, T.S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing
Research, 14, 396–402.
Baltesen, F. (2001). Alle zeepmerken zijn even goed! NRC-Handelsblad, 3 November 2001.
Broniaczyk, S.M., & Alba, J.W. (1994). The importance of the brand in brand extensions. Journal of
Marketing Research, 31, 214–228.
Clement, C.A., & Gentner, D. (1991). Systematicity as a selection constraint in analogical mapping. Cog-
nitive Science, 15, 89–132.
De Chernatony, L. (1999). Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand identity and brand
reputation. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 157–179.
De Chernatony, L. (2001). From Brand vision to Brand Evaluation. Strategically Building and Sustaining
Brands. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Haig, M. (2003). Brand Failures. London: Kogan Page.
Jost, J.T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A.W., & Sulloway, F.J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social
cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of
Marketing, 57, 1–22.
Keller, K.L. (2003). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity. 2nd
edn. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall.
Klink, R.R., & Smith, D.C. (2001). Threats to the external validity of brand extension research. Journal of
Marketing Research, 38, 326–335.
Krishnan, H.S. (1996). Characteristics of memory associations: a consumer-based brand equity perspective.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 389–403.
Michel, G., & Ambler, T. (1999). Establishing brand essence across borders. Journal of Brand Management,
6, 333–345.
Murphy, G.L., & Medin, D.L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review,
92, 289–316.
Oakenfull, G., Blair, E., Gelb, B., & Dacin, P. (2000). Measuring brand meaning. Journal of Advertising
research, September-October, 43–53.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Applied Social Research Methods Series,
vol. 6. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Sloman, S.A., Love, B.C., & Ahn, W.-K. (1998). Feature centrality and conceptual coherence. Cognitive
Science, 22, 189–228.
Slusher, M.P., & Anderson, C.A. (1996). Using causal persuasive arguments to change beliefs and teach
new information: the mediating role of explanation availability and evaluation bias in the acceptance
of knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 110–122.
Wansink, B. (1997). Making old brands new. American Demographics, 19, 53–55.

Springer

View publication stats