Using multi-criteria decision aid to rank and select co-branding partners: From a brand personality perspective

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to utilize the big five models of brand personality concept to explore potential co‐branding partners by employing the multi‐attribute utility theory (MAUT) to estimate and rank utilities for possible partners from the big five models.Design/methodology/approach – Design science, an artifact of proof‐of‐concept system is used for deciding co‐branding partners.Findings – The present study attempts to demonstrate the proof‐of‐concept of the proposed MAUT‐based decision model for a company in determining a beneficial and supportive co‐branding partner.Practical implications – This paper aims to provide clues for industries in terms of providing a MAUT‐based decision‐making approach and a strategic information system. Examples from the telecommunication industry also demonstrate the feasibility of the approach.Originality/value – The proposed decision‐making method: provides clues for ranking and selection of co‐branding partners; explores the brand personality of the po...

[1]  Kevin Lane Keller.  Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity , 1993 .

[2]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[3]  D. W. Fiske.  Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sour sources. , 1949, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[4]  D. Peabody,et al.  Selecting representative trait adjectives. , 1987 .

[5]  Paul T. Costa,et al.  Evaluating comprehensiveness in personality systems: The California Q‐Set and the five‐factor model , 1986 .

[6]  Randi Priluck Grossman.  Co‐branding in advertising: developing effective associations , 1997 .

[7]  Lynn B. Upshaw.  Building Brand Identity: A Strategy for Success in a Hostile Marketplace , 1995 .

[8]  Randi Priluck,et al.  Co‐branding: brand equity and trial effects , 2000 .

[9]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Utility theory for decision making , 1970 .

[10]  D. Arnold,et al.  The Handbook Of Brand Management , 1992 .

[11]  J. Aaker,et al.  When Good Brands Do Bad , 2004 .

[12]  S. Foreman,et al.  Does the tail wag the dog? Brand personality in brand alliance evaluation , 2006 .

[13]  P. Borkenau,et al.  Implicit personality theory and the five-factor model. , 1992, Journal of personality.

[14]  Pnina Shachaf,et al.  Behavioral complexity theory of media selection: a proposed theory for global virtual teams , 2007, J. Inf. Sci..

[15]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  Theoretical and Empirical Linkages Between Consumers' Responses to Different Branding Strategies , 1996 .

[16]  David James,et al.  Guilty through association: brand association transfer to brand alliances , 2005 .

[17]  Susan Fournier,et al.  A Brand As a Character, a Partner and a Person: Three Perspectives on the Question of Brand Personality , 1995 .

[18]  R. Cattell.  The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters. , 1943 .

[19]  Tim Hayward,et al.  Chaos theory, economics and information: the implications for strategic decision-making , 1999, J. Inf. Sci..

[20]  Joseph T. Plummer.  How Personality Makes a Difference , 2000, Journal of Advertising Research.

[21]  W. T. Norman,et al.  Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factors structure in peer nomination personality ratings. , 1963, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[22]  Stanley Zionts,et al.  Some thoughts on research in multiple criteria decision making , 1992, Comput. Oper. Res..

[23]  A. Tellegen,et al.  PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES An Alternative "Description of Personality": The Big-Five Factor Structure , 2022 .

[24]  J. Aaker,et al.  Dimensions of Brand Personality , 1997 .

[25]  C. Whan Park,et al.  Composite Branding Alliances: An Investigation of Extension and Feedback Effects , 1996 .

[26]  G. Āllport,et al.  Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. , 1936 .