Differentiating with brand personality in economy hotel segment

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the applicability of brand personality in the economy hotel segment and whether hotel brand personality could differentiate between similar hotel brands. Courtyard and Hampton Inn are used in this study. The results of this study suggest that brand personality dimensions can be clearly delineated in the economy hotel sector, in consistent with Aaker’s dimensions, ruggedness, competence, excitement, sophistication, and sincerity. Moreover, similar hotel brands can be perceived differently based on their personalities. Additionally, although common brand personality factor structure can be used to describe economy hotel brands in general, specific hotel brand does exhibit some unique dimensions.

Keywords

Brand personality economy hotel hotel branding differentiation

Introduction

Recent decades have seen the number of hotel brands proliferating, which has intensified the competition. Hotel managers have long sought to differentiate their brands from their competitors, thus increasing the likelihood of patronage and level of loyalty. It has long been established in consumer behavior literature that consumer’s purchase decision-making process involves not only the evaluation of the functional attributes but also the value-expressive or symbolic attributes of a product (Levy, 1959). Therefore, it is not enough for brands to differentiate on the basis of functional attributes alone (Siguaw et al., 1999), but symbolic or value-expressive attributes (often called brand personality) of a brand that can be offered to consumers also serve as the basis for brand differentiation (Aaker, 1997; Crask and Laskey, 1990). Previous literature suggests that a well-established brand personality can help to differentiate among brands (Brïdson and Evans, 2004; Plummer, 1984), add value (Brïdson and Evans, 2004; McEnally and de Chernatony, 1999), help consumers develop emotional attachment to a brand to enhance brand equity (Keller, 1993; Phau and Lau, 2000), augment the personal meaning of a brand to the consumer (Gardner and Levy, 1955; Levy, 1959), influence consumer preference and purchase (Malhotra, 1988), build relationship with consumers to increase brand loyalty (Aaker, 1996; Fournier, 1998), and help consumers to better express their self-concept (Belk, 1988; Belk et al., 1982; Birdwell, 1968; Sirgy, 1982). Therefore, it is important for marketers to create meaningful and distinctive brand personalities for their brands in the minds of their consumers (Siguaw et al., 1999) and promote their strong brand personalities to better distinguish themselves in order to capture the mind and heart of their consumers.

Due to the intrinsic appeals of brand personality, hospitality and tourism fields have made attempts to apply this concept. However, more efforts have been taken in tourism destinations (Crockett and Wood, 1999; Ekinci and Hosany, 2006; Ekinci et al., 2007; Henderson, 2007; Murphy et al., 2007a, 2007b; Prayag, 2007; Yuksel and Bilim, 2009) and restaurants (Austin et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2011; Siguaw et al., 1999), little research has explored the applicability of brand personality in the lodging industry, except Lee and Back (2010). In addition, Lee and Back’s (2010) research was with regard to only upper upscale hotel brand and cannot be generalized to other segments of the lodging industry, such as the economy hotel sector. To further the knowledge of brand personality in other segments of the hotel industry, this study tries to explore the applicability of brand personality in the economy hotel segment and whether hotel brand personality can differentiate between similar hotel brands. In this study, Courtyard and Hampton Inn brands are used.

Brand personality

The idea that brands can be described in terms of a set of personality traits can be traced back to 1950s (Gardner and Levy, 1955; Martineau, 1958). Just as David Ogilvy (1983: 14) states, ‘Products, like people, have personalities …’, Plummer (1984) and Sirgy (1985) make the similar claims that any brand can be described in terms of not only their physical attributes or functional characteristics but also their characterization aspects or brand personality. Such characteristics are used to form impressions of and preference for a particular brand. Aaker and Fournier (1995) also state that although brands are not people, they can be personified as well. In Aaker’s (1997: 347) seminal work, brand personality is defined as ‘the set of human characteristics associated with a brand’. In addition, Aaker (1997) proposes that brand personality tends to serve a symbolic and/or self-expressive function. Therefore, it is suggested that, in the relationship dyad between consumers and brands, brand is treated as an active and contributing partner and brand personality as a set of trait inferences constructed by consumers based on their longtime observation of brand behaviors, which trigger attitudinal, cognitive, and/or behavioral responses on the part of the consumer (Fournier, 1998). In addition, consumers believe that like people, brands can acquire distinctive personalities that differentiate them in the minds of consumers and shape their preference (Haigood, 2001). Therefore, it is contended that brand personality is about perception in the consumer’s views, about personality characteristics attributed to brands, about associations and symbolic values, and about emotional responses on the brand or emotional relationships with brands (Smit et al., 2003).

Since the importance of brand personality concept has been well acknowledged, efforts to measure the concept has been made. One way of conceptualizing and measuring brand personality is the trait approach. Based on the Five-Factor Model of human personality, Jennifer L Aaker (1997) develops a theoretical framework of brand personality dimensions and creates a reliable, valid, and generalizable scale to measure these dimensions across 37 brands that cover various product categories. Employing a scientific scale development procedure, she proposes a 42-item brand personality scale (BPS hereafter) that measures 5 salient dimensions: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. Since BPS’s inception, it has received tremendous attention and extensive application in different industries and cultures. This scale has been tested with French brands (Ferrandi et al., 2000), Korean brands (Kim et al., 2001; Sung and Tinkham, 2005), Mexican brands (Alvarez-Ortiz and Harris, 2002), Japanese and Spanish brands (Aaker et al., 2001), Russian brands (Supphellen and Grønhaug, 2003), Chili brands (Rojas-Méndez et al., 2004), Dutch brands (Smit et al., 2003), and German brands (Zentes et al., 2008), to name a few. The scale has also been validated in retailing industry (Kim, 2000; Zentes et al., 2008), restaurant industry (Austin et al., 2003; Murase and Bojanic, 2004), tourism industry (Ekinci and Hosany, 2006; Murphy et al., 2007b), and hotel industry (Lee and Back, 2010).

Although BPS is not without its drawbacks, its extensive replications in different industries and cultures have produced rather stable results. Dimensions of sincerity, excitement, and sophistication have emerged in most of the studies, while dimension of ruggedness seems rather problematic across studies. This is due to the inclusion of certain American brands, such as Levi’s in Aaker’s study, which cannot be tapped in certain cultures (Aaker et al., 2001; Supphellen and Grønhaug, 2003). Nevertheless, because of its previous empirical support, this scale is adopted in the present study with an attempt to examine its applicability in the economy hotel sector.

Brand personality in hospitality and tourism research

As stated earlier, researchers in the hospitality and tourism fields have made efforts to apply the concept of brand personality as well. However, more efforts have been taken in applying this concept to tourism destinations (Ekinci and Hosany, 2006; Murphy et al., 2007a, 2007b; Ekinci et al., 2007; Prayag, 2007; Yuksel and Bilim, 2009) and restaurants (Austin et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2011; Siguaw et al., 1999), while little research has explored the concept in the lodging industry, except a few (Lee and Back, 2010; Tran et al., 2013). Tran et al. (2013) attempt to explore the relationship between hotel brand quality and hotel brand personality in order to find an effective way for hotel brand managers to develop their brand value and loyalty. Using canonical correlation analysis, their study demonstrates that the five dimensions of hotel brand quality construct (assurance, tangible, empathy, reliability, and responsiveness) are significantly related to preferences on the five dimensions of hotel brand personality (competence, excitement, sincerity, sophistication, and ruggedness), respectively. However, when applying Aaker’s scale, they fail to identify the underlying dimensions with the aid of statistical analysis.

Another study is by Lee and Back (2010) who sought to investigate the relationship between brand personality and its antecedents (service quality, user imagery, and perceived price) and consequences (trust and brand loyalty) in the upper upscale business hotel industry. Only two brand personality dimensions, competence and sophistication, emerge in their study. This is probably because their study focus was on the upper upscale business hotels, and competence and sophistication definitely reflect personality of upper upscale business hotels. Therefore, Lee and Back (2010) suggest more studies on other hotel segments are necessary to capture the varying effects of brand personality dimensions by brand segments. To respond to this request, the present study aspires to apply Aaker’s brand personality scale in economy hotel segment.

Murphy et al.’s (2007b) study is also worth more discussion. Although this study applies brand personality to two tourism destinations, Cairns and the Whitsunday Islands, Australia, from tourists’ perspective, it also aims to determine whether brand personality could be used to differentiate between these two tourism destinations. Their study provides some empirical evidence that tourists could use personality traits to describe tourism destinations. For example, the Whitsunday Islands are perceived as being upper class, honest, exciting, and tough, while Cairns as being sincere and competence, sophisticated, and exciting. In addition, tourists are able to differentiate between destinations on the basis of brand personality, as the Whitsunday Islands are perceived to be more wholesome, cheerful, exciting, imaginative, and upper class than Cairns. Hence, their study supports that brand personality is a useful and effective base for destination differentiation. Their study further suggests that more favorable destination brand personality ratings result in more favorable self-identity. With the increasing number of brands in the hotel industry, differentiation among similar hotel brands is critical for hotels to create competitive advantages and sustained success. Effective differentiation cannot be achieved through functional attributes alone, as functional attributes are easy to copy by competitors. Symbolic attributes, such as brand personality, should also be incorporated for better differentiation (Siguaw et al., 1999). However, no such research can be identified in the lodging industry. To advance the understanding of brand personality in hotel field, this article also seeks to investigate whether brand personality can be used to differentiate between similar hotel brands.

To summarize, the purpose of this study is twofold. First, this study tries to explore the applicability of brand personality in the economy hotel segment. Second, this study also endeavors to inspect whether brand personality can differentiate between two hotel brands, Courtyard and Hampton Inn brands.

Methodology

Between December 2009 and May 2010, a survey was distributed to a convenience sample of undergraduate students who enrolled in an online class at a large university located in the Southeastern region of the United States. For an exchange for a small amount of extra course credit, 202 out of 235 students returned their questionnaire in 2009 and 385 out of 570 students in 2010, resulting in a response rate of 86.0% and 81.9% in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Both samples were deemed appropriate, as 78.1% of 2009 respondents and 84.9% of 2010 respondents claimed they had stayed in Courtyard hotels; and 68.5% of 2009 respondents and 74.9% of 2010 respondents in Hampton Inn hotels before, indicating that they are also actual patrons of these two hotel brands.

For both data collections, respondents were asked to rate their perceptions of the two economy hotel brands: Courtyard and Hampton Inn. These two hotel brands were selected because they represent the economy segment of the lodging industry and are under two most known hotel companies, namely Marriott and Hilton, in terms of the number of properties and rooms. In addition, these two brands’ physical spread throughout the country (the United States) and the high frequency of their encounter by travelers, thus high visibility and familiarity to the general public, make them more suitable for the study selection.

The questionnaire first asked the respondents to rate their perceptions of Courtyard brand employing Aaker’s 42-item BPS. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement level regarding whether each personality trait can describe Courtyard brand with a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Their patronage history with, familiarity with, and loyalty toward Courtyard brand were also rated. Second, respondents were asked to rate Hampton Inn brand with the same set of items. In addition, their perceived similarity between Courtyard and Hampton Inn was also measured. The last section of the questionnaire gathered respondents’ demographic information. For this article, only brand personality section and demographic data were used for analysis.

Results

Sample profile

The demographic data revealed that, for both samples, there were slightly more females (51.5% in 2009 and 52.7% in 2010). Majority of them were in their early 20s, with a mean age of 20 for both samples. In terms of their academic standing, both samples exhibited rather similar distribution: 34% sophomores, 29.6 % seniors, 21.1% juniors, and 15.1% freshmen for 2009 respondents, and 31.2% sophomores, 24.6% seniors, 22.8% juniors, and 21.3% freshmen for 2010 respondents. Respondents of both samples were from various departments and colleges.

Data analysis

Data coding was performed according to a pooled cross-sectional design where dummy variables were used for hotels (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Dielman, 1988). The advantage of a pooled cross-sectional design is that it increases sample size by the number of testing units (hotels). The responses of the pooled data, thus, doubled, because each respondent filled out the questionnaire for both hotel brands. As a result, all the data analyses were performed on the combined data set or pooled data regardless of the hotel brands.

In order to examine the factor structure of hotel brand personality and how brand personality differentiates between Courtyard and Hampton Inn brands, first, the 2009 pooled data were used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify the underlying dimensions of hotel brand personality. Second, paired samples t tests and discriminant analysis were used to examine how the two hotel brands were perceived differently. Third, the 2010 pooled data were used for validation purpose with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

EFA with varimax rotation was conducted for the 42-item brand personality scale with the 2009 pooled data. The latent root criterion (eigenvalue) of 1.0 was used for factor inclusion, and a factor loading of 0.50 was used as the benchmark to include items in each factor. Items that double loaded were excluded (Hair et al., 2006). EFA resulted in 5 dimensions with 26 items, explaining 59.1% of the total variance (Table 1). The five dimensions with their items were quite consistent with the factor structure obtained by Aaker (1997). Using the labels created by Aaker, the five dimensions were named as ruggedness (rugged, tough, outdoorsy, Western, and masculine), competence (reliable, secure, hardworking, successful, and friendly), excitement (daring, young, unique, sentimental, exciting, and original), sophistication (upper class, glamorous, good-looking, and trendy), and sincerity (down-to-earth, wholesome, sincere, small-town, family oriented, and honest). Cronbach’s α coefficients were calculated to assess the reliability of the extracted dimensions. The coefficients range from 0.759 to 0.859, indicating the measurement scale is rather reliable.

Table 1.

Exploratory factor analysis (2009 pooled data).

Factors and indicators	Factor loadings	Eigenvalue	Variance explained (%)	Reliability coefficient
Ruggedness		7.643	29.4	0.859
Rugged	0.842
Tough	0.798
Outdoorsy	0.758
Western	0.750
Masculine	0.671
Competence		3.314	12.7	0.818
Reliable	0.782
Secure	0.778
Hardworking	0.767
Successful	0.661
Friendly	0.533
Excitement		1.973	7.6	0.808
Daring	0.706
Young	0.646
Unique	0.590
Sentimental	0.582
Exciting	0.530
Original	0.527
Sophistication		1.296	5.0	0.802
Upper class	0.825
Glamorous	0.758
Good-looking	0.603
Trendy	0.579
Sincerity		1.152	4.4	0.759
Down-to-earth	0.763
Wholesome	0.611
Sincere	0.593
Small-town	0.561
Family-oriented	0.541
Honest	0.531
Total variance explained			59.1
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy				0.884
Bartlett’s test of sphericity			χ ²	4270.590
			Significance	0.000

Average score for each factor was then computed and compared between Courtyard and Hampton Inn using paired samples t tests. Statistically significant differences were observed for all the dimensions except excitement dimension (Table 2). Both hotel brands were perceived low in ruggedness with Hampton Inn rated lower. Meanwhile, Courtyard was perceived more competent, sophisticated, and sincere than Hampton Inn. To further examine the differences between the two hotels’ brand personality perceptions at the multivariate level, discriminant analysis was used by entering the five factors as predictors of hotel group membership. The discriminant function was significant (Wilks’ λ = 0.962, p = 0.008). Specifically, competence and sincerity were identified as significant predictors at 0.05 level and sophistication at 0.066 level. Both ruggedness and excitement could not differentiate between the two hotel brands.

Table 2.

Paired samples t tests (2009 pooled data).

	Courtyard	Hampton Inn	Mean difference	t Value	Significance
Ruggedness	2.502	2.390	0.112	2.220	0.028
Competence	4.229	3.995	0.235	4.579	0.000
Excitement	3.116	3.050	0.066	1.220	0.224
Sophistication	3.506	3.351	0.155	2.290	0.023
Sincerity	3.809	3.663	0.146	2.562	0.011

Next, the model was evaluated with 2010 pooled data. This was accomplished by means of CFA using the LISREL program (Jöreskog, 1993). Because the χ ² test of overall model fit is sensitive to sample size, a finding of good fit has proved to be unrealistic in most structural equation modeling empirical research (Byrne, 2001). Furthermore, there is limited consensus concerning which goodness-of-fit indexes are best, and available interpretive guidelines are inevitably subjective (Hair et al., 2006). Thus, multiple fit indexes should be utilized to ensure that multiple aspects of model fit could be captured (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Relying on this method, the fit for a model with five latent components was investigated. First, a confirmatory analysis of the 2010 pooled data, based on the EFA from 2009 data, yielded adequate fit indexes after deleting item of small-town due to low loading and two modifications on correlating measurement errors. Although the χ ² was significant (χ ² = 1210.71, df = 263, p = 0.000), other fit indexes were acceptable with non-normed fit index (NNFI = 0.90), comparative fit index (CFI = 0.91), incremental fit index (IFI = 0.91), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.059 (Table 3). Therefore, the overall assessment of fit indexes suggested that the five-component model was stable within the pooled data. In addition, composite reliability coefficients and extract variance estimates were calculated for more reliability check (Table 4). All the reliability coefficients and extract variance estimates were above the cutoff values of 0.70 and 0.50, except for the extract variance estimate for dimension of sincerity which was 0.44. Hence, taken as a whole, the model was regarded as reliable.

Table 3.

Fit indexes (2010 data).

Fit indexes	Pooled data (n = 770)	Courtyard hotel (n = 385)	Hampton Inn (n = 385)	Cutoff values
AFM
χ ² statistic with associated p value	χ ² = 1210.71, df = 263, p = 0.000)	χ ² = 750.33, df = 263, p = 0.000)	χ ² = 809.97, df = 263, p = 0.000)	p > 0.05
GFI	0.88	0.86	0.85	p > 0.90 is a good fit
SRMR	0.059	0.060	0.068	p < 0.05 is a close fit
RMSEA	0.070	0.07	0.075	p ≤ 0.08 is an acceptable fit
IFM
NNFI	0.90	0.89	0.89	p > 0.90 is an acceptable fit
CFI	0.91	0.91	0.90
IFI	0.91	0.91	0.90
PFM				No accepted cutoff level. When used in comparing models, the one with a higher value is better
PGFI	0.72	0.70	0.69
PNFI	0.78	0.76	0.75

AFM: absolute fit measure; GFI: goodness-of-fit index; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; IFM: incremental fit measure; NNFI: non-normed fit index; CFI: comparative fit index; IFI: incremental fit index; PFM: parsimonious fit measure; PGFI: parsimony goodness-of-fit index; PNFI: parsimony normed fit index.

Table 4.

Confirmatory factor analysis (2010 pooled data).

Factors and indicators	Standardized loading (Li)	Reliability (Li²)	Composite reliability	Error variance	Extract variance estimate
Ruggedness			0.86		0.55
Rugged	0.79	0.62		0.38
Tough	0.75	0.56		0.44
Outdoorsy	0.74	0.55		0.45
Western	0.74	0.55		0.45
Masculine	0.69	0.48		0.52
Competence			0.88		0.59
Reliable	0.85	0.72		0.28
Secure	0.75	0.56		0.44
Hardworking	0.74	0.55		0.45
Successful	0.69	0.48		0.52
Friendly	0.81	0.66		0.34
Excitement			0.85		0.50
Daring	0.58	0.34		0.66
Young	0.61	0.37		0.63
Unique	0.76	0.58		0.42
Sentimental	0.58	0.34		0.66
Exciting	0.77	0.59		0.41
Original	0.69	0.48		0.00
Sophistication			0.85		0.59
Upper class	0.79	0.62		0.38
Glamorous	0.87	0.76		0.24
Good-looking	0.69	0.48		0.52
Trendy	0.70	0.49		0.51
Sincerity			0.80		0.44
Down-to-earth	0.57	0.32		0.68
Wholesome	0.62	0.38		0.62
Sincere	0.68	0.46		0.54
Family-oriented	0.73	0.53		0.47
Honest	0.72	0.52		0.48

Next, the degree to which the five-component model was consistent with observed data between two hotel brands was tested. The fit measures (Table 3) indicated that five brand personality dimensions fitted Courtyard data (χ ² = 750.33, df = 263, p = 0.000) better than Hampton Inn data (χ ² = 809.97, df = 263, p = 0.000). These fit indexes were somewhat lower than those of the pooled data, suggesting that the five-dimension model did not exhibit as satisfactory results for Courtyard and Hampton Inn separately. This indicated that both hotel brands may exhibit some unique dimensions that would be different from the factor structure extracted from 2009 pooled data.

To further the inquiry into how different hotel brands yielded hotel-specific dimensions, EFA was performed with 2009 Courtyard data and 2009 Hampton Inn data, respectively, with the same extraction criteria described in the pooled data EFA. EFA for Courtyard resulted in five dimensions with 18 items, explaining 64.0% of the total variance, while EFA for Hampton Inn produced a 28-item six-dimension solution, one more dimension than the original brand personality scale, explaining 68.1% of the total variance (Table 5). Dimensions were named based on the Aaker’s labels. The results suggested that factor structure of Courtyard was simpler, with 18 items and five dimensions explaining similar amount of variance in comparison with the 28-item six-dimension factor solution of Hampton Inn’s perceived brand personality. With reference to the EFA result of the pooled data, the factor structure of Hampton Inn brand personality seemed more similar to that of Courtyard. Specifically, dimension of ruggedness seemed to be very robust across three EFAs. However, items loaded under sincerity and competence dimensions (competence 1 of Hampton Inn) are more similar between the pooled data result and Hampton Inn result. On the other hand, items loaded under excitement dimension are more similar between the pooled data and Courtyard result.

Table 5.

Exploratory factor analysis of Courtyard and Hampton Inn hotel (2009 data).

EFA—Courtyard hotel				EFA—Hampton Inn
Factors and indicators	Factor loadings	Eigenvalue	Variance explained (%)	Factors and indicators	Factor loadings	Eigenvalue	Variance explained (%)
Ruggedness		5.116	28.4	Competence 1		10.430	36.0
Rugged	0.830			Successful	0.816
Tough	0.773			Reliable	0.792
Western	0.751			Friendly	0.714
Outdoorsy	0.739			Secure	0.672
Masculine	0.666			Family-oriented	0.669
				Hardworking	0.654
Excitement		2.248	12.5	Ruggedness		3.771	13.0
Unique	0.777			Rugged	0.852
Imaginative	0.745			Tough	0.787
Exciting	0.719			Outdoorsy	0.768
Original	0.573			Western	0.760
				Masculine	0.628
Sophistication		1.625	9.0	Sincerity		1.871	6.5
Upper class	0.813			Down-to-earth	0.722
Good-Looking	0.740			Sincere	0.712
Glamorous	0.729			Real	0.690
				Wholesome	0.646
				Honest	0.644
				Small-town	0.549
Competence		1.398	7.8	Competence 2		1.457	5.0
Intelligent	0.796			Intelligent	0.799
Confident	0.703			Technical	0.698
Charming	0.629			Independent	0.667
Sincerity		1.127	6.3	Sophistication		1.187	4.1
Sincere	0.735			Feminine	0.689
Honest	0.727			Glamorous	0.671
Reliable	0.711			Upper class	0.659
				Charming	0.639
				Excitement		1.026	3.5
				Trendy	0.707
				Contemporary	0.694
				Exciting	0.552
				Young	0.542
Total variance explained			64.0	Total variance explained			68.1

Conclusion

This study attempts to explore the applicability of brand personality in the economy hotel segment and whether hotel brand personality can differentiate between similar hotel brands: Courtyard and Hampton Inn. Through EFA and CFA, the results of this study suggest that brand personality dimensions could be clearly delineated in the economy hotel sector, in consistent with Aaker’s dimensions of ruggedness, competence, excitement, sophistication, and sincerity. The results, thus, confirm the applicability of brand personality and extend previous study’s findings in the hotel industry. While Lee and Back (2010) suggest that only two dimensions of brand personality, competency and sophistication, are identified in the upper upscale business hotel segment, the current study suggests that economy hotel brands could be described with all the five dimensions: ruggedness, competence, excitement, sophistication, and sincerity. However, both brands’ ruggedness personality is perceived lowest, indicating that ruggedness is not a personality that can be ascribed to either brand. On the other hand, competence dimension is perceived highest for both brands, suggesting that competence is the most important symbolic attribute customers seek for from both brands. This is consistent with Lee and Back (2010), which implies that no matter which segment a hotel brand falls into, they need to be competent to be felt reliable and secure by customers who choose to stay with them. Unlike Lee and Back’s (2010) study, sincerity dimension is rated second highest after competence for economy hotels. This makes sense as ‘sincerity’ should be a signature personality for economy hotels (Tran et al., 2013). This provides important practical implications. As there are various hotel brands available in the market for customer to select, with the uprising competition and limited flexibility on pricing, creating a distinguishable brand personality would be very helpful in attracting new customers and building a base of loyal customers for repeated business. For instance, economy hotel business does not merely depend on the comfortableness of guest room amenities to capture their market share; they also have to create a sense of home away from home and outstanding quality of service to impress their guests. As the research findings from this study suggest, competence and sincerity are the two major dimensions of brand personality that participants recognize. Hence, the major component in their branding strategy to economy hotels is to establish a reliable and responsible service that customer would trust. This would also require employees to present honest and cheerful attitude to guests throughout the guest cycle—from reservation to checkout. In addition to solidifying these dimensions in brand personality, it is also critical to examine important components that sustain these dimensions. For instance, adding a self-check-in and checkout kiosk and/or other kinds of technology might enhance the perception of efficiency, thus improving the perceived personality of competence. If such identification is made, economy hotels could consider what will be the best investment in reaching this goal that leads to create a sustainable competitive advantage among various economy hotel brands.

In addition to confirming the effectiveness of brand personality scale in economy hotel sector in general, the present study also aims to examine the ability of brand personality in differentiating the two hotel brands. The findings propose that similar hotel brands could be perceived differently based on brand personality. Specifically, competence and sincerity can differentiate Courtyard and Hampton Inn. It seems that Courtyard is performing better than Hampton Inn in creating a competent and sincere personality. This would help Courtyard gain a competitive edge over Hampton Inn, as both competence and sincerity are personalities that are perceived important for economy hotel segment. Additionally, although common brand personality factor structure could be used to describe economy hotel brands in general, specific hotel brand does exhibit some unique dimensions. Further, items are not loaded exactly the same between the two brands on extracted factors. Thus, each brand carries its uniqueness in each dimension and differentiates itself from others. For instance, both brands were perceived to possess sincerity that contains sincere and honest, which are the essential qualities for hotel operation, while more items were loaded to sincerity for Hampton Inn than Courtyard. Research results also suggest that the competence dimension for Hampton Inn is broken into two subdimensions. Although items loaded in each subdimension correspond to the original dimension proposed by Aaker (1997), this also indicates that being competent can be achieved from different aspects. Additionally, sincerity and three other dimensions are significantly different between the two brands. This result suggests that there is more complexity in each brand personality dimension, despite common brand personality factor structure can be used to describe economy hotel brands in general.

Limitations

The study has its limitations as it used only two brands from the economy hotel segment. More brands could be researched for more insights. In addition, other types of hotel segments should also be included for study generalizability. Another limitation is the student sample. Although most of the students have stayed in the hotel brands under research, they are, nevertheless, more homogeneous in terms of their demographics and do not represent a complete cross section of the population. For instance, business and leisure travelers who are not students may perceive economy hotels differently. However, using student samples is helpful when applying a scale in a new setting as the case in the present research. Nonetheless, it is still suggested that more representative samples reflecting different customer segments and different purposes of stay should be employed for future study to yield new insights. In addition, future research could focus on determining whether the differentiation on the basis of hotel brand personality could influence hotel guests’ brand preference and choice, the antecedents that help create a strong hotel brand personality, and the factors that would moderate the relationship between hotel brand personality and the choice.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Aaker

(1996) Building Strong Brands. New York, NY: Free Press.

Aaker

(1997) Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research 34: 347–356.

Aaker

Fournier

(1995) A brand as a character, a partner and a person: three perspectives on the question of brand personality. Advances in Consumer Research 22: 391–395.

Aaker

Benet-Martínez

Garolera

(2001) Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: a study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81: 492–508.

Alvarez-Ortiz

Harris

(2002) Assessing the structure of brand personality among global and local mexican brands. In American Marketing Association Educators’ Conference on enhancing knowledge development in marketing (eds Kehoe

Lindgren

Jr ), Chicago, IL, USA, 3–6 August, pp. 263–264. Chicago, Illinois: AMA Publishing.

Austin

Siguaw

Mattila

(2003) A re-examination of the generalizability of the Aaker brand personality measurement framework. Journal of Strategic Marketing 11: 77–92.

Baloglu

McCleary

(1999) A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research 26: 868–897.

Belk

(1988) Possessions and the extended self. The Journal of Consumer Research 15: 139–168.

Belk

Bahn

Mayer

(1982) Developmental recognition of consumption symbolism. The Journal of Consumer Research 9: 4–17.

10.

Birdwell

(1968) A study of the influence of image congruence on consumer choice. The Journal of Business 41: 76–88.

11.

Brïdson

Evans

(2004) The secret to a fashion advantage is brand orientation. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 32: 403–411.

12.

Byrne

(2001) Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing 1: 55–86.

13.

Crask

Laskey

(1990) A positioning-based decision model for selecting advertising messages. Journal of Advertising Research August/September: 32–38.

14.

Crockett

Wood

(1999) Brand western Australia: a totally integrated approach to destination branding. Journal of Vacation Marketing 5: 276–289.

15.

Dielman

(1988) Pooled Cross-Sectional and Time Series Data Analysis. New York, NY: Dekker.

16.

Ekinci

Hosany

(2006) Destination personality: an application of brand personality to tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research 45: 127–139.

17.

Ekinci

Sirakaya-Turk

Baloglu

(2007) Host image and destination personality. Tourism Analysis 12: 433–446.

18.

Ferrandi

J-M

Valette-Florence

Fine-Falcy

(2000) Aaker’s brand personality scale in a French context: a replication and preliminary test of validity. Developments in Marketing Science 23: 7–13.

19.

Fournier

(1998) Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. The Journal of Consumer Research 24: 343–373.

20.

Gardner

Levy

(1955) The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review 33: 33–39.

21.

Haigood

(2001) Deconstructing brand personality. American Marketing Association Educators’ Conference Proceedings 12: 327–328.

22.

Hair

Black

Babin

. (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

23.

Henderson

(2007) Uniquely Singapore? A case study in destination branding. Journal of Vacation Marketing 13: 261–274.

24.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1–55.

25.

Jöreskog

(1993) Testing structural equation modeling. In: Bollen

Long

JSL

(eds) Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 294–316.

26.

Keller

(1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57: 1–22.

27.

Kim

(2000) Examination of brand personality and brand attitude within the apparel product category. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 4: 243–252.

28.

Kim

Han

Park

(2001) The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: applying the theory of social identification. Japanese Psychological Research 43: 195–206.

29.

Kim

Magnini

Singal

(2011) The effects of customers’ perceptions of brand personality in casual theme restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30: 448–458.

30.

Lee

Back

(2010) Examining antecedents and consequences of brand personality in the upper-upscale business hotel segment. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 27: 132–145.

31.

Levy

(1959) Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review 37: 117–124.

32.

Malhotra

(1988) Self concept and product choice: an integrated perspective. Journal of Economic Psychology 9: 1–28.

33.

Martineau

(1958) The personality of the retail store. Harvard Business Review 36: 47–55.

34.

McEnally

de Chernatony

(1999) The evolving nature of branding: consumer and managerial considerations. Academy of Marketing Science Review 1999: 1.

35.

Murase

Bojanic

(2004) An examination of the differences in restaurant brand personality across cultures. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 11: 97–113.

36.

Murphy

Benckendorff

Moscardo

(2007a) Destination brand personality: visitor perceptions of a regional tourism destination. Tourism Analysis 12: 419–432.

37.

Murphy

Moscardo

Benckendorff

(2007b) Using brand personality to differentiate regional tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research 46: 5–14.

38.

Ogilvy

(1983) Ogilvy on Advertising. New York, NY: Crown.

39.

Phau

Lau

(2000) Conceptualising brand personality: a review and research propositions. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 9: 52–69.

40.

Plummer

(1984) How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising Research 24: 27–31.

41.

Prayag

(2007) Exploring the relationship between destination image and brand personality of a tourist destination: an application of projective techniques. Journal of Travel & Tourism Research 7: 111–130.

42.

Rojas-Méndez

Erenchun-Podlech

Silva-Olave

(2004) The ford brand personality in Chile. Corporate Reputation Review 7: 232–251.

43.

Siguaw

Mattila

Austin

(1999) The brand-personality scale. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 40: 48–45.

44.

Sirgy

(1982) Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. The Journal of Consumer Research 9: 287–300.

45.

Sirgy

(1985) Self-image/product-image congruity and consumer decision-making. International Journal of Management 2: 49–63.

46.

Smit

Berger

EVD

Franzen

(2003) Brands are just like real people! The development of SWOCC’s brand personality scale. In: Hansen

Christensen

(eds) Branding and Advertising. Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press, pp. 22–43.

47.

Sung

Tinkham

(2005) Brand personality structures in the United States and Korea: common and culture-specific factors. Journal of Consumer Psychology 15: 334–350.

48.

Supphellen

Grønhaug

(2003) Building foreign brand personalities in Russia: the moderating effect of consumer ethnocentrism. International Journal of Advertising 22: 203–226.

49.

Tran

Dauchez

Szemik

A-M

(2013) Hotel brand personality and brand quality. Journal of Vacation Marketing 19: 329–341.

50.

Yuksel

Bilim

(2009) Interactions between visual appeals, holiday motivations, destination personality and the self-image: implications for destination advertising. Journal of Travel & Tourism Research 9: 75–104.

51.

Zentes

Morschett

Schramm-Klein

(2008) Brand personality of retailers: an analysis of its applicability and its effect on store loyalty. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 18: 167–184.