You are on page 1of 50

A Study on

The Brand Personality Dimension

SUBMITTED BY

Ajay Pratap Verma (18003)

Ravi Kant Ranjan (18037)

Vineet Singh (18058)

UNDER THE ESTEEMED GUIDANCE OF

Prof. S. Saibaba

Designation: Asst. Professor

SIVA SIVANI INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

SECUNDERABAD

(2009-11)

1
Contents
Chapter 1.Introduction
1.1 Scope of the Study
1.2 Objectives of study
1.3 Practical implications
1.4Selection of brands
1.5 company profile
1.6 Brief Analysis of Industry
1.7 Brief definition of Industry

Trends in the Industry


Market Analysis
1.8 Brief History of Company

History of Adidas
Adidas Operations in India
History of Nike
Nike Operations in India
Adidas Product Portfolio
Nike Product Portfolio
History of the Brands
Brand History Adidas
Brand History of Nike
Indian Footwear Industry
War Between Nike And Adidas
Adidas Competitors
Nike Competitors
SWOT Analysis of Nike and Adidas
Chapter 2. Review of literature
2.1 Brand equity

Brand image
The creation of brand personality
Consumer-brand relationships
Types of relationships
Perspectives on brand personality
2.2 Measuring brand personality

2.3 Role of advertising in creating Brand Personality

2
Chapter 3. Conceptual Study
3.1 Brand personality
Chapter 4. Research Methodology
4.1Research Design
4.2 Methods of data collection

Primary Data
Secondary Data
4.3 Limitations of study
Chapter-5. Data Analysis
5.1 Demographical Analysis
5.2Marital Status wise Analysis of Sample
5.3Age wise Analysis of Sample
5.4Occupation wise Analysis of Sample
5.4Comparative Analysis of Brand’s Characteristic
Sincerity
Excitement
Competent
Sophistication
Ruggedness
Cross tabulation analysis: Respondents perception about Brand personality attributes
of Nike and Adidas
Chapter-6
6.1 Results
6.2Conclusion:

6.3 Questionnaire
References

3
Chapter-1

1.0 Introduction:
This study has investigated the relationship between brand personality and consumer
perception about brand. The conceptual model is based on the hypothesis that brand
personality may nurture specific consumer-brand relationships and that these relationships
may influence the quality of the ties that consumers develop with brands. An instrument
from intimate interpersonal relationships was used to measure consumer-brand relationships.
An analysis conducted on a sample of 100 consumer-brand relationships, involving two
highly known brands of different product categories, gave support to the theory. The research
offers two significant contributions by: 1) Emphasizing the role of consumer-brand
relationship in understanding multi-brand, symbolic consumption and 2) Offering a holistic
perspective in the understanding of brand personality.

1.1Scope of the Study:

With the advent of customer oriented marketing, there is increasing emphasis on the
consumer behaviour. The need of the present study is to conceptualize and empirically
investigate the impact of brand personality on some of the key variables in consumer
behaviour. Brand differentiation is now becoming an important tactic for combating
competition in the hostile marketplace. A viable solution for establishing the distinctiveness
of a brand is through brand personality. Attaching personalities to brands contributes to a
differentiating brand identity, which can make brands more desirable to the consumer. The
present study is proposed to conduct in Hyderabad. It aims to explore the interrelationships
among brand trust, brand affect, and brand loyalty with an emphasis on the predictive role
played by the construct of brand personality.

1.2 Objectives of study:

• To measure Brand Personality of Nike and Adidas

4
• To study the personal, demographic, and rational profile of Nike and Adidas’s
product users

1.3 Practical implications:

The findings will help Nike and Adidas in formulating effective product design, positioning,
and promotion strategies.

1.4 Selection of brands:

Since the focus of the study is on brand personality, we included brands that were dominant
in the market, known to consumers, and that has a distinct image in the market. We did not
include brands that intuitively appear to be obscure or bland in terms of personality. Since
personality perceptions may vary by product and by brand, we chosen to include close
competitors in order to compare the differences in personality. With these factors in
consideration, one pair of brands from the FMCG sector and another pair of brands from the
footwear category were selected for study. Specifically, Nike and Adidas represent the
footwear segment.

1.5 Company Profile at a Glance:

Company Name Adidas Nike

Type Public Public

Industry Clothing and consumer goods Sportswear & Sports


manufacture equipment

Founded 1924 1964

Founders Adolf Dassler William J. “Bill Bowerman,


Philip H. Knight

Headquaters Herzogenaurauch, Germany Washington County, US

Area Served Worldwide Worldwide

5
Key People Herbert Hanier (CEO), Erich Bob McDonald
Stamminger, Igor Landau

Products Footwear, Sportswear, Sports Athletic shoes, Apparel,


equipment, Toiletries etc. Sports equipment,
Accessories

Logo

Net Income (2009) US$ 10.38 Billion US$ 19.2 Billion

Employees 39,600

30,200
Website adidas-group.com nike.com

1.6 Brief Analysis of Industry:

Sport is an integral part of modern contemporary society. Sport has always been associated
with discipline, dedication and perfection and hence sportsmen have always been
respected, across borders, religions and races. Sportsmen, professional or amateur, need
quality gear, specific to their game, to be able to compete better. It is this market that the
two conglomerates, the subjects of our study, cater to. Both these companies started off as
footwear makers for the modern athlete, their innovative designs and technology creating
waves. But now these firms have diversified. They compete on the broader platform of
footwear, apparel, accessories and equipment. Today they are among the worlds top
corporations, with a worldwide presence. Our study will concent rate on the primary
product these two firms make Athletic Footwear.

6
We will compare their Brand personality image among consumers.

1.7 Brief definition of Industry:

Trends in the Industry:

The latest picture of the industry has not been as rosy as it has been earlier. At this stage,
with the big four, Nike, Adidas, Reebok and Puma and the others such as Converse and
New Balance, the industry is experiencing hyper competition. The reasons for this being
that the demand for the products has been decreasing and at the same time, there has been
an increase in the popularity of alternate footwear. This inadvertently has resulted in
decreasing margins and the quest for new markets and innovation to get the profits up
again.
The worries seem to have ended, at least momentarily with the emergence of China,
Turkey, Brazil and Russia as huge untapped markets for their products. Of these, China is
the biggest bet for the big guns. Why? China’s huge middle class is rising and the
country’s ever increasing wealth serve as a classic ingredient for market ignition. Both
Nike and Adidas realized this early and invested heavily in advertising during the2008
Beijing Olympics. Adidas partnered the games and Nike, as always focused on individual
player and team endorsements. The Chinese marker saw huge residual sales after the
Olympics. Nike, for example, saw its sales increase 50 pc in China in2008 on a currency
neutral basis and again a 50 pc increase in sales in Q12009.

Turkey and Russia, similarly, had a25 pc increase in sales in2008 and another30 pc in Q1
2009. Brazil alone had a 30 pc increase in Q1 2009. The opening up of these markets has
provided respite to the industry and they are making good us e of it. Already most of these
firms use South Asia as their manufacturing base, to make use of the cheaper labor, in
particular. Now they have a greater incentive to move to South Asia as their market seems
to be shifting here too.

MARKET ANALYSIS:

India has a large market for footwear and the brand loyalty is also growing. India is ranked
the 4th largest economy by GDP (in purchasing power parity term) and is expected to rank
3rd during 2010, just being behind USA & China in footwear industry both production and
consumption. India’s GDP for footwear grew at the rate of9.4% for the year 2008 -2009 the
country’s GDP stood at Rs 54 lakh crore, translating into a per capita income of Rs 48,450,
thus resulting in a compounded annual per capita income growth rate of9.25 per cent during
1951-2009.
If we analyze the consumption pattern of 70 different economies and segment them into
low-income, middle-income and high-income brackets, we will observe that consumer
spending on food, beverages and clothing & footwear account for 47 per cent,34 per cent
and22 per cent of their total consumer expenditures, respectively
7
India is standing on the threshold of a retail revolution and witnessing fast changing retail
landscape, with footwear market is set to experience phenomenal growth.
India is the major source for supplying medium and low priced footwear and most of the
manufacturers, who have outsourced their production to China, are planning to outsource it
to India. Some of the footwear industry who has turned to India are Adidas, Nike and
Puma.

1.8 Brief History of Company

History of Adidas
Adidas was formally registered on 18 August 1949 as Adidas AG, by Adolf Adi Dassler,
whose name formed the company’s title. Adolf Dassler was born in Bavaria and started
making sports shoes in his mother’s kitchen after he returned from World War 1. He was
joined in 1924 by his brother Rudolf Dassler and using their mother’s laundry as their
manufacturing base, they began operations. Famously, during the 1936 Olympics, Adi
Dassler drove to Munich and persuaded Olympic gold medal list Jesse Owens to wear his
shoes which established his reputation among the sporting world and gave him lots of
contracts and financial success.
After the Second World War, though, the brothers split up and Rudolf Dassler went on to
form his own company, which later became Puma. After the death of Horst Dassler,
Adolf’s son, the company went through some troubled times. It was then bought by French
industrialist Bernard Tapie and subsequently by Robert Louis-Dreyfus. In2001 Herbert
Hainer took over as CEO of Adidas and has been leading the conglomerate ever since. A
long line of innovative products and successes later, Adidas is one of the world’s largest
corporate, with a product line to envy and worth millions of dollars. The trademark three
stripes and the slogan ‘Impossible is Nothing’ are Adidas’ identity, an image it spends a
fortune to uphold. In2005 Adidas acquired British giant Reebok to further strengthen its
market and customer base.

Adidas Operations in India:

Though Adidas entered into a license agreement with Bata in 1989, it formally began
operations only in 1996 with the establishment nt of Adidas India Marketing Private
Limited. In 1998 Adidas pulled a masterstroke, they roped in Sachin Tendulkar as their
brand ambassador which proved a sound business decision. In 1999, keeping in mind the
price conscious Indian consumer, Adidas launched its cheapest ever shoes in India. In2004,
Adidas India launched the advantage Addidas campaign, which increased sales by30%. In
2005, Andreas Gellner took over as Managing Director for Adidas India. Adidas sees India
as a huge growth market and according to Gellner, Adidas will invest huge sums to take on
its competitors here.

History of Nike:

8
Bill Bowerman and Philip Knight started the company we know today as Nike in 1962. It
was originally known as Blue Ribbon Sports. Bowerman was Knight’s track and field
coach at the University of Oregon. Philip Knight went on to study at Stanford where he
published a paper on ending the German domination in the athletic footwear industry. He
travelled to Japan and entered into an agreement with the Onitsuka Tiger Company and
became their sole distributor in the US. Bowerman and Knight received their first shipment
of200 shoes and sold them at local meets to make a good profit. Bowerman, who had
earlier designed shoes for his athletes, joined hands with Tiger to make the famous Tiger
Cortez shoes, which became worldwide bestsellers and launched the business. In 1971,
Knight and Bowerman began to make their own shoes under the brand name of Nike,
named after the Greek goddess of victory and bearing the Nike swoosh, which is one of the
companys biggest strengths today. In 1972, Blue Ribbon Sports parted ways with
Onitsuka Tiger and became Nike Inc.
Today Nike is the world leader in athletic footwear, with market shares exceeding the other
major players by significant margins. The Swoosh and Just Do It slogan are huge brand
identities. Nike is a truly global player and seen as a model for innovation driven growth.

Nike Operations in India:

Nike has been present in India for over a decade through its seven year license agreement
with Sierra enterprises, which didn’t help much in the bigger scheme of things as Reebok
and Adidas came to the country with fully owned subsidiaries. This explains why the
global market leader is still lagging behind in India. In2004, instead of renewing its
franchise, it became a subsidiary and started operating with more freedom and capital. The
result was that the market share rose and Nike became a force to contend with in the Indian
market. Probably the biggest sign of the change in guard was the heavy investment in
Cricket by Nike, culminating in its bagging of the Indian cricket team’s jersey rights, worth
Rs200 Crores. Nike then launched its special range of cricket shoes and sponsored the
Indian football team as well. Though Nike has entered the market in earnest very late, the
world no.1 will stop at nothing to gain lost momentum in the Indian subcontinent.

Flagship Products, Major Product Lines and Recent Forays

Adidas Product Portfolio:

Adidas manufactures running shoes under its adiStar and Supernova brands, which include
the adistar Ride, the adiStar Control 5, the Supernova Sequence and the Supernova Glide.
The famous Copa Mundial football boot is Adidass premier football boot, which later
developed into the Predator range. For basketball, Adidas is most famous for its Superstar
and Pro Model shoes. Beside these Adidas makes jerseys for national and domestic cricket,
football, rugby, and tennis and lacrosse players with a separate line for gymnasts.
Adidas has recently entered the sports lifestyle market, following on the heels of Puma and
Reebok and has launched watches, eyewear and most recently, deodorants, aftershaves,
perfumes and lotions.

9
Copal Mundial

Nike Product Portfolio:


Nike’s first products were track running shoes which came under the name Nike Air Max,
followed recently by the Nike 6.0, Nike Nyx and the Nike SB skateboarding shoes.
Recently, Nike launched special cricket shoes for bowlers and batsmen called the Nike Air
Zoom Yorker and the Air Zoom Opener. But its bestselling line still remains the legendary
Air Jordan basketball shoes, named after Michael Jordan. Air Jordan still contributes more
than 30% of Nike’s shoe sales.
Like Adidas, Nike too entered the sports apparel and equipment market and makes jerseys
and specialist apparel for various sports. Recently Nike teamed up with Apple to launch the
Nike+ range, which can monitor a runner’s performance through a radio device linked to
Apple’s ipod.

10
But Nike’s most recent product is the one making waves across the sports world. Called the
Lunar Glide, Nike is using Flywire (A thread developed by Nike, composed of Vectran, a
liquid crystal polymer) and Lunarlite Foam to make the world’s lightest shoes. Advertised
using the slogan “Actually, it is Rocket Science”, it reiterates Nike’s commitment to
technology.

Solle Collector

History of the Brands:

Brand History Adidas:


The company’s clothing and shoe logo bear the trademark three stripes, which is the
company’s corporate logo. Adidas also has a trefoil sign that it uses only on heritage
products since 1972. The three stripes logo represents performance and the future of the
Adidas Branding identity. It has become synonymous with Adidas and its dedication to
producing high quality athletic product s to make athletes perform better.
When Adidas entered the marketplace some 50 years ago, its focus was to produce shoes
crafted specifically for soccer and running.
The new millennium has since brought about an Adidas renaissance; the brand has steadily
regained market share over the past five years to become the world's number two athletic
shoe company (behind Nike). How did it go about repositioning to once again be among
the coolest of kicks?

11
Adidas claims that, "the brand values of the company’s authenticity, inspiration, honesty
and commitment are derived from sport." Historically, this sensibility was demonstrated
through early and continued involvement with Olympic athletes, as well as active
sponsorship of major global sporting events like the World Cup. Adidas’s rapid growth in
Asia, where revenue rose by 15 percent to US$878M last year, may be further propelled in
Japan and Korea when those two nations host the World Cup this year s an event which is
expected to garner2.5M spectators and o ne billion TV viewers worldwide.
However, the key to revitalized success seems to lie in the considerable endorsement deals
Adidas has developed with world class athletes. Recent sports figures representing Adidas
don’t only score high marks in their game s they also score high in their celebrity quotient.
British football star David Beckham’s relationship with Adidas has no doubt lent itself well
to the brands visibility in the UK. Recently dubbed "Captain of England," Beckham led
his team to victory in the2000 FIFA World Cup. With Europe as Adidas’s largest market,
exposure like this reflects in the numbers; sales grew seven percent to US$2.7 billion, last
year.
Reinvention was the key, not only for the Adidass marketing strategy, but also for its
product line. Eclectic, individual, 'no-rules' sports such as snowboarding, inline skating and
surfing have grown into significant categories. Activities such as golf, hiking and mountain
biking, which were seen as lifestyle and leisure activities, are now part of mainstream
sports. Increased product offerings in these categories have undoubtedly contributed to a
better score for the brand.
To keep up with the competition, Adidas generates close to 60 new foot-friendly designs

To keep up with the competition, Adidas generates close to 60 new foot-friendly designs
each year. The Adidas credo is to regard shoes as feet, resulting in a product with superior
fit and performance capabilities. Tactics have been revised in getting these products out for
consumption. As a result, products have been repositioned in higher-end and sports
specialty stores.
In2002 Adidas footwear innovation, ClimaCool TM, made its debut. The new technology
added breathable materials to the shoe. In July, the Group completed its three-divisional
structure for its sore brand, Adidas, and positioned its third division as Adidas Sports
Styles.
In2004 ‘Impossible is nothing’ became the central message of a global campaign that
Adidas launched. It refers to the shared attitude with the athletes, of always pushing
yourself further, to beat the limits. In September, Adidas & designer Stella McCartney
announced their partnership, introducing the Adidas by Stella McCartney collection.
On January2006, Adidas announced the acquisition of Reebok LTD. By combining two of
the most respected and well-known brands in the worldwide sporting goods industry, the
new Group will benefit from a more competitive worldwide platform, well-defined and
complementary brand identities, a wider range of products, and a stronger presence across
teams, athletes, events and leagues.
Adidas continues to prove itself as a brand built to last through a game plan of reinvention.
With the recent acquisition of a lifetime partnership with Orlando Magic's Tracy McGrady
12
(basketball) and its heavy involvement with200 2 World Cup, it continues to strike savvy
deals that capitalize on the star power of young athletes and increase its visibility in the
marketplace.
It appears that team Adidas has honed its strategy to become a revitalized contender in
today’s competitive sporting goods market and is now duly recognized as the sneaker of
yesterday and today
Brand History of Nike:
Nike positions itself as the market leader of sports footwear and uses the greatest athletes
and the record of their achievements in advertising. The swoosh logo was developed by
Carolyn Davidson in 1971. Together with the Just Do It slogan, the Swoosh logo perfectly
expresses the brand and its philosophy. It expresses a high ambition and a will for victory,
which is a part of Nike’s brand image and corporate culture.
It was only36 years ago that we had a world without Nike, and in that period Nike has gone
from the brash newcomer, to the number one mass-market leader. The Nike story begins
with the meeting of its co-founders at the University of Oregon. It was here that middle-

Distance-running business student Phil Knight fell under the tutelage of the college
athletics coach, Bill Bowerman. Nike would go on to grow out of the fusion of Bawerman's
sporting innovation and Knight's marketing know-how.
Even at a very early stage it seemed that Knight had a far-reaching goal, to break the long-
established brand nomination of the U.S. marketed by the then main player, Adidas.
In order to achieve this aim, legend has it that Knight and Bowerman each put in $550 to
cement their partnership, and decided to call their new company Blue Ribbon Sports
(BRS).
BRS was basically the American distributor of Onitsuka training shoes.
In 1965, after a period of selling Onitsuka shoes from the back of their van at athletic
meets, the company grew.
The company went from strength to strength, but after heated disagreements between BRS
and Onitsuka, the new boss at BRS decided to split from Tiger in 1971 and create their
own company manufacturing their own shoes. It is said that Jeff Johnson came with the
idea for the new name, deciding to honour the Greek goddess of victory, and thus Nike was
born.
It was also at this that the fledgling company had to decide on a logo for the brand, and
another of the legends that the company managed to create for itself was developed.
Nike took off virtually instantly in the United States, and within a year company sales were
at almost2 million pairs. In 1981 Nike decided to take another major step, with the U.K.
becoming the company's first wholly owned foreign distributorship.
However it was in 1985 that Nike really became a major player. It was in this year that it
managed to persuade the then little known Chicago Bulls basketball rookie Michael Jordan
to endorse his own range of shoes. Even Nike could not have imagined the effect that this
single act would have on sales. The new Jordan endorsed range transported Nike and
trainers in general to a completely new lever of popularity It was after the introduction of
13
the Jordan shoes and mass-marketing that went with them that the "trainer wars" got
underway. Each of the brands, desperate to stay one step ahead of the competition, came up
with a continuous stream of developments and inventions of technical wizardry. For a
while in the late 1980's Reebok actually overtook Nike to become the number one player
(at least in terms of sales), but Nike came back strongly with its 'just do it' slogan in 1988,
and regained the top spot in terms of market sales- a position they retain to the present day.
In2006, Nike entered the cricket market with a 5-year sponsorship of the Indian cricket
team for US$43m. Nike and Apple released the Nike+iPod sports kit, enabling runners to
log and monitor their runs via iTunes and the Nike+ website.
In2008, Nike introduced shoes featuring new Flywire and Lunarlit e Foam materials.
Flywire is a new technology made up of thin wires of vectran fibers, which are 5 times

stronger than steel and never lose strength. Lunar Foam is a material developed by NASA
that gives the shoe excellent shock absorption and a great feel with minimal weight.
Back in 1971, the newly created Nike Company was ready to hit the market with its shoes,
and a logo to represent the brand was urgently needed.
Phil Knight turned to an associate from his teaching life and commissioned graphic-design
student Carolyn Davison to work with his new brand. Knight wanted a design that would
represent movement. Davidson supplied Knight with a few designs one of which was the
initial 'Swoosh' so well known today. Knight was not particular enamoured with any of
these designs, but with deadlines to meet the Swoosh was chosen
Even though Davidson was initially paid only $35 for her design, the story doesn't end
there.
In 1983, Knight took Davidson out for lunch and presented her with a diamond-encrusted
Nike ring, and also an envelope. The envelope contained Nike Stock.
Nike has continuously pushed back the boundaries of trainer design, staying focused under
Phil Knight's guidance, and is going to take some dislodging.

Indian Footwear Industry:

FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY:

• The Footwear Industry is a significant segment of the Leather Industry in India.

• India ranks second among the footwear producing countries next to China.

• India produces more of gents footwear while the worlds major production is in
ladies footwear.

• The industry is labour intensive and is concentrated in the small and cottage
industry sectors. While leather shoes and uppers are concentrated in large scale
units, the sandals and chappals are produced in the household and cottage sector.

14
• The major production centres India are Chennai, Ranipet, Ambur in Tamil Nadu,
Mumbai in Maharastra, and Kanpur in U.P. Jalandhar in Punjab, Agra and Delhi.
The following table indicates concentration of units in various parts of the country:

15
WAR BETWEEN NIKE AND ADIDAS:

The problem for Adidas is that, while it's staked out its turf as an official sportswear
partner, Nike has more top athletes. They include Swiss tennis ace Roger Federer and
Australian track star Craig Mottram, along with old standby basketball legends Kobe
Bryant and LeBron James. But Nikes athletes aren’t guaranteed to win games, there is
always a risk element associated with their performance.
Nike has signed up22 of China's28 s sports federations to outfit most of its athletes. The
deal is just one of 40 that Nike signed with various national federations, including the U.S,
Germany and Russia, ensuring that team members will be decked out in Nike gear during
play regardless of where they have their individual endorsements. So for many of3,000
athletes in the Adidas stable who will compete in Beijing, donning the three stripes will be
limited to the medal stand. During play, they'll be in Nike gear.

Nike’s Competitors:

NIKE is one of the most successful manufacturers of athletic footwear, competing with
Reebok, L.A. Gear and Adidas, as well as with manufacturers of casual footwear. Nike is
the world’s No.1 manufacturer and marketer of athletic footwear. Nike stands for success,
excellence, high performance, fame etc.

• Adidas

• Reebok

• Woodland

• Red tape

• Bata
• Liberty

• Puma

Nike is the official kit sponsor for the Indian cricket team for 5 years. Nike beat Adidas
and Puma by bidding highest, US $ 43 million.

Adidas Competitors:

The chief competitors of adidas are PUMA and Nike. In August2005, the company
announced that it had made a deal to acquire rival Reebok for $3.8 billion. The acquisition
would increase its market share and to establish a stronger foothold in the Sports Industry.

16
This merger is indeed a success which has achieved significant sales growth. Merger of
Adidas & Reebok complement each other in competing with their competitors, Nike; and is

more cost efficient and beneficiary to both brands with Reeboks strong presence in US
market and the global recognition of Adidas.

• Nike

• Red tape

• Bata

• Liberty

• Puma

New balance

New balance of Nike


Nike enjoys a 47% market share of the domestic footwear industry, with sales of $3.77
billion. Nike has been manufacturing throughout the Asian region for over twenty-five
years, and there are over 500,000 people today directly engaged in the production of their
products. They utilize an outsourcing strategy, using only subcontractors throughout the
globe. Their majority of their output today is produced in factories in China, Indonesia, and
Vietnam, but they also have factories in Italy, the Philippines, Taiwan, and South Korea.
These factories are 100% owned by subcontractors, with the majority of their output
consisting solely of Nike products.

Strengths of Nike:

• Nike is a very competitive organization

• Nike has no factories. It does not tie up cash in buildings and manufacturing
workers. This makes a very lean organization
• Nike is strong at research and development

• Nike is a global brand. It is the number one sports brand in the World.

• Product Range

• Capacity for innovation

• Distribution expertise

• Single Brand

• Stars endorsement

17
• Contract manufacturing

• Large portfolio of products

Weaknesses of Nike:
• The organization does have a diversified range of sports products. However, the
income of the business is still heavily dependent upon its share of the footwear
market.
• The retail sector is very price sensitive. Nike does have its own retailer in Nike
Town.

• Single Brand

• Too many stars endorsement

• Contract manufacturing

• Spread portfolio of products

• Reliant on retailers

• Reduction of target market

New Balance of Adidas:

Adidas is the main competitor for Nike. Adidas currently enjoying the fastest growth of
any brand domestically, with a market share of 6% and revenues of $500 million. They
have been shielded from bad publicity by the two Goliath’s of the industry, Nike and
Reebok, and are reaping the rewards substantially. They have adjusted their manufacturing
strategy, from a vertical operation in Germany in the 60’s and 70’s, to an outsourcing focus
today throughout Asia. Unlike the big two, they do not have a code of conduct, and their
factories are considered to be the worst in the industry. It is just a matter of time before
they are exposed, with an underground swelling of negativity already occurring today. In
order to avoid the negative effects and lost revenues that Nike and Reebok have received,
they need to immediately begin to take a proactive stance in regards to the working
conditions of their factories.

18
5.1 SWOT Analysis-

Parameters Adidas Nike

Strengths Strong management team and Nike is a globally recognized


good corporate strategy for being the number one
sportswear brand in the
Brand recognition and World.
reputation
They manufacture high
Diversity and variety in quality at the lowest possible
products offered price, if prices rise due to
Strong control over its own price hike then the
distribution channel production process is made
cheaper by changing the
Innovative designs in place of production.
footwear enabling consumers It uses lunarlite foam and fly
to design their own shoes wire materials in order to
online make the manufactured shoes
lighter and more
Weaknesses Negative image portrayed by In spite of having diversified
poor working conditions in range of sports products, the
its overseas factories income of the business is still
heavily dependent upon its
The direct sale to consumers footwear market.
is creating conflicts with its
own resellers
Online customer service not Constant focal point for
"helpful" or easy to find negative criticism by the
anti-globalization groups.

19
Opportunity New technology and There is opportunity to
innovation to stay on top of develop fashion products.
market needs
There is also the opportunity
Possibility of outsourcing the
web development and e- to develop products such as
commerce to a third party sport wear, sunglasses and
developer jewellery. Such high value
items do tend to have
E-commerce will reduce the associated with them, high
cost of goods sold thus profits.
improving the "bottom line" Global marketing strategy for
emerging countries like India
Collaborate with other online and China.
retailers to offer Adidas
products.

Threats Negative image due to Nike is exposed to the


"sweatshops" international nature of trade.
It buys and sells in different
Economic downturn in North currencies and so costs and
America and Asian Countries margins are not stable over
long periods of time.

Increase in the price of The market for sports shoes


providing technological and garments is very
solutions (e-commerce) competitive. Competitors are
developing alternative brands
Continuing challenges in to take away Nike's market
import/export duties share.
The retail sector is becoming
Nike's strong reputation in price competitive. This
the footwear and apparel ultimately means that
industry consumer price sensitivity is
a potential external threat to
Threats to free trade and Nike.
foreign currency fluctuations

20
Chapter-2
2.0 Review of literature:

2.1 Brand equity:

The concept of brand equity appeared in the eighties and several definitions were proposed
(Aaker 1991; Dyson et al. 1996; Kapferer 1995; Keller 1993). One of the first definitions of
brand equity was given by the Marketing Science Institute (MSI) in 1988: ‘a set of
associations and behaviour of a brand’s consumers, of channels of distribution and the
company of the brand, which allows the branded product to achieve volume and profit
margins more important than without the brand’s name, and which gives them a sustained,
strong and differentiated advantage regarding competitors’. Beside purely financial
approaches, studies on brand equity have followed two different directions:
1. Consequences of brand equity: revealed by the preferences (Park and Srinivasan 1994) or
choice (Kamakura and Russel 1993) of the consumer. Park and Srinivasan (1994) measure
brand equity as the ‘difference for the consumer between overall preference for the branded
product and the preference due to objective features of the product’.
2. Antecedents of brand equity: a set of strong, positive and unique associations to the brand
(Aaker 1991; Keller 1993). Our study will focus on the second approach. Brand associations
in the consumer’s mind form the perceptual dimension of brand equity (Changeur 1998), in
opposition to the behavioural dimension. The literature generally divides the perceptual
dimension of brand equity into two components: brand awareness and brand image (Aaker
1991; Aaker and Keller 1990; Biel 1992; Keller 1993). The first component deals with the
presence of the brand in the mind of the consumer (brand recognition and recall). Brand
awareness or the attention accorded to the brand refers to the likelihood that the brand’s
name comes to mind for the consumer (Keller 1993). It is composed of brand recognition
(ability of the consumer to confirm a previous exposure to the brand) and brand recall or
memorization (which asks the consumer to remember correctly brands and their attributes).
The effects of website exposure on brand awareness will not be analysed in this paper.
Instead, we will focus on the effects of exposure on brand image.

Brand image:

This second component of brand equity is defined as ‘perceptions about a brand as reflected
by the brand associations held in consumer memory’ (Keller 1993). Aaker (1991) defines ten
dimensions of brand image, namely product attributes, intangible features, consumer
benefits, relative price, places, moments and forms of utilization, buyers and consumers,
stars and characters attached to the brand, brand personality, product category and
competitors. Keller (1993) theorizes that the quality of a brand’s image depends on the
favourable or unfavourable nature of that brand’s associations, their uniqueness, their
strength, their cohesion and their level of abstraction. These associations constitute in the
consumer’s mind the value of the brand. Keller (1993) classifies associations in three groups:
brand attributes benefits and attitudes. Brand attributes include at the same time intrinsic
indicators (factors connected to the product) and extrinsic indicators (factors not related to
the product, such as advertising investments, price, etc.). Benefits are also classified into
three types: functional, experiential and symbolic benefits. Plummer (2000) considers that

21
brand image is composed of three dimensions: product attributes, consumer benefits and
brand personality. ‘Product attributes such as “miles per gallon” or “strong flavour”, and the
consumer benefits such as “saves money” or “don’t have to wash hair so frequently”
represent the means that can be used to achieve the desired ends’ [which are the personal
values] (Aaker 1991: 145).
Plummer (2000) argues that brand personality is a determining element in the comprehension
of consumer choice. For Kapferer (1995), it is preferable to use the concept of brand identity
instead of brand image, because the second one is too ‘volatile and changeable: it worries too
much about the appearing and not enough about the being of the brand’. He represents brand
identity by a prism of six sides: physique, culture, relation, reflection, state of mind and
brand personality. ‘The brand, when it communicates, acquires a character. The way of
speaking about the products or services evokes a certain type of character, which it could
incarnate if we would compare a brand to a person.’

The creation of brand personality:

Brand personality traits are formed and influenced by any direct or indirect contact that the
consumer has with a brand. A brand, unlike a person, cannot think, feel or act. A brand has
no objective existence at all; it is simply a collection of perceptions in the mind of the
consumer. Consumers accept the marketing actions to humanize brands. One explanation for
this can be found in the theories of animism, which suggest that there exists need by people
to anthropomorphize objects in order to facilitate interactions with the nonmaterial world
(Fournier, 1998). Anthropomorphization occurs when human qualities are attributed to
nonhuman objects, e.g. brands. Consumers easily assign personality qualities to inanimate
objects like brands in thinking about brands as if they are human characters (Blackston,
1993; Fournier, 1998; J. Aaker, 1997). In a direct way, personality traits are associated with a
brand by the people associated to that brand (J. Aaker, 1997). One direct way to form and
influence brand personality is user imagery. User imagery is defined as the set of human
characteristics associated with the typical or stereotype user of the brand. Associations with
the company’s employees or CEO, and the brand’s product endorsers are also direct ways by
which brand personality traits are formed and influenced. The personality traits of the people
associated with a brand are transferred directly to the brand. The theories of animism
describe another process mechanism that directly explains the specific ways in which the
vitality of the brand can be realized (Fournier, 1998). Spokespersons that are used in
advertising can have personalities that fit those of the brands they advertise. Over time, the
personalities of the spokespersons are transmitted to the brand. The brand-person
associations can also have a more personal nature. Brands can be associated with persons
who use or used that particular brand, for example a close friend or a family member. Also,
brands received as gifts can also be associated with the person from whom the gift was
received. These person associations serve to animate the brand as a vital entity in the minds
of the consumers. Obviously, this aspect is much less under the control of marketers.
Indirectly, the brand personality is created by all the elements of the marketing mix. Betra,
Lehmann and Singh (1993) suggest that the personality of a brand is created over time, by
the entire marketing mix of the brand – “its price (high or low, odd or even), retail store
location (imagery associations), product formulation (ingredients, benefits), product form
(solid/liquid, etc.), packaging details (colour, size, material, shape), symbol used in all phases
of the brand communication, sales promotion, and media advertising”. Another form of
22
animism explains how brand personality is created in a more indirect way. This form of
animism involves complete anthropomorphization of the brand object itself. Human qualities
of emotionality and thought are transferred to the brand. This is achieved with the help of the
marketing actions, especially advertising. For example, the brand character of M&M in the
M&M commercials has the capacity to laugh and joke. One of the advantages of brand a
personality is that based on their distinctive personalities, consumers are able to differentiate
between brands. Another advantage is that the consumer can interpret the brand’s image in
such a way that it is personally more meaningful. Brand personality encourages more active
processing on the part of the consumer. Thus, the consumer puts more effort in creating and
using the brand personality. A further advantage of brand personality is that life is given to a
brand. By vitalizing a brand, another perspective of brand personality can be examined,
namely the role of a brand as a relationship partner in a consumer-brand relationship. Next
we will concentrate on these consumer-brand relationships.

Consumer-brand relationships:

The theories of animism suggest that anthropomorphizing objects facilitates interactions with
the nonmaterial world. By assigning human qualities to inanimate products, by giving brands
personalities, the vitality of a brand is realized. By vitalizing a brand another perspective of
brand personality can be examined, namely the role of a brand as a relationship partner in
consumer-brand relationships. A consumer-brand relationship can be compared with an
interpersonal relationship, where the brand personality indicates the type of person the brand
is. People have different motives to engage in relationships. The motivation behind the
relationships is driven by the needs that individuals want to satisfy. The most used and well-
known classification of needs in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: physiological needs, safety
needs, social needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization needs. Fournier (1998) states that 12
relationships are “purposive, involving at their core the provision of meaning to the persons
who engage them”. Three important sources of meaning are identified that explain the
significance of the relationship for the person involved; the functional meanings, the
psychological/emotional, and the sociocultural meanings (Fournier, 1998). Consumer- brand
relationships provide a practical or functional meaning to the consumer (Franzen &
Bouwman, 1999). In this case the brand is used for its functional benefits. For example, the
functional benefit of the pasta brand Barilla is to still the hunger. Over time, using the same
brand can become a question of habit and convenience. The psychological/emotional
meanings of a relationship are highly related to the activity around the identity of a person.
Because the sense of ‘self’ grows of reactions of significant others (the relationship partner),
people engage in relationships to define the ‘self’. Consumers look for brand meanings that
help to construct the ‘self’. This is most commonly done by brands representing ideal
personalities, or alternative reflecting one’s own individual identity. Following the same line
of reasoning we propose:
Proposition 1: In consumer-brand relationships, consumers search for brands that have
personalities that are similar to their own, or personalities that represent the ideal
personalities, in psychological/emotional terms
People are constantly constructing and reconstructing their self-identity (McCracken, 1993).
In a consumer-brand relationship the consumers choose brands that help the individual
reconstruct the ‘self’, where the brand personality is used to make the identity change.
Hence, relationships also help the individual to change the ‘self’.
23
Consumer-brand relationships also help the individual to maintain the self-identity.
Consumers will engage in relationships with brands that have similar personalities to their
own. A long-term relationship with that particular brand makes sure that the self-identity is
maintained.
Consumer-brand relationships also provide a link to the past (Fournier, 1998). A consumer
has a relationship with a particular brand, for example because the brand was a present
received in the past, or because that brand brings up memories from childhood. Another type
of meaning that consumer-brand relationships provide is sociocultural of nature. There are
five broad sociocultural contexts that describe relationship attitudes and behaviours;
age/cohort, life cycle, gender, family/social network, and culture (Fournier, 1998). Here, the
13 brand personalities communicate these sociocultural contexts to the consumer. Related to
the sociocultural meanings of the consumer-brand relationships we suggest.

Proposition 2: Consumers engage in relationships with brands that represent their age,
stage in life cycle, gender, social network, and culture.

Thus, while the psychological/ emotional need is to construct, reconstruct and maintain the
self-identity, the sociocultural need is to communicate to others the self-identity.

Types of relationships:

Just like with human relationships, consumer-brand relationships are based on attraction, but
the ability of a relationship to endure is a function of investment and commitment by the
consumer (Fajer & Schouten, 1995). The level of investment and commitment in
consumerbrand relationships is represented by the level of consumer brand loyalty.
Consumer-brand relationships can be ordered based on purchase behaviour and their
interpersonal analogs, the level of brand loyalty (Fajer & Schouten, 1995). Accordingly,
consumer-brand relationship can range from low-order relationships, where the level of
consumer brand loyalty is low, to higher-order relationships, where the level of consumer
brand loyalty is high.

Proposition 3: More investment in consumer-brand relationships leads to greater loyalty.

Information about the type of relationship (based on the level of brand loyalty) consumer
have with brands is extremely valuable for marketers. Marketers know the levels of brand
loyalty of their target market, and by using their marketing tools they can try to improve the
level of brand loyalty for consumers that have low-order relationships with brands.

Perspectives on brand personality:

Aaker (1997) defined brand personality as the set of human characteristics that consumers
associate with a brand. In this manner, attention to the emotional and symbolic, pseudo
human personality aspects of a brand provides a consumer with additional reasons beyond
utilitarian or functional characteristics, to connect with a brand (Keller, 1998). Aaker’s
framework represented an adaptation of the “Big Five” personality model, prominent in
psychological research.

24
Evidence suggests that brands do indeed possess personalities. Critically, to the extent that
brands develop unique personalities, they can be differentiated in the consumers’ minds and
accordingly choice preferences can be affected (Freling and Forbes, 2005; Crask and Laskey,
1990).McCracken (1986) even suggested that consumers might search for brands with a
personality that coincides with and reinforces the self-concept they wish to project, offering
additional considerations for the impact of the brand personality concept.
The conceptual linkages relevant to brand personality include self-congruity theory (Sirgy,
1982; Graeff, 1996).
Self-congruity theory holds that consumers compare their self-concept with the image that a
brand projects, and in turn, prefer brands that are consistent with their self-concept.
Studies have found support that consumers choose products and services that they feel
possess personalities that are similar to (congruent with) their own personalities (Linville and
Carlston, 1994; Phau and Lau, 2001). Consistent with this line of reasoning, consumers
prefer brands that are similar to the consumer’s personality. Arguments suggest that when
consumers use self-congruent brands, it can be an expression of their personal identity
(Kumar et al., 2006). Indeed, as
Belk (1988) has suggested, products may be a means of self expression. As such, brand
personality helps to develop an emotional loyalty among consumers. Freling and Forbes
(2005) found support that brand personality positively affects product evaluations and
purchase intentions. Since brand personality appears to be less imitable than other product
attributes, the dimension of brand personality may yield a more sustainable competitive
advantage.

2.2 Measuring brand personality:

Most studies have attempted to extend Aaker’s original work by exploring new areas of
market application. These studies, with few exceptions, have begun with Aaker’s brand
personality framework and scale and offered unique variations that were drawn from a
particular market context. For example, Smith et al. (2006) utilized Aaker’s framework but
found that it did not fully capture the characteristics of am membership-based sports
organization. Consequently, they added the dimension of “innovation” to the original five
dimensions suggested by Aaker. Many uncertainties remain. Some researchers have
suggested that consumers’ interactions with brands are simply too complex to be captured
fully by Aaker’s frame work (Smith et al., 2006). Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) have argued
that Aaker’s scale, as well as other scales of brand personality, merge a number of
dimensions of brand identity rather than specifically measure brand personality. They
contend that the effect is conceptual confusion in branding research and limitation in
branding applications. A few studies have attempted to explore brand personality without a
priori acceptance of Aaker’s framework. For example, Venable et al. (2005) explored the
impact of brand personality on charitable giving in a non profit context.
These authors conducted a series of mixed method studies (focus groups, qualitative
assessment, and subsequent empirical analysis) and concluded that integrity, nurturance,
sophistication, and ruggedness were the four key dimensions of brand personality for non
profit organizations. While accepting the importance of Aaker’s work, Austin et al. (2003)
question the generalize ability of Aaker’s framework. Freling and Forbes (2005) argue that
advancements in the study of brand personality have been restricted by “limited theoretical
or qualitative grounding.”
25
Being intrigued by and theoretically compelled by these observations and conclusions,
studies must investigate brand personality and offer validation of Aaker’s framework,
without the obvious bias of the a priori use of the framework as the basis for analysis.

2.3 Role of advertising in creating Brand Personality:


Human beings have a personality, which is essentially a summation of traits. Brand
personality can be defined in several ways, with emphasis on emotion, human and tangible
aspects of the brand. It can also be defined as sum of the tangible and intangible aspects of
the brand. Even for industrial product like steel, SAIL uses emotional connect with 'punch
line' there is bit of SAIL in everybody's life. Brand personality, is process of transforming
the brand into a person or humanizing the brand. Thus brands can also have characteristics
(Ex: Sex, Gender, skills & abilities etc). Marketers deliver the personality using advertising,
features, packaging etc.
Users and non users differ in perceptions with respect to Brand personality users attach a
distinct personality to the brand. Established brands have unique personality which is
generally consistent and may be implicit. Brand personality enables to establish relationship
between brand & consumer with emotional content. The degree of proximity between brand
and consumer personality, will influence the purchase intension and brand loyalty. Brands
need to update personality to stay contemporary and relevant, as target audience personality
may change over a period of time, due to changes in cultural, economic, media exposure etc.
Brand personality should not be confused with target audience characteristics. Personality
may be existing or aspirational. Projective techniques can be used to describe brands.
Consumers can be asked to associate the brand, with adjectives (word association, sentence
completion etc.) and also can be asked about user imagery.
For example:

Brands : Personality
Moods : Sensitivity
Thumbs up : bravery / daring
Amul : humour
MTV : wacky
Indiakings : Sophistication (upper class)
Woodlands : Ruggedness & outdoorsy
Mahindra Scorpio : Ruggedness
Marlboro : Ruggedness

Brand : Adjective
Liril : freshness & Lime
Lux : Beauty, softness
Dove : Softness
Bisleri : Safety
Bajaj Pulsar : Power
Yamaha : Power
Titan : Style, elegance
Cinthol : Freshness
Mysore Sandal : Traditional
26
Medimix : Traditional

In all of the above brands, advertisement elements such as selection of the endorsers and
execution etc., delivered the Brand personality.
Using of Film stars for the Lux beauty soap is logical and the attractiveness of celebrity is
high. This is critical and leads to credibility. Endorser personality gets transferred to the
brand. Thumb up soft drink has distinct personality owing to chivalry based ads, which also
communicates about user imagery. The name 'Marlboro' evokes Wild West imagery, thanks
to ads and consistency of the marketers in maintaining the same brand personality. Ads for
multi utility vehicles like Mahendra scorpio, shows the ruggedness personality.
Slogans / Punch Lines:
They also reflect Brand personality.
Peter England - Honest Shirt (sincerity)
LIC - Try – Thy name is LIC (Trust)
L & T switch gear - Safe & Sure (Trust)
Bajaj - Inspiring confidence (Competence)
Videocon - The Indian Multinational (Competence)
Vantlensen - Power Evolved (Sophistication- upper class)
Bank of Rajasthan - Dare to Dream (Excitement)
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Assurance of the leader (Competence)
Mahindra Scropio - Nothing else will do – (Ruggedness)
Bank of India - Bank that cares (empathy)
Nike - Just do it (Motivation, excitement)
Slogans enhance brand recall and have strong linkage with brand's essence / key values.
Logos support brand names, provide ease in processing visual information lead to brand
recall. Logo can be textual, abstract design and may be real.
They convey a clear meaning or suggest something about product category / brand / values /
features / benefits of the brand.

Chapter -3
3.0 Conceptual Study:
3.1 Brand personality:
Brand personality is an important element in branding. Aaker defines the associated
personality of a brand as a set of (1) human demographic characteristics like age, gender,
social class and race, (2) human lifestyle characteristics like activities, interest, and opinion,
(3) human personality traits such as extroversion, agreeableness, dependability, warmth,
concern, and sentimentality. The brand becomes a living person and often attached to a
metaphor. In this way, it visualizes the abstract intangible assets and characteristics in a more
concrete tangible appearance. Hence, customers interact with brands as if they where human
been. As it is counts for human personality, brand personality is distinctive and enduring.

27
Aaker has developed a framework of brand personality dimensions on the bases of an
extensive research across 37 brands (out of 60) with a high salience rating divided over 4
clusters with 114 personality traits (out of 309).The brand personality construct composes
five personality factors so called "Big Five": sincerity, excitement, competence,
sophistication, and ruggedness. The big five includes 15 facets and 42 traits; they explain
92% of the variance between the brand personalities. See figure.

Figure 3.1 Brand personality

Brand personality develops the interaction between the brand, product, service, organization
and their users. Nearly everything associated with the brand affects the perceived brand
personality. For that, Aaker segregated two groups of brand personality drivers; product
related and non-product related characteristics.

Product related Characteristics User imagery Characteristics

• Product category • User imagery


• Package • Sponsorships
• Price • Symbol, Age , Ad style

28
• Attributes • Country of origin
• Company image, CEO
• Celebrity endorsers

Table 3.1 Brand personality drivers


User imagery, as defined as the associated set of human characteristics of the typical user, is
a powerful brand personality driver. Where brand personality reflects to the brand, user
imagery reflects to the typical user of the brand. Hence, user imagery should not necessarily
be equal to the brand personality. The difference can be negligible, minor and significant.
Nonetheless, both have a strategic value to the brand where user imagery enables the brand
to focus on specific user reference groups (specific target markets) without jeopardizing the
brand identity, heritage and brand personality (Aaker, 1996:170-173).

Chapter-4

4.0 Research Methodology:

Research methodology is defined as the systematic and objective process of gathering,


recording and analyzing data for gaining knowledge that does culture influences the
consumer impulsive buying behaviour. For a successful research the most important thing is
Systematic search of information. Also the Collected information should be accurate and
objective. Then only the research can facilitate to getting knowledge. Respondents
considered for the study are consumer’s who does their shopping in Retail stores based in
Hyderabad. The study involved filling of questionnaire.

4.1 Research Design:

29
Research design can be simply understood as a detailed plan outlining how observations will
be made. It is a master plan specifying the methods and procedures for collecting and
analysing the needed information.

Being a framework or plan for a study that guides the collection and analysis of the data. It
can be divided into three types:

 Exploratory
 Descriptive/Diagnostic
 Experimental

The research was mainly exploratory as there were very little information available and the
study was conducted on selected cases. The primary objective of this study is “to measure
out Brand Personality of the brand Nike & Adidas”.

4.2 Methods of data collection:

The nature of the study suggested collecting both type of Primary Data as well as Secondary
Data to analyze better the relationship between Brand Personality and Consumer Behaviour.

Primary Data:

For collecting Primary Data, we took the help of questionnaire to know the view of
consumers about all said brands.

Secondary Data:

As far as secondary data is concerned, we reviewed the literatures that emphasis specially is
placed on the consumer behaviour like personality theory, motivation research and learning
research.

A survey was conducted to measure the personality dimensions based on Aaker’s five
personality dimensions. In addition, various personality dimensions are explored using in-
depth, one-to-one interviews; there are following criteria to find out the structure and nature
of Brand Personality
• Sincerity (Down-to-earth, Honest, Wholesome, Cheerful)
• Excitement(Daring, Spirited, Imaginative, Up-to-date)
• Competence(Reliable, Intelligent, Successful)
• Sophistication(Upper class, Charming)
• Ruggedness(Outdoorsy, Tough)

Samples:
Data were collected from 100 consumers those have had prior experience of using all the
products. All samples include all age group of people residing in Siva Sivani Institute of
Management, Kompally, Prajay, Vensai & Secunderabad.
• In this study, the respondents were asked to fill out the questionnaire. Subjects were
first informed to them, and then asked to complete the brand personality measure.
Finally, the respondents provided personal data at the end.

30
• Brand personality was measured with Aaker's Brand Personality Scale. The
psychometric property of this scale was not easy understanding for respondents. They
used to surprise how a product could have human characteristic. To overcome this
problem, we asked them to think brand as if it were a person and to rate on a five-
point scale (Likert Scale ) the extent to which each of the 42 brand personality traits
describes the brand. "Sincere," "exciting," "reliable," "glamorous and "rugged" are
examples of items used to assess the brand personality dimensions of sincerity,
excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness, respectively.

Limitations of study:
• Data was only collected in the twin cities.
• The sample size is 100.

Chapter-5
5.0 Data analysis:
Sample size: 100
5.1 Demographical Analysis:

Gender wise Analysis of Sample:

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Male 77 77.0 77.0 77.0
Female 23 23.0 23.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

In this survey of Brand personality measurement of Adidas & Nike 77% male participated
against 23% female.

31
5.2 Marital Status wise Analysis of Sample:

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Unmarried 86 86.0 86.0 86.0
Married 14 14.0 14.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

In this survey of Brand personality measurement of Adidas & Nike 86% unmarried people
participated against 14% married.

5.3 Age wise Analysis of Sample:

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 18-24 69 69.0 69.0 69.0
24-30 24 24.0 24.0 93.0
30-36 6 6.0 6.0 99.0
A 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

In this survey of Brand personality measurement of Adidas & Nike the major participation
age group of 18-24 (69%), 24-30 (24%), 30-36 (6%) and 1% people above 48 years.

32
5.4 Occupation wise Analysis of Sample:

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Student 77 77.0 77.0 77.0
Professional 10 10.0 10.0 87.0
GV.
2 2.0 2.0 89.0
Employee
Businessman 3 3.0 3.0 92.0
Homemaker 8 8.0 8.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

In this survey of Brand personality measurement of Adidas & Nike the major participation of
respondents are student 77%, Professional 10%, Government employee 2%, Businessman
3% and Homemaker 8%.

5.5 Comparative Analysis of Brand’s Characteristic:

Respondents response on Sincerity (Family Orientation) attribute of Brand


Personality:

This graph shows that 32% respondents agree that Adidas is family oriented against 10%
respondents think that Nike is family oriented.

Respondents response on Sincerity (Down To Earth) attribute of Brand Personality:

33
Here this graph clearly indicates that in consumer perception Adidas has Down To Earth
Brand Personality.

Respondents response on Sincerity (Honest) attribute of Brand Personality:

As far as “Honest” characteristic of both brands is concerned they have almost equal weight
in view of consumers. It is very slight difference between them.

Respondents response on Sincerity (Cheerful) attribute of Brand Personality:

Nike has got good response for Cheerfulness level. Adidas has not good level
ofCheerfulness.

Respondents response on Sincerity (Sentimental) attribute of Brand Personality:

Agree bar shows that Adidas brand is more Sentimental than Nike.

Respondents response on Sincerity (Friendly) attribute of Brand Personality:

34
Respondents think that Nike is friendlier than its competitor Adidas.

Respondents’ response on Sincerity (Daring) attribute of Brand Personality:

Here the Daring image of both brand is almost equal. There is only one difference among
respondents reply.

Respondents response on Excitement (Trendy) attribute of Brand Personality:

Trend graph shows that 36% respondents are agreed that Adidas is more trendy against 23%
of Nike.

Respondents response on Excitement (Cool) attribute of Brand Personality:

Here it is clear that Adidas is cool than Nike. As 40% respondents agree to this view against
32%.

Respondents response on Excitement (Young) attribute of Brand Personality:

Here graph indicates that respondents think that Nike is younger than Adidas.

Respondents response on Excitement (Imaginative) attribute of Brand Personality:

Nike has grater Imaginative brand personality than Adidas has.

Respondents response on Excitement (Unique) attribute of Brand Personality:

35
It is very interesting to see that both brands have equal Uniqueness in the perception of
consumers.

Respondents response on Excitement (Up to Date) attribute of Brand Personality:

Here it is clearly visible that respondents equally agree that both brands are Up to Date.

Respondents response on Excitement (Independent) attribute of Brand Personality:

This graph shows that 33% respondents agree that Adidas is Independent against 30% think
Nike is Independent.

Respondents response on Competence (Reliable) attribute of Brand Personality:

As far as Reliability is concerned of both brands it is more and less equal. Most of
respondents agree as well strongly agree that both are reliable brands.

Respondents response on Competence (Hardworking) attribute of Brand Personality:

This graph shows that agree level for Hardworking Brand personality of Adidas is dominant
over Nike.

Respondents response on Sophistication (Masculine) attribute of Brand Personality:

Respondents’ reply shows that Adidas brand shows more mascunality than Nike.

Respondents response on Sophistication (Upper Class) attribute of Brand Personality:

36
In this graph we can see that most of respondents have neutral opinion over Upper Class
Brand Personality.

Respondents response on Sophistication (Smooth) attribute of Brand Personality:

This graph shows that Adidas is smoother than Nike.

Respondents response on Competence (Corporate) attribute of Brand Personality:

Adidas has more corporate brand personality than its competitor Nike.

Respondents’ response on Ruggedness (Tough) attribute of Brand Personality:

Here it is clearly visible that respondents equally strongly agree that both brands are tough.

Respondents’ response on Ruggedness (Outdoorsy) attribute of Brand Personality:

This graph shows that Adidas has Outdoorsy Brand personality. Nike has equally outdoorsy
personality.

Cross tabulation analysis: Respondents perception about Brand personality attributes


of Nike and Adidas

37
Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Sincerity- Down to Earth) of
Adidas & Nike:

Sincerity (Nike And Adidas)


strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

Nike (male) 2 10 18 27 20
(female) 1 3 3 10 6
Adidas (male) 11 21 25 16 4
(female) 3 6 6 6 2

This graph of Sincerity attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 27% male and 10% female think
Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 16% male and 6% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Hardworking) of Adidas & Nike:

Hardworking (Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree neutral agree strongly


disagree agree

Nike (male) 1 16 24 21 15

(female 2 5 6 7 3
)

Adidas (male) 2 11 18 34 12

(female 1 3 5 11 3
)

38
This graph of Hardworking attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 21% male and 7% female
think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 34% male and 11% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Sophistication) of Adidas & Nike:

Sophistication(Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree neutral agree strongly


disagree agree

Nike (male) 1 11 23 26 16

(female 2 1 9 7 4
)

Adidas (male) 1 10 21 28 17

(female 1 2 10 8 2
)

This graph of Sophistication attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 26% male and 7% female
think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 28% male and 8% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

39
Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Feminine) of Adidas & Nike:

Feminine(Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree neutral agree strongly


disagree agree

Nike (male) 4 13 22 17 21

(female 1 3 8 7 4
)

Adidas (male) 1 6 26 27 17

(female 1 1 9 8 4
)

This graph of Feminine attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 17% male and 7% female think
Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 27% male and 8% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Ruggedness) of Adidas & Nike:

Ruggedness(Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree neutral agree strongly


disagree agree

Nike (male) 5 10 27 22 13

(female 0 5 8 8 2
)

40
Adidas (male) 1 10 21 28 17

(female 1 2 10 8 2
)

This graph of Ruggedness attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 22% male and 8% female
think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 28% male and 8% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Outdoorsy) of Adidas & Nike:

Outdoorsy(Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree neutral agree strongly


disagree agree

Nike (male) 1 11 27 19 19

(female 1 4 5 12 1
)

Adidas (male) 5 11 26 23 12

(female 1 4 7 9 2
)

41
This graph of Outdoorsy attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 19% male and 12% female
think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 23% male and 9% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Trendy) of Adidas & Nike:

Trendy(Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree neutral agree strongly


disagree agree

Nike (male) 1 10 21 28 17

(female 0 3 10 8 2
)

Adidas (male) 4 11 28 21 13

(female 1 4 10 6 2
)

This graph of Trendy attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 28% male and 8% female think
Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 21% male and 6% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

42
Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Up to Date) of Adidas & Nike:

Up to Date(Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree neutral agree strongly


disagree agree

Nike (male) 4 19 19 23 12

(female) 2 4 8 5 4

Adidas (male) 1 8 24 28 16

(female) 1 1 10 8 3

This graph of Up to date attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 23% male and 5% female think
Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 28% male and 8% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Family Oriented) of Adidas &
Nike:

Family Oriented(Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree neutral agree strongly


disagree agree

Nike (male) 6 11 20 22 18

(female) 2 3 8 8 2

Adidas (male) 3 10 23 26 15

(female) 2 2 11 6 2

43
This graph of Family Oriented attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 22% male and 8% female
think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 26% male and 6% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

Gender wise perception about brand personality attributes (Tough) of Adidas & Nike:

Tough(Nike and Adidas)

strongly disagree neutral agree strongly


disagree agree

Nike (male) 3 15 25 23 11

(female) 2 6 7 6 2

Adidas (male) 3 10 18 30 16

(female) 1 3 5 11 3

This graph of Tough attribute of Brand Personality indicates that 23% male and 6% female think
Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 30% male and 11% female agree that Adidas is sincere brand.

44
Chapter-6

6.1 Results:

The findings based on the data collected give a fairly good idea about the various aspects of
some important popular brands such as Adidas and Nike.

• In terms of awareness, people are aware of both the brands. But they have their own
likings and disliking.
• Most of the people like think that Adidas is more family oriented than Nike.
• Most respondents consider Adidas as more Down to Earth than Nike.
• Nike is tougher than Adidas.
• The survey indicates that Adidas is Outdoorsy in its nature over its competitor Nike.
• Sincerity attribute Brand Personality indicates that 27% male and 10% female think
Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 16% male and 6% female agree that Adidas is sincere
brand.
• Hardworking attribute Brand Personality indicates that 21% male and 7% female
think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 34% male and 11% female agree that Adidas is
sincere brand.
• Sophistication attribute Brand Personality indicates that 26% male and 7% female
think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 28% male and 8% female agree that Adidas is
sincere brand.
• Feminine attribute Brand Personality indicates that 17% male and 7% female think
Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 27% male and 8% female agree that Adidas is sincere
brand.
• Ruggedness attribute Brand Personality indicates that 22% male and 8% female
think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 28% male and 8% female agree that Adidas is
sincere brand.
• Outdoorsy attribute Brand Personality indicates that 19% male and 12% female
think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 23% male and 9% female agree that Adidas is
sincere brand.
• Trendy attribute Brand Personality indicates that 28% male and 8% female think
Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 21% male and 6% female agree that Adidas is sincere
brand.
• Up to date attribute Brand Personality indicates that 23% male and 5% female think
Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 28% male and 8% female agree that Adidas is sincere
brand.
• Family Oriented attribute Brand Personality indicates that 22% male and 8% female
think Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 26% male and 6% female agree that Adidas is
sincere brand.
• Tough attribute Brand Personality indicates that 23% male and 6% female think
Nike is sincere brand. Whereas 30% male and 11% female agree that Adidas is
sincere brand.

45
6.2 Conclusion:

In the current study, the quantitative data supported the five major dimensions of personality
as designated by Aaker’s original work. Here, the qualitative data provided fuller and richer
perspective. Respondents’ (consumers) expressed their personal impressions of their usage,
experiences, and feelings towards the brands being studied. In turn, the respondents’ own
words provided the basis for drawing brand characteristics.
This study found that Adidas was perceived as a reliable and trendy brand. While these
impressions appeared to be quite salient to the consumers’ choice process, these items were
revealed only through our quantitative assessment.

Importantly though, the quantitative analysis (shown in graphical form) revealed key
differences in perceived personality between Nike and Adidas. For example, Adidas rated
statistically significantly higher than Adidas on items such as original, trendy, up to date,
friendly, down-to-earth, family oriented and up-to-date. On the other hand, Nike was rated
significantly higher than Adidas on items such as Daring, Yong, Imaginative, Unique,
cheerful, Upper class and tough.
Looking at the quantitative and qualitative assessments provides a broader and more
complete image. The rating scales suggest that Adidas has captured a more Up to date,
contemporary, and perhaps “edgier” feel than Nike.

These could be utilized to differentiate and justify the Adidas added perceived expense of
over Nike. The Adidas brand impressions seem to indicate that consumers sense that with
Adidas, one “gets what they pay for” (presumably a consistently reliable product).
To conclude, Brand personality being potent tool needs to be leveraged to achieve key
objectives for existing & new brands. In this study it is found that Adidas has slight
advantage over Nike brand. Respondents perceived Adidas as brand having versatile
personality.

7.0 Questionnaire: This questionnaire aim to measure out the brand dimension of two
Popular brands like Addidas vs. Nike

Name: ________________________________Sex: -Male/ Female Status:


-Single/Married

46
Age (in Years): 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
above 48

Occupation: Student Professional Govt. Employee Businessman


Home Maker

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree


5 4 3 2 1

47
Personality Attribute Brand_1 Brand_2

Addidas Nike

5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

SINCERITY

Down to earth

Family oriented

Honest

Cheerful

Sentimental

Friendly

Daring

EXCITEMENT

Trendy

Cool

Young

Imaginative

Unique

Up to date

Independent

COMPETENCE

Reliable

Hardworking

Intelligent

Technical

Corporate

Successful

Confident

SOPHISTICATION

Upper class

Glamorous

Feminine

Smooth

Masculine
48
49
References

1. AAKER, David building strong Brands, 1996.


2. Sengupta, subrato Brand positioning – Strategies for competitive advantage" Tata
Mcgraw Hill, New Delhi 1990.
3. Upshaw, Lynn B. Building Brand Identity, Jhon – Wiley & Sons 1995.
4. Moorthi, YLR 'Brand Management The Indian Context Vikas publishing 2005. 5.
Kapferer, Jean Noel, Developing New Brands, Pitnam publishing 1973.
6. Rajeev Batra, Myers Jhon.G, Aaker David, Advertising Management 5th edition, Pearson
Education Asia.

Bibliography:

www.consumerbehavior.net

www.mcdonaldsindia.com

www.mcdonalds.com

Measurement and Validity of Jennifer Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale for Colgate Brand
BEJOY JOHN THOMAS and P C SEKAR

Dimensions of Brand Personality by JENNIFER L. AAKER

Personality and Consumer Behaviour by LEON G. SCHIFFMAN and LESILE LAZAR


KANUK

*http://www.adidas-salomon.com/en/investor/reports/default.asp, October 2003


*http://www.adidas-salomon.com/en/overview/history/default.asp, October 2003
*http://www.cybersource.com/solutions/success_stories/nike.xml, October 2003
*http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/nikebiz.jhtml?page=1, October 2003
*http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/nikebiz.jhtml?page=15, October 2003
*http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/news/pressrelease.jhtml?year=1999&month=06&letter=d,
October 2003
* "Nike - Channel Conflict." Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, February
2000
*Belch & Belch. "Advertising and Promotion." McGraw-Hill Irwin. New York. 2001. p.493
Brand Personality and Mobile Marketing:An Empirical Investigation by O. BOUHLEL, N.
MZOUGHI, D. HADIJI, and I. BEN SLIMANE

***

50

You might also like