2008:246

B A C H E L O R T H E S I S

Positioning and brand personalitywithin research charity organizations

Joakim Bodin Jonatan Odby

Luleå University of Technology

Bachelor thesis Marketing

Department of Business Administration and Social SciencesDivision of Industrial marketing and e-commerce

2008:246 - ISSN: 1402-1773 - ISRN: LTU-CUPP--08/246--SE

PREFACE

PREFACE

This bachelor thesis was written at the Industrial Marketing department at LuleåUniversity of technology in the program International Business. Our thesis wascompleted inMay2008. Ithasbeenagreatchallengetowritethisthesisandwehavelearnedalotaboutpositioningandbrandpersonality.

Firstlywewould like to thankoursupervisorHåkanPerzon forallhelp,guidanceandsupport.Wewouldalsoliketothankouroppositiongroupsforyourcommentsduringtheseminars,whichhavebeenagreathelpforimprovingourthesis.Wewanttothankallrespondentsthattooktheirtimeandletusinterviewthem.Finally,wewouldliketothankourpartnersandfamiliesfortheirloveandsupport.Youarealwaysinourhearts.

LuleåMay2008

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

JoakimBodin JonatanOdby

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

Positioning and the creation of brand personality are becoming more and moreimportanttocompaniesastheytrytoreachouttotheirsegmentandtargetgroups.Intimeswhencompetitionrisesandbecomesharderandharder,companiesneedtohaveaclearpositioningstrategy.Astrategythatclarifiesthetermsofwhattargetmarketanddifferential advantage the companyhas.What thebrandpromise and that consumersgain the “little extra” also play an important role. Human personality traits can betransferredtoabrandandhelptocreateabrandpersonality.Thisisanimportantpartofbrandingandcanbeatooltodifferentiateacompanyfromitscompetitors.Basedonthis, the purpose of this thesis is to gain a deeper understanding on how anorganization’s position strategy and brand personality appears in a research charityorganizationandhowthedonatorsperceiveit.Inordertoreachourpurposewestatedfour research questions, and focused on the components of position and brandpersonality.

A review of literature regarding positioning and brand personality was conducted,whichresultedinaconceptualframework.Usingthisframeworkasaguideaqualitativecasestudymethodologywasutilized.Weusedtelephoneinterviewstocollectempiricaldata.

The findings indicate that it is important to have knowledge in how a brand ispositioned, how an organizationwants to be perceived from its customers andwhatbrand personality they want to create. To help the customer to categorize a brandtrough personality and position the brand identity can be better understood bycustomerandcreatealonglastingrelationship.

SAMMANFATTNING

SAMMANFATTNING

Positioneringochskapandetavettvarumärkesidentitetblirviktigareochviktigareförföretag när de försöker att nå ut till sitt segment och sin målgrupp. I tider närkonkurrensenökarochblirhårdarebehöverföretaghaenklarpositioneringsstrategi.En strategi som klargör termerna av vilkenmålgrupp och vilka differentiella fördelarföretagethar.Vadvarumärketlovarochattkonsumenternafårdet”lillaextra”spelarenviktigroll.Mänskligakaraktärsdragkanöverförastillettvarumärkeochhjälpertillattskapa ett varumärkes identitet. Detta är en betydelsefull del av ”branding” och kanfungera som ett verktyg när företaget differentierar sig gentemot sina konkurrenter.Baseratpåovanstående,såärdenhäruppsatsenssyfteatt fåendjupareförståelseförhur positionering och ett varumärkets identitet uppträder inom forskningsfonder ochhur deras givare uppfattar positioneringen och varumärkets identitet. För att nåuppsatsens syfte skapades fyra forskningsfrågor inom området positionering ochvarumärkesidentitet.

Studier av litteratur inom positionering och varumärks identitet gjordes och detresulterade i en teoretisk ram. Baserat på den teoretiska ramen har vi utfört enkvalitativfallstudie.Vigenomfördeniotelefonintervjuerförattsamlaempiriskadata.

Resultaten och slutsatserna i den här studien är att det är viktigt att ha kunskap omvilkenpositioneringenföretagetharochhurdevillbliuppfattadeavsinakunder,vilkenpersonlighet de vill visa upp som kunderna har i sittmedvetande. Genom att hjälpakunderna att kategorisera organisationen genom personligheten och positioneringenorganisationenhar,ökarförståelsenförföretagetsidentitettilldetbättreochkanskapalångvarigakundrelationer.

TABLEOFCONTENTS

1.INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 11.1BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................................................11.2PROBLEMDISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................................21.3PURPOSEANDRESEARCHQUESTIONS ...............................................................................................................................41.4DISPOSITIONOFTHETHESIS................................................................................................................................................4

2.POSITIONINGANDBRANDPERSONALITY ................................................................................... 62.1POSITIONING ........................................................................................................................................................................62.2BRANDPERSONALITY...........................................................................................................................................................82.3CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK .............................................................................................................................................11

2.3.1POSITIONINGRQ1&RQ3 ..........................................................................................................................................112.3.2BRANDPERSONALITY ...................................................................................................................................................12

3.METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 133.1PURPOSEOFRESEARCH ....................................................................................................................................................133.2RESEARCHAPPROACH ......................................................................................................................................................143.3RESEARCHSTRATEGY ........................................................................................................................................................143.4TECHNIQUESFORDATACOLLECTION ..............................................................................................................................153.5SAMPLESELECTION...........................................................................................................................................................17

3.5.1CHOICEOFCHARITYORGANIZATION ..........................................................................................................................173.5.2CHOICEOFRESPONDENTS ...........................................................................................................................................17

3.6ANALYSISOFDATA ...........................................................................................................................................................183.7VALIDITYANDRELIABILITY................................................................................................................................................18

4.EMPIRICALDATA ............................................................................................................... 204.1HOWHJÄRT‐LUNGFONDENWANTTOBEPERCEIVEDWITHTHEIRPOSITIONINGSTRATEGY ....................................204.2HOWHJÄRT‐LUNGFONDENWANTTOBEPERCEIVEDWITHTHEIRBRANDPERSONALITY ........................................214.3HOWDONATORSPERCEIVETHEPOSITIONINGSTRATEGY .............................................................................................224.4HOWDONATORSPERCEIVETHEBRANDPERSONALITY .................................................................................................24

5.ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 255.1HJÄRT‐LUNGFODEN ..........................................................................................................................................................25

5.1.1POSITIONING .................................................................................................................................................................255.1.2BRANDPERSONALITY ...................................................................................................................................................26

5.2DONATORS ........................................................................................................................................................................275.2.1POSITIONING .................................................................................................................................................................275.2.2BRANDPERSONALITY ...................................................................................................................................................28

6.FINDINGSANDCONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 296.1THEPOSITIONINGANDBRANDPERSONALITYOFRESEARCHCHARITYORGANIZATIONS.............................................296.2HOWDONATORSPERCEIVETHEPOSITIONINGANDBRANDPERSONALITY? ...............................................................296.3HJÄRT‐LUNGFONDENVERSUSDONATORS ......................................................................................................................306.4IMPLICATIONSFORHJÄRT‐LUNGFONDEN .......................................................................................................................316.5IMPLICATIONSFORFUTURERESEARCH ...........................................................................................................................31

REFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 32

APPENDIX1......................................................................................................................... 35

APPENDIX2......................................................................................................................... 37

INTRODUCTION

1

1.INTRODUCTIONThefirstchapterisanintroductiontotheareaofpositioningandbranding.Tostartwithwewill, introducethebackgroundfollowedbyaproblemdiscussion.Thiswill leadtotheoverallpurposeandresearchquestions(RQ).Wewillthenpresentthedispositionforthisstudy.

1.1BACKGROUNDAccordingtoCzinkotaandRonkainen(2007)brandreferstoaname,term,symbol,signordesignusedbyafirmtodifferentiate itsofferingfromitscompetitorsbrandnamesconveytheimageoftheproductorservice(ibid.).The process of branding is a cycle of research, planning implementation, and control.HankinsonandCowking’s(1993)five‐stepmodelcalled“Thebrandingcycle”(seefigure1.1) identifies consumer’s physical and psychological needs, that are relevant to aproduct. The five step model consist of; Research, Brand Proposition, Marketing Mix,CommunicationTriggersandConsumers(ibid.).

The first step in Hankinson and Cowking’s (1993) theory “The branding cycle” isresearch. Research provides a base of information about the product’s usage and thepositionandpersonalityofcompetitors.Theresearchisusedtomakedecisionsforsteptwo, the brand proposition. According to Hankinson and Cowking (1993) the brandpropositionconsistsofpositioning andpersonality, and these two factorsare linkedclosely together. A successful branding is depended on a correct combination of themarketing mix, step three. The marketing mix serves to communicate the brandproposition with product and packaging, price, communication and distribution.Effectivecommunicationwillthenleadtoassociationstothebrandnameandthestrap‐

4.COMMUNICATIONTRIGGERS

• BrandName• Strapline• Packaging

3.MARKETINGMIX• Product&Packaging• Price• Communication• Distribution

2.BRANDPROPOSITION• Positioning• Personality

5.THECONSUMMER• Physicalneeds• Psychologicalneeds

1.RESEARCH

Figure1.1:TheBrandingCycleSource:AdaptedfromHankinson&Cowking1993,p.5

INTRODUCTION

2

line.Thesetwocomponentscombinedwithdistinctivepackagingactascommunicationtriggers, step four. The final step in the branding cycle is the consumer, who by theearliermentionedtriggerswillacceptorrejectthebrand.Thebrandingcyclethenstartsoveragain.(ibid.)Positioningandpersonalityaregoingtobecentralinthisthesis.Aproduct’spositionisthe way the product is defined by consumers on important attributes–the place theproduct in consumers’ minds relative to competing products. (Kotler & Armstrong,2001)Doyle(2002)claimsthatthepositioningstrategyisthechoiceoftargetmarketsegmentandthechoiceofadifferentialadvantage.Targetmarketdetermineswherethebusinesscompetesandthedifferentialadvantagedictateshowitcompetes(ibid.).KotlerandKeller(2006)definebrandpersonalityasthemixofhumantraitsthatmaybe attributed to a particular brand. Personality is the unique psychologicalcharacteristicsthat leadtoconsistentandlastingresponsestoone’sownenvironment(ibid).

1.2PROBLEMDISCUSSIONMisner (2000) explain the importanceofpositioning and states that the first orderofbusinessincreatingapositivemessagethatisdeliveredeffectivelyistodecidewhatyouaregoingtobe,whatyou’regoingtooffer,andtowhomyouaregoingtoofferit(ibid.).Positioningcanhelpacompanytocreateanidentityandmaintainasecurespotinthemindsof those theywish toserve (ibid.).Misner (2000) furtherclaims thatvery littlecommunicationisperceivedandunderstandinthesociety;asociety,whichheclaims,isover communicated. A company must create a position in the prospect’s mind,recognizing that themost effective communication occurswhen optimally placed andtimed(ibid.).Uggla(2006)statesthatbrandshavebecomelikeacurrencythatispossibletobuy,sellandrent.Hefurtherclaimsthatitisnotaquestionifusingpositioningbutratheraboutwhatmethodthatisused.Shouldcompaniesbuildanewbrand,buyanexistingbrand,developanexistingbrandoruseco‐productionwithanotherbrand(ibid.).According to Hankinson and Cowking (1993) a successful brand need to be one thatstandsthetestoftimeandthatthebrandsayssomethingdistinctive,andthatthepointof distinction embodied in the brand proposition. Advertising in media is one of themosteffectivechannelsforcommunicatingwithconsumers.Indifferentmediachannelsmarketershavetheopportunitytoestablisharelationshipwiththeconsumers,andtheycancommunicatebothpositingandpersonality(ibid.).HankinsonandCowking(1993)quoteOgilvy “Every advertisement should be thought of as a contribution to the brandpersonality”.(Hankinson&Cowking,1993,p.45)

INTRODUCTION

3

Kotler and Armstrong (2001) state that branding has become so strong that hardlyanythinggoesunbrand,theyalsoclaimthatabrandhelpstheconsumersinmanyways;abrandnamehelps thebuyer to identify theproductandquality. IfaCustomeroftenbuysfromacertainbrandheorshewillknowwhatfeatures,benefitsandqualitytheyenvisageeachtimetheypurchaseaproductorservice(ibid.).Whencompetingwithinastrategic segment it is important to offer a product that differ or gives more to thecustomercomparedtocompetitor’sproducts.(Uggla,2006)Branding means that you want to create mental structures for helping consumer’sknowledgeabouttheproductsandservicetomake iteasier fortheirdecision‐making.Whenbrandingaproductitisnecessarytoteachtheconsumersabouttheproduct.Thiscanbedonebygiving itanameanduseotherelementstohelpconsumersto identifytheproduct.(Kotler&Keller,2006)The attitudes toward charitable organizationsover thepastdecadehave according toNichols(2001)becomemorecriticalandmorepeoplearequestioninghowcharitiesusefunds. Nichols also claims that many development officers use the least effectivestrategiesforchoosingdonatorsandmethodologies.Theorganizationshouldstateif itiswealthoraffluencetheywanttotarget(ibid.).Afterthatwehavebeenstudyingthesubjectthefactsindicatesthatmanypeoplehavebeenexposedforfatalillnessordifficultdiseases.Diseaseslikecancer,heart‐andlungdiseasesorbraininjuries,areall“common”causesofdeathanddiseasesthatcanresultin a lot of suffering. Research charity organization’s contributions to research withindifferentdiseases,andthehumanbodyareimportantforfutureresearchprojects.Tobeable to solve the secret of varying severe diseases researchers need economicalresourcesandtime.Everyyearcharityorganizationsgenerategreatamountsofmoneyand these contributionsenable research to continue to findcure todifferentdiseases.Furthermore the researchers get thepossibility to findanswers thatotherwisewouldnothavebeenfound.Theworkofresearchcharityorganizationsreliesondonations.Thedonatorscomefromdifferent social classes and geographic areas. We believe that the ability for anorganizationtorecruitnewdonatorsandhavethemtostayloyaltotheorganizationcanincreaseandbebetter.Thedonationbetweenadonatorandcharityorganizationcanbeseenasatransaction.FurthermoreArmstrongandKotler(2006)statethatacompany(organization)thatprovidessatisfactiontothecustomerswillgainloyalcustomersandbeabletoincreasemarketsshareandtheamountofconsumers.The central problem in our thesis is to examine how research charity organizationswork with their positioning and brand personality. The last years there have beenseveral alarming reports inmedia about different diseases and the need of research.Researchcharityorganizationssupportmanyresearchprojectsandneedallmoneytheycanget.Thewaytocollectmoneyandhowthemoneyisuseddifferfromorganizationtoorganization,buttheoverallgoal isthesame.Theresearchshouldhelppeopleinone‐wayoranother.

INTRODUCTION

4

1.3PURPOSEANDRESEARCHQUESTIONSBasedon theproblemdiscussion above, thepurposeof this study is to gain a deeperunderstandingofresearchcharityorganizationspositioningandbrandpersonality.Toseehowaresearchcharityorganizationsendouttheirpositionandbrandpersonality,andhowtheirdonatorsperceivethem.Thedonatorsinthisstudyareprivatepersons,whichmeansthat it isabusinesstocustomerrelationship/transaction(B2C). Inordertoreachourpurposewehavestatedthefollowingresearchquestions(RQ).RQ1Howdoresearchcharityorganizationspositioningthemselves?RQ2Howdobrandpersonalityappearinresearchcharityorganizations?RQ3Howdodonatorsperceiveresearchcharityorganizationspositioning?RQ4Howdodonatorsperceivethebrandpersonalityofresearchcharityorganizations?

1.4DISPOSITIONOFTHETHESISThethesis isdivided intoseveraldifferentchapters.Togive thereaderaclearoutlinethe disposition is describing what the chapters deal with. The thesis consists of atheoreticalpartandanempiricalpart.After an introduction in chapter one (Introduction), which consists of background,problemdiscussion,researchproblemandthedispositionofthethesis,wearegoingtoexamine different theories that can be used to answer the RQ. When examining aphenomenontheresearchershouldfirstcreateanunderstandingaboutthestudyobject.Thereforeit is importanttohaveaninformationoverviewwhichpurposeistoexplaindifferentphenomenon,defineideasandgiveageneralbackgroundtothecurrenttopic.These increase the understanding for both the authors and the readers. The secondchapter (Positioning and Brand Personality) starts with positioning and brandpersonality, and will end up in a conceptual framework. Chapter three provides thereaderwith a description of themethodology of the thesis, the approach for the datacollection and the processing of the collected data. The chapter will end with adiscussionandcriticismofthesources,weaknessesinthethesisanddelimitations.In chapter four (Empirical Data) we present the empirical part of the thesis, theempirical data that we have collected via, interviews with a research charityorganization (Hjärt‐Lungfonden) and donators to the organization. Chapter five(Analysis)willcomparetheselectedtheoriesforthisstudywiththegathereddata.Inthefinal chapter (Findings and Conclusions) the findings and conclusions for our RQ arepresented.Chaptersixwillalsoincludeafinaldiscussion.

INTRODUCTION

5

Figure1.2:OutlineoftheThesis

POSITIONINGANDBRANDPERSONALITY

6

2.POSITIONINGANDBRANDPERSONALITYInthepreviouschapterwepresentedthebackground,problemdiscussionandRQs,andthedisposition of the thesis. In this chapter the area of research are narrowed down to aspecific area of research. Before narrowing down the area of research the theories ofpositioningandbrandpersonalitywillbepresented.

2.1POSITIONINGWhenacompanydecidesitsmarketsegment,theymustknowwhatpositiontheywanttohave.Thepositionstrategyisbasedonconsumer’simportantcharactersandneeds.When a company is positioning itself, it needs to know that positioning involvesimplementation the brand’s unique benefits and differentiation in customer’s minds(Kotler&Amstrong,2001).Oneexampleofpositioningcanbetheautomobilemarket:Toyotaarepositioningoneconomy,MercedesandCadillaconluxury,PorscheandBMWonperformanceandVolvoonsafety(ibid.).KotlerandArmstrong(2001)furtherstatethat consumers are overloaded with information. Companies need to help theconsumersbycategorizing; theyneedto“position” theirproductsandservices.Whichsimplifiesthebuyingprocess.KotlerandArmstrong(2001)claimthattobeabletowinand keep the customer they need to understand the needs of the customer. It is alsoimportanttounderstandthecustomersbuyingbehavior,tobeabletoaddmorevaluetothem.Totheextentacompanycanpositionitselfasprovidingsuperiorvaluetoselectedsegment, also create a competitive advantage. Kotler and Armstrong (2001) furtherstatesthatapositioncannotbebuiltonunfilledpromises;companiesmustfulfilltheircommitment. If companies position them self with, that they offer the best qualityproductsandservice,theymustthenbeabletodeliverthehighexpectationsfromthecustomer(ibid.).Uggla (2002) states that position is a necessary concept, first because all choices arecomparative,andsoitmakessensetostartoffbystartingintheareawhereacompanyis strongest, secondly because in marketing, perception is reality. Furthermore Fill(2002)statesthatpositioningisnotabouttheproductitself,butwhatthebuyerthinksabouttheproductortheorganization.According to Doyle (2002), a positioning strategy is the choice of target marketsegments,whichdetermineswherethebusinesscompetes,andthechoiceofdifferentialadvantage,whichdictateshow it competes.Doyle (2002) furtherclaims thatbusiness,andproductsmaybepositionedforthreereasons.

1. Thesegmentsinwhichaproducthasitstargetmighthavebecomeunattractive.2. Thequalityandfeaturesthattheproductoffersdonotappealtothesegmentthat

theproducttargets.3. Costsaretoohightoallowittobepricedcompetitively.

AccordingtoJobber(2004),successfulpositioningisoftenassociatedwithproductsandservices possessing favorable connotations in the mind of the customer. He furtherclaimthatthekeyfactorstoasuccessfulpositioningare:

POSITIONINGANDBRANDPERSONALITY

7

1. Clarity–The positioningmust be clear in terms of targetmarket and differentialadvantage.

2. Consistency–Tobreakethroughnoiseaconsistentmessageisrequired.3. Credibility–Differentialadvantage that ischosenmustbecredible in themindof

thetargetcustomer.4. Competitiveness –The differential advantage should have a competitive edge. It

shouldoffersomethingofvalue to thecustomer that thecompetitorsare failing tosupply.

Uggla (2006) states that positioning builds on how a brand differentiate itself fromcompetitors and that it communicates in a unique way to the target and segment.Positioningshouldbeclearsothattheabovestatedcategoriesneedsaresatisfied(ibid.)Furtheron,Uggla(2006)claimsthat,segmenting,targetingandpositioningfitstogether,andeachoneofthemneedstheotherstofunctionoptimally. Whenacertainsegmentattachestoatargetmarketandcommunicatesbypositioning,thetriangleiscompletedasshowninfigure2.1.

Kapferer(1997)claimsthatpositioningisacrucialconcept.Positioningabrandmeanstoenhancethedistinctivecharacteristicsthatmakeitdifferentfromitscompetitorsandat the same time communicate with the segment and target group to attract theconsumers. Kapferer (1997) further states that there are four questions to be askedwhencreatingapositioningstrategy.1. Why?–Referstothebrandpromiseandconsumerbenefitaspect.2. ForWhom?–Referstothetargetaspect.3. When?–Inwhatoccasionswilltheproductbeconsumed?4. Against Whom? –Who are the main competitors, what clients/customer the

organizationthinkstheycanconquer?Kapferer (1997) claim that these four questionsmake it easier when positioning theproduct or the brand and make it more obvious to the consumers.Kapferer (1997.)furtherstatesthatpositioningdoesnotrevealtheentirebrand’srichnessofmeaningorreflectallofitspotential.Oncethebrandhasreduceditspositioningstrategytothefourquestionsthebrandbecomemoreorlessrestrictedtothepositioningstrategy(ibid.).

Figure2.1:TherelationbetweenSegment,TargetGroupandPositioning.Source:AdaptedfromUggla,2006,p.111

Positioning

TargetGroupSegment

POSITIONINGANDBRANDPERSONALITY

8

2.2BRANDPERSONALITYMelin (1997) states that the goalwhen creatingbrandpersonality is tohumanize thebrandproduct,togiveitasoul.Thisismadeinordertogiveconsumersabetterpictureandembracethebrand.MoreoverdeChernatonyandMcDonald(1992)claimthatthemeaning is to create an attractive brand personality, because the consumers choosebrandarticles the sameway they choose friends.According toBiel (1992) consumersthereforeexpecttochooseabrandarticletheywanttoconsortwithortobeeseenwith.Thismeansthatconsumerspreferentiallychoosebrandarticlestheyfeelconnectedtoand that enhance their own self‐image (ibid.). This is in contrast to "product‐relatedattributes." which tend to serve as a utilitarian function for consumers and brandpersonality tends to serve a symbolic or self‐expressive function for the consumers(Aaker,1997).In relation to the paragraph above Plummer (1985) claims that the concept of brandpersonality is based on the assumptions that people tend to personify objectssurroundingthem.Bydescribingbrandsintermsofhumancharacteristics,itservesasamajordeviceingeneratingbrandattachmentandbrandawareness,inthesamewayaspeoplebondthemselvestogether(ibid.).Kapferer(1997)explainthevalueofbrandpersonalityasfollow:“Thevalueofabrandcomesfromitsabilitytogainanexclusive,positiveandprominentmeaning in themindsofa largenumberof consumers. It isnot simplya crocodile sewnonto a shirt: it is all the difference things that the buyer thinks as soon as he sees theLacostesymbol.Thesereferstothetangibleattributesoftheproductaswellasthemoreintangible,whichmaybeeitherpsychologicalorsocial”(Kapferer,1997,p.25)Furthermore Aaker and Fournier (1995) state that personality factors might reflectemotions or feelings of the brand, thus encouraging the target group to perceive thebrandasanactive,contributingfriend,andtoenter intoa long‐termrelationshipwiththebrand(ibid.)Kotler & Keller (2006) state that consumers often choose to use brands that have abrandpersonality that relates to them.Theymightalsochooseabrandbasedonhowtheywanttoviewthemselves,orhowtheywantothertoviewthem(ibid.).Perceptionsof brand personality character can according to Plummer (1985) be formed andinfluencedbydirectorindirectcontactthattheconsumerhaswiththebrand.Aaker(1997)hascreatedabrandpersonalityframeworkcalledthe“BigFive”wherethebrandpersonalityiscomparedwiththehumanpersonality.Thetheoreticalframeworkthat Aaker created shows the nature and dimensions of brand personality; sincerity,excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. Aaker’s “Big Five” model isshowninfigure2.2.

POSITIONINGANDBRANDPERSONALITY

9

Aakers (1997) framework the “Big Five” above shows how a brand personalities fivedimensionsaredeveloped.Byisolatingthesedistinctdimensionsversustreatingbrandpersonality as an unidimensional construct, the different types of brand personalitiescanbedistinguished, and themultipleways inwhich thebrandpersonality constructinfluences consumer preference may be understood better. The different dimensionsincludingthe14facetsofthebrandpersonality,thatcanbeusedtogaintheoreticalandpractical insight into the antecedents and consequences of brand personality. The 14facets are subsumed of the selected 42 characteristics that provide both breadth anddepth and to serve as a framework for establishing the similarities and differencesamong conceptions of the “Big Five". (ibid.) The 42 characteristics are listed in theinterviewguidesintheendofthethesis(Appendix1an2).FurthermoreAaker(1997)statesthatanimportantaspectofthe“BigFive”isthatitcanbeappliedtoproductsandservices,butitcanonlybeappliedfortransactionsbetweenbusinesses to customer (B2C) relationships. Aaker (1997) also claims that theframework can gain theoretical and practical insight into the antecedents andconsequencesofbrandpersonalities.Thetheorymaynotworkinallcasesas,somefactorsmayworkwithbrands,aswellashumans,andothersmaynot(Aaker,1997).Furthermore,SweenyandBrandon(2006)means that the research concerning brand personality is very young compared tostudies about the human personality. They claim that the “Big Five” framework onlyincludespositivebrandattributes,whichmightnotalwaysbetrue(ibid.).Kapferer (1997)hascreatedamodelcalled the “brand identityprism”.Whichreflectsthedifferentaspectsofbuildingbrandpersonality.Theconceptofidentityiscreatedforthreereasons:abrandneedstobedurable,itneedstosendoutcoherentsigns,andithastoberealistic.(ibib.)The brand identity prism (see figure 2.3) involves the important factors, which are:personality,culture,self­image,reflection,relationshipandphysique(Kapferer,1997).

Figure2.2:The”BigFive”Source:AdaptedfromAaker,1997,p.347‐356.

BRANDPERSONALITY

COMPETENCEEXITEMENTSINCERITY SOPHISTICATION RUGGEDESS

DOWN­TO­EARTHHONESTWHOLESOMECHEERFUL

DARINGSPRINTEDIMAGINATIVEUP­TO­DATE

RELIABLEINTELLIGENTSUCCESSFUL

UPPERCLASSCHARMING

OUTDOORSYTOUGH

POSITIONINGANDBRANDPERSONALITY

10

Abrandhasphysicalqualities.Thephysiqueisthebrand’stangibleaddedvalueanditsstrength. Withoutthevalueitcreates, thebrandwouldnotsurvive longin itsbranch.Whendevelopingabrandpersonality the first step is todefine itsphysicalaspectsbyanswering thesequestions:What is it concretely?Whatdoes it do?Whatdoes it looklike?(Kapferer1997)Further on Kapferer (1997) states that every brand has its own personality andgraduallybuildupcharacterthroughcommunication.Thewayitspeaksofitsproductsand services shows what kind of person it would be if it were a human. One of theeasiestwaystogivethebrandapersonalityistouseaspokespersonorafigurehead,arealoneorasymbolicone.Thatexplainswhyitissopopulartohavefamouscharactersrepresentthebrand(ibid.).AnexamplecanbeDavidBeckhamwhodoesadvertisementforPepsietcetera.TheproductisaccordingtoKapferer(1997)notonlyaconcreterepresentationofthisculture,butalsohowitcommunicatesinmedia.Abrandhasitsownculture,fromwhichevery product derives. The culture has a set of values that is feeding the brand’sinspirationhelpingthebrandtorestrainitexternaloutwardsignssuchasproductandcommunication(Kapferer1997).Abrandcanbeseenasarelationship.Brandsareofteninvolvedwiththeexchangeandtransactions between people. And the service a company offers can be defined as arelationship(Kapferer,1997).

EXTERNALIZATION

INTERNALIZATION

PICTUREOFSENDER

PICTUREOFRECIPIENT

PHYSIQUE PERSONALITY

CULTURE

RELATIONSHIP

SELFIMAGEREFLECTION

Figure2.3:BrandIdentityPrismSource:AdaptedfromKapferer,1997,p.100

POSITIONINGANDBRANDPERSONALITY

11

Kapferer (1997) states that a brand is a reflection, from its communication troughcommercials, the brand is addressing an image or reflection to the buyer and user’spersonality. Consumers use brand to create their own personality that fit themselves(ibid.)FurthermoreKapferer(1997)claimthatthebrandspeakstoourself­image.Ifreflectionis target the outward mirror, self‐image looks at the target internal mirror and theconsumers own inner reflection. It is a similar concept as reflection but trough ourattitudes to certain brand, consumers tend to create an inner relationship withourselves(ibid.)The brand identity prism is according to Kapferer (1997) also including a verticaldivision(seefigure2.4).Physique,relationshipandreflection–arethesocial facetsthatgive the brand its outward expression.Personality, culture and self­image – are thosewhoareincorporatingwithinthebranditself,withinitsspirit.Kapferer(1997)furtherstatesthatthebrandidentityprismhelpstounderstandtheessenceofbothbrandandretaileridentities(ibid.).

2.3CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORKAccording toMiles andHuberman (1994) a conceptual framework contains themainfactors that will help researcher to answer the research questions. Our conceptualframeworkisbasedonthetheoriesdescribedinchapter2anditexplainskeyfactorsofthethesisandinwhatwaytheyarerelated.Wearenotgoingtousetheidentityprismfurtheroninthethesis,itisonlydisposedtogetthereaderadeeperknowledgeintheresearchedarea.WearegoingtousethesametheoriestoRQ1andRQ3,andonetheoryto RQ2 and RQ4. This in order to be able to compare the answers between theorganizationandthedonators.

2.3.1POSITIONINGRQ1&RQ3

Research question number one and three concerns the positioning strategy of theorganization.Inthethesistherewillbeacomparisonofhowtheorganizationpositionsitselfandhowthedonatorperceivetheorganization’spositioningstrategy.ThetheorythatwillbeusedisKapferer’s(1997)fourquestionsaboutbrandpositioning.

• Why?• Forwhom?• When?• Againstwhom?

This theory is oneof themost recent theories inpositioning and thequestions in thetheorymighthelpustoanswerRQ1andRQ3.ToseeifthepositioningstrategythattheorganizationhasissuccessfulwearegoingtouseJobber’s(2004)theory“asuccessfulpositioning”,thetheoryhavefourdimensions.

• Clarity• Consistency• Credibility• Competitiveness

POSITIONINGANDBRANDPERSONALITY

12

Jobber’s (2004) theory iswell known andwe think that the theory is relevant to ourthesispurpose.Thetheory isa tool thatcanbeusedtoshowifacompanyhasagoodpositioningstrategy.

2.3.2BRANDPERSONALITY

RQ2andRQ4concernthebrandpersonality.WearegoingtouseAaker’s(1997)theoryof brand personality, which goal is to communicate with the brand‐as‐a‐person, tocreatea relationshipwith thecustomers.To identify thebrandpersonality in the realworld,thedefinition:“Thesetofhumancharacteristicsassociatedwithabrand”willbeusedasthebrandpersonalityframework,the“BigFive”(ibid).Aakers(1997)theoryisoneofthemostusedtheoriesinthisareaandthemostextensiveone.Thedimensions thatwill compare thebrandpersonality to thehuman characteristicsandpersonalityare:

• Sincerity• Competence• Excitement• Sophistication• Ruggedness

METHODOLOGY

13

3.METHODOLOGYInthischapter,themethodsandtechniquesusedforcollectingthedatatogetherwiththequalitycriteriaforthisstudywillbepresented.Thediscussionwillcirclearoundtheissuesof the purpose of the research, research approach, research strategy, data collection,sample selection and data analysis. The outline of themethodology chapter is shown inFigure3.1below.

3.1PURPOSEOFRESEARCHThepurposewitharesearchisaccordingtoErikssonandWiedersheim‐Paul(2001)tostatewhatisaccomplishedbyconductingresearchandhowtheresultsoftheresearchcanbeused.ErikssonandWiedersheim‐Paul(2001)alsoclaimthatresearchshouldbe:interesting, reliable and understandable. Saunders et al. (2003) defines research assomething that people undertake in order to find out things in a systematicway andtherebyincreasingtheirknowledge.Whenconductingresearchitisimportantthattheworkisbasedonlogicalrelationshipsandnotthethoughtsoftheresearcher(ibid.).Thereare threedifferent categoriesof researchaccording toYin (2003)andErikssonandWiedersheim‐Paul(2001).

• Exploratory,isusedfortheunderstandingofaphenomenon.Itisextrausefulwhenclarifyingtheunderstandingofabasicproblem.Exploratoryresearchcanbe conducted via search of literature, talking to experts in the subject andconductingfocusgroupinterviews.(Saundersetal.,2003)

• Descriptive. A descriptive research approach is appropriate when theproblem is clearly structured and the focus of connection between cause andrelations is low (Eriksson & Wiedersheim‐Paul, 2001). They further say thatdescriptiveresearchmeansthattheresearcherregisteranddocumentfacts.Itiscrucialtohaveaclearpictureofthephenomenonyouwanttocollectdataabout,priortothecollectionofdata(ibid.).Saundersetal.(2003)claimsthattheobjectof a descriptive research is to portray a truthful profile of events, persons orsituations.

• Explanatory, is when the meaning is to explain something. When theresearcheristryingtostudytherelationsbetweencauseandeffect(Eriksson&Wiedersheim‐Paul,2001).

Figure3.1:MethodologyOverviewSource:AdaptedfromFoster,1998,p.81

ResearchPurpose

ResearchApproach

ResearchStrategy

DataCollection

SampleSelection

DataAnalysis

Validity&Reliability

METHODOLOGY

14

Ourmaingoalwiththisthesisistogainadeeperunderstandingofthephenomenonofpositioning and brand personality in research charity organizations, as stated in thepurpose of the thesis. This study involves all of the three categories discussed above,becausethethesisgoestroughdifferentphases.Initiallyitwillbeexploratory,becausewewillconductanexploratoryresearchtogainadeeperknowledgewithintheresearcharea.Themainpurpose isdescriptive, since thequestions areofdescriptive character(“How”)andsincedataiscollectedandanalyzed.WhentheRQsareansweredthestudyisinitsfinalphasetheexplanatoryphase.

3.2RESEARCHAPPROACHTherearemainlytwodifferentapproacheswhenworkingwithinformation,qualitativeandquantitative. Qualitative research is associatedwith describing, and to usewordsratherthannumbersasthebaseofanalysis.Qualitativeapproachestendtogoindepthbecause of the smaller size of studied sample, compared to a quantitative approach(Miles&Huberman,1994).AccordingtoDenscombe(2000)qualitativeresearchisthenameofseveraldifferenttypesofscienceresearchapproaches.Theinterestofmeaningand people’s interpretations, and the interest of behavioral patterns are somecharacteristics thatgivetheconceptofqualitativeresearchabigmeaning.Denscombe(2000) further claim that a qualitative research by itself can be used as a basewhenbuildinga theory.Andhealso states that the research is the resultof the researchersinterpretation(ibid.).Weareusingaqualitativeapproachinthisthesisbecauseofseveralreasons;oneisthatthegoalistogainadeeperknowledgeoftheresearcharea.Anotheristhatwearegoingtodescribeandusewords inthethesis,notnumbers.Thequalitativeapproach isalsopreferablebecausewewanttocollectasdeepandrichdataaspossible.

3.3RESEARCHSTRATEGYWhen conducting a research or a study, a researcher can use different methods, thechoice ofmethod depends on the aimwith thework, what the RQ are andwhat theresearcherwanttoachievewiththestudy.Yin(2007)listedthreequestions/statementsthatcanbeusefulwhenchoosingresearchstrategy.a)ThetypeofRQposed.b)Theextentofcontroltheinvestigatorhasoveractualbehaviorevents.c)Thedegreeoffocusoncontemporaryasopposedtohistoricalevents.According to Yin (2007) and Denscombe (2000) there are severalmethods to use asresearch strategy: case study, experiment, survey, archival analysis and history. Thefollowingfigure3.2showsthedifferentstrategies.

METHODOLOGY

15

Figure3.2:RelevantSituationsforDifferentStrategiesSource:AdaptedfromYin2007,p.22

AccordingtoYin(2007)acase isstudyusable inmanysituationswiththepurposetocontributetothegatheredknowledgeaboutindividual,group,organizational,socialandpolitical phenomenon. He further claims that a case study gives the researcher thepossibilitytomaintainthewholeandthemeaningfullyinactualevents(ibid.).A case study is preferablewhen the purpose is to study current cases or events, andrelevantbehaviorcannotbemanipulated.Yin(2007)furtherclaimsthatoneofthecasestudy’sstrongeststrengthsisthatitmakesitpossibletohandlemanydifferenttypesofempirical material such as: documents, artifacts, interviews, and observations. Yin(2007)alsostatesthatacasestudyisgenerallythepreferredmethodwhentheRQare“How?”or“Why?”.For researchers, the closenessof the case study to real‐life situations and itsmultiplewealthofdetailsareimportantintwoaspects.First,itisimportantforthedevelopmentofanuancedviewofreality.Second,casesareimportantforresearchers’ownlearningprocessindevelopingtheskillsneededtodoadecentresearch.(Flyvbjerg,2006)Thestrategywehavechosentouseinthisthesisistoconductacasestudy.Onereasonfor this is that theRQare“How‐questions”.Anotherreason is that the thesisdoesnotrequirecontroloverbehavioralevents,andfocusesoncontemporaryevents.Withthesefacts the two available choices are survey or case studies. The available time for thisstudy was limited, and therefore the time for doing a large sample survey is notavailable.Thereforethisstudywillrelyonacasestudy.

3.4TECHNIQUESFORDATACOLLECTIONThe most common sources that are used when collecting information are literature,scientific articles and reports. In litterature there are often attempt to compile andsystemizetheknowledgewithinoneproblemarea.Thelatestdiscoveriesarehoweverfound in articles, reports and conference literature because of the reason that bookstakerelativelongtimetobepublished.(Patel&Davidson,1991)There are several different methods to use when answering the RQs. None of thesemethods can be seen as better or not as good as any one else. What technique youchoosedependsonwhatseemsbesttousewhenansweringtheRQs.Itdependsonhowlong time and what means the researcher has to his/her disposal for the research.

METHODOLOGY

16

Different techniques for collecting data could be documents, diaries, interviews andquestionnaires,attitudeformulariesandobservations(Patel&Davidson,1991).We describe the techniques that have been used when collecting information to ourthesisbelow.The documentation is traditionally used for information that is recorded or printed.DocumentcanbeusedtoanswerRQconcerningactualsituationsandevents.Theycanalsobeusedwhenansweringquestionformulationsconcerningindividual’sexperiencesof a situation or event. Thedocument canbe statistic and register, state papers, non‐fiction, protocol, and letters to fiction. In ourmodern time also film/movie, paintings,andtapescountasdocuments.(Patel&Davidsson,1991andEriksson&Wiedersheim‐Paul,2001)Toachievethebasic theoreticalknowledgeaboutthethemeof thethesisdocument intheformofnon‐fiction,courseliteratureandarticleshavebeenused.Themoredetailedinformationwe have got from an interviewwith one charity organization about howtheirpositioningandbrandpersonalityareexpressed towards thedonators.Wehavealso conducted interviewswith eight donators so thatwe could get their view of thecharityorganization’sprofile.Interviewsarearesearchtechniquethatbuildsonquestions.Therearetwoaspects toconsiderwhen conducting interviews.The first is that the researcher should considerhowmuchresponsibilitythatislefttotheinterviewerwhenitcomestotheformationofthequestionsandtheirintergroupsetup,thisiscalledthedegreeofstandardization.Itisalso important to know in what extent the questions are free for the responder tointerpretbasedontheirownattitudeandearlierexperiences.Thisiscalledthedegreeofstructure.(Patel&Davidsson,1991andEriksson&Wiedersheim‐Paul,2001)KinnearandTaylor(1996)claimsthattobeabletousethetheoreticalknowledgeintheinterviews it is important that the interviewer have learned to use different form oftechniques tomeasuredata.Toavoidmisunderstandingsand toget therightanswerssomerules shouldbe followedwhenshapingand implementing the interviews.Theserulesarestatedbelow(ibid.)

• Useeasywords• Useclearword• Avoidleadingquestions• Avoidquestionsthatmightaffecttheresponder• Avoidhiddenalternativesinthequestions• Avoidincludedpresumptions• Avoidadmissions• Avoiddouble‐facedquestions• Payattentiontotherespondersframeofreference

Whenwe created the interview guidewe had these statements in consideration, andtriedtowriteourquestionsaseasyaspossible.Theadvantageof interviews is that theyare flexibleanduseful forunderstanding theviewpointsheldbyrespondents(Bryman,2002).

METHODOLOGY

17

There are two main interview methods; in person and by telephone. One‐on‐one, in‐person interviews have advantages over telephone interviews in terms of fewerlimitationsonthe typesand lengthofquestioningand in theability tousevisualaids.Telephone interviews have advantageswhen it comes to cost‐efficiency and speed ofdatacollection(Frey&Oishi,1995).Denscombe (2000) states that there are three types of interviews; structured­, semistructured­andunstructuredinterviews.Astructuredinterviewiswhentheinterviewerhas very strong control over the questions and the answers. In semi‐structuredinterviews the responder gives the opportunity to develophis or hers own ideas andspeakmoredetailed about the current topic. But the interviewer still has a ready listwithsubjectsandquestionsthathavetobediscussedandanswered.Inorder toanswerour thesis researchquestionsand toachieve thepurposewehaveconducted nine interviews, onewith a charity organization and eight interviewswithdonatorstothecharityorganization.Weconductedallinterviewsbytelephone;inviewofthefactthatwehadlackoftimeanditwouldnothavebeencost‐efficiencyduetothegeographicaspect(allrespondentswhere fromthesouthofSweden).Wemainlyusedsemi‐structured interviewswhere the responder could speak freely from some givenquestions.But someof thequestionwhere linked to a structured interviews, these inordertobeabletoapplytheinterviewstothetheory.Thefirstcontactwiththecharityorganizationand thedonatorswe tookviae‐mail.Weexplained thepurposewith thethesisandaskediftheycouldtakepartinaninterview.Afterthatwebookedadateforthe interview. Before calling we sent an interview guide to the respondent so therespondentcouldbepreparedtotheinterview.

3.5SAMPLESELECTIONThis stepwill explain how the respondents to the interviewswere chosen andwhichresearchcharityorganizationthestudyfocuson.MilesandHuberman(1994)claimthatsampling in qualitative research involves setting boundaries. This is done in order tofindaspects,whichcanbedirectlyconnectedtotheresearch.

3.5.1CHOICEOFCHARITYORGANIZATION

Thepurposeofthisthesiswastogainabetterunderstandingforpositioningandbrandpersonality within research charity organizations. We choose to examine Hjärt‐Lungfonden (wewill from now refer to Hjärt‐Lungfonden as HLF), one of the largestresearchcharityorganizationsinSweden.ThechoiceoflookingatHLFwasbasedonthefact that they are a well‐known organization and have recently had a marketingcampaign, which give us the possibility to se how the donators have perceived thecampaign.

3.5.2CHOICEOFRESPONDENTS

According to Denscombe (2000) it is usual to choose respondents based on theknowledgethattheyhavesomethingspecialtocontributewithtotheinvestigatedarea.If the purpose of the study is to generalize the results, is themain topic to choose arepresentativeselectionofrespondentstointerview(ibid.).

METHODOLOGY

18

BecauseofthereasonthatthefocusisonthepositioningandbrandpersonalityofHLF,the criteria were that the respondents had donated money to HLF. We found eightrespondentschosenupontheirknowledgeinthearea.Therespondentswereallwomenin the age of 45 to 60 years old. The respondentswere chosen through a convenientsampleselection,duetoourlimitedtimeframeandthefactthattherespondentshadtohaveknowledgeinthearea.BecauseofthereasonthatthereishardtogetrespondentswhohavedonatedmoneytoHLF,weputoutadsatseveralworkingplacesinUppsalatoreceiverespondents.

3.6ANALYSISOFDATADenscombe(2000)statesthatqualitativeresearchhasatendencytoperceivewordsasthe central analysis unit. According to Yin (2003) the researcher needs to choose ageneralanalyticalstrategybeforethedatafromacasestudycanbeanalyzed.Thethreestrategiestochoosebetweenare;relyingonthetheoreticalpropositions,thinkingaboutrivalexplanationsanddevelopingacasedescription.TheanalyzingprocesshasaccordingtoMiles&Huberman(1994)andYin(2003)twosteps that we can follow;within­case and cross­case analyses. A within‐case analysisconsistsofcomparingthecollectedwiththerelevanttheory.Wearegoingtousewordsastheprimaryfundamentalanalyticalunit,whichmeansthatwearegoing to transformthecollected information intoqualitativewords.The thesisrelies on theoretical propositions and the data collection is based on our researchquestionsand literaturereviewsconcerning thecase.Our thesis isa singlecasestudybased on previous research in the area of positioning and brand personality. Weconductedawithin‐caseanalysis,whichcomparesthecollecteddatawiththetheoriesthatwerelyourthesison.

3.7VALIDITYANDRELIABILITYGatheringofdataoftenmeanssomeformofmeasurement,andinconnectionwiththisthereisariskthattherewillbemeasureproblems.Theseproblemscandependontheprecisioninthemeasurementsandhowtheresearcherchosetodefinedifferentresults.To secure thatwhatwemeasure fits to our purpose and that the resultwe state arereliablewearegoingtodiscussthethesisintermsofvalidityandreliability.Validity and Reliability is according to Denscombe (2004) two ways of measuringwhether a study is of high quality or not. Denscombe further claims that oneway toincrease validity is to see things fromdifferent perspectives and that it is possible toconfirm results (ibid.). According to Thurén (2004) validity means that you haveresearchedwhat youwanted and nothingmore. And Eriksson andWiedersheim‐Paul(2001)claimthatvaliditycanbeexplainedastheabilitytomeasurewhatyouactuallyintended to measure. Yin (2003) states that to construct validity is to createmeasurements for the data collection specified to fitwith the concepts being studied.Eriksson and Wiedersheim‐Paul (2001) claim that reliability means that anotherresearcherusingthesameapproachshouldbeabletodoastudyandcomeupwiththesameresult.Denscombe(2004)statesthattoachieveahighreliabilitydemandsthatthemeasureinstrumentisformedinsuchawaythattherespondentdonotmisunderstandorhadtodoanowninterpretationofthequestion(ibid.).

METHODOLOGY

19

Tofulfill thepurposeof this thesisarewediscussingdifferenttermsthatconsiderthevalidityandreliability.Wetriedtogatheredinformationthatisrelevantfortheresearchquestionswehavestated.Tosecuretherelevanceoftheinformationwehavebasedourstudyonliteratureandarticles.Theliteraturestudiestogetherwithearliercourseshavegivenusgreaterpossibilitiestoformulaterelevantresearchquestionsandexaminethethesistheme.Weconstructedtheinterviewsbasedonthetheoriesweuseinourstudy,sothatthemeasureddatawouldfittheconceptsbeingstudied.Wehave also conducted interviewswith bothHLF and eight of their donators, sowecouldgetanuancedpictureoffrombothsides.WeconductedallinterviewsinSwedish,we are aware of that it is a risk for translation errors. But due to the fact that allrespondershaveSwedishas theirnative languagewedecided todo the interviews inSwedish inorder toavoid language‐barriersandmisunderstandings.Tominimize theriskoftranslationerrorsandothermisunderstandingswehaveshownanoutlineoftheinterview guide to our instructor Håkan Perzon. We have also showed the finishedinterview guide to Jessica Bodin who work at Hjärnfonden, to make sure that thequestionswas adequate to the branch. Before each interview, we send the interviewguide(seeappendix1and2)totherespondents,sotheycouldlookatthequestionsandpreparefortheinterview.AfterwehadconductedtheinterviewwithHLFwesendtherespondentawrittensummarytogettherespondentsapproval.Thereisalwaysariskofmistranslatinganswerswheninterviewingpeople.Ourthesiscouldhavebeenmoreextensiveifwehadmoretimeavailable.Thechoiceofrespondents could also have affected the outcome of the thesis; if we had chosenanother focusgrouptheremighthavebeenanotherresult.Weareawarethat there isscarcity in the thesis that depends upon factors such as human errors, lack of time,delimitationthatwasmadewithinthethesistopicandpersonalfactorsandopinions.Whenweconstructedtheinterviewswetriedtothinkoftheguidelinesabove.Interviewquestioncanoftenbeaskedfromdifferentapproaches.Intheinterviewquestionaboutthe“BigFive”theory(BrandPersonality)forexamplewechoosetoshowallthe42traitsin the “Big Five” theory to the respondents. Anotherway could have been to ask therespondents what traits they associate with HLF. We choose to show the 42 wordsbecausethis is thewaythecreatorof thetheoryAaker(1997)usedwhenshecreatedthe theory. It is easier toanalyzeandwealsoavoidmisunderstandingsandproblemswith interpreting theanswers to the theory.Could therespondentshadcomeupwithotheranswersthatmighthavecausedsomeproblemswhenadaptingtheanswerstothetheory, ifwe had let the respondent name the traits they associatewithHLFwithoutgiventhemthewords?

EMPIRICALDATA

20

4.EMPIRICALDATAThepreviousmethodologychapterexplainedhowthedatawascollected. In thischapterthe empirical data will be presented. The data was collected trough nine telephoneinterviews, eight of them with persons that have donated money to the charityorganizationweexamined,andthelastonewaswiththeheadofinformationdepartmentatHLF.Weaskedtheorganizationquestionsaboutwhatoverallpositioningstrategyandbrandpersonalitytheyhaveandhowtheywanttobeperceivedbythedonators.WhenweinterviewedthepersonsthathaddonatedmoneyweaskedquestionsconcerninghowtheyhaveperceivedthepositioningstrategyandbrandpersonalityofHjärt­Lungfonden.

4.1HOWHJÄRT‐LUNGFONDENWANTTOBEPERCEIVEDWITHTHEIRPOSITIONINGSTRATEGYTobeabletomakeawithin­caseanalyzeweneedtoknowwhatHLFhaveforpositioningstrategyandwhatbrandpersonalitytheywanttosendout.

Clarity “What positioning strategy does HLF have?”. HLF have two parameters, theyhave a focus penetration strategy on people who is 65 years or older with a stableincomeandthattheyemphasizetheresearchonheartattacks.

Consistency. “How does HLF reach out to the customer?” HLF have two differentchannels,TVandprintedad,theadvertisingisbyawell‐awaredecisionmadesothatitis not a “selling” advertisement but an informative advertisement. HLF only createawarenessandprovide information.Theyconsistently sendout fondraising letters totheirsegmentandthelettersfeedbackstotheTVcommercialandprintedads.

Credibility. “What does HLF do to show trustworthiness?” There are many ways toshowtrustworthinessandtoshowcredibility.HLFinformsabout itswork, factsaboutthediseases,andwheretheresearchmoneygoes.Theyhavemagazinesinhospitalsandlibraries to present results and to give information about events. They also show theresultoftheirworkontheirhomepageandintheirmagazines.

Why. “Whatmakes the product of HLF unique?” HLF is the only one in Sweden thatraisesmoney for researchwithin the area heart and lung diseases. Every year heart‐vasculardisorderkillsmorethandoubleasmanythancancerdoes.Factofthatheart‐vasculardisorderstandsforalmosthalfofthosewhopassawayinSwedeneveryyear.Tobe theonlyonewhoraisesmoney for researchwithinheartand lungmakes themuniqueinSweden.

ForWhom.“WhatisthemainsegmentandtargetgroupofHLF?”HLF´stargetgrouparepeopleof65yearsandolder.Theirsegmentsarepeoplewithstableincomeandthosewhohavecomeincontacther/himselforhaveaclosefriendorrelativethathavebeenillwithintheareaofheartandlungdiseases.

When.“ForwitchdifferentreasonsshouldpeopledonatemoneytoHLF?”Peopletendtogivewhenaclosefriend,arelativeorhe/shegetadiseaseintheareaofheartandlung.AccordingtoHLFApersonwhodonatesmoneyfeelthattheyhavemadeaninvestmenttothefuture,andthattheyhavemadeagreatchoicefortheirinvestedmoney.

Competitiveness/Against whom. “Who are the main competitors of HLF?” Donatorshaveoftenonecharityfoundationsineachcategorytheytendtodonateto.Forexample:

EMPIRICALDATA

21

research foundations, developing country organizations, children and environmentalfoundations.HLF states that every foundationorHelporganizationmustbe seenas acompetitor.CancerfondenisthemajorcompetitortoHLF.

Figure 4.1 shows where HLF believes they are situated in trustworthiness, focus,availabilityandmarketposition.

4.2HOWHJÄRT‐LUNGFONDENWANTTOBEPERCEIVEDWITHTHEIRBRANDPERSONALITYBeforewestartedtheInterviewwiththeheadoftheinformationdepartmentofHLFweexplainedJenniferAaker’s“BigFive”frameworkandreadthe42traits.Theinformationchiefknewaboutthetheory.HetoldwhichofthecharacteristicstraitshewantedHLFtobeassociatedwith.

Characteristics traits thatHLFwant tobeassociatedwith:sincere, real,honest,daring,spirited,independentandreliable.

SummaryofHLF’sassociations.

Figure4.1:SummaryHLFconcerning;trustworthiness,focus,availabillityandmarketposition.

Figure4.2:SummaryofHLF’sassociations

EMPIRICALDATA

22

4.3HOWDONATORSPERCEIVETHEPOSITIONINGSTRATEGYIn thispartwehave chosen to summarize theanswers from the respondents,due to thefactthatallanswerswheresimilartoeachother.Theanswerswerenotexactlythesamespokenwordsbutthemeaningofeachanswerwasthesame.

Clarity. “WhatdoyouknowaboutHLF?“Therespondentsknowthat themoneytheydonate goes to research to find a cure or to prevent heart and lung disease. But therespondentshadpoorknowledgeaboutexactlyprecisedescribewherethemoneyreallygoesandwhattheorganizationdo,morethantheabovestated.

Consistency “How did you get in contact with HLF?” The two common answersaccordingtoourrespondentswere:Inconnectionwithafuneralorwhenaheartorlungdiseaseaffectedarelativeorfriend.Second:Someoftherespondentalsogottheirfirstcontact via commercials. The average respondent donated money 3‐4 times a year.Somehadsubscriptionandgavecontinuousandsomegavejustoccasionallyduringtheyear.

Credibility, “What should HLF do, for you to continue to give your contribution tothem?”Collective for the respondentswas that theysaid that,HLFcannotbewithinascandal,theyneedtodotherightthingallthetime.Otheranswerswerethattheywantto seemore information howmuchmoney that reach the researcher, that you couldearmark themoney to specific researchwithin heart and lung diseases and that theyneedtoappearmoreindifferentmediachannels.

"Why do you donate money to HLF?” Almost every respondent said that they givebecausetheythinkthatresearchinthesetypesofdeceaseisathighimportanceandthattheywanttocontributesothatresearchproceeds.Othercommonanswerswherethatthey in connection with funeral had been encourage to donate with economicalcontributions.

ForWhom,“HowdoyouperceiveHLF’smarketing?”Ingeneraltherespondersdonotseemuchmarketing fromHLF.But they think that themarketing is very informative.TheythinkthatHLFturntopeopleover45yearsoldwithstableincome.

When “What do you get out of it, when you donate money?” The conclusion of thisquestion is that all of our respondents claim that they feel good when they donateeconomical contributions, and that the donation is good for their conscience. Thereasonsforwhytheyfeelgoodandwhyitispositivefortheirconscienceshaveasmanyanswers as respondents. Examples of reasons are, the feeling of doing good, egoisticreasonsandonerespondentfeltaresponsibilitybecausehe/shehadagoodsalary.

Competitiveness/Againstwhom. “Towhomwouldyouhavedonatedmoney ifnot toHLF?”Most of the respondents spontaneously said that theywould donatemoney toanother research charity organization if they did not donate money to HLF. TherespondentsmentionedCancerfondenasanalternative.

EMPIRICALDATA

23

Figure4.3showswherethedonatorsplaceHLF intheareasof trustworthiness, focus,availabilityandmarketposition.

Figure4.3:Resultsfrominterviewswithdonatorsconcerning;trustworthiness,focus,availabillityandmarketposition.

EMPIRICALDATA

24

4.4HOWDONATORSPERCEIVETHEBRANDPERSONALITYBeforeweintroducedthesecondresearchquestionaboutthebrandpersonalityforthedonor respondent we explained the Aaker’s “Big Five” personality framework. Afterthatwe listed42words thatdescribecharacter traits.The respondent thenansweredwiththecharacteristicstraitstheyassociatewithHLF.

Characteristic traits that were associated: honest, sincere, real, wholesome, reliable,corporate, successful, cheerful, up­to­date, independent, technical, leader, friendly,intelligentandconfident.

Summaryofdonatorsassociations:

The threemost commonanswerswherehonest, reliabilityand corporate. Sevenof theeightrespondentspickedthesethreetraitstodescribeHLF’spersonality.

Figure4.4:Summaryofdonatorsassociations

ANALYSIS

25

5.ANALYSISIn this chapter the empirical data from the previous chapterwill be comparedwith theconceptual framework presented in chapter two. In order to answer the thesis researchquestionsawithin­casestudywasconducted.Thedatawasreducedanddisplayedtomaketheprocessofdrawing conclusionspresented in chapter six easier. Section5.1 cover theinformation regarding research question one and two, and section 5.2 cover theinformationregardingresearchquestionthreeandfour.RQ1Howdoresearchcharityorganizationspositioningthemselves?RQ2Howdobrandpersonalityappearinresearchcharityorganizations?RQ3Howdodonatorsperceiveresearchcharityorganizationspositioning?RQ4Howdodonatorsperceivethebrandpersonalityofresearchcharityorganizations?

5.1HJÄRT‐LUNGFODEN

5.1.1POSITIONINGJobber(2004)statesthatsuccessfulpositioningmustbeclearintermsoftargetmarketanddifferentialadvantage.HLFhasstatedacleartargetmarketwhichispeoplewhois65yearsorolderandwhohaveastableincome.Theirdifferentialadvantageisthattheyemphasize the research on hearts. Because they have a focus penetration strategy onthis target group, theyaccommodate theadvertisement to thisgroup.Which couldbereferredtothetargetaspect.

HLFusesinformativeadvertisementinsteadofsellingadvertisement.Theorganizationuses informative advertisement to create awareness about the problemswithin theirproduct.HLF continuously sendout letters todonatorswhoalreadyhave contributedwithmoneytotheorganization.Thelettersareoftenremindertothecustomers.AndasJobber(2004)claims,tobreakthroughnoise,aconsistentmessageisrequired.

ThedifferentialadvantagethatischosenmustaccordingtoJobber(2004)becredibleinthemind of the target customer. To show that HLF is credible and that the donatedmoney are used in the right way, HLF send out information about diseases, theirresearch and money usage. They also inform about research results and ongoingprojectsinprintedmagazinesandontheirhomepage.

HLF is the only organization that raises money to research within heart and lungdiseases.Heart and lungdiseases stands for almost half of all deaths in Sweden. Thisgives themauniquepositionon themarket. It isvery important tohelpsolving thesediseases.AsKapfererstates (1997) thisrefers tobrandpromiseandcustomerbenefitaspect.

OneofthequestionsthatKapferer(1997)asksisinwhichoccasionstheproductwillbeconsumed. HLF believes that persons that donatemoney to them feel that they havemadeaninvestmentforthefuture.AccordingtoHLFmostpeopledonatemoneywhentheyhavearelativeorclosefriendthathavesufferedfromaheartorlungdiseases.

HLF claims that all charity organizations that collectmoney from the public competewitheachother.HLF further states thatmostpeoplewhodonatemoneyhave severalcategories they donatemoney to, for example, research, humanitarian, environmental

ANALYSIS

26

and children organizations. However they believe that Cancerfonden is the maincompetitor.HLF´s target group (65+,with a stable income) and the fact that they arespecialized on heart and lung diseases gives them an advantage against theircompetitors. This is in line with Jobber’s (2004) and Kapferer’s (1997) positioningtheories.

WeconstructedfourquestionsaboutpositioningbecausewethoughtitwasinterestingtoseewhereHLFpositionsthemself(Weusedascalefrom1to6,where1isthelowestand6thehighest).

Trustworthiness

HLFconsideredthemself tobepositionedat5of6onthe trustworthinessscale.Thismeans thatHLF thinks that theirworkon showing their trustworthiness is verygoodbutcanbebetterinthefuture..

Focus(thatthedonatedmoneycomestoresearch)HLFthinksthattheyarepositionedat5of6atthescale.ItmeansthatHLFthinksthattheyaccountthedonatedresourcesatahighlevelandthatthedonatedmoneyreachesouttoresearch.Theyconsiderthattheycanbebetteratthispoint.

Availability

Whenweaskedaboutability,HLFplacesthemselfat4of6.Onereasoncanbethatalotofinformationabouttheorganization,aswellaspayment,canbefoundandperformedon Internet. Their target group is older people and the Internet usage in this targetgroupmightnotbeasfrequentasinothergroups.

MarketPositionHLFplacesthemselfon5of6onthescaleofmarketposition.Areasonforthatmightbethat their competitor, Cancerfonden, is the most well known research charityorganization in Sweden.HLFplace themselves as number twoon the list as themostwellknownresearchcharityorganization.

5.1.2BRANDPERSONALITYAfter HLF had been exposed for the words from Aaker’s (1997) brand personalityframeworkthe“BigFive“,HLFhadtopickoutbetween5to10characteristictraitsthattheyassociatedwiththeirorganisation.

According to the results from the “BigFive”HLFpossessedcompetenceandsincerity,buttheyseethemselfmoreasanexcitementresearchcharityorganization.Onereasoncanbe that theyhaveup­to­dated researchprojectsand that they try tokeepupwithdevelopmentof the industry.A reason towhy they see themselves as sprinted canbebecause they are the only organization in Swedenwhoworks against heart and lungdiseasesandthattheydaretohaveatargetgroupwhoare65yearsorolder.

Theresultsalsoshowthattheybelievethattheyappearasanhonestorganization.Onereasontothiscanbethat theyare investigatedofFRII(SwedishFundraisingCouncil),whichisanorganizationthatworksforethicalandprofessionalfundraising.HLFoftenpresents research findings and show that the money really uses for researches.ThereforeHLFcanbeseenasareliableorganization.

ANALYSIS

27

5.2DONATORS

5.2.1POSITIONINGHow the donators perceive the position ofHLF can be related to Jobber’s (2004) keyfactorstosuccessfulpositioningandtoKapferer’s(1997)positioningtheory.

All of the respondentshad their first contactwithHLFat a funeral orwhena friend/relativesuffered from lungorheartdiseases.Manyof therespondentsknewthatHLFsupportedresearchwithinheartandlungdiseasesbuttheyfirstdonatedmoneywhensomeoneclosetothemgotsickorpassedaway.Thatshowsthatmanypeoplestarttocareandwanttohelpwhensomeonetheyknowgetsick.Afterstartingwithdonationmanyof therespondentsstilldonatesmoneytoHLF(inaveragetherecipientsdonatemoney three to four times a year), thismeans that they understood howmeaningfultheir donations are. Their donations hopefully help people in the future. (Clarity,ConsistencyandWhy)

The respondents understand themeaning and importance of their donations, but themainunderlyingreasonisthattheyfeelgoodaboutdonating.Thiscouldbeanalyzedinmany ways but we believe that this is connected to the circumstances when thedonatorsgivemoney.Itcouldbeonfuneralsortheyfeelthattheyhavearesponsibilityasahumanoralsoegoisticreasonbecausetheymightbeinthedangerzoneforsomediseases.(When)

To maintain a strong credibility HLF keep out of scandals. One of the differentialadvantagestherespondentsmentionedwasthepossibilitytoearmarkmoneytospecificresearchareas.Thepossibilityfortherespondentstoearmarkmoneycouldbeawayforthe donators to specify to which research they want to donate money. If HFL couldmanage that therewould be a possibility for the donators to givemoremoney. ThatwouldgiveHLFahighercredibility.(Credibility)

ThefewrespondentsthathadseenthecommercialadvertisementsfromHLF,perceiveditasaninformativecommercialforpersonsover45yearsoldwhohaveastableincome.They had perceived the commercial in almost the same way, they think it is moreinformativethansellingandthat itcreatesawarenessaboutthediseases.Notonlythecommercial makes the consumers donate. The consumers could need some moretriggers.

WeaskedthedonatorssamequestionsaboutpositioningthatweaskedHLFabout.ButthistimewewantedtoknowwherethedonatorspositionHLF(Weusedascalefrom1to6,where1isthelowestand6thehighestonthescale).

Trustworthiness

The respondents mean value was 4,7 of 6 on the trustworthiness scale. That is anindication that the respondentshavequiethighcredence toHLF. IfHLFwant tokeeptheir trustworthiness they better would not be involved in scandals. It is hardcompetitioninthebranchandifHLFwouldnotfulfilltheexpectationsofthecustomerstheyprobablywouldlosethemtootherorganizations.

ANALYSIS

28

Focus(thatthedonatedmoneycomestoresearch)

Here,themeanvalueoftherespondentswas4,1of6.Anexplanationforthiscanbethatthedonatorsdonotexactlyknowwherethemoneygoesandexactlyhowmuchofthedonatedmoneyreachesitspurpose.

AvailabilityWhenitcomestoavailabilitytherespondentsmeanvaluewheretheyplaceHLFwas3of 6. The respondents think thatHLF’s availability can be improved. A reason to thatcould be that much of the information about HLF can be found on Internet, whichdemandthatthedonatorsareactivesearchingonInternet.

MarketPosition

TherespondentsmeanvalueofHLF’smarketpositionwas3,5of6.Thiscandependonseveral things; for example other charity organizations have more advertising andcreates/achievemorepublicrelationsinmedia.

5.2.2BRANDPERSONALITYAfter the respondents had been exposed for the words from Aaker’s (1997) brandpersonalityframeworkthe“BigFive“.Therespondentspickedoutaminimumof5andamaximumof10characteristictraitsthattheyassociatedwithHLF.

Accordingtotheresultsfromthe“BigFive”therespondentsassociateHLFwithsincere,competence and excitement. The threemost associated answers that the respondentsclaimedHLFtobe,washonest,reliabilityandcooperativewhichgoesundersincereandcompetence.

AreasonofthatcanbethattherespondentsassociateHLFtobeehonest,wholesomeandcheerful because they may think that HLF take responsibility and gather money toimportantresearch.AndthattheyrelatetoHLFasintelligenceandsuccessfulcandependofthecomplexofresearchandwhatHLFachievesmakesthemreliable.Thefactthatthedonators think that HLF support research that is up­to­date and tries to find newsolutions.IsagreatadvantageforHLFthattheycanuseintheiradvertisement.

FINDINGSANDCONCLUSIONS

29

6.FINDINGSANDCONCLUSIONSInthepreviouschapterweanalyzedtheempiricaldata.Inthischapterwewillpresentthefindingsandconclusions.Moreovertheresearchquestionsareansweredinordertofulfillthethesispurpose.Insection6.1findingsandconclusionsconcerningRQ1andRQ2willbeanswered.Insection6.2RQ3andRQ4willbeanswered.In6.3wewillcompareRQ1andRQ2withRQ3andRQ4.FinallywewillpresentourimplicationsandrecommendationsforHLF,andalsoimplicationsforfutureresearch.

6.1THEPOSITIONINGANDBRANDPERSONALITYOFRESEARCHCHARITYORGANIZATIONSInRQ1andRQ2ourpurposewastoexaminethepositioningandbrandpersonalityofresearch charity organizations. The positioning of a brand can be described as theposition in the targetmarketsmind that the brand holds. To position a brand and tocreateapersonalitythatisclearforexistingcustomersaswellasfornewcustomersisveryimportant.Thecustomersneedsomethingtoidentifywithanditisalsoimportantthattheorganizationsendsoutaclearmessage.Thechoiceofpositioningandhowanorganization chooses to send out itsmessages can be the difference between successandfailure.

In a branch where people donate money to research and where importantcharacteristics are honesty, reliable, intelligence and sincere, it is of great importancethatnotdeviatefromitortowaydemolishsuchacharacteristic.Whenthathappensitcanbeverycostly.Itisimportanttotakecareofthecharacteristicsoftheorganizationandtostrengthenthepersonality.Therelationstothecustomersareimportantforthefutureof theorganizations.This isespeciallyvisiblewhenconsidering thata researchcharity organization do not deal with ordinary business transactions, it is to aboutcustomerswhogivemoneyanddonotgetbackavisibleproduct,theyrathercontributetosomethinggood.

We found that an important factor for thepositioningof thebrandwas theexaminedorganization’salignmenttoaspecificresearcharea,andalsotheirtargetmarket.

Wealso foundthatHLFhasaclearpositioningstrategyandthat they focusonpeoplewithstable incomewhoare65yearsoldorolder.Theyhavechosen toemphasizeonheartattacksintheirinformativecommercialadvertisinginprintedmediaorganizationthatareup‐to‐date,daringandsprinted.Theyworktoshowthat theyaresincereandthat HLF is an honest choice to donate money to. They are reliable and have thecompetence to and in TV commercials. We also found out that HLFworkwith theirbrandpersonalityandthattheytrytoshowtheirdonatorsthattheyareanexcitementcharityadministerthemoneyandfindgreatandrelevantresearchwithinheartandlungdisease.

6.2HOWDONATORSPERCEIVETHEPOSITIONINGANDBRANDPERSONALITY?We found that our respondents perceive HLF as a research organization that collectmoney to research within the area of heart and lung diseases. The respondentsunderstandthatHLFaddresstomiddleagepeoplethathasastableincomeandareatthe age of 45 years and older. The common opinions are that HLF is a sincereorganization,andthattheyareacheerful,wholesomeandhonestorganizationthatcanmakeadifference.Therespondents’ feel thatHLFarecompetentenough todistributethe donatedmoney theydonate, they are able to solve the problems about heart and

FINDINGSANDCONCLUSIONS

30

lungdiseases.ThecustomersalsobelievethattheyaresuccessfulwhittheirworkandthatHLFsupportintelligenceresearcher.ThismakesthatourrespondentsthinkofHLFasanorganizationwithhigh levelofreliabilityandthattheyhaveup‐to‐dateresearchaboutheartandlungdiseases.

6.3HJÄRT‐LUNGFONDENVERSUSDONATORSRoughlyspeakingHLFhasmanagedtoputtheirimagetothedonorsmind.ButaswecantellfromourinvestigationsHLFhasacleartargetmarketofpeople65yearsorolder,andthatthedonatorsbelievethatHLFpositioningthemselvestopeoplearound45yearsoldorolder.

HLFwant tobeassociatedmainlyasanexcitement researchcharityorganization thatare sincere and have competence. The respondents perceiveHLFmainly as a sincereandcompetenceresearchcharityorganizationthattheyareanexcitementorganizationbecauseoftheirup‐to‐dateresearch.

TheanswersbelowshowswereHLFanddonators rankedHLF.Wecanascertain thatthedonatorsdonotperceiveHLFashighasHLFdo.

Trustworthiness FocusHLF: 5 HLF: 5Donators: 4,1 Donators: 4,7

Availability MarketpositionHLF: 4 HLF 5Donators: 3 Donators: 3,5

FINDINGSANDCONCLUSIONS

31

6.4IMPLICATIONSFORHJÄRT‐LUNGFONDENThefindingsofthisthesiscanbeatusefortheheadofinformationdepartmentatHLF.Wefindthatveryfewrespondentshadnotseenresultfromdifferentresearchandthattheywanttoknowwheretheirmoneygoes.Withoutdoingagreatefforttobeabletocheckwhat they have been donatedmoney to. Another findingwas the respondents’requesttohavethepossibilitytoearmarktheirdonationstospecificresearch.

AproposalforHLFwouldbetoreconsiderwhatimage(brandpersonality)theywanttosendout.According to the resultsHLFwant tobe seenasanexcitementorganizationbuttheirdonatorsseethemmoreassincereandcompetence.OurrecommendationsarethatHLFneedstoworkonstrengthentheirsincereandcompetencetobeoverexplicitandtoshowtheirdonatorsthattheyreallyarewhattheyseemtobe,inordertokeepandprotect theirexistingcustomersand to findnewcustomers.AsBiel (1992)statesconsumersdochooseabrandarticletheywanttoconsortwithorthatgivesthemstatus.ThismeansthatconsumerspreferentiallychoosebrandarticlesthatNoindexentriesfound.theyfeelconnectedtoandthatenhancetheirownself‐image.

6.5IMPLICATIONSFORFUTURERESEARCHWhilewewereworkingwithourthesiswecameacrossseveralissuesandareasthatwefoundinteresting.Forseveralreasonswedidnothavethepossibilitytoexamineortofitthemintothethesis.Insteadwewillnowpresentsomeideasofmethodsandtopicsforfutureresearch.

• ExamineHLF’stargetgroup65yearsandolder.• Expandthenumberofinterviewswithdonatorstogetabroaderpictureofhow

theyperceivetheorganization.• Expandtheresearchtootherresearchcharityorganizations.• Testingothertheoriesaboutthepositioningandbrandpersonalitybythetarget• marketofresearchcharityorganizations.• Applytheresearchtootherindustries.

REFERENCES

32

REFERENCESArticlesAaker, J.&Fournier,S. (1995)Abrandasacharacter,apartner,andaperson–Threeperspectivesonthequestionofbrandpersonality.AdvancesinConsumersresearch,Vol.232,p.391‐395Aaker,J.L.(1997).DimensionsofBrandPersonality.JournalofMarketingResearch,34(3),347‐356.Biel,A.L.(1992).HowBrandImageDrivesBrandEquity.JournalofAdvertisingResearch,32(6),6‐12.Flyvbjerg,B.(April2006).FiveMisunderstandingsAboutCase‐StudyResearch.QualitativeInquiry,12(2),219‐245.Leder,G.(2005).BeYourBrand.OnWallStreet,15(3),71.Plummer, J.T. (1985) “Brand personality: a strategic concept for multinationaladevertising”.MarketingEducatorsConference.NewYork:Young&Rubicam,1‐31Reynolds, T.J. & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering Theory Method, Analysis andInterpretation.JournalofAdvertisingResearch,28(1),11‐31.Sweeney,J.C.&Brandon,C.(2006).BrandPersonality:ExploringthePotentialtoMovefromFactorAnalyticaltoCircumplexModels.Pschology&Marketing,23(8),639‐663BooksBryman,A.(2002).SamhällsvetenskapligaMetoder.Malmö:LiberAB.Czinkota,M.R.&Ronkainen,I.A.(2007).InternationalMarketing(8thedition).Mason,Ohio:Thomson/South‐Western.deChernatony,L&McDonald,M.B(1998)Creatingpowerfulbrandsinconsumer,serviceandindustrialmarkets.Oxford:Butterworth‐Heinemann.Denscombe, M. (2000). Forskningshandboken –för småskaliga forskningsprojekt inomsamhällsvetenskaperna.Lund:Studentlitteratur.Doyle,P.(2002).Marketingmanagementandstrategy(3rdedition)Harlow:PrenticeHall.Elliott,R.&Percy,L.(2007).StrategicBrandManagement.Oxford:UniversityPress.

REFERENCES

33

Eriksson, L.T. & Wiedersheim‐Paul, F. (2001) Att utreda, forska och rapportera (7thedition).Malmö:LiberEkonomi.Fill, C. (2002). Marketing Communications; contexts, strategies and applicatiions (3rdedition).Harlow:FinancialTimesPrenticeHall.Foster,T.(1998).InternationalMarketingCommunication–AninvestigationoftheUseofMarketing Communication Tools (Licentiate Thesis). Luleå University of Technology,1998:09.Frey,J.H.&Oishi,S.M.(1995).Howtoconductinterviewsbytelephoneandinpersons.UnitedStatesofAmerica:SagePublications.Hankinson,G.&Cowking,P.(1993).Brandinginaction.Cambridge:UniversityPress.Kapferer,J.N.(1997)Strategicbrandmanagement.London:KoganPage.Kinnear,T.C.&Taylor,J.R.(1996).MarketingResearch–Anappliedapproach.UnitedStatesofAmerica:McGraw‐Hill.Kotler,P.&Armstrong,G.(2001).PrinciplesofMarketing(9thedition).NewJersey:Prentice‐Hall.Kotler,P.&Keller,K.(2006).Marketingmanagement(12thedition).NewJersey:Prentice‐Hall.Melin,Frans.(1997).Varumärketsomstrategisktkonkurrensmedel.Lund:UniversityPress.Miles,M.B.&Huberman,A.M.(1994).QualitativeDataAnalysis.ThousandOaks:SagePublications.Misner,I.R.(2000).TheWorld’sBest­KnownMarketingSecret(RevisedEdition).Canada:ParadgimProductionsBook.Nichols,J.(2001).PinpointingAffluenceinthe21stCentury.UnitedStatesofAmerica:PreceptPress.Patel,R.&DavidsonB.(1991).Forskningsmetodikensgrunder–attplanera,genomföraochrapporteraenundersökning.Lund:Studentlitteratur.Saunders,M., Lewis,P.&Thornhill,A. (2003).ResearchMethods forBusiness Students.Harlow:FinancialTimes/PrenticeHall.Throut,J.&Rivkin,S.(1996).TheNewPositioning.UnitedStatesofAmerica:McGraw‐Hill.

REFERENCES

34

Thurén,T.(2004).Vetenskapsteoriförnybörjare.Malmö:LiberAB.Uggla,H.(2006).Positionering­Teori,trend&strategi.Malmö:Liber.Yin,R.(2003).CaseStudyResearch–DesignandMethods(3rdedition).ThousandOaks:SagePublications.Yin,R.(2007).Fallstudier–DesignochGenomförande.MalmöLiber.

APPENDIX1

35

APPENDIX1

IntervjuGuide­MottagareGenerellinformationRespondentNamn?ÅrhosHjärtochLungfonden?Vilken är din position i organisationen och hur länge har du arbetat pånuvarandeposition?Arbetsuppgifter?Företag/OrganisationVision?Huvudsakligprodukt?Vilkenärerkundgrupp,‐segment?Korthistorikomorganisationen?FinnsniutanförSverige,harninågrasamarbetspartnersutomlands?RQ1Hurpositionerarerorganisationsig?Vadärdetsomgörerproduktunik?Hurgörniförattnåuttillkunden?Vadgörniförattvisaertrovärdighet?Vadgörni förattdifferentieraer från liknandeorganisationer/konkurrerandeverksamhet?Vad tror ni det är som gör att människor skänker ekonomiskt bidrag tillvälgörenhet(forskning)?Vilkenärermålgrupp?Avvilkaanledningarskamänniskorbidraekonomiskttillerorganisation?Hurvillniattfolkuppfattarermarknadsföring?Vilka liknande organisationer konkurrerar om bidragen (inte bara inom erbransch)?Varbefinnernierinedanståendepunkter?Trovärdighet(Låg) 1 2 3 4 5 6(Hög)Fokus(Deekonomiskabidragennårframtillsittändamål)(Låg) 1 2 3 4 5 6(Hög)Tillgänglighet(Lättattgeekonomiskabidrag)(Låg) 1 2 3 4 5 6(Hög)Marknadsposition(Inomerbransch)(Låg) 1 2 3 4 5 6(Hög)

APPENDIX1

36

RQ2Vilkaavföljandeegenskaperförknippardumederorganisation?Markeraminst5ochmax10alternativ.JordnäraFamiljeorienteradÄrlig Uppriktig Äkta HälsosamNyskapandeOmsorgsfull Vänlig Vågad/DjärvKänslosam Trendig SpännandeLivlig/Modig Cool

UngFantasifull UnikUp‐to‐dateSjälvständigNutidaPålitligArbetsvillig Säker IntelligentTekniskKollektivFramgångsrikLedande

Självsäker/Trorpåsigsjälv ÖverklassGlamorös Organisationen ”serbraut”Charmig Feminin(kvinnlig) Mjuk/MildFriluftsliv/Utomhus‐aktiviteter Maskulint(Manligt) ÄventyrTuff Grov/Sträv

APPENDIX2

37

APPENDIX2

IntervjuGuide­GivareGenerellinformationRespondentNamnVilkenorganisationhardugettekonomisktbidragHLF?VadvetduomHLF?Hurlänge/oftahardugettekonomisktbidragtillHLF?RQ3VarförgerduekonomisktbidragtillHLF?HurkomduikontaktmedHLF?HurharduuppfattatHLFsmarknadsföring?Vadfårduutavattgepengar?VadskaHLFgöraförattduskafortsättabidramedekonomiskamedel?TillvikaskulleduhadoneratpengaromduintedonerattillHLF?VarbefinnersigHLFinedanståendepunkter?Trovärdighet(Låg) 1 2 3 4 5 6(Hög)Fokus(Pengarnanårframtillsittändamål)(Låg) 1 2 3 4 5 6(Hög)Tillgänglighet(Lättattgepengar)(Låg) 1 2 3 4 5 6(Hög)Marknadsposition(InomHLFsbransch)(Låg) 1 2 3 4 5 6(Hög)

APPENDIX2

38

RQ4VilkaavföljandeegenskaperförknippardumedHLF?Markeraminst5ochmax10alternativ.JordnäraFamiljeorienteradÄrlig Uppriktig Äkta HälsosamNyskapandeOmsorgsfull Vänlig Vågad/DjärvKänslosam Trendig SpännandeLivlig/Modig Cool

UngFantasifull UnikUp‐to‐dateSjälvständigNutidaPålitligArbetsvillig Säker IntelligentTekniskKollektivFramgångsrikLedande

Självsäker/Trorpåsigsjälv ÖverklassGlamorös Organisationen ”serbraut”Charmig Feminin(kvinnlig) Mjuk/MildFriluftsliv/Utomhus‐aktiviteter Maskulint(Manligt) ÄventyrTuff Grov/Sträv

APPENDIX2

39