Brand Personality of Political Parties in Chile

CUADERNOS.
INFO Nº 41 ISSN 0719-3661

Versión electrónica: ISSN 0719-367x
http://www.cuadernos.info
https://doi.org/10.7764/cdi.41.1252
Received: 09-19-2017 / Accepted: 10-16-2017
Brand personality of political parties in Chile: a view

from the youngest citizens
Personalidad de marca de los partidos políticos en Chile: una
mirada desde los ciudadanos más jóvenes
Personalidade de marca dos partidos políticos no Chile: um olhar desde os
cidadãos mais jovens
RODRIGO URIBE, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile ([email protected])
CRISTIAN BUZETA , Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile ([email protected])
JAVIERA REYES, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile ([email protected])
ABSTRACT RESUMEN RESUMO

This study examines the adequacy of Este estudio examina la adecuación de la O presente estudo examina a adequa-
the notion of brand personality (Aaker, noción de personalidad de marca (Aaker, ção da noção de personalidade da marca
1997) in the field of Chilean political 1997) en el ámbito de los partidos políticos (Aaker, 1997) nos partidos políticos chi-
parties, measuring their perception in chilenos, midiendo su percepción en jóvenes lenos, medindo sua percepção em jovens
a sample of university students. It is universitarios. Se muestra que este concepto estudantes universitários. Mostra-se
shown that this concept has an adequate posee una validez de constructo y confiabili- que esse conceito possui validade na
validity of construct and reliability, dad adecuada, observándose una estructura construção e confiabilidade, além de se
observing a structure of five dimensions de cinco dimensiones (honestidad, capa- observar uma estrutura de cinco dimen-
(honesty, capacity, up-to-date, energy cidad, ser actual, energía y ser diferente) sões (honestidade, capacidade, ser atual,
and uniqueness) similar to that reported similar a la reportada en estudios previos energia e ser diferente) semelhante à des-
in previous studies (Smith, 2009). (Smith, 2009). Adicionalmente, se presenta crita em estudos anteriores (Smith,
Additionally, an exploratory analysis of un análisis exploratorio de tres partidos polí- 2009). Além disso, é apresentada uma
three political parties (left, center and ticos (izquierda, centro y derecha), encon- análise exploratória de três partidos polí-
right) is presented, finding deficient trando percepciones deficientes de estos, con ticos (esquerda, centro e direito), encon-
perceptions of these, with relevant diferencias relevantes según autoposiciona- trando percepções deficientes sobre esses
differences according to the political self- miento político y grupo socioeconómico de partidos, com diferenças relevantes de
positioning and socioeconomic level of los entrevistados. acordo com o auto posicionamento
the interviewees. político e o grupo socioeconômico dos
entrevistados.
Keywords: political marketing, Palabras clave: marketing político; Palavras-chave: marketing político;
political communication, political comunicación política; partidos políticos; comunicação política; partidos
parties, branding. branding. políticos; branding.
How to cite:
Uribe, R., Buzeta, C. & Reyes, J. (2017) . Personalidad de marca de los partidos políticos en Chile: una mirada desde los
ciudadanos más jóvenes. Cuadernos.info, (41), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.7764/cdi.41.1252
89
URIBE, R., BUZETA, C. & REYES, J. Brand personality of political parties in Chile
INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Although the use of marketing techniques has a BRANDING AND BRAND PERSONALITY
long history of political action, political marketing A brand is defined as a distinctive name or symbol
as a study area is relatively new. Its development as a capable of identifying and representing a product
discipline began in the seventies, seeking to apply the or service offered by an organization, generating a
strategies developed in commercial contexts to political difference in a market (Keller, 2003). In this regard,
action, especially trying to increase the effectiveness the brand is an asset that must be managed in such
of campaigns in the electorate (O’Shaughnessy, 1990). a way that this differentiation is perceived and that it
It is striking that, although marketing as a discipline generates, in the users’ memory, emotional attachment
encompasses elements that go beyond advertising, and a purchasing behavior (Peng & Hackley, 2009).
the vast majority of political work has focused on this To achieve the above it is essential to understand
latter area. A clear example of this research scarcity what are the main dynamics of consumers in their
is political branding, an area intimately linked to perception of brands. A central notion, in this regard,
communication, whose focus is the administration of is the brand personality, a concept that accounts for the
a positive and differentiated image of candidates and key dimensions that consumers use to interpret brand
parties (as if they were brands), seeking to make it act actions and develop a preference for them (Aaker, 1997).
as the driving force of choice on the part of citizens In this notion, it is assumed that through direct and
(Newman, 1999). indirect contact with brands people perceive in them
A central concept in branding is that of brand functional (price, taste, duration, among others) and
personality, a notion defined by Aaker (1997) and emotional attributes (a close, young, family brand, etc.),
which states that people attribute a set of human which are symbolically understood as the brands’ way of
characteristics to brands, which act as the basis of being. Thus, brands are anthropomorphized (Guthrie,
the symbolic relationship we establish with them. 1997), laying the foundations of the consumer-brand
What is relevant about the above is that research in the relationship and significantly conditioning the
commercial field has tended to show that this concept disposition and preference or non-preference in a
is a fundamental predictor of the effective disposition market (Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007).
and preference towards products or services (Ahmad
& Thyagaraj, 2015). MEASURING BRAND PERSONALITY
This study examines the adequacy of the notion of In her seminal work, Aaker (1997) systematizes the
brand personality in its original definition to the scope concept of brand personality and proposes a model of
of the perception of political parties. The aim is to five key dimensions that consumers use to evaluate
identify the validity of its use and the key dimensions of them: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication
the brand personality that act in this case, establishing and ruggedness (see table 7 at the end of the text).
in addition to what extent they correspond to the same Through a study in three stages, which began with an
features previously reported by the original research exhaustive bibliographic review, she constructed a list
in the field of commercial brands. Antecedents of the of more than 300 characteristics or personality traits.
above are found in a few studies; the most important is Then, she evaluated the relevance and adequacy of these
the one developed by Smith (2009), which established traits based on consumers questionnaires, reaching
the usefulness and the dimensions of this concept in a tentative set of 114 traits. Finally, she developed a
the context of British political parties. factorial analysis with which she reduced it to a list of
Additionally, this study was conducted in a sample 42 items (features), constituting her final instrument.
of university students, who are part of the segment of Subsequent studies conducted outside the United
young people between 18 and 25 years old, identified States have reviewed the validity and reliability of
as one of the groups in which the discredit of politics the dimensions structure proposed by Aaker (1997),
is most strongly manifested (Maureira, 2008). In fact, examining potential cultural variations, as well
in this age group it has been detected that, regardless as by product type. Olavarrieta, Friedmann and
of the degree of politicization of people and how their Manzur (2010) validated the use of the original brand
discourse on politics is articulated, they all converge personality model by applying it to 37 Chilean brands
in a common space: the rejection of formal political representative of different industries. These authors
institutions (Sandoval & Carvallo, 2017). verified the dimensionality of the model (obtaining an
CUADERNOS.INFO Nº 41 / DECEMBER 2017 / ISSN 0719-3661 / E-Version: www.cuadernos.info / ISSN 0719-367x
90
explained variance of almost 80%) with the existence communicational spaces (that is, news, political
of six dimensions: the same proposed by Aaker, to campaigns). In this process, certain features derived
which they added tradition. Farrandi, Valette-Florence from the image that is being perceptually constructed
and Fine-Falcy (2000) evaluated its validity in the are attributed to the parties (Gorbaniuk, Kusak, Kogut,
French context, reducing the number of traits to 33, but & Kustos, 2015). That does not mean, however, that the
obtaining the same original five-dimensions structure brand personality of a party is the only determinant of
from Aaker (1997). Austin, Siguaw and Mattila (2003) intentionality to vote or to join a party. Along with it, there
analyzed this scale in the context of restaurant brands. are other fundamental components of this provision, such
The results show that Aaker’s structure of factors as previous political sympathy, the media consumed,
(dimensions) had adequate indicators of validity for the elements of the campaign and the characteristics of the
analysis of the category in general (all brands together), candidates (Banerjee & Chauduri, 2016).
but they found some differences when applying it to In the case of political parties, only three studies
individual brands. Thus, beyond some limitations indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) have examined
reported and variations observed in different contexts, brand personality, two of them using the Aaker
the Aaker scale (1997) remains the most robust and model (1997). Schneider (2004) analyzed the brand
used in the literature, mainly because it provides a tool personality of German politicians and parties using
with high levels of validity, with reliable scales and her original features. Although this author managed to
which is also relatively easy to use (Lee and Cho, 2012). detect that these features are capable of differentiating
the different actors and political entities, the study
POLITICAL PARTIES: BRANDS AND BRAND did not examine the psychometric properties of the
PERSONALITY measurements conducted, so there is no analysis
There is no consensus in accepting that parties can of the dimensionality of personality characteristics
be treated as brands. The main argument that has (Gorbaniuk et al., 2015).
been given is that the political world is, in essence, Secondly, the aforementioned study by Smith (2009)
different from commercial markets (Rothschild, 1979). is undoubtedly the most solid of the articles conducted
There have been warnings about the diverse nature of to date. This paper examined the concept of Aaker’s
products and services regarding the political activity, original brand personality in political parties using a
as well as about the difference of the decision faced sample of 183 English university students. In the initial
by consumers versus voters (Lock and Harris, 1996). phase of the study, a group of experts was asked to
Without ignoring such differences, other authors have evaluate the features, eliminating eight from Aaker’s
stressed that people, in their various roles (as consumers original list (1997) because they were considered alien
and citizens), relate to names, terms or symbols (i.e., to politics. After this process, the instrument with 34
brands), which identify certain groups, organizations, features was applied to a sample of students, who were
services or products, and that these names are a key asked to evaluate the Labor Party and the Conservative
factor in the decision process of developing a preference Party based on them. The results revealed a dimensional
(Newman, 1999). Thus, they have argued that political structure for British parties slightly different from those
parties conform, in general terms, to the process of traditionally found for brands in general. The study
brand analysis, such as denominations (names) that revealed the existence of six dimensions (instead of
generate a mental representation that acts as one of the five): honesty, spirited, image, leadership, toughness
central foundations of the political decision-making and uniqueness (table 1).
process (Smith, 2009). A third study was recently presented by Gorbaniuk
Thus, the brand personality of political parties has et al. (2015). These authors conducted an analysis in
been defined as a network of associations with human Poland with a list of features different from that of
characteristics related to a political group, which are in Aaker (1997). Based on interviews with 120 people,
the memory and can be accessed when the memory is they extracted more than 3200 possible associations
stimulated or a voter is faced to a call for action (Smith, with parties, which were subsequently subjected to
2009). As it happens in markets, the construction of a frequency evaluation, leaving 102 descriptors or
the brand personality of a party occurs through the personality traits. From there, the authors developed the
direct or indirect contact that people have with the final phase that allowed them to obtain a dimensional
parties on a daily basis, which occurs mainly through structure of three factors: integrity, displeasure and
91
Dimension Features
Honesty Honest, reliable, wholesome, sincere, real, sentimental, down-to-earth and friendly.
Spirited Spirited, daring, imaginative, up-to-date and cheerful.
Image Smooth, good-looking, trendy, young, cool, exciting and contemporary.
Leadership Leader, confident, intelligent, successful, hardworking, technical and secure.
Toughness Masculine, rugged, tough and outdoorsy.
Uniqueness Unique, independent and original.
Table 1. Political parties’ brand personality dimensions

Source: Own elaboration, with data from Smith, 2009.
strength. Finally, they developed a new study that being part of a generation that constitutes a significant
confirmed this factorial structure, also evaluating percentage of the abstention figures in politics2.
the psychometric properties (dimensionality and However, it is essential to clarify that this is a sample
reliability) of the scale used. with levels of education well above the average of
There are also two studies indexed in Scopus/ the Chilean population in general, and of that age in
SciELO1 conducted by Araya-Castillo and Etchebarne particular. The use of this sample responds to criteria
(2014a; 2014b) in Chile. These authors sought to of accessibility, of representing the group that has been
develop their own model of party brand personality frequently used in previous studies, and of being people
(similar to the work of Gorbaniuk et al., 2015) based who have relatively homogeneous socio-demographic,
on interviews with university students. After an as well as socio-cultural, characteristics in terms of
exploratory phase, these scholars ended up with a education (allowing to reduce the influence of other
model of eight factors: sincerity, ambition, competence, exogenous variables).
stimulating, traditional, sophisticated, thoughness
and elitist (Araya-Castillo & Etchebarne, 2014a). In a DEPENDENT VARIABLE
second stage, this model was applied to Chilean parties a. Perception of brand personality of political
(Araya-Castillo & Etchebarne, 2014b), observing parties: we used the scale of Smith (2009), which in
that those on the right-wing appear more frequently turn is an adaptation of Aaker’s scale (1997), which
associated with the attributes of being conservative, –currently– represents the one of greatest use and
formal, traditional and ambitious, those at the center as robustness. We evaluated 34 traits through a Likert
more opportunistic, conflictive and also ambitious, and scale, from 1 to 5 (table 2). People were asked to
those of the left more aggressive and passionate. One answer the following question for each analyzed
of the difficulties with this analysis is that it does not party: on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is nothing and
report the obtained values or the statistical differences 5 is totally, to what extent do each of the following
between the parties. Therefore, the results are more features describe your perception of the party...? b)
like a description of the most present attributes of each We incorporated three political parties, one from
party, but it is not known if this is due to the fact that the right (Unión Demócrata Independiente – UDI),
they have significantly higher scores in that dimension. one from the center (Democracia Cristiana – DC)
and one from the left (Partido Comunista – PC).
These parties were chosen because they represent
METHODOLOGY different positions of the spectrum, because they
SAMPLE are recognized with those respective tendencies
During the first semester of 2017, we conducted a and because for the last ten years they have been
cross-sectional quantitative study, based on surveys national parties (SERVEL, 2015). The evaluation
applied to a sample of 276 university students between of the parties was conducted in random order to
18 and 25 years old. This age group complies with avoid effects of order bias (Malhotra, 2008).
92
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES to the upper class, 37% to the upper-middle class,

a. Gender: it was measured through a direct question 19% to the middle class and 3% to the lower-middle
in which the individual defines its gender (man class. That is, it is a young sample, with a greater male
or woman). presence, with a university education and dominated
by the presence of people belonging to the upper and
b. Socioeconomic group (SEG): measured by upper-middle classes (73%).
an abbreviated scale developed by Kantar Regarding the political self-positioning, we observe
IBOPE Media (2016): it consists of three items an average value of 5.1 (5.5 is the middle of the scale),
that conclude in an approximation of the where almost 21% is located on the left (values 1-3),
socioeconomic level based on questions about 36% in the center-left (values 4-5), 32.6% in the center-
the head of the household (educational level and right (values 6-7) and 10.3% in the right (values 8-10),
labor hierarchy) and the tenure of eleven goods which indicates a fairly balanced sample in political
and services. From there, a score is constructed terms, with a slight predominance of the left sector
that allows to classify people according to their (values equal to or less than 5) (figure 1).
socioeconomic level.
DIMENSIONALITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE SCALE
c. Political self-positioning: it was measured The principal components analysis gave a structure of
through a question in which the individuals were five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, explaining
placed in a continuum of political position. We 63.87% of the variance, a sample adequacy measure of
used a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 represents extreme 0.959 and a significant Bartlett’s sphericity test (0.000).
left and 10, extreme right (Frías, 2001). No items/traits were eliminated, given that in their
totality they have communalities that are very close
METHOD or over the value 0.5 (table 2).
a. Pre-test: we conducted a previous study aiming In this factorial structure, the first dimension was
for a first revision of the scale. It began with a called honest/sincere, which has 43.8% of explained
validation of experts, asking a group of four variance, being the most important. It is composed of
specialists in public opinion studies to establish six features: honest, close, sincere, upright, real and
the relevance of the features defined by Smith dependable, and its name derives from the fact that the
(2009) in its Spanish version –constructed based central element to which these features point refers to
on the translation by Olavarrieta et al. (2010) political parties showing themselves as they are. The
of Aaker’s features –. No items were removed second dimension, capacity/competence, reaches an
after this revision. The second part of the pre-test explained variance of 7.0%. It considers eleven traits:
was carried out during the month of May 2017, successful, professional, intelligent, self-confident,
applying the questionnaire to a sample analogous strong, leader, resistant, masculine, hardworking, calm
to that used in the final phase of the study (n=24). and realistic, and was named this way since most of
In this stage, we verified the average duration of the traits point to having greater technical conditions
the survey (seven minutes) and the interviewees’ to be able to actually apply the proposals and manage a
understanding of the items/traits. government. The third dimension was called current/
contemporary, which has an explained variance of
b. Development of the study: once the proposed 5.8%. It consists of seven traits: current, cool, in style,
scale was preliminary validated, we extracted the contemporary, young, exciting and attractive, and
data from the final sample by conduction a face- was named that way because all the elements that
to-face survey during the month of June 2017, compose it point to be consistent with current times.
obtaining 268 complete surveys. The fourth dimension was called energetic/vibrating,
and accounts for 3.7% of the variance. It includes the
RESULTS features energetic, bold, imaginative, sentimental,
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAMPLE friendly and cheerful, and it was given that name
Of the final sample, 43% of the respondents were since all traits point centrally to having character and
women and 57%, men, with an average age of 20 years decision to carry things forward. Finally, the fifth
and 8 months. In socioeconomic terms, 36% belongs dimension was called unique/different, and accounts
93
50
40
30
21.2
20 18.6
15.2
13.8
13
10 7.8
3.7
1.5 1.5 0.7
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 1: Distribution of the sample by political self-positioning

Source: Own elaboration.
for 3.5% of the variance. It incorporates three features: are no significant differences in the total results, but
unique, independent and original, and its name derives they are significant differences between the PC and
from the fact that the features refer to the capacity of the DC (t=3,590, p=0,000) and the PC and the UDI
differentiating from the rest of the parties (table 2). (t=2,558, p=0.011), where the first party (PC) has a
Considering the reliability of the sets of traits light evaluation, but significantly less bad (table 3).
incorporated in each one of the brand personality Analyzing the brand personality dimensions, the PC
dimensions, it is possible to observe that the reliability has statistically significant differences with the rest of
indicators or Cronbach’s Alpha of each one of them the evaluated parties in several of them (see table 4).
show levels higher than 0.7 (table 2). Thus, we can One refers to honesty (the variable that most explains
point out that the brand personality measurement the variance), where the UDI has a lower average than
scale possesses adequate psychometric properties in the DC (t=2.783, p=0.006) and that the PC (t=2.380,
terms of dimensionality and reliability in the context p=0.018). The second is in current/contemporary, where
of political parties in Chile (Malhotra, 2008). the PC also has superiority over the UDI (t=3,603,
p=0,000) and the DC (t=4,577, p=0,000). The third
PERCEPTION OF POLITICAL PARTIES corresponds to the energetic/vibrant dimension, where
Next, we proceeded to examine3 the specific brand the PC also exceeds both the UDI (t=6.795, p=0.000)
personality perception of the three parties incorporated and the DC (t=6.690, p=0.000). An opposite situation
in this study. A first relevant result is that, in terms of occurs in the case of capable/competent, which is the
total results (by dimension, by party and overall), the attribute in which the UDI has superiority against
evaluation of the political parties in the sample of young both the DC (t=3.542, p=0.000) and the PC (t=2.425,
people employed in this study is quite negative. In the p=0.016). Finally, in the case of unique/different, the
range of 1 to 5 (see methodology), we observe that the DC that has a worse evaluation than the UDI (t= 2.116,
general average of the parties evaluated reaches 2.27, p=0.035) and the PC (t= 2.511, p=0.012). Thus, it can
a number that indicates that those brand personality be observed that the PC has a less negative evaluation
traits would be desirable to generate a good bond in three attributes, and its energy stands out; the UDI
with the parties are scarce. This is also detected when is relatively better evaluated in terms of its aptitude
comparing the parties’ general means, where there (which is the second dimension in relevance), while
are figures between 2.17 and 2.41. It is important the DC is not perceived with any relative superiority
to mention that between the DC and the UDI there in any dimension.
94
Cronbach’s
Dimension Feature 1 2 3 4 5 % Variance Alpha
Honest 0.81 0.12 0.24 0.16 0.19
Reliable 0.77 0.18 0.29 0.18 0.18
Sincere 0.73 0.18 0.26 0.22 0.24

Honest/sincere 43.79 0.92
Wholesome 0.71 0.33 0.19 0.16 0.05
Down-to-earth 0.66 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.22
Confident 0.63 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.18
Successful 0.21 0.77 0.21 0.05 0.06
Technical 0.39 0.70 0.16 0.18 0.08
Intelligent 0.29 0.69 0.25 0.20 0.05
Secure 0.39 0.64 0.22 0.15 0.13
Rugged 0.04 0.61 0.20 0.35 0.40

Capable/
Leader 0.16 0.60 0.34 0.25 0.15 7.01 0.89
competent
Tough 0.02 0.54 0.13 0.46 0.42
Masculine -0.05 0.52 -0.13 0.01 0.41
Hardworking 0.38 0.50 0.20 0.38 0.17
Smooth 0.45 0.49 0.03 -0.12 -0.09
Down-to-earth 0.46 0.48 0.36 0.07 0.06
Current 0.21 0.27 0.74 0.18 0.11
Cool 0.34 0.10 0.70 0.20 0.20
Trendy 0.19 0.23 0.69 0.25 -0.01

Current/
Contemporary 0.26 0.27 0.66 0.24 0.15 5.81 0.90
contemporary
Young 0.13 0.02 0.65 0.44 0.14
Exciting 0.30 0.10 0.63 0.36 0.23
Good-looking 0.39 0.30 0.61 0.10 0.13
Spirited 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.76 0.10
Daring 0.01 0.04 0.26 0.74 0.12
Imaginative 0.07 0.07 0.29 0.64 0.06
Spirited/vibrant Sentimental 0.29 0.10 0.04 0.64 0.07 3.73 0.83
Friendly 0.48 0.22 0.21 0.53 -0.03
Cheerful 0.32 0.26 0.39 0.50 -0.02
Outdoorsy 0.16 0.33 0.31 0.49 0.36
Unique 0.28 0.15 0.18 0.13 0.72
Unique/different Independent 0.34 0.16 0.27 0.11 0.61 3.54 0.75
Original 0.45 0.10 0.40 0.18 0.49
Table 2. Summary table with matrix of rotated components – personality traits, dimensions and reliability
95
Dimensión UDI DC PC Total
Honest/sincere 1.97 2.19 2.17 2.11
Capable/competent 2.71 2.44 2.52 2.56
Current/contemporary 1.91 1.84 2.19 1.98
Spirited/vibrant 2.34 2.36 2.88 2.53
Unique/different 2.24 2.05 2.28 2.19
TOTAL 2.23 2.17 2.41 2.27
Table 3. Evaluation of the brand personality of political parties

UDI DC PC
Honest
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
Unique 1.0 Capable
0.5
0.0
Spirited Current
Figure 2. Brand personality of the evaluated political parties

ANALYSIS OF POLITICAL PARTIES ACCORDING TO (F=18.315, p=0.000) shows that this change is linear: as
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES the socioeconomic class lowers, the general evaluation
When examining the perception of brand personality of this party worsens. The same happens with the DC,
by gender, SEG and political self-positioning, there in which significant differences are observed regarding
are some interesting differences worth mentioning. the assessment of brand personality by SEG (F=7.113,
Regarding gender, the ANOVA test shows that brand p=0.000); these differences are linear, as shown by the
personality perceptions are similar in all factors. The only polynomial analysis (F=13.754, p=0.000). This shows
exception is in the honest dimension in the UDI, which that, as the socioeconomic class lowers, the evaluation
women evaluate better than men (t=2.582, p=0.009). of the DC also falls significantly. Finally, the PC is in
A different situation is observed by socioeconomic a different situation: although descriptively its worst
level. When comparing the upper class with the evaluation is in the upper class, the differences by SEG
upper-middle and the rest of the participants, it can are not statistically significant (table 4).
be seen that in the case of the UDI there are significant A final analysis refers to the existence of possible
differences (F=9.283, p=0.000); the polynomial contrast differences in the brand personality of the parties by
96
UDI DC PC
Lower- Lower- Lower-
Upper- middle Upper- middle Upper- middle
Upper Upper Upper
middle and middle and middle and
lower lower lower
Honest/sincere 2.23 1.96 1.56 2.34 2.19 1.92 2.12 2.23 2.19
Capable/competent 2.91 2.69 2.42 2.54 2.47 2.22 2.49 2.55 2.53
Current/
2.10 1.88 1.63 2.01 1.80 1.64 2.10 2.24 2.25
contemporary
Energetic/vibrant 2.50 2.32 2.13 2.56 2.32 2.08 2.87 2.87 2.92
Unique/different 2.50 2.19 1.92 2.2 2.12 1.69 2.32 2.37 2.16
TOTAL 2.45 2.21 1.93 2.33 2.18 1.91 2.30 2.45 2.41
Table 4. Brand personality of the political parties evaluated by socioeconomic group

Left Center Right
UDI DC PC UDI DC PC UDI DC PC
Honest/sincere 1.47 2.12 2.60 1.98 2.21 2.04 2.66 2.26 1.78
Capable/competent 2.37 2.41 2.82 2.67 2.42 2.40 3.30 2.49 2.35
Current/
1.57 1.71 2.48 1.87 1.87 2.03 2.45 2.02 2.05
contemporary
Energetic/vibrant 2.11 2.18 3.02 2.36 2.35 2.84 2.65 2.64 2.81
Unique/different 2.03 1.98 2.54 2.07 1.99 2.03 2.84 2.23 2.30
TOTAL 1.91 2.08 2.69 2.19 2.17 2.27 2.78 2.33 2.26
Table 5. Brand personality of political parties evaluated by political position

political position. The interviewees were grouped into and the PC (t=3.599, p=0.000), but not between these
three segments according to their self-positioning: last two parties. In other words, the people on the
values 1 to 3 were labeled as left, values 4 to 7 as center right evaluate the UDI with more brand personality
and values 8 to 10 as right. The results show that, among attributes, and evaluate the DC and the PC similarly.
people who define themselves as left and right, there
are significant differences in the evaluation of political COMPARISON WITH PRIOR RESEARCH
parties (table 5). In the case of those on the left, as the When comparing the results obtained in this study
parties moves to the left, people evaluate them better with those reported by Smith (2009) in England, as
(F=28.851, p=0.000). In this case, the polynomial well as those of Aaker’s (1997the original study, it is
analysis confirms that this change is linear (F =52.218, possible to observe that there are important similarities
p=0.000). In the case of those on the right, there are and differences between them (see table 6)4.
differences (F=8.376, p=0.000) that are not linear in the Regarding the similarities, the most important
political continuum. Differences appear between the dimension in the three studies is related to the elements
evaluation of the UDI versus the DC (t=3.253, p=0.001) of honesty/sincerity. Although this feature is shown in
97
Smith (2009)
Aaker (1997) USA Explained United Kingdom Explained Chile (2017) Explained
42 traits variance 34 traits variance 30 traits variance
Down-to-earth,
family-oriented, Honest, reliable,
small-town, honest, wholesome, sincere, Honest, reliable,
sincere, real, 26.5% real, sentimental, 32% sincere, wholesome, 43.8%
wholesome, original, down-to-earth and real and confident.
cheerful, sentimental, friendly.
and friendly.
Daring, trendy,
exciting, spirited, cool, Smooth, good- Current, cool,
young, imaginative, looking, trendy, young, contemporary, trendy,
25.1% 6% 5.8%
unique, , up-to-date, cool, exciting and exciting, fashionable
independent , , , contemporary. and good-looking.
andcontemporary .
Spirited, daring,
Spirited, daring, imaginative,
[Not Applicable] - imaginative, up-to- 10% sentimental, friendly, 3.7%
date and cheerful. cheerful and
extroverted.
Successful, technical,
Reliable, hardworking,
Leader, confident, intelligent, secure,
secure, intelligent,
intelligent, successful, rugged, leader,
technical, corporate, 17.5% 4% 7.0%
hardworking, tough, masculine,
successful, leader,
technical and secure. hardworking, calm
and confident.
and down-to-earth.
Upper class,
glamorous, good-
11.9% [Not Applicable] - [Not Applicable] -
looking, charming,
feminine and smooth.
Outdoosy, masculine,
Masculine, rugged,
western, tough and 8.8% 5% [Not Applicable] -
tough and outdoorsy.
rugged.
Unique, original and Unique, original and

[Not Applicable] - 3% 3.5%
independent. independent.
Table 6. Comparison of the dimensions of the studies by Aaker (1989), Smith (2009) and current
(grouped by relative similarity).
several studies as the most relevant, in the case of politics terms of the dimensions that are built based on their
it acquires a particular explanatory power, particularly in features. Although in the study by Smith (2009) there
Chile, becoming –by far– the personality trait of greater is a dimension related to toughness, the rest are quite
relative importance. Second, the three studies highlight similar, beyond the denomination chosen for each factor.
a dimension linked to being current/contemporary, This suggests the existence of a concurrent validity in
as well as another linked to the worker/professional. the brand personality studies of political parties. To
These three elements appear cross-sectionally in the this we must add that the variance explained by the
studies using both commercial brands and parties from dimensions in this study is similar to that observed
England and Chile. Additionally, these two studies by Smith, which reaches 60% in the six dimensions
related to political parties have a high similarity in with an eigenvalue higher than 1 (this study achieves
98
a 63.87%). This means that the dimensions to evaluate students. There is a series of dimensions that underlies
the parties tend to be, in essence, similar among the the responses of the people interviewed and that
university students of the United Kingdom and Chile, manages to explain almost two thirds of the variability
which gives a strong support to the use of the concept in the answers obtained. In other words, it is possible
of brand personality in the field of political parties. to point out that the measurement of brand personality
Regarding the differences, the most relevant arise in political parties has a good validity construct, which
when contrasting these results with the study by Smith allows to raise the pertinence of the concepts assumed
(2009), which has six factors, while the Chilean study in its measurement (Cronbach, 1960). This must be
only has five (such as Aaker, 1997). Although this complemented by the fact that the extracted traits were
dimensional structure is similar in number, it is not linked without problems in one factor, each with factor
exactly the same when comparing the studies developed loadings of around 0.5 or higher (that is, none had to
in the context of political parties. In addition, these be eliminated of the study) and that the reliability of
two studies in personality of political brand have a the dimensions was met, since Cronbach’s Alphas were
level of explained variance of nearly 60%, lower than superior to 0.7 in all cases. That is, the measurement
that reported by Aaker (1997), which achieves over and use of brand personality in the context of political
80% in its five dimensions. This may be indicative parties possesses the basic psychometric properties
that, although in the case of political parties the brand necessary to affirm that we are dealing with a concept
personality model possesses a good level of explanatory that appropriately accounts for the phenomenon we
power, the personality traits employed are less powerful are studying.
in the analysis of political brands than in the analysis In addition, similar results in terms of dimensions
of brands in the world of commercial products. were previously observed in the United Kingdom by
On the other hand, when comparing these results Smith (2009). The similarity between the two studies
with those observed by Araya and Etchebarne (2014b) occurs at several levels: in terms of the structure of
in their analysis of the perception of political parties, factors, which differs only in one (five versus six);
there are quite a few differences, mainly due to the regarding the percentage of explained variance in both
scarce comparability of the studies and the limitations studies by the list of traits, which in both cases exceeds
of how the data were reported by those authors. For 60%, and in terms of the similarity of the traits of each
example, right-wing parties tended to be grouped as dimension. Thus, there are essential elements that raise
conservative and traditional, which is not consistent the potential existence of concurrent validity of the
with the idea of the capacity attribute, the most present concept of brand personality in political parties and of
for those parties according to Aaker (1997) and Smith’s the instrument used to measure it (Campbell & Fiske,
(2009) classification. 1959; Messick, 1994).
CONCLUSIONS DISCUSSION
Assuming that the construction of a positive This study provides a solid methodologically tool for
perception of a political party is a key strategic element the strategic evaluation of political parties as perceived
towards which various communicational actions point, by citizens (that is, as brands). The citizens –the same
this study examined the adequacy of the notion of that in another context are consumers– see a way of
brand personality in this area. The scale originally being of the parties (personality) and bond with them
developed by Aaker (1997) and adapted to political in terms of their honesty, competence, being current,
parties by Smith (2009) was applied in a sample of energy and being different from others (Scammell,
Chilean university students. This group, as part of the 2015). Considering these elements can significantly help
young segment, represents a sector that is particularly the parties to develop and maintain positive relations
critical and distant from current politics; the authorities with society in general, and also to help their members
have made various efforts to encourage them to be to be more persuasive (Ahmad & Thyagaraj, 2015).
more in tune with the institutional democratic system. In this regard, those personality features, and
The results show, in the first place, the adequacy of particularly the first one (the perception of honesty)
the brand personality model to evaluate the political appear as relevant factors to generate a more powerful
parties –at least in Chile–, for a group of university relationship between citizens (at least university
99
students) and the political world (Smith, 2009). This that, in a general context of poor evaluation, there are
implies that this should be a fundamental axis of the some differences. The main asset of the UDI is the idea
parties’ strategy to improve their relationship with of its aptitude/capacity, which is consistent with the
citizens, and also supports the current action of several permanent discourse of the right on efficiency and
governments of the region that are taking measures capacity/competence (Muñoz-Navarro, 2008). This
to regulate and making transparent the action of the occurs in all socioeconomic segments and political
parties, especially in terms of their use of resources positions, although obviously more among people of
(Engel, 2015). upper class and right-wing. In the case of the PC, it
The above does not mean that the use of the brand stands out in several attributes over the other parties
personality concept explains the complexity of the (even though it is not a positive evaluation), particularly
problem. This study shows some elements to consider, in the energy dimension. This would highlight an aspect
but also has some limitations. The first one is that of the left and the PC, particularly in the university world:
the dimensions detected in the Chilean and British being active, being in the mobilizations (Llamazarez &
studies with political parties are not exactly the Sandell, 2003). In addition, this party has a relatively
same and, in turn, these also differ partially from the similar assessment in all the socioeconomic segments
studies conducted on commercial brands (Aaker, 1997; and the change in the perception of its brand personality
Olavarrieta et al., 2010). is according to the political position (worse evaluation of
In addition, the explained variance in the studies on right-wing people). The case of the DC is a paradox. In
commercial brands is superior to the one observed in a sample in which the vast majority of respondents self-
two studies on political parties (Chile and England). declares as center-wing, the parties with the best relative
This shows that, although it functions adequately as a evaluation are the UDI (right) and the PC (left). This
strategic tool for evaluating political-communication would show, apparently, the relevance of having some
efforts and possesses the basic elements of validity and identifying element, as it is in the case of the PC with
reliability, the concept of brand personality needs to the energy or of the UDI with the aptitude/competence.
be used judiciously. That is, it can be a relevant tool Finally, it is important to emphasize that the sample
to examine and compare the situation of political used (university students) represents a limitation and
parties in Chile, but its adaptation process from the strength of the study. A limitation because the results
world of commercial brands is not finalized. As noted have a tentative character: it is a non-probabilistic
by Gorbaniuk et al. (2015), it is possible that there are sample of young people with high educational level
additional attributes to those indicated here, typical and upper and middle socioeconomic status. In this
of politics, that are not considered, which should regard, future studies should examine other segments
be addressed by future research. Along with this, to see if the detected results can also be obtained in
it is important to measure the effective association alternative groups of greater age, different education
between the concept of brand personality and political and from lower-income sectors, so that there is more
adhesion and effective voting, to see if that aspect – evidence on the key dimensions of evaluation of political
that has been observed in the market of goods and parties in Chile and, ideally, in Latin America (Valdez
services– also occurs in the political context (Ahmad Cepeda, 2003).
& Thyagaraj, 2015). However, the fact that this study has been done
Along with the above, this study explored the brand with university students is also a strength, since it
personality of a set of parties of different tendencies, as allows examining at least part of the case of the youth
well as the role of some variables such as gender, SEG and segment. As it can be seen, their evaluation of the parties
political self-positioning. The results show, first, that is deficient, that is, they do not see any outstanding
the general evaluation of the parties is quite negative, element. This is observed in the fact that there are no
with low scores in all the dimensions (low presence of average scores over 3, which is neutral in the Likert
the relevant elements of the brand personality). This scale used (in some cases, there are average values close
only confirms the poor image that young people have to 1.9); this shows that the key dimensions of brand
of political parties, as has been documented by several personality observed in the parties are weak for this
previous investigations (Carrasco, 2010). young and educated segment. If we consider that the
Regarding the differences in the perception of the generation participating of this study has shown a high
brand personality of the parties, it is possible to say capacity for political mobilization in Chile (Cárdenas
100
Neira, 2016), it is notorious that it is so self-placed an important level of explanation of the variance when
outside the spaces created by the parties, which appear analyzing a party as if it were a commercial brand.
in this study as instances with which it does not seem This study provides evidence of the relative
relevant or attractive to have a link. applicability of the brand concept to political parties,
Viewed from a more general perspective, the study as has been debated by various authors (Marland, 2003).
calls attention to the importance of incorporating In light of the results, people (at least young people)
elements of communication management and image perceive these entities also in terms of the elements
from other areas, as useful tools to improve the that constitute their relationship with brands, which is
effectiveness of political communication. The elements another evidence that the roles of consumer and citizen
of analysis of the user-brand relationship described by are different, but that they share common evaluation
Aaker’s personality model are significant; these showed processes of the entities studied (Smith, 2009).
FOOTNOTES
1. Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), a platform that includes a selected collection of Latin American scientific
publications.
2. Around 5,700,000 people voted in the presidential elections of 2013; less than 400,000 were between 18 and 25 years
old (SERVEL, 2015).
3. It is important to clarify at this point that these evaluations are only of an exploratory nature, since the sample used
does not allow extrapolations to a larger universe of voters.
4. In terms of factor structure, only those studies are compared since it uses the same set of items.
REFERENCES
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3151897
Ahmad, A. & Thyagaraj, K. (2015). Understanding the influence of brand personality on consumer
behavior. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 3(1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.12720/joams.3.1.38-43
Araya-Castillo, L. & Etchebarne, S. (2014a). Personalidad de marca de partidos políticos: Una mirada
desde la comunidad estudiantil universitaria [Brand personality of political parties: a glance from
young university students]. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud, 12(1), 225-
241. Retrieved from http://revistaumanizales.cinde.org.co/index.php/Revista-Latinoamericana/
article/view/1123
Araya-Castillo, L. & Etchebarne, S. (2014b). Personalidad de marca de los partidos políticos: propuesta
de modelo [Political Parties’ Brand Personality: A suggested model]. Folios, (40), 67-89.
https://doi.org/10.17227/01234870.40folios67.89
Austin, J., Siguaw, J., & Mattila, A. (2003). A re-examination of the generalizability of the Aaker brand
personality measurement framework. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11(2), 77-92.
Banerjee, S. & Ray Chaudhuri, B. (2016). Influence of voter demographics and newspaper in shaping
political party choice in India: An empirical investigation. Journal of Political Marketing, 1, 1-28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2016.1147513
101
Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitreat-
multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
Cárdenas Neira, C. (2016). El movimiento estudiantil chileno (2006-2016) y el uso de la web social:
nuevos repertorios de acción e interacción comunicativa [The Chilean student movement (2006-
2016) and the use of the social web: new action and communicative interaction repertoires]. Última
Década, 24(45), 93-116. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-22362016000200006
Carrasco, G. (2010). Participación y tendencias políticas en estudiantes universitarios: el caso de la
Universidad de Chile [Political participation and trends in university students: the case of the University
of Chile]. Ultima Década, 18(32), 85-103. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-22362010000100005
Cronbach, L. J. (1960). Essentials for Psychological Testing. New York: Harper and Row.
Engel, E. (2015). Informe Final: Consejo Asesor Presidencial contra los Conflictos de Interés, el Tráfico de
Influencias y la Corrupción [Final Report: Presidential Advisory Council against Conflicts of Interest,
Trafficking in Influences and Corruption]. Revista de derecho (Valdivia), 28(2), 267-269.
https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09502015000200015
Farrandi, J., Valette-Florence, P., & Fine-Falcy, S. (2000). Aaker’s brand personality scale in a French
context: A replication and preliminary test of validity. In H. E. Spotts, & H. L. Meadow (Eds.),
Developments of Marketing Science, Vol. 23. (pp. 7−13) Montreal: Academy of Marketing Science.
Frías, S. M. (2001). Opiniones y Actitudes (Nº39) Cultura política en España: Conocimiento, Actitudes,
y Práctica [Opinion and Attitudes (Nº 39) Political Culture in Spain: Knowledge, Attitudes and
Practice]. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.
Gorbaniuk, O., Kusak, K., Kogut, A., & Kustos, M. (2015). Dimensions of political party “personality”
perception. Journal of Political Marketing, 14(1-2), 35-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2014.990840
Guthrie, S. E. (1997). Anthropomorphism: A definition and a theory. In R.W. Mitchell, N.S. Thompson,
& H.L. Miles (Eds.), Antropomorphism Anecdots and Animals (pp.50-58). Albany, New York: State
University of New York Press.
Kantar Ibope Media (2016). Establishment Survey 2016. Working paper. Santiago, Chile.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer
Research, 29(4), 595-600. https://doi.org/10.1086/346254
Lee, H. S. & Cho, C. H. (2012). Sporting event personality: Scale development and sponsorship
implications. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 14(1), 46-63.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-14-01-2012-B005
Llamazares, I. & Sandell, R. (2003). Partidos políticos y dimensiones ideológicas en Argentina, Chile,
México y Uruguay. Esbozo de un análisis espacial [Political parties and ideological dimension
in Argentina, Mexico and Uruguay: Outline of a spatial analysis]. Polis: Investigación y Análisis
Sociopolítico y Psicosocial, (99), 43-70. Retrieved from http://polismexico.izt.uam.mx/index.php/rp/
article/view/434
Lock, A. & Harris, P. (1996). Political marketing-vive la difference! European Journal of Marketing,
30(10/11), 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569610149764
Malhotra, N. (2008). Investigación de Mercados [Marketing Research]. (5ª ed.). Mexico: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Marland, A. (2003). Marketing political soap: A political marketing view of selling candidates like soap,
of electioneering as a ritual, and of electoral military analogies. Journal of Public Affairs, 3(2), 103-115.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.139
Maureira, S. T. (2008). De lo épico a lo cotidiano: Jóvenes y generaciones políticas en Chile [From the
Epic to the Everyday: Youth and Political Generations in Chile]. Revista de Ciencia Política, 28(2), 143-
160. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-090X2008000200006
Messick, S. (1994). Foundations of validity: Meaning and consequences in psychological assessment.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10(1), 1-9.
102
Muñoz-Navarro, A. (2008). La nación en el discurso de la derecha. Un análisis ideológico del debate

parlamentario chileno [The concept of nation within de right-wing discourse. An ideological analysis
in the Chilean Congress debate]. Signo y Pensamiento, 27(53). 174-191. Retrieved from
http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0120-48232008000200011
Murphy, L., Moscardo, G., & Benckendorff, P. (2007). Using brand personality to differentiate regional
tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507302371
Newman, B. I. (1999). The Mass Marketing of Politics: Democracy in an Age of Manufactured Images. London:
Sage Publications.
Olavarrieta, S., Friedmann, R., & Manzur, E. (2010). Brand Personality in Chile: a combined emic-etic
approach. Estudios de Administración, 17(1), 25–50. Retrieved from http://estudiosdeadministracion.
unegocios.cl/images/stories/pdf/E_A_2010_VOL_17_N1_solavarrieta_rfriedmann_emanzur.pdf
O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (1990). The Phenomenon of Political Marketing. London: Springer.
Peng, N. & Hackley, C. (2009). Are voters, consumers? A qualitative exploration of the voter-consumer
analogy in political marketing. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 12(2), 171-186.
Rothschild, M. L. (1979). Marketing communications in nonbusiness situations or why it’s so hard to sell
brotherhood like soap. The Journal of Marketing, 43(2), 11-20. https://doi.org/10.2307/1250737
Sandoval, J. & Carvallo, V. (2017). Discursos sobre política y democracia de estudiantes universitarios
chilenos de distintas organizaciones juveniles [Discourses on politics and democracy by Chilean
students from different youth organizations]. Revista Española de Ciencia Política, (43), 137-160.
https://doi.org/10.21308/recp.43.06
Scammell, M. (2015). Politics and image: the conceptual value of branding. Journal of Political Marketing,
14(1-2), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2014.990829
Schneider, H. (2004). Branding in politics—manifestations, relevance and identity-oriented
management. Journal of Political Marketing, 3(3), 41-67. https://doi.org/10.1300/J199v03n03_03
SERVEL (2015). Resultados electorales [Electoral results]. Retrieved from http://www.servel.cl/ss/site/
elecciones_presidenciales_1989_al_2013.html
Smith, G. (2009). Conceptualizing and testing brand personality in British politics. Journal of Political
Marketing, 8(3), 209-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377850903044858
Valdez Zepeda, A. (2003). El debate contemporáneo sobre la mercadotecnia política en América Latina:
Una respuesta a sus críticos [The contemporary debate on political marketing in Latin America: a
response to its critics]. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 6(56). Retrieved from https://www.ull.
es/publicaciones/latina/20035624valdez.htm
103
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Rodrigo Uribe, psychologist (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile), master in Political Communication
and Ph. D. of Communication (University of Sheffield). Associate professor of the Faculty of Economics and
Business of the University of Chile. Director of the Master in Marketing at the University of Chile. His lines
of research are the study of audiences, the effects of advertising on adults and children, new forms of
marketing communication and the use of social networks as a persuasive medium.
Cristian Buzeta, commercial engineer, master in Marketing (University of Chile) and doctoral student in
Applied Economics (University of Antwerpen). Researcher at the Faculty of Economics and Business of the
University of Chile. Former commercial and customer service manager at Kantar IBOPE Media - Chile and
director of market research projects. Maintains a line of research in social media, marketing and audiences.
He is an associate professor of the Communications Faculty of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
and a part-time professor of Market Research at the University of Chile.
Javiera Reyes, economist and master in Marketing (University of Chile). Along with her academic work, she
has been a student leader, coming to occupy the vice-presidency of the Student Federation of the University
of Chile (FECH). Her academic interests are political communication and the potential uses of marketing in
the field of political communication management.
104
Copyright of Cuadernos.info is the property of Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile,
Facultad de Comunicaciones and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Brand Personality of Political Parties in Chile

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brand Personality of Political Parties in Chile

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brand Personality of Political Parties in Chile

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CUADERNOS.

INFO Nº 41 ISSN 0719-3661

Received: 09-19-2017 / Accepted: 10-16-2017

Brand personality of political parties in Chile: a view

ABSTRACT RESUMEN RESUMO

INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

CUADERNOS.INFO Nº 41 / DECEMBER 2017 / ISSN 0719-3661 / E-Version: www.cuadernos.info / ISSN 0719-367x

CUADERNOS.INFO Nº 41 / DECEMBER 2017 / ISSN 0719-3661 / E-Version: www.cuadernos.info / ISSN 0719-367x

Spirited Spirited, daring, imaginative, up-to-date and cheerful.

Image Smooth, good-looking, trendy, young, cool, exciting and contemporary.

Leadership Leader, confident, intelligent, successful, hardworking, technical and secure.

Toughness Masculine, rugged, tough and outdoorsy.

Uniqueness Unique, independent and original.

Table 1. Political parties’ brand personality dimensions

CUADERNOS.INFO Nº 41 / DECEMBER 2017 / ISSN 0719-3661 / E-Version: www.cuadernos.info / ISSN 0719-367x

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES to the upper class, 37% to the upper-middle class,

CUADERNOS.INFO Nº 41 / DECEMBER 2017 / ISSN 0719-3661 / E-Version: www.cuadernos.info / ISSN 0719-367x

Figure 1: Distribution of the sample by political self-positioning

CUADERNOS.INFO Nº 41 / DECEMBER 2017 / ISSN 0719-3661 / E-Version: www.cuadernos.info / ISSN 0719-367x

Honest 0.81 0.12 0.24 0.16 0.19

Reliable 0.77 0.18 0.29 0.18 0.18

Sincere 0.73 0.18 0.26 0.22 0.24

Down-to-earth 0.66 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.22

Confident 0.63 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.18

Successful 0.21 0.77 0.21 0.05 0.06

Technical 0.39 0.70 0.16 0.18 0.08

Intelligent 0.29 0.69 0.25 0.20 0.05

Secure 0.39 0.64 0.22 0.15 0.13

Rugged 0.04 0.61 0.20 0.35 0.40

Masculine -0.05 0.52 -0.13 0.01 0.41

Hardworking 0.38 0.50 0.20 0.38 0.17

Smooth 0.45 0.49 0.03 -0.12 -0.09

Down-to-earth 0.46 0.48 0.36 0.07 0.06

Current 0.21 0.27 0.74 0.18 0.11

Cool 0.34 0.10 0.70 0.20 0.20

Trendy 0.19 0.23 0.69 0.25 -0.01

Exciting 0.30 0.10 0.63 0.36 0.23

Good-looking 0.39 0.30 0.61 0.10 0.13

Spirited 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.76 0.10

Daring 0.01 0.04 0.26 0.74 0.12

Imaginative 0.07 0.07 0.29 0.64 0.06

Spirited/vibrant Sentimental 0.29 0.10 0.04 0.64 0.07 3.73 0.83

Friendly 0.48 0.22 0.21 0.53 -0.03

Cheerful 0.32 0.26 0.39 0.50 -0.02

Outdoorsy 0.16 0.33 0.31 0.49 0.36

Unique 0.28 0.15 0.18 0.13 0.72

Unique/different Independent 0.34 0.16 0.27 0.11 0.61 3.54 0.75

Original 0.45 0.10 0.40 0.18 0.49

CUADERNOS.INFO Nº 41 / DECEMBER 2017 / ISSN 0719-3661 / E-Version: www.cuadernos.info / ISSN 0719-367x

Dimensión UDI DC PC Total

Honest/sincere 1.97 2.19 2.17 2.11

Capable/competent 2.71 2.44 2.52 2.56

Current/contemporary 1.91 1.84 2.19 1.98

Spirited/vibrant 2.34 2.36 2.88 2.53

Unique/different 2.24 2.05 2.28 2.19

TOTAL 2.23 2.17 2.41 2.27

Table 3. Evaluation of the brand personality of political parties

Figure 2. Brand personality of the evaluated political parties

CUADERNOS.INFO Nº 41 / DECEMBER 2017 / ISSN 0719-3661 / E-Version: www.cuadernos.info / ISSN 0719-367x

Table 4. Brand personality of the political parties evaluated by socioeconomic group