Content uploaded by Dwight Merunka
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dwight Merunka on Nov 06, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
The impact of brand personality and sales promotions on brand equity
Pierre Valette-Florence
a
, Haythem Guizani
b
, Dwight Merunka
c,d,
⁎
a
University of Grenoble (IAE Grenoble - CERAG), France
b
Wesford Business School and CERAG, Grenoble, France
c
University Paul Cézanne Aix–Marseille (IAE Aix-en–Provence, CERGAM), France
d
Euromed Management in Marseille, France
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 1 April 2009
Received in revised form 1 July 2009
Accepted 1 September 2009
Keywords:
Brand personality
Promotional deals
Brand equity
Finite mixture–PLS models
This research assesses the relative impact of a long-term brand management instrument (brand personality)
and a short-term marketing mix instrument (sales promotions) on brand equity formation. The authors
measure consumer perceptions of promotional intensity and brand personality and model their impact on
brand equity. They find a positive impact of brand personality and a negative impact of sales promotion
intensity on brand equity at the aggregate level. In line with research that identifies varying consumer
responses to promotional deals, this study posits that the relative impact of the two elements varies across
consumer groups. Three homogeneous consumer groups differ according to the relative impact of brand
personality and consumer promotions on brand equity, following an application of a finite mixture partial
least squares procedure.
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
More marketing dollars accrue, over time, to operations that can
produce sales in the short term. In particular, marketing expenditures
for consumer promotions keep gaining importance in the marketing
budgets of most consumer and durable goods. In contrast, advertising
expenditures linked to brand-building activities appear to diminish
over the years (Mela et al., 1997; Neslin, 2002; Srinivasan et al., 2004).
This evolving allocation of resources across marketing activities poses
a problem with regard to the return on marketing investments. To
calculate the return on marketing investments, companies could use
sales or profits, but they also might turn to several other equities (e.g.,
relational, brand, customer) (Seggie et al., 2007). This debate raises
the question of the most effective strategy for mixing consumer
promotions and brand-building activities.
Therefore, this study compares the relative impact, on brand equity,
of consumerpromotions and a more stable set of brand associationsthat
have hedonic and symbolic proprieties, as reflected in brand personality.
Current literature treats the impact of each element separately
(Chandon et al., 2000; Kim, 2000), without exploring the question of
the relative impact of both set of variables on brand equity. Yet the
question is critical in response to the increasing demand for marketing
accountability (Lim et al., 2005) and trends toward spending more on
short-term operations rather than brand-building activities. Prior
research examines the impact of consumer promotions and advertising
on brand choice or consumer behavior using econometric data (Mela et
al. 1997; Mela et al., 1998). This research instead tests consumer
perceptions of both promotional intensity and brand personality and
measures their impact on consumer-based brand equity.
Much research focuses on developing brand equity measurement
tools (e.g., Keller, 2003; Park and Srinivasan, 1994; Yoo and Donthu,
2001); little empirical research attempts to understand or measure the
process of brand equity formation over time through an examination
of antecedents (Barwise, 1993). Consumer promotions have positive
effects on brand equity, because promotions develop brand awareness
for the entire product category and the promoted brands (Blattberg
and Neslin, 1990). In contrast, promotions might have a negative
impact on brand equity, because repeated promotions offer signals of
lesser quality or indications that the brand needs promotions to justify
consumer consideration and purchase. Some studies establish that
promotions correlate negatively with brand loyalty, a dimension of
brand equity (Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987); however, other research
finds positive, more complex relationships. Joshy and Sivakumaran
(2009) indicate that consumer promotions enhance brand equity,
especially among market segments dominated by spuriously loyal
consumers. Rothschild (1987) instead establishes that deals reinforce
search behavior and deal proneness rather that loyalty behavior. Price
promotions also appear to increase both price and price-promotion
sensitivity, whereas non-price promotions increase price and deal
sensitivity among non-loyal consumers (Mela et al. 1997).
Together with consumer promotions, which the brand manage-
ment team can manage in the short term through frequency and
magnitude decisions, this study considers the impact of brand
personality on brand equity. Brand personality is ‘the set of human
Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 24–28
⁎Corresponding author. University Paul Cézanne Aix–Marseille, IAE Aix-en–Provence,
Clos Guiot, 13540 Puyricard, France. Tel.: +33 442 280 808; fax: +33 442 280 800.
E-mail addresses: pierre.valette-florence@upmf-grenoble.fr (P. Valette-Florence),
haythem.guizani@wesford.fr (H. Guizani), dwight.merunka@iae-aix.com (D. Merunka).
0148-2963/$ –see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.09.015
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
characteristics associated with a brand’(Aaker, 1997, 347). Both
researchers and practitioners suggest brand personality is an impor-
tant concept that helps differentiate a brand in a product category
(Plummer, 1984), enhances consumers' preference and loyalty to a
brand (Fournier, 1998), and creates brand equity (Keller, 1993). Brand
personality also influences brand recognition, brand beliefs such as
perceived quality (Ramaseshan and Tsao, 2007), and brand associa-
tions (Freling and Forbes, 2005). Moreover, brand personality has an
impact on some important marketing concepts that Keller (2003)
includes in his brand equity model, such as brand–consumer relation-
ships and brand attachment (Sung et al., 2005) or brand trust (Hess
et al., 2007). However, Swaminathan, Stilley, and Ahluwalia (2009)
demonstrate that the effect of brand personality on brand attachment,
purchase likelihood, and brand choice depends on the attachment
style of the consumer, including anxiety and avoidance features. The
congruence between the ideal and actual self-concepts also plays a key
role in terms of the accuracy of brand personality-based judgments.
The effects of brand personality dimensions on consumer behaviors
therefore may relate to situational and individual variables, which
suggest heterogeneity in consumer responses.
This study examines how perceived sales promotions and brand
personality affect brand equity. In addition, this investigation assesses
heterogeneity in consumer responses to these two elements across
consumer groups. To identify consumer segments that exhibit
different responses to marketing instruments, this research imple-
ments an innovative methodology. That is, as Ringle, Wende, and Will
(2008) recommend, a finite mixture partial least squares (PLS)
procedure identifies distinct customer segments for which the
strength of the relationships between brand personality, sales
promotions' intensity, and brand equity varies.
The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows: The next section
contains a brief theoretical overview of promotional activities, brand
personality, and their impact on consumer-based brand equity. After
the research model and the methodology, this article provides the
main research results. Finally, the paper concludes with limitations
and further research suggestions.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.1. The impact of promotions on brand equity
Sales promotions are marketing events and tools designed to
stimulate quicker and greater purchases for a limited period of time
(Kotler, 1988). Much research on consumer responses to sales
promotion examines immediate effects on consumer purchases
(Gupta, 1988; Inman et al., 1990; Nijs et al., 2001). However, studies
of the long-term effects of promotions reveal some adverse effects on
brand equity, including reinforcement of switching behavior (Papatla
and Krishnamurthi, 1996), increased price and deal sensitivities (Mela
et al., 1997), and lost brand equity (Yoo et al., 2000). Aaker (1996)
establishes that repeated promotions decrease brand equity over
time, and Mela, Ataman, and Van Heerde (2006) find that among five
selected marketing mix variables, repeated monetary promotions
negatively affect brand equity. In contrast, DelVecchio, Henard, and
Freling (2006) demonstrate that sales promotions can either increase
or decrease brand preference, and Ailawadi, Neslin, and Lehmann
(2003) provide empirical evidence of the positive long-term impact of
price promotions on purchase reinforcement and brand performance.
H1. Consumer promotion intensity negatively affects brand equity.
Another stream of research examines consumers' deal proneness.
Studies reveal that consumers differ in their responses to sales
promotions, which implies the existence of a deal-prone consumer
profile (Grover and Srinivasan, 1992; Lichtenstein et al., 1997). Both
empirical behavioral research (Ailawadi et al., 2001) and survey
research (Garretson and Burton, 2003) show that consumer groups
react differently to sales promotions in general or to specific forms of
promotions, such as coupons or everyday low prices. Therefore, this
study explores possible heterogeneity in consumer responses to
promotions across consumer groups.
2.2. Brand personality and brand equity
Consumers use brand personality dimensions as relevant deter-
minants of the brand's added value. Brand personality ensures a stable
brand image over time (Aaker, 1996) and allows consumers to
express their own personalities (Aaker, 1997). Brand personality
associations, when strongly activated in consumer memory, also
affect consumer behaviors and attitudes toward the brand (Wysong,
2000). Although no evidence relates brand personality dimensions
directly to brand equity, various studies explore the impact of brand
personality on elements that reflect components or consequences of
brand equity. For example, brand personality affects brand prefer-
ences (Kim, 2000), brand attachment (Sung et al., 2005), brand trust
(Hess et al., 2007), and brand loyalty (Brakus et al., 2009).
H2. Brand personality positively affects brand equity.
The hypothesized relationships appear in Fig. 1. After testing and
comparing the relative impact of the two independent variables, this
investigation identifies homogeneous consumer groups, as designat-
ed by the impact of promotional deals and brand personality on their
brand equity perceptions.
3. Research method
An initial sample of 150 volunteers (students and staff members of
a large French university, 55% women, average age = 28 years) tested
the research questionnaire and enabled testing measurement scales
for reliability and validity. These participants rated three brands
(coffee, athletic shoes, and cars) in terms of promotion intensity,
brand personality, and consumer-based brand equity. This stage
enabled the purification of the measurement instruments. The second
stage consisted of a large-scale, Internet-based survey. Two question-
naire versions (one with two major laptop brands [Sony Vaio and
Acer] and one with two major French coffee brands [Grand'mère and
Carte Noire]) were available to the survey participants (i.e., university
students and staff). The data analysis relies on 538 completed
questionnaires (respondents: 52% women, 71% students, 29% univer-
sity staff). The overall response rate was 24%.
4. Measurements
The existing scales for the three constructs (brand equity, brand
personality, perceived deal intensity) use five-point Likert agreement
scales for each item.
Fig. 1. Relationships between brand personality, sales promotion intensity, and brand
equity.
25P. Valette-Florence et al. / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 24–28
4.1. Brand equity
Most studies show that the brand equity measurement is global
and corresponds to the definition of a ‘value-added’to the product.
Measurements tools such as price premiums (Aaker, 1996), collec-
tions of consumer-based perceptions (Agarwal and Rao, 1996), or
purchase behavior (Kamakura and Russell, 1993) correspond with
this view. In contrast, Yoo and Donthu (2001) develop a multidimen-
sional consumer brand equity scale and identify three dimensions:
Loyalty, perceived quality, and brand association/attention (con-
firmed by Washburn and Plank, 2002). Guizani, Triguero, and Valette-
Florence (2008) add a fourth dimension, the social value of the brand,
which reflects that customers may share the same values or that the
brand can gather a group of consumers, such as in a brand community
(Muniz and O'Guinn, 2001). This research uses the 12-item scale with
four dimensions (brand loyalty, brand knowledge, social value, and
perceived quality). Yoo and Donthu (2001) propose an overall brand
equity measure in addition to their multidimensional brand equity
scale, so the four dimensions also aggregate into a second-order factor
that measures brand equity or overall added brand value.
4.2. Promotional deals
Measures of sales promotions might rely on either actual or
perceived marketing efforts (Van Heerde et al., 2004). Consumers
have little knowledge of real marketing efforts, such as promotional
expenditures or even real prices. Perceived marketing actions provide
strong predictors of brand evaluation (Kirmani and Wright, 1989)and
likely linkdirectly to consumer psychology. In their research, focusedon
the influence of marketing mix elements on brand equity, Yoo et al.
(2000) use perceived marketing efforts rather than real marketing
actions. Similarly, this study measures consumer promotional activities
as perceived promotion intensity and adapts the three-item scale
developed by Yoo and Donthu (2001).
4.3. Brand personality
Culture influences brand personality dimensions (Sung and
Tinkham, 2005), so this study turns to the brand personality scale of
Ambroise (2006), which reflects the same French context. This scale,
which achieves good reliability and validity across product categories
and brands, consists of 23 adjectives (e.g., introverted, warm,
affectionate, sophisticated) and contains five dimensions (agreeabil-
ity, conscientiousness, sophistication, fallaciousness, and introver-
sion). The dimensionality of the brand personality construct does not
exclude the use of a global measurement to indicate brand
personality's valence. Analogous to the framework of Allport (1961),
which introduces the concept of a ‘whole personality,’brand
personality in this study, as represented by a revealed second-order
factor, stands for a general evaluation of the anthropomorphic
inferences that consumers develop toward the brand. Brakus et al.
(2009) similarly adopt a second-order conceptualization of brand
personality that influences loyalty and satisfaction positively.
5. Analysis and results
Prior to testing the structural relationships, exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses serve to pretest the measures and ensure
the robustness of the selected scale structures. The coefficient alphas of
each multi-item scale are greater than .75. All scales are reliable and
valid across product categories and brands. The goodness-of-fit indexes
(GoF; Tenenhaus et al.,2005) are high (Table 1), which indicates that the
scales' structures are parsimonious and that the factors fit the data well.
Brand personality dimensions aggregate into one meta-factor
through regrouping of the five revealed dimensions (agreeability=
.845, conscientiousness= .584, sophistication=.625, fallaciousness=
−.521, introversion=−.623; pb.05; GoF= 584). The same analysis
applies to brand equity. The higher-order brand equity structure is
statistically strong; all dimensions correlate highly with the overall
brand equity factor, and the model achieves a good fit index (brand
loyalty= .75, brand knowledge = .61, brand social value = .83, per-
ceived quality=.56; pb.05; GoF = 609).
5.1. Aggregate effects
The tests of the hypotheses rely on partial least square path
modeling (PLS). The overall fit of the structural model in Fig. 1 is very
good, as the GoF (647) and R
2
(.26) indicate. Brand personality
associations and the perception of promotion intensity explain 26% of
the overall brand equity construct. Regarding structural relationships,
consumer promotions have a negative impact on brand equity (path
coefficient=−.22; pb.001) in support of H1.DelVecchio et al. (2006)
also find that consumer promotions erode brand equity, despite their
immediate positive effect on sales. Brand personality has a high,
positive impact on brand equity (path coefficient = .49; pb.001), in
support of H2. At the aggregate level, brand personality has a stronger
impact on brand equity than do consumer promotions.
5.2. Variations across consumer segments
Following extant literature on promotional effectiveness, which
indicates varying responses from consumers to promotional deals,
this study postulates the existence of consumer segments, defined by
different path coefficients that link consumer promotions and brand
personality to their perceptions of brand equity. Rather than
introducing theoretically based segmentation variables, which is
appropriate when research seeks to uncover the ideal profile of deal-
prone consumers (Schneider and Currim, 1991), a latent class
approach attempts to uncover and describe consumer segments that
are homogeneous in terms of the impact of consumer promotions and
brand personality on their judgments of brand equity. Furthermore,
this study exploits the recent developments that extend the mixture
model methodology to PLS structural equation models (Ringle et al.
2008) and applies the finite mixture PLS approach (FIMIX-PLS).
The mixture procedure applied with Smart PLSsoftware results inan
optimum solution composed of three segments. The model selection
derives from the entropyindex, which indicatesa good separation in the
estimated individual class probabilities and the smallest values for the
Akaike and Bayesian Information Criteria (AIC and BIC). The entropy
index is high (EN= .62), and the AIC and BIC statistics are the smallest
across all other solutions. The specificpathcoefficients indicate the
characteristics of each revealed group (Table 2).
Table 1
Reliability and validity of measurement scales.
Reliability
Jöreskog rhô
Convergent validity
(% of shared variance)
Goodness-of-fit
parameter
(GoF)
Perceived sales
promotion intensity
.610 .542 578
Brand personality
(second-order)
.907 .553 584
Agreeability .879
Conscientiousness .836
Sophistication .861
Fallaciousness .891
Introversion .877
Brand equity
(second-order)
.876 .538 609
Brand social value .891
Brand knowledge .880
Brand loyalty .878
Perceived quality .842
26 P. Valette-Florence et al. / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 24–28
Segment 1 is relatively small (26% of participants), characterized
by a strong negative path coefficient between perceived sales
promotions' intensity and brand equity (−.66). Brand personality
does not affect brand equity (insignificant coefficient). Brand equity
judgments do not result from symbolic brand personality judgments,
and too many promotions degrade brand equity. Consumers form
their brand equity judgments on the basis of variables other than
those included in the proposed model. Functional considerations
might provide the basis for overall brand judgments in this segment
(Sirgy et al., 1991).
Consumers in Segment 2 (largest segment, 41% of the sample) are
sensitive to both brand personality (coefficient = .57) and promo-
tional deals (coefficient=.20). The high positive impact of perceived
promotional intensity on brand equity indicates deal-prone consu-
mers who also value brand personality dimensions. These sales
promotion-prone consumers seek both shopping enjoyment (Garret-
son and Burton, 2003) and brand enjoyment.
Segment 3 (33% of the sample) exhibits a significant negative
structural relationship between sale promotions' intensity and brand
equity (coefficient= −.16), but brand equity depends strongly on
brand personality judgments (coefficient= .56). As in Segment 1,
consumersin this group believe that too frequent and intense consumer
promotions signalweak brand value. However, unlike Segment1 (but as
in Segment 2), they evaluate brand equity on the basis of symbolic
associations. Among deal-averse consumers (Segments 1 and 3), brand
personality provides a key segmentation variable.
6. Conclusion
The objective of this research is to test the differential effects of
brand personality and consumer promotions on brand equity. At the
aggregate level, brand personality dimensions positively affect brand
equity, whereas consumer promotion attractiveness has a negative
influence. The positive impact of brand personality is greater than the
negative impact of consumer promotions. This overall view of
relationships with brand equity becomes clearer with segmented
consumer groups. The proposed segmentation uses a finite mixture
PLS procedure, based on the impacts of the brand personality
dimensions and perceived sales promotions on brand equity. This
procedure consists of testing different mixture models and detecting
any heterogeneity between groups, while taking into account
significant differences between the path coefficients that link the
independent variables to brand equity.
The results reveal three segments with heterogeneous path
coefficients. This distinction challenges general findings about brand
equity formation and the overall impacts of brand personality and
consumer promotions on brand equity. The impact of brand personality
on brand equity is positiveat the aggregate level;however, one segment
seems insensitive to it.Although the impact of consumer promotions on
brand equity is negative in general, for one important segment,
consumer promotions together with brand personality judgments
positively influence brand equity. Further research therefore should
focus on understanding or explaining these differences. The probabil-
ities of belonging to a given segment also may depend on demographic
variables or consumption-related variables (e.g., self-esteem, price
sensitivity, value consciousness, shopping enjoyment, importance of
smart shopping). Another research direction might strengthen the
analysisof the influence of brand personality on brand equity. Consumer
segments vary in the importance they attribute to an overall, second-
order, brand personality judgment. The brand personality dimensions
that influence brand equity thus also should differ across consumer
groups, and findings pertaining to these differences could enlighten
brand management.
Additional research also could address some limitations of this
study. First, to mitigate the probable shared method variance,
researchers could attempt to measure brand personality perceptions,
perceptions of sales promotions' intensity, and brand equity with
different data collection instruments or at different points in time.
Second, the product categories and brands studied likely influence the
impact of brand personality and promotions on brand equity (and
therefore their relative impact). Fast moving consumer goods, durable
goods, or luxury goods and brands, as well as private versus public
goods, may exhibit different path coefficients. Further research should
investigate this possibility from both a theoretical and an empirical
point of view.
References
Aaker DA. Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press; 1996.
Aaker JL. Dimensions of brand personality. J Mark Res 1997;34(3):347–56.
Agarwal MK, Rao VR. An empirical comparison of consumer-based measures of brand
equity. Mark Lett 1996;7(3):237–47.
Ailawadi KL, Lehmann DR, Neslin SA. Market response to a major policy change in the
marketing mix: learning from Procter & Gamble's value pricing strategy. J Mark
2001;65(1):44–61.
Ailawadi KL, Neslin SA, Lehmann DR. Revenue premium as an outcome measure of
brand equity. J Mark 2003;67(4):1-17.
Allport GW. Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt; 1961.
Ambroise L. La personnalité des marques : une contribution réelle à leur gestion? Rev Fr
Mark 2006;207(2/5):25–41.
Brakus JJ, Schmitt BH, Zarantonello L. Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured?
Does it affect loyalty? J Mark 2009;73(3):52–68.
Barwise P. Brand equity: Snark or Boojum? Int J Res Mark 1993;10(1):93-104.
Bawa K, Shoemaker RW. The effects of a direct mail coupon on brand choice behavior.
J Mark Res 1987;24:370–6 November.
Blattberg RC, Neslin SA. Sales promotion concepts, methods, and strategies. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1990.
Chandon P, Wansink B, Laurent G. A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion
effectiveness. J Mark 2000;64(4):65–82.
DelVecchio D, Henard DH, Freling TH. The effect of sales promotion on post-promotion
brand preference: a meta-analysis. J Retail 2006;82(3):203–13.
Fournier S. Consumer and their brand: developing relationship theory in consumer
research. J Constr Res 1998;24:343–73 March.
Freling TH, Forbes LP. An examination of brand personality through methodological
triangulation. J Brand Manag 2005;13(2):56–65.
Garretson JA, Burton S. Highly coupon and sales prone consumers: benefits beyond
price savings. J Advert Res 2003;43(2):162–72.
Grover R, Srinivasan V. Evaluating the multiple effects of retail promotions on brand
loyal and brand switching segments. J Mark Res 1992;29:76–89 February.
Guizani H, Triguero H, Valette-Florence P. Development of French consumer brand
equity scale. Advances Cons Res 2008;2:198–9.
Gupta S. Impact of sales promotions on when, what, and how much to buy. J Mark Res
1988;25:342–55 November.
Hess S, Bauer H, Kuester S, Huber F. In brands we trust: marketing's impact on service
brand personality and trust. European Marketing Academy 36th Conference
Proceedings; 2007. May: 22–25, Iceland.
Table 2
Path coefficients and fit indexes for FIMX-PLS revealed segments.
Segment 1:
Nonsymbolic, non-deal-prone consumer
(26%)⁎- R²=.354
Segment 2:
Deal-prone consumer
(41%) - R²=.499
Segment 3:
Symbolic non-deal-prone consumers
(33%) - R²=.345
Brand personality dimensions .037⁎⁎ .567 .565
Consumer promotions −.658 .201 −.163
Goodness-of-fit indices Akaike information criterion =4851.34; Bayesian information criterion = 4862.22; constant Akaike information
criterion =4902.0 1; entropy index= .62
⁎Segment size.
⁎⁎ Insignificant at pb.05.
27P. Valette-Florence et al. / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 24–28
Inman JJ, McAlister L, Hoyer WD. Promotion signal: proxy for a price cut? J Constr Res
1990;17:74–81 June.
Joshy J, Sivakumaran B. The moderating effect of loyalty on the relationship of sales
promotions and brand equity. Advances Cons Res 2009;8:263–4.
Kamakura WA, Russell GJ. Measuring brand value with scanner data. Int J Res Mark
1993;10(1):9-22.
Keller KL. Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity.
J Mark 1993;57(1):1-22.
Keller KL. Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge. J Constr Res
2003;29(4):595–600.
Kim H. Examination of brand personality and brand attitude within the apparel product
category. J Fash Mark Manag 2000;4(3):243–52.
Kirmani A, Wright P. Money talks: perceived advertising expense and expected product
quality. J Constr Res 1989;16(3):344–53.
Kotler P. Marketing management: analysis, planning, implementation and control.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1988.
Lichtenstein DR, Burton S, Netemeyer RG. An examination of deal proneness across sales
promotion types: a consumer segmentation perspective. J Retail 1997;73(2):283–97.
Lim J, Currim I, Andrews R. Consumer heterogeneity in the longer-term effects of price
promotions. Int J Res Mark 2005;22(4):441–57.
Mela CF, Gupta S, Lehmann DR. The long-term impact of promotion and advertising on
consumer brand choice. J Mark Res 1997;34(2):248–61.
Mela CF, Jedidi K, Bowman D. The long-term impact of promotions on consumer
stockpiling. J Mark Res 1998;35(22):250–62.
Mela CF, Ataman MB, Van Heerde H. The long-term effect of marketing strategy on
brand performance. ZIBS Research Reports. www.zibs.com. 2006.
Muniz AM, O'Guinn TC. Brand community. J Constr Res 2001;27(4):412–31.
Neslin SA. Sales promotion. Cambridge. MA: Marketing Science Institute; 2002.
Nijs VR, Dekimpe MG, Steenkamp J, Hanssens DM. The category-demand effects of price
promotions. Mark Sci 2001;20(1):1-22.
Papatla P, Krishnamurthi L. Measuring the dynamic effects of promotions on brand
choice. J Mark Res 1996;33(1):20–35.
Park C, Srinivasan V. A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand
equity and its extendibility. J Mark Res 1994;31(2):271–88.
Plummer JT. How personality makes a difference. J Advert Res 1984;24(6):27–31.
Ramaseshan B, Tsao H-Y. Moderating effects of the brand concept on the relationship
betweenbrand personalityand perceived quality.J Brand Manag 2007;14(6):458–66.
Ringle CM, Wende S, Will A. The finite mixture partial least squares approach:
methodology and application. Handbook of Partial Least Squares (PLS): Concepts,
Methods and Applications in Marketing and Related Fields. Berlin: Springer; 2008.
Rothschild ML. A behavioral view of promotions effects on brand loyalty. Advances
Cons Res 1987;14(1):119–20.
Schneider LG, Currim IS. Consumer purchase behaviors associated with active and
passive deal-proneness. Int J Res Mark 1991;8(3):205–22.
Seggie SH, Cavusgil E, Phelan SE. Measurement of return on marketing investment: a
conceptual framework and the future of marketing metrics. Ind Mark Manage
2007;36(6):834–41.
Sirgy MJ, Johar JS, Coskun Samli A, Claiborne CB. Self-congruity versus functional
congruity: predictors of consumer behavior. J Acad Mark Sci 1991;19:363–75 Fall.
Srinivasan S, Pauwels K, Hanssens D, Dekimpe M. Do promotions benefit manufac-
turers, retailers, or both? Manag Sci 2004;50(5):617–29.
Sung Y, Tinkham S. Brand personality structures in the United States and Korea:
common and culture-specific factors. J Cons Psych 2005;15(4):334–50.
Sung Y, Park E, Han M. The influences of the brand personality on brand attachment and
brand loyalty: centred on the differences between the brand community members
and non members. Advances Cons Res 2005;6:156.
Swaminathan V, Stilley KM, Ahluwalia R. When brand personality matters: the
moderating role of attachment styles. J Constr Res 2009;35(6):985-1002.
Tenenhaus M, Esposito Vinzi V, Chatelin YM, Lauro C. PLS path modeling. Comput Stat
Data Anal 2005;48:159–205.
Van Heerde HJ, Mela CF, Manchanda P. The dynamic effect of innovation on market
structure. J Mark Res 2004;41:166–83 May.
Washburn JH, Plank RE. Measuring brand equity: an evaluation of a consumer-based
brand equity scale. J Mark Theory and Pract 2002;10(1):46–62.
Wysong S. ‘This brand's for you’: a conceptualization and investigation of brand
personality as process with implications for brand management. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington, 2000.
Yoo B, Donthu N. Developing and validating multidimensional consumer-based brand
equity scale. J Bus Res 2001;52(1):1-14.
Yoo B, Donthu N, Lee S. An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand
equity. J Acad Mark Sci 2000;25(2):195–211.
28 P. Valette-Florence et al. / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 24–28
