Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Familiarity’

One of the more difficult and troublesome decisions in brand management arises when entering a product category that is new to the company: Whether to up-start a new brand for the product or to endow it with the identity of an existing brand — that is, extending a company’s established brand from an original product category to a product category of a different type. The first question that would probably pop-up is “how different is the new product?”, acting as a prime criterion to judge whether the parent-brand fits the new product.

Notwithstanding, the choice is not completely ‘black or white’ since intermediate solutions are possible through the intricate hierarchy of brand (naming) architecture. But focusing on the two more distinct strategic branding options above helps to see more clearly the different risk and cost implications of launching a new product brand versus using the name of an existing brand from an original product category. Notably, the manufacturers, retailers and consumers, all perceive risks, albeit from the different perspective of each party given its role.

  • Note: Brand extensions represent the transfer of a brand from one type of product to a different type, to be distinguished from line extensions that pertain to the introduction of variants within the same product category (e.g., flavours, colours).

This is a puzzling marketing and branding problem also from an academic perspective. Multiple studies have attempted in different ways to identify the factors that best explain or account for successful brand extensions. While the stream of research on this topic helpfully points out to major factors, some more commonly agreed upon, a gap remains between the sorts of extensions predicted to succeed according to the studies and the extensions performed by companies that happen to succeed or fail in the markets in reality. A plausible reason for missing the outcomes of actual extensions, as argued by the researchers Milberg, Sinn, and Goodstein (2010), is neglecting the competitive settings in categories that are the target of brand extension (1).

Perhaps one of the most famous examples of a presumptuous brand extension has been the case of Virgin (UK), from music to cola (drink), airline, train transport, and mobile communication (ironically, the origin of the brand as Virgin Music has since been abolished). The success of Virgin’s distant extensions is commonly attributed to the personal character of Richard Branson, the entrepreneur behind the brand: his boldness, initiative, willingness to take risks, and adventurism. These traits seem to have transferred to his business activities and helped to make the extensions more credible and acceptable to consumers.

Another good example relates to Philips (originated in The Netherlands). Starting from lighting (bulbs, now more in LED), the brand extended over the years to personal care (e.g., face shavers for men, hair removal for women), sound and vision (e.g., televisions, DVD and Blue-Ray players, originally in radio sets), PC products, tablets and phones, and more. Still, when looking overall at the different products, systems and devices sharing the Philips brand, they can mostly be linked as members in a broad category of ‘electrics and electronics’, a primary competence of the company. As the company grew with time, launched more types of products whilst advancing with technology, and its Philips brand was perceived as having greater experience and good record in brand extensions, this could facilitate the market acceptance of further extensions to additional products.

  • In the early days of the 1930s to 1950s radio and TV sets relied for operation on vacuum tubes, later moving to electronic circuits with transistors or digital components. Hence, historically there was an apparent physical-technological connection between those products and the brand’s origin in light bulbs, a connection much harder to find now between category extensions, except for the broad category linkage suggested above.

Academic research has examined a range of ‘success factors’ of brand extensions, such as: perceived quality of the parent-brand; fit between the parent-brand and the extension category; degree of difficulty in making an extension (challenge undertaken); parent-brand conviction; parent-brand experience; marketing support; retailer acceptance; perceived risk (for consumers) in adopting the brand extension; consumer innovativeness; consumer knowledge of the parent-brand and category extension; the stage of entry into another category (i.e., as an early or a late entrant). The degree of fit of the parent-brand (and original product) with the extension category is revealed as the most prominent factor contributing to better acceptance and evaluation (e.g., favourability) of the extension in consumer studies.

Aaker and Keller specified in a pioneer article (1990) two requirements for fit: (a) the extension product category is a direct complement or a substitute of the original category; (b) the company, with its people and facilities, is perceived as having the knowledge and capability of manufacturing the product in the extension category. These requirements reflect a similarity between the original and extension product categories that is necessary for successful transfer of a favourable attitude towards the brand to the extension product type (2). A successful transfer of attitude may occur, however, also if the parent-brand has values, purpose or image that seem relevant to the extension product category, even when the technological linkage is less tight or apparent (as the case of Virgin suggests).

  • Aaker and Keller found that fit, based especially on competence, stands out as a contributing factor to higher consumer evaluation (level of difficulty is a secondary factor while perceived quality plays more of a ‘mediating’ role).

Volckner and Sattler (2006) worked to sort out the contributions of ten factors, as retrieved from academic literature, to the success of brand extensions; relations were refined with the aid of expert advice from brand managers and researchers (3). Contribution was assessed in their model in terms of (statistical) significance and relative importance. The researchers found  fit to be the most important factor driving (perceived) brand extension success in their study, followed by marketing support, parent-brand conviction, retail acceptance, and parent-brand experience. The complete model tested for more complex structural relationships represented through mediating and moderating (interacting) factors (e.g., the effect of marketing support on extension success ‘passes’ through fit and retailer acceptance).

For brand extensions to be accepted by consumers and garner a positive attitude, consumers should recognise a connectedness or linkage between the parent-brand and the category extension. The fit between them can be based on attributes of the original and extension types of product or a symbolic association. Keller and Lehmann (2006) conclude in this respect that “consumers need to see the proposed extension as making sense” (emphasis added). They identify product development, applied via brand (and line) extensions, as a primary driver of brand growth, and thereby adding to parent-brand equity. Parent-brands do not tend to be damaged by unsuccessful brand extensions, yet the authors point to circumstances where greater fit may result in a negative effect on the parent-brand, and inversely where joining a new brand name with the parent-brand (as its endorser) may protect the parent-brand from adverse outcomes of extension failure (4).

When assessing the chances of success of a brand extension, it is nevertheless important to consider what brands are already present in the extension category that a company is about to enter. Milberg, Sinn, and Goodstein claim that this factor has not received enough attention in research on brand extensions. In particular, one has to take into account the strength of the parent-brand relative to competing brands incumbent in the target category. As a starting point for entering the extension category, they chose to focus on how well consumers are familiar with the competitor brands vis-à-vis the extending brand.  Milberg and her colleagues proposed that a brand extension can succeed despite a worse fit with the category extension due to an advantage in brand familiarity, and vice versa. Consumer response to brand extensions was tested on two aspects: evaluation (attitude) and perceived risk (5).

First, it should be noted, the researchers confirm the positive effect of better fit on consumer evaluation of the brand extension when no competitors are considered. The better fitting extension is also perceived as significantly less risky than a worse fitting extension. However, Milberg et al. obtain supportive evidence that in a competitive setting, facing less familiar brands can improve the fortune of a worse fitting extension, compared with being introduced in a noncompetitive setting: When the incumbent brands are less familiar relative to the parent-brand, the evaluation of the brand extension is significantly higher (more favourable) and purchasing its product is perceived less risky than if no competition is referred to.

  • A reverse outcome is found in the case of better fit where the competitor brands are more highly familiar: A disadvantage in brand familiarity can dampen the brand extension evaluation and increase the sense of risk in purchasing from the extended brand, compared with a noncompetitive setting.

Two studies performed show how considering differences in brand familiarity can change the picture about the effect of brand extension fit from that often found without accounting for competing brands in the extension category.

When comparing different competitive settings, the research findings provide a more constrained support, but in the direction expected by Milberg and colleagues. The conditions tested entailed a trade-off between (a) a worse fitting brand extension competing with less familiar brands; and (b) a better fitting brand extension competing with more familiar brands. In regard to competitive settings:

The first study showed that the evaluation of a worse fitting extension competing with relatively unfamiliar brands is significantly more favourable than a better fitting extension facing more familiar brands. Furthermore, the product of a worse fitting brand extension is preferred more frequently over its competition than the better fitting extension product is (chosen by 72% vs. 6%, respectively). Also, purchasing a product from the worse fitting brand extension is perceived significantly less risky compared with the better fitting brand. These results indicate that the relative familiarity of the incumbent brands that an extension faces would be more detrimental to its odds of success than how well its fit is.

The second study aimed to generalise the findings to different parent-brands and product extensions. It challenged the brand extensions with somewhat more difficult conditions: it included categories that are all relevant to respondents (students), and so competitor brands in extension categories are also relatively more familiar to them than in the first study. The researchers acknowledge that the findings are less robust with respect to comparisons of the contrasting competitive settings. Evaluation and perceived risk related to the worse fitting brand competing with less familiar brands are equivalent to the better fitting brand extension facing more familiar brands. The gap in choice shares is reduced though in this case it is still statistically significant (45% vs. 15%, respectively). Facing less familiar brands may not improve the response of consumers to the worse fitting brand extension (i.e., not overcoming the effect of fit) but at least it is in a position as good as of the better fitting brand extension competing in a more demanding setting.

  • Perceived risk intervenes in a more complicated relationship as a mediator of the effect of fit on brand extension evaluation, and also in mediating the effect of relative familiarity in competitive settings. Mediation implies, for example, that a worse fitting extension evokes greater risk which is responsible for lowering the brand extension evaluation; consumers may seek more familiar brands to alleviate that risk.

A parent-brand can assume an advantage in an extension category even though it encounters brands that are familiar within that category, and may even be considered experts in the field: if the extending brand is leading within its original category and is better known beyond it, this can give it a leverage on the incumbents if those brands are more ‘local’ or specific to the extension category. For example, it would be easier for Nikon leading brand of cameras to extend to binoculars (better fit) where it meets brands like Bushnell and Tasco than extending to scanners (also better fit) where it has to face brands like HP and Epson. In the case of worse fitting extensions, it could be significant for Nikon whether it extends to CD players and competes with Sony and Pioneer or extends to laser pointers and faces Acme and Apollo — in the latter case it may enjoy the kind of leverage that can overcome a worse fit. (Product and brand examples are borrowed from Study 1). Further research may enquire if this would work better for novice consumers than experts. Milberg, Sinn and Goodstein recommend to consider additional characteristics that brands may differ on (e.g., attitude, image, country of origin), suggesting more potential bases of strength.

Entering a new product category for a company is often a difficult challenge, and choosing the more appropriate branding strategy for launching the product can be furthermore delicate and consequential. If the management chooses to make a brand extension, it should consider aspects of relative strength of its parent-brand, such as familiarity, against the incumbent brands of the category it plans to enter in addition to a variety of other characteristics of product types and its brand identity. However, the managers can take advantage as well of intermediate solutions in brand architecture to combine a new brand name with an endorsement of an established brand (e.g., higher-level brand for a product range). Choosing the better branding strategy may be helped by better understanding of the differences and relations (e.g., hierarchy) between product categories as perceived by consumers.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Notes:

1. Consumer Reactions to Brand Extensions in a Competitive Context: Does Fit Still Matter?; Sandra J. Milberg, Francisca Sinn, & Ronald C. Goodstein, 2010; Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (October), pp. 543-553.

2.  Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions; David A. Aaker and Kevin L. Keller, 1990; Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), pp. 27-41.

3.  Drivers of Brand Extension Success; Franziska Volckner and Henrik Sattler, 2006; Journal of Marketing, 70 (April), pp. 18-34.

4. Brands and Branding: Research Finding and Future Priorities; Kevin L. Keller and Donald R. Lehmann, 2006; Marketing Science, 25 (6), pp. 740-759.

5. Ibid. 1.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

It is usually not a pleasant feeling to be alone in a scary place or event — think of being stuck in a dark elevator or being involved in a car accident. People commonly seek to be with someone for comfort and company. But the companion does not always have to be another person. A research by Dunn and Hoegg (2014) provides corroboration that the need to share fear matters to humans while the identity of the companion, whether a person or an object, is less critical.  More specifically, sharing fear with a product from an unfamiliar brand may facilitate a quick emotional attachment with that brand without requiring to build a relationship over a lengthy period of time (1).

Fear is evoked by the presence or anticipation of a danger or threat. Feeling fear may be triggered by an unfamiliar event to which one is unsure how to respond (uncertainty) or an unexpected event at a specific moment (surprise); experiencing fear is furthermore likely when the event encountered is both unfamiliar and unexpected. It is important to note, nonetheless, that not every encounter with an unfamiliar or unexpected event necessarily leads to  fear. The Amygdala in the temporal lobe of the brain is the “centre” where fear arises. However, the amygdala like other brain structures is responsible for multiple functions. The amygdala is activated in response to unfamiliarity, unpredictability or ambiguity, but not every instance necessarily means the evocation of fear. For example, tension from facing an unfamiliar problem that one is at loss how to solve may not result in fear. Additionally, fear as well as other states of emotion are the outcome of appraisal of physical feelings (e.g., faster heartbeats, startle, warmth), considering the conditions in which they were triggered; it is a cognitive interpretation of their meaning (“why do I feel that way?”). Activation of other brain structures together with the amygdala may influence whether similar feelings triggered by an unexpected event are interpreted, for instance, as fear, anger, or surprise. The context in which an event occurs can matter a lot for the appraisal of emotions (2).

Dunn and Hoegg emphasise the emotional charge of consumer attachment with a brand versus cognitive underpinnings. Brand attachment has often been conceptualised as the product of a relationship between consumers and the target brand built over time. It should take a longer time to achieve a more solid brand attachment because of cognitive processes for establishing brand connections in memory and stronger favourable brand attitudes. However, this explanation is subject to criticism of missing the important role of emotions in bonding between consumers and a brand which does not necessarily require a long time. By focusing their studies on unfamiliar brands, Dunn and Hoegg intended to show that emotional attachment can emerge much more quickly when the consumers are distressed and are looking for a partner to share their fear with, and that partner or companion can be a brand of a given product.

On the same grounds, the researchers chose a scale of emotional attachment (Thomson, MacInnis and Park, 2005 [3]) as more appropriate over a scale that combines emotional and cognitive aspects of attachment and gives greater weight to cognitive constructs (Park, MacInnis et al., 2010 [4]). The emotional scale comprises three dimensions: (a) Affection (affectionate, friendly, loved, peaceful); (b) Passion (passionate, delighted, captivated); (c) Connection (connected, bonded, attached). Nevertheless, in the later research Park and MacInnis with colleagues offer a broader perspective that accounts for two bases of brand attachment: (i) a connection between self-concept and a brand; and (ii) brand prominence in memory.

While ‘brand prominence’ can be regarded as more cognitive-oriented (accessibility of thoughts and feelings in memory), a ‘brand-self connection’ entails the expansion of one’s concept of self to incorporate others, such as brands, within it — and that involves an emotional element. Park and MacInnis et al. emphasise the brand-self connection as the emotional core of their definition of brand attachment, while brand prominence is a facilitator in actualizing the attachment (analyses substantiate that brand attachment is a better predictor than attitudes of intentions to perform more difficult types of behavior reflecting commitment, and the brand-self connection is more essential for driving this behaviour). The three-dimension scale of emotional brand attachment seems very relevant for the research goals of Dunn and Hoegg, even though it is more restricted from a stand-point of the theoretical roots of brand attachment.

The desire to affiliate with others in scaring and upsetting situations is recognised as a mechanism for coping with negative emotions in those situations. Episodes of armed conflict, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters make people get closer to each other, unite and show solidarity. However, the researchers note that the act of affiliation is essential for coping rather than the affiliation target. That is, the literature on affiliation or attachment relates to interpersonal connections as well as attachment to objects (although objects are viewed as substitutes in absence of other persons [pet animals should also be considered]). We can find support for possible attachment to products and their brands in the human tendency to animate or anthropomorphise objects by assigning them traits of living beings, whether animals or humans. Brands may be animated in order to help consumers relate with them more comfortably, making them appear more vivid to them. It is one of the processes that facilitates the development of consumers’ relationships with their brands in use; consumers connect with brands also through the role brands fulfilled in their personal history, heritage and family traditions, and how brands integrate in their preferred lifestyles (5).

Dunn and Hoegg investigate how consumers connect with a brand on occasions of incidental fear. They make a clear distinction between events that may trigger fear (or other emotions) and fear appeals strategically planned in advertising (e.g., in order to induce a particular desired behaviour). Events that incidentally cause fear would be independent and uncontrolled. Additionally, the intensity and range of emotions felt is expected to differ when consumers actively participate in an event and hence experience it directly in contrast to watching TV ads — in direct consumer experiences, emotional feelings are likely to be more intensive and specific.  In a model for measuring consumption emotions developed and tested by Richins, fear is characterised as a negative and more active (as opposed to receptive) emotion, next to other emotions such as anger, worry, discontent, sadness and shame (6).

  • In their experiments, the researchers try to emulate incidental fear by displaying to participants clips from cinema films or TV series’ episodes, and present evidence that manipulations successfully elicited the intended emotions as dominant in response to each video clip. Yet, it remains somewhat ambiguous how real and direct the experience of watching scenes in a film or a TV programme is perceived and felt with regard to the emotions evoked.

The following are more concrete findings from the studies and their insights:

Emotional brand attachment is generated through perception that the brand shares the fear with the consumer — Study 1 confirms that emotional attachment with an unfamiliar brand is generated when a product (juice) by that brand is present and can be consumed during the fear-inducing experience (more than for emotions of sadness, excitement and happiness). But moreover, it is shown that the emotional attachment is mediated (conditioned) by perception of the consumer that the brand shared the fear with him or her.

Humans precede product brands —  Sharing fear with a brand contributes to stronger emotional brand attachment, but only if they still have a desire generated by fear to affiliate with others. If conversely that desire is satiated by a perception of the consumers that they are already socially affiliated with other people, the effect on brand attachment is muted.

  • Note: Participants in Study 2 were asked to perform a search with words related to feelings of affiliation and social connectedness (e.g., included, accepted, involved) to prime affiliation. Given the statements used to measure (non-)affiliation (e.g., “I feel disconnected from the world around me”), it is a little questionable how effective such a priming condition could be (though the authors show it was sufficient). It might have been more tangible to ask participants to think of people dear to them, family and close friends, and write about them.

Balancing negative and positive emotional effects on attitudes — Based on analyses in Study 2 the researchers also suggest that increased positive effect of emotional brand attachment may counterbalance and override a negative influence of ‘affect transfer’ on attitudes due to fear.

Presence of the brand and attention to it are required yet sufficient — Study 3 demonstrates that neither consumption of the product (juice) nor even touching it (the bottle), both forms of physical interaction, are really needed for feeling affiliated and forming emotional attachment — forced consumption in particular does not contribute to stronger perceived sharing or emotional attachment than merely seeing the product when feeling fear, that is making an eye contact and visually attending to the product in search for a companion. (Unexpectedly, in the case of action and excitement, consuming the drink increases emotional attachment.) Study 4 stresses, nevertheless, that the brand must be present during the emotional event for generating increased emotional attachment — having the brand nearby while experiencing the fear is essential for consumers to feel connected with the brand as their sharing partner (tested with a different product, potato chips).

The research paper suffers from a deficit in practice. That is, marketing managers and professionals might be disappointed to discover that it could be most difficult to have any control of those situations of incidental fear and to act on them to their advantage. In order to have any influence on the consumer a company would be required to anticipate an individual event in advance and to find a way to intervene (i.e., make their product present) without being perceived too intrusive or self-interested — two non-negligible challenges. An additional restriction is posed by the relation of the ‘fear effect’ to brands not previously familiar to the consumers.

Let us consider some potential scenarios where brands might benefit and the difficulties that are likely to arise in implementing it:

Undertaking medical treatments or tests — Some treatments can be alarming and frightening on occasion to different patients. A sense of fear is likely to enter already, and perhaps especially, while waiting. It is a opportunity for introducing the brand-companion in the waiting hall; even more so given that patients are usually not allowed to or prevented from using artifacts during the treatment (mostly no food and drinks). First, a company may have a difficulty to obtain access to places where patients wait for treatment. Second, consumers-patients are likely to bring products with them from home to entertain them (of brands they know). Third, patients often arrive with a family or friend companion, thus satisfying their need for affiliation with another person which dominates affiliation with an object. Still, there is room for ingenuity how to locate the brand close enough to the treatment episode (e.g., shops offering books or toys, especially for children, in the premises of a clinic or hospital).

Trekking or hiking in nature — Some routes, particularly in mountainous areas, can be quite adventurous, not to say dangerous. If a brand could find a way to introduce its product just before the consumer starts the hiking trip, it may benefit from being with him or her if fear arises. One problem is that hikers are advised and even required not to embark alone on more dangerous routes. Another problem is that those trekking or hiking sites often offer local brands, that while not being familiar to the consumers they also are not likely to be available to them at home, and thus the opportunity to develop a relationship based on the early emotional attachment is lost.

Offering legal, financial, insurance, and technical services in events of crisis — In various occasions of accidents, malfunctions, and disasters, people need help to cope with the crisis and the negative emotions it may evoke, particularly fear. A service provider would be expected to counsel the customer in his or her distress, and of course propose a solution (e.g. how to fix one’s home after a fire or an earthquake). Unfortunately,  one cannot make an eye contact with an intangible service. The company has to find creative and practical ways to make itself readily visible and accessible to the consumer when needed by offering instruments and cues for making contact (e.g., an alarm and communication device for the elderly and people with more risky medical conditions).

  • Dunn and Hoegg are aware of the limitation of the findings to unfamiliar brands. They reasonably propose that “because fear leads to a general motivation to affiliate, emotional brand attachment would be enhanced regardless of the familiarity with the brand” (p. 165). It should take further research, however, to substantiate this proposition.

Despite the possible difficulties companies will likely need to deal with, the doors are not completely shut to them to benefit from this phenomenon. But they must come up with creative and non-intursive solutions to make their brands and products present in the right place at the right time. At the very least, marketers should be aware of the potential effect of sharing fear with the consumer and understand how it can work in the brand’s benefit. It is worth remembering, after all, the saying “a friend in need is a friend indeed” whereby in some incidents the friend can be a brand.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Notes:

(1) “The Effect of Fear on Emotional Brand Attachment”; Lea Dunn and JoAndrea Hoegg, 2014; Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (June), pp. 152-168.

(2) “What Is Emotion?: History, Measures and Meanings”; Jerome Kagan, 2007; New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Also see: “The Experience of Emotion”; Lisa Feldman Barrett, Bejta Mesquita, Kevin N. Ochsner, & James J. Gross, 2007; Annual Review of Psychology, 58, pp. 373-403.

(3) “The Ties That Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands”; Mathew Thomson, Deborah J. MacInnis, & C. Whan Park, 2005; Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), pp. 77-91.

(4) “Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers”; C. Whan Park, Deborah J. MacInnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas B. Eisengerich, & Dawn Iacobucci, 2010; Journal of Marketing, 74 (November), 1-17.

(5) “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research”; Susan Fournier, 1998; Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), pp. 343-373.

(6) “Measuring Emotions in the Consumption Experience”; Marsha L. Richins, 1997; Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September), pp. 127-146.

Read Full Post »