Post on 23-Jan-2015
description
transcript
THE EFFECT OF BRAND NAME CONGRUITY
AND PRODUCT CATEGORY ON CONSUMERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD BRAND NAMES
A thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri-Columbia
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
by
HOANG TUAN DUNG
Dr. Cynthia Frisby, Thesis Supervisor
MAY 2008
The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled
THE EFFECT OF BRAND NAME CONGRUITY AND PRODUCT CATEGORY ON CONSUMERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD BRAND NAMES
Presented by Hoang Tuan Dung,
A candidate for the degree of Master of Arts,
And hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance.
Professor Cynthia Frisby
Professor Maria Len-Rios
Professor Kevin Wise
Professor Jeffrey Rouder
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I want to give my undying gratitude to Dr. Cynthia Frisby for accepting the position of
my committee chair and for the overall guidance, patience and professional opinions on
my thesis. I also want to thank her for the assistance in recruiting subjects for my study
and data collection on this project.
I want to give thanks to Dr. Maria Len-Rios, my academic advisor, for all the reading and
re-reading of my thesis draft. I know she now has my paper memorized as well as I do. I
really appreciate the comments and editing suggestions, as it has helped me gain a more
insightful and professional sounding document.
To Dr. Jeffrey Rouder a special thanks for the valuable advice and guidance on the
overall methodology and data analysis of my project. Without his strong, professional
expertise, I am sure my thesis would not be the extremely informative and detailed
project that it is today. I will continue to use his advice and the skills he has taught me
throughout my life.
I want to give my thanks to Dr. Kevin Wise for providing me with pertinent comments on
my hypothesis and research question formulation. His guidance has helped me to build a
strong foundation for my subject matter and keep me focused on the research and input of
data used to obtain the outcome that supported my hypothesis.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..........................................................................................................................II
TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................................... III
LIST OF EXHIBITS..................................................................................................................................V
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................... VI
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................VII
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 1 ...............................................................................................................................................4
1.1. DEFINING CONCEPTS......................................................................................................................4
1.1.1 CONGRUITY ....................................................................................................................................4
1.1.2. TYPICALITY ...................................................................................................................................5
1.1.3. MEANINGFULNESS .........................................................................................................................5
1.1.4. OVERLAP IN THESE CONCEPTS.......................................................................................................6
1.2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.......................................................................................................7
1.2.1. THEORY OF SCHEMA CONGRUITY .................................................................................................7
1.2.2. EFFECT OF BRAND NAME CONGRUITY ON ATTITUDES TOWARD BRAND NAMES .........................10
1.2.3. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PRODUCT CATEGORY AND ATTITUDES TOWARD BRAND NAMES .......12
CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................................................15
2.1. METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................15
2.1.1. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES ...........................................................................................................15
Brand name congruity ................................................................................................................... 15 Product category ........................................................................................................................... 15
2.1.2. DEPENDENT VARIABLES...............................................................................................................16
Attitude toward brand names ......................................................................................................... 16 2.1.3. RESEARCH DESIGN ......................................................................................................................16
2.1.4. PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE ..................................................................................................16
CHAPTER 3 .............................................................................................................................................18
iv
3.1. CATEGORY EFFECTS.......................................................................................................................18
3.2. HYPOTHESIS 1.................................................................................................................................18
3.3. HYPOTHESIS 2.................................................................................................................................19
3.4. OTHER FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................21
CHAPTER 4 .............................................................................................................................................29
4.1. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................29
CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................................................................34
5.1. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................34
APPENDIX ...............................................................................................................................................36
1. MEANS SCORES OF BRAND NAMES ....................................................................................................36
2. SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................................................................38
BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................................55
v
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
1. A Linear Relationship between Congruity and Liking for Detergent………................19
2. Relationship between Congruity and Liking for Detergent…………………………...20
3. Distribution of Names’ Congruity among Perfume and Detergent…………..……….22
4. Comparing Perfume with Detergent………………………………………….……….24 5. Comparing Benefits of Perfume and Detergent……………………………………….26
6. Steep Slope of Perfume Names in the Absence of “Detergentness”………… ………27
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Names with moderate congruity but low liking for perfume………………….............24
2. Names with High Liking for Perfume but Low Liking for Detergent………………...25
vii
THE EFFECT OF BRAND NAME CONGRUITY AND PRODUCT CATEGORY
ON CONSUMERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD BRAND NAMES Hoang Tuan Dung
Dr. Cynthia Frisby, Thesis Supervisor
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research paper is to explore the effect that brand name congruity and
product categories have on attitudes toward brand names. More specifically, attitudes will
be evaluated according to brand names that are congruent, moderately incongruent, and
extremely incongruent from both functional and symbolic product categories. A list of 50
fictitious brand names of perfume (symbolic product) and detergent (functional product)
with alternative levels of congruity was created for the purpose of this study. 38
participants completed a questionnaire to rate how much the names reminded them of a
product category and how much they like them as members of that category. Results
showed that for detergent, name congruity and liking are positively correlated. The more
congruent the names the more they are liked. For perfume, the relationship is more
complicated. Congruity is not a guarantee for liking, even moderate. Names, to be liked
for perfume, have not only to be congruent with perfume but also unique (incongruent
with detergent). Implications of the findings on future naming strategy as well as future
research directions are discussed.
1
INTRODUCTION
Creating favorable consumers’ attitudes toward brands has been viewed as a
central task of brand building and marketing communications (Aaker, 1992; Keller, 1991;
Kohli et al., 2005). Evidence has been found that brand names can have an immediate
impact on brand attitudes based on what the names suggest (Rigeaux-Brickmont, 1982).
Because of these effects on consumers’ attitudes, brand names are among a firm’s most
valuable and strategic assets (Klink and Smith, 2001; Kohli et al., 2005; Meyers-Levy et
al., 1994). For example, the 10 top brands in 2006 were estimated to range from $21.7
billion for Mercedes-Benz to $67 billion for Coca-Cola (Business Week, 2006).
Of all the elements of the marketing mix, brand names appear among the most
stable (Lefkowith and Modenhauer, 1985). Choosing an effective brand name, therefore,
has strategic importance, and, if well done, can offer many advantages. These include
making brands stand out from the pack and easing their trademark registration (Kohli et
al., 2005), facilitating corporate strategies including new product launches, company
creation or renaming (Robertson, 1989), or restructuring (Lefkowith and Modenhauer,
1985). A “good” brand name also facilitates marketing communications by providing
consumers with product information including brand identity, product benefits, and by
eliciting positive attitudes such as trust, confidence, or status (Turley and Moore, 1995).
Research in brand naming has typically focused on how brand name
characteristics, such as length, distinctiveness, congruity, and linguistic features, affect
attitudinal factors, such as liking, recognition, and recall (Kohli et al., 2005). One of the
most studied topics has been on consumers’ attitudes toward brands with congruent and
2
incongruent names. A brand name is said to be congruent when it reminds the consumer
of a product category (Peterson and Ross, 1972) or is “obviously and meaningfully”
associated with the product and its categories (Meyers-Levy et al., 1994). When
evaluated together, conflicting evidence has been found across various studies as to
which brand name – congruent or incongruent - is evaluated more favorably by
consumers (Kohli et al., 2005; Klink, 2001; Pavia and Costa, 1993; Peterson and Ross,
1972; Zinkhan and Martin, 1987; Meyers-Levy et al., 1994).
One possible explanation can be founded in research findings on the effects of ad-
brand incongruity reported by Dahlen (2002). Applying Mandler’s schema congruity
theory, Dahlen suggests that both congruent and incongruent information can positively
affect consumers’ evaluations. While congruent information can have a positive effect on
recall, understanding and, hence, attitudes, congruity, especially when associated with
predictability, lacks the surprise element produced by incongruity, which stimulates
information processing. Under such circumstances, one would expect that both
congruent and incongruent brand names are evaluated positively by consumers.
Although research has identified a product’s category as a defining characteristic
of brand name congruity, there have been very few studies that look at how the impact of
brand name congruity on brand attitudes varies across product categories. The general
assumption is that brand name congruity is perceived and evaluated in the same way for
all product categories. However, product category literature has indicated that consumers
evaluate different product categories differently.
Research on product categorization has established that products can be
classified according to two types of customer needs they address: symbolic/expressive
3
and functional/utilitarian (Ang and Lim, 2006; Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Dahlen, 2002;
Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Mittal; 1989; Bottomley, 2006). One example of
symbolic product is perfume, typically viewed as a product that helps express personality
and status, and boost self-esteem. Detergent can be thought of as utilitarian product given
its functional benefits (cleaning). Functionality and symbolism are said to be two
“distinct concepts in consumers’ minds” (Bhat and Reddy, 1998). As such, these
concepts may involve two different information processing patterns and, thus, influence
brand evaluations. Functional products are rather associated with thinking (Dahlen, 2002)
and “explicit information search” (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982) while expressive
products are believed to express feeling (Dahlen, 2002) and require less product
information (Mittal, 1989).
The purpose of this paper is to integrate two approaches to brand attitudes – the
brand name congruity approach and the product category approach – that have existed
side by side with little apparent relation to one another. Given its exploratory nature, the
study aims at generating useful hypotheses upon which further studies can be conducted.
As such a generalization to detergent and symbolic products requires further studies be
replicated to more products representative of these two categories.
4
CHAPTER 1
This chapter reviews the literature addressing the relationship between congruity
and attitudes toward brand names as well as the effects of product category on these
attitudes. Similar concepts and their overlap will be discussed. The Theory of Schema
Congruity that serves as theoretical framework will also be presented.
1.1. Defining Concepts
The study of how brand name characteristics affect brand attitudes has resulted in
significant works using different academic terms representing the same intellectual
construct in both scholarly and professional writing. The most popular concepts in the
literature that have been used to define relationships between brand name characteristics
and brand attitude are “congruity” (Peterson and Ross, 1972; Meyers-Levy et al., 1994),
“typicality” (Zinkhan and Martin, 1987), or “meaningfulness” (Keller et al.,1998). These
concepts define “congruity” from different aspects, but they also have some overlap. The
purpose of this section is to review these concepts and address the differences and
overlap among them.
1.1.1 Congruity
Peterson and Ross (1972) use “congruence” to determine brand name
remindfulness of product categories. According to their study, consumers possess a
“preconceived notion” of the remindfulness of certain words or words sounds. They
suggested that some words are more remindful of the product categories than other
words. For example, they found that, for the breakfast cereal category, the word
5
“whumies” is reported to be more remindful than the word “ackexma”, while in the
detergent category, “dehax” is more remindful than “whumies”. Therefore, Peterson and
Ross (1972) recommend choosing new brand names which are somewhat congruent with
names of existing brands including competing ones.
Drawing on the schema congruity theory, Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989) define
the general concept of “congruity” as the “match between the attributes of an object, such
as a product, and a relevant schema” [which are representations of prior experience]” (p.
41). More recently, Meyers-Levy et al. (1994) applied this concept to brand names by
specifying that congruity exists when brand names “fit product associations in an obvious
and meaningful manner”. They also stated that congruent brand names are those that are
“meaningful” and “fitting and integratively related to product”.
1.1.2. Typicality
“Typicality” refers to brand name memorability and its ability to “call to mind
imagery that reminds consumers of the product category” (Zinkhan and Martin, 1987, p.
158). These researchers argue that the connection between meaningfulness and imagery
can sometimes be close. They cited Stork Diaper Service as an example of memorable
and typical brand names that evoke certain imagery. This connection, however, can
operate at a subconscious level. Peterson and Ross (1972), for example, found that some
randomly generated syllables are more “remindful” of a particular product class than are
other randomly generated syllables.
1.1.3. Meaningfulness
“Meaningfulness” has been used most frequently in previous research and has had
relatively different but overlapping definitions. In their study of the differences in recall
6
and liking across four categories of brand names: descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, and
coined, Kohli and Suri (2000) group these categories into two categories: meaningful
brand names (descriptive and suggestive), and non-meaningful (arbitrary and coined).
The reason, they argued, was that there were essentially no differences in consumer
responses to descriptive versus suggestive names and arbitrary versus coined names.
To explain these concepts, they offered the following definitions and examples:
“A descriptive brand name describes the product (e.g., “Laser Jet” for a laser printer). A
suggestive brand name evokes the product’s benefit(s), such as “Diehard” batteries. An
arbitrary brand name is a common English word that has no apparent relation to the
product category (e.g., “Arrow” shirts). Finally, a coined name is a fictional word,
inherently unrelated to any product or product category (e.g., “Enron”)”.
Keller et al. (1998) also indicate that descriptiveness and suggestiveness are two
dimensions of meaningfulness. However, they consider choosing a descriptive vs.
suggestive brand name as two distinct strategies to make brand names meaningful. The
first branding strategy –choosing a descriptive brand name- should enhance brand name
awareness and identification with the product category. They provided the example of the
name “Lean Cuisine” said to strengthen the low-calorie frozen food category, and
“Newsweek” for the weekly magazine category. The second strategy - choosing a
suggestive brand name- should help with brand positioning (Keller et al., 1998).
“DieHeart” (auto battery), “Mop’s n Flow” (floor cleaner), and “Beautyrest” (mattresses)
are brand names they viewed as being able to highlight salient product benefits.
1.1.4. Overlap in these Concepts
7
The three concepts reviewed above are frequently used interchangeably in
previous research (e.g. Kohli and Suri, 2000; Peterson and Ross, 1972; Meyers-Levy et
al., 1994). This is because although differences among them exist as described above,
they also have overlap. And very few studies have tried to clearly differentiate them from
each other. Still, from the review presented above, it can be noted that the characteristic
these concepts have in common is the name’s remindfulness of the product category. For
this reason and for the purpose of this paper and in line with the theory of schema
congruity which will be presented in the next section, the concept “congruity” will be
used to replace “typicality” and “meaningfulness” in this paper.
1.2. Theoretical Framework
1.2.1. Theory of Schema Congruity
One of the most common theories used to explain the effects of brand name
congruity is the Theory of Schema Congruity. Schemas are representations of prior
experience that influence action and thought (Mandler, 1982). As a sense-making device,
schemas are hypothesized to serve as the benchmark against which encounters (such as
consumers’ exposure to a brand name) are evaluated (Moreau, Markman and Lehmann,
2001).
Mandler (1982) theorized that two factors influence how new encounters are
evaluated: how easily the encounter is comprehended and how much arousal is induced
by the encounter. This theory holds that the more congruity between an encounter and an
established schema the higher the level of comprehension. However, the evaluations that
schema congruity generates tend to be slightly positive, rather than extremely positive,
8
because they match with consumer expectations about the encounter (Mandler, 1982;
Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989).
In contrast, schema incongruity exists when expectations and predictions are
interrupted (Mandler, 1982; 1993). Schema-incongruent encounters appear to be
challenging to comprehend and, thus, require more mental effort by the consumer
(Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989). Mental activity, in turn, is said to induce arousal and
produce evaluations with higher intensity than does schema congruity (Mandler, 1982).
This author claims that schema incongruity may affect evaluations either positively or
negatively depending on whether the incongruity is resolved or not. Resolved incongruity
occurs when information is processed more extensively to identify, successfully, a
meaningful fit between the brand name and the product. Resolved incongruity is said to
produce consumer gratifications, which contributes to positive evaluation. Unresolved
incongruity, on the other hand, frustrates consumers, resulting in a negative evaluation
(Mandler, 1982).
In consumer research, Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989) operationalized schema
(in)congruity as having three different levels – congruity, moderate incongruity and
extreme incongruity. These operationalizations were derived from the work of Rosch
(1978) and Sujan and Dekleva (1987) on categorization theory. Categorizing is part of the
sense-making process where people group objects that are similar in important aspects in
order to make information processing more efficient and achieve higher cognitive
stability (Cohen and Basu, 2006). These objects are then further grouped according to
different levels or hierarchy of attribute specificity (Sujan and Dekleva, 1987).
9
Products that could be found at the lowest level of specificity – which is called
“product class category” by Sujan and Dekleva (1987) or “superordinate level” by Rosch
(1978) - are portable music devices, for example. Within the portable music device
category, MP3 finds itself at the next higher level of specificity –“product type category”
(Sujan and Dekleva) or “basic level” (Rosch). iPod is an example at the highest level of
specificity – “brand level category” (Sujan and Dekleva) or “subordinate level” (Rosch).
According to Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989), both Rosch (1978) and Sujan and
Dekleva (1987) agreed that the middle level - product type category or basic level -
provides the greatest discrimination between categories and, thus, is most often used by
people to naturally category objects. For example, for the category of portable music
devices, MP3 and Walkman CD Player are likely to be perceived as distinct
subcategories because of the large number of distinct attributes and small number of
shared ones. In contrast, various brands of MP3 might be perceived as having few
distinctive attributes.
On the basis of the categorization theory, Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989)
operationally defined schema congruity as the extent to which all the attributes of a
product are represented within the activated schema. Moderate and extreme incongruities
are differentiated by the “ease with which an incongruity can be addressed within the
activated hierarchical [schema] structure” (p. 41). Moderate incongruity occurs when, for
example, a portable music device’s attributes are not represented within the portable
music device schema, such as small size or high storage capacity, but such incongruity
could be resolved by looking at the MP3 schema. Extreme incongruity occurs when
incongruity is unresolved at any schema level, for example, a portable music device with
10
attributes, such as color printing, which are not represented at either the MP3 nor the
Walkmans level category schema. In an experiment involving tasting and evaluating new
beverage, Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989) found that moderate incongruity produced
more positive evaluations than schema congruity and extreme incongruity. This finding is
consistent with Mandler (1982)’s theorizing on schema congruity.
1.2.2. Effect of Brand Name Congruity on Attitudes toward Brand Names
While most studies on brand naming agree that brand attitude is a function of
brand name congruity, conflicting evidence was found as to which brand names –
congruent or incongruent - are evaluated more favorably by consumers. A large number
of marketing research found that congruent names are favored by consumers over
incongruent names. This school of thought posits that words do have intrinsic meanings
that can be used to create favorable brand associations and thus lead to high initial brand
preference, recall, and recognition (Kohli et al., 2005).
For instance, Klink (2001) found a direct linkage between sound and meaning,
which he defined as sound symbolism. He found that higher frequency vowels (such as i
and e) and consonants (f,s,v, and z) create sounds that might be perceived as smaller,
lighter, thinner, weaker, and more feminine. Klink also discovered that meaningful names
could be created by embedding semantics (words or morphemes) and sound symbolism
together in the names. And such a naming practice could influence product liking and
positioning.
Furthermore, according to Pavia and Costa (1993), through usage, numbers
acquire certain meanings and are often perceived as being linked to mathematics,
technology, and science. Their analysis revealed that brand names containing numbers
11
can look or sound like scientific expertise and symbolize power, performance, and
sophistication. They concluded that alpha-numeric brand names, including referent and
nonsense mixtures of letters and numbers, therefore, can affect consumers’
understandings and expectations of the product.
Peterson and Ross (1972), Zinkhan and Martin (1987), and Kohli et al. (2005) all
reached the same conclusion that congruent/meaningful/typical names, which are names
that have a connection to a product category, are perceived more favorably than
incongruent/non-meaningful/atypical names.
In contrast with this view, other researchers point out that the relationship
between brand name congruity and brand attitude is not a simple one. Prior research,
based on the schema congruity theory proposed by Mandler (1982), suggests that
people’s preferences are related to the level of brand name incongruity in an inverted U-
shaped manner. Incongruent brand names are defined as not fitting product associations
in a meaningful way.
In two studies, Meyers-Levy et al. (1994) found that brand names are evaluated
more favorably when they are relatively incongruent with the product than when they are
either congruent or extremely incongruent with the product.
These conflicting results are indeed consistent with Mandler’s (1982) theorizing
on schema congruity. As noted earlier, congruity may have positive effects on memory
and attitude because of consumers’ preference for the norm and because of the match
with consumer expectations. Incongruity may also have positive memory attitudinal
effects because consumers process the information more carefully.
12
1.2.3. Relationships between Product Category and Attitudes toward Brand Names
By definition, brand name congruity is inherently linked to the products and
product categories for which the brand name is tied. Research has typically categorized
products according to the types of customer needs they address: symbolic/expressive and
functional/utilitarian.
The conceptualization of product category as symbolic and functional has its
psychological roots in behavioral theory. There are two distinct schools of thought
regarding human needs and motivations (Bhat & Reddy, 1998).
First, the rational school or the “economic man” model suggests that consumers
are rational and behave in such a way to maximize their total utility. In this regard,
consumer decision-making involves a variety of information search and processing
operations. These start with gathering information about competing brands, then
evaluating and comparing product attributes, and finally making the optimal choice based
on their findings.
However, proponents of the emotional school have challenged these believers in
Descartes, arguing that consumers’ motives are emotional in nature. In this regard,
consumers base their consumption decisions on idiosyncratic factors such as taste, pride,
and their desire for self-expression.
Recently, consumer behaviorists have recognized that consumers’ motivations are
both rational and emotional. Research in this area has primarily concentrated on the
definition and measurement of the symbolic and functional dimensions of consumer
attitudes as well as consumer responses.
13
In his seminal work, Udel (1964) defined functional products as those where a
consumer derives satisfaction from a physical performance, and expressive products are
those where consumer satisfaction comes from his or her social and psychological
interpretations of the products.
Ang and Lim (2006) provide further explanations, suggesting that as the
consumption of symbolic products is mainly motivated by self-expressive and affective
purposes. These products are likely to be perceived as more sophisticated than utilitarian
products. In contrast, utilitarian products are viewed to be sincere and competent more so
than symbolic products.
The classification of products as either symbolic or functional has been supported
by empirical research. Bhat and Reddy (1998) found evidence confirming that
functionality and symbolism are distinct concepts in consumers’ minds, and not really
two ends of a brand concept continuum. At the same time, their study suggests that it is
possible to have brands that have both functional and symbolic meanings for consumers.
For example, in their study, Nike was perceived by respondents as functional, prestigious,
and expressive.
As consumers clearly distinguish between functional and symbolic products, their
responses have been found to differ according to product types. In his study on online
advertising, Dahlen (2002) argued that functional products are characterized by thinking
while expressive products lend themselves more to feeling. Holbrook and Hirschman
(1982) contended that the psychosocial interpretation of expressive products is largely
idiosyncratic and less susceptible to explicit information search. Similarly, Mittal (1989)
found that expressive products do not lend themselves easily to content or feature
14
discriminations. It is therefore expected that the degree of brand name congruity is less
important for symbolic products than for functional products.
1.3. Hypotheses:
Based on the review of literature addressing brand congruity-preference
relationship, and product category discrimination, it is hypothesized that:
H1: For functional products, a congruent brand name is evaluated more favorably than an
incongruent (either moderately or extremely) brand name.
H2: For symbolic products, a moderately incongruent name is evaluated more favorably
than either a congruent brand name or an extremely incongruent brand name.
15
CHAPTER 2
Chapter 2 presents the methodology used for this study. It also explains the
research design and describes the independent and dependent variables as well as
participant recruitment procedure.
2.1. Methodology
2.1.1. Independent Variables
Brand name congruity
Brand name congruity is conceptually defined as the degree to which a brand
name “fits product associations in an obvious and meaningful manner” (Meyers-Levy et
al., 1994). It is operationally defined according to three levels, as congruent, moderately
incongruent, or extremely incongruent. Brand name congruity is measured on a seven
point, continuous response scale, ranging from “Doesn’t remind me at all” to “Reminds
me very much” (Zinkhan & Martin, 1987). For the purpose of this study, a name with a
score equal or greater than 5 is considered congruent, between 3 and 4 as moderately
incongruent, less than 3 as extremely incongruent.
Product category
This is conceptually defined as the category in which a product is placed based
upon the types of customer needs it addresses. For the purposes of this study, product
category is operationally defined as functional or symbolic category. A functional
product category features the functional benefits associated with the product and the tasks
which it is designed to accomplish, whereas a symbolic product category captures more
abstract notions and is used to exhibit something personal about the consumer (Ligas,
16
2000). Perfume, because of its expressive and intangible characteristics, is therefore
placed within the symbolic category while laundry detergent, given its utilitarian
attribute, is representative of the functional category. These choices are also consistent
with prior research (Ang & Lim, 2006; Bhat & Reddy, 1998; Dahlen, 2002; Mittal,
1989).
2.1.2. Dependent Variables
Attitude toward brand names
Participants’ attitude is measured on a seven point semantic differential scale.
This scale contains the following bi-polar verb pair: 1=Do not like at all/7=Like very
much.
2.1.3. Research Design
A list of 50 fictitious brand names of perfume (symbolic product) and detergent
(functional product) with alternative levels of congruity was created following the
procedures of Kohli, Harich, Leuthesser (2005). The fictitious names ensure that they do
not differ in terms of favorability and do not remind subjects of existing brand names. 38
subjects completed a questionnaire to rate how much the names reminded them of a
product category and how much they like them as members of that category. 20 subjects
were University of Missouri-Columbia students recruited from an undergraduate
journalism class. The rest came from different age and socio-professional groups. A
sample questionnaire can be found in Appendix 2.
2.1.4. Participants and Procedure
In this study, a questionnaire was given to 40 participants who rated how much
the names reminded them of a product category and how much they like them as
17
members of that category. The students who participated in the survey were compensated
with extra credit for their involvement.
18
CHAPTER 3
This chapter reports findings of the study. It shows the statistical results related to
possible category effects and each of the hypotheses as well as other findings.
3.1. Category Effects
Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) conducted to examine the effect of category
(perfume or detergent) on names’ congruity and liking indicated no significant category
effect (p >0.43 for congruity and p>0.19 for liking). In other words, none of the two
categories is more congruent or preferred over the other. Thus, such differences are
unlikely to account for effect observed on other measures.
Next, an ANOVA was used on names’ congruity for perfume and detergent
separately. The results indicated that the differences in congruity among names are
statistically significant for each category, F(49, 1850)=11.78, p<0.0001 for perfume and
F(49,1850) =15.35, p<0.0001 for detergent. This means that the 50 names under study
were perceived as having different levels of congruity within each product category.
The means of congruity and liking scores for perfume and detergent are reported in
Appendix 1.
3.2. Hypothesis 1
The first hypothesis predicts that for functional products, a congruent brand name
is evaluated more favorably than an incongruent (either moderately or extremely) brand
name. For detergent, it is easy, as shown in Exhibit 1, to observe a strong linear
relationship between congruity and liking (Pearson product-moment correlation
19
coefficient=0.95). This means that it is possible to predict with high accuracy that
congruent names will be preferred over extremely and moderately incongruent names for
the detergent category. Therefore, H1 predicting that for functional products, a congruent
brand name is evaluated more favorably than an incongruent (either moderately or
extremely) brand name is supported.
Exhibit 1, A Linear Relationship between Congruity and Liking for Detergent
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Congruity
Lik
ing
Detergent
3.3. Hypothesis 2
The second hypothesis predicts that for symbolic products, a moderately
incongruent name is evaluated more favorably than either a congruent brand name or an
extremely incongruent brand name. Because none of the names under study was
perceived as congruent with perfume (M<4), it is not possible to compare among
congruent, moderately incongruent and extremely incongruent names. It is therefore not
20
possible to adequately test H2 stating that for symbolic products, a moderately
incongruent name is evaluated more favorably than either a congruent brand name or an
extremely incongruent brand name.
For this reason, the following analysis is limited to comparing moderately
incongruent and extremely incongruent names. For perfume, names appear to follow two
different patterns. The first group (represented by diamond-shaped points shown in
Exhibit 2) shows a similar pattern to that of detergent names with relatively high
correlation between congruity and liking. The second group (represented by cicles)
includes names with moderate congruity but with liking among the lowest, suggesting
that higher congruity does not mean higher liking. In other words, the congruity and
liking of names in this group seem to be uncorrelated.
Exhibit 2, Relationship between Congruity and Liking for Perfume
21
A closer examination reveals that the names represented in cicle, in addition to
being moderately incongruent with perfume, turned out to be congruent with detergent
and are preferred as detergent names. This suggests something interesting about perfume
and detergent as two distinct product categories. Names, if they are seen and liked as
detergent names, are not evaluated favorably for perfume even if they moderately remind
of perfume.
If the names in circle carrying high detergent “legacy” are removed from perfume
names, the latter exhibit a similar pattern to detergent names’. In this case, the overall
correlation coefficient between congruity and liking for perfume jumps from 0.42 to 0.72.
This suggests that their low correlation is due to the presence of names that are too
“detergent”, causing perfume liking to drop.
3.4. Other Findings
3.4.1 Distribution of Names’ Congruity
Exhibit 3 reveals two distinct patterns of data. First, a high density of names is
located in the upper right hand of Quadrant A, suggesting that a large number of names
are extremely incongruent and moderately incongruent (M<=4) for both perfume and
detergent. In other words, these names were not seen as very appropriate for either
perfume or detergent products. A closer examination indicates that names that are
extremely incongruent (M<=2) such as “AHT”, “Beltone”, “Emcools”… share a
common point: they are random combinations of words and thus don’t have any intrinsic
meanings. Consequently, subjects probably found it difficult to relate these names to
either detergent or perfume or any product category.
22
The second group of names is clustered along the vertical line running in the
middle of the chart. These names have moderate congruity with perfume (M>3) and
various levels of congruity with detergent. Low congruity with detergent suggests names’
inclination toward perfume, moderate congruity indicates an overlapping of congruity
between perfume and detergent, high congruity suggests a leaning toward detergent.
Thus, the names located in the upper left hand of Quadrant C (“Color Brite”, “Nature
Wash”, “River Clean”, and “Wash All”) are highly congruent with detergent (M>=5),
suggesting that even though they could be perfume names, they are seen more as
detergent names.
Exhibit 3, Distribution of Names’ Congruity among Perfume and Detergent
Exhibit 3 Comparing Detergent with Perfume
Similarly, three names located in the lower left hand of Quadrant D (“Midnight
Romance”, “Parisian Sky” and “Pleasurable Sin”) are seen more as names for perfume
Comparing Congruity of Perfume with Congruity of Detergent
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Congruity of Perfume
Co
ng
ruit
y o
f D
ete
rgen
t
23
than for detergent. “The Rose Garden” is the only name seen as moderately congruent
with both categories (M=3.47 for perfume, M=3.05 for detergent). Why is it not possible
to have names extremely congruent with both perfume and detergent? It might be that
beyond certain level of congruity (M=3), subjects viewed these two categories as
distinctive. In other words, names can be very “perfume” or very “detergent” but not
both. This is understandable given that names that are extremely incongruent or
moderately congruent are, by definition, not very close to any product category and as
such can be used interchangeably across product categories.
It is also observed that no names are found in the upper left hand of Quadrant B
and the lower right hand of Quadrant D, suggesting that none of the 50 names under
study has pure “perfumeness” or “detergentness”1. This observation, coupled with the
analysis in the previous paragraph, means that the names under study can either have no
“perfumeness” /“detergentness” or contain some mixture of both. More detailed
discussions will follow in subsequent sections.
3.4.2. Congruity and Liking Compared
Data for perfume and detergent are plotted next to each other in Exhibit 4 which
contrasts their distributions. As already mentioned, detergent names exhibit a strong
linear relationship between congruity and liking. In contrast, perfume names show a
strikingly different pattern. A group of perfume names – in circle on the charts - with
levels of congruity ranging from 2.4 to 3.6 have one thing in common: their congruity
and liking seem to be uncorrelated (Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficient=0.05).
1 The terms “perfumeness” and “detergentness” are created for the purpose of this study.
24
Why perfume names behave differently among themselves and in comparison
with detergent names around level 3 of congruity?
Exhibit 4, Comparing Perfume with Detergent
It turns out that the names in circles are all the best candidates for detergent. Their
different scores are shown in Table 1.
Table 1, Names with moderate congruity but low liking for perfume
Names Rp* Lp* Rd* Ld*
Clean Slate 3.09 1.97 4.29 4
Color Brite 3.55 1.5 5.53 4.82
Nature Wash 3.49 1.76 5.03 4.79
Rain Guard 3.08 1.53 3.82 3.45
River Clean 3.59 1.87 5.42 4.82
Wash All 3.42 1.37 5.58 4.5
25
*Rp: “Reminds me of perfume”; Lp: “I like as name for perfume”; Rd: “Reminds me of detergent”; Ld: “I like as name for detergent”.
Respondents’ preference for these names as detergent names might be the reason
why within the perfume category, the names in circle follow a different pattern from the
rest in terms of congruity-liking correlation. This raises a question: Why are names that
are highly detergent congruent such as “Clean Slate”, “Nature Wash”, “Wash All”
associated with perfume? It is possible that in the minds of subjects, although detergent
and perfume arguably differ on symbolic dimensions, they offer common functional
benefits such as cleaning (dirty spots and bad odor for detergent and perfume
respectively).
Pursuing the same line of inquiry, another interesting group of names –
represented by squares – contains the best candidates for perfume but, perhaps because of
that, they were seen as incongruent with detergent and consequently are not liked as such,
not even a little bit. Their scores are reported in Table 2. It is interesting to note that for
perfume, some names (in circle in Exhibit 3) can be congruent with both perfume and
detergent as mentioned above. This does not seem to be the case for detergent. Names
that are congruent with perfume (those in green) are seen as incongruent for detergent.
Table 2, Names with High Liking for Perfume but Low Liking for Detergent
Names Rp Lp Rd Ld
Pleasurable Sin 3 4.47 1.71 1.84 Midnight Romance 3.57 4.42 1.79 1.76 Parisian Sky 3.04 3.87 1.76 2.29
Unique 2.62 3.74 1.97 1.92 White Sand 2.97 3.63 2.45 2.68
26
The Kiss 2.93 3.61 1.37 1.89 Cool Night 2.97 3.58 2.03 2.42
It might be that subjects saw detergent as having less “functions” than perfume
and therefore viewed names that suggest benefits other than cleaning as inappropriate.
Exhibit 5 shows cleaning as a hypothesized common benefit of perfume and detergent, as
well as symbolic dimensions seen as unique to perfume.
Exhibit 5, Comparing Benefits of Perfume and Detergent
Detergent
Cleaning Express
personality
Express statusBoost self-
estime
Perfume
It can be derived from this analysis that names’ liking is evaluated differently
according product category. For detergent, the prediction is straightforward. Liking and
congruity are positively correlated. And congruity depends on how clear names are about
their functional benefits. The clearer the more congruent.
For perfume, the relationship is more complicated. Congruity is not a guarantee
for liking, even moderate. Names, to be liked for perfume, have not only to be congruent
27
with perfume but also incongruent with detergent. In other words, for perfume, liking is
positively correlated with perfume congruity and negatively correlated with detergent
congruity. Thus, the more names suggest about perfume symbolic benefits, the more they
are congruent with that category. The less they suggest about perfume/detergent
functional benefits, the more likely, but not necessarily, they are to be congruent with
perfume.
As pointed out previously, if the names carrying high detergent “legacy” are
removed from perfume names, the latter exhibit a steep slope as shown in Exhibit 6. This
means that once “detergentness” is washed off of perfume names, increasing one level of
congruity results in more liking for perfume names than for detergent names. In other
words, perfume names, as long as they don’t remind conspicuously of detergent, take off
faster in liking than detergent names. Compared to detergent, congruity with perfume is
more difficult to achieve as analyzed previously. However, for any given level of
congruity, the liking is likely to be higher for perfume. It is therefore possible for
perfume names to have a lower congruity but still have similar liking to detergent names.
Exhibit 6, Steep Slope of Perfume Names in the Absence of “Detergentness”
28
29
CHAPTER 4
This chapter will discuss the study’s results as well as its theoretical and practical
implications. Limitations of the study and future research directions will also be
discussed.
4.1. Discussion
4.1.1. Naming Strategy for Detergent
The findings related to Hypothesis 1 suggest that for detergent, subjects acted as
rational consumers and indicated their preference for names that would maximize
subjects’ total utility. Their decision making is largely based on information search and
product attribute and performance evaluation. They simply focused on detergent’s
functional benefits -cleaning- and did not seem very interested in resolving any
incongruity, even moderate. Any names that suggested “loud and clear” these benefits
were preferred over names that did not because “good” names would reduce consumers’
search time and help them make accurate choices.
The implication of this finding is that for detergent, it is important that product
names suggest clear functional benefit. Doing otherwise would be a waste of time for
consumers and marketers will have to spend more time and money explaining and
reminding what their products can do.
4.1.2. Naming Strategies for Perfume
It can be derived from the findings related to Hypothesis 2 that names’ liking is
evaluated differently according product category. For detergent, the prediction is
30
straightforward. Liking and congruity are positively correlated. And congruity depends
on how clear names are about their functional benefits. The clearer the more congruent.
For perfume, the relationship is more complicated. Congruity is not a guarantee
for liking, even moderate. Names, to be liked for perfume, have not only to be congruent
with perfume but also unique to perfume (incongruent with detergent). In other words,
for perfume, liking is positively correlated with perfume congruity and negatively
correlated with detergent congruity. Thus, the more names suggest about perfume
symbolic benefits, the more they are congruent with that category. Also, the less they
suggest about perfume/detergent functional benefits, the more likely, but not necessarily,
they are to be congruent with perfume.
To avoid low liking scores, names should not be extremely incongruent (due to
their lack of intrinsic meanings), and in the case of perfume, names should not mention
functional benefits that remind of detergent.
Based in this analysis, it is advisable for marketing practitioners to choose product
names that focus on functional benefits for functional products and symbolic benefits for
symbolic products. It is generally easier to figure out the main functional benefits of a
product. However, it is often harder to know what symbolic benefits are important to
consumers. The reason is that, as pointed out by Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) and
Mittal (1989), consumers’ decision making process is different according to product
category. Symbolic products are often interpreted idiosyncratically, information search
and attribute evaluation are less explicit because content or feature discriminations are
lower.
4.1.3. Perfume and Detergent Perceived as Two Distinct Categories
31
The reason why perfume and detergent differ in terms of their congruity-liking
relationship is that they are perceived as two distinct categories despite some functional
overlapping. In the minds of subjects, detergent and perfume arguably share common
functional benefits such as cleaning (dirty spots and bad odor for detergent and perfume
respectively). Beyond the similarity of functional benefits, perfume and detergent differ
on key dimensions.
Presumably, perfume is typically viewed as a product that helps express
personality and status, and boost self-esteem –all symbolic benefits that detergent does
not have. In this study, subjects appeared to heavily focus on symbolic benefits when it
comes to perfume. Thus, the most congruent-with-perfume names are very remotely
related to cleaning and closely related to symbolic benefits such as expressing personality
(“Pleasurable Sin”, “Unique”), or evoking romanticity (“Midnight Romance”, “Parisian
Sky”, “White Sand”, “The Kiss”) or point of origins associated with perfume (“Parisian
Sky”). Maybe for this reason, while it is often sufficient for brand names to include
words suggestive of functional benefit such as “care”, “color brite” , “green”, “wash”,
“clean” or “soft”… to appear congruent with detergent (M>4), to be congruent with
perfume, a brand name needs to go beyond functional benefits.
4.1.4. Are Congruent Names always better than Incongruent Names?
Clearly, highly congruent names have major advantages but they are not without
drawbacks. Their perceived closeness to a product category turns out to be a heavy
legacy that makes it difficult for brand repositioning or extension to other product
categories. In contrast, incongruent or moderately congruent names might be liked less
but, because they have no or little legacy, they might offer the advantage of being more
32
flexible and distinctive. Thus, choosing moderately and even extremely congruent names
might be a good decision in case of brand repositioning or extension. As pointed out
previously, incongruent names work better for symbolic than for functional products.
Another drawback of congruent names is that they are often already taken, leaving no
other choice than less congruent ones. In this case, advertising might be used to increase
awareness and familiarity of the brands. Consequently, the answer to the question “which
ones are better” is “it depends”. Product naming strategies depend on marketing
objectives.
4.1.5. Research Limitations and Future Research Directions
This research has drawbacks like many surveys and experiment-like studies. First,
it relied on self-report for collecting data. Second, it is suspected that because the order of
questions was not randomized, there might be some carry-over effects, hopefully limited
given the long list of unfamiliar names. This could be improved by having subjects come
to the lab where questions’ order can be randomized. Moreover, having participants
divided into two groups, each receiving a questionnaire either for perfume or detergent
might help reduce these effects. Next, due to the convenient sampling, the majority of the
respondents are female, raising the concern that gender might influence research findings
as they are suspected to be more familiar with detergent and perfume than males.
Therefore, it is suggested that gender as a variable be included in future research. Also a
more representative sampling will enable future studies’ results to be generalized to other
population groups.
The limited number of congruent names for perfume was expected but their total
absence prevented the second hypothesis from being tested. In contrast, extremely
33
incongruent names were over-represented. It might be necessary in the future to include
more names that have high potential of being congruent with perfume to increase their
selection chance. Alternatively, future studies might need to address the issue of
differential measurement of functional and symbolic products. For example, product from
these two categories might need to be measured on different scales.
Finally, the findings of the study are limited to detergent and perfume. Given its
exploratory nature, the study aims at generating useful hypotheses upon which further
studies can be conducted. As such, a generalization to functional and symbolic products
requires further studies be replicated to more products representative of these two
categories.
34
CHAPTER 5
This chapter concludes the study by restating research objectives, and
summarizing the results and the main discussion points presented in Chapter 4.
5.1. Conclusion
Brand names are seen among companies’ biggest assets. Choosing “good” brand
names for products has therefore major marketing implications. Previous research
suggest that, if marketing objective is to achieve immediate awareness, recognition,
memorability, and ultimately preference for products, then congruent brand names are a
good choice. Previous research also report that consumers’ attitudes towards brands and
brand names differ according to product categories. Therefore, this exploratory study
proposed to investigate the effects of brand name congruity on consumers’ attitudes
toward brand names across functional - represented by detergent - and symbolic –
represented by perfume - product categories. After reviewing the literature related to
brand name congruity and product category, and presenting the theoretical framework,
the study described the methodology, reported and thoroughly discussed results as well as
research limitations and suggestions for future research.
One of the most interesting findings is that Mandler’s theorizing about the
inverted-U shaped relationship between brand name congruity and preference was not
supported. Results show that for detergent (functional products), name preference is
positively correlated with congruity. For perfume (symbolic products), this correlation
also seems to work provided that brand names don’t suffer from the adverse effects
35
caused by their possible reminding of functional benefits they share with detergent.
Another highlight of the study is that it is more difficult for perfume to have congruent
names since, unlike detergent, name evaluations are largely idiosyncratic. However,
lower congruity does not prevent perfume names from being equally liked. Given these
findings, the main task is therefore to increase name congruity which will increase name
liking. For perfume, the challenge might be to come up with names that are both
congruent with this category and unique, and at the same time have an appeal that is
universal enough to transcend idiosyncratic tastes, which, by the way, are two redundant
terms. This might be a good topic for future research.
36
APPENDIX
1. Means Scores of Brand Names
BRAND RemindP RemindD LikeP LikeD
24 hours 2.61 2.66 2.95 2.50
AHT 1.68 1.92 1.18 1.61
Beltone 1.91 1.92 1.61 1.61
Best Care 2.91 4.37 1.21 4.05
Blue Horizon 3.16 2.74 2.87 3.00
Brij 2.22 2.03 2.37 2.21
Clean Slate 3.09 4.29 1.97 4.00
Color Brite 3.55 5.53 1.50 4.82
Cool Night 2.97 2.03 3.58 2.42
Courant d’Air 2.89 1.97 3.58 2.29
Deep Feeling 2.58 1.95 2.61 1.82 Emcools 1.72 1.42 1.92 2.05 Empigen 1.74 1.84 1.82 1.55
Eresto 2.21 2.03 2.24 1.84
Evolair 1.89 2.03 1.89 1.66
Excessive 2.57 1.89 2.18 1.55
F1 2.08 1.89 2.11 1.92
Fast Effect 2.59 3.29 1.74 2.89
Full Moon 2.68 2.18 3.18 2.00
Green Land 2.57 3.47 1.68 3.29 Joyeux 2.80 2.13 3.32 2.08 Lola T70 2.09 1.53 2.00 1.24
Max Care 2.87 4.29 1.55 3.61
Midnight Romance 3.57 1.79 4.42 1.76
37
N20 2.01 1.63 2.08 1.39
Nature Wash 3.49 5.03 1.76 4.79
Nice Surprise 2.80 2.89 2.66 2.45
Orange Night 2.53 2.18 2.71 2.47
Overdose 2.33 2.03 2.03 1.82
Parisian sky 3.04 1.76 3.87 2.29
Pleasurable Sin 3.00 1.71 4.47 1.84 Ponster 1.83 2.00 1.55 1.34 Premid 1.83 1.95 1.71 1.76
Rain Guard 3.08 3.82 1.53 3.45 Renova 2.24 2.26 2.32 1.89
River Clean 3.59 5.42 1.87 4.82
Secret Spot 3.01 2.55 2.71 2.05 Soft Max 2.62 3.50 1.42 3.42 Stoxx 1.89 1.82 1.58 2.00
The Fifth Element 2.22 2.00 2.74 2.24 The Kiss 2.93 1.37 3.61 1.89 The N 2.07 1.84 1.66 1.26
The Rose Garden 3.47 3.05 3.58 2.82 Tween 2.24 1.79 2.08 1.74 UNIQUE 2.62 1.97 3.74 1.92
UltraSpeed 2.42 3.34 1.63 2.68 Volks 1.78 1.79 1.39 1.45 Wash All 3.42 5.58 1.37 4.50
White Sand 2.97 2.45 3.63 2.68
Zwittergent 2.14 2.89 1.61 2.16
38
2. Sample Questionnaire
Part A The purpose of this questionnaire is to understand how brand names can affect consumers’ attitude toward brands. We would appreciate your spending 10 minutes filling in this questionnaire. Please read the following brand names and use the corresponding scales to indicate how much the brand names remind you of products such as perfume and detergent. Do not spend more than a few seconds on each brand name. Circle the number that is most appropriate to your immediate response. For example, if the brand name “Eternity” reminds you very much of perfume, you may want to circle number 7. Perfume: Brand name “Eternity”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 á
Perfume: “Unique”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Unique” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Courant d'Air”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Courant d'Air” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Pleasurable Sin”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Pleasurable Sin” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “The Fifth Element”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “The Fifth Element”
39
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Nice Surprise” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Nice Surprise”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “24 hours” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “24 hours”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Blue Horizon”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Blue Horizon” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Full Moon”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Full Moon” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Excessive”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Excessive” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Orange Night”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Orange Night” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Joyeux”
40
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Joyeux” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Cool Night”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Cool Night” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Overdose”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Overdose” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Secret Spot”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Secret Spot” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Deep Feeling”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Deep Feeling” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “The Kiss” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “The Kiss”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “The N” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “The N”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
41
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Volks” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Volks”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “The Rose Garden” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “The Rose Garden”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Eresto”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Eresto” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Midnight Romance” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Midnight Romance”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “White Sand” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “White Sand”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Emcools” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Emcools”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Parisian sky” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
42
Detergent: “Parisian sky” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “F1”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “F1” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Zwittergent”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Zwittergent” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Empigen”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Empigen” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Tween”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Tween” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Brij”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Brij” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Lola T70”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Lola T70” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
43
Perfume: “Premid” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Premid”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Nature Wash”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Nature Wash” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Beltone” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Beltone”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Color Brite”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Color Brite” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “River Clean”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “River Clean” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Renova”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Renova” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Soft Max”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
44
Detergent: “Soft Max” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Ponster” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Ponster”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Rain Guard” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Rain Guard”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Stoxx”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Stoxx” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Evolair” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Evolair”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “N20”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “N20” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “AHT”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “AHT” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
45
Perfume: “UltraSpeed” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “UltraSpeed”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Green Land”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Green Land” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Max Care” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Max Care”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Wash All”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Detergent: “Wash All” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Fast Effect” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Fast Effect”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Clean Slate” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Clean Slate”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perfume: “Best Care”
Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
46
Detergent: “Best Care” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part B Please read the following brand names and use the corresponding scales to indicate how much you like following brand names. Do not spend more than a few seconds on each brand name. Circle the number that is most appropriate to your immediate response.
“Unique” as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
“Unique” as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “Courant d'Air” as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
“Courant d'Air” as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasurable Sin as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pleasurable Sin as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Fifth Element as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The Fifth Element as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nice Surprise as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Nice Surprise as a name for Detergent
47
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24 hours as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24 hours as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Blue Horizon as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Blue Horizon as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Full Moon as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Full Moon as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excessive as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Excessive as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Orange Night as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Orange Night as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Joyeux as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joyeux as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cool Night as a name for Perfume
48
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Cool Night as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Overdose as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Overdose as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Secret Spot as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Secret Spot as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Deep Feeling as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deep Feeling as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Kiss as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The Kiss as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The N as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The N as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volks as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Volks as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
49
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Rose Garden as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The Rose Garden as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Eresto as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Eresto as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Midnight Romance as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Midnight Romance as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 White Sand as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
White Sand as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Emcools as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Emcools as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Parisian sky as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Parisian sky as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
50
F1 as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 F1 as a name for Detergent
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Zwittergent as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Zwittergent as a name for Detergent
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Empigen as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Empigen as a name for Detergent
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Tween as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Tween as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Brij as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Brij as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lola T70 as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lola T70 as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Premid as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
51
Premid as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nature Wash as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Nature Wash as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Beltone as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Beltone as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Color Brite as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Color Brite as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 River Clean as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
River Clean as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Renova as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Renova as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Soft Max as a name for Perfume
52
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Soft Max as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ponster as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ponster as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rain Guard as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rain Guard as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Stoxx as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Stoxx as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Evolair as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Evolair as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N20 as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
N20 as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
53
AHT as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
AHT as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UltraSpeed as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
UltraSpeed as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Green Land as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Green Land as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Max Care as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Max Care as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wash All as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Wash All as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fast Effect as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fast Effect as a name for Detergent
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
54
Clean Slate as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Clean Slate as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Best Care as a name for Perfume
I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Best Care as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
55
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research,
347-356.
Ajzen, I., & M. Fishbein. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ang, S. H., & Lim, E. A. C. (2006). The influence of metaphors and product type on
brand personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 39-53. Campbell, M.C. and Goodstein, R.C. (2001). The moderating effects of perceived risk on
consumers’ evaluations of product incongruity: Preference for the norm. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 28 December, 439-449.
Bhat, S., & Reddy, S.K. (1998). Symbolic and functional positioning of brands. Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 15, 32-43.
Bottomley, P.A. (2006). The interactive effects of colors and products on perceptions of brand logo appropriateness. Marketing Theory, 6(1), 63-83.
Business Week (2006). The 100 Top Brands 2006. Business Week Online, accessed on October 27, 2007 (available online at: http://bwnt.businessweek.com/brand/2006)
Cohen, J.B. and Basu, K. (1987). Alternative models of categorization: Toward a
contingent processing framework. The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, 455-472.
Collins, L. (1977). A Name to Conjure With. European Journal of Marketing, 337.
Dahlen, M. (2002). Thinking and feeling on the World Wide Web: The impact of product
type and time on World Wide Web advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Communications, 8, 115-125.
Gardner, M.P., Michell, A.A. and Russo, J.E. (1985). Low involvement strategies for
processing advertisements. Journal of Advertising, Vol 14 No2, 4-13. Heckler, S.E. and Childers, T.L. (1992). The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory
for verbal and visual information: what is incongruency? Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18 March, 475-492.
Goodstein, R.C. (1993). Category-based applications and extensions in advertising:
Motivating more extensive ad processing. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 20 June, 87-97.
56
Keller K.L., Heckler S.E., & Houston M.J. (1998). The effects of brand name
meaningfulness on advertising recall. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 48– 56. Klink, R. R. (2001). Creating meaningful new brand names: A study of semantics and
sound symbolism. Journal of Marketing, 27-34.
Klink, R.R. and Smith, D.C. (2001). Threats to external validity of brand extension research. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXVIII, 326-335.
Kohli, C., & Suri, R. (2000). Brand names that work: A study of the effectiveness of
different types of brand names. Marketing Management Journal, 112-120. Kohli, C. S., Harich, K. R., & Leuthesser, L. (2005). Creating brand identity: A study of
evaluation of new brand names. Journal of Business Research, 1506-1511. Lee, Y.H. (2000). Manipulating ad message involvement through information
expectancy. Journal of Advertising, Vol 29, No2, 29-43.
Lefkowith, E.F. and Moldenhauer, C.A. (1985). Recent cross-currents in brand name development- and how to cope with them. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 2, 73-77.
Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: Accounting for taste. Affects and cognitions: the 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition.
Mandler, G. (1993). Approach to a psychology of value. The origin of value. Meyers-Levy J. and Tybout, A.M. Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation.
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 June, 39-54. Meyers-Levy J., Louie T. A., & Current M. T. (1994). How does the congruity of brand
names affect evaluations of brand name extensions? Journal of Applied Psychology, 46 – 53.
Mittal, B. (1989). Must consumer involvement always imply more information search?
Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 167–72.
Pavia T., & Costa J. A. (1993). The winning number: Consumer perceptions of alphanumeric brand names. Journal of Marketing, 85– 98.
Peterson, R. A., & Ross, I. (1972). How to name new brands. Journal of Advertising
Research, 29-34. Rigeaux-Brickmont, B. (1982). Influence of brand names and packaging on perceived
57
quality. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9, 706-713. Robertson, M. (1989). Strategically desirable brand name characteristics. The Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 6, No. 4, 61-71. Sujan, M., & Dekleva, C. (1987). Product categorization and inference making: Some
implications for comparative advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 372-378.
Turley, L.W. and Moore, P.A. Brand name strategies in the service sector (1995). Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12, No.4, 42-50 Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003) Measuring the hedonic and
utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 310-320.
Zinkhan, G. M., & Martin, C. R. (1987). New brand names and inferential beliefs: Some
insights on naming new product. Journal of Business Research, 15, 157–172.