838 International Journal of Scientific Management and Development *Correspondent Author: Kambiz Heidarzadeh 2 (heidarzadeh@srbiau.ac.ir) Manuscript No: IJSMD-KINA-2014-264 International Journal of Scientific Management and Development ISSN:2345-3974 Vol.3 (2), 488 - 434 February (2015) Research Paper The New Brand Personality Model in IRAN Amin Asadollahi 1 , Kambiz Heidarzadeh Hanzaee 2 , Mohammad Ali Abdolvand *3 , Hamideh Reshadatjooh 4 1,2,3,4 Department of Business Management, College of Management and Economics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran Available online at: www.IJSMD.Com Received 10 th February 2014, Revised 1 th May 2014, Accepted 14 th May 2014 Abstract: This study aims at building the fundamentals of a specific Brand Scale in Iran which is capable of fulfilling the Iranian cus tomers’ needs and requirements. In this study, we have obtained a new scale relating to brand personalities in Iran. First, all common items were gathered. Secondly, in order to evaluate the accuracy and creditability of the items used in CVR, we utilized their content validity. At the third step, it was distinguished that in what way any of the cases evaluated together were convertible and we used all cases which will be away from Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Results are explained in this text in details. Fourth step included the analysis of the Confirmatory Factor to measure whether the items of this variable are true or false. And finally, the fifth step was performed with the new native Scale Model and Brand Personality in Iran in order to accept to refuse the hypothesis based on the results from Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Moreover, the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is described in details in this paper. Research findings have revealed that from among the five main Brand Personality elements introduced by Aaker (Sincerity, Sophistication, Excitement, Competence and Ruggedness), three elements exist in Iranian market. But two additional elements have been added (Reliability and Validity). Therefore, five main Brand Personality elements are as follows: 1) Competence, 2) Reliance, 3) Sincerity, 4) Sophistication and 5) Fluency. Keywords: Brand Personality, Reliance, Fluency, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Introduction Powerful and outstanding brands significantly promote companies’ performances (Colucci, Montaguti, & Lago, 2008; Madden, Fehle, & Fournier, 2006; Warlop, Ratneshwar, & van Osselaer, 2005). This paper focuses on brand personality. “Brand Personality is a selection of people’s personality traits that are both applicable to and/or dependant on brands” (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003). Plummer (1984, 2000) presents the reason that brand personality might be vital for understanding the brand choice. In fact, at a time that consumers confirm the product quality and competitors can easily copy product specifications, the identity and personality of a strong brand are not valuable any more to build brand equity. Brand Personality had a high place in the criteria of academies and businesses. As a result, practical, valid and reliable measurement tools are invaluable. The work of Aaker (1997) was an inspiration for most researches on brand personality up to the present time. Aaker accurately developed a 44-item Brand Personality Scale which includes five widespread dimensions: “Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness.” This scale has performed as a Brand Personality measure in lots of studies, and its factor structure has been prominent in several studies (Aaker, 1997, 1999, Aaker, Benet- Martinez & Garolera, 2001, Kim, Han, & Park, 2001). However, Aaker’s scale has lately been criticized in several fields. First criticism is related to the definition of Brand Personality which ignores some other characteristics (such as intelligent human being, age, gender, etc.) other than Brand Personality (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003; Bosnjak, Bochmann, & Hufschmidt, 2007). This brings up the pr oblem of Construct Validity and leaves researchers and activists uncertain about what they are actually measuring: the perceived brand personality (from sender’s aspect) or perceived user’s traits (receiver’s aspect). Second criticism relates to the non-generalization of the factor structure for analyzing at the respondent level (for a specific brand or category of a specific product) (Austin, Siguaw, & Mattila, 2003). Since Aaker (1997) used to perform all analyses based on the data gathered from the other person, she actually removed all within-brand variance (in order to perform within- brand comparison) which ended to factor analysis results that are certainly based on within-brand variance. As a result, its framework is not generalized for situations which need analyses at the personal brand level and/or situations in which consumers can be divided. Because this text is the topic of most researches done by practitioners, it bears a complete boundary condition. Third criticism relates to the disability of building the five factors as homologues among various cultures (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003). Aaker, for example, found out that only three of the five factors (Sincerity, Excitement, and Sophistication) are applicable in Spain. Ruggedness is replaced with Peacefulness and Competence is replaced with Passionate Emotions. Four of the five factors emerged in Japan considering that Ruggedness was replaced with Peacefulness. This deficiency led to several researches which aimed at constructing a Brand Personality Scale specific for different countries. Bosnjak et al. (2007) developed a German scale. Milas and Mlasis (2007) made a Croatian scale, and Smith, Van den Bergh and Franzen (2002) presented a Dutch one. The first objective of this paper is referring to fundamentals of brand personality in Iran and developing a new scale based on an emphasized definition of brand personality that includes no non-personality item. In order to have any practical value, a scale should be short and since brand personality is often one of the several measures of a questionnaire, it should be easily applicable, too. To observe this issue, we replaced a really shorter scale (Burisch, 1997; Rammstedt & John, 2007).