Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality?

By Audrey Azoulay, J. Kapferer. 2003

801 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Brand personality: theory and dimensionality (2018, background): “…115–127 Brand personality scales have been criticised for a perceived lack of a clear theoretical underpinning (Austin et al., 2003; Berens and van Riel, 2004; Clardy, 2012) and because many measurement items (such as masculine and feminine) do not reflect personality (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003).”
Exciting red and competent blue: the importance of color in marketing (2012, background): “The scale is not immune to criticism, especially regarding its conceptual validity (e.g., Azoulay and Kapferer 2003 ), yet it remains the standard measure in brand personality research (Keller and Lehmann 2006).”
Charity Brand Personality: The Relationship With Giving Behavior (2008, background): “As Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) noted, “Consumers have no difficulty answering metaphorical questions of this nature” (p. 145) and find it easier in this way to articulate the dimensions of the brand.”
Toward The Perspective Of Cognitive Destination Image And Destination Personality: The Case Of Beijing (2013, background): “Inanimate objects, such as commercial brands, can become associated with human personalities (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2004; Ogilvy, 1983; Plummer, 1985).”
A new measure of brand personality (2009, background): “A third criticism relates to the non-replicability of the five factors cross-culturally (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003).”