Abstract
This chapter demonstrates the brand-gender–brand-equity approach in a global setting through studies in 10 countries across four continents. It follows Aaker and Joachimsthaler’s (Harvard Business Review 137–144, 1999) suggestion that global firms assess brand equity by assessing brand personality. The rationale behind the implementation of brand gender is the universality of gender perceptions. Psychologists sometimes assume that all cultures perceive gender similarly. The duality of femininity and masculinity extends beyond the dichotomy of a male or female sex and is also found between fathers and mothers, who are characterized by protection and care (Hofstede in Culture’s Consequences—International Differences in Work Related Values. Newbury Park, London, 1980). Surveys were conducted in the Americas (Brazil and the U.S.), Asia (China, India, and Japan), Australia, and Europe (France, Germany, Russia, and Sweden) to produce a sample of countries constituting more than 50% of the global population. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that the model was valid and reliable in all countries. Gender and equity scores differed widely due to culturally dependent response styles; however, when the data were mean-centered, the results showed that brand genders were perceived similarly—not in absolute terms, but relatively—for 20 famous brands across all countries. Cosmetics brands, such as Dove, Nivea, Olay, L’Oreal, and Maybelline, were perceived as somewhat feminine, while Google, Nike, and Coca-Cola were perceived as somewhat masculine (cross-cultural androgyny is discussed in Chap. 4). Though brand equities showed some variation, Apple, Disney, and Google were among the stronger brands worldwide, with high equity rankings in nearly all countries. By contrast, American Express and Hilton, both service brands, had lower equities and ranked lower in many countries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aaker, David A. 1991. Managing Brand Equity—Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, David A., and Erich Joachimsthaler. 1999. The Lure of Global Branding. Harvard Business Review, no. November–December: 137–144.
Aaker, Jennifer L. 1997. Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research 34 (3): 347–356. doi:10.2307/3151897.
Bem, Sandra L. 1974. The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42 (2): 155–162. doi:10.1037/h0036215.
Brady, Michael K., J. Joseph Cronin, Gavin L. Fox, and Michelle L. Roehm. 2008. Strategies to Offset Performance Failures: The Role of Brand Equity. Journal of Retailing 84: 151–164. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2008.04.002.
Buss, David M. 1995. Evolutionary Psychology: A New Paradigm for Psychological Science. Psychological Inquiry 6 (1): 1–30. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0601_1.
Burt, Cyril L. 1940. The Factors of the Mind: An Introduction to Factor Analysis in Psychology. University of London Press.
Cheung, Gordon W., and Roger B. Rensvold. 2000. Assessing Extreme and Acquiescence Response Sets in Cross-Cultural Research Using Structural Equations Modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 31 (2): 187–212. doi:10.1177/0022022100031002003.
Clarke III, Irvine. 2000. Extreme Response Style in Cross-Cultural Research: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Social Behavior and Permnaiity 15 (1): 137–152.
Confer, Jaime C., Judith a Easton, Diana S. Fleischman, Cari D. Goetz, David M.G. Lewis, Carin Perilloux, and David M. Buss. 2010. Evolutionary Psychology—Controversies, Questions, Prospects, and Limitations. American Psychologist 65 (2): 110–126. doi:10.1037/a0018413.
Cronbach, Lee J. 1946. Response Sets and Test Validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement 10: 3–31.
———. 1950. Further Evidence on Response Sets and Test Design. Educational and Psychological Measurement 10 (1): 3–31. doi:10.1177/001316445001000101.
Dion, K., E. Berscheid, and E. Walster. 1972. What Is Beautiful Is Good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24 (3): 285–290. doi:10.1037/h0033731.
Douglas, Susan P., C. Samuel Craig, and Edwin J. Nijssen. 2001. Integrating Branding Strategy Across Markets: Building International Brand Architecture. Journal of International Marketing 9 (2): 97–114. doi:10.1509/jimk.9.2.97.19882.
Equitrend. 2013. Harris Poll EquiTrend. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/Products/EquiTrend.aspx.
Fischer, Ronald. 2004. Standardization to Account for Cross-Cultural Response Bias: A Classification of Score Adjustment Procedures and Review of Research in JCCP. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 35 (3): 263–282. doi:10.1177/0022022104264122.
Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluation Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50.
Gough, H.G. 1957. California Psychological Inventory: Manual. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Grohmann, Bianca. 2009. Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research 46 (1): 105–119. doi:10.1509/jmkr.46.1.105.
Heckman, James J. 1979. Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Errorc. Econometrica 47 (1): 153–161. doi:10.2307/1912352.
Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Culture’s Consequences—International Differences in Work Related Values. London: Newbury Park.
Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations—Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival, 3rd ed. New York: MacGraw-Hill Professional.
Hu, Li-tze, and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1): 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hui, C. Harry, and Harry C. Triandis. 1989. Effects of Culture and Response Format on Extreme Response Style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 20 (3): 296–309. doi:10.1177/0022022189203004.
Inkeles, Alex, and Daniel J. Levinson. 1969. National Character: The Study of Modal Personality and Sociocultural Systems. In The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed., vol. 4, ed. Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, 418–506. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Johnson, Timothy, Patrick Kulesa, Young Ik Cho, and Sharon Shavitt. 2005. The Relation Between Culture and Response Styles: Evidence From 19 Countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 36 (2): 264–277. doi:10.1177/0022022104272905.
Keller, Kevin Lane. 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing 57 (1): 1–22. doi:10.2307/1252054.
Lieven, Theo, Bianca Grohmann, Andreas Herrmann, Jan R. Landwehr, and Miriam van Tilburg. 2014. The Effect of Brand Gender on Brand Equity. Psychology and Marketing 31 (5): 371–385. doi:10.1002/mar.20701.
Mooij, Marieke De. 2003. Convergence and Divergence in Consumer Behavior: Implications for Global Advertising. International Journal of Advertising 22: 183–202.
Nunnally, Jum C. 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
Parmenter, David. 2010. Key Performance Indicators—Developing, Implementing, and Using Winning KPIs, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
Pinker, Steven. 2002. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Viking-Penguin.
Samiee, Saeed, and Kendall Roth. 1992. The Influence of Global Marketing Standardization on Performance. The Journal of Marketing 56 (April): 1–17. doi:10.2307/1252038.
Solberg, Carl Arthur. 2002. The Perennial Issue of Adaptation or Standardization of International Marketing Communication: Organizational Contingencies and Performance. Journal of International Marketing 10 (3): 1–21. doi:10.1509/jimk.10.3.1.19546.
Spence, Janet T., Robert Helmreich, and Joy Stapp. 1974. The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A Measure of Sex Role Stereotypes and Masculinity-Femininity. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 4: 43.
———. 1975. Ratings of Self and Peers on Sex Role Attributes and Their Relation to Self-Esteem and Conceptions of Masculinity and Femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (1): 29–39. doi:10.1037/h0076857.
Stening, B.W., and J.E. Everett. 1984. Stening Everett 1984 Response Styles in a Cross-Cultural Managerial Study.pdf. Journal of Social Psychology 122 (2): 151–156. doi:10.1080/00224545.1984.9713475.
Tse, David K., and Gerald J. Gorn. 1993. An Experiment on the Salience of Country-of-Origin in the Era of Global Brands. Journal of International Marketing 1 (1): 57–76. doi:10.2307/25048484.
Uzzell, David, and Nathalie Horne. 2006. The Influence of Biological Sex, Sexuality and Gender Role on Interpersonal Distance. The British Journal of Social Psychology/ the British Psychological Society 45 (Pt 3): 579–597. doi:10.1348/014466605X58384.
Yoo, B., N. Donthu, and S. Lee. 2000. An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and Brand Equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28 (2): 195–211. doi:10.1177/0092070300282002.
Zentner, Marcel, and Klaudia Mitura. 2012. Stepping Out of the Caveman’s Shadow: Nations’ Gender Gap Predicts Degree of Sex Differentiation in Mate Preferences. Psychological Science 23 (10): 1176–1185. doi:10.1177/0956797612441004.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Self-selected brands in 10 countries
Country | American Express | Apple | Coca-Cola | Disney | Dove | Ferrero | Ford | Gillette | Heineken | Hilton | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australia | N | 28 | 105 | 142 | 77 | 77 | 40 | 79 | 57 | 119 | 48 | 32 |
% within country | 2.0% | 7.6% | 10.3% | 5.6% | 5.6% | 2.9% | 5.7% | 4.1% | 8.6% | 3.5% | 2.3% | |
Brazil | N | 55 | 78 | 203 | 94 | 167 | 46 | 95 | 126 | 168 | 73 | 22 |
% within country | 2.8% | 4.0% | 10.5% | 4.8% | 8.6% | 2.4% | 4.9% | 6.5% | 8.7% | 3.8% | 1.1% | |
China | N | 15 | 183 | 73 | 45 | 46 | 7 | 62 | 27 | 113 | 45 | 26 |
% within country | 1.2% | 14.4% | 5.8% | 3.5% | 3.6% | .6% | 4.9% | 2.1% | 8.9% | 3.5% | 2.0% | |
Germany | N | 31 | 84 | 179 | 85 | 85 | 124 | 66 | 69 | 133 | 46 | 29 |
% within country | 1.9% | 5.1% | 10.9% | 5.2% | 5.2% | 7.6% | 4.0% | 4.2% | 8.1% | 2.8% | 1.8% | |
France | N | 41 | 108 | 190 | 134 | 144 | 141 | 84 | 109 | 158 | 141 | 29 |
% within country | 1.8% | 4.8% | 8.5% | 6.0% | 6.4% | 6.3% | 3.7% | 4.9% | 7.0% | 6.3% | 1.3% | |
India | N | 42 | 108 | 151 | 64 | 153 | 19 | 69 | 95 | 163 | 32 | 30 |
% within country | 2.3% | 6.0% | 8.4% | 3.5% | 8.5% | 1.1% | 3.8% | 5.3% | 9.0% | 1.8% | 1.7% | |
Japan | N | 55 | 115 | 158 | 129 | 92 | 10 | 43 | 38 | 118 | 67 | 50 |
% within country | 3.4% | 7.2% | 9.9% | 8.1% | 5.8% | .6% | 2.7% | 2.4% | 7.4% | 4.2% | 3.1% | |
Russia | N | 24 | 79 | 165 | 95 | 123 | 47 | 94 | 143 | 134 | 90 | 23 |
% within country | 1.2% | 4.1% | 8.5% | 4.9% | 6.4% | 2.4% | 4.9% | 7.4% | 6.9% | 4.7% | 1.2% | |
Sweden | N | 20 | 110 | 194 | 127 | 116 | 17 | 76 | 83 | 167 | 101 | 22 |
% within country | 1.2% | 6.3% | 11.2% | 7.3% | 6.7% | 1.0% | 4.4% | 4.8% | 9.6% | 5.8% | 1.3% | |
USA | N | 47 | 116 | 152 | 96 | 93 | 10 | 73 | 60 | 124 | 47 | 40 |
% within country | 3.4% | 8.3% | 10.9% | 6.9% | 6.7% | .7% | 5.2% | 4.3% | 8.9% | 3.4% | 2.9% | |
Total | N | 358 | 1086 | 1607 | 946 | 1096 | 461 | 741 | 807 | 1397 | 690 | 303 |
% all countries | 2.1% | 6.4% | 9.5% | 5.6% | 6.5% | 2.7% | 4.4% | 4.8% | 8.2% | 4.1% | 1.8% |
Country | L’Oreal | Maybelline | Mercedes | Nike | Nivea | Olay | Samsung | Sony | Toyota | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australia | N | 56 | 44 | 31 | 61 | 58 | 54 | 107 | 84 | 79 | 1378 |
% within country | 4.1% | 3.2% | 2.2% | 4.4% | 4.2% | 3.9% | 7.8% | 6.1% | 5.7% | 100.0% | |
Brazil | N | 116 | 18 | 54 | 121 | 130 | 22 | 164 | 136 | 53 | 1941 |
% within country | 6.0% | .9% | 2.8% | 6.2% | 6.7% | 1.1% | 8.4% | 7.0% | 2.7% | 100.0% | |
China | N | 36 | 24 | 75 | 105 | 45 | 47 | 132 | 87 | 76 | 1269 |
% within country | 2.8% | 1.9% | 5.9% | 8.3% | 3.5% | 3.7% | 10.4% | 6.9% | 6.0% | 100.0% | |
Germany | N | 67 | 39 | 65 | 76 | 163 | 35 | 119 | 88 | 54 | 1637 |
% within country | 4.1% | 2.4% | 4.0% | 4.6% | 10.0% | 2.1% | 7.3% | 5.4% | 3.3% | 100.0% | |
France | N | 142 | 73 | 71 | 120 | 168 | 14 | 172 | 127 | 79 | 2245 |
% within country | 6.3% | 3.3% | 3.2% | 5.3% | 7.5% | .6% | 7.7% | 5.7% | 3.5% | 100.0% | |
India | N | 81 | 41 | 51 | 96 | 106 | 91 | 190 | 145 | 76 | 1803 |
% within country | 4.5% | 2.3% | 2.8% | 5.3% | 5.9% | 5.0% | 10.5% | 8.0% | 4.2% | 100.0% | |
Japan | N | 43 | 51 | 67 | 116 | 90 | 10 | 49 | 147 | 147 | 1595 |
% within country | 2.7% | 3.2% | 4.2% | 7.3% | 5.6% | .6% | 3.1% | 9.2% | 9.2% | 100.0% | |
Russia | N | 85 | 66 | 60 | 103 | 144 | 49 | 190 | 124 | 95 | 1933 |
% within country | 4.4% | 3.4% | 3.1% | 5.3% | 7.4% | 2.5% | 9.8% | 6.4% | 4.9% | 100.0% | |
Sweden | N | 80 | 46 | 53 | 102 | 115 | 26 | 123 | 93 | 67 | 1738 |
% within country | 4.6% | 2.6% | 3.0% | 5.9% | 6.6% | 1.5% | 7.1% | 5.4% | 3.9% | 100.0% | |
USA | N | 48 | 55 | 32 | 93 | 41 | 49 | 86 | 78 | 55 | 1395 |
% within country | 3.4% | 3.9% | 2.3% | 6.7% | 2.9% | 3.5% | 6.2% | 5.6% | 3.9% | 100.0% | |
Total | N | 754 | 457 | 559 | 993 | 1060 | 397 | 1332 | 1109 | 781 | 16934 |
% all countries | 4.5% | 2.7% | 3.3% | 5.9% | 6.3% | 2.3% | 7.9% | 6.5% | 4.6% | 100.0% |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lieven, T. (2018). Global Branding with Brand Gender and Brand Equity. In: Brand Gender. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60219-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60219-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60218-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60219-6
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)