Abstract
As the elemental building block of the brand, the brand name represents a potential starting point for creating brand personality. Drawing on theory and research from sound symbolism, this study investigates how brand names can be formed to create brand personality, as defined by Aaker's (1997) Brand Personality Scale. Results indicate that brand names with back vowels better create a Ruggedness personality, while brand names with front vowels better create Sophistication and Sincerity personalities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The front/back vowel sound distinction refers to the general location of the tongue during pronunciation. Vowel sounds where the highest point of the tongue is in the front of the mouth during pronunciation are considered front vowels (e.g., “bin”). Back vowels, on the other hand, are those vowel sounds produced where the highest point of the tongue is in the back of the mouth (e.g., “bun”).
Fricatives and stops differ in their manner of articulation—i.e., the degree to which the oral tract of the mouth is closed off by articulators (teeth, tongue, and lips). Unlike fricatives, stops have complete closure of articulators so that the airstream cannot escape the mouth during pronunciation.
Given the within-subjects design, we tested for a brand name order effect, but no significant effect was found.
References
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347–356.
Aaker, J. (1999). The malleable self: the role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 45–57.
Batra, R., Lehmann, D. R., & Singh, D. (1993). The brand personality component of brand goodwill: some antecedents and consequences. In D. A. Aaker & A. L. Biel (Eds.), Brand equity and advertising: advertising's role in building strong brands (pp. 83–96). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, R., & Nutall, R. (1959). Method in phonetic symbolism experiments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54(3), 441–445.
Chastaing, M. (1958). Le symbolisme des voyelles: significations des I, I & II. Journal de Psychologie, 55, 403–423. 461–481.
Fónagy, I. (1963). Die Metaphern in der Phonetik. The Hague
Freling, T. H., & Forbes, L. P. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(7), 404–413.
Hamano, Shoko (1986). The sound-symbolic system of Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.
Heath, T. B., Chatterjee, S., & France, K. R. (1990). Using the phonemes of brand names to symbolize brand attributes. In W. Bearden & A. Parasuraman (Eds.), The AMA Educators' Proceedings: enhancing knowledge development in marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Hinton, L., Nichols, J., & Ohala, J. (1994). Introduction: sound symbolic processes. In L. Hinton et al. (Eds.), Sound symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.
Klink, R. R. (2000). Creating brand names with meaning: the use of sound symbolism. Marketing Letters, 11(1), 5–20.
Klink, R. R. (2001). Creating meaningful new brand names: a study of semantics and sound symbolism. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(2), 27–34.
Klink, R. R. (2003). Creating meaningful brands: the relationship between brand name and brand mark. Marketing Letters, 14(3), 143–157.
Klink, R. R. (2009). Gender differences in new brand response. Marketing Letters, 20(3), 313–326.
Ladefoged, P. (1975). A course in phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Lowrey, T. M., & Shrum, L. J. (2007). Phonetic symbolism and brand name preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 406–414.
MacKay, I. R. A. (1978). Introducing practical phonetics. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., Inc.
Newman, S. S. (1933). Further experiments in phonetic symbolism. The American Journal of Psychology, 45(1), 53–75.
Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: the role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 185–193.
Peterfalvi, J. M. (1970). Recherches expérimentales sur le symbolisme phonétique. The American Journal of Psychology, 65, 439–473.
Plato (1985). The collected dialogues of Plato including the letters, Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, eds. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Plummer, J. T. (1985). How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising Research, 24, 27–31.
Samarin, W. J. (1967). Determining the meanings of ideophones. Journal of West African Languages, 4(2), 35–41.
Sapir, E. (1929). A study in phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 225–239.
Sirgy, J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 287–300.
Yorkston, E., & Menon, G. (2004). A sound idea: phonetic effect of brand names on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 43–51.
Yorkston, E. A., Nunes, J. C., & Matta, S. (2010). The malleable brand: the role of implicit theories in evaluating brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 74, 80–93.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a Summer Research Grant from the Sellinger School of Business and Management at Loyola University Maryland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Both authors contributed equally to this work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Klink, R.R., Athaide, G.A. Creating brand personality with brand names. Mark Lett 23, 109–117 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-011-9140-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-011-9140-7