Purpose: The aim of this study is to determine a structure of brand personality at an ecological level and to develop norms for positioning a particular brand in relation to other brands by means of brand personality scales.
Methodology: We present the results of a study in which 1,642 participants aged 15 to 82 (mean 35.3; 51.9% females) were involved. Each respondent marked three to four brands from different categories of goods and services on a 20-item adjectival list for measuring brand personality. As a result, 6,548 descriptions of 224 brands from 46 categories were collected.
Findings: Our analyses show that the structure of the differences among brand personalities on the Polish market can be described in terms of four dimensions: competence, spontaneity, subtlety, and egoism. The established dimensions explain 85% of the variance. A distribution of the results within the scales applied served as a basis for establishing specific norms for each of the four scales.
Limitations: The norms established have a country-level character and are inclusively adequate and reliable for companies that purchase products and services on the Polish market.
Originality: Our study presents a new, ecological approach to thinking about brands. Namely, it enables a more precise determination of the position of a certain brand in relation to many other competing brands and allows for a more efficient use of the potential for constructing brand personality.
Krzysztof Papuga, Jarosław Kaszubkiewicz, Witold Wilczewski, Michał Staś, Jerzy Belowski and Dorota Kawałko
The aim of the presented work was to compare the results of grain size distribution measurement by an innovative dynamometer method, developed by the authors, with results obtained by the pipette and hydrometer methods. Repeatability of results obtained in the dynamometer method was also determined. The content of three fractions with equivalent diameters <0.002 mm, 0.002–0.063 mm and 0.063–2.0 mm was measured. The results were compared using ordinary linear regression and additionally in the repeatability analysis by RMA (reduced major axis regression). It was found that the proposed dynamometer method is characterized by good result repeatability with no systematic errors when compared with the pipette method. The RMSE (root mean square error) value when referring to the pipette method calculated for the three fractions considered in total was 4.9096 and was lower than the analogous for the hydrometer method, which amounted to 5.4577. Values of determination coefficients in the comparison of dynamometer method and pipette method are within the range of 0.9681–0.9951 for the different fractions. It was found that slightly larger differences in relation to the pipette method occurred for the fractions <0.002 mm and 0.002–0.063 mm, and smaller for the fraction 0.063–2.0 mm. Similarly, greater differences between repetitions in the dynamometer method were observed for the fraction <0.002 mm, and smaller for the 0.063–2.0 mm fraction. Possible sources of errors in the dynamometer method were discussed, as were proposals for their reduction.