<%BANNER%>

Social Networks

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024164/00001

Material Information

Title: Social Networks Brand Familiarity's Effects on Brand Personality
Physical Description: 1 online resource (124 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Shapiro, April
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: brand, consensus, familiarity, network, personality, social
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Advertising thesis, M.Adv.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Brands are a vital asset to today's marketplace in that they create value for a company and are often the link between company and consumer. Brand personality helps to differentiate brands and foster relationships with consumers. Despite brand personality's importance there is still only a modest level of knowledge on what influences it. We attempted to discover whether brand familiarity has an effect on brand personality consensus within the new and evolving category of online social networking websites. An online survey was given to a sample of 244 students at the University of Florida to ascertain how their level of familiarity with certain social networks affected their level of consensus regarding the brand personalities of these websites. Results showed that brand familiarity does have an effect on brand personality consensus. In the social network category, high and low familiarity brands showed strong personality consensus while medium familiarity brands showed weak personality consensus. The study concluded that in new product categories, category leaders will set the tone for the overall category personality, and unfamiliar brands will be presumed to possess the same personality as the category leader. Thus medium familiarity brands have low personality consensus because some consumers would have knowledge of their personality and others would not.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by April Shapiro.
Thesis: Thesis (M.Adv.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Sutherland, John C.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024164:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024164/00001

Material Information

Title: Social Networks Brand Familiarity's Effects on Brand Personality
Physical Description: 1 online resource (124 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Shapiro, April
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: brand, consensus, familiarity, network, personality, social
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Advertising thesis, M.Adv.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Brands are a vital asset to today's marketplace in that they create value for a company and are often the link between company and consumer. Brand personality helps to differentiate brands and foster relationships with consumers. Despite brand personality's importance there is still only a modest level of knowledge on what influences it. We attempted to discover whether brand familiarity has an effect on brand personality consensus within the new and evolving category of online social networking websites. An online survey was given to a sample of 244 students at the University of Florida to ascertain how their level of familiarity with certain social networks affected their level of consensus regarding the brand personalities of these websites. Results showed that brand familiarity does have an effect on brand personality consensus. In the social network category, high and low familiarity brands showed strong personality consensus while medium familiarity brands showed weak personality consensus. The study concluded that in new product categories, category leaders will set the tone for the overall category personality, and unfamiliar brands will be presumed to possess the same personality as the category leader. Thus medium familiarity brands have low personality consensus because some consumers would have knowledge of their personality and others would not.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by April Shapiro.
Thesis: Thesis (M.Adv.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Sutherland, John C.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024164:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

SOCIAL NETWORKS: BRAND FAMILIARIT YS EFFECTS ON BRAND PERSONALITY By APRIL SHAPIRO A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ADVERTISING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009 1

PAGE 2

2009 April Shapiro 2

PAGE 3

To my classmates. 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to give tha nks to Dr. John Suther land for being a truly dedicated chair, repeatedly going above and beyond the call of duty to help with this study. I also want to thank my committee members, Dr. Robyn Goodman and Dr. Jorge Villegas for being incredibly helpful and supportive th roughout the entire process. I w ould like to thank my Master of Advertising class, who went from 16 comple te strangers to a second family. I could never have done this without all of you and I wish you all the best. Lastly I would like to thank my parents, who in no way directly contributed to th is thesis, but have alwa ys given me unyielding support. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ...............9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ ..10 Brand Familiarity ............................................................................................................. .......10 Brand Image and Personality ..................................................................................................11 Social Networks ............................................................................................................... .......12 Research Problem ...................................................................................................................12 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................................14 Social Networks ............................................................................................................... .......14 Brand Equity and Loyalty .......................................................................................................17 Brand Personality ............................................................................................................. .......18 Congruity Theory ....................................................................................................................20 Aakers Instrument .................................................................................................................22 Strausbaughs Instrument ...................................................................................................... .23 The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ...................................................................................23 The Adjective Checklist ..................................................................................................25 Self-Concept and Purc hase Motivation ..................................................................................25 Self-Expression Model ...........................................................................................................26 Brand Familiarity ............................................................................................................. .......27 Relationship Basis Model .......................................................................................................28 Study Hypothesis ....................................................................................................................29 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 33 Research Design .....................................................................................................................33 Selection of Brands .................................................................................................................33 Sample ........................................................................................................................ ............36 Variable Measurement .......................................................................................................... ..37 Brand Familiarity ............................................................................................................. 37 Brand Personality ............................................................................................................3 9 Survey Materials .....................................................................................................................41 Procedure ..................................................................................................................... ...........45 Measuring and Analyzing Data ..............................................................................................46 5

PAGE 6

4 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................... ..........47 Description of Sample ......................................................................................................... ...47 Overall Participants .........................................................................................................47 Group Comparisons .........................................................................................................49 Validation of High, Medium, and Low Familiarity ................................................................51 Brand Familiarity ............................................................................................................. 51 Brand Usage ....................................................................................................................52 Amount of time used ................................................................................................52 Account registration .................................................................................................53 Satisfaction ...............................................................................................................53 Brand Personality Freq uency Distributions ............................................................................54 Hypothesis Testing ............................................................................................................ .....59 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................62 Summary of Results ................................................................................................................62 Social Network Usage .....................................................................................................62 Brand Personalities of Social Networks ..........................................................................64 Category Comparison ......................................................................................................65 Bebo Versus Sportsvite as Low Familiarity Brands ........................................................66 Fungibility ................................................................................................................... ....67 Theoretical Implications .........................................................................................................68 Practical Implications ........................................................................................................ .....69 Limitations ................................................................................................................... ...........72 Suggestions for Future Research ............................................................................................73 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT ........................................................................................................76 B QUESTIONNAIRES .............................................................................................................. 78 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................121 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................124 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Aaker Personality Dimensions ...........................................................................................22 2-2 MBTI Personality Descriptions .........................................................................................31 3-1 Pre-Test Brand Stimuli .................................................................................................... ..34 3-2 Pre-Test Results .................................................................................................................35 3-3 Brands Selected for Main Study ........................................................................................35 3-4 Survey Brand Selections ....................................................................................................41 3-5 Survey Order .............................................................................................................. ........42 4-1 Demographic Profile ....................................................................................................... ...48 4-2 Cross Tabulation of Group with Gender ............................................................................50 4-3 Cross Tabulation of Group with Age .................................................................................50 4-4 Cross Tabulation of Group with Academic Classification ................................................50 4-5 Cross Tabulation of Group with Race/Ethnicity ................................................................50 4-6 Cross Tabulation of Group with Social Class ....................................................................51 4-7 Cross Tabulation of Group with Computer Ownership .....................................................51 4-8 Brand Familiarity ......................................................................................................... ......54 4-9 Analysis of Variance Test of Familiarity ...........................................................................54 4-10 Familiarity Post Hoc Analysis ...........................................................................................5 4 4-11 Brand Usage .............................................................................................................. .........55 4-12 Usage Time Per Week ...................................................................................................... .55 4-13 Usage Time Descriptives .................................................................................................. .55 4-14 Registered Accounts ...................................................................................................... ....56 4-15 Brand Satisfaction ....................................................................................................... .......56 4-16 Most Frequently Occurring Personality Type ....................................................................57 7

PAGE 8

8 4-17 Overall Personality Assignments by Familiarity ...............................................................58 4-18 MBTI Frequency Distributi ons by Individual Dimension .................................................59 4-19 MBTI Frequency Distribu tions by Total Personality ........................................................59 4-20 Cross Tabulation of Match/No Ma tch with Overall Personality Type ..............................60 4-21 Cross Tabulation of Maximum Time with Number of Personalities .................................61

PAGE 9

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Advertising SOCIAL NETWORKS: BRAND FAMILIARIT YS EFFECTS ON BRAND PERSONALITY By April Shapiro May 2009 Chair: John C. Sutherland Major: Advertising Brands are a vital asset to todays marketplace in that they create value for a company and are often the link between company and consumer Brand personality helps to differentiate brands and foster relationships with consumers. Despite brand personalitys importance there is still only a modest level of know ledge on what influences it. We attempted to discover whether brand familiarity has an effect on brand personality consensus within the new and evolving category of online social networking websites. An online survey was given to a sample of 244 students at the University of Florida to ascertain how their level of familiarity with certain social networks affected their level of consensus regarding the brand personalities of these websites. Results showed that brand familiarity does have an effect on brand personality consensus. In the social network category, high and low fa miliarity brands showed strong personality consensus while medium familiarity brands s howed weak personality consensus. The study concluded that in new product categories, category leaders will set the tone for the overall category personality, and unfamiliar brands will be presumed to possess the same personality as the category leader. Thus medium familiarity br ands have low personality consensus because some consumers would have knowledge of their personality and others would not. 9

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In a marketplace overwhelmed with an unyi elding amount of products and companies fighting for consumers attention, a commonly us ed method for distinguishing between options is often the brand, simply defined as something th at is identifiable to the buyer and the seller and creates value for both (Schultz and Schu ltz 2004, p. 14). According to Schultz and Schultz (2004), for most organizations, th e brand is the most important asset they ownfree and clear (p. 11). Brands are a vital asset to the marketplace in that they create value for both the company and the consumer, and they are of ten the relationship linking those two parties together (Schultz and Schultz 2004). The image of each brand, therefore, plays a large role in what that brand is capable of and how it is framed in the minds of consumers. The brand image, and more specifically the personality of a brand, helps to differentiate and make that brand more desirable to the consumer. Thus we can infer that brands play a large role in why consumers buy products, and thus, how companies make money. Brand Familiarity Brand familiarity is regarded as easy r ecognition of a well-know n brand (Hoyer and MacInnis 2007, p. G-2). Just as people can feel a certain level of familiarity with other people they know, consumers can feel a certain level of familiarity with brands. People who consume certain brands on a regular basis are likely to f eel very familiar with and knowledgeable about those brands. Conversely, brands that consumers ha ve never come in contact with or developed a need for are likely to appear as unfamiliar to the consumer, and the consumer may not be knowledgeable about their attributes. The familiari ty of a brand in the mind of consumers can lead to stronger preferences for that brand over unfamiliar brands. 10

PAGE 11

Brand Image and Personality Brand image, according to Plummer (2000), consists of how a brand presents itself to the world (p. 80). Brands do this through mu ltiple outputspackaging, logo, name, the product itself, and where the product is sold. However, the image of a br and perceived by a person is not necessarily equal to the image th at is put out by the brands crea tor, because cons umers interpret that image in their own way t hrough experience, through perceptions, misconceptions, the value systems of the individuals out there in the worl d, and of course, all th e noise in the system (Plummer 2000, p. 80). Brand image is comprised of three parts: physical attributes, functional benefits or characteristics, a nd the brands characterization or personality (Plummer 2000). It is the combination of these elements that helps cons umers to decide whether a particular brand is suitable for them (Plummer 2000). Brand person ality is thus a major component in how consumers feel about a particular brand and will be of major focus in this study. According to Aaker (1997) a brands pers onality consists of the set of human characteristics associated with a brand (p. 347) The goal of developing brand personalities lies in reflecting the way consumers actually feel about the brand rather than simply being an expression of the way we would like consumers to feel about the brand (Plummer 2000, p. 81). Shank and Langmeyer (1993) noted that similar to a persons personality often emerging from their heredity or the environment around them, a products personality is born out of its tangible characteristics and the stimulus-response of cons umers in the marketing environment (p. 162). Just like a person, a brand can be humorous, laid back, serious, elegant, sophisticated, feminine, friendly, warm, old-fashioned, and the list goes on. For example, Aa ker states that the brand personality of Levis 501 jeans is American, western, ordinary, common, blue collar, hard working, and traditional (Aaker and Fournier 1995, p. 394). 11

PAGE 12

Social Networks A recent phenomenon in media has been the ri se of social networks. According to Wikipedia (2008b) a social network service f ocuses on building onlin e communities of people who share interests and activities, or who are interested in explori ng the interests and activities of others (p. 1). These networks are typically website-based and offer multiple outlets for user interaction (Wikipedia 2008b). Recently, social ne tworks have become highly dominant ways for people to communicate and share id eas and information, making them part of a daily routine for many people (Wikipedia 2008b). Research Problem Branding is logically done in order to communicate one, distinct image of a brand to consumers. But does this really happen? And how eas y is it to achieve this solid image across the board? Brand personality consensus refers to th e level of agreement by different people in the way they view a particular brands personal ity. A brand with str ong or high personality consensus would indicate that most consumers vi ew the brand as having the same personality and they would all describe it in the same wa y. One personality would likely dominate all others. A brand with weak or low personality consensus would indicate that c onsumers all have their own views of the brands personality, and the numb er of differing personal ities assigned to it would be quite high. There would be no clear do minant personality. Taking brand familiarity into consideration, it would seem logical to say that brands with high familiarity to consumers would have a strong personality consensus, while brands with low familiarity to consumers would have a weak personality consensus. Bu t branding is a complicated concept, and the relationship between consumer and brand is not on e sided. It works both wa ys. It can, therefore, be argued that brand personality is made up of not only what marketers put out, but also what consumers choose to take in. Consumers could co mpletely accept and internalize the personality 12

PAGE 13

13 conveyed by the brand, or they could misinter pret the brands personality or adapt their interpretation of the personality to fit their n eeds and desires. The question is what actually happens? Does it depend? How should branders ta ke this into consideration? And does this change the way we brand products? These questions have obvious implications for the branding efforts of companies everywhere. We need to discover why consumers view brand personalities the way they do. But to do this, we first need to understand what a ffects brand personality consensus and whether brand familiarity factors into the equation. To find out, the subsequent research will attempt to answer the following research question: Does brand familiarity affect brand personality consensus? Will high familiarity brands have stronger consen sus or is the opposite true? It appears that arguments can be made for both and thus this study will attempt to find the answer. This study will try to discover the link between brand familia rity and personality consensus through a study correlating respondents levels of familiarity w ith various brands with the number of differing personality types to which thos e respondents assign them. Specifi cally, this study will have a focus on online social networking websites (refe rred to as social networks throughout the study). The use of social network brands creates an added component to the practicality of this research. Not only will the study attempt to find an answer to the research question, but information will also be discovered on college students use and familiarity with online social networking websites. This information is also of large value to marketers today, as more and more people are spending their free time on the inte rnet instead of in front of the television, and online advertising spending continues to increase.

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Social networks have become a recent phenomenon in the ways in which people connect and communicate with each other. But as a relatively new and gr owing category, a solid understanding of how consumers have developed use of and relationships with social networks is still lacking and likely still evolvi ng. From a marketing standpoint, it is beneficial to explore how familiar consumers feel they are with various soci al networks and how that familiarity ties into the personalities they view thes e social networks as having. Social Networks There are approximately 850 social networking sites today, with that number estimated to rise to 250,000 in the next year (Swartz 2008a ). According to Wiki pedia (2008b) the most heavily used social networks are those which contain directories of so me categories (such as former classmates), means to connect with frie nds (usually with self -description pages), and recommender systems linked to trust, with some of todays most popular sites combining different elements of each of these categories (p. 1). According to Swartz (2008a) MySpace, one of the social network Big Three, has been fa irly profitable. The company recently solidified partnerships with Warner Music Group, S ony BMG Music Entertainment, and Vivendis Universal Music Group. These partners hips are enabling the site to give its members such things as merchandise and concert tickets (Swartz 2008a ). HyperTargeting, launched for MySpace last summer, is software that searches through the co ntent within MySpace user profiles in order to supply advertising content in tune with thei r hobbies and characteristic s (Swartz 2008a). This program has been a huge driver of sales for MySp ace, as hundreds of advertisers have become a part of it (Swartz 2008a). 14

PAGE 15

Facebook, the second major player in the Big Th ree, has been able to acquire revenue through sales of virtual gifts, ta rgeted ads placed by local compan ies, and banner advertisements (Swartz 2008a). Seth Goldstein, owner of Soci alMedia Networks, says more and more people are spending more and more of their time w ithin the Facebook ecosystemthis is the largest aggregated, engaged audience. Period (Swartz 2008a, p. 1). LinkedIn makes up the third component of the Big Three. Unlike Facebook or MySpace, however, LinkedIn is a business co ntact social networking site. The companys CEO, Dan Nye, claims its a global, interconne cted, world, and we are the one professional network (Swartz 2008a, p.1). LinkedIn is currently at 21 million members and growing by over 1 million each month (Swartz 2008a). The company has been prof iting from banner ads, subscriptions, paid job postings, corporate sales, and new developments such as research services (Swartz 2008a). While the Big Three may dominate domestically, th e international market appears to be open and welcoming newcomers (Swartz 2008a ). Friendster was at one time was a hit in the United States. It has since faded here and is now widely popular in Asia touting 50 million users (Swartz 2008a). Bebo, which AOL recently purchased for $850 million, has become popular with younger consumers, often between 13 and 24 years old (Swartz 2008a). Its recent profitability is due to collaboration with Nike and Apple (Swartz 2008a). Online video sites such as YouTube.com ofte n dont appear on lists of typical social network sites; however, they can clearly be categorized as such. Through these sites, users create accounts, post videos, interact with other user s, and post their opinions. YouTube, the category giant, was founded in 2005 and claims it is the p remier destination to watch and share original videos worldwide through a Web experience (Ostrow 2008, p. 1). While YouTube may be the most widely known social network of its kind, the competitors are not shying away. Sites such as 15

PAGE 16

Hulu, Next New Networks, Fora.TV, Metacafe, Brightcove, and DailyMotion are all video sharing sites fighting for cons umer attention (Ostrow 2008). According to Swartz (2008b) social networks are beginning to assume the roles previously filled by TV networks as advertising vehicles. To compare, the size and nature of each social network site helps determine the kind of TV network it hypothetically replaces (Swartz 2008b). For example, the highly popular mass-ap peal sites such as MySpace and Facebook would take on the advertising f unction of major TV networks su ch as NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX (Swartz 2008b). Less-widely used sites su ch as Bebo, LinkedIn, and Ning would replace cable networks that have more focused audien ces such as MTV or C NN. What Swartz (2008b) refers to as vertical sites, such as Global Grind and Xing, would re place niche TV networks such as the Sci-Fi Channel and Food Network in order to reach highly targeted groups. Vertical social networks appeal to highly specialized interests, which is very inviting for marketers looking for easy ways to target specific groups (Swartz 2008a). The main benefit of using social networks as advertising vehicles is the ability to precisely target consumers based on their demographics and interests (Swartz 2008b). The realm of online advertising also offers marketers an abundance of opportunities for diffe rent media formats and methods of grabbing consumers attention (Swartz 2008b). As younger cons umes continue to turn their attention away from the TV screen and onto the computer screen, it is becoming necessarynot just beneficialto communicate with consumers through social networks (Swartz 2008b). The main concern surrounding social networks today is how companies are going to make money (Swartz 2008a). Facebook, for example, is worth about $15 billion but hardly makes a profit (Swartz 2008a). Bill Eager, co-founder of bSocial Networks, said of Facebook and the 16

PAGE 17

other major players you cant have a $15 billi on market valuation based on advertising alone (Swartz 2008a, p. 1). As a new and developing category, social ne tworks are faced with the challenge of distinguishing themselves to internet users and appealing to th eir needs in order to grow a customer base. Establishing a strong brand image in order to create brand equity may help foster a strong connection between a consumer and a social network. Brand Equity and Loyalty Branding is designed in hopes of establishing a high level of brand equity. According to Keller (1993), brand equity occurs when certain outcomes result from the marketing of a product or service because of its brand name that would not occur if the same product or service did not have that name (p. 1). Marketers strive to obt ain high levels of brand equity. Dougherty (1996) expresses the benefit of establishing high levels of brand equity in that short-term sales may provide a product with the fuel to stay alive for a day, but brand equity is the engine that will keep a brand alive, profitabl e and vital for a lifetime (p. 16). Brand equity, in the mind of consumers, can lead to strong preferences for pa rticular brands, referre d to as brand loyalty. Brand loyalty is said to occur when consumer s make a conscious evaluation that a brand or service satisfies their needs to a greater extent than others do and decide to buy the same brand repeatedly for that reason (Hoyer and MacI nnis 2007, p. 258). Loyalty to a brand is quite different from a simple habit. This differentia tion lies in the high amount of commitment to a brand (Hoyer and MacInnis 2007). Since the concepts of brand equity and brand loyalty appear to be increasingly paramount to th e goals of the marketing of differe nt products and services, it is important to understand the various measures that can be taken to ensure brand equity is established and that brand loyalt y can be exhibited by consumers. Creating a strong brand image, and more specifically, brand personality, is essential for achieving these end-states. 17

PAGE 18

Brand Personality Aaker and Fournier (1995) view brand personality as part of the consumer-brand relationship, and expresses that the brand is treated as an act ive, contributing partner in the dyadic relationship that exists between the pers on and the brand, a partner whose behaviors and actions generate trait inferences that colle ctively summarize consume rs perception of the brands personality (p. 393). Fourni er poses a multitude of questions regarding the role of brand personality as an active, contri buting relationship member, and ques tions if brands in fact reach out to customers on an individual basis, seeki ng to form one-on-one re lationships with them (Aaker and Fournier 1995, p. 393) Fournier proposes that: At a broad level of abstraction, all mark eting mix activities and brand management decisions (e.g. a change in the brands a dvertising campaign, a coupon drop, alteration of package size) can be construed as behaviors enacted on part of th e brandbehaviors that trigger attitudinal, c ognitive, and/or behavioral respons es on the part of the consumer (Aaker and Fournier 1995, p. 393). Burke (1994) argues that a brands personality, along with its positioning, should be central to the message being communicated by the brand. Burke (1994) states that a sound brand position, properly and consistently communicat ed, has the ability to impact consumer perceptions in ways that are far more enduring and which provide an im pressive array of benefits (p. 20). Examples of these aforementioned be nefits are as follows: Builds brand equity by generating acceptance of the company's brand position; Creates a recognizable environment for all customer co mmunications; Imparts stronger imagery to all products and product lines; Differentiates th e brand from the competition; Increases the impact of individual communica tions; Increases the impact of the total communications effort; and Enables the company to comm and a premium for its products (Burke 1994, p.20). Brands can develop personality traits in one manner through the various people associated with a particular brand, such as endorsers of the product or high-ranked company personnel, such as the CEO or founder (Aaker 1997). Researcher s express that brands develop not only 18

PAGE 19

personality characteristics but also their own set of demographics, including age, gender, and social class. This can be exemplified through th e portrayal of Virginia Slims as being female versus Marlboro as being male, Apple as being young versus IBM as being old, and Saks Fifth Avenue as being high-class versus Kmart as being blue collar (Aaker 1997). Strausbaugh (1998) conducted a brand personality study that analy zed the number of dominant personalities of high familiarity bra nds and low familiarity brands in mature, wellestablished product categories. Strausbaughs (1998) results conc luded that brands with high equity contained multiple, yet strong, personalities. In Strausbaughs (1998) pilot study, CocaCola exhibited two to four dominant personalities while Diet Coke and Cherry Coke exhibited only two dominant personalities. In Strausbaughs (1998) main study, McDonalds exhibited two to three personalities. Taco Be ll, at the time a relatively new and emerging brand, exhibited one dominant personality. Strausbaugh (1998) noted that the majority of existing l iterature would indicate that a brand persona lity takes a very long time to build, dependent on message consistency, image, tone and so on (p. 194). Strausbaugh (1998) also explained that brand personality manuals state that this lengthy pr ocess should result in an overriding positioning and logically, singular perception of the brand in the mind of the consumer (pp. 194-195). The results of Strausbaughs (1998) study, however, challenged this. Strausbaugh (1998) suggested that the longer the brand has been in existen ce and the more communicati ons received over time with regard to it, the more identities it is ab le to take on (p. 195). Strausbaugh (1998) speculated that the highly familiar product becomes tightly intertwined with the usage experience for the consumer and thus becomes highly personalized and positive in nature (p. 195). Because Strausbaughs study focused on mature categories, th e results cannot be proj ected onto the social 19

PAGE 20

network category. The results of this study, therefore, will be interest ing to compare with Strausbaughs study. The study of personality is an important concept in branding, not only concerning the personality of the brand but also the personality of the consum er. The study of self-concept is highly important to marketers because consumers self image often cont rols their pattern of purchase behavior (Heath and Scott 1998). This is referred to as congruity. Congruity Theory The concept of image congruity refers to the process of consumers purchasing products/brands that they believe possess symbolic images similar and/or complementary to the image they hold of themselves (Heath and Scott 1998, p. 1110). C ongruity Theory suggests that consumers will buy products that are congruent, or fitting, with their self-concept (Heath and Scott 1998). Heath and Scott (1998) propose that a ny product information that is inconsistent with the consumers self-concept is unlikely to ga in their attention, accepta nce, and retention (p. 1112). Based on this theory of congruity, it seems likely that consumers will prefer brands that have personalities similar to th eir own, adapt their view of the personalities for brands they prefer in order to match their own self-concept, or prefer brands consiste nt with the personality of their ideal self, or wh at they strive to be. Grubb and Hupp (1968) pose that self-concept deve lops not only from the self but from the reactions of othersincluding p eers, significant others parents, and teachersand that positive reactions from these references ar e vital to self-enhancement and growth. It is further stated that a person will use products symbolically in order to convey ideas about hims elf to his references (Grubb and Hupp 1968). Following successful communication of ideas about self to references, a desired reaction from references will lead to enhancement of self (Grubb and Hupp 1968). A major component of a products symbolic nature includes perceptions of the kinds of people 20

PAGE 21

whom they believe use that product (Gr ubb and Hupp 1968, p. 59). In their study on various automobiles, Grubb and Hupp (1968) found that res pondents held strong stereotypes of the users of different automobile brands. It was further discovered that drivers of various automobiles viewed themselves as similar to all drivers of that same automobile and viewed themselves as quite different from drivers of competi ng brands (Grubb and Hupp 1968). Based on these findings, Grubb and Hupp (1968) st ressed that promotion of a particular brand requires development of a strong consumer perception of the kind of people who own and use the product (p. 63). It was further expressed that if present and potential consumers of a product are to identify with a particular group for a speci fic self-concept, the promotional efforts must be directed to associate the produc t with the self-con cept desired by the customers (Grubb and Hupp 1968, p. 63). Parker (2005) posed that self-brand congrui ty, the comparison of self to brand, affects brand attitudes particularly when the social si gnaling value of a brand is high (i.e. used in a public situation) and when symbolic, self-expres sive motivations are involved (p. 4). Parker (2005) stated that as a consumers self-image and brand image become increasingly similar, brand attitudes should become more positive. With research in place to back up the im portance of brand image and personality, one should consider just how brand personalitie s are measured. Unfortunately, despite this importance, the measure of brand personality is a somewhat new concept that still lacks standardized measures. Different instruments have been created and implemented but an allencompassing industry standard has not yet been es tablished. But this is not to say that progress hasnt been made and new methods arent bei ng tested. Two different instruments for brand 21

PAGE 22

personality measurement, one developed by Jennifer Aaker and the other by Kirsten Strausbaugh, are subsequently explored. Aakers Instrument Jennifer Aaker (1997) developed a brand person ality measurement instrument based on the Big Five dimensions of human personali ty Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness. Aaker (1997) pr oposed that by isolating these distinct dimensions versus treating brand personality as a unidimensional construct, the different types of brand personalities can be distinguished, and th e multiple ways in which the brand personality construct influences consumer preference may be understood be tter (p. 348). Aaker (1997) noted that the scale is generalizable across pr oduct categories. This allows researchers to understand the symbolic use of brands in general versus the symbolic use of brands within a particular category (Aaker 1997, p. 348). Each of the five dimensions is composed of a total of 15 different facets which furthe r establish their meaning (Aaker 1997). A few examples of the various facets appear in Table 2-1. Table 2-1. Aaker Pers onality Dimensions Dimensions Facets Sincerity Down-to-earth; H onest; Wholesome; Cheerful Excitement Daring; Spirited; Imaginative; Up-to-date Competence Reliable; Intelligent; Successful Sophistocation Upper class; Charming Ruggedness Outdoorsy; Tough Source: Aaker 1997, p. 352 Aaker (1997) proposed that her research has both theoretical a nd practical implications (p. 353). However, she stated that the brand personality framewor k developed in this research suggests that one reason for the w eak findings in the self-congruity literature may be due to the asymmetric relationship in the structure of brand versus human personality (Aaker 1997, p. 353). While Aakers measurement tool can be useful for certain areas of brand personality study, 22

PAGE 23

a major downfall is that it does not yield a single personality for an individual respondent thus preventing the capability of the tool to disti nguish one specific personality for each brand. Strausbaughs Instrument A University of Florida Ph.D student, Kirsten L. Strausba ugh (1998), combined elements and theory from two measures of human pers onality, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Adjective Checklist (ACL) in order to deve lop a new instrument to be used in measuring brand personality. This instrument was compared with the previously-designed brand personality measurement instrument created by Jennifer Aaker. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a human personality measurement tool developed by Katherine Briggs a nd Isabella Myers-Briggs, and is partially based off of the ideas of Carl Jung dealing with percep tion, and judgment, and the attitude s in which these are used in different types of people (CAP T 2007). The MBTI uses a self-re ported questionnaire to gauge peoples reactions and preferences to different life situations (CAPT 2007). The MBTI contains questions based along four different indices, including extraversion/introversion (E/I), sensing/intuition (S/N), thi nking/feeling (T/F), and judgmen t/perception (J/P). Based on the answers given to the personality test questions results will show whether a person tends more toward extroversion or introversion, sensing or intuition, thinking or feeling, and judgment or perception. Once the dominant dimension is discovered for each of the four pairs, a resulting four-part personality will be revealed. These four indices lead to a possible 16 different personality types composed of each of these four parts. After comp letion of the test, a person will typically end up with one of the 16 possible fou r-letter personality types, such as ESTJ (standing for Extroversion Sensing Thinki ng Judgment) (CAPT 2007). In some cases, respondents will answer questions along a bipolar dimension equally (for example, answer half 23

PAGE 24

of the questions with extroverted tendencies and the other with introverted tendencies) in which case it cannot be discerned whethe r the person is one or the other (in this case, an extrovert or introvert). Some people fall in the middl e on certain dimensionsthis is normal. The Extraversion/Introversion (E/I) dimensi on measures a persons tendency toward extraversion or introversion in where they gather their energy: Extraverts are oriented primarily toward the outer world; thus they tend to focus their perception and judgment on people and objects. Introverts are oriented primarily toward the inner world; thus they tend to focus th eir perception and judgment upon concepts and ideas (CAPT 2007). The Sensing/Intuition (S/N) dime nsion measures ones tendency toward different manners of perceiving: One may rely primarily upon the process of sens ing (S), which reports observable facts or happenings through one or more of the five senses; or one may rely upon the less obvious process of intuition (N), whic h reports meanings, relationships and/or possibilities that have been worked out beyond the reach of the conscious mind (CAPT 2007). The Thinking/Feeling (T/F) dimension measures ones tendency toward utilizing two different methods of judgment: A person may rely primar ily through thinking (T) to decide impersonally on the basis of logical consequen ces, or a person may rely primar ily on feelings (F) to decide primarily on the basis of personal or social values (CAPT 2007). The Ju dgment/Perception (J/P) dimension measures ones tendency to use a cert ain process in dealing wi th the outside world: A person who prefers judgment (J) has reporte d a preference for usi ng a judgment process (either thinking or feeling) for dealing with the oute r world. A person who prefers perception (P) has reported a preference for usin g a perceptive process (either S or N) for dealing with the outer world (CAPT 2007). While each of the four indexes represents a personal ity distinction in and of itself, the four-letter combinations also represent a solid, distinct pers onality as a whole. In-depth descriptions are available for each of the 16 personality types. Fo r example, an ESFJ personality description reads: 24

PAGE 25

For ESFJs the dominant quality in their lives is an active a nd intense caring about people and a strong desire to bring harmony into th eir relationships. ESFJs bring an aura of warmth to all that they do, and they naturally move into action to help others, to organize the world around them, and to get things done. Se nsing orients their feeling to current facts and realities, and thus gives their feeling a hands-on pragmatic quality. ESFJs take their work seriously and believe others should as we ll (CAPT 2007). Paladin Associates, a non-profit organization that promotes use of the MBTI personality test, offers descriptions for each of the 16 personal ity types (see Table 2-2) (Paladin Associates 2008). The Adjective Checklist The Adjective Checklist (ACL) originated from the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research (IPAR) and was developed as a m eans to generate information on third party personalities, which is a differentiation from the MBTI (Strausbaugh 1998). The Adjective Checklist is composed of a multitude of personality trait adjectives. These adjectives are highly related to components of th e MBTI personality instrume nt (Strausbaugh 1998). This measurement tool utilizes 300 adjectives that m ay be used to describe oneself, others, or a prototype (Martin and Alexande r 2006, p. 256) Strausbaugh (1998) indicated that the 300 items composing the Adjective Checklist were substa ntial enough to account for the primary factors that differentiate between individuals, while accounting for personal nuances and other more narrow distinctions (p. 59). Multiple studies have been conducted to correlat e personality of consumer to the specific brands or product types they purchase (Grubb an d Grathwohl 1967). These studies take a look at how a consumers self-concept a ffects their purchasing decisions. Self-Concept and Purchase Motivation In the study of self-concept and purchase motivation, Grubb and Grathwohl (1967) noted that these researchers advanced the basic hypothesis that individuals who consume in a certain 25

PAGE 26

manner will also manifest certain common personali ty characteristics, leading to prediction of consumer behavior (p. 22). In developing consumer behavior th eories, an individuals selfconcept is often linked to the symbolic value of the brands and produc ts they purchase (Grubb and Grathwohl 1967). An individual s self-concept is a more sp ecific notion than personality, focusing on how an individual perceives hi mself (Grubb and Grat hwohl 1967). Grubb and Grathwohl (1967) note that use of self-theory allows application of the behavioral concept of symbolic interaction (p. 24). It appears that self-theory plays an important role, as how one individual perceives himself affects that individuals behavi ors, and thus, the more valued the self, the more organized and consistent b ecomes his behavior (Grubb and Grathwohl 1967, p. 24). Self-Expression Model Belk (1988) suggested that we cannot hope to understand consumer be havior without first gaining some understanding of the meanings th at consumers attach to possessions (p. 139). Belk (1988) went on to say that a key to unde rstanding what possessions mean is recognizing that, knowingly or unknowingly, inte ntionally or unintentionally, we regard our possessions as parts of ourselves (p. 139). Our extended self consists of not only external objects and personal possessions but also body parts, organs persons, places, and group possessions (Belk 1988). Belk (1988) explained that the notion of extended self is a superficially masculine and Western metaphor comprising not only that which is seen as me (the self), but also which is seen as mine (p. 140). This self-expression model, therefore, establishes the notion that consumers view brands as part of their possessio ns, and brands, therefore, become a part of the consumers extended self. This personal own ership of the brand is the point at which consumers may begin to shape and mold their ow n image of the brands personality into how they want to see it, which could alter the personality of the brand as determined by the brander. 26

PAGE 27

An important concept to consider in the point at which consumer s take ownership of brands is their level of brand familiarity. Brand Familiarity According to Carrillat, Lafferty, and Harris (2 005) brand familiarity is consumers level of direct and indirect experience with a produc t or a brand (p. 52). The comprehension that consumers have of brands that they are familiar with is often illustrated by highly structured associations as compared with brands with wh ich they are less familia r (Carrillat et al. 2005, p. 53). Typically, these associations are the result of previous contact with that brand, such as through prior advertising or brand use (Carrillat et al. 2005). Fu rther research illustrates the differences that exist in the way consumers pr ocess advertising or sponsorships for familiar versus unfamiliar brands. In general, exposure to advertisements for familiar brands causes consumers to undergo less extensive, more c onfirmatory processing (C arrillat et al. 2005, p. 53). According to Carrillat et al. (2005) the more familiar a brand is, the more cognitive capacity is required for processing previous a ssociations linked to that brand, and, as a consequence, fewer cognitive resources are available for processing new information (p. 53). According to Ha and Perks (2005) brand fam iliarity enables consumers to spend less time searching for brand-related information or shoppi ng for a particular brand. A higher level of familiarity leads to a larger number of brand associations that have already been formed and can be called upon to make decisions. A study conduct ed by Ha and Perks (2005) showed that a variety of brand experiences increase familiarity with the brand (p. 447). They discovered that the more positive experiences consumers have with a particular brand, th e higher their level of brand familiarity will become. This, in turn, has a large impact on customer satisfaction with that brand (Ha and Perks 2005). Ha and Perks (2005 ) also found that brand familiarity affects customers perceived performance positively and improves customer impressions with regard to 27

PAGE 28

the purchase situation facing them (p. 448). The fa miliarity of a brand in the mind of consumers can lead to strong preferences for that brand, often based on the theory of the mere-exposure effect. The mere-exposure effect states that people often prefer things th at are familiar to them over unfamiliar things (Hoyer and MacInnis 2007). Hoyer and MacInnis (2007) stated that the mere-exposure effect may explain why many of the t op 30 brands in the 1930s are still in the top 30 today (p. 156). A major result of consumer fa miliarity with a brand is often the development of a relationship with that bra nd. Just as people can develop st rong attachments to close friends, significant others, or family members, consumers can develop strong attach ments to brands that they are highly familiar with and purchase or use on a regular basis. The implications of this are evident. The more a consumer becomes familiar with a particular brand, the stronger the relationship they are likely to develop with that brand as long as it continues to meet their expectations and satisfy their needs. This in turn, can lead to brand loyalty and a continual purchase of that brand. Thus, it is important to take a closer look at the way in which a consumer-band relationship exists. Relationship Basis Model The Relationship Basis Model allows brands to connect with their purchasers on a deeper level (Stein 2004). Fournier (1998 ) discusses the relationships th at consumers build with the brands they use and proposes th at (1) brands can and do serve as viable relationship partners; (2) consumer-brand relationships are valid at th e level of lived experi ence; and (3) consumerbrand relationships can be specified in many ways using a rich conceptu al vocabulary that is both theoretically and managerially useful (p. 344). Various dimensions of brand relationship quality were discussed by Fournier. They are as follows: (1) Love and Passion: Relates to feelings of something is missi ng during long gaps in brand use. This dimension expresses feelings of a particular br and being irreplaceable. (2) Self-connection : Relates to how well the 28

PAGE 29

brand performs with regard to identity themes and expression of the self. (3) Interdependence : Relates to the concept of enjoining consumer an d brand and high levels of interaction with the brand throughout the day. (4) Commitment : Relates to a consumer pl edge of being loyal to a particular brand and sticking by it no matter what. (5) Intimacy : Relates to a deeper and more tightly-held bond with a brand exemplifying a deeper level of brand meaning. (6) Brand Partner Quality : Relates to satisfaction with the relations hip and the consumers assessment of the brands performance as a partner in a relationship (Fournier 1998). Fournier (1998) suggested th at brand relationship quality transforms based on important actions taken by both the consumer and the brand as per the reciprocity principle on which all relationships are grounded (p. 365) Fournier (1998) posed that a deep understanding of the relationship between consumer and brand is vita l to marketing theory. Brand personality can be viewed as a set of trait infere nces constructed by the consumer based on repeated observation of behaviors enacted by the brand at the hand of its manager, that c ohere into a role perception of the brand as partner in the re lationship dyad (Fournier 1998, p. 368). That said, the give-andtake relationship between brand and consumer can have serious implications on the creation and development of a brand (Fournier 1998). This co nsumer-brand relationship forces marketers to understand and take into consideration that a brand personality is not solely comprised of the image they put out, but also the image that c onsumers take in. Therefore, the consumer-brand relationship needs to be considered at each stage of brand personality development. Study Hypothesis This study has a singular, direct goal to di scover brand familiaritys effects on brand personality consensus through a correlation between familiarity level and number of differing perceived brand personalities. Because the topic of this thesis is so narrowly focused, there is a need for only one main hypothesis to be tested. Finding the answer will ha ve large and lasting 29

PAGE 30

30 implications that can be applied to multiple areas of the branding process. The subsequent research will be used to eith er support or refute the hypothesi s. The hypothesis for this current study is as follows. Hypothesis 1: Brand personality consensus is positively related to brand familiarity. It appears that low familiarity brands will have the least amount of personality consensus. Medium familiarity brands will have more personality consensus than low familiarity brands. And high familiarity brands will have the most personality consensus; more consensus than both low and medium familiarity brands.

PAGE 31

Table 2-2. MBTI Pers onality Descriptions Personality Type Personality Description ENFJ Responsible and responsive, concerne d about what others think, like to facilitate others and enable people to achieve potential, responsive to praise and criticism, may ignore task s for relationship issues. INFJ Perseverance and originality, firm principles, clear vision of common good, quietly forceful, concern for others, may keep too much to themselves, win cooperation rather demand it, may operate with single-minded concentration. ENFP Enthusiastic, imaginative, will help a nyone with a problem, improvise rather than prepare in advance, high spir ited, may procrastinate, may overlook relevant details, may overextend, often a spokesperson for values relating to people. INFP Idealistic, strong inner values, catalysts for implementing ideas, interested in human potential, little regard for posse ssions or surroundings, more likely to praise than critique, may dela y tasks due to perfectionism. ENTJ Frank, decisive, develop and implemen t systems to solve organizational problems, usually well informed, may decide too quickly, may appear domineering, will run as much of organization as possible. INTJ Original, great drive for own ideas, long -range vision,find meaningful patters in external events, power toorganize, inde pendent, high standards of competence, can be tough-minded with others, can be stubborn, may have trouble letting go of impractical ideas. ENTP Ingenious, resourceful in solving new problems, may neglect routine assignments, turn to one new interest after another, may not adapt well to standard procedures, may over-extend, ma y be unappreciative of other's input. INTP Enjoy theoretical or scientific pursuits, interested in idea s, sharply defined interests, quiet and reserved, logical a nd analytical, may over-intellectualize, relate to others based on e xpertise rather than position. ESTJ Practical, realistic, matter-of fact, natura l head for business or mechanics, not interested in theory, like to organize and run activities, make good administrators, decisive, ta ke care of routine details, traditional respect for hierarchy, may not see need for change, may decide too quickly. ISTJ Practical, responsible, organization is important, success by concentration and thoroughness, realistic and dependable, re spect traditional and hierarchical approaches, may neglect interperso nal niceties, may overlook long-range implications in favor of day-to-d ay operations, rely on standard operating procedures. ESFJ Talkative, conscientious, born coopera tors, active committee members, need harmony, interested in things that direc tly affect peoples' lives, work best with encouragement and praise, may miss the bigger picture, may assume they know what is best for the organization. 31

PAGE 32

Table 2-2. Continued Personality Type Personality Description ISFJ Work toward obligations, stable, loyal, concerned about others feelings, through, painstakingly accurate, non-techni cal, may avoid leadership but will step in when ask, complies with or ganizational needs and hierarchy, use personal influence behind the scene, may be pessimistic about the future. ESTP On the spot problem solvers, like ac tion and immediate results, adaptable, tolerant, pragmatic and results orient ed, dislike long explanations, take charge readily in a crises, appears blunt and insensitive, may rely too much on improvisation and miss wider implications. ISTP Interested in cause and effect, quiet an reserved, gets to the core of practical problems, lead by setting example, manages loosely and prefers minimal supervision, may be too expe dient and take short cuts may appear indecisive and undirected. ESFP Outgoing, accepting, friendly, like action, enjoy facts more than theory, use sound common sense and practical ability with people, en joy everything, manage crises well, may over-emphasize subjective data, may spend too much time socializing, lead through prom otion of good will and teamwork. ISFP Modest about abilities, retiring, shun disa greements, do not care to lead, relaxed about completing tasks, use personal loya lty as a means of motivation, may not see beyond the present reality, may be overly self critical, more apt to praise than criticize. Source: Paladin Associates 2008 32

PAGE 33

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Research Design The method utilized for this study was a survey, specifically a self-administered questionnaire. A survey questionnaire is an instrument specifically designed to elicit information that will be useful for analys is (Babbie 2007, p. 245). Su rveys are useful for descriptive, exploratory, and e xplanatory research (Babbie 2007) The researcher developed a document with questions relating to the study and distributed it to a sample of participants for them to answer. The results were then anal yzed and applied to th e research question. A self-administered questionnaire was the mo st appropriate method for multiple reasons. They are often quick and cheap to administer (B abbie 2007). Surveys are also very practical for finding out information about large populations (Babbie 2007). Surve ysespecially selfadministered onesmake large samples feasible (Babbie 2007, p. 276). Because the nature of the study being conducted required a very large nu mber of opinions in order to determine conclusions, it lent itself to the need for a survey questionnaire format. Also, a multitude of previous studies about brand familiarity and br and personality had utilized survey methods. Furthermore, the purpose of the study was to re late the level of fam iliarity placed on various brands to the level of persona lity consensus regarding those brands based on survey-takers opinions. No variables were being manipulated in this case, but correlations were being made between variables. Therefore, a self-administere d survey questionnaire was the most appropriate method for conducting the research. Selection of Brands For the study, a singular product categorysocia l networkswas selected. A total of 15 brands were selected from more than 800 active so cial networks to be used in a brand selection 33

PAGE 34

pre-test. Site rankings and number of registered users per social ne twork were analyzed to select a pool of 15 brands that would likely contain varying degrees of familiarity. The 15 specific brands selected for the pre-test appear in Table 3-1 below. Table 3-1. Pre-Test Brand Stimuli Social Network # of Registered Users Global Alexa Page Ranking (As of May 2008) aSmallWorld 270,000 9,306 Bebo 40,000,000 108 Classmates.com 50,000,000 923 Facebook 115,000,000 7 Flickr Unknown 37 Friendster 65,000,000 35 Gather 465,000 N/A LinkedIn 22,000,000 211 LiveJournal 15,529,380 56 MySpace 403,000,000 6 PerfSpot 8,000,000 72 Ravelry 80,000 N/A Sportsvite 22,000 N/A Twitter 2,200,000 1,970 XING 5,000,000 1,814 The pre-test used a convenience sample of 35 st udents who reported their familiarity level with the 15 brands using a previously established semantic differential scale for familiarity. The results of the pre-test appear in Table 3-2. Pre-test results were then analyzed in order to select the best six brands to use for the main study. Six brands needed to be selected th at would provide for the largest dispersion of familiarity levels based on the pre-test. The pre-test was very useful in determining the high and low familiarity brands. Facebook (M=6.91) and MySpace (M=6.29) clearly had high familiarity. Bebo (M=1.11) and Sportsvite (M=1.14) clearl y had low familiarity. However, the medium familiarity brands were not as clear. The two brands with the closest to medium familiarity levels were LiveJournal (M=3.66) and Classmates.com (M=3.40), however the familiarity levels were slightly lower than an exact medium level, which would be 4.00 out of 7.00. To explore this, 34

PAGE 35

individual responses were then analyzed a nd modes were taken into consideration. For LiveJournal, 14 out of 35 respondents ranked it in the medium level (between 3.00 and 5.00). Specifically, five respondents ranked it a 3.00, two respondents ranked it a 4.00, and seven respondents ranked it a 5.00. For Classmates.c om, 21 out of 35 respondents ranked it in the medium level (between 3.00 and 5.00). Specifica lly, seven respondents ranked it a 3.00, seven respondents ranked it a 4.00, and seven respondent s ranked it a 5.00. Theref ore, although mean scores revealed slightly lower than preferred familiarity levels for these two brands, when analyzing individual responses, th ese two brands appeared to be the best fitting for medium familiarity based on the pre-test. The six brands selected for the main study appear in Table 3-3. Table 3-2. Pre-Test Results Social Network Pre-Test Familiarity Mean Score aSmallWorld 2.00 Bebo 1.11 Classmates.com 3.40 Facebook 6.91 Flickr 2.83 Friendster 1.89 Gather 1.29 LinkedIn 1.51 LiveJournal 3.66 MySpace 6.29 PerfSpot 1.11 Ravelry 1.06 Sportsvite 1.14 Twitter 1.71 XING 2.34 *Mean scores based on 7-point scale; 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar Table 3-3. Brands Selected for Main Study Familiarity Level Based on Pre-Test Social Network Familiarity Score Based on Pre-Test Low Bebo 1.11 Sportsvite 1.14 Medium Classmates.com 3.40 LiveJournal 3.66 High Facebook 6.91 MySpace 6.29 35

PAGE 36

Social networks are commonly used by univers ity students as a means of communication. Thus the sample selected for the study was a large group of undergraduate students at the University of Florida. Sample Both male and female participants were recr uited from two sections of an undergraduate course in the College of Journa lism and Communications at the University of Florida. Despite these students being enrolled in a class in th is specific college, students in base-level communications classes represent a wide variety of majors and clas sifications at the University of Florida. Participants were drawn from the large, lecture-style Elements of Advertising (ADV3008) course. Students were offered two points of extra credit in the course, as coordinated with the professor, as an incentive to participate. Approximately 450 participants (the total num ber of students in the two ADV3008 classes) were invited to participate in the study, allowing a cushion fo r those who would choose not to participate. A high number of participants was nece ssary to enable multiple survey versions to be used with different brand stimuli in varying or ders on each. A large numbe r of participants per brand was necessary due to the high number of personality opti ons available to respondents. Since a correlation needed to be made between the familiarity of a brand and personality consensus, a large sample was necessary to establish a clear enough consensus level. Sampling, in general, is done in order to save time and money. But actually, sampling is regarded as being more accurate than interviewing each person within a given population (Babbie 1973). This is true simp ly due to the amount of staff, time, and managerial requirements necessary to interview every si ngle person. In that case the data collected would be largely affected by decreased quality of staff and any ch anges that occur in the outside world over time, which could all negatively impact the reliability and validity of re sponses (Babbie 1973). The 36

PAGE 37

sampling procedure utilized in this study wa s a convenience sample, which is a form of nonprobability sampling. Nonprobability sampling consists of any sampling process not based on probability theory (Babbie 2007). Convenience sampling, also known as reliance on available subjects is often used by university students. It consists of us ing groups of people readily available in order to conduct a study, for example, stopping people on the street or in a mall, and in this case, large classes of students. This method is popular and widely used in university settings due to its ease and fr ugality (Babbie 2007). A true random sample, in this setting, was not feasible due to lack of time and funding. Despite the fact that a convenience sample cannot be generalized to the larger population, because it is not based on probability theory and true random samples, it still offers a way of acquiri ng a large amount of opinions on a given topic. This study did not require generalizability to a larger population. It simply called for a sample large enough to acquire a sufficient number of opinions from which to analyze. Variable Measurement Brand Familiarity The independent variable in a study is a variable with values that are not problematical in an analysis but are taken as simply given. An independent variable is presumed to cause or determine a dependent variable (Babbie 2007, p. 18) The researcher stated that the independent variable in this study was the level of brand familiarity. In order to measure variables, the researcher established the operational definitions of each. The operational definition is the concrete and specific definition of something in terms of the operations by which observations are to be categorized (Babbie 2007, p. 45). Without a specific operational definition, it is unclear what exac tly is meant by a concept being measured. The operationalization of variables provided p recision in observation, measurement, and communication (Babbie 2007, p. 45). In its most simple definition, brand familiarity refers to 37

PAGE 38

easy recognition of a well-known brand (Hoye r and MacInnis 2007, p. G-2). While consumers often have the ability to state wh ether they are familiar or unf amiliar with a particular brand, meaning basically whether they are aware that particular brand exists familiarity can more specifically be measured with a degree of intensity. Consumers often have varying levels of familiarity with different brands. They may feel they are very familiar with a certain brand they consume on a regular basis, or may feel s omewhat familiar with a brand they come into contact with once in a while. The level to which a consumer feels familiar or unfamiliar with a specific brand is a completely subjective measure based alone on that consumers perceptions. Brand familiarity is an often studied concept, thus standardized measurement systems have already been created and employed. In this study, the measurement of respondents familiarity with selected brands was based on a previously es tablished semantic differential scale that is the current standard for the measurement of the fa miliarity concept. To gauge the respondents familiarity level, the scale asks respondents to select a specific point along a continuum spanning from unfamiliar to familiar with the particular brand or pr oduct (Bruner, James, and Hensel 2001). The use of this scale provided a standardized measure that is widely used and therefore has the ability to be compared with similar stud ies. The scale used a seven-point continuum measuring the degree of awareness a consumer ha s of some specified product or brand (Bruner et al. 2001, p. 119). The concepts being meas ured in the scale included feeling unfamiliar (one) versus familiar (seven) with the pa rticular brand (Bruner et al 2001). Semantic differentials operate at the interval level, where the logical distance between attributes can be expressed in meaningful standard intervals (Babbie 2007, p. 137). Unlike lower levels of measurement, interval measures to apply meaning to the distance separating attributes (Babbie 2007). 38

PAGE 39

The reliability of the familiarity scale being utilized stated that in a pre-test, its alpha exceeded .85 in a sample of 32 students, wh ich means high reliability (Bruner et al. 2001, p.119). The brand familiarity scale contained no previous examination of the scales validity, however some aspects of a previous study testing this scale did offer some standing as to the scales predictive validity (meaning that one set of measures can accurately predict another set of measures) (Bruner et al. 2001). A study presented by Kent and Alle n (1994) suggested that the familiarity scale provided a manipulation check. The study noted that subjects who received the high familiarity treatment scored a much higher mean on brand familiarity than those in the unfamiliar condition (Bruner et al. 2001, p. 119). Brand Personality The dependent variable in a study is a vari able assumed to depend on or be caused by another (called the independent variable) (Babbie 2007, p.18) The researcher stated that the dependent variable in this study was the degree of brand personali ty consensus. The number of differing personalities should be caused by the level of familiarity. In its most simple definition, brand personality refers to how the consumer would describe the brand if it were a person (Hoyer and MacInnis 2007, p. 99). Just like a person, a brand can be humorous, laid back, serious, elegant, sophisticated, feminine, friendly, warm, old-fashioned, and the list goes on. Brand personality was measured using the St rausbaugh Instrument. As mentioned earlier, Strausbaugh developed her instrument based on concepts from both the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Adjective Checklist (ACL). Stein (2004) indicated that while Strausbaugh felt that the MBTI alone could be a very beneficial tool for ma rketers, its self-report nature did not fit well into the need for studying brand personality, which is considered a third party. Therefore, by combining elements from the Adjective Checklist, which was already 39

PAGE 40

highly correlated with the MBTI, Strausbaugh developed a tool that could gather data on third parties (Stein 2004). Strausbaughs instrument uses 24 pairs of adjectives to measure brand personality. Each pair contains two adjectives that are considered polar opposites and places them along a semantic differential-type continuum, aski ng respondents to select where th ey feel the brand lies with regard to the two adjectives. Each adjectiv e corresponds with a dimension from the MBTI instrument (extraversion/introversion, sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling, and judgment/perception). Once the adjectives sel ected are coded with the dimension they correspond with, a brand can be placed into one of the 16 MBTI personality types. Previous studies have been done regardi ng the reliability and familiarity of the Strausbaugh Instrument for measuring brand pe rsonality (Stein 2004). Internal consistency results concluded by Stein (2004) stated that three of the four dimensions could be deemed reliable. Results showed that the highest Chr onbachs alpha scores were produced for the EI dimension, followed by the JP dimension. The SN index was found to be somewhat reliable (Stein 2004, p. 57). However, the alphas produced for the TF dimension were found to be too weak to be regarded as reliable (Stein 2004, p. 57). Steins (2004) te st of the validity of Strausbaughs Instrument, based on correlations between the scaled dimensions and written descriptions, yielded results similar to that of the reliability of the instrument (p. 57). The EI dimension proved to be the most valid, follo wed next by the JP dimension (Stein 2004). However, Stein (2004) stated th at the instrument can only be validated for the EI and JP dimensions due to the lack of significant findi ngs for the SN and TF dimensions (p. 58). Strausbaughs original instrument places the adjective pair s along a semantic differentialtype continuum and asks respondents to select wh ere they feel the bra nd lies on the continuum. 40

PAGE 41

However, for this study, the semantic-different ial/continuum nature of the instrument was eliminated. It was deemed unnecessary as it coul d likely confuse participants and require a much longer amount of time for survey completion. Further, the basis of the study did not require that a degree of distinction between adjective pairs be obtained. Because scaled personality questions were not necessary for this exact study, the continuum was eliminated. Respondents were simply asked to select which of the tw o adjectives of the pair best describe the brand in questionone or the other. The 24 adjectives selected for a bran d would then be used in order to determine the total personality of a brand. Survey Materials Due to the high number of questions being aske d of survey particip ants, the survey was divided into two versions, each c ontaining three of the six brands being studied. This was done in order to prevent participant e xhaustion and apathy after a cert ain point. Both of the survey versions were completely identical in format and questions; the only differing point was the brand stimuli present in each survey. The six brands were grouped according to familiarity level, placing one high, one medium, and one low familiarity social network on each ve rsion. The brand groupings appear in Table 3-4 below. Table 3-4. Survey Brand Selections Survey Version Brands Selected 1 1 1 Facebook LiveJournal Bebo 2 2 2 MySpace Classmates.com Sportsvite Additionally, to preven t bias, each of the two survey versions was further divided into three subversions which placed the brands in differing orde rs. This allowed each social network brand to 41

PAGE 42

have a turn at being placed first, middle, and la st in the realm of survey questions. This was done to prevent any sort of bias that could affect results in the case of high familiarity brands always being placed first, low familiarity brands being placed last, etc. This was also done to account for any bias due to moderate participant exhaustion toward the end of the questionnaire. Table 3-5 below shows the breakdown of the survey sub-versions. Table 3-5. Survey Order Survey First Middle Last 1a Facebook LiveJournal Bebo 1b LiveJournal Bebo Facebook 1c Bebo Facebook LiveJournal 2a MySpace Classmates.com Sportsvite 2b Classmates.com Sportsvite MySpace 2c Sportsvite MySpace Classmates.com The survey consisted of different subsect ions, including an informed consent form, directions, the questions themselves, a page to prove completion for extra credit, and the closing/thank you (see Appendix for survey instrumentation). The survey was conducted online (this process to be described more expl icitly later in the Procedure section). At the very front of the su rvey was an informed consent form. This form assured that subjects were aware of the purpos e of the study and that there were no risks or benefits to participation in th e study. It also explained what th ey would be asked to do in the study, the approximate amount of time it would take, their conf identiality, whom to contact regarding the study, and that they had the right to withdraw at a ny point without consequence. At the end of the informed consent form, it asked participants to agree that based on the given information, they were willing to voluntarily pa rticipate (Babbie 2007). If participants did not agree, they were able to w ithdraw from the study immediat ely without moving further and without consequence. 42

PAGE 43

After the informed consent page, the questi onnaire began. Each section of the survey started with explicit directions guiding them in how to answer the questions that followed. In a self-administered questionnaire, directions are necessary in order to ensure proper answers (Babbie 1973). Because this survey contained diffe rent sections, it was ne cessary to precede each section with a set of directions explicitly stati ng that sections purpose and the correct process for answering those particular sets of questions (Babbie 1973). It wa s important to prevent survey participants from becoming confused or overwhe lmed while participatin g in the questionnaire, therefore, clear, organized direc tions and page breaks between s ections aided in the successful completion of the survey. For each social network brand, participants were asked to answer a question regarding their level of familiarity with that social network. They were then asked whether they could recall ever having used that social network before (with op tions of yes, no, or unsure). Respondents who selected no or unsure were automatically directed to the next section. If a respondent selected yes, they were then automatically taken to a series of three additional questions regarding that particular soci al network. These questions coul d only be answered by people who had used the social network at least once, t hus respondents whom had never used the social network in question did not see th ese questions at all (this skiplogic technology is a benefit of using the online questionnaire format). The firs t of these three questions inquired about the average amount of time they spend using that social network. The sec ond of these questions asked whether they currently have a registered account for that social network. And the third of these questions asked respondents to rate their level of sa tisfaction with that social network. This process was repeated for the other two social networks present on the survey. 43

PAGE 44

Following the section on familiarity and usage, the brand personality section of the questionnaire began. Participants were asked to rank the social network in question among the 24 pairs of adjective choices deve loped from the Strausbaugh Instrument. This process was then repeated for the other two social networks present on the survey. Following the brand personality section, the de mographic section bega n. Participants were asked to respond to a few basic questions in orde r to gauge basic information about the sample. The demographic questions included gender, age, academic classification, race/ethnicity, social class, computer type, and current major. After the demographic section, respondents were taken to th e extra credit proof page. This asked respondents to enter their name a nd UFID number for use in providing the ADV3008 professor with a listing of all students who comp leted the survey for extra credit points. The names and UFID numbers provided by students remained separated from their question responses and were not tied to the students individual question responses in any way. At the very end of the survey was a closing page which thanked participants for their time and provided the researchers contact informati on in the event that they had any questions regarding the study. The questionnaire format was comprised of se veral characteristics important to survey questionnaire research. All attempts were made to ensure items were as clear as possible, as the participants may have no prev ious knowledge of the informa tion they are being asked about (Babbie 1973). Also, double-barre led questions were avoided. Qu estions did not require one response to a combination of questions (Ba bbie 1973). Furthermore, questions asked were relevant and kept as short as possible, as to not confuse or frustrate respondents (Babbie 1973). 44

PAGE 45

Lastly, all negative or biased items or terms were avoided (Babbie 1973). The questions asked made every attempt not to lead or coerce a respondent to answer in a certain way. Procedure The survey was conducted from September 15, 2008 to September 19, 2008, online. Students in both sections of Dr. Weigolds ADV3008 (Elements of Advertising) course were visited in their classrooms and pr ovided with information about th e proper Web site to access the online questionnaire. Prior to visiting the students in class, the researcher printed out slips of paper explaining how to access the online questionnaire. Due to the nature of having six survey versions, six different versions of the papers were created with each of the various website URL addresses. An equal number of paper slips were pr inted for each of the six versions. In order to guarantee random assignment, the paper slips we re numbered and then a random numbers table was used to place the slips into a random order. Therefore, when the paper slips were handed out to students, the order of papers had already been randomized. Once inside the classroom, the researcher in troduced herself and briefly explained the nature of the study. The researcher informed part icipants that they were in no way required to participate, but participation would earn them two points of extra credit in the class. SurveyMonkey.com, a popular online survey conduction website, was utilized for the design, creation, participant comple tion, and data collection phases The survey versions were preliminarily designed in a Microsoft Word docum ent by the researcher. The questions were then transferred into a survey template on the SurveyMonkey.com website. Conducting the survey online provided many benefits. The students were able to complete the surveys at their own leisure without feeling rushed or pressured to complete it as fast as the students surrounding them in a classroom. Also, many students feel more comfortable answering questions online. Further, online data collection offered more ease and less chance fo r data entry error in analysis 45

PAGE 46

46 of survey results. SurveyMonkey.com automatica lly downloaded the results into six separate Microsoft Excel files, which were then able to be automatically imported into SPSS Statistics 17.0 for analysis. The need for entering data in to SPSS by hand was not necessary and therefore the chance for data entry human error was completely eliminated. Measuring and Analyzing Data The data was analyzed using SPSS Statistics 17.0 The majority of the data was analyzed and measured using basic frequency distributi ons. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests and cross tabulations were conducted, as well as ch i-square tests for significance. Testing of reliability and validity was not necessary for the current study because none of the brand personality questions were scaled. Data was anal yzed both in terms of individual brand stimuli (differences between the six social networks individually) and in terms of combined familiarity groupings (the two high, two medium, and two low familiarity social network brands).

PAGE 47

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS This chapter presents an overview of the resu lts of the current study including descriptive analyses and testing of the hypot hesis. The SPSS Statistics 17.0 program was used to analyze all of the data. Description of Sample Overall Participants A total of 450 students were in vited to participate in the study with an incentive of two extra credit points. Of those invited, 244 students participated. On ly the 244 study participants will be subsequently discussed. The group consisted of 56 males (23% of the total sample) and 188 females (77% of the total sample) (see Table 41). A majority of the pa rticipants (82%) were between 19 and 21 years of age with a mean ag e of 20.2 years. Eight respondents (3.3%) were freshman, 77 respondents (31.6%) were sophomore s, 97 respondents (39.8%) were juniors, and 59 respondents (24.2%) were seniors. Three remaini ng respondents fell into the other category, providing answers as an exchange student, a fifth year, a nd a post-bachelors. One hundred sixty-eight respondents (68.9%) described themselves as W hite/Caucasian, with 29 respondents (11.9%) describing themselves as Hispanic/Latino 24 respondents (9.8%) as Black/African-American, 10 re spondents (4.1%) as Asian, one respondent (0.4%) as Native American, and 11 respondents (4.5%) falling in to the other category providing descriptions such as bi-racial and multi-racial. The majority classified themselves as in the upper middle or middle social classes. Of the total responde nts, 12 respondents (4.9%) selected upper; 101 respondents (41.4%) selected upper middle; 96 respondents (39.3%) selected middle; 29 respondents (11.9%) selected lower middle; three respondents (1.2%) selected lower; and three respondents (1.2%) reported that they were unsure in which category they fell. One 47

PAGE 48

hundred ninety-nine respondents (8 1.6%) reported they were PC users and 44 respondents (18%) reported they were Mac/Apple users. Participants represented a wide range of students in more than 30 different majors in several colleges th roughout the University of Florida. The most frequently occurring majors were Advertisi ng (56 respondents, 22.9%), Public Relations (34 respondents, 13.9%), and Marketing (27 respondents, 11%). Table 4-1. Demographic Profile Overall Participants Group 1 Par ticipants Group 2 Participants Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Gender Males 56 23 23 19.8 33 25.8 Females 188 77 93 80.2 95 74.2 Total 244 100 116 100 128 100 Age 18 17 7 5 4.3 12 9.4 19 77 31.6 35 30.2 42 32.8 20 79 32.4 39 33.6 40 31.3 21 44 18.0 20 17.2 24 18.8 22 12 4.9 7 6 5 3.9 23-25 9 3.6 6 5.1 3 2.4 27+ 5 2 3 2.6 2 1.6 Missing 1 0.4 1 0.9 0 0 Total 243 99.6 115 99.1 128 100 Academic Classification Freshman 8 3.3 2 1.7 6 4.7 Sophomore 77 31.6 34 29.3 43 33.6 Junior 97 39.8 47 40.5 50 39.1 Senior 59 24.2 31 26.7 28 21.9 Other 3 1.2 2 1.7 1 0.8 Total 244 100 116 100 128 100 Race/Ethnicity Asian 10 4.1 6 5.2 4 3.1 Black/AfricanAmerican 24 9.8 12 10.3 12 9.4 Hispanic/Latino 29 11.9 17 14.7 12 9.4 Native American 1 0.4 0 0 1 0.8 White/ Caucasian 168 68.9 73 62.9 95 74.2 Other 11 4.5 8 6.9 3 2.3 Missing 1 0.4 0 0 1 0.8 48

PAGE 49

Table 4-1. Continued Overall Participants Group 1 Pa rticipants Group 2 Participants Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Total 243 99.6 116 100 127 99.2 Social Class Upper 12 4.9 7 6 5 3.9 Upper middle 101 41.4 45 38.8 56 43.8 Middle 96 39.3 47 40.5 49 38.3 Lower middle 29 11.9 14 12.1 15 11.7 Lower 3 1.2 1 0.9 2 1.6 Unsure 3 1.2 2 1.7 1 0.8 Total 244 100 116 100 128 100 Computer ownership Mac/Apple 44 18 25 21.6 19 14.8 PC 199 81.6 91 78.4 108 84.4 Missing 1 0.4 0 0 1 0.8 Total 243 99.6 116 100 127 99.2 Major Advertising 56 22.9 Business 16 6.5 Finance 16 6.6 Marketing 27 11 Public Relations 34 13.9 All others 95 39.1 Total 244 100 Group Comparisons Group 1 was comprised of respondents who were randomly assigned survey versions 1a, 1b, or 1c, which included questions regarding th e social networks Facebook, LiveJournal, and Bebo. Group 2 was comprised of respondents who were randomly assigned survey versions 2a, 2b, or 2c, which included questions regarding the social networ ks MySpace, Classmates.com, and Sportsvite. Cross tabulations of Group 1 and Group 2 by demographics reve aled no significant differences between the two groups (Tables 42 through 4-7). Chi-squa re significance tests (X=1.22, d.f.=1) (X=12.84, d.f.=13) (X=3.05, d.f.=4) (X=6.93, d.f.=5) (X=1.69, d.f.=5) (X=1.78, d.f.=1) provided evidence that Group 1 and Group 2 were similar enough in nature to 49

PAGE 50

allow for comparison between groups because none of the resulting chi-squares were statistically significant (p>.05). Table 4-2. Cross Tabula tion of Group with Gender Gender Group 1 Group 2 Total Male 23 33 56 Female 93 95 188 Total 116 128 244 X=1.22, d.f.=1, p=0.27 Table 4-3. Cross Tabulation of Group with Age Age Group 1 Group 2 Total 18 5 12 17 19 35 42 77 20 39 40 79 21 20 24 44 22 7 5 12 23-25 6 3 9 27+ 3 2 5 Missing 1 0 1 Total 116 128 244 X=12.84, d.f.=13, p=0.46 Table 4-4. Cross Tabulation of Gr oup with Academic Classification Academic Classification Group 1 Group 2 Total Freshman 2 6 8 Sophomore 34 43 77 Junior 47 50 97 Senior 31 28 59 Other 2 1 3 Total 116 128 244 X=3.05, d.f.=4, p=0.55 Table 4-5. Cross Tabulation of Group with Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity Group 1 Group 2 Total Asian 6 4 10 Black/African-American 12 12 24 Hispanic/Latino 17 12 29 Native American 0 1 1 White/Caucasian 73 95 168 Other 8 3 11 Total 116 127 243 X=6.93, d.f.=5, p=0.23 50

PAGE 51

Table 4-6. Cross Tabulation of Group with Social Class Social Class Group 1 Group 2 Total Upper 7 5 12 Upper middle 45 56 101 Middle 47 49 96 Lower middle 14 15 29 Lower 1 2 3 Unsure 2 1 3 Total 116 128 244 X=1.69, d.f.=5, p=0.89 Table 4-7. Cross Tabulation of Group with Computer Ownership Computer Group 1 Group 2 Total Mac/Apple 25 19 44 PC 91 108 199 Total 116 127 243 X=1.78, d.f.=1, p=0.18 Validation of High, Medium, and Low Familiarity One-way frequency distributions were conducted on central variables from the survey questionnaires. In the following section, descript ive statistics will be pr esented illustrating the studys findings regarding social networksspeci fically familiarity, usage, time spent using, ownership of a registered acc ount, and satisfaction levels. Brand Familiarity Familiarity levels (Table 4-8) fell in line with what was expected for the low, medium, and high familiarity brands. Facebook (M=6.72 ) and MySpace (M=5.63) scored the highest familiarity levels. Bebo (M=1.20) and Sportsvite (M=1.08) scored the lowest familiarity levels. Though LiveJournal (M=2.41) and Classmates.com (M=2.01) had slightly low familiarity means, they still fell in the middle ground of the social networks tested, and can therefore be considered the medium familiarity brands. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test with a Post-Hoc analysis was used to examine the variability of familiarity by examining the signif icant mean differences in familiarity by each 51

PAGE 52

social network (Table 4-9 and 4-10). The ANOVA te st compared the mean score of each social network with the mean score of every other so cial network. Significant differences in mean scores were found in the majority of co mparisons except between LiveJournal and Classmates.com and between Bebo and Sportsvite. These results indicate that LiveJournal and Classmates.com have the same familiarity level and that Bebo and Sportsvite have the same familiarity level. However, the familiarity level comparisons between all other social networks were significantly different. Brand Usage Brand usage was consistent with familiar ity rating (Table 4-11). More respondents indicated use of the highest familiarity brands, and very few indicated use of the lowest familiarity brands. Respondents who answered yes to having pr eviously used any of the given social networks were then directed to a series of three more questions as king them to give more specific information about their usage. For any social ne twork in which a respondent selected no or they were unsure if they had used it, they we re not directed to thes e contingency questions. The tables presented provide further informati on on the usage habits of those respondents who indicated they had used the social network being questioned at least once. A series of further questions concerning us age time, registration, and satisfaction level were contingent upon participants having used the social network in question at least once. Thus the following results are not inclusive of all survey participants. Amount of time used Tables 4-12 and 4-13 indicate the average am ount of time respondents reported having used the social networks. This data offered more in depth information about how much time college-aged students actually sp end on various social networks. Facebook (average time spent 52

PAGE 53

53 using per week=3 to 6 hours) was the social ne twork in which survey participants reported dedicating the most of their leisure time to. The highly unfamiliar social networks had completely opposing usage statistics. For example, Bebo had only three respondents reporting theyve used the social network before, and all three users indicated they only use Bebo less than once per month, which fell into the less than one hour per week overall category. Account registration Table 4-14 indicates the number of part icipants who reported having a registered account for the social networks which they had reported having used at least once before. Asking about the presence of a registered account was intended to gauge the level of dedication to the social network, in which a personal account might indicate more specific use of a social network rather than just visiting the we bsite. One hundred fifteen of 116 Facebook users indicated having a registered account. MySpace, however, showed that 73 users had an account while 47 did not. Bebo and Sportsvite were the only social networks in which none of the participants indicated they had a registered account with the site. Satisfaction Satisfaction levels were also tested fo r the various social networks based on the respondents whom had used the social networks before. This was done in order to see if any relationship existed between familiarity level a nd satisfaction level. Table 4-15 indicates user satisfaction levels with the various social networks. F acebook (M=5.51) and LiveJournal (M=4.24) reported the highest sa tisfaction levels. Sportsvite (M=2.00), Bebo (M=2.67), and Classmates.com (M=2.63) reported the lowest satisfaction levels. MySpace (M=3.48) had a satisfaction level somewhat in the middle. Ev en though familiarity results had shown that respondents were more familiar with MySpace than LiveJournal, they feel LiveJournal more heavily satisfies their needs than MySpace does.

PAGE 54

Table 4-8. Brand Familiarity Mean Median Mode Range Standard Deviation Missing Percent Facebook 6.72 7.00 7 4 0.708 -100 LiveJounal 2.41 1.50 1 6 1.893 -100 Bebo 1.20 1.00 1 5 0.701 -100 Myspace 5.63 6.00 7 6 1.622 1 99.2 Classmates.com 2.01 1.00 1 6 1.524 -100 Sportsvite 1.08 1.00 1 3 0.435 -100 *Mean scores based on 7-point scale; 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar Table 4-9. Analysis of Variance Test of Familiarity Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 3385.61 5 677.12 406.95 .00 Within Groups 1173.04 705 1.66 Total 4558.65 710 Table 4-10. Familiarity Post Hoc Analysis Website Website Mean Diff. Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Facebook LiveJournal 4.30* 0.17 .00 3.74 4.87 Bebo 5.52* 0.17 .00 4.95 6.08 MySpace 1.09* 0.17 .00 .53 1.64 Classmates.com 4.71* 0.17 .00 4.16 5.26 Sportsvite 5.63* 0.17 .00 5.06 6.21 LiveJournal Facebook -4.30* 0.17 .00 -4.87 -3.74 Bebo 1.22* 0.17 .00 .65 1.78 MySpace -3.22* 0.17 .00 -3.77 -2.66 Classmates.com 0.41 0.17 .31 -.15 .96 Sportsvite 1.33* 0.17 .00 .75 1.91 Bebo Facebook -5.52* 0.17 .00 -6.08 -4.95 LiveJournal -1.22* 0.17 .00 -1.78 -.65 MySpace -4.43* 0.17 .00 -4.98 -3.88 Classmates.com -0.81* 0.17 .00 -1.36 -.26 Sportsvite 0.12 0.17 .99 -.46 .69 MySpace Facebook -1.09* 0.17 .00 -1.64 -.53 LiveJournal 3.22* 0.17 .00 2.66 3.77 Bebo 4.43* 0.17 .00 3.88 4.98 Classmates.com 3.62* 0.16 .00 3.08 4.16 Sportsvite 4.55* 0.17 .00 3.98 5.11 Classmates.com Facebook -4.71* 0.17 .00 -5.26 -4.16 LiveJournal -0.41 0.17 .31 -.96 .15 Bebo 0.81* 0.17 .00 .26 1.36 54

PAGE 55

Table 4-10. Continued Website Website Mean Diff. Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound MySpace -3.62* 0.16 .00 -4.16 -3.08 Sportsvite 0.92* 0.17 .00 .36 1.49 Sportsvite Facebook -5.63* 0.17 .00 -6.21 -5.06 LiveJournal -1.33* 0.17 .00 -1.91 -.75 Bebo -0.12 0.17 .99 -.69 .46 MySpace -4.55* 0.17 .00 -5.11 -3.98 Classmates.com -0.92* 0.17 .00 -1.49 -.36 *p<.05 Table 4-11. Brand Usage Have Used Not Used Unsure Missing Total Total % Facebook 116 0 0 0 116 100 LiveJounal 25 90 1 0 116 100 Bebo 3 112 1 0 116 100 Myspace 120 8 0 0 128 100 Classmates.com 8 117 3 0 128 100 Sportsvite 1 106 1 0 128 100 Table 4-12. Usage Time Per Week Less than one hour 1-4 hours More than 5 hours Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Facebook 11 9.4 47 40.5 58 50 LiveJounal 21 18.1 4 3.4 0 0 Bebo 3 2.6 0 0 0 0 Myspace 98 76.5 16 12.5 6 4.8 Classmates.com 8 6.3 0 0 0 0 Sportsvite 1 0.9 0 0 0 0 Table 4-13. Usage Time Descriptives Mean Median Mode Range Std. Dev. Missing Total % Facebook 5.76 5.50 5 8 1.963 0 116 100 LiveJounal 1.76 1.00 1 4 1.363 91 25 21.6 Bebo 1.00 1.00 1 0 .000 113 3 2.6 Myspace 2.31 2.00 1 8 1.689 8 120 93.8 Classmates.com 1.00 1.00 1 0 .000 120 8 6.3 Sportsvite 3.00 3.00 3 0 --107 1 0.9 55

PAGE 56

Table 4-14. Regi stered Accounts Yes No Total Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Facebook 115 99.1 1 0.9 116 100 LiveJounal 13 11.2 103 88.7 116 100 Bebo 0 0 116 100 116 100 Myspace 73 57 55 43 128 100 Classmates.com 6 0.05 122 0.95 128 100 Sportsvite 0 0 128 100 128 100 Table 4-15. Brand Satisfaction Mean Median Mode Range Standard Deviation Missing Total Facebook 5.51 6.00 6 6 1.248 0 116 LiveJounal 4.24 4.00 3* 6 1.786 91 25 Bebo 2.67 3.00 1* 3 1.528 113 3 Myspace 3.48 3.00 4 6 1.609 8 120 Classmates.com 2.63 2.50 2 2 .744 120 8 Sportsvite 2.00 2.00 2 0 --107 1 *= Multiple modes exist. Smallest value is shown. Mean scores based on 7-point scale; 1=dissatisfied and 7=satisfied. 56

PAGE 57

Brand Personality Frequency Distributions Tables 4-16 through 4-21 indicate the results of the brand personality portion of the study. Participants answers to the personality t ypology questions for each social network were calculated to discern the various personalities assigned to each social network. The results of the study indicate d that the most frequently occurring personality type for Facebook, LiveJournal, Bebo, and MySpace was E NFP. As stated previously, an ENFP personality can be described as Enthusiastic, imaginative, will help anyone with a problem, improvise rather than prepare in advance, high spirited, may procra stinate, ma y overlook relevant details, may overextend, often a spokesper son for values relating to people (Paladin Associates 2008). The most frequently occurr ing personality type for Classmates.com was ISTJ. As stated previously, an IS TJ personality can be described as: Practical, responsible, organization is important, success by concentration and thoroughness, realistic and dependable, respect traditional and hierar chical approaches, may neglect interpersonal niceties, may overl ook long-range implications in favor of dayto-day operations, rely on standard operat ing procedures (Paladin Associates 2008). The most frequently occurring personality type for Sportsvite was INFP. As stated previously, an INFP personality can be described as Ide alistic, strong inner values, catalysts for implementing ideas, interested in human potential, little regard for possessions or surroundings, more likely to praise than critique, may delay tasks due to perfectionism (Paladin Associates 2008). Table 4-16 below indicates the most frequently occurring personality types for each of the social networks, along with the percentage of respondents who classified it as such. Table 4-16. Most Frequently Occurring Personality Type Type Percentage Facebook ENFP 51.7 LiveJounal ENFP 34.5 Bebo ENFP 28.4 Myspace ENFP 77.3 Classmates.com ISTJ 21.1 Sportsvite INFP 84.3 57

PAGE 58

58 Table 4-17 indicates the overall results of personality assignments based on familiarity level for each of the 16 personality types. Based on these findings, medium familiarity brands appeared to have the maximum number of personalities (16 out of 16). High familiarity brands only had 14 out of 16 personalities represented and low familiarity brands had 15 out of 16 personalities represented. Table 4-17. Overall Personality Assignments by Familiarity High Familiarity (Facebook and MySpace) Medium Familiarity (LiveJournal and Classmates.com) Low Familiarity (Bebo and Sportsvite) ENFP 159 51 34 ENTP 16 6 3 ESTJ 10 11 2 ESFP 12 15 3 ISTJ 8 35 7 ESFJ 7 14 2 ENTJ 5 2 1 ESTP 4 3 0 INFP 6 47 118 ENFJ 7 2 6 ISFP 3 6 6 INFJ 2 9 4 ISTP 2 9 5 INTP 2 1 5 INTJ 0 3 3 ISFJ 0 17 1 Total Personalities 14 16 15 Table 4-18 illustrates the breakdown of personality assignments for each social network dissected by each of the 16 individual dimensions The number of respondents whom classified it as such is indicated by frequency and percent. The overall results of personality assignments for each social network are indicated in Table 4-19. The number of respondents whom classifi ed it as such is indicated by frequency and percent. Classmates.com was the only social ne twork which respondents cl assified as having all 16 personality types.

PAGE 59

Table 4-18. MBTI Frequency Dist ributions by Individual Dimension Facebook LiveJournal Bebo MySpace Classmates.com Sportsvite Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) E 101 (87.1) 56 (48.3) 50 (43.1) 119 (93.0) 48 (37.5) 1 (0.9) I 14 (12.1) 56 (48.3) 56 (48.3) 9 (7.0) 70 (54.7) 93 (86.1) Total 115 (99.1) 112 (96.6) 106 (91.4) 128 (100) 118 (92.2) 94 (87.0) S 34 (29.3) 27 (23.3) 26 (22.4) 12 (9.4) 83 (64.8) 0 (0) N 81 (69.8) 85 (73.3) 80 (69.0) 116 (90.6) 35 (27.3) 94 (87.0) Total 115 (99.1) 112 (96.6) 106 (91.4) 128 (100) 118 (92.2) 94 (87.0) T 34 (29.3) 19 (16.4) 25 (21.6) 13 (10.2) 50 (39.1) 1 (0.9) F 81 (69.8) 93 (80.2) 81 (69.8) 115 (89.8) 68 (53.1) 93 (86.1) Total 115 (99.1) 112 (96.6) 106 (91.4) 128 (100) 118 (92.2) 94 (87.0) J 29 (25.0) 22 (19.0) 25 (21.6) 10 (7.8) 70 (54.7) 1 (0.9) P 86 (74.1) 90 (77.6) 81 (69.8) 118 (92.2) 48 (37.5) 93 (86.1) Total 115 (99.1) 112 (96.6) 106 (91.4) 128 (100) 118 (92.2) 94 (87.0) Table 4-19. MBTI Frequency Di stributions by Total Personality Facebook LiveJournal Bebo MySpace Classmates.com Sportsvite Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) ENFP 60 (51.7) 40 (34.5) 33 (28.4) 99 (77.3) 11 (8.6) 1 (0.9) ENTP 10 (8.6) 4 (3.4) 3 (2.6) 6 (4.7) 2 (1.6) -ESTJ 8 (6.9) 1 (0.9) 2 (1.7) 2 (1.6) 10 (7.8) -ESFP 7 (6.0) 6 (5.2) 3 (2.6) 5 (3.9) 9 (7.0) -ISTJ 7 (6.0) 8 (6.9) 7 (6.0) 1 (0.8) 27 (21.1) -ESFJ 6 (5.2) 3 (2.6) 2 (1.7) 1 (0.8) 11 (8.6) -ENTJ 5 (4.3) 1 (0.9) 1 (0.9) -1 (0.8) -ESTP 3 (2.6) --1 (0.8) 3 (2.3) -INFP 3 (2.6) 32 (27.6) 27 (23.3) 3 (2.3) 15 (11.7) 91 (84.3) ENFJ 2 (1.7) 1 (0.9) 6 (5.2) 5 (3.9) 1 (0.8) -ISFP 2 (1.7) 4 (3.4) 6 (5.2) 1 (0.8) 2 (1.6) -INFJ 1 (0.9) 6 (5.2) 3 (2.6) 1 (0.8) 3 (2.3) 1 (0.9) ISTP 1 (0.9) 4 (3.4) 5 (4.3) 1 (0.8) 5 (3.9) -INTJ -1 (0.9) 3 (2.6) -1 (0.8) -ISFJ -1 (0.9) 1 (0.9) -16 (12.5) -INTP --4 (3.4) 2 (1.6) 1 (0.8) 1 (0.9) Total 116 (100) 116 (100) 116 (100) 128 (100) 128 (100) 108 (100) Hypothesis Testing To discover the consensus level (number of personalities), a cross tabulation was run between each respondents individual assignment of social network personality type and the most frequently occurring personality type for each social network. This was done by designating each respondents personality assignment as either a match (agreement) or no 59

PAGE 60

match (disagreement) to the overall most fre quently occurring personality type along each of the six social networks (Table 4-20). The chi-square analys is was conducted from Richard Lowrys VassarStats contingency table website that calculates chi-square from cross tabulations (Lowry 2008). A chi-square (X=73.77, d.f.=2) show ed that there is a significant relationship between consensus and overall personality type where p<.0001. Standardized residuals show that matches were higher than expected for low and high familiarity brands and lower than expected for medium familiarity brands and vice versa. Table 4-20. Cross Tabulation of Match/No Match with Overall Personality Type Low Familiarity Medium Fam iliarity High Familiarity N % Std. Resid. N % Std. Resid. N % Std. Resid. Total Match 124 62% +1.96 67 29.1% -4.81 159 65.4% +2.9 350 No Match 76 38% -2.04 163 70.9% +5.01 84 34.6% -3.02 323 Total 200 100% 230 100% 243 100% 673 X=73.77, d.f.=2, p<.0001 The results of the cross tabulation fall in line with the total number of personality types generated for each of the familiarity leve ls. Medium familiarity brands had the highest number of total personality types and had the lo west level of consensus (29.1% match) among overall personality type. Low and high familiarity brands had less to tal personality types a nd had a higher level of consensus (62% match and 65.4% match, resp ectively) among overall personality type. Hypothesis 1: Brand personality consensus is positively related to brand familiarity. The results show that a significant relationshi p exists between familiarity and consensus (number of personalities), but the hypothesis was only partially supported. At low and high brand familiarity levels, there is a greater consensus among overall pe rsonality type. At the medium brand familiarity level, there is less consensus among overall pe rsonality type. High familiarity brands had more personality consensus than medium familiarity brands, but medium familiarity 60

PAGE 61

61 brands did not have more personality consensus than low familiarity brands. Thus, the hypothesis was only partially supported, as the relationship is not linear. To further explore, an analysis of how us age levels affect personality consensus was conducted. A cross tabulation and chi-square anal ysis revealed that th ere is no significant relationship between the amount of time spent using social networks and the consensus on personality type (Table 4-21). Therefore, it can be suggested that the amount of time spent using social networks is not necessarily an indicator of personality cons ensus. This indicated that usage levels are not a factor in brand personality cons ensus, therefore, familiarity level was sufficient to test the hypothesis. Table 4-21. Cross Tabulation of Maximum Time with Number of Personalities Number of Personalities High Familiarity Medium Fa miliarity Low Familiarity Facebook MySpace LiveJournal Classmates.com Bebo Sportsvite Low Users (Less than 1 hour/week) 5 11 5 6 3 1 Medium Users (1-4 hours/week) 11 5 4 0 0 0 High Users (5+ hours/week) 11 2 0 0 0 0 Facebook: X=31.29, d.f.=26, p=0.22 ; MySpace: X=30.24, d.f.=24, p=0.18 ; LiveJournal: X=11.73, d.f.=7, p=0.11 ; Classmates.com: No sta tistics computed-Max Time is constant ; Bebo: No statistics computed-Max Time is consta nt ; Sportsvite: No statistics computed-Max Time is constant

PAGE 62

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS As todays market becomes progressively satu rated with products, branding has become an increasingly important means for distinguish ing between products. The creation of a brand personality is not only what helps make these di stinctions but also what enables consumers to develop and nurture relationships with brands that will lead to loyalty. However, there is still a wide gap in the knowledge of just how consumer s view, absorb, and cont ribute to these brand personalities. This study was c onducted to discover the way in which consumers view the personalities of brands based on their perceived level of familiarity with said brands. The use of online social networking websites as brand stimuli contoured the study toward a look at this new and growing category and the ways in which consumers are responding to it. Summary of Results Social Network Usage Brand usage results coincided with familiarity levels, as expected. The greatest number of participants reported having used the high familiarity brands, while only a few respondents indicated they had ever used the low familiarity brands. This indicates that the low familiarity brands are likely deemed as such because they have typically not ev er been used by many college students. The medium familiarity brands ha ve likely been tried out or used by a select niche group of people. The high familiarity brands had been used by nearly all respondents. Another component of this is the amount of time spent using each social network. The only social network in which high usage was the most frequently occurring response was Facebook, with 50% of respondents indicating they dedicate a mi nimum of five hours per week to the website. An interesting case was MySpace, the other high-familia rity brand. Seventy-six point five percent of respondents indicated us ing MySpace less than one hour per week, with 62

PAGE 63

only 4.8% assigning it to the more than five hours per week category. This indicates that while college students tend to be highly familiar with MySpace as a social network and have used it before, they prefer Facebook over MySpace. Furthe r, a higher percentage of respondents (99.1%) indicated having a registered Facebook account, while only 57% of respondents indicated having a registered MySpace account. While 93.8% of re spondents indicated they have used MySpace before, only 57% hold a registered account for it. This gives furthe r support that college students prefer Facebook to MySpace. Satisfaction levels s upport this as well. Respondents tended to be much more satisfied with Facebook (M=5.51) than MySpace (M=3.48). All use of the medium and low familiarity br ands appears to be within a niche group of people who are aware of these social networks While some respondents were aware of the medium familiarity social networks (LiveJourna l and Classmates.com), it appears that the low usage rates (21.6% and 6.3% respec tively) could be the result of the absence of a need for these social networks. Classmates.com, in particular, is useful for reconnecting with your classmates of the past. While many respondents seemed to be aw are of this social ne twork, college students likely dont yet have a need for this service. It is likely something that adults would find more use for. LiveJournal lets user s post a diary/blog, and many college students may not have a need for this sort of service. The low familiarity soci al networks (Bebo and Sportsvite) appear to have only been used by a few of respondents (three respondents and one respondent, respectively). Therefore, these brands are highly unfamiliar to the majority of college students. Their extremely low familiarity levels (1.20 and 1.08, respectively) indicate that not only have most college students never used these social networks, th ey have likely never even heard of them. Social network age does not appear to have had effect on familiarity level. Facebook and MySpace (high familiarity) were introduced in 2004 and 2003 respectively, LiveJournal and 63

PAGE 64

Classmates.com (medium familiarity) were introduced in 1999 and 1995 respectively, and Bebo and Sportsvite (low familiarity) were intr oduced in 2005 and 2006 respectively. This may indicate that even though LiveJ ournal and Classmates.com have b een in use the longest, they may appeal more to a select group of indi viduals. Facebook and MySpace, on the other hand, while much newer, are more general in applicabili ty and appeal to a very wide range of people. This issue may also have had a general effect on the outcome of the study. Facebook and MySpace, as stated previously, are very genera l types of social networks mainly used for communication with others. Some of the othe rs used in the study, such as Sportsvite, Classmates.com, and LiveJournal, appear to be more of a niche type of social network that provide a specific type of service as opposed to a general means of communication. This could be a factor in why the more specific types of so cial networks had lower familiarity levels because not as many general consumers would n ecessarily have a need for them. Brand Personalities of Social Networks Results from the hypothesis testing illustrate th at there is greater personality consensus among high familiarity brands and low familiarity brands, while medium familiarity brands have a much lower personality consensus. In partial support of the hypothesi s, the study concluded that familiarity level does have an effect on the total number of personalities that will be assigned to a brand (consensus) but not in linear fashion. In the case of this study, it must be taken into consideration that the social network overall category is fairly new and growing. This aspect of the category will have a definite impact on the ways in which personalities are viewed and classified. The results of the study indicate that in a category such as this, where the category itself and many of the brands are relatively new, the hi gh familiarity brands (the category leaders) will set the tone of the personality of the category. The extremely unfamiliar brands will be 64

PAGE 65

influenced by the overall category personality and by the category leaders (high familiarity brands). This is a possible explanation for the high level of personality consensus among high familiarity brands and low familiarity brands but not medium familiarity brands. In this category, medium familiarity brands are pe rhaps trying to distinguish and di fferentiate themselves as they are becoming more well-known. They may be fighti ng for a distinct personality. Consumers may be trying out these medium familiarity brands to see what theyre like. They may have some knowledge of them (more so than low familiarity brands) but not as much knowledge as they do of the high familiarity brands. Thus, medium fam iliarity brands will be assigned the widest range of personalities, and there will be the lowest le vel of personality consensus. Low familiarity brands in this case have a very undistinguished personality of their own; therefore, consumers will likely judge those brand pe rsonalities based off their knowle dge of the personality of the category itself and the category leaders (high familiarity brands). This indicates why low familiarity brands will have a very high personality consensus even though consumers have very little knowledge of them. Past logic would assume that a low familiarity brand would have very low personality consensus because consumers would have very little knowledge of the brand and personalities would likely end up all over the board. However, in this case of this study, people will likely assume that any new social network is probably similar to the popular category leaders, and they will be judged accordingly. Category Comparison The results of this study provided evidence that in new product categories, such as social networks, the highest and lowest familiarity brands will have more personality consensus. But it is important to compare this with well-estab lished and mature product categories. Strausbaugh (1998) tested the number of resulting dominant personalities of bra nds in mature, well65

PAGE 66

established product categories. The Strausbaugh study showed that Coca-Cola (high familiarity) had two to four dominant personalities while Diet Coke and Cherry Coke (lower familiarity than Coca-Cola) had only one to two dominant pers onality types (Strausbaugh 1998). The study also showed that McDonalds (high familiarity) ha d two to three dominant personality types (Strausbaugh 1998). Strausbaugh (1998) theorized that the longer the brand has been in existence and the more communications received over time with regard to it, the more identities it is able to take on (p. 195). Strausbaugh (1998) suggested that this could happen because the product becomes tightly intertwi ned with the usage experience for the consumer and thus becomes highly personalized and positive in nature (p. 195). Thus it appears that in new product categories, high familiarity brands have strong personality consensus, but in mature product ca tegories, high familiarity brands have weaker personality consensus. This would indicate that more time spent with the brand leads to more personalized brand personality perception, and therefore new pr oducts (in this case, social networks) would not have yet developed a strong enough relationship with the consumer for this to occur. Bebo Versus Sportsvite as Low Familiarity Brands Bebo and Sportsvite were both highly unfamiliar to respondents, and as a combined unit of low familiarity brands, their overall persona lity consensus is very high. However, when analyzed individually, Sportsvite has a much higher personality consensus than does Bebo even though both have extremely low familiarity and usage among respondents. While the exact cause for this discrepancy between the two is not known, suggestions can be made. Sportsvite is a much more specifically-focused so cial network. It allows athletes to connect with other athletes in their local region to man age their games or teams, recruit players, join a team, find a playing field or ev en post sports classifieds on [the] listings board (Sportsvite 66

PAGE 67

2008). Bebo, on the other hand, appears to be a mu ch more generalized social network where users simply create profiles to in teract with other users. Beyond th is aspect, the most likely cause for the differentiation between the two is likely based on the name. Both social networks were highly unfamiliar to respondents, however, Sportsv ite is a word that respondents are likely to understand and draw conclusions about. They will probably assume it has something to do with sports. Bebo, on the other hand, sounds much more obscure and might not be a word that respondents can associate with anything. Bebo sta nds for Blog Early, Blog Often but that is not likely common knowledge. When respondents we re faced with a social network for which they had little or zero familiarity with or knowledge of, it is likely that they gauged the personality of the social network based on any as sociations they could ma ke with the name [a logo was not presented in the survey, simply the na me in normal font consistent with the rest of the survey]. If this occurred, it would make sense that respondents assumed Sportsvite had something to do with sports and answered the pe rsonality questions as such. This could explain why the consensus level for Sportsvite (96.8%) was so high. This issue will later be presented as a suggestion for future research. Fungibility The results of the study indica te that the social network category can be viewed as fungible, meaning something that is exchangeab le or substitutable (Dictionary.com 2008). For example, a barrel of oil can be viewed as f ungible because it can be used in the same way as any other barrel of oil (Clifford 2008). Fungibility of a product category leads to the notion that products within the category can easily replace each other or are interchangeable. This studys findings show that the identities of social networks are in a very fungible stage right now because the category is so new. Fungibility exists in th e fact that people can apply the brand personality of a well-known social network to that of a completely unknown social network and view them 67

PAGE 68

interchangeably. This suggests that any new produc t category can be viewed as fungible and thus brand personalities within the new and unfamilia r category will be interchangeable. Early on, in new categories, the personality of a brand will be the same as the overall category, and thus each of the brands within the category will be fungible. The importance of fungibility is that it offers the opportunity to advertise and differentiate one self. This is where brand personality becomes important. Theoretical Implications From a theoretical standpoint, th e results of this study have ma ny implications. First of all, as stated in the Literature Review, brand persona lity is still a relatively new concept that lacks standardized measures. While di fferent personality measurement instruments have been created and utilized, an all-encompassing industry standard is still unclear. This studys findings present a rationale for the use of the Strausbaugh Instrument (encompassing the 16 MBTI personality typologies) in measuring brand personality. While Aakers Big Five is a commonly used method for distinguishing personalities of brands, it does not yield a single personality for an individual respondent and thus establishing a level of consensus is not as meaningful. Strausbaughs 16 personality typologies allow for a very clear view of dominant personality types and the ability to see if there truly is a str ong and significant consensus. The partial support of the hypothesis offers th e opportunity to create a new theory on the link between brand personality and brand familia rity contingent on the type of category in question. Since we have provided evidence that in new product categories, high and low brand familiarity leads to high personality consensus while medium brand familiarity leads to low personality consensus, then future studies test ing the same hypothesis in other product categories might establish a more well-rounded view of the concept. If the different links between familiarity and personality consensus could be di scovered for each type of product category, then 68

PAGE 69

a specific model could be proposed that encompasses all three elements: brand familiarity, personality consensus, and product category. Practical Implications First and foremost, this study presents large implications for the practice of branding and creation of a brand personality for marketers a nd advertisers. This st udy has provided evidence that in new categories, the category leader will se t the tone of the categorys personality. Brands in this position will have an easier time creati ng and portraying a brand personality. While there is likely to be a higher learning co st if a brand is the first one to arrive in a category, return on investment will likely be greater. For other brands entering a new category after the overall category personality has been distinguished, expect ations are already going to be in existence. New brands will have the challenge of meeti ng those expectations while also trying to differentiate themselves. If new brands meet expectations but dont offer anything new or different from the category leader, they are un likely to succeed because consumers will likely remain loyal to the category leader. The mere-e xposure effect showed us that people tend to prefer things that are more familiar to them. Therefore, new brands will have to offer something different in order to shift c onsumers in their direction. The results of this study have implications fo r the social network category itself as well. Because the study has deemed the overall category as fungible social networks need to take this into consideration when establishing themselves as br ands. Fungibility leads to the opportunity to advertise in order to differentiate. This is what social networks need to be aware of. It appears that high familiarity brands already have well-established consumer bases. Therefore, these brands need to focus on con tinuing to satisfy customer demands and meet expectations. As interactive technology conti nues to innovate and progress, consumers will expect social networks to follow suit. Continua l improvements and innovati ons will be expected. 69

PAGE 70

And because social networks are part of the fa st-paced online interactiv e industry, any that does not keep up with the rest of the pack risks becoming obsolete and abandoned. Because consumers appear to have strong relationships with the high familiarity social networks, they will expect small improvements over time, but any dr astic changes will run th e risk of alienating, confusing, or frustrati ng loyal consumers. The medium familiarity brands are focu sing on differentiating themselves. The two medium familiarity brands in this study, LiveJournal and Clas smates.com, have both been in existence since the 1990s and are thus older than all of the other social networks in this study. However, length of existence is not translating into familiarity level in this case. It is possible then, that these social networks appeal to very specific interests or desires. The consumers who have those specific interests are likely the curren t users, and this niche group is likely content. The low familiarity social ne tworks were completely unknown to respondents, thus, respondents assumed them to be similar to th e well-known social netw orks. Therefore, low familiarity brands should focus on differentiating themselves and making themselves more wellknown in order to advance into medium or high familiarity positions. As was seen in the case of MySpace, just because many consumers are highly familiar with your offering, that doesnt mean they prefer it. Many people are highly fa miliar with Coca-Cola bu t prefer Pepsi and vice versa. Therefore, in the category of social netw orks, just being well-known is not enough to drive usage. It was stated earlier that there are approximately 850 social networking sites today with that number estimated to rise to 250,000 in the next year (Swartz 2008a). Thus, in a category where consumers have countless options, appealing to customer needs and demands could be the future key to success in addition to achieving high familiarity. 70

PAGE 71

The results of this study provide insight into the ways in which social networks should market themselves. In this study, different kinds of people viewed a singular social network in different ways, but the social network is what it is. The only thing that is different is the manner in which consumers viewed its pe rsonality. Perhaps different segm ents of consumers are viewing a social network in a specific way. This is an ar ea that could be explored by social networks in order to see if there is any met hod of segmenting social network user s into distinct target market segments. As mentioned at the beginning of this study, the social networ k category was selected for a very specific reason. As more and more peopl e are spending their free time on the internet instead of in front of the television, and onlin e advertising spending continues to increase, knowledge about social network usage is of extreme value to marketers today. Despite representing only a small sample of college stud ents, the information discovered about the usage of social networks by college students is of ex treme significance to marketers in helping them understand the best places in which to advertis e and connect with young adults. It seems very clear that the best place to reach college st udents online is through Facebook. Ninety-nine point one percent of respondents indicated that th ey own a personal, registered Facebook account. Further, respondents indicated that they are t ypically satisfied with Facebook, with a mean satisfaction score of 5.51 out of a possible seven. Fifty percent of respondents revealed that they dedicate at least five hours every week to spending time on Facebook. And social networks operate quite differently from other media. If a person claims they spend five hours per week watching television, that doesnt necessarily mean that they are engaged and engrossed in the television for the entire five hours, and they may even change the channel or leave during commercials. A social network is very differe nt. While using a social network, a person is 71

PAGE 72

typically completely engaged. Th ey are focused on what they ar e doing and they are choosing to be there. Thus marketing executed through a social network is harder to ignore. Many marketers have caught onto this. Beyond the placement of ba nner ads, which do have the potential to be ignored, marketers have begun to advertise th rough interactive mean s. Sponsorships and advertising has become so advanced and intertwi ned at the social network level that social network users often dont even realize they are being advertised to. If interactivity is what fuels relationships between consumers a nd brands then the most interactive of media (the internet) would seem the best logical place to foster these relationships. As stated earlier in the comparison between young and mature product categories, more time spent with a brand might not lead to salienc e of the personality as established by marketers but actually might lead to a more personali zed one-on-one personality as adapted by the consumer. This personality may be quite different from the personality created for the brand by marketers. If consumers are going to adapt thei r own view of a brand personality over time, it would seem logical that marketers should ini tially focus on creating a strong personality for a new brand and then later, when the brand has matured, focus more on establishing interactive relationships with consumers. Limitations This study has several limitations. The first lim itation is present in th e sample utilized. A convenience sample of University of Florid a students enrolled in ADV3008 was used, as opposed to a true random sample. Therefore the resu lts of the study can only be applied to these types of college-aged students. The results cannot necessarily be projected onto a greater population of all consumers. Although the coll ege students represented a diverse group of University of Florida students, it still is not re presentative of people of all ages, education levels and backgrounds. The sample was not evenly dist ributed between males and females, with males 72

PAGE 73

accounting for only 23% of the sample. Further, since all respondents were students at the University of Florida, it is implied that they ar e fairly intelligent, competent, and already possess high school diplomas, therefore being well educated. All respondents took the survey online, meaning they all had computer access. This is not true of all consumers. Because these respondents all have computer acce ss, they are more likely to be familiar with social network websites than people who do not have computer access. A second limitation lies in the specificity of the study. Only the category of social networks was utilized, and thus the results cannot be projecte d onto all brand types or all category types and maturity levels. A third limitation lies in the small number of brand stimuli used. Due to the length of survey questioning, each respondent only answered questions cove ring three of the six brands. And due to sample size, in order to obtain a large enough sample to respond on each brand, a total of only six brands were studied. This may sk ew results to not necessarily be representative of all social networks. In order to truly understand this catego ry, a larger number of social networks should be studied. Suggestions for Future Research It has been expressed multiple times throughout this study that brand personality is still a relatively new concept and the possibilities for futu re research are endless. Specifically in this case, a few interesting extensions of this study appear to be con cepts this industry would benefit from understanding more completely. First of all, it would seem l ogical to replicate this study with different product categories. This study looked at one product category exclusively, the results of which cannot necessarily be generalized onto other product categories. This study has made conjectures about mature product categories (such as soft drinks and fast food) but concrete data is still lackin g. And beyond that, 73

PAGE 74

there are a multitude of product categories which have likely never been studied or theorized about. It would also be beneficial to replicate this study with a la rger sample of brand stimuli. This study focused on only six social networks, ye t we have previously st ated that hundreds of social networks currently exist and hundreds of th ousands are likely to exist within the next year. A similar study encompassing a larg er pool of social network bra nds might allow for a clearer and well-rounded analysis. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to replicate this study with a more generalized sample that re presented a wider range of people, as opposed to just college students at the University of Florida. It was discussed prior that one possible reason for the stronger pe rsonality consensus on low familiarity brand Sportsvite over Bebo could be due to the actual name of the social network. It was suggested that ev en in zero-familiarity situati ons, respondents might make the same assumptions about Sportsvite because they are likely to assume it is something sportsrelated. Bebo, however, is a more obscure name and respondents might have made completely scattered assumptions about what it could encompass. Therefore, an interesting study to conduct would be a look at the names of unfamiliar brands to see how the names of these brands affect consumers perceptions of them While logos were not used in this study, logo use could add a further dimension to that research. A comparative study could examine the name versus the logo design of unfamiliar bands to see which of the two dominated overall perception of its personality. Another suggestion for future research would be a qualitative study of the same concepts presented in this study. A focus group approach that allowed consumers to engage in conversation about a specific product category and th e way they view certain brands could give a different view of brand familiaritys effects on pers onality. In this respect, the qualitative nature 74

PAGE 75

75 would allow for the added element of dis cerning the level of passion and involvement participants expressed while talking about brands at various familiarity levels. Also, in this case, participants could have the ability to describe the personality of brands in their own way using whatever words they desire as opposed to select ing one of two options on a survey questionnaire (in which case they may not agree with eith er option but be for ced to choose one). An additional area for future research would include adding a component of testing respondents personalities to see if their own personalities had an effect on the personality they selected for a brand. This would provide more re search for the study of congruity theory. Also, it would be interesting to create a study that looked at whether the personality which respondents claim they view of the social ne twork is actually of the social network website itself or of the people they presume to be users of the social network in question. Another area to explore is how gender differe nces affect the way respondents view the brand personality. Specifically, with a social network such as Sportsvite. The sample in this study was heavily skewed toward female respondent s. A more evenly dispersed sample in terms of gender might provide interesti ng insights into the way different genders perceive personalities. This could be further expanded to include differences among all demographics. As mentioned previously, the area of brand personality and the ways in which consumers develop relationships with bra nds is a highly complicated, m odestly understood, and largely desired area of knowledge when it comes to marketing and advert ising. While the few suggestions above do span areas that would be extremely beneficial to the industry to comprehend, the possibilities of areas for future research are virtually endless.

PAGE 76

APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT Hello and thank you for taking the time to participat e in this questionnaire. I am interested in finding out your opinions regarding different websites that you may or may not be familiar with. There are no right or wrong answers. I highly value your most honest and truthful opinions. I assure you that this information will be kept conf idential and that this questionnaire is intended for real, legitimate research purposes. Your participation in this survey is complete ly voluntary, and you may cancel your participation at any time. Those students who choose to comple te the survey will receive extra credit as assigned by your instructor. Informed Consent Protocol Title: The effects of brand familiarity on brand personality Please read this consent document carefully befo re you decide to partic ipate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of brand familiarity on brand personality. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to complete a questionnair e containing questions on your knowledge of certain websites. You will be asked to report your level of use and familiarity with certain websites. You will then be asked to assign descri ptive adjectives to those websites based on your own opinion of the personal ities of those websites. Time required : Approximately 20 minutes Risks and Benefits : There are no risks or benefits associated with this study. Compensation : You will receive extra cred it as established by your in structor for participating in this research. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the ex tent provided by law. Your name will be kept separate from your completed survey and will be used only to provide proof of completion to your professor for extr a credit purposes. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from th e study at any time w ithout consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: 76

PAGE 77

77 April Shapiro, Graduate Student, Coll ege of Journalism and Communications AprShaps@ufl.edu, 954-695-1911 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Fl orida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; phone 392-0433. 1. Please acknowledge that you have read th e informed consent above and agree to participate in this study by check ing the appropri ate box below: o I agree o I do not agree. I will not participate in this study

PAGE 78

APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRES Survey Version 1a: FLB FLB I am interested in finding out your personal leve l of familiarity with the websites presented below. Facebook 1. Think about Facebook. How familiar are you with this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website Facebook, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used Facebook before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on average, that you spend using Facebook: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered Facebook account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with Facebook? Please rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 through 7 wher e 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) 78

PAGE 79

o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Satisfied) LiveJournal 1. Think about LiveJournal. How familiar are you with this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website LiveJournal, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used LiveJournal before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on average, that you spend using LiveJournal: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered LiveJournal account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with LiveJounal? Please rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) 79

PAGE 80

o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Satisfied) Bebo 1. Think about Bebo. How familiar are you with this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 wh ere 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website Bebo, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used Bebo before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on aver age, that you spend using Bebo: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered Bebo account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with Bebo? Please rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 through 7 wher e 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) 80

PAGE 81

o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Satisfied) Personality In this section, I am interested in finding out your opinions of these websites based on the characteristics and attributes that comprise the pe rsonality and/or image they give off. This is entirely based on your opinion, and no opinion is wrong. I am aware that you may or may not be familiar with the following websites however please answer to the best of your knowledge and ability for each item. Facebook Directions: Think about Facebook as if it were a person with a dist inct personality. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items belo w, please indicate how you would describe Facebook's personality by selecti ng the adjective from each pair that best describes Facebook. 1. Facebook is: Assertive Mild 2. Facebook is: Systematic Imaginative 3. Facebook is: Logical Emotional 4. Facebook is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. Facebook is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. Facebook is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. Facebook is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. Facebook is: Reserved Active 9. Facebook is: Cold Warm 10. Facebook is: Dependable Changeable 11. Facebook is: Moderate Dynamic 12. Facebook is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. Facebook is: Innovative Steadfast 14. Facebook is: Sociable Shy 15. Facebook is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. Facebook is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. Facebook is: Quiet Outspoken 18. Facebook is: Wide-interests Precise 19. Facebook is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. Facebook is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. Facebook is: Energetic Calm 22. Facebook is: Conservative Unconventional 23. Facebook is: Excitable Stoic 24. Facebook is: Decided Flexible 81

PAGE 82

LiveJournal Now think about LiveJournal as if it were a pe rson with a distinct personality. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items belo w, please indicate how you would describe LiveJournal's personality by selecting the adj ective from each pair that best describes LiveJournal. 1. LiveJournal is: Assertive Mild 2. LiveJournal is: Systematic Imaginative 3. LiveJournal is: Logical Emotional 4. LiveJournal is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. LiveJournal is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. LiveJournal is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. LiveJournal is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. LiveJournal is: Reserved Active 9. LiveJournal is: Cold Warm 10. LiveJournal is: Dependable Changeable 11. LiveJournal is: Moderate Dynamic 12. LiveJournal is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. LiveJournal is: Innovative Steadfast 14. LiveJournal is: Sociable Shy 15. LiveJournal is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. LiveJournal is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. LiveJournal is: Quiet Outspoken 18. LiveJournal is: Wide-interests Precise 19. LiveJournal is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. LiveJournal is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. LiveJournal is: Energetic Calm 22. LiveJournal is: Conservative Unconventional 23. LiveJournal is: Excitable Stoic 24. LiveJournal is: Decided Flexible Bebo Now think about Bebo as if it were a person with a distinct personality. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items below, please indicate how you would describe Bebo 's personality by selecting the adjective from each pair that best describes Bebo. 1. Bebo is: Assertive Mild 2. Bebo is: Systematic Imaginative 3. Bebo is: Logical Emotional 4. Bebo is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. Bebo is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 82

PAGE 83

6. Bebo is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. Bebo is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. Bebo is: Reserved Active 9. Bebo is: Cold Warm 10. Bebo is: Dependable Changeable 11. Bebo is: Moderate Dynamic 12. Bebo is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. Bebo is: Innovative Steadfast 14. Bebo is: Sociable Shy 15. Bebo is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. Bebo is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. Bebo is: Quiet Outspoken 18. Bebo is: Wide-interests Precise 19. Bebo is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. Bebo is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. Bebo is: Energetic Calm 22. Bebo is: Conservative Unconventional 23. Bebo is: Excitable Stoic 24. Bebo is: Decided Flexible The following questions serve to provide a basic ove rview of all survey participants in this study. This information will not in any way be connected to your personal responses to this questionnaire, but rather serve as part of an overa ll description of all respondents. Please select the answer that best applies to you. Should the other category best apply to you on any particular question, please select o ther and write in your response. 1. What is your gender? Male Female 2. What is your age? ________________________________ 3. What is your academic classification? Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Other If selecting other please specify: ______________ 4. What is your race/ethnicity? Arabic Asian 83

PAGE 84

Black/African-American Hispanic/Latino Native American Pacific Islander White/Caucasian Other If selecting other please specify: ______________ 5. What social class best exemplifies you? Upper class Upper middle class Middle class Lower middle class Lower class Unsure 6. What kind of computer do you use? Mac/Apple PC 7. What is your current major? ______________________________________ In order to receive extra credit for participating in this survey, you will need to state your name and UFID number. Your name/UFID will not be a ssociated with, or connected to, your responses in this survey. It will only be placed on a list of students who have completed the survey and will thus receive extra credit. Please state your name below as it appear s on UF records. Do not use nicknames. Last name: First name: Middle initial: UF ID number: Please create a 4-digit code for yourself that you can easily remember. Should it occur that you do not receive your extra credit points, you will repor t this number to your professor as proof of your completion. Code: _ 12. Extra Credit Proof 84

PAGE 85

85 Thank you so much for taking the time to partic ipate in this study. Your opinions will greatly help in my research efforts. Should you have any questions regarding t odays study, feel free to contact me at Aprshaps@ufl.edu. Have a great day!

PAGE 86

Survey Version 1b: LBF FLB I am interested in finding out your personal leve l of familiarity with the websites presented below. LiveJournal 1. Think about LiveJournal. How familiar are you with this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website LiveJournal, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used LiveJournal before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on average, that you spend using LiveJournal: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered LiveJournal account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with LiveJounal? Please rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) o 2 o 3 o 4 86

PAGE 87

o 5 o 6 o 7 (Satisfied) Bebo 1. Think about Bebo. How familiar are you with this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 wh ere 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website Bebo, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used Bebo before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on aver age, that you spend using Bebo: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered Bebo account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with Bebo? Please rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 through 7 wher e 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) o 2 o 3 o 4 87

PAGE 88

o 5 o 6 o 7 (Satisfied) Facebook 1. Think about Facebook. How familiar are you with this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website Facebook, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used Facebook before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on average, that you spend using Facebook: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered Facebook account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with Facebook? Please rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 through 7 wher e 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) o 2 o 3 o 4 88

PAGE 89

o 5 o 6 o 7 In this section, I am interested in finding out your opinions of these websites based on the characteristics and attributes that comprise the pe rsonality and/or image they give off. This is entirely based on your opinion, and no opinion is wrong. I am aware that you may or may not be familiar with the following websites however please answer to the best of your knowledge and ability for each item. LiveJournal Directions: Think about LiveJourna l as if it were a person with a distinct personality. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items below, please indicate how you would describe LiveJournal's personality by selecting the adj ective from each pair that best describes LiveJournal. 1. LiveJournal is: Assertive Mild 2. LiveJournal is: Systematic Imaginative 3. LiveJournal is: Logical Emotional 4. LiveJournal is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. LiveJournal is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. LiveJournal is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. LiveJournal is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. LiveJournal is: Reserved Active 9. LiveJournal is: Cold Warm 10. LiveJournal is: Dependable Changeable 11. LiveJournal is: Moderate Dynamic 12. LiveJournal is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. LiveJournal is: Innovative Steadfast 14. LiveJournal is: Sociable Shy 15. LiveJournal is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. LiveJournal is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. LiveJournal is: Quiet Outspoken 18. LiveJournal is: Wide-interests Precise 19. LiveJournal is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. LiveJournal is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. LiveJournal is: Energetic Calm 22. LiveJournal is: Conservative Unconventional 23. LiveJournal is: Excitable Stoic 24. LiveJournal is: Decided Flexible Bebo 89

PAGE 90

Now think about Bebo as if it were a person with a distinct personality. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items below, please indicate how you would describe Bebo 's personality by selecting the adjective from each pair that best describes Bebo. 1. Bebo is: Assertive Mild 2. Bebo is: Systematic Imaginative 3. Bebo is: Logical Emotional 4. Bebo is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. Bebo is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. Bebo is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. Bebo is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. Bebo is: Reserved Active 9. Bebo is: Cold Warm 10. Bebo is: Dependable Changeable 11. Bebo is: Moderate Dynamic 12. Bebo is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. Bebo is: Innovative Steadfast 14. Bebo is: Sociable Shy 15. Bebo is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. Bebo is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. Bebo is: Quiet Outspoken 18. Bebo is: Wide-interests Precise 19. Bebo is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. Bebo is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. Bebo is: Energetic Calm 22. Bebo is: Conservative Unconventional 23. Bebo is: Excitable Stoic 24. Bebo is: Decided Flexible Facebook Now think about Facebook as if it were a person with a distinct personality. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items below, pl ease indicate how you would describe Facebook's personality by selecting the adjective from each pair th at best describes Facebook. 1. Facebook is: Assertive Mild 2. Facebook is: Systematic Imaginative 3. Facebook is: Logical Emotional 4. Facebook is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. Facebook is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. Facebook is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. Facebook is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. Facebook is: Reserved Active 9. Facebook is: Cold Warm 90

PAGE 91

10. Facebook is: Dependable Changeable 11. Facebook is: Moderate Dynamic 12. Facebook is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. Facebook is: Innovative Steadfast 14. Facebook is: Sociable Shy 15. Facebook is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. Facebook is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. Facebook is: Quiet Outspoken 18. Facebook is: Wide-interests Precise 19. Facebook is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. Facebook is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. Facebook is: Energetic Calm 22. Facebook is: Conservative Unconventional 23. Facebook is: Excitable Stoic 24. Facebook is: Decided Flexible The following questions serve to provide a basic ove rview of all survey participants in this study. This information will not in any way be connected to your personal responses to this questionnaire, but rather serve as part of an overa ll description of all respondents. Please select the answer that best applies to you. Should the other category best apply to you on any particular question, please select o ther and write in your response. 1. What is your gender? Male Female 2. What is your age? ________________________________ 3. What is your academic classification? Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Other If selecting other please specify: ______________ 4. What is your race/ethnicity? Arabic Asian Black/African-American Hispanic/Latino Native American Pacific Islander White/Caucasian 91

PAGE 92

92 Other If selecting other please specify: ______________ 5. What social class best exemplifies you? Upper class Upper middle class Middle class Lower middle class Lower class Unsure 6. What kind of computer do you use? Mac/Apple PC 7. What is your current major? ______________________________________ In order to receive extra credit for participating in this survey, you will need to state your name and UFID number. Your name/UFID will not be a ssociated with, or connected to, your responses in this survey. It will only be placed on a list of students who have completed the survey and will thus receive extra credit. Please state your name below as it appear s on UF records. Do not use nicknames. Last name: First name: Middle initial: UF ID number: Please create a 4-digit code for yourself that you can easily remember. Should it occur that you do not receive your extra credit points, you will repor t this number to your professor as proof of your completion. Code: _ 12. Extra Credit Proof Thank you so much for taking the time to partic ipate in this study. Your opinions will greatly help in my research efforts. Should you have any questions regarding t odays study, feel free to contact me at Aprshaps@ufl.edu. Have a great day!

PAGE 93

Survey Version 1c: BFL I am interested in finding out your personal leve l of familiarity with the websites presented below. Bebo 1. Think about Bebo. How familiar are you with this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 wh ere 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website Bebo, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used Bebo before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on aver age, that you spend using Bebo: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered Bebo account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with Bebo? Please rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 through 7 wher e 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) o 2 o 3 o 4 93

PAGE 94

o 5 o 6 o 7 (Satisfied) Facebook 1. Think about Facebook. How familiar are you with this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website Facebook, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used Facebook before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on average, that you spend using Facebook: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered Facebook account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with Facebook? Please rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 through 7 wher e 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) o 2 o 3 o 4 94

PAGE 95

o 5 o 6 o 7 LiveJournal 1. Think about LiveJournal. How familiar are you with this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website LiveJournal, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used LiveJournal before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on average, that you spend using LiveJournal: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered LiveJournal account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with LiveJounal? Please rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) o 2 o 3 o 4 95

PAGE 96

o 5 o 6 o 7 (Satisfied) In this section, I am interested in finding out your opinions of these websites based on the characteristics and attributes that comprise the pe rsonality and/or image they give off. This is entirely based on your opinion, and no opinion is wrong. I am aware that you may or may not be familiar with the following websites however please answer to the best of your knowledge and ability for each item. Bebo Directions: Think about Bebo as if it were a person with a di stinct personality. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items below, please indicate how you would describe Bebo 's personality by selecting the adjective from each pair that best describes Bebo. 1. Bebo is: Assertive Mild 2. Bebo is: Systematic Imaginative 3. Bebo is: Logical Emotional 4. Bebo is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. Bebo is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. Bebo is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. Bebo is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. Bebo is: Reserved Active 9. Bebo is: Cold Warm 10. Bebo is: Dependable Changeable 11. Bebo is: Moderate Dynamic 12. Bebo is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. Bebo is: Innovative Steadfast 14. Bebo is: Sociable Shy 15. Bebo is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. Bebo is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. Bebo is: Quiet Outspoken 18. Bebo is: Wide-interests Precise 19. Bebo is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. Bebo is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. Bebo is: Energetic Calm 22. Bebo is: Conservative Unconventional 23. Bebo is: Excitable Stoic 24. Bebo is: Decided Flexible Facebook 96

PAGE 97

Now think about Facebook as if it were a person with a distinct personality. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items below, pl ease indicate how you would describe Facebook's personality by selecting the adjective from each pair th at best describes Facebook. 1. Facebook is: Assertive Mild 2. Facebook is: Systematic Imaginative 3. Facebook is: Logical Emotional 4. Facebook is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. Facebook is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. Facebook is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. Facebook is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. Facebook is: Reserved Active 9. Facebook is: Cold Warm 10. Facebook is: Dependable Changeable 11. Facebook is: Moderate Dynamic 12. Facebook is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. Facebook is: Innovative Steadfast 14. Facebook is: Sociable Shy 15. Facebook is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. Facebook is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. Facebook is: Quiet Outspoken 18. Facebook is: Wide-interests Precise 19. Facebook is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. Facebook is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. Facebook is: Energetic Calm 22. Facebook is: Conservative Unconventional 23. Facebook is: Excitable Stoic 24. Facebook is: Decided Flexible LiveJournal Now think about LiveJournal as if it were a pe rson with a distinct personality. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items belo w, please indicate how you would describe LiveJournal's personality by selecting the adj ective from each pair that best describes LiveJournal. 1. LiveJournal is: Assertive Mild 2. LiveJournal is: Systematic Imaginative 3. LiveJournal is: Logical Emotional 4. LiveJournal is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. LiveJournal is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. LiveJournal is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. LiveJournal is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. LiveJournal is: Reserved Active 9. LiveJournal is: Cold Warm 97

PAGE 98

10. LiveJournal is: Dependable Changeable 11. LiveJournal is: Moderate Dynamic 12. LiveJournal is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. LiveJournal is: Innovative Steadfast 14. LiveJournal is: Sociable Shy 15. LiveJournal is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. LiveJournal is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. LiveJournal is: Quiet Outspoken 18. LiveJournal is: Wide-interests Precise 19. LiveJournal is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. LiveJournal is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. LiveJournal is: Energetic Calm 22. LiveJournal is: Conservative Unconventional 23. LiveJournal is: Excitable Stoic 24. LiveJournal is: Decided Flexible The following questions serve to provide a basic ove rview of all survey participants in this study. This information will not in any way be connected to your personal responses to this questionnaire, but rather serve as part of an overa ll description of all respondents. Please select the answer that best applies to you. Should the other category best apply to you on any particular question, please select o ther and write in your response. 1. What is your gender? Male Female 2. What is your age? ________________________________ 3. What is your academic classification? Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Other If selecting other please specify: ______________ 4. What is your race/ethnicity? Arabic Asian Black/African-American Hispanic/Latino Native American Pacific Islander White/Caucasian 98

PAGE 99

99 Other If selecting other please specify: ______________ 5. What social class best exemplifies you? Upper class Upper middle class Middle class Lower middle class Lower class Unsure 6. What kind of computer do you use? Mac/Apple PC 7. What is your current major? ______________________________________ In order to receive extra credit for participating in this survey, you will need to state your name and UFID number. Your name/UFID will not be a ssociated with, or connected to, your responses in this survey. It will only be placed on a list of students who have completed the survey and will thus receive extra credit. Please state your name below as it appear s on UF records. Do not use nicknames. Last name: First name: Middle initial: UF ID number: Please create a 4-digit code for yourself that you can easily remember. Should it occur that you do not receive your extra credit points, you will repor t this number to your professor as proof of your completion. Code: _ 12. Extra Credit Proof Thank you so much for taking the time to partic ipate in this study. Your opinions will greatly help in my research efforts. Should you have any questions regarding t odays study, feel free to contact me at Aprshaps@ufl.edu. Have a great day!

PAGE 100

Survey Version 2a: MCS FLB I am interested in finding out your personal leve l of familiarity with the websites presented below. MySpace 1. Think about MySpace. How familiar are you with this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website MySpace, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used MySpace before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on averag e, that you spend using MySpace: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered MySpace account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with MySpace? Please rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 through 7 wher e 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) o 2 o 3 o 4 100

PAGE 101

o 5 o 6 o 7 (Satisfied) Classmates.com 1. Think about Classmates.com. How familiar ar e you with this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website Cl assmates.com, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used Classmates.com before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on average, that you spend using Classmates.com: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered Classmates.com account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with Classmates.com? Please rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 thr ough 7 where 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) o 2 o 3 o 4 101

PAGE 102

o 5 o 6 o 7 (Satisfied) Sportsvite 1. Think about Sportsvite. How familiar are you w ith this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website Sportsvite, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used Sportsvite before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on averag e, that you spend using Sportsvite: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered Sportsvite account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with Sportsvite? Pleas e rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 through 7 wher e 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) o 2 o 3 o 4 102

PAGE 103

o 5 o 6 o 7 (Satisfied) Personality In this section, I am interested in finding out your opinions of these websites based on the characteristics and attributes that comprise the pe rsonality and/or image they give off. This is entirely based on your opinion, and no opinion is wrong. I am aware that you may or may not be familiar with the following websites however please answer to the best of your knowledge and ability for each item. MySpace Directions: Think about MySpace as if it were a pe rson with a distinct personality. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items belo w, please indicate how you would describe MySpace's personality by selecting the adjective from each pair that best describes MySpace. 1. MySpace is: Assertive Mild 2. MySpace is: Systematic Imaginative 3. MySpace is: Logical Emotional 4. MySpace is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. MySpace is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. MySpace is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. MySpace is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. MySpace is: Reserved Active 9. MySpace is: Cold Warm 10. MySpace is: Dependable Changeable 11. MySpace is: Moderate Dynamic 12. MySpace is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. MySpace is: Innovative Steadfast 14. MySpace is: Sociable Shy 15. MySpace is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. MySpace is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. MySpace is: Quiet Outspoken 18. MySpace is: Wide-interests Precise 19. MySpace is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. MySpace is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. MySpace is: Energetic Calm 22. MySpace is: Conservative Unconventional 23. MySpace is: Excitable Stoic 24. MySpace is: Decided Flexible Classmates.com 103

PAGE 104

Now think about Classmates.com as if it were a person with a distinct pe rsonality. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items belo w, please indicate how you would describe Classmates.com's personality by selecting the ad jective from each pair that best describes Classmates.com. 1. Classmates.com is: Assertive Mild 2. Classmates.com is: Systematic Imaginative 3. Classmates.com is: Logical Emotional 4. Classmates.com is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. Classmates.com is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. Classmates.com is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. Classmates.com is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. Classmates.com is: Reserved Active 9. Classmates.com is: Cold Warm 10. Classmates.com is: Dependable Changeable 11. Classmates.com is: Moderate Dynamic 12. Classmates.com is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. Classmates.com is: Innovative Steadfast 14. Classmates.com is: Sociable Shy 15. Classmates.com is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. Classmates.com is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. Classmates.com is: Quiet Outspoken 18. Classmates.com is: Wide-interests Precise 19. Classmates.com is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. Classmates.com is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. Classmates.com is: Energetic Calm 22. Classmates.com is: Conservative Unconventional 23. Classmates.com is: Excitable Stoic 24. Classmates.com is: Decided Flexible Sportsvite Now think about Sportsvite as if it were a person with a distinct personal ity. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items below, pleas e indicate how you would describe Sportsvite's personality by selecting the ad jective from each pair that best describes Sportsvite. 1. Sportsvite is: Assertive Mild 2. Sportsvite is: Systematic Imaginative 3. Sportsvite is: Logical Emotional 4. Sportsvite is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. Sportsvite is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. Sportsvite is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. Sportsvite is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. Sportsvite is: Reserved Active 9. Sportsvite is: Cold Warm 104

PAGE 105

10. Sportsvite is: Dependable Changeable 11. Sportsvite is: Moderate Dynamic 12. Sportsvite is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. Sportsvite is: Innovative Steadfast 14. Sportsvite is: Sociable Shy 15. Sportsvite is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. Sportsvite is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. Sportsvite is: Quiet Outspoken 18. Sportsvite is: Wide-interests Precise 19. Sportsvite is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. Sportsvite is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. Sportsvite is: Energetic Calm 22. Sportsvite is: Conservative Unconventional 23. Sportsvite is: Excitable Stoic 24. Sportsvite is: Decided Flexible The following questions serve to provide a basic ove rview of all survey participants in this study. This information will not in any way be connected to your personal responses to this questionnaire, but rather serve as part of an overa ll description of all respondents. Please select the answer that best applies to you. Should the other category best apply to you on any particular question, please select o ther and write in your response. 1. What is your gender? Male Female 2. What is your age? ________________________________ 3. What is your academic classification? Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Other If selecting other please specify: ______________ 4. What is your race/ethnicity? Arabic Asian Black/African-American Hispanic/Latino Native American Pacific Islander White/Caucasian 105

PAGE 106

106 Other If selecting other please specify: ______________ 5. What social class best exemplifies you? Upper class Upper middle class Middle class Lower middle class Lower class Unsure 6. What kind of computer do you use? Mac/Apple PC 7. What is your current major? ______________________________________ In order to receive extra credit for participating in this survey, you will need to state your name and UFID number. Your name/UFID will not be a ssociated with, or connected to, your responses in this survey. It will only be placed on a list of students who have completed the survey and will thus receive extra credit. Please state your name below as it appear s on UF records. Do not use nicknames. Last name: First name: Middle initial: UF ID number: Please create a 4-digit code for yourself that you can easily remember. Should it occur that you do not receive your extra credit points, you will repor t this number to your professor as proof of your completion. Code: _ 12. Extra Credit Proof Thank you so much for taking the time to partic ipate in this study. Your opinions will greatly help in my research efforts. Should you have any questions regarding t odays study, feel free to contact me at Aprshaps@ufl.edu. Have a great day!

PAGE 107

Survey Version 2b: CSM FLB I am interested in finding out your personal leve l of familiarity with the websites presented below. Classmates.com 1. Think about Classmates.com. How familiar ar e you with this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website Cl assmates.com, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used Classmates.com before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on average, that you spend using Classmates.com: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered Classmates.com account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with Classmates.com? Please rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 thr ough 7 where 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) o 2 o 3 o 4 107

PAGE 108

o 5 o 6 o 7 (Satisfied) Sportsvite 1. Think about Sportsvite. How familiar are you w ith this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website Sportsvite, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used Sportsvite before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on averag e, that you spend using Sportsvite: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered Sportsvite account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with Sportsvite? Pleas e rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 through 7 wher e 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) o 2 o 3 o 4 108

PAGE 109

o 5 o 6 o 7 (Satisfied) MySpace 1. Think about MySpace. How familiar are you with this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website MySpace, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used MySpace before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on averag e, that you spend using MySpace: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered MySpace account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with MySpace? Please rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 through 7 wher e 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) o 2 o 3 o 4 109

PAGE 110

o 5 o 6 o 7 (Satisfied) In this section, I am interested in finding out your opinions of these websites based on the characteristics and attributes that comprise the pe rsonality and/or image they give off. This is entirely based on your opinion, and no opinion is wrong. I am aware that you may or may not be familiar with the following websites however please answer to the best of your knowledge and ability for each item. Classmates.com Directions: Think about Classmates.com as if it were a person with a distinct personality. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items below, please indicate how you would describe Classmates.com's personality by selecting the ad jective from each pair that best describes Classmates.com. 1. Classmates.com is: Assertive Mild 2. Classmates.com is: Systematic Imaginative 3. Classmates.com is: Logical Emotional 4. Classmates.com is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. Classmates.com is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. Classmates.com is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. Classmates.com is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. Classmates.com is: Reserved Active 9. Classmates.com is: Cold Warm 10. Classmates.com is: Dependable Changeable 11. Classmates.com is: Moderate Dynamic 12. Classmates.com is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. Classmates.com is: Innovative Steadfast 14. Classmates.com is: Sociable Shy 15. Classmates.com is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. Classmates.com is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. Classmates.com is: Quiet Outspoken 18. Classmates.com is: Wide-interests Precise 19. Classmates.com is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. Classmates.com is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. Classmates.com is: Energetic Calm 22. Classmates.com is: Conservative Unconventional 23. Classmates.com is: Excitable Stoic 24. Classmates.com is: Decided Flexible Sportsvite 110

PAGE 111

Now think about Sportsvite as if it were a person with a distinct personal ity. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items below, pleas e indicate how you would describe Sportsvite's personality by selecting the ad jective from each pair that best describes Sportsvite. 1. Sportsvite is: Assertive Mild 2. Sportsvite is: Systematic Imaginative 3. Sportsvite is: Logical Emotional 4. Sportsvite is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. Sportsvite is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. Sportsvite is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. Sportsvite is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. Sportsvite is: Reserved Active 9. Sportsvite is: Cold Warm 10. Sportsvite is: Dependable Changeable 11. Sportsvite is: Moderate Dynamic 12. Sportsvite is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. Sportsvite is: Innovative Steadfast 14. Sportsvite is: Sociable Shy 15. Sportsvite is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. Sportsvite is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. Sportsvite is: Quiet Outspoken 18. Sportsvite is: Wide-interests Precise 19. Sportsvite is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. Sportsvite is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. Sportsvite is: Energetic Calm 22. Sportsvite is: Conservative Unconventional 23. Sportsvite is: Excitable Stoic 24. Sportsvite is: Decided Flexible MySpace Now think about MySpace as if it were a person with a distinct personal ity. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items below, please indicate how you would describe MySpace's personality by selecting the adjective from each pair th at best describes MySpace. 1. MySpace is: Assertive Mild 2. MySpace is: Systematic Imaginative 3. MySpace is: Logical Emotional 4. MySpace is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. MySpace is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. MySpace is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. MySpace is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. MySpace is: Reserved Active 9. MySpace is: Cold Warm 10. MySpace is: Dependable Changeable 111

PAGE 112

11. MySpace is: Moderate Dynamic 12. MySpace is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. MySpace is: Innovative Steadfast 14. MySpace is: Sociable Shy 15. MySpace is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. MySpace is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. MySpace is: Quiet Outspoken 18. MySpace is: Wide-interests Precise 19. MySpace is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. MySpace is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. MySpace is: Energetic Calm 22. MySpace is: Conservative Unconventional 23. MySpace is: Excitable Stoic 24. MySpace is: Decided Flexible The following questions serve to provide a basic ove rview of all survey participants in this study. This information will not in any way be connected to your personal responses to this questionnaire, but rather serve as part of an overa ll description of all respondents. Please select the answer that best applies to you. Should the other category best apply to you on any particular question, please select o ther and write in your response. 1. What is your gender? Male Female 2. What is your age? ________________________________ 3. What is your academic classification? Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Other If selecting other please specify: ______________ 4. What is your race/ethnicity? Arabic Asian Black/African-American Hispanic/Latino Native American Pacific Islander White/Caucasian Other 112

PAGE 113

113 If selecting other please specify: ______________ 5. What social class best exemplifies you? Upper class Upper middle class Middle class Lower middle class Lower class Unsure 6. What kind of computer do you use? Mac/Apple PC 7. What is your current major? ______________________________________ In order to receive extra credit for participating in this survey, you will need to state your name and UFID number. Your name/UFID will not be a ssociated with, or connected to, your responses in this survey. It will only be placed on a list of students who have completed the survey and will thus receive extra credit. Please state your name below as it appear s on UF records. Do not use nicknames. Last name: First name: Middle initial: UF ID number: Please create a 4-digit code for yourself that you can easily remember. Should it occur that you do not receive your extra credit points, you will repor t this number to your professor as proof of your completion. Code: _ 12. Extra Credit Proof Thank you so much for taking the time to partic ipate in this study. Your opinions will greatly help in my research efforts. Should you have any questions regarding t odays study, feel free to contact me at Aprshaps@ufl.edu. Have a great day!

PAGE 114

Survey Version 2c: SMC FLB I am interested in finding out your personal leve l of familiarity with the websites presented below. Sportsvite 1. Think about Sportsvite. How familiar are you w ith this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website Sportsvite, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used Sportsvite before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on averag e, that you spend using Sportsvite: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered Sportsvite account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with Sportsvite? Pleas e rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 through 7 wher e 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) o 2 o 3 o 4 114

PAGE 115

o 5 o 6 o 7 (Satisfied) MySpace 1. Think about MySpace. How familiar are you with this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website MySpace, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used MySpace before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on averag e, that you spend using MySpace: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered MySpace account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with MySpace? Please rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 through 7 wher e 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) o 2 o 3 o 4 115

PAGE 116

o 5 o 6 o 7 (Satisfied) Classmates.com 1. Think about Classmates.com. How familiar ar e you with this website? Please rate your familiarity level by selecting a number 1 through 7 where 1=unfamiliar and 7=familiar. Regarding the website Cl assmates.com, you feel: o 1 (Unfamiliar) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 (Familiar) 2. Have you ever used Classmates.com before? o Yes o No o Unsure 1. Select the amount of time, on average, that you spend using Classmates.com: o Less than once a month o Once a month o Less than 1 hour per week o 1-2 hours per week o 3-4 hours per week o 5-6 hours per week o 7-8 hours per week o 9-10 hours per week o More than 10 hours per week 2. Do you currently have a registered Classmates.com account? o Yes o No 3. How satisfied are you with your experience with Classmates.com? Please rate your satisfaction level by selecting a number 1 thr ough 7 where 1=Dissatisfied and 7=Satisfied. o 1 (Dissatisfied) o 2 o 3 o 4 116

PAGE 117

o 5 o 6 o 7 (Satisfied) In this section, I am interested in finding out your opinions of these websites based on the characteristics and attributes that comprise the pe rsonality and/or image they give off. This is entirely based on your opinion, and no opinion is wrong. I am aware that you may or may not be familiar with the following websites however please answer to the best of your knowledge and ability for each item. Sportsvite Directions: Think about Sportsvite as if it were a person with a di stinct personality. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items belo w, please indicate how you would describe Sportsvite's personality by selecting the adjective from each pair th at best describes Sportsvite. 1. Sportsvite is: Assertive Mild 2. Sportsvite is: Systematic Imaginative 3. Sportsvite is: Logical Emotional 4. Sportsvite is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. Sportsvite is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. Sportsvite is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. Sportsvite is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. Sportsvite is: Reserved Active 9. Sportsvite is: Cold Warm 10. Sportsvite is: Dependable Changeable 11. Sportsvite is: Moderate Dynamic 12. Sportsvite is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. Sportsvite is: Innovative Steadfast 14. Sportsvite is: Sociable Shy 15. Sportsvite is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. Sportsvite is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. Sportsvite is: Quiet Outspoken 18. Sportsvite is: Wide-interests Precise 19. Sportsvite is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. Sportsvite is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. Sportsvite is: Energetic Calm 22. Sportsvite is: Conservative Unconventional 23. Sportsvite is: Excitable Stoic 24. Sportsvite is: Decided Flexible MySpace 117

PAGE 118

Now think about MySpace as if it were a person with a distinct personal ity. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items below, please indicate how you would describe MySpace's personality by selecting the adjective from each pair th at best describes MySpace. 1. MySpace is: Assertive Mild 2. MySpace is: Systematic Imaginative 3. MySpace is: Logical Emotional 4. MySpace is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. MySpace is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. MySpace is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. MySpace is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. MySpace is: Reserved Active 9. MySpace is: Cold Warm 10. MySpace is: Dependable Changeable 11. MySpace is: Moderate Dynamic 12. MySpace is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. MySpace is: Innovative Steadfast 14. MySpace is: Sociable Shy 15. MySpace is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. MySpace is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. MySpace is: Quiet Outspoken 18. MySpace is: Wide-interests Precise 19. MySpace is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. MySpace is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. MySpace is: Energetic Calm 22. MySpace is: Conservative Unconventional 23. MySpace is: Excitable Stoic 24. MySpace is: Decided Flexible Classmates.com Now think about Classmates.com as if it were a person with a distinct pe rsonality. What kind of person would it be? For each of the items belo w, please indicate how you would describe Classmates.com's personality by selecting the ad jective from each pair that best describes Classmates.com. 1. Classmates.com is: Assertive Mild 2. Classmates.com is: Systematic Imaginative 3. Classmates.com is: Logical Emotional 4. Classmates.com is: Clear-cut, definite Undecided, variable 5. Classmates.com is: Idealistic, visionary Realistic, down-to-earth 6. Classmates.com is: Soft-hearted Firm 7. Classmates.com is: Adaptable Deliberate 8. Classmates.com is: Reserved Active 9. Classmates.com is: Cold Warm 118

PAGE 119

10. Classmates.com is: Dependable Changeable 11. Classmates.com is: Moderate Dynamic 12. Classmates.com is: Creative, theoretical Practical, functional 13. Classmates.com is: Innovative Steadfast 14. Classmates.com is: Sociable Shy 15. Classmates.com is: Sensible, factual Instinctual 16. Classmates.com is: Sympathetic Indifferent 17. Classmates.com is: Quiet Outspoken 18. Classmates.com is: Wide-interests Precise 19. Classmates.com is: Rational, reasonable Passionate, perceptive 20. Classmates.com is: Indistinct Well-defined 21. Classmates.com is: Energetic Calm 22. Classmates.com is: Conservative Unconventional 23. Classmates.com is: Excitable Stoic 24. Classmates.com is: Decided Flexible The following questions serve to provide a basic ove rview of all survey participants in this study. This information will not in any way be connected to your personal responses to this questionnaire, but rather serve as part of an overa ll description of all respondents. Please select the answer that best applies to you. Should the other category best apply to you on any particular question, please select o ther and write in your response. 1. What is your gender? Male Female 2. What is your age? ________________________________ 3. What is your academic classification? Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Other If selecting other please specify: ______________ 4. What is your race/ethnicity? Arabic Asian Black/African-American Hispanic/Latino Native American Pacific Islander White/Caucasian 119

PAGE 120

120 Other If selecting other please specify: ______________ 5. What social class best exemplifies you? Upper class Upper middle class Middle class Lower middle class Lower class Unsure 6. What kind of computer do you use? Mac/Apple PC 7. What is your current major? ______________________________________ In order to receive extra credit for participating in this survey, you will need to state your name and UFID number. Your name/UFID will not be a ssociated with, or connected to, your responses in this survey. It will only be placed on a list of students who have completed the survey and will thus receive extra credit. Please state your name below as it appear s on UF records. Do not use nicknames. Last name: First name: Middle initial: UF ID number: Please create a 4-digit code for yourself that you can easily remember. Should it occur that you do not receive your extra credit points, you will repor t this number to your professor as proof of your completion. Code: _ 12. Extra Credit Proof Thank you so much for taking the time to partic ipate in this study. Your opinions will greatly help in my research efforts. Should you have any questions regarding t odays study, feel free to contact me at Aprshaps@ufl.edu. Have a great day!

PAGE 121

LIST OF REFERENCES Aaker, Jennifer L (1997), Dimensions of Brand Personality, Journal of Marketing Research 34 (3), 347-356. Aaker, Jennifer and Susan Fournier (1995), A Br and as a Character, A Partner and a Person: Three Perspectives on the Ques tion of Brand Personality, Advances in Consumer Research 22, 391-395. Babbie, Earl (2007), The Practice of Social Research (11th ed.). California: Thomson Wadsworth. Babbie, Earl (1973), Survey Research Methods California: Wadsworth Publishing. Belk, Russell W. (1988), Possessions and the Extended Self, Journal of Consumer Research 15 (2), 139-168. Bruner, Gordon C., Karen E. James, and Paul J. Hensel (2001), Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item Measures (Volume III) Illinois: American Marketing Assocation. Burke, Bill (1994), Position, Personality, Not Price, Should Frame C onsumer Messages, Brandweek 35 (36), 20. CAPT (Center for Applications of Psychological Type) (2007), Jungs Theory of Psychological Types and the MBTI Instrument (accessed November 12, 2007), [available at http://www.capt.org ]. Carrillat, Francois A., Barbara A. Lafferty and Eric G. Harris (2005), I nvestigating sponsorship effectiveness: Do less familiar brands have an advantage over more familiar brands in single and multiple sponsorship arrangements? Journal of Brand Management, 13 (1), 50-64. Clifford, Andrew ( 2008), Fungibility, Toolbox for IT Project Management Community (accessed November 27, 2008), [available at http://it.toolbox.com/blogs /minimalit/fungibility-27324 ]. Dictionary.com (2008), Fungibility. (accessed November 27, 2008), [available at http://dictionary.referen ce.com/browse/fungibility& ]. Dougherty, Thomas (1996), Dont mix brand with position, Brandweek 37 (13), 16. Fournier, Susan (1998), Consumers and Their Br ands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research 24, 343-373. Grubb, Edward L., and Harrison L. Grathwohl (1967), Consumer Self-Concept, Symbolism and Market Behavior: A Theoretical Approach, Journal of Marketing 31, 22-27. 121

PAGE 122

Grubb, Edward L. and Gregg Hupp (1968), Percep tion of Self, Generalized Stereotypes, and Brand Selection, Journal of Marketing Research 5, 58-63. Ha, Hong-Youl and Helen Perks (2005), Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the web: Brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4 (6) 438-452. Heath, Adam P. and Don Scott (1998), The Se lf-Concept and Image Congruence Hypothesis: An empirical evaluation in the motor vehicle market European Journal of Marketing 32 (11/12), 1110-1123. Hoyer, Wayne D. and Deborah J. MacInnis (2007), Consumer Behavior (4th ed.) Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin Company Keller, Kevin L. (1993), Conceptualizing, M easuring, Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing 57 (1), 1-22. Kent, Robert J. and T. Allen Chris, (1994), Competitive Interference Effects in Consumer Memory for Advertising: The Role of Brand Familiarity, Journal of Marketing, 58 (July), 97-105. Lowry, Richard (2008), VassarStats Contingency Table (accessed November 26, 2008), [available at http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/newcs.html ]. Martin, K.A., and I.E. Alexander (2006), A study of personality stability and change in autobiographical narratives, Individual Differ ences Research, 4 (4), 253-271. Ostrow, Adam (2008), Live Video Startups Rejoice: YouTube is Sitting This One Out, Mashable.com (accessed August 13, 2008), [available at http://mashable.com/category/news/ ]. Paladin Associates (2008), MBTI Personality Comparison (accessed November 28, 2008), [ available at http://www.pa ladinexec.com/personality.htm ]. Parker, Brian T. (2005), This Br ands For Me: Brand Personality and User Imagery Based SelfCongruity, Doctoral dissertation, Un iversity of Florida Plummer, Joseph T. (2000), How Personality Makes a Difference, Journal of Advertising Research 40 (6), 79-83. Rooney, Jennifer (Ed.) (2007), Measure brand equity by consumer choice, Advertising Age, 78 (19), 28. Schultz, Don E. and Heidi F. Schultz (2004), Brand Babble: Sense and Nonsense About Branding (1st ed.) Ohio: South-Western Educational Publishing. 122

PAGE 123

123 Shamus, Ryan (2008), RyanShamus.com (accessed August 13, 2008), [available at http://ryanshamus.com/2008/01/16/free-social-networking-sites/ ]. Shank, Matthew D. and Lynn Langmeyer (1993), D oes Personality Influence Brand Image? Journal of Psychology 128 (2), 157-164. Sportsvite (2008), Sportsvite Frequently Asked Questions, (accessed November 27, 2008), [available at http://sportsvite.com/faq ]. Stein, Dena (2004), Testing the Reliability and Validity of a Brand Personality Measurement Tool, Masters thesis, University of Florida Strausbaugh, Kirsten L. (1998) Miss Congeni ality or No More Mr. Nice Guy?: On a Method for Assessing Brand Personality and Building Brand Personality Profiles, Doctoral dissertation, Un iversity of Florida. Swartz, Jon (2008a), Socialnetworking sites work to turn users into profits, USAToday.com, (accessed August 10, 2008), [available at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinve stor/industry/2008-05-11-socialnetworking_N.htm ]. Swartz, Jon (2008b), Social Networks vs. TV Networks, USAToday.com (accessed August 10, 2008), [available at http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2008-05-12-social-netside_N.htm ]. Wikipedia (2008a), List of social networking websites, Wikipedia (accessed August 11, 2008), [available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites ]. Wikipedia (2008b), Social network service, Wikipedia (accessed August 12, 2008), [available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wi ki/Social_network_service ].

PAGE 124

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH April Shapiro was born in 1985 in Ft. Lauderdal e, Florida. She rece ived a Bachelor of Science in advertising, summa cum laude, from the University of Florida in May 2007 and expects to receive the Master of Advertising degree from the University of Florida in May 2009. She plans to pursue a career in advertisi ng with specific intere sts account and brand management. 124